ML20030A335

Chapter 2 to Final Hazards Summary Rept for Big Rock Point, Plant Site & Environ

ML20030A335
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	11/14/1961
From:	CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:
References
NUDOCS 8101090324
Download: ML20030A335 (11)

Text

p-

\\.,)

SECTION 2 PLANT SITE at ENVIRONMENT

2. 1 GENERAL FEATURES

2. 1. 1 Site The Big Rock Point nuclear power plant site is located in Charlevoix County, between the towns of Charlevoix and Petoskey, on the northern shore of Michigan's lower peninsula. The site and plot plan for the facility is shown in Drawing C-3.

2. 1. 2 Location The site property includes about 600 acres of gently sloping wooded and cleared land on the shore of Lake Michigan at the western utremity of the southern shore of Little Traverse Bay. The site is 228 miles NNW of Detroit and 262 miles NNE of Chicago.

Figure 2. I shows the location of the site with respect to the over-all view of the state of Michigan and its surroundings.

Figure 2.2, Site Map, indicates the property owned by Consume rs Power Company, in relation to the nea rby highway and railroad. Figure 2.2 also indicates.the location of the reactor on the site.

2.1. 3 Plant Feature 4

2.1. 3.1 The Big Rock Point nuclear power plant consists of a direct cycle, forced circulation boiling water reactor, a powe r extraction system, and associated service facilities. The principal structures include:

A 130-ft diameter spherical containment vessel A turbine luilding A structure housing water intake facilities A 240-ft stack Waste storage vaults 2.1. 3. 2 The containment vessel houses the reactor, recirculation piping, pumps, steam drum, fuel pool, and equipment for removal of shutdown heat. The turbine-generator and other conventional plant components are housed in a separate adjoining building. The arrangement features and location of equipment are shown by the following drawings presented in Pa rt I of Volume Two.

r J

j

i Page 2 Section 2 FIGURE 2.1 C ENAD Y3IO

'"~'N

' 9. '<. e:'s/

s'N.

LOCATION MAP p..-

N BIG ROCK PLANT SITE

'N.

CONSUMERS POWER CO.

g u

[&

g A

JACKSON M!CH.

. ;q'

,./

S g.

s.' %

g...e.,20Qjff,s

'~ ~~

,.. l.;;h.]h(i ' }.]lfj.,' r,

,, g,,. ;

,\\

~%

.n\\%,S?.YY

}:$llll, Nid?;,l;,Q)D

~?

i ;. ;;

_l.

\\.

[,'. J'if}^'NO,,T.?^I??Mi

.. '~ ' !$?

^

W.lp..% TN Y.

3 mnarre

~

4 Y

!,f;l

,.. f.

l y

I 8

O

~

sesmos y

• l 1' pereuer

- /.

,1c-,a<<a-

-1 Q

b ALPENA C.

o t

s "D

+

o y

rearcnst ctrr s

2.

4 i

~

N'

/

k

,4, p

4 c

?l

+

/

s' e

g 1

,/

4 eswww

.uvsutaon

/

/

)

einsme

,c, 1,..'.

Angng';

e ntswroo e.sa cas m

.rME N.=a P00R ORIGINAL

se c tiou 2 aae 3

~- - llTQ T p,

E I-i :

N o

-- /

s. '

o g

n g

.y

\\

e s

3 h

\\,'t,\\

c s

j

~

\\:

a z

\\

i

'I f of N

N, i

2

.. N

\\;

.j 4

N

!_I/

s 5%

k tl b

$p-

<~, poser 21sQ i

(\\

t

\\,

/l

-jt

~

N 1

(.i Jf2 N2

's

hf 9 8 b

N'{\\@w

?

1 1i POOR ORIGINAL 6?

{ f, a

' Mw/

g 5

(

S3ction 2 Page 4 Access Control Layout A-52 Plan. Above Grade 14-100 Plan Above Operating Floor M-101 Section A-A M-102

- Sections B-B & C-C M-103 Plans Reactor Building M-104 Sc een Well & Pump House M-141

2. 2 IMMEDIATE ENVIRONS 2.2.1 The immediate environs of the site are sparsely occupied and little utilized. The gently sloping, partly wooded land with no significant topographic features found on the site itself, continues for several miles. To the south, at a minim.

istance of about three miles, is Lake Charlevoix, an inta,d extension of Lake Michigan of significant size.

2.2.2 Access to the site is available by US-Michigan Route #31, and the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, both of which pass the site at a distance of one-half to one mile from the reactor location and connect the cities of Charlevoix and Petoskey.

2.2.3 The size and shape of the site and the location of the reactor enclosure on it insure that no residences are within one-half mile of the reactor. Only scattered rura residences and a 1

few commercial facilities are found within several miles of the site. Commercial and cultural facilities and important residential areas are found in Charlevoix, about four miles i

southwest of the site; and at Petoskey, about twelve miles east of the site. Outside of such cities, there are no nearby significant industrial operati'ons, except for a cement plant about nine miles to the east.

2.2.4 Charlevoix County, with a land area of about 400 square miles, has a gross agricultural yield of about $1 - 1/2 million per year, with about 40% of its land area in agricultural use. Produce is principally dairy and poultry products, and fruit. Statistics on the economy of the three counties around the site (the approximate thirty-mile radius), are shown in the following table.

TABLE 2.1 STATISTICS OF SURROUNDING AREA County Antrim Charlevoix Emmet Land Area, sq. mi.

477 414 461 Population 1960 10.373 13, 4 21 15,904 Population / sq. mi.

22 32 34

9

(~

C2ction 2 Page 5 f

Table 2.1 (Con'd)

Antrim Charlevoix Emmet Manufacturing Establishments, 1954 23 32 26

' Employment 1 -19 15 24 15 20-99 7

6 10 100-Ove r 1

2 1

Average Annual Manufacturing Employment 1954 541 699 813 Farms, 1954 836 758 837 Average Size Farms, Acres 164 147 148 Value of Farm Products Sold,

- (in $1,000's) 2,209 1.446 1,715 Including:

Crops 828 340 801 Live stock 389 315 258 Dairy 655 558 562 Poultry 305 205 62 2.2.5 Typical of most of the. northern portion of the' southern penin-sula of Michigan, and because of comparatively moderate summer climate and abundant lake frontage, the general region of the site is an important summer vacationland.

However, this summer occupancy is not a significant factor within about two miles of the plant site.

{

2. 3 IMhE DIATE POPULATION 2.3.1 The site is remote from any'large metropolitan areas, and has generally favorable low surrounding population, both from the short-range and long-range isolation viewpoints.

This is indicated by the estimated total population within various radii:

TABLE 2. 2 IMMEDIATE POPULATICN Radius, Miles Total Population 1/ 2 None 1

Less than 5 2

70 3

500 4

1400 5

4900 10 9000 20 26,700 40 52,000 60 135, 000 i

-(.

C ction 2 Page 6 Table 2,2 ( Con'd)

Principal urban areas within 60 miles are:

Distance Direction Urban Center

• Population from Site from Site Charlevoix 2,700 4 Miles SW i

Harbor Springs 1,400 11 ENE Petoskey 6,000 11 E

Boyne City 2,900 14 SE East Jordan 1,900 14 SSE Gaylord.?

2,500 33 SE Cheboygan 5,600 40 NE St. Ignace 3,200 42 NNE Traverse City 18,300 45 SSW Grayling 2,200 52 SSE

• Population figures are 1960 Censu,s..,

F i

2.3.2

'Accordirg to the 1960 Census, the -pe rmanent populaticn' of the several counties near the site does not appear to have any significant upward trend.

2.3.3 Study of the difference in sales tax receipts between winter and

(

summer periods for the counties of Antrim, Charlevoix and Emmet (the approximate 30-mile radius) indicates that the number of temporary summer residents at any time is not

(

more than 50 percent of the permanent population indicated above. From this it may be reasonable to infer that the popu-lations for various radii sho' n will not be doubled in the summer w

(

pe riod.

2.3.4 Figure 2. 3 indicates the estimated distribution of the local population. This information was established from a count of the dwellings in the area in 1959 with the assumption that there is an average of 3-1/2 persons per dwelling. The preponderance of population toward the southwest coincides with a minimum wind direction probability in that direction.

2.3.5 Figure 2.4 indicates the population found within a 60-mile radius of the site based on the 1960 census. Both the popula-tions of significant urban centers and the average population densities of the nearby counties are indicated.

(

(

(

Page 7 Section 2

\\

(

FIGURE

2. 3 I

1 m

K 2

t*

m 52

==2 p

2 4

5 *.!

ai w

9 u.

}

s n.

T

(

5"

+

Zw

(

~

. hj e

<g 3

1 e

4 s

a s_

w

(

)

l 4-ci a

t ee r;

O N

N Ow w

(D T

q J

k y

i$

6

?

I ii!

2 u

)

\\

P00R ORIGINAL

Page 8 i

Section 2

(

FIGURE

2. 4 I

POPULATION WITHIN 60 MILE RADIUS OF

(

BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITE

(

6O MI

{i-b

'~

-j;- ]'

. g if,,

1

~

MANIST,IQUE :c -

v. ~'. y:.

(

egooo..-

4g,

~

NSTc !GN ACE 4

MO 4.aao)g 6 i'

N.

LN6-r d gM ACKINAW.

(

p

' r.A33T} c-

y- -.

20Mt 5.

E -i

(

,.lc.:.H B'ovakN ;W ks.soop., I -

'y...

/.

.p. ~ ;[ " q;.

no i

(

4

. ;u V

b f

[81G ROCK'b

.?

r 2

I-

~N POINT

-?'

P ETOSKEY '

y

[T66G f._';

(

\\

CHS.9LE OtX

.(':.**! ; '

c.

• )

y..

=

i

<>...o:

122 iool/ ?.

w-(

,;;.h- -

,..9

--.m-N.~~

4..., 9-1 fiisEl ', ;

2 p

(

.*d

G AY LOR D g ' '.. > '. ' 66JO0l..

.. Ek #d**): ' '

I l.~

, "9-[

'NN

\\

, 43 '

(

m.

l

/-

{

• 5 c.

. -_z...g o.

f.., <.,.

.:.0,,

...v.. ;..

(

gq

.g

'f S:

....g

,9

...c.

...s

,.TRAW RSE'

' J ] "-

. _ j

g-:

C J IT.Y.

J r. -

I G RAYllN G'g"'

(

~

~

%8d6.?)d

'?'

(a.aco) -

~

~^

.;+,

s o-o O ao-so j

(

C$

s' So$c5T!N o

2o MILES TOTAL POPUL ATION IN 40 MILE R ADIUS MANISTEE n CADILL AC

(

e W

4so.4oci I i 35.2 001

(

~

P00R ORIGINAL

\\

(

Section 2 Page9

(-

2. 4 METEOROLOGY 2.4.1 Present indications are that the meteorology of the site region will produce no significant limitations on plant design and opera-1 tion. Generally prevailing winds are from the western half of the compass and there are no significant population centers down-wind for a distance of over 10 miles.

(-

2.4.2 Due to the relatively low use and occupancy of the general area, little meteorological data was available prior to work on the nuclear pla 4t at the site. However, general climatol-bgical data are a vailable from many points in Michig an, including fcur locations (Cheboygan, Grayling, Manittee, Traverse City) near the plant site and have been utilit ed in the preliminary evaluation of the site meteorology.

f 2.4.3 To furnish a meteorological analysis of the plant site, Professor E. W. Hewson, University of Michigan, has been retained as consultant in meteorology. The meteorological study has been designed to furnish that information which would be needed to accurately assess the general air flow and dilution potential of the air passing the plant site.

.(

2, 4. 4 A detailed study by the University of Michigan under the direction of Professor Hewson is well underway and includes collection and analyses of wind data - e. g. speed, direction, and turbulence,

(

variability of these parameters with height, temperature lapse I.

rates, and diffusion studies to deterrnine the local effects of the lakeside location on air passing the site. A Feport on these studies is contained in Volume Two, Tab 14.

(

2.4.5 A 256-ft tower has been built on the site and has been instrumented to provide measurements of air temperature at six different levels and wind data at four diff'erent levels. In addition, the

(

lake water temperature is measured. The referenced report describes the tower installation fully and also summarizes the wind data collected from November 1,1960 to August 31, 1961.

Air temperature data was collected for this period and is available.

(

2.4.6 The general meteorological data available from the surrounding areas and the data collected during the past year at the site, indicate that there are no factors which would produce signifi-I cent limitations on plant operations. Specifically, the high average wind speed coupled with the relatively low percentages I-of calm conditions at the 256-ft level during most of the year,

indicate advantageous diffusion conditions would be prevalent a great deal of the time.

(

2.4.7 To further substantiate that advantageous diffusion conditions would exist much of the time, diffusion studies were initiated during the summer.of 1961. These studies utilize the photography of smoke plumes released from the tower in an effort to obtain moderately accurate measurements of diffusion under the most

(

(

Secti n 2 Page 10 l

adverse meteorological conditions. The smoke studies are in-tended to define the lower limits of diffusion capability at the i

site.

2. 5 GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY 2.5.1 Professor James H. Zumberge of the University of Michigan

(

has been retained as a consultant on the geology and hydrology of the reactor site and its environs. His findings ara reported in Volume Two, Tab 15.

t 2.5.2 In general, the findings are favorable. The surface drainage of the immediate area of the reactor plant building is from the building locations directly to Lake Michigan rather than inland towards inhabited areas and local wells. The re appears to be a high probability that any accidental release of material at the immediate location of the plant buildings which pene-trated to ground water would also be drained directly into Lake MicT2iipn.

2.5.3-The surface soils are of types which generally have low per-meability and might be expected to have fair to good ion I

I exchange capacity.

~

2.5.4 The principal currents in Lake Michigan important to the site for considerations of liquid waste disposal are generally favorable. Most of the time it is indicated that the current along the plant shore will be from east to west, with signifi-g cent rapid diffusion into the main body of upper Lake Michigan.

I.

2.5.5 A hydrological survey to determine currents and dilution of Lake Michigan and Little Traverse Bay in the region near the j

direction of Professor John C., summer of 1960 under the site was enmpleted during the Ayers, University of Michigan.

(

2. 6 SEISMOLOGY 2.6.1 The seismicity of the site area has been investigated by Professor James T. Wilson, Professor of Geology, University of Michigan, l

j l

who has been retained as a consultant for this purpose, and his l

findings are attached in Volume Two, Tab 16. The probability i

k-that earthquakes of significant intensity will occur in the general site area appears to be very low.

l 2.6.2 The importanc e of earthquakes to plant design has been inde-j pendently investigated by the Bechtel Corporation. Their summary statement of findings is:

(

"An investigation of the seismic history indicates.that this is a region of low seismic activity. The Coast and Geodetic Survey

/

Publication, Serial 609. Earthquake History of the United States, lists carthquakes in the Michigan area as shown below. All of these are classified as intermediate or minor. The nearest

(-

recorded earthquake was the one centered near Menominee.

approximately 110 miles from the plant site. "

(

j

-('

l

, Ebetion 2 Page 11 -

-(-

TABLE. 2. 3

(

EARTHQUAKE HISTORY

(

Ros si-Forel Date Locality Intensity Feb. 6, 1872 Winona, Michigan 5*

Aug. 17, 1877 Southeast Michigan 45 4

Feb. 4 1883 Indiana & Michigan 6

Ma c.13,, 19 05 Menominee, Michigan 5

July 26,1905 Calumet, Michigan 8

May 26,1906 Keewenaw Peninsula, Michigan 8-9 Jan. 22, 1909 Houghton, Michigan 5*

i.

• Locally felt only.

2. 6'. 3 Since no recorded earthquakes have centered near the plant site, i'

and there is no knowledge of earth tremors having been felt near the site, elaborate or special seismic design features were not considered necessary. However, in keeping with good engineering practice, all structures are designed to resist nominal seismic loading. Structural design of the plant complies with the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Horizontal t

forces based on Zone l are used.

2.6.4 The UBC does not clearly cover the reactor containment vessel or the concrete structure and equipment within. In view of their high degree of rigidity, it appeared prudent to use a seismic factor equal to the maximum expected ground acceleration at c

the site. A study of the brief eqrthquake history of the region led to the conclusion that an intensity of 7 on the Rossi-Forel scale was a reasonably conservative assumption. This corres-ponds roughly to a ground acceleradon of 0. 05 gravity. The re -

fore, a seismic factor of 0. 05 was used for this portion of the plant. This is twice the factor required by the UBC for tanks I

and similar structures, and appears to be reasonable in view of the high rigidity already mentioned.

5 2.6.5 For the containment vessel itself, earthquake forces do not govern the design, since the wind force on the vessel at the design velocity of 100 miles per hour is greater than 0. 05 r

times its weight.

(

.