ML19308E058

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Notifies That Submittal of Response to 730312 Hurricane Questions to Be Delayed to Jul 1973 Due to Certain Data Being Unavailable in Digitized Form & Uncertainty in AEC Status Repts on Calibr of Models from Hurricane Data
ML19308E058
Person / Time
Site: Crystal River Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 03/28/1973
From: Rodgers J
FLORIDA POWER CORP.
To: Deyoung R
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
2118, NUDOCS 8003200790
Download: ML19308E058 (8)


Text

1

' AEC DISTRIBUTION FOR PART 50 DOCXET MATE 3IAL (TEMPORARY FORX) CONTROL Nos 2118 l FIT.?

TAOM: DATE OF DOC: DATE EC'D LTR MEMO RPr Of.-Zit Florida Power Corporation i St. Petersburg, Flroida 33733 J. T. F*ers 9-28-73 k-2-73 X TO: ORIG CC 02iER SENT AEC PDR X SENE I.,0 CAL PLR X Mr. Dwoun.e 1 CLASS: Q/ PROP INFO INPUT NO CYS REC'D DOC;;ZT NO:

~ 1 50-302 DESCRIP2 ION: ENCLOSUES:

Ltr re their 3-22-73 ltr.... furnishing suppl -

info.to their 3-22-73 ltr regarding hurricane protection for.the Crytsal River Nuclear Plan ;

during a proble maxin:um hurricane (PIE) . . . . . . , - -

  1. D O I C" . ," 0V8 NOTE: DIST St.E AS 3-22-73 LTR '

fiV t.t.m r n ~ e n ~

PLANT NAES: Crystal River '-

FOR ACTIO:i/I:i70?O*ATION h-9-79 AB BUTLER (L) /SCHWENur.at(L) ZIEMANN(L)

W/ Copies YOUNGELOOD(E)

W/ 2 Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies CLARK (L) STOLZ(L) ROUSE (FM)

W/ Copies W/ Copies REGAN(E)

W/ Copies W/ Copies 30LLER(L) VASSALLO(L) DICKER (E)

W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies KNIEL(L) SCHEMEL(L) KNIGHTON(E)

W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies

~ Irut. atrial DISTRIBUTION REG FILE TECH REVIEW DENTON F&M WADE E

(# aEC rm y EENDRIE GRIMES SMILEY BROWN E y OGC, R00f4 P-506A ,.SCHROEDER GAMMILL NUSSBAUMER G. WILLIA!G E yMUNTZING/ STAFF y MACCARY KASTNER / HEPPARD S E 7 CASE eKNIGHT(2) BALLGD LIC ASST.

~

/ GIAMBUSSO ,PAWLICKI SPANGLER SERVICE 'L BOYD, A[T IND y SHAO WIISON L BRAITMAN V. MOORE-L(BiR) y STELLO ENVIRO y GOULBOURNE L SALTZMAN y DEYOUNG-L(PWR) y HOUSTON p. MULLER SMITH L SKOVHOLT-L y NOVACK DICKER GEARIN L PING P. COLLIIG ,ROSS KNIGHTON DIGGS L MCDONALD

,IPPOLITO YOUNGBLOOD TEETS L DUBE REG OPR -

,,.TEDESCO A REGAN LEE L y FILE & REGION (2) yIONG v PROI LEADER MAIGRET L I?fFO MORRIS v LAINAS snTs SHAFER F&M C. MILES _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _

STEELE vBEIRROYA HARLESS -

t y VOLIFIR i,b rwvMni DTs'T9Twmon -~~

~~

v 1-LOCAL PDR c- mtM Pdver. Fla, v l-DTIE(ABERIRTHY)~ AI))(2)(p);NATICIRL IAB'S p--

yl-NSIC(BUCHANAN) 1-FDR-SAN /LA/NY 1-R. CARROLL- C, GT-E227 1- GERALD T ETOUCHE v4.-ASLB-YORE / N 1- R. CATLIN,E-256-GT BROCKHAVEN NAT. LAB WOOD 0QGD/H ST.

1- CONSULTANTiS 1-AGMED(WALTER KOESTER, A6-CYS ACFS NWTg SENT TO LIC ASST gg4! ARK /BLUME/AGABIAN GOULBOURIE RM C-427, GT) 1- GERLAD ULRIKSON....ORNL l- RD. . .MUTIER. . .$-309GT 80 0-3 20 0 7 f0f

.. - ~

l$c0c$?%5*Ydi eOG(h'GCT

% G4,.si:

%?E4Cf

  • 4 9 ec MM Wu!atory E  ;' le C ~

MT m "> " ' "

MWPN March 28, 1973 d ccenTro cum ,C.L-gp ,3

. . . ~ .

Llb I \ N ' N (,,

' 9' Mr. R. C. DeYoung

.~d

~ "

N J[

Assistant Director for 5.9N A J D . _i' ' "" P E6YS$.,i 9 Pressurized Water Reacto

~

Directorate of Licensing . N  ? ! g F u- [ g .~...i U.S. Atomic Energy Commission * , 4'i u f- 'u g-Washington, D.C. 20545 ' .'>

'^

.O '

Subject:

Florida Power Corporation 'W^N c- 72 '

Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant Qf Docket No. 50-302

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

This letter is a supplement to our letter of March 22, 1973, regarding hurricane protection for the Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant during a probable maximum hurricane (PMH). Since the March 22 sub-mittal date, information exchanges have continued between your staff, our consultant (Dames & Moore), and Florida Power. It is necessary that we advise you of delays beyond May 22, 1973, in submittal of our response to the hurricane questions in your letter of March 12, 1973.

The items preventing us from vaeting the May 22, 1973 schedule are:

1. Previous schedule provided us by your staff for release of hurricane data in digitized form was as follows:
a. Hurricane Carla (1961) - already released.

. b. October 3,1949 hurricane - April 6,1973

c. Hurricane Ione (1955) - April 6,1973
d. Hurricane Camille (1969) - already released It is now discovered through receipt of the Hurricane Carla data and communication today with your staff, that the data in items a, b, and c above are not available in digitized form. Our assessment of schedule indicates an approximate six (6) week delay in schedule to digitize the data. As we understand from your staff, AEC and CERC will now proceed in the immediate future to digitize this same data for use in the AEC-CERC model runs necessary for conclusions to be reached.

1Ib General Office 320i Tnety-fourtn street soutn . P.O Box 14042 st. Petersburg. Flonca 33733 813-866-5151 0

Mr. R.,C. DeYoung March 28, 1973

2. We are concerned about the apparent continuing. uncertainty in your staff's status reports on calibration of models from these several hurricane data. Enclosure (1) of your March 12, 1973, letter states in the first paragraph, "We and our consultant believe that a stillwater level of 33.4 ft. MLW (compared to your estimate of 29.6 ft. MLW) should be adopted for the site, unless the information requested below relating to your model proves conclusively that it is at'least as capable of reproducing historical hurricane surge hydrograp'hs as our model." This. implies that the hurricane data had aTready been necessarily digitized for your model runs. Had the digitized data been available, and runs completed, as earlier indicated verbally by your staff, we could have met the submittal date of May 11, 1973, as requested in your March 12, 1973, letter.

We have analyzed the work requirements for preparation of the response to your March 12, 1973, letter based on our very latest communications.

As stated above, a six (6) week schedule penalty has resulted from our misunderstanding about the form of the hurricane dita. As a result, we expect to docket our response to your March 12 letter on July 7, 1973. This is, of course, contingent on receipt of the final exchange

. of hurricane data soon after April 6,1973, from your staff and your response in the next several days to the Dames and Moore letter tele-copied to your staff March 23,1973 (copy attached), requesting clarification of the Hurricane Camille data.

We continue to appreciate the concerned attitude of your staff in re-solving the Crystal River hurricane surge question. We look forward to a prompt resolution in early July to everyone's satisfaction.

Very truly yours, J. T. Rodge Assistant Vice President JTR/iw Attachment.

G w

4 & .a c~ 7 & /m ,

ha-os-e7

- C'JESTIONS CCMCERNIN3 CERC'S DIGITIZED DATA FOR CAMILLE M *.e* '. < . , -

l

(

v /u., ; ,t 3/n /n M a+

JKg i

}

w~

Transmitted herewith is our computer output listing the data furnished to us

~

l by CERC for llurricane Camille. This output- represents the basic data of the storm which may be easily obtained from'the information furnished us. The explanation of the output is included on the output sheetr..

Referring to CERC's program listing (statement 300 + 3), the digitized storm

~ '

data should have the following format:

WX(LL+1) ,WY.(LL) ,hNY(LL+1) ,WY (LL) , S A(H) , SP (LL+1) , SP (LL) ,UK(LL) l where LL refers to the reach number end. varies from 1 to LM - 1.

WX = W2 cos O (statement 150 + 1)

WY = U2 sin 9 (statecent 150 + 2) 0 = Wind vector angle position counter-clockwise from positive x-axic SA = Astronomical tide (assumed constant for Camille)

SP = Inverse pressure effect, ft. (ctatement 130 - 2)

( end UK = Wind stress' coefficient (statement 160-2)

It is clear that the wind velocity and the angle (Theta) may be obtained from the first four data entries of the input cards. Also, since PN, PO and R are known from other input data (reed ctatement 23 + 1), the parameter RHO may be calculated using the listed SP data. The listed values of UK are thus redundant in that this parameter is only a function of the uind velocity (see statenent 160 --2). Hence the uind velocity for the first 13 reaches may also e

e e e, m

Pr.g2 2

-(

be calculated from the listed UK values. -For'the;following questions please refer to the attached output sheets (the validity of our conversion program has been checked by hand calculations of the furnished digitized data).

1. Refer to the first 6 time step outputs. It appears that.the wind

^

velocity calculated using UK(LL) is not synchronized with the velocity obtained using WWX(LL) and WWY(LL) . This discrepancy. is 7 apparently explained if the vind strecs coefficient format was-really UK(LL + 1).

(

2.

The . wind velocity distribution along the traverse should have one of the following trends depending on the relative position of the hurricane: (a) monitonically decrease in magnitude, (b) monitonically

increase and then decrease in magnitude or-(c) moniconically increase in magnitude. Reference to 'the output shous this to be the case except for the first 1.5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> titt.e ctep. Here the U output is erratic tihile the UK output follows the predicted trend. Also, in

{, this case, as well.as in th'e case of the third 1.5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> step, there is no apparent correlation.between the UK and U output, although

~

(presumably) the wind stress coefficient was obtained from the wind velocity'of the storm. Please explain this and the fact that this data is self-inconsistant. I expect that the original raw data was only available in 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> steps'and someone did some wild interpolation,-

thus explaining the inaccu' racy of the first' and" third 1.5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> data.

9 e g' e

+

Page 3

3. The maximum indicated wind velocity is 127.8 mph corresponding with' other. input data (read statement 16). Henceitwouldappearth$t the track of Camille relative to the traverse line should be such that the minimum radial distance, RHO, would be sl4.ghtly less, or at.most equal to the radius of maximum winds R. Reference t,o the

, output data reyeals that the' minimum value of RHO is about 23 nautical miles, whereas R is given as 14 nautical miles. This discrepancy is ,

possible in one of the following ways: ' (a) the digitized values cf

,. , SP are too small or (b) the maximu= wind velocity of Camille is f .

actually greater than 127.8 mph. However, using thIe furnished latitude (30 N) and the supplied meteorological data in accordance with appropriate equations listed in HUR 7-97 it would appear that if Camille were assumed to be a PMH (cs far as the K constant -is concerned)

(

then the maximum wind velocity should be about 124 mph. Thus it- appears more likely that the SP values are too small. Please explain this issue.

([ Finally, we would,like a verification that the referenced digitized data for Canille (in the exact form sent to us) was used in CERC's calibration of their

' ~

program, that no observed hydrograph exists for any station on the specified traverse and that only peak surge was used for calibration. Further, we would like a stipulation of the value used in CERC's calibration of the peak surge and its time of occurrence relative to time lis,ted in the Camille data.

Regards.

jf j '*. ff e //W x,.sg/A s./ .

/ James A. Hendrickson

/ Dames & Moore i

~

wh% m

......m. .. . . . . . . - . . . , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .

..~

~

900~ 903-27 FLORIDA POWER HURRIC ANE C Af'" LE STORM INPUT "CCONSTRUCTED 031"'3 ,

. O S *. = 13

L:4

_ P:h_e

= 14 23.92 l*

PO = 26.73 1

R = 14.00 I

l TIME STEP RE ACH f4 UMBER ,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 l UK 35.9 14.2 32 9 31.3 30 1 28.9 27.7 26.0 22.3 20.0 10.3 16.0 16 0 l U 37 0 35.9___.34.4 33.0 _31.'5 30.2 29.0 27.9._ 26.0_.22.5. 20.0 _18.i _17.0._14.9 I

6.0 THETA U6.0' 74.6 62.4 53.0 45.0 38.0 32.0 29.8 27.6 ,26.0 25.9 25.9 26.0 26.1

. RHU 142.6 147.1 151.9 157.1 162 6 162.6 166.4 174.7 174.7 174.7 181.4 101.4 181.4 181.4 l UK 49.2 47.5 45.8 43.1 39.3 34.5 31.8 28 9 26.0 24.6 24.2 23'.3 22.9 ]

50. 5 ._49. 5 6 7. 3_4 5.9 43. 4 _3 9. 5 _34. 5.J 2 0 M. O. 2 6.0 "'2 4. E_ 24. 2. 23 4._._23. 0 E U

6.0 THETA 105.0 104.H 104.4 102.2 97.5 94.0 94.0 93.9 95 1 94.6 94.9 94.9' 94.9 95.5 .

RHO 99.9 103.5,103.5 114.0 117.0 123.4 126.8 130.4 134.3 134.3 138.3 130.3 138 3 133.3 j UK e4.2 61.6 56.5 57.3 55.6 53.5 52.5 51.6 49.2 46.6 45.0 43.9 41.3 l U 67. 5 64.7_ 6L.a__59.0._57.5 55.E__54.0.__52.9. 51.B 49.i_.46.9__45.B _43.9 _41.4 O . 0' T4WTA 122 4 126 2 129.0 130.0 129.9 131.0 132.9 133.0 131.5 128.1 125.9 124.9 123 5 121.9 94.6 96.7 98.9 101.1 103.5 103.5 103 5 103 5 ,

  • RHU 65.4 69.9 73.5 79.0 483.7 ec.0 UK 83.1 73.0 7 4. '$ 70.9 67.8 64.9 63.5 62.2 60.9 59.1 57 9 55.6 51.1 j o '1 CL 0._.c3.3__78 % 7.4. 7 _.21. 1_6S. 0 64.9_63. 8 62 L_ 61.5 59. 4J7.9 5 6.0_.51.4 60 THETA 145.9 141.0 135.9 133.0 130.0 127.9 125.9 123 9 121 9 119.9 118.9 117.9 117,4 116.9 +

RHO 31. 9 36.4 40.6 45.1 50.5 56.3 60.6 63.4 65.4 67.6 68.7 69 9 69.9 69.9 l-93.8 n6.4 81.0 75.2 72.6 70.1 66.3 63.5 61 6 59 7 55.6 ';

i UK 110.7 102.4 3 .

1 U 119.4 111.9_102.7 _94.0 _ 86.9 _.80.9 _75.4 72.7.__70 7_ 66.5 63.7 _61 7 59.8 56.n _;

3.0 THETA 107.4 107.0 108.7 121.0 122.8 122.5 123.5 123.5 123.4 123.4 123.5 123.4 123.5 123.5 RHO 35.6 41 0 49.2 58.8 60.7 .79.0 87.0 92.6. 96.7 101.1 103.3 103 5 105.9 105.9 l UK 120.4 127.0 127.0 113.4 107 2 96.5 92.5 U7.5 84.1 82.0 79.9* 75.2 60.6 j

'J - 115.0.121.7.127.7_12.7.8 110.6.107Ji_97.2 _92.4_ 00.4 .84.9 82.2 80.0._75.9__69.3 i

. 3.0 TH6TA' 26.9 21.4 36.5 74.4 103.4 98.9 01.0 79.2 98.5 110.0 111.9 112.4 112.4 112.4 '

RHO 24.9 22.9 23.9 29.3 36.0 43.5 53.3 $7.9 62.4 67.6 69 9 71.0 72 3 72.3 j i

' UK 97.9 109.0 110.7 112.6 112.6 110.7 107.2 104.0 100.9 97.9 95.1 92.5 85.2 U-- C. 4_9 7.9- 100. 2_u 9. 5_7 0. 3._7 8. 0_9 9. 6_9 9. 0 9 4. 5 9 0. 9_9 0 0 9 3 7 9 4. 3__.9 2. 0

)( 1.5 THETA 9.0 5.5 15.9 40 7 47.3 26.4 29.8 25.3 35.9 45.8 2.5 43.0 53.9 68.0 02.6 96.1 45.1 46.2 47.4 48.6 RHO 37.2 33.2. 31.6 32.2 32.9 32 2 34.9 38.0 UK 79.9 86.4 96.5 109.0 118.4 124.7 127.0 124.7 120.4 118.4 116.4 114.4 110.7 -

l l

, . .. l-

U 76.9 00.0 a6.5 96.9 109.0 110.8 125.5 126.9 126.0 121.9 119.0 116.9 114.5 111.4

-- O 1. - 1HE14 326.0 325.9 325.s 32e.0 -21.2 334.5 357. s 0 0 10.0 20.s 30.0 49.9 70.0 90.0 3 2 2___3.3,S_3 4 6__U,6

  • [.y .
  • Rim 63 A_.52_.5._. 4 3 5_ _3 5 W 19 3 _. 2 k. 9_2 h . E_2.7 0_._2 el . 2__J C

~

ux 65.6 60.6 75.2 86.4 96.5 104.0 107.2 107.2 100.9 107.2 107.2*105.6 105.6 ,

U. 66.6 6H.7 72.9 t10.7 91.2 100.6 100.3 110.3 109 5 109.2 107.0 103 0 97.0. _ _09.4 ,

X-1.5 THETA 324.9 323.4 325.9 330.6 334.0 341.0 35T.9 359.3 5.9 11.9 17.5 29.0 40.1 50.9 L g rtW1 7 7. 6J 'l' . .A 4. 9J 9. 2_41. 5 _ 3 6. 0__3 3 9___14. 6 _3 4.4 31.9 _3 4 2 3 4. 6._3 h t 6_ _3 3 9 6 i

' ~

UK 55.1 55.6 60.9 70/9 79.9 ft7. $ 89.9 92.5 96.5 97.9 97.'9 99.4 99.4 \-

U 54.5 S5.3 56.0 61.1 70.9 80.1 07.9 90.8 90.8 96.8 98 0 98.9 99.5 100.4 l.5 i t!F. r A 322.9 31u.0 325.9 342.2 350.0 355.4 358.0 357.9 357 9 358.9 358.9 358.9 358.9 0.0 '

?

RW1 10.1.1 'M . 6_.0 3.1. 7 4. 0_6 h.5._ 57. 9_._i9. 2 _.6 6. 2._A 3 5._ 3 0. tL.3 6. 6 _3 5.h _J 4. 6_3 3 5

. U4 41 0 41.7 42.4 43.9 45.0 50.6 55 1 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 5 T . 3' t f.

U 40.7 41.1 41.9 42.5 43.9 45.9 50.9 55.1 57.4 5,7 . 4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4  ;'

6.0 7HETA 342 0 341 9 342.3 342.7 342.8 343.0 344.8 344.9 344.3 344.0 344.0 344.0 344.0 345 9 W1 94.6.___90.7._ li5.3__uc.5 76.2 _71.0_ 66.5 63.4_ 61.5 50 8__57. 9_._S7. 1,. 56.3 _56.3

' 34.5 36.8 40.3 45.4 45.4 45.4 45.4 U6 31.8 33.9 34.2 33.7 32.9 4 4 . ~.

l l' U 29.5 32.0 33.9 34.5 33.9 32.9 34.7 36.9 4J.4 44.5 45.4 45.5 45.5 45.5 1-6.0 THETA 351.0 3';2 3 353 3 353.9 354.0 353.9 354.0 354.2 334.2 354.4 354.3 354.5 354.5 354.5  ;

- 8H' 133.3_134.3._130.4.1.23.4 120 1_.114.0.108.5_105.9 '.05.9._103.5_101 1_101.11 101.1 _98.1 .

UK 26.0 26.0 27.7 20.0 28.7 28.7 20.7 28.7 20.7 28.7 28.7 28.7 28.7 .

. U 25.5 25.9 26.9 27.8 28.1 28.7 28.8 26.7 20.8 28.8 20.0 28.8 28.0 28.8 l 6.0 THETA' 357.9 290.4 213.4 120.9 44.4 6.9 7.2 7.4 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 ,

RHQ 17 4.1 168. 4._16 2. A.1 S 7.1_151.S 147.1_1.4 2. 6 13 a. 3_.13 8. 3_.13 8.3._13.4. 3_13 0.1_.13 4. 3 13 6. 3 ,

f 4

I I.ECI'ND l f I

Time-Step There- are 13- t ime-steps-in- thiis-data.-The-lef t-hand-column-liste-them. '

i neach Number - The number of stations along the traverse line. This data includes 14 reaches. All data is j *

-listed for each reach at each-time step.-The-deep -water-station-corresponds-to-Reach-Hunber-1. -

Hence data corresponding to stations progressively closer to shore read from 1 cit to right. 5 I.

l'K --Wind velocity in-m.p.hv- obtained-from digitised-wind-stress-coef ficient-using-form-given-in ,

latest CERC listing (changes to May 1972 program).  !

U - tind velocity-in m.p.hc obtained from -digitized-wind-coniponent-data-(wind-velocity-times x-component wind velocity and wind velocity times y-component wind velocity)

THETA- --- Angle-in degrees- of-wind-vector-(positive-counter-clockwise-f rom positiven-axis)-obtained [

fron digitized wind component data. l 1

PJIC Distance of storm center-to-traverse station-(naut. mi.) obtained-froar-digitized-inverse .

. pressure setup data using relationship given in latest CERC listing.

LM;-mf Number of rencher and-time steps respectively

. l

. PN, PO - Asymptotic and central pressure (inches Hp) respectively .

R - Radius of maximum winds (naut, siles)

I-

, , l'Z, If, THETA, RHO aro lino listed respectively ,for each timo step. j',4