ML20117E810
| ML20117E810 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1986 |
| From: | Jonardi R, Mitchell A, Stoner R NUS CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19311C241 | List: |
| References | |
| NUS-4792, NUDOCS 9609030097 | |
| Download: ML20117E810 (29) | |
Text
^ ^ - -
PY CEl/NRR-3076L Page 1 of 167 NUS-4792 RESULTS OF THE ATM) SPHERIC TRACER STUDY WITHIN THE BUILDING COWLEX AT THE PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT I
f i
Prepared for THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY RECEIVgg MR 18 gggg March 1986 m,,.
by A. Edgar Mitchell, Jr.
Environmental Services Division NUS Corporation 910 Clopper Road Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878 Approved: [w/[
I,/ff s_
Rodr't J. Jonardi Ronald R. Stoner Manager Assistant General Manager Atmospheric Sciences Department Air Sciences 9609030097 960827 00 o
NUS CORPORATION
. ~. ~.. _
Anachment 5 PY-CEl/NRR-2076L Page 2 of l67 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i
1.
INTRODUCTION..................................................
1-1 1.1 Objectives............................................
1-1 1.2 Existing Dispersion Estimates.........................
1-2
~
2.
SITE DESCRIPTION.............................................
2-1 3.
FI ELD PROGRAM DESCRI PTION....................................
3-1 3.1 Meteorol ogi cal Mea surements...........................
3-2 3.1.1 Meteorol ogi c al Tower...........................
3-2 3.1.2 Temp o r a ry T owe rs...............................
3-3 3.1.3 Operating Procedures...........................
3-4 3.1.4 Data Processing................................
3-5 3.2 Trace r Me a su reme nts...................................
3-5 3.2.1 Materials and Equipment........................
3-6 3.2,2 Source and Receptor Locations........ <.........
3-9 3.2.3 Operating Procedures...........................
3-9 3.2.4 Data Processing................................
3-11 3.3 Smoke Releases........................................
3-12 4
FI ELD PROGRAM DATA SUMMARIZATION.............................
4-1 4.1 Meteorol ogi cal Data...................................
4-1.
4.2 Tracer Data...........................................
4-2 4.3 Smoke Release Data....................................
4-3
- 5. ANALYSIS.....................................................
5-1 5.1 Rel ative Concentrations at the Intakes.................
5-2 5.2 Di s pe rs i on by Sou rce...................................
5-2 5.3 Dispersion by Wind Direction...........................
5-3 5.4 Di spe rsi on by Stabi li ty C1 as s..........................
5-4 11 NUS CORPOAATION
1 Ammhrunt 5 I
PY CEl/NRR-2076L Pqc 3 0f l67 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page 5.5 Di s pers i on by Wi nd Speed...............................
5-5 5.5.1 Stability C1ass.................................
5-5 5.5.2 Sector..........................................
5-6 5.5.3 Source..........................................
5-6 5.6 Further Analysis by Wind Speed and Sou'rce..............
5-7 5.6.1 PMT (60-m Leve1)................................
5-7 5.6.2 CCR.............................................
5-8 5.7 Relative Concentrations in Consecutive Hours...........
5-9 6.
CONCLUSIONS..................................................
6-1
- 7. REFERENCES...................................................
7-1
- 8. GLOSSARY.....................................................
8-1 9.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
9-1 APPENDIX A Tracer Data Listings...............................
A-1 APPENDIX B Plots of Tracer Data by Test.......................
B-1 APPENDIX C Pl ots of Meteorological Data.......................
C-1 APPENDIX D Photographs of Equi pment Setup.....................
D-1 APPENDIX E Photographs of Smoke Releases......................
E-1 iii NUS CORPORATION l
Anuhmru5 r
PY-CELWRR-2076L Page 4 of l67 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1-1 Seven-Year Joint Frequency Distribution 1-6 Table 3-1 PNPP Main and Backup Meteorological Systems 3-14 Measurements 1
Table 3-2 PNPP Meteorological System Equipment Specitications 3-15 Table 3-3 Meteorological Variables Available for Tracer Study 3-17 Table 3-4 Meteorological Station Specifications for UTT & CCR 3-18 Table 3-5 Tracer Material Information Summary 3-19 Table 3-6 Source and Receptor Locations for Tracers 3-22 Table 4-1 Processed Meteorological Data 4-5 Table 4-2 Conditions and Activities by Test 4-6 Table 4-3 Tests by Meteorological Condition 4-7 Table 4-4 Processed Tracer Data for Outside Locations 4-8 Table 5-1 Statistics About the Outside Locations 5-10 Table 5-2 Statistics by Source 5-11 i
l iv NUS COAPORATION
Anachment s PY-CELHRR-2076L Page $ of l37 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2-1 Plant Site and Meteorological Tower Location 2-3 Figure 2-2 Final Plant Layout, Plot Plan, Plant Area 2-4 Figure 2-3 Final Plant Layout, Plan H Roof Plan 2-5 Figure 2-4 Final Plant Layout, Section C-C 2-6 Figure 3-1 Plant Site and Locations of Meteorological 3-23 Towers for Stuoy Figure 3-2 Tracer Study Setup Within the Building Complex 3-24 Figure 3-3 Side View of the Setup Within the Building Complex 3-25 Figure 5-1 Relative Concentrations at the Intakes 5-14 Figure 5-2 Relative Concentrations at the Intakes by Source 5-15 During Each Test Figure 5-3 Relative Concentrations on the Roof by f,ource During 5-16 Each Test Figure 5-4 Relative Concentrations by Wind Direction Sector 5-17 Figure 5-5 Chi /0 by Stability Class 5-18 Figure 5-6 ChiU/Q by Stability Class 5-19 Figure 5-7 Relative Concentrations by Wind Speed 5-20 Figure 5-8 Chi /0 by Wind Speed and Stability Class at Intakes 5-21 Figure 5-9 Chi /0 by Wind Speed and Sector at Intakes 5-22 Figure 5-10 Chi /0 by Wind Speed and Source at Intakes 5-23 Figure 5-11 Chi /Q by Wind Speed and Source on Roof 5-24 Figure 5-12 Chi /0 at Intakes by 60-m PMT Wind Speed and Source 5-25 l
Figure 5-13 Chi /Q by 60-m PMT Wind Speed 5-26 Figure 5-14 Chi /0 at Intakes by CCR Wind Speed and Source 5-27 Figure 5-15 Chi /Q by CCR Wind Speed 5-28 i
Figure 5-16 Chi /Q by Consecutive Hour 5-29 v
NUS CORPOAATION
PY-C RR-2076L !
Page 6 of167 l
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The success of the field program was due to many.
In particular, Jeff i
l Cottam (Johnson Controls) at Perry provided complete and diligent support.
The field team was comprised of a conscientious group, including Hugh j
Collins, Linda Goodwin, Andrea Gouker, and Russ Southerland from NUS, and Walt England, Mark Gregg, Tom Rappolt', and Lynn Teuscher from Tracer Tech-t nologies.
d Preparation by Bob Jubach, Joe Rivera, Mike Septoff, Dave Smiley, and s
4 -
Randy Smyth helped to ensure success.
As consultant Earl Markee provided I
3 valuable recommendations on the design and analysis of the study.
Ginny l
Youmans ensured the successful completion of this report of results.
The contributions of these people and all those with important roles behind the scenes were greatly appreciated.
f I
k i
1 l
i i
i I
3 E
l l
b i
l i
h J
i l
I i
N 4
Vi NUS CORPORATION a
Attacnment a PY-CELTRR 2076L Page 7 of167
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In September 1985, NUS conducted an atmospheric tracer study within the Building Complex of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP).
This report pro-vides the results of the field program.
The description of the site is presented in Section 2 The field program 1
description is discussed in Section 3.
The field data are presented in Sec-tion 4 Analyses of the data are described in Section 5, and Section 6 con-tains the conclusions.
References are described in Section 7, and a glos-sary is provided in Section 8.
An executive summary appears in Section 9.
The purpose of the study was to characterize the atmospheric dispersion between specific release points and ventilator system intakes within the Building Complex at the PNPP. The tracer study was conducted for The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company under contract to NUS Corporation.
NUS Corporation subcontracted to Tracer Technologies of Escondido, California, for the release and measurement of tracer materials.
In the remainder of this section, the following are described:
o Objectives o Existing Dispersion Estimates 1.1 Objectives The atmospheric tracer study was conducted to characterize the atmospheric dispersion within the Building Complex at PNPP. The atmospheric dispersion is represented by normalized concentrations, Chi /0. Of concern is the value for a one-hour average for use in evaluating accident scenarios.
This value (applicable for 0 to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />) is used to determine the dose received through the air pathway between the containment buildings and the Control Room as it affects the habitability of the Control Room.
The primary objective was to, demonstrate by measurement that a reduction in Chi /Qs would be appropriate relative to those estimated based on the generic 1-1 NUS COAPORATION
PY-CELERR-2076L t
Page8of167 l
Murphy and Campe (1974) methodology. The Chi /Os correspond to the atmo-spheric dispersion at the ventilation intakes for the Control Complex, which 4
supply air to the region around the Control Room.
1 1.2 Existing Dispersion Estimates 4
1 The " existing" dispersion estimates were those determined prior to this study. These estimates were calculated using the NRC-accepted methodology
{
of Murphy and Campe (1974), " Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Ventilation System Design for Feeting General Criterion 19."
Section B.1.b of the methodology was determined to be applicable to the Perry Control Room.
The existing dispersion estimates were determined in 1985 (Mitchell,1985) and were based on the seven year meteorological data set and the generic Murphy and Campe (1974) methodology:
The revised control room Chi /0s for CEI/PNPP are presented below.
The methodology employed was Murphy and Campe's " Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Yentilation System Design for Meeting General Criterion 19."
The seven year meteorological data base, described in the 1983 Annual Report (NUS-4536), was used:
5/1/72-4/30/74, 9/1/77-8/31/82. The Chi /Q values represented the worst case of those comprised of the combinations of Units 1 and 2 control room air intakes and Units 1 and 2 containments and vents.
The con-tainments and vents were treated as diffuse area sources in accordance with the Murphy and Campe methodology.
The controlling case was the combination of the Unit I control room receptor and Unit 2 containment source.
An occupancy factor nf one (1) was assumed throughout the duration of the accident for the purpose of these calculations.
Chi /0 (s/m3) For Time Af ter Accident 0-8 hrs 8-24 hrs 1-4 days 4-30 days 3.5E-3 2.lE-3 1.1E-3 2.3E-4 Note:
3.5E-3 = 3.5 x 10-3 Supplemental information on the application of the methodology was considered.
Based on the geometry of the plant layout, a determination was made of the wind direction sectors that could potentially affect a receptor 1-2 NUS COAPORATION
9 PY CELNRR-2076L Page 9 of 167 for a given source.
The following cases (consistent with Murphy & Campe) were examined:
Case 1: Unit 1 Containment to Unit 1 Control Room, sectors NNE-E; Case 3:
Unit 1 Containment to Unit 2 Control Room, sectors N-ENE; Case 5:
Unit 2 Containment to Unit 1 Control Room, sectors ENE-SE; Case 7:
Unit 2 Containment to Unit 2 Control Room, sectors NE-ESE.
Cases 2, 4, 6 and 8 were the same configurations as above except that the stack vent, rather than the containment, was the source.
No credit for momentum or buoyancy was included.
These were treated as point rather than diffuse-area sources. However, as presented in Murphy and Campe, the point-source methodology was not applicable to the Perry site geometry.
There-fore, only cases 1, 3, 5 and 7 were used in further evaluation.
Cumulative wind speed probability distributions were determined for the combined sectors of interest for each case. The speed distributions were based on the seven year Perry meteorological data base Joint Frequency Distribution (JFD) (5/1/72-4/30/74; 9/1/77-8/31/82) that is presented in Table 1-1.
The speed distributions were combined into a cumulative fre-quency distribution beginning with the lowest speeds.
The point of the lowest five percent of the wind speeds was identified: 95 percent of the speed occurrences were above the 5th percentile. The 5th percentile wind speeds were selected for input to the following equation (equation 6 from Murphy and Campe):
Chi /0 =
1 U[wa
+ a/(k+2)]
yz where:
Chi /0 = 0 to 8 hr relative concentration at the plume centerline (s/m3) 3 k=
(s/d)***
)
1-3 NUS COAPOAATION
)
1 PY-CEl/NRR-2076L Page 10 of167 s = distance between containment surface and receptor location (approximately 60 m for Perry) d = diameter of containment (approximately 41.5 m for Perry) a = projected area of containment building (=1780m2 for Perry)
U = 5th percentile wind speed at a height of 10 meters (m/sec) y = standard deviation of the plume concentration in the o
horizontal crosswind direction (m)
= standard deviation of the plume concentration in the vertical oz j
crosswind direction (m) i i
The o and o were selected to represent 5th percentile dispersion y
g conditions -- based on the assumption of stability class F (moderately
)
stable) conditions (specified by Murphy and Campe) and the controlling 5th percentile wind speeds (in the range of 0.5 to 1.0 m/s, depending on the case examined) as prescribed by the methodology.
Thus, using the Murphy & Campe formulation, the controlling meteorological conditions for control room dispersion calculations are wind direction sectors N through SE,10-m wind speeds of about 0.5 to 1.0 m/s, and delta T (60m-10m) stability class of F.
Stability class refers to the description of atmospheric turbulence based upon measurements of temperature differential (delta T) over a vertical distance on the meteorological tower based on USNRC,1972:
A = Very unstable B = Moderately unstable C = Slightly unstable 0 = Neutral E = Slightly stable 1-4 NUS COAPORATION l
' -2076L Page 1I of 167 F = Moderately stable G = Very stable The Chi /Qs applicable throughout the course of the accident scenario were determined in accordance with Murphy and Campe.
Wind speed and wind direc-tion factors were determined from the seven-year JFD on the basis of obser-vations in the sectors that could result in an exposure.
The resulting fac-tors were applied to the 0-8 hour Chi /0 to obtain values for time periods out to 30 days.
The factors were as fellows:
Wind Speed Wind Direction Combined Time Period Factor Factor Factor 0-8 hrs 1.00 1.00 1.00 8-24 hrs 0.73 0.80 0.58 1-4 days 0.51 0.61 0.31 4-30 days 0.31 0.21 0.07 The literature indicated that the Murphy and Campe methodology may provide results that are overly conservative for a given application by a factor of 10 to 100 (Hosker, 1982).
Thus, the present study was conducted to deter-mine site-specific estimates for Perry.
i i
1-5 NUS COAPORATION
Table 1-1.
Seven-Year Joint Frequency Distribution (Sheet 1 of 5)
STABILITY CLAES A
ST ABILITV SASED C41 DELTA T BETWEEN 6e.e AND to.5 METERS WrNo nEasuREo AT:
le.e PETERS May 1, 1972 - April 30, 1974 WIND THRESPOLD ATI e.75 PPH and Jo1NT rREeuthCy orSTRr8vTrCN or WINc SPEEo ANo orRECiroN IN hours AT 1s.es MEftRS September 1, 1977 - August 31, 1982 SPE E D
--Iml_
N NNE NE ENE E
ESE SE
$$E S
WNW hW NNW Iglj(
CALM s
e.35-e.5e o
e o
e o
e o
e o
e e
e e
e e
e e
2
.o.51-e.75 o
e o
e o
2 e
e e
e e
a 1
e 1
e 4
e.76-1.se e
1 e
e 1
1 0
1 e
e e
e e
e o
e 4
1.01-1.5e 1
1 e
1 2
1 1
1 e
1 1
o 0
2 2
3 17 1.51-2.se 3
7 2
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 e
1 3
3 8
4 41 2.el-3.es 62 26 8
4 5
6 3
6 e
4 3
13 23 35 41 53 297 3.et-5.s e Its 131 64 21 16 14 24 26 35 33 to 41 148 146 127 le3 1989
- 5. el-7.e6 15 23 68 9
1 6
7 19 12 17 21 54 13e 32 15 14 443 7.el-le.oe 1
e 16 2
o e
1 2
4 4
6 28 37 4
4 1
110 1s.st-13.es e
e e
e o
e o
1 e
t 1
1 1
1 o
e 5
>13.RR -
a --- R E_-R e
9 ---_ t. _ R ---- R ---- R -
R 2 ---- R ---- D ---- A ---- R ---- 2 TOT A L 2e2 189 158 38 28 31 38 57 60 60 72 137 343 223 198 17m 2014 Y
m STA8ILITY CLAIS 8
STABILITY BASED ONI DELTA T BETWEEN 6e,e AND 1e.e METERS WIND M E AS uR EC ATI le.e METERS WIND THRESPOLD ATI 0.75 PPH J0th7 FREstlEnCY CISTRIBUTICN OF WINE SPEED AND DIRECTION IN HOURS AT 1s.es METERS SPEED
__I m 1_--
N NNE hE ENE E
WNW kV NNW 1g1)(
CALM c.35-e.Se o
o o
o o
e o'
o e
o o
o o
o o
e o
o o.51-e.75 e
o o
o o
o o
o e
o e
o e
o o
1 1
c.76-1.es o
e e
1 o
o 1
0 1
e o
o e
o o
e 3
- 1. el-15e 2
2 1
1 2
2 1
o o
1 o
o 2
o 2
3 19 1.51-2.se 3
6 2
2 3
2 3
3 9
o 1
e o
7 3
4 39 2.el-3.ee 3o 29 8
7 9
to 7
7 7
5 3
5 19 29 42 3e 247 3.et-5.es 61 85 Se 16 11 15 37 27 28 to 29 63
'140 120 68 6o 858 5.et-7.ee 13 1e 42 to 3
4 13 11 16 29 19 41 131 37 23 18 42o 7.o1-10 00 e
3 11 2
o o
B 1
5 it 7
33 43 to 6
o 139 1o.01-13 0c e
o o
e o
o 1
1 e
c o
1 2
1 o
e 6
-_ 213s99--
_t ---- 2 _
D ---- 9
-.R 2 ---- D D -----Q ---- D
-_t
.9 2-9 ----.9 ---_R ---- R TOTAL 109 135 122 39 28 33 71 So 57 85 59 143 337 2o4 144 116 1732 PY-CEI/NRR-20761.
Pace 12 of 167
Table 1-1.
Seven-Year Joint Frequency Distribution (Sheet 2 of 5)
STABILITY CLA!S C
STABILITT BASED CN: DELTA 1 BETWEEN 60.0 AND 18.8 METERS WIND n E ASUR ED AT:
10.0 MtTERS May 1, 1972 - April 30, 1974 v!ND THRESHOLD AT:
0.75 PPH and soINT rRtettaCr CISTRIeuTIcN oF WINt SPEED AND DIRECTION IN HOURS AT 18 00 METERS September 1, 1977 - August 31, 1982 SPEED ters1_--
4 NNE NE ENE E
WNW kW NNW IgIjk C AL M o
0.35-e.5t 1
1 e
e 0
e o
e 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 3
e.51- 0.75 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
1 e
0 0
0 0
0 3
0.76-1.00 1
0 0
0 1
O O
2 1
0 1
1 e
2 0
0 9
1.81-1.50 2
2 0
1 4
1 3
1 0
2 0
8 4
4 2
8 34 1.51-2.00 4
6 3
3 5
5 2
2 3
3 1
4 1
7 6
14 69 2.01-3.00 22 17 21 18 17 12 14 21 22 16 14 20 40 56 58 45 435 3.01-5.00 22 86 9R 22 17 24 29 38 53 45 42 84 187 158 127 81 1173 5.01-7.00 8
12 41 18 2
3 13 18 39 37 22 72 111 60 25 11 492 7.01-18.00 1
2 9
2 0
0 5
2 5
11 23 49 41 21 8
2 181 10.01-13.00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
8 2
0 0
5 0
2 0
0 9
_ 211192-- -
2 --- R ---- R ---- 9 2 --- 2 2 ---- 2 2
2 9
0 ---- D D
0 ---- 2 TOT A L 152 126 172 56 46 45 66 85 125 115 184 235 384 310 226 161 2408 STABILITY CLASS D
STABILITY BASED CN: DELTA T BETWEEN 60.9 AND 10.8 METERS WIND NEASURED AT:
19.0 PETERS WIND THRESHOLD AT:
8.75 MPH JOINT FREGLEmCY CISTRleUTICN OF WINC SPEED AND DIRECTION IN HOURS AT lt.00 METERS SPEED tar $1___
N NNE NE ENE E
SSW Su v5v v
WNW hv NNu ISIAL CALM 36 8.35- 0.58 5
5 4
7 5
4 5
4 5
1 9
4 4
2 3
2 69 0.51- 0.75 5
5 le 11 9
4 9
5 8
7 10 8
9 1
3 3
107 0 76-1.00 15 16 18 32 24 11 7
6 6
9 21 10 20 12 8
11 226 1.01-1.58 49 54 54 79 76 41 33 33 31 37 60 35 48 46 37 51 764 1 51-2.00 73 95 96 115 92 67 46 Se 68 56 72 85 19 96 76 72 1238 2.91-3.80 311 310 338 354 326 186 176 209 301 319 303 299 411 384 392 298 4917 3.01-5.80 634 476 728 572 290 280 370 390 631 854 876 898 1253 1990 790 694 19646 5.01-7.00 194 99 234 250 31 74 274 243 345 491 705 950 1812 701 700 311 6614 7.01-19.00 43 29 81 87 5
31 140 97 91 132 279 652 546 454 366 123 3156 10 81-13 08 6
1 5
13 0
2 10 6
10 11 33 152 105 45 44 5
448
-- 21119R-. --- S ---- S -
9 ---- 2 ---- 9
-_9 --- 3 --- 9 L ---- I 1
2 2 ---- 2 e --- 2A TOT A L 1335 1990 1568 1520 858 70s 1070 1013 1996 1923 2369 3098 3492 2750 2419 19e0 28247 PY-CEI/NRR-2076L Page 13 of167
Table 1-1.
Seven-Year Joint Frequency Distribution (Sheet 3 of 5)
STA81LITY CLASS E
STASILITY GASED CN: DELTA T GETWEEN 60.0 AND 10 0 METERS vino nEASunto AT:
10.0 METERS May 1, 1972 - April 30, 1974 vino 7paESmoLo AT:
0.75 RPH and sonn7 rnEtuEnCY otSTRIBuf row Or vino SPEEo Ano otRECTIO= In H0uRS AT 10.00 nETEa5 SepMer 1, W - hp M, N SPEE D
___15421___
m anE mE ENE E
$$W SW USW W
WNW kW kNW IjIn CALM 66 0.35- 0.50 4
7 10 6
10 9
7 7
6 12 11 5
5 4
8 9
120
.0 51- 0.7!
14 14 19 21 23 16 28 17 22 10 14 11 9
10 9
0 245 0.76= 1 00 17 14 21 31 40 33 27 17 34 21 20 15 19 14 13 6
342 1.01-1 50 28 39 60 92 108 99 83 64 04 68 75 58 50 32 28 29 996 1 51-2.00 39 59 85 121 179 117 125 121 141 161 128 91 78 38 31 27 1533 2.01-3.00 122 120 124 208 296 225 291 414 618 672 445 205 142 112 77 113 4189 3.01-5.00 1*3 95 90 132 91 164 369 467 1919 723 461 364 201 154 118 166 4767 5 01-7.00 22 23 19 10 4
33 165 198 327 220 182 189 105 45 42 47 1631 7 01-10.00 3
1 5
3 0
12 68 61 60 79 55 91 48 24 10 4
524 10.01-13.00 0
0 0
0
'O O
9 2
5 10 9
9 8
1 1
3 57
_ 21h A2__ ___;_A _; __f O _;___g _____g ____,3 _____3 ___,,3,____3 3 _____g 4
.0 g,____g 0 _;,,_g TOTAL 402 372 441 624 751 699 1172 1368 2316 1976 1392 1942 665 434 337 417 14474 Y
co STABILITY CLASS F
STA81LITY OASED CN: DELTA T BETWEEN "P-8 ANO 10.0 METERS WIND REASuREO AT:
10.0 PETERS WIND THRESPOLO AT: 0 75 PPH JOINT FREGUEhCT DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION IN HOURS AT 10.00 METERS SPEED
___j3121__.
m wwE mE EnE E
SSu Su v5v v
was nu nwu IgIn CALM 63 0.35- 0.50 2
4 1
16 21 14 20 14 16 10 4
1 7
4 3
3 140 0.51- 0.75 11 10 12 15 34 26 25 31 28 21 11 9
7 2
3 1
246 0.76-1.00 4
3 10 35 74 49 46 43 48 27 20 12 11 5
2 0
389 1 01-1.50 2
6 20 58 141 119 72 53 91 63 43 18 8
5 1
9 709 1.51-2.00 11 6
12 46 110 111 102 72 97 116 58 19 8
5 7
3 783 2.01-3.90 10 4
14 42 106 186 149 257 318 256 92 16 4
4 5
5 1968 3.01-5.00 7
6 8
16 9
34 32 48 90 30 26 1
1 3
5 2
334 5.01-7.00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 4
0 0
3 1
0 1
0 10 7.01-10.00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
10.01-13.00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 1
___211all__ ___._2 __.. 2 2 _.. _t..__ 2 ____ 9 ___. 2 _____2.... 1 2 _____A __.._1 _____t _____I ____A ___._3...__t TOTAL 47 39 77 228 495 539 446 519 700 531 254 80 47 28 27 23 4143 PY-CELHRR-2076L Page 14 of 167
Table 1-1.
Seven-Year Joint Frequency Distribution (Sheet 4 of 5)
STABILITY CLA13 G
ST A81L r rY 8ASEo cN: oEtTA 8E TWEEN 6e.: ANo 10.0 attERS WIND MEASURED Att 10 8 PETERS MaY 1' 1972 - April 30' 1974 WIND THRESFOLE AT:
0.75 PPH 6nd J01MT F REGLEECY CIS TR 18UTICN OF WINE SPEED ANO DIRECTION IN HOURS A1 12.00 METERS SPEED
-_ 13431 --
N WNE NE ENE E
$$W SW WSW v
WNW hW NNw 191)(
C AL M 0.35-e.5 0 2
3 8
13 47 67 76 63 43 15 12 5
3 3
1 1
362 163 p.51- 0.75 3
6 9
19 P8 148 167 127 113 32 6
7 3
2 3
2 735 0.76-1.82 4
3 14 19 108 187 182 144 129 52 20 4
5 2
1 1
875 1.01-1.50 2
5 12 46 203 243 194 195 139 64 24 7
7 0
1 3
1145 1.51-2.00 2
3 6
25 84 114 121 132 114 30 10 4
2 1
1 2
651 2.91-3.00 4
1 2
30 58 88 91 197 200 46 14 4
e 1
0 2
730
- 3. 01-5.00 1
1 P
4 2
5 5
31 26 2
0 8
1 0
0 0
18 5.01-7.00 1
0 0
0 0
a 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
1 3
7.81-10.00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
E 0
C 0
'O O
O O
O O
t o. 01-13. e e o
O e
0 0
0 0
0 0
r 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
-- 213s 19-- ---- R --..
3 --- 2 ---- a _ -- 2 ---- 2 2... 9 -
_9-
-Q ---- R t ---- D ---- 2
.R ----.D TOTAL 19 22 5) 156 590 844 836 889 764 242 86, 31 21 9
7 17 4742 Y
e STAP1LITY CLAES ALL STABILITY 8ASEO 04: DELTA Y BE TWEE N 60.0 AND 19.8 METERS WIND MEASURED AT:
10.0 PETERS v1ND THRESFOLC AT*
C.75 PPH JOINT FRE0tEnct tISTRieuticN nF WINE SPEED AND DIRECTION IN, HOURS AT 10.00 METERS SPE E D
-_ fats 1_ -
N NNr nE ENE E
ESE St
$$E S
SSW Su v$v v
WNw av NNW IgIAL C AL M 0.35-3.50 14 20 23 42 83 94 108 88 70 38 37 15 19 13 15 15 694 330 0 51- 0.75 34 35 50 66 154 196 229 181 171 71 41 35 29 15 19 15 1341 8.76-1.00 41 37 63 118 24R 281 263 213 219 109 82 42 55 35 24 18 1848 1.C1-1.5E e6 109 155 278 536 497 387 347 345 236 203 118 119 89 13 106 3684 1.51-2.00 135 182 206 313 476 417 401 381 424 367 262 204 171 157 132 126 4354 2.81-3.00 591 507 515 655 817 105 131 1111 1474 1318 874 559 639 621 615 551 12283
- 3. 01-5.00 1958 P8D 1946 783 436 536 866 1027 1890 1735 1474 1951 1931 1581 1235 1816 18945 5.01-7.0c 253 167 404 297 41 120 472 49C 743 195 949 1309 1490 875 8t6 492 9613 7.01-10.9 E 48 35 122 96 5
42 222 16?
165 236 370 853 715 513 394 130 4110 10 01-13.00 6
1 5
13 e
2 20 10 17 21 43 169 116 50 45 8
526
-- 211a91- -
? ---- I -
3 ---- 2 ---.. f ---- !
=C ---- S ---- i ---- I --- 11 ---- I ---- 2 ---- 2 ---- A --- 22 TOT AL 22E6 1973 2589 2661 2796 28*1 3699 4 Pit 5518 4932 4336 4766 5289 3958 3358 2387 57760 PY-CEl/NRR-20761.
Page 15 of 167
Table 1-1.
Seven-Year Joint Frequency Distribution (Sheet 5 of 5)
ST ASILI TY ta!ED EN* DELTA T BETWEEN 60.0 AND 10.0 METERS WINc ME45tREC AT:
10.0 rETERS May 1, 1972 - April 30, 1974 WIND THREsbOLD AT:
0.75 PPH and September 1, 1977 - August 31, 1982 TOTAL NURSER OF 08SERVATIOks: 61344 TOT AL NUPBER CF %ALIO 06SEPVAT10kS: 57760 TOTAL NUP8ER OF PISSING 08SERVAtl0N5: 3584 PERCENT DATA RECOVERY FOR TH13 PERIOD:
94.2 1 ME AN WIND SPEED FOR TFIS PERIOC:
3.7 M/S TOTAL NUMSER OF ESSERDAT10kS WITH 8ACMUP DATA:
e i
PE RCE NT A6E OCCURRENCE OF Sta8tLITY CLASSES A
B C
D E
F G
3.49 3.00 4.17 48 90 25 06 7.17 8.21 o
DISTRIEUTION OF WINO DIRECTick %S STAEILITY N
kNE NE ENE E
$W WSW W
WNW NW kNb CALM A
2C2 189 158 38 28 31 38 57 60 60 72 137 343 223 198 179 2
8 It9 135 122 39 28 33 71 50 57 85 E9 143 337 204 144 116 0
C 152 126 172 56 46 45 66 85 125 115 1C4 235 384 310 226 161 0
0 1335 1990 1568 1520 858 700 1970 1843 1996 1923 2369 3098 3492 2750 2419 1980 36 E
402 172 441 624 751 699 1172 1368 2116 1976 1392 1042 665 434 337 417 66 F
47 39 77 228 495 539 446 519 700 531 254 80 47 28 27 23 63 G
19 22 51 156 590 844 836 889 764 242 86 31 21 9
7 12 163 TOTAL 2266 1573 2589 2661 2796 2891 3699 4011 5518 4932 4336 4766 5289 3958 3358 2387 330 e -o >
k s9
?, E $
5%w S
P
i PY-CEIMRR-2076L Page 17 of167 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) is located approximately 45 miles northeast of Cleveland, Ohio, on the shore of Lake Erie.
The 10-mile radius of the PNPP is of low relief, of mixed use, and largely open, including fields, forests, agricultural and nursery activities, and buildings and towns. Additional discussion of regional topography can be found in the FSAR (1980), Section 2.3.2.3.
Figure 2-1 depicts the site plan on a topographic map, reproduced from FSAR Figure 2.3-15.
The shoreline is oriented approximately northeast-southwest, l
with Lake Erie to the north.
While the site boundary extends over a mile inland, the Building Complex is centered on the north side of the site.
l The plot plan of the Building Complex is shown in Figure 2-2, reproduced from Figure 1.2-2 of the FSAR (1985).
Near the center of the figure are the i
reactor buildings for Units 1 and 2 and the Control Complex.
These are l
located in the midst of many other adjoining and separate buildings.
The locations of the tall, natural-draf t cooling towers to the northeast are also depicted.
A close-up of the Building Complex within the vicinity of the reactor build-ings is shown in Figure 2-3.
This figure, reproduced from Figure 1.2-10
{
from the FSAR (1985), is an overhead view of the roof level.
The contain-ment vent stack for both units is located slightly outside (plant west) the region between the reactor buildings.
The air intakes to the Control Com-plex are shown farther to the west.
They are within approximately 60 m of the containments on the west face of the Control Complex.
(Figure 3-2 depicts some of those details more clearly.)
A side view of this region is provided in Figure 2-4, Section C-C, repro-duced from Figure 1.2-13 of the FSAR (1985).
The vent stack is separate from the reactor building, but reaches almost as high (to 750 ft.).
The air intakes for the Control Complex are not shown but are located about 200 feet to the lef t (plant west), halfway up the exposed face (of the Control 2-1 NUS COAPOAATION i
\\
Atttchment $
i PY-CEl/NRR-2076L Page13of167 Complex) that faces away from the reactor buildings (note the approximate location of these as illustrated in Figure 3-3).
i These air intakes are the only direct air pathway to the Control Complex for any airborne releases from the reactor buildings and stack vent.
The Con-trol Room is contained entirely within the Control Complex.
Thus, for the study, tracers were released from the :ontainments and stack and sampled at the intakes.
Refer to Section 3.2 for study details.
'h l
2-2 NUS COAPOAATION
Attacnment 5 PY-CEl/NRR.2076L Page 157 of167 6
l i
l APPENDIX E PHOTOGRAPHS OF SM0KE RELEASES Building Complex Tracer Study i
September 1985 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Photos have been selected from still and video records of smoke releases in order to illustrate dispersion in the Building Complex.
~
4 E-1 NUS COAPORATION
PY<ELHRR 2076L
- a..
Page 158 of 167 l
l l
l
~
i C,i.
I i
(IWW8t
~
i j
i i
1 i
i i
'{
i l
1 1
T 4
w I
l y
j 1
i i
Initial dispersion between Containments 1 (left of both pictures) and 2 (right of both pictures), with smoke j
rising up the lee of the containment toward the other during Test 1.
i WD = SE WS = 1.9 m/s SC = F 1
E-2 i
._.. _ - _-_ - _.~.
PY-CEl/NRR-2076L Page 159 of167 a
l l
'l
., Q ft%?~~
~
yyy:sq 1
by+ ' -
..c ;.u.._ x,.
a
+;->
(.
l ya>
g.s c,.
p 4
iU
.i w,
l l r'..,.-
(.-
.c y y-
'o 41/F N
a
\\' [
'g 4
l I
I y,,
\\
This photo shows a close-up of the meteorological tower on the roof of the Control Complex.
)
1 f
~
' dQ l
4 b4 9:2 y
)
[
- 5.? ;
j
+ :~1.l 1
'j
]
L;
- :as
.a Release from stack during a brief period of very light wind speeds during Test 8.
WD = ENE WS = 1.6 m/s SC = E E-3 4
-__.___.___.__..._m____._,
Attacnment 3 PY-CELHRR-2076L Page 160 of 167 l
F N
-- f
~I l
[,
= -
.s
./
i Containment release mixed between containments moves up and over the Control Complex during Test 9.
WD = ENE WS = 2.0 m/s SC = E I
W >5
\\
~ llB:
i d
Stack release remains mostly above the Control Complex and penthouse during Test 9.
WD = ENE WS = 2.0 m/s SC = E i
1 E-4 m
Attachnient 3 PY-CEl/NRR-2076L Page 161 of 167
)
4 i..
ns This photo shows a close-up of the stack release during Test 9.
WD = ENE WS = 2.0 m/s SC = E l
i e
f:
- Release from Unit 1 is at the level of the CCR meteorological i
tower during Test 9.
WD = ENE WS = 2.0 m/s SC = E E-5 I, --.._- _ _
l PY-CELHRR 2076L g
Page 162 of 167 y
e p
I N
~
4 l
1
,s.
I l
l l
Stack release bends over smoothly and down toward the l
penthouse during Test 10.
j WD = ESE WS = 2.0 m/s SC = E l
i
)
i i
l i
,r R
u.
3r i
- G<-~
' 'W
%M a..
7;_,
4 l
l j
Containment release mixes initially and stays low over j
the roof of the Control Complex during Test 10.
j WD = ESE WS = 2.0 m/s SC = E
)
i.
l E-6 11 -.., _ _ _.... -....-
... ~,, - -..
{
Anacnment $
j PY-CEL'NRR-2076L jL Page 163 of 167 1i I
I 1
i 1
l t
i i
l l
l j
i-
}.
,s,.,
4 e
i 1
i
,j These two photos show initial dispersion from stack releases j
during Test 10.
WD = ESE LIS = 2.0 m/s SC = E 1
]
i E-7
I l
{
PY-CEl/NRR-2076L ju Page 164 of 167
}
1 1
i I
i I
l l
_1%
.e n
W _
J 4
+4,
j f
~
j Stack release results in much smoke on the roof of the 1
Control Complex during Test 13.
WD = E WS = 1.7 m/s SC = F 1
l i
n I*
m ;.r:r.r:a 2-
.,;g
^
i Another view of the stack release during Test 13.
i WD = E WS = 1.7 m/s SC = F 1
E-8 l
_.. =.. _. -
1 Anacament $
!.s..
PY{EI/NRR-2076L Page 165 of 167
!L 1
d 4
, 3* q*,7T~ ~~
v'.ym rmga ;
g.
. f ! @ M 4,K ?.. y
. y 7-y Q+ $
c
-n,
,a.cr,g 1
..me.s. :-
pg?.,
)E
.. mn
-.~
$"h. :s3 9p;.
. u';; -
7
\\
. i u !: -
- 1. 2 w-er clL..~
i e.
4
.,{
ar
)
~
l l
4 d
1 4
s i
i
) 'I
{
Stack release does typical looping during Test 21.
WD = ENE WS = 3.5 m/s SC = B i
l l
4 pg@"~ @&~%' M is
.?
M&
4 rw.
x:;
1 ag. r:p,1%;!"'
- . 4w
)
g.-
,.1,-
y,;
.g-
,.s,ws ygp-
,.p?
~
ng$..
a4 v, w,
-y;'
a m, e d
-ef y N'-
4, w 8'
W.
,'e j
.f 9'-
Op v,
$,.L,;4.-xg
.c
.3qw r,
1 w-f t: <
4
,d.
a ga
.,3 9 - j
,w
.a 3
Stack release continues looping off the wes and of the Control Complex during Test 21.
WD = ENE WS = 3.5 m/s SC =
E-9
... _ ~ ~
Attachment $
PY-CE1/NRR-2076L Page 166 of 167 L
w w. mw
-* k % f,' '
.y f
. Mfgg,y; _
, p; W,'t -
)
ge+..
~wy Mi#bv. -h Y- ~E,
%**R;py l
- 4'
., R*[
aw gug....l W ' '- ' #" ~
.s
.< i.. '.' ' k
! Sh m"
g. ~
Q.?
f._,
a
~~
,f f. _
.., a s.., -
'..q
-~.
1 w
J.~
? w,
~.
I' w
i 4
i.
Stack release moves steadily upward during Test 23.
I WD = NE WS = 4.6 m/s SC = C I
i l-kl ~.
'$l'.?.} Ilf An A ji Ny i
i 95t,,
i 4
i
.t
/
4 4
i 1
l 1
1 i
Release from stack during Test 25.
j WD = ENE WS = 3.5 m/s SC = E I
1 l-E-10
)
1
~. _. _ -
l muummm a PY-CD/NRR-2076L Lb.
Page 167 of 167 I
)
l l
i i(
i l
T
- r
~
4 r
After mixing in the lee of the containment and between I
containments, smoke remains mostly below the spring line I
of the containment during Test 27.
l WD = E WS = 2.2 m/s SC = E I
I I
l 1
1 k
i 4
l 3
a E-ll
.