ML20052G125
| ML20052G125 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1982 |
| From: | Tome A CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052G119 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8205140330 | |
| Download: ML20052G125 (50) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matt'er of
)
)
Docket No. 50-155-0LA 4
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Spent Fuel Pool l
Modification)
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant)
)
TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY E. TOME 1
CONCERNING O'NEILL CONTENTION II-D i
i i
9205140330 920510 PDR ADOCK 05000 T
- i.. -.. _ _ _. _,.
- 1) s TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY E. TOME CONCERNING O'NEILL CONTENTION II-D My name is Anthony E. Tome and I am currently employed by Wood-Leaver and Associates, Inc. in the capacity of Senior Engineer.
I have a bachelor of science degree in Mathematics from the University of Pittsburgh and undergraduate and graduate studies in Mechanical Engineering at the same institution. While attending college, I worked for the Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Water Reactor Division, as a technical student and then as an engineer upon graduation.
In the ten years I worked for Westinghouse, my duties included accident analyses and evaluation, interfacing with the NRC to resolve open licensing issues and the design of a reflood heat transfer test facility.
In 1980 I joined Science Applications, Inc. as a Senior Engineer.
My duties included the development of a method to define the role of an operator in mitigating the effects of an accident at a nuclear plant. At this same time I participated in the Big Rock Point Probabilistic Risk Assessment.
My main responsibilities were the collection of data at the plant for use in the construction of fault trees and event trees, investigation of the effects of high energy line breaks, interfacing system loss of coolant accidents and the development of uncertainty limits on the data used in the quantification.
l In 1981 I joined Wood-Leaver and Associates, Inc.
My work included participating in the use of operator action event trees to resolve wide range level instrumentation and shift staffing issues at Big Rock Point.
Other projects involved using fault trees to compute the reliability of nuclear plant emergency feedwater systems and the development of a root cause methodology for eliminating fossil fired plant boiler tube overheating failures.
i Based on my educational background and work experience, I believe I am qualified to answer O'Neill contention II-D which states:
I 1
1
's "The licensee has not adequately. provided for the protection of the public against the increased release of radioactivity from the expanded fuel pool as a result of the breach of containment due to the crash of a B-52 bomber."
This contention has since been expanded to include a breach of containment as the result of a crash due to unscheduled general aviation flights. My testimony will focus on the question of general aviation.
The probability of an unscheduled general aviation aircraft crash at Big Rock Point is calculated by the following expression (taken from Reference 1
8):
P = I Ci Ni Ap (1) where:
P = Annual probability of an unacceptable impact Ci = Crash probability per mile of flight for the aircraft in category i Ni = Total number of operations per year of aircraft in category i 2
A = Effective impact arL, mi p = Crash density, mi-1 I will begin this discussion by addressing each variable in the above equation.
First, I would like to determine the number of itinerant flights (Ni) which occur in the vicinfty of the Big Rock Point Nuclear Point.
i General Aviation (GA) flights, in FAA terminology, are categorized as either local or itinerant operations.
Local operations are defined as those operations which:
a)
Operate witnin the local traffic pattern or within sight of the airport.
l b)
Are known to be departing for or arriving from, flight in local practice areas located within a 20 mile radius of the airport.
2 i
~,
c)
Execute simulated instrument approaches or low passes at the airport.
Itinerant operations are all operations other than local operations or those flights whose point of destination is different from its point of origination.
It is these itinerant flights, in particular that portion of these flights whose flight paths from point of origin to destination could bring them in the vicinity of the Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant, that is of interest.
To determine the number of itinerant flights, it is necessary to establish an area around the plant which would contain the points of origin or destination of these flights.
The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted surveys at 3 year intervals on the activities of the general
^
aviation fleet (Reference 1).
One of the outputs of this survey is the average flight length of itinerant flights.
The average flight length is approximately 400 nautical miles which converts to roughly 460 statute miles.
Allowing for error in the data collection and future increases, the average flight length, for purposes of this calculation will be 600 statute miles. By increasing the average flight length, a conservative estimate of the number of itinerant flights is obtained as will be apparent as the discussions develops.
There are numerous ways the flight length can be used to estimate the maximum number of itinerant flights near Big Rock Point. One way is shown in Figure 1.
Here, the average flight length is used to scribe an area about BRP with a radius equal to 600 miles.
This, in essence, assumes that every flight in the the direction of Big Rock Point terminates there (represented by line BA).
However, this leaves many flights which can originate at the circumference or somewhere within the scribed area whose flight lengths are 600 miles and whose destination is still within this area (represented by linesBCandDF).
To properly estimate the number of itinerant flights within the scribed area, which operate near Big Rock Point, would require detailed knowledge, which is not generally available, of the spatial distribution of flights within this area.
3
Another method, and the one chosen for this report, is to scribe a circle about the Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant whose diameter is equal to the average flight length of 600 miles (Figure 2).
By assuming that all flights are equal to the average length, the origin and. destination of each flight can only lie on the circumference of this scribed area.
In addition, all flight paths are assumed to be straight lines and must therefore intersect at the origin of this circle.
It is further assumed that there is no angular distribution of flights leaving a point of origin and that all flight trajec-tories are towards the plant.
A flight which occurs outside of Zone B in Figure 2 but within Zone A could land within the area circumscribing the plant (Zone 8) but the potential angular distribution over angle 9 (see Figure 3) from point of origin A would need to be defined.
In particular only that portion of the total distribution described by angle 0 would pass near the Big Rock Plant.
This would not substantially increase the total number of flights since the conservative assumption is made that all flights originating within Zone B fly-in the direction of the plant.
l It can be seen that using the effective zone about BRP, represented by Figure 2, in conjunction with the assumption that all itinerant flights within that area pass near the plant, will lead to a highly conservative estimate of the number of itinerant flights.
The next step is to determine the number of operations which occur within the area defined in Figure 2 and designated Zone A.
Zone A, which i
encompasses Zone B, represents the entire six-state area which comprises the l
Great Lakes Region.
The FAA compiles annual statistics on the number of operations which occur at FAA controlled facilities; control towers, flight service stations and air traffic control centers (Reference 2).
This information is categorized as to the type of operation: air carrier, military, air taxi and general aviation.
The information pertaining to the Great Lakes l
Region for general aviation is presented in Table 1.
This information is not the sum total of all general aviation operations which occurs in the Great Lakes Region.
The majority of GA operations originate at public and private aerodromes which are not under FAA control and strict tabulations of annual GA operations do not exist.
However, the.information given in Reference 2 combined with information from Reference 1 can be used to estimate a highly conservative number of total general aviation operations within Zone A.
4
e Table I summarizes the General Aviation operations handled at FAA controlled airports, within the Great Lakes Region (Zone A), in 1979.
(This year will be the reference year because publications which supply growth factors, discussed later, use 1979 as the reference year.)
It also happens that 1979 was a peak year for aviation activity. A decline in operations from 1979 was experienced in 1980 and a continued decline, due to the air control-1ers strike, is expected for 1981.
Table 2 presents the annual operations at all airport types for the continental United States taken from Reference 1.
From Reference 2 the ratio of General Aviation activity to Air Carrier activity for the Great Lakes Region at FAA controlled airports was 2.2 to 1.
This ratio involved only GA flights classified as itinerant since air carrier and air taxi flights are classified as itinerant by their very nature and local operations were almost entirely composed of GA flights.
This ratio will be used as the standard for all FAA controlled airports.
This figure is conservative in that most Michigan airports handle only a limited number of daily air carrier flights and the majority of activity is still general aviation.
In comparison, large metropolitan airports such as Chicago's O' Hare and Detroit's Metropolitan would be expected to handle a smaller ratio of general aviation to air carrier activity but a large percentage of the total operations at Great Lakes Region FAA controlled airports.
l Using 70 percent ~(2.2)/(1 + 2.2) X (100) as the proportion of all itinerant aircraft activity at FAA controlled airports which is general aviation, using 49.3 million from Table 2 as the annual activity, and using 54.1, from Table 1, as the percent of total operations which are itinerant, 18.7 million operations at FAA controlled airports are GA itinerant flights.
The total operations, is equal to itinerant operations (18.7 million) plus the local operations (.459 times 49.3 million) or 41.3 million.
It will be assumed that the remaining 117.2 million operations at uncontrolled airports are GA related.
The ratio of GA operations at uncontrolled to controlled airports is 117.2/41.3 = 2.8.
That is for every general aviation operation at an FAA controlled airport there are 2.8 operations at uncontrolled airports.
l 5
From Table 1, there were 7.925 million general aviation flights at FAA controlled airports in the Great Lakes Region.
Applying the above ratio of 2.8 to 1 there would have been 7.925 niillion x 2.8 or 22.2 million operations at uncontrolled airports.
The total operations is the sum of controlled (7.925 million) and uncontrolled operations (22.2 million) or 30.1 million total operations.
This gives the total operations which occur in the Great Lakes Region (Zone A) of Figure 2.
The distribution of operations by state for both controlled and uncontrolled airports is shown in Table 3.
It is now necessary to determine the number of total operations (local and itinerant) which occur in Zone B.
This is calculated by assuming that the number of operations within Zone B is directly proportional to the ratio of the registered aircraft within Zone B (the 300 mile radius area) to the registered aircraft within Zone A (the Great Lakes Region).
The numter of registered aircraft within Zone A and Zone B is given in Table 4 and the percentage of the total registered aircraf t which are in Zone B is 49.7.
Table 4 also gives the percentage of registered aircraft in each of the Great Lakes states which is in Zone B.
This percentage along with the distribution of operations by state in Zone A is used to compute the distribution of operations within Zone B.
The distribution of operations by state in Zone B is shown in Table 5.
J It is further useful to divide the total operations in each state within Zone B into distinct categories based on the primary use of the aircraf t.
This division is based on information given in Reference 4 and the results are shown in Table 6.
Assuming that this distribution of aircraft by category is applicable to each state the distribution of total operations, by category of use, is shown in Table 7.
Reference 1 provided a breakdown, by use category, of the percentage of total operations which were classified as itinerant flights.
Using these percentages and the data presented in Table 7, the number of itinerant flights were computed by state and use category. This data is presented in Table 8.
6
~
It was considered necessary to account for future increases in air activity. Growth factors for itinerant flights were obtained from Reference 5 and are applied to the results of Table 8.
These results are shown in Table 9.
It should be noted that present airport operations predicted by past terminal area forecasts seem to have been overpredicted.
For example, the predicted number of local and itinerant General Aviation operations in 1980 for the Great Lakes area was 300 percent greater than the actual number of operations reported by the FAA for mat year.
Table 9 represents the number of itinerant flights within Zone B which are assumed to pass within the vicinity of Big Rock Point.
A further assumption is made that the portion of itinerant flights in each category which file an instrument flight plan can be excluded from the data base.
Flight plans filed under instrumented flight rules (IFR) are controlled by air traffic centers and their flight paths are strictly regulated. The percentage of itinerant flights, by use category, which file IFR flight plans is taken from Reference 1.
The flights which remain after this exclusion are those itinerant flights whose whereabouts and destination cannot be determined.
Table 10 presents a breakdown by use category.
This represents an extremely conservative upper bound on the number of itinerant flights in the Big Rock Point area.
Mention should be made here of that portion of the 300 mile zone which lies within Canada and how flights across the border into the U.S. are accounted for.
Certain airports within 'he U.S., mainly located along the U.S. Canadian border, are designated airpcrts of entry.
It is assumed that every general aviation flight entering the U.S. from Canada must first stop and register a flight itinerary at one of these designated airports.
If the flight continues to another destination from this airport, it is assumed that that flight will be included in the FAA air activity statistics.
Therefore, there is no need to adjust the statistical base to account for Canadian flights.
Having established an upper bound it is necessary to develop a reasonable estimate of the number of flights which occur in the Big Rock vicinity for use in Eq. 1.
7
Using a value of six million flights, from Table 10 'in the vicinity of Big Rock Point means that 11 flights per minute must pass near the plant.
This number of operations is surely an upper limit on the operations occurring ~
f n the Big Rock Vicinity and we will assume that we say with 99 percent confidence that the true number of flights will not exceed this value.
To define a 1.0 percent confidence limit, or lower bound, it is necessary to determine the number of itinerant flights which originate at the local airport. The SEP analysis for Big Rock Point used a projected number of total operations at Charlevoix Airport of 71000.
Based on area growth forecasts, this number wou'd seem to be an overly conservative estimate.
The exact number of operations at Charlevoix Municipal Airport is not known for the year 1979, however; 20000 total operations will be used for the 1979 figure.
This number of total operations is higher than the number of total operations which were reported to occur in 1976 or 1980.
Reference 7 cites 16800 operations in 1976 and Reference 8 cites 12000 operations in 1980.
Using the Michigan state growth factor of 1.33 from Table 9, the projected operations for 1992 is 26600.
As already stated, these growth factors themselves are over predicted based on actual growth rates from FAA statistics.
Using a 50-50 split of local to itinerant flights, the number of itinerant flights from the Charlevoix airport is calculated to be 13300.
It is assumed that this defines the lower confidence limit which we will call the 1.0 percent confidence limit. We can now say with 98 percent confidence that j
the number of itinerant operations which occurs in the Big Rock Point vicinity l
lies between 13300 and 6 million.
We can assume that the distribution of 1
operations and their probability of occurrence fits a log normal distribution t
which is presented below:
l P(x)
N x
Mode Median Mean X
8 s
l 1
t ihe log normal was chosen to r,epresent the belief that the probability of a small number of operations occurring in the Big Rock area is more likely than a large number.
6 Using 6 x 10 itinerant flights as the 99 percent confidence limit and 13300 operations as the 1.0 percent confidence limit, the.most probable value (the mode) can be found from log normal properties.
These properties
-are:
.i Median = eu=
(X.99 X.01)I
=X 0.5 Mean
= e"e '
u' Mode
=e In (crror factor)
, =
2.33 error factor = x.99 = x.5 l
x.5 x.01 I
The most probable va10e for the number of operations occurs at the mode of the distribution and the mode is 76000.
Using the same distribution of itinerant flights by use category as in Table 10, the new distribution based on a mode of 76000 is given in Table 16.
The mode of the log normal distribution is chosen because it is believed this represents a more reasonable value than either the median or the mean of this distribution.
If statistics were available on flights in the Big Rock Point vicinity, it is believed that these observations of loca'l operations would more likely be normally distributed about the mode than the median or the mean of the log normal distribution.
i This completes the development of Ni in equation 1.
t A supplemental analysis, which is based on the uniform distribution of flights leaving an area, has been developed and a discussion of this analysis is presented in Attachment A.
The resultant number of itinerant flights derived from this method was approximately 9000.
This analysis 9
I
~.
supports the reasonableness of using the mode, rather than the mean or median, of the log normal distribution as an estimate of the number of itinerant flights in the Big Rock Point area.
It further demonstrates that two independent calculational methods result in a similar estimate of the number of itinerant flights in the Big Rock Point area.
I should now like to develop Ci.
The information for the development of crash probabilities for each category is taken from Reference 6.
Pertinent information used in the derivation of crash probabilities, taken from Reference 6 is compiled and presented in Table 11. A further subdivision of information from Reference 6 by use category is shown in Table 12.
This table shows only the number of s
fatal accidents, since it is considered that only accidents which are severe enough to cause fatalities would cause damage severe enough to the aircraft to be harmful to the containment sphere. This figure is conservative for it also includes fatalities accidents in which no damage occurred to the aircraft e.g., someone walking into the propeller of an airplane.
To calculate the fatal crash probabilities per mile (Ci) for each category of aircraft, it is necessary to determine the distribution of total aircraft miles flown for each category.
This is accomplished using the average number of hours flown by aircraft within a use category, which are compiled from statistics'given in Reference 4, and the average speed, in l
knots, obtained from Reference 1.
The results are shown in Table 13.
The fatal crash probabilities can then be calculated from the total.
miles flown per category and the average fatal crashes for the five year period (1974-1978).
This period was chosen because of the small year to year l
variations while prior years showed a steady decline in the number of fatal accidents. These results are shown in Table 14.
The fatal crash probabilities shown in Table 14 are inclusive of all phases of aircraft operation; static, taxi, takeoff, landing and inflight. To l
determine the inflight crash statistics each probability given in Table 14 is multiplied by the fraction of accidents which occurs during the inflight 10 m
portion of an operation.
Since the other phases of operation are static (on the ground), taxi (on the runway), landing and takeoff (within a short distance of'the airports), it is assumed that the fraction 01 hours1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and miles flown expended during these phases is minimal.
Therefore, it is considered appropriate to estimate the inflight probabilities by a simple proportion without adjusting the denominator.
The percentage distribution of accidents by phase of operation is given in Table 15 and is taken from Reference 6.
The results presented in Table 14 defines the variable Ci in equation 1 which represents the total crash probabilities.
The variables, in equation 1, which remain to be defined are A and rho which are the plant effective impact area and the crash density respectively.
The effective impact area of the plant for light aircraft is assumed to be the projected area of the containment sphere.
The sphere is 130 feet in diameter and the projected area in square miles is (130)2/ (4)* (5280)2 = 5.0 x 10-4 mi,
2 The crash density is the maximum linear distance between the aircraft and the plant over which a crash can occur divided by the area in which the crash can occur.
Referring to Figure 4a the plant is a possible impact target for an aircraft, located at point A, if that aircraft is R miles from the plant flying at an altitude of H miles and the glide angle is equal to 9.
The aircraft can also crash at any point, respective to point A', which lies along arc B"C".
As the aircraft moves closer to the plant, the glide angle becomes steeper.
It is assumed that 1) the distribution of crashes l
within area B'C' B"C" is uniformly distributed and 2) that once the aircraft passes beyond the plant on the line of flight that the plane cannot come back toward the plant.
This is a conservative assumption since it results in a smaller crash area which in turn results in a larger crash density.
The probable crash area given by rectangle B'C'B"C" of Figure 4b.
The distance between the aircraft and the plant, R, is calculated by:
R = tan 9 A (2) 11
~
2 The area of rectangle B'C'B"C" is 2R,
The crash density, rho, is calculated from:
rho = R (3) 2RT Assuming an altitude of 1500 feet and a glide angle of 60, R is equal to.492 miles and rho equals 1.0.
An altitude of 1500 feet is chosen based on FAA regulations which require an aircraft to fly 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within 2000 horizontal feet of the aircraft.
A number of towers in the Big Rock Point area are from 250 to 450 feet in height and are designated on FAA aeronautical charts.
From equation 3,.it can be seen that chosing an altitude greater than 1500 feet would result in a smaller crash density.
0 The 60 glide angle is the conservative end of the range normally employed in air craft crash probability studies (60 - 80 ).
This results in a conservatively high value for the crash density since a glide angle greater than 60* would increase the maximum linear distance, R in equation 2, and result in a larger crash area.
All the components of equation 1 have now been defined and the probability of a crash occurring at the Big Rock Point plant due to a random itinerant flight can be calculated.
The results of this calculation are presented in Table 16.
From Table 16, the probability of a random flight crashing into Big Rock Point using the mode of the distribution is 2.54 x 10-6,
The total crash probability, from general aviation, is the sum of the random probability and the local probability. The contribution from local flights can be calculated using the following equation from Reference 9:
P = CNA (4) 12
For this equation N is the contribution of local operations from the previous calculation or 13300.
C is taken from SRP 3.5.1.6 for a plant located 5 miles from the airport or 1.2 x 10-8/mi and A is the same as 2
computed previously.
The local contribution to the crash probability is:
8,j )(13300)(5.0 X 10-4mi )
2 2
P = (1.2 X 10 7
P = 7.98 x 10-8 The total probability from local and itinerant sources is the sum of the contributors:
T = 7.98 X 10-8 + 2.54 X 10-6 P
P = 2.62 X 10-6 T
I believe the crash probability of 2.62 X 10-6 to be a highly conservative estimate for the following reasons:
1.
The area was defined such that all flights which originated in this area flew in the direction of the plant. 'This resulted in a very conservative estimate of the maximum number of itinerant flights.
2.
In the absence of actual observations or an available statistical data base, to allow proper definition of the spatial distribution of itinerant flights, it was necessary to use a probability density function to estimate a reasonable number of operations in the Big Rock Point vicinity.
The log normal density function was chosen to represent the belief that the number of itinerant operations is a small value.
Even so, the conservative upper bound dominates the calculation of the central tendencies, mean, node, median, of this distribution and results in a conservative estimate of the most probable value, the mode.
3.
The growth factors used have been shown to be greatly overestimated by comparison of past studies of projected growth with FAA statistics of actual operations.
The rapid rise of fuel costs, the air controllers strike, etc. have all contributed to a reduction in air traffic growth.
13
4.
The crash density was calculated based on a number of conservative assumptions; the glide angle and altitude of the aircraft were minimized which resulted in the maximization of the crash density.
5.
The crash of an aircraft into the Big Rock Point nuclear plant is not sufficient in itself to result in either core damage or radiological releases from the containment. There is the possibility of an airplane crash initiating a potential core damage sequence, such as loss of offsite power. However, the probability of an aircraft accident must be coupled with the failur a probability of equipment used to mitigate the effects of a transient.
In addition, to calculate the probability of an aircraft accident which is a transient initiator would require that the effective impact area, A in equation 1, be reduced by the proportion of the projected equipment area to the projected containment area. This would result in a substantial reduction in the aircraft crash probability.
Based on the above points, I believe that an extremely conservative estimate of the number of itinerant flights in the Big Rock Point vicinity has been projected and subsequently a conservati'e calculation of the crash proba-bility has been, formulated.
I, therefore, do not believe that random itiner-ant general aviation flights pose an undue hazard to the Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant.
i l
l l
t 14 l
l
~
I f
REFERENCES
- 1) FAA-MS-79-7, General Aviation Pilot Aircraft Activity Survey.
I 2)
FAA Air Traffic Activity.
- 3) Census of U.S. Civil Aircraft.
f
- 4) FAA Statistical Handbook of Aviation.
- 5) Terminal Area Forecast, Fiscal Years 1981-1992.
i
- 6) Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Rates, NTSB.~
l
- 7) Dennis Crutchfield to David Hoffman, SEP TOPIC II-1.C.
- 8) Robert Vincent to Dennis Crutchfield, SEP TOPIC III-4.D.
- 9) Standard Review Plan, SRP 3.5.1.6.
i l
l l
15
l A
Big Rock Point Plant E
F
-C B
E = E = UE = DT = Average Flight Length Of Itinerant Operation l
l Figure 1 l
16 _
l
(
~,., - - - - - - - -
Zone A (GreatLakesArea)
B Zone B Xlf = Average Flight Length Of Itinerant Operation Big Rock Point Plant Flight Path Which Either Originates Or Terminates At Points A Or B A
Figure 2 s
17
/
Zone A.
(GreatLakesArea)
/
Zone B C
(
Big Rock Point s
A Figure 3 18
e je' H
/
Big l
Rock Point A"
R A'
a)
Big Rock Point B'
l A"
Crash g
Distribution Line of g
(
Flight l
I B"
A' C"
b) l Figure 4 19 m
" ~ - ' ' - - - - - -.
TABLE 1 GENERAL AVIATION AIR TRAFFIC ACTIVITY HANDLEDBYFAACONTROLTOWERSINTHEGREgTLAKESREGION DURING (ALL ACTIVITY X 10 )
Percent Of Flights Local Itinerant Total Percent Which Are Flights Flights Flights Of Total Itinerant Great Lakes Region 3637 4288 7925 100 54.1 By State Which Comprise the Great Lakes Region (Zone A):
Illinois 1124 1244 2368 29.8 52.5 Indiana 252 461 713 9.6 64.6 Michigan 846 926 1772 22.3 52.2 Minnesota 400 410 810 10.2 50.6 Ohio 523 775
.1298 16.3 59.7 Wisconsin 472 470 942 11.8 49.9 By Airport In Vicinity of BRP:
Traverse City 49.5 40.5 89.5 1.1 45.6 SOURCE:
FAA Air Traffic Activity for calendar year 1979 20
l i
l l
TABLE 2
' ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATION.S HANDLED BYAIRPORTSINTHECONTINgNTALU.S.
(ALL ACTIVITY X 10 )
Airport Annual Activity FAA Control Tower 49.3 Non FAA Control Tower
- l l
No Tower (Public)
Paved And Lighted 84.6 Paved And Non Lighted 5.9 Non Paved and Lighted 15.8 Non Paved and Non Lighted l
No Tower (Private) 10.9 TOTAL OPERATIONS LESS 117.2 FAA AND NON FAA CONTROL TOWERS i
l Non FAA represents small percentage of total figure SOURCE: General Aviation Pilot and Aircraft Activity Survey (1978) l l
l 21 l
TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL OPERATION BY STATE WHICH COMPRISES THE GREAT LAKES REGION (ZONE A)
Percentage Number of gperations*
Distribution i
State (x 10 )
From Table 1 l
l Illinois 8.99 29.8-
- Number of Operations is the total flights from Table 1 times (1 + 2.8).
t f
22
a TABLE 4 DISTRIBUTION OF REGISTERED AIRCRAFT IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION (ZONE A)
Type _
Multiple Engine Single Single 2 Engine 2 Engine State (1-3)*
(4 +)
(1-6)
(7 +)
3 + Engine Illinois 3085 4699 741 273 3
Indiana 1710 2362 396 153 5
l Michigan 2907 4060 580 267 5
Minnesota 2283 2847 296 104 1
Ohio 3184 4313 708 294 8
Wisconsin 1988 2074 301 135 2
TOTALS T!ir!i7 T63T!i 7072 T2Yli T4-IN 300 MILE RADIUS OF BRP (ZONE B)
Illinois 56.6 **
1695 2623 497 170 3
Indiana 28.8 455 710 121 44 4
Michigan 100.)
2907 4060 580 267 5
(.63) 18 7
10 0
0 Ohio (15.3) 508 673 123 46 3
Wisconsin (94.2) 1859 1954 292 133 2
TOTALS 74Tl TUDY7 T627 T5U T7-PERCENTAGE OF EACH TYPE LOCATED WITHIN 300 MILES Illinois 55 55.8 67.1 62.3 100 Indiana 26.6 30 30.6 28.8 80 Michigan 100 100 100 100 100 Minnesota 0.78 0.24 3.4 0
0 Ohio 16 15.7 17.4 15.6 37.5 Wisconsin 93.5 94.2 97 98.5 100 Percent of single engine aircraft located within 300 mile 49.2 Percent of multiple engine aircraft located within 300 mile 53.83' Total percentage of aircraft within 300 mile radius 49.7 This figure is the seating capacity Figure in parentheses is the percentage of the states total registered aircraft which are located in Zone B.
SOURCE: 1979 Census of U.S. Civil Aircraft 23-
TABLE 5 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL OPERATIONS BY STATE WITHIN ZONE B Number of Total Percent of Aircraft Number Of Total 6
Operations (x-10 )
In The State Located Operagions In Zone A From Within Zone B (From (x 10 ) In State Table 3 Table 4)
Zone B Illinois 8.99 56.6 5.09 Indiana 2.71 28.8
.78 Michigan 6.73 100 6.73 Minnesota 3.08
.63
.02 Ohio 4.93 15.3
.75 Wisconsin 3.58 94.2 3.37.
30.02 16.74 N
l d
24
TABLE 6 GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT BY AIRCRAFT TYPE AND PRIMARY USE SOURCE:
FAA Statistical Handbook of Aviation Category 1
Category EI3 0ther[2]
Tyge (Year)
Executive Business Personal Instruction Industry Single Engine 1978 1.74 17.16 48.87 7.31 4.19 6.58 1979 1.77 19.66 44.94 7.20 4.49 7.64 (average) 1.75 18.44 46.85 7.25 4.34 7.13 0;
(normal) 1.81 19.09 48.51 7.51 4.49 7.38 Multiple Engine 1978 2.59 5.47 1.58
.28
.23
.53 1979 2.71 5.16 1.78
.44
.22
.59 (average) 2.65 5.31 1.68
.37
.23
.56 (normal) 2.74 5.50 1.74
.38
.24
.58 i
Percentage by category 4.55 24.59 50.25 7.89 4.73 7.96 4
+
l Table represents 93.77 percent of all aircraft 1
- 1]
Includes aerial applications
- 2]
Includes rental
TABLE 7 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL OPERATIONS BY STATE AND CATEGORY OF USE 6
(ALL OPERATIONS ARE X 10 )
Category l
State Total Executive Business Personal Instruction Industry Other Illinois 5.09
.232 1.252 2.557
.401
.241
.405 Indiana
.78
.035
.191
.392
.061
.037
.062
- Michigan 6.73
.306 1.655 3.382
.531
.318
.535 Minnesota
.02
.001
.005
.010
.002
.001
.002 Ohio
.75
.034
.184
.384
.059
.035
.059 Wisconsin 3.37
.153
.828 1.727
.266
.159
.268
/
TOTAL 16.74
.761 4.115 8.452 1.320
.791 1.331 d
J a
4 1
1
)
TABLE 8 DISTRIBUTION OF ITINERANT FLIGHTS BY CATEGORY AND STATE WITHIN ZONE B 3
(ALL OPERATIONS ARE X 10 )
Category State Executive Business Personal Instruction Industry Other Illinois 186.7 754.9 680.2 21.2 54.9 71.3 Indiana 28.2 115.2 104.3 3.2 8.4 10.9 Michigan 246.3 997.9 899.6 28.1 72.5 94.2 t3 Minnesota
.8 3.0 2.7
.1
.2
.4
~
Ohio 27.4 110.9 102.1 3.1 8.0 10.4 Wisconsin 123.2 499.3 4'59.4 14.1 36.2 47.2 TOTAL 612.6 2481.2 2248.3 72.0 180.2 234.4 Percent of 80.5 60.3 26.6 5.3 22.8 17.6 Total Operations Which Are Itinerant
- SOURCE: General Aviation Plot and Aircraft Survey This table is obtained by multiplying the results of table 7 by the percent of total operations which are itinerant.
1
TABLE 9 DISTRIBUTION OF ITINERANT FLIGHTS BY STATE AND CATEGORY-IN ZONE B ACCOUNTING FOR GROWTH FACTORS
- 3 (ALL OPERATIONS X 10 )
Category Growth State Factor **
Executive Business Personal Instruction Industry Other Illinois 1.52 283.8 114.74 1033.9 32.2 83.4 108.4 Indiana 1.35 38.1 155.5 140.8 4.3 11.3 14.7.
Michigan 1.33 327.6 1327.2 1196.5 37.4 96.4 125.3 Minnesota 1.40 1.1 4.2 3.8
.1
.3
.6 m
Ohio 1.37 37.5 151.9 139.8 4.2 10.9 14.2 Wisconsin 1.38 170.0 689.0 633.9 19.4 49.9 65.1 i
TOTALS 858.1 3475.2 3148.7 97.6 252.2 328.3 SOURCE: Terminal Area Forecast, Fiscal Years 1981-1992 The Growth Factors given are the ratio of 1992/1979 and are for itinerant flight growth.
TABLE 10 ITINERANT FLIGHTS WHICH DO NOT FILE FLIGHT PLANS Total Itinerant' Percent Which Percent Which Total Itinerant Flights Which Do IFR File No Flight Flights (From NotFileFlight Category Flight Plan Plan Table 9)
Plans (x 10 )
Executive 66.7 33.3 858.1 285.7 Business 29.7 70.3 3475.2 2443.1 Personal 14.1 85.9 3148.7 2704.7 Instruction 11.2 88.8 97.6 86.6 E$
Industry 7.7 93.3 252.2 235.3 Other 13.6 86.4 328.3
-283.6 TOTAL 6039.
TABLE 11 ACCIDENTSANDRATESFORU.S.GENERALAVIAtION 1971 - 1978 i
Accident Rates.
Accidents Milesglown Per Million Miles Year Total Fatal (10 )
Total Fatal 1971 4648 661 3143 1,48
.211 1972 4256 695 3317 1.28
.209 1973 4255 723 3686 1.15
.196 1974 4425 729 3863.
1.14
.188 1975 4237 675 3938 1.08
.171 m
1976 4193 695 4172
-1.00
.166
]
1977 4286 702 4402 0.97
.159 1978 4494 793
'4964 0.90
.159 1
i 1
i SOURCE: Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Rates, NTSB 4
=
TABLE 12
/
DISTRIBUTION OF FATAL ACCIDENTS BY CATEGORY Year Total
- Executive Business Personal Instruction Industry Other 1971 626 8
74 378 55 40 71 1972 652 12 92 392 55 38 63 1973 691 24 72 407 49 48 91 1974 679 15 66 418 61 N/A N/A 1975 645 17 64 408 43 34 79 1976 656 13 61 419 57 39 67 S
1977 668 18 53 420 48 29 100 1978 729 22 62 444 61 28 112 Average 675 17 61 422 54 32 89 (1974 -
1978)
This total is for fatal accidents involving single and multiple engine aircraft.
~
It does not correspond to the number of fatal accidents given in Table 11.
This is because Table 11 includes turboprop, turbojet and rotorcraft also.
SOURCE: Annual Review of Aircraft Rates, NTSB 6
I l
~.
TABLE 13 DISTRIBUTION OF HOURS FLOWN BY CATEGORY CATEGORY TOTAL HOURS FLOWN E13 (10 )
3 Year Executive Business Personal Instructional Industry Other 1978 2827 7694 9391 4815 2323 3933 1979 2711 8509 9213 6307 2822 4722 Average 2769 8101 9302 5561 2572 4327 Average 179 156 120 93 119 128 g
Speed (Knots) 6 TOTAL MILES FLOWN (10 )
Average 495.6 1263.7 1116.2 517.2 306.1 553.4 Miles by Category
[1] SOURCE:
FAA Statistical Handbook
I, TABLE 14 FATAL ~ CRASH PROBABILITIES BY CATEGORY Unadjusted Adjusted
- Fatal Crash Fatal Crash' Probabilities-Probabilities Category Per Million. Miles
'Per Million Miles
-Executive
.034
.011 Business.
.048
.016 Personal
.378
.124 Instruction
.104
.034 Industry
.104
.034
-Other
.161
.053 t
Calculated by multiplying the Unadjusted rates by.33, which is the i
average inflight fraction from Table 15.
i 2
I i
33
I TABLE 15 DISTRIBUTION OF FATAL CRASHES BY PHASE OF OPERATION
]
(DATA REPRESENTS THE PERCENT OF THE YEAR TOTAL) l YEAR I
Phase 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 Average l
Static
.86
.89 1.0
.44
.58
.52
.64 Taxi 4.14 4.25 3.9 4.34 3.6 3.49 4.02 jg Takeoff 17,86 18.08 19.76 19.72 18.7 20.26 19.96 Landing 47.1 45.33 44.84 43.2 40.4 42.8 42.96
^
Inflight 30.04 31.45 30.5 32.3 36.72 32.93 32.42 32.33 SOURCE: Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Rates, NTSB 4
i
TABLE 16 COMP 0NENTS USED TO CALCULATE THE PROBABILITY OF AN UNSCHEDULED GENERAL AVIATION FLIGHT CRASHING INTO BIG ROCK POINT El3 Numberof[2]
Fatal Crash E3 Percent Probability Per Itinerant Contributors Of Distribution Million Miles Flights (Ci Ni Ao)E33 Executive 4.73
.011 3595.
1.98 x 10-8 Business 40.45
.016 30742.0 2.46 x 10-7 Personal 44.78
.124 34033.
2.11 x 10-6 U5 Instruction 1.43
.034 1087.
1.85 x 10-8 Industry 3.89
.034 2956.
5.02 x 10 Other 4.69
.053 3564.-
9.44'x 10-8 1CiNiAp =
2.54 x 10-6 1
I
[1] From Table 14
[2] From Table 10
[3] Equation 1 I
4
ATTACHMENT A SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OF THE BIG ROCK POINT AIRCRAFT CRASH TESTIMONY An alternate method has been devised to approximate the number of itinerant flights which could occur in the vicinity of Big Rock Point. The basic assumption of this method is that the distribution of flights leaving an airport is uniformly distributed over a 360 degree circle which can be scribed about that airport. Because the exact number of operations at each and every airport in the zone of interest about Big Rock Point is unknown, an alterna-tive method was devised to estimate the number of itinerant flights which leaves a given area.
Before embarking on a description of the calculational method, I would like to first review some of the basic assumptions germane to this method.
First, the zone of interest about the Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant was assumed to include an area defined by a 300-mile radius (see Figure A-1).
This area included the entire State of Michigan, portions of Ohio, Minnesota and Indiana, almost the entire State of Wisconsin and that portion of Illinois which includes the Chicago Metropolitan area. This area accounts for 50% of the required aircraft, yet contains less than 50% of the land mass.
As will be seen, the contribution of areas to the total number of itinerant operations diminishes as the radius increases. Therefore, areas which lie beyond a 300-mile radius will contribute little to the total number of itinerant operations.
Secondly, flights which enter the United States from Canada are assumed to be required to register at airports, designated ports of entry, and are then assumed to be included in domestic FAA air traffic statistics upon resuming their flight.
Given the lack of readily available statistics defining the distribution of flights at airports within the 300-mile zone, a method of proportioning the estimated number of itinerant flights to defined geographical areas was implemented. This method used the breakdown of civil l
W
. aircraft registered in each county within the 300-mile zone.
By taking the ratio of aircraft registered within a county to the total aircraft within the state, an estimate of the distribution of the number of itinerant flights within the 300-mile zone could be made.
The data base for the number of itinerant flights was developed in prior testimony and will not be repeated here.
For ease of following the calculation, the data base, for the number of itinerant flights by state, is again presented here as Table A-1.
A diagrammatic representation of the calculational method is presented in Figure A-2.
The total registered population (Ti) within a county is assumed to exist at a point which is near the geographical center of that county.
The distance (Ri) from Big Rock Point to the center of the county was then measured using standard scaled road maps.
An angle of inclusion (9) was then calculated using Ri and chord length (t).
The chord length (t) is the diameter of the area about the plant in which aircraft are assumed to have visual contact with the plant. A diameter of 20 miles was chosen to conservatively estimate the angle of inclusion (9).
The angle of inclusion is calculated from:
0 = 2 sin -1 (t/2Ri)
The total number of itinerant flights which travel in the direction of Big Rock Point is calculated to be:
6 n
Ki 9
N t = jil 1=1
( RJ ) (ygg) Fj
< l where:
Ki = Registered aircraft within county i (Source:
1979 U.S. Civil AircraftCensus).
Kj = Total registered aircraft within state j (Source: 1979 U.S. Civil AircraftCensus).
Fj = Total number of itinerant flights within state j (Source:
TableA-1).
n = Number of counties which lie within the 300-mile zone for state j.
The total registered aircraft within a state, the number of aircraft included in the 300-mile zone and the number of itinerant flights in the Big Rock Point vicinity by state are presented in Table A-2.
The total number of itinerant flights in the Big Rock Point area calculated from equation 1 is 132136. This number can be adjusted to assume that all itinerant flights in the Big Rock Point immediate area (Charlevoix County) pass within the area of the 10-mile radius about the plant.
From previous calculations it was estimated that approximately 13300 itinerant flights will occur in the Charlevoix area in 1992. To adjust the 132136 figure, it is necessary to add the itinerant flights which originate locally but were not included in the data used to compute N from equation 1.
t This portion is 13300 less 5121 (the contribution from Charlevoix County) or 8179. The adjusted total itinerant flights are 140315.
This is believed to be a conservative estimate due to the plant's location in a sparsely populated area. Most of the data, which contributes in the calculation of N in equation 1, is from areas which are located south of t
the plant.
It is reasonable to assume that the distribution of flights in any given area would be weighted by the location of adjoining areas of population.
For the southern Michigan area, adjoining areas of population lie to the east,
a_
southeast, south and southwest. An assumption of equal distribution for the southern areas is conservative.
For the area north of the plant, this same assumption is non-conservative because of the proximity of the Canadian border.
It could be expected that more flights occur in a southerly direction. The total number of itinerant flights which occur north of a line drawn east to west through the Big Rock Point plant is 6090; if this data is adjusted to account for a 0
180 distribution rather than 360, the itinerant flights toward the plant from this area would be doubled to 12180. Adjusting the base for the difference (12180-6090), the total itinerant flights are now 146405.
It can now be said that the true number of itinerant flights lies between the local contribution (13300) and the maximum number (146405).
For 146405 itinerant flights to occur in the Big Rock Point vicinity would require that every aircraft registered in the Great Lakes Region (Table 2) fly near the plant twice a year, or every registered aircraft within 300 miles to fly near the plant almost 4 times a year.
Let's assume that the end points of 13300 and 146405 are each standard deviations on'either side of the mean of a normally distributed density function. The mean of this nonnal distribution is 79852 flights. -
This estimate of the mean number of itinerant flights which can occur in the Big Rock Point area compares favorably with the 76000 itinerant flights estimated in the previous testimony.
e
.s s
~,
/
\\
/
\\
/
\\
/
N
/
\\
/
h
\\
\\'
.i i
f 1
I BIG
}
ROCK
't, POINT t
\\\\
\\
300 MILE s
RADIUS
/
I
~
N,
/
,a l
l FIGURE A-1 l
5 L
N\\
\\
\\\\
~
E -R
't BIG s
ROCK
\\
POINT i
\\
9
\\
\\
\\
Ki l
l l
t i
FIGURE A-2 1
6 i
r-
-r
--.--~-
~ - - ^ - -
TABLE A-1 DISTRIBUTION OF ITINERANT FLIGHTS BY STATE AND CATEGORY IN ZONE B ACCOUNTING FOR GROWTH FACTORS
- 3 (ALL OPERATIONS X 10 )
Category Growth State Factor **
Executive Business Personal Instruction Industry Other Total Illinois 1.52 283.8 114.74 1033.9 32.2 83.4 108.4 1656.4 Indiana 1.35 38.1 155.5 140.8 4.3 11.3 14.7 364.7 Michigan 1.33 327.6 1327.2 1196.5 37.4 96.4 125.3 3110.4 Minnesota 1.40 1.1 4.2 3.8
.1
.3
.6 10.1 Ohio 1.37 37.5 151.9 139.8-4.2 10.9
_14.2 358.5 Wisconsin 1.38 170.0 689.0 633.9 19.4 49.9 65.1 1627.3 TOTALS 858.1 3475.2 3148.7 97.6
-252.2 328.3 SOURCE:
Terminal Area Forecast, Fiscal Years 1981-1992 The Growth Factors given are the ratio of 1992/1979 and are for itinerant flight growth.
o y
TABLE A-2 Total Number Number Of Number Of Of Registered Ai rcraf t-Itinerant Aircraft In Within 300 Percent Of.
Flights Toward State Great Lakes Region Mile Zone Total Big Rock Point Illinois 18352 10480 57.1 41148 Indiana 9645 2789 28.9 1143 Michigan 16225
'16225 100.
66672 Minnesota 11398 35 00.3 2
ED Ohio 17880 2849 15.9 630 Wisconsin 9268 8673 93.6 22514 82768 41051 49.6.
132136 4
4 TABLE A-3 4
COMP 0NENTS USED T0. CALCULATE THE PROBABILITY OF AN UNSCHEDULED GENERAL AVIATION FLIGHT CRASHING INTO BIG ROCK POINT i
E13 b23 Fatal Crash Number of Percent [2]
Probability Per Itinerant
^
Contributors Of Distribution Million Miles Flights (Ci Ni' Apl[3]
Executive 4.73
.011 1324.
7.28 x 10-9' Business 40.45
.016 11326.
9.06 x 10-8 Personal 44.78
.124 12538.
7.77 x 10-
!e Instruction 1.43
.034 400.
6.81 x 10-9 Industry 3.89
.034 1089.
1.85 x'10-8 Other 4.69
.. 053 1313.
3.48 x-10-8 CiNiAp =
9.35 x 10-7
[1] From Table 14 9
[2] From Table 10
[3] Equation 1
.9.