Text

Development of Sector-Specific Recirculation-Stagnation Factor for Meteorological Data Collected at Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant,Unit 2.
	ML19345E930
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	09/13/1978
From:	Nelson R; CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE, INC.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML19345E923	List: ML19345E922; ML19345E930;
References
	1A-84006, 3020-1, NUDOCS 8102060436
	Download: ML19345E930 (38)
	v • d • e

._. _ _ - _

Report No. 3020-1 I e I

I I;EVELOPMENT OF SECTOR-SPECIFIC RECIRCULATION-STAGNATION FACTOR FOR METEOROLOGICAL DATA COLLECTED AT THE ENRIC0 FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT, Unit 2 I

I Prepared For:

I THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan I

Contract 1A-84006 I Prepared By:

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DIVISION I 11455 West 48th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Project No. 3020 September 13,'1978 I

I

--} _:

Roger A. Nelson Atmospheric Scientist l

I k

! I

CAMP DRESSETi & McKEE INC.

ic. - -nw seex.,o.,,snn envronments' wyneers sc ent:s's

$4' inert 4 Fana W c m su#anft '1455 West 49"1 Avenig

/Nat H-dge. Couado 80033 18 September 1978 I

Ms. Evelyn Madsen I Fermi 2 Licensing Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan ~48226

Dear Ms. Madsen:

Please find enclosed six copies of the report: " Development of Sector-Specific Recirculation Stagnation Factor for Meteorological Data Col-lected at the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2." We have in-corporated thoses changes which you suggested after reviewing the draft copy.

I CDM appreciates the opportunity to conduct this study for Detroit Edison and looks forward to completing subsequent studies. If you have any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sin erely,

/ .'

Roger A. Nelson Program Manager RAN/gc cc: Proj. 3020 Correspor.dence 1

I

!I lI l

lI l

I

l I

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 2.0 STRAIGHT LINE AIR FLOW TRAJECTORY MODELING------------- 4 3.0 PUFF ADVECTION MODELING-------------------------------- 6 4.0 MOD E L COM PA R I S O N - - - --- ------ ------ ----- ---- ------ -- ---- 14 5.0 USE OF THE 1ERRAIN CORRECTION FACTOR------------------- 22 LIST OF REFERENCES------------------------------------- 24 APPENDIX A--------------------------------------------- 25 I LIST OF FIGURES I FIGURE No. TITLE PAGE I 3-1 Example of Sampling Technique used to Sample Puffs as They Move Past a Given Receptor from One Advec-tion Step to Another. Concentration at Receptor is g Average of Equally Weighted Contributions from Each 3 Sampling Step------------------------------------------ 13 I

I 4-1 Ratio of Puff Advection Modeling Results to SLAFT Modeling Results for On-Shore Sectors------------------ 18 I LIST OF TABLES 1

I

= TABLE No. TITLE PAGE 3

E 4-1 Concentrations (sec/m ) Normalized to Source E Strength (X/Q) at Various Downwind Distance for On-Shore Sectors Using the SLAFT Modeling Tech-nique Described in Section 2.0------------------------- 16 I

I l 1

II 1

l LIST OF TABLES Cont.

TABLE No. TITLE PAGE 4-2 Concentrations (sec/m') Normalized to Source

3 Strength (X/Q) at Various Downwind Distances

' 3 for On-Shore Sector Centerline Receptors Using the Puff Advection Modeling Technique Described in Section 3.0----------------------------------------- 17 i I 5-1 Terrain Correction Factors for On-Shore Direc- ,

i tions for Various Distances to 80 km------------------- 23 l lI l

l t I

I :

f I :

I !

I ;

l I ,

!I i

?

l I

I 11 ,

I

SUMMARY

A comparison between modeling predictions for annual average relative dispersion (X/Q) vaiues at receptors to a distance of 16 km was performed using two air dispersion modeling techniques. The straight line air flow I trajectory model, used for annual average estimates of the relative con-centration from routine releases of airborne effluents at the Fermi 2 site, as reported in the Environmental Report (operating license stage),

was compared to a puff advection model which more adequately treats the effects of spatial and temporal variations in the air flow over an area.

Results of using an annual data record from the 60 meter meteorological tower at the Fermi 2 site to simulate tne relative concentrations are presented. The puff advection model predicted slightly higher concentra-I tions at receptors close to the source, but under-predicted the straight line air flow trajectory results for almost all receptors more than 16 km from the source. The largest ratio occurred in the SSE sector at a distance of 2.4 km with a value of 1.79.

I The ratios of modeling results at receptor distances corresponding to those distances for which X/Q and D/Q are presented in the Fermi 2 Environ-mental Report are reported along with recommendations for the application of the correction factors to those values of X/Q and D/Q.

, I lI

I I

I iii

I 1.0 If1TRODUCTI0ft The objective of the research reported herein was to determine the difference in results arising from the application of two different types of long-term atmospheric dispersion models applied to the I meteorological characteristics of the Fermi site area. The two models are the Straight Line Air Flow Trajectory (SLAFT) model, commonly known as a long-term Gaussian model, and the Puff Advection model.

I Although the long-term Gaussian model has been widely accepted as providing conservative estimates of atmospheric dispersion in the past, its unsophisticated treatment of recirculation and stagnating conditions

,E c n p tenti y c use err rs in the predicted values of dispersion. To E adequately take into account both spatial and temporal variations of wind direction, wind speed, and atmospheric stability, a more sophisti-cated plume element model which considers the dispersion of puffs released periodically under time varying atmospheric conditions must be employed.

Unfortunately, use of the Puff Advection model requires extreme.ly large computer resources for simulation of an annual average dispersion. Recog-i nizing this requirement, the fluclear Regulatory Commission (flRC) introduced the concept of a " Terrain Correction Factor" (or more appropriately, a

" recirculation-stagnation factor") in Regulatory Guide 1.111, "flethods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors" (Reference 1). This terrain correction factor was based upon the ratio between the results l of modeling the annual average dispersion (X/Q) using puff advection model and a SLAFT model for a single meteorological monitoring system. This terrain correction factor was based upon a single composite sector and took i

l the form of a monotonically decreasing curve from a maximum of 4.0 at the point of origin to a minimum of 1.0 at about 13 km from the sources.

Ostensibly, when an annual average concentration at a given receptor was I 1

]

I derived using the SLAFT technique, multiplication by the appropriate value of the terrain correction factor would result in a conservative estimate of the annual average concentration at that receptor if a puff advection model were used. This was to allow meteorological analyses to be performed using the relatively simple SLAFT technique and at the same time take in-I to account temporal variability of meteorological conditions which, in most cases, would play an important part in the annual average.

On the basis of the many conments received from experts in the field of air pollution meteorology, the NRC recognized that the use of an "across-the-board" terrain .orrection factor was inappropriate. Given the con-cept of a terrain correction factor relating the ratio of the two models, the values of such a factor should reflect site-specific meteorological data. It is unreasonable to assume that periods of recirculation and I stagnation over an annual period at one site resemble those at another Thus, in Regulatory Guide 1.111, site in another part of the country.

Revision 1, July 1977 (Reference 2), the NRC has recommended that, if a SLAFT model is used for dispersion prediction, a site-specific analysis of the air flow characteristics should be performed to determine the vari-ations of atmospheric transport and diffusion conditions.

I This report presents the results of comparing the dispersion estimates from both a straightforward SLAFT model and a sophisticated puff a'Jvection model.

I It presents the results in the form of the ratio of the modeling predictions similar to that used by the NRC in Reference 1, except that the terrain correction facter is analyzed by individual sector.

The comparison is based upon hourly meteorological data collected at the 60-meter meteorological tower at the Fermi site. A complete description of the instruments used and their accuracy can be found in Section 6.1.3 of the Fermi 2 Environnental Report (Reference 3).

I I

E;

_I

['

I Section 2.0 of this report discusses the SLAFT model, while Section 3.0 discusses the puff advection model which was used. The results of the comparison are presented in Section 4.0, along with a discusssion and interpretati m of the results.

I t

!I lI I

I I

I -

I I

I 2.0 STRAIGHT LIflE AIR FLOW TRAJECTORY MODELIf4G The techniques used for the Straight Line Air Flow Trajectory (SLAFT) modeling for this report are those used by Sagendorf (Reference 4) for a ground-level release and taking into account no building wake factor.

I The equation for the annual average relative dispersion normalized to source strength for a single source at a receptor in Sector K can be written:

l3 (g)K , 2.032 7 7 f(i,j,K) , (1)

E r i j zi"j where:

f(i,j,K) = fraction of time meteorological conditions are wind direction Sector K, wind speed class j, and stability class i u

j

= the midpoint of the j th wind speed class r = the distance downwind of the receptor and the vertical plume spread without volumetric I

=

zi wake correction at distance r.

The joint frequency distribution, f(i,j,X) used was derived from hourly meteorological data collected at the Fermi 2 60-meter meteorological monitoring tower during the period 1 June 1974 through 31 May 1975.

Wind speed and direction were measured at both the 10-meter and 60-meter levels. Stability was determined from temperature difference measurements made between these same two levels. When winds at the 10-meter level were missing at a given hour, the winds at the 60-meter level were substituted I to make a more complete data record. The joint frequency distribution used is' included in Appendix A for reference.

I I

I

I The values of z were derived from the empirical curves of the standard deviations of effluent concentration in the vertical direction versus distance (Reference 5). The representation of z used was:

0 7

=B*d i 9

2) where:

I B

i = stability-dependent coefficient of proportionality yj = stability-dependent exponent of travel distances X = distance from source to receptor.

I The values of B 4 and y g for each of the Pasquill stability classes used Stability Class A B C D E F I B 9

0.100 0.105 0.128 0.146 0.331 0.812 y$ 1.033 0.975 0.891 0.824 0.567 0.307 I

I I

I lI I .

l I

I '

l I

3.0 PUFF ADVECTION MODELING The puff advection modeling techniques used in the analyses reported herein are similar to those described by Start and Wendall (Reference 6).

I A continuous point source should be used to examine the effects of spatial and temporal variations of the low-altitude wind flows upon time-integrated concentration estimates. Because the transporting wind flows can be ex-pected to be curving, recirculating, and, at times, stagnating flows, a simple Gaussian type equation may not be used (because the plume geometry would likely be altered to the point of inapplicability). Because the simple Gaussian equation described in Section 2.0 is an integration of the more general Gaussian instantaneous point-source equation, a ground-level source should produce concentrations at ground-level receptors with a total reflection at the earth's surface according to:

X(x,y,o) = 2Q exp -1/2 (x- t)2 + (3)

(2n) 3/2 xyz x y where:

X(x,y,0) =

concentration (units /m')

Q = source strength (units) x,y =

distance downwind and crosswind from point of origin, respectively (m)

U = mean wind speed (m/s-1) t =

time of travel of the cloud (s).

cx ' y' z standard deviations of effluent concentration in the downwind, crosswind, and vertical direc-tions, respectively (m)

I I 6 I

]

I The a-values used in the puff advection modeling are the Pasquill A through F types of values which were derived from continuous plume releases of 0.5- to 1.0-hour duration. The application of these rates to puff diffusion could tend to overestimate the dilution (and to underestimate the concentration) of puffs within the first few kilometers. It should be remembered that the relationship of o-values versus stability categories and trajectory dis-tances primarily apply to distances of a few kilometers. Extrapolation l of these curves to regional scale distances is substantiated by little or no data. However, because one dispersion method is to be ccmpared to another, i these factors should compensate ene another because each model uses the same l

extrapolated curves, iI If horizontal Gaussian symmetry is adopted, equation (3) may be restated as:

1 . ,

2Q #

I X(x,y) = exp -1/2 , (4)

(2n) 3/2 "H "z H I .

where:

r 2 = (x - Ut)2 +y 2 .

l un and E og =

x" y' Because the application of equation (4) must satisfy conditions of simple, straight-line flow and provide total integrated concentrations (TIC),

equation (4) must be adapted. Normally, TIC values are obtained by using an integrated (with respect to the x or flow axis) form of the equation.

Integration would negate the breaking of the continuous plume into appro-priate subelements. Instead, what is used is an approximation to the integral by a summation of weighted concentrations of the form I

I 7

I

l I

I h (X;p3)dx = (X;p3*6t)) ~ XCPS (5) u ,,

j=1 I where x = U*t I and dx = 0*dt are used for a transformation of variable.

The summation process is similar to approximate integration by the trape-zoidal rule, except the concentration at the end of a time interval j (X))

is assuned to prevail over the entire time interval (6t)). The area under the Gaussian-like curve of concentration versus time is proportional to the TIC at the receptor point. Depending upon the number of intervals (plume segments) used, the approximation may converge to the integral at any desired level of accuracy. In application, the model disperses plume effluent through the advective tran: port of plume segment (puff) centers I

and through the diffusion of effluent puffs about their individual centers.

The transport of puffs is determined from a horizontal field of temporally varying' winds (hourly wind speed and direction). The diffusion of effluents is described by distance-dependent values of og (or yc ) and o . These values are computed according to a general form:

' I o=o + g Ao (6)

I I where:

0 9

previous value (ideally zero at the point source) incremental change during the advective displace-I Ao

ment just completed a = updated value following the completed advective step.

I I

I The advective-related growth Ao is different for o yand a , and has various z

constraints to conform better to observed plume behaviors. For horizontal diffusion, o is y represented by the general forms (Reference 6).

c y = A*x.85 (for x < 20 km) (7a) and l

o y = A'*x.5 (for x > 20 km), (7b) where distance along puff trajectory from the source I x =

A = stability-category dependent coefficient of pro-portionality chosen to fit empirical curves of oyversus distance A' = stability-category dependent coefficient of pro-portionality for continuity at 20 kra between equations (7a) and (7b).

I The exponents of x in equations (7a) and (7b) were selected to fit the o,-

curves reported by Yanskey at al. (Reference 5). At and beyond 20 km, the horizontal diffusion rate is slowed to the Fickian rate (proportional

'"* '9"^"" " ' ' ** " d "'*)' ' d*S'"

y during changes of lE5 stability category, 1

l 3a

= Y Ao Ax (8) y 3x where l

Ax = advective displacement.or distance end 3

y =

0*

rate of growth of o, derived from equation (7a) or (7b).

1 I

l

It should be noted that equation (8) incorporates A or A' and x through the derivatives of equation (7a) or (7b); thus, the rate of growth is both dependent upon stability category and total distance traveled. Because the rate of growth is distance-dependent, a value determined at the middle of the advection step just completed is the value used in equation (8).

The basic representation of z is:

oz= B*xY (g) where:

B = stability-dependent coefficient of proportionality chosen to fit empirical curves of o versus distance z

y = stability-dependent exponent of travel distance x = distance along puff trajectory from source.

In practice, a form like equation (6) is utilized to update the previous l value, assuring that z either remains constant or increases in magnitude.

For vertical dispersion, a capping stable layer or restricting lid to up-ward diffusion is considered. This stable layer is applied uniformly throughout the computational area. The effective value of z equals 0.8 times the height of the lid when the vertical distribution has approached uniformity. All subsequent values of z for a puff which has grown to l this depth are held constant (Aa, = 0).

The two essential parts of the computation are the determination of the locations of the puffs as they are carried by the wind and the calculation I of the growth and subsequent dilution of each puff. A third portion of the computation involves the determination of the contribution of the puffs to the time-integrated dosage on an array of grid points.

l 10

The puff parameters (size and location) are updated each advection step with three puffs released per hour. Note that the time resolution of the meteorological data used is one hour.

The periodic sampling of the puffs for summing concentrations at the grid points is based upon a distance increment rather than a specified time increment to allow a more uniform approximation to the continuous plume at both high and low wind speeds. The displacement of each puff is

~

computed for a specified time-step and divided by the distance increment specified for sampling the puff. This quotient is then rounded to the next highest integer, which is used as the number of times to sample the puff along the computed displacement path. During periods of high wind speeds, the puffs will be sampled several times during an advection step, but only once during sufficiently low wind speeds. When all the puffs have been displaced and sampled, the process begins again for another advection step. The distance increment for each puff is taken as the same value as ogat the beginning of the advection step. Figure 3-1 graphically illus-trates the sequence of sampling steps as a puff passes near a given recep-l tor between advection steps.

i l

To calculate the growth of each puff as it is carried by the wind, sev-eral factors are carried over from one advection step to the next. These 1

l are: the oyand a zvalues for the puff, the total distance traveled by the puff, the horizontal coordinates of the puff center location, and a control parameter which indicates whether the puff has left the grid or has become so dilute that it is no longer to be considered in the calcula-tions. The distance-dependent values of o y and oz are used to calculate the puff center concentrations. The radius of influence of each puff is determined by the relation l X. " .

R 2

=g 2

-2 In (10) 11

\ 1 1

'I j where:

i X

min

=

the minimum concentration of interest = 10-"

and X

p

= the concentration at the puff center.

The concentration is computed and accumulated for each grid point which lies within the radius of influence of each puff.

i l

I I

I 12

M M M M M M M M M M M M S M M M M M M linear interpolation in size of puff as c h

grows from ai to c 5 during advection step (cz prows similarly) ,

- pI s' , puff position and

, s puff position and u ,- / s N

g size at end of j size at beginning of advection step

,- ""/s A

/

's \ \ advection step i

\

\ g

/ \ \

/ / \

t I I

\

' \

l i I \ s \

( t c1 \

h' I l '

I

\ \ I I

\ ' /

\

Q \

~

ag / /

/

\ \ \ 3 /

C N s s

'\

b' 05 /

N _( - j /

%,_ _ '/ ,

Receptor Receives cont!'hu-tions f rom five. puf f locations as puff passes by during a given advection step.

Figure 3-1. Example of sampling technique used to sample puffs as they move past a given receptor from one advection step to another.

Concentration at receptor is average of equally weighted contributions from each sampling step

4.0 MODEL COMPARIS0N Based upon the results of using the same hourly data base of wind speed, wind direction, and stability classification, the source-normalized rela-tive concentrations (X/Q) at an array of receptors was calculated using both the SLAFT and Puff Advection models described in Sections 2.0 and 3.0, respectively. A total of 8,310 hours0.00359 days <br />0.0861 hours <br />5.125661e-4 weeks <br />1.17955e-4 months <br /> of meteorological data were used.

The Fermi 11 site lies on the western shore of Lake Erie with northeast through southeast sectors containing no land masses for more than 30 krn from the site. Because of this, offshore concentrations within these sectors are not presented.

Table 4-1 presents the results of modeling the relative dispersion using I the SLAFT technique described in Section 2.0. The source was assumed to be at ground level, and no building wake effects were considered. Table 4-2 presents the results of rcodeling using the Puff Advection technique described in Section 3.0 for the same receptors considered for the SLAFT mode!.

The ratio of the Puff Advection modeling values to the SLAFT modeling values at each receptor was calculated and the results are shown in Figure 4-1.

The ratio is plotted as a function of distance downwind for each over-land sector.

One of the most striking features of these curves is their generally I similar shape from sector to sector. Without exception, the ratio of puff advection results to SLAFT results begins at a value greater than unity close to the sources. The ratio then climbs a small amount to a relative maximum at a distance of about 3 to 6 km from the source. The ratio then gradually falls to a value of unity or less at a distance of about 15 km.

This behavior should be considered in light of the comparisen performed by the NRC and presented in Regulatory Guide 1.111 (Reference 1),

14

f I

in which the ratio (" Terrain Correction Factor") of the results from the two models started at a value of 4.0 and monotonically decreased to a value of 1.0 at about 13 km.

The maximum value of the ratio betwaen the results from the two models re-ported herein occurred at a distance of 2.0 km from the source in the south-by-southeast sector with a value of 1.79. This is less than half of the

maximum value reported by the flRC (4.0) in their analysis of another meteo-l rological monitoring site's data (Reference 8).

I In sumnary, use of a Plume Element or Puff Advection model to simulate atmospheric dispersion generally results in higher concentration estimates l than with the use of a SLAFT model for receptors within several tens of kilometers from the source. Using hourly meteorological data from the I Fermi 2 60-meter tower monitoring system, values of up to about 1.8 times the SLAFT model estimates hav(. been predicted using the flRC-recommended l

Puff Advection model. In general, this Puff Advection model provides more .

conservative values than the SLAFT in all sectors out to a distance of about

, 15 km, where the Puff Advection model predictions become less than those l from the SLAFT model.

!l l

lI i

I 15

m '

M M M M M M M M M M M M M L

l e

i l

f I

1 !

Table 4-1 Concentrations (sec/m') Mrmalized to 5sorce Strength (x/Q) at various co=%ind Distance for Oft-shore Sectors Using t*e SLAFT Modelieg Technique cescribed in Section 2.0 6

l I

I 00d'.4:0 DIST W E (K!LC"ET tRS) i l

SECTOR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 14 16

- N 1.642a'0-* 5.231 10-' 2.666a10 ' l.674=10 ' 1.161 10-~ S.879 10-' 7.105 10-* 5.85Sa10** 4.244n10-' 3.262a 10-' 2.611:10-' 2.15410-' ;

4%E 2.370a10-* 7.604:10-' 3.915 10-' 2.446 10-' 1.699 10 ' 1.304:10-' l.045 10 ' 8.626 10-' 6.264 10-* 4.823:10-' 3.863=10-' 3.194=10-* l 55E 1.33310** 4.2S1 10

7. Ua30-' 1.377s10-' 9 561 10-' 7.33S 10-* S.831n10-' 4.855 10-' 3.525:10-' 2.715:10-* 2.177 10-* 1.793a10-' i 5 1.222=10-' 3.934a10- 2.029:10-' 1.269 10 ' 8.815:10-' 6.783 10-' 5.443 10-' 4.493m10-* 3.273 10** 2.525 10-' 2.027 10-* 1.677410-' I t

SSW 1.017:10-* 3.260a10-' 1.677a10-' 1.047a10 ' 7.265a10-* 5.570=10-' 4. 460 a 10- ' 3.673n10-* 2.668a10-* 2.052 10-' 1.6:4=10-' 1.357 10-' j

" Sd 1.001:10-' 3.162 10-' 1.614:10 ' 1.002a10-' 6.926a10-' 5.262a10 4.1S8410-' 3.437a10-' 2.471a10-* 1.837410-' 1.503:10-' 1.234 10-* I Ch t W5W 1.152a10-' 3.633a10~' 1.854 10 ' 1.151:10-' 7.953410-* 6.043a10-' 4.808x10-* 3.945 10-' 2.835:10-' 2.650=10-' 1.723=10-' 1.415:10-*

W 8.656 10-' 2.733a10-' 1.396a10-' 8.674alv' 5.999a10-* 4.560a10-' 3.637a10-' 2.930a10-* 2.156 10-' 1.652:10-' 1.31S=10-' 1.085=10**

W. 1.123:10-* 3.571 10 ' 1.831:10-' 1.140=10 ' 7.900:10-* 6.035:10-* 4.824:10-' 3.974 10-' 2.875a10-' 2.208:10-' 1.765m10-* 1.456 10-*

! M 1.344 10-* 4.247:10-' 2.172a10-' 1.350=10-' 9.344s10-' 7.123:10-' 5.682a10-' 4.672 10-' 3.370 10-' 2.581=10-* 2.060=10-* 1.695 10-'

NW 1.436:10-' 4.58?a10-' 2.358m10 ' 1.471 10 ' 1.021:10-' 7.825 10-* 6.265a10-' 5 .16 S n 10- ' 3.747:10-' 2. 83h 10- ' 2.309:10-* 1.906:10-' l p)

b 9-@

u EiED, a

I 355' r

I

m g o-9 o' q0 1 I W J JeL U \,e a

{

I I

es s s a w . > e e . e o l $ 6 e e E e f 4 e 9 e e OO O OO O

e- - a--O s- emO somOe-O a== s-.=O 3 m e a er a er W ee w W emm m-*@ W& ** re el @ ** Q N += @ Ch eP rd O re C' edi M w ~O m b e. - c e er N ce a)

-4 0

eJ . M.

e -N. -O e=. e. i . . e ==.

n O O O O O O O O O O O te I

w s s s e e o e s s s

$ 0 e e 9 e e e m. e e e M O O O

- .O -O -O -O -O -C3 .O .O e, -.e e a w w a se er - e. a E se mN e N es er O c.6 a2 I

- er. e,i e

-- - f*

r- O e cm e

ce Pa @

a, e e O

, %er

.k N' et c's- N .m h. .

b -

c- N.

- O O O O O* O O O O* OO I

C gp . * * > a e e e y a e e e e e e e a e a.

L -O -O -O -O -O -O -O -"J .ri. .O -O O e e e a a e w a u a a

- Pa of ep p 4 O c +r=1 w

g, v'

-O r"%

- r4 m 4 - Oer'sNO MN m;

en c. e, O

m s e. #4

%'9i es

(* 8"o en. N. M. . t'id. N. r e. N.

I L

O O O O O O O O O O O 0 * * * * * * * **

K , e e e e a "e- e e e e C OO O C

e .O a

-O

= O

-a O-= e-* Oe* -Oa -w -e -O m -=

O .O.

o w O @ e9 C ** er e **

4 cv %

-O "O 4 m m g c= m- e9 Cm t# er e4 m A O tra @

o I

. et e9 es e es. c. r. -

to. m. N. . ei. et.

de O O O O O O O O O O O es . e o e. *

a a >

w e e o e o e e , e e C 42 OO

-O e-O -O -O -O .O -O

.e.a are *-= e4 e

ca sa

w. a em C N rw to et a e e e -o =

r'>

ee

=

- e 9 m@ m & O - o O O cm 4 I

Q 4* - C N O @ tr - e=s m w's see s"9 @

2 d. .

.?. e. en. er. m. er. ert. .

C s+ 0 0 O O O O O O O O O Y

I

-3 o, * *

e o a e. = =

C =. e. . r e e a e e e e

{

- O OO a -O -O -O -O -O -O -O -O d -

e e a e-su = = m a

.et m e er o w - .u I N @ er e N l en w m ., co 2 (,+ 9 es l 0 3 4.>

en

w i"9 @

O,

@ *= -@ e"J e6 er op @-feNC e

- G7

- et . . . N. or. e. et. .

i k *- O O O O O O O O O O. O g a

> e- > e e e e a > > = e O O e e e e e e e . e e e

- - O OO O O gm O.e

-O a - -O w -e

-O .O at -

-O e -a .O I

w = w w e C -* O O) O ? O 4 n=1 re N m e g eCI O 't est Ner e4 4 4 4 @ m et9 N 4 l N - N O O O #

N CS & -

f. *5 @ @ G3'

.te., ed s. . 4 N.

o O O==.

w O.s l

. =. *=. . O O O 4 o O O O O O O K e/*

I e e e e = a a

e e e e o e se&C*

C e e e O

a e e o e r &

L e

- 6 eA

=

to e

-a

.O -O .O -O a'- as em e4 m

-O e

-O as e-O

-O e

-O a a er e.

-C.3 -O cc se er a en + *, et d = 0 .c%

a O sn 4 e9 es en er e =-

e e- ng c ei er*

r I

eL-ww . N. . . se. e. .

a3 e.

1' - *'m b, O O O O O O O O O O O i

O6 e a e e o e e e e *

wa s e e a e e i e e e e 1

em e-O eO -O O ==O .O -O -O .O -O e.sO6 - eC*

7 e se p.e a en e se w w Cr og N O se (e m 4 em gm. e9 gg. s is r.se O*== *= m N eg (% et t'> r*m

@ E' av a-*4 .x/s - c r.. . . . -. m a) -

c.= or e-i

.e.e. ew E,

e . e%. N. . . . .

-g** t O O O O O O O O O O O E e e e e e e e ee e e e I

L C* e e e e e e e e e e eC O O 2e e-O -O -O ===O -- -=O *=O -O -O -O -

e es a w a a a e se a m a 4 M er e N Q e - er er em N -

Eh

% e.

-N -

4C N

cm NOO @X O W c'4 NGJ 4 == @

d'%

89 v f"t.

ett

. M. ed. N. N. s. N. N. e%.

tC D O O O O O O O O O O s*

,I e.* -9 e 9 e e e e e e e e e i ed e e e a e e e e o e e

- U O C 6 -O -O .O-= -O +=O -O -O .O- -O -O O *

u a e -a W

W e * =

I -U N tin er - sc N m 8% er O

- eG -m *% of' -to et er **1 O et 4 ( O @ CD ft) eh *dP to ****%*a.P 8D1 L * @""

ede . . N. =m> m. er. er,

. m. et. #. e"t.

s C 3 O O O O O O O O O O O er s%

w en e e+ e o e e g e e e

+I C & s e e o e e e e 6 e s OK U ed -O -O -O .O- .O C..t .O.- -O e-O -O -O 1

se a a e e a e e a a u

- M M e9 Ch O O ee4 06 cm e-- O e3 % d N e"e%

d O C* *'5

@ @+ N **O e4' M Ces N et't E9b

. . -. em. . gn. .

ed fg e-*

N. e.

I e . .

et O O O O O O O O O O O ar j b O

-O V W tes 'E 'T 1

ted E v1 0 3 A'"E e'r f

=

>* Esa t 2 7' O to M e "E 3 3 'A'$ E I

I I 17

!I - -

I '

I t8 =

16 -

/ SECTOR: NORTH _

t .4 -

0 I Z 12 w

=

o '-

\_ _

ca 1 -l I I I I I I I I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 to 12 14 16 DOWNWIND DISTANCE (KILOMETERS) 18- , , , , , , , , , , ,

t6 - SECTOR:NNE _

I

-O

'~ ~

~

I h,2 s

N _

$ 1.0 -

O 08 I I I ' I I I I I I I I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 14 16 I 18 DOWNWIND DISTANCE (KILOMETERS) g

_\ g ; , , , y ; ,

I 16 -

' SECTOR:SSE -

9 I Q i4 cc

$ t.2 - -

I a Eio o

I I I I I I I I I I I 08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 to 12 14 16 DOWNWIND DISTANCE (KILOMETERS)

Figure 4-1. Ratio of Puff Advection modeling results to SLAFT modeling results for sectors N, NNE, SSE 18 I

]

I I

'8' I I ! I I I i i i i i 16 -

SECTOR: SOUTH _

I g t.4 o

I

^ -

Z l.2 - :

-i 10 -

I 2

08 ' I I I I I I I I I I I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 to 32 14 16 DOWNWIND DISTANCE (KILOMETERS) 18 , , , ; y , , , , , ,

16 -

SECTOR:SSW _

9 I k 1.4 cc 1.2 -

$10 -

I W I ' ' I I I 08 L- I l .

l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 14 16 -

I DOWNWIND DISTANCE (KILOMETERS) 18 ; y j g g ;

i y , , ,

1.6 . . SECTOR:SW -

O 14 -

zi -

lI a

O 10

.2 - N -

o 2 '

08 I I I I ' ' I I I i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 to 12 14 16 I DOWNWIND DISTANCE (KILOMETERS)

I Figure 4-1. Ratio of Puff Advection modeling results to SLAFT modeling results for sectors S, SSW, SW (continued)

I 19

I I

to g g i I I I I 3 3 16 -

SECTOR:WSW I9j '#

~ ~

f

'12 - r d

0 10 -

os I I i 2 5 6 7 8 to 12 14 '6 DOWNWIND DISTANCE (KILOMEIERS) to i i i i I i l I I '

16 -

SECTOR: WEST _

g9 -

t2 -

l @3 8to -

IO 08 I l I I 3 a 10 12 14

I DOWNWIND DISTANCE (KILOME T ERS) ta

' l l 1 1 I I I I 16 -

SECTOR:WNW _

O k 14 -

cc o

at2 -

10 -

1O2 08 i i 1 1 I i l I I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 m 12 14 16 DOWNWIND DISTANCE (KtL OME T ERS)

Figure 4 Ratio of Puff Advection modeling results to 5LAFT modeling results for sectors WSW, W, WNW (continued)

I 20

I I

I

'O I I I ! I I I I I I 1

i 10 -

SECTOR:NW _

9 l

Q t4 -

2 12 -

\ .

d Lu

E ' -

E 2 oa i I I I I I I I I . I I I 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 to 12 14 16 DOWNWIND DISTANCE l (KILOMETERS)

'O I I I I I I I I I I l t6 -

SECTOR:NNW _

E9$ 14 -

\

fs2

~

s

$10 -

IO 08 I I I I I I I I I l 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 to 12 14 1G l

DOWNWIND DISTANCE (KILOME TERS) i figure 4-1. Ratio of Puff Advection modeling results to SLAFT modeling results I for sectors flW. fillW (continued) 21

5.0 USE OF THE TERRAlfl CORRECTI0fl FACTOR The terrain correction factor derived using the methods in Sections I 2.0 and 3.0 and presented in Section 4.0 can be applied to all X/Q and D/Q estimates made using straight line air flow trajectory techniques.

Although Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1 (Reference 2) only requires application of the terrain correction factor to the ground level portion if a mixed node release is used, use of the factor on both the ground level release as well as the elevated release ensures conservatism. It must be remembered that application of the terrain correction factor can only be made to annual average X/Q or D/Q estimates, since it is derived from the ratios of annual averages.

The terrain correction factor presented in Section 4.0 was calculated only for certain receptors along each on-shore radial compass point. To correspond to the evaluation distances presented in the Fermi 2 Environ-mental Report (Reference 3), the terrain correction factor was calculated for those same distances. These values for on-shore radials are presented l in Table 5-1.

The calculational methodology used to determine the values reported in Table 5-1 employed simple linear interpolation and extrapolation with distance of the values plotted in Figure 4-1. Given values of the terrain correction factor in a single radial of F, and F, at distances of R, and R, i respectively, the interpolated value of the factor at distance R between R, and R2 , was calculated according to:

F -F F R -F R

?

F = R -R 2 1

R+R-R2 1 l Use of the same formula may be applied for evaluation distances between those presented in the Table. The same formula should also be used if extrapolation below 0.8 km is required.

I 22

1 l Table 5-1 Terrain Correction Factors for On-Shore Directions for Various Distances to 80 km Distance (km) N NNE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 0.8 1.11 1.23 1.61 1.39 1.07 1.31 1.17 1.12 1.05 1.16 1.34 1.2 1.13 1.27 1.07 1.51 1.11 1.35 1.21 1.18 1.09 1.22 1.36 1.6 1.14 1.32 1.73 1.62 1.14 1.40 1.24 1.23 1.12 1.27 1.37 1.15 1.35 1.79 1.67 1.21 1.48 1.29 1.30 1.16 1.29 1.40 I 2.4 3.2 1.16 1.34 1.76 1.60 1.25 1.56 1.32 1.34 1.16 1.26 1.43 4.0 1.18 1.40 1.69 1.69 1.24 1.61 1.38 1.32 1.20 1.40 1.49 4.8 1.20 1.39 1.66 1.65 1.28 1.60 1.38 1.38 1.26 1.44 1.64 5.6 1.14 1.35 1.51 1.60 1.24 1.59 1.31 1.38 1.30 1.41 1.57 6.4 1.08 1.32 1.44 1.51 1.15 1.57 1.23 1.31 1.26 1.34 1.44 7.2 1.06 1.29 1.46 1.39 1.07 1.53 1.18 1.23 1.14 1.27 1.34 8.0 1.04 1.26 1.37 1.32 1.01 1.46 1.18 1.27 1.08 1.26 1.27 8.8 1.00 1.22 1.29 1.30 1.00 1.42 1.18 1.28 1.08 1.22 1.26 I 9.6 10.4 1.00 1.17 1.20 1.29 1.00 1.39 1.17 1.29 1.08 1.17 1.25 1.00 1.14 1.44 1.28 1.00 1.35 1.16 1.29 1.08 1.14 1.22 11.2 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.28 1.00 1.30 1.15 1.27 1.08 1.11 1.19 I 12.0 1.00 1.08 1.08 1.28 1.00 1.26 1.13 1.25 1.08 1.08 1.15 12.8 1.00 1.06 1.05 1.27 1.00 1.22 1.11 1.22 1.03 1.06 1.12 13.6 1.00 1.05 1.02 1.26 1.00 1.17 1.09 1.19 1.00 1.04 1.09 14.4 1.00 1.03 1.00 1.26 1.00 1.13 1.07 1.17 1.00 1.01 1.05 15.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.26 1.00 1.08 1.04 1.15 1.00 1. 0.0 1.00 16.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.05 1.02 1.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 l

24.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 '.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l 32.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 40.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 48.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 56.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 64.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 72.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 80.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 23

LIST OF REFERENCES

1. Regulatory Guide 1.111: Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gasseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 1976.

I 2. Regulatory Guide 1.111: Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gasseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Revi-sion 1, July 1977.

3. Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2, NRC Docket No. 50-341:

Environmental Report (Operating License Stage).

4. J.F. Sagendorf, "A Program for Evaluating Atmospheric Dispersion from a Nuclear Power Station," NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL-ARL-42, 1974.

5. G.R. Yanskey, E.H. Markee, Jr. and A.P. Richter,1966: Climatographery of the National Reactor Testing Station, 100-12048, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Idaho Falls, Idaho, 184 pp.

6. G.E. Start, L.L. Wendell, " Regional Effluent Dispersion Calculations Considering Spatial and Temporal Meteorological Variations,"

NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL-ARL-44, 1974.

I 7. D.H. Slade (editor), 1968: Meteorology and Atomic Energy 1968, TID-24190, ESSA, Air Resources Laboratories, Silver Spring, MD, 445'pp.

8. Memorandem from G.E. Start to Earl Mackee (Nuclear Regulatory Commission),

Dated 3 May 1976 under Interagency Agreement AT (49-1)-3432.

l l

l I

l l

24 Ige I

1 l

APPENDIX A JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FROM THE 60 METER TOWER METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 1, 1974 THROUGH May 31, 1975 l

l l

I 25

DETROIT EDISON SITEoD THE PERCENTAGE OF OCCURRENCE OF WIND SPEED CLASS AND WIND DIRECTION FOR S T A t3 I L I T Y INDEX A PERIOD OF RECORD-6/1/74 - 5/31/75 7-12 18-24 I 1-3 3-7 12-18 24-UP TOTAL AVG SPD MPH N 0.05 0.26 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 4.29 l JNE 0.06 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 4.18 WE 0.07 0.45 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 4.11 ENE 0.28 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 3.56 E 0.24 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 3.20 SE 0.17 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 4.00 SE 0.35 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.22 3.50 SE 0.22 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 3.51 S 0.18 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.07 4.22 SW 0.24 U.51 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 4.21 SW 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 4.81 l SW 0.11 0.54 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.69 4.72 W C.12 0.36 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49' 4.13 WNW 0.04 0.19 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 4.36 l NW 0.13 0.26 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 4.17 NNW 0.06 0.17 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 4.49 OTAL 2.38 7.03 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.70 4.04 SPD 2.39 4.51 7.6d 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.04 4.04 IVG I CALM HOURS -

5 NUMUER OF HOURS OF DATA - 8310 I

1 DETROIT EDISON SITE 60 THE PERCENTAGE OF OCCURRENCE OF WIND SPEED CLASS AND WIND DIRECTION FOR STABILITY INDEX B PERIOD OF RECORD-6/1/74 - 5/31/75 I 1-3 3-7 7-12 12-18 18-24 24-UP TOTAL AVG SPD MPH N 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 5 40 NME 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 4.30 NE 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 4.09 NE 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 3.90 E 0.01 0.17 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 5.06 SE 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 4.19 SE 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 3.50 SE 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 3.26 5 0.07 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 3.64

! SW 0.05 0.12 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 4.46 SW 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 4.73 BSW 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 5.29 W 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 4.98 WNW 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 4.75 NW 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 4.79 NW 0.01 0.13 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 6.21 TOTAL 0.45 1.41 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.11 4.56 VG SPD 2.30 4.65 8.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.56 4.56 NUMBER OF CALM HOURS -

0 NUMBER OF HOURS OF DATA - 8310 I

I

1 I

I DETROIT EDISOf4 SITE 60 THE PERCENTAGE OF OCCURREfJCE OF W i f4 0 SPEED CLAS5 A fJ D WIND D I R E C T 10fJ FOR STABILITY IfJDEX C I PERICD OF RECORD-6/1/74 -

5/31/75 1-3 3-7 7-12 12-18 18-24 24-UP TOTAL AVG SPD MPH rJ 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 4.63 N rJ E 0.02 0.01 % 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 3.20 tJ E 0.04 U.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 4.26 NE 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 4.78 E 0.06 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 4.15 SE 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 4.02 SE 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 3.02 SE 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 3.17 S 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 3.38 SSW 0.00 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 5.23 SW 0.05 0.20 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 5.12 1

WSW 0.01 0.17 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 5.75 W 0.06 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 3.62 NW 0.01 0.13 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 5.52 NW 0.01 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 5.82 f4 W 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 5.89 l TOTAL 0.52 1.65 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.44 4.63 UG SPD 2.46 4.73 d.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.63 4.63 NUMBER OF CALM HOURS -

1 tJUMBER OF HOURS OF DATA - 8310 1

1

DETROIT EDISON SITE 60 THE PERCENTAGE OF OCCURRENCE OF WIND SPEED CLASS AND WIND DIRECT!04 FOR STABILITY INDEX D i

PERIOD OF RECURD-6/1/74 - 5/31/75 1-3 3-7 7-12 12-18 18-24 24-UP TOTAL AVG SPD MPH l

N 0.24 0.78 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.06 3.85 I

i NNE 0.29 0.75 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 4.49 j NE 0.41 1.41 0.17 0.05 0.00 0.00 2.06 4.58 l

l ENE 0.36 1.84 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.56 4.65 i

E 0.32 1.07 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.66 4.83 SE 0.32 1.13 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.60 4.31 SE 0.57 1.41 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.05 3.61 SE 0.34 0.81 J.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.17 3.62 5 0.41 1.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.49 3.88 SW 0.25 1.54 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.05 4.85 SW 0.35 1.44 0.23 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.12 4.92 WSW 0.35 1.67 0.47 0.04 0.00 0.00 2.54 5.17 W 0.46 1.72 0.28 0.02 0.00 0.00 2.49 4.71 WNW 0.39

49 0.29 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.24 4.80 NW 0.42 1.60 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.24 4.62 NW 0.23 1.23 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.56 4.59 OTAL 5.70 20.96 2.d5 0.13 0.00 0.00 30.02 4.54 UG SPD 2.36 4.64 S.22 13.48 0.00 0.00 4.54 4.54 INUMBER OF CALM HOURS -

31 NUMBER OF HOURS OF DATA - 6310 I

I DETROIT EDISOfJ SITE 60 i l THE PERCENTAGE OF O C C U R R E rJ C E OF WIND SPEED CLASS A rJ D WIND DIRECTION 5 FOR STABILITY INDEX E PERIOD OF REC 0dD-6/1/74 - 5/31/75 1-3 3-7 7-12 12-18 18-24 24-UP TOTAL AVG SPD l MPH N 0.67 0.95 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.66 3.59 NNE 0.46 0.85 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.42 3.74 NE 0.47 1.02 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 4.16 CNE 0.63 0.75 0.14 0.00 r.00 0.00 1.55 3.80

E O.36 0.66 0.06 0 . 0il 0.00 0.00 1.11 3.82 i SE 0.35 1.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.53 4.37 SE 0.59 1.37 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.06 ;,79 SE 0.67 1.68 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.38 3 . , ',

S 0.82 1.89 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.88 3.86 l

ISW 0.76 3.56 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.58 4.34 SW 1.18 3.24 0.30 0.04 0.00 0.00 4.86 4.35 WSW 1.30 3.06 0.35 0.07 0.00 0.00 4.83 4.32 W 1.07 1.88 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 3.14 3.67 WNW 0.89 1.34 0.28 0,00 0.00 0.00 2.62 3.92.

NW 0.89 1.22 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.19 3.47 l

NW 0.67 0.75 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.56 3.39 TOTAL 11.78 25.21 2.05 0.14 0.00 0.00 40.05 3.98 VG SPD 2.25 4.51 8.23 13.90 0.00 0.00 3.98 3.98 INUMBER OF CALM HOURS -

72 fJUMBER OF HOURS OF DATA - 8310 I

I

I I DETROIT EDISON SITE 60 I THE PERCENTAGE OF OCCURREtiCE OF WIND SPEED CLASS AND WIND DIRECTION FOR STABILITY INDEX F PERIOD OF RECORD-6/1/74 - 5/31/75 I 1-3 3-7 7-12 12-18 18-24 24-UP TOTAL AVG SPD MPH N 1.05 0.11 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 1.19 2.14 NNE U.48 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 2.13 NE 0.20 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 2.16 ENE U.19 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 2.57 E 0.14 0.29 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 3.83 SE U.18 0.73 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 3.88

SE U.34 0.43 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 3.50 SE 0.43 0.55 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12 3.49 l 5 0.32 0.45 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.89 3.66 SW O.45 1.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.61 4.15 SW 0.61 0.4e 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.31 3.01 wSW 0.89 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.16 2.51 W 1.01 0.10 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.24. 2.69 WNW 1.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.90 NW 1.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.30 2.03 NW 0.90 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 2.17 OTAL 9.59 4.84 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.68 2.88 VG SPD 2.02 4.45 8.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.88 2.88 NUMBER OF CALM HOUkS -

66 l NUMBER OF HOURS OF DATA -

8310 I

ML19345E930

Contents

Text

Dear Ms. Madsen:

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

previous value (ideally zero at the point source) incremental change during the advective displace-I Ao

Navigation menu

ML19345E930

Text

Dear Ms. Madsen:

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

previous value (ideally zero at the point source) incremental change during the advective displace-I Ao

Navigation menu

Search