NUREG/CR-0383
TORNADO DAMAGE AT THE GRAND GULF, MISSISSIPPI NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITE: AERIAL AND GROUND SURVEYS
T. T. Fujita* J. R. Mcdonald ** The University of Chicago * Texas Tech University **
Prepared for U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission s0011007777 IJOTICE
This report was prepared as an account of work sponscred by the United States Government fleither the United States nor the United States tJuclear Regulatory Commission, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subecntractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, nor assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, pro- duct or process disclosed, nor represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
Available from National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 Price: Printed Copy $5.25 ; Microfiche $3.00
The price of this document for requesters outside of the North American Continent can be obtained from the National Technical Information Service. NUREG/CR-0383 RB
TORNADO DAMAGE AT THE GRAND GULF, MISSISSIPPI NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITE: AERIAL AND GROUND SURVEYS
T. T. Fujita* J. R. Mcdonald * *
Manuscript Completed: May 1978 Date Published: September 1978
Institute of Disaster Research'* Texas Tech University P. O. Box 4089 Lubbock,TX 79409
Department of the Geophysical Sciences * The University of Chicago 5734 South Ellis Avenue Chicago,IL 60637
Division of Reactor Safety Research Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Under Contract No. NRC-04-74-239 N RC-04-76-345 FOREWORD A tornado struck the Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Generating Station, Port Gibson, Mississippi, around 11:30 p.m. on April 17, 1978. Upon learning of the incident the next morning and at the suggestion of Robert F. Abbey, Jr. of the Site Safety Research Branch, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, ;'.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, storm damage investigators from the University of Chicago and Texas Tech University were dispatched to survey the damage.
Dr. T. Theodore Fujita, Department of Geophysical Sciences, Ur.iver- sity of Chicago, surveyed and mapped the damage path from the air; Dr. James R. Mcdonald, Institute for Disaster Research, Texas Tech University, surveyed the damage at the plant site from ground level. Other investigators from USNRC headquarters and Region II, Carolina Power and Light, and Bechtel Power Corporation were also on the scene.
Dr. Fujita's report gives the meteorological situation that produced the Grand Gulf tornado and the nine others that occurred in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi on the night of April 17 and the early morning hours of April 18, 1978. The report contains aerial surveys of the entire damage path and detailed surveys of damage of the plant site itself.
Dr. Mcdonald's repcrt presents an engineering evaluation of the damage at the plant. It is based primarily on information gained from the detailed ground survey.
Robert F. Abbey, Jr., is the project director for both the University of Chicago (Contract No. NRC-04-74-239) and the Texas Tech University (Contract No. NRC-04-76-345) research contracts.
ii TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. AERIAL SURVEY by T. T. Fujita
INTRODUCTION 1
1. Ten Tornadoes on April 17-18, 1978 2
2. The Grand Gulf Tornado 4
3. Airflow in and Around the Plant Site 6
4. Examples of Aerial Photographs 9
II. GROUND SURVEY by J. R. Mcdonald
INTRODUCTION 20
5. Assessment of Damage 22
6. Windspeed Estimate 31
7. Windborne Missile Behavior 35
8. Conclusions 37
References 39
iii TORNADO DAMAGE AT THE GRAND GULF, MISSISSIPPI NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITE
AERIAL SURVEY
T. Theodore Fujita Department of the Geophysical Sciences The University of Chicago 5734 South Ellis Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60637
iv INTRODUCTION
Severe storm activity started late in the afternoon on April 17, 1978 ended with an outbreak of tornadoes in the areas of 3 states, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Mississippi was hit hardest, suffering from a number of tornadoes between 11 PM of the 17th and 3 AM the next morning. One of the tornadoes went through the Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Plant (under construction) shortly after 11 PM. Tirce meteorologists from the University of Chicago performed an aerial survey and mapping of the storm-affected areas. Tornadoes surveyed by each of the meteorologists are as follows:
-- Grand Gulf F3 Tornado and Utica College F3 Tornado /F 1 Downburst (surveyed on April 19-20) by FUJITA T. Theodore
-- Smitfulale F 2 Tornado, Ruth F0 Tornado, Forest Grove F 4 Tornado, Mt. Carmel F0 Tornado, Taylorsville F 1 Tornado, Quitman F 1 Tornado, and Lake Ferguson F 4 Tornado (sur- veyed on April 19-20) by FORBES, Gregory S.
-- Shreveport F 2 Tornado (surveyed on April 20) by STIEGLER,
Duane J.
The purpose of this paper is to present the effect of winds in and around the power plant under construction. Since the confirmation of damage was performed exclusively through aerial photography and mapping, ground inspections may alter the author's interpretation. Despite such uncertainties, the author's results will be useful to those who are working on detailed aspects of specific types of damage. Dr. James R. Mcdonald of Texas Tech University made an extensive ground survey while the author flew over the site. Since then, Jim and I have been working closely in the exchange of ideas and information,
ddbq WYGe:75 4 May 1978 T. Ticodore Fujita(7
1 1 TEN TORNADOES ON APRIL 17-18, 1978
'Ihe paths of 10 tornadoes surveyed by three meteorologists of the University of Chicago are presented in Figure 1
The Shreveport tornado touched down inside the Gicater Shreveport hiunicipal Airport at 6:48 p.m. CST. '1he airport anen'..neter recorded a 52 kt (60 mph) peak wind. 'lhe tornado moved toward the ortheast, lifting off just to the west of Down- town Shreveport.
According to radar trackings by Shreveport, La. and Jackson, hiiss. National Weather Service Offices, the parent echo traveled cast-northeast at about 40 mph. A new tornado fomled from this cell as it approached the hiississippi River.
'lhe tornado crossed the Alississippi, damaging well-constructed houses in the Lake Ferguson area. This tornado was rated as F 4, one of the two F 4s on April 17-18,1978 A h 'i echo was detected by Jackson NWS radar shortly after midnigh t.
'* ' ' , e ,e s o s' O ,4 I , '' A RKA NSA S <' ' ' GREENWOOD r4.t o r., son r
' 8 oEL DORADO , -,- b\ ,, ,- , 3, e --- !' , - - --~/i'' ______i , >. ': ' ?'.- , -' i{ MISS/SS/PPI * , s, . t. , , , 1 [ SHREVEPORT oMONROE a/; \ i T ' 'VICKSBURG d,4 MERIDIAN , F2,e.epo,sn e O , 2 'P JACKSONO 0%y ' ' , c' ' e L O UIS/A NA "s e' k ,ee 4, .' r3 cs #,/ oo., a, , -o, k,, , ,_s-unca con, h e $ s sus, - , , , T.,ims-. '' y , ** * '2- ,) 0 5 4-To i "'' ~' 10 TORNADOES IN 3 STATES T ' ' " " ' " " APRIL 17-18,1978 'l [ [44to ', ,- -,g''' Rom f r,e nae gae.nburst 6HookEcho ,' sme npe ' , o so .oo -a.s a. . _.------I
0 50 10 0 r$0 t* i 9: 99 s,9 ', Figure 1. Paths of 10 tornadoes in the three-state areas on April 17-18, 1978. This was the " Rapid-scan Day" of COES/SMS satellite requested by Fujita. All tornadoes except the Shreveport tornado occurred during the rapid-scan period.
2 During the Grand Gulf and Utica College tornadoes, a parent hook echo was reported 6 times by the Jackson, Miss. NWS. Tie Grand Gulf tornado touched down on the cast bank of the Mississippi. It lifted in the forested, rolling hills after traveling 17. 8 miles.
The Utica College tornado touched down in a hilly area 'to the cast of where the Grand Gulf tornado had lifted. Utica Junior College was damaged as the storm traveled eastward.
An extensive downburst with F 1 intensity resulted in a 2-mile wide swath. The Utica tornado made a left turn in its weakening stage.
The town of Utica, 4 miles north of the Utica Junior College, also received wide-spread damage to roofs and trees. The author's aerial survey revealed that Utica was damaged by downburst (microburst), not by a tornado.
A series of six tornadoes occurred along a 137-mile long path of a hook echo from Smitfulale to Quitman. The Forest Grove tornado, the third one in the series was rated as F4
Table 1. Statistics of path lengths by F scale. LO denotes the cumulative length of F0 or worse damage inside each tornado; Li, that of F1 or worse damage; L2, F2 or worse damage; etc.
_ _ - - _ _ F scale Name of tornadoes LO L1 L2 L3 L4 F4 Forest Grove tornado 13 2 10 9 8.6 65 0 3 mile F4 Ferguson Lake tornado 12.8 8.3 55 2.7 0.4 F3 Utica College tornado 14.0 11 3 58 05 - F3 Crand Gulf tornado 17.8 17 1 12.0 1.4 - F2 Shreveport tornado 55 2.8 0.4 - - F2 Smithdale tornado 8.0 4.1 32 - - F1 Taylorsville tornrio 7.8 38 - - - F1 Quitman tornado 6.8 19 - - - F0 Ruth tornado 31 - - - - F0 Mt Carmel tornado 4.0 - - - - Total 93 0 60.2 35.5 11.1 0.7 nile
3 2 T11E GRAND GULF TORNADO
The precursor of,the Grand Gulf tornado was a downburst with curved trajec- tories (lines of airflow) to the west of Lake Brun, one of Mississippi's oxbow lakes (see Figure 2).
The tornado touched down on the cast side of the Mississippi River, uprooting pine trees. Tie pith mileage of the tornado a Figure 2 begins at the touchdown point. It moved cast-nordicast while intensifying into F 2 Patterns of uprooted trees began showing a definite circulation at the 1.5 path mileage.
Tie Cooling Tower (under construction) of the power plant is located at the 8. 5 path mileage. Both Switch Yard and Reactor Containments (both under construc- tion) are shown in Figure 2 The author's estimates of the F-scale winds are F 2 at the Cooling Tower and at the Switch Yard, and F 1 at the Reactor Containments.
After leaving the power plant site, the tornado intensified into F 3 Numerous trees in woods on rolling hills near 10 to 11 path mileage were uprooted, laying flat on the ground.
Shortly before the 13 path mileage, a series of microbursts occurred to the left of the tornado. Tiese microbursts snapped or uprooted trees some one mile to the north of the tornado center.
Tic tornado made a 25 to 30-degree right turn at the 13 path mileage. Tiere- after, the circulation of the tornado weakened gradually, being accompanied by southwest winds on the right side of the storm.
4 ,m- .w . - '
, GRAND GULF TORNADO OF |r.srma.,c.c.c.srs , ,g g- s n- . APRIL 17, 1978 , i / i cassa cutr . r." av -I . ' ',,_,/ v : .. ) q ( , 4 g, e -- N J, Ow .. / g .. n.m um m ts A y
, , , , . . . . . , , .. ' / * , Aff - , , , . . 85 . <- g,ag;; , ' ' 7 , , , , ..... 4 , ! < m % d.<^ '' 'l - -. - - - .- , -_ . [. / g. ! ' , V y|; ;/,':/ / . , ,, RIVER . m j sstSMPr.
d ' 5e *r x (f e v0V + N. port cissom og , O g., - 'f 9 r .,s r e.a. oc.wunst - y % u ' .m /. fi , 3 ;- y / .. e, $ . e t ! t
Figure 2. F-scale contours and flow patterns of the Grand Gulf tornado. A twisting downburst started over the plain just to the west of the Mississippi River, but the tornado began on the east bank of the river shortly before 11 p.m. C3T, April 17, 1978. The tornado left behind an eight-mile long path before reaching the Grand Gulf power plant under construction. 3. AIRFLOW IN AND AROUND TIIE PLANT SITE
'Ihe mapping of both tree and structurat damage was performed based on a large number of color pictures taken by the author. A Cessna 182 aircraft was used in photographing the entire area from 700 to 4,000 ft above the terrain. Figure 3 reveals directions of tree damage. Apparently there were two groups of damage caused by the earlier (front side) and the later (back side of tor- nado) winds. Arrows with double lines denere trees laying on top of those which had fallen earlier. Directions of trees damaged earlier are shown with solid arrows, m.. . _A.\ GRAND GULF PLANT m .. - .. ~+ "* 3
and VICI N I T Y - cQ [ N /'a'/ u . /// taracts or a. nit e r, is r a Tennaoo .= " %(y , ' h', // ....,,...,,,-...e...w. -
9.,,...,,,,,,,,,,,, ._ - ' .,;..s \. g* ._. : _;p:gf.,,._ .. . ..n ( - ; . ei , s , a- ' .\ / 1,| s .. _ , .- _ . - . _ _ _ t ,y ...... ~ , i h i ,k c_ j . \, % .. m~ ' u 6,o,'conta,nment =-s ' ' 'L %Nr**s % , z _ . '.i / 97. |-' J\\Q,,\'jj .. f , ,47.,.... s, . , ' ' ' /J / , % ' ' \ .. | s K'sb'3 :(s , .- q- ,e i ' . . . . . \ , ...c. ,
..g n n = ' h-.., rano , \, _ ._. o,'swurcn , . . . . . ~ . . . . - i, %..~~*'(. ' , ..
Y m : ,j 'o 'N ..{rw 'a6 Q ,ij,kz:*.\f, \ \ '
_ ro.,, , e i -...... L e , , _ . (,-., y . n . . .. L s >- ' / *** ' s ._ Y .h , J. ',+33 - p.T|7 .a . '~"', e) a,_ ren et a ,, r . ' ~ ... n 3 .,' .ge. y h. . - 'K \\ ~ ' . .: n= ~. ~w %y
' ?. '. - .. 1.. y }\h {\ "*%g~ . ' 6 , , - . - - - * s)h,z ,/,, f. w s ,+ .. - g%. ,- ,. .. t. ,. ', - q s .. - .- . . , a ' (*,^ *; . ' ' ' j t i | , . ,. .g . ~ c_= r .- / . . , . , - \,. GL0, ..- - : : :.' g \ ; I ' I- II I ||1| \ a * .\{t;\ I I II L\ \t 1 1JI |I Il l Figure 3. Patterns of structural and tree damage in and around the Grand Gulf Nuclear Fower Plant (under construction).
6 Crane 2 which fell onto the Reactor ConDinment was p-abably damaged when the tornado was approaching. Crane 3 was most .ucly damaged later, when the tornado was moving away from die Turbine Building.
After checking die order of tree falls, the trajectories (lines of airflow) of the " FIRST WIND " were mapped in Figure 4 Apparently, the south side of the fence and trailers about 1,000 ft soutn-southeast of the Cooling Tower were pushed by southerly winds. One of the six sand spreaders in the lay-down area was blown toward the north-northeast and twnbled across the grassy field to a resting point about 300 ft away.
~ . - . .: . GRAND GULF PLANT n.. ,s .- * '* r \ * and VICINITY . z'j Sg -. q' *,)- s N /// ,,,m , . ...e,,.,,,.,e...... 4, c ,(g g e/ . . ~ _ , . , , _ , . . . _ . , , .. ._ 3,_.... ., _ e , - ~~ : .w - e_4; , . . , , , . .. 4 , ,, < j;= .c. . .. ._ ' " s ,N ,x g . k .. , .. --_ {\ g ,, _ .j - i / -I.. \~ .:.. em ;.;<,a...._.,, . , . - ; <. %\\\ .c q $, d. 'Q * L . i ' q., + , ~~, || | . - ~ . ,. ;> , m ' ~ , < / q'' q,,y. ~, ,/ w /y -. ) , q, ' g .. ,, e i , ~ . . - , , - . , - 6 ..;..m.~ . : ,'s.,rc i - , \ \ ' ,. - // /r. ..-t o , , ' ~ " O h, k \ '' -- , m - kk . h.m I~ t|}ah-{I- ' , \cwuere( s, - .- ; or .i. y, ' & / j"" earcu nnr s , ' .t. ;S , ..~% & .4 - .~ .= '"~"s. ,
, S .' , . ' h 'I/\/ *"- Ne 4 . . n= ~ N - ' '~ N - _ e. ~':w.ff. ,. 4( qs Ir. w'#"T Q sN' _, y N - - MsN 7\,g'\~/(y,*\.. ., -
- . . . . -- ,6 . . , . . % , .~ ' g- \ v ::' ;q ,, , ,. , D. 9 - , , , o w/e , . , . , .. , -r . , _, , ...... , a;} .)h.. / i, 3~.. : . . ; ,gf7 , || | .L**( l \ ]'f,'' - 't'i | || | g I I 'g y H '. \ ;;\ \/ 'l II I Figure 4 Trajectories (lines of airflow) on the front side of the Grand Gulf tornado as it passed across the construction site.
7 Tic Cooling Tower was damaged by Crane I which had been standing inside. Pieces of the downed crane are seen below the scaffold / wall damage. Tie downed wall and' scaffold are seen to the south of the damaged wall, suggesting a possible deviation of airflow caused by the Tower (see downed scaffold in Figure 4).
Crane 2 and tile roofing of the Administration Building showed indications of damaging winds from the south or southeast.
Four light poles in the llatch Plant area were bent, fell or snapped. One light pole collapsed onto the roof of the Testing Laboratory. Another pole was snapped off at its base without leaving a trace of the light fixture. A number of red-colored barrels were blown into a warehouse which collapsed.
Tie "SECOND WIND," mapped in Figure 5, came mos .ly from westerly di rec tions. Several crates of pipes in the lay-down area were broken, with pipes scattered downwind toward the northeast. One of the 6 sand spreaders was blown into the field (Figure 21). Piles of bricks to the northcast of the Cooling Tower were pushed over. 13 ricks , thus loosened, fell down onto the concrete slope of the drainage next to the brick piles. An aerial photograph (Figure 18) shows that two round covers from the manholes near the west corner of the Switch Yard were located 2 to 3 ft to the northeast of the manholes. It was learned later that the covers were not moved by the wind, but they had not been placed on the holes, just to the south of these manholes, a damaged tin roof was pushed by the second wind against a light pole which had collapsed onto the roof during the first wind. Crane 3 may have been pushed toward the cast-northeast by the second wind. it should be noted that there was approximately a 90-degree difference in the direction of die first and the second wind in the Reactor Containment area; the first wind was from the SSE and the second from the WSW. A 300 to 400 ft section of the chain link fence east of the construction site of Unit No. 2 Cooling Tower was blown off the posts. Tie blown-off section was extending castward, across trees.
8 .
_ y .. ,. - .. Th'g GRAND GULF PLANT , n' .. _m
N, . and VICINITY [/ cfg :z'' . a.ar, e, ...,e ,, ,,,. ,e..... 4 s/ | ,.Rg ',.j/; .....~.,,.,,,-....,,n.,,. g.,,,,,,_,,,, .. ,, a g- .. - :Ng . . ~eq. n. - .. - -. .9 i:;. - - - -|- u s , ' (2 . rt , i .. =. 'T i /std , .. .x - -~ s.e ,., c..,a....., y . ; .<%e..sy_ *. s - s . ,g, - - r y ...: , o . :i.,....,-. :. , . , . - ~.\ % ps, w,,-.; _ , .v , ,s s L " ' - ,oa sA~ A' . ,'. . - q ., ., , ~ , .. . / , _ . . _ . ,
'
, ..y L 2' , 's w o rc M rAno \,' " , ||~", %.;~'(- ~ ~ , . ... ~~ ,::~ O , ,, ~$ j*% D ,' ',\Q \\\\ \ ' -- ' coous,c ro.ca - - - , | /.}.-... .'. { [ a - ( a-- J // ,]. t.... b. ,'g / /,/x * - ,N * '~:~,"j/. , 8ATCH PL A N T < ~-- . . l- - ., . .. u . N k skQq j V. \4 -~~ -- S ,
'' l ~ \ .. ' _ .$' . hh [f 's \\\\ j'4 3 ,Is'3 7 7 ^' ) - a!.;... , . .... ,;w \ - _ . . ~ . ~ s . , , , , , , , , - h.~:f ;q, , j, .... ,. % ,. , ,, ; '' # , .. ,- ;
.,m - _ . y . , . L .' . j -, - - - - , ,3 :.9. . . .. ; _ : , ' ~ . . n' ,, J ._ . g ., (LJJ'"?"= ,. y .,. ,w j . I /' |// 1 1 ;.= -;;g g g I '- | , .\ t l ' | / |II t;I 11 '. t u t f j / J Figure 5. Trajectories (line of airflow) on the back side of the Grand Gulf tornado. Note that these trajectories rotated about 90 degrees from those of the first wind.
'I\vo light posts, one to the southeast and the other to the north of the Cooling Tower, were standing upright. No damage to these poles or the light fixtures were visible from the air.
4 EXAMPLES OF AERIAL PIIOTOGRAPIIS
About 400 pictures were taken while flying at various altitudes over the areas of the Grand Gulf tornado along its 17.8-mile path. 16 pictures were selected to show patterns of camage in and around the plant site. A set of color prints of these 16 pictures are attached to this report.
9 ,. . 5 &
. {' 1. -
. .
- ( ,- - y , . - f .. . , . .w w _u ~- ,, , . ., .> * \. *. .. . .
r , [J # [* A "p * .. . , f '. - ... )
I- . . ').- s. r9 . - i , , , u< < < p . . , ,
' " - # > g , # - --
.? . ~ u. .., , * ; ' . , s. , . "g \ , j . , , _ x, p- > ,si '. i a . s- , . ' z, ' - , t , . <.y - t- ,i I- + : ' r . . - a u-w% at '.- - h -i < m L.%A~_ u x't C. h s mig.Q Au u 'h a'i Figure 6. The swath of the Grand Gulf tornado across the construction site. Looking northeast. Approximate path of the tornado is shown by a curved line,
m-nn.wn.n- ,,--- ., . _ _. _ _., ,_ , - .. , -_ , L. e. s - ; - , , ,,a * n;_ r .u . , _ ;G n; .-
W . . q )Y , y - , a 1, - a . > - is, . , -. - ;. e- ., ,- . \ > . 1. n, - ,;,m. - .~ ,g -O. , - . ., ~: - -; w , . , . %" - :- ,- .1: . s . . , ~;# ,c, . n? - ** '' ' #, . - - . %, .. , - . , _ , . . , ., 0; |I ' '_ ' ' . . .. Y .f. p , '[wY( , - Y - $5Q"Wih.;. , . ~'- ', . d ,c y,- e, q,. '; r9. ' r, y(, - p . . '< .- - , : q , ,, . . g . f, 4,. 9s ' , ,, m . - w w ' i ,.4 .&kh .., |~y$ ? , v p r- .y..';, ~, k,clyf, ; ' - . - ~ ^ af, ' :3%y .y&)) e %' ...*e s a ;<: .- n
- ,-j.y .'' %j. &, c|,'7 *y.p{ ! ., f '{j ( {.f|} ' ...Q' Q,Q,u f_: -.,5f|: 3 .4.;g s : k * '. ~ ~ . - . . - - - * f . p , C. - y., , u;, m ,e 4.s.? .~n. 6, ,= _ :V- [ ' d ** 4 . i. ,,t_y(. .., ; >; .. ', g. \ ., -, p--*. _.v 1 - n.' , .t. 'k .. ., . . , y % .tg .. p n &_ - 9 .u; w ,,;< $$4._7 %i o;;;.y ' ^.;;y" 37mm _y 3q.y*4:j,;p:s <- : :: n% y , c ; -- . T.2.-. :- .. -..,.7; ; . . , "; m: >' , ' ' .,& .R w m. s t m . psyy , --.a:--p-. .. .p . ; ,y , 7 * , * . : : f . ;w* 'n &%' p-? s ' ~ ,C &r:3%-. aW .fy:. -%~.m~& * Mf . Q}A; - | a cik w-ww q _ _ . g Figure 7. View of the construction site, looking east. Tornado moved fron right to left.
10 , m^ n m'' ..iww> - .p; ~a. .I . . s-s ;;. . - 9 e #,.; ' e4 i : 4e: ngdy * !, ,, . _ . ' f(. t' g. .p {*}' ; f%kay -|7s , ':-[ ' .0 + ,. _ , q us.x ' ' Ls fy * , p . : .w , , . \ 4 .e , a, - + - 6m n; * , , . %, .. p + , ,.-.o . O yg .- , e} g- , . , ~ L- .y * , . ., f17 , * Q, C,.ar . > - a , , . $ w). ~ ,
- * !. :x * , . , v@ /.. t: - ' Y w 4f A .,,g,Agu,.y : % 3: d w "? 0.4 . ~ ., M,,.I. si Y*. Figure 8. Ccoling Tower, piles of bricks, and western portion of Batch Plant. Looking northeast,
- r :-m g~.c - - - , . w"- 7p * : , * . 4,wg%Q.7 '. ,k g" ** ' %, o -..N "' s ' . @ A+ ~ # 4 % 's',. > , . p *'Qg} ; { ' ;.'*4 - }.n' ad&', %t&s * N 1 i . e6 'l y , W *. .JMeer% f y, 'm f y 'N N . , '" , . .i c M ~ ~- , h ' f y '' 1;^ ~ ' g . - pc ;__ T'yh,y[h %, - .% e '& 64 , ~ , . , - . _4 Q,' ''w. s _ '' _ *- g s ' .dkW g..'_ ':f f%). , .% .e _ . % . . . fh ^y, .s| _ |' 4s s. s __ y.y- e . g _, , s e n.Q- ) y ' ~' _ / - ., _g ' ;. g - 9 . e .. p - Mn$ , y. . N. - 4974._.y .,,. ,> ut. , f"., x yJF, . - W, s . : s , : . -| , g: , . '
|, . N k%., e - , , , - ..j - ''4 . o, ~s..+~.r.|~- - R $% . .k.. , v. = ywAA ,a~.re %g, 4 9zb+ a: -s . ' h 2,hk ~ . .,h)g., , [ ,'., , : ~+ , , n . .. . . - 3W ' ; ' ,Q , ?p :)i,,ey, . f. . - c, o .1 #f a, - : , >, - ~ p ? ,p ; p r ; . c,8 s. . "W, . x , . , . *e ' ~ .. s ,f, s, r - *, :* ; , yr,-n L.a. 'f.f .- \ '* - ' : i [ i ~g '[Q ' $ p m r, s - : Jo ;W4. . , .. ~ s. - m, - ~. ; a, , _,n . , es: :,, n ..b I :_
Figure 9. A high-oblique view of Cooling Tower. Looking southeast.
11 ~~
. . . . ~ > ; m-'., g; a.- , n. ..ty .e',5>&,,f'c"y?Lw. x" . e.w .|.,b"St,P,''%.T''''",* . "'s".M:Th me, . . R. ~- : ns - ,, -,.~-_ . . s - , . . F_ p ,e,, -. . . ., cm . _ ., : . , . . . - ,,,.~~y.a, y _ . yJ _ . - - .5s g s, _ .. 3. t 3- m . v,_. ,, .,re= g.,, :xmw. . m _ o r,-. ; % , %. ~N s. *y %g,,. . 2 ~ . - y, - - . d': ' ~ , s ;2,_,m.h n 753e"y"'?n5VQ,Q,. . . 9 ;*p 7,._ ? ..v;.me- ga e ,a ,-- e -z.e: ^ s ~- ~ a v: shi wa .,n...,, , ~n *- S. a . r . ' e;a,_,j '' . ,. . p - . y n g,,,ij- Q (..N . y. ,.. , . n .. -; a . . . A. ,. .rp .4 m v s-. : ,4, . ; .1 -e .-. ,.. .s t . .A ,. .,e s;s? - ) . . f j_- AA <. ~ ~ . - :s') h ) - .>w...,,,y~-g 1. . , g.- y: _4_4< ''} W.- , . ,w ,< . .. " _. f. ...~-J < :n *w k, w=, u: m- ..-a+m. yen s q. . ,; -a ~ m%, :n , n .wn,, n, e. . m. . .t 'm- , ,5 y ., s, ., ,d- +m,+e,p.,. ~. , .i g- A -w =.m . . . . ,. u ~ & n LP d W*% - - b .. . .. :u . . PG P ,, pm - ~ g; ., aq . ,a 3i. t 1 - - <' s Ly .. . . , r *. . f M. - c - g- N,- s. . m. t v.; , - t s s ;* . ---.v... .'t ~ 1 %.: s, .- 1 ,' .s 1 : &[ _ - . - - . - x . . . a. . -.a - ' . <~ Figure 10 A close-up picture of the scaffold / wall damage. See a small hole (dark) on the wall. Looking northwest.
, m 1 . w ~mzw3 7 t# s /, -' ,.w ..g m .r;-,~ w ; j g,, .a..r . # V 6 j.gt y J - w Cd . 4 - - , .' y, , .. , . , , I, r in 4( . . , .8 'y o , )i , . * ^ ii < \. .. - N , 1 1 '.y v' w - < . 3 i qw, g - < y,. ;q- ' .-* , . * . kya n .4.t se, e .< : - t, c . ; s ,, @, x , . sj n L,4u. , 4. ' , *: ?- ' , 'y ';f, ' 1:~ < ... d.% h - jt h,ti . , ), a * " ~ e < ", s *ppp,.d - _ . . _ <% ' . . , * . - , m'j 2. ,,1 -=;., *> .-s . r .y. %.,, . .. ' ~ ~ *
d . . t ,y 4
* . $ { a , . v% x' . J , p*eg.:. ' . ~ '- u . .z .gs J. ,'(y , pa . -* * y a- n ,. ,- ;>~.o. - ' ~c,: g% s _ ,, . , . -. [a. : , , V v t n- ) ., . o. } ,,f y , q v. . ' . (. $ . ,g - s , . ,,g -. * b. .m ., m Y ' .4 , ' n p D;r .e '' ' ' '' .m y _. - 4 .h' y! -g - -j , .p. , , .. .';< .c. )p're s .m ' ' y .. < ~ 4' - 1so- a | 't _ g'- -t g_ + y ' ;-Qt.- c
n- y,;M . .v ; R &, $ ' Es.e t, 7 p% \. ; ~ , * ~ '| . Y k |' , a . < ., + . : .-w,:k?<- $ 9. w..A;- &W% : &~, ;n: %w. , /, k %k.,'.,,1,Q..'{va &+ ,s. d .a. - . _ - - j.&c_.,.A.fU i-;h.,1x . w; w. .u. x 1 Figure 11 Damaged wall against the light, outside background. See a small hole (light) on the wall. Looking east-southeast.
12 ,, - , . , _ . _ _ . pm m -~ . . _ ,, . . _ - , , ,4.- p' l._ , , , *' : , .f,4- 9., - i |. Q u3.1t k s+w % ,_ ,. % ,, 4 nn, : _% ,,p,."4?9,. %y - , a . , , , . . . . , _r m , ,* ,, "f. t g, , , . , , l' f .-{ a,,., 'M;ma]| W sp s' J n *9&> . 1: f g 6,; ;[ n .A . . & -| .. ,*:.- ' ' ' yf,|/ '. .- .. , , . < , ., 3: p _, w ,. , - iq +- - p p. g 7 yr - 4 < , . 4 # < a 7. -- . :. , , , , g - * p. . .c . ^ -',.. ' s s _ m:;y[ g * t , : %u y t , >' :, > . e. .j. 'j a f_, 'W,-sr .'/ ' 8 c. y t;; R,J , - , e . ..:. y 'g s '% r, - 4 . g ;; _ p , 3_ - . ) e#. "M, 's u t- . . ...# 4\ 'W- v e q. s * g , 4 9 'g' . - ,, .s
s,. , ' ,/ ge
: kh-~ * tb ',.~d, Q f g |} N p e:; ,v \.s,. ._ g s1 + n.* .w ;f.c'y;-o.p . rm33._ _ ;._,, Figure 12. Damaged pieces of scaffold and Tower wall. Scaffold is 430 ft above the ground and the re-enforced wall is 6 inches thick. Looking nortl northeaet.
. . ,,..y x,- . .y . - - r p:m, v, .. g n,e to.y . s* .s . c - , t : ';. y' q . - . cir p . $, : 3 , s , gc .- c., - > _ ~ ,b ,. /N ' ! n %' .?P &. ''?,\ ' x /. t 9 ' 4 n , r .\ - 1 .Q - . p_ * }; o. ,. . . ~ s.s :; "- Q .' f.f*, ' k / , < g % -r -3- e.. . gfy h 4.b i -- ;y ,, 4
'' , f- .' |' ) * / g,4 .: + e. ,- .. 3:Q ' kD $ ' / ~. - h.? ,.m >- , ,,.s p(v *>k"> I 'kk . ~, ,. .a A x w.. <4 # . -% /| |)'*f;'. s. w s . . - -- _ w .,/ f . - ,, *''/ . w ;_W f- , Lt , u . .L, Q1 - n - w;;y.. *' t ;.-a ,A . .s .N. W* ._ .p<:g) 4 - < , y{-{ - , e ' ,,y . ,,M #, .,#'#~,' s. s y 4* j 41 .g* ,
N NI. $ i . .V M[ , Figure 13 Downed scaffold and concrete wall. Damaged crane 1 is seen near the top. Note that a light pole is left standing. Looking north- northeast.
13 * Y, ?! , f k* h .] Dhb 'C 1 s e a,.We. . ,,A x&$|%fW+;%2GKN. a vv 4.v- ce.< T,f. .. m .y.9A.3 m % i
' ' Y - , j ,,,h | , Q en . |Ef '' l >j x, u m , , .? . f ' * .- o a% , , ^%y).',, ,g , c.u, C. p ;, r&# . . ,s -,. , 2 , y% 1. s6 * a.$ 4 .x , - M ,( : ' , .sp . s., r .dg.t9 . ~ +: ,p, / vs m .6 ..r s ,, e.. 1 - r - j *- f ,Y/ . w ]I . y*' N I 4+% '. ? D $ 'N*\ . tr * . . . . . , :'' 7*'* % .. M it ' 4. d /. w ' | | f ,^ |, ~8, A.:h - , fj?. /f|.4 7 .O '. k g9 ' * (T;/ 9 u m' i g, / . % .th 9'M '' ~ ! ,6 :; 'I ; . +1/j: -& Y~ 'v' . ' h" ,9 ^ '|'. f]y,,fgN:'If$jn. : . q/s' , , J ,~ . , d3 . o 3 sg4 t' . .Q> : Q) s vm} .v . . , , ,' > - - - n? . ,, . J A 4o - r; - ,4 . m r e c 3 s,.. , . r . .i ,,,cy, ., ,k '' ;h f ,|]p,N:= | g ; f,, . ', . 9 > >& c r - - ! p%. . %,cr.n . q.s . g % .- e yy3, x , 7 7j t,c. . q 3 g. ,jr ' - %hAi . j j $ f , &3y ~ :-(h:.,h;G' n , % v$. $ w v} - u n L. , .,... . e w n . u _ _!w ' 32., Figure 14. Reactor Containnents Unit 1 (upper right) and 2. Looking vertically from above Crane 4
Q '~~ R&p W Q'~;;|f.qw ~?iR"W. g~ |f'y, ;P Q . ,~t\1.M ,; .,'m. ~ 4 M s 7 ps.w-v%,_.c ~c d ' ' , , ,W, r;L*< - -54h,,, f&pYh .b, . o ., t . ~ -s%.:.sk ' , '~ r p: ; , a,
- g)M' ,st / a. .yh,;,'%y. e.m > .r ,. f : fv ': d ,-- T: J<9 .. m , m. < e , .s .<- 89n k.p", J,. ,> +* . .~gpM . . ;;: f %m p 42 ) ,c V s. < r nu' . . f. #4 ; u.pf.. % ' g; j / , * pg , g) ~ ]D W ' h ,,.Q4 g (4/ - %s \ tg p M ,k + %.W jf C . ' * gMSW< n M , ,( (. 1 %, yg%. Q )..d? /; w.c;~ @. % &?'a,n , * ? - W .,% . ' ., :C . ,';ap '). } - ,3> q+ - % .w y f ..] , egy
'
* ' ] [0 . ? ~k ; N \ K .' > a $&- ..t N, :- x d v ? d;f@g [' & ''h%$j;,,gg*g)L.,,,.--- p y- s ; , - .-- ~ y, .,3.g 53 ; . . ,
.i e 4 . # , h. J Figure 15. A close-up view of Crane 2 which fell onto the south edge of Containment Unit 1 The tip of Crane 4 was dar. aged with its end hanging down to the Containment. Looking southeast.
14 W'' * / " z. . , sY::% ,j p . . p q ,7 : qp * ' g'*. fe : -? , Yf P% . /,/,! -;;| ;y :Q . - . - .- ,, A ,Lp , fes[N/y['%Q%Yf%/|,p'/,gh|}j:r$.. a . , - ' * * * ~ j . ffff e y- V' _ <. e .. t. e , ~;l|*a% Ef(= . t y 1 y|.e.s,&;!)>t ". f.pe a{fv e . as,n mQpf.,c. i . .. |%) $%, .%Q|@j' 'i&rN 4; . .- - . . s * p: . t . , , . \~ ' m, ''p' ;+.;y|'f j.| . . ' e 'a. .h ' psy . %.m i{4; ' .* w,7 %w. g ,. m..'.,. N , ' ' [j k(/ [ , r
.. f&h&fy , :h ;f?~.W. m * - h &. j., , "M ,/ '-, , , ' D .: fj[ .g ' ?:. , . ff; 'Q[f 'Q s' L* Q. A. I Figure 16. A close-up view of Crane 3 which hit the northeast corner of Turbine Building. Looking south,
pr py 37 3.r y :s. :m e mm.yw ,~ < ,._ y ' : ((>k. 'ty p ,m,3 : t, ' (; Hi ,1 :S h6 ' [ , vip' '. i , - ||. : ;:] N i :. $ )- _ - 5 . > b :.i.. < ** g ' w ,1; ,.- _ ' % 1: - '<< F. :c; : # =L s . . . . ' |J .- ; n' '}'. }} ri f. > ,, t o. y' ? . , p ' _ j: , ' ' ' . / /. |,t .r . 1,; -m'T']w. m ,i ' | p , ' , ; _ | j ,i _ , gg , ~ j . | |} ff7** - , i i : . . f(f!I ; .} }y'.s>)||| f | ||| '| R' JW -f [ / % )-f/ [ f ,i / / C.'/ h, h. , v} [ i l }| R ,, k , , * s p. .' n: + ! 'i y A - |i "| is & |[- | - . , ~ ~j , t p hy t_ . e,., :s m. ' ;; .., j n f|r - 7,1 - - A . 9 o < , W+ ., , fr -g , < > d'- ~M "? -} .T, . / . , ;sw e.'(t ; pj ~ b Id J.? ? ;s A; ~% p %v . *'. '-( N dW4- f 4; s 3(, o .s v.9 ,L A J ~ 'f ,.$.*g;.*g,;f' ~ , 4.e .;; g ,\% .- n., , s ; , .)',.,. .n . s . . , .., . ;.- . , , - .! ., . ,,w. * :.n .s et>i- 3. . . . .ev]'
. | hj 'g _ s.t. |. _|,~~4[_, .5,$,| } ~, , .j y_^- JN. ( , :) Y ,, :) w .t :df { s, . . . , , . 9 + .? 2 s p . E ', t. [% {|., :,, W ' ^ $a Nki * a - .q 1 y q / ;g , = p ; \ 1g, -- Q ,'4 f -_ ;,
15 ,,. _ . ~ . . . , . - , .- ~y r -: g- 4 ,.
7 .
.q.
i , to ., s r .\ . \ * ', o \, , , ,3 , - . .'. , , . .' i < q. , v i., , . * , , .9- - . ma . g Ivt . n , , -<> , 4.,u u,r \ 1. ' , ,/ 3 ,, s% , , - ,* ..n.- s .,y ..Gf , , . . t" g " n' , < '^Q^' Q ,, '- ' . 7. s \- y i, (1 ' . - . - , * 7 , s p . 4 * ', a , . _ , , _ .r, .f_ 5: - * [_. . 1, . ~ , . , ,- - : -r 4- a. . . , m- 1 t .;3 4 *- -a 3 g 7..,..- - + g - . ~ . . ,s , v .v4.. , ' 4, 's |( >/ * e. , a + ;.* e , . r s '" ; 0 * *. > . - ' .s '-}v o1 '+ .s e '/r - a - - _ 'dEQL DA _. i Figure 18. A light pole collapsed into the Switch Yard, and another onto the Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (P) . Roofing tin wrapped around the licht pole. Covers of two manholes (M) were not placed on the holes prior to the stonn. Wind did not nove the covers.
, , , . . , ,_ . , - . , . - ; I - . 7 $.,,..,.*3 [ ' ) J '
. %E& - ,% ,/ : ? , ty ' %,5 . *> f- . 7, 1 , v. - , m.-8,,% s . e , c y > .w :- t + p , , 71 ".. of., g - . - ~ . \ ,e . ., ~ . , ; f * 7 ,. wyp ?* 3 *$ - . %; &, s , 3, ,,. -
., ".. p y. - d;, ,- e .g 4. - ..r e,3.;3 - r g , ~ '- ^~s n's .. ,, / , / - ' +; , ~ , g a,, .y ,, s y:.:g r _. . ~;~t, a ~ , - 1 s %, . ye : a . , ,1 > f p&.< ;). .; + + . . , .- ' ' ; , f.. y. .-~ j//.. Os - i , , -p , Os 7. G 0 ($ " e tg { .pg 3 }, :'. , * * r , ; ,' -> : , . . p ,a. CT w.~ w - - -:m 3 ' d .. % .. . . ._ J' Figure 19. West end of Batch Plant. Red barrels were blown into the warehouse which was collapsed by the first wind. A light pole (L) snapped and carried northward from its foundation at F. Looking west- northwest.
16 p yrmm --r y,x~;~ rre .;.r n r - - - ~ ~ w - r~v cr- ~.7
. >.: t & 5' / n. , , , , {:,b : ' , g { ff. ' i yr |L - - , , ~ ,3.., u.f..,7,. .n .m - - . .. ^ . r j . ' 3;; . , a-4 J. " ~, y{ n. . 19< ';* ' - . s i_ , e, ,.; % . y.*', . , s , _ 4 . ' 'r e -j ' g .; < s o - - t V - ;3 - +- , jq ; .; ;. , a, ' " ' * * 4 .4* - .J < 4 ,. *,r Ag ' ' < . ':, , . . %.. .y %- Jf,%) .-' _, -g '.m. <> , y >3 4 , ,c ,1 w ' . * vp . ,- U. ", * y . . , . f,,71,, - t ,- - N,, v 2 /.. , - < ,.,e M i u. ., , m~ , s.,~ d v i '
- " p. I N - - '. ,?h rd.N l - u ~% ; W : ?, ;- ~' , , ~47 's r ,%.gr '; .,; . ,j ; 4 g 4 % )4 ,A. ys, 1 s f i , .f, -. .i -a Nvf , .a , u. .. wye ., + ~ 3j 3: . g _ :|% ., ., | n % w, , .j .
* ' * , , ?,[q y - q Y *g .5. . A < s. . ~3 / , , " >w % 1 9|f - , [[|' . . . *aV -/ Ma p ;;;> - r. . - .% .t s s y.,., ,. q_ + q ;; c{ a> 9 0 * w: is - r:. ; y -ei l. b% D , , . . y - . N- % .r ' . , , c, . 7 y'a. ' . . - , p,. $.d,y.b. r , , - 3' M 6 he,- . d,.m., L = d.=w S den ,a a 1 4%.m Figure 20. The roof of Adninistration Building peeled off by the first wind. Fortions of the roofs were still under construction. Looking east.
-- . w.- f. - - . , ..e _ , - c--- .
s .., , *
- < t i ) # 4 .
,
W
..
- m. < < . k 1 , sy . ) ; , s, s . .. s - - -: , N . , . e : . -?,~ .1 ' ' 7 , j ' ' N ' ,~ s. N ~ , , c ses x s .N - s N. t 's.. k[ ; w.,, . UN 3,, ,$ - 4, s . - ,sr - s. . ,C ? _ '~ . ;;w '. : ~ ; M.4g%g . ,. ;. % ;A' , >w w,. , .- , _ . - s i. t ; 4.. g - p - -. ~~,.s. . .. . 'g - - ;;a , . v,~+ n. t - :m.~ < :, p -,u , r . . , .7, i; y: , - kM .na . s r.M;.~ i% . - _ - _ _ u,.. . . -- Figure 21 Lay-down area with broken crates of pipes. Pipes scattered by the second wind crossed the road at the top. One of the 7 sand spreaders at A tumbled into the field over 300 ft away to B. Looking northeast.
17 Acknowledgements: %e author is grateful to Dr. Gregory S. Forbes and Mr. Duane J. Stiegler for their effort in the mapping of eight tornadoes. Dr. James R. Mcdonald of Texas Tech University and the author stayed in Jackson, Mississippi at the Airport ilotel during our surveys, exchanging ideas and tornado information. Without his cooperation this report could ilot have been made.
Aerial l iotographyi and mapping of damage in and around Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Plant were sponsored by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Contract No. 04-74-239 Mapping of other tornadoes and downbursts was supported by NOAA under Grant No. 04-4-158-1 and by NASA under Grant No. NGR 14-001-008,
18 TORNADO DAMAGE AT THE GRAND GULF, MISSISSIPPI NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITE
GROUND SURVEY
James R. Mcdonald Institute for Disaster Research Texas Tech University P.O. Box 4089 Lubbock, Texas 79409
19 INTRODUCTION
The Grand Gulf Nuclear Generating Station, located near Port Gibson, Mississippi, was less than fifty percent complete on the night of April 17, 1978, when it was struck without warn- ing by a tornado at 11:30 p.m. This incident, to the author's knowledge, marks the first time a nuclear generating station has been struck by a tornado. When completed in 1984, the Grand Gulf plant will have two units, each capable of generating 1250 megawatts of power. The owner is Mississippi Power and Light Co., Jackson, Mississippi. Design and construction of the plant is by Bechtel Power Corpora- tion. Figure 1 shows a general view of the plant looking nortneast along the tornado path. Areas affected by the tornado are iden- tified in the photograoh, including the Unit #1 cooling tower, the lay down (storage) area, the Zurn Industries construction yard, the concrete batch plant area, the generating area, which includes both containments, auxiliary and turbine buildings for Unit #1, the administration building and plant warehouse, and the switch yard. The tornado first touched down about nine miles so th of the plant. The centerline of the tornado passed just to the right of the cooling tower, across the concrete batch plant area and the northeast corner of the switch yard. The storm then continued through a wooded area for a distance of eight miles. Chapter 6 of this report establishes that the windspeeds were in the 125- 150 mph range. The damage path at the plant was 1500-1800 ft wide. The purpose of this report is to provide an engineering assessment of damage to the plant. Specific objectives are to document the extent of damage and the failure modes, to estimate
20 maximum windspeeds and to evaluate the missile hazard. These objectives are addressed in Chapters 5, 6, and 7 respectively. The final chapter contains general conclusions based on the damage investigations.
2; 5. ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGE
Contained in this section are the types of damage and the failure modes of the various components of the plant that were af fected by the tornado. For purposes of describing the damage the plant has been divided into four general areas: Unit #1 cooling tower, generating plant area, batch plant area, the Zt:rn Industries precast yard and a lay down area. The major damage to the plant was caused by the collapse of several construction cranes. The construction superintendent for the night shif t, Mr. Joe Pool, stated that they did not re- ceive a tornado warning on the night the storm occurred. As the severe thunderstorm approached, the superintendent, as a matter of routine, ordered the crane operators to secure their equip- ment for possible high winds. The operators then came out of their cranes because of the danger of a lightening strike. Ideally, the booms on the crawler cranes would be laid on the ground prior to high winds. This precaution is not prac- tical with the large cranes, because the long booms cannot be laid down without assistance from another crane. The tower cranes must be disassembled before they can be laid on the ground. The horizontal boom on a tower crane is allowed to rotate freely in a high wind, because the tower does not have the capability of resisting high tarsional loads. The boom tends to align it- self with the direction of the wind and acts much like the stabi- lizer on a windmill.
A. Cooling Tower The cooling tower shell for Unit #1 was couplete to the 450 ft level. Shown in Figure 2 the 8 in. thick hyperbolic shell of revolution was within 75 ft of being topped out. A tower crane rested on the foundation and extended through the center of the cooling tower shell. The horizontal boom was located above the
22 shell rim and was used for placing the concrete in the slip form operation.
When struck by the tornadic winds, the vertical sten of the , tower crane fell toward the east, striking the upper rim of the cooling tower shell. The horizontal boom and a large section of the concrete fell to the ground on the outside of the cooling tower. Figure 3 shows a close-up view of the gaping hole in the concrete shell. The vertical stem of the tower crane landed in a folded position inside the cooling tower. The pieces of concrete and the crane boom fell on the out- side of the cooling tower (Ref. Fig. 4). There were a few minor scratches on the tower foundation where the debris landed, but no structural damage. The columns around the base of the tower were not damaged. The pieces of concrete were not transported by the winds as they fell to the ground. The only damage to the cooling tower was that caused by the collapse of the crane. Bechtel engineers stated that the cool- ing tower is designed to withstand 90 mph winds. Although not completed to it full height, the cooling tower experienced windspeeds 40-70 percent greater than its design values.
B. Generating Plant Area facilities affected by the storm in the generating plant area include: Unit #1 containment, auxiliary building, turbine building, administration building and plant warehouse. The steel containment liner of Unit #1 was completed to the point that the liner dome, which had been prefabricated on the ground, was ready to be set in place. A Manitwoc 4600W crane with a lifting capacity of 300 tons, was set up on the west side of the Unit #1 auxillery building to make the lift. A tower
23 crane, similar in configuration to the one in the cooling tower, was sitting nearby. It has been used for erecting the contain- ment liner and for placing the reinforced concrete covering on the outside of the containment. As the threatening weather approached, the operator stowed the Manitwoc for high wind con- di tions. fie pointed the boom toward the south and set the brakes on the r;ng girder. The horizontal boom on the tower crane was allowed to rotate freely in the wind. Figure 5 shows an aerial view of the resul U ng crane wreckage. When the tornado struck, a ring in the gear box of the Manitwoc sheared, and allowed it to rotate freely. The boom rotated counterclockwise through approximately 90 and struck the vertical stem of the tower crane at a height of 35 f t above grade. The tower crane buckled and fell on top of the containment liner. The blow produced large dents on each side of the liner rim. The tower crane apparently bounced off of the containment liner and came to rest en the roof of the auxil- iary building. As it fell the tower crane clipped a 30 ft sec- tion of the horizontal boom of a similar tower crane that was located on the east side of the Unit #1 containment. The hori- zontal boom of the collapsed tower crane fell across part of the containment and the roof of the auxiliary building. Some of the counter weights and the operator's cab were perched precariously atop of the containment. The other counter weights fell to the roof of the auxiliary building, but did not cause any observable damage. None of the crane components fell into the containment itself. Figure 6 shows the collapsed tower crane and the Manitwoc 4600W from ground level. The boom of the Manitwoc crane, after striking the tower crane, came to rest on the roof of the Unit #1 turbine building (Ref. Fig. 7). Bechtel engineers af ter inspecting the steel rigid frames that support the turbine building roof, concluded that the frames were not harmed by the impact of the Mantiwoc
24 boom. The frames did not appear to be deformed as we viewed them from the main floor of the turbine building. Several purlins were badly deformed. The sheet metal roof was perfo- rated at several locations. By chance, the hook of the crane traveling block caught on a purlin and was prevented from falling inside the building. The length of the cables would have prevented the block from falling to the floor below. The traveling block assembly weighs approximately one and one-half tons. The sheet metal siding on the turbine building was not removt.1 by the winds. The siding, which was probably 18 gage, was well anchored to the girts by neavy self-taping screws. Built-up asphalt and gravel roofing material was removed from parts of the turbine building. The Zonolite insulation was also removed in some places. Zonolite is a light weight insulating material that is cast in place prior to application of the roof- ing material. The Administration Building is located just outside of the damage path boundary. Material was removed from a section of the roof and a concrete masonry wall under construction was blown down. The power plant warehouse, which is also located near the boundary of the damage path, suffered a classical wind failure. The windward wall failure can be seen in Figure 8(a). The con- nection between the girt and the column failed when the bolts tore through the metal in the girt web. The sheet metal around the anchor screws tore out allowing the siding to push inward. Deflection of the overhead door caused the rollers to come out of their track guides. Failure of the windward wall allowed the wind to ;et inside the building and create additional internal pressure, which combined with the leeward wall pressures to produce a breach in the leeward wall. As shown in Figure 8(b), the sheet metal siding was pushed outward. The sheet metal tore
25 around the heads of the anchor screws. The opening in the leeward wall relieved the internal pressure inside the building and pherhaps prevented additional damage.
C. Batch Plant Area The batch plant had the most visible damage of the entire facility. A small shop building was totally destroyed, the Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory was damaged, and the aggregate con- veyor system was ripped from the batch plant tower. In addition there were a number of construction office trailers and semi- trailers used for storage of material and equipment that were destroyed and/or transported by the winds.
1. Shop Building The shop building collapsed due to failure of its light metal framing system. Most of the sheet metal was stripped from the building, possibly after collapse of the frame. Numerous objects stored in the building were exposed to the winds, but were not carried away (Ref. Fig. 9).
2. Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory Building Figure 10 shows a view of the Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory building. The girt line visible in the photo is evidence of an ivard acting wind pressure on the wall. The wall on the oppo- site side of the building had its metal siding pulled outward. The collapsed light pole probably helped prevent uplift of the roof at the corner. The three holes in the wall at the back of the building were possibly caused by missile irr. pacts. The impacting objects could not be found.
26 3. Aggregate Conveyor System The aggregate conveyor system was torn from its connection with the batch plant and the aggregate bins (Ref. Fig.11). The conveyor was heavily damaged and will have to t.e replaced. The conveyor probably experienced the maximum winds of the tornado.
4. Mobile Trailers
Several construction office trailers were affected by the wind along with some semi-trailers used for storage of materials and equipment. The batch plant office trailer (30 x 10 ft) was ripped from its steel undercarriage and was transported into the switch yard by the winds. Figure 12 shows that the undercarriage lodged between an overturned semi-trailer and the base of the computer trailer. The batch plant computer trailer had its walls ripped from their anchorage to the floor. The floor and the undercarriage remained intact because they were securely anchored to a con- crete slab. The computer console was still in place, although it was heavily damaged by water, dirt and debris. A corner of the ccmputer trailer can be seen in Figure 12. A large semi-trailer, with tandem wheels, was located between the Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory building and the batch plant. It contained equipment for making ice, which is used for controlling temperature of the concrete mix. The compressor unit of the ice machine was found near the railroad tracks that are located between the batch plant area and the switch yard (Ref. Fig. 1). The semi-trailer housing continued into the switch yard and finally came to rest at the north end after impacting a large piece of switch gear. It had traveled approx- imately 1000 ft from its original location. The tandem wheels came off of the semi-trailer and traveled in the opposite
27 direction, coming to rest near the Unit #1 cooling tower. Several other semi-trailers were overturned or moved slightly. An overturned semi-trailer can be seen in Figure 12. It is heavily loaded with bags of red clay. Another semi- trailer, that was located behind the office trailer was rotated 45 , but did not overturn. There also were various sizes of storage tanks and aggregate bins located in the batch plant area. None of these were significantly affected by the winds.
D. Switch Yard
Installation in the switch yard gear was complete. The equipment was energized up to the plant boundary. Typical dam- age to the condutors and insulators is shown in Figure 13. The main transmission line towers were not damaged. Most of the 15-20 ft trussed support towers remained standing, but the insulators and conductors were torn away. Many of the trussed towers were bent and distorted. Circuit breakers and other heavy equipment in the switch yard did not appear to be damaged. The impact of the ice machine trailer only caused superficial damage to the equipment.
E. Zurn Industries Precast Yard Figure 1 shows that the Zurn Industries precast yard was partly included in the tornado damage path. The office and warehouse building (Ref. Fig. 14) were not seriously damaged. The five foot overhang at the south end of the building was particularly susceptible to the winds. However, the roof did not uplift and no significant damage occurred. Two semi-trailers, parked side by side, were tossed approx- imately 20 ft into the plant access road. Both were heavily
damaged. > Other than some light weight objects (buckets, empty barrels,
28 pieces of loose sheet metal, inslulation, etc.), nothing of any appreciable size was moved in the open storage yard. Large pieces of precast concrete were stacked in the yard, but did not move. According to the Zurn yard superintendent two 5 ft x 7 ft x 6 in. pieces of precast concrete that were sitting on a stack of similar pieces flipped upside down during the storm. They were not transported, but simply did a flip. Although not readily explainable, the incident was likely caused by local turbulence.
F. Lay Down Area There are several areas on the plant site where pieces of equipment and materials are stored until needed in the construc- tion operation. The tornado passed directly over the one located just south of the Zurn yard (Ref. Fig.1). A large number of wooden crates of Transite pipe were stored in the area (Ref. Fig. 15). In some cases the cases were stacked two-high. The winds toppled the crates and the pipe spilled out on the ground. Pieces of pipe were scattered over a large area, but none traveled more than 25-30 ft. The pipe joints are 8 in. dia x 8 f t long. Transite pipe is a fiber-reinforced asbestos pipe. Some of the joints broke into pieces as the crates fell and rolled down the slight grade. Figure 16 shows the scattered pipe and the undamaged crates in the background. Six sand spreaders were also stored in the lay down area. Five of the six spreaders are shown in Figure 17. They are con- structed of steel plate and pipe. They were used in the earth- work phase of construction. After being filled with sand, they are lifted and are used in the same way as a concrete bucket. One of the spreaders was rolled and tumbled by the winds for a distance of approximately 300 ft. Scratch marks on a concrete
29 apron and indentations in the soft ground indicate that the spreader was not airborne, but rolled and tumbled. Why only one of the spreaders moved is not entirely clear. Perhaps it was resting on a slight incline and had a higher tendency of impending motion. The path traveled by the spreader is a fairly steep downhill grade. The most surprising object to be moved by the winds is the large alignment rig made from steel wide flange beams. It is constructed in the form of a gable roof, as shown in Figure 18. Estimating the steel beams to weigh about 40 lbs per f t, the rack would weigh approximately 8000 lbs. The rig moved a dis- tance of 100 ft from its original location along the path shown in Figure 19. No grour;d marks were visible along its path of travel. How could a heavy object like this with a relatively small surface area be moved by the winds? Two possible explana- tions are offered: the construction people were not positively sure of the original location of the rig. It may not have traveled as far as suggested above. Otherwise, the rig may have been hit by a burst of intense turbulence (suction spot?) which could have moved it the indicated distance. Neither of these explanations are entirely satisfactory. Nearby damage is not consistent with a wind intensity necessary to move the rig. Several joints of 30 in. dia x 40 ft long fiberglass pipe were tossed around, but did not travel any appreciable distance (Ref. Fig. 20). The pipes have a large surface area to weight ratio, so the movement is not unexpected. Stacks of miscellaneous pieces of concrete form were slightly disturbed by the winds, but none of the pieces were moved more than 5 ft. A typical form unit was 8 in. wide x 4 ft long and weighted less than 10 lbs.
30 6. WIflDSPEED ESTIMATE
There were no direct measurements of the tornadic wind- speeds. Peak gusts at a meteorological tower located approxi- mately 5000 ft from the Unit #1 containment were measured at 80 mph. An anemomenter located atop the Bechtel office build- ing was not monitored during the peak of the storm. Thus, windspeed estimates can be made only in indirect methods. The only method available in this case is to relate the appearance of damage with previous damage inspection experience, where windspeed calculations have been made. This approach tends to make the results rather subjective. However, the general agreement with estimates by Fujita [1] and Rotz [2] seem to substantiate the values obtained. The key indicators of windspeed used here are tree damage and damage to mobile trailers, pre-engineered buildings and windborne missiles. The damage suggests that the maximum windspeeds at the plant site were in the range of 125-150 mph. These values are in general agreement with the F2 rating (113- 157 mph) by Fujita [1] and the 120-140 mph range suggested by Rotz [2]. Each of the four windspeed indicators are discussed below.
A. Tree Damage M:_ of the damage prior to striking the plant was to trees in the forest. Eight to ten inch diameter trees were_ typically snapped off five to six feet above the ground. Limbs of the oak and elm trees were broken off and some were uprooted. There is no direct correlation between windspeed and the tree damage. Similar damage has been observed in tornadoes where the wind- speeds were in the range 125-150 mph. The tornadoes that hit Burnett, Texas, Nrch 10, 1973, and Atlanta, Georgia, March 24, 1975 had windspeeds in the 125-150 mph range based on other
31 types of damage. The Brimingham, Alabama tornado of April 1977, had higher windspeeds and significantly more damage to the trees in the path. The tree damage observed near the Grand Gulf Generating Station is consistent with the damage description for F2 tornadoes.
B. Mobile Trailers In the concrete batch plant area (Ref. Fig. 1) a number of mobile trailers were damaged or destroyed. The batch plant office trailer was stripped from its undercarriage and rarried away by the winds to the switch yard. The computer trailer had its undercarriage well anchored to the ground, but its roof and walls were ripped away. Likewise the semi-trailer containing the ice making equipment was torn apart and transported 1000 ft. The two semi-trailers in the Zurn yard were tossed about 20 ft into the plant access road. Mobile homes tend to loose their roofs and have their walls collapse at windspeeds of 125 mph. Unanchored homes can be rolled and tumbled at these windspeeds. If the windspeeds are greater than 150 mph the debris is broken into small pieces and is scattered over a wide area. The strength of the office trailers and semi-trailers are comparable to mobile homes, if not somewhat stronger. The appearance of F2 Fujita scale damage is described in part as, "... trailer houses demolished; railroad boxcars pushed over, large trees snapped or uprooted; light-weight missiles generated...". Therefore the damage to mobile trailers tends to substantiate the 125-150 mph windspeed estimate.
32 C. Pre-Engineered Metal Buildings The shop building in the batch plant area probably felt the maximum winds of the tornado. This light stecl framed temporary building was totally destroyed. The structural frame collapsed and much of the sheet metal siding and roof were torn away. The Pittsburgh Test", Lab building also saw the higher winds in the tornado. The collapse of the light standard may have helped minimize damage to the building itself. Uplift at the roof corner due to 150 mph winds could have been as high as 290 psf. Sheet metal normalb- omes off at these pressures, but the presence of the light standard may have helped hold it down. Some roofing did come off. The crease in the sheet metal at the girt line is evidence of relatively high inward acting pressures. Thus the most severe damage to metal buildings is not inconsistent with the 125-150 mph windspeed estimate. The plant warehouse building, a metal building in the switch yard and the Zurn office and warehouse building were all on the edge of the tornado path. None of them were extensively damaged.
D. Windborne Missiles With the exception of the sand spreader and the alignment rig, only the very lightest objects, or those with large sur- face areas (mobile trailers), were transported by the winds. The light missiles included insulation, sheet metal, buckets, empty barrels and small pieces of timber. Several pieces of the 30 in. diameter fiber glass pipes were moved, but they did not travel very far. As mentioned in Section II, these missile incidents must be explained in terms of local turbulence or other unknown factors. Since many other heavier missiles were available for trans- port, the size and weight of the missiles picked up represent
33 an upper bound on windsoeed. Unfortunately this upper bound value cannot be quantitatively defined. Missile behavior, based on observations in other storms, is consistent with tne esti- mated windspeed range. Thus the four indicators of windspeed considered support the proposed windspeed range. None of the structures damaged by the winds readily lend themselves to windspeed calculations. The metal buildings are temporary in nature with unknown fea- tures and material properties. The free standing light stan- dards are relatively clean structures, but their low national frequency means that a dynamic analysis must be performed, which requires knowledge of the time history of loading. The deformed shape of some of the poles suggested second or third mode shapes, which are typical of complex dynamic behavior. Analysis of the ultimate strength of the cooling tower will give an upper bound on windspeed since it was not damaged by the winds themselves. This calculation is anticipated later, but is not available now.
34 7. WINDBORNE filSSILE BEHAVIOR
In this report any object, regardless of size or weight, that moves a significant distance is, by definition, a windborne missile. A survey of this or any other plant construction site reveals that there is every size, shape and form of potential windborne missiles available for transport by the winds. In many cases the objects are resting on sills or racks 12-18 in. above the ground. In this section the types of missiles that were moved by the tornadic winds are tabulated. Specific mis- siles that did not fly are also listed. Finally, windborne missile threat to a nuclear power plant is discussed in light of this storm.
A. Missiles That Were Transported
Table 1 is a list of the types of missiles that were trans- ported a significant distance by the wind. Items 1-12 in Table 1 are not surprising. Their movements are consistent with other forms of observed damage. The last two items in the table are somewhat puzzling. Details of their behavior are given in Section II.
B. Objects That Did Not Move The tornado did not pass over any of the plant parking lots, so it is not known if automobiles would have been transported by the winds. A pickup truck parked in the area between the turbine building and the switch yard, was turned around and pushed over a conductor tunnel. This incident was the only reported damage to trucks or automobiles at the site. Hopper-type railroad cars loaded with aggregate for concrete were not overturned. The cars can be seen in Figure 1. The con- crete transport trucks that were parked in the batch plant area did not move. Various types of construction equipment in the area between
35 the Unit #1 cooling tower and the auxiliary building were not significantly disturbed by the winds. There were also small pieces of pipe, timber and other miscellaneous pieces of mate- rial on the roof of the auxiliary building that were not transported by the winds. Pallets of bricks to be used as liners in the cooling tower were slightly disturbed by tne winds. The pallets were sitting in rather precarious locations. A rocking motion created by the wind turbulence caused a few of the packaging bands to break and the bricks spilled out. None were transported any distance.
C. Windborne Missile Threat to Power Plants
Because of the relatively weak intensity of this storm the findings regarding potential missile behavior are very inconclu- sive. There were no unexpected missile events. There was no damage to permanent facilities from missile impact. One must conclude that at a power plant construction site there are thousands of potential missiles of all sizes and shapes. In many instances they are sitting in favorable positions for injection into the tornado wind field. This investigation rein- forces the concept that tornado missiles can be a principle dam- aging mechanism in tornadoes.
36 8. CONCLUSIONS
The strike of a tornado on the Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Generating Station provides a rare opportunity to oberve the effects of tornadic loads on the facility. Because the tor- nado was relatively weak (125-150 mph), evaluations of the adequacy of tornado resistant design criteria are inconclu- sive. The following general conclusions are offered based on the information obtained from the field investigations. (1) The appearance of damage suggests windspeeds in the range of 125-150 mph, based on the author's damage investigation experience. The damage appearance is also consistent with a Fujita scale rating of F2. (2) Major damage to the power plant facility was due to the collapse of construction cranes. (3) The switch yard installation was extensively damaged by the winds. (4) The Unit #1 cooling tower was not damaged by wind- speeds 40-70 percent greater than design values. Damage that did occur was from the collapse of a tower crane used in construction. (5) Findings on the behavior of potential missiles are inconclusive because of the weak intensity of the tornado. (6) Nothing was found that would raise questions con- cerning the conservatism of current design standards for nuclear power plants.
37 Acknowledgements
Many persons were helpful in the tornado damage documenta- tion effort. The free exchange of information and photographs between Dr. Ted Fujita and the author has been very beneficial in making the damage evaluations. A damage report [2] and the exchange of information and photographs with Julius Rotz of Bechtel Power Corporation is also acknowledged. The helpful cooperation of the quality assurance section of Mississippi Power and Light is greatfully acknowledged. Without the assistance of Thomas E. Reaves, Jr., Manager of Quality Assurance and Phillip W. Sly, Quality Assurance Field Supervisor, the information contained in this report could not have been a ssembl ed. The guidance of fered by Charles R. McFarland, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II is also acknowledged.
38 References
1. Fujita, T.T. ,1978: " Aerial Survey of Grand Gulf Plant and Vicinity after the April 17, 1978 Tornado," SMRP Research Report No.162, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; also appears in NUREG/CR-0383,1-18.
2. Rotz, J.V. ,1978: " Tornado Damage Report, Grand Gulf Generating Station, Port Gibson, Mississippi," Internal Report, Bechtel Power Corporation, San Francisco, California.
39 TABLE 1 MISSILES THAT FLEW Distance Missile Location Traveled, ft
1. Sheet metal siding Batch plant; Zurn yard -<500 2' x 12' sheets
2. Small pieces of Lay down area; Zurn 1100 timber 1" x 4" x yard 6' long
3. Buckets, small Zurn yard 1100 barrels (empty)
4. Fiberglass pipe Lay down area <100 30" dia x 40' long -
5. Transite pipe Lay down area 150 8" dia x 10' long
6. Seni-trailer, Lay down area; near 120 flat bed (empty) auxiliary building
7. Semi-trailer, ice Batch plant 11000 plant 8' x 8' x 35'
8. Office trailer Batch plant 1300 10' x 30'
9. Computer trailer Batch plant 1300 8' x 40'
10. Flood light Batch plant 1200 assembly
11. Refrigeration unit Batch plant (ice plant) 1300 3' x 4' x 6'
12. Insulators Switch yard 150 6" dia x 3' long
13. Sand spreader Lay down area 1300
14. Steel alignment Lay down area 1100 rig
40 ! \ DAMAGE PATH., \ i' CL , \ - v iq.. <~s 2 3 _. \- . . , \. .,;s. .m y. un.. > . _ ,. .~. % ,; - .. \ - #. g
\ , -- . . . - -J_..: 3 u. muuh - ' *. 'TURBINE Ad ' BLDG \ m R.; .. ,zj UNIT #2 CONTAlf; MENT ,o..,. . w- ,n , - ,- . . ~{gw, - -m S.,17CH YARD < g u .s - ,..- : . . . . . - ,, e p .. ..m my \ -- s \ T ADMIN BLD3 i c 3_ t~m s . 4 , >;- - N- p c, .q. , f . e __ a ca i > UNIT #1 T' , -d ~ _'\ BATCH PLAll . ' " > UNIT el CONTAINMENT % **~ [,~ - C00 LING' s s '' ,- 'i bH . ' | TOWER \.g r?,,% ,. 7 , FL. -M,.#-* % # ~ PLANT WAREHOUSE . .f 7 ' e a - * W.wvm' , '"ZURN YARD v$ ,* ? s~.Iq j r yQ. . -- .m g - e ,.., 3., --4,,. ,3 . ' 99 _ ** SS j A l': ' [x,3. ;.|f1'%!?[.QL - .: y , s'\' * ; u n ,: , . g- , \.,+.j t..-- %-- q x . ' . . ..s. y.v p- . w , ' ., _s . 9. " 5 ' * * * 's i,~ C- - I [.[ g g- , [ggp.- D '' ) -[. - . . - '* - \ -n h;.m, , , g.eris .7.9 |, , a[. n > 4. g.. , . ;, -, b, , ,- . , ,' +.,J ~;%y A. c w ,3 . .g ., , w - q , c . w 9 ; x ; ,c%._ ., ,* c , .- -- , 3 ..u \p t- , .. m .' M LAY D'O',a AREA , v, . ,n h_, .{.I'N . ] , .g. ... = , * . ,1 # uh:i$M- .2,4 #. 4 t. * .- 3 4 ya ,e s..%nd.b,),2.:k/ 4 3A , d. l I I.[6 4 6' ,'M'% .:( * Jhd5 .c(a.s 2d1 - + *W- + r . '-) ) ' < , L . g .- 4. :. .
Figure 1. Overall view of plant looking northeast.
41
. -~,.+-.,~g , _ m
. gwg.+ . . .- ,, y.. ~ - - i, * &, . . gy., , .ny - . . -. - w- .a ,, 3
. - o a. mw ^ ., ., y s, . , . )m* . ' . - _ ,_- . ~, W ' * * kk . .~ ' 5 4 ' ** + ,, .. ,'., ' r , _ Y .' m[> g ,, . . . , VL, , . g , , J'' m [ ? ''' ,...... n , : w,.x %;'w . . ~ . , . .. a., -.s .. s ..%c-, . ,1...... , 3- ..-~ sn ,u,s..;. . et'. : , ,~.2.,,,sw. y e v. . , . - l3 .: - . % 'A.. * . . tu .. k .,f. 9 *gs: W h . 4 m ' e'.'*^~. g *; , . ;- - Ag' r g ? ,.*, e : . . ~2,a '' a .p M. d.Di / - u- . - ' dp #W[.' tb,, w, ,;, U, , . %E ,d;> . +|7 u ,Y.''' 4' C. , ~C ",ie 9f, f.s 44, - . - >p. .. .n c .:$"," . '',p3, 4g - w ;; ; s,.,n;- .; - . + o .. . .g ,. , 79 ,- y w xu . n n ,. y e. - .g ,..-vs v . - Y k b 5 5 f '| h "a ~|y y,,~~ ^- ;y?,% . Nys , ; -- ~~ > . . 4 Q.f ; w. W,8' ._'y ;,,.ay.+ 5, . c4 v v ' a - ' , ' g ",- '
Figure 2. Unit #1 cooling tower.
42 . .. , .o - -; ~ 1 4 ? p agit *IN - ' a as;;; I , 2. y- y' l' m>:q.c.g ,.',y?h;Ilt'6 , . ? . ,1v .Jgijg * i J.@ffR-4| Q1$?;!$+@);?:tp $$g 4 i h;~,b MI kijd'- tyg. / p gr, . o - ki h e,i w y-aQtEa &n.$'"%- tL Sm s)iy p?* ~ p*%e}r% .d!?i . Y',k. u u hVy 3/-_ . . , \,'x *a
: *. ts ' -
_ i L.mfy/jk ! ; . - , - ' . ,w , .e - ygu c.e, - '. - ,, . ,,! 5). *i ,..t / ;f .{.I f , -\ * *Ua t's 1 . .t M r q i .t- ^ fQ Q,7,* r
I-|g,blM|0 sn- 'i: h p|g ; ' . r ,,. . ,%.4.w
Figure 3. Damage to unit #1 cooling tower.
43 - . , , - ,d '9 I' - ( .E{.-f 59 . h,7 : 4W**' = - ' ' - ' ,Nd s > - - , . , . . . , - t. it i AA ~/; ;y, t s.- , *. . c. - + :s ; ,/ \a , \.y. ..x ; d/ ym. d .f ; .r i sz- \ g. y J i i-' z; , , r ; %: j c-e.. / j _~ a ,J e. : . s. , f.' .> ' a' (1- , - , ; '. , . '- ~ ,/ - ). \*. : , %j - L . . , . -} . * v. , f - n , ' . . y 'l || ; ~j ,.. 1 , 1- }, %f < ~ g* - 4 ,g r . ., [1.rg , jy g 3 y;g - - . t fii q ; . ;f ;"- ,, . l -e . , ,, . a ..a., ' 7 :~. \.,. . , ' . > ,r ; /,u, , ,t s - ,i , ? wf a %c j... %. . 1 at? * ' , .}* y \., ' | '- * . ' M.AW < M 'c',/ ;g . h ,.s'it , ~ .3 e ..,7 ; < .. - .,. . i _ ' ' . ,2 ~ , q . .-{ Thy >)uM7, ,m 3 4 g ._ ;-) .w ' nJ) ,A esg r .w.L x . - -- m '' .1 mg r: .w I t) y p '. 7 p\ z / / ,5..g=.- 9 - p T;;t ~ 5 ,y |_,. _~*~~ rm = 3 q n y ; .. .y . *,w%3 . J., 7 w .. . : . ,y 9; :. r y."-} b 'Eb ; $ E u k j . k'df'a(f_f.|,- 0., p,i6;kb0};khk$Qg[j$:- - .. w- . , ,,o n ' m - ': ^ . . ~ ., - 7* e ' , .i%. w,fi$g , - - , ;, , -. , .
N, . -- ' tW N _ .
-
M
Figure 4. Crane wreckage and debris at base of cooling tower.
44 .
,
. 4 .m . m ,. -}aq' ~ ' - , , , ,, ~ ~ . . -- . . . -,
- , ' 1 . ,. , " . - , 'N' " , spx,
,. - - / ,, - . . ./ 3 a4 . 3: . .s -/ , + * ' ' k,p . .w .-r "g . e >; / . ~} n'e c , .' y . . .e,
~ $[ [. < 33 . =.
.
Figure 5. Aerial view of crane wreckage.
45 .
. . . ; s /A p g , J f / 7 .,Q'tR ' : G (/n:r ' ; s g ,}' s yVs [g..$ '/g i 4 ' '3 ~ d? /G . -mrt- :r 0 a y%S p - .~8 .n . W.cr . ^ ,- ? -w ) v< 3:e>! *h . n 0 mg ;s , , n ~. g ,m;g.. I , el g ,,p ,...f+ .g ; ._Na)a ? * u m, a . m ]_ .~ ~ . w:3 y .%A%,,';m 1:m, t .%@;g-t- f. mu >~s m r .. Q. / ~ %p. %.s. . t - . u cy;;1m4 a. . , . =| g : M .m . - _v,.gdt,p-, . ,- mw, - o : p, c 9p , p u,- .'p. ,s ..e-# g;aw y.4a s. . ' ur a *-" j,- i t .. , ,,.., q p,< r f * i fa+.. -
s; . I ~, ' * * *) y ; :\ ? ,; A
. ?) l' .%f:hW y ! I .: '! |T! j -' . 4 w O$fkY'1% .N g.SM -r| / M -h '' % [Nk>n . h ; c y | JM. 'y V [ Q- M j gi @jngf:pyft. fW$i f> [ ; Owmphig$p;' i . p g ~? em j %1teRqn~.w${w$$.W.m.Ih < f M,i..:.}..., ,& I ,\ %[ e'% ,6YOMhdu ~ " 'Ke k ,j da . m. _ . - - ~ - - - - _ , . y -w % y ~.. t :> .; x; ;a .- . .~ ky :Q . su ,_- ;..x. . .-- t-:.y. . . %.. -, ., , .p~*. - _ Ni . t s . ..u zw. v s . w .' . .. s en. g. m, '. W p JK@L. -- w s,.a v.:.t A]y,. _ .s . 4.- : 7 v. n.. . . . a _ - . 4 ,a ..a d / - .% ,__xe, --- -- e** k . 4- " As es A
Figure 6. Collapsed tower crane and Manitwoc 4600W crane.
46 Jg~ f .. < , 3 / ' ~) * / g! I .: t ':- - p . . :t .:s .
j* < .;n * ,t' ';}. :, ,,. p s i, S i- e , ,a.- : - ; ,_ . r ~ ; .~- \o- .d ( . ' - , 'I OII gV\ [f s /_ q |, , $ h ,re m : , 2- -, y, .s_._ , . . , . . . _ _ , . ,, f $ gp , sr ;-) ,, 3 .~ ~ e, <, sy f , y
J < .r _ 4 f. . ' ' . a -~.._a...._c. au a, .. ,.:. ..-..-..a:-..~a a. . . -..: .a. . .t
Figure 7. Boom of Manitwoc crane on roof of turbine building.
47 _, - - - . . . _ _ _ - -m y . _. _.-.! i -g , .j,. ! m , %' ,_ ~~ , . . . , !l ,!, ' ~ , j p q, j,; - - . | j |. 4 , , ,: , ,3 ,) < o , 1 ' i 'Os /Nd ', | ; t n 2 9 )j _.- ; ~, e, m m,, . p' . , p qma-m .q p , t ry , g ; ,;, I it: k; . 1. -j . s . . 11 , gEq; y 4|I .. , ' )'. . ,. .d s .s a, i .: , r u i. y.~ . . ..s%. [,- r c; - ~, |a.n . t |. , ,j , t t , i ;, , .: t -: ! * , h - , ..; - n=p \ . - , - . , ' . y ..4~ t. m - - - . . p p- . '' I | , . ' |: 3 yit | ,,},s ; t,c; .- | , / L- 4 i,l.c|n h(7"TW f(iff,.,mq[w7a w - < ~ ~ - MAN: . |I [fi J. c.2rP - Q | = y g< . . ...L. 25 k ,; 3 <- w - - ., ., .u 4.. # - . 9 rN h l h* k* . * { _' ' , , y y|h -j *' > < ,t , 7-' = %' g%g t - r "qi . | ||[ j -1' t. 3p rff i j,) ! 4 & a.a.r; . .... c f,,,.3 , i . . i .c _ Aj&4_' w ;~ .- ; +1 s v .s. g: . . :we., . . l$ :. e. i L:s;z A g; * ^ !M ~. li '** / / ' , _ .; . . . - - . f , . , - / si J . u_--,Th.w.;l , - -- -- ,,y - ~ j ," .3 ' - :J - - . Aw
Figure 8a. Plant warehouse building: wi ndward wall.
48 -
* .
. , - ws . we bi p .fs 7 'f 7 9p g ] , g;,p~ , . ., #. . 3 ,. .y n ,. ,; > ~m+...,>- ' :. , ; - c -. ;;,3 + y. T:n + , , , : . w; y , . w- A n A: - m . ^A . .nJ:. h p') .: )[( , ;_ . _ dy. i eg k;y } n t .s. . , . g'" ' ' ' - 1 g, 7 c %;_ g.k _ w-:hkE!>:; f c.- ... ..';t;iq)fh '.9 ., , k,.[ ? , . .< , fKi r . '| .. .e ' .,"d T, $. .:M. . :. ] , . y n, . - , . " . , - s ,. < .,.u c - - . g, , .1 . ! . -. 2 .$.. l 2 .;.c:3,e 4. x ~ $ ' 'b h.w g . f h}:h &s .
@_ i; f ,,7 ;f M 2 e f G - d 3|~' [i ;% y$ ; Q b,s ;i.@ # d [kh.|z.-y- : zw .- .' ,yd
~ * - ( ..-: - .. W. ... .s . '_n_.... ' F~ | - . . . "- . - >. . w M 3 Y-? R.J,'a'. @;_.. cf E ; D . . . . . - p- - 73g- rj . , , ,e p . . '. - ., ; w . f. . &y s _ - . , _ ' ~ , ' . , .-
Figure 8b. Plant warehouse building: leeward wall.
49 a t, n '. & - r .. . . s (i ;M ~ c1 , , <. .W .P, :n ,r*-< ' < J , .%%ud ., ,y.. ;. ,s g y ~ , . ,, . . y . , '#
. n_'! ] f ;{ |j . . y , , la,an"'' ,4 , g ,,,f' % y t 7<. ' ' t ~ , Ef' . - s .. w_, .,b !/, !,jI>e$ g +r.w _p. , AMd IQ$XQh h Mhb f*/hk 'SN'.f.; <1$-|%R"fp |@d' % $ $ I f if I f f i b M'np E @ian @ a w* W : f 9 : $ 2 '' h (3 5 4 is2NN"R p-;RQ ' : n .w..,- g " 3w} * *::: n{ : e w ,% .; yQ
- ,)4(y.g ?i e n . .t 1 ; 2 ;ag:% z g g g g m ;; ~ gym ~ - ^ ~' - = - nur = _- Was ~ , _ g t_ %. j . _,
, ~_. , J' - w .. ,- c ,. . ,, . .n. , , . , -
Figure 9. Wreckage of shop building in Batch plant area.
50 ,
'\ '? o |,- ,, .. g 4 - - - > - . .
-- , . -m a ' r f , / W)- n' W.,,,n>QI %u % , , Q ~v.9, Q>;,.;:.;,;;~ . , . ,, .: w. r . ,m;y% , v. ,ra | , ~ :" - .c, , hi, L ,, I ; r,;)./;.,,;
_ . , .<._ , , , _ . . , > a .4 '' _ . . ,
.
x
' : ,
Figure 10. Pittsburgh testina laboratory building.
51 N %,< ;, 7:% ,,.,' . . , ,; . L L y 3 .s, %%f .
_ & - P- t " n ; } I,e
- - o :,-. ;s s... t !' , . .. . ,dil!(;u 4 ' .n, ,a ,? j "[l#7d_il 1( - mg n m . . s -- e ' po- -wM;p 2 $% . m;c , 13 - k.o4|?s e.+ $ 4 p ;J,x, P n r a m " a...L , p '(.Q.b:f A W :; f,um g- s p eng. &4 &. r-=n.4 n, I4 &yw fn "~ 4 ~ .e ui,As.r1+- x .: . aL'ta ., b' x ; -t.+ - w M.e ..? - N. [f - .{y;. g,o&rY ca a p'!b.Q."MGTjf>f~,Wf * * ky.Q. - ',MLQ, a arma W 5" - d g--- j P.*._.+ - ,sG 4<.Vt.n ar- t~ w d s ~ ~- c - ;r^- ./. K' ~ , a,_ l I L.:t g7] n ...g - % ~ , . . . _ . . . $,.a' I'( - ' n%. .b Sk 4 1fifki' ~ ~ . . _ _ .. ~ m _ - igS:cEL&" - - _ < /' > ;/ > - p %, . $ , - ,, ' ,: , , :U Q, , . . > - U} . ! w JSM - - . . . . . f' ;5k.st _ .% s ti .. C ,,,. g g , .- - w~ : . u2 - . , < .; 4, 2- --- e . a-
Figure 11. Aggregate conveyor system.
52 .
, . b. .rt. - " - p A - 3 e
,- S.4 j - - - %Qu;p- 4a?19 # $. + s"Q*- ' s s. Lc.%::4::.:c,Y.. t : ,c :Zjf}!";9 , .nA 1 i - . g - , gr . . . f - /? y\', p n q M. ; .h . ':%9mp .- g i ga j y .~ r'; 's i ', } \, '' _ )W 3 Q .- _a - ..ai e+ : >
# _ e ' ,. ',; 6' s .,% ** ' ''
|h0' l -] . ,, .m y. ..a a- p,. ,.. * %. . 4 - ~ .;.;rp ",y - . . - - , (O& v ' -.y
. . ~ . . . : ^ ,),,..- . , c . _, - " _..e, ,, 1 m. J . ynca-Atas- - -- . , - . [L _, 2.d ,; ' a r.e / n - .;L - [.y*jQ, ;*gp"a~::)'; =~'M; ;{T s . - - \ ,Wu '7| , ;e M ;- _ ,' , M , G. , s s w.c ( f ~ _. . '" o. - * , v 1 ' - U / . .. ' * *, ,' ' p l.%.. n .i ' \ . u{,('[j' ; - ' .i.. w , ,:.~ ~[ ..-(- . ;Q' ','p,_ \ - - < 4. m ; ,, "Y%gy _ j, ' 2:3+---- -'
a . . - _ f- _ - ;, , . . . .,+ _.)... / ~'" .c
Figure 12. Undercarriage of Ba .ch plant office trailer.
53 ' " . t .. y, ,, .:- p # . m )- J .' ( l is |' % gi * f, [,$ 1 '. \ f,P,: ,s ,hj .,ff *. 'l . ' s ''! #' . , .jj y > - {I ;) , , ' ' ph)' y,i , y[J dj p t'a ' T( . ig; ,;, ' {- 4 JN l' jfP .}, /| ' .! . | y. [' t [3g v .' n g,[6 . ,s ; es .' h,l'.(1 j[\.{i t. . ,4 ' .[ |[/. m:{ - - lt , s I_, [. . .'y .s ] 1 10 g s ,,e J (N ' P J ri . c 's L L3 ; su' ' \c j, ~T * 4%* > - ' L i 4_..cIII'iIJ:L 3 t, t : s -4( ,w ,, , ) ' %'. ,,x : < ,t h, ' - . ] o i g' e :i . w , .: I. h, a .ca.sf'L\ 0 Yb og$| . ; . L $- 5i i f L t, s ? - i c.: fit | M&~- e.@ t ?Y- 4 ? w'f:{k, )l -kUIW}b,hfb. ' AINNbc-% @(, MYkdi)[s?. 't& % *oa % ? =.1 M., ~},/d,D&fdI1^ 4.: .1 Yynp 7 ,A' s Q... y | f,, , |' \
- ~ i t v %";f'$u -- , , . A- ; _3 .:y , ; 4 ? " +* w W Tais i :' n ; b ,, qQ7"y*QC~~;."_,, .e; Q r. . . ;e . , , . .:3 ~ w;ryg. ,_ .~ 4..j(,) - .' , . ., s. i t...... - .- , * - ., v .* , /- ', , - L/ . . - . . - * - -- w. , - . Figure ll. Damage to switch yard equipment.. 54 . - . ------=-- . * - [- at. 1 ' ! ~ %f~ * ' M;,g ; - - Q ~ ,_/.,- s, .- ., p. - . . . , -6-a.m .. . , , 3 k ,7 - s . c,u =: .u.m i . %. a -.cs , n. ~.w..c;;. ;;; . j .,. ,o g .- 1 - , ,. v , ;. v .m,' , - *.,m. ' ' enwu ,, , L ,- ,* .we ,7. z i ' u . n ras rn.,. y, ,; , s .. .:gy,N.- . ~ i c.s - 3.. s , ,a 4,; ;o s ' ' ' . , .1w , ! - . <./ -s ) P.3 .' .- :: O',J:;, ., , - .! . . ,. . f8 , '( 'm. : * $ - ,nse ' - iI . . ,s Figure 14. Narehouse and office building in the Zurn yard. 55 _ .. .. tyn .r , * , ..-' !- . / , m 4 .,r .d . g;+ : + $ ' . - %( ' sat , * , - . ,. ~ {4 : r ' . ., q ,. ') ~ ; . . ';s~' . A h ~~ a. . . . < s% ' , e_ s .e . |b , .' k , s:- .- , , 1 - ;u, g r.,;b,s.s .-p,?. %s, ps.g- |s, - - ,. . ,. : .s e t ~ p s v- ,- pa.- y . . , .. ,.s g %,. w - r - < 2 e an, . > 4, 1,'~, c .,,M. L . 4 M;w.. < k,,. ,%' - , * .- . t *. ' ^ , 5' . , ./.** 44 gyt* g .v ; * * * , \. f , gh * i .,f- \ - 4 -+ N .,~ , 3 f ' k y ," .9, gf k4,pp)sA 71 , > b. $.,)i s A3' gu -) h :f a ]4 A khkb ! kY wy er), y, r-f>:?'k'.na v . n ja :- v, b .c; x . u m * b * ' |%,~ $5** ,, p. . ' ' ' . t ~ ' ' f Of' t. . ,N' 4 O!I A$ y- p{; - of ' ' ' f * . ._$ I h - * '' ' ; ' < < , Y '; hjh , , j. . e_ - , .. .. ~..y'th .? A N ' . v 9 u +- .a.' - . ' ,., eg V - : s j .,4 5% .s . .' e, ke ' 1 d .4 (wh #b E M hi * ,a ...e. Figure 15. Aerial view of lay down area. 56 $|>s st , * - . , e; $,?:? ? $,R :f,,' ' ,( y, , ~ k. " i. . i ' ~ ,9&CiGhh[b;2**iQ, t'?R~YT"%*=~ -, $ @X$ffA Ci R,',; *: ~. - .?: .5 7ma '~~jn.w . . .. - r y . '[] fy 'CC - p y4...q: + Gst x )x m g.n M.% :.5 3 5 . f, ;- f 4 W ""a._s+ ' -rw frr w--f- .a Q'.?-f/bQ [p &-f h ,ir. .< . #.4 ?* - ~* g, .e , , '|7.:fs f' ~'':~-&, . ff%.. l'g ,,n ..e- ' ' , > . . , '' , . . c.. <, ;' gam *4 7.N /% -('" m, - e+ ;. . .n. ,4 ,' ~ p, x.v c = " -~'-'~- . _ , , - . . - Figure 16. Scattered transite pipe in lay down area. 57 _ f . t , . , . is * l ,! jp ', ' f., , .. 1 .. : ,r:- , 'r,' U , k i , * ,t1 \ ;<.j , f a , ' ",,. , c . ~ ,. s t , t- ; -; :.s . . . . ', . , . ; ,( ; - h;. l' +;,j"4 - ' d.- M A| ' . / 1.L I e Qbe ru.sw.w g,'*"i. , - .- . 4 = r m, .. ~ , / * - , J.;),. , ' . ,&f*%r . . .~ * VP % .. . - . -. ., . . . . . ;m . . . . ., . , ,. . ,- = . ', d vk8 . > - . . - r, . , ~ .- < n , ' - 1,__ _ .._ _ _ - . - - : ., fK,X. , ,q - , \ c;.'- ' . - - f,,.bbh,.'.,. h.. & g ,. Y | . , . e - ? ,, .:~- \ .m Wt.~ < r. w e %x? * y4 * x s.7 .9. . - g ,1- .f + e , ". 3, * u , ., y . - . a-s p nf}:g , _,; ~ , - ',a/,y c -. x . . , . . w, s ,i ex *' *, . . - i_..~ _ - 1J u_ . w wo 3 4: t'k- - <' A , ' : ?.A,. _ . . - 'j . ' _ _ _ _ _ ,3- ' a t.~ pd. 53, vs, s . _ - 94 > - , p(ha ,m , . _ . . - y*";#'. c. < 5,q } . ., ,.. + ,, \ x, . 4 ____^ 3 " - , . .'': < ?y*., p';)3 ' < . t .A]^|+3 q:;;, . -- *% f ^ ^ i.y-- , .. . w ?'4' e f 3 # . s 4 .e , ,',i e+ e , 4 m 4 . . . 3 - . >- . > . . . < , ,r . . , . - . + , .r~. . ... I igure 17. Sand spreaders in lay down area. 58 ~ . , . s dr $ i gy/o. A - ~ 3 og 14j, s. . . I- 5 '$ , 7 .4 - . _ e ?). ..e' : %4 " '- rg . ,. , - .. , . ffs w , ,g _ 7" - - ~- ,, . ,:, -: QJ 3 @s : . '$' h'- ._ kRf * . . , " : 0, ,7j@r%i[![r[;k{(TI;g j fC -,,,,,, lb-i ' 9,, , _ _ __. , [)f/' : }}r ed -' . df' F M p.-Jn gj*ep- M $ C s. -- > .. pg . i . -- r,. , , . , , _ Figure 18. Steel alignment rig. 59 ' y,' * , , , '' I '' ' [a J ,. ,I | i igi@s .s;L4didkaff ,"p . a umn.-- y w - has( - A .. y ~ , 2M'.1,' . .' - . , , . . . . . s .. - .; ., . - -r.', , . w ' .. . . . - - , ~ , . . , - , n. ..-c. .}..' : .- , -4 , . , .w ., : \. .- ...,... - .. .- , ~ .. g. .c , 5* - 1. * . s s. \* :% Fi9 m 19. Distance traveled by alignment rig. 60 - ___ -. ~% x.u D ' :Q N . . 05 ? s'4 yh .. * , , ' ~ 3.fg*& ')99.,9d"A pyhgfJy4}. M ,N,qsp ~% %g,g.-dyc eg,;A J.e 'h Qq- e ~ Nx . - :_ .-: t ,.mme > ", c.y-- ' ' ' * _ s c,7 _- g .,~, =m &g ~,, . w . 4 . _ . _ _ . . n. s. ~ w . . . , - . m., ~7. , z. . 4:n.-e: .---,ne m me - :~ . .. w . 4.w > . = , _ . . .r. c,&g r=, gr A . - . - , u ._ m - :~',-- . . . .x w g . -=, , * w- r . ,%, _. M.. e... m_. . ,' ,, . O- , . _ . .. .y . . y~ .- . . . .i; . _ .-sta.: . . . ~ ~ x. .. . ,. / . . .. , :;%, ?; c . -.m_. . :,,,- - , u ~ ~ ~ , .: - - ' . . m.st :.;c,}r.mt. vx, s, - - - .. ~ - : >~;'- . . ~-: -s ..,~...a-,_ - - ~> - p -.r "x m: . - .~ . ; _:4....=- . w.. y . ..w.ue w+.::i.. :Pha.,., .-. ~ e ---w;: : . ,-.:::yo.~. : ?=- w' ._..,,A,~.A1- . * * . , + * .~ . ..+.W..* % e .4 e . .. L w - .. u, .~ ' . ^ - a - - -. ... .- e :> -- 3.. .- .~ ', _2 ~ . , ,* . s ., m a .. . - - > ' . . . . . , ,. .- ..- . - . r - - - , ___ ' -d w , 3 r.c . , . - -- -42.rg_P ", , , ' , , _ %:-3 _...... -- _ ... _ Figure 20. Joints of fiberglass pipe tossed by the winds. 61 ; ______. . . . . _ _ _ _ _ ' ' ,y U S NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION BHLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET if EG /CR-0383 4 TITLE AND SUBTITL E (AO Volumc hio . o f apptcorsare) 2 (L eave bim h) Tornado Damage et the Grand Gulf, Mississippi Nuclen; Power Plant Site Aerial and Ground Surveys 3 HE CIPIE N T S ACCE SSION NO. ? AU THOR (SI T. Theodore Fujita and James h. Mcdonald 5 OA T E HE POHT COVPL E TED w.~ | vg 9 PE HF GHVING OHGANilA TION N AME AND M AILING ADDHESS (/ncluor I,p Cooe/ Dept of Geophysical Sciences DATE HEPORT ISSUED Institute for Disaster Res' a utna n Univ. of Chicago Texas Tech Univ. [vEaR 5734 S. Ellis Avenue P.O. Box 4089 6 (ten.r oesnai Chicago, IL 60637 Lubbock, TX 79409 8 (i e a.e trienki 12 SPoNSOHING ORG ANil ATION N AVE AND M AILING ADDHE SS (incluoe l i$ SUPPL E ME N T AR Y NOTES 14 (Leave D/eal - 16 A BS T H AC T (200 *mos or less/ A tornado struck the Grand Gulf nuclear power generating station, Port Gibson, Mississippi, about 11:30 p.m. on April 17, 1978. Storm damage investigators from the University of Chicago and Texas Tech University were dispatched to survey the damage. The meteorological situation that spawned the Grand Gulf tornado and seven others in the area is discussed. Aerial surveys of the entire damage path and detailed surveys of the plant site are presented. An engineering evaluation of the damage is also presented based primarily on information gained from detailed ground surveys, 17 AE Y WORDS AND DOCUME NT AN ALYSIS 17a DESCHIPTORS 11b IDE NTIF IL HS OPE N E N DE D TE RMS 18 AV AIL ABILIT Y ST AT E ME NT 19 SE CURITY CL ASS (Th,s reporf/ 21. NO. OF P AGE S 20. SE CURITY CLASS (This papel 22 PRICE $ NRC F oRM 335 (7 7h _. UNITED ST ATES I l NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 POST AGE AND FE ES P AID U.S NUCLE A R REGUL ATORY OF F ICI AL SUSINESS C O M M 8 55' O N PE N ALTY FOR PHIV ATE USE,1300 U S M All L Jc . .s ; ; : x j 9j * . d'/ I ~ '' ' ' , Ty - .s .. - 1 'i N * ' ', ; , ,4. >.s .'R,4,t *N (&J . ssy '; L .t t p :c...%...,.*W. - 8w e. . k . i .s v - s - . . :/. g . s c. , v <. - . - :' cra.;..'rqa)u,n)..c .; . ,~ < ',hn;a . i ' c, j d s ' :a lea :c,;. m;.g . + ,=., g :s;g, y ,e,,:.x.:...c. ca.3 wze. ,:.4,.y..v3 . , p, u; y ; ',,.d. a - . u,- * _ -4 g.yas-x y4 t -.aaup,s jjz .. | .u m,degAQf$ % , 4 4 ,. r %. . . - - - 512 f f; _, ;; - .- - g r w . - . 4.s, = - r, e. . d a, w,a,';c,c y 9 ;r;c, ,- ' ~ ' '