ML19308D906

Forwards Hydrologic Engineering Positions, Summary of Applicant Hurricane Studies, Hydrologic Engineering Summary & Evaluation of Hurricane Verification Studies & Design Bases Hurricane, & Comments on Cerc Memo 35

ML19308D906
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	10/05/1973
From:	Harold Denton US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Deyoung R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 8003200657
Download: ML19308D906 (12)

Text

m

_.s a,

w 7..~..,

.g

..w 4,

y s

~t.

CC7 5 U13 31 chard C. LaYoung, Assistant Director for PWR's. L o

n m)

D II D

HU:tRICAME PEOTECTION REQUIREMENTS y

n I

ov J L.

PLANT NA!C: Crystal River, thlit 3 n

D i

LICENSING STAGE: OL LOCKET NUIDER: 50-302 v

L U

RESPONSISLE 3RA!;CH:

PW Branch 44

?. QU2STED CC"rLETIC" EATE:

Cetebsr 1, 1973 a

.9?LICAUT3 7,2SP0"S DATC NICESSARY FC:t SEXT ACTION PLXiNED CM PROJECT: Novenber 23, 1973 DESCRIPTICU OF REOPONSE: Comitnants to pe itions 2EVILM STATUS:

Site Aralysis Branch Olydrol gic Eng!wering) -

Aw.1 ting Cactt m t Enclosed are (1) cur staff positicas, (2) a au=:sry cf the apgilic. n:;.'s ennlysis, and (0) a sumary of the stal"* : 2nalysis o' the design basis ~u r'.cc u for the subject plant.

"he, staf f positions ara heca +. review of the caterial su:: plied by the ::alicant, che

'J.S...r.y Coastal Lagiucaring n eearch u ntar (C m j,.;nd ScaA, nna detailed independent reviw na analys-? by both the staff nnd sur

ascitants (0:24 md Enn, Snyder anu del on other casos, we will require 8003200 Q L

r.~

~

=~

.,g m..

s.

W Richard C. DeYoung

• M progract additions to surunarize all input paramt.re, certification of any changes to the model itself, and coaxplete substantiation that all selected calibration coefficients are conservative.

Ortenal s1 ped by.

II, n. Denton

!!arold R. Denton Assistant Director for Site Safety Directorate of Licensing

Enclosures:

1.

Staff Positions 2.

Su:::c:ary of /gplicant's

/s.alysis 3.

Sussaary of Staff's Analysis cc: n/o enclosures

/.. Gla:aLusso W. Mcdonald 0

cc w/enclowures D

S. hsnauer b@

r 3..

a.. -

@ M Q(0) u b

~

C. 5.T ~~

d

"U y

L. Sh:2 T. Ippolito A. Scimencer

3. auckley R. Jachovski, CERC D. tit:nn, kunn, Snyder & Associates L. Ilulman DISTRIBUTIOS Docket File 50-302 L:Rdg L:AD/SS L:SAB 1

4 lp4J47 ids {

L;.AD].SS

/7 W".'

= owKE >

sumur,

vr

-

• 4.

1. 11' MP ton

?% N om,

9/2_7/73

/9/A /73

/k[/73

~.9.n).4acx ea4e

... as

.u,

, si., & m

~ z ;,,.~

.m _

~

m

.m._

m,

q r

L.

i.

HTDROLOGIC ENGINEERING POSITIONS CRYSTAL RIVER NUCLEAR STATION

-DOCKET No.'50-302-It'is our position that the hurricane design basis' water level for your plant should'be' elevation 33.4 feet above mean low

- water (MLW). 'This position is b'ased upon a' detailed comparison-of the ability of your consultant's (Dames and Moore) model.and the U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center's (CERC) model' to. reproduce historical hurricane surges and hypothetical storm surges for which analytical solutions are available. The numerical procedures of both models were verified by comparing results to the analytical sclutions.

Verification of historical hurricane surges by either model was highly dependent upon the proper selection of values for the wind stress model calibration coefficient.

The comparison indicates the use of either model is L

generally acceptable for probable maximum hurricane (PMH) surge l

l estientes; however, the selection of specific calibration i

coefficiente (wind stress, bottom friction, and initial rise) t derived from limited verification studies does not support your i

design basis surge level with any higher degree of confidence than coefficients derived from similar studies with the CERC model.

l l

Therefore, there is no assurance that your estimate is censervative

[

and it is our position that the PMH ertimate determined from the CERC model should be used as'the hurricane design basis water icvel.

i i

i ENCLOSURE 1-t t.5

-a y

7w m ',.

a i-

- 2:-

The ~ design bases for-protection you have proposed ic

'section 9.3.2 of enclosure 2 (the Gilbert ~ Associates,

~

Inc. Report No. 1807) to your letter of July 13, 1973, 1

are adequate for a flood level of 33.4 ft. m'lv, with one' exception.

The exception is the concrete barrier-

-wall around the west and north sides of-the turbine room' wall.

If there is any safety-related equipment necessary to. maintain shutdows.. 'during a PMH situation -

that can be adversely effected through the turbine building, then it.is our position that protection of that facility is required for water, wind, pressure, and missile effects.

Based on the foregoing, provide a summary of your intended hurricane design bases, and if protection of the turbine building is required for.

maintenance.of shutdown, provide your analyses of the water, w'ind, pressure, and missile effects on that facility.

1Barriers and water-tight' doors on t'h e south and west sides of safety-related structures to elevation 127, and. to elevation 124 on the east side.

Emergency action to fill the neutra11:er tank, condensate storage tank, and fire water: storage tanks before high water.

,See position'2 of Regulatory Guide 1.59.

p 4

e -

e e

.w

.y me w**

rdE*

e-a - em o

.e--w+

w + 4-e e e-**-=*'

6N'*

.d.

++=e-~*-

=*

c-

~;_

g

SUMMARY

0F APPLICANT'S HURRICANE STUDIES CRYSTAL RIVER. UNIT 3 DOCKET NO. 50-302 Amendment 28'and references thereto consist of the following:

July 11,'1973, Report Verification Study of Dames & Moore's

- n.

Hurricane Storm Surge Model with Application to Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Plant.

b.

July 11, 1973, Gilbert Associates, Inc., Report 1807, Hurricane Study, Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Plant.

i c.

Florida Power Corp. responses to AEC March 12, 1973 letter l

requesting additional information.

d.

July 31, 1973, Dames & Moore, Hurricane Storm Surae Model Computer Listinzs. Comcuter Programs EP34'and EP3SS, labeled Proprietary Information (Reference 22 to item a).

July 1973, Compilation of Computer Runs for Report Verification e.

Study of' Dames and Moore Hurricane Storm Surce Model (Reference 23 to item a).

1Amendment 28 only - previous correspondence and actions are summarized.in item a.

2

--.s--

~...

_=.;

4 6;

2-Verification'of the Dames and. Moore surge model consisted of modeling surge response to.the continental shelf at six

~

locations-for five historical hurricanes as follows:

j.

Hurricane Name Date Location-Carla.

Sept. 1961 1Galveston, Texas Carla Sept. 1961 Sabine Pass,-Texas" Audrey June 1957 Eugene Island,.Lousiana e

Oct. 1949 Freeport, Texas

Carol Aug. 1954 Narragansett Bay, R. I. ' "

Camile Aug. 1969 Biloxi, Miss.#

1. High water data only, bHigh water data with partial water level record trace.

" Gages not on the open coast.

Wind field, pressure, and water level data were supplied by AEC from CERC, NOAA, and published literature on hurricane surge models.

Dames and Moore digitized all the data, making adjustments to recorded water level-datums, and reconstituted historical surges.

In addition to historical hurricane verification, Dames and Moore analyzed two hypothetical cases for which analytical solutions could be made, and compared the analytical solutions with-solutions generated by the-use-of both their model and the CERC model..Frem the results of the ccmparison of the two models for l

m i-

q

. c 2_a w

q 1*-

.: 3 4

the two test cases,: Dames.and Moore concluded that:the-numerical procedure used in.their model is superior to that used in the

~

CERC model, and that when used for. predicting "real" hurricane

[

I:

surges the CERC model "migh't well; yield-imprecise results."-

The' Dames and Moore surge model uses the same, basic first order differential equations of horizontal fluid flow as the-l

.previously developed CERC model.

The basic differences between the two models are the method used to numerically integrate the differential equations, and the forms of calibration coefficients used to describe the effects of bottom friction and wind stress l

l on the water surface. The numerical scheme used-in the Dames and Moore model is intended to minimize truncation errors involved in integrating the basic first order differential equations of one-dimensional horizontal flow.

The two calibration coefficients, bottom friction and wind stress, are' coupled' (dependent) in the basic equations.

The wind stress coefficient:is of the following form:

f

~

CSK1 + CSK2 (1 - 16/U)2 0391P (1)

K=

.]

where; CSK1 and CSK2 are coefficients U = wind speed in mph l '

5 d

e'-**f

'_*f***g 4y4-%.M, y.

m

-._4._

^

u-

=-

a.-

^

,}

-P = local pressure in inches - !!g

~

=P 1(P _- P )

(1 - e-R/R);

-(2)-

g g

o P,g

= asymptotic " pressure of hurricane in inches - lig (29.92 ' assumed)1 P,

= central pressure.of hurricane min inches - Hg R

= radius of maximum winds.in nautical miles Q = local. radial distance from storm center in

-nautical miles K

= wind stress coefficient Based upon the reconstitutions of the-historical hurricane surges, Dames and Moore concluded that'the two variables of their version of the wind stress coefficient should be as follows:

-6 CSK1 = 1.0 x 10

-6 CSK2:= 1.4 x 10 Such that equation 1 becomes:

K=

1.0 x 10-6 + 1.4 x 10 6 (1 - 16/U)

.0391P Using the following site and FMH parameters, Dames and Moore recomputed the design water level Lbr the Crystal River site at elevation 29.4 feet above cean low water (equivalent to. elevation 117.5 feet above Crystal River datum):

PMH DATA PARAMETER VALUE~

Central Pressure Index (CPI).

26.70-inches Hg Asym'totic Pressure (Pn) 31.25 inches Hg p

Radius.to Maximum Winds (R) 24 naut, miles

-a.m'%

um-y j-upi-

-.y im y

m.-.,

A

.m

- =

7

n. s

.r.

3,.

PARAMETER VALUE

~

ForewardTranslationalSpeed(Vf-).'

20' knots.

(Maximum! Wind Speed l(U j) 149.8 miles per hour Track.

N63*E & parallel to traverse Initial Rise

'O.6 feet Astronomical Tide 4.3 feet Bottom Friction 0.003 Isovel (wind field) orientation maximum winds ll5 degrees clockwise from direction of motion Traverse Distance From*

Depth-Shore (Naut. Milee)

(Feet) 0 0

.55 3

1.93 6

2.31 10 3.13 4

4.2S 7

4.94 12 6.25 14 7.63 12 8.33-9 11.62 15 15.90 19 18.31 23 21.16 27 31.'35 50 41.35 66 58.14 84 1

71.93 114 83.32 108 86.92 120 90.52 156 l

100,11 180 104.31 210

.n.~-.

w.

-,....e=w..

-.w, A

.. +..

ic _

~. _,. -

.~3 6-

~-

P Distance From*

Depth Shore (Naat. Miles)

(Feet)-

~ 113.04 300 121.10 408 127.22 600 1.~,6. 09 900 PMH "Stillwater" Level 29.4 feet above mean low water (117.5 feet above Crystal River datum) r

• Distance measured from location of 900 foot depth,by Dames & Moore, reversed herein for documentation.

The applicant proposes to construct a stepped concrete slope on top of a soil cement covered embankment which surrounds safety-related structures. This protection would be provided on the southwest and south sides of the plant, and would extend from elevation 96 to elevation 118.5 feet above Crystal River datum.

The maximum wave runup level has been estimated at elevation.119.5 feet above Crystal River datum on the south side of plant structures, 0.5 feet above grade level, but the applicant has adopted elevation 123.5' feet above' Cry.-tal River datum as the design water level on plant structures.

Local protection proposed for plant structures

~

is as follows:

PROTECTION

_S_TRUCTURES Turbine Building 7 water-tight doors to elevation 122 feet Crystal' River datum.

4

,w-a-way

~.

~

]

_ 7:_

-STRUCTURES PROTECTION

-Auxiliary BuildingE 3 water-tight doors to elevation 122 feet on the east and to elevation 124 on the south.-

Diesel. Generator Building 2 concrete barriers to elevation 124.

Reactor Building

- a concrete barrier in L

front of and a water-tight door, both to elevation 124.

l Borated flater Storage Area water-tight door to elevation 124.

l I

Miscellaneous a.

Tendon gallery access hatch water-tight seals i

b.

Heat exchanger room hatch water-tight scals c.

Reactor Bldg. barrier walls water-tight schls i

d.

Interfaces between Diesci Cenerator and Au.s. Bldgs.

wate 1;ht seals e.

Underground electrical conduit below grade water-tight seals f.

Diesel fuel tank vents raise vent pipes.

l As a minimum, the applicant has stated that protection against a hurricane-induced level of 121.4 feet above Crystal River datum (CERC; estimated water level) and wave action can be accomplished by providing water-tight doors to elevation 129 feet, and the

. construction of a concrete barrier wall around the west and part 1

,a.

=:.

k:.

5

3..

9;

~ +

s.

of. the' north side of. the turbine buildirig'.to the same N1evation.

~

The applicant does state that raising the embankment around:the south and west sides ' of thelplanti..to elevation 127: feet would be.

desirable to intercept both waves and water borne missiles.[';, -

4

.4

'i +

s t

[

', f.

- k h

9 a.

9-6

+

{

,.3.

4 4.

1.-- 64_

3 f'o-_

_