ML21361A222

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Supplemental Information for Revision 22 to Updated Safety Analysis Report, Chapter 2, Site Characteristics, Sections 2.0 to 2.4 (Redacted)
ML21361A222
Person / Time
Site: Perry FirstEnergy icon.png
Issue date: 12/20/2021
From:
Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML21361A235 List:
References
L-21-287
Download: ML21361A222 (399)
v • d • e


Text

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 2.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 2.0-1 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 Maps 2.1-1 2.1.1.3 Boundaries for Establishing Effluent Release Limits 2.1-2 2.1.2 EXCLUSION AREA AUTHORITY AND CONTROL 2.1-3 2.1.2.1 Authority 2.1-3 2.1.2.2 Control of Activities Unrelated to Plant Operation 2.1-4 2.1.2.3 Arrangements for Traffic Control 2.1-4 2.1.2.4 Abandonment or Relocation of Roads 2.1-5 2.1.3 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION 2.1-5 2.1.3.1 Population Within Ten Miles 2.1-5 2.1.3.2 Population Between Ten and Fifty Miles 2.1-7 2.1.3.3 Transient Population 2.1-8 2.1.3.4 Low Population Zone 2.1-9 2.1.3.5 Population Center 2.1-11 2.1.3.6 Population Density 2.1-11 2.

1.4 REFERENCES

FOR SECTION 2.1 2.1-11 2.2 NEARBY INDUSTRIAL, TRANSPORTATION AND MILITARY FACILITIES 2.2-1 2.2.1 LOCATIONS AND ROUTES 2.2-1 2.2.1.1 Industrial Facilities 2.2-1 2.2.1.2 Extractive Industries 2.2-1 2.2.1.3 Transportation 2.2-1 2.2.1.4 Military Facilities 2.2-3 2.2.1.5 Gas Pipelines 2.2-3 2.2.1.6 Nuclear Power Generating Facilities 2.2-3 2.

2.2 DESCRIPTION

S 2.2-4 2.2.2.1 Descriptions of Facilities 2.2-4 2.2.2.2 Description of Products and Materials 2.2-4 Revision 12 2-i January, 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Title Page 2.2.2.3 Natural Gas Pipelines 2.2-14 2.2.2.4 Waterways 2.2-15 2.2.2.5 Airports and Airways 2.2-16 2.2.2.6 Projections of Industrial Growth 2.2-20 2.2.3 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ACCIDENTS 2.2-21 2.2.3.1 Determination of Design Basis Events 2.2-21 2.2.3.2 Effects of Design Basis Events 2.2-39 2.

2.4 REFERENCES

FOR SECTION 2.2 2.2-39 2.3 METEOROLOGY 2.3-1 2.3.1 REGIONAL CLIMATOLOGY 2.3-1 2.3.1.1 General Climate 2.3-1 2.3.1.2 Regional Meteorological Conditions for Design and Operating Bases 2.3-6 2.3.2 LOCAL METEOROLOGY 2.3-17 2.3.2.1 Normal and Extreme Values of Meteorological Parameters 2.3-17 2.3.2.2 Potential Influence of the Plant and the Facilities on Local Meteorology 2.3-24 2.3.2.3 Topographic Description 2.3-28 2.3.3 ONSITE METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENT PROGRAM 2.3-31 2.3.3.1 System Description 2.3-31 2.3.3.2 Meteorological Data Reduction 2.3-34 2.3.3.3 Meteorological Data Recovery 2.3-35 2.3.3.4 On-Site Meteorological Measurement Program (Operational System) 2.3-37 2.3.4 SHORT TERM (ACCIDENT) DIFFUSION ESTIMATES 2.3-40 2.3.4.1 Objective 2.3-40 2.3.4.2 Calculations 2.3-40 2.3.5 LONG TERM (ROUTINE RELEASE) DIFFUSION ESTIMATES 2.3-43 2.3.5.1 Objective 2.3-43 2.3.5.2 Calculations 2.3-44 Revision 14 2-ii October, 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Title Page 2.

3.6 REFERENCES

FOR SECTION 2.3 2.3-47 2.4 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING 2.4-1 2.4.1 HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION 2.4-1 2.4.1.1 Site and Facilities 2.4-1 2.4.1.2 Hydrosphere 2.4-1 2.4.2 FLOODS 2.4-4 2.4.2.1 Flood History 2.4-4 2.4.2.2 Flood Design Considerations 2.4-4 2.4.2.3 Effects of Local Intense Precipitation 2.4-5 2.4.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (PMF) ON STREAMS AND RIVERS 2.4-7 2.4.3.1 Probable Maximum Precipitation 2.4-8 2.4.3.2 Precipitation Losses 2.4-9 2.4.3.3 Runoff and Stream Course Models 2.4-9 2.4.3.4 Probable Maximum Flood Flow 2.4-9 2.4.3.5 Water Level Determinations 2.4-10 2.4.3.6 Coincident Wind Wave Activity 2.4-11 2.4.4 POTENTIAL DAM FAILURES, SEISMICALLY INDUCED 2.4-11 2.4.4.1 Dam Failure Permutations 2.4-11 2.4.4.2 Unsteady Flow Analysis of Potential Dam Failures 2.4-11 2.4.4.3 Water Level at Plant Site 2.4-11 2.4.5 PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE FLOODING 2.4-12 2.4.5.1 Probable Maximum Winds and Associated Meteorological Parameters 2.4-12 2.4.5.2 Surge and Seiche Water Levels 2.4-18 2.4.5.3 Wave Action 2.4-21 2.4.5.4 Resonance 2.4-22 2.4.5.5 Protective Structures 2.4-24 2.4.6 PROBABLE MAXIMUM TSUNAMI FLOODING 2.4-45 2.4.7 ICE EFFECTS 2.4-45 2.4.7.1 Regional Ice Formation History 2.4-45 Revision 12 2-iii January, 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Title Page 2.4.7.2 Ice Blockage 2.4-46 2.4.7.3 Ice Forces and Protective Structures 2.4-46 2.4.7.4 Ice Flooding 2.4-47 2.4.8 COOLING WATER TUNNELS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES 2.4-47 2.4.8.1 Cooling Water Tunnels 2.4-47 2.4.8.2 Offshore Structures 2.4-48 2.4.9 CHANNEL DIVERSIONS 2.4-50 2.4.10 FLOODING PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS 2.4-50 2.4.11 LOW WATER CONSIDERATIONS 2.4-51 2.4.11.1 Low Flow in Streams 2.4-51 2.4.11.2 Low Water Resulting From Surges, Seiches or Tsunami 2.4-51 2.4.11.3 Historical Low Water 2.4-56 2.4.11.4 Future Controls 2.4-57 2.4.11.5 Plant Requirements 2.4-58 2.4.11.6 Heat Sink Dependability Requirements 2.4-59 2.4.12 DISPERSION, DILUTION AND TRAVEL TIMES OF ACCIDENTAL RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS IN LAKE ERIE 2.4-62 2.4.13 GROUNDWATER 2.4-65 2.4.13.1 Description and Onsite Use 2.4-65 2.4.13.2 Sources 2.4-67 2.4.13.3 Accident Effects 2.4-71 2.4.13.4 Monitoring of Safeguard Requirements 2.4-74 2.4.13.5 Design Bases for Subsurface Hydrostatic Loadings 2.4-74 2.4.14 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION AND EMERGENCY OPERATION REQUIREMENTS 2.4-117 2.4.15 LIST OF PERSONS AND AGENCIES INTERVIEWED 2.4-117 2.4.16 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.4 2.4-120 Revision 12 2-iv January, 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Title Page 2.5 GEOLOGY, SEISMOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 2.5-1 2.5.1 BASIC GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC INFORMATION 2.5-7 2.5.1.1 Regional Geology 2.5-8 2.5.1.2 Site Geology 2.5-81 2.5.2 VIBRATORY GROUND MOTION 2.5-117 2.5.2.1 Seismicity 2.5-117 2.5.2.2 Geologic Structures and Tectonic Activity 2.5-142 2.5.2.3 Correlation of Earthquake Activity with Geologic Structures or Tectonic Provinces 2.5-148 2.5.2.4 Maximum Earthquake Potential 2.5-149 2.5.2.5 Seismic Wave Transmission Characteristics of the Site 2.5-159 2.5.2.6 Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) 2.5-159 2.5.2.7 Operating Basis Earthquake 2.5-163 2.5.3 SURFACE FAULTING 2.5-167 2.5.3.1 Geologic Conditions of the Site 2.5-168 2.5.3.2 Evidence of Fault Offset 2.5-168 2.5.3.3 Earthquakes Associated with Capable Faults 2.5-180 2.5.3.4 Investigation of Capable Faults 2.5-180 2.5.3.5 Correlation of Epicenters with Capable Faults 2.5-180 2.5.3.6 Description of Capable Faults 2.5-181 2.5.3.7 Zone Requiring Detailed Faulting Investigation 2.5-181 2.5.3.8 Results of Faulting Investigation 2.5-181 2.5.4 STABILITY OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS AND FOUNDATIONS 2.5-181 2.5.4.1 Geologic Features 2.5-181 2.5.4.2 Properties of Subsurface Materials 2.5-183 2.5.4.3 Exploration 2.5-197 2.5.4.4 Geophysical Surveys 2.5-219 2.5.4.5 Excavations and Backfill 2.5-223 2.5.4.6 Groundwater Conditions 2.5-230 2.5.4.7 Response of Soil and Rock to Dynamic Loading 2.5-237 2.5.4.8 Liquefaction Potential 2.5-237 2.5.4.9 Earthquake Design Basis 2.5-243 2.5.4.10 Static Stability 2.5-244 2.5.4.11 Design Criteria 2.5-256 2.5.4.12 Techniques to Improve Subsurface Conditions 2.5-257 Revision 12 2-v January, 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Title Page 2.5.4.13 Subsurface Instrumentation 2.5-258 2.5.4.14 Construction Notes 2.5-264 2.5.5 STABILITY OF SLOPES 2.5-265 2.5.5.1 Slope Characteristics 2.5-266 2.5.5.2 Design Criteria and Analyses 2.5-266 2.5.5.3 Logs of Borings 2.5-269 2.5.5.4 Compacted Fill 2.5-270 2.5.6 EMBANKMENTS AND DAMS 2.5-270 2.

5.7 REFERENCES

FOR SECTION 2.5 2.5-270 APPENDIX 2A ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR APP. 2A CLEVELAND AND ERIE TAB APPENDIX 2B MONTHLY AND ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY APP. 2B DISTRIBUTIONS FOR PNPP, 10-M WINDS TAB APPENDIX 2C MONTHLY AND ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY APP. 2C DISTRIBUTIONS FOR PNPP, 60-M WINDS TAB APPENDIX 2D BEDROCK DEFORMATION IN THE COOLING WATER APP. 2D TUNNEL TAB APPENDIX 2E SOIL AND ROCK BORINGS APP. 2E TAB Revision 12 2-vi January, 2003

LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 2.1-1 Towns and Cities Within Fifty Miles of the Perry Plant Site 2.1-14 2.1-2 Major Camps and Parks Within Ten Miles of the Perry Plant Site 2.1-20 2.1-3 Population Distribution Within the Low Population Zone 1978 2.1-21 2.1-4 Population and Density Within Fifty Miles of Perry Nuclear Power Plant (1983) 2.1-22 2.1-5 Population and Density Within Fifty Miles of Perry Nuclear Power Plant (1984) 2.1-23 2.1-6 Population and Density Within Fifty Miles of Perry Nuclear Power Plant (1985) 2.1-24 2.1-7 Population and Density Within Fifty Miles of Perry Nuclear Power Plant (1986) 2.1-25 2.1-8 Population and Density Within Fifty Miles of Perry Nuclear Power Plant (2020) 2.1-26 2.1-9 Acquisition of Land and Mineral Rights Perry Nuclear Power Plant 1 & 2 2.1-27 2.1-10 Transient Populations Within the Low Population Zone 2.1-28 2.2-1 Manufacturing and Storage Facilities Within Five Miles of the Plant 2.2-48 2.2-2 Major Highways Within Five Miles of Station Center 2.2-49 2.2-3 Gas Pipelines Within the Immediate Environs of the Plant 2.2-50 2.2-4a Hazardous Materials Used, Processed and/or Stored Within Five Miles of the Plant 2.2-51 2.2-4b Hazardous Materials Transported by Highway or Railroad Within Five Miles of the Plant 2.2-53 2.2-5a 1988 Conrail Hazardous Materials Traffic 2.2-55 Revision 14 2-vii October, 2005

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Title Page 2.2-5b 2005 Norfolk and Southern Hazardous Material Traffic 2.2-61 2.2-6 Types and Amounts of Cargo Transported in the Great Lakes in 1982 - Cleveland, Fairport, Ashtabula, Conneaut, and Erie Harbors 2.2-62 2.2-7 1982 Combined Traffic by Type of Vessel Between Cleveland, Ohio and Erie, Pennsylvania 2.2-65 2.2-8 Trips and Drafts of Vessels - Cleveland, Fairport Harbor, Ashtabula, Conneaut, and Erie Harbor 2.2-66 2.2-9 Airports and Airstrips in the Vicinity of the Plant 2.2-67 2.2-10 Chemicals Stored Onsite 2.2-68 2.3-1 Normals, Means and Extremes for Cleveland, Ohio 2.3-54 2.3-2 Normals, Means and Extremes for Erie, Pennsylvania 2.3-55 2.3-3 Climatological Summaries for Painesville and Geneva 2.3-56 2.3-4 Site Region Meteorological Extremes (Date of Occurrence) 2.3-57 2.3-5 Design-Basis Tornado Characteristics for the PNPP Site 2.3-58 2.3-6 Monthly and Annual Average Wind Speed (MPH) for PNPP Region Site Years and Long Term 2.3-59 2.3-7 Annual Average Wind Speeds (MPH) for PNPP Region 2.3-61 2.3-8 PNPP Area Monthly and Annual Means and Extremes of Temperature (F) for Three Concurrent Years 2.3-62 Revision 15 2-viii October, 2007

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Title Page 2.3-9 PNPP Area Long Term Annual Means and Extremes of Temperature (F) 2.3-64 2.3-10 Annual PNPP Diurnal Variations of Temperature, Dew Point, Relative Humidity, and Absolute Humidity for PNPP 2.3-65 2.3-11 Monthly and Annual Means of Relative Humidity, Absolute Humidity, and Dew Point for PNPP Area for Three Site Years 2.3-67 2.3-12 Long Term Values of Relative Humidity, Absolute Humidity and Dew Point for PNPP Area 2.3-69 2.3-13 PNPP Monthly and Annual Greatest Precipitation (Inches) by Time Interval for Seven Site Years 2.3-71 2.3-14 Percent Frequency of Precipitation By Amount and Interval for PNPP for Seven Site Years 2.3-72 2.3-15 PNPP Area Greatest 24-H Precipitation (Inches) for Three Concurrent Years 2.3-73 2.3-16 PNPP Area Average Total Precipitation for Three Concurrent Years 2.3-74 2.3-17 Long Term Total Precipitation (Inches) Values for PNPP Area 2.3-75 2.3-18 PNPP Stability Class Distributions (Percent) by Month for Seven Site Years 2.3-77 2.3-19 PNPP Area Long Term Annual Stability Class Distributions 2.3-78 2.3-20 PNPP Stability Distributions by Hour of Day for Seven Site Years (Number of Occurrences) 2.3-79 2.3-21 PNPP Stability Persistence for Seven Site Years (Number of Occurrences) 2.3-80 2.3-22 PNPP Meteorological System Equipment Specifications - (April 1972 to August 1982) 2.3-82 Revision 12 2-ix January, 2003

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Title Page 2.3-23 Meteorological Data Recovery (Percent) at PNPP 2.3-84 2.3-24 PNPP Short Term (Accident) /Q Values at the Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) and the Low Population Zone (LPZ) Based on Seven Site Years 2.3-89 2.3-25 (Deleted) 2.3-90 2.3-26 PNPP Terrain Adjustment Factors 2.3-91 2.3-27 PNPP Annual Average Site Boundary /Q and D/Q Values for Seven Site Years 2.3-93 2.3-28 PNPP Annual Average /Q (s/m3) Values (Undepleted) for a Ground Level Release for Seven Years 2.3-95 2.3-29 PNPP Annual Average /Q (s/m3) Values (Depleted) for a Ground Level Release for Seven Site Years 2.3-96 2.3-30 PNPP Annual Average /Q (m-2) Values for a Ground Level Release for Seven Site Years 2.3-98 2.3-31 Meteorological Data Collection System 2.3-100 2.3-32 (Deleted) 2.4-1 Probable Maximum Storm for Setup at Site 2.4-127 2.4-2 Recession Rates in Feet per Year 2.4-133 2.4-3 Maximum Recorded Ice Thickness at Various Stations on the Periphery of Lake Erie 2.4-136 2.4-4 Tabulation of Maximum Yearly Observed Ice Thickness Along Ohio Shoreline of Lake Erie 2.4-138 2.4-5 Minimal Dilution Factors for Lake Water Intakes Within 50 Miles of PNPP 2.4-140 2.4-6 Domestic Well Inventory - North Perry and Perry, Ohio 2.4-141 2.4-7 Analysis of Water Samples 2.4-168 Revision 13 2-x December, 2003

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Title Page 2.4-8 Samples From DW No. 1 During Pumping Test Analysis 2.4-169 2.4-9 Potentially Flooding Volume 2.4-172 2.4-10 Free Storage Volumes 2.4-173 2.4-11 Water Quality Data 2.4-174 2.4-12 Major Onsite Storage Facilities 2.4-175 2.4-13 Porous Concrete Permeability Test Data 2.4-176 2.5-1 Stratigraphy of Salina Group in Perry Township 2.5-309 2.5-2 Summary of Water Analyses 2.5-310 2.5-3 Simulated Oriskany Brine Solution 2.5-311 2.5-4 Brine Analysis of Typical Solution Well 2.5-312 2.5-5 Field Inventory of Wells (permitted prior to May 1973) 2.5-313 2.5-6 Supplemental Well Data (permitted subsequent to May 1973) 2.5-315 2.5-7 Earthquakes Within 200 Miles of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant 2.5-318 2.5-8 Events With Doubtful Location or Origin 2.5-324 2.5-9 Earthquakes Within 50 Miles of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant 2.5-326 2.5-10 Jesuit Seismological Association Stations 2.5-330 2.5-11 World Wide Stations Eastern United States 2.5-332 2.5-12 Seismograph Stations in Eastern Canada 2.5-333 2.5-13 John Carroll University Seismic Network Station Coordinates 2.5-335 2.5-14 Station Locations of CEI Network 2.5-336 Revision 12 2-xi January, 2003

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Title Page 2.5-15 Relocated Anna, Ohio Earthquakes With 95%

Confidence Ellipse Location Statistics 2.5-337 2.5-16 Local Seismicity Data 2.5-338 2.5-17 Station Locations Deployed to Monitor Aftershocks Through April 15, 1986 2.5-342 2.5-18 Aftershock Parameters of January 31, 1986 Earthquake 2.5-344 2.5-19 Estimated Site Intensities 2.5-345 2.5-20 Resources Investigated for Local Seismicity 2.5-347 2.5-21 Compressional and Shear Wave Results, Elastic Moduli Calculations and Generalized Geologic Correlation 2.5-348 2.5-22 Probabilistic Assessment of PNPP-1 OBE Exceedance Seismicity and Attenuation Input Parameters 2.5-349 2.5-23 Probabilistic Assessment of PNPP OBE Exceedance Annual Frequencies of Exceeding OBE Intensity 2.5-350 2.5-24 Summary of Test Methods 2.5-351 2.5-25 Summary of Laboratory Test Results 2.5-352 2.5-26 Summary of Laboratory Test Results 2.5-360 2.5-27 Summary of Laboratory Test Results 2.5-366 2.5-28 Physical Properties of Soil Materials 2.5-376 2.5-29 Summary of One-Dimensional Consolidation Test Results on Soil Materials 2.5-377 2.5-30 Drained Deformation Moduli of Lower Till 2.5-378 2.5-31 Pressuremeter Test Results in Lower Till 2.5-379 2.5-32 Vertical Plate Loading Test Results in Lower Till 2.5-380 Revision 12 2-xii January, 2003

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Title Page 2.5-33 Horizontal Plate Loading Test Results in Lower Till 2.5-381 2.5-34 Summary of Laboratory Compression Test Results - Lacustrine Sediments 2.5-382 2.5-35 Summary of Laboratory Compression Test Results - Upper Till 2.5-383 2.5-36 Summary of Laboratory Compression Test Results - Lower Till 2.5-384 2.5-37 Summary of Effective Stress Parameters 2.5-386 2.5-38 Cyclic Torsion Test Results for Lacustrine Sediments 2.5-387 2.5-39 Cyclic Torsion Test Results for Upper Till 2.5-388 2.5-40 Cyclic Torsion Test Results for Lower Till 2.5-389 2.5-41 Dynamic Properties of Soil Materials by In Situ Shear Wave Velocity Measurements 2.5-390 2.5-42 Pinhole Test Results on Lower Till 2.5-391 2.5-43 Dissolved Cations in Saturation Extract -

Lower Till 2.5-392 2.5-44 Approximate Percentages of Principal Minerals and Rock Fragments in Lower Till 2.5-393 2.5-45 Summary of Laboratory Test Results 2.5-394 2.5-46 Physical Properties of Chagrin Shale 2.5-399 2.5-47 Mineral Composition of Chagrin Shale 2.5-400 2.5-48 Jar Slaking Test Results - Chagrin Shale 2.5-401 2.5-49 Summary of Unconfined Compression Tests on Chagrin Shale 2.5-402 2.5-50 Summary of Oedometer Tests on Chagrin Shale 2.5-404 2.5-51 Drained Deformation Moduli of Chagrin Shale 2.5-405 Revision 12 2-xiii January, 2003

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Title Page 2.5-52 Drained Deformation Modulus of Shale from Stress Path Tests 2.5-406 2.5-53 Summary of Stress-Controlled Undrained Cyclic Triaxial Compression Tests on Shale 2.5-408 2.5-54 Pressuremeter Test Results in Shale 2.5-409 2.5-55 Vertical Plate Loading Test Results in Shale 2.5-410 2.5-56 Summary of Sonic Velocity Test Results on Shale 2.5-411 2.5-57 Material Properties Adopted for Design 2.5-413 2.5-58 One Dimensional Consolidation Properties Adopted for Design 2.5-414 2.5-59 Drained and Undrained Deformation Properties Adopted for Design 2.5-415 2.5-60 Dynamic Soil Properties Adopted for Design 2.5-416 2.5-61 Plant Site Stratigraphy 2.5-417 2.5-62 Summary of Laboratory Tests - Offshore Chagrin Shale Samples 2.5-418 2.5-63 Gas Flow Measurements in Boring 1-55 2.5-420 2.5-64 Chromatography and Property Analysis 2.5-421 2.5-65 Properties for Gas Migration Analyses 2.5-422 2.5-66 Certification Test Results on Class A Fill 2.5-423 2.5-67 Summary of Piezometer Installations and Observations 2.5-425 2.5-68 Permeability Test Results in Shale - Initial Investigations 2.5-426 2.5-69 Summary of Field Permeability Tests -

Supplementary Investigations 2.5-427 Revision 12 2-xiv January, 2003

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Title Page 2.5-70 Results of Laboratory Permeability Tests on Natural Soils 2.5-428 2.5-71 Minimum Stress Ratio in Lower Till for Initial Liquefaction in Ten Cycles 2.5-429 2.5-72 Bearing Materials Beneath Primary Safety Class Structures 2.5-430 2.5-73 Annual Probability of Exceedance for Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) 2.5-431 2.5-74 Spectral Velocities (5% Damping) Associated with Uniform Hazard Spectra at 10-3, 10-4, 2 x 10-4, and 10-5 Annual Probabilities of Exceedance 2.5-432 Revision 12 2-xv January, 2003

2.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS This chapter presents studies and analyses of the site and environment for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant. The studies conducted include geography, demography, effects of nearby facilities, meteorology, hydrology, geology, and seismology. The site characteristics presented provide the basis for selection of design standards for the plant and determine the adequacy of concepts for controlling routine and accidental release of radioactive effluents to the environment.

Revision 12 2.0-1 January, 2003

2.1 GEOGRAPHY AND DEMOGRAPHY 2.1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2.1.1.1 Specification of Location Located in a rural area of Lake County, Ohio, the site is approximately seven miles northeast of Painesville, the county seat, and 35 miles northeast of Cleveland, the nearest large principal city. The eastern two thirds of the site is within the boundaries of North Perry Village while the western third is within Perry Township. Lake Erie borders the site to the north. <Figure 2.1-1> and <Figure 2.1-2> show the location of the plant site with respect to the lake, nearby roads, highways, communities, cities, and other topographic features.

The centerline of the reactor for Unit 1 is located at north latitude 41 48 04.2 and west longitude 81 08 36.6, and under the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid is located in Zone 17 at coordinates 4,627,498 meters N and 488,079 meters E. The centerline of the Unit 2 reactor is located at north latitude 41 48 02.3 and west longitude 81 08 35.6, and under the UTM grid is at coordinates 4,627,437 meters N and 488,100 meters E.

2.1.1.2 Site Area Maps The plant site is located along the southeastern shoreline of Lake Erie on an ancient lake plain approximately 50 feet above lake low water datum. It is approximately 798 acres in size and relatively flat. The land has a very gentle slope toward the lake and is incised by small streams which drain into the lake. About 45 percent of its area is covered with light to heavy woodland with the remainder consisting mostly of farmland and nursery stock.

Revision 22 2.1-1 October, 2021

<Figure 2.1-3> shows the topographic features of the plant site in relation to the approximate location of the plant facilities.

<Figure 2.1-4> is an aerial photograph of the site showing the site boundaries, exclusion area, location of the plant, and the general character of the immediate surroundings.

A right-of-way easement was granted to the East Ohio Gas Company for rerouting their gas line through the site as shown in <Figure 2.1-3>.

2.1.1.3 Boundaries for Establishing Effluent Release Limits CEI purchased all land within the site boundary except for the right-of-ways of public township and village roads outside the exclusion area boundary. Additionally, the mineral rights of one parcel outside the site boundary in Lake Erie is controlled by CEI.

This parcel <Figure 2.1-5> encompasses the cooling water tunnel facilities that project into Lake Erie. CEI entered into a contract with the State of Ohio for this area, delineated as Limits of Mineral Rights in <Figure 2.1-5>, wherein the State of Ohio agreed not to exercise their right to lease for salt mining the offshore area within the Limit of Mineral Rights for the life of the plant (46 years). No domestic residences exist within the site boundaries; however, certain areas of farmland and nursery within the site may continue to be used after the plant is constructed.

The exclusion area is established as that area which is situated inside 2,900-foot radii centered on the Unit 1 reactor. Except for Lake Erie and the switch yard, the exclusion area is completely within site boundaries. The minimum distances from the plant effluent release points to the exclusion area boundary are shown in <Figure 2.1-4>.

With the exception of the switch yard, Energy Harbor controls the Revision 22 2.1-2 October, 2021

mineral rights, both within the exclusion boundary on land and within 1,800 feet of all safety-related structures in Lake Erie, to preclude subsidence as a detrimental effect on safety structures.

Those portions of Center Road and Lockwood Road within the exclusion area have been withdrawn from public use, and gates have been installed across these roads to discourage public access to the area. No public road traverses the exclusion area.

The unrestricted area is considered to be the area beyond the site boundary. Access to the unrestricted area is not controlled by Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp. for the purpose of protection of individuals from exposure to radiation and radioactive materials <Figure 2.1-3>.

Radioactive effluent releases to unrestricted areas shall be made in accordance with <10 CFR 20.105> and <10 CFR 50, Appendix I>.

2.1.2 EXCLUSION AREA AUTHORITY AND CONTROL 2.1.2.1 Authority The exclusion area radius is 2,900 feet from the centerline of the unit 1 reactor. All land within the exclusion boundary, with the exception of the switch yard, is owned by Energy Harbor Corp. Control of the exclusion area, with the exception of the switch yard, including the mineral rights for oil, gas and salt, is maintained by Energy Harbor Corp. companies

. Authority to control all activities in the Lake Erie portion of the exclusion area is provided by the United States Coast Guard. Authority to control all activities within the switch yard is granted via easement between Energy Harbor and FirstEnergy. No public roads traverse the exclusion area. The Fairport, Painesville and Eastern Railroad Company serves the plant overland on tracks owned Revision 22 2.1-3 October, 2021 by CEI. The railroad spur is 3.2 miles in length, heading in an east-northeasterly direction from the railroad company right-of-way to the plant site. Only railroad cars consigned to the Perry Nuclear Power Plant are brought into the plant site over this spur. 2.1.2.2 Control of Activities Unrelated to Plant Operation Since the exclusion boundary encompasses a portion of Lake Erie <Figure 2.1-4>, activity within the exclusion area that is unrelated to plant operation can be expected from fishing boats and other pleasure craft on Lake Erie. A public address system has been installed for plant communication to individuals in areas within the exclusion boundary including the beach and Lake Erie (Section 7.2.1 of the Emergency Plan). The number and volume of speakers used will be sufficient to immediately warn individuals on the lake within the exclusion boundary in an emergency <Section 9.5.2>. The Emergency Plan addresses evacuation of personnel (Section 6.4.1 and Section 6.4.2 of the Emergency Plan) and specifically requires written procedures be developed to facilitate evacuation. The basis of the present emergency planning criteria is that early detection of a possible incident will ensure evacuation prior to any personnel receiving an appreciable dose. 2.1.2.3 Arrangements for Traffic Control Portions of Center Road and Lockwood Road which fall within the exclusion area have been abandoned to the public. There are therefore, no public roads which traverse the exclusion area. Revision 22 2.1-4 October, 2021 The Fairport, Painesville and Eastern Railroad Company serves the plant over-land and tracks owned by CEI. About 0.5 mile of track is within the exclusion area. Only railroad cars consigned to the PNPP are brought into the plant site over these tracks. 2.1.2.4 Abandonment or Relocation of Roads No public roads traverse the exclusion area. 2.1.3 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION This section primarily describes the population distribution around the Perry Nuclear Power Plant. In the past, minor changes to the information in this section have been made. While updates were not required, these changes have not been removed. Therefore, some parts of this chapter reflect more recent information. The information in this section is for historical purposes only. For current population estimates and their effect on evacuation capabilities, refer to Development of Evacuation Time Estimates For The Perry Nuclear Power Plant which is part of the emergency preparedness plan. 2.1.3.1 Population Within Ten Miles <Figure 2.1-6> shows the locations of nearby cities and towns within a ten-mile radius of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.
presents these population groupings and their associated 2000 population estimates (Reference 20) according to distance and direction from the plant site. Revision 19 2.1-5 October, 2015 The 1978 estimated population within ten miles of the station is 73,134 persons; within five miles the estimate is 16,875 people. As shown in <Figure 2.1-6>, the following municipalities are located either totally or partially within ten miles of the plant. Approximate Distance (Miles) and Direction 2000 Census from Plant to Center of Municipality Population Incorporated Areas North Perry 838 1.5 - SW Perry Village 1,195 3.0 - S Perry Township 8,240 3.0 - S Revision 19 2.1-5a October, 2015 Approximate Distance (Miles) and Direction 2000 Census from Plant to Center of Municipality Population Incorporated Areas Madison Village 2,921 5.5 - ESE Madison Township 18,428 5.5 - ESE Painesville City 17,503 7.0 - SW Painesville Township 18,562 7.0 - SW Fairport Harbor 3,180 7.0 - WSW Grand River 345 8.0 - WSW Geneva 6,595 10.0 - E Geneva-On-The-Lake 1,545 10.0 - ENE Mentor City 50,278 15.0 - SW Mentor-On-The-Lake 8,127 15.0 - SW The zero- to five-mile population distribution was determined from the 2000 census (Reference 20). Estimates of population for the years 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 2020 were calculated by applying the Lake County growth rates (Reference 3) to the 1978 population.
lists the actual population figures from the 2000 census results. Population distributions between five and ten miles of the Perry Plant were based on the 1970 census data. Numerical centroids (population totals at concentration centers) were assigned to geographical areas Revision 13 2.1-6 December, 2003 across the continental United States by the U.S. Census Bureau. Population totals per segment were calculated based on the location of the centroids relative to the reactor location. Population estimates to the year 2020 were projected by applying the decennial growth rates of pertinent counties in Ohio (Reference 3) to the 1970 population distribution results. Decennial growth rates past the year 2000 were assumed to be equivalent to those of 1990 to 2000. <Figure 2.1-7>, <Figure 2.1-8>, <Figure 2.1-9>, <Figure 2.1-10>, <Figure 2.1-11>, <Figure 2.1-12>, <Figure 2.1-13>, <Figure 2.1-14>, <Figure 2.1-15>, and <Figure 2.1-16> show the projected populations from the year 1978 through 2020. The population estimates for the first year of operation are reflected in <Figure 2.1-10>. In the event of construction delays, population estimates for 1985 and 1986 are included in <Figure 2.1-10>, <Figure 2.1-11>, and <Figure 2.1-12>. 2.1.3.2 Population Between Ten and Fifty Miles <Figure 2.1-17> shows the locations of cities and towns within a fifty-mile radius of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant. The population distribution estimates for the area between ten and fifty miles were calculated by using methodologies similar to those used to estimate the five- to ten-mile population. As in Ohio, pertinent Pennsylvania county growth rates (Reference 5) were factored into calculations where appropriate. Canadian influence to population totals within fifty miles of the Perry Plant is minimal. The town of Erieau in Harwich Township, Kent County, is located in the northwestern sector between forty and fifty miles from the nuclear unit. The population estimates for 1978, 1980, 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986 were calculated utilizing the 1971 and 1976 population figures for Erieau (Reference 6). It was assumed that the decennial growth rates of Kent County were applicable to Erieau. Since population Revision 19 2.1-7 October, 2015 predictions for Kent County were available only to the year 2000, (Reference 7) decennial growth rates to the year 2020 were based on that from 1990 to 2000. <Figure 2.1-7>, <Figure 2.1-8>, <Figure 2.1-9>, <Figure 2.1-10>, <Figure 2.1-11>, <Figure 2.1-12>, <Figure 2.1-13>, <Figure 2.1-14>, <Figure 2.1-15>, and <Figure 2.1-16> show the projected population distribution for the years 1978 to 2020 for the areas between ten and fifty miles of the Perry Power Plant. 2.1.3.3 Transient Population Transient populations within ten miles of the plant are primarily a result of local, seasonal fluctuations of people at various parks and camps. Large recreational areas, such as Township Park, near Madison, and Headlands State Park, 7.5 miles WSW of the plant, offer a variety of facilities which also attract visitors from outside the ten-mile radius.
denotes the seasonal attendance figures for significant parks and camps near Perry (Reference 8). Summer cottages in both Lake and Ashtabula Counties have predominately been converted to permanent residences (Reference 9) (Reference 10). Lake County has approximately 275 vacant and seasonal cottages, 189 of which are located west of Perry (Reference 9). There are no figures available with regard to cottages and transient populations of Geneva-On-The-Lake in Ashtabula County (Reference 10) (Reference 11). One manufacturing facility, with a total work force exceeding 100 people that is located in close proximity of the Perry Plant, is the Neff-Perkins Company. Neff-Perkins, located 3,000 feet WSW of the Perry site, has a work force of 175 persons (Reference 12). The average time at work is 45 hours5.208333e-4 days <br />0.0125 hours <br />7.440476e-5 weeks <br />1.71225e-5 months <br /> per week. This includes a 40-hour work week, (Reference 14) and approximately five hours per week for lunch and miscellaneous time at the work site. Revision 13 2.1-8 December, 2003 2.1.3.4 Low Population Zone The Low Population Zone (LPZ) has been defined as a 2-1/2-mile radius from the plant center, which is midway between the Unit 1 and Unit 2 reactor buildings, as established in accordance with <10 CFR 100>. <Figure 2.1-18> illustrates topographical features characteristic of the LPZ.
denotes the 1978 population distribution of the LPZ, which was determined using the methodology described in <Section 2.1.3.1>. The estimated transient population distribution is provided in
, along with the peak daily and seasonal transient values (Reference 18) (Reference 19). To assist in the formation of emergency planning, the following discussion of activities and facilities is not limited to the LPZ. Listed below are the schools located within five miles of PNPP and their associated 1998-99 enrollment figures. Enrollment as of Proximity to Institution 1998-99 School Year NPP (miles) Perry Elementary 643 2-3 Perry Middle 605 2-3 Perry High 677 2-3 New Life Christian Academy 40 2-3 Redbird Elementary 483 3-4 Hale Road Elementary 310 3-4 Homer Nash Kimball Elementary 428 4-5 Revision 13 2.1-9 December, 2003 Enrollment as of Proximity to Institution 1998-99 School Year NPP (miles) North Madison Elementary 534 4-5 Madison Middle 869 4-5 Madison High 1,079 4-5 There are no hospitals located within five miles of the Perry site. Lake East Hospital, located in Painesville approximately eight miles southwest of the Perry site, has 208 beds. A staff consisting of approximately 1,039 people is shared between Lake East and Lake West, located in Willoughby (Reference 16). The Lake County Jail in Painesville, located seven miles southwest of PNPP, has a capacity of 369 prisoners and is 1 of 2 prisons within 10 miles of the plant with facilities suitable for more than just overnight detention. It is under the auspices of the County Sheriff and is used as the major holding and detention facility for Lake County; this jail also houses federal prisoners on request from Federal agencies. Lake County Sheriffs Department Minimum Security Facility is located approximately 4 miles southwest of the Perry Plant and holds 79 prisoners. The City Jail of Mentor has a capacity of 12 prisoners (Reference 17). As shown in
, the major camp within five miles of PNPP is Camp Roosevelt. The Neff-Perkins Company, located 3,000 feet WSW of the Perry site, employing 175 persons, (Reference 12) is the only significant contributor to transient population within the LPZ. Revision 13 2.1-10 December, 2003 2.1.3.5 Population Center The 1975 estimated population of Painesville was 17,407 people (Reference 1). This figure approaches the definition of population center described in <10 CFR 100>. By applying the decennial growth rates of Lake County (Reference 3) to Painesvilles 1975 population, it can be demonstrated that, through the year 2020, the population will remain below the guidelines set forth in <10 CFR 100>. However, the population within Painesville and its contiguous surroundings is estimated to exceed 25,000 persons by 2010, (e.g., as shown by the estimated population in the SW sector, five to ten miles, on <Figure 2.1-15>. On this basis, the population center is determined to be Painesville. Painesvilles closest corporate boundary is located six miles southwest of Perry, which is 2.4 times the radius of the low population zone. 2.1.3.6 Population Density
,
,
, and
describe the cumulative population and density to a distance of fifty miles from the reactor for the years 1983 through 1986, respectively. For comparison purposes, figures are provided for population resulting from a uniform density of 500 people/square mile to a distance of fifty miles. Similarly,
provides population and density data for the year 2020. These figures are compared with a cumulative population resulting from a uniform population density of 1,000 people/square mile. 2.

1.4 REFERENCES

FOR SECTION 2.1

1. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates and Projections, U.S. Department of Commerce, Series P-25, No. 683 (Ohio), No. 686 (Pennsylvania), May 1977.

Revision 12 2.1-11 January, 2003

2. (Deleted)
3. Ohio Department of Health, Final Report on Demographic and Economic Projections for the State of Ohio, 1970-2000, Part III-C, HSAG-10, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio, July 15, 1977.
4. (Deleted)
5. State Economic and Social Research Data Center, Pennsylvania Projection Series, Summary Report, Report No. 78-PPS-1, Office of State Planning and Development, June 1978.
6. Personal communication, C. Tappenden, Social and Economic Data Central Statistical Services, Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, Toronto, Canada, and R. Smyth (NUS),

August 9, 1978.

7. Personal communication, C. Tappenden, Social and Economic Data Central Statistical Services, Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, Toronto, Canada, and R. Schlegel (NUS),

March 28, 1978.

8. Personal communication, J. Eland, Lake County Planning Commission, and R. Smyth (NUS), August 7, 1978.
9. Personal communication, J. Eland, Lake County Planning Commission, and R. Smyth (NUS), September 14, 1978.
10. Personal communication, H. Thomas, Ashtabula County Planning Commission, and R. Smyth (NUS), September 12, 1978.

Revision 13 2.1-12 December, 2003

11. Personal communication, L. Carter, Village Clerk, Geneva-On-The-Lake, and R. Smyth (NUS), September 13, 1978.
12. Personal communication, R. Elly, Vice President, Neff-Perkins Corporation, and M. Hosford (NUS), ESD-78-256 (EP&CD), August 21, 1978.
13. (Deleted)
14. Personal communication, R. Elly, Vice President, Neff-Perkins Corporation, and R. Uleck (NUS), November 16, 1979.
15. (Deleted)
16. Personal communication, D. Moase, Health Planning Commission, Painesville, Ohio, and D. Myers (NUS), July 1978.
17. Personal communication, E. Cunningham, Sheriff, Lake County, Ohio, and R. Uleck (NUS), November 16, 1979.
18. Personal communication between Webster, Lake County Planning Commission, and R. C. Smyth, NUS Corporation, Rockville, MD, February 25, 1981.
19. Personal communication between Helen Huffacker, Perry, OH, Board of Education, and R. C. Smyth, NUS Corporation, Rockville, MD, February 26, 1981.
20. United States Census, 2000.

Revision 13 2.1-13 December, 2003

TABLE 2.1-1 TOWNS AND CITIES WITHIN FIFTY MILES OF THE PERRY PLANT SITE Distance (miles) Direction From Town/City (Ohio) 2000 Population From Plant Site __Plant Site 0-5 MILES FROM PNPP North Perry 838 1 E Perry Village 1,195 3 S Perry Township 8,240 3 S 5-10 MILES FROM PNPP Madison Village 2,921 6 ESE Madison Township 18,428 6 ESE Painesville City 17,503 7 SW Painesville Township 18,562 7 SW Fairport Harbor 3,180 8 WSW Grand River 345 9 WSW 10-20 MILES FROM PNPP Geneva-on-the-Lake 1,545 11 ENE Geneva 6,595 11 E Mentor-on-Lake 8,127 14 WSW Kirtland Hills 597 15 SW Mentor 50,278 15 SW Chardon 5,156 16 SSW Aquilla 372 18 S Ashtabula City 20,962 18 ENE Rock Creek 587 18 SE Willoughby City 22,621 18 SW Waite Hill 446 18 SW Eastlake 20,255 19 SW Revision 13 2.1-14 December, 2003

TABLE 2.1-1 (Continued)

Distance (miles) Direction From Town/City (Ohio) 2000 Population From Plant Site __Plant Site Lakeline 165 19 WSW Timberlake 775 19 WSW 20-30 MILES FROM PNPP Jefferson 3,572 20 ESE Willowick City 14,361 21 SW Willoughby Hills 8,595 22 SW Burton 1,450 23 S Kirtland 6,670 23 SW Wickliffe 13,484 23 SW Gates Mills 2,493 24 SW Kingsville Township 1,921 24 ENE Middlefield 2,233 24 S Orwell 1,519 24 SE 20-30 MILES FROM PNPP Euclid City 52,717 25 SW Highland Heights 8,082 25 SW Richmond Heights City 10,944 25 SW Mayfield 3,435 26 SW North Kingsville 2,658 26 ENE Hunting Valley 735 27 SSW Chagrin Falls City 4,024 28 SSW Lyndhurst 15,279 28 SW Moreland Hills 3,298 28 SSW Pepper Pike 6,040 28 SW South Euclid 23,537 28 SW South Russell 4,022 28 SSW Revision 13 2.1-15 December, 2003

TABLE 2.1-1 (Continued)

Distance (miles) Direction From Town/City (Ohio) 2000 Population From Plant Site __Plant Site Beachwood City 12,168 29 SW Bratenahl 1,337 29 SW East Cleveland City 27,217 29 SW University Heights 14,146 29 SW Woodmere 828 29 SW 30-40 MILES FROM PNPP Bentleyville 947 31 SSW Cleveland Heights 49,958 31 SW Shaker Heights 29,405 31 SW West Farmington 519 31 SSE Andover 1,269 33 ESE Cleveland 478,403 33 SW North Randall 906 33 SW Warrensville Heights 15,109 33 SW Bedford Heights 11,375 34 SW Hiram 1,242 34 S Solon City 21,802 34 SSW Bedford City 14,214 36 SW Glenwillow 449 36 SSW Maple Heights 26,156 36 SW Reminderville 2,347 36 SSW 30-40 MILES FROM PNPP Garfield Heights 30,734 37 SW Garrettsville 2,262 37 S Newburgh Heights 2,389 37 SW Oakwood 3,667 37 SSW Revision 13 2.1-16 December, 2003

TABLE 2.1-1 (Continued)

Distance (miles) Direction From Town/City (Ohio) 2000 Population From Plant Site __Plant Site Cuyahoga Heights 599 38 SW Macedonia 9,224 38 SSW Mantua 1,046 38 S Twinsburg 17,006 38 SSW Walton Hills 2,400 38 SW Valley View 2,179 38 SW Brooklyn Heights 1,558 39 SW Cortland 6,830 39 SE Independence 7,109 39 SW Windham 2,806 39 S 30-40 MILES FROM PNPP Linesville 1,155 39 ESE 40-50 MILES FROM PNPP Streetsboro 12,311 41 SSW Seven Hills 12,080 41 SW Linndale 117 41 SW Brooklyn 11,586 42 SW 40-50 MILES FROM PNPP Lakewood 56,646 42 WSW Warren 46,832 43 SSE Boston Heights 1,186 43 SSW Brecksville 13,382 43 SW Newton Falls 5,002 44 SSE Sugar Bush Knolls 227 44 SSW Revision 13 2.1-17 December, 2003

TABLE 2.1-1 (Continued)

Distance (miles) Direction From Town/City (Ohio) 2000 Population From Plant Site __Plant Site Hudson 22,439 44 SSW Broadview Heights 15,967 44 SW Parma 85,655 44 SW Parma Heights 21,659 44 SW Rocky River 20,735 44 WSW Orangeville 189 46 SE Ravenna 11,771 46 S Brady Lake 513 46 SSW Peninsula 602 46 SSW North Royalton 28,448 47 SW Fairview Park 17,572 47 WSW Niles City 20,932 48 SSE Craig Beach 1,254 48 S Silver Lake 3,019 48 SSW Richfield 3,286 48 SW Middleburg Heights 15,542 48 SW Brook Park 21,218 48 SW Westlake 31,719 48 WSW North Olmsted 34,113 48 WSW Bay Village 16,087 48 WSW Yankee Lake 99 49 SE Munroe Falls 5,314 49 SSW Berea City 18,970 49 SW McDonald 3,481 50 SSE Strongsville 43,858 50 SW Avon Lake 18,145 50 WSW Revision 13 2.1-18 December, 2003

TABLE 2.1-1 (Continued)

Distance (miles) Direction From Town/City (Pa.) 2000 Population From Plant Site __Plant Site 40-50 MILES FROM PNPP Springboro 491 41 E Conneautville 848 41 E Albion 1,607 42 E Cranesville 600 43 E Jamestown 636 43 ESE Platea 474 44 ENE Lake City 2,811 45 ENE Revision 13 2.1-19 December, 2003

TABLE 2.1-2 MAJOR CAMPS AND PARKS WITHIN TEN MILES OF THE PERRY PLANT SITE(1)

Distance & Direction Park/Camp Annual Attendance From Perry Camp Roosevelt 300 1.4 miles SW Township Park 60,000(2) 6.0 miles ENE Headlands State Park 704,383 (1977) 7.5 miles WSW NOTES:

(1)

Refer to (Reference 8) <Section 2.1.4>.

(2)

Estimated.

Revision 13 2.1-20 December, 2003

TABLE 2.1-3 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE LOW POPULATION ZONE 1978(1)

______________________Distance_____________________

Direction 0-1 Mile 1-2 Miles 2-2.5 Miles N 0 0 0 NNE 0 0 0 NE 37 40 0 ENE 11 224 248 E 0 70 115 ESE 0 236 1,302 SE 0 162 129 SSE 7 541 177 S 18 265 162 SSW 26 70 221 SW 0 44 52 WSW 4 63 0 W 0 0 0 WNW 0 0 0 NW 0 0 0 NNW 0 0 0 NOTE:

(1)

Excludes the Neff-Perkins Company work force.

Revision 12 2.1-21 January, 2003

TABLE 2.1-4 POPULATION AND DENSITY WITHIN FIFTY MILES OF PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (1983)

Radius Cumulative Density Population Assuming (Miles) Population (People/Square Mile) 500 People/Square Mile 0-1 103 32.8 1,571 0-2 1,818 144.7 6,283 0-3 5,725 202.5 14,137 0-4 10,648 211.8 25,133 0-5 16,885 215.0 39,270 0-10 74,085 235.8 157,080 0-20 256,360 204.0 628,319 0-30 693,440 245.3 1,413,717 0-40 1,591,272 316.6 2,513,274 0-50 2,435,526 310.1 3,926,991 Revision 12 2.1-22 January, 2003

TABLE 2.1-5 POPULATION AND DENSITY WITHIN FIFTY MILES OF PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (1984)

Radius Cumulative Density Population Assuming (Miles) Population (People/Square Mile) 500 People/Square Mile 0-1 103 32.8 1,571 0-2 1,824 145.1 6,283 0-3 5,743 203.1 14,137 0-4 10,680 212.5 25,133 0-5 16,934 215.6 39,270 0-10 74,397 236.8 157,080 0-20 257,925 205.2 628,319 0-30 694,178 245.5 1,413,717 0-40 1,587,775 315.9 2,513,274 0-50 2,430,200 309.4 3,926,991 Revision 12 2.1-23 January, 2003

TABLE 2.1-6 POPULATION AND DENSITY WITHIN FIFTY MILES OF PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (1985)

Radius Cumulative Density Population Assuming (Miles) Population (People/Square Mile) 500 People/Square Mile 0-1 103 32.8 1,571 0-2 1,826 145.3 6,283 0-3 5,756 203.6 14,137 0-4 10,707 213.0 25,133 0-5 16,977 216.2 39,270 0-10 74,707 237.8 157,080 0-20 259,500 206.5 628,319 0-30 694,948 245.8 1,413,717 0-40 1,584,337 315.2 2,513,274 0-50 2,425,320 308.8 3,926,991 Revision 12 2.1-24 January, 2003

TABLE 2.1-7 POPULATION AND DENSITY WITHIN FIFTY MILES OF PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (1986)

Radius Cumulative Density Population Assuming (Miles) Population (People/Square Mile) 500 People/Square Mile 0-1 103 32.8 1,571 0-2 1,835 146.0 6,283 0-3 5,777 204.3 14,137 0-4 10,744 213.7 25,133 0-5 17,037 216.9 39,270 0-10 75,035 238.8 157,080 0-20 261,108 207.8 628,319 0-30 695,773 246.1 1,413,717 0-40 1,580,987 314.5 2,513,274 0-50 2,420,377 308.2 3,926,991 Revision 12 2.1-25 January, 2003

TABLE 2.1-8 POPULATION AND DENSITY WITHIN FIFTY MILES OF PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (2020)

Radius Cumulative Density Population Assuming (Miles) Population (People/Square Mile) 500 People/Square Mile 0-1 115 36.6 3,142 0-2 2,043 162.6 12,566 0-3 6,431 227.4 28,274 0-4 11,958 237.9 50,265 0-5 18,959 241.4 78,540 0-10 86,443 275.2 314,159 0-20 314,080 249.9 1,256,637 0-30 756,259 267.5 2,827,433 0-40 1,590,496 316.4 5,026,548 0-50 2,413,435 307.3 7,853,982 Revision 12 2.1-26 January, 2003

TABLE 2.1-9 ACQUISITION OF LAND AND MINERAL RIGHTS PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 1 & 2 Land Acquisition Parcel No.(1) Owner Status 1 Bradler Acquired 8/14/78 2 West & Siegal Acquired 1/28/74 3 Fairchild Acquired 11/26/73 43 Mihalik Acquired 1/21/74 21 Evert Acquired 10/22/74 22 Schuster Acquired 2/4/74 47 Torch Acquired 12/10/74 48 Wakkila Acquired 10/17/74 Mineral Rights Parcel No. Owner Status 44,45 CEI - Lone Star Acquired land and Producing Co. mineral rights in 1972 Acquired oil and gas rights 10/25/76 Lake Erie Parcel Acquired mineral State of Ohio rights by lease for a 46-year period 5/14/1976 - 5/14/2022, dated 6/8/76 The portion of Center Road north of its intersection with Parmly Road to its terminus at Lockwood Road, and Lockwood Road from its westerly origin to the point at which it crosses the site boundary were vacated by a resolution adopted by the Board of Lake County Commissioners on June 16, 1975.

NOTE:

(1)

Refer to <Figure 2.1-5>

Revision 12 2.1-27 January, 2003

TABLE 2.1-10 TRANSIENT POPULATIONS WITHIN THE LOW POPULATION ZONE Approximate Facilities and Approximate Peak Proximity to

_Institutions_ Transient Population (1999) PNPP (miles/direction)

SCHOOLS Perry Elementary 683 school year(4) 2.2, SSE Perry Middle 645 school year(4) 2.2, SSE Perry High 687 school year(4) 2.2, SSE New Life Christian 43 school year(4) 2.5, SSE Academy HOSPITALS None - -

PRISONS None - -

BEACHES & PARKS North Perry Park summer(1) 1, ENE Perry Township Park summer(1) 1, WSW Parmly Park summer(1) 1, WSW Camp Roosevelt 150 summer(2) 1.4, WSW Lake Shore Park summer(1) 2, ENE INDUSTRY Neff-Perkins Company 175 daily 0.6, WSW TOTAL PEAK 1,575 daily during school year NOTES:

(1)

Small parks for which no attendance records are kept; a summer weekend peak population of 50 was assumed for estimating the total peak.

(2)

Estimated 150 per 4-week camping period during summer.

(3)

(Deleted)

(4)

Includes staff.

Revision 13 2.1-28 December, 2003

2.2 NEARBY INDUSTRIAL, TRANSPORTATION AND MILITARY FACILITIES 2.2.1 LOCATIONS AND ROUTES 2.2.1.1 Industrial Facilities At present, a number of industrial facilities are located within five miles of the plant center with many firms within a 10-mile radius (the term plant center, unless otherwise stated, is used in

<Section 2.2.1> and <Section 2.2.2> to indicate a point midway between Unit 1 and Unit 2 on the reactor building centerlines). Those which may be significant to the plant are discussed in <Section 2.2.2> and are listed in
; their locations are depicted in <Figure 2.2-1>. 2.2.1.2 Extractive Industries Extractive activities within five miles of the plant center include oil and gas extraction. These are discussed in <Section 2.2.2.3>. 2.2.1.3 Transportation
a. Roads
lists the major roads within five miles of the plant center. <Figure 2.2-2> shows the locations of these highways.
b. Railroads The railroad lines closest to the plant center are the Chessie Seaboard and others (CSX); and the Norfolk Southern (NS) lines which converge in a major railroad corridor approximately three miles south of the plant center. These two railroads serve the area which extends from Painesville to Ashtabula. The Fairport, Painesville and Eastern line (FP&E), a previously independent local Revision 15 2.2-1 October, 2007
enterprise serving the Painesville-Fairport Harbor vicinity, was taken over by NS in July 1984. Consequently all of the FP&E lines are now run by NS (Reference 1). A rail spur, owned by CEI and operated by NS has been extended into the plant site from the west for the use of Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp. This extension to the site originates at the NS branch line (formerly FP&E) which terminates in northeast Painesville Township at the site of the now closed IRC Fiber Company plant. Locations of railroad lines are depicted on <Figure 2.2-2>.
c. Airports No airports are located within 5 miles of the plant center.
However, the Woodworth Airstrip, which is sod and without facilities, is located approximately 4.5 miles east-southeast of the plant center. Three airports are located in Lake County with facilities and hard-surfaced runways which are longer than 1,500 feet: Lost Nation, Concord and Casement Airports. The closest is Casement, approximately six miles southwest of the plant center; Concord Airport is about 10 miles south-southwest. Lost Nation, located in the Willoughby area, is approximately 15 miles to the southwest.
d. Water The nearest shipping channel in Lake Erie extends parallel to the shoreline and is located approximately two miles from the plant center.
Revision 22 2.2-2 October, 2021 The nearest dock and anchorage is located at Fairport Harbor, and is approximately seven miles west-southwest of the plant center (Reference 2). 2.2.1.4 Military Facilities No military bases or missile sites are located within five miles of the plant center (Reference 3) (Reference 4) (Reference 5). 2.2.1.5 Gas Pipelines The closest gas pipeline is a 4-inch diameter line along Parmly Road which operates at 35 psi. It is approximately 3,000 feet southwest of the reactors at its point of closest approach. The largest gas pipeline within five miles is a 20-inch diameter line which operates at about 150 psi and is approximately 3,200 feet southeast of reactor buildings at its point of closest approach (Reference 6). <Figure 2.2-3> depicts the location of gas pipelines within the immediate environs of the plant center and
presents information on each pipeline. No oil pipelines are located within 5 miles of the site (Reference 7). 2.2.1.6 Nuclear Power Generating Facilities The nearest nuclear power plant is Beaver Valley (Units 1 and 2); it is located 25 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, approximately 90 miles southeast of the plant center (Reference 8). Revision 12 2.2-3 January, 2003 2.

2.2 DESCRIPTION

S 2.2.2.1 Descriptions of Facilities A concise description and location of each industrial facility including manufacturing and storage facilities within the vicinity of the plant is provided in
and depicted in <Figure 2.2-1>. Major transportation routes are listed in
and depicted in <Figure 2.2-2>. 2.2.2.2 Description of Products and Materials
a. Industrial Hazardous materials used, transported, processed, and/or stored in the vicinity of the plant are listed on
,
,
, and
along with information on maximum quantities, method of storage, frequency, and the particular industry involved with the materials. <Figure 2.2-1> shows the locations of these industries relative to the plant.
also gives information about the location as well as the work force and the products associated with each industry. The industrial facility closest to the PNPP is the Neff Perkins Corporation which manufactures rubber and steel custom molded products. Materials are brought into this plant by truck. Most shipments contain small quantities and are infrequent. Routes used include US 20, Perry Park Road and Parmly Road in the nearby vicinity. Shipments come from the east, south and west. No change is anticipated for the future in reference to the use, transport, storage, and production of hazardous materials (Reference 9). Revision 12 2.2-4 January, 2003 Sivon Manufacturing, a firm that manufactures small machinery for the rubber production industry, is located approximately 1 mile southwest of the PNPP center. With the exception of small quantities of gasoline and industrial solvents and paints there are no hazardous materials handled by this facility (Reference 10). Bentley Excavating is located approximately 3 miles south-southwest of the plant center. They are excavation and building contractors and do not handle any hazardous materials (Reference 11). Mackenzie Nursery Supply, located 3.5 miles south-southwest of the PNPP center, markets materials and equipment used by the local nursery industry. While they do market small amounts of fertilizer, packaged in small paper or plastic containers, they do not handle any pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, or any other toxic or flammable materials (Reference 12). Revision 15 2.2-5 October, 2007 The Perry Coal and Feed Company, located approximately three miles south of the plant center, manufactures small amounts of feed. It markets a complete line of herbicides, insecticides and fungicides in the region. These are handled in small containers (usually bags, boxes and gallon jugs). Perry Coal usually has a small amount of ammonium nitrite and similar substances on hand. Shipments of goods are made once a week during the spring, summer and fall. Trucks using local roads (Route 2, US 20, Narrows Road, and Route 84) ship the materials in all directions. No changes are anticipated for the future relative to the use, transport and storage of hazardous materials (Reference 14). Located approximately 3.5 miles south of the plant center, are the firms of Thermatool Mill Systems Corporation and Midwest Materials, Inc. Revision 15 2.2-6 October, 2007 Thermatool Mill Systems, with a staff of 60, manufactures structural I beams. Kerosene is stored on the premises in 250 gallon above ground tanks. No other hazardous materials are produced, stored or transported by the firm (Reference 15). Midwest Materials Inc. is not a manufacturing firm. They are distributors of finished and semi-finished steel products (Reference 16). There is an industrial area approximately six miles west-southwest of the plant center located to the east of Fairport Harbor and north of Painesville. Lonza Inc. and Nova Chemicals are the major firms in this area. Also operating in the area is the .firm Aluminum Smelting and Refining Company, Inc (Reference 82). The Aluminum Smelting and Refining Company manufactures aluminum products and additives used for steel purification (oxidizing, degassing) by the steel industry. Approximately 45 people are employed at the company's Painesville facility. Removed in Accordance with RIS 2015-17 Lonza, Inc. employs 85 to 100 people. It is a manufacturer of distilled fatty acids, glycerine and gylcerides. Removed in Accordance with RIS 2015-17 Revision 13 2.2-7 October, 2003 Nova Chemicals has undergone extensive expansion over the last five years. It currently employs 60-75 people and manufactures expandable polystyrene at its plant in Painesville. It handles the following hazardous materials: styrene monomer, pentane, caustic, concentrated sulphuric acid, and No. 2 fuel oil. Removed in Accordance with RIS 2015-17 R. W. Sidley, Inc., which manufactures ready mix cement and excavates and processes sand for the construction industry, is located approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the plant center. It has a staff of 35-50 workers. The facility may store up to 100 tons of cement and several thousand tons of limestone, silica sand and large particle aggregates. Removed in Accordance with RIS 2015-17 Revision 13 2.2-i October, 2003 Numerous industrial firms operate in the city of Painesville, southwest of the PNPP center. Of them, The Lubrizol Corporation and Fasson, Division of Avery International, maintain facilities that handle various hazardous materials. The Lubrizol Corporation facility in Painesville manufactures additives for commercial lubricants. The facility is located approximately 7.5 miles from the PNPP center and employs 600 people. A generic list of the types of hazardous materials handled by Lubrizol includes: polybutenyl nitrogen and ester-containing compounds; metal sulfonates, carboxylates and phenates; antioxidants (metal-dithiophosphates); dithiophosphates and sulfur-containing olefins; and carboxylic acids (Reference 24). Detailed information on specific compounds has been made available to the Painesville Township Fire Department and Lake County Emergency Management Agency. Fasson, Division of Avery "international, operates two plants, side by side, on its Painesville campus and a storage facility at a separate location within Painesville Township. There are approximately 700 workers employed at these facilities'. The Fasson facilities in Painesville which are 6.0 to 6.5 miles from PNPP, . i manufacture and test various adhesive compounds used to produce pressure sensitive adhesives for paper, foil and film tapes. Fasson handles the following hazardous materials at its manufacturing and storage facilities: toluene, heptane, ethyl acetate, methanol, hisol-10, and methylethyl ketone (MEK). Removed in Accordance with RIS 2015-17 Revision 15 2.2-9 October, 2007 Removed in Accordance with RIS 2015-17 Morton Salt, which presently employs 250 workers, mines and processes salt at its facility on Lake Erie in Painesville Township. The facility is approximately 8 miles from the PNPP center. Removed in Accordance with RIS 2015-17 Hubbell Industrial Controls, The Perfection Corporation and Leeco Refractory Coatings are three major firms operating in the city of Madison, approximately 5.5 miles east-southeast of the plant center. Revision 13 2.2-10 October, 2003 Hubbell Industrial Controls, with a staff of 137, manufactures customized controls for construction industry machinery. They may have small amounts of acetylene and commercial paint solvents on hand, but handle no other hazardous materials (Reference 27). The Perfection Corporation, with a staff of 100, manufactures pipe nipples. Removed in Accordance with RIS 2015-17 Leeco Refractory Coating, a division of Acme Resin Corporation, manufactures paints and washcoatings used by steel foundaries. They use and store isopropyl alcohol and trichloroethylene. Removed in Accordance with RIS 2015-17 These firms do not anticipate any future changes in reference to the use, transport, storage, or production of hazardous materials (Reference 27) (Reference 28). The Chesapeake Packaging Company is a small firm which manufactures corrugated cardboard shipping containers. It is located* approximately 6.5 miles east of the plant center/ The facility does not handle any hazardous materials.(Reference 29). Revision 13 2.2-11 October, 2003 Several industrial facilities previously sited as operating in the Perry Nuclear Power Plant vicinity have since ceased operations. They include the IRC Fiber Company, Sundstrand Service Corporation and Arthur A. Covells, all in Perry Township, and Erie Coke and Chemical in the Village of Painesville.
b. Transportation
1. Roads Nearby major roads are listed in
. They are State Highways 84, 528 and 2, U.S. Route 20, and Interstate 90. The closest point on each to the plant, and the annual average daily traffic volume (AADT) for sections of each within a 5-mile radius of the plant are given in
. <Figure 2.2-2> depicts all roads in the vicinity of the plant. No nuclear power plants are located within 50 miles of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (Reference 8). The only operating commercial low-level nuclear waste repository east of the Mississippi River is located at Barnwell, South Carolina. Additionally, no nearby institutions or military operations exist which may use or transport radioactive materials. However, Interstate 90 is approved by the NRC as a route that can be used for nuclear shipments. It is estimated that each year approximately 15 truck shipments of radioactive material pass through Lake County on I-90 (Reference 58). It may be assumed that shipments of hazardous materials occur on the various highways within the five mile area around the plant center. Specific hazardous materials shipped on these highways are described in
. Revision 13 2.2-12 December, 2003 Refer to Item 2, below, and
and
for descriptions, quantities frequency of shipment of hazardous materials transported by rail.
2. Railroads The nearest railroad line to the plant center is a spur into the plant from a branch line of the NS Railroad (formerly FP&E branch line) originating at the now closed IRC Fiber Company approximately 3.5 miles west-southwest. The spur (owned by CEI, operated by NS) is presently used solely by CEI.
A segment of a major railroad corridor, which transverses northern Ohio, is located within the nearby vicinity. At its closest point, it is three miles south of the plant center. CSX and NS operate rail lines in the area. The CSX system regularly transports hundreds of hazardous materials in varying amounts. Virtually all materials may be legally transported by rail. <49 CFR 100-199> lists over 1,600 hazardous materials, and their compliance limitations that may be transported by rail or highway.
presents a list of the major hazardous materials transported by CSX within the vicinity of the Perry Plant in 2005 (Reference 85). The NS transports materials in the local area between Painesville and Perry on branch lines formerly operated by FP&E. These lines, taken over by NS in July 1984, service the industrial area located approximately six miles west-southwest of the plant center. Revision 15 2.2-13 October, 2007 The NS Railroad was unable to readily supply a complete list of hazardous materials transported on the main line between Painesville and Ashtabula, Ohio. This main line does carry all commodities classified as hazardous by the Hazardous Commodity Series 49 of the Standard Transportation Commodity Code (Tariff Number 1-F) (Reference 1) (Reference 31).
presents a list of the major hazardous materials transported by NS Railroad within the vicinity of the Perry Plant in 2005 (Reference 85).
3. Military Facilities No military ammunition loading or storage facilities are located within 25 miles and hence no large munitions shipments (Reference 5).
2.2.2.3 Natural Gas Pipelines Natural gas lines within the immediate environs of the plant are depicted in <Figure 2.2-3> and listed and briefly described in
. The nearest is a 4-inch diameter line which operates at 35 psi and is approximately 3,000 feet southwest of the reactors at its point of closest approach. The largest gas pipeline in the vicinity of the plant is a 20-inch diameter line which operates at about 150 psi and is approximately 3,200 feet southeast of the reactors at its point of closest approach (Reference 6). No oil pipelines or tank farms are located in the immediate environs of the plant site other than those which are part of the PNPP itself. The closest extractive industries include a producing gas well one mile northeast of the plant center, two producing gas wells one mile east of the plant center, and two producing gas and oil wells 1.5 miles from the plant. One is located east-southeast, the other west-southwest Revision 15 2.2-14 October, 2007 (Reference 32). Seventy-three wells were completed in 1983 which were producers of natural gas or natural gas and oil. Exploration for gas and oil may continue in those parts of Lake County that are not developed (Reference 34). <Figure 2.2-4> depicts locations of gas and oil wells within five miles of the site. No commercial extraction of gravel or sand exists within five miles of the site (Reference 35). 2.2.2.4 Waterways <Section 2.2.1.3>, Item d, contains information on channels, docks and anchorages within five miles of the plant center. <Figure 2.2-2> shows shipping lanes in the vicinity of Perry.
and
contain information on types and amounts of cargo transported on the Great Lakes in 1982 and the 1982 combined traffic by type of vessel, respectively. The trips and draft of vessels operating in Lake Erie shipping lanes near Perry are presented in
. The intake structures for PNPP are located approximately 2,600 feet offshore perpendicular from the shoreline. The discharge structure is approximately 1,650 feet offshore. These are located in 20 to 23 feet of water, where the structures have been constructed a minimum of 12 feet below the lake low water datum. The closest water intake structure on Lake Erie is located at the now inoperative IRC Fiber plant, about 3.5 miles west-southwest of the plant center. The closest shipping channel is approximately two miles from the plant center at Perry with a depth of approximately 40 feet. It parallels the Ohio coastline between the ports of Fairport Harbor and Ashtabula (Reference 4) (Reference 36). Revision 13 2.2-15 December, 2003 2.2.2.5 Airports and Airways
a. Airports No airports are located within five miles of the plant center. One small private sod airstrip (Woodworth) is located 4.5 miles east-southeast of the plant. The airstrip has one 2,300-foot sod runway with 90 -270 orientation and is not attended. Two single-engined prop planes are based at Woodworth. Average annual operations are estimated at six flights per year. The approach pattern for this airport is approximately 3.5 miles east of the plant center (Reference 37) (Reference 83).
Within 10 miles of Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Casement and Concord are the only airports with major facilities and paved runways. (Refer to <Figure 2.2-5> and
for location of these facilities.) Lost Nation is 15 miles southwest. Hopkins International, located in Cleveland, is the nearest regional facility. It is approximately 45 miles southwest of Perry. The closest airport is Casement which is located approximately six miles south-southwest of the station site. It has one 3,800-foot runway oriented 120 -300. Approaching and departing aircraft use a standard pattern from either end of the runway depending on wind direction. The Casement facility serves from 10-12 flights per week, year round, is irregularly attended, has runway lighting for night operations, and has neither radio nor air nor ground control. Casement Airport has about 30 planes based at the field. All of these are propeller-driven planes. There were two incidents in 1977, and a minor one in 1983 involving only minimal property damage. Casement Airport has been in operation about 15 years and presently has no plans for expansion. The approach pattern to Casement Airport is approximately 5 miles west of the site (Reference 38). Revision 19 2.2-16 October, 2015 Concord Air Park is located in Concord Township, approximately 10 miles south-southwest of the plant. One 2,400-foot paved runway exists. It is oriented 20 -200. A second strip (sod) was converted to farmland in 1983. Flight patterns associated with the facility are standard approach and departure patterns, using either end of the runway depending upon wind direction. Concord Air Park is a private airport which serves as a training facility and is often used by a number of students. It is attended on an irregular basis, has UNICOM but no radio, ground or air control. The runway is lighted for base fliers on request. Currently, 25 planes are at the Concord Air Park (single and multi-engine craft). Most of the traffic at the airport results from planes that are based there and from training activity. No fatal accidents have occurred since the airport was established in 1957, although one incident was recorded in October 1978. No plans presently exist for expansion of the facility or of operations. The approaches to the Concord Airport are not within 5 miles of the site (Reference 39). Lost Nation Airport is located approximately 15 miles southwest of the plant site. It has a relatively high level of traffic, mainly business planes. Two 5,000-foot paved runways exist: one oriented 50 -230 and the other 90 -270. Both have night lighting and can be activated 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day. Standard flight patterns are used from both ends of the runway depending on wind direction (Reference 84). No daily breakdown of operations currently exists at Lost Nation Airport; however, a yearly figure of 78,000 was estimated. Of the 185 planes based at the airport, eighteen percent involve operations of jet aircraft with an average seating capacity of eight persons. Thirty percent of the operations are twin engine, propeller craft with an average capacity of six persons. The Revision 13 2.2-17 December, 2003 remainder of the operations (52 percent) involve single engine propeller craft carrying an average of four passengers. The approach to the Lost Nation Airport is more than 5 miles from the site (Reference 40). In 38 years of operations, three fatal accidents have occurred, two on airport property and one approximately 500 feet off the end of the runway. Also during this 38-year period, a number of incidents (most unconsequential and occurring on airport property) have occurred. No incidents have occurred recently, however. No definite growth plans are anticipated at present, although the airport management would like to continue to expand operations at Lost Nation (Reference 40).
b. Airways (distances measured from airway centerline)
Airways V-188 and V-188-10 are low altitude airways with a minimum altitude of 1,200 feet above the ground surface <Figure 2.2-6>. These airways connect the Detroit, Michigan area with Ashtabula, Ohio and have a peak daily traffic of 13 flights each. Airway V-188-10 passes about 3.5 miles north-northwest of the plant and V-188 about 1.5 miles west-northwest (Reference 41) (Reference 42). Airway V-10 is another low altitude airway that passes approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the plant. It begins in Youngstown and joins V-188 about 3.5 miles west-northwest of the plant. Peak daily traffic on V-10 is 15 flights (Reference 41) (Reference 42). A fourth low altitude airway, V-14-W, passes approximately 6.5 miles north of the plant and had a peak daily traffic of 35 flights (Reference 41) (Reference 42). Revision 13 2.2-18 December, 2003 These low level airways are four miles wide; therefore, planes from both V-10 and V-188 may pass directly over the plant. Any type of aircraft can use a low level airway (Reference 43). No statistics on specific types are kept. The airways have VOR radio beacons located at either end of each segment and are monitored with radar by Air Route Traffic Control Centers. (Refer to <Figure 2.2-6> for location of airways in relation to plant site.) Two high altitude airways (minimum altitude 18,000 feet) also pass within the vicinity of the plant. J29-82 connects the Cleveland region with points to the northeast. At the closest point, this airway is approximately 9.5 miles south-southeast of the Perry Plant. It had a peak 1976 traffic volume of 71 flights per day (Reference 42) (Reference 44). Airway J584 passes approximately four miles north-northeast of the plant site, carrying a maximum peak daily traffic of 94 flights per day (Reference 44). (Refer to <Figure 2.2-6> for location of high altitude airways.) J584 and J29-82 have a minimum altitude of 18,000 feet. Any type of aircraft can use a high altitude airway but most serve jet and prop-jet aircraft with pressurized cabins. One holding pattern exists near the plant site. It is associated with Airway J584 and is located approximately 12.5 miles east-northeast of the plant over the shore of Lake Erie (Reference 44). The preceding describes the facilities that exist within five miles of the facility and facilities of greater distances which are of significance. The following land uses or activities are not located within five miles of the site: airports, military bases, Revision 13 2.2-19 December, 2003 missile sites, bombing ranges, oil pipelines, nuclear power plants, or commercial gravel and sand operations. 2.2.2.6 Projections of Industrial Growth The industrial area east of Fairport Harbor, located from 6 miles west-southwest of the plant has undergone significant change in the past few years and is expected to continue to change over the next few. Revision 21 2.2-20 October, 2019 The Diamond Shamrock industrial facility has been closed and the company has ceased all manufacturing activities in Painesville. The major portion of the main plant facilities now belongs to the Standard Machine and Equipment Company of Uniontown, Pennsylvania. It is anticipated that more industry will be attracted to the Diamond Shamrock facilities. The nature of their future operations is uncertain; however, it is possible that inorganic chemical operations (sodiumchlorine, lime) will constitute some of the future manufacturing (Reference 62). Lonza Chemicals, Inc. is planning growth for the future, but type of activities is unknown (Reference 66). Nova Chemicals management has not reopened the old Robin-Tech (and earlier Allied) plant which employed around 120 persons in the early 1970s. They have no definite plans or a target date for opening the facility. Feasibility studies are still being done (Reference 67). 2.2.3 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ACCIDENTS On the basis of information provided in <Section 2.2.1> and <Section 2.2.2>, the potential accidents considered as design basis events have been identified and the potential effects on the plant are evaluated in terms of design parameters (e.g., overpressure) or physical phenomena (e.g., concentration of flammable or toxic clouds outside building structures). 2.2.3.1 Determination of Design Basis Events 2.2.3.1.1 Explosions and Flammable Vapor Clouds (Delayed Ignition) 2.2.3.1.1.1 Nearby Transportation Facilities As shown on
the nearest major highway to the site is U.S. Route 20. <Regulatory Guide 1.91> indicates that the maximum probable Revision 13 2.2-21 December, 2003 hazardous solid cargo for a simple highway truck is approximately 50,000 pounds. Assuming a TNT equivalency ratio of 1, the safe distance from the explosion as defined in (Reference 73) (i.e., peak incident pressure on the plant structures of 1 psi or less) and as calculated using Equation 1 of <Regulatory Guide 1.91> is approximately 1,660 feet. Since the closest point of Route 20 to the site is one mile, there will not be any adverse effects on the plant from potential explosions. The actual overpressure on the plant is calculated to be approximately 0.22 psi using <Figure 2.2-7>. The railroad line closest to Perry is a major railroad corridor located approximately 3 miles south of plant center. <Regulatory Guide 1.91> states that the maximum explosive cargo in a single railroad box car is 132,000 pounds. Using the same methods and assumptions as above, the safe distance and the plant overpressure are calculated to be 2,300 feet and 0.07 psi, respectively.
and
list the major hazardous materials shipped by rail on the lines in the area of the site. A conservative evaluation of a worst case hypothetical explosion is given as follows:
a. Cargo - Propane
b. Quantity - 70.4 tons per car
c. TNT Mass Equivalence - 240%
d. Heat of Combustion - 21,670 Btu/lb Using the above assumptions and the methods presented in <Regulatory Guide 1.91>, the calculated safe distance is approximately 3,130 feet and the plant overpressure is given as 0.11 psi.
Revision 13 2.2-22 December, 2003 Based on the above, it can safely be concluded that the plant will not be affected by any potential explosions at the railroad corridor. The nearest shipping channel in Lake Erie to the site is one that extends parallel to the shoreline located approximately 2.0 miles (10,560 feet) from the site center. The closest safety-related structure to the shoreline is the emergency service water pumphouse located approximately 410 feet inland. <Regulatory Guide 1.91> lists the maximum probable quantity of explosive material transported by ship as 10,000,000 pounds. Assuming this quantity of material exploded, the safe distance and plant overpressure are given as 9,695 feet and 0.90 psi, respectively. Since the actual distance is approximately 9,820 feet, there will be no adverse effects on plant operation. 2.2.3.1.1.2 Gas Lines Potential accidents involving the release of natural gas from the existing pipelines, discussed in <Section 2.2.2.3>, do not pose a hazard to the plant. As will be shown, if an accident occurs, the concentration of gas at all plant air intakes is well below the lower flammable limit. Also, detonation of an unconfined natural gas-air mixture is not considered to be a credible event (Reference 69) (Reference 70) (Reference 71) (Reference 72). Each of the existing pipelines was analyzed to determine the limiting potential accident condition. The results of this analysis indicated that the most limiting release of natural gas involves a break in the closest 4-inch natural gas pipeline. The analysis was performed using the following conservative assumptions:
a. A break in the pipeline occurs at the point of nearest approach to the plant (3,200 feet for 20-inch pipe and 2,000 feet for 4-inch pipe).
Revision 13 2.2-23 December, 2003
b. Gas is released by a constant enthalpy process yielding a gas temperature for dispersion calculations of 24F for a 40F initial gas temperature due to the Joule-Thompson effect.
c. The flow rate out the break is ranged from the maximum transient flow rate to a minimum flow rate of 1 m3/sec.
d. Atmospheric dispersion is for Class G stability using <Regulatory Guide 1.78> dispersion parameters and a virtual source distance correction to account for initial finite source size.
e. A range of wind speeds from 0.1 m/sec. to 9 m/sec. are used, which covers the range in G stability.
f. Plume rise is in accordance with Briggs equation for stable (Class G) atmospheric conditions (Reference 73) and an air temperature of 68F.
A perfect gas prior to its escape from the broken pipe will expand and accelerate toward the break. As the gas expands, it will tend to cooldown from its original equilibrium temperature. In doing so, a temperature gradient between the pipe and the flowing gas will be established. In addition, friction between the pipe wall and the flowing gas will tend to heat the gas slightly above the temperature it would possess in a frictionless expansion. In the first instance, small amounts of heat will flow from the pipe wall into the expanding gas; in the second instance, energy already possessed by the gas is simply transformed into heat and causes the gas temperature to rise slightly more. Thus, the gas gains a small amount of energy from the pipe wall during this process. In the second part of the blowdown process, the gas expands through the break at sonic velocity and, if still above atmospheric pressure, continues to expand until it reaches atmospheric pressure. During this Revision 13 2.2-24 December, 2003 phase, the process is essentially adiabatic. No work is performed either during the expansion or the slowing down period. Consequently, the net energy possessed by the gas just prior to reaching the break, and after it slows down in the atmosphere, remains unchanged. Since (1) no work has been performed by the escaping natural gas, (2) small quantities of heat have been transferred from the pipe to the gas, and (3) a transformation of energy has occurred by virtue of the fact that the gas is at a substantially lower pressure at the end of the blowdown, the energy gain from (2), above, and the energy transformation indicated in (1), above, must be present in the form of heat. Therefore, the slowed down natural gas in the atmosphere would be at a slightly higher temperature than the original temperature. Therefore the blowdown is essentially a throttling or isenthalpic process. Since natural gas is a real and not a perfect gas, the Joule-Thompson effect will cause the natural gas to be about 16F below that expected for a perfect gas after blowdown. The above description process indicates that there is a tendency for a perfect gas to be at a slightly higher temperature than the original temperature after the blowdown and mixing phase. However, with real gases, this temperature increase is lessened or, perhaps, reversed slightly. Therefore, extra conservatism is introduced into the plume rise analysis by assuming that the natural gas does not mix thermally with air and is cooled isenthalpically 16F below the temperature it possessed prior to the break. The plume rise calculations conservatively assumed the gas is released with zero momentum flux at the point of the break. In reality, because the pipe is below grade, the gas would be expected to have a significant vertical velocity component. This would tend to carry the plume higher than calculated. Revision 13 2.2-25 December, 2003 Class G stability results in the smallest plume rise and the largest centerline concentration. These combine to give the highest concentration at the air intake and the smallest distance from the air intake to the lower flammable limit. Using Class G stability is, therefore, conservative. A range of flow rates from 1 m3/sec. to 1,800 m3/sec., which covers up to the maximum break flow from the 20-inch pipe, were studied. While the larger flow rate results in a higher centerline concentration in the plume, it also yields a higher plume rise. The net effect is that the concentration at the air intake decreases as the flow rate increases. The maximum concentration at the highest air intake is 0.27 percent and results from the break of the closest pipe (4-inch in diameter). The minimum distance between the intake structure and the lower flammable limit (5 percent) is 167 feet. For the largest pipe (20-inch), which is 1,200 feet farther, the analysis gives a maximum concentration of 0.15 percent at the intake, and a minimum clearance of 248 feet. The highest concentration at the air intake corresponds to the case where the break flow yields a plume rise sufficient to carry the plume just over the highest air intake. At this point the centerline concentration is well below the flammable limit. The preceding discussion shows that the potential accidents involving the nearby natural gas pipelines result in gas concentrations at the plant air intakes that is well below the lower flammable limit. Therefore, these accidents are not considered design basis events. 2.2.3.1.1.3 Underground Gas Storage No underground gas or petroleum storage facilities currently exist or are planned within five miles of the Perry Plant. Revision 13 2.2-26 December, 2003 The design and construction of any future underground storage facilities would be done in accordance with local, state and federal regulations in existence at that time. Salt solution storage of LPG has been in existence since 1951. It has grown until in recent years it exceeds 84 million barrels in the United States (Reference 74) (Reference 75). To store liquid under pressure requires a minimum depth. Depths of 500 feet or more are to be preferred with the range of 1,000 to 2,000 feet as ideal for LP gas storage. Fresh water is pumped into the well for dissolving the salt to create the cavity. After the cavity is developed, gas is injected into it by pumping out brine. The pressure required on the gas which is being injected into an underground salt cavity is equal to that required to raise brine from the cavity to the surface, plus the pressure required to overcome resistance to flow of gas in the casing and of brine in the tubing. Gas is recovered by forcing brine into the salt cavities. The use of liquid-to-liquid displacement as the transfer method ensures that the cavity will always be liquid filled with an extremely limited vapor phase resulting from irregular roof surfaces. Air could only get into the cavity under normal operation by being entrained in the brine. Therefore, it could not be present in significant quantities in the vapor spaces. In addition, an ignition source will not be present within the cavity. Thus, an explosion could not occur in the very limited cavity vapor space. The only potential explosion hazard associated with the cavities, as such facilities are currently operated, would be that occurring from an above ground release with delayed ignition (Reference 76) (Reference 77). The chance of a massive leak occurring at the well head with a delayed ignition is extremely remote. However, if it would occur, the result would be a flash fire or atmospheric explosion. The magnitude of such an unlikely explosion would be dependent upon the stoichiometry of the gas air mixture, its Revision 13 2.2-27 December, 2003 volume, and atmospheric conditions including wind conditions. The worst conceivable delayed combustion event would involve a slight wind toward the plant to achieve proper mixing. The case postulated for the above ground release assumed the complete shearing of the well head in a manner that allowed the maximum discharge rate from the cavity. The analysis included establishing the maximum assumed gas cloud and its TNT equivalent. A Gaussian plume model for diffusion was used in the analysis to consider the maximum steady-state gas release rate. The method used is the same as the one used to analyze the natural gas line in <Section 2.2.3.1.1.2>. A conservative assumption of Pasquill Type F atmospheric conditions with a wind speed of 0.75 meters/second is used in the analysis. The casing size is the controlling factor with respect to the maximum release rate to be used in the Gaussian plume equation. The cavity volume has little effect on the above ground explosion size because the casing determines the release rate. Its only effect would be associated with the period of time that the cloud could exist. Failure of a propane well head from an underground storage cavern at 750 psig and 72F will yield a sonic flow condition at the break (Reference 78). Because of the large storage capacity compared to flow rate, the propane will flow steadily at 1,330 ft3/sec. through the annulus of the 4-1/2 x 8-5/8 inch casing. The flow will consist of 99.3 volume percent propane vapor and 0.7 volume percent liquid. Assuming the propane ignited immediately, a flame jet 50.3 feet long will issue from the break. The flame will be stabilized at the point in the propane jet where the turbulent flow becomes laminar or about 5.4 feet from the well head break. This flame jet will continue until the propane flow from the underground storage cavern is stopped. A Revision 13 2.2-28 December, 2003 detonable propane-air mixture will not form because the fuel is burned as it leaves the break. An explosion will not occur in the underground storage cavern because the required air cannot enter the cavern which is under a positive pressure of propane. In the event that the propane is exhausted, air will not leak back into the cavern since the propane will continue to flow at a slow rate as the remaining propane gas warms to the underground ambient temperature. For the case of a well head failure with delayed ignition a detonable propane-air mixture can be postulated to form. The resulting cloud is calculated to drift approximately 2,400 feet from the release point and yield a detonation with a force equivalent to 372,000 lbs of TNT. Using <Figure 2.2-7>, the calculated peak overpressure at the plant is 1.1 psi which is below the 1.2 psi design value. Based on the above, a separation distance of one mile will be maintained between potential underground propane storage release points and the nearest safety-related structure on the Perry site. CEI has acquired all the propane storage rights within at least one mile of the plant. 2.2.3.1.1.4 Nearby Industrial and Military Facilities The hazardous materials associated with the industrial facilities in the vicinity of the Perry site are listed in
. Based on the distances from the facility and the maximum quantities listed, there are no identifiable potential explosions which could adversely affect normal operations of the plant. As indicated in <Section 2.2.1.4>, there are no military bases or missile sites in the vicinity of the plant. 2.2.3.1.1.5 Unit 1 Fuel Storage Depot Potential accidents involving the Unit 1 Fuel Storage Depot do not pose a hazard to the plant. The Fuel Depot consists of two-300 gallon Revision 15 2.2-29 October, 2007 capacity storage tanks containing unleaded gasoline fuel. The installation and maintenance of these fuel storage tanks are in accordance with NFPA 30. In the unlikely event these tanks were to explode, they are located sufficiently away from the Unit 1 safety-related plant buildings to ensure that the peak positive incident overpressurization is below 1.0 psi in accordance with <Regulatory Guide 1.91>. The fuel depot storage tanks are to be refilled via tank trucks driven to the site. The detonation of these tank trucks in the vicinity of the plant is not considered to be a credible event when evaluated in accordance with <Regulatory Guide 1.91>. 2.2.3.1.1.6 HWCHydrogen and Oxygen Storage Area Potential accidents involving the on-site storage of liquid hydrogen, gaseous hydrogen, and liquid oxygen to support operation of the Hydrogen Water Chemistry (HWC) System do not pose a hazard to the plant. The Hydrogen and Oxygen Storage Area consists of a 9,000 gallon capacity cryogenic liquid hydrogen storage tank, six 8,350 scf (at 2,400 psi) gaseous hydrogen tanks, and a 6,000 gallon capacity cryogenic liquid oxygen storage tank. The installation and maintenance of these cryogenic storage tanks are in accordance with NFPA 50A (gaseous hydrogen), NFPA 50B (liquid hydrogen), and NFPA 50 (oxygen). The potential impact from an explosion of the liquid hydrogen storage tank has been evaluated in accordance with the requirements of EPRI NP-5283-SR-A, Guidelines for Permanent BWRHydrogen Water Chemistry Installations-1987 Revision, as part of the design and installation of the HWC System. In the unlikely event the hydrogen tank were to explode or an explosion were to occur resulting from a hydrogen pipe break, sufficient distance exists away from the Unit 1 safety-related plant buildings to prevent any resultant adverse affects on the safety-related structures. Since the yield from the liquid hydrogen storage is much greater than that from the gaseous hydrogen storage, the liquid hydrogen evaluation above is bounding for the gaseous hydrogen tanks. Revision 14 2.2-30 October, 2005 The potential impact on safety related air intakes from a failure of the hydrogen or oxygen storage facilities has been evaluated in accordance with the requirements of EPRI NP-5283-SR-A, Guidelines for Permanent BWRHydrogen Water Chemistry Installations-1987 Revision, as part of the design and installation of the HWC System. The separation distances between the hydrogen and oxygen storage facilities and safety related air intakes is such that the safety related air intakes will not be subject to a dangerous concentration of hydrogen due to a postulated liquid or gaseous hydrogen leak. The separation distances between the hydrogen and oxygen storage facilities and safety related air intakes is such that the safety related air intakes will not be subject to excessive ingestion of oxygen rich air due to failure of the liquid oxygen storage tank. No serious blast hazard is presented by the 6,000 gallon capacity cryogenic liquid oxygen storage tank. Oxygen is stable in both the gas and liquid phases. The potential threat from a liquid oxygen spill is the contact of oxygen-enriched air with combustible materials or the ingestion of the oxygen-enriched air into safety-related air intakes. Separation of the hydrogen and oxygen tanks is addressed in <Section 2.2.3.1.3.4>. The liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen storage tanks are to be refilled via tank trucks driven to the site. The detonation of these tank trucks in the vicinity of the plant is not considered to be a credible event when evaluated in accordance with <Regulatory Guide 1.91>. Revision 14 2.2-30a October, 2005 2.2.3.1.2 Toxic Chemicals 2.2.3.1.2.1 Nearby Transportation Facilities Based on the information presented in <Section 2.2.2.2>, an aggregate probability analysis was performed for those chemicals having the potential, per <Regulatory Guide 1.78>, to affect control room operations. This probability analysis is in accordance with <NUREG-0800>, Standard Review Plan Section 2.2.3 Evaluation of Potential Accidents, dated July 1981, and follows the methodology outlined in <NUREG/CR-2650> Allowable Shipment Frequencies for the Transport of Toxic Gases Near Nuclear Power Plants, dated October 1982. P100 P100/OI x PI x PR x PAK x L x FS where P100 = Probability of exceeding Part 100 exposure guidelines per year. P100/OI = Probability of exceeding Part 100 exposure guidelines given incapacitation of control room operators. Revision 14 2.2-31 October, 2005 PI = Probability that control room operators will be incapacitated given that a large release occurs along a specified distance exposed to the plant (POI/release). PR = Probability that a large release of toxic gas will occur from a given accident (release/accident). PAK = Probability of accident per distance traveled (accident/distance). L = Travel distance exposed to plant per shipment (distance/shipment). FS = Frequency of Shipment (shipments/year). The resultant aggregate probability of all materials transported in the vicinity of the Perry Plant, P100, is estimated to be less than the 10-6 Design Basis Event probability stated in <NUREG-0800>, SRP Section 2.2.3. As a result, no protective design features are considered necessary for this event. 2.2.3.1.2.2 Onsite Storage Toxic gas analyses are performed on potentially hazardous chemicals stored on the plant site in quantities greater than the criteria outlined in <Regulatory Guide 1.78>. A partial list of the chemicals for which evaluations have been performed, including quantity and location, is presented in
. Potential hazardous chemicals other than those listed in
may be stored on the plant site in quantities greater than the 100 lb. criteria of <Regulatory Guide 1.78> only if the accident analyses for the largest container stored on site show control room concentrations will be maintained within acceptable values. Revision 14 2.2-32 October, 2005 For each chemical identified as potentially hazardous, administrative controls are placed on the size of onsite chemical containers. Conservative estimates of the control room concentrations of the chemicals have been made for postulated failures in accordance with <Regulatory Guide 1.78>. Significant sources of significant airborne contamination include the CO2 storage tanks, the high pressure hydrogen and nitrogen cylinders, bromine and dichlorodifluoromethane (R-12). The estimated maximum control room concentrations for gross failures of the hydrogen and nitrogen cylinders are conservatively calculated to be less than 0.1 percent and 1.0 percent, respectively. The estimated maximum control room concentrations for gross failures of the liquid and gaseous hydrogen storage tanks is less than 4%, as determined based on separation distance requirements within EPRI NP-5283-SR-A, Guidelines for Permanent BWRHydrogen Water Chemistry Installations-1987 Revision. These control room concentrations are below the acceptable values for both hydrogen and nitrogen, which are classified as asphyxiates. The estimated maximum control room concentrations for failure of a bromine or dichlorodifluoromethane (R-12) container is shown by analysis to be within acceptable limits. The control room is equipped with a continuous monitoring system which will alarm prior to reaching unacceptable concentrations. Emergency self-contained breathing apparatus is provided in the control room and the operators are trained in its proper use. Liquid biocide, rather than chlorine, is used for the service water system. Therefore, no chlorine is stored on the site. 2.2.3.1.2.3 Nearby Industrial and Military Facilities A discussion of the hazardous materials associated with the nearby industrial facilities is presented in <Section 2.2.2.2>. Considering the materials listed in
, which are stored in appreciable quantities and are within five miles of the site, only chlorine which Revision 19 2.2-33 October, 2015 is a liquid at normal conditions, has the potential to affect site operations. Checking the maximum anticipated amount of chlorine stored at the Lake County Water Facility (4 miles southwest of the plant) against the requirements of <Regulatory Guide 1.78>, Table C-2, indicates that the amount is exempt from further Revision 15 2.2-33a October, 2007 consideration for all types of control room designs listed in the Regulatory Guide including the Type C control room. Since there are no military facilities in the vicinity of the plant, there are no military related toxic chemicals requiring evaluation. Based on the above, it can safely be concluded that there are no potential hazards to the Perry control room from toxic chemicals associated with nearby industrial and military facilities. 2.2.3.1.3 Fires External fires and explosions are extremely unlikely. Exposures to the plant buildings include a 500,000 gallon fuel oil storage tank located approximately 250 feet from the plant in a diked area, two 300-gallon storage tanks of unleaded gasoline fuel located approximately 930 feet from the Unit 1 plant, a 9,000 gallon capacity cryogenic liquid hydrogen storage tank located approximately 1,240 feet from the Unit 1 plant, six 8,350 scf (at 2,400 psi) gaseous hydrogen tanks located approximately 1,240 feet from the Unit 1 plant, a 6,000 gallon capacity cryogenic liquid oxygen storage tank located approximately 1,100 feet from the Unit 1 plant, infrequent existence of tank trucks unloading gasoline fuel, diesel fuel, fuel oil, liquid hydrogen, or liquid oxygen to the site, a 20-inch gas line located more than 3,000 feet from the plant buildings and a wooded area located 350 feet from the plant at the closest point. Refer to <Section 2.2.3.1.1.5> for an evaluation of the gasoline fuel. 2.2.3.1.3.1 Oil Storage Tank No serious fire exposure hazard is presented by the 500,000 gallon fuel oil storage tank to onsite buildings because of its separation. It is located 250 feet northeast of the Unit 1 turbine building as shown on <Figure 1.2-2> and is located within a dike. The fuel oil is used for firing the plant auxiliary boilers. Revision 14 2.2-34 October, 2005 The fuel oil storage tank is 50 feet in diameter and is located 250 feet from the plant structure at its closest point. NFPA Flammable Liquid Code No. 30, OSHA Flammable Liquid Storage Requirements and The Ohio State Fire Marshalls Flammable Liquid Storage Code allow such tanks to Revision 14 2.2-34a October, 2005 be located within 1/3 the tank diameter of important buildings. The storage tank is located 5 tank diameters away. All exposed buildings are of noncombustible or fire-resistive construction. The heat radiation rate from a total fire involvement of the tank would be less than 80 Btu/hr/ft2 of building surface area assuming still air. With a 50 mph wind directed toward the plant, the heat radiation rate would only increase to approximately 110 Btu/hr/ft2. The above rates are very safe for the noncombustible and fire-resistive construction involved since they are less than sun heat radiation. A flammable vapor air mixture will not exist in the tank vapor space under design atmospheric conditions. The minimum lower flammable limit of fuel oil is 100F. This temperature must be reached before sufficient vapor will be present in the tank vapor space to support combustion. On a hot sunny day, isolated lean flammable mixtures could exist due to the vaporization of liquid from the wetted shell or the vaporization of liquid condensed on the tank roof. These flammable pockets of vapor have an extremely low probability of being ignited because of the lack of an ignition source. The main volume of liquid will never exceed 90F as reported in (Reference 79). In the very unlikely event that ignition would occur, any resulting explosion would be weak because of the limited flammable volume, lean mixture and lack of proper mixing. It would not result in any building damage. The tank is designed in accordance with API 650 so the roof would break at the weak roof to cylindrical shell seam and relieve the explosion. The yard fire hydrant system will provide a ready supply of cooling water, as well as water for generation of foam to extinguish any fuel oil fires. A foam connection, foam proportioning equipment, and a supply of foam will be provided for use during the extinguishing operation. Extinguishment should occur in less than one hour. Dense smoke will not affect the control room habitability because the air intakes are located approximately 680 feet from the tank on the west Revision 14 2.2-35 October, 2005 side of the control complex. The air conditioning system is designed to completely isolate the control room during periods when the atmosphere is contaminated using <Section 6.4> redundant leak tight dampers. Oil smoke has a diameter range of 0.03 to 1 microns (0.50 microns average). The roughing filters have an efficiency of 85-90 percent on NBS atmospheric dust (.01 to 10 microns) and the HEPA filters have an efficiency of 99.97 percent on particles 0.3 micron and larger. Therefore, in the remote event of smoke inleakage from a fuel oil fire, the series of roughing filter and HEPA filter banks in the supply unit and recirculation unit of the control room HVAC system will effectively reduce the density of any smoke in the control room to a level that will not affect the control room habitability. Self-contained fresh air breathing apparatus will be provided for use by operators until the control room air can be filtered. Smoke detectors will monitor the air entering the control room. The auxiliary boiler will be used during various plant operations. Minimum demand occurs during normal plant operation. Approximate weekly demand is 450 gallons of fuel oil. Other greater auxiliary boiler demands will occur throughout the year during hot standby, cold startup or shutdown mode. It is conservatively estimated that approximately ninety 7,300 gallon tank truck deliveries per year will be required as a maximum. The frequency of delivery of fuel oil to the 500,000 gallon storage tank will be limited to a cycle corresponding to the boiler operation. Delivery of fuel oil will be by truck, using Center Road for access to Revision 15 2.2-36 October, 2007 the plant site. The unloading area is located on the north side of the storage tank. The truck unloading area is located such that all drainage from the unloading area drains into the diked area, and the diked area is designed to be capable of containing the complete volume of the tank and the delivery truck, with a one foot freeboard. The area around the fuel oil tank dike is contoured to ensure that drainage from the area is away from the plant proper and toward the diverted creek east of the plant. Normally, any leakage from the tank will be contained within the dike whose base is one foot below grade level. The only common mode failure that would cause rupture of both the tank and the reinforced concrete dike is the postulated seismic event. The slopes around the dike are such that the spillage resulting from the postulated simultaneous breaks would be directed away from the plant, as shown on <Figure 2.1-3>. 2.2.3.1.3.2 Gas Line A 20-inch buried natural gas line runs adjacent to the Perry site as shown on <Figure 2.2-3>. It is unlikely that this line will rupture. If such a massive leak with immediate ignition did occur, the fire would continue to burn until the line is isolated and the methane gas in the isolated section of pipe is consumed. Sufficient heat radiation could be given off from such a fire to start a forest fire in the adjacent wooded area during dry seasons. However, the heat radiation at the plant buildings would be less than 200 Btu per hour per square foot which would not be sufficient to affect the plant safety. The forest fire is discussed in <Section 2.2.3.1.3.3>. Revision 14 2.2-37 October, 2005 2.2.3.1.3.3 Forest Fires The presence of 350 feet of clear space around the plant reduces the potential hazard of forest fire to a minimum (the presence of trees and bushes in landscaped areas does not affect this evaluation). Plant construction is fire resistive with building roof construction of either reinforced concrete or metal deck. The metal decks meet the requirements of Factory Mutual Class I roof decks. Therefore, the hazard from any flying brands is minimized. The yard fire protection system will provide a ready source of water to attack such a forest fire and to apply cooling water to buildings and other structures. 2.2.3.1.3.4 HWCHydrogen and Oxygen Storage Area No serious fire exposure hazard is presented by the 9,000 gallon capacity cryogenic liquid hydrogen storage tank or the six 8,350 scf (at 2,400 psi) gaseous hydrogen storage tanks to onsite buildings because of their separation. The hydrogen storage tanks are located approximately 1,240 feet southeast of the fuel handling building, the nearest safety-related plant structure. The cryogenic liquid hydrogen storage tank and gaseous hydrogen storage tanks supply hydrogen for operation of the Hydrogen Water Chemistry (HWC) System. The location of the hydrogen storage facility complies with the separation distance outline in EPRI NP-5283-SR-A, Guidelines for Permanent BWRHydrogen Water Chemistry Installations-1987 Revision, NFPA 50A (gaseous hydrogen systems at consumer sites) and NFPA 50B (liquefied hydrogen systems at consumer sites), as well as OSHA Standards 29 CFR 1910.103 (hydrogen). This separation distance ensures that the thermal flux from a potential hydrogen gas fireball or the blast overpressure from a potential hydrogen blast will not cause failure of any safety-related structures. The routing and delivery schedule for the hydrogen delivery truck meets the requirements of <Regulatory Guide 1.91> as specified in EPRI NP-5283-SR-A. Delivery of Revision 14 2.2-38 October, 2005 liquid hydrogen will be by truck, using Center Road for access to the plant site. The unloading area is located on the east side of the storage tank. The detonation of these tank trucks in the vicinity of the plant is not considered to be a credible event when evaluated in accordance with <Regulatory Guide 1.91>. No serious fire exposure hazard is presented by the 6,000 gallon capacity cryogenic liquid oxygen storage tank to onsite buildings because of their separation. The oxygen storage tanks are located approximately 1,100 feet southeast of the fuel handling building (the nearest safety-related plant structure), with separation distances being greater to safety-related plant air intakes. The cryogenic liquid oxygen storage tank supplies oxygen for operation of the Hydrogen Water Chemistry (HWC) System. Oxygen is stable in both the gas and liquid phases. The potential threat from a liquid oxygen spill is the contact of oxygen-enriched air with combustible materials or the ingestion of oxygen-enriched air into safety-related air intakes. The location of the oxygen storage facility complies with the separation distance outlined in EPRI NP-5283-SR-A, Guidelines for Permanent BWRHydrogen Water Chemistry Installations-1987 Revision, NFPA 50 (bulk oxygen systems at consumer sites), as well as OSHA Standards 29 CFR 1910.104 (oxygen). The area around the storage area is contoured to ensure that a liquid spill from either the hydrogen or oxygen storage tanks will not flow toward, pond or accumulate within 75 ft. of the other. 2.2.3.1.4 Collisions with Intake Structure The location and design of the main intake structure and the discharge structure, (which also serves as the alternate emergency service water intake structure) are shown in <Figure 2.1-3>, <Figure 3.8-65>, <Figure 3.8-66>, and <Figure 3.8-67>. Consideration of possible loss-of-function of the intake systems due to ice or a water borne Revision 14 2.2-38a October, 2005 transportation accident is discussed in <Section 2.4.7> and <Section 2.4.11>. The structures are about 1.8 statute miles from chartered shipping lanes. With the tops of these structures submerged a minimum of 12 feet below the LWD they will not be frozen in fast ice or be an obstruction to floating ice packs. Further, the intake structure is protected against dynamic loads (produced when floating ice islands crush against it) by means of 10 vertical caissons, each six or seven feet in diameter, placed in a 70 foot diameter circle around each of the two intake heads. The discharge nozzle is encased in a 17 foot diameter concrete caisson to protect it from similar dynamic ice loads. The intake structure is designed so that each intake head (located 141 feet apart) can supply the maximum emergency service water flow requirement. Also, the main intake (two heads) and the alternate intake (discharge nozzle) are Revision 14 2.2-38b October, 2005 separated horizontally by more than one-third of a mile. For these reasons, the likelihood that both the main intakes and the alternate intake would be blocked by ice or a transportation accident, to the extent that it would affect the safety-related flow capacity, is extremely remote. 2.2.3.1.5 Liquid Spills The accidental release of oils or liquids which may be corrosive, cryogenic or coagulant is not considered in the design of the facility since there is no potential for such liquids to be drawn into the plants intake structure and circulating water system. Oil spills will have no effect due to the submergence of the intake structures. The effect of accidental releases of other liquids into Lake Erie will be greatly minimized due to the tremendous dilution capability of the lake and the redundancy, separation and submergence of the intakes. 2.2.3.2 Effects of Design Basis Events The design basis accidents are described in <Section 2.2.3.1>. As indicated in that section, there are no potential adverse effects on the safe operation of the Perry facility from any of these events. 2.

2.4 REFERENCES

FOR SECTION 2.2

1. Personal communication, Robert Jones, Agent, Norfolk and Western Railroad, Painesville, Ohio, November 26, 1984.
2. Personal communication, Chief Moser, U.S. Coast Guard, Fairport Harbor, Ohio, March 5, 1985.
3. Personal communication, Captain Hunt, Office of Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, D. C., March 28, 1979.

Revision 14 2.2-39 October, 2005

4. Personal communication, Col. Albert W. Schumann, Department of the Air Force Office of Information, Washington, D. C., March 19, 1979.
5. Personal communication, Major Lee DeFormi, Department of the Army, Washington, D. C., March 20, 1979.
6. Personal communication, L. W. Steward, The East Ohio Gas Company, Ashtabula, Ohio, November 20, 1984.
7. Oil and Gas Pipelines in Ohio (Map) Scale 1:500,000. Harold J.

Flint, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, 1973.

8. Commercial Nuclear Power Stations in the United States - Operable, Under Construction or Ordered - August 1, 1984 (Map). Nuclear News, 555 North Kensington Avenue, La Grange Park, Illinois 60525.
9. Personal communication, Richard Pohl, Plant Manager, Neff Perkins Corporation, Perry, Ohio, November 15, 1984.
10. Personal communication, Charlotte Kieffir, Office Manager, Sivon Manufacturing, Perry, Ohio, December 19, 1984.
11. Personal communication, M. Ellis, Operations Assistant, Bentley Excavating, Perry, Ohio, December 19, 1984.
12. Personal communication, W. Mackenzie, Owner, Mackenzie Nursery Supply, Perry, Ohio, December 19, 1984.
13. Personal communication, William Toth, Plant Manager, Calhio Chemicals, Inc., Perry, Ohio, November 15, 1984.
14. Personal communication, A. F. Warren, President, Perry Coal and Feed Co., Perry, Ohio, November 15, 1984.

Revision 14 2.2-40 October, 2005

15. Personal communication, Larry Lamphier, President, Welded Beam/Thermatool Corporation, Perry, Ohio, November 16, 1984.
16. Personal communication, Ted Pode, Vice-President, Midwest Materials, Inc., Perry, Ohio, November 16, 1984.
17. (Deleted)
18. Personal communication, Don Lewis, Environmental Engineer, Aluminum Smelting and Refining Company, Inc., Painesville, Ohio, December 19, 1984.
19. (Deleted)
20. Personal communication, Walter Bubley, Plant Manager, Glyco Chemicals, Inc., Painesville, Ohio, November 16, 1984.
21. Personal communication, Neil Seyler, Plant Manager, Georgia Pacific Plastics, Inc., Painesville, Ohio, November 20, 1984.
22. Personal communication, M. Gertz, Assistant to the President.

R. W. Sidley, Inc., Painesville, Ohio, November 21, 1984.

23. (Deleted)
24. Personal communication, R. L. McMillen, Division Head, Health, Environmental Safety and QA, Lubrizol Corporation, Painesville, Ohio, December 21, 1984.
25. Personal communication, Irv Will, Acting Plant Manager, Fasson, Division of Avery International, Painesville, Ohio, December 20, 1984.

Revision 14 2.2-41 October, 2005

26. Personal communication, Mike Fletcher, Manufacturing Manager, Morton Salt-Division of Morton Thiokol, INC., Painesville, Ohio, December 21, 1984.
27. Personal communication, E. Zammer, Industrial Relations, Harvey Hubbell Inc., Madison, Ohio, November 20, 1984.
28. Personal communication, Mac Darnell, Vice-President of Manufacturing, Perfection Corporation, Madison, Ohio, November 20, 1984.
29. Personal communication, Ron Marchewka, Production Manager, Lawless Container Corporation, Madison, Ohio, November 20, 1984.
30. (Deleted)
31. Personal communication, Ralph E. Kaiser, Norfolk and Western Railroad, Roanoke, Virginia, March 16, 1979.
32. Spotted Township Maps (Perry, Painesville and Madison) showing well locations as on file at the Division of Oil and Gas, Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, Ohio, December 20, 1984.
33. Personal communication, Lowell Chocola, Technical Manager, Leeco Refractory Coatings Division/Acme Resin Corporation, Madison, Ohio, February 11, 1985.
34. Debrosse, T. A., Summary of Ohio Oil and Gas Developments in 1983, Figure 2, Division of Oil and Gas, Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, Ohio, March 1984.
35. Personal communication, James Bardrock, Staff Planner, Lake County Planning Commission, Painesville, Ohio, March 26, 1979.

Revision 14 2.2-42 October, 2005

36. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States-Great Lakes-Lake Erie-Ohio Ashtabula to Chagrin River. (Map), Washington, D. C., 1974.
37. Personal communication, Mark Woodworth, Owner, Woodworth Airstrip, Madison, Ohio, November 21, 1984.
38. Personal communication, Christine Fryer, Office Manager, Casement Airport, Painesville, Ohio, November 20, 1984.
39. Personal communication, Mrs. A. Luhta, Concord Airport, Concord, Ohio, November 20, 1984.
40. Personal communication, Bill McNeely, Manager, Lost Nation Airport, Painesville, Ohio, November 21, 1984.
41. Detroit Sectional Aeronautical Chart, 17th Edition, November 18, 1978, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.
42. Enroute IFR Peak Day Charts, FY1976, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D. C.
43. Personal communication, J. O. Larson, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D. C., March 20, 1979.
44. Enroute High Altitude - U.S., September 1978, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.
45. 1984 Ohio Traffic Survey Report, Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus, Ohio.
46. Occupational Safety and Health Reporter, Title 29, Sec. 1910.1000, Table Z-1, 1978, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D. C.

Revision 14 2.2-43 October, 2005

47. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49 - Transportation Parts 100-199, October 1, 1977, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration, Washington, D. C.
48. Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Part 3, Waterways and Harbors_-_Great Lakes, Calendar Year 1982, Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana.
49. Personal communication, Mr. Debevec/Owner, Chalet Dubonne, Madison, Ohio, February 13, 1985.
50. Personal communication, Dick Schmidt/Owner, Perry Sheet Metal, Perry, Ohio, February 12, 1985.
51. Personal communication, Roger Phillips/Owner, Phillips Welding, Madison, Ohio, February 13, 1985.
52. Personal communication, Kevin Hershey/Technical Services, Safety Clean Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio, February 12, 1985.
53. Personal communication, Wayne Harvey/Manager, Safety Clean Corporation, Painesville, Ohio, February 12, 1985.
54. Personal communication, Bob Mendelsohn/Manager, Universal Oil/Lake Co. Oil Branch, Painesville, Ohio, February 12, 1985.
55. Personal communication, Roy Frank/Owner-Manager, Gyro Fuel Company, Madison, Ohio, February 13, 1985.
56. Personal communication, Lorna Velardi/Staff, Matlack Chemicals, Chicago, Ohio, February 13, 1985.

Revision 14 2.2-44 October, 2005

57. Personal communication, Jeff Wells/Manager, Wells Inc./National Ammonia and Chemical Co., Painesville, Ohio, February 27, 1985.
58. Courts Make Nuke Shipments Difficult to Stop, Geoff Haynes, The Lake County Telegraph, Painesville, Ohio, June 1, 1984.
59. Suggested Criterion for Selection of Compounds of Interest for the Perry Route 20 Shipping Survey, J. Fulford, NUS Corporation, January 15, 1985.
60. (Deleted)
61. Personal communication, J. W. Heptinstall, Plant Manager, Calhio Chemicals, Inc., Perry, Ohio, June 27, 1978, July 20, 1978, and November 16, 1979.
62. Personal communication, Ralph Parsons, Diamond Shamrock Corporation, Painesville, Ohio, July 21, 1978 and August 9, 1978.
63. (Deleted)
64. (Deleted)
65. (Deleted)
66. Personal communication, Richard T. Morawski, Assistant Plant Manager, Glyco Chemicals, Inc., Painesville, Ohio, July 2, 1978.
67. Personal communication, Harry Zimmerman, Plant Manager, Georgia-Pacific, Plaquemine, Louisiana, March 20, 1979.

Revision 21 2.2-45 October, 2019

68. Explosion Problems in the Chemical Industry, American Chemical Society, by Robert W. VanDolah, David S. Burgess, 1970.
69. Foster, J. C., Jr., et. al., Detonatability of Some Natural Gas-Air Mixture, Air Force Armament Laboratory, AFATE-TR-74-80, November 1970.
70. Kogarko, S. M., et. al., An Investigation of Spherical Detonations of Gas Mixture, International Chemical Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 3, July 1966.
71. Loesch, F. C., Thermal Radiation and Overpressure from Instantaneous LNG Release into the Atmosphere, TRW Report No. TRW-08072-4, April 26, 1968.
72. Safety Evaluation Report, Tennessee Valley Authority, Hartsville Nuclear Plants A and B, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

<NUREG-0014>, April 8, 1976.

73. Briggs, G. A., Plume Rise, TID 25075, Equations 4.19c, 4.32 and 5.7, November 1969.
74. Underground Storage of Fluids, D. L. Katz and K. H. Coats, Ulrichs Books, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1968.
75. Pipeline and Gas Journal, Underground Storage Capacity, December 1979, p. 37.
76. Letter from Dr. R. T. Gallagher, P.E., Consulting Mining Engineer to D. A. Decker, Gilbert Associates, Inc., dated February 11, 1974.
77. Explosive Effects Analysis of Propane Leakage, Steven Tunkel, P.E.,

Hazard Research Corporation, Denville, New Jersey, dated February 21, 1974.

Revision 14 2.2-46 October, 2005

78. Engineering Division, Crane Company, Flow of Fluids, Technical Paper No. 410, Crane Company, Chicago, Illinois, 1957.
79. J. J. Duggan, C. H. Gilman, P. F. Fisher, The Requirements for Relief of Overpressure in Vessels Exposed to Fire, presented at ASME Meeting, June 1943.
80. (Deleted)
81. (Deleted)
82. Personal communication, Robert Archer, Lake County Emergency Management Agency. Confirmation of Uniroyal and Pressure Vessel Service of Ohio ceased operations in Lake County, Ohio, May 15, 2001.
83. Personal communication, Richard Woodworth, Owner, Woodworth Airstrip, Madison, Ohio, May 15, 2001.
84. Personal communication, Bill Pfarr, Manager, Lost Nation Airport, Willoughby, Ohio, May 15, 2001.
85. Calculation 5.6.4, Rev. 3, 5-16-06.
86. Calculation 5.6.2, Rev. 2, 5-17-06.
87. Calculation 5.6.1, Rev. 4, 5-15-06.

Revision 15 2.2-47 October, 2007

TABLE 2.2-1 MANUFACTURING AND STORAGE FACILITIES WITHIN FIVE MILES OF THE PLANT(1)

Distance (mi) and Direction from Total Name of Company Location __ PNPP Center Products Primary Function Work Force Neff Perkins Co. Perry 3,000 ft WSW Rubber and steel Manufacturing 175 custom molded products Sivon Mfg. Perry 1 mi SW Rubber production Manufacturing 5-10 machinery Perry Coal & Feed Perry 3 mi S Feed Marketing 3 Bentley Excavating Perry 3 mi SSW None Contractor 30-60 Mackenzie Nursery Perry 3.5 mi SSW Nursery Marketing 14 Supply equipment and supplies Lake County Water Painesville 4 mi WSW Water Treatment Water Treatment --

Thermatool Mill Perry 3.5 mi S Structural Manufacturing 60 Systems I beams Pet Processors Painesville 3.6 mi WSW Plastics Manufacturing --

Midwest Materials Perry 3.5 mi S Finished and Manufacturing 110 semi-finished steel products (1)

NOTE: See (Reference 9), (Reference 10), (Reference 11), (Reference 12), (Reference 14), (Reference 15),

(Reference 16) and (Reference 86) <Section 2.2.4>

Revision 15 2.2-48 October, 2007

TABLE 2.2-2 MAJOR HIGHWAYS WITHIN FIVE MILES OF STATION CENTER(1)

Approx Distance (mi) Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume (AADT)

And Direction Sector Vehicles/Day(2) Passenger and Road Name/No. County From Plant Center Miles Description Total Vehicles Trailer Trucks Panel Truck U.S. Route 20 Lake 1 mi SSE .18 Bowhall Rd. to 9,300 4,600 8,840 Half Rd.

.47 Half Rd. to 5,320 260 5,060 Rte. 2

.62 Rte. 2 to 20,900 840 20,060 Narrows Rd.

2.58 Narrows Rd. 19,500 750 18,750 to Center Rd.

2.39 Center Rd. to 17,400 530 16,870 Townline Road 3.03 Townline Road to 15,340 340 15,000 Rte. 528 State Route 84 Lake 3.5 mi SSE 1.98 River Rd. to 2,900 100 2,800 Shepard Rd.

4.36 Shepard Rd. to 3,600 160 3,440 Madison W. Corp.

1.16 Madison W. Corp. 4,800 160 4,640 to Rte. 528 (River Rd.)

.14 River St. to 8,000 300 7,700 Lake St.

.90 Lake St. to 4,380 100 4,280 Bates Rd.

State Route 2 Lake 4 mi WSW 1.34 Rte. 535 to 14,000 580 14,580 East Terminus (U.S. 20)

Interstate 90 Lake 5 mi SSE 7.66 Vrooman Rd. to 19,040 5,170 13,870 Rte. 528 State Route 528 Lake 5 mi E 2.14 Rte. 84 to 9,040 240 8,800 U.S. 20 NOTES:

(1)

See (Reference 45) <Section 2.2.4>.

(2)

AADT provided for segments of each major road within five miles of PNPP.

Revision 14 2.2-49 October, 2005

TABLE 2.2-3 GAS PIPELINES WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE ENVIRONS OF THE PLANT(1)

Maximum Operating Potential Pipeline Size Pressure Operating Year Depth Number(2) (in.) (psi) Pressure Constructed Buried 1 2.0 35 60 1950 30 2 2.0 35 60 1977 30 3 3.0 35 60 1977 30 4 4.0 35 60 1960 30 5 20.0 150 250 1975 42 6 16.0 150 250 1975 42 7 20.0 150 250 1975 42 8 4.0 35 60 1975 36 9 2.0 35 60 1940 36 10 1.25 35 60 1940 36 11 1.25 35 60 1940 36 12 1.25 35 60 1940 36 13 10.0 35 60 1930 36 NOTES:

(1)

See (Reference 6) <Section 2.2.4>.

(2)

See <Figure 2.2-3>.

Revision 14 2.2-50 October, 2005

TABLE 2.2-4a HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USED, PROCESSED AND/OR STORED WITHIN FIVE MILES OF THE PLANT Threshold Hazardous Limit Value(5) Maximum Material (mg/m3) Quantity Method Stored Location Methyelthyl Ketone (MEK) 590 50 gal. 50 gal. drum Neff Perkins Cleaning solvents and cutting oils See Note(2) 300 gal. 50 gal. drums Neff Perkins Revision 15 2.2-51 October, 2007

TABLE 2.2-4a (Continued)

Threshold Hazardous Limit Value(5) Maximum Material (mg/m3) Quantity Method Stored Location Kerosene See Note(2) 250 gal. above ground tank Thermatool Mill Systems Toluene 375 165 gal. 55 gal. SIVON Mfg.

Herbicides, insecticides, See Note(4) small amounts shelved bags, Perry Coal and fungicides boxes and gallon Feed jugs Ammonium nitrite See Note(6) small amounts shelved bags and Perry Coal and boxes Feed Chlorine 3 8000 lbs 2000 lb. cylinders Lake County Water stored in block building NOTES:

(1)

Future storage (March 1985).

(2)

Flammable material.

(3)

Corrosive material.

(4)

Toxic (no value given).

(5)

N. Irving Sax, Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, 6th Edition.

(6)

Explosive material.

Revision 15 2.2-52 October, 2007

TABLE 2.2-4b HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTED BY HIGHWAY OR RAILROAD WITHIN FIVE MILES OF THE PLANT Threshold Shipment Hazardous Limit Value(6) Shipment Frequency Method of Material __(mg/m3)__ Size(1)__ (per/yr.) Transportation Toluene See Note(3) 55 gal. 2 Highway Carbon dioxide, compressed 1,840 60 lb 12 Highway Nitrogen, compressed See Note(7) 60 lb 12 Highway Oxygen, compressed See Note(2) 1,320 cu ft 12 Highway Acetylene, compressed See Note(3) 330 cu ft 28 Highway Isopropyl alcohol See Note(3) 8,000 gal. 12 Highway Trichloroethylene 537 8,000 gal. 12 Highway Paints See Note(5) 1,375 gal. 250 Highway Maleic anyhydride 1 6,000 gal. 12 Highway Methylethyl Ketone (MEK) 590 30 gal. 12 Highway Cleaning liquid, corrosive See Note(4) 120 gal. 50 Highway (DOT NA1760)

Perchloroethylene 678 120 gal. 50 Highway Petroleum naptha See Note(3) 120 gal. 50 Highway (DOT UN1255)

No. 1 fuel (K1 fuel, kerosene) See Note(3) 8,500 gal. 385 Highway No. 2 fuel See Note(3) 8,500 gal. 720 Highway Diesel fuel See Note(3) 8,500 gal. 2,100 Highway Gasoline See Note(3) 9,500 gal. 3,120 Highway Lubricants, motor oil, grease See Note(3) 330 gal. 130 Highway Propane, bulk See Note(2) 2,000 gal. 78 Highway Propane, canister See Note(2) 3,000 lb 156 Highway Ammonium hydroxide See Note(3) 6,000 gal. 100 Highway Liquid hydrogen See Note(2) 17,000 gal. 12 Highway Liquid oxygen See Note(2) 17,000 gal. 12 Highway Revision 14 2.2-53 October, 2005

TABLE 2.2-4b (Continued)

Threshold(8) Shipment Hazardous Limit Value Shipment Frequency Method of Material(10) (mg/m3) Size(1) (per/yr.) Transportation Liquid sodium hydroxide 2 Rail Vinyl chloride See Note(9) Rail Chlorine 3 N/A(11) N/A(11) Rail Liquified Petroleum Gas 1800 Rail Sulfuric acid 1 Rail Benzene 160 Rail Carbon Dioxide See Note(6) Rail Motor anti-knock compound 0.075 Rail Hydrochloric acid 7 Rail 1.1.1 Trichloroethane 2460 Rail NOTES:

(1)

(Deleted)

(2)

Explosive material.

(3)

Flammable material.

(4)

Corrosive material.

(5)

Toxic (no value given).

(6)

N. Irving Sax, Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, 6th Edition.

(7)

Asphyxiant.

(8)

Values from OSHA.

(9)

Deleted from OSHA Sec. 1910.1000 (Reference 46).

(10)

(Deleted)

(11)

Refer to
and
. Revision 15 2.2-54 October, 2007 TABLE 2.2-5a 2005 CSX HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRAFFIC(1)(2) Commodity Carloads Hazard Class(3) Sodium Hydroxide Solution 6,822 8 Chlorine 4,877 2.3 Vinyl Chloride 3,111 2.1 Liquified Petroleum Gas 1,582 2.1 Potassium Hydroxide Solution 1,509 8 Denatured Alcohol 1,261 3 Carbon Dioxide, Liquid 1,249 2.2 Sulfuric Acid 966 8 Petroleum Distillates, NOS(4) 626 Combustible Styrene Monomer 536 3 Vinyl Acetate 521 3 Calcium Carbide 521 4.3 Elevated Temperature Liquid 494 9 Sodium Chlorate 496 5.1 Benzene 489 3 Environmentally Hazardous Liquid, NOS(4) 406 9 Molten Phenol 351 6.1 Hydrochloric Acid Solution 340 8 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 335 6.1 Fuming Sulfuric Acid 253 8 Waste Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) 248 9 Butane 243 2.1 Diisobutylene Isomeric Compounds 235 3 Other Regulated Liquid NOS(4) 208 9 NOTES: (1) See (Reference 85) <Section 2.2.4>. (2) Major Hazardous Materials transported by CSX in the vicinity of the Perry Plant. (3) Refer to DOTs Hazardous Material table for explanation of classification. (4) NOS - Not Otherwise Specified. Revision 15 2.2-55 October, 2007 TABLE 2.2-5a (Continued) (Deleted) Revision 15 2.2-56 October, 2007 TABLE 2.2-5a (Continued) (Deleted) Revision 15 2.2-57 October, 2007 TABLE 2.2-5a (Continued) (Deleted) Revision 15 2.2-58 October, 2007 TABLE 2.2-5a (Continued) (Deleted) Revision 15 2.2-59 October, 2007 TABLE 2.2-5a (Continued) (Deleted) Revision 15 2.2-60 October, 2007 TABLE 2.2-5b 2005 NORFOLK AND SOUTHERN HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRAFFIC(1)(2) Commodity Carloads Hazard Class(3) Sulfuric Acid 278 8 Anhydrous Ammonia 177 2.2 Phosphorus Pentasulphide 29 4.3 Corrosive Liquids 36 8 Ammonium 13 8 Flammable Liquids, NOS(4) 5 3 NOTES: (1) See (Reference 85) <Section 2.2.4>. (2) Major Hazardous Materials transported by Norfolk Southern in the vicinity of the Perry Plant. (3) Refer to DOTs Hazardous Material table for explanation of classification. (4) NOS - Not Otherwise Specified. Revision 15 2.2-61 October, 2007 TABLE 2.2-6 TYPES AND AMOUNTS OF CARGO TRANSPORTED IN THE GREAT LAKES IN 1982 CLEVELAND, FAIRPORT, ASHTABULA, CONNEAUT AND ERIE HARBORS(1) (Short Tons) Harbors Cargo Cleveland Fairport Ashtabula Conneaut Erie Barley and Rye 3,179 - - - - Wheat 72,674 - - - - Tobacco, Leaf 30 - - - - Field Crops (nec) - - - - 29 Fresh Fish, except Shellfish 248 162 14 298 268 Iron Ore and Concentrates 5,380,815 50,958 1,435,184 413,267 - Aluminum Ores, Concentrates 10,723 - - - - Nonferrous Ores and Concentrates 6,053 - 32,384 - - Coal and Lignite - - 5,008,218 10,128,139 33,196 Limestone 1,340,568 860,161 241,324 413,869 356,150 Sand, Gravel, Crushed Rock 541,685 103,354 - - 109,081 Clay 3 - 9,026 - - Nonmetallic Minerals (nec) 730,874 612,342 - 12,700 51,318 Tallow, Animal Fats and Oils 1,460 - - - - Vegetables and Preparations of, 41 - - - - Wheat Flour and Semolina 6,793 - - - - Alcoholic Beverages 826 - - - - Miscellaneous Food Products 41 - - - - Basic Textile Products 57 - - - - Logs - - - - 1,863 Lumber 120 - - - 1,920 Veneer, Plywood, Worked Wood - - 946 - - Furniture and Fixtures 21 - - - 19 Paper and Paperboard 583 - - - - Revision 14 2.2-62 October, 2005 TABLE 2.2-6 (Continued) Harbors Cargo Cleveland Fairport Ashtabula Conneaut Erie Pulp and Paper Products 10 - - - 83 Basic Chemicals and Products 3,329 - - - - Plastic Materials 3 - - - - Drugs - - - - 19 Soap - - - - 19 Paints and Allied Products 69 - - - - Phosphatic Chemical Fertilizers - - 19,997 - - Insecticides, Disinfectants 6 - - - - Miscellaneous Chemical Products 210 - - - - Residual Fuel Oil 126,598 - - - - Lubricating Oils and Greases 1 - - - - Asphalt, Tar and Pitches 39,061 - - - - Coke, Petroleum Coke 30,500 - - - - Rubber and Misc. Plastic Products 28 - - - - Building Cement 232,072 - - - - Structural Clay Products 59 - - - - Cut Stone and Stone Products 19 - - - 32 Misc. Nonmetallic Mineral Products 21 - - - - Slag 45,000 - - - - Iron and Steel Primary Forms 15,796 - 1,599 - - Iron, Steel Shapes (except Sheet) 286,942 - 10,938 - - Iron and Steel Plates and Sheets 1,071 - - - - Iron and Steel Pipes and Tubes 3,092 - - - 20 Ferroalloys 22,176 - 23,482 - 17,810 Iron, Steel Products (not classified) 292 - - - - Nonferrous Metals 72 - 86 - - Copper Alloys, unworked 57 - - - - Lead and Zinc, unworked 3,145 - - - - Revision 14 2.2-63 October, 2005 TABLE 2.2-6 (Continued) Harbors Cargo Cleveland Fairport Ashtabula Conneaut Erie Aluminum and Alloys, unworked 461 - - - 121 Fabricated Metal Products 513 - 2 - 417 Machinery, except electrical 3,047 - - - 23 Electrical Machinery and Equipment 313 - - - 598 Motor Vehicles, Parts, Equipment 2,235 - - - 300 Misc. Transportation Equipment - - - - Ships and Boats 12 - - - - Misc. Manufactured Products 1 - - - - Iron and Steel Scrap 28,094 - - - 46,484 Nonferrous Metal Scrap 81 - 49,137 - - Commodities (not elsewhere clsfd) 44 - - - 1 Department of Defense & Sci. 8 - - - - NOTE: (1) See (Reference 48) <Section 2.2.4>. Revision 14 2.2-64 October, 2005 TABLE 2.2-7 1982 COMBINED TRAFFIC BY TYPE OF VESSEL BETWEEN CLEVELAND, OHIO AND ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA(1) Direction and Vessel Type(2) Number of Transits per year
a. Upbound(3)
Passenger and Dry Cargo 6,735 Tug and Barge 32 Tanker 61 Dry Cargo 14 Upbound total 6,842
b. Downbound(4)
Passenger and Dry Cargo 6,735 Tug and Barge 40 Tanker 51 Dry Cargo 15 Downbound total 6,841 NOTES: (1) See (Reference 48) <Section 2.2.4>. (2) See <Figure 2.2-2> for location of shipping lanes. (3) Inland from Atlantic Ocean. (4) Outbound from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean. Revision 14 2.2-65 October, 2005 TABLE 2.2-8 TRIPS AND DRAFTS OF VESSELS - CLEVELAND, FAIRPORT HARBOR, ASHTABULA, CONNEAUT AND ERIE HARBOR(1) Total Trips Total Trips Draft Vessels of Vessels of Vessels Total Number ___(feet)____ _____Inbound_____ _____Outbound_____ __of Trips__ 30 0 4 4 29 4 81 85 28 17 129 146 27 114 116 230 26 138 159 297 25 89 17 106 24 191 42 233 23 351 111 462 22 191 117 308 21 120 116 236 20 125 168 293 19 112 145 257 18 78 91 169 17 61 123 184 16 48 68 116 15 27 100 127 14 94 127 221 13 5 9 14 12 or less 5,077 5,108 10,185 NOTE: (1) See (Reference 47) and (Reference 48) <Section 2.2.4>. Revision 14 2.2-66 October, 2005 TABLE 2.2-9 AIRPORTS AND AIRSTRIPS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PLANT(1) Distance (mi) and Number of Direction from Based Runways Hours Operations (2) Airport Location Station Center Aircraft No. Direction Length(ft) Composition Attended Per Month
1. Woodworth Madison 4.5 ESE 3-5 1 EW 2300 Sod None 4 Airstrip
2. Casement Paines- 6-7 SSW 28 1 NW-SE 3800 Paved Irregular 40-50 Airport ville
3. Concord Paines- 10 SSW 35 1 NNE-SSW 2400 Paved Irregular See Note(3)
Airport ville NOTES: (1) See (Reference 37), (Reference 38), (Reference 39), and (Reference 40) <Section 2.2.4>. (2) See <Figure 2.2-3> and <Figure 2.2-4> for airport locations. (3) No operations records kept. Revision 14 2.2-67 October, 2005 TABLE 2.2-10 CHEMICALS STORED ONSITE(1) Chemicals Quantity Location Sulfuric Acid (93%) 7,000 gal. Water Treating Building Caustic Soda Solution (50%) 7,000 gal. Water Treating Building Sodium Hypochlorite Solution 1,050 gal. Service Water Pumphouse Sodium Hypochlorite Solution 1,500 gal. Water Treating Building (0.8%) Nitrogen 10,600 ft3 Auxiliary Building (one cylinder) Nitrogen 102,646 ft3 Yard Hydrogen 7,387 ft3 Yard (one cylinder) Liquid hydrogen 9,000 gal Yard Liquid oxygen 6,000 gal Yard CO2 4 tons Yard CO2 2-3/4 tons Yard (three tanks) Nitrogen Generator ~ 5 SCFM Chemistry Lab - Control Complex Elev. 599 ~ 5 SCFM Heater Bay - Elev. 620 Aqueous Sodium Hypochlorite/ 3,000 gal. Circulating Water Pump Sodium Bromide Biocide House Dichlorodifluoromethane 2,234 lb P47B001 A/B/C Chiller (R-12) Dichlorodifluoromethane 2,300 lb P50B001 A/B/C Chiller (R-12) Dichlorodifluoromethane 2,997 lb P46B001 A/B Chiller (R-12) Revision 19 2.2-68 October, 2015 TABLE 2.2-10 (Continued) Chemicals Quantity Location Difluoromethane/ 90 lb M52B004 A/B Condensing Pentafluoroethane Unit (50%/50%) (R-410A) Chlorodifluoromethane/ Chloropentafluoroethane 125 lb N64B0113B Chiller (R-205)(R-22-48.8%R-115-51.2%) Chlorodifluoromethane 220 lb M53B0031 A/B Chiller (R-22) NOTE: (1) Not a complete list. Chemicals stored and used on site are evaluated for control room habitability in accordance with site procedures. Revision 17 2.2-69 October, 2011 2.3 METEOROLOGY This section provides a description of the meteorology of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) site and surrounding areas. The Perry site is located in northeast Ohio on the south shore of Lake Erie, approximately midway between Cleveland, Ohio and Erie, Pennsylvania. See the map in <Figure 2.3-1> for the location of PNPP and other meteorological data monitoring sources. 2.3.1 REGIONAL CLIMATOLOGY 2.3.1.1 General Climate The climate in the region of the PNPP site is continental in character, moderated somewhat due to the proximity of Lake Erie. West through northerly surface winds from Lake Erie have a moderating effect on surface temperatures tending to lower daily maximum temperatures in the summer and increase temperatures and cloudiness during the winter. The presence of the lake has little effect on local conditions when winds are from other than these directions (Reference 1). 2.3.1.1.1 Air Mass Types and Synoptic Features Characteristic of the continental interior, the climate of the PNPP region is dominated by a more-or-less steady progression of relatively cold dry arctic air masses from Canada and warm moist maritime air from the Gulf of Mexico. Invasions of arctic air from Canada are more frequent during the winter months, typically occurring on the order of every five to seven days. During the summer months, the region experiences a general southerly flow of warm moist air from the Gulf of Mexico, a situation that can persist for several days as the semipermanent Bermuda High persists off the Atlantic coast (Reference 2). Revision 12 2.3-1 January, 2003 Occasionally, cool and moist Pacific air finds its way into the PNPP region, but this air is greatly modified by its passage over the Rocky Mountains and the plains states to the west of Perry. The general eastward movement of these air masses is associated with migrating high and low pressure systems. Movement of the systems is more rapid and development more intense during the winter months than during the summer (Reference 2). Warm and cold fronts of varying intensities mark the boundaries of these different air masses and generally move according to the circulation and movement of the low pressure centers. 2.3.1.1.2 Airflow Patterns Surface airflow patterns in the PNPP site region show a fairly high degree of variability, reflecting the fairly steady movement of high and low pressure systems through the area. The annual mean wind speed at Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport for the period 1941 to 1976 was 10.8 mph. The prevailing direction was from the south. Winds are strongest on the average during the winter months, nearly 50 percent faster than in July and August (Reference 3). 2.3.1.1.3 Temperature and Humidity Typical of the continental climate of the interior, the PNPP region is moderately warm and humid in the summer and cold and cloudy during the winter. As mentioned earlier, Lake Erie does have an influence on temperatures, tending to moderate the extremes. An important mechanism by which the lake influences lakeshore temperatures is the occurrence of land and lake breeze circulations. Lake breezes (surface wind blowing from lake to land) form when the water temperatures are colder than the land temperatures--during spring and summer on a seasonal scale and late morning to later afternoon on a diurnal scale. Land breezes are the Revision 12 2.3-2 January, 2003 converse of lake breezes and occur when the water is warmer than the land, such as during the fall and winter or during the night in the summer. The lake breeze is generally stronger and occurs more frequently than the land breeze. The lake breeze can lower surface temperatures for several miles inland by advecting lake-cooled air onshore. This phenomenon becomes most pronounced when synoptic scale motions are weak, such as when a large high pressure system is centered in the region. When synoptic scale motions are strong due to larger horizontal pressure gradients, the land/lake breeze circulation is effectively masked, but lake-influenced temperature variations can still occur as a result of the air temperature being modified by its contact with the water and being advected onshore by the large scale winds. At Cleveland-Hopkins Airport, located 5 miles from the lakeshore, maximum temperatures average 2-4F higher than the lakeshore in summer while nighttime low temperatures average 2-4F lower than the lakefront throughout the year (Reference 3). Normal temperatures representative of this region are taken from Cleveland, Ohio, to the west and Erie, Pennsylvania, to the east of the PNPP. Each of these National Weather Service reporting stations is within about five miles of the lakeshore and is approximately 50 miles from the Perry site. Based on the period 1941 to 1970, the normal maximum and minimum temperatures at Cleveland are 33.4F and 20.3F in January and 81.6F and 61.2F in July. Normal maximum and minimum temperatures for Erie are 31.7F and 18.5F for January and 77.4F and 60.0F for July. The annual normal temperature is 47.1F at Erie and 49.7F at Cleveland. The mean number of days per year with maximum temperatures 90F and above is eight for Cleveland and only one for Erie. The mean number of days with minimum temperatures 0F and below is six days for Cleveland and five for Erie (Reference 3) (Reference 4). This and other information is summarized in
for Cleveland and
for Erie taken from the 1977 issue of the Local Climatological Data Annual Summary for each NWS Revision 12 2.3-3 January, 2003 station. For additional comparisons,
shows means and extremes for two other climatological reporting stations: Painesville, Ohio, about seven miles southwest of PNPP and Geneva, Ohio, located ten miles east of the site (Reference 1) (Reference 5). The Painesville station is within about a mile of Lake Erie and Geneva is about five miles from the shoreline. Extreme values of temperature for these four stations are given in
. Relative humidity is generally highest in the early morning hours of the summer months and lowest on early summer and mid-spring afternoons. Mean values are about 80 to 90 percent on summer mornings and 60 to 65 percent on spring and summer afternoons (Reference 3) (Reference 4) (Reference 6). 2.3.1.1.4 Precipitation Precipitation in the PNPP site region is well distributed throughout the year, although significant monthly and yearly variance is common. Normal precipitation totals for the year are about 35.0 inches for Cleveland and 38.2 inches for Erie based on the period 1941 to 1970 (Reference 2) (Reference 3) (Reference 4). The driest months are December and February with a wet season beginning about April and continuing into November along the southeast shore of Lake Erie (Reference 1) (Reference 2) (Reference 4) (Reference 5). See
,
, and
. Most of the precipitation during the growing season comes in the form of showers or thundershowers (Reference 3), whereas lake-influenced squalls and snow flurries are significant sources from November through March (Reference 4).
,
, and
show normal monthly distributions of precipitation at four stations. Regional extremes are summarized in
. Revision 12 2.3-4 January, 2003 Snowfall amounts also vary considerably from year to year and are influenced strongly by regional orographic effects (Reference 7). <Figure 2.3-2> shows the location of the PNPP site in relation to Ohios snow belt. As moisture-laden air from the lake moves inland, it encounters an abrupt change in elevation. A ridge running parallel to the lakeshore at a distance of about 5 miles has an elevation approximately 275 feet above lake level. Within 10 to 12 miles of the shoreline, the land becomes hilly with elevations up to 700 feet above lake level. As the air from the lake is forced to rise, it experiences cooling and the excess moisture falls out in the form of snow. As a consequence of these topographic features, the mean annual snowfall amounts in northeastern Ohio exhibit a very high gradient. At Painesville (600 ft, MSL), the annual mean for the period 1950 to 1965 was 56.8 inches (Reference 1), and at Geneva (860 ft, MSL), the annual mean for the same period was 72.3 inches (Reference 5)
. Just 10 miles south of Painesville is Chardon (1,210 ft, MSL) receiving an average of 106.1 inches of snow annually (Reference 7). The mean number of days with snowfall greater than or equal to 1 inch is 21.43 at Painesville, 26.70 at Geneva and 35.11 at Chardon (Reference 7). Maximum monthly snowfall for regional locations is summarized in
. From these examples, it is evident that there is a very wide range of mean snowfall amounts within 15 miles of the Perry site. It is expected that Painesville would be most representative of the plant site due to greater similarity in elevation and distance from the lakeshore. 2.3.1.1.5 Relationships Between Synoptic and Local Meteorological Conditions The PNPP site is in a region that experiences moderation in temperature extremes due to a lake effect. It borders on a region that experiences greatly enhanced seasonal snowfall amounts due to a combination of lake Revision 12 2.3-5 January, 2003 effect and orographic lifting. Further inland from PNPP, valley areas experience extended periods of atmospheric stagnation (Reference 5). The mechanism of the lake breeze circulation is discussed in some detail in <Section 2.3.2.3.2>. Briefly, the land/lake breeze phenomenon can result in locally modified wind speed and direction in the PNPP site region. This effect becomes more pronounced when the synoptic scale motions are weak. The lake breeze is generally strongest on spring afternoons and when the region is dominated by high pressure. The latter is associated with light to calm surface winds and sunny skies, both of which act to enhance the lake breeze effect. 2.3.1.2 Regional Meteorological Conditions for Design and Operating Bases 2.3.1.2.1 Hurricanes Hurricanes or low pressure systems with a tropical origin seldom affect northeast Ohio since this area is far inland and these storms lose force rapidly when cut off from their source of moisture. A notable exception of recent record was the remnants of hurricane Agnes, which brought heavy rains and high winds to the Atlantic coastal states from Florida to New York from June 18 to 25, 1972. Heaviest hit by Agnes was Pennsylvania, with damage estimates ranging from $1.2 billion (Reference 2) to $2.1 billion (Reference 8), mostly from devastating floods. Damage estimates for Ohio ranged from just over $2 million (Reference 8) to $4 million (Reference 9), mostly along the southern shore of Lake Erie as strong northeasterly winds caused waves over 15 feet high and the lake level rose 3.5 feet (Reference 10). Rains in the PNPP region occurred on June 21 to 25 with approximately 4.8 inches falling in Cleveland during this period (Reference 10) and approximately 2.3 inches falling at the Perry site. Heaviest rains occurred on June 23. The average wind speed recorded at the Perry site for the Revision 12 2.3-6 January, 2003 three-day period, June 22 to 24, was 16.3 mph at the 35-foot level and 23.3 mph at the 200-foot level. Maximum hourly wind speeds (15-minute average) recorded at the Perry site were 28.0 mph at 35-foot level and 39.5 mph at the 200-foot level, both on June 23. Investigation of hurricane data from 1871 through 1975 indicates that 10 hurricanes or remnants of hurricanes passed through Ohio or western Pennsylvania. Of these, one was still in the hurricane stage (winds >74 mph) and occurred in 1896. Of the remaining nine, six were in the extratropical storm stage and three were in the dissipation stage as they passed through Ohio (Reference 8) (Reference 11). 2.3.1.2.2 Tornadoes and Waterspouts In the period of January 1950, through December 1977, a total of 48 tornadoes were reported within a 50-nautical mile (58 miles) radius of the Perry site (Reference 12). This averages out to 1.71 tornadoes per year within this radius. The statistical probability of a tornado striking a point within a given area may be conservatively estimated as follows: (Reference 13) Ps n a/A (2.3-1) where Ps = tornado strike probability per year n = average number of tornadoes per year a = mean individual tornado path area A = total area in which the tornado frequency has been determined. From data obtained from the National Severe Storms Forecast Center (NSSFC) in Kansas City, Missouri, the mean path area of Revision 12 2.3-7 January, 2003 individual tornadoes was obtained from 28 of the 48 cases between 1950 and 1977 for which both path length and path width data were available. It was found that a = 0.695 nautical square miles (0.921 square miles). Since waterspouts over Lake Erie and the Canadian portion of the 50 nautical miles (58 square miles) area were excluded from the compilation, the land area was estimated at A = 3,820 nautical square miles (5,066 square miles), a little less than half of the circular area. Equation (2.3-1) then yields a probability of 3.11 x 10-4 yr-1 or a recurrence interval of 3,216 years (Reference 12). See <Section 3.5.1.4.2.1> for the annual probability of tornado strike used in the TORMIS analysis. The representativeness of the recurrence interval has been confirmed with a new study and method described in (Reference 13). This method used a new data base (1954 to 1983) and yielded strike probabilities for one-degree square boxes across the United States. The recurrence interval for the box including Perry was 6,061 years, which is within a factor of two and less frequent than the values already calculated for Perry. In the PNPP region, tornadoes can occur during any month of the year and any hour of the day, but most tornadoes occur during the spring and summer months (approximately 85 percent in April to September) and from afternoon to early evening hours (approximately 70 percent between 2:00 and 10:00 PM) (Reference 12). The tornado reported closest to the Perry site occurred on July 4, 1969, approximately five nautical miles (six miles) west of the plant. It had a reported path length of six nautical miles (seven miles) and a reported path width of 300 feet (Reference 12). This tornado moved toward the east-southeast. The only other tornado reported during this period within 10 nautical miles (12 miles) of PNPP occurred on April 19, 1963. This tornado touched down six nautical miles (seven miles) east of Perry, but no path length or width information was available for this Revision 12 2.3-8 January, 2003 tornado (Reference 12). Each of these tornadoes was assigned a Fujita F-scale classification of F-2 indicating maximum 1/4-mile wind speeds in the range 113 to 157 mph (Reference 12) (Reference 14). The former caused 40 injuries and no deaths, and the latter resulted in no reported injuries or deaths (Reference 12). The most devastating tornado to hit within 50 nautical miles (58 miles) of Perry during the 1950 to 1977 period occurred on June 8, 1953. This tornado touched down 46 nautical miles (53 miles) southwest of Perry and followed a 13 nautical mile (15 miles) path to the northeast into Cleveland, causing six deaths and 300 injuries (Reference 12). This was the sixth touchdown segment of a single tornado and was classified as F-4 on the Fujita scale indicating fastest 1/4-mile wind speeds in the range of 207 to 260 mph (Reference 12) (Reference 15). <Regulatory Guide 1.76> has designated three tornado intensity regions in the continental United States and has promulgated a design-basis tornado (DBT) for each region based on WASH-1300 (Reference 13). The PNPP site is located in Region I, a large area covering the entire country east of the Rocky Mountain range (Reference 16). Within this region there is large variation in observed tornado frequencies and intensities. The Perry Plant is on the eastern edge of the regional maxima, which occur in the southern plains to the midwest. The DBT characteristics for Region I applying to PNPP are listed in
. The NSSFC tornado occurrence data for the PNPP area suggest that the Region I DBT characteristics are conservative. For the period of January 1951, through May 1978, there were nine waterspout sightings reported within 43 nautical miles (50 miles) of the site (Reference 8) (Reference 16). At Fairport, Ohio, during an August 11, 1971, sighting and at Cleveland on a September 7, 1973, sighting numerous waterspouts were reported. Waterspouts can be formed in two ways, either by building downward from heavy clouds, a tornado over water or by building upward from the water Revision 12 2.3-9 January, 2003 surface, the equivalent of a dust devil over water. The latter of these two, known as a common waterspout, is much less intense than a tornado, as the energy available for its formation and maintenance is small. Tornadic waterspouts spawned from clouds are much more intense and can have tornadic intensities, although on the average they are weaker than tornadoes (Reference 9). There are no pertinent data available concerning the intensity of Lake Erie waterspouts. However, these waterspouts could have tornadic strength if associated with a severe thunderstorm (most commonly accompanying a cold front or squall line). For the reported waterspouts in the Perry site area, there are no damage reports nor are there any reports of waterspouts coming onshore (Reference 8) (Reference 16). Since the waterspout intensity will not exceed the design-basis tornado, there will not be catastrophic damage to safety class surface structures. The water surface below the waterspout can be raised or lowered dependent on which force has the greatest effect, the atmospheric pressure reduction or the wind force. The waterspout does not lift a significant amount of water (i.e., the depth of penetration is relatively small) (Reference 9). Therefore, waterspouts will not have a significant effect on the plants intake structure, which is located a minimum of 12 feet below the mean low water datum. 2.3.1.2.3 Extreme Winds The extreme mile wind speed is defined as the one-mile passage of wind with the fastest speed and includes all meteorological phenomena except tornadoes. Annual fastest mile wind data at Cleveland for the 30-year period from 1948 to 1977 (Reference 3) were used to determine predicted extreme wind speeds for the PNPP site for recurrence intervals of 50 and Revision 12 2.3-10 January, 2003 100 years. Values were calculated using the following equation based on the method of Brooks and Carruthers: (Reference 17) Un U Uk U log10n (2.3-2) log10K where Un = extreme mile wind speed (mph) n = recurrence interval in years U = mean maximum wind speed (based on maximum each year) during the period of record (mph) Uk = the maximum wind speed reported during the period of record (mph) K = length of data record in years The wind data was first adjusted to a standard level of 30 feet using the 1/7 power law to describe the vertical wind profile. The values for the 50- and 100-year recurrence maximum wind speeds for the Perry region are 70 mph and 74 mph, respectively. These values are consistent with those published in recent studies by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Reference 18) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Reference 19). Based on a gustiness factor of 1.3 after Huss (Reference 20), the highest instantaneous gust expected once in 100 years is 96 mph. The fastest mile wind recorded at Cleveland after adjustment to 30-foot equivalent was 68 mph from the west in March 1948 (Reference 3), based on the 1942 to 1977 period of record. Based on the 1958 to 1977 period of record, the fastest mile wind recorded at Erie was 55 mph from the southeast in March 1960 (Reference 4). On January 26, 1978, both Cleveland and Erie reported all-time record low sea-level pressures as a severe blizzard paralyzed much of the midwest (Reference 3) (Reference 4). On that day, each station recorded fastest mile wind Revision 12 2.3-11 January, 2003 speeds of 53 mph, this being within 2 mph of the record at Erie (Reference 3) (Reference 4). The NWS station at Cleveland reported a peak wind gust of 82 mph, measured at 20 ft (Reference 21), while gusts in excess of 100 mph were reported in other areas of the state (Reference 16). A peak gust of 102 mph was reported over the lake at a height of 60 to 70 ft near Cleveland (Reference 21), but gusts at 30 feet over land were lower due to frictional drag effects. The maximum hourly wind speed (15-minute average) recorded at Perry on January 26 was 36 mph at 10 meters and 47 mph at 60 meters, compared to a maximum hourly wind for Cleveland (6-meter anemometer height) of 46 mph. These observations are consistent with the expected extreme winds presented above. A possible Venturi effect between the natural draft cooling towers at the PNPP, potentially yielding a subsequent increase in wind speeds and consequently increasing the wind load on plant structures, was analyzed and discussed in <Section 2.3.2.2>. An evaluation of the effects of these winds relative to building design is presented in <Section 3.3>. 2.3.1.2.4 Thunderstorms and Lightning Thunderstorms can occur at any time of the year but are more frequent in summer than any other season. The mean annual number of days with thunderstorms is 36 for Cleveland, Ohio, and 38 for Erie, Pennsylvania, based on a 36-year and 22-year period of record respectively (Reference 3) (Reference 4). The monthly distribution of mean number of days is shown in
for Cleveland and
for Erie. Revision 12 2.3-12 January, 2003 Estimates of seasonal and annual frequencies of cloud-to-ground lightning are calculated by using the following equation, based on the technique described by Golde: (Reference 22) NE 0.1 0.35 sin 0.40 0.20 (2.3-3) where NE = number of flashes to earth per square kilometer per thunderstorm day = geographical latitude (for Perry, Ohio, = 41 45). For the PNPP site region, NE = 0.20 flashes per square kilometer per thunderstorm day. By multiplying the number of thunderstorms per month in
,
, and
by this value of NE, one could obtain monthly and seasonal frequencies for cloud-to-ground lightning. For Cleveland, the maximum occurs in June and July indicating 1.4 flashes per square kilometer for each month based on this method. A structure with the approximate dimensions of the PNPP containment buildings (approximately 0.03 square kilometers) will average approximately one strike every five years. 2.3.1.2.5 Frozen Precipitation
lists extremes of precipitation and other meteorological parameters for Cleveland, Erie, Painesville, and Geneva. The maximum monthly snowfall measured in the region was 71.0 inches at Geneva in December 1962 (Reference 5). The maximum 24-hour snowfall observed was 26.5 inches, which occurred at Erie in December 1944 (Reference 23) The maximum postulated snowload was determined to be the sum of the weights of the 100-year recurrence maximum snow pack plus the probable maximum winter precipitation (PMWP) (Reference 24). The 100-year recurrence maximum snow pack for the PNPP region is 20 psf Revision 12 2.3-13 January, 2003 (Reference 25). The PMWP is taken to be the probable maximum 48-hour precipitation during the winter months of December, January and February in the PNPP region. This is based on the assumption that conditions could exist during these months for all of the PMWP to remain on the ground as a live load either as additional snowfall or as liquid precipitation absorbed by the snowpack. For the Perry region, the PMWP is 12 inches (Reference 26), which corresponds to 62.4 psf at 5.2 psf per inch of precipitable water. These calculations yield a conservative design basis snowload value (ground-level equivalent) for Category I structures of 82.4 psf. Hail can occasionally occur at the Perry site (associated with well-developed thunderstorms) and at times may be intense. A review of data for the 16-year period, 1962 to 1977, indicates that there were 20 reported cases of hail in Lake County (where the Perry site is located) and in the immediately surrounding counties of Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, and Trumbull (Reference 16). Nine of the cases occurred in the Cleveland area. Of the reported cases, the largest hailstones reported were of tennis ball size in the Hirmal-Garretsville area approximately 35 miles south of the Perry site. Of the 20 reported cases of hail, eleven recorded hailstones >3/4 inches in diameter (seven cases did not report any hailstone size). Usually during a hailstorm, there is a spectrum of hailstone sizes and there is a tendency to report the largest sizes. The average number of hail days per year in northeast Ohio is approximately two at any one site (Reference 27). An examination of the 16-year period, 1962 to 1977, indicates that there were nine documented cases of ice storms in Lake County and the immediately surrounding counties (Reference 16). Two of these storms affected the entire state of Ohio while the rest were widespread over northern and northeastern Ohio. All cases were associated with a number of traffic accidents, downed power lines and downed tree limbs. Revision 12 2.3-14 January, 2003 2.3.1.2.6 High Air Pollution Potential Hosler (Reference 28) estimates the frequency of occurrence of low-level inversions or isothermal layers based at or below a 500-foot elevation in the site region to be 20 percent of the total hours on an annual basis. Seasonally, the greatest frequency of inversions, based on percent of total hours, occurs during the fall and is 28 percent. Winter has the lowest inversion frequency, occurring only 18 percent of the time. The majority of these inversions are nocturnal in nature. The mean maximum mixing depth (MMMD) is a restriction to atmospheric dilution. The mixing depth is the thickness of the atmospheric layer, measured from the surface upward, in which convective overturning is taking place caused by the daytime heating of the surface. The mixing depth is usually its shallowest in the early morning hours just after sunrise when the nocturnal inversion is being modified by solar heating at the surface. It is at its greatest depth during the latter part of the day, at 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM, when the maximum surface temperature of the day is reached. The approximate annual afternoon MMMD for the site region according to Holzworth (Reference 29) is 4,000 feet. Approximate seasonal afternoon MMMD values are 2,800 feet (winter), 4,900 feet (spring), 5,200 feet (summer), and 3,900 feet (fall) (Reference 29). Periods of high air pollution potential are usually related to stagnating anticyclones with low average wind speeds, no precipitation and a shallow mixing depth (Reference 30). The greatest air pollution potential in the site region is during the fall and winter seasons, when the tendency is greatest for a quasi-stationary anticyclone to develop. According to Korshover (Reference 31), 24 anticyclone stagnation cases of 4 days or more were reported in the site region during the period of 1936 to 1965. This compares with a maximum of over 80 cases reported in northern Georgia during the same period, with the distribution suggesting a strong influence of the Bermuda High on the eastern United States (Reference 31). Revision 12 2.3-15 January, 2003 2.3.1.2.7 Droughts When evaporation greatly exceeds precipitation for prolonged periods, a drought may occur. Between 1929 and 1967, periods of moderate to extreme drought based on the Palmer Drought Severity Index have affected northeast Ohio during the 1930 to 1936, 1953, 1954, 1962, and 1963 growing seasons. The longest continuous period of moderate to extreme drought in the area was 32 months (July 1930, to February 1933) (Reference 1). 2.3.1.2.8 Heavy Fog The mean annual number of days with heavy fog (visibility 1/4 mile or less) that can be expected in the region is 13 based on 36 years of data at Cleveland (Reference 3). Highest frequency of heavy fog at Cleveland is for the months of January through March. Erie, Pennsylvania, averages 14 days of heavy fog per year with maximum frequency for the months of March through May (Reference 4)
and
. 2.3.1.2.9 Ultimate Heat Sink The ultimate heat sink for the Perry plant is Lake Erie, which is considered an infinite heat sink. There is an extremely low probability of losing the capability of the single source. No meteorological data have been considered in the design of the heat sink. The design basis temperatures of safety-related equipment are based on the maximum historical lake water temperatures. Revision 12 2.3-16 January, 2003 2.3.2 LOCAL METEOROLOGY 2.3.2.1 Normal and Extreme Values of Meteorological Parameters <Figure 2.3-1> indicates the location of the PNPP site and other meteorological data monitoring sources. Offsite data reported in this section were derived from surface observations supplied by the National Climatic Center on magnetic tape (Reference 32) (Reference 33), in addition to the Local Climatological Data (Reference 3) (Reference 4) and Climatological Summaries (Reference 1) (Reference 5). A variety of data periods were used dependent upon the availability of data and the application. In general, a three-year period of onsite and offsite data (May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1978) were used to study concurrent relationships. A seven site year data set (May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1982) was used to represent long term conditions onsite at Perry. Various five or ten-year periods and longer were used to represent long term conditions offsite (Reference 54). 2.3.2.1.1 Wind Direction and Speed Monthly and annual wind roses for the 10-meter and 60-meter levels are presented in <Figure 2.3-3>, <Figure 2.3-4>, <Figure 2.3-5>, and <Figure 2.3-6> for the seven PNPP site years (May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1982). The prevailing winds at both levels usually blow from the southeast through northwest directions. In general, higher speeds are associated with winds from the southwest through northwest directions. As shown in <Figure 2.3-6>, the annual wind roses for the individual and combined years exhibit the tendency for prevailing wind to occur in the south through west sector. The wind roses for Cleveland and Erie Revision 12 2.3-17 January, 2003 <Figure 2.3-7> exhibit similar patterns for the three concurrent years (May 1, 1972, through April 30, 1974; September 2, 1977, through August 31, 1978). In comparison to the seven site years, the ten-year wind roses (September 1, 1968, through August 31, 1978) for these two stations are not very different. Therefore, it is concluded that for the PNPP, seven site years are representative of the long term. Monthly and annual average wind speeds are presented in
and
for both onsite and offsite comparative data. The average wind speed at the 10-meter level for PNPP was 8.2 mi/hr for the three concurrent years and 8.4 for the seven site years. The 60-meter level wind speeds were higher as expected. The Erie and Cleveland long term averages were generally in good agreement with the seven site year averages. Therefore, the PNPP wind speeds for the seven site years are representative of the long term. The frequency of calm winds is reported in the wind rose <Figure 2.3-6> and <Figure 2.3-7>. Both the three concurrent years and the seven site year composites for PNPP indicated 0.4 percent and 0.1 percent calms at 10 meters and 60 meters, respectively. For the same three-year period, Cleveland and Erie reported a higher frequency of calms than for the ten-year period. The difference in frequency of calms between PNPP and Erie and Cleveland is attributed primarily to differences in speed sensor thresholds and exposure. Wind direction persistence is defined as the number of hours of continuous air flow within a 22-1/2-degree sector. For computational purposes, calms were considered a direction category, too. The probability of occurrence of wind flow persistence for various durations is presented in <Figure 2.3-8> for PNPP, Erie and Cleveland. Based on the seven site years at PNPP, there is only a 5 percent probability that the persistence will be greater than about eight hours at 10 meters and about nine hours at 60 meters. As depicted in <Figure 2.3-8>, the probabilities for PNPP, Erie and Cleveland are similar. Revision 12 2.3-18 January, 2003 Maximum wind direction persistence occurrences by direction are presented in <Figure 2.3-9>. Persistence periods at PNPP are fairly well distributed across the direction sectors, being somewhat more frequent for winds from the southwest quadrant. The maximum wind direction persistence event at the 10-meter level for PNPP during the period of record was 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> for a wind from the southeast. The maximum 60-meter wind persistence event was 42 hours4.861111e-4 days <br />0.0117 hours <br />6.944444e-5 weeks <br />1.5981e-5 months <br /> for a wind from the southwest. The maximum event for Erie during the February 1959, to January 1964, period was 41 hours4.74537e-4 days <br />0.0114 hours <br />6.779101e-5 weeks <br />1.56005e-5 months <br /> from the northeast, and the maximum event for Cleveland during the same period was 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> from the south. Persistence of calms at the 10-meter level at PNPP have been limited to five hours or less in duration for the seven site years. <Appendix 2A>, <Appendix 2B>, and <Appendix 2C> include additional information in the form of joint frequency distributions by atmospheric stability. Offsite data are presented in <Appendix 2A>, while <Appendix 2B> and <Appendix 2C> include onsite data for 10-meter and 60-meter winds, respectively. 2.3.2.1.2 Ambient Temperature Monthly and annual means and extremes of temperature are presented in
for PNPP, Erie and Cleveland for the three concurrent years (May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1978). The monthly PNPP temperatures agree well with the concurrent offsite values.
presents long term annual means and extremes of temperature for PNPP and area stations. The similarity of the long term means to the seven site year means indicates that the seven site years are representative of the long term. The highest mean monthly maximum temperature at PNPP occurred in July and August (76F for the three concurrent years). The lowest mean monthly minimum temperature at PNPP occurred in February (16F for the Revision 12 2.3-19 January, 2003 three concurrent years). This three-year mean monthly minimum may be somewhat lower than the long terms since February 1978, was one of the coldest Februarys on record for much of the eastern United States (Reference 34), averaging about 11F below normal in the site region (Reference 3) (Reference 4) (Reference 34). The diurnal pattern of temperature at PNPP for the seven site years is described in
on an annual average basis. It indicates that the warmest part of the day usually occurs between 2:00 PM and 5:00 PM, EST.; the coolest at about 6:00 AM, EST. The highest hourly 10-meter temperature recorded at PNPP during the period was 92F and the lowest, -14F
. 2.3.2.1.3 Atmospheric Water Vapor Monthly and annual means of humidity and dewpoint for PNPP, Erie and Cleveland are presented in
for the three concurrent years (May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1978). The PNPP data are similar to those of the offsite locations.
describes the long term monthly means and extremes of humidity and dewpoint for Erie and Cleveland based on a ten-year data period and for PNPP for the seven site years. The long term annual means for Erie and Cleveland are similar to the PNPP seven site year values. Therefore, the seven site years are considered representative of the long term. The annual average diurnal variation of humidity and dewpoint at PNPP is presented in
. It indicates that the highest relative humidities occurred between 5:00 AM and 7:00 AM, EST, during the cool part of the day, and that the highest absolute humidities occurred generally during the warm part of the day. Note that the period of Revision 12 2.3-20 January, 2003 record for the 60-meter dewpoint is limited to the three concurrent years. More information concerning the 10-meter and 60-meter dewpoint is contained in (Reference 35). 2.3.2.1.4 Precipitation Monthly and annual greatest precipitation by time interval are presented in
for PNPP for the seven site years (May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1982). It indicates that for the seven site years, the greatest 1-hour precipitation was 1.00 inch and occurred in both July and August. The greatest 24-hour precipitation was 2.44 inches and occurred in September.
contains the percent frequency occurrence of precipitation by amount for any 1-, 6-, 12-, 18-, or 24-hour period during the seven site years. The table indicates that 35.41 percent of the time precipitation of at least 0.01 inch fell during any 24-hour period. In
, the greatest 24-hour precipitation for PNPP is compared to the offsite locations of Erie, Cleveland, Painesville, and Geneva. The PNPP values are closest to Painesville, most likely because of proximity and the similar position relative to the lake. In
, the monthly and annual average total precipitation for the three concurrent years and the same sites are compared. The PNPP totals are generally less than the offsite locations. This can be attributed to lower data recovery for PNPP, differences in collection gauges, catch efficiency, and local terrain effects. The long term total precipitation values are presented in
. The agreement of the long term totals with the seven site year totals indicates that the seven site years are representative of the long term. Revision 12 2.3-21 January, 2003 Monthly and annual precipitation wind roses are presented in <Figure 2.3-10>, <Figure 2.3-11>, <Figure 2.3-12>, and <Figure 2.3-13> for the seven site years combined. These show the average speed by direction of winds during precipitation events and the percentage of total hours that precipitation occurs with each wind direction. Seasonal variations are apparent. On an annual basis, precipitation frequences are fairly evenly distributed for winds from the northeast through south to west, and are less frequent for winds out of the west-northwest through north-northeast. Snowfall is not directly measured onsite: All PNPP precipitation values described so far in this section were for melted precipitation since the rain gauge is equipped with a heater. Snowfall in the region is discussed in <Section 2.3.1.1.4> and <Section 2.3.1.2.5>. 2.3.2.1.5 Fog The PNPP site is located in a region in which heavy fog occurs about 13 days per year. Additional discussion may be found in <Section 2.3.1.2.8>. 2.3.2.1.6 Atmospheric Stability Monthly and annual stability class distribution based on T (60-10 meters) are presented in
for the seven site years (May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1982).
presents annual stability class distribution based on National Weather Service data with an applied Pasquill-Turner (Reference 36) classification method for Erie and Cleveland, as well as the PNPP distributions based on T. The differences shown in
between the seven site year PNPP period and the ten-year National Weather Service periods can be attributed to the differences in Revision 12 2.3-22 January, 2003 methodology for stability classifications. However, the distributions are similar, indicating that the seven site years are representative of the long term. The onsite PNPP data in
indicates that very unstable (A) conditions are most frequent during the summer months of maximum solar heating. Neutral (D) and slightly stable (E) conditions predominate throughout the year. The annual average stability distributions by hour of the day for the seven site years
demonstrate that stable conditions are commonly associated with the nighttime and unstable conditions with the daytime.
presents for each stability class the number of occurrences of stability class persistence for a given time period for the seven site years. The longest persistence during the seven site years occurred for D conditions for 148 hours0.00171 days <br />0.0411 hours <br />2.44709e-4 weeks <br />5.6314e-5 months <br />. The longest persistence period for stable (E, F and G) conditions was 54 hours6.25e-4 days <br />0.015 hours <br />8.928571e-5 weeks <br />2.0547e-5 months <br />. <Appendix 2A>, <Appendix 2B>, and <Appendix 2C> include additional stability distribution information in the form of joint frequency distributions. Offsite data are presented in <Appendix 2A>, while <Appendix 2B> and <Appendix 2C> include onsite data for 10-meter and 60-meter winds, respectively. 2.3.2.1.7 Station Pressure Measurement of station pressure at PNPP began on September 1, 1977. The annual average PNPP station pressure is 29.35 inches Hg, and has ranged from 28.00 inches Hg to 30.33 inches Hg. The historical onsite record covers the five-year period from September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1982. The average station pressure for Cleveland for the long term period (1973 to 1983) was 29.18 inches Hg (Reference 3). Differences in average pressure between PNPP and Cleveland are accounted for primarily Revision 12 2.3-23 January, 2003 by the difference in station elevation between the two sites, 645 feet above mean sea level (MSL) at PNPP and 805 feet above MSL at Cleveland. 2.3.2.2 Potential Influence of the Plant and the Facilities on Local Meteorology 2.3.2.2.1 Influence of Plant Physical Structures on Airflow and Dispersion The physical structure of the station, especially the large natural draft cooling towers, are expected to locally increase atmospheric turbulence. This mechanical turbulence will enhance slightly the dispersion capability of the atmosphere downwind of the plant. Analysis (Reference 37) has shown that a cooling tower has a turbulent wake extending two or three tower diameters downwind for winds greater than 5 to 8 mph. The depth of the wake would be at least 1.5 times the tower height. The leveling of terrain, removal of associated vegetation and replacement with plant structures will have altered the surface thermal characteristics. This may result in the formation of a localized heat island over the plant, which raises slightly the air temperature in relation to the surroundings. This effect at night will tend to locally make the atmosphere less stable so that dispersion is somewhat enhanced. These effects, however, are expected to be minimal. It can be postulated that the presence of the cooling tower structures may interact with the wind flow under some conditions such that the wind velocity between and just downwind of the towers is enhanced. To establish an upper bound to the velocity increase, a simplistic model was analyzed. In this model, each tower was represented by a trapezoid, as shown in <Figure 2.3-14>. Each tower was 450 feet high with a width that varied from 475 feet at the base to 275 feet at the exit nozzle. The base separation was 275 feet. It was assumed further that the wind Revision 12 2.3-24 January, 2003 flow was perpendicular to the plane of the towers and that the flow impinging on the towers was diverted, with no loss of energy or momentum around and over the towers. Half of the flow diverted by the towers was merged with the air flowing between the towers and with the air flowing over and within 100 feet of the towers. A ratio of the flow area approaching the towers (412,500 square feet) to the flow area passing the towers (243,750 square feet) indicates a limiting velocity increase of less than 70 percent over the approach velocity. Thus, for example, for an approach velocity of 90 mph, the maximum corresponding velocity between and downwind of the towers would be less than 153 mph. This analysis has assumed conservation of mass flow and a constant approach velocity. All the air approaching the cross-hatched area of the towers <Figure 2.3-14> is assumed to flow between and over the towers without loss of energy or change of direction. In reality, the velocity of the wind approaching the tower is expected to vary in proportion to the 1/7 power of the height above ground. Thus, the mass flow will be greater at higher elevations (i.e., near the top of the tower). Since most of the air mass diverted by the towers is near the ground and thus of lower velocity, the assumption of uniform velocity of the air mass over-estimates the mass of air diverted and the associated wind velocity between the towers. Recognizing, however, that wind speed tends to increase with height above ground, we may conservatively apply the 1/7 power law to the wind Revision 12 2.3-25 January, 2003 flowing between the towers. For a 90-mph approach velocity at 10 meters above the ground, the corresponding velocities between the towers would be: 33 ft (10 meters) 153 mph 50 ft 162 mph 100 ft 179 mph 150 ft 190 mph 200 ft (60 meters) 198 mph An evaluation of the effects of these winds relative to building design is presented in <Section 3.3>. 2.3.2.2.2 Influence of Cooling Tower Operation Based upon operating experience, natural draft cooling towers produce insignificant impacts on the atmosphere near ground level. The major potential impact due to the operation of natural draft cooling towers is the occurrence of elevated visible plumes. Due to the high release point from natural draft towers, the plume has never been observed to reach the ground. Spurr (Reference 38), in his paper, states that . . . experience suggests that in the U.K. the impact of these towers on local climate is too small to be of any consequence, at least up to the present. He also concluded that . . . the impact of their operation has been found to have a negligible effect on the local climate. Smith and Singer meteorologists (Reference 39) conducted airborne measurements of natural draft cooling tower plume behavior at three American Electric Power Generating Stations (Amos, Muskingum River and Mitchell). It has been observed from their measurements that the visible plumes never reached the ground in any test and low level fog has not been created; also, aerodynamic downwash was not a problem. From the same four-year (1973 through 1976) set of airborne measurements, Kramer et al. (Reference 40) observed and reported tower-induced snow during the winter of 1975 to 1976. Data from the Revision 12 2.3-26 January, 2003 1973 to 1975 tests indicated no ground level precipitation or fog induced by the cooling towers. They analyzed the data and concluded that in one case the snow first reached the ground at 13 km downwind of the towers and continued to 43 km. The maximum snow accumulation was estimated to be 2.5 cm. They indicated that the key atmospheric conditions for tower-induced snow are temperatures below 15F and stable conditions. They often observed natural snow occurring before, during or after the observations of tower-induced snow, which reveals that the snow from the cooling towers coincides with that of natural snowfall. They concluded that with power plants in the size range and area studied, the effects seem likely to be minor. Occasional very small additions to natural snow and slight restrictions of visibility are all that one would anticipate. Coleman and Crawford (Reference 41) characterized the observations of visible plume heights and lengths from natural draft cooling towers and of several meteorological parameters at the TVA Paradise Steam Plant. Their data show that the visible plumes are 200 meters above tower top, and do not increase the frequency of local ground level fog or influence local meteorology. Due to the high release of the effluent from the natural draft cooling towers, the ground level concentrations of cooling tower drift are expected to be very low. This conclusion is substantiated by observational data collected around the operating natural draft cooling tower at the Chalk Point site (Reference 42). Particulate matter deposition data were collected before and after the plant commenced operation. Based upon the collected dustfall sodium data, it was concluded that . . . there appears to be little contribution of cooling tower salts to the area. It should be noted that the cooling water in the Chalk Point cooling tower is brackish, with a mean dissolved solids concentration of 7,800 ppm. By contrast, the dissolved solids concentration in the PNPP cooling tower is approximately 535 ppm. Revision 12 2.3-27 January, 2003 Based on the above observational studies, it is concluded that natural draft cooling towers at PNPP would not significantly influence the local climate in the vicinity of the site. Generally, asbestos-cement is used in tower construction for outer walls, piping air-inlet louvers, splash boards, and as fill. Asbestos-cement is selected because of its resistance to chemical leaching and erosion. Research-Cottrell, a supplier of cooling towers using asbestos-cement exclusively as fill material, performed tests on natural draft towers similar to those proposed at PNPP and found that the concentration buildup of asbestos in the circulating water was insignificant. The release of asbestos from the operation of cooling towers at the Perry site is expected to be negligible; therefore, no adverse effects are anticipated. B. Lewis (Reference 43) made an exhaustive study on Asbestos in Cooling Tower Waters, and concluded that the asbestos concentrations in effluents from cooling towers using asbestos fill ranged from none detected to 108 fibers/liter; the literature study did not support conclusively the relationship between human cancers and the presence of asbestos fibers in food, beverages or drinking water. Lewis suggested that the use of asbestos-fill cooling towers be continued, since no evidence of adverse health effects were confirmed. 2.3.2.3 Topographic Description 2.3.2.3.1 General Description The terrain in the region of the Perry site is gently rolling except for the 20-foot to 50-foot bluff at the lake shoreline. Since the meteorological tower has been 3,700 feet or more inland from the lake, the effects of the bluff on site meteorology are not considered significant. <Figure 2.3-15> illustrates the PNPP site. The exclusion boundary is described by a 2,900-foot radius circle centered on Unit 1 Revision 12 2.3-28 January, 2003 and Unit 2 reactors and the low population zone by a distance of 2.5 miles. A plot of maximum terrain elevation between the plant and a given downwind distance out to five miles is presented in <Figure 2.3-16> for each of 16 direction sectors. <Figure 2.3-17> is a topographic map of the site area within a 5-mile radius and <Figure 2.3-1> is the topographic map of the site area within a 50-mile radius. 2.3.2.3.2 Topographic Influence on Meteorology and Diffusion Estimates The major local effect on site meteorology is the presence of Lake Erie and the resultant occurrences of lake and land breeze circulations. The fact that water has a higher thermal capacity than the land mass, and therefore responds more slowly to changes in radiation intensity, implies that temperature/density gradients between the water and land will occur with diurnal and seasonal periods. Turbulent mixing within the lake, effecting a downward transport of surface heat through large masses of water, also contributes to the land-lake temperature variation. Lake breezes (surface wind blowing from lake to land) form when the water temperatures are colder than the land temperatures, i.e., during spring and summer on a seasonal scale and late morning to late afternoon on a diurnal scale. The air over the land will be more bouyant than the lake air, and as it rises, a horizontal density gradient will form causing the colder air over the water to flow underneath the warmer air. Land breezes are the converse of lake breezes and occur when the water is warmer than the land, such as during the fall and winter or during the night in the summer. The lake breeze is generally stronger and occurs more frequently than the land breeze because the bouyancy of the warmer air is the driving mechanism, and this is accomplished more effectively by heating the land mass relative to the water, as in summer, than vice versa. This phenomenon becomes most pronounced when synoptic scale motions are weak, such as when a large high pressure system is centered in the region. When synoptic Revision 12 2.3-29 January, 2003 scale motions are strong due to larger horizontal pressure gradients, the land/lake breeze circulation is effectively masked. A more detailed discussion of the Perry lake breeze phenomenon is discussed in Section 20 of (Reference 44). During onshore wind flows, such as a lake breeze, cool air flowing off the lake is modified by thermal (surface heating) and by surface roughness effects as the air flows over the land. The air from the lake is modified significantly as it flows over the land, especially during the spring and early summer. The air is heated from below resulting in an unstable vertical temperature gradient and hence enhanced diffusion conditions. Surface roughness effects over the land increase atmospheric turbulence (also resulting in enhanced diffusion conditions), although low-level wind speeds will decrease. The thermal and roughness effects occur at the shoreline and form a boundary layer, which increases in depth with distance inland. Within this boundary layer, the air is unstable with more stable air (suppressed diffusion) above the boundary layer (Reference 45). Offshore wind flows generally result in somewhat suppressed diffusion conditions. The warm air advected from over the land is cooled from below, resulting in a stable vertical temperature gradient (inversion) and less diffusion for the overwater flow than for an overland flow. There is also a decrease in wind turbulence, although wind speeds will increase as the air flows from the relatively rough land surface over the smooth water surface (Reference 45). In addition to lake-land breeze effects near a shoreline, there are also downwash and upwash effects. The primary cause for a downwash or upwash condition is the difference in surface roughness between the land and the lake (Reference 46). The upwash situation occurs with the winds blowing off the lake. The air flows from the relatively frictionless lake surface over the rough land and a reduction in low-level wind speed occurs. This reduction in wind speed enhances plume rise to the extent Revision 12 2.3-30 January, 2003 that the plume can more easily escape the dynamic downwash effects of the plant structure. Downwash effects occur primarily with an offshore wind. The increase in wind speed of low-level winds, coming off the relatively rough land over the smooth lake, enhances plume downwash toward the lake surface. 2.3.3 ONSITE METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENT PROGRAM <Section 2.3.3.1>, <Section 2.3.3.2>, and <Section 2.3.3.3> pertain to the preoperational program that was in place for measurements made for the <Section 2.3> analyses. <Section 2.3.3.4> pertains to the current operational program. 2.3.3.1 System Description The onsite meteorological program at the Perry site began in April 1972. The 60-meter tower was upgraded and moved 3,500 feet to a new location in August 1977 <Figure 2.3-15>. The tower was moved in 1977 in order to minimize any potential effect of the PNPP cooling towers under construction at the time. The old location of the tower was approximately 3,700 feet south of the Lake Erie shoreline. The new location is approximately 6,000 feet inland and 4,300 feet away from the hyperbolic cooling towers. The terrain in both locations is flat with grasses, small shrubs and small trees. The terrain is similar in the site region. Therefore, the meteorological data collection from the tower is representative of the site region. Wind and temperature data were collected at the 10-meter (35 feet) and 60-meter (200 feet) levels of the open lattice tower. Wind sensors were mounted on booms that extended to approximately 9 feet to the west of the tower. Temperature and dewpoint (10-meter level) sensors were mounted on booms that extended approximately 7 feet and 6 feet, Revision 12 2.3-31 January, 2003 respectively, to the west of the tower. The station atmospheric pressure sensor was mounted on the tower at a height of 2 meters. Precipitation was measured at the surface by a rain gauge near the base of the tower. Analog data recording equipment was located in an environmentally controlled shelter at the base of the tower. Also in the shelter was a minicomputer that provided a digitized record of averaged meteorological data, both directly to a remote onsite location and via telecommunication to a remote offsite location, where the record was examined daily for anomalous meteorological conditions or obvious instrumentation problems. Instrumentation for the onsite program included the following:
1. Winds--A set of Climet wind speed and wind direction sensors at 10 meters and 60 meters.
2. Temperature--Rosemont resistance temperature breakers at 10 meters and 60 meters housed in Geotech aspirated solar radiation shields; Endevco signal conditioner.
3. Dewpoint--Aspirated EG&G dewpoint measuring unit at 10 meters.
4. Precipitation--At ground level, Belfort heated tipping bucket rain gauge and wind shield.
5. Atmospheric Pressure--Teledyne Geotech unit at 2 meters to provide station pressure.
6. Recorders--Esterline-Angus multipoint for all parameters except wind speed/direction, for which there were Esterline-Angus two-channel strip recorders.
Revision 12 2.3-32 January, 2003
7. Computer--A Digital Equipment Corporation LSI II used subsecond sampling rates to develop 15-minute values, which were combined to yield hourly values.
The specifications of the equipment for the meteorological system, which complied with the intent of the position in <Regulatory Guide 1.23> (Reference 47), are provided in
. The sensor accuracies reflected all the equipment through the signal conditioners, and the overall system accuracy for each meteorological parameter could be calculated from this information. Accuracies for instantaneous recorded values were calculated using the root sum squares of the accuracies of each component. Time-averaged accuracies were computed by dividing the instantaneous accuracy by the square root of the number of samples taken per hour. The analog strip recorders (wind speed and wind direction) were continuous so the number of samples was essentially infinite. For an hourly average, a sampling rate of ten times per second was assumed. The analog multipoint (temperature, T, dewpoint, and precipitation) sampled each parameter approximately once per minute. The digital system sampled each parameter ten times per second. The time-averaged overall digital system accuracy was within +0.02 for wind direction, +0.01 mph for wind speed, +0.01C for temperature, +0.01C for temperature difference, +0.01C for dewpoint, and +0.01 inch of Hg for station pressure. The 9-foot high shelter housing the signal conditioning equipment and recorders was located approximately 8 feet east of the base of the tower. It was expected that the shelter would have negligible effect on the representativeness of data collected at the tower. The automated tipping bucket rain gauge was located approximately 11 feet west of the tower and 30 feet west of the shelter. It was not anticipated that the tower or shelter would affect precipitation measurements. Recorded precipitation values may be in greater error Revision 12 2.3-33 January, 2003 than stated in
. It was determined that recorded precipitation in the cold months was lower than what actually fell. When the heater came on in cold weather to melt frozen precipitation, it evaporated some of the precipitation captured in the gauge before the precipitation fell through the funnel and was able to fill and to activate the measuring device. For example, during a light fall of dry snow, the recorded precipitation is sometimes zero during an inch or more snow accumulation. The meteorological system at PNPP was calibrated semiannually. System surveillance included daily checks by a duty observer; checks by dial-up of the computer have been made since April 1978. As soon as a malfunction was detected either by daily system surveillance or by weekly analog chart review, field service personnel were dispatched to correct the problem. 2.3.3.2 Meteorological Data Reduction Up to November 1978, analog strip charts and multipoint charts were manually reduced for all onsite data. One-hour averages of all parameters except the wind and precipitation were read from the multipoint chart. Precipitation was totaled for the hour period. The reading for each hour was previously centered on the hour, but after the digital system was installed (April 1978) the period was shifted to end on the hour, so as to be compatible with the realtime digital printout. The strip charts for wind records were read for a 15-minute period ending on the hour. All the manually reduced data were transcribed on punch cards, listed and subsequently used as input to data analysis computer programs. In November 1978, the digital system became the primary data source, so that the analog charts were used only infrequently to improve data recovery. The hourly values output by the digital system normally represent hourly averages (ending on the hour), which were derived from Revision 12 2.3-34 January, 2003 four 15-minute averages. In those instances when a full hours worth of data were not available, the hourly value may have been represented by as few as one 15-minute average. Hourly sigma theta values represent the average of the computed 15-minute values. Hourly precipitation values, however, represent hourly accumulations rather than averages. Measurement of the dewpoint at 60 meters was discontinued in January 1980. The classification of atmospheric stability was based on the temperature differential, T (60-10 meters), in accordance with <Regulatory Guide 1.23>. <Appendix 2B> and <Appendix 2C> provide joint frequency distributions by stability class. 2.3.3.3 Meteorological Data Recovery The monthly and annual meteorological data recovery rates, by year and combined, are presented in
. Onsite data for the seven site years were derived from analog chart records for the period August 1972, through October 1978, and from digital records thereafter. Annual recovery rates generally exceeded 90 percent for the entire period. However, during the first data year 1972 to 1973, a set of charts lost in the mail contributed to a low recovery. Design changes and accumulation of airborne dirt contributed to low dewpoint recoveries. During the first and second year, the lower data recovery for the 60-meter wind speed was due primarily to an instrumentation problem, which necessitated an engineering design change (which was made in December 1973) and to a bearing problem. During the third year, 1977 to 1978, low dewpoint recoveries were associated with design problems in new-model sensors. Low dewpoint recoveries during May, June and July 1979 were due to problems encountered with the balance/stability of the sensors and with airborne contaminants accumulating on the mirror in the sensors. Data Revision 12 2.3-35 January, 2003 loss in August 1979 was due to computer down time related to an air conditioner failure. Loss of T (60-10 meters) data in March and April 1979, was due to a tripped relay for the motor status of the 60-meter aspirator. During data year five, 1979 to 1980, measurement of the 60-meter dewpoint was discontinued, since sufficient data had been collected for preparation of the PNPP ER/OL; measurement at 10 meters has continued. The low 10-meter dewpoint recovery of 88 percent during this year was attributed to balance/stability problems of the sensors with airborne contaminants accumulating on the mirror and with frost/dew phase problems. The September 1979, joint 10-meter wind and stability recovery of only 88 percent was attributed to some extensive maintenance on the temperature shields and calibration. The low recovery rate (84 percent) from 10-meter dewpoint measurements for data year six, 1980 to 1981, was primarily due to mirror contamination and to a malfunctioning thermister in the sensor. Sensors were replaced in May and June 1981. The low recovery rate (86 percent) of joint 60-meter winds and T data during the year is primarily attributable to a wind direction transmitter problem in November and December 1980. In two months, during 1980 to 1981, the joint recovery rates for T and 10-meter winds were slightly below 90 percent due to inking problems on the wind recorder and to moisture and aspirator problems with the T sensors. The monthly recovery rates below 90 percent for data year seven, 1981 to 1982, for joint 10-meter winds and T were attributed to various causes, including an intermittent power supply, calibration, site observer error, maintenance, and a moisture problem. The unweighted average annual data recovery for the seven site years combined was 94 percent for the joint occurrence of 10-meter wind data Revision 12 2.3-36 January, 2003 and T (60-10 meters) data, and 90 percent for the joint occurrence of 60-meter wind data and T (60-10 meters) data. The meteorological data collection program at PNPP was subject to detailed NUS Corporation quality assurance and quality control procedures, which were supplemented with site-specific work plans and procedures. Scheduled calibration and maintenance of the Perry meteorological system was conducted at three-month intervals according to written procedures. Ad hoc maintenance trips were made as necessary. Daily system surveillance by local personnel using checklists and by dial-up computer were performed in order to achieve maximum data recovery. All data sets were finalized for use after intensive review by a meteorologist. Detailed records of all phases of the program were maintained for future reference. 2.3.3.4 Onsite Meteorological Measurement Program (Operational System) The tower location (current) remains approximately 6,000 feet inland and 4,300 feet away from the hyerbolic cooling towers. The terrain is similar to the site region. Because of the similarity in terrain, the meteorological data collected on the tower is representative of the site region. The current tower remains an open lattice structure with sensors located at various predetermined positions. The current operational system was upgraded in 1999 to include two nearly independent meteorological monitoring systems, A and B. Each system has a wind speed and direction sensor at 10 and 60 meters. System A sensors are positioned approximately 9 feet from the tower on swing-out booms while System B sensors are positioned approximately 11.5 feet from the tower on slide-out booms. In addition, aspirated temperature sensors are mounted Revision 12 2.3-37 January, 2003 six feet from the tower at each level for both the A and B Systems. System A also includes a dew point temperature sensor mounted at the 10-meter level platform, precipitation sensors located at the surface near the base of the tower, and station pressure sensor mounted inside the shelter. Measurement of these variables meets the intent of the regulatory position in Section C.1 of NRC <Regulatory Guide 1.23>. The meteorological acquisition system meets the system accuracy requirements of <Regulatory Guide 1.97>, (Revision 3) and as listed in
.
contains a listing of the A and B System parameters, their subsystems, and system accuracy. System A and B each includes a data logger with an internal communications modem, associated signal conditioning equipment and a data acquisition system consisting of an input/output drop (I/O) located in an environmentally controlled shelter near the tower. The meteorological sensors provide analog outputs to their assigned I/O rack. The signals are converted from analog to digital and the meteorological parameters are transmitted to the plant computer via fiber optic cables. This data can be accessed by the Control Room via the Plant Computer System Monitors. Sensor outputs are also connected to the data loggers for access via remote dial-up. Systems A and B provide multiple methods for communicating data to the plant computer for dispersion modeling and dose assessment as part of the dose assessment software program. The instrument cables between the meteorological tower and the signal conditioning/data acquisition system are surge protected. The tower, as well as individual systems for each parameter on the tower, is lightning protected, except for the Dew Point System. Revision 13 2.3-38 December, 2003 In the event that the System A or B, 10 meter wind speed, wind direction, Sigma Theta, 10 meter ambient temperature, or -60m-10m Delta-T is unavailable or invalid, the equivalent data from the redundant system will be provided for input to the emergency dose assessment computer program. Regional weather data is available for manual input to the emergency dose program from the Cleveland Hopkins National Weather Service (NWS) Office. This data is available 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> per day and is representative of the meteorological conditions at the Perry Plant. The meteorological data collection program at the Perry Plant is subject to detailed quality assurance and quality control procedures which are supplemented with site-specific plans and procedures. A Site Observer performs a weekly inspection to verify proper system operation, routine operations and minor preventive maintenance. Calibrations and routine preventive maintenance are conducted at six (6) month intervals by trained personnel according to set procedures. The system is checked at least daily to determine if repairs requiring emergency maintenance between regularly scheduled calibrations are necessary to meet the action requirements of the Operational Requirements Manual (ORM). Instrument maintenance and servicing schedules meet the regulatory position in Section C.5 of NRC <Regulatory Guide 1.23>. Information about data reduction and compilation can be found in the annual report of the Meteorological Program at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Revision 13 2.3-39 December, 2003 2.3.4 SHORT TERM (ACCIDENT) DIFFUSION ESTIMATES 2.3.4.1 Objective Onsite meteorological data from the PNPP facility for seven site years were used to evaluate the accident meteorology for the Perry area. The seven site years include May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; and September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1982. Accidents are postulated to characterize upper limit concentrations and dosages that might occur in the event of an inadvertent release. Among the basic inputs to the accident analysis are the meteorological conditions that determine the dilution capacity of the atmosphere. 2.3.4.2 Calculations Dilution factors (/Q) for ground level releases were determined using the methodology presented in Draft <Regulatory Guide 1.145> (Reference 48). The /Q values applicable for releases less than or equal to two hours were calculated at the exclusion area boundary (EAB) and at the outer boundary of the low population zone (LPZ) using the joint frequency distributions of wind speed and wind direction by atmospheric stability class. The EAB and LPZ distances for each unit are 863 meters and 4,002 meters, respectively, defined by circles about each of Units 1 and 2 and measured from the outer edge of the reactor containment building. Winds were determined at the 10-meter level and the stability class was based on the vertical temperature gradient between 10 meters and 60 meters, T (60 meters-10-meters), as indicated in <Regulatory Guide 1.23>. <Appendix 2B> summarizes the wind and stability information in the form of joint frequency distribution. Revision 12 2.3-40 January, 2003 The /Q value was determined as the greater value calculated from either 1 Q (2.3-4) u y z A 2 1 or Q (2.3-5) u 3 y z where Q = the relative concentration at ground level (sec/m3) = 3.14159 u = the mean wind speed at 10 meters (m/s) y = the lateral plume spread, a function of atmospheric stability and distance (m) z = the vertical plume spread, a function of atmospheric stability and distance (m) A = 1780 m2, the smallest vertical plane, cross-sectional area of the building from which the effluent is released During periods of neutral (D) and stable (E, F and G) conditions, when the wind speed was less than 6 m/s, credit for horizontal plume meander was considered such that 1 Q (2.3-6) u y z where y = the lateral plume spread with meander, a function of atmospheric stability, wind speed and downwind distance from release. For distances to 800 meters, y = My; M being a function of atmospheric stability and wind speed. For distances greater than 800 meters, y = (M-1)y800m = y, (m). Revision 12 2.3-41 January, 2003 and other symbols are as defined for Equations 2.3-4 and 2.3-5. For these conditions, this /Q value (from Equation 2.3-6) was selected when it was less than the greater value calculated above, from Equations 2.3-4 and 2.3-5. The following methodology was used to determine accident /Q values for periods up to two hours. Cumulative probability distributions of /Q values were determined for each of the 16 wind sectors in terms of probabilities (relative to total hours in all sectors) of given /Q values being exceeded in a given sector. For each distribution, the 0.5 percentile level was selected. Each of the resulting 16 /Q values was compared and the highest value selected to represent conservative dilution conditions for the accident assessment. For periods greater than two hours (i.e., 8 and 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br />, 3 and 26 days as discussed in Section 2.3.4 of <Regulatory Guide 1.70>) the /Q value for each sector and distance was obtained by a logarithmic interpolation between the calculated value that was selected using the above procedure and the annual average value at the distance of interest in the same direction sector. The annual average value was calculated in accordance with the methodology described in <Regulatory Guide 1.111>, which is discussed in <Section 2.3.5>. For each time period of interest, each of the resulting 16 /Q values was compared and the highest value selected to represent conservative dilution conditions for the accident assessment. In accordance with the Interim Branch Technical Position of August 2, 1978 (Reference 49), and additional constraint was placed on the controlling /Q values for the accident assessment. An overall 5th percentile /Q value was calculated at the EAB and LPZ, and the larger of this /Q and the controlling sector /Q was used in the accident assessment. The methodology consists of determining the /Q values for each of the sectors and distances of interest (either the EAB or LPZ) and ordering these values without regard to the sector. The Revision 12 2.3-42 January, 2003 5th percentile value (based on total observations) was then selected. For time periods greater than two hours, the /Q values were determined by a logarithmic interpolation between this 5th percentile value and the maximum annual average /Q value over the 16 sectors. It was found that the 5th percentile /Q values were less than the highest sector /Q values throughout the accident. Therefore, the maximum sector /Q values at the 0.5 percentile were chosen to represent conservative dilution conditions for the accident assessment. As recommended in <Regulatory Guide 1.70>, realistic /Q values were also determined. These were calculated in the same manner as the overall 5th percentile with the exception that the 50th percentile was selected.
presents the conservative and realistic /Q values for the EAB and LPZ distances for the periods of interest. It is noted that the maximum sector /Q values (conservative assessment) for the LPZ do not occur in the same sector throughout the course of the accident. In such a case, Section C.3.b of <Regulatory Guide 1.145> prescribes an evaluation of the consequences of the accident for each sector using the /Q values in that sector throughout the course of the accident. Then the sector that produces the greatest potential risk is considered to be the controlling sector.
presents the conservative /Q values for each of the sectors of interest (NW and WNW) for all periods of the potential accident. 2.3.5 LONG TERM (ROUTINE RELEASE) DIFFUSION ESTIMATES 2.3.5.1 Objective Onsite meteorological data from the PNPP facility were used to determine the long term diffusion estimates for the Perry area. The atmospheric dilution factors (Chi/Q) and deposition rates (D/Q) were determined for the site boundary and for distances out to 50 miles (mi) (or Revision 12 2.3-43 January, 2003 80 kilometers (km)) from the containment structures. A set of distances by sector direction from the containment structures was developed by determining the shortest distance to the site boundary from the closest edge of either the containment, turbine building, or offgas building in each sector. These particular buildings were used because the vents are located on or adjacent to these respective buildings (i.e., containment represents the plant vents located on the intermediate building common for Units 1 and 2; the turbine building represents the heater bay vent; and the offgas building represents the offgas vent pipe). A separate set of such distances was developed for Unit 1 and Unit 2. For building height wake effects on dispersion, a height of 40-meter was assumed and releases were assumed to be at ground level. This 40-meter value represents the height of the springline of the containments. 2.3.5.2 Calculations Dilution factors (/Q) and deposition rates (D/Q) were determined using the methodology presented in <Regulatory Guide 1.111> and the NRC computer code XOQDOQ (Reference 50). The calculations were made for the site boundary and at the population distances discussed in <Regulatory Guide 1.70>. For conservatism, all releases were assumed to occur at ground level. Winds were determined at the 10-meter level, and the stability class was based on the vertical temperature gradient between 10 meters and 60 meters, T (60-10 meters). In accordance with <Regulatory Guide 1.111>, calms were distributed directionally in proportion to the directional distribution within a stability class of the lowest wind speed group. Calms were assigned a speed one-half the threshold wind speed of the wind vane. Revision 12 2.3-44 January, 2003 /Q values were determined by use of the following: 2.032 nij QD (2.3-7) x Nzjui ij where QD = the average effluent concentration, X, normalized by source strength, Q, at a downwind distance, x, for a given direction, D (sec/m3) x = downwind distance (m) nij = length of time in hours of valid data for a given wind direction, D, wind speed class, i, and atmospheric stability, j. N = total number of hours of valid data zj = effective vertical dispersion parameter for stability class j (m) ui = mid-point at wind speed class i (m/s) An effective vertical stability parameter, zj, is calculated to account for building wake effects as follows: 1/2 H2 zj zj2 (2.3-8) 2 with the constraint jz 3 zj where jz = vertical plume spread, a function of atmospheric stability, j, and distance, x (m) H = maximum adjacent building height (m) Revision 12 2.3-45 January, 2003 Calculations of average D/Q values were made as follows: D 8 d fk Q k Q x where D = relative deposition per unit area for sector k, m-2 Q k x = downwind wind distance, m d = relative deposition rate per unit downwind distance, m-1 Q fk = relative frequency of wind direction into sector k, dimensionless The values of d/Q are based on the curves of NRC <Regulatory Guide 1.111>, Revision 1. In accordance with <Regulatory Guide 1.111>, since this model does not directly consider the effects of spatial and temporal variation in airflow due to terrain, appropriate adjustments were made to the calculated /Q values. The terrain adjustment factors used are site specific to Perry and were developed previously (Reference 51) (Reference 52) by comparing /Q values determined by this straight-line model and by the time-dependent, segmented-plume model NUSPUF (Reference 53). The adjustment factors as a function of sector and distance are presented in
; the value for each sector and distance is the maximum factor within that area. It is thought that this maximum is related to the decline and subsequent decay of the lake breeze in the late afternoon and early evening (Reference 53).
presents the long term /Q diffusion estimates (undepleted and depleted) and D/Q values for Perry for the site boundary. For the population distances, /Q values (undepleted and Revision 12 2.3-46 January, 2003 depleted) and D/Q values are presented in
,
, and
, respectively. 2.

3.6 REFERENCES

FOR SECTION 2.3

1. ESSA, Climatological Summary, Painesville, Ohio. U.S. Department of Commerce, ESSA, Climatography of the United States No. 20-33-69, 1969.
2. Baldwin, J. L., Climates of the United States, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C., 1973.
3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Local Climatological Data, Cleveland, Ohio, 1948-August 1982, Annual and Monthly Summaries. NOAA, EDS, NCC, Asheville, North Carolina.
4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Local Climatological Data, Erie, Pennsylvania, 1972-August 1982, Annual and Monthly Summaries. NOAA, EDS, NCC, Asheville, North Carolina.
5. ESSA, Climatological Summary, Geneva, Ohio. U.S. Department of Commerce, ESSA, Climatography of the United States No. 20-33-63, 1968.
6. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Comparative Climatic Data Through 1977, NOAA, EDS, NCC, Asheville, North Carolina, 1978.
7. Miller, Marvin E. and C. R. Weaver, Snow in Ohio, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, Ohio, 1971.
8. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climatological Data, National Summary, 1951-1978, NOAA, EDS, NCC, Asheville, North Carolina.

Revision 12 2.3-47 January, 2003

9. Brooks, Edward M., Tornadoes and Related Phenomena, Compendium of Meteorology, AMS, Boston, Mas., pp. 673-680, 1951.
10. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climatological Data, Ohio, 1972-1978, NOAA, EDS, NCC, Asheville, North Carolina.
11. Cry, George W., Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, Technical Paper No. 55, NOAA, Washington, D.C., 1965.
12. National Severe Storms Forecast Center, Tornado Summary 1950-1977, Computer printout of occurrences and tornado statistics within 50 nautical miles of Perry, Ohio, 1978.
13. Markee, E. H., Jr., J. G. Beckerly, and K. E. Sanders, Technical Basis for Interim Regional Tornado Criteria, WASH-1300 (UC-11) U.S.

Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C., 1974.

14. Ramsdell, J. V., and Andrews, G. L., Tornado Climatology of the Contiguous United States, <NUREG/CR-4461>, PNL-5697, May 1986.
15. Fujita, T. T., Proposed Characterization of Tornadoes and Hurricanes by Area and Intensity, Satellite and Mesometeorology Research Project, SMRP Research Paper No. 91, Chicago, Illinois, 1971.
16. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Storm Data 1959-1978. NOAA, EDS, NCC, Asheville, North Carolina.
17. Brooks, C. E. P., and N. Carruthers, Handbook of Statistical Methods in Meteorology, M.O.-538, London, England, Her Majestys Stationery Office, pp. 131-136, 1953.

Revision 12 2.3-48 January, 2003

18. U.S. Department of Commerce, Extreme Wind Speeds at 129 Stations in the Contiguous United States, NBS Building Science Series 118, March 1979.
19. Chancery, M. J., Historical Extreme Winds for the United States -

Great Lakes and Adjacent Regions, <NUREG/CR-2890>, August 1982.

20. Huss, P. O., Relations Between Gusts and Average Wind Speeds for Housing Load Determination, DGAF 140, Daniel Guggenheim Airship Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, 1946.
21. Personal communication, NWS Duty Observer, Cleveland-Hopkins Airport, February 6, 1978.
22. Golde, R. H., Protection of Structures Against Lightning, Proceedings, The Institute of Electrical Engineers, Vol. 115, No. 10, pp 1523-1529; October 1968.
23. December 1970: Extremes of Snowfall, Weatherwise. Princeton, New Jersey.
24. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Winter Precipitation Loads, Site Analysis Branch Position, March 24, 1975.
25. American National Standards Institute, ANSI A58.1-1972; Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other Structures. ANSI, Inc., New York, New York.
26. Riedel, J. T., J. F. Appleby, and R. W. Schloemer, Seasonal Variation of the Probable Maximum Precipitation East of the 105th Meridian for Areas From 10 to 1,000 square Miles and Durations of 6, 12, 24, and 48 Hours, U.S. Weather Bureau, Hydrometeorological Report No. 33, Washington, D.C., 1956.

Revision 12 2.3-49 January, 2003

27. Changnon, S. A., Jr., The Climatology of Hail in North America, Hail: A Review of Hail Science and Hail Suppression, Foote G. B.

and C. A. Knight, (eds.), Meteorological Monographs 16:38, American Meteorological Society, Boston, Massachusetts, December 1977.

28. Hosler, C. R., Low Level Inversion Frequency in the Contiguous United States, Monthly Weather Review, 89, pp 319-332, 1961.
29. 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, 1972.
30. Stackpole, J. D., The Air Pollution Potential Forecast Program, Weather Bureau Technical Memo NMC-43, NMC, Suitland, Maryland, 1967.
31. Korshover, J., Climatology of Stagnating Anticyclones East of the Rocky Mountains, 1963-1965, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1967.
32. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Surface Observations for Erie, Pennsylvania, February 1959, to January 1964, and September 1968, to August 1978, National Weather Service TDF-14, NOAA, EDS, NCC, Asheville, North Carolina.
33. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Surface Observations for Cleveland, Ohio, February 1959, to January 1964, and September 1968, to August 1978, National Weather Service TDF-14, NOAA, EDS, NCC, Asheville, North Carolina.
34. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Weekly Weather and Crop Bulletin, NOAA, EDS, Asheville, North Carolina, March 7, 1978.

Revision 12 2.3-50 January, 2003

35. Mitchell, A. E., Jr., Relationship of the 60-meter to the 10-meter Dewpoint at the PNPP Meteorological Tower, NUS-3565, NUS Corporation, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 1981.
36. Turner, D. B., A Diffusion Model for an Urban Area, J. of Appl.

Met; 3, February 1964, pp. 83-91, 1964.

37. Smith, T. B. and V. A. Mirabella, Meteorological Effects of Cooling Towers at SMUD Site, Meteorology Research, Inc., 1971.
38. Spurr, G., Meteorology and Cooling Tower Operation, Atmospheric Environment, 8, p. 321, 1974.
39. Kramer, M. L., M. E. Smith, M. J. Butler, and D. E. Seymour, Cooling Towers and the Environment, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 26, No. 6, p. 582, June 1976.
40. Kramer, M. L., D. E. Seymour, and M. E. Smith, Snowfall Observations from Natural Draft Cooling Tower Plume, Science, 193,
p. 1239, January 1976.
41. Coleman, J. H. and T. L. Crawford, Characterization of Cooling Tower Plumes. A Symposium on Environmental Effects of Cooling Tower Emissions, University of Maryland, May 2-4, 1978, p. II-31, Cooling Tower Environment--1978 Proceedings, May 1978.
42. Mulchi, C. L., D. C. Wolf, and J. A. Armbruster, Cooling Tower Effects on Crop and Soil, Chalk Point Cooling Tower Project, Postoperational Report No. 3, Final Report, FY78, WRRC Special Report No. 11, July 1978.
43. Lewis, B. G., Asbestos in Cooling Tower Waters: Final Report,

<NUREG/CR-0770>, ANL/ES-71, March 1979.

Revision 12 2.3-51 January, 2003

44. Wilkinson, M. J., A. E. Mitchell, Jr., L. A. Friedman, Description of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Offsite Dose Calculations, NUS-4336, Revision 1, NUS Corporation, Gaithersburg, Maryland, April 1983.
45. VanderHoven, Issac, Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion at Coastal Sites, Nuclear Safety, 8, No. 5, 1967.
46. Olsson, L. E., Lake Effects on Air Pollution Dispersion. Ph.D.

Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1969.

47. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, <Regulatory Guide 1.23>; Onsite Meteorological Programs, February 1972.
48. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Draft <Regulatory Guide 1.145>;

Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants, August 1979.

49. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Accident Meteorology Model, Interim Branch Technical Position, Hydrology-Meteorology Branch, August 2, 1978.
50. J. F. Sagendorf and J. T. Goll, XOQDOQ, Program for the Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Station, Draft <NUREG-0324>, September 1977.
51. Letter From D. R. Davidson, Vice President, Engineering, Perry Nuclear Power Plant to Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Subject:

Docket Nos. 50-440, 50-441, Terrain-Corrected Atmospheric Dispersion Factors, April 27, 1976.

Revision 12 2.3-52 January, 2003

52. Letter From D. R. Davidson, Vice President, Engineering, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, to Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Subject:

Docket Nos. 50-440, 50-441, Terrain-Corrected Atmospheric Dispersion Factors, July 2, 1976.

53. Chandler, M. W., J. R. Fleming, S. L. Shipley, M. S. Tapparo, NUSPUF - A Segmented Plume Dispersion Program for the Calculation of Average Concentrations in a Time-Dependent Meteorological Regime, NUS-TM-260, NUS Corporation, Gaithersburg, Maryland, March 1976.
54. Timbre, K., Mazaika, M., Eighth Annual Report of the Meteorological Programs at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant for the Partial Annual Period May 1, 1983, to December 31, 1983, NUS-4536, NUS Corporation, Gaithersburg, Maryland, March 1985.

Revision 12 2.3-53 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-1 NORMALS, MEANS, AND EXTREMES FOR CLEVLEAND, OHIO (1)

Average Temperatures F Normal Precipitation in inches Relative Wind Mean number of days Station Degree days humidity pct. pressure Base 65F mb.

Temperatures F Normal Extremes Water equivalent Snow, Ice pellets Fastest mile Sunrise to sunset Hour Hour Hour Hour Max. Min.

Mean sky cover, tenths, Elev.

01 07 13 19 (b)

Pct. of possible Precipitation Snow, Ice pellets Thunderstorms Heavy fog, 805 Speed m.p.h.

(Local time)

Mean speed sunrise to sunset Daily Daily Maximum Minimum Maximum Maximum Maximum Prevailing Direction visibility Monthly Heating Cooling .01 inch or more 1.0 inch or more 90 and 32 and 32 and Normal sunshine Cloudy Record Record Partly Month 0 and maximum minimum highest Year lowest Year monthly Year monthly Year in 24 hrs. Year monthly Year in 24 hrs Year m.p.h. direction Year Clear cloudy 1/4 mile or less above below below below feet m.s.l.

(a) 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 17 17 17 17 36 14 36 36 34 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 17 17 17 17 5 J 33.4 20.3 26.9 73 1950 -19 1963 1181 0 2.56 7.01 1950 0.36 1961 2.33 1959 21.5 1976 9.3 1952 74 76 69 71 12.5 SW 68 SW 1959 32 8.2 3 5 23 16 4

  • 2 0 16 28 4 988.2 F 35.0 20.8 27.9 69 1961 -15 1963 1039 0 2.18 4.64 1950 0.73 1963 2.33 1959 20.7 1942 10.6 1973 74 77 68 71 12.4 S 65 W 1956 37 7.9 3 5 20 15 4 1 2 0 12 25 2 986.9 M 44.1 28.1 36.1 83 1945 -5 1948 896 0 3.05 6.07 1954 0.78 1958 2.76 1948 26.3 1954 14.9 1954 74 77 65 69 12.5 W 74 W 1948 46 7.5 4 7 20 16 3 2 2 0 5 21 0 986.0 A 58.0 38.5 48.3 88 1942 10 1964 501 0 3.49 6.61 1961 1.18 1946 2.24 1961 14.5 1943 7.6 1957 72 75 57 61 11.8 S 65 W 1951 53 6.9 5 8 17 14 1 4 1 0
  • 10 0 987.4 M 68.4 48.1 58.3 92 1959 25 1966 244 37 3.49 6.04 1947 1.00 1963 3.73 1955 2.1 1974 2.1 1974 76 77 58 60 10.3 S 68 SW 1957 59 6.5 6 11 14 13
  • 5 1
  • 0 1 0 985.5 J 78.2 57.5 67.9 101 1944 31 1972 40 127 3.28 9.06 1972 1.17 1967 4.00 1972 0.0 0.0 80 80 59 62 9.4 S 57 SW 1958 65 6.0 7 11 12 11 0 7 1 2 0
  • 0 986.2 J 81.6 61.2 71.4 103 1941 41 1968 9 208 3.45 6.47 1969 1.23 1952 2.87 1969 0.0 0.0 82 82 58 62 8.7 S 65 W 1956 68 5.5 9 12 10 10 0 7 1 3 0 0 0 987.6 A 80.4 59.6 70.0 102 1948 41 1965 17 172 3.00 8.96 1975 0.53 1969 3.07 1947 0.0 0.0 84 85 60 66 8.3 S 61 W 1956 64 5.5 9 12 10 9 0 5 1 2 0 0 0 989.5 S 74.2 53.5 63.9 101 1953 32 1942 95 62 2.80 6.37 1945 0.74 1964 2.26 1969 T 1976 T 1976 81 84 61 70 9.1 S 45 S 1953 60 5.8 9 9 12 10 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 989.0 O 63.6 43.9 53.8 90 1946 22 1969 354 7 2.57 9.50 1954 0.61 1952 3.44 1954 8.0 1962 6.7 1962 77 80 60 68 10.0 S 43 W 1946 55 6.0 9 8 14 11
  • 2 1 0 0 3 0 990.3 N 48.8 34.4 41.6 82 1950 3 1976 702 0 2.76 6.44 1950 0.80 1976 2.23 1958 22.3 1950 15.0 1950 76 79 67 72 12.1 S 59 W 1948 31 7.9 3 6 21 15 2 1 1 0 1 12 0 988.1 D 36.4 24.1 30.3 69 1971 -11 1976 1076 0 2.36 5.60 1951 0.71 1958 2.06 1974 30.3 1962 12.2 1974 75 77 71 74 12.3 S 49 SW 1971 26 8.3 2 6 23 16 4
  • 1 0 11 24 1 987.5 JUL JAN OCT JAN JUN DEC NOV MAR YR 58.5 40.8 49.7 103 1941 -19 1963 6154 613 34.99 9.50 1954 0.36 1961 4.00 1972 30.3 1962 15.0 1950 77 79 63 67 10.8 S 74 W 1948 52 6.8 69 100 196 157 18 36 13 8 46 124 6 987.7 Means and extremes above are from existing and comparable exposures. Annual extremes have been exceeded at other sites in the locality as follows: Maximum monthly precipitation 9.77 in June 1902; minimum monthly precipitation 0.17 in August 1881; maximum precipitation in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 4.97 in September 1901; maximum monthly snowfall 30.5 in February 1908; maximum snowfall in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 17.4 in November 1913; fastest mile of wind 78 from Southwest in May 1940.

(a) Length of record, years, through the current year unless otherwise noted, based on January data. NORMALS - Based on record for the 1941-1970 period.

DATE OF AN EXTREME - The most recent in cases of multiple occurrence.

(b) 70 and above at Alaskan stations. PREVAILING WIND DIRECTION - Record through 1963.

  • Less than one half. WIND DIRECTION - Numerals indicate tens of degrees clockwise from true north. 00 indicates calm.

T Trace FASTEST MILE WIND - Speed is fastest observed 1-minute value when the direction is in tens of degrees.

Note:

(1)

See (Reference 3) <Section 2.3.6>.

Revision 12 2.3-54 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-2 NORMALS, MEANS, AND EXTREMES FOR ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA (1)

Average Temperatures F Normal Precipitation in inches Relative Wind Mean number of days Station Degree days humidity pct. pressure Base 65F mb.

Temperatures F Normal Extremes Water equivalent Snow, Ice pellets Fastest mile Sunrise to sunset Hour Hour Hour Hour Max. Min.

Mean sky cover, tenths, Elev.

01 07 13 19 (b)

Pct. of possible Precipitation Snow, Ice pellets Thunderstorms Heavy fog, 805 Speed m.p.h.

(Local time)

Mean speed sunrise to sunset Daily Daily Maximum Minimum Maximum Maximum Maximum Prevailing Direction visibility Monthly Heating Cooling .01 inch or more 1.0 inch or more 90 and 32 and 32 and Normal sunshine Cloudy Record Record Partly Month 0 and maximum minimum highest Year lowest Year monthly Year monthly Year in 24 hrs. Year monthly Year in 24 hrs Year m.p.h. direction Year Clear cloudy 1/4 mile or less above below below below feet m.s.l.

(a) 24 24 24 24 22 23 23 12 12 12 12 24 8 20 20 22 22 22 22 24 22 22 22 12 12 12 12 5 J 31.7 18.5 25.1 64 1967 -15 1963 1237 0 2.47 4.59 1959 0.90 1967 1.51 1959 29.9 1966 10.0 1958 75 76 73 74 13.4 WSW 42 32 1959 8.5 2 4 25 18 7

  • 1 0 17 28 2 990.3 F 32.5 17.9 25.2 67 1657 -12 1973 1114 0 2.12 5.01 1976 0.73 1969 2.16 1961 32.1 1972 12.4 1971 76 77 71 75 12.6 WSW 52 29 1972 8.0 2 6 20 15 5 1 1 0 15 26 2 989.3 M 40.4 25.4 32.9 79 1977 -1 1960 995 0 2.75 6.78 1976 0.63 1960 1.87 1965 26.8 1971 12.0 1965 74 77 67 71 12.4 NNE 55 14 1960 7.4 5 7 19 15 3 2 3 0 8 24
  • 988.5 A 53.5 36.1 44.8 85 1958 12 1954 606 0 3.55 7.11 1961 1.63 1975 2.53 1977 17.2 1957 10.0 1957 72 75 61 64 11.8 WSW 46 21 1965 6.7 6 8 16 14 1 3 2 0 1 13 0 989.6 M 63.7 45.5 54.6 89 1975 26 1970 336 13 3.63 5.59 1956 1.45 1962 2.23 1969 0.1 1963 0.2 1963 77 78 64 64 10.2 WSW 37 25 1964 6.4 7 10 14 12 0 4 2 0 0 1 0 987.9 J 73.5 55.6 64.6 92 1964 32 1972 80 68 3.50 7.74 1957 0.85 1963 2.80 1957 0.0 0.0 81 82 66 66 9.6 S 37 36 1975 5.8 8 11 11 10 0 6 1
  • 0
  • 0 988.6 J 77.4 60.0 68.7 94 1968 44 1963 24 139 3.52 7.70 1970 1.11 1974 3.22 1970 0.0 0.0 82 83 65 66 9.1 S 46 32 1959 5.5 9 12 10 10 0 7 1
  • 0 0 0 989.8 A 76.0 58.9 67.5 92 1965 41 1971 43 120 3.35 11.06 1977 0.58 1959 3.29 1975 0.0 0.0 85 87 67 71 9.1 S 35 24 1970 5.5 10 10 11 11 0 7 *
  • 0 0 0 991.9 S 70.2 52.6 61.4 94 1959 33 1974 141 33 3.56 10.65 1977 1.45 1960 4.84 1959 0.0 0.0 83 86 68 76 10.1 S 45 17 1965 6.3 7 9 14 11 0 4
  • 0 0 0 0 991.1 O 60.2 43.0 51.6 88 1963 24 1975 415 0 3.24 9.87 1954 1.13 1963 4.35 1954 4.0 1954 2.3 1974 76 79 66 74 11.4 SSE 39 21 1967 6.5 7 8 16 12
  • 3
  • 0 0 2 0 992.4 N 46.5 33.7 40.1 80 1961 7 1976 747 0 3.70 6.25 1977 1.95 1954 2.86 1956 36.3 1967 23.0 1956 77 78 72 76 13.2 SSW 39 30 1968 8.5 2 5 23 16 3 2 1 0 2 13 0 989.9 D 34.8 23.3 29.1 68 1966 -2 1976 1113 0 2.81 5.63 1977 1.38 1960 2.31 1977 56.0 1963 12.9 1966 77 78 75 77 13.6 SSW 38 17 1964 9.0 1 4 26 19 7
  • 1 0 11 26
  • 989.6 JULY JAN AUG AUG SEP DEC NOV MAR YR 55.0 39.2 47.1 94 1968 -15 1963 6851 373 38.20 11.06 1977 0.58 1959 4.84 1959 56.0 1963 23.0 1956 78 80 68 71 11.4 S 55 14 1960 7.0 66 94 205 162 27 38 14 1 53 133 5 989.9 Means and extremes above are from existing and comparable exposures. Annual extremes have been exceeded at other sites in the locality as follows: Highest temperature 99 in September 1953; lowest temperature -16 in February 1875; maximum monthly precipitation 13.27 in July 1947; minimum monthly precipitation 0.02 in October 1924; maximum precipitation in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 10.42 in July 1947; maximum snowfall in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 26.5 in December 1944.

(a) Length of record, years, through the current year unless otherwise noted, based on January data. NORMALS - Based on record for the 1941-1970 period.

DATE OF AN EXTREME - The most recent in cases of multiple occurrence.

(b) 70 and above at Alaskan stations. PREVAILING WIND DIRECTION - Record through 1963.

  • Less than one half . WIND DIRECTION - Numerals indicate tens of degrees clockwise from true north. 00 indicates calm.

T Trace FASTEST MILE WIND - Speed is fastest observed 1-minute value when the direction is in tens of degrees.

Note:

(1)

See (Reference 4) <Section 2.3.6>.

Revision 12 2.3-55 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-3 CLIMATOLOGICAL SUMMARIES FOR PAINESVILLE AND GENEVA (1,7)

CLIMATOLOGICAL

SUMMARY

LATITUDE 4145 N STATION: Painesville, Ohio LONGITUDE 8118 W ELEV. (GROUND) 600 Ft.

MEANS AND EXTREMES FOR PERIOD 1950-1965 TEMPERATURE (F) PRECIPITATION TOTALS (INCHES)

MEAN NUMBER MEAN NUMBER MEANS EXTREMES OF DAYS SNOW, SLEET OF DAYS MAX. MIN.

MEAN DEGREE

.01 or MORE .10 or MORE .50 or MORE 1.00 or MORE DAILY GREATEST GREATEST MAXIMUM GREATEST MONTHLY DAILY RECORD RECORD 90 AND 32 AND 32 AND MONTH MONTH 0 AND MAXIMUM MINIMUM HIGHEST YEAR DAY LOWEST YEAR DAY DAYS** ABOVE BELOW BELOW BELOW MEAN MONTHLY YEAR DAILY YEAR DAY MEAN MONTHLY YEAR DAILY YEAR DAY JAN 35.3 21.2 28.2 70 50 25 -15 63 24 1135. 0 13 28 0 2.95 6.56 50 1.40 59 21 12.4 31.5 57 10.0 64 13 13 7 1.6 .3 JAN FEB 36.6 21.5 29.0 69 57 25 -9 63 26 1013. 0 9 25 1 2.41 4.94 50 2.03 50 13 10.4 21.2 64 7.0 51 1 11 6 1.1 .3 FEB MAR 42.3 27.4 34.8 80 63 29 3 60 9 930. 0 5 23 0 2.90 5.50 50 1.90 50 12 10.2 22.2 54 14.6 54 1 12 7 1.6 .3 MAR APR 55.9 38.0 46.9 87 57 25 19 54 3 543. 0 0 8 0 3.47 6.49 54 1.48 57 4 1.5 14.0 57 6.0 57 7 13 8 2.0 .4 APR MAY 67.3 48.2 57.7 92 56 22 25 63 24 255. 0 0 0 0 2.80 6.43 53 2.44 53 22 .0 1.0 63 1.0 63 1 11 6 1.6 .3 MAY JUNE 76.7 57.4 67.0 96 53 20 39 58 7 60. 1 0 0 0 2.97 7.17 57 2.28 57 28 .0 9 6 2.0 .6 JUNE JULY 80.5 61.6 71.0 95 56 1 43 63 15 7. 1 0 0 0 3.30 6.65 58 2.20 50 19 .0 9 6 3.0 .8 JULY AUG 79.2 60.8 70.0 96 51 31 47* 50 22 13. 1 0 0 0 3.16 9.53 56 2.28 56 18 .0 9 5 2.1 .7 AUG SEPT 74.2 55.2 64.7 96* 59 9 34 57 29 97. 0 0 0 0 2.71 5.61 58 1.70 62 28 .0 8 5 2.0 .4 SEPT OCT 64.1 45.8 54.9 91 51 4 25 65 29 322. 0 0 0 0 3.17 11.33 54 3.50 54 15 .7 10.0 54 9.0 54 31 9 5 1.8 .7 OCT NOV 50.9 35.9 43.4 81* 61 3 7 58 29 647. 0 1 10 0 3.46 7.05 50 2.16* 63 13 6.9 39.5 50 21.0 50 24 12 7 2.1 .6 NOV DEC 38.7 25.7 32.2 68 56 6 -4 60 24 1013. 0 8 23 0 2.38 4.06 53 1.25 57 7 14.7 38.2 62 10.0 58 6 13 7 1.0 .1 DEC JUNE JAN OCT OCT NOV NOV YEAR 58.4 41.5 49.9 96* 53 20 -15 63 24 6035 3 36 117 1 35.68 11.33 54 3.50 54 15 56.8 39.5 50 21.0 50 24 129 75 22. 6. YEAR

    • BASE 65 F *Also on earlier dates, months, or years.

CLIMATOLOGICAL

SUMMARY

LATITUDE 4146 N STATION: Geneva, Ohio LONGITUDE 8100 W ELEV. (GROUND) 850 Ft.

MEANS AND EXTREMES FOR PERIOD 1950-1965 TEMPERATURE (F) PRECIPITATION TOTALS (INCHES)

MEAN NUMBER MEAN NUMBER MEANS EXTREMES OF DAYS SNOW, SLEET OF DAYS MAX. MIN.

MEAN DEGREE 1.00 or MORE DAY

.10 or MORE .50 or MORE DAILY GREATEST GREATEST MAXIMUM GREATEST MONTHLY DAILY RECORD RECORD 90 AND 32 AND 32 AND MONTH MONTH 0 AND MAXIMUM MINIMUM HIGHEST YEAR DAY LOWEST YEAR DAY DAYS** ABOVE BELOW BELOW BELOW MEAN MONTHLY YEAR DAILY YEAR DAY MEAN MONTHLY YEAR DAILY YEAR .01 or MORE JAN 34.6 19.5 27.0 72 50 25 -17 63 24 1171. 0 13 28 1 2.73 5.93 50 1.65 59 21 16.2 32.5 57 9.0* 60 21 11 7 1.4 .1 JAN FEB 36.3 19.6 27.9 68 54 15 -12 51 3 1044. 0 9 26 1 2.32 4.94 50 1.71 48 12 10.7 21.0 47 7.5 51 1 10 5 1.0 .3 FEB MAR 44.1 26.5 35.3 80 45 27 -7 60 11 918. 0 5 23 0 3.07 5.23 51 1.98 64 4 10.3 33.3 47 10.0 47 28 11 8 1.7 .2 MAR APR 57.4 37.2 47.3 85* 62 27 14* 64 1 534. 0 0 10 0 3.91 6.57 61 2.28 59 28 2.3 20.5 57 7.5 57 8 11 8 2.7 .5 APR MAY 67.7 47.1 57.4 89 62 18 28 45 2 262. 0 0 0 0 3.88 7.27 46 2.34 46 31 .0 1.5 47 1.0 47 6 11 8 2.5 .8 MAY JUNE 76.3 56.7 66.5 96 52 25 37 50 18 72. 0 0 0 0 3.66 6.69 48 2.60 61 13 .0 9 7 2.5 .8 JUNE JULY 80.0 61.1 70.5 94* 55 27 44 63 9 13. 1 0 0 0 3.14 7.43 59 2.37 50 20 .0 8 5 2.3 .7 JULY AUG 78.9 60.4 69.6 96 53 30 42* 65 30 20. 1 0 0 0 3.45 8.30 56 2.56 56 4 .0 8 6 2.5 .8 AUG SEPT 73.4 54.3 63.8 98 54 5 35* 59 17 115. 0 0 0 0 3.11 7.20 45 3.17 60 11 .0 7 6 1.7 .7 SEPT OCT 63.7 44.8 54.2 87* 63 7 28* 65 29 343. 0 0 1 0 3.16 10.67 54 4.09 54 15 .8 11.0 54 8.0 54 31 8 6 2.0 .5 OCT NOV 49.5 34.0 41.7 82 50 1 0 55 29 694. 0 1 13 0 3.73 6.81 50 2.13 63 12 11.0 40.5 50 18.0 56 22 12 9 2.2 .3 NOV DEC 37.3 23.5 30.4 69 52 9 -4* 62 13 1070. 0 10 26 0 2.91 5.59 62 2.10 65 4 21.0 71.0 62 23.0 62 9 12 8 1.3 .1 DEC SEPT JAN OCT OCT DEC DEC YEAR 58.2 40.3 49.3 98 54 5 -17 63 24 6256. 2 38 127 2 39.07 10.67 54 4.09 54 15 72.3 71.0 62 23.0 62 9 118 83 24. 6.1 YEAR

    • BASE 65 F *Also on earlier dates, months, or years.

Revision 12 2.3-56 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-4 SITE REGION METEOROLOGICAL EXTREMES (DATE OF OCCURRENCE)(1)

Cleveland Erie Painesville Geneva (1942-6/78) (1954-6/78) (1950-65) (1944-65)

Maximum Temperature, F 103(7/41) 94(7/68) 96(6/53) 98(9/54)

Minimum Temperature, F -19(1/63) -17(7) -15(1/63) -20(7)

Maximum Monthly 9.50(10/54) 11.06(8/77) 11.33(10/54) 10.67(10/54)

Precipitation, Inches Maximum Monthly 42.8(1/78)(2) 62.4(1/78)(3) 39.5(11/50) 71.00(12/62)

Snowfall, Inches Maximum 24-Hour 4.00(6/72) 4.84(9/59)(4) 3.50(10/54)(5) 4.09(10/54)(5)

Precipitation, Inches Maximum 24-Hour 17.4(11/13)(2) 26.5(12/44)(3) 21.0(11/50)(5) 23.0(12.62)(5)

Snowfall, Inches Fastest Mile Wind, mph, 74W(3/48) 55SE(3/60)(6) (Not Available) (Not Available) and Direction NOTES:

(1)

See (Reference 1), (Reference 3), (Reference 4), (Reference 5), (Reference 22) <Section 2.3.6>.

(2)

Record begins with 1871.

(3)

Record begins with 1894.

(4)

Record begins with 1956.

(5)

Maximum daily precipitation amounts.

(6)

Record begins with 1958.

(7)

Revised based on 1978-1980 data.

Revision 12 2.3-57 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-5 DESIGN-BASIS TORNADO CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE PNPP SITE(1)

Characteristic Value Region I Maximum Wind Speed (mph) 360 Rotational Speed (mph) 290 Translational Maximum Speed (mph) 70 Translational Minimum Speed (mph) 5 Radius of Maximum Rotational Speed (ft) 150 Maximum Pressure Drop (psi) 3.0 Rate of Pressure Drop (psi/s) 2.0 NOTE:

(1)

Refer to <Regulatory Guide 1.76>.

Revision 14 2.3-58 October, 2005

TABLE 2.3-6 MONTHLY AND ANNUAL AVERAGE WIND SPEED (MPH)

FOR PNPP REGION SITE YEARS AND LOG TERM PNPP PNPP ERIE CLEVELAND 3 years(3) 7 Years(4,5) 3 years(3) Long 3 years(3) Long Month 10 m 60 m 10 m 60 m 6.1 m Term(1,6) 6.1 m Term(2,7)

January 10.1 13.9 10.5 14.3 13.9 13.4 12.3 12.5 February 8.1 11.1 8.7 12.1 11.2 12.6 10.4 12.4 March 9.5 13.6 9.8 13.9 12.4 12.4 11.6 12.5 April 9.5 12.9 9.5 13.4 12.4 11.8 11.9 11.8 May 7.6 11.3 7.1 10.6 10.3 10.2 9.6 10.3 June 7.0 11.3 7.0 11.0 9.6 9.6 9.0 9.4 July 6.1 9.4 6.0 9.6 8.8 9.1 8.3 8.7 August 5.7 9.7 5.9 10.0 8.6 9.1 7.7 8.3 September 6.8 11.4 6.9 11.4 9.9 10.1 8.6 9.1 October 8.2 13.2 8.7 13.6 11.1 11.4 9.3 10.0 Revision 12 2.3-59 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-6 (Continued)

PNPP PNPP ERIE CLEVELAND 3 years(3) 7 Years(4,5) 3 years(3) Long 3 years(3) Long Month 10 m 60 m 10 m 60 m 6.1 m Term(1,6) 6.1 m Term(2,7)

November 10.0 15.1 9.8 14.5 13.1 13.2 11.0 12.1 December 9.8 14.4 10.4 14.8 13.4 13.6 12.2 12.3 Annual 8.2 12.4 8.4 12.4 11.3 11.4 10.2 10.8 NOTES:

(1) 30 ft for January 1, 1954 - January 31, 1960; 55 ft for February 1, 1960 - September 28, 1965; 20 ft for September 29, 1965 - December 31, 1977.

(2) 56 ft for January 1, 1942 - January 30, 1956; 88 ft for January 30, 1956 - June 25, 1959; 20 ft for June 26, 1959 - December 31, 1977.

(3)

Concurrent years: May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1973; May 1, 1973, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1978.

(4)

May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1982.

(5)

See (Reference 50) <Section 2.3.6>.

(6)

See (Reference 4) <Section 2.3.6>.

(7)

See (Reference 3) <Section 2.3.6>.

Revision 12 2.3-60 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-7 ANNUAL AVERAGE WIND SPEEDS (MPH) FOR PNPP REGION PNPP Erie(1) Cleveland(2)

Period 10 m 60 m 6.1 m 6.1 m May 1, 1972 - 8.0 12.0 11.0 10.1 April 30, 1973 May 1, 1973 - 8.4 13.0 11.9 10.2 April 30, 1974 September 1, 1977 - 8.3 12.4 10.9 10.2 August 31, 1978 Combined 3-year 8.2 12.5 11.3 10.2 Period Long term 8.4(3,4) 12.4(3,4) 11.4 10.8 NOTES:

(1)

See (Reference 4) <Section 2.3.6>.

(2)

See (Reference 3) <Section 2.3.6>.

(3)

See (Reference 50) <Section 2.3.6>.

(4)

PNPP: May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1982.

Revision 12 2.3-61 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-8 PNPP AREA MONTHLY AND ANNUAL MEANS AND EXTREMES OF TEMPERATURE (F) FOR THREE CONCURRENT YEARS(1)

PNPP ERIE CLEVELAND Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Mean Mean Extr Mean Extr Mean Mean Extr Mean Extr Mean Mean Extr Mean Extr January 27 34 67 22 5 26 32 59 21 4 27 34 62 21 0 February 22 28 57 16 -12 21 27 55 15 -12 24 31 56 18 -1 March 37 44 74 31 2 35 42 74 29 -3 39 47 73 33 0 April 47 55 78 40 26 45 52 75 38 22 49 58 80 42 26 May 56 63 82 50 33 54 61 80 48 29 58 66 86 50 32 June 65 73 87 58 43 63 71 86 56 34 65 76 90 59 33 July 70 76 90 63 47 69 76 89 62 48 71 80 93 64 45 August 70 76 89 63 49 68 76 90 62 45 70 80 93 63 47 September 65 71 88 58 37 62 69 86 55 38 64 73 91 57 40 October 52 59 79 47 28 49 56 73 44 27 51 60 78 46 28 November 42 48 73 38 21 41 46 70 37 22 41 48 75 38 14 December 31 37 63 26 3 30 36 60 26 2 33 38 62 27 1 Annual 49 55 90 42 -12 47 54 90 41 -12 52 58 93 43 -1 Revision 12 2.3-62 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-8 (Continued)

NOTE:

(1)

May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977 to August 31, 1978.

Revision 12 2.3-63 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-9 PNPP AREA LONG TERM ANNUAL MEANS AND EXTREMES OF TEMPERATURE (F)

Mean Extreme Maximum Mean Extreme Minimum Period Mean Maximum (and year) Minimum (and year) of Record Erie(1) 47.1 55.0 94(7/68) 39.2 -17(7) 1954-1980 Cleveland(2) 49.7 58.5 103(7/41) 40.8 -19(1/63) 1942-1977 Painesville(3) 49.9 58.4 96(6/53) 41.5 -15(1/63) 1950-1965 Geneva(4) 49.3 58.2 98(9/54) 40.3 -20(7) 1944-1980 PNPP 48.6(5) 54.9(5) 92(7/80) 42.2(5) -14(1/82) 7 Years(6)

NOTES:

(1)

See (Reference 4) <Section 2.3.6>.

(2)

See (Reference 3) <Section 2.3.6>.

(3)

See (Reference 1) <Section 2.3.6>.

(4)

See (Reference 7) <Section 2.3.6>.

(5)

See (Reference 50) <Section 2.3.6>.

(6)

May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1982.

(7)

Revised based on 1978-1980 data.

Revision 12 2.3-64 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-10 ANNUAL PNPP DIURNAL VARIATIONS OF TEMPERATURE, DEW POINT, RELATIVE HUMIDITY, AND ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY FOR PNPP 10-m LEVEL(1) 60-m LEVEL(2,3)

Temp. Dew Pt. Rel. Hum. Abs. Hum. Temp. Dew Pt. Rel. Hum. Abs. Hum.

Hour (F) (F) (%) (gm/m3) (F) (F) (%) (gm/m3) 1 47 39 77 8 48 37 74 7 2 46 39 78 8 47 37 75 7 3 46 38 78 7 47 37 75 7 4 46 38 78 7 47 36 76 7 5 45 38 79 7 46 36 76 7 6 45 38 79 7 46 36 77 7 7 46 38 79 7 46 36 78 7 8 47 39 77 8 46 37 78 7 9 48 39 74 8 47 38 76 7 10 49 39 72 8 48 38 74 7 11 50 39 70 8 49 38 73 7 12 51 40 68 8 50 39 72 7 13 52 40 68 8 50 39 71 7 14 52 40 67 8 51 39 70 8 15 52 40 67 8 51 40 70 8 16 52 40 67 8 51 39 70 7 17 52 40 68 8 51 39 70 7 18 51 40 69 8 50 39 70 7 19 50 40 71 8 50 38 70 7 20 49 40 73 8 50 38 71 7 21 49 40 75 8 49 38 71 7 22 48 40 76 8 49 38 72 7 Revision 12 2.3-65 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-10 (Continued) 10-m LEVEL(1) 60-m LEVEL(2,3)

Temp. Dew Pt. Rel. Hum. Abs. Hum. Temp. Dew Pt. Rel. Hum. Abs. Hum.

Hour (F) (F) (%) (gm/m3) (F) (F) (%) (gm/m3) 23 47 39 76 8 48 37 73 7 24 47 39 77 8 48 37 73 7 Mean 49 39 73 8 49 38 73 7 NOTES:

(1)

May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977 to August 31, 1982.

(2)

May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1978.

(3)

See (Reference 51) <Section 2.3.6>.

Revision 12 2.3-66 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-11 MONTHLY AND ANNUAL MEANS OF RELATIVE HUMIDITY, ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY, AND DEW POINT FOR PNPP AREA FOR THREE SITE YEARS(1)

PNPP ERIE CLEVELAND Relative Absolute Dew Relative Absolute Dew Relative Absolute Dew Humidity Humidity Point Humidity Humidity Point Humidity Humidity Point Month (%) (gm/m3) (F) (%) (gm/m3) (F) (%) (gm/m3) (F)

January 75 3 20 77 3 19 75 3 20 February 76 2 13 75 2 14 72 2 16 March 72 4 24 75 4 27 72 5 30 April 66 5 36 69 5 34 67 6 38 May 74 9 48 75 8 45 72 9 48 June 75 12 58 76 11 55 73 11 56 July 76 14 62 74 13 60 73 14 62 August 79 14 62 76 13 60 75 14 61 September 73 11 55 82 11 56 76 12 56 October 71 7 43 77 7 42 74 7 43 November 73 5 32 77 5 34 77 5 35 Revision 12 2.3-67 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-11 (Continued)

PNPP ERIE CLEVELAND Relative Absolute Dew Relative Absolute Dew Relative Absolute Dew Humidity Humidity Point Humidity Humidity Point Humidity Humidity Point Month (%) (gm/m3) (F) (%) (gm/m3) (F) (%) (gm/m3) (F)

December 78 3 28 80 3 25 78 4 26 Annual 74 7 40 76 7 39 74 8 43 NOTE:

(1)

May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1978 Revision 12 2.3-68 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-12 LONG TERM VALUES OF RELATIVE HUMIDITY, ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY AND DEW POINT FOR PNPP AREA MAXIMUM MINIMUM Mean Mean Extreme Mean Extreme RH AH DP RH AH DP RH AH DP RH AH DP RH AH DP 3 3 3 3 3

(%) (g/m ) (F) (%) (g/m ) (F) (%) (g/m ) (F) (%) (g/m ) (F) (%) (g/m ) (F)

January E(1,2) 76 2 16 78 3 17 100 11 54 73 2 15 27 0 -23 C(1,3) 72 3 16 76 3 19 100 11 55 65 2 15 28 0 -24 P(4,5) 75 3 17 88 4 24 100 10 53 61 2 12 30 1 -20 February E 75 3 17 78 3 19 100 11 55 71 2 15 33 0 -22 C 70 3 18 75 3 20 100 11 55 60 2 15 25 1 -17 P 75 3 15 88 4 21 100 11 54 60 2 10 18 1 -16 March E 73 3 25 78 4 26 100 13 59 66 3 23 23 1 -10 C 67 4 25 75 4 28 100 14 63 57 3 20 21 1 -5 P 72 4 26 88 5 32 100 12 56 55 3 20 23 1 -10 April E 67 5 33 75 5 34 100 15 64 59 5 31 20 1 5 C 64 5 35 75 6 37 100 17 68 53 5 33 19 2 10 P 68 6 35 85 7 41 100 15 64 51 5 29 19 2 8 May E 71 8 45 80 8 47 100 19 71 60 7 43 22 2 10 C 67 8 47 80 9 49 100 19 72 54 7 44 21 3 17 P 72 9 48 86 11 52 100 23 78 56 7 42 18 2 16 June E 74 11 55 84 12 57 100 21 75 63 10 53 32 4 28 C 71 12 56 83 12 58 100 24 79 59 10 52 28 4 27 P 75 12 56 90 14 61 100 26 81 62 10 52 21 3 23 July E 74 13 59 84 14 61 100 23 77 63 12 58 32 6 37 C 71 14 61 85 14 63 100 23 78 57 13 59 30 5 36 P 76 14 62 92 17 67 100 23 77 59 12 58 35 7 41 August E 77 13 60 87 14 61 100 22 76 64 12 58 35 5 35 C 73 13 60 86 14 62 100 24 79 57 12 57 29 6 41 P 78 14 62 93 16 66 100 22 76 62 12 58 35 5 32 September E 78 11 54 86 11 55 100 22 75 66 10 52 35 3 24 C 75 11 54 85 12 56 100 20 73 62 10 53 31 3 24 P 74 12 55 89 14 60 100 22 76 58 10 50 22 4 30 Revision 12 2.3-69 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-12 (Continued)

MAXIMUM MINIMUM Mean Mean Extreme Mean Extreme RH AH DP RH AH DP RH AH DP RH AH DP RH AH DP 3 3 3 3 3

(%) (g/m ) (F) (%) (g/m ) (F) (%) (g/m ) (F) (%) (g/m ) (F) (%) (g/m ) (F)

October E 74 7 42 79 8 44 100 17 67 66 7 40 26 2 16 C 72 7 43 81 8 45 100 16 66 61 6 39 26 3 18 P 71 7 42 87 9 47 100 16 65 55 6 37 30 3 17 November E 76 5 33 78 5 34 100 15 63 72 5 32 34 2 4 C 74 5 33 80 5 35 100 15 64 67 5 32 29 1 -2 P 71 5 33 86 7 38 100 14 63 57 4 27 22 2 8 December E 74 7 39 80 7 40 100 23 77 66 7 37 20 1 -7 C 73 3 23 75 3 24 100 12 58 70 3 21 27 1 -17 P 74 4 24 87 5 30 100 12 56 60 3 18 30 1 -2 Annual E 74 7 39 80 7 40 100 23 77 66 7 37 20 0 -23 C 71 7 39 79 8 41 100 24 79 62 7 37 19 0 -24 P 73 8 39 88 9 45 100 26 81 58 6 34 18 1 -20 NOTES:

(1)

Period of record: September 1, 1968, to August 31, 1978.

(2)

E = Erie refer to (Reference 30), <Section 2.3.6>.

(3)

C = Cleveland refer to (Reference 31), <Section 2.3.6>.

(4)

P = PNPP (May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1982).

(5)

See (Reference 50) <Section 2.3.6>.

Revision 12 2.3-70 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-13 PNPP MONTHLY AND ANNUAL GREATEST PRECIPITATION (INCHES)

BY TIME INTERVAL FOR SEVEN SITE YEARS(1,2)

INTERVAL (HOURS)

Month _1_ _6_ _12_ _18 _24_

January 0.15 0.62 0.66 0.66 0.85 February 0.16 0.53 0.70 0.92 0.92 March 0.40 0.72 0.81 0.83 0.83 April 0.50 0.86 1.34 1.72 1.73 May 0.72 0.77 0.93 1.16 1.38 June 0.98 1.49 2.02 2.05 2.05 July 1.00 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.51 August 1.00 1.16 1.55 1.55 1.60 September 0.85 1.85 2.35 2.44 2.44 October 0.48 1.63 1.77 1.77 1.78 November 0.33 0.95 1.14 1.30 1.31 December 0.29 0.76 1.31 1.59 1.65 Annual 1.00 1.85 2.35 2.44 2.44 NOTES:

(1)

May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1982.

(2)

See (Reference 50) <Section 2.3.6>.

Revision 12 2.3-71 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-14 PERCENT FREQUENCY OF PRECIPITATION BY AMOUNT AND INTERVAL FOR PNPP FOR SEVEN SITE YEARS INTERVAL (HOURS)(2)

Amount Inches(1) _1_ _6__ _12_ _18_ _24_

0.01 5.74 14.90 22.76 29.48 35.41 0.02 4.17 12.55 19.84 26.19 31.80 0.03 3.18 10.98 17.87 23.86 29.28 0.04 2.52 9.83 16.36 22.07 27.29 0.05 2.02 8.89 15.15 20.70 25.75 0.07 1.39 7.40 12.96 18.05 22.73 0.10 0.87 5.91 10.92 15.50 19.83 0.15 0.44 4.18 8.27 12.05 15.72 0.20 0.28 3.09 6.43 9.61 12.74 0.25 0.20 2.26 4.87 7.46 10.04 0.30 0.13 1.68 3.86 6.01 8.21 0.35 0.09 1.27 3.11 5.08 7.04 0.40 0.07 1.01 2.56 4.19 5.88 0.45 0.05 0.79 2.07 3.38 4.76 0.50 0.04 0.66 1.76 2.94 4.13 0.60 0.03 0.46 1.23 2.12 3.05 0.70 0.02 0.34 0.95 1.65 2.39 0.80 0.02 0.25 0.72 1.29 1.83 0.90 0.01 0.19 0.55 1.02 1.48 1.00 <0.01 0.15 0.41 0.73 1.12 1.10 0.00 0.10 0.27 0.52 0.83 1.20 0.00 0.05 0.17 0.35 0.60 1.30 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.29 0.49 1.40 0.00 0.03 0.11 0.23 0.38 1.50 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.18 0.30 1.60 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.12 0.20 1.70 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.17 1.80 0.00 <0.01 0.04 0.08 0.12 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.10 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.08 NOTES:

(1)

Percentages for a given category include precipitation of that category up to the next higher category (i.e., an amount of 0.34 would be included in the 0.30 category).

(2)

Hours with missing precipitation data were assumed to be hours with no precipitation.

Revision 12 2.3-72 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-15 PNPP AREA GREATEST 24-H PRECIPITATION (INCHES)

FOR THREE CONCURRENT YEARS(1)

Month PNPP Erie(2) Cleveland(3) Painesville(4) Geneva(4)

January 0.85 1.08 1.10 0.88 0.55 February 0.32 0.70 0.72 0.36 0.46 March 0.83 1.12 1.07 0.80 0.82 April 1.11 1.06 1.53 0.97 1.13 May 0.95 1.72 1.06 0.87 2.01 June 1.30 2.51 4.00 1.69 2.40 July 1.51 1.46 2.00 1.56 1.59 August 1.55 1.91 1.53 1.78 2.80 September 2.39 2.03 1.81 2.26 2.81 October 0.80 1.36 1.16 0.80 0.96 November 1.31 1.12 1.19 1.69 1.13(5)

December 1.18 2.31 1.41 1.62 1.45 Annual 2.39 2.51 4.00 2.26 2.81 NOTES:

(1)

May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1973; May 1, 1973, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1978.

(2)

See (Reference 4) <Section 2.3.6>.

(3)

See (Reference 3) <Section 2.3.6>.

(4)

See (Reference 8) <Section 2.3.6>; values for Painesville and Geneva are for greatest day of precipitation.

(5)

Only two years of data available, 1972 and 1973.

Revision 12 2.3-73 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-16 PNPP AREA AVERAGE TOTAL PRECIPITATION FOR THREE CONCURRENT YEARS(1)

Month PNPP Erie(2) Cleveland(3) Painesville(4) Geneva(4)

January 1.34 2.59 2.62 2.93 2.18 February 0.40 1.50 1.77 1.20 1.41 March 2.84 3.33 3.18 3.60 3.74 April 2.75 3.35 3.35 3.43 4.25 May 2.61 4.01 3.85 3.69 4.68 June 3.53 5.49 6.36 4.53 4.89 July 1.55 1.70 3.26 2.56 2.97 August 2.62 3.84 4.36 4.52 2.98 September 4.24 6.08 3.37 4.96 5.25 October 2.14 2.88 2.51 2.61 3.01 November 2.51 4.15 3.61 4.11 3.87 December 2.56 4.26 3.43 3.76 3.45 Annual 29.07 43.18 41.67 41.90 42.68 NOTES:

(1)

May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1978.

(2)

See (Reference 4) <Section 2.3.6>.

(3)

See (Reference 3) <Section 2.3.6>.

(4)

See (Reference 8) <Section 2.3.6>.

Revision 12 2.3-74 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-17 LONG-TERM TOTAL PRECIPITATION (INCHES) VALUES FOR PNPP AREA ERIE(1) CLEVELAND(2) PAINESVILLE(3) PNPP(4)

Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Maximum Minimum Month Normal Monthly Monthly Normal Monthly Monthly Normal Monthly Normal Monthly Monthly January 2.47 4.59 0.90 2.56 7.01 0.36 2.95 6.56 1.22 2.11 0.29 February 2.12 5.01 0.73 2.18 4.64 0.73 2.41 4.94 0.80 1.91 0.05 March 2.75 6.78 0.63 3.05 6.07 0.73 2.90 5.50 2.24 3.66 0.80 April 3.55 7.11 1.63 3.49 6.61 1.18 3.47 6.49 2.46 3.71 0.56 May 3.63 5.59 1.45 3.49 6.04 1.00 2.80 6.43 2.02 3.19 1.19 June 3.50 7.74 0.85 3.28 9.06 1.17 2.97 7.17 3.45 5.36 1.89 July 3.52 7.70 1.11 3.45 6.47 1.23 3.30 6.65 2.56 5.03 0.80 August 3.35 11.06 0.58 3.00 8.96 0.53 3.16 9.53 2.82 3.93 1.60 September 3.56 10.65 1.45 2.80 6.37 0.74 2.71 5.61 3.87 5.81 1.79 October 3.24 9.87 1.13 2.57 9.50 0.61 3.17 11.33 2.76 4.18 1.51 November 3.70 6.25 1.96 2.76 6.44 0.80 3.46 7.05 1.93 3.22 0.85 Revision 12 2.3-75 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-17 (Continued)

ERIE(1) CLEVELAND(2) PAINESVILLE(3) PNPP(4)

Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Maximum Minimum Month Normal Monthly Monthly Normal Monthly Monthly Normal Monthly Normal Monthly Monthly December 2.81 5.63 1.38 2.36 5.60 0.71 2.38 4.06 2.49 3.86 1.31 Annual 38.20 11.06 0.58 34.99 9.50 0.36 35.68 11.33 28.32 5.81 0.05 Period of 1941-70 1954-77 1954-77 1941-70 1942-77 1942-77 1950-65 1950-65 -(5) -(5) -(5)

Record NOTES:

(1)

See (Reference 4) <Section 2.3.6>.

(2)

See (Reference 3) <Section 2.3.6>.

(3)

See (Reference 1) <Section 2.3.6>.

(4)

See (Reference 50) <Section 2.3.6>.

(5)

May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1978, to August 31, 1982.

Revision 12 2.3-76 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-18 PNPP STABILITY CLASS DISTRIBUTIONS (PERCENT) BY MONTH FOR SEVEN SITE YEARS(1,2)

Stability Class Based on T (60 - 10 m)

A B C D E F G January 0.04 0.04 0.57 72.46 21.54 3.05 2.30 February 0.68 0.89 1.35 60.20 25.85 5.76 5.27 March 2.59 2.59 4.63 56.72 22.46 6.20 4.80 April 4.90 4.90 6.37 46.56 23.52 7.17 6.58 May 4.84 4.04 6.57 41.98 21.67 8.92 11.98 June 6.24 5.11 6.10 35.95 24.70 9.29 12.61 July 7.58 4.94 7.11 29.66 25.01 10.20 15.51 August 5.87 5.35 5.75 28.11 26.87 11.42 16.63 September 5.73 3.63 4.44 33.91 30.73 9.49 12.07 October 2.68 3.04 3.93 45.51 31.47 7.21 6.15 November 0.43 1.24 2.48 64.86 22.11 5.12 3.76 December 0.12 0.08 0.53 71.39 24.92 2.22 0.73 Annual 3.49 3.00 4.17 48.90 25.06 7.17 8.21 NOTES:

(1)

May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1982, and associated with valid 10-m wind data.

(2)

See (Reference 54) <Section 2.3.6>.

Revision 12 2.3-77 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-19 PNPP AREA LONG TERM ANNUAL STABILITY CLASS DISTRIBUTIONS(5)

_A_ _B_ _C_ _D_ _E_ _F_ _G_

ERIE(1,2) 10 years(3) 0.08 3.27 9.04 71.63 7.76 6.66 1.55 CLEVELAND(2,4) 10 years(3) 0.27 3.47 9.52 66.74 9.74 7.74 2.52 PNPP(7) 7 years(6,7) 3.49 3.00 4.17 48.90 25.06 7.17 8.21 NOTES:

(1)

See (Reference 32) <Section 2.3.6>.

(2)

Stability class based on Pasquill-Turner Method.

(3)

Based on NWS data: September 1, 1968, to August 31, 1978.

(4)

See (Reference 33) <Section 2.3.6>.

(5)

Stability class based on Delta-T Method.

(6)

May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1982.

(7)

See (Reference 54) <Section 2.3.6>.

Revision 12 2.3-78 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-20 (1,2)

PNPP STABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS BY HOUR OF DAY FOR SEVEN SITE YEARS (NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES)

Stability Class HR. OF DAY A B C D E F G TOTAL FG EPG 1 1 2 5 851 830 308 455 2,452 763 1,593 2 0 4 2 869 824 324 430 2,453 754 1,578 3 0 1 4 870 858 315 406 2,454 721 1,579 4 3 1 4 843 898 286 421 2,456 707 1,605 5 0 2 1 853 920 271 404 2,451 675 1,595 6 0 1 5 887 899 269 386 2,447 655 1,554 7 0 2 7 1,040 864 260 263 2,436 523 1,387 8 11 15 42 1,461 673 141 83 2,426 224 897 9 49 55 109 1,770 381 34 22 2,420 56 437 10 120 134 253 1,673 210 17 4 2,411 21 231 11 209 218 311 1,492 171 8 3 2,412 11 182 12 322 239 309 1,377 151 13 2 2,413 15 166 13 377 238 272 1,364 139 8 4 2,402 12 151 14 352 245 282 1,372 137 8 4 2,400 12 149 15 274 218 286 1,453 166 9 0 2,406 9 175 16 186 179 232 1,622 175 14 2 2,410 16 191 17 84 115 162 1,698 329 19 4 2,411 23 352 18 38 44 90 1,571 585 64 16 2,408 80 665 19 3 9 32 1,287 908 152 46 2,437 198 1,106 20 2 4 4 897 1,074 321 147 2,449 468 1,542 21 1 3 4 832 894 381 340 2,455 721 1,615 22 1 3 7 813 867 330 433 2,454 763 1,630 23 0 4 4 824 859 309 452 2,452 761 1,620 24 0 3 5 838 848 311 450 2,455 761 1,609 ALL 2,033 1,739 2,432 28,557 14,660 4,172 4,777 58,370 8,949 23,609 NOTES:

(1)

May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1982.

(2)

Stability based on T (60 - 10 m).

Revision 12 2.3-79 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-21 (1,2)

PNPP STABILITY PERSISTENCE FOR SEVEN SITE YEARS (NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES)

STABILITY CLASS Persistence Periods (Hours) A B C D E F G TOTAL FG EFG 1 276 764 1,140 1,196 1,649 1,098 186 6,309 332 631 2 100 231 335 835 742 393 155 2,791 194 349 3 78 82 115 594 434 199 99 1,601 142 203 4 66 38 36 330 286 94 95 945 86 151 5 53 16 19 257 217 74 69 705 90 128 6 36 3 6 169 174 54 50 492 89 116 7 32 2 0 155 112 28 60 389 59 80 8 28 0 0 102 109 19 51 309 73 90 9 13 0 0 116 66 9 38 242 56 69 10 1 0 0 100 76 10 59 246 89 74 11 0 0 0 71 63 5 67 206 136 135 12 0 0 0 72 57 2 20 151 93 266 13 0 0 0 42 46 1 9 98 67 271 14 0 0 0 48 35 0 5 88 24 204 15 0 0 0 32 21 0 2 55 12 142 16 0 0 0 34 17 0 0 51 5 84 17 0 0 0 30 13 0 0 43 0 51 18 0 0 0 28 5 0 0 33 0 27 19 0 0 0 23 3 0 0 26 0 9 20 0 0 0 30 4 0 0 34 0 10 21 - 25 0 0 0 77 10 0 0 87 0 16 26 - 30 0 0 0 39 4 0 0 43 0 5 31 - 35 0 0 0 33 2 0 0 35 0 3 36 - 40 0 0 0 24 1 0 0 25 0 0 41 - 45 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 17 0 4 46 - 50 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 16 0 0 51 - 55 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 11 0 1 56 - 60 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 13 0 0 GT 60 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 35 0 0 TOTAL 683 1,136 1,651 4,529 4,146 1,986 965 15,096 1,547 3,119 MAXIMUM PERSISTENCE DURATION (HOURS) 10 7 6 148 37 13 15 148 16 54 Revision 12 2.3-80 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-21 (Continued)

NOTES:

(1)

May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1982.

(2)

Stability based on T (60 - 10 m).

Revision 12 2.3-81 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-22 PNPP METEOROLOGICAL SYSTEM EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS -

(APRIL 1972 TO AUGUST 1982)

Instrument Mfr. Model Level Specifications Wind Speed-Direction Climet Wind Direction 10m, 60m Threshold 0.75 mph WD-012-10 Accuracy 3 Wind Speed Threshold 0.6 mph WS-011-1 Accuracy 1% of the wind speed reading or 0.15 mph, whichever is greater Translator 025-2 Temperature Endevco 4470.114 Universal T(10m) T (scale -20F to 100F)

Signal Conditioner T(60-10m) Accuracy .12F 4473.2 RTB Conditioner T (scale -4F to 8F)

Teledyne Geotech M327 Aspirators Accuracy .02F Rosemount 104MB12ADCA four wire RTB Precipitation Belfort 5-405 H Rain Gauge Ground Accuracy 2% (in)

Weather Measure P565 windshield for 1 in./h (after 1978)

Dew Point Cambridge 110S-S 10m Accuracy 0.5F EG&G (after August 1977) 220 10m, 60m(1) Accuracy 0.4C Station Pressure Teledyne Geotech BP-100(28-32) 2m Accuracy 0.02 in. of Hg (after August 1977)

Revision 13 2.3-82 December, 2003

TABLE 2.3-22 (Continued)

Instrument Mfr. Model Level Specifications Multipoint Recorder Esterline-Angus E1124E Shelter Accuracy 0.25% of full T(10m),T(60-10m), scale dewpoints, pressure, precipitation Strip Recorders Esterline-Angus E1102R Shelter Accuracy 1% of full (2 ea.) ws/wd) scale Minicomputer DEC LSI-11 with Shelter Accuracy of converter is (after August 1977) ADV 11-A converter 0.10% of full scale NOTE:

(1) 60-m dew point discontinued in January 1980.

Revision 13 2.3-83 December, 2003

TABLE 2.3-23 METEOROLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY (PERCENT) AT PNPP(1)

Joint 10-m Joint 60-m 10-m 60-m 10-m 60-m 10-m Delta T Winds & Winds & Dew Dew Ambient Station Winds(2) Winds(2) (60-10m) Delta T Delta T Point Point Precip. Temp. Pressure January 1973 85 99 99 99 85 57 -(3) 99 99 -

1974 96 100 100 100 96 100 - 99 99 -

1978 99 96 99 96 99 45 99 99 99 99 1979 97 97 97 97 97 87 92 97 97 97 1980 99 99 98 98 98 74 45 100 98 99 1981 99 99 95 95 95 96 - 100 95 99 1982 90 89 81 80 81 80 - 99 84 91 February 1973 85 90 93 83 79 0 - 96 95 -

1974 99 100 99 99 99 98 - 99 99 -

1978 100 100 99 99 99 99 43 99 99 99 1979 94 94 97 94 94 91 86 98 97 97 1980 100 100 99 99 99 94 - 100 99 100 1981 83 90 93 85 81 83 - 100 86 86 1982 94 94 75 72 70 90 - 100 74 94 March 1973 88 99 99 99 88 45 - 99 99 -

1974 57 98 98 97 55 98 - 98 99 -

1978 90 90 94 88 87 53 41 98 95 97 1979 99 99 86 86 86 97 91 100 98 99 1980 99 99 91 91 91 88 - 99 91 98 1981 95 95 94 94 94 92 - 100 95 95 1982 99 98 98 97 98 85 - 100 99 98 Revision 12 2.3-84 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-23 (Continued)

Joint 10-m Joint 60-m 10-m 60-m 10-m 60-m 10-m Delta T Winds & Winds & Dew Dew Ambient Station Winds(2) Winds(2) (60-10m) Delta T Delta T Point Point Precip. Temp. Pressure April 1973 99 100 100 100 99 96 - 100 99 -

1974 38 100 100 100 38 100 - 100 99 -

1978 100 100 85 85 85 60 25 98 96 94 1979 98 98 87 87 87 98 98 98 97 98 1980 99 99 98 98 98 80 - 99 93 99 1981 99 99 95 95 95 92 - 99 99 99 1982 97 97 95 95 95 92 - 100 97 93 May 1972 97 90 97 88 95 47 - 97 98 -

1973 100 100 100 100 100 56 - 100 99 -

1978 98 98 95 95 95 94 83 99 98 97 1979 99 99 99 99 99 58 40 99 99 99 1980 93 93 92 92 92 80 - 99 92 93 1981 99 99 94 94 94 61 - 100 96 98 1982 94 94 90 89 89 95 - 100 95 94 June 1972 100 99 99 99 99 43 - 99 98 -

1973 50 99 96 96 50 57 - 99 96 -

1978 98 96 98 98 96 74 74 99 98 99 1979 99 99 98 97 97 39 26 99 97 99 1980 91 91 91 91 91 79 - 99 90 90 1981 86 99 95 95 82 49 - 99 85 87 1982 89 94 91 91 86 94 - 100 93 93 Revision 12 2.3-85 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-23 (Continued)

Joint 10-m Joint 60-m 10-m 60-m 10-m 60-m 10-m Delta T Winds & Winds & Dew Dew Ambient Station Winds(2) Winds(2) (60-10m) Delta T Delta T Point Point Precip. Temp. Pressure July 1972 77 74 76 73 76 44 - 67 77 -

1973 24 99 97 97 23 97 - 99 98 -

1978 99 99 99 99 99 83 90 100 99 73 1979 99 99 99 99 99 77 45 100 99 99 1980 99 99 98 98 98 94 - 100 98 98 1981 98 98 91 91 90 89 - 100 95 98 1982 99 99 97 97 97 99 - 99 99 98 August 1972 100 100 100 100 100 99 - 100 99 -

1973 81 99 96 96 79 94 - 96 96 -

1978 98 97 96 96 96 63 98 90 96 74 1979 87 92 92 92 87 87 80 98 87 87 1980 99 99 90 90 90 95 - 99 90 99 1981 89 98 88 88 79 80 - 100 88 88 1982 99 99 95 95 95 99 - 100 98 98 September 1972 98 98 93 92 92 66 - 93 92 -

1973 100 100 99 99 99 99 - 99 99 -

1977 99 95 99 95 99 0 0 99 99 53 1978 97 96 94 91 91 63 96 98 95 98 1979 91 99 88 88 80 80 80 98 82 91 1980 95 95 95 95 95 93 - 100 95 95 1981 98 97 90 89 90 86 - 100 93 98 Revision 12 2.3-86 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-23 (Continued)

Joint 10-m Joint 60-m 10-m 60-m 10-m 60-m 10-m Delta T Winds & Winds & Dew Dew Ambient Station Winds(2) Winds(2) (60-10m) Delta T Delta T Point Point Precip. Temp. Pressure October 1972 100 100 99 99 99 99 - 99 99 -

1973 99 100 100 100 99 100 - 100 99 -

1977 100 99 95 95 95 86 7 95 96 77 1978 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 1979 99 99 99 99 99 99 65 100 99 99 1980 99 99 92 92 92 98 - 99 98 98 1981 90 89 85 85 85 69 - 100 88 97 November 1972 100 100 100 100 100 99 - 100 99 -

1973 100 100 99 99 99 99 - 99 99 -

1977 84 91 98 90 83 65 67 99 98 0 1978 95 95 95 95 95 95 77 95 95 95 1979 100 100 99 99 99 99 56 100 99 99 1980 81 95 92 92 77 81 - 100 82 80 1981 99 98 97 96 97 99 - 100 99 99 December 1972 90 92 100 92 90 97 - 100 99 -

1973 86 96 84 82 75 84 - 99 98 -

1977 100 99 99 99 99 83 99 99 99 33 1978 100 100 97 97 97 91 86 100 97 100 1979 100 100 100 100 100 89 74 100 100 100 1980 61 94 94 94 60 92 - 100 94 93 1981 99 99 94 93 94 91 - 100 99 99 Revision 12 2.3-87 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-23 (Continued)

Joint 10-m Joint 60-m 10-m 60-m 10-m 60-m 10-m Delta T Winds & Winds & Dew Dew Ambient Station Winds(2) Winds(2) (60-10m) Delta T Delta T Point Point Precip. Temp. Pressure Annual(4) 1972-1973 93 95 96 94 92 67 - 96 96 -

1973-1974 77 99 97 97 76 90 - 99 98 -

1977-1978 97 97 96 94 94 67 60 98 97 74 1978-1979 97 98 95 95 94 82 76 99 97 98 1979-1980 97 98 95 95 95 88 - 99 94 97 1980-1981 90 97 93 92 86 84 - 99 92 93 1981-1982 96 96 91 90 90 90 - 99 93 96 Combined 92 97 95 94 90 81 68 98 95 92 (Unweighted)

NOTES:

(1)

Seven year period May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1982.

(2)

Recoverable wind data defined as the hourly availability of valid wind speed and direction data.

(3)

Denotes parameter not monitored at the time.

(4) 1972-1973; May 1, 1972 - April 30, 1973.

1973-1974: May 1, 1973 - April 30, 1974.

1977-1978: September 1, 1977 - August 31, 1978.

1978-1979: September 1, 1978 - August 31, 1979.

1974-1980: September 1, 1979 - August 31, 1980.

1980-1981: September 1, 1980 - August 31, 1981.

1981-1982: September 1, 1981 - August 31, 1982.

Revision 12 2.3-88 January, 2003

TABLE 2.3-24 PNPP SHORT TERM (ACCIDENT) /Q VALUES(1)

AT THE EXCLUSION AREA BOUNDARY (EAB)

AND THE LOW POPULATION ZONE (LPZ) BASED ON SEVEN SITE YEARS(2,5)

Accident Distance Conservative /Q Values (sec/m3)(3) Realistic Period (m) (Receptor Direction) /Q Values (sec/m3)(4) 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 863 (EAB) 4.3E-4(6) (NW) 4.0E-5 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> 4,002 (LPZ) 4.8E-5 (WNW) 3.8E-6 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> 4,002 (LPZ) 3.3E-5 (WNW) 3.3E-6 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> 4,002 (LPZ) 1.4E-5 (WNW) 2.4E-6 (3 days) 624 hours0.00722 days <br />0.173 hours <br />0.00103 weeks <br />2.37432e-4 months <br /> 4,002 (LPZ) 4.1E-6 (WNW) 1.6E-6 (26 days)

NOTES:

(1)

From a ground-level release to a ground-level receptor.

(2)

May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1974; September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1982.

(3)

Values are the maximum of 16 sectors at 0.5 percentile and the 5th percentile overall for each time period.

(4)

Calculated from the 50th percentile overall 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> value and the maximum sector annual average by logarithmic interpolation.

(5)

See (Reference 50) <Section 2.3.6>.

(6) 4.3E-4 = 4.3 x 10-4.

Revision 12 2.3-89 January, 2003

DELETED Revision 12 2.3-90 January, 2003 TABLE 2.3-26 PNPP TERRAIN ADJUSTMENT FACTORS(1) Standard Population Distances (in miles and meters) Receptor 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 7.5 15.0 25.0 35.0 45.0 Direction 805 2,414 4,023 5,633 7,242 12,070 24,140 40,234 56,327 72,420 N 1.8 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 NNE 1.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 NE 1.6 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ENE 1.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 E 1.6 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ESE 1.6 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 SE 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 SSE 4.0 1.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 S 4.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 SSW 2.2 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 SW 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 WSW 1.9 1.1 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Revision 12 2.3-91 January, 2003 TABLE 2.3-26 (Continued) Receptor 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 7.5 15.0 25.0 35.0 45.0 Direction 805 2,414 4,023 5,633 7,242 12,070 24,140 40,234 56,327 72,420 W 1.8 1.1 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 WNW 1.7 1.1 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 NW 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 NNW 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Range of Applicability (in miles and meters) 0.00-1.00 1.01-2.00 2.01-3.00 3.01-4.00 4.01-5.00 5.01-10.00 10.01-20.00 20.01-30.00 30.01-40.00 >40.00 0-1609 1610-3219 3220-4828 4829-6437 6438-8047 8048-16093 16094-32186 32187-48279 48280-64372 >64372 NOTE: (1) See (Reference 46) <Section 2.3.6>. Revision 12 2.3-92 January, 2003 TABLE 2.3-27 PNPP ANNUAL AVERAGE SITE BOUNDARY /Q AND D/Q VALUES(1) FOR TEN SITE YEARS(2) UNIT 1: Maximum /Q is to the receptor direction NW Recep- Mini-Wind tor mum Direc- Direc- Dis- Undepleted Depleted tion tion tance(3) /Q (s/m3) /Q (s/m3) D/Q (m2) NNE SSW 1,452 1.6E-6(4) 1.4E-6 6.9E-9 NE SW 1,047 3.6E-6 3.2E-6 1.3E-8 ENE WSW 900 7.1E-6 6.4E-6 1.6E-8 E W 430 3.6E-5 3.4E-5 4.6E-8 ESE WNW 283 6.8E-5 6.5E-5 8.7E-8 SE NW 273 6.9E-5 6.6E-5 1.0E-7 SSE NNW 280 5.8E-5 5.5E-5 1.1E-7 S N 294 5.0E-5 4.8E-5 1.4E-7 SSW NNE 402 2.4E-5 2.3E-5 9.0E-8 SW NE 678 7.4E-6 6.8E-6 3.5E-8 WSW ENE 1,079 2.5E-6 2.3E-6 1.8E-8 W E 1,104 2.1E-6 1.9E-6 1.5E-8 WNW ESE 1,130 1.6E-6 1.5E-6 1.1E-8 NW SE 1,345 1.4E-6 1.2E-6 8.6E-9 NNW SSE 1,445 2.5E-6 2.2E-6 1.2E-8 N S 1,420 2.9E-6 2.5E-6 1.4E-8 Revision 21 2.3-93 October, 2019 TABLE 2.3-27 (Continued) Recep- Mini-Wind tor mum Direc- Direc- Dis- Undepleted Depleted tion tion tance(3) /Q (s/m3) /Q (s/m3) D/Q (m2) UNIT 2: Maximum /Q is to the receptor direction NW NNE SSW 1,284 1.9E-6 1.7E-6 8.6E-9 NE SW 1,563 1.9E-6 1.7E-6 6.4E-9 ENE WSW 893 7.2E-6 6.5E-6 1.7E-8 E W 610 2.0E-5 1.8E-5 2.6E-8 ESE WNW 455 2.9E-5 2.8E-5 4.3E-8 SE NW 409 3.4E-5 3.2E-5 5.7E-8 SSE NNW 409 3.0E-5 2.8E-5 6.3E-8 S N 427 2.6E-5 2.5E-5 8.0E-8 SSW NNE 495 1.7E-5 1.6E-5 6.6E-8 SW NE 800 5.7E-6 5.2E-6 2.7E-8 WSW ENE 1,079 2.5E-6 2.3E-6 1.8E-8 W E 1,072 2.2E-6 2.0E-6 1.6E-8 WNW ESE 1,083 1.8E-6 1.6E-6 1.2E-8 NW SE 1,269 1.5E-6 1.4E-6 9.5E-9 NNW SSE 1,316 2.8E-6 2.5E-6 1.4E-8 N S 1,298 3.3E-6 2.9E-6 1.6E-8 NOTES: (1) From a ground-level release to a ground-level receptor. (2) 2006-2016 (3) Distance in meters. (4) 1.6E-6 = 1.6 X 10-6 Revision 21 2.3-94 October, 2019 TABLE 2.3-28 PNPP ANNUAL AVERAGE /Q (s/m3) VALUES (UNDEPLETED) FOR A GROUND LEVEL RELEASE FOR TEN YEARS(1) DISTANCE (METERS) Receptor Direc-tion 805 2,414 4,023 5,633 7,242 12,070 24,140 40,234 56,327 72,420 N 9.36E-06(2) 1.12E-06 5.58E-07 3.54E-07 2.30E-07 1.17E-07 4.77E-08 2.49E-08 1.63E-08 1.19E-08 NNE 7.93E-06 1.07E-06 5.21E-07 3.28E-07 2.11E-07 1.06E-07 4.25E-08 2.19E-08 1.43E-08 1.04E-08 NE 5.65E-06 7.51E-07 3.28E-07 2.04E-07 1.43E-07 7.09E-08 2.78E-08 1.41E-08 9.08E-09 6.55E-09 ENE 4.02E-06 5.13E-07 2.39E-07 1.46E-07 1.01E-07 4.86E-08 1.83E-08 9.06E-09 5.73E-09 4.08E-09 E 3.49E-06 4.35E-07 1.83E-07 1.11E-07 7.65E-08 3.65E-08 1.36E-08 6.73E-09 4.25E-09 3.03E-09 ESE 2.82E-06 3.48E-07 1.60E-07 8.75E-08 6.02E-08 2.85E-08 1.05E-08 5.17E-09 3.25E-09 2.31E-09 SE 3.13E-06 3.09E-07 1.42E-07 8.54E-08 5.34E-08 2.52E-08 9.29E-09 4.54E-09 2.85E-09 2.02E-09 SSE 6.17E-06 4.55E-07 1.46E-07 8.91E-08 6.18E-08 2.97E-08 1.13E-08 5.60E-09 3.56E-09 2.54E-09 S 7.00E-06 5.73E-07 1.34E-07 8.19E-08 5.69E-08 2.75E-08 1.05E-08 5.23E-09 3.33E-09 2.39E-09 SSW 4.00E-06 4.70E-07 1.60E-07 9.88E-08 6.93E-08 3.41E-08 1.34E-08 6.81E-09 4.39E-09 3.18E-09 SW 5.53E-06 5.77E-07 2.83E-07 1.78E-07 1.26E-07 6.37E-08 2.57E-08 1.33E-08 8.71E-09 6.36E-09 WSW 8.51E-06 9.57E-07 7.39E-07 3.87E-07 2.38E-07 1.22E-07 4.98E-08 2.61E-08 1.72E-08 1.26E-08 W 1.22E-05 1.46E-06 1.15E-06 7.00E-07 3.80E-07 1.98E-07 8.30E-08 4.42E-08 2.93E-08 2.16E-08 WNW 1.10E-05 1.40E-06 1.04E-06 7.59E-07 4.27E-07 2.23E-07 9.38E-08 5.00E-08 3.32E-08 2.45E-08 NW 1.05E-05 1.34E-06 6.83E-07 4.80E-07 3.47E-07 1.81E-07 7.57E-08 4.03E-08 2.67E-08 1.97E-08 NNW 9.51E-06 1.21E-06 6.11E-07 3.91E-07 2.56E-07 1.32E-07 5.46E-08 2.89E-08 1.90E-08 1.40E-08 Distance: 0.5 mi 1.5 mi 2.5 mi 3.5 mi 4.5 mi 7.5 mi 15.0 mi 25.0 mi 35.0 mi 45.0 mi NOTES: (1) 2006-2016 (2) 9.36E-6 = 9.36 x 10-6. Revision 21 2.3-95 October, 2019 TABLE 2.3-29 PNPP ANNUAL AVERAGE /Q (s/m3) VALUES (DEPLETED) FOR A GROUND LEVEL RELEASE FOR TEN SITE YEARS(1) Distance in Meters Receptor Direction 805 2,414 4,023 5,633 7,242 12,070 24,140 40,234 56,327 72,420 N 8.54E-06(2) 9.52E-07 4.50E-07 2.75E-07 1.73E-07 8.15E-08 2.89E-08 1.32E-08 7.71E-09 5.12E-09 NNE 7.23E-06 9.02E-07 4.21E-07 2.54E-07 1.59E-07 7.40E-08 2.58E-08 1.17E-08 6.79E-09 4.49E-09 NE 5.15E-06 6.36E-07 2.65E-07 1.58E-07 1.08E-07 4.95E-08 1.69E-08 7.53E-09 4.35E-09 2.86E-09 ENE 3.67E-06 4.35E-07 1.93E-07 1.13E-07 7.61E-08 3.39E-08 1.12E-08 4.83E-09 2.75E-09 1.78E-09 E 3.19E-06 3.69E-07 1.48E-07 8.60E-08 5.75E-08 2.54E-08 8.30E-09 3.59E-09 2.04E-09 1.32E-09 ESE 2.57E-06 2.95E-07 1.29E-07 6.80E-08 4.52E-08 1.99E-08 6.41E-09 2.75E-09 1.56E-09 1.00E-09 SE 2.86E-06 2.62E-07 1.14E-07 6.63E-08 4.01E-08 1.76E-08 5.63E-09 2.41E-09 1.35E-09 8.71E-10 SSE 5.63E-06 3.85E-07 1.18E-07 6.90E-08 4.63E-08 2.07E-08 6.79E-09 2.94E-09 1.66E-09 1.07E-09 S 6.39E-06 4.86E-07 1.08E-07 6.35E-08 4.27E-08 1.91E-08 6.32E-09 2.75E-09 1.56E-09 1.01E-09 SSW 3.64E-06 3.97E-07 1.29E-07 7.65E-08 5.18E-08 2.36E-08 7.98E-09 3.52E-09 2.01E-09 1.31E-09 SW 5.04E-06 4.88E-07 2.27E-07 1.38E-07 9.44E-08 4.40E-08 1.53E-08 6.85E-09 3.96E-09 2.60E-09 WSW 7.76E-06 8.10E-07 5.95E-07 3.00E-07 1.78E-07 8.41E-08 2.98E-08 1.36E-08 7.93E-09 5.24E-09 W 1.11E-05 1.23E-06 9.27E-07 5.41E-07 2.84E-07 1.37E-07 4.96E-08 2.29E-08 1.35E-08 8.96E-09 WNW 1.00E-05 1.19E-06 8.41E-07 5.88E-07 3.20E-07 1.55E-07 5.63E-08 2.61E-08 1.54E-08 1.03E-08 NW 9.59E-06 1.13E-06 5.50E-07 3.72E-07 2.60E-07 1.25E-07 4.54E-08 2.10E-08 1.24E-08 8.25E-09 NNW 8.68E-06 1.02E-06 4.92E-07 3.03E-07 1.92E-07 9.15E-08 3.29E-08 1.51E-08 8.88E-09 5.90E-09 Distance: 0.5 mi 1.5 mi 2.5 mi 3.5 mi 4.5 mi 7.5 mi 15.0 mi 25.0 mi 35.0 mi 45.0 mi NOTES: (1) 2006-2016 (2) 8.54E-6 = 8.54 X 10-6. Revision 21 2.3-96 October, 2019 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Revision 21 2.3-97 October, 2019 TABLE 2.3-30 PNPP ANNUAL AVERAGE /Q (m-2) VALUES FOR A GROUND LEVEL RELEASE FOR TEN SITE YEARS(1) Distance in Meters Receptor Direction 805 2,414 4,023 5,633 7,242 12,070 24,140 40,234 56,327 72,420 N 2.97E-08(2) 2.86E-09 1.17E-09 6.45E-10 3.74E-10 1.52E-10 4.81E-11 1.95E-11 1.05E-11 6.52E-12 NNE 3.04E-08 3.29E-09 1.35E-09 7.43E-10 4.31E-10 1.75E-10 5.54E-11 2.25E-11 1.21E-11 7.51E-12 NE 2.64E-08 2.85E-09 1.06E-09 5.86E-10 3.74E-10 1.52E-10 4.80E-11 1.95E-11 1.05E-11 6.52E-12 ENE 2.86E-08 3.09E-09 1.27E-09 6.97E-10 4.45E-10 1.80E-10 5.72E-11 2.32E-11 1.25E-11 7.75E-12 E 2.52E-08 2.72E-09 1.02E-09 5.59E-10 3.57E-10 1.45E-10 4.58E-11 1.86E-11 1.00E-11 6.22E-12 ESE 1.94E-08 2.10E-09 8.60E-10 4.31E-10 2.75E-10 1.11E-10 3.53E-11 1.43E-11 7.71E-12 4.79E-12 SE 2.01E-08 1.74E-09 7.12E-10 3.92E-10 2.27E-10 9.22E-11 2.92E-11 1.19E-11 6.38E-12 3.97E-12 SSE 3.05E-08 1.92E-09 5.41E-10 2.98E-10 1.90E-10 7.70E-11 2.44E-11 9.92E-12 5.34E-12 3.31E-12 S 3.47E-08 2.42E-09 4.97E-10 2.74E-10 1.75E-10 7.08E-11 2.25E-11 9.11E-12 4.90E-12 3.04E-12 SSW 1.85E-08 1.85E-09 5.42E-10 2.99E-10 1.91E-10 7.72E-11 2.45E-11 9.94E-12 5.35E-12 3.32E-12 SW 1.93E-08 1.67E-09 6.85E-10 3.77E-10 2.41E-10 9.76E-11 3.09E-11 1.26E-11 6.76E-12 4.20E-12 WSW 1.97E-08 1.79E-09 1.14E-09 5.16E-10 2.82E-10 1.14E-10 3.63E-11 1.47E-11 7.91E-12 4.92E-12 W 1.70E-08 1.64E-09 1.04E-09 5.37E-10 2.57E-10 1.04E-10 3.30E-11 1.34E-11 7.21E-12 4.48E-12 WNW 1.74E-08 1.77E-09 1.06E-09 6.56E-10 3.25E-10 1.32E-10 4.18E-11 1.70E-11 9.13E-12 5.67E-12 NW 1.98E-08 2.02E-09 8.27E-10 4.97E-10 3.17E-10 1.28E-10 4.07E-11 1.65E-11 8.89E-12 5.52E-12 NNW 2.18E-08 2.22E-09 9.11E-10 5.02E-10 2.91E-10 1.18E-10 3.74E-11 1.52E-11 8.17E-12 5.07E-12 Distance: 0.5 mi 1.5 mi 2.5 mi 3.5 mi 4.5 mi 7.5 mi 15.0 mi 25.0 mi 35.0 mi 45.0 mi NOTES: (1) 2006-2016 (2) 2.97E-8 = 2.97 x 10-8. Revision 21 2.3-98 October, 2019 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Revision 21 2.3-99 October, 2019 TABLE 2.3-31 METEOROLOGICAL DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM System A System B System Accuracy 10m/60m Wind 10m/60m Wind 0.5 MPH <5 MPH, 10% of Speed Speed measured value >5 MPH 10m/60m Wind 10m/60m Wind 5.0 of azimuth Direction Direction 10m Ambient 10m Ambient 0.9F Temperature Temperature Delta Temperature Delta Temperature 0.27F (60m - 10m) (60m - 10m) 10m Dewpoint N/A 2.7F Precipitation N/A N/A Station Pressure N/A N/A 10m Sigma Theta(1) 10m Sigma Theta(1) N/A 60m Sigma Theta(1) 60m Sigma Theta(1) N/A NOTE: (1) Sigma Theta - horizontal wind direction fluctuations, etc., for preliminary dispersion estimates. Revision 13 2.3-100 December, 2003 2.4 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING 2.4.1 HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION 2.4.1.1 Site and Facilities The Perry Nuclear Power Plant is located in Lake County, Ohio, approximately seven miles northeast of Painesville. The southern plant site boundary line is 3,100 feet from the shoreline of Lake Erie on the west side of the site and 8,000 feet on the east side. Grade elevations in the immediate plant area prior to plant construction varied between 620.0 feet and 623.0 feet based upon the USGS datum. The maximum monthly average level of record for Lake Erie is 575.4 feet (USGS); therefore, no problems of site flooding exists owing to the nature of the site. The construction of the plant resulted in some minor changes in local drainage patterns, runoff characteristics and in the diversion of one small stream. Final topography is shown in <Figure 2.1-3> and an aerial photograph of the site, prior to plant construction, is shown in <Figure 2.1-4>. Protection is provided for safety-related structures, exterior systems and access equipment against flooding from Lake Erie, surface runoff and local intense precipitation. This is accomplished by location, arrangement and design of these structures, systems and equipment as discussed in the following sections. 2.4.1.2 Hydrosphere Lake Erie, the major hydrologic feature of this location, will provide cooling water for the plant. The lake will not influence the surface water characteristics of the site since the mean lake level is in excess of 40 feet below plant grade. Revision 12 2.4-1 January, 2003 In the vicinity of the site, the coastal watershed is drained by several small streams. These streams have cut deep channels as they approach the lake in the otherwise flat terrain of this region. The width of this coastal watershed in the site area is approximately 4.5 miles with the ground falling away sharply to the south of the ridge into the Grand River Basin. Topographically, the site lies in the Old Lake-bed Region of northeast Ohio. Two nameless, parallel streams run close to the plant area. The larger has a drainage basin of 7.16 square miles and runs northwestward within 1,000 feet of the southwest corner of the plant. The smaller stream, which has a drainage area of only 0.76 square mile, borders the plant area to the east and north. The drainage areas are shown in <Figure 2.4-1>. The safety-related structures of the plant are located within the drainage basin of the small stream which was diverted to border the final plant area to the east only. No recorded data exists for either stream, or any similar stream in the general area of the site. However, estimates made during site visits indicate that the average flow for the larger and smaller streams would be approximately 5 cfs and 1 cfs, respectively. Older local inhabitants living on Lockwood and Center Roads did not recall either stream level overtopping Center Road. High water marks on the headwalls of the preexisting Center Road bridge over the major stream indicated that the maximum depth at this point had been approximately four feet. The smaller stream previously passed through a 4-foot by 5-foot rough stone culvert under Center Road. There are no users of water from the minor stream. The only user of surface water from the major stream is the Neff Perkins Corporation which intermittently withdraws water from a pond near the downstream end. Use of groundwater is discussed in <Section 2.4.13>. Possible Revision 12 2.4-2 January, 2003 contamination of groundwater is also discussed in <Section 2.4.13> and the degree of contamination as assessed in that section will also apply to both streams. Lake Erie has an area of 9,970 square miles and is only slightly larger than Lake Ontario, which has the smallest surface area of any of the Great Lakes. It is the shallowest of the lakes, with a maximum depth of 210 feet and an average depth of 58 feet. Also, Lake Erie has the smallest volume, 110 cubic miles (Reference 1). The lake is about 241 miles long with a maximum width of 57 miles. The long axis of the lake lies in a general northeast-southwest direction. The drainage basin of Lake Erie, including Lake St. Clair, is about 29,650 square miles. The mean annual flow from the Detroit River at the western head of the lake is 178,000 cfs which accounts for about 90 percent of the inflow into Lake Erie. The mean annual outflow into Lake Ontario is about 194,000 cfs through the Niagara River and about 8,000 cfs through the Welland Canal (Reference 1). Lake Erie level records have been maintained by the Lake Survey Center (NOAA) since 1859. As shown in <Figure 2.4-2>, the average level is 572.3 feet above mean sea level, mean tide, New York City, which is the USGS datum. The 1973 monthly levels were exceptionally high, setting a new maximum monthly mean level of 575.4 feet (USGS) in June, 1973. The lowest average monthly recorded level was 569.3 feet (USGS) in February, 1936. Corresponding levels relative to the 1955 International Great Lakes Datum (IGLD) are 1.9 feet less. The Lake Erie Low Water Datum (LWD) is at Elevation 570.5 feet (USGS) and Elevation 568.6 feet (IGLD) (Reference 2). Minimum lake levels usually occur in February when precipitation throughout the Great Lakes drainage basin is being stored in the form of ice and snow. Maximum levels occur in mid-summer when the full effect of Revision 14 2.4-3 October, 2005 the runoff from the drainage basin is felt. Fluctuations of several feet, but of short duration, are caused by wind effects. Northerly winds raise lake levels in the plant area, while winds from the south and east tend to lower the lake levels (Reference 3). 2.4.2 FLOODS 2.4.2.1 Flood History No records of flooding in the plant area of the site exist, either from the two streams draining the coastal watershed, or from Lake Erie. The terrain is relatively flat and gently sloping toward the lake. The soil is relatively permeable and contains sand layers in the upper reaches of the drainage area. The ground surface in much of the catchment area is forested with a heavy mulch ground cover. Due to the flat terrain, permeable upper soil layers and the small catchment areas <Section 2.4.1.2>, it is unlikely that this location has ever been subjected to flooding or is likely to experience severe flooding from surface runoff in the future. 2.4.2.2 Flood Design Considerations The probability of any flooding in the area of the site is exceptionally low. The storm drainage system for the plant was designed to prevent flooding during the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). Studies discussed in <Section 2.4.3> have shown that even if a PMF is experienced, the streams will be contained within their natural channels except for the overtopping of the crossings at Lockwood Road and the plant main access road, which would temporarily prevent road access. The presence of a natural, high ridge along the right bank of the major stream will preclude flooding of the site by the PMF, allowing the plant to continue uninterrupted operation. Revision 12 2.4-4 January, 2003 Flooding from Lake Erie is extremely improbable. Final grade elevations in the immediate plant area vary from 617 to 620 feet (USGS). This is about 45 feet above the maximum monthly mean lake level of 575.4 feet (USGS). Surge flooding is described in <Section 2.4.5>. Runup occurring coincidentally with the probable maximum setup would extend to about Elevation 607.9 feet on the bluff at the lake shore. This runup would still be about 12 feet below the 620 foot (USGS) plant grade elevation. 2.4.2.3 Effects of Local Intense Precipitation The plant site is drained by three separate storm drainage systems, two draining to the west and the third draining to the east. The entire storm drainage system is as shown by <Figure 2.4-3>. The entire site area is subdivided into discrete subbasins, each having storm water inlets referred to as catch basins. Peak flows to all catch basins are based on the Rational Formula which does not account for complications in the runoff processes, neglects the advantages of storage, and assumes a steady-state flow condition. The 6-hour Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) of 26.7 inches for the site was distributed into hourly intensities as described in <Section 2.4.3>. The maximum hourly rainfall of 13.1 inches per hour will be occurring during the first hour. Three values of rainfall intensity were used in the Rational Formula based on this most intense hourly value and the type of area from which the flows originated. The values used are:
a. Rainfall intensity of 4.1 inches/hour for roof downspout systems leading directly into a catch basin; this value was used because the roof systems are structurally designed to hold 9 inches of water, and therefore, the downspouts were sized to discharge 4.1 inches/hour.
Revision 12 2.4-5 January, 2003
b. Rainfall intensity of 9.1 inches/hour for roof areas with scupper overflows along the sides; this value was used since any rainfall intensity greater than the downspout capacity of 4 inches/hour will pass through the scupper overflows.
c. Rainfall intensity of 7.1 inches/hour for all overland flow calculations; this value was used because total depth of 6 inches is allowed to build up over the entire plant site.
In case of complete blockage of roof downspouts, building scuppers have been sized to alleviate water from a PMP event. Water level on the roofs will not exceed the maximum loading limit of 16.25. In addition, runoff coefficients of 0.25 for the general site area and 0.90 for roof top areas and pavements are used for the design of the system. Sizing of storm drainage pipes is based upon basic hydraulic theory employing entrance, exit and friction losses. Tailwater conditions were assumed to exist at each pipe based on the previous downstream pipes headwater calculation. The final outlet of each storm drainage subsystem was assumed to have no downstream tailwater restrictions. Storm water flows overland for no more than 300 feet before it reaches a catch basin. Subbasin gradients are 0.5 percent or greater. In case of complete blockage of the storm drainage system, the plant site has been graded so that overland drainage will occur away from the plant site buildings and will not allow the accumulated storm water to exceed Elevation 620-6. Revision 19 2.4-6 October, 2015 The area surrounding the plant site is traversed by an inner perimeter road which, for the most part, is at Elevation 620-4 (the exceptions are at the northwest plant site corner, where it dips to Elevation 616-11, and the area directly east of the intermediate building, where it dips to Elevation 619-6). The railroad enters the plant buildings at Elevation 620-6, although it has been lowered to Revision 19 2.4-6a October, 2015 Elevation 620-2 (in the vicinities of catch basins W-7 and E-5) so that excess storm water adjacent to the buildings on the east and west sides can be discharged to lower areas. As a result, overland flow will begin once the ponding has reached an elevation of 620-4 (based on all centerline roadway elevations being the same). Assuming the worst case (i.e., complete blockage of the site storm drainage system and using peak discharge from the most intense hour of the PMP), the resulting increase in surface elevation of water flowing over the surrounding roads and railroads (acting as weirs) would not exceed one inch. This ponding elevation of 620-5 will have no adverse affect upon safety class equipment because the floors at plant grade are set at Elevation 620-6. As the water overflows the inner perimeter road and access railroad at Elevation 620-4, the storm water will be carried away by several large drainage swales including:
a. The large swale between the two cooling towers carries water away to the east.
b. The swale south of the Unit 2 cooling tower carries water to the southeast.
c. A major portion of the plant site overland flow at the north area will be carried away by the previously mentioned low area at the northwest corner into the barge unloading ramp area.
2.4.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (PMF) ON STREAMS AND RIVERS In accordance with Appendix A of <Regulatory Guide 1.59> and the applicable sections of (Reference 55), the procedures and data of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Reference 4) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reference 5) were used to calculate effective Probable Revision 12 2.4-7 January, 2003 Maximum Floods for the two streams mentioned in the preceding sections. The calculated PMF for the major stream was found to be 31,250 cfs, and for the minor stream 7,000 cfs, at their outfalls into Lake Erie. <Figure 2.4-4> and <Figure 2.4-5> show the hydrographs generated for the PMF of both streams. 2.4.3.1 Probable Maximum Precipitation The Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) for areas from 10 to 1,000 square miles east of the 105th Meridian has been derived by the Corps of Engineers and is presented in (Reference 4). For the Perry site, the PMP for the 6-hour, 12-hour, 24-hour and 48-hour storms are 26.7, 28.8, 31.8, and 33.9 inches, respectively. The following tabulation provides a further breakdown of the 6-hour PMP made according to procedures outlined by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reference 5) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Reference 6): Hour __1 2 3 4 5 6
a. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Procedure (Reference 5)
Cumulative Percentage of 6-hr rain 49 64 75 84 92 100 Cumulative Rainfall, in. 13.1 17.1 20.0 22.4 24.6 26.7 Incremental Rainfall, in. 13.1 4.0 2.9 2.4 2.2 2.1 Revision 12 2.4-8 January, 2003
b. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Procedure (Reference 6)
Cumulative Percentage of 6-hr rain 10 22 37 75 89 100 Cumulative Rainfall, in. 2.7 5.9 9.8 20.0 23.8 26.7 Incremental Rainfall, in. 2.7 3.2 3.9 10.2 3.8 2.9 Comparison of the cumulative rainfall values and peak incremental rainfall for the two methods shows that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Procedure (item a) to be more conservative for every hour. It was, therefore, used as a basis for the flood calculations. 2.4.3.2 Precipitation Losses To increase the conservatism of the results, 100 percent antecedent saturation of the basins and no losses were assumed. 2.4.3.3 Runoff and Stream Course Models Runoff was determined according to curve No. 100 of Figure A-4, Page 542 of (Reference 5). However, for conservatism the PMP was assumed to fall on fully saturated terrain, with 100 percent runoff. 2.4.3.4 Probable Maximum Flood Flow The probable maximum flood flow hydrograph for the major and minor streams at their outfalls into Lake Erie are presented in <Figure 2.4-4> and <Figure 2.4-5>, respectively. These hydrographs correspond to the incidence of the PMP. Other factors such as surges or upstream dam Revision 12 2.4-9 January, 2003 failures will not affect the PMF. The PMFs for both streams were calculated with the rain data given in <Section 2.4.3.1> and the procedures outlined in Pages 73 through 82 of (Reference 5). 2.4.3.5 Water Level Determinations <Figure 2.4-6> and <Figure 2.4-8> show the bed elevation and PMF surface profiles for the major and minor streams, respectively. Surface profiles were determined according to the standard step method utilizing Mannings formula. The Manning coefficient of friction was assumed to be equal to 0.100 for the portions of the existing stream bed and overbanks, and equal to 0.024 for the trapezoidal sections used in the relocated stream bed. At each stream station a cross section was drawn and the area of flow and hydraulic radius were calculated for a range of elevations. The stations and corresponding cross sections are shown on <Figure 2.4-7>, <Figure 2.4-8>, <Figure 2.4-9>, <Figure 2.4-10>, and <Figure 2.4-11>. Commencing at the first station upstream of the lake, trial and error procedures were followed until the hydraulic gradient required to produce the PMF flow was obtained. The elevation determined from the hydraulic gradient described above became the first point of the profile and the whole procedure was then repeated for the next upstream station. Successive repetitions were made until the PMF profile could be drawn <Figure 2.4-6> and <Figure 2.4-8>. The water surface profiles during the PMF were calculated under the assumption that the plant access road and the sediment control dams placed across the streams remained intact during the event. Furthermore, a discharge coefficient of 3.00 was used for calculating the depth of the PMF passing over the broad crested weirs formed either by the access road or the sedimentation dam crests. Trial and error procedures were again employed for the weir and culvert flow computations. The water surface elevation upstream of the plant access road for the PMF was found to be 624.0 feet until this surface Revision 12 2.4-10 January, 2003 met the normal depth of flow in the existing stream. The existing natural ridge along the right bank of the stream is at a maximum elevation of 630-0 (approximate). This water surface elevation will safely pass beneath the railroad bridge. As no recorded data exists, no correlation is possible between the results obtained and floods on record. For added conservatism, the flow for each reach of both streams was considered to be equal to the corresponding PMF flow at the outfall to Lake Erie. 2.4.3.6 Coincident Wind Wave Activity Wind wave activity is of no concern with the flood conditions in these small streams as previously discussed. 2.4.4 POTENTIAL DAM FAILURES, SEISMICALLY INDUCED Presently there are no impoundments upstream of the plant, and since the drainage basins of the two streams passing through the site are small and the terrain is quite flat, it is unlikely there will be any impoundments in the future. Therefore, dam failure is not included as a design condition. 2.4.4.1 Dam Failure Permutations This section is not applicable to PNPP. 2.4.4.2 Unsteady Flow Analysis of Potential Dam Failures This section is not applicable to PNPP. 2.4.4.3 Water Level at Plant Site This section is not applicable to PNPP. Revision 12 2.4-11 January, 2003 2.4.5 PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE FLOODING 2.4.5.1 Probable Maximum Winds and Associated Meteorological Parameters 2.4.5.1.1 Introduction This section describes the cyclonic type wind storm (Probable Maximum Storm - PMS) that might result from the most extreme pressure gradients that are reasonably possible in the Lake Erie area and which would produce a maximum increase in the lake level (setup) at Perry, Ohio. The approach used was to impose the extreme high and low pressure values (based on meteorological records of the United States) on the high and low pressure centers of a specific meteorological synoptic situation. This specific meteorological situation is such that it would produce maximum probable wind speeds of sufficient duration in a direction normal to the lake shore at Perry, Ohio, to attain maximum lake setup. Winds associated with thunderstorms, tornados, water spouts, and other short duration phenomenon are of little significance in generating lake setups since they do not persist for periods long enough to induce setup. 2.4.5.1.2 Meteorological Synoptic System for Lake Level Setup Lake level setup is the increase of the lake level caused by the wind moving the surface waters of the lake from one position to another with sufficient speed so that the surface of the lake becomes tilted. Since a body of water tends to remain level, this wind must be of sufficient speed and duration to maintain a steady-state of the lake surface tilt (Reference 7) (Reference 8). The magnitude of the wind induced surges depends primarily on the wind speed, the distance over the water the wind blows (fetch), and the depth of the lake (Reference 9). For the Perry area, a meteorological Revision 12 2.4-12 January, 2003 synoptic situation with winds from the NNW, a minimum velocity equal to or greater than the drag coefficient critical velocity (14 knots) (Reference 10), and a duration of at least 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> (Reference 11) is needed to generate a setup. A number of meteorological synoptic situations were examined to determine the type of situation that could produce these required conditions. <Figure 2.4-12> is an example of the type of meteorological synoptic situation that meets these requirements. 2.4.5.1.3 Procedure to Develop the Probable Maximum Storm for Lake Level Setup To develop a meteorological situation that has virtually no chance of being exceeded, the high pressure center was assigned the value of the highest pressure recorded in the United States (1,063.3 millibars (mb) - 31.40 inches Hg, occurring on January 9, 1962 at Helena, Montana) (Reference 12) and the low pressure center was assigned the lowest (non-hurricane) pressure recorded in the United States (954.96 mb - 28.20 inches Hg, occurring during 1913 at Canton, N.Y.) (Reference 12). The use of these extreme values develops an extremely strong pressure gradient (which determines the wind speed) between the pressure centers. This pressure gradient exceeds any observed pressure gradient, excluding hurricanes over the ocean. The postulated, sustained wind speeds for this system have virtually no chance of being exceeded. The basis for the separation of the pressure centers shown on <Figure 2.4-13> is the result of a procedure to produce strong winds for at least 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />. Stronger winds for a shorter period of time could be generated by placing the centers closer together, or weaker winds for a longer period of time could be generated by placing the centers further apart. The presented separation is a trade-off to obtain strong winds for at least 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />. To synthesize the sequence of the movement and the life cycle of the PMS, a series of meteorological charts was developed. The PMS was Revision 12 2.4-13 January, 2003 assumed to occur over a 72-hour period, during which the winds increased from 20 mph to the maximum speed of approximately 103 mph over the lake and then decreased to less than 35 mph in the Perry area. The first chart was based on an assumed 1,033-mb high pressure center located approximately at the first 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> center position of the high as shown on <Figure 2.4-12>. The low pressure center was assumed to have a pressure of 985 mb and was located approximately at the first 12-hour center position of the low as shown on the same figure. Subsequent approximate 12-hour positions of the high and low centers are also indicated. The high and low pressure centers intensified at the rate of 10 mb per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, attaining the values of the PMS at 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> after the initial chart. The centers then moved northeastward and decreased in intensity at the rate of 10 mb per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. 2.4.5.1.4 Procedures Used to Generate the Individual Meteorological Charts The separation and position of the pressure centers were determined to generate strong winds perpendicular to the shoreline in the area of interest. Meteorological theory (Reference 13) (Reference 14) (Reference 15) (Reference 16) (Reference 17) indicates that if the pressure centers were closer together the storm would have stronger winds, but would either move eastward much faster or fill and dissipate. In either case the stronger winds would last a shorter period of time. Conversely, if the pressure centers were further apart, the generated winds would be weaker and the storm would either move slower or intensify. In either case, the storm would last for a longer period of time. The postulated separation is a compromise to obtain the stronger wind speeds for at least 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />. The location and direction of movement of the pressure centers were determined to generate winds approximately perpendicular to the shoreline in the Perry area and to maintain the maximum possible lake setup effect during the period of the PMS. Revision 12 2.4-14 January, 2003 An isobaric pattern (lines of equal pressure) was drawn for consecutive 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> time periods using standard synoptic meteorological models (Reference 13) (Reference 14). Wind speeds for specific points within each system were calculated using the following equations (Reference 14) (Reference 15):
a. Cyclonic P
4 2 p H sin u R sin 1 1 2 R sin
b. Anticyclonic P
4 2 p H sin u R sin 1 1 2 R sin where: u = gradient wind, meters per second R = radius of curvature of the airflow, meters (positive if cyclonic, negative if anticyclonic) P = the pressure difference between two points, centibars H = the distance between two points, meters (same points used to determine P) p = density of air, 1.11 x 10-3, metric tons per cubic meter = angular velocity of the earth, 7.292 x 10-5, per sec. = latitude angle where P and H are measured, degrees Revision 12 2.4-15 January, 2003 The gradient wind in meters per second for each specific point was then converted into miles per hour using the following relationship: U mph 2.2364 u mps These calculated winds were then plotted on a chart (for each 12-hour period) and an isotach pattern (lines of equal wind speed) was drawn for the gradient wind field. To account for the surface frictional forces, Petterssen (Reference 18) suggests a ratio of the surface speed to the gradient speed of 2:3 for strong winds over the open sea. Shaw (Reference 19) indicates that the surface wind in the NW quadrant would be 0.6 to 0.72 of the gradient wind over the ocean. Graham and Hudson (Reference 20) indicate that surface winds in hurricanes would be 0.6 to 0.7 of the gradient wind at distances of more than 50 to 60 miles from the storm center. For conservatism, the surface wind of the PMS was reduced to 0.75 of the gradient wind to account for surface friction over water. The resultant isotach patterns are presented in <Figure 2.4-14>, <Figure 2.4-15>, <Figure 2.4-16>, <Figure 2.4-17>, <Figure 2.4-18>, <Figure 2.4-19>, <Figure 2.4-20>, <Figure 2.4-21>, <Figure 2.4-22>, <Figure 2.4-23>, <Figure 2.4-24>, and <Figure 2.4-25>. The intermediate 6-hour isotach patterns (6 hr/18 hr) are the result of graphical interpolation of the 12-hour and 24-hour patterns. Directions, wind speeds and pressures of PMS for various grid points are also tabulated in
. <Figure 2.4-13> is a chart covering a much larger area depicting the synoptic meteorological pattern with the isotachs superimposed. This chart represents the time of maximum wind speeds of the synoptic series. 2.4.5.1.5 Supporting Data for Uniqueness of the PMS This section presents the information to support the calculated maximum wind speed associated with the PMS. Revision 12 2.4-16 January, 2003 A probable maximum hurricane, as defined in HUR 7-97 (Reference 21), at the latitude of Lake Erie would produce a maximum wind calculated in the following manner: Using equation (3) from Page 8 of (Reference 21): Vx 0.865 Vgx 0.5T (2.4-1) where: Vx = Maximum wind speed, mph Vgx = Gradient wind speed, mph T = Forward speed of the storm, mph. To obtain winds from the NNE through WNW (which are required for lake setup) at a point on the south shore of Lake Erie, the hurricane center would be to the east of the point. For a storm moving north, maximum winds would be east of the storm center, and therefore on the opposite side of the center from the point of interest. The +0.5T in Equation 2.4-1 would then become -0.5T for winds to the west of the storm. To ensure conservatism, T was assumed to be 0, and Equation 2.4-1 becomes: Vx .865 Vgx (2.4-2) Using the Vgx value for 42 latitude from Table 1 of (Reference 21), Equation 2.4-2 results in the following wind speed: Vx .865 118 102 mph This wind speed value is for a hurricane at 42 latitude based on a 1,000-year return period (Reference 21). Revision 12 2.4-17 January, 2003 By comparison, <Figure 2.4-21> shows an area of winds exceeding 100 mph centered over the northern shore opposite the site area. The tabular data for station 6 (Reference 40) (Reference 21) shows a wind speed of 102 mph on the second day, 24th hour. Tannehill (Reference 11) and HUR 7-97 (Reference 21) have shown that hurricanes do not penetrate the area while maintaining their strong winds, so that the wind speed calculated for the maximum hurricane would not occur in the site area. Therefore, the winds postulated for the PMS are conservative estimates of the highest sustained wind speeds with virtually no chance of being exceeded in the site area. 2.4.5.2 Surge and Seiche Water Levels 2.4.5.2.1 Surge Sources The predominant cause of surges at the Perry site is the frontal or cyclonic type wind. As discussed in <Section 2.4.5.1>, hurricanes do not cause significant surges but do possess the capability of raising the lake level by the amount of rainfall within the lake drainage basin. The PMS discussed in <Section 2.4.5.1> would be the cyclonic type storm which would produce the maximum surge (setup) at the site. The method used to compute the maximum setup and setdown at the site was the one dimensional numerical prediction model described by the U.S. Corps of Engineers in Technical Report No. 4 (Reference 22). 2.4.5.2.2 Brief Description of Numerical Method of Setup Prediction The wind setup computation was based on a one-dimensional, steady-state approximation of the dynamic response of the lake surface as fully described in (Reference 22). In summary, the method relies on an expression for the slope of the water surface derived by vertically integrating the horizontal momentum equation relative to a fetch axis Revision 12 2.4-18 January, 2003 aligned with the mean wind direction. The expression for the slope may, in turn, be numerically integrated to yield the setup or setdown at any desired point along the fetch. Computation is initiated at an estimated nodal point where the setup is assumed to be zero and proceeds by increments toward either endpoint at the shoreline. The resulting surface profile should be regarded as a first approximation which may then be refined with an iterative procedure based on the assumption of constant volume. Comparison of the lake volume computed from the inclined profile with that corresponding to the undisturbed surface, yields a correction for the assumed location of the nodal point. The setup is then re-computed along the fetch in a series of successive approximations until a satisfactory volume balance is achieved. The relationship used for the numerical integration was taken directly from (Reference 22): 2NK UUx i Xi Si dT 1 1 gd2T M 1 dT di Si i 1 M S S i 1 i where: Si = Incremental rise or fall in surface elevation over corresponding increment Xi di = Depth in section i, exclusive of setup Revision 12 2.4-19 January, 2003 dT = Total water depth excluding Si for the section under consideration but including the sis from all preceding sections S = Total setup (or setdown) N = Planform factor Ux = Wind speed component along fetch axis K = Wind stress constant, equal to 3.3 X 10-6 (Reference 22) The computation is indexed with reference to an initial section at the nodal point and proceeds over M sections to yield the total setup or setdown depending upon the sign of Xi (distance X along the fetch axis is defined as positive in the direction of the prevailing wind). The value of N, the planform factor, is taken as unity with the provision that the length of each fetch increment Xi is small in comparison with the total fetch length. Depths along the fetch were obtained from Great Lakes Chart No. 3 (1971). The wind data furnished for the computation represented the wind speed and direction for ten stations on the periphery of the lake <Figure 2.4-26> at 6-hour intervals over the entire 3-day storm period. The wind values along the fetch axis for each time increment were determined by means of a linear spatial interpolation. As emphasized in the discussion given in (Reference 22), it is important to investigate alternative orientations of the fetch axis to arrive at a maximized setup estimate. This was accomplished by varying the direction of the axis slightly from that of the mean wind until a well defined maximum of 4.30 feet was established. The results of this procedure are shown in <Figure 2.4-27>. This value occurs at about 2400 hours0.0278 days <br />0.667 hours <br />0.00397 weeks <br />9.132e-4 months <br /> on the second day of the storm when maximum winds at the Revision 17 2.4-20 October, 2011 center of the lake reach 102 mph. The temporal variation in setup height over the remaining storm period is plotted in the hydrograph shown in <Figure 2.4-28>. The spatial profile of the lake surface at maximum deflection is plotted in <Figure 2.4-29>. It should be noted that these values do not reflect corrections for pressure differences or precipitation. With an antecedent water level of 575.4 feet (USGS), a precipitation value of 0.5 feet, a pressure correction of 0.3 feet, and a wind setup of 4.30 feet, the total maximum stillwater surface level at the plant site was computed to be 580.5 feet (USGS). Wind velocities for the PMS were generated at three hour intervals for ten stations around the periphery of Lake Erie using the techniques discussed in <Section 2.4.5.1>. <Figure 2.4-26> shows the locations of the ten stations. <Figure 2.4-30> and <Figure 2.4-31> show variations of wind speed and direction for the two stations (20,1) and (40,1) adjacent to the site and the two stations (20,21) and (40,21) north of the site, respectively.
indicates the site setup winds at these stations. The wind speed for the stations adjacent to the site averages above 70 mph for a period of 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br />. During the same period the wind speeds for the stations across the lake from the site average 80 mph or above with a maximum of 110 mph being reached at the center of the lake. 2.4.5.3 Wave Action The wind field used to determine the probable maximum setup was also used to find the concurrent wave action. As discussed in <Section 2.4.5.1>, this wind field was defined at ten stations located around the lake to give complete meteorological coverage of Lake Erie. A study of the critical fetch direction showed that the fetch lengths were approximately the same for winds directed toward the site from Revision 12 2.4-21 January, 2003 N 70W to N 25E. During the PMS, the winds in the central portion of the lake are from the NNW and, therefore, the wind speeds at the station nearest the site and at the station directly north across the lake were used to calculate the wave action. The average wind speed at these two stations taken at the peak of the storm is 80 mph with a duration of 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. Due to the limited depth of the lake across the 50-mile fetch (average depth of 70 feet), the waves generated by the PMS will be limited in height and period by bottom effects. Deep water waves cannot occur for these high wind speeds. The waves generated by the PMS were determined by the method of forecasting shallow water waves as given in (Reference 22). This gives a significant wave height, Hs (the average height of the highest one third of the waves), of 17 feet with a period of seven seconds, and the maximum wave height, Hmax, of 1.77 Hs, (30 feet). The design of the cooling water intake and discharge structures is shown on <Figure 3.8-67>. <Section 3.4.2> and <Section 3.8.4> discuss dynamic forces on the structures due to wave action. 2.4.5.4 Resonance The amplitude of oscillations within the emergency service water pump house caused by wave action in Lake Erie was analyzed by the GAI hydraulic transients computer program WHAM24. This program used the 17-foot waves that accompanied the probable maximum setup and a wave period of seven seconds. WHAM24 determines transient pressures and velocity in series or branched conduit systems with a water body at one end, and a pump chamber(s) and piping system(s) at the other end(s). The program uses the method of characteristics for the transient conditions within the conduit and applies appropriate boundary conditions at the ends of the system. The Revision 12 2.4-22 January, 2003 application of the method of characteristics in hydraulic transients has been verified many times with experimental and field data (Reference 23). The programs boundary condition at the lake end of the system consists of representing the oscillation of the lake surface as a sine wave with the amplitude and period representing the height and period of the waves, respectively. The boundary condition at the plant ends of the conduit combines the continuity equation for the pump chambers, the head-flow (H-Q) curves for the pumps, and lumped representations (system head loss equals KsysQ2) of the onshore circulating water system and emergency service water system. The boundary conditions and the characteristics equations are solved at each time step. The main intake system consists of submerged offshore intake structures with a 2,857 foot length of 10-foot diameter tunnel leading to a branch. From the branch the 10-foot tunnel continues 100 feet to the service water pumphouse, and a 10-foot tunnel goes 246 feet to the emergency service water pumphouse. With the lake condition acting as the forcing function, the maximum oscillation of the water surface within the emergency service water pumphouse was 0.94 feet. The alternate intake system consists of 2,029 feet of 10-foot diameter discharge tunnel to a branch plus 142-foot length of 10-foot tunnel from the branch to the emergency service water pumphouse. The other arm of the branch consists of 100 feet of 10-foot tunnel to the discharge tunnel entrance structure. The maximum water level variation in the emergency service water pump chamber with the alternate system was 1.19 feet. The small response of the chamber water level to the lake boundary condition is due primarily to the magnitude of the incremental volume of the pump chamber relative to the change in chamber inflow caused by the waves. The continuation of the 10-foot tunnel at the branch of both systems also dampens the oscillation. Revision 12 2.4-23 January, 2003 The setup of the lake level causes the pumps to operate at a higher than normal flow rate since the static head is reduced. With these wave induced variations in the pump chamber water level, no problem exists in meeting the flow requirement described in <Section 9.2.1>. 2.4.5.5 Protective Structures 2.4.5.5.1 Shoreline Recession 2.4.5.5.1.1 Summary Since plant grade is approximately 45 feet above the normal lake level and there are no safety-related structures within 380 feet of the lake shoreline (toe of bluff), damage to the shoreline bluff by an individual storm would not affect the operation or the safety of the PNPP. Data presented herein shows that the range of bluff recession in the vicinity of the emergency service water pumphouse has been less than 2 feet per year since 1937. Erosion of the shoreline bluff is caused by groundwater seepage and direct runoff on the upper portions of the bluff, and by wave attack and runup at the lower portions. To monitor the combined effect of shoreline recession and bluff erosion, a semiannual (Spring and Fall) survey is being made at six profile locations established at regular intervals along the shoreline. This survey will continue on a semiannual basis from 1984 through 1989, at which time it will be continued on an annual basis (spring) for the life of the plant. <Figure 2.4-32> shows the exact locations of the survey lines. The sections that follow describe the bluff recession process. 2.4.5.5.1.2 Introduction This section presents the findings of shoreline erosion studies and investigations for a 6,000 foot reach of the Lake Erie shoreline north Revision 12 2.4-24 January, 2003 of the site. The shoreline investigated lies between Perry Township Park and North Perry Park, Lake County, Ohio, and forms most of the north boundary of the site. The purpose of the erosion study was to investigate historical shoreline recession to develop a more reliable estimate of the expected future rate of recession, and to evaluate the effects of such erosion on PNPP. Previous investigations of the shoreline recession done by others revealed variable rates of landward movement over relatively short segments of the shore. Therefore, a detailed study was undertaken to find more definitive recession data for the north site boundary and is discussed herein. The assessment of the effects and magnitude of bluff and shoreline recession included the following:
a. The review and collection of prior reports, topographic and lake bottom maps, lake level records, contacts with state, county and township officials.
b. A field examination of the shoreline to evaluate contributing factors to bluff erosion.
c. An aerial photograph comparison and plotting of top of bluff recession lines for the years 1937, 1957, 1964, 1972, and 1975.
d. A search of old property deeds of land parcels located along the shoreline of the site boundary. A plot of property surveys defining the shoreline for the years 1798, 1852, 1858, 1867, and 1917.
e. A plot of the 1876 Lake Erie lake survey top of bluff line on the 1972 topographic base map of the site.
Revision 12 2.4-25 January, 2003
f. The establishment of an erosion base line (1972) paralleling the top of the bluff from which 12 bluff profiles for monitoring bluff recession have been and are obtained twice yearly.
Previous comprehensive reports related to shoreline erosion in the vicinity of the site are few in number. Most past investigations deal more with the causes of beach and shoreline erosion and the methods of protection than with the details of specific shoreline erosion rates. The Corps of Engineers prepared a comprehensive report (Reference 24) in 1953 covering shoreline recession. The Corps of Engineers study indicates shoreline movements between 1876 and 1948 of approximately 35 feet (0.5 ft/yr) in the vicinity of the site, and at Perry Township Park (a little more than a mile west of the site) a shoreline erosion rate of 4 ft/yr is reported. The Ohio Division of Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources has published a number of short reports related to shore erosion. One of these reports (Reference 25), in 1961, reported a recession rate of 5 to 15 ft/yr at Perry Township Park. Another report on shoreline erosion was made by Stanley Consultants (Reference 26) in 1969. The Stanley report investigates a four mile reach of Lake Erie shoreline west of the Chagrin River approximately 14 miles from the site. The findings of this report are not applicable to the shoreline at the site except in a general way. The shoreline covered by the Stanley report is highly developed with many projecting structures such as breakwaters, jetties, intakes, and groins which affect the erosion processes. These features are not present along the shoreline at the site. From the description given, the composition of the bluff discussed in the Stanley report may be less resistant to wave attack than the bluff at the Perry site. A more recent report by Charles H. Carter (Reference 27) in 1976 investigates the 30 mile long Lake County shore along Lake Erie. It indicates very slow top of bluff recession rates of less than 1 foot per year at the site, based on both field measurements of the 1948 to 1970 Revision 12 2.4-26 January, 2003 period and map measurements of the 1937 to 1973 period. In addition, aerial photograph comparisons in the report for the periods 1876 to 1937 and 1937 to 1973 have also indicated very slow top of bluff recession rates of less than 1 foot per year at the site. The report forecasts no change in the top of bluff at a location north of the emergency service water pumphouse between the period 1973 and 2010. 2.4.5.5.1.3 Geology and Bluff Characteristics The shoreline of Lake Erie in Lake County is formed by eroding steep bluffs and discontinuous narrow beaches. No bedrock is exposed in the bluff or along the shore. Bluff materials overlying shale bedrock are comprised of glacial till which in turn are covered by lacustrine (lake) deposits. The geologic characteristics of the surface materials are the result of glacial action during the Pleistocene age. For the 6,000 feet of shoreline along the northern boundary of the site, the bluffs are approximately 45 feet high. One beach exists, approximately 900 feet long and 50 to 75 feet wide, northwest of the site. At other points along the shore, narrow beaches 5 to 25 feet wide emerge at the base of the bluffs during calm lake conditions. The bluff consists of 5 to 15 feet of dense, glacial till at their base and are overlain by lacustrine silt and clay deposits. The till is approximately 75 percent silt and clay, 15 to 20 percent sand and the remainder is rock fragments. A stratum of silty fine sand from about 4 to 7 feet in thickness prevails along the top of the bluffs. Materials exposed in the bluff are of similar geologic cross-section as those encountered at the plant site proper. Data from borings <Section 2.5.1> drilled on the beach northwest of the plant indicate the beach sands overlying till are about 5 feet in thickness. Chagrin shale bedrock is approximately 20 feet below the surface of the beach. Lake bottom probes taken offshore appear to indicate that a thin veneer of till and shale rock fragments mantles the shale bedrock, perhaps Revision 12 2.4-27 January, 2003 locally as much as 1,500 feet offshore. The lake bottom north of the site boundary is irregular but generally slopes at about 2.5 feet per 100 feet for the first 300 feet offshore, decreasing to about 5 feet in 1,000 feet for the next 4,000 feet or more. 2.4.5.5.1.4 Nature of Bluff Erosion The principal factors affecting shoreline recession are variations in Lake Erie levels, wind (storm waves), water seepage and frost action. The composition and degree of compaction of the bluff materials are limiting factors in the rate of recession. Widespread slumping of the upper half of the bluff is the most prevalent bluff feature in the vicinity of the site. Slumping within the lacustrine and upper till deposits is caused mainly by groundwater seepage forces and frost action. Undercutting and removal of slump material by wave action complete the cycle of bluff recession. 2.4.5.5.1.5 Wind, Littoral Drift and Beaches Local storms are the main cause of significant wave action. The shoreline at the site is subjected to waves from the southwest through the north to the northwest. Winds from the southwesterly direction set up the prevailing littoral current from the west to the east. Generally, the west to east direction of littoral drift results in accretion of sand at the west side and the depletion of material to the east side of structures projecting from the shore. There are, however, no projecting permanent structures along the shoreline boundary of the site. The nearest such structure is located near the northwest corner of the site boundary on the Neff Perkins property. This structure, a sheet piled water conveyance channel, projects into Lake Erie about 135 feet. With the exception of the small beach northwest of the site, beaches along the shore in the study area are narrow, short in length and frequently transitory or submerged. Revision 12 2.4-28 January, 2003 2.4.5.5.1.6 Lake Levels Shoreline erosion is noticeably influenced by lake levels and the related storm waves. High levels allow the waves to directly contact the toe of bluff while waves from low lake levels are dissipated by wider beaches. Lake levels vary with climatic conditions which affect evaporation and inflows. Minimum lake levels usually occur in February and maximum levels occur in mid-summer. The maximum seasonal fluctuation is nearly three feet, but long term cycles of fluctuation, resulting from wet and dry periods are as much as eight feet. Predictions of future lake levels are difficult to make. However, future long term cycles of fluctuation are not expected to differ significantly from those presented in <Figure 2.4-33>. <Figure 2.4-34> presents monthly recorded mean lake levels, from 1904 to 1979, which show short and long term trends. Long term annual fluctuations are shown in <Figure 2.4-33>. The 1973 mean level of Lake Erie was about four feet above the Lake Erie Low Water Datum (LWD) established at 570.5 feet (USGS) above mean tide at New York City; that mean level was at the peak of a high lake level cycle. Reducing lake levels to a common datum for the various years studied was not possible because dates (day and month) were not always given on the property survey information. 2.4.5.5.1.7 Effects of Ice Almost every year, ice forms along the shore of Lake Erie. In winters with sustained periods of sub-zero temperatures, the entire lake freezes over; during the winter months, wave action upon the beach and the shoreline bluff is minimal or non-existent due to the buildup of ice along the shoreline. However, freezing and thawing of the groundwater seepage produces a detrimental effect on the bluff face that contributes to the rate of bluff erosion. Revision 12 2.4-29 January, 2003 2.4.5.5.1.8 Shoreline Changes To predict probable future bluff and shoreline changes, local historical data pertaining to shoreline and bluff erosion was researched and developed. Previous shoreline surveys to include the site boundary on Lake Erie were made by the U.S. Lake Survey (Corps of Engineers) in 1876 and 1948. These surveys formed the bases of the shoreline recession reported by the 1953 Corps of Engineers report (Reference 24). That study gave a shoreline change of 35 feet in the site vicinity for the 72 year period (approximately 1/2 ft/yr). The Ohio Division of Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources has also conducted shoreline erosion studies in the past and has published a bluff erosion report for Lake County, Ohio (Reference 27). The results of the Lake County bluff erosion report indicate recession rates of less than 1 foot per year at the site between 1876 and 1973. Previous shoreline erosion studies, which included the site boundary, were based on long time intervals and widely spaced shoreline profiles; therefore, the need for more detailed studies of bluff recession became apparent. A comparison was made of five sets of aerial photographs taken of the site over the period from 1937 to 1975. Landward movements of the site top of bluff line were determined by comparing relative bluff locations for the years 1937, 1957, 1964, 1972, and 1975. For these years, the top of bluff lines shown on <Figure 2.4-35> for approximately 6,000 feet of shoreline were superimposed on a topographic base map (original scale of 1 = 200) produced from the 1972 aerial photographs. The following bluff recession summary includes all available information up to 1972 when the semiannual onsite field survey of bluff recession was initiated. Recent onsite bluff erosion survey data and its evaluation is discussed in <Section 2.4.5.5.1.9>. Revision 12 2.4-30 January, 2003 The total top of bluff change indicated by <Figure 2.4-35> for a 2,000 foot central reach of shoreline northwest of the plant ranges from 20 to 85 feet (<1 to 2 ft/yr) from 1937 to 1972 (35 years). For the same period, total top of bluff recession of reaches to the west and east of the central section ranged from 1 to 3 ft/yr and 4 to 5 ft/yr, respectively. Fluctuations of Lake Erie <Figure 2.4-34> indicate long term mean lake levels from 1934 were on an up cycle, peaking in 1952 and again in 1973. A correlation of larger changes in bluff erosion during periods of high lake levels could not be evaluated with certainty due to lack of data, but high lake levels undoubtedly have a significant effect.
shows annual recession rates relative to 1972 for each of the twelve erosion monitoring lines <Figure 2.4-32> and is summarized below: Range (Ft/Yr) of Top of Bluff Recession Relative to 1972 Section 1937 1957 1964 West (J-I-H-G) 1-3 2-6 3-7 Central (F-L-K-A-B) <1-2 1-5 1-7 East (C-D-E) 4-5 5 4-5 It should be remembered that the bluff erosion is a two-step process. One step is wave action on the lower till which forms the toe of the bluff. As previously discussed, the location of the toe of bluff is the factor that will determine the need for bluff protection. The other step is the random occurrence of localized slumping induced by groundwater seepage and frost action. Although a single slump (at Profile Line C between 10/72 and 4/73) indicated a significant change of 33 feet in the top of bluff location, future movement at the slumped location most likely will not occur again until the toe of bluff has receded to a point where most of the slumped material has been removed. The more recent comparisons (1957 and 1964) show the effects of the random slumping process on the relative top of bluff recession rates. Revision 12 2.4-31 January, 2003 Therefore, it is felt that the 1937 erosion comparison is the most representative of the actual movement of the toe of bluff. In 1876, the U.S. Lake Survey (Corps of Engineers) published a chart (1:10,000 scale) of the south Lake Erie shoreline. Copies of the charts, Field Sheets 1-687 and 1-686, covering the site boundary were obtained. The top of bluff and shoreline, shown on <Figure 2.4-36> and <Figure 2.4-37>, respectively, were scaled from the 1876 charts and replotted on a 1972 topographic base map. Rates of erosion vary from 1 ft/yr for the central portion northwest of the site to 2 and 3 ft/yr west and east of the central reach, respectively. Comparisons between the 1876 and 1972 survey are subject to some doubt owing to uncertainties of the 1876 survey. As the 1953 Corps of Engineers report (Reference 24) indicates, uncertainties such as lake stage correction, lack of sufficient common control points and insufficient onshore data reduce the confidence in accuracy of the 1876 data. A second source of shoreline recession data was developed by a research of records at the Lake County, Ohio courthouse and the Land Title Company, Painesville, Ohio. Copies (duplicates of county records) of old property deeds and survey descriptions of land parcels along the shoreline north of the site were obtained from the Land Title Company. Locations of the shoreline described by the property deeds (Reference 28) were plotted for the years 1798, 1829-30, 1852-1858, 1865-1867, 1876, 1917, and 1975. The series of plots was connected by continuous lines shown in <Figure 2.4-37>, which represent corresponding approximate shorelines. Most of the deed descriptions of the north property boundary indicated the shoreline but did not mention the top of bluff, except in a few instances. The exact date (day of the month) was not given in most cases, therefore it was not practical to relate plotted shorelines to lake levels or to a common datum. Consequently, the location of the bluff for the years studied relative to the shoreline could not be determined with any degree of certainty. The toe Revision 12 2.4-32 January, 2003 of bluff was conservatively assumed to be at or near the shoreline for the various years investigated. This assumption should provide the maximum long term shoreline change relative to 1972. Shoreline changes relative to 1972 based on old property deed descriptions are shown on <Figure 2.4-37> and presented in
. An average change since 1798 for the central 2,000-foot sector is approximately 1 ft/yr for the 174 year period. During the 1917 to 1972 period, a rate of 1 to 2 feet per year was determined. It appears the landward recession of the shoreline has been accompanied by a corresponding recession of the bluff. A petition from the owners of property in Perry Township, dated 1839, requested that the existing Lockwood Road paralleling the shore north of the site replace an earlier road along the shore that was lost due to erosion. At Perry Township Park, a little over a mile west of the site (not shown on erosion maps), shoreline recession based on plots from deed descriptions from 1903 to 1952 was approximately 3 ft/yr. Between 1952 and 1972, the landward movement was approximately 4 ft/yr. This compares favorably with that of the Corps of Engineers (1953) report (Reference 24) for Perry Township Park between 1876 and 1948 which set the rate at 4 ft/yr. 2.4.5.5.1.9 Recent Onsite Bluff Erosion Surveys The Seismic Category I emergency service water pumphouse is approximately 305 feet from the 1978 top of bluff and 380 feet from the 1978 Lake Erie shoreline. A base line about 5,230 feet in length with permanent ground markers was laid out in the field for the purpose of monitoring future bluff erosion. From the base line, twelve parallel transect lines <Figure 2.4-32>, spaced approximately 300 to 600 feet apart, extend northward to the Lake Erie shoreline. Initially (10/72 to 9/73), elevations and measurements to the top of bluff were taken along each line, but this procedure was altered in November 1973 to that of taking complete ground surface profiles from the base line to the shoreline. Profile surveys for monitoring bluff erosion are conducted Revision 12 2.4-33 January, 2003 in the spring and fall of each year. The first complete profiles were taken in November, 1973, and are presented in <Figure 2.4-38>. Readings of the net changes in the bluff, at two year intervals, taken to date are also shown in <Figure 2.4-38>.
summarizes the recession rates for the profiles shown in <Figure 2.4-38> using profile information through September, 1978. In general, between 1972 and 1978, the top of bluff erosion rate varied (from <1 to 2 ft/yr) within the central shoreline reach. The eastern end of the central reach receded at about 7 ft/yr during this relatively short (six-year) period. This same area receded only 2 ft/yr between 1876 and 1978. The eastern and western tops of bluff receded from 2 to 6 ft/yr and 5 to 9 ft/yr, respectively, between 1972 and 1978. Again, the long term (1876 to 1978) top of bluff recession rates were 2 to 3 ft/yr and 1 to 4 ft/yr for the eastern and western reaches, respectively. In addition, the 1975 aerial survey was examined to assure that excessive erosion of the bluff did not take place between the ground survey profile lines.
shows that the shorter the time interval investigated, the greater is the recession rate for that time interval. This is due to significant, localized slumps being averaged over a relatively short time period. However, these short term, localized slumps are part of the overall recession cycle; in addition, they are attributable to the sustained high lake levels which peaked in 1975 and, therefore, allowed wave attack to undermine the toe of bluff during the high lake level period. The entire recession process is time and water level dependent; i.e., it occurs in a stop-start sequence, and should be averaged over a long period of time to obtain meaningful results. 2.4.5.5.1.10 Man Made Effects of Erosion With the exception of the potential future bluff protection described later in this section, no permanent structures exist on the bluff. Revision 12 2.4-34 January, 2003 Grading and clearing of the site were performed in such a manner that surface runoff was controlled and erosion minimized. The closest building structure (service water pumphouse) to the bluff is approximately 280 feet away. This structure is founded on shale rock well below the overlying glacial deposits. Controlled blasting (instrumentally monitored) was conducted during construction of PNPP. An interim revetment, described in <Section 2.4.5.5.9>, has been built along the shoreline from the Minor Stream discharge to the Northwest Storm Impoundment Spillway. Changes in littoral drift accretion and depletion along the shoreline forming the north site boundary is not expected to change greatly as a result of possible future industrial development to the east and west of the site boundary. Both the State and Federal agencies play an active role in restricting construction of new structures projecting into Lake Erie that might affect littoral drift patterns or increase the rate of shoreline recession of neighboring shoreline property. 2.4.5.5.2 Maximum Allowable Shoreline Recession <Section 2.5.5> describes the point to which bluff recession could progress without threatening the function of safety class structures. Bluff protection will be installed if the retreat closely approaches this limit. 2.4.5.5.3 Protective Measures 2.4.5.5.3.1 Protective Measures Description If the shoreline retreat becomes threatening to the safety-related structures, the shoreline will be protected by a suitable permanent construction that will protect the face and toe of the bluff. Final design and permit applications for the shoreline permanent protection construction will be initiated when the lake shoreline (toe of bluff) Revision 12 2.4-35 January, 2003 has receded to a point 250 feet away from the closest safety class structure (emergency service water pumphouse). However, if the State of Ohio or the Federal Government develops an area-wide plan for shoreline protection that includes the plant, CEI will fully cooperate in implementing the plan on its property. The protective construction (Reference 29) (Reference 39) considers grading of the shoreline bluff and construction of a permanent protective revetment. Interim protective measures are described in <Section 2.4.5.5.9>.
a. Bluff Grading Prior to installation of the shoreline protective revetment, the bluff will be graded to the dimensions shown in <Figure 2.4-39>.
The bluff grading will be as follows:
1. Prior to the placement of the protective revetment, the bluff will be graded to a 2:1 slope between Elevation 555 feet (USGS) and Elevation 605 feet (USGS).
2. After the 2:1 grading is finished, a 10-foot wide berm will be cut at Elevation 605 feet (USGS).
3. After the berm is finished, further grading of the bluff to a 3:1 slope is required between Elevation 605 feet (USGS) and the top of the bluff.
b. Protective Revetment The maximum wave runup, corresponding to the 9.7-foot high maximum wave breaker height (Reference 31) breaking on the rough 2:1 slope of the protective revetment, is found in (Reference 22) to be 16.4 ft. The wave runup would therefore reach Elevation 596.9 feet (USGS) when the lake is at Elevation 580.5 feet (USGS) i.e.,
maximum stillwater level PMS. However, it should be pointed out Revision 12 2.4-36 January, 2003 that the freeboard between the top of the protective revetment, located at Elevation 605.0 feet (USGS), and the maximum wave breaker height runup is 8.1 feet. Therefore, it is not expected that the wave runup produced by the PMS will ever overtop the crest of the revetment. The shoreline protective revetment will protect a section of the lake shoreline approximately 2,000 feet long, comprised of the distance between the entrance to the barge unloading area and the outlet of the minor stream diversion. The protective revetment as shown in <Figure 2.4-39> will offer sufficient protection to the emergency service water pumphouse. The shoreline protective revetment will be a rubble mound structure composed of the following layers of material:
1. The first layer is a permeable plastic fabric sheet, which is placed on the lake bed and over the area cut to the 2:1 slope.
2. On top of the permeable plastic fabric a 2-foot thick gravel filter blanket will be placed, as specified and shown in
<Figure 2.4-39>.
3. The filter will be covered with two layers of 1,000 to 2,000 pound quarry stones fitted into the gravel material.
4. The two layers of large quarry stones will be surmounted by two layers of heavy armor stones having a weight of between 6 and 10 tons. The heavy armor stones will not only be randomly placed over the sloped surface, but will become an integral part of the protective toe of the rubble mound protection.
The toe protection will extend 47 feet into the lake and will be founded on weathered bedrock at approximate Elevation 555.0 feet. Revision 12 2.4-37 January, 2003
5. As an alternate to the use of the heavy armor stone, consideration will be given to the use of two layers of 5-ton tetrapods or two layers of 2-ton Dolosse.
6. The area between the upper end of the revetment and the upper edge of the graded bluff will be stabilized with a vegetative cover, placed on the 3:1 slope. Since this slope is stable
<Section 2.5.5>, local sloughing resulting from ground water seepage will not occur. The installation of additional protective measures such as french drains or well point dewatering systems is not required. 2.4.5.5.3.2 Protective Measures Construction The permanent shoreline protective revetment will be final designed when the distance between the lake shoreline and the emergency service water pumphouse (nearest safety-related structure to Lake Erie) is 250 feet. Since the range of toe of bluff recession has been less than 2 feet per year since 1937 in the vicinity of the emergency service water pumphouse, there is sufficient time to design, obtain necessary permits and construct the shoreline revetment before the minimum allowable distance of 204-2 is reached <Figure 2.4-39>. Construction of the shoreline revetment requires dredging along the shoreline for the purpose of building the revetment protective toe. The dredging operation will be carried out in such a way that turbidity of the lake water in the local area is maintained at a minimum. The material spoils from the dredging operation and the bluff excavation will be disposed of upland at the plant site in a special confinement area, taking special care that no leaching out or overflow of water or spoil materials from within the confinement area can occur. The materials used for construction of the shoreline revetment protection will be clean of debris or any harmful material that might affect the quality of the lake Revision 12 2.4-38 January, 2003 water. Measures will be taken to avoid oil contamination or oil spillages that could be produced by the mechanical equipment used during installation of the shoreline protection. 2.4.5.5.3.3 Protective Measures Effects At the estimated average recession rate of 2 feet per year (since 1937) in the vicinity of the emergency service water pumphouse, approximately 65 years will expire for the toe of the bluff to recede 130 feet from the present location, about 380 feet shoreward of the emergency service water pumphouse, to the location 250 feet from the structure when shoreline protection final design would be initiated <Section 2.4.5.5.3>. Therefore, shore protection for the site is not expected to be necessary during the operating life of the PNPP. If the shore protection were to be constructed, the possibility exists that the plant site could eventually project into the lake beyond the adjoining areas, assuming that protective measures are not taken at adjacent properties. The projection of the protected shoreline of the plant site into the lake beyond the receding adjoining shoreline would be very gradual and in time might result in accretion on the updrift side beach and/or in erosion of the downdrift side beach. Since the recession rate of adjacent unprotected shoreline is slow and since the protection for the site would, if required at all, be constructed at some future time, the projection (relative to the receding adjacent shore) of the protected shoreline would be small. Therefore, it would not act as a complete barrier to the movement of beach materials as have some jettys, for instance, in the Great Lakes. Consequently, the accretion and accelerated erosion caused during the plant life would be expected to be minimal. If these effects do occur, they would be local and confined to the site which extends 4,180 feet westward from the protected shore <Figure 2.4-39> and 2,600 feet eastward. Revision 12 2.4-39 January, 2003 If this assessment of shore processes and effects (which is based on site field data and considerable qualitative evaluation) is found totally incorrect, and accretion and accelerated erosion could threaten adjacent property, control measures such as a mechanical system for passing material from the updrift to the downdrift side could be installed. However, the most effective measure should be selected only after there has been experience with the indicated shore protection. The effects of accretion and erosion were considered at the flanks of any site shore protection; accretion would serve to protect one flank from wave attack, while erosion at the other flank (downdrift side) might require occasional remedial treatment. Because of the great separation distance between these areas and the plant facilities, the safety-related structures would not be threatened. Except for the relatively brief obstruction of the littoral movement produced by the temporary channel dredged into the lake for the barge unloading area, the development of the plant site should not affect the adjacent shoreline. The channel will exist only at times of barge delivery during and shortly after construction. Since it is expected that the channel will fill rapidly, this brief obstruction of littoral movement will not adversely affect local residents. However, the temporary sunken barges <Section 2.4.5.5.6> will have a minor effect upon littoral movement until they are removed. 2.4.5.5.3.4 State and Federal Approvals The following permits will be required if the erosion protection plan of the shoreline bluff at the site becomes necessary:
a. Department of the Army construction permit This permit will be issued by the Buffalo District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after submission and acceptance of an Revision 12 2.4-40 January, 2003
environmental impact report. This is required for any structure that will be built in Lake Erie below Elevation 572.8 feet IGLD (574.7 feet USGS).
b. Shore erosion permit This permit will be issued by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and requires detailed drawings of the proposed shoreline protection structures.
2.4.5.5.4 (Deleted) 2.4.5.5.5 (Deleted) 2.4.5.5.6 Barge Slip A nonsafety-related barge slip was constructed northwest of the plant along the southern shoreline of Lake Erie. It is located in the general area incised by the minor stream where it originally entered the Lake. An approach channel (averaging about seven feet in depth) was dredged from the lake to the barge slip. Lake dredging was performed to initially open the channel and then as required to maintain the opening prior to barge deliveries. Dredged material was disposed of on the plant site. The barge slip was constructed of steel sheet piling with tie-backs. The lake end of the barge slip was constructed about 30 feet south of the 1972 shoreline, with sheet pile wings being constructed toward the shoreline. To protect the side slopes and shoreline at the lake end of the barge slip, a rubble mound protective revetment structure was installed along the shoreline, extending 50 and 80 feet, respectively, east and west of Revision 12 2.4-41 January, 2003 the sheet pile wings. The top of the protective revetment is at Elevation 579 feet (USGS) and the bottom at Elevation 570 feet (USGS) at the entrance of the barge slip. Prior to placement of the protective revetment on either side of the barge slip sheet pile wings, the area where the rubble mound is founded was graded to a 2:1 slope. The rubble mound protective revetment between Elevations 579 and 570 feet is composed of the following layers of material:
a. The first layer is a permeable plastic filter cloth fabric sheet placed directly on the graded slope.
b. The second layer is an 18-inch thick crushed stone filter layer placed above the plastic fabric sheet.
c. The third layer covers the filter layer and is composed of a 3-foot thick (minimum) layer of armor stone, 300 to 500 pounds each, with a grouted surface.
Temporary sunken barges that extend about 120 feet into the lake from the shoreline were placed on the east and west sides of the barge slip entrance to temporarily reduce the amount of sand entering the barge slip due to littoral drift. Dredged material was placed in these anchored barges to act as ballast for sinking the barges. Upon completion of maintenance dredging and after the plant equipment and/or materials were delivered, the barge slip and approach channel were abandoned and left to silt in by natural lake processes. The barge slip entrance rubble mound revetment protection was left in place when the barge slip was abandoned. Revision 12 2.4-42 January, 2003 2.4.5.5.7 Northwest Sediment Control Dam A nonsafety-related sediment control earthen dam and associated concrete spillway were constructed at the northwest corner of the plant site. The toe of the spillway is approximately 90 feet south of the 1975 shoreline. The channel bottom between the spillway toe and the shoreline is protected by 2-foot-6-inch thick dumped riprap placed over a 1-foot-3-inch thick gravel filter. 2.4.5.5.8 Minor Stream Diversion Channel Outlet The minor stream, which originally entered the lake at the present barge slip location, was diverted east of the plant site. The channel outfall to the lake was constructed using 96 inch diameter corrugated metal pipe installed over a layer of 500 to 8,000 pound dumped stone riprap. The pipe was terminated at the sheet piling protection installed along the lake shoreline in front of the plant site. 2.4.5.5.9 Interim Shore Protection In the early spring of 1975, significant shore erosion was observed at three localized areas of the plant site in the vicinity of site construction operations. These accelerated erosion rates were directly attributed to the sustained high lake levels which peaked in 1975 and which allowed wave attack to undermine the toe of the bluff during the high lake level period. In 1983, a rock protected sheet pile breakwall was erected. This sheet pile breakwall protects the section of the lake shoreline approximately 2,200 feet long, composed of the distance between the entrance to the barge unloading area and the outlet of the minor stream diversion as shown in <Figure 2.4-39A>. In 1992, the temporary sunken barges were removed and the interim revetment was extended 1300 feet west to the northwest storm impoundment spillway as shown in <Figure 2.4-39A>. The design of the extension was essentially the same as the original 2200 foot revetment. Revision 12 2.4-43 January, 2003 The breakwall was constructed in the following manner:
1. A sheet pile breakwall was driven along a line approximately 25 feet out into the lake from the toe of the sloped bluff.
The sheet piling was cut off at approximate Elevation 580-3. Whaler was bolted to the piling.
2. The shore side of the breakwall was finished as follows:
(a) Filter cloth was installed against the sheet piling. (b) A causeway was formed of clean sandstone and concrete fill to Elevation 576-0. (c) An underlayer of 2 to 14 inches of sandstone was installed to Elevation 577-0. (d) Armor stones were installed to Elevation 579-0.
3. The lake side of the breakwall was finished as follows:
(a) Filter cloth was placed on the lake bottom approximately 9-0 out from sheet piling. (b) Armor stones were placed on filter cloth at an approximate slope of one to one to an elevation of approximately 577-0.
d. The eastern end of the breakwall was gradually curved into the shoreline and the lake side armor stones were installed up to the top of the sheet piling. The western end of the breakwall was curved into the shoreline at the east edge of the northwest storm impoundment spillway and the lakeward side was protected by armor stone placed at the base of the spillway.
Revision 12 2.4-44 January, 2003 The top of the bluff should stabilize at approximately 300 feet from the emergency service water pumphouse. Therefore, this breakwall will provide significant protection to the shoreline and to the emergency service water pumphouse. 2.4.6 PROBABLE MAXIMUM TSUNAMI FLOODING Since the site is located on Lake Erie, an inland lake, tsunami occurrence is not applicable. The Lake Survey Center (NOAA) has found no evidence of earthquake related seiches. 2.4.7 ICE EFFECTS 2.4.7.1 Regional Ice Formation History Lake Erie, the shallowest of the Great Lakes, is also the most thermally variable. It reacts rapidly to seasonal temperature changes and can build an appreciable ice cover in a comparatively short time (Reference 33). As winter progresses, ice on Lake Erie spreads from west to east. In mid-December, ice begins to form in the extreme western portion of Lake Erie. It spreads eastward, partially aided by a prevailing west wind, until the beginning of March when the eastern end of the lake is completely ice covered. At this time, the probability of ice cover in the site area exceeds 76 percent (Reference 32). The ice disappears from the western and central portions of Lake Erie by the end of March and by mid-April only a small area near Buffalo, New York, is still ice covered (Reference 33). Available information indicates that the critical period for ice development in the site area is from mid-February through mid-March with ice block formation prevalent during the spring ice breakup. Revision 12 2.4-45 January, 2003 The maximum recorded ice thicknesses at locations shown in <Figure 2.4-40> on the periphery of Lake Erie are given in
.
tabulates the maximum recorded ice thicknesses along the Ohio shoreline of Lake Erie during the period 1961-1973 at Ashtabula and Cleveland Harbor. The surface ice and ice thicknesses were surveyed along the shoreline of the site during the winters of 1975-1976 and 1976-1977. The results of the field survey are shown in <Figure 2.4-41>, <Figure 2.4-42>, <Figure 2.4-43>, <Figure 2.4-44>, <Figure 2.4-45>, and <Figure 2.4-46>. A maximum ice thickness of 2.3 feet was observed on February 10, 1977. 2.4.7.2 Ice Blockage The intake structures are approximately 2,600 feet offshore and are totally submerged in the lake at a depth of 13.3 feet or more (from low water datum), depending on lake level. There are no trash racks at the ports of the intake heads since they would be subjected to the formation of frazil ice and eventual blockage of the ports. The possibility of floating ice sheets being pulled down and blocking the ports is very remote because of the very low intake velocities (Reference 34). The intake structures are protected by reinforced concrete ice protection caissons around them which will act as a barrier to any floating ice island which could block the intake ports. For the very unlikely case where complete blockage of the intake structures would occur, water for the emergency service water system will be drawn from the discharge tunnel. 2.4.7.3 Ice Forces and Protective Structures The submerged offshore structures could be subjected to ice forces by the ice islands driven by strong wind and/or large waves (Reference 34). For a discussion of these loads and forces, refer to <Section 3.8.4>. Revision 12 2.4-46 January, 2003 The intake structures are protected against the impact of ice islands by 10 vertical reinforced concrete caissons, each 6 or 7 feet in diameter, placed in a 70-foot diameter circle around each of the submerged intake structures. The spacing between the caissons is such that the intake water approach velocity will not be increased. The three foot diameter discharge nozzle is encased in a 17-foot diameter reinforced concrete caisson for protection against the ice loads produced by the impact of a floating ice island crushing against the structure. <Figure 3.8-67> and <Figure 3.8-68> show details of caissons for the intake and discharge structures. 2.4.7.4 Ice Flooding Ice flooding cannot occur because of the high bluffs between the buildings and the lake. Also, safety-related onshore buildings are set back from the top of the 45-foot high bluff to preclude ice forces being a problem. 2.4.8 COOLING WATER TUNNELS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES 2.4.8.1 Cooling Water Tunnels Service and cooling water for PNPP will be obtained from Lake Erie at approximately 2,600 feet offshore and carried to the plant site through a 10-foot diameter intake tunnel located in the underlying bedrock. The water is then returned to the lake through a similar discharge tunnel of shorter length. Short tunnels of the same diameter are used near the shore facilities to tap the cooling water tunnels for the emergency service water system. Tunnel locations are shown on <Figure 3.8-65> and <Figure 3.8-66>. A discussion of the tunnel function is given in <Section 2.4.11.6> and <Section 9.2.1>. Revision 12 2.4-47 January, 2003 2.4.8.2 Offshore Structures 2.4.8.2.1 Intake Structure The offshore intake structure consists of two independent, circular intake heads, each connected to a six-foot diameter vertical shaft. The two vertical shafts convey the cooling water into the underground 10 foot diameter intake tunnel. Each of the two intake heads is provided with a horizontal, circular velocity cap and vertical inflow ports around the periphery. Inflow to the ports is expected to be predominantly horizontal, except in the zones near the top and bottom of the port openings where the stream lines will have a more vertical orientation. Flow of cooling water into the intake heads will be through the vertical ports around the perimeter of each circular structure. Since the diameter of the circular intake heads is 36 feet, and the vertical ports are 3 feet-7-1/2 inches high, the expected approach velocity to the ports will be less than 0.5 foot per second (Reference 34). Provisions are available around the periphery of each structure for backfitting trash racks; this will allow for filtering of intake water to remove large pieces of flotsam, if necessary. The intake structure is a safety class structure as it supplies water to both the emergency service water pumphouse and the service water pumphouse. For the unlikely case of a complete blockage of the intake structure heads, an alternate supply of water can be obtained from the discharge nozzle. For details of the functional criteria, backup systems, hydraulic details, etc., refer to <Section 9.2>. The design of the intake structure is shown in <Figure 3.8-67>. Revision 12 2.4-48 January, 2003 2.4.8.2.2 Discharge Structure A single, 3-foot diameter nozzle will discharge perpendicularly away from the shoreline to dissipate waste heat from the closed cycle steam condenser cooling system through the cooling tower blowdown. A single, round submerged jet was chosen as the generic discharge type to promote rapid mixing of the discharge with the lake, thereby quickly reducing the elevated temperature and chemical concentrations of the discharge. The greater the discharge velocity for a given flow, the more rapid the mixing processes between discharge and lake. However, high velocities also result in erosion of the lake bottom and large induced currents at the lake surface. A maximum velocity of 35 ft/sec, previously determined as an acceptable upper velocity at the site (Reference 35), was chosen at the maximum discharge flow of 100,000 gpm. This criterion results in a minimum port diameter of 2.85 feet. The other criteria used to arrive at a design were:
a. A maximum calculated surface temperature rise of 2.75F. The requirements in most jurisdictions specify a 3F rise on the water surface outside of a specified mixing zone. Therefore, the criteria is quite restrictive since a 2.75F (rather than 3F) rise is specified and the mixing zone area is taken as zero.
b. A minimum 12-foot clearance above the discharge structure for navigational clearance.
c. A minimum two-foot separation between the discharge bottom and lake bedrock; this will provide for initial dilution water below the discharge and diminish the velocity effects of the discharge on the lake bottom.
The computer code MUDSUB (see PNPP Environmental Report) was used to arrive at acceptable diameters consistent with the criteria given above. Revision 12 2.4-49 January, 2003 A three-foot diameter discharge was chosen as the best design for environmental protection. Details of the analysis are given in (Reference 36). The design of the diffuser discharge structure is shown in <Figure 3.8-67>. 2.4.9 CHANNEL DIVERSIONS This section is not applicable to PNPP since no cooling water channels exist from which flow could be diverted. 2.4.10 FLOODING PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS Four prospective sources of flooding exist at the Perry site: Lake Erie, intense local precipitation, and flooding by two small, nameless streams which border the site to the east and south. <Section 2.4.5> and <Section 2.4.7> discuss the possibility of flooding caused by the probable maximum surge and ice conditions in the lake. The plant grade is sufficiently high to greatly reduce the probability of general site flooding. On the intake side of the cooling water systems, all safety-related pumps and equipment will be located above Elevation 586-6 (USGS) in the emergency service water pumphouse. This elevation allows approximately three feet of freeboard over the simultaneous occurrence of the probable maximum setup, the maximum monthly mean lake level of record, and the associated oscillation of the pump chamber water level due to wave action over either the main or alternate submerged offshore intake structure. Plant flooding by intense local precipitation is prevented by the design of the storm drainage and roof drainage systems. For details, see <Section 2.4.2.3>. Revision 12 2.4-50 January, 2003 2.4.11 LOW WATER CONSIDERATIONS 2.4.11.1 Low Flow in Streams Cooling water will be supplied from Lake Erie rather than from a river or stream. The ability of Lake Erie to perform adequately under severe low level conditions is discussed in the sections that follow. 2.4.11.2 Low Water Resulting From Surges, Seiches or Tsunami Surges and seiches in Lake Erie are due primarily to wind effects. Astronomical tides reach only 0.6 inch and the effects of atmospheric pressure gradients are also small (Reference 37). The Lake Survey Center (NOAA) has found no evidence of earthquake related lake fluctuations. This section describes the maximum decrease in lake level (setdown) at the site which would result from combinations of the most severe meteorological parameters that are reasonably possible in the Lake Erie area. 2.4.11.2.1 Probable Maximum Winds and Associated Meteorological Parameters 2.4.11.2.1.1 Meteorological Synoptic System for Lake Level Setdown Lake level setdown is the decrease of the lake level caused by the wind moving the surface water from one position to another with sufficient speed so that the surface of the lake becomes tilted. Since a body of water tends to remain level, this wind must be of sufficient strength and duration to maintain a steady-state of the lake surface tilt (Reference 7) (Reference 8). Revision 12 2.4-51 January, 2003 The magnitude of wind surges depends primarily on the wind speed, the fetch length over which the wind blows and the depth of the lake (Reference 9). In the Perry area, a meteorological synoptic situation with winds from magnetic SSW through ESE, a minimum velocity equal to a drag coefficient critical velocity of 14 knots (Reference 10), and a duration of at least 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> (Reference 11) to eliminate local thunderstorms is needed to generate significant setdown. The sensitivity of setdown to wind direction is described in <Section 2.4.11.2.2.2>. Several meteorological synoptic situations were analyzed to determine the type of situation that produced these required conditions (Reference 10) (Reference 11) (Reference 12). <Figure 2.4-47> is an example of the meteorological synoptic situation that meets these requirements. It is noted that in the site area, hurricanes are not associated with the PMS. As a rule, hurricanes do not penetrate into the site area (Reference 11), since hurricanes tend to decrease in strength as they penetrate inland from the coast. 2.4.11.2.1.2 Procedure to Develop the Probable Maximum Storm for Lake Level Setdown To generate a reasonable possible meteorological situation which has virtually no chance of being exceeded, the high pressure center was assigned the value of the highest pressure recorded in the United States (1,063.3 mb - 31.40 inches Hg, which occurred during January 9, 1962) (Reference 12) and the low pressure center was assigned the lowest pressure (non-hurricane) recorded in the United States (954.56 mb - 28.20 inches Hg, which occurred during 1913) (Reference 12). The use of these extreme values develops a very strong pressure gradient between the pressure centers. This pressure gradient exceeds any Revision 12 2.4-52 January, 2003 previously observed pressure gradient, excluding hurricanes over the ocean. The postulated wind speeds for this system have virtually no chance of being exceeded. To synthesize the sequence of the movement and the life cycle of the PMS a series of meteorological charts were developed. The PMS is assumed to occur over a 72-hour period; during this time, the winds increase from 15 mph to the maximum speed and then decrease to less than 15 mph in the Perry, Ohio, area. The first chart developed was based on an assumed 1,033-mb high pressure center and was located at the first 12-hour center position of the high <Figure 2.4-47>. The low pressure center was assumed to have a pressure of 985 mb and was located at the first 12-hour center position of the low as shown on the same figure. Subsequent 12-hour positions of the high and low centers are also shown. The high and low pressure systems were intensified at the rate of 10 mb per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, attaining the values for the PMS36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> after the initial chart. The centers then continued to move eastward for the next 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> and decreased in intensity at the rate of 10 mb per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. This procedure was followed to develop a meteorological situation which would result in a decrease of the surface winds at Perry to less than 15 mph at the end of the PMS episode. 2.4.11.2.1.3 Procedures Used to Generate the Individual Meteorological Charts The procedures used to develop the meteorological charts for the maximum setdown are identical to the procedures for maximum setup, as outlined in <Section 2.4.5.1.4>, and the results of these procedures are presented in <Figure 2.4-48>. <Figure 2.4-49>, <Figure 2.4-50>, <Figure 2.4-51>, <Figure 2.4-52>, <Figure 2.4-53>, <Figure 2.4-54>, <Figure 2.4-55>, <Figure 2.4-56>, Revision 12 2.4-53 January, 2003 <Figure 2.4-57>, <Figure 2.4-58>, <Figure 2.4-59>, and <Figure 2.4-60> are the isotach patterns of the PMS at 6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> intervals for the lake level setdown. 2.4.11.2.1.4 Supporting Data for the Uniqueness of the PMS Data supporting the uniqueness of the maximum setdown is the same data presented in <Section 2.4.5.1.5>, except that the maximum steady wind speed calculated for the PMS setdown is 100 mph at the site. 2.4.11.2.2 Maximum Lake Level Setdown 2.4.11.2.2.1 Method Used to Predict Setdown at Site To determine the setdown caused by the associated PMS, the one dimensional numerical prediction model described in Technical Report No. 4 (Reference 22) was applied using the PMS setdown winds. 2.4.11.2.2.2 Probable Maximum Setdown Wind speed magnitudes and directions for the PMS setdown case were generated for the ten stations shown on <Figure 2.4-26>. Wind stress magnitudes (Tx and Ty) for the other grid points of the numerical analog model were obtained by temporal and spatial linear interpolation. <Figure 2.4-61> and <Figure 2.4-62> describe the variation of wind speed and direction for the two stations adjacent to the Perry site and for the two stations directly across the lake from the Perry site; respectively. The coordinates for the PNPP site are (36,3). For the stations adjacent to the Perry site (20,1) and (40,1), the wind speed averages above 80 mph for a period of approximately 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br />. The wind direction is toward 345 to 340 degrees azimuth for this period. This corresponds to a wind from the south on the model grid. For the stations across from the Perry site, the wind speeds average above Revision 12 2.4-54 January, 2003 80 mph for approximately 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br />. For station (20,21), the wind direction varies from 340 to 310 degrees during the maximum wind period. For station (40,21), the wind direction varies from 340 to 320 in this period. The total distance that these winds travel over water is approximately 56 miles. The computed setdown hydrograph for the site during the period of the PMS is shown in <Figure 2.4-63>. With the 4.04 foot maximum setdown, the minimum water surface elevation at the plant site would be 563.36 feet IGLD (565.26 feet USGS). This is based on an antecedent water elevation of 567.4 feet (IGLD), the minimum monthly level of record. The wave action coincident with this setdown was determined by procedures described in Technical Report No. 4 (Reference 22). Using an average 90 mph offshore, over water wind of unlimited duration with a 30 percent reduction to account for land effects in the nearshore zone, the Bretschneider method gives a 2.6 foot significant wave height and a 4.7 second period. Since the alternate intake (normal discharge structure) is closer to shore, the wave heights would be less than at the normal intake structure. 2.4.11.2.2.3 One-Dimensional Model for Setdown Surge The analysis of the lake setdown surge at the plant site was made using the one-dimensional model described in Technical Report No. 4 (Reference 22), and briefly characterized in <Section 2.4.5.2.2>. The probable maximum setdown was computed with this method using a fetch defined by a line connecting grid points (36,3) (plant site) and (36,21) <Figure 2.4-26>. <Figure 2.4-63> shows the hydrographs of computed setdown at the site for the PMS setdown wind data. Note that the curve does not reflect any adjustment for lake volume balance, pressure or precipitation. The maximum setdown shown on this curve is 4.03 feet (122.95 cm). Revision 14 2.4-55 October, 2005 Volume adjustment was made on the basis of Equation 2.4-1. <Figure 2.4-29> summarizes the results of the volume computations for both the setup and setdown cases at the time of their peak occurrence. The pressure adjustments were made by looking at the PMS pressure data and choosing the maximum pressure difference between adjacent stations across the lake. For both the PMS setup and setdown cases, the maximum pressure difference was found to be 10 mb 10 cm of water. No precipitation adjustment was included for the setdown case since it would only reduce the setdown and would not be indicative of the most conservative case. 2.4.11.3 Historical Low Water Two gauges have provided data for the study of the variation in surface elevation of Lake Erie. The Cleveland gauge has a period of record for monthly and annual means dating back to 1860, with instantaneously recorded data since 1904. The gauge at Erie has continuous data from 1960 to the present. A third gauge at Ashtabula, installed in 1954, has been neglected for extended periods since its installation and much of the data recorded by this gauge is incomplete and unreliable due to malfunction of the gauge and its recording mechanism. <Figure 2.4-2> reveals that the mean lake level has a cyclic variation. At Cleveland, the minimum monthly mean level of record was 567.4 feet IGLD (569.3 feet USGS) recorded in December 1934. The minimum recorded instantaneous level was 565.71 feet IGLD (567.61 feet USGS), which occurred on February 4, 1936. The maximum seiche setdown for each year was computed by subtracting the minimum instantaneous lake level from the mean level for the month in which it occurred. The peak setdown at Cleveland for the period of record was -3.04 feet, occurring December 8, 1927. At Erie, the minimum monthly mean level was 568.27 feet IGLD (570.17 feet USGS) for December 1964 and the minimum recorded Revision 14 2.4-56 October, 2005 instantaneous level was 566.00 feet IGLD (567.90 feet USGS), which occurred on March 10, 1964. The peak seiche setdown at Erie for the period of record is -2.90 feet, occurring March 10, 1964. A frequency study of seiche setdown and minimum monthly mean stages was made for both the Cleveland and Erie gauges. The results obtained are shown in <Figure 2.4-64> and <Figure 2.4-65>, respectively. Log Pearson Type III and Linear Gumbel distributions are presented for each case. Comparison of the seiche setdown curves in these figures shows that at a particular frequency the seiche at Erie exceeds that at Cleveland. This is felt to be attributable to dissimilar lengths of gauge records and topography in the vicinity of the gauging stations. 2.4.11.4 Future Controls There are three hydrologic features which influence the site: Lake Erie and the two small, nameless streams which border the site. The safety-related structures are located outside the drainage basin of the larger (major) stream. No developments are foreseen for the streams as the mean flow of each is less than 10 cfs, and except for intermittent withdrawal by an adjacent industry from the downstream end of the major stream, the only use is for drainage. Lake Erie drains into Lake Ontario via the Niagara River and is also connected to Lake Ontario by the Welland Canal. The Niagara River has two major control structures for power generation before reaching Niagara Falls. The upstream east channel has also been channelized for navigational purposes. However, no new developments involving control structures are envisioned. The Welland Canal is approximately 26.5 miles long and has 8 locks capable of raising ocean-going vessels 326 feet from Lake Ontario to Lake Erie. A more complete description of the canal may be found in Revision 12 2.4-57 January, 2003 <Section 2.4.11.6>. A section of the canal is being straightened between Miles 23.8 and 15 (Mile 23.8 is approximately 4 miles from the Lake Erie end). The new cross section will have a bottom width of 350 feet compared with 192 feet in the existing channel. The depth of the new channel will be 30 feet, three feet deeper than the present system it will replace. For reasons outlined in the <Section 2.4.11.6>, it is considered most unlikely that any developments of the canal will influence the surface elevation of Lake Erie. 2.4.11.5 Plant Requirements As described in <Section 2.4.11.2>, the probable minimum lake level at Perry is Elevation 565.26 feet (USGS). With the inverts of the intake ports at an average elevation of 552.65 feet, inflow of sufficient cooling water during this period is assured. The corresponding water level in the emergency service water pump chamber would be at Elevation 562.09 feet. During this condition, water for the emergency service water system could also be supplied by the alternate intake system discussed in <Section 2.4.5.4> and <Section 9.2.5>. The crown and invert elevations of the diffuser nozzle of the discharge structure are 555.8 and 552.8 feet (USGS), respectively. The available 12.2-foot submergence over the diffuser nozzle would prevent air entrainment due to the inflow velocity (approximately 15.85 fps through the nozzle). The minimum water level in the emergency service water pumphouse will occur during the hot standby condition when only the emergency service water systems are operating. At the probable minimum lake level with coincident wave action, the level in the emergency service water pump chamber for this condition will be Elevation 562.09 feet (USGS). With the invert of the chamber at Elevation 537.0 feet, the 10-foot minimum Revision 12 2.4-58 January, 2003 depth requirement of the pumps is assured. These safety-related pumps meet this cooling water requirement during this extreme low lake level condition. 2.4.11.6 Heat Sink Dependability Requirements Emergency service water for the PNPP is supplied from Lake Erie. The emergency service water pumphouse and emergency service water pumps are designed to provide service capacity <Section 9.2.1> under all lake level conditions down to the 563.36 feet IGLD (565.26 feet USGS) level caused by the probable maximum setdown <Section 2.4.11.2> superimposed on the minimum monthly mean lake level. Lake Erie, as part of the Great Lakes system, is well regulated with only a 1.2-foot range in the average monthly levels <Figure 2.4-2>. Inflow from the Detroit River, connecting Lake Erie to Lake St. Clair and eventually to Lake Huron, is in the order of 178,000 cfs. Outflow from the Niagara River, connecting Lake Erie with Lake Ontario, is approximately 194,000 cfs. The difference between inflow and outflow is due to the extra runoff from the portion of the Great Lakes drainage basin occupied by Lake Erie and its environs. Lake Erie is also connected to Lake Ontario by the Welland Canal. The mean annual outflow by this route is approximately 8,000 cfs (Reference 1). Relative to the lake volume and inflow rate, this outflow is of no significance to the level of Lake Erie. Assuming that a complete catastrophe destroyed all the locks in the canal, sizable outflow through the canal would occur. To maximize the effect of such a disaster, the hydraulics of the canal were simulated by an uncontrolled weir of 270 feet in length and crest Elevation 538.00 feet IGLD (539.90 feet USGS) at the canal entrance to Lake Erie. The canal itself has a width of 192 feet, an invert level of 538.00 feet IGLD (539.90 feet USGS) and is 26.5 miles in length with a total head Revision 12 2.4-59 January, 2003 loss of 326 feet. With no inflow to Lake Erie and discharge occurring through the Niagara River and the canal, it would take 350 days for the lake level to drop 5 feet from 573.00 feet IGLD (574.90 feet USGS) to 568.00 feet IGLD (569.90 feet USGS). Further conservatism in this estimate was gained by using the initial outflow head (the outflow for a lake level of 573.00 feet IGLD) rather than a falling head relationship for both the canal and the river for the whole head increment. The result of this conservative evaluation shows that a total failure of the Welland Canal lock system will not compromise the safety of the plant. The likelihood of such a failure is remote due to the redundancy of protective devices and the structural enormity of the system. Service and makeup water for the power plant will be obtained from Lake Erie approximately 2,600 feet offshore and carried to the plant through a 10-foot diameter intake tunnel; after passing through the plant, the water will be returned to the lake through a similar discharge tunnel. Two short tunnels of 10 feet diameter, shown in <Figure 3.8-65>, intersect the main cooling water tunnels near the shore facilities. Their only purpose is to draw cooling water for the emergency service water pumphouse, either from the intake or the discharge tunnel. Normally, as explained in this section and <Section 3.8.4> and <Section 9.2.1>, the intake tunnel supplies water to both the emergency service water pumphouse and the service water pumphouse. In the unlikely event of a complete blockage of the intake structure or intake tunnel, water for the emergency service system must be drawn from the discharge tunnel. During this time, the heated effluent from the service water system will be discharged onshore and will flow by gravity down to the lake shoreline. Discharge will be through the Safety Class 3 standpipe on the downstream side of the heat exchangers, as shown on <Figure 9.2-1> and discussed in Revision 12 2.4-60 January, 2003 <Section 9.2.1>. The water will discharge outside the auxiliary building onto the ground. The slopes and elevations are set so that the flow will be away from the plant, across the road and down a graded swale between the cooling towers to the diverted stream <Figure 2.4-3>. The water will flow down to the stream and discharge into Lake Erie. A longitudinal profile through the emergency service water alternate discharge area (minor stream diversion channel) is depicted in <Figure 2.4-8> and shows the elevations of the flow paths through the stream to the lake. Flow through all paths for both units will result in a total flow to the stream of approximately 50,000 gpm initially, which will be reduced to 25,000 gpm in a short period of time. These flow rates represent original plant design (two units). Since then, Unit 2 has been abandoned. As a result, the actual total flow exiting the ESW standpipes will be much less. In addition, the required ESW flow rates for Unit 1 have been analytically decreased to values less than those originally specified (reference <Figure 9.2-1(3)> for the required ESW system flow rates). The contours of the site will be set to provide a depressed area east of the auxiliary buildings <Figure 2.4-3>. This depressed area will slope away from the plant buildings, over the road and through the swale to the minor stream. Elevations of the depressed areas will be such that no water exiting the plant under this unlikely event will flow back to the plant. The main intake structures shown on <Figure 3.8-65> and <Figure 3.8-67> consist of two independent intake heads that are each connected to a six foot diameter shaft. The two vertical shafts convey the water into the 10-foot diameter intake tunnel shown in <Figure 3.8-65> and <Figure 3.8-66>. The intake heads are circular in plan and are covered with a velocity cap placed at a minimum of 13.3 feet below the low water datum (LWD), as shown in <Figure 3.8-67>. Inflow is through vertical openings around the periphery of the intake heads. The discharge Revision 13 2.4-61 December, 2003 structure, shown in <Figure 3.8-65> and <Figure 3.8-67>, consists of one 3-foot diameter diffuser nozzle encased in a 17-foot diameter protective concrete caisson, the top of which is 12.2 feet below LWD. The intake and discharge structures are located approximately 2,600 feet and 1,700 feet, respectively, offshore. Approximately 1,550 feet of horizontal separation exists between the two structures. Revision 13 2.4-61a December, 2003 Since the size and extent of these offshore structures are based on the entire normal operation cooling water requirements of the plant, it greatly exceeds the requirement for the safety-related systems. The likelihood that both the main intake and the alternate intake would be blocked by ice, or a waterborne transportation accident would occur that would affect flow capacity, is extremely remote. The separation between the normal and alternate intakes and the fact that they are installed at different depths greatly reduces the probability that a single event or accident could affect both intakes. 2.4.12 DISPERSION, DILUTION AND TRAVEL TIMES OF ACCIDENTAL RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS IN LAKE ERIE Lake Erie is long, narrow and shallow (average depth approximately 60 feet) with a 220 foot deep basin at the eastern end (Reference 38). The Perry plant is located along the southern shoreline in the Lake Erie central basin. Currents in the lake are driven by wind and seiche activity. Seiches are periodic oscillatory lake motions that occur when a wedge of water has developed at one end of a water body and the wind or pressure forces causing the wedge have been removed. The currents then flow from the region of higher energy across the lake, build another wedge at the opposite end, and reverse to reproduce the original energy difference. This harmonic activity continues until damped out by external forces and friction. Current reversals due to seiche will occur whenever a wind that has piled up water at one end of the system dies down or changes direction (Reference 39). In Lake Erie, changes in barometric pressure have also been shown to cause significant seiche activity (Reference 40) (Reference 41). A conservative condition for calculating far-field dilution factors (discharge concentration/intake concentration) is one in which the effluents are carried from the discharge point directly to a given Revision 12 2.4-62 January, 2003 intake before any current reversal can occur. Current reversals result in elongated transport paths and increased turbulent mixing. In his studies of Lake Ontario, Csanady (Reference 42) (Reference 43) found also that under certain conditions current reversals will transport effluents from the near-shore zone, through the medium of mass exchange between coastal zone boundary layers and the rest of the lake. The maximum period between current reversals was estimated using 5 years of wind persistence data from the Cleveland and Toledo NWS weather stations located near Lake Erie. The highest observed period of wind persistence in five contiguous wind direction sectors was found to be 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br />. Five adjacent sectors represent an arc of 112.5 degrees, and any change in wind direction of this magnitude would be expected to result in current reversals, due both to seiches and wind stress. This value of 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> compares conservatively with the nominal period between reversals of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> cited in <Regulatory Guide 1.113>, and also with a maximum period between current reversals of 85 hours9.837963e-4 days <br />0.0236 hours <br />1.405423e-4 weeks <br />3.23425e-5 months <br /> observed at the Perry site during a one year underwater monitoring program (Reference 44). The value is conservative since barometric seiches, which usually precede or accompany wind seiches (Reference 39) (Reference 31), have not been included in the analysis. Inclusion of these oscillations would hasten the projected onset of seiche motion. The dilution factors shown in
were developed for a shoreline discharge of 25,080 gpm. This discharge was estimated to occur as a result of earthquake damage to the diffuser tunnel as discussed in <Chapter 15>. Equation 14 from <Regulatory Guide 1.113> was used to compute minimum dilutions for each potable water intake within 50 miles of the plant, based on distances given in Revision 12 2.4-63 January, 2003 <Section 2.4.1.2>. Because the lowest dilution factors occur for low values of ambient velocity, velocities were taken to be the minimum that would transport effluents to each intake prior to current reversal. This is; di 5280 Ui tr 3600 where Ui = Ambient velocity used to compute dilution for ith intake, ft/sec. di = Distance to ith intake, miles. tr = Maximum time between reversals, 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br />. In those cases where the computed value Ui exceeded an average net drift velocity of 0.33 ft/sec (Reference 1) (Reference 38), the average value was used to ensure conservatively low dilution factors. The effect of using the computed velocity values was particularly significant for those intakes located near the plant. For the nearest intake, 3.5 miles from the plant, the current velocity was computed to be 0.03 ft/sec. This resulted in a dilution factor of 7.8. If the current velocity had been taken to be the average net drift value of 0.33 ft/sec instead, the resulting dilution factor would have been 22.5. Other required inputs to the model were diffusion coefficients and ambient depth. The lateral and vertical turbulent diffusion coefficients were taken to be 0.5 and 0.001 ft2/sec, respectively. These are the most conservative of the values suggested for the Great Lakes by <Regulatory Guide 1.113>. Revision 12 2.4-64 January, 2003 An examination of potable water intakes within twenty miles of the plant located no intake operating in less than 16 feet of water (Reference 45). Since the subject discharge was at the shoreline, and it was assumed that the discharge plume centerline passed directly over each intake studied, the average ambient depth for each discharge path was taken to be eight feet. The dilution values shown in
are conservative for use in evaluations of dilution from the subsurface diffuser nozzle since no credit has been taken for the initial dilution of the subsurface jet. Subsurface dilution effects can be considerable, as shown by the work of Koh and Fan (Reference 46) and Jirka et al. (Reference 47). Low ambient velocities, such as those used in
, result in conservatively low dilution factors due to decreased mixing. High ambient velocities, on the other hand, result in conservatively low travel times. It is therefore recommended that the net drift velocity of 0.33 ft/sec (0.225 mph), which is greater than or equal to all of the velocity values in
, be used to compute conservative travel times for use with the dilution factors presented in
. The travel time associated with a dilution of 7.8 for the IRC Fibers Company intake, for example, would then be 15.6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />. This compares with the travel time of 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> for which the dilution factor has defined. 2.4.13 GROUNDWATER 2.4.13.1 Description and Onsite Use Glaciolacustrine deposits and till, ranging in thickness from a few feet to as much as 250 feet, cover most of the surface in northeastern Ohio. Wells penetrating glacial deposits frequently yield small amounts (generally less than 10 gpm) of water after the water table is penetrated. Small domestic supplies are available from glaciolacustrine deposits nearly everywhere in the region. Revision 12 2.4-65 January, 2003 The southward-dipping bedrock which underlies the glacial deposits in the region is composed mainly of thin-bedded medium gray shale, with some thin, light gray fine grained sandstone to siltstone layers. The amount of water which these rocks yield is generally small. Available data indicates that the maximum water that can be pumped from the shale is generally less than 5 gpm. Recharge to the glacial deposits and bedrock is primarily by infiltration of precipitation. Downward infiltration is retarded in large part by the heterogeneous nature and low permeability of the glacial till. A minor portion of the infiltrating water eventually percolates to the underlying jointed bedrock. The regional groundwater table is variable and generally shallow, ranging from two to eight feet below the ground surface. The bases for regional groundwater descriptions were largely from (Reference 38) and other references in <Section 2.4.16>. Locally, the site is underlaid by about 55 to 60 feet of lacustrine deposits and glacial till resting on a shale bedrock erosional surface that slopes gently toward Lake Erie with an average inclination of about one percent. Lacustrine soil deposits, the main source of groundwater, consist of low permeability interbedded silty and clayey fine sand, clayey silt and silty clay with an average thickness of 28 feet. The dense glacial till beneath the lacustrine deposits is of very low permeability. Except along joints and within the thin, weathered and somewhat fractured zone near the bedrock over burden contact, the bedrock is relatively impervious. Well supplies are inadequate for plant needs. All water for plant use, except potable water and backup fire service water supplied by the Ohio Water Service Company, will be obtained from Lake Erie. A sustained well pumping test, performed on the PNPP site to evaluate the effects of the plant underdrain system on the surrounding groundwater regime, yielded only 0.12 gpm. Revision 12 2.4-66 January, 2003 2.4.13.2 Sources 2.4.13.2.1 Regional and Local Groundwater Conditions The primary source of potable water for most municipalities in the site area is Lake Erie. Nearby communities of Perry, Madison-on-the-Lake, Madison, and North Madison are serviced from underground distribution lines. In large part, the Ohio Water Service Company obtains its water supply from Lake Erie. Intermixed to a degree are domestic users with private wells. A distribution line has been added along Center Road to supply the Perry site and residents bordering on Center Road with potable water. Domestic water users beyond the distribution system rely upon groundwater supplied from wells. In the vicinity of the Perry site, many residential users obtain their water supplies from shallow wells. Most of the well supplies are used for drinking and other domestic purposes. Wells, both drilled and hand dug, generally obtain water from the lacustrine deposits with yields usually less than 5 gpm. Deeper wells into shale yield relatively minor quantities of water. Near Lake Erie, wells penetrating shale commonly encounter salty water, sulphurous water or even gas at shallow depths. An inventory of the users within a two mile radius of the plant site produced 295 water wells. Locations of the wells are shown in <Figure 2.4-66>. A tabulated list of users, groundwater levels, well depths, and yields are given in
. The inventory was compiled by abstracting data from drillers logs and from interviewing local residents. A regional groundwater table occurs at the site. Preconstruction groundwater levels ranged from Elevation 624.0 to 613.0. Very dense, relatively impervious glacial till at a depth of about 25 to 30 feet, acts as a retarding barrier to downward infiltration of precipitation. Water collecting above the till in the surficial silty and clayey fine sand, clayey silt and silty clay lacustrine materials results in a Revision 12 2.4-67 January, 2003 semi-perched groundwater condition, constituting the main water-bearing zone. Permeable materials within the fine-grained lacustrine deposits are comprised generally of thin layers (a few inches thick) of silty sand. Water levels in observation wells in the lacustrine deposits rise rapidly during and immediately after periods of precipitation, then drop during dry periods. The preconstruction piezometric groundwater surface was approximately three to five feet below the ground surface at the plant location. The principal direction of groundwater movement is from the plant site toward Lake Erie. Preconstruction groundwater contours in the area of the plant site <Figure 2.4-67> were developed from measurements of static water levels taken in both the test borings and the domestic water wells within a two mile radius of the plant <Figure 2.4-66>. The contours are still representative and indicate a piezometric gradient of approximately 26 ft/mile in a northerly direction toward Lake Erie. As part of the plant foundation investigation, sealed piezometers were installed in the glacial till deposits and in the underlying bedrock, as described in <Section 2.5.4>. Little water is found in the glacial till overlying the shale. Locally, the shale bedrock receives only very small amounts of recharge because the till serves as a barrier to downward movement of water. Although bedrock surface in the test borings is slightly lower than lake level (Elevation 572.0 to 556.0, as compared to Elevation 574.0), transmission of water from the lake toward the plant site was not evidenced in the borings. Groundwater in the bedrock, affected by very small gradients, flows generally from the plant area toward the lake. The groundwater level in the site locality was measured in numerous test borings with an observed gradient of 12 to 26 ft/mile. The seasonal variation of the groundwater level, mainly attributable to the amount of precipitation, is expected to be about three feet above to three feet below the mean groundwater level. Groundwater observation wells Revision 12 2.4-68 January, 2003 installed at the site in 1975 have shown a maximum seasonal variation of 6.4 feet, peak to trough <Section 2.5.4>. A long term continuous water level record was obtained from the Ohio Division of Water for a well at Mentor, Ohio, in Lake County. Although this well is at a considerable distance from the site (approximately 15 miles west), the geologic environs and climatic conditions are quite similar. Observations by automatic recorder were made from April 1948 to August 1970. The record indicates that the maximum seasonal change within the 22 year period was five feet, peak to trough, but the average change was approximately three feet. A total static groundwater decline of approximately two feet was experienced for the 22 year period. Groundwater migrates toward the natural drainage channels during the wetter periods when the aquifer becomes filled to capacity. The source of water present in the small stream that passed through the plant site prior to construction was principally from effluent collected from drainage tile in the cultivated fields. Groundwater seepage from the lacustrine deposits occurs also along the face of the Lake Erie shoreline bluff. Groundwater recharge in the plant area is mostly from precipitation rather than inflow from adjacent land. Field permeability tests were performed in the lacustrine materials, the principal water-bearing zone. The average measured horizontal permeabilities ranged from 1.2 x 10-4 to 4.2 x 10-7 cm/sec with an estimated mean value of approximately 1.0 x 10-5 cm/sec. The vertical permeability is estimated to range from 1/5 to 1/50 of the horizontal permeability. A description of the permeability testing program is provided in <Section 2.5.4>. Several samples of groundwater obtained from the test borings and from the small stream near the site were analyzed for chemical quality. The Revision 12 2.4-69 January, 2003 groundwater is moderately mineralized and very hard due to calcium bicarbonate. The water is moderately basic with pH values of 7.6 to 8.1. Analyses of the water samples are shown in
and
. Owing to the generally low yield of usually less than 5 gpm in wells within lacustrine deposits (the water-bearing zone) in Perry and Madison Townships, the number of future groundwater users is not expected to increase greatly. The low permeability (<10-4 cm/sec) and the limited storage capacity of the aquifer is expected to minimize the amount of groundwater available for the development of new well supplies. <Section 2.1.3> estimates the projected population increase to the year 2020 as about 160 homes in the zero to one mile radius and about 820 homes in the one to two mile radius. Past experience in the area has shown that as the home density builds up, the trend has been for water users to elect for the more dependable water service provided by Ohio Water Service Company which obtains most of its water from Lake Erie. As previously stated, Ohio Water Service Company currently supplies water to the surrounding villages of Perry, Madison-on-the-Lake, Madison, and North Madison. The effect on groundwater flow direction, gradients, rates, and water levels as a result of future groundwater withdrawals are not expected to be significantly altered or to cause groundwater flow reversal in the area outside the site boundary. 2.4.13.2.2 Effects on Groundwater After Construction A pressure relief underdrain system is installed <Section 2.4.13.5> beneath the primary plant structures to maintain the groundwater level below Elevation 568.0 after construction in order to reduce the hydrostatic pressures and to increase the dynamic stability of the structures. The radius of influence of groundwater drawdown during Revision 12 2.4-70 January, 2003 construction has been observed to be less than 500 feet <Section 2.5.4>, a distance well within the project site boundaries. The radius of influence will not be altered significantly after construction. Thus, the effects on groundwater during construction and throughout the plant life will not extend beyond the project site. 2.4.13.3 Accident Effects The groundwater movement in the general area of the plant <Figure 2.4-66> is to the north toward Lake Erie. As previously stated, the gradient ranges from 12 to 26 ft/mile. Additional withdrawals by future users will be significantly limited by the shallow thickness of the aquifer and the low transmissibility. Local domestic wells outside the exclusion radius are up-gradient from the plant site and will not be affected by the power plant. The low permeability of the glaciolacustrine deposits and of the shale bedrock, together with the low groundwater gradients toward the lake, would severely restrict the movement of water which might contain radioactive particles. Additionally, clay, the main constituent of the soil, has the potential for absorbing radioactive contaminants (Reference 25). An accidental release of radioactive contamination into the ground at the site is considered to be highly unlikely because of the extensive precautions taken to preclude such an accident. Postulating an accidental release of radioactive materials occurring at the radwaste building of the PNPP, the pumps installed in the pumping manholes of the pressure relief underdrain system will be manually shut off, allowing groundwater to build up to Elevation 590.0 feet within the underdrain system and discharge via the gravity drains to the emergency service water pumphouse and eventually into Lake Erie. In addition, radiation monitors located in the gravity discharge manholes, will automatically stop the service and backup underdrain pumps upon detection of high radioactivity <Section 11.5>. A discussion of postulated radioactive release is included in <Section 15.7>. Revision 13 2.4-71 December, 2003 Further, assuming an accidental release of radioactive materials was to occur at the radwaste building and was to assume a travel path through the soils, the estimated transit time to the point of discharge into Lake Erie is 25 years if the groundwater was allowed to return to Elevation 620.0. The maximum groundwater velocity would likely occur within the lacustrine deposits (upper 25 feet) as the underlying tills are relatively impervious. Coefficient of permeability K calculated from field testing within lacustrine materials ranged between 1.2 x 10-4 cm/sec and 4.2 x 10-7 cm/sec, as discussed in <Section 2.5.4>. The hydraulic gradient was determined from differences in gravitational groundwater levels between the radwaste building and the future protected bluff slope, and the shortest distance between these points. Groundwater levels measured in proximity to the radwaste building (Boring 1-45) averaged about Elevation 620.0. Near the edge of the bluff, the static groundwater level range occurs at around Elevation 616.0. The Perry site has been graded to approximate Elevation 620.0. The small stream between the plant and the bluff has been relocated and the abandoned channel has been filled with compacted soils to Elevation 620.0. The maximum difference in groundwater levels expected between the plant and the bluff after completion of the site grading is conservatively estimated at 12 feet; however, the readjusted piezometric slope after grading will likely be much less. The minimum groundwater transit distance will occur when the 1979 bluff, which is approximately 1,010 feet from the radwaste building, has receded about 200 feet <Figure 2.4-39>. On the assumption that 200 feet of recession will actually occur during the life of the PNPP, a conservative distance of 800 feet has been used for establishing the groundwater gradient. For Revision 13 2.4-72 December, 2003 an added degree of conservatism, a slightly larger coefficient of permeability, 4 x 10-4 cm/sec, was used in the calculation of transit time. Method of Calculating Transit Time: Permeability K 4 x 104 cm/sec 412 ft/yr h 12 ft Hydraulic gradients 0.015 L 800 ft Effective Porosity n = 0.2 The Darcy velocity or specific discharge V is equal to the negative gradient of Kh when K is constant. The true average velocity in the pores of the medium is V/n in which n is the porosity of the medium (Reference 43) (Reference 44). V = K (gradient h) V = 412 (0.015) V = 6.2 ft/yr V 6.2 31.0 ft/yr n 0.2 800 = 25 years; Minimum estimated transit time from radwaste 31.0 building to the receded bluff slope. Contamination of the groundwater beneath the plant does not present a hazard to public water supplies, as described in <Section 15.7>. Revision 12 2.4-73 January, 2003 2.4.13.4 Monitoring of Safeguard Requirements Monitoring and safeguard requirements related to the groundwater fluctuation and hydrostatic uplift pressures under the foundation mats are discussed in <Section 2.4.13.5>. The preoperational and postoperational radiological groundwater monitoring program is discussed in <Section 11.5>. 2.4.13.5 Design Bases for Subsurface Hydrostatic Loadings Although the pressure relief underdrain system is utilized to reduce the hydrostatic pressure acting on the building structures, all exterior walls and mats of safety class structures in the nuclear island are designed for hydrostatic head due to water elevation of 618.0 under static conditions. See <Section 2.4.13.5.1> and <Section 3.8.5> for discussion of water levels and design conditions. <Section 2.4.13.5> describes the underdrain system which is designed to prevent full hydrostatic water pressures from exceeding an average elevation of 590.0. Groundwater fluctuations beneath the site and a discussion of groundwater conditions during and after construction are described in <Section 2.4.13>. 2.4.13.5.1 Pressure Relief Underdrain System Description The main objective of the pressure relief underdrain system is to ensure that the groundwater level around the nuclear island does not exceed Elevation 590.0 feet. Safety-related structures serviced by the underdrain system are designed to withstand all loading conditions at this maximum level. In addition, the underdrain system provided benefits during construction by dewatering the main plant area Revision 12 2.4-74 January, 2003 excavation, and providing covering protection to exposed shale surfaces. The performance criteria for the system are presented below: Design groundwater inflow rate 80 gpm Hypothetical accident water inflow rate 2,000 gpm - (includes the 80 gpm ground water inflow) maximum Normal elevation of water table throughout the area of the nuclear island (using pumped discharge) 568.5 - maximum Accident condition groundwater elevation throughout the area of the nuclear island (using gravity discharge) 590.0 - maximum Compressive strength of porous concrete 1,000 psi - minimum Permeability of porous concrete 3 ft/min - minimum The underdrain system consists of a porous concrete blanket, nominally one foot thick, which underlies all of the structures of the nuclear island. Between some of the buildings and around the perimeter of the nuclear island, the blanket is increased in thickness to incorporate a one foot diameter, porous concrete pipe. The pipe carries the collected water to individual pumps located in manholes on the East and West sides of the nuclear island. The underdrain pumps discharge into the gravity discharge system, and drain to Lake Erie via the emergency service water pumphouse. A layout and cross section of the system is presented in <Figure 2.4-68>, <Figure 2.4-69>, and <Figure 2.4-70>. A flow diagram Revision 13 2.4-75 December, 2003 of the underdrain system is presented in <Figure 2.4-71>. The pumping and discharge portions of the system incorporate a number of redundant features. This system includes two discharge systems (pumping and gravity drain). In the pumped discharge system, the design groundwater inflow of 80 gpm flows by gravity through the porous concrete blanket and pipes to collection manholes containing the service underdrain pumps. Three service underdrain pumps are set to maintain a water surface elevation of 568.0 or below. If for some reason the pumps fail to start or cannot keep up with the rising water level, then, a high water level alarm will sound in the control room and a backup pump in manhole #6 will automatically start, providing an additional 50 gpm nominal of capacity to the pumping discharge system. If desired, another backup pump (located in manhole #11) can be manually started, but it will also require the installation of a discharge hose. The hose will need to be connected to the discharge of the pump in manhole #11 and temporarily routed to the gravity drain outflow pipe in manhole #10 <Figure 2.4-71>. The temporary hose will prevent recycling of the water flow from manhole #10 back to manhole #11 via the one foot diameter porous concrete piping that connects these two manholes. Although unlikely, should all of the underdrain service pumps and the backup pumps fail, the groundwater level would rise until it reaches the gravity discharge system which is provided to ensure that the groundwater level around the nuclear island never exceeds Elevation 590.0. The gravity discharge system is designed to provide a redundant periphery discharge which incorporates a gravity outfall, having no active components, to handle a 15,000 gpm flow entering the underdrain system on either side of the plant. The design basis for the plant underdrain system is described in <Section 2.4.13.5>. Revision 18 2.4-76 October, 2013
a. Porous Concrete Blanket A 12-inch thickness of porous concrete was selected as the drainage medium under the plant buildings to help dissipate any pressure increase under the foundations by providing hydraulic continuity.
The porous concrete blanket is classified as Seismic Category I, Safety Class 3. Revision 16 2.4-76a October, 2009 The following design mix for the porous concrete was determined on the basis of a mix suitability program conducted by U.S. Testing Laboratories, at the site, under the direction of Gilbert Associates, Inc.: Water/Cement Ratio: 0.35 by weight Aggregate/Cement Ratio: 5.0 by weight Aggregate Size: No. 4 to 3/8 in. (pea gravel) A method of placement tests, using test slabs measuring 4 feet by 4 feet by 1 foot, indicated that concrete placed by free fall with screeding and no compaction yields: Vertical and horizontal cored cylinder average strength 1,487 psi at 28 days Vertical and horizontal cored 4.27 ft/min at H = cylinder average permeability 4 in. Chemical analysis of the groundwater is shown on
.
provides additional data acquired during pumping tests in February 1975. From the relatively low concentration (340 to 1,016 ppm) of dissolved solids, particularly the percentage of sulfates (SO4) (42 to 186 ppm), it is not anticipated that there will be any significant chemical effects on the porous concrete or the components of the groundwater pumping system. As an additional precaution, Type II cement which is moderately sulfate resistant, was used. The pH range of 7.6-8.1 indicates minimal corrosion effects. The long term performance of the porous concrete underdrain system is discussed in more detail under <Section 2.4.13.5.5>. Revision 12 2.4-77 January, 2003 Caissons under the north end of the service building and under the fuel handling building have been drilled and or blocked-out through the porous concrete blanket into the shale. Because the caissons are approximately four feet in diameter and spaced on approximate 12 to 25 foot centers, any local disturbance to the porous concrete at the outside edges of the caissons and the loss of porous concrete drainage area occupied by the caissons is minimal, thus ensuring hydraulic continuity within the porous concrete blanket. The 12-inch porous concrete pipe in these areas is located between caisson rows to eliminate the possibility of being disturbed during caisson construction.
b. Class A Fill Class A fill was placed above and beside the porous concrete wherever it would otherwise come in contact with the natural soil or Class B fill. The Class A fill is designed and utilized to act as a filter blanket to protect the porous concrete from infiltration of fine particles present in the Class B fill and/or existing subsoils. It is also designed to serve as a drainage medium. Class A fill has been placed over the perimeter areas of the porous concrete blanket to an elevation above the upper till to provide a passage for the groundwater flow to the underdrain system
<Figure 2.4-70> and <Figure 2.4-72>. Also, a minimum of two feet of Class A fill has been placed against the outside building walls to act as a wall drain. Both laboratory and field tests of the permeability of the Class A fill were conducted, giving the following results: Average Value Lowest Value Laboratory test 0.0165 cm/sec 0.00216 cm/sec Field test 0.0366 cm/sec 0.00945 cm/sec Revision 12 2.4-78 January, 2003 The capability of the two-foot wall drain using the lowest measured permeability of 0.00216 cm/sec is 0.064 gpm/ft of width. The design basis inflow from groundwater is 0.02 gpm/ft and field observations show it to be much less. Thus, the wall drain has over three times the required capacity. To further ensure Class A drainage capabilities and long term efficiencies, the following provisions are provided and shown in <Figure 2.4-72> and described below:
1. Below the contact of the lacustrine and upper till strata, the entire backfill zone above the porous concrete was filled with Class A fill.
2. Above the lacustrine/upper till contact, a minimum two-foot wide vertical Class A fill zone was placed along the building structure walls up to three feet below finished plant grade.
3. To monitor the effectiveness of the Class A fill drainage provisions throughout the life of the plant, piezometers were installed in the Class B backfill zone, approximately 15 feet from the main plant structures, one at each of the four sides of the plant, and were placed three feet above the Class A fill.
4. Special provisions were included in the construction drawings and specifications, including strict quality control, to ensure the integrity of the Class A fill drainage provisions.
In particular, care was exercised to see that the two-foot wide Class A fill zones along the structure walls and lacustrine slopes adhered to the minimum requirements and were not contaminated with other materials. The pertinent permeability properties of the Class A fill materials placed were tested and documented during construction. Revision 12 2.4-79 January, 2003
5. A minimum three foot wide filter zone of Class B fill was placed between the Class A fill and the in situ lacustrine soil/upper till interface zone on the bench at the excavation slope. The Class B fill in this zone was required to have no more than 85 percent passing the No. 200 sieve.
6. Where pipelines penetrated the Class A fill, they were completely enveloped with relatively impervious Class B fill at two locations (per pipeline) to produce an effective water stop. In the case of the P-45 pipes entering the Class A fill west of the buried diesel generator fuel oil storage tanks, a cement-bentonite slurry wall (with sheet piling) of two foot minimum width was installed parallel to the pipes in the Class A fill to produce an effective water stop between the pipes and the Class A fill around the tanks.
c. Porous Concrete Pipe The 12-inch (inside diameter) porous concrete pipe conforms to ASTM C 654-73. The aggregate used to manufacture the pipe is similar in size to that used in the porous concrete blanket to provide uniform voids. The layout of the pipe is shown on
<Figure 2.4-68>. The pipe is located at the base of the excavation around the perimeter of the nuclear island, and beneath some of the other buildings. A 4.5-foot thick layer of porous concrete surrounds the pipe providing adequate strength to protect against static and dynamic loads. Crushing of the encased pipes is highly unlikely. However, assuming crushing does occur, the porous concrete pipe aggregate size (pea gravel) is large enough to prevent groundwater seepage from moving this aggregate into the manholes or from plugging the pipe. Revision 12 2.4-80 January, 2003 The system operation, however, is not dependent on the integrity or freedom from obstruction of the porous concrete pipes. Water can flow around any obstruction in the pipes and can also enter the manholes through holes in the manhole walls formed by the pipes. Twenty 4-inch diameter weepholes constructed in the base of the manhole walls also provide drainage.
d. Manholes The same design is used for the manholes of both the underdrain and the gravity discharge system.
Manholes are spaced at intervals around the perimeter of the porous concrete underdrain. Some of the manholes serve as pump sumps and others for inspection purposes <Figure 2.4-68>. Manholes for inspection and service of underdrain pumps are designed as Seismic Category I structures, as shown in <Figure 2.4-70>. Manholes for the backup underdrain pumps are also designed as Seismic Category I structures. All manholes of the underdrain system are part of the Seismic Category I gravity discharge system <Figure 2.4-69>. All manholes Revision 13 2.4-81 December, 2003 are designed with gasketed watertight covers, normally locked or bolted in a closed position. Safety ladders are provided in each manhole for access to the drainage pipe. During the life of the plant, the functioning of the porous concrete underdrain system will be inspected and monitored periodically, and necessary maintenance will be performed. Inspection adits are provided to periodically examine the condition of the in situ shale; these adits are in the bottom of four inspection manholes (2, 4, 8, 14). A total of 26 reinforced concrete Seismic Category I manholes are used in the system, as shown in <Figure 2.4-69>, 13 of which are part of the porous concrete underdrain system. Manholes are located at each major change in direction (greater than 45 degrees) of the gravity discharge pipe.
e. Pumping System Two pumping systems are designed into the underdrain system; service underdrain pumps and backup pumps.
Service underdrain pumps have a 50 gpm nominal capacity with integral level switches set to automatically start and stop the pumps. Each service underdrain pump discharges into the gravity discharge system piping. This piping then discharges into one of two gravity discharge system manholes at the north end of the Unit 1 heater bay. Revision 18 2.4-82 October, 2013 The backup pumping system consists of two backup underdrain pumps, each a 50 gpm nominal capacity sump pump, mounted in separate manholes set to start if the service underdrain pumps cannot keep up with the rising water level. An alarm will sound in the control room and the backup pump in manhole #6 will automatically start if the water reaches the starting setpoint of the pump. Another backup pump (located in manhole #11) can be manually started, but it will require the installation of a discharge hose that is temporarily routed to the gravity drain outflow pipe in manhole #10 <Figure 2.4-71>. The temporary hose will prevent recycling of the water flow from manhole #10 back to manhole #11 via the one foot diameter porous concrete piping that connects these two manholes. The discharge from the backup pumps is also routed to the manholes located in the gravity discharge system just north of the Unit 1 heater bay <Figure 2.4-68>. The discharge flow from the two manholes at the north end of the Unit 1 heater bay is by gravity to the emergency service water pumphouse. The discharge lines from all underdrain pumps are configured so that backflow from the gravity discharge system cannot occur. All active electrical components are qualified to operate in the presence of volatile air/fuel mixtures, including methane.
f. Gravity Drain System A Seismic Category I gravity discharge system is placed around the perimeter of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, as shown on
<Figure 2.4-69>. This system is designed to act as a nonmechanical backup system if the inflow rates through the underdrain system are in excess of the pumping capability (such as for a yard circulating water pipe break), or if the service or backup pumps fail to operate. Revision 18 2.4-83 October, 2013 The high points of the gravity discharge system are located in two manholes near the south wall of the Unit 2 turbine room where the discharge pipe is set at an invert elevation of 588.0. Each of the 36-inch diameter pipes routed around the southeast and southwest sides of the plant are designed to handle a nominal 12,000 gpm flow. The pipe is placed on a 0.005 ft/ft slope around the plant perimeter at an approximate mean invert elevation of 585.0, which is about 20 ft above the porous concrete underdrain system, but below the normal groundwater elevation of 618.0. The pipe increases in size as it slopes in a northern direction until it reaches its maximum diameter of 48 inches at the north end of the plant. These pipes are large enough to handle a total 15,000 gpm flow from the east or west sides of the plant. The 15,000 gpm flow capacity includes an allowance for a sludge buildup of 18 in the 48 gravity drain lines between manhole number 20 and the emergency service water pumphouse and/or manhole number 23 and the emergency service water pumphouse, as noted on <Figure 2.4-71>. The gravity drain system need only have a capacity sufficient to maintain groundwater elevation below Elevation 590.0 in order to perform its safety related function. This is accomplished with a gravity drain flow rate of greater than or equal to 1929 gpm which is equal to the maximum calculated inflow to the system following a design basis yard break in the circulating water pipe. Therefore, the gravity drain system has a large operating margin, since there is no postulated event which would cause the inflow to the system to exceed 2,000 gpm. The peripheral piping of the gravity discharge system is a closed loop, with two discharge points at an approximate invert elevation of 580.7 located in manholes beyond the NE and NW corners of the Unit 1 heater bay. Revision 12 2.4-84 January, 2003 From each of these interconnected manholes, the water would flow by gravity through two pipes to the emergency service water pumphouse at a slope of 0.005 ft/ft. The water would free fall into the pumping pool at a pipe invert elevation of 579.0 which is four feet above high mean lake level. The purpose of the dual discharge lines is to provide redundancy. The complete system is designed as a Seismic Category I system. The top of the gravity discharge pipes entering the emergency service water pumphouse is at Elevation 583.0 which is high enough above maximum lake setup conditions to permit gravity discharge from the underdrain system under the design groundwater flow condition. Because the system is designed to flow at velocities slightly above critical, hydraulic jumps may occur at junctions and bends in the pipeline. These jumps, if formed, will never exceed a height of eight inches. Although technically a hydraulic jump, it will take the form of a small undular wave, and will not impair the ability of the pipe to carry the design flow. The drain pipe material is carbon steel pipe, coated and wrapped, conforming to ASME SA-106, Grade B, similar to the emergency service water piping discussed in more detail in <Section 9.2.1.2>. The next commercially available pipe wall thickness above the calculated thickness was chosen to allow for any corrosion. The pipe selected is designed to withstand dynamic loads obtained from the analysis specified in <Section 3.7.3> in combination with static soil pressures. Revision 12 2.4-85 January, 2003 2.4.13.5.2 System Design Basis The underdrain and gravity discharge system is designed to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures under the building foundations from exceeding a condition equivalent to a static water surface elevation of 590.0. To accomplish this, the system is designed to handle a flow of 15,000 gpm. The underdrain system was originally designed to handle a much larger volume of water than exists for the present design. The original design provided for discharging a maximum inflow rate of 30,000 gpm through the gravity discharge system, keeping the level of water stored in the underdrain system below the static water surface elevation of 590.0. The stated inflow rate was calculated for the postulated rupture of the circulating water pipes in both Units 1 and 2 turbine buildings with subsequent failure of both turbine building floors. Under the present design, the complete volume of water which must be handled for a rupture of the circulating water pipes in the Unit 1 turbine building can be stored within the buildings and underdrain system below the static water surface elevation of 590.0
and
. Some water could enter the gravity discharge system, but the discharge system would no longer be important in keeping the static water surface levels below Elevation 590.0. The design basis accidents (DBA) assumed for the underdrain system are (1) a yard break in the circulating water pipe outside the plant near the steam tunnels and auxiliary buildings, or (2) failed expansion joints occurring inside the turbine building via flow through a fracture in the building base mat. The volume of water, which could potentially flood the turbine building complex and underdrain system, is presented in
. Revision 12 2.4-86 January, 2003 The service water (cooling tower make-up) inflow is added via the service water pumps <Section 10.4.5>. The water from the service water make-up would be shut off by the use of safety class valves activated by a signal from water level indicators in the turbine building. Based on the DBA scenario with four expansion joints failing, approximately 80 seconds would elapse from expansion joint failure until the signal is activated. Allowing additional time for operation of the valves, approximately 84,000 gallons at 56,000 gpm would enter the cooling tower basin and eventually the turbine building. The free storage volumes, and their respective elevations, available within the buildings and the underdrain system are listed in
. They were calculated from detailed plant layout and as-built drawings. To provide the maximum amount of free storage within the turbine building complex, a number of the turbine building penetrations are designed to allow flooding of the adjacent heater bay and condensate demineralizer buildings. The offgas building would not be flooded. For the worst case analysis, the turbine building floors are assumed to fracture, filling the underdrain system. At Elevation 590.0, as shown in
, the available free storage volumes within the buildings and underdrain system exceeds the volume of water which can fill it
and thus the water level would remain below the static water surface elevation of 590.0. A discussion of the design basis accident involving a postulated expansion joint failure without the turbine building mat fracture and a yard break of the circulating water piping outside of the plant buildings is included in <Section 10.4.5>. Revision 13 2.4-87 December, 2003 Emergency pumps are provided to remove water from the turbine building area. These pumps would only be used to hasten the removal of water from the building complex and are not essential to the DBA analysis. A yard break of the circulating water piping outside of the plant buildings would have the greatest impact if it occurred directly above the Class A fill adjacent to the steam tunnel and auxiliary buildings. Based on the analysis of seismic stresses in the 12 foot diameter reinforced fiber-glass pipe, failure during the SSE is not predicted. However, if a rupture is assumed to occur it would most likely be a tensile failure in one of the straight runs, which would result in a momentary helical or circumferential gap of 1.2 inches. The jet of water escaping from the pipe could conceivably cause a significant amount of scour. In order to determine reasonable limits of scour, a helical or circumferential break as described above was assumed to occur. The velocity of the resulting jet of escaping water was then analyzed to find at what distance the velocity would be too low to scour the surrounding bedding materials. The analysis assumed a round jet with a diameter equal to the gap in the pipe. The jet velocity at the break was calculated to be 50 fps. At a distance of eleven feet from the pipe, the calculated centerline velocity was reduced to less than 3 fps. Velocities this low are generally regarded as nonscouring velocities in the design of earth drainage ditches in all but the finest grained materials (Reference 48). It was assumed that the scour hole created by the jet would extend twelve feet from the circumference of the pipe. The actual distance would be less than this because the jet velocity at this distance was shown to be low, and also because the analysis does not take into account the effect of water instead of air surrounding the jet and the effect of armouring. Armouring is the process which occurs in natural streams where the smaller particles are eroded leaving the larger particles which form a protective blanket over the stream bed. Revision 12 2.4-88 January, 2003 The scour caused by the break is of concern because the removal of bedding material around the pipe would shorten the flow path for seepage into the underdrain, thereby increasing the potential inflow rate. The inflow rate was analyzed using a groundwater seepage analysis. The inflow calculation utilized the full hydrostatic pressure difference of 620-572 = 48 feet across the Class A fill material between the scour hole and the top of the porous concrete layer. Assuming a yard break of the circulating water piping outside of the plant buildings, the inflow rate to the underdrain system was conservatively calculated to be approximately 4.3 cfs. Water level within the underdrain system may rise to the level of this gravity discharge system even with the underdrain system pumps operating, depending on the actual inflow rate. At the calculated maximum inflow rate of 4.5 cfs the inflow rate will exceed the capacity of the underdrain system pumps. The resulting hydrostatic pressures beneath the building foundations would be equal to or lower than the design basis static water elevation of 590.0. 2.4.13.5.3 Monitoring Program
a. Groundwater Inflow During construction, groundwater inflow to the plant excavation was monitored at intervals for a period of at least 1 year in order to verify the degree of conservatism of the calculated inflow. It was estimated that, during this time, the groundwater inflow would be on the order of 4 gpm (Reference 59). During preoperational testing, groundwater inflow to the plant underdrain system was measured at 11.7 gpm.
Revision 12 2.4-89 January, 2003
b. Water Table To monitor the groundwater table outside the nuclear island and within the site boundary, four arrays of piezometers were installed during construction in each of the four compass directions up to a maximum distance of 1,000 feet. The locations of the piezometers were chosen so that the groundwater drawdown profiles during construction and throughout the plant life could be established and are shown on <Figure 2.5-186>. Four piezometers are installed in the backfill zone shown on <Figure 2.4-72>. The types of piezometers are open standpipe type or porous tube type (Casagrande type). A brief description of the piezometers can be found in Foundation Instrumentation by T. H. Hanna (Reference 49).
The groundwater monitoring was conducted on a more frequent basis initially, so that the seasonal fluctuation could be established. After that, the groundwater level was measured on a regular basis. Regular monitoring will continue during the life of the plant. The seasonal fluctuations in groundwater level were minimal. As expected, a slight drop in groundwater level occurred but did not exceed more than 3 to 5 feet in proximity to the excavation and did not represent a significant change from preconstruction groundwater levels.
c. Methane Gas The presence of methane gas was monitored by portable detection equipment at regular intervals during the plant excavation, beyond an approximate depth of 30 feet from existing grade. Procedures will require that all manholes and the gravity drainage pipe be monitored prior to entry by personnel and be ventilated by portable equipment, if necessary <Section 2.5.4>.
Revision 12 2.4-90 January, 2003
d. Hydrostatic Pressure Under Foundation Mats To measure the hydrostatic uplift pressure acting under the safety class buildings, piezometers have been installed through each of the building mats of the auxiliary buildings, control complex, intermediate building, and radwaste building. The pressure monitoring piezometers are open standpipe type. The bases for selecting these devices are primarily because of their long term reliability and (Reference 49). Details of the piezometer installations are shown in <Figure 2.4-76>.
Piezometer measurements will be taken at the following frequencies to monitor system operation: Quarterly basis - Fuel load to 5 years after Commercial Operation Unit No. 1. Semiannual basis - 5 years after Commercial Operation Unit 1 to decommissioning of Plant.
e. Radioactivity The possibility of release of radioactive material from plant buildings to the pressure relief underdrain system has been considered. Postulated mechanisms include: (1) the transport of radioactive liquid from sumps to the underdrain system by leakage through small cracks in the sump liners and floors; (2) the onset of a seismic event resulting in the simultaneous failure of one Seismic Category I radioactive waste tank and cracking of a Seismic Category I safety class building, resulting in release of radioactive material to the underdrain system. It is considered highly improbable for significant cracks to develop in a Seismic Category I building and Seismic Category I radioactive waste tank.
Revision 19 2.4-91 October, 2015 In order to continuously monitor and detect significant amounts of radioactive concentrations discharging from the underdrain system, as a result of the postulated event, radiation monitors are located inside each of the two gravity discharge system manholes at the north end of the Unit 1 heater bay, at locations where the underdrain pump effluent travels through the gravity drain system. Details of the radiation monitor are discussed in <Section 11.5>. The offsite effects of a hypothetical release, due to a seismic event, of radioactive liquids to the environs is described in <Section 15.7>. 2.4.13.5.4 Maintenance and Testing Normal routine maintenance will be performed on the mechanical and electrical portions of the system. The manholes and gravity discharge pipes will be inspected annually to insure that all parts of the system, including the porous piping, are in operating condition. Any blockage in the porous concrete periphery drain pipes will be cleared by mechanical or other suitable means. The following periodic tests will be performed to ensure continuous satisfactory performance of the system.
a. Continuity Test This test will be performed semiannually for the first five years of operation and annually thereafter. The objective of the test is to verify that water will build up and draw down at the monitoring points, to establish that the underdrain system can reduce the hydrostatic pressure on building foundations to the desired level.
Revision 16 2.4-92 October, 2009
b. Groundwater Inflow Test This test will be performed semiannually in the spring and fall.
The objective of the test is to verify that the total inflow of groundwater into the porous concrete underdrain system does not exceed a rate of 80 gpm. The test program for the permanent pumped discharge system is discussed in <Chapter 14>. 2.4.13.5.5 Safety Evaluation During the design and licensing process, numerous studies were performed to evaluate the performance of the underdrain system. The studies which follow are listed below for easy reference:
a. Groundwater recovery.
b. Permeability tests of porous concrete.
c. Long term performance of the porous concrete underdrain system.
1. Tornados.
2. Earthquakes.
3. PMP (Probable Maximum Precipitation).
4. Clogging potential.
5. Potential flooding.
6. Biological effects on porous concrete.
Revision 12 2.4-93 January, 2003
7. Physicochemical weathering of the Chagrin shale and lower till underlying the site.
d. Potential of the underdrain system to drain water from Lake Erie or along plant piping systems.
e. Infiltration due to rainfall, surface spills or lawn sprinkling.
f. Seepage increase due to excavation.
g. Pressure distribution within the porous concrete blanket under design flow conditions.
h. Evaluation of the probability of and the hydraulic consequences of an accidental clogging of the underdrain system.
i. Evaluation of the effect of non-Seismic Category I structures on the performance of the permanent dewatering system.
a. Groundwater Recovery The groundwater recovery is calculated on the assumption that no pump is working and there is no other inflow but groundwater. An initial conservative inflow was estimated to be a maximum of 0.02 gpm per lineal foot of excavation. With the perimeter of excavation roughly equal to 4,000 feet, the total inflow at the plant would be a maximum of 80 gpm (design basis) under steady-state conditions. During construction, however, seepage into the excavation was estimated to be on the order of 4 gpm
<Section 2.5.4>. Revision 12 2.4-94 January, 2003 The total volume of the backfill around the plant island is conservatively calculated to be 11,340,000 cu ft. This backfill consists of porous concrete, Class A fill of coarse sand and gravel, and Class B fill of excavated lower till. <Figure 2.4-72> is a typical section of the backfill configuration. The porous concrete has an average porosity of 0.338 based on laboratory test results, while the porosity of the Class A and Class B fill are calculated to be about 0.25 and 0.32, respectively. The porosity is expressed by Vvoid n . V Assuming that the backfill zone possesses some moisture, the average porosity of 0.15 is available to become saturated. Therefore, in order for the groundwater level to recover to design basis flood Elevation 618.0, a total volume of voids of 1,700,000 cu ft must be filled with groundwater seepage. With the groundwater inflow at the design rate of 80 gpm, the time required is 110 days. <Figure 2.4-73> shows the groundwater recovery as a function of time. The transient effect on the reduction of inflow rate due to the groundwater recovery has not been taken into consideration. If this effect is considered, the predicted recovery time will be longer than 110 days.
b. Permeability Tests of Porous Concrete Permeability tests on porous concrete cylinders were performed in accordance with a modified version ASTM D 2434, Constant Head Permeability Test for Granular Soils, to determine the coefficient of permeability of the porous concrete. This method of determination of the permeability is utilized for clean, coarse Revision 12 2.4-95 January, 2003
grain soils. This test was deemed applicable because porous concrete could be characterized as a granular material. A special permeameter for the determination of the coefficient of permeability of concrete test cylinders and test cores was designed and fabricated by U.S. Testing Laboratories, Inc. of Cleveland, Ohio. The basic design features of the primary permeability test apparatus is illustrated graphically in <Figure 2.4-74>. The permeability tests of horizontal and vertical cored porous concrete cylinders obtained from the free fall test slab were also performed under this procedure (ASTM D 2434). The test results are shown in
. To examine the gravitational effect on the permeability tests which followed the normal procedures outlined in ASTM D 2434, reverse-flow permeability tests were performed on porous concrete cylinders cored from the same free fall test slab. The hydraulic grade line at the bottom of the test cylinder was maintained at a higher elevation than the water level at the top of the cylinder during the test so that water was forced to flow through the porous concrete specimen from the bottom to the collecting plexiglass tube. By performing the reverse-flow permeability test, not only could the gravitational effect be eliminated, but also the saturation of the cylinder could be assured. A schematic figure of the testing setup and flow path is shown in <Figure 2.4-75>. Three of these tests were performed on each of the cored cylinders (a horizontal core and a vertical core). The test results are shown in
. Based on these results, the minimum design permeability of 3 ft/min can readily be achieved. Revision 12 2.4-96 January, 2003
c. Long Term Performance of the Porous Concrete Underdrain System The long term performance of the porous concrete pressure relief underdrain system is evaluated as follows:
1. Tornados Tornados will not affect the operation of the underdrain system because it is underground. However, the manhole covers are exposed but are not considered missile proof because a missile entering the top of a manhole would not totally obstruct the flow of water in the manhole.
2. Earthquakes The system is a Seismic Category I system. The seismic design and analysis for the gravity discharge pipe is discussed in
<Section 2.4.13.5.1>. The seismic design and analysis for manholes is discussed in <Section 3.8.4>.
3. PMP (Probable Maximum Precipitation)
The effect of PMP on the underdrain system is negligible. Around the nuclear island buildings, the ground surface will be paved with asphalt or backfilled with relatively impervious Class B fill of excavated lower till soils. The rate of infiltration through the Class B fill is calculated to be less than 3 gpm and the effect on the underdrain system is insignificant. Revision 13 2.4-97 December, 2003
4. Clogging Potential A potential for blockage within the porous concrete drainage blanket would exist if the intrusion of a significant amount of fines into the blanket during the life of the plant could be postulated. A potential source of such fines is the weathering products of the shale subgrade. Consideration of this phenomena has been given in the design and construction of the subdrainage system and safeguards have been incorporated as described below.
(a) Construction Considerations To preclude the presence of subgrade materials which have the potential to intrude the porous concrete, special subgrade preparations were incorporated during construction. These preparations included the following procedures: (1) Construction dewatering was utilized to control deposition of sediment on the subgrade. (2) All decomposed, excessively fractured, broken and friable or otherwise unsuitable shale was removed to expose the intact, essentially unaltered shale bearing surface. (3) Immediately prior to placing the protective porous concrete mat, the shale surface was scaled and cleaned to remove remaining loosened or slaked materials. Revision 12 2.4-98 January, 2003 (4) The shale surface was carefully examined and a detailed geologic map prepared. Any open fissures in the shale surface were sealed by slush grouting. (5) Excavations to or into the Chagrin shale were made with a minimal disturbance of the in situ shale; i.e., blasting was minimized or avoided to the extent practicable. Exposed fresh shale was stripped, cleaned, inspected and mapped. All degraded and weathered material was removed. Joints and fractures were flushed of weathered and degraded materials. Measures taken to seal and grout the source of the seeps were not necessary because none were detected. All groutable fractures and joints were sealed by slush grouting. (6) The structural performance of the porous concrete over the plant life is related to its strength and durability. See <Section 3.8.5> for a further discussion of porous concrete strength. The durability of the proposed mix has been considered in three parts: Temperature: freeze-thaw cycles will not occur due to the relatively constant, above freezing temperatures which exist at the porous concrete system elevation (approximately 55 feet below plant grade). Sulfate Attack: the sulfate content of the water is low. Type II cement, which is moderately sulfate resistant, was used to minimize concern. The groundwater sulfate content ranges from 42 to 186 ppm Revision 12 2.4-99 January, 2003
and
. Type II cement effectively resists sulfate concentrations from 150 to 1,000 ppm. The pH value of the groundwater is 7.6 to 8.1, which eliminates concern for acid attack
and
. (b) Design Considerations To prevent intrusion of fines from the natural subsoils or from the Class B backfill, the free draining Class A fill is designed to serve as a filter zone as well as a drainage medium. The gradation requirement is as follows: U.S. Standard Percent Passing Sieve Size by Dry Weight 2 100 3/4 85-100 No. 4 60-100 No. 10 43-80 No. 40 16-45 No. 200 0-5 In addition, the uniformity coefficient (D60/D10) was specified to be not less than 4 nor greater than 20 and the minimum permeability coefficient is 2 x 10-4 cm/sec. Within the excavation limits outside of the foundation mats, where the vast majority of groundwater inflow enters the underdrain system, Class A fill is placed over the porous concrete to an elevation above the upper till. This will prevent the migration into the subdrainage system of fine materials from either Class B fill or upper soil layers. Therefore, the porous concrete Revision 12 2.4-100 January, 2003 blanket will always be separated from natural subsoils or Class B backfill by Class A fill. The filtering characteristics of Class A fill (filter) satisfy the requirements for filters stated by Taylor (Reference 50). D15 Filter Material D15 Filter Material 4 or 5 D85 Fine Material D15 Fine Material NOTE: D15 and D85 are the particle sizes from grain size distribution curves at 15 percent and 85 percent finer by weight, respectively. The aggregate used in making the porous concrete ranges in size from 3/8 to No. 4 (pea gravel size). The pores in the porous concrete are smaller than D85 of Class A fill. The criterion D85 of Class A 1.0 Pore Diameter will prevent any migration of Class A material from entering the porous concrete drainage blanket. (c) Potential Clogging Due To Shale Alteration Development of subgrade fines by weathering of the shale during the 40-year life of the plant has been considered not to be a credible probability as discussed in the following paragraphs. The principal clay mineral of Chagrin shale is illite; quartz is the second most abundant as demonstrated by the test results discussed in <Section 2.5.4>. These minerals in the prevailing and anticipated environment are not subject to rapid weathering through the mechanism Revision 12 2.4-101 January, 2003 of interlayer collapse as would be brought about by an ion exchange reaction where interlayer K+ ions are exchanged with Mg2+ ions, altering illite to montmorillonite. When clay minerals such as illite are formed as a result of alteration of non-clay minerals (as is the case for the Chagrin shale), the mineral is stable in the prevailing environment (Reference 51). The pH of the groundwater has a strong influence on the ion exchange susceptibility in a given environment if the pH changes to below 5 and above 10. This may cause the ion exchangers to become soluble and induce clay structure changes. As shown in
and
, the pH of representative water samples taken from the Perry site ranges from 7.6 to 8.1. There is no reason to anticipate a significant change in the groundwater pH during the plant life. Illite is stable in an aqueous environment where the ratio of the potassium ion to the hydrogen ion is high (Reference 52). Such a high ratio would be expected in the Chagrin shale. Clay minerals once formed do not change in chemical composition readily since clay mineral transformation is a slow process; 103 years is considered rapid whereas typical rates are 105 to 106 years. Oxidation of minerals also causes weathering, and iron is the element most commonly oxidized in a weathering environment. The oxygen dissolved in groundwater is the oxidizing agent. The iron as Fe2+ in minerals is converted to Fe3+ which disrupts the electrostatic neutrality of the mineral crystals causing collapse or additional weathering. Revision 12 2.4-102 January, 2003 Since chemical analysis of Chagrin shale by Lamborn, et al. (Reference 52) indicate iron oxides comprise less than ten percent of the shale composition, oxidation of iron as a weathering process in Chagrin shale is not considered to be a significant consideration. In summary, clogging due to alteration of the fresh Chagrin shale, on which the porous concrete drainage mat was placed, is not expected to occur during the life of the plant.
5. Potential Flooding Potential flooding of the underdrain system, caused by a highly improbable event such as an SSE, has been considered
<Section 2.4.13.5.2>.
6. Biological Effects on Porous Concrete Biological organisms of the types that are likely to occur in the porous concrete underdrain system can be classified as aerobic, anaerobic or chemolithotropic depending on their need for oxygen or nutrients. Other conditions that must be satisfied in order to permit growth include adaptable pH and temperature environments.
The biological water quality data have been obtained from a test well at the site of the PNPP, approximately 400 feet from the plant. The well penetrates all strata into and including the bedrock and, therefore, represents the groundwater makeup that has been entering the porous concrete. The analysis was performed by Herron Testing Laboratories, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, and is listed in
. Revision 12 2.4-103 January, 2003 Upon examination of the biological and physical/chemical characteristics of the water, as shown in
and
and the data above, it is considered highly unlikely that a significant number of organisms could develop under such conditions unless additional supplies of oxygen and nutrients were made available from either an air/water interface or a pollution source. The porous concrete under the safety class buildings will be maintained in a fully saturated condition at all times by the level control switches in the pumping manholes. Of the limited number (3) of chemolithotrophic nuisance organisms known to be able to exist in the type of environment considered, two could not tolerate the alkaline pH conditions and the other requires more Ferric iron than is presently known to exist. In addition, the supply and balance of nutrients are such that maintenance of any viable culture of filamentous or nuisance micro-organisms is highly unlikely. It is not considered likely that any organisms could develop in the porous concrete under the safety class buildings. It is possible for organisms to grow in the manholes and gravity discharge pipes. Chemical biocides will be used, as necessary, to maintain system operability under conditions that control the effluent within prescribed limits.
7. Physicochemical Weathering of the Chagrin Shale and Lower Till Underlying the Site In ascertaining the short and long term physicochemical stability and weathering potential of the Chagrin shale and lower till, it is necessary to consider the controls of weathering on mineralogical components as well as the in situ shale bedrock and lower till. Typical controls include pH, redox potential, ionic potential, and temperature, and the Revision 12 2.4-104 January, 2003
effects of these controls on the shale and till as they equilibrate to subsequent environmental conditions during excavation and construction. Fresh, unweathered rock core and till samples were consistently obtained during the extensive subsurface exploratory investigations preceding excavation during both the preliminary and preconstruction drilling programs. The competence and lack of physicochemical effects of shale and till indicate that the physical and chemical quality of groundwater has not caused any appreciable decomposition or disintegration of the rock and till forming minerals. (a) Petrographic Analyses Results of the petrographic analyses demonstrate that the dominant component of the Chagrin shale is an illite-chlorite matrix, comprising from 18 to 76 percent of the test specimens by volume. An X-ray diffraction analysis was conducted on materials finer than two microns which were derived from the illite-chlorite matrix of the test samples. The composition of the matrix minerals was computed from diffractograms developed with a General Electric X-ray diffraction unit using filtered radiation. The results of the X-ray diffraction test indicate the illite clay mineral dominates the illite-chlorite matrix in rates ranging from 9/1 to 1.270/1. Lower till mineralogical components are comparable to Chagrin shale. The conspicuous lack of montmorillonite clay within the shale similarly characterizes the lower till. Revision 12 2.4-105 January, 2003 (b) Cation Exchange Capacities Factors to be considered in discussing the ion exchange status of rocks and till materials include their porosity and permeability, and ability to permit the flow of groundwater. Further, the chemical character of the migrating groundwater, the cation exchange medium, must also be considered. In impervious media such as the Chagrin shale and lower till, minimal ionic exchange is expected to occur. Although increased ionic exchange will occur in fractured rock, which exposes greater surface area to migrating groundwater, this condition does not exist in bedrock underlying the Perry site. During excavation to bedrock, all loose and fractured rock debris was removed. The fresh, unweathered shale was protected from both physical and chemical weathering during the interim subsequent to excavation but preceding foundation construction. As shown in <Section 2.5.4>, data are in agreement that the Chagrin shale and lower till are characterized by exceedingly low porosity and permeability. Minimal groundwater flow is restricted to generally tight fractures, oriented parallel and inclined with respect to bedding in the shale. Chemical and physical quality of groundwater occurring at the bedrock foundation interface will control the minimal cation exchange capacities. The primary shale mineral components, illite and chlorite, have the greatest relative cation exchange capacity. Carroll Revision 12 2.4-106 January, 2003 (Reference 53) has reported on the characteristics of these constituents and the results of this investigation are discussed below. Ranges in cation exchange capacities for illite clays are 10 to 40 milliequivalents per 100 grams. Illite consists of tetrahedral and octahedral sheets combined so that the tips of the tetrahedral of each silica sheet and one of the hydroxyl layers of the octahedral sheet form a common layer. Muscovite, another dioctahedral mica, similarly has a small exchange capacity since the negative charge, as in illite, is neutralized by K+, and no significant exchangeable cations are present. While no firm data are available on the exchange capacity of chlorite, isomorphic substitutions in the brucite layers (trioctahedral) are considered likely, and the cation exchange capacity in milliequivalents is similar to that of illite. However, all of the above mineral constituents as well as quartz, the other primary Chagrin shale component, are markedly stable under the prevailing alkaline conditions, groundwater temperatures (approximately 54F), and low pressures. Several typical substitutions which may be possible from the above minerals resulting in net increases of groundwater cation concentrations are as follows: (1) in the case of muscovite, theoretically, isomorphous substitutions can occur in both the silica tetrahedral and the alumina octahedral and specifically of Al+3 for Si+4; (2) in illite there is less substitution of Al+3 for Si+4 than in muscovite and therefore the net charge deficiency is somewhat less. The K+ ions between units are not sufficient to neutralize all the charge and other Revision 12 2.4-107 January, 2003 cations such as Ca+2, Mg+2 and H+ (but the latter only under acidic conditions) may be present in the interunit structure (Reference 3). In the mixed layer structure of chlorite, considerable substitution can occur in the brucite layer (trioctahedral) situated between each montmorillonite-like layer just as muscovite is derived by the insertion of a layer of potassium ions. For +3 +2 +3 +3 example, Al , Fe Cr will exchange for Al . Al+3 and Fe+3 can also be exchanged for Si+4 in silica tetrahedral or chlorite. Leaching of metallic ions from clay minerals can occur under acidic conditions in exchange for alkalic ions, but would not occur under existing conditions. In general, the illite clays including muscovite tend to be fixers of potassium. On the basis of data gathered to date, there is no evidence suggesting that the Chagrin shale is affecting groundwater such that the chemical and physical character of these waters would adversely affect Type II cement. Chemical and physical groundwater quality are as shown in
and
. Cation exchange capacities for Chagrin shale and lower till samples range from 4.74 to 23.40 MEQ/100 grams. These values are as anticipated for the mineralogical constituents. Reported exchange capacities for shale, although low, possibly exceed in situ shale bedrock by a factor of ten, because testing was conducted on crushed rock core samples passing through a sieve retaining particles 2.0 mm or greater in diameter. Similarly, the reported exchange capacities for the till samples are presumed to be higher than that of the in situ lower till. Revision 12 2.4-108 January, 2003 (c) Mineral Stability The mineral components comprising the Chagrin shale and lower till are presumed to constitute a stable assemblage at a shallow crustal temperature and pressure environment. Other marine shales and siltstones of upper Devonian age, such as the Trimmers Rock Formation of northeastern Pennsylvania with a comparable mineralogical character and geologic setting, similarly have resisted subsurface disintegration and decomposition. All minerals of the Chagrin shale lie within their respective stability fields for the prevailing low pressure and temperature, and alkaline environment characterizing groundwater at the Perry site. (d) Subsurface Erosion Potential The potential for subsurface erosion and drainage through piping with lateral and vertical transport of lower till and Chagrin shale detritus is considered exceedingly remote, if not impossible. Features indicative of this condition such as pseudokarst topography with sinkhole and natural bridge development as well as massive landslides and landslide scars are not present at the Perry site, and none are known to occur in proximity to the site. Neither incipient nor well developed surface cracks (e.g., desiccation-stress cracks) at the Perry site have been observed or reported in the literature. Summarily, there are no known geomorphological features suggesting direct or indirect evidence of subsurface erosion and piping. Falling head permeability testing conducted at the Perry site, reported in <Section 2.5.4>, further shows that the Revision 12 2.4-109 January, 2003 velocity and transport capability of groundwater to erode either Chagrin shale or lower till are negligible. The durability of the shale and its ability to resist subaqueous disintegration and decomposition have been documented by slaking tests and are discussed in <Section 2.5.4>. Lower till is nondispersive as demonstrated by the pinhole and soil conservation service laboratory dispersion test <Section 2.5.4>. The association of lower till and Chagrin shale properties, coupled with their demonstrated ability to withstand subsurface weathering and erosion during the Recent Epoch, show that no basis exists for assuming a subsurface erosion potential. A conspicuous absence at the Perry site of montmorillonite-type clays, which are characteristically detected in overburden and bedrock undergoing subsurface erosion as well as extensive surface erosion, is considered significant positive evidence in further refutation of this potential.
d. Potential of the Underdrain System to Drain Water From Lake Erie or Along Plant Piping Systems All piping except the underdrain system gravity flow discharge pipes running from the main plant buildings to the emergency service water pumphouse are designed and installed above Elevation 595.0 (i.e., 20 feet above the mean high water level for Lake Erie). The gravity discharge lines enter the emergency service water pumphouse at invert Elevation 579.0 which is approximately four feet above mean high lake level. This ensures that no man-made flow path will exist between the pumphouses and the main plant buildings.
Revision 12 2.4-110 January, 2003 The lowest discharge points from any of the 13 deep plant manholes of the porous concrete underdrain system are at manholes No. 8 and 9 which have pipe invert elevations of 582.6 and 583.5, respectively <Figure 2.4-69>. Since these gravity discharge pipe inverts are above the maximum lake setup due to the PMS (580.5), no backflow from the lake can occur through the Emergency Service Water Pumphouse into the porous concrete underdrain system. The mean high water level for Lake Erie is Elevation 575.0 which is seven feet above the groundwater level of 568.0 maintained in the underdrain system. Because the plant is 800 feet from the lake, the possibility of seepage from the lake into the underdrain was considered. Geologic mapping of the foundation area was conducted, and open fractures were grouted. None were seepage sources. In this way, all possible drainage paths from the lake into the underdrain systems were sealed. Underground piping systems, which enter the main plant buildings, were set in bedding materials of granular material which have a higher permeability than the lacustrine soil through which the pipes run, and hence, provide a potential flow path for groundwater into the underdrain system. In order to prevent this flow, at two separate locations special bedding and backfill material were used around all external pipes where they enter the Class A fill at the plant buildings. The special bedding and backfill material is low permeability Class B fill. The quantity that can flow through the backfill and bedding was included in the calculation of total groundwater flow into the underdrain system. The flow postulated through the pipe bedding material would not increase the calculated inflow to the underdrain system because that calculation assumes a saturated soil. Revision 14 2.4-111 October, 2005
e. Infiltration Due to Rainfall, Surface Spills or Lawn Sprinkling A layer of impervious Class B soil was placed over the Class A fill to reduce the amount of seepage possible from infiltration at the surface. Such seepage could result from either rainfall, surface spills, or lawn irrigation.
All underdrain system manholes have gasketed, watertight covers installed at the surface. The covers are normally locked or bolted in a closed position. The 24 outside manholes (two manholes constructed inside buildings) have heavy duty gray cast iron covers. In paved areas, the covers are installed at grade. In unpaved areas, the covers are up to six inches above grade. In the event of the rupture or leakage of an onsite reservoir (e.g., cooling tower basins and industrial waste lagoons), the discharge will drain overland away from the plant into neighboring streams and thus to Lake Erie. The area surrounding the plant is drained by a catch basin storm drainage system which will immediately collect all surface water approaching the plant. Because of the impermeable nature of the surface materials, there will not be sufficient time available to allow significant infiltration into the permanent underdrain system.
summarizes the major onsite storage facilities excluding the cooling tower basins. Roofs of all buildings are drained to the storm water drainage system which discharges into natural streams that feed into Lake Erie. Rainfall on paved and unpaved areas around the main plant buildings is directed by surface grading to catch basins which also discharge into the storm water drainage system. Rainwater or lawn Revision 21 2.4-112 October, 2019 sprinkling water that falls on unpaved areas and percolates into the backfill material around the main plant buildings will add an insignificant amount to the flow in the pressure-relief underdrain system.
f. Seepage Increase Due to Excavation Heave due to elastic rebound was not known to have induced micro-fracturing of a surficial zone of the shale upon excavation unload. This phenomenon would have been expected to slightly increase the secondary porosity of the surficial shale zone and the corresponding permeability thereof. The amount of permeability increase cannot be quantified because of the limited depth influence and the negligible effect if any, of induced micro-fracturing. Any such increase did not influence seepage quantities derived from the shale during construction, because no seepages from the shale were detected.
Upon imposition of plant loads, the shale recompressed, reversing the heave deformation. The effect of the reloading closed much, if not all, of the micro-heave fractures and restored the unexcavated shale permeability. While the secondary porosity of the shale in a localized area might have increased due to micro-fracturing, the quantity of flow through this zone would not increase because the surrounding, sound, unfractured shale would still control the flow rate.
g. Pressure Distribution Within the Porous Concrete Blanket Under Design Flow Conditions Under normal conditions, practically all of the groundwater inflow is collected by the porous concrete and 12-inch porous pipes around the perimeter of the drainage system. It then flows to the pumped Revision 12 2.4-113 January, 2003
discharge system manholes where it is discharged from the system. In order to evaluate the potential pressure buildup under an extreme situation, a calculation was made to determine the pressure required to drain the groundwater inflow from the western edge of the underdrain, through the underdrain porous concrete, to the porous collection pipe on the eastern edge of the system. The analysis for a one-foot wide strip of underdrain was made using the preliminary assumed parameters for the system as follows: Groundwater inflow at 0.02 gpm/ft Porous concrete permeability = 1 fpm Maximum flow path = 400 ft Porous concrete is one foot thick, thus A = 1 sq ft Using the Darcy Eq., Q = kiA, reveals that about one foot of head is required to drain the assumed inflow. From field observations and tests during construction it was determined that groundwater inflow rates were much less than anticipated (Reference 59) and porous concrete permeability was greater than one foot/minute, indicating a maximum pressure differential in the system of much less than one foot.
h. Evaluation of the Probability of and the Hydraulic Consequences of an Accidental Clogging of the Underdrain System The porous concrete of the underdrain is completely enveloped by either Class A fill, Chagrin shale, or the concrete of the plant buildings. None of these materials are capable of contributing or transporting fine particles that could clog the underdrain. The Class A fill (as described previously) is specifically designed to Revision 12 2.4-114 January, 2003
act as a filter to prevent such materials from entering the system. The potential for the intrusion of clogging materials from the Chagrin shale was considered in Item c. of <Section 2.4.13.5.5>. The satisfactory performance of porous concrete for the purpose of pressure relief can be demonstrated by many Bureau of Reclamation projects such as Grand Coulee Dam, Arrowrock Dam and Box Butt Dam (Reference 54). Based on the groundwater recovery calculations for the design assumed inflow rate (80 gpm), the time required for the water level within the system to reach the critical level (590.0) would be 14 days. Actual field measurements indicated the period to be much longer. If for any reason the underdrain system cannot maintain the water level within the designated operating limits, then the 14-day period is considered adequate to either make the necessary repairs or install portable pumping equipment. Clogging of the periphery drainage pipes and the encasement porous concrete can only be conceived as a slow progressive process that will be detected by the monitoring system in time for remedial action to be initiated. This action can take the form of water jetting or drilling of additional pressure relief wells. For further discussion of the structural properties of porous concrete, refer to <Section 3.8.5>.
i. Evaluation of the Effect of Non-Seismic Category I Structures on the Performance of the Permanent Dewatering System The Category I manholes and piping at the north end of the plant have been located such that the postulated failure of non-Seismic Category I structures would not affect the overall operation of the permanent dewatering system <Figure 2.4-69>. The potential mode of Revision 12 2.4-115 January, 2003
failure of the non-Seismic Category I structures is estimated to be an inward collapse of the turbine complex allowing adjacent soil material to follow the collapsing structure. Except as noted below, the permanent dewatering system components at the north end of the plant are either located outside the influence zone of soil failure or are designed for the resulting soil influence. The generator end of the turbine building and the feedwater booster pump pit in the heater bay of Unit 1 were investigated as the most likely areas of building wall failure. In both cases, the walls are structurally adequate to withstand the effect of dynamic soil pressures without bending or shear failure. Manholes No. 8 and 9, however, are located within the influence zone of soil failure, and are designed as Seismic Category I structures. In the event of the postulated failure of adjacent non-Seismic Category I structures, these manholes can be sacrificed without impairing the overall performance of the system. As shown on <Figure 2.4-69>, the main flow of the gravity discharge system does not pass through manholes No. 8 and 9. The postulated failure of these manholes and the connecting gravity discharge piping will, by design, not affect the integrity of the discharge manholes at the north end of the Unit 1 heater bay. Manhole #8 is an inspection manhole. An underdrain pump is installed in manhole #9 and its discharge is routed to the gravity drain outflow pipe from this manhole. Should the pump in manhole #9 fail to work or the gravity drain pipe from manhole #9 become blocked, the remaining service and backup underdrain pumps would serve to compensate for the loss of the pump. Therefore, the postulated failure of these manholes would also not affect the operation of the pumping underdrain system in keeping normal groundwater level below Elevation 568.0 and the maximum groundwater level below 590.0. Revision 16 2.4-116 October, 2009 The system components adjacent to non-Category I structures at the south end of the plant could be postulated to fail in the event of Revision 16 2.4-116a October, 2009 a seismic related failure of non-Category I structures without compromising the full operating capability of the redundant permanent dewatering system. 2.4.13.5.6 Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) may be used as a replacement for Class B and Class C fill, and as a replacement for Class A fill when the Class A fill was used as bedding and backfill for buried piping and ductbanks only, and not as part of the Plant Underdrain system, or as a foundation for safety-related buildings or structures. Since the CLSM is equivalent to or better than Class B fill in bearing capacity and impermeability, this change has no effect on the results of USAR <Section 2.4.13.5.1> and <Section 2.4.13.5.5>. 2.4.14 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION AND EMERGENCY OPERATION REQUIREMENTS Safety-related facilities at PNPP are protected as described in the preceding sections. Therefore, emergency protective measures and attendant technical specifications are not required. 2.4.15 LIST OF PERSONS AND AGENCIES INTERVIEWED The following is a listing, by sections, of individuals and agencies whose assistance was elicited during preparation of the Hydrologic Engineering discussions: <Section 2.4.5.2> Dr. L. Bajorunas, Director, Great Lakes Research Center, NOAA, Detroit, Michigan. Mr. Elmer Kulp, Acting Chief, Vertical Control Section, Lake Survey Center, NOAA, Detroit, Michigan. Revision 12 2.4-117 January, 2003 <Section 2.4.5.3> Dr. G. C. Dohler, Chief, Tides and Water Levels, Marine Sciences Branch, Department of the Environment, Ottawa, Canada. Mr. A. Manning, Canadian Atmospheric Environment Service, Department of the Environment, Downsview, Ontario, Canada. <Section 2.4.5.5> Dr. Charles H. Carter, Geologist and Section Head, OhioDepartment of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Lake Erie Section, Columbus, Ohio. <Section 2.4.6> Dr. L. Bajorunas, Director, Great Lakes Research Center, NOAA, Detroit, Michigan. <Section 2.4.11.2> Dr. L. Bajorunas, Director, Great Lakes Research Center, NOAA, Detroit, Michigan. <Section 2.4.11.3> Mr. Lawrence Braidech, Ohio Geological Survey, Sandusky, Ohio. Mr. Elmer Kulp, Acting Chief, Vertical Control Section, Lake Survey Center, NOAA, Detroit, Michigan. Revision 12 2.4-118 January, 2003 <Section 2.4.11.4> Mr. M. J. Korsmit, St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada. Mr. Andred Piasenta, Buffalo District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo, New York. <Section 2.4.11.6> Mr. M. J. Korsmit, St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Frank H. Quinn, Chief, Lake Hydrology Branch, Lake Survey Center, NOAA, Detroit, Michigan. <Section 2.4.13.2> Eagon, Jr., H. B., (1972) Hydrologist, State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Columbus, Ohio. Fredebaugh, Hewet, (1973), Well Driller, Grand River, Ohio. Lago, J., (1972) Ohio Water Service Company, Geneva Br., Mentor, Ohio. Lucia, J., (1972) Lake County Department of Health, Painesville, Ohio. Neroda Drilling Company, Well Driller, Painesville, Ohio. State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Columbus, Ohio; well log data (1972). Revision 12 2.4-119 January, 2003 2.4.16 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.4
1. International Lake Erie Water Pollution Board, and the International Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Water Pollution Board, Pollution of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the International Section of the St. Lawrence River, Volume 2 - Lake Erie 1969.
2. Shore Erosion in Ohio, State of Ohio, Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Shore Erosion, Columbus, Ohio, 1959.
3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative Study of the Ohio Shore Line of Lake Erie, Appendices III, VII, & XII - Fairport to Ashtabula. Beach Erosion Board, Washington, D.C., Aug. 1, 1951.
4. Riedel, Appleby and Schloemer, R., Seasonal Variation of the Probable Maximum Precipitation East of the 105th Meridian for Areas from 10 to 1,000 Square Miles and Durations of 6, 12, 24, and 48 Hours, Hydrometeorological Report No. 33, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., April 1956.
5. Design of Small Dams, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., Second Edition, 1973.
6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Standard Project Flood Determinations, Civil Engineer Bulletin No. 52-8 (EM 1110-2-1411),
Washington, D.C., Revised March 1965.
7. Platzman, George W., The Dynamical Prediction of Wind Tides on Lake Erie, Meteorological Monographs, Vol. 4, No. 26.
Revision 12 2.4-120 January, 2003
8. Irish, S. M., Platzman, G. W., An Investigation of the Meteorological Conditions Associated with Extreme Wind Tides on Lake Erie, Monthly Weather Review, U.S. Weather Bureau, February 1962.
9. Bajorunas, L., Water Level Disturbances in the Great Lakes and Their Effect on Navigation, Paper delivered at Princeton University Conference, January 19 and 20, 1960.
10. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Storm Data; U.S. Department of Commerce, January 1959 - July 1972.
11. Tannehill, I. R., Hurricanes, Princeton University Press, 1956.
12. Ludlum, David M., Weather Record Book, Weatherwise, Inc., P. 9 and P. 41, 1971.
13. Petterssen, Sverre, PhD. Introduction to Meteorology, McGraw-Hill, PP.98-106, 1941.
14. Berry, Bollay, Beers, Handbook of Meteorology, McGraw-Hill, PP. 435-438, 1945.
15. Holmboe, J., Forsythe, G. E., and Gusten, W., Dynamic Meteorology, John Wiley and Sons, PP. 173-209, 295-336, 1945.
16. Petterssen, Sverre, PhD. Introduction to Meteorology, 1941, York, Pa. McGraw-Hill Book Company (1941), Page 24.
17. Humphreys, W. J., Physics of the Air, 1964, New York, Dover Publications, Inc., (1964), Page 127.
18. Petterssen, Sverre, PhD. Weather Analysis and Forecasting, 1956, McGraw-Hill Book Company, PP. 84.
Revision 12 2.4-121 January, 2003
19. Shaw, Sir Napier, Manual of Meteorology, VIIV, 1931, Cambridge Univ. Press, PP. 109.
20. Graham, H. E. and Hudson, G. N., U.S. Department of Commerce, Surface Winds Near the Center of Hurricanes (and Other Cyclones),
National Hurricane Research Project, Report No. 39, September 1960.
21. U.S. Department of Commerce, Meteorological Characteristics of the Probable Maximum Hurricane, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States, HUR 7-97, Weather Bureau, 1968.
22. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Shore Protection, Planning and Design, Technical Report No. 4, Coastal Engineering Research Center Washington, D.C., 1966.
23. Streeter, V. L. and Wylie, E. B., Hydraulic Transients, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.
24. U.S. Corps of Engineers, Appendices III, VII and XII, Report on a Cooperative Beach Erosion Control Study of the Ohio Shoreline of Lake Erie Between Fairport and Ashtabula, Beach Erosion Control Study, House Document 351, Government Printing Office, 1953.
25. Ohio Division of Geological Survey, Preliminary Estimate of Erosion or Accretion Along the Ohio Shore of Lake Erie and Critical Erosion Areas, Technical Report No. 8, 1961.
26. State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Shoreline Erosion Study, Lake Erie Shoreline, Lake County, Ohio, prepared by Stanley Consultants, Cleveland, Ohio, 1969.
Revision 12 2.4-122 January, 2003
27. State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources - Division of Geological Survey, Lake Erie Shore Erosion, Lake County, Ohio:
Setting, Processes and Recession Rates from 1976 to 1973, Report of Investigation No. 99, prepared by Charles H. Carter, 1976.
28. Land Title Company, Painesville, Ohio, copies of recorded deed descriptions and survey plots.
29. Engineering Research Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Michigan Water Resources Commission Low Cost Shore Protection for the Great Lakes, (Reprinted October 1959 by the Water Resources Commission).
30. E. F. Brater - Report to GAI on Shore Protection and Erosion Control at the Perry Plant Site, October 6, 1972.
31. Hellstrom, B., Wind Effects on Lakes and Rivers, Bulletin No. 41, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 1941.
32. Snider, R. C., Great Lakes Ice Forecasting, NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS OSD 1, July 1974.
33. Rondy, Donald R., Great Lakes Ice Atlas, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS LSCR 1, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Lake Survey Center, Detroit, Mich.,
September 1971.
34. Wahanik, R. J., Submerged Offshore Structure for Perry Nuclear Power Plant, GAI Report No. 1891, March 1976, Revised November 1981.
35. Report for Thermal Hydraulic Model Study of Cooling Water Discharge for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, prepared by Acres American, Incorporated, May 1974.
Revision 12 2.4-123 January, 2003
36. Application for Perry Nuclear Power Plant submitted to Ohio Power Siting Commission, Appendix 1304-C-2.
37. Platzman, George W., The Daily Variation of Water Level on Lake Erie, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 71, No. 10, May 15, 1966.
38. Gedney, R., and Lick, W., Numerical Calculations of the Steady-State, Wind-Driven Currents in Lake Erie, Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Great Lakes Research, 1970.
39. Hutchinson, G. E., A Treatise on Limnology Vol. 1, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1957.
40. Hayford, J. F., Effect of Winds and of Barometric Pressures on the Great Lakes, Carnegie Institute, Publication No. 317.
41. Parmenter, R., Hydrography of Lake Erie, Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, 14:25-50.
42. Csanady, G. T., The Coastal Boundary Layer in Lake Ontario.
Part I: The Spring Regime, Journal of Physical Oceanography, Vol. 2, No. 1, January 1972.
43. Csanady, G. T., The Coastal Boundary Layer in Lake Ontario:
Part II: The Summer-Fall Regime, Journal of Physical Oceanography, Vol. 2, No. 2, April 1972.
44. Technical Report NUS-1183, Near-Shore Temperatures in Lake Erie, NUS Corporation, 1973.
45. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Chart #14825, Ashtabula to Chagrin River, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1974.
Revision 12 2.4-124 January, 2003
46. Koh, R. C. Y., and Fan, L. N., Mathematical Models for the Prediction of Temperature Distributions Resulting from the Discharge of Heated Water into Large Bodies of Water, Water Pollution Control Series 1613ODW010/70, Environmental Protection Agency, 1970.
47. Jirka, G. H., Abraham, G., and Harleman, D. R. F., An Assessment of Techniques for Hydrothermal Prediction, Report No. 203, Ralph M. Parsons Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1975.
48. Chow, V., Open Channel Hydraulics, McGraw Hill, New York, 1959.
49. Hanna, T. H., Foundation Instrumentation, Technical Publication, 1973, PP. 85-95.
50. Taylor, D. W., Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, 13th Edition, 1963.
51. Birkeland, B. W., Pedology, Weathering and Geomorphological Research, Oxford University Press, New York, 1974.
52. Lamborn, R. E., Austin, C. R., and Schaaf, D., Shales and Surface Clays of Ohio, Geological Survey of Ohio, Fourth Series, Bulletin 39, 1938.
53. Caroll, D., Ion Exchange In Clays and Other Minerals, Geological Society of America, V. 70 #6, PP. 749-780, 1959.
54. United States Bureau of Reclamation, Dams and Control Works, 1954; World Dams Today, Japan Dam Association, Tokyo, 1970.
55. American National Standard - ANS 2.8, ANSI N170-1976, Standards for Determining Design Basis Flooding at Power Reactor Sites, American Nuclear Society, Hindsdale, Illinois, 1976.
Revision 12 2.4-125 January, 2003
56. Pree, H. L., Jr., Ashtabula and Conneaut Creek Basins, and Adjacent Lake Erie Tributaries, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, 1960.
57. DeWiest, Roger J. M., Geohydrology, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1967.
58. Todd, D. K., Groundwater Hydrology, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1959.
59. Woodward-Cylde Consultants letter of November 01, 1981, to Gilbert Associates, Inc. Ref: See page Estimate.
60. Gilbert Associates Inc. Calculation 26:12, Perry Emergency Service Water Pumphouse - Stability Analysis, Revision 0 (Retained as Perry Calculation 26:12.000, Revision 0).
Revision 14 2.4-126 October, 2005 TABLE 2.4-1 PROBABLE MAXIMUM STORM FOR SETUP AT SITE Grid Pt. Sta Day 6th Hour 12th Hour 18th Hour 24th Hour (1,1) 1 1 160(1) 160 158 156 1 1 30(1) 44 52 60 (1) 1 1 1001 1004 1006 1007 1 2 161 166 160 154 1 2 70 79 78 77 1 2 1020 1032 1033 1034 1 3 171 187 200 212 1 3 61 44 33 22 1 3 1035 1036 1033 1030 (1,21) 2 1 173 173 167 160 2 1 34 45 52 59 2 1 1003 1007 1008 1009 2 2 163 166 163 159 2 2 65 71 74 77 2 2 1022 1034 1035 1036 2 3 170 181 196 211 2 3 64 50 36 21 2 3 1037 1038 1035 1031 (20,1) 3 1 160 165 159 152 3 1 23 41 52 62 3 1 998 1000 1001 1001 3 2 156 160 156 151 3 2 78 94 92 90 3 2 1013 1025 1026 1026 Revision 12 2.4-127 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-1 (Continued) Grid Pt. Sta Day 6th Hour 12th Hour 18th Hour 24th Hour 3 3 168 184 198 212 3 3 67 44 33 21 3 3 1030 1034 1032 1029 (20,21) 4 1 178 175 168 160 4 1 27 43 53 62 4 1 1000 1002 1003 1003 4 2 162 163 161 159 4 2 80 98 94 89 4 2 1016 1028 1028 1028 4 3 167 175 192 208 4 3 69 49 35 20 4 3 1032 1036 1034 1031 (40,1) 5 1 256 164 158 151 5 1 23 38 50 62 5 1 995 993 994 994 5 2 156 160 157 154 5 2 75 88 91 94 5 2 1006 1017 1017 1016 5 3 166 177 194 210 5 3 68 42 31 20 5 3 1024 1032 1031 1029 (40,21) 6 1 235 189 179 169 6 1 24 39 51 62 6 1 998 999 998 997 6 2 167 165 162 159 6 2 76 90 96 102 6 2 1009 1021 1020 1018 6 3 166 172 189 206 Revision 12 2.4-128 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-1 (Continued) Grid Pt. Sta Day 6th Hour 12th Hour 18th Hour 24th Hour 6 3 73 44 34 23 6 3 1026 1034 1032 1030 (60,1) 7 1 294 248 201 153 7 1 15 15 34 52 7 1 993 988 988 987 7 2 156 159 157 155 7 2 69 85 84 82 7 2 998 1009 1008 1006 7 3 164 172 190 208 7 3 62 41 32 23 7 3 1018 1029 1029 1028 (60,21) 8 1 270 232 203 174 8 1 25 35 43 50 8 1 996 995 993 990 8 2 171 167 166 164 8 2 68 86 86 86 8 2 1001 1012 1011 1009 8 3 168 171 185 199 8 3 64 42 33 24 8 3 1020 1031 1030 1029 (78,1) 9 1 318 303 228 153 9 1 16 15 26 37 9 1 997 993 986 978 9 2 156 158 158 158 9 2 56 75 79 82 9 2 989 999 997 995 9 3 166 173 186 198 9 3 61 40 33 25 9 3 1011 1027 1027 1027 Revision 12 2.4-129 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-1 (Continued) Grid Pt. Sta Day 6th Hour 12th Hour 18th Hour 24th Hour (78,21) 10 1 276 250 226 202 10 1 20 23 31 38 10 1 997 994 989 984 10 2 187 171 168 165 10 2 59 79 81 83 10 2 993 1002 1001 1000 10 3 167 169 183 196 10 3 62 41 33 25 10 3 1014 1028 1028 1028 (30,1) 1 255 160 156 152 1 22 40 53 65 1 997 998 998 998 2 156 160 157 153 2 78 90 94 98 2 1011 1023 1023 1022 3 167 181 196 211 3 71 43 32 20 3 1028 1033 1031 1029 (30,11) 1 178 173 166 159 1 20 41 53 65 1 997 999 999 999 2 161 162 159 156 2 80 95 96 97 2 1012 1024 1024 1023 3 167 178 194 209 3 71 45 33 20 3 1029 1034 1032 1030 Revision 12 2.4-130 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-1 (Continued) Grid Pt. Sta Day 6th Hour 12th Hour 18th Hour 24th Hour (30,21) 1 200 181 173 165 1 25 42 53 64 1 998 1000 1000 1000 2 165 164 162 159 2 81 98 97 95 2 1013 1025 1025 1024 3 167 174 191 207 3 71 47 34 21 3 1030 1035 1033 1030 (40,11) 1 255 183 172 160 1 996 996 996 995 2 162 163 160 157 2 76 89 94 98 2 1007 1019 1018 1017 3 166 175 192 208 3 71 44 33 21 3 1025 1033 1031 1029 (50,1) 1 340 183 168 152 1 5 31 46 60 1 994 990 991 991 2 156 160 158 155 2 73 86 87 87 2 1003 1014 1013 1011 3 165 175 192 209 3 64 41 31 21 3 1021 1030 1029 1028 Revision 12 2.4-131 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-1 (Continued) Grid Pt. Sta Day 6th Hour 12th Hour 18th Hour 24th Hour (50,11) 1 262 196 179 162 1 23 36 48 59 1 996 994 993 992 2 163 163 161 159 2 73 87 88 89 2 1004 1016 1015 1013 3 167 174 190 206 3 66 43 33 23 3 1022 1031 1030 1029 (50,21) 1 247 195 184 172 1 25 38 49 59 1 997 996 995 993 2 169 166 164 162 2 74 88 89 90 2 1005 1017 1016 1014 3 167 172 188 203 3 67 44 34 23 3 1023 1032 1031 1030 NOTE: (1) These entries under each station are grouped in threes as follows: (a) First line - wind direction in degrees. (b) Second line - wind speed in miles per hour. (c) Third line - wind pressure in millibars. Revision 12 2.4-132 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-2 RECESSION RATES IN FEET PER YEAR
a. Top of Bluff 1876 1876 1937 1957 1964 10/72 11/73 to 9/78 to 1972 to 1972 to 1972 to 1972 to 9/78 to 9/78 (102 yrs) (96 yrs) (35 yrs) (15 yrs) (8 yrs) (6 yrs) (5 yrs)
West Reach Profile J 3 2 3 3 5 5 3 Profile I 2 2 3 4 7 8 10 Profile H 4(1)  ? 3 6 7 9 11 Profile G 1(1)  ? 1 2 3 - <1 Central Reach Profile F <1(1)  ? <1 1 1 - <1 Profile L <1 <1 1 2 3 - 1 Profile K <1 <1 1 2 4 - 2 Profile A <1 <1 <1 2 3 <1 1 Profile B 2 1 2 5 7 7 7 East Reach Profile C 2 2 4 5 4 6 <-1 Profile D 3 3 5 5 5 5 4 Profile E 3 3 5 5 5 2 2 Revision 12 2.4-133 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-2 (Continued)
b. Shoreline 1798 1798 1830 1852 1865 1876 1917 11/73 to to to to to to to to 9/78(7,8) 1972(7) 1972(7) 1972(7) 1972(7) 1972(7) 1972(7) 9/78(8)
(180 yrs) (174 yrs) (142 yrs) (120 yrs) (107 yrs) (96 yrs) (55 yrs) (5 yrs) West Reach Profile J 3(2) - - - - 3 4 3 Profile I 1 <1 <1 - - 2 3 9 Profile G <1 <1 <1 - 1(4) <1 2 8 Central Reach Profile F <1 <1 <1 - <-1 <-1 1 -3 Profile L <1 <1 <1 <-1 <1 <1 2 <1 Profile K <1 <1 <1 <-1 <1 0 1 6 Profile A <1 <1 <1 <-1 <1 <1 <1 5 Profile B 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 18 East Reach Profile C 2 2 2 2 - 2 3 7 Profile D 2 1 - 2 - 2 2 10 Profile E 2(3) - - 2(5) - 3 4(6) <-1 Revision 12 2.4-134 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-2 (Continued) NOTES: (1) For the 41-year period, 1937 to 9/78. (2) For the 102-year period, 1876 to 9/78. (3) For the 120-year period, 1858 to 9/78. (4) For the 105-year period, 1867 to 1972. (5) For the 114-year period, 1858 to 1972. (6) For the 28-year period, 1944 to 1972. (7) Shoreline recession rates between 1798 and 1972 assumed toe of bluff to be at water line. Distances used to determine these recession rates were not corrected for lake level fluctuations. (8) Shoreline recession rates between 11/73 and 9/78 assumed toe of bluff to be at break in bluff slope (i.e., at beaches). Some toe of bluff locations during this period were estimated due to their inaccessibility. Revision 12 2.4-135 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-3 MAXIMUM RECORDED ICE THICKNESS AT VARIOUS STATIONS ON THE PERIPHERY OF LAKE ERIE(1) Marine Lake- Marblehead- Marblehead-Period Erie Harbor East Harbor Brest Bay Buffalo Harbor Catawba Island 1967-1968 13(2) 21 10 NA NA 1968-1969 13 1 10 17 NA (3) 1969-1970 NA NA NA NA NA 1970-1971 12 NA 15 31 18 1971-1972 12 NA 14 16 13 1972-1973 10 NA 6 8 9 1973-1974 6 NA 10 8 10 1974-1975 5 NA NA 7 4 1975-1976 16 NA 14 15 14 1976-1977 24 NA 24 NA 28 1977-1978 18 NA 20 NA 28 1978-1979 1 NA 23 NA 14 Revision 12 2.4-136 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-3 (Continued) NOTES: (1) Source of reference: Frederick E. Sleator, Ice Thickness and Stratigraphy at Nearshore Location on the Great Lakes, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, Ann Arbor, Michigan, July 1978. (2) Measured in inches. (3) NA: Not available. Revision 12 2.4-137 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-4 TABULATION OF MAXIMUM YEARLY OBSERVED ICE THICKNESS ALONG OHIO SHORELINE OF LAKE ERIE ASHTABULA, OHIO Ice Surface(2) Thickness Season Ice Type(1) Condition _(inches) 1961-1962 None None 0 1962-1963 Fast Field Jammed 6 1963-1964 Fast Field None 6 1964-1965 Fast Field Windrowed 6 1965-1966 Fast Field None 14 1966-1967 Fast Field Windrowed 6 1967-1968 Fast Field None 20 1968-1969 Fast None 14 1969-1970 Fast Field None 11 1970-1971 Fast Slush None 2 1971-1972 Fast Slush Hummocked 12 1972-1973 Fast Leads 5 CLEVELAND HARBOR, OHIO Ice Surface(2) Thickness Season Ice Type(1) Condition _(inches) 1961-1962 None None 0 1962-1963 Fast Field None 5 1963-1964 Fast Field None 8 1964-1965 Drift Pancake None 3 1965-1966 Fast Field None 12 1966-1967 Fast Field Jammed 10 1967-1968 Fast Field None 15 1968-1969 Fast Field Jammed 9 1969-1970 Draft Floe Jammed 11 1970-1971 Fast None 6 1971-1972 Fast Floe Hummocked 10 NOTES: (1) U.S. Coast Guard terminology for ice types is as follows: (a) Field: Large bodies, 1,000 yards in width. Revision 12 2.4-138 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-4 (Continued) NOTES: (Continued) (b) Floe: Medium size bodies, 10 to 1,000 yards in width. (c) Cake: Small bodies, less than 10 yards in width. (d) Pancake: Small pieces less than 3 yards across usually oval or disc-shape, uneven, with raised rims on the surface, pieces sometimes interfrozen. (e) Brash: Small fragments less than 6 feet across. (f) Slush: An accumulation of crystals, may or may not be slightly frozen together, no degree of hardness. (g) Fast: Unbroken ice which is fast to shore. Term shore ice may also be used where appropriate. (h) Drift: All ice not fast to shore. (2) U.S. Coast Guard terminology for surface conditions is as follows: (a) Jammed: Broken ice in constricted areas, river channels or harbors. The jamming may be caused by currents or wind pressure. (b) Windrow: Hummocky ice which has been pressed into heavy ridges or layers by strong winds, often piled up against the shore or other obstruction. Revision 12 2.4-139 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-5 MINIMAL DILUTION FACTORS FOR LAKE WATER INTAKES WITHIN 50 MILES OF PNPP Distance Minimum From Current Plant Speed Dilution Location of Intake (Miles) (Ft/Sec) _Factor_ IRC Fibers, Co. 3.50 0.026 7.8 East System, OWC 4.20 0.031 9.4 Fairport Harbor 7.00 0.051 15.6 Painesville 7.50 0.055 16.7 West System, OWC 10.00 0.073 22.7 Ashtabula 20.00 0.147 44.6 Union Carbide Metals 22.00 0.161 49.0 Conneaut 33.00 0.242 73.5 Cleveland 35.00 0.257 78.0 Avon Lake 50.00 0.330 105.7 Elyria 50.00 0.330 105.7 Lorain 50.00 0.330 105.7 Revision 12 2.4-140 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 DOMESTIC WELL INVENTORY - NORTH PERRY AND PERRY, OHIO Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing Number Static Water Elevation Depth Depth Yield (gpm) Remarks 1 - - - - - Not accessible 2 4.0 639 12.5 - - No Fe 3 - - - - - - 4 4.9 622 24.0 - - - 5 15.0 595 - 53 1/2 gpm Well filled in (bail test) by CEI Gas well also filled in 6 4.0 616 21.0 - - Depth to H2O 12 hrs & 32 hrs after heavy rain - 2 ft (April 17) 7 6.0 west 617 11.3 - - Two wells 4.0 east 619 10.0 - - separated by 50 ft; Fe problem. West well used. After rains DTW 4.2, 3.0 Revision 12 2.4-141 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing _Number_ Static Water _Elevation_ Depth Depth_ Yield (gpm) _____Remarks______ 8 8.0 615 10.0 - - Septic tank; Fe problem 9 15.0 610 30.0 - - Septic tank; no Fe 10 - Shallow hand dug - - 95 ft well well; not accessible 11 8-10 615 18.0 - - Septic tank; no Fe 12 8-10 615 18.0 - - Septic tank; no Fe 13 4-5 620 14.0 - - Lowest levels Oct.-Nov. 14 2-3 621 15.0 - - - 15 7.0 614 12.0 - - - 16 5.0 610 9.0 - - Shortages 17 9.0 611 15.0 - - Shortages 18 14.0 606 20.0 - - - 19 12.5 609 17.5 - - - Revision 12 2.4-142 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing _Number_ Static Water _Elevation_ Depth Depth_ Yield (gpm) _____Remarks______ 20 12.5 612 17.5 - - 12 hrs after storm 21 12.5 612 17.5 - - 12 hrs after storm 22 13.0 613 17.0 - - - 23 11.0 616 16.0 - - - 24 14.0 612 17.0 - - Septic tank 25 14.0 612 16.5 - - Wash day 26 14.0 611 45.0 45.0 10.0 Drilled, log on hand 27 15-16 611 20.0 - - Hand dug 1948 28 16-18 608 24.0 - - - 29 14.8 610 32.0 30.5 Bail Rate-3 Not accessible 30 11.0 614 14.5 - - Fe problem; l2 hrs 31 9.5 615 15.0 - - 12 hrs after rain 32 11.0 614 16.0 - - After rain Revision 12 2.4-143 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing _Number_ Static Water _Elevation_ Depth Depth_ Yield (gpm) _____Remarks______ 33 17.0 608 19.5 - - Fe (new pipes - 20.0 605 21.5 - - May 1 therefore no rust) 12 hrs after rain 34 11.0 614 16.0 - - 12 hrs after rain 35 3.0 612 - - - Flowing spring (?) or less from pipe on NW side of bldg. 36 2.0 623 15.0 - - H2O hard (Colt) (7-8 in summer) but no Fe 37 14-15 610 20.0 - - - 38 6.0 636 12.0 - - Dug 39 2.0 634 12.0 - 5.0 Dug - 70 ft to Shale 40 6.0 640 15.0 - 23.0 Dug - in 600 ft gas well 41 18.5 606 26.5 - - 12 hrs after heavy rain 42 Not accessible - 28.0 - - High Fe problem Revision 12 2.4-144 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing _Number_ Static Water _Elevation_ Depth Depth_ Yield (gpm) _____Remarks______ 43 6.0 621 16.5 - - Lower Fe problem than No. 42; after rain 44 2.0 623 12.0 - - 12 hrs after rain 45 19.0 606 - - - Well point 46 9.0 616 13.0 - - 12 hrs after rain 47 8.5 616 13.5 - - No Fe problems 12 hrs after rain 48 10.0 620 18.0 - - 12 hrs after rain 49 6.5 623 12.5 - - After rain 50 7.5 622 14.0 - - - 51 - - 12-14 - - Inaccessible 52 11.5 616 17.0 - - - 53 8.5 610 15.5 - - - 54 9.0 610 14.0 - - - 55 - - - - - - Revision 12 2.4-145 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing _Number_ Static Water _Elevation_ Depth Depth_ Yield (gpm) _____Remarks______ 56 3.2 623 14.5 - - - 57 2.5 623 11.5 - - - 58 1.5 624 24.0 24.0 8 gpm @ 6 hr Drilled by Neroda 5 ft drawdown 1970-71; water picked up 13 ft; went down to 5 ft in Sept. 59 2.5 622 15.0 - - - 60 3.0 635 16.0 - - - 61 1.5 636 9.5 - - - 62 2.0 637 11.0 - - - 63 6.0 636 10.0 - - Fe problem; 6 ft bell 2 ft from surface - supplies farm animals and home 64 6.0 636 10.0 - - Tiled area toward 20 65 3.0 640 50.0 - - - Revision 12 2.4-146 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing _Number_ Static Water _Elevation_ Depth Depth_ Yield (gpm) _____Remarks______ 66 4.0 639 10.0 - - Fe problem 67 3.5 644 6.0 - - - 68 6.0 640 920.0 - - Inaccessible; no Fe 69 18.0 637 42.0 39.6 - Drilled well 70 - - - - - 2 well points 71 5.4 622.7 10.0 - - No Fe 72 - - 30.0 - - Well point (never dry in 14 years) 73 6.0 623 12.0 - - - 74 - - - - - - 75 - - 11-12 - - Well point 76 6.6 623.7 14.2 - - Hard water 77 4.4 624.2 11.5 - - - 78 - - - - - - Revision 12 2.4-147 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing _Number_ Static Water _Elevation_ Depth Depth_ Yield (gpm) _____Remarks______ 79 2.0 626 10.0 - - - 80 6.4 621.4 9.3 - - Wash day 81 6.7 622.5 - - - - 82 16.0 614 28.0 - - 1 point to 14 ft Well in basement Good pumping 83 14.2 613.8 16.3 - - Septic tank 84 6.6 622.7 15.0 - - Septic tank; some Fe 85 8.0 617 14.0 - - Septic tank (no water in basement) 86 6.0 621 14.0 - - - 87 3.0 625 16-17 - - Septic tank 88 3.0 625 20.0 - - Fe 89 6.4 max. 624.6 12.6 - - - max. 90 5.0 626 - - - - Revision 12 2.4-148 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing _Number_ Static Water _Elevation_ Depth Depth_ Yield (gpm) _____Remarks______ 91 14.3 max. 621.6 15 - - - max. 92 8.0 622 20.0 - - No Fe; septic tank 93 1.0 629 - - - Top slightly open to rains 94 3.3 630 13-15 - - No Fe; septic tank 95 4.5 629 - - - No Fe; septic tank 96 3.0 629.0 10.8 - - - 97 7.0 632.5 10.4 - - No Fe; septic tank 98 5.0 632 14.0 - - No Fe; septic tank; also supplies 2831 Antioch Rd 99 1.5 636 7.5 - - Well 2.5 ft below grade in barn; no Fe; septic tank 100 4.0 636 6.5 - - Some Fe; septic tank 101 1.6 638 6.5 - - Some Fe; septic tank Revision 12 2.4-149 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing _Number_ Static Water _Elevation_ Depth Depth_ Yield (gpm) _____Remarks______ 102 3.2 638 7.67 - - Some Fe; septic tank 103 3.0 641 15.0 - - Some Fe; septic tank 104 5.8 642 7.8 - - No Fe; septic tank 105 4.0 644 6.9 - - No Fe; septic tank 106 7.8 640.2 9.0 - - No Fe; septic tank 107 - - - - - Well point; old well 8 ft deep; insufficient; point 6 ft deeper 108 - - - - - Well point; no Fe; septic tank 109 3.0 648 10.0 - - Septic tank 110 2.5 642 11.0 - - 18 ft cistern; no Fe; recharges in 2 hrs 111 - - - - - Replaced point w/due well Revision 12 2.4-150 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing Number Static Water Elevation Depth Depth Yield (gpm) Remarks 112 4.5 655 15.5 - - Septic tank 113 12.0 653 30.0 - - Submersible pumps; some Fe 114 14.5 640 32.0 32.0 12.0 Drilled 7/21/70 115 6.00 640 10.25 - - Fe; not enough water in dry spell; septic tank 116 3.0 638 10.0 - - - 117 5.5 631 10.0 - - Runs dry in summer 118 5.9 626 11.6 - - Water level @ Culvert 625 119 7.0 628 12.6 - - No Fe; septic tank 120 11.0 624 13.8 - - Filled swimming pool; septic tank 121 10.0 627 17.1 - - No Fe; septic tank 122 5.9 630 14.9 - - - Revision 12 2.4-151 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing Number Static Water Elevation Depth Depth Yield (gpm) remarks 123 5.0 625 17.0 - - Trace Fe; septic tank 124 7.2 625 20.0 - - Some Fe; septic tank 125 5.0 625 20.0 - - Septic tank 126 8.7 621 14.7 - - Septic tank 127 4.0 626 15.0 - 5000 ? Septic tank 128 - - - - - - 129 10.0 670 25.0 - - Fe, very hard; septic tank 130 12.5 668 31.0 30.0 13.0 Drilled 10/31/64; Well in basement, sealed 131 - - 9.0 - - Bad odor; Fe 132 7.0 669 12.0 - - - 133 7.0 699 11.0 - - No Fe; septic tank 134 13.5 663 16.0 - - - Revision 12 2.4-152 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing _Number_ Static Water _Elevation_ Depth Depth_ Yield (gpm) _____Remarks______ 135 10.8 661 30.0 28.8 8 (Bail) Drilled 3/31/67; capped 136 17.0 663 30.0 - - - 137 - - - - - - 138 - - - - - 2 drilled wells; capped 139 14.8 660 203.0 - - - 140 12.0 668 108.0 103.0 4 12/16/70; not sufficient 141 - - - - - Drilled well; septic tank 142 - - - - - Drilled well; septic tank 143 14.0 661 32.0 31.0 5 (Bail) 10/2/62 well; septic tank Revision 12 2.4-153 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing _Number_ Static Water _Elevation_ Depth Depth_ Yield (gpm) _____Remarks______ 144 12.0 663 17.0 - - Serves both residence & gas station; filled 2,000 gal. plus 2 times in 30 days 145 - - - - - - 146 19.0 656 24.0 - - Serves 3 houses 147 12.8 662 16.3 - - - 148 - - - - - Well point 149 11.6 653 15.6 - - Fe; septic tank - - - - - Serves 3 houses; no Fe; septic tank 11.5 653 18.0 - - - 150 - - - - - - 151 - 643 - - - Salty water Revision 12 2.4-154 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing Number Static Water Elevation Depth Depth Yield (gpm) Remarks 152 9.0 656 33.0 - - - 153 14.0 656 24.0 - - Water level measures over 3 yrs; fluctuates from 17.7 ft - 20.4 ft 154 10.0 660 17.0 - - Some Fe; septic tank 155 25.0 665 30.0 - - - 156 20.0 652 25.0 - - Salty water; septic tank 157 7.5 653 10.0 - - Well near creek; 15 ft below road level 158 6.3 663 14.3 - - Well 10 ft below road; some Fe; septic tank 159 18.0 657 35.0 - - Drilled well; some Fe 160 12.0 668 35.0 - - 8/20/67 Revision 12 2.4-155 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing _Number_ Static Water _Elevation_ Depth Depth_ Yield (gpm) _____Remarks______ 161 14.0 651 18.0 - - Some Fe; serves house and workshop 162 17.0 658 25.0 - - Water 15 horses, 3 or 4 times/day 163 18.0 662 25.0 - - 8 ft-10 ft above road level 163A 12.0 666 30.0 29.0 4.0 (Bail) Drilled 5/1/78 164 14.7 667 25.2 - - - 165 23.5 657 46.0 46.0 6.0 Drilled 8/31/65; 23.0 657 46.0 47.5 10.0 (Bail) Drilled 1/21/69; septic tank 166 31.0 649 64.0 66.0 4.0 Drilled 1/28/64 167 - - 22.0 - - No Fe; septic tank 12.0 663 105.0 102.0 1.5 Drilled 4/10/69 168 20.5 655 26.0 - - No Fe; septic tank Revision 12 2.4-156 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing Number Static Water Elevation Depth Depth Yield (gpm) Remarks 169 - - 17.0 - - Used for green-houses; no Fe; septic tank 170 - - 20.0 - - Well point; no Fe 171 14-15 665 18.0 - - No Fe; septic tank 172 11-12 668 16.0 - - No Fe; septic tank 173 15.8 662 19.75 - - No Fe; septic tank 174 10.0 668 16.0 - - No Fe; 14 ft cistern, 17 ft deep and 3 wells 175 82.0 670 17.0 - - - 176 10.0 668 25.0 - - Some Fe; septic tank 177 - - - - - Well point; some Fe 178 7.2 673 12.7 - - Well in basement; 3 ft above road level; some Fe; septic tank Revision 12 2.4-157 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing Number Static Water Elevation Depth Depth Yield (gpm) Remarks 179 12.5 665 19.0 - - Well 2 ft-3 ft above road; septic tank 180 16.0 664 21.5 - - Some Ca; septic tank 181 19.0 661 41.0 40.5 - Drilled 7/31/66 182 15.5 673 20.0 - - - 183 16.5 672 23.0 - - - 184 13.0 676 16.0 - - Some Fe; not sufficient 185 16.0 673 22.0 - - - 186 15.0 680 25.0 - .42 - 187 9.0 683 30.0 28.0 10.0 Drilled 6/16/67; Fe; septic tank 188 11.6 682 30.0 29.0 10.0 (Bail) 8/13/62 189 8.6 685 14.6 - - Fe; septic tank 190 8.0 684 10.0 - - Septic tank Revision 12 2.4-158 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing Number Static Water Elevation Depth Depth Yield (gpm) Remarks 191 10.0 681 22.0 - - In basement; some Fe; septic tank 192 3.5 686 6.5 - - Septic tank 193 18.0 672 30.0 29.5 3.0 Drilled 6/10/58; septic tank 194 18.0 672 40.0 - - Drilled; septic tank 195 7.5 682 25.0 23.5 15.0 Drilled 9/15/59; septic tank 196 22.0 678 28.0 - - Some Ca; septic tank 197 22.0 678 22.0 - - Septic tank 198 19.0 671 22.0 - - Septic tank 199 7.0 683 15.0 - - Septic tank 200 22.0 678 25.0 - - Some Ca; septic tank - - - - - Septic tank 201 12.0 672 30.0 - 12.0 (Bail) Drilled 4/4/58 Revision 12 2.4-159 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing _Number_ Static Water _Elevation_ Depth Depth_ Yield (gpm) _____Remarks______ 202 7.4 689 13.1 - - Septic tank 203 7.5 689 14.0 - - Septic tank 204 16.0 689 36.0 36.0 20.0 Drilled 6/26/56; septic tank 205 15.0 685 35.0 36.0 10.0 Drilled 10/21/71; septic tank 206 7.0 693 34.0 31.0 10.0 Drilled 10/21/71; septic tank 207 6.5 684 27.0 26.0 20.0 (Bail) Drilled 10/29/63; septic tank 208 10.5 689 30.0 31.6 15.0 (Bail) Drilled 7/21/64; septic tank 209 14.0 686 57.0 57.0 12.0 Drilled 7/22/52; septic tank 210 15.0 685 36.0 36.5 10.0 (Bail) Drilled 11/16/65; septic tank 211 10.5 689 1915.0 - - Septic tank Revision 12 2.4-160 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing _Number_ Static Water _Elevation_ Depth Depth_ Yield (gpm) _____Remarks______ 212 13.0 687 44.0 37.0 1.5 Drilled 6/9/54; septic tank 213 18.0 682 25.0 - - Septic tank 214 8.0 691 17.0 - - Septic tank 215 8.0 691 17.0 - - Septic tank 216 24.0 671 40.0 39.5 8.0 Drilled 11/27/67; septic tank 217 24.0 671 40.0 38.5 10.0 (Bail) Drilled 9/10/68; septic tank 218 22.0 673 40.0 37.0 15.0 (Bail) Drilled 5/2/68; septic tank 219 17.0 675 38.0 36.5 8.0 (Bail) Drilled 3/10/71; septic tank 220 16.0 669 86.0 31.0 5.0 (Bail) Drilled 9/27/48; some Fe; septic tank 221 9.0 678 17.0 - - Septic tank 222 8.0 679 15.0 - - Septic tank Revision 12 2.4-161 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing _Number_ Static Water _Elevation_ Depth Depth_ Yield (gpm) _____Remarks______ 223 7.0 680 21.5 - - Septic tank 224 10.0 677 15.0 - - Septic tank 225 10.0 677 15.0 - - Septic tank 226 9.0 656 18.0 - - Septic tank 227 11.0 679 16.0 - - Some Fe; septic tank 228 11.5 683 19.0 - - Some Fe; septic tank 229 145.0 681 220.0 - - Some Fe; septic tank 230 14.0 681 215.0 - - Some Fe; septic tank 231 13.5 683 34.0 31.0 10.0 Drilled 9/4/59; septic tank 232 13.0 683 29.3 29.5 12.0 (Bail) Drilled 4/4/58; septic tank 233 8.0 682 21.0 - - Septic tank 234 9.0 681 31.0 30.0 20.0 Drilled 4/11/59; septic tank Revision 12 2.4-162 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing _Number_ Static Water _Elevation_ Depth Depth_ Yield (gpm) _____Remarks______ 235 9.0 681 31.0 26.0 15.0 Drilled 6/5/68; septic tank 236 9.0 682 26.0 25.0 10.0 (Bail) Drilled 1/11/63; septic tank 237 8.0 622 22.0 - - Septic tank 238 8.7 621 20.2 - - Septic tank 239 5.0 620 25.0 - - Well + 10,000 gal. cistern 240 5.0 618 25.0 - - Septic tank 241 0.0 620 25.0 - - - 242 3.5 621 14.5 - - Septic tank 243 4.8 621 12.3 - - Septic tank 244 9.0 616 16.5 - - Septic tank 245 1.0 619 14.0 - - Some Fe; septic tank 246 2.5 615 16.5 - - Some Fe; septic tank Revision 12 2.4-163 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing _Number_ Static Water _Elevation_ Depth Depth_ Yield (gpm) _____Remarks______ 247 2.0 620 14.0 - - Septic tank 248 2.8 620 22.8 - - Septic tank 249 4.0 619 16.0 - - Septic tank 250 5.5 644.5 9.0 - - Septic tank 251 5.5 639.5 13.0 - - Septic tank 252 6.0 648 10.0 - - Septic tank 253 13.7 617 15.5 - - Septic tank 254 5.5 625 14.0 - - Septic tank 255 14.0 608 32.0 - 12.0 Septic tank 256 4.0 616 11.0 - - Shale @ 25.0 ft; septic tank 257 5.0 665 25.0 - - Septic tank 258 16.5 669 36.0 35.0 20.0 Drilled 5/6/63; septic tank Revision 12 2.4-164 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing _Number_ Static Water _Elevation_ Depth Depth_ Yield (gpm) _____Remarks______ 259 15.5 671 38.0 36.0 15.0 Drilled 8/4/67; septic tank 260 17.5 667 32.0 32.0 14.0 Drilled 5/15/64; septic tank 261 20.0 665 40.0 36.0 10.0 Drilled 9/10/63; septic tank 262 20.0 665 39.0 39.0 12.0 Drilled 5/4/63; septic tank 263 18.5 667 32.0 31.6 10.0 Drilled 5/19/63; septic tank 264 20.5 666 40.0 38.0 7.0 Drilled 6/16/62; septic tank 265 20.0 666 40.0 37.6 - Drilled 7/16/64; septic tank 266 21.0 666 40.0 39.0 20.0 Drilled 6/20/63; septic tank 267 18.0 669 40.0 39.0 15.0 Drilled 5/19/67; septic tank Revision 12 2.4-165 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing _Number_ Static Water _Elevation_ Depth Depth_ Yield (gpm) _____Remarks______ 268 18.5 669 40.0 37.0 15.0 Drilled 5/16/67; septic tank 269 21.0 666 42.0 42.0 8.0 Drilled 8/27/65; septic tank 270 17.75 666 39.0 37.0 15.0 Drilled 5/15/67; septic tank 271 21.0 666 38.0 37.0 6.0 Drilled 11/6/65; septic tank 272 18.5 669 37.0 37.0 15.0 Drilled 6/28/66; septic tank 273 16.5 669 40.0 40.0 15.0 Drilled 8/4/67; septic tank 274 16.6 669 38.0 38.0 20.0 Drilled 6/23/63; septic tank 275 14.75 607 32.0 30.5 3.0 Drilled 9/15/64; septic tank 276 6.25 619 30.0 25.0 6.0 Drilled 3/12/69; septic tank Revision 12 2.4-166 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-6 (Continued) Approximate Well Static Location Depth to Water Well Casing _Number_ Static Water _Elevation_ Depth Depth_ Yield (gpm) _____Remarks______ 277 10.5 609 30.0 29.0 8.0 Drilled 5/21/64; septic tank 278 2.0 618 24.0 24.0 8.0 Drilled 1/26/71; septic tank 279 2.0 618 24.0 24.0 8.0 Drilled 1/26/71; septic tank 280 4.0 621 26.0 25.5 10.0 Drilled 1/17/71; septic tank 281 2.0 623 22.0 21.0 8.0 Drilled 4/30/59; septic tank 282 5.0 618 - - - Measured on 7/28/72 283 4.6 616 - - - Measured on 6/7/72 284 3.3 616 - - - Measured on 7/28/72 285 3.3 620 - - - Measured on 7/28/72 286 4.1 622 - - - Measured on 7/28/72 Revision 12 2.4-167 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-7 ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES Stream, Boring 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-5 50 Yds N. Depth, ft 10-18 10 26-30 7-14 Date 4-11-72 4-21-72 4-3-72 4-7-72 4-24-72 Lab Designation 1 4 2 3 5 pH 8.1 7.6 7.9 7.7 8.0 Conductivity Micro Mhos/CM 24C 465 540 740 470 370 Total Dissolved Solids, mg/L 103-105C 370 460 610 340 290(1) Turbidity 5 Alkalinity, mg/L as CaCO3 229 92 271 207 81
Chloride, mg/L as Cl 21 48 49 35 35
Sulfate, mg/L as SO4 57 106 186 42 93 NOTE:
(1) Total Solids Revision 12 2.4-168 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-8 SAMPLES FROM DW NO. 1 DURING PUMPING TEST ANALYSIS(1) 2-5-75 2-6-75 2-6-75 3:00 PM 10:30 PM 1:15 PM Sample No. 1 2 3 Color, Pt - Co Units, Diss 0 0 0 Color Light green- Light gray Light gray brown Odor None None None Conductivity, micromhos per cm2, 25C 1,680 1,590 1,635 Total Coli per 100 ml <2 <2 <2 Fecal Coli per 100 ml <2 <2 <2 BOD, 5 day 4.0 1.4 0.9 Aluminum, Diss 0.0 0.1 0.0 Alkalinity, MeOr, Diss 171 174 171 Ammonia, N, Diss 0.9 0.7 0.9 Arsenic, Diss 0.004 0.004 0.004 Barium, Diss 0.1 0.1 0.1 Boron, Diss 0.23 0.18 0.18 Cadmium, Diss <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Calcium, Diss 87 92 83 Chloride, Diss 399 390 388 Chromium, Diss <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NOTE: (1) In units of mg/l. Revision 12 2.4-169 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-8 (Continued) 2-5-75 2-6-75 2-6-75 3:00 PM 10:30 PM 1:15 PM Sample No. 1 2 3____ COD, Total 24 33 13 Copper, Diss <0.01 <0.03 <0.02 Fluoride, Diss 0.47 0.37 0.43 Hardness, as CaCO3, Diss 253 259 250 Iron, Diss 0.05 0.10 0.03 Lead, Diss <0.05 0.05 <0.05 Magnesium, Diss 20 21 20 Manganese, Diss 0.07 0.09 0.08 Mercury, Total <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 Nitrate, N, Diss 0.8 0.6 0.9 Oil and Grease, Total 22 31 32 Dissolved Oxygen 6.3 9.1 10.3 pH, pH units 7.6 7.7 7.8 Phosphorus, P, Diss <.01 <.01 <.01 Potassium, Diss 4.5 4.4 4.9 Selenium, Diss 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 Silica, Diss 7.5 9.4 9.8 Silver, Diss 0.07 0.06 0.06 Sodium, Diss 226 226 200 Sulfate, Diss 86 88 88 Revision 12 2.4-170 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-8 (Continued) 2-5-75 2-6-75 2-6-75 3:00 PM 10:30 PM 1:15 PM Sample No. 1 2 3 Solids, Diss, 103C 1,016 965 971 Solids, Diss, 180C 990 923 928 Solids, Susp. 356 175 46 Zinc, Diss 0.5 0.8 0.8 Revision 12 2.4-171 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-9 POTENTIALLY FLOODING VOLUME (UNIT 1) Source (Gallons) Cooling tower basin 3,269,241 (Elev. 623-9 HWL) Cooling tower distribution system and fill 370,331 Circulating water pumphouse forebay and 1,137,707 forebay flume (Elev. 623-9 HWL) Condenser tubes, water boxes, and crossover piping 364,961 Circulating water piping including auxiliary condenser 1,178,012 Service water inflow ___84,000 Total Flooding Volume Within the Circulating Water System Unit 1 6,404,252 Revision 13 2.4-172 December, 2003 TABLE 2.4-10 FREE STORAGE VOLUMES (UNIT 1) With Mat Fracture Without Mat to Elev. 590 Elev. 599 Buildings (Gallons) (Gallons) Turbine Building 2,208,400 3,884,199 Condensate demineralizer area 1,867,600 2,422,325 Heater Bay 1,195,500 1,732,754 Total Building Volume 5,271,500 8,039,278 Underdrain System From Elev. 568 to Elev. 590 Porous concrete blanket 157,100 Manholes and pipes 159,500 Class A fill beneath buildings 41,100 Class A fill along buildings 1,139,300 Total Underdrain Per Unit 1,497,000 Total Free Storage Volume to Elevation 590-0 Per Unit 6,768,500 Revision 12 2.4-173 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-11 WATER QUALITY DATA(1) Sample No. 1 2 3 Color, Pt - Co Units, Diss 0 0 0 Color Lt. Gray- Lt. Gray Lt. Gray Brown Odor None None None Total Coli per 100 ml <2 <2 <2 Fecal Coli per 100 ml <2 <2 <2 BOD, 5 day 4.0 1.4 0.9 COD, Total 24 33 13 Dissolved Oxygen 6.3 9.1 10.3 pH, pH Units 7.6 7.7 7.8 NOTE: (1) Coliform organisms are facultative anaerobes; i.e., they can grow either in the presence or absence of oxygen. Revision 12 2.4-174 January, 2003 TABLE 2.4-12 MAJOR ONSITE STORAGE FACILITIES Surface Storage Capacity Amount ___Facility____ (gallons each) Comments 1 Condensate storage 500,000 Tank is located tank inside a Category I retaining basin sized to hold the maximum capacity of the tank. 2 Demineralized water 100,000 Tanks are 125 feet storage tanks & 400,000 from the nearest building. Any spill is directed away from the building by the site grading. 2 Industrial waste 2,200,000 Any spill would be lagoons directed to Lake Erie either through the plant surface drainage system or by overland flow. 1 Chemical cleaning 1,000,000 Any spill would be lagoon directed away from the plant and toward the minor stream diversion east of the plant. 1 Fire protection 300,000 A spill would flow storage tank to Lake Erie either through the surface drainage system or by overland flow. Revision 19 2.4-175 October, 2015 TABLE 2.4-13 POROUS CONCRETE PERMEABILITY TEST DATA (ft/min) (Days) Cylinder No. 1 Cylinder No. 2 Cylinder No. 3 Average 3 4.00 3.56 4.33 3.96 7 4.14 3.69 1.15 2.99 14 4.64 3.60 4.30 4.18 14 4.56 5.14 4.14 4.61 21 2.81 3.54 2.56 2.97 28 3.93 4.47 4.38 4.26 28 4.74 4.22 - 4.48 28 4.11 3.77 5.01 4.30 Revision 12 2.4-176 January, 2003
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML21361A222&oldid=3421820"