1

AEC DISTRIBUTION FOR PART 50 DOCXET MATE 3IAL'

(TEMPORARY FORX) CONTROL Nos 2118 |

-,.,

-

FIT.?TAOM: DATE OF DOC: DATE EC'D LTR MEMO RPr Of.-Zit iFlorida Power Corporation

St. Petersburg, Flroida 33733J. T. F*ers 9-28-73 k-2-73 X

TO: ORIG CC 02iER SENT AEC PDR XSENE I.,0 CAL PLR XMr. Dwoun.e 1

CLASS: Q/ PROP INFO INPUT NO CYS REC'D DOC;;ZT NO:

1 50-302~

DESCRIP2 ION: ENCLOSUES:Ltr re their 3-22-73 ltr.... furnishing suppl -

info.to their 3-22-73 ltr regarding hurricaneprotection for.the Crytsal River Nuclear Plan ;

during a proble maxin:um hurricane (PIE) . . . . . . - -,

D O I C" . ,''" 0V8# '

NOTE: DIST St.E AS 3-22-73 LTR '-

fiV t.t.m r n ~ e n ~PLANT NAES: Crystal River '-

FOR ACTIO:i/I:i70?O*ATION h-9-79 ABBUTLER (L) /SCHWENur.at(L) ZIEMANN(L) YOUNGELOOD(E)W/ Copies W/ 2 Copies W/ Copies W/ CopiesCLARK (L) STOLZ(L) ROUSE (FM) REGAN(E)W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies30LLER(L) VASSALLO(L) DICKER (E)W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ CopiesKNIEL(L) SCHEMEL(L) KNIGHTON(E)W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies

Irut. atrial DISTRIBUTION- ~

(# aEC rmREG FILE TECH REVIEW DENTON F&M WADE E

y EENDRIE GRIMES SMILEY BROWN Ey OGC, R00f4 P-506A ,.SCHROEDER GAMMILL NUSSBAUMER G. WILLIA!G EyMUNTZING/ STAFF y MACCARY KASTNER / HEPPARD ES7 CASE eKNIGHT(2) BALLGD LIC ASST.

~

/ GIAMBUSSO ,PAWLICKI SPANGLER SERVICE 'L A[T IND,

BOYD, y SHAO WIISON L BRAITMANV. MOORE-L(BiR) y STELLO ENVIRO y GOULBOURNE L SALTZMAN

y DEYOUNG-L(PWR) HOUSTON p. MULLER SMITH LySKOVHOLT-L NOVACK DICKER GEARIN L PINGyP. COLLIIG ,ROSS KNIGHTON DIGGS L MCDONALD

'

,IPPOLITO YOUNGBLOOD TEETS L DUBEREG OPR - ,,.TEDESCO A REGAN LEE L

y FILE & REGION (2) yIONG v PROI LEADER MAIGRET L I?fFOMORRIS v LAINAS snTs SHAFER F&M C. MILESSTEELE vBEIRROYA HARLESS -

_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _

t y VOLIFIR i,brwvMni DTs'T9Twmon -~~

~~

v 1-LOCAL PDR c- mtM Pdver. Fla,v l-DTIE(ABERIRTHY)~ AI))(2)(p);NATICIRL IAB'S p-- 1-FDR-SAN /LA/NYyl-NSIC(BUCHANAN) 1-R. CARROLL- C, GT-E227 1- GERALD T ETOUCHEv4.-ASLB-YORE / N 1- R. CATLIN,E-256-GT BROCKHAVEN NAT. LAB

WOOD 0QGD/H ST. 1- CONSULTANTiS 1-AGMED(WALTER KOESTER,A6-CYS ACFS NWTg SENT TO LIC ASST gg4! ARK /BLUME/AGABIAN RM C-427, GT)GOULBOURIE1- GERLAD ULRIKSON....ORNL l- RD. . .MUTIER. . .$-309GT

80 0-3 20 0 7 f0f

.

- ~

|$c0c$?%5*Ydi..

eOG(h'GCT% G4,.si:%?E4Cf*4 9 ec

Wu!atoryMM E ;' le C ~MT WPNM March 28, 1973m "> " ' "

d ccenTro

L|b,C.L-cum '-

I \ N ' N (,,gp . . . ~ .,3

Mr. R. C. DeYoung.~d N J[

'

' 9'" "'~

Assistant Director for 5.9N A J D . _i' P''

Pressurized Water Reacto ' E6YS$., 9 ? ! g F u- [ g .~..'' " "i

-: .i~ Directorate of Licensing . NU.S. Atomic Energy Commission * , 4'i u f- 'u g-

'^

.O 'Washington, D.C. 20545 ' .::'>

Subject: Florida Power Corporation 'W^N c- 72 '.

Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant QfDocket No. 50-302

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

This letter is a supplement to our letter of March 22, 1973, regardinghurricane protection for the Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plantduring a probable maximum hurricane (PMH). Since the March 22 sub-mittal date, information exchanges have continued between your staff,our consultant (Dames & Moore), and Florida Power. It is necessarythat we advise you of delays beyond May 22, 1973, in submittal of ourresponse to the hurricane questions in your letter of March 12, 1973.The items preventing us from vaeting the May 22, 1973 schedule are:

1. Previous schedule provided us by your staff for releaseof hurricane data in digitized form was as follows:

a. Hurricane Carla (1961) - already released.b. October 3,1949 hurricane - April 6,1973.

c. Hurricane Ione (1955) - April 6,1973d. Hurricane Camille (1969) - already released

It is now discovered through receipt of the Hurricane Carla data andcommunication today with your staff, that the data in items a, b, andc above are not available in digitized form. Our assessment of scheduleindicates an approximate six (6) week delay in schedule to digitize thedata. As we understand from your staff, AEC and CERC will now proceedin the immediate future to digitize this same data for use in theAEC-CERC model runs necessary for conclusions to be reached.

- 1Ib

General Office 320i Tnety-fourtn street soutn . P.O Box 14042 st. Petersburg. Flonca 33733 813-866-5151

0

.-

Mr. R.,C. DeYoung -2- March 28, 1973

2. We are concerned about the apparent continuing. uncertaintyin your staff's status reports on calibration of modelsfrom these several hurricane data. Enclosure (1) of yourMarch 12, 1973, letter states in the first paragraph,"We and our consultant believe that a stillwater levelof 33.4 ft. MLW (compared to your estimate of 29.6 ft. MLW).

should be adopted for the site, unless the informationrequested below relating to your model proves conclusively-

that it is at'least as capable of reproducing historicalhurricane surge hydrograp'hs as our model." This. impliesthat the hurricane data had aTready been necessarilydigitized for your model runs. Had the digitized data-

been available, and runs completed, as earlier indicatedverbally by your staff, we could have met the submittaldate of May 11, 1973, as requested in your March 12, 1973,"

letter.

We have analyzed the work requirements for preparation of the responseto your March 12, 1973, letter based on our very latest communications.As stated above, a six (6) week schedule penalty has resulted from ourmisunderstanding about the form of the hurricane dita. As a result,we expect to docket our response to your March 12 letter on July 7,1973. This is, of course, contingent on receipt of the final exchange

. of hurricane data soon after April 6,1973, from your staff and yourresponse in the next several days to the Dames and Moore letter tele-copied to your staff March 23,1973 (copy attached), requestingclarification of the Hurricane Camille data.

We continue to appreciate the concerned attitude of your staff in re-solving the Crystal River hurricane surge question. We look forwardto a prompt resolution in early July to everyone's satisfaction.

Very truly yours,

.

J. T. RodgeAssistant Vice President

JTR/iwAttachment.

.

G

w

4 & .a c~ 7 & /m , ha-os-e7.

,, __,

-.

- C'JESTIONS CCMCERNIN3 CERC'S DIGITIZED DATA FOR CAMILLE M * * '. < . , - |:.e -

.

v /u., ; ,t 3/n /n M a+ i,

_ }_ JKg( _-,

w~ ;

Transmitted herewith is our computer output listing the data furnished to us |~

.

by CERC for llurricane Camille. This output- represents the basic data of the storm

which may be easily obtained from'the information furnished us. The explanation

of the output is included on the output sheetr..

Referring to CERC's program listing (statement 300 + 3), the digitized storm''

~ '

data should have the following format:'

:

WX(LL+1) ,WY.(LL) ,hNY(LL+1) ,WY (LL) , S A(H) , SP (LL+1) , SP (LL) ,UK(LL)

l where LL refers to the reach number end. varies from 1 to LM - 1.*'

.

2WX = W cos O (statement 150 + 1)

2WY = U sin 9 (statecent 150 + 2)-

0 = Wind vector angle position counter-clockwise from positive

x-axic

SA = Astronomical tide (assumed constant for Camille)

SP = Inverse pressure effect, ft. (ctatement 130 - 2)

( end UK = Wind stress' coefficient (statement 160-2)

It is clear that the wind velocity and the angle (Theta) may be obtained. .-

.

from the first four data entries of the input cards. Also, since PN, PO and R

are known from other input data (reed ctatement 23 + 1), the parameter RHO may

be calculated using the listed SP data. The listed values of UK are thus

redundant in that this parameter is only a function of the uind velocity (see

statenent 160 --2). Hence the uind velocity for the first 13 reaches may also

'

.

e$

e

#

e e,

m

__

.

.Pr.g2 2

.

. -

-(be calculated from the listed UK values. -For'the;following questions please

refer to the attached output sheets (the validity of our conversion program

has been checked by hand calculations of the furnished digitized data)..

1. Refer to the first 6 time step outputs. It appears that.the wind

^

velocity calculated using UK(LL) is not synchronized with the

velocity obtained using WWX(LL) and WWY(LL) . This discrepancy. is

apparently explained if the vind strecs coefficient format was-7.

really UK(LL + 1).

('2. The . wind velocity distribution along the traverse should have one

of the following trends depending on the relative position of the,

hurricane: (a) monitonically decrease in magnitude, (b) monitonically

increase and then decrease in magnitude or-(c) moniconically increase;

in magnitude. Reference to 'the output shous this to be the case

except for the first 1.5 hour titt.e ctep. Here the U output is

erratic tihile the UK output follows the predicted trend. Also, in

{, this case, as well.as in th'e case of the third 1.5 hour step, there

is no apparent correlation.between the UK and U output, although

(presumably) the wind stress coefficient was obtained from the wind ~

,

velocity'of the storm. Please explain this and the fact that this

data is self-inconsistant. I expect that the original raw data was

only available in 3 hour steps'and someone did some wild interpolation,-

thus explaining the inaccu' racy of the first' and" third 1.5 hour data..

.

9 e g'

''e

. . , - -'

'

.

+.

Page 3 *

.-

.

3. The maximum indicated wind velocity is 127.8 mph corresponding with'

other. input data (read statement 16). Henceitwouldappearth$t

the track of Camille relative to the traverse line should be such

that the minimum radial distance, RHO, would be sl4.ghtly less, or.

at.most equal to the radius of maximum winds R. Reference t,o the

, output data reyeals that the' minimum value of RHO is about 23 nautical

miles, whereas R is given as 14 nautical miles. This discrepancy is,

. possible in one of the following ways: ' (a) the digitized values cf. .

SP are too small or (b) the maximu= wind velocity of Camille is,. , ,

f .

actually greater than 127.8 mph. However, using thIe furnished

latitude (30 N) and the supplied meteorological data in accordance

with appropriate equations listed in HUR 7-97 it would appear that if

Camille were assumed to be a PMH (cs far as the K constant -is concerned)(

then the maximum wind velocity should be about 124 mph. Thus it- appears

more likely that the SP values are too small. Please explain this

issue.

([ Finally, we would,like a verification that the referenced digitized data for

Canille (in the exact form sent to us) was used in CERC's calibration of their,

'

program, that no observed hydrograph exists for any station on the specified~

traverse and that only peak surge was used for calibration. Further, we would

like a stipulation of the value used in CERC's calibration of the peak surge and

its time of occurrence relative to time lis,ted in the Camille data..

Regards.

s./ Ajf //W x,.sg/_

.

, j '*. ffe.

/ James A. Hendrickson'

/ Dames & Moore'

i

! .

~

wh% m

.

: ......m. .. . . . . . . - . . . , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .

-..~

~

900~ 903-27 FLORIDA POWER HURRIC ANE C Af'" LE STORM INPUT "CCONSTRUCTED 031"'3 ,

O.-

S *. = 13|*''

L:4 = 14_ P:h_e 23.92

PO = 26.73 .

114.00R =

I

l

TIME STEP RE ACH f4 UMBER-

,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |'

*UK 35.9 14.2 32 9 31.3 30 1 28.9 27.7 26.0 22.3 20.0 10.3 16.0 16 0 |

I'U 37 0 35.9___.34.4 33.0 _31.'5 30.2 29.0 27.9._ 26.0_.22.5. 20.0 _18.i _17.0._14.9 '

6.0 THETA U6.0' 74.6 62.4 53.0 45.0 38.0 32.0 29.8 27.6 ,26.0 25.9 25.9 26.0 26.1|RHU 142.6 147.1 151.9 157.1 162 6 162.6 166.4 174.7 174.7 174.7 181.4 101.4 181.4 181.4.

]UK 49.2 47.5 45.8 43.1 39.3 34.5 31.8 28 9 26.0 24.6 24.2 23'.3 22.9

EU 50. 5 ._49. 5 6 7. 3_4 5.9 43. 4 _3 9. 5 _34. 5.J 2 0 M. O. 2 6.0 "'2 4. E_ 24. 2. 2 3 4._._23. 0

6.0 THETA 105.0 104.H 104.4 102.2 97.5 94.0 94.0 93.9 95 1 94.6 94.9 94.9' 94.9 95.5 .

RHO 99.9 103.5,103.5 114.0 117.0 123.4 126.8 130.4 134.3 134.3 138.3 130.3 138 3 133.3 j

UK e4.2 61.6 56.5 57.3 55.6 53.5 52.5 51.6 49.2 46.6 45.0 43.9 41.3 |'

U 67. 5 64.7_ 6L.a__59.0._57.5 55.E__54.0.__52.9. 51.B 49.i_.46.9__45.B _43.9 _41.4O . 0' T4WTA 122 4 126 2 129.0 130.0 129.9 131.0 132.9 133.0 131.5 128.1 125.9 124.9 123 5 121.9

RHU 65.4 69.9 73.5 79.0 483.7 ec.0 94.6 96.7 98.9 101.1 103.5 103.5 103 5 103 5 ,*

UK 83.1 73.0 7 4. '$ 70.9 67.8 64.9 63.5 62.2 60.9 59.1 57 9 55.6 51.1 j'

'1 CL 0._.c3.3__78 % 7.4. 7 _.21. 1_6S. 0 64.9_63. 8 62 L_ 61.5 59. 4J7.9 5 6.0_.51.4o

60 THETA 145.9 141.0 135.9 133.0 130.0 127.9 125.9 123 9 121 9 119.9 118.9 117.9 117,4 116.9 +

RHO 31. 9 36.4 40.6 45.1 50.5 56.3 60.6 63.4 65.4 67.6 68.7 69 9 69.9 69.9 |-

UK 110.7 102.4 93.8 n6.4 81.0 75.2 72.6 70.1 66.3 63.5 61 6 59 7 55.6 ';* i 3 .

1

U 119.4 111.9_102.7 _94.0 _ 86.9 _.80.9 _75.4 72.7.__70 7_ 66.5 63.7 _61 7 59.8 56.n _;'

3.0 THETA 107.4 107.0 108.7 121.0 122.8 122.5 123.5 123.5 123.4 123.4 123.5 123.4 123.5 123.5RHO 35.6 41 0 49.2 58.8 60.7 .79.0 87.0 92.6. 96.7 101.1 103.3 103 5 105.9 105.9 |-

,

UK 120.4 127.0 127.0 113.4 107 2 96.5 92.5 U7.5 84.1 82.0 79.9* 75.2 60.6 j

-'J - 115.0.121.7.127.7_12.7.8 110.6.107Ji_97.2 _92.4_ 00.4 .84.9 82.2 80.0._75.9__69.3

3.0 TH6TA' 26.9 21.4 36.5 74.4 103.4 98.9 01.0 79.2 98.5 110.0 111.9 112.4 112.4 112.4 i'

RHO 24.9 22.9 23.9 29.3 36.0 43.5 53.3 $7.9 62.4 67.6 69 9 71.0 72 3 72.3 j.

_.:

UK 97.9 109.0 110.7 112.6 112.6 110.7 107.2 104.0 100.9 97.9 95.1 92.5 85.2 i'

- !U-- C. 4_9 7.9- 100. 2_u 9. 5_7 0. 3._7 8. 0_9 9. 6_9 9. 0 9 4. 5 9 0. 9_9 0 0 9 3 7 9 4. 3__.9 2. 0

)( 1.5 THETA 9.0 5.5 15.9 40 7 47.3 26.4 29.8 25.3 35.9 45.8 53.9 68.0 02.6 96.1 :

,RHO 37.2 33.2. 31.6 32.2 32.9 32 2 34.9 38.0 2.5 43.0 45.1 46.2 47.4 48.6

'

UK 79.9 86.4 96.5 109.0 118.4 124.7 127.0 124.7 120.4 118.4 116.4 114.4 110.7 -

|.

l

|-.., . ..

U 76.9 00.0 a6.5 96.9 109.0 110.8 125.5 126.9 126.0 121.9 119.0 116.9 114.5 111.4-- O 1. - 1HE14 326.0 325.9 325.s 32e.0 -21.2 334.5 357. s 0 0 10.0 20.s 30.0 49.9 70.0 90.0 .

* [.y ..

Rim 63 A_.52_.5._. 4 3 5_ _3 5 W 19 3 _. 2 k. 9_2 h . E_2.7 0_._2 el . 2__J C 3 2 2___3.3,S_3 4 6__U,6*

. ,. ' -ux 65.6 60.6 75.2 86.4 96.5 104.0 107.2 107.2 100.9 107.2 107.2*105.6 105.6~

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

U. 66.6 6H.7 72.9 t10.7 91.2 100.6 100.3 110.3 109 5 109.2 107.0 103 0 97.0. _ _09.4 ,

X-1.5 THETA 324.9 323.4 325.9 330.6 334.0 341.0 35T.9 359.3 5.9 11.9 17.5 29.0 40.1 50.9 L g

rtW1 7 7. 6J '|' . .A 4. 9J 9. 2_41. 5 _ 3 6. 0__3 3 9___14. 6 _3 4.4 31.9 _3 4 2 3 4. 6._3 h t 6_ _3 3 9 6 i

' ~

\-UK 55.1 55.6 60.9 70/9 79.9 ft7. $ 89.9 92.5 96.5 97.9 97.'9 99.4 99.4

U 54.5 S5.3 56.0 61.1 70.9 80.1 07.9 90.8 90.8 96.8 98 0 98.9 99.5 100.4 *

!'l.5 i t!F. r A 322.9 31u.0 325.9 342.2 350.0 355.4 358.0 357.9 357 9 358.9 358.9 358.9 358.9 0.0'

?RW1 10.1.1 'M . 6_.0 3.1. 7 4. 0_6 h.5._ 57. 9_._i9. 2 _.6 6. 2._A 3 5._ 3 0. tL.3 6. 6 _3 5.h _J 4. 6_3 3 5

U4 41 0 41.7 42.4 43.9 45.0 50.6 55 1 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 5 T . 3' t.

f.U 40.7 41.1 41.9 42.5 43.9 45.9 50.9 55.1 57.4 5,7 . 4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 ;'

6.0 7HETA 342 0 341 9 342.3 342.7 342.8 343.0 344.8 344.9 344.3 344.0 344.0 344.0 344.0 345 9W1 94.6.___90.7._ li5.3__uc.5 76.2 _71.0_ 66.5 63.4_ 61.5 50 8__57. 9_._S7. 1,. 56.3 _56.3

U6 31.8 33.9 34.2 33.7 32.9 34.5 36.8 40.3 4 4 . ~. 45.4 45.4 45.4 45.4|

'

'

| U 29.5 32.0 33.9 34.5 33.9 32.9 34.7 36.9 4J.4 44.5 45.4 45.5 45.5 45.5 1-' 6.0 THETA 351.0 3';2 3 353 3 353.9 354.0 353.9 354.0 354.2 334.2 354.4 354.3 354.5 354.5 354.5 ;

- 8H' 133.3_134.3._130.4.1.23.4 120 1_.114.0.108.5_105.9 '.05.9._103.5_101 1_101.11 101.1 _98.1.

UK 26.0 26.0 27.7 20.0 28.7 28.7 20.7 28.7 20.7 28.7 28.7 28.7 28.7 .

,

U 25.5 25.9 26.9 27.8 28.1 28.7 28.8 26.7 20.8 28.8 20.0 28.8 28.0 28.8|.

6.0 THETA' 357.9 290.4 213.4 120.9 44.4 6.9 7.2 7.4 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 ,

RHQ 17 4.1 168. 4._16 2. A.1 S 7.1_151.S 147.1_1.4 2. 6 13 a. 3_.13 8. 3_.13 8.3._13.4. 3_13 0.1_.13 4. 3 13 6. 3 ,

.f

*4

I I.ECI'ND | fI

Time-Step There- are 13- t ime-steps-in- thiis-data.-The-lef t-hand-column-liste-them. ''

,

ineach Number - The number of stations along the traverse line. This data includes 14 reaches. All data is j *

-listed for each reach at each-time step.-The-deep -water-station-corresponds-to-Reach-Hunber-1. -

* Hence data corresponding to stations progressively closer to shore read from 1 cit to right. 5

'

I.l'K --Wind velocity in-m.p.hv- obtained-from digitised-wind-stress-coef ficient-using-form-given-in ,

latest CERC listing (changes to May 1972 program). !

. . .'

*

U - tind velocity-in m.p.hc obtained from -digitized-wind-coniponent-data-(wind-velocity-timesx-component wind velocity and wind velocity times y-component wind velocity)

THETA- --- Angle-in degrees- of-wind-vector-(positive-counter-clockwise-f rom positiven-axis)-obtained [,' fron digitized wind component data. |

1

PJIC Distance of storm center-to-traverse station-(naut. mi.) obtained-froar-digitized-inverse .

. pressure setup data using relationship given in latest CERC listing.

LM;-mf Number of rencher and-time steps respectively-

. |

,

. PN, PO - Asymptotic and central pressure (inches Hp) respectively .

R - Radius of maximum winds (naut, siles)I-

l'Z, If, THETA, RHO aro lino listed respectively ,for each timo step. j',4, ,