Text

Results of Short-Term Meteorological Study Conducted to Determine Effect of Lake Erie on Plume Transport Characteristics at Fermi 2 Site
	ML20090J716
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	05/08/1984
From:	; DETROIT EDISON CO.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20090J715	List: ML20090J712; ML20090J716;
References
	RTR-NUREG-0798, RTR-NUREG-798 NUDOCS 8405230183
	Download: ML20090J716 (47)
	v • d • e

,

RESULTS OF TIE SHORP-TERM METDOROIDGICAL STUIE CCHDUCTED TO DLTEIMItE TIE EFFECT OF IAKE ERIE ON PIDE TRA11 SPORE QiARACTERISTICS AT TIE FERMI 2 SITE B405230183j4g8 g gDRADOCK PDR Based on Detroit Edison Engineering Report 83CS2-2, dated March 21, 1984 100/LIC-8/8.0 050584

_ __J

, + -- -

SUMMARY

Transport of a radiological release at a coastal plant site can be influenced by the presence of a large body of water adjacent to the site.

As a result, the review of the Fermi 2 Radiological Emergency Response Preparedness (RERP) Plan by the NRR staf f, NUREG-0798, Supplement No. 3 (p. 13-15) included a request to perform a short-term meteorological study at the Fermi 2 Site to determine the effect of Lake Erie on plume transport.

Further, if the results of the study indicate that the effect is signi-ficant on the offsite dose assessment model, modification would be incorporated in the model.

Detroit Edison conducted a short-term meteorological study at the Fermi 2 Site during the summer of 1983.

Supplemental temporary meteorological monitoring instrumentation was installed onsite at the Lake Erie shoreline and at an inland site approximately 5.5 miles west-northwest.

Monostatic acoustic radar units at both locations provided actual measurements of the Thermal Internal Boundary Layer (TIBL) heights.

The TIBL measured by the acoustic radar was compared with that predicted by the equations proposed by Raynor, Venkatram, and Weisman.

The data base established to test the performance of the published equations was selected such that a clearly defined TIBL height could be measured from the acoustic radar records and the meteorological parameters necessary to test each equation were available.

Once the data base was developed, TIBL height was predicted for each of the available hours for each equation.

Equation performance was evaluated using statistical techniques.

Scatter diagrams, correlation coefficients, and mean deviations were developed for each set of predicted and measured values.

Statistical analysis of the results indicate that none of the three equations adequately predict TIBL height at the Fermi 2 Site.

For example, the mean TIBL height measured at the Fermi 2 Site using acoustic radar data was 134 meters.

The mean predicted heights ranged from 76 meters using the Raynor equation to 119 meters using the Weisman equation.

The measured TIBL heights ranged from 52 to 261 meters; the predicted values from 6 to 307 meters.

Scatter diagrams and correlation coefficients further support the above statements.

The results of the 1983 study indicate that the influence of Lake Erie on plume transport at the Fermi 2 site is not adequately characterized by the more well known equations currently published in the literature.

Continuing analyses will be performed on the 1983 data base to determine whether the predictive capability of the equations used in the study can be improved or a site specific relationship can be established to predict the TIBL height.

If the results of this ongoing analysis establish a relationship and there is a significant effect on the i

100/RERP19/3.1 032484

offsite dose assessment model used during an emergency, a modifi-cation to the model will be implemented.

11 100/RERP19/3.2 032784

)

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1

2.0 DESCRIPTION

OF THE STUDY 2.1 3.0 DATA BASE DEVELOPMENT 3.1.

4.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 4.1

5.0 CONCLUSION

S 5.1 REFERENCES 1

l l

l i

i lii l

100/RERP19/3.3 032484 L

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 THERMAL INTERNAL BOUNDARY LAYER A Thermal Internal Boundary Layer (TIBL) is an interface that forms as an air mass moves from a cool, smooth water surface to a warm, rough land surface.

The lower layer of the air mass gradually assumes overland dispersion characteristics while the upper layer retains the overwater traits.

TIBL formation at a coastal site is associated with two types of air flow regimes when the water is cooler than the land Onshore gradient flow is characterized by onshore winds o

driven by synoptic scale pressure gradients generally associated with early spring and fall.

o Lake breeze phenomenon is characterized as a wind shift from offshore to onshore during daylight hours gener-ally associated with the warmer months of the year (summer) when clear skies and light synoptic winds occur.

Releases that occur below the TIBL encounter an unstable air mass and vertical dispersion of the plume becomes restricted by the more stable air aloft.

This is known as plume trapping and results in higher ground level concentrations near the source.

Releases above the TIBL encounter a more r

I stable air mass that restricts plume spread.

However, when the plume impacts the deepening TIBL while progressing i

inland, it is fumigated quite rapidly to the ground.

This results in higher concentrations at greater distances from 1

the source.

These characteristics are shown in Figure 1.1.

At Fermi 2, the unscheduled radiological release associated o

with accident-type offsite dose assessment is considerei a l

ground level source.

Therefore, plume trapping is most l

likely to occur if a TIBL is present during periods of l

onshore flow.

A key element in estimating the magnitude and location of resultant doses is the height of the TIBL as a function of inland distance.

A number of investigators have l

developed equations to simulate TIBL growth.

However, these j

equations require meteorological parameters that were not l

available at the Fermi 2 site.

Thus, the 1983 study was designed to provide the missing variables and investigate the lake effect phenomenon.

1.2 FERMI 2 SITE DESCRIPTION AND LOCAL CLIMATOLOGY The Fermi 2 site is located on the western shore of the western basin of Lake Erie in Frenchtown Township, Michigan.

-1,1-100/RERP19/3.4 032484 l

t t

J

The site consists of about 1,120 acres located approximately 6 miles northeast of Monroe, Michigan, 35 miles southwest of Detroit, Michigan, and 25 miles northeast of Toledo, Ohio.

Reactor centerline coordinates are 41' 57' 48" north latitude and 83* 15' 31" west longitude.

Figure 1.2, illustrates the general region surrounding the Site; Figure 1.3 identifies the significant onsite features.

l The predorainant wind direction in the region is from the southwest.

A higher percentage of easterly winds (onshore) is observed during spring and suramer than in the fall and 1

winter months.

Wind speeds average 10 miles per hour on an annual basis and tend to be higher during spring, fall, and j

winter than during the summer.

This is discussed in detail i

in Chapter 2 of the Fermi 2 FSAR.

}

-1.2-100/RERP19/3.5 032684

__.----a

.,.7

~%.

,N 9

o s

s N.

N N

(%

~-

V s

4 i

A g

N.

'\\

s 5-(

f a

g\\

.t s.

4

'o

- _r..,

ch k..

~%

94&..

c%s:.3

.20:. u

~

2,sl,yh[k..+

m..J.y\\o

.s y

'j,E'kO M,,

i 6O

" fed.N,f,'$

f...

aMc;:,;7 f:2.x y

%% % h..

5 hi* S?',*,it yE&Ll/$QWqp?!"' Rib.O:-Qh;f.,,

E 4*

'f kf!

k

,. 'f

b-as,k ww.

v$g&#,n@c wegs;p'.

s e#SSSsdhS 9 siF.

?

95@h.lpy$b;Q.#b;g!ss?g?h@ lip &di 25 d %i k.w

~

448 s

4 N

s' s

3.lF

e@e s&g uRM s

~

_ v,,,,yp.-?~

95 NMM y.'t

\\_

M i

.. v

\\

N i

j '

\\

+

b, T

.s s

A e

f

'I i

FIGURE 1.1 PLUME DISPERSION INTO AND WITHIN A TIBL l vs 4,

y A

y

't i

i I

s s

i

- - - -m

_,________M

1 i

f.

f

?

~.

[

~'

l~

,,h fg h

Y g.-\\,G-f l~ _> ~,. * ~~

4 g[a7 de mpwf

L

~7

f

!r, 1 W

.t t: w M

.JL s;_Ats i

.L.

~

y gip;&--

e

-=

uni Mt

-*'Y z%.f

~

s{

h ].-

_QL g.

YGff -kf( j 3 l

~

j Y

~

j {

g..__

- f ' '.N P

5 M9

+

.)

s n

tw g

45 /</,

bg f.

-d

~

f. *

. '~

s -

"J %mQ@Q.

6 VR a'd -i t1

'ed's C

_[, Y

~ ~~

);,I6, I

r_ 2 m c

9 -

gc..

p

..t

y...

3 4

b, f '- _.:.. hh f

r, h.

K

_y

,5', -

.J

_l m; _.+ -

_ < w ~ ~.

.m

. w 3

ni thf'O, > % _, ELE t'.; '.. ' -

.$W

'h 7

_ / }1

.J_ '

l p 5 g

$ E l : t,'f g"% L' s/

?!:[y-v C. '

), -:;-w(/

u i

s

~

. M 7dh?

V a

,w

'h

-,- /-.; A g

r ~, r. 9~~ w j. N,w 3

~

.., m '.,--

4

~;-.

3 y

fb

'=p-yg-4 Y'

j., Mf' ' '

I,

% k,

~9 j _ ~

,i x

~ '.

-i -90 E 8

O#g -!)

f'.'

\\

d,' M 7

'-$n[,

~

j E

s 7 b +,

. M(.

%;n' M -p g

! h^k

-ji

-s E.L t'

m v.

m

= y..

v...==,;

' ~

~

/0

'N[

/

Y

'd-*

7 v.; q '. 'e-l C "M'6

.g..

[- n~..,Y 80.f !?

by

[=_, /

j t

. _(- - #

. I (,,,

- _- -./

F, M/

I M'5.

_-i

-+

. -m-j d...--

f.

_e-~--

curncency

~

3 _ _. WW 6-1

. 0 5.

""'""*?"'

4 o

W y.__,g&,

M:

p$l' 2nGV --_.

~ % ~.

'u,;.1,4 _:."-

h 1

r.

A.m.w.y e e n w+ n - 35 4

s w#

+

w. [ - n.

(

f

- e n- @ J F+ '""(..p

^

.y Iti:

0-

2

}TN h +,

r -.m

s.. ?

~

' f,

?'.f{

fa.

. '- l '-

r

&f, tg (hbbn

^

?o e"'; ".

f+

fh ysgd g7

~ A IR$fd22ddsN$ ; NM N _ $wg g, M a

y h' E..I tab FIGURE 1.2 GENERAL REGION OF THE FERMI-2 SITE

w...

_ g. ; t - -

) -

,y r. -

/

~4(Ah b

=

Y c

O -'

Qx}y-i.

$f

$st h-h

b.,,

ir

./

)

,1, k ' '.

ht 6*

,A

?f.fh h')

Ll'Owp-Y' W

u

/

M _ i.6~.' e.

f f# '

N, 2

.j Q

., 6T' l

7

)f.:

Qt: ){

<~

A

/

y g

w y ~1;

.1, j

Ji 84:

h Y

.",l

.f l

I r?

,#,. 4't,

.'l

,jh

^

,,~ r

?

n'x.

w k~-l' Q

-x

. l ':,

ll

+

J, f

t J

,.1 7

i,,

h 8.. ' ' N T

f]/

j f

j sy%

9 f

^ ~ *

/

i ' l{

m

- - i g;'

e

-~

W l

'O y

f)

f h

k

~

e

_r, g1 i.

-\\

g NU..kg t.

,f I

I

/

er N%

.c..

~.

4r';.]

w-

T

--gg=

. lTE

\\

N [k E

j ff I

\\

Er I,*

('M e,;

4g:

9'

- g,

. h, [#

g I.'

- fhIks" 4fg%y p? ' [-

J 5

6

.d I'

Q[f.,f.

~

)

+V4f W o

4 4k W e

/

'Mj 3

g

y

^

]f

? 5%5N

_ }

, Jl 5

g pp,*,.

7;, f

'l

{_

L' 4 4.--

~N

.c g.;

y k

ul.

K FERMI 2

?

EMERGENCY RESPONSE m__

J FACILITIES b

e t

l

'FlCURE 1.3

~

P X ~_,,,, _

//

T "7-(

w i

.E

?

/

s

_. ~

i

2.0 DESCRIPTION

OF THE STUDY 2.1 METEOROLOGICAL PARAMETERS The data required to support the comparison between observed (measured) and predicted TIBL height was reviewed to determine the need for installation of any supplemental instrumentation at temporary sites.

The parameters required for the study and their location are listed in Table 2.1.

Two sources of meteorological data were readily available:

The 60-meter tower and monostatic acoustic radar unit at the Fermi 2 Site (Figure 1.3) and the Monroe Air Quality Network (MAQN), which is maintained by Edison's Engineering Research Department in association with the coal-fired Monroe Power Plant.

The MAQN acquires its data from the Fermi 2 60-meter tower and supplemental 10-meter towers located at various inland sites represented by the squares in Figure 2.1.

As a result of the review, supplemental instrumentation was installed at two temporary sites.

A 10-meter tower and instrument shelter were installed at the Lake Erie shoreline on the Fermi 2 Site (Figure 1.3).

A second acoustic radar, 10-meter tower, and instrument shelter were installed at Edison's Newport Service Center, approximately 5.5 miles west-northwest of the Site.

The relationship of these two sites is shown in Figure 2.2.

2.2 DATA COLLECTION The Fermi 2 60-meter tower is operated and maintained in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.23.

The hourly average data from the MAQN data aquisition system was used as the data base for meteorological parameters from the 60-meter tower.*

The 10-meter towers associated with the MAQN provided the data for characterizing onshore flow.

The Fermi 2 Site lakeshore an0 Newport Service Center sites were operated from May 10 through October 3, 1983.

Stripchart data was collected from May 10 through June 17; operation of the data acquisition system began on June 17 and continued through October 3, 1983.

All instrumentation at the supplemental sites was calibrated before and after the study period and weekly site visits were made to assess overall operation and perform periodic instrument checks.

The preoperational meteorological data acquisition system for Fermi 2 calculates a 15-minute average once per hour.

The hourly averages from the MAQN provided a better data base.

-2.1-100/RERP19/3.6 050884

Water temperature data was based on daily grab samples taken at the Fermi 2 intake.

Acoustic radar data was recorded on strip charts for future interpretation.

100/RERP19/3.7 032484

o TABLE 2.1 - METbOROLOGICAL PARAMETERS MEASURED FOR T;BL HEIGHT STUDY PARAMETER MEASUREMENT LOCATION oTemperature Grab Sample Fermi-2 General

- Water Lake Erie Service Water Pump House Intake

- Land AT (60m-10m) 60m Tower 10m 60m Tower 10m 10m Tower (LS)*

Sm Newport Service Center

oWind Speed 10m 10m Tower (LS)*

Wind Direction 10m 60m Tower 10m Newport Service Center

oStability Class Sigma Theta 10m Lake Shore

AT ( 60m-10m) 60m Tower oTIEL Height Acoustic Radar 60m Tower Acoustic Radar Newport Service Center

oSolar Radiation Pyranometer MAQN (Near 60m Tower)

Parameters derived from supplemental system.

-2.3-100/RERP19/3.8 041784

l i

P e

i P

{

qNM

=

Nix

.i p" $

,s-C' l=-ith M

,D E m

"~

j

gd5 I (-

l A

e o

' '_., 'a ' :~

~

r~

y f

U gg[

T 1

gp air HEl*I5 Nfi i

g BEE y

SUN R2 R wisrulwi,1 iuxsrss

~

+.

MtpL-fj

-r59 I

S-hg_%..pf"}

i k,.

, gDy -

a

=

st a M[

i.-

I I

1

_.g@P /.

NyrY

_u a_E d

I w

~

yE d

g

~

~g r

i/ 5%M gj

_y VAILIUfJ.t 7

b

~

fp Q'

'[

h.

h._ y-i E J/ I

~

.s, g vy gL

/// }

-y g

"'5j

.7 l j_l g1g kutvit IV t

{

. Y,i, I_ I7 l

j I

jf I J

\\ lit y

[t m v u 3*%

K l

Y V-

=a p

-Mh d

p i

a i

~

q\\

I I

3D I J

-+-nu.

b ' 3

,lJ / m<-;y :.

s

^

j.

_b

.r }

x

't

&ticpt

_vy

\\."

-.(\\

Q an

-3 w,

-~

, y.

x

\\w,

~..

/- N

.Aw 9-

.),

Q, yy, y'g_ u2 4 - ~Hk 4

p1. p I,qD'r s-

/yq

[o M.Q'?W 8

~r-4' ' riddH F i p i'2[

[

3s

'w / -l s

J

._i

=

c

\\

x; g,IfF, gym +-

.y' 1._ ~I

?

N 4

?

y dk) c S v.

4

%. ' ~- j j

~

cease-

~

p K.

3' g

' FERMI-2

.[v a* 9 f.

v1 E-IILL;.,

eb

~

nl' ~ _

L

~~

OtTF

\\

W~Tu,u L)~// :(1 A

K E

9 rv yj y

g l/

\\

I 4t4[g]!

x' x

~

.J lht;*

e A-E R

I E

$ 7._

LAST

=

x i.

Ti i= l /$

U i r 7h-/M S'k'T

.UpHA Mut FIGURE 2.1

,13DO_

f; E

MONROE AIR QUALITY NETWORK

~

M

.-(C""' )

. gg g

A SO2 MONITORING STATION C

r hf5.SEI"I_~NT' A [

Q~F 5

SO2 & 10M MET STATION uauue

/

STATION & 60M MET TOWER 9

SO2

__5 O

MONROE POWER PLANT oesson ti e ' d.

p 6

'O 5

$~

p :d '. '. E S u t0 E E SWCE*

, "i % b

~&n8d 4 8 9 "!b PEN ee" o

u.

LaJ O

l o'

dg5i e

E"

=

o e-4 w

d e

e z

g

.8 W

W H

a 8

M E

m g

W z

83T" p ca

l 4

,j x

Wh' 7

t 2

(

m i

i o

o Aimett 3tx10 Y

w

.g i.

'\\ 1 s

s

~

\\

E

~

u 9

/

~

l

~

e ty E

~

h n

e O

N g

F 1%

/

s

=

1 Er M

's s' 5

@g]

mawn p"

a s

~

I W

5 l

i t

az o s

%q h

q

r; _

E

~

l 3.0 DATA BASE DEVELOPMENT The data base used for the analysis of observed (measured) versus predicted TIBL height was selected in three stages using predefined criteria as described in this Section.

3.1 POTENTIAL TIBL HOURS The meteorological data from the Fermi 2 60-meter tower were reviewed to identify potential TIBL hours.

The period March through October 1983 was selected to encompass the expected TIBL hours.were identified according

" lake effect" season.

to the following selection criteria:

Onshore winds (57 degrees to 213 degrees at the o

Fermi Site) o Daylight hours o

Sunny skies Land temperature greater than water temperature o

TIBL hours were further classified as onshore gradient flow, lake breeze, or lake influence.

Onshore gradient flow - onshore flow begins prior o

to sunrise or inland direction shift prior to shift at Fermi 2 Site Lake Breeze - offshore to onshore wind direction o

shift 30* or greater, inland direction shift after Fermi shift, and wind speed less than 10 mph prior to shift Lake Influence - similar to lake breeze, but wind o

direction shift less than 30' The summary of the potential TIBL hours from March through October 1983 for the Fermi 2 Site is presented in Table 3.1.

3.2 OBSERVED (MEASURED) TIBL HEIGHT TIBL heights were measured by monostatic acoustic radar units located at the 60-meter tower and the Newport site.

The acoustic radar emits a 1600 Hertz sound pulse'then

" listens" for the return echoes that correspond to density fluctuations in the atmosphere.

The output is a strip chart

-with gradations in color density from light gray to almost black.

The radar typically " sees" and records return layer echoes, thermal echoes, precipitation echoes, high ambient

-3.1-100/RERP19/3.9 032484

^

noise, and a malfunctioning instrument.

Each echo produces a somewhat characteristic trace or pattern on th" chart which can become quite complex and at times indistinguish-able.

Figure 3.1 shows a typical trace generated by the return signals.

The major dif ficulty associated with using acoustic radar data to identify measured TIBLs or mixing height is related to the interpretation criteria used since it is based on visual inspection of the chart.

The initial interpretation was done by a Consultant.

These results were then carefully reviewed by Edison personnel.

Complicated patterns were discussed with other individuals with interpretive experience and a consensus opinion was derived.

Interpreted mixing height values were assigned a data quality indicator - good, poor, indistinguishable - that was associated with the confidence level of the interpreted number derived for a particular hour.

Good values were easily identified from the charts; poor values were associated with mixing heights that were unclear or extrapolated from good data hours; and indistinguishable was associated with precipitation echoes or when the instrument was inoperable.

Figure 3.1 is representative of a " good" trace from which good values can be read.

Only data classified as good was used in the comparisons of measured versus predicted values.

Table 3.2 presents the TIBL hours selected based on acoustic radar data.

y 3.3 PREDICTED TIBL HEIGHT There are numerous equations available to predict boundary layers in the atmosphere and a large number for predicting the interface height between lake and land air under lake breeze or onshore gradient flow conditions.

For the pur-poses of the study at Fermi 2, three standard approaches a

demonstrated in the literature were selected that represent

(

some of the most widely accepted methods for calculating TIBL heights.

The Raynor, Venkatram, and Weis_ man methods were evaluated using the data base created during the Fermi 2 study.

Table 3.3 presents the TIBL hours selected for the data base to be analyzed.

This data base represents a clearly defined measured TIBL with all meteorological parameters required for the predictive equations.

Section 3.3.4 provides the details for the final selection of the data base.

-3.2-

~

100/RERP19/3.10 032684

. ~

3.3.1 RAYNOR METHOD Raynor et al. (1975)2 demonstrated a method based on physical and dimensional considerations.

The basic formulation is:

_ 0.5 U,

lT

-T lX y

y h_

U 16 T / 6 z l _

Where h

= Raynor TIBL height (m)

U* = Frictional velocity (m/s)

U

= Mean wind speed (m/s)

T

= Potent'al temperature over the water (K) w 1 = Potential temperature over the land T

surface (K)

X

= Overland fetch (m)

AT/ Az

= Atmospheric lapse rate over the water (K/m)

Use of this method was limited to " case days" when meteorological conditions were favorable and a

" complete" data set was available.

The measured values used to represent these parameters are as follows:

U* = Frictional velocity calculated from the Businger (1971)1 routine and the Log-law approximation'if the 60-meter level wind speed measurements were unavailable.

U

= Wind speed from the Fermi 60m tower at the 10m level.

T

= Potential temperature over the water was y

approximated by using the daily grab sample water temperature.

1 = Potential temperature over the land was T

taken from the 10m temperature at the Fermi 60m tower in the base case.

X

= Overland fetch for the two acoustic radar sites was developed from USGS maps for each

" lake effect" wind direction sector.

-3.3-100/RERP19/3.ll 032684

7 A T/A z

= Atmospheric lapse rate over the water was approximated using measured atmospheric stability based on sigma theta at the shoreline.

Each of these parameters had to be available to calculate Raynor TIBL heights.

3.3.2 VENKATRAM METHOD Venkatram (1977)4 used an approach similar to Raynor by solving two-dimensional mixed-layer energy equations and a simplified entrainment theory with one slight modification.

This modification in the TIBL equation was found to be a non-dimensional quantity dependent upon the TIBL strength.

The Venkatram formulation is given as:

U, 2 (T) - T,) X h=

U (6 0/o z)(1 - 2F)

Where h

= Venkatram TIBL height (m)

U* = Frictional velocity (m/s)

U

= Average wind speed of the mixed layer (m/s)

T

= Potential temperature of the water (K) y 1 = Potential temperature of the land surface T

(K) l X

= Overland fetch (m)

A (3 / A z

= Atmospheric vertical potential temperature gradient over the water (K/m) i F

= Fraction dependent upon the temperature variation across the TIBL Use of the Venkatram method was limited to " case days" when meteorological conditions were favorable and a " complete" data set was available.

The measured values used to represent these parameters are as follows:

l l

-3.4-100/RERP19/3.12 050884

U* = Frictional velocity calculated from the Businger (1971)1 routine and the Log-law approximation if the 60-meter level wind speed measurements were unavailable.

U

= Average wind speed from the Fermi 60m tower at the 10m level.

T

= Potential temperature over the water was w

approximated by using the daily grab sample water temperature.

1 = Potential temperature over the land was T

taken from the 10m temperature at the Fermi 60m tower in the base case.

X

= Overland fetch for the two acoustic radar sites was developed from USGS maps for each

" lake effect" wind direction sector.

60/ Az

= Atmospheric potential temperature gradient over the water was approximated using measured atmospheric stability based on sigma theta at the shoreline.

F

= Fraction assumed to be 0.22 based upon the work of Venkatram (1977).

3.3.3 WEISMAN METilOD Weisman (1976)5 developed a routine based upon a totally different approach using the surface heat flux for the site as the underlying force in TIBL development.

This approach is given as:

- 0.5

~

2Q X

h=

h (Ae /6 z)p cpu Where h

= Weisman TIBL height (m) 2 Oh = Surface heat flux over land (cal /m /sec) x

= Overland fetch (m) od3/ oz

= Atmospheric potential temperature gradient over the water (K/m)

-3.5-100/RURP19/3.13 032684

3 9 = Density of the atmosphere (gm/m )

Cp. = Specific heat of the atmosphere at constant pressure (cal /gm/K)

U = Mean wind speed (m/s)

Use of the Weisman method was limited to " case days" when meteorological conditions were favorable and a " complete" data set was available.

The measured values used to represent these parameters are as follows:

Surface heat flux over land was Oh a

approximated using the available measure of incoming solar radiation at the Fermi 2 site.

(Total solar radiation times 0.3).

Overland fetch was identified as the distance X

=

from the acoustic radar site to the h

lakeshore.

Atmospheric potential temperature gradient 400/ A z

= over the water was approximated using measured atmospheric stability based on sigma theta at the shoreline.

Density of the atmosphere was approximated as P

=

3 1250 gm/m,

Specific heat of the atmosphere at constant Cp

=

pressure was approximated as 0.24 cal /gm/K.

Average wind speed taken from the Fermi 60m U

=

tower at the 10m level.

3.3.4 PARAMETERIZATION OF DATA Each of the TIBL height equations had limitations on some of the input parameters.

For this reason the data base shown in Table 3.2 was reduced'to that shown in Table 3.3.

The Raynor and Venkatram methods require that land temperature is higher than water temperature to prevent the TIBL height from approaching artifically high values.

Therefore, the data base had to be limited to those hours where AT/ Az and 60/ Az were greater than 0.002" K/m.

Additional limitations were placed on the data base:

TIBL

-3.6-100/RERP19/3.14

'032684

i n_

temperature variation fraction must be less than 0.5 in Venkatram, and surface sensible heat flux greater than zero in Weisman.

Sigma theta from the lakeshore site was chosen to approximate the overwater vertical temperature 1.23(1980)gcationschemesfrom Stability classif gradient.

were used as the Regulatory Guide basis of the parameterization.

Table 3.4 lists the two methods recommended to identify stability class.

Points of equality between delta temperature and sigma theta methods were used as the basis for interpolating delta temperatures from sigma theta measurements.

The vertical temperature gradient and potential temperature gradient over water were parameterized as shown in Table 3.5.

A discrete method was utilized for every one degree change in sigma theta.

The value of AT/ Az was held constant at 0.002* K/m for sigma theta values when it would normally be negative.

This maximizes the data base that could be run in the Raynor equation.

included Sigma thetas above 8.4 degress, were not in the data base.

-3.7-100/RERP19/3.15 032684 I

TABLE 3.1 - SUttiARY OF 10fElfrIAL TIBL IKXJRS:

MARCH - OCIOBER 1983 FERMI 2 60 METER '10WER NUMBER OF DAYS IN MON 1H POTENTIAL TIBL HOURS ONSHORE PERCENT OF ASSOCIATED LAKE GRADI ET IAKE IRYLIGHT DAYLIGff WI'1H MQf1H BREEEZE FIIM INFLUENCE '1UTAL HOURS HOURS TIBL POTENTIAL MAY OCCUR TIBL HOURS March 23 24 0

47 334 14 13 April 16 16 11 43 391 11 19 May 23 57 0

80 454 18 13 June 68 54 37 159 435 37 21 July 49 48 0

97 406 24 17 August 77 17 1

95 403 24 18 Sept.

21 32 15 68 334 20 14 Oct.

16 41 0

57 329 17 10 Total 293 289 64 646 3086 21 115 (45%)

(45%)

(10%)

NOTES:

1.

Potential TIBL hours defined as onshore flow during daylight hours with sunny skies and land tenperature greater than lake tenperature.

2.

Wind directions for onshore flow at Fermi 2 Site - 57 degrees to 213 degrees.

3.

Onshore Flow Classification:

Onshore Gradient Flow - Onshore flow begins prior to sunrise a.

or inland direction shift before Fermi shift.

b.

Lake Breeze - Offshore to onshore wind direction shift of at least 30 degrees and inland direction shift after Fermi shift, wind speed less than 10 miles per hour prior to shift.

Lake Influence - Similar to lake breeze but less than 30 c.

degree shift.

4.

Screening analysis performed on Fermi 2 60 meter tower data.

-3.8-

'100/RERP19/3.16 032484

TABLE 3.2 - TIBL HOURS SELECTED BASED ON MEASURED TIBL HEIGilT -

ACOUSTIC RADAR DATA 1983 TIME (S)

NUMBER ONSilORE FLOW TIBL OBSERVATIONS, llOURS DATE (EST)

OF HOURS-CLASSIFICATION FERMI NEWPORT 6-20 1300-2000 8

LB 8

4 6-22 0900-1100 3

LB 3

3 1700-2000 4

LB 4

4 6-25 1300-2000 8

LB 6

6 7-13 1800-2000 3

LB 3

0 7-26 1800-2000 3

LB 3

0 7-27 1000-2000 11 LB 11 0

8-2 1300-1400 2

LB 2

0 8-4 1900-2000 2

LB 2

0 8-6 1400-2000 7

LB 7

0 8-7 1200-1800 7

LB 7

0 8-10 1000-1500 6

LB 5

5 8-14 1900-2000 2

LB 2

0 8-15 1000-1900 10 LB 10 2

8-16 1000-2000 11 LB 11 2

8-18 1300-2000 8

LB 8

3 8-21 0800-1900 12 OGF 10 12 8-24 1700-1900 3

LB 0

3 8-25 1100-1900 9

LB 9

2 8-28 1400-1900 6

LB 6

5 8-29 1600-1900 4

LB 0

4 9-3 1300-1900 7

LI 7

5 136 NOTE:

1.

TIBL hour selection criteria - clearly defined TIBL indicated by acoustic radar; meteorological parameters are available.

2.

Onshore Flow Classification:

OGF - Onshore Gradient Flow LB - Lake Breeze LI - Lake Influence

-3.9-100/RERP19/3.17 032684

_d

TABLE 3.3 - TIBL HOUR DATA BASE SELECTED FOR PREDICTED EVALUATION FERMI NEWPORT DATE, 1983 Time (EST)

Hours Time (EST)

Hours 6-20 1400-1500 2

1800 1

6-22 1000-1100 2

1000-1100 2

1700-2000 4

6-25 1600-1800 3

1600-1800 3

7-13 1800-2000 3

7-27 1200-2000 8

8-6 1400-1800 5

8-7 1300-1400 2

1600-1800 3

8-10 1100 1

8-15 1500-1900 5

1500-1900 5

8-16 1000-1100 2

1000-1200 2

1600-2000 5

2000 1

8-18 1300 1

1300 1

2000 1

8-21 0800 1

0800 1

8-21 1600-1800 3

1600-1800 3

8-25 1600 1

1900 1

24 54 Total Hours were selected on the basis of a clearly defined

~

NOTE:

TIBL being present and all meteorological parameters required to predict TIBL heights were available.

in equations are described Restrictions on data for use in Section 3.3.4.

l

-3.10-100/RERP19/3.18 032484 1

7.

TABLE 3.4 - CLASSIFICATION OF ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY 3

(Source:

NRC Regulatory Guide 1.23 )

A.

USING TEMPERATURE CHANGE WITH HEIGHT Stability Pasquill Temperature Change Classification Categories with Height (*C/100 m)

Extremely unstable A

6T/ 6z f -1. 9 Moderately unstable B

-1.9 < AT/ 62 3 -1. 7 Slightly unstable C

-1.7 < AT/ Az < -1.5 Neutral D

-1.5 < AT/ 6Z $ -0.5 Slightly stable E

-0.5 < 6T/ 6z f 1.5 Moderately stable F

1.5 < 6T/ 6z f 4.0 Extremely stable G

4.0 < 6T/ 6z B.

USING SIGMA THETA 6*

Stability Pasquill 6

Classification Categories (Degrees)

Extremely unstable A

0) 22.5 6

Moderately unstable B

22.5 >

g>

17.5 6

Slightly unstable C

17.5 >

o > 12.5 g

Neutral D

12.5 >

0>

7.5 6

1 Slightly stable E

7.5 >

Up>

3.8 Moderately stable F

3.8 >

a>

2.1 g

Extremely stable G

2.1 > ag

Standard deviation of horizontal wind direction fluctuation over a period of 15 minutes to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

-3.11-100/RERP19/3.19 032484

TABLE 3.5 - PARAMETERIZATION OF VERTICAL OVERWATER TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS USING SIGMA THETA MEASUREMENTS SIGMA THETA AT/ Az 60/ 6z (Degrees)

(*K/100m)

(*K/100m) 0.20 (-0.74) 0.24 8<

1 8.4 0.20 (-0.50) 0.48 7<

Ge 18 0.20 (-0.10) 0.88 6<

as 17 0.36 1.34 5<

as 16 4<

ag 15 0.91 1.89 3<

ag

<4 1.70 2.68 2.94 3.92 2< 'ag i3 5.80 6.78 1<

ag i2 0<

og $1 10.00 10.98 NOTES:

1.

AT/6z = overwater vertical temperature gradient o = Lakeshore site 10-meter level sigma theta g

60/ Az = Overwater vertical potential temperature gradient ( AT/ 6z plus 0.98) 2.

The numbers in parentheses in the final parameter-ization indicate the value that AT/6 z would have taken had it not been held constant at 0.2* K/100m for sigma thetas above six.

-3.12-100/RERP19/3.20 032484

____J

r I

t t

b f

t f

I' y

~

N s

~ 7MG A,.yj..

'.h

'd.,. '

6.

..,i....t.~ w...

,f i...

&'y, {,

M f

a: 1

%N*

U, -* '.' 94. e.tt..n...,.,,6.....-ey.

4-

%4,..' '". z 1.f. 3.

v..

t 4 y

m r

- es s

stan n T'-

' i i

,s Ne han...". " _. ?,%

,e s.

...e.4 g

n

.6 l(

w..,. 9 <c..., u"W.,e h,, u,,,

.,y

. hM

+T e

6 i

.6

t V.

.t

^

V.*

.S..'

. 9

,, f:(

a. B ;4W % 4 694

=.

g.' -

s

.t

.'% 'd. r..

r*

i '

*. i m

_, Se.a Mme'

.- : g"s.

.s-(- p'

.....m

. / r.4, 4

.t

.I 7% t'Ge ?

,2.

Pt

'.s. < *, < y o. a 4E' rw v

ts. ' s

. n 4m v

4. < 4. e wsa. - r i e

rin, g

-et v 4 g-i e.. - f

'eb

-2

...t sA

=

v 4.

t%

/ ~

f 6.

U -. u.,

4 M -' C,..

4 se nv o, o :.

t.'

a-.g.:

y g

=..-

..,*i-6 a** f, 45 -

e n

't

.;=. ~. p,.

,r m a

-..e. r s 3 =

- - 4,

%.,gg,s -

.a,.,,

e" ster.49%D

s. k.

) w.- -.

. s$.

a e dans t.. gumme....

- M. *s%.

a.%j. &

t ' e ss. *.. '.1 t

t

'T 6(.*

- {

p.

wi. -

,q t #

tg s

g 14" D

.t y

.G i-gep. 6

%.2d4t'*cwL

?'

-1. W R ?

TL

. ;d11 %k f

- +J.%

lJ l t,.

.gs.

ng 4

e4 -

he. gli

.a.tg 5 5 &. uww e as

.n

+

p. e p. gewgg op+."

r. t:et& j;f s pengg, gegge te ge,e ye.. +

ls..

g -

's

g s

9,.% 4 M. 3

. w.

. W.

.g e

. i '. que

' Arw." 3 i n ; p -

ro. ge>

I gr*

4 jj t

. e see a

i w w wt ;M.,.

w 2 w =4" 3

agqw g),, -

g n m,ph -

J 4

e, 4. s g

e.

f.

t 36 '

.3 -

6 y

,. f't m...,. a,.... x. w. a.

J

64

.V

. '- sm 4

, ;.p ;. 8. L\\

- '8 e1WSsyg.

d'$

d-

.,w.

t g.n..

W -> - ~

}*

~

4.m

-n$.... a,. ( '

'af*gf K.4'* W 'k,..

'r M

3 o ggit,

fg

4. ' ggo 4.

i- '.

.e>

1

. t.

c, j,.

~

n..,,,.5.., yl A y' f.e s W@ l'P.,pda y

th.

.~..W D'~,'

. d. *i. '.

4 p.

e

~

gl n*

] M'%,,

^**p.].,~

~.' c h :'n. - [- f, Mr s

j?..;-

e q

'h.

S ts

, ' y" W g,

w L,'

= s pI ;,.

(5 2

e g'w.h.

4

.... t..

- p

J 8* f a b.

i L 3 $ d r-

'ti.@ "

g,.

g gW '

p... 'e

eo b4W

- j

.w, u. i M'n,h.,WZ pg4 y

GP,.. Ep

.n :.

yt p. -- :rtg bN 4

..t ) g2 E iy}-

w sw orom,

.l 4,r 3 J

,; - -.-.. A=o s

Y.,,. ? 'L *~! M '.. J, *. : 'J. N.l. l,fp}\\

.c..

o v

'. J?

i,

4. at,n..

.$c :w i

. L. g -

, %,a - --.

i gp?'-

.~

.- u;.

s

.s g..t.. a t> me

'. ;A ' O 'g.fJtU,,2,. P... h,, k%) M,..

'.%.ayy,-'.. q,..-

^g

..c.

w -

g ' - f..,E f, 9* +, ". ' s r.

o e-r

.i f

g

M,. P. 6

& '

e

4. '.. '. '-c., } 'J..

?.f.

d'r. J.?,. ?{..

t g

".: -.p.

we.. ' #[" a.

.,',t g

" b. '1

1.*

8 6.< ' ' 6ft '. r

.(

3 8 -.

I

.I*

e wv

~

e -

. 9..-r.

/,

i

+f. 4 w

v.

t,,

us

'y

(

<w.

v.

e r.

t...ge* %e. y :. *

--.s M*r m,"A te n 4

),

'u. '.

. v.f t.,n ',t

. '..> g h1W. g,

a me:

- p

& ~ 4 4 's 1

4

,,, },.

7'% 4 j

,s.

i... m.'.g

3.,

., f

+

i t:

' o.'

4 y

c. h,$ ~ 4 5 ' W-e y i..

H v j e I g+

- - 9' *,.I,-

1. 4',

t. la L' J.p ' f),

dc R.'9}.(.

,,4 m. ',

M s

~.

,4 : * +

pe

.'t v -,E

-g

{hs>.

3, J. e, p '-hn' e '

^}"9of.

u-s

' j

4. -

mA'g1 3. e O ' A

[f

'..'..,,W b- -.o I

L,.- h.i ?.e'

1M l,: 5.

y* * '....., ' t.. 9.. -

.L.

P tf*

?-

. '4

~

'I

.' i..

g 3 - *.

4

<f av

,['

h.'..p4? c1 * '. *.

J-l7

+

e

. L,3

.. ', n ts f

3 g*

e

[w }

's.,'m, -

.g y.*

', l

- = h.3 ' l lj p,.h.. : s, h. < y :'.

. g ;f,-' y. af1, ', l k., ~g,..S k: th..l ;f h-

^ }+.l. *.

Q,%.s ;

3, r

4

)..

g

-.-.,i.

- g s u

..~ m, w _.

e 4.e

.- y[ ".j,- l ~

7 %..-

7 7 ?'

~m.

.,[ s n

/

]>,

7 N'.]

i: '

f.

e.

x,

- - m.

' g % [ ** * @ * % M %.. 7 '"~.h 7 M n-e:

TYPICAL STRIP CHART TRACE FIGURE 3.1 FROM MON 0 STATIC ACOUSTIC RADAR I

al

4.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS As stated in Section 3, a three stage data selection process was used to obtain the data base for the analysis.

This data base is shown in Table 3.3 Once the data base was developed, TIBL height was predicted for each of the available hours for each of the three methods.

Equation performance was evaluted using statis-tical techniques.

Scatter diagrams, correlation coeffi-cients, and mean deviations were developed for each set of predicted and measured (observed) values.

Table 4.1 presents a summary of predicted and observed TIBL heights.

The mean TIBL height observed for the 54 hours6.25e-4 days 0.015 hours 8.928571e-5 weeks 2.0547e-5 months selected at the Fermi 2 site was 134 meters.

Mean predicted heights ranged from 76 metcrs with the Raynor equation to 119 meters with Weisman.

Observed TIBLs at Fermi 2 were in the 52 to 261 meter range, while predicted values varied from 6 to 307 meters, depending on which equation was used.

The performance of each equation is illustrated in Figures 4.1 through 4.3.

The correlation coefficients are:

Raynor:

-0.13 Venkatram:

-0.19 Weisman:

0.02 These results indicate that the predictive capabilities of the equations are unsatisfactory for data collected specifically at the Fermi 2 Site over the study period.

Mean deviation analyses also support the conclusion that the published equations do not accurately predict the TIBL heights at the Fermi 2 Site.

Results of this analysis are presented in Table 4.2 and Figures 4.4 through 4.6.

Raynor and Venkatram tend to underpredict the TIBL height.

Although Weisman also underpredicted, the deviations were not as great and approximated a normal distribution, (Figure 4.6).

Tables 4.1 and 4.2 and Figures 4.7 through 4.12 provide similar information on the performance of the three equa-tions for the Newport site.

The conclusions are essentially the same.

That is, none of the equations adequately predict the observed TIBL heights.

However, of the three equations, Weisman performs best at the Newport site.

-4.1-100/RERP19/3.21 032484

To verify that there was a relationship between overland fetch and TIBL height, the observed values were plotted as a function of inland distance.

Results are presented in Figure 4.13.

Although the acoustic radar units were at fixed locations, overland fetch varied with the wind direction sector corresponding to the TIBL hour.

Figure 4.13 shows that TIBL height tends to increase as inland distance increases.

The least squares linear regression line has a slope of 0.021 and intercept of 115 meters.

The correlation coefficient is 0.48.

This offers encouragement that a relationship can be found to reasonably predict the TIBL growth near the Fermi 2 Site.

Observed TIBL heights at both Fermi and Newport were corre-lated with each of 13 meteorological parameters used in the equations.

This comparison is summarized in Table 4.3.

Solar radiation ranked number one at Newport (R = 0.78) and number two at Fermi 2 (R = 0.48).

This indicates that the higher the solar radiation the higher the TIBL height.

No other parameters were as significant at both sites.

In fact, approximately half of the parameters had a positive correlation with measured TIBL at one location and a negative correlation at the other site.

Based on this analysis and the TIBL height versus fetch comparison above, solar radiation and inland distance appear to be the two important variables in TIBL formation with onshore flow most regimes at the Fermi 2 Site.

In summary, the results of the data analysis, to date, indicated that none of the three published TIBL equations perform adequately when tested with the 1983 Fermi 2 data base.

The Weisman equation performs the best; however, the scatter associated with the prediction is substantial.

Observed TIBL heights show a tendency to increase with increasing inland distance.

In addition, solar radiation was identified as an important meteorological parameter in the formation of TIDLs with onshore flow.

-4.2-100/RCRP19/3.22 032684

(

TABLE 4.1 -

SUMMARY

OF PREDICTED AND OBSERVED TIBL HEIGHTS NUMBER HEIGHT, METERS STANDARD OF VALUES MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM DEVIATION FERMI PREDICTED:

Raynor 54 76 208 6

60 Venkatram 54 84 225 6

66 Weisman 54 119 307 12 67 FERMI OBSERVED 54 134 261 52 55 NEWPORT PREDICTED:

Raynor 24 94 310 8

88 Venkatram 24 112 357 11 99 Weisman 24 290 626 43 130 NEWPORT OBSERVED 24 324 504 100 134

-4.3-100/RERP19/3.23 032484

TABLE 4.2 - FERMI 2 TIBL ANALYSIS MEAN DEVIATIONS (PREDICTED - OBSERVED)

STANDARD MEAN, m DEVIATION, m MINIMUM, m MAXIMUM, m FERMI Raynor

-58.3 86.6

-244 134 Venkatram

-49.9 93.9

-245 163 Weisman

-14.8 86.0

-207 219 NEWPORT Raynor

-230.8 162.2

-468 148 Venkatram

-212.4 160.2

-461 123 Weisman

- 34.2 182.9

-416 365

-4.4-100/RERP19/3.24 040484

TABLE 4.3 - FERMI 2 TIBL ANALYSIS CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS WITH FERMI WITH NEWPORT PARAMETER ACOUSTIC RADAR ACOUSTIC RADAR 10m Windspeed 0.494 (1) 0.336 (7)

Solar Radiation 0.476 (2) 0.783 (1)

A T/ A z

-0.382 (3)

-0.347 (6)

Hour

-0.363 (4) 0.066 (10)

Land / Water Temperature Difference 0.309 (5)

-0.214 (9)

Distance Inland 0.008 (11) 0.487 (4) 10m Temperature

-0.159 (7)

-0.322 (8)

Newport Temperature

-0.069 (8) 0.035 (11) 10m Sigma Theta

-0.066 (9) 0.402 (5) 60m Wind Speed

-0.005 (10) 0.669 (2) 60m Temperature

-0.262 (6)

-0.508 (3)

NOTE:

Numbers in parentheses represent the rank of the correlation for each parameter with acoustic radar (observed TIBL height) at each site.

-4.5-100/RERP19/3.25 032484

FIGURE 4.1

~ ~RM 2 ~ B _ ANA_YS S R PREDICTED VS. 03SBMD ass-G

+

2E

+

p

+

E

+

R 4

N

+

I 2E,

+

++

+

A

+

C

+

4

++

0

+

U 159-

+

I

+

+,

+

1E 4

+p,4 y

+

R A

+

D A

+

RD W

W e

e i.........i.........i.........i.........i.........i.........i 8

58 198 158 298 258 308 RAYNOR HEIGHT

FIGURE 4.2

~ERM 2 ~ B_ ANA_YS S TR PREDICTED VS. OBSERVED 3e

+

2e

+

F

+

E

+

R

+

N

+

I2E

+

++

+

A

+

C

+

0

+

U12

+

S.

+

T I

+

C

+

IE'

+

+ + + ++++ +

4 R

4 A

+

4

+

A

+

R2 4

.........i.........i 8

58 ISB 158 288 258 388 YENKATRAN HEIQiT

- - - - -. - _ -. - _. - ~. - - _. -..

,,,.t

~

\\

~.

1

\\

s

('

l s,

l FIGURE 4.3

,' s i

.,s u

\\>

TH. Pf.1DICTED W. OBS80 x,

n cx s

M,

'l,

4

\\

.\\

u

}g 'l

'i, s

+

N

$258-T(.

+

[

~

t g

+

t "s R

+

s

/

'N

+

5

\\

+

y I2E s

s.

+

' s,

+

A e

+

.+

. N C

+

1 0

I ++

f iy T

U 15F

+

i g

S

+

t

\\

T

'~

1 I

+

'f'

+

s

+

e C

+

IE

+

4+

i ++

+

,+

+

s

+

D U,s 5I

\\

A

..x

+

s RE s

N

(

s

\\

)~.

s s.

%+

\\

g, t

h i*

i.........i..............,'.....................i.,....cp O

58 188 158 298 258 398 s

VEIGNAN HEIQiT

~

p l

A 1

s m______

_w

_m

FIGURE 4.4 ERV 2 ~~ B _ A \\ A_YS S MEAN DEVIATIONS FOR RAYNOR HEIGHT FREQUENCY 25 -

t 29 7 3

dii 15 -j i

dj a

18$

5 --,

d MMM 1

a

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50 0

50 100 150 200 250 300 l

l DIF MIDPOINT l

J

2 FIGURE 4.5

~

-)

~

ER V

.2 ~~ 3 ASAiYS S

^q, MEAN DEVIATIONS FOR VENKATRAM HEIGHT s.

s.

s, FREQUENCY i

,,/

25.

I

?

!r 1

20 -~

~

's

~ ~ -

s I

l 4

l l

l 15 --

-s l

{

i 10..

\\

t l

i 5-1 0

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50 0

50 100 150 200 250 300 i

l t

DIF MIDPDINT I

l

,1 l

J i.

FIGURE 4.6 rERV 2 ~~ 3_. AN A'_YS S MEAN DEV1ATIONS FOR WEISMAN HEIGHT I

FREQUENCY 20 -

G H

W e

a 4

15 --

g

~

E 10 -

g-E_-

L

.c'.."

1. E 5-y..

y 7

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50 0

50 100 150 200 250 300 DIF MIDPOINT

FIGURE 4.7 ERM 2 "8 ANA_YS S TH. PREDICTED VS. OBSERVED ese-N56

+

E

- ++

+

V

+

P

+

0

+

R W-

++

+

T

~

+

A C

+

0%

u S

+

T

++

I

+

C 22-l

+

l R

l A

+

D

+

Alk

+

R J

l l

l 8-i,,,,,,,,,i.........,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

8 58 1N 158 298 258 SN 358 4N G

5N 558 SN RAYNOR EIGHT i

FIGURE 4.8 ERM 2 "8 ANA YS S TR. PREDICTED VS. OBSBMD R

N 586

+

E

+

V P

++

L 0

+

R M-

++

+

T

+

A C

0%

u S

+

T

+

I

++

+

(

C 215-

+

R 4

A

+

0 A1R

++

R 8-i..................i......................................................i.........i..................i.........i 2

58 198 158 298 258 3lE 358 48B 458 5lE 558 600 VENKATRAM EIGHT i

l

e FIGURE 4.9

~~RM 2 ~ B ANA YS S

m. PREDICE VS. @ SERE e&

+

N 588.

E

++

+

y

+

P 0

+

R 4&.

+

T

+

A

+

C 0 3&.

U S

+

T

+

I

++

C 2&,

R

+

3

+

D

+

A 1&_

+

R l

I55555yggl3ggggIa3E I33338333l gyggggg5g 8

58 138 158 298 258 388 H

4E O

VEISMAN EIQiT

FIGURE 4.10 TERV 2 ~~ 3_ AN A_YS S MEAN DEVIATIONS FOR RAYNOR HEIGHT NEWPORT SITE PREDICTIONS i

FREQUENCY 7-6-

o S-4-

i

[

2-g l

-450

-400

-350

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50 0

50 100 150 200 1

NDIF MIDPOINT

l FIGURE 4.11

~~h 2

BL As A_YSIS 1

I MEAN DEVIATIONS FOR VENKATRAM HEIGHT NEWPORT SIF PREDICTIONS

)l FREQUENCY i

5-

~

l 5

i 1

4 4

d 4

):

d 3

3 2 1

a t

ll 2

t

-450

-400

-350

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50 0

50 100 150 200 NDIF MIDPOINT

i 002 05 1

00 1

0

~

5 0

S I

T SH 0

Y_ G 9

5 IE HSN AN O

0 T

AI SI h}

/

NMT

.)

y:

i 1

I j 0 N

C i

AI E D O

P 2

E W

O 1

R 0

T 4

_R P 5

M O

1 EBF E R

T F

I T

U SS n

G-I N

0 N

F T

0 O R 2

ITO 2A P IVW EE y

0 MN

. ek!

DN 52 A

RE M 0

E 0

F 3

053 N.

0

' y1

h. 0 c

4 054 Y

~,3 C

N g

EU 4

3 2

QERF

FIGURE 4.13

~~1V 2 ~ BL As A_YSIS-ACOUSTIC RADAR WITH FETCH t

800-5

++

500--

+

2.

F

+

E R

+

M

+

I4006

+

4

+

A C

D U 300--

S

+

T

+

I

+

C

+

200, R

+

A p

D

^

R 100--

+

0- i......... i mr rre tt i.........i........ i....

i.

i

.i i'

T

I''''i 0

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 DIS

r

5.0 CONCLUSION

S The objective of the study is to determine the influence of Lake Erie on plume transport at the Fermi 2 Site and, if significant, modify the offsite dose assessment model.

When the study was initiated in 1983, it was believed that through measurement of the appropriate parameters, data could be entered in " coastal site" equations presented in the literature and an appropriate model could be selected for the Fermi 2 site.

With actual TIBL heights being measured by acoustic radar, the capability to statistically compare measured and predicted values was available.

A review of the results presented herein clearly indicates that well known methods of predictive modeling do not satisfactorily correlate with values measured when using the Fermi 2 specific data base.

Analytical work is continuing on the 1983 data base to identify a TIBL equation best suited for the Fermi 2 Site.

Two approaches are under investigation:

Improvements to the predictive capability of the o

equations used in the study.

Development of a site specific relationship.

o The results of this investigation will be used to determine the significance of TIBL formation on the dispersion of radioactive releases from Fermi 2.

If this effect is significant, appropriate modifications to the offsite dose assessment model used during an emergency will be made.

I i

l l

l

-5.1-100/RERP19/3.26 l

040484

4 REFERENCES 1.

Businger, J.

A.

et al.,

1971:

Flux-Profile Relationships in I

the Atmospheric Surface Layer.

Journal of the Atmospheric l

Sciences, 28, 181-189.

2.

Raynor, G.

S.

et al.,

1975:

Studies of Atmospheric Diffusion from a Nearshore Oceanic Site.

Journal of Applied Meteorology, 14, 1080-1094.

3.

U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1980:

Proposed Revisions to Regulatory Guide 1.23, Onsite Meteorological Programs.

Washington, D.

C.

4.

Venkatram, A.,

1977:

A Model of Internal Boundary Layer Development.

Boundary Layer Meteorology, 11, 419-439.

5.

Weisman, B.,

1976:

On the Criteria for the Occurrence of Fumigation Inland From a Large Lake - A Reply.

Atmospheric Environment, 12, 172-173.

l 100/RERP19/3.27 032284

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

ML20090J716

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 DESCRIPTION

5.0 CONCLUSION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 DESCRIPTION

SUMMARY

5.0 CONCLUSION

Navigation menu

ML20090J716

Text

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 DESCRIPTION

5.0 CONCLUSION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 DESCRIPTION

SUMMARY

5.0 CONCLUSION

Navigation menu

Search