ML20073Q135
| ML20073Q135 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1991 |
| From: | Gates W OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| LIC-91-163R, NUDOCS 9105280200 | |
| Download: ML20073Q135 (38) | |
Text
-__
's Ornaha Public Power District May 20, 1991 444 Snuth 16th Street Mau LIC 91-163R Omaha. tu brana 68102-2247 402/636 2000 V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Mail Station Pl 137 Washington, DC 20555
References:
1.
Conference call from OPPD to NRC, April 23, 1991 2.
Letter fror
'J' IW. C. Walker) to OPPD (W. G. Gates) dated May 2, 199:
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
Implementat.
,tation Blackout Rule, 10 CFR 50.63 This letter transmits Omaha Public Power District's (OPPD) attached responses en the implomentation of the Station Blackout Rule in accordance with your Ref erence 2 request and the sdditional r equests made durir.g the Reference 1 conference call.
If you should have any questions, please call rne.
Sincerely, d'V. 5../ N W. G. Gates Division Manager Nuclear Operations WGG/sel Attachment c:
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae R. D. Martin, NRC Regional Administrator, Region IV W. C. Walker, NRC Project Manager R. P. Mullikin, NRC Senior Resident inspector 91o5280:00 9105:0 PDR fiDOCK 05000.735
<h<
P PDM 105 s I.- 5
_m;r-
., se J
O
.m i
RESPONSE TO HRC QUESTIONS ON FORT CALHOUN STATION SB0 SUBMITTAL i
l 0.1.
PROPOSED STATION BLACKOUT DURATION Application of the criteria of NUMARC 87 00 results in Fort Calhoun being placed in SW and ESW Group "3". while the submittal identifies FCS as category "2" in these areas.
Explain this discrepancy.
- 1dentify the main disconnect switch "DS-Tl" DC power supply source.
Verify backfeed from 345KV system can be established within one hour.
RESPONSE
The USAR, NUMARC 87-00, Reg. Guide 1.155, and/or site specific weather data from The National Bureau of Standards Science Series 118, Extreme Wind Speeds at 129 Stations in Contiguous United States were used to identify both SW & ESW categories as follows:
The estimated frequency of loss of offsite power due to severe weather "SW" Group was determined using lab!c 6 of Reg. Guide 1.155.
The frequency "f"
was determined by the following equations f = (1.3 x 10**)hi+(b)hr + (0.012)h + (c)h 3
4 where h3 Annual expected snowfall for FCS, in inches
= 30.9 inches (USAR section 2.5.1)
-NUMARC Table 3-3 says 29 inches h3 = Annual expectation of Tornadoes (winds > 113 mph)
= 0.000141 (NUMARC Table 3-3) b = 12.5 for sites with transmission Lines on two or more Rights of Way, Spreading out in Different directions from the switchyard, or,
= 72.3 for sites with transmission Lines on one right of way.
From USAR Figure 8.2-2 and DWG A 934, the transmission lines come into FCS from different directions and on several right of ways.
Therefore, b = 12.5 h3 = Annual expectation of storms at FCS with velocities between 75 and 124 mph NUMARC Table 3-3 says h3 = 0.5 for FCS.
Site specific "0maha" weather data-obtained from the NBS Building Science Series 118 published in March, 1979 by
{-
the U.S. Department of Commerce (page 162) predicts a return period of 20 years for 10 meter wina speeds exceeding 75 mph (type ! distribution) which correlates to an expected frequency of the h3 = 1/20 = 0.05 therefore, 0.05 was used in the calculation for h.
NUMARC table 3-3 could be in error.
3 h4= Annual expectation of hurricanes, does not apply to FCS.
RESPONSE TO HRC QUESTIONS OH FORT CALHOUN STATION SB0 SUBHITTAL Page 2 therefore, f=
( 1. 3 x 10 ) ( 30. 9 ) + ( 12. 5 ) ( 1. 41 x 10 ) + ( 0. 012 ) ( 0. 05 ) + 0
= 6.4 x 10'3 from Table 6 of Reg. Guide 1.155 for f = 6.4 x 10
SW = 2 To calculate the h using wind speed of 75 mph at 30 meter hcight, the 3
following conversion equation was used to calculate the equivalent wind speed at 10 meter heightt NDS equation 2.4.6; u,,(10)
O(10) z - 10
~
u,,(1) u(z) 10 Where Z = 30 meters 0 (10) = fastest wind at 10 meters above ground 3U,,(Z) = fastest wind at 30 meters above ground 10)
- DJ54?s (from [quation 2.4,2)
=
u(30) 30 Plugging the results in Equation 2.4.6 Ugn(10) 30 10 0.85475 (1 +
0.02) u,(30) 10 g
= 0.8889 Therefore, U,,(10) = 0.8889 (V,(30))
=0.8889(7bmph)
= 66.7 mph The return period for winds of 75 mph at 30 meters is equal to the return period for 66.7 mph wind at 10 meters, from NBS page 162, the return period for winds of 66.7 mph at 10 meters above ground is approximately once every seven years or h3 1/7 = 0.142
i RESPONSE 10 NRC QUESTIONS ON FORT CALHOUN STATION 500 SUBHITTAL page 3 Theref or e, f - (1.3 x 10"3)(30.9) 4 (12.5)(1.41 x 10") + '.0.012)(0.142) + 0 7.52 x 10'
=
from Table 6 of Reg. Guide 1.155 for f 7.52 x 10'3
.s.g 2
(Note:
30 Meters above ground is used because it provides more appropriate representation of transmission lines height, it is also more conservative for the h3 and ESW evaluation.)
The Extremely Severe Weather (ESW) Group was determined using table 8 of Reg.
Guide 1.155.
The annual expectation of storms with wind speeds > 125 mph at FCS = e.
Again The NBS Building Science Series 118 was used to calculate "e".
1he NBS provides wind data for Omaha at 10 meters above ground.
Equations 2.4.2 and 2.4.6 f rom NBS Building Science Series 118 were used to determine the equivalent wind speeds at 10 meters as follows:
30))
=0.8889(u= 0.8889 (ldm(ph)
U,, ( 10 )
p r
= 111.lmph The return period for winds of 125 mph at 30 meters is equal to the return period for 111.1 mph winds at 10 meters.
From NBS Building Science Series 118 page 162, the return period for winds of 111.1 mph at 10 meters above ground is between 1000 and 2000 years (Type 1 Distribution).
Therefore:
1/2000 < e < 1/1000 5 x 10" < e < 1.0 x 10'3 f rom lable 8 of Reg. Guide 1.155, for 5 x 10" < e < l.0 x 10-3 FSW = 2 1he additional wind data provided by Mr. Emil Simiu of NBS (attachment 2) does not affect the outcome of the above calculations.
The additional data is for the years 1978 through 1986, and should be added to page 161 of NBS Series 118.
This additional data will make the return period tabulated on page 162 greater for most extreme wind speeds, specifically for wind speeds 75 mph and above.
The main disconnect "DS-II" is DC motor operated, with opening time of twenty-four seconds maximum following an initiating signal (Ref. USAR Section 8.2.2).
The DC power supply to the switch operating mechanism is provided from The Station IE batteries, panel "DC-PNL-1".
This switch can be opened or closed, as desired, remotely from CB-20, or locally from the panel located near the switch, also the switch can be manually cranked open or closed, provided the prerequisites have been met (Operating Instruction
RESPONSE TO NRC QUESTIONS ON FORT CALHOUN STATION SB0 SUBMITTAL Page 4 Procedure 01-EG-1). According to the Operator's experience of transferring loads during refueling outages, back feed from the 345KV system can be accomplished in less than one hour, the Station Blackout "E0P-07" and/or Operating Instruction Procedure "01-EE-1," depending on the plant condition, provide the required instruction to the operators for backfceding from the 345KV system.
Attachments:
1.
NBS Building Science Series 118, cover page plus pages I through 15, 19, 160, 161 and 162.
2.
Record of telephone conversation between Mike Elzway (OPPD) and Mr. Emil Simiu of NBS.
3.
OPPD Drawing A934.
ft2.
BATTERY CALCULATIONS What loads will be stripped from the batteries to meet the required 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> coping in response to a SB0?
Will one full division of instrument and control be available, as required by guidance?
- Provide discussion of the methodology used in the calculation and deviations (if any) from IEEE standards and correction factors used.
- Provide times of Load Shedding.
RESPONSE
Loads will be stripped in accordance with SB0 Procedure E0P-07 as follws:
Ihttigry #1 Emergency Lighting Panel "ELPl", within 15 minutes Turbine Bldg. Emergency Lighting Panel "ELP5", within 15 minutes DC Emergency Lube oil pump, within 30 rainutes Non-safety related Panel Al-42A except for breaker feeding Al-53 (Communication Panel), within 120 minutes Batterv #2 Aux. Building Vent Room Emergency Lighting Panel "ELP2", within 15 minutes 400HZ Inverter, within 15 minutes 1
DC Emergency Seal Oil Pump, within 120 minutes 1
= _
RESPONSE TO NRC QUESTIONS ON FORT CALHOUN STtTION SB0 SUBHITTAL Page 5 Non-Safety related panel AI-42B except for breaker fe3 ding Al-53 (Communication Panell, within 120 minutes Since the Safety Related !nvertors A, B, C & D will not be load shed, at least one full division of instrunnt and control will be available as required by guidance.
The following is a brief sunnary of the IEEE 485 methodology used in the battery capacity calculation.
There were no deviations from the reconnended IEEE methodology other than the assumed aging factor which is discussed below.
The cell size determination was calculated in accordance with IEEE 485-1983.
To verify cell size, it is necessary to calculate, from an analysis of each section of the de load profile, the maximum capacity required by the combined load-demands of the various sections.
Once the required cell size has been calculated for each section (IEEE 485, Equation 1), the largest cell size is selected and the cell size for random loads added to determine the uncorrected cell size.
The random load cell size is also calculated by the same formula.
The corrected cell size is calculated by correcting the uncorrected cell size for Temperature, Design Margin and Aging.
The temperature correction factor is 1.04 (for 70*F), and the Design Margin is 10% (1.10).
No correction for Aging is included (the aging factor is 1.00), since the station batteries are tested periodically as required by NRC Regulatory Guide 1.32, IEEE 450-1980, and Fort Calhoun Technical Specifications.
Any battery degradation due to aging will be found during periodic testing.
The batteries are fully charged at the beginning of the 500 Incident and the electrolyte specific gravity is 1.215.
Electrolyte temperature does not decline below 70*F during the event.
DC power required to operate circuit breakers and start the emergency diesel generators to end the 580 event were included in the calculation. A minimum of five (5) diesel starts were included.
Also transient loads were included for the 4160 and 480V trip coils. main generator field trip coils and 86 lockout relays. A-totalof74relaysforalarms(otherthanannunciators) are assumed on; these alarms are not required for SB0 ennt.
03.
1.05S OF HVAC Explain the following:
The way in which arecs of concern were chosen.
The initial temperature assumptions.
(
RESPONSE TO NRC QUESTIONS ON FORT CALHOUN STATION SB0 SUBHITTAL page 6
- Provide brief discussion of methodology used.
- Verify that LOCA/MSLB profiles bound the 580 conditions.
- Justify that the control room initial temperature of 78'E used in the calculation is acceptable.
+
M.5P9.0L t
The purpose of the room heat-up calculation is to evaluate the offect of loss of HVAC in areas containing equipment necessary to mitigate the consequences of a station blackout.
The three main objectives are:
1.
Demonstrate the operability of the equipment under the conditions of increasing (or decreasing) temperature due to loss of HVAC.
2.
Evaluate the habitability of vital plant areas such as the control room for monitoring and/or manual action purposes.
3.
Investigate the likelihood of inadvertent actuation of fire protection systems due to elevated room temperatures.
The rooms which were evaluated for the effect of loss of HVAC were determined by reviewing the location of the equipment required for station blackout.
Rooms serviced by HVAC that contain SB0 equipmant and have heat source (s) were selected for evaluation.
The battery rooms were also included since they are servictd by HVAC and the battery capacity can be affected by decreasing temperatures.
This selection identified four areas.
They are:
AFWPumpRoom(Room 19)
SwitchgearArea(Rooms 56,56E)
ControlRoom(Room 77)
BatteryRooms(Roems54,55)
L Containment was excluded from this evaluation since station blackout equipment inside L
containment-is covered under the environmental EQ program and LOCA/MSLB conditions have
-been verified to envelop the station blackout conditions.
The AFW pump room, switchgear t
rooms and the control room were evaluated for temperature rise effects.
The battery rooms l
were evaluated for temperature drop effects because the battery capacity decreases with L
decreasing temperature.
The heat transfer calculations were performed using a proprietary computer program.
The
. program accounts for internal heat sources (electrical or hot pipes), heat loss or gain
.through external walls, and ventilation due to forced or natural circulation.
The input data to the program consists of a description oft Room size and initial temperature Internal heat sources External walls Boundary conditions
RESPONSE TO NRC QUESTIONS ON MRT CALHOUN STATION SB0 SUBMITTAL Page 7 The heat transfer models were based on the following conservative assumptions:
1.
Normally closed doors at the onset of station blackout remain closed and leak proof throughout the f our hoar duration.
This is a conservative assumption which maximizes the change in room temperatures due to lack of ventilation.
2.
Exterior temperatures are at the extreme temperatures given in USAR.
3.
For rooms which the concern is elevated temperatures, initial conditions are at maximum summer HVAC design temperatures.
These initial conditions are as follows:
AFW Pump room 105'F Switchgear rooms 105'F Control room 78'F For the battery rooms, initial conditions are at 72*F.
The analyses were blackout (4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />)performedbyexecutingtheroommodelsforthedurationofstation The results show that the temperature in the switchgear rooms, control room and auxiliary feedwater pump does not rise above 112'F.
This temperature is significantly lower than the equipment operability limits defined in Appendix F of NUMARC 87-00.
The lower limit of operability for the most limiting equipment is set at 160'F in NUMARC 87-00. The calculated temperatures alsa meet " Condition 1" of Section 2.7 of NUMARC 87-00.
" Condition 1" rooms are ('escribed as rooms with temperatures less than 120'F.
Equipment located in a " Condition 1" environment is considered to be of low concern and does not require special actions to atsure operability.
In conclusion, operability of station blackout equipment at Fort Calhoun Station is not compromised.
The battery room temperature is 69.6'F.
This temperature is only 0.4*F below the 70*F limit used in the battery capacity calculation.
This difference is not expected to affect the capacity of the batteries.
In reality, the battery temperature will stay above the
-room temperature due to internal battery losses.
This effect has not been considered in this calculation.
-The calculation correctly used 78'F, which is the design basis temperature for the control room HVAC units.
There are redundant CQE trains of HVAC for the control room, and, therefore, air conditioning is credited prior to 580.
The SB0 event is assum.o to take out both trains resulting in loss of HVAC for the control room.
Control room temperatures would increase above 78*F due to heat loads from electrical equipment __(powered by the station batteries), o)erators, and residual heat. The upper limit on_this temperature rise is the 105'F tecinical specification limit.
The control room limit is based on maintaining in-cabinet ambient temperatures to s the electrical equipment qualification temperature of 122'F.
The-SB0 calculation derives the maximum control room temperatures resulting from loss of HVAC for the duration of S00.
This maximum temperature stays below l
105'F.
This is below the comfort limit of 110 F recommended in Section 2.7.2, Paragraph (3), of NUMARC 87-00.
Accordingly, the control room habitability is not affected.
l
RESPONSE TO NRC QUESTIONS ON FORT CALHOUN STATION SB0 SUBMITTAL 9 age 8
- 04. REACTOR COOLANT INVENTORY What primary system RCP leak rate was assumed?
What are the conditions of the reactor coolant system at the end of the SB0 event?
What was the leak rate calcule.ed for the CEDM seals?
RESPONSE
See attachment #4.
05.
- CONTAINMENT ISOLATIQ!i
- lsolation valves that do not meet Reg. Guide 1.155 exclusion criteria should be identified and listed ir. the E0Ps for operator's action if plant condit 3ns require containraent isolation.
RESPONSE
OPPD, in April 27, 1989, submittal (LIC-89-331) committed to revise procedures to addreas containment spray and safety injection headers isolation.
Containment isolation issue was further reviewed in accordance. dh Reg. Guide 1.155 exclusion criteria.
The results of this review have indicated that a credit can be taken for check valves inside containment on spray headers and both safety injection headers to provide the required isolation if plant conditions warrant containment isolation during station blackout.
The check valves inside containment on the safety injection headers are leak rate tested at least once every refueling to satisfy Technical Soecification 2.1.1.1(12) requirements.
A sample disassembly and inspection surveille.te test is performed on one of the spray header check valves every refueling outage. TL. sst satisfies, in part, the requirements of TechnicalSpecificationSection3.3(1)a.
Containment sump recirculation isolation valves are normally closed during )lant operation.
Since th4se valves are normally r.losed, the only potential for )eing outside c
Reg. 1.155 guidelines is during quarterly surveillance testing, if station blackout occurs during the testing of these valves, the operator responsible for timing the valve i
stroke during the test (t tse valves are tested one at a time) will know the valve position and can take app. >priate action to tranually close the valve.
It is OPPD's position that the intent of Reg. Guide 1.155 with respect to isolation and position indication has been met.
Therefore, procedure revisions committed to in LIC 331 are no longer required.
- Information marked with an asterisk was requested by the NRC during the conference call held between the NRC and OPPD on April 23, 1991.
i
4 4
ATTACHMENT #1 l
l l
l
NBS BUILDING SCIENCE SERIES US Extreme Wind Speeds at 129 Stations in the Contiguous United States Emil Simiu Center for Building Technology National Engineerin Laboratory National Bureau of Standards Washington. D.C. 20U4 Michael J. Changery Environmental Data informatien Service National Climatic Center National Oceanic and Atmosphene Administration Asheville. North Carolina 28301 l
James J. Filliben Center for Apphed Mathematics National Engineenng 1.aboratory National Bureau of Standatos Washington, D.C. 2004 Sponsored by:
Natenal Science Foundation hasMngton, D.C. Oc350 and Deparinient of Energy Ofhce of Aemian Secretary, Con eme.on and Solar Application.
Washington, D C. 20545
....,s%
/ V
,...c' l
L-U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M.' Krers, Secutary Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology NATIONAL. BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler, Director
-Issued March 1979 e
r4,aerf g-y--M+y
-e
-+"-?-ww3-+m+e
--e--er-+rrs*Wg-g p-+
e-
- ir--
w-&
9 =ver ergg a
w,ww='www-'y-'
'ei y-w-w>yw er--upr-i-y'-+-vP3 yer
-ygr'^ie
- gy T-'-y-
r.'
<r' e
/
l
,/ <f i,
s
./
i k
?
q
- ',.n _ * }
_ ~ '. g _ l
~ 3 +,,_
\\
- a i,
9. *~.
g.
-s
=,.
f
/
- g *- ~
V
/
w s.
p
/
3' 2.
v
....Q,
,/
if
'~"m=.~
/
.._s
.:~
i '
e
.e -
.g..,-gs
,),
a.
. ~.
.O
-- s g
.A 4
- t
'y Y M M%"_?'Q_ O.%
.~&
- g,..
... y.. =
t
.%, ~
~
~
9
- i. ^
}
L _ Q..
.A-as t R.- y
,.< V M,ay g7.; mar' _
. g.
ow :::;. - 'm.e.- kr
= = - -.
- ~::,,..<
>.q '
~4,,
.. A...,A,
y
.._j
..v
. s.
r r-
%,a
%. -C' % w :a
~
44*'g.,, 2
- L%. w -,. -
~$
r.
u.-
.. - }.~~.",, &.. f..' Q..4_' - ;....'y WW:ngm; 3
.^.
' *: ~
..:.:~,~'.
.i. 4...*
- _me
,.s,.~...~
g Y'." ".*_._
,-D_; g-,y t 1.
INTRODUCTION The purpose ci :nis reper: 1.
- presen: infor:atica on extreme wind speeds at 109 airper: s:a:10ns in the contiguous Unitec States at wnich reliable v'nd re ct:s are available over a nu:ber cf cor.secutive years.
- his inf or:a tion ::nsists e f :
1.
Extre e ye a r l:. vi. ' speeds, and the ccrrespencing wind direc-tiens, recorded a: each Of tne 129 sta:1cns.
These data were obtained by the National Clica::: Center frc: the eriginal ree:rds.
~hus, reading errers of criginal re::::s and err rs of transcri;; ten that have been ceter:inec to be presen: in L :a1 C11:stelogical Oata (LCD) enthly and annual su== aries
- have teen eli ;na:ec. The vast tajerity ci the
- A list Of statiens f r Vai h LCO su=: aries are available can be obtainec f re=
ne ha:::nal Cli:2::: Center, Asheville, N.C. 28801.
Su= aries sy te er:ere: fr : :ne Superin:encent c f O c c u= e n t s, '.. S.
Covern=en: Printing Lf fi:e, 'ashin ::n, O.C. ::aC:.
1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - -
-. ~ - - -.- -
i 4'
originally. recorded data consisted of fastest-mile speeds.
These, have been listed without socification in the report. However, at a few sta-tions, some of the recorded data consisted of f astest observed one-minute speeds.
These have been transf ormed into f astest-mile speeds using a relation given in Section 2.1.
It is these fastest-mile speeds t hat have been listed in the report in lieu of the orginally recorded fastest observed one-minute data.
The stations and dates at which fastest-minute speeds were originally recorded are listed in Section 2.1.
A few of the vind speed data used herein represent estimates, rather than results of measurement.
These data are identified in Section 2.2.
2.
Anemometer eleva tions a t which the largest yearly wind speeds were recorded.
- 3. Largest yearly wind speeds reduced to an elevation of 10m above ground (corrected speeds).
These were obtained by using an erpression given in Section 2.4 4
Results of the statistical analysis of the corrected wind speed data.
These results include:
For each of the 129 sets of data, the predicted wind speeds corresponding to various return periods, based on the assusp-tion that the Type 1 probability distribution of the largest valt es is a valid description of the extreme vind speeds for those sets of data that are best fit by a Type Il prob-ability distribution of the largest values, the predicted wind speeds corresponding to various return periods, based on that distribution estimates of the lower bound of the standard deviation'of the errors inherent in the predicted speeds estimates (obtained by the method of moments) of the stan-dard deviation of the errors inherent in the predicted speeds Extreme wind speed predictions have been included for mean recurrence intervals of up to 1,000,000 years.
However, in the writers '
opinion, physical considerations suggest that predictions corresponding to.mean recurrence intervals beyond a few hundred years should be regarded with caution.
A brief description of the procedure used in the analysis of the data is presented in Section 3.
Section 3 includes a summary, and Sec-
- tions 1.3 and 3.4 a disdussion of the results of the statistical anal-ysis.
The inforestien described under items I through 4, above is
. included in Section 4 of the report.
2
- is noted that at a number of stations the extrete yearly vind speso data may not provide a reliable basis f or predicting extreme speeds.
The results of the statistical analysis for these stations should theref ore be regstded with caution.
Stations for which such caution is in order are listed in Appendix 1.
0 b
_125 s
s...
1 s.. A. w. s_.,$...,... _.... 3,. g., _7,..,. 4...%..
.m.t.
.l s x
1 s :
s
..s.
s
.2.
...g g.
_e....
n2.5 s
._._..__,_3 3
. __v, __ _. _. 4.....)_.y _ \\.
y_,
.\\
\\
+
s
-100
.4
_ _ T
\\_
.._'\\,. _ \\... (.._ r ;
.,.3 3
g_
_1 1
_._____..y.3.....
s 1
i 1
_4-4._.g-T_t
- 4.. g..)
\\
g i
_..t,__ t,
(
.... __ 8 L5
.t...
.g ;
\\
.,_,._...r_....
_ i, __
75,__, _T.... T......+,^
1
..__.p 1,_
_...e 1,
1, 1_
_1 i
i F,._4...+-
1._
--+-
I i _!
- -4
-e..
i i
_s 62.5-t i_. ____.._;.__i t - t--
,!..,. __ p, -.
, _. 4
. i._.,.. s. +.
l.. p w.t._r
^,
1 50 1
l w. i.
_. s..__.,..T._ j.... ;
__p_
u _ __.. _
__. l
.._ f._ u. _r_. f_. p _ _
,..........,../...J
. _ /- l.!
4._. p.
.._3 7.5
_.........j_.,.
. j _.
. f._
.._ _ _._ _.......r... _,.........
. f.. -. ;
i n. p_. i__ =
,_..........i...-
./_
4 4._-..;
25..-,*.,......... _.
.._4.,._. /._. :.
.)__ -_., n.._.
l
. g +af j. v i,2.5 a
3,.w/.
. )...
r i.
.p
._,....,,C.
..,L.... _-i p. +.. +
_+
0 E
E a
m 2.
VIND SPEED DATA 2.1 FASTEST OBSERVED CNE-MINUTE '='IND SPEEDS It was indicated in Section 1 that the vast majority of the original data used in this report consisted of fastest 11e wind speeds, i.e.,
speeds averaged over a cine interval (in seconds) t - 3600/vf, and vf =
the f astest-mile wind speed in miles per hour. However, at the following stations the original recorded maximum annual wind speed data consisted i
of fastest observed one-rinute speeds during the periods indicated below:
Atlanta, Georgia (1961 through 1963)
Indianapolis, Indiana (1962-1963)
Boston, Massachusetts (1954 through 1958)
I.ansing, F.ichigan (1955 through 1958)
Sault Ste Marie, Michigan (1956 through 1965) i 1
5 l
l I
I
According to Ref erence 1, studies of the relationship between f as-test observed one-minute to fastest-mile wind speeds undertaken at four j
veather stations "showed the mean regression between the two types of l
observation to be vg - 9.55 + 0.999 v, (2.1.1) where vf = f astest-=11e speed in miles per hour and v, = f astest-minute speed in the same hour as the fastest-mile, in miles per hour. Since i
the slope is very near unity and the mean difference very near 10, it has been assumed f or some time that adding 10 mph to the f astest-minute would give an approximation to the f astest-mile".
It is this reletion which - in the absence of other inf ormation - has been used in this j
report.
While the writers are not certain that Eq. 2.1.1 provides a correct l
relation between v, and v.,
they note that it results in estimates of v, that are conservative Irem a structural safety point of view.
2.2 MIASURID AND ESTIVATED VI!!D SPEEDS l
With relatively few exceptions the wind speed data used in this report were obtained by measurement.
However, at the locations and dates noted beluv the extreme annual speeds represent values estimated by the station operator, rather than censured values.
Birmingham, AL (1973)
Tucson, AZ (1967)
Sacramento, CA (1967)
San Diego, CA (1969)
Denver, CO (1953) i Holine, IL (1963) l Des Moines, IA (1960)
Nantucket, MA (1966)
Detroit, MI (19!7)
Grand Rapids, HI (1964)
Jackson, MS (1966)
Columbia, HQ (1969)
Kansas City, Ho (1971)
Springfield, Ho (1965 & 1971)
Billings, MT (1959)
Fargo, ND (1959 61968)
Albany, NY (1961)
Rochester, NY (1958)
Syracuse, NY (1974)
Cape Hatteras, NC (1933, 1944 & 1948)
Tu&sa, CK (1959 and 1961)
Portland, OR (1962) l Roseburg, OR (1962)
Harrisburg, PA (1952)
Rapid City, SD (1962) 1 6
l Ncshville, 75 (1963 6 1972) l Abilene, TX (1971)
Amarillo, TX (1972)
Brownsville, TX,
(1963)
Corpus Christi, TX (1955, 1961 & 1970)
Port Arthur, TX (1972)
Salt Lake City, UT (1968)
Burlington, VT (1968)
Lynchburg, VA (1962 & 1967) 2.3 ROUCHNESS CONDITIONS AT AIRPORT STATIONS In an attempt to ensure that the terrain roughness conditions are uniform among all the sets of data being analyzed, only airport stations have been considered herein.
In principle, it may be assumed that at such stations open exposure conditions prevail.
Nevertheless the mere f act that vind speed measurements are taken at an airport station does not necessarily ensure that the wind climatological conditions reflected by these measurements are identical, from the standpoint of the terrain exposure, to those prevailing at a different airport.
For example, it is noted in Reference 2 that the estimated 50 year wind at Chicago Kidway Airport is about 15 mpn less than at the Ch.tcago O' Hare airport.
The probable reason !c this difference is that the terrain around the Chicago Kidway Airport is relatively heavily built-up.
Similar consid-erations might explain to some extent the difference between the esti-mated 50 year vinds at the Washington National Airport and the Baltimore-Washington International Airport, which are estimated in this report to be 66 mph and 75 mph respectively.
Thus, in interpreting airport data for the purpose of developing vind maps, it is appropriate to take into account the possibility that, at the airport of concern, the terrain exposero conditions might differ somewhat from these defined as "open" (e.g., in Reference 3).
2.4 M A, TION OF VIND SPEED WITH HEICHT ABOVE CF.OUND Iu ensure the cicrometcurological homogrneity of the data at any given station it is necessary to reduce all the vind speeds recorded at thte station to a common elevation.
The elevation chosen for this pur-pose is 10m above ground.
Tha mean wind profile near the ground in homogeneous terrain is given by the well-known logarithmic law, unich may be written in the forc:
In JL-z U(z) -
U(10)
(2.4.1) in jo o
i l
~~ ~
t i
= roughness length, both exp'ressed where z = height above ground and t o in me ters.
In open terrain, : e.ay vary from, say, 0.03m t o 0.10m.
In 3
this report the reduction of the data to an elevation of 10m is based on the assumption z = 0.052.
It can be verified that the errors inherent o
in the assumption z = 0.0$u -- when in f act the values z, = 0.03m or e
t = 0.10m were correct -- are small (of the order of 1: or 2%).
e An approximation to Eq. 2.4.1 is given by the power law (2.4.2)
U( z ) = ( r,)
U(10) 10 where, for open terrain conditions, it is generally assumed a = 1/7 (3).
It is noted that Eq. 2.4.1, and therefore its approxieste equivalent given by Eq. 2.4.2, is valid for mean vind speeds averaged over a rela-tively long ti=e interval, e.g.,
one hour. The question thus arises of expressing the variation with height of the fastest-ile vind speed, which is averaged over a relatively short ti=e (30 to 90s or so).
To obtain an approximate expression for the fastest-=ile wind pro-file, note that it may be assumed, approximately, Upk ~ Ufm
,1 (2.4.3)
Upk - U 2
where Upk = peak vind speed, Ug = fastest-=ile speed, and U = hourly mean speed (see, e.g., Reference 4,
- p. 62).
The expression for Upk can, in open terrain, be written as 1/2
'2 Upk (z) ' U(z) + 3 u (2.4.4) 1/2
'2 where u
= r.m.s of lonFitudinal velocity fluctuations, and 1/2 u'2
$10)
(2.4.5) 1n 10, o
whe r e -< 3 is expressed in ceters (see Reference 4, pp. 45 and 54).
It can be verified by using Equations 2.4.1. 2.4.3, 2.4.4 and 2.4.5 that, within the aneno=eter elevation range of interest in this report, it is possible to write approximately 8
U :(10) f
,.:(10) (1. r-10 0.02)
(2.4.6)
Ufm(t)
Ult) 10 where is expressed in meters. The errors inherent in Equation 2.4.T are of the order of -1 to 3I,the higher errors being'on the conservative side (i.e., yielding slightly higher f ascest-mile values at 10m above ground than would be obtained by a more " exact" expression).
Eq. 2.4.6 har, been employed to obtain the corrected speeds at 10m above ground in this report.
9
. - _ ~ - -.
-~
... -,. - _... =. ~. - - ~-
-.. ~
. ~.. - -
I i
j v
- i. -. ~,.
=.. -
- 44 840 6 Mesa.a.
8 e
l' I
I 4
a g
i I
I I
I
....uu i
i a
1 I
a I
g a a 64,4433.?8 g
I' i
g aa
.........i 3
I aa I
g aa g
es.
4eef8 aa i
8 I
g I
t-448MMal a as s i
I as I
g.
I as as I
.46 49646 8 g
l
. as I
1 8
a J. 44?e.34 aa y
I a a I
3 i
Jo.. M 4e se.e s as. a 8
.l
..._i_.._,--
sae.. mwevam.i
..iu,,wi
-i
-i i. e...... -
i......
s.
, s.
e i ses 3.
STATISTICA1. ANALYSIS 3.1 OBJEC~f!VE OF STATISTICAL PROCEDURE Probabilistic considerations, as well as available empirical evidence suggest that the asymptotic probability distributions of the largest values with unlimited-upper tail are'an appropriate model for the behavior of the largest yearly wind speed.
There are two such distributions, known as the Type I and Type II distributions of the largest values, whose-cumulative distributions functions, F (v) and g
Fit (v), respectively, are of-the form Ty (v) = exp (-exp (
" ~ ")];- - < v < ";
e
- = < u < =; o < a < =
11'
s-77 O>)
exp [-(v u)
Y);, < y and F o
--(
u<=;O<o<=;
y>0 (3.1.2) in which u, o, and y are location, scale, and tail length parameters, respectively.
Actually, the Type I distribution may be shown to be a Type II distribution with Y = = (see Ref erence 4, p. 422); however, it is convenient to refer to it separately.
The data were analyzed using - with minor modifications -- a com-puter program listed in Reference 5.
For convenience, the main fen-tures of the procedure used in the analysis of the data are summarized in this section.
The procedure consists of three distinct stages.
In the first stage the value of y (Eq. 3.1.2) is determined which yields the closest fit to the observed data set (recall that y - = corresponds to an extreme value type I distribution).
The " closest fit" criterien used in this stage is the so-called maximum probability plot correlation coefficient criterion.
The probability plot correlation coefficient is defined as
~
I i
(3'I*3) r0 - Corr (X,M)
(I(Xg - I)2 IlM(D)-M(D)b g
in which X = IX /n; M(D) = IM (D)/n; n= sample size; and D = probability g
g distribution tested.
The quantities Xg are obtained by a rearrangement of the data set: Xg is the smallest; X the second smallest; and X 2
g the ich smallest of the observations in the set.
The quantities M (D) 1 are obtained as follows. Given a random variable X with probability distribution D and given an integer sample size n, it is possible from probabilistic considerations to derive mathematically the distriburtons of the s=allest, second smallest, and generally the ith smallest values of X in a sample of size n.
There are various quantities that can be utilized to measure the location of the distribution of the ich smallest value Xg (e.g., the mean, the median, or the mode).
It is convenient to use the median as a measure of location in Eq. 3.1.3 - these medians of the distribution of the ich smallest value being denoted by M (D).
g If the data set was generated by the distribution D, then aside from a location and scale factor, X will be approximately equal to M (D) for t
1 all 1, and so the plot of X, versus M (D) (ref erred to as probability plot ) will be approxt:;a tely' linea r.
g 6his linearity will, in turn, result in a near unity value in rD.
Th u s, the b'etter the f1( of the distribu-t17n, D, to the data, the closer r will be to unity.
3 12
4 no procedure just described makes uso of 46 oxtroc2 volus Type II distributions defined by various values of y f rom 1-25 in steps of 1, f rom 25-50 in steps of 5 f rom 50-100 in steps of 10, f rom 100-500 in steps of 50, from 500-1,000 in steps of 2 50, and y -
. For any given data se t, 46 probabilfty plot correlation coef ficients are computed corresponding to these distributions, and the distribution with the maximu= probability plot correlation coefficient is chosen as the one which best fits the data (see, for example, computer output for Dallas, Texas, Section 4).
The final result from this first stage is a value, T
of Y corresponding to the estimated best fitting distribution.
- ept, The second stage in the procedure consists of estimating the loca-tion and scale parameters, y and e, respectively, in Eqs. 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 for the observed data set and for the determined optimal value, y
as determined in stage 1.
Estimates of the location and scale fo[$o,w directly f rem the basic probability plot approach.
If a least-squares line is fit to the probability plot corresponding to T opg, then the computed intercept and slope of the fitted line serve as esti-mates for the unknown location and scale parameters, y and c.
In terms of the X, and M,(D), these estimated location and scale values, C and 6, are as follows:'
g, 1(X
- X)[M (D) - M(D)]
1 1
(3,3,4)
I(H (D) - M(D)f g
C - X - 6 M(D)
(3.1.5) he third and final stage in the procedure determines the predicted wind speed v, for various intervals N of interest. The estimate for g
i vg s v== C + 6C (1 - N)
(3.1.6)
X N
y opt in which t the optimal value of y (as determined in stage 1); E
=
and6aretSg o
e esticates of the location and scale parameters, u and o in Eqs. 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 (as determined in stage 2); and c y,kk (p) - the x
percentage point f unction of the best fitting extreme value stribution.
If T
/ * (i.e., if a member of the extreme value type II f amily pro-opt vides the best fit), then G
(p) = (-in p)~IIT (3.1.7) 13
i If T efit), = (i.e., if the extreme value type 1 distribution provides the
=
t best then C
(p) = -In(-In p)
(3.1.8)
In effect, the procedure described in this section is an automated equivalent of probability paper plotting in which 46 types of probability paper, corresponding to 46 extreme value distributions, would be used and in which fitting would be carried out method, rather than by eye.
on the basis of the least-squares 3.2 PROBABII.ITY PLOTS from the data taken atA majority of the Tyne 1 probability plots generated by the com well (see, e.g., plot the 129 stations fit a straight line reasonably Section 4).
included in computer output for Ely, Nevada, A discussion of various reasons leading to a poor fitHowever, in a numbe is presented in Section 3.5.
To provide an idea of various types of deviations from a Type I distribution, probability plots were included in Sec' ion 4 for the following stations: Indianapolis, Indiana; Des Moines, Iowa; Topeka, Kansas; Wichita, Kansas; Boston, P.assachusetts; Nantucket.
Massachusetts; Detroit, Minnesota; Missoula, Montana; Omaha, Nebraska; Valentine, Nebraska Nevada; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Albrny, New York; Abilene, Texas; and North Head, Washington..
- Ely, 1
3.3 ESTIMATION OF SAMPLING ERRORS As indicated in Section 1, the computer output of Section 7 includes estimates of the standard deviation of the sampling errors, i.e.,
errors that are a consequence of the limited. size of the data samole which the Type I distribution parameters are estimated.
from Two such esti-mates were used.
One estimate is based on the method of moments-and has the following expression giver. by Cumbel in Reference 6 (pp.10,174 and 228):
SD(v )
- I
+ _1.13 96 ( v-0. 5 7 72 )
N b
+ 1 l(y-0.5772) }l/2 -
(3*3*I) g G
in which SD(v ) = the (estimated) standard deviation the sampling error y
in the estimation of the N year wind y = -In ( -In (1 - 1)]
.N (3.3.2)
$ = the estimated value of the scale parameter; and n = the sample size.
1t
4 A levar bound for the esticated sc plinE error is given by tha f ollowing expression:
SD (v ) = (0.60793y2 + 0.514y + 1.10866))/2 8
CR g
(3,3,g) where the notations are the same as in Equation 3.3.1.
Equation 3.3.3 is commonly ref erred to as the Cramer-Rao lover bound (7).
3.4
SUMMARY
OF FISULTS The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 3.4.1, in which the f ollowing notations are used:
n = sample size I = sample mean s = sample standard deviation v,,x = sample max 1=um
= value of opti=al tail length parameter (see section 3.1)
Tept v - estimated extreme wind corresponding to a n year return n
period, based on Type I distribution ppec = probability plot correlation coefficient (see Section 3.1) for Type I distribution 0
= estimated 50-year vind speed 50 SD(v50) - esti:sted =ta d rd deviation of sampling error for 50 year vind speed.
9 9
15 1
i
i.
i 3.5 NPf I VERSUS N PE !! DIS *RIBUTION Of the 129 stations listed in Table 3.4.1,15 stations [ marked with the superscript (c) in Table 3.4.1 and listed in Appendix 1] have been octed to have largest yearly speed records that may not provide a reli-able basis for predicting extreme winds.
- he remaining 114 stations'~may be divided into three categories characterized by the value of the optimal tail length parameter T as shown in Table 3.5.1.
- opg, Table 3.5.1 Classification of Stations According to Value of Y opg Category Range of T,pg Number of Stations Percentage I
131 Y 89 78%
II 71T 13 11 10:
III 21Y
<7 14 12:
p The sample size f or the stations of Table 3.5.1 varies between n=10 and n-4 5.
It is noted that the percentages of Table 3.5.1 are in qualitative agreement with those f ound f rom the analysis reported in Reference 8, in which all sample sizes were n - 37 This tends to confirm the hypo-thesis advanced in Ref erence 8 to the ef fect that, for stations in well-behaved wind climates, the best fit of a Type II (rather than Type I) distribution to a set of extreme wind data might be attributed to a sampling error in the estimation of the tail length parameter.
This hypothesis does not exclude the possibility that stations exist for which a Type II distribution might provide an appropriate' description of the wind climate; however, according to the results of both Reference 8 and Table 3.5.1, the number of such stations, if they exist, is very likely to be small. Thus, it appears justified to assume, as in Ref er-ence E, that the Type I distribution of the largest values provides in general a better description of the wind climate than Type II distri-butions with small values of the tail length parameter (say, 21 T 1 12).
3.6 I.ARCEST k'IND SPEED IN A S AMPLE OF SIZE N AND THE N-YEAR WIND It is shown in Ref erence 9 (see also Ref erence 4, p. 423) that, if a variate X has a Type I distribution, the mode of the largest value in a sample of n values of X is very nearly equal to the value of the variate corresponding to the mean return period n (recall that the mode of a variate X is the value of that variable most likely to occur in any given trial).
It can be seen f rom Table 3.5.1 that, for most sets for which 7 is large, the ratio v N is indeed close to unity.
opg eax n 19
. _ =
~. _
t i
OMAMA.NEBRA$AA.( 1936*1977) 7HE SAMPLE NUM8EA CF CSSERVATICNS =
42.00 7HE SAMPLE MEAN
=
55.00 7HE SAMPLE STANDARD DEVIATION 10.67 7HE S A Mi%, E MINIMyM a
42.69 THE SAMPLE max!MvM
=
104.00 DATE ANEMcMETER FASTEST MILE v1ND SPEED C ALCVL AT ED FASTE57 MILE ELEVATICNtFT)
AND DIREC7!CN (RECCROED v 1 NO SPEED AT 10M A80VE AT ANEMOMETER ELEVA7!CN)
GRDUNO (CORREC7ED SPEED) 07/19/36 44.
log.
N 104.
03/23/37 44 73.
E 70.
08/07/38 44
- 63. Sw 60.
10/04/39 44.
- 59. 5m 56.
05/14/40 44
- 50. Nw 48.
07/10/41 68.
- 63. Nw 57.
06/19/42-68.
72.
N 65.
08/11/43 68.
- 55. Sw 49=
08/01/44 68.
66.
N 59.
07/27/45 68.
54 N
48.
04/03/46 68.
49.
w 44 07/12/47 68.
- 65. NE 58.
04/03/48 68.
49.
5 44 10/10/49 68.
59.
5 53.
03/07/50 68.
- 73. Nw 66.
11/03/51 68.
- 56. Nw.
50.
08/19/52 64.
59.
w 53.
05/10/53 68.
- 59. Sw 53.
04/20/54 68.
See Nw 48.
01/28/55 74
- 49. Nw 44 07/07/56 74
- 57. Nw SI.
05/16/57 74 58.
E 52.
07/08/58 74.
54 5
48.
05/20/59
- 74 65.
m 58.
08/05/60 74 55.
N 49.
04/15/61 74
- 50. Nw 44 05/07/62 74
- 56. Nw 50.
12/08/63 20.
- 49. Nw 54.
05/25/64 20.
- 63. Nw 69.
01/31/65 20.
- 45. Nw 49.
03/13/66 20.
50.
N 55.
06/04/67 20.
56.
N 61.
L 05/15/68 20.
- 65. Nw 71.
01/05/69 20.
- 39. Nw 43.
02/FT/70 20.
- 47. Nw 51.
06/18/71 20.
- 56. Nw 61.
01/24/72 20.
- 47. Nw' 51.
05/09/73 20.
50.
N 55.
160
08/16/74 20.
- 44. NE 48.
11/20/75 20.
44.
Nw es.
04/16/76 20.
58.
5 63.
01/27/77 20.
4Se Na 49' O
t 1
1 61
-__m
._....i
...m,~
..m._
m
.--.mo..+
~_.u.=_
a~_m
.-m
.---4~
...su,-
~.
. _ _ ~
e e
e e'
4 e
- 3
- OC CDa3 ww4
- Ows
-~h ee e c o e. n.. h.
$~e,
...... ~. =
h h -~.
h h.
~ad ce=ch
.-n
~ n e, h
. m...
n.
-a b
3 8
- e e *
- e o e e e se e
e e e
e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
- * *.e.e 3 d,'
--nNn se~me eeeev eeeeh eeee g;
===N.n
- n. u..e c h.
.e we.Wet 7
- C0 0&a4 WWW$
b OW S e" c 8
- G.
9 4h h m NoeNp eh eph geh c0 M ee.
4 O. 9 ". e. G.
G, P, O, s,e O, N, e, #,m 9, **
N M,. Me., e
.e
.e.a.e N.W Nh e NMMNN
=
8 I
- ** M 48* @ @
,NMe 4 8* M. S. e, 9,
I e
- e e o e e s e e e e
e
.e
- r g,
- -~~~ ~~~ ~ e
....... cce....h
~ hh
-N-ch,.
weaw-g
_ w e
3 4
am W
W 2 2iw I W O.
4Q3>
e3
=
- 86 ea aoeep
= NNeo eeeee noeeW moaem
=ceMm e ss e c e e.
EO8 C
- 8, e, h, O, O, O, p t, m, h =, c, o, m, e, e, e, o, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, m, e, e.
e, e, e,s e. e, e M 4. M, 4, m,
W w & en e
2 e
e E
9 86 OM#
@ ** See e O en m.
eeh ee e e em M4 eeNRe e$$eS e
- e. O se m.e
- O 8 W 8*
- eGGe 4444h
- n SS99 04eep p$09
. 9.O.**.**
= N N N. N.
N. 88 M.#. #.
4 wGEe-De w as W
EQ l
C u
w W
L 2. %
l 0
=
- 3 Jw=
-4 6 0
W3>Z0
- >0 tas >
-M i.
E & tot a=
- = Q 3 3 eeeee weeem an m.Ne oem.,
, e e, p e ee.pe 9 e e an o e e e e. a.
o E
JO w2a=
e, e
- M."e" E. N. 4. L, =,
t.l 4, e, $, @
O, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, h, N, N, G, e, O.
.# #, D, 8* en a, m, em, N,
W em e e e
e e Q&E
* EON e e e h e
-eeeNe o se e a h
. sw. p q moee4 eoc
- eh=N e
e e. N
- e
~O
- ec#4 es 4 4 4h S E 9 9 9.
Q OON eeGWh 8ODM4 8
8GNS*
-WOWe9 an e = = = en as== en W N N9MMM MM4hM
.e
- = W 5==
Y
- ele Q R
- 4 E E
OS>'
I w
M-4 W
W Q.
w
- 8..
S*
wE
.00 4
00000 0000o o g o, g o e o. g g o cogeo 0e.00 99Get O
W
....e+
.e.e
.e.e..e.e
.e.
.o.e.e.e.e.e.e.e.o.e-...e.e
.e o e e
, e e e o
~M c.
h
,e N,.
> =
' -. ~. c.
oo h.......
eN M e e g h-99900
..O O. 0 9...
O eo.
. a
.hn
.mehe E
enee.
O es e o.
e 1 CM h
4 4
ATTACHMENT #2
I o# I RECORD OF TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION M. R. N0.
FILE NO.
PED.FC-91-2059 DATE:
4/24/91 TlHE:
1:30PM TELEPHONE NO.
(301) 975-6076 PARTY CALLING:
Mike Elzway OPPD (Name)
(Company)
PARTY ANSWERING:
Emil Simiu National Bureau of Standards (Name)
(Company)
SUBJECT:
NBS Buildino Science Series 118. Extreme Wint_ Speeds at 129 Stations in the Contiouous United States TELECON
SUMMARY
(including Decisions and Commitments):
I asked Mr. Simiu for the latest NBS Building Scien.e Series 118. Mr. Simiu stated that the latest was issued in March 1979.
He also stated that this Series will be reissued within one year from now.
I told Mr. Simiu that the Series covers extreme wind speeds from only 1936 to 1977 for the Omaha area, then I asked if additional wind data is available for Omaha.
Mr. Simiu stated he has wind data for Omaha up to 1986, as follows:
Calculated Fastest Mile Wind Speed lur at 10m above around (corrected soeed) 1978 45 1979 40 1980 50 1981 40 1982 56 1983 44 1984 43 1985 39 1986 40 l
l Mr. Simiu stated that this additional data makes the return period greater for most wind speeds tabulated on page 162 of the NBS Series 118.
ACTION RE0VIRED:
l plSTRIBUTION:
w._
a.-
n,
.2 w
-. --. -- - - -w
.A
.sa 4
9 ATTACHMENT #3
I *f I TO RAUN T 18 N, R /2 E
/
\\
$g\\
06..
y 9
If ' '
/7 FT.C ALHOUN e
j'
~
NUCLEAR d
/.'.
ST AT I O N
/
f/
ik i
C
/,-
N N
/
SuB I
/
3451 TO l' /9 ' isi xv
/
1%
f A3o f (
2' susiaas
\\
9
'./
/
~./
4
\\
\\
'/
/
\\, \\' '...
3
-.Y
., y
"'e 30 S
Nu
'y /
'7 N-
/
TO OMAHA SCALE I "= 30 0 0 '1 DRAFT 11-I4-881 4 TRANS MIS S 10 N LINES CHECK l
PROJ.ENG F T. C A LH O U N STAT I O N y
APPD.,[Sc DEPT. l TRANS.
]
OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT l a h___
a 4
1 M
ATTACHMENT #4
1 of 5 Evaluation for the Effect of CEDM Mechanical Seal failure on Fort Calhoun Station Blackout event (EA-89-018)
The analysis is based on an extremely conservative value of 20% of the maximum possible CEOM leakage for the seal housing area.
Actual leakage by experiment (CROM (CEDM) Mechanical Seal Test, October 1969) was calculated to be 0.1 gpm.
The use of the larger leakage rate in the analysis was to ensure a conservative result.
Analysis was performed using the best estimate Combustion Engineering Transient Simulation Code (CENTS).
Key input ass"mptions/ parameters are shown below.
The code has a quality assured base deck for Fort Calhoun for all components in the NSSS and secondary system model.
Assumed:
- 1) 110 gpm leakage - RCP pumps and unknown. (constant throughoutevent)
- 2) Letdown rampdown from 36 gpm to zero over 300 sec (5 minutes).
- 3) RV Volume to cover core = 11.2 ft from center of bottom core support plate.
Seauence of Events Time (Seconds)
Event / Parameters 0.0 Initiation of Station Blackout CEDM Leakage = 0 RCS Flow = 20,066 lbm/sec RCS Nodal Height = 19.2 ft RV Head Nodal Height = 9.4 ft RCS average temperature = 578 F RCS pressure = 2,110 psi Pressurizer Nodal Height = 13.3 ft RCP seal leak rate of 25 gpm/ pump = 100 gpm Unknown sources leakage = 10 gpm 3.0 Reactor trip on low flow CEDM Leakage = 0 RCS Flow = 13,831 lbm/sec RCS Nodal Height = 19.2 ft RV Head Nodal Height = 9.4 ft c
RCS average temperature = 580 p RCS Pressure = 2,103 psi Pressurizer Nodal Height = 13.2 ft 25.0 Feed Water is ramped down to zero.
j CEDM Leakage = 0 i
RCS Nodal Height = 19.2 ft l
RV Head Nodal Height = 9.4 ft RCS average temperature = 573 F RCS Pressure = 1,995 psi Pressurizer Nodal Height = 12.0 ft
2 of 5 i
40.0 SG safeties open (beyond this point they cycle).
CED.'i-Leakage = 0 RCS Nodal Height = 19.2 ft
-RV Head Nodal Height = 9.4 ft 0
RCS average temperature = 571 F RCS Pressure = 1,976 psi Pressurizer Nodal Height = 11.2 ft 180.0 Auxiliary Feed is delivered at a rate of 260 gam.
CEDM Lea cage = 0 RCS Nodal Height = 19.2 ft RV Head Nodal Height = 9.4 ft 0
RCS average temperature = 570 F RCS Pressure = 1,914 psi Pressurizer Nodal Height = 9.2 ft 300.0 Letdown flow is ramped down to zero.
CEDM Leakage = 0 RCS Nodal Height = 19.2 ft RV Head Nodal Height = 9.4 ft 0
RCS average temperature = 570 F RCS Pressure = 1,874 si Pressurizer Nodal Hei ht = 8.0 ft 1,340.0
-SIAS is generated.
CEDM Leakage = 0 RCS Nodal Height = 19.2 ft RV Head Nodal Height = 9.4 ft 0
RCS average temperature = 564 F RCS Pressure = 1,606 psi Pressurizer Nodal-Height = 2.0 ft 2,340.0 Steam bubble formed in RV Head.-
CEDM Leak initiated.
CEDM Maximum Leakage = 10.3 lbm/sec (1574 gpm)*
RCS Nodal-Height = 19.2 ft RV Head Nodal Height = 8.4 ft l.
(RV upper head void 1 foot) 0 RCS average temperature = 556 F l
l RCS Pressure = 1,272 psi l
Pressurizer Nodal Height = 1.4 ft initial leak rate will decrease during remainder of the event.
i 3 of 5 14,400.0 Four hours into SB0 event.
CEDM Leakage < 10.3 lbm/sec RCS Nodal Height = 16.9 ft RCSaveragetemperature=530}F (RV level is below nozzles RCS Pressure = 882 psi 20,520.0 Five hours 42 minutes into SB0 event.
Core uncovery CEDM Leakage < 10.3 lbm/sec RCS Nodal Height = 11.2 ft 0
RCS average temperature = 550 F RCS Pressure = 1,046 psi Calculation FC 05695 verifies by use of a mass / energy balance the SB0 event is bounded by the containment conditions present for the LOCA/MSLB cvents.
Key nodal volumes of the NSSS and reactor vessel are shown in the enclosed sketches.
I f
!~
l
m 5
g;5;=;;;o;.yo, APPROXIMATE RCS VOLUMES 3
l tig* ;*'e%,:~5eo (All Volumes in Ft )
'?,'U T.'$
s v e s:30 tlads L lic. cur:233 Si l
RV HEAD NodnL delGef T:
\\
4.per Head 3'Y N
)
r 't.2 Ye
[
O I
9.I O
(a
[
t I~~~~~
as SIGlalet,gA.[..cw) 95.5 i
pie 4
t 7 g
/
SIG Outlet
$ach)
}
- O__,
!_t_ '
'W 14 not leg 851(each)
~
f 3
' *section teg 79,2(each) 2ren SG rs h.
'#'i'Y Na M IfemelT 19.3M
% [58 6gy f*
2 Pf4 86
[
To Fn P Top cr nenvEtoAB 43.b
TO TA L HFP RCS LIATER VDLUME = b321.1 ff (REF : TDB.2E.3.B-/ THRU E-1)
5 of 5
)
,w ra$
\\/clunc a r 8s c,maiaa c= Gat L!NWERV
_. n,n n"""I"' t
^
. l l i' CEDM N0ZZLE
-g:q' INSTRUMENTATION
"[
N0ZZLE
. j ;. a.
h--
~ "Y 9%k.
W n e? '
AllGNMENT c4.+N CONTROL
~
PIN r
y(=[ UPPER.
1 ELEMENT "YI ASSEMBLY si
]
FULLY GUIDE
~
l v
WITHDRAWN N
STRUCTURE d
m n
))
f
//
L '-
ROS 32" 10 'N P i
Y24" I D flodal OUTLET
\\
t INLET Hemo r N0ZZLE
-.c_ _.
N0ZZLE 19 a 4 3
(
g CORE u
E SUPPORT BARREL E
128 "
R HERMAL SHIELD i
~
~
\\/olos e. =
-7h'~ CORE ACTIVE
{
=ylF SHROUD 3
l+M.[7 CORE LENGTH ometuocs A&uutus mn l l gggggggy rop er neuve g
0*NG)
,plfi[
pl,pl~
l N
CORE SNUBBER-N SUPPORT
\\r p
ASSEMBLY
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(
CORE STOP FLOW SKIRT N
Reactor Arrangement Omaha Public Power District Figure Fort Calhoun Station-Unit No.1 1-2A JUNE,1970 t