ML21123A225
| ML21123A225 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Watts Bar  |
| Issue date: | 10/29/2020 |
| From: | Tennessee Valley Authority |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| WBL-20-047 | |
| Download: ML21123A225 (577) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:WBN TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 2.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 2.1-1 2.1 GEOGRAPHY AND DEMOGRAPHY 2.1-1 2.1.1 Site Location And Description 2.1-1 2.1.1.1 Specification of Location 2.1-1 2.1.1.2 Site Area Map 2.1-1 2.1.1.3 Boundaries for Establishing Effluent Limits 2.1-2 2.1.2 Exclusion Area Authority And Control 2.1-2 2.1.2.1 Authority 2.1-2 2.1.2.2 Control of Activities Unrelated to Plant Operation 2.1-2 2.1.2.3 Arrangements for Traffic Control 2.1-2 2.1.2.4 Abandonment or Relocation of Roads 2.1-2 2.1.3 Population Distribution 2.1-3 2.1.3.1 Population Within 10 Miles 2.1-3 2.1.3.2 Population Between 10 and 50 Miles 2.1-3 2.1.3.3 Transient Population - Historical Information 2.1-4 2.1.3.4 Low Population Zone 2.1-5 2.1.3.5 Population Center 2.1-5 2.1.3.6 Population Density 2.1-5 References 2.1-5 2.2 NEARBY INDUSTRIAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND MILITARY FACILITIES 2.2-1 2.2.1 Location And Route 2.2-1 2.2.2 Descriptions 2.2-1 2.2.2.1 Description of Facilities 2.2-1 2.2.2.2 Description of Products and Materials 2.2-1 2.2.2.3 Pipelines 2.2-1 2.2.2.4 Waterways 2.2-2 2.2.2.5 Airports 2.2-2 2.2.2.6 Projections of Industrial Growth 2.2-2 2.2.3 Evaluations of Potential Accidents 2.2-2 References 2.2-3 2.3 METEOROLOGY 2.3-1 2.3.1 Regional Climate 2.3-1 2.3.1.1 Data Sources 2.3-1 2.3.1.2 General Climate 2.3-1 2.3.1.3 Severe Weather 2.3-2 2.3.2 Local Meteorology 2.3-5 2.3.2.1 Data Sources 2.3-5 2.3.2.2 Normal and Extreme Values of Meteorological Parameters 2.3-5 2.3.2.3 Potential Influence of the Plant and its Facilities on Local Meteorology 2.3-8 2.3.2.4 Local Meteorological Conditions for Design and Operating Bases 2.3-9 2-i
WBN TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 2.3.3 Onsite Meteorological Measurements Program 2.3-9 2.3.3.1 Preoperational Program 2.3-9 2.3.3.2 Operational Meteorological Program 2.3-12 2.3.3.3 Onsite Data Summaries of Parameters for Dispersion Meteorology2.3-13 2.3.4 Short-Term (Accident) Diffusion Estimates 2.3-14 2.3.4.1 Objective 2.3-14 2.3.4.2 Calculation Results 2.3-16 2.3.5 Long-Term (Routine) Diffusion Estimates 2.3-17 References 2.3-17 2.4 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING 2.4-1 2.4.1 Hydrological Description 2.4-1 2.4.1.1 Sites and Facilities 2.4-1 2.4.1.2 Hydrosphere 2.4-2 2.4.2 Floods 2.4-6 2.4.2.1 Flood History - Historical Information 2.4-6 2.4.2.2 Flood Design Considerations 2.4-7 2.4.2.3 Effects of Local Intense Precipitation 2.4-9 2.4.3 Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) on Streams And Rivers 2.4-12 2.4.3.1 Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) 2.4-12 2.4.3.2 Precipitation Losses 2.4-14 2.4.3.3 Runoff and Stream Course Model 2.4-14 2.4.3.4 Probable Maximum Flood Flow 2.4-18 2.4.3.5 Water Level Determinations 2.4-25 2.4.3.6 Coincident Wind Wave Activity 2.4-26 2.4.4 Potential Dam Failures, Seismically Induced 2.4-27 2.4.4.1 Dam Failure Permutations 2.4-28 2.4.4.2 Unsteady Flow Analysis of Potential Dam Failures 2.4-39 2.4.4.3 Water Level at Plant Site 2.4-40 2.4.5 Probable Maximum Surge and Seiche Flooding 2.4-40 2.4.6 Probable Maximum Tsunami Flooding 2.4-40 2.4.7 Ice Effects - Historical Information 2.4-40 2.4.8 Cooling Water Canals and Reservoirs 2.4.41 2.4.9 Channel Diversions - Historical Information 2.4-42 2.4.10 Flooding Protection Requirements - Historical Information 2.4-42 2.4.11 Low Water Considerations - Historical Information 2.4-42 2.4.11.1 Low Flow in Rivers and Streams 2.4-43 2.4.11.2 Low Water Resulting From Surges, Seiches, or Tsunami 2.4-43 2.4.11.3 Historical Low Water 2.4-43 2.4.11.4 Future Control 2.4-44 2.4.11.5 Plant Requirements 2.4-44 2.4.12 Dispersion, Dilution, and Travel Times of Accidental Releases 2.4-45 of Liquid Effluents 2-ii
WBN TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 2.4.12.1 Radioactive Liquid Wastes - Historical Information 2.4-45 2.4.12.2 Accidental Slug Releases to Surface Waters
- Historical Information 2.4-45 2.4.12.2.1 Calculations - Historical Information 2.4-47 2.4.12.3 Effects on Ground Water - Historical Information 2.4-47 2.4.13 Groundwater 2.4-48 2.4.13.1 Description and On-Site Use - Historical Information 2.4-48 2.4.13.2 Sources - Historical Information 2.4-49 2.4.13.3 Accident Effects - Historical Information 2.4-50 2.4.13.4 Monitoring and Safeguard Requirements - Historical Information 2.4-51 2.4.13.5 Design Basis for Subsurface Hydrostatic Loading - Historical Information 2.4-51 2.4.14 Flooding Protection Requirements 2.4.51 2.4.14.1 Introduction 2.4-51 2.4.14.1.1 Design Basis Flood 2.4-51 2.4.14.1.2 Combinations of Events 2.4-52 2.4.14.1.3 Post Flood Period 2.4-52 2.4.14.1.4 Localized Floods 2.4-53 2.4.14.2 Plant Operation During Floods Above Grade 2.4-53 2.4.14.2.1 Flooding of Structures 2.4-53 2.4.14.2.2 Fuel Cooling 2.4-53 2.4.14.2.3 Cooling of Plant Loads 2.4-55 2.4.14.3 Warning Scheme 2.4-55 2.4.14.4 Preparation for Flood Mode 2.4-55 2.4.14.4.1 Reactor Initially Operating at Power 2.4-55 2.4.14.4.2 Reactor Initially Refueling 2.4-56 2.4.14.4.3 Plant Preparation Time 2.4-56 2.4.14.5 Equipment 2.4-56 2.4.14.5.1 Equipment Qualification 2.4-57 2.4.14.5.2 Temporary Modification and Setup 2.4-57 2.4.14.5.3 Electric Power 2.4-57 2.4.14.5.4 Instrument, Control, Communication and Ventilation Systems 2.4-57 2.4.14.6 Supplies 2.4-58 2.4.14.7 Plant Recovery 2.4-58 2.4.14.8 Warning Plan 2.4-58 2.4.14.8.1 Rainfall Floods 2.4-59 2.4.14.8.2 Seismically-Induced Dam Failure Floods 2.4-59 2.4.14.9 Basis For Flood Protection Plan In Rainfall Floods 2.4-60 2.4.14.9.1 Overview 2.4-60 2.4.14.9.2 TVA Forecast System 2.4-60 2.4.14.9.3 Basic Analysis 2.4-62 2.4.14.9.4 Hydrologic Basis for Warning System 2.4-62 2.4.14.9.5 Hydrologic Basis for Target States 2.4-63 2-iii
WBN TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 2.4.14.9.6 Communications Reliability 2.4-64 2.4.14.10 Basis for Flood Protection Plan in Seismic - Caused Dam Failures 2.4-65 2.4.14.11 Special Condition Allowance 2.4-66 References 2.4-66 2.5 GEOLOGY, SEISMOLOGY, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
SUMMARY
OF FOUNDATION CONDITIONS
- HISTORICAL INFORMATION 2.5-1 2.5.1 Basic Geology and Seismic Information 2.5-2 2.5.1.1 Regional Geology 2.5-3 2.5.1.1.1 Regional Physiography 2.5-3 2.5.1.1.2 Regional Tectonics and Geology 2.5-7 2.5.1.1.3 Regional Geologic Setting 2.5-9 2.5.1.1.4 Regional Geologic History 2.5-10 2.5.1.1.5 Regional Lithologic, Stratigraphic, and Structural Geology 2.5-21 2.5.1.1.6 Regional Tectonics 2.5-22 2.5.1.1.7 Groundwater 2.5-26 2.5.1.2 Site Geology 2.5-27 2.5.1.2.1 Site Physiography 2.5-27 2.5.1.2.2 Site Lithologic, Stratigraphic and Structural Geologic Conditions 2.5-28 2.5.1.2.3 Site Structural Geology 2.5-30 2.5.1.2.4 Surface Geology 2.5-31 2.5.1.2.5 Site Geologic History 2.5-31 2.5.1.2.6 Plot Plan 2.5-32 2.5.1.2.7 Bedrock Foundation Characteristics 2.5-32 2.5.1.2.8 Excavation and Backfill 2.5-32 2.5.1.2.9 Evaluation of Geologic Conditions 2.5-32 2.5.1.2.10 Groundwater 2.5-33 2.5.1.2.11 Geophysical Surveys 2.5-33 2.5.1.2.12 Soil and Rock Properties 2.5-34 2.5.2 Vibratory Ground Motion 2.5-34 2.5.2.1 Seismicity 2.5-34 2.5.2.2 Geologic Structures and Tectonic Activity 2.5-43 2.5.2.3 Correlation of Earthquake Activity With Geologic Structures to Tectonic Provinces 2.5-43 2.5.2.4 Maximum Earthquake Potential 2.5-44 2.5.2.5 Seismic Wave Transmission Characteristics of the Site 2.5-46 2.5.2.6 Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) 2.5-46 2.5.2.7 Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) 2.5-46 2.5.3 Surface Faulting 2.5-46 2.5.3.1 Geologic Conditions of the Site 2.5-46 2.5.3.2 Evidence of Fault Offset 2.5-46 2-iv
WBN TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 2.5.3.3 Earthquakes Associated With Capable Faults 2.5-55 2.5.3.4 Investigations of Capable Faults 2.5-55 2.5.3.5 Correlation of Epicenters With Capable Faults 2.5-57 2.5.3.6 Description of Capable Faults 2.5-57 2.5.3.7 Zone Requiring Detailed Faulting Investigation 2.5-57 2.5.3.8 Results of Faulting Investigations 2.5-57 2.5.4 Stability of Subsurface Materials 2.5-57 2.5.4.1 Geologic Features 2.5-57 2.5.4.2 Properties of Subsurface Materials 2.5-58 2.5.4.2.1 In Situ Soils 2.5-58 2.5.4.2.2 Rock 2.5-75 2.5.4.3 Exploration 2.5-91 2.5.4.4 Geophysical Surveys 2.5-91 2.5.4.4.1 Rock Characteristics 2.5-91 2.5.4.4.2 Soil Characteristics 2.5-91 2.5.4.5 Excavations and Backfill 2.5-94 2.5.4.5.1 Earthfill 2.5-94 2.5.4.5.2 Granular Fill 2.5-100 2.5.4.6 Groundwater Conditions 2.5-103 2.5.4.7 Response of Soil and Rock to Dynamic Loading 2.5-104 2.5.4.8 Liquefaction Potential 2.5-104 2.5.4.9 Earthquake Design Basis 2.5-115 2.5.4.10 Static Analysis 2.5-115 2.5.4.10.1 Settlement 2.5-115 2.5.4.10.2 Bearing Capacity 2.5-116 2.5.4.11 Safety-Related Criteria for Foundations 2.5-117 2.5.4.11.1 General 2.5-117 2.5.4.11.2 Rock Strength 2.5-117 2.5.4.11.3 Soil Strength 2.5-117 2.5.4.12 Techniques to Improve Subsurface Conditions 2.5-117 2.5.4.13 Construction Notes 2.5-120 2.5.5 Stability of Slopes 2.5-121 2.5.5.1 Slope Characteristics 2.5-121 2.5.5.1.1 ERCW Intake Channel Slopes 2.5-121 2.5.5.1.2 Underground Barrier for Protection Against Potential Soil Liquefaction 2.5-121 2.5.5.2 Design Criteria and Analysis 2.5-122 2.5.5.2.1 Design Criteria and Analyses for the Essential Raw Coolant Water Intake Channel Slopes 2.5-122 2.5.5.2.2 Additional Analyses Due to Unexpected Soil Conditions Encountered During Excavation of the Intake Channel 2.5-125 2.5.5.2.3 Design Criteria and Analysis for the Underground Barrier for the ERCW Pipeline and 1E Conduit Alignment 2.5-128 2.5.5.3 Logs of Borings 2.5-130 2-v
WBN TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 2.5.5.4 Compaction Specifications 2.5-130 2.5.6 Embankments 2.5-130 References 2.5-130 2-vi
WBN LIST OF TABLES Number Title 2.1-1 Watts Bar 1986 Peak Hour Recreation Visitation Within 10 Miles of the Site 2.1-1a Watts Bar 1990 Estimated Peak Hour Recreation Visitation Within 10 Miles of the Site 2.1-1b Watts Bar 2000 Estimated Peak Hour Recreation Visitation Within 10 Miles of the Site 2.1-1c Watts Bar 2010 Estimated Peak Hour Recreation Visitation Within 10 Miles of the Site 2.1-1d Watts Bar 2020 Estimated Peak Hour Recreation Visitation Within 10 Miles of the Site 2.1-1e Watts Bar 2030 Estimated Peak Hour Recreation Visitation Within 10 Miles of the Site 2.1-1f Watts Bar 2040 Estimated Peak Hour Recreation Visitation Within 10 Miles of the Site 2.1-1g School Enrollments in Area of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant - Historical Information 2.1-2 Watts Bar 1970 Population Distribution Within 10 Miles Of The Site 2.1-3 Watts Bar 1978 Population Distribution Within 10 Miles Of The Site 2.1-4 Watts Bar 1980 Population Distribution Within 10 Miles Of The Site 2.1-4a Watts Bar 1986 Population Distribution Within 10 Miles of the Site 2.1-5 Year 1990 Population Distribution Within 10 Miles Of The Site 2.1-6 Year 2000 Population Distribution Within 10 Miles Of The Site 2.1-7 Year 2010 Population Distribution Within 10 Miles Of The Site 2.1-8 Year 2020 Population Distribution Within 10 Miles Of The Site 2.1-8a Year 2030 Population Distribution Within 10 Miles Of The Site 2.1-8b Year 2040 Population Distribution Within 10 Miles Of The Site 2.1-9 Watts Bar 1970 Population Distribution Within 50 Miles Of The Site 2.1-10 Watts Bar 1978 Population Distribution Within 50 Miles Of The Site 2.1-11 Watts Bar 1980 Population Distribution Within 50 Miles Of The Site 2.1-11a Watts Bar 1986 Population Distribution Within 50 Miles Of The Site 2-vii
WBN LIST OF TABLES Number Title 2.1-12 Year 1990 Population Distribution Within 50 Miles Of The Site 2.1-13 Year 2000 Population Distribution Within 50 Miles Of The Site 2.1-14 Year 2010 Population Distribution Within 50 Miles Of The Site 2.1-15 Year 2020 Population Distribution Within 50 Miles Of The Site 2.1-15a Year 2030 Population Distribution Within 50 Miles Of The Site 2.1-15b Year 2040 Population Distribution Within 50 Miles Of The Site 2.2-1 Waterborne Hazardous Material Traffic (TONS) 2.2-2 Waterborne Hazardous Material Traffic Survey Results 2.3-1 Thunderstorm Day Frequencies 2.3-2 Temperature Data (FE), Decatur, Tennessee 2.3-3 Temperature Data (FE), Chattanooga, Tennessee 2.3-4 Watts Bar Dam Precipitation Data (Inches) 2.3-5 Snowfall Data (Inches), Decatur, Tennessee 2.3-6 Snowfall Data (Inches), Chattanooga and Knoxville, Tennessee 2.3-7 Average Relative Humidity Data (%) - Selected Hours, Chattanooga, Tennessee 2.3-8 Relative Humidity (%), Chattanooga, Tennessee 2.3-9 Absolute Humidity (gm/m3), Chattanooga, Tennessee 2.3-10 Relative Humidity (%), Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Meteorological Facility 2.3-11 Absolute Humidity (gm/m3), Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Meteorological Facility 2.3-12 Fog Data 2.3-13 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1974 - December 31, 1993 2-viii
WBN LIST OF TABLES Number Title 2.3-14 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1977 - December 31, 1993. 2.3-15 Wind Direction Persistence Data Disregarding Stability, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1974 - December 31, 1993 2.3-16 Wind Direction Persistence Data Disregarding Stability, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1977 - December 31, 1993 2.3-17 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January (74-93) 2.3-18 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January (77-93) 2.3-19 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, February (74-93) 2.3-20 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, February (77-93) 2.3-21 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, March (74-93) 2.3-22 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, March (77-93) 2.3-23 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, April (74-93) 2.3-24 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, April (77-93) 2.3-25 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, May (74-93) 2.3-26 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, May (77-93) 2.3-27 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, June (74-93) 2.3-28 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, June (77-93) 2-ix
WBN LIST OF TABLES Number Title 2.3-29 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, July (74-93) 2.3-30 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, July (77-93) 2.3-31 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, August (74-93) 2.3-32 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, August (77-93) 2.3-33 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, September (74-93) 2.3-34 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, September (77-93) 2.3-35 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, October (74-93) 2.3-36 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, October (77-93) 2.3-37 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, November (74-93) 2.3-38 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, November (77-93) 2.3-39 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, December (74-93) 2.3-40 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction Disregarding Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, December (77-93) 2.3-41 Percent Occurrence of Wind Speed for All Wind Directions July 1, 1971 - June 28, 1972 2.3-42 Percent Occurrences of Inversion Conditions and Pasquill Stability Classes A-G, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1974 - December 31, 1993 2.3-43 Deleted 2-x
WBN LIST OF TABLES Number Title 2.3-44 Inversion Persistence Data, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1974 - December 31, 1993 2.3-45 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction for Stability Class A, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1974 - December 31, 1993 2.3-46 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction for Stability Class B, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1974 - December 31, 1993 2.3-47 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction for Stability Class C, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1974 - December 31, 1993 2.3-48 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction for Stability Class D, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1974 - December 31, 1993 2.3-49 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction for Stability Class E, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1974 - December 31, 1993 2.3-50 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction for Stability Class F, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1974 - December 31, 1993 2.3-51 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction for Stability Class G, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1974 - December 31, 1993 2.3-52 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1974 - December 31, 1993 2.3-53 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction for Stability Class A, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1977 - December 31, 1993 2.3-54 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction for Stability Class B, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1977 - December 31, 1993 2.3-55 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction for Stability Class C, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1977 - December 31, 1993 2.3-56 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction for Stability Class D, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1977 - December 31, 1993 2.3-57 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction for Stability Class E, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1977 - December 31, 1993 2.3-58 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction for Stability Class F, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1977 - December 31, 1993 2-xi
WBN LIST OF TABLES Number Title 2.3-59 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Wind Direction for Stability Class G, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1977 - December 31, 1993 2.3-60 Joint percentage Frequencies of Wind Speed by Stability Class, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1977 - December 31, 1993 2.3-61 Calculated 1-Hour Average Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (X/Q) at Minimum Distance (1100 meters) Between Release Zone (100 m Radius) and Exclusion Area Boundary (1200 m Radius) for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2.3-61a Calculated 1-Hour Average Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (X/Q) at Minimum Distance (1100 meters) Between Release Zone (100 m Radius) and Exclusion Area Boundary (1200 m Radius) for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2.3-61b Calculated 1-Hour Average Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (X/Q) At Minimum Distance (1100 meters) Between Release Zone (100 m Radius) and Exclusion Area Boundary (1200 m Radius) for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2.3-62 Calculated 1-Hour Average and Annual Average Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (X/Q) at Low Population Zone Distance (4828 meters) for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2.3-62a Calculated 1-Hour Average and Annual Average Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (X/Q) at Low Population Zone Distance (4828 meters) for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2.3-62b Calculated 1-Hour Average and Annual Average Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (X/Q) at Low Population Zone Distance (4828 meters) for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2.3-63 Values of 5th Percentile Overall Site 8-Hour, 16-Hour, 3-Day, and 26-Day Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (X/Q) at Low Population Zone Distance (4828 meters) for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2.3-63a Values of 5th Percentile Overall Site 8-Hour, 16-Hour, 3-Day, and 26-Day Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (X/Q) at Low Population Zone Distance (4828 meters) for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2.3-63b Values of 5th Percentile Overall Site 8-Hour, 16-Hour, 3-Day, and 26-Day Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (X/Q) at Low Population Zone Distance (4828 meters) for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2.3-64 0.5th Percentile Sector Values of 8-Hour, 16-Hour, 3-Day, and 26-Day Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (X/Q) at Low Population Zone Outer Boundary Distance (4828 meters) for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2-xii
WBN LIST OF TABLES Number Title 2.3-64a 0.5th Percentile Sector Values of 8-Hour, 16-Hour, 3-Day, and 26-Day Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (X/Q) at Low Population Zone Outer Boundary Distance (4828 meters) for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2.3-64b 0.5th Percentile Sector Values of 8-Hour, 16-Hour, 3-Day, and 26-Day Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (X/Q) at Low Population Zone Outer Boundary Distance (4828 meters) for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2.3-65 Deleted 2.3-66 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (X/Q), sec/m3 for Design Basis Accident Analyses Based on Onsite Meteorological Data for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2.3-66a Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (X/Q), sec/m3 for Design Basis Accident Analyses Based on Onsite Meteorological Data for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2.3-66b Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (X/Q), sec/m3 for Design Basis Accident Analyses Based on Onsite Meteorological Data for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2.3-67 Dispersion Meteorology - Onsite 10-Meter Wind Data - 5th Percentile Values of Inverse Wind Speed (1/U) Distributions for Post-LOCA Control Bay Dose Calculations for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2.3-67a Dispersion Meteorology - Onsite 10-Meter Wind Data - 5th Percentile Values of Inverse Wind Speed (1/U) Distributions for Post-LOCA Control Bay Dose Calculations for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2.3-67b Dispersion Meteorology - Onsite 10-Meter Wind Data - 5th Percentile Values of Inverse Wind Speed (1/u) Distributions for Post-LOCA Control Bay Dose Calculations for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2.3-68 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Direction and Wind Speed for Different Stability Classes, Stability Class A (Delta T<=-1.9 C/100 M), Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Jan 1, 1986 - Dec 31, 2005 2.3-69 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Direction and Wind Speed for Different Stability Classes, Stability Class B (-1.9 < Delta T<=-1.7C/100 M), Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Jan 1, 1986 - Dec 31, 2005 2.3-70 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Direction and Wind Speed for Different Stability Classes, Stability Class C (-1.7 < Delta T<=-1.5C/100 M), Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Jan 1, 1986 - Dec 31, 2005 2-xiii
WBN LIST OF TABLES Number Title 2.3-71 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Direction and Wind Speed for Different Stability Classes, Stability Class D (-1.5 < Delta T<=-0.5 C/100 M), Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Jan 1, 1986 - Dec 31, 2005 2.3-72 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Direction and Wind Speed for Different Stability Classes, Stability Class E (-0.5 < Delta T<=1.5 C/100 M), Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Jan 1, 1986 - Dec 31, 2005 2.3-73 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Direction and Wind Speed for Different Stability Classes, Stability Class F (1.5 < Delta T<=4.0 C/100 M), Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Jan 1, 1986 - Dec 31, 2005 2.3-74 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Direction and Wind Speed for Different Stability Classes, Stability Class G (Delta T> 4.0 C/100 M), Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Jan 1, 1986 - Dec 31, 2005 2.3-75a Average Annual X/Qs Out to 50 miles 2.3-75b Average Annual D/Qs Out to 50 miles 2.3-76 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Direction and Wind Speed for Different Stability Classes, Stability Class A (Delta T< -1.9 C/100 M),Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Jan 1, 1991 - Dec 31, 2010 2.3-77 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Direction and Wind Speed for Different Stability Classes, Stability Class B (-1.9 < Delta T< = -1.7 C/100 M),Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Jan 1, 1991 - Dec 31, 2010 2.3-78 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Direction and Wind Speed for Different Stability Classes, Stability Class C (-1.7 < Delta T< = -1.5 C/100 M),Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Jan 1, 1991 - Dec 31, 2010 2.3-79 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Direction and Wind Speed for Different Stability Classes, Stability Class D (-1.5 < Delta T< = -0.5 C/100 M),Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Jan 1, 1991 - Dec 31, 2010 2.3-80 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Direction and Wind Speed for Different Stability Classes, Stability Class E (-0.5 < Delta T< = 1.5 C/100 M),Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Jan 1, 1991 - Dec 31, 2010 2.3-81 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Direction and Wind Speed for Different Stability Classes, Stability Class F (1.5 < Delta T< = 4.0 C/100 M),Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Jan 1, 1991 - Dec 31, 2010 2-xiv
WBN LIST OF TABLES Number Title 2.3-82 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind Direction and Wind Speed for Different Stability Classes, Stability Class G (Delta T> 4.0 C/100 M), Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Jan 1, 1991 - Dec 31, 2010 2.3-83 Joint Percentage Frequencies of Wind by Stability Classes, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Jan 1, 1991 - Dec 31, 2010 2.4-1 Location of Surface Water Supplies in the 58.9 Mile Reach of the Mainstream of the Tennessee River Between Watts Bar Dam (TRM 529.9) And Chickamauga Dam (TRM 271.0) 2.4-2 Facts About Major TVA Dams And Reservoirs 2.4-3 TVA Dams - River Mile Distances to WBNP 2.4-4 Facts About TVA Dams above Chickamauga 2.4-5 Facts About Non-TVA Dam and Reservoir 2.4-6 Flood Detention Capacity TVA Projects Above Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2.4-7 Peak Streamflow of the Tennessee River at Chattanooga, TN 2.4-8 Weir Length Description & Coefficients Of Discharge For Areas 3 and 4 2.4-9 Drainage Area Peak Discharge 2.4-10 Seasonal Variations of Rainfall (PMP) 2.4-11 Probable Maximum Storm Rainfall And Precipitation Excess 2.4-12 Historical Flood Events 2.4-13 Deleted 2.4-14 Floods From Postulated Seismic Failure Of Upstream Dams 2.4-15 Well And Spring Inventory Within 2-Mile Radius Of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Site 2.4-16 Summary of Results at the Dams for 7,980 square-mile, Bulls Gap centered, March PFM Storm Event 2.5-1 Soil Strength Tests - Historical Information 2-xv
WBN LIST OF TABLES Number Title 2.5-2 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant-Soil Investigation 500-KV Transformer Yard Summary Of Laboratory Test Data - Historical Information 2.5-3 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant-Soil Investigation 500-KV Switchyard Summary of Laboratory Test Data - Historical Information 2.5-4 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant-Soil Investigation North Cooling Tower Summary Of Laboratory Test Data - Historical Information 2.5-5 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant-Soil Investigation South Cooling Tower Summary Of Laboratory Test Data - Historical Information 2.5-6 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant-Diesel Generator Building Soil Investigation Summary Of Laboratory Test Data - Historical Information 2.5-7 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant-Soil Investigation Essential Raw Cooling Water Supply Summary Of Laboratory Test Data - Historical Information 2.5-8 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant-Soil Investigation Intake Channel Summary Of Laboratory Test Data - Historical Information 2.5-9 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant-Soil Investigation Class 1E Conduits Summary of Laboratory Test Data - Historical Information 2.5-10 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant-Soil Investigation Class 1E Conduits Summary Of Laboratory Test Data - Historical Information 2.5-11 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant-Soil Investigation Class 1E Conduits Summary Of Laboratory Test Data - Historical Information 2.5-12 Soil Design Values - Historical Information 2.5-13 Surface Settlements (S) And Average Deformation Moduli (E) For Center Of Flexible Circular Footings Loaded With 5 KSF - Historical Information 2.5-14 Effect Of Removing Top 10 Feet Of Rock On Settlement Of 10-Foot-Diameter Flexible Footing - Historical Information 2.5-15 Average In Situ Down-Hole Soil Dynamics Diesel Generator Building - Historical Information 2.5-16 Average Seismic Refraction Soil Dynamics Diesel Generator Building - Historical Information 2-xvi
WBN LIST OF TABLES Number Title 2.5-17 In-Situ Soil Dynamic Properties Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant Class 1E Conduits And ERCW Piping - Historical Information 2.5-17A Dynamic Soil Properties - Diesel Generator Building - Historical Information 2.5-17B Dynamic Soil Properties - Additional Diesel Generator Building - Historical Information 2.5-17C Dynamic Soil Properties - Refueling Water Storage Tanks - Historical Information 2.5-17D Dynamic Soil Properties - North Steam Valve Room - Historical Information 2.5-18 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Borrow Investigation Summary Of Laboratory Test Data
- Historical Information 2.5-19 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Additional Borrow Areas Summary Of Laboratory Test Data
- Historical Information 2.5-19A Soil Properties, Borrow Area 7 - Historical Information 2.5-20 Grout Usage - Historical Information 2.5-21 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Intake Channel Summary Of Laboratory Test Data Remolded Channel Area Soils - Historical Information 2.5-22 TVA Soil Testing Laboratory Summary Of Test Results Watts Bar Liquefaction Study
- Historical Information 2.5-23 Waterway Experiment Station, Corps Of Engineers Summary Of Test Results Watts Bar Liquefaction Study - Historical Information 2.5-24 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ERCW And HPFP Systems Soil Investigation Summary Of Laboratory Test Data - Historical Information 2.5-25 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Summary Of Laboratory Test Data Borrow Soil Classes -
Historical Information 2.5-26 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Intake Channel Sand Material Summary Of Cyclic Loading Test Data - Historical Information 2.5-27 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Intake Channel Clay Material Summary Of Static Test Data - Historical Information 2-xvii
WBN LIST OF TABLES Number Title 2.5-28 Drill Rod Lengths And Weights Versus SPT Sample Depths Applying To 1976 And 1979 Reports - Historical Information 2.5-29 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ERCW Conduit 1976 Report - Historical Information 2.5-30 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ERCW Conduit 1979 Report - Historical Information 2.5-31 Recommended Procedures And Guidelines For Standard Penetration Testing - Historical Information 2.5-32 Drill Rod Lengths And Weights Versus SPT Sample Depths 1981 Report - Historical Information 2.5-33 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ERCW Conduit 1981 Report - Historical Information 2.5-34 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Essential Raw Cooling Water Piping System Liquefaction Investigation Summary Of Laboratory Test Data - Historical Information 2.5-35 Laboratory Procedure For Performing Cyclic Triaxial R Tests - Historical Information 2.5-36 Results Of Stress-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Test On ERCW Route Soils - Historical Information 2.5-37 Summary Of Classification Data - Historical Information 2.5-38 Summary Of Classification Data - Historical Information 2.5-39 Summary Of Classification Data - Historical Information 2.5-40 Summary Of Classification Data - Historical Information 2.5-41 Comparison Of Classification And Density Data Of Test Pit And Undistributed Boring Samples - Historical Information 2.5-42 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Soil-Supported Structures Representative Basal Gravel Samples - Summary Of Laboratory Test Data - Historical Information 2.5-43 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Soil-Supported Structures Undistributed Sampling Summary of Laboratory Test Data - Historical Information 2.5-44 WBNP - Bearing Capacity - Category I Soil-Supported Structures Adopted Soil Properties For Bearing Capacity Determination - Historical Information 2.5-45 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ERCW Liquefaction Trench A - Summary Of Laboratory Test Data Borrow Soil Classes - Historical Information 2-xviii
WBN LIST OF TABLES Number Title 2.5-45a Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ERCW Liquefaction, Trench A Supplemental Borrow Summary Of Laboratory Test Data Borrow Soil Classes - Historical Information 2.5-46 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ERCW Liquefaction Trench B Summary Of Laboratory Test Data Borrow Soil Classes - Historical Information 2.5-47 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ERCW Liquefaction Borrow Area 9 Summary Of Laboratory Test Data Borrow Soil Classes - Historical Information 2.5-48 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ERCW Liquefaction Borrow Area 10 Summary Of Laboratory Test Data Borrow Soil Classes - Historical Information 2.5-49 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ERCW Liquefaction Borrow Area 11 Summary Of Laboratory Test Data Borrow Soil Classes - Historical Information 2.5-50 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ERCW Liquefaction Borrow Area 12 Summary Of Laboratory Test Data Borrow Soil Classes - Historical Information 2.5-51 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ERCW Liquefaction Borrow Area 13 Summary Of Laboratory Test Data Borrow Soil Classes - Historical Information 2.5-52 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ERCW Liquefaction Borrow Area 2C Summary Of Laboratory Test Data Borrow Soil Classes - Historical Information 2.5-53 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ERCW Liquefaction Borrow Area 2C Extension Summary Of Laboratory Test Data Borrow Soil Groups - Historical Information 2.5-54 Summary Of Laboratory Test Data - Historical Information 2.5-55 Granular Material Design Values Section 1032 Material - Historical Information 2.5-56 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant - Relative Density Test Results On Engineered Granular Fill Beneath The Diesel Generator Building - Historical Information 2.5-57 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant - Sieve Analysis Of 1032 Gravel - Tennessee Valley Authority - Historical Information 2.5-58 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ERCW - Piezometers Water Level Readings - Historical Information 2.5-59 ERCW Route Liquefaction Evaluation Maximum And Average Element Stresses And Peak Acceleration At The Top Of Each Layer - Historical Information 2-xix
WBN LIST OF TABLES Number Title 2.5-60 Factors Of Safety with Depth When The Water Table Is Not Considered - Historical Information 2.5-61 Factors Of Safety With Depth Assuming The Water Table Is 16.5 Feet Below Ground Surface - Historical Information 2.5-62 Summary Of SPT Samples Of Silty Sands (SM) Below ERCW Pipelines Having Factor Of Safety Less Than Unity For 0.4 G Peak Ground Surface Acceleration - Historical Information 2.5-63 Summary Of SPT Samples Of Silts (ML) Below ERCW Pipelines Having Factor Of Safety Less Than Unity For 0.4.G Peak Ground Surface Acceleration - Historical Information 2.5-64 Summary Of SPT Samples Of Silty Sands (SM) Below Electrical Conduits Having Factor Of Safety Less Than Unity For 0.4. G Peak Ground Surface Acceleration - Historical Information 2.5-65 Strain Criteria For Determining Potential Settlement Of Soils Subject To Earthquake With Peak Top-Of-Ground Acceleration Of 0.40G At Watts Bar Nuclear Plant - Historical Information 2.5-66 WBNP - Soil Bearing Capacities And Factors Of Safety For Soil-Supported Category I Structures - Historical Information 2.5-67 Settlement Monitoring Program Diesel Generator Building - Historical Information 2.5-68 Settlement Monitoring Program Waste Management Building - Historical Information 2.5-69 Settlement Monitoring Program Intake Pumping Station - Historical Information 2.5-70 Settlement Monitoring Program Powerhouse - Historical Information 2.5-71 Differential Settlement Between Rock Supported Structures - Historical Information 2.5-72 Settlement Monitoring Program Of Category I Structures - Historical Information 2.5-73 Summary Of Ground-Water Level Estimates - Historical Information 2-xx
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.1-1 Location Of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Site 2.1.2 Watts Bar Site Location 0-50 Miles 2.1-3 Watts Bar Site Location 0-10 Miles 2.1-4a Watts Bar Topographic Map and Reservation Boundary 2.1-4b Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Site Boundary/Exclusion Area Boundary 2.1-5 Main Plant General Plan 2.1-6 1994 Cumulative Population Within 30 Miles Of The Site 2.1-7 2034 Cumulative Population Within 30 Miles Of The Site 2.2-1 Airways In The Area Of The Plant 2.2-2 Military Airways In The Area Of The Plant 2.3-1 Normal Sea Level Pressure Distribution Over North America And The North Atlantic Ocean 2.3-2 Total Number Of Forecast-Days Of High Meteorological Potential For Air Pollution In A 5 Year Period 2.3-3 Climatological Data Sources In Area Around Watts Bar Site 2.3-4 Wind Speed at 9.72 meters All Stability classes, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1974 - December 31, 1993 2.3-5 Wind Speed at 46.36 Meters All Stability classes, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1977 - December 31, 1993 2.3-6A Diuranal Distributions of A, B, C, And D Stabilities 2.3-6B Diuranal Distribution of E, F, And G Stabilities 2.3-7 Wind Speed at 9.72 Meters for Stability Class A, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1974 - December 31, 1993 2.3-7a Wind Speed at 9.72 Meters for Stability Class A, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1991 - December 31, 2010 2-xxi
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.3-8 Wind Speed at 9.72 Meters for Stability Class B, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1974 - December 31, 1993 2.3-8a Wind Speed at 9.72 Meters for Stability Class B, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1991 - December 31, 2010 2.3-9 Wind Speed at 9.72 Meters for Stability Class C, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1974 - December 31, 1993 2.3-9a Wind Speed at 9.72 Meters for Stability Class C, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1991 - December 31, 2010 2.3-10 Wind Speed at 9.72 Meters for Stability Class D, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1974 - December 31, 1993 2.3-10a Wind Speed at 9.72 Meters for Stability Class D, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1991 - December 31, 2010 2.3-11 Wind Speed at 9.72 Meters for Stability Class E, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1974 - December 31, 1993 2.3-11a Wind Speed at 9.72 Meters for Stability Class E, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1991 - December 31, 2010 2.3-12 Wind Speed at 9.72 Meters for Stability Class F, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1974 - December 31, 1993 2.3-12a Wind Speed at 9.72 Meters for Stability Class F, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1991 - December 31, 2010 2.3-13 Wind Speed at 9.72 Meters for Stability Class G, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1974 - December 31, 1993 2.3-13a Wind Speed at 9.72 Meters for Stability Class G, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1991 - December 31, 2010 2.3-14 Topography Within 10 Mile Radius - N 2.3-15 Topography Within 10 Mile Radius - NNE 2.3-16 Topography Within 10 Mile Radius - NE 2.3-17 Topography Within 10 Mile Radius - ENE 2.3-18 Topography Within 10 Mile Radius - E 2-xxii
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.3-19 Topography Within 10 Mile Radius - ESE 2.3-20 Topography Within 10 Mile Radius - SE 2.3-21 Topography Within 10 Mile Radius - SSE 2.3-22 Topography Within 10 Mile Radius - S 2.3-23 Topography Within 10 Mile Radius - SSW 2.3-24 Topography Within 10 Mile Radius - SW 2.3-25 Topography Within 10 Mile Radius - WSW 2.3-26 Topography Within 10 Mile Radius - W 2.3-27 Topography Within 10 Mile Radius - WNW 2.3-28 Topography Within 10 Mile Radius - NW 2.3-29 Topography Within 10 Mile Radius - NNW 2.4-1 USGS Hydrologic Units within the Tennessee River Watershed 2.4-1a Extent of HEC-RAS Modeling 2.4-2 TVA Water Control System 2.4-3 Seasonal Operating Curve 2.4-4 Reservoir Elevation - Storage Relationship 2.4-5 Tennessee River Mile 464.2 - Distribution of Floods at Chattanooga, TN 2.4-6 Probable Maximum Precipitation Isohyets for 21,400 Sq. Mi. Event, Downstream Placement 2.4-7 Probable Maximum Precipitation Isohyets for 7980 Sq. Mi. Event, Centered at Bulls Gap, TN 2.4-8 Rainfall Time Distribution - Typical Mass Curve 2.4-9 Drainage Areas above Chickamauga Dam 2.4-10 Unit Hydrographs 2.4-11 Discharge Rating Curve 2.4-12 Fort Loudoun & Tellico HEC-RAS Schematic 2-xxiii
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.4-13 Unsteady Flow Model Fort Loudoun Reservoir March 1973 Flood 2.4-14 Unsteady Flow Model Fort Loudoun-Tellico Reservoir May 2003 Flood 2.4-15 Watts Bar HEC-RAS Unsteady Flow Model Schematic 2.4-16 Unsteady Flow Model Watts Bar Reservoir March 1973 Flood 2.4-17 Unsteady Flow Model Watts Bar Reservoir May 2003 Flood 2.4-18 Chickamauga HEC-RAS Unsteady Flow Model Schematic 2.4-19 Unsteady Flow Model Chickamauga Reservoir March 1973 Flood 2.4-20 Unsteady Flow Model Chickamauga Reservoir May 2003 Flood 2.4-21 Chickamauga Steady State Profile Comparison 2.4-22 Tailwater Rating Curve, Watts Bar Dam 2.4-23 PMF Discharge and Elevation Hydrograph at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2.4-24 Deleted 2.4-25 Hydrographs of Dams 2.4-26 Probable Maximum Flood and Bottom Profiles 2.4-27 Main Plant General Grading Plan 2.4-28 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Wind Wave Fetch 2.4-29 Extreme Value Analysis 30-Minute Wind Speed from the Southwest Chattanooga, TN 1948-74 2.4-30 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2.4-31 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2.4-32 Total Failure Section Plot 2.4-33 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2.4-34 Deleted 2.4-35 Deleted 2.4-36 Deleted 2-xxiv
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.4-37 Deleted 2.4-38 Deleted 2.4-39 Deleted 2.4-40 Deleted 2.4-40a Main Plant Site Grading and Drainage Systems for Flood Studies 2.4-40b Main Plant General Plan 2.4-40c Yard Site Grading and Drainage System for Flood Studies 2.4-40d Main Plant Perimeter Roads Plan And Profile (3 Sheets) 2.4-40e Access Highway (2 Sheets) 2.4-40f Main Plant Main Plant Tracks Plan (3 Sheets) 2.4-40g Yard Grading Drainage And Surfacing Transformer And Switchyard (3 Sheets) 2.4-40h Probable Maximum Precipitation Point Rainfall 2.4-40i thru Deleted 2.4-40l 2.4-41 Deleted 2.4-42 Deleted 2.4-43 Deleted 2.4-44 Deleted 2.4-45 Deleted 2.4-46 Deleted 2.4-47 Deleted 2.4-47a Deleted 2.4-47b Deleted 2.4-47c Deleted 2.4-48 Deleted 2-xxv
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.4-49 Deleted 2.4-50 Deleted 2.4-51 Deleted 2.4-52 Deleted 2.4-53 Deleted 2.4-54 Deleted 2.4-55 Deleted 2.4-56 Deleted 2.4-57 Deleted 2.4-58 Deleted 2.4-59 Deleted 2.4-60 Deleted 2.4-61 Deleted 2.4-62 Deleted 2.4-63 Deleted 2.4-64 Deleted 2.4-65 Deleted 2.4-66 Deleted 2.4-67 Deleted 2.4-68 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2.4-69 Deleted 2.4-70 Deleted 2.4-71 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2.4-72 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2-xxvi
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.4-73 Deleted 2.4-74 Deleted 2.4-75 Deleted 2.4-76 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2.4-77 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2.4-78 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2.4-79 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2.4-80 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2.4-81 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2.4-82 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2.4-83 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2.4-84 Deleted 2.4-85 Deleted 2.4-86 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2.4-87 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2.4-88 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2.4-89 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2.4-90 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2.4-91 SSE With Epicenter In North Knoxville Vicinity 2-xxvii
WBN-3 LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.4-92 Deleted 2.4-93 SSE With Epicenter In West Knoxville Vicinity 2.4-94 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2.4-95 Deleted 2.4-96 Deleted 2.4-97 Deleted 2.4-98 General Grading Plan 2.4-99 Grading Plan Intake Channel 2.4-100 Deleted 2.4-101 Deleted 2.4-102 Well And Spring Inventory Within 2-Mile Radius Of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Site 2.4-103 Water-Level Fluctuations In Observation Wells At The Watts Bar Site 2.4-104 Locations Of Ground-Water Observation Wells 2.4-105 Generalized Water-Table Contour Map 2.4-106 Mechanical - Flow Diagram Fuel Pool Cooling And Cleaning System 2.4-107 Powerhouse Units 1 & 2 Flow Diagram - Residual Heat Removal System 2.4-108 Schematic Flow Diagram Flood Protection Provisions Open Reactor Cooling 2.4-109 Schematic Flow Diagram Flood Protection Provisions Open Reactor Cooling 2.4-110 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Rainfall Flood Warning Time Basis for Safe Shutdown for Plant Flooding- Winter Events 2.4-111 Deleted 2.4-112 OBE with Epicenter within Area Shown 2.4-113 Deleted 2.4-114 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2-xxviii
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.4-115 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 2.4-116 WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 ALL SECTION 2.5 FIGURES - HISTORICAL INFORMATION 2.5-1 Regional Physiographic Map 2.5-2 Regional Geologic Map 2.5-3 Subregional Geologic Section (3 Sheets) 2.5-4 Regional Tectonic Map 2.5-5 Regional Bouguer Gravity Anomaly Map 2.5-6 Regional Magnetic Map 2.5-7 Regional Fault Map 2.5-8 Subregional Fault Map 2.5-9 Geologic Map Of Plant Area (North Segment) 2.5-10 Geologic Map Of Plant Area (South Segment) 2.5-11 Geologic Section Through Plant Area (2 Sheets) 2.5-12 Core Drill Hole And Seismic Refraction Locations 2.5-13 Core Drill Layout And Summary 2.5-14 Graphic Log Hole 1 Sta. C-60+00 2.5-15 Graphic Log Hole 2 Sta. C-64+00 2.5-16 Graphic Log Hole 3 Sta. C-68+00 2.5-17 Graphic Log Hole 4 Sta. E-60+00 2.5-18 Graphic Log Hole 5 Sta. E-62+00 2.5-19 Graphic Log Hole 6 Sta. E-64+00 2.5-20 Graphic Log Hole 7 Sta. E-66+00 2.5-21 Graphic Log Hole 8 Sta. E-88+40 2-xxix
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-22 Graphic Log Hole 9 Sta. G-60+00 2.5-23 Graphic Log Hole 10 Sta. G-62+00 2.5-24 Graphic Log Hole 11 Sta. G-64+00 2.5-25 Graphic Log Hole 12 Sta. G-66+00 2.5-26 Graphic Log Hole 13 Sta. G-68+00 2.5-27 Graphic Log Hole 14 Sta. J-60+00 2.5-28 Graphic Log Hole 15 Sta. J-62+00 2.5-29 Graphic Log Hole 16 Sta. J-64+00 2.5-30 Graphic Log Hole 17 Sta. J-66+00 2.5-31 Graphic Log Hole 18 Sta. J-82+25 2.5-32 Graphic Log Hole 19 Sta. L-60+00 2.5-33 Graphic Log Hole 20 Sta. L-61+00 2.5-34 Graphic Log Hole 21 Sta. L-62+00 2.5-35 Graphic Log Hole 22 Sta. L-64+00 2.5-36 Graphic Log Hole 23 Sta. L-66+00 2.5-37 Graphic Log Hold 24 Sta. L-68+00 2.5-38 Graphic Log Hole 25 Sta. M-59+00 2.5-39 Graphic Log Hole 26 Sta. M-60+00 2.5-40 Graphic Log Hole 27 Sta. M-61+00 2.5-41 Graphic Log Hole 28 Sta. M-62+00 2.5-42 Graphic Log Hole 29 Sta. M-63+00 2.5-43 Graphic Log Hole 30 Sta. M-64+00 2.5-44 Graphic Log Hole 31 Sta. M-65+00 2.5-45 Graphic Log Hole 32 Sta. M-66+00 2.5-46 Graphic Log Hole 33 Sta. N-59+00 2-xxx
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-47 Graphic Log Hole 34 Sta. N-60+00 2.5-48 Graphic Log Hole 35 Sta. N-61+00 2.5-49 Graphic Log Hole 36 Sta. N-62+00 2.5-50 Graphic Log Hole 37 Sta. N-63+00 2.5-51 Graphic Log Hold 38 Sta. N-64+00 2.5-52 Graphic Log Hole 39 Sta. N-65+00 2.5-53 Graphic Log Hole 40 Sta. N-66+00 2.5-54 Graphic Log Hole 41 Sta. 0-60+00 2.5-55 Graphic Log Hole 42 Sta. 0-61+00 2.5-56 Graphic Log Hole 43 Sta. 0-62+00 2.5-57 Graphic Log Hole 44 Sta. 0-63+00 2.5-58 Graphic Log Hole 45 Sta. 0-64+00 2.5-59 Graphic Log Hole 46 Sta. 0-65+00 2.5-60 Graphic Log Hole 47 Sta. 0-66+00 2.5-61 Graphic Log Hole 48 Sta. P-60+00 2.5-62 Graphic Log Hole 49 Sta. P-62+00 2.5-63 Graphic Log Hole 50 Sta. P-63+00 2.5-64 Graphic Log Hole 51 Sta. P-64+00 2.5-65 Graphic Log Hole 52 Sta. P-65+00 2.5-66 Graphic Log Hole 53 Sta. P-66+00 2.5-67 Graphic Log Hole 54 Sta. P-68+00 2.5-68 Graphic Log Hole 55 Sta. R-62+00 2.5-69 Graphic Log Hole 56 Sta. R-64+00 2-xxxi
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-70 Special Studies Layout And Summary 2.5-71 Graphic Log And Elastic Moduli Sta. L-61+00 (2 Sheets) 2.5-72 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. L-61+00 Depth 32.0 - 46.5 2.5-73 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. L-61+00 Depth 47.0 - 61.5 2.5-74 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. L-61+00 Depth 62.0 - 76.5 2.5-75 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. L-61+00 Depth 77.0 - 91.5 2.5-76 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. L-61+00 Depth 92.0 - 106.5 2.5-77 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. L-61+00 Depth 107.0 - 121.5 2.5-78 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. L-61+00 Depth 122.0 - 136.5 2.5-79 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. L-61+00 Depth 137.0 - 151.5 2.5-80 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. L-61+00 Depth 152.0 - 166.5 2.5-81 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. L-61+00 Depth 167.0 - 176.0 2.5-82 Graphic Log and Elastic Moduli Sta. M-63+00 2.5-83 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. M-63+00 Depth 44.0 - 58.5 2.5-84 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. M-63+00 Depth 59.0 - 73.5 2.5-85 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. M-63+00 Depth 74.0 - 88.5 2.5-86 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. M-63+00 Depth 89.0 - 90.0 2.5-87 Graphic Log and Elastic Moduli Sta. N-61+00 2.5-88 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. N-61+00 Depth 35.0 - 49.5 2.5-89 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. N-61+00 Depth 50.0 - 64.5 2.5-90 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. N-61+00 Depth 65.0 - 79.5 2.5-91 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. N-61+00 Depth 80.0 - 92.0 2.5-92 Graphic Log and Elastic Modula Sta. N-62+00 2.5-93 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. N-62+00 Depth 45.0 - 59.5 2.5-94 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. N-62+00 Depth 60.0 - 70.0 2-xxxii
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-95 Graphic Log and Elastic Moduli Sta. 0-60+00 2.5-96 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. 0-60+00 Depth 38.0 - 52.5 2.5-97 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. 0-60+00 Depth 53.0 - 67.5 2.5-98 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. 0-60+00 Depth 68.0 - 80.0 2.5-99 Graphic Log and Elastic Moduli Sta. 0-61+00 2.5-100 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. 0-61+00 Depth 37.0 - 51.5 2.5-101 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. 0-61+00 Depth 52.0 - 66.5 2.5-102 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. 0-61+00 Depth 67.0 - 81.5 2.5-103 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. 0-61+00 Depth 82.0 - 92.0 2.5-104 Graphic Log And Elastic Moduli Sta. 0-62+00 2.5-105 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. 0-62+00 Depth 43.0 - 57.5 2.5-106 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. 0-62+00 Depth 58.0 - 72.5 2.5-107 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. 0-62+00 Depth 73.0 - 87.5 2.5-108 3-D Elastic Properties Tabulation Sta. 0-62+00 Depth 88.0 - 101.0 2.5-109 Cross-Hole Dynamic Sections And Summary 2.5-110 Plan View Geologic Map Of Reactor, Auxiliary And Control Buildings 2.5-111 Plan View Geologic Map Of Turbine Building 2.5-112 Geologic Section Along A+8 And A+14 Lines From T6 To T11 2.5-113 Geologic Section Along N Line From Cl To C13 2.5-114 Section Along A4+9.5 From T+3.5 To W+12.5 Looking West 2.5-115 Geologic Section and Panoramic Photograph Q-4 Line From A4-3 To A12+3 2.5-116 Geologic Sections Auxiliary And Turbine Buildings 2.5-117 Geologic Sections And Panoramic Photographs (Unit 2) 2.5-118 Geologic Sections And Panoramic Photographs (Unit 1) 2-xxxiii
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-119 Geologic Sections And Panoramic Photographs Of Reactor 2 East Perimeter Wall 2.5-120 Geologic Section and Panoramic Photograph Of Reactor 1 West Perimeter Wall 2.5-121 Geologic Plan And Sections Intake Structure Foundation 2.5-122 Generalized Geologic Section And Soil Profile 2.5-123 Fault Shown Cutting Across Auxiliary Building At A4+28 Feet And East-West Reactor Centerline, Through SE Perimeter Of Reactor #1, And Into Auxiliary Building West Wall Near U Line. Viewed Southwest. 2.5-124 Fault In Auxiliary Building Wall, Approximately 9 Feet West Of A5 And 6 Feet South Of East-West Reactor Centerline. Fault Continues Across SE Perimeter Of Reactor
#1. Viewed Southwest.
2.5-125 Minor Thrust Fault And Associated One-Eighth Inch Clay Seam Located In East Foundation Cut At Q Line And C13+12 Feet. Viewed East. 2.5-126 Closeup Of Reactor #1 Normal Fault At 72 Degrees. Viewed West. 2.5-127 Closeup Of Fault In Reactor #1 Cavity West Wall Between Elevations Of 678.5 And 690.0 Feet. Viewed West. Scale: 1 Inch = 0.56 Feet. 2.5-128 Fault In Auxiliary Building At All And East-West Reactor Centerline. Fault Continues NE Through NW Perimeter Of Reactor #2 Building. Viewed Northeast. 2.5-129 Gravity Or Normal Fault On Northeast Reactor #1 Perimeter At 233 Degrees. Fault Plane Dips North At 40 Degrees. Viewed West. 2.5-130 Fault In Reactor #2 East Wall At Approximately 130 Degrees. Viewed East. 2.5-131 Fault In Reactor #2 Cavity Wall At Approximately 354 Degrees. Elevation 680.0 at Base. Viewed Southwest. 2.5-132 Fault In South Wall Of Discharge Channel Showing Truncation By Overlying Terrace Gravel Deposit. 2-xxxiv
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-133 Fault In North Wall Of Discharge Channel Showing Truncation By Terrace Gravel Deposit. 2.5-134 Fault Truncation By Terrace Gravel Deposit At 20 Feet East Of A8 And 18.50 Feet North Of Y. Elevation At Bench Cut Is 706.35. Viewed North. 2.5-135 Fault In Vertical Excavation Cut At 20 Feet East Of A8 And 18.50 Feet North Of Y. Viewed North. 2.5-136 Inset Area. Blue-Grey Clay Seam Along Fault Trace Where Truncated By Terrace Gravel Deposit. Location: 20 Feet East Of A8 And 18.50 Feet North Of Y. Viewed North. 2.5-137 Saprolite - Terrace Gravel Contact. Hematitic Crusts Are Seen To Be Dispersed At Several Levels In The Terrace Gravel. Viewed South In The Exhaust Cut Approximately 150 Feet East Of The Powerhouse Foundation. 2.5-138 Site Of Wood Specimen Collection For Carbon 14 Age Dating. Location Is 3 Feet Above Terrace Gravel Deposit. Scale: Opened Brunton Compass = 8.5 Inches. Location: Approximately 18.51 North Of Y At A5 Line. Approximate Elevation 717.5. 2.5-139 Layout Diagram For Horizontal And Angle Holes 2.5-140 Plane Intersecting Disintegrated Shale Pocket 2.5-141 Plane View Onto The 673 Elevation 2.5-142 Plane View Onto The 671 Elevation 2.5-143 Drill Layout Diagram For Vertical Holes Viewed Onto The 671 Elevation 2.5-144 Reactor 2 Grout Layout 2.5-145 Earthquake Epicenters 2.5-146 Major Earthquakes In United States Through 1972 2.5-147 Isoseismal Map Maximum Effects 1811-1812 New Madrid Earthquake 2.5-148 Isoseismal Map 1811 New Madrid Earthquake 2-xxxv
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-149 Felt Area Maps 2.5-150 Isoseismal Map 1886 Charleston, S.C. Earthquake 2.5-151 Felt Area Map East Tennessee Earthquake Of April 17, 1913 2.5-152 Isoseismal Map 1916 Southern Appalachian Earthquake 2.5-153 Isoseismal Map 1916 Alabama Earthquake 2.5-154 Isoseismal Map 1924 Southern Appalachian Earthquake 2.5-155 Felt Area Map 1940 Chattanooga Earthquake 2.5-156 Isoseismal Map 1968 Southern Illinois Earthquake 2.5-157 Felt Area Map East Tennessee Earthquake July 13, 1969 2.5-158 Isoseismal Map Elsgood, West Virginia Earthquake (November 20, 1969) 2.5-159 Isoseismal Map Maryville-Alcoa Earthquake November 30, 1973 2.5-160 Seismic Reflection Profile 2.5-161 Index Map - All Earthquakes Latitude 32.5-38.5 North Longitude 80.5-89.0 West 2.5-162 Earthquake Listing All Earthquakes Latitude 32.5-38.5 North Longitude 80.5-89.0 West 2.5-163 Earthquake Listing All Earthquakes Latitude 32.5-38.5 North Longitude 80.5-89.0 West 2.5-164 Earthquake Listing All Earthquakes Latitude 32.5-38.5 North Longitude 80.5-89.0 West 2.5-165 Earthquake Listing All Earthquakes Latitude 32.5-38.5 North Longitude 80.5-89.0 West 2.5-166 Earthquake Listing All Earthquakes Latitude 32.5-38.5 North Longitude 80.5-89.0 West 2-xxxvi
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-167 Earthquake Listing All Earthquakes Latitude 32.5-38.5 North Longitude 80.5-89.0 West 2.5-168 Earthquake Listing All Earthquakes Latitude 32.5-38.5 North Longitude 80.5-89.0 West 2.5-169 Earthquake Listing All Earthquakes Latitude 32.5-38.5 North Longitude 80.5-89.0 West 2.5-170 Index Map - Earthquakes 4.3 Richter Or Greater Latitude 32.5-38.5 North Longitude 80.5-89.0 west 2.5-171 Earthquake Listing 4.3 Richter Or Greater Latitude 32.5-38.5 North Longitude 80.5-89.0 West 2.5-172 Earthquake Listing 4.3 Richter Or Greater Latitude 32.5-38.5 North Longitude 80.5-89.0 West 2.5-173 Earthquake Listing 4.3 Richter Or Greater Latitude 32.5-38.5 North Longitude 80.5-89.0 West 2.5-174 Index Map - Earthquakes 4.3 Richter Or Greater Latitude 30-37 North Longitude 78-92 West 2.5-175 Earthquakes Listing 4.3 Richter Or Greater Latitude 30-37 North Longitude 78-92 West 2.5-176 Earthquakes Listing 4.3 Richter Or Greater Latitude 30-37 North Longitude 78-92 West 2.5-177 Earthquakes Listing 4.3 Richter Or Greater Latitude 30-37 North Longitude 78-92 West 2.5-178 Earthquakes Listing 4.3 Richter Or Greater Latitude 30-37 North Longitude 78-92 West 2.5-179 Earthquakes Listing 4.3 Richter Or Greater Latitude 30-37 North Longitude 78-92 West 2.5-180 Earthquakes Listing 4.3 Richter Or Greater Latitude 30-37 North Longitude 78-92 West 2-xxxvii
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-181 Index Map - Earthquakes 6.3 Richter Or Greater Latitude 30-37 North Longitude 78-92 West 2.5-182 Earthquakes Listing 6.3 Richter Or Greater Latitude 30-37 North Longitude 78-92 West 2.5-183 Earthquake Listing List Of References 2.5-184 Earthquake Listing Notes 2.5-185 Yard Soil Borings Location Plan 2.5-185A Yard Soil Borings Location Plan 2.5-186 Transformer Yard & Switchyard Soil Investigation 2.5-187 Cooling Towers Soil Investigation 2.5-188 Pumping Station Foundation Investigation 2.5-189 Office & Service Building Foundation Investigation 2.5-190 Diesel Generator Building Sections AA & BB Foundation Investigation 2.5-191 Essential Cooling Water Supply Soil Investigation 2.5-192 Intake Channel, Section DD Foundation Investigation 2.5-193 Intake Channel, Section EE Foundation Investigation 2.5-194 Intake Channel, Section CC Foundation Investigation 2.5-195 Intake Channel, Section FF Foundation Investigation 2.5-196 Class 1E Conduits Soil Investigation 2.5-197 Class 1E Conduits Soil Investigation 2.5-198 Soil Investigation Borings For ERCW & HPFP Systems 2.5-199 Soil Investigation Borings For ERCW & HPFP Systems 2-xxxviii
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-200 Soil Investigation Borings For ERCW & HPFP Systems 2.5-201 Soil Investigation Borings For ERCW & HPFP Systems 2.5-202 Soil Investigation Borings For ERCW & HPFP Systems 2.5-203 Intake Channel Trench 2.5-204 Intake Channel Test 1 2.5-205 Intake Channel Strength Evaluation Test 2 2.5-206 Class 1E Conduit Alignment Q (Unconsolidated, Undrained, Undisturbed) Samples 2.5-207 ERCW Piping and 1E Conduit Alignments R (Consolidated - Undrained) Silt and Clay Samples Natural Moisture Content 2.5-208 Class 1E Conduit Alignment S-Direct Shear 2.5-209 Type 1-Soft Shale Type 2-Hard Shale - Type 3 Limestone 2.5-210 Location Of Test Holes 2.5-211 Deformation Moduli From Menard Pressuremeter Tests 2.5-212 Comparison Of Moduli Obtained With Menard Pressuremeter And Birdwell 3D Sonic Logger 2.5-213 Influence Factors For Determining Stresses Below The Center Of Flexible Circular Footing 10, 50, 100, And 200 Ft. In Diameter 2.5-214 Eia For Holes Tested With Menard Pressuremeter 2.5-215 Settlement At Center Of Flexible Circular Footing Loaded With SKSF 2.5-216 Correlation Used To Estimate Average Moduli For Holes Where Detailed Calculations Were Not Made. 2.5-217 Distribution Of Deformation Moduli For 10 Foot Diameter Footings 2.5-218 Simplified Plan Of Lock Foundation Showing Location Of Modulus Calculations 2-xxxix
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-219 Settlement Of Face Of Block R-10 (Point F, fig. 16) 2.5-220 Yard Soil Investigations Borrow Soils 2.5-221 Yard Soil Investigations Borrow Soils 2.5-221A Yard Soil Investigations Borrow Soils 2.5-222 Borrow Investigation 2.5-223 Additional Borrow Exploration 2.5-224 Additional Borrow Area 4 2.5-225 Main Plant Excavation & Backfill Category I Structures 2.5-226 Main Plant Excavation & Backfill Category I Structures 2.5-226A Main Plant Excavation and Backfill Category I Structures 2.5-227 Typical In-Situ Soil Dynamics Measurement Layout & Section 2.5-228 Soil Dynamics Intake Channel Station 13 + 26E, 21 + 12S 2.5-229 Soil Dynamics Intake Channel Station 14 + 27E, 24 + 12S 2.5-230 Soil Dynamics Intake Channel Station 12 + 67E, 25 + 32S 2.5-231 Soil Dynamics Intake Channel Station 10 + 07E, 23 + 53S 2.5-232 Seismic Refraction Dynamic Properties Intake Channel 2.5-233 Soil Dynamics Diesel Generator Building Down Hole Seismic 8 Refraction Measurement 2.5-233A Class A Backfill - Shear Modulus Reduction with Shear Strain 2.5-233B Class A Backfill - Damping Ratio Variation with Shear Strain 2.5-233C Crushed Stone Backfill - Shear Modulus Reduction with Shear Strain 2-xl
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-233D Crushed Stone Backfill - Damping Ratio Variation with Shear Strain 2.5-233E In Situ Cohesive Soils - Shear Modulus Reduction with Shear Strain 2.5-233F In Situ Cohesive Soils - Damping Ratio Variation with Shear Strain 2.5-233G Non-Plastic In Situ Soil - Shear Modulus Reduction with Shear Strain 2.5-233H Non-Plastic In Situ Soils - Damping Ratio Variation with Shear Strain 2.5-233I Basal Gravel - Shear Modulus Reduction with Shear Strain 2.5-233J Basal Gravel - Damping Ratio Variation with Shear Strain 2.5-233K Weathered Shale - Shear Modulus and Damping Variation with Shear Strain 2.5-234 Main Plant Borrow Areas, Moisture - Penetration Test 2.5-235 Compaction Test Borrow Areas (Family Of Curves) (Date Tested 1-5-73) 2.5-236a Operating Basis Earthquake Response Spectra For Rock Support Structures 2.5-236b Safe Shutdown Earthquake Response Spectra For Rock Support Structures 2.5-237 Intake Channel Seismic Stability Analysis 2.5-238 Static Design Case 2 2.5-239 Intake Channel-Lateral Excavation & Replacement 2.5-240 Wedge Used To Determine Horizontal Displacement Of The Intake Channel By Newmark's Method 2-xli
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-241 ERCW Piping Alignment Q (Unconsolidated Undrained - Undisturbed Samples) 2.5-242 ERCW Piping Alignment S (Direct Shear) Undisturbed Samples 2.5-243 Deleted 2.5-244 Borrow Area 4 Q - (Unconsolidated - Undrained) 95% STD Proctor Density 3% Above Optimum Moisture Remolded Samples 2.5-245 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Borrow Area 4R - (Consolidate Undrained) 95% STD Proctor Density 3% Below Optimum Moisture Remolded Samples 2.5-246 Borrow Area 4 S - (Direct Shear) 95% STD Proctor Density 3% Below Optimum Moisture Remolded Samples 2.5-247 Intake Channel Q - (Unconsolidated - Undrained - Undisturbed Samples) Silty Sands 2.5-248 Intake Channel Q - (Unconsolidated-Undrained) Undisturded Samples Lean Clays 2.5-249 Intake Channel R - (Consolidated-Undrained) Undisturbed Samples Silty Sands 2.5-250 Intake Channel R - (Consolidated-Undrained) - Undisturbed Samples Lean Clays 2.5-251 Intake Channel Q - (Unconsolidated Undrained) Remolded Samples 95% SDT Proctor Density 4% Above Optimum Moisture 2.5-252 Site Studies Intake Channel Additional Soils Investigation 2.5-253 Intake Channel Additional Soil Investigation Section AA 2.5-254 Intake Channel Additional Soil Investigation Section BB 2.5-255 Intake Channel Additional Soil Investigation Section CC 2.5-256 Intake Channel - Lateral Excavation And Replacement Downstream Side Of Intake Channel With Bedrock At 656 2-xlii
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-257 Intake Channel - Lateral Excavation And Replacement Downstream Side Of Intake Channel With Bedrock At 650 2.5-258 Intake Channel - Lateral Excavation And Replacement Upstream Reservoir End With Rockfill Placed At 665 2.5-259 Intake Channel - Lateral Excavation And Replacement Downstream Reservoir End With Rockfill Placed At El. 650 2.5-260 Soil Profile - Borrow Area 7 - Boring PAH-1 2.5-261 Soil Profile - Borrow Area 7, Boring PAH-2 2.5-262 Soil Profile - Borrow Area 7, Boring PAH-3 2.5-263 Soil Profile - Borrow Area 7, Boring PAH-4 2.5-264 Soil Profile - Borrow Area 7, Boring PAH-5 2.5-265 Soil Profile - Borrow Area 7, Boring PAH-6 2.5-266 Soil Profile - Borrow Area 7, Boring PAH-7 2.5-267 Soil Profile - Borrow Area 7, Boring PAH-8 2.5-268 Soil Profile - Borrow Area 7, Boring PAH - 9 (SS, PA, HA, TP, Boring) 2.5-269 Soil Profile - Borrow Area 7, Boring PAH-10 2.5-270 Soil Profile - Borrow Area 7, Boring PAH-11 2.5-271 Compaction Test (Family Of Curves) - Borrow Area 7 2.5-272 Moisture - Penetration Test - Borrow Area 7 2.5-273 Yard Category I ERCW Piping And Conduits Plan 2.5-274 Soil Profile (SS, PA, HA, TP, Boring) 1E Conduit Banks 2.5-275 Soil Profile (SS, PA, HA, TP, Boring) 1D Conduit Banks 2.5-276 Soil Profile (SS, PA, HA, TP, Boring) 1D Conduit Banks (2 Sheets) 2-xliii
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-277 Soil Profile (SS, PA, HA, TP, Boring) 1D Conduit Banks 2.5-278 Soil Profile (SS, PA, HA, TP, Boring) 1D Conduit Banks 2.5-279 Soil Profile (SS, PA, HA, TP, Boring) 1D Conduit Banks 2.5-280 Soil Profile (SS, PA, HA, TP, Boring) 1D Conduit Banks 2.5-281 Category I Conduit Banks Section F-F (2 Sheets) 2.5-282 Soil Profile 2.5-283 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-284 Soil Profile 2.5-285 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-286 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-287 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-288 Soil Profile 2.5-289 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-290 Soil Profile 2.5-291 Soil Profile 2.5-292 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-293 Soil Profile 2.5-294 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-295 Soil Profile 2.5-296 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-297 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-298 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2-xliv
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-299 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-300 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-301 Soil Profile 2.5-302 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-303 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-304 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-305 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-306 Soil Profile 2.5-307 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-308 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-309 Soil Profile 2.5-310 Soil Profile 2.5-311 Soil Profile 2.5-312 Soil Profile 2.5-313 Soil Profile 2.5-314 Soil Profile 2.5-315 Soil Profile 2.5-316 Soil Profile 2.5-317 Soil Profile 2.5-318 Soil Profile 2.5-319 Soil Profile 2.5-320 Soil Profile 2-xlv
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-321 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-322 Soil Profile 2.5-323 Soil Profile 2.5-324 Soil Profile 2.5-325 Soil Profile 2.5-326 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-327 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-328 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-329 Soil Profile 2.5-330 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-331 Blank Page 2.5-332 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-333 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-334 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-335 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-336 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-337 Soil Profile 2.5-338 Soil Profile 2.5-339 ERCW Route Liquefaction Evaluation Graphic Logs No. 50 & 65 2.5-340 ERCW Liquefaction 2.5-341 ERCW Liquefaction 2.5-342 Liquefaction 2-xlvi
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-343 Liquefaction 2.5-344 Liquefaction 2.5-345 Liquefaction 2.5-346 Liquefaction 2.5-347 Liquefaction 2.5-348 Liquefaction 2.5-349 Liquefaction 2.5-350 Liquefaction 2.5-351 Liquefaction 2.5-352 Liquefaction 2.5-353 Results Of Stress Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Tests On ERCW Route Soils 2.5-354 Liquefaction Study ERCW Pipeline 2.5-355 Liquefaction Study ERCW Pipeline 2.5-356 Liquefaction Study ERCW Pipeline 2.5-357 Liquefaction Study ERCW Pipeline 2.5-358 Additional Soil Investigations Category I Soil Supported Structures 2.5-359 Category I Soil Supported Structures Soil Investigation 2.5-360 Category I Soil Supported Structures Soil Investigation 2.5-361 Category I Soil Supported Structures Soil Investigation 2.5-362 Category I Soil Supported Structures Soil Investigation 2.5-363 Category I Soil Supported Structures Soil Investigation 2.5-364 Category I Soil Supported Structures Soil Investigation 2-xlvii
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-365 Category I Supported Structures S-Direct Shear Test Remolded Basal Gravel 2.5-366 Soil Supported Structures 2.5-367 Soil Supported Structures 2.5-368 Soil Supported Structures 2.5-369 Soil Supported Structures 2.5-370 Soil Supported Structures 2.5-371 Soil Supported Structures 2.5-372 Gravel Boring No. 125 2.5-373 Gravel Boring No. 129 2.5-374 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Category I Soil Supported Structures Q - (Unconsolidated - Undrained) Test Fine Grained Soils (Undisturbed Samples) 2.5-375 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Category I Soil Supported Structures R (Total) - (Consolidated - Undrained) Test Fine Grained Soils (Undisturbed Samples) 2.5-376 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Category I Soil Supported Structures R (Effective) - (Consolidated - Undrained) Test Fine Grained Soils (Undisturbed Samples) 2.5-377 Soil Profile 2.5-378 Soil Profile 2.5-379 Soil Profile 2.5-380 Soil Profile 2.5-381 Soil Profile 2.5-382 Soil Profile 2.5-383 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2.5-384 Soil Profile (2 Sheets) 2-xlviii
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-385 Soil Profile 2.5-386 Soil Profile 2.5-387 Soil Profile 2.5-388 Soil Profile 2.5-389 Soil Profile 2.5-390 Soil Profile 2.5-391A Soil Profile 2.5-392 Soil Profile 2.5-393 Soil Profile 2.5-394 Soil Profile 2.5-395 Soil Profile 2.5-396 Soil Profile 2.5-397 Soil Profile 2.5-398 Soil Profile 2.5-399 Soil Profile 2.5-400 Soil Profile 2.5-401 Soil Profile 2.5-402 Soil Profile 2.5-403 Soil Profile 2.5-404 Soil Profile 2.5-405 Soil Profile 2.5-406 Soil Profile 2-xlix
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-407 Soil Profile 2.5-408 Soil Profile 2.5-409 Soil Profile 2.5-410 Soil Profile 2.5-411 Soil Profile 2.5-412 Soil Profile 2.5-413 Soil Profile 2.5-414 Soil Profile 2.5-415 Soil Profile 2.5-416 Soil Profile 2.5-417 Soil Profile 2.5-418 Soil Profile 2.5-419 Soil Profile 2.5-420 Soil Profile 2.5-421 Soil Profile 2.5-422 Soil Profile 2.5-423 Soil Profile 2.5-424 Soil Profile 2.5-425 Soil Profile 2.5-426 Soil Profile 2.5-427 Soil Profile 2.5-428 Soil Profile 2-l
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-429 Soil Profile 2.5-430 Soil Profile 2.5-431 Soil Profile 2.5-432 Soil Profile 2.5-433 Soil Profile 2.5-434 Soil Profile 2.5-435 Soil Profile 2.5-436 Soil Profile 2.5-437 Soil Profile 2.5-438 Soil Profile 2.5-439 Soil Profile 2.5-440 Soil Profile 2.5-441 Soil Profile 2.5-442 Soil Profile 2.5-443 Soil Profile 2.5-444 Soil Profile 2.5-445 Soil Profile 2.5-446 Soil Profile 2.5-447 Soil Profile 2.5-448 Soil Profile 2.5-449 Soil Profile 2.5-450 Soil Profile 2.5-451 Soil Profile 2-li
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-452 Soil Profile 2.5-453 Soil Profile 2.5-454 Soil Profile 2.5-455 Soil Profile 2.5-456 Soil Profile 2.5-457 Soil Profile 2.5-458 Soil Profile 2.5-459 Soil Profile 2.5-460 Soil Profile 2.5-461 Soil Profile 2.5-462 Soil Profile 2.5-463 Soil Profile 2.5-463 Soil Profile 2.5-464 Soil Profile 2.5-465 Soil Profile 2.5-466 Soil Profile 2.5-467 Soil Profile 2.5-468 Soil Profile 2.5-469 Soil Profile 2.5-470 Soil Profile 2.5-471 Soil Profile 2.5-472 Soil Profile 2-lii
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-473 Soil Profile 2.5-474 Soil Profile 2.5-475 Soil Profile 2.5-476 Soil Profile 2.5-477 Soil Profile 2.5-478 Soil Profile 2.5-479 Soil Profile 2.5-480 Soil Profile 2.5-481 Soil Profile 2.5-482 Soil Profile 2.5-483 Soil Profile 2.5-484 Soil Profile 2.5-485 Soil Profile 2.5-486 Soil Profile 2.5-487 Soil Profile 2.5-488 Soil Profile 2.5-489 Soil Profile 2.5-490 Soil Profile 2.5-491 Soil Profile 2.5-492 Soil Profile 2.5-493 Soil Profile 2.5-494 Soil Profile 2- liii
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-495 Soil Profile 2.5-496 Soil Profile 2.5-497 Soil Profile 2.5-498 Soil Profile 2.5-499 Soil Profile 2.5-500 Soil Profile 2.5-501 Soil Profile 2.5-502 Soil Profile 2.5-503 Soil Profile 2.5-504 Soil Profile 2.5-505 Soil Profile 2.5-506 Soil Profile 2.5-507 Soil Profile 2.5-508 Soil Profile 2.5-509 Soil Profile 2.5-510 Soil Profile 2.5-511 Soil Profile 2.5-512 Soil Profile 2.5-513 Soil Profile 2.5-514 Soil Profile 2.5-515 Soil Profile 2.5-516 Soil Profile 2-liv
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-517 Soil Profile 2.5-518 Soil Profile 2.5-519 Soil Profile 2.5-520 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Underground Barrier Trench A Backfill R - (Consolidated - Undrained) 95% STD Proctor Density (ASTM D698) 3% Below Optimum Moisture 2.5-521 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Underground Barrier Trench A Backfill R - (Consolidated - Undrained) 100% STD Proctor Density (ASTM D698) 3% Below Optimum Moisture Content 2.5-522 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Underground Barrier Trench B Backfill R - (Consolidated - Undrained) 95% STD Proctor Density (ASTM D698) 3% Below Optimum Moisture Content 2.5-523 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Underground Barrier Trench B Backfill R - (Consolidated - Undrained) 100% STD Proctor Density (ASTM D698) 3% Below Optimum Moisture Content 2.5-524 ERCW Liquefaction Trench A Borrow 2.5-525 ERCW Liquefaction Trench A Supplemental Borrow 2.5-526 ERCW Liquefaction Trench B 2.5-527 ERCW Liquefaction Borrow Area 9 2.5-528 ERCW Liquefaction Borrow Area 10 2.5-529 ERCW Liquefaction Borrow Area 11 2.5-530 ERCW Liquefaction Borrow Area 12 2.5-531 ERCW Liquefaction Borrow Area 13 2.5-532 ERCW Liquefaction Borrow Area 2C 2.5-533 ERCW Liquefaction Borrow Area 2C 2.5-534 ERCW Liquefaction Trench A 2-lv
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-535 ERCW Liquefaction Trench A Supplemental Borrow 2.5-536 ERCW Liquefaction Trench B 2.5-537 ERCW Liquefaction Borrow Area 9 2.5-538 ERCW Liquefaction Borrow Area 10 2.5-539 ERCW Liquefaction Borrow Area 11 2.5-540 ERCW Liquefaction Borrow Area 12 2.5-541 ERCW Liquefaction Borrow Area 13 2.5-542 ERCW Liquefaction Borrow Area 2C 2.5-543 ERCW Liquefaction Borrow Area 2C 2.5-544 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Granular Fill (1032) Q-(Unconsolidated-Undrained) 70% Relative Density (ASTM D2049) 2.5-545 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Granular Fill (1032) S-Direct Shear 70% Relative Density (ASTM D2049) 2.5-546 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Granular Fill (1032) Q-(Unconsolidated-Undrained) 80% Relative Density (ASTM D2049) 2.5-547 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Granular Fill (1032) R-(Consolidated-Undrained) S-Direct Shear 80% Relative Density (ASTM D2049) 2.5-548 Summary of Granular Fill Test Data - Relative Density Diesel Generator Building 2.5-549 ERCW Pipeline Section A-A (10 Sheets) 2.5-550 ERCW Pipeline Section B-B 2.5-551 ERCW Pipeline Section C-C 2.5-552 ERCW Pipeline Section D-D 2.5-553 ERCW Pipeline Section E-E 2.5-554 Category I Electrical Conduits Section F-F (2 Sheets) 2-lvi
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-555 Category I Electrical Conduits Section G-G 2.5-556 Category I Electrical Conduits Section H-H 2.5-557 Class 1E Conduit 2.5-558 Class 1E Conduit 2.5-559 Class 1E Conduit 2.5-560 Class 1E Conduit 2.5-561 Class 1E Conduit 2.5-562 Class 1E Conduit 2.5-563 Class 1E Conduit 2.5-564 ERCW & HPFP System 2.5-565 ERCW & HPFP System 2.5-566 Intake Channel Grain Size Analysis 2.5-567 ERCW Piping System - Generalized Profile 2.5-568 ERCW Piping System - Generalized Profile 2.5-569 One-Dimensional Soil Profile Used for Liquefaction Evaluation 2.5-570 Comparison of Induced Shear Stress and Shear Stress Required to Cause 5% Strain and Resulting Factors Of Safety With Depth Below Ground Surface. 2.5-571 ERCW Pipeline Section A-A (5 Sheets) 2.5-572 ERCW Pipeline Section B-B 2.5-573 ERCW Pipeline Section C-C 2.5-574 ERCW Pipeline Section D-D 2.5-575 ERCW Pipeline Section E-E 2-lvii
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-576 Category I Electrical Conduits Section F-F (2 Sheets) 2.5-577 Category I Electrical Conduits Section G-G 2.5-578 Category I Electrical Conduits Section H-H 2.5-579 Miscellaneous ERCW Piping and 1E Conduit Soil Borings 2.5-580 Yard Underground Barriers for Potential Soil Liquefaction 2.5-581 Yard Underground Barriers for Potential Soil Liquefaction 2.5-582 Yard Category I ERCW Piping and Conduits - Plan 2.5-583 Remedial Treatment for Potential Soil Liquefaction - Stability Analysis Summary 2.5-584 Main Plant Finished Grading and Paving 2.5-585 Powerhouse - Settlement Stations - Bench Mark Assembly 2.5-586 Settlement vs. Time for Unit 1 Reactor Building 2.5-587 Settlement vs. Time for Unit 2 Reactor Building 2.5-588 Maximum Settlement - Auxiliary Building Settlement Station 10; Minimum Settlement - Auxiliary Building Settlement Station 20 (1973-1982) 2.5-589 Maximum Settlement - Diesel Generator Building Settlement Station 1 & Intake Pumping Station Settlement Station 3A; Minimum Settlement Diesel Generator Building Settlement Station 4 & Intake Pumping Station Settlement Station 4 (1975-1982) 2.5-590 General Location Of Relative Movement Detectors 2.5-591 Watts Bar Dam Probability Distribution: November - March Rainfall Period 1940 - 1983 2.5-592 Yard ERCW Pipeline EST. 25-YR High Water Table 2.5-593 Water Table Profiles 2.5-594 Yard Underground Barrier Trench A STA 1 + 78 2-lviii
WBN LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.5-595 Yard Underground Barrier Trench A STA 3 + 78 2.5-596 Yard Underground Barrier Trench A STA 5 + 78 2.5-597 Yard Underground Barrier Trench A STA 7 + 78 2.5-598 Summary Of Earthfill Test Data - Density 2.5-599 Summary Of Earthfill Test Data - Moisture Content 2.5-600 Summary Of Earthfill Test Data - Density 2.5-601 Summary Of Earthfill Test Data - Moisture Content 2-5-602 Yard Underground Barrier Trench B STA 1 + 100 2.5-603 Yard Underground Barrier Trench B STA 2 + 50 2.5-604 Yard Underground Barrier Trench B STA 3 + 00 2.5-605 Yard Underground Barrier Trench B STA 4 + 50 2.5-606 Summary of Fill Test Data - Density 2.5-607 Summary of Earthfill Test Data - Moisture Content 2.5-608 Summary of Fill Test Data - Density 2.5-609 Summary of Earthfill Test Data - Moisture Content 2.5-610 Summary of Granular Fill Test Data - Relative Density 2-lix
WBN 2.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 2.1 GEOGRAPHY AND DEMOGRAPHY 2.1.1 Site Location and Description 2.1.1.1 Specification of Location The Watts Bar Nuclear Plant is located on a tract of approximately 1770 acres in Rhea County on the west bank of the Tennessee River at river mile 528. The site is approximately 1-1/4 miles south of the Watts Bar Dam and approximately 31 miles north-northeast of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. The 1770 acre reservation is owned by the United States and is in the custody of TVA. Also located within the reservation are the Watts Bar Dam and Hydro-Electric Plant, the TVA Central Maintenance Facility, and the Watts Bar Resort Area. The resort area buildings and improvements have been sold to private individuals and the associated land mass leased to the Watts Bar Village Corporation, Inc. Due to this sale and leasing arrangement no services are provided to the resort area from the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. The location of each reactor is given below: LONGITUDE AND LATITUDE (degrees/minutes/seconds) UNIT 1 35°36' 10.430" N 84°47' 24.267" W UNIT 2 35°36' 10.813" N 84°47' 21.398" W UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR (Meters) Northing Easting UNIT 1 N3, 941,954.27 E 700,189.94 UNIT 2 N3, 941,967.71 E 700,261.86 2.1.1.2 Site Area Map Figure 2.1-1 is a map of the TVA area showing the location of all power plants. Figure 2.1-2 shows the Watts Bar site location with respect to prominent geophysical and political features of the area. This map is used to correlate with the population distribution out to 50 miles. The population density within 10 miles is keyed to Figure 2.1-3. This map shows greater detail of the site area. Figures 2.1-4a and 2.1-4b are maps of the Watts Bar Site Area. The Watts Bar reservation boundary and the exclusion area boundary are boldly outlined. Details of the site and the plant structures may be found on Figure 2.1-5. 2.1-1
WBN 2.1.1.3 Boundaries for Establishing Effluent Limits The boundary on which limits for the release of radioactive effluents are based is the site boundary shown in Figure 2.1-4b. 2.1.2 Exclusion Area Authority And Control Due to the large size of the Watts Bar site, the exclusion area boundary is smaller than, and is completely within, the site boundary. The exclusion area is determined by a circle of radius 1200 meters centered on a point 20 feet from the north wall of the turbine building along the building centerline. The exclusion area boundary will be clearly marked on all access roads. The exclusion area is shown on Figure 2.1-4b. 2.1.2.1 Authority All of the land inside the exclusion area is owned by the United States and in the custody of TVA. TVA controls all activities within the reservation. 2.1.2.2 Control of Activities Unrelated to Plant Operation There will be no residences, unauthorized commercial operations, or recreational areas within the exclusion area. No public highways or railroads transverse the exclusion area. A portion of the Tennessee River does, however, cross the eastern portion of the exclusion area. This portion of the river is accessible for fishing, pleasure boating, and commercial transportation. 2.1.2.3 Arrangements for Traffic Control Arrangements have been made and formalized through the Tennessee Multi-jurisdictional Radiological Emergency Plan to establish traffic control responsibilities on the portion of the Tennessee river within the exclusion zone as follows: (a) Non-commercial traffic - Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). (b) Commercial traffic - U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). 2.1.2.4 Abandonment or Relocation of Roads No public roads cross the exclusion area. 2.1-2
WBN 2.1.3 Population Distribution Historical and projected population information is contained in this section. Both resident and transient populations are included. For 2000, population was based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population, 2000, including block group, block, and census track data. Projections were based on county projections by Woods & Poole.. Subcounty population estimates were prepared using a constant share of the 1990 county total. County Census maps and 1:250,000 topographic maps were used to disegregate sub-county population data into the annular segments. Considerations included municipal limits, topography, road system, land ownership (e.g., National Forest), and land use (e.g., strip mines). Transient population consists of two components - recreation visitation and school enrollments. Peak hour visitation to recreation facilities is based on the maximum capacity of the facility plus some overflow. School enrollments for 2008 are from the Tennessee Department of Education Report Card 2008 (http://www.state.tn.us/education/). Projected enrollments are based on projected population growth in the respective counties. 2.1.3.1 Population Within 10 Miles About 18,900 people lived within 10 miles of the Watts Bar site in 2000, with more than 75% of them between five and 10 miles from the site. Two small towns, Spring City and Decatur, which in 2007 had populations of 2,002 and 1,456 respectively, are located between five and 10 miles from the site. Decatur is south and south-west from the site, while Spring City is northwest and north-northwest. Most of the remainder of the area is sparsely populated, especially within five miles of the site. The pattern is expected to continue. Tables 2.1-1 through 2.1-7 show the estimated and projected population distribution within ten miles of the site for 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050, and 2060. Figure 2.1-3 shows the area within ten miles of the site overlaid by circles and sixteen compass sectors. 2.1.3.2 Population Between 10 and 50 Miles The area between 10 and 50 miles from the site lies mostly in the lower and middle portions of east Tennessee, with small areas in southwestern North Carolina and in northern Georgia. The population of this area is projected to increase by about 62%, or 660,000 persons, between 2000 and 2060. About 71% of this total increase is expected to be in the area between 30 and 50 miles from the site. 2.1-3
WBN The largest urban concentration between 10 and 50 miles is the city of Chattanooga, located to the southwest and south-southwest. This city had a population in 2007 of 169, 884; about 80% of this population is located between 40 and 50 miles from the site, while the rest is located beyond 50 miles. The city of Knoxville is located to the east-northeast of the site and is slightly larger than Chattanooga. However, only a small share, less than 10 percent, of its population of 183,546, is located between 40 and 50 miles of the site with the remainder beyond 50. There are three smaller urban concentrations in this area with population greater than 20,000. The city of Oak Ridge, which had a 2007 population of 27,514, is located about 40 miles to the northeast. The twin cities of Alcoa and Maryville, which had a combined population in 2007 of about 35,300, are located between 45 to 50 miles to the east-northeast. Cleveland, with a 2007 population of 39,200, is located about 30 miles to the south. Most of the population growth is expected to occur around these and the larger population centers. There are, in addition, a number of smaller communities dispersed throughout the area, surrounded by low-density rural areas. Tables 2.1-8 through 2.1-14 contain the 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050 and 2060 population distribution at various distances and directions from the site out to 50 miles. Figure 2.1-2 shows the area within 50 miles of the site overlaid by the circles and 16 compass sectors. 2.1.3.3 Transient Population - Historical Information Transient population consists of visitors to recreation sites and students in schools. There are no major active industrial facilities or other major employers in the vicinity of the plant. Recreation--Estimated and projected peak hour visitation to recreation facilities within 10 miles of the plant are contained in Tables 2.1-15 through 2.1-21. The visitation is based on the maximum capacity of facilities plus some overflow the TVA data base of recreation facilities in the area. There are no recreation facilities beyond 10 miles which are large enough to cause significant variations in the total population within any annular segment. Schools--Eight schools are currently located within ten miles of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. In 2008, these schools served approximately 4,155 students, distributed as shown in Table 2.1-22. Enrollments for 2008 are from the Tennessee Department of Education Report Card 2008 (http://www.state.tn.us/education/). Enrollments at these schools are projected based on county population projections by Woods & Poole. 2.1-4
WBN 2.1.3.4 Low Population Zone The low population zone (LPZ) distance as defined in 10 CFR 100 has been chosen to be three miles (4828 meters). The population of this area (2976 in 2010) and the population density (105 people per square mile in 2010) are both low. Population includes permanent residents (759) and transients (2217) estimates for 2010. Transients are "Peak Hour Recreation Visitors". In addition, this area is of such size that in the unlikely event of a serious accident there is a reasonable probability that appropriate measures could be taken to protect the health and safety of the residents. Specific provisions for the protection of this area are considered in the development of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant site emergency plan. The present and projected population figures for this area are included in Tables 2.1-1 through 2.1-14. Features of the area within the low population zone distances are shown on Figure 2.1-3. 2.1.3.5 Population Center The nearest population center (as defined by 10 CFR 100) is Cleveland, Tennessee, which had a 2007 population of 39,200. Cleveland is located approximately 30 miles south of the Watts Bar site. 2.1.3.6 Population Density Cumulative population around the site out to 30 miles is plotted on Figures 2.1-20 and 2.1-21 2010 and 2060. Also plotted on Figure 2.1-20 is the cumulative population that would result from a uniform population density of 500 persons per square mile. Figure 2.1-21 contains a similar plot except that it is for a uniform density of 1,000 persons per square mile. For all distances for both years the population around the site is significantly smaller than that based on the uniform population density. REFERENCES None. 2.1-5
WBN TABLE 2.1-1 WATTS BAR 2000 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE SITE DISTANCE FROM SITE (MILES) Direction 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 0-10 N 0 9 0 0 66 1,674 1,749 NNE 0 0 9 200 90 862 1,161 NE 0 0 9 150 140 403 702 ENE 0 0 9 150 140 242 541 E 0 4 210 150 300 1,553 2,217 ESE 0 0 0 13 20 377 410 SE 4 0 0 14 19 406 443 SSE 10 0 0 120 201 614 945 S 8 0 0 0 966 1,863 2,837 SSW 0 0 10 0 0 266 276 SW 0 0 0 0 0 727 727 WSW 0 4 25 41 87 492 649 W 0 10 15 70 62 491 648 WNW 0 0 15 87 55 339 496 NW 0 75 230 260 364 1,837 2,766 NNW 0 0 0 120 85 2,156 2,361 TOTAL 22 102 532 1,375 2,595 14,302 18,928
WBN TABLE 2.1-2 WATTS BAR 2010 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE SITE DISTANCE FROM SITE (MILES) Direction 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 0-10 N 0 10 0 0 73 1,863 1,946 NE 0 0 10 223 100 959 1,292 NE 0 0 11 184 171 494 860 ENE 0 0 11 184 171 296 662 E 0 5 257 184 367 1,902 2,715 ESE 0 0 0 16 24 462 502 SE 5 0 0 17 23 497 542 SSE 12 0 0 147 246 752 1,157 S 10 0 0 0 1,183 2,282 3,475 SSW 0 0 12 0 0 326 338 SW 0 0 0 0 0 809 809 WSW 0 4 28 46 97 548 723 W 0 11 17 78 69 546 721 WNW 0 0 17 97 61 377 552 NW 0 83 256 289 405 2,044 3,077 NNW 0 0 0 134 95 2,399 2,628 TOTAL 27 113 619 1,599 3,085 16,556 21,999
WBN TABLE 2.1-3 WATTS BAR 2020 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE SITE DISTANCE FROM SITE (MILES) Direction 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 0-10 N 0 11 0 0 81 2,064 2,157 NE 0 0 11 247 111 1,063 1,432 NE 0 0 14 235 219 630 1,098 ENE 0 0 14 235 219 379 846 E 0 6 329 235 469 2,430 3,468 ESE 0 0 0 20 31 590 641 SE 6 0 0 22 30 635 693 SSE 16 0 0 188 314 961 1,478 S 13 0 0 0 1,511 2,914 4,438 SSW 0 0 16 0 0 416 432 SW 0 0 0 0 0 896 896 WSW 0 5 31 51 107 607 800 W 0 12 18 86 76 605 799 WNW 0 0 18 107 68 418 612 NW 0 92 284 321 449 2,265 3,411 NNW 0 0 0 148 105 2,658 2,911 TOTAL 35 126 735 1,895 3,790 19,531 26,112
WBN TABLE 2.1-4 WATTS BAR 2030 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE SITE DISTANCE FROM SITE (MILES) Direction 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 0-10 N 0 12 0 0 90 2,284 2,386 NE 0 0 12 273 123 1,176 1,584 NE 0 0 17 287 268 770 1,342 ENE 0 0 17 287 268 463 1,035 E 0 8 401 287 574 2,969 4,239 ESE 0 0 0 25 38 721 784 SE 8 0 0 27 36 776 847 SSE 19 0 0 229 384 1,174 1,806 S 15 0 0 0 1,847 3,561 5,423 SSW 0 0 19 0 0 509 528 SW 0 0 0 0 0 992 992 WSW 0 5 34 56 119 671 885 W 0 14 20 96 85 670 885 WNW 0 0 20 119 75 463 677 NW 0 102 314 355 497 2,507 3,775 NNW 0 0 0 164 116 2,942 3,222 TOTAL 42 141 854 2,205 4,520 22,648 30,410
WBN TABLE 2.1-5 2040 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE SITE DISTANCE FROM SITE (MILES) Direction 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 0-10 N 0 13 0 0 96 2,432 2,541 NE 0 0 13 291 131 1,252 1,687 NE 0 0 20 326 304 875 1,525 ENE 0 0 20 326 304 525 1,175 E 0 9 456 326 651 3,370 4,812 ESE 0 0 0 28 43 818 889 SE 9 0 0 30 41 881 961 SSE 22 0 0 260 436 1,333 2,051 S 17 0 0 0 2,096 4,043 6,156 SSW 0 0 22 0 0 577 599 SW 0 0 0 0 0 1,056 1,056 WSW 0 6 36 60 126 715 943 W 0 15 22 102 90 713 942 WNW 0 0 22 126 80 492 720 NW 0 109 334 378 529 2,669 4,019 NNW 0 0 0 174 123 3,132 3,429 TOTAL 48 152 945 2,427 5,050 24,883 33,505
WBN TABLE 2.1-6 2050 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE SITE DISTANCE FROM SITE (MILES) Direction 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 0-10 N 0 14 0 0 103 2,616 2,733 NE 0 0 14 313 141 1,347 1,815 NE 0 0 22 370 346 995 1,733 ENE 0 0 22 370 346 597 1,335 E 0 10 518 370 740 3,833 5,471 ESE 0 0 0 32 49 931 1,012 SE 10 0 0 35 47 1,002 1,094 SSE 25 0 0 296 496 1,516 2,333 S 20 0 0 0 2,384 4,598 7,002 SSW 0 0 25 0 0 657 682 SW 0 0 0 0 0 1,136 1,136 WSW 0 6 39 64 136 769 1,014 W 0 16 23 109 97 767 1,012 WNW 0 0 23 136 86 530 775 NW 0 117 359 406 569 2,871 4,322 NNW 0 0 0 188 133 3,369 3,690 TOTAL 55 163 1,045 2,689 5,673 27,534 37,159
WBN TABLE 2.1-7 2060 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE SITE DISTANCE FROM SITE (MILES) Direction 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 0-10 N 0 15 0 0 110 2,800 2,925 NE 0 0 15 335 151 1,442 1,943 NE 0 0 25 415 387 1,115 1,942 ENE 0 0 25 415 387 669 1,496 E 0 11 581 415 830 4,296 6,133 ESE 0 0 0 36 55 1,043 1,134 SE 11 0 0 39 53 1,123 1,226 SSE 28 0 0 332 556 1,698 2,614 S 22 0 0 0 2,672 5,154 7,848 SSW 0 0 28 0 0 736 764 SW 0 0 0 0 0 1,216 1,216 WSW 0 7 42 69 146 823 1,087 W 0 17 25 117 104 821 1,084 WNW 0 0 25 146 92 567 830 NW 0 125 385 435 609 3,073 4,627 NNW 0 0 0 201 142 3,607 3,950 TOTAL 61 175 1,151 2,955 6,294 30,183 40,819
WBN TABLE 2.1-8 2000 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE SITE Direction 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 Total N 1,749 1,259 1,602 3,132 4,475 12,217 NE 1,161 9,604 15,206 10,307 1,790 38,068 NE 702 2,941 13,742 22,022 55,634 95,041 ENE 541 2,493 16,128 36,931 154,413 210,506 E 2,217 7,598 11,798 16,630 23,599 61,842 ESE 410 4,782 13,201 3,306 2,247 23,946 SE 443 15,239 11,527 2,936 3,353 33,498 SSE 945 6,871 10,259 2,397 26,218 46,690 S 2,837 3,164 29,107 38,758 11,403 85,269 SSW 276 2,789 34,031 37,215 92,251 166,562 SW 727 9,365 12,610 52,880 97,063 172,645 WSW 649 8,946 2,067 2,031 2,744 16,437 W 648 2,409 4,083 2,270 4,300 13,710 WNW 496 1,515 3,055 4,424 15,262 24,752 NW 2,766 1,874 10,487 6,066 11,383 32,576 NNW 2,361 900 19,046 6,533 4,450 33,290 TOTAL 18,928 81,749 207,949 247,838 510,585 1,067,049
WBN TABLE 2.1-9 WATTS BAR 2010 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE SITE Direction 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 Total N 1,947 1,499 1,733 3,388 4,841 13,407 NE 1,292 10,080 15,960 10,818 1,936 40,087 NE 860 3,087 14,423 23,114 60,063 101,547 ENE 663 3,075 19,892 45,550 175,297 244,276 E 2,716 8,191 13,656 19,249 28,719 72,531 ESE 502 5,155 15,280 3,827 2,601 27,365 SE 543 16,1428 13,342 3,398 3,427 37,138 SSE 1,158 7,407 11,059 2,584 29,017 51,225 S 3,475 3,411 32,214 42,895 12,620 94,615 SSW 338 2,867 31,982 38,255 94,830 171,272 SW 809 10,423 12,962 54,358 110,380 188,932 WSW 722 9,956 2,351 2,310 3,120 18,459 W 721 2,601 4,210 2,340 4,433 14,306 WNW 552 1,636 3,150 4,561 16,614 26,513 NW 3,078 2,231 11,416 6,603 12,391 35,720 NNW 2,628 1,072 22,678 7,779 4,929 39,084 TOTAL 22,003 89,118 229,308 271,030 565,218 1,176,677
WBN TABLE 2.1-10 WATTS BAR 2020 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE SITE Direction 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 Total N 2,157 1736 1931 3,776 5,395 14,995 NE 1,432 10,671 16,895 11,452 2,158 42,608 NE 1,098 3,268 15,269 24,469 67,259 111,362 ENE 846 3,696 23,913 54,758 198,719 281,932 E 3,468 8,684 14,840 20,918 34,692 82,602 ESE 641 5,465 16,605 4,158 2,826 29,696 SE 693 17,416 14,499 3,693 3,630 39,931 SSE 1,478 7,853 11,725 2,739 32,182 55,978 S 4,438 3,616 35,728 47,575 13,997 105,355 SSW 432 2,979 36,346 39,747 98,527 178,030 SW 896 11,547 13,468 56,477 114,879 197,268 WSW 800 11,031 2,446 2,404 3,248 19,929 W 799 2,773 4,534 2,521 4,775 15,401 WNW 612 1,744 3,392 4,912 17,849 28,509 NW 3,411 2,584 12,265 7,094 13,313 38,666 NNW 2,911 1,241 26,262 9,008 5,293 44,716 TOTAL 26,113 96,304 250,119 295,702 618,741 1,286,97 9
WBN TABLE 2.1-11 WATTS BAR 2030 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE SITE Direction 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 Total N 2,387 1,990 2,148 4,199 5,999 16,723 NE 1,584 11,347 17,966 12,178 2,400 45,475 NE 1,342 3,475 16,236 26,019 75,084 122,156 ENE 1,034 4,358 28,195 64,563 244,050 322,200 E 4,238 9,269 16,170 22,793 41,046 93,516 ESE 784 5,834 18,093 4,531 3,080 32,322 SE 847 18,590 15,799 4,024 3,871 43,131 SSE 1,807 8,382 12,515 2,924 35,644 61,272 S 5,423 3,860 39,571 52,692 15,502 117,048 SSW 528 3,124 38,123 41,689 103,342 186,806 SW 992 12,779 14,126 59,238 120,676 207,811 WSW 886 12,207 2,570 2,525 3,412 21,600 W 884 2,975 4,907 2,728 5,167 16,661 WNW 677 1,871 3,671 5,316 19,479 31,014 NW 3,774 2,962 13,385 7,742 14,528 42,391 NNW 3,222 1,422 30,099 10,324 5,715 50,782 TOTAL 30,409 104,445 273,574 323,485 678,995 1,410,908
WBN TABLE 2.1-12 2040 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE SITE DISTANCE FROM SITE (MILES) Direction 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 Total N 2,541 1,885 2,778 4,768 6,172 18,144 NE 1,687 11,762 18,766 14,502 2,547 49,264 NE 1,525 3,783 16,734 29,838 78,334 130,214 ENE 1,175 3,553 29,539 63,798 253,831 351,896 E 4,812 11,352 18,647 30,063 44,013 108,887 ESE 889 6,230 20,120 5,068 3,280 35,587 SE 961 19,852 15,185 3,950 4,822 44,770 SSE 2,051 8,951 12,907 2,918 48,593 75,420 S 6,156 4,586 42,883 56,430 17,985 128,040 SSW 599 5,725 42,517 46,281 106,392 201,514 SW 1,056 12,978 14,499 62,307 111,795 202,635 WSW 943 12,791 2,837 2,840 3,372 22,783 W 942 3,406 5,555 2,944 5,474 18,321 WNW 720 2,091 4,372 5,654 20,511 33,348 NW 4,019 2,889 18,634 10,462 15,956 51,960 NNW 3,429 1,536 33,843 11,609 5,890 56,307 TOTAL 33,505 113,368 299,818 353,432 728,968 1,529,090
WBN TABLE 2.1-13 2050 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE SITE Direction 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 Total N 2,733 2,457 2,452 4,795 6,851 19,288 NE 1,814 12,275 19,435 13,174 2,740 49,438 NE 1,733 3,759 17,564 28,147 87,451 138,654 ENE 1,335 5,522 35,726 81,809 267,271 391,663 E 5,472 10,308 18,878 26,610 52,132 113,400 ESE 1,012 6,488 21,123 5,290 3,569 37,509 SE 1,093 20,674 18,445 4,698 4,151 49,061 SSE 2,333 9,322 13,918 3,252 41,612 70,437 S 7,002 4,293 46,197 61,515 18,098 137,105 SSW 681 3,325 40,575 44,371 109,989 198,941 SW 1,136 14,635 15,035 63,048 134,126 227,980 WSW 1,014 13,980 2,865 2,807 3,792 24,449 W 1,013 3,335 5,204 2,893 5,480 17,925 WNW 775 2,097 3,894 5,638 21,002 33,406 NW 4,323 3,658 14,431 8,560 16,063 47,035 NNW 3,690 1,757 37,176 12,752 6,490 61,865 TOTAL 37,159 117,885 312,909 369,359 780,844 1,618,156
WBN TABLE 2.1-14 2060 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE SITE Direction 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 Total N 2,926 2,696 2,624 5,129 7,329 20,704 NE 1,942 12,804 20,272 13,741 2,931 51,690 NE 1,942 3,921 18,320 29,359 94,005 147,547 ENE 1,497 6,127 39,639 90,768 289,886 427,917 E 6,133 10,843 20,239 28,528 57,880 123,623 ESE 1,134 6,824 22,646 5,671 3,855 40,130 SE 1,225 21,748 19,774 5,037 4,317 52,101 SSE 2,614 9,806 14,641 3,421 44,711 75,193 S 7,848 4,515 49,638 66,097 19,446 147,544 SSW 763 3,435 41,919 45,841 113,633 205,591 SW 1,216 15,666 15,533 65,136 140,806 238,357 WSW 1,086 14,965 2,999 2,946 3,981 25,977 W 1,084 3,519 5,424 3,016 5,712 18,755 WNW 830 2,213 4,058 5,877 22,060 35,038 NW 4,627 4,014 15,544 8,991 16,872 50,048 NNW 3,949 1,928 40,792 13,992 6,888 67,549 TOTAL 40,816 125,024 334,062 393,550 834,312 1,727,764
WBN TABLE 2.1-15 WATTS BAR 2009 ESTIMATED PEAK RECREATION VISITATION WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE SITE Distance Miles Direction 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 0-10 N 450 0 0180 0 0 0 630 NNE 130 0 175 0 125 630 1,060 NE 125 0 180 0 1,250 1,702 3,257 ENE 125 125 290 120 120 0 780 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 115 0 0 140 0 0 255 SSW 0 40 0 0 110 480 630 SW 0 115 110 0 0 115 340 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NW 0 0 0 0 0 2,125 2,125 NNW 0 0 0 0 0 1,032 1,032 TOTAL 945 280 935 260 1,605 6,084 10,109
WBN TABLE 2.1-16 WATTS BAR 2010 ESTIMATED PEAK RECREATION VISITATION WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE SITE Distance Miles Direction 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 0-10 N 462 0 185 0 0 0 647 NNE 133 0 180 0 128 646 1,087 NE 128 0 185 0 1,282 1,746 3,341 ENE 128 128 298 123 123 0 800 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 118 0 0 144 0 0 262 SSW 0 41 0 0 113 492 646 SW 0 118 113 0 0 118 349 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NW 0 0 0 0 0 2,180 2,180 NNW 0 0 0 0 0 1,059 1,059 TOTAL 969 287 961 267 1,646 6,241 10,371
WBN TABLE 2.1-17 WATTS BAR 2020 ESTIMATED PEAK RECREATION VISITATION WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE SITE Distance Miles Direction 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 0-10 N 508 0 203 0 0 0 711 NNE 147 0 198 0 141 712 1,198 NE 141 0 203 0 1,412 1,923 3,679 ENE 141 141 328 136 136 0 882 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 130 0 0 158 0 0 288 SSW 0 45 0 0 124 542 711 SW 0 130 124 0 0 130 384 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NW 0 0 0 0 0 2,401 2,401 NNW 0 0 0 0 0 1,166 1,166 TOTAL 1,067 316 1,056 294 1,813 6,874 11,420
WBN TABLE 2.1-18 WATTS BAR 2030 ESTIMATED PEAK RECREATION VISITATION WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE SITE Distance Miles Direction 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 0-10 N 560 0 224 0 0 0 784 NNE 162 0 218 0 156 784 1,320 NE 156 0 224 0 1,556 2,119 4,055 ENE 156 156 361 149 149 0 971 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 143 0 0 174 0 0 317 SSW 0 50 0 0 137 598 785 SW 0 143 137 0 0 143 423 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NW 0 0 0 0 0 2,645 2,645 NNW 0 0 0 0 0 1,285 1,285 TOTAL 1,177 349 1,164 323 1,998 7,574 12,585
WBN TABLE 2.1-19 WATTS BAR 2040 ESTIMATED PEAK RECREATION VISITATION WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE SITE Distance Miles Direction 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 0-10 N 581 0 232 0 0 0 813 NNE 168 0 226 0 161 813 1,368 NE 161 0 232 0 1,614 2,197 4,204 ENE 161 161 374 155 155 0 1,006 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 148 0 0 181 0 0 329 SSW 0 52 0 0 142 620 814 SW 0 148 142 0 0 148 438 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NW 0 0 0 0 0 2,743 2,743 NNW 0 0 0 0 0 1,332 1,332 TOTAL 1,219 361 1,206 336 2,072 7,853 13,047
WBN TABLE 2.1-20 WATTS BAR 2050 ESTIMATED PEAK RECREATION VISITATION WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE SITE Distance Miles Direction 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 0-10 N 621 0 248 0 0 0 869 NNE 179 0 241 0 172 869 1,461 NE 172 0 248 0 1,724 2,347 4,491 ENE 172 172 400 166 166 0 1,076 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 159 0 0 193 0 0 352 SSW 0 55 0 0 152 662 869 SW 0 159 152 0 0 159 470 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NW 0 0 0 0 0 2,931 2,931 NNW 0 0 0 0 0 1,423 1,423 TOTAL 1,303 386 1,289 359 2,214 8,391 13,942
WBN TABLE 2.1-21 WATTS BAR 2060 ESTIMATED PEAK RECREATION VISITATION WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE SITE Distance Miles Direction 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 0-10 N 661 0 264 0 0 0 925 NNE 191 0 257 0 184 926 1,558 NE 184 0 264 0 1,837 2,501 4,786 ENE 184 184 426 176 176 0 1,146 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 169 0 0 206 0 0 375 SSW 0 59 0 0 162 705 926 SW 0 169 162 0 0 169 500 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NW 0 0 0 0 0 3,122 3,122 NNW 0 0 0 0 0 1,516 1,516 TOTAL 1,389 412 1,373 382 2,359 8,939 14,854
WBN TABLE 2.1-22 SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS WITHIN 10 MILES OF WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT School Name Location 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Meigs South Elementary S 5-10 418 442 565 691 784 892 999 Meigs North Elementary S 5-10 437 463 591 772 820 932 1045 Meigs Middle S 5-10 399 422 539 659 748 851 954 Meigs County High S 5-10 534 565 722 882 1001 1139 1276 Rhea County High WSW 5-10 1,405 1,434 1,589 1758 1872 2014 2156 Spring City Elementary NW 5-10 633 646 716 792 843 907 971 Spring City Middle NW 5-10 309 315 349 387 412 443 474 Evensville Center WSW 5-10 20 20 23 25 27 29 31 Total 4,155 4,307 5,094 5,916 6,507 7,207 7,906
E N T U C K Y TEN1,1E89EE-CUMBERLAND G v
~qJ*N CANAL J PADUCAH~ LAND BETWEEN <',I~I' THE LAKES p6Tpx
,KENTUCKY
\ to eK BRISTOL 1111 1111 ull~ I~II~IIII~ull~ull~nlr~urr~u mop
`C r1~1111~Illl~lll~ll~prlr~p~11~11 III ~ IIrr~ILrr~n ~Ilrr~L1a KINGSPORT
=~II~IIr~llr~11 r~~ru ~It ~ 440+1 . N_ ^APP noCSfoN
~
AV
' NASHVILLE
~~ ' , x JOHNSON 0CITY
°°u9EP°#16-m, M CHE M
~
, Noun°cKr a ,,
,a wNucKr q
~~,~Q rEN N 1
-'I , `h'Es
. I KRIDDEO .
KN LE e& DOU D F° FPENCN BROgp F m EMCI.1
' W
- 4kR Sf I~ IPINOAKDAM y~ Q ELTON HIL °Ro '
N ` C BEECH AM °ti} ~%, q GREAT FALLS a I U UN 1 \\ I\ b ', RE DAM i9 DO AhEA , I TELL= DAM 1,,, \, DAM, WATTS BAR DAM JACKSON ~YOs
,Y ~. aNUCL~A EN 'SQEE \ICI\,\ A$HEVIL srcAMDR COLUMBIADAM ANA DAM
~ ;
NNE l~ E~ BVF u° . Z NORMANDYDAM ' $ , W _,, CY 9 S VOYAH f` EE \I MEMPHIS W 2 TIMS FORD DAM NucL R PLAN r w X11111111111111 r(ADAM
- 0. CHICI(N AUGA ,; ENO gssEE DAM KWICK LANpING DAM CE *02 HAT EDAM / ,,~
NICKAJACKO 0 BEN ^ ~~ 11~11~11~11~11~u~n~11~11 11~11~ 1~11~11 C~1 NOO_r 11 11~11~11~11 I 11 1 Is WILSON ppM WHEELER DAM BROWNS FERRY - '1111 MOUNTAI y, BUMPED STORAG I DUE LUE D DAA1 LY , ~~ ,\ S C NUCLEAR B EFONTE 9 r /~I PLANT UCLEAR ~2 F
' _rqw PLANT 14. 40 Mir
** SHOALS ~_I AR CREEK EARCRDAM I*
M ISS E
\E LE BEAR CREEKK DPM
,~,GU~AERS VIIP 4040 i G E O R G I AEK ARE B~, ` ~,10 W 4fCR DAM ,
BNEESBET°WGBEEAY ALABAMA i 1 1 ' WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT LOCATION OF WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT SITE FIGURE 2.1-1
250M (ESE):
- ~....(WSW) _ ,F 120° G 130 23Oo L (SE WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT H 150
/ ..:._
FINAL SAFETY K200--*.,a
,,..'* g L.. 210...o~SSW) 8SSE) 1 ( ANALYSIS REPORT
° ~1.., 160°
(.S) 90e_, 0 1 0° 1700 SITE LOCATION 0-50 MILES FIGURE 2.1-2
N NNW NNE NW NE WNW ENE W 1 E 2 3 4 WSW 5 ESE SW SE WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 10 SSW SSE SITE LOCATION S 0-10 MILES FIGURE 2.1-3
nao v .
' ~~. ,iw 1* ` hA7 BA§JAM `. 7 'p *.
t t, v / ~i ," * 'f`
~ I n ~ I ~ ZI~/.' 1 'AI~~:.r ,' T y
MUCL EAR GIAN? _ ~ I rt P~xf' ~ -*r x ~>~ . ye
~.yr1( + .p'jr a4 y~A*. ._, ~- ~.
d' T~~~C`- J _-- t`rerk }I;1 ^(T - _ s ~ ,Tf~~ `_ f. ~' c. a~e -
~ Jl ~~~~ *~ 1 ~< a WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY
~(, ANALYSIS REPORT r rot r WATTS BAR Fj TOPOGRAPHIC MAP &
RESERVATION BOUNDARY 1,. FIGURE 2.1-4a
z WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT Of 0z zQ
- ir* v%
U : ~`
\~
k Mils 530 0 ATT BAR DAM '
` Wa ar Resort 1
\ Bar Dam(PO)
WATER wISTATION WATER 11 9p 9~ ' v-r ** ~O~,O C It ,a
- TATIOIP i 1~ 1* SI{CS WATTS AR 1 -3 STEAM P NT -C
- mile I'~ *
- l` EXCLUSION AREA BOUNDARY QA, 1200 METERS 'b yLo
` 0
' PMRINB I r Pi hook
~~.~* I F~rry
~ 1 b0ou 2-4 I ~~ ; ` -_ + - '.,j1* *`' R WATTS/ AR NUCLI AXR P N aARo RI a ~.
r f11 a,~* ,L Vy/
- y" U it ~
NI 1 II
.16 ,vwER as OL1'612ca. l
;fII Spring
µ 9
- 1 /
~s mot. I s
°,a ~~,
_ LEGEND IN
;:. ~
any*. Q
~ EXCLUSION AREA BOUNDARY !
0 I L
\<% R. SITE BOUNDARY
`a y 1* ' + SAMPLING POINT i AMENDMENT 6 NNIe /1 _
Indian Mound
~** *" SCALE 1:28000 WATTS B A R Cooke / __T'-- ' I FINAL SAFETY Landing, / ;1' D z 1 MILE ANALYSIS REPORT 1000 0 I000 2000 3000 FEET
/ \ ' 500 0 500 METERS
~ ~! ~ 1~ 1 SITE BOUNDARY/
/ EXCLUSION AREA BOUNDARY i c~` SILO - ~* FIGURE 2 . 1 4B
z 3 6 O Z 6 F-Z Q O 6 U WT ro xALN Fpt IA77AT OTENNIOgfAL
~NI fi~4Cj'`t p~ I~.~p I
~
I'~ 8fi6 0RA/ItbNI01. 0-431. N 10~- X00'-00* Y ACCE88q'NB DNIT 2
- p. - wAL WILDINGB~TGtF/LmAIi~-_~
UFSAR AMENDMENT 1 RLven TENNE WATTS B A R kl 7yy.2 FINAL SAFETY 4'RW bbu~
"S ANALYSIS REPORT MAIN PLANT GENERAL PLAN TVA DWG NO. 10E200-01 R18 FIGURE 2.1-5
10,000,000 500 PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE 1,000,000 100,000 10,000 1,000 I WATTS BAR WATTS NUCLEAR PLANT BAR NUCLEAR PLANT I+ FINAL SAFETY FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT IJ ANALYSIS REPORT 1994 CUMULATIVE POPULATION 1994 CUMULATIVE POPULATION WITHIN 30 MILES OF THE SITE WITHIN 30 MILES OF THE SITE FIGURE 2.1-6 FIGURE 2.1-6 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 MILES
10,000,000 1000 PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE I I I i 1,000,000 100,000 Z 0 I a 0 a. 10,000 1,000 WATTS BAR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR NUCLEAR PLANT PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 2034 2034 CUMULATIVE POPULATION CUMULATIVE POPULATION WITHIN 30 MILES OF THE SITE WITHIN 30 MILES OF THE SITE FIGURE 2.1-7 FIGURE 2.1-7 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 MILES
FIGURES 2.1-8 THRU 2.1-19 DELETED
Square Mile 10000000 500/Sq 2010 1000000 100000 10000 1000 100 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 2010 CUMULATIVE POPULATION WITHIN 30 MILES OF THE SITE FIGURE 2.1-20 10 1 5 10 20 30 Miles
Square Mile 0000000 1000/Sq 2060 1000000 100000 10000 1000 100 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 2060 CUMULATIVE POPULATION WITHIN 30 MILES OF THE SITE FIGURE 2.1-21 10 1 5 10 20 30 Miles
WBN 2.2 NEARBY INDUSTRIAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND MILITARY FACILITIES 2.2.1 Location and Route Maps showing the area are found on Figures 2.1-2 and 2.1-3. Thee are no significant industrial facilities near WBN. The nearest land transportation route is State Route 68, about one mile north of the Site. The Tennessee River is navigable past the site. A main line of the CNO&TP (Norfolk Southern Corporation) is located approximately 7 miles west of the site. A TVA railroad spur track connects with this main line and serves the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. The spur has fallen into disuse and would need to be repaired prior to use. No other significant industrial land use, military facilities, or transportation routes are in the vicinity of the nuclear plant. 2.2.2 Descriptions 2.2.2.1 Description of Facilities The Tennessee River is a major barge route in which a 9-foot navigation channel is maintained. 2.2.2.2 Description of Products and Materials Table 2.2-1 shows the total amount of certain hazardous materials shipped past the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant on a yearly basis. Total traffic past the site was 670,716 tons in 2008 compared to 1,294,959 tons in 1990 and to 760,000 tons in 1975. Traffic on the TVA railroad spur consisted of heavy components for the nuclear plant. 2.2.2.3 Pipelines No pipelines carrying petroleum products are located in the vicinity of the nuclear plant. 2.2-1
WBN 2.2.2.4 Waterways The Watts Bar Nuclear Plant site is located on a 9-foot navigable channel on Chickamauga Reservoir. Its intake structure is located approximately two miles downstream of Watts Bar Lock and Dam. Watts Bar lock is located on the left bank of the Tennessee River with dimensions of 60' wide x 360' long. Towboat sizes vary from 1500 to 1800 horsepower for this section of the Tennessee River (Chattanooga to Knoxville). The most common type barge using the water way is the 35'x 195' jumbo barge with 1,500 ton capacity. There were also numerous liquid cargo (tank) barges of varying size with capacity to 3,000 tons. 2.2.2.5 Airports No airports are located within 10 miles of the site. Mark Anton airport is the nearest, 11 to 12 miles southwest of the site. Its longest runway is 4,500 feet and is hard surfaced. It has no commercial facilities. Lovell Field about 45 miles south-southwest is the nearest airfield with commercial facilities. The annual number of movements per year is about 62,000 for Lovell Field and about 4,000 at Mark Anton of which 1,300 are student pilots executing "touch and go's". Figures 2.2-1 and 2.2-2 show the plant in relation to civilian and military airways, respectively. Traffic on airway V51 totals fewer than 2,200 flights per year based on 2008 data. 2.2.2.6 Projections of Industrial Growth Within five miles of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant are two major potential industrial sites. Three-to-five miles southwest of the plant is a 3,000 acre tract and about 3 miles north is a 200 acre tract. The 3,000 acre site is currently under the ownership of the Mead Corporation. A site impact analysis for the possible development of a paper plant has been performed on the site. However, the Mead Corporation has withdrawn its application to build the plant and there are no immediate or future plans for development. The 200 acre tract is still undeveloped and there are no immediate or future plans for development of the site. 2.2.3 Evaluation of Potential Accidents None of the activities being performed in the vicinity of the site are considered to be a potential hazard to the plant. A study of the products and materials transported past the site by rail and barge reveals that no potential explosion hazard exists. The worst potential condition for onsite essential safety features other than the intake pumping station arising from an accident involving the products transported near the site (coal, fuel oil, asphalt, tar and pitches) would be the generation of smoke by the burning of these products. The hazard to the Main Control Room from the generation of smoke from these products is covered in Section 6.4.4.2. Gasoline supply to Knoxville is via pipeline. As specified in Section 2.2.2.3, this pipeline is not in the vacinity of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. As of 1974, with the pipeline in full operation, no future gasoline barge shipments past the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant site are expected. The potential for damage to the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant from a gasoline barge explosion is therefore negligible. 2.2-2
WBN Fuel oil is shipped by barge past the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Site. In case of a fuel oil barge accident, fire and dense smoke may result. Neither fire or dense smoke will effect plant safety, however. The intake pumping station is protected against fire by virtue of design and location. Pump suction is taken from the bottom of the channel. All pumps and essential cables and instruments are protected from fire by being enclosed within concrete walls. Also, the embayment is just downstream of the Watts Bar Dam, which is locked on the opposite side of the Tennessee River. Consequently, any oil released to the river would be swept by the current past the embayment that leads to the intake pumping station due to the fact that the embayment is located on the inside of a bend in the Tennessee River. Even if fuel oil from a spill should enter the embayment and reach the intake pumping station, the oil would have no significant effect on the water intake system or the systems it serves. Entry of oil in the intake is unlikely since the oil will float on water. A concrete skimmer wall exists at the pumping station and the pumps take suction approximately 20 feet below the minimum normal water level. The pump suction would be approximately 10 feet below the water surface even in the event of failure of the downstream dam. Any oil that did enter the pumps would be highly diluted and in such a state would have a minor effect on system piping losses and heat exchanger capabilities. REFERENCES None. 2.2-3
WBN TABLE 2.2-1 (Sheet 1 of 1) WATERBORNE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRAFFIC (TONS)4 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) 2002-2007 COMMODITIES 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Ammonium Nitrate Fertilizers 3110 Carbon (Including Carbon Black), NEC 15232 7605 1348 1518 Ethyl Alcohol (Not Denatured) 137147 118594 137464 133412 76993 8947 80% or More Alcohol Fuel Oils, NEC 3400 7209 Lubrication Petroleum Oils from 12732 Petrol & Bitum Mineral Other Light Oils from Petroleum & 9120 Bitum Minerals Petro.Bitumen, Petro.Coke, 1531 12708 25183 11437 3148 71061 Asphalt, Butumen mixes, NEC Petroleum Oils/Oils from 6674 Bituminous Minerals, Crude Pitch & Pitch Coke from Coal 248986 258584 236716 254001 235381 164752 Tar/Other Mineral Tars Vermiculite, Perlite, Chlorites 1642 1643 Grand Total 402896 397491 408863 419774 317165 261089
i
° X2530 OAK RIDGE' ~' UC (1504) `~'
LLLI 1.4 1 1 1 1
- 2051 1.608 , 1 1 1 ` ` 4- ~
~~ 1x(800)28;1.1
~0T Crossville 3,6(~ 0 1
.'34&6JEFFERS CROSSVILLE,MEML I _Har rim- *ate sir `~.~ ~.'
~'
2~ WHITSON.(CSV)
- KNOXVILLE. ` 6
% * ~..A, ~p 188 1-*L 54 U - ROCKW0 ^ 1;768 NOXVIL L LDOW (D NTOWN+ ISiAND
- ' *' + < 833,: i aCz~ iii
" ~.
- C , L 35:11 GATCINBURG O 1664 L 50 U - -' 1 x2 65o *.
,` PIGEON'FORGE ings` ~on., 16 `.*% t~ `'1'O 14'*L 55 0840_' ' *.
8 Sevieryille 12 *2.2 R 26?' ;° PVI.) ILEY CREEK, ~* 'Ab JCH-IVfOUNTAIN © 1020 , +- ille n, A 1231HCH +NASHVILLE *:* /
-- Spring City (
y:136,/; udon ~~ /122:1R \\\ N0 *.MCGHEE;T 54 YSON TYS VOLUNTEERS ono r --.-~ N +" ,CT- 1 21;.2
* .e + ` ' ~; ATIS 128:35 k16.1-1Ch . .,. ,-
o ; 981 L 90° SNOWBIRD MOA
.1,240` 122: 2,'i122.3 . 255-.4 `NASHVILLE Gatlinburg
,P eville Q V 5-WATTS BAR SITE MCSGHEE TYSON RCO
? '~ A ,~ f' Dao * 'MARKiANT,ON - NASHVILLE ~`'
~'~,
394 DTE
~o ^ S'NOWBI'RD a.
MONROE CC>(MNV ` o . See*NOTAMs/Directory i for Class C eff'hrsr TANOOGA
*~` ~
MARK TON
-718yG50 U i,'
( )
,^~ `_*
/%
+ '
~i
~ 1
~ ~ --- *-~
Madison 'lle ,'1
\~to 6,0 1
4 oo 6643 (PV SOSSAtM 1940 _ 0' ' +Athens:1 - '* ASS C ~ ; . i ,
,' / MCMINN i
/ O 840 Q /~
+=Fo O
, N ,i ^' ~
son ._Sodd DAISY o°~ _ ry*'"
'. y 341 CG2N~'i~ ~L i / 8874 0
( 64
)
MCM INN ~ eo s ,, + City
~ ~~ ~', = - U CO ~
~*~ _*
' 242 MMl
^ JACKSON U n23461*t -r
, mil/ i ;J owah , **1- °, 552 ~ 5580 i` 2857 (550) 0, HARDWI i ; 0 WES TER j CK'(HDf)/ ` N
,~*-*o~ ~~ 874 / CHILHOWEE /CAROLINA RGNL (RFI _ / o *..-_. ---'
'L 33 U ' O.4GLIDERPORT (92A)_ ,p~ P) __* __
* *- =770 - 26'- 1699'L 55 t 1 .
~~ -'Cleveland ,U-1::;.. -*Y GLEVEL:AND~% " - 1
* ` MACON(CO (1 A5) ` i 154:8 "*' RGNL: ZR)5----*----* Q `
(575) 860 *~ 2034 'L 50 U L 55)) `
~ , Andrews
/w tr I Fra CAMPBELL(1A3)-W U - ,
/ po.0
~J*; W 1789 - 35 Z
~ ~* COLLEGEDALE =
(FGU)
+860 L 50 U / I HARRIS
~:* o 109.8 Ch 35 LV(CHA) Z HR;14 118:3`* ` I $ -
i Q .M_ ACON )119`:85 o 0 426 2
- :e 5~ '
~5g99
' UM U ~~-~ ROSTER (Pvt) V 54 / js'° *i
+ ' 877- 20 ~E- 271 ° N 1 oso J -- 086 V
~. °- ~ 1
- 5. 255.4 -122' Fl- -' Blue Ridge BLAIRSVIL'L*E (DZJ) (Pf)
-1.9J0 'L. 50 U HEAVENS CFi00 CHOO r' (WHITFIfL 400 UVV1 ;~D~ , 2724 - 50 O Ch 105~600 BLUE RIDGE0 _ (D47 84 Clayton 1946-31 d MACON 122.1R
` , ` oGo-Ji T I
. ~~==c EXTENSIVE LOW 3000 '
ti FOOTHILL'S
` 4081. ALTITUDE ROTARY. °_ 113.4 Ch 81 ODF
_° qo L---* - F -AND ~**
~' `~ FIXED-WING'AIBCFiA o. ( r
~, F6 ANDERSON '
DAL TOL TRAINING OPERATION i ~~ 5U S ~~
* ~+f -709'L 55 U
* *~ Ellijay 'w %° N .'*
s' 1 *-
* - ALERT LUM r `v `.-'
1883 PKIN'C iG i ~* AREA WIAhPYS(9 Os~0 258 2040 i `.*___*GILME A-685- 1311 'I:31 R CO(49A) 148 6'L 35 U :O r 7860;^ - ' ° 1.746 415 ' ~ - 150oi .~ _
+ Calhoun _ r0 T l
PICKENS CO (JZP)
; 2209 ^ ti.
t 1535' L' 50 U ~*
° DAVIDi(CZL) Jasp er,' ELL IOTT(Pvt) i *_ _~LETOU
-~CALHOUN`~~~ 2352
~ 656-L 60 U ' 1500 - 55` V 5-311-417 ,1, 199 M i 323OUK' ~~ ; T 297 ?i 1327 T':~ O HAB
' ERS HAM COQ AJR
- Adairsvihq ~* --__*____ ___ ;' , C)1 1;444~8'L*'S5,( ) ` ERSHAiIA '18
~HAB CHEROKEE CO (CNI i U 1 1
/ ..N1219'L 50 U )m -__ _ e~ f0 m IT '~/
/ 3,4 7;~R.I. (P
.* 128 f - ._ 2080 /~
i~(825 ~' " ; BROAD i' o~ ' /~'~r~ CHERO a <
~'~ .*' 690:
~,. *V 415'DJ /
ROME ^ 1'3 1 a ~ -MTERSVILLE D = S J i
\i3U ~'T .* LEE GIL MER 1 122 .55 8 EVZ _ *__3..
(600)
- r ; MEMLS(GVL) + ~T GAINESVILCE RCO 1276 "L-55 U FRANK anto
~` n % `1683% MACON \ JACKSON 1723 :N c::.. * / "" '~y°+n , 42.. ~CO(19A) 8! ~1-, ~* r VOR-DME ,\15 10) -
25~ Q
^5 S
2 `~ '~ PEACHTREE 116.6 Ch'11'3 PDK j::
*'~~
/t~
j620rj~~
'. FLO WERY.BRANCH (124o)w~:
365*FK~V.; _ 2220 951 L 50 U- *'
*1000~*/ rter svi 206 2
`*C A *stacks' y MA CON Gam, COBB_ COQ _ _ ^~ `'2654* y .l A CARTERSVILLE (VP.C) MC COLLUM'(RYY) _ O
~' ! 799*L 57 U -)
.1 30'r J' 0 t
- i'ATI CT- 125.9*f~
S 128.125 I
~**~~*f AT IS (t' 1 170 - 18 4vt) hriGWW N NI WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT '1 ^Rockmart r
O~G io4o'L 63 U
. '11
'L
^~ BF,iISC
'CT -1 FINAL SAFETY 8`55 ~r ~O
~~S`
MARIETTA ~5 r 1 ATIS~1 x1062-* ANALYSIS REPORT
~`j 1I8 $ 1514;1590 DOBBINSARB(MGE)
`y G `T ~12U~75*.tATIS 269.5~\ 1,,71 N ^ DEKAL-B- 1504 1 AIRWAYS IN THE AREA
~y OF THE PLANT PAULDING NORTHW :069W-i00 565 PEACHTREE(PDK)
EST] ATLANTA-(PUT) 01' / ~ 1605 UC *-CT-120:9*AT
+
11289T. FULTON'EO-BROW
~~\_T `
2048
/h; ~ \? ^ 998 'L 601 U IS 128 I : 4
*'~
FIGURE 2.2-1
.:..., .~ / ~ \O~.n.- '0m.., C. Rey 55 1 .ri...
C'1~,4A1<^*~ Hv't,n, I i-%At Y16106AOoo( ,064,1659 5-13 1653 In:^'<r ,°_ c.: 1 C 1064 1 Grain
- d1
_o ^ ~ [m ,,, 11C
`G. u D~wowva, ~< E G w~ r O' .wtt* j 1 1 1^ f nvr1l' 1+~ -1`~^^ \~~ ... /
S~~ Islor.a .+f - 1$i 5 E. Inen, 15 r^C} ~~i
,. w*..' ~q, _lis 691D M J\ 1R ~jp1P/lilt Fl 7)0 g a le P \
r _,.. . A5H i1 RLn,.Fm 7 1
/~ 64 *so ir1 a *n '~'h. *MoY ~o N1tlF
*, t..,h,.*.
n- 1 ~` }~ .. WATTS BAR 7'743 'i~_ K i. 0'lg~ 056 E +8 1 V M NUCLEAR PLANT 100 CJ ti 70 w.**
' ow
\S--VRSB C S? n* ..,.. g M F vK r*. Sro+
..11056 1 101
, 5* C+ 1
°+a f.\ 105~~ 1 B1 97 w E H Iwr [97~r 76,6 69 <1p o.r*, o\ g ~/ VR
- pM G 92 ~_ V'o.
f 69 h/S e"r R1m4 * !' 1,. 1 *T /$ 91
- p g6 s'~ ~*
n ,+ .,J Cu^wbell"'Y M ~ *l .1:~ ppN
. ,1 t* \.
b, .+r. oCtrm.o^: H1qTh`1O 0Q A o 7;
/ 1 0. ! BE q1 1 1 IPnc D P 0262x).Q111.
90 r 1 e .. loc*:ov ,nV~ 7 G H7 r It _ F l v l .r ...b pn 1Mep~ E S~6q . 555 1S V0. s _,l0 C D C 1y c+ 11~1I{5*IV' 05 .y D 1 S~6 \5 Sy.,,. 41.1061 ! 1, 1 6 1'.. v nn.1c 0 1l
.o. 5 ,I 69 S 60 M l ,1 ot* 41.1067-moo;9 ro 1
/ 0~ Cn 1067 P,,...: 97
- a. 6 c7T H r 16O E .n Al 311~ h... l , r ,...l _+ ~:
.f5 1052 1 OO r, I r ~n11*, P L 50.F36~3740_ nHN;cc B O78 ~rl p y F SR hhe*C'~
dam' G gy a ..(.~ Monl Co va E / !* 11^n O 74 G p1,, nrlin 6667 "0 7 r~ G A N IR vR VR g H 5 -15 ~ 6O . A 052 050 1051 p 1mumumm l,o7 IR 19 695, 77 R. " B it io y~ ., 01004 q5 f 7B 1054 y~ 41. F K , 1068 f'1 A7 50 ,o ~~ 7 E 5- 13
~~ t r O i
a o6A / V /f pr "w IOSi . *. ~O <~ C ~9.,ns~"
.120 1055 M^.. N '1M' ~. r'C.
n `~ d ,r / Y ' R^*,ins 10 15 3 t tk 72 C x~--111066 3 g ap </ Fk * *^~ B C c" 5-L?~Eso p `y + °100 1055 74 63O f 1 5`13 55 9 F 0 304 SIL IOSSOO K G 71 VR 1052 05 1 Dc 5R 39
- WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 47~ 1021, 061 ;"
51 1066 70. FINAL SAFETY 71,71 71- O O to,. N A0 3* ANALYSIS REPORT N ..1.,. ~- F F 1 G R 0. R; 6 rt`- pl 7 11 5 021 VR 90 51 s E .1 J0 1003 72 WC .D v7 103 MILITARY AIRWAYS IN THE AREA VR 107 1022 OF THE PLANT 1 `T 1 C3 K G 1021 /
..;x;11*
FIGURE 2.2-2
~fi. N 191r I
WBN 2.3 METEOROLOGY 2.3.1 Regional Climate 2.3.1.1 Data Sources Most of the climatic data summaries and other publications used in describing the site region meteorology are included in the list of references for Section 2.3. Those used in a general way not specifically referenced are the following: (1) U.S. Department of Commerce, Normal Weather Charts for the Northern Hemisphere, U. S. Weather Bureau, Technical Paper No. 21, October 1952, and (2) U.S. Department of Commerce, Climatic Atlas of the United States, Environmental Science Services Administration, Environmental Data Service, June 1968. 2.3.1.2 General Climate The Watts Bar site is in the eastern Tennessee portion of the southern Appalachian region. This area is dominated much of the year by the Azores-Bermuda anticyclonic circulation shown [1] in the annual normal sea level pressure distribution (Figure 2.3-1). This dominance is most pronounced in late summer and early fall and is accompanied by extended periods of fair [2] weather and widespread atmospheric stagnation. In winter and early spring, the normal circulation becomes diffuse over the region as eastward moving migratory high- or low-pressure systems, identified with the mid-latitude westerly upper air circulation, bring alternately cold and warm air masses into the Watts Bar site area with resultant changes in wind, atmospheric stability, precipitation, and other meteorological elements. In the summer and early fall, the migratory systems are less frequent and less intense. Frequent incursions of warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico and occasionally from the Atlantic Ocean are experienced in the summer. The site is primarily influenced by cyclones from the Southwest and Gulf Coast that translate toward the Northeast U.S. Coast by passing along either the west side or the east side of the Appalachian chain and by cyclones from the Plains or Midwest that move up the Ohio Valley. Topography around the site strongly influences the local climate. Mountain ranges located both northwest and southeast of the site, which is in the upper Tennessee River Valley, are oriented generally northeast-southwest and rise 3,000 to 4,000 feet MSL and, in places, 5,000 to 6,000 feet MSL. The latter elevations are in the Great Smoky Mountains to the east and southeast. They provide an orographic barrier that reduces the low-level atmospheric moisture from the Atlantic Ocean brought into the area by winds from the East. However, considerable low-level atmospheric moisture from the Gulf of Mexico is often brought into the area by winds from the south, southwest, or west. The predominant air masses affecting the site area may be described as interchangeably continental and maritime in the winter and spring, maritime in the summer, and continental in the fall. Temperature patterns generally conform to the seasonal trends typical of continental, humid subtropical climates. Precipitation is normally well distributed throughout the year, but monthly 2.3-1
WBN amounts are generally largest in the winter and early spring and smallest in the late summer and fall. The primary maximum occurs in March and is associated with cyclones passing through or near the region. A secondary maximum of precipitation occurs in July and is characteristically the result of diurnal thunderstorms occurring most frequently in the afternoon and evening. The minimum monthly precipitation normally occurs in October. Snow and sleet usually occur only during the period November through March and generally result from cold air pushing southward through the area against relatively warm, moist air. 2.3.1.3 Severe Weather Severe storms are relatively infrequent in east Tennessee, being east of the area of major tornadic activity, south of nearly all storms producing blizzard conditions, and too far inland to be affected often by the remnants of intense tropical cyclones. Damage from such remnants of tropical cyclones is rare, occurring only about once every 18 years, and is generally restricted to [3] flood effects from heavy rains . The probability that a tornado will strike the Watts Bar site is low. During the period 1950-2009 (when climatological records are fairly complete) there were 38 tornadoes within 30 miles of the [aa,bb] Watts Bar site, including 12 tornadoes F3/EF3 or greater . The probability of a tornado striking the site can be calculated using the following equations according to NUREG/CR-4461, [cc] [8] Rev. 2 . Using the principle of geometric probability described by H. C. S. Thom, the probability of a tornado striking any point in the one degree latitude by one degree longitude square containing the plant site may be calculated. Thom's equations are the following: z t P = A (1) 1 R = P (2) P= mean probability of a tornado striking a point in any year in a one-degree square. z = mean path area of a tornado (mi2) t= mean number of tornadoes per year. A = area of one-degree latitude, one-degree longitude square (mi2), which is 3887 mi2 for the one-degree square containing the Watts Bar site. (84°W to 85°W by 35°N to 36°N) R = mean recurrence interval for a tornado striking a point in the one- degree square (years). 2.3-2
WBN [8] For z = 2.8209 mi2 (from H. C. S. Thom ) and t = 1.02 tornadoes per year (55 tornadoes
-4 from NUREG/CR-4461 divided by 54 years of record), the probability is 7.40 x 10 with a recurrence interval of 1351 years. For consideration in station blackout criteria, the annual
-4 expectation of tornadoes with winds exceeding 113 mph (F2/EF2 or greater) is 3.77 x 10 per square mile (t = 0.52, based on 28 tornadoes F2 and above 54 years).
Windstorms are relatively infrequent, but may occur several times a year. Strong winds are usually associated with thunderstorms that occur about 50 times per year based on records for Chattanooga and Knoxville (Table 2.3-1). Moderate and occasionally strong winds sometimes accompany migrating cyclones and air mass fronts. Wind records for Chattanooga exist for [dd] [ee 1945-2009 (65 years) , for Knoxville during 1943-2009 (67 years) ], and for Watts Bar meteorological tower during 1973-2009 (37 years). The extreme wind speed cases have been converted to 3-second gust equivalents for comparison (Table 2.3-1A). The highest observed wind speeds (3-second equivalent) are 102 mph on March 24, 1947 at Chattanooga, 88 mph on July 15, 1961 at Knoxville, and 59 mph on March 25, 1975 at Watts Bar meteorological tower. During 1950-2009, winds > 50 knots (> 57 mph) were reported an average of 16.33 times per year for Rhea County (which contains Watts Bar Nuclear Plant) and the 6 [ff] surrounding counties combined (Table 2.3-1B). During 1950-2009, hail 3/4 inch in diameter or larger has been reported an average of 6.98 [ff] times per year for Rhea County and the 6 surrounding counties combined (Table 2.3-1B). The likelihood of hail (any size) for a specific location in the area is less than once per year, based on a 52-year record (1879-1930) at Chattanooga and a 60-year record (1871-1930) at [gg] Knoxville . 2 Annual lightning strike density is estimated to be 7.7 flashes to ground per km according to [hh] NUREG/CR-3759 . Based on thunderstorm day frequencies observed at Chattanooga (Table 2.3-1) the seasonal densities of flashes to ground per km2 are estimated to be 0.55 (winter), 2.17 (spring), 4.02 (summer), and 0.96 (fall). These seasonal densities were estimated by calculating the percent of the annual thunderstorm days during the season and multiplying by the annual lightning density value. For example, winter has 3.9 thunderstorm days out of the 55.1 annual total, or 7.1%. Applying 7.1% to the 7.7 annual flashes values results in the 0.55 seasonal flashes value for the winter season. Relative potential for air pollution is indicated by the seasonal distribution of atmospheric [15] stagnation cases of four days or more analyzed by Korshover. In a 35-year period (1936-1970), there were about one case in the winter, 11 cases in the spring, 24 cases in the [16] summer, and 34 cases in the fall. According to Holzworth, there were about 35 forecast-days of high meteorological potential for air pollution in a 5-year period based on data collected in the 1960s and early 1970 (Figure 2.3-2). On the average, about seven air pollution forecast-days per year can be expected, with significantly greater probability in the summer and fall than in the winter and spring. 2.3-3
WBN Frost penetration depth is important for protection of water lines and other buried structural features that are subject to freeze damage. The average depth for the 1899 through 1938 period was about six inches, and the extreme depth during the 1909 through 1939 period was [17] about 14 inches. [18] Estimations of regional glaze probabilities have been made by Tattelman, et al. For Region V, which contains Tennessee, point probabilities for glaze icing 5.0 cm or more thick and 2.5
-4 -4 cm or more thick in any one year are about 1.0 x 10 and 4.0 x 10 , respectively. These probabilities correspond to recurrences of about once in 10,000 years and about once in 2,500 years. Ice thicknesses of 2.0, 1.8, 1.7, and 1.5 cm correspond to return periods of 100, 50, 25, and 10 years.
All ice storms with glaze thicknesses 2.5 cm or greater that were analyzed were accompanied by maximum wind gusts 10 m/sec or greater. However, only one had maximum gusts 20 m/sec or greater, and that storm had ice thicknesses less than 5.0 cm. The point probabilities for lesser ice thicknesses are about 0.20 for > 1.25 cm and 0.37 for > 0.63 cm, and the respective recurrence intervals are once in five years and once in three years. However, glaze ice thicknesses 1.25 cm or less generally result in little structural damage, except for above-ground utility wires when strong winds are combined with the storms. The major impact of storms which produce these lesser ice thicknesses is a hazard to travel in the affected areas. Snowfall records for Chattanooga NWS (1937-2009) show maximum 24-hour and monthly [dd] snowfall amounts of 20.0 and 20.0 inches . Snowfall records for Knoxville NWS (1951-2009) [ee] show maximum 24-hour and monthly snowfall amounts of 18.2 and 23.3 inches . Older records for Knoxville before the NWS station was established show a maximum single storm of [19] 22.5 inches . The total snow load was calculated by assuming that the maximum single snowfall falls on the maximum snowpack. For the Watts Bar Site area, the weight of the 100- [20] year return period snow pack is estimated to be about 14 pounds per square foot . Assuming that the 22.5 inches of snow that fell at Knoxville on December 4-6, 1886, had the water equivalency ratio of 1:7, or 0.14 inch per inch of snow, the weight would be about 17 pounds per square foot. The combined weight of the existing snowpack, plus the new snow would be about 31 pounds per square foot on a flat surface. For conservatism, the weight of the maximum single storm snowfall recorded in Tennessee during the 1871 through 1970 period was estimated. This 28-inch snowfall occurred on February 19-21, 1960 at Westbourne, on the [21] Cumberland Plateau in northeastern Tennessee. A more conservative water equivalency ratio of 1:6 was used to give an estimated weight of about 24 pounds per square foot. The total snow load for this case would be about 38 pounds per square foot. Design loading considerations, including the snow load, for the reactor shield building and other Category I structures are presented in Sections 3.8.1 and 3.8.4, respectively. No meteorological parameters were used in evaluating the performance of the ultimate heat sink, which consists of a once-through cooling system utilizing the Chickamauga Reservoir on the Tennessee River. A demonstration of adequate water flow past the site is used in the design bases. This is discussed in Section 2.4.11 (historical information). The initial design conditions assumed for the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant reactor shield building (and other safety-related structures) are the following: 2.3-4
WBN
- 1. 300 mph = Rotational Speed
- 2. 60 mph = Translational Speed
- 3. 360 mph = Maximum Wind Speed
- 4. 3 psi = Pressure Drop
- 5. 1 psi/sec = Rate of Pressure Drop (3 psi/3 sec is assumed)
For the additional Diesel Generator Building and structures initiated after July 1979, the design basis tornado parameters are as follows:
- 1. 290 mph = Rotational Speed
- 2. 70 mph = Translational Speed
- 3. 360 mph = Maximum Wind Speed
- 4. 3 psi = Pressure Drop
- 5. 2 psi/sec = Rate of Pressure Drop (3 psi/1.5 sec is assumed)
These and tornado-driven missile criteria are discussed in Sections 3.3 and 3.5. The fastest mile of wind at 30 feet above ground is about 95 mph for a 100-year return period in the site [22] area. The vertical distribution of horizontal wind speeds at 50, 100, and 150 feet above ground is 102, 113, and 120 mph on the basis of the speed at 30 feet and a power law exponent of 1/7. A gust factor of 1.3 is often used at the 30-foot level, but this would be conservative for higher levels. The wind load for the Shield Building is based on 95 mph for that level, as discussed in Section 3.3. Estimates of the probable maximum precipitation (PMP) and the design considerations for the PMP are discussed in Section 2.4. 2.3.2 Local Meteorology 2.3.2.1 Data Sources Short-term site-specific meteorological data from the TVA meteorological facility at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant site are the basis for dispersion meteorology analysis. Data representative of the site or indicative of site conditions for temperature, precipitation, snowfall, humidity, fog, or wind were also obtained from climatological records for Chattanooga, Dayton, Decatur, Knoxville, Oak Ridge, and Watts Bar Dam, all in Tennessee. Short-term records for the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant site were used. These data source locations are shown relative to the plant site in Figure 2.3-3. 2.3.2.2 Normal and Extreme Values of Meteorological Parameters [13] [dd] Temperature data for Dayton and for Chattanooga are presented in Tables 2.3-2 and 2.3-3, respectively. The Chattanooga and Dayton mean daily data are provided as reasonably representative and recent (1971-2000) temperature information. Normal mean dry-bulb temperatures range from 36.2-39.4°F in the winter to 76.9-79.6°F in the summer. Normal daily maximum temperatures range from 45.9-49.9°F in winter to 87.7-89.6°F in summer. Normal daily minimum temperatures range from 26.5-31.1°F in winter to 66.1-69.0°F in summer. The extreme maxima recorded for the respective data periods (46 years for Dayton and 70 years for Chattanooga) were 107°F at Dayton and 106°F at Chattanooga, while the extreme minima recorded were -15°F and -10°F, respectively. Temperature data from Decatur (Table 2.3.2), for 60 years prior to data collection at Dayton, reported an extreme maximum temperature of 108°F and an extreme minimum temperature of -20°F. 2.3-5
WBN Precipitation data are presented in Table 2.3-4. These data are from two different rain gauges near Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, one at Watts Bar Dam (1939-1975) and one at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant meteorological tower (1974-2008). Precipitation has fallen an average of 110-111 days per year, with an annual average of 45.43 inches at the meteorological tower and 52.57 inches at Watts Bar Dam. The maximum monthly rainfall ranged from 6.52 inches to 14.78 inches. The minimum monthly amount was 0.00. The maximum rainfall in 24 hours was 5.31 inches at Watts Bar Dam in January 1946. The maximum in 24 hours at the meteorological tower was 4.77 inches on September 17, 1994. Mean monthly data reveal the wettest period as late fall through early spring, with March normally the wettest month of the year. Thunderstorm activity is most predominant in the spring and summer seasons, and the maximum frequency of thunderstorm days (Table 2.3-1) is normally in July. Appreciable snowfall is relatively infrequent in the area. Snowfall data are summarized in Table [13] [dd] [ee] 2.3-5 for Decatur and in Table 2.3-6 for Chattanooga and Knoxville. The Dayton, Chattanooga, and Knoxville records provide current information and offer a complete picture of the pattern of snowfall in the Tennessee River Valley from Chattanooga to Knoxville. Mean annual snowfall has ranged from 4.4 inches at Dayton to about 10 inches at Knoxville. Dayton, about halfway between those locations, averaged about 4 inches annually for an earlier period of record. Generally, significant snowfalls are limited to November through March. For the data periods presented in the tables, respective 24-hour maximum snowfalls have been 20.0, 8.0, 18.2 inches at Chattanooga, Dayton, and Knoxville. Severe ice storms of freezing rain (or glaze) are infrequent, as discussed in the regional climatology section. Atmospheric water vapor content is generally rather high in the site area, as was indicated in the discussion of the regional climatology. Long-term relative humidity and absolute humidity [dd,25] data for Chattanooga are presented in Tables 2.3-7 through 2.3-9. The relative humidity for selected hours in Table 2.3-7 has been updated to a more current period of record. Tables 2.3-8 and 2.3-9 cannot be easily updated, but are still valid since the information in Table 2.3-7 shows no major changes in humidity characteristics. Humidity data based on measurements at the onsite meteorological facility are summarized in Tables 2.3-10 and 2.3-11 for comparison with the data in Tables 2.3-8 and 2.3-9. A typical diurnal variation is apparent in Table 2.3-7. Relative humidity and absolute humidity are normally greatest in the summer. [dd] [ee] [26] [27] Fog data for Chattanooga, Knoxville, and Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and from Hardwick are presented in Table 2.3-12. These data indicate that heavy fog at the Watts Bar site likely occurs on about 35 days per year with the fall normally the foggiest season. Sources of data on fogs with visibilities significantly less than 1/4 mile and on durations of fogs which can be considered representative of the site have not been identified. Wind direction patterns are strongly influenced by the northeast-southwest orientation of the [28] major topographic features, as evidenced in the onsite data, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant data , [ee] [26] and the records for Knoxville and Oak Ridge. The Watts Bar wind direction and wind speed data are summarized in Tables 2.3-13 and 2.3-14 (annual at 10 and 46 meters); Tables 2.3-15 and 2.3-16 (directional persistence at 10 and 46 meters); and Tables 2.3-17 through 2.3-40 (monthly at 10 and 46 meters). The annual wind roses for each level are shown in Figures 2.3-4 and 2.3-5. 2.3-6
WBN The most frequent wind direction at 10 meters has been from south-southwest (about 16%). The next highest frequencies (about 8%) are from the north-northeast and northwest wind. The data in Table 2.3-41 and the data in Table 2.3-13 show a predominance of wind from the north-northwest and northwest, respectively, for wind speeds less than about 3.5 mph. More discussion of this very light wind speed pattern is contained in Section 2.3.3.3. It is very significant that the frequencies of calms differ so markedly between the two sets of onsite data. It appears that the higher frequency of calm conditions is primarily a consequence of the location of the temporary meteorological facility in a "sink." The maximum wind direction persistence period at 10 meters is shown in Table 2.3-15 as 44 hours from the south-southwest direction. The monthly summaries show some minor variation in the wind direction patterns, but the up valley-down valley primary and secondary frequency maxima generally are fully evident. In the summary tables for 46 meters, the upvalley-downvalley wind direction pattern is very clear and dominant. The two highest frequencies are 19% from the south-southwest wind direction and 11% from the north-northeast wind direction. The maximum wind direction persistence (Table 2.3-16) during the 17-year period was 48 hours from the south-southwest. Wind speed is normally lower than for most parts of the United States. The other data sources referenced in the discussion of wind direction patterns also reflect this condition. Annually, the onsite data show about 53% of the hourly average wind speeds at 10 meters were less than 3.5 mph and about 85% were less than 7.5 mph. At 46 meters, the respective frequencies show the wind speeds are relatively lighter in summer and early fall and relatively stronger in late fall, winter, and spring. [16] Mean mixing height data for the United States have been researched by Holzworth. However, his analysis has utilized data to estimate morning mixing heights (after sunrise) and mid afternoon mixing heights. Night-time mixing heights are not addressed. Average daily mixing heights are likely to be reasonably similar to the mean morning mixing heights. The seasonal and annual estimates of these mixing heights are the following: winter, about 500 meters; spring, about 530 meters; summer, about 430 meters; fall, about 350 meters; and annual, about 450 meters. [29] Low-level inversion frequencies in the eastern Tennessee area have been studied by Hosler. His seasonal frequencies indicate inversions in the Watts Bar area about 40% of the time in winter, 30% in spring, 45% in summer, and 45% in fall. The annual frequency is about 40%. The monthly and annual percent frequencies of hours with inversions measured at the Watts Bar onsite meteorological facility for the 20-year period, 1974 through 1993, are presented in Table 2.3-42. In comparison to Hosler's seasonal and annual values, the winter, summer, and fall values are slightly lower and the spring value is higher and has the greatest departure. The highest monthly frequency in Table 2.3-42 is about 44% in October and the lowest is about 30% in January, with an annual average of about 39%. Monthly and annual frequencies of Pasquill stability classes A-G are also presented in the same table and indicate that the most stable time [15] of year is the fall. Korshover's statistics on atmospheric stagnation cases discussed under "General Climate," provide the same indication. 2.3-7
WBN Table 2.3-44 presents a summary of onsite inversion persistence data, with a breakdown by stability class, for the same 20-year period discussed above. Persistence in this case is defined as two or more consecutive hours with vertical temperature gradient (T) values > 0 degrees Celsius. However, the individual classes are allowed one-hour departures among themselves. The data analyzed correspond to the T interval between 10 and 46 meters above the ground. The longest periods of inversion were 45 hours in January 1982 and 42 hours in December 1989. Other long periods, up to 21 hours, occurred in winter. A combination of cold, dry air masses with the shorter length of the solar day in that half of the year and fresh snow on the ground surface can increase the probability for inversion durations greater than 14 hours in that time of year. The unusual case of 45 hours of inversion persistence at this site occurred from January 19 to 21, 1982 at the end of a 10-day period of very cold weather. Persistent fog and low overcast with a synoptic pattern of warm air advection above an initially frozen, snow-covered ground surface and very light, variable winds at the 10-meter level created this [30,31,32] condition. The unusual case of 42 hours of inversion persistence occurred from December 29-31, 1989 during a period in which a cold front stalled to the west of the site. All of Eastern Tennessee (including the Watts Bar site) was covered by heavy fog with occasional [33, 34, 35] light rain and drizzle. Distributions of stability classes A-G are presented in Figures 2.3-6A and 2.3-6B. The average diurnal variations of stability class frequencies are quite evident, with the neutral (class D) and unstable (A, B, and C) lapse conditions predominant in the daytime and the stable classes (E, F, and G) predominant through the nighttime. 2.3.2.3 Potential Influence of the Plant and Its Facilities on Local Meteorology The Watts Bar site is about 45 miles north-northeast of Chattanooga. It is located on the west shore of Chickamauga Lake on the Tennessee River, which flows generally southwesterly through eastern Tennessee. The site (about 700 feet MSL) is near the center of a northeast-southwest aligned valley, 10 to 15 miles wide, flanked to the west by Walden Ridge (900 to 1,800 feet MSL,) and to the east by a series of ridges reaching elevations of 800 to 1,000 feet MSL. Figure 2.1-3 consists of a map of the topographic features (as modified by the plant) of the site area for 10 miles in all directions from the plant. Profiles of maximum elevation versus distance from the center of the plant are shown in Figures 2.3-14 through 2.3-29 for the sixteen compass point sectors (keyed to true north) to a radial distance of 10 miles. The only plant systems which may have any pragmatic effects on the local climatic patterns of meteorological parameters discussed in the preceding section are the two natural draft cooling towers and their blowdown discharge system. During their operation, some small increase in ambient atmospheric moisture and temperature can be expected from the vapor plumes discharged from the tower tops. Also, some increase in the surface water temperature of Chickamauga Lake will be associated with the discharge of heated water from the plant (primarily the cooling tower blowdown). The vapor plumes may produce some additional localized fog on rare occasions on top of Walden Ridge (about eight miles, at its closest point, to the west-northwest). The increased lake surface temperature will likely increase the frequency of river steam fog slightly over a relatively small area of the reservoir downstream from the plant. No significant environmental impacts are expected from these effects. Discontinuities in ambient thermal structure of the atmosphere related to differential surface temperatures between land and water should produce no detectable effect on the local wind patterns or stability conditions. The physical plant structures will alter wind and stability somewhat in the immediate lee of the structures by mechanical turbulence factors produced in the building wake(s). 2.3-8
WBN However, these effects are expected to be generally insignificant beyond the first one or two thousand feet downwind. 2.3.2.4 Local Meteorological Conditions for Design and Operating Bases All design basis meteorological parameters are discussed or referenced in Section 2.3.1.3. 2.3.3 Onsite Meteorological Measurements Program 2.3.3.1 Preoperational Program Onsite meteorological facilities have been in operation since 1971 when a temporary 40-meter (130-foot) instrumented tower was installed. It was located about 760 meters (0.5 mile) west-southwest of the unit 1 Reactor Building and had a base elevation of 2 meters (8 feet) below plant grade. The temporary facility collected wind speed, wind direction, and temperature data at the 10-meter (33-foot) and 40-meter levels until it was decommissioned in September 1973. Since the UFSAR dispersion meteorology data base was collected exclusively by the permanent facility, only that facility is described in detail in this section. Permanent Meteorological Facility The permanent meteorological facility consists of a 91-meter (300-foot) instrumented tower for wind and temperature measurements, a separate 10-meter (33-foot) tower for dewpoint measurements, a ground-based instrument for rainfall measurements, and an environmental data station (EDS), which houses the data processing and recording equipment. A system of lightning and surge protection circuitry and proper grounding is included in the facility design. This facility is located approximately 760 meters south-southwest of the Unit 1 Reactor Building and has a base elevation of 4 meters (11 feet) below plant grade. Data collected included: (1) wind direction and wind speed at 10, 46, and 91 meters; (2) temperature at 10, 46, and 91 meters; (3) dewpoint at 10 meters and (4) rainfall at 1 meter (3 feet). More exact measurement heights for the wind and temperature parameters are given in [37] the EDS manual. Elsewhere in the text of this document, temperature and wind sensor heights are given as 10, 46, and 91 meters. Data collection at the permanent facility began May 23, 1973, with measurements of wind speed and wind direction at 10 and 93 meters (305 feet), temperature at 1, 10, 46, and 91 meters and dewpoint, and rainfall at 1 meter. Measurements of 46-meter wind speed and wind direction and 10-meter dewpoint began September 16, 1976. Measurements of 1-meter dew point were discontinued September 30, 1977. Wind sensors at 93-meter (actual height was 93.3 meters) were moved to their present height on May 18, 1978. Measurements of 1-meter temperature were discontinued on April 2, 1981. The 10-meter dewpoint sensor was removed from the meteorological tower and a new dewpoint sensor was installed on a separate tower 24 meters to the northwest on April 11, 1994. 2.3-9
WBN Instrument Description A description of the meteorological sensors follows. More detailed sensor specifications are included in the EDS Manual. Replacement sensors, which may be of a different manufacturer [36] or model, will satisfy the NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.23 (Revision 1) specifications. Height Sensor (Meters) Description Wind Direction 10, 46, Ultrasonic wind sensor. and Wind Speed and 91 Temperature 10, 46, Platinum wire resistance temperature and 91 detector (RTD) with aspirated radiation shield. Dewpoint 10 Capacitive humidity sensor. Rainfall 1 Tipping bucket rain gauge. Data Acquisition System The data acquisition system is located at the EDS and consists of meteorological sensors, a computer (with peripherals), and various interface devices. These devices send meteorological data to the plant, to the Central Emergency Control Center (CECC), and to an offsite computer that enables callup for data validation and archiving. An older data collection system, which included a NOVA microcomputer, was replaced on March 2, 1989. The previous data collection system, which included a micro-VAX minicomputer, was replaced by a new system on May 24, 2010. System Accuracies The meteorological data collection system is designed and replacement components are chosen to meet or exceed specifications for accuracy identified in RG 1.23. The meteorological data collection system satisfies the RG 1.23 accuracy requirements. A detailed listing of error sources for each parameter is included in the EDS manual. Data Recording and Display The data acquisition is under control of the computer program. The output of each meteorological sensor is scanned periodically, scaled, and the data values are stored. Meteorological sensor outputs (except rainfall) are measured every five seconds (720 per hour). Rainfall is measured continuously as it occurs. Software data processing routines within the computer accumulate output and perform data calculations to generate 15-minute and hourly averages of wind speed and temperature, 15-minute and hourly vector wind speed and direction, 15-minute and hourly total precipitation, hourly average of dewpoint, and hourly horizontal wind direction sigmas. Prior to February 11, 1987, a prevailing wind direction calculation method was used. Subsequently, vector wind speed and direction have been calculated along with arithmetic average wind speed. Prior to February 1, 1975, only one reading of temperature and dewpoint was made each hour. Between February 1, 1975 and June 13, 2010, temperature and dewpoint were measured every minute (60 per hour). 2.3-10
WBN Selected data each 15 minutes and all data each hour are stored for remote data access. Data sent to the plant control room every minute includes 10-, 46-, and 91-meter values for wind direction, wind speed, and temperature. Data sent to the CECC computer every 15 minutes includes 10-, 46-, and 91-meter wind direction, wind speed, and temperature values. These data are available from the CECC computer to other TVA and the State emergency centers in support of the Radiological Emergency Plan, including the Technical Support Center at Watts Bar. Remote access of meteorological data by the NRC is available through the CECC computer. Data are sent from the EDS to an offsite computer for validation, reporting, and archiving. Equipment Servicing, Maintenance, and Calibration The meteorological equipment at the EDS is kept in proper operating condition by staff that are trained and qualified for the necessary tasks. Most equipment is calibrated or replaced at least every six months of service. The methods for maintaining a calibrated status for the components of the meteorological data collection system (sensors, electronics, data logger, etc.) include field checks, field calibration, and/or replacement by a laboratory calibrated component. More frequent calibration and/or replacement intervals for individual components may be conducted, on the basis of the operational history of the component type. Procedures and processes such as appropriate maintenance processes (procedures, work order/work request documents, etc.) are used to calibrate and maintain meteorological and station equipment. 2.3.3.2 Operational Meteorological Program The operational phase of the meteorological program includes those procedures and responsibilities related to activities beginning with the initial fuel loading and continuing through the life of the plant. This phase of the meteorological data collection program will be continuous without major interruptions. The meteorological program has been developed to be consistent with the guidance given in RG 1.23 (Revision 1) and the reporting procedure in RG 1.21 [40] (Revision 1). The basic objective is to maintain data collection performance to assure at least 90% joint recoverability and availability of data needed for assessing the relative concentrations and doses resulting from accidental or routine releases. The restoration of the data collection capability of the meteorological facility in the event of equipment failure or malfunction will be accomplished by replacement or repair of affected equipment. A stock of spare parts and equipment is maintained to minimize and shorten the periods of outages. Equipment malfunctions or outages are detected by maintenance personnel during routine or special checks. Equipment outages that affect the data transmitted to the plant can be detected by review of data displays in the reactor control room. Also, checks of data availability to the emergency centers are performed each work day. When an outage of one or more of the critical data items occurs, the appropriate maintenance personnel will be notified. 2.3-11
WBN In the event that the onsite meteorological facility is rendered inoperable, or there is an outage of the communication or data access systems; there is no fully representative offsite source of meteorological data for identification of atmospheric dispersion conditions. Therefore, TVA has prepared objective backup procedures to provide estimates for missing or garbled data. These procedures incorporate available onsite data (for a partial loss of data), offsite data, and conditional climatology. The CECC meteorologist will apply the appropriate backup procedures. 2.3.3.3 Onsite Data Summaries of Parameters for Dispersion Meteorology Annual joint frequency distributions of wind speed by wind direction for Pasquill atmospheric stability classes A-G, based on the onsite data for January 1974 through December 1993 are presented in Tables 2.3-45 through 2.3-52. Tables 2.3-68 through 2.3-74 provide similar data for the time period of 1986 to 2005. Tables 2.3-76 through 2.3-83 provide similar data for the time period of 1991 to 2010. These tables are summaries of hourly data for the wind at 10 meters and vertical temperature difference (T) between 10 and 46 meters (in the form of stability classes A-G). Tables 2.3-53 through 2.3-60 were prepared from the hourly data for the wind at 46 meters and T between 10 and 46 meters (as stability classes A-G) for January 1977 through December 1993. The frequency distributions in Tables 2.3-45 through 2.3-51 are also displayed in Figures 2.3-7 through 2.3-13. Figures 2.3-7a through 2.3-13a provide similar information for Tables 2.3-76 through 2.3-82. The upvalley-downvalley primary wind pattern at 46 meters exists for all seven stability classes. The 10-meter wind level also shows upvalley-downvalley wind direction patterns. However, for classes E-G, the flow patterns become progressively more diffuse, with peaks from the northwest which become primary maxima in classes F and G (Tables 2.3-50 and 2.3-51). These directional peaks for the stable classes are most pronounced in the lighter wind speed ranges. The combination of these very light winds with the more stable conditions near the earth's surface indicate that very poor atmospheric dispersion conditions for ground-level plant releases of air-borne effluent occur most frequently at night and with the northwest wind direction. The period of record for the joint frequency tables for the 46-meter wind measurement level is three years shorter than the record used for the 10-meter wind level. Collection of wind data at the 46-meter level began in September 1976. Tables 2.3-53 through 2.3-60 were originally prepared with 93-meter wind data and 10- to 91-meter T data for the July 1973-June 1975 period. The 46-meter wind level is near the height of the reactor building; and the 10- to 46-meter T interval is more representative than the 10- to 91-meter interval for stability classification, particularly for poorer dispersion conditions. The 10-meter wind level is applicable to design accident analysis and to semiannual reports on routine plant operations. The 46-meter wind level is used in radiological emergency dispersion and transport calculations. The 20-year period for the tables with 10-meter wind data and the 17-year period for the tables with 46-meter wind data reasonably represent long-term dispersion conditions at the site. The length of the record is an important factor, and patterns of unusually wet weather in the 1970s and unusually dry weather in the 1980s are included in this data base. The dispersion meteorology varied during the 20-year period, but the period is climatologically representative of long-term conditions. An increase in the frequency of 10-meter level calm winds (values less than 0.6 mi/hr) occurred in the early 1990s. The calm wind frequency increased from 1.6% for 1974-1988 to about 3.0% for 1974-1993. Consistent with the increase in calms, average wind speed decreased from 4.2 mi/hr for 1974-1988 to 4.1 mi/hr for 1974-1993. 2.3-12
WBN Because of the time that elapsed between completion of Unit 1 and licensing of Unit 2, additional analyses were performed based on the 20-year period 1991-2010 to reflect more recent meteorological conditions. Tables 2.3-76 through 2.3-83 (and Figures 2.3-7a through 2.3-13a) present summaries of hourly data for the wind at 10 meters and vertical temperature difference (T) between 10 and 46 meters (in the form of stability classes A-G). Overall, the 1991-2010 data are comparable with data from earlier periods. However, some significant differences are apparent.
- There is a significant increase in the frequency of the G stability class (from 7.758% to 11.426%, while all other stability classes change by a much smaller rate (less the 1.6% change).
- The average wind speed decreased from over 4.0 miles per hour to about 3.6 miles per hour.
- The number of calms decreased from 4930 to 3839. While this appears to be inconsistent with the decrease in wind speeds, it likely results from changes in wind sampling instrumentation that improved measurements of low-wind speed conditions.
- Although no individual wind direction frequency had a difference greater than
+1.8%, there is a noticeable increase in winds from the southwest through north-northwest (~6.1%), with a corresponding decrease in winds from the north-northeast through east (~4.6%) and southeast through south-southwest (~1.9%).
The FSAR Chapter 11 normal release evaluation was done using the meteorology data from the time period of 1986 to 2005 and is consistent with the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. The updated meteorology data from the time period of 1991 to 2010 as described above is reflected in FSAR section 2.3.4 and is used in the Chapter 15 accident analysis. Potential climate change associated with a global warming of the earth's lower atmosphere may occur in the Watts Bar site area. Should that occur during the life of this nuclear plant, the dispersion meteorology will be evaluated for any significant changes and consequent impacts on plant design and operation. 2.3.4 Short-Term (Accident) Diffusion Estimates 2.3.4.1 Objective Estimates of atmospheric diffusion for accident releases are expressed as dispersion factors (X/Q) calculated for specified time intervals based on ground-level releases from the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. Three different set of calculations have been performed for the Watts Bar FSAR. The original FSAR calculations were based on data collected at the Watts Bar onsite (42) meteorological facility during July 1, 1973 through June 30, 1975 and R.G. 1.4 methodology. The revised X/Q values were based on onsite meteorological data for 1974 through 1993 and (41) RG 1.145 calculation methodology. The latest X/Q values are also based on the RG 1.145 calculation methodology, but use onsite meteorological data for 1991 through 2010. All data used include wind direction and wind speed at 10 meters above ground and vertical temperature difference (T) between 10 and 46 meters above ground. The latest X/Q values at the exclusion area boundary and at the outer boundary of the low population zone (LPZ) were calculated as stated below. 2.3-13
WBN Nomenclature for RG 1.145 Method 3 X/Q = centerline ground-level relative concentration (sec/m ) y = lateral plume spread with meander and building wake effects (m), as a function of atmospheric stability, wind speed 10, and distance (for distances greater than 800 meters, y = (M-1)y800 + y). y = lateral plume spread as a function of atmospheric stability and distance (m). z = vertical plume spread as a function of atmospheric stability and distance (m). x= distance from effluent release point to point at which atmospheric dispersion factors (X/Q values) are computed (m) 10 = mean hourly horizontal wind speed at 10 meters (m/sec) M = y correction factors for stability classes D, E, F, and G from Figure 3 in RG 1.145. A= minimum containment and Auxiliary Building cross-2 sectional area (m ). Atmospheric dispersion factors (X/Q values) were calculated for a 1-hour averaging period and assumed to apply to the 2-hour period immediately following an accident. The following equations were used to determine these values: 1 X/ Q = U10 ( y z + A/ 2) (1) 1 X /Q = _ (2) U 10 (3 y z ) 1 X/ Q = U10 y z (3) For stability classes D, E, F, or G and windspeeds less than 6 meters per second (m/s), the higher value from equations (1) and (2) was compared to the value from equation (3). The lower of these compared values was selected for the X/Q distributions. For wind speeds greater than 6 m/s in these classes and for all wind speeds in stability classes A, B, and C, the higher of the values from equations (1) and (2) was selected. 2.3-14
WBN 2 The minimum cross-sectional area, A, for Watts Bar Nuclear plant is 1630 m . The exclusion boundary distance is 1200 m, as shown in Figure 2.1-4b. However, to avoid possible nonconservative accident X/Qs, the distance that was used to calculate the X/Qs is 1100 m, which is the minimum distance from the outer edge of the release zone to the exclusion area boundary. The assumed release zone is a 100-m radius circular envelope, which contains all of the structures that are potential sources of accidental releases of airborne radioactive materials. A distance of three miles (4828 m) was used as the low population zone (LPZ) outer boundary distance. The 1-hour X/Q values for the exclusion boundary distance were distributed in the downwind 22.5-degree compass-point sectors (plume sectors) based on wind direction. Calm wind speeds (less than 0.6 mi/hr) were distributed based on the wind direction frequencies for non-calm wind speeds less than 3.5 mi/hr. The 0.5th and 5th percentile values for each sector and for all sectors combined were identified. For the LPZ distance, the 0.5th percentile and 5th percentile 1-hour values for each sector, the annual average values for each sector, and the 0.5th and 5th percentile 1-hour values for all sectors combined were determined. The annual average X/Qs were calculated from hourly average data according to guidance in Regulatory [43] Guide 1.111 for constant mean wind direction models. All calculations used an assumed wind speed of 0.6 mile per hour (0.268 m/s), which is the starting threshold of the anemometer, for hours with values less than that and thus defined as calms. Site-specific adjustment factors for terrain confinement and recirculation effects on concentrations at the LPZ distance were calculated and applied to the initial annual average X/Qs. The method used to develop these adjustment factors is the same as that discussed in the offsite dose calculation manual for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. The 16 sector adjustment factors are the following: N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 1.36 1.65 2.01 1.61 1.58 1.81 1.28 1.49 S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 1.81 1.77 1.86 1.47 1.00 1.49 1.00 1.00 LPZ distance X/Qs for 8-hour, 16-hour, 3-day, and 26-day averaging periods were obtained by logarithmic interpolation between 1-hour values used for the 2-hour averaging period and annual average values. Sector values were interpolated between the 0.5th percentile 1-hour values assumed for the 2-hour time period and the annual average values for the respective sectors (e.g., between southeast sector 0.5th percentile 2-hour X/Q and southeast sector annual average X/Q). The 5th percentile overall site X/Q values were interpolated between the 5th percentile 1-hour value (assumed for the 2-hour time period) for all sectors combined and the maximum sector annual average value selected from the 16 sector annual average values. 2.3.4.2 Calculation Results The original FSAR values are presented with the updated bases for comparison. 2.3-15
WBN The 1-hour sector-specific and overall (all directions combined) atmospheric dispersion factors (X/Q) for the exclusion boundary are presented in Table 2.3-61 based on the 15-year data set of 1974-1988, in Table 2.3.61a based on the 20-year data set of 1974-1993, and in Table 2.3.61b based on the 20-year data set of 1991-2010. The maximum 0.5th and 5th percentile
-4 3 -4 3 X/Q values from 1974-1988 are 6.040 x 10 sec/m and 5.323 x 10 sec/m . The maximum
-4 3 -4 0.5th and 5th percentile X/Q values from 1974-1993 are 6.069 x 10 sec/m and 5.263 x 10 3 -4 sec/m . The maximum 0.5th and 5th percentile X/Q values from 1991-2010 are 6.382 x 10 sec/m3 and 5.486 x 10-4 sec/m3. The 1991-2010 X/Q values are slightly higher (~5%) than the earlier values.
The 1-hour 0.5th percentile, 1-hour 5th percentile, and annual average X/Q values for each of the 16 plume sectors and the 1-hour overall 0.5th and 5th percentile X/Q values for the low population zone distance are presented in Table 2.3-62 based on 1974-1988, Table 2.3-62a based on 1974-1993, and Table 2.3-62b based on 1991-2010. For the maximum values in each category, the 1991-2010 X/Q values are slightly higher than the earlier values. For 8-hour, 16-hour, 3-day, and 26-day averaging periods, the X/Q values were obtained by logarithmic interpolation between the 1-hour and annual average X/Q values. The 5th percentile overall site 1-hour X/Q and the maximum sector annual average X/Q were used to produce the values given in Table 2.3-63 (1974-1988), Table 2.3-63a (1974-1993), and Table 2.3-63b (1991-2010). The 0.5th percentile 1-hour X/Q and annual average X/Q for each sector were used to produce the values given in Table 2.3-64 (1974-1988), Table 2.3-64a (1974-1993), and Table 2.3-64b (1992-2010). The respective values (and affected sectors) are: Period 1974-1988 1974-1993 1991-2010 8-hour 6.765 x 10-5 SE 6.677 x 10-5 SE 8.835 x 10-5 E
-5 -5 -5 16-hour 4.629 x 10 SE 4.592 x 10 SE 6.217 x 10 E 3-day 2.032 x 10-5 SE 2.041 x 10-5 E 2.900 x 10-5 E 26-day 6.257 x 10-6 ESE 6.553 x 10-6 ESE 9.811 x 10-6 ESE In Section 2.3.3.3, the representativeness of the onsite data summarized in the joint frequency distributions of wind direction and wind speed by atmospheric stability class was discussed.
Topographic effects have been mentioned previously, but some expansion relative to the 10-meter wind data is necessary. There is a predominance of northwest wind direction frequencies for a combination of very light wind speeds and quite stable atmospheric stability conditions. The terrain at the site has a general, gradual downward slope toward the south and southeast. Apparently, this is influencing the air flow over the site during periods with very light winds and stable conditions. Dispersion meteorology used in accident analyses in Chapter 15 include X/Q values in Table 2.3-66b and 1/u values in Table 2.3-67b. These values were based on the 20-year data set for 1991-2010. Tables 2.3-66 and 2.3-67 present the same information based on 1974-1988. Tables 2.3-66a and 2.3-67a present the same information based on 1974-1993. 2.3-16
WBN 2.3.5 Long-Term (Routine) Diffusion Estimates The X/Qs and Relative Deposition (D/Qs) and the respective calculation methodologies are presented in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. The joint frequency distributions of wind speed and wind direction by stability class in Tables 2.3-68 through 2.3-74 form the basis for Tables 2.3-75a and 2.3-75b and the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual estimation of long-term X/Qs. RG 1.111 methodology is used to calculate these X/Qs from the onsite meteorological data base. Additional information is provided in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual. Table 2.3-75a contains the X/Qs and Table 2.3-75b contains D/Qs for 10 distances within each of the 16 sector locations out to 50 miles. The long-term representativeness of the onsite meteorological data base is discussed in Sections 2.3.3.3 and 2.3.4.2. REFERENCES
- 1. U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, A Meteorological Survey of the Oak Ridge Area, Weather Bureau, Publication ORO-99, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, November 1953, page 377.
- 2. Ibid., page 192.
- 3. Dickson, Robert R. Climates of the States - Tennessee, Climatography of the United States No. 60-40, U. S. Department of Commerce., Weather Bureau, February 1960, page 3.
aa. Nashville NWS web site (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ohx/?n=tornadodatabase) for Cumberland County [Accessed May 12, 2010]. bb. Morristown NWS web site (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mrx/?n=mrx_tornado_db) for Bledsoe, Hamilton, McMinn, Meigs, Rhea, and Roane Counties [Accessed May 12, 2010]. cc. NUREG/CR-4461 (revision 2), Tornado Climatology of the Contiguous United States, February 2007.
- 8. Thom, H.C.S. "Tornado Probabilities," Monthly Weather Review, October-December 1963, pages 730-736.
dd. U.S. Department of Commerce. Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data, 2009, Chattanooga, Tennessee, NOAA, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina. ee. U.S. Department of Commerce. Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data, 2009, Knoxville, Tennessee, NOAA, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina. 2.3-17
WBN ff. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Storm Event database for 1950-2009 (http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms). gg. U.S. Department of Commerce. "Climatic Summary of the United States - Eastern Tennessee," Climatography of the United States No. 10-77, U.S. Weather Bureau, Revised 1957.
- 13. U.S. Department of Commerce. "Climatic Summary of the United States - Eastern Tennessee," Climatography of the United States No. 10-77, U.S. Weather Bureau, Revised 1957.
hh. NUREG/CR-3759, Lightning Strike Density for Contiguous United States from Thunderstorm Duration Records, May 1984.
- 15. Korshover, J. "Climatology of Stagnating Anticyclones East of the Rocky Mountains, 1936-1970," NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL ARL-34, U.S. Department of Commerce, Air Resources Laboratories, Silver Spring, Maryland, October 1971.
- 16. Holzworth, G. C. Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, January 1972.
- 17. U.S. Department of Commerce/U.S. Department of Agriculture. Weekly Weather and Crop Bulletin, NOAA/USDA Joint Agricultural Weather Facility, Washington, D.C.,
December 18, 1984, page 14.
- 18. Tattelman, Paul, et al. "Estimated Glaze Ice and Wind Loads at the Earth's Surface for the Contiguous United States," Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories, L. G.
Hanscom Field, Massachusetts, October 16, 1973.
- 19. American Meteorological Society. "Extremes of Snowfall: United States and Canada,"
Weatherwise, Vol. 23, December 1970, page 291.
- 20. American National Standards Institute, Inc. "American National Standard Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other Structures."
A58.1-1972, New York, New York, Figure 4, page 27.
- 21. Ludlum, David M. Weather Record Book, United States and Canada, Weatherwise, Inc.,
1971, page 73. ii. NRC Regulatory Guide-1.76 (revision 1), "Design-Basis Tornado and Tornado Missiles for Nuclear Power Plants, March 2007.
- 22. Thom, H. C. S. "New Distributions of Extreme Winds in the United States," "Journal of the Structural Division Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Paper 6038, July 1968, pages 1787-1801.
- 24. Cooperative Observer Meteorological Records, Form 1009, Decatur, Tennessee, 1896-1940, obtained from National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina, on November 24, 1970. (Unit 1 only, Unit 2 deleted by Amendment 94)
- 25. Magnetic tape of Chattanooga, Tennessee, National Weather Service Station data, obtained from the National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina. Period of data analyzed, 1965-1971.
2.3-18
WBN
- 26. U.S. Department of Commerce. Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data, 1974 (Unit 1, Unit 2 - 2009), Oak Ridge, Tennessee, NOAA, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina.
- 27. Hardwick, W. C. "Monthly Fog Frequency in the Continental United States," Monthly Weather Review, Volume 101, October 1973, pages 763-766.
- 28. Tennessee Valley Authority. Final Safety Analysis Report for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Section 2.3, Figure 2.3-5.
- 29. Hosler, C. R. "Low-Level Inversion Frequency in the Contiguous United States," Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 89, September 1961, pages 319-339.
- 30. U.S. Department of Commerce. Local Climatological Data, January 1982, Knoxville, Tennessee, NOAA, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina.
- 31. U.S. Department of Commerce. Local Climatological Data, January 1982, Chattanooga, Tennessee, NOAA, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina.
- 32. U.S. Department of Commerce. Daily Weather Maps, January 18-24, 1982, NOAA, Washington, D.C.
- 33. U.S. Department of Commerce. Local Climatological Data, December 1989, Chattanooga, Tennessee, NOAA, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina.
- 34. U.S. Department of Commerce. Local Climatological Data, December 1989, Knoxville, Tennessee, NOAA, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina.
- 35. U.S. Department of Commerce. Daily Weather Maps, December 25-31, 1989, NOAA, Washington, D.C.
- 36. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Regulatory Guide 1.23, Revision 1, "Meteorological Monitoring Programs for Nuclear Power Plants," Washington, D.C., March 2007.
- 37. Tennessee Valley Authority. "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Environmental Data Station Manual."
- 38. Deleted by UFSAR Amendment 1. (Unit 1) and Amendment 94 (Unit 2)
- 39. Deleted by UFSAR Amendment 3. (Unit 1) and Amendment 94 (Unit 2)
- 40. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Regulatory Guide 1.21, Revision 1, "Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactivity in Solid Wastes and Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants," Washington, D.C., June 1974.
- 41. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Regulatory Guide 1.145, Revision 1, "Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessment at Nuclear Power Plants," Washington, D.C., November 1982.
2.3-19
WBN
- 42. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Regulatory Guide 1.4, Revision 2, "Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident for Pressurized Water Reactors," Washington, D.C., June 1974.
- 43. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1, "Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors," Washington, D.C., July 1977.
2.3-20
WBN TABLE 2.3-1 (Sheet 1 of 1) THUNDERSTORM DAY FREQUENCIES 1 2 Chattanooga Knoxville December 0.6 0.7 January 1.3 0.8 February 2.0 1.4 Winter 3.9 2.9 March 3.6 3.2 April 4.8 4.5 May 7.1 6.9 Spring 15.5 14.6 June 9.0 8.5 July 11.1 9.9 August 8.8 6.9 Summer 28.8 25.3 September 4.0 3.0 October 1.4 1.3 November 1.5 1.1 Autumn 6.9 5.4 Annual 55.1 48.2
- 1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009 Local Climatological Data Annual Summary with Comparative Data; Chattanooga, TN (KCHA) -- period of record 62 years.
- 2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009 Local Climatological Data Annual Summary with Comparative Data; Knoxville, TN (KTYS) -- period of record 62 years.
WBN TABLE 2.3-1A (Sheet 1 of 2) EXTREME WIND SPEEDS This table lists the highest wind speeds observed at Chattanooga NWS, Knoxville NWS, and Watts Bar Nuclear Plant site for different time periods. Because the wind averaging periods varied, all observations were converted to 3-second gusts for comparison (based on ANSI/TIA-222-G, Annex L.a) Chattanooga, Tennessee (National Weather Service Airport Station) Period of Record = 1945-2009 (65 years). Period Data Source (s) Date of Observed Max 3-sec Occurenc value gust 1945-1975 Chattanooga (CHA) March 24, 82 mph 102 mph Local Climatological 1947 (fastest Data (LCD), 1975 mile) Annual and CHA LCD, M h 1947 b 1976-1995 CHA LCD, 1995 Annual November 11, 38 mph 48 mph and CHA LCD, 1995. (2-min November 1995.b average) 47 mph 1996-2009 CHA LCD, 2009 Annual June 11, 63 mph 63 mph and CHA LCD, June 2009 (3 second gust) 2009.b Maximum wind speed (3-second gust equivalent) = 102 mph on March 24, 1947. Knoxville, Tennessee (National Weather Service Airport Stations) Period of Record = 1943-2009 (67 years). Period Data Source (s) Date of Observed value Max 3-sec Occurenc (averaging gust 1943-1974 Knoxville (TYS) LCD, July 15, 73 mph 88 mph 1974 Annual and TYS 1961 (fastest LCD, July 1961.b mile) 1975-1995 TYS LCD, 1995 Annual November 11, 45 mph 56 mph and TYS LCD, 1995. (2-min November 1995.b average) 54 mph 1996-2009 TYS LCD, 2009 Annual April 20, 76 mph 76 mph and TYS LCD, June 1996 (3 second gust) 2009.b Maximum wind speed (3-second gust equivalent) = 88 mph on July 15, 1961.
WBN TABLE 2.3-1A (Sheet 2 of 2) EXTREME WIND SPEEDS Watts Bar Meteorological Tower Period of Record = 1973-2009 (37 years). Period Data Source (s) Date of Observed Max 3-sec Occurenc value gust 1973- TVA wind observations Mar 25, 39 mph 59 mph 2009 for 10- and 91-meter 1975 (hourly wind sensors average) Maximum wind speed (3-second gust equivalent) = 59 mph on March 25, 1975.
- a. ANSI/TIA-222-G, Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas",
effective January 1, 2006. The relevant portion of Annex L, "Wind Speed Conversions" is provided below: Fastest Mile 10-min 3-sec gust Wind Averaging Hourly average (mph) Speed Period mean (mph) 60 50 72 42 40 70 58 62 49 46 80 66 55 56 53 85 70 51 59 56 90 75 48 62 60 95 78 46 66 63 100 80 45 69 66 105 85 42 73 70 Intermediate values are determined by interpolation.
- b. Annual and Monthly Local Climatological Data reports (for applicable cities and time periods) from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina.
WBN TABLE 2.3-1B (Sheet 1 of 2) STORM EVENTS FOR RHEA AND SURROUNDING COUNTIES These tables list the storm events for Rhea and surrounding counties from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Storm Event database for 1950-2009 (http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms). Accessed August 20, 2010. Listed counties are adjacent to Rhea county and/or have portions of the county within 10 miles of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. Number of occurrences is for the entire county. High winds: Search Settings (except county): Begin Date = 01/01/1950 End Date = 12/31/2009 Event type = All High Wind Speed of at Least 50 Knots All other search settings default. County Total Number of Occurrences Average Occurrences per Rhea (including Watts Bar) 122 2.03 Bledsoe 103 1.72 Cumberland 91 1.52 Hamilton 275 4.58 McMinn 163 2.72 Meigs 82 1.36 Roane 144 2.40 TOTAL EVENTS 980 16.33
WBN TABLE 2.3-1B (Sheet 2 of 2) STORM EVENTS FOR RHEA AND SURROUNDING COUNTIES Large Hail: Search Settings (except county): Begin Date = 01/01/1950 End Date = 12/31/2009 Event type = Hail Hail, Size of at Least 0.75 Inches All other search settings default. County Total Number of Occurrences Average Occurrences per Rhea (including Watts Bar) 53 0.88 Bledsoe 48 0.80 Cumberland 48 0.80 Hamilton 130 2.17 McMinn 74 1.23 Meigs 33 0.55 Roane 33 0.55 TOTAL EVENTS 419 6.98
- Total Number of Occurrences/60 years
WBN TABLE 2.3-2 Temperature Data Dayton and Decatur, Tennessee Cooperative Observer Dataa (Data in °F) Average Daily Average Daily Extreme Extreme Daily Average b Maximum b Minimum b Maximum c Minimumc Month Dayton Decatur Dayton Decatur Dayton Decatur Dayton Decatur Dayton Decatur Jan 36.2 40.0 45.9 50.6 26.5 29.4 75 76 -15f -9 Feb 40.5 41.6 51.6 53.0 29.3 30.3 79 78 -4 -20g Mar 48.8 50.5 60.8 63.0 36.7 38.1 85 91 3 2 Apr 57.4 58.5 70.3 72.0 44.4 45.0 92 94 22 20 May 65.4 67.1 77.3 80.8 53.5 53.5 94 99 30 30 Jun 73.3 74.6 84.7 87.2 61.8 62.0 100 103 40 40 Jul 76.9 77.6 87.7 89.8 66.1 65.3 107d 108e 49 48 Aug 76.0 76.9 86.9 89.3 65.0 64.5 104 107 49 49 Sep 70.1 71.9 81.0 85.1 59.1 58.7 100 106 30 34 Oct 58.3 60.0 70.4 74.1 46.1 45.9 90 96 23 19 Nov 48.1 48.4 58.8 61.3 37.3 35.5 83 82 9 7 Dec 39.3 40.3 49.0 50.8 29.6 29.9 76 76 -5 -4 Annual 57.5 59.0 68.7 71.4 46.3 46.5 107d 108e -15f -20g
- a. Cooperative Observer Stations
[Dayton, Tennessee] Climatography of the United States No. 20 1971-2000 (Station - Dayton 2 SE, TN; COOP ID = 402360), National Climate Data Center, Ashville, NC. [Decatur, Tennessee] Climatography of the United States No. 10-77, "Climatic Summary of the United States - Eastern Tennessee," U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, revised 1957 and Annual NCDC Tennessee Climatological Data for individual years during 1896-1956.
- b. Period of Record:
Dayton = 1971-2000 (30 years). Decatur = 1896-1930 (35 years)
- c. Period of Record:
Dayton = 1956-2001 (46 years). Decatur = 1896-1945, 1952-1956 (60 years).
- d. July 16, 1980.
- e. July 28, 1930 and July 29, 1952.
- f. January 21, 1985
- g. Date unknown. According to Climatography of the United States No. 10-77, Decatur reported a low temperature of -20°F during 1896-1930. However, the specific date cannot be identified in the Annual NCDC Tennessee Climatological Data reports for the period. Coldest temperature for a known date was -19°F on January 26, 1940.
WBN TABLE 2.3-3 TEMPERATURE DATA CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICEa (DATA IN °F) Normal Dry Mean Daily Mean Daily Extreme Extreme Month Bulbb Maximumc Minimumc Maximumd Minimumd January 39.4 49.9 31.1 78 -10e February 43.4 52.8 32.5 79 1 March 51.4 62.3 40.0 88 8 April 59.6 71.7 47.8 93 25 May 67.7 80.0 56.7 99 34 June 75.4 86.3 64.4 104 41 July 79.6 89.6 69.0 106f 51 August 78.5 89.0 68.2 105 50 September 72.1 82.6 61.2 102 36 October 60.4 73.0 49.2 94 22 November 50.3 60.6 38.8 84 4 December 42.4 51.8 32.8 78 -2 Annual 60.0 70.8 49.3 106f -10e
- a. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009 Local Climatological Data Annual Summary with Comparative Data; Chattanooga, TN (KCHA).
- b. Period of Record = 1971-2000 (30 years).
- c. Period of Record = 1928-2009 (82 Years).
- d. Period of Record = 1940-2009 (70 Years).
- e. January 1985.
- f. July 1952.
WBN TABLE 2.3-4 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT AND WATTS BAR DAM PRECIPITATION DATA (INCHES) (DATA IN INCHES) Average No. of Days 0.01 Inch Extreme Extreme 24-hour or Morea Averageb Maximumc Minimumc Maximumc Month WBN* Dam* WBN Dam WBN Dam WBN Dam WBN Dam Jan 11 11 4.39 5.30 9.89 11.67 0.80 0.93 3.31 5.31d Feb 10 10 4.12 5.34 12.28 9.79 0.37 0.74 3.56 3.50 Mar 11 11 4.50 5.62 12.33e 11.75 1.43 1.32 3.49 5.00 Apr 9 10 3.52 4.56 8.72 8.66 0.41 0.80 3.69 3.10 May 10 9 4.00 3.57 11.94 10.94 0.73 0.56 4.26 3.20 Jun 9 9 3.42 3.81 10.29 12.30 0.13 0.03 4.44 3.73 Jul 10 10 3.86 5.14 11.41 12.50 0.25 0.50 3.70 4.80 Aug 8 9 2.96 3.20 7.91 7.13 0.02 0.52 3.61 3.19 Sep 7 7 3.45 3.69 8.55 14.78f 0.46 0.45 4.77g 4.50 Oct 7 6 2.59 2.90 6.52 7.91 0.00 0.00 3.09 3.05 Nov 9 8 4.30 4.13 8.85 14.06 0.73 0.94 2.64 4.63 Dec 11 10 4.31 5.31 11.92 12.08 1.32 0.30 4.72 4.15 Annual 111 110 45.43 52.57
- WBN = Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Meteorological tower. The meteorological facility is located 0.8 km south-southwest of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. The rain gauge is 1 meter above ground.
Dam = TVA rain gauge station 421 at Watts Bar Dam. The Dam is located 1.9 km north of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. The rain gauge is located on the roof of the Control Building at Watts Bar Dam.
** Annual totals do not equal the sum of monthly values due to rounding.
- a. Period of record = 1974-2008 for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant and 1940-1975 for Watts Bar Dam.
- b. Period of record = 1974-2008 for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant and 1941-1970 for Watts Bar Dam.
- c. Period of record = 1974-2008 for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant and September 1939-September 1989 for Watts Bar Dam.
- d. January 1946.
- e. March 1975.
- f. September 1957.
- g. September 17, 1994.
WBN TABLE 2.3-5 SNOWFALL DATA (INCHES) DAYTON, TENNESSEE (DATA IN INCHES) Maximum Highest Month Averagea,b Monthlya,c Dailya,c January 1.8 9.7 7.2 d February 1.6 13.3 7.5 e March 0.8 8.0 8.0 April 0.1 2.7 2.7 May 0 0 0 June 0 0 0 July 0 0 0 August 0 0 0 September 0 0 Trace October 0 0 0 November Trace Trace Trace December 0.1 1.1 1.0 Annual 4.4
- a. Climatography of the United States, No. 20, 1971-2000 (COOP ID = 402360).
- b. Derived from Snow Climatology and 1971-2000 daily data.
- c. Derived from 1971-2000 daily data.
- d. February 1979
- e. March 13, 1993.
WBN TABLE 2.3-6 SNOWFALL DATA Chattanooga and Knoxville, Tennessee NSW (Data in Inches) Normalc Maximum Monthlyd Maximum in 24 Hrs.d Month Chattanooga Knoxville Chattanooga Knoxville Chattanooga Knoxville January 2.0 3.7 10.2 15.1 10.2 12.0 February 1.3 3.0 10.4 23.3 8.7 17.5 March 1.2 1.6 20.0 20.2 20.0 14.1 April 0.2 0.8 2.8 10.7 2.8 10.7 May 0 0 trace trace trace trace June 0 0 trace trace trace trace July 0 0 0 0 0 0 August 0 0 0 trace 0 trace September 0 0 trace trace trace trace October *
- trace trace trace trace November
- 0.1 2.8 18.2 2.8 18.2 December 0.1 0.7 9.1 12.2 8.9 8.9 Annual 4.8 9.9 20.0 23.3e 20.0 18.2
- Value is between 0.00 and 0.05.
- a. Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data, 1983 and 2009, Chattanooga, Tennessee, U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NCDC, Asheville, N.C.
- b. Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data, 1983 and 2009, Knoxville, Tennessee, U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NCDC, Asheville, N.C.
- c. Period of record for monthly normal is 30 years (1971-2000).
- d. Period of record for maximum monthly and maximum 24 hour events is 72 years for Chattanooga and 65 years for Knoxville.
For Chattanooga, the maximum monthly and maximum 24-hour event was 20.0 inches during March 1993. For Knoxville, the maximum monthly event was 23.3 inches during February 1960 and the maximum 24-hour event was 18.2 inches during November 1952.
- e. Another site had the highest maximum monthly event for the Knoxville locality -- 25.7 inches in February 1895.
WBN TABLE 2.3-7 AVERAGE RELATIVE HUMIDITY DATA (PERCENT) - SELECTED HOURS Chattanooga, Tennessee* (Eastern Standard Time) Updated Data (1971-2000)1 Original Date (1931/41-1974)2 Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Month 0100 0700 1300 1900 0100 0700 1300 1900 January 79 81 63 66 80 82 63 68 February 77 82 58 58 78 80 57 60 March 76 82 55 53 77 81 53 56 April 78 85 49 49 78 81 49 52 May 87 89 55 58 86 85 51 56 June 87 90 57 60 88 85 54 60 July 87 90 57 62 89 89 57 64 August 88 92 58 64 90 91 57 66 Septemb 89 92 59 66 89 90 55 66 October 88 91 55 68 88 89 52 67 Novembe 83 86 59 68 82 84 55 65 Decembe 80 83 62 68 82 83 62 70 Annual 83 87 57 62 84 85 55 63
- 1. Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data, 1983 and 2009, Chattanooga, Tennessee, U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NCDC, Asheville, N.C.
(Period of Record = 1971-2000).
- 2. Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data, 1974, Chattanooga, Tennessee, U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NCDC, Asheville, N.C. (Period of Record = 1941-1974 for hour 0100 and 1931-1974 for hours 0700, 1300, and 1900).
WBN TABLE 2.3-8 RELATIVE HUMIDITY (PERCENT) National Weather Service Station Chattanooga, Tennessee* January 1965-December 1971 Month Average Avg. Max. Avg. Min. Extreme Max. Extreme Min. December 75.3 83.6 67.7 100.0 10.7 January 72.3 74.6 69.5 100.0 18.6 February 67.0 76.8 58.0 100.0 12.1 Winter 71.5 78.3 65.1 100.0 10.7 March 64.1 71.4 55.0 100.0 13.8 April 64.6 72.3 56.9 100.0 12.8 May 71.1 77.1 65.0 100.0 19.0 Spring 66.6 73.6 58.9 100.0 12.8 June 72.3 77.4 68.3 100.0 23.1 July 75.5 80.1 71.2 100.0 26.9 August 78.4 82.9 75.3 100.0 32.5 Summer 75.4 80.1 71.6 100.0 23.1 September 79.7 84.0 75.2 100.0 26.0 October 76.6 83.0 71.1 100.0 18.2 November 72.6 79.7 66.2 100.0 16.1 Fall 76.3 82.2 70.8 100.0 16.1 Annual 72.5 78.6 66.6 100.0 10.7
- Analysis based on data tapes obtained from National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina. Observations recorded on tape are for 3-hourly synoptic times.
WBN TABLE 2.3-9 ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY (gm/m3) National Weather Service Station Chattanooga, Tennessee* January 1965-December 1971 Month Average Avg. Max. Avg. Min. Extreme Max. Extreme Min. December 5.8 7.2 4.5 16.1 0.9 January 4.8 5.3 4.5 14.0 0.4 February 4.5 5.8 3.4 14.1 0.8 Winter 5.0 6.1 4.1 16.1 0.4 March 5.9 7.2 4.6 16.6 1.1 April 8.6 10.3 7.0 20.1 2.4 May 11.4 12.8 9.9 19.6 3.4 Spring 8.6 10.1 7.1 20.1 1.1 June 14.7 15.9 13.5 22.7 4.9 July 16.7 17.7 15.6 24.2 8.6 August 17.0 18.2 16.0 25.8 9.6 Summer 16.1 17.3 15.0 25.8 4.9 September 14.8 16.2 13.6 23.6 4.2 October 10.0 11.6 8.5 20.8 3.0 November 6.5 7.9 5.1 17.8 1.2 Fall 10.4 11.9 9.1 23.6 1.2 Annual 10.0 11.4 8.8 25.8 0.4
- Analysis based on data tapes obtained from National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina. Observations recorded on tape are for 3-hourly synoptic times.
WBN TABLE 2.3-10 (Sheet 1 of 2) RELATIVE HUMIDITY (PERCENT) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY* July 1, 1973 - June 30, 1975* Average Average Extreme Extreme Month Average Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum December 71 85.1 53.8 100.0 30.2 January 73.6 87.5 54.5 100.0 10.4 February 70.3 87.5 50.9 100.0 21.4 Winter 71.7 86.7 53.1 100.0 10.4 March 69.9 88.4 49.8 100.0 22.6 April 64.5 87.8 38.6 100.0 11.2 May 78.3 94.1 56.9 100.0 28.3 Spring 70.9 90.1 48.5 100.0 11.2 June 75 91.6 55.0 100.0 34.6 July 76 93.4 48.4 100.0 10.1 August 78 93.6 55.1 100.0 36.7 Summer 76.7 92.9 52.9 100.0 10.1 September 77.9 91.8 56.8 100.0 29.3 October 71.5 89.9 43.2 100.0 19.7 November 69 87.0 47.4 100.0 26.9 Fall 72.8 89.6 49.1 100.0 19.7 Annual 73.0
- Data were collected at the Watts Bar Meteorological tower located 0.8 km SSW of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. Temperature and dewpoint instruments at 4 feet above ground.
WBN TABLE 2.3-10 (Sheet 2 of 2) RELATIVE HUMIDITY (PERCENT) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY* January 1, 1976 - December 31, 2008* Average Average Extreme Extreme Month Average Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum December 71 89.7 52.7 100.0 18.1 January 68.7 87.6 51.1 100.0 14.3 February 66.0 87.8 46.5 100.0 11.6 Winter 68.6 88.4 50.1 100.0 11.6 March 64.0 88.3 43.0 100.0 10.4 April 64.5 91.2 42.1 100.0 11.2 May 72.5 95.5 50.5 100.0 18.3 Spring 67.0 91.7 45.2 100.0 10.4 June 75 95.9 53.1 100.0 20.0 July 76 95.9 55.1 100.0 19.6 August 76 95.6 54.0 100.0 25.6 Summer 76.1 95.8 54.1 100.0 19.6 September 75.9 94.7 53.2 100.0 18.8 October 73.5 94.4 49.9 100.0 15.5 November 71 91.7 50.3 100.0 12.0 Fall 73.6 93.6 51.1 100.0 12.0 Annual 71.3
- Data were collected at the Watts Bar Meteorological tower located 0.8 km SSW of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. Temperature and dewpoint instruments are 10 meters (33 feet) above ground.
Relative Humidity (RH) is calculated from simultaneous 10-m temperature (T) and 10-m dewpoint (Td) using equations from El Paso NWS website (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/epz/?n=wxcalc). 7.5 237.6 +
= 100 where: e = 6.11* 10 s
e = 6.11*10 7.5 237.6 + units: RH = percent (%) T, Td = degrees Celsius (°C) e, es = millibars (mb)
WBN TABLE 2.3-11 (Sheet 1 of 2) ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY (Data in gm/m3) July 1, 1973 - June 30, 1975* Average Average Extreme Extreme Month Average Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum December 5.2 6.6 4.0 14.5 1.5 January 6.1 7.8 4.3 13.2 1.0 February 5.7 7.3 4.3 15.1 1.5 Winter 5.7 7.2 4.2 15.1 1.0 March 7.1 8.9 5.3 14.7 1.8 April 8.3 10.3 6.4 17.7 2.0 May 13.7 15.9 11.6 21.5 4.9 Spring 9.7 11.7 7.8 21.5 1.8 June 14.7 17.2 12.4 22.1 7.8 July 17.1 19.3 13.7 22.7 1.8 August 16.7 18.9 14.9 24.4 10.1 Summer 16.2 18.4 13.7 24.4 1.8 September 14.4 16.5 12.5 21.9 4.9 October 9.2 11.0 7.7 17.7 3.1 November 7.0 8.7 5.4 16.6 2.1 Fall 10.2 12.1 8.5 21.9 2.1 Annual 10.4
- Data were collected at the Watts Bar Meteorological tower located 0.8 km SSW of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. Temperature and dewpoint instruments at 4 feet above ground.
WBN TABLE 2.3-11 (Sheet 2 of 2) ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY (Data in gm/m3) January 1, 1976 - December 31, 2008* Average Average Extreme Extreme Month Average Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum December 5.1 6.5 4.2 16.5 0.5 January 4.4 5.7 3.6 14.7 0.4 February 4.7 6.1 3.9 14.2 0.6 Winter 4.8 6.1 3.9 16.5 0.4 March 6.1 7.8 5.0 17.6 0.8 April 8.3 10.3 6.8 18.8 1.6 May 11.9 14.0 10.4 24.0 3.1 Spring 8.8 10.7 7.4 24.0 0.8 June 15.4 17.5 13.6 24.8 5.3 July 17.5 19.5 15.6 27.1 7.1 August 16.9 19.0 15.1 27.6 7.2 Summer 16.6 18.7 14.8 27.6 5.3 September 14.0 16.0 12.3 21.9 3.8 October 9.7 11.5 8.3 21.9 1.7 November 6.9 8.4 5.7 19.0 1.2 Fall 10.2 11.9 8.7 21.2 1.2 Annual 10.1
- Data were collected at the Watts Bar Meteorological tower located 0.8 km SSW of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. Temperature and dewpoint instruments are 10 meters (33 feet) above ground.
Absolute Humidity (AH) is calculated from simultaneous 10-m temperature (T) and 10-m vapor pressure (Pw = e from Table 2.3-10) using equation from User's Guide - Vaisala HUMICAP Humidity and Temperature Transmitter Series HMT330.
= 216.68 units: AH = grams/cubic meter (g/m3)
T = degrees kelvin (°K) Pw = millibars (mb)
WBN TABLE 2.3-12 FOG DATA* Est. from Month Chat.a Knox.b Oak R.c Hardwickd January 2.8 2.6 2.5 1 February 1.5 1.8 1.3 2 March 1.2 1.7 1.8 1 April 1.3 1.3 1.7 1 May 2.2 2.2 5.5 2 June 1.6 1.8 4.8 2 July 1.5 2.1 5.8 2 August 1.9 3.5 5.2 3 September 3.3 3.8 7.5 4 October 4.8 4.3 7.8 6 November 3.3 2.9 4.5 4 December 2.4 2.4 4.3 3 Annual 27.8 30.4 52.7 33
- Mean number of days with heavy fog, which is defined by horizontal visibility 1/4 mile or less.
- a. Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data, 2009, Chattanooga, Tennessee, U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NCDC, Asheville, North Carolina. Period of record = 46 years.
- b. Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data, 2009, Knoxville, Tennessee, U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NCDC, Asheville, North Carolina. Period of record = 46 years.
- c. Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data, 2009, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NCDC, Asheville, North Carolina.
Period of record = 10 years.
- d. Hardwick, W. C. "Monthly Fog Frequency in the Continental United States", Monthly Weather Review, Volume 101, October 1973, pages 763-766.
WBN TABLE 2.3-13 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JANUARY 1, 1974 - DECEMBER 31, 1993 WIND WIND SPEED(MPH) DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 15-3.4 3.5-5.4 5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.125 0.707 1.399 1.677 1.445 1.578 0.074 0.000 0.000 7.004 NNE 0.124 0.615 1.407 2.043 1.956 2.127 0.112 0.000 0.000 8.446 NE 0.160 0.728 1.957 1.783 1.051 0.695 0.011 0.001 0.000 6.386 ENE 0.242 1.112 2.944 1.296 0.425 0.150 0.002 0.000 0.000 6.170 E 0.151 0.992 1.540 0.583 0.138 0.045 0.002 0.000 0.000 3.451 ESE 0.059 0.438 0.546 0.192 0.028 0.013 0.001 0.000 0.000 1.277 SE 0.086 0.609 0.834 0.319 0.076 0.048 0.014 0.000 0.000 1.985 SSE 0.145 0.892 1.540 0.598 0.176 0.141 0.037 0.003 0.000 3.532 S 0.222 1.106 2.621 1.844 0.869 0.732 0.204 0.021 0.001 7.620 SSW 0.281 1.209 3.504 4.017 3.001 3.115 0.611 0.048 0.000 15.786 SW 0.237 1.479 2.506 1.516 0.756 0.470 0.072 0.004 0.001 7.040 WSW 0.239 1.888 2.135 0.666 0.372 0.317 0.082 0.004 0.000 5.702 W 0.235 2.104 1.843 0.646 0.546 0.653 0.090 0.008 0.002 6.127 WNW 0.212 2.052 1.505 0.637 0.597 0.821 0.086 0.005 0.000 5.915 NW 0.266 2.455 2.016 0.765 0.722 1.026 0.102 0.002 0.000 7.354 NNW 0.168 1.354 1.463 0.975 0.921 1.242 0.082 0.001 0.000 6.205 SUBTOTAL 2.951 19.738 29.823 19.554 13.081 13.172 1.583 0.095 0.003 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 169102 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 175320 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 96.5 TOTAL HOURS CALM 4990 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL MEAN WIND SPEED = 4.07 Date Printed: 29-NOV-94 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-14 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JANUARY 1, 1977 - DECEMBER 31, 1993 WIND WIND SPEED(MPH) DIRECTION CALM 0..6-1.4 1.,5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.109 0.561 1.284 1.176 1.327 2.822 0.419 0.019 0.000 7.788 NNE 0.189 0.8089 2.381 2.260 2.104 2.940 0.437 0.008 0.000 11.128 NE 0.272 1.1435 3.460 2.490 1.633 1.555 0.126 0.002 0.000 10.682 ENE 0.215 1.013 2.622 1.257 0.579 0.393 0.024 0.000 0.000 6.203 E 0.109 0.774 1.061 0.488 0.195 0.087 0.008 0.000 0.000 2.722 ESE 0.056 0.418 0.526 0.279 0.059 0.026 0.002 0.001 0.000 1.367 SE 0.061 0.387 0.642 0.334 0.103 0.093 0.024 0.008 0.000 1.652 SSE 0.112 0.574 1.313 0.671 0.217 0.240 0.097 0.018 0.000 3.242 S 0.191 0.765 2.456 1.791 0.887 0.875 0.314 0.093 0.013 7.386 SSW 0.237 0.745 3.261 4.368 3.484 4.555 1.901 0.355 0.032 18.939 SW 0.140 0.584 1.787 2.080 1.732 2.366 0.714 0.103 0.015 9.521 WSW 0.085 0.448 0.981 0.747 0.514 0.764 0.294 0.073 0.017 3.922 W 0.068 0.428 0.721 0.428 0.396 0.859 0.327 0.049 0.007 3.282 WNW 0.056 0.390 0.549 0.416 0.450 1.243 0.438 0.031 0.001 3.573 NW 0.062 0.388 0.661 0.486 0.650 1.398 0.391 0.027 0.001 4.065 NNW 0.065 0.387 0.710 0.622 0.714 1.554 0.457 0.021 0.001 4.530 SUBTOTAL 2.026 9.813 24.413 19,894 15.143 21.770 6.045 0.808 0.087 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 142902 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 149016 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 95.9 TOTAL HOURS CALM 2895 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 46.36 METER LEVEL MEAN WIND SPEED = 5.6981 DATE PRINTED: 29-NOV-94 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-15 (SHEET 1 of 2) WIND DIRECTION PERSISTENCE DATA DISREGARDING STABILITY WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JAN 1, 74 - DEC 31, 93 WIND DIRECTION PERSISTENCE ACC. FRE-ACC. HOURS N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW CALM TOTAL TOTAL QUENCY 2 860 887 906 938 487 134 208 462 1085 1242 1030 782 879 783 988 802 344 12817 28445 100.00 3 360 465 388 428 201 44 77 196 496 697 392 328 353 328 481 373 186 5793 15628 54.94 4 241 298 253 220 71 9 27 77 275 531 219 132 182 179 255 212 113 3294 9835 34.58 5 159 169 146 122 30 1 11 30 174 417 130 67 114 127 162 114 72 2045 6541 23.00 6 112 160 89 64 18 0 5 21 102 289 46 42 61 68 99 81 61 1318 4496 15.81 7 74 93 70 37 7 0 3 4 50 269 38 20 20 34 63 52 45 879 3178 11.17 8 75 78 39 20 2 0 0 5 2 187 26 20 34 18 56 25 29 643 2299 8.08 9 36 42 20 11 0 0 0 2 18 139 17 5 9 17 22 30 23 391 1656 5.82 10 29 54 14 12 0 0 0 2 14 123 8 6 9 8 12 13 20 324 1265 4.45 11 25 30 9 4 0 0 0 0 13 99 5 4 6 12 11 11 9 238 941 3.31 12 15 19 3 1 0 0 0 1 11 79 1 0 3 2 2 7 4 151 703 2.47 13 14 16 4 2 0 0 0 0 3 62 2 2 2 2 4 6 5 124 552 1.94 14 5 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 49 3 0 1 2 0 3 6 88 428 1.50 15 5 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 42 3 1 1 0 1 6 2 78 340 1.20 16 4 8 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 21 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 45 262 0.92 17 4 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 39 217 0.76 18 3 6 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 22 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 37 178 0.63 19 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 35 141 0.50 20 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 106 0.37 21 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 13 86 0.30 22 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 73 0.26 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 10 59 0.21
WBN TABLE 2.3-15 (SHEET 2 of 2) WIND DIRECTION PERSISTENCE DATA DISREGARDING STABILITY WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JAN 1, 74 - DEC 31, 93 WIND DIRECTION PERSISTENCE ACC. ACC. (HOURS) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW CALM TOTAL TOTAL FREQUENCY 24 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 9 49 0.17 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 40 0.14 26 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 34 0.12 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 24 0.08 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 20 0.07 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0.06 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 16 0.06 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0.04 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 12 0.04
>32 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 0.04 TOTAL 2032 2396 1952 1861 817 188 334 801 2277 4362 1923 1411 1676 1582 2167 1747 919 28445 MAXIMUM PERSISTENCE 25 40 26 16 16 5 12 18 25 44 21 18 19 19 27 28 15 (HOURS) 50.0% 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 80.0% 6 6 5 4 3 3 3 3 4 8 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 90.0% 8 9 6 5 4 3 4 4 6 11 5 5 5 6 6 6 8 99.0% 16 20 11 10 7 4 7 8 11 21 10 10 10 11 11 15 13 99.0% 22 37 18 15 16 5 12 18 17 34 18 16 16 16 26 25 15 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND DIRECTION MEASURED AT THE 9.72 LEVEL
WBN TABLE 2.3-16 (Sheet 1 of 2) WIND DIRECTION PERSISTENCE DATA DISREGARDING STABILITY WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JAN 1, 77 - DEC 31, 93 PERSISTENCE ACC. ACC. (HOURS) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW CALM TOTAL TOTAL FREQUENCY 2 772 1014 1137 822 323 145 174 414 1015 1244 1088 489 370 367 412 491 245 10522 24808 100.00 3 348 503 539 353 102 32 60 134 438 735 503 148 123 171 205 247 128 4769 14286 57.59 4 227 360 403 200 45 16 19 65 212 577 344 87 82 124 106 120 73 3060 9517 38.36 5 168 182 275 98 12 4 11 28 124 391 191 45 47 64 77 79 38 1834 6457 26.03 6 122 165 169 59 4 0 7 10 79 285 130 26 33 55 50 49 40 1283 4623 18.64 7 77 128 122 31 3 0 0 6 34 249 77 13 13 31 37 31 18 870 3340 13.46 8 54 73 70 18 2 0 1 5 21 175 58 8 14 14 17 31 11 572 2470 9.96 9 47 59 57 7 0 0 2 1 9 148 43 8 10 14 21 17 8 451 1898 7.65 10 27 46 35 8 0 0 0 2 11 124 16 1 5 6 14 8 1 304 1447 5.83 11 20 36 18 4 0 0 0 1 8 99 13 3 1 7 6 11 5 232 1143 4.61 12 20 36 31 1 0 0 0 0 3 81 10 2 3 3 6 10 1 207 911 3.67 13 11 23 14 1 0 0 0 1 2 60 10 2 3 0 6 2 0 135 704 2.84 14 18 15 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 6 1 2 2 3 4 1 126 569 2.29 15 10 23 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 3 2 1 1 5 1 0 110 443 1.79 16 5 16 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 2 2 1 2 0 63 333 1.34 17 4 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 46 270 1.09 18 2 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 49 224 0.90 19 3 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 31 175 0.71 20 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 30 144 0.58 21 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 16 114 0.46 22 2 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 25 98 0.40 23 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 73 0.29 24 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 58 0.23 25 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 51 0.21 26 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 41 0.17 27 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 36 0.15 28 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 28 0.11 29 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 21 0.08 30 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 0.05 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 12 0.05
WBN TABLE 2.3-16 (Sheet 2 of 2) WIND DIRECTION PERSISTENCE DATA DISREGARDING STABILITY WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JAN 1, 77 - DEC 31, 93 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 0.04
>32 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0.04 TOTAL 1941 2733 2908 1602 491 197 274 668 1956 4475 2507 836 709 862 972 1107 570 24808 MAXIMUM PERSISTENCE 28 33 27 13 8 5 9 18 13 48 32 20 16 19 28 21 24 (HOURS) 50.0% 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 80.0% 6 6 5 4 3 3 3 3 4 8 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 90.0% 8 9 7 5 4 4 4 4 5 12 7 5 6 6 7 7 6 99.0% 16 20 14 9 7 5 8 8 10 23 13 11 13 12 15 13 11 99.9% 27 29 26 12 8 5 9 18 13 34 25 20 16 19 28 19 24 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND DIRECTION MEASURED AT THE 46.36 LEVEL
WBN TABLE 2.3-17 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JANUARY (74-93) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.123 0.767 1.411 1.555 1.795 2.158 0.075 0.000 0.000 7.883 NNE 0.136 0.527 1.891 2.418 2.377 2.151 0.110 0.000 0.000 9.609 NE 0.181 0.870 2.343 1.884 1.069 0.548 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.894 ENE 0.238 1.117 3.110 1.110 0.356 0.110 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.040 NE 0.130 0.829 1.486 0.370 0.151 0.096 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.062 ESE 0.043 0.329 0.432 0.123 0.034 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.981 SE 0.060 0.336 0.740 0.144 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.307 SSE 0.116 0.658 1.411 0.329 0.103 0.014 0.027 0.021 0.000 2.678 S 0.130 0.555 1.754 1.130 0.706 0.432 0.178 0.014 0.000 4.897 SSW 0.211 0.836 2.911 3.569 2.466 2.850 0.569 0.021 0.000 13.431 SW 0.150 0.849 1.822 1.514 0.870 0.555 0.151 0.000 0.000 5.911 WSW 0.179 1.144 2.041 1.240 0.877 0.733 0.315 0.007 0.000 6.536 W 0.188 1.445 1.904 0.980 1.185 1.329 0.288 0.014 0.000 7.333 WNW 0.168 1.459 1.521 0.959 1.089 1.623 0.158 0.000 0.000 6.976 NW 0.208 1.692 2.007 1.144 1.260 1.904 0.212 0.000 0.000 8.428 NNW 0.164 1.144 1.767 1.288 1.480 2.048 0.144 0.000 0.000 8.034 SUBTOTAL 2.425 14.556 28.550 19.755 15.844 16.570 2.226 0.075 0.000 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 14599 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 14880 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 98.1 TOTAL HOURS CALM 354 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 4.57 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-18 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JANUARY (77-93) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.086 0.372 1.510 1.147 1.446 3.400 0.678 0.000 0.000 8.639 NNE 0.140 0.565 2.504 2.496 2.617 3.473 0.557 0.000 0.000 12.352 NE 0.170 0.687 3.045 2.722 1.971 1.745 0.057 0.000 0.000 10.395 ENE 0.136 1.678 2.310 1.018 0.533 0.226 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.901 NE 0.085 0.598 1.260 0.218 0.057 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.241 ESE 0.030 0.315 0.339 0.089 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.789 SE 0.036 0.380 0.420 0.073 0.073 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.006 SSE 0.065 0.372 1.058 0.331 0.137 0.024 0.008 0.000 0.000 1.995 S 0.104 0.525 1.769 1.171 0.509 0.428 0.121 0.065 0.016 4.708 SSW 0.142 0.412 2.714 3.497 2.859 4.038 1.381 0.291 0.032 15.367 SW 0.090 0.485 1.486 1.688 1.672 2.811 0.743 0.105 0.032 9.112 WSW 0.066 0.428 1.018 0.767 0.670 1.373 0.517 0.178 0.065 5.082 W 0.050 0.291 0.808 0.420 0.775 1.615 0.759 0.218 0.032 4.969 WNW 0.041 0.363 0.541 0.614 0.905 2.367 0.880 0.057 0.000 5.768 NW 0.042 0.258 0.670 0.743 1.220 2.609 0.953 0.065 0.000 6.560 NNW 0.050 0.307 0.792 0.775 1.074 2.423 0.695 0.000 0.000 6.116 SUBTOTAL 1.333 14.556 22.244 17.769 16.533 26.573 7.350 0.985 0.178 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 12381 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 12648 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 97.9 TOTAL HOURS CALM 165 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 46.36 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 6.34 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-19 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FEBRUARY (74-93) WIND SPEED(MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.120 0.693 1.701 1.807 1.634 2.319 0.083 0.000 0.000 8.357 NNE 0.128 0.745 1.807 2.492 2.499 2.868 0.151 0.000 0.000 10.691 NE 0.170 0.896 2.477 2.078 1.250 0.896 0.030 0.000 0.000 7.796 ENE 0.258 1.536 3.584 1.250 0.354 0.128 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.108 E 0.118 0.858 1.491 0.467 0.196 0.083 0.008 0.000 0.000 3.220 ESE 0.035 0.331 0.361 0.098 0.045 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.871 SE 0.049 0.474 0.497 0.196 0.038 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.314 SSE 0.069 0.519 0.851 0.339 0.136 0.128 0.038 0.008 0.000 2.087 S 0.116 0.625 1.679 0.994 0.474 0.550 0.294 0.023 0.000 4.753 SSW 0.166 0.806 2.492 2.989 2.612 3.433 1.242 0.053 0.000 13.792 SW 0.138 0.866 1.882 1.558 1.001 1.084 0.173 0.008 0.000 6.711 WSW 0.152 1.084 1.935 0.986 0.647 0.798 0.256 0.008 0.000 5.866 W 0.147 1.302 1.611 0.858 0.768 1.182 0.188 0.008 0.000 6.064 WNW 0.117 1.137 1.189 0.715 0.949 1.438 0.256 0.023 0.000 5.824 NW 0.180 1.724 1.844 1.024 1.287 1.777 0.196 0.000 0.000 8.032 NNW 0.123 1.031 1.415 1.340 1.235 2.198 0.173 0.000 0.000 7.516 SUBTOTAL 2.085 14.628 26.816 19.190 15.125 18.942 3.087 0.128 0.000 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 13283 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 13560 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 98.0 TOTAL HOURS CALM 277 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 4.84 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-20 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FEBRUARY (77-93) WIND SPEED(MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.073 0.380 1.396 1.228 1.926 3.825 0.821 0.035 0.000 9.684 NNE 0.139 0.654 2.729 3.074 2.526 3.842 0.707 0.000 0.000 13.672 NE 0.203 0.760 4.160 3.118 2.261 1.926 0.274 0.000 0.000 12.702 ENE 0.137 0.830 2.491 1.316 0.742 0.389 0.035 0.000 0.000 5.940 E 0.056 0.503 0.848 0.397 0.132 0.053 0.035 0.000 0.000 2.025 ESE 0.026 0.256 0.371 0.159 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.830 SE 0.026 0.203 0.433 0.168 0.035 0.071 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.945 SSE 0.040 0.300 0.680 0.344 0.088 0.106 0.097 0.035 0.000 1.692 S 0.076 0.380 1.457 0.839 0.486 0.627 0.424 0.115 0.009 4.413 SSW 0.086 0.336 1.749 2.562 2.208 4.107 2.129 0.627 0.053 13.857 SW 0.067 0.336 1.281 1.952 1.625 2.835 1.086 0.194 0.026 9.403 WSW 0.044 0.274 0.804 0.768 0.530 1.157 0.530 0.159 0.035 4.302 W 0.040 0.318 0.662 0.495 0.477 1.334 0.592 0.150 0.009 4.077 WNW 0.031 0.318 0.424 0.459 0.601 2.005 0.804 0.088 0.000 4.730 NW 0.033 0.238 0.556 0.415 1.042 2.579 0.698 0.044 0.000 5.606 NNW 0.045 0.318 0.768 0.839 0.954 2.252 0.874 0.071 0.000 6.122 SUBTOTAL 1.122 6.404 20.811 18.134 15.652 27.109 9.116 1.519 0.132 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 11321 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 11520 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 98.3 TOTAL HOURS CALM 127 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 46.36 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 6.68 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-21 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT MARCH (74-93) WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.097 0.546 1.596 1.659 1.484 2.331 0.189 0.000 0.000 7.903 NNE 0.103 0.770 1.498 1.806 1.729 2.576 0.112 0.000 0.000 8.595 NE 0.142 0.924 2.212 1.421 1.001 1.113 0.028 0.000 0.000 6.842 ENE 0.223 1.365 3.563 1.029 0.504 0.175 0.014 0.000 0.000 6.874 E 0.112 0.903 1.575 0.511 0.161 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.298 ESE 0.042 0.392 0.546 0.154 0.070 0.021 0.007 0.000 0.000 1.233 SE 0.059 0.581 0.714 0.280 0.119 0.168 0.105 0.000 0.000 2.026 SSE 0.075 0.609 1.043 0.553 0.217 0.406 0.133 0.000 0.000 3.036 S 0.101 0.658 1.568 1.316 0.658 1.344 0.588 0.091 0.007 6.332 SSW 0.137 0.721 2.303 3.402 3.171 5.419 1.911 0.063 0.000 17.128 SW 0.121 0.868 1.806 1.624 1.155 1.043 0.189 0.000 0.007 6.814 WSW 0.138 1.169 1.883 0.679 0.469 0.574 0.105 0.014 0.000 5.032 W 0.127 1.519 1.288 0.693 0.539 1.099 0.210 0.063 0.021 5.560 WNW 0.109 1.246 1.155 0.651 0.616 1.330 0.161 0.028 0.000 5.296 NW 0.142 1.533 1.603 1.036 0.882 1.890 0.266 0.021 0.000 7.374 NNW 0.092 0.847 1.190 1.008 1.253 2.051 0.210 0.007 0.000 6.659 SUBTOTAL 1.820 14.653 25.546 17.824 14.030 21.577 4.229 0.287 0.035 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 14284 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 14880 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 96.0 TOTAL HOURS CALM 260 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 5.17 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-22 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT MARCH (77-93) WIND SPEED(MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.106 0.449 1.379 1.246 1.346 3.879 0.797 0.066 0.000 9.269 NNE 0.172 0.581 2.376 2.401 1.653 3.315 0.498 0.000 0.000 10.996 NE 0.264 0.930 3.614 2.368 1.288 1.894 0.199 0.000 0.000 10.556 ENE 0.157 0.606 2.093 0.972 0.573 0.498 0.058 0.000 0.000 4.958 E 0.077 0.515 0.814 0.515 0.282 0.150 0.017 0.000 0.000 2.370 ESE 0.049 0.282 0.557 0.241 0.075 0.042 0.000 0.008 0.000 1.253 SE 0.033 0.183 0.390 0.332 0.116 0.174 0.150 0.066 0.000 1.445 SSE 0.068 0.216 0.955 0.557 0.191 0.557 0.432 0.033 0.000 3.009 S 0.111 0.449 1.462 1.213 0.706 1.205 0.831 0.316 0.058 6.349 SSW 0.128 0.432 1.778 2.725 2.475 5.076 3.780 0.972 0.058 17.423 SW 0.089 0.349 1.180 1.570 1.886 3.157 1.595 0.307 0.042 1 0.173 WSW 0.056 0.282 0.689 0.714 0.565 0.905 0.515 0.125 0.017 3.869 W 0.051 0.316 0.565 0.407 0.341 1.097 0.640 0.075 0.025 3.515 WNW 0.040 0.249 0.432 0.474 0.507 1.545 0.764 0.083 0.017 4.110 NW 0.054 0.324 0.606 0.557 0.822 2.019 0.756 0.066 0.008 5.213 NNW 0.050 0.241 0.615 0.565 0.872 2.093 0.989 0.058 0.008 5.491 SUBTOTAL 1.504 6.405 19.505 16.855 13.698 27.604 12.020 2.176 0.233 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 12038 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 12648 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 95.2 TOTAL HOURS CALM 181 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 46.36 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 7.13 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-23 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT APRIL (74-93) WIND SPEED(MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.074 0.651 0.984 1.281 1.230 1.476 0.130 0.000 0.000 5.828 NNE 0.075 0.528 1.129 1.788 1.621 2.128 0.181 0.000 0.000 7.450 NE 0.113 0.832 1.657 1.100 1.013 0.738 0.022 0.000 0.000 5.476 ENE 0.168 1.223 2.468 0.970 0.528 0.232 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.588 E 0.122 1.122 1.563 0.767 0.224 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.856 ESE 0.056 0.608 0.630 0.355 0.022 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.677 SE 0.059 0.695 0.601 0.391 0.145 0.043 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.933 SSE 0.101 0.782 1.433 0.796 0.275 0.297 0.145 0.007 0.000 3.835 S 0.134 1.136 1.816 1.592 0.905 1.100 0.579 0.094 0.000 7.356 SSW 0.178 1.028 2.888 3.495 3.597 5.797 1.578 0.282 0.000 18.842 SW 0.166 1.389 2.258 1.534 0.890 0.695 0.174 0.036 0.000 7.142 WSW 0.177 1.918 1.976 0.789 0.420 0.536 0.159 0.014 0.000 5.988 W 0.160 1.744 1.773 0.745 0.644 1.020 0.232 0.007 0.000 6.326 WNW 0.126 1.585 1.201 0.709 0.637 1.426 0.224 0.000 0.000 5.909 NW 0.152 1.715 1.643 0.832 0.825 1.744 0.232 0.007 0.000 7.151 NNW 0.101 1.078 1.158 0.876 0.861 1.462 0.109 0.000 0.000 5.645 SUBTOTAL 1.961 18.034 25.177 18.020 13.837 18.758 3.763 0.449 0.000 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 13818 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 14400 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 96.0 TOTAL HOURS CALM 271 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 4.87 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-24 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT APRIL (77-93) WIND SPEED(MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.087 0.401 0.959 0.820 0.968 2.467 0.462 0.009 0.000 6.173 NNE 0.157 0.706 1.735 1.656 1.674 2.642 0.645 0.009 0.000 9.224 NE 0.228 0.846 2.711 1.500 1.177 1.447 0.209 0.000 0.000 8.118 ENE 0.192 0.750 2.241 0.942 0.619 0.514 0.009 0.000 0.000 5.266 E 0.075 0.392 0.776 0.488 0.288 0.227 0.009 0.000 0.000 2.255 ESE 0.047 0.262 0.471 0.340 0.139 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.285 SE 0.045 0.218 0.480 0.384 0.174 0.166 0.017 0.000 0.000 1.483 SSE 0.092 0.453 0.985 0.820 0.323 0.480 0.253 0.087 0.000 3.493 S 0.158 0.584 1.883 1.691 1.055 1.107 0.575 0.288 0.070 7.412 SSW 0.198 0.610 2.467 3.470 3.862 6.164 3.662 0.828 0.157 21.418 SW 0.119 0.418 1.439 1.953 1.883 3.025 1.412 0.314 0.052 10.616 WSW 0.075 0.340 0.828 0.750 0.671 1.142 0.567 0.192 0.061 4.626 W 0.065 0.384 0.636 0.584 0.471 1.194 0.645 0.070 0.017 4.067 WNW 0.044 0.305 0.384 0.453 0.453 1.857 1.020 0.052 0.000 4.569 NW 0.058 0.279 0.619 0.549 1.003 2.014 0.610 0.087 0.000 5.219 NNW 0.050 0.279 0.506 0.567 0.689 1.901 0.750 0.035 0.000 4.776 SUBTOTAL 1.691 7.228 19.119 16.966 15.449 26.373 10.846 1.970 0.357 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 11470 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 12240 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 93.7 TOTAL HOURS CALM 194 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 46.36 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 6.93 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-25 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT MAY (74-93) WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.109 0.618 1.237 1.606 1.293 1.208 0.050 0.000 0.000 6.121 NNE 0.099 0.426 1.265 1.748 1.571 1.606 0.057 0.000 0.000 6.773 NE 0.143 0.633 1.798 1.883 1.094 0.796 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.347 ENE 0.225 0.988 2.836 1.407 0.682 0.284 0.007 0.000 0.000 6.429 E 0.183 1.329 1.791 0.768 0.213 0.028 0.007 0.000 0.000 4.320 ESE 0.081 0.682 0.696 0.306 0.028 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.808 SE 0.117 0.931 1.066 0.583 0.142 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.896 SSE 0.178 1.237 1.791 0.725 0.156 0.156 0.014 0.000 0.000 4.257 S 0.256 1.315 3.042 2.168 1.080 0.874 0.178 0.000 0.000 8.912 SSW 0.327 1.578 3.980 4.307 3.440 3.397 0.448 0.007 0.000 17.482 SW 0.281 1.940 2.843 1.812 0.746 0.561 0.050 0.000 0.000 8.234 WSW 0.256 2.409 1.940 0.441 0.320 0.149 0.014 0.000 0.000 5.529 W 0.254 2.459 1.869 0.561 0.434 0.362 0.014 0.000 0.000 5.954 WNW 0.165 1.578 1.237 0.633 0.497 0.590 0.021 0.000 0.000 4.721 NW 0.211 1.940 1.656 0.540 0.441 0.696 0.014 0.000 0.000 5.499 NNW 0.149 1.222 1.308 0.760 0.505 0.739 0.036 0.000 0.000 4.718 SUBTOTAL 3.035 21.285 30.353 20.247 12.643 11.520 0.910 0.007 0.000 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 14071 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 14880 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 94.6 TOTAL HOURS CALM 427 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 3.87 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-26 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT MAY (77-93) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.114 0.504 1.123 1.098 1.245 2.099 0.382 0.016 0.000 6.581 NNE 0.220 0.944 2.213 1.912 1.757 2.253 0.366 0.000 0.000 9.665 NE 0.324 1.318 3.319 2.310 1.432 1.464 0.089 0.000 0.000 10.256 ENE 0.266 1.163 2.644 1.155 0.838 0.700 0.049 0.000 0.000 6.814 E 0.119 0.610 1.090 0.700 0.203 0.114 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.836 ESE 0.068 0.268 0.708 0.488 0.065 0.049 0.008 0.000 0.000 1.654 SE 0.080 0.325 0.822 0.439 0.203 0.220 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.089 SSE 0.141 0.635 1.383 0.797 0.212 0.260 0.081 0.016 0.000 3.525 S 0.241 0.748 2.709 2.017 1.131 1.180 0.374 0.065 0.000 8.465 SSW 0.296 0.822 3.425 4.417 3.474 5.255 2.595 0.456 0.016 20.755 SW 0.189 0.610 2.099 2.253 2.001 2.628 0.773 0.106 0.000 10.658 WSW 0.112 0.553 1.058 0.683 0.537 0.716 0.212 0.033 0.000 3.903 W 0.093 0.496 0.838 0.399 0.317 0.667 0.236 0.000 0.000 3.046 WNW 0.066 0.382 0.569 0.415 0.358 0.879 0.220 0.008 0.000 2.897 NW 0.072 0.366 0.659 0.439 0.447 0.968 0.268 0.000 0.000 3.220 NNW 0.081 0.415 0.740 0.578 0.635 0.984 0.187 0.016 0.000 3.635 SUBTOTAL 2.481 0.160 25.397 20.101 14.854 20.434 5.841 0.716 0.016 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 12293 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 12648 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 97.2 TOTAL HOURS CALM 305 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 46.36 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 5.53 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-27 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JUNE (74-93) WIND SPEED(MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.078 0.403 1.023 1.801 1.174 0.994 0.050 0.000 0.000 5.525 NNE 0.077 0.403 1.001 1.679 1.477 1.830 0.166 0.000 0.000 6.633 NE 0.097 0.454 1.304 1.304 0.627 0.483 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.268 ENE 0.185 0.850 2.521 1.527 0.490 0.137 0.007 0.000 0.000 5.718 E 0.158 1.102 1.765 0.605 0.173 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.817 ESE 0.068 0.605 0.627 0.180 0.050 0.029 0.007 0.000 0.000 1.566 SE 0.113 0.951 1.102 0.461 0.043 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 2.678 SSE 0.174 1.390 1.765 0.720 0.245 0.086 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.381 S 0.294 1.599 3.753 2.637 1.297 0.713 0.029 0.000 0.000 10.323 SSW 0.376 1.643 5.187 5.619 4.005 3.112 0.158 0.000 0.000 20.100 SW 0.319 2.305 3.487 2.183 1.001 0.317 0.007 0.000 0.000 9.619 WSW 0.265 2.377 2.449 0.483 0.202 0.072 0.000 0.000 .000 5.849 W 0.218 2.240 1.722 0.555 0.382 0.195 0.014 0.000 0.000 5.326 WNW 0.185 1.844 1.520 0.569 0.612 0.418 0.007 0.000 0.000 5.156 NW 0.193 2.082 1.426 0.526 0.497 0.360 0.014 0.000 0.000 5.099 NNW 0.111 0.994 1.016 0.778 0.576 0.439 0.029 0.000 0.000 3.943 SUBTOTAL 2.910 21.245 31.669 21.627 12.852 9.200 0.497 0.000 0.000 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 13881 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 14400 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 96.4 TOTAL HOURS CALM 404 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 3.62 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-28 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JUNE (77-93) WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.107 0.792 1.163 1.137 1.196 1.988 0.219 0.008 0.000 6.612 NNE 0.174 0.944 2.224 2.056 1.592 2.334 0.388 0.008 0.000 9.720 NE 0.231 1.340 2.881 1.938 1.053 0.994 0.017 0.008 0.000 8.463 ENE 0.195 1.078 2.477 1.331 0.767 0.447 0.008 0.000 0.000 6.303 E 0.109 0.784 1.213 0.615 0.261 0.126 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.109 ESE 0.054 0.371 0.615 0.329 0.076 0.034 0.000 0.008 0.000 1.486 SE 0.068 0.472 0.775 0.514 0.076 0.034 0.008 0.000 0.000 1.947 SSE 0.133 0.716 1.702 0.977 0.329 0.194 0.008 0.000 0.000 4.059 S 0.225 0.927 3.185 2.603 1.255 0.876 0.135 0.008 0.000 9.215 SSW 0.254 0.767 3.859 6.471 4.870 5.771 1.297 0.042 0.017 23.347 SW 0.149 0.725 1.997 2.898 2.182 2.755 0.480 0.008 0.000 11.195 WSW 0.091 0.463 1.188 0.893 0.371 0.615 0.110 0.000 0.000 3.730 W 0.066 0.463 0.741 0.379 0.354 0.607 0.051 0.017 0.000 2.678 WNW 0.065 0.573 0.615 0.396 0.404 0.767 0.051 0.000 0.000 2.871 NW 0.050 0.421 0.497 0.354 0.404 0.581 0.042 0.008 0.000 2.359 NNW 0.058 0.447 0.615 0.463 0.514 0.699 0.110 0.000 0.000 2.906 SUBTOTAL 2.030 11.281 25.748 23.355 15.705 18.822 2.924 0.118 0.017 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 11869 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 12240 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 97.0 TOTAL HOURS CALM 241 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 46.36 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 4.98 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-29 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JULY (77-93) WIND SPEED(MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.062 0.414 1.056 1.388 0.808 0.373 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.100 NN 0.058 0.387 1.001 1.643 1.719 1.070 0.021 0.000 0.000 5.899 NE 0.068 0.373 1.243 1.747 1.084 0.366 0.014 0.000 0.000 4.893 EN 0.126 0.656 2.347 1.574 0.614 0.138 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.456 E 0.118 1.049 1.760 0.884 0.166 0.055 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.032 ES 0.060 0.518 0.918 0.394 0.055 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.945 SE 0.104 0.870 1.609 0.670 0.076 0.035 0.007 0.000 0.000 3.369 SS 0.169 1.415 2.603 1.084 0.214 0.124 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.609 S 0.246 1.664 4.211 2.996 1.042 0.504 0.014 0.000 0.000 10.678 SS 0.310 1.885 5.516 5.647 3.238 1.685 0.076 0.000 0.000 18.357 SW 0.268 2.168 4.225 1.843 0.683 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.436 WS 0.223 2.575 2.748 0.587 0.193 0.069 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.395 W 0.182 2.154 2.195 0.580 0.338 0.200 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.650 WN 0.158 1.899 1.878 0.663 0.373 0.166 0.007 0.000 0.000 5.143 NW 0.161 1.892 1.947 0.456 0.407 0.269 0.007 0.000 0.000 5.139 NNW 0.095 1.091 1.174 0.677 0.545 0.311 0.007 0.000 0.000 3.899 SUBTOTAL 2.409 21.008 36.431 22.831 11.557 5.613 0.152 0.000 0.000 100.00-TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 14485 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 14880 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 97.3 TOTAL HOURS CALM 349 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 3.32 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-30 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JULY (77-93) WIND SPEED(MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.088 0.833 1.468 1.237 1.064 0.940 0.041 0.000 0.000 5.673 NNE 0.122 0.899 2.302 1.873 1.947 1.980 0.132 0.008 0.000 9.263 NE 0.161 1.279 2.929 2.062 1.477 0.973 0.016 0.000 0.000 8.897 ENE 0.120 0.883 2.252 1.526 0.982 0.429 0.025 0.000 0.000 6.216 E 0.071 0.602 1.262 0.800 0.363 0.074 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.173 ESE 0.034 0.256 0.635 0.462 0.132 0.066 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.585 SE 0.050 0.256 1.064 0.817 0.173 0.049 0.025 0.000 0.000 2.434 SSE 0.104 0.627 2.095 1.171 0.256 0.198 0.025 0.000 0.000 4.476 S 0.165 0.874 3.448 2.854 1.279 0.998 0.066 0.000 0.000 9.685 SSW 0.219 0.866 4.867 7.095 4.917 4.290 0.643 0.041 0.000 22.938 SW 0.120 0.544 2.607 3.003 2.079 1.881 0.355 0.008 0.000 10.597 WSW 0.059 0.610 0.940 0.932 0.610 0.544 0.099 0.008 0.000 3.804 W 0.051 0.470 0.874 0.652 0.437 0.454 0.082 0.000 0.000 3.021 WNW 0.042 0.478 0.610 0.346 0.412 0.553 0.025 0.008 0.000 2.475 NW 0.050 0.495 0.808 0.561 0.388 0.454 0.107 0.000 0.000 2.863 NNW 0.046 0.454 0.759 0.495 0.487 0.635 0.016 0.008 0.000 2.901 SUBTOTAL 1.501 10.427 28.923 25.887 17.002 14.519 1.658 0.082 0.000 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 12122 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 12648 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 95.8 TOTAL HOURS CALM 182 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 46.36 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 4.64 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-31 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT AUGUST (74-93) WIND WIND SPEED(MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.132 0.672 1.428 1.934 1.130 0.770 0.014 0.000 0.000 6.081 NNE 0.101 0.367 1.241 1.907 2.004 1.414 0.035 0.000 0.000 7.069 NE 0.153 0.471 1.955 1.913 0.887 0.492 0.007 0.000 0.000 5.879 ENE 0.278 0.915 3.494 2.045 0.499 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.481 E 0.185 1.109 1.823 0.991 0.139 0.049 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.296 ESE 0.080 0.499 0.776 0.354 0.014 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.737 SE 0.120 0.749 1.165 0.506 0.125 0.090 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.755 SSE 0.226 1.199 2.392 1.026 0.277 0.111 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.232 S 0.349 1.754 3.792 2.940 1.075 0.603 0.007 0.000 0.000 10.520 SSW 0.409 1.865 4.638 4.368 2.662 1.456 0.021 0.000 0.000 15.419 SW 0.342 2.156 3.279 1.220 0.263 0.069 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.330 WSW 0.310 2.558 2.371 0.395 0.076 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.718 W 0.258 2.385 1.712 0.333 0.187 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.889 WNW 0.242 2.302 1.539 0.444 0.153 0.076 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.755 NW 0.307 2.808 2.073 0.451 0.257 0.097 0.007 0.000 0.000 5.999 NNW 0.189 1.359 1.636 0.638 0.624 0.381 0.014 0.000 0.000 4.840 SUBTOTAL 3.681 23.170 35.316 21.464 10.372 5.893 0.104 0.000 0.000 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 14424 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 14880 TOTAL HOURS CALM 531 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 3.20 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-32 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JUNE (77-93) WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7 .5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.134 0.737 1.483 1.424 1.206 1.625 0.142 0.000 0.000 6.752 NN 0.241 1.131 2.848 2.161 2.111 2.186 0.109 0.008 0.000 10.796 NE 0.346 1.474 4.247 2.622 1.659 0.963 0.067 0.000 0.000 11.379 EN 0.275 1.332 3.209 2.237 0.888 0.511 0.050 0.000 0.000 8.501 E 0.140 0.972 1.349 0.880 0.285 0.151 0.008 0.000 0.000 3.784 ES 0.077 0.528 0.746 0.578 0.101 0.059 0.008 0.000 0.000 2.096 SE 0.086 0.461 0.955 0.570 0.159 0.151 0.008 0.000 0.000 2.389 SS 0.153 0.737 1.784 1.081 0.402 0.226 0.017 0.000 0.000 4.400 S 0.277 1.072 3.502 2.957 1.198 0.871 0.042 0.000 0.000 9.919 SS 0.356 1.014 4.867 5.831 4.071 3.301 0.352 0.008 0.000 19.799 SW 0.191 0.771 2.379 2.212 1.374 0.930 0.117 0.000 0.000 7.973 WS 0.088 0.486 0.963 0.670 0.218 0.193 0.025 0.000 0.000 2.643 W 0.069 0.461 0.679 0.302 0.159 0.201 0.008 0.000 0.000 1.878 WN 0.066 0.394 0.704 0.352 0.209 0.226 0.025 0.000 0.000 1.976 NW 0.086 0.528 0.888 0.352 0.268 0.285 0.084 0.000 0.000 2.490 NNW 0.082 0.519 0.829 0.662 0.469 0.586 0.075 0.000 0.000 3.223 SUBTOTAL 2.664 2.664 2.664 2.664 2.664 2.664 2.664 2.664 2.664 2.664 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 11937 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 12648 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 94.4 TOTAL HOURS CALM 318 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 46.36 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 4.24 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-33 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT SEPTEMBER (74-93) WIND WIND SPEED(MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.188 0.890 1.780 2.091 1.664 1.158 0.029 0.000 0.000 7.800 NNE 0.155 0.550 1.657 2.554 2.352 3.169 0.130 0.000 0.000 10.567 NE 0.186 0.601 2.048 2.677 1.368 0.984 0.022 0.007 0.000 7.892 ENE 0.274 0.999 2.902 1.512 0.347 0.145 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.178 E 0.166 0.818 1.548 0.695 0.080 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.343 ESE 0.059 0.268 0.579 0.159 0.022 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.109 SE 0.088 0.391 0.861 0.224 0.072 0.014 0.014 0.000 0.000 1.665 SSE 0.171 0.912 1.520 0.651 0.174 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.485 S 0.307 1.397 2.981 2.113 1.143 0.767 0.029 0.000 0.000 8.737 SSW 0.348 1.418 3.531 3.944 2.598 1.382 0.058 0.000 0.000 13.278 SW 0.281 1.737 2.265 1.165 0.355 0.072 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.874 WSW 0.271 2.178 1.686 0.326 0.065 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.541 W 0.290 2.489 1.643 0.326 0.195 0.072 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.015 WNW 0.327 2.967 1.693 0.470 0.268 0.166 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.892 NW 0.430 3.813 2.315 0.535 0.434 0.355 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.883 NNW 0.278 2.055 1.903 1.035 0.673 0.796 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.740 SUBTOTAL 3.821 23.480 30.912 20.478 11.809 9.211 0.282 0.007 0.000 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 13820 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 14400 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 96.0 TOTAL HOURS CALM 528 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 3.51 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-34 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT SEPTEMBER (77-93) WIND SPEED(MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.129 0.604 1.261 1.501 1.403 2.646 0.169 0.000 0.000 7.712 NNE 0.256 0.968 2.744 2.753 2.690 3.871 0.657 0.018 0.000 13.957 NE 0.388 1.545 4.067 3.312 2.060 2.131 0.240 0.018 0.000 13.760 ENE 0.299 1.438 2.895 1.598 0.666 0.444 0.027 0.000 0.000 7.367 E 0.148 1.128 1.012 0.426 0.186 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.945 ESE 0.089 0.613 0.675 0.364 0.053 0.036 0.009 0.000 0.000 1.838 SE 0.094 0.586 0.781 0.249 0.080 0.062 0.027 0.009 0.000 1.888 SSE 0.169 0.844 1.607 0.915 0.275 0.231 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.041 S 0.277 1.083 2.930 2.060 0.861 1.048 0.124 0.009 0.000 8.393 SSW 0.336 1.243 3.623 4.466 3.570 3.818 0.719 0.062 0.000 17.838 SW 0.169 0.790 1.652 1.900 1.438 1.279 0.044 0.000 0.000 7.272 WSW 0.104 0.488 1.021 0.551 0.240 0.195 0.018 0.000 0.000 2.617 W 0.072 0.462 0.577 0.329 0.222 0.240 0.044 0.000 0.000 1.945 WNW 0.074 0.417 0.657 0.284 0.204 0.479 0.044 0.000 0.000 2.161 NW 0.080 0.444 0.710 0.364 0.293 0.657 0.036 0.000 0.000 2.584 NNW 0.085 0.506 0.719 0.586 0.648 1.021 0.115 0.000 0.000 3.681 SUBTOTAL 2.770 13.159 26.931 21.657 14.891 18.203 2.273 0.115 0.000 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 11262 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 12240 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 92.0 TOTAL HOURS CALM 312 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 46.36 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 4.74 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-35 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT OCTOBER (74-93) WIND SPEED(MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.269 1.027 1.805 1.861 1.937 2.055 0.049 0.000 0.000 9.002 NNE 0.225 0.847 1.527 2.194 1.923 2.298 0.146 0.000 0.000 9.160 NE 0.262 0.798 1.965 1.937 1.222 0.757 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.941 ENE 0.374 1.326 2.617 1.222 0.340 0.118 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.998 E 0.195 0.909 1.146 0.396 0.111 0.076 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.833 ESE 0.069 0.389 0.333 0.083 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.895 SE 0.103 0.562 0.528 0.118 0.049 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.388 SSE 0.197 0.757 1.319 0.292 0.160 0.069 0.021 0.000 0.000 2.814 S 0.333 1.125 2.388 1.673 0.833 0.639 0.062 0.000 0.000 7.054 SSW 0.369 1.083 2.805 3.076 2.312 2.083 0.153 0.000 0.000 11.880 SW 0.308 1.354 1.888 1.062 0.444 0.194 0.007 0.000 0.000 5.258 WSW 0.383 2.083 1.958 0.458 0.208 0.104 0.007 0.000 0.000 5.202 W 0.472 3.082 1.895 0.410 0.299 0.368 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.526 WNW 0.510 3.686 1.687 0.673 0.569 0.660 0.021 0.000 0.000 7.806 NW 0.696 4.638 2.701 0.660 0.576 0.618 0.035 0.000 0.000 9.923 NNW 0.350 1.993 1.701 1.125 0.868 1.264 0.021 0.000 0.000 7.321 SUBTOTAL 5.117 25.660 28.263 17.238 11.851 11.351 0.521 0.000 0.000 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 14404 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 14880 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 96.8 TOTAL HOURS CALM 737 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 3.56 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-36 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT OCTOBER (77-93) WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.163 0.562 1.221 1.025 1.660 3.768 0.285 0.000 0.000 9.002 NNE 0.317 0.855 2.613 2.450 2.197 2.962 0.065 0.000 0.000 11.679 NE 0.487 1.595 3.728 2.588 1.628 1.717 0.024 0.000 0.000 11.808 ENE 0.456 1.579 3.410 1.001 0.619 0.236 0.016 0.000 0.000 7.325 E 0.235 1.514 1.058 0.350 0.163 0.090 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.426 ESE 0.118 0.863 0.431 0.163 0.016 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 1.591 SE 0.119 0.724 0.578 0.195 0.049 0.057 0.057 0.000 0.000 1.731 SSE 0.207 0.944 1.318 0.480 0.155 0.244 0.252 0.000 0.000 3.406 S 0.328 1.164 2.417 1.587 0.798 0.822 1.465 0.033 0.000 7.400 SSW 0.410 1.017 3.467 3.996 3.280 3.841 0.241 0.098 0.000 17.575 SW 0.241 0.830 1.807 1.620 1.367 1.563 0.358 0.024 0.000 7.810 WSW 0.138 0.570 0.944 0.619 0.415 0.464 0.138 0.000 0.000 3.288 W 0.132 0.610 0.830 0.244 0.277 0.570 0.179 0.000 0.000 2.842 WNW 0.082 0.366 0.529 0.350 0.439 1.213 0.317 0.008 0.000 3.305 NW 0.098 0.480 0.586 0.383 0.578 1.099 0.179 0.000 0.000 3.402 NNW 0.089 0.399 0.578 0.521 0.676 1.701 0.439 0.008 0.000 4.411 SUBTOTAL 3.622 14.072 25.515 17.571 14.316 20.347 4.387 0.171 0.000 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 12287 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 12648 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 97.1 TOTAL HOURS CALM 445 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 46.36 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 5.03 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-37 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT OCTOBER (74-93) WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.190 1.041 1.378 1.636 1.493 1.737 0.151 0.000 0.000 7.626 NNE 0.241 1.091 1.974 2.261 2.153 2.089 0.072 0.000 0.000 9.880 NE 0.254 0.969 2.268 1.694 1.062 0.488 0.007 0.000 0.000 6.743 ENE 0.329 1.292 2.892 0.976 0.179 0.043 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.712 E 0.190 1.019 1.400 0.359 0.014 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.989 ESE 0.058 0.366 0.366 0.065 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.861 SE 0.071 0.402 0.495 0.136 0.050 0.065 0.029 0.000 0.000 1.248 SSE 0.114 0.452 0.998 0.416 0.108 0.194 0.043 0.000 0.000 2.325 S 0.228 0.746 2.153 1.199 0.660 0.761 0.230 0.000 0.000 5.977 SSW 0.289 0.804 2.871 3.560 2.727 3.223 0.646 0.036 0.000 14.155 SW 0.242 1.077 2.002 1.170 0.782 0.323 0.043 0.000 0.000 5.639 WSW 0.305 1.644 2.239 0.754 0.452 0.416 0.065 0.000 0.000 5.875 W 0.368 2.476 2.203 0.739 0.725 0.897 0.036 0.000 0.000 7.445 WNW 0.359 2.792 1.773 0.545 0.560 0.775 0.072 0.000 0.000 6.876 NW 0.425 3.172 2.239 1.019 0.883 1.041 0.086 0.000 0.000 8.866 NNW 0.278 1.931 1.601 1.234 1.191 1.471 0.079 0.000 0.000 7.785 SUBTOTAL 3.940 21.273 28.852 17.764 13.041 13.536 1.557 0.036 0.000 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 13933 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 14400 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 96.8 TOTAL HOURS CALM 549 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 3.99 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-38 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT OCTOBER (77-93) WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.116 0.573 1.306 1.096 1.290 3.253 0.725 0.034 0.000 8.392 NNE 0.201 0.952 2.309 2.056 2.309 2.857 0.396 0.008 0.000 11.090 NE 0.326 1.180 4.121 2.756 1.787 1.795 0.126 0.000 0.000 12.092 ENE 0.273 1.180 3.253 1.129 0.497 0.160 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.493 E 0.133 0.944 1.222 0.270 0.084 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.653 ESE 0.054 0.548 0.337 0.067 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.015 SE 0.062 0.514 0.489 0.143 0.067 0.093 0.025 0.000 0.000 1.393 SSE 0.104 0.531 1.155 0.320 0.160 0.253 0.160 0.042 0.000 2.725 S 0.187 0.725 2.318 1.306 0.750 0.809 0.539 0.126 0.000 6.761 SSW 0.227 0.716 2.967 3.767 2.958 4.560 2.200 0.371 0.017 17.782 SW 0.142 0.641 1.660 1.896 1.433 2.158 0.725 0.051 0.008 8.713 WSW 0.102 0.405 1.256 0.767 0.615 0.818 0.464 0.110 0.008 4.544 W 0.072 0.489 0.674 0.379 0.430 1.037 0.346 0.017 0.000 3.443 WNW 0.052 0.346 0.506 0.430 0.379 1.155 0.396 0.000 0.000 3.264 NW 0.073 0.455 0.733 0.506 0.573 1.525 0.303 0.000 0.000 4.169 NNW 0.085 0.455 0.927 0.716 0.784 2.014 0.480 0.008 0.000 5.471 SUBTOTAL 2.208 10.653 25.234 17.606 14.126 22.486 6.886 0.767 0.034 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 11865 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 12240 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 96.9 TOTAL HOURS CALM 262 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 46.36 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 5.73 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-39 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT OCTOBER (74-93) WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.098 0.759 1.390 1.511 1.709 2.390 0.071 0.000 0.000 7.928 NNE 0.110 0.752 1.667 2.050 2.064 2.411 0.170 0.000 0.000 9.223 NE 0.144 0.929 2.234 1.766 0.950 0.709 0.007 0.000 0.000 6.740 ENE 0.187 1.106 3.014 0.908 0.199 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.450 E 0.090 0.851 1.135 0.177 0.028 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 2.289 ESE 0.025 0.270 0.270 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.585 SE 0.043 0.355 0.589 0.106 0.021 0.014 0.007 0.000 0.000 1.135 SSE 0.092 0.745 1.277 0.227 0.050 0.057 0.028 0.000 0.000 2.475 S 0.133 0.674 2.241 1.312 0.546 0.504 0.277 0.035 0.000 5.721 SSW 0.167 0.816 2.851 4.163 3.206 3.667 0.539 0.121 0.000 15.528 SW 0.149 1.014 2.262 1.511 0.908 0.511 0.078 0.000 0.000 6.433 WSW 0.174 1.475 2.362 0.858 0.539 0.355 0.064 0.000 0.000 5.827 W 0.191 1.915 2.277 0.979 0.865 1.128 0.099 0.000 0.000 7.453 WNW 0.169 2.085 1.638 0.610 0.858 1.213 0.121 0.007 0.000 6.701 NW 0.234 2.426 2.709 0.965 0.943 1.603 0.156 0.000 0.000 9.035 NNW 0.144 1.496 1.674 0.957 1.248 1.787 0.170 0.000 0.000 7.477 SUBTOTAL 2.149 17.66 7 29.589 18.121 14.135 16.383 1.794 0.163 0.000 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 14100 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 14880 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 94.8 TOTAL HOURS CALM 303 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 1-DEC-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 4.39 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-40 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT DECEMBER (1977-1988) WIND WIND SPEED(MPH) DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.051 0.524 1.152 1.222 1.199 3.852 0.803 0.070 0.000 8.873 NNE 0.072 0.524 1.862 2.421 2.235 3.457 0.512 0.047 0.000 11.129 NE 0.106 0.733 2.770 2.665 1.757 1.501 0.186 0.000 0.000 9.719 ENE 0.096 0.722 2.456 0.919 0.349 0.163 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.705 E 0.053 0.838 0.919 0.244 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 2.067 ESE 0.028 0.489 0.454 0.070 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.053 SE 0.027 0.338 0.570 0.163 0.023 0.035 0.023 0.012 0.000 1.191 SSE 0.047 0.524 1.036 0.314 0.105 0.151 0.047 0.012 0.000 2.235 S 0.086 0.559 2.293 1.280 0.640 0.687 0.396 0.093 0.012 6.045 SSW 0.113 0.570 3.177 3.678 3.212 4.609 2.828 0.512 0.058 18.758 SW 0.063 0.454 1.641 1.851 1.699 3.305 0.954 0.163 0.023 10.154 WSW 0.043 0.396 1.013 0.908 0.722 1.141 0.407 0.105 0.023 4.756 W 0.033 0.303 0.791 0.500 0.442 1.292 0.349 0.058 0.000 3.769 WNW 0.031 0.431 0.582 0.431 0.594 2.037 0.640 0.093 0.000 4.837 NW 0.028 0.349 0.582 0.524 0.745 1.990 0.640 0.035 0.012 4.905 NNW 0.030 0.361 0.640 0.675 0.791 2.432 0.838 0.035 0.000 5.803 SUBTOTAL 0.908 8.112 21.939 17.865 14.525 26.653 8.636 1.234 0.128 100.000 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND OBSERVATIONS 8592 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 8928 RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 96.2 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY LOCATED 0.8 KM SSW OF WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 46.36 METER LEVEL MEAN WIND SPEED = 6.45 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-41 PERCENT OCCURRENCE OF WIND SPEED* FOR ALL WIND DIRECTIONS July 1, 1971 - June 28, 1972 Annual Wind Wind Speed (mph)** Direction 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 > 19 Total N 4.33 1.07 0.14 0.03 - 5.57 NNE 4.16 2.11 0.29 0.01 - 6.57 NE 5.26 4.12 0.49 - - 9.87 ENE 3.90 2.07 0.23 0.01 - 6.21 E 1.64 0.50 0.04 - - 2.18 ESE 1.11 0.45 0.25 - - 1.81 SE 1.72 0.50 0.33 - - 2.55 SSE 2.27 0.81 0.16 - - 3.24 S 2.94 2.83 0.68 0.15 - 6.60 SSW 2.54 4.69 1.80 0.33 - 9.36 SW 2.54 3.08 0.62 0.04 - 6.28 WSW 2.07 1.08 0.20 0.03 - 3.38 W 2.18 1.26 1.02 0.09 - 4.55 WNW 2.38 1.21 0.90 0.01 - 4.50 NW 4.97 1.74 0.73 0.06 - 7.50 NNW 5.71 2.13 0.29 0.05 - 8.18 Total 49.72 29.65 8.17 0.81 - 88.35 Calm = 11.64 All columns and calm total 100% of net valid observations, which represent 91% of total record.
- Watts Bar temporary meteorological facility. Wind instruments 10 meters aboveground.
- Wind speed class 1-3 mph includes values 0.6-3.5 mph; class 4-7 mph includes values 3.6-7.5 mph; etc.
WBN TABLE 2.3-42 PERCENT OCCURRENCES OF INVERSION CONDITIONS AND PASQUILL STABILITY CLASSES A-G* WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JANUARY 1, 1974 - DECEMBER 31, 1993 STABILITY CLASS INVERSIONS A B C D E F G JANUARY 31.0 2.2 2.2 4.5 47.0 26.5 11.5 6.1 FEBRUARY 34.3 3.7 3.6 5.4 42.5 23.3 11.9 9.5 MARCH 36.3 5.4 4.1 6.1 37.5 23.7 11.9 11.3 APRIL 39.9 5.2 4.2 7.3 33.0 22.6 13.2 14.5 MAY 40.3 4.4 4.1 7.1 33.3 26.2 16.8 8.1 JUNE 40.7 5.6 4.7 7.9 30.9 27.3 17.6 5.9 JULY 39.6 5.8 4.5 7.9 31.5 29.4 16.5 4.6 AUGUST 40.7 5.0 4.4 7.2 30.8 32.5 17.0 3.0 SEPTEMBER 40.7 5.0 4.2 6.6 31.8 30.9 17.4 4.0 OCTOBER 44.3 4.3 3.9 6.3 32.1 24.1 20.9 8.5 NOVEMBER 41.2 1.8 2.2 4.5 38.5 26.8 15.4 10.8 DECEMBER 36.1 1.6 1.8 4.6 44.0 27.1 13.6 7.3 ANNUAL 38.5 4.2 3.7 6.3 36.1 26.7 15.3 7.8
- INVERSION CONDITIONS DISTRIBUTED WITHIN TOTAL HOURS WITH VALID VERTICAL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE DATA.
STABILITY CLASSES DISTRIBUTED WITHIN TOTAL HOURS WITH VALID WIND DIRECTION, WIND SPEED, AND VERTICAL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE DATA. METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY LOCATED 0.8 KM SSW OF WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT. TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 9.51 AND 45.63 METERS AND WIND DIRECTION AND WIND SPEED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL.
TABLE 2.3-43 DELETED
WBN TABLE 2.3-44 INVERSION PERSISTENCE DATA WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JAN 1, 74 - DEC 31, 93 (DELTA-T GIVEN IN DEGREES CELSIUS) DISREGARDING INVERSION E F G F AND G STRENGTH NO. HOURS 0.0<DELTA_T<=1.5 .5<DELTA-T<=4.0 DELTA_T >4.0 DELTA-T>1.5 DELTA-T>0.0 2 2027 1091 527 377 842 3 993 728 337 309 549 4 709 597 302 312 393 5 483 530 286 286 349 6 340 513 189 305 314 7 224 399 159 299 271 8 151 291 103 307 277 9 94 220 118 350 270 10 72 164 89 399 298 11 64 132 87 477 419 12 42 60 53 414 773 13 19 31 40 357 731 14 10 17 34 213 595 15 7 3 6 168 468 16 4 1 2 50 272 17 1 0 0 8 98 18 0 0 0 1 25 19 0 1 0 2 8 20 0 0 0 1 0 21 0 0 0 1 1 22 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0
>=32 0 0 0 0 2*
TOTAL 5240 4778 2332 4636 6955 MAXIMUM HOURS OF PERSISTENCE 17 19 16 21 45 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY LOCATED 0.8 KM SSW OF WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT TEMPERATURE INSTRUMENTS LOCATED 45.63 AND 9.51 METERS ABOVE GROUND
- JANUARY 1982 AND DECEMBER 1989
WBN TABLE 2.3-45 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION DISREGARDING STABILITY CLASS (DELTA T<=-1.9 C/100 M) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JAN 1, 74 - DEC 31, 93 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.021 0.036 0.060 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.129 NNE 0.000 0.001 0.012 0.054 0.074 0.141 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.285 NE 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.088 0.078 0.089 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.289 ENE 0.000 0.001 0.037 0.079 0.071 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.220 E 0.000 0.002 0.037 0.041 0 .015 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.100 ESE 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.016 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 SE 0.000 0.001 0.021 0.027 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.055 SSE 0.000 0.001 0.042 0.055 0.020 0.013 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.133 S 0.000 0.002 0.058 0.139 0.127 0.129 0.018 0.001 0.000 0.473 SSW 0.000 0.001 0.046 0.257 0.476 0.743 0.113 0.005 0.000 1.639 SW 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.093 0.118 0.102 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.343 WSW 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.016 0.017 0.063 0.021 0.002 0.000 0.125 W 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.010 0.014 0.064 0.014 0.001 0.000 0.106 WNW 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.007 0.033 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.050 NW 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.005 0.010 0.029 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.052 NNW 0.000 0.001 0.007 0.021 0.035 0.057 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.131 SUBTOTAL 0.001 0.008 0.350 0.925 1.102 1.563 0.210 0.008 0.000 4.166 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 167789 TOTAL HOURS OF STABILITY CLASS A 6970 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY CLASS A 6849 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 164406 TOTAL HOURS CALM 1 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT STABILITY BASED ON DELTA-T BETWEEN 9.51 AND 45.63 METERS WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 20-SEP-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 7.21 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-46 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION FOR STABILITY CLASS B (-1.9< DELTA T<=-1.7 C/100 M) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JAN 1, 74 - DEC 31, 93 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.055 0.052 0.080 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.213 NNE 0.000 0.001 0.040 0.108 0.112 0.186 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.458 NE 0.000 0.000 0.069 0.123 0.107 0.086 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.387 ENE 0.000 0.001 0.052 0.101 0.071 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.249 E 0.000 0.001 0.061 0.055 0.015 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.133 ESE 0.000 0.002 0.021 0.024 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.049 SE 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.028 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.064 SSE 0.000 0.001 0.046 0.046 0.013 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.111 S 0.000 0.001 0.052 0.128 0.077 0.054 0.012 0.002 0.000 0.326 SSW 0.000 0.000 0.068 0.211 0.289 0.238 0.046 0.003 0.000 0.855 SW 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.114 0.080 0.029 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.252 WSW 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.024 0.026 0.023 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.085 W 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.023 0.049 0.012 0.001 0.000 0.099 WNW 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.005 0.019 0.060 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.097 NW 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.013 0.023 0.063 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.112 NNW 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.027 0.033 0.081 0.010 0.001 0.000 0.161 SUBTOTAL 0.001 0.008 0.519 1.072 0.944 0.982 0.123 0.007 0.000 3.654 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 167789 TOTAL HOURS OF STABILITY CLASS B 6109 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY CLASS B 6007 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 164406 TOTAL HOURS CALM 0 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT STABILITY BASED ON DELTA-T BETWEEN 9.51 AND 45.63 METERS WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 20-SEP-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 6.38 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-47 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION FOR STABILITY CLASS C (-1.7< DELTA T<=-1.5 C/100 M) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JAN 1, 74 - DEC 31, 93 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.000 0.001 0.041 0.099 0.117 0.154 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.419 NNE 0.000 0.001 0.099 0.205 0.221 0.292 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.837 NE 0.000 0.002 0.130 0.234 0.163 0.128 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.658 ENE 0.000 0.001 0.117 0.172 0.082 0.027 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.400 E 0.000 0.004 0.101 0.126 0.022 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.258 ESE 0.000 0.002 0.041 0.040 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.088 SE 0.000 0.001 0.055 0.056 0.008 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.123 SSE 0.000 0.001 0.085 0.109 0.029 0.012 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.238 S 0.000 0.001 0.116 0.245 0.114 0.068 0.017 0.001 0.000 0.561 SSW 0.000 0.001 0.099 0.418 0.375 0.268 0.062 0.004 0.000 1.227 SW 0.000 0.001 0.049 0.193 0.103 0.036 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.388 WSW 0.000 0.001 0.021 0.057 0.037 0.023 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.148 W 0.000 0.001 0.018 0.027 0.050 0.060 0.011 0.002 0.000 0.169 WNW 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.022 0.038 0.113 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.201 NW 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.051 0.144 0.015 0.001 0.000 0.270 NNW 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.056 0.081 0.129 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.301 SUBTOTAL 0.000 0.015 1.027 2.097 1.494 1.460 0.184 0.009 0.000 6.286 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 167789 TOTAL HOURS OF STABILITY CLASS B 10556 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY CLASS B 10335 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 164406 TOTAL HOURS CALM 0 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT STABILITY BASED ON DELTA-T BETWEEN 9.51 AND 45.63 METERS WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 20-SEP-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 6.06 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-48 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION FOR STABILITY CLASS D (-1.5< DELTA T<=-0.5 C/100 M) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JAN 1, 74 - DEC 31, 93 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.005 0.046 0.502 0.875 0.967 1.190 0.046 0.000 0.000 3.631 NNE 0.006 0.043 0.584 1.226 1.348 1.457 0.063 0.000 0.000 4.728 NE 0.008 0.067 0.727 1.043 0.615 0.355 0.009 0.001 0.000 2.824 ENE 0.010 0.108 0.859 0.585 0.159 0.052 0.001 0.000 0.000 1.773 E 0.007 0.135 0.568 0.260 0.064 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.050 ESE 0.003 0.070 0.245 0.082 0.013 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.420 SE 0.005 0.078 0.378 0.151 0.029 0.023 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.670 SSE 0.007 0.130 0.591 0.256 0.052 0.046 0.018 0.002 0.000 1.102 S 0.011 0.133 0.991 0.816 0.339 0.294 0.100 0.011 0.001 2.697 SSW 0.014 0.106 1.259 1.837 1.071 1.119 0.246 0.021 0.000 5.671 SW 0.009 0.129 0.784 0.742 0.249 0.151 0.018 0.001 0.001 2.084 WSW 0.006 0.083 0.498 0.335 0.170 0.121 0.029 0.001 0.000 1.242 W 0.005 0.095 0.408 0.336 0.347 0.409 0.044 0.002 0.000 1.647 WNW 0.004 0.098 0.325 0.359 0.436 0.571 0.055 0.003 0.000 1.851 NW 0.004 0.080 0.341 0.398 0.530 0.748 0.069 0.001 0.000 2.171 NNW 0.004 0.048 0.369 0.526 0.626 0.903 0.047 0.000 0.000 2.523 SUBTOTAL 0.108 1.450 9.428 9.828 7.014 7.463 0.751 0.042 0.0001 36.085 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 167789 TOTAL HOURS OF STABILITY CLASS D 60302 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY CLASS D 59326 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 164406 TOTAL HOURS CALM 177 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT STABILITY BASED ON DELTA-T BETWEEN 9.51 AND 45.63 METERS WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 20-SEP-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 5.37 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-49 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION FOR STABILITY CLASS E (-0.5< DELTA T<=-1.5 C/100 M) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JAN 1, 74 - DEC 31, 93 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.030 0.164 0.499 0.599 0.274 0.083 0.002 0.000 0.000 1.650 NNE 0.025 0.138 0.415 0.422 0.213 0.070 0.003 0.000 0.000 1.286 NE 0.030 0.156 0.513 0.266 0.088 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.085 ENE 0.057 0.280 0.988 0.290 0.040 0.009 0.001 0.000 0.000 1.663 E 0.034 0.304 0.461 0.083 0.016 0.010 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.910 ESE 0.013 0.148 0.147 0.028 0.007 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.347 SE 0.019 0.208 0.209 0.049 0.030 0.021 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.539 SSE 0.039 0.341 0.519 0.114 0.059 0.066 0.014 0.001 0.000 1.152 S 0.067 0.450 1.037 0.478 0.206 0.186 0.061 0.007 0.000 2.492 SSW 0.090 0.505 1.499 1.117 0.743 0.751 0.148 0.016 0.000 4.869 SW 0.071 0.566 1.008 0.300 0.176 0.131 0.021 0.002 0.000 2.274 WSW 0.063 0.651 0.764 0.178 0.106 0.071 0.010 0.001 0.000 1.844 W 0.059 0.671 0.645 0.222 0.111 0.067 0.008 0.000 0.000 1.783 WNW 0.055 0.626 0.595 0.214 0.091 0.037 0.002 0.001 0.000 1.622 NW 0.059 0.652 0.664 0.256 0.111 0.049 0.002 0.000 0.000 1.793 NNW 0.039 0.349 0.512 0.308 0.146 0.075 0.002 0.000 0.000 1.430 SUBTOTAL 0.748 6.208 10.478 4.925 2.415 1.658 0.280 0.028 0.000 26.739 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 167789 TOTAL HOURS OF STABILITY CLASS E 44969 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY CLASS E 43961 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 164406 TOTAL HOURS CALM 1229 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT STABILITY BASED ON DELTA-T BETWEEN 9.51 AND 45.63 METERS WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 20-SEP-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 3.28 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-50 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION FOR STABILITY CLASS F (1.5< DELTA T<=-4.0 C/100 M) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JAN 1, 74 - DEC 31, 93 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.051 0.288 0.245 0.027 0.006 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.617 NNE 0.043 0.229 0.219 0.027 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.519 NE 0.054 0.246 0.318 0.025 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.645 ENE 0.087 0.345 0.567 0.058 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.062 E 0.046 0.286 0.200 0.010 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.544 ESE 0.016 0.120 0.048 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.185 SE 0.023 0.159 0.082 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.270 SSE 0.042 0.254 0.189 0.018 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.508 S 0.061 0.338 0.304 0.040 0.005 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.751 SSW 0.078 0.387 0.435 0.175 0.063 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.151 SW 0.096 0.517 0.498 0.064 0.018 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000 1.199 WSW 0.126 0.738 0.588 0.038 0.007 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.497 W 0.131 0.884 0.499 0.028 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.544 WNW 0.126 0.937 0.393 0.024 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.483 NW 0.184 1.225 0.707 0.041 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 2.163 NNW 0.099 0.644 0.398 0.030 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.175 SUBTOTAL 1.262 7.598 5.688 0.609 0.119 0.035 0.001 0.000 0.000 15.311 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 167789 TOTAL HOURS OF STABILITY CLASS F 25805 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY CLASS F 25173 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 164406 TOTAL HOURS CALM 2075 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT STABILITY BASED ON DELTA-T BETWEEN 9.51 AND 45.63 METERS WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 20-SEP-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 1.53 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-51 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION FOR STABILITY CLASS G (DELTA T>=-4.0 C/100 M) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JAN 1, 74 - DEC 31, 93 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.034 0.195 0.066 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.296 NNE 0.038 0.196 0.095 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.331 NE 0.054 0.257 0.161 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.473 ENE 0.091 0.376 0.327 0.008 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.803 E 0.047 0.257 0.105 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.410 ESE 0.015 0.095 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.135 SE 0.027 0.159 0.049 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.235 SSE 0.031 0.176 0.065 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.274 S 0.035 0.192 0.075 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.308 SSW 0.042 0.217 0.107 0.012 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.379 SW 0.053 0.278 0.130 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.466 WSW 0.089 0.436 0.251 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.782 W 0.094 0.464 0.260 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.823 WNW 0.075 0.406 0.172 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.656 NW 0.101 0.517 0.264 0.010 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.893 NNW 0.056 0.306 0.128 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.494 SUBTOTAL 0.881 4.525 2.280 0.068 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.758 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 167789 TOTAL HOURS OF STABILITY CLASS G 13078 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY CLASS G 12755 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 164406 TOTAL HOURS CALM 1448 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT STABILITY BASED ON DELTA-T BETWEEN 9.51 AND 45.63 METERS WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 20-SEP-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 1.23 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-52 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JAN 1, 74 - DEC 31, 93 STABILITY CLASS WIND SPEED (MPH A B C D E F G CALM 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.108 0.748 1.262 0.881 0.6- 1.4 0.008 0.006 0.015 1.450 6.208 7.598 4.525 1.5- 3.4 0.350 0.519 1.027 9.428 10.478 5.688 2.280 3.5- 5.4 0.925 1.072 2.097 9.828 4.925 0.609 0.068 5.5- 7.4 1.102 0.944 1.494 7.014 2.415 0.119 0.004 7.5-12.4 1.563 0.982 1.460 7.463 1.658 0.035 0.001 12.5-18.4 0.210 0.123 0.184 0.751 0.280 0.001 0.000 18.5-24.4 0.008 0.007 0.009 0.042 0.028 0.000 0.000
>=24.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 TOTAL 4.166 3.654 6.286 36.085 26.739 15.311 7.758 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 167789 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 164406 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 175320 JOINT RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 93.8 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT TABILITY BASED ON DELTA-T BETWEEN 9.51 AND 45.63 METERS WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 9.72 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 20-SEP-94
WBN TABLE 2.3-53 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION FOR STABILITY CLASS A (DELTA T=-1.9 C/100 M) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JAN 1, 77 - DEC 31, 93 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.019 0.029 0.072 0.016 0.001 0.000 0.144 NNE 0.000 0.001 0.011 0.036 0.071 0.136 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.275 NE 0.000 0.002 0.032 0.066 0.091 0.128 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.327 ENE 0.000 0.001 0.035 0.073 0.076 0.072 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.261 E 0.000 0.001 0.022 0.036 0.016 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.082 ESE 0.000 0.001 0.014 0.021 0.003 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.042 SE 0.000 0.001 0.016 0.025 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.047 SSE 0.000 0.001 0.027 0.049 0.016 0.016 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.114 S 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.087 0.058 0.091 0.028 0.005 0.000 0.307 SSW 0.000 0.001 0.032 0.161 0.261 0.699 0.347 0.056 0.006 1.564 SW 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.080 0.150 0.334 0.141 0.019 0.000 0.736 WSW 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.009 0.016 0.046 0.056 0.024 0.008 0.165 W 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.032 0.039 0.002 0.003 0.085 WNW 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.023 0.036 0.001 0.000 0.066 NW 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.019 0.014 0.002 0.000 0.041 NNW 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.009 0.014 0.043 0.016 0.001 0.000 0.088 SUBTOTAL 0.001 0.011 0.258 0.680 0.813 1.721 0.728 0.114 0.017 4.343 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 144312 TOTAL HOURS OF STABILITY CLASS A 6198 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY CLASS A 6089 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 140205 TOTAL HOURS CALM 2 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT STABILITY BASED ON DELTA-T BETWEEN 9.51 AND 45.63 METERS WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 46.36 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 29-NOV-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 9.02 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-54 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION FOR STABILITY CLASS B (-1.9< DELTA T<=-1.7 C/100 M) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JAN 1, 77 - DEC 31, 93 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.000 0.001 0.024 0.037 0.051 0.103 0.019 0.001 0.000 0.237 NNE 0.000 0.001 0.039 0.083 0.091 0.198 0.041 0.000 0.000 0.453 NE 0.000 0.000 0.055 0.125 0.106 0.138 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.437 ENE 0.000 0.002 0.075 0.093 0.088 0.064 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.324 E 0.000 0.001 0.036 0.044 0.020 0.006 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.108 ESE 0.000 0.001 0.016 0.028 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.049 SE 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.029 0.006 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.059 SSE 0.000 0.001 0.031 0.049 0.009 0.008 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.098 S 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.078 0.049 0.044 0.010 0.004 0.001 0.220 SSW 0.000 0.001 0.050 0.160 0.178 0.293 0.111 0.029 0.004 0.826 SW 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.103 0.148 0.161 0.044 0.007 0.002 0.486 WSW 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.014 0.016 0.045 0.015 0.008 0.001 0.105 W 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.040 0.031 0.009 0.001 0.093 WNW 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.063 0.039 0.001 0.001 0.117 NW 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.009 0.006 0.056 0.024 0.001 0.001 0.098 NNW 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.016 0.024 0.068 0.039 0.004 0.001 0.155 SUBTOTAL 0.001 0.007 0.422 0.876 0.806 1.292 0.387 0.063 0.011 3.866 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 144312 TOTAL HOURS OF STABILITY CLASS B 5522 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY CLASS B 5420 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 140205 TOTAL HOURS CALM 1 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT STABILITY BASED ON DELTA-T BETWEEN 9.51 AND 45.63 METERS WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 46.36 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 29-NOV-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 7.71 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-55 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION FOR STABILITY CLASS C (-1.7< DELTA T<=-1.5 C/100 M) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JAN 1, 77 - DEC 31, 93 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.000 0.001 0.030 0.087 0.091 0.178 0.039 0.001 0.000 0.427 NNE 0.000 0.002 0.068 0.138 0.178 0.314 0.070 0.000 0.000 0.770 NE 0.000 0.004 0.122 0.215 0.172 0.201 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.730 ENE 0.000 0.004 0.133 0.168 0.123 0.049 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.482 E 0.000 0.001 0.048 0.087 0.018 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.163 ESE 0.000 0.001 0.031 0.051 0.007 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.092 SE 0.000 0.001 0.044 0.044 0.006 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.101 SSE 0.000 0.001 0.049 0.078 0.027 0.014 0.006 0.001 0.000 0.176 S 0.000 0.001 0.070 0.127 0.068 0.057 0.020 0.009 0.001 0.352 SSW 0.000 0.003 0.076 0.270 0.270 0.331 0.115 0.028 0.004 1.096 SW 0.000 0.001 0.039 0.165 0.193 0.192 0.037 0.011 0.001 0.638 WSW 0.000 0.001 0.015 0.036 0.033 0.048 0.020 0.009 0.001 0.163 W 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.016 0.019 0.059 0.023 0.005 0.001 0.135 WNW 0.000 0.000 0.006 .011 0 .026 0.106 0.067 0.011 0.000 0.226 NW 0.000 0.001 0.011 0.020 0.024 0.132 0.051 0.001 0.000 0.239 NNW 0.000 0.001 0.020 0.031 0.041 0.121 0.045 0.002 0.000 0.262 SUBTOTAL 0.001 0.022 0.772 1.544 1.296 1.814 0.516 0.078 0.009 6.051 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 144312 TOTAL HOURS OF STABILITY CLASS B 8714 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY CLASS B 8484 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 140205 TOTAL HOURS CALM 1 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT STABILITY BASED ON DELTA-T BETWEEN 9.51 AND 45.63 METERS WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 46.36 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 29-NOV-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 7.24 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-56 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION FOR STABILITY CLASS E (-0.5< DELTA T<=-1.5 C/100 M) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JAN 1, 77 - DEC 31, 93 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.006 0.047 0.324 0.516 0.633 1.831 0.384 0.009 0.000 3.749 NN 0.008 0.068 0.435 0.852 1.134 1.933 0.294 0.007 0.000 4.731 NE 0.012 0.101 0.718 1.040 0.901 0.962 0.088 0.001 0.000 3.822 EN 0.012 0.116 0.660 0.569 0.310 0.164 0.012 0.000 0.000 1.843 E 0.008 0.102 0.402 0.215 0.104 0.043 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.878 ES 0.004 0.058 0.213 0.107 0.021 0.013 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.419 SE 0.004 0.059 0.240 0.150 0.038 0.037 0.008 0.004 0.000 0.539 SS 0.007 0.086 0.393 0.247 0.068 0.066 0.039 0.009 0.000 0.914 S 0.010 0.085 0.588 0.553 0.271 0.285 0.133 0.044 0.006 1.976 SS 0.014 0.083 0.824 1.378 1.026 1.387 0.718 0.145 0.016 5.590 SW 0.009 0.063 0.558 0.880 0.622 0.745 0.238 0.038 0.009 3.162 WS 0.006 0.061 0.361 0.331 0.210 0.302 0.118 0.020 0.006 1.416 W 0.005 0.068 0.233 0.194 0.188 0.484 0.198 0.030 0.002 1.402 WN 0.004 0.052 0.185 0.188 0.257 0.867 0.277 0.017 0.000 1.847 NW 0.004 0.054 0.230 0.215 0.356 0.964 0.279 0.020 0.001 2.123 NNW 0.004 0.039 0.226 0.306 0.383 1.080 0.335 0.012 0.000 2.385 SUBTOTAL 0.116 1.144 6.589 7.742 6.522 11.162 3.128 0.356 0.039 36.798 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 144312 TOTAL HOURS OF STABILITY CLASS E 52796 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY CLASS E 51592 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 140205 TOTAL HOURS CALM 162 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT STABILITY BASED ON DELTA-T BETWEEN 9.51 AND 45.63 METERS WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 46.36 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 29-NOV-94 MEAN WIND SPEED =6.93 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-57 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION FOR STABILITY CLASS E (-0.5< DELTA T<=-1.5 C/100 M) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JAN 1, 77 - DEC 31, 93 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.030 0.168 0.363 0.275 0.415 0.595 0.019 0.000 0.000 1.865 NNE 0.051 0.242 0.655 0.561 0.436 0.337 0.007 0.000 0.000 2.288 NE 0.070 0.336 0.893 0.540 0.273 0.123 0.004 0.000 0.000 2.239 ENE 0.054 0.336 0.622 0.216 0.070 0.039 0.003 0.000 0.000 1.339 E 0.031 0.270 0.281 0.082 0.034 0.021 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.722 ESE 0.017 0.157 0.137 0.056 0.019 0.006 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.393 SE 0.017 0.133 0.166 0.062 0.037 0.046 0.012 0.003 0.000 0.476 SSE 0.032 0.205 0.359 0.155 0.073 0.120 0.049 0.008 0.000 1.002 S 0.058 0.275 0.749 0.509 0.311 0.340 0.126 0.032 0.006 2.406 SSW 0.080 0.303 1.108 1.282 1.081 1.430 0.575 0.099 0.003 5.961 SW 0.044 0.205 0.575 0.538 0.439 0.729 0.223 0.026 0.003 2.782 WSW 0.025 0.168 0.277 0.225 0.159 0.255 0.083 0.010 0.001 1.202 W 0.020 0.124 0.220 0.127 0.133 0.211 0.037 0.004 0.000 0.875 WNW 0.016 0.121 0.170 0.135 0.123 0.160 0.016 0.001 0.000 0.741 NW 0.018 0.121 0.203 0.138 0.205 0.205 0.019 0.001 0.000 0.910 NNW 0.018 0.118 0.196 0.149 0.183 0.223 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.910 SUBTOTAL 0.581 3.281 6.976 5.049 3.992 4.840 1.198 0.184 0.012 26.112 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 144312 TOTAL HOURS OF STABILITY CLASS E 37823 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY CLASS E 36611 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 140205 TOTAL HOURS CALM 814 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT STABILITY BASED ON DELTA-T BETWEEN 9.51 AND 45.63 METERS WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 46.36 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 29-NOV-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 5.17 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-58 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION FOR STABILITY CLASS F (0.5< DELTA T<=-4.0 C/100 M) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JAN 1, 77 - DEC 31, 93 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.057 0.223 0.333 0.142 0.086 0.032 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.875 0.057 NNE 0.110 0.314 0.757 0.388 0.147 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.747 NE 0.147 0.469 0.964 0.293 0.059 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.943 ENE 0.105 0.377 0.645 0.071 0.006 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.207 E 0.049 0.291 0.190 0.010 0.003 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.546 ESE 0.023 0.151 0.072 0.008 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.256 SE 0.026 0.150 0.106 0.018 0.009 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.314 SSE 0.050 0.206 0.278 0.061 0.016 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.626 S 0.094 0.297 0.617 0.254 0.086 0.046 0.001 0.001 0.000 1 .397 SSW 0.111 0.270 0.814 0.689 0.450 0.334 0.029 0.000 0.000 2.698 SW 0.066 0.240 0.405 0.208 0.130 0.173 0.027 0.001 0.000 1.251 WSW 0.037 0.153 0.205 0.079 0.056 0.056 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.591 W 0.033 0.168 0.155 0.049 0.032 0.019 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.458 WNW 0.026 0.150 0.106 0.046 0.025 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.369 NW 0.028 0.132 0.136 0.060 0.038 0.018 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.412 NNW 0.033 0.155 0.165 0.066 0.053 0.020 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.493 SUBTOTAL 0.997 3.749 5.950 2.442 1.198 0.777 0.066 0.003 0.000 15.182 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 144312 TOTAL HOURS OF STABILITY CLASS F 22122 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY CLASS F 21286 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 140205 TOTAL HOURS CALM 1398 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT STABILITY BASED ON DELTA-T BETWEEN 9.51 AND 45.63 METERS WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 46.36 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 29-NOV-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 2.91 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-59 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY WIND DIRECTION FOR STABILITY CLASS G (DELTA T>=-4.0 C/100 M) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JAN 1, 77 - DEC 31, 93 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.023 0.123 0.205 0.087 0.017 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.465 NNE 0.041 0.185 0.415 0.195 0.066 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.912 NE 0.063 0.238 0.674 0.208 0.034 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.220 ENE 0.043 0.179 0.439 0.053 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.715 E 0.014 0.109 0.087 0.004 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.215 ESE 0.006 0.051 0.038 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.101 SE 0.007 0.046 0.049 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.111 SSE 0.018 0.081 0.175 0.035 0.009 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.319 S 0.033 0.113 0.367 0.178 0.043 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.745 SSW 0.032 0.092 0.376 0.424 0.218 0.091 0.002 0.000 0.000 1.235 SW 0.018 0.081 0.175 0.108 0.046 0.034 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.463 WSW 0.012 0.065 0.113 0.044 0.023 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.265 W 0.011 0.068 0.091 0.027 0.016 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.220 WNW 0.010 0.070 0.069 0.027 0.010 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.189 NW 0.011 0.082 0.080 0.041 0.015 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.233 NNW 0.012 0.073 0.096 0.041 0.018 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.240 SUBTOTAL 0.353 1.655 3.449 1.484 0.517 0.188 0.003 0.000 0.000 7.648 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 144312 TOTAL HOURS OF STABILITY CLASS G 11137 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY CLASS G 10723 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 140205 TOTAL HOURS CALM 495 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT STABILITY BASED ON DELTA-T BETWEEN 9.51 AND 45.63 METERS WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 46.36 METER LEVEL DATE PRINTED: 29-NOV-94 MEAN WIND SPEED = 2.78 NOTE: TOTALS AND SUBTOTALS ARE OBTAINED FROM UNROUNDED NUMBERS
WBN TABLE 2.3-60 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY STABILITY CLASS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT JANUARY 1, 1977 - DECEMBER 31, 1993 WIND SPEED STABILITY CLASS (MPH) A B C D E F G CALM 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.116 0.581 0.997 0.353 0.6-1.4 0.011 0.007 0.022 1.144 3.281 3.749 1.655 1.5-3.4 0.258 0.422 0.772 6.589 6.976 5.950 3.449 3.5-5.4 0.680 0.876 1.544 7.742 5.049 2.442 1.484 5.5-7.4 0.813 0.806 1.296 6.522 3.992 1.198 0.517 7.5-12.4 1.721 1.292 1.814 11.162 4.840 0.777 0.188 12.5-18.4 0.728 0.387 0.516 3.128 1.198 0.066 0.003 18.5-24.4 0.114 0.063 0.078 0.356 0.184 0.003 0.000 >=24.5 0.017 0.011 0.009 0.039 0.012 0.000 0.000 TOTAL 4.343 3.866 6.051 36.798 26.112 15.182 7.648 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 144312 TOTAL HOURS OF VALID WIND DIRECTION-WIND SPEED-STABILITY OBSERVATIONS 140205 TOTAL HOURS OF OBSERVATIONS 149016 JOINT RECOVERABILITY PERCENTAGE 94.1 METEOROLOGICAL FACILITY: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT STABILITY BASED ON t BETWEEN 9.51 AND 45.63 METERS WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASURED AT 46.36 METER LEVEL
WBN TABLE 2.3-61 CALCULATED 1-HOUR AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS (X/Q) AT MINIMUM DISTANCE (1100 METERS) BETWEEN RELEASE ZONE (100 m RADIUS) AND EXCLUSION AREA BOUNDARY (1200 m RADIUS) FOR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT Based on RG 1.145 and Meteorological Data for 1974 Through 1988* Plume Sector 0.5th Percentile 5th Percentile 3 3 Direction X/Q Value (sec/m ) X/Q Value (sec/m ) N 3.312E-4 3.396E-5 NNE 3.341E-4 4.596E-5 NE 3.954E-4 3.314E-5 ENE 5.060E-4 2.883E-5 E 5.293E-4 3.177E-5 ESE 5.321E-4 2.721E-5 SE 6.040E-4 5.996E-5 SSE 4.705E-4 2.622E-5 S 3.068E-4 2.662E-5 SSW 2.901E-4 2.806E-5 SW 3.441E-4 1.791E-5 WSW 4.394E-4 3.217E-5 W 3.704E-4 -** WNW 1.322E-4 -** NW 2.242E-4 -** NNW 3.154E-4 -** All Directions 1.217E-3 5.323E-4 Combined
- Meteorological facility located 0.8 km SSW of reactor site. Temperature instruments 9.51 and 45.63 meters above ground. Wind speed and direction measured at 9.72-meter level. Joint percent valid data in data base = 93.4.
- Less than 5% of the hours had nonzero X/Q values.
WBN TABLE 2.3-61a CALCULATED 1-HOUR AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS (X/Q) AT MINIMUM DISTANCE (1100 METERS) BETWEEN RELEASE ZONE (100 M RADIUS) AND EXCLUSION AREA BOUNDARY (1200 M RADIUS) FOR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT Based on RG 1.145 and Meteorological Data for 1974 Through 1993* Plume Sector 0.5th Percentile 5th Percentile Direction X/Q Value (sec/m3) X/Q Value (sec/m3) N 3.674E-4 3.550E-5 NNE 3.808E-4 5.036E-5 NE 4.597E-4 3.990E-5 ENE 5.305E-4 3.181E-5 E 5.297E-4 2.989E-5 ESE 5.089E-4 2.572E-5 SE 6.069E-4 4.769E-5 SSE 4.645E-4 2.375E-5 S 3.452E-4 2.598E-5 SSW 3.171E-4 2.721E-5 SW 3.703E-4 2.376E-5 WSW 4.728E-4 3.286E-5 W 3.701E-4 -** WNW 1.452E-4 -** NW 2.357E-4 -** NNW 3.239E-4 -** All Directions 9.297E-3 5.263E-4 Combined
- Meteorological facility located 0.8 km SSW of reactor site. Temperature instruments 9.51 and 45.63 meters above ground. Wind speed and direction measured at 9.72-meter level. Joint percent valid data in data base = 93.7.
- Less than 5% of the hours had nonzero X/Q values.
WBN TABLE 2.3-61b CALCULATED 1-HOUR AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS (X/Q) AT MINIMUM DISTANCE (1100 METERS) BETWEEN RELEASE ZONE (100 m RADIUS) AND EXCLUSION AREA BOUNDARY (1200 m RADIUS) FOR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT Based on RG 1.145 and Meteorological Data for 1991 through 2010* Plume Sector 0.5th Percentile 5th Percentile Direction X/Q Value (sec/m3) X/Q Value (sec/m3) N 3.681E-04 3.460E-05 NNE 4.601E-04 6.261E-05 NE 5.285E-04 6.777E-05 ENE 6.276E-04 1.005E-04 E 6.382E-04 1.386E-04 ESE 6.309E-04 8.259E-05 SE 6.103E-04 4.620E-05 SSE 4.509E-04 2.383E-05 S 3.044E-04 2.664E-05 SSW 2.463E-04 2.498E-05 SW 3.080E-04 9.021E-06 WSW 3.244E-04 ** W 2.437E-04 ** WNW 1.471E-04 ** NW 1.640E-04 ** NNW 2.278E-04 ** All Directions Combined 9.297E-04 5.486E-4
- Meteorological facility located 0.8 km SSW of reactor site. Temperature instruments are 9.51 and 45.63 meters above ground. Wind speed and direction measured at 9.72-meter level. Joint percent valid data in data base = 96.9.
- Less than 5% of the hours had nonzero X/Q values.
WBN TABLE 2.3-62 CALCULATED 1-HOUR AVERAGE AND ANNUAL AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS (X/Q) AT LOW POPULATION ZONE DISTANCE (4828 METERS) FOR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT Based on R.G. 1.145 and Meteorological Data for 1974 Through 1988* Plume Sector 0.5th Percentile 5th Percentile Annual Average 3 3 3) Direction x/Q Value (sec/m ) x/Q Value (sec/m ) x/Q Value (sec/m N 7.665E-5 4.828E-6 7.054E-7 NNE 7.799E-5 8.040E-6 1.150E-6 NE 9.809E-5 4.720E-6 1.225E-6 ENE 1.298E-4 3.714E-6 1.282E-6 E 1.348E-4 4.333E-6 1.391E-6 ESE 1.331E-4 3.357E-6 1.533E-6 SE 1.445E-4 1.060E-5 1.467E-6 SSE 1.183E-4 3.148E-6 9.964E-7 S 7.146E-5 3.246E-6 7.454E-7 SSW 6.759E-5 3.542E-6 7.091E-7 SW 8.790E-5 1.467E-6 8.111E-7 WSW 1.206E-4 4.466E-6 9.701E-7 W 9.350E-5 -** 4.400E-7 WNW 2.284E-5 -** 2.335E-7 NW 4.944E-5 -** 2.507E-7 NNW 7.223E-5 -** 3.935E-7 All Directions 2.717E-4 1.352E-4 - Combined
*Meteorological facility located 0.8 km SSW of reactor site. Temperature instruments 9.51 and 45.63 meters above ground. Wind speed and direction measured at 9.72-meter level. Joint percent valid data in data base = 93.4.
- Less than 5% of the hours had nonzero X/Q values.
WBN TABLE 2.3-62a CALCULATED 1-HOUR AVERAGE AND ANNUAL AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS (X/Q) AT LOW POPULATION ZONE DISTANCE (4828 METERS) FOR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT Based on R.G. 1.145 and Meteorological Data for 1974 Through 1993* Plume Sector 0.5th Percentile 5th Percentile Annual Average 3 3 3 Direction X/Q Value (sec/m ) X/Q Value (sec/m ) X/Q Value (sec/m ) N 0.798E-4 5.094E-6 0.842E-6 NNE 0.845E-4 8.854E-6 1.386E-6 NE 1.135E-4 5.827E-6 1.639E-6 ENE 1.338E-4 4.514E-6 1.561E-6 E 1.365E-4 4.128E-6 1.600E-6 ESE 1.305E-4 3.181E-6 1.655E-6 SE 1.411E-4 7.997E-6 1.526E-6 SSE 1.161E-4 2.853E-6 1.035E-6 S 0.772E-4 3.211E-6 0.881E-6 SSW 0.731E-4 3.444E-6 0.814E-6 SW 0.930E-4 2.451E-6 1.001E-6 WSW 1.239E-4 4.608E-6 1.212E-6 W 0.897E-4 -** 0.469E-6 WNW 0.265E-4 -** 0.263E-6 NW 0.502E-4 -** 0.272E-6 NNW 0.691E-4 -** 0.416E-6 All Directions 2.797E-4 1.349E-4 - Combined
- Meteorological facility located 0.8 km SSW of reactor site. Temperature instruments 9.51 and 45.63 meters above ground. Wind speed and direction measured at 9.72-meter level. Joint percent valid data in data base = 93.7.
- Less than 5% of the hours had nonzero X/Q values.
WBN TABLE 2.3-62b CALCULATED 1-HOUR AVERAGE AND ANNUAL AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS (X/Q) AT LOW POPULATION ZONE DISTANCE (4828 METERS) FOR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT Based on RG 1.145 and Meteorological Data for 1991 through 2010* 0.5th Percentile 5th Percentile Annual Average Plume Sector X/Q Value X/Q Value X/Q Value Direction (sec/m3) (sec/m3) (sec/m3) N 8.003E-05 4.982E-06 8.135E-07 NNE 1.175E-04 1.139E-05 1.640E-06 NE 1.428E-04 1.178E-05 2.220E-06 ENE 1.698E-04 1.824E-05 2.255E-06 E 1.784E-04 2.669E-05 2.541E-06 ESE 1.703E-04 1.464E-05 2.640E-06 SE 1.554E-04 7.360E-06 1.568E-06 SSE 1.159E-04 2.844E-06 9.011E-07 S 6.924E-05 3.330E-06 7.804E-07 SSW 5.744E-05 2.958E-06 6.690E-07 SW 6.975E-05 5.074E-07 7.880E-07 WSW 7.696E-05 ** 6.594E-07 W 5.371E-05 ** 2.940E-07 WNW 2.669E-05 ** 2.754E-07 NW 3.036E-05 ** 2.080E-07 NNW 4.656E-05 ** 2.983E-07 All Directions 2.798E-04 1.484E-04 -- Combined
- Meteorological facility located 0.8 km SSW of reactor site. Temperature instruments are 9.51 and 45.63 meters above ground. Wind speed and direction is measured at 9.72-meter level. Joint percent valid data in data base = 96.9.
- Less than 5% of the hours had nonzero X/Q values.
WBN TABLE 2.3-63 VALUES OF 5TH PERCENTILE OVERALL SITE 8-HOUR, 16-HOUR, 3-DAY, AND 26-DAY ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS (X/Q) AT LOW POPULATION ZONE DISTANCE (4828 METERS) FOR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT Based on R.G. 1.145 Method of Logarithmic Interpolation Between Overall 5th Percentile 1-hour X/Q Assumed to Apply for 2-hour Period and Maximum Sector Annual Average X/Q (underscored in Table 2.3-62)* 5th Percentile Averaging Period X/Q Value (sec/m3) 8-hour 6.447E-5 16-hour 4.452E-5 3-day 1.993E-5 26-day 6.288E-6
- 1-hour and annual average X/Qs calculated from meteorological data for 1974 through 1988.
Meteorological facility located 0.8 km SSW of reactor site. Temperature instruments 9.51 and 45.63 meters above ground. Wind speed and direction measured at 9.72-meter level. Joint percent valid data in data base = 93.4.
WBN TABLE 2.3-63a VALUES OF 5TH PERCENTILE OVERALL SITE 8-HOUR, 16-HOUR, 3-DAY, AND 26-DAY ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS (X/Q) AT LOW POPULATION ZONE DISTANCE (4828 METERS) FOR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT Based on RG 1.145 Method of Logarithmic Interpolation Between Overall 5th Percentile 1-hour X/Q Assumed to Apply for 2-hour Period and Maximum Sector Annual Average X/Q (from Table 2.3-62a)* 5th Percentile Averaging Period X/Q Value (sec/m3) 8-hour 6.516E-5 16-hour 4.529E-5 3-day 2.057E-5 26-day 6.621E-6
- 1-hour and annual average X/Qs calculated from meteorological data for 1974 through 1993.
Meteorological facility located 0.8 km SSW of reactor site. Temperature instruments 9.51 and 45.63 meters above ground. Wind speed and direction measured at 9.72-meter level. Joint percent valid data in data base = 93.7.
WBN TABLE 2.3-63b VALUES OF 5th PERCENTILE OVERALL SITE 8-HOUR, 16-HOUR, 3-DAY, AND 26-DAY ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS (X/Q) AT LOW POPULATION ZONE DISTANCE (4828 METERS) FOR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT Based on R.G. 1.145 Method of Logarithmic Interpolation between Overall 5th Percentile 1-hour X/Q Assumed to Apply for 2-hour Period and Maximum Sector Annual Average X/Q (Table 2.3-62b)* Averaging period 5th Percentile X/Q Value (sec/m3) 8-hour 7.623E-05 16-hour 5.464E-05 3-day 2.652E-05 26-day 9.395E-06
- 1-hour and annual average X/Qs calculated from meteorological data for 1991 through 2010. Meteorological facility located 0.8 km SSW of reactor site. Temperature instruments are 9.51 and 45.63 meters above ground. Wind speed and direction is measured at 9.72 meter level. Joint percent valid data in data base = 96.9.
WBN TABLE 2.3-64 0.5TH PERCENTILE SECTOR VALUES OF 8-HOUR, 16-HOUR, 3-DAY, AND 26-DAY ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS (X/Q) AT LOW POPULATION ZONE OUTER BOUNDARY DISTANCE (4828 METERS) FOR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT Based on R.G. 1.145 Method of Logarithmic Interpolation Between 0.5th Percentile 1-hour X/Q for Each Sector and Annual Average X/Q for Same Sector.* 3 Sector-Specific X/Q Values (sec/m ) Plume Sector 8-hour 16-hour 3-day 26-day N 3.531E-5 2.396E-5 1.034E-5 3.090E-6 NNE 3.884E-5 2.741E-5 1.286E-5 4.342E-6 NE 4.752E-5 3.308E-5 1.507E-5 4.874E-6 ENE 6.049E-5 4.130E-5 1.804E-5 5.492E-6 E 6.328E-5 4.336E-5 1.909E-5 5.877E-6 ESE 6.363E-5 4.399E-5 1.975E-5 6.257E-6 SE 6.765E-5 4.629E-5 2.032E-5 6.230E-6 SSE 5.370E-5 3.618E-5 1.536E-5 4.488E-6 S 3.361E-5 2.305E-5 1.017E-5 3.139E-6 SSW 3.182E-5 2.183E-5 9.639E-6 2.980E-6 SW 4.051E-5 2.750E-5 1.187E-5 3.550E-6 WSW 5.433E-5 3.647E-5 1.535E-5 4.433E-6 W 3.855E-5 2.475E-5 9.465E-6 2.381E-6 WNW 1.071E-5 7.329E-6 3.221E-6 9.895E-7 NW 2.064E-5 1.333E-5 5.167E-6 1.325E-6 NNW 3.051E-5 1.983E-S 7.784E-6 2.033E-6
- 1-hour and annual average X/Qs calculated from meteorological data for 1974 through 1988.
Meteorological facility located 0.8 km SSW of reactor site. Temperature instruments 9.51 and 45.63 meters above ground. Wind speed and direction measured at 9.72-meter level. Joint percent valid data in data base = 93.4.
WBN TABLE 2.3-64a 0.5TH PERCENTILE SECTOR VALUES OF 8-HOUR, 16-HOUR, 3-DAY, AND 26-DAY ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS (X/Q) AT LOW POPULATION ZONE OUTER BOUNDARY DISTANCE (4828 METERS) FOR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT Based on RG 1.145 Method of Logarithmic Interpolation Between 0.5th Percentile 1-hour X/Q for Each Sector and Annual Average X/Q for Same Sector.* Sector-Specific X/Q Values (sec/m3) Plume Sector 8-hour 16-hour 3-day 26-day N 3.760E-5 2.581E-5 1.141E-5 3.534E-6 NNE 4.281E-5 3.048E-5 1.458E-5 5.060E-6 NE 5.631E-5 3.967E-5 1.855E-5 6.228E-6 ENE 6.412E-5 4.438E-5 1.997E-5 6.347E-6 E 6.545E-5 4.532E-5 2.041E-5 6.494E-6 ESE 6.340E-5 4.418E-5 2.018E-5 6.553E-6 SE 6.677E-5 4.592E-5 2.039E-5 6.353E-6 SSE 5.319E-5 3.601E-5 1.544E-5 4.579E-6 S 3.683E-5 2.545E-5 1.141E-5 3.606E-6 SSW 3.475E-5 2.396E-5 1.070E-5 3.359E-6 SW 4.397E-5 3.023E-5 1.341E-5 4.174E-6 WSW 5.765E-5 3.933E-5 1.715E-5 5.208E-6 W 3.763E-5 2.438E-5 0.950E-5 2.458E-6 WNW 1.234E-5 0.843E-5 0.369E-5 1.124E-6 NW 2.116E-5 1.375E-5 0.539E-5 1.406E-6 NNW 2.969E-5 1.946E-5 0.777E-5 2.084E-6
- 1-hour and annual average X/Qs calculated from meteorological data for 1974 through 1993.
Meteorological facility located 0.8 km SSW of reactor site. Temperature instruments 9.51 and 45.63 meters above ground. Wind speed and direction measured at 9.72-meter level. Joint percent valid data in data base = 93.7.
WBN Table 2.3-64b 0.5th PERCENTILE SECTOR VALUES OF 8-HOUR, 16-HOUR, 3-DAY, AND 26-DAY ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS (X/Q) AT LOW POPULATION ZONE OUTER BOUNDARY DISTANCE (4828 METERS) FOR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT Based on RG 1.145 Method of Logarithmic Interpolation between 0.5th Percentile 1-hour X/Q for Each Sector and Annual Average X/Q for Same Sector.* Sector-Specific X/Q Values (sec/m3) Plume Sector 8-hour 16-hour 3-day 26-day N 3.748E-05 2.565E-05 1.126E-05 3.453E-06 NNE 5.799E-05 4.074E-05 1.893E-05 6.302E-06 NE 7.173E-05 5.084E-05 2.409E-05 8.242E-06 ENE 8.312E-05 5.815E-05 2.679E-05 8.801E-06 E 8.835E-05 6.217E-05 2.900E-05 9.701E-06 ESE 8.549E-05 6.058E-05 2.869E-05 9.811E-06 SE 7.269E-05 4.971E-05 2.180E-05 6.672E-06 SSE 5.194E-05 3.476E-05 1.454E-05 4.163E-06 S 3.298E-05 2.276E-05 1.018E-05 3.207E-06 SSW 2.751E-05 1.904E-05 8.565E-06 2.721E-06 SW 3.324E-05 2.295E-05 1.027E-05 3.236E-06 WSW 3.503E-05 2.364E-05 1.006E-05 2.954E-06 W 2.270E-05 1.476E-05 5.800E-06 1.517E-06 WNW 1.253E-05 8.584E-06 3.779E-06 1.164E-06 NW 1.332E-05 8.821E-06 3.608E-06 9.999E-07 NNW 2.020E-05 1.331E-05 5.378E-06 1.464E-06
- 1-hour and annual average X/Qs calculated from meteorological data for 1991 through 2010. Meteorological facility located 0.8 km SSW of reactor site. Temperature instruments are 9.51 and 45.63 meters above ground. Wind speed and direction is measured at 9.72-meter level. Joint percent valid data in data base = 96.9.
TABLE 2.3-65 DELETED
WBN TABLE 2.3-66 ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS (X/Q), sec/m3, FOR DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENT ANALYSES BASED ON ONSITE METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANTa A. Regulatory Guide 1.4 Results in original FSAR (5th percentile values) for July 1973 Through June b 1975 Data. Minimum Distance to Exclusion Period Boundary Low Population Zone c (hours) (1100 m) (4828 m) d d 0-2 0.692E-3 0.160E-3 d 2-8 - 0.844E-4 8-24 - 0.854E-5 24-96 - 0.455E-5 96-720 - 0.198E-5 B. Regulatory Guide 1.145 Results (maximum sector 0.5th percentile 1-hour value for 0-2 hours at exclusion area boundary and at low population zone; and 8-hour, 16-hour, 3-day and 26-day values for 2-8, 8-24, 24-96, and 96-720 hours from logarithmic interpolation between 0.5th percentile maximum sector 1-hour value at 2 hours and corresponding sector annual average e value at 8760 hours at low population zone) for 1974 through 1988 Data . c Period (1100 m) (4828 m) 0-2 0.604E-3 0.145E-3 2-8 - 0.677E-4 8-24 - 0.463E-4 24-96 - 0.203E-4 96-720 - 0.623E-5 a Hourly 10-m wind and 10- and 46-m temperature data. Meteorological facility located 0.8 km SSW of reactor site. b Calms assigned a wind speed of 0.3 mph. c Travel distance from 100-m radius release zone to 1200-m exclusion area boundary distance. d Actual 2-hour and 6-hour X/Q averaging periods were used. e Calms assigned a wind speed of 0.6 mph.
WBN TABLE 2.3-66a ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS (X/Q), sec/m3, FOR DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENT ANALYSES BASED ON ONSITE METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT1 A. Regulatory Guide 1.4 Results in original FSAR (5th percentile values) for July 1973 Through June 2 1975 Data. Minimum Distance to Exclusion Period Boundary Low Population Zone 3 (hours) (1100 m) (4828 m) 4 0-2 0.692E-3 0.160E-3 4 2-8 - 0.844E-4 8-24 - 0.854E-5 24-96 - 0.455E-5 96-720 - 0.198E-5 B. Regulatory Guide 1.145 Results (maximum sector 0.5th percentile 1-hour value for 0-2 hours at exclusion area boundary and at low population zone; and 8-hour, 16-hour, 3-day and 26-day values for 2-8, 8-24, 24-96, and 96-720 hours from logarithmic interpolation between 0.5th percentile maximum sector 1-hour value at 2 hours and corresponding sector annual average 5 value at 8760 hours at low population zone) for 1974 through 1993 Data . Minimum Distance to Period Exclusion Boundary Low Population Zone 3 (hours) (1100 m) (4828 m) 4 0-2 0.607E-3 0.141E-3 2-8 - 0.668E-4 8-24 - 0.459E-4 24-96 - 0.204E-4 96-720 - 0.635E-5
- 1. Hourly 10-m wind and 10 and 46-meter temperature data. Meteorological facility located 0.8 km SSW of reactor site.
- 2. Calms assigned a wind speed of 0.3 mph.
- 3. Travel distance from 100-m radius release zone to 1200-m exclusion area boundary distance.
- 4. Actual 2-hour and 6-hour X/Q averaging periods were used.
- 5. Calms assigned a wind speed of 0.6 mph.
WBN Table 2.3-66b Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (X/Q), sec/m3, For Design Basis Accident Analyses Based On Site Meteorological Data For Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Regulatory Guide 1.145 Results (maximum sector 0.5th percentile 1-hour value for 0-2 hours at exclusion area boundary and at low population zone; and 8-hour, 16-hour, 3-day and 26-day values for 2-8, 8-24, 24-96, and 96-720 hours from logarithmic interpolation between 0.5th percentile maximum sector 1-hour value at 2 hours and corresponding sector annual average value at 8760 hours at low population zone) for 1991 through 2010 Data*. Minimum Distance to Low Population Period Exclusion Boundary Zone (hours) (1100 m**) (4828 m) 0-2 6.382E-04 1.784E-04 2-8 8.835E-05 8-24 6.217E-05 24-96 2.900E-05 96-720 9.811E-06
- Hourly 10-m wind and 10- and 46-m temperature data.
Meteorological facility located 0.8 km SSW of reactor site. Calms assigned a wind speed of 0.6 mph.
- Travel distance from 100-m radius release zone to 1200-m exclusion area boundary distance.
WBN TABLE 2.3-67 DISPERSION METEOROLOGY - ONSITE 10-METER WIND DATA - 5th PERCENTILE VALUES OF INVERSE WIND SPEED (1/U) DISTRIBUTIONS FOR POST-LOCA CONTROL BAY DOSE CALCULATIONS FOR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT A. July 1973 through June 1975 Wind Speed and Direction Data Plume Sectors Averaging Periods (degrees) 1-hour 8-hour 16-hour 3-day 26-day 89.75-157.25 1.59 0.834 0.670 0.447 0.348 132.25-199.75 1.61 0.864 0.688 0.496 0.361 154.75-222.25 1.44 0.743 0.598 0.441 0.300 192.25-259.75 1.33 0.719 0.601 0.437 0.302 B. January 1974 through December 1988 Wind Speed and Direction Data Plume Sectors Averaging Periods (degrees) 1-hour 8-hour 16-hour 3-day 26-day 89.75-157.25 1.82 1.04 0.852 0.593 0.463 132.25-199.75 1.27 0.760 0.626 0.440 0.316 154.75-222.25 0.866 0.574 0.497 0.360 0.264 192.25-259.75 1.04 0.653 0.576 0.416 0.266 NOTE: The calculations for the 2-year data base were slightly conservative in comparison to those for the 15-year data base. The 2-year values were computed in 1976 with the speed assigned to calm hours assumed to be 0.3 mph. The 15-year values were computed in 1989 with the speed assigned to calms assumed to be 0.6 mph, which is the starting threshold for the anemometer.
- Meteorological facility located 0.8 km SSW of reactor site.
WBN TABLE 2.3-67a DISPERSION METEOROLOGY - ONSITE 10-METER WIND DATA - 5th PERCENTILE VALUES OF INVERSE WIND SPEED (1/U) DISTRIBUTIONS FOR POST-LOCA CONTROL BAY DOSE CALCULATIONS FOR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT* A. July 1973 through June 1975 Wind Speed and Direction Data Plume Sectors -------------------------Averaging Periods--------------------------------- (degrees) 1-hour 8-hour 16-hour 3-day 26-day 89.75-157.25 1.59 0.834 0.670 0.447 0.348 132.25-199.75 1.61 0.864 0.688 0.496 0.361 154.75-222.25 1.44 0.743 0.598 0.441 0.300 192.25-259.75 1.33 0.719 0.601 0.437 0.302 B. January 1974 through December 1993 Wind Speed and Direction Data Plume Sectors -------------------------Averaging Periods----------------------------------- (degrees) 1-hour 8-hour 16-hour 3-day 26-day 89.75-157.25 1.97 1.04 0.862 0.607 0.456 132.25-199.75 1.29 0.784 0.626 0.434 0.312 154.75-222.25 0.891 0.606 0.516 0.368 0.255 192.25-259.75 1.10 0.713 0.610 0.435 0.300 NOTE: The 2-year values were computed in 1976 with the speed assigned to calm hours assumed to be 0.3 mph. The 20-year values were computed in 1994 with the speed assigned to calms assumed to be 0.6 mph, which is the starting threshold for the anemometer.
- Meteorological facility located 0.8 km SSW of reactor site.
WBN TABLE 2.3-67b DISPERSION METEOROLOGY - ONSITE 10-METER WIND DATA - 5th PERCENTILE VALUES OF INVERSE WIND SPEED (1/u) DISTRIBUTIONS FOR POST-LOCA CONTROL BAY DOSE CALCULATIONS FOR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT January 1991 through December 2010 Wind Speed and Direction Data* PLUME Averaging Periods SECTORS (degrees) 1-hour 8-hour 16-hour 3-day 26-day 89.75-157.25 2.034 1.223 0.957 0.692 0.547 132.25-199.75 1.177 0.680 0.565 0.413 0.304 154.75-222.25 0.828 0.565 0.494 0.361 0.250 192.25-259.75 0.895 0.609 0.532 0.382 0.265
- Meteorological facility is located 0.8 km SSW of reactor site.
Calms are assumed to be 0.6 mph
WBN TABLE 2.3-68 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND DIRECTION AND WIND SPEED FOR DIFFERENT STABILITY CLASSES Stability Class A (Delta T<=-1.9 C/100 M) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Jan 1, 1986 - Dec 31, 2005 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.000 0.001 0.011 0.052 0.079 0.095 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.244 NNE 0.000 0.001 0.021 0.084 0.124 0.181 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.418 NE 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.100 0.080 0.094 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.308 ENE 0.000 0.000 0.039 0.076 0.045 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.175 E 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.040 0.010 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.092 ESE 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.023 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.042 SE 0.000 0.001 0.026 0.027 0.005 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.064 SSE 0.000 0.000 0.049 0.063 0.015 0.011 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.140 S 0.000 0.002 0.070 0.180 0.142 0.121 0.020 0.001 0.000 0.535 SSW 0.000 0.000 0.063 0.371 0.594 0.700 0.049 0.001 0.000 1.778 SW 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.146 0.148 0.065 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.390 WSW 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.020 0.018 0.040 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.091 W 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.007 0.029 0.059 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.108 WNW 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.010 0.011 0.064 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.093 NW 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.007 0.019 0.052 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.087 NNW 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.021 0.038 0.081 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.161 SUBTOTAL 0.001 0.005 0.426 1.226 1.359 1.589 0.119 0.001 0.000 4.725 Total Hours Of Valid Stability Observations 170639 Total Hours Of Stability Class A 8030 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Class A 7945 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Observations 168144 Total Hours Calm 1 Meteorological Facility: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Stability Based On Delta-T Between 9.51 And 45.63 Meters Wind Speed And Direction Measured At 9.72 Meter Level Mean Wind Speed = 6.72 Note: Totals and Subtotals Are Obtained From Unrounded Numbers
WBN TABLE 2.3-69 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND DIRECTION AND WIND SPEED FOR DIFFERENT STABILITY CLASSES Stability Class B (-1.9< Delta T<= -1.7 C/100 M) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Jan 1, 1986 - Dec 31, 2005 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.092 0.084 0.109 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.318 NNE 0.000 0.001 0.039 0.155 0.147 0.212 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.563 NE 0.000 0.000 0.081 0.147 0.090 0.077 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.396 ENE 0.000 0.001 0.058 0.096 0.043 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.208 E 0.000 0.001 0.046 0.052 0.004 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.106 ESE 0.000 0.002 0.026 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.051 SE 0.000 0.000 0.039 0.032 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.078 SSE 0.000 0.000 0.057 0.035 0.008 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.104 S 0.000 0.001 0.077 0.148 0.075 0.039 0.014 0.001 0.000 0.354 SSW 0.000 0.001 0.082 0.322 0.266 0.199 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.890 SW 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.169 0.054 0.014 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.275 WSW 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.037 0.015 0.021 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.081 W 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.011 0.025 0.040 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.091 WNW 0.000 0.001 0.005 0.014 0.031 0.079 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.137 NW 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.015 0.033 0.071 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.135 NNW 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.034 0.040 0.079 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.173 SUBTOTAL 0.000 0.007 0.606 1.383 0.923 0.958 0.083 0.001 0.000 3.960 Total Hours Of Valid Stability Observations 170639 Total Hours Of Stability Class B 6722 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Class B 6659 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Observations 168144 Total Hours Calm 0 Meteorological Facility: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Stability Based On Delta-T Between 9.51 And 45.63 Meters Wind Speed And Direction Measured At 9.72 Meter Level Mean Wind Speed = 5.98 Note: Totals And Subtotals Are Obtained From Unrounded Numbers
WBN TABLE 2.3-70 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND DIRECTION AND WIND SPEED FOR DIFFERENT STABILITY CLASSES Stability Class C (-1.7< Delta T<= -1.5 C/100 M) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Jan 1, 1986 - Dec 31, 2005 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.000 0.001 0.060 0.141 0.125 0.151 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.485 NNE 0.000 0.001 0.111 0.224 0.209 0.260 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.817 NE 0.000 0.003 0.139 0.221 0.117 0.070 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.552 ENE 0.000 0.001 0.113 0.127 0.030 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.277 E 0.000 0.005 0.080 0.049 0.005 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.140 ESE 0.000 0.003 0.054 0.028 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.088 SE 0.000 0.002 0.071 0.033 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.109 SSE 0.000 0.002 0.080 0.064 0.009 0.004 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.161 S 0.000 0.001 0.128 0.230 0.085 0.048 0.008 0.001 0.000 0.503 SSW 0.000 0.001 0.152 0.423 0.256 0.177 0.019 0.000 0.000 1.028 SW 0.000 0.001 0.080 0.225 0.070 0.011 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.387 WSW 0.000 0.001 0.023 0.049 0.026 0.015 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.117 W 0.000 0.001 0.016 0.027 0.039 0.042 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.130 WNW 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.030 0.049 0.111 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.214 NW 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.036 0.043 0.096 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.206 NNW 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.059 0.064 0.098 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.264 SUBTOTAL 0.000 0.0023 1.171 1.968 1.130 1.093 0.089 0.001 0.000 5.476 Total Hours Of Valid Stability Observations 170639 Total Hours Of Stability Class C 9309 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Class C 9207 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Observations 168144 Total Hours Calm 0 Meteorological Facility: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Stability Based On Delta-T Between 9.51 And 45.63 Meters Wind Speed And Direction Measured At 9.72 Meter Level Mean Wind Speed = 5.57 Note: Totals And Subtotals Are Obtained From Unrounded Numbers
WBN TABLE 2.3-71 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND DIRECTION AND WIND SPEED FOR DIFFERENT STABILITY CLASSES Stability Class D (-1.5< Delta T<= -0.5 C/100 M) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Jan 1, 1986 - Dec 31, 2005 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.006 0.050 0.656 0.996 1.063 1.203 0.034 0.000 0.000 4.007 NNE 0.006 0.052 0.697 1.241 1.206 1.182 0.072 0.002 0.000 4.458 NE 0.007 0.064 0.796 1.060 0.477 0.203 0.005 0.000 0.000 2.612 ENE 0.008 0.095 0.840 0.479 0.115 0.038 0.002 0.000 0.000 1.577 E 0.005 0.126 0.478 0.137 0.022 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.774 ESE 0.003 0.081 0.275 0.057 0.006 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.426 SE 0.004 0.090 0.369 0.076 0.022 0.014 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.575 SSE 0.006 0.133 0.566 0.160 0.035 0.034 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.949 S 0.011 0.174 1.104 0.699 0.296 0.251 0.076 0.004 0.000 2.615 SSW 0.015 0.145 1.610 1.796 0.927 0.815 0.076 0.002 0.000 5.386 SW 0.010 0.167 1.060 0.790 0.202 0.097 0.004 0.000 0.000 2.329 WSW 0.006 0.109 0.558 0.289 0.123 0.088 0.004 0.000 0.000 1.117 W 0.005 0.121 0.406 0.293 0.258 0.256 0.008 0.000 0.000 1.347 WNW 0.004 0.095 0.353 0.394 0.491 0.520 0.021 0.000 0.000 1.879 NW 0.004 0.071 0.353 0.403 0.532 0.608 0.046 0.001 0.000 2.017 NNW 0.004 0.042 0.445 0.566 0.631 0.795 0.034 0.000 0.000 2.517 SUBTOTAL 0.104 1.615 10.566 9.436 6.405 6.113 0.395 0.010 0.000 34.645 Total Hours Of Valid Stability Observations 170639 Total Hours Of Stability Class D 58946 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Class D 58253 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Observations 168144 Total Hours Calm 175 Meteorological Facility: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Stability Based On Delta-T Between 9.51 And 45.63 Meters Wind Speed And Direction Measured At 9.72 Meter Level Mean Wind Speed = 4.96 Note: Totals and Subtotals are obtained from unrounded numbers
WBN TABLE 2.3-72 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND DIRECTION AND WIND SPEED FOR DIFFERENT STABILITY CLASSES Stability Class E (-0.5< Delta T<=1.5 C/100 M) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Jan 1, 1986 - Dec 31, 2005 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.032 0.156 0.484 0.623 0.300 0.062 0.002 0.000 0.000 1.659 NNE 0.029 0.142 0.431 0.322 0.171 0.047 0.003 0.000 0.000 1.144 NE 0.039 0.169 0.606 0.366 0.068 0.012 0.003 0.000 0.000 1.264 ENE 0.053 0.240 0.813 0.196 0.015 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.000 1.321 E 0.029 0.277 0.310 0.040 0.011 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.671 ESE 0.014 0.167 0.118 0.024 0.006 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.333 SE 0.018 0.203 0.149 0.048 0.025 0.017 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.462 SSE 0.032 0.324 0.321 0.083 0.051 0.039 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.856 S 0.077 0.519 1.012 0.415 0.197 0.193 0.041 0.001 0.000 2.454 SSW 0.123 0.604 1.864 1.178 0.645 0.516 0.051 0.000 0.000 4.981 SW 0.101 0.731 1.291 0.307 0.121 0.062 0.002 0.000 0.000 2.616 WSW 0.072 0.736 0.711 0.147 0.087 0.037 0.001 0.000 0.000 1.792 W 0.064 0.698 0.591 0.194 0.083 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.664 WNW 0.059 0.645 0.537 0.263 0.099 0.037 0.001 0.000 0.000 1.642 NW 0.048 0.461 0.507 0.279 0.108 0.047 0.002 0.001 0.000 1.453 NNW 0.036 0.255 0.457 0.375 0.247 0.092 0.005 0.000 0.000 1.465 SUBTOTAL 0.827 6.326 10.201 4.862 2.234 1.206 0.121 0.002 0.000 25.777 Total Hours Of Valid Stability Observations 170639 Total Hours Of Stability Class E 44130 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Class E 43343 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Observations 168144 Total Hours Calm 1390 Meteorological Facility: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Stability Based On Delta-T Between 9.51 And 45.63 Meters Wind Speed And Direction Measured At 9.72 Meter Level Mean Wind Speed = 3.03 Note: Totals And Subtotals Are Obtained From Unrounded Numbers
WBN TABLE 2.3-73 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND DIRECTION AND WIND SPEED FOR DIFFERENT STABILITY CLASSES Stability Class F (1.5< Delta T<=4.0 C/100 M) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Jan 1, 1986 - Dec 31, 2005 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.046 0.268 0.181 0.018 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.515 NNE 0.038 0.199 0.172 0.016 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.429 NE 0.050 0.218 0.266 0.029 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.565 ENE 0.064 0.275 0.348 0.032 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.721 E 0.033 0.197 0.123 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.358 ESE 0.015 0.121 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.163 SE 0.016 0.119 0.036 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.176 SSE 0.025 0.177 0.066 0.010 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.282 S 0.056 0.313 0.236 0.032 0.004 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.643 SSW 0.103 0.459 0.547 0.156 0.020 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.290 SW 0.136 0.698 0.627 0.040 0.006 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.507 WSW 0.167 0.994 0.639 0.023 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.827 W 0.183 1.268 0.522 0.021 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.999 WNW 0.177 1.279 0.447 0.029 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.933 NW 0.171 1.198 0.472 0.034 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.878 NNW 0.080 0.525 0.254 0.036 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.897 SUBTOTAL 1.360 8.307 4.963 0.486 0.049 0.016 0.001 0.000 0.000 15.181 Total Hours Of Valid Stability Observations 170639 Total Hours Of Stability Class F 26048 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Class F 25526 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Observations 168144 Total Hours Calm 2286 Meteorological Facility: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Stability Based On Delta-T Between 9.51 And 45.63 Meters Wind Speed And Direction Measured At 9.72 Meter Level Mean Wind Speed = 1.42 Note: Totals And Subtotals Are Obtained From Unrounded Numbers
WBN TABLE 2.3-74 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND DIRECTION AND WIND SPEED FOR DIFFERENT STABILITY CLASSES Stability Class G (Delta T> 4.0 C/100 M) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Jan 1, 1986 - Dec 31, 2005 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.035 0.221 0.066 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.323 NNE 0.034 0.199 0.077 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.310 NE 0.048 0.271 0.123 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.444 ENE 0.059 0.300 0.188 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.551 E 0.032 0.202 0.058 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.294 ESE 0.016 0.116 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.151 SE 0.021 0.145 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.189 SSE 0.025 0.173 0.032 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.231 S 0.036 0.246 0.051 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.335 SSW 0.060 0.367 0.123 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.556 SW 0.096 0.569 0.222 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.889 WSW 0.162 0.916 0.410 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.495 W 0.169 1.036 0.351 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.559 WNW 0.130 0.825 0.240 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.200 NW 0.127 0.751 0.292 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.173 NNW 0.058 0.356 0.120 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.536 SUBTOTAL 1.109 6.695 2.394 0.037 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.236 Total Hours Of Valid Stability Observations 170639 Total Hours Of Stability Class G 17454 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Class G 17211 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Observations 168144 Total Hours Calm 1864 Meteorological Facility: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Stability Based On Delta-T Between 9.51 And 45.63 Meters Wind Speed And Direction Measured At 9.72 Meter Level Mean Wind Speed = 1.14 Note: Totals And Subtotals Are Obtained From Unrounded Number
WBN TABLE 2.3-75a AVERAGE ANNUAL X/Qs OUT TO 50 MILES Sector 1305 (m) 2414 (m) 4023 (m) 5633 (m) 7242 (m) 12070 24140 40234 56327 72420 (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) N 3.92E-06 1.59E-06 7.65E-07 4.78E-07 3.39E-07 1.68E-07 6.69E-08 3.42E-08 2.22E-08 1.61E-08 NNE 6.54E-06 2.65E-06 1.28E-06 7.99E-07 5.65E-07 2.81E-07 1.12E-07 5.72E-08 3.71E-08 2.69E-08 NE 6.66E-06 2.76E-06 1.36E-06 8.61E-07 6.14E-07 3.10E-07 1.25E-07 6.47E-08 4.22E-08 3.07E-08 ENE 7.79E-06 3.29E-06 1.65E-06 1.05E-06 7.58E-07 3.87E-07 1.58E-07 8.23E-08 5.39E-08 3.94E-08 E 8.32E-06 3.53E-06 1.77E-06 1.13E-06 8.14E-07 4.16E-07 1.70E-07 8.87E-08 5.81E-08 4.28E-08 ESE 7.45E-06 3.15E-06 1.57E-06 1.00E-06 7.19E-07 3.67E-07 1.49E-07 7.79E-08 5.10E-08 3.73E-08 SE 6.94E-06 2.94E-06 1.47E-06 9.38E-07 6.73E-07 3.43E-07 1.40E-07 7.30E-08 4.78E-08 3.50E-08 SSE 3.77E-06 1.57E-06 7.78E-07 4.93E-07 3.52E-07 1.78E-07 7.20E-08 3.73E-08 2.44E-08 1.77E-08 S 2.92E-06 1.19E-06 5.77E-07 3.61E-07 2.56E-07 1.28E-07 5.08E-08 2.60E-08 1.69E-08 1.22E-08 SSW 2.70E-06 1.09E-06 5.26E-07 3.29E-07 2.33E-07 1.16E-07 4.57E-08 2.34E-08 1.51E-08 1.09E-08 SW 3.09E-06 1.26E-06 6.17E-07 3.89E-07 2.77E-07 1.39E-07 5.55E-08 2.86E-08 1.86E-08 1.35E-08 WSW 3.50E-06 1.45E-06 7.12E-07 4.50E-07 3.21E-07 1.62E-07 6.52E-08 3.37E-08 2.20E-08 1.60E-08 W 2.09E-06 8.59E-07 4.22E-07 2.67E-07 1.90E-07 9.56E-08 3.85E-08 1.99E-08 1.29E-08 9.40E-09 WNW 1.11E-06 4.56E-07 2.24E-07 1.41E-07 1.01E-07 5.05E-08 2.03E-08 1.05E-08 6.81E-09 4.95E-09 NW 1.34E-06 5.51E-07 2.70E-07 1.70E-07 1.21E-07 6.10E-08 2.45E-08 1.26E-08 8.20E-09 5.96E-09 NNW 1.99E-06 8.12E-07 3.95E-07 2.48E-07 1.76E-07 8.82E-08 3.52E-08 1.81E-08 1.18E-08 8.52E-09
WBN TABLE 2.3-75b AVERAGE ANNUAL D/Qs OUT TO 50 MILES Sector 1305 (m) 2414 (m) 4023 (m) 5633 (m) 7242 (m) 12070 (m) 24140 (m) 40234 (m) 56327 (m) 72420 (m) N 6.32E-09 2.28E-09 9.45E-10 5.22E-10 3.32E-10 1.37E-10 4.18E-11 1.71E-11 9.24E-12 5.61E-12 NNE 1.35E-08 4.87E-09 2.02E-09 1.12E-09 7.10E-10 2.92E-10 8.94E-11 3.65E-11 1.98E-11 1.20E-11 NE 7.13E-09 2.57E-09 1.07E-09 5.89E-10 3.74E-10 1.54E-10 4.72E-11 1.92E-11 1.04E-11 6.33E-12 ENE 5.58E-09 2.01E-09 8.35E-10 4.61E-10 2.93E-10 1.21E-10 3.70E-11 1.51E-11 8.17E-12 4.96E-12 E 5.85E-09 2.11E-09 8.76E-10 4.84E-10 3.08E-10 1.27E-10 3.88E-11 1.58E-11 8.57E-12 5.20E-12 ESE 6.02E-09 2.17E-09 9.01E-10 4.98E-10 3.17E-10 1.30E-10 3.99E-11 1.63E-11 8.82E-12 5.35E-12 SE 5.90E-09 2.13E-09 8.82E-10 4.87E-10 3.10E-10 1.28E-10 3.91E-11 1.59E-11 8.63E-12 5.24E-12 SSE 5.11E-09 1.84E-09 7.64E-10 4.22E-10 2.68E-10 1.10E-10 3.38E-11 1.38E-11 7.47E-12 4.54E-12 S 6.41E-09 2.31E-09 9.59E-10 5.29E-10 3.37E-10 1.39E-10 4.24E-11 1.73E-11 9.38E-12 5.69E-12 SSW 6.91E-09 2.49E-09 1.03E-09 5.71E-10 3.63E-10 1.50E-10 4.58E-11 1.87E-11 1.01E-11 6.14E-12 SW 5.21E-09 1.88E-09 7.80E-10 4.31E-10 2.74E-10 1.13E-10 3.45E-11 1.41E-11 7.63E-12 4.63E-12 WSW 4.10E-09 1.48E-09 6.14E-10 3.39E-10 2.16E-10 8.88E-11 2.72E-11 1.11E-11 6.01E-12 3.65E-12 W 2.07E-09 7.45E-10 3.09E-10 1.71E-10 1.09E-11 4.47E-11 1.37E-11 5.58E-12 3.02E-12 1.83E-12 WNW 1.06E-09 3.84E-10 1.59E-10 8.79E-11 5.59E-11 2.30E-11 7.05E-12 2.87E-12 1.56E-12 9.46E-13 NW 1.41E-09 5.07E-10 2.10E-10 1.16E-10 7.39E-11 3.04E-11 9.31E-12 3.87E-12 2.06E-12 1.25E-12 NNW 2.31E-09 8.34E-10 3.46E-10 1.91E-10 1.21E-10 5.00E-11 1.53E-11 6.24E-12 3.38E-12 2.05E-12
WBN TABLE 2.3-76 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND DIRECTION AND WIND SPEED FOR DIFFERENT STABILITY CLASSES Stability Class A (Delta T<=-1.9 C/100 M) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Jan 1, 1991 - Dec 31, 2010 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.000 0.001 0.014 0.065 0.118 0.136 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.340 NNE 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.097 0.152 0.219 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.490 NE 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.084 0.077 0.072 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.258 ENE 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.059 0.042 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.144 E 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.033 0.008 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.069 ESE 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.021 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 SE 0.000 0.001 0.016 0.016 0.006 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.042 SSE 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.041 0.012 0.010 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.093 S 0.000 0.001 0.041 0.117 0.129 0.099 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.402 SSW 0.000 0.001 0.037 0.300 0.537 0.562 0.022 0.000 0.000 1.459 SW 0.000 0.001 0.024 0.126 0.145 0.055 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.351 WSW 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.020 0.019 0.039 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.092 W 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.006 0.029 0.070 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.117 WNW 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.009 0.024 0.095 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.139 NW 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.009 0.028 0.087 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.138 NNW 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.027 0.059 0.124 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.230 SUBTOTAL 0.000 0.004 0.293 1.030 1.386 1.592 0.091 0.000 0.000 4.398 Total Hours Of Valid Stability Observations 171942 Total Hours Of Stability Class A 7524 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Class A 7473 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Observations 169934 Total Hours Calm 0 Meteorological Facility: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Stability Based On Delta-T Between 9.51 And 45.63 Meters Wind Speed And Direction Measured At 9.72 Meter Level Mean Wind Speed = 6.89 Note: Totals And Subtotals Are Obtained From Unrounded Numbers
WBN TABLE 2.3-77 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND DIRECTION AND WIND SPEED FOR DIFFERENT STABILITY CLASSES Stability Class B (-1.9< Delta T<=-1.7 C/100 M) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Jan 1, 1991 - Dec 31, 2010 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.105 0.098 0.108 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.337 NNE 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.172 0.172 0.219 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.600 NE 0.000 0.000 0.058 0.139 0.078 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.334 ENE 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.083 0.035 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.167 E 0.000 0.001 0.026 0.048 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.081 ESE 0.000 0.001 0.019 0.026 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.047 SE 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.028 0.004 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.061 SSE 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.038 0.009 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.089 S 0.000 0.000 0.055 0.142 0.081 0.045 0.010 0.001 0.000 0.334 SSW 0.000 0.001 0.058 0.342 0.270 0.198 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.883 SW 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.179 0.069 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.294 WSW 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.040 0.015 0.019 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.084 W 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.015 0.031 0.047 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.107 WNW 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.013 0.037 0.082 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.143 NW 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.021 0.034 0.078 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.147 NNW 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.041 0.055 0.080 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.188 SUBTOTAL 0.000 0.004 0.430 1.432 0.996 0.970 0.063 0.001 0.000 3.895 Total Hours Of Valid Stability Observations 171942 Total Hours Of Stability Class B 6670 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Class B 6619 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Observations 169934 Total Hours Calm 0 Meteorological Facility: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Stability Based On Delta-T Between 9.51 And 45.63 Meters Wind Speed And Direction Measured At 9.72 Meter Level Mean Wind Speed = 6.08 Note: Totals And Subtotals Are Obtained From Unrounded Numbers
WBN TABLE 2.3-78 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND DIRECTION AND WIND SPEED FOR DIFFERENT STABILITY CLASSES Stability Class C (-1.7< Delta T<=-1.5 C/100 M) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Jan 1, 1991 - Dec 31, 2010 WIND SPEED (MPH) 12.5- 18.5-WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 18.4 24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.000 0.000 0.058 0.163 0.134 0.149 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.508 NNE 0.000 0.001 0.108 0.255 0.214 0.233 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.824 NE 0.000 0.002 0.117 0.206 0.089 0.052 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.467 ENE 0.000 0.001 0.097 0.118 0.023 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.245 E 0.000 0.002 0.069 0.055 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.132 ESE 0.000 0.001 0.049 0.036 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.091 SE 0.000 0.002 0.062 0.045 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.114 SSE 0.000 0.002 0.074 0.071 0.009 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.159 S 0.000 0.001 0.116 0.252 0.085 0.047 0.006 0.001 0.000 0.508 SSW 0.000 0.001 0.152 0.464 0.255 0.171 0.012 0.000 0.000 1.056 SW 0.000 0.002 0.083 0.269 0.076 0.009 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.440 WSW 0.000 0.001 0.024 0.058 0.027 0.021 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.132 W 0.000 0.001 0.016 0.034 0.039 0.046 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.139 WNW 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.038 0.058 0.105 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.224 NW 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.042 0.052 0.095 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.219 NNW 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.070 0.072 0.101 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.282 SUBTOTAL 0.000 0.016 1.097 2.176 1.143 1.041 0.066 0.001 0.000 5.541 Total Hours Of Valid Stability Observations 171942 Total Hours Of Stability Class C 9494 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Class C 9416 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Observations 169934 Total Hours Calm 0 Meteorological Facility: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Stability Based On Delta-T Between 9.51 And 45.63 Meters Wind Speed And Direction Measured At 9.72 Meter Level Mean Wind Speed = 5.49 Note: Totals And Subtotals Are Obtained From Unrounded Numbers
WBN TABLE 2.3-79 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND DIRECTION AND WIND SPEED FOR DIFFERENT STABILITY CLASSES Stability Class D (-1.5< Delta T<=-0.5 C/100 M) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Jan 1, 1991 - Dec 31, 2010 WIND SPEED (MPH) WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 12.5-18.4 18.5-24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.004 0.048 0.664 0.970 1.049 1.087 0.024 0.000 0.000 3.847 NNE 0.004 0.047 0.702 1.162 1.020 0.979 0.057 0.002 0.000 3.973 NE 0.005 0.050 0.798 0.976 0.415 0.170 0.004 0.000 0.000 2.418 ENE 0.005 0.089 0.834 0.447 0.101 0.036 0.002 0.000 0.000 1.515 E 0.003 0.102 0.517 0.144 0.023 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.794 ESE 0.002 0.081 0.317 0.062 0.008 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.474 SE 0.003 0.087 0.392 0.082 0.024 0.013 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.602 SSE 0.004 0.120 0.620 0.178 0.039 0.032 0.009 0.000 0.000 1.003 S 0.008 0.159 1.179 0.760 0.288 0.280 0.083 0.004 0.000 2.762 SSW 0.011 0.136 1.736 1.934 0.922 0.770 0.059 0.001 0.000 5.567 SW 0.007 0.163 1.138 0.853 0.204 0.094 0.004 0.000 0.000 2.462 WSW 0.004 0.114 0.593 0.310 0.124 0.099 0.001 0.000 0.000 1.244 W 0.003 0.119 0.421 0.313 0.231 0.252 0.008 0.000 0.000 1.347 WNW 0.003 0.084 0.373 0.438 0.521 0.478 0.018 0.000 0.000 1.915 NW 0.002 0.059 0.372 0.427 0.567 0.598 0.040 0.001 0.000 2.067 NNW 0.003 0.035 0.481 0.558 0.655 0.839 0.035 0.000 0.000 2.607 SUBTOTAL 0.071 1.495 11.138 9.614 6.191 5.735 0.345 0.008 0.000 34.598 Total Hours Of Valid Stability Observations 171942 Total Hours Of Stability Class D 59374 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Class D 58793 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Observations 169934 Total Hours Calm 121 Meteorological Facility: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Stability Based On Delta-T Between 9.51 And 45.63 Meters Wind Speed And Direction Measured At 9.72 Meter Level Mean Wind Speed = 4.86 Note: Totals And Subtotals Are Obtained From Unrounded Numbers
WBN TABLE 2.3-80 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND DIRECTION AND WIND SPEED FOR DIFFERENT STABILITY CLASSES Stability Class E (-0.5< Delta T<= 1.5 C/100 M) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Jan 1, 1991 - Dec 31, 2010 WIND SPEED (MPH) 12.5- 18.5-WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 18.4 24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.020 0.131 0.474 0.609 0.324 0.058 0.002 0.000 0.000 1.618 NNE 0.018 0.122 0.423 0.304 0.161 0.047 0.003 0.000 0.000 1.078 NE 0.025 0.149 0.598 0.350 0.061 0.011 0.004 0.000 0.000 1.197 ENE 0.033 0.208 0.790 0.188 0.012 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 1.235 E 0.018 0.237 0.322 0.043 0.012 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.636 ESE 0.009 0.157 0.130 0.022 0.007 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.330 SE 0.011 0.183 0.151 0.045 0.023 0.012 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.425 SSE 0.020 0.300 0.294 0.085 0.046 0.038 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.789 S 0.048 0.469 0.983 0.402 0.197 0.183 0.031 0.001 0.000 2.314 SSW 0.082 0.561 1.928 1.181 0.575 0.395 0.026 0.000 0.000 4.749 SW 0.068 0.701 1.348 0.308 0.109 0.052 0.002 0.000 0.000 2.588 WSW 0.050 0.713 0.800 0.141 0.077 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.810 W 0.046 0.703 0.687 0.201 0.078 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.745 WNW 0.040 0.617 0.600 0.295 0.100 0.041 0.001 0.000 0.000 1.693 NW 0.032 0.410 0.565 0.295 0.125 0.059 0.002 0.001 0.000 1.489 NNW 0.022 0.211 0.467 0.425 0.290 0.094 0.005 0.000 0.000 1.513 SUBTOTAL 0.543 5.873 10.559 4.895 2.197 1.057 0.084 0.002 0.000 25.209 Total Hours Of Valid Stability Observations 171942 Total Hours Of Stability Class E 43451 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Class E 42839 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Observations 169934 Total Hours Calm 923 Meteorological Facility: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Stability Based On Delta-T Between 9.51 And 45.63 Meters Wind Speed And Direction Measured At 9.72 Meter Level Mean Wind Speed = 3.03 Note: Totals And Subtotals Are Obtained From Unrounded Numbers
WBN TABLE 2.3-81 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND DIRECTION AND WIND SPEED FOR DIFFERENT STABILITY CLASSES Stability Class F (1.5< Delta T<=4.0 C/100 M) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Jan 1, 1991 - Dec 31, 2010 WIND SPEED (MPH) 12.5- 18.5-WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 18.4 24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.026 0.227 0.173 0.017 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.444 NNE 0.022 0.181 0.165 0.010 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.381 NE 0.027 0.176 0.237 0.028 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.470 ENE 0.034 0.220 0.304 0.022 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.580 E 0.019 0.167 0.125 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.315 ESE 0.009 0.115 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.152 SE 0.009 0.107 0.035 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.157 SSE 0.014 0.152 0.058 0.009 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.236 S 0.033 0.272 0.238 0.033 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.580 SSW 0.066 0.424 0.594 0.150 0.009 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.247 SW 0.088 0.687 0.677 0.029 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.486 WSW 0.113 1.020 0.728 0.019 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.884 W 0.132 1.389 0.659 0.022 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.207 WNW 0.129 1.411 0.577 0.028 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.148 NW 0.110 1.159 0.546 0.034 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.852 NNW 0.046 0.436 0.272 0.038 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.796 SUBTOTAL 0.876 8.143 5.415 0.447 0.037 0.014 0.001 0.000 0.000 14.933 Total Hours Of Valid Stability Observations 171942 Total Hours Of Stability Class F 25798 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Class F 25377 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Observations 169934 Total Hours Calm 1489 Meteorological Facility: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Stability Based On Delta-T Between 9.51 And 45.63 Meters Wind Speed And Direction Measured At 9.72 Meter Level Mean Wind Speed = 1.47 Note: Totals And Subtotals Are Obtained From Unrounded Numbers
WBN TABLE 2.3-82 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND DIRECTION AND WIND SPEED FOR DIFFERENT STABILITY CLASSES Stability Class G (Delta T> 4.0 C/100 M) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Jan 1, 1991 - Dec 31, 2010 WIND SPEED (MPH) 12.5- 18.5-WIND DIRECTION CALM 0.6-1.4 1.5-3.4 3.5-5.4 5.5-7.4 7.5-12.4 18.4 24.4 >=24.5 TOTAL N 0.021 0.215 0.071 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.309 NNE 0.018 0.177 0.068 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.263 NE 0.024 0.231 0.099 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.357 ENE 0.028 0.235 0.151 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.415 E 0.017 0.172 0.057 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.246 ESE 0.010 0.117 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.148 SE 0.012 0.141 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.175 SSE 0.013 0.151 0.028 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.193 S 0.023 0.267 0.056 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.349 SSW 0.039 0.405 0.137 0.006 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.589 SW 0.069 0.664 0.282 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.018 WSW 0.118 1.112 0.525 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.760 W 0.134 1.359 0.489 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.984 WNW 0.108 1.123 0.364 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.600 NW 0.097 0.930 0.405 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.435 NNW 0.039 0.383 0.159 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.585 SUBTOTAL 0.769 7.682 2.936 0.038 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 11.426 Total Hours Of Valid Stability Observations 171942 Total Hours Of Stability Class G 19631 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Class G 19417 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Observations 169934 Total Hours Calm 1306 Meteorological Facility: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Stability Based On Delta-T Between 9.51 And 45.63 Meters Wind Speed And Direction Measured At 9.72 Meter Level Mean Wind Speed = 1.20 Note: Totals And Subtotals Are Obtained From Unrounded Numbers
WBN TABLE 2.3-83 JOINT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND SPEED BY STABILITY CLASS Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Jan 1, 1991 - Dec 31, 2010 STABILITY CLASS WIND SPEED (MPH) A B C D E F G CALM 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.071 0.543 0.876 0.769 0.6 - 1.4 0.004 0.004 0.016 1.495 5.873 8.143 7.682 1.5 - 3.4 0.293 0.430 1.097 11.138 10.559 5.415 2.936 3.5 - 5.4 1.030 1.432 2.176 9.614 4.895 0.447 0.038 5.5 - 7.4 1.386 0.996 1.143 6.191 2.197 0.037 0.002 7.5 - 12.4 1.592 0.970 1.041 5.735 1.057 0.014 0.000 12.5 - 18.4 0.091 0.063 0.066 0.345 0.084 0.001 0.000 18.5 - 24.4 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.008 0.002 0.000 0.000
>=24.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 TOTAL 4.398 3.895 5.541 34.598 25.209 14.933 11.426 Total Hours Of Valid Stability Observations 171942 Total Hours Of Valid Wind Direction-Wind Speed-Stability Observations 169934 Total Hours Of Observations 175320 Join Recovery Percentage 96.9 Meteorological Facility: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Stability Based On Delta-T Between 9.51 And 45.63 Meters Wind Speed And Direction Measured At 9.72 Meter Level
MR 9 r,
~
From A Meteorological Survey of the WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT Oak Ridge Area, U. S. Atomic Energy FINALWATTS BAR ANALYSIS SAFETY NUCLEAR PLANT REPORT Commission Publication ORO-99, FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Weather Bureau, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Figure 2.3-1 November 1953. Page 377. NORMAL SEA LEVEL PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION Normal OVERPressure Sea Level NORTH AMERICA AND Distribution THE NORTH Over North ATLANTIC America OCEAN and the North Atlantic OceanFIGURE 2.3-1
yJ W WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT From Holzworth, Mixing Heights, Wind FINALWATTS BAR ANALYSIS SAFETY NUCLEAR PLANTREPORT Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Pollution Throughout the Contiguous Figure 2.3-2 United States, EPA, Research Triangle TOTAL NUMBER OF FORECAST-DAYS OF HIGH Park, N.C., January 1972. Page 96. Total Number of POTENTIAL METEOROLOGICAL FORof Forecast-Days AIR High Meteorological Potential POLLUTION IN A 5 YEAR PERIOD for Air PollutionFIGURE in a 52.3-2 Year Period
Oak Ridge Knoxville Watts Bar Dam Watts Bar Meteorological Faciltiy Decatur 10 0 10 20 Scale in Miles Sequoyah WATTS BAR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR NUCLEARPLANTPLANT Meteorological FINAL SAFET FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Y ANALY SIS REPOR'. Facility CLIMATOLOGICAL Figure DATA 2.3-3SOURCES CLIMATOLOG ICAL IN AREA AROUND UAIA SOURCES IN WATTS BAR SITE ) AREA AROUNI WATTS BAR2.3-3 FIGURE S I TI. Chattanooga
NNW WIND SPEED <riPH>
>=24 S 18 S-24 4 12,S-18 4 7.S-12 4 5
~t8 V S S-7 4 3 S-S 4 I S-3 4 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 9 72 M WIND ALL STABILITY CLASSES JAN I, 74 - DEC 31, 93 SSE FIGURE 2 3-4 S
FlAw WIND SPEED MPH)
>=24 S 18 S-24 4 12.S-IB 4 7 S-12.4
\21 8 X S S-7 4 3 S-S 4 1 5-3.4 0 6-1 4 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 46.36 M WIND 46 36 M WIND ALL STABILITY CLASSES CLASSES ALL STABILITY JAN 1, 77 - DEC 31, 93 JAN I, 77 - DEC 31, 93 SSE FIGURE 2 3-5 FIGURE 2.3-5 S
PERCENT OCCURRENCE OF PASQUILL STABILITY CLASSES E, F, AND G BY TIME OF DAY WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 1974- 1993 70 60 W Z so - La -N Ix \ 40-U / \ 30 ~'~~~ ~~ ~. z U 20 `** 1\ 7 do CL
- E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TIME WATTS Watts BAR NUCLEAR Bar Nuclear Plant PLANT LEGEND STABILITY CLASS E
- STABILITY CLASS F FINAL Final SAFETY Safety ANALYSIS Analysis REPORT Report STABILITY CLASS G DIRUNAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF Figure 2.3-66 Diurnal Distributions A, B, of C, AND D STABILITIES E. F, and G Stabilities
- Based on temperature differences between 9.51 and 45.63 meters FIGURE 2.3-6A on the onsite meteorological tower.
PERCENT OCCURRENCE OF PASQUILL STABILITY CLASSES E, F, AND G BY TIME OF DAY WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 1974- 1993 70 60 W Z so - La -N Ix \ 40-U / \ 30 ~'~~~ ~~ ~. z U 20 `** 1\ 7 do CL
- E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TIME WATTS Watts BAR NUCLEAR Bar Nuclear Plant PLANT LEGEND STABILITY CLASS E
- STABILITY CLASS F FINAL Final SAFETY Safety ANALYSIS Analysis REPORT Report STABILITY CLASS G DIRUNAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF Figure 2.3-66 DiurnalE.Distributions of F, AND G STABILITIES E. F, and G Stabilities
- Based on temperature differences between 9.51 and 45.63 meters FIGURE 2.3-6B on the onsite meteorological tower.
N NNW WIND SPEED C f PH)
> = 24.5
>=24 S 18.5 - 24.4 18 5-24 4 12.5 - 18.4 12 S-18 4 7.57- 5-12 12.44 6 7 *~
1 2 3 4 5 5.5S- S-7 7.4 4 CALM 3.53,S-5
- 5.4 4
0.00% I S-3 4 1.5 - 3.4 0.6 - 1.4 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT SE 9 72 M9.72 M WIND, WIND, 4545.63 63 && 9.51 M S1 M TEMP 9TEMP STABILITY CLASS A STABILITY CLASS A JAN 1, 74 - DEC 31, 93 JAN 1, 7.1 - DEC 31, 93 SSE FIGURE 2 3-7 FIGURE 2.3-7
N NNW NNE NW NE WIND SPEED (MPH)
> = 24.5 18.5-24.4 WNW ENE 12.5-18.4 7.5-12.4 6 7%
2 3 4 5 5.5-7.4 nCALM W 0 1 E 3.5-5.4 1.5-3.4 0.6-1.4 WSW ESE UFSAR AMENDMENT 11 Sw ~~0 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 9.72 M WIND, 45.63 & 9.51 M TEMP STABILITY CLASS A SSW SSE JAN 1, 1991 - DEC 31, 2010 S FIGURE 2.3-7a Figure 2.3-7a Wind Speed at 9.72 Meters for Stability Class A, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1,1991-December 31,2010
N I'MM NE WIND SPEED C rIPH
> = 24.5
>=24 S 18.5 - 24.4 18 5-24 4 12.5 - 18.44 12.S-18 7.57- 5-12 12.4 4 5
5.5 - 7.4 1 2 3 4 S S-7.4 CALM 3 S-S 4 0.00% 3.5 - 5.4 1 5-3 4 1.5 - 3.4 0.6 - 1.4 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT SE 9 72 M9.72 45 63 & St M TEVIP 9 TEMP 8 9.51 M M WIND, WIND, 45.63 STABILITY CLASSSTABILITY B CLASS B JAN 1, 74 - DEC 31, 93 JAN 1, 74 - DEC 31, 93 SSE FIGURE 2 3-8 FIGURE 2.3-8
N 12011,11 12012 NW NE WIND SPEED (MPH)
> = 24.5 18.5-24.4 WNW ENE 12.5-18.4 7.5-12.4 2 3 4 5.5-7.4 CALM W (ro 0 O 1 E 3.5-5.4 1.5-3.4 0.6-1 .4 WSW ESE UFSAR AMENDMENT 11 Sw SE WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 9.72 M WIND, 45.63 & 9.51 M TEMP STABILITY CLASS B SSW SSE JAN 1, 1991 DEC 31, 2010 6~ FIGURE 2.3-8a Figure 2.3-8a Wind Speed at 9.72 Meters for Stability Class B, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1,1991December 31,2010
7 u WIND SPEED (HPH)
> = 24.5
>=24 S 18.5 - 24.4 18 S-24 4 12.5 - 18.4 12 S-18 4 7.5 - 12.4 7 S-12.4 7~
6 5 S S-7.4
' 2 3 4 5.5 - 7.4 CALM 3 S-S 4 0.00% 3.5 - 5.4 1.5-3 4 1.5 - 3.4 0.6 - 1.4 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT SE 9 72 M9.72 M WIND, WIND, 4545.63 63 && 9.51 9 M TEMP S I h1 TEMP STABILITY CLASS C STABILITY CLASS C JAN 1, 74 - DEC 31, 93 JAN 1, 74 - DEC 31, 93 SSE FIGURE 2.3-9 FIGURE 2.3-9 S
N 1 klril1 V2113I NW NE WIND SPEED (MPH)
> = 24.5 18.5-24.4 WNW ENE 12.5-18.4 7.5-12.4 2 3 4 5.5-7.4 CALM W 0 OOX Q 1 E 3.5-5.4 1.5-3.4 0.6-1.4 WSW ESE UFSAR AMENDMENT 11 Sw SE WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 9.72 M WIND, 45.63 & 9.51 M TEMP STABILITY CLASS C SSW SSE JAN 1, 1991 DEC 31, 2010 FIGURE 2.3-9a Figure 2.3-9a Wind Speed at 9.72 Meters for Stability Class C, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1,1991December 31,2010
M NNW
/ ----,-NNE WIND SPEED O-PH)
> = 24.5
>=24 S 18.5 - 24.4 18 5-24 4 12.5 - 18.4 12.5-18 4 7.5 - 12.4 7,S-12 4
\-,
5 16 5.5 - 7.4 S S-7 4 CALM 3 S-S 4 0.11% 3.5 - 5.4 1.5-3 4 1.5 - 3.4 0 6-1 4 0.6 - 1.4 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 9 72 M9.72 M WIND, WIND, 4545.63 63 & 8 9.51 M 9 TEMP S 1 rl TEMP STABILITY CLASSSTABILITY D CLASS D JAN 1, 74 - DEC 31, 93 JAN 1, 74 - DEC 31, 93 SSE FIGURE 2 3-10 FIGURE 2.3-10
N NNW NNE E WIND SPEED (MPH)
> = 24.5 18.5-24.4 WNW NE 12.5-18.4 7.5-12.4
))56 7~
5.5-7.4 W E 3.5-5.4 1.5-3.4 0.6-1.4 WSW ESE UFSAR AMENDMENT 11 Sv E WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 9.72 M WIND, 45.63 & 9.51 M TEMP STABILITY CLASS D SSW SSE JAN 1, 1991 DEC 31, 2010 S FIGURE 2.3-10a Figure 2.3-10a Wind Speed at 9.72 Meters for Stability Class D, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1,1991December 31,2010
N NNW NE WIND SPEED CMPH)
> = 24.5
>=24 S 18.5 - 24.4 18 5-24 4 12.5 - 18.4 12.S-18 4 7.57.5-12.4
- 12.4 6 -7A 5
4 5.55 77.44 CALM 3.5 - 5.4 3 S-S 4 0.75% 1 S-3.4 1.5 - 3.4 0 6-1 4 0.6 - 1.4 SE WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT SE 9 72 M9.72 WIND, M WIND,4S 63 &&9.51 M 45.63 51 r1 TEMP 9TEMP STABILITY CLASSSTABILITY E CLASS E JAN 1, 74 - DEC 31, 93 JAN I, 74 - DEC 31, 93 SSE FIGURE 2.3-11 FIGURE 2.3-11
N NNW NNE 2 C1 WIND SPEED (MPH)
> = 24.5 18.5-24.4 WNW NE 12.5-18.4 7% 7.5-12.4
))45 5.5-7.4 W E 3.5-5.4 1.5-3.4 0.6-1.4 WSW ESE UFSAR AMENDMENT 11 Sw SE WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 9.72 M WIND, 45.63 & 9.51 M TEMP STABILITY CLASS E SSW SSE JAN 1, 1991 DEC 31, 2010 S FIGURE 2.3-11a Figure 2.3-11a Wind Speed at 9.72 Meters for Stability Class E, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1,1991December 31,2010
N fIWW NE WIND SPEED (rIPH)
> = 24.5
>=24 5 18.5 - 24.4 18 5-24 4 12.5 - 18.4 12 5-18 4 7.57.5-12
- 12.44 5.5S -S-7 7.44 2 3 4 5 CALM 3 5-5 4 1.26% 3.5 - 5.4 15-3 4 1.5 - 3.4 0.6 - 1.4 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT M WIND, 9 72 9.72 M WIND,4S 45.63 51 rl TEMP 63&&9.51 M9TEMP STABILITY STABILITY CLASS F CLASS F JAN 1, 74 - DEC 31, 93 JAN I, 74 - DEC 31, 93 SSE FIGURE 2 3-12 FIGURE 2.3-12
N NNW NNE 2 C1 ~10 WIND SPEED (MPH)
> = 24.5 18.5-24.4 WNW ENE 12.5-18.4 6 7' 7.5-12.4 2 3 4 5 5.5-7.4 W E 3.5-5.4 1.5-3.4 0.6-1.4 WSW ESE UFSAR AMENDMENT 11 Sw SE WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 9.72 M WIND, 45.63 & 9.51 M TEMP STABILITY CLASS F SSW SSE JAN 1, 1991 DEC 31, 2010 FIGURE 2.3-12a Figure 2.3-12a Wind Speed at 9.72 Meters for Stability Class F, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1,1991December 31,2010
N NNW NE WIND SPEED C -PH)
> = 24.5
>=24 5 18.5S 24.4 4
IS ENE 12.5 12.5-I- 18.4 S 4 7.57,S-12
- 12.44 6 7~
5 1 2 3 4 5.5S 77.44 CALM CALM 0 E 3 S-5 4 0.88% 0 88
-0 3.5 - 5.4 1 5-3 4 1.5 - 3.4 0 6-1 4 0.6 - 1.4 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT SE 9 72 M9.72 4S M WIND, WIND, 63 && 9.51 M 45.63 9 51 H TEHP TEMP STABILITY STABILITY CLASS G CLASS G JAN 1, 74 - DEC 31, 93 JAN I, 74 - DEC 31, 93 SSE FIGURE 2.3-13 FIGURE 2.3-13
N NNW NNE 2 C1 ~10 WIND SPEED (MPH)
> = 24.5 18.5-24.4 WNW ENE 12.5-18.4 6 7' 7.5-12.4 2 3 4 5 5.5-7.4 CALM ~0 W 0.77X E 3.5-5.4 1.5-3.4 0.6-1.4 WSW ESE UFSAR AMENDMENT 11 Sw SE WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 9.72 M WIND, 45.63 & 9.51 M TEMP STABILITY CLASS G SSW SSE JAN 1, 1991 DEC 31, 2010 FIGURE 2.3-13a Figure 2.3-13a Wind Speed at 9.72 Meters for Stability Class G, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, January 1,1991December 31,2010
.r rrr, ;. 7r TI T
.I _ - _, --, -* ~ Z'- -~ ,
r i ff 1~
,i I i
~
Tom' ; t 1'
,' i
!_-4-L.
,4..L i I~1!II' I
r I `:,, _ - _. ~.._.-_L ~..1 lt:~ 1..,.--4+~~ rr+ Y~r' 1r i'4'*,T 1~ )~ _ ~:'. l~. i i ., I.F'l-y1*~1
*I t1 + 1' 'I I '; ' 1!
I;~ ~ 1.1 I * . *)! I I 1 , 1 1 !1 ' ,I I , ~ I
~-
I'
' i t ', I 11 1 ,t I 'I
; *~ 111+ 1 '.
I 1
~1 1
';I ' li r
l il 1 i r li 1 j~
~
I i ;; I ' ; ~ j....'
!lii I ! ~1' t,' '1 1 ~. i I ~ ! ' I 'I i 1!i ~ I ~ 1 L T-I
- It
~ 41 Jil l it rr! ~.' M. f I~~,.i?
4i~j1'I!I~I~i' ~~ii ~~~` lii~ I I 1 I II I~,+ I!,I ij, ) ', i'*I 1' !{.`~
!! ! :I~i .1.11 j~* x;,; ;+; ,~;; ..;I l;l ~;;; ; I; f~~ :~ '~# ' ~ ;aai 11- j I ~' '- ; ;
I ` ; i II I ; '~:! i j
~- 1
+' '* !_ It j,weitt f.~t,I I
*, ; I' I !+ I
!*T_
! I!
~ ` T i 1;
'~
wilts r-. , let lek,e 11 j~j .-, 1 I I-~ 1 ) ; , , .
)1 iI i : ; ; I i I -?
, 1 , ; I ~ I ; ', ~ ~ _, f I , ;'~
;;; ,! ~
;-4--
I I I 1 ;,1 N :, i , I , I, 1 I
*: ii II r
, ) , ) II
.2' 1 i 3 ~ . ) 1 ' ,~1 p0TA ilk ~~ ,II i; - _1r l
'>I pu i~ `v a oo I )' q FO0 ' do 000 ; ; ;4 QQQ dgv 1I i i I I'i '- I!
Feel WATTS WATTS BAR BAR NUCLEAR NUCLE AR PLANT PLAN FINAL FINAL SAFETY SAFET ANALYSIS Y REPORT ANALYSIS REPORT TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN 10 TOPOGRAPHYMILE RADIUS WITHIN 10 MILE RADIUS FIGURE 2.3-14 Figure 2.3-14
'~_I -
;* tli I. 1,; !, r i ;I~~ ; Ti I ~ ~~ ~ I~ ~ I! ;; ~ i ~'.f l ~ !1 II ~~I' ~I'~ I I~I
~
ii ' ',' ' I!' ~ ;;' i I ; ; r*;~ ;;: ~ Dili ~ i li i f' iii ~~I I i ; i :'i~ ~ i ; II ' ~ ' _- -/--,_1 t-'-,-7 T - T- -_ i -- *T ' .' i 1' ' -' ' ~ , ~T - --1) 1-I I 1 1 * -* 1 I / 1 1 1 1 I I
~I I r '
1 I ,~- r 1 1
-'I ' ll I' 11
' r * ! !1 11 I t i I 1 ;. 1 I( 1 ' 1 1~ ~ 1 I ' 1 l ' I iI '1 i 11 I 1 1 ~* ,i '
r l. ~' ' I! 11~ ;
~
1!
, 'I , 1 I
- _- 1~: T J~ ' .--{+ .--.. '~- 'r. -r ' .1*F ~-~' . `tom. l' 1i 1' .~--_+ '- r-___ -L r ,~ _
T
*I ., !1 11 '^, ! ~; ~~ i 'ff ' ;I ~* `; '! i!' ' l! j .' Ili ; ~'
~-* f '1 ' I I I II I i I' ,
TI
' ' , 1, !' 11
; II11
; ~- i watt: ear- IwoIts I
' - ! Watts ear w tts ear lak ;; ;. ! ; ! watt:'ear L' I lake ' lake 0
0 IT:ckilame I . ake 1_: 1-* ; A l
,-I,--fl
- ~ ! ~.-L '_.1~ ' * -_ _ i ~_ :~-~._ ~+ ~! ! 1 -yI -1 -t ~.T. I 1 ~~ .--..1 1--,~ _ -r _ J,. ,. _
'- -r ~-*
'- i ! 1
, j I .;
r* _ I (~ ,.,. ',;, ;. ; f
' ; 1 li I 'i I ' I ~ '-~.
~ ~ i! ; ' `^ I !' I' ('
;i Ir.
1 ' ; `i. ; I i li
' 1 ; 1
' '1 Ii i 1 ' 11 {1
~t- T --' - - *+T-- - --I-* - -r- - --.i a- t' I -- --- - --- -
I ; *+_'-, r T 1 NNE 000W.3 000
' L. t~_ 1 Feet WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLAN FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN 10 TOPOGRAPHY MILE RADIUS WITHIN 10 MILE RADIUS Figure 2.3-15 FIGURE 2.3-15
MEN mom N p" 'b PA WAWA in ~MIN I 1 mm I M nm Hui RM NE Feet WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WATTS BAR NUCLEAR FINAL SAFETYPLAN ANALYSIS FINAL SAFETY REPORT ANALYSIS REPORT TOPOGRAPHY TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN WITHIN 1010 MILE RADIUS MILE RADIUS FigureFIGURE 2.3-16 2.3-16
111111fol-MEM "ISO no nommi IDOnul mom Im I I Imi UPSH 11011 I IHOU Hill SO] I~fl HIM
~I10411111~I, Iliu ,,~~11 m
i rl1 111 It I III IOU 1111111 11111M111 1,1N, IN,"'ni 1111111 IOU l IIHIIII%Ill 1 0 11 1 fil N Hill 1111111
I I~INN ENE II , . ,~ I~ mlig~1 1OuI 11 n w ... . ,.
WATTS WATTS BARNUCLEAR BAR NUCLEAR PLAN PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN 10 MILEWITHIN TOPOGRAPHY RADIUS 10 MILE RADIUS FIGURE 2.3-17 Figure 2.3-17
--=OEM 1111 Ills I 11111111111 11 91 inn up min Jill ml nm HHU Fell WATTS WATTS BARNUCLEAR BAR PLANT NUCLEAR PLAN FINAL SAFETY FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT ANALYSIS REPORT TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN 10 TOPOGRAPHYMILEWITHIN RADIUS 10 MILE RADIUS FIGURE 2.3-18 Figure 2.3-18
Rol I HUM11%Im 11~ ml Ill. 1-11 ES! rsof NU WATT S BAR WATTS BARNUCL NUCLEAR EAR PLAN PLANT FINA SAFETY REPORT FINAL SAFETYLANALYSIS ANALYSIS REPORT TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN 10 TOPOGRAP MILEHY RADIUS WITHIN 10 MILE RADIUS FIGURE 2.3-19 Figure 2.3-19
WATTS WATTS BAR BAR NUCLEAR PLAN NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN 10 MILE RADIUS TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN 10 MILE RADIUS FIGURE 2.3-20 Figure 2.3-20
WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLAN FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN 10 MILE RADIUS FIGURE 2.3-21
WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLAN FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN 10 MILE RADIUS FIGURE 2.3-22
*I,
,; i.' ;
It I I i f .i II
~!I i .l di I l ill
'I i ,' 'i I ~I I
I .l i i t ! lij T i;
, ,~ *! _ i;;E is ~ ,j _ i .
,,~~~ i,l' i _ ~ --~-
Pi iI I i ilt I' ~ I' ~~,' I ' ~I! i *! ~'
- 7a , i t j' I Ijjl I
,I~i I,Ij I! ij VIII
;i ,~~. I ;i, ! ~ ~ i :, _; ' , 1
;ji i i ~'I ; ' ,'1* I I ;~ ;i'I '*.,'I~_.'
!;i ~~II j;;~
{ ' ~~i~, ,t.~ :; 11 I~ ilil I~j ;Ii tTil ~;i~ jll ~(I ;,'; I !,~ :ji; ~';: '~~, ~ ~bclficll t ; I I;~ ~!~' 'i j 'I, i i1 II I Crook rClklnnpark l ~ ~I,- ;;; , I , i t ! !;'*~ I I; ! I~ jil~ 1 I~ t~ i I'*
, I i, ;~ I Ili il~ II iI *,; I '! 1 .1 II. ! i j 'I' I ! " ~ !; ClieinropUlc Itti ~,il I I jll ;' II Ijl' i j! ,~ J : , ;
T" I. I ~* i I Clli !i r ;' I .i:~ j 'I ~ i'
- 1~; I I ~!'
III i ~ Ii i II j I iI I I i it j SSW *i f l t.l' is ' I! 'il I
' i it ~ 'till .....i . , ;;" ,' .1111 ~Sii _a~~
tell WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WATTSFINAL BAR NUCLEAR SAFETY PLAN FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS REPORT REPORT TOPOGRAPHY TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN WITHIN10 10 MILE RADIUS MILE RADIUS FIGURE2.3-23 Figure 2.3-23
-Iillimmonommismo II, mmumminum MR IN HMO
~Ill ~III 109oWInII~p~1111111 1mjjjfm MAIN MIN mn Hui I8Hill 1111, 11 1
,~I ~ If I n!nVl 1011111HIIIII'LhIrmp IS~ u 11 I~1111~IMIRMUIR a' ~~omioui loom I
sW Mill r1ill mm 61111rH I 1 10111Kill Feet a~GiYFIuiV'I~IUUoIIN i~~h" WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT Topogrnpt- WATTSFINAL BAR NUCLEAR SAFETY PLAN FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS REPORT REPORT TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN 10 TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN 10 MILE RADIUS MILE RADIUS FIGURE Figure2.3-24 2.3-24
F ' 'i *III , I, !Ili I, ~ I ' ~ II I I' I!I ~' !, ' I ' ~~ , I ~ ~ j' III ' i.l I I~ , ~*! I i 112
~iI'I_i~l IT' T,jl I~tI 7-7 I `I I II I 1 Il I I l , II 1 1 I II II I; 1 II ;, i I ! i 1, 'I I I *, -j- I
- li _A1 Ili;
'I fellow Creels
+rj
' I*il T +'
r; ,_ I 2-+ , i
-T-T-it'iIjI.,
- I T
- 1
, I ~i I I;1 ! 1 I ~II li II ! li i 1 ~ ' I
` 1 ' *I i i ;'
WSW ;* 009 I 1 000 .y 0 404 ~0i 5 C J. roof L-WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WATTS FINAL BAR NUCLEAR SAFETY PLAN FINAL SAFETY ANALYSISANALYSIS REPORT REPORT TOPOGRAPHY TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN WITHIN 10 10 MILE RADIUS MILE RADIUS FIGURE Figure2.3-25 2.3-25
t w WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WATTSFINAL BAR NUCLEAR SAFETY PLAN FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT TOPOGRAPHY TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN 10 WITHIN 10 MILE RADIUS MILE RADIUS FIGURE Figure2.3-26 2.3-26
1 I 1 t-- i I I _I tI J__. i ~ 1 _ _ I i WNW gp - vbm biw " licit "it000 " 3Daoo ~1u6o" _ f6noo 3i m 36WO n0000 ~a000 v~m6 stoop r. WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WATTS BAR SAFETY FINAL NUCLEAR PLAN FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS REPORT REPORT TOPOGRAPHY TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN WITHIN10 10 MILE RADIUS MILE RADIUS FIGURE Figure 2.3-27 2.3-27
' ' I
~ -
I ~ I 77 I i I Loa I i I NW 11635 MW "b00 1. 20JI0 31MI Y V 000 V~ 0 _L.. I -i fee WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WATTSFINAL BAR NUCLEAR SAFETY PLAN ANALYSIS FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORTREPORT TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN 10 TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN 10 MILERADIUS MILE RADIUS Figure 2.3-28 FIGURE 2.3-28
i I I ij An
-- Oliclauli L I Ann I Brand rook I dim Rh 7sn- -*- -
NNW
~qqMO! 2 IM y 4 486 3 Feet
.opogrop!
WATTS BAR NUCLEAR WATTSFINAL BAR NUCLEAR SAFETY PLAN FINAL SAFETY ANALYSISANALYSIS REPOF REPORT TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN10 TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN 10 MILE RADIUS MILE RADIUS Figure 2.3-29 FIGURE 2.3-29
WBN 2.4 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) is located on the west bank of Chickamauga Lake at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 528 with plant grade at elevation 728.0 ft MSL. The plant has been designed to have the capability for safe shutdown in floods up to the computed maximum water level, in accordance with regulatory position 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.59, Revision 2, August 1977, as described in Section 2.4.14. Determination of the maximum flood level included consideration of postulated dam failures from seismic and hydrologic causes. The calculated probable maximum flood elevation 738.9 ft combined with 0.3 ft additional margin provides a design basis probable maximum flood elevation of 739.2 ft. The design basis flood elevation and plant protection during external flood events is discussed in Section 2.4.14. The nearest surface water user located downstream from WBN is Dayton, Tennessee, at TRM 503.8, 24.2 miles downstream. All surface water supplies withdrawn from the 58.9 mile reach of the mainstream of the Tennessee River between Watts Bar Dam (TRM 529.9) and Chickamauga Dam (TRM 471.0) are listed in Table 2.4-1. The probable minimum flow past the site is estimated to be 3,200 cfs, which is more than adequate for plant water requirements. 2.4.1 Hydrological Description 2.4.1.1 Sites and Facilities The location of key plant structures and their relationship to the original site topography is shown on Figure 2.1-5. The structures which have safety-related equipment and systems are indicated on this figure and are tabulated below along with the elevation of exterior accesses. Structure Access Accesses Elev. Intake Pumping (1) Access Hatches 3 728.0 Station (2) Stairwell Entrances 2 741.0 (3) Access Hatches 6 741.0 Auxiliary and (1) Door to Turbine Bldg. 1 708.0 Control Bldgs. (2) Door to Service Bldg. 2 713.0 (3) Railroad Access Opening 1 729.0 (4) Door to Turbine Bldg. 2 729.0 (5) Emergency Exit 1 730.0 (6) Door to Turbine Bldg. 2 755.0 Shield Building (1) Personnel Lock 1 714.0 (2) Equipment Hatch 1 753.0 (3) Personnel Lock 1 755.0 Structure Access Accesses Elev. 2.4-1
WBN Diesel Generator (1) Equipment Access Doors 4 742.0 Building (2) Emergency Exits 4 742.0 (3) Personnel Access Door 1 742.0 (4) Emergency Exit 1 760.5 Additional (1) Equipment Access Door 2 742.0 Diesel (2) Personnel Access Door 1 742.0 Generator (3) Emergency Exit 1 742.0 Building (4) Emergency Exit 1 760.5 Exterior accesses are also provided to each of the Class 1E electrical systems manholes and handholes at elevations varying from 714.5 ft MSL to 728.5 ft MSL, depending upon the location of each structure. The relationship of the plant site to the surrounding area can be seen in Figures 2.1-4a and 2.1-5. It can be seen from these figures that significant natural drainage features of the site have not been altered. Local surface runoff drains into the Tennessee River. 2.4.1.2 Hydrosphere The WBN site, along with the Watts Bar Dam Reservation, comprises approximately 1770 acres on the west bank of Chickamauga Lake at TRM 528. As shown by Figure 2.1-4a, the site is on high ground with the Tennessee River being the major potential source of flooding. WBN is located in the Middle Tennessee Chickamauga watershed, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit code 06020001, one of 32 watersheds in the Region 06 - Tennessee River Watershed (Figure 2.4-1). The Tennessee River above the Watts Bar plant site drains 17,319 square miles. Watts Bar Dam, 1.9 miles upstream, has a drainage area of 17,310 square miles. Chickamauga Dam, the next dam downstream, has a drainage area of 20,790 square miles. Two major tributaries, Little Tennessee and French Broad Rivers, rise to the east in the rugged Southern Appalachian Highlands. They flow northwestward through the Appalachian Divide which is essentially defined by the North Carolina-Tennessee border to join the Tennessee River which flows southwestward. The Tennessee River and its Clinch and Holston River tributaries flow southwest through the Valley and Ridge physiographic province which, while not as rugged as the Southern Highlands, features a number of mountains including the Clinch and Powell Mountain chains. The drainage pattern is shown on Figure 2.1-1. About 20% of the watershed rises above elevation 3,000 ft with a maximum elevation of 6,684 ft at Mt. Mitchell, North Carolina. The watershed is about 70% forested with much of the mountainous area being 100% forested. The climate of the watershed is humid temperate. Above Watts Bar Dam annual rainfall averages 50 inches and varies from a low of 40 inches at sheltered locations within the mountains to high spots of 90 inches on the southern and eastern divide. Rainfall occurs fairly evenly throughout the year. The lowest monthly average is 2.8 inches in October. The highest monthly average is 5.4 inches in July, with March a close second with an average of 5.1 inches. Major flood-producing storms are of two general types: the cool-season, winter type, and the warm-season, hurricane type. Most floods at WBN, however, have been produced by winter-type storms in the main flood-season months of January through early April. 2.4-2
WBN Watershed snowfall is relatively light, averaging about 14 inches annually above the plant. Snowfall above the 3,000-ft elevation averages 22 inches annually. The highest average annual snowfall in the basin is 63 inches at Mt. Mitchell, the highest point east of the Mississippi River. Individual snowfalls are normally light, with an average of 13 snowfalls per year. Snowmelt is not a factor in maximum flood determinations. The Tennessee River, particularly above Chattanooga, Tennessee, is one of the most highly regulated rivers in the United States. The TVA reservoir system is operated for flood control, navigation, and power generation with flood control a prime purpose with particular emphasis on protection for Chattanooga, 64 miles downstream from WBN. Chickamauga Dam, 57 miles downstream, affects water surface elevations at WBN. Normal full pool elevation is 682.5 ft. At this elevation the reservoir is 58.9 miles long on the Tennessee River and 32 miles long on the Hiwassee River, covering an area of 36,050 acres, with a volume of 622,500 acre-ft. The reservoir has an average width of nearly 1 mile, ranging from 700 ft to 1.7 miles. At the Watts Bar site the reservoir is about 1100 ft wide with depths ranging between 18 ft and 26 ft at normal pool elevation. There are 12 major dams (South Holston, Boone, Fort Patrick Henry, Watauga, Fontana, Norris, Cherokee, Douglas, Tellico, Fort Loudoun, Melton Hill, and Watts Bar) in the TVA system upstream from WBN, ten of which (those previously identified excluding Fort Patrick Henry and Melton Hill) provide about 4.4 million acre-ft of reserved flood-detention (March 15) capacity during the main flood season. Table 2.4-2 lists pertinent data for TVA's dams and reservoirs. Figure 2.4-2 presents a simplified flow diagram for the Tennessee River system. Table 2.4-3 provides the relative distances in river miles of dams to the WBN site. Details for TVA dam outlet works are provided in Table 2.4-4. In addition, there are four major dams owned by Brookfield Renewable Energy Partners (Calderwood, Chilhowee, Santeetlah, and Cheoah Dams) and two major dams owned by Duke Energy (Nantahala and Mission Dams). These reservoirs often contribute to flood reduction, but they do not have dependable reserved flood detention capacity. Table 2.4-5 lists pertinent data for the non-TVA owned dams and reservoirs. The locations of these dams are shown on Figure 2.1-1. Flood control above the plant is provided largely by eight tributary reservoirs. Tellico Dam is counted as a tributary reservoir because it is located on the Little Tennessee River although, because of canal connection with Fort Loudoun Dam, it also functions as a main river dam. On March 15, near the end of the flood season, these provide a minimum of 3,937,400 acre-ft of detention capacity equivalent to 5.5 inches on the 13,508-square-mile area they control. This is 89% of the total available above the plant. The two main river reservoirs, Fort Loudoun and Watts Bar, provide 490,000 acre-ft equivalent to 2.4 inches on the remaining 3,802-square-mile area above Watts Bar Dam. The flood detention capacity reserved in the TVA system varies seasonally, with the greatest amounts during the January through March flood season. Figure 2.4-3 (12 sheets) shows the reservoir seasonal operating guides for reservoirs above the plant site. Table 2.4-6 shows the flood control reservations at the multiple-purpose projects above WBN at the beginning and end of the winter flood season and in the summer. Total assured system detention capacity above Watts Bar Dam varies from 4.9 inches on January 1 to 4.8 inches on March 15 and decreasing to 1.5 inches during the summer and fall. Actual detention capacity may exceed these amounts, depending upon inflows and power demands. 2.4-3
WBN Chickamauga Dam, the headwater elevation of which affects flood elevations at the plant, has a drainage area of 20,790 square miles, 3,480 square miles more than Watts Bar Dam. There are seven major tributary dams (Chatuge, Nottely, Hiwassee, Apalachia, Blue Ridge, Ocoee No. 1 and Ocoee No. 3) in the 3,480-square-mile intervening watershed, of which four have substantial reserved capacity. On March 15, near the end of the flood season, these provide a minimum of 379,300 acre-ft equivalent to 5.9 inches on the 1,200-square-mile controlled area. Chickamauga Dam contains 345,300 acre-ft of detention capacity on March 15 equivalent to 2.8 inches on the remaining 2,280 square miles. Figure 2.4-3 (Sheet 1) shows the seasonal operating guide for Chickamauga. Elevation-storage relationships for the reservoirs above the site and Chickamauga, downstream, are shown in Figure 2.4-4 (13 sheets). Daily flow volumes at the plant, for all practical purposes, are represented by discharges from Watts Bar Dam with a drainage area of 17,310 square miles, only 9 square miles less than at the plant. Momentary flows at the nuclear plant site may vary considerably from daily averages, depending upon turbine operations at Watts Bar and Chickamauga Dams. There may be periods of several hours when no releases from either or both Watts Bar and Chickamauga Dams occur. Rapid turbine shutdown at Chickamauga may sometimes cause periods of reverse flow in Chickamauga Reservoir. Based upon Watts Bar Dam discharge records since dam closure in 1942, the average daily streamflow at the plant is 27,000 cfs. The maximum daily discharge was 208,400 cfs on May 8, 1984. Daily average releases of zero have been recorded on seven occasions during the past 51 years. Flow data for water years 1960-2010 with regulation essentially equivalent to present conditions indicate an average rate of about 23,000 cfs during the summer months (May-October) and about 31,500 cfs during the winter months (November-April). Flow durations based upon Watts Bar Dam discharge records for the period 1960-2010 are tabulated below: Average Daily Percent of Time Discharge, cfs Equaled or Exceeded 5,000 97.4 10,000 87.9 15,000 77.5 20,000 64.2 25,000 48.5 30,000 33.4 35,000 21.4 Channel velocities at the Watts Bar site average about 2.3 fps under normal winter conditions. Because of lower flows and higher reservoir elevations in the summer months, channel velocities average about 1.0 fps. The Watts Bar plant site is underlain by geologic formations belonging to the lower Conasauga Formation of Middle Cambrian age. The formation consists of interbedded shales and limestones overlain by alluvial material averaging 40 ft in thickness. Ground water yields from this formation are low. 2.4-4
WBN All surface water supplies withdrawn from the 58.9 mile reach of the mainstream of the Tennessee River between Watts Bar Dam (TRM 529.9) and Chickamauga Dam (TRM 471.0) are listed in Table 2.4-1. See Section 2.4.13.2 for description of the ground water users in the vicinity of the Watts Bar site. 2.4.2 Floods 2.4.2.1 Flood History The nearest location with extensive formal flood records is 64 miles downstream at Chattanooga, Tennessee, where continuous records are available since 1874. Knowledge about significant floods extends back to 1826 based upon newspaper and historical reports. Flood flows and stages at Chattanooga have been altered by TVA's reservoir system beginning with closure of Norris Dam in 1936 and reaching essentially the present level of control in 1952 with closure of Boone Dam, the last major dam with reserved flood detention capacity constructed above Chattanooga prior to construction of Tellico Dam. Tellico Dam provides additional reserved flood detention capacity; however, the percentage increase in the total detention capacity above the Watts Bar site is small. Therefore, flood records for the period 1952 to date can be considered representative of prevailing conditions. Table 2.4-7 provides annual peak flow data at Chattanooga. Figure 2.4-5 shows the known flood experience at Chattanooga in diagram form. The maximum known flood under natural conditions occurred in 1867. This flood was estimated to reach elevation 716.3 ft at WBN site with a discharge of about 440,000 cfs. The maximum flood elevation at the site under present-day regulation would be approximately elevation 698 ft based on a maximum tailwater elevation of 698.23 ft at Watts Bar Dam located just upstream. The following tabulation lists the highest floods at Watts Bar Dam (TRM 529.9) tailwater located upstream of the WBN site under present-day regulation: Elevation, Discharge, Date Ft cfs February 2, 1957 No Record 157,600 November 19, 1957 No Record 151,600 March 13, 1963 694.75 167,700 December 31, 1969 693.28 167,300 March 17, 1973 696.95 184,800 May 28, 1973 695.24 175,200 April 5, 1977 694.79 181,600 May 8, 1984 698.23 208,400 April 20, 1998 694.67 167,500 May 7, 2003 694.17 153,100 There are no records of flooding from seiches, dam failures, or ice jams. Historic information about icing is provided in Section 2.4.7. 2.4-5
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION WBN 2.4.2.2 Flood Design Considerations TVA has planned the Watts Bar project to conform with Regulatory Guide 1.59 including position 2 as described herein and in Section 2.4.14. The types of events evaluated to determine the worst potential flood included (1) Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) on the total watershed and critical sub-watersheds including seasonal variations and potential consequent dam failures and (2) dam failures in a postulated SSE or OBE with guide specified concurrent flood conditions. Specific analysis of Tennessee River flood levels resulting from ocean front surges and tsunamis is not required because of the inland location of the plant. Snow melt and ice jam considerations are also unnecessary because of the temperate zone location of the plant. Flood waves from landslides into upstream reservoirs required no specific analysis, in part because of the absence of major elevation relief in nearby upstream reservoirs and because the prevailing thin soils offer small slide volume potential compared to the available detention space in reservoirs. Seiches pose no flood threats because of the size and configuration of the lake and the elevation difference between normal lake level and plant grade. The maximum PMF plant site flood level would result from the 7,980 square-mile Bulls Gap centered storm, as described in Section 2.4.3. Wind waves based on an overland wind speed of 21 miles per hour were assumed to occur coincident with the flood peak. This would create maximum wind waves up to 2.2 ft high (trough to crest). All safety-related facilities, systems, and equipment are housed in structures which provide protection from flooding for all flood conditions up to plant grade at elevation 728.0 ft. See Section 2.4.10 for more specific information. Other rainfall floods will also exceed plant grade elevation 728.0 ft and require plant shutdown. Section 2.4.14 describes emergency protective measures to be taken in flood events exceeding plant grade. Seismic and flood events could cause
. Section 2.4.14 describes emergency protective measures to be taken in For the condition where flooding exceeds plant grade, as described in Sections 2.4.3 and 2.4.4, those safety-related facilities, systems, and equipment located in the containment structure are protected from flooding by the Shield Building structure with those accesses and penetrations below the maximum flood level designed and constructed as watertight elements. The Diesel Generator Building and Essential Raw Cooling Water (ERCW) pumps are located above this flood level, thereby providing protection from flooding.
At the Diesel Generator Building, the wind wave run up with wind setup during the PMF is determined to be 2.4 ft. The wind wave combined with the design basis probable maximum flood elevation provides a design basis flood elevation of 741.6 ft for the Diesel Generator Building, 0.4 ft below the operating floor. 2.4-6 CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION
WBN Those Class 1E electrical system conduit banks located below the PMF plus wind wave runup and setup flood level are designed to function submerged with either continuous cable runs or qualified, type tested splices. The ERCW pumps are structurally protected from wind waves. Therefore, the safety function of the ERCW pumps will not be affected by floods or flood-related conditions. The Turbine, Control, and Auxiliary Buildings will be allowed to flood. All equipment required to maintain the plant safely during the flood, and for 100 days after the beginning of the flood, is either designed to operate submerged, is located above the maximum flood level, or is otherwise protected. Equipment that is required during an external flood event is protected to the design basis flood elevation within the specific structure. The equipment in the Intake Pumping Station is protected to a design basis flood elevation of 741.7 ft. The Auxiliary and Control Buildings will flood at elevation 729.0 ft with protection to the design basis external flood elevation 739.7 ft. 2.4.2.3 Effects of Local Intense Precipitation All streams in the vicinity of the plant shown on Figure 2.1-4a were investigated, including Yellow Creek, with probable maximum flows from a local storm and from breaching of the Watts Bar Dam West Saddle Dike and were found not to create potential flood problems at the plant. Local drainage which required detailed design is from the plant area itself and from a 150-acre area north of the plant. Structures housing safety- related facilities, systems, and equipment are protected from flooding during a local PMP by the slope of the plant yard. The yard is graded so that the surface runoff will be carried to Chickamauga Reservoir without exceeding the elevation of the accesses given in Section 2.4.1.1. The exterior accesses that are below the grade elevation for that specific structure exit from that structure into another structure and are not exterior in the sense that they exit or are exposed to the environment. For any access exposed to the environment and located at grade elevation, sufficient drainage is provided to prevent water from entering the opening. This is accomplished by sloping away from the opening. PMP for the plant drainage systems has been defined for TVA by the Hydrometeorological Branch of the National Weather Service and is described in Hydrometeorological Report No. 56.[35] Ice accumulation would occur only at infrequent intervals because of the temperate climate. Maximum winter precipitation concurrent with ice accumulation would impose less severe conditions on the drainage system than would the PMP. Figure 2.4-40a (sheet 1) shows the Watts Bar site grading and drainage system, building outlines, and major drainage basins for the site area. Figure 2.4-40b (sheet 1 of 6) shows the 50 acre offsite drainage basin and sub-basins. Figure 2.4-40b (sheet 2 of 6) shows the 100 acre offsite drainage basin and sub-basins. Figure 2.4-40b (sheet 3 of 6) shows the East drainage basin and sub-basins. Figure 2.4-40b (sheet 4 of 6) shows the West drainage basin and sub-basins as well as the PMP Channel. Figure 2.4-40b (sheet 5 of 6) shows the Southwest drainage basin. Figure 2.4-40b (sheet 6 of 6) shows the standard step backwater cross section locations. 2.4-7
WBN Figure 2.4-40d (three sheets) shows the plans and profiles for the perimeter roads; Figure 2.4-40e (two sheets) shows the plan and profile for the access highway. Figure 2.4-40f (three sheets) shows the plan, sections, and profiles for the main plant railroad tracks. Figure 2.4-40g (three sheets) shows the yard grading, drainage, and surfacing for the switchyard. In testing the adequacy of the site drainage system, all underground drains were assumed clogged. Peak discharges were evaluated using storm intensities for the maximum one-hour rainfall obtained from the PMP mass curve shown on Figure 2.4-40h. Runoff was assumed equal to rainfall. The plant drainage is analyzed in the following manner. The plant and surrounding areas are subdivided into several large basins. The individual basins are identified on Figure 2.4-40a. Each basin is modeled by storage routing the inflow hydrograph which is equivalent to the PMP hydrograph (rainfall equals runoff). Where defined channels exist, standard step backwater calculations are performed from the downstream control section with channel flows determined by peak discharges for the adjacent sub-basin storage routing models. Computed maximum water surface elevations are below critical floor elevation 729.0 ft. Runoff in the Southwest basin (see Figure 2.4-40b sheet 5) will pond in the area along the Main Road to the Administrative Building parking lot and drain west toward the chemical holdup ponds. The control is a 45 ft long pavement edge southwest of the Administrative Building. Maximum water surface elevations at the office and Turbine Buildings are less than elevation 729.0 ft. The West basin generally drains to a PMP channel that runs north just west of the Protected Area then turns to flow west between the Training Center and the Warehouses. The control section for the PMP Channel is a low point in the Main Plant Road. The West basin is subdivided into several sub-basins in order to determine the distribution of flow into the PMP Channel (see Figure 2.4-40b sheet 4). The runoff from sub-basins H and I enter the PMP Channel through the Protected Area fence north of the West Portal. Sub-basin E receives flow from the 100 acre basin to the north. A majority of the runoff from sub-basin E drains over the Main Plant Road and away from the plant between Warehouses A and B. The remaining runoff from sub-basin E drains into the PMP Channel just downstream of the Vehicle Barrier System. Runoff in sub-basin D is distributed into the PMP Channel at four locations along the PMP Channel. The channel and the roads have sufficient capacity to keep water surface elevations below 729.0 ft at all buildings. Runoff in the East basin general drains from north to south. The East basin is subdivided into several sub-basins (see Figure 2.4-40b sheet 3). A majority of the runoff in the 50 acre basin to the north drains offsite and away from the plant to the east. The remaining portion of the 50 acre basin runoff drains into sub-basin K1. Sub-basin K4 drains south across the Reactor Building rail track into sub-basins K2 and K3. Sub-basin K3 drains east over the main plant track to sub-basin K1. Sub-basins K1 and K3 drain south into sub-basin O. Sub-basin K2 drains south over the Transformer Yard track into sub-basins P2 and P3. Sub-basin P3 drains south and east into sub-basins P1 and P2, respectively. Sub-basins P1 and P2 drain south into the Yard Holding Pond. Sub-basin O drains south away from the plant along the ERCW Access Road. 2.4-8
WBN In addition to the storage routing analysis descried above, a backwater analysis is also performed for the East basin. Peak discharges from the sub-basins enter the channel model at five locations. The inflow from the 50 acre basin enters at the most upstream section of the model. Flow from sub-basins K4 enters the backwater model just north of the Unit 2 Reactor Building. Flows from sub-basins K1 and K3 enter the backwater model near the center line of the Unit 2 Reactor Building. Runoff from sub-basinK2 enters the backwater model near the center line of the Control Building. Flow from switchyard sub-basins P2 and P3 enter the model just south of the Transformer Yard track. Flow from sub-basin O enters just south of the Unit 1 Cooling Tower and flow from sub-basin P1 enters at the south end of the switchyard. Maximum elevations adjacent to the Reactor, Auxiliary and Turbine Buildings are less than 729.0 ft for the storage routing and backwater analysis. Flow from the 150-acre drainage area north of the site drains two ways: The 50 acres drain east through the double 96-inch culvert under the access railroad. When flows exceed the capactiy of the culverts, water flows over the access railroad and away from site with a portion of the flow draining south into the site East basin. Drainage from the 100 acres is diverted to the west away from the site through an 81-inch by 59-inch pipe arch and, when flows exceed the pipe capacity, south over a swale in the contrctuion access road into site West basin. There is a dike that separates the 100 acre area and the 50 acre area with top elevation 736.5 ft. The pipe arch is designed for AASHTO H-20 loading which we judge is adequate for the loading expected. In the unlikely event of pipe arch failure and flow blockage, the maximum flood level at the construction access road would increase to 738.4 ft. The double 96-inch culvert is designed to carry a Cooper E-80 loading as recommended by the American Railway Engineering Association (AREA). The culvert has already been exposed to the maximum loading (the generator stator with a total load of 792 tons on 22 axles) with no damage to the pipes or tracks. This maximum loading is less than the design load. Loading conditions will not be a problem. The site will be well maintained and any debris generated from it will be minimal; therefore, debris blockage of the double 96-inch culvert or the 81-inch by 59-inch pipe arch will not be a problem. A local PMF on the holding pond does not pose a threat with respect to flooding of safety-related structures. The top of the holding pond dikes is set at elevation 714.0 ft, whereas water level must exceed the plant grade at elevation 728.0 ft before safety-related structures can be flooded. A wide emergency spillway is cut in original ground at an elevation 2 ft below the top of the dikes. During a local PMF the water trapped by the pond rise will be considerably less than the 14-ft difference between the top of the dikes and plant grade. 2.4-9
WBN 2.4.3 Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) on Streams and Rivers The guidance of Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.59 was followed in determining the PMF. The PMF was determined from PMP for the watershed above the plant with consideration given to seasonal and areal variations in rainfall. Two basic storm situations were found to have the potential to produce maximum flood levels at WBN. These are (1) a sequence of storms producing PMP depths on the 21,400-square-mile watershed above Chattanooga and (2) a sequence of storms producing PMP depths in the basin above Chattanooga and below the five major tributary dams (Norris, Cherokee, Douglas, Fontana, and Hiwassee), hereafter called the 7,980-square-mile storm. The maximum flood level at the plant would be caused by the March PMP 7,980-square-mile storm with hydrologic failure of low margin dams. The flood level for the 21,400-square-mile storm would be slightly less. Based on TVAs current River Operations (RO) procedures, TVA has evaluated the stability of 18 critical dams at PMF headwater/tailwater conditions. These dams are: Apalachia, Blue Ridge, Boone, Chatuge, Cherokee, Chickamauga, Douglas, Fontana, Fort Loudoun, Fort Patrick Henry, Hiwassee, Melton Hill, Norris, Nottely, South Holston, Tellico, Watauga, and Watts Bar. Other dams in the tributary system (Ocoee 1, Ocoee 2, Ocoee 3, Chilhowee, Calderwood, Cheoah, Mission, John Sevier, and Wilbur) were not evaluated and are postulated to fail during the event. The hydrologic failure of low margin dams is postulated during the PMF for the Boone, Fort Patrick Henry, Melton Hill and Apalachia Dams. In both storms, the West Saddle Dike at Watts Bar Dam (crest elevation 752 ft) would be overtopped and is postulated to fail. No other failure would occur. Maximum discharge at the plant would be 1,158,956 cfs for the 7,980-square-mile storm. The resulting calculated PMF elevation at the plant would be 738.9 ft, excluding wind wave effects. An additional 0.3 ft of margin is provided for a design basis PMF at elevation 739.2 ft. 2.4.3.1 Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) Probable maximum precipitation (PMP) for the watershed above Chickamauga and Watts Bar Dams for determining PMF has been defined for TVA by the Hydrometeorological Report No. 41.[4] This report defines depth-area-duration characteristics, seasonal variations, and antecedent storm potentials and incorporates orographic effects of the Tennessee River Valley. Due to the temperate climate of the watershed and relatively light snowfall, snowmelt is not a factor in generating maximum floods for the Tennessee River at the site. Two basic storms with three possible isohyetal patterns and seasonal variations described in Hydrometeorological Report No. 41[4] were examined to determine which would produce maximum flood levels at the Watts Bar plant site. One would produce PMP depths on the 21,400-square-mile watershed above Chattanooga. Two isohyetal patterns are presented in Hydrometeorological Report No. 41[4] for this storm. The isohyetal pattern with downstream center would produce maximum rainfall on the middle portion of the watershed and is shown in Figure 2.4-6. 2.4-10
WBN The second storm described in Hydrometeorological Report No. 41[4] would produce PMP depths on the 7,980-square-mile watershed above Chattanooga and below the five major tributary dams. The isohyetal pattern for the 7,980-square-mile storm is not geographically fixed and can be moved parallel to the long axis, northeast and southwest, along the Tennessee Valley. The isohyetal pattern centered at Bulls Gap, Tennessee, would produce maximum rainfall on the upper part of the watershed and is shown in Figure 2.4-7. Seasonal variations were also considered. Table 2.4-10 provides the seasonal variations of PMP. The March storm was evaluated because the PMP was maximum and surface runoff was also maximum. Storms evaluated were 9-day events with a 3-day antecedent storm postulated to occur 3-days prior to a 3-day PMP storm in all PMF determinations. As recommended in Hydrometeorological Report No. 41, the antecedent rainfall was applied using a uniform areal distribution to avoid compounding of probabilities. For the 7,980 square mile Bulls Gap centered March event, an antecedent rainfall depth of 6.00 inches was applied which is equivalent to 40% of the 14.95 inch main storm depth for the 24,452-square-mile watershed above Guntersville Dam. This meets the criteria as set forth in Hydrometeorological Report No. 41, Chapter VII.[4] A standard time distribution pattern was adopted for the storms based upon major observed storms transposable to the Tennessee Valley and in conformance with the usual practice of Federal agencies. The adopted distribution is within the limits stipulated in Chapter VII of Hydrometeorological Report No. 41[4]. This places the heaviest precipitation in the middle of the storm. The adopted sequence closely conforms to that used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). A typical distribution mass curve resulting from this approach is shown in Figure 2.4-8. The PMF discharge at WBN was determined to result from the 7,980-square-mile Bulls Gap centered storm, as defined in Hydrometeorological Report No. 41[4]. The PMP storm would occur in the month of March and would produce 16.17 inches of rainfall in three days. The storm producing the PMP would be preceded by a three-day antecedent storm producing 6.00 inches of rainfall, which would end three days prior to the start of the PMP storm. Precipitation temporal distribution is determined by applying the mass curve (Figure 2.4-8) to the basin rainfall depths in Table 2.4-11. 2.4.3.2 Precipitation Losses A multi-variable relationship, used in the day-to-day operation of the TVA reservoir system, has been applied to determine precipitation excess directly. The relationships were developed from observed storm and flood data. They relate precipitation excess to the rainfall, week of the year, geographic location, and antecedent precipitation index (API). In their application, precipitation excess becomes an increasing fraction of rainfall as the storm progresses in time and becomes equal to rainfall in the later part of extreme storms. An API determined from an 11-year period of historical rainfall records (1997-2007) was used at the start of the antecedent storm. The precipitation excess computed for the main storm is not sensitive to variations in adopted initial moisture conditions because of the large antecedent storm. 2.4-11
WBN Basin rainfall, precipitation excess, and API are provided in Table 2.4-11. The average precipitation loss for the watershed above Chickamauga Dam is 2.32 inches for the three-day antecedent storm and 1.87 inches for the three-day main storm. The losses are approximately 39% of antecedent rainfall and 12% of the PMP, respectively. The precipitation loss of 2.32 inches in the antecedent storm compares favorably with that of historical flood events shown in Table 2.4-12. 2.4.3.3 Runoff and Stream Course Model The runoff model used to determine Tennessee River flood hydrographs at WBN is divided into 40 unit areas and includes the total watershed above Chickamauga Dam. Unit hydrographs are used to compute flows from the unit areas. The watershed unit areas are shown in Figure 2.4-9. The unit area flows are combined with appropriate time sequencing or channel routing procedures to compute inflows into the most upstream tributary reservoirs which in turn are routed through the reservoirs using standard routing techniques. Resulting outflows are combined with additional local inflows and carried downstream using appropriate time sequencing or routing procedures including unsteady flow routing. Unit hydrographs were developed for each unit area for which discharge records were available from maximum flood hydrographs either recorded at stream gaging stations or estimated from reservoir headwater elevation, inflow, and discharge data using the procedures described by Newton and Vineyard.[5] For non-gaged unit areas unit graphs were developed from relationships of unit hydrographs from similar watersheds relating the unit hydrograph peak flow to the drainage area size, time to peak in terms of watershed slope and length, and the shape to the unit hydrograph peak discharge in cfs per square mile. Unit hydrograph plots are provided in Figure 2.4-10 (11 Sheets). Table 2.4-13 contains essential dimension data for each unit hydrograph. The USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System software (HEC-RAS) performs one-dimensional steady and unsteady flow calculations. The HEC-RAS models are used in flood routing calculations for reservoirs in the Tennessee River System upstream of Wilson Dam to predict flood elevations and discharges for floods of varying magnitudes. Model inputs include previously calibrated geometry, unsteady flow rules, and inflows. Model calibration ensures accurate replication of observed river discharges and elevations for known historic events. Once calibrated, the model can be used to reliably predict flood elevations and discharges for events of varying magnitudes. The TVA total watershed HEC-RAS model extends along the Tennessee River from Wilson Dam upstream to its source at the confluence of the Holston and French Broad Rivers, along the Elk River from its mouth at the Tennessee River to Tims Ford Dam, along the Hiwassee from its mouth at the Tennessee River to Chatuge Dam, along the Nottely River from its mouth at the Hiwassee River to Nottely Dam, along the Ocoee River from its mouth at the Hiwassee River to Blue Ridge Dam, along the Clinch River from its mouth at the Tennessee River to a gage at RM 159.8, along the Powell River from its mouth at the Clinch River to a gage at RM 65.4, along the Little Tennessee River from its mouth at the Tennessee River to a gage at RM 92.9, along the Tuckasegee River from its mouth at the Little Tennessee River to a gage at RM 12.6, along the Holston River from its mouth at the Tennessee River to its source at the confluence of the South Fork Holston River and the North Fork Holston River, along the South Fork Holston River from its mouth at the Holston River to South Holston Dam, along the Watauga River from its mouth at the South Fork Holston River to Watauga Dam, along the French Broad River from its mouth at the Tennessee River to a gage at RM 77.5, along the 2.4-12
WBN-3 Nolichucky River from its mouth at the French Broad River to a gage at RM 10.3, along Cove Creek from its mouth at the Clinch River to RM 12.2, along Big Creek from its mouth at the Clinch River to RM 11.8, and along North Chickamauga Creek from its mouth at the Tennessee River to RM 12.82. The model also incorporates the Dallas Bay / Lick Branch rim leak and the Fort Loudoun canal by modeling these reaches. Figure 2.4-1a (2 sheets) shows the extent of the model, as well as the location of dams. This TVA total watershed HEC-RAS model performs a continuous simulation of the Tennessee River system from the uppermost tributary reservoirs downstream through Wilson Dam. The composite model is used to perform flood simulations, such as the 7,980 and 21,400 square mile design storms. Discharge rating curves are provided in Figure 2.4-11 (13 Sheets) for the reservoirs in the watershed at and above Chickamauga. The discharge rating curve for Chickamauga Dam is for the current lock configuration with all 18 spillway bays available. Above WBN, temporary flood barriers have been installed at Fort Loudoun Reservoir to increase the height of embankments and are included in the discharge rating curves for this dam. Increasing the height of embankments at this dam prevents embankment overflow and failure of the embankment. The vendor supplied temporary flood barriers were shown to be stable for the most severe PMF headwater/tailwater conditions using vendor recommended base friction values. These temporary flood barriers will remain in place until permanent dam modifications are implemented to prevent embankment overflow. A single postulated Fort Loudoun Reservoir rim leak north of the Marina Saddle Dam which discharges into the Tennessee River at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 602.3 was added as an additional discharge component to the Fort Loudoun Dam discharge rating curve. Seven Watts Bar Reservoir rim leaks were added as additional discharge components to the Watts Bar Dam discharge rating curve. Three of the rim leak locations discharge to Yellow Creek, entering the Tennessee River three miles downstream of Watts Bar Dam. The remaining four rim leak locations discharge to Watts Creek, which enters Chickamauga Reservoir just below Watts Bar Dam. 2.4.3.3.1 PMF Determination The HEC-RAS computer model is used to determine the PMF elevations and discharges at WBN. The HEC-RAS Model has been calibrated for each major reservoir to reasonably replicate observed river discharges and elevations for known historic events. The hydrologic failure of low margin dams is postulated during the PMF (the 7,980 square-mile, Bulls Gap centered, March storm event) for the Boone, Fort Patrick Henry, and Melton Hill. The hydrologic failure of low margin dams is postulated during the 21,400 square mile, downstream centered, March storm event for the Boone, Fort Patrick Henry and Apalachia Dams. Failure sections for Boone, Fort Patrick Henry, Melton Hill and Apalachia Dams are shown in Figure 2.4-32. The discharge rating curve for Melton Hill is shown in Figure 2.4-33. The postulated dam failures occur when the peak headwater elevation occurs for each dam except for Fort Patrick Henry, which fails coincident with the arrival of the flood wave from the failure of Boone Dam. The failures are complete and instantaneous down to original ground elevation. 2.4-13
WBN All upstream dams that have not been analyzed for stability are postulated to fail when headwaters reach the top of the dam, or when their peak headwater elevation occurs if the headwater does not reach the top of the dam. The postulated failure of these dams are complete and instantaneous down to original ground. This includes Ocoee 1, Ocoee 2, Ocoee 3, Chilhowee, Calderwood, Cheoah, Mission, Wilbur, and John Sevier. Watts Bar West Saddle Dike (crest at elevation 752 feet) is postulated to fail when its peak headwater elevation occurs. The failure is conservatively assumed to be complete and instantaneous down to original ground. Discharge through the failed West Saddle Dike is controlled by a critical section immediately downstream (Figure 2.4-30). The discharge rating curves for the West Saddle Dike are shown in Figure 2.4-31. Median pool levels for the appropriate season are used for the initial elevations at the beginning of the event. Use of median elevations is consistent with statistical experience and avoids unreasonable combinations of extreme events. Flood Operational Guides are used to operate the dams before gates are fully opened. Operational allowances are implemented at Fort Patrick Henry, Boone, Douglas, Fontana, Hiwassee, Norris, South Holston, and Watauga to maximize storage in these reservoirs for the controlling 7,980 square mile PMF storm. The flood from the antecedent storm occupies about 70% of the reserved system detention capacity above Watts Bar Dam at the beginning of the main storm (day 7 of the event). Reservoir levels are at or above guide levels at the beginning of the main storm in all but Apalachia and Fort Patrick Henry Reservoirs, which have no reserved flood detention capacity. Inflows were distributed for use in the composite HEC-RAS model of the Tennessee River System upstream of Wilson Dam. Inflow hydrographs presented in the inflow calculation[41] were used as an input to the composite HEC-RAS model. The hydrographs provide inflow data for individual basins in the Tennessee River System. Dam hydrographs are provided in Figure 2.4-25 (27 sheets). Using the inflows, flood-routing simulations were performed for both the 21,400 square-mile and the 7,980 square-mile March storm events. Storm-specific decisions, such as if dam failure is necessary, were required to perform the simulations and are documented for each storm simulation. In general, a specific storm simulation was performed and the headwater/tailwater/discharge results were reviewed at each dam. If it was determined that a dam should fail, the model was modified to allow dam failure at a specified headwater and the model was re-run. The new results were analyzed and new failures simulated in an iterative fashion until the composite floodwave was routed downstream to WBN. Checking tools were used to verify the headwater/tailwater/discharge relationship predicted by HEC-RAS at each dam agreed with approved dam rating curves (DRC). DRCs are provided in Figure 2.4-11 (13 sheets). Volume checks were performed as well to ensure that volume was preserved in the model simulation. Unsteady flow rules have been developed for the main Tennessee River and its tributaries and have been incorporated into the verified HEC-RAS unsteady flow model. Elevation and discharge hydrographs for the 21,400 square-mile March storm event and 7,980 square-mile March storm are presented in Figure 2.4-23 (2 sheets). Hydrographs for dams in the PMF simulation are provided in Figure 2.4-25 (27 sheets). A summary of the results at the dams for the PMF is provided in Table 2.4-16. 2.4-14
WBN 2.4.3.3.2 Model Setup The TVA total watershed HEC-RAS model extends along the Tennessee River from Wilson Dam upstream to its source at the confluence of the Holston and French Broad Rivers, along the Elk River from its mouth at the Tennessee River to Tims Ford Dam, along the Hiwassee from its mouth at the Tennessee River to Chatuge Dam, along the Nottely River from its mouth at the Hiwassee River to Nottely Dam, along the Ocoee River from its mouth at the Hiwassee River to Blue Ridge Dam, along the Clinch River from its mouth at the Tennessee River to a gage at RM 159.8, along the Powell River from its mouth at the Clinch River to a gage at RM 65.4, along the Little Tennessee River from its mouth at the Tennessee River to a gage at RM 92.9, along the Tuckasegee River from its mouth at the Little Tennessee River to a gage at RM 12.6, along the Holston River from its mouth at the Tennessee River to its source at the confluence of the South Fork Holston River and the North Fork Holston River, along the South Fork Holston River from its mouth at the Holston River to South Holston Dam, along the Watauga River from its mouth at the South Fork Holston River to Watauga Dam, along the French Broad River from its mouth at the Tennessee River to a gage at RM 77.5, and along the Nolichucky River from its mouth at the French Broad River to a gage at RM 10.3, along Cove Creek from its mouth at the Clinch River to RM 12.2, along Big Creek from its mouth at the Clinch River to RM 11.8, and along North Chickamauga Creek from its mouth at the Tennessee River to RM 12.82. The model also incorporates the Dallas Bay / Lick Branch rim leak and the Fort Loudoun canal by modeling these reaches. Figure 2.4-1a shows the extent of the model. HEC-RAS models developed for the individual reservoirs had to be connected into a composite model in order to perform a continuous simulation of the Tennessee River system from TVAs uppermost tributary reservoirs downstream to Wilson Dam. The calibrated geometry for each reservoir was imported into the composite geometry file within HEC-RAS. HEC-RAS Inline Structures were added to model the dams and utilized data presented in DRC calculations[39] and tributary unsteady flow rules.[40] When an Inline Structure is used to model a dam, the headwater cross-section is located 0.01 mile upstream and the tailwater section 0.01 mile downstream of the dam. Reach lengths are modified to account for adjustments at the dam river station. HEC-RAS Lateral Structures are used at Apalachia, Chatuge, Douglas, Nottely, Ocoee No. 2, Ocoee No.3, and South Holston, Tellico and Watts Bar Dams, to model saddle dams and turbine discharges. After compiling the separate river geometry files into a composite model, the overall geometry file requires additional modifications before it is adequate for use. These modifications include the addition of junctions and inline structures, copying or interpolating additional cross-sections to allow for the application of inflows or to enhance model stability, and the addition of pilot channels. If a cross-section is copied or interpolated, the reach lengths associated with the new section are adjusted. The reservoir operating guides applied during the model simulations mimic, to the extent possible, operating policies and are within the current reservoir operating flexibility. In addition to spillway discharge, turbine and sluice discharges were used to release water from the tributary reservoirs. Turbine discharges were also used at the main river reservoirs up to the point where the head differentials are too small and/or the powerhouse would flood. All discharge outlets (spillway gates, sluice gates, and valves) for projects in the reservoir system will remain operable without failure up to the point the operating deck is flooded for the passage of water when and as needed during the flood. A high confidence that all gates/outlets will be operable is provided by periodic inspections by TVA plant personnel, the intermediate and five-year dam safety engineering inspections consistent with Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety, and the significant capability of the emergency response teams to direct and manage resources to address issues potentially impacting gate/outlet functionality. 2.4-15
WBN The unsteady flow rules incorporate the Flood Operational Guides[42], as they provide operating ranges of reservoir levels for the 32 reservoirs upstream of Wilson Dam. The rules reflect the flexibility provided in the guides to respond to unusual or extreme circumstances, such as the PMF event, through the use of primary guide and recovery curves. If the maximum discharge of the primary guide or recovery curve is exceeded, the discharges are from the DRCs.[39] The DRCs account for flow over other components such as non-overflow sections, navigation locks, tops of open spillway gates, tops of spillway piers, saddle dams, and rim leaks. Therefore, the DRCs and the flood operational guides define the dam discharge as a function of headwater elevation, tailwater elevation, and outlet configuration. If, during the event, the headwater elevation does not exceed the elevation of the operating deck, discharges are determined in accordance with the flood operational guides during the flood recession. In the event the operating deck is inundated, the dam rating curves determine the discharge during flood recession. There are configuration parameters in each set of rules that are simulation specific. Model configuration parameters including failure elevation, gate position, operational allowances, armoring embankments, failure timing, and seismic triggers are initially set with input from the modeler. The HEC-RAS model is set-up to run all modeled rivers and reservoirs as a contiguous system to be run continuously. The model cannot be started and stopped in the middle of a simulation; however, some scenarios will require iterative simulations to determine necessary configuration parameters. Inflows were distributed for use in the composite HEC-RAS model of the Tennessee River System upstream of Wilson Dam. Inflow hydrographs presented in the inflow calculation[41] were used as an input to the composite HEC-RAS model. The hydrographs provide inflow data for individual basins in the Tennessee River System. 2.4.3.3.3 Main Stem Geometry The validated geometry for each reservoir was previously calibrated for use in the SOCH model. This validated geometry consists of Fort Loudoun, Tellico, Melton Hill, Watts Bar, Chickamauga, Nickajack, Guntersville, and Wheeler Reservoirs. Wilson Reservoir was not included in the validated geometry calculations for the SOCH runs. Therefore, Wilson Reservoir geometry, although a part of the main stem, was provided by RO and verified in the same manner as the tributary geometry. Cross-section data was obtained from the geometry verification calculations[44-51] and used to develop the HEC-RAS geometry. Cross-section data obtained from the geometry verification calculations were generally spaced about two miles apart on the main stem. Generally, constricted channel locations were selected for cross-section locations. These smaller, constricted sections do not accurately represent the reach storage available (the storage capacity between cross sections) in an unsteady flow model. Therefore, a mathematical augmentation of selected cross sections with off-channel ineffective flow areas was performed, so the constricted geometry could accurately account for the additional reach storage available. To account for total reach storage, the reach storage contained between the constricted cross-sections was compared to the total reservoir volume information,[51] if available. If reservoir storage information was not available, such as at higher elevations of steep reaches, GIS obtained volumes were used for comparison to the model reach storage capacities. The reach storage between cross-sections was evaluated at incremental elevations. Reach storage was adjusted until the desired total cumulative storage was reached. Where additional reach 2.4-16
WBN storage was required, an additional ineffective flow area was added. A check of reach volume for the entire reservoir is also performed to verify that model volume is representative of the published actual reservoir volume. 2.4.3.3.4 Tributary Geometry The tributary geometry has been developed for use in the HEC-RAS models. The tributary geometry was developed in one of two manners:
- 1. TVA RO developed the geometry. The geometry was verified in accordance with 10CFR50 Appendix B Quality Assurance requirements for use in safety related applications. The tributary geometry developed by RO included the following: Apalachia Reservoir, Ocoee River, Toccoa River, Blue Ridge Reservoir, Boone Reservoir, Watauga River, Wilbur Reservoir, South Fork Holston River, Holston River, French Broad River, Nolichucky River, Little Tennessee River, Fort Patrick Henry Reservoir, Hiwassee River and Reservoir, Nottely River, and the Elk River.
- 2. If no geometry previously existed, the geometry was generated and verified for nuclear application. The tributaries that required geometry generation and verification are:
Fontana Reservoir, Tuckasegee River, Norris Reservoir, Powell River, Big Creek, and Cove Creek. Verification of RO Developed Geometry The verification of the tributary geometry previously developed by TVA RO included verification of the location and orientation of each section, the Mannings n values, the cross-section shape with respect to historic channel geometry, the underwater portion of the section, and storage volume between sections. The location of each cross-section provided by RO and its orientation were examined. Adjustments were made to the cross-sections and additional cross-sections were added if required to better represent the river. The RO provided cross-sections were compared to geographic information system (GIS) generated cross-sections above the water surface and historical channel geometry below the water surface elevation. The revised cross-sections were plotted with historic channel geometry cross-sections and the width at the water surface of the new cross-section was compared to and verified against the historic cross-sections. The composite GIS/historic channel geometry cross-sections were then compared to those developed by RO. When the shape of each cross-section had been verified, additional geometry data including Mannings n values, ineffective flow areas, and flow lengths were evaluated and adjustments or corrections were made if necessary. Mannings n values were confirmed using aerial photographs. USGS topographic maps were used to identify and confirm ineffective flow areas, as well as to confirm reach lengths. 2.4-17
WBN Generation and Verification of New Geometries Development of the HEC-RAS geometry for Fontana Reservoir, Tuckasegee River, Norris Reservoir, Powell River, Big Creek and Cove Creek were developed by extracting cross-sections from a GIS TIN and comparing the cross-sections to historic cross-sections. Available stream centerline and elevation data were compiled in GIS. USGS topographic maps were examined to identify desired cross-section locations. Once the cross-section locations were established, generic Mannings n values were added in the HEC-RAS geometry. The revised cross-sections were plotted with historic channel geometry cross-sections. The width at the water surface of the new cross-section was compared to and verified against the historic cross-sections. When the shape of each cross-section had been verified, additional geometry data including Mannings n values, ineffective flow areas, and flow lengths were evaluated and adjustments or corrections were made if the data were not representative of the cross-section. Mannings n values were confirmed using aerial photographs. USGS topographic maps were used to identify and confirm ineffective flow areas, as well as confirm reach lengths. Once the cross-sections were developed and/or verified, a reach storage augmentation procedure was performed so the model storage accurately reflects the actual reach storage capacities. For more information on the reach storage augmentation procedure see Section 2.4.3.3.3. 2.4.3.3.5 Calibration Model calibration is performed to adjust model parameters so that the model will accurately predict the outcome of a known historic event. In the case of the HEC-RAS models, the model results must accurately replicate observed elevations and discharges for known historic flood events. A calibrated model is therefore considered reliable at predicting the outcome of events of other magnitudes. 2.4.3.3.5.1 Main Stem River The main river model uses the USACE HEC-RAS software. The main river model extends from Wilson Dam upstream to Norris, Cherokee, Douglas, and Chilhowee Dams, and the Charleston Gage at River Mile (RM) 18.9 on the Hiwassee River. The nine reservoirs upstream of Wilson Dam (Wilson, Wheeler, Guntersville, Nickajack, Chickamauga, Watts Bar, Tellico, Fort Loudoun, and Melton Hill) were individually calibrated for use to reliably predict flood elevations and discharges for events of varying magnitudes. The reservoirs that impact PMF elevations at the Watts Bar site are: Chickamauga, Watts Bar, Tellico, Fort Loudoun, and Melton Hill. Initial unsteady-flow runs are conducted to replicate the historic flood events. Initial unsteady-flow runs are conducted for each individual reservoirs model. The initial runs used channel roughness (Mannings n) values from the calibrated SOCH models in an attempt to replicate the historic flood events. Following the initial runs, roughness values for each of the model segments were evaluated and adjusted as needed. The model was rerun and the results were again compared to the observed elevations at the gage stations. The process was repeated in an iterative fashion until good agreement was reached between the HEC-RAS computed elevations and the observed gage elevations. Adjustments to the roughness values in the HEC-RAS models were kept within a reasonable range for the ground coverage in the vicinity of the cross section. 2.4-18
WBN In general, the computed peak elevations are within one foot, but not below, the observed gage elevations. In some cases, the computed elevations are more than 1 foot above the observed gage elevations; however this was necessary to avoid impacts to the computed peak elevations at other gage locations. A schematic of the model for Watts Bar Reservoir is shown in Figure 2.4-15. The calibration results of the March 1973 flood is shown in Figure 2.4-16 (2 Sheets) and the calibration results of the May 2003 flood is shown in Figure 2.4-17 (2 Sheets). A schematic of the unsteady flow model for Chickamauga Reservoir is shown in Figure 2.4-18. The calibration results of the March 1973 flood is shown in Figure 2.4-19 (3 Sheets) and the calibration results of the May 2003 flood is shown in Figure 2.4-20 (3 Sheets). The configuration for the Fort Loudoun-Tellico complex is shown by the schematic in Figure 2.4-12. The Fort Loudoun Tellico complex was verified by two different methods as follows: Using the available data for the March 1973 flood on Fort Loudoun Reservoir and for the French Broad and Holston rivers. The verification of the 1973 flood is shown in Figure 2.4-13 (4 Sheets). Because there were limited data to verify against on the French Broad and Holston Rivers, the steady state HEC-RAS model was used to replicate the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published 100- and 500-year profiles. Tellico Dam was not closed until 1979, thus was not in place during the 1973 flood for verification. Using available data for the May 2003 flood for the Fort Loudoun Tellico complex. The verification of the May 2003 flood is shown in Figure 2.4-14 (5 Sheets). The Tellico Reservoir steady state HEC-RAS model was also used to replicate the FEMA published 100- and 500-year profiles. In addition to roughness adjustments, the calibration sequence is used to verify that an adequate time step and appropriate mixed flow parameters are selected. To verify the time step, a series of simulations were conducted using PMF flows and varying time steps. The results indicated that a time step of five minutes provides for a stable simulation and the results are comparable with shorter time steps. Above five minutes, there is more variation in the results. The mixed flow regime option is used in the HEC-RAS models because the topographic relief, dam failures, and high flows evaluated for the PMF could produce supercritical flow or hydraulic jumps. Higher values of the mixed flow regime parameters produce more accurate results, but if too high can cause model instability. A comparison of water surface errors between simulations with varying parameters is used to verify appropriate values for the parameters are selected. Once each reservoirs model was adequately calibrated, they were combined into a composite model of the entire main stem for use in a continuous run simulation. This calibration process provided model results that satisfactorily reproduced the two historic floods (1973 and 2003). The HEC-RAS unsteady flow model accurately replicated observed gage elevations and discharges for two large historic flood events. Therefore, the HEC-RAS unsteady flow model of main stem reservoirs upstream of Wilson Dam can be used to reliably predict flood elevations and discharges for events of other magnitudes and is adequate for use in predicting flood elevations and discharges for the PMF. 2.4-19
WBN 2.4.3.3.5.2 Tributary Calibration Tributaries were calibrated using a combination of steady-state and unsteady simulations. Steady-state calibration was to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100 and 500 year flood profiles or, if not available, project manuals. Unsteady calibration, at a minimum, utilized the worst two historical storms experienced on each tributary, as tabulated below: Tributary Calibration - Largest Recorded Storms Hiwassee River between Hiwassee and March 1994 and April 1998 Apalachia Dams Ocoee River and Toccoa River from Ocoee 1 April 1998, May 2003, and September 2004 to Blue Ridge Dam Boone Reservoir March 2002 and November 2003 Wilbur Reservoir March 2002 and November 2003 Cherokee Reservoir, Holston and South Fork March 2002 and February 2003 Holston Rivers French Broad River and Nolichucky River May 2003 and September 2004 Little Tennessee River and Tuckasegee River May 2003 and September 2004 Fort Patrick Henry Reservoir March 2002 and November 2003 Hiwassee River and Nottely River May 2003 and December 2004 Hiwassee River below Apalachia Dam and May 2003 and September 2004 Ocoee River below Ocoee #1 Dam Clinch River above Norris Dam March 2002 and February 2003 Elk River, Subbasin 1 March 2002 and February 2004 Elk River, Subbasins 2 and 3 February 2004 and January 2006 Elk River, Subbasins 4 and 5 March 1973 and December 2004 Initial tributary geometry segments were obtained from the HEC-RAS Tributary Geometry Development calculation.[43] The required local inflows and associated distribution for unsteady flow modeling were determined from the HEC-RAS Model Calibration and Model Set-up calculations.[38, 53] In most cases, tributary segments were calibrated to FEMA 100-Year and the 500-Year flood profiles. In some cases, flood profiles were available in published flood insurance studies, in others the profiles were reproduced by running HEC-RAS or HEC-2 files from various TVA studies (e.g., reservoir sedimentation studies, floodplain models, and FEMA flood studies). Some tributary segments only had one FEMA profile available. Some did not have any profiles, in those cases other steady-state profile data were used such as those provided in project manuals. Roughness (Mannings n) values were adjusted iteratively until the steady-state computed profiles were in good agreement with the FEMA or project manual profiles. 2.4-20
WBN Following the steady-state calibration procedure, unsteady calibration simulations were performed on the tributary models, similar to the main stem calibration process. Observed historic flood event data were obtained from various available sources such as unit hydrograph calculations or gage data. Results of the unsteady flow simulations were compared to the observed elevation and discharge hydrographs. If the computed results were in good agreement with the observed hydrographs, the calibration was considered complete. In some cases, Mannings n values required further adjustment after comparison of unsteady-flow results. In those cases, the steady-state profiles were rerun to verify agreement with FEMA profiles. This calibration process provided model results that, through the combination of reach storage, unit hydrograph runoff, and inflow distribution, satisfactorily reproduced historic floods and available steady state profiles (FEMA or project manual flood profiles) for the tributary reaches. The HEC-RAS unsteady flow model produced elevations and discharges for large historic flood events appropriate for the intended use of predicting elevations at WBN. Therefore, the HEC-RAS unsteady flow model of the tributaries of the Tennessee River System can be used with the model of the greater Tennessee River System to reliably predict flood elevations and discharges for events of other magnitudes and is adequate for use in predicting flood elevations and discharges for the PMF. 2.4.3.4 Probable Maximum Flood Flow The PMF discharge at WBN was determined to be 1,158,956 cfs. This flood would result from the 7,980-square-mile storm in March with a Bulls Gap centered storm pattern (Figure 2.4-7). The PMF discharge hydrograph is shown in Figure 2.4-23. The West Saddle Dike at Watts Bar Dam would be overtopped and is postulated to fail. The discharge from the failed West Saddle Dike flows into Yellow Creek which joins the Tennessee River at mile 526.82, 1.18 miles below WBN. Chickamauga Dam downstream would be overtopped. The dam was postulated to remain in place, and any potential lowering of the flood levels at WBN due to dam failure at Chickamauga Dam was not considered in the resulting water surface elevation. 2.4-21
WBN Concrete Section Analysis For concrete dam sections, global stability was analyzed for the maximum headwater and corresponding tailwater levels that would occur in the PMF as described in Section 2.4.3. Concrete gravity dams were evaluated for static PMF loading. The force and moment equilibrium must be maintained without exceeding the limits of concrete, concrete-rock interface and foundation strength. The tensile strength of the concrete-rock interface is assumed to be zero. Theoretical base cracking is allowed provided that the crack stabilizes, the resultant of all forces remains within the base of the dam, and adequate sliding factor of safety is obtained. The acceptable factors of safety for sliding are 1.3, where cohesion is not considered, and 2.0, where cohesion is considered. [54] The concrete dams that were outside of this acceptance criteria were postulated for failure within the model: Fort Patrick Henry Dam (total failure), Boone Dam (total failure), Melton Hill Dam (total failure in 7,980 square-mile storm) and Appalachia Dam (total failure in 21,400 square-mile storm). Modifications performed in support of WBN Unit 2 licensing are credited for the following concrete structures: Watts Bar Dam east flood wall, Watts Bar Dam neck of the non-overflow section, Tellico Dam neck of the non-overflow section, Fort Loudoun Dam non-overflow section, Cherokee non-overflow section and Douglas non-overflow section. Embankment Structures For embankment dam sections, global stability was analyzed for the maximum headwater and corresponding tailwater levels that would occur in the PMF as described in Section 2.4.3. Conventional limit equilibrium methods of slope stability analysis are used to investigate the equilibrium of a soil mass tending to move downslope under the influence of gravity. A comparison is made between forces, moments, or stresses tending to cause instability of the mass and those that resist instability. The acceptable factor of safety is 1.4. Modifications performed in support of WBN Unit 2 licensing are credited for the following embankment structures: Watts Bar Dam east embankment; Watts Bar West Saddle Dike; Douglas Saddle Dams; Cherokee Dam embankments, Fort Loudoun Dam embankments, and Tellico Dam embankments. Spillway Gates During peak PMF conditions, the radial spillway gates of Fort Loudoun and Watts Bar Dams are wide open with flow over the gates and under the gates. For this condition, both the static and dynamic load stresses in the main structural members of the Watts Bar Dam spillway gate are determined to be less than the yield stress and the stress in the trunnion pin is less than the allowable design stress. The open radial spillway gates at other dams upstream of Watts Bar Dam were determined to not fail by comparison to the Watts Bar Dam spillway gate analysis. 2.4-22
WBN Waterborne Objects Consideration has been given to the effect of waterborne objects striking the spillway gates and bents supporting the bridge across Watts Bar Dam at peak water level at the dam. The most severe potential for damage is postulated to be by a barge which has been torn loose from its moorings and floats into the dam. Should the barge approach the spillway portion of the dam end on, one bridge bent could be failed by the barge and two spillway gates could be damaged and possibly swept away. The loss of one bridge bent will likely not collapse the bridge because the bridge girders are continuous members and the stress in the girders is postulated to be less than the ultimate stress for this condition of one support being lost. Should two gates be swept away, the nape of the water surface over the spillway weir would be such that the barge would likely be grounded on the tops of the concrete spillway piers and provide a partial obstruction to flow comparable to un-failed spillway gates. Hence the loss of two gates from this cause will have little effect on the peak flow and elevation. Should the barge approach the spillway portion broadside, two and possibly three bridge bents may fail. For this condition the bridge would likely collapse on the barge and the barge would be grounded on the tops of the spillway piers. For this condition the barge would likely ground before striking the spillway gates because the gates are about 20 ft downstream from the leg of the upstream bridge bents. Lock Gates The lock gates at Fort Loudoun, Watts Bar, and Chickamauga were examined for possible failure with the conclusion that no potential for failure exists. The lock gate structural elements may experience localized yielding and may not function normally following the most severe headwater/tailwater conditions. 2.4.3.5 Water Level Determinations The controlling PMF elevation at WBN was determined to be 738.9 ft, produced by the 7,980-square-mile storm in March. An additional 0.3 ft of margin is provided for a design basis PMF at elevation 739.2 ft. The PMF elevation hydrograph is shown in Figure 2.4-23. Elevations were computed concurrently with discharges using the unsteady flow reservoir model described in Section 2.4.3.3. The PMF profile together with the regulated maximum known flood, median summer elevation and bottom profiles along a four-mile reach of the Chickamauga Reservoir which encompasses the plant location, is shown in Figure 2.4-26. 2.4-23
WBN 2.4.3.6 Coincident Wind Wave Activity Some wind waves are likely when the PMF crests at WBN. The flood would be near its crest for a day beginning about 2 days after cessation of the probable maximum storm (Figure 2.4-23). The day of occurrence would be in the month of March or possibly the first week in April. Figure 2.4-27 shows the main plant general grading plan. The Diesel Generator Buildings to the north and the pumping station to the southeast of the main building complex must be protected from flooding to assure plant safety. The Diesel Generator Buildings operating floors are at elevation 742.0 ft which are above the maximum computed elevation including wind wave runup. The equipment in the Intake Pumping Station is protected to elevation 741.7 ft. The Auxiliary and Control Buildings are allowed to flood. All equipment required to maintain the plant safely during the flood is either designed to operate submerged, is located above the maximum flood level, or is otherwise protected. Those safety-related facilities, systems, and equipment located in the containment structure are protected from flooding by the Shield Building structure with those accesses and penetrations below the maximum flood level designed and constructed as watertight elements. The maximum effective fetches for the structures are shown on Figure 2.4-28. Effective fetch accounts for the sheltering effect of several hills on the south riverbank which become islands at maximum flood levels. The maximum effective fetch in all cases, except for the west face of the Intake Pumping Station occurs from the northeast or east northeast direction. The maximum effective fetch for the west face of the Intake Pumping Station occurs from the west direction. The Diesel Generator Building maximum effective fetch is 1.1 miles, and the west face of the Intake Pumping Station maximum effective fetch is 1.3 miles. The maximum effective fetch for the Auxiliary, Control, and Shield Buildings is 0.8 miles. For the WBN site, the two-year extreme wind for the season in which the PMF could occur was adopted to associate with the PMF crest as specified in Regulatory Guide 1.59. The storm studies on which the PMF determination is based[4] show that the season of maximum rain depth is the month of March. Wind velocity was determined from a statistical analysis of maximum March winds observed at Chattanooga, Tennessee. Records of daily maximum average hourly winds for each direction are available at the Watts Bar site for the period May 23, 1973, through April 30, 1978. This record, however, is too short to use in a statistical analysis to determine the two-year extreme wind, as specified in ANSI Standard N170-1976, an appendix to Regulatory Guide 1.59. Further, the necessary 30-minute wind data are not available. To determine applicability of Chattanooga winds at the Watts Bar plant, a Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) statistical test was applied to cumulative frequency distributions of daily maximum hourly winds for each direction at Chattanooga and Watts Bar. The winds compared were those recorded at Chattanooga during the period 1948-74 (the period when the necessary triple-register records were available for analysis) and the Watts Bar record. A concurrent record is not available; however, the K-S test showed that (except for the noncritical east direction) the record of daily maximum hourly velocities at Chattanooga were equal to or greater than that at Watts Bar. From this analysis it was concluded that use of the Chattanooga wind records to define seasonal maximum winds at the Watts Bar site is conservative. The available data at Chattanooga included 30-minute and hourly winds by seasons and direction for the 27-year period 1948 through 1974. 2.4-24
WBN The 30-minute wind data were analyzed for both the southwest and northeast directions. The winds from the northeast are considerably less than those from the southwest; hence, the southwest direction is controlling. Figure 2.4-29 shows the plot of the Chattanooga March maximum 30-minute winds from the critical southwest direction. The two-year, 30-minute wind speed is 21 miles per hour determined from a mathematical fit to the Gumbel distribution. This compares with 15 miles per hour determined for the March season from the noncontrolling northeast direction. Computation of wind waves used the procedures of the Corps Of Engineers.[14] Wind speed was adjusted based on the effective fetch length for over water conditions. For the Diesel Generator Building, the adjusted wind speed is 23.8 miles per hour. The Intake Pumping Station maximum adjusted wind speed is 24.2 miles per hour for the west face. For the Auxiliary, Control, and Shield Buildings the adjusted wind speed is 23.4 miles per hour. For waves approaching the Diesel Generator Building, the maximum wave height (average height of the maximum 1 percent of waves) would be 1.7 ft high, crest to trough, and the significant wave height (average height of the maximum 33-1/3 percent of waves) would be 1.0 ft high, crest to trough. The corresponding wave period is 2.0 seconds. For the Intake Pumping Station, the maximum wave height would be 2.2 ft and the significant wave height would be 1.3 ft, with a corresponding wave period of 2.3 seconds. For the west face, the maximum wave height would be 1.9 ft high, and the significant wave height would be 1.1 ft high. The corresponding wave period is 2.1 seconds. The maximum wave height approaching the Auxiliary, Control, and Shield Buildings would be 1.5 ft high, and the significant wave height would be 0.9 ft high. The corresponding wave period is 1.9 seconds. Computation of wind setup used the procedures of the Corps of Engineers.[14] The maximum wind setup is 0.1 ft for all structures. Computation of runup used the procedures of the Corps of Engineers.[14] At the Diesel Generator Building, corresponding runup on the earth embankment with a 4:1 slope is 2.3 ft and reaches elevation 741.3 ft, including wind setup. The runup on the critical west face of the Intake Pumping Station is 2.1 ft and reaches elevation 741.1 ft including wind setup. The configuration of the north face of the Intake Pumping Station, opposite of the intake channel, allows higher runup of 3.4 ft. The remaining east faces allows runup of 2.4 ft. However, there are no credible entry points to the structure on the north, or east faces. Therefore, the runup on these faces is discounted. The runup on the walls of the Auxiliary, Control, and Shield Buildings is 1.7 ft and reaches elevation 740.7 ft, including wind setup. Runup at the Diesel Generator Building is maintained on the slopes approaching the structure and is below all access points to the building. Runup has no consequence at the Shield Building because all accesses and penetrations below runup are designed and constructed as watertight elements. The static effect of wind waves was accounted for by taking the static water pressure from the maximum height of the runup. The dynamic effects of wind waves were accounted for as follows: The dynamic effect of nonbreaking waves on the walls of safety-related structures was investigated using the Sainflou method[15]. Concrete and reinforcing stresses were found to be within allowable limits. 2.4-25
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION WBN The dynamic effect of breaking waves on the walls of safety-related structures was investigated using a method developed by D. D. Gaillard and D. A. Molitar[16]. The concrete and reinforcing stresses were found to be less than the allowable stresses. The dynamic effect of broken waves on the walls of safety-related structures was investigated using the method proposed by the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center.[15] Concrete and reinforcing stresses were found to be within allowable limits. 2.4.4 Potential Dam Failures, Seismically Induced The procedures described in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.59 were followed when evaluating potential flood levels from seismically induced dam failures. The plant site and upstream reservoirs are located in the Southern Appalachian Tectonic Province and, therefore, subject to moderate earthquake forces with possible attendant failure. Dams whose failure has the potential to cause flood problems at the plant were investigated to determine if failure from seismic events would endanger plant safety. It should be clearly understood that these studies have been made solely to ensure the safety of WBN against failure by floods caused by the assumed failure of dams due to seismic forces. To assure that safe shutdown of the WBN is not impaired by flood waters, TVA has in these studies added conservative assumptions to be able to show that the plant can be safety controlled even in the event that all these unlikely events occur in just the proper sequence. By furnishing this information TVA does not infer or concede that its dams are inadequate to withstand earthquakes that may be reasonably expected to occur in the TVA region under consideration. The TVA Dam Safety Program (DSP), which is consistent with the Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety[37], conducts technical studies and engineering analyses to assess the hydrologic and seismic integrity of agency dams and verifies that they can be operated in accordance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidelines. These guidelines were developed to enhance national dam safety such that the potential for loss of life and property damage is minimized. As part of the TVA DSP, inspection and maintenance activities are carried out on a regular schedule to confirm the dams are maintained in a safe condition. Instrumentation to monitor the dams' behavior was installed in many of the dams during original construction and other instrumentation has been added since. Based on the implementation of the DSP, TVA has confidence that its dams are safe against catastrophic destruction by any natural forces that could be expected to occur. 2.4.4.1 Dam Failure Permutations 2.4-26 CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION WBN The procedures referred to in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.59, Appendix A, were followed for evaluating potential flood levels from seismically induced dam failures. In accordance with this guidance, seismic dam failure is examined using the two specified alternatives: (1) the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) coincident with the peak of the 25-year flood and a two-year wind speed applied in the critical direction, (2) the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) coincident with the peak of the one-half PMF and a two-year wind speed applied in the critical direction. The OBE and SSE are defined in Sections 2.5.2.4 and 2.5.2.7 as having maximum horizontal rock acceleration levels of 0.09 g and 0.18 g respectively. As described in Section 2.5.2.4, TVA agreed to use 0.18 g as the maximum bedrock acceleration level for the SSE. From the seismic dam failure analyses made for TVA's operating nuclear plants, it was determined that five separate, combined events have the potential to create flood levels above plant grade at WBN. These events are as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) has been added to all five combinations which was not included in the original analyses for TVA's operating nuclear plants. It was included because the seismic stability analysis of is not conclusive. Therefore, was postulated to fail. Concrete Structures The standard method of computing stability is used. The maximum base compressive stress, average base shear stress, the factor of safety against overturning, and the shear strength required for a shear-friction factor of safety of 1 are determined. To find the shear strength required to provide a safety factor of 1, a coefficient of friction of 0.65 is assigned at the elevation of the base under consideration. 2.4-27 CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION WBN The analyses for earthquake are based on the pseudo-static analysis method as given by Hinds[17] with increased hydrodynamic pressures determined by the method developed by Bustamante and Flores[18]. These analyses include applying masonry inertia forces and increased water pressure to the structure resulting from the acceleration of the structure horizontally in the upstream direction and simultaneously in a downward direction. The masonry inertia forces are determined by a dynamic analysis of the structure which takes into account amplification of the accelerations above the foundation rock. No reduction of hydrostatic or hydrodynamic forces due to the decrease of the unit weight of water from the downward acceleration of the reservoir bottom is included in the analysis. Waves created at the free surface of the reservoir by an earthquake are considered of no importance. Based upon studies by Chopra[19] and Zienkiewicz[20] it is TVA's judgment that before waves of any significant height have time to develop, the earthquake will be over. The duration of earthquake used in this analysis is in the range of 20 to 30 seconds. Although accumulated silt on the reservoir bottom would dampen vertically traveling waves, the effect of silt on structures is not considered. The accumulation rate is slow, as measured by TVA for many years.[21] Embankment Embankment analysis was made using the standard slip circle method. The effect of the earthquake is taken into account by applying the appropriate static inertia force to the dam mass within the assumed slip circle (pseudo-static method). In the analysis the embankment design constants used, including the shear strength of the materials in the dam and the foundation, are the same as those used in the original stability analysis. Although detailed dynamic soil properties are not available, a value for seismic amplification through the soil has been assumed based on previous studies pertaining to TVA nuclear plants. These studies have indicated maximum amplification values slightly in excess of two for a rather wide range of shear wave velocity to soil height ratios. For these analyses, a straight-line variation is used with an acceleration at the top of the embankment being two times the top of rock acceleration. As discussed in Section 2.4.3, temporary flood barriers are installed on embankments at the Fort Loudoun Reservoir. However, the temporary flood barriers are not required to be stable following an OBE or SSE and are not assumed to increase the height of the embankments for these loading conditions. Flood Routing The runoff model of Attachment 2.4A was used to reevaluate potentially five critical seismic events involving dam failures above the plant. Other events addressed in earlier studies (the postulated OBE single failures of ; the postulated SSE combination failure of , the postulated SSE combination failure of
; the SSE combination failure of produced plant site flood levels sufficiently lower than the controlling events and therefore were not re-evaluated.
2.4-28 CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION WBN The procedures prescribed by Regulatory Guide 1.59 require seismic dam failure to be examined using the SSE coincident with the peak of the 25-year flood, and the OBE coincident with the peak of one-half the PMF. Reservoir operating procedures used were those applicable to the season and flood inflows. OBE Concurrent With One-Half the Probable Maximum Flood Stability analyses of powerhouse and spillway sections result in the judgment that these structures will not fail. The analyses show low stresses in the spillway base, and the powerhouse base. Original results are given in Figure 2.4-68 and were not updated in the current analysis. Dynamic analysis of the concrete structures resulted in the determination that the base acceleration is amplified at levels above the base. The slip circle analysis of the earth embankment section results in a factor of safety greater than 1.2, and the embankment is judged not to fail since the factor of safety is above the acceptance criteria factor of safety of 1.0 during the earthquake. For the condition of peak discharge at the dam for one-half the PMF the spillway gates are in the wide-open position with the bottom of the gates above the water. This condition was not analyzed because the condition with bridge failure described in the following paragraphs produces the controlling condition. Analysis of the bridge structure for forces resulting from the OBE, including amplification of acceleration results in the determination that the bridge could fail as a result of shearing the anchor bolts. The downstream bridge girders are assumed to strike the spillway gates. The impact of the girders striking the gates is assumed to fail the bolts which anchor the gate trunnions to the pier anchorages allowing the gates to fall on the spillway crest and be washed into the channel below the dam. The flow over the spillway crest would be the same as that prior to bridge and gate failure, i.e., peak discharge for one-half the PMF with gates in the wide-open position. Hence, bridge failure will cause no adverse effect on the flood. Previous evaluations determined that if the dam was postulated to fail from embankment overtopping in the most severe case (gate opening prevented by bridge failure) that the resulting elevations at WBN would be several feet . Therefore, this event was not reevaluated. Stability analyses of powerhouse and spillway sections result in the judgment that these structures will not fail. The analyses show low base stresses, with near two-thirds of the base in compression. The original results, given in Figure 2.4-71, were not updated for the current analysis. Slip circle analysis of the earth embankment results in a factor of safety of 1.26, and the embankment is judged not to fail. The original results, given in Figure 2.4-72, were not updated in the current analysis. 2.4-29 CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION WBN The spillway gates and bridge are of the same design as those at . Conditions of failure during the OBE are the same, and no problems are likely. Coincident failure at does not occur. For the potentially critical case of at the onset of the main portion of one-half the PMF flow into , in an earlier analysis it was found that the inflows are much less than the condition resulting from simultaneous failure of as described later. Although, not included in the original analyses for TVA's operating nuclear plants, is judged to fail completely because the seismic stability analysis of is not conclusive. No hydrologic results are given for the single failure of because the simultaneous failure of with other dams discussed under multiple failures, is more critical. Although an evaluation made in concluded that would not fail in an OBE (with one-half PMF) or SSE (with 25-year flood), the original study postulated failure in both seismic events. To be consistent with prior studies, was conservatively postulated to fail. Figure 2.4-76 shows the postulated condition of the dam after OBE failure. The location of the debris is not based on any calculated procedure of failure because it is believed that this is not possible. It is TVA's judgment, however, that the failure mode shown is one logical assumption; and, although there may be many other logical assumptions, the amount of channel obstruction would probably be about the same. The discharge rating for this controlling, debris section was developed from a 1:150 scale hydraulic model at the TVA Engineering Laboratory and was verified closely by mathematical analysis. No hydrologic results are given for the single failure of because the simultaneous failure of , is more critical. Results of the original stability analysis for a typical spillway block are shown in Figure 2.4-77. The spillway is judged stable at the foundation base elevation 900.0 ft. Analyses made for other elevations above elevation 900.0 ft, but not shown in Figure 2.4-77, indicate the resultant of forces falls outside the base at elevation 1010.0 ft. is embedded in fill to elevation 981.5 ft and is considered stable below that elevation. The powerhouse intake is massive and backed up by the powerhouse. Therefore, it is judged able to withstand the OBE without failure. 2.4-30 CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION WBN Results of the original analysis for the highest portion of the south embankment are shown on Figure 2.4-78. The analysis was made using the same shear strengths of material as were used in the original analysis and shows a . Because the are generally about one-half, or less, as high as the south embankment, they are judged to be stable for the OBE. Figure 2.4-79 shows the assumed condition of the of the concrete portion is assumed to be located downstream in the channel at elevations lower than the remaining portions of the dam and, therefore, will not obstruct flow. No hydrologic results are given for the single failure of because the is more critical. Results of the original stability analysis for a typical spillway block are shown in Figure 2.4-80. The upper part of the is approximately 12 ft higher than
, but the amplification of the rock surface acceleration is the same. Therefore, based on the analysis, it is judged that the ,
which corresponds to the assumed failure elevation of the . The non-overflow dam is similar to that at and is embedded in fill to elevation 927.5 ft. It is considered stable below that elevation. However, based on the analysis, it is assumed . The abutment non-overflow blocks 1-5 and 29-35, being short blocks, are considered able to resist the OBE without failure. The powerhouse intake is massive and backed up downstream by the powerhouse. Therefore, it is considered able to withstand the OBE without failure. Figure 2.4-82 shows and the portions judged to remain. is assumed to be located downstream in the channel at elevations lower than the remaining portions of the dam and, therefore, will not obstruct flow. No hydrologic results are given for the single failure of because the is more critical. The original hydrological analysis used a conservative seismic failure condition for
. A subsequent review which takes advantage of later earthquake stability analysis and dam safety modifications performed for the TVA DSP has defined a conservative but less restrictive seismic failure condition at Fontana. This subsequent review used a finite element model for the analysis and considered the maximum credible earthquake expected at the 2.4-31 CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION WBN Figure 2.4-83 shows the part of judged to remain in its original position after No hydrologic results are given for the is more critical. Multiple Failures Previous attenuation studies of the OBE above result in the judgment that the following simultaneous failure combinations require reevaluation: (1) The Simultaneous Failure of Figure 2.4-83 shows the postulated condition of for the OBE event. was conservatively postulated to completely fail. The seismic failure scenario for include postulated simultaneous and complete failure of non-TVA dams on the Little Tennessee River, Cheoah, Calderwood, and Chilhowee Dams and on its tributaries, Nantahala and Santeetlah Dams. would render the spillway gates inoperable in the wide open position. would be operable during and after the OBE. (2) The Simultaneous Failure of could fail when the OBE is located within a flattened oval-shaped area located between (Figure 2.4-112). Failure scenarios for include postulated simultaneous failure of non-TVA dams on the Little Tennessee River, Cheoah, Calderwood and Chilhowee Dams and on its tributaries, Nantahala and Santeetlah Dams. Based on previous attenuation studies, the OBE event produces maximum ground accelerations of Figure 2.4-83 shows the postulated condition of after failure. judged not to fail in this defined OBE event. Modifications to the An evaluation of the impacts of this modification on the controlling seismic scenario was performed and determined that the results of the scenario were not significantly affected. 2.4-32 CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION WBN A field exploration boring program and laboratory testing program of samples obtained in a field exploration was conducted. During the field exploration program, standard penetration test blow counts were obtained on both the embankment and its foundation materials. Both static and dynamic (cyclic) triaxial shear tests were made. The Newmark Method of Analysis utilizing the information obtained from the testing program was used to determine the structural stability of . It is concluded that can resist the attenuated ground acceleration of 0.054 g with no detrimental damage. The maximum attenuated ground acceleration is 0.03 g. Based on past experience of concrete dam structures under significantly higher seismic ground accelerations, the is judged to remain stable following exposure to a 0.03 g base acceleration with amplification. would be overtopped and were postulated to completely fail at their respective maximum headwater elevations. has no reservoir storage and was not considered. would remain operable. The failure wave would transfer water through the canal from , but it would not be sufficient to overtop . The maximum headwater at would reach elevation below the top of the dam. headwater would reach elevation below the top of dam. The with a top elevation of 757.00 ft* would not be overtopped. The peak discharge at the WBN site produced by the OBE failure of The peak elevation is . (3) The Simultaneous Failure of Figure 2.4-76 shows the postulated condition of for the OBE event. was conservatively postulated to completely fail in this event. In the hydrologic routing for this failure, would be overtopped and was postulated to fail when the flood wave reached headwater elevation , based on the structural analysis and subsequent structural modifications performed at the dam as a result of the Dam Safety Program. The headwater at would reach elevation below top of dam. headwater would reach below top of dam. The embankments at would be overtopped but was postulated not to breach which is conservative. Modifications to the result in a crest elevation of 752.0 ft. An evaluation of the impacts of this modification on the controlling seismic scenario was performed and determined that the results of the scenario were not significantly affected. 2.4-33 CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION WBN The peak discharge at the WBN site produced by the coincident with the one-half PMF is . The peak elevation is (4) The Simultaneous Failure of Figures 2.4-79 and 2.4-82 show the postulated condition after failure of C
, respectively.
In the hydrological routing for these postulated failures, the headwater at would reach elevation . T would be overtopped and breached. headwater would reach below the top of the dam. The embankments at would be overtopped but were conservatively postulated not to breach. The peak discharge at the WBN site produced by the OBE failure of with the one-half PMF is . The peak elevation is SSE Concurrent With 25-Year Flood The SSE will produce the same postulated failure of the as described for the OBE described earlier. The resulting flood level at the Watts Bar plant was not determined because the larger flood during the OBE makes that situation controlling. Results of the original stability analysis for are shown on Figure 2.4-86. Because the resultant of forces falls outside the base, a portion of the . Based on previous modes of failure for The results of the original slip circle analysis for the highest portion of the embankment are shown on Figure 2.4-87. Because the No analysis was made for the powerhouse under SSE. However, an analysis was made for the OBE with no water in the units, a condition believed to be an extremely remote occurrence during the OBE. Because the stresses were low and a large percentage of the base was in compression, it is considered that the addition of water in the units would be a stabilizing factor, and the powerhouse is judged not to fail. 2.4-34 CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION WBN Figure 2.4-88 shows the condition of the dam after assumed failure. All debris from the failure of the concrete portions is assumed to be located in the channel below the failure elevations. No hydrologic routing for the single failure of , including the bridge structure, is made because its simultaneous failure with other dams is considered as discussed later in this subparagraph. No hydrologic routing for the single failure of is made because its simultaneous failure with other dams is more critical as discussed later in this sub-paragraph. Although an evaluation made in concluded that would not fail in the SSE (with 25 year flood), was postulated to fail. The resulting debris downstream would occupy a greater span of the valley cross section than would the debris from the OBE but with the same top level, elevation 970.0 ft. Figure 2.4-90 shows the part of the dam judged to fail and the location and height of the resulting debris. The discharge rating for this controlling, debris section was developed from a 1:150 scale hydraulic model at the TVA Engineering Laboratory and was verified closely by mathematical analysis. The somewhat more extensive debris in SSE failure restricts discharge slightly compared to OBE failure conditions. No hydrologic routing for the
, discussed under multiple failures, is more critical.
The SSE is judged to produce the same postulated failure of as was described for the OBE. The single failure does not need to be carried downstream because elevations would be lower than the same OBE failure in one-half the PMF. The SSE is judged to produce the same postulated failure of as was described for the OBE. The single failure does not need to be carried downstream because elevations would be lower than the same OBE failure in one-half the PMF. Multiple Failures TVA considered the following multiple SSE dam failure combinations. (5) The Simultaneous Failure of in the SSE Coincident with 25-year Flood The SSE must be located in a very precise region to have the potential for multiple dam failures. In order to fail , the epicenter of SSE must be confined to a relatively small area the shape of a football, about 10 miles wide and 20 miles long. 2.4-35 CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION WBN Figure 2.4-91 shows the location of an SSE, and its attenuation, which produces Trunnion anchor bolts of open gates would fail and the gates would be washed downstream, leaving an open spillway. Closed gates could not be opened. By the time the seismic event at upstream tributary dams occurred, the crest of the 25 year flood would likely have passed and flows would have been reduced to turbine capacity. Hence, spillway gates would be closed. As stated before, it is believed that multiple dam failure is extremely remote, and it seems reasonable to exclude on the basis of being the most distant in the cluster of dams under consideration. For the postulated failures of the portions judged to remain and debris arrangements are as given in Figures 2.4-90, 2.4-79, and 2.4-82, respectively. is conservatively postulated to completely fail. As discussed in Section 2.4.3, temporary flood barriers are installed on embankments at the
. The temporary flood barriers are assumed to fail in the SSE and are thus not credited for increasing the height of the Reservoir embankments. The flood for this postulated failure combination would overtop and breach the south embankment and The maximum discharge at WBN would be . The elevation at the plant site would be . This is the highest flood elevation resulting from any combination of seismic events.
The flood elevation hydrograph at the plant site is shown on Figure 2.4-114. In addition to the SSE failure combination of identified as the critical case, three other combinations were evaluated in earlier studies. These three originally analyzed combinations produced significantly lower elevations and were therefore not reevaluated. In order to fail , the epicenter of an SSE must be confined to a triangular area with sides of approximately one mile in length. However, as an extreme upper limit the above combination of dams is postulated to fail as well as the combination of . Modifications to the result in a crest elevation of . An evaluation of the impacts of this modification on the controlling seismic scenario was performed and determined that the results of the scenario were not significantly affected. 2.4-36 CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION WBN An SSE centered between was postulated to fail these three dams. The downstream from upstream were also postulated to fail completely in this event. would remain intact . This flood level was not reevaluated because previous analysis showed it was not controlling. were postulated to fail simultaneously. Figure 2.4-93 shows the location of an SSE, and its attenuation, which produces
; and, for the same reasons as given above, it seems reasonable to exclude in this failure combination. For the postulated failures of the portions judged to remain and the debris arrangements are as given in Figures2.4-90, 2.4-82, 2.4-88 and 2.4-89 for single dam failure.
were postulated to fail completely as the portions judged to remain are relatively small. This combination was not reevaluated. were postulated to fail simultaneously. Figure 2.4-94 shows the location of an SSE and its attenuation, which produces For the postulated failures of the portions judged to remain and the debris arrangements for are as given in Figures 2.4-82 and 2.4-83 for single dam failure. have previously been judged not to fail for the OBE (0.09 g). Postulation of failure in this combination has not been evaluated but is bounded by the SSE failure of . 2.4.4.2 Unsteady Flow Analysis of Potential Dam Failures Unsteady flow routing techniques[23] were used to evaluate plant site flood levels from postulated seismically induced dam failures wherever their inherent accuracy was needed. In addition to the flow models described in Attachment 2.4A, the models described below were used to develop the outflow hydrographs from the postulated dam failures. The HEC-HMS storage routing was used to compute the outflow hydrograph from the postulated failure of each dam except main river dams. In the case of dams which were postulated to fail completely
, HEC-RAS or SOCH was used to develop the outflow hydrograph. For , the complete failure was analyzed with the SOCH model.
The failure time and initial reservoir elevations for each dam were determined from a pre-failure TRBROUTE analysis. HEC-HMS was used to develop the post failure outflow hydrographs based on the previously determined dam failure rating curves. The outflow hydrographs were validated by comparing the HEC-HMS results with those generated by simulations using TRBROUTE. 2.4.4.3 Water Level at Plant Site The unsteady flow analyses of the five postulated combinations of seismic dam failures coincident with floods analyzed yields a maximum elevation of , excluding wind wave effects. The maximum elevation would result from the SSE failure of coincident with the 25-year flood postulated to occur in June when reservoir levels are high. Table 2.4-14 provides a summary of flood elevations determined for the five failure combinations analyzed. 2.4-37 CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION
WBN Coincident wind wave activity for the PMF is described in Section 2.4.3.6. Wind waves were not computed for the seismic events, but superimposed wind wave activity from guide specified two-year wind speed would result in water surface elevations several ft below the PMF elevation 738.9 ft described in section 2.4.3. For the design basis flood level, see Section 2.4.14.1. 2.4.5 Probable Maximum Surge and Seiche Flooding Chickamauga Lake level during non-flood conditions would not exceed elevation 682.5 ft, normal maximum pool level, for any significant time. No conceivable meteorological conditions could produce a seiche nor reservoir operations a surge which would reach plant grade elevation 728.0 ft, some 45 ft above normal maximum pool levels. 2.4.6 Probable Maximum Tsunami Flooding Because of its inland location the Watts Bar plant is not endangered by tsunami flooding. 2.4.7 Ice Effects Because of its location in a temperate climate significant amounts of ice do not form on lakes and rivers in the plant vicinity and ice jams are not a source of major flooding. The present potential for generator of significant surface ice at the site is less today than prior to closure of Chickamauga and Watts Bar Lakes in 1940 and 1942, respectively. This condition exists because of (1) daily water level fluctuations from operating Chickamauga Reservoir downstream and Watts Bar Reservoir upstream would break up surface icing before significant thickness could be formed, (2) flows are warmed by releases from near the bottom of Watts Bar Reservoir, and (3) increased water depths due to Chickamauga Reservoir result in a greater mass needing to be cooled by radiation compared to pre-reservoir conditions. After closure of Watts Bar in January 1942, there have been no extended periods of cold weather and no serious icing conditions in the WBN site region. On several occasions, ice has formed near the shore and across protected inlets but has not constituted a problem on the main reservoirs. The lowest water temperature observed in Watts Bar Lake at the dam during the periods 1942-1953, and June 1967 to November 1973 for which records were kept, was 39 degrees on January 30, 1970, the coldest January since 1940 in the eastern part of the Basin. This lake temperature is indicative of the lowest water temperature released from Watts Bar Lake during winter months. The most severe period of cold weather recorded in the Valley was January and early February 1940 prior to present lake conditions at the plant site. A maximum ice depth of five inches was recorded on the Tennessee River at Chattanooga. There were no ice jams except one small one on the lower French Broad River. Records of icing are limited and none are available at the site prior to 1942. From newspaper records, the earliest known freeze in the vicinity was at Knoxville in 1796. More recently, newspaper accounts and U.S. Weather Bureau records for Knoxville provide a fairly complete ice history from 1840 to 1940. At Knoxville the Tennessee River was frozen over 16 times, and floating ice was observed six other times. 2.4-38
WBN The most severe event in this period prior to 1940 was in December-January 1917-18 when ice jammed the Tennessee River at Knoxville for 1 to 2 weeks, reaching 10 ft high at some places. In late January rain and temperature rise produced flooding on the Clinch River referred to by local people as the "ice tide." There is no record of ice jamming, however. There are no safety-related facilities at the Watts Bar site which could be affected by an ice jam flood, wind-drive ice ridges, or ice-produced forces other than a flooding of the plant itself. An ice jam sufficient to cause plant flooding is inconceivable. There are no valley restrictions in the 1.9-mile reach below Watts Bar Dam to initiate a jam, and an ice dam would need to reach at least 68 ft above streambed to endanger the plant. Intake pump suctions which will be used for the intake of river water will be located a minimum of 7.6 ft below minimum reservoir water level; hence, no thin surface ice which may form will effect the pipe intake. In the assumed event of complete failure of Chickamauga Dam downstream, the minimum release from Watts Bar Dam will ensure a 5.9 ft depth of water in the intake channel. 2.4.8 Cooling Water Canals and Reservoirs The intake channel, as shown in Figure 2.1-5, extends approximately 800 ft from the edge of the reservoir through the flood plain to the Intake Pumping Station. The channel, as shown in Figure 2.4-99, has an average depth of 36 ft and is 50 ft wide at the bottom. The side slopes are 4 on 1 and are designed for sudden drawdown, due to assumed loss of downstream dam, coincident with a safe shutdown earthquake. In response to multipurpose operations, the level of Chickamauga Reservoir fluctuates between a normal minimum of 675.0 ft and a normal maximum of 682.5 ft. The minimum average elevation of the reservoir bottom at the intake channel is 656 ft and the elevation of the intake channel bottom is 660 ft. The 15 ft normal minimum depth of water provided in the intake channel is more than ample to guarantee flow requirements. The intake provides cooling water makeup to the closed-cycle cooling system and the essential raw cooling water system (ERCW). The maximum flow requirement for the plant for all purposes is 178 cfs based on four ERCW pumps and six RCW pumps in service. The protection of the intake channel slopes from wind-wave activity is afforded by the placement of riprap, shown in Figure 2.4-99 in accordance with TVA design standards, from elevation 660.0 ft to elevation 690.0 ft. The riprap is designed for waves resulting from a wind velocity of 50 mph. 2.4.9 Channel Diversions Channel diversion is not a potential problem for the plant. Currently, no channel diversions upstream of the Watts Bar plant would cause diverting or rerouting of the source of plant cooling water, and none are anticipated in the future. The floodplain is such that large floods do not produce major channel meanders or cutoffs. The topography is such that only an unimaginable catastrophic event could result in flow diversion above the plant. 2.4-39
WBN-3 2.4.10 Flooding Protection Requirements Assurance that safety-related facilities are capable of surviving all possible flood conditions is provided by the discussions given in Sections 2.4.14, 3.4, 3.8.1, 3.8.2 and 3.8.4. The plant is designed to shut down and remain in a safe shutdown condition for any rainfall flood exceeding plant grade, up to the "design basis flood" discussed in Section 2.4.3 and for lower, seismic-caused floods discussed in Section 2.4.4. Any rainfall flood exceeding plant grade will be predicted at least 27 hours in advance by TVA's RO organization. Notification of seismic failure of key upstream dams will be available at the plant approximately 27 hours before a resulting flood surge would reach plant grade. Hence, there is adequate time to prepare the plant for any flood. See Section 2.4.14 for a detailed presentation of the flood protection plan. 2.4.11 Low Water Considerations Because of its location on Chickamauga Reservoir, maintaining minimum water levels at the Watts Bar plant is not a problem. The high rainfall and runoff of the watershed and the regulation afforded by upstream dams assure minimum flows for plant cooling. 2.4.11.1 Low Flow in Rivers and Streams The probable minimum water level at the Watts Bar plant is elevation 675.0 ft and would occur in the winter flood season as a result of Chickamauga Reservoir operation. The most severe drought in the history of the Tennessee Valley region occurred in 1925. Frequency studies for the 1874-1935 period prior to regulation show that there is less than one percent chance that the 1925 observed minimum one-day flow of 3300 cfs downstream at Chattanooga might occur in a given year. At the plant site the corresponding minimum one-day flow is estimated to be 2700 cfs. In the assumed event of complete failure of Chickamauga Dam and with the headwater before failure assumed to be the normal summer level, elevation 682.5 ft, the water surface at WBN will begin to drop 3 hours after failure of the dam and will fall at a fairly uniform rate to elevation 666.0 ft in approximately 27 hours from failure. This time period is more than ample for initiating the release of water from Watts Bar Dam. The estimated minimum flow requirement for the ERCW System is 50 cfs; however, in order to guarantee both ample depth and supply of water, a minimum flow of 3,200 cfs will be released from Watts Bar Dam. With flow of 3,200 cfs water surface elevation would be 665.9 ft producing 5.9-ft depth in the intake channel. 2.4.11.2 Low Water Resulting From Surges, Seiches, or Tsunami Because of Watts Bar's inland location on a relatively small, narrow lake, low water levels resulting from surges, seiches, or tsunamis are not a potential problem. 2.4-40
WBN 2.4.11.3 Historical Low Water From the beginning of stream gage records at Chattanooga in 1874 until the closure of Chickamauga Dam in January 1940, the estimated minimum daily flow at the WBN site was 2700 cfs on September 7 and 13, 1925. The next lowest estimated flow of 3900 cfs occurred in 1881 and also in 1883. Since January 1942 low flows at the site have been regulated by TVA reservoirs, particularly by Watts Bar and Chickamauga Dams. Under normal operating conditions, there may be periods of several hours daily when there are no releases from either or both dams, but average daily flows at the site have been less than 5,000 cfs about 2.2% of the time and have been less than 10,000 cfs about 10.4% of the time. On March 30 and 31, 1968, during special operations for the control of water milfoil, there were no releases from either Watts Bar or Chickamauga Dams during the two-day period. Over the last 25 years (1986 - 2010) the number of zero flow days at Watts Bar and Chickamauga Dams have been 0 and 2, respectively. Since January 1940, water levels at the plant have been controlled by Chickamauga Dam. For the period (1940 - 2010), the minimum level at the dam was 673.3 ft on January 21, 1942. 2.4.11.4 Future Control Future added controls which could alter low flow conditions at the plant are not anticipated because no sites that would have a significant influence remain to be developed. However, any control that might be considered would be evaluated before implementation. 2.4.11.5 Plant Requirements The Engineering Safety Feature System water supply requiring river water is the Essential Raw Cooling Water (ERCW). Also, the high pressure fire pumps perform an essential safety function during flood conditions by providing a feedwater supply to steam generators, makeup to the spent fuel pool, and auxiliary boration makeup tank. For interface of the fire protection system with the Auxiliary Feedwater System, see Section 10.4.9. The ERCW pumps are located on the Intake Pumping Station deck at elevation 741.0 ft and the ERCW pump intake is at elevation 653.33 ft. The ERCW intake will require 5 ft of submergence. Based on a minimum river surface elevation of 665.9 ft, a minimum of 12.57 ft of pump suction submergence will be provided. In the assumed event of complete failure of Chickamauga Dam and with the headwater before failure assumed to be the normal summer level, elevation 682.5 ft, the water surface at the site will begin to drop 3 hours after failure of the dam and will fall at a fairly uniform rate to elevation 666.0 ft in approximately 27 hours from failure. This time period is more than ample for initiating the release of water from Watts Bar Dam. The estimated minimum flow requirement for the ERCW System is 50 cfs. However, in order to guarantee both ample depth and supply of water, a minimum flow of 3,200 cfs can be released from Watts Bar Dam. This flow will give a river surface elevation of 665.9 ft, which ensures a 5.9-ft depth of water in the intake channel and approximately 10 ft in the river. 2.4-41
WBN A flow of at least 3,200 cfs can be released at the upstream dam, Watts Bar Dam, through the spillway gates, the turbines or the lock. The spillway gates offer the largest flow of water. There are twenty 40-ft-wide radial gates operated by two traveling gate hoists on the deck and one of the hoists is always located over a gate. At minimum headwater elevation 735.0 ft, there are several gate arrangements that could be used to supply the minimum 3,200 cfs flow. There are five turbines, each with a maximum flow of 9,400 cfs and an estimated speed/non-load flow of 900 to 1100 cfs. The lock culvert emptying and filling valves are electrically operated segmental type with a bypass switch located in each of the four valve control stations. These can be used at any time to open or close both filling and emptying valves. In the improbable event of loss of station service power at the dam, a 300-kVA gasoline-engine-driven generator located in the powerhouse will supply emergency power. The generator feeds into the main board when used and the emergency power is adequate to operate each of the three sources of water supply discussed. For concurrent loss of upstream and downstream dams, assurance that sufficient flow will be available is provided by review of the estimated low flows for the period 1903 - 2010 on the basin above Watts Bar Dam which shows that the 15 day, 30 day, 50 day, and 100 day sustained low flow would be 2907 cfs, 3158 cfs, 3473 cfs, and 4012 cfs, respectively. If additional flow is needed to supply the minimum 3,200 cfs it could be supplemented by use of upstream reservoir storage. 2.4.12 Dispersion, Dilution, and Travel Times of Accidental Releases of Liquid Effluents 2.4.12.1 Radioactive Liquid Wastes A discussion of the routine handling and release of liquid radioactive wastes is found in Section 11.2, "Liquid Waste Management Systems." The routine and nonroutine nonradiologial liquid discharges are addressed in the WBN's NPDES permit (Permit No. TN0020168) and the Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC plan), respectively. The nonradiological liquid discharges are under the regulatory jurisdiction of the State of Tennessee. 2.4.12.2 Accidental Slug Releases to Surface Water An accidental release of radioactive or nonradioactive liquid from the plant site would be subject to naturally induced mixing in the Tennessee River. The worst case for a given volume, Vo (cubic ft), of liquid is a release which takes place over a short period of time. Calculations have been made to determine the reduction in concentration of such a release as it progresses downstream; particular emphasis has been placed on the concentrations at the surface water intakes downstream of the plant. The model used here is based on the convective diffusion equation as applied to the dispersion in natural streams[24,25]. The major assumptions used in this analysis are:
- 1. The release is assumed to occur at the right bank with no diffuser induced mixing whether the release occurs at the bank or through the diffuser.
- 2. The effluent becomes well mixed vertically (but not horizontally) relatively rapidly (well before reaching first downstream water intake). This assumption is usually justified in riverine situations.[26,27]
2.4-42
WBN
- 3. The river flow is uniform and one-dimensional over a rectangular cross-section.
Other less restrictive assumptions are described in Reference [27]. Under assumption 2, the two-dimensional form of the convective diffusion equation is sufficient and may be written as 2 2 C C C C
+ u = Ex + Ey (1) t x ux2 y2 in which C is the concentration of radioactive effluent in the river; u is cross-sectionally averaged river velocity; x and y are coordinates in the downstream and lateral directions, respectively; and Ex and Ey are the dispersion coefficients in the x and y directions. Following Reference [25], it is assumed that the formal dependence of Ex and Ey on river parameters is Ex = axU* H (2a) and Ey = ay U* H (2b) in which ax and ay are empirical coefficients, U* is the river shear velocity, and H is the river depth. Relationships between U* and bulk river parameters may be found in any open channel hydraulics text.[28]
Equation (1) was solved for the slug release by applying the method of images[27,29] to the instantaneous infinite flow field solution of equation (1) which is given in Reference [29] (xut)2 (yy0 )2 C V0 +
= 4 Ht Ex Ey exp 4Ex t 4Ey t (3)
C0 in which C0 is the initial concentration of radioactive material in the liquid effluent, t is the time elapsed since the release of the slug and y is the distance of the release from the right bank. Equation (3) was used in the method of images solutions. 2.4.12.2.1 Calculations The above model was applied to predict the maximum concentrations which would be observed on the right bank of the Tennessee River at two downstream locations; the right bank concentrations will always be higher than those on the left bank. The release is assumed to occur on the right bank at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 528; the river width is assumed constant at 1,100 ft and the river depth is assumed constant at 30 ft. The Watts Bar Dam discharge equaled or exceeded 50% of the time is 28,200 cfs. The coefficients ax and ay in Equation (2) were chosen to be 100 and 0.6, respectively; these values are based on the results in Reference [25]. The shear velocity, U* was computed assuming a Manning's n of 0.030 to describe the bed roughness of the river. Because the actual release volume, V0, is not known a priori, results are presented in terms of a relative concentration defined as C/(C0,V0). Thus, to obtain the concentration reduction factor C/C0, this relative concentration must be multiplied by the release volume V0 (in cubic ft). 2.4-43
WBN Calculations show that the concentrations along the right bank at the downstream water intakes will be as follows: Relative Tennessee Concentration Water Intake River Mile (l/cubic ft) Dayton 503.8 2.8 x 10-9 East Side Utility 473.0 1.3 x 10-9 (formerly Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant) 2.4.12.3 Effects on Ground Water The plant site is underlain by terrace deposits of gravel, sand, and clay, having an average thickness of 40 ft. The deposit is variable in grain-size composition from place to place. Locally, very permeable gravel is present. Essentially all of the ground water under the site is in this deposit. Bedrock of the Conasauga Shale underlies the terrace deposit. Foundation exploration drilling and foundation excavation revealed that very little water occurs in the bedrock. The average saturated thickness of the terrace deposit is about 25 ft. Discharge from this material is mostly small springs and seeps to drainways along the margin of the site. Directions of ground water flow are discussed in Section 2.4.13. The nearest point of probable ground water discharge is along a small tributary to Yellow Creek, which at its nearest point is 2,600 ft from the center of the plant. In this direction, the hydraulic gradient (dh/dl) is 26 ft (maximum) in 2,600 ft, or 0.01. The hydraulic conductivity (K) of the terrace materials is estimated to be 48 ft/day. (The basis for this estimate is described in Section 2.4.13.3.) Porosity (O) is estimated to be 0.15. Average ground water velocity = (K dh/dl)/O = 3.2 ft/day or 812 days average travel time through the terrace deposit to the nearest point of ground water discharge. Estimating the density of the water-bearing material to be 2.0 and the distribution coefficient for strontium to be 20, the computed average travel time for strontium indicates a period of over 200 times longer than that for water, or 1.8 x 105 days (almost 500 years) travel time from the plant site to the nearest point of ground water discharge. This time of travel would be further increased by accounting for the delay resulting from movement through and absorption by unsaturated materials above the water table. Water available for dilution, based on-the estimated porosity of 0.15 and a saturated thickness of 25 ft, is estimated to be 3.75 cubic ft per square ft of surface area. In a 1000-ft wide strip extending from the plant site to the nearest point of ground water discharge, the volume of stored water would be 9.8 x 106 cubic ft. There are no data on which to base a computation of dispersion in the ground water system. For a conservative analysis, it would be necessary to assume that no dispersion occurs. 2.4-44
WBN 2.4.13 Groundwater 2.4.13.1 Description and On-Site Use Only the Knox Dolomite is regionally significant as an aquifer. This formation is the principal source of base flow to streams of the region. Large springs, such as Ward Spring 2.7 miles west of the site, are fairly common, especially at or near the contact between the Knox Dolomite and the overlying Chickamauga Limestone. Water occurs in the Knox Dolomite in solution openings formed along bedding planes and joints and in the moderately thick to thick cherty clay overburden. The formation underlies a one-mile to two-mile wide belt 2.5 miles west of the site at its nearest point; a narrow slice, the tip of which is about one mile north of the site; and a one-mile to two-mile wide belt, one mile east of the site and across Chickamauga Lake. Within a two-mile radius of the site, there is no use of the Knox Dolomite as a source of water to wells for other than small supplies. Other formations within the site region, described in detail in Section 2.5.1.1, include the Rome Formation, a poor water-bearing formation; the Conasauga Shale, a poor water-bearing formation; and the Chickamauga Limestone, a poor to moderate water-bearing formation that normally yields no more than 25 gallons per minute (gpm) to wells. The plant site is underlain by the Conasauga Shale, which is made up of about 84% shale and 16% limestone and occurs as thin discontinuous beds (Section 2.5.1.2). Surficial materials are older terrace deposits and recent alluvial deposits, fine-grained, poorly sorted, and poorly waterbearing. The pattern of groundwater movement shown on Figure 2.4-105 indicates that recharge of the shallow water-bearing formations occurs from infiltration of local precipitation and from lateral underflow from the area north of the plant site. All ground-water discharge from the site is to Chickamauga Lake, either directly or via Yellow Creek. Potable water for plant use is obtained from the Watts Bar Utility District. Their water is obtained from 3 wells located 2.5 miles northwest of the plant. 2.4.13.2 Sources Ground water sources within a two-mile radius of the site are listed in Table 2.4-15 and their locations are shown on Figure 2.4-102. Of the 89 wells listed, only 58 are equipped with pumps. Two of the thirteen spring sources listed are equipped with pumps. Seventy-nine residences are supplied by ground water, with one well supplying five houses. Assuming three persons per residence and a per capita use rate of 75 gpd, total ground-water use is less than 10,000 gpd. Drawdown data are available only for the Watts Bar Reservation wells, as listed in the previous section. Water-level fluctuations have been observed monthly in six observation wells since January 1973. Data collection for wells 7, 8, & 9 began in December 1981. The locations of these wells are shown on Figure 2.4-104. Data for the period January 1973 through December 1975 is shown on Figure 2.4-103. 2.4-45
WBN As elsewhere in the region, water levels normally reach maximum elevations in February or March and are at minimum elevations in late summer and early fall. Depth to the water table is generally less than 20 ft throughout the plant site. Figure 2.4-105 is a water-table contour map of the area within a two-mile radius of the plant site, based on 48 water-level measurements made in January 1972. The water table conforms fairly closely to surface topography, so that directions of ground-water movement are generally the same as those of surface-water movement. The water-table gradient between plant site and Chickamauga Lake at maximum water-table elevation and minimum river stage is about 44 ft in 3200 ft, or 0.014. Water occurs in the Conasauga Shale in very small openings along fractures and bedding planes. Examination of records of 5500 ft of foundation exploration drilling showed only one cavity, 0.6-ft thick, penetrated. Water occurs in the terrace deposit material in pore spaces between particles. The deposit is composed mostly of poorly-sorted clay- to gravel-sized particles and is poorly water bearing, although an approximately six-ft-thick permeable gravel zone is locally present at the base of the terrace deposit. The foundation excavation required only intermittent dewatering after initial drainage. The excavation was taken below the base of the terrace deposit into fresh shale. No weathered shale was found to be present; the contact between the terrace deposit and fresh shale is sharp. The average depth to the water table in the plant area, based on data collected during August through December 1970, is 17 ft; the average overburden thickness is 40 ft; the saturated overburden thickness is therefore, 24 ft. No weathered zones or cavities were penetrated in the Conasauga Shale below a depth of 85 ft, so that the average saturated thickness of bedrock is assumed to be less than 50 ft. The plant site is hydraulically isolated by Yellow Creek and Chickamauga lake to the west, south, and east; it is hydraulically isolated to the north by the relatively impermeable Rome Formation underlying the site. Therefore, it is believed that any off-site groundwater withdrawals could not result in altered groundwater movement at the site. No attempt was made to measure hydraulic properties of overburden or of bedrock at this site because of the very limited occurrence of ground water and the heterogeneity and anisotropy of the materials underlying the site. 2.4.13.3 Accident Effects Assuming a maximum annual range in saturated thickness of overburden of between 23 ft and 33 ft, and a porosity of 0.15, total water stored in this material, and the maximum volume available for dilution, ranges seasonally between 4.6 and 6.6 cubic ft per square ft of surface area. Water available for dilution in bedrock is very small and may be less than 0.01 cubic ft per square ft of surface area. Since dispersion and exchange characteristics are not known, it must be assumed that these are not factors in a release of liquid radioactive material which would then travel to discharge points at the same rate as water movement. There are no direct pathways to ground-water users since all groundwater discharge from the site is to adjacent surface-water bodies. 2.4-46
WBN Groundwater travel time has been estimated for water in the terrace deposit, in which essentially all ground water at the site occurs. The nearest point of possible groundwater discharge is 2600 ft west of the plant site, along a tributary to Yellow Creek. In this direction the maximum hydraulic gradient is 26 ft in 2600 ft, or 0.01. The maximum hydraulic conductivity of the terrace materials is estimated to be 48 ft/day, based on particle-size analyses of terrace-deposit materials as related to permeability.[30] Kdh/dl v = 17 O where v = mean velocity, ft/day; K = hydraulic conductivity = 48 ft/day; dh/dl = hydraulic gradient = .01 O = porosity = 0.15 (estimated average effective) (.01) v = 48 = 3.2 ft/day (.15) or 812 days travel time from plant to nearest point of groundwater discharge. Packer tests on the Conasauga Shale in foundation holes, using water at 50 psi, showed no acceptance, although one 0.6 ft cavity was penetrated in one hole in a total of more than 5,000 ft of drilling. Therefore, no estimate of time of water travel was made for water in bedrock. 2.4.13.4 Monitoring and Safeguard Requirements The potential for the plant to affect groundwater users is very low because of its physical location, however, any provisions for radiological groundwater monitoring will be as described in the Watts Bar Monitoring Plan. A network of observation wells will be maintained as needed and ground water will be analyzed for radioactivity as required by the Technical Specifications. In the event of accidental release of radioactivity to the groundwater system, nearby groundwater users will be advised not to use their wells for drinking water until an investigation can be made of the extent, rate, and direction of movement of the contaminant. Monitoring and notification for both the routine and any accidental nonradioactive liquid discharges to either surface or groundwaters would be implemented as required by the facilities NPDES permit (Permit No. TN0020168) and the Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC plan), respectively. These requirements for the nonradiological liquid discharges are under the regulatory jurisdiction of the State of Tennessee. 2.4.13.5 Design Basis for Subsurface Hydrostatic Loading The ground water levels used for structural design are discussed in Section 2.5.4.6. Dewatering of the construction excavation is discussed in Section 2.5.4.6. 2.4-47
WBN 2.4.14 Flooding Protection Requirements The plant grade elevation at WBN can be exceeded by large rainfall and seismically-induced dam failure floods. Assurance that WBN can be safely shut down and maintained in these extreme flood conditions (Section 2.4.2.2 and this Section 2.4.14) is provided by the discussions given in Sections 3.4, 3.8.1, and 3.8.4. 2.4.14.1 Introduction This subsection describes the methods by which WBN is capable of tolerating floods above plant grade without jeopardizing public safety. Since flooding of this magnitude, as illustrated in Sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.4 is most unlikely, extreme steps are considered acceptable, including actions that create or allow extensive economic consequence to the plant. The actions described herein will be implemented for floods ranging from slightly below plant grade, to allow for wave runup to the design basis flood. The plant Flood Protection Plan (Technical Requirement 3.7.2) specifies the flood warning conditions and subsequent actions. 2.4.14.1.1 Design Basis Flood The design basis flood (DBF) elevation is based on a still water elevation of 739.2 ft. The calculated still water PMF is elevation 738.9 ft. The table below gives representative levels of the DBF at different plant locations. The equipment within each of the structures required during an external flood event is protected to the values indicated below. The values shown include wave runup and setup. Design Basis Flood (DBF) Levels Probable Maximum Flood (still reservoir) 739.2 ft DBF Runup on 4:1 sloped surfaces 741.6 ft DBF Runup on critical vertical wall of the 741.7 ft Intake Pumping Station DBF Surge level within flooded structures (except for IPS) 739.7 ft In addition to flood level considerations, plant flood preparations cope with the "fastest rising" flood which is the calculated flood, including seismically induced floods, that can exceed plant grade with the shortest warning time. Reservoir levels for large rainfall floods in the Tennessee Valley can be predicted well in advance. By dividing the pre-flood preparation steps into two stages, a minimum of a 27 hour, pre-flood transition interval is available between the time a flood warning is received and the time the flood waters exceed plant grade. The first stage, a minimum of 10 hours long, commences upon receipt of a flood warning. The second stage, a minimum of 17 hours long, is based on a confirmed estimate that conditions will produce a flood above plant grade. This two-stage scheme is designed to prevent excessive economic loss in case a potential flood does not fully develop. Refer to Section 2.4.14.4. 2.4-48
WBN-1 2.4.14.1.2 Combinations of Events Because floods above plant grade, earthquakes, tornadoes, or design basis accidents, including a LOCA, are individually very unlikely, a combination of a flood plus any of these events, or the occurrence of one of these during the flood recovery time, or of the flood during the recovery time after one of these events, is considered incredible. However, as an exception, certain reduced levels of floods are considered together with seismic events. Refer to Section 2.4.14.10 and 2.4.4. 2.4.14.1.3 Post Flood Period Because of the improbability of a flood above plant grade, no detailed procedures are established for return of the plant to normal operation unless and until a flood actually occurs. If flood mode operation (Section 2.4.14.2) should ever become necessary, it is possible to maintain this mode of operation for a sufficient period of time (100 days) so that appropriate recovery steps can be formulated and taken. The actual flood waters are expected to recede below plant grade within 1 to 5 days. 2.4.14.1.4 Localized Floods Localized plant site flooding due to the probable maximum storm (Section 2.4.2.3) will not enter vital structures or endanger the plant. Any offsite power loss resulting from water ponding on the switchyard or water entry into the Turbine Building will be similar to a loss of offsite power situation as described in Chapter 15. The other steps described in this subsection are not applicable to this case. Refer to Section 2.4.2.3. 2.4.14.2 Plant Operation During Floods Above Grade "Flood mode" operation is defined as the set of conditions described below by means of which the plant is safely maintained during the time when flood waters exceed plant grade (elevation 728.0 ft) and during the subsequent period until recovery (Section 2.4.14.7) is accomplished. 2.4.14.2.1 Flooding of Structures The Reactor Building will be maintained dry during the flood mode. Reactor Building Walls and penetrations are designed to withstand all static and dynamic forces imposed by the DBF. Seepage through the concrete shield building or shield building penetration assemblies into the annulus region between the shield building and SCV is expected to be negligible. The Diesel Generator Buildings also will remain dry during the flood mode since its lowest floor is at elevation 742.0 ft. Other structures, including the Service, Turbine, Auxiliary, and Control Buildings, would be allowed to flood as the water exceeds their grade level entrances. Equipment that is located in these structures and required for operation in the flood mode is either above the DBF or suitable for submerged operation. 2.4-49
WBN 2.4.14.2.2 Fuel Cooling Spent Fuel Pool Fuel in the spent fuel pool is cooled by the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup System (SFPCCS), the active components of which are either located above flood waters or are physically protected from the flood waters. During the flood mode of operation, heat is removed from the heat exchangers by essential raw cooling water instead of component cooling water. The SFPCCS cooling circuit is assured of two operable SFPCCS pumps (a third pump is available as a backup) as well as two SFPCCS heat exchangers. High spent fuel pool temperature causes an annunciation in the Main Control Room indicating equipment malfunction. Additionally, that portion of the cooling system above flood water is inspected approximately every 8 hours to confirm continued proper operation. As a backup to spent fuel cooling, water from the High Pressure Fire Protection (HPFP) System can be added to the spent fuel pool. Reactors Residual core heat is be removed from the fuel in the reactors by natural circulation in the reactor coolant system. Heat removal from the steam generators is accomplished by adding river water from the HPFP System and relieving steam to the atmosphere through the power operated relief valves. This transition from auxiliary feedwater to river water is accomplished during Stage II of the flood preparation procedures. Refer to Section 2.4.14.4.1. Reactor coolant system pressure is maintained at less than 350 psig by operation of the pressurizer relief valves and heaters. Secondary side pressure is maintained below 125 psig by operation of the power operated relief valves. At times beyond approximately 10 hours following shutdown of the plant two relief valves have sufficient capacity to remove the steam generated by decay heat. Since 10 hours is less than the minimum flood warning time available, the plant can be safely shut down and decay heat removed by operation of two power operated relief valves per unit. The earliest that the HPFP pumps would be utilized to supply auxiliary feedwater would be about 20 hours after reactor shutdown. At this time, in order to remove the decay heat from the reactor unit, the water requirement to the steam generators would be approximately 300 gpm. Later times following reactor shutdown would have gradually decreasing HPFP system makeup water flow rate requirements. With the steam generator secondary side pressure less than 125 psig, a single HPFP pump can supply makeup water well in excess of the requirement of 300 gpm. Additional surplus flow is available since there are four HPFP pumps, two powered from each emergency power train. The main steam power operated relief valves are adjusted by controls in the auxiliary control room as required to maintain the steam pressure within the desired pressure range. The controls in the main control room also can be utilized to operate the valves in an open-closed manner. Also, a manual loading station and the relief valve handwheel provide additional backup control for each relief valve. The power operated relief valves would be used to depressurize the steam generators as discussed above to maintain steam generator pressure sufficiently below the developed head of the fire pumps. Note that even in the event of a total loss of makeup water flow at the time of maximum decay heat load, approximately 6 hours are available to restore makeup water flow before the steam generators would boil dry. 2.4-50
WBN If the reactor is open to the containment atmosphere during the refueling operations, then the decay heat of the fuel in the reactor and spent fuel pool heat is removed in the following manner. The refueling cavity is filled with borated water (nominal ppm boron concentration) from the refueling water storage tank. The SFPCCS pump takes suction from the spent fuel pool and discharges to the SFPCCS heat exchangers. The SFPCCS heat exchanger output flow is directed by a temporary piping connection to the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System upstream to the RHR heat exchangers. This piping (spool piece) connection is prefabricated and is installed only during preparation for flood mode operation. (The tie-in locations in the SFPCCS and RHRS are shown in Figures 2.4-106 and 2.4-107 respectively.) After passing through the RHR heat exchangers, the water enters the reactor vessel through the normal cold leg RHR injection paths, flows downward through the annulus, upward through the core (thus cooling the fuel), then exits the vessel directly into the refueling cavity. This results in a water level differential between the spent fuel pool and the refueling cavity with sufficient water head to assure the required return flow through the twenty-inch diameter fuel transfer tube thereby completing the path to the spent fuel pool. Any leakage from the reactor coolant system will be collected to the extent possible in the reactor coolant drain tank; nonrecoverable leakage is made up from supplies of clean water stored in the four cold leg accumulators, the pressurizer relief tank, and the demineralized water tank. Even if these sources are unavailable, the fire protection system can be connected to the auxiliary charging system (Section 9.3.6) as a backup. Whatever the source, makeup water is filtered, demineralized, tested, and borated, as necessary, to the normal refueling concentration, and pumped by the auxiliary charging system into the reactor (see Figures 2.4-108 and 2.4-109). 2.4.14.2.3 Cooling of Plant Loads Plant cooling requirements with the exception of the fire protection system which must supply makeup water to the steam generators, are met by the ERCW System. The Intake Pumping Station is designed to retain full functional capability of the ERCW system and HPFP system water intakes for all floods up to and including the DBF. The ERCW System and HPFP System water intakes also remain fully functional in the remote possibility of a flood induced failure of Chickamauga Dam. (Refer to Sections 9.2.1 and 9.5.1.) 2.4.14.3 Warning Scheme See Section 2.4.14.8 (Warning Plan). 2.4.14.4 Preparation for Flood Mode An abnormal operating instruction is available to support operation of the plant. At the time the initial flood warning is issued, the plant could be operating in any normal mode. This means that either or both units may be at power or in any stage of refueling. 2.4-51
WBN 2.4.14.4.1 Reactor Initially Operating at Power If the reactor is operating at power, Stage I and then, if necessary, Stage II procedures are initiated. Stage I procedures consist of a controlled reactor shutdown and other easily revocable steps, such as moving flood mode supplies above the PMF elevation and making load adjustments on the onsite power supply. After scram, the reactor coolant system is cooled by the auxiliary feedwater (Section 10.4.9) and the pressure is reduced to less than 350 psig. Stage II procedures are the less easily revocable and more damaging steps necessary to have the plant in the flood mode when the flood exceeds plant grade. HPFP System water (Section 9.5.1) will replace auxiliary feedwater for steam generator makeup water. Other essential plant cooling loads are transferred from the Component Cooling Water System to the ERCW System and the ERCW replaces raw cooling water to the ice condensers (Section 9.2.1). The radioactive waste (Chapter 11) system will be secured by filling tanks below DBF level with enough water to prevent flotation. One exception is the waste gas decay tanks, which are sealed and anchored against flotation. Power and communication cables below the DBF level that are not required for submerged operation are disconnected, and batteries beneath the DBF level are disconnected. 2.4.14.4.2 Reactor Initially Refueling If time permits, fuel is removed from the unit undergoing refueling and placed in the spent fuel pool; otherwise fuel cooling is accomplished as described in Section 2.4.14.2.2. If the refueling canal is not already flooded, the mode of cooling described in Section 2.4.14.2.2 requires that the canal be flooded with borated water from the refueling water storage tank. If the flood warning occurs after the reactor vessel head has been removed or at a time when it could be removed before the flood exceeds plant grade, the flood mode reactor cooling water flows directly from the vessel into the refueling cavity. Flood mode operation requires that the prefabricated piping be installed to connect the RHR and SFPC Systems, that the proper flow to the spent fuel pit diffuser and the RHRS be established and that essential raw cooling water be directed to the secondary side of the RHRS and SFPCCS heat exchangers. The connection of the RHR and SFPC Systems is made using prefabricated in-position piping which is normally disconnected. During flood mode preparations, the piping is connected using prefabricated spool pieces. 2.4.14.4.3 Plant Preparation Time The steps needed to prepare the plant for flood mode operation can be accomplished with 27 hours of notification that a flood above plant grade is expected. The 27 hours allows for a minimum of 10 hours for Stage I flood mode preparations and an additional 17 hours for Stage II flood mode preparations. Site grading and building design prevent any flooding before the end of the 27 hour preflood period. 2.4-52
WBN 2.4.14.5 Equipment Both normal plant components and specialized flood-oriented supplements are utilized in coping with floods. Equipment required in the flood mode is either located above the DBF, within a nonflooded structure, or is suitable for submerged operation. Systems and components needed only in the preflood period are protected only during that period. 2.4.14.5.1 Equipment Qualification To ensure capable performance in this highly unlikely, limiting design case, only high quality components are utilized. Active components are redundant or their functions diversely supplied. Since no rapidly changing events are associated with the flood, repairability is an available option for both active and passive components during the long period of flood mode operation. Equipment potentially requiring maintenance is accessible throughout its use, including components in the Diesel Generator Building. 2.4.14.5.2 Temporary Modification and Setup Normal plant systems used in flood mode operation and in preparation for flood mode operation may require modification from their normal plant operating configuration. Such modification, since it is for a limiting design condition and since extensive economic consequences are acceptable, is permitted to allow operation of systems outside of their normal plant configuration. However, most alterations will be only temporary and inconsequential in nature. For example, the switchover of plant cooling loads from the component cooling water to ERCW is done through valves and prefabricated spool pieces, causing little system disturbance or damage. 2.4.14.5.3 Electric Power Because there is a possibility that high winds could destroy power lines and disconnect the plant from offsite power at any time during the preflood transition period, the preparation procedure and flood mode operation are accomplished assuming only onsite power circuits available. While most equipment requiring ac electric power is a part of the permanent emergency onsite power distribution system other components, if required, could be temporarily connected, when the time comes, by prefabricated jumper cables. The loads that are normally supplied by onsite power but are not required for the flood are disconnected early in the preflood period. Those loads used only during the preflood period are disconnected from the onsite power system during flood mode operations. DC electric power is similarly disconnected from unused loads and potentially flooded cables. Charging is maintained for each battery by the onsite ac power system as long as it is required. Batteries that are beneath the DBF level are disconnected during the preflood period when they are no longer needed. 2.4-53
WBN 2.4.14.5.4 Instrument, Control, Communication and Ventilation Systems The instrument, control, and communication wiring or cables required for operation in the flood mode are either above the DBF or within a nonflooded structure, or are suitable for submerged operation. Unneeded wiring or cables that run below the DBF level will be disconnected to prevent short circuits. Instrumentation is provided to monitor vital plant parameters such as the reactor coolant temperature and pressure and steam generator pressure and level. Important plant functions are either monitored and controlled from the main control area, or, in some cases where time margins permit, from other points in the plant that are in close communication with the main control area. Communications are provided between the central control area (the Main and Auxiliary Control Rooms) and other vital areas that might require operator attention, such as the Diesel Generator Building. Ventilation, when necessary, and limited heating or air conditioning is maintained for locations throughout the plant where operators might be required to go or where required by equipment heat loads. 2.4.14.6 Supplies The equipment and most supplies required for the flood are on hand in the plant at all times. Some supplies may require replenishment before the end of the period in which the plant is in the flood mode. In such cases supplies on hand are sufficient to last through the short time (Section 2.4.14.1.3) that flood waters will be above plant grade and until replenishment can be supplied. 2.4.14.7 Plant Recovery The plant is designed to continue safely in the flood mode for 100 days even though the water is not expected to remain above plant grade for more than 1 to 4 days. After recession of the flood, damage will be assessed and detailed recovery plans developed. Arrangements will then be made for reestablishment of off-site power and removal of spent fuel. A decision based on economics would be made on whether or not to regain the plant for power production. In either case, detailed plans would be formulated after the flood, when damage can be accurately assessed. The 100-day period provides a more than adequate time for the development of procedures for any maintenance, inspection, or installation of replacements for the recovery of the plant or for a continuation of flood mode operations in excess of 100 days. 2.4-54
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION WBN 2.4.14.8 Warning Plan Plant grade elevation 728.0 ft can be exceeded by rainfall floods and seismic-caused dam failure floods. A warning plan is needed to assure plant safety from these floods. The warning plan is divided into two stages: Stage I, a minimum of 10 hours long and Stage II, a minimum of 17 hours so that unnecessary economic consequences can be avoided, while adequate time is allowed for preparing for operation in the flood mode. Stage I allows preparation steps causing minimal economic consequences to be sustained but will postpone major economic damage until the Stage II warning forecasts a likely forthcoming flood above elevation 727.0 ft. 2.4.14.8.1 Rainfall Floods Protection of the Watts Bar Plant from rainfall floods that might exceed plant grade utilizes a flood warning issued by TVA's RO. TVA's climatic monitoring and flood forecasting systems and flood control facilities permit early identification of potentially critical flood producing conditions and reliable prediction of floods which may exceed plant grade well in advance of the event. The WBN flood warning plan provides a minimum of 27 hours to prepare for operation in the flood mode, 10 hours for Stage I preparations and 17 hours for Stage II preparations. Four additional preceding hours would be available to gather and analyze rainfall data and produce the warning. The first stage, Stage I, of shutdown begins when there is sufficient rainfall on the ground in the upstream watershed to yield a forecasted plant site water level of elevation 715.5 ft in the winter months and elevation 720.6 ft in the summer. This assures that additional rain will not produce water levels to elevation 727.0 ft in less than 27 hours from the time shutdown is initiated. The water level of elevation 727.0 ft (one foot below plant grade) allows margin so that waves due to winds cannot disrupt the flood mode preparation. The plant preparation status is held at Stage I until either Stage II begins or TVA's RO determines that floodwaters will not exceed elevation 727.0 ft at the plant. The Stage II warning is issued only when enough additional rain has fallen to forecast that elevation 727.0 ft (winter or summer) is likely to be reached. 2.4.14.8.2 Seismically-Induced Dam Failure Floods 2.4-55 CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION
WBN-3 2.4.14.9 Basis For Flood Protection Plan In Rainfall Floods 2.4.14.9.1 Overview Large Tennessee River floods can exceed plant grade elevation 728.0 ft at WBN. Plant safety in such an event requires shutdown procedures which may take 27 hours to implement. TVA flood forecast procedures are used to provide at least 27 hours of warning before river levels reach elevation 727.0 ft. Use of elevation 727.0 ft, one foot below plant grade, provides enough margin to prevent wind generated waves from endangering plant safety during the final hours of shutdown activity. Forecast will be based upon rainfall already reported to be on the ground. To be certain of 27 hours for preflood preparation, flood warnings with the prospect of reaching elevation 727.0 ft must be issued early when lower target elevations are forecast. Consequently, some of the warnings may later prove to have been unnecessary. For this reason preflood preparations are divided into two stages. Stage I steps requiring 10 hours are easily revocable and cause minimum economic consequences. The estimated probability is small that a Stage I warning will be issued during the life of the plant. Added rain and stream-flow information obtained during Stage I activity will determine if the more serious steps of Stage II need to be taken with the assurance that at least 17 hours will be available before elevation 727.0 ft is reached. The probability of a Stage II warning during the life of the plant is very small. Flood forecasting and warnings, to assure adequate warning time for safe plant shutdown during floods, will be conducted by TVA's RO. 2.4.14.9.2 TVA Forecast System TVA has in constant use an extensive, effective system to forecast flow and elevation as needed in the Tennessee River basin. This permits efficient operation of the reservoir system and provides warning of when water levels will exceed critical elevations at selected, sensitive locations which includes WBN. TVAs RO normal operation produces daily forecasts by 12 noon made from data collected at 6 a.m. Central time. During major flood events, RO may issue forecasts as frequent as 4 to 6 hours at specific site locations. Elements of the present (2010) forecast system above WBN include the following.
- 1. More than 90 rain gages measure rainfall, with an average density of about 190 square miles per rain gage. All are Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES)
Data Collection Platform (DCP) satellite telemetered gages, and 27 are Data Logger telemetered gages. Some of the satellite gages transmit hourly rainfall data every 3 hours while others transmit hourly during normal operations.
- 2. Streamflow data are received from 23 gages in the system. All are GOES Data Collection Platform satellite telemetered gages. The satellite gages transmit 15-minute stage data every three hours during normal operations.
2.4-56
WBN
- 3. Real-time headwater elevation, tailwater elevation, and discharge data are received from 21 TVA hydro projects (Watts Bar, Melton Hill, Fort Loudoun, Tellico, Norris, Douglas, Cherokee, Fort Patrick Henry, Boone, Watauga, Wilbur, South Holston, Chickamauga, Ocoee No. 1, Ocoee No. 2, Ocoee No. 3, Blue Ridge, Apalachia, Hiwassee, Chatuge and Nottely) and hourly data are received from non-TVA hydro plants (Chilhowee, Cheoah, Calderwood and Santeetlah).
- 4. Weather forecasts including quantitative precipitation forecasts received at least twice daily and at other times when changes are expected.
- 5. Computer programs which translate rainfall into streamflow based on current runoff conditions and which permit a forecast of flows and elevations based upon both observed and predicted rainfall. A network of UNIX servers and personal computers are utilized and are designed to provide backup for each other. One computer is used primarily for data collection, with the others used for executing forecasting programs for reservoir operations. The time interval between receiving input data and producing a forecast is less than 4 hours. Forecasts normally cover at least a three-day period.
As effective as the forecast system already is, it is constantly being improved as new technology provides better methods to interrogate the watershed during floods and as the watershed mathematical model and computer system are improved. Also, in the future, improved quantitative precipitation forecasts may provide a more reliable early alert of impending major storm conditions and thus provide greater flood warning time. 2.4.14.9.3 Basic Analysis The forecast procedure to assure safe shutdown of WBN for flooding is based upon an analysis of nine hypothetical storms up to PMP magnitude. The storms enveloped potentially critical areal and seasonal variations and time distributions of rainfall. To be certain that fastest rising flood conditions were included, the effects of varied time distribution of rainfall were tested by alternatively placing the maximum daily PMP in the middle, and the last day of the three-day main storm. Earlier analysis of 17 hypothetical storms demonstrated that the shortest warning times resulted from storms in which the heavy rainfall occurred on the last day and that warning times were significantly longer when heavy rainfall occurred on the first day. Therefore, heavy rainfall on the first day was not reevaluated. The warning system is based on those storm situations which resulted in the shortest time interval between watershed rainfall and elevation 727.0 ft at WBN, thus assuring that this elevation could be predicted at least 27 hours in advance. The procedures used to compute flood flows and elevations for those flood conditions which establish controlling elements of the forecast system are described in Section 2.4.3. 2.4.14.9.4 Hydrologic Basis for Warning System A minimum of 27 hours has been allowed for preparation of the plant for operation in the flood mode, 3 hours more than the 24 hours needed. An additional 4 hours for communication and forecasting computations is provided to allow TVAs RO to translate rain on the ground to river elevations at the plant. Hence, the warning plan provides 31 hours from arrival of rain on the ground until elevation 727.0 ft could be reached. The 27 hours allowed for shutdown at the plant consists of a minimum of 10 hours of Stage I preparation and an additional 17 hours for Stage II preparation that is not concurrent with the Stage I activity. 2.4-57
WBN Although river elevation 727.0 ft, one foot below plant grade to allow for wind waves, is the controlling elevation for determining the need for plant shutdown, lower forecast target levels are used in some situations to assure that the 27 hours pre-flood transition interval will always be available. The target river levels differ with season. During the "winter" season, Stage I shutdown procedures will be started as soon as target river elevation 715.5 ft has been forecast. Stage II shutdown will be initiated and carried to completion if and when target river elevation 727.0 ft at WBN has been forecast. Corresponding target river elevations for the "summer" season at WBN are elevation 720.6 ft and elevation 727.0 ft. Inasmuch as the hydrologic procedures and target river elevations have been designed to provide adequate shutdown time in the fastest rising flood, longer times will be available in other floods. In such cases there may be a waiting period after the Stage I, 10-hour shutdown activity during which activities shall be in abeyance until weather conditions determine if plant operation can be resumed, or if Stage II shutdown should be implemented. Resumption of plant operation following just Stage I shutdown activities will be allowable only after flood levels and weather conditions, as determined by TVAs RO, have returned to a condition in which 27 hours of warning will again be available. 2.4.14.9.5 Hydrologic Basis for Warning Times and Elevations Figure 2.4-110 (Sheet 1) and Figure 2.4-110 (Sheet 2) for winter and summer respectively, show target forecast flood warning time and elevation at WBN which assure adequate warning times. The fastest rising PMF for the winter at the site is shown in Figure 2.4-110 (Sheet 1A). Figure 2.4-110 (Sheets 1B and 1C) show the adopted rainfall distribution for the 21,400 square mile storm and the 7,980 square mile storm, respectively. An intermediate flood with average basin rainfall of 10 inches (rainfall heavy at the end) is shown in Figure 2.4-110 (Sheet 1D). Figure 2.4-110 (Sheet 2A) shows the 7,980 square mile fastest rising PMF for the summer with heavy rainfall at the end. The 7,980 square mile adopted rainfall distribution is shown in Figure 2.4-110 (Sheet 2B). An intermediate flood with average basin rainfall of 10 inches heavy at the end is shown in Figure 2.4-110 (Sheet 2C). All of these storms have been preceded three days earlier by a three-day storm having 40% of PMP storm rainfall. The fastest rising flood occurs during a PMP when the six-hour increments increase throughout the storm with the maximum 6 hours occurring in the last period. Figure 2.4-110 (Sheet 1A) shows the essential elements of this storm which provides the basis for the warning plan. In this flood 8.6 inches of rain would have fallen 31 hours (27 + 4) prior to the flood crossing elevation 727.0 ft and would produce elevation 715.5 ft at the plant. Hence, any time rain on the ground results in a forecast plant elevation of 715.5 ft a Stage I shutdown warning will be issued. Examination of Figure 2.4-110 (Sheets 1B and 1C) show that following this procedure in these floods would result in longer times to reach elevation 727.0 ft after Stage I warning was issued. These times would be 41 and 46.5 hours (includes 4 hours for forecasting and communication) for Figure 2.4-110 (Sheet 1B) and (Sheet 1C), respectively. This compares to the 31 hours for the fastest rising flood Figure 2.4-110 (Sheet 1A). Stage I warning would be issued for the storm shown in Figure 2.4-110 (Sheet 1D) but would not reach a Stage II warning as the maximum elevation reached is 721.92 ft which is well below elevation 727.0 ft. 2.4-58
WBN An additional 2.6 inches of rain must fall promptly for a total of 11.2 inches of rain to cause the flood to exceed elevation 727.0 ft. In the fastest rising flood, Figure 2.4-110 (Sheet 1A), this rain would have fallen in the next 6.0 hours. A Stage II warning would be issued within the next 4 hours. Thus, the Stage II warning would be issued 6.0 hours after issuance of a Stage I warning and 21.0 hours before the flood would exceed elevation 727.0 ft. In the slower rising floods, Figure 2.4-110 (Sheets 1B and 1C), the time between issuance of a Stage I warning and when the 11.2 inches of rain required to put the flood to elevation 727.0 ft would have occurred, is 7.0 and 5.0 hours respectively. This would result in issuance of a Stage II warning not more than 4 hours later or 30.0 or 37.5 hours, respectively, before the flood would reach elevation 727.0 ft. The summer flood, shown by Figure 2.4-110 (Sheet 2A), with the maximum one-day rain on the last day provides controlling conditions when reservoirs are at summer levels. At a time 31 hours (27 + 4) before the flood reaches elevation 727.0 ft, 9.3 inches of rain would have fallen. This 9.3 inches of rain under these runoff conditions would produce elevation 720.6 ft, so this level becomes the Stage I target. An additional 2.0 inches of rain must fall promptly for a total of 11.3 inches of rain to cause the flood to exceed elevation 727.0 ft. In this fastest rising summer flood, Figure 2.4-110 (Sheet 2A), this rain would have fallen in the next 4.5 hours. A Stage II warning would be issued within the next 4 hours. Thus, the Stage II warning would be issued 4.5 hours after issuance of a Stage I warning and 22.5 hours before the flood would exceed elevation 727.0 ft. The above criteria all relate to forecasts which use rain on the ground. In actual practice quantitative rain forecasts, which are already a part of daily operations, would be used to provide advance alerts that the need for shutdown may be imminent. Only rain on the ground, however, is included in the procedure for firm warning use. Because the above analyses used fastest possible rising floods at the plant, all other floods will allow longer warning times than required for physical plant shutdown activities. In summary, the forecast elevations which will assure adequate shutdown times are: Forecast Elevations at Watts Bar Season Stage I shutdown Stage II shutdown Winter 715.5 ft 727.0 ft Summer 720.6 ft 727.0 ft 2.4.14.9.6 Communications Reliability Communication between projects in the TVA power system is via (a) TVA-owned microwave network, (b) Fiber-Optics System, and (c) by commercial telephone. In emergencies, additional communication links are provided by Transmission Power Supply radio networks. The four networks provide a high level of dependability against emergencies. Additionally, RO have available satellite telephone communications with the TVA hydro projects upstream of Chattanooga (listed in Section 2.4.14.9.2). RO is linked to the TVA power system by all five communication networks. The data from the satellite gages are received via a data collection platform-satellite computer system located in the RO office. 2.4-59
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION WBN 2.4.14.10 Basis for Flood Protection Plan in Seismic-Caused Dam Failures 2.4-60 CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION
WBN 2.4.14.11 Special Condition Allowance The flood protection plan is based upon the minimum time available for the worst case. This worst case provides adequate preparation time including contingency margin for normal and anticipated plant conditions including anticipated maintenance operations. It is conceivable, however, that a plant condition might develop for which maintenance operations would make a longer warning time desirable. In such a situation the Plant Manager determines the desirable warning time. He contacts TVA's RO to determine if the desired warning time is available. If weather and reservoir conditions are such that the desired time can be provided, special warning procedures will be developed, if necessary, to ensure the time is available. This special case continues until the Plant Manager notifies TVA's RO that maintenance has been completed. If threatening storm conditions are forecast which might shorten the available time for special maintenance, the Plant Manager is notified by RO and steps taken to assure that the plant is placed in a safe shutdown mode. REFERENCES
- 1. Reference deleted.
- 2. Reference deleted.
- 3. SCS National Engineering Handbook, Section 4, Hydrology, July 1969.
- 4. U.S. Weather Bureau, "Probable Maximum and TVA Precipitation Over The Tennessee River Basin Above Chattanooga," Hydrometeorological Report No. 41, 1965.
- 5. Newton, Donald W., and Vineyard, J. W., "Computer-Determined Unit Hydrographs From Floods," Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Volume 93, No. HY5, September 1967.
- 6. Garrison, J. M., Granju, J. P., and Price, J. T., "Unsteady Flow Simulation in Rivers and Reservoirs," Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Volume 95, No. HY5, Proceedings Paper 6771, September 1969, pages 1559-1576.
- 7. Reference deleted.
- 8. Reference deleted.
- 9. Reference deleted.
- 10. Reference deleted.
- 11. Reference deleted.
- 12. Reference deleted.
- 13. Reference deleted.
- 14. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Computation of Freeboard Allowances for Waves in Reservoirs," Engineering Technical Letter No. 1110-2-8, August 1966.
2.4-61
WBN
- 15. U.S. Army coastal Engineering Research Center, "Shore Protection Planning and Design,"
Third Edition, 1966.
- 16. Anderson, Paul, "Substructure Analysis and Design," 1948.
- 17. Hinds, Julian, Cregar, William P., and Justin, Joel D., "Engineering For Dams," Volume 11, Concrete Dams, John Wiley and Sons, Incorporated, 1945.
- 18. Bustamante, Jurge I., Flores, Arando, "Water Pressure in Dams Subject to Earthquakes,"
Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE Proceedings, October 1966.
- 19. Chopra, Anil K., "Hydrodynamic Pressures on Dams During Earthquakes," Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division ASCE Proceedings, December 1967, pages 205-223.
- 20. Zienkiewicz, O. C., "Hydrodynamic Pressures Due to Earthquakes," Water Pressures Due to Earthquakes," Water Power, Volume 16, September 1964, pages 382-388.
- 21. Tennessee Valley Authority, "Sedimentation in TVA Reservoirs," TVA Report No. 0- 6693, Division of Water Control Planning, February 1968.
- 22. Reference deleted.
- 23. Price, J. T. and Garrison, J. M., Flood Waves From Hydrologic and Seismic Dam Failures," paper presented at the 1973 ASCE National Water Resources Engineering Meeting, Washington, D. C.
- 24. Fisher, H. B., "Longitudinal Dispersion in Laboratory and Natural Systems" Keck Laboratory Report KH-R-12, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, June 1966.
- 25. Fisher, H. B., "The Mechanics of Dispersion in Natural Streams," Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE Vol. 93, No HY6, November 1967.
- 26. Yotsukura, N., "A Two-Dimensional Temperature Model for the Thermally Loaded River with Steady Discharge" Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Environmental and Water Resources Engineering Conference, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, 1972.
- 27. Almquist, C. W., "A Simple Model for the Calculation of Transverse Mixing in Rivers with Application to the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant," TVA, Division of Water Management, Water Systems Development Branch, Technical Report No. 9-2012, March 1977.
- 28. Henderson, E. M., Open Channel Flow, MacMillen, 1966.
- 29. Carlslaw, B. S. and J. C. Jaeger, Conduction of Heat in Solids, Oxford University Press, London England, 1959.
- 30. Johnson, A. E., 1963, Application of Laboratory Permeability.
- 31. Reference deleted.
- 32. Reference deleted.
2.4-62
WBN
- 33. Reference deleted.
- 34. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, River Analysis System, HEC-RAS computer software, version 3.1.3.
- 35. National Weather Service, "Probable Maximum and TVA Precipitation Estimates with Areal Distribution for Tennessee River Drainages Less Than 3,000 Square Miles in Area,"
Hydrometeorological Report No. 56, October 1986.
- 36. U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Information System: Web Interface, USGS Surface-Water Data for the Nation, Website, http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/ws, accessed April 2006.
- 37. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), "Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety:
Earthquake Analysis and Design of Dams, FEMA 65, May 2005.
- 38. Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ0000002014000018, BWSC Calculation TVAGENQ13007,HEC-RAS Tributary Model Calibration, Revision 0.
- 39. Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ0000002014000016, BWSC Calculation TVAGENQ14002, Tributary Dam Rating Curves, Revision 0.
- 40. Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ0000002014000019, BWSC Calculation TVAGENQ14003, HEC-RAS Tributary Model Unsteady Flow Rules, Revision 0
- 41. Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ000020080053, PMF Inflow Determination, Revision 1.
- 42. Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ000020080050, Flood Operational Guide, Revision 3.
- 43. Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ0000002014000017, BWSC Calculation TVAGENQ13002, HEC-RAS Tributary Geometry Development, Revision 0
- 44. SOCH Geometry Verification - Ft. Loudoun Reservoir, French Broad River, and Holston River CDQ000020080024 Revision 2
- 45. SOCH Geometry Verification - Tellico Reservoir and Tellico/Ft. Loudoun Canal CDQ000020080025 Revision 2
- 46. SOCH Geometry Verification - Watts Bar Reservoir CDQ000020080026 Revision 2
- 47. SOCH Geometry Verification - Melton Hill Reservoir CDQ000020080029 Revision 2
- 48. SOCH Geometry Verification - Chickamauga Reservoir CDQ000020080030 Revision 2
- 49. SOCH Geometry Verification - Nickajack Reservoir, North Chickamauga Creek, Lick Branch (Dallas Bay) CDQ000020080031 Revision 2
- 50. SOCH Geometry Verification - Guntersville Reservoir CDQ000020080032 Revision 3 2.4-63
WBN
- 51. SOCH Geometry Verification - Wheeler Reservoir CDQ000020080033 Revision 0
- 52. Reservoir Storage Tables CDQ000020080051 Revision 2
- 53. Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ0000002014000021, BWSC Calculation TVAGENQ14004, HEC-RAS Model Setup, Revision 0.
- 54. River Operations Procedure RO-SPP-27.1, "RO-Design and Evaluation of New and Existing Dams," Revision 2.
- 55. Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ0000002013000163, Watts Bar Local Intense Precipitation Analysis, Revision 2, Case 1 Only.
2.4-64
WBN TABLE 2.4-1 LOCATION OF SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES IN THE 58.9 MILE REACH OF THE MAINSTREAM OF THE TENNESSEE RIVER BETWEEN WATTS BAR DAM (TRM 529.9) AND CHICHAMAGUA DAM (TRM 271.0) Approximate Distance From Site Plant Name Use (MGD) Location (Bank) (River Miles) Type Supply Watts Bar Dam # TRM 529.9 1.9 (Upstream) Industrial Watts Bar Steam Plant ## # TRM 529.9 R 1.9 (Upstream) Industrial Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 40.000 TRM 528.8 R 0 Industrial City of Dayton 1.780 TRM 503.8 R 24.2 (Downstream) Municipal Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 1615.680 TRM 484.76 R 44.4 (Downstream) Industrial East Side Utility 5.00 TRM 473.0 L 55 (Downstream) Municipal Chickamagua Dam # TRM 471.0 57 (Downstream) Industrial
- Water usage is not metered.
- Water is withdrawn from Watts Bar Reservoir through an intake in Watts Bar Dam.
- Not in operation at this time
- Water is withdrawn from Watts Bar Reservoir through an intake in Watts Bar Dam.
WBN Table 2.4-2 (Sheet 1 of 2) 2.4- WA 62 T Facts About TVA Dams and Reservoirs T S B A Dam Locations Drainage Location Reservoir Elevation (Feet Above Mean Sea Level) Reservoir Volume (Acre Feet) R Area of Dam Lock Chamber Area of Jan. 1 Above First Unit in Last Unit in Winter Net Above Size: Width x Reservoir Original Jan. 1 June 1 Controlled Dam Service Service Dependable Number of Mouth of Height Length Length x Length of Surface River Flood Flood At Jan. 1 At June 1 Storage Number Main River (Square Cost(b) Construction Dam (Actual or (Actual or Capacity(c) Generating River of Dam of Dam Type of Maximum Lift Reservoir(e) Miles of Area(e) Bed Guide Top of Guide Flood Guide At Top of Flood Guide (Acre of Dams Projects River State Miles) (Millions) Began Closure Scheduled) Scheduled) (Megawatts) Units (Miles) (Feet) (Feet) Dam(d) (Feet) (Miles) Shoreline(e) (Acres) (Acres) Elevation Gates Elevation Elevation Gates Elevation Feet)(f) Project in Project Kentucky(g) Tennessee KY 40,200 128.8 7/1/1938 8/30/1944 9/14/1944 1/16/1948 184 5 22.4 206 8,422 CGE 110x600x75(v) 184.3 2064.3 160,300 25,200 354.0 375.00 359.0 2,121,000 6,129,000 2,839,000 4,008,000 TN River 9 Pickwick Tennessee TN 32,820 120.9 12/30/1934 2/8/1938 6/29/1938 12/31/1952 229 6 206.7 113 7,715 CGE 110x1000x63(i) 52.7 490.6 42,700 9,580 408.0 418.00 414.0 839,300 1,332,000 1,119,000 492,700 TN River 9 Landing 110x600x63 60x232x48 Wilson(h) Tennessee AL 30,750 133.5 4/14/1918 4/14/1924 9/12/1925 4/12/1962 663 21 259.4 137 4,541 CG 110x600x100(i) 15.5 166.2 15,600 9,108 504.7 507.88 507.7 589,700 640,200 637,200 50,500 TN River 9 60x300x52 60x292x48 Wheeler Tennessee AL 29,590 69.0 11/21/1933 10/3/1936 11/9/1936 12/18/1963 361 11 274.9 72 6,342 CG 60x400x52 74.1 1027.2 67,070 17,600 550.5 556.28 556.0 742,600 1,069,000 1,050,000 326,500 TN River 9 110x600x52(i) Guntersville Tennessee AL 24,450 74.2 12/4/1935 1/16/1939 8/1/1939 3/24/1952 124 4 349.0 96.5 3,979 CGE 60x360x45 75.7 889.1 66,000 12,065 593.0 595.44 595.0 886,600 1,048,700 1,018,000 162,100 TN River 9 110x600x45(i) Nickajack Tennessee TN 21,870 56.1 4/1/1964 12/14/1967 2/20/1968 4/30/1968 105 4 424.7 86 3,767 CGE 110x800x41(j) 46.3 178.7 10,200 4,200 632.5- 635.00 632.5- N/A 251,600 N/A N/A TN River 9 110x600x41 634.5 634.5 Chickamauga Tennessee TN 20,790 74.4 1/13/1936 1/15/1940 3/4/1940 3/7/1952 119 4 471.0 129 5,800 CGE 60x360x53(v) 58.9 783.7 36,050 9,500 675.0 685.44 682.5 392,000 737,300 622,500 345,300 TN River 9 Watts Bar Tennessee TN 17,310 66.4 7/1/1939 1/1/1942 2/11/1942 4/24/1944 182 5 529.9 125(w) 2,960 CGE 60x360x70 95.5(r) 721.7 37,500 10,343 735.0 745.00 741.0 796,000 1,175,000 1,010,000 379,000 TN River 9 Fort Loudoun Tennessee TN 9,550 45.3 7/8/1940 8/2/1943 11/9/1943 1/27/1949 162 4 602.3 129(w) 4,190 CGE 60x360x80 60.8(s) 378.2 14,000 4,420 807.0 815.00 813.0 282,000 393,000 363,000 111,000 TN River 9 Pumped Storage Project Raccoon Tennessee TN 1 237.8 7/1/1970 7/11/1978 12/31/1978 8/31/1979 1653 4(k) 230 8,500 ER N/A 528 1530.0- N/A N/A N/A Raccoon 1 Mountain 1672.0 Mtn. Tributary Power Projects Tims Ford Elk TN 529 43.8 3/28/1966 12/1/1970 3/1/1972 3/1/1972 36 1 133.3 175 1,580 ER N/A 34.2 308.7 10,500 565 873.0 895.00 888.0 388,400 608,000 530,000 219,600 Elk River 1 Apalachia Hiwassee NC 1,018 29.4 7/17/1941 2/14/1943 9/22/1943 11/17/1943 82 2 66.0 150 1,308 CG N/A 9.8 31.5 1,100 80 1272.0- 1280.00 1272.0- N/A 57,800 N/A N/A Hiwassee 4 1280.0 1280.0 Hiwassee Hiwassee NC 968 42.5 7/15/1936 2/8/1940 5/21/1940 5/24/1956 141 2(l) 75.8 307 1,376 CG N/A 22.2 164.8 5,870 1,000 1485.0 1526.50 1521.0 228,400 434,000 399,000 205,600 Hiwassee 4 Chatuge Hiwassee NC 189 9.5 7/17/1941 2/12/1942 12/9/1954 12/9/1954 13 1 121.0 150 2,850 E N/A 13.0 128.0 6,700 107 1918.0 1928.00 1926.0 177,900 240,500 226,600 62,600 Hiwassee 4 Ocoee 1(h)(m) Ocoee TN 595 11.8 8/00/1910 12/15/1911 1/28/1912 0/0/1914 24 5 11.9 135 840 CG N/A 7.5 47.0 1,620 170 820.0 830.76 829.0 64,300 83,300 79,900 19,000 Ocoee 3 Ocoee 2(h) Ocoee TN 512 28.8 5/00/1912 10/00/1913 10/0/1913 10/00/1913 23 2 24.2 30 450 O N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1115.20 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Ocoee 3 Ocoee 3 Ocoee TN 492 4.9 7/17/1941 8/15/1942 4/30/1943 4/30/1943 29 1 29.2 110 612.1 CG N/A 7.0 24.0 600 260 1428.0- 1435.00 1428.0- N/A 4,200 N/A N/A Ocoee 3 1435.0 1435.0 Blue Toccoa GA 232 20.4 11/00/1925(n) 12/6/1930 7/0/1931 7/0/1931 13 1 53.0 175 1,000 E N/A 11.0 68.1 3,220 182 1668.0 1691.00 1687.0 127,400 195,900 182,800 68,500 Toccoa/ 1 Ridge(h)(m) Ocoee Nottely Nottely GA 214 17.2 7/17/1941 1/24/1942 1/10/1956 1/10/1956 18 1 21.0 197 2,300 RE N/A 20.2 102.1 3,970 170 1762.0 1780.00 1777.0 112,700 174,300 162,000 61,600 Hiwassee 4 Melton Hill Clinch TN 3,343 21.5 9/6/1960 5/1/1963 7/3/1964 11/11/1964 79 2 23.1 103 1,020 CG 75x400x60 44 193.4 5,690 1,645 792.0- 796.00 792.0- N/A 126,000 N/A N/A Clinch 2 795.0 795.0 Norris Clinch TN 2,912 46.1 10/1/1933 3/4/1936 7/28/1936 9/30/1936 110 2 79.6 265 1,860 CGE N/A 129.0(u) 809.2 34,000 2,930 1000.0 1034.00 1,020.0 1,439,000 2,552,000 2,040,000 1,113,000 Clinch 2 Tellico Little TN TN 2,627 117.0 3/7/1967 11/29/1979 (o) (o) (o) (o) 0.3 133(w) 3,238 CGE (o) 33.2 357.0 15,600 2,133 807.0 815.00 813.0 304,000 424,000 392,000 120,000 Little TN 2 Fontana Little TN TN 1,571 69.1 1/1/1942 11/7/1944 1/20/1945 2/4/1954 304 3 61.0 480 2,365 CG N/A 29.0 237.8 10,290 1,650 1653.0 1710.00 1703.0 929,000 1,443,000 1,370,000 514,000 Little TN 2 Douglas French Broad TN 4,541 83.0 2/2/1942 2/19/1943 3/21/1943 8/3/1954 111 4 32.3 215.5 1,705 CG N/A 43.1 512.5 28,070 3,170 954.0 1002.00 994.0 379,000 1,461,000 1,223,500 1,082,000 French 1 Broad Cherokee Holston TN 3,428 29.3 8/1/1940 12/5/1941 4/16/1942 10/7/1953 148 4 52.3 178(w) 6,760 CGER N/A 54.0 394.5 29,560 2,426 1045.0 1075.00 1071.0 791,600 1,541,000 1,422,900 749,400 Holston 4 Fort Patrick South Fork TN 1,903 18.9 5/14/1951 10/27/1953 12/5/1953 2/22/1954 41 2 8.2 95 737 CG N/A 10.4 31.0 840 339 1258.0- 1263.00 1258.0- N/A 26,900 N/A N/A Holston 4 Henry Holston 1,263.0 1263.0 Boone South Fork TN 1,840 15.5 8/29/1950 12/16/1952 3/16/1953 9/3/1953 89 3 18.6 168 1,532 ECG N/A 32.7(t) 126.6 4,130 719 1364.0 1385.00 1382.0 117,600 193,400 180,500 75,800 Holston 4 Holston South Holston South Fork TN 703 23.1 8/04/1947(p) 11/20/1950 2/13/1951 2/13/1951 44 1 49.8 285 1,600 ER N/A 23.7 181.9 7,600 710 1708.0 1742.00 1729.0 511,300 764,000 658,000 252,800 Holston 4 Holston HY DR Watauga Watauga TN 468 22.1 7/22/1946(p) 12/1/1948 8/30/1949 9/29/1949 66 2 36.7 332 900 ER N/A 16.3 104.9 6,440 313 1952.0 1975.00 1959.0 524,200 677,000 568,500 152,800 Watauga 2 OL Wilbur(h) Watauga TN 471 1.6 00/00/1909 00/00/1912 0/0/1912 7/19/1950 11 4 34.0 76.33 375.5 CG N/A 1.8 4.8 70 1641.0- 1650.00 1641.0- N/A 714 N/A N/A Watauga 2 OG 1648.0 1648.0 IC Great Caney Fork TN 1,675 21.4 12/7/1915 12/8/1916 0/0/1916 0/0/1925 36 2 91.1 92 800 CG N/A 22.0 120.0 1,830 1,490 785.0 805.30 800.0 19,700 50,200 40,600 30,500 Caney Fork 1 Falls(a)(h) WBNP Nolichucky Nolichucky TN 1,183 0.1 00/00/1913 (q) (q) 46.0 94 482 CG 26.0 380 1240.90 Nolichucky 1 (retired)(h)( m)
-104 EN GI NE ERI
WBN Table 2.4-2 (Sheet 2 of 2) Facts About TVA Dams and Reservoirs a) All in the Tennessee Valley, except for Great Falls which is in the Cumberland Valley. b) Cost of plant including the inception balance of the plant and all additions and retirements from the plant. Transmission assets are not included. c) Winter net dependable capacity as of October 2009. Winter net dependable capacity is the amount of power a plant can produce on an average winter day, minus the electricity used by the plant itself. d) E: Earth; R: Rock fill; G: Gravity; C: Concrete; O: Other (Codes for each dam are listed in order of importance.) e) At June 1 flood guide elevation. f) Volume between the January 1 elevation and top of gates. g) Connected to Barkley Reservoir by 1-1/2 mile canal, which opened July 14, 1966. h) Acquired: Wilson by transfer from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1933; Ocoee 1, Ocoee 2, Blue Ridge, and Great Falls by purchase from Tennessee Electric Power Company in 1939; Wilbur and Nolichucky (retired) by purchase from East Tennessee Power and Light Company in 1945. Subsequent to acquisition, TVA installed additional units at Wilson and Wilbur. Reconstructed flume at Ocoee 2 was placed in service in November 1983. i) Main locks placed in operation in 1959 at Wilson, 1963 at Wheeler, 1965 at Guntersville, and 1984 at Pickwick Landing. j) Construction of main lock at Nickajack limited to underwater construction. k) Generating units at Raccoon Mountain are reversible Francis type pump-turbine units, each with 428,400 kW generator rating and 612,000 hp pump motor rating. l) Unit 2 at Hiwassee is a reversible Francis type pump-turbine unit with 95,000 kW generator rating and 121,530 hp pump motor rating at 200 ft. net head. m) Ocoee 1 creates Parksville Reservoir, Nolichucky (retired) creates Davy Crockett Reservoir, and Blue Ridge creates Toccoa Reservoir. n) Construction of Blue Ridge discontinued early in 1926; resumed in March 1929. o) Tellico project has no lock or powerhouse. Streamflow through navigable canal to Fort Loudoun Reservoir permits navigation and increases average annual energy output at Fort Loudoun. p) Initial construction of South Holston and Watauga started February 16, 1942; temporarily discontinued to conserve critical materials during WWII. q) Generating units at Nolichucky were removed from system generating capacity in August 1972. The dam was renovated and modified to convert the reservoir for use as a wildlife preserve. r) Includes 72.4 miles up the Tennessee River to Fort Loudoun Dam and 23.1 miles up Clinch River to Melton Hill Dam. s) Includes 6.5 miles up the French Broad River and 4.4 miles up the Holston River. t) Includes 17.4 miles up the South Fork Holston River and 15.3 miles up the Watauga River. u) Includes 73 miles up the Clinch River and 56 miles up the Powell River. v) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is increasing the size of lock structures at Kentucky and Chickamauga. w) The structural height of the dam is the vertical distance from the lowest point of the excavated foundation to the top of the dam. Top of dam refers to the highest poing of the water barrier on an embankment (or top of parapet wall) and deck elevation (or top of parapet wall) for concrete structures.
WBN WATTS BAR Table 2.4-3 (Sheet 1 of 2) WBNP-104 TVA Dams - River Mile Distances to WBNP Distance River Structure/River Mouth River from Mile(a) WBNP (mi.) Tennessee River Chickamauga Dam 471 57 Hiwassee River 499.5 28.5 WBNP 528 - Watts Bar Dam 530 2 Clinch River 568 40 Little Tennessee River 601 73 Fort Loudoun Dam 602 74 Holston River 652 124 French Broad River 652 124 Hiwassee River 0 28.5 Ocoee River 34.5 63 Apalachia Dam 66 94.5 Hiwassee Dam 76 104.5 Nottely River 92 120.5 Chatuge Dam 121 149.5 Ocoee River 0 63 Ocoee #1 Dam 12 75 Ocoee #2 Dam 24 87 Ocoee #3 Dam 29 92 Toccoa River 38(b) 101 Toccoa River 0 101 Blue Ridge Dam 15(b) 116 Nottely River 0 120.5 Nottely Dam 21 141.5 Clinch River 0 40 Melton Hill Dam 23 63 Norris Dam 80 120 2.4-64 Little Tennessee River 0 73 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING Tellico Dam 0.5 73.5
WBN Table 2.4-3 (Sheet 2 of 2) TVA Dams - River Mile Distances to WBNP Distance River Structure/River Mouth River Mile(a) from Chilhowee Dam 33.5 106.5 Calderwood Dam 43.5 116.5 Cheoah Dam 51.5 124.5 Fontana Dam 61 134 Holston River 0 124 Cherokee Dam 52 176 John Sevier 106.3 230 Mouth of South Fork 142.17 265.87 Fort Patrick Henry 8.2 274.07 Boone 18.6 284.47 South Holston 49.8 315.67 Mouth of Watauga 19.68 285.55 Wilbur 34 319.55 Watauga 37.6 323.15 French Broad River 0 124 Douglas Dam 32 156 a) Approximated to the one-half river mile based on U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangles river mile designations. b) Estimated river mile. River miles not provided for Toccoa River on U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangles.
WBN TABLE 2.4-4 FACTS ABOUT TVA DAMS ABOVE CHICKAMAUGA Outlet Works Project Spillway Type Spillway Top of Capacity, cfs at Crest Gate Gate Top Apalachia Ogee, radial gates 1257 1280 135,900 Blue Ridge Ogee, tainter gates 1675 1691 39,000 Boone Ogee, radial gates 1350 1385 141,700 Chatuge Concrete chute, curved weir, vertical-lift 1923 1928 11,700 Cherokee Ogee, radial gates 1043 1075 255,900 Chickamauga Concrete gravity, vertical-lift fixed roller 645 685.44 436,300 Douglas Ogee, radial gates 970 1002 312,700 Fontana Ogee, radial gates 1675 1710 107,300 Fort Loudoun Ogee, radial gates 783 815 392,200 Fort Patrick Ogee, radial gates 1228 1263 141,700 Hiwassee Ogee, radial gates 1503.5 1526.5 88,300 Melton Hill Ogee, radial gates 754 796 115,600 Norris Ogee, drum gates 1020 1034 55,000 Nottely Concrete chute, curved weir vertical-lift 1775 1780 11,500 South Holston Uncontrolled morning-glory with 1742 N/A 41,200(a) concrete-lined shaft and Tellico Ogee, radial gates 773 815 117,900 Watauga Uncontrolled morning-glory with 1975 N/A 41,200(b) concrete-lined shaft and Watts Bar Ogee, radial gates 713 745 560,300 a) At elevation 1752. b) At elevation 1985.
WBN TABLE 2.4-5 (Sheet 1 of 1) FACTS ABOUT NON-TVA DAM AND RESERVOIR a Area Length Total Drainage Miles Maximum of of Storage, Area, Above Height, Length, Lake, Lake Acre- Construction Projects River Sq. Miles Mouth Feet Feet Acres Miles Feet Started Major Dams Calderwood Little Tennessee 1,856 43.7 232 916 536 8 41,160 1928 Cheoah Little Tennessee 1,608 51.4 225 750 595 10 35,030 1916 Chilhowee Little Tennessee 1,976 33.6 91 1,373 1,690 8.9 49,250 1955 Natahala Natahala 108 22.8 250 1,042 1,605 4.6 138,730 1930 Santeetlah Cheoah 176 9.3 212 1,054 2,863 7.5 158,250 1926 Thorpe West Fork (Glenville) Tuckasegee 36.7 9.7 150 900 1,462 4.5 70,810 1940 Minor Dams Bear Creek East Fork Tuckasegee 75.3 4.8 215 740 476 4.6 34,711 1952 Cedar Cliff East Fork Tuckasegee 80.7 2.4 165 600 121 2.4 6,315 1950 Mission (Andrews) Hiwassee 292 106.1 50 390 61 1.46 283 1924 Queens Creek Queens Creek 3.58 1.5 78 382 37 0.5 817 1947 Wolf Creek Wolf Creek 15.2 1.7 180 810 176 2.2 10,056 1952 East Fork East Fork Tuckasegee Tuckasegee 24.9 10.9 140 385 39 1.4 1,797 1952 West Fork Tuckasegee 54.7 3.1 61 254 9 0.5 183 1949 Walters (Carolina P&L) Pigeon 455 38.0 200 870 340 5.5 25,390 1927
- a. Volume at top of gates.
WBN TABLE 2.4-6 (Sheet 1 of 1) FLOOD DETENTION CAPACITY TVA PROJECTS ABOVE WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT Storage Reserved for Flood Control - Acre Feet Project January 1 March 15 Summer Tributary Boone 75,800 48,200 12,900 Cherokee 749,400 749,400 118,100 Douglas 1,082,000 1,020,000 237,500 Fontana 514,000 514,000 73,000 Norris 1,113,000 1,113,000 512,000 South Holston 252,800 220,000 106,000 Tellico 120,000 120,000 32,000 Watauga 152,800 152,000 108,500 Main River Fort Loudoun 111,000 111,000 30,000 Watts Bar 379,000 379,000 165,000 Total 4,549,800 4,427,400 1,395,000
WBN TABLE 2.4-7 (Sheet 1 of 5) Peak Streamflow of the Tennessee River at Chattanooga, TN (USGS Station 03568000) 1867 - 2007 Water Year(a) Date Discharge (cfs) 1867 3/11/1867 459,000 1874 5/01/1874 195,000 1875 3/01/1875 410,000 1876 12/31/1875 227,000 1877 4/11/1877 190,000 1878 2/25/1878 125,000 1879 1/15/1879 252,000 1880 3/18/1880 254,000 1881 12/03/1880 174,000 1882 1/19/1882 275,000 1883 1/23/1883 261,000 1884 3/10/1884 285,000 1885 1/18/1885 174,000 1886 4/03/1886 391,000 1887 2/28/1887 181,000 1888 3/31/1888 178,000 1889 2/18/1889 198,000 1890 3/02/1890 283,000 1891 3/11/1891 259,000 1892 1/17/1892 252,000 1893 2/20/1893 221,000 1894 2/06/1894 167,000 1895 1/12/1895 212,000 1896 4/05/1896 269,000 1897 3/14/1897 257,000 1898 9/05/1898 167,000 1899 3/22/1899 273,000 1900 2/15/1900 159,000 1901 5/25/1901 221,000 1902 1/02/1902 271,000 1903 4/11/1903 210,000
WBN TABLE 2.4-7 (Sheet 2 of 5) Peak Streamflow of the Tennessee River at Chattanooga, TN (USGS Station 03568000) 1867 - 2007 Water Year(a) Date Discharge (cfs) 1904 3/25/1904 144,000 1905 2/11/1905 146,000 1906 1/26/1906 140,000 1907 11/22/1906 222,000 1908 2/17/1908 163,000 1909 6/06/1909 163,000 1910 2/19/1910 86,600 1911 4/08/1911 198,000 1912 3/31/1912 190,000 1913 3/30/1913 222,000 1914 4/03/1914 105,000 1915 12/28/1914 185,000 1916 12/20/1915 197,000 1917 3/07/1917 341,000 1918 2/02/1918 270,000 1919 1/05/1919 189,000 1920 4/05/1920 275,000 1921 2/13/1921 213,000 1922 1/23/1922 229,000 1923 2/07/1923 188,000 1924 1/05/1924 143,000 1925 12/11/1924 138,000 1926 4/16/1926 92,900 1927 12/29/1926 249,000 1928 7/02/1928 184,000 1929 3/26/1929 248,000 1930 11/19/1929 180,000 1931 4/08/1931 125,000 1932 2/01/1932 192,000 1933 1/01/1933 241,000 1934 3/06/1934 215,000
WBN TABLE 2.4-7 (Sheet 3 of 5) Peak Streamflow of the Tennessee River at Chattanooga, TN (USGS Station 03568000) 1867 - 2007 Water Year(a) Date Discharge (cfs) 1935 3/15/1935 175,000 1936 3/29/1936 234,000 1937 1/04/1937 204,000 1938 4/10/1938 136,000 1939 2/17/1939 193,000 1940 9/02/1940 89,400 1941 7/18/1941 58,200 1942 3/22/1942 72,300 1943 12/30/1942 235,000 1944 3/30/1944 201,000 1945 2/18/1945 115,000 1946 1/09/1946 225,000 1947 1/20/1947 186,000 1948 2/14/1948 225,000 1949 1/06/1949 179,000 1950 2/02/1950 192,000 1951 3/30/1951 140,000 1952 (b) (b) 1953 2/22/1953 107,000 1954 1/22/1954 185,000 1955 3/23/1955 118,000 1956 2/04/1956 187,000 1957 2/02/1957 208,000 1958 11/19/1957 189,000 1959 1/23/1959 110,000 1960 12/20/1959 108,000 1961 3/09/1961 178,000 1962 12/18/1961 190,000 1963 3/13/1963 219,000 1964 3/16/1964 122,000 1965 3/26/1965 180,000
WBN TABLE 2.4-7 (Sheet 4 of 5) Peak Streamflow of the Tennessee River at Chattanooga, TN (USGS Station 03568000) 1867 - 2007 Water Year(a) Date Discharge (cfs) 1966 2/16/1966 104,000 1967 7/08/1967 120,000 1968 12/23/1967 148,000 1969 2/03/1969 121,000 1970 12/31/1969 186,000 1971 2/07/1971 90,700 1972 1/11/1972 116,000 1973 3/18/1973 267,000 1974 1/11/1974 181,000 1975 3/14/1975 148,000 1976 1/28/1976 67,200 1977 4/05/1977 191,000 1978 1/28/1978 115,000 1979 3/05/1979 145,000 1980 3/21/1980 168,000 1981 2/12/1981 50,800 1982 1/04/1982 133,000 1983 5/21/1983 116,000 1984 5/9/1984 239,000 1985 2/02/1985 81,000 1986 2/18/1986 66,200 1987 2/27/1987 109,000 1988 1/21/1988 74,100 1989 6/21/1989 173,000 1990 2/19/1990 169,000 1991 12/23/1990 185,000 1992 12/04/1991 146,000 1993 3/24/1993 113,000 1994 3/28/1994 202,000 1995 2/18/1995 99,900 1996 1/28/1996 145,000
WBN TABLE 2.4-7 (Sheet 5 of 5) Peak Streamflow of the Tennessee River at Chattanooga, TN (USGS Station 03568000) 1867 - 2007 Water Year(a) Date Discharge (cfs) 1997 3/04/1997 138,000 1998 4/19/1998 207,000 1999 1/24/1999 91,400 2000 4/05/2000 137,000 2001 2/18/2001 86,100 2002 1/24/2002 184,100 2003 5/8/2003 241,000 2004 9/18/2004 160,000 2005 12/13/2004 153,000 2006 1/23/2006 63,800 2007 1/09/2007 66,300 (a) Water Year runs from October 1 of prior year to September 30 of year identified. (b) Not reported.
WBN TABLE 2.4-8 DELETED
WBN TABLE 2.4-9 DELETED
WBN TABLE 2.4-10 Seasonal Variations of Rainfall (PMP) Anteced 3-Day ent PMP (in.) (in.) 21,400 Dry Ratio to Main 7,980 Sq.-Mi. Interval 7,980 Sq.-Mi. 21,400 Sq.-Mi. Month Storm Sq.- Basin Before Basin Basin March 40 8.14 6.71 3 20.36 16.78 April 40 8.08 6.44 3 20.20 16.11 May 40 7.96 6.10 3 19.92 15.27 June 40 7.81 5.63 3 19.53 14.09 July 30 5.72 3.87 21/2 19.07 12.92 August 30 5.72 3.87 21/2 19.07 13.09 September 30 6.09 4.47 21/2 20.30 14.92 Source: HMR R t 41
WBN Table 2.4-11 (Sheet 1 of 2) Probable Maximum Storm Precipitation and Precipitation Excess Antecedent Storm Main Storm Sub- Rainfall Excess Rainfall Excess Basin Name (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) 1 French Broad River at 6.00 2.73 10.98 8.30 Asheville French Broad River, 2 Newport to Asheville 6.00 3.51 16.56 14.57 3 Pigeon River at Newport 6.00 2.73 15.48 12.80 4 Nolichucky River at 6.00 3.51 15.42 13.43 Embreeville Nolichucky local, 5 Embreeville to Nolichucky 6.00 3.51 21.06 19.07 6 Douglas Dam local 6.00 4.26 26.70 25.48 7 Little Pigeon River at Sevierville 6.00 3.65 20.22 18.23 8 French Broad River local 6.00 3.65 24.00 22.01 9 South Holston Dam 6.00 4.43 16.86 15.64 10 Watauga Dam 6.00 3.51 16.26 14.27 11 Boone local 6.00 3.65 19.68 17.69 12 Fort Patrick Henry 6.00 4.43 23.34 22.12 North Fork Holston River near 13 Gate City 6.00 4.43 17.64 16.42 Cherokee and Holston River 14&15 below Fort Pat & Gate City 6.00 4.43 24.30 23.08 Holston River local, Cherokee Dam 16 to Knoxville gage 6.00 4.43 21.66 20.44 17 Little River at mouth 6.00 3.65 20.16 18.17 18 Fort Loudoun local 6.00 3.65 20.16 18.17 19 Little Tennessee River at Needmore 6.00 2.55 11.58 8.90 20 Nantahala 6.00 2.55 11.70 9.02 21 Tuckasegee River at Bryson City 6.00 2.73 13.50 10.82 22 Fontana local 6.00 2.73 14.76 12.08 Little Tennessee River local, 23 Fontana Dam to Chilhowee Dam 6.00 2.73 15.30 12.62 Little Tennessee River local, 24 Chilhowee Dam to Tellico Dam 6.00 2.73 15.84 13.16 25 Watts Bar local above Clinch River 6.00 3.65 15.84 13.85 26 Clinch River at Norris Dam 6.00 4.43 16.50 15.28 27 Melton Hill local 6.00 4.10 18.00 16.59 33 Clinch River local above mile 16 6.00 4.26 16.62 15.21 34 Poplar Creek at mouth 6.00 4.26 16.26 14.85 35 Emory River at mouth 6.00 4.26 12.24 10.83 36 Clinch River local, mouth to mile 16 6.00 4.26 15.48 14.07 37 Watts Bar local below Clinch River 6.00 4.26 13.20 11.79 38 Chatuge Dam 6.00 2.73 10.50 7.82 39 Nottely Dam 6.00 2.73 10.14 7.46 Hiwassee River local below 40 Chatuge and Nottely 6.00 2.55 12.18 9.50
WBN Table 2.4-11 (Sheet 2 of 2) Probable Maximum Storm Precipitation and Precipitation Excess Antecedent Storm Main Storm Sub- Rainfall Excess Rainfall Excess Basin Name (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) 41 Apalachia local 6.00 3.65 12.42 10.43 42 Blue Ridge Dam 6.00 2.73 9.48 6.80 Ocoee No. 1 local, Ocoee No. 1 to Blue 43 Ridge Dam 6.00 2.73 11.40 8.72 Hiwassee River local, Charleston gage at mile 18.9 to Apalachia and Ocoee 44A No. 1 Dams 6.00 3.65 12.78 10.79 Hiwassee River local, mouth to 44B Charleston gage at mile 18.9 6.00 4.10 12.00 10.59 45 Chickamauga local 6.00 4.10 11.52 10.11
- a. Unit area corresponds to Figure 2.4-9 numbered areas.
- b. Adopted antecedent precipitation index prior to antecedent storm varies by unit area, ranging from 0.78-1.29 inches
- c. Computed antecedent precipitation index prior to main storm, 3.65 inches.
WBN TABLE 2.4-12 Historical Flood Events Rain Runoff Unit Area Basin Flood (in.) (in.) 1 French Broad at Asheville 4/05/1957 5.53 2.30 5/03/2003 5.66 1.44 2 French Broad Newport Local 3/13/1963 5.31 2.47 3/17/1973 4.68 2.20 3/28/1994 5.60 2.33 3 Pigeon at Newport 3/28/1994 6.19 2.92 5/06/2003 7.18 2.68 7 Little Pigeon at Sevierville 3/17/2002 4.61 3.46 5/06/2003 6.19 3.85 9 South Holston Dam 3/12/1963 3.12 1.55 3/16/1973 3.33 1.29 3/18/2002 4.41 1.55 10 Watauga Dam 3/12/1963 3.64 2.16 3/17/1973 3.61 1.84 1/14/1995 6.97 3.75 17 Little River at Mouth 3/17/1973 6.26 3.82 18 Fort Loudoun Local 3/17/1973 6.81 3.14 23 Chilhowee Local 3/16/1973 6.97 3.24 5/06/2003 6.19 3.13 24 Tellico Local 3/17/1973 7.34 3.56 5/06/2003 7.84 3.72 26 Norris Dam 3/17/2002 5.00 2.90 27 Melton Hill Local 3/16/1973 6.66 4.85 42 Blue Ridge Dam 3/29/1951 5.70 1.61 44A Hiwassee at Charleston (RM 18.9) 3/27/1965 6.04 3.52 3/16/1973 7.36 5.84
TABLE 2.4-13 DELETED
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 TABLE 2.4-14
WBN TABLE 2.4-15 (Sheet 1 of 4) WELL AND SPRING INVENTORY WITHIN 2-MILE RADIUS OF WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT SITE (1972 Survey Only) MAP ESTIMATED ELEVATION IDENT LOCATION GROUND WATER SURFACE CASING NO. LATITUDE LONGITUDE DEPTH -----------------feet------------------ SIZE PUMP DATA 1 35°36'08" 87°47'03" 200+ 743 712 0.5 *No pump 2 35°36'24" 84°47'41" 59 726 723 0.5 *No pump 3 35°36'10" 84°47'50" 102 721 704 0.5 *No pump 4 35°36'00" 84°47'48" 43.5 730 718 0.5 *No pump 5 35°35'42" 84°47'49" 45 710 687 0.5 *No pump 6 35°35'55" 84°47'48" 6 705 705 2.5 *No pump 7 35°36'04" 84°48'16" 107 710 684 0.5 *No pump 8 35°36'11" 84°48'16" 30 702 684 4.0 *No pump 9 35°36'23" 84°48'06" ** - 740 - No pump 10 35°37'15" 84°49'04" 99 742 696 0.5 1/3 hp 11 35°37'06" 84°49'10" 87 753 Unknown 0.5 1/2 hp 12 35°37'03" 84°49'04" 150 704 700 0.5 1/2 hp 13 35°37'05" 84°49'02" 175 704 698 0.5 1 hp 14 35°37'15" 84°49'01" 140 740 720 0.5 1 hp 15 35°37'03" 84°48'48" 83 729 693 0.5 Hand pump 16 35°36'46' 84°48'18" 205 780 665 0.5 Submerged, Unknown 17 35°36'34" 84°48'13" 28 768 768 0.5 1 hp 18 35°36'30" 84°48'20" 95 794 777 0.5 1 hp 19 35°35'35" 84°48'52" 111 713 715 0.6 No pump, 1 gpm 20 35°36'54" 84°49'10" 68 710 Unknown 0.5 Unknown 21 35°36'18" 84°49'24" 125 725 695 0.5 1/2 hp 22 35°36'20" 84°49'20" 130 729 655 0.5 3/4 hp 23 35°35'20" 84°48'55" 225 730 715 0.5 1 hp 24 35°35'15" 84°48'56" 79 715 705 0.5 1/2 hp 25 35°35'44" 84°49'07" 14 805 804 8.0 No pump 26 35°35'46" 84°49'31" 385 718 Unknown 0.5 1/2 hp 27 35°35'29" 84°49'16" 240 770 600 Unknown Unknown 28 35°37'14" 84°47'04" *** - Watts Bar Lake - 2, 50 hp=500 gpm 735 - 745 29 35°37'19" 84°45'57" 100 706 660 0.5 1 hp 30 35°36'39" 84°45'59" 65 714 unknown 0.5 1/2 hp 31 35°35'49" 84°46'15" Spring - 710 - No pump
WBN TABLE 2.4-15 (Sheet 2 of 4) WELL AND SPRING INVENTORY WITHIN 2-MILE RADIUS OF WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT SITE (1972 Survey Only) 32 35°36'19" 84°45'21" 32.5 747 740 2'-10" Windlass and Square bucket, no pump 33 35°35'26" 84°46'44" Spring - 800 - No pump 34 35°35'25" 84°47'02" 120 725 705 Unknown 4 hp 35 35°35'12" 84°47'15" 225 730 710 0.5 No pump 36 35°35'19" 84°47'25" 110 734 715 0.5 3/4 hp 37 35°35'15" 84°47'25" 175 730 710 0.7 No pump 38 35°35'14" 84°47'27" 100 730 710 0.7 3/4 hp 39 35°37'26" 84°45'50" 40 710 702 0.5 1/4 hp 40 35°35'16" 84°47'28" 165 725 705 0.5 3/4 hp 41 35°35'19" 84°47'30" 110 734 695 0.5 3/4 hp 42 35°35'14" 84°47'28" 73 724 724 0.5 No pump 43 35°35'14" 84°47'22" 105 724 720 0.5 1/2 hp 44 35°35'12" 84°47'29" Spring - 710 - 1/2 hp 45 35°35'15" 84°47'16" 125 730 690 0.5 1/2 hp 46 35°35'09" 84°47'31" 105 730 722 0.5 1-1/2 hp 47 35°35'14" 84°47'41" 164 764 755 0.5 1-1/2 hp 48 35°36'55" 84°45'35" Spring - 720 - 3/4 hp 49 35°35'00" 84°47'50" 100 748 708 0.5 1-1/2 hp 50 35°34'48" 84°47'42" 80 710 688 0.5 3/4 hp 51 35°35'02" 84°47'38" 100 750 720 0.5 1/2 hp 52 35°34'58" 84°47'34" 99 722 711 0.5 2 hp 53 35°34'55" 84°47'37" 54 719 691 0.5 3/4 hp 54 35°34'44" 84°47'48" 52 718 703 3.0 Not used 55 35°34'39" 84°47'50" 257 720 692 0.5 5 gpm for five houses, lowered well 20 feet 56 35°34'39" 84°47'29" 56 701 691 0.5 1hp 57 35°34'37" 84°47'32" 252 714 602 0.5 125 gph, 1 hp 58 35°34'59" 84°47'33" Spring - 710 - Not used 59 35°35'03" 84°47'38" Spring - 730 - Cattle pond 60 35°35'04" 84°47'58" Spring - 710 - Not used Investigation made on January 10-11, 1972.
*Residence purchased for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant construction. **Spring fed pond of approximately 50 feet in diameter.
- Watts Bar Dam, Steam Plant, and Pete Smith Resort water supply taken from Watts Bar Lake.
WBN TABLE 2.4-15 (Sheet 3 of 4) WELL AND SPRING INVENTORY WITHIN 2-MILE RADIUS OF WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT SITE (1972 Survey Only) MAP ESTIMATED ELEVATION IDENT LOCATION GROUND WATER SURFACE CASING PUMP*** NO. LATITUDE LONGITUDE DEPTH ----------------feet---------------- SIZE IN USE 61 35°36'58" 84°45'22" NA* 750 NA NA NA 62 35°36'50" 84°45'24" NA 710 NA NA NA 63 35°35'42" 84°47'32" 150 742 INK** 0.5 Yes 64 35°37'16" 84°49'00" 100 740 50 0.33 Yes 65 35°36'29" 84°48'20" 200 710 19 0.5 Yes 66 35°36'52" 84°49'08" 70-83 700 INK 0.5 Yes 67 35°36'50" 84°49'08" 70-83 700 INK 0.5 Yes 68 35°36'49" 84°49'09" 70-83 700 INK 0.5 Yes 69 35°36'47" 84°49'10" 70-83 700 INK 0.5 Yes 70 35°37'03" 84°49'09" NA 750 NA NA No 71 35°37'05" 84°49'10" NA 750 NA Hand dug No 72 35°35'41" 84°49'16" NA 720 NA NA NA 73 35°35'43" 84°48'48" NA 800 NA NA NA 74 35°36'53" 84°48'49" INK 720 INK INK Yes 75 35 35'07" 84°47'58" 100+ 760 Below River INK Yes 76 35°35'07" 84°48'00" INK 740 INK INK Yes 77 35 35'06" 84°48'01" NA 720 NA NA NA 78 35°35'08" 84°48'01" NA 720 NA NA NA 79 35°35'09" 84°47'54" NA 800 NA NA NA 80 35°35'11" 84°47'42" NA 760 NA NA NA 81 35 35'14" 84°47'41" NA 760 NA NA NA 82 35°35'13" 84°47'37" 400+ 760 INK 0.5 Yes 83 35°35'14" 84°47'37" 300+ 760 INK 0.5 Yes 84 35°35'10" 84°47'34" NA 740 NA NA NA 85 35°35'14" 84°47'31" NA 720 NA NA NA 86 35-35'18" 84°47'26" 450 720 20 0.125 Yes 87 35°35'24" 84°47'14" 300 740 INK INK Yes 88 35°35'17" 84°47'15" 300 730 INK 0.5 Yes 89 35°35'19" 84°47'12" 265 730 INK 0.5 Yes 90 35°35'18" 84°47'12" 150 730 INK 0.5 Yes 91 35°35'17" 84°47'09" NA 730 NA NA NA 92 35°35'14" 84°47'13" NA 720 NA NA NA 93 35°35'06" 84°47'17" 210 720 20 0.5 Yes
WBN TABLE 2.4-15 (Sheet 4 of 4) WELL AND SPRING INVENTORY WITHIN 2-MILE RADIUS OF WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT SITE (1972 Survey Only) MAP ESTIMATED ELEVATION IDENT LOCATION GROUND WATER SURFACE CASING PUMP*** NO. LATITUDE LONGITUDE DEPTH ----------------feet------------------ SIZE IN USE 94 35°35'08" 84°46'58" 130 760 15 0.5 Yes 95 35°35'08" 84°46'55" NA 800 NA NA NA 96 35°35'19" 84°46'41" 80 990 20 0.5 Yes 97 35°35'22" 84°46'34" 600 960 INK 0.5 Yes 98 35°35'39" 84°46'34" INK 740 INK INK Yes S-99 35°37'04" 84°48'59" Spring 710 - - No S-100 35°35'45" 84°49'04" Spring 840 - - No S-101 35°35'40' 84°49'14" Spring 730 - - No S-102 35°35'16" 84°46'44" Spring 980 - - No S-103 35°35'06" 84°46'57" Spring 800 - - No
- none available, many of these residences appeared to be summer houses, 2-3 attempts to locate home owners in the evening hours and on the weekend were unsuccessful.
** Information not known by homeowner. *** No pump sizes were known by current homeowners.
WBN Table 2.4-16 Summary of Results at the Dams for 7,980 square-mile, Bulls Gap centered, March PMF storm event Max HW Associated TW Max Discharge Dam (ft) (ft) (cfs) Apalachia Dam 1276.04 1180.73 73,484 Blue Ridge Dam 1691.03 1552.24 41,576 Boone Dam 1406.29 1301.75 2,213,602 Calderwood Dam 1090.90 929.07 1,898,090 Chatuge Dam 1928.76 1816.35 16,267 Cheoah Dam 1280.02 1110.29 1,174,637 Cherokee Dam 1094.99 989.24 475,849 Chickamauga Dam 715.68 711.52 1,128,830 Chilhowee Dam 891.99 856.27 1,291,045 Douglas Dam 1022.48 936.97 604,342 Fontana Dam 1727.11 1301.02 167,788 Fort Patrick Henry Dam 1308.44 1306.33 1,557,746 Fort Loudoun Dam 833.53 814.36 644,389 Guntersville Dam 617.51 605.96 1,055,466 Hiwassee Dam 1534.75 1302.36 65,000 John Sevier Dam 1138.66 1138.52 758,318 Melton Hill Dam 812.08 783.04 700,691 Mission Dam 1665.15 1628.53 38,885 Nickajack Dam 666.72 647.20 1,203,678 Norris Dam 1056.07 868.83 200,000 Nottely Dam 1781.68 1625.68 20,170 Ocoee No. 1 Dam 847.59 751.95 1,185,490 Ocoee No. 2 Dam 1141.51 1114.54 200,660 Ocoee No. 3 Dam 1448.89 1362.10 237,419 South Holston Dam 1755.74 1518.88 76,066 Tellico Dam 830.88 814.03 521,596 Tims Ford Dam 895.05 764.87 56,667 Watauga Dam 1989.59 1732.97 72,422 Watts Bar Dam 768.29 740.68 1,443,174 Wheeler Dam 566.65 525.32 1,037,871 Wilbur Dam 1667.25 1608.07 130,129 Wilson Dam 522.02 472.35 1,256,972
Virginia North Fork Holsbn Lower Tennessee /~r 6010101 Upper Clinch 06040006 06010205! Powell S471,Fk I.m, 06010206 06010102 Holston Watauga Kentucky Lake 06010104 06010103 06040005 Nolichucky Lower Cinch 06010108 Emory 06010208 06010207 Lower French Broad Lower Duck Watts Bsr L,k, X06010107 Upper French Biondi 06040003 06010201 '\06010105 Pigeon Buffalo Upper Duck 06010106 Lower Little Tennessee 06040004 06040002 Sequatchie Tuckasegee North Carolina 06010204 Lower Tennessee-Beech --' 06020004 06010203 06040001 UpperyElk
~ HiNasse Upper Ldtle T`nessee 06030003' Middle~Tennessee .06010202 Lower Elk OED20002 CAickamauga 06030004 06020001 Ocoee Pickwick Lake 06020003 06030005 Wheeler Lake 06030002 Guntersville Lake Bear 06030001/
06030006 South Carolina Mississippi Georgia Legend
*- Wafts Bar 0 30 60 120 Q Outline of Wafts Bar Site Watershed Boundary Miles -Hydrologic Cataloging Unit Number and Name WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT USGS Hydrologic Units within the Tennessee River Watershed Figure 2.4-1
Dot G!F~ Maoo~
- Dam
*M~ ~> Nuclear Plant Site n River Gage HEC-RAS Model Limits N
o 10 20 A Miles WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT EXTENT OF HEC-RAS MODELING FIGURE 2.4-1a (Sheet 1 of 2)
0 0 Dam o Nuclear Plant Site HEC-RAS N o io 20 A Miles WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT EXTENT OF HEC-RAS MODELING FIGURE 2.4-1a (Sheet 2 of 2)
Henry Watauga T orpe(N)
,,; Wilbur Nantahala (N)
Doakes Creek Dougl Fontana Cheoa (T rw ad (T) Santeetlah (T) Norris Ft. Chilhowee ( Hiwassee River n Hill Chatuge Tellico Watts Bar Nottely L n NP -D Chickamauga Ocoeoee 3 Hiwassee Apalachia G2~ Blue Ridge Elk River K Ocoee Raccoon Mountain (Pumped Storage) Duck River Tims Fc Guntersville Cumberland River Normandy Wheeler Bear Creek Projects(4) Wilson Green River Tennessee - Tombigbee Waterway Pickwick Note: f (C) Corps of Engineers Dams (N) Nantahala Power & Light Company (subsidiary of Duke Energy) Beech River Projects(8) (T) Tapoco, Inc.(subsidiary of ALCOA) Ohio River WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT Mississippi River FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT TVA Water Control System Figure 2.4-2
685 rn 684 N O NORMAL OPERATING ZONE 0) p 683 C7 ?682 J N 681 w O pp 680 a Lu 679 Ili LL Z 678 O TOP OF NORMAL H OPERATING ZONE 677 w MEDIAN ELEVATION w 676 (BOTTOMORMAL OPERATING ZONE 675
---SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 645.0 674 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Seasonal Operating Curve, Chickamauga Figure 2.4-3 (Sheet 1 of 12)
745 744 fV m 743
=NORMAL OPERATING ZONE C7 z 742 J
cn 2 741 w m 740 a Lu 739 Ill LL z 738 O TOP OF NORMAL H OPERATING ZONE 737 w J MEDIAN ELEVATION w 736 BOTTOM OF NORMAL OPERATING ZONE 735
---SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 713.0 734 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Seasonal Operating Curve, Watts Bar Figure 2.4-3 (Sheet 2 of 12)
816
---TOP OF GATES: EL. 815.0 am 815 ----------------------------------------------------------
N (FORT LOUDOUN AND TELLICO) T r 814 C7 Z ONORMAL OPERATING ZONE 813 co 2 j812 w w LL 810 Z TOP OF NORMAL O OPERATING ZONE a 809 w MEDIAN ELEVATION w 808 BOTTOM OF NORMAL OPERATING ZONE 807 ------------ v ---
---FT. LOUDOUN SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 783.0 TELLICO SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 773.0 806 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Seasonal Operating Curve, Fort Loudoun - Tellico Figure 2.4-3 (Sheet 3 of 12)
1390 1385 ---TOP OF GATES: EL. 1385.0
------------------------ 1 rn N
CD r 0 z J 1380
*
- FLOOD GUIDE N
w
- MEDIAN **
i pp 1375 Q w w
- w LL Z
21370 w J w
- 1365
--SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 1350.0 1360 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Seasonal Operating Curve, Boone Figure 2.4-3 (Sheet 4 of 12)
1070 4 * ** FLOOD GUIDE p 1060 C7 z J MEDIAN
- 1050 w
O m a *** ---SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 1043.0
- w 1040 w
LL i a 1030 w J w 1020 1010 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Seasonal Operating Curve, Cherokee Figure 2.4-3 (Sheet 5 of 12)
---TOP OF GATES: EL. 1002.0 1000 6
N 990 0 z_ FLOOD GUIDE 980 w Oop 970 ---SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 970.0 a w w MEDIAN ** 960
- z
- O
>Lu 950 W 940 930 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Seasonal Operating Curve, Douglas Figure 2.4-3 (Sheet 6 of 12)
---TOP OF GATES: EL. 1710.0 1710 -------------------------------------------------------
N 1700 Q1 0 1690 z co * \ FLOOD GUIDE 2 w 1680 O in ---SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 1675.0 a w 1670 w LL p 1660 w w 1650 1640 1630 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Seasonal Operating Curve, Fontana Figure 2.4-3 (Sheet 7 of 12)
-'-TOP OF GATES' EL. 1263.0 m 1263 N
r 0 1262 > =NORMAL OPERATING ZONE z J 1261 CO w i pp 1260 a w Lu 1259 z O ~ 1258 a w w 1257
---SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 1228.0 1256 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Seasonal Operating Curve, Fort Patrick Henry Figure 2.4-3 (Sheet 8 of 12)
---TOP OF GATES: EL. 796.0 N 796 -
--7---7----7----7----7 --- ---T-- - ---7 rn r
> 795 z NORMAL OPERATING ZONE J 794 w m 793 Q t w Lu 792 0 791 z Q w w 790
---SPILLWAY CkEST: EL. 754.0 789 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Seasonal Operating Curve, Melton Hill Figure 2.4-3 (Sheet 9 of 12)
---TOP OF GATES: EL. 1034.0 0
z 1020 ---SPILLWAY CREST: J EL. 1020.0 FLOOD GUIDE W
- m 1010 a
w w
- LL
- MEDIAN ***
p 1000 w J W 990 980 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Seasonal Operating Curve, Norris Figure 2.4-3 (Sheet 10 of 12)
1740 1735 rn N 61 r 1730 (7 z
. FLOOD GUIDE Ji 1725 u
- w 0 1720 a MEDIAN**
w . LL 1715 z
- 0
- 1710 a
J W .. *.* w 1705 1700 1695 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Seasonal Operating Curve, South Holston Figure 2.4-3 (Sheet 11 of 12)
1975 rn rn 1970 (9 z j1965 U) 2 w m 1960 FLOOD GUIDE Q w w LL 1955 z O
- MEDIAN
- Q Jw 1950 1945 1940 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Seasonal Operating Curve, Watauga Figure 2.4-3 (Sheet 12 of 12)
720 m N T 700 0 0 Z J ---TOP OF GATES: EL. 685.44 680 w O m a w 660 LL Z O F ---SPILLWAY CREST. EL. 645.0 w 640 J w 620 600 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 VOLUME IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Reservoir Elevation - Storage Relationship, Chickamauga Figure 2.4-4 (Sheet 1 of 13)
770 F 750 N m ---TOP OF GATES: EL. 745.0 D O ? 730 J y w
-SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 713.0 m 710 Q
F w w LL Z 690 O F a w w 670 650 630 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 VOLUME IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Reservoir Elevation - Storage Relationship, Watts Bar Figure 2.4-4 (Sheet 2 of 13)
840 m N T 820 0
---TOP OF GATES: EL. 815.0 O
z J 800 W O m a H ---SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 783.0 w 780 LL z O F Q w 760 J W 740 720 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 VOLUME IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Reservoir Elevation - Storage Relationship, Fort Loudoun Figure 2.4-4 (Sheet 3 of 13)
840 m N w 820 D --- TOP OF GATES: EL. 815.0 O z J 800 W O m a w 780 LL SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 773.0 z O F a w 760 J W 740 720 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 VOLUME IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Reservoir Elevation - Storage Relationship, Tellico Figure 2.4-4 (Sheet 4 of 13)
1400 TOP OF GATES: EL. 1385.0-- N m 1380 D 1360 z J ---SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 1350.0 U) 2 w 1340 O OD Q 1320 w w LL p 1300 H Q w W 1280 1260 1240 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 VOLUME IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Reservoir Elevation - Storage Relationship, Boone Figure 2.4-4 (Sheet 5 of 13)
1090 TOP OF GATES: EL. 1075.0--- 1070 m N m 1050 z
---SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 1043.0 z
1030 w m 1010 Q w w "- 990 z O j 970 w J w 950 930 910 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 VOLUME IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Reservoir Elevation - Storage Relationship, Cherokee Figure 2.4-4 (Sheet 6 of 13)
1020 TOP OF GATES: EL. 1002.0--- 1000 m rn 0 980 O z J ---SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 970.0 W w 960 O m Q w w w 940 LL z O w 920 J w 900 880 860 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 VOLUME IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Reservoir Elevation - Storage Relationship, Douglas Figure 2.4-4 (Sheet 7 of 13)
1690 SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 1675.0--- 1640 J fA 2 1540 W o m a w 1490 LL z 0 F j 1440 W J W 1390 1340 1290 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 VOLUME IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Reservoir Elevation - Storage Relationship, Fontana Figure 2.4-4 (Sheet 8 of 13)
1280
--- TOP OF GATES: EL. 1263.0 1260 1240
--- SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 1228.0 1220 1200 1180 1160 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 VOLUME IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Reservoir Elevation - Storage Relationship, Fort Patrick Henry Figure 2.4-4 (Sheet 9 of 13)
820 m N 0) 0 > 800 0 z
---TOP OF GATES: EL. 796.0 J
W m 780 a w w w LL z 760 a w ---SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 754.0 J W 740 720 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 VOLUME IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Reservoir Elevation - Storage Relationship, Melton Hill Figure 2.4-4 (Sheet 10 of 13)
1050 TOP OF GATES: EL. 1034.0--- m N m ---SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 1020.0 1000 z J (n W m 950 a Lu W W LL z 900 a W J W 850 800 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 VOLUME IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Reservoir Elevation - Storage Relationship, Norris Figure 2.4-4 (Sheet 11 of 13)
1750 WAY CREST: EL. 1742. m m 1700 0 c~ z n 1650 w O m Q r w 1600 LL z O F-Q w 1550 J W 1500 1450 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 VOLUME IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Reservoir Elevation - Storage Relationship, South Holston Figure 2.4-4 (Sheet 12 of 13)
2000 EL. 1975.0 a, 1950 N G) ? 1900 J N W m 1850 Q w w W LL z 1800 O H Q W J w 1750 1700 1650 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 VOLUME IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Reservoir Elevation - Storage Relationship, Watauga Figure 2.4-4 (Sheet 13 of 13)
56 i 52 j ~ 4 O 4 48
- i i i i i i I E I I I I I LU w
z 44
- a Q)
- 0
*
- i ! i ! i ! Q 40
- Q
[0
** * * *
- P TI Q I
* * * ~ O Q S RTlJ 36 1
* *
- 0 i 10 iii? Q ii Pi j ii 32 i *
- N "T T* * *
* ~ ~
!~ Oi i iCiiii 0 i9 Qi!
011; 11 i II I I" II III II IpII I' III IIEi I I
* * * *N IIQ IEIi II III II T I II II I Ilil Q I Q
* * ** ~ ilb; ~ill~
28 1865 1870 1875 1880 1885 1890 1895 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
---------- Naturals Observed
---------- Historic
- Historic COMPLETED: Feb 9, 2010 TENNESSEE RIVER, MI 464.2 o Natural w/o associated observed
- Observed w/o associated natural o Natural w/associated observed * <Associated observed WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT o Natural w/associated observed * <Associated observed FINAL SAFETY n Natural w/associated observed * <Associated observed ANALYSIS REPORT Tennessee River Mile 464.2 -
Distribution of Floods at Chattanooga, Tennessee Figure 2.4-5
KENTUCKY ' VIRGINIA
- - r Bulls Gap
_ ~ r TENNESSEE ---"- Watts Bar NuclearPlant Sweetwater NORTH CAROLINA Sequoyah ( , NuclearPlant-
- SOUTH Legend ----- - i- i -
ALABAMA -- O Landmarks Isohyet Lines
- - - Interpolated Isohyet Lines n
TVA Reservoirs Drainage Basins 1\I GEORGIA o 10 `;zo \ 30 ao so -____ State Boundaries Miles WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Probable Maximum Precipitation Isohyets for 21,400 Sq. Mi. Event, Downstream Placement Figure 2.4-6
WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Probable Maximum Precipitation Isohyets for 7980 Sq. Mi. Event, Centered at Bulls Gap, TN Figure 2.4-7
EM J J a LL Z 60 J a O LL 0 40 z w U Ix W CL 20 12 24 36 48 60 72 TIME - HOURS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Rainfall Time Distribution - Typical Mass Curve Figure 2.4-8
VA KY 26 14 15 11 no 5 16 6 27 35 34 4 8s 3 18 Watts Bar 2 Dam 37 817 7
~25 X 3
NC 22 24 45 0 24 1 44B "A 20 1 40 A 38 43 Chickamauga 38 SC Dam 42 GA WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT N 11 Nuclear Plant Site Dams W~E Drainage Areas above Chickamauga Dam
'CH C Iitaatea Model ReeChes O Watersheds AL OSate Boundaries 0 5 10 51 ~~
20 Mlles Figure 2.4-9
45,000 ---------------- 40,000 35,000 t cn LL ~, `,. t V 30,000 W 25,000 '~_ a 20,000 a 15,000 ri T *. \ i. 10,000 `.-- - - - - - - - 5,000 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------- 12 24 36 48 60 72 TIME - HOURS AREA 1 - FRENCH BROAD RIVER AT ASHEVILLE; 944.4 SQ. MI.; 6-HOUR DURATION AREA 2 - FRENCH BROAD RIVER, NEWPORT TO ASHEVILLE; 913.1 SQ. MI.; 6-HOUR DURATION
- - - - - -AREA 3 - PIGEON RIVER AT NEWPORT; 667.1 SQ. MI.; 6-HOUR DURATION AREA 4 - NOLICHUCKY RIVER AT EMBREEVILLE; 804.8 SQ. MI.; 4-HOUR DURATION AREA 5 - NOLICHUCKY LOCAL; 378.7 SQ. MI.; 6-HOUR DURATION WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unit Hydrographs, Areas 1-5 Figure 2.4-10 (Sheet 1 of 11)
45,000 -'---------------------------------------- -------------------- 40,000 ------- ------ ------------------------- -------------------- ---------------------------------------- 35,000 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LL U 30,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - w 25,000 Q x 20,000
,--. I I I 15,000 ---- --------------------- ----------------------------------------------
10,000 5,000 0 0 12 24 36 48 60 TIME - HOURS AREA 6 - DOUGLAS DAM LOCAL; 835.0 SQ. MI.; 6-HOUR DURATION
--- AREA 7 - LITTLE PIGEON RIVER AT SEVIERVILLE; 352.1 SQ. MI.; 4-HOUR DURATION
- - - - AREA 8 - FRENCH BROAD LOCAL; 206.5 SQ. MI.; 6-HOUR DURATION
- - - - - -AREA 9 - SOUTH HOLSTON DAM; 703.2 SQ. MI.; 6-HOUR DURATION WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unit Hydrographs, Areas 6-9 Figure 2.4-10 (Sheet 2 of 11)
40,000 35,000 ------------ w 30,000 --'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LL U w 25,000 C7 r ~ = 20,000 U r ~ ' 15,000 i ` I 10,000 5,000 12 24 36 48 60 TIME - HOURS AREA 10 - WATAUGA DAM; 468.2 SQ. MI.; 4-HOUR DURATION
--- AREA 11 - BOONE LOCAL; 667.7 SQ. MI.; 6-HOUR DURATION
- - -- - -AREA 12 - FORT PATRICK HENRY DAM; 62.8 SQ. MI.; 6-HOUR DURATION
--- - AREA 13 - NORTH FORK HOLSTON RIVER NEAR GATE CITY; 668.9 SQ. MI.; 6-HOUR DURATION WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unit Hydrographs, Areas 10-13 Figure 2.4-10 (Sheet 3 of 11)
25,000 -------------- ----- ------------- ------------------- ---------------------------------------- co 20,000 LL U W 15,000 -------------------- ---------------------------------------- Q 2 U co) 0 10,000 5,000 /- --------- ~ ----------- ----- -------- 0 0 12 24 36 48 60 TIME - HOURS AREAS 14 & 15 - CHEROKEE LOCAL, 854.6 SQ. MI., 6-HOUR DURATION AREA 16 - HOLSTON RIVER LOCAL, CHEROKEE DAM TO KNOXVILLE GAUGE; 319.6 SQ. MI.; 6-HOUR DURATION
- - - - - -AREA 17 - LITTLE RIVER; 378.6 SQ. MI.; 4-HOUR DURATION
- - AREA 18 - FORT LOUDOUN LOCAL; 323.4 SQ. MI.; 6-HOUR DURATION WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unit Hydrographs, Areas 14-18 Figure 2.4-10 (Sheet 4 of 11)
25,000 ------------------------------------ LL 20,000 U w i 15,000 ------------ a U 10,000 r I ~ 5,000 1 -- - - - - -, 0 0 12 24 36 48 60 TIME - HOURS AREA 19 - LITTLE TENNESSEE RIVER AT NEEDMORE; 436.5 SQ. MI.; 6-HOUR DURATION
--- AREA 20 - NANTAHALA DAM; 90.9 SQ. MI.; 2-HOUR DURATION
- - - - - -AREA 21 - TUCKASEGEE RIVER AT BRYSON CITY; 653.8 SQ. MI.; 6-HOUR DURATION
- - - - AREA 22 - FONTANA LOCAL; 389.8 SQ. MI.; 4-HOUR DURATION WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unit Hydrographs, Areas 19-22 Figure 2.4-10 (Sheet 5 of 11)
45,000 -------- --------- -- --- -------------------------------------
*~ I I '
40,000 ---------------------------------- 35,000 - i -------------------------------------- 0) LL U 30,000 w 25,000 a x j ,rte` *, % *\ 20,000 ------'~ , a 15,000 i..~ 10,000 - 5,000 0 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 TIME - HOURS AREA 23 - LITTLE TENNESSEE RIVER LOCAL, FONTANA TO CHILHOWEE DAM; 404.7 SQ. MI.; 6-HOUR DURATION AREA 24 - LITTLE TENNESSEE RIVER LOCAL, CHILHOWEE TO TELLICO DAM; 650.2 SQ. MI.; 6-HOUR DURATION
- - - - - -AREA 25 - WATTS BAR LOCAL ABOVE CLINCH RIVER, 295.3 SQ. MI.,6-HOUR DURATION AREA 26 - CLINCH RIVER AT NORRIS DAM; 2,912.8 SQ. MI.; 6-HOUR DURATION AREA 27 - MELTON HILL LOCAL; 431.9 SQ. MI.; 6-HOUR DURATION WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unit Hydrographs, Areas 23-27 Figure 2.4-10 (Sheet 6 of 11)
rn LL U W 5,000 Q x U to 0 0 12 24 36 48 60 TIME - HOURS AREA 33- CLINCH RIVER LOCAL ABOVE MILE 16; 37.2 SQ. MI.; 2-HOUR DURATION
--- AREA 34 - POPLAR CREEK AT MOUTH; 135.2 SQ. MI.; 2-HOUR DURATION
- - - - - -AREA 36 - CLINCH RIVER LOCAL, MOUTH TO MILE 16; 29.3 SQ. MI.; 2-HOUR DURATION WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unit Hydrographs, Areas 33, 34, 36 Figure 2.4-10 (Sheet 7 of 11)
40,000 I I I
~ I I 35,000 ____________ ___ ------------------- J____________________L I i I
30,000 ---------- -------- -------------------- -------------------- L------------------- 1------------------- I 25,000 I 20,000 I I I 15,000 10,000 i I 5,000 12 24 36 48 60 TIME - HOURS AREA 35 - EMORY RIVER AT MOUTH; 868.8 SQ. MI.; 4-HOUR DURATION
--- AREA 37 - WATTS BAR LOCAL BELOW CLINCH RIVER; 408.4 SQ. MI.; 6-HOUR DURATION WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unit Hydrographs, Areas 35, 37 Figure 2.4-10 (Sheet 8 of 11)
45,000 40,000 I' I I I I 35,000 I I cn i I LL U 30,000 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ w I I 0 I 25,000 Q I I U I ' in 20,000 r --- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 I i If ~ 15,000 -~ -~--- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10,000 5,000 12 24 36 TIME - HOURS AREA 38 - CHATUGE DAM; 189.1 SQ. MI.; 1-HOUR DURATION AREA 39 - NOTTELY DAM; 214.3 SQ. MI.; 1-HOUR DURATION
- - - - - -AREA 41 - APALACHIA LOCAL; 49.8 SQ. MI.; 1-HOUR DURATION
- - AREA 42 - BLUE RIDGE DAM; 231.6 SQ. MI.; 2-HOUR DURATION WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unit Hydrographs, Areas 38, 39, 41, 42 Figure 2.4-10 (Sheet 9 of 11)
25,000 20,000 ------------- ---------- ------------------------- co LL U I ~ W i Q x U 15,000 4___V____------------------------------- _----- 1------------ 0 10,000 5,000 ' -- 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 TIME - HOURS AREA 40 - HIWASSEE RIVER LOCAL, 565.1 SQ. MI., 6-HOUR DURATION
--- AREA 43 - OCOEE NO. 1 LOCAL, 362.6 SQ. MI., 6-HOUR DURATION
- - - - - -AREA 44A - HIWASSEE RIVER FROM CHARLESTON TO APALACHIA AND OCOEE NO. 1; 686.6 SQ. MI., 6-HOUR DURATION
- - - - AREA 44B - HIWASSEE RIVER FROM MOUTH TO CHARLESTON, 396.0 SQ. MI., 6-HOUR DURATION WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unit Hydrographs, Areas 40, 43, 44A, 44B Figure 2.4-10 (Sheet 10 of 11)
35,000 30,000 LL 25,000 U W 20,000 a x U to p 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0 12 24 36 TIME - HOURS AREA 45 - CHICKAMAUGA LOCAL; 192.1 SQ. MI.; 6-HOUR DURATION WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unit Hydrographs, Area 45 Figure 2.4-10 (Sheet 11 of 11)
730 720 Q, 710 m --TOP OF SOUTH EMB: EL. 707.0
---TOP OF NORTH EMB: EL. 706.0
~ 700 C7 z cn w 690
---TOP OF GATES: EL. 685.44 i
pp 680 i Q i w LL 670 z
/
660
/
W r w 650
---SPILLWAY CREST: 645.0 HEADWATER RATING, CURRENT CONFIGURATION 640
~ ---TAILWATER RATING 630 620 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 DISCHARGE -1000 CFS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve, Chickamauga Dam Figure 2.4-11 (Sheet 1 of 13)
780 2.4-132 WATTS BAR 770
~ ~ ~ I TOP OF EMBANKMENT:EL 772 760 rn 750 N
- TOP OF GATES:EL 745.0 _-
740 Z H 730 w LL i 0 720 a
- SPILLWAY CREST:EL 713.0 710 Ill
-HEADWATER RATING 700 - - TAILWATER RATING RIM LEAK AT WEIR #7 RATING 690 i
680 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT DISCHARGE -1000 CFS FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING DISCHARGE RATING CURVE, WATTS BAR DAM FIGURE 2.4-11 (Sheet 2 of 13) WBNP-104 Figure 2.4-11 Discharge Rating Curve, Watts Bar Dam (Sheet 2 of 13)
TOP OF GATES- EL 815.0 ~ ea 1 o B10 I9
- S lu Uj LL Z
0 SPILLWAY CREST.EL?&" 1 780 r 7 r W J J w 770 r -HEADWR=U71,
?Go NIG3TALWE 7W i
7{p 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 364 4N 450 500 550 600 DISCHARGE- 1000 CFS WATTS AN Dis Figur
61t) - d00 W ? m 79C , t k 760
- 77G J 760, W
750 740. 73 0 100 200 300 400 500 6C.: 700 900 900 1000 1100 1200 NSCHA RGE - 1000 GFS WATT Dischar Fig
1400 m ---TOP OF CONCRETE DAM: EL. 1392.0 N 1390 z z
---TOP OF GAT S: EL. 1385.0 J
a 1380 W O OD Q F W 1370 LL z O F-Q W 1360 J W 1350 --SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 1350.0 Note: Tailwater rating not shown, no effect on outflow. 1340 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 DISCHARGE - 1000 CPS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve, Boone Dam Figure 2.4-11 (Sheet 5 of 13)
2.4-136 WATTS BAR 1100
---TOP OF EARTH SADDLE DAMS: EL.1095.6 1080
--TOP OF GATES: EL. 1075.0 1060 CD 0
N,
--SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 1043.0
> 1040 u
J W 1020 O m Q W w 1000 LL Z O 1= 980 w w 960 HEADWATER RATING
- - - TAILWATER RATING 940 920 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT DISCHARGE - 1000 CFS FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING DISCHARGE RATING CURVE, CHEROKEE DAM Figure 2.4-11 (Sheet 6 of 1 WBNP-104 FIGURE 2.4-11 (Sheet 6 of 13)
Figure 2.4-11 Discharge Rating Curve, Cherokee Dam (Sheet 6 of 13)
---TOP OF CONCRETE DAM: EL. 1022.5 1020 TOP OF GATES: EL. 1002.0 1000 m
N O1 980 J ---SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 970.0 co 2 w 960 O m Q w 940 w LL 0 z 920 Q w w 900
' HEADWATER RATING
/ TAILWATER RATING 880 i 860 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 DISCHARGE - 1000 CFS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve, Douglas Dam Figure 2.4-11 (Sheet 7 of 13)
1740
---TOP OF MAIN DAM: EL. 1727.0 a 1720 N
0) 0 ---TOP OF GATES: EL. 1710.0 t7 ? 1700 J Cl) 2 w m 1680 Q ---SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 1675.0 F-LU W LL Z 1660 O Q w w 1640 1620 Note: Tailwater rating not shown, no effect on outflow. 1600 100 200 300 400 500 DISCHARGE - 1000 CFS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve, Fontana Dam Figure 2.4-11 (Sheet 8 of 13)
1290 9 1280 m 0 C7 ? 1270 --TOP OF DAM: EL. 1270.0 J co 2 W
---TOP OF GATES: EL. 1263.0 m 1260 Q
F_ III W LL Z 1250 O F Q w w 1240 1230
--SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 1228.0 Note: Tailwater rating not shown, no effect on outflow.
1220 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 DISCHARGE - 1000 CFS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve, Fort Patrick Henry Dam Figure 2.4-11 (Sheet 9 of 13)
810 TOP OF NORTH NONOVERFLOW DAM: EL. 805.48 1 1 N ---TOP OF SOUTH NONOVERFLOW DAM: EL. 802.0 T 800 0
---TOP OF GATES: EL. 796.0 t7 z
J M W 790 O m Q H w 780 LL z O F W 770 J W 760
---SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 754.0 Note: Tailwater rating not shown, no effect on outflow.
750 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 DISCHARGE - 1000 CFS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve, Melton Hill Dam Figure 2.4-11 (Sheet 10 of 13)
TOP OF DAM: EL. 1061.0 1060 f a 1050 N m 0 ? 1040 J co 2 TOP OF GATES: EL. 1034.0 w m 1030 F-III w LL Z 1020 ---SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 1020.0 O F Q w w 1010 1000 Note - Tailwater rating not shown, no effect on spillway outflow. 990 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 DISCHARGE - 1000 CFS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve, Norris Dam Figure 2.4-11 (Sheet 11 of 13)
1765 --TOP OF DAM: EL. 1765.0 r N Or Of of > 1760 t7 z J Cl) 2 W m 1755 F_ III W LL 0 1750 z W W W 1745 BENT CREEK SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 1744.0 Note: Tailwater rating not shown, no effect on outflow. MORNING GLORY SPILLWAY CREST: ELI 1742.0 1740 50 100 150 200 250 DISCHARGE - 1000 CFS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve, South Holston Dam Figure 2.4-11 (Sheet 12 of 13)
2010 2005 m N Of 0 2000 Z J N w 1995 O m Q W 1990 START OF'THROAT CONTROL": EL. 1989.0 TO 1990.0 W LL Z p 1985 Q W J W 1980 1975 LZ MORNING GLORY SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 1975.0 Note: Tailwater rating not shown, no effect on outflow. 1970 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 DISCHARGE - 1000 CFS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve, Watauga Dam Figure 2.4-11 (Sheet 13 of 13)
Cherokee Dam HRM 52.3 0 1 Douglas Dam FBRM 32.32 Forks of the River TRM 652.22
~ F~e~° d R`veC Fort Loudoun Dam WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT TRM 602.3 TRM 602.7 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Tellico Dam LTRM 0.6 LTRM 0.3 FORT LOUDOUN & TELLICO HEC-RAS SCHEMATIC FIGURE 2.4-12 Chilhowee Dam LTRM 33.6 Figure 2.4-12 Fort Loudoun & Tellico HEC-RAS Schematic
Observed at TRM 651 40 HEC-RAS m at TRM LL-c 815 651 4 c 0 a~ w 810 Observed at TRM 6451 i 805 HEC-RAS Fort Loudoun Reservoir WATTS BAR at TRIA 6451 Observed Elevation vs. HEC-RAS Elevation NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY 1973 Flood Event 800 4- ANALYSIS REPORT 3/14,173 3/15/73 3/16/73 3/17/73 318'73 3-19 73 3'20'73 3.21!73 Date Figure 2.4-13 Unsteady Flow Model Fort Loudoun Reservoir March 1973 Flood (Sheet 1 of 4) UNSTEADY FLOW MODEL FORT LOUDOUN RESERVOIR MARCH 1973 FLOOD FIGURE 2.4-13 (Sheet 1 of 4)
890 Observed 880 at Douglas Dam TW FBRM 32.3 870 860 HEC-RAS at Douglas m LL Dam TW r FBRM 32.3 w 850 r m w 840 Observed at FBRM 7.4 830 vnn VLV I I WATTS BAR HEC-RAS at FBRM NUCLEAR PLANT 81a 7.4 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 800 3114173 3115173 3116173 3117173 3118173 3119173 3120173 3121173 Date UNSTEADY FLOW MODEL FORT LOUDOUN Figure 2.4-13 Unsteady Flow Model Fort Loudoun Reservoir March 1973 Flood (Sheet 2 of 4) RESERVOIR MARCH 1973 FLOOD FIGURE 2.4-13 (Sheet 2 of 4)
950 940 Observed at 930 Cherokee Dam TW HRM 52.3 924 910 900 HEC-RAS at m Cherokee 890 Dam TW HRM 52.3 0 m 880 d LU 870 Observed 860 at HRM 5.5 850 Mill 830 WATTS BAR HEC-RAS at HRM NUCLEAR PLANT 820 5.5 FINAL SAFETY 81 ANALYSIS REPORT 800 3114173 3115173 3116173 3117173 3118173 3119173 3120173 3121173 Date UNSTEADY FLOW MODEL FORT LOUDOUN Figure 2.4-13 Unsteady Flow Model Fort Loudoun Reservoir March 1973 Flood (Sheet 3 of 4) RESERVOIR MARCH 1973 FLOOD FIGURE 2.4-13 (Sheet 3 of 4)
100,000 90,000 Observed 80,000 Fort Loudoun Dam Discharge 70,00D TRM 602.3 N LL 0 ~-6Q,000 i a LL 50,000 40,000 H EC-RAS 30,000 Fort Loudoun Dam WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT Discharge 20,000 TRM 602.3 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT W,400 UNSTEADY FLOW MODEL FORT 3114173 3115173 3116173 3117173 3118173 3119173 3120173 312183 oats LOUDOUN RESERVOIR Figure 2.4-13 Unsteady Flow Model Fort Loudoun Reservoir March 1973 Flood (Sheet 4 of 4) MARCH 1973 FLOOD FIGURE 2.4-13 (Sheet 4 of 4)
;'z Observed at TRIM 645.1 I
LL WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY H EGRAS ANALYSIS REPORT at TRIM 645-1 Fort Loudoun Reservoir UNSTEADY FLOW Observed Elevation vs. HEC-RAS Elevation MODEL FORT 2003 Flood Event LOUDOUN - TELLICO 800 514103 515103 516103 517103 518103 515103 5110103 5111103 5112103 5113103 5114103 5/15103 5116103 5117103 5118103 RESERVOIR MAY Date 2003 FLOOD FIGURE 2.4-14 (Sheet 1 of 5) Figure 2.4-14 Unsteady Flow Model Fort Loudoun - Tellico Reservoir May 2003 Flood (Sheet 1 of 5)
G2` Observed at Chilhowee Dam TW LTRM 33.6 20 hr t + y
~ r HEC-RAS Chilhowee Dam TW LTRM 33.6 1 ~ ~t W
Observed 81)1 at Tellico Dam H W LTRM 0.3 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 80 HEC-RAS at Tellico Tellico Reservoir Dam H W Observed Elevation vs. HEC-RAS Elevation LTRM 0.3 UNSTEADY FLOW 2003 Flood Event MODEL FORT LOUDOUN - 800 514103 515103 516103 517103 518103 519103 5110/03 5111103 5112103 5/13103 5114103 5/15103 5116103 5117103 5118/03 TELLICO Date RESERVOIR MAY 2003 FLOOD FIGURE 2.4-14 Figure 2.4-14 Unsteady Flow Model Fort Loudoun - Tellico Reservoir May 2003 Flood (Sheet 2 of 5) (Sheet 2 of 5)
900 895 890 HEC-R4S at Douglas Dam TW FBRIA 32 3 885 mm 880 c 0 w 875 870 865 Observed at Douglas Dam TW FBRM 32.3 860 855 850 513103 514103 515103 516!03 517103 518103 519/03 5/10103 5/11103 5/12/03 5/13/03 5114103 5115/03 5116103 5117/03 5118103 Date Figure 2.4-14 Unsteady Flow Model Fort Loudoun - Tellico Reservoir May 2003 Flood (Sheet 3 of 5) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unsteady Flow Model Fort Loudoun - Tellico Reservoir May 2003 Flood Figure 2.4-14 (Sheet 3 of 5)
930 Observed at Cherokee Dam TW 925 HRM 52.3 m m - 920 C O_ Y R 7 w 915 910 905 H EC-RA5 at Cherokee WATTS BAR Dam TW HRM 52.3 NUCLEAR PLANT 900 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 895 non UNSTEADY FLOW 513103 514103 515103 516103 517103 5!8103 519103 5110103 5111103 5112103 5113103 5114103 5115103 5116103 5117103 5118103 MODEL FORT Date LOUDOUN - TELLICO RESERVOIR MAY 2003 FLOOD Figure 2.4-14 Unsteady Flow Model Fort Loudoun - Tellico Reservoir May 2003 Flood (Sheet 4 of 5) FIGURE 2.4-14 (Sheet 4 of 5)
90,000 80,000
-Observed Fort iWOO Loudoun Dam Discharge TRM 602.3 60.000 rn LL U
C LL 40,000 ,! .66kn REC-RAS Fort Loudoun Dam 20.000 Discharge TRM 6023 10,000 u 1141.1 0, * .-'r r r r r r i 0 513103 514/03 5'5103 5/15M 5/7103 5/8iO3 5/9103 5110103 5AV03 5112103 5113103 5'14.!03 5115:03 5116103 5/17103 511&03 Date Figure 2.4-14 Unsteady Flow Model Fort Loudoun - Tellico Reservoir May 2003 Flood (Sheet 5 of 5) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unsteady Flow Model Fort Loudoun - Tellico Reservoir May 2003 Flood Figure 2.4-14 (Sheet 5 of 5)
Melton Hill Dam 0 CRM 23.1 TRM 567.7 a Watts Bar Dam Fort Loudoun Dam TRM 529.9 0 ~ ic a .~cc I Ni v ci) TRM 602.3 Tellico Dam LTRM 0.3 Figure 2.4-15 Watts Bar HEC-RAS Unsteady Flow Model Schematic WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT WATTS BAR HEC-RAS UNSTEADY FLOW MODEL SCHEMATIC FIGURE 2.4-15
765 Watts Bar Reservoir Observed T\ River at Ft Loudoun T W TR\1 Observed Elevation vs. HEC-RAS Elevation 602.30 1973 Flood Event 760 HEC-RAs at Fort Loudoun Dam T %V
/ TR.\1602.3
/
Observed TN River at 1 Melton Hill CR\1 755 1 23.10 m d U- .9 HEC-RCS at Melton Hill Dam T\V CR\i .2 23.1 R W 750
\ Observed TN River at Ferguson Branch TR\i
\` \
745 ~ ~ HEC-Ra.S at Ferguson Branch MM 552.4 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT
' Observed TN River at FINAL SAFETY Watts Bar HW TRIM 529.90 ANALYSIS REPORT 740 i
~ ~ 1 HEC-RaS at Wans Bar Dam Hit' T &M 529.9 UNSTEADY FLOW 735 MODEL WATTS 3/14/73 3/15!73 3/16x/3 3/17/73 3/18/73 3/19/73 3/20/73 3/21/73 BAR RESERVOIR Date MARCH 1973 FLOOD FIGURE 2.4-16 Figure 2.4-16 Unsteady Flow Model Watts Bar Reservoir March 1973 Flood (Sheet 1 of 2)
(Sheet 1 of 2)
250000 Watts Bar Reservoir Observed Flow vs. HEC-RAS Flow 1973 Flood Event Observed TN I River at Ft. A 11 Loudoun TW 200000 II 1 1 Qs TRM 602.3 II 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
~ 1 I 1 I 1 U 1 1 LL U 1 HE at c Watts Bar AS Dam I
3 Qs TRM 529.9 0 / LL 100000
/1 1 \111 I 4
r ~\ I
' I WATTS BAR I NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY 50000 ! Observed TN River at Watts 11 I I I~1 I
~ I
~I II I 1
I I 1 Bar Qs TRM ANALYSIS REPORT 529.9 1 II 1 1 I 4 PA UNSTEADY FLOW 3/14/73 3/15/73 3/16173 3/17/73 3/18/73 3/19/73 3/20/73 3/21/73 MODEL WATTS Date BAR RESERVOIR MARCH 1973 FLOOD Figure 2.4-16 Unsteady Flow Model Watts Bar Reservoir March 1973 Flood (Sheet 2 of 2) FIGURE 2.4-16 (Sheet 2 of 2)
760 Observed T\ Ricer at Ft L oudoun Tit' TR\1602.30 Watts Bar Reservoir Observed Elevation vs. HEC-RAS Elevation 2003 Flood Event HEC-RAS at Fort Loudoun Dam T%V 755 TRM 602.3 ObsenedTIN River at Melton Hill CRM 23.10 d d LL c 750 c 1 HEC-RAS atMelton O Hill Dam TW CRM J ~~ 1 23.1 IFA 1
\
1 1
-Observed T\ River nr Kingston,T\
TfW 56S.l 745 y` HEC-RAS at Kingston,T\ TRM 568.1 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 740 Observed TV River at
%Farts B ar HW TRM FINAL SAFETY 529.90 ANALYSIS REPORT HEC-RAS at Watts Bar Dam Htt* TR\1
- 29.9 735 UNSTEADY FLOW 5/3/03 5/4/03 5/5/03 5/6/03 5/7/03 5/8/03 5/9/03 5/10/03 5/11/03 5/12/03 5/13/03 5/14/03 5/15/03 5/16/03 5/17/03 5/18/03 MODEL WATTS Date BAR RESERVOIR MAY 2003 FLOOD Figure 2.4-17 Unsteady Flow Model Watts Bar Reservoir May 2003 Flood (Sheet 1 of 2) FIGURE 2.4-17 (Sheet 1 of 2)
200000 Watts Bar Reservoir Observed Flow vs. HEC-RAS Flow Observed TN River at 2003 Flood Event Watts Bar Qs TRM 529.9 1 IJp I V1 I 150000 II it I ( I I 1 I l 11 I I ly 1 I~ HEGRAS at Watts Bar Dam TRM 529 9 II M II y II II '
~ Ihl~ II II ~
II 1I ,1' I 1 111 I 11
+ .I ; 1 I~ 1111 t/
%1
" 1 II I~ lII ~ ~~ Observed TN River at 1!1 i t Ft Loudoun TW Qs II ly ; II TRM 602.3 it
' i l +~ ,
UFSAR 1 1 IIII AMENDMENT 12 WATTS BAR 50000 I t 1 NUCLEAR PLANT 11 111 /1 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT HEGRAS at Ft. Loudoun Dam TRM 4 / 6023 UNSTEADY FLOW 11 v S~ MODEL WATTS 0 513/03 5/4/03 5/5103 5/6/03 5/7/03 5/8/03 5/9/03 5/10/03 5/11/03 5/12/03 5/13103 5/14/03 5/15/03 5/16103 5/17/03 5/18103 BAR RESERVOIR Date MAY 2003 FLOOD FIGURE 2.4-17 (Sheet 2 of 2) Figure 2.4-17 Unsteady Flow Model Watts Bar Reservoir May 2003 Flood (Sheet 2 of 2)
Watts Bar Dam TRM 529.9 Below Charleston Hiwassee River DB 2.86 n Charleston Gage HRM 18.9 Chickamauga Dam WATTS BAR TRM 471.0 NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 2.4-18 Chickamauga HEC-RAS Unsteady Flow Model Schematic CHICKAMAUGA HEC-RAS UNSTEADY FLOW MODEL SCHEMATIC FIGURE 2.4-18
700 Observed at TRM 529.9
- - - - HEC-RAS at TRM 529.9 690 Observed at TRM 523.2
- - - - HEC-RAS at TRM 523.2 Observed at TRM 485.2
--- - H EC-RAS at WATTS BAR TRM 485.2 NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT
_ Chickamauga Reservoir Tennessee River Observed at
- Observed Elevation vs. HEC-RAS Elevation TRM 471.0
- 1973 Flood Event UNSTEADY FLOW 670 3/14/73 3/15/73 3/16/73 3/17/73 3/18/73 3/19/73 3/20/73 3/21/73 Date MODEL CHICKAMAUGA RESERVOIR Figure 2.4-19 Unsteady Flow Model Chickamauga Reservoir March 1973 Flood (Sheet 1 of 3) MARCH 1973 FLOOD FIGURE 2.4-19 (Sheet 1 of 3)
700 .*o Observed at H RM 18.9 WATTS BAR 670
- - - H EC-RAS at H RM 18.9 NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT UNSTEADY FLOW 660 MODEL 3/14/73 3/15/73 3/16/73 3/17/73 3/18/73 3/19/73 3/20/73 3/21/73 CHICKAMAUGA Date RESERVOIR MARCH 1973 FLOOD Figure 2.4-19 Unsteady Flow Model Chickamauga Reservoir March 1973 Flood (Sheet 2 of 3) FIGURE 2.4-19 (Sheet 2 of 3)
250000 Observed at TRM 529.9 200000 C U) LL 150000 3 0 II~ U. 1~ Observed at
,1 TRM 471.0 100000
~I WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY
,r 50000 J '
H EC-RAS at TRM 471.0 ANALYSIS REPORT Chickamauga Reservoir Tennessee River I Observed Flows vs. HEC-RAS Flows 1973 Flood Event 0 UNSTEADY FLOW 3/14/73 3/15/73 3/16/73 3/17/73 3/18/73 3/19/73 3/20/73 3/21/73 MODEL Date CHICKAMAUGA RESERVOIR MARCH 1973 FLOOD Figure 2.4-19 Unsteady Flow Model Chickamauga Reservoir March 1973 Flood (Sheet 3 of 3) FIGURE 2.4-19 (Sheet 3 of 3)
700 Observed at TRM 529.9
- - - - H EC-RAS at TRM 529.9
+
d d LL c , ~c 0
- Observed at w 690 TRM 484.7
, H EC-RAS at WATTS BAR TRM 484.7 NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Chickamauga Reservoir Observed at UNSTEADY FLOW Tennessee River TRM 471.0 MODEL Observed Elevation vs. H EC-RAS Elevation 2003 Flood Event 680 CHICKAMAUGA 5/3/03 5/4/03 5/5/03 5/6/03 5/7/03 5/8/03 5/9/03 5/10/03 5/11/03 5/12/03 RESERVOIR MAY Date 2003 FLOOD FIGURE 2.4-20 (Sheet 1 of 3)
Figure 2.4-20 Unsteady Flow Model Chickamauga Reservoir May 2003 Flood (Sheet 1 of 3)
698 696 694 Observed at HRM 18.9 692 m , d U. c , 0 690 is m w , 688 686 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT
- - - - H EC-RAS at HRM 18.9 684 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 682 Chickamauga Reservoir Hiwassee River Observed Elevation vs. HEC-RAS Elevation 2003 Flood Event UNSTEADY FLOW 680 4- MODEL 5/3/03 5/4/03 5/5/03 5/6/03 5/7/03 5/8/03 5/9/03 5/10/03 5/11/03 5/12/03 Date CHICKAMAUGA RESERVOIR MAY 2003 FLOOD Figure 2.4-20 Unsteady Flow Model Chickamauga Reservoir May 2003 Flood (Sheet 2 of 3) FIGURE 2.4-20 (Sheet 2 of 3)
250000 "t Observed a
, TRM 529.9 200000 U)
LL 150000 3 0 LL I I~ Observed a TRM 471.0
,i 100000 50000 - H EC-RAS WATTS BAR at TRM 471.0 NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY Chickamauga Reservoir Tennessee River ANALYSIS REPORT Observed Flows vs. HEC-RAS Flows 2003 Flood Event 0
5/3/03 5/4/03 5/5/03 5/6/03 5/7/03 5/8/03 5/9/03 5/10/03 5/11/03 5/12/03 Date UNSTEADY FLOW MODEL CHICKAMAUGA Figure 2.4-20 Unsteady Flow Model Chickamauga Reservoir May 2003 Flood (Sheet 3 of 3) RESERVOIR MAY 2003 FLOOD FIGURE 2.4-20 (Sheet 3 of 3)
m 740 N 01 O CD CD Z J N m W HEC-RAS HOOK O ------- ------- m 730 ------------- ------------- -------- PROFILE a - - - *SOCH 1100K H PROFILE W W LL HEC-RAS 1200K PROFILE Z O .SOCH 1200K PROFILE Q HECRAS 1300K W PROFILE J W 720 - - - - *SOCH 1300K PROFILE 710 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 TENNESSEE RIVER MILE WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Chickamauga Steady State Profile Comparisons Figure 2.4-21
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / I 735 I I I I I I I I y I I i I I i I I I I I I I I I Y I I 730 I I i I y I I I I I I I I / I I 1 ' 725 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 z 720 I i I I I I I Tailwater I I I I I I I I I Curve (HEC-W RAS) 0 I I I I I ro 715 Q Tailwater H Curve(D.. W W I I I I Rating Cu) I I I I I ` 710 z 0 **y I I I I I I I I I - - - Tailwater I I ****/ I Curve(SOCI) a ~ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I L 705 li
----- li w I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 700 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 695 690 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 685 I 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 DISCHARGE (1000-CFS)
WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Tailwater Rating Curve, Watts Bar Dam Figure 2.4-22
750 1,500,000
.: Ono ...now own Bull's Gap ered won 740 .. ... .. mm noon.. 1,350,000 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant TRM 528 ..C........
HEC-RAS - Elevation and Discharge JL 730 1,200,000 720 1,050,000 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge..'~.....~ noon.. c 0 v d 710 900,000 N
....~~mmmmmm noon v LL a 0 a~
0 mmmmmmwommmmomeenow a~ 700 mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm am 750,000 v U W C mmmmommmono mmmmmmmm d 690 mmmommmmm.n~ ....-... 600,000 mmmmmmmmmm ~.mmmmmom s u O 680 450,000 WATTS BAR 670 300,000 NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT mmommommomom mmmmmmommmmmmmommo 660 150,000 mmommmmmmmmmmommm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mm m mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmommmmmmmmnm Note: Design Basis PMF is 739.2 ft. 650 ti 0 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 PMF DISCHARGE Date AND ELEVATION HYDROGRAPH AT Figure 2.4-23 PMF Discharge and Elevation Hydrograph at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (Sheet 1 of 2) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT Figure 2.4-23 (Sheet 1 of 2)
750 1,500,000 21,400 PMF sq mi Downstream Centered March Event 740 WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 1,350,000 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant TRM 528 / HEC-RAS - Elevation and Discharge \ 730 \ Peak Elev: 728.Oft 1,200,000 720 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Elevation // \ 1,050,000 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge \~ v c V W 710 900,000 v7 N d LL a c m C LL 0 ' eak Elev: 738.53ft \\
++ 700 750,000 -
ro M v Peak Discharge: 1,100,537cfs \ c3 W W 690 600,000 V z U
/
0 680 /1 450,000 670 300,000 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 660 150,000 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 650 T----------4 0 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 Date PMF DISCHARGE Figure 2.4-23 PMF Discharge and Elevation Hydrograph at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (Sheet 2 of 2) AND ELEVATION HYDROGRAPH AT WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT Figure 2.4-23 (Sheet 2 of 2)
WATTS BAR WBNP-104 Figure 2.4-24 DELETED HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING 2.4-166
1800 50,000 1780 45,000 7,980 PMF sq mi 1760 40,000 Bull's Gap Centered March Event WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 Nottely Dam 1740 NRM 21 35,000 HEC-RAS - Elevation and Discharge 70 S 0V v 1720 30,000 V) w m v LL a v c m LL Peak Elev:1,781.68 it 1700 25,000 U M v Peak Discharge: 20,170 cfs 3 U w c 1680 0 1660 15,000 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT Nottely Dam Headwater 1640 Nottely Dam Tailwater N 10,000 FINAL SAFETY Nottely Dam Discharge ANALYSIS REPORT 1620 5,000 1600 A * ~ ~---4 0 NOTTELY DAM 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 HYDROGRAPH Date FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 1 of 27)
1300 1,500,000 7,980 PMF sq mi Bull's Gap Centered March Event 1275 WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 1,350,000 Cheoah Darn LTRM 51.7 HEC-RAS -Elevation and Discharge 1250 1,200,000 Cheoah Dam Headwater 1225 i Chetah Dam Tailwater Cheoah Dam Discharge 1,050,000 0 V d 1200 900,000 v CL a+ d d Peak Elev: 1,280.02 ft j 750,000-Z Peak Discharge: 1,174,637 cfs u a 1150 600.000 2? 1125 450,000 1 1100 300,000 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY 1075 150,000 ANALYSIS REPORT 1050 0 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 Date CHEOAH DAM HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 2 of 27)
1Sbu 100,000 1530 90,000 7,980 PMF sq mi 1500 Bull's Gap Centered March Event 80,000 WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 Hiwassee Dam Peak Elev:1,534.75 ft HRM 75.8 1470 Hiwassee Dam Headwater 70,000 HEC-RAS - Elevation and Discharge Peak Discharge 65 000cfs Hiwassee Dam Tailwater ' c F 0 u Hiwassee Dam Discharge a +-1440 60,000 w 4, a U- a a w LL 0 1410 50,000 u 3 a, U W C 41 1380 40,000
.c v
N 0 1350 30,000 1320 20,000 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY 1290 10,000 ANALYSIS REPORT 1260 0 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 HIWASSEE DAM Date HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 3 of 27)
1/zIV 200,000 1700 180,000
/ Fontana Darn Headwater 1650 Fontana Darn Tailwater 160,000 Fontana Dam Discharge 1600 7,980 PMF sq mi 140,000 Bull's Gap Centered March Event WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 c 0
u Fontana Dam 550 120,000 LTRM 61 a a HEC-RAS - Elevation and Discharge a a Peak Elev: 1,727.11 ft 100,000.2 Peak Discharge: 167,788 cfs 3 l.Y C a 1450 80,000 r u
.l 1400 60,000 WATTS BAR 1350 40,000 NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 1300 20,000 1250 0 FONTANA DAM 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 HYDROGRAPH Date FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 4 of 27)
1100 2,000,000 7,980 PIVIF sq mi Bull's Gap Centered March Event 1075 WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 1,800,000 Calderwood Dam LTRM 43.2 HEC-RAS - Elevation and Discharge 1050 1,600,000 Calderwoad Dam Head wa to r Calderwoad Dam 1025 1,400,000 Ta ilwater c 0 u v -000 1,200,000 v w CL c v LL 0 Peak Elev, 1,090.90 ft ++ 975 R v Peak Discharge: 1,898,090cfs W 71 9S0 800.000 M 1 L u H in 925 600,000 I 900 400,000 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 875 200,000 850 0 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 Date CALDERWOOD DAM HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 5 of 27)
1Juv 50,000 0 00 1680 45,000 7,980 PMF sq mi 1660 40,000 Bull's Gap Centered March Event WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 Blue Ridge Dam 1640 Blue Ridge Dam Headwater ORM 53 35,000 HIEC-RAS -Elevation and Discharge Blue Ridge Dam Tailwater c 0u Blue Ridge Dam Discharge m v 1620 30,000 v v a c ar ar u_ Peak Elev: 1,691.03 ft 1600 25,000 !~ ra 4! Peak Discharge:41,576cfs 3 U W C 4! 1580 20,000 m sU N 0 1560 15,000 WATTS BAR 1540 10,000 NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 1520 5,000 1500 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 0 BLUE RIDGE DAM Date HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 6 of 27)
174V 20,000 1920 18,000 Peak Elev: 1,928,76ft Peak Discharge: 16,267 cfs 1900 7,980 PMF sq rni 16,000 Bull's Gap Centered March Event WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 Chatuge Darn 1880 14,000 H RM 121 HEC-RAS- Elevation and Discharge c 0 U 4-1860 12,000 L a Ol u_ a dv 0 4-1840 10,000
.a 3
d U W c d 1820 8,000
.0 U
H 0 1800 ChatugeDamHeadwater 6,000 Chatuge Dam Tailwater Chatuge Dam Discharge WATTS BAR 1780 Chatuge Main Dam Discharge 4,000 NUCLEAR PLANT Chatuge Saddle Darn Discharge FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 1760 2,000 1740 0 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 CHATUGE DAM Date HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 7 of 27)
1080 200,000 1050 180,000 Peak Elev: 1,056.07 ft ` 1020 Peak Discharge. 200,000 cfs 160,000 990 140,000 7,980 PMF sq mi Bull's Gap Centered March Event WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 Norris Dam Headwater 0u d 960 Norris Dam - -Norris Dam Lailwater 120,000 N a) CRM 79.8 W L Norris Dam Discharge a C HEC-RAS - Elevation and Discharge v 0 6 930 100,000 ," a~ 3 U W c W 0I0I9, 80,000 s u VI 0 870 e 60,000 L _-deee~ WATTS BAR 840 40,000 NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY 810 20,000 ANALYSIS REPORT 780 0 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 NORRIS DAM Date HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 8 of 27)
13CU 90,000 7,980 PMF sq mi Bull's Gap Centered March Event 1300 Peak Elev: 1,276.04 ft WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 80,000 Apalachia Dam Peak Discharge: 73,484 cfs HRM 66 H EC-RAS -Elevation and Discharge 1280 70,000 1260 Apalachia Dam Headwater 60,000 Apalachia Dam Tailwater c 0 u Apalachia Dam Discharge v 1240 50,000 v `a LL o_ C_ a ~c Li 0 +, 1220 40,000 a 3 v U W C a 1200 30,000 ns s u D 1180 20,000 1160 10,000 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 1140 0 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 1120 ~ 1 -10,000 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 Date APALACHIA DAM HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 9 of 27)
880 1,500,000 7,990 PMF sq mi 860 Bull's Gap Centered March Event 1,350,000 WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 Ocoee No.1 Dam ORM 11.9 840 1,200,000 HEC-RAS - Elevation and Discharge 820 Ocoee No. 1 Dam Headwater 1,050,000 Ocoee No. 1 Dam Tai(water 'ts c 0 V Ocoee No. 1 Dam Discharge 01 800 900,000 N v v LL a c CU C v LL w 780 Peak Elev: 847.59 ft 750,000 m .a a ' Peak Discharge: 1,185,490cfs 3 U W c v 760 600,000 L V
~1\ M 740 1 450,000 L -f 720 300,000 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 700 150,000 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 680 0 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 Date OCOEE No. 1 DAM HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 10 of 27)
250,000 7,980 PM sq m Bull's Gap Centered March Event 225,000 WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 Ocoee No.2 Dam ORM 24.2 1140 HEC-RAS - Elevation and Discharge 200,000 Ocoee No. 2 Dam Headwater Ocoee No. 2 Dam Tailwater 1130 Ocoee No. 2 Dam Discharge 175,000 Ocoee No. 2 Turbine Discharge .a C 0 m 1120 150,000 +n L v LL o o. C N LL Peak Elev: 1,141.51 ft 125,000 2
- a Peak Discharge: 200,660 cfs 3 U
C 1100 100,000 D 1090 75,000 WATTS BAR 1080 50,000 NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 1070 25,000 1060 -I= 0 3/15 3/17 3/19 3121 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 414 OCOEE No. 2 DAM Date HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 11 of 27)
1500 250,000 7,980 PMF sq mi Bull's Gap Centered March Event 1480 Ocoee No. 3 Dam Headwater WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 225,000 Ocoee No. 3 Dam Tailwater Ocoee No.3 Dam ORM 29.2 Ocoee No. 3 Dam Discharge HEC-RAS -Elevation and Discharge 1460 Ocoee No. 3 Turbine Discharge 200,000 Peak Elew 1,449.89 ft 1440 175,000 Peak Discharge: 237,419 cfs c 0 v a 1420 150,000 N L a d LL a C d d 1400 125,000 M 7 7 4J u w c v 1380 100,000 s v n in 1360 75,000 1340 50,000 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY 1320 25,000 ANALYSIS REPORT 1300 0 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/2S 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 Date OCOEE No. 3 DAM HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 12 of 27)
Lulu 100,000 1980 90,000 1950 80,000 Watauga Dam Headwater 1920 70,000 Watauga Dam Tailwater 6 c Watauga Dam Discharge u m 1890 60,000 dv m U_ 7,980 PMF sq mi a c Bull's Gap Centered March Event m c WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2
- 4. 1860 50,000 R Watauga Dam v WRM 36.7 V W c HEC-RAS - Elevation and Discharge d 1830 40,000 t
u N 1800 30,000 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 1770 20,000 FINAL SAFETY 1740 10,000 ANALYSIS REPORT 1710 0 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4J4 WATAUGA DAM Date HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 13 of 27)
900 7,980 PMF sq mi Bull's Gap Centered March Event 890 WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 Chilhowee Dam LTRM 33.6 HIEC-RAS - Elevation and Discharge 880 1,200,000 Chilhowee Darn Headwater 870 K ,e' -,, Chilhowee Darn Tailwater 1,050,000 c 0 u 860 900,000 L% L W LL Q6 4, a U-750,000.2 v V W C W 840 600,000 m t u un 0 830 450,000 820 300,000 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY 810 Ik ZJOO~~
%.*, ra 150,000 ANALYSIS REPORT 800 0 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 Date CHILOWEE DAM HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 14 of 27)
1440 2,500,000 Boone Dam Headwater 7,980 PMF sq mi Bull's Gap Centered March Event Boone Dam Tailwater 1420 WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 2,250,000 Boone Dam Discharge Boone Dam SHRM 18.6 HEC-RAS- Elevation and Discharge 1400 2,000,000 r 1380 1,750,000 C 0 U a 1360 1,500,000 v v d w CL c v a Peak Elev: 1,406.29 ft 1,250,000
.a Peak Discharge: 2,213,602cfs U
c 0 1320 1,000,000
.c V
a 1300 750,000 1280 500,000 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY 1260 250,000 ANALYSIS REPORT 1240 0 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 Date BOONE DAM HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 15 of 27)
134U 2,000,000 7,980 PMF sq mi Bull's Cap Centered March Event 1320 WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 1,800,000 Fort Patrick Henry Dam SHRM 8.2 1300 HEC-RAS - Elevation and Discharge 1,600,000 1280 1,400,000 1260 1,200,000 - m cu v_ Peak Elew 1,308.44 ft CL V c Li 0 Peak Discharge; 1,557,746 cfs '6 1240 1,000,000 d U w c v 1220 800,000 m su 0 1200 600,000 WATTS BAR 1180 400,000 NUCLEAR PLANT 1160 200,000 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 1140 0 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 Date FORT PATRICK HENRY DAM HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 16 of 27)
1680 150,000 7,980 PMF sq mi Bull's Gap Centered March Event 1670 WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 135,000 Wilbur Dam WRM 34.0 HEC-RAC - 1:1evaL on and D"isc h arge 1660 120,000 1650 ~ 105,000 j 1 'a c V
` Wilbur Dam Headwater
%1640 90,000 Wilbur Dam Tailwater `m a Wilbur Dam Discharge % m Peak Elev: 1,667.25 ft 75,000 2
.et j--%Peak Discharge: 130,129cfs 3 V
C v 1620 60,000 t u H 8 1610 45,000 1600 30,000 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY 1590 15,000 ANALYSIS REPORT 1580 0 3/15 3117 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 412 4/4 Date WILBUR DAM HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 17 of 27)
1690 50,000 7,980 PMF sq mi Bull's Gap Centered March Event 1680 WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 45,000 Mission Dam Peak Elev: 1,665.15 ft HRM 106.0 FIEC-RAS - Elevation and Discharge 1670 Peak Discharge: 38,885 c#s 40,000 1660 j 35,000 C 0 V QI 1650 30,000 LI) L (U d LL Q C 4) QJ 0 Mission Darn Headwater LL ++ 1640 25,000 ." rs v Mission Darn Tailwater U W C Qj 1630 Mission Darn Discharge 20,000 s V 1620 15,000 WATTS BAR 1610 10,000 NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 1600 5,000 1590 0 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 MISSION DAM Date HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 18 of 27)
820 800,000 7,980 PMF sq mi Bull's Gap Centered March Event 810 rI WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 Melton Hill Dam 720,000 CRM 23.1 HEC-RAS - Elevation and Discharge Soo 640,000 Melton Hill Dam Headwater Melton Hill Dam Tailwater 790 Peak Elev: 812.08 ft Melton Hill Dam Discharge 560,000 Peak Discharge: 7100,691 cfs c 0 U 780 480,000 LL / v c f a C f v 0 v LI m 770 400,000 ." v 3 W U C
/
G1 760 I 320,000 s 1 0 750 240,000
/
740 f 160,000 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY 730 80,000 ANALYSIS REPORT 720 a 3115 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 412 4/4 Date MELTON HILL DAM HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 19 of 27)
1120 500,000 Cherokee Dam Headwater Peak Elev: 1,094.99 ft 7,980 PMF sq mi
--Cherokee Dam Tailwater Peak Discharge:475,849 cfs Bull's Gap Centered March Event 1100 Cherokee Dam Discharge 1 WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 450,000 Cherokee Dam HRM 52.3 HEC-RAS- Elevation and Discharge 1080 400,000 1060 350,000 1! 1 O
V % 1040 300,000 0 LL a c v a, LL 250,000 .2 v 4J OT01914 200.000 s V N 980 150,000 960 100,000 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY 940 50,000 ANALYSIS REPORT i 920 0 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 CHEROKEE DAM HYDROGRAPH Date FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 20 of 27)
880 700,000 Peak Elev; 833.53 ft Peak Discharge; 644,389 cfs 860 630,000 840 560,000 Fort Loudoun Dam Headwater Fort Loudoun Dam Tailwater 820 Fort Loudoun Dam Discharge 490,000
`
0 800 420,000 v ai c a O ai 780 350,000 v w u 760 280,000 s H 0 740 210,000 720 140,000 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY 700 70,000 ANALYSIS REPORT 680 0 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 Date FT LOUDOUN DAM HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 21 of 27)
1770 100,000 1740 90,000
/ Peak Elev: 1,755.74 ft 7,980 PMF sq mi 1710 Peak Discharge: 76,066cfs Bull's Gap Centered March Event 80,000 WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 South Holston Darn SHRM 49.8 1680 70,000 HEC-RAS - Elevation and Discharge M
C 0u ai 1650 60,000 ~^ a a~ v a v v LL O 1620 50,000 2 3 N V W C 1590 40,000 s u N In South Holston Dam Headwater 1560 South Holston Dam Tail water 30,000 South Holston Dam Discharge South Holston Bent Branch Discharge WATTS BAR 1530 20,000 South Holston Saddle Dam Discharge NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 1500 10,000 1470 0 3/15 3/17 3119 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 Date SOUTH HOLSTON DAM HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 22 of 27)
1040 11 700,000 Douglas Dam Headwater Peak Elev: 1,022.48ft 7,980 PMF sq rni Douglas Dam Tailwater Peak Discharge:604,342cfs Bull's Gap Centered March Event 1020DouglasDam Discharge I ` WBN Units land 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 ,000 Douglas Darn Douglas Saddle Dams 2, and 4-10 Discharge // \ FBR M 32.3 Douglas Saddle Dams 2, and 4-10 Discharge HEC-RAS- Elevation and Discharge 1000 ~ ,000 980 490,000 0 u m a"r 960 420,000 ur m U a c ~ O a+ 940 350,000 LL w fit/
" U W =
920 280,000 s u 900 210,000 z 880 I~ 140,000 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY 860 70,000 ANALYSIS REPORT 840 0 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 Date DOUGLAS DAM HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 23 of 27)
1150 800,000 7,980 PM IF sq m
-John Sevier Dam Headwater Bull's Gap Centered March Event
-John Sevier Dam Tailwater 1140 WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 720,000 John Sevier Dam Discharge John Sevier Dam HRM 106.3 HEC-RAS - Elevation and Discharge 1130 640,000 1120 560,000 c
0 V d 1110 480,000 NL v LL c Peak Elev: 1,138.66 ft Peak Discharge: 758,318 cfs +.,1100 400,000 .2 ra 3 W V W C dl 1090 320,000 s u 1
.0 1080 240,000 WATTS BAR 1070 160,000 NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 1060 80,000 1050 0 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 JOHN SEVIER DAM Date HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 24 of 27)
b2su 400,000 7,980 PMF sq mi Tellico Dam Headwater Bull's Gap Centered March Event Tellico Dam Tailwa ter WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 1 and 2 860 360,000 Tellico Dam Discharge Tellico Darn Tellico Emergency Spillway Discharge LTRM 0.30 Tellico Saddle Dam Discharge HEC-RAS - Elevation and Discharge 840 320,000 Peak Elev:830.88 ft
/ Total Peak Discharge: 521,569cfs 820 280,000 r"
c 0 800 240,000 L U. d Q6 l d
+ v 780 200,000 w r ~ U 760 l 160,000 740 120,000 720 80,000 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY 700 40,000 ANALYSIS REPORT 680 0 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 Date TELLICO DAM HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 25 of 27)
770 1,500,000 1 ~ 760 1,350,000 r ` 750 1,200,000 Peak Elev: 768.29 ft
' Total Peak Discharge: 1,443,174cfs `
i 740 1,050,000 0 730 900,000 v a a a: a 4 Watts Bar Dam Headwater a~i a~ 0 .w 740 Watts Bar Dam 7ailwater 750,000 2 ca s a 3 a Watts Bar Dam Discharge c1 W Watts Bar Dam East Rim Leaks Total Flow d 710 Watts Bar Dam West Rim Leaks Total Flow 600,000 s v 0 700 450,000 690 300,000 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 680 150,000 670 0 3/15 3/17 3119 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31 4/2 4/4 Date WATTS BAR DAM HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 26 of 27)
720 1,500,000 Peak Elev; 715.68 ft 7,980 PMF sq mi ~~ ~.~, Bull's Gap Centered March Event / Peak Discharge: 1,128,830cfs 710 WBN Units 1 and 2 and SQN Units 2 and 2 1,350,000 Chickamauga Dam TRM 471 HEC-RAS - Elevation and Discharge 700 1,200,000 Chickamauga Dam Headwater Chickamauga Dam Tailwater ` 690 1,050,000 Chickamauga Dam Discharge / ,r u
- 4) 680 900,000 s.
a d 0 d m 670 1 \ 750,000 w ~ U f C R 660 / 600,000 1 A sV O 650 450,000 f 640 300,000 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY 630 150,000 ANALYSIS REPORT 620 0 3/15 3117 3119 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3131 4/2 4/4 Date CHICKAMAUGA DAM HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-25 (Sheet 27 of 27)
735 T PLANT GRADE EL. 728.0 A" WATTS BAR DAM ~ 725 m I I 715 I I I I I I I I z I I I Z I I I I I 705 co I I I I I E w MARCH 1973 FLOOD I I 8 C 695 a I I r w w LL 685 ------------ I ---------MEDIAN SUMMER EL. 682.5 --f ------* - -- 1 --------------------------I---------- z 0 I I I I I I I I I 675 4-1 w 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I w I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 665 l r ---- -------- Z------ ------ -------------- T T ---------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I
---- BOTTOM PROFILE 655 -I ~- I I I
I WATTS BAR PLANT SITE 645 526 526.5 527 527.5 528 528.5 529 529.5 MILES ABOVE MOUTH WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Probable Maximum Flood and Bottom Profiles Figure 2.4-26
HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Main Plant General Grading Plan Figure 2.4-27
Building Maximum Effective Fetch Central Radial P.,.
*..te r,. n..w *_ ~ / ' f /
,r n Intake Pumping Structure West Face Maximum Effective , Fetch Central Radial i ' WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Wind Wave Fetch Figure 2.4-28
50 0 x 40 x w CL w J 30 0 w w CL U) 0 z 20 3 H WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT N FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Extreme Value Analysis 30-Minute Wind Speed From the Southwest Chattanooga, TN 1948-74 Figure 2.4-29
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-30
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-31
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-32 SH 1 OF 4
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-32 SH 2 OF 4
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-32 SH 3 OF 4
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-32 SH 4 OF 4
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-33
WATTS BAR WBNP-104 Figure 2.4-34 thru Figure 2.4-40 DELETED HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING 2.4-166
WATTS BAR EAST 50-ACRE t OFFSITE DRAINAGE 100-ACRE WATTS BAR 5;nl ITHWFST OFFSITE WATTS BAR DRAINAGE WEST NOTE: THIS DRAWING WAS CREATED FROM TVA LIDAR/CAD DATA CONTAINED IN CONTAINED IN CALCULATION CDQ0000002013000163, REV 001 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SITE DRAINAGE BASINS FIGURE 2.440A
PRIMARY DISCHARGE \ coaf TOWARDS RIVER
.: 2 - 96" PIPES BELOW RAILROAD
' ASSUMED CLOGGED RAIL OVERTOP LOCATION 1 AUXILIARY DISCHARGE Ji ` f" TOWARDS WBN NORTH r: PORTAL tt A
is v3:'4'
- k rl i
!4*
J
~yr~c X
.x.
y:. 1 ` / x k r r' is i 1 v x f.
?tl+_ X:
j F x Y*~* ~`bti.' 6 \ t, h.:k Qjl[~f'T 50-ACRE OFFSITE DRAINAG ~~ .- * ~ ~=`
- h ..
t~SUBAREA J -- 43.2 AC p SUBAREA Q , 5.9 AC "* WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT
- FINAL SAFETY 9 d.:
¢ ,
ANALYSIS REPORT t 50 ACRE SUB NOTE: THIS DRAWING WAS CREATED FROM TVA LIDAR/CAD DATA CONTAINED IN BASINS CONTAINED IN CALCULATION CDQ0000002013000163, REV 001 FIGURE 2.440B SHEET 1 OF 6
RUNOFF OVERTOPS ROAD AND DRAINS TOWARD WBN WEST 81" X 59" PIPE ARCH LOCATION WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT NOTE: THIS DRAWING WAS CREATED FROM TVA LIDAR/CAD DATA CONTAINED IN FINAL SAFETY CONTAINED IN CALCULATION CDQ0000002013000163, REV 001 ANALYSIS REPORT 100 ACRE SUB BASINS FIGURE 2.440B SHEET 2 OF 6
00 14 REACTOR TRACK 7~ r MAIN TRACK
\ I COOLING TOWER ' ~;`
;' SUBAREA O t\'
CO OLING :C~~'I `, 14.55 AC _ O SUBAREA K1 8.56 AC so rall~ PlantR°ad DRAINAGE East
= FROM _,_ __ - SUBAREA K3 50-ACRE 3.14 AC 1x _
OFFSITE SUBAREA K2 a SWITCHYARD 9.50 AC
- 7 SUBAREA m om. e 9.67 AC SUB-AREA K4 3.45 AC v UNIT 2 TURBINE x~
BLDG
- e - ',` ~' I' I 1 AUXILIARY TRANSFORMER TRACK
'1'1 `,' I t> BLDG
! TURBINE BUILDING TRACK WATTS BAR UNIT 1 SERVICE I" NUCLEAR PLANT
_ tlr l I11 o BLDG l' FINAL SAFETY NOTE: THIS DRAWING WAS CREATED FROM TVA LIDAR/CAD DATA CONTAINED IN ANALYSIS REPORT CONTAINED IN CALCULATION CDQ0000002013000163, REV 001 WBN EAST SUB BASINS FIGURE 2.440B SHEET 3 OF 6
SWITCHYARD i WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT NOTE: THIS DRAWING WAS CREATED FROM TVA LIDAR/CAD DATA CONTAINED IN CONTAINED IN CALCULATION CDQ0000002013000163, REV 001 WBN WEST SUB BASINS FIGURE 2.440B SHEET 4 OF 6
WATTS BAR NUCLEA R PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT NOTE: THIS DRAWING WAS CREATED FROM TVA LIDAR/CAD DATA CONTAINED IN CONTAINED IN CALCULATION CDQ0000002013000163, REV 001 WBN SOUTHWEST BASIN FIGURE 2.440B SHEET 5 OF 6
'rpe~.
- -=*a , - __ .t ~.\.V~* ,:yam ~
24 X _r SUBAREA E SUBAREA J - %=
~ SUBAREA 21 SUBAREA K4 SUBAREA I `pia Iing over I /
3 a 8 9 10
" 21 19 Q ,e ' SUBAREA 1New~HOan D 17 1 -
Parking_' 11
- - TTalninq Qe ter i 15 1 TVA K%*C4 r '4 1 14 3
S
\ 12 AR UBAREA 0 I "L r 1 1 4 P3 y1 Su SUBAR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 200' 100' 0' 200' 400' FINAL SAFETY SCALE: 1 INCH = 200 FEET ANALYSIS REPORT NOTE: THIS DRAWING WAS CREATED FROM TVA LIDAR/CAD DATA CONTAINED IN CONTAINED IN CALCULATION CDQ0000002013000163, REV 001 BACKWATER CROSS SECTIONS FIGURE 2.440B SHEET 6 OF 6
Figure 2.440C DELETED
SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION, WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-40D-1
Z 3 Q D 0 Z Q I H D Q U (SEE NOTE J) (SEE NOTE J) (SEE AOTE J) J. POR ISFSI HEAVY HALL PATH PAWILE SEE O UFM 0-00006P30-9678. UFSAR AMENDMENT 1 WATTS BAR FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT a EXmpr AVT TO SALE CEPT AS NOTED MAIN PLANT PLANT PERIMETER ROADS PLAN AND PROFILE SHEET 2 PLAN EL 692.0 TVA DWG NO. 1ON221 R10 NOT TO Sa4LE FIGURE 2.4-40D SH 2
z Q 0 0 z Q z Q 0 Q U STA. 1+37.5 TO STA. 2+00. LSEE NOTEAREA IN THIS 4 FOR CHANGES NOT TO SCALE DIESEL GEN. BLDG. ROAD CONTINUED ALONG 4.FOR ISFSZ HEAVY HAUL PATH ROAD DESIGN SEE DRAWINGS INTERSECTION TURNING RADIUS TO NORTHEAST 0-00006250-9679-1 AND 9679-2. ACCESS ROAD. (SEE DWG 10N242-1)
*
- 6' SIDEWALK RIGHT STA 73+57+/- TO STA 74+09+/-
D B' SIDEWALK RIGHT STA 10+74+/- TO STA 11+67+/- UFSAR AMENDMENT I WATTS BAR FINAL SAFETY NOT TO SCALE ANALYSIS REPORT NOT TO SCALE EXCEPT AS NOTED MAIN PLANT PLANT PERIMETER ROADS PLAN AND PROFILE SHEET 3 TVA DWG N0. ION222 RI9 FIGURE 2.4-4OD-3
SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION, WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-40F SH 1
z 3 Q 0 0 z a F-z 0 Q v SCALE: NTS SCALE: NTS SCALE: NTS SCALE: NTS SCALE: NTS SCALE: NTS WATTS B A R FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT WT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE MAIN PLANT MAIN PLANT TRACKS SECTION & PROFILES SHEET 2 SCALE: NTS SCALE. WS TVA DWG NO. 1 ON701 RC FIGURE 2.4-40F SH 2
z 3 Q 0 0 z a F-z 0 Q v SCALE: NTS SCALE. NTS SCALE: NTS SCALE: NTS SCALE: NTS SCALE: NTS SCALE: NTS WATTS BAR FINAL SAFETY SCALE: NTS ANALYSIS REPORT MAIN PLANT MAIN PLANT TRACKS SCALE: NTS SECTIONS & PROFILES SHEET 3 TVA DWG NO. 10N702 RC FIGURE 2.4-40F SH 3
Z 3 Q m O O Ld Q F-Z Q O Q U WATTS BAR FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT YARD GRADING, DRAINAGE AND SURFACING TRANSFORMER & SWITCHYARD SHEET 1 SCALE: NOT TO SCALE TVA DWG NO. 1 ON237 RG SCALE. NTS FIGURE 2.4-40G SH 1
z 3 Q 0 0 z a F-z 0 Q v NTS WATTS BAR FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT YARD GRADING, DRAINAGE AND SURFACING TRANSFORMER & SWITCHYARD NOT TO SCALE SHEET 2 TVA DWG NO. 1ON238 RE FIGURE 2.4-40G SH 2
PROBABLE MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION JUSID ON IffDRONSTISOROWGICAL REPORT NO. 56 RAt N-L (INCHES)
- 1. w d a 41, 4%, ~ 4t ~' ,t~ ~v~ 41 '00 + t;%, g'" -p -p 1p ti"V wh 1p 1p 4p 11ME (VINUTES)
A _n D UFSAR WATTS BAR- AMENDMENT NUCLEAR PLANT 12 7y WATTS BAR FINAL SAFETYNUCLEAR z M PLANT ANALYSIS FINAL SAFETY REPORT c 0 ANALYSIS REPORT Cif CA ~*~ m PROBABLE MAXIMUM
- 0 7> Probable Maximum PRECIPATION POINT Precipitation Point
'a ;r rn RAINFALL Rainfall FIGURE 2.4-40h A
.Q FIGURE 2.4-40h K~
FIGURE 2.440i THRU FIGURE 2.440L DELETED
FIGURE 2.441 THRU FIGURE 2.467 DELETED
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 h FIGURE 2.4-68 a W
FIGURE 2.469 THRU FIGURE 2.470 DELETED
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-71 r e o s
~
A
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-72
FIGURE 2.473 THRU FIGURE 2.475 DELETED
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-76 E L F L D
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-77 r d f e a s e r a a U 0
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-78
I CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-79 F t f
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-80 c e 1 A W S N D i
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-81 6 S i
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-82 e
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-83
FIGURE 2.484 THRU FIGURE 2.485 DELETED
N I CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION B SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 a d s FIGURE 2.4-86 O a d 4
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-87
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-88
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-89
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-90
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-91
FIGURE 2.4-92 DELETED
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-93
E CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-94
~
M h N
FIGURE 2.495 THRU FIGURE 2.497 DELETED
f G .urK LuwroN ma.1 hLKn to /OI ILO. (G0 rbl (rrW,y 40 Mt..*! uvr*[ KCW *raJq N~JV AJb M1I.0 /' aasv. CpK.aLT[
~ NL CWT t
.+mow be*m~ ply *r_.o SECTION P-O ftwao d?.
-,wj h J Jd1 np ~Iq1 gaRl r107 ; N
*rMKa hroM J.S.A A 1+01!1!/ KO'Iap'Ado Q
.tom*;*
/
6q elf
'*a1KJ .SJJ ~fOIJ r[NJM'[ !.M4M11fL _ NIl'1I0071~
atlltWK hAM p41RL W III[ Tn4G.l r0 nLrtnGfO N rrv~Ck ~gorrF pp1rB r0 J dLAt(. I**l
~IL~~fOar IK K nt.acwPLxr nrN tlf/~baWeLYWANO /N1K.I ,
( W+P+cwt G%Vra LIn( wotr rw.Ja nytna nvr rY~.r. J Yefno.K[~ Jw<< a O*nlKn NLo u..ccauuc[
)wnv s.0 aarwbfo.nry .roK h.A.*a..<e K/fwniN[O, a*J'eKn ~-eau..K nn.unf[ twlaxo .arK ,r.r J Kta N.I,u'r .+n ..0cnro nLr.
J[c(ronL* wrror Iw v nnw JEr1ON A-A GMIr< NMf7tfl Mt m JLv!"A'
~ l~~ secr/av e-e WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY 1w 6K NMt L K t[/1 ~'RKl n1 M IlJUIVA lN0 N !K( rvv,..af lA4MY< JO hu! M [rG.aY.III.f. MO nYlanLwq y 0r(nyr(A.t R* ,iL*IG wWK I L./'I K ..GfpWtHKO IM Ilro at1. Non n.H M,Av d ANALYSIS REPORT
)W G/MM'LL A.4 K[N pIVlCKO n( Ywfa+.et K nt1.ro.[A Iwn In( ..+cl a..rro wp m[ e.c*InL nanGfa a.Grrs. r.*a c.,sac cowH,a p.uYa .RKn/Kt,ouL.nr ntw wvniVr hnei, w.n.
rNn..af YeY 1, nfYbxr [60 <Y, u.b .w,w ,K nW/r1F~ JK[ II.KgMf J lulG3 I.f r.lntl[ ale l/01 fnVlpClp.'I MLdkLwswlo¢fw.RKM[n Irta0 aretf.Jlf bCJIAQrI.J. Grading Plan Intake Channel Ja ..l. '*+o- [S[nfa wK0 rrPlfFL Srcrtia ae APPROACH C"AKNr( Yne[ ,-*N FIGURE 2.4-99
FIGURE 2.4-100 DELETED
FIGURE 2.4-101 DELETED
a e. WATTS BAR DAM
]e u
q a
- s.,, ++s
]I 12 *ll i.e 2a 41 +r~ lI 3
(H] 1{ it 17 10 21 +' WATTS BAR _2 NUCLEAR P T j ti
' ' +I r; !1 l
la zr
` ea *n 23 C,~4 31 *ri a
21 1-16]
+it 104 Itp 3s f. ri 413 V
*40 it t*16]
,9 5 Si S Sr
*SS SL SS N
I.IILFS 0 LEGEND WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WELL FINAL SAFETY SPRING ANALYSIS REPORT ROADS 2 MILE RADIUS OF PLANT SITE Well and Spring Inventory Within 2 Mile Radius of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Site FIGURE 2.4102
um ME s, a-:161 ** mg WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Water-Level Fluctuations in Observation Wells at the Watts Bar Site FIGURE 2.4-103
rte, r 253 !
~
c base from U.S.G.S -TV.A. 7.5 minute
,Decatur,Tenn.,118-SE,Contour intervo.l 20 feet.
d-water observation well showing number. 1000 2000 Feet WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 1 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT by Amendment 50 LOCATIONS OF GROUND - WATER OBSERVATION WELLS FIGURE 2.4-104 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Locations of Ground - Water Observation Wells FIGURE 2.4-104
EXPLANATION: 700---- -- Water table contour,in feet above mean sea level.
~ A General direction of ground-water movement.
SCALE: Revised by Amendment 50 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 2000 0 4000Feet FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 2.4-105 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Generalized Water-Table Contour Map FIGURE 2.4-105
FUEL TRANSFER z ~~ CANAL W REACTOR GATE Z 'd§ 3/4' VENT Q-FLTR-78-138 K ~ FUEL 3 ELEVATOR . Q ~.- s $ p iM s s p iM PI PI PDI 3/4, CZ-783232
~Sm
~u ao
~.0 o< NO X oc S oc o< *-W 8-28 78-2 PI 12-Ag-30 "
p 3/4' PENT 78-7 n n * - n_: _ FI fro 219A p~ FLOW RESTRICTING q.a.sg m ~
~~~~
a v: o~r .a
- 218A 225 6 201A W 8-18 ORIFICE NOTE 10 1/~,
.pp~
+ cca>a:: cca~.- P~ SPENT FUEL 573 1 Z PI 8-14 PI 11_18 209A 210A 3 4T 3 4T ZSotS 2-SPPC-78-825 3° 2° 2° 3° 2' 202A PIT SKIMMER STRAINER
.° SPENO ELE708I23 EL 731.0'
~
FE 0-HTX-78-32 .o *~* iu *~*~C7 8-18 p FI 888 TI ~ B X 10 1 8 X 10 V UNIT 2 i 207A 3/4° 578 225 208A
'~ 8-418 560 B 8-17 Y NOTE 10 Y NOTE 10 574 225 73 C 1/4° REFULING CAVITY PH7A PHU PENT 3/4' y°ty°.N.B5772PBOA 6876 1~,/2. FE I 111 10°Q DRAIN
> PRIMARY WATER ?° 3° SPENT FUFILTER CASK 8-418 78-6 8-17
- v 898'_ OF I ° 8 572 K + LOADING AREA SYST8878_t 3 4° NG 7s O-STN-78-138 ~ ~'~
EL 725'-1-1/2' p COORD 8-11 823 824 826 880 j^ M M 3 4° DRAIN K KEYN,~'LAl S EL 705.48
,.I m
( Q j 0-ISV-78-522 ~~ Q-FLTR-78-1 878 V S/4° z- 888 I~ .r~ NOTES: a- STATION DRAINAGE C 188 ~* 1-SPPC- C-PMP-78-1 v, PBOA
""""'111 IN 588 3/4' %,I Rio SYSTEM 2' 1. THIS PL06 DIAGRAM IS FOR UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2.
3* C 225 o~ 78-825 "I G 78* 821 VENT 0-478852-2 2. ALL VALVES ARE THE SAME SIZE AS THE PIPE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3/4° zi COURT) 6-1C N K 875 "a PENT ~ ;61 o 3. UNIT 1 VALVES HAVE PREFIX ER UNIT 2 VALVES HAVE PREFIX FROM 528 581 g~ o VALVES BITH NO PREFIX NUMBER ARE COMdON TO NTH UNITS. VALVES ARE SIINT n! SPENT FUEL FLOW 859 2Sd 18 557 o I d: iv+l 527 pg~ P%}A 8 SYS 78 (SFP) UNLESS NOTED 9Y A DIFFERENT SYS NO. LOCATED BETWEEN FILL V PIT FILTER RESTRICTING y. l^ ~~~ttt TANK ORIFICE A 511 8° 2' NEI aj PREFIX AN VALVE N. 529 SEE NOTE 10 g* 10* 10* T8 ti C K '~' + 2* 4. FOR DEFINITION OF SYMBOLS OF "L.C." OR 'L.C.", REFER TO pgpA 828 SPENT FUEL PIT COOLING SYSTEM 0-SPPC-78-31 TV 8-18 p D-SPPC-78-625 ~4 MEW 8268904-02001. SAMB'LE STATION O-OR-78-31 78-8 .° DRAIN o 2* M:i S. ALL PRESSURE, SAMPLE Aim TEST CONNECTIONS ARE 3/4° UNLESS G K 0-478825-11 0-HTX_78-51 OTI-5iR8ISE NOTED. N N CODRD D-8 S20 587 ^ a`y'° '~-
+ SPENT FUEL PIT DEMINERALIZED 814 592 SPENT FUEL PIT SKIMMER PUA9' 8. NA CLASSIFICATION OF THE PIPING SYSTEM IS DENOTED BY GD ary. HEAT EXCHANGERS 2y STATION DRAINAGE 7. LOCATE HOLE IN PIPE 2 FEET BELOW NORMAL RATER LEVEL.
- y. FE WATER SYSTEM FI MAKE_85 MCAP 100 GPM O 50 FT TDH RING VENT NOTE SYSTE47 (gyp 2
- n :VA; 78-41 8-41A 0-471858-1 513 X22 HI LEVEL OF SFP AREA AN) 8 INIT~ RPLUSHING OPERATIONSD ISTRAIN:RMUSTI BEEREMOVED U SCREEN3 4' DRAIN COORD D-2 G C 10 TRANSFER CANAL Aim REACTOR SUCTION 519 561 3' BLDG REFUELING CAVITY (WITH CLEANING BEFORE PLANT STAN-UP. TEST CONNECTION IS CONNECTED TO SPENT FUEL PIT 878 CASK IN LOADING AREA) CONNECTION PRESSURE GAUGE DURING INITIAL FLUSHING.
DEMII NERALIZER 3° 588 4° EL 748'-8° S. SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS ARE AS FOLLOWS: Q-DEM1N-78-1 M 3' NOR MAX OPER LEVEL WITHOUT MAX HI-LEVEL OF SFP HI LEVEL OF SFP AREA AND SUB-SYSTEM PRESSURE TEMPERATURE SPENT FUEL CASK EL 749'-2-1/2° 93 3/4' TRANSFER CANAL (WITH 570 SPENT FUEL PIT COOLING 150 PSIG 200* F AREA (WITH CASK IN NOR MIN OPER LEVEL EL 749'-1-1/2' LOADINp AREA11 VENT 3/p* CASK IN LCADING AREA) SPENT FUEL PIT SKIMMER 150 PSIG 200° F NOTE: 817 EL 748'-8-1/2° _ EL 748'-g-1/2' LOW LEVEL ALARM EL 748'-11-1/2' 516 594 NT SPENT FUEL PIT SKIMMER STRAINER 50 PSIG 200* F DO NOT EXCEED DESIGN m 0-SKR-78-137A 588 FLOW LIMITS THROUGH' Big PI CASING VENT PI C G 788KibS N REFUELING WATER PURIFICATION 150 PSIG 200° F THE DEMINERALIZER 0-LE 832 8-13 K 78_11 '~10. SPOOL PIECES IN THIS LINE TO BE INSTALLED FOR OPEN REACTOR WRING FLOODS ABOVE PLANT GRADE ONLY. ORIFICES ARE TO C 188 NESNLss
~Q'4.14 11. 88 225 INDICATES THE HYDROSTATIC TEST PRESSURE. RET6-309 / 307 NA 2 221A _ _ 888 THE THE AASMCODE
~° 2* 11gp COORD B-4 y~+D ~ o ' g* O-PMP LLIIH~INRCOMPONENNTSNTOITHE ATIC TEST.
~r+a 12 OI'HLEINOAHYDRROSTITIC TTESTIN) MAY RE USED IF EN DES PBQA m(no G: <
-o A_A O-STN-78 I NI 1N ^t CASES ES
-158A 12. CLASS G PIPING LABELED WITH PBOA IS ANALYZED FOR SEISMIC 883 34 C 1-1 } 1-1 } 1° HALE CAT. 1(L) PRESSURE BOUNDARY RETENTION A IS WITHIN THE SCOPE 501 (NOTE 7) OF THE HYDROSTATIC GA PROGRAM ((THE VALVE SEAT TERMINATES THE I' N gM 8811 DRAIN 3/4' +{ 503 NOTE 8 PBOA BOUNDARY). ALL REMAINING WASs G PIPING IS SEISMICALLY Iu~ SKIMMERS 1" 1 SUPPORTED FOR POSITION RETENTION ONLY.
++ G 225 PROA C 188 1105 EL 731.0 , '~ 13. DESIGN CRITERIA/SYSTEM DESCRIPTION REFERENCE DOCUMENTS.
831 K 8' K DIFFUSER ;/ 0' 4,IE 7)E ,, USE THE LATEST REVISION ON ALL WORK UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. d cl flfl NEE THE LATEST REVISION OF THE 47821 SERIES DRAWINGS °PIPING 834 voi _ + gyg7~ p~ASSIFICATI Nj lM _ STRAINERS p_SIN_78-188 EL 705.48 ER CANAL F 2* CYCS RECIRC N3-78-4001 DENT FUEL POOL COOLING AND CLEANING SYSTEM
- 14. FOR NA CLASS C PIPING ALL PIPING DOWNSTREAM SE ONE LAST 3" 2° C-STN-788121 C G EL 709.23 p. EL 709.23 ( °( PUMP ISOLATICN VALVE ON LOCI. DRAINS, VENTS AND TEST CONNECTIONS 581 _ 1 _1 0-471809-S IS VA CLASS K.
3y STATION DRAINAGE 2° ° ° - - n ' L 388 CCCRD C-9 is. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ALL ROUT VALVES HAVE AN 'A' SUFFIX IF NOT SHORN IN THE ADDRE§S. UT8852-2 SEE NOTE 19 SPENT FUEL~PIT REFUEL BATOR GOURD B-2 1p < S. NOT USED. PBGA 3/4'S4 PURIFICATION FILTER 54{ SAMPLE STATION 17. NOT USED. 0-471825-S CASING VENT CASING VENT a: PI COORD 0-1 PI ~/~ PI PI 18. NOT USED 8-22 PI 8-10 78-8 8-38 19. EITHER VALVE O-ISV-078-0581 OR 0-ISY-Q78-0982 SHOULD BE NORMALLY 9-24 TEST OPEN DURING NORMAN. OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM, NOT BOTH. C 18g COUN M C 188 204A `~' M K u 224A `~' PI 588 0-PMP-78-20 88s gtp M M . 11 37 20. VALVES DENMED AS L.C. ARE LOOKED CLOSED WRING NORMAL PLANT
- 3. 212A~
214A BOB 203A 222A 583 223A OPERATION. 3' 333 ~* O-PMP-78-9 NOTE 8 582 ~* 549 S51 9 3* 4' 10' 8-B C-S *>1 +*i PI C 888 3 4° C /4° C
-S 0-PHA'-78-38 838 8-28 3/4' 3/4° 584 3/4pRA CASING DRAIN 504 o DRAIN If 225 G o-sPPcae-e so PBOA C 188 O-STN-78-8 888 C~188 216A °v:i 506 VENT 228 SEE NOTE 19 188 8 C%
B STATION DRAINAGE 2' 188 K 3' N REFERENCE DRAWINS: NA DRAWINGS:
+ SYSTEMD 5210 N N 471454-SERIES ---- MECHANICAL FUEL POOL COOLING AND CLEANING SYSTEM 538 342 tl
~M tl
~M 2*
2' 471811-78-1 ----- LOGIC DIAGRAM 0-FLTR-78-28 g~ SYSTEM DRAINAGE 2* STATION DRAINAGE 2* 1-,2-47W610-78-1 --- CONTROL DIAGRAM PI 78-21 0-47W552-2 0-47WB52-2 47M%54-SERIES --- BILL OF MATERIAL PBOA 22S C W9-DO-40-28 ----- DESIGN CRITERIA FOR FLOOD PROTECTION PROVISIONS K 0-PMP-78-18 PI GOURD 9-2 COORD 9-2 8-23 SPENT FUEL PIT PUMPS 2-47W888-101 ------ MECHANICAL STRESS ANALYSIS PROBLEM DRAIN _ 590 211A CAP 23M GPM O 125 FT TDH BOUNDARY - FUEL POOL COOLING AND M CLEANING SYSTEM 1 188 C 3* 213A 2' WESTINGHOUSE DRAWINGS: 228 G STATION DRAINAGE 550 552 C 3° 4° 113E794 ----- FLOW DIAGRAM. SPENT FUEL PIT COOLING SYSTEM PBOA 119DE52 ----- PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM. SPENT FUEL PIT COOLING SYSTEM O-47W882-2 5$8 GOURD E-8 I PBOA G G E. 3/4D' vl CASING PI + "~ 554 8° 838 8 K G 22s 223 G STSATI ELO/N DRAINAGE 2L K 4'NM X 5' 1163 217A 0-478852-2 STORZ A CAP ~* ~ 4 4°NPS X 5° VENT COORD E-10 g STORZ R CAP A ffi REFUELING HATER 1 _IgY_ 1,-Iy~r_ 3' 3y °* PURIFICATION PUMPS PENETRATION X93 071 OW D78-12Oo 4y 547 CAP. 200 a 170 FT TDH P%M 537 543 4y mr m I I I E oR 41 ' 1-878 o mn 541 0-FLTR-78-2A 546 3/4° 3/4° VENT
/ 2-567 m 83 215A PBOA 225 G K DRAIN °+
M'I 843 M 2-897 2-588 GB 2_858 2-7 G TEST CCN54 l Oil mil 2* 1-887 1-225A PB]A PBQA G B 1-557 1-558
^
G 1-588 1-887 UFSAR AMENDMENT 1 2-230A PEA_ -SB /4' TEST 3-28
,_*~ +
REFUEL RATER ft1TI0N 5 X~ 3 4°8 M N L.p o C* 1-23M EL 748'-8° WATTS BAR 3/4° TEST 2-231A 2-DRV- 4
- 1 3/4° VENT STATION DRAINAGE PURIFICATION FILTER SAMS*LE STATION EL 748'-2° NN 2-D 2-581 LC a 78-837 1° DR.
m 1-231A 7 ffi G EL 749'-2-1/2° FINAL SAFETY SYSTEM E282 0.47,825-5 COORD D-3 y. EL 749'-8° LC 2-227A 2-1162 I 1-588 1-882 L.C. v1 ANALYSIS REPORT RD 2-229A a p. ~' e PBOA 2-VN-78-838 1° VT. 1 GB G 1-227A 1-581 °i 1-580
'1/4° 2' 1-229A 1 4° 2-DRV-78-839 1° DR.
1~ G 228 PSQA B 1-~eA NE- / REFUELING WATER ~ Ne-~ ~ ~1 G 225 2-82-300 B G TRA" X82 POWERHOUSE C PURIFICATION FILTERS INSIDE REACTOR CONTAINMENT OUTSIDE REACTOR CONTAINMENT 8 i N ^ 3 4'
~N TYP TEST' -TUBE-78-1 UNITS 1 ~. 2 4XDI4NETEST
~> v 1 FUEL TRANSFER TUBE G N N G 8 OUTSIDE REACTOR INSIDE REACTOR
/2" TEST
*v tl MECHANICAL-FLOW DIAGRAM
- -. :-. CONTAINMENT MMTAINAiNO 2-TUBE-7 -1 ~~ ~< zy^"
w
~*-cFUEL TRANSFER TUBE FUEL POOL COOLING EL 709'-2-3/4° n M
2-gD0 N NN N
~Qo
^N N
.~. o
^m ~g j -6G0 EL 7C8'-2-3/4' AND CLEANING SYSTEM t VENT OPEN ~g n n" ° °
- N WDS REACTOR COOLANT DRAIN TK AMN ATM EL 782'-8*
G=ic n Y2*~'
,zoarb1'atO1i
~a ~`
YN V= 1 TO ANN PENT OPEN ATM 8DS REACTOR COOLANT DRAIN TK
° TVA DWG NO. 0-47W855-1 R2 COUo7gg8 H ^ a EL 752,_8* O UNIT 2 REFUELING CAVITY COST ON COOW 7W85 D711 gt PENETRATION X3 &.-25 Z3 e b C d ^U PENETRATION X3
~Bo- 41 CONT ON UNIT 1 REFUELING CAVITY FIGURE 2.4-106
DESIGN PRESSURE a TEMPERATURE DATA LINE DESIGN PRESSURE DESIGN TEMPERATURE NO. PSIG 1 2488 680 2 600 400 3 100 180 I 4 ATMOSPHERIC 300 I INSIDE CONTAINMENT I OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT INSIDE MISSILE BARRIER OUTSIDE MISSILE BARRIER LINE NK I HYDROSTATIC TEST I NUMBBER PRESSURE PSIC 1 1 3017 I 2 780 I i°47Sati-1°lp SFROM AOPNSENT 3 120 CHORD C-8 COOONN"T 1-47811-1 FOR PIPING ONLY. LIMITING COMPONENTS L ~ COORD G-10 TO BE DETERMINED BY FIELD. 74-033 I DAAI IHTOCANFOORMATION SA ISRILRINFR I 3' 3y AND NO LONGER MAINTAINED I M MINIMUM FLOW LINE AS DESIGN OUTPUT. I RHR SPRAY HDR CLASS H .1-FLUSHING 1-47812-1 BONN I CCORD E-4 RESIDUAL )EAT RESIDUAL PHEAT UMP B-B I EXCHANGER R 74-813 1- W-74-20-8 I ni COG E47!-4 HTX-74-31 IS ----- -publp NOTES: EAT SEA CtL-- ---~{---- --~ 1 .ALL VALVES ARE THE SAME SIZE AS THE PIPING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. I of -24 PI '74-20 1-VTV-74-20 2.ALL PRESSURE GAGE VALVES ARE 3 4° GLOBE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. I I 74 n FROM COS 06 94 J 74-18 4 OLA88 H 1%2°
\ +
3.ALL VALVE AND EQUIPMENT NUME NUMBER* IE: 1-74-3 1A-A ETC. 4.ALL PItMING TO S.TV AND TO E SHALL SE PREFIXED WITH THE UNIT TOA CLASS B UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. DENOTE TEST VENT AND TEST CONNECTION RESPECTIVELY. I QA 74-109A .~3 H74-20 B.TEMPORARY STRAINER IS PLACED IN SPOOL PIECE DURING INITIAL FLUSHING I 74_ 1-422 PI OPERATIONS. STRAINER MUST BE REM DVED BEFORE PLANT START-UP. USE PRESSURE I 74-848 14° 3' 74-22 GAGE WRING FLUSHING. 7.ALL DRAINS WILL DRAIN TO TRITIATED DRAINS. I COLD LEG ~* TE 8.'FR' DENOTES 3/8' ID FLOW RESTRICTOR FOR TRANSITION FROM CLASS A INJECTION 74-821 TO CLASS B. I 74-19 WORDC-8 ' %/A rIj 74 74107A 8. OETC.. INDICATES LINE NUMBER CORRESPONDING TO DESIGN PRESSURE 8. I 3/4' AUX 74-111A ro! TEMPERATURE CHART ON THIS SHEET. I NNE 74-818 74-827
.r AUX CONN Y MOTOR LOWER t O.HYDROSTATIC TESTING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE CODES.
11.THE DESIGN PRESSURE R TEMIPERATURE OF ALL DRAIN A PENT LINES THROUGH THE I 74-836 SEE NOTE 21 BRG HOUSING OIL +* SEE NOTE 8 LAST ISOLATION VALVE SHALL HE THE SAME AS THE PROCESS LINE. 74-823 74-817 PE DRAIN LINE Mj I 8 CLASS CV
'E PT ET INDICATENS7LHINgE R COPotESPONDINC TO HYDR TATIC TEST I M-24 74-28 CLASS H 74-809 12-A B~ C.., ~HpR7 NUgM~T HypRpB p7 ~ ~gyT~N BHp~LL g~ IN pCQpRppNpg G~~7. 5 I CLASS H ITH APPLICABLECODE ICASE/3TH CASETB'f ICASE MP~ICATION REWIRING PRIOR HP 74-0197 CLASS H APPROVAL BY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING.
SAMPLE CONN ~N TO I > 3/4' DRAIN 74-031 DRAIN 74-828 CONT ON 13.ALL VALVE STEM LEAKOFF PIPING INSIDE CONTAINMENT SHALL BE TVA CLASS G AND ALL VALVE STEM LEAKOFF PIPING OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT SHALL BE CLASS H. I 74-42 ~~ : 14.HYDRD TEST OF VALVE STEM LEAKOFF PIPING IS NOT REQUIRED. HOT LEG ASS H RHR HEAT EXCHANGER B 'COO7D68-2 SUMP -------- J 1 O.FOR DEFINITION OF SYMBOLS OF"LC" OR "LO" REFER TO MEMO I INJECTION 828880402001. I 16.DESIGN CRITERIA EM DESCRIPTION REFERENCE DOCUMENTS USE I ' COORD6G~8
' }
`.~.I 74-337 I
/ L------ ---------RHR PUMPDRAIH 9-8 THE LATEST REV ION OM ALL WORK UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.
SEE THE LATEST REVISION O THE 47821 SERIES DRAWINGS °PIPING
~L~-DE CONN RCP RCP SYSTEM CLASSIFICATION.': )
HP 74-41 H EGS( OVER 7 8 N3-74-4001 ----- RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM LEG (TYP) 17.VALVE IS ADMINISTRATIVELY LOCKED IN THE CLOSED POSITION. SEE NOTE 20 I1L°V a* a* 8' REFUELING WATER RETURN
- -1 (WITH BREAKER OPEN) (APPENDIX R) 18.1`0 VALVE BONNET /~, / INCH COLD LEG S A. HOOLE IS IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF TNE EVVALVE RISCP~ ALS SG (TYP) SG 1-FCY-74-1, -2. -8, -9. (RIMS 618 920328 269) b N1 TO REFUELING ~* 19.A BLIND FLANGE WHICH IS REWIRED WHEN THE FLOOD MODE SPOOL PIECE LOOP 2 a
^~ LOOP 3 WATER 121 IS NOT CONNECTED IS TVA CLASS B.
2 3 CLASS C (NOTE 19) STORAGE TANK 20.THE PIPING ATTACHED DOWNSTREAM OF VENT VALVES 1-VTY-074-0041 AND HOT LEG FCV d CLASS 8 1-47W811-1 CHORD E-10 1-VTY-074-0042 HAVE BEEN PROCURED AND INSTALLED TO TVA CLASS S. CAP M ) EY AM~ SNT (TYP) a0f 74-32 CLASS H.I m 74-839 I3/4° PENT VALVES PIPINKiE AimCAPAATT TTANEDDIONWSATLREEA° MEET THE REQUIREMENTS CF TVA CLASS B. M DOF~N I mf p.ASS H 21.70 PREVENT PRESSURE LOOK QUID ENTRAPMENT A 1/4 INCH DIA. HOLE IS LOCATED IN THE UUPPSSTREAM SIDE OF THE VALVE DISC FOR 3/4° DRAIN I VALVES 1-FCV-74-33 AND -38. (RIMS T88 960206 888) REACTOR 8 ° 74-840 VESSEL I ~I I HEAT EXCH REFERENCE DRAWING:
! I ;EE NOTE 21 TO LETDOWN ~*
BY-PASS HT EXCH 471810-74 -------------------- CONTROL DIAGRAM CLASS A 1-47W8D8-1 478432-74X1.74X2 -------------- MASTER VALVE STATUS REPORT I FCV COORD 8-8 47TSM-1 FLOW DIAGRAM GENERAL PLANT SYSTEMS 479601-74-SERIES -------------- INSTRUMENT TABULATION LOOP 1 1 471811-74-1-2 ----------------- LOGIC DIAGRAM WM47 PUMP MDTOR L0WER LOOP 4 m 1 BO HOUSING OIL 471432-SERIES ----------------- RHR SYSTEM PIPING SG S; GRAIN LINE 920L074-SERIES --------------- °0' LIST RESIDUAL HEAT I 3/4° RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL PUMP A-A 471810-100 SERIES -------------- STRESS ANALYSIS PROBLEM BOUNDARY EXCHANGER A 74-312 1-4W-74-10-A REACTOR ~ STEAM VENT 74-WO PUMP SEAL COOLANT PUMP GENERATOR T i -4 W700889-4 HTX-74-30 HEAT EXCHANGER WESTINGHOUSE SPECIFICATIONS RCP RCP 74-838 CHORD F-8 SD-WAT/WBT-283/4 -------------- RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM X 74-10 1-VTV-74-10 XIS PT PI 10 CDLD LEG 8° PCY 1-4~7W88
°C5 9-4 R 88-70 INJECTION_ 74-18 COLD E-8 74-8 4 HTXPUMP 68-428A T1 TW FE ROOM 1-471811-1 PT ' COORD8Cri t- 1 OL~H CHORD E-2 ....... N-29 74-16 74-14 1"104A 2°-7410 N ~* 14° 14° ~* 74-814 a 3/8° '~ 4-4 ~
*I I
TE 88-429A PT pV 74-824 {I 1 74-820 °v 74-7 PT rod 2 4-100A 103A 88-88 m 74-816 2 14' 74-808 74-801 N SEE TT CiARGING 74-822 CLASS H v FCV NOTE 17 UMPS I I*---AUX "d SEE NOTE 8 74-8 R 18 p7 11 QUl8~81 FCV 63-186 m n 74-807 L - 74-802 SAMPLE CONN / 4-12 k.
~` FLUSHING DR 74-808 CLASS H 3/4°
--J v CLAW 2 L --------- - N DRAIN 1-47WS28-S 11 N TO I
I RHR SPRAY HDR 1~OQU W8E241 RHR HEAT EXCHANGER A IXGRD 6-3 31 RHR PUMP A-A SUMP MINIMUM FLOW LINE 1 FCV m 74-843 4 w \4 SEE 74-1f M 74-004 rol$74-832 NOTE 17 X-107 ' 0.47WC593 RF6R SUPPLY +° WATTS B A R FINAL SAFETY 74-800
~,d ANALYSIS REPORT m
Y1 74-803 4~ TO PRESSURIZER 1G-4N78611'~NT SUMAP RELIEF TANK; d of 1-4711813 00-2' POWERHOUSE 74-841 0
~ ^Y 74-842 a
J CCORD H-2
`SET PRESSURE: 480 PSIG UNIT 1 FLOW DIAGRAM SE RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM I TVA DWG NO. 1-47W81O-1 R2O I
FIGURE 2.4-107
DESIGN PRESSURE a TEMPERATURE DATA Z LINE DESIGN PRESSURE DESIGN TEMPERATURE 3 N0. PSIG "E 4 1 2485 650 0 2 600 400 3 100 150 0 4 ATMOSPHERIC 300 I,I I H I LINE MC HYDROSTATIC TEST INSIDE CONTAIWMENT OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT NUMBER PRESSURE (PSIG) 1 3017 z INSIDE MISSILE BARRIER OUTSIDE MISSILE BARRIER 2 750 Q 3 123 ~ I FROM CONTAINMENT I TO SIS PUMPS FOR PIPING ONLY. LIMITING COMPONENTS 2-47W811-1 LE CONN CONT ON SUM' CONT ON 70 BE DETERMINED BY FIELD. 0 I COOED G-8 2-47W625-3 CORD F-10 2-478811-1 0 I L-------------- I 0 1 2-74-533 FCV 74-24 COOED G-9 HYDROSTATIC TEST PRESSURE DATA IS HISTORICAL INFORMATION AND NO LONGER MAINTAINED AS DESIGN OUTPUT. PUMP MOTOR LOWER BRG HOUSING OIL 3* DRAIN LINE w~ ~ 3.3 MINIMUM FLOW LI NOTES: RHR SPRAY HDR CLASS H .-r*FLUSHING RESIDUAL HEAT 1. ALL VALVES ARE THE SAME SIZE AS THE PIPING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2-47WB12-1 REMOVAL PUMP B-B 2. ALL PRESSURE GAGE VALVES ARE 3 4° GLOBE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. CWRD E-4 RESIDUAL HEAT 2-RROD-74-521
- 3. ALL VALVE AND EQUIPMENT NUMBER SHALL BE PREFIXED WITH THE UNIT EXCHANGER B 2-74-513 PUMP PMP-74-20-9 SEAL NUMBER: IE: 1-74-3.2-74-3.1A-A.2A-A.ETC.
TO CCS 2-HTX-74-31 HEAT EXCHANGER 4. ALL PIPING 70 BE TVA CLASS B UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. in 47W859-4 EI F-'-- ----- ----- - ---------- -_- ---., 8. TV AND TO DENOTE TEST VENT AND TEST CONNECTION RESPECTIVELY. COORD F-7 2-VTV-74-20 6. TEMPORARY STRAINER IS PLACED IN SPOOL PIECE DURING INITIAL FLUSHING io 4-24 I F~ FROM CGS OPERATIONS. STRAINER MUST BE REMOVED BEFORE PLANT START-UP. USE PRESSURE I PI --PUMP I GAGE DURING FLUSHING. 74-28 0 400RD E47 I 74-18 q ROOM ^~ I 7. ALL DRAINS WILL DRAIN TO TRITIATED DRAINS.
- 8. FR° DENOTES 3/8° ID FLOW RESTRICTOR FOR TRANSITION FROM CLASS A rW TW rw CLASS 1/2' I 0 CLASS B.
74-25 2-74-110A 2 I 9. ETC.. IIO)ICATES LINE NUMBER CORRESPONDING TO DESIGN PRESSURE R CLASS H 74-400 74-39 74-27 ,0 1D9A I L*O* ~~ 1 PI I
' E PERATURE CHART ON THIS SHEET.
rB. r14 L.--_~ 8' No /8' 74-22 10. HYDROSTATIC TESTING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE CODES. COLD LEG 1g_*~ 11. THE DESIGN PRESSURE a TEMPERATURE OF ALL DRAIN a VENT LINES THROUGH THE TE L T ISOLATION VALVE SHALL RE THE SAME AS THE PROCESS LINE. INJECTION 2-74-545 I 2-74-521 2-74-515 3/4° 12. ETC. INDICATES LINE NUMBER CORRESPONDING TO HYDROSTATIC TEST 2-47W811-1 2 2 9 I PRESSURE CHART ON THIS SHEET. HYDROSTATIC TESTING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE COOED G-8/q.* 2-74-525-f; t I 74_1107 2 2 y14° 21 I ITH APPLICABLE CODE CASES WITH CASE BY CASE APPLICATION REQUIRING PRIOR I2-74-518 I 111A "'~ APPROVAL BY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING. VENT]!-~- t 111A 13. ALL VALVE STEM LEAKOFF PIPING INSIDE CONTAINMENT SHALL BE TVA CLASS G 2-74-527~AUX CONN 2-74-538 L- - AND ALL VALVE STEM LEAKOFF PIPING OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT SHALL BE CLASS H. 2-74-517 SEE NOTE 8 I 14. HYDRO TEST OF VALVE STEM LEAKOFF PIPING IS NOT REQUIRED. 2-74-523 FE PT I 15. FOR DEFINITION OF SYMBOLS OF*LC* OR"LO" REFER TO MEMO FCV ~ 828850402001. _ 74-24 74-26 I CLASS H 2-74-509 74-35 16. NOT USED. SEE NOTE 18 2-74-519 CLASS H HOT LEG ^3/4' DRAI j DRAIN TO j 17. A BLIND FLANGE WHICH IS REQUIRED WHEN THE FLOOD MODE SPOOL PIECE IS NOT 2-74-531 DRAIN 2-74-528 H SAMPLE CONN SUMP CONNECTED IS TVA CLASS B. INJECTION 2-47W811-1 CL DRAIN TO -_-_-_--- 6 2- N7W625-3 L ---------------- SUMP ----- --.I WORD G-8 42 RHR HEAT EXCHANGER B WORD A-2 18. TO PREVENT VALVE BONNET PRESSURE LWK/LIQUID ENTRAPMENT A V16 INCH DIA. HOLE IS LOCATED IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE VALVE DISC POR VALVES 2-RROD-74-517 2-RROD-74-5D9 2-FCV-74-1,-2,-8.-9 AND A 1 4 INCH DIA. HOLE IS LOCATED IN THE UPSTREAM 4_r 535 i~ SIDE OF THE VALVE DISC FOR ALVES 2-FCV-74-33,-35. 8° FLOOD MODE RHR PUMP B-B 19. THE RHR PUMP MOTOR LOWER BEARING HOUSING OIL DRAIN LINE HAS BEEN PROCURED. HCV BONN WNT. ON ANALYZED, AND FABRICATED AS CLASS C. BUT IT IS NON-ASME AND IS SHOWN AS 74-34 COOED A-7 ..~ CLASS H ON THE FLOW DIAGRAM AND PHYSICAL PIPING DRAWINGS.
- 20. VALVE IS ADMINISTRATIVELY LOCKED IN THE CLOSED POSITION. (WITH BREAKER OPEN) 8° REFUELING WATER RETURN (APPENDIX R)
A:.. COLD LEG 3 3 G (TYP) % SG I
~TO REFUELING LOOP 2 \ N1 LOOP 3 WATER 20' 12_^
2 3 CLASS C NOTE 17 TANK CLASS B STORAGEN CONT. O HOT LEG ` I 1 2-47W811-1 REFERENCE DRAWING: (TYP) i 70lI 2-74-539 CDORD E-10 47W610-74 -------------------------- CONTROL DIAGRAM 32 NI 47WSOO-1 --------------------------- FLOW DIAGRAM GENERAL PLANT SYSTEMS 3/4' VENT 7qJ7 47W611-74-1&2 ---------------------- LOGIC DIAGRAM CLIP a 3/4* DRAINI 2-74-540 47W432-SERIES ---------------------- WB-DC-40-36------------------------- RHR SYSTEM PIPING DESIGN CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF PIPING. PUMPS. VALVES AND VESSELS. 47821-1----------------------------- PIPING SYSTEM CLASSIFICATION HEAT EXCH WESTINGHOUSE SPECIFICATIONS TO LETDOWN '2 BY-PASS HCV SD-WAT/WB7-283/4 ------------------- RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM HT EXCH WNT. ON 74-38 FCV 2-478808-1 RD B 8 LOOP 1 74-33 FLUSHING PUMP MOTOR LOWER SEE NOTE 18 BRG HOUSING OIL SG LOOP 4 SG CLASS H d 1 DRAIN LINE RESIDUAL HEAT
~ I EXCHANGER A RESIDUAL HEAT 3/4' 2-HTX-74-30 REMOVAL PUMP A-A I 2-RROD-74-520 PMP-74-10-A STEAM VENT 2-74-530 2-74-512 TO WW COOLANT R PUMP GENERATOR j 47W859-4 RCP A RCP 2-74-538 WORD F-11 ------ ----- - ------------------- --
2-V 10 I EC35D PT I PI PUMPP SEAL BOLD LEG 8' FCV I M} HEAT EXCHANGER R INJECTION 7q_16 74-13 I I 74-8 4 2-47W8181 CONT 2-68-428A 2-47W811-1 TW FE ___J PT COOED G-8 TW TW TN CLASS 1-1 74-15 74-14 74-12 12'
/ 1.PUMP I COOED E-2 g8-gg 74-3SC 74-29 L.O. I 1 2 L.0 I 2 PI ROOM I 2-74-544 r g* I 104A 2-74-514 N~ /8' CLASS B 14* ~1 _4. 8* 74-4 I I TE 68-429A 2-74-524 2-74-320 MI 74_7 PT ~mc ~mc I t 2-74-1 WA 2 2 88-86 103A 2-74-518 oµi~ oµi 2 2 ~4* I
( ~R EEaN2TE oNo oNo 2-74-506 2-74-501 I HARGING I CLASIt FCV 18 ~ --~AUX CONN Mi 2 FI I~ SEE NOTE 6 SEE 74-9 ITT I ~L
- 47
' 2-74-508 IIW81-G-8 nl 2-74-502 52D 74-12 I FLUSHING 3/4*
o {t _ N I DR FCV FCV CLASS H I 83-168 83-i8S 2-74-507 (-SAMPLE BONN FCV ----------- - -------------- ---J
<0 CLASS H CONT ON 74_1P )'----____--
DRAIN 2-47W625-3 DRAIN TO I N RHR SPRAY HDR RHR HEAT EXCHANGER A COOED B-1 2-RROD-74-516 2RROD-74-508 I COORDBF241 3*` RHR PUMP A-A Ump MINIMUM FLOW LINE 2-74 o+ SEE 7 aMI 2-74-532 UFSAR AMENDMENT 2 aNOTE IIII 20 787 U' 1 t0'2018 504 SAMPLE CONN CONT ON SEE 2-47W525-3 CWRD E-10 RHR SUPPLY 1.-4* WATTS BAR rrc~ **` PCV ) SET PRESSURE: 450 PSIG FINAL SAFETY 2-74-500 m I 74-8 N~PIE 1 TO PRESSURIZER ANALYSIS REPORT 2-74-541 o N v v
-74
-503
-74 542 o
^(
20 2 SOS CLASS B 2 CLASS G RELIEF TANK: 2-478813-1 COOED G/H1
*~ j POWERHOUSE UNIT 2 I CLASS A CLASS B FLOW DIAGRAM RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM TVA DWG NO. 2-47W810-1 R26 FIGURE 2.4-107(U2)
TO SPENT
-'FUEL PIT (2 LINES)
MAIN DEMIN
$TEAM LINE (I/PLANT CHARGING (I LINE LINE PER UNIT) (CVCS) (I LINE PER UNIT)
GENERATOR (2 LINES (4/UNIT) {IJPLANt) PER UNIT) AUX. CHARGING PUMPS RC PUMP (2/UNIT) PRESSURIZER (4/UNIT) (I/UNIT) t f 0 HEATERS DE t ACCUMULATOR TERCW PUMPS (S) REACTORt I ()/UNIT) FIRE PUMPS VESSEL f t SEAL RETURN (4) 1 (4 LINES) (CVCS) MISC POWER RELIEF Y .j DRAIN nl ERCW LOADS VALVE LINES (2/UNIT)
+ 12 LINES) I I I I REACTOR COOLANT u TO HOLDING POND REFUELING CANAL 1/UNIT DRAIN TANK INTAKE PUMPING STATION PRESSURIZER RELIEF TANK LETDOWN LINE(CVCS) ICE SHIELD BLDGIN CONDENSER REACTOR COOLANT ANNULUS DRAIN DRAIN DRAIN PUMPS (2/UNIT)
' OUTSIDE FUEL TRANSFER TUBE AND CANAL REACTOR BLDG
]!~ E ~
.'(I/UNIT} CONT FLOOR DRAIN SUMP PUMPS WDS FLOOD MODE (2/UNIT)
ERCW PIPING NOTESi TO UNIT 2 DRAWING DOES NOT INCLUDE: ...~. SPENT FUEL VENTILATION SYS., EMERGENCY POWER SYS.. POOL SAMPLING SYS., DETAILS OF ERCW LOADS, SPOOL PIECE CONNECTIONS. SPENT FUEL COOLING CIRCUIT 12/PLANT) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT WAT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Schematic Flow Diagram SCHEM Flood Protection Provisions FLOOD Open Reactor Cooling i OPEN (Unit 1 Shown, Unit 2 Similar) (unit FIGURE 2.4-108
STEAM LINE ELECTRIC CHARGING AUX. FEED (2 LINES PER UNIT) (I LINE LINE PUMPS (I LINE PER UNIT) PER UNIT) (CYCS) w STEAM Z D GENERATOR '~ (2 LINES (4 LINES PER UNIT) (4/UNIT) MAIN S PER UNIT) AUX. CH f1 PUMPS PUM RC PUMP (2/O PRESSURIZER (4/01t) SEAL (I/UNIT) WATER TO {CYCS} NO.3 SEAL 6LOWDOWN FIRE PUMPS ERCW PUMPS (B)" HEATERS TANKS NO.2 SEAL (4) (4 LINES) BL VALVESN ~ t ,ACCUMULATOR ".1 SEAL q( ERC LIA DS
- SETS/UNIT) (4 MIT)
Z) (4 RY St 1 SEAL RETURN
>Iw ~(2 LIKES) i 1 (CYCS) MISC TO HOLDING POND POWER RELIEF , ,, DRAIN
~ly SLOWDOWN VALVE LINES ABOVE RELIEF (2/UNIT)
INTAKE PUMPING STATION VALVE VAULT REA 4TUANK I/uNI PRESSURIZER RELIEF TANK CODRAINLETW LINE(CVCS) ICE CONDENSERSHIELD ANNULUS DRAREAC BLDGbRAlN CONTAINMENT FLOOR DRAIN SUMP R (I/UNIT) CONT FLOOR DRAIN SUMP PUMPS WDS (2/UNIT) NOTES: DRAWING DOES NOT INCLUDE: VENTILATION SYS., EMERGENCY POWER SYS., WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT SAMPLING SYS., DETAILS OF ERCW LOADS, SPOOL PIECE CONNECTIONS. FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Schematic Flow Diagram Flood Protection Provisions Natural Convection Cooling (Unit 1 Shown, Unit 2 Similar) FIGURE 2.4-109
MEMM a ME
~i t
Bit E 4 5 _= _ tea--- __rte___ 0 6 17 M as A 0 N As Y w k 72 7# as g0 is pi lw u..r..w.r...wM.~rw.. A NOTE: Times shown allow 4 hours for communications and forecast computations. qp logo W, BE moor ME ME ONE Now M Figure 2.4-110 (Sheet 1) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Rainfall Flood Warning Time Basis For Safe Shutdown For Plant Flooding - Winter Events
NOTE: Times shown allow 4 hours for communications and forecast computations. in 0 70 0 s 0o
**s 0
- It U 1* ID 1* : M : : M n 70 M 10 /1 lOt IW Figure 2.4-110 (Sheet 2) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Rainfall Flood Warning Time Basis For Safe Shutdown For Plant Flooding - Summer Events
FIGURE 2.4111 DELETED
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-112
FIGURE 2.4113 DELETED
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-114
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-115
CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER 10CFR2.390 FIGURE 2.4-116
WBN APPENDIX 2.4A SOCH MODEL Note: Appendix 2.4A contains information regarding the SOCH model that is used in the evaluation of seismic events in Section 2.4.4. Runoff and Stream Course Model The runoff model used to determine Tennessee River flood hydrographs at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant is divided into 40 unit areas and includes the total watershed above Chickamauga Dam. Unit hydrographs are used to compute flows from the unit areas. The watershed unit areas are shown in Figure 2.4-9. The unit area flows are combined with appropriate time sequencing or channel routing procedures to compute inflows into the most upstream tributary reservoirs which in turn are routed through the reservoirs using standard routing techniques. Resulting outflows are combined with additional local inflows and carried downstream using appropriate time sequencing or routing procedures including unsteady flow routing. Unit hydrographs were developed for each unit area for which discharge records were available from maximum flood hydrographs either recorded at stream gaging stations or estimated from reservoir headwater elevation, inflow, and discharge data using the procedures described by Newton and Vineyard Reference 1. For non gaged unit areas synthetic unit graphs were developed from relationships of unit hydrographs from similar watersheds relating the unit hydrograph peak flow to the drainage area size, time to peak in terms of watershed slope and length, and the shape to the unit hydrograph peak discharge in cfs per square mile. Unit hydrograph plots are provided in Figure 2.4-10 (11 Sheets). Table 2.4-13 contains essential dimension data for each unit hydrograph. Tributary reservoir routings, except for Tellico and Melton Hill, were made using standard reservoir routing procedures and flat pool storage conditions. The main river reservoirs, Tellico, and Melton Hill routings were made using unsteady flow techniques. Unsteady flow routings were computer solved with the Simulated Open Channel Hydraulics (SOCH) mathematical model based on the equations of unsteady flow Reference 2. The SOCH model inputs include the reservoir geometry, upstream boundary inflow hydrograph, local inflows, and the downstream boundary headwater discharge relationships based upon operating guides or rating curves when the structure geometry controls. Seasonal operating curves are provided in Figure 2.4-3 (12 Sheets). Discharge rating curves are provided in Figure 2.4A-11 (13 Sheets) for the reservoirs in the watershed at and above Chickamauga. The discharge rating curve for Chickamauga Dam is for the current lock configuration with all 18 spillway bays available. Above Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, temporary flood barriers have been installed at four reservoirs (Watts Bar, Fort Loudoun, Tellico and Cherokee Reservoirs) to increase the height of embankments and are included in the discharge rating curves for these four dams. Increasing the height of embankments at these four dams prevents embankment overflow and failure of the embankment. The vendor supplied temporary flood barriers were shown to be stable for the most severe PMF headwater/tailwater conditions using vendor recommended base friction values. A single postulated Fort Loudoun Reservoir rim leak north of the Marina Saddle Dam which discharges into the Tennessee River at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 602.3 was added as an additional discharge component to the Fort Loudoun Dam discharge rating curve. Seven Watts Bar Reservoir rim leaks were added as additional discharge components to the Watts Bar Dam discharge rating curve. Three of the rim 2.4A-1
WBN leak locations discharge to Yellow Creek, entering the Tennessee River three miles downstream of Watts Bar Dam. The remaining four rim leak locations discharge to Watts Creek, which enters Chickamauga Reservoir just below Watts Bar Dam. The unsteady flow mathematical model configuration for the Fort Loudoun Tellico complex is shown by the schematic in Figure 2.4A-12. The Fort Loudoun Reservoir portion of the model from TRM 602.3 to TRM 652.22 is described by 29 cross sections with additional sections being interpolated between the original sections for a total of 59 cross-sections in the SOCH model, with a variable cross-section spacing of about 1 mile. The unsteady flow model was extended upstream on the French Broad and Holston Rivers to Douglas and Cherokee Dams, respectively. The French Broad River from the mouth to Douglas Dam at French Broad River mile (FBRM) 32.3 was described by 25 cross sections with additional sections being interpolated between the original sections for a total of 49 cross sections in the SOCH model, with a variable cross section spacing of about 1 mile. The Holston River from the mouth to Cherokee Dam at Holston River mile (HRM) 52.3 was described by 29 cross sections with one additional cross section being interpolated between each of the original sections for a total of 57 cross sections in the SOCH model, with a variable cross section spacing of about 1 mile. The Little Tennessee River was modeled from Tellico Dam, Little Tennessee River mile (LTRM) 0.3 to Chilhowee Dam at Little Tennessee River mile (LTRM) 33.6. The Little Tennessee River from Tellico Dam to Chilhowee Dam at LTRM 33.6 was described by 23 cross sections with additional sections being interpolated between the original sections for a total of 49 cross sections in the SOCH model, with a variable cross-section spacing of up to about 1.8 miles. Fort Loudoun and Tellico unsteady flow models are joined by an interconnecting canal. The canal was modeled using nine cross sections with an average cross section spacing of about 0.18 miles. The Fort Loudoun Tellico complex was verified by two different methods as follows: Using the available data for the March 1973 flood on Fort Loudoun Reservoir and for the French Broad and Holston rivers. The verification of the 1973 flood is shown in Figure 2.4A-13 (2 Sheets). Because there were limited data to verify against on the French Broad and Holston rivers, the steady state HEC-RAS model was used to replicate the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published 100 and 500 year profiles. Tellico Dam was not closed until 1979, thus was not in place during the 1973 flood for verification. Using available data for the May 2003 flood for the Fort Loudoun Tellico complex. The verification of the May 2003 flood is shown in Figure 2.4A-14 (3 Sheets). The Tellico Reservoir steady state HEC-RAS model was also used to replicate the FEMA published 100 and 500 year profiles. A schematic of the steady state SOCH model for Watts Bar Reservoir is shown in Figure 2.4A-
- 15. The model for the 72.4 mile long Watts Bar Reservoir was described by 39 cross sections with two additional sections being added in the upper reach for a total of 41 sections in the SOCH steady state model with a variable cross section spacing of up to about 2.8 miles. The model also includes a junction with the Clinch River at Tennessee River mile (TRM) 567.7. The Clinch River arm of the model goes from Clinch River mile (CRM) 0.0 to CRM 23.1 at Melton Hill Dam with one additional section being interpolated between each of the original 13 sections and 2.4A-2
WBN cross section spaces of up to about 1 mile. Another junction at TRM 601.1 connects the Little Tennessee River arm of the model from the mouth to Tellico Dam at LTRM 0.3 with cross section spaces of about 0.08 miles. The time step was tested between 5 and 60 seconds which produced stable and comparable results over the full range. A time step of 5 seconds was used for the analysis to allow multiple reservoirs and/or river segments to be coupled together with different cross section spacing. The verification of Watts Bar Reservoir for the March 1973 and the May 2003 floods are shown in Figure 2.4A-16 and Figure 2.4A-17, respectively. A schematic of the unsteady flow model for Chickamauga Reservoir is shown in Figure 2.4A-18. The model for the 58.9 mile long Chickamauga Reservoir was described by 29 cross sections with one additional section being interpolated between each of the original 29 sections for a total of 53 sections in the SOCH model with a variable cross section spacing of up to about 1 mile. The model also includes a junction with the Dallas Bay embayment at TRM 480.5. The Dallas Bay arm of the model goes from Dallas Bay mile (DB) 5.23 to DB 2.86, the control point for flow out of Chickamauga Reservoir. Another junction at TRM 499.4 connects the Hiwassee River arm of the model from the mouth to the Charleston gage at HRM 18.9. The time step was tested between 5 and 50 seconds producing stable and comparable results over the full range. A time step of 5 seconds was used for the analysis to allow multiple reservoirs and/or river segments to be coupled together with different cross section spacing. The verification of Chickamauga Reservoir for the March 1973 and the May 2003 floods are shown in Figure 2.4A-19 and Figure 2.4A-20, respectively. Verifying the reservoir models with actual data approaching the magnitude of the PMF is not possible, because no such events have been observed. Therefore, using flows in the magnitude of the PMF (1,200,000 - 1,300,000 cfs), steady state profiles were computed using the HEC-RAS steady state model and compared to computed elevations from the SOCH model. An example of the comparison between HEC-RAS and SOCH profiles is shown for Chickamauga Reservoir in Figure 2.4A-21. This approach was applied for each of the SOCH reservoir models. Similarly, the tailwater rating curve was compared at each project as shown for Watts Bar Dam in Figure 2.4A-22. In this figure, the initial tailwater curve is compared to results from the HEC-RAS or SOCH models. The reservoir operating guides applied during the SOCH model simulations mimic, to the extent possible, operating policies and are within the current reservoir operating flexibility. In addition to spillway discharge, turbine and sluice discharges were used to release water from the tributary reservoirs. Turbine discharges were also used at the main river reservoirs up to the point where the head differentials are too small and/or the powerhouse would flood. All discharge outlets (spillway gates, sluice gates, and valves) for projects in the reservoir system will remain operable without failure up to the point the operating deck is flooded for the passage of water when and as needed during the flood. A high confidence that all gates/outlets will be operable is provided by periodic inspections by TVA plant personnel, the intermediate and five-year dam safety engineering inspections consistent with Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety, and the significant capability of the emergency response teams to direct and manage resources to address issues potentially impacting gate/outlet functionality. Median initial reservoir elevations for the appropriate season were used at the start of the PMF storm sequence. Use of median elevations is consistent with statistical experience and avoids unreasonable combinations of extreme events. 2.4A-3
WBN The flood from the antecedent storm occupies about 70% of the reserved system detention capacity above Watts Bar Dam at the beginning of the main storm (day 7 of the event). Reservoir levels are at or above guide levels at the beginning of the main storm in all but Apalachia and Fort Patrick Henry Reservoirs, which have no reserved flood detention capacity. 2.4A-4
WBN REFERENCES
- 1. Newton, Donald W., and Vineyard, J. W., "Computer-Determined Unit Hydrographs From Floods," Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Volume 93, No. HY5, September 1967.
- 2. Garrison, J. M., Granju, J. P., and Price, J. T., "Unsteady Flow Simulation in Rivers and Reservoirs," Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Volume 95, No. HY5, Proceedings Paper 6771, September 1969, pages 1559-1576.
2.4A-5
740 730 720 6 710
-TOP OF SOUTH EMB: EL. 707.0 o
Ni -TOP OF NORTH EMB: EL. 706.0 0 > 700 O z J 690 W / --TOP OF GATES: EL. 685.44 m 680 a w LL 670 i i z 660 i 650 J_ w
-SPILLWAY CREST:645.0 HEADWATER RATING. CURRENT CONFIGURATION 640 TAILWATER RATING 630 620 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 DISCHARGE -1000 CFS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve Chickamauga Dam Sheet 1 of 13 FIGURE 2.4A-11
780 2.4-132 770 TOP OF EMBANKMENT:EL 770.0 760 rn 750 N
- TOP OF GATES:EL 745.0 _-
740 Z_ 730 w LL Z 0 720 a
- SPILLWAY CREST:EL713.0~
w 710 HEADWATER RATING 700 - - TAILWATER RATING RIM LEAK AT WEIR #7 RATING 690 i 680 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 DISCHARGE -1000 CFS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve Watts Bar Dam Sheet 2 of 13 FIGURE 2.4A-11
850 840
- TOP OF EMBANKMENT:EL 837.0 830 820 m - TOP OF GATES:EL 815.0 rn 810 C7 5 ----- q Z 800 H
w w LL 790 Z 0 - SPILLWAY CREST:EL 783.0 780 a w w 770 HEADWATER RATING 760 i - - TAILWATER RATING i 750 740 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 DISCHARGE -1000 CFS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve Fort Loudoun Dam Sheet 3 of 13 FIGURE 2.4A-11
850 840
--TOP OF EMBANKMENT: EL. 833.0 830 N 820 "EMERGENCY SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 817.0 TOP O GATES: E .815.0 0
810 z J 800 i W m 790 Q F ! w wa 780 z 0 770
! --SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 773.0 Q 1 W !
W 760 ! HEADWATER RATING' l 1 TAILWATER RATING" 750 Includes emergency spillway discharge "Tailwater shown at Tellico Dam 740 730 100 200 300 400 I FT-F I 500 600 700 800 900 I 1000 I 1100 I 1200 DISCHARGE -1000 CFS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve Tellico Dam Sheet 4 of 13 FIGURE 2.4A-11
1410 TOP OF EMBANKMENT: EL. 1408.5 1400 m N
--TOP OF CONCRETE DAM: EL. 1392.0 r 1390 0
O TOP OF GAT S: EL. 1385 0 z J N M 1380 w O m Q w 1370 LL z O Q 1360 J w 1350 SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 1350 0 Note: Tailwater rating not shown, no effect on outflow. 1340 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 DISCHARGE - 1000 CFS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve Boone Dam Sheet 5 of 13 FIGURE 2.4A-11
1100
---TOP OF EARTH SADDLE DAMS: EL. 1092.75 1080
--TOP OF GATES: EL. 1075.0 1060 m
N
-SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 1043.0
> 1040 u J y W 1020 O m Q W w 1000 LL Z O 1= 980 w w 960 HEADWATER RATING
- - - TAILWATER RATING 940 920 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 DISCHARGE - 1000 CFS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve Cherokee Dam Sheet 6 of 13 FIGURE 2.4A-11
1090 TOP OF SADDLE DAMS EL. 10236 TOP OF CONCRETE DAM. EL 1022 5 1020 TOP OF GATES EL 1002.0 Iio.IN: N N A
--SPILLWAY CREST EL. 070.0 Z
F 920 W 900
' HEADWATER RATING
- TAIL'NATER RATING 880 860 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 DISCHARGE -1000 CFS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve Douglas Dam Sheet 7 of 13 Figure 2.4A-11
1760 1740
--TOP OF MAIN DAM: EL 1727 0 am 1720 N
01 0 --TOP OF GATES: EL. 1710.0 O ? 1700 J N 2 W m 1680 f-CREST EL. 1675.0 w W LL Z 1660 w 1640 1620 Note: Tailwater rating not shown, no effect on outflow. 1600 100 200 300 400 500 DISCHARGE -1000 CFS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve Fontana Dam Sheet 8 of 13 FIGURE 2.4A-11
1300 1290 a, 1280 N m ? 1270 TOP OF DAM: EL. 1270.0 w --TOP OF GATES: EL. 1263.0 m 1260 a r w LL Z O 1250 F w w 1240 1230
--SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 1228.0 Note: Tailwater rating not shown, no effect on outflow.
1220 50 100 150 200 250 300 :3K) DISCHARGE -1000 CFS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve Fort Patrick Henry Dam Sheet 9 of 13 FIGURE 2.4A-11
820 810 TOP OF NORTH NONOVERFLOW DAM: EL. 805.48 1 1 N TOP OF SOUTH NONOVERFLOW DAM: EL 802.0 800 0
--TOP OF GATES: EL. 796.0 O
z J 790 U3 O m a w 780 LL z O F a w 770 J W 760
---SPILLWAY CREST' EL 754.0 Note: Tailwater rating not shown. no effect on outflow 750 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 DISCHARGE -1000 CFS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve Melton Hill Dam Sheet 10 of 13 FIGURE 2.4A-11
1070 TOP OF DAM: EL. 1061.0 1060 am 1050 r m D O ? 1040 J t4 g TOP OF GATES: EL 1034.0 W m 1030 a w LL Z 1020 SPILLWAY CREST: EL 1020.0 W 1010 1000 Note - Tailwater rating not shown, no effect on spillway outflow. 990 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 DISCHARGE -1000 CFS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve Norris Dam Sheet 11 of 13 FIGURE 2.4A-11
1770 1765 TOP OF DAM: EL. 1765.0 m N m > 1760 Z J N W m 1755 a w w i' LL 1745
--BENT CREEK SPILLWAY CREST EL. 1744.0 Note: Tailwater rating not shown, no effect on outflow.
--MORNING GLORY SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 1742.0 1740 50 100 150 200 250 DISCHARGE -1000 CFS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve South Holston Dam Sheet 12 of 13 FIGURE 2.4A-11
2015 TOP OF DAM: EL 2012.0 2010 2005 m N a, > 2000 J dl W 1995 O m a W 1990 START OF "THROAT CONTROL EL. 1989.0 TO 1990.0 W U. z O H 1985 a w W W 1980 1975 MORNING GLORY SPILLWAY CREST: EL. 1975.0 Note: Tailwater rating not shown. no effect on outflow. 1970 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90 100 DISCHARGE - 1000 CFS WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Discharge Rating Curve Watauga Dam Sheet 13 of 13 FIGURE 2.4A-11
Cherokee Dam Douglas Dam FBRM 32.30 Fort Loudoun Darn TRM 602.30\ Tellico Dam LTRM 0.30 i,mrnowee uam LTRM 33.60 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Fort Loudoun - Tellico SOCH Unsteady Flow Model Schematic FIGURE 2.4A-12
825 820 M- -.d TN R M TRM 651 4 J *****.O mp Md TN Rrc 1n 0 TRM 6514 f W CD 815 O M.d TN R M TRM 665 1
* **.*.CaePNa TN R M TRM 6451 Ob.d TN Rw at F1 Louder HW TRM 6023 810 805 3/14/73 3/15/73 3118173 3/17/73 3/18/73 3119/73 3/20173 3121173 DATE WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unsteady Flow Model Fort Loudoun Reservoir March 1973 Flood Sheet 1 of 2 FIGURE 2.4A-13
940 920 ObSWVW Holston Rem at Cherokee Dam Tw N goo Ol HRM 523
* *Campxao Holston Rtva M Cherokee Dam L7 TWHRM523 Z
Observed French Stood J R- m Douyn Dam 880 IW FBRM 32.3 W ....* .Computed Frerrh 0 Stood River at 0ouples 0 Den TY FBRM 32.3 to Q 1 ObsffvW French Broad W Rw at FORM 7 4 LL 860
.*...*CmrpidW Frerrh Brood Rnor M F8RM 74 Observed Hoeuon River at HRM 5 5 W 840
- - - - - .Computed Holston Rm MHRM 55 820 800 3114173 3115173 3116173 3117!73 3118173 3119173 3120173 3121173 DATE WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unsteady Flow Model Fort Loudoun Reservoir March 1973 Flood Sheet 2 of 2 FIGURE 2.4A-13
818 817 r 816 z Cwurvw TN PM z bolos Ktg .rw TN J TRM 8451 815
._ _ _ .Cyrp4ed TN Rw w bolox KMuo.TN O TRM 80.51 m
a OOaened TN R m at Ft Louder NW TRM w 814 6023 LL z O F 1 813 w 812 811 5/3103 514/03 515103 5/6/03 5/7103 518103 519103 5110103 5/11/03 5/12/03 5113103 5114/03 5115103 5/16/03 5/17/03 5118103 DATE WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unsteady Flow Model Fort Loudoun - Tellico Reservoir May 2003 Flood Sheet 1 of 3 FIGURE 2.4A-14
940 930 920 N ob n Ol Hovch R 0 TVJot Cnn k.Dam HRM 52 3 z 910
...*..0-I!,
H4Von R Mw cnarcK.Dom O M 900 HRM 52 3 Q F W DG W LL French 8roaa R, NJ-0 890 DagUs Dam FBRM 32 3 From 8nw
..................................................... RnM TW .
880 Daggs Dam
.A*... ....I.... ....................... FBRM 32 3 870 860 5/3/03 5/4103 615/03 5/6/03 517103 5/8/03 619/03 5110/03 5111103 5/12/03 5/13/03 5/14103 6/15103 5/16/03 5/17/03 5118103 DATE WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unsteady Flow Model Fort Loudoun - Tellico Reservoir May 2003 Flood Sheet 2 of 3 FIGURE 2.4A-14
822 821 820 Oeservatl UnN 818 Temesaea R Z TW M Ch* Dam LTRM 33.6 N
......0PMW LAIN W 817 TMewaaee River TWMCWa O Oam LTRM 336 co w 816 Ob wW 4610 Tema RMr LL HW M Team Dam LTRM 03 Z
0 815
* - ***'CanRnaG LnN Q Tameaee River HW M To*- Dam J LTRM 0.3 W
814 813 812 811 6/3/03 5/4103 5/5/03 6/6/03 517103 5/8/03 519/03 5110103 5/11/03 5/12103 5113103 5/14/03 5/16/03 5/16103 6/17/03 5/18/03 DATE WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unsteady Flow Model Fort Loudoun - Tellico Reservoir May 2003 Flood Sheet 3 of 3 FIGURE 2.4A-14
Melton Hill Dam Fort Loudoun Darn Mile 602.3 Little Tennessee River Watts Bar Dam TRM 529.9 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Watts Bar SOCH Unsteady Flow Model Schematic FIGURE 2.4A-15
765 760 Observed TN Riw al A Loudon TW TRM 602.3 01 *..* .Computed TN River at Fl Loudoun TW TRM 6023 > 755 0 z obtwad TN Rrvar M MOW Ha J CRM 23 t N W 7 - - - - * *Cmpumd TN Rner at Man- Ha ,750 CRM 23 t Q F W W Observa0 TN River to LL FM9us4n Branch TRM 552.4 z O p: 745
*...*Computed TN Rtw at Ferguson Branch TRM W 5524 W
Observed TN Rivar & Wtam Ber MW TRM 529.9 740 735 3114173 3115173 3116173 3117173 3118173 3119/73 3120173 3121173 DATE WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unsteady Flow Model Watts Bar Reservoir March 1973 Flood FIGURE 2.4A-16
Oowvea TN 760 RNer m Fl Lo.ft-TW TRM 8023
......Co Ildd TN i a F1 Rver Louder TW 1 ` TRM 602.3 755
- - C pAee TN Rn m Telim TW Of f 1 LTRM 03 t
u 1 5 750 Oowveo TN y A m f Mehra H01 W CRM 231 O m a ......CompRW TN R m w Melon HJ W ~. ...... CRM 231 t 745 Z O / obsavW TN Rivw nr Knpmon TN W TRM 5%1 J i* W S ......Co PA*d TN 740 C ' Rner n Knpeon TN TRM 588 1 oDwvea TN Rm Wets Bar HW TRM 5299 735 513103 5/4/03 515103 5/6103 517103 518103 519103 5110103 5111103 5112/03 5113103 5114103 5115103 5116103 5117103 5118103 DATE WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unsteady Flow Model Watts Bar Reservoir May 2003 Flood FIGURE 2.4A-17
Watts Bar Darn 529.9 Charleston Gauge HRM 18.9 DB 2.86 Chickamauga Dam TRM 471.0 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Chickamauga SOCH Unsteady Flow Model Schematic FIGURE 2.4A-18
700 Observed TN River at Webs 8er TW TRM 5299 695 - - - - - *Comladed TN Rover at Weds Ber TW TRM 528.9 observed TN River sl Breeden'TN TRM 5232 690 U) 2 W - - - - - *Computed TN Rover er m Breedenton. TN m TRM 5232 Q F W W LL 665 observed TN z Rrwr at 0 Weiser plant a TRM 485 2 W J W - - - - *Cempuled TN Rover 81 Sepuoyen Nuclear PIMI 680 TRM 485 2 observed TN Rw at chdx suBa Der. TRM 4710 675 3114/73 3115/73 3/16/73 3117!73 3/18/73 3/19173 3/20/73 3/21173 DATE WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unsteady Flow Model Chickamauga Reservoir March 1973 Flood FIGURE 2.4A-19
700 695 OWarno TN R CD at Wans Sw TW N TRM 5299 O) 2 - - - - *Caapaao TN Rry a NWN Bar TW TRM 5299 0" -*d TN R:var In 690 m Ssgr+ai4N TRM 484 7* 9aake' w TRM 484.7* W W LL
*** -'Compu40 TN RNW at Soaoyan W16 Plea M" TRM 4817 06.1-d TN R, at Clrlu> mp 685 Oam TRM 471.0 680 513103 514/03 515103 516103 5/7/03 5/8/03 519103 5110/03 5/11/03 5112/03 5/13103 5/14103 5115103 5/16103 5/17/03 5118103
%,ne W 484 7 rauAM m a error m ma ob a as oa+a+RepW No. SON 20030507.01)
DATE 'WM& le" w °"a" WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Unsteady Flow Model Chickamauga Reservoir May 2003 Flood FIGURE 2.4A-20
750 5 740 N W r z Z_ J W 2 W HECRAS I100 m 730 ~ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -- - - - - - -'y- - - - - - - - I PROFILE Q
*...*SOCFl HOOK W PROFILE W
LL HEC*RIS 12O0K PROFILE Z O **...SOCK 12O0K F PROFILE HEGRAS 13W W PROFILE J W 720
- _ ***SOCK 13M PROFILE 710 I 1 1 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 TENNESSEE RIVER MILE WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Chickamauga Steady State Profile Comparisons FIGURE 2.4A-21
745
/
740 /
/
/
735
/
730 /
/
m 725 0
/
0 2 -1 720 / N T.P,AW Curve(NEC-W RAS) m 715 4 T&Ma" F cum(Dam w Rwng Cum) W 710 0 *- - *Talky Cut"POCH Q 705 -_-_-_ _._. '- -_____________________ -_-__...._.___.-__-____ ____ ____ ___ w 700 . l ...... -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
/
696 690 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 685 0 100 200 300 400 500 800 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 DISCHARGE(1000CFS) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Tailwater Rating Curve, Watts Bar Dam SOCH Model FIGURE 2.4A-22}}