ML20125B646

Circulating Water Sys - Environ Considerations

ML20125B646
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	06/22/1970
From:	Eaton R EATON, R.O., P.E.
To:
Shared Package
ML20125B634	List: ML20125B632 ML20125B640 ML20125B643 ML20125B646 ML20125B648 ML20125B651 ML20125B653 ML20125B657
References
TASK-03-02, TASK-03-03.A, TASK-03-07.B, TASK-03-07.D, TASK-3-2, TASK-3-3.A, TASK-3-7.B, TASK-3-7.D, TASK-RR NUDOCS 7912190671
Download: ML20125B646 (8)

Text

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

eciowic. wanv6AND 2 ossa . .. . c o . . .

MMLiNo Acomcss RICH ARD O. E ATON. P. E. <

r.o.soxsaae CONSULTtNG ENG)NEER ROCMWILLc. W ARYLAND 20090 '

h i

June 22, 1970 l

.1 Il R:

3 Oyster Creek Nuclear Station Unit 1 j

I.

Forked River Nuclear Station Unit 1 Circulating Water System j Environmental Considerati ons,,. _ i nu m i &. p g ,,>< l f t Mr. R. T. Richards, Project Engineer Burns and Roe, Inc.

d(r [

J l

700 Kinderkamack Road _ .

Oradell, New Jersey 07649

Dear Mr. Richards:

f Pursuant to your letter June 5,1970, we have reviewed the tidal flooding characteristics at the new Forked River Site. The enclosed report by my Associate, in which I concur, presents our i]

conclusions in this regard. I J

Please inform me if any additional information is desired. ,

i l-Since , .__

Richard O. Eaton f ROE:w Encl. TEH Report 6/18/70 cc Richard W. Haward, Jr. I Project Manager Jersey Central Power & Light Co. 4 i.

T. E. Haeussner .

l' p

i 8

7912190 6.,,9,1 AMENDMENT 1 (July 15, 1970)

I

ADDENDUM i

GENT:RAL

'this Addendum is supplemental to the report " Determination of Probable Maximum Hurricane Flood Height-Forked River Unit 1 Nuclear Power Plant", dated April 25,1970. The purpose of this addendum is to provide an evaluation of the tidal flood potential

~"- ~

at a plant site located approximately 7,000 feet westward of that '

shown on Exhibit 17 of the above referenced report. .The exact location of the relocated site can be seen on the enclosed Attach-ment, a reproduced portion of U.S.G.S. Quadrangle Sheet - Forked River, N.J.1953. The evaluation postulates an occurrence of a Probable Maximum Hurricane identical in all aspects to and occurring under the same stipulated conditions as those described in the reference report.

TOPOGRAPHIO Ft;ATURES The relocated plant site is to be situated on a plateau within a 30 ft. MSL cround contour, as can be seen on the Attachment. The siteissome2)to3statutemilesinlandfromthewestshoreof Barnegat Bay. It is flanked north and south by the South Branch Forked River and Oyster Creek, respectively.

P.M.H. TIDAL FLOOD POTENTIAL The peak Probable Maximum Hurricane tidal flood level that would

- 90000135 1

AMENDMENT 1 (July 15, 1970) l

be attained along the western shore of Barnegat Bay

, as determined .

in the above referenced report, is 19.5 ft. MsL ng occurri a.t time T+1 hours, or 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> after storm landfall.

Because of the close proximity of the proposed site area to the bay shortor little no reduction in that flood level can be expected to occur s move-in it ment up the Oyster Creek and South Branch Forked River ch the site area. annels to -

Wave action, including wave runup, is not expected to be a problem in the plant site area.

Waves generated in Barnegat Bay were previously calculated to reach a maxi mum of 8 to 8.5 feet in height during the P.M.H. occurrence .

The higher waves would break in moving inland when reaching State Road No 9, the railroad, and other secondary roads which rangeromin10grade ft, f

up to 19 ft. MSL.

Tne lesser waves would break progressively with distance westward as natural ground and river bank el evations north and south of the plant site gradually rise to the 20 ft

. MSL contour (see Attachment for topography).

Ground alope betwe?n the 20 and 30 ft. MSL contours in the site area ranges fromn 50 1 on 20 to 1 o For those flat slopes wave runup resulting from wave h i h e g ts on the order of 3 to b feet would be limited to values ofmately approxi 1 to 2 feet above the peak tidal flood level of 19 5 ft.

. MSL. The 1 maximum flood level including wave runup would therefore b e on the order of 21.5 ft. MSL in the site area. 1 CONCLUSI(ES 4

Based on the above evaluation the undersigned has drawn th i conclusions. e following i

90000)36 2

J

1. That the peak' tidal nood level, including wave runup, that would result from the postulated Probable Maximum Hurricane occurrence would be on the order of 21.5 ft. MSL in the vicinity of the relocated Forked River Unit i nuclear power plant site. f

2. That since the plant site is to be located on natural ground at elevation 3O+ ft. MSL the resultant plant grade would be approximately 9 feet above the marimum probable flood level and therefore the plant site would not be subject to any flooding effects during a Probable Maximum Hurricane occurrence.

Submitted by

~

1 sbPkd.

• Au1 % sLA.

Theodore E. Haeussner Hydraulic Engineer Consultant

- Jacksonville, Florida June 18, 1970 Attachment - Site Map 90000137

(

1 3 AMENDMENT 1 (July 15, 1970)

+ . .:.:... . w l ,t'._..

ee w J.n c...

m

.. - - ..4 u.7 c

y

', s. .

9 Cy b ., M N a* w .. '

• * * *\

.,.6. J

! -'% . ~h Jrnegat

• . ,~ ,, % . ', a mes%,, j*., 3

'i . a ,o tc, j

] g,g,,3l- C l:. t -,f,ID ' Y . b 4:

n -, N_., *i ,- '.,T,.x '.k f

~m Y D T? 9 3' 3"*** ,

0 .'a '. '

. uI a JL . _ , ,

~,

.p - i.

\ .

a .* .. .i ;

- m  ? .s' 1..

f

! ';h , W,( ',' ',,. 'e , I t

j, ._ ,~ - .~ ' %' *, v '..

}\ ,c, 1 A'2 >-d'* .

,,.,s. ',1 .

g 4

-r , .

s -o -

~ ~ '

3y , l ly{*.~.' %

5 . ',f ff- \j _, '*$ 'W-

, L, gs ..

. \* . .-

.. , \~* y a.w- '" - -. -

. . . _rg,+.*/

y .

3-

< WL _ ,, m s_m !,,' 'r = =.*,.. _ j

.--a4 . y --

Y

~

" *~ ~~~ t

.o $~,~~ -m J1

. . . ~ .~'>

~

\ .; _*_

C.

,~ *,67% ,,#C +

rs .s

.',;;*y, ,~) -

.:l t *

~ _^

x.~ . ~~ :+*.. %,*Q .~ '* '-].~ ...=~~. ~"*-.~~ -%. 9

=

r , _. a, -**t .)

~ -

-m.*.**. * . ,, ,4 ~ "*'"

n, _ .

r

^J,,,""" s =

g+ b

.g"1

-[ap%['+,,s,

"". 1,*w. %*_*

. .,,a8'#

• gI I -

[..*

s

's/ 4y~., A yx_ _ g- .

. u-..N,m* '[\ ..' ~,,4' E'.% FQ

..Af

.~

/ w h- r'.~8 .

y's . . gE 7

^

Q f

cm.m- . . . .%. . > r A men N.

am e

\-

e*

.55 M

~~

~

gN$2d

?

r a a.

a*./e n l , so o

s

?,, ,=*

_ . ~@ ,. . ~ .

, . , , " * , , , - . . " . ~.-

_ Jm

• • • 4 dO" +

f _e .= -

y~%,, . . -  :

e

-g"" ee,.

..-.."6__

~ -

g . ,,,*** ,,*(6

• q

=~ d

. ' , , . + - -y . e- J"'"2p 1 l- - 5 f..,* Q i

~*

9: ._.$.;?~h.~.'W:f'~~lc -

l "' ,. . , "**? = 5

./

~~_1- , . , .j ,,

9ooooaB yQff;WXf,-[ <. Q ..

~ ....s

---.. ,s. -

\ ., . ., :c. . '. ,

4 '

%, *,#-*** =Q 9 6*

'~ *

, .:. .. m 9: .. $

' ./ _. ~ . -

~_

= --e oa.., ~ :-

) -a ,.M J /\f Jg

~

.'.2 _,_ i

s'  ! ~

WU n

.e . f.

A $

o .... , .. . .. u

.- -.a .- , .

4z u,.

g^.+..

.i.. <

+4 y. .%. , a. .. , ve  :..M' 'gl'.s,i9,s. . , &.y 6~ n . . . ..~, 7 - -

a' N,. ,.v..V  : -

j f 4 . p.ORhED RIVER. N. J' -

~

e M"8t' M N. . h,% m n.

. \'y .A N..h

• M.

~

h ...

, s', '

~

N 3 94 % v,7.2 , ., ~ [ '~-, ,

., k, ,38'. , . /. IQ . .. ..

,3 ; . 1953 . - -- g

, p f_

, r.n ). . .. ./[.Q.

. .h* -V W~ . / ' .,g %,,,~ .

. ' 'IAM'.~. IJ~ Z * ' -

i ' l

.u ** . . .s Y-

.A : g men #, ,

N Q h . d . L .11 1: v

• Y ' , .*W m

,.,~ F.\ it hC . . .

, *'g..,..\-uLo1Le y.=a,i n

~

\ . i. .*\ -'b.x- o g

. . ., sy jf.

f'o, 'N7%,, .__+. :,,.

. } N;s. **..,, . _ C 4__r,,-

i 7 , y # .) +.'# - -

N '

g /h'n

,. 1 .

,A '\*.

p v z,/ :f Nx.- .".

3' .

- . w n e, - t j

. ,%. Y. *.. e.. . .c.I

- ~.-.~ --_.., . %.

m. .

• . t{

'.,q.,

s'H S. . 7- .

3

.,.., e j e

,g, w.,, . .

4

. + _ - - .- ~* *

.s

e. .p- 3,e - .

. - ,u- r,-

n ~ ~ .~, *  ;. - *% ,,

. . ,e

.~ ~

,s . . ,

y" ,,

, , , ,% ~ .

c.. -. .

.~.  ;  % . . ~. <. . ~ , .' . . %.,,. 'a " .

. . s' .  %~f,o,.y.( v\ i- 's, . .

. q

'. <- - 6,' ' '.\.

6

• Q'*, K*

• n

,. .. o s ,

/ -.- .f ~_n . *;; . e- - ,s A.,po,, ,- - . ,

%c _.s.-

e *../

- ,- t,/ ,

4

_, { *

., } * * - %,,  %

"'% .* . - ~, , 4 ~ , " . ,*s s l .e' '**';. ,- ,,,,L.,..

g

~

-.~....

..%=.

.+,.,. .-

. .a p. ) i.

,_ . .. . . , - _/7,. s. .

. ~ . . - .&,. .

~ n -

~ f.

4 ._ g '( ,* *

,N _ f. } . 'N[I' .

~

,'. ] -u 'g.c.nn----,.,- =" ' ,,

,i.nu g1 ;. _-- v. m.

5 y: .. p m  ;-

- -L :jS ~

.ypO^^" ,Qz ,. ~ ~ ~

my s- c_u= ..=E.. .'-..~ . J%.:g%.9'd'.%.u.p;*'y r

.. _ '~~.. . ,- w

,i

<O_- = - N.y Q p;. . -

, ,% : 1 v.

~ *

+*

• ' ?Y < / .  ; .

~

• • ~ n+ ~+ *: ..~ A ,._

-=

~

~ , -.

- -- ..-_ ' ~ **

h t .'.

~ . - . ~

-r

,,.~% .y }a,w;, /

_ ~ ' ' * ~~_~__*g~<

A. 1

~

~

g5 -.. _ w A._ n.,

y / . ~ -.~.. -*s~21 .

-e-- ~o.

A.

.y

._+~+ -

r. .- s/ , . ,.,,

• l****+. .2.e.*+ +

4* ~

_ e, s -.

i D \. ," *

, -,'d -'" _%~ **' .""4 +-"* _/ p . ~

, j

. 4 4 ..

."*'4_**." """w'C F, ,~ l.***~~

j*[)p hM . ~ .* ,. e *-4. g  !

. ~~ l"*'^ '-' _ -~ ' + ~* ~ Y b"'-

L7 o' *

• gw .3 18ts) .,

,+.g_- * .e. _* / g

/\-

.:,.>,,,e' -' .

/_ . p_.e -

~

j

\ - Y ~ ' %'-= *

.. \ % '*' J **' ,

~ ' ~ " '

-f_~N?p

b. -

f (. A D '7'- Y --

I mm{~'~. -- .- . _

,--J-*.-

7 'g,,;,.,, _'; eaeri 's P,er 3

P

, 'J,

"',,, f , - ,; 'N g etisht

_.- s .s'~~ '~ -

,~-/- - . .  %.

• ~

7 * * - **. J

• _, ' ' ,%

-.-D*.hk , .j ' . ,,., e.-

s

• 3:~.;

~\ J&

] 4.. Qs.g

. Tq

~

')-

.x h,1 I9

s. - e..:-. f.!.%pb. m-M: ; .s: '.-I e

• . -J- qm

-- -;'~

.. ~- e_ sa, u,,

N. s -i

+

b, q ,. . . . . , _ _

+-. _

-f . ' NN .1/n0 Hasto,- 1 M lO 4 9 4 "* ,9 .be

"' l** . - -

k

• I ~".*~-= .b' ' ' ~.

ih. . -

• 900 @ M j K.. Plt

, t .g 4 *~*+' *~ -"*

~

. j' -

% w g# *

~ Q. l 2.gy Yts-=;}

~~ & f : .* l,q . - .

Cttb. . -

A,sf er

=

,- ,~

. _ \. s .*'NJ s

u,rd..

y-~ + \ -

. . . . + r- _-

.,. . ~

• .. < c; _ . .

s f' Q.38}

• 4 BM gh

• r* .

f

• r",6 K,.a~~.~ 1

+ -

• y.a

• - ougm i j

8 + "' W- *% g ,r fa.* m.

=+-~ ~ -*{ t North Harsor 0 -------._ _ Rszu-----

--- . ;=

-' ' %g.

q., ..is - D':"J.' i 'g Q: *',-. pr c,g , t P ore~t %%~iM '

"'*M _

s~w

1 P +

.v u , d l

,t .

i -

4 4

4 REPORT-PROBABLE MAXIMW.' HURRICANE FLOOD ANALYSIS OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR UNIT NO.1 OYSTER CREEK,NEW-JERSEY FOR JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LICKr COMPANY.

March 2,1972~

90000140 4

I; fs b

4 v

il

'l

,\

l ll 1

l,

'l U

t L'

EO.(2) a 1 '

2455-005-10 r

.ny-(3);

E

~

iotia t.oucALs w:.y - r:6te o a ,se nos

. PO11M AC; MAftVLA840 20054 anta goog mot

, RICH A RD O. EATON. P. E.

CONSULTING ENCINEER .

March 10, 1972 Mr. Philip Sherlock .

Dames & Moore -

14 Commerce Drive.

Cranford, N. J. 07016

Dear Mr. Sherlock:

I have reviewed the report transmitted with your letter March 2,1972, addre's sed to GPU Service Corporation re " Probable Maximum Flood Analysis, ,

Oystar Creek Nuclear Unit No.1". My comments follow:

a. Maximum Storm Surge Still Water Level. I am in accord with the analysis of maximum still water of +22' MSL at th$ west-ern shore of Barnegat Bay as derived by AEC Consultants with j the exception that I know of no justification for the facter [

of 1.1' ascribed as " initial tidal rise". Otherwise the i I. analysis meets current AEC criteria for maximizing all of B the variables, assuming simultaneous occurrence which is f truly a fantastically remote occurrence. The addition of 1.1' to values thus derived ascribed to " initial rise" is, l t

in my opinion, completely unsupported by any technical  ;

evaluation of which I am aware. In my judgment, the maxi- 1 mum still water level on the west side of Barnegat Bay can-not exceed +21' MSL by the most extreme logical reasoning.

b_. Effect of Waves at the Plant Site. With respect to wave runup it is quite obvious that this will be governed pri-marily by topography between the western shore of Barnegat Bay and the plant site. A prime f actor in this respect is the j stabilized " Highway 9", at elevation 18' to 19 ' MSL, which traverses the land between the bay and the plant site. While detailed topography has not been presented it is apparent by inspection that the highway grade is only slightly higher than the adjacent terrain. Along the gently sloping gradient between Highway 9 and the plant site, while somewhat inadequately i portrayed on Plate 10 but obvious from personal inspection, the wave heights of 3' to 4' passing over the highway embankment will progressively break and reform as the plant is approached.

Runup of I' above maximum SWL is considered to be a conservative estimate as expressed in relation to maximum SWL. This would result in no overtopping at plant grade of +23' MSL and free-board of l' for my preferred elevation of 21' for maximum SWL.

~

90000141 4 i- . - < . . .. .

s

- Mr. Philip Sherlock March 10, 1972  :

Dames & Moore Excavated ~ areas for intake' and discharge canals will

• present 'no hazard insofar as runup'is concerned because of their alignment.

Summarizing, I believe that the report maximizes each parameter re-lating to' total flooding and adds an unsupported factor of 1.1' des.cribed as " initial rise". The result, in my judgment, represents a maximum possible condition plus a factor' of safety of at least l'. Probability of ' occurrence is so remote as to be almost inconceivable. Wave runup..

when governed by topography .as in this case, is quite accurately deter-minable. . Effects of wave stresses, either impact or uplif t.. become nominal in a site of this character. I therefore regard the results of our study to be ultra-conservative.

Sincere 1 eurs,

/

Richard O. Eaton Consulting Engineer ROE:w 90000142 Sherlock, D&M, 3/10/72

_ -