L-2010-212, Turkey Point, Units 3 & 4, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report - Unit 4 Cycle 24 Update, Chapter 2, Site and Environment
| ML102870334 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/21/2010 |
| From: | Florida Power & Light Co |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| L-2010-212 | |
| Download: ML102870334 (367) | |
Text
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
2 SITE AND ENVIRONMENT
2.1 Summary
2.1-1
2.1.1 Design
Criteria Performance Standards
2.2 Location
2.2-1
2.3 Topography
2.3-1
2.4 Population
Distribution 2.4-1
2.4.1 Population
Within 10 Miles 2.4-1 Cities, Towns and Settlements 2.4-1 Population by Annular Sectors 2.4-2 Population by Annuli 2.4-2 Population by Sectors 2.4-3 Projected Future Population 2.4-3
2.4.2 Population
Within 50 Miles 2.4-4 Cities, Towns and Settlements 2.4-4 Population by Annular Sectors 2.4-4
Population by Annuli 2.4-5 Population by Sectors 2.4-5 Projected Future Population 2.4-52.4.3 Transient Population for Years 1990 and 1995 2.4-6 Tourists and Seasonal Visitors 2.4-6 Major Attractions and Events 2.4-7 Population at Major Industrial Facilities 2.4-8 Population at Major Colleges 2.4-8 2.4.4 Low Population Zone 2.4-8 2.4.5 Population Center 2.4-9 2.4.6 Population Density 2.4-9 2.4.7 Methodology for Estimating the 1990/1995 Resident Population 2.4-9
2-i Rev. 16 10/99
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Title Page
2.4.8 Methodology
for Estimating the 1990/1995 Transient Population 2.4-11 Overnight Population 2.4-11 Transient Population at Recreational Attractions and Events 2.4-12 Transient Population at Major Employment 2.4-12 Facilities Transient Population at Major Colleges 2.4-13
2.4.9 Population
Projections for Years 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2013 2.4-13 Methodology for Projecting the Population 2.4-13 2.4.10 References 2.4-15
2.5 Land Use 2.5-1
2.5.1 Regional
Land Use 2.5-1 Dade County 2.5-1 Broward County 2.5-7 Monroe County 2.5-9
2.5.2 Local
Land Use 2.5-10
2.6 Meteorology
2.6-1
2.6.1 General
Climatology 2.6-1
2.6.2 Surface
Winds 2.6-2 Wind Roses 2.6-2 Wind Direction Persistence Frequencies 2.6-3 Wind Speed and Direction Frequencies 2.6-4 2.6.3 Rainfall 2.6-4 2.6.4 Atmospheric Parameters Aloft 2.6-5 Low Level Lapse Rates of Temperature 2.6-5 General 2.6-5 Temperature Inversions 2.6-6 Wind Shear 2.6-7 2.6.5 On-Site Meteorological Program 2.6-8
2-ii Rev. 16 10/99
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Title Page
2.6.6 Severe
Weather 2.6-8 Hurricanes 2.6-8 Hurricane Rainfall 2.6-9 Hurricane Tides 2.6-9 Hurricane Winds 2.6-11 Hurricane Wave Run Up Protection 2.6-13 Tornadoes and Lightning 2.6-13 Tornadoes, Waterspouts and Hail 2.6-14
2.7 Hydrology
(Surface Water) 2.7-1
2.7.1 Introduction
2.7-1 2.7.2 Area 2.7-1 2.7.3 Site 2.7-2 2.7.4 Site Flooding 2.7-2
2.7.5 Flood
Control 2.7-3
2.7.6 Summary
2.7-4
2.8 Oceanography
2.8-1
2.9 Geology
2.9-1
2.9.1 Introduction
2.9-1 2.9.2 Regional Geology 2.9-1 2.9.3 Local Geology 2.9-3 2.9.4 Subsurface Investigation for the Unit 4 EDG Building 2.9.4.1 Properties of Subsurface Materials 2.9-6 Exploration 2.9-7 Limerock Fill Material 2.9-7 Rock Cores (Miami Oolite) 2.9-7 2.9.4.2 Geophysical Surveys 2.9-8 2.9.4.3 Excavations and Backfill 2.9-8 2.9.4.4 Response of Soil and Rock to Dynamic
Loading 2.9-8 2.9.4.5 Liquefaction Potential 2.9-9
2-iii Rev. 10 7/92
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Title Page
2.9.4.6 Earthquake Design Basis 2.9-10 2.9.4.7 Static Stability 2.9-10 Bearing Capacity 2.9-10 Settlement 2.9-11 2.9.4.8 Design Criteria 2.9-11 2.9.4.9 Techniques to Improve Subsurface Conditions 2.9-12
2.9.5 References
2.9-13
2.10 Ground Water 2.10-1 2.10.1 Introduction 2.10-1 2.10.2 Regional 2.10-1 2.10.3 Local 2.10-4
2.11 Seismology 2.11-1 2.11.1 Introduction 2.11-1 2.11.2 Earthquakes 2.11-1
2.12 Environmental Monitoring 2.12-1 2.12.1 General 2.12-1 2.12.2 Air Environment 2.12-2 2.12.3 Water Environment 2.12-3 2.12.4 Land Environment 2.12-5 2.13 Exclusion Zone-Low Population Zone 2.13-1 2.13.1 Exclusion Zone 2.13-1 2.13.2 Low Population Zone 2.13-1
2-iv Rev. 10 7/92 APPENDICES
Appendix 2A Micrometeorological Analysis
Appendix 2B Maximum Probable Hurricane Parameters
Appendix 2C Oceanography
Appendix 2D Meteorological Data
2-v Rev. 10 7/92 LIST OF TABLES
Table Title
2.4-1 Resident Population Within 10 Miles of Turkey Point Plant
2.4-2 [DELETED]
2.4-3 1990 Resident Population Within 50 Miles of Turkey Point Plant
2.4-4 1995 Projected Resident Population Within 50 Miles of Turkey Point Plant
2.4-5 1990 Peak Seasonal and Daily Visitors Within 10 Miles of Turkey Point Plant
2.4-6 1995 Projected Peak Seasonal and Daily Visitors Within 10 Miles of Turkey Point Plant
2.4-7 Visitors to Recreational Facilities Within 10 Miles of Turkey Point Plant
2.4-8 Visitors to Major Special Events Within 10 Miles of Turkey Point Plant
2.4-9 Major Employment Facilities Within 10 Miles of Turkey Point Plant
2.4-10 [DELETED]
2.4-11 Cumulative Population Density by Annular Sector Within 10 Miles of Turkey Point Plant
2.4-12 Cumulative Population Density by Annular Sector Within 50 Miles of Turkey Point Plant
2.4-13 2000 Resident Population Within 50 Miles of Turkey Point Plant
2.4-14 2005 Resident Population Within 50 Miles of Turkey Point Plant
2.4-15 2010 Resident Population Within 50 Miles of Turkey Point Plant
2.4-16 2013 Resident Population Within 50 Miles of Turkey Point Plant
2.5-1 Nonagricultural Employment, Dade County, Florida 1967 Annual Average
2.5-2 Manufacturing Firms by Industrial Group, Dade County, Florida 1954-1966
2.5-3 Land Use Summary, Dade County, Florida 1960
2-vi Rev. 16 10/99 LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Title
2.5-4 Land Use Summary, Area Subject to Development Dade County, Florida, 1960
2.5-5 Nonagricultural Employment, Broward County, Florida 1967 Annual
Average
2.5-6 Nonagricultural Employment, Monroe County, Florida March 1967
2.6-1 Climatological Data
2.6-2 Cumulative Per Cent Frequency of Inversions
2.6-3 Mean Temperature Lapse Rate Within Inversions
2.6-4 Mean Increase in Surface Temperature to Produce An Adiabatic Lapse Rate
2.6-5 Mean Surface to 1000 MB Wind Speed Shear During Inversions
2-vii Rev. 15 4/98
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title
2.2-1 General Location Map
2.2-2 Aerial Photo of Site
2.2-3 General Site Features
2.2-4 Site Area Map l
2.4-1 1997 Resident Population Within 10 Miles of Turkey Point Plant
2.4-2 [Deleted]
2.4-3 1990 Resident Population Within 50 Miles of Turkey Point Plant
2.4-4 1995 Projected Resident Population Within 50 Miles of Turkey Point Plant
2.4-5 1990 Peak Seasonal and Daily Visitors Within 10 Miles of Turkey Point Plant
2.4-6 1995 Projected Peak Seasonal and Daily Visitors Within 10 Miles of Turkey Point Plant
2.5-1 Existing Generalized Land Use Pattern
2.5-2 Generalized Land Use Pattern Projected to 1985
2.6-1 Wind Direction Roses - Rain or Sunshine, Homestead AFB
2.6-2 Wind Direction Roses - Rain or Sunshine, Miami Airport
2.6-3 Wind Direction Roses - During Rain, Homestead AFB
2.6-4 Wind Direction Roses - During Rain, Miami Airport
2.6-5 Frequency of Wind Direction Persistence by Direction, Homestead AFB
2.6-6 Frequency of Wind Direction Persistence by Direction, Miami Airport
2.6-7 Frequency of Wind Speeds by Direction, Homestead AFB
2.6-8 Frequency of Wind Speeds by Direction, Miami Airport
2.6-9 Mean Annual Rainfall
2.6-10 Temperature Lapse, Surface - 950 MB, Miami Airport 7AM
2.6-11 Temperature Lapse, Surface - 950 MB, Miami Airport 7PM
2-viii Rev. 17 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Title
2.6-12 Tropical Storm Paths, 1886 - 1964
2.6-13 Yearly Extreme Water Levels, Biscayne Bay, Near Homestead, Florida
2.12-1 Preoperational Radiological Surveillance Program
2c-1 Cooling Canal System Layout
2-ix Rev. 16 10/99 2.1
SUMMARY
Data are presented in this section which provide a basis for the selection of
design criteria for hurricane, tornado, flood and earthquake protection, and
to state the adequacy of concepts for controlling routine and accidental
release of radioactive liquids and gases to the environment. Field programs
to investigate geology, seismology, hydrology, have been completed. A
meteorological field program was in effect until mid 1970. A modified
program will continue throughout the nuclear unit operation. Additional
information on site characteristics and meteorology is provided in licensing
correspondence concerning Turkey Point Units 3 & 4 compliance with 10 CFR
Part 50 Appendix I.
(1) (2)
The site is on the shore of Biscayne Bay, about 25 miles south of Miami,
Florida. The area immediately surrounding the site is low and swampy, very
sparsely populated and unsuited for construction without raising the
elevation with fill. The nearest farming area lies in the northwest quarter
of a five
mile arc from the site.
The immediate area surrounding the nuclear units is flat and rises very
gently from sea level at the shoreline of Biscayne Bay to an elevation of
about 10 ft. above Mean Sea Level (MSL) at a point some 8 to 10 miles west of
the site. To the east, 5 to 8 miles across Biscayne Bay, is a series of
offshore islands running in a northeast-southwest direction between the Bay
and the Atlantic Ocean, the largest of which is Elliott Key. These islands
are undeveloped with the exception of a few part time residents scattered
throughout the Keys. A Dade County public park is located eight tenths of a
mile north of the northern containment (Unit 3) and is occupied on a day time
transient basis.
(1) Letter L-76-212, "Appendix I Evaluation", dated June 4, 1976 from R.E.
Uhrig of Florida Power and Light to D. R. Muller of the USNRC.
(2) Letter L-76-358, "Appendix I Additional Information", dated October
14, 1976 from R. E. Uhrig of Florida Power and Light to G. Lear of
USNRC Branch No. 3.
2.1-1 Rev. 16 10/99 Air movement at the site prevails almost 100 per cent of the time.
Prevailing winds are out of the southeast. The atmosphere in the area is
generally unstable with diurnal inversions occurring fairly frequently.
Inversions are almost invariably accompanied by continually shifting wind
directions most of which are from the off-shore quadrants.
The Miami area has experienced winds of hurricane force periodically, and the
plant may be subjected to flood tides of varying heights. External flood
protection is described in Appendix 5G.
Circulating water and intake cooling water discharged from Units 1, 2, 3 and
4 flows to a closed cooling system as described in Section 2.3.3 of the
Environmental Report Supplement submitted to the AEC on November 8, 1971, with interim flow to Biscayne Bay and Card Sound, in accordance with the
Final Judgement, Civil Action No. 70-328-CA in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida of September 10, 1971 (Appendix 6 in the
Environmental Report Supplement).
The normal direction of natural drainage of surface and ground water in the
area of the site is to the east and south toward Biscayne Bay and will not
affect off-site wells. The Pre-Operational Surveillance Plan, which is a
radiological background study of the Turkey Point area, was initiated prior
to initial startup of Unit 3. Samples of air, soil, water, marine life, vegetation, etc. in the area were collected and studied.
The site has underlying limestone bedrock on which has been placed compacted
limestone rock fill to elevation + 18 MLW. The major structures have been
founded on this fill. The bedrock beneath is competent with respect to
2.1-2 Rev 8 7/90
foundation conditions for the nuclear units. The area is in a seismologically quiet region, as all of Florida is classified Zone 0 (the
zone of least probability of damage) by the Uniform Building Code, published
by International Conference of Building Officials. Despite the lack of any
substantiating earthquake history, the units have been designed for an
earthquake of .05g and all safety features have been checked to determine
that no loss of function will occur in case of an earthquake of .15g
horizontal ground acceleration.
The following specialists in environmental sciences have participated in
developing site information:
First Research Corporation of Miami, Fla. Population and Land Use
(Sections 2.4 and 2.5)
Professor Homer W. Hiser Climatology
Mr. Harold P. Gerrish Section 2.6
Professor Harry V. Senn
All from Radar Meteorological Laboratory,
University of Miami, Institute of
Marine Science
Mr. Richard O. Eaton, P.E., Hydraulic Engineer Hurricane Flooding and
Mr. Theodore E. Haeussner, Hydraulic Engineer Wave Run Up
U. S. Corps of Engineers Section 2.6 and Appendix 2B
Mr. J. W. Johnson, University of California
Mr. Lester A. Cohen Meteorology, On Site and
Mr. John A. Frizzola Diffusion
Meteorologists, Brookhaven National Section 2.6 and Appendix 2A
Laboratory
Dames & Moore, Atlanta, Georgia Hydrology, Geology, Professor John A. Stevens, Associate Professor Seismology and Foundations
Civil Engineering, University of Miami Sections 2.7, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11
Dr. William S. Richardson, Associate Professor Hydrology, Biscayne Bay
of Oceanography, University of Miami and Oceanography
Institute of Marine Science Sections 2.7, 2.8 and
Dr. Donald W. Pritchard and Appendix 2C
Dr. James Carpenter, both of
Johns Hopkins University,
Chesapeake Bay Institute
Dr. Robert Dean
University of Florida
Marine Acoustical Services,
Oceanographers of Miami
Dr. George W. Housner, Consultant Earthquakes
California Institute of Technology Section 2.11
2.1-3
Dr. James B. Lackey, Professor Emeritus, Ecology:
University of Florida Plankton
Dr. Charles B. Wurtz, LaSalle College Invertebrates
Dr. Joseph Davis, University of Florida Marine botany
Dr. Edwin S. Iverson Vegetation (bay)
Dr. C. P. Idyll Fish & food chain
Dr. Durbin Tabb
Dr. E. J. Ferguson Wood
Mr. Richard Nugent
All of the University of Miami, Institute of Marine Science
Dr. Roger Yorton, University of Florida Chemistry, Bay Water
Bechtel Associates, Gaithersburg, Md. General
Bechtel Corporation, Various U.S. offices
Southern Nuclear Engineering, Inc.
Dunedin, Florida; Washington, D.C.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Atomic Power Division, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Ebasco Services Incorporated, New York, NY Subsurface Conditions Section 2.9.4
2.1.1 DESIGN
CRITERIA
Performance Standards
Criterion: Those systems and components of reactor facilities which are essential to the prevention or to the mitigation of the consequences of nuclear accidents which could cause undue risk
to the health and safety of the public shall be designed, fabricated, and erected to performance standards that will
enable such systems and components to withstand, without undue
risk to the health and safety of the public the forces that
might reasonably, be imposed by the occurrence of an
extraordinary natural phenomenon such as earthquake, tornado, flooding condition, high wind or heavy ice. The design bases so
established shall reflect: (a) appropriate consideration of the
most severe of these natural phenomena that have been officially
recorded for the site and the surrounding area and (b) an
appropriate margin for withstanding forces greater than those
recorded to reflect uncertainties about the historical data and
their suitability as a basis for design. (GDC 2)
The forces that might be imposed by postulated extraordinary natural phenomenon such as earthquakes, storms and flooding have been analyzed and
used in the design as discussed in detail in Section 5.
2.1-4 Rev. 10 7/92
2.2 LOCATION
The site lies on the west shore of Biscayne Bay, in Sections 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34, Township 57 South, Range 40 East, Dade County, Florida, at
latitude 25 o-26'-04" North and longitude 80 o-19'-52" West. This location is approximately 25 miles south of Miami, eight miles east of Florida City, and
nine miles southeast of Homestead, Florida. Its location is shown on Figures
2.2-1, and 2.2-2 with the site plan shown on Figure 2.2-3.
The site comprises 3300 acres, more or less, owned by Florida Power & Light
Company. The only access road is completely controlled by Florida Power &
Light Company. The site has been developed to accommodate both nuclear and
fossil-fired units.
2.2-1 Rev. 16 10/99
\'J\ ')
- e J ---,
c: *,,"'T ',' ,> ;>\ 0', \ 1 1,)--/ " ,---,. / \.: / ):: / \. ! , I ! I \ -! \. ) '--------j G U[;-f:, I \ I OF! ( / I t 1 I i \ \ MEXI1 G) tIj Z tIj r-' r-' o H> G)H
- H \ --\ r ) .. -l-----------.... c<--//' <. 'J \ o NZ ..... '"d STRAITS " . e
- t /'/1 i ( '. -.. J-.---[l ** ' I .-. b-' = / "---
-..J ---(5
// OF -J ... -) I ii ./ . -..... '.i. .. -":=-:"-":--...,..;.
... ,,:.. J :. ,-:) 5 c*: FLORIDA
- *
- FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.2-3
REFER TO ENGINEERING DRAWING 5610-C-2
REV. 16 (10/99)
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT PLANT UNITS 3 & 4 GENERAL SITE FEATURES FIGURE 2.2-3
LDW POPULATION ZONE BOUNDARY (5 WILE RADIUS) .tIQill 1. WETEOROLOGICAI.
TOWER LOCATIONS.
A. 10 WETER TOWER B. 110 WETER TOWER BISCAYNE BAY SEE FIG 2.2-3 7 -tt--+---t----t----flr---r=EJ I ,. I I NOTE 1A I III II II I II , /, I, " II II II II II I I /-:.
L. __ \ "..::".. / / NOTE 1 B BOUNDARY , 'I I: ... ", CONTROLLE::::.D
+_---i 09/09/2002 IN f[ET FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR UNITS 3 & 4 SITE AREA MAP FIGURE 2.2-4 FTMOO27O.DWG
2.3 TOPOGRAPHY
The surface of the land in the Turkey Point area is flat and slopes very gently from an elevation of sea level at the shoreline up to an elevation of
about 10 ft at a point some eight to nine miles inland.
The entire Dade County, Florida area is quite flat with the highest level on a ridge in the Miami area which parallels the shoreline. This ridge reaches an
elevation of about 20 ft at its high point.
The land in and around the site comprises mangrove swamps from along the shoreline, extending inland three to four miles. Open fields extend westward
from the edge of the swamp.
2.3-1
2.4 POPULATION
DISTRIBUTION This section presents updated population estimates for the area surrounding
the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant. The population estimates for the 10
mile area surrounding the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant is based on
information from the state of Florida Radiological Emergency Management Plan
and is based on 1997 data. The 1990 population estimates for the 50 mile
area surrounding the Turkey Point nuclear units is based on 1990 US Census
figures. The 1995 population estimates are based on population changes from
the 1980 Census and 1985 Dade County Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) data, and
projections to 1995.
2.4.1 POPULATION
WITHIN 10 MILES
In 1997 the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant, located in Dade County, Florida, has an estimated 139,833 people who reside within 10 miles of the
plant. Figure 2.4-1 and Table 2.4-1 show the sector distribution of the
resident population within 10 miles. All of the resident population within
10 miles of Turkey Point live between 5 and 10 miles.
(1,3)
Cities, Towns and Settlements
Most of the area within 10 miles of the plant is in Dade County. A small
portion of the 10-mile area, south and southeast of the plant, is in Monroe
County. The largest population center within 10 miles is the city of
Homestead in Dade County. The city of Homestead lies west, west-northwest
and northwest of the plant. Most of its area is located between 5 and 10
miles of the plant, except for a small portion which extends beyond 10 miles
from the plant.
2.4-1 Rev. 16 10/99 Florida City lies immediately south of Homestead. Approximately 90% of Florida City's land area is within 10 miles of the plant.
2.4-1a Rev. 16 10/99 The remainder of Turkey Point's 10-mile area is unincorporated. Most of the area south and southwest of the plant consists primarily of marshland and
glades, and contains no resident population. The area west and northwest
within 5 miles of Turkey Point consists mainly of agricultural land.
Homestead Bayfront Park and the Biscayne National Park Headquarters are
located approximately two miles north-northwest of the plant. There are no
permanent residents within 5 miles of the plant. Northwest of the plant
between 5 and 10 miles is the Homestead Air Reserve Base. Most of the Base
is located in sector NW 5-10.
All of the residential development within 10 miles has occurred in sectors W
5-10 through N 5-10. The population in these sectors is concentrated on
either side of US Highway 1, from Homestead/Florida City to the southern
Miami suburbs.
That portion of Monroe County within Turkey Point's 10-mile radius includes
the northern tip of Key Largo. Virtually all of the residents in this area
can be found at the Ocean Reef Club. The Ocean Reef Club is a
privately-owned community, used both as year-round and seasonal residences.
The distinction between a year-round and seasonal residence is not clear, since many people may reside at the Club for six months out of the year.
About 5,500 residents at the Club were estimated to be located within 10
miles of the plant.
Population by Annular Sectors
The most heavily populated annular sector within 10 miles of Turkey Point is
sector WNW 5-10, with an estimated 44,013 residents. This annular sector
includes the majority of Homestead's population, as well as a densely
developed area off U.S. Highway 1 on the outskirts of Homestead, known as
Leisure City.
Population by Annuli
The annuli within 5 miles of the plant contain very few residents. All of
the
2.4-2 Rev. 16 10/99
resident population is situated in the 5- to 10-mile annulus, with a total population of 139,833.
Population by Sectors
Of the six sectors which have resident population, sector WNW has the highest
population, with 44,013 people. The second highest is sector NW, with a
total of 25,346 residents. This sector includes most of the residential
developments at Homestead Air Reserve Base and dense developments off U.S.
Highway 1, primarily along the southeast side of the highway.
Projected Future Population The population within 10 miles of the Turkey Point plant is projected to
increase by a little more than 4% over the next 5 years.
Growth in the vicinity of Homestead is expected to increase at a slightly
faster rate than the 10-mile area as a whole. These projections are based on
1980 Census, 1985 TAZ, and 1990 Census figures.
(1,12,13,19)
There are several new and expanding residential developments in the 10-mile
area which may account for a portion of the area's moderate growth in the
past and its projected growth in the future. The largest new development
identified during a 1988 field study was Keys Gate at the Villages of
Homestead, where 6,200 units are planned over a 12-year period.
(33) This residential development is located in sector WNW 5-10. Sector NNW 5-10
includes the Cutler Landings and Hartford Square developments with a combined
total of approximately 1,600 units. Another new development in sector N 5-10
is Lakes by the Bay, off of Old Cutler Road.
(41) Sectors S, SSW, SW, and WSW out to 10 miles are not projected to be developed. This area includes
primarily swamp land.
2.4-3 Rev. 16 10/99
2.4.2 POPULATION
WITHIN 50 MILES
The 1990 Census information estimated that approximately 2,613,535 people
reside within 50 miles of the plant.
(1) Figure 2.4-3 and Table 2.4-3 show the sector distribution of the resident population within 50 miles, in rose and
tabular form, respectively.
Cities, Towns and Settlements
Four counties fall within 50 miles of the plant: Dade, Monroe, Broward and
Collier. Dade County is entirely within the 50-mile boundary. A large
majority of Monroe and Broward Counties also lie within the area, while only
a small portion of Collier County falls in the 50-mile area. The largest
population center within 50 miles of the plant is the City of Miami in Dade
County. It extends out over the northern, northwestern, and northeastern
sectors. The 1990 resident population in the City of Miami was 358,548.
(1) The city experienced a population growth of about 3% over its 1980 population
of 346,865.
(13) A more substantial growth occurred in the area of Key Largo, in Monroe County, located in the southern and southwestern sectors. The
population of Key Largo in 1990 was estimated at 11,336.
(1) This is a 52%
growth over the 1980 population of 7,447.
(13) The largest city in Broward County, with a population of 143,444 (1) in 1990, located within 50 miles of the plant is Fort Lauderdale. The population in this city experienced a 6%
decrease over the 1980 population of 153,279 based on Census information.
(13) Collier County contains no population within 50 miles of the plant.
Most of the area west and southwest of the plant between 10 and 50 miles
consists primarily of marshland and glades, and contains little population.
The eastern, southeastern, and northeastern sectors consist primarily of
Atlantic Ocean. Aside from boaters and park visitors, there is no resident
population in these sectors.
Population by Annular Sectors
The most heavily populated annular sector within 50 miles of Turkey Point is
sector N 20-30, with an estimated 430,335 residents in 1990. This annular
sector includes the majority of Miami's population, and Miami Beach.
2.4-4 Rev. 16 10/99 Population by Annuli The 20- to 30-mile annulus contains the largest population, with 902,461
residents. The second highest annulus with a population of 707,175 is from
30 to 40 miles. Again, this is due primarily to the intensive development
north of the plant in the area of Miami and its suburbs.
Population by Sectors
Of the 11 sectors which have resident population, sector N has the highest
population, with 1,330,570. The second highest is sector NNE, with a total
of 972,816 residents. These sectors contain all of Miami's residents.
Projected Future Population The population between 10 and 50 miles of the Turkey Point plant is projected
to increase by approximately 11% over the next five years. The Census
population from 1980 and 1990 as well as the percent growth rate for the four
counties located within 50 miles is presented below.
County 1980 Census Data 1990 Census Data % Growth (10 Years)
Broward 1,018,257 1,255,488 +23.3 Collier 85,971 152,099 +76.92 Dade 1,625,724 1,937,094 +19.15 Monroe 63,188 78,024 +23.48 TOTAL 2,793,140 3,422,705 + 22 Average
Collier County does not contribute any population in the 50 mile area and, therefore, its growth rate does not affect these projections.
2.4-5 Rev. 16 10/99
2.4.3 TRANSIENT
POPULATION FOR YEARS 1990 AND 1995
The transient population includes both seasonal visitors staying at overnight
accommodations and daily transients. Daily visitors may include persons
attending special events and visiting local attractions. Persons attending
colleges and major employment facilities constitute daily transients as well.
However, many of the daily visitors are also residents in the area, and it is
difficult to determine how many of these visitors are also residents.
The population figures presented in this report are based on the estimates
from known events in the EPZ. The estimated peak 1990 number of transients
expected within 10 miles of Turkey Point was about 21,019. This is presented
in Figure 2.4-5 and Table 2.4-5, in rose and tabular form, respectively. The
resultant 1995 transient population within 10 miles is presented in Figure
2.4-6 and Table 2.4-6. The transient population in the 50-mile area was not
determined in this study. The transient population components are listed
below.
Tourists and Seasonal Visitors
The Turkey Point 10-mile area does not experience a significant influx of
transient visitors during the winter months. The area does not particularly
cater to tourists, since the lack of usable shoreline (i.e., sandy beaches)
has prevented the development of major resort facilities. The largest influx
of seasonal residents can be found at the Ocean Reef Club in Key Largo. The
Ocean Reef Club is a private resort located on the northern tip of Key Largo
in Monroe County. It is in annular sector SSE 5-10. The resort has about
1,200 single-family, multi-family, and tourist accommodations.
(12,23) In 1988, the Ocean Reef Club was the only resort within 10 miles of Turkey Point.
2.4-6 Rev. 16 10/99 There are a number of hotel/motel accommodations within 10 miles of Turkey
Point in Dade County, most of these being in the Homestead/Florida City area.
There are also several campgrounds in the area for visitors using
recreational vehicles. The number of seasonal visitors staying at private
residences in the 10-mile area was estimated based on the percentage of
seasonal units as published in the 1980 U.S. Census of Housing.
(14) Since the nature of the area
2.4-6a Rev. 11 11/93
has not changed significantly in the past few years, this approach was deemed to be appropriate for the Turkey Point area. The total number of overnight
tourist and seasonal visitors within 10 miles of the plant was estimated to
be 7,396 in 1990. In 1995, the number of seasonal visitors was projected to
increase to 8,129. Many of the residents at the Club are accounted for as
permanent residents and are included in Section 2.4.1. The remaining were
considered to be seasonal residents.
Major Attractions and Events
The Homestead Bayfront Park and Biscayne National Park are the two major
recreational parks in the Turkey Point 10-mile area. Both parks, located
adjacent to one another are in annular sectors N 1-2 and NNW 1-2. Homestead
Bayfront Park is a large recreational park south of the North Canal on
Biscayne Bay which also includes a marina. Over 6,000 visitors may attend
this park during one week.
(37) On the northern side of the Canal is the Biscayne National Park Headquarters. Biscayne National Park includes much of
the shoreline from Turkey Point north to Key Biscayne, Biscayne Bay and a
number of outer islands. Elliot Key, one of the park's islands, includes a
recreational area with a visitor center and camping facilities. In 1987, almost 608,000 visitors attended Biscayne National Park.
(36) The Homestead MotorSports Complex, located approximately 5.1 miles west of the plant, currently plans to host at least five major events each year, in addition to
several dozen smaller events throughout the year. The complex has a maximum
capacity of 65,000 people. Table 2.4-7 shows the estimated 1990 and 1995
population associated with the recreational facilities identified within 10
miles of Turkey Point. A ballpark is located approximately 8 miles west of
the plant.
The population associated with major special events is listed in Table 2.4-8.
The largest events are those associated with the Homestead MotorSports
Complex during major events each year. These events attract about 65,000
visitors. In addition, Homestead Frontier Days attracts about 50,000 visitors
during two weeks in January and February. During the two weeks, a number of
special attractions are open to the public including the Homestead Rodeo, BMX
National Bicycle Race and the Antique Car Show.
(18) These individual events
2.4-7 Rev. 16 10/99 attract thousands of visitors to the area. It is difficult to distinguish between those visitors that live inside the 10-mile radius and those that
live outside of it. For the purposes of this study, the peak one-day
attendance associated with the Homestead Rodeo has been included in the daily
transient population, assuming that 50% of the visitors live beyond the
10-mile radius.
2.4-7a Rev. 11 11/93 Population at Major Industrial Facilities Major employment facilities within 10 miles of the plant were identified in
1988 from industrial directories.
(7,8) Facilities with at least 50 employees were included in this population segment. Table 2.4-9 lists the employment
facilities identified. The Homestead Air Reserve Base was the largest
employer in the Turkey Point 10-mile area, employing about 1,900 non-military
personnel in 1988.
(20) This number was substantially reduced following Hurricane Andrew in 1992. It is reasonable to assume that many of the
employees within 10 miles are probably also residents of the area. For this
reason, it was assumed that about half of the employees live beyond the
plant's 10-mile radius and would therefore contribute to the transient
population segment.
Population at Major Colleges
Miami-Dade Community College has a branch within the Turkey Point 10 mile radius. The estimated student population is about 2,100 students. The Homestead Branch also employed about 70 personnel. In addition to Miami-Dade Community College, Florida International University conducts classes at the Homestead Branch. The estimated Student and staff population includes those from Florida International University. As with employees, students attending colleges in the area were included in the transient population segment assuming that 50% of them live beyond the 10-mile area.
2.4.4 LOW POPULATION ZONE
There are no residents within the Turkey Point low population zone (LPZ),
based on 1990 Census data. Homestead Bayfront Park is the closest
recreational area to the plant and is about two miles north of the plant.
About 900 visitors may be present during a peak day at the park. Immediately
north is the Biscayne National Park Headquarters in annular sectors N 1-2 and
NNW 1-2.
2.4-8 Rev. 16 10/99
2.4.5 POPULATION
CENTER
The closest population center of 25,000 residents or more, is the city of
Homestead. Homestead has a 1990 population of about 26,866.
(1) Homestead's political boundary is about five miles from the plant at its closest
point.(26) However, no resident population exists at this distance from the plant. The nearest populated area of the city of Homestead lies about 7.0
miles west of the plant.
2.4.6 POPULATION
DENSITY
The cumulative population densities within 10 miles and 50 miles of the
Turkey Point plant are presented in Tables 2.4-11 and 2.4-12, respectively.
Sector WNW has the highest cumulative population density with an average of 1,885
persons/square mile in the 10-mile area and sector N in the 50-mile area with
2,711. A large portion of the city of Homestead is located within the WNW
sector in the 10-mile area and a large portion of Miami is in the N sector.
The cumulative population densities presented in Tables 2.4-11 and 2.4-12
show that in 1990, of the six sectors within 10 miles which contain
residents, five annular sectors exceed 500 persons/square mile. Sixteen
annular sectors in the 50-mile area exceed 500 persons/square mile.
2.4.7 METHODOLOGY
FOR ESTIMATING THE 1990/1995 RESIDENT POPULATION
The methodology used to estimate the 1990 and project the 1995 resident
population within 10 miles of the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant are
outlined below:
- 1. 1990 population and 1980 population and housing information was collected from the U.S. Census Bureau, (1,12,13,14) and the State of Florida Division of Population Studies.
(3,4) In addition, the 1985 population by Traffic Analysis Zone was obtained from the Metro-Dade Transit
Agency.(19,25)
- 2. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps (2) and Census Bureau maps (1) were obtained. The site's reactor center was used as the centerpoint for
both the 10- and 50-mile area population estimates.
Computer-generated
2.4-9 Rev. 16 10/99 circles at distances of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10 miles from the plant were overlayed onto maps for the 10-mile estimate and at 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 miles for the 50-mile estimate. These computer generated
circles were also divided into 22.5 degree sectors representing the 16
cardinal compass points.
- 3. The final 1990 resident population distribution for the 10- and 50-mile areas was estimated and disaggregated to sectors based on 1990
Census tract boundaries for Dade, Monroe, Broward, and Collier
counties. The total population within each Census Tract was
disaggregated to sectors based on the estimated percentage of
population within each sector, as determined through further breakdown
of Census Blocks.
- 4. The 1995 resident population within 10 miles was projected based on the growth trends of the 10-mile area in the past 5 to 10 years. The
1985 Traffic Analysis Zone boundaries falling within each 1990 Census
Tract were examined to estimate the 1985 population within each Census
Tract. The growth rate between 1985 and 1990 was then calculated. An
average growth rate for each sector was then calculated based on the
Census Tracts included within a particular sector. The only exception
to this was a slightly different methodology used for the Western
sector, where TAZ and Census Tract boundaries could not be easily
correlated with each other. In this case, the average growth rate of
the combined populations of Homestead and Florida City, based on the
1980 and 1990 Census, was applied since these two municipalities make
up essentially all of the population within the Western sector.
The 1995 resident population for the 10- to 50-mile area was projected based on the average growth rate of the counties within 50 miles of
the plant, as determined through 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census figures. A
calculated growth rate of 11% was applied to the 1990 estimate, for
developing the 1995 projections. The same distribution used for 1990
was applied to the 1995 projections.
2.4-10 Rev. 10 7/92
2.4.8 METHODOLOGY
FOR ESTIMATING THE 1990/1995 TRANSIENT POPULATION
The transient population within 10 miles of the plant was estimated based on
the number of seasonal overnight visitors and daily visitors. Overnight
visitors include seasonal residents, and persons on vacation staying at
hotels/motels, campgrounds or with friends. Daily visitors may include those
persons attending special events, visiting major attractions, working in the
area, or attending major colleges.
In 1988, a field and telephone survey was conducted for the 10-mile area to
identify facilities and events associated with the transient population. At
that time, the transient population was also projected to 1993 based on the
overall growth rate of the 10-mile area. The 1990 transient population
presented in this report is based on the information collected in 1988. The
1990 figures were interpolated from the 1988 and 1993 estimates. The 1995
projections for the transient population were also based on the 1988 data, and extend the 1993 projections for two additional years. Each component of
the transient population is discussed in more detail below. The
methodologies described below outline the procedures carried out during the
1988 study. Where appropriate, additional explanations are provided based on
1990 data.
Overnight Population
The number of seasonal visitors staying at hotels and motels within 10 miles
of the plant was calculated based on the number of units at each facility and
the specific location of them. The total number of units was multiplied by
an average occupancy rate of 2.0 persons per room to calculate the total
population associated with these overnight accommodations. Sources used to
identify these tourist accommodations included telephone directories, (11) Chamber of Commerce publications, (21,22) and a field survey conducted in 1988.(5)
The number of seasonal visitors at the Ocean Reef Club on Key Largo was
calculated based on the estimated number of units at the Club and using an
average occupancy factor of 2.0 persons per unit. Approximately half of
these residents were counted by the 1990 U.S. Census as permanent residents.
The remaining residents were considered seasonal for the purposes of this
study.
2.4-11 Rev. 10 7/92 Since the 10-mile area within Dade County does not provide much in the way of tourist amenities, the number of visitors staying at private residences was
not considered to be significant. According to the 1980 U.S. Census of
Housing, approximately 0.5% of all housing units in the area were used by
seasonal visitors.
(14) This same percentage was applied to the 1990 resident estimates to calculate the number of seasonal visitors staying at private
residences.
Transient Population at Recreational Attractions and Events
In order to estimate the population at the two major recreational areas
within 10 miles of the plant, Biscayne National Park and Bayfront Park, personnel at each of these facilities were contacted.
(36,37) At Biscayne National Park, the yearly attendance level was divided by 365 days to
estimate a daily attendance at the park. The number of visitors at Elliot
Key was estimated based on the yearly number of persons counted at the
Visitor Center, the maximum capacity of boat tours to the island (42) and the number of campsites available. At Bayfront Park, a weekly visitor total was
divided by seven days to estimate the daily attendance at the park.
The Homestead Motor Sports Complex is located just outside the 5-mile radius of the plant. The capacity of the Homestead MotorSports Complex (HMC) is approximately 65,000 people, and is estimated to hold at least 5 sanctioned events annually.
The capacity of the Homestead Baseball Stadium is approximately 9500.
The highest average daily attendance for a single event (Rodeo) during
Homestead Frontier Days in Homestead was used to calculate the daily
transient population associated with this major recreational event. Since
many of the visitors to this yearly event may also be residents, it was
assumed that 50% of these visitors contribute to the transient population and
the other 50% are already accounted for in the resident or overnight
population.
Transient Population at Major Employment Facilities
The largest employers in the 10-mile area have been listed in Table 2.4-9, along with the number of employees at these facilities as determined during
the 1988 field study.
(7,8) It is reasonable to assume that many of these
2.4-12 Rev. 16 10/99 employees are probably also residents of the area. For this reason, it was assumed that about half of the employees live beyond the plant's 10-mile
radius and would therefore contribute to the transient population segment.
The employee population was allocated to annular sectors based on the
particular location of each facility.
2.4-12a Rev. 11 11/93 Transient Population at Major Colleges The number of students attending colleges within 10 miles of the plant was
obtained by contacting each facility.
(45,46,) Since students attending college may travel some distance, it was assumed that, as with employees, of
the students attending college in the area, 50% of them live beyond the
10-mile area, and therefore, contribute to the total transient population
estimate.
2.4.9 POPULATION
PROJECTIONS FOR YEARS 2000, 2005, 2010, AND 2013
The 1990 population for the 10- and 50-mile areas surrounding the Turkey
Point Nuclear Power Plant were estimated based on the 1990 US Census figures.
The 1995 population was generally based on the change between 1980 and 1990, and projected to 1995. For long term population estimates, the County-wide
projections for each of the counties within 50 miles of the plant were used
to estimate the population in the years 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2013. The
methodology used is described below. The results are presented in the Tables
2.4-13 through 2.4-16.
Methodology for Projecting the Population
Population projections were collected from the Dade County Planning
Commission, the Broward County Planning Council and the Monroe County
Planning Office. The projected growth rates were applied using the 1990
Census as a base, rather than the 1995 projections performed previously, since the Census data is a widely accepted standard.
In Dade County, projections were available for the years 2000, 2005 and 2010.
The County population for the year 2013 was projected from the change between
the 2005 and 2010 figures. The County population growth projections were
applied to the Dade County 1990 US Census Tracts within 50 miles of the
plant. The same distribution as 1990 and 1995 was used for the subsequent
years.
In Broward County, projections were available for the years 2000, 2005 and
2010. The change between 2005 and 2010 was used to project the County
population to the year 2013. However, the projections were developed prior
to
2.4-13 Rev. 16 10/99 the 1990 US Census and the County's previously projected population for 1990 was approximately 5% higher than the actual 1990 US Census count. The
Broward County Planning Council is currently in the process of reconciling
this discrepancy. For the purposes of this study, the projections developed
by the County prior to the Census count were reduced by 5%, based on this
difference. The resultant growth projections were applied to the Broward
County 1990 US Census Tracts within 50 miles of the plant. The same
distribution as 1990 and 1995 was used for the future projections.
In Monroe County, projections were available for the years 2000, 2010 and
2020. The 2005 population was interpolated from the 2000 and 2010
populations, and the 2013 population was interpolated from the 2010 and 2020
figures. The County growth projections were applied to the Monroe County
1990 US Census Tracts within 50 miles of the plant. The only exception was
the area of Key Largo within 10 miles of the plant at the Ocean Reef Club.
Key Largo experienced a substantial population increase between 1980 and 1990 (based on the US Census), and the 1995 population projection was based on a
higher growth rate than the County as a whole. Therefore, although the same
methodology was used, the 1995 projected population was used as the starting
point instead of 1990. The same distribution as 1990 and 1995 was used for
the future projections.
2.4-14 Rev. 10 7/92 2.4.10 REFERENCES
- 1. 1990 Census of Population - Census Tract and Maps Block Data, Bureau of the Census; received from Florida State University.
- 2. United States Geological Survey topographic maps; revised 1988.
- 3. "Number of Households and Average Household Size in Florida - April 1, 1986", Population Studies Bulletin No. 79, Stanley K. Smith and Jane
Bucca, February 1987.
- 4. "Counties Population Estimates by Age, Sex and Race - April 1, 1986", Population Studies Bulletin No. 81, Stanley K. Smith and Vachir Ahmed, April 1987.
- 5. Field survey of 10-mile radius around Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant, February 1988.
- 6. Florida Department of Transportation, Topographic Bureau, aerial photographs of Turkey Point 10-mile area, 1985.
- 7. Directory of Florida Industries 1986-1987 , The Florida Chamber of Commerce Management Corporation, Tallahassee, Florida.
- 11. Telephone Directory for Homestead; Southern Bell, 1987-1988.
- 12. 1980 U.S. Census Population and Housing Counts by Enumeration District, Florida State University Computing Center.
- 13. "1980 Census of Population - General Population Characteristics", Florida PC80-1-B11 Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, issued August 1982.
- 14. "1980 Census of Housing - General Housing Characteristics", Florida, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.
2.4-15 Rev. 10 7/92 2.4.10 REFERENCES (Cont'd)
- 15. "Tourism: Lodging", The Florida Almanac 1986-87
- edited by Del Marth &
Marth. 16. 1987 State Profile - Woods & Poole Economics, May 1987.
- 17. 1986 Florida Statistical Abstract , Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida, 1986.
- 18. Florida Media Guide, January-June 1988; Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism, Tallahassee, Florida.
- 19. Information Officer, Metro Dade Planning Commission, Miami, Florida, Personal Communication, December 1987 and February 1988.
- 20. "Recreation-Housing Facts", Greater Homestead Economic Development Corporation, Homestead Chamber of Commerce.
- 21. Homestead/Florida City Chamber of Commerce, Personal Communication, February 1988.
- 22. AAA Tour Book - Florida, 1988.
- 23. Club Attendant, Ocean Reef Club, Key Largo, Personal Communication, February 1988.
- 24. Ocean Reef Club Properties, Services, Location and Housing Map.
- 25. Metro-Dade Transit Agency, TAZ and district map and letter dated January, 1988.
- 26. Trakker's Map of Miami Area Florida Street Map, Trakker Maps, Inc., 1987 Edition.
- 27. Manager, Grandma Newton's Bed and Breakfast, Personal Communication, February 1988.
- 28. Manager, Kent Motel, Homestead, Personal Communication, February 1988.
- 29. Manager, Deluxe Inn Motel, Leisure City, Florida, Personal Communication, February 1988.
- 30. Manager, Econo-Lodge, Personal Communication, February 1988.
2.4-16 Rev. 10 7/92 2.4.10 REFERENCES (Cont'd)
- 31. Manager, Park Motel, Personal Communication, February 1988.
- 32. Manager, Lucy's Motel, Personal Communication, February 1988.
- 33. Manager, Keys Gate at the Village of Homestead, Homestead, Personal Communication, February 1988.
- 34. Manager, San Remo Townhomes, Homestead, Florida, Personal Communication, February 1988.
- 35. Manager, Hartford Square, Personal Communication, February 1988.
- 36. Supervisory Park Ranger, Biscayne National Park, Personal Communication, February 1988.
- 37. Manager, Homestead Bayfront Park and Marina, Personal Communication, February 1988.
- 38. Manager, Royal Colonial Mobile Home Estates, Personal Communication, February 1988.
- 39. Manager, Goldcoaster Mobile Home and Travel Trailer Park, Personal Communication, February 1988.
- 40. Manager, Cutler Landings, Personal Communication, February 1988.
- 41. Manager, Lakes By the Bay, Florida Personal Communication, February 1988.
- 42. Boat Captain, Biscayne Aqua Center, Personal Communication, February 1988.
- 43. Management Information Services, Florida Department of Education, Tallahassee, Florida, Personal Communication, February 1988.
- 44. Branch Manager, American Red Cross, Greater Miami Chapter, Personal Communication, March 1988.
- 45. Student Information. Miami Dade Community College, Homestead Branch, Personal Communication, March 1988.
- 46. Student Information, Florida International University, Homestead Branch, Personal Communication, May 1998.
2.4-17 Rev. 16 10/99
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
2.4-18 Rev. 17 TABLE 2.4-1 RESIDENT POPULATION WITHIN 10 MILES OF TURKEY POINT PLANT*
DISTANCE (MILES)
TOTAL DIRECTION 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 0-10
N 2,635 2,500 0 0 0 25,052 30,187 NNE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 5,500 5,500 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 14,129 14,129 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 44,013 44,013 NW 0 0 0 0 0 25,346 25,346 NNW 0 0 0 0 0 20,658 20,658 TOTAL 2,635 2,500 0 0 0 134,698 139,833
Based on the State of Florida 1997 resident population distribution within 10 miles of Turkey Point (Figure 2.4-1).
Rev. 16 10/99 TABLE 2.4-2 1995 PROJECTED RESIDENT POPULATION WITHIN 10 MILES OF TURKEY POINT PLANT
[Deleted]
Rev. 16 10/99 TABLE 2.4-3 1990 RESIDENT POPULATION WITHIN 50 MILES OF TURKEY POINT PLANT*
DISTANCE (MILES)
TOTAL DIRECTION 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 0-50 N 15,799 213,226 430,335 350,347 320,863 1,330,570 NNE 0 9,746 429,713 349,676 183,681 972,816
NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSE 1427 0 0 0 0 1,427 S 0 1,223 333 0 0 1,556 SSW 0 726 9,826 6,876 1,591 19,019 SW 0 0 0 0 45 45 WSW 0 0 0 58 190 248
W 10,641 521 0 0 0 11,162 WNW 37,006 15,205 0 0 23 52,234 NW 24,813 8,699 0 0 0 33,512 NNW 15,993 142,481 32,254 218 0 190,946 TOTAL 105,679 391,827 902,461 707,175 506,393 2,613,535
- Based on the 1990 U.S. Census.
Rev. 10 7/92 TABLE 2.4-4 1995 PROJECTED RESIDENT POPULATION WITHIN 50 MILES OF TURKEY POINT PLANT*
DISTANCE (MILES)
TOTAL DIRECTION 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 0-50 N 16,115 236,681 477,672 388,885 356,158 1,475,511 NNE 0 10,818 476,981 388,140 203,886 1,079,826
NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSE 1,783 0 0 0 0 1,783 S 0 1,358 370 0 0 1,727 SSW 0 806 10,907 7,632 1,766 21,111 SW 0 0 0 0 50 50 WSW 0 0 0 64 211 275
W 11,812 578 0 0 0 12,390 WNW 38,856 16,878 0 0 26 55,760 NW 24,838 9,656 0 0 0 34,494 NNW 16,633 158,154 35,802 242 0 210,831 TOTAL 110,037 434,929 1,001,732 784,963 562,097 2,893,758
- Based on the growth rate calculated for the 10-mile area, as well as the average growth rate for the counties within 50 miles as determined from 1980
and 1990 Census information for the 10- to 50-mile area.
Rev. 10 7/92
TABLE 2.4-5 1990 PEAK SEASONAL AND DAILY VISITORS WITHIN 10 MILES OF TURKEY POINT PLANT
DISTANCE (MILES)
TOTAL DIRECTION 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 0-10 N 0 698 0 0 0 85 783 NNE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 284 284 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 1,350 1,350 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0 0 0 0 92 92 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 3,489 3,489 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 10,609 10,609 NW 0 0 0 0 0 2,690 2,690 NNW 0 1,602 0 0 0 120 1,722 TOTAL 0 2,300 0 0 0 18,719 21,019
Rev. 10 7/92
TABLE 2.4-6 1995 PROJECTED PEAK SEASONAL AND DAILY VISITORS WITHIN 10 MILES OF TURKEY POINT PLANT
DISTANCE (MILES)
TOTAL DIRECTION 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 0-10 N 0 780 0 0 0 94 874 NNE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 319 319 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 1,350 1,350 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0 0 0 0 103 103 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 3,916 3,916 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 11,968 11,968 NW 0 0 0 0 0 3,148 3,148 NNW 0 1,795 0 0 0 134 1,929 TOTAL 0 2,575 0 0 0 21,032 23,607
Rev. 10 7/92
TABLE 2.4-7 VISITORS TO RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WITHIN 10 MILES OF TURKEY POINT PLANT
DAILY VISITORS TO RECREATIONAL AREAS
Facility Name Sector 1988 Study 1990 Estimate (3) 1995 Estimate (3)
Biscayne National N 1-2/ 1,600 (1) 1,680 1,880 Park NNW 1-2/ E 5-10
Homestead Bayfront NNW 1-2 860 904 1,014 Park and Marina
Coral Castle WNW 5-10 100 (2) 105 118
TOTAL 2560 2,689 3,012
NOTES:
- 1. Includes about 270 visitors to Elliot Key Island.
- 2. Since no information was available, the number of visitors has been assumed.
- 3. Estimates based on 1988 and 1993 projection figures determined in the 1988 study.
Rev. 10 7/92
TABLE 2.4-8
VISITORS TO MAJOR SPECIAL EVENTS WITHIN 10 MILES OF TURKEY POINT PLANT
PEAK ONE DAY ATTENDANCE
1988 1990 1995 Special Event Location Sector Time Study Estimate (1) Estimate (1)
HOMESTEAD:
Homestead Frontier Harris WNW5-10 Jan. 23- 16,500 17,340 19,440 Days Field Feb. 7
- Antique Car Show Harris WNW5-10 Jan. 23-Field Jan. 24
- BMX National BMX WNW5-10 Jan. 30 Bicycle Race Track
- Rodeo Harris WNW5-10 Feb. 5-7 Field
Homestead Motor- HMC WNW 5 Various (2) 65,000 (2) Sports Complex Track (HMC)
NOTES:
- 1. Estimates based on 1988 and 1993 projected figures determined in the 1988 study.
- 2. Maximum capacity of MotorSports Complex for various events scheduled throughout the year.
Rev. 13 10/96 TABLE 2.4-9 MAJOR EMPLOYMENT FACILITIES WITHIN 10 MILES OF TURKEY POINT PLANT
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
Homestead Sector 1988 Study Atlantic Fertilizer & Chemical Co.
NW 5-10 65
Coca Cola Bottling Company of Homestead W 5-10 50
Florida Rock & Sand SW 5-10 175
South Dade News Leader WNW 5-10 100
Homestead Reserve Base (Civilian)
NW 5-10 1,900
TOTAL POPULATION 1988 2,290
POPULATION ESTIMATE 1990 2,407 (1)
PROJECTED POPULATION ESTIMATE 1995 2,700 (1)
NOTES:
- 1. Estimates based on 1988 and 1993 projected figures determined in the 1988 study.
Rev. 16 10/99
TABLE 2.4-10 MAJOR COLLEGES WITHIN 10 MILES OF TURKEY POINT PLANT
[Deleted]
Rev.
16 10/99 TABLE 2.4-11 CUMULATIVE POPULATION DENSITY BY ANNULAR SECTOR WITHIN 10 MILES OF TURKEY POINT PLANT*
CUMULATIVE POPULATION 1990 Annulus N SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL Miles 0-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-10 15,799 1,427 0 0 0 0 10,641 37,006 24,813 15,993 105,679
CUMULATIVE POPULATION DENSITY
PER SQUARE MILE Annular
Annulus N SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW Average Miles 0-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-10 805 73 0 0 0 0 542 1,885 1,264 815 538
CUMULATIVE POPULATION DENSITY COMPARED WITH
A DENSITY OF 500 PERSONS/PER SQUARE MILE Annular
Annulus N SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW Average Miles 0-1 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 0-2 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 0-3 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 0-4 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 0-5 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 0-10 +305 -427 -500 -500 -500 -500 +42 +1,385 +764 +315 +38
- Excluding sectors NNE through SE which are in the Atlantic Ocean.
Rev. 10 7/92 TABLE 2.4-12 CUMULATIVE POPULATION DENSITY BY ANNULAR SECTOR WITHIN 50 MILES OF TURKEY POINT PLANT*
CUMULATIVE POPULATION 1990 Annular
Annulus N NNE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW Total Miles 0-10 15,799 0 1,427 0 0 0 0 10,641 37,006 24,813 15,993 105,679 0-20 229,025 9,746 1,427 1,223 726 0 0 11,162 52,211 33,512 158,474 497,506 0-30 659,360 439,459 1,427 1,556 10,552 0 0 11,162 52,211 33,512 190,728 1,399,967
0-40 1,009,707 789,135 1,427 1,556 17,428 0 58 11,162 52,211 33,512 190,945 2,107,142 0-50 1,330,570 972,816 1,427 1,556 19,019 45 248 11,162 52,234 33,512 190,945 2,613,535
CUMULATIVE POPULATION DENSITY
PER SQUARE MILE Annular
Annulus N NNE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW Average Miles 0-10 805 0 73 0 0 0 0 542 1,885 1,264 815 538 0-20 2,916 124 18 16 9 0 0 142 665 427 2,018 576 0-30 3,731 2,487 8 9 60 0 0 63 296 190 1,079 721 0-40 3,214 2,512 5 5 56 0 0 36 166 107 608 610 0-50 2,711 1,982 3 3 39 0 1 23 106 68 389 484
CUMULATIVE POPULATION DENSITY COMPARED WITH
A DENSITY OF 500 PERSONS/PER SQUARE MILE Annular
Annulus N NNE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW Average Miles 0-10 +305 -500 -427 -500 -500 -500 -500 +42 +1,385 +764 +315 +38 0-20 +2,416 -376 -482 -484 -491 -500 -500 -358 +165 -73 +1,518 +76 0-30 +3,231 +1,987 -492 -491 -440 -500 -500 -437 -204 -310 +579 +221 0-40 +2,714 +2,012 -495 -500 -445 -500 -500 -464 -334 -393 +108 +110 0-50 +2,211 +1,482 -497 -497 -461 -500 -499 -477 -394 -432 -111 -16
- Excluding sectors NE through SE which are in the Atlantic Ocean.
Rev. 10 7/92 TABLE 2.4-13 2000 RESIDENT POPULATION WITHIN 50 MILES OF TURKEY POINT PLANT*
DISTANCE (MILES)
TOTAL DIRECTION 0-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 0-50 N 0 18,438 248,834 502,201 410,369 378,939 1,558,781 NNE 0 0 11,374 501,476 408,877 216,927 1,138,654 NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSE 0 1,890 0 0 0 0 1,890 S 0 0 1,381 376 0 0 1,757 SSW 0 0 819 11,093 7,763 1,796 21,471 SW 0 0 0 0 0 51 51 WSW 0 0 0 0 66 215 281 W 0 12,418 608 0 0 0 13,026 WNW 0 43,186 17,745 0 0 26 60,957 NW 0 28,957 10,152 0 0 0 39,109 NNW 0 18,663 166,275 37,640 254 0 222,832 TOTAL 0 123,552 457,188 1,052,786 827,329 597,954 3,058,809
- Based on county-wide growth projections obtained from the Dade County Planning Commission, the Broward Planning Council and the Monroe County
Planning Office.
Rev. 10 7/92 TABLE 2.4-14 2005 RESIDENT POPULATION WITHIN 50 MILES OF TURKEY POINT PLANT*
DISTANCE (MILES)
TOTAL DIRECTION 0-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 0-50 N 0 19,673 265,506 535,849 436,459 400,160 1,657,647 NNE 0 0 12,136 535,074 435,525 229,075 1,211,810 NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSE 0 1,953 0 0 0 0 1,953 S 0 0 1,426 388 0 0 1,814 SSW 0 0 846 11,459 8,019 1,856 22,180 SW 0 0 0 0 0 53 53 WSW 0 0 0 0 68 222 290 W 0 13,250 649 0 0 0 13,899 WNW 0 46,079 18,475 0 0 27 64,581 NW 0 30,897 10,832 0 0 0 41,729 NNW 0 19,914 177,415 40,162 271 0 237,762 TOTAL 0 131,766 487,285 1,122,932 880,342 631,393 3,253,718
- Based on county-wide growth projections obtained from the Dade County Planning Commission, the Broward Planning Council and the Monroe County
Planning Office.
Rev. 10 7/92 TABLE 2.4-15 2010 RESIDENT POPULATION WITHIN 50 MILES OF TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR PLANT*
DISTANCE (MILES)
TOTAL DIRECTION 0-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 0-50 N 0 20,853 281,437 568,000 460,218 416,784 1,747,292 NNE 0 0 12,864 567,179 460,367 238,696 1,279,106 NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSE 0 2,015 0 0 0 0 2,015 S 0 0 1,472 401 0 0 1,873 SSW 0 0 873 11,826 8,276 1,915 22,890 SW 0 0 0 0 0 54 54 WSW 0 0 0 0 70 229 299 W 0 14,045 688 0 0 0 14,733 WNW 0 48,844 19,583 0 0 28 68,455 NW 0 32,751 11,482 0 0 0 44,233 NNW 0 21,109 188,060 42,572 287 0 252,028 TOTAL 0 139,617 516,459 1,189,978 929,218 657,706 3,432,978
- Based on county-wide growth projections obtained from the Dade County Planning Commission, the Broward Planning Council and the Monroe County
Planning Office.
Rev. 10 7/92 TABLE 2.4-16 2013 RESIDENT POPULATION WITHIN 50 MILES OF TURKEY POINT PLANT*
DISTANCE (MILES)
TOTAL DIRECTION 0-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 0-50 N 0 21,604 291,568 588,448 475,240 427,391 1,804,251 NNE 0 0 13,327 587,597 476,118 244,664 1,321,706 NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSE 0 2,082 0 0 0 0 2,082 S 0 0 1,521 414 0 0 1,935 SSW 0 0 902 12,216 8,549 1,915 23,582 SW 0 0 0 0 0 56 56 WSW 0 0 0 0 72 236 308 W 0 14,551 713 0 0 0 15,264 WNW 0 50,602 20,288 0 0 29 70,919 NW 0 33,930 11,895 0 0 0 45,825 NNW 0 21,869 194,830 44,104 298 0 261,101 TOTAL 0 144,638 535,044 1,232,779 960,277 674,291 3,547,029
- Based on county-wide growth projections obtained from the Dade County Planning Commission, the Broward Planning Council and the Monroe County
Planning Office.
Rev. 10 7/92
- R 1206581 N M o 1139,833*1 T otol Segment Populotion -0 to 10 Miles
- Includes T ronsient Population (within 2 mile ring, there are no permonent residents)
A 1275521 N S J o B c 0 D o E w o F o POPULA liON TOT ALS RING RING TOTAL CUMULATIVE MILES POPULATION MILES POPULATION 0-2 5,135 0-2 5.135 2-5 5 5,135 5-10 134698 0-10 139.833 REV. 16 (10/99) FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TURKEV POINT PLANT UNITS 3 & " 1997 RESIDENT POPULATION WITHIN 10 MILES OF TURKEY POINT PLANT FIGURE 2.4-1 fiLE: fTMOO268.DWG
." -, , ':wsw . , A-.. ... *-1*-_. ---. .. I "_ I--.-------ft.---;..--* i a " L .. -" , ,/ / I .I ." / / r: i ! < i < 1< </ ' ;/ /'1 I i RtV. 10 (7/92) FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT PLANT UNITS 3&. 1995 PROJECTED RESIDENT POPULATION WITHIN 10 MILES or TURKEY POINT PLANT FIGURE 2.4-2 '----------------------------------
,<> MONROE I PALM BEACH tn,.. ** WlIII.", IUllCit r-----1I
.. ;: ----.. -'. -----. ."" -" --."-... _. ---\--;;:. ,: * .:. . --_/ REV. 10 (7/92) F"LORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT PLANT UNITS 3&4 1990 RESIDENT POPULATION WITHIN 50 MILES OF" TURKEY POINT PLANT FIGURE 2.4-3 ---------------------------
I L-=---MONROE PALM BEACH 10 ** U1,IU ,n"lIIl elllt"IIf'.'
-T-----il-.. -.. -.:: -'":-:...:--
.-:..::;.. --:--.. -.. -m G , , t' --REV. 10 (7/92) --------. --... . . '. -_r-::: '\ *i , "' ** I ...... _/ ... FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT PLANT UNITS 3&4 1995 PROJECTED RESIDENT POPULATION WITHIN 50 MILES or TURKEY POINT PLANT FIGURE 2.4-4
.. / =-REV. 10 (7/92) / / / i i I i . . i/ A I i i ! 284 I I --FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT PLANT UNITS 3&. 1990 PEAK SEASONAL AND DAILY VISITORS WITHIN 10 MILES or TURKEY POINT PLANT FIGURE 2.4-5
, 1 -':WSW .,.W.\, _, +-"" ,.L. .. !-. ,1-. I * " ._j.-,. --.. I H_ I-'-.-* I. .. 1-.. _ .. ! / / i i '. .r. I . i/ /f J I i ! 319 I REV. 10 FLORIDA POWER 11 LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT PLANT UNITS 3&4 1995 PROJECTED PEAK SEASONAL AND DAILY VISITORS WITHIN 10 MILES or TURKEY POINT PLANT FIGURE 2.4-6 2.5 LAND USE The information in this section pertains to studies conducted of the land use
of counties adjacent to Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 around the times of
construction. This information is for historical purposes only. Current
land use information is contained within the Turkey Point Radiological
2.5.1 REGIONAL
LAND USE
Dade County
An analysis of Dade County's economic base is presented as an introduction to
the discussion of land use patterns. In spite of the continuing divers-
ification of its economic base, Dade County's economy is dominated by
tourism. It is currently estimated that Dade County is visited by a total of
approximately 5 million visitors, on a year-round basis.
Since tourism involves a great number of people making varying expenditures
in a variety of ways, its impact upon the economy of an area is extremely
difficult to measure and analyze statistically. One of the most reliable
methods is to relate total number of lodging units to the ratio of tourist
expenditures per lodging unit. It is estimated that on a statewide basis, an
average of $9,360 per lodging unit was expended annually by Florida tourists
in 1967. Based on these factors, it can be concluded that about $1.7 billion
is currently being spent by tourists in Dade County annually. As Dade
County's wealth increases, and as it constructs new and improved tourist
facilities and services, tourism should remain one of the major foundations
of Dade County's economic structure.
As to the overall industrial growth, one of the most notable characteristics
in Dade County is the continuing development of manufacturing activities.
Table 2.5-1, presents a breakdown of total nonagricultural employment in the
county, by type of industry. As indicated, manufacturing accounted for 15.6
percent of total nonagricultural employment in 1967.
According to the Dade County Development Department, the county is already
the home of 3,233 manufacturing plants (1966 figure). It is of special
2.5-1 Rev. 16 10/99 significance that 1,670 of these plants have moved into the area in the past 12 years. In fact, the number of manufacturing firms has increased by 106.8
percent in 12 years from 1,563 in 1954 to 3,233 in 1966. Manufacturing
employment has increased at an even greater rate during the period.
Dade County manufacturing is essentially of the light industry type. This is
generally the case in young, rapidly growing areas during their early years
of industrial development. Table 2.5-2, lists Dade County's manufacturing
firms by 20 industrial groups as of 1954 and 1966. This table indicates the
concentration of manufacturing and light industries, such as furniture and
fixtures, aluminum products, apparel, and food products.
As is also indicated in Table 2.5-1, those industrial categories which are
most directly influenced by tourism such as trade and services, occupy a
significant position within the overall industrial framework of Dade County.
These two categories (trade and services) combined accounted for 47.9
percent of total nonagricultural employment in Dade County during 1967. The
remainder of nonagricultural employment in the county is allocated to
government (13.0
percent), transportation, communications and public utilities (11.1 percent),
finance, insurance and real estate (6.6 percent), and contract construction
(5.8 percent).
While tourism and manufacturing have enjoyed notable development in Dade
County, it is significant that agriculture's contribution to the county's
economy has also increased. Acreage devoted to agriculture has increased in
recent years in spite of the fact that a phenomenally expanding residential
and commercial consumption of land has transformed dairy farms, truck farms
and avocado groves into residential subdivisions, industrial plants and
shopping centers in an extremely short period of time.
2.5-2 The state of Florida is widely known as an agricultural state through wide publicity of its citrus industry and winter truck farming, while little
recognition is given to the county's agricultural wealth. The agricultural
importance of Dade County, particularly the South Dade or Homestead-Redland
district, which includes over 90 percent of the grove and crop land in the
county, was indicated by the agricultural census of 1964. According to the
latest census, the value of farm products sold in Dade County in 1964 was
$48.2 million. The most important crops are tomatoes, snap beans, potatoes, limes, avocados, mangoes, and pole beans. From 1960 through 1964, value of
farm products sold in Dade County rose from $46.7 million to $48.2 million.
Although the increase was slight, it acquires relevance when compared to the
unrelenting expansion of the urban area at the expense of agricultural land
which has characterized the county's growth.
Consideration must be given to those aspects specifically relating to the
existing and projected pattern of land use in Dade County. The findings of
the "Land Use Inventory and Analysis" by the Metropolitan Dade County
Planning Department in 1960 are summarized in Table 2.5-3. According to the
survey, Dade County's legal boundaries encompass a total area of 2,356 square
miles, of which 1,373 square miles are classified as area not subject to
development. The area not subject to development includes the entire western
half of the county (the Everglades National Park and the Southern Florida
Flood Control District), in addition to territorial waters extending three
miles out into the Atlantic Ocean.
2.5-3 The inland portions of this area not subject to development are uninhabited and do not exhibit any man-made uses other than existing canals and surface
transportation facilities. As it pertains to the coastal waters, they
constitute a center of attraction for boating and fishing enthusiasts,
particularly in the tourist-oriented northern sectors of the county.
Some commercial fishing also takes place in Biscayne Bay and its adjoining
waters. Total commercial fish catch during 1966 in Dade County amounted to
2,193,690 pounds, with a total valuation of $914,310. Relative to the state
as a whole, Dade County's fishing industry is of very little significance, as
denoted by the fact that the figures quoted represent but 1.1 percent and 2.8
percent of the respective state totals. Biscayne Bay is also the
navigational route of access to the Port of Miami facilities in downtown
Miami. During the period October 1966 to September 1967, the port handled
2,168 vessels (both passenger and cargo). Traffic at the Port of Miami is
projected to increase considerably with the deepening of the access channel
and the completion of a new port at Dodge Island.
The survey of land uses by the Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department
in the area subject to development (broken down as urban and non-urban) is
detailed in Table 2.5-4. There are 10 land use categories indicated:
residential; commercial; tourist (which includes hotels and motels);
industrial; institutional; parks and recreation; transportation; vacant or
undeveloped; agricultural; and water areas, such as small lakes, canals and
ponds scattered throughout the total land area. Most of the categories are
self-explanatory. The institutional land is utilized for all public and
semi-public structural uses, such as libraries, government buildings, hospitals, etc.
2.5-4 The largest single land use category in the county is agricultural, which
accounts for a total of approximately 60,000 acres of land. As indicated
previously, an overwhelming portion of the land which is dedicated to
agriculture in the county is found towards the southern portions in the
Homestead-Redland district. The importance of agriculture to the overall
economy of the county has also been outlined in the preceding paragraphs.
Residential is the predominant type of urban land use and, in terms of total
acreage in use, it is surpassed only by agriculture on an overall basis (urban and non-urban areas combined) In the urban and non-urban land areas
combined, 48,646 acres (representing 7.8 percent of the acreage) were used
for residential purposes in 1960. Housing in the Miami area traditionally
followed the narrow ridge of high land which stretches along the Atlantic
Ocean between Biscayne Bay and the Everglades. The post war era brought
about a considerable spread of settlement, not only northward and southward
along this ridge, but also westward, penetrating into the Everglades flat
land. The largest housing additions were absorbed by the urban core around
the City of Miami and on the ocean side north of Miami Beach. During the
last ten years, suburban areas in the far northern and southern parts of the
county have been subject to intensive residential development.
Industrial uses in the county, accounting for 5,051 acres in 1960, centered
in the Hialeah-Miami International Airport area. Other significant
concentrations of industry exist in or near the downtown Miami sector and in
the northeastern sector of the city bordering the Florida East Coast
Railroad tracks. There are scattered industrial concentrations along U. S.
Highway 1 in the southern portions of the county. A major industrial concern (Aerojet General) has established operations in this portion of the
2.5-5 county after completion of the 1960 survey. Including land reserved for future expansion, the entire Aerojet operation occupies 73,000 acres of land
in the area immediately to the west of the Homestead-Florida City urban
complex.
Commercial concentrations are most evident in or near the central core of the
City of Miami. There is also an almost uninterrupted pattern of commercial
strip development along U. S. Highway 1, extending from the northern county
line as far south as Homestead. Although tourist land use categories account
for an insignificant portion of total acreage in the county, it must be
realized that this classification includes only land occupied by hotels, motels, etc. Even if the amount of land in use for public parks and
recreational areas is added, the resultant amount would not be properly
indicative of the true importance of tourism to the overall county's economy.
A substantial portion of the residential, commercial and industrial
development in the county has been motivated by the increased demand
generated by a constant influx of tourists. As a general rule, the majority
of the tourist-oriented facilities in the county are located on the coastal
resort areas of Miami, and in the resort communities of Miami Beach, North
Miami Beach and Key Biscayne.
As shown in Table 2.5-4, in the urban area of 200 square miles or 127,382
acres, 29,815 acres (23.4 percent of the total) were vacant in 1960. An
additional 2,837 acres (2.2 percent of the total urban area) were being
farmed. Most of the vacant and agricultural land in the urban area lies in
the fringe sectors; there is very little land remaining available for
development in the inner sectors of the urban area. Of the total non-urban
2.5-6 land area of 783 square miles, 42.6 percent or 212,977 acres were vacant and undeveloped. The land is largely high pine land which does not involve
expensive draining or filling. An additional 208,455 acres or 41.7 percent
of the non-urban areas' undeveloped land consisted of glades and marsh land.
As the pattern of population and commercial growth in Dade County continues
to expand outward from the inner cores into the unincorporated areas, it is
anticipated that there will be a substantial intensification of land use in
the fringe areas. An analysis of the proposed general land use master plan
for Metropolitan Dade County, presenting the Planning Commission's 1985
estimate of land use distribution in the county, indicates that the pattern
of development during the ensuing 20 years will not bring about any
substantial changes in the existing distribution of uses in the county.
Westerly expansion anticipated to take place in residential construction will
be implemented at the expense of agricultural land. In spite of this, agriculture should continue to be a leading contributor to overall economic
progress in the area. Areas earmarked for future industrial development lie
towards the western portions of the county. Tourist and recreational areas
will prevail in the eastern coastal areas. Future commercial concentrations
will be positioned near major transportation routes so as to maximize
accessibility from surrounding areas.
Broward County
Broward County abuts Dade County to the north. There is much similarity in
the two counties from the standpoint of their economic structures and their
patterns of land use. However, Broward is dependent upon tourism
2.5-7 as a supporting economic activity to a larger extent than Dade. It is estimated that 2.3 million tourists visited Broward County during 1967 and
that these tourists spent approximately $527 million. Most of the county's
tourist-oriented facilities, as is the general rule along the southeastern
coast of Florida, are located towards the eastern coastal areas.
Agriculture is another significant income producing activity in Broward
County. The leading crop is winter vegetables and the Pompano Beach area in
the northern sector of the county has approximately 10,000 acres dedicated to
this type of farming.
Prior to 1950, Broward County was almost wholly dependent upon these two
income producing activities -- agriculture and tourism. Neither of these
activities were able to establish a stable economic base. Since 1950, the
substantial growth of population experienced by the county has, in turn, generated an increasing demand for new housing, services retail and
recreational facilities. Naturally, this was accompanied by a broadening of
the county's industrial base.
Table 2.5-5, contains the Florida Industrial Commission's estimates of
nonagricultural employment in Broward County during 1967 and shows that
nonagricultural employment totaled 125,200 in 1967. Of this total, 88.3
percent were engaged in non-manufacturing activities and 11.7 percent engaged
in manufacturing activities. Broward County is experiencing gains in
manufacturing employment and it is anticipated that manufacturing activities
will become an even more important part of the economy of Broward County in
ensuing years. Currently, the largest concentration of industry, predominantly of the light type, occurs in the
2.5-8 vicinity of Port Everglades (just south of the City of Fort Lauderdale) and in the western portions of the county.
As is the case in Dade County, other important industrial categories, in
terms of employment, are those which are most directly connected to the
tourist
trade. These categories are wholesale and retail trade and services, accounting for a combined total of 50.3 percent of nonagricultural
employment. The remainder of the nonagricultural employment in Broward County
is allocated to the following categories: government, 15.4 percent; contract
construction, 10.9 percent; finance, insurance and real estate, 6.5 percent;
and transportation, communications and public utilities, 5.2 percent.
Monroe County
Monroe County abuts Dade County to the south. Although the bulk of its
territory lies in the western half of the end of the Florida peninsula, this
area forms part of the Everglades National Park and is not subject to
development. The majority of the county's population resides in a series of
small islands -- known as the Keys -- which extend in a southwesterly arc
from the eastern half of the peninsula. The Keys portion of Monroe County
contains beaches and other resort attractions that have promoted extensive
tourist
industries. The largest city in Monroe County, Key West, is located at the
end of the long strip of islands and is the site of a large submarine base
upon which the economy of the county is also heavily reliant.
Although the economy of Monroe County still remains mainly tourist-oriented, it has become somewhat more diversified in recent years. The area has
2.5-9 developed certain light industries, most important of which is the seafood packing industry, established to accommodate the superb fishing (sport and
commercial) which exists on the Keys. Monroe County accounted for
approximately 25 percent ($8.5 million) of the value of the entire Florida
commercial fish catch in 1967. Statistics indicate that more shrimp and
shellfish are landed in Monroe County than in any other county in Florida.
Although the figures quoted above apply to the county as a whole, it must be
remembered that almost all of the income accrues to the Keys, since almost
all of the fishing boats operate from this area.
Table 2.5-6, presents a breakdown of nonagricultural employment in Monroe
County as of March, 1967. As indicated, those industries which are related
to tourist activities (trade and services) account for a substantial portion
of total employment in this area. Government is the largest single
contributor to total employment. Manufacturing occupies a very insignificant
position in the overall economic structure of the county and accounts for
only 3.5 percent of total nonagricultural employment.
2.5.2 LOCAL
LAND USE
Figures 2.5-1 and 2.5-2 indicate the generalized existing and projected
(1985) land use pattern within 5 and 10 mile radii of the subject site. This
information is based upon the results of land use studies conducted by the
Metropolitan Dade County Planning Commission.
As shown in Figure 2.5-1, approximately one-half of the total area within the
0 - 5 mile radius is formed by coastal waters in Biscayne Bay. Figure 2.5-1
also indicates that a substantial proportion of the land area in the 0 - 5
mile radius is vacant. Commercial and industrial uses are entirely lacking
2.5-10 in this area and residential uses are limited to three non-urban residential, structures. Two of these structures are located in
Township 57, Range 40, Section 18, and the third one is in Township
57, Range 40, Section 7. There is a distance of 3.8 miles between the
subject site and the nearest residence. (As mentioned previously, these residences are not utilized for permanent occupancy.)
The only significant type of land use in the 0 - 5 mile radius is
agriculture, occupying an area of approximately 5 square miles. All
of the agricultural land is located in the northwestern quarter of
the 0 - 5 mile arc and is mostly used for truck crop farming. This
northwestern quarter also includes a recreational area, the Homestead
Bayfront Park, located approximately one mile directly to the north
of the subject site, and a portion of Homestead Air Force Base. Most
of the land area in the southwestern quarter of the 0 - 5 mile arc
consists of glades and marsh land, and, therefore, is not suitable
for agriculture or any other form of land use.
The initial survey was conducted in 1966, the findings of which were
presented in conjunction with the Preliminary Safety Analysis
Report. These findings were updated in June, 1968 by means of a
second detailed survey of the area within the 0 - 5 mile radius and
the results show no significant deviations in the pattern of land use
from those of the survey two years before. The following uses exist
within the 0 - 5 mile radius:
- 1. Deleted
- 2. Homestead Air Force Base transmitter and water tank installations
in T-57, R-40, S-7.
2.5-11 Rev. 11 11/93
- 3. A total of four machinery houses, one at each of the respective gauging stations in the Military Canal, Mowry Canal, North Canal, and Florida City Canal. (These canals, aligned in an east-west direction, transverse the northwestern quarter of the 0 - 5 mile arc.) 4. A total of five barns, four of which are located in T-57, R-40, S-18, and one in T-57, R-40, S-6. 5. A total of approximately 15 sheds and shacks used for storage of agricultural equipment and tools, and other miscellaneous storage
purposes. These are distributed as follows: 2 in T 57, R-40, S-6; 6 in
T-57, R-40, S-18; 3 in T-57, R-39, S-24; and 4 in T-57, R-40, S-7.
As it is indicated in Figure 2.5-1, the pattern of land use becomes more
diverse in the 5 - 10 mile radius. Nevertheless, there is still a
substantial proportion of vacant and agricultural land in this area. The
Homestead Air
Force Base, as shown in Figure 2.5-1, is situated just outside the 5 mile
radius and occupies a land area of approximately 800 acres. Although not
shown in Figure 2.5-1, there is also a Navy installation in the 5 - 10 mile
radius, located approximately 7 miles southwest of the site in T-58, R-39, S-22. This installation contains no personnel and is currently being used as
a motor pool.
Extensive residential development exists in the peripheral areas of the 10
mile arc. (This area encompasses most of the Homestead-Florida City urban
complex.) Commercial and industrial uses are also evident in this area, particularly alongside U. S. Highway 1. To the east, the 5 - 10
2.5-12 mile radius also encompasses the offshore Elliott Key. Excepting approximately 60 part-time residences scattered throughout the Keys, this
area remains undeveloped.
Based on the projections of the Metropolitan Dade County Planning Commission, and on the most probable future developments, it appears that the area within
the 0 - 5 mile radius will not undergo any residential, commercial or
industrial development during the 20 year projection period. Most certainly, the proportion of land dedicated to agriculture in this area will have
increased by the end of the 20 year projection period, as suburban expansion
continues to absorb good farming land in other sectors of the county.
In the 5 - 10 mile radius, it is anticipated that there will be an
intensification in the expansion of residential uses, sprawling from the
Homestead-Florida City complex. This will naturally come as a result of the
increases in population that will take place in the area. This residential
expansion will be accompanied by additional commercial development and
industrial uses; however, these uses are anticipated to remain concentrated
in the same areas that they occupy at present.
The projected land use map, shown in Figure 2.5-2, reflects the potential
development of the offshore keys into a residential/tourist area (the
Islandia Project). There is now a plan approved by Congress to convert the
key into a National Park area.
2.5-13 TABLE 2.5-1
Nonagricultural Employment*
Dade County, Florida
1967 Annual Average
Number % of Total Total Nonagricultural Employment 409,300 100.0% Manufacturing 63,700 15.6 Contract Construction 23,600 5.8 Transportation, Communication and Utilities, 45,400 11.1 Trade 109,900 26.8 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 27,100 6.6 Services and Miscellaneous 86,500 21.1 Government 53,100 13.0
- Includes only establishments covered by the
Unemployment Compensation Law having four or
more employees.
Source: Florida Industrial Commission
First Research Corporation
Table 2.5-2
Manufacturing Firms By Industrial Group
Dade County, Florida
1954 - 1966
Number of Firms Increase 1954-1966 1954 1966 Absolute Percent
Food Products 183 279 96 52.5%
Tobacco Products 0 8 8 -
Textile Products 9 35 26 288.9 Fabric Products 215 411 196 91.2 Wood Products 67 78 11 16.4 Furniture and Fixtures 169 327 158 93.5 Paper Products 17 49 32 188.2 Printing and Publishing 196 373 177 90.3 Chemical Products 63 157 94 149.2 Petroleum Products 3 17 14 466.7 Rubber Products 0 88 88 -
Leather Type Products 24 55 31 129.2 Glass, Clay and Stone Products 111 212 101 91.0 Primary Metals 10 43 33 330.0 Fabricated Metal Products 218 356 138 63.3 Machinery Products 50 157 107 214.0 Electrical Products 22 112 90 409.1 Transportation Products 40 170 130 325.0
Professional and Scientific Products 21 47 26 123.8 Miscellaneous Products 145 259 114 78.6
____ ____ ____
TOTAL 1,563 3,233 1,670 106.8%
Source: Dade County Development Department First Research Corporation
TABLE 2.5-3
Land Use Summary
Dade County, Florida
1960
Area Not Subject to Development Area in Square Miles
Everglades National Park 650
Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District 368
Biscayne Bay 223
Atlantic Ocean 132
Subtotal 1,373
Area Subject to Development
Urban Area 200
Non-Urban Area 783
Subtotal 983
TOTAL AREA OF DADE COUNTY 2,356
Source: Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department TABLE 2.5-4
Land Use Summary
Area Subject to Development
Dade County, Florida
1960
URBAN AREA NON-URBAN AREA TOTAL
% of % of % of
Acreage Total Acreage Total Acreage Total
Residential 44,248 34.8% 4,398 0.9% 48,646 7.8%
Commercial 4,398 3.5 428 0.1 4,826 0.8
Tourist 870 0.6 33 - 903 0.1
Industry 2,575 2.0 2,476 0.5 5,051 0.8
Institutional 3,835 3.1 918 0.2 4,753 0.8
Parks and Recreation 4,796 3.8 354 0.1 5,150 0.8
Transportation 31,516 24.6 10,714 2.1 42,230 6.7
Agriculture 2,837 2.2 57,453 11.5 60,290 9.6
Undeveloped
Vacant 29,815 23.4 212,977 42.6 242,792 38.7
Glades and Marsh 98 0.1 208,455 41.7 208,553 33.3
Water 2,394 1.9 1,656 0.3 4,050
0.6 TOTAL
127,382 100.0% 499,862 100.0% 627,244 100.0%
Source: Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department TABLE 2.5-5
Nonagricultural Employment*
Broward County, Florida
1967 Annual Average
Number % of Total
Total Nonagricultural Employment 125,200 100.0% Manufacturing 14,700 11.7 Contract Construction 13,600 10.9 Transportation, Communication and Public Utilities 6,500 5.2 Trade 36,800 29.4 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 8,200 6.5 Services and Miscellaneous 26,100 20.9 Government 19,300 15.4
- Includes only establishments covered by the
Unemployment Compensation Law having four or
more employees.
Source: Florida Industrial Commission
First Research Corporation
TABLE 2.5-6
Nonagricultural Employment*
Monroe County, Florida
March 1967
Number % of Total Total Nonagricultural Employment 12,440 100.0% Manufacturing 440 3.5 Contract Construction 660 5.3 Transportation, Communication and Public Utilities 640 5.2 Trade 3,240 26.0 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 460 3.7 Services and Miscellaneous 2,900 23.3 Government 4,100 33.0
- Includes only establishments covered by the
Unemployment Compensation Law having four or
more employees.
Source: Florida Industrial Commission
First Research Corporation
e e e e
- LEGEND _ Industrial and Business _ Residential
'::::::::::::=::::::::
- 4 Agricul ture E3 Homes tead Air Force Bas e Parks and Recreation c:::::J Vacant Land I Biscayne Bay EXISTING GENERALIZED LAND USE PATTERN o -10 MILE RADIUS EXISTING GENERALIZED LAND USE PATTERN FIG. 2.5-1
- e
- e -c::J 1:::::: 1
- LEGEND Industrial and Business Residential Vacant and Agricultural Land Homestead Air Force Base Parks and Recreation Biscayne Bay Tourists * ,._ *
- PROJECTED (1985) GENERALIZED LAND USE PATTERN o -10 MILE RADIUS GENERALIZED LAND USE PATTERN PROJECTED TO 1985 FIG. 2.5-2
2.6 METEOROLOGY
The information in this section pertains to climatological features derived
from weather records available at the time Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 were
constructed. This information is for historical purposes only.
2.6.1 GENERAL
CLIMATOLOGY
The general climatological features of the site area were obtained from
weather records from Miami International Airport 25 miles N, Miami Beach 26
miles NNE, Homestead Air Force Base 5 miles NW and Homestead Experiment
Station 12 miles WNW and others.
(1) The climate is subtropical with long warm summers accompanied by abundant rainfall and mild dry winters. The year has
been divided into two seasons, the "wet" (May-Oct.) and the "dry" (Nov.
-April). Marine influences predominate including land-sea breeze and other
coastal effects. There are also night time and early morning inversions and
important local differences between stations. East and southeast winds
predominate during most of the year, but north and northwest winds become
important at night and during the winter. Frontal activity and cold air
masses penetrate the area in winter but are quickly moderated. Tropical
storms visit the area about once every two-years and hurricane winds are felt
once every seven years.
The variation in climate as one progresses inland from the coast line can be
seen in Table 2.6-1. The daily maximum air temperatures in this area are
warmer than the ocean in all months, except at Miami Beach in the summer.
Sea breezes temper the daily range of temperatures to 8-10 degrees at the
beach but 10 miles inland the range is 20-25 degrees. The annual number of
days with temperatures of 90 degrees F or greater is 14 at Miami Beach and 96
at Homestead Experiment Station. These statistics show the sharp reduction
in maritime influence inland. The monthly temperature data show a single
maximum in August with peak of 91 F at HMST. Humidities at Miami Airport at
7:00 A.M. Eastern Standard Time vary from 80-88 per cent,
(1) Letter L-78-171, "Meteorological Facility", dated May 15, 1978 from R. E. Uhrig of Florida Power and Light to A. Schwencer of USNRC Branch
No. 1, describes the use of the South Dade Plant facility, located
approximately 8 miles southwest of the Turkey Point site.
2.6-1 Rev. 16 10/99 and at 1:00 P.M., vary from 56-66 per cent. Higher humidities than these can be expected at Turkey Point during the day. Fogs in this part of the state
occur during the night and very early morning hours in the order of a dozen
times a year and dissipate soon after sunrise. The mean cloud cover, including high thin types at Miami Airport is 5.7 tenths. Most of the rain
is derived from showers of short duration. Some of the showers are quite
heavy with thunderstorms occurring 77 times per year at Miami Airport.
Yearly precipitation varies from 46 inches at Miami Beach to 63 inches at
Homestead Experiment Station 10 miles inland, with monthly maximums in June
and September.
2.6.2 SURFACE
WINDS
Five years of hourly surface wind observations, 1960-1964 inclusive, at
Homestead Air Force Base and Miami Airport have been analyzed to provide the
general characteristics of surface winds in the area. These "mean hourly"
observations in Table 2.6-1, represent 1-minute sample periods approximately
on the hour and as such do not reflect higher or lower speeds or shifts in
directions that may have occurred at other times during the hour. The
average of these observations should compare favorably with the average of
the mean
speeds taken over the whole hour.
Wind Roses
Figures 2.6-1 and 2.6-2 present wind direction roses for Homestead Air Force
Base and Miami Airport for: all weather conditions (rain or sunshine), all
hours, all seasons; the daytime (7AM-6PM) rainy season (May-Oct.); the
nighttime (7PM-6AM) rainy season; the daytime (7AM-6PM) dry season (Nov.-Apr.); and the nighttime (7PM-6AM) dry season. Figures 2.6-3 and 2.6-4
2.6-2 present wind direction roses for the above two stations in the same manner, except that they were compiled only from observations made when rain was
falling at the stations. Wind directions NE through the eastern quadrants
and around to and including SSW are considered onshore. Miami Beach is
included as an onshore location.
The primary difference between the two stations is the greater percentage of
calms at Homestead Air Force Base. The Miami Airport wind equipment is
located 20 ft. above ground and is the 3-cup type, U.S. Weather Bureau model
F 420C. Aerovane type equipment is installed 13 ft. above ground at
Homestead Air Force Base. Although there may be slight differences in
maintenance procedures, the starting speeds and performance characteristics
of these sensors are considered to be essentially the same, within practical
tolerances. The exposures are also similar. The difference in the number of
observed calms, therefore, is indicative of small-scale differences in wind
regime close to the coast. The easterly wind directions definitely
predominate with a secondary maximum in the N to NW produced by some cold air
invasions from the north during the winter. The northerly components in
summer are probably the results of land-breeze influences. There is a
tendency for winds to become more northeasterly at both stations during
rainfall in winter. The maximum scatter of wind direction occurs during
daytime summer rains.
Wind Direction Persistence Frequencies
Frequency of wind direction persistence by direction and the persistence of
calms for Homestead Air Force Base and Miami Airport stations are presented
in Figures 2.6-5 and 2.6-6. These illustrations show the number of
occurrences in the 5-year period when the wind was continuously reported from
2.6-3 one direction for 6-10, 11-20, 21-30, or more than 30 consecutive hourly observations and also when calms persisted on the same basis. Persistence
for less than 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> is not considered important for this application.
Except for calms at Homestead Air Force Base, easterly winds are most
persistent in all duration categories at both stations.
Wind Speed and Direction Frequencies
Figures 2.6-7 and 2.6-8 present frequency of wind speeds by direction for
Homestead Air Force Base and Miami Airport, showing the number of occurrences (hourly observations) of wind speed categories (calms, 1-3, 4-7, 8-14, 15-39
and over 40 mph) for each of the 16 compass directions. All wind speeds are
most frequent from easterly directions at both stations which is to be
expected for locations predominantly in the trade wind region.
2.6.3 RAINFALL
The region immediately inland and slightly northwest from Turkey Point has
one of the highest annual rainfalls of any region in Florida, Figure 2.6-9.
Rainfall in this part of the state is closely related to interactions of the
prevailing sea breezes with the general wind system, and to character of the
soil, coast shape, distance inland, and other factors. During morning hours, more rainfall occurs at the beach than inland and the reverse is true during
the afternoons. Measurable rainfalls occur on about 125 days per year. The
three greatest 24-hour rainfall totals shown in Table 2.6-1 occurred at the
station farthest inland, Homestead Experiment Station, during September, October and November. The highest totals at Miami Beach are in the order of
6.5-8 inches during the months of April, June, September and November.
2.6-4 At least half of the 24-hour rainfall totals exceeding 7 inches at Miami
Airport are produced by tropical storms. Based on a limited data sample, the
Turkey Point site can expect the following rates every two years: 2.6 in. in
1 hr, 4.0 in. in 6 hr, and 5.3 in. in 24 hr. Every hundred years, 6 in. can
be expected to fall in 1 hr, 8 in. in 6 hr, and 13 in. in 24 hr. Miami has
experienced 5-minute rains on the order of 1 in., 10-minute rains of 2 in.,
and 30-minute rains of about 3 in.
2.6.4 ATMOSPHERIC
PARAMETERS ALOFT
Low Level Lapse Rates of Temperature
General
Temperature lapse (
1930 ft. MSL at Miami) has been analyzed for the year 1964 as an indication
of the thermodynamic stability of that portion of the atmosphere which is
felt to be most important for low-level diffusion. Monthly tabulations of
this parameter using all soundings at 7 AM are shown in Figure 2.6-10, and 7
PM in Figure 2.6-11. These figures are stratified according to six
categories.
The definitions of each lapse rate category are given in the legends of the
figures. The low level atmosphere is generally unstable at Miami, but with
marked differences at 7 AM versus 7 PM. For the year 1964, this layer was
unstable 55 per cent and stable 31 per cent of the time at 7 AM, whereas at 7
PM the percentages were 93 and 4 respectively. Marine influences would tend
to reduce the variability of these conditions at Turkey Point.
2.6-5 Temperature Inversions
During the 5-year period, 1960-1964, 67 per cent of the morning (7 AM) and 14
per cent of the evening (7 PM) soundings at Miami Airport contained at least
one inversion based under 2000 ft., occurring mostly with offshore winds in
the morning, and with onshore winds at night. As used here, "offshore" winds
are those in which both the surface winds and winds up to the 1000 mb height
are offshore, and "onshore", when both surface and upper winds are onshore.
"Mixed" winds are in those conditions when the surface and upper winds are in
different directions. Of the inversions that were based under 2000 ft., 89
per cent of the morning and 49 per cent of the evening inversions were based
under 100 ft. Combining these, it is found that 82 per cent of inversions
that would have the greatest effect on diffusion and dispersion would be
based in the lowest 100 ft., probably at the ground. Table 2.6-2 shows that
more than 80 per cent of the inversions based less than 100 ft. at Miami
Airport would be topped at about 700 ft.
An indication of the strength of the inversions based below 100 ft. is
presented in Table 2.6-3. Shallow inversions are generally accompanied by
more negative lapse rates than deep ones. Except for 7 PM soundings in the
wet season, they tend to be stronger with offshore winds. Morning inversions
(7 AM) are generally stronger than evening inversions (7 PM).
Table 2.6-4 summarizes the mean increases in surface temperatures (
to replace the tabulated inversions with dry adiabatic lapse rates (thoroughly mixed air). Thicker inversions, those occurring with offshore
winds, and those at 7 AM require greater temperature increases. Temperature
increases in the order of 2-7 degrees are generally sufficient in most
2.6-6 cases. As would be expected, temperature increases required on days with 7 AM inversions based below 100 ft. are much greater than on days when there
are no 7 AM inversions under 2000 ft.
A comparison between actual hourly surface temperature observations and computed values of (conditions are reached in most cases by 9 AM.
CUMULATIVE PER CENT FREQUENCY OF THE 7-AM INVERSIONS BASED 0-100 FT. THAT ARE REPLACED BY AN ADIABATIC LAPSE
AT VARIOUS HOURS OF THE DAY
MIAMI AIRPORT, 1960-64 INCLUSIVE
Eastern
Standard Dry On Dry Off Dry Mix Wet On Wet Off Wet Mix
8-AM 33.3 8.9 11.1 65.9 42.6 60.2
9-AM 80.4 44.7 69.4 85.8 84.4 90.0
10-AM 94.2 77.6 88.8 92.0 97.1 95.0
11-AM 95.5 92.2 98.1 95.4 98.3 98.1
12-Noon 96.8 96.7 99.0 96.5 99.1 98.7
1-PM 97.4 97.5 100.0 98.8
2-PM 97.9 99.3
3-PM 99.5
4-PM 100.0
4* 5* 0* 2* 0* 1*
- Number of times that an inversion was not replaced by an
Adiabatic lapse during the period (8-AM to 4-PM)
There were only 12 times (9 in the dry season) in the 5-year period that this did not occur at all during the day. Even though smaller temperature
increases would be required, it takes longer to achieve the same temperature
increase at a maritime location than at one inland.
Wind Shear
Vertical shear of the horizontal wind is also important in regard to
2.6-7 dispersion of airborne matter. Positive shear (wind speeds increasing with
height) is generally observed not only with inversions, but on all days at
Miami Airport, as shown in Table 2.6-5.
For inversions based below 100 ft., the shear is more positive at 7 AM than
at 7 PM and with onshore rather than offshore winds. Typical shears are in
the order of 2-5 knots. These shears are probably due to frictional effects
and therefore, less shear along the coast at Turkey Point with onshore winds
would be expected. However, limited observations indicate pronounced
positive shear there as well.
2.6.5 ON SITE METEOROLOGICAL PROGRAM
The results of the on site meteorological program are set forth in Appendix
2A.
2.6.6 SEVERE
WEATHER
Hurricanes
Of 21 hurricanes in the Miami to Key West area in the 57 years ending in
1960, 10 produced hurricane winds over the immediate Miami and Turkey Point
area. In the years 1960-1968, four intense tropical cyclones affected the
site, two of them, Donna 1960 and Betsy 1965, were officially classified as "major storms". The Turkey Point site is in an area which has a high
probability of being affected by gale force winds (41 to 74 mph inclusive) in
any given year and of experiencing sustained hurricane force winds (greater
than 74 mph) about once in 7 years.
Figure 2.6-12 illustrates paths of tropical storms affecting Florida from
1886 through 1964. A few hurricanes affect the area while moving toward the
2.6-8 north, but the two more prevalent paths taken by hurricanes in this area are
toward the northeast and toward the northwest. One-third of the hurricanes
affecting the area occur in October on a path toward the northeast;
approximately one-fifth occur in late August; and slightly less than
one-third occur in the month of September. Most all of the latter move
toward the northwest at an average speed of 13 mph, and have a higher
potential for producing damage than the October storms on northeast tracks.
Hurricane Rainfall
Total hurricane rainfalls in the area have ranged from less than one to about
35 in. for a small 10 sq. mi area, with normal hurricane rainfall over a
10,000 sq. mi. area of 6 to 10 inches. Storms have produced 6 inches in 75
minutes and 13 inches in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in the Homestead area. In general, 30 to
60 per cent of a given hurricane's rain falls in the first 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />, over 90
per cent will fall in the first 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, and well over 95 per cent of the
total hurricane rainfall can be expected to occur within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />. A maximum
storm rainfall in excess of 22 inches can be expected from a hurricane each
75 to 100 years; 15 to 20 inches once every 25 to 50 years; 10 to 15 inches
each 8 to 10 years; and 6 to 10 inches every 4 to 8 years. However, it
should be noted that various experts estimate that only about half of the
rain is caught in the standard gage in areas of high winds; conversely, rainfall experienced in areas subject to high wind is about one-half of the
typical hurricane precipitation.
Hurricane Tides
Normal tidal range for the area is about 2 ft. Records of yearly extreme
water levels near the site since 1946 are shown plotted in Figure 2.6-13.
2.6-9 These records were taken from a U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey gauging station installed in 1946 in the North Canal, 800 ft. upstream of its mouth, and about 2
miles north of the site. No record data are available of hurricane flood tides
in the area prior to 1946.
The highest level shown on the chart is 9.82 ft. above Mean Sea Level, occurring
during hurricane Betsy in September 1965. During the same storm a level of 10.1
ft. was recorded at a gauging station recently installed in the Florida City
Canal about one and one-half miles NW of the site.
Recorded hurricane flood tide levels of any consequence at other locations in
the area are as follows:
South Miami Beach-ocean Sept 1945 3.2 Ft MSL Dinner Key-Coconut Grove " " 9.8 " "
South Miami Beach-ocean Sept 1960 3.6 Ft MSL
Dinner Key-Coconut Grove " " 4.8 " "
Observations by various agencies (not taken from gauging station records) for other storm tides are as follows:
South Miami Beach-ocean Sept 1926 10.2 Ft MSL US Corps of Engrs.
Miami-Biscayne Bay " " 10.9 " " US Weather Bureau
Biscayne Bay mainland
near S.W. 26th Road Sept 1926 10.4 Ft MSL US Weather Bureau
Dinner Key-Coconut Grove " " 13.2 " " US Corps of Engrs.
Allapattah Road near Goulds Sept-Oct 1929 8.8-10.2 " US Corps of Engrs.
Miami at River mouth Oct-Nov 1935 6.7 Ft MSL US Corps of Engrs.
Dinner Key-Coconut Grove " " " 8.3 " " " " " "
North Miami Beach-ocean Sept 1945 4.3 Ft MSL US Corps of Engrs.
Cutler (about 12 mi N of site) " " 13.2 " " " " " "
Cutler Road near Peters Sept 1960 6.9 Ft MSL US Corps of Engrs.
Homestead Air Force Base " " 7.3 " " " " " "
2.6-10 Hurricane Winds
Most hurricanes have their strongest winds in the right front quadrant. Wind
speeds over land are about 70 per cent of those over water; and, regardless of
location, gusts are 30 to 50 per cent greater than the 1-minute average or "sustained" wind speeds. Late season storms coming from the SW may put the
Turkey Point area in the right front quadrants, but with a slight reduction in
maximum winds compared to earlier storms due to the generally lower intensity of
these storms, as well as longer overland trajectory. Most early season
hurricanes approach from the SE, with centers generally passing to the north and
east of the Turkey Point site. This places the site to the left side of the
storm which is an area of lower than maximum winds.
The September 1945 storm produced sustained winds of 137 mph at Carysfort Reef
Light, at the left side of the center and conservatively estimated at 150 mph at
both the Homestead Army Air Base and the Richmond Navy Blimp Base which was
destroyed by fire during the storm. Measured winds at Homestead Air Force Base
reached 89 mph in gusts from the SE in Donna in 1960. Cleo in 1964 passed
closer to the Base but produced lighter winds because of its smaller radius of
maximum winds. Winds of 140 mph were estimated at Homestead Air Force Base and
160 mph winds were estimated both at north Key Largo and at Flamingo in Betsy
1965, which passed just south of the site. Gale force winds lasted 36 to 40
hours over the Miami area with gusts of hurricane velocity from 5 to 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, the longer times being experienced in the Homestead area.
Although sustained hurricane winds can be expected at the site once every 6 to 7
years, sustained winds greater than gale force and peak gusts of
2.6-11 hurricane intensity should be expected about twice as often. More explicitly, gusts exceeding 150 mph could be expected at the site in about 25 to 50 years
with sustained winds exceeding 100 mph; sustained winds exceeding hurricane
force but less than 100 mph (with 50 per cent higher gusts) can be expected
every seven years; and sustained winds exceeding gale force with gusts to about
hurricane force should be expected about every three years.
Higher winds have been estimated; but Dunn and Miller indicate that of the many
actual wind measurements, the highest velocity ever measured was 175 mph at
Chetumal, Mexico in Sept. 1955. Winds over the open water and at levels above
the surface frictional layer might be somewhat higher. The highest ever
recorded by ESSA's Research Flight Facility in its many hundreds of hurricane
flying hours for the National Hurricane Research Laboratory was 200 mph for a
few seconds in hurricane Inez 1966. Such measurements are not quite compatible
with "sustained", "fastest mile", or "one minute" winds measured by other types
of instruments at the surface; but they help to indicate that a
design factor for maximum winds of 225 mph would be very conservative.
Pressure differentials due to wind or hurricane pressure gradients should not
exceed 1/2" hg (.25 lb in
-2) in 5 minutes or about 3 times that in 20 minutes according to Dunn and Miller (Reference 1). These are far less than those for
tornadoes.
2.6-12
Hurricane Wave Run Up Protection
External flood protection is described in Appendix 5G.
Tornadoes and Lightning
Many well developed hurricanes have tornadoes associated with them at some time
during their histories. These normally occur in an area of less-than-
2.6-13 Rev 9 7/91 hurricane force winds, well in advance and in the forward semi-circle of the
storm center. Although no wind speed observations exist for such storms over
South Florida, hurricane associated tornadoes are thought to have peak wind
speeds of about one-half or two-thirds of these and are somewhat weaker in
general than tornadoes that are not associated with hurricanes. Such tornadoes
may occur at any time of the day, and most probably the statistics do not
reflect all of those which have occurred in a given area.
Lightning is observed in many hurricanes in the form of both cloud-to-cloud and
cloud-to-ground discharges at considerable distances ahead of the hurricane eye, and primarily as cloud-to-cloud discharges near the eye wall. The observation
of lightning is inversely proportional to storm intensity.
Tornadoes, Waterspouts and Hail
While tornadoes do occur in South Florida, it is now established quite
conclusively that they are not so violent nor as destructive as those in either northern Florida or in the Midwest. Various authorities have computed or
estimated tornado wind speeds in the more intense midwest type of storm at from
100-500 mph. An experimental Weather Bureau doppler radar measured a maximum
speed of 205 mph in 1958 in an "intense" Texas tornado (Reference 2). Minimum
surface pressures have been measured more often than winds in tornadoes. In the "Great" St. Louis storm of 1896 the pressure drop was 2.42 inches of mercury or
1.2 psi (Reference 3). Although greater pressure drops have been observed, they
occurred over longer time periods. In view of the general agreement between
authorities on the smaller damage potential of such storms in the South Florida
area, maximum design wind speeds of 225 mph and minimum pressures of 1.5 psi
would appear very conservative.
2.6-14 In a recent survey by Gerrish (Reference 4), it was found that at least 56 tornadoes and 218 waterspouts were observed within 75 miles of Miami during the
period 1957-1966. In addition there were 315 funnels that did not reach the
surface. Tornadoes occur mostly in the afternoon whereas waterspouts occur near
sunrise in the wet season. Waterspouts, while less violent than tornadoes, do
occur reasonably often and occasionally come inland but soon dissipate upon
reaching land. NASA (Reference 5) discovered in 1968 that spouts in the Florida
Keys can rotate clockwise as well as counterclockwise. Although the evidence is
not conclusive at this time, there is a tendency for tornadoes to be most active
near the coast where the sea breeze could contribute momentum and waterspouts to
be over shallow water to the lee of land heat sources. Even so, Dade County has
an average annual damage potential of less than one square mile. This is due
not only to the relatively weak intensity of these events in this area, but to
the stringent South Florida Building Codes. It is estimated that the chance of
sustaining damage to structures designed to South Florida Building Code in a
given year is about one in five thousand.
Hail is also primarily a wet season phenomenon, occurring principally in May
with an active period in April also. It occurs mostly in the afternoon and only
rarely at night. Hail occurs in the Miami area about three times per year, generally in the late afternoon if in the dry season, and early afternoon in the
wet season.
2.6-15 REFERENCES, Section 2.6
- 1. Dunn, G. E. and B. I. Miller, 2nd Edition 1964, Atlantic Hurricanes , Louisiana State.
- 2. Holmes, D. W. and R. L. Smith, 1958, "Doppler Radar for Weather Investigations", Proc. 7th Weather Radar Conf., A.M.S., Boston, pp F29-F36. 3. Woldord, L. V., 1960, Tornado Occurrences in the U.S., U.S.W.B. Dept.
Commerce Tech. Paper #20, Washington, D.C., p 3.
- 4. Gerrish, H. P., 1967, "Tornadoes and Waterspouts in the South Florida Area", Proc. 1967 Army Conf. on Tropical Meteor., Coral Gables, Florida, 8-9 June, pp 62-76.
- 5. NASA, 1968, Personal Communication from V. J. Rossow.
2.6-16 TABLE 2.6-1 Sheet 1 of 2
CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
TEMPERATURE -
o F PRECIPITATION MEAN NUMBER OF DAYS WIND**
RELATIVE HUMIDITY SKY**
OCEAN DAILY DAILY MONTH- GREATEST TEMP-MORE TEMP-LESS PRECIP-0.01 THUNDER MEAN HRLY. DIREC- 1:00 AM 7:00 AM 1:00 PM 7:OO PM MEAN SKY
TEMP. MAX. MIN. LY MEAN DAILY THAN 90 o F THAN 32 o F IN. OR MORE STORMS SPEED(mph) TION EST EST EST EST COVER - %
71.9 74.2 63.9 69.1 1.68 3.07 0 0 7 11.7 46 MB (JAN) 74.1 57.2 65.8 2.4 4.48# 0 0 6 HAFB 75.8 57.9 66.9 2.03 2.50 0 0 6 1 9.2 NNW 83 86 56 74 50 MAP 78.0 54.3 66.2 1.80 2.44 0 1 HSTD
72.7 74.9 64.2 69.6 1.65 2.65 0 0 6 11.8 43 MB (FEB) 77.0 59.5 68.4 1.7 2.28# 0 0 4 HAFB 77.0 58.8 67.9 1.87 2.06 0 0 6 1 9.8 ESE 83 86 57 71 51 MAP 79.2 54.5 66.8 1.76 2.33 *
- HSTD
75.2 76.7 66.5 71.6 1.95 2.89
- 0 6 13.0 45 MB (MAR) 78.7 63.4 71.2 2.5 7.38# 0 0 7 HAFB 79.8 61.1 70.5 2.27 7.07
- 0 5 2 10.1 SE 81 83 56 69 51 MAP 81.8 57.1 69.5 2.24 4.40 1
- HSTD
77.6 79.5 70.2 74.9 2.92 6.91
- 0 7 13.4 48 MB (APR) 82.1 67.8 75.1 1.0 2.86# 1 0 4 HAFB 82.6 65.8 74.2 3.88 5.18 1 0 6 3 10.5 ESE 80 80 56 69 55 MAP 84.6 61.2 72.9 3.62 6.38 4 0 HSTD
82.4 82.4 74.0 78.2 4.54 5.90 1 0 10 12.1 50 MB (MAY) 84.1 70.7 77.4 6.5 6.15# 1 0 10 HAFB 85.4 69.7 77.6 6.44 8.42 3 0 10 7 9.1 ESE 82 81 59 72 55 MAP 87.4 65.2 76.3 6.78 7.86 8 0 HSTD
85.8 85.5 76.7 81.1 5.63 6.64 2 0 13 10.7 58 MB (JUN) 87.9 74.2 81.2 6.8 4.29# 8 0 11 HAFB 88.0 73.5 80.8 7.37 7.43 10 0 14 12 8.0 SE 86 84 64 75 66 MAP 89.6 69.1 79.4 8.51 6.47 17 0 HSTD
87.8 87.0 77.6 82.3 4.45 4.94 3 0 14 10.9 59 MB (JUL) 88.5 75.2 82.0 8.7 3.24# 8 0 14 HAFB 88.8 74.7 81.8 6.75 4.55 16 0 16 16 7.9 SE 86 84 64 75 64 MAP 90.3 70.6 80.5 8.10 4.11 22 0 HSTD
88.5 87.7 78.1 82.9 5.06 5.34 6 0 14 14 10.5 58 MB (AUG) 89.1 75.0 82.2 6.9 2.64# 13 0 15 HAFB 89.7 74.9 82.3 6.97 6.92 21 0 16 16 7.3 SE 86 86 63 76 64 MAP 91.0 71.0 81.0 7.96 4.61 25 0 HSTD
TABLE 2.6-1 (CONTINUED)
Sheet 2 of 2
CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
TEMPERATURE -
o F PRECIPITATION MEAN NUMBER OF DAYS WIND**
RELATIVE HUMIDITY SKY**
OCEAN DAILY DAILY MONTH- GREATEST TEMP-MORE TEMP-LESS PRECIP-0.01 THUNDER MEAN HRLY. DIREC- 1:00 AM 7:00 AM 1:00 PM 7:OO PM MEAN SKY
TEMP. MAX. MIN. LY MEAN DAILY THAN 90 o F THAN 32 o F IN. OR MORE STORMS SPEED(mph) TION EST EST EST EST COVER - %
86.3 86.0 77.3 81.7 7.36 8.35 2 0 17 11.8 61 MB (SEP) 87.5 74.8 81.3 6.1 8.68# 6 0 16 HAFB 88.0 74.6 81.3 9.47 7.58 11 0 18 11 8.1 ESE 87 88 66 79 67 MAP 89.5 70.8 80.2 9.58 10.04 16 0 HSTD
82.1 83.0 73.8 78.4 6.71 5.85
- 0 15 14.2 56 MB (OCT) 83.5 69.6 76.8 7.5 3.51# 1 0 12 HAFB 84.7 70.9 77.8 8.21 9.95 1 0 15 6 9.0 ENE 86 88 63 77 60 MAP 86.2 67.3 76.8 8.61 11.50 3 0 HSTD
77.2 78.4 69.2 73.8 2.53 6.70 0 0 8 13.3 47 MB (NOV) 79.7 65.7 72.9 1.9 3.95# 0 0 6 HAFB 80.2 64.6 72.4 2.83 7.93 0 0 7 1 9.0 N 83 87 61 75 52 MAP 81.6 60.4 71.0 2.76 11.00 *
- HSTD
73.3 75.5 65.1 70.3 1.78 2.07 0 0 8 12.3 48 MB (DEC) 75.5 59.6 67.7 2.1 1.91# 0 0 7 HAFB 77.1 59.1 68.1 1.67 4.38 0 0 7 1 8.4 N 84 86 59 74 53 MAP 78.6 55.6 67.1 1.32 2.08 0
- HSTD
80.1 80.9 71.4 76.2 46.26 8.35 14 0 123 12.1 52 MB (YEAR) 83.2 68.8 76.1 54.0 8.68# 38 0 112 HAFB 83.1 67.1 75.1 59.76 9.95 63 0 125 77 8.9 ESE 84 85 60 74 57 MAP 84.8 63.1 74.0 63.04 11.50 96 1 HSTD
Miles from Biscayne Bay
YEARS OF RECORD: Miami Beach (MB) 1931-1960 0
- Less than One-Half Homestead AFB (HAFB) Feb. 1943-
- Sunrise to Sunset - Sept. 1944, May-Nov. 1945, Jan.
Miami City Office Data - 1956-Sept. 1959 3 (3 miles inland) Miami Airport (MAP) 1931-1960 6
- 1960-1964 Data Homestead Experiment Sta. (HSTD) 1910-1961 10
NOTE: Years of Record for HAFB too short to be climatological
TABLE 2.6-2
CUMULATIVE PER CENT FREQUENCY OF INVERSIONS BASED 0-100 FT AT MIAMI AIRPORT - 1960-1964 INCLUSIVE
CUMULATIVE PERCENT
DRY SEASON
- WET SEASON
- Number Cumulative 7-PM EST 7-AM EST 7-PM EST 7-AM EST of Inver- % of Inver- Thickness of Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind sions Based sions Based
Inversion-Ft On Off Mix. On Off Mix. On Off Mix. On Off Mix. on 0-100 Ft on 0-100 Ft 000- 200
201- 300 6.4 5.9 8.2 2.4 9.4 6.1 6.2 3.6 5.6 63 5.2
301- 400 35.4 35.3 39.0 16.4 36.8 24.3 23.1 8.3 36.3 27.4 22.5 278 28.1
401- 500 45.1 52.9 75.0 64.8 36.2 55.7 54.6 42.3 41.6 74.4 57.2 61.3 340 56.0
501- 600 77.4 94.1 83.0 56.3 79.3 60.7 49.9 90.9 68.9 83.2 217 73.9
601- 700 87.1 100.0 93.1 63.3 91.6 63.7 46.1 58.2 93.7 77.0 91.3 91 81.5
701- 800 93.6 100.0 96.2 71.5 93.5 66.7 57.6 96.0 83.0 96.9 62 86.5
801- 900 96.8 97.5 71.9 95.4 75.8 69.1 74.9 98.3 87.4 98.8 32 89.3 901-1000 100.0 98.1 78.5 98.2 81.9 84.5 83.2 98.9 94.3 100.0 48 93.1
1001-1100 80.6 91.5 99.5 94.7 8 93.7
1101-1200 84.3 99.1 94.0 88.3 100.0 95.9 19 95.3
1201-1300 99.4 86.4 100.0 97.9 13 96.4
1301-1400 88.5 97.0 92.1 7 97.0
1401-1500 89.3 100.0 98.3 4 97.3
1501-1600 91.8 100.0 7 97.9
1601-1700 93.0 3 98.1
1701-1800
1801-1900 100.0 94.2 99.5 7 98.7
1901-2000 96.3 95.9 100.0 7 99.3
Over 2000 100.0 100.0 9 100.0
AUXILIARY DATA
Number of
Soundings
with Inversions Based: Total
0-100 Ft. 31 17 4 159 243 106 33 26 12 176 248 160 1215
0-2000 Ft. 67 37 6 164 338 111 88 38 15 183 271 163 1481 Total Soundings
Taken Years
1960 thru 1964 583 273 51 378 406 123 703 168 49 387 335 198 3654
- Dry Season: November-April Wind:
- Wet Season: May-October On = Onshore, Both Sfc. and 1000 mb Winds >
31 o F < 210 o F Off = Offshore, Both Sfc. and 1000 mb Winds >
211 o F < 30 o F Mix = Mixed, Sfc. and 1000 mb Winds are not the same direction
(Blanks indicate no inversion in that particular category)
TABLE 2.6-3
_
MEAN TEMPERATURE LAPSE RATE () IN o F/1000 FT WITHIN INVERSIONS BASED 0-100 FT AT MIAMI AIRPORT 1960-1964 INCLUSIVE
_
Mean Temperature Lapse Rate () in o F/1000 Ft.
DRY SEASON
- WET SEASON
- 7-PM EST 7-AM EST 7-PM EST 7-AM EST Thickness of Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind
Inversion-Ft On Off Mix. On Off Mix. On Off Mix. On Off Mix. 000- 200
201- 300 -6.2 -0.6 -15.8 -17.0 -20.4 -3.5 -8.2 -8.5 -10.8
301- 400 -1.8 -3.9 -9.4 -16.8 -18.7 -4.1 -2.9 -2.4 -6.6 -9.5 -8.4
401- 500 -0.3 -4.5 -1.9 -4.2 -10.8 -9.5 -5.0 -2.9 -4.6 -3.3 -5.9 -5.2
501- 600 -0.9 -2.7 -3.4 -8.4 -8.1 -0.7 -1.1 -2.1 -5.5 -3.6
601- 700 -1.9 0 -4.3 -7.6 -6.8 -0.6 -0.5 -6.4 -1.3 -3.7 -3.8
701- 800 -0.8 0 -2.8 -7.5 -5.7 -1.5 -3.4 -3.4 -3.6 -2.3
801- 900 -0.7 -1.9 -1.6 -9.3 -4.2 -3.9 0 -1.0 -3.4 -0.6
901-1000 -2.0 -5.9 -4.6 -6.0 -2.8 -3.8 -2.7 -1.7 -1.9 -1.7
1001-1100 -5.7 -1.6 -3.6 -5.4
1101-1200 -3.4 -7.9 -2.5 -1.0 -0.7 -1.5
1201-1300 -2.6 -4.1 -7.8 -3.1
1301-1400 -3.9 -0.3
-0.4 1401-1500 -3.1 0 -2.9
1501-1600 -4.9 -0.7
1601-1700 -4.0
1701-1800
1801-1900 -4.8 -1.9 -1.3
1901-2000 -2.9 -0.6 -1.5
Over 2000 -1.7 -1.0
- Dry Season: November-April Wind:
- Wet Season: May-October On = Onshore, Both Sfc. and 1000 mb Winds >
31 o F < 210 o F Off = Offshore, Both Sfc. and 1000 mb Winds >
211 o F < 30 o F Mix = Mixed, Sfc. and 1000 mb Winds are not the same direction
(Blanks indicate no inversion in that particular category)
TABLE 2.6-4
_
MEAN INCREASE IN SURFACE TEMPERATURE (A) IN o F TO PRODUCE AN ADIABATIC LAPSE RATE BELOW THE TOPS OF INVERSIONS BASED 0-100 FT AT MIAMI AIRPORT 1960-1964 INCLUSIVE
_
Mean Increase in Temperature (A) IN Degrees Fahrenheit DRY SEASON
- WET SEASON
- 7-PM EST 7-AM EST 7-PM EST 7-AM EST Thickness of Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind
Inversion-Ft On Off Mix. On Off Mix. On Off Mix. On Off Mix.
000- 200
201- 300 2.9 1.1 4.9 5.8 6.4 1.8 3.5 3.9 4.0
301- 400 1.8 3.2 4.4 7.0 7.3 3.6 3.1 2.9 4.1 5.3 4.9
401- 500 2.1 4.0 2.3 3.9 6.8 6.1 4.3 3.3 4.1 3.6 4.6 4.3
501- 600 2.5 3.7 3.8 6.6 6.4 3.0 3.2 3.4 5.3 4.0
601- 700 5.0 3.8 5.6 7.6 6.7 3.6 3.6 7.4 3.4 5.6 5.6
701- 800 4.2 3.5 5.5 8.8 7.7 5.1 6.4 6.2 6.4 5.4
801- 900 5.9 5.2 5.4 11.1 8.0 7.5 4.1 5.3 7.1 4.4
901-1000 6.3 9.7 8.5 9.8 4.9 8.5 7.2 6.0 6.7 6.6
1001-1100 10.9 7.0 9.1 10.8
1101-1200 9.5 13.7 8.3 6.8 6.3 7.9
1201-1300 9.4 11.7 15.5 10.2
1301-1400 11.9 8.0 7.6
1401-1500 11.7 7.4 11.9
1501-1600 14.8 9.0
1601-1700 14.8
1701-1800
1801-1900 18.8 12.9 12.0
1901-2000 15.5 10.6 12.6
Over 2000 18.0 17.1
- Dry Season: November-April Wind:
- Wet Season: May-October On = Onshore, Both Sfc. and 1000 mb Winds >
31 o F < 210 o F Off = Offshore, Both Sfc. and 1000 mb Winds >
211 o F < 30 o F Mix = Mixed, Sfc. and 1000 mb Winds are not the same direction
(Blanks indicate no inversion in that particular category)
TABLE 2.6-5 MEAN SURFACE TO 1000 MB WIND SPEED SHEAR IN KNOTS (C) AT TIMES WHEN INVERSIONS ARE BASED 0-100 FT AT MIAMI AIRPORT 1960-1964 INCLUSIVE
__
Wind Speed Shear in Knots (C) DRY SEASON
- WET SEASON
- 7-PM EST 7-AM EST 7-PM EST 7-AM EST Thickness of Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind
Inversion-Ft On Off Mix. On Off Mix. On Off Mix. On Off Mix.
000- 200
201- 300 1.9 1.9 5.7 3.6 4.5 1.0 3.0 0.6 2.6
301- 400 4.5 3.5 5.2 3.8 4.2 1.9 3.2 0.0 3.7 1.8 3.7
401- 500 3.2 1.3 3.9 6.0 3.3 3.8 -0.4 1.9 1.9 3.6 1.6 2.0
501- 600 2.3 1.9 5.1 3.8 3.9 5.8 1.9 4.2 2.0 2.3
601- 700 0.6 0.0 6.6 3.4 2.7 7.8 -5.8 -1.9 2.7 3.1 3.4
701- 800 2.9 0.0 6.2 4.5 1.9 1.9 1.3 2.9 2.5 1.7
801- 900 0.0 6.8 7.8 6.8 3.2 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.2 1.3
901-1000 1.9 0.0 4.9 2.6 1.9 0.5 -1.9 5.8 0.8 8.7
1001-1100 1.6 -1.9 -3.9 7.8
1101-1200 3.2 -1.9 1.5 1.9 1.9 1.9
1201-1300 4.9 2.3 3.9 1.6
1301-1400 7.4 1.9 1.9
1401-1500 1.9 0.0 1.9
1501-1600 3.9 -1.9
1601-1700 0.6
1701-1800
1801-1900 3.9 6.5 1.9
1901-2000 5.4 0.0 0.0
Over 2000 5.6 0.0
AUXILIARY DATA
C with no Inversions Based 0-200 Ft. 2.9 3.3 4.6 6.0 2.7 5.1 1.6 0.8 1.2 3.9 2.0 3.3
C All Soundings Years 1960 thru 1964 3.0 3.3 4.4 5.8 4.4 3.9 1.5 1.0 1.4 3.8 1.9 2.6
- Dry Season: November-April Wind:
- Wet Season: May-October On = Onshore, Both Sfc. and 1000 mb Winds >
31 o F < 210 o F Off = Offshore, Both Sfc. and 1000 mb Winds >
211 o F < 30 o F Mix = Mixed, Sfc. and 1000 mb Winds are not the same direction
(Blanks indicate no inversion in that particular category)
- N W I----+---+-+-+-__+_-
S MAY -OCT 7PM-6AM EST 31.9% CALM N S MAY -OCT 7AM-6PM EST 8.5% CALM N w ........... -t-.........;--t-.....,.
.... S ALL DATA 15.6% CALM N i-+-...........
o---r+-lE S NOV -APR 7PM-6AM EST 17.4% CALM N S NOV -APR 7AM-6PM EST 4.4% CALM WIND DIRECTION ROSES -RAIN OR SUNSHINE, HOMESTEAD AFB FIG. 2.6-1 N S MAY -OCT 7PM-6AM EST 6.5% CALM N 5 MAY -OCT 7AM-6PM EST 1.6% CALM N S ALL DATA 3.9% CALM NOV -APR 7PM-6AM EST 6.0% CALM N ... -..... --+--+--1--1 E 5 NOV -APR 7AM-6PM EST 1.4% CALM WIND DIRECTION ROSES -RAIN OR SUNSHINE, MIMU AIRPORT FIG. 2.6-2
- N W 1-0--+--+--+-+--- ... S MAY -OCT 7PM-6AM EST 13.8% CALM N MAY -OCT 7AM-6PM EST 7.5% CALM N w ...........
-+--+-+-01
.... 111111!11 ALL DATA 8.3% CALM N NOV -APR 7PM-6AM EST 4.6% CALM N S NOV -APR 7AM-6PM EST 4.2% CALM WIND DIRECTION ROSES -DURING RAIN, HOMESTEAD AFB FIG. 2.6-3 W I---.--+-....-+--+---+---
S MAY -OCT .7PM-6AM EST 1.9% CALM N W 1---;--+-......-4-+-+--+
... S MAY -OCT 7AM-6PM EST 2.3% CALM N ....
s ALL DATA 1.8% CALM N i-f-.... -r---f-+--l E S NOV -APR 7PM-6AM EST 2.2% CALM N S NOV -APR 7AM-6PM EST 0.2% CALM WIND DIRECTION ROSES -DURING RAIN, MIAMI AIRPORT FIG. 2.6-4
- 500-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------500 400--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------400 Legend-Hours of Persistence 200-1.r------------------------------------
____ _ = 6-10
= 11-20 _ >: 21-30 --------------------200
(/) I.IJ (J Z I.IJ a:: a:: g 0 "-0 a: I&J CD :I z IJ') ")1 = More than 30 f/) 1&1 U Z 301&1 a:: a::: u u 20 0 lL 0 a: UJ m ::2 10 z
..
____ ----____
ssw SW wsw w WNW NW NNW FREQUENCY OF WIND DIRECTION PERSISTENCE BY DIRECTION HOMESTEAD AFB FIG. 2.6-5 500-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------500 400---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------400 300-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------300 en IIJ 0 Z IIJ a:: a:: j 0 0 0 u. 0 a:: au m ::E :l Z 200-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 90 8 7 60 40 10 9 8 7 6 CALM, N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE DIRECTION s ssw sw Legend-Hours of Persistence _ = 6-10
= 11-20 _ = 21-30 --------------------200 IC('m:}1 = More than 30 wsw w WNW 100 90 60 50 40 en au 0 30 a:: a:: j () 20 g u. 0 a:: au m ::E 10 z 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 NW NNW FREQUENCY OF WIND DIRECTION PERSISTENCE BY DIRECTION MIAMI AIRPORT FIG. 2.6-6
2.000 Legend -Wind Speed, Knots ____________
_ 0= CaIn
- a 1-3 m = 4-7 * = 8-14 I§t] = 15-39 = More than 40 ------------
4,000
2,000 DIRECTION (I) W o Z >-.---zoo UJ 0:: o o 100 0 20 10 I.L o 0:: W (D :l z FREQUENCY OF WIND SPEEDS BY DIRECTION, HOMESTEAD AFB FIG. 2.6-7 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 1,000 800 600 e 400 (/) LIJ (,) Z LIJ 200 0: => (,) (,) 0 lL 100 0 80 0: 60 LIJ
- Legend -Wind Speed, Knots 0= Calm .= 1-3 4-/ 11= 8-14 [2i] = 15-39 = More than 40 ssw SW WSW w WNW 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 1,000 800 400 (/) LIJ (,) 200 Z W ex: ::::> (,) (,) 00 0 u... 80 0 60 ex: UJ CD 40 ::::> Z 20 10 NW NNW FREQUENCY OF WIND SPEEDS BY DIRECTION MIAMI AIRPORT FIG. 2.6-8
+ 83W + [J":'" ..... . . . . . . . ' D OVER 55 11 LTIJI UNDER 50 11 OTF o 200N.Mf + MEAN ANNUAL RAINFALL IN INCHES, SOUTH AND SOUTH CENTRAL FLORIDA, 1952-1962 INCL. MEAN ANNUAL RAINFALL FIG. 2.6-9
- Legend-in °F/lOOO Ft. Equal or more 5.5. Absolutely Unstable 5.4 to 4.0 m Moderately Unstable 3.9 to 2.5 Slightly Unstable 2.4 to 1.6 Neutral 1.5 to 0.0. . Slightly Stable Less than Zero [I) Moderately Stable 20 20 Ii 19 18 '8 17 17 16 16 15 15 0 o w IZ IZ 5 It I g g 10 10 0 o 9---9 0 ffi 8 8 ffi m 7 7 Z 6 Z o JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TEMPERATURE LAPSE, SURFACE -950 MB, MIAMI AIRPORT 7 AM FIG. 2.6-10
- *
- en w o z w Legend-i in °F/lOOO Ft
- Equal or more 5.5. Absolutely Unstable 5.4 to 4.0 [iI Moderately Unstable 3.9 to 2.5 Slightly Unstable 2.4 to 1.6 Neutral 1.5 to 0.0 II Slightly Stable Less than Zero (I] Moderately Stable 20 20 19 19 18 18
..
__
.. o ----------------------
..
Z W a: :::> o o o Q: W m :l :::> z JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN 8 o 0 a: w m JUL AUG SEP :J Z OCT 3----5 :::::1--------4
"""1'"-----0 NOV DEC TEMPERATURE LAPSE, SURFACE -950 MB, MIAMI AIRPORT 7PM FIG. 2.6-11
- "e * -__ Storms Less Than Hurricane Intensity
Storms Of Hurricane Intensity TROPICAL STORM PATHS, 1886 -1964 FIG. 2.6-12 Z.-< St>1 d CI) ts1>-v t-z:It-' t-'r>J 0<: Ht-' '"':lOCI)
H >v G') N 0-I ...... W b:I H CI) n fii
- DEC. DEC. _ MAR. JUNE CJ) EPT DEC. _ MAR * .g UNE SI EPT DEC. S) \II pUNE o ISEPT :0 MAR. \Jt UNE EPT DEC.
G') UNE WEPT DEC. _ MAR. JUNE EPT DEC. (Jl EPT DEC. f-f Et E£ I H e .I t: ti:.f=,-+:-1*
-, .-" ...... -..
- FeeT 0 U)
- -.. . -. -.l : -.. .-_.. .' -**i l . .. t'* i , t: .. J§ ttf ".i-** i-. .. : .. -U: .... "T _ ... :1 i.
t.:> o ' .. -I **T** + w F!.ET e
- U1 ()) -.J 00 S>> 6 -+-I* f-... _ .. U1 6) -J (P .0 o
2.7 HYDROLOGY
(SURFACE WATER)
2.
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Studies have been made of the surface drainage characteristics of the site and area. The studies included examination of topographic maps; interpretation of aerial photographs; aerial reconnaissance of the site and vicinity by helicopter; review of reports describing the drainage history of the area, flood control, and drainage projects; and review of storm and flood records.
2.7.2 AREA
The direction of natural drainage of the area is to the east and south toward Biscayne Bay. On the west, the drainage area is essentially limited by the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, a broad low ridge which extends from Miami to southwest of Florida City. The land slopes gradually from the coastal ridge, which is about 5 to 10 ft above MSL at Homestead, southeast toward the site which is at or near sea level. As the geologic history of the Florida Peninsula has been one of slow subsidence, the shallow tidal creeks and broad swales are submerged, and stream flow is extremely sluggish. The permeable limestone bedrock of the area has not allowed development of an integrated surface drainage system, as most of the rainfall is recharged directly to the
ground-water reservoir.
There is no lake or perennial stream within the area. Yearly rainfall averages approximately 60 inches, about 75 percent of which occurs during the period from May through October. Roughly two-thirds of the rainfall is
recharged to the ground-water system. In the absence of well defined
2.7-1 stream channels, run-off occurs in slow sheet-like flows toward the bay during periods of high precipitation. Evidence of the direction of drainage is shown by the curvilinear drainage lines and vegetation features which are apparent from the air, as seen in Figure 2.2-2. Manmade drainage and flood control
canals direct some surface flow away from the site.
2.7.3 SITE
The plant site is located on mangrove-covered tidal flats adjacent to Biscayne Bay. The ground surface elevation is less than 1 foot above MSL. The normal tide range of the bay is about 2 feet, thus the entire site is inundated with sea water during high tide except for that part built up with compacted limestone rock fill. During low tides, brackish water drains sluggishly towards the bay through small, meandering, shallow drainage courses and tidal creeks which traverse the area. However, most of the site area remains under 1 to 3 inches of water, even at low tide. Vegetation consists of brackish water plants such as stunted mangrove and marsh grass. Some pockets of fresh water vegetation are found in circular mounded areas of decayed vegetation known as hammocks. Apart from some fresh water trapped in these areas, all of the surface water and shallow ground water in the vicinity of the site is
highly saline because of tidal inundation and salt water intrusion.
2.7.4 SITE FLOODING
Tidal flooding during hurricanes places more water in a short period of time on the area than does rainfall. Therefore, tidal flooding is the major surface hydrologic feature of the area, and rainfall is the minor surface
hydrologic feature.
2.7-2 The highest tide that has been measured nearest the site was measured at an elevation of 10.1 ft above MSL during Hurricane Betsy in September, 1965.
This station where measurement was made is located 30 ft upstream of the
salinity dam on the Florida City Canal. The site is located 1 mile east and
1 mile south of the salinity dam. It has been reported that debris marks
from the flood tide associated with Hurricane Betsy were seen approximately
10 ft above sea level at the site.
Because of the low flat terrain, tidal floodwaters move inland several miles
and cover large areas. Based on available information, dissipation of
floodwaters by sheet flow and through natural and manmade drainage courses
requires several days. The amount of infiltration of tidal floodwaters into
inland ground-water supplies depends on the amount of water already in the
shallow aquifer prior to inundation, with much greater infiltration occurring
when prestorm water levels are below normal. During the hurricane period of
June through October, the groundwater levels are generally at their highest, the storage capacity of the aquifer is filled, and additional ground-water
recharge is at a minimum.
2.7.5 FLOOD
CONTROL
Construction of flood control projects in the area reduced the possibility of
tidal floodwater reaching agricultural and populated areas. Of special
interest is Levee L-31 built by the Army Corps of Engineers, in cooperation
with the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District. This project
includes a levee with a crest elevation of about 7 ft above MSL,
2.7-3 running in a north-south direction from a point 9 miles north to a point miles southwest of the site. It passes approximately 2 miles west of the
site. The levee and its appurtenant works are designed to provide surface
salinity control and flood protection against most non-hurricane storm tides
and are not designed to prevent flooding from very severe storms. For storms
with extreme high tides of unusually long duration, there would be little
reduction in the extent and depth of flooding. However, for a storm of the
intensity and duration of Hurricane Betsy, 1965, inland movement of tidal
floodwaters would be somewhat reduced, and it is estimated that flooding
would be limited to less than 2 miles west of the levee, i.e., 4 miles west
of the site. Based on published storm tide frequency studies, it is
estimated that a 7 ft tide may occur once every 20 to 25 years.
2.7.6
SUMMARY
Under normal conditions, surface water drains very slowly toward the bay.
Near the shoreline, this drainage is influenced by tidal conditions. During
hurricanes, large inland areas are covered by floodtides. A small part of
such floodwater may reach the ground-water table in the areas of ground-water
use. The amount depends on prestorm ground-water table levels. Flood control
measures substantially reduce the area subject to flood inundation for all
but the most severe storms.
2.7-4
2.8 OCEANOGRAPHY
Card Sound mixing and flushing studies were carried out by the Coastal and
Oceanographic Engineering Department of the University of Florida. These
studies describe the capability of the Card Sound waters in the vicinity of
the cooling water discharge to dilute and disperse the cooling water
effluent. The report is issued as Appendix 2C to this section of the FSAR.
2.8-1
2.9 GEOLOGY
2.
9.1 INTRODUCTION
A geologic program including a regional geologic survey, borings, test
probings, geophysical survey, and other site studies, has been completed.
The geologic characteristics of the site and area have been investigated as
follows:
(1) The regional and local geologic structure was identified, and information on the character and thickness of the formations underlying
the area was developed. This was based on existing geological data, a
study of maps and reports, and discussions with geologists working in
the area.
(2) The subsurface conditions at the site were investigated with 50 test borings, ranging in depth from 10 ft to 1881/2 ft. Rock cores were
ecovered from 17 of these borings. In addition, a series of 62 rock
probings, a geophysical uphole velocity survey, a ground motion survey, and a downhole television camera survey in a special 24-inch
diameter boring were made. Previous to the above work, a series of 206
rock probings had been made in a part of the site. A bedrock surface
contour map was made from the boring and probing data. The subsurface
conditions were further investigated, via test borings, specifically
for the addition of the Unit 4 Emergency Diesel Generator Building.
Refer to Section 2.9.4 for additional information.
(3) Samples of rock core were subjected to laboratory tests to evaluate the physical and chemical properties of the foundation rock.
2.9.2 REGIONAL
GEOLOGY
The site lies within the Floridian Plateau, which is the partly submerged
southeastern peninsula of the North American continental shelf.
2.9-1 Rev. 10 7/92 The Plateau, which separates the Atlantic deep from the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, has been described as a large horst which may be bounded by
high-angle fault scarps at the edge of the shelf. In the vicinity of the
site, the edge of the shelf is located some 18 miles offshore to the east.
The peninsula is underlain by a thick series of sedimentary rocks, which in
the southern part of the state consist essentially of gently dipping or
flat-lying limestones and associated formations. Beneath these sedimentary
formations are igneous and metamorphic basement rocks which correspond to
those which underlie most of the eastern North American continent. The
sedimentary rocks overlying the basement complex range from 4,000 ft thick in
the northern part of the state to more than 15,000 ft thick in southern
Florida. The strata range in age from Paleozoic to Recent. Deep borings
indicate that in southern Florida the rock in the uppermost 5,000 ft is
predominantly calcareous and ranges in age from late Cretaceous to
Pleistocene. Mesozoic limestones, chalk and sandstones are underlain by
Paleozoic shales and sandstones and Pre-Cambrian granitic basement.
The region is characterized by very simple geologic structures. The
predominant structure affecting the thickness and attitude of the sedimentary
formations in southern Florida is the Ocala antic line of Tertiary age. This
gentle flexure is some 230 miles long and 70 miles wide. The sedimentary
formations comprising the flanks of the anticline dip gently away from its
crest, the slope becoming less pronounced with successively younger
formations. The most recent Pleistocene formations are nearly horizontal.
Pleistocene shorelines have been traced as far north as New Jersey, with
elevations essentially the same as those in Florida.
2.9-2 It can, therefore, be concluded that no tilting or structural deformation associated with tectonic activity has occurred during the past one-half
million years. The closest geologic structure to the north of the site is a
gentle, low syncline near Fort Lauderdale, some 50 miles away. The great
thickness of Tertiary carbonates indicates that the region has been slowly
subsiding for many millions of years. Faults are not common because the
strata are undeformed. No fault or structural deformation is known or
suspected in the bedrock in the site area.
2.9.3 LOCAL
GEOLOGY
The site lies within the coastal lowlands province on the south Florida
shelf. The area is practically flat, with elevations rising from sea level at
the site to 10 ft above MSL in the Homestead area 9 miles to the west. The
predominant surface feature near the site is the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, which represents an area of bedrock outcrop of the Miami oolite. This
Pleistocene formation underlies the site, where it is overlain by organic, mangrove swamp soils which average 4 to 8 ft in thickness. Pockets of silt
and clay are encountered locally, separating the organic soils and the
limestone bedrock.
Local depressions, some of which attain depths as great as 16 feet, are
occasionally encountered in the surface of the limestone bedrock at the site.
Such depressions are not sinkholes associated with collapse above an
underground solution channel, but rather potholes, which are surficial
erosion or solution features. These features probably developed during a
former period of lower sea level when the rock surface was sub-
2.9-3 jected to weathering and the effects of fresh water.
The Miami oolite, a deposit of highly permeable limestone, extends to about
20 ft below sea level. The rock contains random zones of harder and softer
rock and heterogeneously distributed small voids and solution channels, many
of which contain secondary deposits. Recrystallized calcite on the surfaces
of many of the voids and solution channels is indicative of secondary
deposition. This limestone lies unconformably upon the Ft. Thompson
formation, which is a complex sequence of limestones and calcareous
sandstones.
The upper 5 to 10 ft of the limestone beneath the Miami oolite contains much
coral which may represent the Key Largo formation, a coralline reef rock.
This formation is contemporaneous in part with both the Ft. Thompson
formation and the Miami oolite.
Prior to deposition of the Miami oolite, the surface of the Ft. Thompson
formation was subjected to erosion and weathering. The Miami oolite, therefore, fills in irregular depressions in (lies unconformably upon) the
surface of the underlying formation. Much of the Ft. Thompson formation is
riddled with small voids and cavities resulting from solution action, and is, therefore, extremely permeable. The results of solution activity evident in
both the Miami oolite and Ft. Thompson formations are derived from solution
by fresh ground water at a former period of lower sea level.
The Ft. Thompson formation, together with the Miami oolite, comprises the
bulk of the Biscayne aquifer, a hydrogeologic unit described in Section 2.10.
2.9-4 At a depth of about 70 ft. below sea level, the Ft. Thompson formation unconformably overlies the Tamiami formation, a predominantly clayey and
calcareous marl, locally indurated to limestone. The Tamiami formation also
contains beds of silty and shelly sands, and is relatively impermeable. The
Tamiami and underlying Hawthorne and Tampa formations, all of which are
Miocene in age, comprise a relatively impermeable hydrogeologic unit called
the Floridian aquiclude, which is roughly 500 to 700 ft. thick in southern
Because of their composition, the soils and the rock in the site area have
negligible base exchange capacity and, therefore, will not effect any
significant ion exchange.
The bedrock beneath the site is competent with respect to foundation
conditions and is capable of supporting heavy loads.
The fossil-fueled units (Units 1 & 2) were constructed prior to the nuclear
units (Units 3 & 4). During construction of Units 1 & 2, the entire fossil-
fueled unit site was demucked and backfilled with crushed limerock fill. The
Unit 4 EDG Building is located within the Units 1 & 2 excavation. After
demucking, this area was backfilled up to Elevation +5.0 feet above the mean
level of water (MLW).
Units 1 and 2 impose heavy loads on limestone and limestone rock fill
identical in overall character to that underlying the two nuclear units. The
total design load is applied on the foundations of Units 1 and 2 and observed
settlements are well below those incorporated for design.
No subsurface conditions were encountered during construction of the nuclear
units that materially differed from those presented in the Preliminary
Safety Analyses Report. During construction of Units 3 & 4, the building
site area was backfilled to the existing grade at elevation 18.0 feet MLW.
2.9-5 Rev. 10 7/92
2.9.4 SUBSURFACE
INVESTIGATION FOR THE UNIT 4 EDG BUILDING
Foundation engineering investigations were performed to evaluate the
subsurface conditions in order to determine the most satisfactory foundation
system to support the Unit 4 Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) Building. The
investigations consisted of drilling, sampling, field and laboratory testing
and engineering analyses.
The results of field explorations and field and laboratory testing programs
which provide the basis for the engineering analyses are presented in
Reference 1.
This subsection summarizes the results of the subsurface and foundation
investigation (Reference 1) specifically conducted for the construction of
the Unit 4 EDG Building. Conclusions drawn from this investigation
demonstrate the suitability of the site for the safe support of the Unit 4
EDG Building mat foundation.
2.9.4.1 PROPERTIES OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS
The Seismic Category I Unit 4 EDG Building is founded on a reinforced
concrete mat with bottom at Elevation +10.0 feet MLW and supported on
compacted limerock fill extending to limestone bedrock (Miami Oolite).
The subsurface soils at the site consist of a limerock fill, sand and silt
fill layer, underlain by limerock.
Description Elevation, ft MLW Very dense limerock, sand, and silt fill +18 to - 5
Limestone, sand and silt fill - 5 to -10
Fossiliferous limerock (Miami Oolite) -10 to -35
2.9-6 Rev. 10 7/92 The geophysical survey indicated the following two basic units for the subsurface conditions:
Description Elevation, ft MLW Limerock fill +18 to -10
Miami Oolite -10 to -35
Exploration
The foundation soil test boring program was developed by Ebasco Services, Inc. and borings were made by Ardaman & Associates of Miami, Florida. The
initial Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) boring program consisted of five
borings. The site drilling was performed between December 21 and December
29, 1987. A supplementary soil test program consisting of 5 borings was
conducted in April 1988. The purpose of this program was to obtain
additional information regarding the density of existing fill, verify that no
muck exists at the lower levels of the fill, and evaluate the liquefaction
potential of the fill. This program is discussed in Reference 1.
Limerock Fill Material
A grain size distribution of a composite sample of limerock fill material was
made. Standard Penetration Test samples were combined to create a composite
sample. The limerock fill from the samples were classified as light tan
silty sand with gravel mixture, SM designation in accordance with the Unified
Soil Classified System, ASTM D-2487, Reference 2.
Rock Cores (Miami Oolite)
Five samples were trimmed from the rock cores for unconfined compressive
strength determinations. The specific gravity equaled 2.68 and the carbonate
content was 96.6%.
A detailed discussion of the test program and the results for both the
limerock fill material and the Miami Oolite are presented in Reference 1.
See Subsection 2.9.4.4 for in-situ engineering properties including Poisson's
ratio, Young's modulus and shear modulus determined by seismic surveys.
2.9-7 Rev. 10 7/92
2.9.4.2 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS
A geophysical testing program was conducted on January 20, 1988. This
program is summarized and the results are presented in Subsection 2.9.4.4.
The program consisted of a down-hole survey. Both compression and shear wave
velocities of the foundation materials were measured at one boring location.
These velocities along with the unit weight values of soil and rock
determined from laboratory tests were used to compute Poisson's Ratio, Young's modulus and shear modulus of the in-situ materials.
2.9.4.3 EXCAVATIONS AND BACKFILL
Field, geophysical and laboratory data show that the soil on the site at the
locations and the depths explored consist, from the ground surface to a depth
ranging from 25 to 27 feet, of tan to light tan limerock fill with sand and
silt. Underlying the fill material, fossiliferous limestone (Miami Oolite)
was encountered to the termination depth of the test borings.
The Unit 4 EDG Building is founded on a reinforced concrete mat with bottom
at Elevation +10.0 feet MLW and is supported by existing crushed compacted
limerock fill. The limerock fill material is crushed rock, shot rock, or a
combination of the two. The static and dynamic engineering properties of
these materials are summarized in Subsections 2.9.4.4 and 2.9.4.7.
2.9.4.4 RESPONSE OF SOIL AND ROCK TO DYNAMIC LOADING
The Seismic Category I Unit 4 EDG Building structure is founded on compacted
limerock fill extending to limestone bedrock. The seismic design of the Unit
4 EDG Building structure is discussed in Subsection 5.3.4.
A downhole seismic velocity survey was completed on January 20, 1988 in one
boring. This seismic survey was carried out to provide information which
could be used to augment data collected during the exploratory boring program
and to provide estimates of the in-situ engineering properties of foundation
materials.
2.9-8 Rev. 10 7/92 Two surveys were completed and checked against each other. The first survey began at a depth of 41 feet (EL -24.6 feet MLW) and arrival times for
compressional and shear waves were recorded at 2-foot intervals up to a depth
of 15 feet. A second survey was carried out at 5-foot intervals from a depth
of 40 feet (EL -23.6 feet MLW) up to a depth of 5 feet. The results of both
surveys were combined to determine the compressional and shear wave
velocities for materials beneath the proposed emergency diesel generator
building.
On the basis of compressional and shear wave velocities established from the
downhole seismic surveys, values for Poisson's ratio, Young's modulus, and
Shear modulus were determined. These values are presented below.
Material Poisson's Young's Shear
Ratio Modulus Modulus
Limerock Fill 0.256 18.42 x 10 6 psf 7.38 x 10 6 psf Miami Oolite 0.253 46.65 x 10 6 psf 18.62 x 10 6 psf The density of the limerock fill was taken as 125 pcf on the basis of
previous studies conducted at the site by Dames and Moore as stated in their
report of February, 1967 (Reference 9). The density of the Miami Oolite was
taken as 113 pcf on the basis of laboratory tests of samples obtained from
the survey boring. Reference 1 provides details of the geophysical test
results.
See Subsection 5.3.4 for discussions concerning soil and structure
interaction and the design of manholes and ductbanks.
2.9.4.5 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Liquefaction analysis is based upon the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) data
using conservative, standard procedures. The Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE)
used in the analysis has a peak ground acceleration of 0.15g (see Subsection
2.11.2). Using these criteria, the calculated factor of safety against
liquefaction of the fill material is well within safe limits.
A liquefaction analysis was conducted for the area designated for the
location of the Unit 4 EDG Building structure. This analysis was based on
SPT blow
2.9-9 Rev. 10 7/92 count records from the boring logs in accordance with the procedure first outlined by H. B. Seed et al. (1983), and modified by H. B. Seed et al.
(1985) (References 3 and 4).
Liquefaction potential was systematically evaluated for all sand layers below
the ground water table with measured SPT blow count values. This evaluation
was performed for all borings. Details of this analysis are presented in
Reference 1.
The calculated factor of safety against liquefaction of the fill material is
greater than 1.1 which indicated that no potential for liquefaction exists at
the Unit 4 EDG Building location.
2.9.4.6 EARTHQUAKE DESIGN BASIS
The evaluation of the maximum earthquake potential is presented in Section
2.11. Based on this analysis, the design earthquake (Operating Basis
Earthquake, OBE), has been conservatively established as 0.05g horizontal
ground acceleration. The Unit 4 EDG Building, including the diesel oil
storage facility, and manholes and ductbanks have also been designed for a
Safe Shutdown Earthquake, SSE, of 0.15g ground acceleration to assure no loss
of function of this vital system. The maximum vertical earthquake ground
acceleration is taken as two-thirds of the maximum horizontal ground
acceleration.
2.9.4.7 STATIC STABILITY
The Unit 4 EDG Building is founded on a reinforced concrete mat with bottom
at EL +10.0 feet MLW and supported by existing crushed limerock fill. The
maximum static uniform foundation pressure for the foundation mat is 6000
psf. Soil properties used in the foundation evaluations were determined from
the field, geographical and laboratory data.
Bearing Capacity
Bearing capacity is based upon proven and conservative methods using
Terzaghi's equation. The computed ultimate bearing capacity of the mat is
2.9-10 Rev. 10 7/92 70 ksf, which provides a factor of safety of 7.0 for the allowable backfill bearing pressure of 10 ksf. Therefore, the computed allowable capacity was
found to be well above the applied loads. A detailed discussion of this
subject is provided in Reference 1.
Settlement
Settlement determination is based upon direct measurement of soil elastic
modulus obtained by geophysical testing (Swiger Method - Reference 5).
Research indicates that this method yields the most realistic and
comprehensive determination of settlement.
The settlement computed by using the down hole shear wave velocity values at
the Unit 4 EDG Building site is the most accurate representation of the
predicted settlement value.
The computed average settlement of the Unit 4 EDG Building structure due to
static loading is 0.163 inches. The maximum differential settlement across
the mat foundation is about 0.13 inches. In view of the rigid nature of the
Unit 4 EDG Building foundation concrete mat, this settlement is acceptable.
These calculated settlements are within acceptable limits from a safety of
operations standpoint. A detailed discussion of this subject is provided in
Reference 1.
2.9.4.8 DESIGN CRITERIA
Design of mats on elastic foundations require determination of the modulus of
subgrade reaction. Based on the average settlements obtained using the
geophysical properties and the "SETTLG" computer program, the modulus was
calculated from the following equation:
K b = P (Reference 6)
where;
K b = Coefficient of subgrade reaction for foundation of width b
P = Contact pressure (stress units)
The computed value of modulus of subgrade reaction is 185 pci.
2.9-11 Rev. 10 7/92
2.9.4.9 TECHNIQUES TO IMPROVE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
No improvements of subsurface conditions were required for the Unit 4 EDG
Building structure.
2.9-12 Rev. 10 7/92
2.
9.5 REFERENCES
- 1. Ebasco Services Inc. Report No. FLO 53-20E.5009, "Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 EDG Enhancement Geotechnical Investigations and Foundation
Analysis for Diesel Building Addition", Rev. 0, August 1988.
- 2. ASTM Standard D-2487 (1985), "Unified Soil Classification System".
- 3. Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., and Arango, I. (1983), "Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential Using Field Performance Data", J. Geotech. Engg.
Div., ASCE 109(3), 458-482.
- 4. Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L., and Chung, R.M. (1985), "Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance
Evaluations", J. Geotech, Engg. Div., ASCE III (12), 1425-1445.
- 5. Swiger, W.F. (1974), "Evaluation of Soil Moduli", Analysis and Design in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE Proceeding Vol. II.
- 6. Foundations and Earth Structures (1982). Design Manual DM7, NAVFAC, Department of the Navy, Alexandria, Virginia.
2.9-13 Rev. 10 7/92 2.10 GROUND WATER The information in this section pertains to studies conducted of the ground water and geological features at Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 at the time of construction. This information is for historical purposes only.
2.
10.1 INTRODUCTION
A study of the ground water hydrology of the site has been completed. This study included review of geology and ground-water reports, review of water level data and historic ground-water conditions, and discussions with ground-water geologists who have worked in the area. Field studies completed
at the site included installation of 5 sets of 3 observation wells, which were cased and cemented at 3 different depths at each location, measurement of water levels and tidal response, a pumping test, and injection of dye to evaluate the depth, direction, and rate of groundwater flow. Laboratory
studies included salinity and conductivity measurements.
2.10.2 REGIONAL
A large part of southeastern Florida is underlain by the Biscayne aquifer, which furnishes the majority of agricultural, industrial, and municipal fresh water supplies. The aquifer is a hydrogeologic unit which occurs at or close to the ground surface and extends to a depth of 70 ft at the site. The highly porous and permeable limestone formations comprising this aquifer are described in more detail in Section 2.9. The rock consists essentially of oolitic, crystalline and sandy, fossiliferous limestone and coral deposits with random hard and soft layers. The high permeability derives primarily from the numerous small voids and solution channels which are heterogeneously distributed through the aquifer. Some of the voids and channels in the rock
are filled with detritus and
secondary deposits.
2.10-1 Rev. 16 10/99 Shallow water table conditions prevail in the area, and the aquifer is unconfined except for a thin (4 to 6 ft) layer of organic soils in the coastal
swamp areas. The Biscayne aquifer is underlain by 500 to 700 ft of less permeable limestone, marl, and sandstone strata which comprise the aquiclude overlying the deeper artesian Floridan aquifer. The artesian head in this deeper aquifer is approximately +20 ft MSL at the site. The deep aquifer is not significant in this study except that the positive artesian pressure prevents downward percolation of shallow ground water from the Biscayne
aquifer.
Southeastern Florida is a water conservation area extending south and east from Lake Okeechobee. The conservation area consists of large inland areas divided by dikes constructed for the purpose of storing fresh water which otherwise would be wasted by discharge through numerous drainage canals. The
water control project and the high permeability and infiltration characteristics of the Biscayne aquifer, together with the highly interconnected surface and ground water flow system, allow excellent control
and almost complete management of the water resources of the area.
Ground water levels and the direction and rate of ground water flow in the
Biscayne aquifer are products of the topography, rainfall and recharge,
hydraulic gradients, canals and drainage channels, ground water use and the
hydrologic properties of the aquifer.
Under normal conditions, the water table is near the ground surface, the
hydraulic gradient is extremely flat and the ground water moves very slowly (estimated to be about 2,000 ft per year for a hydraulic gradient
2.10-2 of 1 ft per mile) toward Biscayne Bay. The flat gradients and directions of ground water flow are consonant with the topography. Most of the water that
recharges the Biscayne aquifer is supplied by local rainfall. The amount of annual rainfall varies within relatively short distances. Of the 60 inches of average annual rainfall in the coastal ridge area of Dade County, it is estimated that about 22 inches is discharged by evapotranspiration and surface run off without reaching the water table, and 38 inches reaches the water table. Of this 38 inches, about 20 inches is discharged as ground water flow, and, 18 inches is discharged by evapotranspiration of ground water and by pumping from wells. The magnitude of ground water fluctuations in Dade County varies from 2 to 8 ft in any one year, depending upon the amount and distribution of rainfall in the area. Because of the thin soil cover and very high permeability of the aquifer, recharge to the shallow ground water table
from rainfall is extremely rapid.
During periods of extended drought, when recharge is not sufficient to balance evapotranspiration losses, the ground water table in inland areas may be locally depressed below sea level, resulting in reverse direction of ground water flow. Records for a well located about 4 miles southwest of Florida City show that in 7 years out of the 14 years that were studied, the water level has for short periods approached, and at times gone below, sea level.
Such conditions, if maintained, would lead to slow inland migration of safe water. However, although the salt water moves inland at depth in the aquifer
under low water table conditions, the rate of advance, owing to the extremely low gradient causing encroachment, is so slow that the total advance of the salt water front during 3 or 4 months of extremely low water table conditions
is not likely to exceed several
2.10-3 hundred feet. As the water table rises (a result of recharge from rainfall), the rate of advance is decreased, and if recharge continues, the advance of the salt-water front will be stopped; if high water-table conditions are maintained for several months, the salt-water front may be flushed seaward
beyond its original position.
Salt-water intrusion has resulted from tidal and storm wave inundation along the coast, leakage from formerly uncontrolled canals which allowed inland migration of salt water, droughts, density variations between salt and fresh ground water, and withdrawal by pumping. At the present time, in the vicinity of the site, the 1,000 ppm isochlor at the base of the Biscayne aquifer is located approximately 4 to 6 miles from the coast. Salinity is generally less in the higher part of the aquifer, suggesting density
stratification.
Water sufficiently fresh for irrigation purposes is available from wells located west and northwest of the site. The nearest of these wells is about 3-1/2 miles from the site. The cities of Homestead, Florida City, and Key West derive their ground-water supplies from well fields in the vicinity of
Homestead and Florida City. Potable water for the plant is obtained through a pipeline from Rex Utilities, Inc., a private concern 9-1/2 miles distant, which also serves Leisure City near Homestead. The water is obtained from the
Biscayne aquifer.
2.10.3 LOCAL
The site is located in an area of shallow, extremely permeable, limestone bedrock, with a very high water table. Because the natural ground elevations at the site are generally less than 1 ft. above MSL and the normal tide range
in Biscayne Bay averages 2 ft., the site is subject to tidal inundation. At
2.10-4 the site, the Biscayne aquifer is overlain by a shallow deposit, approximately 5 ft. thick, of organic swamp soils. The base of the aquifer is at a depth of approximately 70 ft. below sea level, where it is underlain by less permeable
limestone and sandstone strata.
Because of tidal inundation, the ground water and surface water at and in the
vicinity of the site are highly saline. The water table responds very rapidly to rainfall and tidal fluctuations. Observations of water level fluctuations in selected observation holes and hydrologic holes located approximately 1,300 to 2,900 ft. from the shore, show that the water level rises and falls in accordance with tidal variations, but with an approximate 25 percent to 50
percent head loss and a 2 to 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> time delay.
Dye studies to evaluate the rate, direction, and depth of ground water flow at the site indicate that the lateral movement of ground water at the site is very slow. No dye appeared in observation wells within 140 ft. of the injection point even 23 days after injection. Observation of suspended matter by means of a downhole TV camera showed no sign of any lateral movement of
ground water.
2.10-5 2.11 SEISMOLOGY
2.
11.1 INTRODUCTION
Records of the earthquake history of southeastern United States and Cuba have been used to develop estimates of the maximum expected and maximum hypothetical earthquakes which could affect the site. All recorded earthquakes felt in Florida have been plotted and considered in the analysis.
2.11.2 EARTHQUAKES
Records show that there have been no more than 7 shocks in the past 200 to 250 years with epicenters located in Florida. Two of these had epicentral intensities of no more than VI (Modified Mercali). Neither of these was felt in southern Florida. Five others were exceedingly small and may have been caused by explosions or submarine slides rather than earthquakes. Other
shocks have had epicenters in Cuba. The closest to southern Florida was approximately 250 miles to the south at San Cristobal, Cuba. The largest shock nearest the area was the Charleston, South Carolina earthquake in 1886, with an epicentral intensity of X (Modified Mercali).
On the basis of historical or statistical seismic activity, Turkey Point is located in a seismically inactive area, far from any recorded damaging shocks.
Even though several of the larger historical earthquakes may have been felt in
southern Florida, the amount of ground motion caused by them was not great
enough to cause damage to any moderately well built structure. The Uniform
Building Code (1964 edition, Volume 1, as approved by the International
Conference of Building Officials) designates the area as Zone 0 on the map entitled "Map of the United States Showing Zones of Approximately Equal
Seismic Probability."
2.11-1 Limestone bedrock is at or near the ground surface at the site. The site area is far from any folded or deformed sediments, and surface faults are unknown.
Predicated on history, building codes (which do not require consideration of seismic loading), geologic conditions, and earthquake probability, the design
earthquake has been conservatively established as 0.05 g horizontal ground
acceleration. The nuclear units have also been checked for a 0.15 g ground acceleration to assure no loss of function of the vital systems and structures. Vertical acceleration is taken as 2/3 of the horizontal value and
is considered to act concurrently.
2.11-2 2.12 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
2.12.1 GENERAL
The environmental monitoring program is designed to accomplish two objectives.
The first objective was to determine the existing level of background radioactivity resulting from natural occurrence and global fallout in the Turkey Point Plant environs before radioactive materials are delivered to the site. This preoperational phase began approximately one year before nuclear fuel was received at the site and continued until the first nuclear reactor
went critical.
The type, frequency, and location of samples included in the preoperational environmental monitoring program were selected on the basis of population density and distribution, agricultural practices, sources of public water and food sources, industrial activities, recreational and fishing activities in the area. In addition, the natural features of the environment including meteorology, topography, geology, hydrology, hydrography, pedology, and natural vegetative cover of the area were also considered. Accessibility within the area and the necessity for protecting the sampling equipment from
vandalism limited the choice of available sampling sites.
In the design of the preoperational monitoring program, various factors were studied in the preliminary evaluation of available or possible exposure pathways including: (1) method or mode of radionuclide release, (2) estimated isotopes, (3) activity, (4) chemical and physical form of radionuclides which
may be expected from the operation of the facility.
2.12-1 During the preoperational phase, procedures were established, methods and techniques were developed and a continuing review of the program made to verify the suitability and adequacy of the environmental monitoring program.
See Figure 2.12-1.
The second objective of the environmental monitoring program is to determine
the effect of the operation of the nuclear units on the environment. This
operational phase began with initial criticality, startup and subsequent
operation of units 3 and 4, and is essentially a continuation of the
preoperational program.
Significant quantities of radioactive materials should not be released to the environment during the operation of the nuclear units and the monitoring program is designed to demonstrate this. The sampling and analysis program is described in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) in accordance with the
plant Technical Specifications.
2.12.2 AIR ENVIRONMENT
The air environmental monitoring program was designed to determine existing natural background radioactivity and to detect changes in radiation levels in
the air environment which may be attributed to the operation of the nuclear
units.
2.12-2 Rev. 15 4/98
2.12.3 WATER ENVIRONMENT
The water environmental monitoring program was designed to determine existing natural background radioactivity and to detect changes in radiation levels
which may be attributed to the operations of the nuclear units.
In the preliminary assessment of exposure pathways in the Water Environmental
Program, it was apparent that drinking water was not the critical exposure pathway because Biscayne Bay water is essentially sea water. Investigation was directed to other pathways that may be steps in the food chain to man
since it is known that certain species of aquatic biota,
2.12-3 Rev. 15 4/98 inherently or by means of aquatic food sources, may concentrate specific radionuclides several times above the equilibrium concentration of radio-
nuclides in the water environment.
2.12-4 Rev. 15 4/98 2.12.4 LAND ENVIRONMENT
In the land environmental monitoring program, as in the water monitoring
program, the program was designed to determine existing natural background radioactivity and to detect changes in radiation levels in the land
environment which may be attributed to the operation of the nuclear units.
In the preliminary assessment of exposure pathways in the land environmental
program, milk was not the critical pathway because there are no dairy herds within 25 miles of the facility. Other exposure pathways which may be steps in the food chain to man were investigated, including fruit and vegetable crops which may be grown in the vicinity of the facility. Radionuclides are present in soil as background radioactivity and may be incorporated into plant
life.
2.12-5 Rev. 15 4/98
[THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Gamma spectrum Specific Nuclide Analysis 131 I 90Sr 10 BayWatar __
---Siu/tIIt.:t!'tiRor;td
-"., .. =-DI .. I.IfdSdnd
_ _
l-1iliIIf, ___
rfWf'ftMfitmtl fnlW'tJla/#M:y,1fIQ1( VSKiyrWQ¥
@ a
-_._ .. -co,w,fy L,-;w --'-
-.--.. -3<<./1QnLi4tI
CUaI lAw.
C'i/ltHdll
"W\II.-=4 Fractional Gross Beta Q Gamma spectrum Q Tritium SA Specific Nuclide Analysis SA 137Cs SA 60Co SA 58Co SA 65Zn SA 131 I SA /of, SA SA SA SA o /ofll '< /of.
i i ! i I , i ! i -J * '0 /of; les 7 Aquatic Biota Gross Beta.4 0 K \ Gamma spectrum Specific Nuclide Analysis 137 Cs 60 Co 65Zn 131 I 90Sr \ SCAU: IN FEF.:T '0,000 W/JOG Lagend -W -Weakly M -Monthly Q -Quarterly SA -Semi-Annually I * .-. .. .-.-.. r $ ! SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA 2.13 EXCLUSION ZONE - LOW POPULATION ZONE 2.13.1 EXCLUSION ZONE
On the basis of meteorological data presented in Section 2.6, Appendices 2A and 2D, and the analysis of the consequences of a postulated release of fission products set forth in Section 14.3.5 and Appendix 14F, the exclusion zone is included within the property boundary line. As shown on the property plan, the minimum exclusion distance is 4164 feet to the north property line.
The minimum distance to the south property line is 5582 feet. The exclusion radius as identified in Appendix 14F is 4164 feet which is bounded by the exclusion zone. The exclusion zone is identified as the area within the
property boundary line.
Within the exclusion zone there are: (1) two fossil fuel electric generating units staffed by approximately 65 FP&L employees, (2) a Scout camp used intermittently by about 20 people, (3) a picnic area used intermittently, that has been used by as many as about 1500 persons (during a local organization's
picnic), (4) an Air Force Sea Survival School with class visits of perhaps two
dozen military personnel.
2.13.2 LOW POPULATION ZONE
The low population area is enclosed by a circle of 5-mile radius. The area includes Homestead Bayfront Park and farmland to the north, a portion of Homestead Air Force Reserve Base to the northwest, the Turkey Point elementary school, farmland to the west and undeveloped swampland to the southwest and south (refer to Figure 2.2-2). There are no permanent residents in the area at the present time (refer to Tables 2.4-1 and 2.4-2). Additionally, population projections through the year 2013, as presented in Tables 2.4-13 through 2.4-16, indicate that this area will remain uninhabited by permanent residents for the remaining plant operating period authorized in the Turkey
Point Units 3 and 4 Operating Licenses.
It should be noted that the land within this area is low and is periodically
subject to hurricane flooding. Development has traditionally taken place in
2.13-1 Rev. 16 10/99 the more elevated areas to the west. While it can be said that there is some pressure to develop areas having Biscayne Bay frontage, two factors are present as a deterrent to such development. The western boundary of Biscayne National Monument coincides with the western shore of Biscayne Bay for almost 4 miles south of the plant. There is strong local sentiment against bayshore development which might impair the values of the monument or which would deny the bayfront to general public use. Secondly, land adjoining the bayfront is overlain with a five or six-foot deep layer of organic peat or "muck" as it is known locally. This material is unsuitable for the foundation of
structures, consequently the cost of any development is extremely high.
Transient population in the low population zone is principally confined to
visitors to the Homestead Bayfront Park. The maximum number of persons
expected to visit the Park is 10,000 which would be for the 4th of July.
Since the only available estimates are for total daily visitors, the number
present in the Park at any one time would be less than this amount. Likewise
the figure can be compared to the normal weekend day of 5000 visitors and the
normal weekday of 1000 visitors.
Monroe County and Dade County Emergency Response Directors, the State
Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control, and the State Division of
Emergency Management are responsible for determining and implementing
protective measures in offsite areas. (Turkey Point Radiological Emergency
Plan Section 5.2.1).
The Park is served by two roads, one on each side of North Canal. It is
reasonable to assume that cars can be evacuated at the rate of about 1650
cars per hour. Thus 5000 cars could be evacuated over one road in about
three hours.
The low population zone is served by several hard surfaced roads.
Tallahassee Road and South Allapattah-East Allapattah Road provide access to
the area from the north around the west and east sides of the Homestead Air
Force Reserve Base respectively. Tallahassee Road also provides access to
the south via
2.13-2 Rev. 15 4/98 Card Sound Road and Key Largo. Palm Drive, North Canal Drive and Mowry Drive all provide access to the area from the west. On the basis of the paucity of
population, the existence of several hard surfaced roads, and the analysis
set forth in Section 14.3.5, it is concluded that the proposed low population
zone meets the criteria set forth in 10CFR100.
2.13-3 Rev. 15 4/98
APPENDIX 2A
MICROMETEOROLOGICAL ANALYSIS
2A-i (516) 265-0623
LESTER A. COHEN
METEOROLOGIST - AIR POLLUTION CONSULTANT
3 EXECUTIVE DRIVE
HAUPPAGE, NEW YORK 11787
March 28, 1969
Mr. Robert J. Gardner
Executive Assistant
Florida Power & Light Company
P. O. Box 3100
Miami, Florida 33101
Dear Mr. Gardner:
Enclosed is the micrometeorological analysis for Turkey Point for
inclusion in the FSAR, Mr. Frizzola collaborated with me in the analysis and
preparation of the report.
Very truly yours,
SIGNATURE
Lester A. Cohen
Micrometeorological Analysis Turkey Point, Florida Florida Power and Light Company
Summary A diffusion climatology was developed from meteorological data collected at the Turkey Point site during 1968. Analysis of the data aided
in ascertaining the predominant meteorological parameters affecting the
dispersion of effluents at the site. Unobstructed flat terrain, strong wind
speeds and a high percentage of unstable lapse rates provide a favorable
regime for atmospheric dispersion.
Characterized by wind direction variation and vertical temperature
gradient the two predominant turbulence categories are the unstable and
stable classes. These regimes account for 96 per cent of the annual
occurrences (66 unstable, 30 stable), the other 4 per cent limited to high
wind conditions or very light winds. In reference to the onshore sector (defined as 030 to 210 degrees, clockwise) unstable conditions account for 50
per cent and stable 19 per cent. Wind speeds at the 235 foot elevation
average 10 and 13 mph for the respective stable and unstable cases. The
number of observed calms totaled 34 for the 30 foot elevation and 23 for the
235 foot elevation. Hourly variations in the mean wind direction were small, high steadiness or constancy values extended to time intervals of at least
one day. The relatively small daily, seasonal and annual meteorological
variations result in a consistent diffusion capability for the site.
2A-1 Source of Data During the latter part of 1967 a complete onsite meteorological data
acquisition program was operational. Meteorological instrumentation included
wind and temperature sensors located within the layer ground level to 235
foot elevation. The instrumentation is adequate to define the representative
dispersion parameters at the site. Included in the meteorological monitoring
system were the following:
- 1. Wind sensors - Bendix Friez Aerovanes equipped with six-blade propellers, mounted at 30 feet MSL near the Ranger House and at 235
feet MSL atop the water tower (note: the water tower no longer
exists).
- 2. Temperature sensors - shielded, air aspirated resistance therm-ometers mounted on the water tower structure (note: the water tower
no longer exists) at elevations of 32, 132 and 232 feet MSL.
- 3. Precipitation - standard U.S. Weather Bureau weighing type rain gauge. Rainfall amounts recorded on a drum chart.
- 4. Atmospheric pressure - hourly readings taken on a Fortin-type mercurial barometer.
- 5. Relative humidity - hair hygrometer sensor, humidity continuously recorded on a drum chart.
All of the instrumentation selected is durable and representative for hourly
average values. The sensors were calibrated prior to installation and
routinely checked for accuracy. Data continuously recorded on charts were
manually reduced from the analog form to mean hourly digital values and
entered on computer cards for analysis.
2A-2 Rev 11 11/93
All the data were personally edited before use in the final computer analyses.
Topography
Complete uniformity of the surrounding terrain, less than 10 feet
MSL in all directions, and the proximity to the sea provide an adequate fetch
for the meteorological sensors. This homogeneity insures that the
observations are representative of the area. Significant influences from
topographical features can be neglected.
Aerodynamic Effects on Instrumentation
The Aerovane wind sensors located at the Turkey Point site are mounted on
the eastern side of the nearest building or supporting structure. This
exposure provides an unobstructed fetch toward the prevailing easterly
onshore flow. A low level Aerovane, approximately 30 feet in elevation, is
mounted vertically atop a utility pole, two feet southeast of the Ranger
house. The vertical displacement of the sensor, being over 20 feet above the
Ranger house roof, is of sufficient height to eliminate any aerodynamic
influences for onshore flow. Visual analysis of the analog traces
illustrates that offshore flow is affected by the Ranger house causing an
increase in the direction range and a slight reduction in wind speed. The
magnitude of the aerodynamic turbulence is not significant and is not
considered a primary factor in the wind records' accuracy. Any effects would
be on the conservative side as the recorded wind speed would be lower than
the true speed. Mean wind direction data are not significantly altered from
the prevailing
flow as is evident from the high correlation between the low level and high
level Aerovanes.
Similar investigation of the high level (235 ft) Aerovane, mounted on a
vertical mast 17 feet above the top of the smooth hemispherical dome shaped
water tower tank, indicates undistorted traces of the direction for onshore
flow. This Aerovane is located on the eastern side of the tank and is
approximately 50 feet higher than any existing or proposed large structure,
exclusive of the present stacks (417 ft) serving Units 1 and 2.
Offshore flow, or those directions from west through northwest, display
an increase of mechanical turbulence generated by the proximity of the
surrounding structures. Aerodynamic aberrations are evident in the azimuth
data analysis illustrating the marked increase of direction range when the
wind is from 260 clockwise to 325 degrees. The structures for Units 1 and 2
being directly upwind of the Aerovane, for these directions, account for the
increase of the azimuth range. This effect is conservative as the Aerovane
is responding to the characteristic flow in the vicinity of the structures
which is causing the wind speed to record lower than if there were no
obstacles upwind of the sensor. The turbulent eddies create an increased
oscillation in the azimuth which does not permit the Aerovane to face
directly into the wind, thus the attack angle is not permitting the sensor to
record the full magnitude of the wind speed. However, the mean
2A-4 directions are representative of the prevailing flow at the site. Analysis of the direction ranges with the simultaneous recorded temperature lapse
rates indicate the correlation of the data is consistent with turbulence classes
observed at other sites (1, 14). Analog analyses illustrate the wind sensors
are adequately describing the representative flow at the site. The
aerodynamic turbulence effects are only evident in offshore flow, onshore
flow is undistorted.
The principles of aerodynamic effects relating to the above
discussion are given in Reference 20.
Turbulence Classification
For dispersion climatology use of a single parameter, incorporating
the characteristics of wind direction trace and vertical temperature
gradients, aid in assessing the various turbulence regimes. Average ranges
of the 235 foot wind direction fluctuations [1,2] permit classification of
the turbulence states into the following four categories:
Class 1 - light winds, strong thermal instability, direction range
exceeds 90 degrees.
Class 2 - moderate winds, moderate thermal instability, direction
range less than 90 degrees, typical unstable daytime
regime.
Class 3 - moderate to strong winds, moderate stability, direction
range less than 40 degrees, associated with mechanical
turbulence.
Class 4 - light to moderate winds, moderate to strong stability,
direction range less than 15 degrees, representative of
nocturnal regime, low turbulence level.
The most frequent categories at Turkey Point are classes 2 and 4 as shown in
Table 1. Class 2 accounts for 66 per cent of the total for the year, while
30 per cent occur during class 4. Predominance of class 2 is attributed to
the large number of daytime hours with strong incoming solar radiation. Also, the proximity to the ocean results in observations of class 2 into the
evening
hours, particularly with respect to the characteristics of the wind direction
trace. Class 4 is representative of nocturnal stable conditions and is in
good agreement with
2A-6 climatological estimates for the area [3]. The neutral class 3 category consists of a small percentage, predominant during periods of cyclonic
activity. Very unstable lapse rates with light winds are negligible at the
site, seen by the small percentage of class 1. The overall turbulence classes
can be condensed into two broad categories, unstable (including classes 1-3)
and stable (class 4). Percentages for these categories account for 70 and 30
per cent respectively. Of particular interest is the percentage of
turbulence classes for onshore winds (030 clockwise to 210 degrees). Table 2
shows the overall percentage of 71 per cent onshore winds, 50 per cent
unstable and 19 per cent stable. Wind speeds associated with the four
turbulence classes are illustrated in Table 3. Annual mean speeds are 10 mph
for stable and 13 mph for unstable classes at the 235 foot level.
Lapse Rate Distributions
Figures 1 through 12 show the mean monthly diurnal temperature dif-
ferences between the 232 and 32 foot levels. The dashed line represents the dry adiabatic lapse rate for the 200 foot interval of -1.1F. During the colder months, December through February, lapse rates have a smaller portion of unstable compared to stable gradients. The greater stability is observed
in nighttime hours resulting from the dominance of dry cool air masses
favoring radiative cooling. Strong incoming solar radiation, increasing from
March through August, is shown by the larger percentage of unstable gradients
which are also prevalent in the other months. The predominance of onshore
flow results in a slightly decreased instability along with correspondingly
less
2A-7 intense stable conditions during the evening.
Table 4 illustrates the prevalence of unstable temperature gradients (56
per cent). Transition lapse rates incorporate the neutral through slightly
stable conditions accounting for the remaining 44 per cent. The monthly
frequency of hourly temperatures at the 32 foot level is shown in Table 5
with the greatest range found during the winter season. Percentages obtained
from the characteristics of the wind direction trace (66 per cent for class
- 2) are in good agreement with the temperature gradient measurements. Tables
6-8 show the lapse rates and wind speeds associated with the individual
turbulence classes, further confirming the representativeness of the
turbulence classification as a general indicator of the dispersion
characteristics. During stable conditions higher wind speeds are found with
the more intense inversions. Moderate to strong speeds are evident in the
unstable and neutral cases.
Precipitation
The number of hourly occurrences of rainfall for various class intervals
is shown in Table 9. Total rainfall for the year was 78.10 inches with the
typical rainy season extending from May to October.
Wind Speed Distributions
Percentage frequencies of the wind speed, in the standard ESSA speed
classes, and the mean monthly speeds are illustrated in Tables 10 and 11 for
the 30 and 235 foot elevations respectively. The 0-3 mph class comprise a
very small percentage of occurrence and the overall percentage of calms for
either level amounts to less than
2A-8 0.4 per cent annually as seen in Table 12. Average annual wind speeds at 30 and 235 feet were 9 and 13 mph respectively. Mean wind speeds at the 30 and
235 foot elevations are 5 and 10 mph for stable (class 4), 10 and 13 mph for
the unstable (class 2) conditions.
Wind Direction Distributions
The percentage frequency of the monthly wind directions is shown in
Figures 13 through 24 with the annual wind rose in Figure 25. Onshore wind
directions are dominant, with the easterly (050 to 150 degrees) sector
showing the highest occurrence. Minor peaks in northerly directions are
present from December through February reflecting the polar outbreaks.
Diurnal variation in the wind direction, particularly for onshore winds, is
quite small as seen in Figures 26 and 27 and summarized by months in Table
- 13. The percentage of day and night onshore winds is about equal. A
distinct sea breeze regime [4,5] in the standard sense would cause a marked
difference in diurnal wind directions. The regime present at the Turkey
Point site is typical of a monsoonal ocean breeze having little diurnal
direction variation. A reduction in the intensity of wind speed at night is
shown on the speed class distributions for the day and night wind roses.
The annual wind direction frequency for turbulence classes 2 and 4 are
shown in Figures 28 and 29 further indicating the large percentage of
unstable conditions with onshore winds. Correlations of the wind direction
between the 30 and 235 foot levels indicate no significant differences for
the various stability classes. Wind directions are representative of the
area and are constant within the surface to
235 foot layer.
Constancy The steadiness or persistence of the wind is defined as the ratio of
the mean vector wind to the mean scalar wind. This concept is extended to
the variation of steadiness with mean wind direction range over various
averaging intervals [6]. A steadiness value of one indicates an invariant
direction over the time interval of interest and a value of zero describes a
completely symmetrical distribution. Changes in the steadiness of 0.1
represent a deviation in direction of 18 degrees. Generally with high wind
speeds the direction change with increasing time is relatively slow. High
values of steadiness over extended time scales are indicative of favorable
dispersion conditions, the higher winds associated with greater mechanical
mixing in the atmosphere. Evaluation of the steadiness for time intervals
ranging from two hours to thirty days is made to ascertain the most probable
areas of high recurrence in sector size and direction. Figure 30 illustrates
the most frequent values of the steadiness over various averaging times. The
direction range remains low for periods up to two days, then gradually
decreasing through the thirty day period. The highest or extreme values of
the steadiness for each month was analyzed by time intervals (2,4,8,16 and 30
days) using extreme value statistics [7]. Table 14 shows the systematic
decrease as the time interval increases. Data from West Palm Beach, Florida
for a different year (1964) are also shown with the similarity in values
evident through the eight day period. A theoretical regression line was
obtained from the data and
2A-10 a value of 0.9 (18 degree sector) was chosen as a design criterion for illustrative purposes. The return period or recurrence interval for this
value is shown in Table 15. For example, the hourly average wind direction
will remain in an 18 degree sector from an easterly direction for four
consecutive days once every 23 months; with a probability of 66 per cent that
this return period (23 months) is found between 7 and 70 months. Also noted
is the small change in return period for the 4 to 16 day class. The analysis
indicates the high constant nature of the direction and velocity at the site
for long time periods.
Atmospheric Diffusion
Proximity of the site to the seacoast requires consideration due to
the characteristics of the different underlying surfaces affecting diffusion
rates [8]. Due to the large percentage of unstable meteorological conditions
and small differences in the land-sea temperature gradient, rapid changes are
not to be expected in dispersion conditions regarding onshore or offshore
flow. Onshore flow during daytime hours would create greater dispersion as
the convective turbulence increases with the air proceeding inland.
Observations of onshore winds from Cape Kennedy [9] show the standard
deviation of horizontal direction fluctuations increasing by a factor of 1.4
for a site three miles inland compared to the coastal site. Offshore
directions had a larger standard deviation in the direction, due to the
ground roughness causing an increase of mechanical turbulence.
During periods of offshore flow when the air would be warmer than
the ocean, it would be cooled from below and stabilized [5]. Data
2A-11 illustrate the small land-sea temperature difference (Table 5) throughout the year which lends the probability of occurrence to be extremely small. Also, offshore winds are not predominant in the warm months when the land surface
is warmer than the sea surface. Conversely, offshore flow with air cooler
than the ocean, predominant in the winter, heating from below would create
greater convective instability enhancing diffusion rates over the water.
Onshore flow during nighttime hours would probably show an increase of
stability as the air travels inland. Effluents released at the 235 foot
elevation during stable conditions would remain aloft until daytime
instability mixes it within the surface layer.
Diffusion Estimates Average values of wind speed and vertical temperature gradients
collected at the site are used to estimate the representative standard
deviations of the vertical and horizontal wind directions [10]. Table 16
lists the average values of the meteorological parameters for the site.
Values of the exponent in the power law wind profile are smaller than
estimates in other areas [11, 12] accounted for by the large percentage of
cases during convective turbulence. Computed horizontal and vertical
standard deviations are within the magnitude of other investigations [13, 14].
In order to determine the plume dimensions as a function of downwind
distance, empirical relations between plume dimensions and turbulence
parameters, inferred from the actual observations, are used [15]. Values chosen for the lateral turbulence parameter, a , were 10
2A-12 and 3 degrees for Class 2 and 4 respectively at the 235 foot elevation.
Estimates are in good agreement with values from other sites with similar
characteristics as Turkey Point [9, 16]. Cape Kennedy data, previously
mentioned, indicated an average value of 15 degrees for the horizontal
standard deviation at the 12 foot elevation. Since this component normally
decreases with height, over homogeneous terrain, the Turkey Point derived
value of 10 degrees is quite reasonable. In addition estimates using the
ratio of the temperature gradient and the wind speed squared (values in Table
- 16) are within the same magnitude. Vertical components were derived from
methods suggested in [15]. Values are compatible with the general Pasquill
classification [17, 18]. A definite similarity exists in the class A-B and
class F for the unstable and stable regimes respectively. Corresponding
annual average wind speeds, at 30 and 235 feet, associated with the
turbulence classes were 5 and 10 mph for stable, 10 and 13 mph for unstable
conditions respectively. The representative plume dimensions for the 235
foot level at Turkey Point are listed in Table 17. Equations 1 and 2
represent the stable case (class 4), while the unstable case (classes 1-3) is
represented by equations 3 and 4.
Equations based on the Gaussian plume model [19] for prediction of
downwind ground level concentrations from continuous point sources are listed
in Appendix B. Short term releases, from ground level and elevated sources, of several hours are calculated from equations 5 and 7. Long term releases
are functions of the frequency of the wind directions in predetermined
sectors as represented by equation 6 for ground level releases.
2A-13 A conservative approach for the diffusion parameters at the 30 foot elevation is to use the diffusion parameters derived for the 235 foot level
The equations for obtaining the diffusion parameters for the higher elevation
are given in Table 17. Since the standard deviations of the plume increase
with decreasing height (15), the diffusion parameters at the 30 foot
elevation would actually have larger values than those calculated using the
equations in Table 17. Additionally, no consideration is made of any
increased dilution at the lower level from the aerodynamic influences of the
structures in the area. The unstable case is analogous to the Pasquill Type D
stability, the stable case to Pasquill Type F. An additional factor to
consider during onshore flow is the transition of the underlying surfaces
affecting the diffusion process. The proximity of the site to the ocean would
modify the characteristics of the air mass as the air proceeds inland. This
modification would cause the Pasquill Type D to change to a Pasquill Type
C-D.
For both the 2-hour and 31 day periods, reference should be made to
Section 14.3.5 for the accident meteorological models. For the 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> case, the product of the dilution factor (X/Q). Using the diffusion parameters as derived from Table 17, the product of 2 at the north boundary. This compares extremely well with the value of 770 m 2 as determined from reading the curves of Hilsmeier and Gifford, Reference 4 on
page 14.3.5-10. Therefore, the sigma parameters as
2A-14 established from the site data are essentially identical to those used in the calculation of the 2-hour accident model.
For the 31-day period, the value obtained using the diffusion parameters
given in Table 17 leads to essentially identical numbers at the north
boundary as is obtained when the parameters derived from Hilsmeier and
Gifford are employed. Again, the sigma parameters from the site data give
results that are essentially identical to that used in calculating the 31 day
accident model.
However, since the parameters obtained from Table 17 have been shown to
be conservative since they are for higher elevation conditions, the model
parameters are conservative.
Incorporating the meteorological parameters into diffusion equations, gives the typical centerline concentrations at ground level for unstable and
stable cases as illustrated in Figure 31. Long term releases occurring in a
twenty degree sector from the site, assuming a one per cent frequency of
occurrence, are seen in Figure 32. In both figures the source strength is
one unit per second. The high values for the stable cases in the long term
concentrations are accounted for by the spreading of a relatively small
plume, with high concentrations in the short term, over a twenty degree
sector width.
An annual pattern of the long term concentration was computed for the
unstable and stable cases using the observed frequency of wind occurrence
in each ten degree sector. Isopleths of the normalized ground level
concentrations resulting from a ground release are illustrated in Figures 33
and 34. The highest values are found in the westerly sections due to the
predominant easterly winds. Maximum values occur at a distance of 1
kilometer for both cases in the sector almost west of the site.
Routine releases from an elevated source, with high wind speeds, would
definitely reduce the magnitude of the concentrations at the ground in the
unstable case. Stable cases would not contribute to
2A-16 the ground level concentrations since the plume would remain aloft.
Prevailing air flows can be ascertained from the 235 foot Aerovane for
elevated releases.
The meteorological data acquisition program will continue and data
further analyzed to justify the turbulence parameters chosen for the site.
Data evaluated to date appear quite consistent with other micrometeorological
investigations along the Florida east coast [9, 16].
Routine Elevated Releases
Figures 35 and 36 illustrate the normalized ground level
concentrations along the centerline, release height of 73 meters, for the
unstable and stable cases. Evident is the increased dilution attributed to
the physical stack height, no additional aerodynamic, decay or buoyant
factors are included which would further reduce the concentration.
The stable case only contributes to ground level concentrations at
distances of several miles, since it remains aloft near the source. Close in
concentrations are generally from the unstable case. The uncertain nature of
the directional variation of a stable plume at great distances reduces the
favorability of the case for use in controlled releases. Use of the unstable
case (class 2) with the more favorable diffusion characteristics and higher
wind speeds is recommended for controlled releases.
Certain meteorological criteria must be met to insure the prevailing
conditions will continue during the release interval. No precipitation
should be occurring at the time of release or predicated during the release.
The temperature lapse rate (232'-32') should be
2A-17 more negative than -1.5 degrees F with the 235 foot wind speed averaging at least 10 mph. These conditions infer a release occurring between mid-morning
into late afternoon.
Analysis of the constancy show that persistent conditions can occur
from any direction for short periods. However, as the time of release
increases directions from the northeast to southeast become more probable.
This infers that the chosen wind direction should persist, on the average, for at least 12 to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in an eighteen degree sector, particularly for
onshore winds. Forecasts of significant changes in the weather during the
release times should be carefully considered. Sources of current
meteorological observations can be obtained from the U.S. Weather Bureau
office in Miami and Homestead Air Force Base.
Once the meteorological conditions are applicable, values of the
concentration can be computed using the actual 235' wind speed and the
approximate release rate. When the determination of concentrations are
within prescribed limits and the release initiated, the meteorological
parameters should be constantly monitored. Termination of the release would
occur if the prevailing meteorological conditions fall below the specified
values.
2A-18 References
- 1. Singer, I.A. and M. E. Smith, Relations of Gustiness to Other Meteorological Parameters, Journal of Meteorology, Vol. 10 (2), 1953.
- 2. Slade, D.H., Estimates of Dispersion from Pollutant Releases of a Few Seconds to 8 Hours Duration, Report WBTN-ARL-3(PB-170745), April
1966.
- 3. Hosler, C.R., Climatological Estimates of Diffusion Conditions in the United States, Nuclear Safety, Vol. 5 (2), Winter 1963-1964.
- 4. Frizzola, J.A. and E. L. Fisher, A Series of Sea Breeze Observations in the New York City Area, Journal of Applied Meteorology, Vol. 2
(6), 1963.
- 5. Prophet, D.T., Survey of the Available Information Pertaining to the Transport and Diffusion of Airborne Material over Ocean and
Shoreline Complexes, Technical Report 89(AD-258958), Aerosol
Laboratory, Stanford University, June 1961.
- 6. Singer, I.A., Steadiness of the Wind, Journal of Applied Meteorology, Vol. 6 (6), Dec. 1967.
- 7. Gumbel, E.J., Statistical Theory of Extreme Values and Some Practical Applications, National Bureau of Standards, Applied Math Series 33, 1954.
- 8. Van der Hoven, I., Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion at Coastal Sites, Nuclear Safety, Vol. 8 (5), Sept.-Oct. 1967.
- 9. Dwyer, J. and G. L. Tucker, Summary of One Year of Data from the Cape Kennedy WIND System, AFCRL-65-637, 1965.
- 10. Panofsky, H.A. and B. Prasad, Similarity Theories and Diffusion, International Journal of Air and Water Pollution, Vol. 9, 1965.
- 11. Panofsky, H.A., A Survey of Current Thought on Wind Properties Relevant for Diffusion in the Lowest 100 meters, Symposium on the
Theory and Measurement of Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion in the
Planetary Boundary Layer, SC-M-68-191, 1968.
- 12. Smith, M.E., Recommended Guide for the Prediction of the Dispersion of Airborne Effluents, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, May
1968 13. Pasquill, F., Atmospheric Diffusion, 209 pp., Van Nostrand, London, 1962.
- 14. Slade, O.H. ed., Meteorology and Atomic Energy 1968, TID-24190, July 1968. 15. Singer, I.A., J.A. Frizzola, and M.E. Smith, A Simplified Method of Estimating Atmospheric Diffusion Parameters, Journal APCA, Vol. 16
(11), 1966.
- 16. Haugen, D.A. and J. H. Taylor, The Ocean Breeze and Dry Gulch Diffusion Programs, AFCRL-63-791 (11), 1963.
- 17. Turner, D. Bruce, Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates, PHS Publication No. 999-AP-26, 1967.
- 18. Smith, M.E. and I.A. Singer, An Improved Method of Estimating Concentrations and Related Phenomena from a Point Source Emission, Journal of Applied Meteorology, Vol. 5 (5), Oct. 1966
- 19. Gifford, F.A., Atmospheric Dispersion Calculations Using the Generalized Gaussian Plane Model, Nuclear Safety, Vol. 2 (2), Dec.
1960.
- 20. Dickson, C. R. , Start, G.E., and Markee, E.H., Jr., Aerodynamic Effects of the EBR-2 Containment Vessel Complex on Effluent
Concentration, Presented at the USAEC Meteorological Information
Meeting, Chalk River, Ontario, Canada, September 11-14, 1967.
2A-20 TABLE 2A-l Percentage Frequency of Turbulence Classes
Turkey Point 1968
CLASS
1 2 3 4
Jan. 1 53 1 45
Feb. 3 61 3 33
Mar. 1 91 2 7
Apr. 1 84 1 14
May 2 83 1 14
Jun. - 74 12 14
Jul. 4
Aug. 1 82 - 17
Sep. 1 37 14 48
Oct. 59
Nov. - 36 7 57
Dec. - 38 11 51
Annual <1 66 4 30 TABLE 2A-2
Percentage of Turbulence Classes Associated With Onshore Winds (030-210)
Turkey Point 1968
CLASS
1 2 3 4
Jan. 36
Feb. 13
Mar. 3
Apr. 7
May 11
Jun. - 55 6 9
Jul. 2
Aug. 11
Sep. - 30 12 32
Oct. 38
Nov. - 19 4 37
Dec. - 23 7 31
Annual - 50 2 19
TABLE 2A-3 Wind Speeds Associated With Turbulence Class Turkey Point 1968
235 FT. WIND SPEEDS (MPH)
CLASS
1 2 3 4 Jan. 7 14 10 12
Feb. 7 14 17 10
Mar. 5 17 16 13
Apr. 5 12 10 6
May 6 13 12 7
Jun. - 12 30 7
Jul. 9
Aug. 4 11 - 5
Sep. 5 11 16 8
Oct. 12
Nov. - 14 16 13
Dec. - 13 19 13
Annual 5 13 16 10 TABLE 2A-4
Percentage Frequency of Lapse Rates (232-32 Ft.)
Turkey Point 1968
Lapse Rate Groups (o F)
UNSTABLE TRANSITION STABLE
-5.9 -1.4 -0.7 1.6 3.6 5.6 TO TO TO TO TO TO
-1.5 -0.8 1.5 3.5 5.5 10.0
Jan. 19 18 45 12 4 2
Feb. 29 22 30 12 5 2
Mar. 33 17 35 4 1 -
Apr. 40 37 14 8 1 -
May 22 38 37 3 - -
Jun. 23 33 41 3 - -
Jul. 36 42 21 1 -
-
Aug. 34 40 23 3 - -
Sep. 29 34 31 6 - -
Oct. 24 33 39 3 - -
Nov. 20 15 52 10 2 1
Dec. 19 15 39 20 5 2
Annual 27 29 34 7 2 1 TABLE 2A-5 Monthly Percentage Frequency of Hourly Temperatures (o F) 32 Foot Level Turkey Point 1968
30 40 50 60 70 80 to to to to to to
39 49 59 69 79 89 OCEAN TEMP.*
Jan. 2 11 46 41 71.9
Feb. 7 28 44 20 72.7
Mar. 1 4 13 37 45 75.2
Apr. 14 77 9 77.6
May 3 76 21 82.4
Jun. 55 45 85.5
Jul. 15 85 87.8
Aug. 14 86 88.5
Sep. 40 60 86.3
Oct. 1 9 56 34 82.1
Nov. 3 11 22 60 4 77.1
Dec. 1 6 17 36 39 1 73.3
- Climatological averages TABLE 2A-6 Lapse Rates and Wind Speeds Associated With Turbulence Class 2 (Percent)
235 FT. SPEED (MPH)
LAPSE RATE (oF) 0-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19+
-5.9 to -1.5 - 2 16 14 6
-1.4 to -0.8 - 3 14 13 6
-0.7 to 1.5 - 2 9 8 5
1.6 to 3.5 1 -
3.6 to 5.5 - - - - -
5.6 to 10.0 - - - - -
NOTE: Values less than 0.5% not entered TABLE 2A-7 Lapse Rates and Wind Speeds Associated With Turbulence Class 3 (Percent)
235 FT. SPEED (MPH)
LAPSE RATE (oF) 0-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19+
-5.9 to -1.5 - - 2 3 9
-1.4 to -0.8 - - 5 15 16
-0.7 to 1.5 - - 6 14 30
1.6 to 3.5 - - - - -
3.6 to 5.5 - - - - -
5.6 to 10.0 - - - - -
NOTE: Values less than 0.5% not entered TABLE 2A-8 Lapse Rates and Wind Speeds Associated With Turbulence Class 4 (Percent)
235 FT. SPEED (MPH)
LAPSE RATE (oF) 0-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19+
-5.9 to -1.5 - 1 2 1 -
-1.4 to -0.8 1 3 6 3 -
-0.7 to 1.5 4 11 17 16 5
1.6 to 3.5 2 3 5 8 3
3.6 to 5.5 1 1 2 2 1
5.6 to 10.0 - 1 1 - -
NOTE: Values less than 0.5% not entered
TABLE 2A-9
Precipitation - Turkey Point 1968
Number of Hourly Occurrences in Each Interval Rainfall .01 .11 41 .71 1.00+ (Inches) to to to to .10 .40 .70 1.00
Jan. 7 2 2 - - 1.76
Feb. 8 2 2 1 - 2.22
Mar. 3 1 - - - 0.37
Apr. 1 1 0.95
May 33 20 5 6 4 20.44
Jun. 36 17 5 4 5 18.90
Jul. 26 7 3 - - 4.16
Aug. 17 12 3 1 - 5.63
Sep. 25 9 4 - 1 6.74
Oct. 26 20 1 - 4 14.13
Nov. 1 3 1 - - 1.28
Dec. 3 - - - 1 1.52
Total Rainfall
- 122 hours missing TABLE 2A-10 Percentage Frequency of 30 Foot Wind Speeds Turkey Point 1968
SPEED CLASS (MPH)
0-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19+ MEAN SPEED
Jan. 6 30 43 17 4 9 Feb. 3 25 46 21 5 10 Mar. - 9 43 39 9 12 Apr. 5 29 41 23 2 9 May 7 29 40 18 6 9 Jun. 6 28 42 15 9 10 Jul. 2 19 59 19 1 9 Aug. 7 28 51 13 1 7 Sep. 9 33 41 15 2 8 Oct. 2 25 38 22 13 11 Nov. 2 28 46 22 2 10 Dec. 5 28 47 19 1 9
Annual 5 26 45 20 4 9 TABLE 2A-11 Percentage Frequency of 30 Foot Wind Speeds
Turkey Point 1968
SPEED CLASS (MPH)
0-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19+ MEAN SPEED
Jan. 2 14 32 33 19 13
Feb. 5 12 33 36 14 12
Mar. - 2 22 39 37 16
Apr. 5 14 39 31 10 11
May 4 16 34 31 15 12
Jun. 2 13 42 25 18 13
Jul. 1 5 47 42 5 12
Aug. 7 19 49 23 2 10
Sep. 7 17 47 24 5 10
Oct. 1 9 38 26 26 14
Nov. 2 7 26 43 22 14
Dec. 2 5 29 45 19 14
Annual 3 11 37 33 16 13 TABLE 2A-12 Monthly Distribution of Calms Turkey Point 1968
NUMBER OF HOURS REPORTED
30 Ft. 235 Ft.
Jan. 0 0 Feb. 0 5 Mar. 0 0 Apr. 0 9 May 8 0 Jun. 3 1 Jul. 2 0 Aug. 6 3 Sep. 5 0 Oct. 1 0 Nov. 2 3 Dec. 7 2
Total 34 23
TABLE 2A-13 Percentage of Onshore Winds Day & Night Turkey Point 1968
30 FOOT LEVEL
Daytime (07-18) Nighttime (19-06)
Jan. 62 58 Feb. 44 25 Mar. 75 64 Apr. 85 74 May 86 79 Jun. 78 78 Jul. 96 95 Aug. 91 89 Sep. 73 73 Oct. 72 76 Nov. 64 52 Dec. 65 52
Annual 74 68
NOTE: Onshore winds defined as (030-210) degrees TABLE 2A-14
Observed Extremes of the Steadiness
Turkey Point, Florida
Time Interval (Days)
2 4 8 16 30
HIGH .93 .88 .84 .81 .75
LOW .79 .66 .45 .34 .30
MEAN .89 .76 .67 .57 .44
West Palm Beach, Florida
Time Interval (Days)
2 4 8 16 30
HIGH .92 .87 .80 .60 .50
LOW .78 .65 .36 .27 .10
MEAN .85 .79 .66 .48 .38
TABLE 2A-15 Return Period for a Steadiness of 0.9 for Various Time Intervals (66 per cent confidence limit)*
Return Period Probable Speed Time (Day) (Months)
(mph)
Probable Direction
2 3 (1-9) 8-20 Any
4 23 (7-70) 10-15 ENE
8 25 (8-80) 7-13 ENE
16 25 (8-80) 6-10 ENE
30 300 (100-1000) 6-10 E
NOTE: 0.9 equivalent to an 18 degree sector TABLE 2A-16 Turbulence Estimates From Wind Speed and Lapse Rate Data
Turkey Point
CLASS 2 CLASS 3 CLASS 4
200l Lapse Rate (oF) -1.5 -0.7 +0.4
235' Wind Speed (MPH) 13.0 16.0 10.0
Ratio of Speeds (235/30) 1.3 1.4 1.8
P 0.14 0.18 0.31
100 B -1.74 +1.1 +19.1
SA (Degrees) 20 8 <4
SE (Degrees) 10 5 2
Where: P - is exponent in wind profile.
SA, SE - standard deviation of lateral and vertical wind fluctuations respectively.
B - parameter relating ratio of thermal to mechanical turbulence.
NOTE: See Appendix A for definition of tenms TABLE 2A-17
Diffusion Parameters for Turkey Point (235')
Stable Case:
a = 3 degrees, _ = 4.5m/sec
y = 0.37 x 0.71 (1) z = 0.08 x
.071 (2)
Unstable Case:
a = 10 degrees, _ = 5.8 m/sec
y = 0.45 x
.86 (3) z = 0.32 x
.86 (4)
Where: a - standard deviation of azimuth angle (degrees)
y , z- plane standard deviations (m)
x - downwind distance (m)
_ - mean wind speed at 235 ft. (m/sec)
APPENDIX A
Computed Parameters from Observed Data
V 2/V 1 = (235/30)
P
B = (g/T)(Z 2/V 2) (dT/dZ + 1.1)
Where: V 1 , V 2 - wind speeds at 30 and 235 feet
P - exponent in the wind profile equation
g - acceleration of gravity
dT/dZ - temperature difference (235'-32')
2A-A.1
APPENDIX B
Gaussian Plume Equations
A) Centerline ground level concentrations for a source at ground level.
zy1 Q X (5) B) Ground level concentrations within a sector for a source at ground level.
x z1/2 2 3/2 f 360 Q X (6)
C) Centerline ground level concentrations for an elevated source:
2 z2 H - exp zy1 Qx (7)
Where: X - ground level concentration (units/m
- 3)
Q - source release rate (units/sec)
- mean wind speed at source height (m/sec)
z, y - horizontal and vertical plume standard deviations (m)
H - source height (m)
f - frequency of meteorological conditions in sector (%)
- angular width of sector (degrees) x - downwind distance (m)
2A-B.1
\
, j ,
\
If) !lout( 01=
Tv RI< ey h.I)/e;CJ)
A-I . -3
I 2 :5 4-5' G 7 fJ 9 I() II IZ 13 14-/b 17 /8 19 Z() ZI 2Z2:1 2.4-HOuf( OF .t> AY
.. ,. *: t , . . ,. *1*' . I ; , ..
- ---l-330 320 280 260 250 240 SP££j) (MPH) --_.
0-3 Z 4-7 /4-8-/7..* 3 Z 3'3 /9+ 19 340 STATION Tuft.Krr*
1'01:117; Fl.A, . HEIGHT 2 sS" T7." -PER 100 ::l'dtv"-'9,fY 1.968 350 360 10 80 110 120 150 130 140 200 190 180 170 160 FIGURE 2A-13 I I I I I I SCFlLE .t":::; S-%
.. 330 320 280 260 250 230 __
- -nrs (M PH) 0-3 S-4-7 17.. B-IZ 33 l"
- rl8 3l 1,9 -/-1-1-350 360 STATION HEIGHT PERIOD 10 80 9C ---,r-+---I---L
__ ' 150 100 110 120 130 140 180 170 160 t I I I I f FIGURE 2A-14 STATION hJRKJI( Prr:ul7; & It, HEIGHT 2"3S-P7: PERIOD MFtRCH 1968 340 350 360 10 330 320 280 Be 270 \_J.--t---t-\::t:=
90 --t---l_-.1 100 260 250 0-3 4-7 8-/Z /3-/8 /9+
o z ZZ 39 37 . , 180 170 160 FIGURE 2A-IS 110 120 130 150 I I I I If* SC'tlE .1" == 5'%
STATION HEIGHT PERIOD 340 350 360 10 330 320 280 270 LJ---t----f-r:t 260 . 250 .240 210 ./ . __ (MPH) ..
0-3 4-7 8-IZ
/9-1-/4. 31 I 0 190 I 80 170 160 FIGURE 2A-16 80 rr--t--l----1 90 150 130 140 I I I I I I 1":: 5"% 100 330 320 280 260 250 210 _§?E£.1Z-,Jtftrs (M PH) . -I ,.: at: Nt 0-3 .tf-4-7 I' 8-/Z 34-r!J-18 :::/ /9+ IS-STATION T\lRI(t#)'
I'&%NT, Fl..llt. HEIGHT 2 '3'5 PERIOD I'1f!Y 1_968 340 350' 360 10 200 190 180 170 160 FIGURE 2A-17 80 90 r--t--+--1 100 110 120 150 1'30 140 t tit I I S ;f" r. 1'/ c.,,1.. F...L. ... : ** ) /0 330 320 280 STATION
&'fi. __ HEIGHT z:?s-r7. PERIOD 7JVN* /968 340 . 350 360 10 80 270 L-.J--+---+--1r::
r---r---I---l---1 90 260* 240 220 (MPH) . ':fbI< CI *. tNI 0-3 Z 4-7 . 13 8-/Z 4Z r')-IB /9+ /8 200 190 1 80 170 160 FIGURE 2A-18 100 120 150 130 140 I t I I I I SUJl.E .1 1/ =: S %
\ 330 320 280 260 250 240 220 SPEED (MPH) --
- 0-3 I 4-7 fT 8-/Z 4-7 /3-/8 +Z /.9+ e;-340 STATION tbXNr, &_I't l HEIGHT '2 :is-p-r PERIOD (TvI-,/, /968 350 360 10 120 130 150 200 190 I 80 170 160 FIGURE 2A-19 I I I I I I SC'tJ..E .1'/ = S" %
330 320 STATION NflKrr 1'07111; HEIGHT 23S-F7." PERIOD Ilv(;v.1'r
/968 340 350 360 10 280 80 270 90 260 100 250 110 'FIGURE 2A-20 150 120 130 140 I I I I I I S uIJ. E ..[ ::: S-.%
340 350 360 330 320 280 270 260 240 220 STATION NRKrr Po-rNTj h.f." HEIGHT 2 3S'" F"/. PERIOD Sl!ffl7M¥/?
/968 10 80 rr--t---+-'-.J 90 IOC 120 130 210 150 '. 200 190 180 170 160 . CJ.llrs (MPH 0-3 4-7 8-/7-/3-/8 /9+ "FIGURE 2A-21 I I I I I I SCFlI.E .1'1 = s %
STATION TufU<,Y Pn-:tIJr, &.A,. HEIGHT F?: PER 100 ()c?"()BP8 I ge8 350 36*0 10 330 320 280 270 L-l--\--t----lr:t==:
260 0-3 4-7 8-IZ r!>-/8 19+ . I . 9 38 Z.6 Z.6 190 . I 80 170 160 FIGURE 2A-22 80 -;--I--+---1 90 100 110 120 -130 140 150 I I I I I I SC'fl.lr .I II = 5"%
330 320 280 S IA nON TURI,fY EI.I"I, HEIGHT 23S-PERIOD
/96{3 350 360 -10 80 270 260 250 240 . 220 210 __ (MPH) .
0-3 C. 4-7 7 8-/2* 2 G /3-/8 43 19+ .22 200 190 t 80 170 160 FIGURE 2A-23 150 120 130 140 I I I I I I SC,.lE
== 5".%
340 350 360 330 320 280 270 LJ--\---+-4:-:P 260 250 240 230 220 210 STATION NnKrr 7h'1i11i EtA ... HEIGHT Z3S-;:7: PERIOD J)rc,;A1&cA
/.968 10 80 r--1--f-----l----.J 90 150 130 140 100 190 I 80 170 160 FIGURE 2A-24 I t I I I I SC'IlE .1 1/ = s .%
320 290 280 330 . , 340 270 l_-t---\--;-l 260 250 240 SPEfJ) (MPN) --.--
0-3 :3 4-7 J I 8-/z 37 /"3-/8 33 19+ Ib STATION TvRKI'( lh"ZlIij [,.1.., HEIGHT 235 PERIOD ANNW1' /96B 350 360 10 190 180 170 160 FIGURE 2A-25 150 II 0 120 130 140 SUII.£ /"-; 2 %
" , , _. . . . !o ** " ' .. -"' " s TAT ION
'I R 1=10.;7; . HEIGHT 3D Ff PERIOD
]J,,'f Hovv 340 350 360 10 330 . " , .' i *. 280 320 270 260 .. , . '" . . :. >,':.,; . :.' . ' .. '.: . ':', " , : '. S,m (M,Jj 1'PlCEl'lr 0-3 4-7 0-12 /3*18 19+-Z:3' 18 ZZ 4 210 . ,',. 200 190 I 80 170 160 " . FIGURE 2A-26 150 80 110 120 130 140 ,_ * .--J
" , " . '-, .' . -.'" .". "-' .... , ,1"-: .'. ". ' 330 320 " 290 280 260 . ,'. . . -.. "' S,&o CI.MS (,.."tI
- 1'MelT".,.
0-3" , 4-7 '30 " 8"/2 4Z /3 .. /8 "/8 19-1:" 4---,". _ ..... _.... _., --. 'i? STATION n1 .
- HEI G HT 30 F1. PERIOD
/PIli J 1, tt 1 rf!.fIr18 340 350 360 10 150 180 170 160 FIGURE 2A-27 80 90 """1---.1 100 120 130 140 ,. .
_lIE-........ _ "'r, STATION PO_OJ1; Ft.",.':.
' HEIGHT FI. PERIOD A,,';*J:ML 196?J ClOSS ? 340 350 360 10 330 , 320 280 270 LJ--\--t---'\::t 260 If (." ',:, 200 160 'ED I.,/.M'S Jtlmb ' , .' . " , ,
1 80" 170 0-3 4-7 . 8-/2, /3-18 /9.,. -* a ___ _ I 8* 37. 36 /.8 .. \ * " FIGURE 2A-28 150 80 90 --.I 100 110 , 120 130 140 * *
." " 340 350 360 330 320 280 270 L-l--\---\-r::t:J
- 260 ... '-.:,250 :?."\*'*240 . '." . " . !', .. ,
.-' . . :' : -" " 210. STATION 7Yr.rI!1 Ft. .. :. ' HEIGHT 235" F1'. PERIOD f)NNvll'-19&8 UAt5 4: 10 80 ,-t-+---L-.J 90 150 IO( 110 120 130 140 5'19
-.. ::;-
.. 190 180" 170 160 0-3 " 4-7 fJ-rz 1"3-18 19"'. :.
'. .. 33 30 S .. ' , . ".' ., \ \ . FIGURE 2A-29 . . ..
. . ... TURkEY POINT;' hoittDA .' 19 G 8 .. ,' .' .. '" ,. ! .... .; *
- OS1' S TI!AD.1IIESS VeRStJS UH.f ,!!r----6-. . ' .............
",. . --./ I I 4 IZ 14-48 96 192 384-710 1 Z 4 8 16 30 J)'fIS .. " .. . . . AVEflnG:tNG-TZ,..'E ';.;:'-.' FIGURE r--------------------.--: :. "'-... " ... ...... . ;.-.: ' .' . # .'." '. '. ;' .. ..; .* .-"-"."!! ----** _... ..-!.
/'
(, ()NC&N rRA rr()N /0 3 /f)" })zsrANtl (METeRS) FIGURE 2A-31
,,----------_._---------....
... ;. _. -.... , .' ',. " , _.' .... " ......... I * -,->:'.--,-'-. -.-. ----_._,-.--. .; ..
.. . ..a...-_:
- . _._. ..-r" .. -........ _ 'O., *** ' ,.,._ ..... . . .. : . ; . ' rcr FIGURE 2A-32
.. ' ....... _r\: ... . '.' . ANNUIIL '.-...... : . "; .. -.... . .. . . --. .. '. (J.l?;WN.P**/..r:V!:.'l..
SDIJRCe (1-1= 0) 260 100 180 170 160 M \/ 10-8 ULTIPLY VALUES BY /j FIGURE 2A-33
, . .. .': .. ,. . i . .' . '.' . t, * * . .. : . . '.' . . . . , . ANNUAL CROUND-leVEL SOURCE
'340 350 360 10 330 IOKI130 320 40 100 180 170 160 M \/ 10-8 flVLTIPLt VAlUlS BY /j FIGURE 2A-34
- i ..*. ,
- ." : . . . '. fFJ.I-"'-'"1' I .. ...
UNS71J81..&!'
FIGURE 2A-35
- .....*. . , . .. ,_';.. __
__
............. . . .. . " , FIGURE 2A-36 Ce...,+e,.r or TlJlok. cente ... oP E
1\15000
""5,4"7& * .,
I. Unit #, f!>o.le.v-Struc.tUYe,.
- 2. Unlt*'2 P-::>>ode.-
- 3. Unl+: S t 4. Undo 4 Can +41111"')
me.ot 5. (.)nl t*, 5+4IIc. k.. <D. (Jnlt 4t 2,
- 7.
tc:tlf \\lAte r Tt'A'ik....
- 8. unlt-' Fuel 0" c:::t. 0nl Fuel 0\\
Tf'n\c...
'0. ... c::. VII-.el VCIlne.
OF iOP AeovE. M.L.\'J* \t-.J FE:.ET IrS 1'75 \ acc. 41.., 411 '2e,\ (i"tlk To r 2.f 8) 51'3 5'e> Cente\" Or Vane I tJ 1'° LOCA"TION5 FIGURE 2A-37 .
APPENDIX 2B
MAXIMUM PROBABLE HURRICANE PARAMETERS
2B-l 10812 ADMIRALS WAY TELEPHONE 299-5603 OTOMAC, MARYLAND 20854 AREA CODE 301 RICHARD O. EATON, P.E.
MAILING ADDRESS P.O. BOX 1246 CONSULTING ENGINEER ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
July 3, 1968
Mr. Robert J. Gardner, Executive Assistant, Florida Power & Light Co.,
P. O. Box 3100, Miami, Florida 33101
Dear Mr. Gardner:
Pursuant to your request I have had a review made of our prior study of maximum probable hurricane tidal flood heights at Turkey Point in the light of information presented in ESSA Memorandum HUR 7-97, May, 1968. While this memorandum is preliminary it will be used as a basis for evaluation by AEC as has already been evidenced by a request from AEC in the case of a nuclear
power plant site at another location.
We are in general agreement with the evaluations reached in the Memorandum but we do not agree that all of the extreme values of the various variables could possibly occur concurrently. This concerns principally the relative values of the Central Pressure Index (C.P.I.) and the Normal Asymtotic Pressure which primarily govern the maximum wind velocity in the periphery of the storm.
There is no existing evidence that the range of values of these parameters as suggested in the Memorandum can occur. We question the matter of whether it is technically honest or advantageous in the public interest to base design
upon events which are fantastically remote.
The enclosed report by my associate, Mr. T. E. Haeussner, discusses these differences in viewpoint. I concur in his conclusion that there is no apparent basis for changing the values previously reached in our analysis of
Maximum Probable Hurricane Criteria.
Sincerely,
SIGNATURE
Richard O. Eaton
ROE:w cc R.E. Stade, Bechtel, w/enc.
Encl.
REVIEW OF MAXIMUM PROBABLE HURRICANE PARAMETERS
TURKEY POINT, FLORIDA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT A pre-publication copy of a preliminary ESSA Memorandum HUR 7-97, "Interim Report - Meteorological Characteristics of the Probable Maximum Hurricane, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States",
which presents estimates of generalized indices for that storm, was reviewed for comparison with the M.P.H. parameters and parametric relationships contained in Enclosures 2 and 3 to the P.S.A.R. for Turkey Point. Based on that review, the following
observations and conclusions are offered.
- 1. Based on various techniques of analysis, the ESSA Memorandum concluded that..."south of 25 o N. latitude, the CPI for the M.P.H. must be somewhere between 25.70 inches
and 26.25 inches." On page A-23 of ref. Encl. 3 the CPI range selected for analysis was from 25.60 inches to 26.16
inches: a very favorable comparison. The CPI recommended in Table 1 of ESSA Memo. for latitude 25.5 o N. (approximately that of Turkey Point) is 26.07 inches, which is less severe than the 25.60 inch CPI used and recommended in Encl. 3 to obtain the 16.7 ft. MSL maximum wind tide elevation at the
plant site. 2. Several relationships are presented in the ESSA emo. for evaluating the asymptotic pressure p n in the MPH, as well as an evaluation of K, the parameter employed in the determination of maximum gradient wind speed. The method
given for selecting p n
1
2B-3 relates that parameter to latitude; for latitude 25.5 o N. a p n value of 31.3 inches is suggested. Expressed in millibars pressure that value would represent a 1060 mb. pressure. The Bermuda High core pressure in about 1026 mb. In ref. Encl. 3 the
normal asymptotic pressure of 29.92 inches was used, which corresponds to that observed in the most severe hurricane of record for the eastern seaboard...that of September 1935 which had
an observed p n of 29.92 inches and p o of 26.35 inches. The ESSA Memo however, states that a standard peripheral pressure of 29.92
inches can be used to estimate V x (maximum wind speed). Use of a p n value of 31.3 inches, in lieu of 29.92 inches would increase the overwater wind speed from 139 mph (for 25.60 inches p o), to as much as 160 mph (for a 26.07) inch p o or a 15% increase. There are several valid objections to the use of the p n vs latitude relation noted in the ESSA Memo. The first is from a meteorological probability of occurrence standpoint, ie., the presence of postulation of a 1060 mb. pressure area in the south Atlantic
ocean off the Florida Coast would be in itself, an event of extremely rare probability. The second objection is that it has not been conclusively demonstrated or proven that extremely high p n values can occur with severe hurricanes having p o values of from 25.5-26.6 inches. Lastly, the final objection relates to the fact that although the ESSA p n vs latitude relationship was based on an envelopy curve of some 70+ p o values for storms occurring
2
from latitude 24.5 o-42 o N., only 2 of those storms even closely approached the constructed envelope curve and those were not for severe storms. It is therefore recommended that the p n value of 29.9 inches used in the Turkey Point MPH analysis not be changed. 3. The value for "K" recommended in the ESSA Memo. is
purportedly based on the variation of ocean surface temperatures with latitude. For latitude 25.5 o N. a value of 76.8 is suggested, as compared with the normal value of 73, used in all previous computations for determining the maximum gradient wind speed. The value of 76.8 is related to a required ocean temperature of 90.8 o F. In ref. Encl. 3 (pages A-17-18) a discussion of probable ocean surface temperatures was presented which stated that a violent hurricane with CPI of 25.50 inches would require a temperature of
89+oF. over an 8 degree circle of latitude to maintain steady state conditions. While highly improbable of occurrence, if such a condition were to be accepted the resulting increase in maximum wind speeds at the radius of maximum winds R, would be on the order of 5% (73 vs 76.8), or about 7-8 mph. That difference is considered to be negligible and more than compensated for by the
use of a 25.60 inch CPI in the Turkey Point Report. In summary, the undersigned recommends that no change is warranted or necessary in the MPH analysis for the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant
site.
Respectfully submitted,
SIGNATURE
Theodore E. Haeussner Hydraulic Engineer, Consultant June 28, 1968
APPENDIX 2C
OCEANOGRAPHY
FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2C-1
REFER TO ENGINEERING DRAWING 5610-C-1168, SHEET 1
REV. 16 (10/99)
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT PLANT UNITS 3 & 4 COOLING CANAL SYSTEM LAYOUT FIGURE 2C-1
APPENDIX 2D
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
2D-i APPENDIX 2D METEOROLOGICAL DATA Meteorological data has been collected at the Turkey Point site for 1968 through 1970. The data have been analyzed independently of the material
presented in Appendix 2B.
2D.1 AVERAGE ANNUAL DILUTION FACTOR
The average annual dilution factors (X/Q) are shown in Table 2D-1.1 for the
site boundary distance and 5 mile distance for each 10 degree sector for each
year. Also, the average annual dilution factors are shown in Figure 2D-1 for
the site boundary distance.
These dilution factors for each sector are exact in the sense that they are based on summations of real X/Q values for each hour for a year. The following
computational technique was used.
The collected data from Turkey Point was evaluated by a trained reader and
tabulated in hourly averages. The stability classification was made on a
judgment of the wind direction variability, and in uncertain situations of
directional variability, the classification was made in accordance with the
temperature differential. For instance, in the 15th hour in January 1, 1968,
the wind was 6 mph at the 30' elevation, the stability was Class 2, and the temperature gradient (235-30') was -2.2F. The wind was blowing from the 140 degree sector into the 320 degree sector.
2D-1 Based on this input information the following X/Q values were computed for this particular hourly period using a Gaussian distribution:
- 1. 2.347 x 10
-6 sec/m 3 in sector 320 (at the site boundary) based on the Gaussian centerline value. 2. 1.290 x 10
-6 sec/ms 3 in sectors 310 and 330 (at the site boundary) based on the value at 10 degrees away from the Gaussian centerline. 3. 1.578 x 10
-7 sec/m 3 in sector 320 (at 5 miles) based on the Gaussian centerline value. 4. 0.595 x 10
-7 sec/m 3 in sectors 310 and 330 (at 5 miles) based on the value at 10 degrees away from the Gaussian centerline.
- 5. All other sectors had a X/Q of zero for this hourly period. The classification of wind stability (or gust number) is described on Page 4
of Appendix 2A, given as Classes 1, 2, 3, and 4. Class 2 is the typical unstable daytime regime and Class 4 is the stable condition representative of the nocturnal regime. For calculational simplicity and
conservatism, Classes 1 and 3 were considered to be Class 2.
The following values of sigma were used, taken from Table 17 in Appendix 2A.
For Class 2, unstable condition:
y = 0.45 x (downwind distance) 0.86
z = 0.32 x (downwind distance) 0.86
2D-2 For Class 4, stable condition:
y = 0.37 x (downwind distance) 0.71
z = 0.38 x (downwind distance) 0.71 The dilution factor (X/Q) for each hour was computed with the use of the first equation given in Table 14. 3.5-5 for the centerline value. The X/Q for
adjacent sectors, 10 degrees from the centerline, was computed with the use of
the correction factor as shown in equation 3.116, page 99, "Meteorology and
Atomic Energy 1968" (Reference 14 in Appendix 2A). For the Class 4, stable condition, the Gaussian plume is concentrated within a single 10 degree sector, and the X/Q in adjacent sectors is negligible. All computations were based on a ground level release and a ground level receptor. For the few situations of
zero wind speed, the X/Q was computed on the basis of 1 mph moving in the
direction of the next recorded wind direction.
The average annual X/Q for each 10 degree sector was computed by summing all the hourly X/Q values for the sector and dividing by the total number of hourly observations in all of the sectors for a given year. Missing data is excluded
from the determination of the average value.
2D.2 TABLES ON WIND SPEED vs. STABILITY
Information on 30 foot wind speed versus stability is given for each 10 degree sector and for all sectors combined. The 1968 data are given in Tables
2D-2.1 through 2D-2.37. The 1969 data are given in Tables 2D-4.1
2D-3 through 2D-4.37. The 1970 data are given in Tables 2D-6.1 through 2D-6.37.
For the few situations of zero wind speed the data were categorized in the
direction of the next recorded wind direction.
2D.3 TABLES ON WIND SPEED vs. TEMPERATURE GRADIENT
Information on 30 foot wind speed versus temperature gradient (temperature at 235 ft. minus temperature at 30 ft.) is given for each 10 degree sector and
for all sectors combined. The 1968 data are given in Tables 2D-3.l through
2D-3.37. The 1969 data are given in Tables 2D-5.l through 2D-5.37. The 1970 data are given in Tables 2D-7.1 through 2D-7.37. As previously stated, for the few situations of zero wind speed the data were categorized in the direction of
the next recorded wind direction.
2D-4 2D.4 DEFINITION OF ONSHORE WINDS
For Appendix 2A onshore winds are defined as those winds which blow over
long stretches of water before intersecting land at Turkey Point. The sector
comprising the onshore winds was selected to be the included angle from 030 to 210 degrees clockwise, 180 degrees total. Winds from the other 180 degrees are
called offshore winds. Refer to the General Location Map, Figure 2.2-1, which
illustrates the general direction of the shoreline for many miles.
For Appendix 2D onshore winds are defined slightly differently since the
objectives of the two appendices are different. Onshore winds for 2D are defined as those winds which blow over the plant location and blow into onshore
sectors. Referring to Figure 2D-1, the Turkey Point site is divided into 36 ten-degree sectors. Twenty of the sectors (illustrated by arrows on the figure) intersect the plant site boundary and are defined onshore. In this context the onshore winds include a total of 200 degrees. Sixteen of the
sectors project into Biscayne Bay and are defined offshore.
2D-5 2D.5 PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE OF SELECTED SIGMA A'S Table 17 in Appendix 2A gives representative diffusion parameters for Turkey
Point based upon (1) a qualitative analysis of 1968 on-site data, and upon (2)
accepted principles of atmospheric diffusion behavior (Reference 1, page 54).
The representative 3 degrees for the stable case, actually, equation (1) of Table 17 results from the use of a 2.5 degrees. A value of 2.5 degrees is also in agreement with the definition of the stable case (class 4) as given on page 4 of Appendix 2A. (direction
range /6 = 15/6 = 2.5). The representative in round numbers as 10 degrees, and equation (3) of Table 17 is based on a representative value for as described on page 4 of Appendix 2A.
Experimental values from Turkey Point data on direction range (maximum trace
width) measurements have been reviewed to determine the adequacy of the two above representative
data reduction program, the maximum trace width for each hour at 235 feet has been compiled from the strip charts by a reader. The value of
determined by dividing by 6 (Ref. 1, page 54).
Data taken from January 1, 1970, through April 30, 1970, have been analyzed.
Referring first to the stable case, 45% of the time, and more than 2.5 degrees 55% of the time. The overall case, was observed to be less than 10 degrees 75% of the time. The overall average was about 8 degrees. These numbers for both the stable and unstable cases should be considered as tentative only, since a minimum of a whole year of data
is required for a reasonably conclusive analysis.
2D-6 Experimental measurements of program at Cape Kennedy in support of the space flight programs. Cape Kennedy
is about 225 miles north of Turkey Point and the terrain characteristics are similar; therefore, one would anticipate the local diffusion characteristics to be very similar. Reference 2 reports values of
18 meters. Figures 2D-2 and 2D-3 are reproductions of Figures 2-13 and 2-14
from Ref. 2. The following discussion on these two figures is quoted from Ref.
2, page 43:
"Figure 2-13 has been prepared to provide estimates of A for general application at the Kennedy Space Center under various wind speed and stability
conditions. To prepare the curves, the median 18-meter direction ranges were plotted against the temperature difference between the 00- and 30- meter levels of the tower for each of four wind speed categories, using the data for all
time periods, both seasons, and all wind directions except northerly. Winds from the northerly sector were excluded because of the possibility of crossover problems mentioned above. The wind direction range scales of the working plots were converted to A by means of the one-sixth scaling factor. The dependence of the wind direction range on stability is strongest during light winds and decreases with increasing wind speed. Very stable conditions do not occur with
strong winds at the 18-meter level, and the curve for winds of 7 to 11 meters
per second extends only to conditions of slight stability. As might be
expected, the range data show a large amount of scatter. An example of the plots from which the curves were prepared is shown in Figure 2-14. The curves shown in Figures 2-13 and 2-14 were drawn through median values within selected
A definition of stable and unstable is given in Ref. 1, page 54, as: stable case is when
2D-7 negative or isothermal. Interpreting the Fig. 2D-2 data on this basis of stable v.s. unstable, during stable conditions the mean degrees to 9 degrees, and during unstable conditions the mean
degrees to 15 degrees or more.
In summary of the stable condition, the partial year Turkey Point data indicates that the , 55% of the time, and the Cape Kennedy data shows that the mean or larger. Therefore, the value of 2.5 (or 3 rounded off in Table 17) is a conservative representative value of
In summary on the unstable condition, the partial year Turkey Point data indicates that the , and the Cape Kennedy data shows that the mean . Therefore, the value of 10 is a suitable representative value.
References (1) Maynard Smith, Recommended Guide for the Prediction of the Dispersion of Airborne Effluents, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, May 1968.
(2) F.A. Record, R. N. Swanson, H. E. Cramer, and R. K. Dumbauld, Analysis of
Lower Atmospheric Data for Diffusion Studies, NASA CR-61327, by GCA
Corporation, for Marshall Space Flight Center, April 1970.
Table 2D-1.1 Sheet 1 of 2
Average Annual Dilution Factor (X/Q)
Sector Degrees Site Boundary Site Boundary Site Boundary Site Boundary
downwind 1968 1969 1970 3-yr Average
10 Offshore Offshore Offshore Offshore 20 " " " "
30 " " " "
40 " " " "
50 " " " "
60 " " " "
70 " " " "
80 " " " "
90 " " " "
100 " " " "
110 " " " "
120 " " " "
130 " " " "
140 " " " "
150 " " " "
160 " " " "
170 0.4777x10
-6 0.9006x10
-6 0.7964x10
-6 0.7551x10
-6 180 0.6323x10
-6 0.7138x10
-6 0.7494x10
-6 0.7087x10
-6 190 0.1664x10
-6 0.2431x10
-6 0.2272x10
-6 0.2238x10
-6 200 0.4482x10
-6 0.5458x10
-6 0.4312x10
-6 0.4734x10
-6 210 0.6095x10
-6 0.2824x10
-6 0.5404x10
-6 0.4751x10
-6 220 0.4057x10
-6 0.3097x10
-6 0.4526x10
-6 0.3971x10
-6 230 0.4091x10
-6 0.2153x10
-6 0.2864x10
-6 0.2995x10
-6 240 0.3629x10
-6 0.1545x10
-6 0.2911x10
-6 0.2647x10
-6 250 0.2593x10
-6 0.1854x10
-6 0.1566x10
-6 0.1969x10
-6 260 0.3277x10
-6 0.1850x10
-6 0.1968x10
-6 0.2308x10
-6 270 0.5433x10
-6 0.3389x10
-6 0.3757x10
-6 0.4122x10
-6 280 0.3821x10
-6 0.1950x10
-6 0.2752x10
-6 0.2785x10
-6 290 0.5396x10
-6 0.3735x10
-6 0.3686x10
-6 0.4178x10
-6 300 0.5394x10
-6 0.6856x10
-6 0.3749x10
-6 0.5392x10
-6 310 0.4796x10-6 0.4969x10
-6 0.3060x10
-6 0.4377x10
-6 320 0.6753x10
-6 0.4874x10
-6 0.4359x10
-6 0.5372x10
-6 330 0.7868x10
-6 0.4750x10
-6 0.2002x10
-6 0.4790x10
-6 340 0.5426x10
-6 0.5877x10
-6 0.2761x10
-6 0.4821x10
-6 350 0.8836x10
-6 0.6554x10
-6 0.4549x10
-6 0.6372x10
-6 360 1.2359x10-6 1.0630x10
-6 0.8226x10
-6 1.0234x10
-6 Average of 20 sectors 0.5353x10
-6 0.4547x10
-6 0.4009x10
-6 0.4635x10
-6
Table 2D-1.1 Sheet 2 of 2
Average Annual Dilution Factor (X/Q)
Sector Degrees 5 Miles 5 Miles 5 Miles 5 Milesn
downwind 1968 1969 1970 3-yr Average
10 1.5422x10
-7 0.8930x10
-7 0.8941x-7 1.0754x10
-7 20 1.6708x10
-7 1.1738x10
-7 0.8321x-7 1.1913x10
-7 30 0.8484x10
-7 1.3521x10
-7 1.7483x10
-7 1.3590x10
-7 40 0.8033x10
-7 1.9325x10
-7 1.2652x10
-7 1.3842x10
-7 50 1.1586x10
-7 1.8720x10
-7 0.9379x10
-7 1.3302x10
-7 60 0.8179x10
-7 1.5477x10
-7 1.4557x10
-7 1.3139x10
-7 70 0.5272x10
-7 1.0992x10
-7 0.5346x10
-7 0.7352x10
-7 80 0.7234x10
-7 1.0551x10
-7 1.2131x10
-7 1.0164x10
-7 90 0.7689x10
-7 1.7884x10
-7 1.8029x10
-7 1.5045x10
-7 100 0.8326x10
-7 1.3920x10
-7 1.1368x10
-7 1.1492x10
-7 110 0.9927x10
-7 2.0139x10
-7 1.6453x10
-7 1.5997x10
-7 120 1.6697x10
-7 2.0077x10
-7 1.7061x10
-7 1.8027x10
-7 130 1.0130x10
-7 2.1019x10
-7 1.2179x10
-7 1.4812x10
-7 140 1.2464x10
-7 1.7533x10
-7 1.5473x10
-7 1.5423x10
-7 150 1.9975x10
-7 2.3925x10
-7 2.6051x10
-7 2.3653x10
-7 160 1.5888x10
-7 1.3789x10
-7 1.1702x10
-7 1.3702x10
-7 170 0.6146x10
-7 1.1945x10
-7 1.0519x10
-7 0.9827x10
-7 180 0.8167x10
-7 0.9285x10
-7 0.9725x10
-7 0.9133x10
-7 190 0.2090x10
-7 0.3110x10
-7 0.2885x10
-7 0.2759x10
-7 200 0.6304x10
-7 0.7656x10
-7 0.6021x10
-7 0.6675x10
-7 210 0.9503x10
-7 0.4269x10
-7 0.8337x10
-7 0.7209x10
-7 220 0.7342x10
-7 0.5537x10
-7 0.8129x10
-7 0.7002x10
-7 230 0.8921x10
-7 0.4613x10
-7 0.6132x10
-7 0.6379x10
-7 240 1.0936x10
-7 0.4563x10
-7 0.8731x10
-7 0.7862x10
-7 250 1.2858x10
-7 0.9196x10
-7 0.7668x10
-7 0.9697x10
-7 260 1.6246x10
-7 0.8923x10
-7 0.9391x10
-7 1.1174x10
-7 270 1.5496x10
-7 0.9527x10
-7 1.0518x10
-7 1.1566x10
-7 280 1.0887x10
-7 0.5232x10
-7 0.7513x10
-7 0.7647x10
-7 290 1.3606x10
-7 0.9086x10
-7 0.8882x10
-7 1.0263x10
-7 300 0.9454x10
-7 1.2065x10
-7 0.6282x10
-7 0.9270x10
-7 310 0.6834x10
-7 0.7018x10
-7 0.4023x10
-7 0.5920x10
-7 320 0.8214x10
-7 0.5651x10
-7 0.4892x10
-7 0.6114x10
-7 330 0.8364x10
-7 0.4712x10
-7 0.1520x10
-7 0.4594x10
-7 340 0.5067x10
-7 0.5497x10
-7 0.2248x10
-7 0.4221x10
-7 350 0.8117x10
-7 0.5986x10
-7 0.4001x10
-7 0.5845x10
-7 360 1.1481x10
-7 1.0003x10
-7 0.7610x10
-7 0.9540x10
-7 Average of 36 sectors 1.0223x10
-7 1.1150x10
-7 0.9776x10
-7 1.0414x10
-7
YE AII.: 1 'H.S SPEED HPH 0 I. 2 ] It S Eo '1 8 Ii 10 11 12 1) lit lS U. 11 18 OVER TOUL YEAR: 1'l1>9 SPEED MPH o 1 2 :I .. S I> 7 9 'l 10 11 12 13 1-. 1S 11. I.? 18 18 18 POINT DATA 30 FT, SPEED vS. STABILITY WIND FROH SECTORI 10 NUI'.BEIl OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
STABILITv CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST .. GUST I. GUST i! GUST II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I. 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 :I 0 1 0 i! 0 1 0 2 0 1-0 ] 0 3 0 ] 0 D 0 t 0 I. 0 D 0 0 0 It 0 D 0 0 0 2 0 .. 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 30 0 1't Table ZO-Z. 1 TURKEY POINT DATA 3D FT. WIND SPEED VS.
oIlND FROM SECTbRI 20 OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES GUST 1 GUST 2 GUST II GUST .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II 0 1 0 1 0 ] 0 3 0 S 0 Eo 0 5 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 :3 0 .. 0 .. 0 9 0 2 0 L 0 2 D 1 0 S 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 (} 1 0 1 0 .. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 .5 0 3'l Table 2D-2.2 TOTAL 0 (} 0 1 i! ] It ] ] L 3 5 0 't 2 .. 0 1 0 l .... TOTAL o o o :I 2 I. 11 '1 5 ? 12 9 3 Eo 5 o i! -. 1 2 SNE CoDe 2 SNE CODE i!
VEAR: 1'1&8 YEAR: SPEED KPH o 1 l 3 .. S II ? 8 'I 10 U 12 1] It 15 1fa L9 OVER 1.B TOTAL l%B SPEED MPH 0 1 C! 3 .. S fa ? a 'I 1.0 11 12 13 L't 15 1£. 11 19 : '/ E j(
13 TU_KEY OArA 3D FT.
SPEED VS. STA81lITY SNE CODf i! SECTORI 3D OF OCCURRENCES
ST!8ILITV CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST 1 GUST l GUST 3 GJST .. TOTAL 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 l *2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 l 1. 0 0 J .. 0 Eo 0 S II 0 J 0 2 S 0 J 0 ? 10 0 Eo 0 J 'I 0 Eo 0 Eo 12 0 5 0 8 13 0 1 0 .. s 0 2 0 2 .. 0 1. 0 1 C! 0 Eo 0 1 7 0 2 0 0 C! 0 2 0 1 J 0 1 0 0 1 0 1. 0 0 1 0 i! 0 1 3 1 ..., 0 .. 8 'lEo Table 2:D-Z. 3 TURKEY POI'H, DATA 30 FT. WIND SPEED VS. SHeIL tTy SNE COOE C! WIND FROM SECTORI .. 0' NU!'IE£R OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
ST6&ILITY CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST 1 GUST l GUST J GUST .. TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1. 0 0 0 J 3 0 1. 0 C! 3 0 2 0 .. Eo 0 .. 0 3 7 0 .. 0 Eo 10 0 II 0 ? 18 0 fa 0 3 q 0 Eo 1. 3 10 0 .. 0 .. B 0 ? C! C! 11 0 C! L 0 3 0 7 0 0 7 0 .. 0 0 't 0 S 0 1 fa 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 a 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 12 .. 1'1 11.5 Table :!D-Z.
TURKEY POINT OATl YEARI l.'J(,B 10 FT, WINO SPEED VS. STA81LITY SNE tODE i! WIND fROM SEtTORI 50 OF HOURLY OtCURRENCES SPEED --------STA8ILITY CLASSIFICATION-------
MPH GUST 1 GUST i GUST J GUST TOTAl 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. 0 D Q D 0 0 0 0 i 2 J 0 1 0 J Q 0 0 It Ii D 0 (, 10 10 0 J D J 10 1 0 .. 0 .. 10 a 0 ? 1 J U. 'l 0 a D Ii U 10 0 11 D .. 15 11 0 Ii 0 0 5 1i! o* 10 0 J U 13 0 12 I. 5 J.8 1 .. 0 Ii 2 J 10 1S D
- 1 1 10 U. 0 " 0 i! 8 11 0 .. 1. 1 f. le 0 ? 0 0 ? OVER 1.8 0 2 0 0 i! TOTAL 0 'JCI " til 15 .. Table l.I>-l.. 5 TURKEY POINT DATA YEARI 1.'1&8 30 FT. WINO SPEED VS. STA8JllTY ShE CODE WINO FROM SECTOR' i.o OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED --------STABILITY CLASSIFICATION-------
!'IPH GUST 1 GUST i! GUST J GUST .. TOTAL 0 0 0 0 1 1. 1 0 0 0 J, 1 i! 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 5 & .. 0 0 0 0 0 S 1. 3 0 i! & (, 0 ., 0 'J 1.10 ? D U 0 8 i!5 8 0 U. 0 .. 15 .. 0 .. 0 .. i!S 10 0 0 .. 3D U 0 i!J 0 'J 3i! 12 0 25 0 1 i!& 1] 0 21 0 0 i!1. 1't 0 23 0 0 23 15 0 1'1 0 3 i!i! L(' 0 'J i! 0 11 17 0 10 0 1. 11 U 0 & 0 0 " :)vER 18 0 10 0 0 10 TOTAL i! i! 52 .?<JO Table lO.2. b TURKEV DATA HAR: 1'1&8 30 FT, WISD SPEED VS, STABIliTY SNE CODE 2 .... WINO SECTOR. 10 Of HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED --------STASllITY CLASSIFICATION-----*-"PH GUST 1 GUST Z GUST ) GUST , TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 i-0 0 l. 2 0 0 0 1. l. j 0 0 0 ;) ) , 0 ) 0 .. 1 5 O* .. 0 J 1 & 0 1.0 0 8 l.9 '? 0 22 0 S 21 8 0 n 0 " 29 Ii 0 3D 0 15 '5 1.0 0 lL 0 8 ... 11 0 )0 0 9 J9 12 0 1.8 0
- 21 13 0 2 .. 0
- n u 0 1.5 0 1 1& 15 0 U 1 1 15 1& 0 a 1. 0 " 11 0 It 0 1 5 18 0 Ii 1 0 10 OVF.1l 10 0 13 0 0 13 ToTAL 0 2&1 1 8J l'Ii Table ZP-Z. 7 TURKEY POINT DATA y£'\I!:
]0 FT. loIIN!) SPEED VS. STABILITY SNE cooe i! WINO FR.O:.! SEC TOR I 80 NU'48ER. OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED MPH __ -*_*_*STA8ILITY CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST 1 GUST 2 GUST ;) C.IJST It TOTAL 0 1 2 1 It S I. 1 B " 10 U 12 13 lOt 15 11. 17 1B oVEiI 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1. 0 0 0 5 S 0 2 0 & 8 0 S 0 I B 0 1'1 0 II 28 0 2l 0 OJ ]0 0 l8 0 lb Sit 0 lit 0 1 H 0 23 0 i-2 lS 0 3' 0 11 itS 0 21 3 1.2 1t2 0 33 3 5 1t1 0 1& 3 0 1" 0 l.9 1 i! 21 0 11 i! 1 i!O 0 1 1 2 10 ;) 1" 0 0 H 0 2 .. 5 0 2'1 10TAl 0 332 18 101 ItS1 T .. ble !P-!. 8 TURkEY POINT DATA VEARI 30 FT, fll'/O SPEED VS. SHeIL lTV SNE CODE c WINO FROM SECTORr 90 NU"OER of HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED CLASSIFICATION-------
MPH GUST 1 GUST 2 GUST 3 GUST .. TOTAL D 0 a 0 0 D 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 3 J 0 0 0 .. .. t 0 2 0 3 S S 0 U 0 5 1.& .. 0 u 0 e 21 ? 0 i!2 0 a 30 a 0 ]'I 0 1 ....
- 0 l.8 1 10 i!' 10 0 3D 0 a 38 11 0 30 D
- n 12 0 19 0 .. 23 13 0 11 -2 1" 1t 0 a 0 'I 15 0 12 2 t 19 16 0 13 3 5 21 11 0 S 0 .. 'I 18 0 l.t 0 3 L? OilER Le a a .. i! 0 i!E. TOTAL 0 211 'I a .. 3&9 Table 2,D-2., 9 TURKEV POINT DATA YEAR I 1'1&8 30 FT, WI"lD SPUD liS, STA8H lTV St.E CODE 2 WIND se(TORI 1DD bF HOURLY OCCURRENCfS SPEED --------STA8ILITV CLASSIFICATION-------GUST l. eUST i! GUST J eUST .. TOTAL 0 0 D 0 2 2 l. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 .1 .. 0 3 0 1 .. 5 0 ] 0 1 .. & 0 l'i 0 & 25 " D 2 .. 0 S 2'1 B D 11 0 .. lS 'I 0 2 .. 0 U 3S 10 D i!D 0 " 21 11 0 i!S 0 3 28 12 0 1.3 I. 3 1.1 1.3 D l.t 0 .. 19 1 .. 0 1't 0 0 1't lS 0 & n 1 'I 1& 0 11. 0 1 1.2 11 0 .. 0 2 r, lB 0 S I. 2 Il OIlE'l 19 0 'I J 0 1i! TOTAL 0 225 S 5'1 21lq Table ZD-Z. 10 TURKEY DATA YEARI l'U.8 3D FT, SPEED VS, STABILITY SNe CODe i!
FROH SECTORI 110 OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED HPH --------STAAllITY CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST 1 GUST l GUST J GUST It TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 i! 0 0 0 J 1 J 0 0 0 0 0 It 0 1 0 l J 5 0 J 0 It 7 & 0 8 0 8 1& 7 1 l't 0 'I lit 8 0 l'l 0 8 J? 'I 0 Itl 0 'I 51 10 0 i!5 0 lJ J8 11. 0 i!8 i! 12 Iti! 1i! 1 i!5 1 i! l'l 13 0 18 1 J i!i! J.'t 0 11 1 1 15 15 0 10 1 J l't 1& 0 11. 0 1 1i! 11 0 9 0 0 8 18 0 ) 0 0 3 OVER 18 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL l i!]8 & 7'1 llS 2D-2. II TURKEY POINT OATA YE AR: 1%8 3D FT, WINO SPEEO VS. STABILITY StjE CODe i! WIND FROM SECTOR I 120 OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED --------STABJlITY CLASSIFICATION-------
,!PH GUST 1 GUST i! GUST 1 GUST It TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 IJ 0 0 0 i! 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 1 0 i! ] It 0 .. 0 i! & S 0 3 0 1 It & 0 7 0 11 18 7 0 i!l 0 11 3i! 8 0 i!1t 0 'I 33 'I 0 i!1 0 It lS 10 0 ]8 0 3 "1 11 0 "'It 0 1 27 1i! 0 18 i! S i!5 13 0 2& 1 1 28 1'+ 0 8 1 0 'I 15 0 9 0 0 8 111 0 It 0 0 .. 11 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 3 0 0 3 1rJ 0 0 1 0 1 TOTAL 0 <'10 S 53 <'lIiI Table lD-!. II TURKEY POINT DATA YEAR: 1"110. 3D FT. WINO SPEED VS. STA8IlITY St-;E CODE WIND SECTORI 1]0 OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED --------STARILITY CLASSIFICaTION-------"PI. GUST J. GUST GUST ] GUST TOTAL 0 D 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1-1 0 0 ] 0_ 1 3 ,. 0 ] 0 :3 5 0 S :3 8 I. D 10 t '1' 0 110 e lB 8 1 I. 'I 0 llo t 10 10 0 JJ 1 ]It U. 0 llo 1 0 i!J 0 J.] 0 11 0 18 It 0 5 1 0 10 15 0 l 1 0 ] 110 0 S 1 0 & 11 0 1 0 0 1 18 0 0 1 0 1 OVf.1t 18 0 0 & 0 & TOTAL 1 nt u. eli! Table ZD-Z. 13 TURKEY POINT DATA YEAR: 19r.8 ]0 fT, ,/lNO SPEED VS, STABILITY 51.£ CODE e WIND FROM SECTOR I ltO' OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED --------ST6BllITY MPH GUST 1 GUST i! GUST J GUST It TOTAL 0 0 0 0 " 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 i! 0 1 0 ] :3 0 1 0 :3 .. 0 & 0 0 & 5 0 5 0 '1' I. 0 10 0 1 U. '1' 0 It 0 ] 11 8 D It 0 I. cO 'I 0 0 l cO; 10 0 11 0 1 1c 11 0 1& 1 1 19 12 0 110 5 0 21 J.] 0 ? :3 0 10 1" 0 & 0 0 b lS 0 ,. 0 (, 1(, 0 1 0 ] 11 0 1 0 0 1 18 I] 0 0 0 0 eVER lU 0 ::l ] 0 '3 TOTAL 0 1](, 15 2 .. 17<; Table lD-2. 1-1 TURKEY POINT DATA YEAR: 1"1&8 3D FT. hlNU VS. STA81Ll1Y St.E 'ODE i! WiNO FROM SECTORI 150 OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED --------STl8ILITY CLASSIFICATION-------
MPH GUST 1 GUST i! GUST J GUST t TOTAL 0 0 0 0 J 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 i! 0 , 0 0 1 1 3 0 2 0 .. r. t 0 3 0 1 t 5 0 i! 0 J 5 & 0 12 0 lo U ? 0 1 0 2 J 8 0 8 0 1 U 'I 0 .. I) 5 lot 10 0 lS 0 1 U. 1.1. 0 U 0 0 11 12 0 It 0 0 lot 13 0 'I 0 0 'I l't 0 & 1 0 ? lS 0 t i! 0 .. 1& 0 0 2 0 i! l? 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 2 1'1 0 OVER 1.9 0 t 2 0 .. TO'TAL 0 108 ? 2t 13'1 Table IS TURKEY POINT OATl YEAR: .1.%9 3D FT. WINO SPEED VS. S'AIlILITY SNE COOE C!
FROM SECTORI 1bO . NUM8£R OF HOURLY MPH CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST 1 CiUST if GUST ] GUST .. TOTAL 0 1. if 3 It 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 I) 0 1. 0 a 0 0 a 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ] 5 & 'I 9 'I 10 11 12 13 lit 15 lb 11 16 11l 0 It 0 (0 10 0 ] 0 It ? 0 .. 0 i! (0 0 ? 0 2 1 0 "I 0 1. 10 0 22 0 0 cc 0 13 0 .0 13 0 21 0 1 22 0 8 1 0 "I 0 3 i! 0 5 0 2 2 0 It 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ) 0 0 1 0 b 0 0 b TOTAL 0 HO S 1"1 13'" Table ZD-Z. Ie YEARI 1'11.8 SPEED MPH 0 1 2 J 't o S " 1 8 CJ 10 11 12 U lit lS 11. 17 18 OVER 10 TOTAL VE All 1 1'11.8 SPEED I1PH 0 1 i! 1 .. 5 I. ? a 'I 10 11 12 1J n loS 1& 11 111 OVEi\ 1F! TOTAL TURKEY POINT DATA ]0 FT. WIND SPEED VS. STABILITY WIND FROM SECTOR I 170 NUM8ER OF OCCVRRENCES
STABILITY GUST 1 GUST 2 GUST J GUST 't 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 J 0 .. 0 2 0 OJ 0 " 0 ? 0 J 0 J.'t 0 8 0 .. 0 " 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 11 0 1 0 12 0 0 0 ., 1 0 0 5 2 0 0 J 1 0 0
- 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 .. 1 0 0 1 " 0 0 107 11 .. 0 Table ZD-Z. 17 TURKEY POINT DATA 30 FT, SPEED VS. STABILITY WINO FItO'4 SECtOR I 180 NU"18ER Of HOURLY OCCURRENCES
STABILITY CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST 1 GUST 2 GUST J GUST .. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 S 0 1 0 B 0 1 0 Ii 0 8 0 U 0 .. 1 a 0 .. 0 1 0 'I 0 2 0 10 0 0 0 'I 1 1 0 Eo 1 0 0 ? 1 0 0 .. 0 0 0 Eo 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ] 1 0 n 2 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 91 10 SO Table 20-2..18 SNE COOE 2 TOTAL o o o 1 ? 11 U 17 12 Eo n lit 12 8 ? .. 'I 1 5 1 lsa TOTAL 0 1 1 SHE CODE i! Eo CJ 12 21 13 1 11 10 1.3 ? B .. Eo 1 ,. :3 ,. 1 .. 1 TURKEY POINT DATA YEAR I 1%9 3D FT. WINO SPEED VS. STUll I TY CODE i! WINO SECTORI 1'10 OF HOURLY OCCUPRENCES SPEED MPH --------STABILITy GUST 1 GUST 2 CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST ] GUST .. TOTAL 0 1 2 ] .. 5 .. ., B 'I 10 11 12 U 1, .. 15 110 11 19 OVER 1B 0 0 0 0 0 a 1 a 2 ] 0 1 0 3 .. 0 0 a ... .. a s 0 loa 15 0 ] a OJ 12 0 "I 0 .. lolo 0 t 1 10 U a u 0 II 20 0 :I 0 10 OJ 0 8 l l 1i! 0 ? 0 0 ? 0 11 1 0 12 0 15 1 0 110 a "I 1 a 8 0 r. 0 0 10 0 "I 0 lo 9 0 2 0 0 i! 0 i! 0 0 i! 0 ] 8 0 U TOTAL 0 1010 n 58 178 Table !D-!. 19 TURKEY POINT DATA YEAR: 10;bO 10 FT. .1'IND SPEED VS. STABILITY St l E CODE i!
FROM SECTORI 200 NUMBER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED --------SThRllITY CLASSIFICATION-------)oIPH GUST 1 GUST i! GUST ] GUST .. TOTAL 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 ... S i! 0 1 0 ] .. 3 0 0 0 .. .. .. 0 0 0 10 10 5 0 ] 1 1 5 Eo 0 11 0 11 i!i! "I 0 .. 0 11 15 IJ 0 5 0 10 11 '1 0 Ia 0 "I U 10 0 ? 0 i! Ii 11 0 (, 0 0 Eo 1i! 0 .. a 0 .. 13 0 10 0 0 10 1" 0 .. 0 1 S 15 0 Eo 0 0 Eo lEo 0 i! 0 0 i! 11 0 0 " 0 0 lB 0 1 I'J 0 1 1<3 0 .. q 0 13 TOTAL 0 15 10 51 Hi! Table !D-l. ZO TORKEY POINT DATA VEUI l'Ir.a ltl FT. WINO SPEED VS. STASlL lTV SNE CODE a fROM SECTOR' i10 OF HOURLY SPEED --------STASILITY CLASSIFICATION-------
HPH GUST l. GUST l GUST , GUST .. TOTAL 0 0 0 0 l a 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 a J 0 i! 0 1 :3 It 0 i! 0 5 , 'i 0 It 0 It a I> 0 !i 0 r. 11 ., 0 It o* 1. 5 8 0 2 0 :3 !i .. 0 r. 1. 2 .. 10 0 " 0 C! 8 11 0 I. 1 ). l 12 0 ? 1 0 8 n 0 r. 1 0 , n 0 :3 1 0 .. l'i 0 5 0 0 5 II> 0 J 1 0 .. u 0 i! 1 0 ] 18 0 l 1 0 !i OVER 19 0 .. :3 0 "1 TOTAL 0 r. .. u 2'1 lOr. Table ZD-Z.Zl TURKEY POINT DATA YEAR: 1'Ir.8 30 FT. WINO SPEED VS. STAB llllY SIIE CODE i! WI'lO FROH SEC!ORI aao Of HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED HPH --------STARIlITY CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST 1 GUST i! GUST :3 GuST ... TOTAL 0 1 i! l .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I) I) 0 I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 .. 0 Ii! 1& 5 1:0 "1 0 1 0 1 i! 0 i! 0 ., 'I 0 r. 1 :3 10 8 'J 10 0 :3 0 :3 (, 0 It 0 i! r. 0 1 a 0 s H 12 1] n lS 0 1 1 0 .. 0 ). 0 0 1 0 .. 0 0 .. 0 .. 0 0 .. 0 1 1 0 :3 11:0 17 19 0 1 1 0 l 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 i! 0 3 OVER 1u n :3 II 0 II TOUl 0 "l 18 13 93 Table ZD-Z. Z2:
TURKEY POINT OlTA YEAR: l'iLB JO FT, willa SPEED VS. STABIL lTV tODE " WINO FROM SECTORI "3D OF HOURLY OCcuaRENCES SPEED ********STAB'LITV CLASSIFICATION*******
MPH GUST 1 GUST " GUST J GUST .. TOUL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 l C 2 0 1 0 ) .. 3 0 0 0 It .. .. .I. 0 0 IJ .LO S 0 C 0 'I' IJ L 0 l 0 " 8 'I' 0 .. 0 C I. " 0 S 0 It IJ 'I 0 It 0 0 It 10 0 " 0 0 " 11 0 2 0 0 i! 12 0 0 0 0 -0 13 0 i! 0 0 " l't 0 C 0 0 " lS 0 0 0 0 0 11. Il 1 0 0 1 1f' 0 0 I) 0 0 1B 0 0 0 0 0 OVEi\ 18 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1. 3l. 0 n (,'1 Tabl., ZD-?'.Z3 TURKEY POINT DlTI Y EAR.: l'H.B 30 FT. WIND speeo VS. STABILITY SNE CODe" W,NO FROX SECTORI 2 .. 0 OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEEO ---*----STABILITY CLASSIFICATION--***-*
",PH GUST 1 GUST i! GUST 3 GUST It TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1. 0 3 S 3 0 C! 0 C! It '0 0 3 0 1 L S 0 " 0 It Eo Eo 1 1 0 U lS 7 0 5 0 (, 1.1. B 0 Eo 1 " IJ 'i 0 5 0 1 (, 10 0 ] 1 1 S 11 0 C! 0 0 " 1" 0 1 0 0 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 .. 0 0 0 0 0 IS 0 1 0 0 1 lb 0 1 0 0 1 l? 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 OIfE iI. 19 0 0 0 0 0 TOT':'l i! 35 i! 35 1'0 1 able Z.f VEAR: 1'IL8 SPEED MPH 0 1 l 1 .. 5 Eo 1 8 CJ 10 u 12 11 1" 15 1& 1'1' 18 OVER 18 ToTAL YEAR: 1'1b8 SPEED ",PH o 1 2 1 .. S (, 7 8 'I 10 U 12 13 1'> 1S 11> 11 113 OVE II 18 TOTAL TUIIKEV POINT DATA 30 WIND SPEED VS. STABILITY WIND FROH SECTORI 250 NUM8ER HOURLV OCCURRENCES
STAIILITY ClASSIFICATION-------
GUST l. GUST 2 GUST 1 GUST t 0 0 D 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 l D 1 0 l 0 l. 0 l. 1. It 0 l 0 0 D l 1 .. D .. a It a 8 a ] 0 I 0 It 0 a a It D 0 0 1. a a D D 0 0 0 0 1 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i! 28 1. 2" Table 2D-2. 2S TURKEV DATA 30 FT. WIND SPEED VS. STABILITY WIND FROM SECTORI 2&0 OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
STABllITV CLASSIFICATION-------
('.UST 1 GUST i! ('.\JST ] GUST It 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 ] 0 i! 0 .. I) i! 1 ] 0 :I l. .. 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 C! 2'1 n 15 Table lD-Z.Z6 CODE 2 TOTAL 0 0 2 ] 2 ., ] U J.l S It It 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5S SNE CODE i! TOTAL 0 3 3 i! 5 '" 1 (, 5 0 i! 1 :3 0 0 0 l. n ). ).
TURKEY POINT DATA YEAII: 1'lb0 3D FT, WINO SPEED VS. STA8ILITY SNE (OD£ l wIND SECTORI. l?O Of HOURLY OCCURRENces SPEED --------STA8ILITY CLASSIFICATION-------
MPH GUST 1 GUST 2 GUST J GUST It TOTAL D 0 0 0 0 0 1. 0 0 0 i! .*2 i! 0 0 0 i! i! 3 D 0 0 .. It It 0 J. 0 J. 2 5 0 2 0 .. B Eo 0 ? 0 1 9 ., 0 i! 0 .. .. 0 0 It J. J. Eo Ii 0 J It 1 B 10 0 J 0 0 J 11 0 J. 2 0 J 1.2 0 0 J 0 J 13 0 1 0 0 1 n 0 2 0 0 2 15 0 2 0 0 2 U. 0 J. 0 0 1. 1? 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 I) ",VEil 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAl n 2. 10 i!i! &1 Table 2.D-2.. 2.7 TURKEY POINT DATA YE AR: 1'lb0 JO FT, WINO SPEED VS. STA81L1TY SNE CODE 2 WINO FROM SECTORI 200 "'vMaER OF OCCURRENCES SPEED --------STABILITY CLASSIFICATION-------
'"!PH GUST 1 GuST i! GUST :I GUST It TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 i! 2 0 0 0 2 2 .3 0 2 0 It Eo 0 It 0 :3 ? 5 1-:I 1. 5 10 b 2 1 1 .. B 1 0 .. 1 1 F.. '3 0 5 0 2 1 'i 0 ? 1 1 'i 10 1-.. 0 0 5 11 0 Eo 1 0 ? 12 0 ? 1 0 9 13 2 5 1 0 R !t 0 It 1 0 5 15 n 0 0 0 0 It. 0 .. 0 0 17 0 :I 0 0 3 ,'3 0 5 0 0 '> O*J E la 0 3 f) 0 3 TOTAL ;, &7 I) 2" 105 TaLh* .!D-.!.
TURKEY POINT DATA YEARI l'I&B 3D FT, WINO SPEED VS. STABILITY SrlE CODE WIND FROH SECTORI OF HOJRLY OCCURRENCES SPEED --------STAAILITY HPH GUST l. GUST ii! GUST J GUST .. TOTAL 0 0 0 0 1 I. I. 0 0 0 J 3 0 0 0 J 0 0 I. J .. 0 It 0 ii! & 5 0 ii! 0 ii! .. & 0 10 1 5 1r. 7 1 5 2 & U B J 7 1 5 1r. , 2 B J 0 13 10 1 a 0 1 10 11 1 5 1 0 7 l.i! 0 0 0 0 0 U l. 7 0 0 B lit 5 0 0 7 15 0 1 0 0 1 1& 0 ii! 0 0 2 17 0 2 0 0 2 111 0 & 0 0 & OVER 1B 0 J 0 0 3 TOTAL 11 ?? B 12 .. Table 2:D.2:. 2:9 TURKEY POINT DATA YEAR: 1'1&8 30 F T, ljf NO SPEED VS. STA81LITY SNE CODe WIND FROH JOO NUMBER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED --*-----STABILITY CLASSIFICATION-------
MPH GUST 1 GUST GUST J GIIST .. TOTAL 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 J J i! 0 0 0 5 5 3 0 0 0 & & .. 0 1 0 7 B 5 0 & 1 , 1& & 1 8 0 10 1'1 7 0 & 1 3 10 B 0 5 3 3 11 'I 0 5 2 'I 10 1 'I 0 0 10 11 0 .. 1 0 5 0 .. 0 0 .. 13 0 i! J 0 5 1 .. 0 i! 0 0 2 15 0 1 0 0 1 1& 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 3 0 0 1 18 0 1 0 0 1 1U 0 1 1 0 't TOTAL &0 12 "'I 123 Table ZD.Z. 30 TURKE' POINT OAT'-'EAR: 191.8 30 FT. WINO SPEED V'i. ST.\8ILITY StlE CODE i!
FROM SECTORI )10 OF HOURLY OCCURRfNCES SPEED MPH GUST 1. GUST i! GUST 3 GUST ,. TOTAL 0 0 0 0 1. 1 1. 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 i! i! 3 0 0 0 5 S It 0 J 0 i! S 5 1. ? 1. :I 12 & 1 5 It ) 13 ? 0 S 1 S 11 9 0 r. i! 9 17 Ii 0 & 2 I. U LO 1 ,. , 0 & 11 0 & 0 0 & 12 1 3 1. 1 & 13 0 i! 0 0 i! lit 0 i! 0 0 i! 15 0 i! 0 0 i! 1& 0 J 0 0 3 11 0 1 0 0 1 11J 0 5 0 0 5 OVEA 13 0 It i! 0 & TOTAL It Lit U 39 li!O Table ZD-Z. 31 rURKE' POrNT DATA 1%8 30 FT. WINO SpeeD vs. STA81L1TY StlE CODE 2 WINO FROM SECTORI 3i!D OF HOURl' OCCURRENCeS SPHD --------STA8ILITY CLASSIFICATION-------GUST 1 GUST i! GUST ) GUST It TOTAL ;' a 0 0 0 0 0 1 a 0 0 0 a i! a a 0 2 2 1 0 a 0 1 1 It 1 0 0 i! 3 5 1 1 0 S ., & 0 i! 0 & 'I ? 1 10 0 15 2& 8 1. It 0 B 13 9 0 Ii 0 1& 25 10 0 11 0 S 1& 11 0 8 a 8 u. 12 0 ., 0 It 1.1 II 0 i! 1 3 b h 0 1 L 1 5 LS 0 5 a 0 5 1(, 0 i! 1 1 .. L? 0 9 0 0 9 La 0 ? I) 0 ? : , E;l. Lil a 3 1 0 It T o TAL It R3 ... H lEta Table ZD-Z. 32 TURKEY POiNT DATA YEAR: 1'1&8 10 FT. WINO SPEED VS. STUll lTV SM CODE i! WIND FIlOH SECTORI :nO OF OCCURRENCES SPEED
- _______ STA8ILITY CLAS!lFIClTION-------
KPH GUST 1 GUST 2 GUST 1 GuST It TOUL 0 0 0 0 .. .. 1 0 1 0 i! ] 2 D 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 J 1 .. 1 i! 0 .. ? S 1 i! 0 .. ? b 0 ., 0 11 19 ., 0 i! 0 12 1." 8 L b 0 li! 1'1 " 1 ? 0 b lot 10 0 J.S 1 lot JO 11 0 i!" 1 11 JEt J.l 0 n i! 5 i!& U 0 17 2-i! 21 U 0 5 1 0 & 15 0 b 0 0 & 1& 0 ., 0 1. 8 1.? 0 S 0 0 5 18 n 8 D 0 9 OVER LA 0 b 0 0 b TOTAL .. U'I ? '11 i!'H Table 2.D.Z. 33 TURKEY POINT DATA YE:.R: 1'1&8 30 ... ,NO SPEED VS. STABILITY S!oIE CODE i! WINO FROH SECTORI 3 .. 0' *j\.lHIlEIl of OCCVRRENCES SPEED --------STA81lITY CLASSIFICATION-------
C.UST 1 GUST i! GUST 3 GUST .. TOTAL 0 1-2 3 .. 5 & 1 B 'I 10 II 12 1] 1. LS lb 40 : ... E :;, 10 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 0 & ? 0 .. 0 II 15 0 5 0 10 15 0 8 0 ? 15 0 11 0 H 25 0 l.'t 0 11 25 0 1" 0 10 2. 0 If 0 & 15 0 1" 1. 2 11 0 10 ? ] 20 0 'I 0 0 'I 0 5 0 0 S 0 '3 n 1 .. 0 b 0 0 b 0 0 " 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 T ;'l 0 Uot 8 !Jb 20B l aule ZD-2:. 3 ..
1,!&8 SPEED 'IPH 0 1 2 1 .. 5 b 7 3 'I 10 II 12 13 U 15 l& 11 1A 1t> ToTAL SPEED '4PIoj 0 1 1 .. S b 7 ;; 1;) l+ :5 .t> -" . < lC fT. STABiliTY FROM SECTOR'" 150 OF HOvRLY OCCURRENCES
.P,\81 I TV CLASS I F I" T GUST 1 GUST 2 GUST 3 GUST D 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 L 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 7 0 i! 0 .. 0 1.1 0 7 0 .. 0 .. 0 b 0 2 0 10 0 1 0 U 0 ] 0 (, 0 l 0 17 1 0 0 8 .. 0 0 8 1 '1 0 OJ 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 3 0 0" 0 2 n 1. 0 1 0 0 0 10'1 7 32 Table 2D-2. 35 TURKEY POIUT DATA 30 FT.
SPEED VS. STABILITY WINO fROM SECTORI lbO OF HOURLY OCCURRENCeS
STAAIlITY GUST 1 GUST 2 GUST 3 GUST .. 0 0 0 ). 0 0 0 ). 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 D l 0 1 0 It 1 .. 0 .. 0 5 0 l 0 2 0 1 0 B 0 0 0 10 0 5 0 S 0 1 ::1 10 0 1" D 7 1 1. 0 7 1 D :l S 0 0 n 1 0 0 :: i! 0 0 :: 1 0 0 :: 0 I] 0 70 i! 12 '7.lble !D*!. 3 l ;',E OOf 2 TOTAL o o 1 o 7 r. 18 8 B 11 1b 8 19 12 10 10 B '3 1 L HB SNE CODE 2 TOTAl 1 ). o 5 2 7 .. 7 '3 B 15 8 13 .. B S l 2 1 n loe;
\ TURKEY POINT DATA 30 FT. WINO SPEED VS. STABILITY SNE CODE 2 WIND FROM ALL SECTORS NUMBER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED --------STABJlITY ClASSIFICATION-------
MPH GUST 1 GUST 2 GUST ] GUST ... TOTAL ---.,-------.... ---------. ------
0 0 0 0 C!2 22 ). 0 (, 0 31 37 a 1 (, 0 5 ... &1 3 1 20 0 101 122 't 't 70 0 127 201 5 & 12'" ... 15(, 2f30 (, 7 2"'1 & 223 "77 7 S 2 c n 8 50] 8 & 385 q 18 ... sa ... CJ 3 "'OB 1'" 1&0 SBS 10 't "'10 B 12& E,OB 11 1. 'tOil-1'" 10& sa5 12 2 2& &0 "'S7 13 3 3& "'0 "'03 1'" 2 21& 21 12 251 lS 0 1.81 1& 17 2111-1& 0 151 15 17 183 17 0 <<3& 5 1.2 113 18 0 llCJ 10 & 135 OVER 18 a ).1fo3 ('3 2 208 TOTAL -"S 11-02 ... 2SS 1&55 SQ7Q Table ZD-Z. 37 TURKEY POINT DATA YEAIU 1'110& 10 FT.
SPEED VS.
GUO lENT St.E CODE 2 FROH SECTORI 10 OF OCCURRENCES D I FF EP ENC E 1212'-]2'1------------
- ... 0 -5.' -1. lit -0." 1." ] ... 5." SPHD AtlD TO TO TO TO TO TO I'1PH USs -1.5 -0.& 1.5 l.5 5.S 10 TotAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 .. n 1 1 0 0 0 0 i! S I) 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 r. C l 1 1 0 0 0 It ., 0 i! 1 0 0 0 0 l a 0 , 0 1 0 0 0 1 'I 0 , , 1 0 0 il 10 10 I) i! 1 0 0 0 0 1 11 0 .. 0 0 -1 0 0 5 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 i! , 0 0 0 0 .. u 0 0 0 i! " 0 0 l 15 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 .. 1& I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 1? 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 19 t OVER I) 0 J 0 0 0 0 J TOTAL 0 21 lilt ., i! 0 () .... Table ZD-3. I TURKEY POINT DATA 1'lb8 10 FT. wIND SPEED VS. TE-,PER.\TURE "RADlENT SHE CODE i! WINO FItOM SECTORI lO NUMilER OF HOURLV OCCURRENCES
_____________
DIFFERENCE 12]2'-]2'1------------
-&.0 -5.'1 -1." -O,? 1.& 3.a S.& SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -1.5 -0.9 1.5 1.5 S.S 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 1 I) 0 i! 0 0 1 0 1 It 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 i! 5 0 2 i! 1 1 0 0 " & n S 2 ] 1 0 0 11 " I) 1 1 i! 1. 0 0 ? 3 0 1. 1 l 0 0 0 5 IJ 0 1 ] 1 0 0 0 " :'0 0 5 0 .. 1 0 0 12 11 0 i! 1 1 1 1 0 9 lZ r; Z 0 0 1 0 0 ] :'3 ., It 1 1. D 0 0 & :-n ] i! 0 0 0 0 5 !S ') 0 0 ;) I} 0 0 0 -" "' 0 1 0 OJ 0 0 L :7 () ? 2 0 :1 0 J -. " OVER " 1 i! 0 0 0 0 : ! l ]0 22 21-1 2 0 91 Table ZD-3.2 vEAR: !9ba FROM SECTOR1 )0 o I HERE "Ie E
-10.0 -S.Ii -1." -o.? 1.& 3.10 5.10 SPEED A"'O TO TO TO TO TO TO LESS -1.5 -O.B 1.5 l.S S.S 10 TOTAL iJ ::I 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 1 :1 0 1 0 0 1-0 i! i! Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1-0 1 0 0 0 .. 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 .. 5 D 5 ) 1-0 0 11 b 0 1-0 0 0 5 7 0 3 1-10 0 0 0 10 e n 3 .. l 0 0 0 Ii 9 J 5 .. 1 0 0 10 0 5 .. 0 0 13 11 D 0 0 1 0 0 5 :i! 0 i! 0 2 0 a 0 .. 13 Q 0 1. 1. o* a 0 i! 1-D .. 1. 0 0 0 7 1S n 1. 1 0 :I 0 0 i! n 1. n 1 n 0 0 ;> 17 0 1. 0 0 0 0 n 1 :.?
D 1 ) 0 0 0 0 ..
n 13 .. 11 Eo 1 0 'IS Table 2;D-3. l TURKEY POINT DATA .,.
30 FT. ;'1'10 SPEED VS, TEMPEilATURE GRADIENT SNE CODE 4011 SHTORI .. 0 1\ of HOURLV OCCURRENCES OIFFEREIlCE -b.:> -S, Ii -1." -o.? 1..& 3.10 5.10 S=':E" TO TO TO TO TO TO
- E S S -1.5 -O.B 1.5 ).5 5.5 10 TOTAL J :: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 .0 1 3 0 1. 0 0 0 0 3 ::I D 1 :> D 0 1 S :) 1 i! i! 1 D 0 & Eo :: i! i! 1. 0 0 ? :l 2 3 5 0 0 0 10 :; J .. , , 0 0 0 19 '! :I .. i! 1 0 D 0 9 _ ... :I j b i! 1 1 0 10 a 'l 2 0 10 0 0 0 8 J 3 It :1 0 0 11 :: :> 3 0 0 0 0 3 :l .. 1 i! 0 0 0 7 : J 2 i! ., 0 0 .. !:, : 1 2 1 n 0 0 .. ::; J 2 J C :> 3
- 3 2 1 (; 0 0 h .. -:. "" .., 27 39 39 II 1. :)
-:-.. ble1D-3.';
TURKEY POINT DAU YEAR: l'u.a 3D FT. wltolD SPU<) VS. n14PERATURE C,R ... DIE .... T 2 NINO SECTORI 50 'II\)"I\[R OF
_____________
TEHPERATURE DiFfERENCE (2l2'-32' 1------------
-10.0 -5.' -1 ** -D.? 1.& l.b S.& SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO HPH LESS -1.5 -0.8 1.5 3.5 5.5 It: TOTH 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 J. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n l 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2. , 0 1 0 l J. C 0 .. .. 0 1 0 J. l 0 0 .. 5 0 3 J. 5 1 0 C 10 & 0 0 J J 0 0 0 10 ? 0 1 3 5 1 0 0 lO 8 0 It l 5 0 0 0 J.J.
- 0 .. 3 5 1 0 0 U 10 C 3 ? 5 0 0 0 15 U 0 2 l 2 0 0 0 5 II 0 It It 5 0 0 0 U U 0 J 5 10 0 0 Q J.8 1" 0 0 l ? J. 0 0 10 15 " 2 5 2 J. 0 0 1" 110 " 1 1 J 2 n a .., u a l 1 J 0 0 0 f-1B t OVER 0 ? ii! 0 0 .0 0 <J ToTAL " J8 U. &J 10 1 0 J.S) Table lO-3. 5 TljilKEY POINT OATA VEAR: 1%8 30 FT. wiND SPEED VS. TE ,",PERA TURE GRAOtENT SHE CODE 2 wt .... O FRO'"' SEClORI !oO NU"I\ER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES OIFFeREtoICE (232'-32'1------------
-10.0 -S.1i -1." -o.? 1.10 l.b S.b SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -1.5 -0.8 1.5 3.5 5.5 10 TOTAL a 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 a a 0 0 0 l 0 1 2 [) 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 3 0 0 1 ot 1 0 0 10 .. 0 a 0 c 0 0 0 0 S n 2 1 J 0 0 0 10 10 0 I> i! B l C 0 15 ., 0 S , 12 1 0 a 25 II 0 i! 1 Ii 1 0 0 15 'I 0 'I 10 12 1 C 0 i!B 10 n 1i! , ? i! 0 0 lO 11 1 5 10 13 "3 0 0 li! 1i! n 10 'I 10 1 0 0 C!b " B ? 5 .I. 0 0 21 1-I) <J ? 8 a 0 [) 21>. :.; r) b 1i! .. 0 n 0 i!i! r; 'i i! 1 0 0 1<' "1 I> 10 i! 0 0 0 1i" .. ; ,;£ it 5 10 1 r) ::I 0 lh T : UL Db 'Ii" qq 13 0 Z<J? Table
- l * .. p.O SPHO vS. (i,JClE'jT
'; '.:
SECTORI 10 NU"l\ER of HOURLY "CURRENCES
.-******** ***TEHPeRATURE FFeRe"'Ce
-1..0 -5.'1 -1." -O.? 1." 3.10 5." SPEEO TO TO TO TO TO TO HPH lESS -1.5 -0.8 1.5 ].5 5.5 1D TOTAL 0 (] 0 0 D 0 0 a 0 1 (] 0 a 1 0 a a 1 l 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 .. 0 ] 0 1 1 0 0 ? 5 :I 2 l 1 1 1-0 ? I. 0 5 .. I. 2 0 0 11 1 n 8 S 13 1-0 0 i!" A CI 11 S Il 0 1-0 i!"I q 0 11. 9 18 i! 0 0 .... 10 0 11 1i! 11. 1 0 *0 .... 11 I') 'I Ii! .it 't. 0 0 3'1 1i! 0 ? .. li! l 0 0 n 13 n 'I 11 Ii! 1 0 0 n 1" 1'1 I. 1 8 0 0 0 11 15 , 1 10 .. 0 0 0 1<; 11. , 1 J I. 0 0 0 10 17 n 0 i! .. 0 0 0 Eo la (.
n l 11 10 0 0 0 e] TeTAl '1 'il 'I" lot .. 11 i! (1 3S;0 Table ZD*3. 7 TURKEY POINT DATA '1':-'. : .;&8 30 FT. wiNO SPEED VS. TE"'P E IIA TVRE GRADIENT SNE CODE i! WINO FROH SECTORI 90 NUHBER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
- _____
- __ TE ...
DIFFERENCE Il3Z*-3e*)*-----------
-1..0 *5.'1 -1." *O.? 1." 3.1. 5." SPHO ANO TO 1'0 TO TO TO TO lESS -1..5 -0.8 1.5 3,5 5.5 10 TOTAL :: :l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :l 0 0 1-a 0 0 1 3 :l 0 1 .. 0 0 0 5 :I 0 .. 3 1 0 0 B S C 1 .. i! 1 0 0 8 :. , .. 10 II 0 i! :) 28 , 1 9 10 10 3 .0 0 11 q ,. i!l CJ 1CJ .. 0 0 5" q -; 1i! 1(, 'I 3 0 :I "0 l:) 13 10 ., Ii a 0 3S .. 1:l lot L9 1 0 0 "'5 :'i! :-a 15 19 i! a a *3 .3 ;) a 15 11. l 0 0 *1 :.-1 i! ., 11 'J 0 0 20 :.s ; I'! 8 n 0 :) i!l : "I 0 :l 3
- 0 0 0 10 -. :
- t I. i!. 13 , 0 0 "3 ... " * .! L ., lEo; 2* i! II +5;>
- ..----TURKEY PI) ... T DATA 'tE AR I lUa 10 FT. WIND SPEED VS. H"IPE R!!. TUitE CRAO(EUT SIIoE CO:lE 2 SECTORI '10 t.lUIo!IIER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
TEMPERATURE OlfFERE"IU (lli!'-]i!',-------------It.O -5 ** -1,. -0.1 1." l.1t S.1t SPEED TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -1,5 -o,a 1.5 1.5 5.5 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 1 0 0 1 0 0 D 0 1 l D 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 J 0 0 1 J 0 0 D .. .. 0 0 i! J 0 0 0 5 5 0 .. S. 5 1 0 0 15 .. IJ J 10 It J 1 0 21 , 0 (0 11 10 l 0 0 2'1 a 0 l' 15 10 l 0 0 ....
- 0 , a 10 s 0 0 lD 10 0 10 1& 10 l 0 0 lS 11 0 8 11 n 0 0 0 l'l 12 0 5 11 .. 1 0 0 i!J 13 0 .. It It 0 0 0 U 1" n i! Ii l 0 0 0 'I 15 0 i! It 12 0 0 0 lA 110 0 1 .. 11 0 0 0 lO . 17 0 1 .. J 1 0 0 'I 18 t OVER n J i!1 1'1 0 0 0 U TOTAL II " 1'tJ 128 18 1 0 Jr., Table ZD-3. 9 TURKEY POltlT DATA YEAR: alta 10 FT. WIND SPEED VS. re'lPERATURE GRAD aNT SNE CODE l wluO SECTORI 100 "Iu!'IOEIt of HOURLY OCCURRENCES DIFFERENCE (212'-12"------------
-10.0 -5.'1 -1," -0.' 1.r. 1.10 5.10 SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -1,5 -O,B 1.5 J.S 5.5 10 TOTAL 0 :l 0 D 2 0 0 0 i! 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 J 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 .. 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 .. 5 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 .. 10 0 10 10 8 1 0 0 25 , 0 B B 12 1 0 0 2'1 B 0 'I 16 8 2 0 0 l'i 'I n 10 'I 'I '1 0 0 3S 10 n 3 12 'I 2 1 0 2' 11 0 12 13 J 0 0 0 2B 1i! n i! 'I It 0 0 0 11 13 J 10 '1 5 0 0 0 19 ;, 3 11 0 0 0 0 1" :: .. J i! r:I 0 0 'I !b '1 5 5 0 0 0 0 10 17 n 1 i! 1 0 C 0 b 1:: OVER n 10 ? 1 I) 0 :> i!D : r l ') 1'1 llR 75 1" 0 i!B7 Table 2D-3. 10
OAU "E"Ii.: !.'1bB lC
FRO*" SECTORI aD Elt OF
!( OC C UIIR. PIC E 5 _____________
01 FI' ERE"IC E
-£0.0 -5 ** -1.," -0." 1.1. l.b S.b SPEED AN' TO TO TO TO TO TO LESS -l.S -0,8 3.5 5.5 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 ] 3 0 0 :J 0 0 0 0 It .. 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 S 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 ., & n 1 It ., 2 0 ::I 11-., 0 J 8 10 -J 0 0 2" a 0 10 11. ., .. 0 0 H q D l.8 1'1 U .. 0 0 52 olD 0 12 iii 12 5 0 O. ]B l1. n b 13 1'l .. 0 0 "2 .2 0 10 10 iii 0 0 0 2'1 13 0 5 8 'l 0 0 0 i!2 "" n ] 5 ., 0 0 0 15 1,S " 2 1 'I 11 0 0 1." !.& n C! It 1 0 0 0 'I 17 0 ] 5 0 0 0 0 B G OVfK n 0 J 0 0 0 0 ]. ToTAL 0 7& 115 108 C!l 1. 0 121 Table ZD-3, 11 TURKEY POINT DAU 3:: ; I !o.4D SPEED VS.
GIUDI ENT SNE CODE 2 WINO SEtTORI 120 Of HOURLY OCCURRENCES
-____________
- )IFFEIIENCE
-10.0 -S.Il -1." -0 * ., 1.b ],e. 5.e.
J!I;O TO TO TO TO TO TO .. LESS -1..5 -0.9 1.S ].5 5.5 10 TOTAL :l J 0 0 0 !) 0 0 0 :J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 a* 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 1 J. It 0 0 0 & ., ] 0 C 1 0 0 ,. b !) S 'I 2 0 0 J,B ? 1 lC! ., 12 1. 0 0 ]2 Ii J Ii 9 ] 0 0 ];> 'l Ll 'I ., a 1 0 0 25 0 2£0 10 ] 1 0 0 ,.0 :J lS 7 .. 1 0 '0 .11 '3 : 5 13 " 1 0 a 25 .,
- l'il 5 0 0 0 2B :. , ]
- 2 n 0 0 'I :; ') 0 5 J J 0 n R :!. :I :l J J ::I 0 2 J J 0 J ;) n II 0 .. :: "-, 1 l :J J J 0 .. * * !.:. ., '10 '12 ,,7 1" a 210" ';able !:l-3. :Z
POINT OAT' YE'R: 1'11>8 ID FT. wINO SPEED VS.
CRADIEST CC"E i! WINO SECTORI UO Nuf'4!1E1t OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
tEMPE'ATURE DIFFERENCE
-10.0 -5 ** -1." -o.? 1.10 l.D S.1o SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -1,5 -O,B 1.5 3.5 S.S lC TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <l 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 D 0 1 2 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 2 J 0 0 2 1 0 0 'l 3 ... n 0 J 0 0 0 0 3 5 n 1 I t 1 0 0 9 .. 0 1 10 I> 0 0 0 n ? 0 10 10 5 1 0 0 19 8 0 U U 5 0 0 0 2'1 'I 0 U l't t 1 0 0 3['1 10 0 U IIJ , 0 0 0 II 1.1 n 11 8 It 1 0 0 2(, la n U , 3 0 0 0 n u 0 IIJ 5 t 0 0 0 lA It 0 t 1 1 0 0 0 .. 15 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 1& 0 I I 1 0 0 0 I> 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 19 t OVER 0 1 1 5 0 0 0 7 TOTAL n IIJI 80 SOt t 0 0 lID Table ZD-3. n TURtt[Y POINT DAtA VEl>A: J.'II>8 ]0
- 10IND SPEED VS. TEMPERATURE CRAOIENT SNE CODE 2 WINP FROM SECTOR 1 1 .. 0 NUMf!£R OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES DIFFERENCE 11]2'-32"------------
-&.0 -S.'I -1." -0.7 1.& 3.D 5.6 SPEED AN:> TO to TO TO TO TO lESS -1.5 -0.8 1.5 ].5 S.S 10 10TAL 0 D 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 .I. (\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 D 0 0 ') 1 n 1 1 1 0 0 D ] .. D 1 ... 1 0 0 0 b S n 1 .. 2 0 0 D , .. n 1 7 ') 0 0 0 11 ., r> I> I> ') 2 D D n 9 n .. , 10 ) D D aD 'I 0 8 11 S 0 a 0 l5 10 0 i! ? ) 0 0 0 12 11 0 S II ,. 0 0 0 18 12 n 8 Ii .. 0 0 0 21 13 r) .. 2 .. 0 0 0 10 1" r. 1 2 1 0 0 0 b lS 0 i! 2 i! n 0 0 " 11* 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 l? r: 0 1 0 a 0 0 1 .:: ::.Eit 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 T :: T! l ., 1& ... ., 0 11<; T"ble lD.}.)oj n::tl<EV OATA 1968 lC FT. .. IN:;) SPff:l IS.
GULlIE,,<T S"E COOE i! .. 1"0 fll.OI1 SEtTOlt1 150 "IU'16ER Of
.. ceS -------------T( ...
01 FF eqENc E IZl?'-lZ' 1------------
-10.0 -S.'I -1 ** -0.7 1.10 l.1o 5.10 SPEEO ANO TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -1.5 -0.8 1.5 3.5 5.S 10 TOTAL 0 C 0 0 l U 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z n 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 ] n 0 1 1 i! 0 0 10
- n 0 l l I) 0 0
- 5 0 0 0 3 i! 0 0 5 10 0 1 'I' 5 0 0 0 13 7 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 B 0 l (, l 1 0 0 11 q n
- Z 8 0 0 0 1. 10 0 3 'I ] 0 0 0 15 11 0 10
- 3 0 0 0 n 12 I) , (, 1 0 0 0 1* 13 Q 3 ] l 0 0 0 'I 1" n ] l :! 0 0 0 , 15 0 ] 1 '! 0 0 0 ,. 1& I't 0 1 .. 0 0 0 i! 17 a 0 0 0 u a 0 n c. OVER n a 10 i! 0 0 a B T"TAl n 110 51 .] 10 Z 0 Table lD.l. 1 S TUIIKEV I'OINT OATA ... : !
l'J FT. -.lIND SPEED VS. TEMPEUTIJItE GR.!OIENT SNE COOE l WIND fROM SECTOR I 1.&0 'IJ'ISER OF HOURLY 0(CURRE'4CES O(FFERENCf (lll'-3l'I-----:------
-10.0 -5.'1 -1 ** -0.' 1.b l.b 5.10 SPEED '\:40 TO TO TO TO TO TO "PH lESS -1.5 -0.8 1.5 l.5 5.5 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 a 1 D 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 '1 1 l a 0 0 0 1 :J a i! 1 0 a a 1 5 !'I 0 .. i! ] 1 a 10 b 'J 0 ] l l a a ,. '1 n 0 ] 1 1 0 0 5 3 :J i! i! It 1 0 a 'I 'I !1 i! 5 ] 0 0 0 10 .oJ ,j l Il B 0 0 0 li! 11 ., a ] i! t) 0 0 13 12 J l* 5 3 0 0 0 1i! l] ., b 1 i! 0 0 0 q l* 'J 3 (] i! 0 a a 0; 15 i! :: i! :) 0 0 .. !b C (] () 'J 0 0 0 l1 , 'J (] 0 :J 0 0 r. . .: \f t ::( ") ,. i! ,0 .. 0 0 q .. ... , ., -5 33 J 133 .. :-
.!D .. 3. ;,_
POINT DATA YEARt l'I&a lD FT.
SPEED VS. TfNPEItATURE GiUDIENT SNE CCOE 2 WINO FaOM SECTOR' 170 NIJMilER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES DIFFERENCE Ilil'-il"------------
-&.0 -5.' -1," -o.? 1.& i.& S.& SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -1.5 -D.a 1.S 3.S S.S 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 .. 0 a 1 II a 0 0 7 5 0 0 , r. J 0 0 11 r. 0 0 I. 10 i! 0 0 13 ? 0 0 1 11 ! 0 0 u a 0 1 ,
- 0 0 0 u
- 0 I 0 .. 0 0 0 .. 10 0 a .. 5 0 0 0 l? U 0 .. .. & 0 0 0 1" II 0 It .. i! 0 0 0 12 U 0 II J. 1 0 0 0 a 1. 0 5 0 i! 0 0 0 ? 15 0 i! 1 J. 0 0 0 .. u,. " 8 1 0 0 0 0 OJ J,? 11 i! 1 0 0 0 0 1 U , OVElt 0 .. .. .. 0 0 0 1i! ToUL a .. 8 17 loB 7 0 0 J.SO Table lD.3. 17 TURKEY POINT OATA yEAR: l'!ba 30 FT. WINO SPEED VS. TEMPERATURE GRADIENT SNE CODE i! WINO FROM SECTOR. 180 OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES OIFFERENCE 1232'-32"------------
-1.,0 -5.'9 -1." -0.7 1." i." S.lo SPEEO AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LHS -l.S -0,8 1.S 3.S 5.S 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 l n 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 ] D 0 0 5 1. 0 0 .. .. I) 0 1 " 1 0 0 'I 5 0 1. 1. a i! 0 0 1<' II 0 0 II 10 i 0 a 19 '7 a 0 i! '9 1. 0 0 J.l 8 n 2 J. i! 1 1 a 7 9 11 0 S 5 1 0 a 11 lO 0 i 1 i! 0 0 I) B 11 0 2 .. Eo 1 a 0 u 12 0 i! 3 l 0 a 0 B H I) i! 5 J. 0 n 0 B 1* a 1 1 0 0 0 0 .. lS a S 1. 0 0 a a b -" n L 0 0 n a a 1 l' 11 n i 1 n a 0 .. l}
11 .. i! L a a a 7 T Il i!3 "0 .. .I. .ti! l 0 .13' Table lD.3. 18
- "'UItI(H I'OPlT 041.\ Vc6ll.
30 i-r. .. TID
'IS".
GUOIf!olT S"'E ': :>::lE i!
FItO:4 set TOR I 'W";£R OF OCCUORE"lCES OIFFERe"lCE
-10.0 -5,' -1 ** -0.7 1.10 l.b 5,b SPEED "10 TO TO TO TO TO TO .... PH LESS -1.5 -0,9 1,5 J.S 5,S 10 TOTAL ----0 :> 0 0 0 0 0 :I 0 1 ., 0 1 i! 0 0 0 ] 2 n 0 0 ] 0 1 0 ,. J :'l 0 0
- 0 0 0 ,. It '1 D 1 li! l 1 0 15 5 0 D 1 ? .. 0 0 1i!' 10 0 1 1 10 i! 0 0 1. ? D 1 1 ? i! 0 0 11 B 0 1 .. 10 1
- 0 20 0 D C! i! 5 0 0 10 0 It i! ] 0 1 0 10 11 0 5 l 0 D 0 0 ? li! n r. 5 1 D 0 a lC! 13 n 1e! .. 0 0 0 0 1r. 1" 0 Eo i! 0 0 0 0 B 15 :J 5 1 0 0 0 0 r. lh " 5 0 1 :l 0 0 r. 11 il i! 0 0 0 0 0 i! t 0 le! 1 0 0 0 0 J.] ToTAL ,) 100 lB r.l 15 ? 0 11<' Table ZD.). III TURKEY POINT DATA . ; 0." :
30 10'1'10 SPEEO 'IS. H" , PERATURE GRADIENT SNE CODE l -/I NO sec TOIU lOO NU'1SER Of HOURLY OCCURRENCES (2ll'-li!')------------
-10.0
-1," -O,? 1.10 3.10 5.b S?E D :'110 TO TO TO TO TO TO "P,< lESS -1,5 -0,8 1.5 ],5 5,5 10 TOTAL :: 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 .. 1 0 0 5 i! 0 0 1 ] 0 0 0 ,. 3 0 () 1 ] 0 n 0 .. .. 0 :> 0 10 0 0 0 10 S n 0 2 ] 0 0 0 5 50 U C ] 15 i!' i!' 0 22 , ('J C 1 10 .. 0 ., 15 3 0 1 1 10 2 0 1 11 q n :: 5 .. .. 0 0 13 S 0 1 0 l 0 B , , J 3 l 0 1 0 0 10 J .. 0 0 0 0 0 .. l3 J Ii 1 0 :> 0 0 1[1 .. 0 .. 0 0 1 0 0 s , 10 :J I) :> 0 0 10 :10 'I 1 1 \l () n 0 i! J 0 0 0 J 0 :I 0 .;: : .00t J 5 1 a 0 0 0 1" ... .. , . 'I ?B "It 15 .. 1" 1 -"'
!D-;'.,!*J
TURKEY POiNT DATA ye.R: 19&8 3D FT.
SPEED VS.
CiitAD IE NT C O;)E WIND FROK SECTORI NU,ER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
TfHPERATURE DIFFERENCE
-10.0 -5,1J -1," -o.? 1.' J.' 5.' SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -1 .. 5 -0 ** 1.5 1.5 5.5 10 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 i! 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 i! 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 .. 0 1 0 2 J 0 1 1 5 0 0 J It 1 0 0 8 It n 0 z J S 1 0 11 ., n 0 1 J 0 1 0 5 8 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 5 II 0 J 2 .. 0 0 0 II 10 0 0 It 1 1 0 0 B .u n .1 0 1 1 0 0 1 12 0 J It 1 0 0 0 8 U D 5 1 1 0 0 0 ., 1" 0 0 1 J 0 0 0 .. 15 n 5 0 Il 0 0 0 5 1r. ;) 1 1 0 0 0 0 11 n 0 J 0 0 0 0 1 19 t OVER 0 It .. It 0 0 0 1 .. TOTAl. 0 2& U 3J 13 2 101. Table 2D.3.21 TURKEY POIIIT DATA l'1b& 3D FT. WINO SPEED VS. HMPEHTURE GRADIENT SNE CODE i! WINO* FROM SECTORI N""SER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES OIFFE"ENCE -b.O -5.'1 -1 ... -0 * ., 1.& 1.& 5.10 spno AND TO TO TO TO TO TO LESS -1.5 -0.& 1.5 3.5 5.5 10 TOTAL :l [) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5
- 0 0 0 OJ & 1 0 110 Ii 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 b 0 0 0 a 1 0 0 OJ 0 0 3 It 1 0 0 10 e [) 1 0 1 0 0 b 'I 0 0 i! i! 1 0 1 b lO 0 0 1 i! 0 0 0 J l! :J J. 1 1 1 0 0 It 0 J. 0 0 0 0 0 1 :l 0 0 0 0 0 .. :" c 3 1 0 0 0 0 . :; 2 1 .; !: 0 0 3 ::, Q 1. C 1 0 0 0 2 7 ,. :J 1. 0 0 0 0 1 ... :: ' .
- ) 2 0 0 0 n 15 :) .:.l l? 12 1 'IC' -r .. bl.,
TURKEY DATA VEAR: 10;1109 ]0 FT. .11:10 SPEE" vs. E eOCE WJNO SECTORI .?lD OF riOURlY OCCURRENCES OtFFE!lENCE -b.O -s ** -O.? 1.10 l." 5.10 SPEED ANO TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH lESS -1.5 -0.9 1.5 l.S 5.5 10 TOTAL 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 .. ] 0 0 1 1 0 0 .. 0 0 0 10 2 i! 0 10 5 0 0 0 l S 0 1 0;1 10 I) 0 1 J 1 0 1 R ? 0 0 :3 i! 0 1 0 Eo 8 0 D ., 0 0 0 0;1 0;1 n 1 0 l 0 0 0 10 0 1 J 0 0 o. 0 ll. 0 D 1 0 0 1 0 i! 12 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1] 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1" 0 0 i! 0 0 0 0 2 15 J 0 0 0 oJ 0 Ii n 11, :) 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 l.? ., 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 1f:! t OVER l1 0 0 0 0 0 0 n TOTAL 0 .. 1 .. 11 12 .. i! b? Table lD.3.ll TURKE Y POINT DATA O 1'>"8 ]0 FT.
SPEED VS. TE'4PERATURE GRADIENT SNE CODE i!
FRO'l secTOR I 2.0 OF HOURLV OCCURRENCES
TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE
-10.0 -0:;.9 -O.? 1.10 l.1o 5.10 SPED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO WP\-4 L.ESS -1.5 -0.8 1.S l.S 5.5 10 TOTAL J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 i! J 0 1 l 1 0 0 5 ] :) 0 0 1 0 1 0 * .. 0 0 1 .. 1 0 0 b 5 J 0 0 2 i! 0 1 5 I, a 1 0 1 10 0 1 J.5 7 !l 0 0 5 5 0 1 J.1 B :l 1 1 10 1 0 0 'l q J 1 1 ] 1 a 0 Eo 1:> J 0 i! i! 0 0 D .. . . a i! 0 0 0 D D .? !i! ., 2 0 J. 0 D 0 l :'3 :J 0 ;) 0 0 0 0 0 : .. c ;) 0 0 0 0 0 :5 , a oJ 0 0 0 1 :'b "} J 0 0 0 0 1 :7 ;:; a 0 iJ 0 0 0 .. .. t :'( -; J :l Ll ;} 0 0 0
- T L. 'l I, 3C! 1 ?i!
.!D-.L.!'"
OAT& VEARI 1'1&8 3D Fr;' .. nllO SPeED VS. TEMPERATURE r,a.ADIE:-.T s:.e CODe z WIND SECTORI 250 --
of HOURlv OCCURRENCES
- ______
DIFFERE"ICE IZ3Z'-3l'I------------
-&.0 -5.' -I." -D.? 1.& l.b 5.& SPEED AHD TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -1.5 -O.B 1.5 3.5 5.5 10 T OTll 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t' 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i! 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 l 0 1 0 l
- 0 0 n 1 1 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 & 1 0 0 .., to 0 0 0 1 Z 0 0 3 .., 0 1 0 .. .. 1 1 l.1 8 0 1 0 to J l 0 12
- 0 0 0 J 1 1 0 5 10 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 11 0 1 J 0 0 0 0 .. 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1& 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1B t OVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 to 3 Z& u 5 1 s. Table 20-3. 2S TURKEV POINT DAU YEAR: l'1&B 30 FT. WIND SPEEO VS. TEl1P ERATURE C,RAOIENT SHE CODE a WINO FROX SEC-TORI 2&0 ),IUMIIH OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
_____________
OIFFERENCE lala'-la'l-------------b,O -5.' -1." -0,'" 1.& 1.& 5.b SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -1.5 -O.B 1.5 3.5 5,5 10 TOTAl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Z 1 0 0 l a 0 l. 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 a .. 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 2 :I l. 0 0 & & 0 0 l
- 0 1 0 .., ? 0 1 l 1 Z 0 0 F. e 0 0 1 .. 0 0 0 'I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 z 0 0 0 2 .. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 .. lZ 0 l 0 1 0 0 0 1 l3 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 n !-11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 !S 11 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 lEo :; 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 'I C 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. :>VER 0 l 1 U 0 0 0 2
[) 1 OJ 2'+ Ii 0 H. TableZO-3,Zb SIIfEO "PH :l 1 Z 3 .. 5 b , a 'I 10 12 U 1" ;'5 lb l' le OVER rOUl
VHO "PM a 2 1 .. s b , 3 'I 10 , , :2 :. :..; :7 _____________
TE"PERATVRE IZlZ'-lZ')-------------b.O -5.. -l.t -0.1 1.. 3.b S.b "10 TO TO to TO TO LESS -l.S -0,8 1.5 1.5 5.5 10 'l 0 0 0 0 0 : 0 a 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 ;) 0 0 0 3 1 0 a 0 c a 1 1 0 a 0 D 1 J l l 0 0 1 1 .. l 0 ;) 0 0 1 .. 1 0 ;) 0 0 1 ] 1 1 0 0 2 0 !i 1 0 a 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 ;) 1 1 1 D 0 0 0 1 0 a D 0 0 a 1 0 0 0 0 0 l 0 0 D 0 0 0 z 0 c 0 0 0 n 1 0 0 0 0 0 !l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 11 10 lB 'I 3 0 Table 27 TURKEY POINT aAU lO FT.
SPEED VS. 'TE"IPER.\TUIIE
- lUDIENT WINO FRO:-l SEtTORI 2BO NU!'I!'E II. OF .. OURlY OCCURRENces
_____________
TE"PEQATURE D I FF e lIE "It e (2l2'-32')------------
-10.0 -5.'" -I. .... -o.? 1." 3.b 5." AND TO TO To TO To TO LESS -1.5 -0.9 1.5 3.S 5.5 10 u :> 0 0 0 a a :; 0 a J. 1 a 0 J a 0 0 2 a 0 J 0 1 1 l 0 a 0 0 2 ) 2 0 0 () 0 0 ., 2 1 a :l 1 1 3 Z 0 1 :l 0 0 S 1 0 0 11 1 Z Z 2 a ,0 0 0 3 t 2 0 0 1: 1 2 2 0 0 a C 3 1 2 1 a 0 J ] 1. 0 0 a :::J .. 3 1 :l a 0 , l l 1. 0 0 a -, c 11 n a a :l :.. a ] 1 a a J , z 1 0 a 0 D 0 Ll a --* : II. , S a 0 -.. 2-3b 17 -: ...
2 2 .. Z 9 t! I. b (J ] ') 3 1 i! l 1 o o b1 SNE (ODe ToTAL a 2 2 " ., 1.0 B '" ., 'I c; ., A B 11 .. 1 r1 laC; l YEARI 1'Ir.8 SPEED "PH o 1 I J
- S r. .. 8 OJ 10 11 11! U 1. 15 1r. U 18 , OVU TOUL vEtoR: J.'1bB SPEED MPH 0 1 2 J ... 5 .. , I .. 10 11 12 11 .' lS lr. 17 19 t oVER TOTAL TURKEY POtNT DATA 10 FT. WInD SPEED VS. TfMPERATVRE GRADIENT WIND fROM SECTOR' Z,O NU"IeER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
-____________
TEHPEqATURE DIFFERENCE I/llfl-IIf')------------
-10.0 -5.' -1.' -O.? 1.' J ** 5.10 AND TO TO TO TO TO TO LESS -l.S -0.8 1.5 I.S S.S 10 ...... 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 *0 l l l 0 0 0 1 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 *0 0 0 0 Ii 1 0 0 0 0 1 If 0 1 0 0 0 0 u. .. 1 .0 0 0 I! 8 J 0 1 0 I! J ., .. 0 0 0 I! If 8 1 0 n 0 J 1 If I 0 0 0 J If I! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- If I! 0 0 0 0 .. l I! 0 0 0 0 1 0 n 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 If 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 If 'I .1.8 55 n :J Table 2D-3. 29 TURKEY POINT DATA 3D fT. WINO SPEED VS. TEKPERATUilE GRADIENT WINO FROM SECTORI 300 N., .. aER* OF HOUR LV OCCURRENCES
_____________
DIFFERENCE ClfJIf'-JIf*I------------
-10.0 -5.' -1.' -D.? 1.10 J.b S.1o AND TO TO TO TO TO TO lESS -J..S -0.8 1.5 1.5 5.S 10 ._.-. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 If 0 0 0 0 0 If J 0 0 n 0 0 1 ... 1. 0 0 0 0 ., 1 0 0 0 0 J 10 If 1 0 0 J. S Ii J 0 1 n J If J 1 1 0 0 1 If & If 0 0 0 If 1 J If 1 0 0 2 1 .. 0 0 0 0 If 1 If 0 0 0 Il If If 0 0 0 0 0 1 ... 0 0 0 0 0 If 0 0 0 0 0 Il 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D U 0 ] 0 U 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2S 22 "i1 20 , 1 Table lD-3. 30 . CODE If TOTAL 1 3 If 3 " .. U
- it U. U .. ., o 8 ., 1 If If 'J SHE CODe I! TOTAL 1 3 5 " B 110 1'J 10 U .. , 5 ... 5 I! L C 3 5 120 , ..
, .. 7 POINT OlTl VEARI 1'1&8 )0 FT, SPEED \/S, TEMPERATUPE GRADIENT SNE CODE a WINO SECTORI 310 NUMBER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
- ****** TE"PERATURE DtFFE!tENCE (232'-32'1*-----------
-&.0 *5,11 -1," -o.? 1.10 l.b 5.& SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH lESS *1.5 "-0,8 1.5 J.5 5.5 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 1. 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 a a 1 b " 1 2 a 0 1 1 0 a *0 2 ) a 0 0 J i! 0 0 5 .. 0 0 1 2 i! 0 0 5 5 0 0 2 ? 2 J, 0 12" & 0 1 2 ., 3 0 0 U ., 0 1 a 8 i! 0 0 II a 0 2 J ? .. 1 0 l.? 'I 0 1 I! 5 ot 0 0 1.2 10 0 1 1 Z 0 0 0 ot 11 0 ) 2 a 1 0 a .. J,i! 0 J 1 1 1 0 a & u 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1. 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 i! 15 0 1 1 0 0 a 0 2 1& 0 0 i! 0 1 0 0 J J.? 0 1 a 0 0 0 0 1 J,B (; OVER 0 OJ 2 0 0 0 0 U TOTAL 0 2? 20 ott 22 :I n 11& Table lO.3. 31 TURKEY POINT DATA YEAR: 1'1&8 JO FT. WIND SPEED VS. TEMPERATURE GRADIENT SNE CODE i! WINO SECTOR' ]20 NUtoII\ER" HOURLY OCCURRENcES
- __ __
DIFFERE"'C!:
C232'-32')------------
- &.0 -5.'1 -1." -0." 1.& :1.& 5.& SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO ",PH lESS
-0.8 1.5 3.5 S.S 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 a 0 1 0 0 1 2 ) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 ,. 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 ] S 0 1 0 1" 2 3 0 ., & 0 C 0 i! ... 1 1 9 ., 0 :I 1 10 5 & 1 2& S 0 1 J, ., 1 2 1 13 'I 0 0 S U ] 1 2 22 10 0 .. 0 8 J, 1 1 15 11 0 2 0 OJ 5 0 0 1.& 12 0 2 .. .. 1 0 0 11 II 0 i! 1 2 1 0 0 b 1't 0 i! 1 i! a 0 0 5 15 J i! 3 0 0 0 0 S 110 (I i! 1 0 0 0 0 ] H 0 & ] 0 0 0 Il IJ lB t O\/ER 0 9 ] 0 0 0 0 11 T,TAL 0 )5 2" 'is 25 lot ., 110l Table 20-3.32
---Y[AIl: 1'1'" o 1 l 3 .,. 5 * ? 8 q 10 U 12 U l' 15 .I.' U 18 t OVU TOTAL YEAR: U&I SPEED MPH 0 1 2 3 .. 5 , .'1 8 .. 10 11 1l 13 U 15 1(, 17 TURKEY 'OINT OA'A 30 FT. WIND SPEED VS.
GRADIENT WIND FROH SECTOR. 110 OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES DIFFERENCE (232 t-32'1------------
-&.D -5.. -1,. -D.? 1,' 3.& 5.& AND TO TO TO TO TO TO LESS -1,5 -0.1 1.5 1.5 5.5 10 0 0 .1 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .&. 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 , J , 2 0 0 J
- fo 1 0 2 ., 5
- 1 0 1 fo 0 2 3 0 J 1 .. 5 1 0 0 1 ID , 1 0 0
- 13 2 0 0 0 1 .. 13 0 0 0 0 1 J 2 0 0 0 n 1
- 1 0 0 0 tl 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 , 1 0 0 0 n 'I 'I 0 0 0 0 0 2" 5. q5 n 2" q Table 2.D-3.33 TURKEY POiNT DATA 30 FT. wIND SPEED VS. TF.HPERATURE GRADIENT WINO FROM SECTOR I no NUM8ER of HOURLY OCCURIlENC.es
*TfHPERATUIlE OIFFERENc.E 1232'-32"----------*-
- ... 0 -5 ** -1." -D.? 1." 3." 5.' 'NO TO TO TO TO TO TO LESS -1.5 -0.8 1.5 3.5 5.5 10 0 0 a 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 .1. 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 1 5 3 2 0 0 0 1 J 3 J 3 0 3 2 1 2 I. ., 0 5 2 9 & 2 1 0 I. 1 13 ., 2 0 0 .. 5 5 fa 1 1 0
- 0 q 1 0 1 0 .. * 'I 0 0 0 0 It to q 1 0 0 0 .. 3 2 0 0 0 0 .. 1. 0 0 0 0 n 0 ] IJ 0 0 0 0 Ii 1 0 0 0 n 1e t OVER I] 1 n 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 3'1 33 loB 3i! 13 U Table 2.0.3.34 SNE CODE , TOTaL SNE CODE 2 TOTaL 1 0 1 3 'I 11 13 15 25 2" 22 15 U 20 q .. 3 10 1 l'1B TURKEY ;tOlH' ClArA yEAR: 1'1b8 10 fT. .. rNO SPEEO VS.
GII.AOIENT SHE COOE i! WINO fROM SECTOR' 350 NuHBER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
TfHPEII.ATURE I)J FF ERENtE 1232'-32 1'-------------b.O -5 ** -1 ** -O,? l.r. l,r. S.r. SPEED At,D TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -l.S -0.8 1.5 3.S 5.S 10 TOTAL I) 0 D-O Q 0 Q Q '0 1 0 a a Q 0 0 Q a ! a l 0 Q a D. a l 3 a a a a a a 0 0 , a 1 a a 1 J 0 ? 5 0 0 i! a l 2 Q I. n 0 3 S .. i! 1 15 ? 0 0 1 .. I 0 1 B 8 0 3 1 i! 0 0 0 B 'I a .. 3 1 0 a a 10 10 a i! .. It J 0 0 15 U. I) .. 1 1 D a I) 8 12 n 10 .. .. a a 0 1R II 0 5 i! S I) 0 I) 12 1" ') 5 3 2 a Q a 10 15 a ., i! 1 0 0 0 10 11. U S 3 ., 0 a 0 B l? 0 i! 1 Q Q 0 3 10 t OVER 0 J. 3 0 0 0 0 II-ToTAL 0 "8 ,& 38 11 1 i! 1'1-2 Table 3S TURKEY POINT DATA E l i\ : 1%8 30 FT. WIND SPEED VS. TE I'IP EItATURE GRAnlENT SNE CODE i! WINO FROM SEtTOItI 3(,0 NU'IIlElt OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
TEMPERATURE OIFFEPENCE
-&.0 -5.'1 -1." -0.1 1.(' 3.& 5.& !)PEEO AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH leSS -1.5 -0.8 1.5 3.5 S.5 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 a 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 a 0 0 0 a 0 il 0 1 0 a 0 2 2 1 a 5 It 0 a 1 1 a a 0 i! 5 0 0 J. 1 J. 0 i! 1 & 0 2 J. 5 0 J. 0 'I , 0 3 2 2 0 Q 0 11 8 a 1 1 1 a Q 0 3 'I a 5 i! l a a 0 B 10 a & 0 ., 2 0 0 lS 11 0 5 0 3 0 0 a B 12 U S 1 & 1 0 0 1] II 0 i! 2 It 1 0 0 'I U 0 2 :3 3 a 0 a B 15 :J i! a 1 t) 0 0 0; H. 0 1 a IJ 0 0 0 1 11 0 1 1 0 a 0 a i! .9 t OVER 0 1 a 0 a 0 a 1 TOTAl 0 31. lS *3 , i! i! lOS Table 2D-3. 3l>
TURKEY POINT DATA 30 FT. WINO SPEED VS. TEMPERATURE GRADIENT SNE CODE 2 WINO FROM ALL SECTORS OF HOURLY OCCURRENces
TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (232'-32')------------.r,.r. -&.0 -S.1i -1," -0,7 1.& 3,& 5,& SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -1,5 -0,9 1,5 3,5 5,5 10 TOTAL ---------. .... --------... 0 0 o .-1 1 .. .. 3 0 22 1 a a 5 lli 9 .. 0 37 2 a 3 11 30 11 .. 2 &1 3 0 s* 17 &9 22 8 1 122 .. 0 13 39 10& 3" 8 2 201 5 a 30 59 121 51 1& 5 282 & a "9 110 202 73 '21 11 "&5 7 0 97 108 213 &1 17 12 is 9 0 1 .... 1 .. 3 217 5B 18 .. 58 .. q 0 l ... B 15& 2U2 59 7 & 579 10 0 11'3 1&9 111 .. 7 8 2 57& 11 1 15'3 1 .. 5 177 39 3 l' 52 ... 12 a 1&0 153 131 15 0 a "59 13 0 139 137 120 7 0 a "03 1" 0 q& 91 15 2 0 o* 25'" 15 0 80 73 &0 1 0 0 21 .. 1& a 5 .. & .. ..... ... a '0 10& 17 0 ... 1 S1 22 .1. 0 0' 115 18 & OVER 0 135 130 79 a 0 a 3 ... 3 TOTAL 1 1521 1&51 2071 "91 117 .... & 590 .. Table ZD-3. 37 TURKEY OAU YEAR' nit" ]0 FT. WINO VS. STABILITY SkE CODE I WIND FROM SECTORI 10 OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED ________ STA8ILITY MPH GUST l. GUST i! GUST ) GUST toTAL 0 0 0 0 0 l. a 0 a 0 i! 0 0 1 1. J l. 0 1 i! 0 a 2 i! , , a i ? II J 1 1 5 , , 0 0 2
- J 1 0 .. II a l. 1 10 II 0 2 B U 1 0 1 l.i! 0 , 0_ 1 J U 0 8 0 0 a n 0 J 0 0 ] 15 0 J 0 0 ] 1" 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 1 0 0 1 19 a 0 0 0 0 OVER 18 0 " J l.l TOTAL 0 " 18 n Table ZD-4. I TURKEY POINT DATA YEAR: 1'1&'1 30 FT.
SPEED VS. STA8lLITY CODE 2 WINO FROM SECTOIU 20 NUMBER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED --------STABJLITV CLASSIFICATION-------
MPH GUST 1 GUST 2 CrUST J GUST TOTAL 0 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 1 0 ] 0 l. 0 1 2 5 0 5 l 5 U " 0 .. 2 10 ., 0 r. 0 2 8 I 0 ] 1 5 'I .. 0 .. 0 0 .. 10 0 8 1 1. 10 U 0 2 0 1 ] 12 0 ] 1 l 5 U 0 .. 0 0 .. It 0 i! 1 0 3 IS 0 2 2 B 1& 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 1 " 0 1 18 a 0 1 0 1 OVER 18 a 'I 5 .. 18 TOTAL 0 s't lS 13 101 Table TURKEY POINT DATA YEARl nlo'! 30 FT, NINO SPEED VS. STABILITY SIIE COOE I SECTORI 3D OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED --------STABllITY tL'SSIFICATION-------"PH GUST 1 GUST 2 GUST J GUST It TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ). 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 J 0 J (, 't 0 1 0 1 2 S 0 , 0 't 10 10 0 ., 0 J 10 ., 0 12 "1 It 17 8 0 , 0 1 ? 'I 0 It b I. 5 10 0 ., It It 15 11 0 8 0 1 'I 12 0 2 0 0 i! 13 0 1 1 0 i! 1't 0 0 0 0-0 15 0 J 0 I. 't 110 0 1 1 0 i! 17 0 1 i! D ] 18 0 I. I. I. 1 OVEit 10 0 5 I. J '1 TOTAL 0 loS 11 27 10& Table ZD.4. 3 POINT DATA YEAR : 1'Uo'l :!O FT. WIND SPEED 115. STABILITY SNE CODE i! WIND FRO!ol SHTORI 'to "'u"!lEP.
Of MOVI<LY SPEED --------ST'BIlITy CLASSIFICATION-------
,",PH GUST ). GUST i! GUST J GUST 't TOTAL 0 D 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 :1 1 0 0 1 i! 't 0 0 0 .. It 5 0 't 0
- 11 10 0 J 0 It 7 ? 0 'I 0 J ).i! 9 0 J 0 't ., 'I 0 It '3 1 9 10 0 5 i! :1 10 U 0 10 0 i! 12 Ii! 0 8 i! 't U 13 0 '3 2 :3 9 lot 0 :3 1 0 .. 15 0 't 't 0 8 110 0 .. i! 0 & 1'1 :J i! 1 0 :1 UJ 0 0 ] 0 1 OIlE;I; 18 :J 't 8 1 13 TOTAL blo 29 1'1 13" Table ZO.-I. -I
- ... YEAR: 1'1'" SPUO "PH 0 1 J " 5 It ? 8 'I 10 11 U 1] It Ui u. 1) 19 OVER 18 TOUL V£ AR: nit. SHED "PH o 1 i! J .. 5 Eo 7 9 'I 10 U 1i! 1] n 15 lEo U 18 OVER 18 TOTAl TURKEV POINT DnA 30 FT, WIND SPEED YS.
StlE CODE i! WINO fRO" SECTORI 50 Of HOURLY OCCURRENCES
- STA.IL1Ty CLASSIFICATION*******
GUST 1 GUST 2 GUST I GUST " rOTAL 0 D 0 0 0 o* 0 0 0 0 1 a 1 2 0 0 e i! 1 a 1 .i! " '1 2 7 S a fo 11 , a i! 11 J 0 i! 5 S e 5 12
- I .. 15 .. J J 10 1) I D 15 2 I* i! It a s 1 0 It 0 8 S 1 1" a 2 7 0 'I 0 .. .. 0 9 0 2 'I 0 11 0 , lit 1 ]9 0 85 Ita 3i! US Table 2D-4. 5 TURKEY POINT DATA JO FT, WINO SPEeD vs, STABlLITY SNE CODE i! WIND fRO" SECTORI ItO OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
-***----STA.ILITY CLASSIFICATION---****
GUST 1 GUST i! GUST J GUST .. TOTAL a a a a a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 i! J 0 Eo 0 i! 8 0 8 0 1 'I 0 5 0 'I 1" 0 7 1 1 11 0 7 1 'I 17 0 15 9 .. 27 0 'I 5 i! 1& 0 Eo ] .. 13 0 1'1' .. 1 1'1 0 U ] a lEo 0 11 5 1 17 0 8 10 1 1'1 0 7 'I 0 lEI 0 Eo 11. 0 17 0 .. .... 0 ..8 0 128 10 .. 3'i 211 Table ZD-4. (,
TU",-KEY POINT DATA YEAR: .1.'110'1 30 FT. ,!1to;D SPEeD VS ** STABILITY SNE CODE 2 WIND FROM SECTORI 7D Of HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED MPH ________ STAIILJTY CLASSIFICATION---*_**
GUST 1 GUST 2 GUST J GUST .. TOTAL 0 1 2 3 .. 5 10 7 8 'I 10 U 1.2 n n 15 1.& 17 1.0 OVER .1.8 0 0 0 1 .I. 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 I.' a I. a 3 .. 0 0 a a a 0 .. 1 I 8 0
- 0 , a 0 10 1 .. .1.5 0 a 1 lD 22 0 8 1 8 17 0 9 7 U 3D 0 8 8 7 2] 0 15 'I 1 25 0 20 1.5 1 ]10 0 9 'I 1 1.'1 0 U n 0 27 0 'I .. 1 n D 10 a 0 11 a I." 19 0 n 0 & 8" 5 'Ie; TOTAL 0 150 U3 105 3'18 Table ZO-". 7 TURKEY POINT DATA YEAR: 1'1&'1 3D FT. WINO SPEED VS. STABILITY 5NE CODe 2 WINO FROM SECTOR I Bo NI}HBER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED --------STA8JLITY MPH GUST 1 GUST 2 CLASSIFICATION-*--**-
GUST ] GUST .. TOTAL 0 a 0 0 0 0 1 a 0 a 0 a 2 0 0 0 1 1 J 0 2 0 1 ] .. 0 1 0 3 .. 5 0 2 0 & 8 & a 8 0 5 U ? 0 10 J 5 18 8 0 'I & 5 20 'I 0 11 J 8 22 10 0 27 & 9 .. 2 11 0 1'1 8 ] 30 12 0 2S 1'1 ? 51 U 0 1S 11 .. l& 1" 0 1& U 1 31 15 0 'I 21 1 II lEI 0 11 1'" 2 27 17 0 9 20 2 3D 18 0 11 2S 2 3a vVER 19 0 11 ?? 'I 'I? TOTAL 0 1'15 <'ll ?'+ so;> Table 20--1.8
- s. YEAR I l'Ilo'l SPEED "PH 0 1 2 J .. 5 10 1 8 9 1.0 U 1.2 U 1" 15 110 J.? 18 OVER 1.8 TOTAL Y£ARI 1'110'1 SPEED "PH 0 1 2 J .. S & 1 a 'I 10 U 12 U lot 15 .1.& .1.1 13 OVEII 19 TOTAL TURKEY POINT DAU ]0 FT.
SPEED VS. STAIILITV WINO FROH SECTOR I '10 NUM9ER OF HOJRLY OCCURRENCES
STA8ILITY CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST lo GUST 2 GUST J GUST .. 0 0 1 0 0 lo a 0 a 1 0 1 .. 1 J 5 0 10 , 0 10 11 2 5 25 .. to 22 J 2 2" 15 ? 19 'I J U 2ft 5 11 22-0 0 , U 0 0 10 n 0 0 11 18 0 0 10 2" 0 0 5 l'I 1 0 ? 10 9 0 loa 25S &0 Table 2D-4. 9 TURKEY POINT DATA lO FT.
SPEED VS. STA8I L lTV W,ND FROH SECTOIU 100 NUM,ER OF HOUIILY OCCURRENCES
STA8ILITY GUST 1 GUST 2 CLASSIFICATION-------
r.UST 1 r.UST It 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 1 a a a 1 a 1 0 i! a 5 2 It 0 .. 2 ,. 0 11 2 i! 0 11 ., .. 0 l.'I 10 a 0 i!5 12 1 0 i!J 1.0 r. 0 13 29 2 0 it 29 0 0 U 1& 1 0 ., 2'1 0 0 8 n 0 0 2 i!0 0 0 .. 1& 0 0 i! i!8 .. 0 11" i!i!& lo! Table 20-4. 10 CODE 2 TOTAL 1 1 0 2 loO .-u U 20 .. 0 a? H. Jl. 52 ]5 2l-.n Jl. ]'to 2S 8& lOll S'lE CODe i! TOfU o o 1 1 J U. 12 15 2" 2'1 JB l'f .... S] i!8 ]r. . i!i! i!i! 20 3" "li!
YEUI 1'1"'1 SPEED "PH 0 l. 3 It Ii & ? 8 'I 10 11 13 U 1S 1& 11 19 OVEit ToTAL SPEEO "PH o I 3 't S & ., 8 'I 10 U Ii! 13 lit 1S 110 1'1 18 J,8 OVElI 18 TOTAL TURKEY POINT , OATA ]0 FT.
SPEED VS. STA81l1TY FROM SECTORI UO OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
____
GUST I GUST i! GUST J GUST 1 0 0 i! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 31 0 J L 't 0 J 0 2 0 l' J 0 L. lo ., 0 U It , 0 28 l't I 0 zs Ii! 1 0 U lS J 0 11 15 0 0 n J" 0 0 U. i!? 0 0 lot lEo 0 0 't lot 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 1n 0 0 ... .,1 I .,1.5 .. 21 38 Table ZO-4. 11 TURKEy POINT DATA 30 FT. WINO SPEED VS. S TAU L I TV WINO FROM SECTORI 1C!O " ' NUi"lAEII.
OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
__
- ___
CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST l GUST i! GUST J GUST .. 0 0 0 J 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 J 1 .. 0 0 0 l 0 10 31 U 0 1'1 S Ii 0 110 ., U. 0 C?i! 12 11 0 18 8 1 0 lJ 15 i! 0 1.8 1.1 0 21 U i! 0 20 C?O 0 0 " U-0 0 1i! 11 0 0 Ii .. 0 0 1. 8 0 0 I. S 0 0 It 11i It 0 aoo ISS 100 Table ZD--l. Il C ODE TOTAL 3 l. 5 a 5 .. 3C? 't' 38 3? J] S' 't) SO 18 , 10 C?& It 1& S:-'E COOE i! TOTAL J 1 1 10 1. i!'t a'l Jot tS a? to U 110 to 1'1 9 'I & i!3 HS YEAR: l'U ** SPHD KPM 0 1 I .1 It 5 10 ., *
- 10 11. lit U lot loS 110 11 18 OVEA 18 TOTAL SPEED MPH o I. i! .1 It 5 Eo ? 8 .. 10 11. 12 U .. 15 110 J.7 19 OVH 11) TOT Al.
POINT DATA ]0 FT.
SPEED VS. STABILITY WIND FROM SECTOR I ll0 'tU.'SU OF HOURlY OCCUIUtENCES
________ STAIILITY GUST 1 GUST I GUST I GUST It 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 1 0 0 0 J a 0 0 , a 8 0
- a 110 , 10 0 11
- 5 0 19 lor ? 0 1! l.8 Q 0 1! i!0 , 0 10 8 1 0 U 21-2 0 loS 11 0 a s 15 0 0 10 U 0 0 0 12 0 0 I. 12 a 0 J 5 0 0 It 1.1 I 0 U'I 1.12 .. 2 Tilble 2D-4. 13 TURKEY POINT OATA ]0 FT, WJNu vs. STA81lJTY FROM SECTORI lot 0 NUHilU of HOURLY occullliENCES
STA8IlJTY CLASSIFICAT10N-------
GUST J. CUST i! GUST .1 GUST , 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a a 0 I. a 1 0 .1 a It 0 1 0 8 1 3 0 ., 0 , 0 10 It ., 0 Ii! 10 i! 0 11 It 1 0 20 13 1 0 10 5 3 0 l' 10 1 0 lEo U 0 0 ? 5 i! 0 L 'I 1 0 8 5 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 13 0 0 1 11 i! 0 15] 107 lit Table ZD-4. 14 SNE CODE l TOTAL 0 0 1 :I :I I.E. i!S i!i! 38 JO 3Eo n ]'I-32 20 i!3 12 u 9 18 353 SNE CODE 2 TOTAL 0 0 1 It ., 12 11 i!l. 3' U 3" l.9 25 27 1" U. 13 IJ LJ J. ... 2'1'
DATA YEARI 1.,&" 3D FT, SPEED VS. STAIIlITY SHE coDe 2 WINO SECTOR I 1S0 OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED ________ STAlfLITY CLASSIFICATION-------
MPH GUST 1. GUST 2 GUST J GUST
- TOTAL 0 1 0 0 0 l. 1. 0 0 0 0 0 l l. 0 0 1. 2 J 0 J 0 It ., It 0 It 0 It 8 5 0 It 0 1 S 10 0 U l. J 1.$ l' 0 U. 0 1. 1.i! I 0 ., i! 2 U II 0 U. 1 J 20 10 0 18 II J 21 11 0 12 It 2 1.8 12 0 1i! 10 1. C!J U 0 8
- l. 17 n 0 5 II 0 U 15 0 J 8 1 12 1" 0 2 5 0 ., 1) 0 2 5 0 ., 18 0 J 1 0
- OVER 1R 0 J 8 0 11 ToTAL 2 In "5 i!7 lIB Table ZD-4. IS TURKEV POINT DATA VEAR: 1'10'1 30 FT, wiNO SPEED VS. STU1L1TY SItE CODE 2 WIND FROII SECTOR' 1 .. " 0 NU'IRER OF HOURLY OCCURREN(.es SPEED ________ STAIIL1TV CLASSIFICATION-------
II". GUST 1 GUST 2 CUST J GUST It TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 .. 0 i! 0 1 J 5 0 .. 0 It 10 " 0 J 0 1 It 1 0 ., It " 17 8 0 8 5 It 17 , 0 12 J " 21 10 0 U. 9 1 ]0 U 0 " It ] 1& 12 0 110 12 ] 11 13 0 U-& i! l'I n 0 1 1 1 1 15 0 'I 5 1 15 110 0 1 0 0 1 l? 0 1 ] 0 .. lli 0 1 1 0 .. ?VEiI. lB 1 1 1i! 0 110 TOTAl 113 b. lb i!l't Table ZD-4. 1(,
VEAR' 1'1'" SPEED MPH D 1 I J .. S fa 7 8 'I 10 U 12 11 lot 15 1& 11 OVE;!; 18 ToTAL YEAR I Ur.. sPUO "I'H o 1 I J It 5 10 7 8 ., 10 11 12 U U 15 110 11 18 OVER 18 TOTAL TURKEY POltlT OlTA 30 FT. WINO SPEEO VS. STlInlTV FRO" seCTORI 170 OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
_._. ____ sTAIJLITY GUST 1 GUST l GUST J GUST t 0-0 0 l. 0 0 0 -1 0 D a 2 0 1 a 1 a 0 a I D , I i! a J 1 S 0 .. 1 2 0
- 1 i! a 10 0 0 a u J 0 0 S It 1 a fa 't-o a fa 8 0 0 J 8 0 0 S 7 a 0 .. i! 0 a It s 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 1-0 0 17 52 O!O Table lD-*. 17 TURKEY POINT OAT A ]0 FT. WIND SPEED VS. STAaILITY . WIND HOM sec TOR I 180 NUMBER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
STA8ILITY CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST 1 GUST i! GUST J GUST .. 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 7 0 J 0 .. 0 It 0 5 0 S 0 & 0 J 1 J 0 1 1 1 0 !i i! i! 0 .. 1 l. 0 It J l. 0 It 0 0 J 1 0 0 .. 0 0 1. :I 0 0 i! 0 0 0 1 0 \) 0 0 i! 1 0 .. 20 "1 Table ZD-4. 18 Stl£ coaf TOTAL . a 1 -r! i! 10 'I " 11 10 1," 10 10 U 11 12 & , S b U'I SHE CODE 2 TOTAL 3 0 i! 3 " * 'I U " :I 'I & 8 10 .. b It a 1 3 101 --_._-------------------
YEAR: J.'I"'I SPEED "PH D 1 a J It 5 fa 1 8 'I S.O U U U U 15 1& So? 18 OVF.R U ToTlL YEAR: 1'1&'1 SPEED MPH o 1 3 .. 5 fa l 9 'I 10 11 1i! U h lS 11. 11 19 OVER 1.8 TOTAL TURKEY POINT DATA 30 FT, WINO SPEED VS, STA8ILIn' WINO
$E,TORI J..O OF HQUkLY OCCURRENCES
.--*--*-STABILITY CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST J. GUST a GUST J GUST It 0 0 D 0 J. 0 0 0 0 .I. 0 0 i! 0 0 It l< 1 'I i! 0 8 J 1 8 It 0 'I 5 l 3 It J i! .. a 0 " l 0 8 I 0 ) S. 0 1 0 1 J 0 3 J 0 D 0 1 0 0 " .. 1 0 5S i!& "'I Table 19 TURKEY POINT DATA 30 FT. WINO SPEED VS. STABILITY WINO FROM SEC" TOR I 200 OF HOUlIlY OCCURRENCes
STA8ILITY CLASSIFICATION------*
GUST 1 GUST i! GUST J GUST .. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 i! 0 J. 0 1 0 0 0 9 0 31 0 J 0 ). 0 11 0 11 S. U 0 ., 0 10 0 " s. ., 0 5 11 1 0 1 It S. 0 a 0 0 0 31 11 0 0 0 L 0 0 .. 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 I. 1 0 0 31 0 0 0 S 'I 3 0 .. a i!" b1 T .. b1e ZD-", 20 S",e"'ODE 11 TOTAL 1 .I. It U J.O 1.2 U 10 'I & 'I 10 .. 3 .. Eo 1 12 130 TOTAL 0 31 i! 8 b .l.i! l? l.i' lS 8 & 2 S 1 S 11 i! t! 3 l.i' 133 YEUI 1'1&9 SPUD "PH 0 1 I J t Ii .. ? 8
- 10 11 1i! U 1" 15 110 U 111 OVER 18 TOTAl SPUD MPH o 1 i! J It Ii & ? 8
- 10 11 12 U 1 .. 15 1 .. 111 U OVER 10 TOTAL TURK£Y POIIIT OAU 3D FT.
SPEED VS. STAUliTY WINO FRQM seCTOR' 210 NUM8ER OF OCCURRENCES
- -ST
- ILITY CLASSIFICATION*--****
GUST .. GUST J 'UST 1 GUST 2 0 0 a 1 a 1 a 0 0 1 0 J 0 1 0
- a J, 1
- 0 5 0 18 0 I I 8 0 I J Ii 0 ? ). J 0 It 0 2 a It 2 J a Ii 0 1 0 J 0_ 0 0 ? 1 0 a J 0 0 a .. 1 0 0 J 0 0 0 J ). 0 0 J 0 0 0 U .. 5 0 ?'I U &? Table 2D.4. Zl TURKEY DATA 3D fT. WIND SPEED-VS. STABILITY SECTOR' i!i!0 -.' NUH9ER OF HOURLV OCCURRENCES
- -.-STABILITY CLASSIFICATION--*---.
GUST 1 GUST i! GUST J GUST t o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1 1 a o o 1 1 .. " i! .. J J 2 'I 'I L 1. o 2 I l o o o o 1 o 1 i! o L 1 o o L o o 1 o a 10 i!D Table lD*4. ZZ o 2 :I 'I i!2 I" 110 B .. .. o 1 1 o o o o o o i! SN£ CODE 2 TOTAL 1 -1 t 10 11 i!l U 1.1 11 8 U 10 J a 3 ? J t :I i!-' l&t SIIE ('OOE i! TOTAL o 2 3 10 2-' 28 i!3 12 1i! 8 .. J 10 1.0 1 1 1 a It aD 118 YEAR: ),*U ** SPEED "PH o I. I J It S fa , 8 'I 10 U 11 U 1't 15 11. 17 18 OVER 18 TOTA.l YE:'R: 1'1&'1 SPEED ",PH . o 1 I I .. 5 & ? 8 'I 10 11 lol 13 l.'t lS U. l'l' 10 TURKEY POINT OATA 10 FT.
SPEED vS. ST .. alL ITY SECTORI llO NU":)£R OF HOUPLY OCCURRENCES
______ **sTAaILITy GUST ). GUST e GUST J GUST It 0 0 0 It 0 0 0 i! 0 0 0 It 0 I 0 5 0 J 0
- 0 It 0 11 0 It ). 11 0 U l 10 0 It l I 0 S J 0 0 8 0 0 0 , 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 2 ). 0 0 J. o -0 0 .. 2 0 0 e 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 l-I. 0 1 l &'1 U. &0 Table lO-4.21 TURKEY POINT DATA 10 FT.
SPEED VS. STABILITY WIND fROM SECTORI 1't0 NUMBER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
________
GUST l. GUST l (iUST J GUST 't 0 0 0 i! 0 0 0 lo 0 0 0 It 0 1 0
- 0 I> 0 5 0 't 2 15 0 5 ). B 0 10 I U I> loD 1 5 0 It 0 1 I> It l 0 D 1 l. 0 0 2 I. a 0 0 0 0 0 a I. 0 0 1 0 0 0 I-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? ovEIl. C 3 1 TOUl 0 .. 0 11 70 T a ble lD.-I. 2.-1
'ODE i! 10TlL fa l C. ., l.i! l.7 * -18 U 8 B 8 B S J 1 & l 1 0 0 U't St.I£ CODE I TOTAl i1! l .. 10 5 l!1 1" as 1.& S .. l 1 0 J 1 I. 0 0 H TURKEY POINT DATA YEAR: 1'11011 30 FT. WINO SPEED VS. STABILITY SNE CODE l WIND FROK seCTORI 250 OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPUD ________ ST'IILITY ClASSIFICATION-------
MPH GUST 1 GUST l GUST J GUST It TOTAL 0 0 0 0 1 1 l 0 0 0 J 1 2 0 0 0 S S J 0 J. 0 2 J It 0 J. 0 .It 5 S 0 I 1 5 B 0 .. 1 " U " 0 It l " 1.2 II 0 ., l 1 10
- 0 2 J 1. " 10 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 1. 0 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 J 1_ 0 ,. u 0 0 0 0 0 lS 0 J 0 0 J 11. 0 0 D 0 0 17 0 1 0 0 1. 18 0 0 0 0 0 OVER J.9 0 1 1 S 1 TOTAL 0 n 12 J'I 8Z Table 2D.4.25 TURKEY PotNT DATA VEU: 1"1'" ]0 FT, WIND SPEEO VS. STABILITY SHE (ODf i! WIND FROM SECfORI 2&0 MUMPER OF HOURLY OCCUtlItENCES SPEED -_*-----STAeILfTY (LASSIFICATIOU-------
MPH GUST 1. GUST i! GUST J GUST ,. TOTAL 0 0 0 D J. J. 1 0 0 0 J J 2 1 D 0 .. S 1 0 2 0 S " ,. 0 1. l. 2 It 5 0 i! 1. 2 5 .. D J 0 :II " ? 0 1. 0 :II It a 0 1 0 0 1.
- 0 2 0 0 2 1.0 0 2 0 0 l 11 0 0 0 0 Q 12 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 l. 0 0 J. lOt 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 J. 0 a .L 1& 0 a 0 0 a 17 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 a a OVER 19 0 0 0 ? "1 TOTAL U. i! 30 ,.q Table 2D-4.26 SPEED MPH D 1 2 J .. S to ., a Ii 10 11 J.2 U U lS 110 U 18 OVEiI. 19 TOTH SPEEO* MPH o 1 I! 3 .. 5 10 .. a 'i 10 11 II! 13 h 15 110 p 19 OV CiI. 10 TOTAL TURKEY POINT DATA ]0 FT. WIIIO SPEED VS. STABILITY of HOURLY GUST 1 GUST l GUST J GUST .. 0 0 0 l a a a B a 0 0 .. 1 l a .. a l i! ., 0 0 1 10 0 0 a ., a
- 1 It a s a B a 1 a 1 0 J, a 0 0 0 a 1 0 0 1 a 0 J, D _ 0 0 0 a a D 1 D 0 0 D a 0 a 0 a a 0 0 0 0 D .. J It 1 C?J 8 (,0 Table lD.4.l7 TURKEY POINT DATA ]0 FT. "'IND SPEED VS. STA81LITY WIUO FROM secTOR I il90 NUI'8ER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
STABILITY CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST 1 GUST i! GUST J GUST It 0 a 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 s 1 1 0 it 0 0 0 it 0 1 i! l't 0 l l 10 0 l 'I 19 0 0 fa J 0 a It .. 0 i! 10 i! 0 0 i! 0 0 ] ] 0 0 ] 0 0 0 J 0 0 a i! 1 a 0 :I 0 a 0 1 0 0 a :I 1 0 0 .. l '1 i! II ]9 ?Eo T ..
ZD.*LZ8 CODE l TOTAL l 9 t ., 11 U .. U 13 l 1 1 1 1 o 1 o a o 11 'Ii! TOUl 1 1 S 9 it.I.? l't il'l 'I 9 10 i! Eo ] 3 3 :I J .. 13 1+a SNE CODE i!
YEARI l,eU ** Y£ All: SPUD "PH o 1 e I 't Ii " " 8 .. 10 11 1i! 11 U 15 1(, 11 18 OVER 18 TOTAL 1'1.'1 SPEED ",PH 0 I. 2 1 .. Ii
- 1 8 'I 10 U 12 U n lS 110 11 18 OVEit TOTAL TUI(I(EY PO(Nr DATA 10 FT. WINO SPEED VS. SUlIlrTY wrND FROM SfCTOItI e.o NUHBER of HOURLY OCCUItRENCU
STA8rlI T Y CLASSIFICATION-------
GUS' I, GUST e GUST J GUST It 0 0 a 1 a 0 a It 0 0 0 It 0 1 a " 0 0 0 lit 0 I . .. i!O 0 I I n 0 10 , lit 0 2 10 S 0 I. J 0 a , , 0 0 1 S 0 0 't 1 0 0 J 1 D 0 1 0 0 0 1. 0 0 0 i! '0 0 0 i! 0 0 0 1 0 0 a 0 a 10 0 'tl tr. 'Ii! Table aD.4. a9 TURKEY POrNT OATA ]0 FT. WINO SPEED VS. STASlL ITY wrNO FROM SEC TOIU 100 "IUHDER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
________ STABILITy CLASSlflCAT(ON-------
GUST 1 GUST i! GUST 1 GUST 't 0 a 0 1 0 0 0 t 0 0 a e 0 a 0 8 0 1 0 8 0 1 i! 1.5 0 i! Ii 12 a e 5 1 0 to 1 10 0 1 1 0 0 S ] 0 a 0 5 0 0 .. 10 0 0 e I. 1 0 J 0 0 0 0 i! 0 0 1 0 0 0 i! 1. 0 0 i! 0 I. 10 0 .. ] U 0 19 ]? 18 Table 2.D*4. 30 s,.;e CODE l TOTAL 1. 't t " It era 18 n U .. I. to r. 10 .. 1 1 i! i! 1 18 181 SNE CODE i! TOT t.\. ] .. i! 8 'I 20 1'1 10 U .. 8 S 1.0 t 1 i! 1 ) ] lB 151 TURKEY POINT DATA YoUI .1.9&'1 30 FT, speED YS, STABiliTY SNE CODE i! SECTORI 310 OF OCCURRENces SPEED ClASSIFICATION*------
MPH GUST .I. GUST I GUST 3 CJST t rOrAl 0 a 0 a S S 1 0 0 0 1 1 i! a 0 a t .. J a 0 0 13 'n t a 0 0 11 1i! 5 0 i! J, J,S 18 & a 0 J 11 It '7 a 2 i! 'I 13 8 a 3 2 J, (0 'I a 2 a 0 I 10 a a t 1 S U 0 .. i! 0 & U 0 0 1 0 J, u a '7 1 0 8 1" 0 1 a 0 1 15 0 J 2 0 S 1& 0 1 a 0 1 11 0 1 0 0 I. 18 0 2 0 0 i! OYER 18 0 S 0 1" 1'1 TOTAL 0 ]] 18 ala 111 Table lD.4. 31 TURKEY POINT DATA ]0 FT. wINO SPEED YS. STABilITY SNE CODE 2 FROM SECTORI 320 NU'IilER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED "PH --------STA8ILITV CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST 1 GUST i! GUST I GUST t TOTAL 0 1 i! 1 .. 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 a 0 .. t a 0 1 1 ] 0 S 8 S r. ., 8 OJ 10 U U l't 1 0 l.? 18 t i! 1& 22 It 2 l? 2] 'I It 12 2S , (0 1 11 'I 5 t 18 1 ., I Ii 0 , 8 1. U 0 t 3 0 1 0 1. 1 0 2 15 .. 11 11l OYeR 10 0 'to 0 0 'to 0 i! 1 0 S 0 1 1 0 i! 0 1 1-0 i! 0 2 2 i! r. TOTAL 0 S" "5 'lr. 1'15 Table lD--I. 3Z yORKEY POIUT OATA VEUI 1'1"" )0 FT. WINO SPEED VS. STABILITY S!'oIE CODE 2 WINO FRO" SECTOR. 110 OF Y OCCUUENCn SPEED *** *****STA8ILITY CLASSIFICATION******* "PH GUST 1 GUST 2 GUST J GUST TOTAL 0 0 0 0 't 't I. 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 J. 1 J 0 1 a 1 8 't a 0 0 10 10 S 0 S 1 1'1 25 " a 1 1 1.2 l.'t ? a to 1 110 21 8 0 'I r i!1 12
- 0 S I 2't 12 10 0 .10 11 1 28 11 0
- 11 1 210 12 0 J .11 S 25 U 0 'I 8 2 1'1 1 .. 0 0 S 1 & 15 0 1 1 0 8 1.. 0 1 2 a J 11 0 1 a 0 1. 18 0 1 S 0 " oVER 18 0 8 1't loO ]2 ToTAL 0 15 si! 1't1 30" Table 2.D-4.33 TURKEY POINT DATA YEAIU.l'l&.
30 FT. WINO SPEED VS. STA8H.JTY SNE CODE a WIIIO fROM SECTORI ]'tD NUMBER of HOURLY OCCURRENCES sPEED ***** ***STA8IL1TY CLASSIFICATION******-"PH GUST 1 GUST 2 GUST J GUST .. TOTAL 0 0 D 0 0 .0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 l J .. 0 0 0 't .. 5 0 J 2 U 1.8 " 0 't I. U 1.8 ., 0 ] 2 1"1-U 8 0 10 't ? 21
- 0 S J U 2" 10 0
- 2 1" 25 U 0 & i! 5 U 12 0 U & e i!7 13 0 l.'t 12 1 2'1 l" 0 8 .. 1 1.3 15 0 8 10 0 18 1& 0 2 ,. 0 & P 0 1. 2 0 1 19 0 ] ] 0 I> OVER loB 0 * ]] a so TOTAL 0 '19 CiO HI. o:!'1. Table 2.D-ol. 34 TURKEV POINT DATA HAR: 1'1'" ]0 FT. WIND SPEED VS. STABlLITV SN£ CODE 2 WIND SECTORI ]SO OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED ________ STABILITV CLASSIFICATION-------"PH r.UST 1 r.UST 2 r.UST I GUST It TOTAL 0 0 0 0 J 1 1 0 0 a 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 2. J 0 0 0 It It 't 0 J. 0 S .& i 0 0 0 It It & 0 2 0 'i '1.1 1 0 J D It 1 e 0
- 0 ., u * 'I 0 S 1 'i loS 10 0 11 0 'I 20 1.1 0 " i! 1 'i Ii! 0 e i! J U 11 0 U i! 0 U l.'t 0 S 1 1 ., 15 0 i! i! 1. 5 1& 0 2 J 0 5 U 0 1 1 0 2 18 0 i! S 0 1 OVER 1B 0 & i!i! 1 11 TOTAL 0 lS U. loS l.B1 Table 2D-4. 35 TURKEY POINT DATA veU: 1'l1a'l WIMO SPEED VS, STA61llTV CODE 2 fROM SEC TOR I 1100 OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
*-STABtlITV CLASSIFICATION--*_*--
MPH GUST 1 GUST 2 GUSf J GUST It TOTAL 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1. 1 2 0 0 0 2 i! 1 0 1 0 1 It .. 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 i! 0 " a 10 0 It 0 1 ? 1 0 1 0 2 1 a 0 a 1 .. 13 'I 0 i! 2 i! & 10 0 9 i! It 15 11 0 i! I J 8 12 0 It 2 10 12 U 0 1 J 1. 11 1" 0 1 0 1 i! 1!i 0 2 3 0 'i 110 0 1 0 0 1 11 0 0 1 0 1 lB 0 1 Eo 0 ? oveR lB 0 12 11 10 a'J ToTAL 0 5? 3" .. 10 131 Tabl., 2D-4. 3b TURKEY POINT DATA 30 FT. WIND SPEED VS. STABILITY SNE CODE i! WINO FROM ALL SECTORS OF HOURLY OCCURRENces SPEEO --------STABIlITY CLASSIFICATION-------
MPH GUST 1 GUST i! GUST :3 GUST TOTAL ------...
.... ---.. --_.-.. --.. -.... 0 2 0 0 51 53 1 1 0 38 .. 3 . i! i! .. 0 ?D 3 33 1 150 lB9 0 "2 ? i!i!3 5 D 129 29 313 0 199 "1 25Ci "SB ? 0 2 .. 5, S&9 B 0 300 10& 19Ci 595 9 0 2&" lOB 125 10 0 3&2 lBB 110 &&0 11 0 2"1 139 && 12 0 295 233 SCi 577 13 0 i!9B 239 21 , 55? 1 .. 0 152 1"1 10 309 15 0 lB3 2i!7 10 "i!0 1& 0 10 .. 132 .. 2 .. 0 11 0 79 1 .. 9 2 18 0 BD l&B 5 253 OVER 19 :3 1S3 5&1 155 '302 ToTAL 12 3179 25 ... 9 205& '111]+ Table ZD-4. 37 TURKEY POIUT DATA VEARI I.'U ** 10 FT. WINO SPEEO VS.
GRADIENT SNE CODe 2 WJNO SECTOR' 10 HVH8ER Of HOURLY OCCURRENCES
- .***********TEHPERATURE DIFFERENCE
'212*-32*)********-*--
-1..0 *5.' -1 ... -D.? 1 ... l.' 5 ** SPEEO ANO TO TO TO TO TO TO "PH LESS "1.5 *0.8 l.S l.S 5.5 lO TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a l a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 l' J 0 l 0 1 0 0 0 !
- 0 0 0 l l a . a 2 5 0 J l 1 0 a a "' , 0 .. 0 0 1 a 0 5 ? a 0 I 0 0 0 0 I 8 0 1 0 1 0 0 a .. "I 0 * ! 1 0 a 0 ? la 0 .. 2 i! 0 0 0 a u 0 J l 0 0 0 0
- J,i! 0 i! 1 0 0 0 a J u 0 5 J 0 -0 0 0 8 n 0 1 0 0 0 a a J l5 0 i! 1 0 0 0 0 J 1& C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 l. 0 0 0 0 U 1 19 t. OVER 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 J TOTAL 0 J8 lJ 10 a 0 0 &J Table 2D-5. 1 TURKEV POINT DATA YEAR : l'1b"l JI) FT. lllNO SPEED VS. TEMPERATURE GRADIENT SNE COOE i! WINO FROM SeCTORI ao "lUH9ER 'OF HOU'Rl Y OCCURRENCES
*--------TEHPfRATURE DJFFERENCE (2J2*-J2*)-------------b.O -5,"1 -1,. .O.? 1.' J.I. S.b SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -1.5 -o.a 1.5 J.5 S,S 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 I. a 1 0 0
- 1 0 0 0 D 0 D D 0 i! 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 J 0 i! 1 1 0 0 0 .. .. 0 I. 1 0 0 0 0 i! 5 0 1 S .. 1 {) 0 U & 0 i! J 5 0 0 D 10 ? 0 7 1 0 0 0 D a a, D 1 :I i! 0 D I. "I 'I 0 t 1 1 0 0 0 I. 10 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 10 11 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 :I 12 0 i! i! 1 0 0 0 5 U 0 i! 2 0 0 0 0 t 1'" 0 2 I. 0 0 0 U J 15 n 2 3 i! 0 0 0 '1 1.& 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 1 19 t OYER 0 2 J 0 0 0 0 S ToTAL 0 to 3D 1'1 2 0 1 'Ii> T .. ble ZD-S. Z TUItKEY DATA 1'1&' 30 FT.
SPEED VS. TEMPERATURE GRADIENT StolE CODE 2 WiNO SECTOItI 30 NUMllea Of OCCURRENCES ____________
TEMPERATURE IHFF £RENeE C232'-32'1-------------b.O -5.' -1," -D.? 1." 3." 5.b sPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH lESS -1.5 -0.8 1.S I.S 5.5 10 TOUl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *0 o* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ) 0 1 2 I 0 0 0 .. It 0 0 1. 0 0 1 0 2 S 0 2 J i! e 0 0 * .. 1 J J J 0 0 0 10 ) a 8 8 1 0 0 0 17 a :J It 1 2 0 0 0 1 9 0 .. 0 1 0 0 0 5 10 a 5 5 5 0 0 0 15 11 0 , 1 1 0 0 0 It 12 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 p u 0 2 0 0 a 0 0 2 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lS 0 3 1 0 a 0 0 .. 1& 1 1 1 0 0 0 u P 11 ::J 1 2 0 0 0 0 ] 10 t OVEIt n 1 J 0 0 0 0 .. TeTAl .. , 3i! 18 2 1 0 91 Table ZD-S. 3 TURKEY POINT DATA 'tea: 1 \I£.9 30 FT. WiND SPEED vS. TEHPERATURE GlUDIENf SNE CoDE 2 wiNO FROM SECTOR' .. 0 Of OCCURRENCES
_____________
TEHPEqATURE DIFF EqENCE C232'-]2"------------
-&.0 -S ** -1." -0.1 1." , ... 5." SPHD A "-10 TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -1.5 -0.8 1.15 ].5 5.5 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i! il 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ] 0 0 1 l. 0 0 D 2 .. 0 0 0 l 0 0 1 .. S 0 2 It ? 0 0 0 U & 0 2 1 J 0 0 1 ., ., 'I it 5 1 0 0 0 12 B 0 P 1 .. 0 '0 0 ? 9 !) , .. 1 0 0 0 9 10 0 J 5 2 0 0 0 10 II 0 8 2 2 0 0 0 12 12 ::: 1 J .. 0 0 0 1" 1) 0 .. 1 ] 0 0 0 9 U 0 1 ] 0 U 0 " It lS :1 1 .. 1 0 0 0 8 11> .; 1 It 1 0 0 0 & 1.? ., 0 i! 1 0 0 0 3 18 t oVER I') J J 0 0 0 0 .. rOTH J oJ] *5 3 .. a 0 a 12'+ Tal>le TURkEY POINT DATA YEARt 191 30 FT. WINO SPEED VS. TEMPERATURE CRADIENT SNE CODE 2 WINO SECTORr SO NI,IHBER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
TE"PERATURE DIFFER.ENCE 1232'*32"*-----------
-'.0 -5.' -1." -0.1 1.' 3.' 5.& SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO "PH LESS -l.S -0,8 1.5 3,5 5.5 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 1 -0 0 0 0 0 0 D-o i! 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 a ] 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 .. 0 0 1 1 0 0 0-2 5 0 2 2 2 1 0 0 1 , 0 2 5 2 2 a 0 11 ., 0 5 t 2 0 0 0 11 8 0 1 J 1 0 0 0 5 'I 0 2 .. , 0 0 0 12 10 0 , t 5 0 0 0 15 U. a a , i! 0 0 a 10 12 0 10 t 1 0 0 0 J.S 13 0 0 2 t 0 0 0 , J.It 0 J 2 1 0 0 0 & 15 0 2 11 1 0 0 0 lt 110 0 2 5 2 a 0 0 9 11 0 J 2 J 0 0 0 9 18 t OVER 0 1& lit 2 0 0 0 3t ToTAL 0 5' n 37 3 0 0 1&'1 Table 5 TURKEY POINT DATA YEAR: 1'1b'l 30 FT. WINO SPEEO VS. TEMPERATURE GRADIENT SHE tODE 2 WHID FROM SEcrORr ,0 NU'I8ER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
TEHPERATURE DIHERENCE 1232 1-32 1'-------------b.O _ -5.' -1." -D.? 1.' 3.r. 5.r. SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO IIPH LESS -1.5 -0,8 1.5 3.5 5.5 10 TOTAL a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 .. 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 ] 5 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 B " 0 5 1 J 0 0 0 'I 1 0 .. 1 ., 2 0 0 1t 8 0 r. 5 0 0 0 0 11 'I 0 .. 5 8 0 0 0 11 10 0 'I 10 B 0 D 0 i!? 11 0 ., 5 .. 0 0 0 lL 12 0 & 2 S 0 0 0 1.3 II 0 11 8 1 0 0 0 20 l't a q t 3 0 0 a 1L 15 0 5 J q a 0 0 11 l' 0 S 8 r. 0 0 D 1'1 11 0 ? B 1 0 0 D 1L 18 r. OVER 0 1] as a 0 0 0 tL ToTAL Q '13 89 b8 1 a t.l as] Table ZD-5.6 TU_KEV POINT DATA YE All: lli&. 30 FT. wtND SPEEO vS. THIPERATURE GRADIENT SNI: CODE l WINO FROH SECTORI 70 NIJ!'4IlER OF HOURLV OCCURRENtES
_. ____ ** _____ TEHPERArURE OJFFEHNCE Cl3Z*-3Z"------------
-&.0 -5 **
-0.1 1.& J.& S.i SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS "1.5 -0 ** 1.5 l.S 5.5 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 J 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 It .. 0 0 0 D 0 O* 0 0 5 0 1 5 l 0 D 0 8 " 0 5 2 ,. 0 0 0 II '1 0 & J 5 1 0 0 15 8 0 8 J 10 1 0 0 22 Ii 0 .. 1 .. 0 0 0 11 10 0 5 , 110 0 0 0 JO l.l 0 a 1 a 0 0 0 2J 12 0 U, 1 1 0 0 0 25 l.l 0 10 l? , 0 0 0 J& 1" 0 to 1 I. 0 0 0 1'9 1.5 0 a II It 0 0 0 2 .. 1& 0 8 It i! 0 0 0 U 11 0 & 5 & 0 0 0 l? lS C. OVU 0 i!" JO U 0 0 0 108 TOTAL 0 lLZ "'" l02 2 D 0 13C; Table 7 TURKEV POINT DATA l'I&' ]0 FT, WINO SPEED VS. TF. KPERA tURE GRADIENT SHE CODE 2 WINO FROM SeCTORI SD IlU"IHR OF OCCURRENCES
tEMPERATVRE DIFFERENCE 12J2'-Ji!')------------
-&.0 -5.' -1." -D.? 1." J.1o 5,10 SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH lHS -1,5 -O,B 1.5 3.5 5.5 10 TOTAL ----0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 J 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 .. 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 It 5 0 J 1 3 1 0 a 8 (, 0 J J ? 0 0 0 l.l 7 0 5 8 Ii 0 0 0 18 8 0 .. & 10 0 0 0 ZD 'I 0 .. 8 10 a 0 0 22 lD 0 18 loD 1'1-0 0 0 tZ U r) 110 8 S 0 1 0 30 1i! 0 i!D 11 i!0 0 0 0 Sl II 0
- 13 n 0 0 0 JEo U 0 15 8 8 0 0 0 31 .\.5 0 8 U li! 0 0 0 31 11. 0 J.l I. 8 a 0 0 2? 17 a If 15 & 0 a 0 JO 18 t oVER 0 13 n 17 0 0 0 .. ? TOTAL 0 Hi! 127
.\. I. 0 "U Table ZD-S.8 TURKEY POINT OUA Y£."1 1'1'" 30 FT. wiNO SPEED VS. TEMPEIIATURE GRAOIENT SHE CODE 2 WIND SECTOR' '10 NUH9ER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
TEHPERATURE OJ FFERENCE
-&.0 -5 ** -1 f t -0." 1." 3.r. 5.r. SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO HPH LESS -1.5 -O.t 1.5 l.S 5.5 10 TOTAL a 0 0 0 a 1 a 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 -0 1 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 0 a 1 lo a 0 0 j!. .. 0 1 J .. a 0 0 10 5 0 i! .. 5 0 0 a II & 0 S S ,. a a 0 17 ., 0 'I ,. l' a a 0 20 8 0 n ,. 10 0 0 0 to
- a loS 8 .. 0 0 a 10 0 110 U J.a 1 a 0 tr. 11 0 11 10 a -0 0 0 11 12 0 11 n li! D 0 0 52 U 0 10 1. It D D 0 JS U 0 'I U 1 0 a 0 21 15 0 12 11' .. 0 0 0 n 1& 0 1" 15 l 0 0 0 11 17 0 U 20 3 D 0 a l' 19 I; OVER 0 I. 210 5 1 0 \I 18 TOTAl. a 1&1 1'1' 'Ii! ] a 0 .. so Table ZOoS. 9 TURKEy POINT DATA vEuU l'i1t'l 30 FT. WIND SPEED VS. TEMPERATURE GRADIENT SI-4E COOE i! WINO FROM SECTORI 100 NUMBER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES DIFFERENCE 1232'-32')------------
-&.0 -5.' -1." -0.7 1.& 3.& 5.& SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -1.5 -0.8 1.5 3.5 5.5 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 a 1 J 0 0 0 1 a 0 0 1 .. 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 5 0 2 1 & 0 0 0 11 " 0 1 ,. .. 1 0 0 u ,. 0 " .. 5 a D 0 15 8 0 8 l' 'I a 0 0 2 .. 'I 0 11 'I 'I 0 0 0 i!'l 10 0 11 15 & 0 0 a 1B 11 0 15 17 l' *0 0 0 1'1 12 0 1" 2B i! a 0 0 n 13 0 25 &!] 5 0 0 0 53 1'1-0 11 12 5 0 0 0 i!9 IS a 8 i!i! 5 0 0 0 3S 1& a s 'I II a I] a i!i! l? 0 2 13 'I 0 0 0 il2 18 t OVER 0 3 21 5 0 0 0 i!'! ToTAL a 129 1'10 8'1 1 0 U "07 Table ZOoS. 10 -------------
TURKEV POINT DAU VEAIlI lCl&' ]0 FT. wINO SPEED vS.
GRADIENT SNE CODE l WINO FROH SECTOR' 110 NUHBU OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
_____________
TEKPERATURE OlfFERE'lCE 12il'-la')------------
-&.0 *5.' -1." -D.'" 1.,& ].& S.& SPUD AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH \.ESS -1..5 -a ** J..S J.5 5.S 1.0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1. I. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ), 2 0 0 0 i! 0 D* 0 2 ] 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 5 .. 0 0 2 & 0 0 0 8 S 0 ), i! 1 1 0 0 5 & 0
- l.l J 0 0 0 2" l 0 10 15 .., 0 0 0 ]2 8 0 U U
- 0 0 0 JJ 'I 0 l' 18 £0 0 0 0 ,.] J.O n l'" 18 .. 0 0 0 )'1 H 0 1& 1ft S o* 0 0 3'" J.i! 0 J.5 13 S 0 0 0 n 13 a 2" 2& 'I 0 0 0 59 U 0 15 22 Eo '0 0 0 U lS 0 8 J& 5 0 0 0 .. II lEo 0 1 15 i! 0 0 0 18 17 0 0 .., 0 0 0 0 7 18 f. oVER 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 toTAL 0 us III 7& 1. 0 0 '5& Table 2D-S. 11 TURKEV POI!!T DATA YE:..t: lIJr. .. ]0 ft. wiND SPEeD VS. TEMPER"TUIl.E GUO lENT SNE CODE i! WINO FROM SfCTORI 120 KUHOER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCes
_____________
OIHERENCE 1232'-32')-***** -_ *** --&.0 -S." -L." -D.? 1.£0 J." 5." SPEED AND TO TO . TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -1.5 -O.S 1.5 3.5 5.S 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 2 I. 0 0 3 1 0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1. 0 0 I) 0 1 ] 0 2 1 .. 1 0 0 1.0 .. 0 0 0 1. 0 0 0 I. 5 0 .. 9 10 1 I) 0 2" Eo 0 & 11 Eo 0 0 0 l'I l' 0 8 lS 0 0 0 35 9 0 1.0 27 S 0 0 0 "5 .. 0 9 19 I. 0 0 0 . n 10 0 U j!] .. 0 0 0 "0 11 0 .. 20 2 0 0 0 II 12 0 1" 1'l ] 0 0 0 1& 1.1 0 lS ao S 0 0 0 .11 l' 0 & 9 1 0 0 0 17 15 0 11 17 1. 0 0 0 i: .. 1" 0 i! S l 0 0 0 .. 17 0 l 1 .. 0 0 C .. la t oVER. 0 1 IJ 1 0 0 0 11 lOTAl 0 HO 21.i! n 1 0 Q ) .. 9 Table ZOoS. 12 TURKEV POINT DATA vEARl 1'1'" ]0 FT. WINO SPEED VS. TfH'ERATURE GRAOIE .. T SHE CODE i! WIND SECTOR. 1JO .. UMBER OF HOURLY OCtURRENCES
_____________
TEKPERATURE OIFFEIlENtE callI-Ill 1------------
-... 0 -5 ** -o.? 1." 3." 5." SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO "PH LesS -1.5 -o.lI 1.5 J.5 5.S 10 TOTaL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0" 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 " 0 " 1 J 0 0 l. 1 1 0 0 ]
- 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 ) S 0 J .,
- 0 0 0 1'1 " 0 15 t 2 0 0 25 1 0 *
- 5 0 0 0 22 a 0 12 ll. 5 0 0 0 38
- 0 2 2" 2 0 Q a 10 1D 0 ., n 2 0 Q 0 II> 11 0 S 11 1 0 0 0 1'1 12 0 ., 25 I -0 0 0 3" 13 0 12 11 3 0 0 0 12 U 0 12 0 0 0 10 15 0 1 10 S 0 0 0 22 1& 0 0 .. .. 0 0 0 l.i! 1.7 0 2 ., 0 0 0 1] 19 t OVER 0 5
- i! 0 0 0 110 TOTAL 0 78 20& 51 0 0 ns Table lD-S. I) TURKEV POINT DATA 1'110. 30 FT. IIItNO SPHO VS. TEKPEItATUltE GRAOIENT SNE CODE 2 wtND FRO" SECTORI UO OF HOURLV OCCURRENCES
_____________
TEMPERATURE DIfFERENCE
<232'-12')------------
-&.0 -5 ** -1." -0.' 1.' 3.' 5.' SPEED ltlO TO TO 10 TO TO TO /I'H LEU -1.5 -0.8 1.S 3.5 S.S 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 ] 1 0 a 0 .. .. 0 0 5 i! a 0 0 ? 5 0 , l 0 0 0 12 It 0 I 0 0 0 11 ? 0 r. ? It 2 0 0 21 a 0 li! 1'1 J 0 0 0 :n
- 0 u a 3 0 0 0 22 10 0 12 20 2 0 0 0 ,.. 11 0 ., 10 1 0 0 0 18 12 a 11 10 .. a a 0 25 U 0 11 15 1 0 0 0 2' 1" a 1 a 3 0 0 0 It 1S 0 3 10 3 " 0 I) 11. 1& 0 5 ., 1 0 0 <I 13 11 0 3 .. 1-0 0 a 8 .1.9 t OVER 0 1 '4 oJ a 0 0 18 ToTAL II 'Ii! 1" H. 2 0 U 285 Table ZD-S. '4
)
POINT OAU VURI 1'110. 30 FT, SPEEO VS. TEMPERATURE GRADIENT SNE CODE 2 WiND FlOK SECTOR' 150 NU"6El OF HOURLV OCCURRENCES
_____________
TEHPERATURE DIFFERENCE Cl32'-32')------------
-10.0 -5.' -a." 1.& 3.10 5.10 SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO ,",PH LESS -l.S -0.8 1.5 J.S S.S 10 TOTAL 0 a 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 2 0 a 0 , 0 0 0 2. J 0 2 2 J 0 0 0 'I' 0 , J J 0 0 0 8 5 0 0 J I 0 0 0 5 10 0 , 12 1 0 0 0 15 ., 0 , 2 1 0 0 0 12 a 0 J , 1 0 0 a .u
- 0 * .. s 0 0 a 20 10 0
- 12 , 0 0 0 i!? U 0 * 'I' it 0 0 0 18 12 0 5 11 ,. 0 0 0 i!2 U 0 ,. 10 J 0 0 0 11 H 0 2 " Z 0 Q Q .u 15 0 J " 2 0 0 0 12 1& 0 1 S 1 a a 0 ., u 0 1 J J 0 0 0 ? 18(, OVER 0 3 5 0 a 0 a B ToTAL 0 U 105 .. ,. a 0 0 ill,O Table 2D*5. IS TURKEV POINT DATA VEAR : 1<;1&' 30 Ff. ",INO SPEED VS. TEMPERATURE GRADIENT SHE (ODE 2 --WINO FlOH SECTOR I 1100 NU,",IIER OF HOUR LV OCCU!l.RENC ES -------------TEMpERATURE DIFFERENCE C232'-J2' 1------------
-10.0 -5 ** -1." -0." 1." 3.& S.1o SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH USS -1.5 -0.8 1.S 3.5 5.S 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0-1 a a D 1 0 0 0 1 i! D a 1 a 0 0 0 1 J a 0 1 0 0 a 0 1 0 a 2 1 a 0 0 J 5 0 1 ,. 5 0 0 0 10 .. 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 .. ., 0 .. 10 1 Z 0 0 17 a 0 z CJ .. a a 0 17 .. a 10 ., a a 0 a II 10 0 13 U. .. a 0 0 iO 11 0 10 -& 0 a a 1& 12 -0 10 lJ S 0 0 0 lS U 0 10 S It 0 0 a 1':1 u 0 1 1 I. 0 0 0 3 15 0 f, & 3 a 0 0 15 1& !l a 1 a a a 0 1 U 0 3 1 0 0 0 u .. 1B t OVER 0 10 ., 1 0 0 u U ToUL 0 Ioq S& .. " 1 0 0 lOS Table ZD. S. 16 TURKEV POINT DATA VEARI U&9 10 fT. WINO SPEED VS. TEMPERATURE GRAOIENT SHE CODE Z WIND FROM SECTOR I 170 NUMDEII Of HOUMLV OCCURRENCES
_____________
DIFFERENCE (212'-J2' 1------------
-&.0 -5,'
-0.1 1..& 1.& 5.L SPUD 0 TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH I.ESS -1.5 -0.8 I..S I.S 5.5 1.0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 I. 0 0 0 I. 0 a a 1 2 0 0 *1 1 0 0 0 2 J a 0 1 1 a a a r .. 0 0 0 l 0 0 a 2 5 0 0 J 2 1 a 0 L .. 0 a 1 & II 0 a * ? 0 ). J 2 1 0 0 1 a a 1
- I. 0 0 0 11 .. 0 2 .. 0 a a )'0 10 0 B S I. a 0 0 I.t 11 a , J t 0 a a 1.0 u 0 .. 2 2 a a a )'0 1] 0 5 S t 0 0 0 U* 1'" 0 L r J 0 0 a 11 15 0 .. J J 0 0 0 12 lEo 0 5 0 I. 0 0 0 & U 0 It 1 It 0 a a OJ 1B t Ovu. a 1 1 2 0 0 Q & ToTAL 0 so H "'& t 0 a 1'" Table 2D.S. 17 TURKEV POINT *OATA HAR: 19&' ]0 FT. wiNO SPEED VS. TEMPfRATURE GRADIENT SNE COOE 2 WINO FROM SECTORI 180 .NUM8ER Of HOUA\.V OCCURRENCes
________ ____ TEHPERATUR£ OIFFERENCE 1212'-32'1------------
-&,0 -5.'
-0 * .., 1.10 1.10 5 ** SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -1..5 -0.8 1.5 J.5 5.5 10 TOTAL a 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 J I. a a 0 0 0 0 a 0 2 0 0 0 2 a 0 0 2 J 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 ... 0 0 0 S 2 a a .., 5 0 1 2 J J a 0 * & 0 1 '" 2 2 a 0 , ., 0 2 2 (, 1 0 0 1.1 8 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 .., .. 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 J )'0 0 5 0 0 0 a
- U 0 ... 1 J. a a 0 & 1.2 a J 0 5 0 0 0 B J.l 0 2 .. 0 I) a a (, 1" 0 1 i! 1 0 Q 0 .. ),5 0 ] 1 i! 0 0 0 (, J.I> 0 1 1 i! 11 0 0 .. 11 0 i! 0 0 u 0 0 2 lB t OVER 0 1 a 1 a 0 l) i! ToTAL 0 i!l 25 ]'\1 10 a U 1UJ. Table ZD-S. 18 TURKEY POINT DATA YUR: J.'IIo' 10 FT.
SPEED VS. TEMPERATURE GRAOIENT SIIE COOE Z WIHO FROH SECTOR I no NU'48£R OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
-____________
TE'4PERATURE DIFFERENCE C212'-'2!)------------
-&.0 -5 ... -1." -O,? 1.10 1.r. 5.10 SPEED AND TO To TO TO TO TO MPH lESS -1.5 -0.8 1.5 1.5 5.5 10 lOTAl D 0 a 0 2 a 0 0 '2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 i! 0 0 0 2 .. 0 1 0 J 0 0 D .. 5 0 a 1 10 0 a a 11
- 0 1 0 8 1 0 0 10 ,. 0 0 Ii (0 1. 0 0 12 B 0 1 ot 8 0 0 0 U 'I 0 It 1 Ii 0 0 a 10 10 0 2 J .. 0 0 0 'I U 0 1 1 i! 1I 0 a
- 12 0 Eo 2 l a 0 0 'I U 0 ? 1 i! 0 0 a 1n lot c 1 0 1 0 0 a .. 15 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 110 a l l 2 a 0 0 .. J,? 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 r. 19 t OVER 0 1 , 0 0 0 0 " TOTAL 0 lIo 2. 5'1 2 0 a l.i!1 Table ZD-5. 19 TURKEV DATA v E 1'11.'1 10 FT. WIND SpEED 'IS. TEflPERATURE GRADIENT SNE CODE 2 wINO FROM SECTORI 200 NUf'4!1ER Of HOURLY OCCURRENCES
-____ _______ tEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE C212'-'2')------------
-&.0 -5,' -1," -0.7 l.r. l.r. S.r. SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO HPH LESS -1.5 -0,8 1.5 J.5 5.5 10 TOUl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1. 0 0 0 J 2 0 0 1. 1. 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 B a 0 0 B It 0 0 2 .. 0 0 0 Eo 5 0 0 1 10 1 0 a 12 10 0 0 J 12 2 0 0 11 ,. 0 J 10 10 2 0 0 11 8 0 2 '1 S 1 0 0 15 'I 0 'I 1 3 a 0 0 B 10 0 1 Z 1 0 0 0 10 l.l 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 i! 12 0 ot 1 0 0 0 0 5 1] 0 0 1. 0 Q 0 0 1 lOt 0 1 1 1 () 0 0 5 1.5 0 1. 1. 0 n 0 a 2 110 a 1 1 0 0 0 a 2 l? 0 i! 0 0 0 0 Ii Z 18 (. OVER 0 .. 1 0 0 0 0 5 ToTAL C 21 11 St b a u 119 Table
- .!ll TUIlKEY POINT DATA YEAlI nit. 10 FT. WIND YS. TEMPERATURE GRADIENT SNE CODE 2 WINO FROM SECTOR I 210 NUMBER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
TEM'ERATURE DIFFERENCE 1112'-'2"------------
-** a -5.' -1 ... -D." 1 ** I,. 5 ** SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO "'H LESS -1.5 -D ** 1.5 1.5 5.5 10 TOTAL ----0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
- 1 1 D 0 0 1 D D 1-2 0 0 J. J 0 0 .. I D 0 So
- So D J.D_ .. 0 D 2
- D D 11 5 0 I 0 n J D n
- 0 0 1
- I 0 12 ., 0 J. I ., 1 D 11
- 0 J 2
- 0 0 11
- 0 I I 2 D 0 8 10 0 5 1 .. 1 -0 11 U 0 J J 0 0 0
- 12 0 1 J. 1 0 0 , u 0
- 1 1 D 0 8 U 0 1 1 1 D 0 , 15 0 & 0 J. 0 D 1 1" 0 1 0 0 0 0 I 17 0 J 1. 0 D 0 It 18 t OYER 0 .. 1 0 D 0 S TOTAL 0 'ti! 21 10
- 0 0 U2 Table 2D-5. U TURKEY POINT DATA yeAR: llJ"lJ JO FT. WIND SPEED YS. T£HPERATURE GRADIENT SNE CODE 2 WINO FROM SECTORI i!2D NuMBER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE 12]2'-l2'1------------
-".0 -5.' -1 ... -0.1 1." I,. 5.& SPUD AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -1.5 -0.8 1.5 l.S 5.5 10 TOTAL 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 D 0 2 D 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 J I 0 0 J.
- 0 0 0 J.D .. 0 0 I 18 J 0 0 2" 5 0 1 l 21 5 0 0 28 " 0 1 J J.8 1 0 0 i!l 1 0 2 2 8 0 0 0 J.2 8 0 5 i! 5 D 0 0 12 , 0 1 2 5 0 0 0 8 J.O 0 J J. 0 a 0 0 .. U a i! 0 1 0 0 0 1 J.j! 0 ., J. J. 1 a 0 10 U 0
- 2 2 0 0 0 J.O U 0 J. 0 a 0 0 0 1 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1" 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 17 0 i! 0 0 0 0 0 i! 18 t OYER 0 1 2 J. 0 0 0 ,,-ToTAL U 35 21 q] 11 0 0 1(00 Table 2D-5.22
'POINT DaTa vEalU 1'i1>'1 ]0 FT. WINO SPEED VS.
GRAOIEItT sae COOE i! WIND FROH SECTOR! 2]0 NU:fSU. OF HOURLY OlfFEUNCE 12]2'-]2')-------------It.O -5." -1." -o.? 1." ].& 5.' SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -1.5 -0.8 1.5 3.5 5.5 10 TOTAL 0 U 0 0 0 .. 2 0 Eo 1 '0 0 0 i! 0 0 0 i! i! I] 0 1 .. 1 0 0 It J 0 0 2 .. .1 0 0 7 .. 0 1 1 7 ] 0 0 l.l S 0 0 .. 10 3 0 0 17 It 0 1 2 lit 1 0 0 l.B 'P 0 flo flo l't 1 0 0 23 B 0 S 1 2 0 0 a B
- 0 2 i! flo 0 0 0 B J.O 0 .. i! 0 0 0 0 B 11 0 .. .. 0 0 0 0 B 12 0 2 2 1 o -0 0 5 J.l n l 1 0 0 0 0 ] 1" 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 15 n 5 0 1 0 0 0 10 11. 0 0 i! 0 0 0 0 2 1'P n 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 19 f. OVER 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL II n i!CI 10 .. U i! 0 Hi! Table 2D.S. 23 TURKEV PoiNT DATA YEAR: J.'II." ]0 FT. wiND SPEED VS. TEI'PERATURE GRADIENT SNE CODE i! WIND fROM SECTOR I 2 .. 0 ".UI16ER OF HOURLY OC.tUIIRENC.ES
.-._----.-*--TEMPERATVRE 01 FF EI':ENC E 12]2'*]2')-------------b.D -5.' -1 ... -0.7 1.1> ] .I. S." SPUD AND TO TO TO TO TO TO LESS -1.5 -0.8 1.5 ].5 5.5 lD
.. _-.--0 a 0 0 i! 0 0 0 i! 1 D 0 0 J. 0 0 0 1 i! D 0 0 3 1 0 0 It ] 0 0 1 7 2 0 C 10 It 0 0 0 ] 2 0 0 5 5 0 1 .. J.l ] 0 0 21 " 0 1 i!
- i! 0 0 1" 7 0 S 7 II .. 0 0 2S B 0 'i i! 5 0 0 0 111 II 0 1 ] 1 0 0 0 S 10 D ] 1 l. 0 0 0 S 11 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 i! li! 0 1 i! D 0 0 0 ] 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 i! 1 0 0 0 0 3 15 0 0 l. 0 0 0 0 1 II. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 17 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 19 C. OVER D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL " 25 2" 1" 0 0 119 Table 2.D-5. 2.-1
'" TURKEY POINT on .. VEAIU lo'llo'l 30 FT. WINO SPEED vs.
GUOIENT SNE CODE Z WINO FROM SECTOR I 150 NUHBER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
- _______ TEHPEA .. TURE D,FFERENCE tI32'-32')------------
-10,0 -5.' -1,. -D.? 1." 1.& 5,10 SPEED .. NO TO TO TO TO TO TO "P" LESS -l.S -0.1 1,5 1.5 5.5 10 TOTAL a D a a 1 a a 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 J, 0 ) I 0 0 D
- 1 0 .0 5 I 0 0 0 2 J. 0 0 J
- 0 D D
- l D D 5 Ii 0 J, l. 5 l. D 0 8 50 0 J. J I 0 I. 0 U ., 0 , J J
- 0 0 1.2 I 0 1 ., 2 0 0 0 loO
- D I. 2 J D a 0 r. 10 0 0 0 D -0 0 0 D U 0 1 a a 0 a a 1 12 D D a a 0 0 D 0 U 0 , 1 0 0 0 0 .. 1" 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 Iii D I 1 0 0 a 0 J l' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l.7 D 0 1 0 a 0 0 I 18 t OVE'. 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 ToTAL D 1.2 n n
- 2 0 15 Tabl.2D-5.25 TURKEY POINT OATA YEARI 1.'U ** iD FT. WINO SPEED VS. TEMPERATURE GRADIENT s",e CODE I WIND FRO'" SECTORI 1&0 NUH6ER of HOURLY OCCURRENCES
_____________
TEHPERATURE DIFFERENCE t232'-3I')------------
-10.0 -Ii.' -1 ... -D.? 1.& 3.& 5.10 SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO "PH LESS -1..5 -0.8 1.5 i.S 5.5 1.0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 J, 0 0 0 3 0 0 D , 2 0 0 I .. 0 0 0 5 :1 0 0 0 & I. a 0 , .. 0 0 0 J 1 0 0 .. 5 a 0 i! J 0 0 0 'i 50 0 0 J. 3 ! 0 0 It ., 0 0 i! C! 0 0 0 .. I a I 0 0 0 0 0 J, , 0 l. 0 1 0 0 0 2 10 0 I a I 0 0 0 2 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u a a 1. a a 0 0 1 1" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 1'i 0 1 a a 0 0 0 1 1& 0 a 0 0 0 I) 0 0 11' 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 18 r. OVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ToTAL 0 .. ? 21 .. 0 U ... 2 Table
-!
POINT DATA 'WEaRI 1'U ** 30 FT ** INO SPEED VS. TEHPERATUJlE GRADIENT SNE CODE l WINO FROM SECTORI a?o NUM8ER OF OCCURRENCES
-____________
TEMPERATURE 01 FfERE!'ICE Illl'-ll"------------
-&.0 -5 ** -1 ... -D.? 1 ... 3.& 5.& SPEED AND -TO TO TO TO TO TO "PH LESS -1.5 -0.8 1.S l.S 5.5 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 D f 0 D 0 -2 1 0 0 i! fa 0-0 0 B 2 0 0 0 i! i! 0 D -.. 3 0 D 0 , 0 0 0 ? .. 0 0 1 .. 1 0 0 11 5 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 11 & 0 0 0 i! .. 1 0 ? , 0 5 1 It-J. 0 0 11 a 0 2 I. .. 1 0 D U 'I 0 I. 0 1 0 0 0 i! 10 0 J. 0 0 0 0 D 1 U 0 0 0 J. 0 0 0 1 12 D 0 1 0 _0 0 0 1 U 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 lit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1& 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 t OVER 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ToTAL 0 1i! & 51 1i! 1 0 8i! Table lO.S.27 TURKEY POINT DATA VEAR: 1'1&'1 30 FT. WiNO SPEED VS. TE :tPERATURE GRADIENT SNE CODE 2 WINO FROM SECTORI aeo -NUMBeR 0'-HOURLY OCCURRENCES
_. ____ ** _____
DIFfERENCE 123l'-1l')------------
-1..0 -5.'1 -1." -o.? 1,10 3.& 5.& SPEED aND TO TO To TO TO TO /lPH lESS -1.5 -o.a 1.5 1,5 5.5 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 i! 0 0 0 ... 1 D 0 5 J 0 0 0 ? 1 0 0 8 .. 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 & S 0 1 0 1l 1 1 0 17 " 0 0 2 11 1 0 0 J.. ? 0 0 5 .I.? ? 0 0 2'1 a 0 0 3 & 0 0 0 'I 'I 0 J. J .. 0 0 0 e 10 0 1 ? 2 0 0 0 10 11 0 0 i! D D 0 0 l 12 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 L 13 0 i! 1 0 0 0 0 1 U 0 i! 1 0 0 D 0 3 15 0 l 1 0 (] 0 0 1 1& t) i! 0 1 0 0 Q 1 11 0 3 D 0 0 0 0 1 I.e t OVER D 5 I. iJ 0 0 0 " TOTAL U ii! 3D ,u U 1 u 131 Table ZO*;;.Ztl VE .. RI n&' SPEED HPH 0 1 2 J .. 5 10 ? 8 'I 10 11 12 13 u 15 1& 11 lB t OVER ToTAL VEAR: 1'1&'1 SPEED HPH 0 1 2 3 ,. 5 & ? B 'I 10 11 12 13 l" 15 1& 11 lB t OVER TOTAL TURKEY POINT DAU 10 fT. wiND SPEED VS. TEMPERATURE GRADIENT WIND fROH SECTORI 2.0 NUMBER Of HOURLY OCCURRENCES
_____________
TEHPERATURE DiffERENCE
-10.0 -5.' -lilt -a.? 1.10 J.& 5.10 AND TO TO TO TO TO TO lESS -1.5 -0._ 1.5 1.5 5.5 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 *0 0 0 I i! 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 o* a 0 a 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 1] 1 a 0 0 0 i! n 5 0 0 0 0 i! 12 .. 0 0 a 1 ? l.8 1 0 0 0 a J 10 0 0 0 0 1 J a 0 0 0 0 5 a :II 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 & .. 0 0 0 0 0 J 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 a a a 0 0 1 0 a 0 a 0 0 2 0 0 a 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. \ 0 0 0 0 0 \ 0 in n 89 12 0 0 T.ble lD-5.l9 TURKEY POINT DATA 3D FT. WIND SPEED VS. TEHPEUTURE GRADIENT WIND FROH SECTORI ]00 NUH8E'R Of HOURLV OCCURRENCES
TEHPERATURE DIffERENCE 1232'-32'1------------
-5.'1 -1." -D.? 1.& 3.& 5.& AND TO TO TO TO TO TO LESS -1.5 -0.9 1.5 3.5 5.5 10 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 :I 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 S. 0 0 0 0 0 3 ,. 1 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 2 0 12 5 1 0 0 0 3 10 & 0 0 0 0 3 5 i! a 0 0 2 i! 10 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 i! 5 1 0 0 0 0 i! 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 ,. 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 D 0 0 2 D 0 0 0 D 0 1 0 0 0 D U 0 2 1 D D D 0 0 ,. 0 1 0 D D D 2B 2& 5'1 22 2 0 Table ZD-S. 30 SNE CODE 2 TOTAL 1 ... .. ? 1" 2& .1.8 oil? 13 .. 110 r. 10 .. 1 1 2 2 .. SNE CODE 2 TOTAL 3 It i! 8 'I 20 1'1 10 11 It 8 5 10 .. ] 2 1 :3 5 137 TURKEY DATA YEU: l'J1.' 30 FT. wIND SPEED VS. TEM'ERATURE GRADIENT SNE CODE C! WIND FROH SECTORI 310 NU'4I1ER <>F HOURlY OtCURRENtES
_____________
DIFFERENtE
-&.0 -5,' -1,. -0.' 1.D l.D S.& SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO HPH lESS -l.S -0.8 1.S l.S 5.5 10 TOTAl 0 0 1 b z 1 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Z 0 0 0 0 J 1 0 It 1 0 0 0 ., It Z 0 U It 0 0 0 3 , I. i 1i! 5 0 l 0 1.2 Z ) 0 18
- 0 0 1
- Z l 1 lit ., 0 0 It & 1 Z o* 13 8 0 1 Z Z I. 0 0 I. . 'I 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 5 U. 0 2 J 1 0 0 0 .. U 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 l 1] 0 " Z 0 0 0 0 8 U 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 0 ... 1 0 0 0 0 5 1& 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 J.'lI 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1B f. OVER 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 C! ToTAL 0 i!J, 1'i ...... i!1 11 l U9 Table ZD. S. 31 TURKEY POINT DATA veAR.: J,'i&'i ]0 FT. wINO SPEED VS. TEMPERATURE GRADIENT SNE CODE 2 WINO FROM SECTORI no OF HOUIILV OCCURRENCES
_____________
TEHPERATURE DIFFERENCE IC!]C!'-]i!')------------
-10.0 -5.' -l,t -0.7 1 ** l ** 5,10 SPEED AND TO To TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -J,.5 -0,8 1.10 3.5 5.S 10 TOfAl 0 a 0 0 l 0 0 0 i! 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 i! I) 0 0 2 1 1 0 It ] 0 0 0 0 & 1 0 7 ... 0 1 I. ... I. a l 8 5 0 0 1 11 It i! 0 19
- 0 0 1 12 5 It 0 ? 0 1 5 'I ] '" 1 2] 9 0 0 & 15 2 C! 0 Z5 'I a 1 ... 11 1. 0 0 17 10 0 5 7 5 0 1 0 'U 11 0 0 8 a I. 0 0 'I li! 0 1. 'I i! 0 1 0 13 13 0 & I. 0 0 0 0 7 U 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 It 0 0 0 0 a ... L& 0 J. '" a 0 0 a s 17 0 J. 1 0 0 a a 2 19 r. OVER 0 J. 2 0 0 0 0 ] ToTAL n i!'" 50 7 ... 2'+-LI> i! J.'iO Table lD* S. 3Z TURKEY POINT DATA VUIU Uftt JO FT. wINO SPEEO VS. TEHPEItATURE GRADIENT SNE CODE l FROM SECTORI 310 NUMBER OF HOUR LV OCCURRENCES
- *******TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (lllt*ll'I
- ---.-** -'.0 -5.' -1 ... -0.' 1.10 3.10 5.10 SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO "PH lESS -1.5 .0,' 1.5 3.5 5.5 1D TOTAL a 0 D 0 .. a 0 0 .. 0 o* 0 a 1 . 0-f) 1 2 a D a 1 a 0 0 1 3 D 0 1 .. .3 0 0 8 .. 0 a 0 Ii 3 2 0 10 Ii 0 D , "
- 2 1 25
- 0 0 1 , .. 0 2 1" ., 0 2 J 1.0 .. J 1 U a 0 J ! 18 ., 2 0 32
- 0 2 *
- U 1 1 32 10 0 ..
- u .. a 0 28 H 0 ? " U. 2 0 0 2. 12 0 1 12 U. 1 0 0 25 11 0 .. *
- 0 0 0 1'1 1" D 0 J 3 0 0 0 Eo 15 0
- 2 0 0 a 0 a . 11. D 1 ! 0 a 0 0 ] .\? 0 I. 0 a 0 0 0 1 18 t OYER 0 .. .. 0 0 a a 8 TOUL 0 15 ..., lOr. 51 10 S aH Table 2D-5. 33 TURKEY POINT DATA YEAR: 1'1&'1 3D FT. WIND SPEEO VS. TE'IPERATVRE GIIAOIENT SNE CODE 2 WINO FROM SfCTOItr no NUHB"ER of HOURlV OCCURRENces
---.***--***-TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE
- r..O *5.Ii -1." -a.? 1.r. ].r. 5 ** SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -l.S -0.8 1.S 1.5 5.S 10 TOTAl 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ] 0 0 0 I. 1 a 1 ] It 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 .. 5 0 1 ] B .. 0 2 18
- a 1 ] U a I. 0 18 ? 0 0 2 J.t 1 0 0 1'1 a 0 .. J 10 2 0 2 21 Ii 0 ] 1 .\? .. I. 0 21> 10 a 3 It l? 1 0 0 i!5 11 0 i! 5 5 1 a 0 1] I.i! a Ii
- 12 0 0 a 2? 13 a u , 'I 0 a 0 2'1 U D II 5 0 0 0 0 13 15 0 & 8 It 0 a c 18 11> 0 2 It 0 0 D 0 I> 17 n 0 1 i! 0 0 0 ] 18 t OYER 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 ? ToTAL 0 o;J 5'1 111 L8 ] (, i!50 Table 20-5.34 YEAR I 1'Uo'l SPEED MPH a 1 2 J .. S .. ., a
- 10 11 12 13 l.t 15 1 .. 11 18 t OVEII TOTAL VEaRI 1.9£0'1 SPEED MPH 0 1 2 ] .. 5 10 ., a 'I 10 11 12 13 .u 15 11. l' 18 t OVE!' ToTAL ", TURKEY POINT DATA ,-]0 FT.
SPEED VS. TEMPERATURE GRADIENT WINO FROM SECTORI 350 "IUI(BER OF OCCURRENCES
*--TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE C2]2'-]2')------------
-... 0 -5.' -1.'1' -0." 1." ] ... 5." AND TO TO TO TO TO TO
-1,5 -0,8 1.5 3.5 5.5 10 0 a a e 0 1 0 0 a 0 J, 0 0 0 0 a 1 1 0 0-0 0 0 D e 1 1 0 0 1 e 1 1 1 0 0 0 J 1 0 0 0 0 2 ! .. 0 1 0 0 1 , , 0 0 0 ., 1 .. 0 0 0 .. D ., 0 0 0
- 1 8 0 0 0 .. 2 1 D D 0 ., 0 .. 0 0 0 r. J 'I' 0 0 0 .. 1 2 0 0 0 2 e 1 0 0 0 0 1 It a 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 '7 0 0 0 0 53 ]0 51 a It 0 Table 3S TURKEy POINT DATA )0 FT. 10'1"10 SPEED VS. TEMPERATURE GRADIENT WIND FROM SECTORI lEtO NUHSER OF OCCUItltENCES
- -**
01 FF ERENCE 12]2'-]2"------------
-&.0 -5.'1 -1," -D." 1." 1.10 5.10 AND TO TO TO TO TO TO LESS -1.5 -0,8 1.5 ].5 5.S 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 i! 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 i! ] 2 0 0 1 0 2 2 ] 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 " ] It 0 0 tl 0 1 2 ] 0 0 0 0 a .. 1 0 0 0 0 l 1 1 0 0 0 I)
- 2 b 0 0 0 0 , 1 1 0 0 0 CJ 1 0 1 0 0 0 'l 1 .. 0 I) 0 ;) ., 1 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 1 0 0 0 Il \I It 'I 1 0 0 0 'I .. 3'l 11 0 I) 1 Table ZO-S. 36 SNE CODE 2 TOTAL J 1 -2 ,., & .. II ., J.l, 15 20 'I 13 13 1 5 5 2 'I 152 SNE CODE 2 TOTAL 1 1 2 .. 1 a ., J 13 Eo 15 8 12 11 2 5 1 1 1" 115
- , TURKEY POINT DATA VEAR: 1'309 30 FT. WINO SPEED VS. TEMPERATURE GRADIENT SNE CODe 2 WINO FROM All SECTORS NUMBER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
TEHPERATURE DIFFERENCE (232'-32')-------------D.O -5.9 -1 .... -D.? 1.Q 3.Ea 5,Q SPEED AND TO* TO TO To TO TO ,",PH LESS -1.5 -0,8 1.5 3.5 5,S 10 TOTAL .... __ .. ----.------------0 0 1" Ia 3] Ii .. 0 53 1 0 .l e 31 2 1 0 ... 3 2 0 1 10 SO J.3 a 0 ?Ea 3 0 J.1 28 115 2B 5 1 188 It 0 1'" 32 13D 31 I. ... 223 S 0 ... 7 100 25J. D2 fi ... "'13 Ea 1 r:.B 128 22B 51 Ii It "'89 7 0 130 lob7 21B ...... 9 C 570 B 0 lDB 193 207 21 ... 3 59Ea '3 0 1'" 7 115 lS2 20 2 J. "'97 10 0 231 25 ... lbit 9 1 0 &Eal 11 0 17B 178 B ... ... 1 0 "' ... 5 12 0 211t 232 12 ... 2 1. 0 573 ).3 0 23'" 22B CUi 0 0 a 5SB ). ... 0 129 123 51 0 0 O. 309 15 a J.t'" 200 &9 0 a a "'11 J.& a 8J. lOB 5J. 0 0 a 2 ... 0 17 a 79 102 "'7 0 0 0 228 18 t. OVER 0 1 ... 7 235 &9 1 0 a "'52 TOTAL ). 2025 2507 21B ... 29? 5't-. 70B7 Table 2D-5. 37 YEAR: 1'1'0 SHED MPH o 1 l 3 .. 5 f> 7 8 'I 10 U 1l U 1'1 15 J.& 11 1(/ t"/!' , TOll.1. YEAR: l'n", o 1 l :3 It S " ., B .. 10 11 12 13 l'I 15 1& J.7 18 OVCR 1(; .' TURKEY POJNT DATA TABLE 11 30 FT. WINO SPEED VS. STABILITY WIND FROM SECTORl 10 OF TV t II I CAlION----***
1 GJSl l GUST 3 It o o o o " o o o o o o o o o lJ U (I o fJ II o o o 1 1 1 S 1. l! , 3 8 o 1 1 ). o [J n o o o o ). o o o o o o o o o o o o o [J o 1 Table lD-6. 1 TURKEY POINT DATA o o 1 lJ " It o " 5 i! 1. o J. o o o o o II I' TABLE 1: 30 FT. WINO SPEED VS. STABiliTY WIND FROM SEC10R: cD Of HOORLY OCCURRENCeS
- _______ STABllITY 1 GJST i! GUST 3 GUST It 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 D i! 0 i! D i! 0 1 0 i! 0 3 1 1 0 13 0 5 0 Ii 1 5 0 l 0 5 0 .. 0 i! 0 b 0 " 0 0 0 S 0 .. 0 0 lJ It 1 0 0 i! 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 (\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 II 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 bO 5 3& 'fable ZD-6.1. site CODE i! o I, J. J .; s a 1<' It II .1 .1 J [\ ;, TOTAL 1 o i! .. 3 5 18 15 7 D 1i! S It S , 3 3 o D It 'r J.01
'tH.:
SHEU Hhl 0 1 2 J ,. S .. ? 8 Ii 10 J.l 12 13 ; .. 1S 1& 11 18 J I) lOTAL Y L l.f:: 1 'llU SPEEtI "',PH o l 2 3 .. S b ? e q 10 ll. 12 13 !"" is 11> 17 1U OVI",I: TUr.r.EY POINT TAlllE 11 "0 VS. STA61L I Ti WINO SECTOR: 3D OF
_ ** _____
ClASSlFICAT:O N-------GUSl (iUST ) 'I GUST 1 G"Sl 2 0 D D D 0 D D 1-D 0 0 5 0 0 0 .. 0 ) 0 .. U 10 0 & 0 J 1 .. 0 ., i! 3 0 ., 0 5 0 5 0 3 0 10 I. 2 0 .. D 0 0 5 D I. 0 B 1 0 0 2 n 0 0 :I 1 1-0 ::I 5 0 0 0 ] 0 0 0 i! 0 D 5 1 0 0 11 1') 39 Table 3
1: 30 SPEeD vs. STACILIT( NU"!lER OF HOURLV
ST4BllITV GUST 1 GJsr i! GUST] GUST .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 .. 0 3 0 b D 'l 0 'I 0 i! 0 b 0 B 0 10 1 .. 0 11 " 12 0 11 0 12 0 5 1 3 0 ... b 0 0 3 .. ::I D .., .., 0 (I 0 3 1 0 i! 10 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 ., 0 0 5 F* 0 0 'J1 I,;? 1>2 Table 2P*';. i T011.t o 1 S .. ? 1b B* l:! it! B 13 b b i! .., 8 TOTAL LJ o o It "1 15 11 11 2& 23 'l lU 1U 1<' L ill 2;
.. Ht.R: 1'170 SPEEO HPH 0 1 l 3 It 5 10 ., 8 'I 10 11 12 13 1\ 15 11. 11 18 OVER If! TOTAl SPEED MPH 0 1 i! ] It 5 it ., e 'I 10 11 1i! J.3 H 15 1b 17 10 ovn: 10 101 At lh8lE 1: ]0 fT.
SPE£O VS. STABllIT( WIMD fROM 50 OF HOURLY
________ STA8JlJTY GUST 1 GJST l 3 GUST 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 It (1 ., 0 'I ] ., 0 13 0 S 0 ... ? 0 ? 0 8 0 10 J 0 0 S ] 1 P IJ .. i! 0
- 1] 0 0 10 1 0 0 ? a -0 0 2 Eo 0 0 ., 11 0 0 1 7 0 0 i! lq 0 0 '1'+ 1S "1 Table ZD-6. S TABLE 1: 30 fl. lI'lll;) SHI:O VS. ST6.011lT1
&0 HOJkLY
---_____ STAOllITY GUST 1 i! GUST ] GuST t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 0 1 0 i! 0 i! 1 i! 0 'l 0 1i! 0 7 2 B 0 a 0 1i! 0 CJ 1 it 0 lit 1 ., 0 'I i! 0 ? ] i! 0 'I 15 1 0 10 1& 0 0 2 l' 0 0 ., 1J. 0 0 3 ] 0 0 2 ] 0 0 f> b 0 (j 1 2'1 0 n 130 J.[I'I Sf> Table 2D*6. 6 TOH.L o o 1 3 .1. 11 1'1 18 "17 IS 'I 'I 15 i!ii! ':I 15 8 10 R i!1l SI:E CO[if C' o o C! 3 !> i!l 11 ii!U 1f> 3t 3i! J.C! 2!. *. i!b 1b 1(1 II 'i 1<' 2 ..
MPH o 1 i 1 ,It 5 It ? e OJ 10 1.L li! lJ l't 15 11. n 10 OVER 1(1 T01 Al 1"?U SPE EO MPH 0 1 i! 3 It 5 I. 7 8 OJ 10 11 12 13 lit 15 1£. n 18 OV[R T01AL lEi TURKEY POI"T 9A1A TABLE 1: JO rT. WI"U vs.
WINO FROM SECTOR: 70 NUMdEk Of HOUklY
ST'BllITY GUST 1 GJST GUST 3 GuST 't 0 0 0 '0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 i! 0 IJ .I. B 0 II l , 7 0 10 0 11 0 i!0 l OJ 0 1'1 I. 'OJ 0 1i1! 1" 7 0 10 B 1 0 lO 18 't 0 l? n 1 0 13 .1.2 0 0 e 11 D 0 i! 't 0 0 i! U 0 0 1't 17 0 (I i! 17 0 0 175 159 59 Table 2D-6 * ., TURk(Y POINT DATA TAlllE 1 : ::10 FT.
SPHD VS. SH81L! 11 WINO FRIH1 SECTOR: liD. NU"'BER " OF HOURLY
STABllITy CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST 1 GIIST i! GUST :3 GUST 't 0 0 !l 0 0 0 D a D 1 0 1 0 1 D It 0 2 0 I. 0 1 0 II D 7 1 10 D 15 'I li! 0 19 5 B 0 i!5 5 'I. 0 i!8 11 5 D 18 2i! 3 0 18 31 2 0 ...... i!l 0 0 il 21 0 0 35 3i! 0 0 't lS 0 0 lEI i:'i! 0 D 9 i!l 0 0 'I 5 0 0 i!-'CJ 211> 59 Tabl .. 2D-6. 8 TOTAL o o (J 0' ] 18 15 ' 21 li! 3 .. 33 1'1 'ti! 51 , 2'1 b 15 :u 1'1 ]')3 SIlE C(lOE i:! TOTAL 0 0 i! 5 EI '1 18 :u li! lt 't ... 't3 Sl 1.5 .. ot b1 'to 3U H
. , VEU: 1'l1U SPEED '* .. *H o 1 i! 3 .. 5 r. ? 8 'i J,O 11 1i! 13 n 15 lE. l? 18 OVrR J,I' TOTAL SPEEU "PH 0 J, i! 3 .. S b 1 8 'i 10 11 li! 13 lit lS 1b 17 18 OVER 10" t.l ).rl OATt TJ.8LE 1 : 30 Fl.
VS. STr.81L11'l' WltlO SEC TOR.: 'i0' NUM!lEK of HOURlv i>CCUP.RENCES
.*******S1A811ITY CLASSIFICATION**_*---
GUST J, GJST 2 GUST 3 GUST ... ToTAL 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 J t I. 0 i! 0 ] *5 0 10 :3 'J,i! i!5 0 13 5 5 a] 0 lB I> U ,.9 D i!1' l.l 5 * 't3 0 18 9 I' St 0 31> i!a 10 b8 0 11 lS 1 C!7 0 29 i!b 1 Sb 0 32 C!S 2 59 0 8 21J 0 at:! 0 23 35 0 Stl 0 11 i!b 0 :n 0 'J 29 0 3:3 0 10 30 0 'til CI [.. J'i 0 21 0 2')'+ 2?!I &S &3? Table 2D-6. 9 rolHT TADlF 1: In FI, WIHO SpeED VS. STABilITy of HOURLY OCCORRE"Ces. _. ______
CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST 1 2 GUST 3 GUST .. TOTAL 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 I) U 3 2 5 0 11> 5 ? 0 i!b !, ? 0 i!5 11 i! 0 23 19 3 0 31. i!5 5 0 i!O l? 0 0 11. 21 0 0 ci! 19 1 0 9 1<; 0 0 lb 2'+ CI U 1 13 0 0 1 21 0 0 a 1b 0 0 :3 1t' 0 0 "cot 37 , Table ZD-6. 10 VEAR: 1'170 leAk: SPUD MPH o 1 3 It 5 It 7 S OJ 10 11 13 H 15 lb n 18 OVE R HI TOT AL 1'l(1: SPEE" "PH 0 1 2 3 .. 5 b ? S 'I 10 11 1i! 13 1 .. 15 lb 17 1B OVCk 1!l lOTIIL TMCL[ 11 "r, F',. \1.::0 SPEED VS. STA81Llh' 110 N:JMltER (If
'( OCCURRENCE) . --------STA8Il1TV tlA5Sl f ICATION-------
GUST 1 GJST ! GUST 3 GUST t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 3 0 It 0 1! 0 It 0 19 13 11 0 10 5 0 3't 10 12 0 It! 13 7 0 .. 0 3D 2 0 l& 'I 1 0 '12 25 1 0 lit 2& 0 0 10 13 0 0 5 1'1 0 0 It 10 0 ° 2 1" ° ° 3 7 0 0 1 5 0 0 201> 53 Tabl. 20-6. 11 TURKEY POIlH CATA TABLE 1: 30 fl. IoII:W SPHv VS. 5 H81l tTl' ioliNO FltO"l SEt*,
OF ,.HOUf<l v OCCURRENces ClASSIFICATION-------
GUST*1 GJST 2 'GUST 3 GuST .. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 i! 0 3 0 7 t 7 0 'I It 0 i!7 13 .. 0 11 .. 0 1'1 1" 0 2S 29 It 0 lit LOS 0 0 11 18 1 0 lit 2;' 0 0 10 13 0 0 l.l 18 tJ 0 3 9 0 0 0 2 0 0 11 0 0 1 U 0 0 1,)<' 2n'l :1l Table 20-b. 12 S'lf C I)OF ? TOTAL o o l t 7 J.8 U 35 '5b 72 3D 'to i!3 2" 1\ 1b 10 b St.E (vOE TOTAL 1 0 0 .. 5 1<1 i!5 tot .. 3 3S 1.0 :n 3G .. 0 23 2'1 1J C 13 'I tt31 c-1<;170 SPEEIJ "PH 0 1 2 , , 5 It "1 8 'I 10 11 12 13 U 15 1& 11 19 OVER ToTAL !>PEEII MPH o 1 2 3 , 5 & "1 8 Ii 10 11 12 13 l'i-15 1& 17 l!l 111 OVER 111 TOTAL ""':"\:' ,.u ... , u.-,'" . " TAHE 11 lin fT. IIIUh !'PH!'I VS. STABlLlTf
\II I H:I f P * .,'\ SF C T (lP. : 130 NUfoIIlEI:
<tf V OCCUR-IlENCE!>
_. __
- ___
ClASSIFICATION-------
GUST J CIIST It GUST 1 GJST 2 0 n n 0 (J 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 U Eo .. Ii 0 8 i! J. 0 l' 'I "1 0 2l 8 1 0 n 18 .. 0 2 .. 'I 2 0 8 11 1 0 1<<1 17 0 0 11 21 1 0 L U 0 0 ? 5 0 0 1 5 0 0 .. .. 0 0 i! 5 0 0 i! 5 0 0 155 13& 2& Table 2D-6. 13 TURKt. POINT OATA TABLE 1: 10 Fr. WIND VS. STA81llTV WINO SECJQP.: ltD NUM8ER Of HOYRlV OCCUPRENCES
________ STA8Ilt'V
" GUST 1 GJ5T i! GUST) GJST + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 [I 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 0 B 1 1 0 8 J. S 0 1& 12 S 0 1& " 10 2 0 3& 13 2 0 n "1 " 0 2& lS 0 0 1':1 15 0 U Ii ':I 0 0 Ii 5 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 & 0 0 0 1S 0 0 1L5 23 Table lD-6. 14 C (fOE TOTAL 0 0 0 0 J. 1':1 1.1 3D 3l 20 3& 3':1 19 12 & B " "1 311 S.IIE t (.IDE c T01 AL o 1 J. i! i! b lU 1" )3 28 Sl U .. 1 If' h 10 3 b lS 31J
.... , Hhlt: 1'l7U
",PH o 1 i! 3 .. 5 I> 7 B Ii 10 11 J.i! n 1'1-J.S J.b 17 J.O OVER. J.II TOTAL Y[II.<: ,1',70 SPEED MPH 0 1 2 3 It S & 7 B 'I 10 ll. 12 13 1't 1S 1b 17 10 OVeR 10 lOlt.l lUIIK[V P; l:lT :>/.11\ TAtilE J.: 110 Fl.
SI>::", VS. STA81LITY WIND fR.OM sec. TO.: J.SO of CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST J. GUST i! GlIST 3 GUST .. 0 1 0 0 0 0 ') 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 10 0 1 0 " Eo 1 0 ... .. i! 0 10 8 1 0 18 li! 1 0 i!! i!io 0 0 13 10 0 0 1" 15 0 0 i!3 8 0 0 1i! 13 0 0 Ii 10 0 D 1 Ii 0 0 0 'I 0 D D 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 us l"t:. 7 Tabl. ZD*6. 15 lUit .... t " POIlH DATA TABLE J.: ,,0 F-, * .. IND SPEEr! VS. STABILITY H(TO!t: 1&0 OF HOURLY OC.C.URRENCES
_______
C.lASSIFICATION-------
C.UST 1 C.JST 2 c.UST J c.UST .. 0 0 0 0 0 !) D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 It 1 J. 0 2 It 1 0 i! i! J 0 10 1i! 3 0 7 8 3 0 'iI J.D 0 0 8 b 1 0 12 Ii 0 0 13 7 0 0 It 't 0 0 't 3 0 0 i! b 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 7'1 81 1ft Table lD-6. 16 S.IE t C TOTAl 1 0 0 0 i! U 13 10 1'i1 31 n i!3 i!'iI 31 i!5 J.,) 10 'iI 3 3 2E1B SNE COVE ;: TOTAL 0 [J 0 1 3 b ? ? i!S 1a J.'I lS i!1 20 Is 7 0 3 jj 3 J.it YEAR: lIi1U SPEEO MPH 0 1 2 J 5 It ? 8 .. 10 11 12 13 1\ 15 1.1. l? 18 OVER lh tOTAL YEAR: 1'l7U SPEED tll'H o 1 i! :3 It S 10 ? 8 Ii 10 11 12 13 H 1.5 1.10 17 1B OVl? 1B tOTAL DATt TtI(lL£ 1: )il fT. SPHD VS. STABILITY WPI" SEtTOIU 110 OF OCCURRENCES
________ STA8ILITY CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST 1 GoJST GUST J GUST It 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 ? 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 ? :3 0 ? 5 1 a ., , 5 0 It It ). 0 8 8 1 0 11. S 0 0 ? .. 0 0 It :3 1 0 :3 0 0 1 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ii 0 0 10\ 25 Table lD-!>. I? TURKEY DATA HSLf 1: 30 FT.
SHEC I VS. STA8ILITY WINI> FROtl SECTOIU lBO uF HOURLY OCCU;lP , ENCES --------STABllITV CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST 1 GJST 2 GUST 1 GUST .. 0 0 [\ i! 0 0 0 0 0 0 Il 1 0 i! 1 It 1. 0 0 ? 0 1 1 10 0 2 [1 It 0 & 1 :3 0 & i! 5 0 0 .. :3 0 11. 5 i! 0 It 0 0 0 OJ :3 0 0 11 !i 0 0 .. 1 0 0 .. 1 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 10 1 1 b2 3(1 35 Table 2,D.6. 18 SUE C(lOF 2 TOTAL u o o :3 i! Hi! 12 U 21 13 11 1.& 11. B 5 i! Il 'J 151 TOTAL 2 0 1 C; ::I il It 10 7 10 b 12 110 7 7 3 U 1 ? .l3lo
'!.-,---\ -.' YEAR:
-5PEE[1 MPH 0 1 2 1 .. 5 10 ? B 'i 10 11 J.2 13 .l't 15 110 17 11l oVER 1U 101 AL HlolI.: 1'$1 .. SPHU '1PH 0 1 i! I , S Eo ? B OJ 10 11 12 13 h 15 II. 17 IB OVEr 11. TOTIoL TURKEY TAftlf 1: ]0 FT. WiNO SPEfO STABilITy' of HOURLY OCCURRENCES
STABILITY GUST 1 GJST 2 GIIST J GUST ... 0 0 D 1 0 D D 0 D 0 D 1 0 1 0 l 0 1 0 i! 0 1 1 1S 0 31 0 1i! 0 2 5 10 0 5 jI r. 0 r. 5 It 0 to .. 31 0 to 1 1 0 2 2 D 0 " D 1 0 0 0 0 0 OJ .. 0 0 I 1 0 D It 2 [I D 31 2 0 D 2 It 0 0 LD 38 s. Table 1D-6. 19 TURKEr rOlliT DATA T .\'. L E 1 : 30 Fl'.
SPEEO VS. STABILITy WIIIO FROM SECToR: i!00 HOURLY OCCURRENCES
ST48JLJTY CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST l GJS'f i! GUST 31 GUST .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 .. 0 0 0 t 0 1 0 .. U E-D 12 0 31 0 31 D 5 1 5 0 1 D 2 0 3 1 D 0 i! 1 0 D 2 1 0 0 .. 0 i! 0 31 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 1 l 0 0 5 1 1 U 1 1 0 D 0 It 0 0 'IS 17 3'1 Table 1D.6. 20 SIIE tODE i! TOTAL 1 D 1* 1 1 11 15 13 1a 15 13 B .. ? o 13 .. Eo 5 Eo StlE C oor TOTAL 0 .I. 5 It 5 1a to 13 S .. 3 3 Eo S 1 .. if ., i?
- 101 i? ,'.
HAil:
Yf 1.1l: o 1 i! 1 .. 5 b ? 8 10 11 10! 13 lot lS 1& 17 18 oVEIl 10 TOTAL 1'1'10 SPEED MPH 0 I. i! :3 .. 5 .. 7 9 q 10 1.1 12 .l3 l.'t 1b 17 19 OVlll lU 10TAl ,: 4 POINT TAalE 1: 30 FT. WIND SPEEO VS. STABilITY WIND FROM SECTOR: 210 Of HOURLY
________
GUST 1 GJST GUST 1 GUST
- 0 0 0 2 0 0 D. J. 0 Q 0 ? Q 1 Q 10 0 i! 1 12 0 11 1. 1" 0 Ii 0 12 0 ,. 1 11 0 .. It .. 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 Q .. 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 '0 0 0 i! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 S 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 't7 77 Table ZO-6. Z I TUR(EY POItlT 01. TA TA8lE 1: 30 FT. WWO SPHO VS. STA8111 H WIND FROM i!i!O N'JMER OF HOURLY
________ STA8IlITY CLASSIFtCATION-------
GUST 1 i! GUST 3 G\,ST .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 I. 0 i! 0 1 0 ? 0 0 0 8 0 1 1'1 0 .. 1 q 0 :3 ::I 3 0 ? 1 l 0 2 2 1 0 I> 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 I. 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 D 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 ::J 0 0 ) 0 0 0 i! 1 0 0 .. 11 5S Table 2D-6. ZZ , 01t.l SlIe C"IIE , TOTAL 0 :3 :3 a fl 29 l't .. U 5 7 1 i! 3 0 i! 1 3 " Ul V[ARI 1-'0 SPEED "PH o 1 C! 3 .. 5 " 7 8 IJ 10 11 12 13 lit 15 1& 17 1B OYER 111 TOUt SPEED .IPH 0 1 2 " 'I S & 7 8 'I 10 Jl 1i! 13 1 .. 15 11> 17 10 OV[f, 111 1 CT lot TURKEV POINT DIoTt.. TAftlE 1: 3n FT. WIND SPEED VS. STABllITV WIND FROH SECTORI alD tW,,!lfR OF HOURL V OC(URitENCES
STA8IlITY GUST 1 GUST a GUST 3 GUST .. ToTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 i! i! 0 .1 1 , 5' 0 1 1 5 'I 0 5 1 13 l"i 0 .1 2 15 la' 0 5 ) 'J 17 0 It 2 It 10 0 l 0 1 l 0 J 0 J & 0 1 2 0 :3 0 1 1 1 :3 0 1 2 0 :3 0 2 0 0 a 0 :3 1 0 .. 0 1 0 0 1 0 a 1 0 :3 0 1 2 0 3 0 :3 1 0 .. 0 38 20 5& ll't Table 20-6. Z3 POINT OATA TASLE J : :tU FT. flPW SI>HD \IS. STABILITY SI,E Cf,[)f: i! WIND SECToR: 2'10 NU"I"Eot HOURlY'OCCURRENCES
---_____ STABILITV CLASSIFICATION-------,GUST 1 GUST 2 GUST :3 GUST It TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 2 0 0 n 5 5 0 0 0 10 1U 0 2 'l 8 10 0 It 1 18 23 0 i! 3 '9 l't 0 :3 It 11 lB 0 2 2 1 5 0 0 i> 0 2 0 .. 1 1 b 0 2 1 1 .. (J 0 0 0 0 0 0 I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 U 0 C 0 0 0 0 U II )'1 },'I Lb 'l's Table 2D-6.24 Y[AR: l'J?D speeo "PH 0 .1 2 J I; I> 1 B , .l.D 11 12 J.l 1't 15 11> 11 18 QVF.R .1.8 T01/.l YEhR: 1<:170 SPEED MPH 0 1 i! 3 It 5 I> ? 8 Ii 1Q U 12 J.3 lot 15 11. 17 18 OVER l.B 10TAl TURKEY POI<<r DATA Tt.!!LE 1: 110 fl. WIIlO SPEf' VS. STAB1LIT1 WWO fRO" SECTOIU 2:00 OF OCCURRENCES
- * *** ST4RILJTV CLASSJfICATION*******
GUST 1 GJS'r l GUST J GUST 't 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 D 2 0 .1 0 2 0 1 1 I> 0 0 0 i 0 1 Q .. 0 1 0 .I. 0 t .I. 2 0 0 .I. 0 D 0 2 D 0 0 1 D 0 1 0 D D D r. 0 D .I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 D* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 r. 23 Table ZD*6. ZS TURKEY POiNT DATA TA8LE 1: lD Fr. wiN!. SPEfO VS. STA81LITY WINO FRO'"'
i!bO NIIM;ER of. t\WRt v OCCURRENCES
___ STA8ILITY GUST 1 G"S1 i! GUST 3 GuST 't 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 7 0 2 1 ot 0 0 0 8 0 i! 0 (, 0 0 0 b 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 .1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Table ZD-b. Z6 S:'f. (';Cr r TOTU o 1 2 3 (l' 3 7 2 7 .I. i! .I. .I. o 1 oJ IJ a o o 3'.1 Slie (fJor-101 Al .I. 3 7 7 9 8 b i! 3 3 .1 0 tJ n CI 0 0 0 0 0 't'J e' Y(l.I:: 1'11U SPEED MPH o 1 l 3 .. S I. 1 9 Ii 10 11 12 J.3 1'1 1S lEo 11 10 OVER 10 TOTt.L TURKEY rolNl iH,TA TABLE 1: 30 fl. 10111." SPEEO VS. ST t.!lILlT'C' WINII FROM SECTor. : i!80 NUHBU QF HOURLY O(CUP!1.EltCES CLASSIFICATION-------
GUST J. GJST i! GUST :3 GuST .. 0 0 0 1 0 0 [I 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1. 1 0 0 J. ? 0 2 1. J.3 0 1 0 13 0 2 0 ? 0 :3 0 5 0 0 :3 2 0 l i! :3 0 0 1 0 0 1 It 0 0 0 1. 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 1'1 ioU Table ZD.6. Z8 TOTAL 1. 0 l Il B 11. l't Ii 8 5 ? 1. 5 1 1. 2 1. i! 1. (I 'li?
0.--
- 1"J10 SPEED "PH 0 1 2 :3 It 5 It ? 8 'I J.O U 12 13 1\ l5 110 J,? 19 OVER 19 TOTAL YEf.R: 1']70 SPEED "PH o 1-2 ] It 5 It 7 8 'I 10 11 12 13 U lS 110 11 18 OVlR 11J 101 AL TURKEY pottn DATA Tl.8lE 11 ]0 ft.
SPEED VS. STA61LlT't WIND SECTOR:
OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
________ STA8IlI TV ClASSIFIC£TION-------
GUST ] GUST It GUST 1 G;JST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D J. 0 Eo 0 0 0 7 0 D 0 ? J. , 2 15 D 1 .. 28 0 1 0 13* 0 1 2 1 0 o* J. l 0 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 It 0 0 0 :3 J 0 o* 2 J. 0 0 1 0 0 0 :J 1 -0 0 1 :I 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 It 0 1 2 .. .. 01 Tabl. 1D*6.19 TABLE 1: In FT. WIIIO SHEO V ... STAB1LlTf WINO FROM
.300 OF HOURLY
________ STABILITV GUST 1 2 GUST :3 GuST .. 0 0 0 0 0 (I 0 .. 0 0 0 It 0 0 0 0 :3 0 b 0 :3 0 1'1 0 S 0 10 D It It 10 D t1 8 D 2 0 :3 0 :3 i! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 D 7 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 i! 0 0 1 {1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 {1 35 13 n. Table lD-I>. 30 StiE C (IN ... t01 AL. U 7 7 7. 21 :n n .. C! S 1 't b :3 l 't '+ 1 't 130 sllr COll i:" i! TOT 4. o It It lc? 'I 22 l!> 13 10 S S 2 1-14 .. .1 l 1 .. 1.
VEAR:
ytl.it: SPfEO KPH o 1 2 3 It. 5 " ? 8
- 10 11 12 13 lit 1S lb 17 10 OVEP. lel TOlt , L l'l?U !oPteD MPH 0 1 2 :3 It 5 b ? B
- 10 11 12 H lit 1.5 lob l' 18 c.'JER liJ l Ql AL TURKEV POINT DATA It 30 Fr.
SPEED VS. STt.8J1ITY WINO 110 OF HOURLY
.---STA81LITY GUST 1 GUST! GllST 3 GUST .. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 It 0 1 0 L 0 i! 0 10 0 J 0 ei! 0 , 0 10 0 i! 1 ? 0 i! 1 i! 0 i! 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 D 0 J 0 0 0 i! 1 0 0 1 1 0 D 1 i! 0 0 i! o -0 0 0 i! D D 0 i! 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. 12 b3 Table 31 TURKf.Y POINT DATA TABLf 1: 30 FT. WiNO SPEED VS. S lABl UT '/ WiND FROM 320 NU"IB"t it .. Of HOURL Y OCCURRENCES
________ SlABllITV CLASsiFICATION-------
GUST 1 GJSl 2 GUST 3 GUST ... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Ii a 1 1 12 0 It 0 1& 0 i! J. 1" D i! 0 1':1 0 3 ? 11 a 2 2 1 0 3 Ii b 0 0 1 0 i! 5 0 0 3 .. 0 0 1 & 0 0 1 ? a 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 30 '11 CJi! Table 2.D*';. 32. TOTAL " 1 5 ? J.a 25 13 J.O 5 3 3 ;I ;I ;I 2 ;I 2 2 2 o J.O+
- StlE COOf TOTAL 0 1 0 10 1"1-U 17 21 21 5 '18 .. ... ., ? 3 2 1 0 :l 1b3 <-
VEAR: 1910 Y(:'R: SPEED MPH D 1 2 3 " 5 Eo ., 8 'J 10 U. 12 13 lot 15 lEo 1"1 1.8 OVER 10 lOTAl 19?U SPEED MPH 0 J. 2 3 .. 5 It ., 8 OJ 1.0 11 12 J.3 1" lS 11> 17 10 oVER toTAL TURKEY POINT DATA TAIlLE 1: )r. FT.
SPEED VS. STABll(TY WINO FROM SECTORI 330 OF HOUR.lY OCCURRENCES
_____ *_*STAellI TY CLASSIFICATION-------
C.UST 1 CJsr i GUST J GUST It 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 S 0 1 U *u 0 3 a 15 0 2 0 ill! 0 It 0 28 0 10 2 i!1 0 12 5 18 0 OJ 'I l'l 0 3 10 10 0 J It .. 0 S 'I ., 0 " 1e! S 0 1 S 0 0 J Eo 1 0 1 s* 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 i! 0 0 S 1 0 0 19 75 lo71! Table 10.6. 33 P01NT DATA T/.!LE 1: 3D Fl. WIND SPEED VS. STABILITY WIND fROM SF.C
- nO t-I.lMIIER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
____ ** __ ST68IlI TY GUSt 1 GuST 2 GUST 3 GUST .. 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. 0 3 0 It 0 S 0 J.3 n i! 0 l? 0 .. 1 lEo 0 S 5 9 0 :3 .. ? 0 8 12 10 0 3 ., 1 0 It 12 i! 0 l.i! 12 1 0 2 5 0 0 1 ? 0 0 i! P-O 0 i! 3 0 0 It 3 0 If' 0 1 i.' 0 0 1>3 15 Olt Table 10*6. 34 SI.E C<>IIE <-TOTAl 0 0 *8 12 2<l 30 ')2 33 35 31 23 U 21 23 Eo 10 9 3 1 Eo 3i!l. SUE i! TOTAL o 11 D '" 1 1ft ).9 21 lY 1'" 30 11 20 i!l> 1 8 't s* '/ J
POiNT DATA !: : l'I1U TAe.LE 1: 30 Fl. WINO SPEED VS. STAaILIY( S"E t Cd). 2 WINO FROH SECTORI ]50 OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
!>PEEtl .----*---STA8ILITY CLASSIFICATION-------
MPH GUST J. c,VST i! CUST i CUST .. TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 D 0 2 2 3 0 2 1 S 9 0 1 0 !:o 5 0 ] 0 ., 10 I> 0 5 0 11 110 1 0 1 1 '? l!:o 8 0 11 13 as 'I 0 ? 2 .. 15 10 0 t) 5 10 2 .. 11 0 ] 1 10 12 0 Ii .. 13 13 0 2 ? 2 11 U 0 5 2 0 7 15 0 Ii 2 0 1 11> 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 1 .. 0 !o 18 0 1 2 0 lj oVER 1D 0 0 2 0 ? TOTAL 0 b? .. 0 , .. 1Bl Tabl.
)5 l i Jr.r.(,'
DATA Y[t.Fo.: 1'l1U TAHE J.: 3D F T , 1110 SPEI'O VS. STABILITY SIlE C oDr a "'jr:J fROM seCTOR: )&0 NJI1aE \IF" HOUkL Y OCCURRENCES SPEEO CLASSIFICATION-------
HPH GUST 1 CJST C *CUST ] GUST .. TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 i! 0 1 0 5 & ] 0 2 0 5 ? It 0 :3 D 12 lS 5 0 B 0 5 n I> 0 5 ;) b l.L ? 0 17 0 I> i!3 B 0 5 1 .. 10 'I 0 8 1 i! l.L 10 0 5 0 a 1 11 0 2 1 0 :3 12 0 5 1 0 b 13 0 5 :3 1 'I lOt 0 :3 1 0 It 15 0 i! II 0 5 1& 0 1 It 0 5 17 0 2 1 0 :3 18 0 1 3 0 It 1U 0 0 1 J 2 TOTJ.t 0 1!:o 2" It <:I 1 ..... Table ZD*6. 36 TURKEY POINT DATA TABLE 1: 30 Fl. WINO SPEED VS. STABILITY . SNE C ODE WIND FROM ALL SECTORS NUM8ER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES SPEED --------STA8ILITY CLASSIFICATION-------
MPH GUST 1 GUST 2 CUST 3 GuST II-TOTAL --------_ ... ----------... -.. ------.. -0 0 1 0 lEa 17 1 0 2 0 i!1 23 2 0 8 1 81 3 0 31 1 187 ... J, 5'" 10 183 2 'HI 5 J, 17& 28 3&0 5b5 & 0 J,'3" &5 2'32 551 1 0 2BO 87 2&7 &3'" B 0 . 33 .. 1 ... 9 1'3& &78 q 0 331 1&1 13& b28 10 0 "12 2b& 121 1'3'3 11 0 1'38 172 32. ... 02 12 0 21'3 271 31 S9l 13 0 33& 2B3 1CJ &3d 1 .. 0 15& 18B 0 3,. ... 15 0 200 233 ... ... 37 1& 0 bO 15'3 0 21C:J 17 0 7 .. 153 1 229 18 0 81 1&3 0 2 .... +. oVER 18 0 57 185 2 2 ...... TOTAL 2 32o't-258Q 1'317 71&3 Table lD-6. 37
.. ,\,URltl Y POWl" OAT 4 Yf: it.: 1 '", °1"" 1 "tIl i: 2: 30 fT. WIUO SPEED VS. TEHPEkAtIJRE ... : (" :'r. " WINO FROM SECTOR: 10 OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
____ -________
OJFF£RE'ltE (232'-32')------------
-&.0 -5.9 -l.t -0.7 1.£0 3.& S.D TO TO 10 TO TO TO Ki>H lEloS -l.S -0.11 1.S 3.S 5.5 10 TOTAL ----0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r. .& 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 J 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 tl .1 ,. 0 1 0 0 0 0 1. 2 5 0 1 0 3 1 0 LI 5 & 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 5 7 0 1 2 It 0 1 0 8' e 0 ,. 2 ,. 1 0 1. 12 q 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 It .&0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 It 11 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 12 0 ,. 2 3 0 0 0 q 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II 1" 0 1 0 0 0 0 U 1 lS 0 1 0 0 0 0 CI 1 1& 0 1 0 0 0 0 U 1. 11 [l 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1 lC (. ,"'r" 0 0 0 0 0 0 i) C-, , ... t, TOTAL 0 23 ., 18 .. 1 2 57 Table 2D-7. 1 TURr.EY poINT 04T4 HAR: 1'110 lAlH.E 2: lU fT. "1100 SHED VS. TEMPERATUIIE GRA[) H'I r
-: Co. J£ 2 WINO Ht>M SEtTOR: 20 NUMBER OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
____ -________
DIFfERf'lCe (232'-32'1-------------b.O -5.9 --1." -0.7 1.& 3.;' S.D SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO ",PH lE'SS -l.S -0.9 1.5 1.S 5.S 10 1:.1;' L 0 0 0 (I 0 1. 0 n 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 [) ? 3 I) 1 0 0 0 1. 2 .. 0 0 0 2 1 0 a ? 5 0 i! 0 1 0 0 0 5 b 1 10 9 3 0 0 0 H' 7 0 1 i! OJ 0 0 0 l8 e I) 1 1. 2 1 0 U 7 ., 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 f-lO 0 1 l 10 0 0 0 1" II 0 0 1 ,. 0 0 0 S 12 0 ::I L 0 0 0 0 13 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 ,. n 0 i! 1 0 0 0 0 15 0 3 Ll 0 0 0 u " 1& 0 0 LI 0 0 0 0 (> 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :! III t L A 0 0 i) 0 C ToTAL .. 0 ?:J )Ii! S 1 C H Table 2D-7.2
" VE.t.R.: 1'170 SPEEC "PH o 1 2 3 t 5 I> 7 B Ii 10 11 12 13 1't 15 11> 17 .18 £ OVlP. TOll.L ,r :';'. : 1 :'.'10 SPEED 0 1 2 3 't 5 & 7 8 'I 10 II 12 13 l't lS 11> 11 111 L CJ'Ii I TCTAi. TURKEY POINT DATA TABLE 2: 30 FT. "'IND SPEED VS. TE',PEUTUIlE Gill.", [:IT WIHD HOM 30 NU"8ER C,F HOUlllY OCCURRENCES
_____________
C2]2'-]2'1------------
-&.0 -5.'1 -l.t -D.? 1.& 3.b 5.L ACID TO TO To To TO Tv LESS -1.5 -o.a 1.5 3.5 5.S 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 o* 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 ., u 0 1 0 1 2 u 0 1 1 It 1 0 0 0 .. It .. 0 0 *0 0 .1 2 3 2 0 U 0 It 5 3 0 0 0 0 5 5 1 1 0 U 0 3 1 3 1 0 0 0 S 2 " 0 0 0 u 3 C! 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 0 \l 0 5 J 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 u 0 ., J 1 0 0 0 0 0 ? 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 ... l 0 D 0 :> 0 H! itS 35 10 i! D Table 2D-7.3 TURI..U PO lilT DATA. H8LC 2: 3D F' * .. IND SPEED "S.
WINO FROM 5ECTOIII .. 0 NU"I£lER .oF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
---__________
DIHERENCE C232'-32'1-------------b.O -5.'1 -l.t -0. "I 1.b 3.b S.b AIID TO TO TO TO TO TI) lESS -1.5 -0.8 1.5 3.5 5.S 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 J. 0 0 D 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 3 S t 0 0 0 2 5 t 0 0 0 D 2 S 7 0 D 0 0 B 1 "I 1 0 D 0 8 It 12 2 0 0 0 S S 'I 2 D 1 0 2 1 L 0 0 0 0 ] b 1 0 D 0 U 3 2 S 0 0 U 0 B 3 3 0 0 0 0 Eo * " 0 0 0 0 3
- 1 0 0 0 0 2 i:! 2 0 0 0 (} I) H* i? 0 n 0 U lor.. 1>3 L'I U 0 1 Table 2D-7. 4 TOHL s: : .. "I ll< B J.2 12 B 13 Eo L Ii ? "I n ... ... c, ,': T (, 1 :.l 0 0 r. .. "I 11 1" 17 2L 2<' 'l J.O 1Co 1<' E' (. I,!l." 21(1 i!
.------TURKEY POINT OAT
- Yb.R: 1'110 lA8lt i!: 30 FT.
- __
- __
(232'*3i!'I-----*--*--*
-&.0 -5.'1 -1." *0.1 )..& 3.& 5.& SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO "'PII LESS *1.5 -0.1.1 l..S J.S 5.5 10 TOT :'L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 l. .0 0 C. 1 3 *U 0 0 2 1 0 O' '3 " 0 0 0 1 0 0 tJ 1. 5 0 1 1. i! *1 0 D. 11 b 0 ., 5 S 1 0 0 18 ? 0 .. It (, J 0 0 19 B 0 3 & It i! 2 0 11 OJ 0 3 It .. It 0 0 15 10 0 It S 0 0 0 0 '! 11 0 5 1 2 1 0 0 <:I 12 0 8 .. J 0 0 0 15 II 0 S 10 1 0 0 0 co:! 1" 0 S .. 0 0 0 0 <:I 15 0 10 It 1 0 0 0 15 1& U .. i! 2 0 0 0 B 11 (J S 3 i! 0 0 0 111 11' t. (,\,lr 0 .. 1<:1 i! 0 0 (J "jl t.l 0 10 12 .... .l<:l i! 0 i!07 Tabl. 2D*1. 5 Pl)lIl T OATA n ,.1',: 1'170 )ABU 2: 30 FT. <lIHO SPUD VS. Tel1PERATUoI.e Gf\AOl!:'!T SHE r "vi; ? WINU fROM secTOR: bO 0\ Of HOURLY OCCURPE:KH
_. ___________
TEHPFtl.AlURE
-&.0 -5.'1 -1." -0.7 1.& 3 ... SPEED AND TO TO TO T:> TO TO HPH LESS -1.5 -0.0 1.5 3.5 5.5 10 TOTl.l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 <' J 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 .. 0 0 i! i! 0 1 0 5 5 U 5 t D It 0 0 21 b 0 i! 5 5 It 0 0 11-1 0 .. 3 11 i! 0 0 20 D 0 J & 5 i! 0 0 leo If 0 19 & & 2 0 0 10 0 13 If 10 0 0 0 3" 11 0 'I 5 :3 0 0 0 12 li! 0 D ltl B 0 0 0 i!!> B 0 9 11 .. 0 0 0 1. 0 Z II & 0 0 0 If* 15 0 '1 :. & 0 0 0 . lli lb 0 i! l 1 0 0 0 \. 17 0 2 3 0 U 0 0 ,. 11 1 i,. ;'VI" 0 B "'J 3 II 0 U ;-11 1:' T I.L 0 DC) 10.1 L2 l\> 0 i'07 'i;lble 2D-7.6 TURKEY POI"T OAT6 \,PR: .1970 TA8LE i!l 31.1 Fl. 0111.0 SPEED VS.
,,,AOIEIIT SII( ( (*DE 2 WINO fROM 70 NUI4I)£R <IF HOUklV OCCURR£UCES
- _. ___ ._. ___
- b.O -5.' -1." -0.7 1." 3.& 5.b SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO Tv LESS -.&.5 -O.P 1.5 3.5 5.:> 10) TOTH 0 (J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 i! fJ 0 0 Q 0 0 0 r " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 U 3 5 0 ,. .. S J 0 0 lB & 0 ,. 0 .. S-O 0 15 7 0 ,. 1 8 8 0 0 21 8 0 10 8 12 2 0 0 3<.' It 0
- 11 12 0 0 0 32 10 0 8 n U 0 0 0 33 11 0 1
- 9 0 0 0 1'J 12 0 10 19 13 0 0 0 't;? 13 (I i!? 21 U 0 n 0 5b lot Co 12 * & 0 0 0 i!? 15 0 8 U e 0 0 0 i!'l 1& 0 2 2 i! 0 0 0 r 17 0 ? 8 S 0 0 0 lS 1:1 I. ove l. ).-, li! 0 0 0 !"L' T ", I<l () 117 139 1i?'t 1H 0 0 3'H' Table ZD.?? TURKfV 1'01111 DI T I* , r I R : 1')70 lAlI\.[ 2: 3;) fl. '11M) SPEEO VS. TE:-<PEIlATUIl£ Ci\.\OH'H SI'l£ LOIH 2 WINO SEC 1 C*p.: BO NUHiIE Il OF HOUI(LY OCCUllltENCH
____ -____
- ___ TEHPEltATUkE OIFFEIlE)I(E 1?3Z'-3i!'I------------
-1..0 -5.9 -1." -0.7 1.b 3.10 5,1. SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO Tv HPH lESS -1.5 -0.8 1.5 3.5 5.5 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C Z 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 i! " 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 5 It U 1 i! 5 () n 0 e 5 0 1 i! 3 1 0 0 '1 I. (J i! 8 e 2 0 0 i?r '1 0 9 7 'l b 1 0 32 e 0 OJ 11 11 2 0 0 H OJ 0 1& 12 " 3 0 0 3" 10 0 19 H 12 1 0 0 't5 11 0 13 i!ll 11 1 0 0 "5 12 0 lot 20) .11: 0 0 U 13 0 3S 21. 11 0 0 0 b? j." 0 19 H 11 0 0 0 .. 15 0 35 III 1 .. 0 0 0 t,7 11> 0 3 11 5 0 C IJ 1') 17 1I 1.1, I.S 'I 0 0 0 ,'.r , lP t <1\'\ I: lJ J.(; i', 5 [I ,1 ,. TOAl [I i! 1.(1 ljh 17 1. r Table 8
',' YE"R.: 1':170 IAtLE 2: 30 FT. oIlIlD SPEED VS. TE*,*PER.!',Ul'e C;{':'O IE!; T WIND seCTOR: liO of HOURLY OCCURRENCES
_____
OIFfERE'KE 1232'-32'1-------------L.O -5.':1 -D.? 1.e. 3.£0 S.e. SPEED ANO TO TO TO TO TO HPH LESS -1.5 -O.B 1.S 3.5 505. 10 '0 0 0 0 1 0 Q 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 2 '1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 S 1 13 L 2 0 0 I. 0 B & It 2 1 0 ? L 11 l't l't , L 0 B 0 1& 12 il 0 0 q 0 2S 17 U. 2 1 0 10 0 2S 2" 18 2 0 0 J.l. 0 10 12 t 1 0 0 12 0 20 13 0 0 U 13 0 ill! ilS 11 1 0 0 J.It 0 10 1£0 fa 0 0 0 lS 0 20 20 10 0 0 0 1b 0 10 21 *I 0 0 0 17 0 5 Ii 0 0 0 u. C. CiVlll (I 1'1 3') 3 0 0 U toTAL 2 20D 21:\1 133 U. 3 (I Table 20-7.9 TURKEY I'ClWT nAU H:,": J.'l70 TABlE 2: 30 fT. <lIND SPEED V!>. TEI(PERATURE WINO fROM SECTO'l: 100 N"',,8£R OF .. OURlY ottU,,"P,EI{CES
____ -________ TEHPERATURE C'IFfERENCE 1232'-32')------------
-1..0 -s.CJ -D.? 1.e. 3.;' 5.& SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO "'PH lESS -1.5 -O.B 1.5 3.S 5., 10 0 0 0 0 1 .1 0 0 1-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ll 't 0 2 .. 1 2 0 0 5 0 2 3 3 1 0 0 b 0 q 10 7 0 0 0 7 0 11 11 'I 2 0 0 a 0 15 111 B 1 0 0 'I 0 15 2, 12 1 0 0 10 0 23 :u 12 2 0 0 11 0 11 11. 5 0 0 0 12 0 11. 10 10 0 0 0 13 U 13 1CJ 7 2 0 0 1't 0 'I 11 .. 0 0 0 15 0 1't 20 I. 0 0 0 1b 0 2 11 1 0 0 C. n c 1 ll1 " 0 0 0 1! l ... \lCt' II L 1 0 C U h1t.L 0 lLl ('('7 'l3 12 0 0 Table ZD-7. 10 TOTAL 1 C o b 5 2b 23 5[' n 5b b'l 27 55 5<; ee 5;; 37 3f. bl SUE (o:;e TOTAL ? C (, 1 .. 'l 2b 3'l ot(' "':I b£1 30 3E. 'Il 'H' 1" i:'_' "1 ?
>0 **
POINT YE'.IU J.'ll:l TABLE 2: 30 rT * .. INo SI'EEo VS. TE"PEil.4TuRE GRt.olEI:T St4E CO'JC 2 FROK SEtTOkt 110 NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES 1232'-32')------------
-&.0 -5.'1 -1." -D.? 1.11 3.b 5.b SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO Tv LESS -1.5 -o.S 1.5 3.5 5.*S 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1 2 0 0 J. 0 1 1 0 " 3 o* 1 2 1 0 0 0 .. 0 0 i .. 0 0 0 7. 5 0 2 11 .. 0 1 0 1e I> 0 .. 1'1 12 3 0 0 39 1 0 CJ 1':1 B 0 0 0 31> 8 0 20 i!1> 10 1 0 0 57 ':I 0 2S 2:3 1'1-1 0 0 Lb 10 0 2CJ n 'I :3 0 0 ,.. II 0 12 ':I .. 1 0 0 2l-12 0 11 1':1 7 0 0 0 3? 13 0 1'1 15 (, 0 0 0 'H' J." 0 10 10 3 0 0 0 23 15 0 It 13 7 0 0 0 2" 11> U It b It 0 0 0 lit 11 0 3 13 ? 0 0 0 1(1 If! C. CVfI'. D (, ':I 1 0 0 C 1h TOT ,\L 0 11>i! L'31 % 10 2 0 SOL Table 2D. 7. 11 TURKEY POINT ilAT" 'rEh,,: 1'l70 TAIILE i!: 30 FT. "INO SPEED VS. Tf>lPERATUil.E GRACllftlT srjE CviJE i! WINO FROH SECToR: 120 NvMdER of 1 OCCUPRENCES
---_-----____
OIFl'f.RE'ICE (232'-32')------------
-1>.0 -5.'1 -1." -0.7 1.b 3.& 5.b SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH lESS -1.5 -O.S 1.5 3.5 5.5 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a i! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :3 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 It It 0 (] 2 i! 1 0 0 5 5 0 0 10 5 3 0 0 J.9 I> 0 b 7 3 3 0 0 1':1 7 0 12 25 b 1 0 0 ..... B 0 10 22 'I 2 0 0 1t3 'I 0 II 1B 5 i! 0 0 3& 10 0 19 20 13 0 0 0 5'1 11 0 8 2b 5 0 0 0 3'1 12 0 'I 15 b 0 0 0 311 13 0 .15 J.CJ fa 0 0 0 "(1 n 0 11 'I :3 0 0 0 23 15 0 II 15 :3 0 0 0 2'1 1& 0 :3 I> i! 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 1. .1 D 0 0 i' lr t l', II 1 lh 5 (1 0 [; HTLl U llS 7[, l<? 0 0 "2" Table lD-7. Il
- .
POINT DATA Y[UP 1970 TABLE i!: 30 FT. IITtID VS. TE:'PER.1.1UilE
(;'{'.I,I<:;r SI;[ (0"" C! WINO FPOH 130 ., NUM8ER OF
- ** TEMPERATURE OIFFER.ENCe
- &.0 -5.9 -1." -0.1 1.& 3.b S.b SPEED AND TO TO TO to to TO MPH lESS -1.5 -0.8 1.S 3.5 5.S 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 D D i! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (, 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 tI 1 .. 0 0 1 0 D 0 0 1 5 0 1 "7 10 1 0 0 b C 2 3 5 D 0 .0 loD 7 0 7 1'1-10 0 D D :u 8 a 10 1& S 0 0 0 31 "I 0 b 17 loa 3 0 0 3E. loO 0 U 1& .. 0 0 0 33 11 0 5 11 :I 1 0 0 i!D 12 0 17 17 i! 0 0 0 3b J,3 0 U i!2 .. 0 0 0 39 1'1 0 5 10 It 0 0 0 19 15 0 It 8 n 0 0 0 12 1b 0 J-.. 1 0 0 0 b 11 V It It 0 0 0 0 n 11. r.
0 5 I. 3 0 0 0 l't ToT : ... 0 en 15b bl b 0 0 31.b Table 2D-7. 13 TURKEY "CINT DATA l'J10 C!: 30 FT. 101 HID SPHO VS. TEMPERATURE SI-lE (OUE C! WIND fROM uo NUHilfI!.*
OF HCUklV OCC.URR.ENCES
_____
- _______
DlFFERE'4CE
,-----.--*** -*b.o *5.9 -1 ... -0.7 1.b 3.b S.b SPeeD AND TO TO to TO TO TO MPH LHS -1.5 -0.11 l.5 3.5 5.S 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 IJ D 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 [) 1-t? 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 :3 0 D 1 1 1 0 0 3 It [) 0 1 1 0 [1 0 Z 5 0 0 It 3 a 0 0 ? b 0 2 ? 2 0 0 0 11 7 0 i! b b 0 0 0 1" 9 0 12 h (, 0 1 0 33 OJ 0 10 OJ 9 0 D 0 10 0 13 111 .. 0 0 0 't5 1.1 0 10 11 0 1 a C/ ct"' 12 0 Z3 1b 2 0 0 0 If) 13 D 18 li! 3 1 D 0 3" 1't CJ '1 'I 1 0 0 0 l'f 15 n B ... i! 0 0 0 11. 0 0 b It 0 0 0 11..' 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 11: L :: I. ? Ij r. 0 0 0 123 1<:<] so :3 2 0 3iJ"? Table lD-7. 14
." TUr.KE\ POIIH ,tt.T6 .. H"p,: 1'170 TABU ,,: JU FT. wlllO SPeED VS. T(I"PERATURE S:.e: ':.t;.;£ i WINO nOf:( S£CT¢iI.:
150 NlIPiBER of OCCURRENces
___
- _________
DIFfERE'4CE (232'-32')------------
-(0.0 -5 ** -1." -0.7 1.t. S.b SPEED AND 10 To TO TO TO Tc, MPH lESS -1.5 -0.11 1.5 3.5 10 TCT!l 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 CJ J. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 [j fI 2 D 0 0 0 0 0 u U 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ). 1 0 0 0 2 S 0 1 8 3 0 0 -0 1<' L 0 .. .. 1 0 2 0 II 7 0 1 7 2 0 0 0 10 8 0 ? '1 5 0 0 0 'I 0 12 15 0 0 0 31 10 0 lL e5 7 0 0 0 .. e J.! 0 11 11 1 0 0 0 23 J.2 0 1.1 15 2 1 0 0 29 13 0 22 5 .. 0 0 0 3J. 1't 0 11 5 7 0 0 0 23 15 0 8 8 3 0 0 0 1" 110 0 1 7 2 0 0 Il 110 17 0 1 5 3 0 0 0 <j lU t OVEr. CI 2 i! 2 0 0 U ToTAL 0 loa U!& .. 7 1 i! 0 i!!:jOt Tabl. 2D-7. IS TURKEY PollH OAl" yEAR: 1')10 TA8LE i!: 3U FT. rllND SPEED VS. TfMPERArUII.E SNE 'ClOl <: WIND FROM seCTOR: lbD NUIoI8EII.
OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES ___________
TEHPERATURE 1232'-32')-------------b.O -5.'1 -1." -0.7 1.r. 3 ... 5.L SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO To MPH lESS -J..5 -o.n 1.5 3.5 5.5 11) 101 t.L 0 0 0 0 (I 0 0 0 0 J. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (\ 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 {, 3 0 0 J. 0 0 0 0 1 ot 0 0 i! 1 U 0 0 3 5 &l 0 .. 1 1 0 0 b b 0 0 .. :3 0 0 0 7 ? 0 0 It 1 0 0 0 ? 8 0 It n 9 0 0 0 'I 0 5 b 7 0 0 0 J.9 10 0 5 1i! i! 0 0 0 lq 11 0 B 5 i! 0 0 0 12 0 11 0 i! 0 0 0 2l 13 0 11 7 i! 0 0 [J i!{l l't 0 S 1 2 0 0 0 f1 15 0 5 2 0 0 0 U '1 ./.c, 0 i! 5 1 0 0 [l 11 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 l.U C. ()\IE U 0 It ... U 0 [] ,. 10TI.l 0 5b D1 3b 1 0 0 Table lD-1. 16
DATA YEAR: 1970 TA8LE C!: 30 FT.
SPEED VS. TEMPERATURE GR:'UJENT StlE ',"Uf c . W til 0 sf', TOll.: 170 HUHi£R OF HOORLY OCCUPP.ENtES
_____________
TEHPERATURE DIFFEREtlCE (C!iC!'-iC!"------------
-1..0 -5.9 -1.\ -C..7 1.& l.b S.I> SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO lCl MPH LESS -l.S -0.8 1.5 3.5 5.S 10 TOUL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1I {! ) 0 0 l 2 0 0 0 1 .. 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 C! 5 0 0 2 8 1 0 0 U b 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 C 7 0 1 C! .1 l 0 0 S 8 0 b 8 .. 0 0 0 12 9 0 3 ? 1 0 0 0 13 10 .1 I. .. 8 0 0 0 i!l U {j 1 S 5 0 0 0 13 1C! 0 I; Ii 7 0 0 0 lB U D 11 1 i! 0 0 0 11> 1'1-0 8 1 2 0 0 0 11 15 0 \ 1 ] 0 0 0 B 1& b C! 1 2 0 0 0 s: 11 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 ? 111 (. OV! 0 0 l E-O a 0 'J ToTAL 1 ... \8 Sf> C! 0 0 151 Tabla %D*7. 17 TURKEY POI"T
'IE I\R: l'na TABLE 2: lU FT.
SPEED VS. TEI'PERA1UkE SNE C! WINO FROM 180 N\lHII£R OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
____ -________
DlFfERENCE (i!ll*-li!')-------------L.O -5.9 -1." -0.7 1.1i i ... 5.1> SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -1.5 -0.11 1.5 l.5 5.5 10 10TH 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 C 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i! a a 0 2 0 0 0 ? 3 0 1 3 It J. a 0 q t 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 S 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 9 L 0 .1 1 \ 0 0 0 L 7 0 3 i! I> 0 0 0 11 8 0 2 1 8 0 0 0 l::I I) 0 0 i! 5 0 0 0 7 10 0 q 3 5 0 0 0 11' 11 0 S .1 0 0 0 0 e-li! 0 5 S ] 0 0 0 43 J.3 0 10 5 .1 0 0 0 l.!, l't 0 .. 1 1 0 0 Q l' 15 0 3 i! C! 0 0 0 l' 11> 0 0 C 1 0 0 0 'l 17 0 0 0 0 0 [1 0 (1 lU t (I 2 3 3 0 CI D TOTAL C 3t! 0 () 1;:;' Table %D. 7. 18 TURKEY DATA \\ t':: 1:)"10 ",\.£ 21 30 FT. wINO SPEEO VS. TEMPERA'URE Git:'OlE:J' C(f', ,, i! WINO 1'!0 NII!4I1U OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
_____________
TEHPE_ATURE DIFFERENCE tl]l'-3l')------------
-1a.0 -5.'1 -1.\ -O.? 1.1a J.1a S.& SPEED AND TO TO 10 TO TO TO "PH LESS -1.5 -0.8 1.S J.S 5.5 10 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 .L 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 U (1 i! 0 0 0 0 0 1 (1 1 3 0 0 U 1 i! 0 IJ ] \ 1I 0 1 1 1 0 I,J 1 5 0 0 It .10 .. 0 0 1e b 0 1 \ 10 0 0 0 lS 7 0 1 3 " 0 0 .0 13 II 0 0 ? 10 1 0 0 1e OJ 0 1 r. 8 0 0 (I 10; 10 0 i! \ 7 0 0 0 13 11 (I It ) 1 0 0 D B 1i! 0 1 i! .1 0 0 0 It 13 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 7 lOt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1S 0 B 5 0 0 0 0 13 11. 0 It 0 0 0 0 0 It 17 0 5 0 1 0 0 D b 10 (. OVlR C .. Ia .1 0 0 U II ToTH D 31. .. e-Ll 8 1 1 153 Table lD-7. 19 POINT OH' . , l . ; 1 <:;'/0 TASLE 2: ]ll FT
- wINO SPHt> VS. TEt\PER/.lURE GR f. \) IE:IT !l1-!l ( C,[lE 2 WIHO fROH 200 NUHaER i>F HOURLY OCCURRENCE3
_____________
'0 I FFEREN(E C2li!'-l2'1------------
-10.0 . -S.OJ -1." -0.7 1.& 3.1. S.b SPEED ANO TO to TO TO TO To HPli LESS -l.S -0.8 1.5 ].5 S.S 10 TOTAl. D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 i! 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 ] 0 0 0 3 .1 0 0 .. U 0 1 .. 0 0 D S 5 0 5 5 .. i! 0 0 lEl b 0 1 2 ] 0 0 0 b 7 0 i! b ] l 0 0 13 8 0 1 i! i! 0 0 0 S 'I 0 i! i! 0 0 0 0 It 10 0 i! 1 0 0 0 0 '3 H 0 i! 0 1 0 0 U 3, 1<? 0 1 '3 i! 0 0 0 b 13 0 1 i! 2 0 0 0 S lit 0 1 0 0 0 0 (j lS 0 It 2 0 0 0 0 h lb U i! 1 0 0 0 (J '3 17 II S 0 0 0 0 ? 1U t (,V[; n II' ! l, U t' u !. T<>Tf.l CJ 33 2B 31t b 0 (J lOl Table ZO
,-------'----------
POI"T DATA 1'170 lI.ill. 3U FT. ,lfi:o SPeED VS. TEMPEUTUItE CitAOJE aT SUE t Oi,E ..
FROM SECToRI i!lD HLlI'ilER of HOURLY OCCURPENces
-___ -_______
01 F F EIlE E 12]2'-]2'1------------
-6.0 -5.9 -l.t -D.? 1.6 3.& S.I> SPEED ArlO TO TO TO TO TO TO "PH lESS -1.5 -0.8 1.5 3.5 5.5 10 TOlLL 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 .. 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 I> 0 0 U 7 ] 0 1 2 It 2 0 .0 11 It [J 1 ] 11 .1 0 0 lb 5 0 J 5 11> 2 0 0 2&-" 0 2 2 .. '1 0 . -0 11 '1 U .1 J 11 .1 0 0 lb . 8 0 .1 ? i! It 0 0 1" .. 0 0 1 1 .1 0 0 l 10 0 i! 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 <' 12 0 2 1 .1 0 0 0 It 13 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3' n 0 .1 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 0 i! 0 0 0 0 0 e 1b (j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 lli t. (,'/[P. (l b i! 1 0 0 0 <; ToTt.l 0 2 .. 29 "I. 18 0 0 137 Table 1D-7.U TURKEY POIIIT :)t.u 1"170 TABLE 2: 30 FT. IIINO SPEED vs. TEHPERAIUI<E C.*.::, I"': i Srl[ C(';JE 2 WINO FROM secT,,'!.:
2eO NV"SER 01' 1i0ORL'f OCCURRENCES OlFFERE';CE -b.O -5.9 ... -0,'1 1.10 3 ... 5.b SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO "'PH lESS -1.5 -0.8 1.5 3.5 5.S 11) TOTtl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 C 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 B It 0 0 0 b 2 0 0 0 5 0 i! S 19 :3 C 0 ell £, 0 2 3 5 .. 0 0 1"-7 0 0 :3 :3 0 0 0 £, B 0 :3 It .. 0 0 [J 1.1 9 0 1 C 2 0 0 0 S 10 U S 1. 1 0 0 0 7 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 12 0 1 1 n 0 0 0 C' 13 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 " lit 0 0 0 I) 0 0 0 [\ lS 0 i! 0 0 0 0 u C 1b U 2 0 0 0 0 u C' 11 0 0 1 0 U 0 (' 1 1!J C. <lVI i. II 5 1 0 0 0 [1 (. ToTAL (I 21 .. 1 13 0 [j 111 Table ZD-7. 22 TURKEV POIUT Yf./lR: 1,,'/0 TA8Lf 30 fT.
SPEED VS. lEHPERAlUIlE CRAOIEllT Sllf : (*nE WINO FROM UO OF 1I0UIll Y OtCUIIIlEMtE:.
___
- _________
DIFFeRE'4CE
-10.0 -5." -1.'t -0.' 1.& 3.& 5.10 SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO "PH LESS -1.5 -O.B l.S 3.5 5.S 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ). 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 ) 0 l 1 1 0 0 !> " 0 1 2 " 0 0 0 ? Ii 0 2 3 U 0 *0 0 1'1 & 0 0 ). 11 " 2 0 1B ? 0 l ) I) :I 1 O. l' B 0 2 't 2 2 0 0 lO 'I 0 1 1 l 0 0 0 :3 10 0 0 1-3 0 0 0 ... J.J. 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 l2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 ;I 13 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 U 0 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 2 15 U 1 :3 0 0 D 0 ... 110 0 1 0 0 D 0 0 1 11 0 3 U D D 0 0 3 lr. c. 0\"[1: 0 ? 0 0 0 0 V 7 TOTAl. D 2S 2!O 't'l 10 ... 0 113 Table 2D*7.23 POIIIT DATA y[;R: .1')10 TASLE i?: 30 FT.
SPEeD vs.
GRt-OIENT SUE C Clt*e 2 WINO FRO'! SECTOR: . NvH;)ER of HOURLY OCCURRENCES
____ -________ TEMPEtAfUkE 1232'-32"------------
-1..0 -!>.'1 -1." -D.? 1.& 3.10 5.10 AND TO TO TO TO TO To MPH lESS -1.5 -0.8 1.5 3.5 5.5 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [\ 1 0 0 0 1 ). 0 0 2 i? 0 n u 1 ... 0 0 3 0 0 U B 5 0 0 13 .. 0 1 0 .. 2 0 0 12 !> 0 3 2 1i! 5 1 0 10 0 0 C! B ... 0 0 1'" ? 0 1 3 U 3 0 0 ).9 9 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 S .. 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 10 L 0 .. 0 0 0 0 ... 11 0 0 0 It 0 0 0 .. 12 V 0 0 0 0 0 () 0 13 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 r* l't 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1b n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 u 0 u n 0 (; 11: t ('\, E' R IJ 0 0 c u r. [j TOTAL 0 f, J SE> 2" 1 1 J.Or. Table lP.7.U lUIU:E' !JAB yEAR: 1'l?0 TABLE 2: 3a FT. .: HiO V5
- Tc"PE\tA1URE C,IUuHflT St:l t Cllt( 2 WIND 2S0 NJM8ER. OF HvUi'.LV
- (i!3i!'-32')------------
-1>.0 -5.Oj -1." -C.7 1.1> 3.10 5.£. SPEED ANO TO TO TO TO TO TO "PH LESS -1.5 -0.8 .l.S 3.5 5.5 J.O 10TH 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 a '0 1 2 0 [1 0 i! 0 0 0 ? 3 a a 0 1 2 a 0 3 .. a 0 1 5 i! 0 0 B 5 0 a 1 i! 1 0 0 .. I> 0 a 0 I> 1 a 0 7 ? a 0 0 i! a 0 0 i! B 0 i! i! 3 0 0 a ? '! 0 0 0 1 0 a a 1 10 a 0 2 a 0 0 0 2 U a 0 J. 0 a a 0 1 12 a 1 0 a 0 0 0 1 13 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a lit 0 a 1 a 0 0 a 1 J.5 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 leo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [l 17 0 a a a 0 0 0 0 If. t IIvn. 0 0 [l a 0 li (. TOTAl 0 3 B ZZ ? 0 0 1r0 Table ZO-7. ZS TURKEY POltH DATA YE t,R: 1')10 TABLE 2: 30 FT. WINO SI'EED VS. TEMPERATURE Gil.t.llIEIH St: l (":OE i! WINO FROM SftTOP.: ZbD IW'1&ER OF HOURLY IIJFFEREIoiCE (232'-3Z')-------------i..O -S.'! -1." -0.7 J..I> 3.b 5.b SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH lESS -1.5 -O.R 1.5 3.5 5.5 1U 10Tt.l 0 0 0 D 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 a 3 2 0 0 0 £. 1 1 0 r 3 0 a 0 10 1 0 0 1 .. 0 0 D ? i! 0 0 'l 5 0 0 2 5 1 0 0 8 Eo 0 0 0 3 i! 1 0 [, "1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 B 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 '+ 'it 0 C 0 2 1-Q U 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 11 0 0 0 0 0 Q [I [I 12 a 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 13 0 0 (l 0 U 0 0 U H 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 1!; 0 0 [I 0 0 0 [; 0 lEo 0 0 0 0 0 0 U [) 17 0 a 0 0 0 0 a n HI t ove;, (, a (I 0 11 a 0 I , 01 Al (I 3 3;> 13 i! Q Table 20-7.26 TURKEV POINT OtTA VEIoRI J.'l10 TABLE 3D FT.
SPEEO VS. TH'PfRA TURf CoRAl/It'll SNi: ! t-:-l FlI.O" SECTOR: i!1D NIJ'4i\f 0{ >>F HOJPLY
_____________
- >lFf-ERE).It.;E
-10.0 -S.'l -J. ... -U.7 1.10 3.10 S.b SPHo Ar.O TO TO TO TO TO TO "PH lESS -J..5 -O.B 1.5 3.5 5.5 10 TvHL 0 ;) 1 0 (j 1 0 0 ? J. 0 0 0 1 i! 0 0 i\! U 0 0 10 1 0 Ii 13 3 U 1 0 Eo i\! 0 0 q .. 0 0 0 8 3 1 0 J.2 0 0 i! 8 .. 1 .0 Eo 0 1 0 J i! 0 0 b 7 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 It B 0 1 1 .. 1 0 0 ? '.I 0 1 [/ .. 0 0 [/ 5 J.O 0 3 0 i\! 0 0 0 5 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 1 1 D 0 0 U 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J." 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 [) lS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J.I> 0 1 0 n 0 0 0 1 J.? 0 0 il 0 0 0 0 0 1U t 11\'1..: 0 0 0 0 0 [I IJ .. TOTAL 0 10 .. 50 19 2 0 B>; Table TURI<.E v POUlT !'lATA YEA": J,q'/O TABLE 2: 30 FT. "'NO SP[EO VS. TE HPERA TUkE (jo(l,:> I ENT 2 WIND FROM 2BO NUMBER "Of HOURlv OCCURRENCES
' -------------TEMPERATURE DIFHRENCE (232'-]2')-------------b.O -S.'l -1." -0.1 1.b 3.e. S.b !>PEEO ANO TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH lESS -1.5 -O.B 1." 3.5 5.S 10 10TAL 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 10 1 0 C; e It 0 0 0 S 3 0 0 B S 0 0 .1 1b 1 0 0 1B 10 0 1 0 10 3 0 0 n 7 0 0 2 10 i\! 0 0 10 B 0 1 2 5 2 0 0 10 'l' 0 J. 2 i\! 0 0 0 S 10 0 3 i\! J. J. 0 0 '1 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 12 0 i\! 3 0 0 0 0 5 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1" 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 15 0 1 U 1 0 0 0 2 J.L 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 c' 10 t ClVLf' C 1 U 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 1::; 15 l'i 0 0 <;7 Table 20-7.28
" TURKEV POINT
' , "EAlU 1'i70 TUlE 2: 30 fT. WltlO SI'(I;O VS. T!:MPEIlATUIlE GRAD HilT Slif C{.I;,( ?
2'i0 OF HOUKLV OCCURRENCES
_____________
TEMPERATURE DIFfERENCE 1232'-32"-------------b.O -S.IJ -1.\ -0.7 1.1> ::1.& S.b SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO KPH LESS -1.5 -0.8 1.5 3.5 5.5 1.0 10TH 0 0 0 " 2 0 0 0 2 1 .0 0 0 0 1 0 O* 1 2 0 1. 0 .. 0 0 0 ? 3 0 0 a ? 0 0 U 7 It 0 0 0 Eo i! 0 0' B 5 0 0 It n It 1. 0 23 10 0 0 1. LEo n C! 0 33 '1 0 1 0 It II 3 0 8 0 1 1 1. .L 0 0 .. OJ 0 0 1 U .L 0 a ? J.O 0 i! J. 2 0 0 a 5 1.1 a D 0 .L 0 0 a J. 12 0 , 1 D 0 0 0 It J.l 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 L H 0 i! 1 0 0 0 0 3 15 0 1. 0 0 0 0 0 l 11, 0 3 l 0 0 0 0 17 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 .. HI f-OVER 0 5 C 0 U 0 0 5 'OUl 0 25 lOt LO i!'l .. 0 13't Table 2D.7.29 TURKEV POlIn DATA Hllk: 1970 TABLE 2: 30 FT. IIIHO SPEED VS. TEI4PER;'TlJRE GI!.t.DIt'lT SM:' COJE <: WINO FROM SECTOR: lua NU!'1aER of HoURLY OCCURRENCES
_____________
TEMPfRATOkE DIFFERENCE 1232'-32"------------'
-10.0 -5.9 -J. ... -0.7 1." 3.b 5.1. SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH lESS -1.5 -O.B l.5 1.5 5.5 10 TOll.l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 l a 0 0 3 0 0 l It 2 0 0 0 i! 2 0 0 .. 3 a 0 0 .. ? 0 0 1? 'i 0 .1 2 .. 0 l 0 lCi 5 0 2 2 13 5 0 0 r!r 10 0 2 2 Eo ? a 0 l7 7 0 2 2 .. 7 1 0 le 8 0 1 2 It 3 0 0 10 9 0 0 1. It 0 0 0 5 J.O 0 2 '3 0 0 0 U !' 11 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 J.2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 1 5 i! 0 0 0 0 (l H 0 1. 1 0 0 0 0 1? lS 0 1 0 0 0 0 U 1 lb 0 2 1. 0 0 0 n " n u 1 0 0 0 0 U J.I: ( G-VP U 2 n 0 0 0 (I .-ToTAL 25 1£1 50 31 2 :-Table ZP-7. 30
POINT OAYA Y(AR: lnD TABLE 2: 3u FT. IIIND SPHO VS. TEMPERATURE I! 51.;r-UtilE WIND FROM SECTOR: 3lD NUMBER OF HOURLY OCtUPRENCES
---***** -*.**TE"PE"TURE D IFF e
-10.0 *S.Ii -1." -0.7 1.10 3.& S.b AND TO TO TO TO TO T<I "PH LESS -1.5 -0.8 1.5 l.S 5.5 J.O TC.HL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1 1 D 0 J. 0 D O. 0 J. 2 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 f* :3 0 0 1 .. 2 Cl 0 ? .. 0 J. 0 Ii 1 J. 0 12 5 0 0 1 1't 1 2 '1 25 & 0 0 2 .. .. 2 J. 13 7 0 1 2 3 .. 0 0 10 8 0 1 1 i! 1 0 0 5 Ii 0 J. 2 0 0 0 0 :3 10 0 0 :3 1 0 0 0 It 11 0 2 J. 0 0 0 0 1 J.2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 13 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 ,. J." D J. 1 0 0 0 0 i! 15 D 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 lb 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 17 0 i' 0 0 0 0 U " 1<.1 L ,*\It;: 0 1 J. 0 0 0 [J ? ToTAL 0 18 i!D .. 0 20 5 " lOS Tabl. 20.7.31 TURKEY POiNT DATA '( 1')70 TABLE ,,: 30 Fl. WINO SPEED VS. TEMPER\TURE SNE (.OUE 2 WIND SECTC>It: NUHeER of DIFFERE'ICF.
1-----*------. -b.O -5.'1 -1." -0.7 J..& 3.b S.b SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO MPH LESS -1.5 -0.8 1.S 3.5 5.5 10 TOTLL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [I J. 0 0 0 0 J. 0 0 1 i! 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 u 1 0 .. .. 2 0 11 .. 0 0 1. 7 E-O 0 H 5 0 0 1 E-O 1 3 1':1 & 0 0 i! 13 1 1 1 18 ? 0 0 3 10 5 2 1 21. 8 0 :3 ? & .. 1 D 21 OJ 0 J. 1 " 1 0 0 S 10 0 2 3 Ii It 0 0 19 lJ. 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 It J.2 0 " i! :3 0 0 0 ? H 0 It 3 " 0 0 0 OJ H 0 3 3 .1 0 0 0 7 15 0 1 3 0 0 0 I) It lb 0 " 0 a 0 0 0 " 17 0 J. 0 0 0 (] 0 l H. C. {.tv r :c. [I 3 II 0 n 0 u :: TOTo.l 0 i!:l 3(1 bS 3" 8 5 11:::' Table 2D-7. 32 TI.IRKEY POINT OAT" YEAII: lQ?O lieu 2: 311 FT. ",rHO SI'F.lO VS. TE'lPEk;'IURE Giti"OlEIIT sm ( {,uE i: WIND SEC10R: 130 NUHaEil. of HOURLV
_____________
OIFfERE:-ICE (232'-lc')-------------b.O -5.9 -l.t -U.7 1.1. 3.10 5.10 SPEED AIIO 10 TO TO TO TO TO KPH LESS -1.5 -0.8 l.S l.S 5.5 10 T(lT;', 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (l 2 0 0 1 2 J 0 0 f' J 0 l 0 J It 0 1<:' .. 0 2 1 ot U. 2 0 i!C 5 0 1 0 J.J, U 5 0 eEl b 0 l 0 .10 I) 10 i! 32 '7 0 i! t J.J, l.l 1 0 13 8 0 0 lO l8 S i! 0 Ii 0 J 7 2t 1 2 0 :n 10 0 2 I. II 2 0 0 23 U 0 1 1 8 l 0 0 II li! 0 t I. 10 0 l 0 21" 13 0 8 5 10 0 0 0 23 lit 0 2 S 0 0 0 0 ? J.S 0 S It 1 0 0 0 .10 J.& 0 i! & 1 0 0 0 9 11 0 i! 0 1 0 0 0 3 J!j t \lVEi'. D I) 3 1 0 0 0 13 TOT 0 itS &1 .1i!'J 59 2'J i! :325 Table lD-'7. 33 TUrl<f" j poINT !)AU I.P : 1'10 TABLE 2: 10 FT.
SPUD VS. TEHPER"lURE GP.:'O IE 'IT Sr." ( OfJE ? WIND SEC TOll.: 3't0 NUI'aE1t " OF HQURLY OCCUR'tENCE!>
____ -_______ -TE'IP E '1.11. TlIRE DIFfeRENCE
-&.0 -5.9 -1 ... -0.7 1.6 3.& S.b SPEED AND TO TO TO TO TO TO KPH LESS -1.5 -0.8 l.S 3.S S.; 1.0 l:>ll.l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 1 1) 0 0 n 0 D 0 0 2 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 (, :3 0 0 0 i! 1 0 1 .. .. 0 0 0 2 1 i! 0 "I S (J 2 2 It 5 J 2 1B & 0 1 0 & lO 0 2 1'1 '7 0 0 1. II 2 S 3 20 8 0 1 3 U :3 0 1 1'1 II 0 0 2 II 3 0 0 lit 10 0 i!D 1 0 0 30 11 0 i! 3 & 0 0 0 11 12 U L b ? 1 n 0 20 13 0 Ii 12 It 0 0 0 It D 10 0 0 0 0 £\ 15 0 1 5 2 0 n 0 a 11. 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 .. 11 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 Ii. I. 0\,,1: I. ? ::l 0 0 [I l' I! ToT f..l (l )'l U3 at) 10 'J c: i.' Tabl" ZO-7. 34
... TURKEY POINT DATA H"f.: J. 'Pi) lI.CLE 2: ]0 F*. oIIlNO SPUD VS. TEHPERATURE GRAD I fliT SIIE COuF 2 fROM SECTOR; 350 NiJY,Jfit OF OCCURRENCES
-___ -________ TEKPe_AIORE
-&.0 -5.9 -1." -0.1 1.10 3.0 S.L SPEED 1.:"0 TO TO TO TO TO TO MI'ti lESS -1.5 -0.8 1.5 3.5 5.5 10 TeTr.l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (' 1 0 0 0 D D 0 'D .0 2 U 0 0 2 0 0 0 ? 3 0 1 0 ,. 1 0 .I. 7 ... 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 S S 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 10' L 0 0 1 13 1 1 Il 1£> 1 0 2 l " 3 1. 0 1.'1> 8 0 " 8 11 3 0 0 29 9 0 .. 2 ., 2 0 0 15 .LO 0 8 2 15 0 0 0 25 U. 0 It 0 " 0 0 0 10 12 0 It 3 I. 0 0 0 13 13 0 1 1 10 1 0 0 11 1'1-0 It 1 2 D 0 0 ? 15 0 S 2 D 0 (I 0 7 1l> 0 0 11 D 0 0 0 11 17 0 .. 2 0 0 0 0 Eo 111 E; (-VU. 0 2 3 0 U n 0 TOTAL 0 ItS 2i1 Bf! 13 & It lEi! Table 2D*7.35 TURKH pow I Of. I! , [t.;: : l'nO TAIILL : 30 Fl. ,;INO SPHO VS. TEI',PERAT URE (;o(bCIH/T SNE ( ('I-t i' WIND fROM SECTOR: 3&0 IIJ'1aEi.
OF HOUF.lV OtcURRENtES
____ -___
- ____
DIFFERENCE (232*-32')------------
-&.0 ' -5.'3 -1." -0.1 1.& 3.0 S.& SPEED AND TO TO TO 10 TO 10 MPH lESS -1.5 -o.e 1.5 3.5 5.5 10 TOTH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 () 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i! ::I (l 1 ] 2 0 0 f., 3 0 0 1 i! 2 2 r. 7 It 0 1 0 3 5 It 2 15 5 U 3 1 5 3 1. 0 13 & 0 S 0 3 3 0 1 12 7 0 7 't S 5> 0 0 21 B 0 It 2 .. 0 0 D 9 D S 2 It D 0 D 11 10 0 3 0 It 0 0 0 ? 1.1. 0 i! 1 0 0 0 0 :; 1i! 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 13 0 It :::I 2 0 0 0 'l .l't U 3 0 1. 0 Il 0 .. 15 U i! i! 1 0 0 0 5 1& 0 3 (l 2 0 0 0 5 17 0 i! 1 0 0 0 0 " lL t O'Jlr. 0 2 ;I 1 U 0 0 TOTAL 0 Sl 2l ttl 20 7 3 l.'r3 Table 20* 7.36 TlJRr.rY POINT DATA YE AR: l'J70 TABU c: 3[1 Fl. \,;lIW 5Pf:ED VS.
st:r:, CO!)E 2 WINO FROM ALL SECTORS NU:-1lof R OF HOURLY OCCURRENCES
____ -________ TEMPERhTURE oIFFERENCE (232'-32')------------
-&.0
-1." -0.7 1.b 3.& S.b SPEED AND TO TO 10 TO TO TO MPH LESS -1.5 -0.8 1.S 3.5 5.5 10 TOT t,L ----p -----0 0 1 1 11 3 0 1 17 1 0 0 2 7 13 1 1 2'" 2 0 2' 10 £'0 2,. ,. 0 ltl0 3 0 13 27 ,.S 11 It It 0 lb ItO 131 50 lit 3 25'" 5 1 57 127 18 S&S b 1 11C3 215 22 7 Slt1 7 1 128 17'-235 82 ,. £, ... 3 8 0 1&& .2"C3 211 53 (, 3 £'88 0 lC3& 20C3 32 3 a El3S 10 1 2&5 287 21S lB 0 1 787 11 0 1313 1&2 1 1 0 .. os 12 0 218 22b 135 2 1 U saC' 13 J. 285 2Hl 11(' 5 0 0 (J't7 lit-o 1"'8 133 &It-0 0 0 3'tS 15 0 1C30 175 73 0 0 .0 "38 1(, 0 &7 lOB "0 0 0 0 21S 17 0 7"-112 '1-3 0 0 0 221:3 10 & OV[g 0 170 23;? 0 0 0 TOTAL 5 2222 2£,33 22&3 52q lUO 33 7785 Table ZD-7. 37
- 290 0 -0.4178 280 0 -0.2785 Florida Power and Light boundary 260 0 -0.2308 240°-0.2647 230 0-0.2995 220 0 -0.3971 210 0-0.4751 (330 0-0.4790 340 0 -0.4821 Value 350 0 -0.6372 .
360 0 -1.0234 x 10-8 200 0-0.4734 ::;/ 190 0-0.2238 180°-0.7087 170°-0 .7551 THREE YEAR AVERAGE OF ANNUAL DILUTION FACTORS (X/Q) AT THE SITE BOUNDARY FOR 1968, 1969 and 1970 FIG. 2D-1
- * .. , -,-r _ . ..;.-. t -2 m/sec 2-4 m/sec ******* 4** 7 m/sec 7-11 m/scc
- SI.CYP054
'-r" . t:',
c.' "\:) --l) IOt-, ,. ..... " .... " .... , ....... "' '. ...... ' ...... " 0.)"0 ... .......
- '-....;: vOooo *** oooocooo., ** . .. * .'.
... *"'",,,,,
.... ........... . . ....*..*.*.
-.......
............... " , '" ....... .
-
. .. -
- ... -.-.. ------.. ,-0-. '.-.-.1. ___ l_ **. _L--' __ . .l.--1_'.
____ ._.J. .. _'._. t. _ .1_'---'--
__ .t .*. ...--1_. _.1_ .. 1 .. ___ 1 . ___ L_--l .. _.1-.. J __ .l ...... 1 __ I ... . -I 0 I 2 3 t-.T (el FIGUHE 2D-2. Dependence of u A at 18 meters on and wind at lS I1h'krs. t,.T is the tcmperall.lr..:
at GO meters minus 3 (Taken from Ref. 2, Fig. 2-13, Cape Kennedy data.)
E <:) II: !-0
- SlC3020?)
'-,---,-' -.,.---,---,--*-----,-----T---
- ---,.--r--'--
...... --,--*--,---.---,.--.--r
.. -r --', --r----r --.' '-"--' 120
- 100 -.. ' .. . * . . * * .. eo -.. . . ..
- 60 .
- 40 -* . . 20 -o -..*. __ t.... _.1.. ---L--L_ . ___ ---,_ -2 _I * * : * * . . . * . * * . * * " L_-.l_'-__ I ___ I __ 1 o +1 6T (e) * * * * . -* .. * * . . * * * * * * * ... _1 __ .1._ ...... ,, __ l __ t ** _, 1 .*.* , , I .* _.1 .. _ ***.* " .... _L ..... l +2 +3 FlGUHE 2D-3. l\1eclian]
O-millllle wind direction at 18 lllt'lerf; the tClnpl!r;-ltllt*L' bcl"'cen 3 nwlCl'S and GO llll'tcn; for thc 2-1 )Helcr per seeond wind (Taken from Ref. 2, Fig. 2-14, Cape Kennedy data.) * . . .. '