Text

Suppl 4 to Environ Rept - OL Stage
	ML20082M985
Person / Time
Site:	Marble Hill
Issue date:	12/31/1983
From:	; PSI ENERGY, INC. A/K/A PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF INDIANA
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20082M953	List: ML20082M948; ML20082M985;
References
	ENVR-831231, NUDOCS 8312060344
	Download: ML20082M985 (179)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:- i PUBLIC SERVICE December 2, 1983 SVP-0161-83 S. W. Shields Senior Vice President - Nudear Division Mr. Harold R. Denton Docket Nos.: STN 50-546 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation STN 50-547 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Construction Permit Nos.: Washington, D.C. 20555 CPPR - 170 CPPR - 171 Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station - Units 1 and 2 Application for Licenses Amendment Number 30

Dear Mr. Denton :

Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. (PSI) and Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. (WVPA) hereby amend their application for construction pemits and operating licenses for the Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, by submittal of Amendment 30. The responses to the requests for additional information the NRC transmitted on August 24, 1983 and September 8, 1983 along with revisions to FSAR Sections 2.1, 2.3, 13.2,16.6 and 17.2 are incorporated into the Marble Hill FSAR by Amendment

30. Three (3) signed originals and fifty-seven (57) copies of the FSAR changes are submitted for your use.

Amendment 30 also includes Supplement 4 to the Environmental Report - Operating License Stage (ER-OL). Supplement 4 provides updated site meteorological monitoring data, the results of revised cooling tower plume and accident analyses, a description of changes to the radiological monitoring program, and other miscellaneous changes to the ER-0L. Three signed originals and thirty eight (38) copies are provided for your use. Also being submitted is a computer tape containing meteorological data for the period of July,1981 to June,1983. Additionally, Amendment 30 includes a revision to the Safeguards Volume. Three signed originals and three copies of these changes are provided for your use. It is requested that the enclosed copies of the changes be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to 10 CFR 73.21. 8312060344 831202 PDR ADOCK 05000446 C PDR P. O. Box 190, New Washington, Indiana 47162 812. 289.3000

Pusuc ,$[E Letter: H. R. Denton December 2, 1983 SVP-0161-83 If you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC. for itself and as agent for WABASH VALLEY POWER ASS 0ICATION, INC. 7 / '5. W. 5hields Senior Vice President-Nuclear Division SWS/ GAS /bak Enclosure cc: J. R. Schapker (w/o enc) D. G. Eisenhut (w/o enc) T. M. Novak (w/o enc)

8. J. Youngblood (w/o enc)

P. W. O'Connor STATE OF INDIANA ) ~ ) SS: COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2nd day of December 1983. (2.Lx6 field ) Nota Publicb MgylommissionExpipes: L/ (/9X7 (s u of Residence: um J

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l In the matter Docket Numbers: STN 50-546 l STN 50-547 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY Constructian Permit Numbers: 0F INDIANA INC. AND ) CPPR - 170 WABASH VALLEY POWER ) CPPR - 171 ASSOCIATION, INC. ) (MARBLE HILL NUCLEAR ) GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 AND 2 AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I hereby certify that distribution was performed as listed below by depositing the material in first class mail, postage prepaid, on the 2nd day of December 1983. Name PORTIONS SERVED

Attorney General F3AR and ER-OL State House Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 State Board of Health FSAR and ER-OL ATTN: Chief, Radiological Health Section 1330 West Michigan Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46206 Attorney General FSAR and ER-OL Department of Law State Capitol

~ Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Department of Human Resources FSAR and ER-OL ATTN: Chief, Radiation Control Branch Department for Health Services 275 East Main Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40621 Chairman, Jefferson County Board of FSAR and ER-OL Commissioners County Courthouse Madison, Indiana 47250 Mr. Peter Tedeschi (SAR-26) FSAR and ER-0L(2) EIS Review Coordinator EPA Region V 230 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 a

NAME PORTIONS SERVED

Mr. Michael C. Quinn ER-OL Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1522 K Street, N.W. - Room 510 Washington, D.C.

20005 Mr. Marcus G. Phelps ER-OL U.S. Department of Agriculture Field Offices of the Forest Service 370 Reed Road Broomall, PA 19008 Mr. Robert E. Mast ER-OL U.S. Soil Convervation, Service Atkinson Square-West, Suite 2200 5610 Crawfordsville Road Indianapolis, IN 46224 Mr. Terry S. Siemsen ER-OL U.S. Army Engineer District, Louisville P.O. Box 59 Louisville, KY 40201 ATTN: ORLPD-R Ms. Joyce M. Wood ER-OL Office of Ecology & Conservation Department of Commerce, Room 6800/N0AA 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C-20230 Dr. Jack M. Heinemann ER-OL Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Room 304RB 400 First Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20426 Mr. Charles Custard ER-OL(2) U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Room 537F Humphrey building 200 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20201 Environmental Officer ER-0L(2) Departnent of Housing & Urban Development 300 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606

4 = NAME PORTIONS SERVED

Mr. S. J. Martin ER-0L(18)

Office of Environmental Project Review U.S. Department of the Interior, Rm. 4256 18th and C Streets, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240 Mr. Joseph Canny ER-OL Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W - Room 9422 Washington, D. C. 20590 Ms. Janice C. Jackson ER-OL U.S. Department of Transportation 2100 2nd Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20593 Secretarial Representative ER-OL U.S. Departcent of Transportation 300 South Wacker Drive,17th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Ms. Kristin Kothe ER-OL(10) Indiana State Planning Services Agency 117 State House Indianapolis, IN 46204 SAI No. IN 830310 113 Region XII Development Commission ER-OL P.O. Box 127 Versailles, IN 47042 Ms. Catherine L. Green ER-OL Librarian, Nuclear Safety Library Brookhaven National Laboratory Building 130 Upton, Long Island, New York 11973 State Historic Preservation Office ER-0L Transmittal Director, Department of Natural Resources Letter 608 State Office Building Irdianapolis, IN 46204 M

zc r ,.3 4 1 g The number in parenthesis denotes number of copies served, if more ~4'. than one. This list has been revised to reflect distribution changes requested by the agencies. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC. for itself and as agent for WABASH VALLEY POWER ASSOCIATION, INC. / '3. W. Shields Senior Vice President-Nuclear Division STATE OF INDIANA ) COUNTY OF JEFFERSON 1 SS: Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2nd day of December 1983. Mi sl-fg W.cacefield ) Notary ublic My p ission Expires: fn, d_ /_ d, s 4 5,7 nce: ~

t MH 1&2 ER-OL INSTRUCTION SHEET To update your copy of the Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station - Units 1 and 2 Environmental Report - Operating License Stage, please remove the indicated pages and replace them with the attached Supplement 4 pages. REMOVE INSERT VOLUME 1 Contents Page ii Contents Page ii Page 2.3-1 Page 2.3-1 Pages 2.3-4 and 2.3-5 Pages 2.3-4 and 2.3-5 Page 2.3-7 Page 2.3-7 Pages 2.3-12 through 2.3-15 Pages 2.3-12 through 2.3-15 Pages 2.3-20 and 2.3-21 Pages 2.3-20 and 2.3-21 Page 2.3-23 Page 2.3-23 Page 2.3-25 Page 2.3-25 Pages 2.3-29 and 2.3-30 Pages 2.3-29 and 2.3-30 Pages 2.3-35 and 2.3-36 Pages 2.3-35 and 2.3-36 Pages 2.3-39 and 2.3-39 Pages 2.3-38 and 2.3-39 Pages 2.3-41 through 2.3-64 Pages 2.3-41 through 2.3-64 Pages 2.3-79 through 2.3-86 Phges 2.3-79 through 2.3-86 Pages 2.3-90 through 2.3-109 Pages 2.3-90 throug'h 2.3-109 l Figures 2.3-1 and 2.3-2 Figures 2.3-1 and 2.3-2 Figures 2.3-4 through 2.3-27 Figures 2.3-4 through 2.3-27 Figures 2.3-43 through 2.3-54 Figures 2.3-41 through 2.3-54 VOLUME 2 Contents Page ii Contents Page ii Page 3.3-3 Page 3.3-3

MII 1&2 ER-OL INSTRUCTION SHEET (Cont'd) REMOVE INSERT VOLUME 2 (Cont'd) Figure 3.3-1 Figure 3.3-1 Page 4.4-4 Page 4.4-4 Pages 5.1-6 through 5.1-10a Pages 5.1-6 through 5.10a Pages 5.1-12 through 5.1-14 Pages 5.1-12 through 5.1-14 Pages 5.1-17 through 5.1-21 Pages 5.1-17 through 5.1-21 Figures 5.1-1 and 5.1-2 Figures 5.1-1 and 5.1-2 Page 5.2-3 Page 5.2-3 Pages 5.2-10 through 5.2-12 Pages 5.2-10 through 5.2-12 Pages 5.2-18 through 5.2-21 Pages 5.2-18 through 5.2-21 Page 6.0-i Page 6.0-i Pages 6.1-15 through 6.1-17 Pages 6.1-15 through 6.1-17 Page 6.1-20 Page 6.1-20 Page 6.1-24 Page 6.1-24 Page 6.1-40 Page 6.1-40 Page 6.1-47 Page 6.1-47 Pages 6.1-52 and 6.1-53 Pages 6.1-52, 6.1-53 and 6.1-53a Page 6.1-54 Page 6.1-54 and 6.1-54a Page 6.1-56b Page 6.1-56b Figure 6.1-5 Figure 6.1-5 Figure 6.1-8 Figure 6.1-8 Page 7.1-1 Page 7.1-1 Page 7.1-3 Pages 7.1-3 and 7.1-3a Pages 7.1-15 and 7.1-16 Pages 7.1-15 and 7.1-16

MH 1&2 ER-OL INSTRUCTION SHEET (Cont'd) REMOVE INSERT VOLUME 2 (Cont'd) Page 7.1-20 Page 7.1-20 In Supplement 1: Page Q240.2-6 Page Q240.2-6 Page Q291.9-1 Page Q291.9-1 Page Q291.11-12 Page Q291.11-12 In Supplement 3: Pages Q290.11-1 and Pages Q290.11-1 and 0290.11-2 Q290.11-2 and Figure Q290.11-1 Following Page Q470.7-1 Supplement 4 tab followed (do not remove) by Pages S4-1 and S4-2 I -p--,-v,na

i MH 1&2 ER-OL CONTENTS (Cont'd) VOLUME Chapter 13.0 - References 2 i Supplement 1 - NRC Ouestions and Responses 2 j-Supplement 2 - Voluntary Revisions 2 l i Supplement 3 - NRC Questions and Responses and i Voluntary Revisions 2 Supplement 4 - Voluntary Revisions 2 4 } I 1 1 SUPPLEMENT 4 ii DECEMBER 1983 -, _ _.. -. _....._.,.-...,__,-. _.~..-~ -_,_..._. _ _.. _.. _-.___-_. _, _, _

MH 1&2 ER-OL .~N 2.3 METEOROLOGY ('~) Basic information on the meteorology of the Marble Hill site was presented in Section 2.6 of the Marble Hill 1&2 Environmental Re-port - Construction Permit Stage (ER-CP). Updated information is presented in this section. The primary sources of climatic information used in this section are data from the onsite meteorological monitoring program and the first-order National Weather Service (NWS) stations at Louisville, Kentucky, and the Greater Cincinnati Airport, located at Covington, Kentucky. The Louisville weather station is the closest first-order NWS station to Marble Hill 1&2 and is, for most climatic statistics, the most representative. The Louisville and Cincinnati data presented and summarized in this section are taken from annual meteorological summaries available through 1980 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric-Administration (NOAA). Meteorological data taken from magnetic tapes of 3-hour observations at Louisville and Cincinnati from 1958 to 1977 are also summarized. These data tapes were obtained from the National Climatic Center in Asheville, North Caroling. The onsite data presented and summarized in this section are for the periods from November 1978 through October 1979 for the 33-foot floodplain monitoring tower, and July 1981 through June 1983 ('N for the 199-foot upland monitoring tower. Data recovery rates 4 (,j for these periods are presented in ER-OL Table 6.1-3. A detailed . description of the onsite meteorological monitoring program is l presented in Subsections 6.1.3.1 through 6.1.3.3 of'this report. i I No unusual local meteorological conditions have been identified that will adversely affect plant operation, the dispersion of plant effluents, or the dissipation of plant waste heat. 2.3.1 Recional Climatoloov l The information presented in this subsection updates and l supplements the information presented in ER-CP Subsection 2.6.1. l l For the period from 1965 through 1980, the prevailing wind direction at Cincinnati was south-southwest. At Louisville, the prevailing wind direction was south from 1966 through 1980. Although these were the most frequent wind directions, a relatively even distribution occurred in other directions. For the period from 1948 through 1980, the monthly average wind speed was lowest in August for both Cincinnati and Louisville. l The prevailing wind direction associated with the lowest monthly average wind speed from 1965 through 1980 at Cincinnati was south-southweat. The prevailing wind direction associated with the lowest average wind speed for 1966 through 1980 at Louisville fs was north. SUPPLEMENT 4 2.3-1 DECEMBER 1983

l MH 1&2 ER-OL /~ Thermometers used for official measurements of hourly and extreme k_,'s) temperatures at Louisville are located at an elevation of 17 feet above grade. The information presented in this subsection updates and supplements the information presented in ER-CP Subsection 2.6.2. ER-OL Table 2.3-2 presents a short-term (2-year period) comparison of Marble Hill average and extreme temperature data with Louisville data from the same time period. The monthly and annual average Louisville temperatures for this period of record exceeded those reported at Marble Hill by 1.00 to 3.60 F. In 4 most months, Louisville extreme temperatures were higher than those reported onsite. The differences in the average and extreme temperature values are not unreasonable, however, when factors such as the geographic separation of the two sensors, differences in sensor elevations, and differences in measurement technique are considered. ER-OL Table 2.3-3 presents comparisons of short-term (2-year period) Marble Hill temperatures to long-term Louisville data. The month of April exhibited the largest deviation (6.60 F) from the 20-year Louisville monthly averages, and December exhibited 4 the smallest ( 0. 3 ') F). The annual mean temperature at the Marble Hill site was 3.30 F lower than that at Louisville, which is consistent with the short-term comparison. (""s Data on the long-tcrm (1941-1980) average daily maximum and \\.,,) minimum temperature conditions representative of the Marble Hill region are presented in ER-OL Table 2.3-4. The average daily maximum, minimum, and diurnal range of temperatures were lowest in the months December through February; July and August had the highest average daily maximum and minimum temperatures. The greatest long-term average diurnal temperature variation occurred in October. 2.3.3 Atmospheric Moisture In this subsection, atmospheric moisture data recorded at the Marble Hill site and at the Louisville NWS station are compared to illustrate that onsite data are representative of regional conditions. Atmospheric moisture data from Louisville and Cincinnati are presented as indications of long-term (1958-1977) conditions in the Marble Hill region. The information presented in this subsection updates and supplements the information presented in ER-CP Subsections 2.6.3 and 2.6.4. 2.3.3.1 Dew-Point Temoerature Dew-point temperature is defined as the temperature to which air must be cooled to produce saturation with respect to liquid water, with pressure and water vapor content remaining constant. ("'g The short-term (2-year period) Marble Hill and Louisville dew-(_,/ point temperature data are presented for comparison in ER-OL SUPPLEMENT 4 2.3-4 DECEMBER 1983 J l l l

i MH 1&2 ER-OL Table 2.3-5. The annual average dew-point temperatures measured {~T s_,/ onsite and at Louisville were 44.10 F and 44.30 F, respectively. Monthly average values differed in magnitude from 0.00 F to 4 4.10 F. The January reported minimum dewpoint at Marble Hill (-18.40 F) exhibited the greatest difference from the Louisville January minimum dew-point temperature (-30.00 F). The November data exhibited the greatest monthly difference in maximum values 4 (5.20 F). The Marble Hill November maximum was 67.50 F, while the Louisville value was 62.00 F. Long-term average and extreme dew-point temperature data for Cincinnati and Louisville are presented in ER-OL Table 2.3-6. Annual average dew-point temperaturer 7t Cincinnati and Louisville were 42.10 F and 44.60 F, _espectively. At both stations, monthly average dew-point temperatures were highest in July and August, and lowest from December through February. The maximum dew-point temperature of 78.80 F was recorded at Cincinnati in June and at Lcuisville in July; minimum values were recorded at January at both stations. At Louisville, the maximum average daily variation in dew-point temperature was approximately 10.50 F in January and February; the minimum average daily variation was about 6.00 F in July and August. 2.3.3.2 Relative Humiditv Relative humidity for a given moisture content of the air is defined as the ratio of the actual mixing ratio of water vapor to ()s ( that which would exist at saturation at the same temperature, where the mixing ratio is the mass of water vapor per unit mass of dry air. The diurnal variation of relative humidity for a given moisture content of the air is inversely proportional to the diurnal temperature cycle. A maximum in relative humidity usually occurs during the early morning hours; a minimum is typically observed in mid-afternoon (see ER-OL Table 2.3-1). Comparisons of short-term (2-year period) Marble Hill and Louisville relative humidity data are presented in ER-OL Table 2.3-7. There are no significant differences in the monthly maxima reported at both sites. The consecutive months having the lowest relative humidity reported at both sites were March and April. The similarities in the magnitudes of monthly and annual average and extreme relative humidity values are noteworthy in view of the differences in monitor location (with respect to geographical separation, terrain elevation at each measurement site, and sensor elevation above grade) and differences in sensor accuracies and measurement techniques. ER-OL Table 2.3-8 presents long-term ( 1958-1977) relative humidity data at Louisville and Cincinnati. Maximum relative humidities for all months at both stations were 100%. The r-minimum reported during this 20-year period was 8%, which (,]/ occurred at both stations during the month of March. SUPPLEMENT 4 2.3-5 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL 'N 2.3.3.4 Precioitation -[V Precipitation data from the Marble Hill site and the Louisville and Cincinnati NWS stations indicate the characteristics of the region. There is no onsite instrumentation for measuring precipitation as snow or ice pellets. Onsite precipitation measurements are presented as liquid water equivalent only. 2.3.3.4.1 Precioitation Measured as Water Eouivalent Short-term (2-year period) precipitation data (water equivalent) for-Marble Hill are compared with Louisville and Cincinnati precipitation data for the same 2-year period in ER-OL Table 2.3-11. !!onthly precipitation totals vary considerably, but agree in that the month of May exhibited high rainfall. l4 Short-term (2-year period) precipitation data for Marble Hill are compared with long-term data for Louisville and Cincinnati in ER-OL Table 2.3-12. The high anraal total precipitation at Marble Hill reflects unusually high rainfall during 1979. In general, monthly total precipitation was above the norm at Marble Hill during May. 4 Long-term normal and extreme monthly and yearly values of precipitation (water equivalent) in inches for Louisville and for Cincinnati are shown in ER-OL Table 2.3-13. The maximum and {-} minimum monthly precipitation recorded at Louisville during this 40-year period were 14.91 inches during March 1964 and 0.23 inches during August 1953. The maximum and minimum monthly precipitation recorded ~at Cincinnati were 12.18 inches in March 1964 and 0.18 inches in September 1963. Annual average precipitation was 43.03 inches at Louisville, a,nd 40.60 inches at Cincinnati. For both stations, the period of maximum long-term average precipitation was from March through July. The months of August through October averaged the least precipitation. Differences in precipitation averages and extremes (see ER-OL Table 2.3-13) are attributed to the physical separation of the NWS stations and the different periods of record presented. The monthly and annual average number of hours of precipitation at Louisville (1967-1977) are as follows: M'ONTH HOURS OF PRECIPITATION January 186 February 145 March 151 April 107 May 101 June 77 SUPPLEMENT 4 2.3-7 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL (~] the town of Deputy, waich is 18 miles northwest of the Marble (/ Hill site. One of these funnels touched down and destroyed several farm buildings. After crossing Indiana Route 3, the tornado lifted and is believed to have touched down again about 2 miles northeast of Madison near Indiana Route 7. One person was killed and one person was injured (NOAA 1976, p. 5). 2.3.5 Diffusion Climatoloov In this subsection, data on winds and atmospheric stability measured at the Marble Hill site are presented and compared with long-term ( 1958-1977) data recorded at the Louisville NWS station. This information updates and supplements the information presented in ER-CP Subsection 2.6.6. 2.3.5.1 Winds Detailed wind records from the onsite meteorological monitoring program for the 2-year period from July 1981 through June 1983 were used to prepare wind roses for the 33-foot and 199-foot levels of the 199-foot tower. Wind data from the 1-year period November 1978 through October 1979 were used to prepare wind roses for the 33-foot level of the 33-foot floodplain tower. Annual wind roses are presented in ER-OL Figures 2.3-1 through 2.3-3. Monthly wind roses are presented in ER-OL Figures 2.3-4 through 2.3-15 for the 33-foot level of the 199-foot tower, /"'s Figures 2.3-16 through 2.3-27 for the 199-foot level of the (_,) 199-foot tower, and Figures 2.3-28 through 2.3-39 for the 33-foot level of the 33-foot tower. The annual wind rose and wind direction persistence data are presented in ER-OL Tables 2.3-17 through 2.3-22. Monthly wind rose data are presented in ER-OL TEbles 2.3-23 through 2.3-34 for the 33-foot level of the 199-foct tcwer, Tables 2.3-35 through l 2.3-46 for the 199-foot level of the 199-foot tower, and Tables 2.3-47 through 2.3-58 for the 33-foot level of the 33-foot tower. Long-term ( 1958-1977) annual wind rose and wind direction persistence data for Louisville are presented in ER-OL Figure 2.3-40 and in ER-OL Tables 2.3-59 and 2.3-60. The annual wind rose data for the 199-foot tower (see ER-OL Tables 2.3-17 and 2.3-18 and F 7ures 2.3-1 and 2.3-2) indicate that the prevailing wind direction quadrant was south through west. Within this quadrant, southerly and south-southwesterly 4 winds were most prevalent. During this 24-month period, the majority of 199-foot wind speeds above 12 mph were associated with southerly through west-northwesterly winds. The most frequent wind speed categories were 4 to 7 mph at the 33-foot level of the 199-foot tower and 8 to 12 mph at the 199-foot sensor elevation. 4 The November 1978 through October 1979 wind data from the 33-foot {/] tower in the floodplain (see ER-OL Table 2.3-19 and Figure 2.3-3) s_ SUPPLEMENT 4 2.3-12 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL ("') show that southeasterly through southerly winds were most \\m / prevalent, while northwesterly through northerly winds were secohdary in frequency of occurrence. Almost 90% of the wind speeds were under 7 mph (89.5%), with calms occurring 14.6% of the time. At the 33-foot level of the 199-foot tower, the greatest number of occurrences of high persistence of wind direction occurred when the wind was from the south through southwest (see ER-OL 4 Table 2.3-20), although northeast through east winds were also highly persistent. At the 199-foot level, occurrences of high wind direction persistence were more evenly distributed, with the dominant direction of persistence still being south through southwest. (see ER-OL Table 2.3-21). At the 199-foot level, on 4 one occasion each, northeasterly and southerly winds persisting for at least 22 hours were reported. In the floodplain, the most common wind direction sector was also the sector having the I greatest persit.ence. Calm wind conditions persisted much longer in the floodplain than at the 199-foot tower (see ER-OL Table r 2.3-22). Wind direction data from the two levels of the 199-foot tower show the greatest variction from the prevailing south-south-westerly direction during the months of January, February, March, 4 and July (see ER-OL Figures 2.3-4 through 2.3-27 and Tables 2.3-23 through 2.3-46). Wind direction data from the 33-foot l (~ N tower located on the floodplain show the greatest variation from (_ I the north-south valley axis during the months of June through September (see ER-OL Figures 2.3-28 through 2.3-39 and Tables 2.3-47 through 2.3-58). ER-OL Figure 2.3-40 and Table 2.3-59 present annual wind rose data for Louisville for the 1958-1977 period. Since May 1960, the Louisville wind sensors have been mounted at the NWS standard l 20-foot elevation above ground. Earlier wind measurements at Louisville were made at a 71-foot sensor elevation. The prevailing wind at Louisville was from the south, and occurred I with an annual average frequency of 12.73%. The distribution of i wind directions in the remaining 15 sectors ranged in frequency l of occurrence from 2.71% (north-northwest) to 7.85% (southeast). The predominant range of wind speeds at Louisville was 2.1 to 4.0 meters /second (4.9 to 9.4 mph). This compares favorably to the most common wind speed range (4.0 to 7.0 mph) reported at the 33-foot level of the 199-foot tower site at Marble Hill. The frequency of occurrence of calm conditions at Louisville (5.88%) is considerably greater than at the 33-foot level of the 199-foot tower (0.05%), but it is smaller than the frequency sf calms at l4 the 33-foot tower in the floodplain (14.64%). The higher frequency of calm conditions at Louisville is due, in part, to the higher starting threshold of anemometers used at NWS stations. Also, for the majority of this 20-year period of Louisville data, the NWS wind sensors were mounted only 20 feet () above grade, as opposed to the 33-foot elevation of the lower U SUPPLEMENT 4 2.3-13 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL O-level wind sensors at the 199-foot Marble Hill tower. In addition, data sampling techniques employed at Marble Hill and s-Louisville were different. As shown in ER-OL Table 2.3-60, an occurrence of wind direction persistence in the 36-to 40-hour category was reported for both a northerly and a southerly wind at Louisville. There were 35 cases where calm conditions persisted 10 or more hours at Louisville. 2.3.5.2 Atmospheric Stability Temperature difference data between the 33-foot and the 190" foot tower levels at the Marble Hill site have been used to estimate atmospheric stability by relation with the temperature lapse rate (change of temperature with height). Monthly and annual average frequency of occurrence data for each Pasquill stability class are presented in ER-OL Table 2.3-61. The neutral (D) and slightly stable (E) stability classes occurred approximately 70% of the time over the 12-month cycle. l4" On an annual basis, the frequency of occurrence of the stability classes on either side of these two categories taper off. Unstable (A through C) stability classes were most pronounced during August. In contrast, these unstable categories occurred leas; frequently during November through January. The combined D p) and E stability classes represented over 72% of the measurements x_ made during November through April. ER-OL Table 2.3-62 presents data on the persistence of Pasquill stability classes at Marble Hill during the 1981-1983 period of l4 record. Stability Class D persisted for more than 39 hours during 21 periods of this 2-year sample of data. The longest l4 persistence of a single stability class was for Class D, which persisted for 63 hours beginning in the morning of February 5 and lasting until 11 p.m. February 7, 1983. Overcast skies and fog 4 characterized this 3-day period, with some precipitation in the area on February 5 and 6, 1983. Winds ranged from easterly clockwise through northwesterly, with below normal temperatures throughout the period. All of the other 14 cases where D 4 stability persisted for more than 46 hours occurred during the season from November through April. Joint frequency distributions of the 33-foot and 199-foot wind data for each Pasquill stability class are presented in ER-OL Tables 2.3-63 and 2.3-64 and Figures 2.3-41 through 2.3-54. Stability data, in combination with wind measurements made at the 33-foot level, were used in calculating the atmospheric dispersion factors presented in ER-OL Subsection 2.3.6. The combination of low wind speeds, constant wind direction, and stable atmosphere produces unfavorable atmospheric diffusion conditions. For the 33-foot level of the 199-foot tower, the SUPPLEMENT 4 2.3-14 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL (I combination of light winds (less than 3 mph) and A stability i N-- occurred 0.02% of the total period; for B stability, 0.02%; for C stability, 0.7%; for D stability, 1.72%; for E stability, 2.49%; for F stability, 2.80%; and for G stability, 3.47%. At this 4 instrument level, lower wind speeds were most often associated with moderately stable to stable atmospheric conditions (Classes F and G). Long-term joint frequency distribution of wind speed and direction for each Pasquill stability class at Louisville (1958-1977) are summarized in ER-OL Table 2.3-65. The resulting Louisville stability class frequencies of occurrence (in percent) are compared to short-term (2-year period) Marble Hill data (from ER-OL Table 2.3-63) as follows: PASQUILL FREOUENCY OF OCCURRENCE (%) STABILITY CLASS MARBLE HILL LOUISVILLE A 2.64 1.42 B 4.12 7.40 C 6.34 11.01 D 42.73 52.46 4 / E 27.27 11.07 (_)i I F 10.79 11.01 l l G 6.12 5.62 l The long-term offsite data show a higher frequency of stability Class D occurrence, while the E class occurrence was significantly lower than the corresponding onsite percentage. l The Louisville stability data were calculated from surface l observations alone, and this procedure can lead to significant l bias in stability class frequency of occurrence. ~ ER-OL Table 2.3-66 presents persistence of Pasquill stability class statistics for Louisville (1958-1977). The neutral stability Class D persisted over a substantially larger number of consecutive observations than any other stability class. The j largest number of consecutive observations (13 to 18 hours i I

Ix_,

SUPPLEMENT 4 2.3-15 DECEMBER 1983

O O O TABLE 2.3-2 COMPARISON OF SHORT-TERM TEMPERATURE DATA AT MARBLE IIILL SITE AND LOUISVILLE i ( All Values in Degrees Fahrenheit) AVERAGE MAXIMUM MINIMUM MONTII MARBLE ilILLa LOUISVILLE MARBLE HILLa LOUISVILLE MARBLE HILLa LOUISVILLE January 28.5 31.7 57.2 60.0 -16.2 -11.0 1 February 33.9 36.2 69.1 75.0 - 3.3 4.0 1 March 44.3 46.9 78.1 82.0 18.3 18.0 I April 49.8 51.5 78.6 81.0 20.5 22.0 i w i 4 May 64.5 66.2 85.3 88.0 39.2 39.0 p 7 o j June 69.7 71.4 89.2 92.0 50.7 51.0 M July 74.8 78.4 91.8 95.0 39.2 57.0 W i 6 August 71.5 74.8 90.1 95.0 54.5 53.0 n September 64.6 67.3 84.2 07.0 43.0 42.0 j October 56.2 57.8 83.7 87.0 27.0 24.0 l November 47.1 48.1 76.1 80.0 21.2 21.0 December 37.5 39.4 73.6 76.0 0.3 4.0 1 j Annual 53.5 55.8 91.8 95.0 -16.2 -11.0 am MC a om I U@ en i g3 Note: Period of record was from July 1981 through June 1983. Z l [H Values are from the 33-foot level of the 199-foot tower. ~ i

TABLE 2.3-3 COMPARISON OF SilORT-TERM AARBLE ilILL SITE TEMPERATURE DATA WITil LONG-TERM LOUISVILLE LATA ( All Values in Degrees Fahrenheit) AVERAGE MAXIMUM MINIMUM MONT11 MARDLE IIILLa LOUISVILLI MARBLE IIILL4 LOUISVILLEc MARBLE ilILLa LOUISVILLEc January 28.5 34.3 57.2 77 -16.2 -20 Feb ruary 33.9 36.6 69.1 77 - 3.3 -19 Marc h 44.3 45.7 78.1 85 18.3 -1 E April 49.8 56.4 78.6 91 20.5 24 g May 64.5 66.0 85.3 95 39.2 31 g w June 69.7 74.6 09.2 102 50.7 42 h July 74.8 78.3 91.8 105 39.2 50 y Aug ust 71.5 76.8 90.1 101 54.5 49 f H Se ptember 64.6 70.4 84.2 104 43.0 33 e Oc tober 56.2 58.7 83.7 92 27.0 23 tb vembe r 47.1 46.4 76.1 84 21.1 -1 Dec ember 37.5 37.2 73.6 73 0.3 -9 Annual 53.5 56.8 91.8 105 -16.2 -20 Values are f rom the 33-foot level o f the 199-foot tower, for the period July 1981 through am y@ June 1983. MN D @E Period 1941-1980.

$z c Period 19'8-1980.

we $b w b b b

p y b V TABLE 2.3-5 C_0_MPARISON OF SilORT-TERM DEW-POINT TEMPERATURES.AT MARBLE HILL SITE AND LOUISVILLE (All Values in Degrees Fahrenheit) AVERAGE MAXIMUM MINIMUM MONTil MARBLE HILLa LOUISVILLE MARBLE HILLa LOUISVILLE MARBLE IIILLa LOUISVILLE January 21.9 21.n 56.1 53.0 -18.4 -30.0 February 25.5 26.0 51.1 53.0 -3.6 -11.0 March 33.5 33.5 63.9 65.0 7.7 11.0 N April 32.9 37.0 61.9 62.0 6.8 11.0 { May 54.1 52.5 70.2 74.0 29.8 32.O F June 57.2 59.5 71.6 76.0 40.8 41.0 g* July 67.2 68.5 77.9 77.0 48.7 51.0 b w August 63.5 64.5 79.7 75.0 47.5 50.0 M September 56.3 57.5 73.4 74.0 34.7 39.0 October 45.8 45.0 74.7 71.0 17.8 19.0 November 38.5 37.0 67.5 62.0 12.6 10.0 December 32.4 29.0 63.7 61.0 1.0 0.0 Annual 44.1 44.3 79.7 77.0 -18.4 -30.0 o tn $O Note: Period of record was from July 1981 through June 1983, to M - M 3: WM " Values are from the 199-foot level of the 199-foot tower. g e*e $b w b

/~N ("N Q b () k) TABLE 2.3-7 COMPARISON OF SHORT-TERM RCLATIVE HUMIDITY AT MARBLE HILL SITE AND LOUISVILLE (All Values in Percentages) AVERAGE MAXIMUM MINIMUM MONTH MARBLE HILLa LOUISVILLE MARBLE HILLa LOUISVILLE MARBLE HILLa LOUISVILLE January 79.4 66.8 100.0 96.0 22.2 20.0 February 75.9 68.4 100.0 96.0 23.6 20.0 March 71.0 63.8 100.0 100.0 15.7 18.0 April 58.8 60.4 100.0 97.0 18.2 18.0 g May 61.9 64.4 100.0 100.0 21.9 21.0 g F June 70.4 68.4 100.0 97.0 31.5 28.0 0 July 77.9 73.3 100.0 100.0 42.7 42.0 y August 76.1 72.9 100.0 100.0 41.8 38.0 6 m l September 75.0 73.8 100.0 100.0 27.1 34.0 October 67.4 65.9 100.0 96.0 24.7 24.0 November 75.1 68.2 100.0 93.0 28.3 27.0 December 80.7 68.0 100.0 96 33.1 30.0 Annual 72.5 67.9 100.0 100.0 15.7 18.0 O$ l 93 3r $M Note: Period of record was from July 1981 through June 1983. xN e$ Values are from the 199-foot level of the 199-foot tower. i

MH 162 ER-OL TABLE 2.3-11 COMPARISON OF AVERAGE TOTAL SHORT-TERM PRECIPITATION AT MARBLE HILL, LOUISVILLE AND CINCINNATI (Values in Inches of Water Equivalent) MONTH MARBLE HILL LOUISVILLE CINCINNATI January 4.34 3.46 4.37 February 1.22 1.54 1.16 Marc h 3.00 4.03 3.35 April 4.80 5.08 3.51 May 7.89 6.77 6.75 June 4.21 4.14 2.92 4 July 3.97 3.85 3.05 August 2.72 3.48 4.93 ) September 1.95 3.34 1.37 Oc tob er 2.35 1.43 1.66 Novenber 3.78 3.95 4.01 Dec ember 3.42 3.57 3.32 Annual 43.65 44.64 40.40 No te : Period of recoro was from July 1981 through June 1983. 4 ( SUPPLEMENT 4 2,3_29 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL TABLE 2.3-12 COMPARISON OF AVERAGE TOTAL SHORT-TERM PRECIPITATION AT MARBLE HILL WITH LONG-TERM PRECIPITATION AT LOUISVILLE AND CINCINNATI (Values in Inches of Water Equivalent) a D c MONTH MARBLE HILL LOUISVILLE CINCINNATI January 4.34 3.89 3.48 February 1.22 3.35 2.86 Marc h 3.00 4.57 3.93 April 4.80 3.96 3.55 May 7.89 3.88 3.70 June 4.21 3.87 4.15 July 3.97 3.77 4,28 4 August 2.72 3.29 2.95 September 1.95 2.83 2.98 Oc tober 2.35 2.59 2.50 November 3.78 3.47 3.20 Dec edaer 3.42 3.56 3.02 Annual 43.65 43.03 40.60 aPeriod of record was from July 1981 through June 1983. 4 b Period of record was from January 1941 through December

1980, c Period of record was from January 1948 through December 1980.

n SUPPLEMENT 4 2.3-30 DECEMBER 1983

D ) ( J 4 TABLE 2.3-17 ANNUAL WIND ROSE DATA FOR 33-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER i DISTRIBUTION OF OCCURENCES BY SPEED ANO DIRECTION j SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW JSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALN 8 i 0.oo<WS< 3.40 110 114 184 145 123 81 98 113 152 176 127 96 83 69 62 72 1805 3.40<WS< 7.40 409 407 705 567 484 439 503 539 856 779 584 401 383 330 370 311 8067 i 7.40<WSc 12.40 184 194 367 341 297 175 169 267 594 608 349 272 345 364 314 307 5147 12.40<WS< 18.40 28 35 78 125 91 36 27 42 227 201 89 140 244 170 105 115 1753 18.40<WS< 24.40 3 0 1 8 2 7 3 5 26 63 13 45 44 16 4 2 242 WS> 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 10 7 1 0 0 21 h TOTALS 734 750 1335 1186 997 738 800 906 1855 1830 1162 964 110e 950 855 807 17013 h) H FREOUENC( Or DCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL OBSERVATIONS) Eh i LJ h) I i w M a 01 SPEED (NPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL = ^ CALN .05 I i O.oo<WS< 3.40 .65 .67 1.08 .85 .72 .48 .58 .66 .89 1.03 .75 .56 .49 .40 .36 .42 10.59 O 3.40<WS< 7.40 2.40 2.39 4.14 3.33 2.84 2.58 2.95 3.16 5.02 4.57 3.43 2.35 2.25 1.94 2.17 1.82 47.33 a 7.40<WS< 12.40 1.08 1.14 2.15 2.00 1.74 1.03 .99 1.57 3.49 3.57 2.05 1.60 2.02 2.14 1.84 1.80 30.20 12.40<WS< i8.40 .16 .21 .46 .73 .53 .21 .16 .25 1.33 1.18 .52 .82 1.43 1.00 .62 .67 10.29 18.40<WEC 24.40 .02 .00 .01 .05 .01 .o4 .02 .03 .15 .37 .08 .26 .26 .o9 .02 .01 1.42 1 WS> 24.40 .oo .oo .oo .oo .00 .oo .oo .o0 .00 .o2 .oo .oS .oe .ot .oo .00 .12 J TOTALS 4.31 4.40 7.83 8.96 5.85 4.33 4.69 5.67 10.88 10.74 6.82 5.66 6.49 5.57 5.02 4.74 100.00 1, i i u m Notes: Recovery rate was 97.28%. MC om Based on the two-year period from July 1981 through June 1983. R! This distribution of wind speed and wind direction does not omit hours with missing hg@ stability data. q =M 4 Z HH l W w.c. W 4 h 4 i

{ l' % ) D i TABLE 2.3-18 ANNUAL WIND ROSE DATA FOR 199-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER 4 i ) i DISTRIBUTION OF OCCURENCES BY SPEED AND OIRECTION i SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL 3 CALN i 0.00<WS< 3.40 27 27 34 22 18 21 23 17 22 17 25 14 13 18 21 25 354 i 3.40<WS< 7.80 232 235 242 210 2 19 268 207 218 228 235 208 163 193 143 179 179 3359 7.40<WS< 12.40 334 348 477 484 483 361 377 443 664 741 514 396 443 425 432 340 7262 12.40<WS< 18.40 109 112 276 219 276 152 216 290 645 655 345 223 316 317 277 236 4664 18.40<WS< 24.40 to 6 30 65 41 29 29 36 195 176 69 88 186 124 56 34 1174 g 1 WS> 24.40 4 0 0 7 1 7 4 2 41 85 26 50 52 15 2 1 297 m i TOTALS 716 728 1059 1017 1038 838 856 1006 1795 1909 1187 934 1203 1042 967 815 17113 y g J w w 1 FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL OBSERVATIONS) D1 4 Ld

D SPEED (MPH)

N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL .02 U CALM 0.00<WS< 3.40 .16 .16 .20 .19 .11 .12 .13 .10 .13 .10 .15 .08 .08 .11 .12 .15 2.07 3.40cWS< 7.40 1.36 1.37 1.41 1.23 1.28 1.57 1.21 1.27 1.33 1.37 1.22 .95 1.13 .84 1.05 1.05 19.63 l 7.40<WS< 12.40 1.95 2.03 2.79 2.83 2.82 2.11 2.20 2.59 3.88 4.33 3.00 2.31 2.59 2.48 2.52 1.99 42.44 1 12.40<WS< 18.40 .64 .65 1.61 1.28 1.61 .89 1.26 1.69 3.77 3.83 2.02 1.30 1.85 1.85 1,62 1.38 27.25 i 18.40<WS< 24.40 .06 .04 .18 .38 .24 .17 .17 .21 1.14 1.03 .40 .51 1.09 .72 .33 .20 6.86 WS) 24.40 .02 .00 .00 .04 .01 .04 .02 .01 .24 .50 .15 .29 .30 .09 .01 .01 1.74 TOTALS 4.18 4.25 6.19 5.94 6.07 4.90 5.00 5.88 10.49 11.16 6.94 5.46 7.03 6.09 5.65 4.76 100.00 } i ts en 1 MC i om i M 'If M { M $ Notes: Recovery rate was 97.68%. 1 j N@ Based on the two-year period July 1981 through June 1983. l [8 The distribution of wind speed and wind direction does not omit hours with missing stability data. ma W i' b 1 }

TABLE 2.3-20 PERSISTENCE OF WIND DIRECTION FOR 33-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER (Number of Occurrences) PERSISTE!1CE HIND DIRECTIOt1 (hours) C AIM N IJIJ E I4E ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W h!JW NW IJNW 1-3 7 359 396 502 549 499 417 432 489 602 642 549 448 425 385 365 354 4-6 0 35 22 57 50 39 25 27 46 92 92 64 37 55 62 49 33 3: 7-9 0 7 8 14 8 7 2 5 11 40 30 8 11 17 5 5 15 m u e 10-12 0 0 1 12 3 3 4 3 0 13 13 0 2 5 5 3 2 [ w I 13-15 0 0 1 5 2 2 0 0 0 3 2 1 1 3 1 0 0 y 16-18 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 f. 19-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 > 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 om n9 Ny IJo te : Based on two years of data f roin July 1981 through June 1983. 5" a

O O O TABLE 2.3-21 PERSISTENCE OF WIND DIRECTION FOR 199-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER (Number of Occurrences) PEllSISTUNCE WItJD DIRECTION (hours) CALM IJ IJIJE IJE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW hSW W WIJW IJW NNW 1-3 2 300 320 367 388 382 344 349 450 527 550 502 403 405 380 333 329 4-6 0 38 40 44 58 53 51 47 45 95 32 52 44 64 65 66 35 3: 7-9 0 10 7 15 14 14 5 7 13 32 31 17 11 15 6 10 13 y e Y 10-12 0 1 2 7 2 4 1 5 1 12 24 1 5 7 5 6 3 C 13-15 0 0 1 3 2 4 1 0 1 5 7 2 1 6 3 1 0 16-18 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 19-21 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 > 22 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mc. 9:8 5" n2 NE IJo te : 13ased on two years of data f rom July 1981 through June 1983. Ud 5'

[ C [ ( ( ( TABLE '2.3-23 JANUARY WIND ROSE DATA FOR 33-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER DISTRIBUTION Or OCCURENCES BY SPEED AND DIRECTION SPEED (NPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S T3W SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL. CALN O 0.00<WS< 3.40 7 4 4 2 1 4 2 3 5 9 5 5 8 4 3 8 74 3.40<WS< 7.40 34 28 24 33 25 20 35 32 47 44 SR 56 19 29 19 25 538 7.40<WS< 12.40 16 17 21 38 35 27 21 40 48 46 3: 40 29 27 23 34 497 12.40<WS< 18.40 0 5 1 39 16 4 1 1 31 19 12 41 55 42 28 5 300 f 18.40<WS< 24.40 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 21 20 4 1 0 59 WS> 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 to TOTALS 57 54 51 120 77 55 59, 76 131 121 121 166 131 106 74 72 147f g p, W to 1 FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE (% OF TOTA 1. 08SERVATIONS) g ps pd i SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL O CALN .00 U O.00<WS< 3.40 .48 .27 .27 .14 .07 .27 .14 .20 .34 .61 .34 .34 .54 .27 .20 .54 5.03 3.40<WS< 7.40 2.31 1.90 1 63 2.24 1.70 1.36 2.38 2.18 3.20 2.99 4.62 3.81 1.29 1.97 1.29 1.70 36.57 7.40<WS< 12.40 1.09 1.16 1.43 2.58 2.38 1.84 1.43 2.72 3.26 3.13 2.38 2.72 1.97 1.84 1.56 2.31 33.79 12.40<WS< 18.40 .00 .34 .07 2.65 1.09 .27 .07 .07 2.11 1.29 .82 2.79 3.74 2.86 1.90 .34 20.39 18.40<WS< 24.40 .00 .00 .07 .54 .00 .00 .00 .00 .M .20 .07 1.43 1.36 .27 .07 .00 4.01 WS> 24.40 .oo .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .20 .00 .00 .00 .00 .20 TOTALS 3.87 3.67 3.47 8.16 5.23 3.74 4.01 5.17 8.91 8.23 8.23 11.28 8.91 7.21 5.03 4.89 100.00 O tn MC om MM $M$ 5 E Notes: Recovery rate was 98.86%. HH Based on 1982 and 1983 data. e CD b W b

\\ \\ TABLE 2.3-24 FEBRUARY WIND ROSE DATA FOR 33-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER DISTRIBUTION OF OCCURENCES BY SPEED AND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM O O.00<WS< 3.40 11 8 7 5 12 8 4 5 6 8 6 5 10 3 3 7 108 3.40<WS< 7.40 32 45 49 54 63 53 51 37 62 46 28 16 28 14 14 to 602 7.40<WS< 12.40 26 31 69 54 36 to 5 1 14 53 19 19 45 39 26 34 481 12.40<WS< 18.40 4 2 11 18 8 1 0 0 1 11 8 11 26 4 4 33 142 g 18.40<WS< 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 pg i WS> 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 73 86 136 131 119 72 60 43 83 118 61 51 111 60 47 84 1335 P' .bJ m W bJ [ FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE (% OF TC

l. 08 SERV #,TIONS) 1 ttj

$3 33 1 h SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM .00 0.00<WS< 3.40 .82 .60 .52 .37 .90 .60 .30 .37 .45 .60 .45 .37 .75 .22 .22 .52 8.09 3.40<WS< 7.40 2.40 3.37 3.67 4.04 4.72 3.97 3.82 2.77 4.64 3.45 2.10 1.20 2.10 1.05 f.05 .75 45.09 7.40<WS< 12.40 1.95 2.02 5.17 4.04 2.70 .75 .37 .07 1.05 3.97 1.42 1.42 3.37 2.92 1.95 2.55 36.03 12.40<WS< 18.40 .30 .1G .82 1.35 .60 .07 .00 .00 .07 .82 .60 .82 1.95 .30 .30 2.47 10.64 18.40<WS< 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .15 .00 .00 .00 .15 ftS> 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TOTALS 5.47 6.44 10.19 9.81 8.91 5.39 4.49 3.22 6.22 8.84 4.57 3.82 8.31 4.49 3.52 G.29 100.00 UM I MC om MM [$ } m$ m) m z F * +-3 a o Notes: Recovery rate was 99.33%. Based on 1982 and 1983 da+a. ] b i l l 1

m$ ,n T I t O \\ j TABLE 2.3-25 MARCII WIND ROSE DATA FOR 33-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER I DISTRIBUTION OF OCCURENCES BY SPEED AND DIRECTION i SPEED EMPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL cnN O 1 i O.00<hs< 3.40 1 5 0 1 2 4 3 4 3 7 4 2 4 7 5 2 54 j 3.40<WS< 7.40 30 29 27 37 37 31 35 18 45 25 27 25 34 43 53 28 524 1 7.40<WS< 12.40 18 24 30 42 39 14 21 34 56 36 21 15 43 54 39 36 522 12.40<WS< 18.40 2 0 31 41 17 to 14 7 29 32 15 18 62 28 19 17 342 { 18.40<WS< 24.40 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 7 8 1 7 6 4 0 0 39 WS> 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oO TOTALS 51 58 88 121 96 61 76 63 140 108 68 67 149 136 116 83 4291 Fa p, W to [ FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL OBSERVATIONS) g y y i SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL O 1 i CALM .00 U J.00<WS< 3.40 .07 .34 .00 .07 .14 .27 .20 .27 .20 .47 .27 .14 .27 .47 .34 .14 3.65 J.40<WS< 7.40 2.03 1.96 1.82 2.50 2.50 2.09 2.36 1.22 3.04 1.69 1.82 1.69 2.30 2.90 3.58 1.89 35.38 7.40<WS< 12.40 1.22 1.62 2.03 2.84 2.63 .95 1.42 2.30 3.78 2.43 1.42 1.01 2.90 3.65 2.63 2.43 35.25 f 12.40<WS< 18.40 .14 .00 2.09 2.77 1.15 .68 .95 .47 1.96 2.16 1.01 1.22 4.19 1.89 1.28 1.15 23.09 18.40<WS< 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .07 .14 .20 .00 .47 .54 .07 .47 .41 .27 .00 .00 2.63 WSi 24.?O .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TOTALS 3.44 3.92 5.94 8.17 6.48 4.12 5.13 4.25 9.45 7.29 4.59 4.52 10.06 9.18 7.83 5.60 100.00 j o tn MC om MM g t4 M$ WM z Notes: Recovery rate was 99.53%. Ud Based on 1982 and 1983 data. co.c. W b

t

*h'

((" [Y([ M4!'g /g, k IMAGE EVALUATION k///7[ [ / (@ '4 TEST TARGET (MT-3) Y h' p p I.0 !? m E 5

DE

! E Na i'i gi.s I.25 " 1.4 1.6 4 150mm 4 6" [*'+ / $ 4)g<gy(

' & O p /i Q

by,

[ m ~ t. m x J ThBLE 2.3-26 APRIL WIND ROSE DATA FOR 33-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-POOT TOWER DISTRIBUTION OF DCCURENCES BY SPEED AND OIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM 0 0.00<WS< 3.40 1 1 4 1 0 0 3 4 5 to 4 3 5 5 1 3 50 i 3.40<WS< 7.40 35 to 30 24 11 19 31 27 37 64 46 39 23 15 26 27 470 7.40<WS< 12.40 28 22 34 33 30 29 18 20 60 60 47 17 33 50 32 41 554 12.40<WS< 18.40 11 8 17 13 23 12 7 13 26 27 11 11 29 16 16 19 259 18.40<WS< 24.40 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 6 22 2 8 9 4 3 2 St DE WS> 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 0 0 15 w TOTALS 76 47 85 71 64 61 59 67 134 183 110 85 106 91 78 92 1409 p p l w w [ FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL 08SERVATIONS) g 7g I SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL O CALM .00 M O.00<WS< 3,40 .07 .07 .28 .07 .00 .00 .21 .28 .35 .71 .28 .21 .35 .35 .07 .21 3.55 3.40<WS< 7.40 2.48 1.14 2.13 1.70 .78 1.35 2.20 1.92 2.63 4.54 3.26 2.77 1.63 1.06 1.85 1.92 33.36 7.40<WS< 12.40 1.99 1.56 2.41 2.34 2.13 2.06 1.28 1.42 4.26 4.26 3.34 1.21 2.34 3.55 2.27 2.91 39.32 12.40<WS< 18.40 .78 .57 1.21 .92 1.63 .85 .50 .92 1.85 1.92 .78 .78 2.06 1.14 1.14 1.35 18.38 18.40<WS< 24.40 .07 .00 .00 .00 .00 .07 .00 .21 .43 1.56 .14 .57 .64 .28 .21 .14 4.33 WS> 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .50 .50 .07 .00 .00 1.06 ] TOTALS 5.39 3.34 6.03 5.04 4.54 4.33 4.19 4.76 9.51 12.99 7.81 6.03 7.52 6.46 5.54 6.53 100.00 l c cn MC om MM h I m$ 1

o M Z

HH Notes: Recovery rate was 97.85%. $a Based on 1982 and 1983 data. w 1 I A 1 d 1 ]

C\\ ( d V \\ i TABLE 2.3-27 MAY WIND ROSE DATA FOR 33-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER DISTRIBUTION OF OCCURENCES BY SPEED AND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM O O.OO<WS< 3.40 15 6 16 19 12 5 10 11 23 10 11 7 2 6 5 7 165 3.40<WS< 7.40 38 31 59 52 58 43 53 51 87 83 56 36 28 5 15 21 716 { 7.40<WS< 12.40 23 22 5 16 51 9 15 23 44 50 54 28 31 14 8 11 404 J 12.40<WS< 18.40 0 4 5 1 2 0 3 6 22 31 7 16 3 6 2 7 115 g 18.40<WS< 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 WS> 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 t J N TOTALS 76 63 85 BR 123 57 81 91 180 187 128 87 64 31 30 46 1417 g p l u y I [ FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL 06SERVATIONS) g tp 1 SPEED (MPt4) N <NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S S$W SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL O CALM .00 M l 0.00<WS< 3.40 1.06 .42 1.13 1.34 .85 .35 .71 .78 1.62 .71 .78 .49 .14 .42 .35 .49 11.84 3.40<WS< 7.40 2.68 2.19 4.15 3.67 4.09 3.03 3.74 3.60 6.14 5.86 3.95 2.54 1.98 .35 1.06 1.48 50.53 7.40<WS< 12.40 1.62 1.55 .35 1.13 3.60 .64 1.06 1.62 3.11 3.53 3.81 1.98 2.19 .99 .56 .78 28.51 12.40<WS< 18.40 .00 .28 .35 .07 .14 .00 .21 .42 1.55 2.19 .49 1.13 .21 .42 .14 .49 8.12 14.40<WS< 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .28 .71 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .99 WS> 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .21 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .21 TOTALS 5.36 4.45 6.00 8.21 8.68 4.02 5.72 6.42 12.70 13.20 9.03 6.14 4.52 2.19 2.12 3.25 100.00 Es tn MC om M 'd F M$

d Mz He e

- Notes:

Recovery rate was 95.23%. w Based on 1982 and 1983 data. l A 4 I

h \\ ( d i TABLE 2.3-28 JUNE WIND ROSE DATA FOR.3J-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER DISTRIBUTION OF OCCURENCES tlY SPEED ANO DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM O 0.00<WS< 3.40 15 13 35 27 20 14 17 19 20 33 36 19 13 10 13 9 313 3.40<WS< 7.40 53 41 65 43 49 49 73 84 77 63 40 23 36 41 51 31 819 7.40<WS< 12.40 9 6 32 15 6 5 5 11 29 28 23 14 9 36 29 18 275 12.40<WS< 18.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 to g 18.40<WS< 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 n O O O O O O O O O O WS> 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'O O O O h3 TOTALS 77 60 132 85 75 68 96 114 128 130 99 56 58 87 93 59 1417 Fa m 4 u, ha 1 FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL OSSERVATIONS) g an pd I SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL O CALM .00 0.00<WS< 3.40 1.06 .92 2.47 1.91 1.41 .99 1.20 1.34 1.41 2.33 2.54 1.34 .92 .71 .92 .64 22.09 3.40<WS< 7.40 3.74 2.89 4.59 3.03 3.46 3.46 5.15 5.93 5.43 4.45 2.82 1.62 2.54 2.89 3.60 2.19 57.80 7.40<WS< 12.40 .64 .42 2.26 1.06 .42 .35 .35 .78 2.05 1.98 1.62 .99 .64 2.54 2.05 1.27 19.41 12.40<WS< 18.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .07 .00 .14 .42 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .07 .71 '18.40<WS< 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 WS> 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TOTALS 5.43 4.23 9.32 8.00 5.29 4.80 8.77 8.05 9.03 9.17 8.99 3.95 4.09 6.14 8.56 4.16 100.00 O U3 MC am MM hM$ ld M Z Notes: Recovery rate was 98.40%. Ud Based on 1982 and 1983 data. mu W b 4

f \\ \\ TABLE 2.3-29 JULY WIND ROSE DATA FOR 33-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER DISTRIBUTION OF OCCURENCES SY SPEED AND DIRECTION SPEED (NPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALN 4 0.00<WS< 3.40 13 27 45 27 21 13 10 13 19 14 9 to 5 13 6 7 252 3.40<WS< 7.40 29 55 115 68 49 51 37 45. 88 79 85 41 23 32 33 47 877 7.40<WS< 12.40 6 15 13 42 26 19 1 7 25 53 25 26 22 14 9 13 316 12.40<WS< 18.40 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 0 3 0 1 4 7 0 0 0 23 18.40<WS< 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DE WS> 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N TOTALS 48 97 173 140 99 84 49 65 135 146 120 81 57 59 48 67 1472 e,, w N [ FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL 06SERVATIONS) g n I SPEED (NPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL O CALN .27 M 0.00<WS< 3.40 .88 1.83 3.06 1.83 1.43 .88 .68 .88 1.29 .95 .61 .68 .34 .88 .41 .48 17.12 3.40<WS< 7.40 1.97 3.74 7.81 4.62 3.33 3.46 2.51 3.06 5.98 5.37 5.77 2.79 1.56 2.17 2.24 3.19 59.58 7.40<WS< 12.40 .41 1.02 .88 2.85 1.77 1.29 .07 .48 1.70 3.60 1.70 1.77 1.49 .95 .61 .88 21.47 12.40<WS< 18.40 .00 .00 .00 .20 .20 .07 .07 .00 .20 .00 .07 .27 .48 .00 .00 .00 1.56 18.40<WS< 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 WS) 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TOTALS 3.26 6.59 11.75 9.51 6.73 5.71 3.33 4.42 9.17 9.92 8.15 5.50 3.87 4.01 3.26 4.55 100.00 c2 in MC om Mm g t< MNMz HH Notes: Recovery rate was 98.92%. $.e. Based on 1981 and 1982 data. w b

w w G ~ i TABLE 2.3-30 AUGUST WIND ROSE DATA FOR 33-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER 1 1 DISTRIBUTION OF OCCURENCES BY SPEED AND DIRECTION t SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM 4 0.00<WS< 3.40 14 18 25 24 14 11 19 13 21 29 25 19 20 11 5 12 280 3.40<WS< 7.40 30 37 113 43 44 38 43 63 86 129 73 53 52 25 23 19 871 7.40<WS< 12.40 9 14 70 27 8 7 4 5 24 40 18 14 8 23 9 16 296 12.40<WS< 18.40 1 0 5 5 f 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 g 18.40<WS< 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WS> 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 54 69 213 99 87 57 66 81 131 198 116 86 80 59 37 48 1465 .da pa W oJ I FREOUENCY OF OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL OBSERVATIONS) A M g3 1 SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL O CALM .27 M 0.00<WS< 3.40 .96 1.23 1.71 1.84 .96 .75 1.30 .89 1.43 1.98 1.71 1.30 1.37 .75 .34 .82 19.11 i 3.40<WS< 7.40 2.05 2.53 7.71 2.94 3.00 2.59 2.94 4.30 5.87 8.81 4.98 3.82 3.55 1.71 1.57 1.30 59.45 7.40<WS< 12.40 .51 .96 4.78 1.84 .55 .48 .27 .34 1.64 2.73 1.23 .96 .55 1.57 .61 1.09 20.20 t 12.40<WS< 18.40 .07 .00 .34 .34 .07 .07 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .07 .96 18.40<WS< 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 j WS> 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 i TOTALS 3.69 4.71 14.54 6.76 4.57 3.89 4.51 5.53 8.94 13.52 7.92 5.87 5.46 4.03 2.53 3.28 100.00 l c tn MC I am MM 7 g t*M M e. WMZ Notes: Recovery rate was 98.45%. He e Based on 1981 and 1982 data. wu W b

Q f O t u U TABLE 2.3-31 SEPTEMBER WIND ROSE DATA FOR 33-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER DISTRIBUTION OF OCCURENCES BY SPEED AND OIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM 0 0.OO<WS< 3.40 53 15 20 12 17 6 8 12 18 29 15 13 5 1 8 6 198 3.40<WS< 7.40 40 36 84 41 36 33 30 51 97 105 63 39 50 55 40 3f 831 7.40<WS< 12.40 9 22 28 4 4 5 8 16 25 50 48 20 12 17 36 25 329 12.40<WS< 18.40 7 5 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 7 1 8 0 0 0 3 37 h 18.40<WS< 24.40 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 WS> 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pa TOTALS 71 78 132 58 59 44 46 82 142 191 127 80 67 75 84 65 1401 Fe m u bJ [ FREOUENCY OF OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL OBSERVATIONS) g _._m..__........___......._______.________......_..._..__________________ y, pg I SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL O CALM .00 0.00<WS< 3.40 .93 1.07 1.43 .86 1.21 .43 .57 .86 1.28 2.07 1.07 .93 .36 .07 .57 .43 14.13 3.40<WS< 7.40 2.86 2.57 6.00 2.93 2.57 2.36 2.14 3.64 6.92 7.49 4.50 2.78 3.57 3.93 2.86 2.21 59.31 7.40<WS< 12.40 .64 1.57 2.00 .29 .29 .36 .57 1.14 1.78 3.57 3.43 1.43 .86 1.21 2.57 1.78 23.48 12.40<WS< 18.40 .50 .36 .00 .07 .07 .00 .00 .14 .14 .50 .07 .57 .00 .00 .00 .21 2.64 18.40<WS< 24.40 .14 .00 .00 .00 .07 .00 .00 .07 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .14 .00 .00 .43 WS> 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TOTALS 5.07 5.57 9.42 4.14 4.21 3.14 3.28 5.85 10.14 13.63 9.06 5.71 4.78 5.35 e.00 4.64 100.09 O en MC om mm g t* M:o tri p $ Notes: Recovery rate was 97.29%. Based on 1981 and 1982 data. co u W b

O \\ Q) TABLE 2.3-32 OCTOBER WIND ROSE DATA FOR 33-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER DISTRIBUTION DF OCCURENCES BY SPEED AND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM O 0.OO<WS< 3.40 13 11 25 23 15 7 9 15 19 15 7 4 7 6 12 6 194 3.40<WS< 7.40 36 48 66 74 37 34 39 57 91 43 30 22 29 37 40 27 710 7.40<WS< 12.40 7 6 39 16 19 17 12 22 62 67 15 24 19 17 23 21 386 12.40<WS< 18.40 1 1 1 O O O O O 4 19 3 6 10 5 6 7 63 g 18.40<WS< 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WS> 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w TOTALS 57 66 131 113 71 58 60 94 176 144 55 56 65 65 81 61 1353 g g W M I FREQUENCY Or OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL 06SERVATIONS) W td --~~~~--------------------------------------------~~~-------~~------~~~~------~~~~~--~~-----~~------~~~~-------- ------~~~------ o g I SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL O CALM .00 td 0.00<WS< 3.40 .96 .81 1.85 1.70 1.11 .52 .67 1.11 1.40 1.11 .52 .30 .52 .44 .89 .44 14.34 3.40<WS< 7.40 2.66 3.55 4.88 5.47 2.73 2.51 2.88 4.21 6.73 3.18 2.22 1.63 2.14 2.73 2.96 2.00 52.48 7.40<WS< 12.40 .52 .44 2.88 1.18 1.40 1.26 .89 1.63 4.58 4.95 1 11 1.77 1.40 1.26 1.70 1.55 28.53 12.40<WS< 18.40 .07 .07 .07 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .30 1.40 22 .44 .74 .37 44 .52 4.66 18.40<WS< 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 WS> 24.40 .00 .CO .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TOTALS 4.21 4.88 9.68 4.35 5.25 4.29 4.43 6.95 13.01 10.64 4.07 4.14 4.80 4.80 5.99 4.51 100.00 o tn MC om Um t< 6M M 3: WM g $ Notes: Recovery rate was 90.93%. Based on 1981 and 1982 data. co u W b

) \\ v TABLE 2.3-33 NOVEMBER WIND ROSE DATA FOR 33-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER i DISTRIBUTION OF OCCURENCES 8Y SPEED AND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM 0 0.00<WS< 3.40 4 5 3 2 4 5 9 8 6 6 1 1 0 0 1 1 56 3.40<WS< 7.40 25 29 30 60 43 43 37 26 98 57 40 22 28 14 16 23 601 7.40<WS< 12.40 7 5 15 28 28 16 30 38 84 78 28 28 28 26 30 18 487 12.40<WS< 18.40 1 1 7 4 17 6 0 0 26 20 9 to 20 38 12 4 175 18.40<WS< 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 12 0 7 6 2 0 0 35 WS> 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M TOTALS 37 40 55 94 92 74 76 82 218 173 78 '68 82 80 59 46 1354 t' m W M Im FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL OBSERVATIONS) M pd pa 1 h SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S S$W SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM .00 0.00<WS< 3.40 .30 .37 .22 .15 .30 .37 .66 .59 .44 .44 .07 .07 .00 .00 .07 .07 4.14 3.40<WS< 7.40 1.85 2.14 2.22 4.43 3.18 3.18 2.73 2.66 7.24 4.21 2.95 1.82 2.07 1.03 1.18 1.70 44.39 7.40<WS< 12.40 .52 .37 1.11 2.07 2.07 1.18 2.22 2.81 6.20 5.76 2.07 2.07 2.07 1.92 2.22 1.b3 35.97 12.40<WS< 18.40 .07 .07 .52 .30 1.28 .44 .00 .00 1.92 1.48 .66 .74 1.48 2.81 .89 .30 12.92 i 18.40<WS< 24.40 .60 .00 .00 .00 .00 .30 .00 .00 .30 .89 .00 .52 .44 .15 .00 .00 2.58 j WS> 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TOTALS 2.73 2.95 4.06 6.94 6.79 5.47 5.61 6.06 16.10 12.78 5.76 5.02 6.00 5.91 4.36 3.40 100.00 o tn MC om Mm 3: td to M M 3: id M e k Notes: Recovery rate was 94.03%. Based on 1981 and 1982 data. m r. W b

1 J TABLE 2.3-34 DECEMBER WIND ROSE DATA FOR 33-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER 4 I DISTRIBUTION OF OCCURENCES BY SPEED ANO DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM O O.00<WS< 3.40 3 1 0 2 5 4 4 6 7 6 4 8 4 3 0 4 61 3.40<WS< 7.40 27 12 43 38 32 25 39 38 41 41 28 29 33 20 40 22 508 i 7.40<WS< 12.40 26 10 11 26 15 17 29 50 123 47 16 27 66 47 50 40 600 12.40<WS< 18.40 1 9 0 0 3 1 0 13 81 29 22 15 32 31 18 18 273 h 18.40<WS< 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 8 9 2 1 0 0 0 26 WS> 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V O O O O O O O g3 TOTALS 57 32 54 66 55 47 72 108 257 131 79 81 136 101 108 84 1468 Fd 25 w M l h, FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL OBSERVATIONS) p3 pd I h SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM .00 0.00<WS< 3.40 .20 .07 .00 .14 .34 .27 .27 .41 48 .41 .27 .54 .27 .20 .00 .27 4.16 3.40<WS< 7.40 1.84 .82 2.93 2.59 2.18 1.70 2.66 2.59 2.79 2.79 1.91 1.98 2.25 1.36 2.72 1.50 34.60 7.40<WS< 12.40 1.77 .68 .75 1.77 1.02 1.16 1.98 3.41 8.38 3.20 1.09 1.84 4.50 3.20 3.41 2.72 40.87 1 12.40<WS< 18.40 .07 .61 .00 .00 .20 .07 .00 .89 5.52 1.98 1.50 1.02 2.18 2.11 1.23 1.23 18.60 18.40<WS< 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .07 .34 .54 .61 .14 .07 .00 .00 .00 1.77 WS> 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TOTALS 3.88 2.18 3.68 4.50 3.75 3.20 4.90 7.36 17.51 8.92 5.38 5.52 9.26 6.88 7.36 5.72 100.00 i l O (n 1 MC oe i mm M t4 to M M 3:

o n ed Notes:

Recovery rate was 98.66%. Based on 1981 and 1982 data. co u W i b l e i es

( 0 (. V ( TABLE 2.3-35 JANUARY WIND ROSE DATA FOR 199-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER 1 4 DISTRIBUTION OF OCCURENCES BY SPEED AND DIRECTION SPEED (NPfl) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S $$W SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL j CALN O j 0.00<WS< 3.40 1 3 2 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 16 3.40<WS< 7.40 17 6 10 9 4 4 to 15 4 10 12 11 13 13 12 12 162 7.40<WS< 12.40 31 37 33 30 34 30 21 26 28 54 59 64 42 27 29 22 567 1 12.40<WS< 18.40 12 7 5 32 34 20 24 35 52 48 29 34 29 22 27 24 434 j 18.40<WS< 24.40 0 1 2 18 5 3 1 3 22 20 8 27 49 31 21 0 216 g 1 WS> 24.40 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 3 5 5 18 18 3 0 0 57 [ TOTALS t 54 52 94 77 57 58 80 111 137 114 154 151 102 90 60 1452 g g ) m W M a l 8 FREQUENCY Or OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL OBSERVATIONS) Ln bl w N I 1 SPEED (NPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL O CALN .00 M { 0.00<WS< 3.40 .07 .21 .14 .00 .00 .00 .14 .07 .14 .00 .07 .00 .00 .07 .07 .14 1.10 3.40<WS< 7.40 1.17 .41 .69 .62 .28 .28 .69 1.03 .28 .69 .83 .76 .90 .90 .83 .83 11.16 7.40<WS< 12.40 2.13 2.55 2.27 2.07 2.34 2.07 1.45 1.79 1.93 3.72 4.06 4.41 2.89 1.86 2.00 1.52 39.05 12.40<WS< 18.40 .83 .48 .34 2.20 2.34 1.38 1.65 2.41 3.58 3.31 2.00 2.38 2.00 1.52 1.86 1.65 29.89 ) 18.40<WS< 24.40 .00 .07 .14 1.24 .34 .21 .07 .21 1.52 1.38 .55 1.86 3.37 2.48 1.45 .00 14.88 i WS> 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .34 .00 .00 .00 .00 .21 .34 .34 1.24 1.24 .21 .00 .00 3.93 TOTALS 4.20 3.72 3.58 6.47 5.30 3.93 3.99 5.51 7.64 9.44 7.85 10.61 10.40 7.02 6.20 4.13 100.00 4 o tn l MC om Mm T t* to M $ h Notes: Recovery rate was 97.58%. l g$ Based on 1982 and 1983 data. e j CD A W 1 I b I l l

I

C O O 4 TABLE 2.3-36 4 1 FEBRUARY WIND ROSE DATA FOR 199-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER a DISTRIBUTION OF OCCURENCES BY SPEED AND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 5 SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM 0 0.00<WS< 3.40 3 5 5 3 1 2 O O 1 1 1 3 4 2 1 4 36 3.40<WS< 7.40 19 21 26 28 24 31 36 19 30 16 16 7 9 12 13 3 310 7.40<WS< 12.40 33 44 21 44 49 32 CJ 24 46 35 27 8 34 26 13 22 496 12.40<WS< 18.40 13 9 60 44 22 12 12 2 30 56 17 20 41 30 20 40 428 h 18.40<WS< 24.40 2 0 0 10 8 1 0 0 2 4 5 5 16 2 1 8 64 WS> 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 FJ TOTALS 70 79 112 129 104 78 86 45 109 112 66 43 100 72 48 77 1335 F' 4 es W N 1 U1 FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL OBSERVATIONS) trj pd am I SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW )MW TOTAL CALM .00 0.OO<WS< 3.40 .22 .37 .37 .22 .07 .15 .00 .00 .07 .07 .07 .22 .30 .15 .07 .30 2.70 3.40<WS< 7.40 1.42 1.57 1.95 2.10 1.80 2.32 2.70 1.42 2.25 1.20 1.20 .52 .67 .90 .97 .22 23.22 7.40<WS< 12.40 2.47 3.30 1.57 3.30 3.67 2.40 2.85 1.80 3.45 2.62 2.02 .60 2.55 1.95 .97 1.65 37.15 12.40<WS< 18.40 .97 .67 4.49 3.30 1.65 .90 .90 .15 2.25 4.19 1.27 1.50 3.07 2.25 1.50 3.00 32.06 i 18.40<WS< 24.40 .15 .00 .00 .75 .60 .07 .00 .00 .15 .30 .37 .37 1.20 .15 .07 .60 4.79 WS) 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .07 .00 .00 .00 .07 TOTALS 5.24 5.92 8.39 9.66 7.79 5.84 6.44 3.37 8.16 8.39 4.94 3.22 7.87 5.39 3.60 5.77 100.00 4 om MC om m *o M t* tn M Notes: Recovery rate was 99.33%. e.Z Based on 1982 and 1983 data. 1 -3 O l co e. i w 4 l l i e

b V) ( J t TABLE 2.3-37 MARCH WIND ROSE DATA FOR 199-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER DISTRIBUTION Or OCCURENCES BY SPEED AND DIRECTION S'EED IMPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW bd NNW TOTAL 1 CALM O j 0.00cWS< 3.40 1 O O 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 4 1 14 3.40<WS< 7.40 21 9 9 17 9 15 14 8 7 9 to 9 16 13 13 13 192 7.40<WS< 12.40 24 32 24 38 35 25 29 14 21 23 16 20 38 70 54 39 502 12.40<WSs 18,40 11 to 35 26 31 17 20 38 63 54 18 16 52 43 41 24 499 18.40<WS< 24.40 0 0 16 26 7 8 15 7 17 23 12 16 47 13 8 7 222 g WS> 24.40 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 0 5 11 2 5 6 4 0 0 40 f TOTALS 57 51 84 109 83 67 82 68 115 121 60 66 159 143 120 84 1469 u Eh i w FREQUENCY OF OCCttRENCE (% OF TOTAL 06SERVATIONS) M Ln M U1 W SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM .00 O 0.00<WS< 3.40 .07 .00 .00 .07 .07 .00 .00 .07 .14 .07 .14 .00 .00 .00 .27 .07 .95 L-* 3.40<WS< 7.40 1.43 .61 .61 1.16 .61 1.02 .95 .54 .48 .61 .68 .61 1.09 .88 .88 .88 13.07 7.40<WS< 12.40 1.63 2.18 1.63 2.59 2.38 1.70 1.97 .95 1.43 1.57 1.09 1.36 2.59 4.77 3.68 2.65 34.17 12.40<WS< 18.40 .75 .68 2.38 1.77 2.11 1.16 1.36 2.59 4.29 3.68 1.23 1.09 3.54 2.93 2.79 1.63 33.97 1R.40<WS< 24.40 .00 .00 1.09 1.77 .48 .54 1.02 .48 1.16 1.57 .82 1.09 3.20 .88 .54 .48 15.11 WS> 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .07 .00 .14 .27 .00 .34 .75 .14 .34 .41 .27 .00 .00 2.72 l TOTALS 3.88 3.47 5.72 7.42 5.65 4.56 5.58 4.63 7.83 8.24 4.08 4.49 10.82 9.73 8.17 5.72 100.00 am MC i om MT t< t* tn M M3 N@ Notes: Recovery rate was 98.72%. HH Based on 1982 and 1983 data. e Co h W b i I

V) \\ \\' TABLE 2.3-38 APRIL WIND ROSE DATA FOR 199-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER DISTRIBUTION OF OCCURENCES BY SPEED AND DIRECTION SPEED 1 MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM g O O.00<WS< 3.40 2 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 15 3.40<WS< 7.40 16 10 to 7 4 4 5 10 8 9 10 6 14 3 6 8 130 7.40<WS< 12.40 34 21 19 28 20 22 24 26 35 55 44 29 49 31 41 27 505 12.40<WS< 18.40 24 24 38 31 32 20 22 23 51 80 38 11 32 50 32 34 522 18.40<WS< 24.40 0 0 6 5 14 to 8 10 27 16 6 6 24 8 4 11 161 h WS> 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 9 25 3 15 14 6 2 0 76 TOTALS 82 57 74 71 71 58 61 71 131 167 102 67 133 99 85 80 1409 g ps m W M i FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL OBSERVATIONS) Ln M on N SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL I .00 0 CALM 0.00<WS< 3.40 .14 .14 .07 .00 .07 .07 .14 .07 .07 .14 .07 .00 .00 .07 .00 .00 1.06 3.40<WS< 7.40 1.14 .71 .71 .50 .28 .28 .35 .71 .57 .64 .71 43 .99 .21 .43 .57 9.23 7.40<WS< 12.40 2.41 1.49 1.35 1.99 1.42 1.56 1.70 1.85 2.48 3.90 3.12 2.06 3.48 2.20 2.91 1.92 35.84 12.40<WS< 18.40 1.70 1.70 2.70 2.20 2.27 1.42 1.56 1.63 3.62 4.26 2.70 .78 2.27 3.55 2.27 2.41 37.05 18.40<WS< 24.40 .43 .00 .43 .35 .99 .71 .57 .71 1.92 1.14 .43 .43 1.70 .57 .28 .78 11.43 WS> 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .07 .00 .07 .64 1.77 .21 1.06 .99 .43 .14 .00 5.39 TOTALS 5.82 4.05 5.25 5.04 5.04 4.12 4.33 5.04 9.30 11.85 7.24 4.75 9.44 7.03 6.03 5.68 100.00 om MC om mm lK t* to m M 3: xm Notes: Recovery rate was 97.85%. p$ Based on 1982 and 1983 data. m CO b W b

DU d s J TABLE 2.3-39 i MAY WIND ROSE DATA FOR 199-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER 1 i i DISTRIBUTION OF OCCURENCES BY SPEED AND DIRECTION I SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM O 0.00<WS< 3.40 0 2 3 0 1 0 3 0 2 1 2 2 3 1 3 3 26 3.40<WS< 7.40 23 18 15 13 18 31 19 20 28 28 22 13 20 6 8 17 299 7.40<WS< 12.40 27 30 29 47 56 33 41 48 76 80 54 35 20 17 15 16 624 12.40<WS< 18.40 9 19 8 5 38 8 20 25 41 52 44 40 26 21 6 7 369 g 18.40<WS< 24.40 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 6 19 27 4 6 4 2 1 1 76 WS> 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 TOTALS 60 70 57 65 113 72 85 99 170 207 128 96 73 47 33 44 1417 i, w H g ta M 1 FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL OBSERVATIONS) bl Ln J N I SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL o CALM .00 M O.00cWS< 3.40 .00 .14 .21 .00 .07 .00 .21 .00 .14 .07 .14 .14 .21 .07 .21 .21 1.83 3.40<WS< 7.40 1.62 1.27 1.06 .92 1.27 2.19 1.34 1.41 1.98 1.98 1.55 .92 1.41 .42 .56 1.20 21.10 l 7.40<WS< 12.40 1.91 2.12 2.05 3.32 3.95 2.33 2.89 3.39 5.36 5.65 3.81 2.47 1.41 1.20 1.06 1.13 44.04 12.40<WS< 18.40 .64 1.34 .56 .35 2.68 .56 1.41 1.76 2.89

J.67 3.11 2.82 1.83 1.48

.42 .49 26.04 l 18.40<WS< 24.40 .07 .07 .14 .00 .00 .00 .14 .42 1.34 1.91 .28 .42 .28 .14 .07 .07 5.36 i WS> 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .28 1.34 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1.62 TOTALS 4.23 4.94 4.02 4.59 7.97 5.08 6.00 6.99 12.00 14.61 8.89 6.77 5.15 3.32 2.33 3.11 160.00 a vs MC 4 om Mm ZM 1 tD M ) $h Notes: Recovery rate was 95.23%. Z Based on 1982 and 1983 data. i es 1 m ) CD A w i I l

C' O O TABLE 2.3-40 JUNE WIND ROSE DATA FOR 199-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER l DISTRIBUTION OF OCCURENCES SY SPEED AND DIRECTION SPEED (MPIO N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM 0 0.00<WS< 3.40 2 5 4 6 2 2 7 4 4 4 3 2 3 1 5 3 57 3.40<WS< 7.40 38 29 28 17 28 30 28 52 46 35 20 16 20 17 23 26 451 7.40<WS< 12.40 28 26 34 48 30 30 40 70 81 53 41 27 30 61 63 40 702 12.40<WS< 18.40 1 3 18 7 8 9 19 11 18 26 17 12 5 16 16 13 197 18.40<WS< 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 9 3 l WS> 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 m TOTALS 69 63 82 78 68 71 94 137 150 125 82 57 59 95 107 82 1417 bJ Ed ei w to a FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL 08SERVATIONS) Dj on i co N h SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM .00 t4 0.00<WS< 3.40 .14 .35 .28 .42 .14 .14 .49 .28 .28 .28 .21 .14 .21 .07 .35 .21 4.02 3.40<WS< 7.40 2.68 2.05 1.83 1.20 1.98 2.12 1.98 3.67 3.25 2.47 1.41 1.13 1.41 1.20 1.62 1.83 31.83 7.40<WS< 12.40 1.98 1.83 2.40 3.39 2.12 2.12 2.82 4.94 5.72 3.74 2.89 1.91 2.12 4.30 4.45 2.82 49.54 12.40<WS< 18.40 .07 .21 1.27 .49 .42 .64 1.34 .78 1.27 1.83 1.20 .85 .35 1.13 1.13 .92 13.90 18.40<WS< 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .49 .07 .00 .07 .00 .00 .00 .64 WS) 24.40 ,00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .07 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .07 TOTALS 4.87 4.45 5.79 5.50 4.66 5.01 6.63 9.67 10.59 8.82 5.79 4.02 4.16 6.70 7.55 5.79 100.00 cs w MC om $mh Notes: Recovery rate was 98.40%. l M^ Based on 1982 and 1983 data. j NM Z HR e Co b W b

( \\ .m 1 I l TABLE 2.3-41 JULY WIND ROSE DATA FOR 199-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER DISTRIBUTION Or OCCURENCES BY SPEED AND DIRECTION j SPEED (NPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM 2 0.00<WS< 3.40 8 3 to 9 7 6 3 4 3 3 7 3 1 4 1 2 74 l 1 3.40<WS< 7.40 23 56 48 37 48 54 25 26 18 16 29 16 13 16 37 32 494 7.40<WS< 12.40 20 24 57 73 57 32 18 31 80 87 59 54 30 15 22 31 690 3 12.40<WS< 18.40 0 3 9 24 37 6 6 3 26 36 23 14 21 5 6 2 201 18.40<WS< 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 3 3 1 0 0 0 12 g WS> 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 TOTALS 51 RC 124 143 129 99 52 64 130 143 121 90 66 40 66 67 1473 h3 g, sn Y FREQUENCY Or OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL 06SERVATIONS) bJ i (n M i e N SPEED (NPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL e CALN .14 0 0.00<WS< 3.40 .54 .20 .68 .61 .48 .41 .20 .27 .20 .20 .48 ,20 .07 .27 .07 .14 5.02 t1 3.40<WS< 7.40 1.56 3.80 3.26 2.51 3.26 3.67 1.70 1.77 1.22 1.09 1.97 1.09 .88 1.09 2.51 2.17 33.54 7.40<WS< 12.40 1.36 1.63 3.87 4.96 3.87 2.17 1.22 2.10 5.43 5.91 4.01 3.67 2.04 1.02 1.49 2.10 46.84 12.40<WS< 18.40 .00 .20 .61 1.63 1.15 .41 .41 .20 1.77 2.44 1.56 .95 1.43 .34 .41 .14 13.65 18.40<WS< 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .07 .00 .00 .20 .07 .20 .20 .07 .00 .00 .00 .81 WS> 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TOTALS 3.46 5.84 8.42 9.71 8.76 6.72 3.53 4.34 8.83 9.71 8.21 6.11 4.48 2.72 4.48 4.55 100 "" N b o tn MC t am [g M td bM i l M 3: Notes: Recovery rate was 98.99%. Wy Based on 1981 and 1982 data. Pe o CO b LJ b

r ( l V s TABLE 2.3-42 i AUGUST WIND ROSE DATA FOR 199-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER DISTRIBUTION OF OCCURENCES BY SPEED AND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM 1 i 0.00<WS< 3.40 5 6 2 3 0 4 3 1 1 0 4 2 0 5 5 6 47 { 3.40<WS< 7.40 21 22 25 18 18 27 31 21 24 46 27 33 35 21 18 13 400 7.40<WS< 12.40 28 31 94 52 54 35 33 40 74 101 49 43 48 44 30 25 781 12.40<WS< 18.40 11 6 45 16 11 6 4 15 24 33 30 9 5 to 1 6 23R 18.40<WS< 24.40 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 WS> 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 65 65 166 91 83 72 71 77 124 180 110 87 88 81 54 50 1465 pa N m U2 M FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL OBSERVATIONS) t en g o g SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL O j CALN .07 D O.00<'45< 3.40 .34 .41 .14 .20 .00 .27 .20 .07 .07 .00 .27 .14 .00 .34 .34 .41 3.21 3.40<WS< 7.40 1.43 1.50 1,71 1.23 1.23 1.84 2.12 1.43 1.54 3.14 1.84 2.25 2.39 1.43 1.23 .89 27.30 i 7.40<WS< 12.40 1.91 2.12 6.42 3.55 3.69 2.39 2.15 2.73 5.05 6.89 3.34 2.94 3.28 3.00 2.05 1.71 53.31 12.40cWS< 18.40 .75 .41 3.07 1.09 .75 .41 .27 1.02 1.84 2.25 2.05 .61 .34 .68 .07 .41 15.84 i 18.40<WS< 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .14 .00 .00 .00 .00 .07 .00 .00 .00 .00 .07 .00 .00 .27 WS> 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TOTALS 4.44 4.44 11.33 6.21 5.67 4.91 4.85 5.26 8.46 12.29 7.51 5.94 6.01 5.53 3.69 3.41 100.00 I o u) MC om Mm hm $ Notes: Reocvery rate was 98.45%. MM Based on 1981 and 1982 data. 2 1 \\ HR i (D A bJ s i I a h i

O C' e TABLE 2.3-43 SEPTEMBER WIND ROSE DATA FOR 199-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER l i DISTRIBUTION OF OCCURENCES BY SPEED ANO DIRECTION SPEE0 tMPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALN O 0.00<WS< 3.40 1 0 4 2 0 2 2 3 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 20 y 3.40<WS< 7.40 17 14 25 18 21 36 12 12 13 12 16 17 18 to 16 17 274 i 7.40<WS< 12.40 30 37 52 21 29 33 21 39 73 96 89 40 34 56 72 30 732 j 12.40<WS< 18.40 11 16 21 6 2 14 to 23 31 63 51 10 to 17 27 14 326 18.40<WS< 24.40 1 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 2 8 4 2 1 2 0 3 31 WS> 24.40 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 11 TOTALS 64 67 104 52 55 85 45 77 120 182 142 70 65 85 116 65 1394 Fa h3 e m Y FREOUENCY OF OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL OBSERVATIONS) l t...__...._....................__......____._______.___________.____ m m t-* D SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL I h CALN .00 3 0.00"WS< 3.40 .07 .00 .29 .14 .00 .14 .14 .22 .07 .07 .07 .00 .14 .00 .07 .00 1.43 l 3.40<WS< 7.40 1.22 1.00 1.79 1.29 1.51 2.58 .86 .86 .93 .86 1.15 1.22 1.29 .72 1.15 1.22 19.66 7.40<WS< 12.40 2.15 2.65 3.73 1.51 2.08 2.37 1.51 2.80 5.24 6.89 4.95 2.87 2.44 4.02 5.16 2.15 52.51 } 12.40<WS< 18.40 .79 1.15 1.51 .43 .14 1.00 .72 1.65 2.22 4.52 3.66 .72 .72 1.22 1.94 1.00 23.39 18.40<WS< 24.40 .07 .00 .14 .29 .14 .00 .00 .00 .14 .57 .29 .14 .07 .14 .00 .22 2.22 WS> 24.40 .29 .00 .00 .07 .07 .00 .00 .00 .00 .14 .07 .07 .00 .00 .00 .07 .79 TOTALS 4.59 4.81 7.46 3.73 3.95 6.10 3.23 5.52 8.61 13.06 10.19 5.02 4.66 6.10 8.32 4.66 100.00 i o un MC i om MM $ $ Notes: Recovery rate was 96.81%. i MZ Based on 1981 and 1982 data. i

o m i

Z H >-3 I i ma i W I i l ~ i I 1, I

\\ s TABLE 2.3-44 OCTOBER WIND ROSE DATA FOR 199-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER DISTRIBUTIOh 0F DCCURENCES BY SPEED AND DIRECTION SPEED (NPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALN O O.00<WS< 3,40 1 1 3 4 2 2 1 0 2 3 1 1 0 2 0 3 26 3.40<WS< 7.40 18 24 29 27 26 16 13 18 23 16 12 13 9 12 9 18 283 7.40<WS< 12.40 21 39 74 46 41 28 31 49 75 50 24 25 31 27 37 31 629 12.40<WS< 18.40 6 0 23 7 19 15 34 23 75 94 29 14 27 29 25 21 441 18.40<WS< 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 19 5 5 14 8 5 3 71 WS> 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 to TOTALS 46 64 129 84 88 61 79 St 188 182 71 58 89 78 76 76 1460 ba pa Ib Y FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL OBSERVATIONS) M og M N SPEED (NPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL I CALN .00 O O.OO<WS< 3.40 .07 .07 .21 .27 .14 .14 .07 .00 .14 .21 .07 .07 .00 .14 .00 .21 1.78 M 3.40<WS< 7.40 1.23 1.64 1.99 1.85 1.78 1.10 .89 1.23 1.58 1.10 .82 .89 .62 .82 .62 1.23 19.38 7.40<WS< 12.40 1.44 2.67 5.07 3.15 2.81 1.92 2.12 3.36 5.14 3.42 1.84 1.71 2.12 1.85 2.53 2.12 43.08 12.40<WS< 18.40 .41 .00 1.58 .48 1.30 1.03 2.33 1.58 5.14 6.44 1.99 .96 1.85 1.99 1.71 1,44 30.21 18.40<WS< 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .07 .75 1.30 .34 .34 .96 .55 .34 .21 4.86 WS> 24.40 .oo .oo .oo .oo .oo .co .oo .oo .14 .oo .oo .o0 .55 .oo .oo .oo .68 TOTALS 3.15 4.38 8.84 5.75 6.03 4.18 5.41 6.23 12.88 12.47 4.86 3.97 6.10 5.34 5.21 5.21 100.00 O tn MC om Mt $E Notes: Recovery rate was 98.12%. MZ Based on 1981 and 1982 data. mm 2: HR e 1 CD A W b i

f f /' i ts TABLE 2.3-45 NOVEMBER WIND ROSE DATA FOR 199-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER .l i DISTRIBUTION OF OCCURENCES BY SPEED AND DIRECTION j S**EED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM O 1 0.00<WS< 3.40 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 O O O 1 12 1 3.40<WS< 7.40 8 15 11 11 6 14 9 13 15 22 18 15 to 11 8 8 194 1 7.40cWS< 12.40 22 18 19 19 46 30 48 32 42 74 46 24 27 15 19 21 502 1 12.40<WS< 18.40 1 0 12 13 48 13 20 45 109 86 31 21 21 33 29 17 499 I 18.40<WS< 24.40 0 1 2 0 4 4 1 0 22 18 3 7 12 30 5 0 109 h 1 WS> 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 6 14 2 7 4 1 0 0 38 TOTALS 33 34 44 45 105 66 78 92 195 214 101 75 74 90 61 47 1354 bJ pa m Y FREOUENCY OF OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL OBSERVATIONS) N ch p3 W W ~ SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL I CALM .00 OU O.OO<WS< 3.40 .15 .00 .00 .15 .07 .07 .00 .15 .07 .00 .07 .07 .00 .00 .00 .07 .89 3.40<WS< 7.40 .59 1.11 .81 .81 .44 1.03 .66 .96 1.11 1.62 1.31 1.11 .74 .81 .59 .59 14.33 7.40<WS< 12.40 1.62 1.33 1.40 1.40 3.40 2.22 3.55 2.36 3.10 5.47 3.40 1.77 1.99 1.11 1.40 1.55 37.08 12.40<WS< 18.40 .07 .00 .89 .96 3.55 .96 1.48 3.32 8.05 6.35 2.29 1.55 1.55 2.44 2.14 1.26 36.85 18.40<WS< 24.40 .00 .07 .15 .00 .30 .30 .07 .00 1.62 1.33 .22 .52 .89 2.22 .37 .00 8.05 WS> 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .30 .00 .00 .44 1.03 .15 .52 .30 .n7 .00 .00 2.81 TOTALS 2.44 2.51 3.25 3.32 7.75 4.87 5.76 6.79 14.40 15.81 7.46 5.54 5.47 6.65 4.51 3.47 100.00 ,i i O in tn C om tn m ZM Notes: Recovery rate was 94.03%. N$ Based on 1981 and 1982 data. w tn Z HH e CO b W b i

} t O J ./ TABLE 2.3-46 DECEMBER WIND ROSE DATA FOR 199-FOOT LEVEL OF 199-FOOT TOWER DISTRIBUTION OF OCCURENCES BY SPEED AND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 5 SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL CALM O 0.00<WS< 3.40 1 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 11 3.40<WS< 7.40 11 11 8 8 13 6 5 4 12 16 16 7 16 9 16 12 170 7.40<WS< 12.40 30 9 21 38 32 31 33 44 33 33 26 27 60 36 37 36 537 12.40<WS< 18.40 to 15 2 8 16 12 25 47 125 47 18 22 47 41 47 34 516 18.40<WS< 24.40 0 3 0 0 1 2 2 9 69 33 18 11 17 22 11 1 199 WS) 24.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 9 13 4 1 1 0 0 40 TOTALS SR 38 31 56 64 52 65 105 252 139 92 71 141 110 111 83 1468 N g D W l FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE (% OF TOTAL OBSERVATIO*iS) N as M a N SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL e CALM .00 0 0.00<WS< 3.40 .07 .00 .00 .14 .14 .07 .00 .00 .14 .07 .07 .00 .00 .07 .00 .00 .75 M 3.40<WS< 7.40 .75 .75 .54 .54 .89 .41 .34 .27 .82 1.09 1.09 48 1.09 .61 1.09 .82 11.58 7.40<WS< 12.40 2.45 .61 1.43 2.59 2.18 2.11 2.25 3.00 2.25 2.25 1.77 1.84 4.09 2.45 2.52 2.45 36.24 12.40<WS< 18.40 .68 1.02 .14 .54 1.09 .82 1.70 3.20 8.51 3.20 1.23 1.50 3.20 2.79 3.20 2.32 35.15 18.40<WS< 24.40 .00 .20 .00 .00 .07 .14 .14 .61 4.70 2.25 1.23 .75 1.16 1.50 .75 .07 13.56 WS> 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .07 .75 .61 .89 .27 .07 .07 .00 .00 2.72 TOTALS 3.95 2.59 2.11 3.81 4.36 3.54 4.43 7.15 17.17 9.47 6.27 4.84 9.60 7.49 7.56 5.65 100.00 I i ts en MC Om MM

E t*

WM Notes: Recovery rate was 98.66%. M :s NM Based on 1981 and 1982 data. Z H F3 W CO b W A i i

O O O i i i TABLE 2.3-61 i F_REQUENCY OF PASQUILL STABILITY CLASSES AT MARBLE IIILL 1&2 (Frequency of Occurrence in Percent of Total Monthly Observations) I PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS MONTil __A B C D E_ F G January 0.6 1.6 5.5 63.7 25.4 3.2 0.1 February 1.0 2.7 4.4 58.8 21.8 7.1 4.1 March 3.8 4.3 5.4 52.5 24.9 6.5 2.6 April 6.0 5.5 5.9 47.1 25.6 7.7 2.3 g ] May 1.6 4.9 8.8 38.0 27.2 10.7 8.8 g June 2.2 5.2 9.4 33.1 21.6 16.0 12.5 0 y July 2.3 4.4 7.8 33.0 28.7 14.9 8.9 y j August 4.2 7.1 8.5 26.0 26.6 17.8 9.8 6e } September 4.6 6.4 7.9 26.8 28.4 14.9 11.0 i October 4.6 4.8 7.2 27.7 33.6 14.9 7.3 November 0.7 1.4 3.0 48.3 30.8 10.7 5.1 l December 0.3 1.0 2.3 57.6 33.2 4.8 0.8 Om Average 2.7 4.1 6.3 42.7 27.3 10.7 6.1 Mt M BM h Note: Period of record was from July 1981 through June 1983. m b 4

O O O TABLE 2.3-62 PERSISTENCE OF PASQUILL STABILITY CLASSES AT MARBLE HILL 1&2 (Number of Occurrences) PERSISTENCE PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS (hours) A B C D E F 'G 1-3 216 463 712 953 781 454 97 4-6 21 15 20 267 192 124 44 7-9 3 0 0 100 104 33 36 10-12 0 0 0 50 72 21 30 13-15 0 0 0 27 43 3 3 g F 16-18 0 0 0 24 13 0 0 - g Y 19-21 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 on o 22-24 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 l 25-27 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 5 28-30 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 31-33 0 'G, 0 4 0 0 0 34-36 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 i 37-39 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 @y > 39 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 O i 55 l N Note: Based on two years of data from July 1981 through June 1983. -e $a w ^ 1 i

f HmM gm'IOt

L02722104 L02626412 A00555006 A00504001 O

T T 12 4 1 2 O O T T W 0288109 W 1o64000 N 0000001 N 0t10003 D N N NA R W 1319004 W 0655006 E N 001 0002 N 01 10003 D W E O E T ) W 0232007 W 0881 007 P s N 001 0001 N 001 0002 W W S T n O o D O i 0054109 0385208 N F t I W 0000000 W 01 00002 a W 9 v 9 r 1 e W 0272001 W 0174f02 N S 0000001 S 01 00.O02 s O E W W I H . bO T T C W 0541000 W 0462002 l S 0020003 S 0120004 E F a R O t I o D L T W 0808006 W 004301 8 S 0231 006 S 0031,005 E S S D V 2 f N E o I L 1 0740001 01421 07 W t S 0010002 S 011 0002 3 T L n 6 F O L e e O O F E 0731001 E 0750002 A I c 3 r S 0000001 S 0000001 I O I N 2 e S S O 3 E P I 3 E L L T B n E C430007 E 0451 000 U E R i S O000000 S 0000001 B B H A A I T M e T R c E 0140005 E 1741 002 T R T n S 0000000 S 0000001 S O A e E E I F r D r S u 0121 005 0760003 Y S E 0000000 E 0000001 c C A c N L O E C 752005 E 0572004 .E 1 U f N 0000001 N 0000001 Q Y E E o E T R I y 933006 F L E 1 371001 E 1 c N 0000001 N 001 n . 0002 I T B e N A u I T q E 0270009 E 1 791 00R O S N 0000000 N 0000001 e N N J r L F Y L ( A I 0492005 07441 05 A N 0000001 B N 001 W U . 0002 Q S S E S S S E A A A R P L L H C C T 000000 000000 Y 444444 Y ) 444444 ) T H T H P 372844 P 372844 I I M 1122 M 11 22 L 1 S L ( S I M<<<<<)L I M<<c<<>L O DLSSSSSSA DLSSSSSSA B EAWWWWWWT B EAWWWWWWT A EC<<<<< O A EC<<<<< O T P 00000 T T P 00000 T S 04444 S 04444 S S 03728 03728 11 1 1 gcNM WnZH A g.wi H gmOM mx Hemw DC j:ii l j l! 3

MH 1&2 ER-OL sObnnenow sOnemem-n a-mbebb-6 %j < O O. e. o. N

O. O.

< 0. m. b. *. m. o

b.

4 O. w. so. o. W N O. N. I l O NN e 0 -ewe N O Nmb-6 e p= w 6 N Nm6-Oe NbemOOe mNe-OOe I O. - O O O. n . e==

O 0 9

-m-0OOa N 3 -O*woom 3 bemnNOO 3 m-w-OOT 2 ONNOOOT Z C O O w C O, b, Z O W N O O O, m l N

nmN*Oe Nm*mm-N OwmWOOm O**eoOw

- a m b O O. w.

m*OOOe f9 l

nONm-Ow N CD 9 N O w w GD M 80 m N

M i

3 On.OOOw 3 * - m n N. O. f1 3

m-DOOM e

--e f 3 OmoenOO 3 emmbNee 3 wow *-O-i O.-NOOOm . b N. - O O. N i e O m e m n o. m. ta m i 3 3 3 N l i 3 ONesoOOn 3 NOeweOO 3

-esoNOO I

e O-NOOOm m . v eo n O O. m m --nCOOb l I 3 -memwom 3 e m m -== - v 3 ef90bMO-a m Onv0Com m .. m. m N. o. n.

W O. N - O. N.

m m g m n n U ONweoO-ne000Om NewmeOm M ONNOOOW . N. e. s

O. m.

N a N w o o. m. Q e m g n n v W Of9 6 - O O - w O n e w f9 0 s w OwmeOON m m 0-DOOON m -ob.Com N M m O O O.N e ) 4 m m m I (- M w Ome--Om w emem-On w meemOOm m O*COOON m 0090006 m

C M. O O O. e.

m Wa w oneOOOO w emmeooN w NN-Neo-m O*OOOON e O m. v o O. O. m - e n - O O. w m g w w w Ed O-*woom aceen-Ob onewooN w O--COON w O. O. h n. O O. N. w N eo e - C o mo N w --eNOOw w en e N N m O f4 w 0wc2002 l 2 O--DOON z O m. W. O O. m. 2 . - m O O. O. m w w N

== w w we-wCOw w f9 0 m m - O m w m ao m m O O N Z 0-NCOOw 2 .. O N O. O. m. Z - w e O O. O. w. N N gem gge w ebb-O g -m-OOgN g g -ob-gg. WN*e 000 e 2 C**COgm wNmb gn OmenO memNOgM n e W Z j g o 2 ,OmOO abOOO t .= t m m m m m m A A A U U U O00000 00000o O00000 r p

wwwwww 3

,wwwww > ; wwwwww H i nsNdad B E niid44 H t nsNied H E -"NN H 3 -*NN

=4 2

--NN M ~ EvvvvvA$ M "gvvvvvA$ ~EvvvvvA$ N Osmemmmm< H Osemmmmm< M CJemmmmm< Q WC333333* Q w<333333> G.4 w<333333> wovvvvv O 4 wUvvvvv 0 4 wUvvvvv O 4 a 00000 6 g 8.w.w.00. m 00 CL 00000 e a w H m H m o.w.w. w. w. H m ~

o. w. w. w. w.

m m OnbNe O n b N,= e OnbNe - = = 2.3-82 SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983 ) i i L

3M gmN gy1Ot" L3050f009 L07140002 A0836O007 A04600001 O T T O 27 0 O 32 6 T 1 T g n is W 12100o4 W 2100003 s N 11000O2 N 0000000 i N N m e N 1o20002 W 8f00008 r 00002 N 0O00000 1t I e w W 2000003 W 5200007 a N 200003 N 0000000 t 1 W W a d 1820001 7500002 W 11 00003 W 0000001 y t .i 3l W 5520002 W 9400003 8i 000002 9b 300005 S 1 S 1 W W 1a t W 0030003 W 9900008 es S 2500007 S 2000003 nuh Jci W 2700O09 W 1020003 hh ) S 391 0C03 S 4300007 d S S gw u 1 't og n 3241 009 2810002 rn 0004 S 3300007 S 211 C hi o tr 1 1 u ( 1d 640001 E 6700003 E 1 3 S 2500008 S 1000002 8 O S S 9s b 6 1r u 3 E 0650000 E 4800002 yo S 2400007 S 1 000002 lh 2 u E Js L E 5950009 E 4700000 t S 1400006 S 1100003 mi B E E om AT ro f 7171 005 8600004 n E

1500007, E

22,00005 ao ti at E 9620007 E 6100008 du N 500007 N 440,0008 b 1 E E* fiort E 38f 0002 E 5800003 N 26o0009 N 5500001 ss ri 1 ad e 120004 E 2200004 yy E 1 N 1300004 N 21 00003 N N c on we 051 0005 8400002 tu F N 2200004 G N 0000001 q ne S S orf S S A A d L L es C C si 000000 000000 ah Y 444444 Y 444444 BT ) ) H H T P 372844 T P 372344 I M 1 122 I M 1122 S L ( S L (M<<<<<>L M<<<<<>L s I DLSSSSSSA I DLSSSSSSA O B EAWWWWWWT B EAWWWWWWT e EC<<<<< O t A EC<<<<< O A P 00000 T P 00000 T o T S 04444 T S 04444 S S N 03728 03728 11 11 tCmMtN y H A n y

W$w oMoM::: N N Pe0w 0

j l i! j

v6 [y MyoV L02140017 L03734051 J A00310206 A00971 201 )N T T 4 O 11 2 O 11 f T T o21105 W 0f42208 W 1 1003 N 0t N

0. O 0 1.001.

N 1 D N NA R E W 0283305 W 06231 02003 N 0001002 N 001 1 W D O E T E W 00791 07 W 04421 09 ) P T N 0000001 N 001 1002 s S O W W n O o D F i 0133210 0884516 N t W 0000001 W 0000002 I 9 a W 9 v 1 r W 01 64101 W 0486118 e N E S 0000001 S 0000001 s W W O H b I T O T W 0179008 W 191 o203 C F S 0010002 S 002t 004 l E O a R t I L o W 020500'E W 0885720 D E T S 00221 0S S 0022007 V S S D E 2 f N L o I 0515001 0646016 1 S 0010002 W T t S 00,10002 4 O L n 6 F O L e O F b 3 I c E 0251 009 E 0551001 H r S 0000000 S 0000001 3O N 9 S S e 2 O 9 P E ( I 1 E L 09 E 0541 00o E o441f L T B n S 000000t S C000,O00 U E B R i B H A A I T M e T R c E 0150005 E 0742003 T R T n S 0000000 S 0000001 E E S O A e I F r D r 022005 0651002 1 S u E 0000000 E 0000001 Y S c C A c N L O 563f 05 E C E 1445003 E 1 y 0000001 N 0000O01 U f t E E Q Y o E T R I y E 1274004 E 1 6281 08 F L c N 0000001 N 001 0002 I n T B e N A u E 0261 009 E 0385005 I T q N 0000000 N 0000001 O S e N N J r L F Y L 6 ( 03561 05 05261 1 A N 0000001 B N 001 0002 A I W U Q S S E S S S E A A A R P L L I C C IT 000000 000000 Y 444444 Y 444444 ) ) H H T P 372844 T P 372844 11 22 I M 1 1 22 I M S S L (M<<<<<>L L (M<<<<<>L I DLSSSSSSA I DLSSSSSSA B EAWWWWWWT B EAWWWWWWT O EC<<<00 A EC<<c<< O A P O00 T P 00000 T T S O.4444, T S

04444, S

S 03728 03728 1 1 11 t@mtMZMZH A n w

W$k C] M3tMlc HwC" o

D l i ' ,l! l! ii iJ lj!

\\ >i v w TABLE 2.3-64 (Cont' d) STABILITY CLASS C SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL .00 CALM 0.co<WS< 3.40 .ot .oo .ot .ot .oo .oo .oo .00 .oo .o0 .oo .01 .ot .o1 .ot .01 .06 3.40<WS< 7.40 .11 .08 .15 .09 .10 .10 .11 .07 .11 .16 .07 .12 .12 .09 .09 .11 1.69 7.40<WS< 12.40 .14 .09 .22 .08 .13 .09 .08 .14 .22 .45 .25 .15 .15 .18 .23 .19 2.76 12.40<WS< 18.40 .07 .03 .06 .04 .04 .02 .01 .01 .10 .28 .i3 .16 .11 .11 .09 .11 1.37 18.40cWS< 24.40 .00 .00 .02 .00 .01 .01 .01 .00 .01 .07 .05 .01 .04 .09 .02 02 .05 WS> 24.40 .oo .oo .00 .oo .00 .oo .o1 .00 .oo .04 .oo .03 .01 .o3 .00 .00 .12 TOTALS .32 .21 .45 .22 .28 .21 ,22 .22 44 1.00 .49 .48 .44 .50 .44 44 6.36 1 1 1 STABILITY CLASS D b l SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL p .00 m w CALM 1 0.00<WS< 3.40 .09 .09 .11 .06 .04 .04 .04 .05 .04 .04 .08 .04 .02 .05 .04 .07 .90 bJ j 3.40<WS< 7.40 .62 .67 .66 .56 .52 .67 59 .59 .68 .57 .58 .46 .55 .54 .61 .49 9.36 C g i 7.40<WS< 12.40 .85 .67 .90 .98 .97 .64 .71 .74 1 18 1.29 1.04 .95 t. '3 4 1.14 1.05 1.01 15.47 y 12.40<WSc 18.40 .31 .45 .69 .71 .57 .27 .21 .48 1.29 .99 .71 .62 1.31 1.19 .82 .81

11. 52 1

18.40<WS< 24.40 .02 .04 .11 .31 .12 .05 .09 .11 .52 .44 .22 .41 .94 .58 .26 .14 4.36 C)U WS) 24.4o .02 .oo .00 .04 .00 .00 .01 .01 .14 .26 .11 .24 .25 .05 .01 .01 1.14 1 j TOTALS 1.91 1.92 2.47 2.66 2.21 1.67.1.65 1.98 3.85 3.58 2.73 2.72 4.42 3.55 2.79 2.53 42.64 i I STABILITY CLASS E 1 SPEED IMPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL I CALM .01 0.00<WS< 3 40 .02 .02 .02 .04 .02 .02 .04 .01 .04 .02 .04 .01 .01 .00 .02 .04 .37 3.40<WS< 7.40 .28 .31 .31 .26 .30 .34 .15 .24 .21 .24 .19 .09 .16 .09 .15 .15 3.47 0 tn 7.40<WS< 12.40 .55 .71 1.1C 1.02 .94 .81 .66 1.03 1.42 1.21 .81 .61 .56 .54 .65 .42 12.85 M C 12. 40<WS< 18. 40 .10 .09 .68 .34 .76 .34 .55 .82 1.56 1.39 .57 .35 .25 .28 .31 .19 8.57 hh18.40<WS<24.40 .01 .00 .03 .06 .11 .11 .06 .10 .59 .33 .11 .08 .03 .04 .01 .01 1.69 3p WS> 24.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .04 .01 .00 .10 .18 .04 .02 .02 .01 .00 .00 .41 1 03 M TOTALS .97 f.13 2.13 1.72 2.t4 1.46 1.47 2.20 3.92 3.37 1.75 1.15 1.04 .95 1.15 .82 27.38 M ;3l WM L Z P8 c '\\ 00 b U

PeM mN10 L09464025 Lf7921 009 07 AO3727000 A02921 mU 1 T 0 O 13 6 T O 53 f T 1 T g n is f1131 07 W 1470002 s WN O110002 N 0000001 i N N m e W 1611 009 W 5582001 N 0021003 N 001 0003 r e w 457007 W 2492006 a W 1 N 0020003 0010002 t f i W W ad f 811f 01 2342001 W O031 O05 W 011 0003 y t .i 3l 440008 8i W 21 58005 W 1 S 0130005 S 0110002 9b W W 1a t W 149401 9 W 2459009 es S 0123007 S 0120004 n uh Jci 157431 0* W 3654008 W S 0155003 S 01 31 006 hh S S gw ) 1 d uog 464106 4969009 rn 1 t S 01 56003 S 0020004 n hi 1 tr oC u E 1281 102 E 3726008 1d ( S 0123007 S 0130005 8 %U S S 9s 4 r 6 1r b u E 3807007 E 2892002 yo 3 S 0043008 S 0121 0 06 lh 2 uJs E E 2456f09 E 4428007 t E O06 S 0230006 mi S 01 31 L E om BA ro f T 28781f5 1 994004 E 01 31 0o7 E 0020004 n ao ti at E 6228f19 E 1281 001 du N 011 0003 b N 0 1 4 0.O 0 6 'E E fior E f 6101 E 3091 003 t N O t's 130005 N

01. 00002 ss ri ad e

E 41 22009 E 06t 0007 yy N 0230005 N 00i0001 N N c on we 1084008 3640003 tu 0003 G N 0000001 q F N 01 1 ne S S or S S f A A d L L es C C si 000000 000000 ah 444444 BT Y 444444 Y ) ) H T H T P 372844 P 372844 22 I M 1 122 I M 1 1 S S L L f ( M<<<<<>L M<<<<<)L I DLSSSSSSA I DLSSSSSSA s B EAWWWWWWT B FAWWWWWWT e /L O A EC<<<<( O A EC<0000 t P 00000 T P 0 T o T S 04444 T S 04444 S S N 03728 03728 11 11 tCmMN3$H a n M*wgDO oMoM$ M# [ cW o C I4

l i

MH 1&2 ER-OL TABLE 2.3-67 FIFTY PERCENT PROBABILITY LEVEL X/O AT THE MARBLE HILL 1 & 2 SITE EXCLUSION AREA BOUNDARY USING ONSITE DATA DOWNWIND X/0 (Sec/m3) xio-5 SECTOR DISTANCE (km) 1 HOUR 2 HOURS N 1.06 4.423 3.]88 NNE 0.82 5.507 3.906 NE 0.69 7.035 4.398 ENE 0.69 5.704 3.915 E 0.69 4.493 3.452 ESE 0.72 4.469 3.362 SE 0.74 4.877 3.433 SSE 0.69 5.254 3.788 S 0.69 8.394 5.372 SSW 0.69 9.031 5.723 SW 0.74 8.304 5.906 4 WSW l.01 5.151 3.503 W l.05 4.733 3.386 WNW l.05 5.447 3.603 NW l.06 5.644 3.622 NNW l.27 4.225 2.725 i All Sectors 5.554 3.854 Note: Period of record was from July, 1981 through June, ( 1983. l l 2.3-90 SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

llj lI bmN tpnc8OU d 3 3 8 2 8 8 2 8 8 4 L O. 0 22 23 57 7t 28 79 01. 2 88 L 1 1 2 O A 1 1 2 4 5 W O O. O0 00 0 O. 00 11 O1 45 81 02 N 1 N 1 2 W O0 O0 11 01 13 14 O4 84 29 01. N 1 1 1 2 4 DO W O0 O0 00 0 O. O O. 0 O. 23 84 51. 1 51 I N R W 1 2 4 E E T P I O0 O0 11 01 O1 01 45 72 13 15 S W 1 2 E 1 2 4 M 2 I T W O O. O0 0 O. 00 22 23 58 08 71 81 1 S 1 1. 4 W 1 3 7 R L U L O W 22 O2 12 35 34 77 10 08 19 42 I H H S 1 1 3 5 4 4 1 2 5 8 1 5 1 1 1 EL A W O0 O0 45 39 80 92 30 50 03 18 B S 1 1 1 1 R S 2 3 5 7 8 9 R A O M R F O O0 O0 48 O6 08 52 72 83 98 58 E A T S 1 C 1 2 3 4 8 Q H T E / A S 8 T X D D E O0 O0 0 O. O O. 45 18 29 44 18 43 6 F N S 1 F E I S 1 2 3 O 3 O T WN = O I W 2 Y N R D S S O E 11 24 28 28 21 34 04 38 85 84 E O A N 1 1 1 1 2 3 L D O IT N B U G E 00 00 1I 23 03 38 41 23 81 T O N S . 58 A U B I I E 1 1 2 2 B R S T A U 0 O. 11 34 04 25 27 74 89 43 34 S E E 1 I 1 1 2 3 R D A Y N E 0O 0 O. 55 49 99 78 95 73 81 35 N C O E 1 2 3 4 5 8 1 N I E S U U E 0O 0 O. 33 46 05 14 34 24 38 59 Q L N 1 1 2 1 1 1 E 1 2 4 5 8 7 C R X F E E 0O 0 O. t1 43 45 32 18 73 20 7 1 E N 1 1 2 3 3 E N 1 1 3 5 8 V I I I T T 0 O. 0 O. 00 00 11 32 44 78 35 38 A T N.- 1 2 L 1 2 A UM U a C 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 8 1 0 5 2 3 4 0 8 L 0 7 4 1 4 7 3 2 2 E 2 1 1 1 9 7 8 5 4 GNAR O O O O O O O O O T T T T T T T T T Q / 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C H C T 8 1 0 5 2 3 4 0 8 9 G 0 7 4 1 4 7 3 2 2 4 2 t 1 1 9 7 8 5 4 3 mC] MZ s N'y3*dF aM $Mw @m" fll 1(l ,ll ll1ll ll l l

s_/ TABLE 2.3-68 (Cont'd) CHI /Q RANGE DOWNWIND SECTOR i GT LE N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE_ S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW ALL j 2.86-04 TO 3.49-04 26 39 11 12 11 11 7 7 15 12 25 38 27 11 12 to 274 4.2 8.9 8.8 7.7 4.4 3.8 4.3 4.2 8.7 11.4 17.1 10.4 7.2 5.8 5.6 3.2 7.4 i 2.35-04 TO 2.88-04 22 34 33 17 20 11 7 18 27 30 41 35 30 17 11 18 369 5.4 10.7 11.8 9.5 8.3 5.0 5.1 8.5 12.5 15.5 20.1 13.4 10.3 8.0 7.0 4.9 9.8 i 1.93-04 TO 2.35-04 56 86 56 44 23 24 7 12 35 28 48 36 27 28 19 18 527 8.4 14.3 16.5 14.1 8.3 7.5 5.9 8.0 17.3 19.2 23.7 18.5 13.0 11.8 9.4 6.8 12.7 1.58-04 TO 1.93-04 72 85 48 45 30 32 17 37 43 60 51 38 45 19 25 26 653 12.3 17.9 20.8 18.8 11.1 10.9 7.9 12.7 23.3 27.3 27.6 19.5 17.6 14.4 12.5 9.5 16.8 1.30-04 TO 1.58-04 95 90 71 45 37 43 35 32 54 41 ES 40 44 45 35 35 800 da 17.4 22.8 26.7 23.5 14.4 15.4 12.1 16.7 30.7 32.8 31.9 23.2 22.1 20.6 16.9 13.1 21.3 Fd D' e Ld 1.06-04 TO 1.30-04 74 97 70 43 47 37 41 46 56 64 82 46 32 39 49 36 859 j) 21.4 28.1 32.8 27.9 18.7 19.4 18.9 22.8 38.3 41.4 38.1 27.2 25.3 26.0 23.0 16.8 26.4 pq bJ 23 8.71-05 TO 1.06-04 98 102 95 59 56 38 82 43 70 77 125 41 43 45 52 48 1054 8 h3 28.7 33.7 41.0 34.1 23.8 23.4 24.3 28.0 48.2 51.7 47.5 30.7 29,7 32.2 29.5 21.8 32.8 7.14-05 TO 8.71-05 95 129 94 70 68 54 54 82 85 88 130 67 61 83 56 75 1211 31.9 40.8 49.1 41.4 29.9 29.1 30.9 35.9 57.2 80.8 57.3 36.5 35.9 40.9 36.5 29.8 39.8 l 5.86-05 TO 7.14-05 142 129 128 71 87 78 90 63 54 55 114 95 47 39 94 58 1344 39.6 47.8 60.1 48.8 37.8 37.4 41.5 43.9 84.7 88.0 65.8 44.7 40.7 46.2 48.2 35.7 47.7 j l 4.80-05 TO 5.86-05 136 121 80 80 93 71 77 85 54 50 92 92 84 71 70 84 1340 i 46.9 34.4 67.0 57.1 46.3 44.9 50.7 54.8 72.2 74.7 72.7 52.6 49.2 56.0 57.0 44.4 55.7 i f 3.94-05 TO 4.80-05 129 139 70 85 115 126 70 85 44 44 95 77 101 70 82 81 1373 j 53.9 82.0 73.1 63.9 56.7 58.2 58.9 82.9 78.3 80.8 79.9 59.3 59.5 65.8 87.2 52.8 63.8 l C3 V) 4 ps c: 3.23-05 TO 3.94-05 152 116 56 87 132 96 89 81 32 53 74 80 98 56 71 94 1367 I (1 t 82.2 88.4 77.9 73.0 88.7 88.4 69.5 73.1 82.7 87.8 85.4 96.2 69.4 73.3 76.1 82.6 71.9 MM hh h 2.85-05 TO 3.23-05 151 106 47 88 128 92 62 79 22 25 51 82 77 62 57 86 1195 ps 3: 70.3 74.2 82.0 80.1 80.3 78.1 76.8 83.1 85.7 91.1 89.3 73.3 77.2 81.5 83.2 71.5 78.9 ,0 M Z HH i u) 03 Sh l GJ l a. l l

O O O TABLE 2.3-68 (Cont'd) CHI /Q RANGE DOWNWIND SECTOR GT LE N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE_ _S_ SSW SW WSW W WNW .NW ,N N_W _ALL_ 2.17-05 TO 2.65-05 121 71 38 51 92 62 44 17 14, 9 36 83 85 30 33 57 823 76.9 78.1 85.2 85.4 88.7 84.7 82.0 85.3 87.7 92.3 92.0 80.4 83.8 86.0 87.4 77.4 83.8 i l 1.78-05 TO 2.17-05 132 55 28 42 35 25 31 14 10 6 21 67 45 34 22 62 629 84.0 81.1 87.7 89.W 91.8 87.3 85.7 87.1 89.1 93.1 93.5 86.2 88.4 90.6 90.1 83.9 87.5 1.46-05 TO 1.78-05 87 65 18 26 15 18 14 18 11 8 16 64 42 14 19 48 483 88.7 84.6 89.2 92.5 93.2 89.2 87.3 89.4 90.6 94.2 94.7 91.7 92.7 92.6 92.5 88.9 90.4 h 1.20-05 TO 1.46-05 54 39 19 24 25 13 14 13 9 8 6 25 17 12 14 23 315 p g 91.7 86.8 90.9 95.0 95.5 90.6 89.0 91.0 91.8 95.3 95.2 93.9 94.4 94.2 94.2 91.3 92.3 m W M i I 9.81-06 TO 1.20-05 38 29 17 6 11 20 14 10 9 4 13 9 9 7 10 18 224 h 93.7 88.3 92.3 95.6 96.5 92.7 90.7 92.3 93.1 95.8 96.2 94.7 95.3 35.2 95.5 93.1 93.6 I O.00 TO 9.81-06 116 213 89 42 39 69 79 61 50 31 51 62 46 35 36 66 1085 O 100.O 100.O 100.O 100.0 100.O 100.O 100.O 100.O 100.O 100.O 100.O 100.O 100.O 100.O 100.O 100.O 100.O U (CHI /Q = 0) 15056 15075 15744 15944 15801 15958 18058 16114 16181 16159 15572 15744 15919 16176 16103 15941 0 89.1 89.2 93.1 94.3 93.5 94.4 95.0 95.3 95.7 95.6 92.1 91.1 94.2 95.7 95.3 94.3 .O NON ZERO TOTAL 1847 1828 1159 959 1102 945 845 789 722 744 1331 1159 984 727 800 962 16903 (PERCENTAGE) 10.9 10.8 6.9 5.7 6.5 5.6 5.O 4.7 4.3 4.4 7.9 6.9 5.8 4.3 4.7 5.7 D01# WIND DISTANCE (KM) 1.06 .82 .69 .69 .69 .72 .74 .69 .69 .69 .76 1.01 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.27 i o tn MC om MN E5 E M 2: 'T M2 Note: Period of record was from July 1981 through June 1983. He o CD h W i M

MH lt:2 ER-OL a e o e = n e o a o o. o. o -. n u. em n o. er. e n. w e. p a n n w a n 1 oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo n-an me y oo ao ao ao un on on on me no nw QO co oo oo ao oo oo ao no oo en e. He 33 hH oo o o. oo oo oo N. o* -N

n.

me -m m 3 g l E N H g e s = o o. a o. o o. oo oo -. o. e n. r e. . a. o n. n E a e p D U O H = o o. oo ao n- = =. e n.

a. n.

. e. n. R e. n. = m n n n. e e m e o N g 'm s o o. a o. ao -- o-m m. e n. m e. m e. e n. e m. ow M m n n e n g Ow 5 o o. oo ao o o. w. n. en e n. w o. - o. m w O Em u n w g 4 E h> 8 m Q e I w g y - oo oo-oo oo -. w oo nn n e. e m. en vm g t o e [ H N e m. e << 4 l Z g M w o o. -. o. o. e n. em w e. w. ,w s o g z e g g a O H U m Z o o. o o. o o. oo o o. o o. n. em me n a. o m. w P O H H w g m Ed D m o o. oo -. o. -. n n. w e. - e. we an n o. g w O 2 g o o. oo -. o. -. s e. m e. r-. m e. e t. w e. u o z w n n w e g M 1 m D 00 00 o o. -. n n. - n. n o. a o. w e. a n. - m. o a Y m n n y a n m o 0 N 4 D3 N g y - n. n u. e n. m m. ma en -w on w oo oo oo e; ng ng e; -~ H h Ed oo co oo o o. oo oo -o en ew we s e. P z 4 3E DU n n o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. w e o e n n e o e e a o n w w t-n n n w I w i d d i i i i 4 i e h at o o o o o o o o o o l N fi n n (9 w w w w w w w o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. \\ / r U U e o e a n e o e e e e o e-w w e-n a n w a a e i i i i 4 i i n 2.3-94 SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983 1

t l TABLE 2.3-69 (Cont ' d) CIII/Q RANGE DOWNWIND SECTOR J i GT LE N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW ALL i i 2.35-04 TO 2.88-04 37 40 24 11 8 10 9 17 23 28 85 42 32 14 22 11 389 3.0 8.7 7.8 8.4 3.2 2.8 3.1 3.0 8.1 10.0 14.3 4.7 3.8 2.3 3.1 1.3 5.3 l 1.93-os TO 2.35-04 47 58 43 35 25 15 15 11 21 23 52 54 30 31 13 20 491 4.8 8.9 10.3 8.8 4.7 3.7 4.3 3.9 e.0 12.0 17.0 7.8 5.8 5.0 4.2 2.7 7.2 i 1.58-04 TO 1.93-04 Ss 81 43 33 28 31 10 20 53 45 85 85 80 28 32 18 899 7.5 12.1 12.7 11.1 8.4 8.0 9.1 5.8 12.8 15.9 20.5 12.7 9.8 7.4 8.7 3.9 10.0 1.30-04 TO 1.58-04 88 95 58 38 35 28 29 30 49 33 71 72 52 35 34 44 787-pg 10.2 15.8 15.9 13.8 8.8 8.0 7.4 8.2 17.2 18.8 24.2 18.8 13.0 10.5 9.4 8.9 13.i CC M I bJ 1.08-04 TO 1.30-04 100 101 87 73 48 35 30 38 72 82 81 75 43 59 31 40 971 h' I fa [a 14.1 19.7 20.8 18.7 11.5 10.5 9.8 11.3 23.7 24.2 28.5 21.1 15.3 15.8 11.9 9.5 17.0 l u) 8.71-05 TO 1.08-04 109 122 89 72 83 58 40 48 73 100 120 52 88 45 58 58 1971 D1 i j Ln 19.3 24.4 25.9 23.7 15.4 14.8 13.0 15.4 30.3 32.8 34.8 24.1 20.2 19.4 18.8 13.4 21.8 }3o 7.14-05 TO 8.71-05 132 135 121 80 88 57 44 80 79 98 141 81 78 71 7f 71 1385 t4 23.5 29.7 32.8 29.3 19.7 18.7 18.5 22.2 37.5 41.1 42.3 27.8 25.4 25.8 22.3 s8.2 27.2 i 5.88-05 TO 7.14-05 131 157 135 79 78 85 98 73 94 88 152 85 87 88 107 70 1585 l 28.8 35.8 40.4 34.8 24.7 24.9 24.3 28.4 48.0 48.7 50.3 32.4 29.8 31.3 30.8 22.9 33.4 l l 4.80-05 TO 5.88-05 131 185 134 104 120 84 104 121 98 118 152 112 92 83 90 93 1817 4 i 34.5 42.2 48.0 42.0 32.2 31.0 32.8 38.8 54.7 58.8 58.4 38.8 35.9 38.5 38.0 29 2 40.7 3.94-05 TO 4.80-05 179 192 147 110 185 158 125 108 108 110 180 122 109 84 102 88 2081 j 41.5 49.7 58.4 49.7 42.8 42.3 42.8 47.8 84.3 88.3 87.9 45.8 43.1 45.7 48.2 35.1 49.0 1 3.23-05 TO 3.94-05 204 173 148 148 171 130 130 121 85 104 118 120 135 105 107 108 2105 ts U) b1 c: 49.5 58.4 84.8 59.8 53.4 51.8 53.0 58.2 72.0 77.3 74.1 52.7 52.0 54.8 54.8 42.4 57.4 .i O 41 ) 1 M1 2.85-05 TO 3.23-05 203 183 124 118 191 130 128 100 41 49 137 152 112 78 112 131 1987 I ] 57.4 83.8 71.8 87.9 85.4 81.2 83.2 88.7 75.7 81.8 81.3 81.3 59.4 81.5 83.7 51.2 85.4 D1 I U1 2C l 33 t) 2.17-05 TO 2.85-05 195 141 85 109 181 130 90 85 57 54 70 138 138 99 100 114 1784 R$ 85.0 89.1 78.7 75.5 75.8 70.7 70.4 74.0 80.9 88.2 85.0 89.2 88.4 70.1 71.7 58.8 72.4 + 1 Fa s3 i M3 ) 00 Am Gb l ~~ 4. i I i 0

i 3 .J k TABLE 2.3-69 (Cont'd) Cill/Q RANGE DOWNWIND SECTOR l GT LE N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW ALL l 1.7s-05 TO 2.17-05 19s 159 75 97 103 91 75 84 37 39 Se 109 119 105 96 115 1543 ) 72.4 7'll. 2 a0.9 s2.3 s2.1 77.3 78.4 79.4 e4.2 s9.8 as.8 75.5 78.2 79.2 79.4 66.6 7s.6 ) 1.46-05 To 1.7s-05 197 123 eO 70 77 89 7s as 41 21 e3 14e 13e 57 79 143 144s so.1 so.O s4.3 s7.1 se.9 s3.7 s2.s s5.2 es.O 91.4 92.0 s3.s s5.2 s4.1 s5.7 7s.2 e4.4 g to 1.20-05 TO 1.46-05 133 77 50 53 75 58 26 33 16 23 26 99 83 54 33 90 907 a5.3 s3.0 s7.2 90.s 91.7 s7.s s4.7 ss.O s9.4 93.4 93.3 s9.5 st.4 as.s es.4 s2.2 es.O S-' e w h 9.st-06 TO 1.20-05 95 s2 53 3s 23 43 40 22 20 10 22 37 3s 27 32 61 843 ch s9.0 s8.2 90.2 93.5 93.1 90.9 s7.9 s9.9 91.2 94.3 94.5 91.8 91.9 91.1 91.0 s8.3 90.8 D1 M [ 1 0.00 TO 9.st-06 2s1 354 173 94 109 125 152 11s 97 86 104 147 123 103 113 203 2362 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 td i (CHI /Q = 0) 14207 14200 1500s 15332 151s3 15392 15518 1559s 15665 15614 14s77 15020 15255 15612 15520 152s2 0 64.7 e4.7 s9.5 91.4 90.5 St.s 92.5 93.0 93.4 93.1 as.7 s9.8 91.0 93.1 92.8 91.1 .0 i NON ZERO TOTAL 2562 2589 178: 1437 15s6 1377 1253 1171 1104 1155 1s92 1749 1514 1157 1249 14s7 25023 (PERCENTAGE) 15.3 15.3 10.5 s.E 9.5 s.2 7.5 7.0 8.8 6.9 11.3 10.4 9.0 8.9 7.4 s.9 DOWNWIND DISTANCE (KM) 1.06 .s2 .89 .89 .89 .72 .74 .89 .89 .89 .78 1.01 1.05 1.05 1.06 f.27 a cn MC om MM " t4 N U $[;) Note: Period of record was from July 1981 through June 1983. z l*8 e i CO A W 3 I t 't I

MH 1&2 ER-OL TABLE 2.3-70 FIFTY PERCENT PROBABILITY' LEVEL X/O AT 0.5 MILE FROM MARBLE HILL 1&2 USING ONSITE DATA 3 DOWNWIND X/Q (sec/m ) xio-5 SECTOR 1 HOUR 2 HOURS 8 HOURS 16 HOURS 72 h0URS 624 HOURS N 6.350 4.515 2.194 0.899 0.525 0.542 NNE 5.573 4.002 1.957 0.799 0.439 0.473 NE 5.722 3.805 1.521 0.570 0.292 0.295 ENE 4.624 3.262 1.397 0.505 0.232 0.259 E 3.646 2.784 1.323 0.496 0.218 0.241 ESE 3.862 2.892 1.327 0.501 0.235 0.205 SE 4.334 3.067 1.327 0.499 0.207 0.172 SSE 4.213 3.119 1.520 0.550 0.207 0.171 S 6.860 4.445 1.855 0.671 0.227 0.218 4 SSW 7.583 4.727 2.089 0.772 0-.308 0.212 SW 7.798 5.461 2.679 1.140 0.495 0.397 WSW 6.962 4.655 2.326 0.908 0.412 0.366 W 6.758 4.770 2.268 0.886 0.400 0.308 WNW 7.833 5.045 1.962 0.669 0.270 0.232 NW 8.102 5.108 2.044 0.716 0.291 0.257 NNW 7.595 4.876 2.020 0.780 0.364 0.250 All Sectors 5.922 4.074 1.826 0.692 0.304 0.268 i I l l l Note: Period of record was from July, 1981 through June, 1983. 2.3-97 SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL O TABLE 2.3-71 V) FIFTY PERCENT PROBABILITY LEVEL X/O AT 1.5 MILES FROM MARBLE HILL 1 & 2 USING ONSITE DATA DOWNWIND X/Q (sec/m3) x10-6 SECTOR 1 HOUR 2 HOURS 8 HOURS 1,6 HOURS 72 HOURS 624 HOURS N 14.09 10.12 4.94 1.40 0.80 0.85 NNE 11.85 8.54 4.33 1.20 0.68 0.74 NE 11.95 8.17 3.33 0.87 0.44 0.46 ENE 9.69 6.57 2.94 0.77 0'.35 0.40 E 7.42 5.73 2.77 0.75 0.33 0.37 ESE 7.91 5.91 2.79 0.76 0.36 0.31 SE 8.84 6.31 2.76 0.75 0.32 0.26 SSE 8.52 6.32 3.12 0.84 0.32 0.26 S 14.60 9.25 3.89 1.03 0.35 0.33 SSW 16.32 10.43 4.50 1.17 0.47 0.33 4 SW 17.40 11.96 6.22 1.76 0.77 0.61 WSW ~15.60 10.31 5.28 1.39 0.63 0.56 W 14.95 10.57 5.01 1.35 0.62 0.49 WNW 17.06 11.14 4.54 1.04 0.42 0.36 NW 17.79 11.24 4.66 1.11 0.44 0.40 NNW 16.86 10.89 4.48 1.22 0.56 0.47 All Sectors 12. 55 8.69 3.94 1.06 0.46 0.41 i a Note: Period of record was from July, 1981 through June, 1983. i 2.3-98 SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL / TABLE 2.3-72 FIFTY PERCENT PROBABILITY LEVEL X/O AT 2.5 MILES FROM MARBLE HILL 1 & 2 USING ONSITE DATA DOWNWIND X/O (sec/m3) xio-6 SECTOR 1 HOUR 2 HOURS 8 HOURS 16 HOURS 72 HOURS 624 HOURS N 6.65 4.84 2.37 0.61 0.36 0.38 NNE 5.66 4.13 2.06 0.54 0.30 0.33 NE 5.66 3.82 1.59 0.38 0.20 0.20 ENE 4.58 3.18 1.37 0.33 0.16 0.18 E 3.53 2.67 1.31 0.33 0.14 0.16 ESE 3.72 2.80 1.30 0.33 0.16 0.14 SE 4.13 2.98 1.28 0.33 0.14 0.11 SSE 3.99 2.96 1.48 0.37 0.14 0.11 S 6.78 4.41 1.88 0.46 0.15 0.15 4 t SSW 7.76 4.95 2.18 0.51 0.21 0.15 SW 8.37 5.81 2.96 0.77 0.34 0.28 WSW 7.50 4.93 2.51 ~0.61 0.28 0.25 W 7.12 5.06 2.40 0.60 0.28 0.22 l WNW. 8.24 5.37 2.21 0.46 0.18 0.16 NW 8.50 5.40 2.27 0.50 0.20 0.17 NNW 8.04 5.28 2.19 0.53 0.25 0.21 All Sectors 5.96 4.14 1.89 0.47 0.21 0.18 e i l Note: Period of record was from July, 1981 through June, 1983. 2.3-99 SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

1 MH 1&2 ER-OL TABLE 2.3-73 FIFTY PERCENT PROBABILITY LEVEL y/O AT 3.5 MILES FROM MARBLE HILL 1 & 2 USING ONSITE DATA 3 DOWNWIND X/Q (sec/m ) xio-7 SECTOR 1 HOUR 2 HOURS 8 HOURS 16 HOURS 72 HOURS 624 HOURS N 41.48 30.33 14.94 3.68 2.15 2.30 NNE 35.02 25.80 12.97 3.20 1.83 2.00 NE 34.99 24.04 9.91 2.26 1.18 1.23 ENE 28.37 19.81 8.64 1.98 0.92 1.05 E 22.04 16.61 8.11 1.92 0.86 0.98 ESE 23.31 17.38 8.31 1.94 0.92 0.82 SE 25.93 18.49 8.07 1.94 0.81 0.69 SSE 25.13 18.37 9.27 2.15 0.82 0.69 S 41.34 27.65 11.61 2.69 0.90 0.87 SSW 47.88 30.80 13.71 3.08 1.23 0.86 SW 52.59 36.54 18.93 4.70 2.05 1.66 4 I WSW 46.52 30.52 15.76 3.66 1.72 1.52 W 44.26 31.57 15.21 3.67 1.67 1.31 l WNW 51.40 33.49 13.96 2.74 1.11 0.97 NW 52.76 33.93 14.56 2.92 1.16 1.06 i NNW 50.82 33.05 13.98 3.29 1.50 1.27 All Sectors 37.00 25.93 11.84 2.78 1.22 1.10 1 y y 2.3-100 SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL TABLE 2.3-74 FIFTY PERCENT PROBABILITY LEVEL X/O AT 4.5 MILES FROM MARBLE HILL 1 & 2 USING ONSITE DATA DOWNWIND X/0 (sec/m3) x10-7 SECTOR 1 HOUR 2 HOURS 8 HOURS 16 HOURS 72 HOURS 624 HOURS N 29.96 21.72 10.65 2.55 1.48 1.61 NNE 25.49 18.22 9.34 2.20 1.26 1.37 NE 25.30 16.86 7.06 1.56 0.80 0.86 ENE 20.25 13.99 6.18 1.37 0.62 0.74 E 15.54 11.67 5.83 1.32 0.59 0.67 ESE 16.32 12.23 5.92 1.34 0.63 0.57 SE 18.32 13.02 5.77 1.32 0.56 0.47 SSE 17.73 12.99 6.54 1.50 0.56 0.48 S 29.97 19.51 8.35 1.81 0.62 0.60 SSW 33.84 21.86 9.95 2.14 0.88 0.60 4 SW 37.98 25.90 13.29 3.22 1.39 1.16 WSW 33.32 21.83 11.24 2.55 1.18 1.06 W 31.77 22.55 10.79 2.53 1.16 0.92 WNW 36.41 23.87 10.05 1.88 0.76 0.68 NW 37.47 23.87 10.15 1.97 0.81 0.74 NNW 36.03 23.55 9.94 2.26 1.04 0.88 All sectors 26.73 18.35 8.50 1.90 0.85 0.76 Note: Period of record was from July, 1981 through June, 1983. 2.3-101 SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983 ..-.-~

l MH 1&2 ER-OL TABLE 2.3-75 FIFTY PERCENT PROBABILITY LEVEL y/O AT 7.5 MILES FROM MARBLE HILL 1 & 2 USING ONSITE DATA 3 DOWNWIND y/Q (sec/m ) x10-7 SECTOR 1 HOUR 2 HOURS 8 HOURS 16 HOURS 72 HOURS 624 HOURS N 15.35 11.22 5.42 1.21 0.72 0.79 NNW 12.88 9.24 4.75 1.06 0.61 0.67 NE 12.58 8.45 3.57 0.74 0.38 0.41 ENE 10.12 C.97 3.07 0.64 0.31 0.35 E 7.50 5.80 2.85 0.61 0.28 0.32 ESE 8.00 6.08 2.90 0.61 0.30 0.27 SE 9.02 6.52 2.89 0.62 0.27 0.23 SSE 8.71 6.45 3.26 0.71 0.26 0.23 ) S 14.93 9.73 4.21 0.88 0.30 0.29 SSW 17.56 11.07 5.07 1.01 0.42 0.29 SW 19.72 13.48 6.97 1,55 0.69 0.57 WSW 17.23 11.33 5.77 1.23 0.58 0.52 4 W-16.54 11.51 5.49 1.20 0.55 0.44 WNW 19.00 12.35 5.17 0.93 0.37 0.33 j NW 19.51 12.51 5.28 0.97 0.38 0.36 NNW 18.86 12.39 5.14 1.06 0.51 0.43 All Sectors 13. 34 9.25 4.28 0.91 0.41 0.37 Note: Period of record was from July, 1981 through June, 1983. 2.3-102 SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL i i TABLE 2.3-76 I FIFTY PERCENT PROBABILITY LEVEL y/O AT 15 MILES FROM MARBLE HILL 1 & 2 USING ONSITE DATA 3 DOWNWIND X/Q (sec/m ) xio-8 SECTOR 1 HOUR 2 HOURS 8 HOURS 16 HOURS 72 HOURS 624 HOUI;S 4 N 62.31 47.06 22.39 4.50 2.78 3.03 NNE 50.78 36.64 19.68 4.00 2.32 2.60 i NE 47.27 32.48 14.32 2.70 1.42 1.59 ENE 37.26 25.97 11.89 2.35 1.13 1.32 E 28.58 21.79 11.04 2.16 1.06 1.17 ESE 29.98 22.88 11.23 2.19 1.05 1.00 SE 33.34 24.39 11.30 2.21 0.96 0.86 l SSE 32.52 24.35 12.97 2.57 0.95 0.85 S 56.29 36.46 16.52 3.21 1.10 1.10 SSW 68.20 44.19 20.59 3.72 1.57 1.09 SW 83.79 56.03 28.93 5.91 2.64 2.18 WSW 71.89 47.41 23.17 4.59 2.17 1.99 4 P W 67.41 46.92 23.29 4.57 2.09 1.70 WNW 78.69 51.78 21.45 3.49 1.43 1.27 NW 80.83 51.64 22.04 3.61 1.46 1.35 NNW 78.89 51.86 21.59 4.00 1.94 1.66 All Sectors 51.45 36.03 17.37 3.33 1.50 1.40 2.3-103 SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983 l (

i.. -

- ~

MH 1&2 ER-OL ) TABLE 2.3-77 J FIFTY PERCENT PROBABILITY LEVEL 1/0 AT 25 MILES l FROM MARBLE HILL 1 & 2 USING ONSITE DATA DOWNWIND X/Q (sec/m3) x10-8 SECTOR 1 HOUR 2 HOURS 8 HOURS 16 HOURS 72 HOURS 624 HOURS N 33.82 25.45 12.04 2.24 1.40 1.54 NNE 26.27 19.36 10.47 1.98 1.16 1.31 NE 24.07 16.67 7.43 1.30 0.70 0.80 ENE 18.70 13.09 6.10 1.13 0.56 0.65 j E 14.14 11.06 5.61 1.03 0.51 0.57 ESE 14.87 11.38 5.68 1.05 0.51 0.49 SE 16.61 12.17 5.69 1.06 0.45 0.43 SSE 16.14 12.20 6.74 1.24 0.47 0.42 S 27.98 18.43 8.60 1.59 0.56 0.53 1 SSW 33.74 23.06 11.04 1.83 0.78 0.54 SW 45.16 30.90 15.65 2.95 1.30 1.11 4 WSW 37.56 25.34 12.59 2.27 1.09 1.01 W 36.11 24.90 12.28 2.25 1.06 0.85 t WNW 42.10 27.23 11.47 1.73 0.71 0.64 NW 42.66 27.45 11.69 1.78 0.74 0.67 NNN 42.41 27.81 11.65 1.96 0.97 0.84 All Sectors 26. 50 18.52 9.13 1.63 0.74 0.70 Note: Period of record was from July, 1981 through June, 1983. (a) 2.3-104 SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

I MH 1&2 ER-OL [ TABLE 2.3-78 FIFTY PERCENT PROBABILITY LEVEL X/O AT 35 MILES FROM MARBLE HILL 1 & 2 USING ONSITE DATA 3 DOWNWIND X/C (sec/m ) x10-8 SECTOR 1 HOUR 2 HOURS 8 HOURS 16 HOURS 72 HOURS 624 HOURS N 22.94 17.24 8.09 1.42 0.38 0.99 NNE 17.07 12.62 6.95 1.25 0.75 0.83 NE 15.05 10.60 4.86 0.81 0.43 0.51 ENE 11.86 8.12 3.92 0.70 0.35 0.41 E 8.72 6.88 3.58 0.64 0.31 0.36 ESE 9.25 7.09 3.58 0.64 0.31 0.31 SE 10.55

7. 52 3. 57 0.65 0.29 0.28 SSE 10.14 7.49

.4.28 0.78 0.30 0.26 S 17.48 11.43 5.57 0.98 0.34 0.34 SSW 21.26 14.71 7.10 1.16 0.49 0.34 SW 30.88 21.18 10.38 1.84 0.84 0.71 WSW 2 5. 58 17.26 8.37 1.44 0.70 0.65 4 W 24.37 16.66 8.11 1.41 0.66 0.54 kHW 28.20 18.11 7.67 1.09 0.46 0.41 NW 28.97 18.95 8.09 1.12 0.48 0.43 NNW 29.17 18.86 7.82 1.25 0.63 0.54 All Sectors 16.7 6 11.82 6.07 1.02 0.47 0.44 Note: Period of record was from July, 1981 througn June, 1983. 2.3-105 SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL (G) TABLE 2.3-79 FIFTY PERCENT PROBABILITY LEVEL X/O AT 45 MILES FROM MARBLE HILL 1 & 2 USING ONSITE DATA 3 -0 DOWNWIND X/O (sec/m ) x10 SECTOR 1 HOUR 2 HOURS 8 HOURS 16 HOURS 72 HOURS 624 HOURS N 17.20 13.03 6.06 1.03 0.64 0.70 NNE 12.23 9.28 5.25 0.91 0.54 0.60 NE 10.68 7.74 3.51 0.59 0.31 0.36 ENE 8.32 5.83 2.84 0.50 0.25 0.29 E 6.30 4.76 2.52 0.44 0.22 0.25 ESE 6.59 4.98 2.54 0.45 0.22 0.22 SE 7.33 5.32 2.58 0.45 0.20 0.20 SSE 7.07 5.32 3.06 0.53 0.21 0.19 S 12.10 8.18 4.13 0.68 0.25 0.24 SSW 14.94 10.79 5.34 0.82 0.26 0.24 4 SW 22.82 16.33 7.92 1.34 0.61 0.50 .WSW 18.97 13.37 6.36 1.03 0.50 0.47 W 18.22 12.73 6.17 1.02 0.47 0.39 WNW

21. 53 14.14 5.81 0.80 0.33 0.30 NW 21.46 14.34 5.95 0.83 0.34 0.30 NNW 21.40 14.75 5.96 0.90 0.45 0.38 All Sectors 11.83 8.57 4.48 0.73 0.33 0.32 4

Note: Period of record was from July, 1981 through June, 1983. 2.3-106 SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL ( TABLE 2.3-80 ANNUAL AVERAGE X /Q AND D/O AT THE ACTUAL MARBLE HILL SITE BOUNDARY DISTANCES DOWNWIND SITE BOUNDARY X/O D/Q 3 SECTOR DISTANCE (km) ( sec /m ) (1/m-) N 1.31

2. 37 x 10-7 2.31 x 10-9 NNE 1.04 3.13 x 10-7 4.17 x 10-9 NE 0.85 2.47 x 10-7 2.90 x 10-9 ENE 0.71 2.37 x 10-7 3.15 x 10-9 E

0.74 2.18 x 10-7 3.56 x 10-9 ESE 0.94 1.35 x 10-7 2.37 x 10-9 SE 1.08 1.04 x 10-7 1.76 x 10-9 SSE 0.82 1.13 x 10-7 2.12 x 10-9 S 0.77 1.14 x 10-7 1.60 x 10-9 4 ^) f SSW 0.84 1.10 x 10-7 1.24 x 10-9 SW 1.12 1.80 x 10-7 1.70 x 10-9 WSW l.32 1.42 x 10-7 1.31 x 10-9 W l.22 1.21.x 10-7 1.13 x 10-9 WNW l.13 1.04 x 10-7 9.30 x 10-10 NW l.36 8.91 x 10-8 7.69 x 10-10 NNW l.72 9.54 x 10-8 7.46 x 10-10 Note: Period of record was from July 1981 through June 1983.

sO SUPPLEMENT 4 2.3-107 DECEMBER 1983 l

'S (b N S d I 1 TABLE 2.3-81 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q AT VARIOUS DISTANCES PROM Tile MARBI E IIILL SITE DOWNWIND DOWNWIND DISTANCE (miles) 3

SECTOP, 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 7.5 15 25 35 45 N

44.2 13.4 8.55 6.14 4.71 2.65 1.16 0.62 0.41 0.30 NNE 44.1 12.8 8.03 5.74 4.39 2.47 1.09 0.59 0.40 0.29 NE 26.7 8.3 5.40 3.90 3.00 1.69 0.75 0.40 0.27 0.20 ENE 20.0 6.6 4.23 3.01 2.29 1.27 0.55 0.30 0.20 0.14 E 19.7 7.6 4.91 3.49 2.64 1.44 0.61 0.32 0.21 0.15 ESE 16.2 6.5 4.26 3.02 2.29 1.24 0.52 0.27 0.17 0.13 b SE 14.3 5.9 3.98 2.90 2.22 1.24 0.53 0.28 0.19

0. 14 SSE 11.5 5.1 3.47 2.53 1.94 1.08 0.46 0.24 0.15 0.11 7

[ S 10.8 4.8 3.41 2.55 1.99 1.13 0.49 0.26 0.17 0.13 4 SSW 11.6 4.9 3.62 2.74 2.16 1.26 0.57 0.31 0.20 0.15 N h SW 27.8 8.8 5.87 4.27 3.29 1.85 0.80 0.43 0.28 0.21 WSW 26.7 8.3 5.46 3.98 3.07 1.75 0.77 0.42 0.28 0.20 W 20.1 6.9 4.78 3.55 2.77 1.60 0.72 0.39 0.26 0.19 WNW 16.0 5.6 3.92 2.93 2.30 1.35 0.62 0.35 0.24 0.18 NW 16.6 5.7 3.93 2.91 2.28 1.33 0.61 0.34 0.23 0.17 NNW 22.4 7.4 4.93 3.62 2.81 1.61 0.72 0.40 0.27 0.20 i o c1 NO $h Note: X/Q values are in sec/m multiplied by 108; i.e., 34.5 implies X/0 = 3. 4 5 x 10-7 3 E X/O values are based on hourly onsite meteorological data for the period f rom J uly M 1981 through June 1983. g we $A w I u l

O O O V U TABLE 2.3-82 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/O AT VARIOUS DISTANCES FROM THE MARBLE IIILL SITE DOWNWIND DOWNWIND DISTANCE (miles) SECTOR 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 _4.5 7.5 15 25 35 45 N 42.8 10.8 5.20 3.11 2.06 0.89 0.28 0.121 0.072 0.049 NNE 57.1 13.1 6.14 3.64 2.41 1.04 0.34 0.151 0.091 0.062 NE 30.9 7.9 3.83 2.30 1.53 0.66 0.22 0.095 0.057 0.039 ENE 27.0 7.0 3.42 2.06 1.37 0.59 0.19 0.082 0.048 0.032 E 32.4 9.5 4.73 2.87 1.91 0.82 0.26 0.111 0.064 0.043 ESE 27.7 8.1 4.06 2.47 1.65 0.71 0.23 0.098 0.057 0.038 3 SE 24.1 6.9 3.46 2.10 1.41 0.61 0.20 0.087 0.051 0.035 m SSE 21.6 6.3 ,.13 1.91 1.28 0.55 0.18 0.079 0.047 0.032 7 u, h S 15.3 4.6 2.34 1.44 0.97 0.42 0.14 0.061 0.036 0.025 o m m SSW 12.9 4.1 2.14 1.32 0.89 0.38 0.12 0.054 0.032 0.022 w h SW 25.0 6.7 3.32 2.01 1.34 0.58 0.19 0.082 0.049 0.034 WSW 23.6 6.5 3.25 1.97 1.31 0.56 0.18 0.077 0.045 0.031 W 18.2 5.3 2.65 1.64 1.08 0.46 0.15 0.064 0.038 0.027 WNW 13.7 4.0 2.02 1.24 0.83 0.36 0.12 0.051 0.030 0.021 NW 14.3 4.1 2.05 1.25 0.84 0.36 0.12 0.052 0.031 0.022 NNW 18.4 5.0 2.50 1.52 1.01 0.44 0.14 0.060 0.036 0.025 0$ @@ Note: D/Q values are in 1/m multiplied by 1010; i.e., 28.2 implies D/O = 2.82 x 10-9 2 gQ D/Q values are based on hourly onsite meteorological data for the period July 1981 M 3 through June 1983. E -e

N NNW i NNE O NW NE WNW ENE-T 2 S.I s. 4 l W 0.0 _e . O wSw ESe I e l SW SE l l SSW I SSE I S l .4 et 40 l M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT - oPER ATING LICENSE STAGE FIGURE 2.3-1 Note: Period of record was from \\ July 1981 through June 1983. AfiflVAL WIfl0 ROSE FOR 4 33-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER l SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW i NNE O w i NW NE WNW K ENE W [ O E 4 WSW P 3 ESE e SW SE i SSW I SSE S

s mz so l

M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT - OPER ATING LICENSE ST AGE FIGURE 2.3-2 Note: Period of record was from 4 July 1981 through June 1983. AhflUAL WIfl0 ROSE FOR 199-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983 - - ~ . = _.. _ _ _ _,. _.

N NNW i NNE NW NE m. \\ WNW ENE II 2 to % g, 1* 4 N 00 E is, 4 ) O WSW g ESE a SW SE SSW I SSE S = =r 4o M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT - OPEr? ATING LICENSE ST AGE Note: 1982 and 1983 data. FIGURE 2.3-4 4 JAf40ARY WIf4D ROSE FOR i l 33-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW l NNE OV NW NE WNW EtJE Ill 2 1.. a- ~ 0.0 W

x=

-E if WSW ESE l SW SE i SSW l SSE l 3 l >t 40 MARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OPER ATING LICENSE STAGE '] FIGURE 2.3-5 Note: 1982 and 1983 data. 4 FEBRUARY WIND ROSE FOR 33-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW i NNE O r NW w NE WNW ENE. I H ss. 4 W 0.0 y - E 4 k eSe wSm o-l SW SE l l SSW I SSE S 4. M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT - OPERATING LICENSE STAGE FIGURE 2.3-6 Note: 1982 and 1983 data. 4 MARCH WIND ROSE FOR 33-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW l NNE O M w NE NW WNW ENE ts. W 0.0 4 E 7, i I.I WSW ESE O s l l SW SE SSW I SSE S l O ..a m. m.a. ** a o.4a CRLf1' g 1 M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT - OPER ATtNG LICENSE STAGE FIGURE 2.3-7 I Note: 1982 and 1983 data. 4 l APRIL WIND ROSE FOR l 33-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER SUPPLEMENT 4 l DECEMBER 1983

N NNW i NNE O NW NE [ WNW ENE H t*- st. 0.0 W E 4 1

s WSW ESE l

q. SW SE SSW I SSE S M 4.4R fr%8 @*13.40*E4.40 l CRLf1 M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OPER ATING LICENSE ST AGE FIGURE 2.3-8 Ci Note: 1982 and 1983 data. 4 MAY WIND ROSE FOR 33-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER SUPPLEMENT 4 DECmiBER 1983

N NNW l NNE l O i NW NE E WNW ENE in. x -i i C* c 0.0 W X - E 4

s WSW ESE s

.~ SW SE SSW I SSE S c *t.40 M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING ST ATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT OPER ATING LICENSE STAGE FIGURE 2.3-9 O' 4 Note: 1982 and 1983 data. JUNE WIND ROSE FOR 33-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW l NNE O NW NE WNW ENE 15-st. W 0.3 s E 4 -=- WSW ESE lll l SW SE x SSW I SSE S D1 40 M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING ST ATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT OPER ATING LICENSE ST AGE l4 Note: 1981 and 1982 data. JULY UIND ROSE FOR 33-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW l NNE NW NE l WNW ENE a" 2 52 1.. tt-l W 0.3 - E l ~= l 4 WSW ESE SW SE SSW I SSE S 4e et 4tl l l MARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OPERATING LICENSE STAGE FIGURE 2.3-11 O' l4 Note: 1981 and 1982 data. AUGUST WIND ROSE FOR 33-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER i SUPPLEMENT 4 1 DECE".BER 1983

N NNW l NNE O NW NE WNW ENE .g. 5* 1.. W O.0 - E r WSW ESE j.E SSW l SSE S = .a M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OPER ATING LICENSE ST AGE FIGURE 2.3-12 l4 Note: 1981 and 1982 data. 33-F00T LEVEL 0F 199-F00T TOWER s-SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW l NNE O NW g NE WNW ENE ca.1 4 O.0 W m F* 4 M WSW ESE lO k lli SW SE SSW I SSE S .: a M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT OPER ATING LICENSE STAGE FIGURE 2.3-13 Note: 1981 and 1982 data. l4 33-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

l N NNW l NNE NW NE WNW ENE en t* 5 i 1.. W ' 4 0.0 l - E l 1 l = 4 WSW ESE i i. I SW SE SSW I SSE S 1 Mk C R L N Q. @, %.. M 4..e v M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OPERATING LICENSE STAGE FIGURE 2.3-14 Note: 1981 and 1982 data. 4 Os NOVEMBER WIND ROSE FOR 33-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW j NNE O NW NE WNW ENE it. W O.0 -E ~= 4 I I WSW ESE SW SE u =. i SSW I SSE S l .s o et 40 l M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING ST ATION - UNITS 1 & 2 j ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT OPER ATING LICENSl; ST AGE FIGURE 2.3-15 l4 [D Note: 1981 and 1982 data, s, ) DECEMBER WIND P,0SE FOR 33-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER l SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW i NNE NW NE WNW N ENE IM 'I i 55 5-4 0.0 W m E e E 4 E E J ESE WSW s o 3 SW SE SSW I SSE 3 ~*s n.4e M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT OPER ATING LICENSE ST AGE FIGURE 2.3-16 Note: 1982 and 1983 data. 4 O JANUARY WIND ROSE FOR 199-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW i NNE O NW NE I WNW lll ENE lll N W {gingaea eg 0, O g g:i gsmisgi] .-E 4 WSW lll ESE O Ill n / I SW E SE SSW I SSE S , ee4.ao arn CRL 5 '.ns.4a m.4e i M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 EPJVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPER ATING LICENSE ST AGE 4 Note: 1982 and 1983 data. FEBRUARY WIND ROSE FOR 199-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER i SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW I NNE NE NW ~ WNW ENE I I a.5 I' B. 6 0.0 mi W y E 4 -E. WSW C3 ESE 1 SW SE SSW I SSE S an a M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPER ATING LICENSE STAGE FIGURE 2.3-18 Note: 1982 and 1983 data. 4 l MARCH WIND ROSE FOR l 199-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER l SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW j NNE O wW ne f WNW ENE ~* se. W {ggg=g 0, 0 mi -E 4 E WSW ^ ESE z O SW SE SSW I SSE 0 l .m CRLN E >19.40 Oce.44 MARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE ST AGE l F i GU Rt. 2.0-19 4 Note: 1982 and 1983 data. l 199-F00T LE/EL OF 199-F00T TOWER SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW i NNE O WW Ne WNW ENE / I T e' 4 OO EEME -E W )E k WSW ESE O r', SW SE SSW I SSE 5 m _4e .ru a .s M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT - OPER ATING LICENSE ST AGE l4 Note: 1982 and 1983 data. O I'aY L'I:!D ROSE FOR 199-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T T011ER SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW i NNE O WW We WNW ENE to

1..

0, 0 - E W 4 l l WSW ESE O SW SE SSW I SSE S ~.. .: 4a M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Or>ERATING LICENSE STAGE l4 Note: 1982 and 1983 data. O JUNE WIND ROSE FOR 199-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW i NNE O NW Ne WNW ENE II N 0.1 5-f E. W 01 -E 4 I WSW ESE SW SE a SSW I SSE S M 4.40 ftPH %*15.40*E4.40 CRLM M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OPERATING LICENSE ST AGE l4 Note: 1981 and 1982 data. JULY WIND ROSE FOR 199-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW I NNE N. Q NW NE N N WNW V ENE lll l l 0% ll s-5 4 W 01 -E WSW ESE SW SE SSW I SSE S a.: a M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE STAGE FIGURE 2.3-23 4 Note: 1981 and 1982 data. AUGUST WIND ROSE FOR 199-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW i NNE 7 O NW Ne WNW ENE t"

1..

0, O W ,h ~= - E e 4 . lll WSW g ESE lO SW SE SSW I SSE S . m.a nr= CRL .a.a nu.a M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT OPER ATING LICENSE ST AGE FIGURE 2.3-24 4 Note: 1981 and 1982 data. SEPTEMBER tlIND ROSE FOR 199-F00T LEVEL 0F 199-F00T TOWER SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW i NNE O NW NE WNW ENE lll EG. I I'* e g. 4 W ]mg 0.0 E I WSW g ESE O E V g SW SE SSW I SSE S l

9
C.40 M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OPER ATING LICENSE STAGE O

Note: 1981 and 1982 data. 4 OCTOBER WIND ROSE FOR 199-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNw i NNE O NW NE ggy ENE l,,s is. h B. W g 00 Eli m( E Illl WSW g ESE i O l / ^ SW SE SSW I SSE S i sta.or N91 M *15.48 *E4.48 CRL M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE STAGE l O "*= ee e ee et-4 NOVEMBER WIND ROSE FOR 199-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW i NNE O NW NE WNW ENE i* - ,c. N IEi 0, 0 i E m A 5 l E E WsW B ESE 1 E SW SE z l SSW I SSE S ._ wa.m era CRL .ns.4s e u.se M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT - OPER ATING LICENSE STAGE FIGURE 2.3-27 Note: 1981 and 1982 data. 4 DECEMBER WIND ROSE FOR 199-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW i NNE O NW NE WNW ENE i 1 Ill B.T lJ WSW ESE SW SE A SSW I SSE S mz 40 M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OPERATING LICENSE STAGE Note: Period of record was from FIGURE 2.3-41 (/ July 1981 through June 1983 ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION 4 0F WIND SPEED, DIRECTION, AND STABILITY FOR 33-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER AND A STABILITY SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW l NNE NW NE ii. y 0.0 a -E z_ 4 4 l .l WSW ESE i l SW SE i SSW I SSE S .a M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OPERATING LICENSE ST AGE Note: Period of record was from FIGURE 2.3-42 4 O July 1981 through June 1983. ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED, DIRECTION, AND STABILITY FOR 33-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F03T TOWER AND B STABILITY SUPPLEMENT 4 ( DECEMBER 1983

N NNW i NNE O V NW NE WNW iii ENE i l I i 1.n x m* .4 i.e W 0.0

1

/, - E 4 t WSW ESE O 1 ~ J l l SW SE SSW I SSE S = >z 4e 1 M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT OPER ATING LICENSE STAGE l Note: Period of record was from FIGURE 2.3-43 4 y July 1981 through June 1983. ANi!UAL JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED, DIRECTION, AND STABILITY FOR 33-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER AND C STABILITY SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW l NNE

0 t

NW NE l l l ~ ENE l WNW I i J, 5% e.a t.9. ( I W [ O, 0 -E 4 1 WSW ESE SE SW w SSW I SSE S l 4c mz M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT OPER ATING LICENSE STAGE Note: Period of record was from FIGURE 2.3-44 July 1981 through June 1983. Af!?10AL JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTI0fl 4 0F WIf1D SPEED, DIRECTI0fi, AND STABILITY FOR 33-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER AND D STABILITY SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEf1BER 1983

N NNW i NNE t NW NE WNW ENE ll W O0 2 f -E /. 4 WSW ESE l 1 l SE l SW -l-SSW I SSE S l =c so M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - oPER ATING LICENSE ST AGE Note: Period of record was from FIGURE 2.3-45 4 \\ July 1981 through June 1983. ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION (J OF WIND SPEED, DIRECTION, AND STABILITY FOR 33-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER AND E STABILITY SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW j NNE NW ~ NE WNW ENE ~ t' 1.c 0.0 W EE - E = = 4 n t WSW ESE c Er* SW SE SSW I SSE S m new CRL m.m M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING l STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OPERATING LICENSE ST AGE l Note: Period of record was from FIGURE 2.3-46 4 July 1981 through June 1983. ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF wit:0 SPEED, DIRECTION, AND STABILITY ~ FOR 33-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER AND F STABILITY SUPPLEMENT 4 i DECEMBER 1983

N NNW l NNE NW NE WNW ENE c ' r.e L* s.e a.4 W m 0.0 E ~ WSN ESE 1 i SW SE l SSW I SSE 1 S +. et.4e l i M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OPERATING LICENSE STAGE Note: Period of record was from FIGURE 2.3-47 O July 1981 through June 1983. ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION 4 l OF WIND SPEED, DIRECTION, AND STABILITY FOR 33-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER AND G STABILITY SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW i NNE NW NE WNW ENE s.t s> ( ld WSW ESE SW SE SSW I SSE S O ,.a m.a m.a. '" * "" n.a CRLNi .s.a 2.a,ie.a,,..a,u.a M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OPER ATING LICENSE ST AGE Note: Period of record was from FIGURE 2.3-48 4 ( July 1981 through June 1983. ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION l OF WIND SPEED, DIRECTION, AND STABILITY l FOR 199-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER AND A STABILITY l SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983 l

N NNW i NNE O NW NE WNW ENE i" W 0,. 0 I -E / .L WSW ESE O s SW SE i SSW I SSE S l Oe

12.40 *18 40 " #

rg's.4c <7.4a .... o... w. a.,... .t... l l M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING ST ATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT OPER ATING LICENSE STAGE Note: Period of record was from FIGURE 2.3-49 ) July 1981 through June 1983. ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION 4 0F WIND SPEED, DIRECTION, AND STABILITY l FOR 199-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER AND B STABILITY l SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW i NNE O-NW NE N WNW ENE ^ ll t** s.. tt a is. 0.0 I W [ E g

/

4 j . 111 l e' WSW ESE l L)s 1 1 SW SE N j m 1 l SSW l SSE 1 S O n.a m.a i..a

a ""

n.a CRLNi =s.40 >7 4o

c.40

,3,,,,,g ,4, l MARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING I STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REFoRT - OPERATING LICENSE STAGE Note: Period of record was from FIGURE 2.3-50 Ol July 1981 through June 1983. ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION 4 V 0F WIhD SPEED, DIRECTION, AND STABILITY FOR 199-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER AND C STABILITY l SUPPLEMENT 4 1 DECEMBER 1903

N NNW i NNE NW NE WNW ENE ~~ I l i:

s. z h.

5' s 0, 0 &EiiiiiiiBE0 - E W If WSW ESE SW m SE l SSW I SSE S ,,, m. a m CRL

15.45 >t4.40 M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STA. ION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT - OPER ATING LICENSE STAGE Note: Period of record was from FIGURE 2.3-51 4

July 1981 through June 1983. ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED, DIRECTION, AND STABILITY FOR 199-F00T LEVEL 0F.199-F00T TOWER AND D STABILITY SUPPLEMENT 4 DECDiBER 1983

N NNW i NNE GV NW NE WNW ENE .a g 0, 0 -E W III Ill i WSW g ESE O n B JR. SW SE

== SSW I SSE l 3 i .: to M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE ST AGE Note: Period of record was from FIGURE 2.3-52 4 July 1981 through June 1983. ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED, DIRECTION, Afl0 STABILITY FOR 199-F00T LEVEL OF 199-F00T TOWER AND E STABILITY SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW l NNE NW NE w WNW ENE t' [ 1.c 0, 0 W =iiiii E ~ 7 4 is I I i WSW ESE I TL SW SE l SSW I SSE S

t4.40 nPW CRL

= *13.40 *E4.45 ) M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENER ATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPER ATING LICENSE ST AGE FIGURE 2.3-53 {' Note: Period of record was from 4 ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION ( July 1981 through June 1983. OF llIND SPEED, DIRECTION, AND STABILITY FOR 199-F00T LEVEL 0F 199-F00T TOWER 'AND F STABILITY SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

N NNW i NNE O NW NE WNW ENE if '2 35 I i, i.e W _1 0, 0 = a -E 4 I WSW ESE SW SE SSW I SSE S g4.m nru ,@j........ CRL M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPER ATING LICENSE ST AGE Note: Period of record was from FIGURE 2.3-54 4 O July 1981 through June 1983. ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED, DIRECTION, AND STABILITY FOR 199-F00T LEVEL 0F 199-F00T TOWER AND G STABILITY SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEME!:P. 19 93

~. _ i i MH 1&2 ER-OL t r CONTENTS (Cont'd) VOLUME l Chapter 13.0 - References 2 l Supplement 1 - NRC Ouestions and Responses 2 i l Supplement 2 - Voluntary Revisions 2 Supplement 3 - NRC Questions and Responses and r Voluntary Revisions 2 Supplement 4 - Voluntary Revisions 2 4 l i a l l l s SUPPLEMENT 4 ii DECEMBER 19E3

MH 1&2 ER-OL ( ) C' TABLE 3.3-2 VARIATIONS IN PLANT WATER USE (All values are in cfs and are for two-unit operation. Values given are annual average unless otherwise noted.) 1004 68.8% OPERATION OPERATION EXTREME AVERAGE HOT COLD CONDITIONSa cogorygoggb STANOBYC SHUTDOWNC Mechanical DJaft Cooling Tower System Makeup 64.3 45.0 0 0 Blowdown 8.5 5.9 0 0 Evaporation 55.6 38.9 0 0 Drift 0.2 0.2 0 0 d Sanitary System 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Radwaste System' O.67f 0.004 0.004 0.004 9 Demineralizing System h Makeup to Steam Generator 0.93 0.40 0 0 Escential service Water Cooling Tower Systema ..akeup 1.68 0.91 2.5 0 Blowdown 1.11 0.46 2.0 0 Evaporation 0.56 0.44 0.5 0 Drift 0.07 0.007 0 0 ~ [ t s 1 \\._ )

Extreme operating conditions are based on noncoincident average of monthly maximum dry bulb and wet bulb temperatures, yearly average TDS level, and two-unit operation at 100% capacity factor.

bAverage operating co..ditions are based on monthly averages of wet bulb and dry bulb tempera-tures, yearly average TDS level, and two-unit operation at 68.8% capacity factor. cSubject to operating variables. The circulating water system may be operational during hot standby. The nonessential and essential service water systems will be operational during hot standby and cold shutdown. Evaporation and drift losses and makeup and blowdown flows for these systems during these modes of operation will be negligible. kaluesrepresentsystemwateruse (from filtered well water) and discharge to the sedimentation pond.

values represent discharge to cooling tower blowdowns water is provided to the system from plant waste and steam generator blowdowns most of total flow is recycled, and <11 is lost to evaporation.

IMaximum possible discharge rate. 4 9the demineralizers will be designed to have a greater capacity to supply demineralized water during startup conditions. During normal operation the demineralizers will cperate inter-mittently. ' Steam canerator makeup is supplied from condensate storagt. $ ater use values are conservatively based on using Ohio River water for makeup: using weil W ( water for makeup would result in lower blowdown and makeup requirements. 1 l l n i 4 l i l SUPPLEMENT 4 3.3-3 DECEMBER 1983

\\ l Ohio River Pri ( ~

L Cold Side Blowdown 5 9 cfs n

n n (Valve Normally n Closed)D ( Mechi Basins m Cooln sk 38 9 cfs Evap. 1r Condensate System 2N cts Clear Water Makeup nan { 0 54 cfsa a H SO 2 4 Condensate Condenser H SO NaOH 2 4 /b Polishing Coohng NaOH System Water 'f f H;SOa ( NaOH d Condensate 0 33 cfs D' Sedimentation g Pond / Storage n h 0 52 cfsa 0 %9 cfsa O 40 cfs H;SC t I' NaOt 0 056 ctsa Storm 4 ( \\/ 013 cfs Neutralizir g } { y a Drain /\\ Tank System e

L 0 06 cfsa NaOCl Plant j

0 02 cts ,r g g Sanitary Drains 8 / / System o rea 1 s j Heating 4 Q Steam 0 40 cfs I Boiler Blowdown Steam Blowdown Recycle Generator [ 0 40 cfs Blowdown ' l Recy< Rainfall Radwaste 0.04 < Runoff 0 004 cts Release p Discharge Tank System i Note All flows are an*' sal average values j j for two untis at 66 8*e capacity factor unless otherwise noted y aAverage intermittent low Radwaste Solids to nSedimentat'on pond e'n ent w,li be routed to the cochng tower basins when the u g coonng towers are operat ng and to the bio *down pipenne when they are not cB oadown o' O 46 cfs was be required when Ohio A ver water is used for mameup e 3b24 MOrmal source of makeup *ill be On site water wens O 12 R1 L I

Meo Xvd1:hidQs Aperture Card L Pnmary Makeup 0 44 cfs ir3 2 s a ection stem Ohio River Secondary JL Evap 0 44 cfs Makeup 45 0 cts if Makeup 0 9 cts _ a (Valve Normallyp - - IIdO ~~~~~~~~~l ~~ y r H SO Closed) g 2 4 Ultimate 3 4c'l Draft < NaOCl Heat y g i Towers 1 ^% Sink g Cold Side l I I Dnft 0 2 cfs Blowdown ,I l V 0 46 cfsc 4->4 ) i 116 cfs (Valve g l Norma!Iy l l Essential y 156 cfs NaOCl Closed) l Service c Water NaOCl i y --] g L-----------------d Plant Service Plant Use Makeup 0 41 cf s Water a a --KMnO. b_ m Manganese m Water For Backwash Green Sand Filter g Deep fAlkeup Filtered Wells '7 0 38 cfs 4 ) Tuneralizer Water r r.tment Storage t + Softener And .--- - -- Essential Service Water Hypochlonnator System t ~ '] Backwash ,_ _-- Nonessential Service NaOCl ater J Potable Water ]- ] -{ ] -- System ~ \\ .\\ P' A 9 ) 0 01 cfs Average Daily Flow (1.6 cfs 10 Min-Day) y 't Filter Backwash Water Reactor System m And Ocuum 1 A Balance Of Plant Ra rator T Plant Waste And Pnmary Water Equipment And Storage M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING Floor Drains L, ST ATION - UNITS 1 & 2 l S ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT OPER ATING LICENSE ST AGE 0.04 cfs FIGURE 3.3-1 1 S0' MARBLE HILL PLANT 2 '0" W ATER USE SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983 8312060344--O( i l

1 TABLE 4.4-2 ESTIMATED DOSES TO CONSTRUCTION WORK FORCE AFTER UNIT 1 FUEL LOADING WHOLE BODY Thyroid" Skin' Immersion

Inhalation" Co_ntained Background
Dose Rate (rem /hr) 1.22-06*

1.48-06 4.39-07 7.97-07 7.50-05 1.14-05 (rem / person-quarter) 6.10-04 7.40-04 2.20-04 3.99-04 3.75-02 2.50-02 Quarterly Dose (man-rem) 1987, 1st, 2600 men 1.59+00 1.92+00 5.72-01 1.04+00 9.75+01 6.50+01 3 2nd, 2600 men 1.59+00 1.92+00 5.72-01 1.04+00 9.75+01 6.50+01 Z ^ H 3rd, 2600 men 1.59+00 1.92+00 5.72-01 1.04+00 9.75+01 6.50+01 m b 1 4th, 2600 men 1.59+00 1.92+00 5.72-01 1.04+00 9.75+01 6.50+01 t'l W 1988, 1st, 1700 men 1.04+00 1.26+00 3.74-01 6.78-01 6.38+01 4.25+01

OD 2nd, 1700 men 1.04+00 1.26+00 3.74-01 6.78-01 6.38+01 4.25+01 Total Dose (man-rem) 8.44+00 1.02+01 3.04+00 5.52+00 5.18+02 3.45402 Construction workers are conservatively assumed to be located 100 meters from a ground Icvel release of expected airborne effluents from Unit 1.

am Contained on-site sources, excluding airborne effluents. tri c O] Average background dose rate.is 100 mrem /yr. M d tu M 500 working hours per quarter, 2190 total hours in a quarter. MZ -6 1.22-06 1.22x10 0.00000122. = = ~s e CD A LJ b

MH 1&2 ER-OL slightly different from those originally assumed (see 4 ER-OL Section 3.4). b. Additional meteorological data were collected on the Marble Hill site in 1981 and 1982; these data provide l4 an independent sample of local meteorological i conditions (see ER-OL Section 2.3). c. The original upper and lower bound plume estimates i ccvered a rather broad range of predicted plume frequencies; the cooling tower plume model has been revised and improved to permit more detailed estimates of visible plume characteristics (see ER-OL Subsection 5.1.4.1.1). Given the additional data and methods for updating visible plume estimates, it was deemed advisable to perform supplementary model calculations. There calculations have been made with the objectives of: (1) determining whether the finalized tower 1 parameters, new meteorological data, and improved modeling techniques indicate any significant difference in cooling tower impacts; and (2) refining.the original impact evaluations. 5.1.4.1.1 The Model ("% The mathematical model utilized for the new visible plume ( estimates is the same as the model originally used (see ER-CP Subsection 6.1.3.2.4 and Appendix 6A), except for the following changes. a. The model was modified to make separate predictions for each hour of observed meteorology. The hourly predictions are summarized to yield statistics of annual plume behavior. The original model made calculations only for discrete combinations of meteorological variables as represented in a three-way joint frequency distribution of stability, wind i speed, and wind direction. The revised model allows computations to include all actual meteorological conditions that have been observed at the site. b. The model calculates cooling tower plume emission parameters (temperature, water flux, volume flow) for each hour on the basis of tower specifications and meteorology; the original model used standardized emission parameters for typical operating conditions. c. The physical configuration of the cooling towers is i simulated in the revised model by using individual sources for each group of nine tower cells. The i merger of plumes from separate towers and groups of cells is modeled, taking into consideration wind Oc direction, spacing, and orientation of the actual j towers. SUPPLEMENT 4 5.1-6 DECEMBER 1983 ,,s. , -, - y,-- 7 - _-.,-4-w.- ,,.p,-. ,,,.,2,,,-s-,.,.rrm -m.- ---.3~-v ..--y, ,.,-.-.w...w-,,--.>

MH 1&2 ER-OL d. The model has been recalibrated using additional measurements of visible plume dimensions at operating cooling towers. The calibration resulted in revised values for the empirical model parameters (entrainment and plume rise coefficients.) 5.1.4.1.2 Results The revised model was applied using the updated parameters and configuration for the circulating water cooling towers and the onsite meteorological data for the period from July 1981 through 4 June 1982. ER-OL Table 5.1-3 gives the number of hours and percentage of the time that visible cooling tower plumes were predicted to occur for the 1981-1982 period. It was assumed in l4 the modeling that both units operated. continuously at 100% capacity throughout the year. A " visible" plume is defined as a condensed water plume that is distinct from natural clouds. Such a plume would not necessarily be visible to an observer on the ground during the night or during periods of low visibility or intervening cloud layers. The new modeling results can be compared to the results in Table 5.1-11 of the ER-CP. Predicted visible plume frequencies are between the upper and lower bound estimates of ER-CP Table 5.1-11 near the cooling towers and at distances beyond 7 km. Between (~')s the previous " upper bound." This difference may be partly a 400 meters and 7 km the new estimates are somewhat higher than 4 (_ result of different meteorological conditions during the two sample periods, but is probably due to the more realistic method of treating multiple plume merger in the current modeling. Results from ER-OL Table 5.1-3 indicate that some visible plumes will extend at least 700 meters (2296 feet) from the Marble Hill 1&2 cooling towers for approximately 42% of the time. Visible plumes will extend more than 7 km (4.3 miles) less than 7% of the 4 time. Since these are annual frequencies, it should be recognized that plume frequencies will be smaller during summer months and greater during winter. It should also be emphasized that all predictions are based upon a 100% capacity factor. Since.the expected average lifetime capacity factor for Marble Hill 1&2 is 68.8%, actual visible plume frequencies are expected i to be somewhat lower than predicted. The modeling results indicate that visible cooling tower plumes will merge with existing natural clouds on 15% of the hours in a year with meteorology similar to that during the 1981-1982 sample period. (Merger with an existing cloud layer is indicated by the 4 model through prediction of a visible cloud of infinite length.) Plumes within natural clouds are not included in ER-OL Table 5.1-3, but the visible portion of any plume below cloud base height is included. () ER-OL Table 5.1-4 shows the calculated distribution of the height of the top of visible plumes (greatest height reached) for the SUPPLEMENT 4 5.1-7 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL /-~' (_)S 1981-1982 period. The table does not include plumes that enter l4 natural cloud layers. Visible plumes will exceed 200 meters (656 feet) above ground level more than 47% of the time, and may extend as high as 2 km (6560 feet) above ground level 3.6% of the 4 time. These results are consistent with the height distributions given in ER-CP Table 5.1-12. A slightly greater number of plumes greater than about 700 meters (2,297 feet) in height are indicated by the new computations. Data on plume shadowing during the growing season were presented in ER-CP Tab.le 5.1-11A. The data have been revised using the new modeling results; updated figures are given in ER-OL Table 5.1-5. These results differ from the earlier data only for distances less than 1 km. Differences for this distance range were the result of a more accurate method of accounting for plume width. Results were calculated assuming 12 hours of daylight per day, 6 months of growing season per-year, and 900 solar elevation. While the calculated results are only approximate because of the assumptions involved, they are conservative, since naturally cloudy days have been neglected and plume lengths and frequencies during the growing season (summer) will be less than the annual averages on which the table is based. The calculated shadowing frequencies at all distances beyond 1 km are less than the natural variation of cloudiness from year to year. /~T The geographical distribution of visible plumes at Marble Hill i,/ 1&2 as deduced from the 1981-1982 modeling analysis is shown in l4 l s ER-OL Figure 5.1-1. This figure was drawn from the data shown in ER-OL Table 5.1-3 by distributing the total number of hours of visible plume according to wind direction' frequency and weighting i the number of hours in each directional sector by the ratio of the average plume width to the sector width. The directions of maximum plume occurrence are shown to be to the north-northeast, 4 east, and southwest. The directional distribution is consistent with previous analyses and the onsite wind direction distributior.. l It is concluded from the new modeling studies that the visible plume frequencies and impacts presented in the ER-CP are generally representative of and applicable to the Marnle Hill 1&2 circulating water cooling towers. The new meteorological data, updated cooling tower parameters, and improved modeling capability resulted in relatively small changes in numerical estimates, and these estimates result in no significant change in predicted impacts. No additional impacts are suggested by the new results. The data presented in ER-OL Tables 5.1-3 through l 5.1-5 and Figure 5.1-1 should be taken to represent the best l Current estimate of expected visible plume characteristics at Marble Hill 1&2. 5.1.4.2 Ground-Level Foo ('%x_) The mathematical model for visible cooling tower plumes provides l an estimate of the frequency of occurrence of downwash SUPPLEMENT 4 5.1-8 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL (~h (_s/ conditions, which can produce ground-level fog near the cooling towers. Occurrence of downwash is determined from wind speed and direction relative to the towers and from the effluent velocity of the cooling tower discharge. Downwash criteria incorporated in the model are based upon laboratory and field studies of cooling tower aerodynamics. The model does not indicate the frequency of fog, but only of downwash that may lead to fog. The new model computations for July 1981 through June 1982 indicate downwash conditions on 1,304 hours, or 15% of the time. 4 This frequency is significantly lower than the annual frequency of 25% given for ground-level fog in ER-CP Subsection 5.1.7.2.1. The new results suggest that the fog frequency estimates in the ER-CP are highly conservative. On the basis of the original model results, the most recent computations, and surveys of observdd cooling tower fogging effects (Carson 1980, p. 300; Hanna 1978, p. 13), it is concluded that the fog estimates presented in ER-CP Table 5.1-13 and Figure 5.1-12 are overestimates. Carson (1980, p. 300) and Hanna (1978, p.

13) state that ground fog from mechanical draft cooling towers does not extend beyond 200 to 500 meters from the towers.

The estimates in the ER-CP indicate rare fog occurrences out to 1000 meters, with most occurrences within 400 meters. (~~} Cooling tower fog usually occurs when winds have a substantial (_/ component normal to the long axis of the mechanical draft cooling towers. The maximum ground fog frequency at Marble Hill 1&2 will be east and northeast of the cooling towers, as shown in ER-CP Figure 5.1-12, in accord with the tower orientation and prevailing wind directions. ER-CP Subsection 5.1.7.2.2 discusses the possibility of ground fog at great distances (50 km or farther) fror. the cooling towers. There have been no confirmed observations of such fog, and it appears highly unlikely that cooling tower-induced fog will ever occur at such distances from Marble Hill 1&2. Most authorities now believe that cooling towers do not cause ground fog in any circumstance other than downwash near mechanical draft towers (Carson 1980, p. 300; Hanna 1978, p. 13). 5.1.4.3 Effects of Drift An analysis of the magnitude and impacts of cooling tower drift was presented in ER-CP Subsection 5.1.7.3. That analysis was based upon an assumed drift rate of 0.02% of the combined circulating water and nonessential' service water flow, or approximately 120 gpm per unit. Manufacturers' specifications for the circulating water cooling towers at Marble Hill 1&2 now indicate that the actual drift rate will be no greater than 0.008% of the revised water flow, or approximately 52 gpm per /"'g unit. This value represents a decrease by a factor of v' SUPPLEMENT 4 5.1-9 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL ,\\\\,) approximately 2.3 in the quantity of drift from that assumed for the ER-CP analysis. The ER-CP analysis was also based on an expected total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration in the circulating water of 1500 mg/ liter; more recent calculations indicate an average TDS concentration of 1635 mg/ liter. ER-OL Tables 5.1-6 through 5.1-9 and Figure 5.1-2 update the data presented in ER-CP Tables 5.1-14 through 5.1-18 and Figure 5.1-13 to take into account the lower drift rate, the higher TDS concentration, and the 1981-1982 meteorological data. All l4 modeling results from the ER-CP have been scaled in accordance with these changes in cooling tower parameters and meteorological frequencies. It is assumed that the original drift droplet size distribution (see ER-CP Table 5.1-14) is applicable to the new drift rate. The distribution was originally derived as typical for modern mechanical draft cooling towers (see response to Question 102, Supplement 1 to the ER-CP). It is believed that the drift deposition data presented in ER-OL Tables 5.1-6 through 5.1-9 and Figure 5.1-2 are conservative, since the modeling assumed a 100% capacity factor and all drift emissions from a point source at the center of the cooling tower area. 5.1.4.4 Other Effects r" The Marble Hill 1&2 circulating water cooling towers will (,;/ discharge large quantities of heat and moisture to the atmosphere. It has been suggested that such inputs of energy cnd water could lead to detectable changes in local weather phenomena, such as increased cloudiness or precipitation. Present knowledge of atmospheric processes is inadequate to define a firm limit of energy input above which significant meteorological responses may occur. However, many sources of magnitude similar to or greater than the Marble Hill 1&2 cooling towers have operated for long periods without measureable effects. As stated in NUREG-0097, the Final Environmental Statement for Marble Hill 1&2 (USNRC 1976, p. 5-5), "there is no evidence that...(cooling towers)... cause significant changes in local weather conditions." The visible plumes from the Marble Hill 1&2 circulating water cooling towers will often resemble small natural clouds. The modeling that has been performed indicates that in 15% of the 4 visible plume occurrences the cooling tower plumes will rise into the base of an existing overcast cloud layer. In a few cases, especially in summer, the plumes may evaporate, to reappear as small cumulus clouds at a higher altitude where natural clouds already exist. Thus, the cooling towers will occasionally cause the formation of small clouds. In cold weather they may cause the formation of a i rx long, narrow layer of stratus-type clouds at altitudes far above () the ground. As discussed in Subsection 5.1.4.1.2 of this report, SUPPLEMENT 4 5.1-10 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL ,I the frequency and size of these tower-induced clouds are too small to cause a significant increase in cloudiness or decrease in sunlight. Most long visible plumes and tower-induced clouds will occur in winter and during naturally cloudy weather, so that the impact is further minimized. A number of studies have been performed to determine whether cooling towers can cause changes in precipitation. Snowfall from cooling towers has been observed on a few occasions of very cold O l l ' O t l SUPPLEMENT 4 5.1-10a DECEMBER 1983 m r - w rr --er-w m-- -m-w- -s,- - - - - - - - ~ ~ > -- -m ,--e en.,r

MH 1&2 ER-OL sk) 5.1.4.5.1 Combination of Coolina Tower Plumes The plumes from the cooling towers at Marble Hill 1&2 and those at the Trimble County Generating Station will occasionally combine and mix. This is likely to occur only when winds are directed along the line joining the two plants, i.e., from the northwest or southeast. For other wind directions, the plumes will not merge until they are far downwind of both sources, by which time both are likely to have dispersed and evaporated. Northwest and southeast winds had a combined frequency of l4 occurrence of approximately 10% according to the 1981-1982 meteorological data from the Marble Hill site; this represents the maximum occurrence of direct plume combination for this period. Whether or not the plumes actually mix when winds are from the northeast or southeast will depend on their relative altitudes. Combination of the cooling tower plumes from the two stations will have little effect except for an increase in the size and length of the combined plumes when both are visible. The modeling analysis done for this report indicates that the Marble Hill circulating water cooling tower plumes will be visible over the Trimble County Generating Station approximately 70 hours per l4 year. According to data in the Trimble County Draft r~T Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (USEPA 1978a, p. TA-129), (! plumes from that station will be visible over Marble Hill 1&2 4 approximately 35 hours per year. Thus, it is estimated that there will be approximately 105 hours per year when merger or l4 close approach of the two sets of cooling tower plumes results in a larger visible plume than would result from either station individually. These occasions of plume merger will usually be on cloudy or rainy days, and there will be no significant reduction in sunlight due to the combination. In other situations the visible part of the cooling tower plumes from both power stations will have disappeared before the plumes merge. There will then be no observable effect of merger. It was concluded in the Trimble County Final EIS (USEPA 1978b, p. 2-4) that the worst-case humidity increase due to the cooling towers at each station will be 3% or less, and that the " interaction potential of cooling tower plumes is remote." There will be some overlapping of the drift deposition patterns from the two stations' cooling towers. Both sets of towers will have their maximum solids deposition to the north and northeast, but the respective peak deposition areas will be on opposite sides of the Ohio River. Based on the estimated deposition pattern for Marble Hill 1&2 from this report and that for Trimble County from its Draft EIS (USEPA 1978a, p. TA-133), the point of maximum combined drift deposition will be approximately 2.5 km north of the Trimble County plant on the Kentuckv side of the ((,N) Ohio River. The annual average solids depor41.ca rate there will be approximately 50 kg/ hectare-year. This is less than rates SUPPLEMENT 4 5.1-12 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL es shown to have adverse effects on vegetation (Mulchi and Armbruster 1974, p. 385). The drift deposition rate at Marble Hill 1&2 due to operation of the Trimble County Generating Station is indicated to be 1.2 kg/ hectare-year (Figure 6.3.1-2A, Trimble County Draft EIS), while thct at Trimble County Station due to operation of Marble Hill will be approximately 15 kg/ hectare-year (see ER-OL Figure l4 1 5.1-2). The Trimble County Station deposition rates are generally smaller than Marble Hill's because of the higher 4 altitude of emission from Trimble County's natural draft cooling towers; drift particles are thus usua'lly dispersed over a larger area before they are deposited on the ground. The difference may be less than indicated in the above comparison, however, because of the different terrain elevations at the Marble Hill and i Trimble County Station sites. 5.1.4.5.2 Combination of Coolina Tower and Stack Plumes Units 1 and 2 of the Trimble County Generating Station will emit approximately 2000 g/sec of sulfur dioxide (SO,) from the plant i stacks. These emissions will be at an altitude of 372 meters above mean sea level (MSL). The Marble Hill 1&2 cooling towers have an emission altitude of 255 meters MSL. Combination of the Marble Hill cooling tower plume and the O' Trimble County stack effluent plume may occur during the 4% to 6% l4 of the time that winds are from the northwest. -(When winds are from the southeast the stack plume will normally pass over the Marble Hill site well above the Marble Hill cooling tower plume.) The combination of the cooling tower and stack plumes will have no significant.effect on plume chemistry or pollutant concentrations. It is believed that moisture accelerates the formation of sulfates in a power plant stack effluent plume, though the detailed chemistry of SO, transformation into sulfates in the atmosphere is not fully understood. There have been l reports of increased acidity where cooling tower plumes mix with stack plumes (Hanna 1978, p. 18). However, the moisture that could be added to the Trimble County stack plume by the Marble Hill cooling towers will not be significant in magnitude or frequency of occurrence compared to other sources. Large quantities of water vapor are naturally present in the atmosphere much of the time, the Trimble County stack plume is expected to mix with its own cooling tower plume more frequently than with l Marble Hill's, and abundant moisture vill already be present in the scrubbed stack plume at emission. Interactions of the cooling tower plumes and stack plume from Marble Hill 1&2 and the Trimble County Generating Station were considered in the Trimble County Final EIS (USEPA 1978b, p. 2-4). In that document, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stated g-~j that there are no standards or regulations concerning sulfates, g j and that any potential radiological interactions would have "relatively minor" impacts. SUPPLEMENT 4 5.1-13 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL (/ 5.1.4.6 Essential Service Water Coolina Towers The two essential service water cooling towers planned for Marble Hill 1&2 are much smaller than the circulating water cooling towers. The essential service water cooling towers will each consist of four fan cells; only one tower can be operated at a 4 time, and the rate of heat dissipation will be only about 2% that of the circulating water cooling towers. The visible plume mathematical model was applied to the essential service water towers to provide a comparison to visible plumes from the circulating water tcwers. Visible plumes shorter than 200 meters are indicated to occur approximately 50% of the time for the essential service water towers, compared with 70% of the 4 time for the circulating water towers. Plumes lonQer than 1000 meters are expected less than 23% of the time from the essential l4 service water towers; the circulating water towers will causs plumes longer than 1000 meters almost twice as frequently. The diameter and density of the service water tower plumes will also be considerably less than for the circulating water towers. While many visible plumes from the circulating water towers will rise to above 500 meters (see ER-OL Table 5.1-4), the service water tower plumes will seldom exceed 200- to 500-meter heights. Visible plumes from the essential service water cooling towers, /'N when they exist, will often combine with the circulating water (m,) tower plumes and be indistinguishable from them. The addition of the small amounts of water vapor from the service water towers will not significantly influence the dimensions or frequency of visible plumes from the circulating water towers. Ground fog and icing due to operation of the service water towers will be infrequent and confined to the immediate vicinity within 100 meters of the towers. Drift deposition will be approximately two orders of magnitude less than from the circulating water towers. Because of their relatively small size and heat dissipation, the essential service water cooling towers will produce no significant effects on the local environment or station operations. O SUPPLEMENT 4 5.1-14 DECEMBER 1983

y M H l&2 BR-OL TABLE 5.1-3 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF VISIBLE COOLING TOWER PLUMES DISTANCE HOURS PERCENT OF TIME 100 meters 5900 67.4 150 5487 62.6 200 5186 59.2 300 4801 54.8 400 4508 51.5 500 4150 47.4 700 3700 42.2 1.0 kilometer 3192 36.4 4 1.5 2678 30.6 r3 2.0 2212 25.3 O 3.0 1643 18.8 4.0 1214 13.9 5.0 851 9.7 7.0 602 6.9 10.0 407 4.6 15.0 232 2.6 20.0 151 1.7 25.0 107 1.2 40.0 21

0.2 IIote

Data give number of hours and percentage of time in the 12-month period from July 1981 through June 1982 that visible plumes extend to or beyona the given distance from the cooling towers (all wind direc tions and plume altitudes included). SUPPLEMENT 4 5.1-17 DECEMBER 1983 i

_ - =. _ _ _. - - - _ _. . ~. M H 162 ER+0 L Table 5.1-4 DISTRIBUTION OF HEIGHTS OF VISIBLE COOLING TOWER PLUMES HEIGHT ABOVE GROUND (raeters) HOURS PERCENT OF TIME 50 7165 81.8 100 5677 64.8 200 4175 47.7 500 2835 32.4 4 750 1372 15.7 1000 1032 11.8 4 2000 314 3.6 3000 106 1.2 5000 15 0.2 0 1 4 l 1 No te : Data give number of hours and percentage of time in the 12-month period from July 1981 through June 1982; l4 that the maximum height of visiole plumes equals or exceeds the given heights. SUPPLEMENT 4 5.1-18 DECEMBER 1983 l

r. MH 1&2 ER-OL l O TABLE 5.1-5 PLUME SHADOWING FREQUENCIES DURING THE GROWING SEASON RADIUS FROM TOWERS AVERAGE DURATION OF SHADOWING (kilometers) (hours per season) 0.1 188 0.2 117 0.4 76 0.7 50 1 38 4 3 15 7 4.9 15 1.7 20 1.1 40 0.1 1 i il l Note: Data give average number of hours during i daylight times of any 6-month period from 4 July 1981 through June 1982 on which visible plumes are present over a location at the given distance l from the cooling towers. SUPPLEMENT 4 5.1-19 DECEMBER 1983 ,,., ~.. _.

MH 1&2 ER-OL TABLE 5.1-6 EXPECTED RATE OF DEPOSITION OF DR1FT SOLIDS DISTANCE FROM CENTER OF COOLING TOWER AREA DIRECTION FROM (meters) l COOLING TOWERS 100 200 300 500 1,000 5,000 10,000 N 207 527 229 159 119 12 4 NNE 223 619 267 187 140 14 5. NE 142 363 161 120 88 8 3 l ENE 104 266 134 130 95 6 2 E 82 215 122 151 106 6 1 ESE 65 171 102 129 96 6 2 SE 78 201 109 123 91 7 1 4 SSE 52 139 95 136 98 5 1 S 72 186 92 89 66 5 1 SSW 78 199 94 79 60 5 1 SW 131 335 165 157 115 8 2 () WSW 139 356 154 110 84 13 2 W 122 313 133 91 68 7 3 WNW 128 324 131 70 51 6 2 NW 127 321 125 57 43 6 2 NKW 108 276 117 80 48 5 2 4 (- } Note: Deposition values are in kg/ hectare-year; to convert to pounds / acre-month, multiply values by 0.074. SUPPLEMENT 4 5.1-20 DECEMBER 1983 _m.,m.__- .,,__.__,,,,_.4

MH 1&2 ER-OL i TABLE 5.1-7 AREA AFFECTED BY VARIOUS MAGNITUDES OF DRIFT l i RESIDUE DEPOSITION RANGE OF SOLIDS DEPOSITION TOTAL AREA i (kg/ hectare-year)a (hectares)b >500 1 r 250 - 499 9 200 - 249 11 i 150 - 199 33 4 100 - 149 156 4 50 - 99 840 10 - 49 5,400 5 - 9.9 7,000 l 2 - 4.9 24,000 i <2 >24,000 l l l aTo convert deposition values to pounds / acre-month, multiply by 0.074. bTo convert area to acres, multiply by 2.47. SUPPLEMENT 4 5.1-21 DECEMBER 1983 __ _ _. _ - -. _ _ _.. ~ _ -,.

1 l 10 ON HANOVER ,o Yl / 9 'Q Q Y /g@ } + q% 'o PAY SVILLE \\ G 4 0 BEDFORD ,L 1 y 8. h[UR TRIMBLE COUNTY ^ GENERATING GTATION ?E p e SCALE O 5 10 M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING KILOMETERS STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 NOTE: ISOPLETH VALUES ARE IN HOURS / YEAR FIGURE 5.1-1 FREQUEf1CY OF VISIBLE C00LIf;G TOWER PLUMES FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1981 T : ROUGH JUf1E 1982 SUPPLEMEf1T 4 DECEMBER 1983

\\ \\ 2 MILTON f HANOVER Oshg \\f5 9 \\ \\ I p 4 60 p PAYNESVILLE l 1 o // 100 l E I/ SITk# '# { BEDFORD \\ k = l ELIZABET TjlMBL5 CObNTY CHURCH. 2GENER ATING STATION o i _ n/ i l ./ d o SCALE O 5 10 M AREE m NMEAR GENERAMG ^ ENVIRONMENT AL R RT-PERA G L. CENSE ST AGE KILOMETERS FIGURE 5.1-2 NOTE: ISOPLETH VALUES ARE IN Kg/ HECTARE-YE AR ANtJUAL AVERAGE DEPOSITI0tl RATE OF DRIFT SOLIDS l O SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL p) f '# Because milk cows and milh goats concentrate iodine in their milk and the human thyroid also concentrates iodine, the air-grass-cow-milk pathway can be used to evaluate the thyroid dose from the deposition of halogens. Additional exposure pathways include direct exposure from contaminated vegetation, soil, and exposed surfaces, and exposure from ingestion of contaminated vegetables and meats. The gaseous effluent concentrations were calculated for each 22.50 sector within 50 miles of Marble Hill 1&2 based on 2 years-of recent meteorological data (July 1981 through June 1983) 4 collected at the site. Resultant skin, thyroid, inhalation, and whole-body dose rates were calculated for the predicted population in each sector for the year 2030 and for the hypothetical individual exposed continuously to the gaseous effluents at the site boundary where minimum effluent dilution has occurred. The ingestion dcse to such a " maximum-exposure" individual consJming food produced at identified locations of maximum dose was also calculated. The resultant exposure rates are conservative estimates, since occupancy factors and the shielding afforded by structures such as houses were ignored. 5.2.1.2.2 Aquatic Pathways (~s ('-) The aquatic pathways of radiation exposure to persons are the same as those described for biota other than persons in ER-OL Subsection 5.2.1.1.2. The two important exposure pathways for persons are the following: a. internal exposure from ingestion of water or contaminated food chain components; and b. external exposure from the surface of contaminated water or sediment. As discussed in ER-OL Subsection 2.1.3.2.1, the downstream potable water intake on the Ohio River closest to Marble Hill 1&2 is Louisville Water Company's B. E. Payne Water Treatment Facility at river mile 594.5, approximately 25 miles away. There is no known permanent use of Ohio River water for irrigation within 50 miles of Marble Hill 1&2,(Ball 1982; Brumit 1982). The Ohio River is used for boating and fishing. While some commercial fishing is done in the site vicinity, this activity has declined in recent years due to its reduced profitability, as noted in ER-CP Section 2.7. The small amount of radiation escaping from the river's surface would result in insignificant exposure to individuals fishing or g-- boating in the vicinity of the discharge. Activities such as swimming or water-skiing would be expected to result in slightly higher, although still insignificant, radiation doses. SUPPLEMENT 4 5.2-3 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL m TABLE 5.2-2 ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION AND DEPOSITION FACTORS USED IN DETERMINING OFFSITE DOSES X/O D/O 3 LOCATION (sec/m )a (1/m2)a NearestSitegoundary 2.38-07 3.16-09 (0.44 mi ENE) Nearest Residence 8.76-08 1.28-09 (0.60 mi S) Nearest Garden 9.54-08 1.81-09 (0.60 mi SSE) Nearest Meat Animal 7.47-08 8.56-10 (1.30 mi ENE) 4 Nearest Milk Cow 3.62-08 2.14-10 (2.50 mi SSW) Nearest Tobacco 9.54-08 1.81-09 .( ). (0.6 mi SSE) Nearest Cabbage 7.54-08 1.07-09 (0.7 mi S) Nearest Peach Orchard 7.35-08 5.01-10 (1.5 mi NNW) aCalculated using the methodology of Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1, July 1977 (NRC 1977a). bDistances and directions are measured from the midpoint between the Unit 1 and Unit 2 vent stacks. 4 s, SUPPLEMENT 4 5.2-10 DECEMBER 1983

cj o \\ o l TABLE 5.2-3 ANNUAL AVERAGE SITE BOUNDARY DOSES PLUME IMMERSION GROUND DEPOSITION INHALATION I DOWNWIND DISTANCE BETA-AIR GAMMA-AIR SKIN WHOLE BODY SKIN WHOLE BODY THYROID DIRECTION (meters) (mrad /yr) (mrad /y r) (mrem /yr) ( mrem /y r) (mrem /y r) (mrem /y r) (mrem /y r) N 1312 2.77-02 1.10-02 2.14-02 6.35-03 2.42-02 2.06-02 1.47-02 I NNE 1038 3.66-02 1.44-02 2.82-02 8.36-03 4.39-02 3.74-02 1.97-02 NE 850 2.89-02 1.21-02 2.28-02 .6.98-03 3.05-02 2.60-02 1.57-02 ENE 710 2.77-02 1.16-02 2.19-02 6.88-03 3.31-02 2.83-02 1.51-02 E 742 2.55-02 1.15*-02 2.08-02 6.59-03 3.73-02 3.18-02 1.38-02 ESE 940 1.58-02 7.14-03 1.29-02 3.94-03 2.50-02 2.13-02 8.58-03 ,ui SE 1076 1.22-02 5.65-03 1.01-02 3.00-03 1.86-02 1.59-02 6.62-03 N SSE 821 1.34-02 6.57-03 1.13-02 3.48-03 2.30-02 1.96-02 7.34-03 M [ S 771 1.37-02 7.20-03 1.20-02 3.83-03 1.80-02 1.54-02 7.51-03 y SSW 844 1.31-02 7.10-03 1.16-02 3.82-03 1.39-02 1.19-02 7.13-03 0 i SW 1119 2.10-02 8.72-03 1.65-02 4.97-03 1.79-02 1.53-02 1.13-03 WSW 1320 1.68-02 6.93-03 1.32-02 3.90-03 1.41-02 1.20-02 8.98-03 j W 1221 1.39-02 6.31-03 1.14-02 3.49-03 1.19-02 1.01-02 7.45-03 ] WNW 1128 1.21-02 5.87-03 1.02-03 3.23-03 9.80-03 8.36-03 6.49-03 ] NW 1359 1.04-02 4.75-03 8.52-03 2.59-03 8.09-03 6.90-03 5.56-03 NNW 1721 1.11-02 4.49-03 8.64-03 2.45-03 7.83-03 6.67-03 5.92-03 oe Mt sN M3 2 i [8 Note: Values based on one-unit operation and July 1981 through June 1983 meteorological data. l ma W 1 ^ I i

O O f) e 'm TABLE 5.2-4 EXPECTED INDIVIDUAL DOSES FROM GASEOUS EFFLUENTS DOSE RATE (mrem / year) TOTAL LOCAT10t4 PATHWAY DODY SKIH TilYROID BONE LIVER LUNG GI-THACT Hearest Reside nc e Plume Immersion 0.003 0.009 (0.60 mile S)a Ground Deposition 0.012 0.014 Inhalation Adult 0.004 0.006 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.004 Teen 0.004 0.006 0.001 0.004 0.004 0.004 Child 0.003 0.006 0.001 0.003 0.004 0.003 Infant 0.002 0.005 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 3 IJearest Garde n Leafy Vegetables vi (0.60 mile SSE) Adult 0.010 0.061 0.004 0.010 0.009 0.009 H" Teen 0.007 0.048 0.004 0.007 0.006 0.006 w Child 0.008 0.070 0.007 0.009 0.008 0.008 r. M y Stored Vegetables us d Adult 0.061 0.058 0.024 0.062 0.057 0.058 b Teen 0.075 0.073 0.042 0.080 0.072 0.072 M Child 0.121 0.123 0.099 0.133 0.119 ~0.118 Hearest Meat Animal Meat (1.30 mile ENE Adult 0.008 0.010 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.008 Teen 0.005 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005 Child 0.007 0.009 0.010 0.007 0.007 0.007 Nearest Milk Cow Milk (2.5 mile SSW) Adult 0.009 0.024 0.004 0.009 0.009 0.008 Teen 0.012 0.035 0.007 0.012 0.011 0.011 I tl U) Child 0.019 0.066 0.017 0.021 0.019 0.019 y@ Infant 0.031 0.146 0.033 0.034 0.031 0.031 1 b2 M Hote: Val E based on one-unit operation. yg 2: a F' F3 Distances and direc tions are measured f rom the midpoint between the Unit 1 and Unit 2 vent stac ks. e CO.th W .tm r 4

4 MH 1&2 ER-OL TABLE 5.2-10 ESTIMATED DOSES TO THE POPULATION WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE STATION FROM RELEASES OF GASEOUS EFFLUENTS POPULATION DOSE ( man-rem / year ) PATHWAY WHOLE BODY SKIN THYROID Immersion 0.077 0.522 Inhalation 0.266 0.424 4 Ground Deposition 0.101 0.118 l O i l Note: Values based on one-unit operation. SUPPLEMENT 4 5.2-18 DECEMBER 1983

(~\\ 'C\\ G L) u) TABLE 5.2-11 ESTIMATES OF TIIE ANNUAL WIIOLE-BODY RADIATION DOSE TO TIIE POPULATION WITIIIN 50 MILES OF MARBLE IIILL 1 & 2 a ANNUAL DOSE DOSE RECIPIENT (man-rem / year) NOTES j Onsite Workers 3.5+02 Average dose rate to Unit 2 workers following start of Unit 1. See ER-OL Table 4.4-2. { General Population Direc t Radiation 5.9-03 3 l Plume Immers io n 7.7-02 g l Ground Deposition 1.0-01 m

w g

b I nhalatio n 2.7-01 m w Vegetable Consumption 8.8-01

O Milk Consumption 1.0+00 Based on production data shown in U

Meat Co nsumpt io n 2.0-01 ER-OL Tables 2.1-15 through 2.1-17 Drinking Water 3.2-01 Based on average usage f ac tor from Fish Consumption 1.2400 Table E-'4, R.G. 1.109, Revision 1 Shoreline Rec reation 4.2-03 October 1977 Total Dose to the General Population 4.2+00 Total Population 21,368,899 k$ (Year 2030) / Om U$ Total Dose to the General Population 2.4+05 Total Population 2,368,899 (Year 2030) hg f rom Natural Background Radiation wn (100 mrem /yr/ person) 2: H +-3 a e, values based on one-unit operation. w A i

O O O TABLE 5.2-12 COMPARISON OF EXPECTED DOSES FROM MARBLE IIILL 1 & 2 WITH APPENDIX I DESIGN OBJECTIVES D APPENDIX Ia EXPECTED TYPE OF RELEASE UNITS OBJECTIVES VALUES Liquid Effluents i Total body dose from all pathways (mrem) 3 0.0023 Any organ dose from all pathways (mrem) 10 0.0018 Noble Gas Effluents (at the site boundary) g 1 Gamma air exposure dose (mrad) 10 0.014 m g 4 Beta air exposure dose (mrad) 20 0.037 [ w I Total body dose (mrem) S 0.008 m w Skin dose (mrem) 15 0.028 y Airborne Radiciodines and Partic ulates O l Any organ dose from all pathways (mrem) 15 0.086 i + om ma a Qg Per year per reac tor unit. i m$ b Ng To the maximally exposed individual from one-unit operation, g8 m. W b l

V () 's) TABLE 5.2-13 COMPARISON OF EXPECTED DOSES AND RELEASES FROM MARBLE HILL 1 & 2 WITH RM50-2 DESIGN OBJECTIVES D RM 50-2 a EXPECTED TYPE OF RELEASE UNITS OBJECTIVES VALUES 9 Liquid Ef fluents Total body dose or any organ dose from all pathways (mrem) 5 0.0046 Ac tivity release estimate, exc ludi ng tritium (Ci/yr) 10 0.468 g Noble Gas Effluents (at the site boundaqr) m g k> Gamma air exposure dose (mrad) 10 0.029 0 h Beta air exposure dose (mrad) 20 0.073 m w w Total body dose (mrem) 5 0.017 g Skin dose (mrem) 15 0.056 e Ai rborne Radiciodines and Partic ulates Any organ dose from all pathways (mrem) 15 0.172 I-131 ac tivity release (Ci/yr) 2 0.102 E$ om hy aPer year for all units at the site. mN b wg To the maximally exposed individual from two-unit operation. U* B" u

MH 1&2 ER-OL [~'i CHAPTER 6.0 - EFFLUENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL (~) MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 6.1 APPLICANT'S PREOPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS 6.1-1 6.1.1 Surface Waters 6.1-1 6.1.1.1 Chemical and Physical Parameters 6.1-2 6.1.1.2 Ecological Parameters 6.1-2 6.1.1.2.1 Bacteria 6.1-2 6.1.1.2.2 Phytoplankton 6.1-3 6.1.1.2.3 Zooplankton 6.1-5 6.1.1.2.4 Periphyton 6.1-7 6.1.1.2.5 Macroinvertebrates 6.1-8 6.1.1.2.6 Fish 6.1-10 6.1.1.2.6.1 Gill Netting 6.1-11 6.1.1.2.6.2 Electrofishing 6.1-11 6.1.1.2.6.3 Seining 6.1-12 6.1.1.2.7 Fish Eggs and Larvae 6.1-13 6.1.1.3 Thermal Plume Model 6.1-13 6.1.2 Groundwater 6.1-14 6.1.3 Air 6.1-15 x_ 6.1.3.1 Onsite Meteorological Measurements Program 6.1-15 6.1.3.1.1 Instrumentation 6.1-16 6.1.3.1.1.1 Parameters Measured 6.1.-17 l4 6.1.3.1.1.2 Instrument Accuracies 6.1-18 6.1.3.1.1.3 Data Logging Systems 6.1-20 6.1.3.1.2 Regional Meteorological Data Sources 6.1-21 6.1.3.2 Equipment Maintenance and Calibration 6.1-21 6.1.3.3 Data Analysis Procedures 6.1-23 6.1.3.4 Atmospheric Dispersion Models 6.1-24 6.1.3.4.1 Short-Term (Accident) Dispersion Estimates 6.1-24 6.1.3.4.2 Long-Term (Routine) Dispersion Estimates 6.1-26 6.1.3.4.3 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Direction, Wind Speed, and Stability 6.1-26 6.1.3.4.4 Effective Release Height 6.1-28 6.1.3.4.5 Annual Average Atmospheric Dispersion Factor 6.1-31 6.1.4 Land 6.1-32 6.1.4.1 Geology and Soils 6.1-32 6.1.4.2 Land Use and Demographic Surveys 6.1-33 6.1.4.3 Ecological Parameters 6.1-34 6.1.4.3.1 -Aerial Color Infrared Photography 6.1-34 6.1.4.3.2 Mapping Vegetation Cover Types 6.1-34 6.1.4.3.3 Mapping Vegetation Stress 6.1-35 6.1.4.3.4 Vegetation Sampling and Analysis 6.1-36 6.1.4.3.5 Soil Sampling and Analysis 6.1-37 ()T 6.1.5 Radiological Monitoring 6.1-38 (_ 6.1.5.1 Sampling Media, Locations, and Frequency 6.1-39 SUPPLEMENT 4 6.0-i JUNE 1983

l MH 1&2 ER-OL f'} 6.1.3 Air v 6.1.3.1 Onsite Meteorolocical Measurements Procram The preoperational meteorological monitoring program at the Marble Hill site includes three periods of data collection. The first monitoring period began in January 1974, with the operation of meteorological data collection systems at two t. )wer sites. Meteorological monitoring at these sites was suspended in January 1976. Data from 1974 were presented in ER-CP Section 2.6. Monitoring was resumed at both tower sites in May 1978 and continued through the end of April 1980. From this 2-year data collection period, the continuous year of data from the beginning of November 1978 through the end of October 1979 was selected because it had the highest rate of data recovery. ER-OL Section 2.3 presents this year of data for the 33-foot floodplain monitoring tower. Monitoring was again resumed, this time at a single tower site, in June 1981, and was continued throagh 4 June 1983. ER-OL Section 2.3 presents these two years of data for the 199-foot upland monitoring tower. ER-OL Table 6.1-3 lists the monthly data recovery percentages for each meteorolog-ical parameter for the 1978-1979 and the 1981-1983 periods. During all three periods of preoperational meteorological monitoring, data were collected at a 199-foot instrumented tower located approximately 6750 feet west-southwest of the midpoint (') between Units 1 and 2, at a grade elevation of about 790 feet (_/ above mean sea level (MSL). This tower is situated on a relatively level, open field, thereby ensuring good instrument exposure in all directions. Wind speed, wind direction, and ambient temperature are measured at both the 33-and 199-foot levels on this tower. Before May 1979, signal outputs from the tw6 temperature sensors were also sent to a delta-temperature circuit. This circuit subtracted the output signals from the two sensors to produce a temperature difference measurement. After May 1979, a temperature difference measurement system employing sensors independent of those used for temperature measurement was used. These sensors are also located at the 33-and 199-foot levels. A dew-point temperature sensor is mounted at the 199-foot tower level. A tipping bucket precipitation gauge, located near the base of the tower, is used to measure only liquid water equivalent precipitation amounts at ground level. No direct measurements of snowfall or freezing precipitation are made. During the January 1974 through January 1976 and May 1978 through April 1979 monitoring periods, data were also collected at a 33-foot instrumented tower located in the floodplain of the Ohio River at an approximate elevation of 440 feet above MSL. This tower stood approximately 2500 feet northeast of the midpoint of Units 1 and 2. The 33-foot tower system provided meteorological data to define flow characteristics in the floodplain. Wind speed, wind direction, ambient temperature and dew-point (~ temperature were all measured at the 33-foot level of the tower. \\s)} Data were not collected at this site during the monitoring l4 SUPPLEMENT 4 6.1-15 DECEMBER 1983 l

l MH 1&2 ER-OL fy program that began in June 1981, because sufficient data to characterize floodplain conditions had already been collected. l4 -sms In addition, an examination by an independent meteorological con-sultant of data collected at the uplands and floodplain towers indicated that conditions on the floodplain would not have a significant effect on the dispersion of materials released to the ambient air from Marble Hill 1&2 (McVehil 1976, p. 43). Floodplain meteorological data have not been used in the atmo-spheric dispersion ( /0) estimates presented in section 2.6 of the ER-CP or Section 2.3 of the ER-OL. Each tower has its own digital data recording system, which is supplemented with backup analog strip chart recorders for all parameters. A standby gasoline generator is located at the 199-foot tower. The generator becomes active in the event of power loss and provides auxiliary power. The operational onsite meteorological monitoring program will be developed before Marble Hill 1&2 becomes operational. It will comply with applicable regulations. 6.1.3.1.1-Instrumentation Meteorological sensors employed in the Marble Hill onsite meteorological program are in compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.23 (Revision 0) requirements for accuracy and parameters measured. ) During all monitoring periods, Climet Model 011-1 cup anemometers have been used for wind speed measurement. These sensors have a starting threshold of 0.6 mph, a distance constant of 5 feet,.and an accuracy of 1%, or 0.15 mph, whichever is greater. The Climet wind speed sensors have be.en dynamically calibrated over a range of 0.6 to 90.0 mph. Wind direction sensors are Climet Model 012-10. These sensors have a threshold of 0.75 mph', a damping ratio of 0.4, and a linearity of 1 0.5% over a 00 to 5400 electrical range. Before May 1979, all absolute ambient air temperature measure-ments and the temperature difference measurement utilized precision plat _num resistance elements housed in EG&G aspirated shields. The sensor had a 0.10 F sensitivity. The maximum error band of the combined sensor-aspirated shield system was 1 0.50 F over a range of -800 F to +1200 F. Temperature difference measurements were made at the 199-foot tower site. Two temperature sensors, mounted at the 33-and 199-foot tower levels, sent signals to a delta-temperature circuit. A circuit electronically subtracted the 33-foot sensor signal from the 199-foot sensor signal to produce a measurement of temperature difference. After May 1979, absolute temperature measurements have been made using Climet Model 015-3 thermistor sensors located in Climet aspirators at the 33-and 199-foot levels. A Climet Model s, SUPPLEMENT 4 6.1-16 DECEMBER 1983

MH 162 ER-OL ./^T 05-8004-15 signal conditioner is used. Absolute temperature (s / measurements are accurate to 1 0.150 C over a range of -300 C to +500 C. Separate Model 015-3 temperature sensors are used with a Model 05-8005-1 signal conditioner to measure temperature difference between the 33-and 199-foot levels. The temperature difference measurement system is accurate to 1 0.05o C over a range of -50 C to +50 C. EG&G Model 110 dew-point temperature sensors were utilized. A dew-point sensor was located at the 199-foot level of the 199-foot tower during all monitoring periods. A dew-point sensor was located at the 33-foot level of the 33-foot floodplain tower during the 1974-1975 and the 1978-1980 monitoring periods. Maximum error is + 0.50 F average of -800 F to +1200 F. The sensor has an approximate 3.00 F per second response above 320 F. A Weather Measure Model P511-E heated' tipping bucket type gauge was used to measure liquid water-equivalent precipitation during all monitoring periods. The gauge is mounted near the 199-foot tower, away from precipitation shadows. The sensor has a resolution of 0.01 inch, with an accuracy at 0.5% at 0.5 inch precipitation per hour. At each tower, signals from the sensors, with the exception of the precipitation gauge, are sent through sensor interface circuit boards that contain the signal conditioning circuitry. /~ During the 1974-1976 and 1978-1980 monitoring periods, the (_,N/ conditioned signals were then sent to a Ball Brothers Research Corporation Model 700 digital data recording system and to the analog recorders. The. precipitation sensor sent discrete signals (one count per 0.01 inch precipitation) directly to the Model 700 dataloggers, thus bypassing the sensor interface circuit boards. During the 1981-1983 monitoring period, an ESC Model AOM8000 4 digital datalogger was used, and precipitation data were processed by a Climet Model C8157 signal conditioner before being recorded. Digital data are recorded on magnetic cassette tape. Real time data back to the last 24 hours may be examined at the tower site on a Televideo CRT terminal or remotely interrogsted by a dial-up modem. 6.1.3.1.1.1 Parameters Measured A description of the parameters measured during the 1974-1976 I meteorological monitoring period was presented in ER-CP Subsection 6.1.3. The current subsection describes the i parameters measured during the later monitoring periods. When onsite meteorological monitoring was resumed in May 1978, the Model 700 digital dataloggers at the 33-foot and 199-foot towers were configured to record meteorological data on magnetic tape as follows: A l SUPPLEMENT 4 6.1-17 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL incremental counter mechanism that limited the overall C(~N accuracy of the system. After May 1979, the accuracies of measurement for the various meteorological parameters were as follows: Wind Direction: Same as before May 1979. Wind Speed: Same as before May 1979. Temperature: Following installation of the Climet temperature measurement system, temperature measurements were accurate to 1 0.150 C. Dew Point: Same as before May 1979. Temperature Difference: Following installation of the Climet temperature difference measurement system, temperature difference measurements were independent of the absolute temperature measurements. The accuracy of the temperature difference measurement system was 1 0.050 C. Precipitation: Same as before May 1979. 6.1.3.1.1.3 Data Loccina Systems O) The data logging systems used during the 1974-1976 meteorological (' monitoring period were described in ER-CP Subsection 6.1.3. The current subsection describes the systems used during the later monitoring periods. For the 1978-1980 monitoring period, the digital data logging system had a guaranteed accuracy of 1 0.1%. With signal conditioners and interfaces, therefore, the digital system added less than 1 0.5% error to the sensor measurements. The analog recorders had an accuracy of 1 0.5% of span. Both analog and digital data were recorded at the 33-foot and 199-foot towers. Digital data were recorded by Memodyne Model 700 magnetic tape cassette recorders. All wind speed and wind direction data were recorded on Esterline Angus Model 602C dual-channel recorders, with a chart speed of 3 inches per hour. Ambient temperature, temperature difference, and dew-point temperature wcre recorded by Esterline Angus Model MS401C recorders. For the 1981-1983 monitoring period, an ESC Model AQM 8000 l4 digital datalogger was installed at the 199-foot tower. The datalogger has 16-bit resolution and is capable of remote interrogation via telephone lines. Analog data continued to be recorded with the Esterline Angus recorders used during 1978-1980. At the 199-foot tower, all recording equipment was housed in an (f-~)3 environmentally controlled shelter during all monitoring periods. SUPPLEMENT 4 i 6.1-20 DECEMBER 1983 l l

l MH 1&2 ER-OL (w to the corresponding digital data record. Digital and analog ( data are also routinely compared during twice weekly site visits. I 6.1.3.4 Atmospheric Dispersion Models Subsections 6.1.3.4.1 through 6.1.3.4.5 of this report describe the models used to calculate short-term and long-term atmospheric dispersion estimates. Both the short-term and long-term dispersion estimates presented in Section 2.3 of this report are l based on onsite meteorological data from the July 1981 through i 4 June 1983 monitoring periods. 6.1.3.4.1 Short-Term (Accident) Dispersion Estimates Calculations of the short-term atmospheric dispersion factors (X/0) for the Marble Hill 1&2 site were performed using Gaussian plume diffusion models for ground-level concentrations resulting ( from a continously emitting source. To be conservative, the effluent release level was assumed to be at ground-level, and total reflection of the plume was assumed to take place at the ground surface; i.e., there is no deposition or reaction at the surface. Terrain variations were not considered in the short-term diffusion estimates. The actual plant site shows rather modest relief, being flat to' rolling. The terrain on the Kentucky side of the river shows a more rolling to rugged relief, with few flat 4 areas aside from the floodplains of the river. No downwash effects due to topography are anticipated as a result of the terrain in the immediate plant vicinity. The terrain is l i considered an aid to dispersion by its enhancement of turbulence through forced convection. Hourly x/O values were calculated using a centerline diffusion model for time periods up to 8 hours and a sector-average diffusion model for time periods longer than 8 hours. A building wake correction factor that did not exceed a maximum of 3.0 was used in the centerline model to account for additional dilution due to wake effect of the reactor building. No credit was given for additional building wake dilution for the sector-average model. Mathematical expressions of the models are as follows: a. for time periods up to 8 hours, x/0 = 1 a cAu (6.1-7) nua yz+ 1 1 = Db nu a a y 2 b. for time periods greater than 8 nours, SUPPLEMENT 4 6.1-24 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL fT Table 6.1-11 shows the gamma-ray-emitting nuclides to be (s/ identified in the gamma spectrometry portion of the analyses. Analytical procedures specific to the types of samples collected are described in the following subsections. 6.1.5.2.1 Air Monitorina Airborne particulates and iodine-131 (I-131) will be sampled at eight locations around the Marble Hill site and at two control 4 locations. The gross beta content of particles filtered from a i measured volume of air will be determined weekly by " low level" l counting of the filters. The filters will be retained and composited quarterly for a gamma scan analysis. Charcoal cartridges exposed for a week at the air monitoring stations will be analyzed for I-131. The weekly gross beta results will be averaged quarterly for each monitoring station and kept on file by Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. (PSI). The gamma scan observed on quarterly composites of air samples will be examined for specific radionuclides. 6.1.5.2.2 Direct Radiation Monitorinc Direct radiation will be monitored using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD). A TLD packet will be located in each of the 16 cardinal directions in two rings, one in the vicinity of the site . ((_)T boundary and the other 4 to 5 miles from the station. Additional TLD packets will be located at five points of interest around the site and at three control locations. The quarter.ly integrated gamma results for each TLD monitoring station will be recorded and kept on file by PSI. 6.1.5.2.3 Drinkino Water, Surface Water, and Groundwater Monitorino i A monthly gross beta analysis and gamma scan will be conducted on drinking water, surface water, and groundwater samples collected l from the closest available locations around the Marble Hill site. These samples will be composited quarterly for a tritium (H-3) analysis. The drinking water samples (which will be collected at the Louisville Water Company's B.E. Payne Water Treatment Facility) will also be composited and analyzed monthly for I-131. The data kept on file by PSI will include the monthly gross beta and gamma scan analyses, the quarterly H-3 analyses, and the monthly I-131 analyses from the drinking water samples. 6.1.5.2.4 Terrestrial Monitorina 6.1.5.2.4.1 Milk I Milk samples will be collected from four dairies located in the (('T vicinity of the Marble Hill site twice monthly during the grazing ,,/ SUPPLEMENT 4 6.1-40 DECEMBER 1983 l l

p p p Nj 0 TABLE 6e1-3 DATA RECOVERY PERCENTAGES FOR THE MARBLE IIILL METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM 199.Fo&r TWER 33-Foof TNR ~~ inD WIND WDO WIND AT DlW WIS WIS MW W e e DTPFCTION SM7D D DFCTIo1 SITED TEMM3ATURE TINIYRATURE 33/199 Follff JFD JFD DTRFCTIoM SITED TWMRATimF FOINT too ft 1 Aft J3 ft_ 33 ft IM ft A ft rt 199 ft FRFrIPTTATIon 33 ft 190 ft 33 ft 33 ft_ 33 ft }}J movmber 1973 100.o 100.0 100.0 100.0 December 1979 73 1 73.1 73.1 73.1 Jawary 1 779 68.2 63.2 68.2 63.P Febrsary 1979 100.0 98.2 100.0 100.1 arch 1 779 100.0 100.o 100.o 100.0 April 1979 100.0 100.o 100.o 91.1 May 1979 45.b 95.6 95 3 '9 3 June 1979 %.9 97.2 95.6 90 3 July 1979 M.5 99 3 99.5 93.7 3 August 1979 97 3 60.b 52.0 40.7 M reptember 17n 100.o too.o o.o n.o f netober 1979 9k.9 ob.9 p.8 35.9 H July 1981 99.9 9.9 99.7 99.9 86.7 99.7 86.7 86.8 loo.o 86.6 A6.6 M I Awist 1981 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.o 98.1 100.o 100.0 100.o A September 1991 96.7 96.7 %.7 96.7 96.5 96.7 96.5 93 9 100.0 %.5 96.5 M M october 1981 99.2 99.3 99.2 83 9 98.1 98.3 98.1 89.8 100.0 82.8 98.1 M nov=ber I1n 96.5 96.5 96.5 %.5 96.1 96.1 95.6 89 9 100.o 95.6 95.6 I Deeceber 1991 98.5 93.5 98.5 98.5 98.3 98.3 98.3 96.9 100.o 98.3 98.3 O Jamary 1992 99.2 97.9 99.2 98.5 98.1 98.1 98.1 91.o 100.o 97.9 97.9 b February 19A2 99.7 M.7 M.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 99 7 99 7 100.0 99 7 99.7 March 1982 99.9 97.5 99.9 99.1 99.2 99.2 99.6 9b.2 70.3 99.1 97.2 April 1982 95.7 95 7 95.8 95.7 95 7 95.7 95.7 79.6 100.o 95.7 95.7 May 1982 9e.3 92.3 92.5 92.3 92 3 92.3 92.3 90.2 100.0 9e.3 92.1 June 1982 96.8 96.8 %.8 96.8 %.8 96.8 96.8 96.5 loo.o 96.8 96.P July 19A2 98.1 98.1 98 1 98.1 98.1 98.1 98.1 98.0 loo.o 98.1 98.1 August 1982 W.o 96 9 97.o 96.9 96.9 96.9 96.9 96.9 100.0 96.9 96.9 September 1982 W.9 %.9 97.9 97.9 97.1 97.2 97.1 96.5 100.0 97.1 96.4 october 19A2 98.o 98.o 98.0 98.0 98.o 50.o 98.o 70.6 100.0 98.o 98.0 lbwenher 1982 91.7 91.5 91.8 91.5 91.6 91.7 91.6 73.3 100.0 91.b 91.4 Dece - er 1982 98.8 98.8 98.8 98.8 98.8 98.8 98.8 93.3 100.o 98.8 98.8 January 1983 99.7 97.3 99.7 99.2 99.1 99.2 99.1 9e.3 99.&r 99.1 97.2 rebruary 1983 99.o 9).o 99.o 99.o 99.0 99.o 99.1 67.4 8e.14 9).o 99.0 0M March 1983 aco.o 100.o too.o loo.o 99.7 loo.o 99.7 o.o too.o 99.8 99.7 MC Aprtl 1983 loo.o loo.o 100.o too.o 100.o loo.o too.o o.o 100.o 100.o too.o OT May 1983 98.1 98.1 98.1 98.1 98.1 98.1 98.1 0.0 100.0 98.1 98.1 June 1983 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.0 99.0 98.8 1.25 loo.o 98.8 98.8 M %teorological data are ret reported for the 199-foot touer fra November 19T8 through october 19N. N DMeteoroingleal data were not collected at the 33-foot teuer frem July 1981 throtagh June 1983. Nh 'JFD is the joint frequenew distribution of wind speed, wind direction, and stability (AT). o e 00 b t4 b

V 's b-TABLE 6.1-8

SUMMARY

OF SAMPLES AND ANALYSES FOR THE RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM TYPE / FREQUENCY OF EXPOSURE PATHWAY NO. SAMPLES COLLECTION FREQUENCY ANALYSIS Air Monitoring a. Airborne 8 indicator, 2 control Continuous sampler operation Gross beta weekly Particulates (10 total) with sample collection weekly Gamma scan quarterly 4 or as required by dust composites loading - whichever is more 04 frequenta H w di b. Airborne Same as airborne par-Continuous sampler operation I-131 analysis h) h) Iodine ticulates stations with canister collection D1 weeklyb }8 O C Direct Radiation Two packets located in Quarterly collection Integrated gamma dose Monitoring (TLD) each sector, one near quarterly the site boundary and the other 4-5 miles from the site plus 5 packets at points of interest and 3 packets t) U) at control locations plus 1 transit control b1 N8 and 1 batch control hb (total 42 packets) 9M C gy Drinking Water 1 station Monthly Gross beta, I-131, and e Monitoring Quarterlyc gamma scan < [$ # H-3 composite l

n rx x] I TABLE 6.1-8 (Cont'd) TYPE / FREQUENCY OF EXPOSURE PATIIWAY NO. SAMPLES COLLECTION FREQUENCY ANALYSIS Surface Water 2 stations Monthlya Gross beta and gauma scan Monitoring Quarterlya 11-3 composite Groundwater 1 sample Monthlya Gross beta and gamma scan l Monitoring Quarterlya 11-3 composite i Terrestrial l Monitoring g a. Milk I control, 3 indica-Twice-monthly during grazing Gamma scana tors (4 total) season (March through I-131 analysisd 4 October); monthly remainder in + i Y of year N W M i W W b. Fruits an,1 i Vegetables i 1. Peaches 1 control, 1 indicator Annually at harvest Gamma scan edible C (2 total) portions 2. Tobacco 1 control, 1 indicator Annually at harveste Gamma scan leaves (2 total) Cf to 3. Cabbago 1 control, 1 indicator Annually at harveste Gamma scan edible $h (2 total) portions M 'o 3: td c. Soil Same as airborne par-Once during last 6 months Gamma scan gM pM ticulates stations of program g$ (10 total) 4 w 00 A W 1

? v TABLE 6.1-8 (Cont'd) TYPE / FREQUENCY OF EXPOSURE PATIIWAY NO. SAMPLES COLLECTION FREQUENCY ANALYSIS C Fish Invertebrate 1 control, 1 indicator Twice per year Gamma scan and Shoreline (2 total) for each Gamma scan Sediment Gamma scan Monitoring b m sn Y (n M N 7o t* 4 acollection and analyses to begin 1 year prior to end of the monitoring program. Om M b g 'o Collection and analyses for 6 months prior to end of the monitoring program. y Mg N Collection and analyses to begin 2 years prior to end of the monitoring program. g HH $a Collection and analyses to begin 6 months before the end of the last grazing season during the monitoring program.

( n N %) TABLU 6.1-9 SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR TIIE RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM D SAMPLg b DISTANCE EXPOSURE PATilWAYS CODE DIRECTION (miles) REMARKS Air Monitoring '

a. Airborne 820I04/

N 3.4 Located east of Saluda, Indiana, on London Road, PSI pole 4 Particulates/ 030104 No. 717-430. Alrhorne . lodine 021202/ WSW l.3 Meteorological station 1 - near Elizabeth Church. 031202 020001/ SSE 0.5 Behind (east) guardhouse at Gate 1. 030sSt 020501/ E 2.0 Located west of Mt. Pleasant, Kentucky, Shelby R.E.C.C. 4 030503 pole No. 22000. ZZ 020101/ N 0.7 Located behind guardhouse at north gate to site (near Little f 030101 Saluda Creek). 020500/ E 7.3 Bedford, Kentucky substation. 0.7 mile east of KY 421 on 030500 Cuts V Lane. g g 021200/ WSW 5.7 New Washington substation pole No. 217-990. The substation 031206 is across the str'eet from Disciples of Christ Church. O M 020111/ N 11.0 North Madison (PSI) service center on Chfty Drive. 030811 020204 NNE 3.3 Located on Rodgers Ridge Road, Shelby R.E.C.C. pole No. 4 030204 22902. 021029/ SSW 29.0 LG&E P wer Station at Jrd Street arul River Road, toulsville. 031029 Direct Radiation 010101 N 0.7 Behind guard shack at the north gate to the Marble liill site Monitoring (TLD) (attached to utility pole). (3 (n 010201 NNE 0.6 Floodplain; attached to cement based pole located between the MC two cement block well buildings north of the pumping station. O 'd y'O 010300 NE 0.2 Northwest corner of cemetery, east of cooling tower No l. M TLD attached to chain link ferme. (Il M 010301 NE 0.4 Floodplain; on meteorological tower No. 2 fence. z HR 5Ef5A5EdWoin takt page of table. 62

TABLE 6.1-9 (Cont'd) b DifrfANCE SAMPlg b EXPOSURE PATilWAYS CODE DIRECTION (miles) REMARKS Direct Radiation. 010401 ENE 0.4 Located on second cement-based pole north of the pumpieg Monitoring (TLD) station (first cement-based pole east of the floodplain rond). (cont'd) Otos11 E 0.4 South of pumping station on utility pole immediately west of small yellow buildity (first pole south of discharge structure). 010601 ESE 0.8 Located on a maple tree at the east e%e of a cleerh4 aptwos-imately 0.4 mile south of pumpiry station. 3m o H e D H Im M a N-OM o in MC OM MM 3 t* to M M3 NM

2 d

EcTfstiinlei7mTTnTRFor table. CO b LJ

.._.. ~ [ \\ L./ v 4 TABLE 6.1-9 (Cont'd) b SAMPL) DIRECTION DISTANCE U EXPOSURE PATilWAYS CODE (miles) REMARKS Terrestrial Monitoring (Cont'd) i

b. Fruits and 001112 SW 11.2

Iallinen residence. Located 5.2 miles north of Monroe Street l

Vegetables on Tunnel Mill Road. (Cont'd) 050105 N 4.5 Hall residence. Located on Road 500 S. 2.6 miles fro n the + } junction 1 anile north of Sahada. l 051116 SW 16.0 Kines residence. Located on Monroe Street, Charlestown, j Ind6ana.

c. Soil 040101 N

0.7 Same location as 020101. j 040104 N 3.4 Same location as 020104. 040204 NME 3.3 Same location as 020204. 04000I SSE 0.5 Same location as 620001. m j 041202 WSW l.3 Same location as 021202. p e 4 H Co 1 I 040508 E 7.3 Same location as 020500. h3 1 gy i m 040503 E 2.0 Same location as.020503. M 4 N j 041206 WSW 5.7 Same location as 021206. 8 O 040111 N 11.0 Same location as 020111. U l 041029 SSW 29.0 Same location as 021029. Fish, Invertebrates #, j and Shoreline Sediment Monitoring

a. Fish 120105 N

5.0 Located 5.0 miles upstream from intake structure. 120501 E 0.5 located 0.5 mile south of pumping station,

b. Shoreline Sediment 130105 N

5.0 Same location as 120105. ] 130501 E 0.5 Same location as 120501.

c. Invertebrates 140105 N

5.0 Same location as t20105. MNM 140501 E 0.5 Same location as 120501. Z H *-3 i [ ST(dotnotes on last page of table. W 5 2 l 1 3

t I 1 o W:~ c f.. x..:R Q, Y s.lu a a,_ r .... a -n' i' - r.. \\V ~ ./ N. y.. s = ~,,... .\\,._ p.4 s ~ y<

.I

.v

..g m.: _ e * *

.j. x-

y

. z. a',. ., c. :.. .),s.33 , # r8s. \\ / \\ '(

/

.a%. u 1 x ~ 3.. - w - %,'7 ~ 4'.gifg.f g' 4 g ~ . B OIJ N..DIR Y. ,s - " I ./ .1 >. 7. s m ._ _ -* ~ p+..sf e e q' ( e, .p' y i .-Y / -- i M h 5 I ~ ' *...i' *.., y> C 'y \\ .s ,s

== _c, 7.._ ...~p._ ..- _ ::w ..n s ,s o /,,. '. v4: 4 s .W-NW Mb 4 (- ... a. w s c-,-ta SEDtI3teli 't f., .. _, hy L.. ,I lMg - s . \\.. a"' 4, Rg:. . 7 ~ 345 kw c'1a' TO GHC117 . s.al..- s TOJEFFERSON 1

f'.

eq 4 I

?44,, r.,

.~N .- ~z.

0E1202x I

03120R. 1 4 '*0,4120 w gyj '_ _/ N r / ,eR c ETEOROLAICAL tower [\\ ~ 199 TOWER EMERGENCY OPER ATIONS ~ ~[E*' FACILITY $ + SW 345 kW TO SPE.ED t i 1 b

,i L s', ,*.,4 u. L- _.9% ,s J.. c- ,x e,e ' -,/i.h/'t%.l h.- y% ~ 7 n g- .( ..ji }< Lh l,,[l 'f , :.~, g m. -a - fs);;4 )g q. w, .y

~

.l l A- k e.'.- ' vtM.,, \\.

, r.,,

t M. "y4 ,s . W $v ~ ." : N:.:; 7-1 4 -.~ g_ _. %w';. .,N E ~ . -y W ^Q / ..W 2 'S:..,;;hjil$L? g ~ ~3 4 _\\ 'N"' 02010j Al.-o Avallable Un '030141 .:0401 1 i,

'/

Ap"rture Card j

,I

. ~ Q -.. --. l,-.,,-- /... ^ NE m:, :k, h $^ {gRB

- f E-NE D.

.u. g' g caw f ar ,s. N- , - / +'SHEAT Sm B Q g PERM -',7t&Twa,T me Towsms s ' s / g M -essen -eravga co E gg ' a vearuw wouse s BUILIMbSS,,- ;c E T k Bfct."M!a?u:" E / ,di W NOTE: SAMPLE CODE EXPLANAlION ' i' E-SE \\0208'01 ON ER-OL TABLE 6.1-9 f m%go9[- / 4 w g. - 7' '2 a,* s ,/ ""I ' Agh' : 3*SW /p[ 7.; N S .S-S E. 'i ' M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 .. ~.. p ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT - OPERATING LICENSE ST AGE sov o soo' icoo* FIGURE 6.1-5 Nm GRAPMiC SC ALE ONSITE AIR AND S0IL RADI0 ACTIVITY MONITORING SAMPLING LOCATIONS SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983 8312060344 -o l '

1 It ? I 1 F%Uf } "\\, . 4' --- Wy, t ll 2N l -[t V.[C. ;,,P. %'.. l (( . a v. f swd f i l,:lM A V{% n (' u ar;. WrL n l g_g [rg"gf ig PA ? hi d) ' W t iv'% ~~ f ! Ar c ll ?%. Nj g 3 N / 8 lH 6 r '~ ' / $ j h1.

&an ve

's i U l - ggii9s Al Wl i . O-F,. g d N,6,h [qb i + l N .. N b.__1M-M \\[ -+ 9 fg x([d t d., E.k 1 73) (i? .l P 4 i~ i) fj. n

LC1, i

r / ea_ Te y _ / 1 [~ m c - pf C; f.f - % pu - g A { @ -~ t ) p ~,, f +g- 'Y s

== k - l n. 9 (,% _ _. ' _\\_-.!- .___ p 4 i i% *k Sst'ulla a 6~ ps f&?'W&f[W1 ? 020 04e,' X i g/ Y ,/1[o4 / 1 30 7 .)j f p-gy 'd '(jhTM]'4{ m- - --- FFE: YOTBGs 'T. /'(4 T. k @w$el )? o h 6 1A e = h= u ? LARK CO 0 - Q& ~ rN' 8 (9 7 lc r s ja (- q,,a > W.3 m y\\ Hs ., "q O A s M_y k\\ I4 / g h f'b OP- \\ [ ,, '<\\ -kk=02120be'1 ^N M y@Sp$ hN 8 Y4 d- '\\ ' sG 7+ 031206

h. go.

7g' 'i [s #)%g41206 me Lg v (} j g( f', ' ' N -r E M, w/(S /l M l l> c Kd 4 9 ' '~f

V

'X ' QM >g 4l /< /y t4 M ~> ,y.% 2 W\\ M' N+ 'w'f' y ./ a. 78Ih 7 ~<yw \\ g W. / f'37, s s 4 ,no > d '. ' O f s f-V Q '\\ [ 4 ea v, / e_ e'f\\ ). ,f > / , 6Ct; d' !I' f. N r V = N 'fo hhN f, l > A-}/

Qx N;, + 'Q$Q g

16 o\\Mt s ,,Q pp g m [. [h Y A wig Q I % cf,ftJgo x.. 9 f c. -w .~ s 0 5 5 l l l l l l e MILES i I,

b / /8 m } % ': 3 & [> did 1 f b + 3. L , ' - ~ N el ~ W'M ~ ,g v. } JLQ f~ V f i e:"dsp;[%rn '2 #Q '> y w (' ' [ ( L> ecy l,-; v . ic 1,7 o / $ g)2Ar.+^%fc','Q g80 A.vailable Un t 4 A erture Card %c 'u P cf,% g 'e N ,/pg ' 'N k\\ , p 'T \\ . M N,hQQ s '] i % w ar - g u; O Q ' f\\ k a o. m, g- - sw' ' &g'} t uu w tgj Q'

MARBLE HILL SITE

%p ~jfy )y% 5 u v ] 'fy f D,,'7 NOTE: SAMPLE CODE EXPLANATION s Q' . M,P'f9 ON ER-OL TABLE 6.1-9 { T dQ $;%%% C %,1MD [E/ G hlC.g[(qfro,,y%W b d Dx ~ .h 8, n: , ~ , qs r ;: ng f - " 4' f' ~l dh a M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING g' y[,J ff..V; n g_ /,$ r' A( ^'yL STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 !!/:' g, s,15Y ,f'['s s' ENVIRONMENT AL REPORT - OPER ATING LICENSE ST AGE cy,e s /,.- t ,a ~ p, k kindih{c[ t FIGURE 6.1-8 O j w3,),,o , 'f. (:#, 'f,k* n ~-.. 0FFSITE AIR AND S0ll RADI0 ACTIVITY 9 Q! MONITORING SAMPLING LOCATIONS Q'? f,( \\ ra.

n w e

10 SUPPLEMENT 4 g DECEMBER 1983 bEi5bbbUdd -b 3 i

MH 1&2 ER-OL (_,) al. 1902), uses the logic outlined in the block diagram shown in ER-OL Figure 7.1-1 to calculate health and property damage effects for each release category. In addition to the radionuclide release data, the analysis performed in the program requires the following Marble Hill site environmental parameters: a. One full year of consecutive measurements of onsite meteorological data is required by the program. For the Marble Hill analysis, 8760 hourly observations for the period from November 1978 through October 1979 were used. Any missing observations in this data set were replaced by substitution and interpolation techniques to obtain a complete year of consecutive observations. The analysis will be updated with meteorological data collected from June 4 1981 through July 1982 at the time that site-specific evacuation parameters are included in the analysis. b. Population distributions in each of the 16 principal compass directions within 50 and 500 miles of the station are required by the program. Projected population distributions for the year 2030 are given in ER-OL 2 ables 2.1-1, 2.1-2, and 2.1-5 for distances within 50 miles of Marble Hill 1&2. For distances beyond 50 miles, the average population density of 78 l ()N people per square mile given with the CRAC2 program was used to determine the population distribution. l s l The total population thus assumed to be living within l 500 miles of the station was 63 million people. c. The fraction of the land area within 500 miles of the station that is habitable is required by the program. One hundred percent habitability was assumed for the area surrounding the Marble Hill site. d. Land use statistics, including farm lend values, farm and dairy production values, and grazing season information for the area within 500 miles of the station are required by the program. Standard data provided with the CRAC2 program were used for the Marble Hill analysis. The consequence model also contains provisions to account for the benefits of evacuation, relocation, and other protective actions. Early evacuation of the local population and the later relocstion of people at risk would considerably reduce exposures from the radioactive cloud and the contaminated ground left in the wake of the cloud passage. Other protective actions include either complete denial of use (interdiction) of contaminated land and foodstuffs or permitting use only after radioactive decay and weathering make decontamination economically feasible. -s i J SUPPLEMENT 4 7.1-3 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL f3 (,) CHAPTER 7.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS 7.1 STATION ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADIOACTIVITY Radioactivity releases due to accident Classes 1 and 2 were considered along with releases due to normal operation in Sections 3.5 and 5.3 of the Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station - Units 1 and 2 (Marble Hill 1&2) Environmental Pacort - Construction Permit Stage (ER-CP). This information is updated in ER-OL Sections 3.5 and 5.2. Postulated accident event descriptions, calculation assumptions, and event probability considerations for accident Classes 3 through 8 are unchanged from those presented in ER-CP Section 7.1, except as noted in Subsection 7.1.1 of this report. Class 9 accidents involve sequences of successive failures more severe than those postulated for accident Classes 3 through 8. The recent availability of Version 2 (NUREG/CR-2326, Ritchie et al. 1982) of the consequence analysis computer program, CRAC, that was developed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to aid in the preparation of the Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400, USNRC 1975, Appendix VI), now makes it possible to provide a more quantitative assessment of the consequences of the large airborne activity releases associated with Class 9 accidents. A discussion of the methods and assumptions used for the r wi consequence analysis for these low-probability events is given in (_,/ Subsection 7.1.2 of this report. 7.1.1 Chances from ER-CP Descriptions of Accident Classes 3 throuch 8 The atmospheric dispersion factors presented in the ER-CP were based on 1 year of onsite meteorological data recorded from January through December 1974. A more recent set of observations obtained during the periods of record from July 1981 through June 1983 is presented in ER-OL Section 2.3. Revised fiftieth 4 percentile atmospheric dispersion factors used to determine realistic estimates of the offsite consequences of design-basis accidents are given in ER-OL Tables 2.3-70 through 2.3-79. l The radionuclide data presented in the ER-CP have been updated l based on recently published reports (Martin 1976, pp. 15-21 and l 34-42; USNRC 1976, Table C-1). New values for the radionuclides l that are the main contributors to offsite doses are given in ER-OL Table 7.1-1. l l ER-CP Subsections 7.1.2.5.2 and 7.1.2.5.3 give the halogen decon-tamination factors at the charcoal filter on the condenser mechanical vacuum pumps as 10; the filter now contains two 2-inch charcoal adsorber trays and is assigned a halogen decontamination factor of 100, 13 V SUPPLEMENT 4 7.1-1 DECEMBER 1983

k i MH 1&2 ER-OL Since all of these responses are considered to be essential sequels to a serious reactor accident involving a significant release of radioactivity to the atmosphere, the consequence analysis for Marble Hill 1&2 includes the benefits of these emergency responses. The detailed tracking evacuation model l lO i I O SUPPLEMENT 4 7.1-3a DECEMBER 1983

O /"N d O V TABLE 7.1-8

SUMMARY

OF CALCULATED PLANT ACCIDENT OFFSITE DOSES SITE BOUNDARY DOSES POPULATION DOSES WHOLE BODY THYROID WilOLE BODY TilYROID CLASS ACCIDENT (mrem) (mrem) (man-rem) (man-rem) 3.0 Radwaste System Failure 3.1 Equipment Leakage or MalfunctiJn 11.7 0.412 9.35 0.331 3.2 Rupture of a Gaseous Waste 46.7 0.0 37.4 0.0 3.3 Rupture of a Liquid Waste 0.0007 1.651 0.00059 1.324 Storage Tank g ~ 4.0 Fission Products to Primary System (BWR) (not applicable) Y 5.0 Fission Products to Primary & [ Secondary System (PWR) y 5.2 Off Design Transients 0.0244 0.00107 0.122 0.0162 5 5.3 Steam Generator Tube Rupture 6.17 1.196 4.60 0.892 6.0 Re f ueling Accidents 6.1 Fuel Bundle Drop 0.0030 0.134 0.0022 0.1006 6.2 IIeavy Object Drop onto Fuel 0,.0671 2.73 0.0500 2.037 in Core o tn MC OM Mt ZM tn M MZ NMZ wn W b

0' r.: ll { / TABLE 7.1-8 (Cont'd) SITE BOUNDARY DOSES POPULATION DOSES WHOLE BODY THYROID WHOLE BODY THYROI D CLASS ACCIDENT (arem) (arem) (man-ren) (man-rem) 1 7.0 Spent Fuel Handling Accident 7.1 Fuel Assembly Drop in Fuel 0.216 0.100 0.172 0.0792 Storage Pool i 7.2 Ileavy Object Drop onto. Fuel Rack O.168 0.211 0.135 0.1169 7.3 Fuel Cask Drop 0.0250 45.73 0.0186 34.10 8.0 Accident Initiating Events 8.1 Small LOCA Pipe Break 0.00311 0.0541 0.0301 0.585 8.1 Large LOCA Pipe Break 7.54 377.6 16.84 3598.0 3* 8.2(ala Rod Ejection Accident 0.757 37.8 1.711 3FO.3 8.3(a)a Large Main Streamline Break 0.000093 0.264 0.00284 0.485 1 y H m cn 5 i 8O 4 l U l Notes: Accident Categories 1.0, 2.0 and 5.1 are considered to result in routine releases of the type evaluated in Chapter 5.0. Doses are based on the two years of onsite meteorological data from November 1978 through October 1979 and from July 1981 through June 1982. aSubcategory (a) indicates the pressurized water reactor hypothetical accident for this ] gg category. Om MM gM M wm 1 Z PH 4 4' W CD A i I i )

MH 1&2 ER-OL (_/ TABLE 7.1-11 GEOLOGIC PARAMETERS USED IN THE GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS HYDRAULIC GEOLOGIC i FORMATION PERMEABILITY POROSITY GRADIENTd Osgood 0 to 200 f t/yr 3%c 0.01 ft/ft a Brassfield 0 to 1 ft/yr 1%c 0.01 ft/ft 4 a Saluda 0 to 200 ft/yr 2%c 0.01 ft/ft a b b Coalluvium 300 ft/ day 20% 1.19 ft/ft b b Alluvium 1,093 ft/ day ? ",% 1.50 ft/ mile i i O i l aDerived from direct interpretation of water pressure testing conducted below the shale marker bed on the Marble Hill site. Derived from in situ measurements performed on the Marble b Hill site. Derived from geophysical logging performed within selected c borings drilled at locations around the Marble Hill site. dDerived from the variation in potentiometric water surf ace levels recorded within piezometers bounding the Marble Hill l site. i [ '#) SUPPLEMENT 4 '~ 7.L-20 DECEMBER 1983 i e =wt ,----,---s-. --w-r<e. -.-.. vr e n-.-s- ,---.--em--w e.--- ---.m ,-..v-r,r w...cr -.--w,--,---.--,,-+*-,----,.-....w- , * ~ -

MH 1&2 ER-OL (O) TABLE 0240.2-1 GEOLOGIC PARAMETERS USED IN THE GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS GEOLOGIC HYDRAULIC FORMATION PERMEABILITY POROSITY GRADIENTd Osgood 0 to 200 ft/yr 3%c 0.01 ft/ft a Brassfield 0 to 1 ft/yr igc 0.01 ft/ft a Saluda 0 to 200 ft/yr 2%c 0.01 ft/ft a b b Coalluvium 300 ft/ day 20% 1.19 ft/ft b D Alluvium 1,093 ft/ day 25% 1.50 ft/ mile aDerived from direct interpretation of water pressure testing conducted below the shale marker bed on the Marble Ilill site. b Derived from in situ measurements performed on the Marble Hill site. cDerived from geophysical logging performed within selected borings drilled at locations around the Marble Hill site. d Deriveo from the variation in potentiometric water surface levels recorded within piezometers bounding the Marble Hill site. s SUPPLEMENT 4 0240.2-6 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL O QUESTION 291.9 Provide the status of the application for an NPDES permit for operation of Marble Hill 1 and 2.

RESPONSE

A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for the operation of Marble Hill 1&2 was issued by the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board (SPCB) on May 21, 1979. This permit expires at midnight on May 20, 1984. In accordance with federal and Indiana regulations, the application for renewal of this permit was submitted to the SPCB on November 16, 1983. The renewed permit has not yet 4 been received. The current NPDES permit was reproduced in its entirety in Appendix 5.3B of the docket version of the ER-OL. O O SUPPLEMENT 4 0291.9-1 DECEMBER 1983

,m ,m e / \\v)' \\vl l s s v TABLE Q291.11-1 (cont'd) ER-01. ER-CP FES-CPJNt'R_EC-009 7) ENVIRONMENTAI. TESTIMONY SECTION 7.1 ITEM DISCUSSED: STATION ACCIDENT 3 INVOLVING RADIOACTIVITY Addit ional meteorologli al data have re-The corresponding design-basis acci-multed in revised w/Q estimate. which dent release tables are me follows: have resulted in revised dose estimates from desern-basis accidentat Class 3.0 accidents on Table 7.1-3, Class 3.0 accident s on Table 7.1.5, Class 5.0 accidetta on Table 7.1-4 Class 5.0 accidents on Table 7.l-6, Claa. 6.0 accidents on Table 7.1-5, Clann 6.0 accidents on Table 7.1-7, C! ann 7.0 acr ident s on Tahle 7.1-6 Class 7.0 accidents on Table 7. 1 - 11, i an.1 and Claw H.n accidents on Table 7.1-7. Clans 8,0 accidente on Table 7.1-9. O 3 N Summary of calculated plant acc ic*en t Summary of calculated plant accident Summary of radiological con equences Z W off*lte dosen en Table 7.1-R; f 'T offsite dones on Table 7.1-3; for of postulated ar.edenta on Tabte 7.2: e x amp l e-e xamp le-f or example-W Popularion dowc from large 11M.A Population dose from large IJK'A Ime to populatism within 50 miles pipe bre ak is 16.R4 man-t em pipe break in 8.16 man-ren (whole from large. IMA pipe-break (* 4 g (whole body) and 1598.0 m.an-re m body) and 2266.0 (thyroid). 430 man-rem. y g y (thyroid). g O LA Summary of atmospheric reler.ncs in a Not presented in ER-CP. hypot het ical Class 9 accident on i Tahle 7.1-9 Probability distribution for popula-Not presented in FR-CP. tton evrosure f rom a Class 9.secident on Figure 7.1-2. g (f) Probability dist ribut ion f or.ee ute Not presented in ER-CP. MC f at alit le= f mm.a Class 9 areident on Oty Figure 7. l - 1. t M 't1 t* Q Proti.ahliit y dist ribut ion for !.a t en t Not presented in Ek-CP. Me healt h ef f et t s f rewn a Cla94 9 accident NM on Figure 7.1-4. 2$ Hd ....Bl.mks in the IES-CP and Environmental Testimony columns indicate eit her t hat the item wag not discussed or that impacts were no different from Note: C0 A those pred ic ted in t he ER-CP. W l i a

MH l&2 ER-OL p. V OUESTION 290.11 Has the predicted drif t that will result from the Essential Service Water Cooling Towers been added to the predicted drift from the cooling tower to determine the maximum drif t discussed in Section 5.1.4.37 I f not, what would be the change in location and amount of drif t?

RESPONSE

Drift from the essential service water cooling towers was not included in the drift computatiors discussed in ER-OL Subsec tion 5.1.4.3. The discussion there, the data in ER-OL Tables 5.1-6 through 5.1-9, and ER-OL Figure 5.1-2 all refer to drift from the circulating water cooling towers o nly. Although there are two essential service water cooling towers, only one can be operated at any one time. Based on the maximum essential service water flow of 52,000 gpm per tower, a drift rate of 0.02%, and an average total dissolved solids content of 600 mg/ liter, the drift solids emission rate for one-tower operation will be 0.05 lb/ min, or (~} 0.39 g/sec. This is approximately 3.6% of the drif t emission rate from the circulatire water cooling towers. (,j No detailed modeling analysis has been performed to define the drift deposition field for the essential service water ccoling towers. However, the deposition pattern and magnitude can be inferred from the results for the circulating water towers and the relative emission rates. The maximum deposition rate for solids f rom the essential service water cooling towers will be approximately 22 kg/ hectare-yr based on the parameters given in the l4 preceding paragraph. This maximum deposition will occur on the Marble Hill site, at a location immediately northeast of the essential service water cooling towers and approximately 200 meters east of the Unit 1 circulating water cooling Deposition from the circulating water cooling towers tower. this point will be 150 kg/ hectare-yr, so the essential atservice water towers will produce a 14.7% increase in l4 depositio n. The point of maximum deposition from the circulating water towers is on the Marble Hill site immediately north of the Unit 1 cooling tower, where the deposition is predicted to average 619 kg/ hectare-yr. At this point, the essential l4 service water cooling towers will increase deposition by l4 approximately 4 kg/ hec tare-yr, or 0. 6%. \\ SUPPLEMENT 4 ~ Q290.ll-1 DECEMBER 1983

1 i MH 1&2 ER-OL i /~N() The pattern of drif t deposition from the circulating water cooling towers is compared to that from the essential 4 service water cooling towers in Figure 0290.11-1. It should be noted that the maximum essential service water flow of 52,000 gpm is nat expected to occur except during an acc ide nt. During normal operation the flow is expected to be considerably less, resulting in lower rates of drif t solids emission and deposition. However, the maximum possible flow was used in this analysis for conservatism. In summary, assuming the maximum essential service water flow, the essential service water cooling towers will contribute additional drift deposition equal to 3.6% of that from the circulating water cooling towers. This deposition will produce minor changes in the computed deposition pattern near the towers, but will not cause significant c hanges in the magnitude or location of the maximum drift depositio n. Changes in of fsite drif t deposition from the values presented in ER-OL Table 5.1-6 and Figure 5.1-2 will be insig nific ant. O V bU SUPPLEMENT 4 Q290.11-2 DECEMBER 1983

'00 v 150 i 5'\\ / \\ / I / I 200 / f / Y g 00 l l Unit 2 / Circulating Water / { #10 g Unit 1 Cooling Tower i/, i N Circulating Water I 20 ) N Cooling Tower i Essential Service 1 4 ! C) ' [ y ,/)

' ' f """

j s' l / s' / / l / / / / / / / I I V \\ 100 g>s O E 6 METERS 100 500 LEGEND: MARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 & 2 r c rcul I ng wate to ers FIGURE Q290.ll-1 --- 10 -- oritt deposition (kg/nectare-yr) ggg g g from essential service water tower DEPOSITION FROM ESSENTIAL Os SERVICE WATER AND CIRCULATING Based on meteorological data collected from g July 1981 through June 1982. SUPPLEMENT 4 DECEMBER 1983

MH 1&2 ER-OL (y SUPPLEMENT 4 VOLUNTARY REVISIONS Supplement 4 consists of voluntary revisions to several sections of the ER-OL. Most of these revisions were occasioned by changing the period of record for meteorc'ogical data collected on the Marble Hill site. The period af record previously used consisted of two separate years Aovember 1978 through October 1979 and July 1981 throur a June 1982) combined into one data base. The period of record used in Supplement 4 consists of two consecutive years (July 1981 through June 1983) combined into one data base. This change was made in order to present the most rec e nt available data and to eliminate the use of temporally separated years of data. The 1981-1983 data have been thoroughly reviewed, and minor corrections have been made where necessary to ensure the quality of the data. Use of the new meteorological data required changes to the following portions of the ER-OL included in Supplement 4: Sec tion 2.3 (text, tables, Onsite Meteorological and figures) Data (/ ~) Table 4. 4-2 Radiologic al Dose to Construction Workers Sec tion 5.1 (text, tab les, Cooling Tower Ef f ec ts and figures) Section 5.2 (text and Radiological Impact of t ables ) Routine Operation Subsection 6.1.3 Meteorological Moni-toring Dates T able 6.1-3 Meteorological Data Recovery Percentages Section 7.1 (text and Accidents Involving table ) Radioac tivity 0290.11 (text and Essential Service Water new figure) Cooling Tower Drift Table Q291.11-1 Summary of Radiologic al Doses O SUPPLEMENT 4 S4-1 DECEMBER 1983

T MH 1&2 ER-OL O Other voluntary changes af fected the following portions of the ER-OL included in Supplement 4: Table 3. 3-2 Variations in Station Water Use Figure 3.3-1 Station Water Use Diagram Subsection 6.1.5 Number of Radiological Monitoring Samples Table 6.1-8 Number of Radiological Monitoring Samples Table 6.1-9 Locations of Radio-logical Monitoring Samples Figures 6.1-5 and Loc ations of Radio-6.1-8 logical Monitoring Samples 2 3 Table 7.1-11 Correc tion of Typo-graphic Error on O' Geologic Porosity Table Q240.2-1 Correction of Typo-graphic Error on j Geologic Porosity Q291.9 Status of NPDES Permit I These revisions, along with related changes to the tables of ? co nte nt s, have been incorporated into the report as changeout pages or entirely ne a pages. I i i ) ! o SUPPLEMENT 4 i S4-2 DECEMBER 1983}}

ML20082M985

Text

Dear Mr. Denton :

0.2 IIote

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

Navigation menu

Search