ML15072A013

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Enclosure 3: G.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Combined Events Flood Analysis, Calculation 32-9190280-000, Rev. 0
ML15072A013
Person / Time
Site: Ginna Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 06/21/2013
From:
AREVA
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML15072A008 List:
References
RS-15-069 32-9190280-000
Download: ML15072A013 (222)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:Enclosure 3 R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Combined Events Flood Analysis Revision 0 (221 Pages)

FHR-COMBINED Page 11 of 231 0402-01-FOl (Rev. 017,11/19/12) A CALCULATION

SUMMARY

SHEET (CSS) AREVA Document No. 32 - 9190280 - 000 Safety Related: 0 Yes 0 No Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Title Plant PURPOSE AND

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS: The purpose of this calculation is to assess the effect of the combined-effect flood on Deer Creek and Lake Ontario at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna). This calculation supports the flood hazard re-evaluation of Ginna. Combined effect flooding was evaluated as per guidance in Appendix H of NUREG/CR-7046. Combined effect flooding discussed in this calculation are the result of adding wave runup to the maximum stillwater elevation of the bounding riverine flood and the Probable Maximum Storm Surge on Lake Ontario, as discussed in Appendix H of NUREG/CR-7046. The results of the evaluation of the combined-effect flood at Ginna are as follows:

1. The bounding combined-effect flooding mechanism at Ginna is the combination of the PMF on the Deer Creek with the 25-year surge (with wind-wave activity) on Lake Ontario and the maximum controlled water level on the Lake. Under this scenario, waves overtop the stone revetment and discharge canal, increasing the PMF water surface elevations at the northern end of the site by 0.1 ft.
2. The Probable Maximum Water Elevation at Ginna including wave effects is calculated to be 272.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Reactor Containment Building, 272.6 ft, NGVD29 at the Auxiliary Building, 258.2 ft, NGVD29 at the Turbine Building, 272.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Control Building, 271.3 ft, NGVD29 at the All-Volatile Building, 272.8 ft, NGVD29 at the Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building, 273.5 ft, NGVD29 at the proposed Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building Annex, 258.2 ft, NGVD29 at the Screen House, and 258.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Diesel Generator Building.

THE DOCUMENT CONTAINS ASSUMPTIONS THAT SHALL BE THE FOLLOWING COMPUTER CODES HAVE BEEN USED IN THIS DOCUMENT: VERIFIED PRIOR TO USE CODENERSION/REV CODENERSION/REV CEDAS-ACES v.4.03 USACE HEC-HMS v. 3.5 DI YES FLO-2D Version 2012.02 Professional Z NO _(FLO-2D) Page 1 of 221

FHR-COMBINED Page 12 of 231 A 0402-01-FO1 (Rev. 017, 11/19/12) AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for RE, Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Review Method: [ Design Review (Detailed Check) [ Alternate Calculation Signature Block Note: P/R/A designates Preparer (P), Reviewer (R), Approver (A); LP/LR designates Lead Preparer (LP), Lead Reviewer (LR) Project Manager Approval of Customer References (N/A If not applicable) Name Title (printed or typed) (printed or typed) Signature Date N/A Page 2

FHR-COMBINED Page 13 of 231 A 0402-01 -F01 (Rev. 017, 11/19/12) AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Record of Revision Revision Pages/Sections/Paragraphs No. Changed Brief Description / Change Authorization 000 All Initial Issuance Page 3

FHR-COMBINED Page 14 of 231 A AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Table of Contents Page SIGNATURE BLOCK ............................................................................................................................. 2 RECO RD OF REVISION ....................................................................................................................... 3 LIST O F TABLES .................................................................................................................................. 7 LIST O F FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ 8 1.0 PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................. 9 2.0 ANALYTICAL M ETHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 9 2,1 Calculate Maximum Stillwater Elevations on Deer Creek at Ginna .......................................... 12 2.1.1 Identify Upstream Dams ............................................................................................. 12 2.1.2 Develop Dam Breach Hydrologic Simulations ............................................................. 12 2.1.3 Develop Hydraulic Simulations with Combined PMF and Dam Breach Outflow to calculate the probable maximum Stillwater elevation on Deer Creek .......................... 13 2,2 Calculate W ind-W ave Effects on Deer Creek ............................................................................. 13 2.2.1 Determine the Greatest Straight Line Fetch ............................................................... 14 2.2.2 Calculate the Sustained W ind Speed ........................................................................... 14 2.2.3 Development of the W ave Height and Period ............................................................ 14 2.2.4 Development of the W ave Runup ................................................................................ 15 2,3 Calculate the Probable Maximum Water Elevation at Ginna resulting from the combined-effect of floods caused by Precipitation Events ...................................................................................... 16 2,4 Calculate the Probable Maximum Water Elevation resulting from the combined-effect of floods along the shores of Enclosed Bodies of W ater ........................................................................... 16 2.4.1 Combination of one-half of the PMF, worst regional surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in the Lake Ontario .................................................. 17 2.4.2 Combination of the PMF in Deer Creek, a 25-year surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in the Lake Ontario .................................................. 17 2.4.3 Combination of the 25-year flood in Deer Creek, the probable maximum surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in-the Lake Ontario ................ 18 2.5 Determine the controlling Probable Maximum Water Surface Elevations at Ginna ................... 19 3.0 ASSUM PTIONS ....................................................................................................................... 19 4.0 DESIGN INPUTS ...................................................................................................................... 19 Page 4

FHR-COMBINED Page 15 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Table of Contents (continued) Page 5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS ................................................................ 20 6.0 CALCULATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 21 6.1 Calculate Maximum Stillwater Elevations on Deer Creek at Ginna ........................................... 21 6.1.1 Identify Upstream Dams ............................................................................................. 21 6.1.2 Perform Dam Breach Hydrologic Simulations ............................................................. 21 6.1.3 Perform Hydraulic Simulations with Combined PMF and Dam Breach Outflow to calculate the probable maximum Stillwater elevation on Deer Creek ........................ 21 6.2 Results of W ind-Generated W ave Effects on Deer Creek ........................................................ 22 6.2.1 Determine the Greatest Straight Line Fetch ............................................................... 22 6.2.2 Calculate the Sustained W ind Speed ........................................................................... 22 6.2.3 Calculate the W ave Height and Period ......................................................................... 22 6.2.4 Determination of the W ave Runup ............................................................................... 22 6.3 Calculate the Probable Maximum Water Elevation at Ginna resulting from the floods caused by p recip itation eve nt .......................................................................................................................... 22 6.4 Calculate the Probable Maximum Water Elevation resulting from the combined-effect of floods along the shores of Enclosed Bodies of W ater ......................................................................... 23 6.4.1 Combination of one-half of the PMF, worst regional surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario ......................................................... 23 6.4.2 Combination of the PMF in Deer Creek, a 25-year surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in the Lake Ontario .................................................. 23 6.4.3 Combination of the 25-year flood in Deer Creek, the probable maximum surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in the Lake Ontario ................ 24 6.5 Determine the controlling Probable Maximum W ater Surface Elevations at Ginna ................... 24 7.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 24

8.0 REFERENCES

.........................................................................................................................                        25 APPENDIX A :     DATUM CONVERSION .........................................................................................................                       A-1 APPENDIX B : NEW YORK STATE INVENTORY OF DAMS ...........................................................................                                          B-1 APPENDIX C :     DAM BREACH PARAMETER CALCULATIONS .................................................................                                              C-1 APPENDIX D :    REACH PARAMETER CALCULATIONS ..................................................................................                                  D-1 APPENDIX E:     NCDC RAW DATA AND DOCUMENTATION ......................................................................                                            E-1 Page 5

FHR-COMBINED Page 16 of 231 A AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for RE. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Table of Contents (continued) Page APPENDIX F: 2 YEAR W IND SPEED CALCULATION ................................................................................ F-1 APPENDIX G: HEC-HMS INPUTS AND OUTPUTS ........................................................................................ G-1 APPENDIX H: FLO-2D INPUTS/OUTPUTS AND ADDITIONAL FLO-2D RESULTS FOR BOUNDING ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................................................................... H-1 APPENDIX I: CEDAS OUTPUTS ..................................................................................................................... I-1 APPENDIX J: SOFTW ARE VERIFICATION .................................................................................................... J-1 APPENDIX K: 1 HOUR W ATER LEVEL DATA ........................................................................................... K-1 APPENDIX L: 25 YEAR SURGE CALCULATION ......................................................................................... L-1 APPENDIX M: 25 YEAR PRECIPITATION DATA ....................................................................................... M-1 Page 6

FHR-COMBINED Page 17 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant List of Tables Page Table 1: Dam Breach Param eters ................................................................................................... 29 Table 2: Muskingum-Cunge Parameters ....................................................................................... 30 Table 3: Peak Flow with Dam Breach and 72-hour PMP ................................................................. 30 Table 4: Probable Maximum Stillwater Elevations at Ginna from Riverine Flooding ....................... 31 Table 5: Overtopping Flow Rates for Worst Historic Surge with Wind-Wave Activity ....................... 32 Table 6: Overtopping Flow Rates for 25-year Surge with Wind-Wave Activity ................................. 33 Table 7: Overtopping Flow Rates for Probable Maximum Surge with Wind-Wave Activity .............. 34 Table 8: Peak Water Surface Elevations resulting from the combination of the riverine PMF, worst historic surge with wind-wave activity and maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario .......... 35 Table 9: Peak Water Surface Elevations resulting from the combination of the riverine PMF, 25-year surge with wind-wave activity and maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario .................. 36 Table 10: Peak Water Surface Elevations resulting from the combination of the 25-year flood in Deer Creek, probable maximum surge with wind-wave activity and maximum controlled water level in La ke O nta rio .................................................................................................................................. 37 Page 7

FHR-COMBINED Page 18 of 231 A AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant List of Figures Page Fig ure 1 : Locus Map ............................................................................................................................ 39 Figure 2: Site Layout (Reference 23) .............................................................................................. 40 Figure 3: Dam Locations ...................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 4: HEC-HMS Basin Model ................................................................................................... 42 Figure 5: Total Contributory W atershed Hydrograph with Dam Breach ........................................... 43 Figure 6: Mill Creek W atershed Hydrograph with Dam Breach ...................................................... 44 Figure 7: Deer Creek Watershed Hydrograph with Dam Breach .................................................... 45 Figure 8: Transect Locations for W ave Overtopping ........................................................................ 46 Figure 9: Straight Line Fetch over Deer Creek ............................................................................... 46 Figure 10: NOAA Station Location Map .......................................................................................... 48 Figure 11: Probable Maximum Water Surface Elevations at Ginna (ft, NGVD29) ............................ 49 Figure 12: Elevation at Grid Cell (ft, NGVD29) ................................................................................. 50 Figure 13: Probable Maximum Flow Depths at Ginna (ft, NGVD29) ................................................ 51 Page 8

FHR-COMBINED Page 19 of 231 A ARE VA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this calculation is to assess the combined-effect flood mechanisms for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna). Ginna is located in Ontario, Wayne County, NY along the southern shore of Lake Ontario. Ginna is protected from flooding from Lake Ontario by a stone revetment. A concrete-lined discharge canal conveys flow from the site to Lake Ontario through the stone revetment. The confluence of two streams, Deer Creek (which generally flows west to east) and Mill Creek (which generally flows south to north) is located near the southwestern portion of the site. The streams flow along the southern portion of the site into Lake Ontario. For the purposes of this calculation, the portion of the stream from the confluence point of Mill Creek and Deer Creek to the discharge point into Lake Ontario will be referred to as Deer Creek. A locus map of the site is included as Figure 1. This calculation is to support the flood hazard re-evaluation for Ginna. This calculation uses AREVA Document No. 32-9190273-000 "Probable Maximum Flood Flow in streams near R.E. Ginna" (Reference 1), AREVA Document No. 32-9190274-000 "Probable Maximum Flood Elevations at R.E. Ginna" (Reference 2), AREVA Document No. 32-9190276-000 "Probable Maximum Winds and Associated Meteorological Parameters at R.E. Ginna" (Reference 29), AREVA Document No. 32-9190277-000 "Probable Maximum Storm Surge at R.E. Ginna" (Reference 27) and AREVA Document No. 32-9190279-000 "Wind Generated Waves for R.E. Ginna" (Reference 28) as inputs. This calculation was prepared by GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc, under subcontract to AREVA, Inc. Datum: All elevations in this calculation refer to NGVD29 vertical datum unless otherwise noted. Elevations in the Updated Safety Report (UFSAR) reference Mean Sea Level (MSL), which for areas distant from tidal fluctuations (i.e., Ginna) are considered to be the same as the NGVD29 vertical datum. To convert elevations from NAVD88 to NGVD29, add 0.69 feet to the NAVD88 elevations (Reference 3, see Appendix A). 2.0 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY The calculation methodology is described below. Unless noted otherwise, the methodology used in the calculation is consistent with the following standards and guidance documents:

1. NRC Standard Review Plan, NUREG-0800, revised March 2007 (Reference 4);
2. NRC Office of Standards Development, Regulatory Guides:
a. RG 1.102 - Flood Protection for Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 1, dated September 1976 (Reference 5);
b. RG 1.59 - Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 2, dated August 1977 (Reference 6).
3. NUREG/CR-7046 "Design-Basis Flood Estimation for Site Characterization at Nuclear Power Plants in the United States of America", publication date November 2011 (Reference 7).
4. American National Standard for Determining Design Basis Flooding at Power Reactor Sites (ANSI/ANS 2.8-1992) (Reference 8).

Page 9

FHR-COMBINED Page 20 of 231 A AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant The Hierarchical Hazard Assessment (HHA) approach described in NUREG/CR-7046 (Reference 7) was used for the evaluation of the effects of the combined-effects flood on the Deer Creek at Ginna. The criteria for combined events are provided in NUREG/CR-7046, Appendix H. These criteria are:

1. Floods Caused by Precipitation Events The criteria for floods caused by precipitation events were used as one input to the combined event result (NUREG/CR-7046, Appendix H, Section H.1). The criteria include the following:
   "   Alternative 1 - A combination of mean monthly base flow, median soil moisture, antecedent or subsequent rain, the PMP, and waves induced by 2-year wind speed applied along the critical direction;
   "   Alternative 2 - A combination of mean monthly base flow, probable maximum snowpack, a 100-year snow-season rainfall, and waves induced by 2-year wind speed applied along the critical direction; and
   "   Alternative 3 - A combination of mean monthly base flow, a 100-year snowpack, snow-season PMP, and waves induced by 2-year wind speed applied along the critical direction.
2. Floods Caused by Seismic Dam Failures The criteria for floods caused by seismic dam failures (NUREG/CR-7046, Appendix H, Section H.2) were also considered. The criteria include:
  • Alternative 1 - A combination of a 25-year flood, a flood caused by dam failure resulting from a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE), and coincident with the peak of the 25-year flood, and waves induced by 2-year wind speed applied along the critical direction;
   "   Alternative 2 - A combination of the lesser of one-half of Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) or the 500-year flood, a flood caused by dam failure resulting from an operating basis earthquake (OBE), and coincident with the peak of one-half of PMF or the 500-year flood, and waves induced by 2-year wind speed applied along the critical direction.

The alternatives presented under floods caused by precipitation events and floods caused by seismic dam failures are bounded by failure of all the dams in the watershed coincident with the PMF. The riverine flooding combination used for this analysis is therefore failure of dams during the PMF, and waves induced by 2-year wind speed applied along the critical direction.

3. Floods along the Shores of Open and Semi-Enclosed Bodies of Water The criteria for floods along the shore of open or semi-enclosed bodies of water (NUREG/CR-7046, Appendix H, Section H.3) do not apply to Ginna since the site is not on an open or semi-enclosed body of water.
4. Floods along the Shores of Enclosed Bodies of Water Ginna is located along the southern shore of Lake Ontario. Lake Ontario is an enclosed water body approximately 7,300 square miles in surface area. The criteria for floods along the shore of enclosed Page 10

FHR-COMBINED Page 21 of 231 A ARE VA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant bodies of water (streamside location) (NUREG/CR-7046, Appendix H, Section H.4.2) was considered in this calculation. The criteria include:

  • Alternative 1 - A combination of one-half of the PMF or the 500-year flood, surge and seiche from the worst regional hurricane or windstorm with wind-wave activity and the lesser of the 100-year or the maximum controlled water level in the enclosed body of water;
    " Alternative 2 - A combination of the PMF in the stream, a 25-year surge and seiche with wind-wave activity and the lesser of the 100-year or the maximum controlled water level in the enclosed body of water;
  • Alternative 3 - A combination of a 25-year flood in the stream, probable maximum surge and seiche with wind-wave activity and the lesser of the 100-year or the maximum controlled water level in the enclosed water body.

These alternatives were analyzed to determine the controlling combined-effect alternative at Ginna.

5. Floods Caused by Tsunamis Combined event floods associated with tsunamis are included as part of the analyses required by NUREG/CR-7046 (Appendix H, Section H.5). Evaluation of the potential for tsunamis at the Ginna site (AREVA Document No. 51-9190872-000 "Tsunami Hazard Assessment at R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site" - Reference 26) concluded that tsunamis are not a significant flood-causing mechanism.

Therefore, no further analysis of tsunami-induced flooding combined with other mechanisms has been performed. The combined event evaluation for Ginna used the following steps:

1. Calculate the maximum stillwater elevation (including dam failures) on the Deer Creek at Ginna using models developed for calculations 32-9190273-000 "Probable Maximum Flood Flow in Streams near R.E. Ginna" (Reference 1) and 32-9190274-000 "Probable Maximum Flood Elevations in Streams near R.E. Ginna" (Reference 2).
2. Calculate the wind wave effects and wave runup on Deer Creek at Ginna using the CEDAS-ACES v4.3 Computer Program (Reference 9);
3. Calculate the Probable Maximum Water Elevation at Ginna resulting from the combined-effect flood caused by the Precipitation;
4. Calculate the Probable Maximum Water Elevation at Ginna resulting from combined-effect floods along the Shores of Enclosed Bodies of Water based on AREVA Calculations 32-9190277-000 "Probable Maximum Storm Surge for R.E. Ginna" (Reference 27) and 32-9190279-000 "Wind Generated Waves for R.E. Ginna (Reference 28).
5. Determine controlling Probable Maximum Water Elevation at Ginna based on the results from the above analysis.

Page 11

FHR-COMBINED Page 22 of 231 A AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 2.1 Calculate Maximum Stillwater Elevations on Deer Creek at Ginna Failure of upstream dams during the PMF was analyzed to establish the maximum stillwater elevation at Ginna resulting from riverine flooding mechanism. The methodology used in this analysis is described in Sections 2.1.1 to 2.1.3. 2.1.1 Identify Upstream Dams Upstream dams were identified using the New York State Inventory of Dams (NYSID), which is maintained by the Department of Environmental Conservation (Reference 10, see Appendix B). Dam characteristics (i.e. height, maximum storage, and dam type) were downloaded from the inventory. The dam locations were imported into ArcMap 10.0 and converted into a point shapefile. 2.1.2 Develop Dam Breach Hydrologic Simulations A HEC-HMS model of the contributory watersheds at Ginna was developed. The model's hydrologic parameters were consistent with those used in AREVA Document No. 32-9190273-000 "Probable Maximum Flood Flow in Streams near R.E. Ginna" (Reference 1). Note that nonlinear adjustments to unit hydrographs were incorporated in this HEC-HMS model. The identified dams were modeled as reservoir elements in HEC-HMS, and linked to the appropriate sub-basin element with reaches and junctions. Reservoir pool elevations prior to the breaching of the dams were conservatively assumed to be at the top of dam elevation. Dam breach parameters for the HEC-HMS model were selected based on published guidance (References 11, 12, and 13, see Appendix C). Parameters for dams are described below: a) Breach Method = Overtopping; b) Top Elevation (ft) = Dam Height (ft); c) Bottom Elevation (ft) = 0; d) Side Slope = 0.5 (Reference 12, see Appendix C); e) Average Breach Width = 3 x Dam Height (References 12 and 13, see Appendix C). Published references indicate typical dam breach widths are between one and five times the dam height (Reference 12) and often about 3 times the dam height for earthen dams (Reference 13); 1 f) Bottom Width (ft) = Average Breach Width - 2 x (Side Slope x / x Dam Height); g) Development Time (hr) = 0.17 hours (Based on material composition of Dam and Reference 12); h) Trigger Method = Specified Time; i) Trigger Time = Selected such that initiation of the dam breach coincides with the peak PMF from the watershed in which the dam is located; Page 12

FHR-COMBINED Page 23 of 231 A AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant j) Progression Method = Linear; k) Storage Method = Elevation-Area, based on surface area of reservoir and conical volume. River reaches were incorporated in the HEC-HMS model to account for attenuation. The Muskingum-Cunge method was selected and it uses a combination of the conservation of momentum and conservation of mass to simulate river routing. "Routing parametersare recalculatedevery time step based on channelproperties and flow depths. It representsattenuation of flood waves and can be used in reaches with a small slope." (Reference 14) Parameters for reaches are described below: a) Reach cross-section = estimated based on the topographic survey of the site (Reference 15); b) Length of reach = the total length of the reach in units of feet (Reference 16). Length was calculated using the "Calculate Geometry" function of ArcMap 10TM; C) Slope = based on the digital elevation model data within the watershed area (Reference 17, see Appendix D); and d) Manning's roughness coefficient (Reference 20, see Appendix D) = selected based on visual interpretation of the ground conditions using available orthoimagery (Reference 18, see Appendix D) and land cover data (Reference 19, see Appendix D). The all-season 72-hr PMP hyetograph used in AREVA Document No. 32-9190273-000 "Probable Maximum Flood Flow in Streams near R.E. Ginna" (Reference 1) was used for this calculation. The PMP consists of 3 days of 40-percent of the PMP, followed by 3 dry days and followed by 3 days of the full PMP, in accordance with NUREG/CR-7046 (Reference 7). HEC-HMS internally calculates flow through the user-specified dam breach section based on the weir equation for overtopping dam failures (Reference 14). 2.1.3 Develop Hydraulic Simulations with Combined PMF and Dam Breach Outflow to calculate the probable maximum Stillwater elevation on Deer Creek The FLO-2D model developed in AREVA Document 32-9190274-000 (Reference 2) was used in this calculation. The calculated, combined dam breach and PMF flows in the Deer Creek and Mill Creek at Ginna in Section 2.1 were used as inflows within the FLO-2D model to calculate the probable maximum stillwater elevation on the creek at Ginna. 2.2 Calculate Wind-Wave Effects on Deer Creek Ginna would be susceptible to the formation of wind generated waves on both Lake Ontario and on Deer Creek. The wind generated waves on Lake Ontario were developed in Calculation No. 32-9190279-000 (Reference 28). This calculation estimates the wind generated waves on Deer Creek at the site. The calculation methodology includes the following steps, further described in Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.4, below.

1. Calculate the straight line fetch; Page 13

FHR-COMBINED Page 24 of 231 A AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

2. Calculate Sustained Wind Speed:

Calculate the 2-year return period wind speed using the fastest 2-minute wind speed data from National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Station GHCND:USW00014768 (Reference 21, see Appendix E), by applying the Gumbel Distribution to the observed data;

3. Calculate wave height and period using CEDAS-ACES v.4.03 wave prediction application;
4. Determine the wave runup using CEDAS-ACES v.4.03 wave runup.

2.2.1 Determine the Greatest Straight Line Fetch The greatest over water fetch for the most conservative value for wind generated waves on the Deer Creek was determined from the FLO-2D model output showing the inundation extents (Figure 9). The fetch was considered to be the largest continuous wetted top width across Deer Creek in the vicinity of the main power block at Ginna. 2.2.2 Calculate the Sustained Wind Speed The 10-meter, 2-year annual recurrence interval wind speed was required for the coincident wind wave calculations as part of the combined-effects flood analysis as per NUREG/CR-7046 (Reference 7). The fastest daily 10-meter, 2-minute duration wind speed from NCDC Station Global Historical Climatology Network-Daily (GHCND): USW00014768 (Greater Rochester International Airport, New York), was used and converted to the equivalent 10-meter, 30 minute duration average wind speed. Conversion of the raw data to the 2 year wind speed was done using the following steps:

1. The 2-minute wind speed data from NCDC Station GHCND: USWO0014768 was downloaded and imported into ExcelTM in tab delimited format. The period of record for this station was from 1996 to 2012, approximately 17 years. Station GHCND: USW00014768 is located at the Greater Rochester International Airport, New York (see Appendix E). The location is flat ground with no obstruction from trees and buildings and is therefore an appropriate station for use as wind input. This station was the closest station to the site with available data.
2. The greatest wind speed from each year during the period of record was selected. The annual maximum wind speeds were sorted in descending order. The Gumbel Distribution, a Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) Distribution, was used to calculate the 2 year recurrence wind speed.

2.2.3 Development of the Wave Height and Period CEDAS-ACES v.4.03, developed by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, includes an application for determining wave growth over open-water and restricted fetches in deep and shallow water. The simplified wave growth formula predict deepwater wave growth in accordance to fetch and duration-limited criteria. These formulas are bounded (at the upper limit) by the estimates for a fully developed spectrum (Reference 22). The following variables were developed as input to the program to calculate wave height and period: Page 14

FHR-COMBINED Page 25 of 231 A AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

1. The elevation, duration, observation type, and speed of the observed wind speed from Section 2.2.2;
2. The air-sea temperature difference (See Appendix F);
3. Duration of the final wind speed (See Appendix F);
4. Latitude of the Observed Wind Speed (Appendix F); and
5. Wind fetch length, as determined through procedures described in Section 2.2.1.

2.2.4 Development of the Wave Runup The runup on impermeable slopes application of the CEDAS-ACES v4.03 software program is based on an empirical runup equation developed by Ahrens and Titus as described in Reference 22. Wind generated waves on the Deer Creek will break and runup on the southern end of the power block (Contaminated Storage Building). The effect of wind generated waves on Deer Creek is therefore not expected to extend beyond the southern end of the plant. 2.2.4.1 Development of the Nearshore and Structure Slopes Nearshore slopes were estimated from the site topographic survey plan (Reference 15). Because the water depths vary spatially, an average water depth along the fetch was calculated. Wave growth was determined to be governed by shallow open water conditions. The nearshore slope was determined based on the existing site grades along the selected fetch line. In this calculation, the wave runup is calculated against the southern wall of the main power block (building labeled as "plant" in Figure 2). The structure slope was determined based on a vertical wall. 2.2.4.2 Development of Wave Runup on Smooth Slopes The equations for runup on a smooth slope were used. The general equation for runup (R) on smooth slopes is characterized by the following equation: R = CHi The coefficient C is characterized by the surf similarity parameter ý according to three wave structure regimes (Reference 22): 

    *   (t < 2) waves plunging directly on the run-up slope.

S(, > 3.5) wave conditions that are nonbreaking and are regarded as standing or surging waves. 

    *   (2< t < 3.5) transition conditions where breaking characteristics are difficult to define The recommended expressions for coefficient C corresponding to these regimes are defined by the following:

Page 15

FHR-COMBINED Page 26 of 231 A AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

  • Plunging wave conditions (ý < 2)

Cp= 1.002

  • Nonbreaking wave conditions (,> 3.5)

Cf b = 1.1 8 1 *,0J exp 0 375 L3 .18 71yH, 

                                                                           -    -.- 0 .5   21 Where:

nc = crest height of the wave above the still-water level Hi = incident wave height Transitional wave conditions (2< ý < 3.5) C, = 1.)C, +( -)Clb Where: Cp = C coefficient corresponding to plunging wave conditions Clb = C coefficient corresponding to nonbreaking wave conditions C, = C coefficient corresponding to transitional wave conditions 2.3 Calculate the Probable Maximum Water Elevation at Ginna resulting from the combined-effect of floods caused by Precipitation Events. Waves that strike structures will run up those structures, resulting in an increase in the height of the water at the face of the structure. The probable maximum stillwater elevation on Deer Creek at the southern end of the plant power block at Ginna resulting from the combined effect of floods caused by precipitation events was calculated by adding the predicted wave runup on the Deer Creek to the stillwater elevations resulting from the combination of upstream dam failure and the PMF. 2.4 Calculate the Probable Maximum Water Elevation resulting from the combined-effect of floods along the shores of Enclosed Bodies of Water. The alternatives outlined under the criteria for floods along the shore of enclosed bodies of water (Streamside location) (NUREG/CR-7046, Appendix H, Section H.4.2) were analyzed to determine the controlling alternative at Ginna. Page 16

FHR-COMBINED Page 27 of 231 A AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 2.4.1 Combination of one-half of the PMF, worst regional surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in the Lake Ontario. One-half of the PMF was calculated using the HEC-HMS model developed for AREVA Document No. 32-9190273-000 (Reference 1). One-half of the PMF was calculated as half the runoff generated from the PMP calculated in AREVA Document No. 32-9190273-000 (Reference 1). All other inputs to the HEC-HMS model were the same as those used in the HEC-HMS model in Reference 1. The worst regional surge on Lake Ontario was determined from water level data contained in AREVA Document No. 32-9190276-000 (Reference 29). See Appendix L. The maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario was determined in AREVA Document No. 32-9190277-000 (Reference 27). Overtopping flow rates at the stone revetment resulting from the combination of the worst regional surge and seiche with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario was calculated in AREVA Document No. 32-9190279-000 (Reference 28). The calculated overtopping flow rates for the combination of the worst regional surge and seiche with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario was combined with one-half the PMF on Deer Creek using the FLO-2D model developed in AREVA Document 32-9190274-000 (Reference 2) to determine the maximum water levels resulting from this alternative. 2.4.2 Combination of the PMF in Deer Creek, a 25-year surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in the Lake Ontario. The PMF in the Deer Creek computed in Reference 1 was used in the analysis of this alternative. The 25-year surge on Lake Ontario was calculated from water level data contained in AREVA Document No. 32-9190276-000 (Reference 29, Appendix L) as described in Section 2.4.2.1. The maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario was determined in AREVA Document No. 32-9190277-000 (Reference 27). Overtopping flow rates at the stone revetment and discharge canal resulting from the combination of the 25-year surge and seiche with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario was calculated in AREVA Document No. 32-9190279-000 (Reference 28). The calculated overtopping flow rates for the combination of the 25-year surge and seiche with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario was combined with the PMF on Deer Creek using the FLO-2D model developed in AREVA Document 32-9190274-000 (Reference 2) to determine the maximum water levels resulting from this alternative. 2.4.2.1 Calculation of the 25-year Surge The 25-year surge water level was calculated based on water level data for Rochester, NY (Reference

32) See Appendix L. The location of the Rochester water level station is shown in Figure 10. The maximum hourly water level in each year was obtained for the 50-year period of record and a frequency analysis was performed. The recommended distribution for data set transformations of this type is the log-Pearson Type III distribution (Reference 33). The 25-year surge water level was calculated as follows:
1. The hourly water level data for each complete year of data available was sorted to determine the yearly maximum hourly water level (HWL) for each year in the data set. The yearly maximums were transformed with (base 10) logarithm.
2. Sample statistics including mean, number of samples in the data set, standard deviation and skew coefficient were calculated using the following equations.

Page 17

FHR-COMBINED Page 28 of 231 A ARE VA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant N L(N -1) Nx (XXJ (N - 1)(N -2) where: X = logarithm of annual peak water level N = number of samples in the data set Y = mean of the sample data logarithms S= standard deviation of the sample data G= skew coefficient of logarithms

3. For skew coefficients from -9.0 to 9.0, the frequency factor coefficients (K) for exceedance probabilities from 0.9999 to 0.0001 were determined using the "Tables of K Values" in Appendix 3 of USGS Bulletin 17b (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1982). The log of the water levels corresponding to their respective exceedance probabilities are defined by the following equation:

Log(SurgeWaterLevel) = X + K

  • S where:

K = Frequency Factor Coefficient

4. The 25-year surge water level was calculated by taking the antilog of the log mean water level.

2.4.3 Combination of the 25-year flood in Deer Creek, the probable maximum surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in the Lake Ontario. The 25-year flood in Deer Creek was calculated using the HEC-HMS model developed for AREVA Document No. 32-9190273-000 (Reference 1). The 25-year, 24-hour precipitation depth and distribution used in the HEC-HMS model were based on reference 31. All other inputs to the HEC-HMS model were the same as those used in the HEC-HMS model in Reference 1. The probable maximum surge on Lake Ontario was calculated in AREVA Document No. 32-9190277-000 (Reference 27). The maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario was also determined in AREVA Document No. 32-9190277-000 (Reference 27). Overtopping flow rates at the stone revetment and discharge canal resulting from the combination of the probable maximum surge and seiche with wind-wave Page 18

FHR-COMBINED Page 29 of 231 A AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant activity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario was calculated in AREVA Document No. 32-9190279-000 (Reference 28). The calculated overtopping flow rates for the combination of the probable maximum surge and seiche with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario was combined with the 25-year flood in Deer Creek to determine the maximum water levels resulting from this alternative. 2.5 Determine the controlling Probable Maximum Water Surface Elevations at Ginna The results from the combined-effect flood alternatives for both floods caused by precipitation events and floods along the shores of enclosed bodies of water were analyzed to determine the probable maximum water surface elevations at Ginna. The alternative that results in the highest water surface elevations at Ginna was selected as the controlling combined-effect flood alternative. 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS Unverified key assumptions are those requiring confirmation of applicability by users of the calculation and its results. There are no unverified key assumptions in this calculation. The following assumptions were used in the calculation: 

    "   Potential for tsunamis at the Ginna to control flood elevations is not significant and bounded by flooding due to the combination of the PMF and dam breach within the contributory watershed at Ginna (Reference 26).
    "   Reservoir pool elevations prior to the breaching of the dams were at the top of dam elevation.
    "   Other assumptions used in calculations to support the combined effect flood evaluation are included in Sections 6.1 through 6.5. None of the assumptions require confirmation of applicability by users of the calculation prior to use of the calculation results.

4.0 DESIGN INPUTS

1. The HEC-HMS hydrologic model developed in AREVA Document No. 32-9190273-000 "Probable Maximum Flood Flow in Streams near R.E. Ginna" (Reference 1).
2. Elevation Datum Conversions - elevations in NAVD88 were converted to NGVD29, using VERTCON: North American Vertical Datum Conversion, by National Geodetic Survey (Reference 3, see Appendix A).
3. Dam and Reservoir Storage Characteristics - dam height and reservoir storage capacity of dams within the contributory watershed area at Ginna based on data provided by New York State Department of Environmental Protection (Reference 10, see Appendix B).
4. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) - the DEM used for the calculation is the National Elevation Dataset (NED) (1/3 arc second) provided by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), published in 2011 (Reference 17, see Appendix D).
5. Land Use - the land use information for the watershed was obtained from the National Land Cover Database 2006 (NLCD2006) (Reference 19, see Appendix D).

Page 19

FHR-COMBINED Page 30 of 231 A AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

6. Manning's roughness coefficients (Reference 20, see Appendix D).
7. The FLO-2D Model developed in AREVA Document No. 32-9190274-000" Probable Maximum Flood Elevations near R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant" (Reference 2)
8. Site Location: 41'16'39.34" N, 77°18'31.65" W, see Figure 1.
9. Ginna Site Layout (Reference 23).
10. NOAA National Climatic Data Center Fastest 2-minute wind speed (tenths of meters per second) Data: Verified Data, Greater Rochester International Airport, NY, Station ID GHCND:USW00001476889. Retrieved on March 19, 2013. (Reference 21, see Appendix E)

Available at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/review

11. 25-Year, 24-hour Precipitation depth and distribution at Ginna (Reference 31, see Appendix M).
12. 1-hour water level data for Lake Ontario at Rochester, NY (Reference 29, see Appendix K) 5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS
1. ESRIArcMapTM 10.0, Service Pack 2 (Build 10.0.2.3200)
2. HEC-HMS v. 3.5, Build 1417 (USACE HEC, August, 2010)
3. FLO-2D Version 2012.02 Professional Model - Build No. 12.01.01
4. CEDAS-ACES v.4.03 ArcMap 10.0 was used to generate graphic outputs of the calculated results and is not subject to verification per AREVA Procedure 0902-30, Section 4.6.

Computer Software Certifications for HEC-HMS v.3.5, FLO-2D Version 2012.02 Professional Version and CEDAS-ACES v.4.03 are provided under separate cover (References 9, 24, and 25). The information contained in Appendix J, as part of the body of this calculation, lists the program version, hardware platform and operating system. HEC-HMS v.3.5, FLO-2D Version 2012.02 Professional Version and CEDAS-ACES v.4.03 are approved for use under the Microsoft Windows 7 operating system. No open software error notices were in effect at the time of software execution. The CEDAS-ACES v.4.03 program is "Simple Use" per Section 4.7 of 0902-30. The program was executed on a GZA workstation as approved by AREVA. HEC-HMS v.3.5 was tested on the computer used for this document by Kenneth Hunu on March 25, 2013. The inputs of the installation tests were the same as those used in the software verification report, and the outputs are documented in Appendix J. The results of the test were acceptable. FLO-2D Version 2012.02 Professional Version was tested on the computer used for this document by Kenneth Hunu on April 4, 2013. The inputs of the installation tests were the same as those used in the software verification report, and the outputs are documented in Appendix J. The results of the test were acceptable. Page 20

FHR-COMBINED Page 31 of 231 A A R EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant CEDAS-ACES v.4.03 was tested on the computer used for this document by Bin Wang on March 25, 2013. The inputs of the installation tests were the same as those used in the software verification reports, and the outputs are documented in Appendix J. The results of the test were acceptable. 6.0 CALCULATIONS 6.1 Calculate Maximum Stillwater Elevations on Deer Creek at Ginna 6.1.1 Identify Upstream Dams Based on a review of the data in the NYSID (Reference 10), three dams are within the contributory watershed. Maccines Marsh Dam is located in the Deer Creek Watershed, about 2.5 miles southwest of Ginna. Fruitland Mill Dam and William Daly Marsh Dam are located in the Mill Creek Watershed, about 4 and 7.5 miles southwest of Ginna, respectively. The dam coordinates were imported into ArcMap 10.0, and the dam locations are shown in Figure 3. All three dams are classified as "Earth" in "Dam Type" according to the NYSID. Field observation and available information indicate the dams are likely non-engineered structures. Dam breach parameters for non-engineered earthen dams were therefore used for this calculation. 6.1.2 Perform Dam Breach Hydrologic Simulations Dam breach parameters are summarized in Table 1 (see Appendix C for spreadsheet calculations). HEC-HMS reach parameters are summarized in Table 2 (see Appendix D for spreadsheet calculations). The HEC-HMS basin model is shown in Figure 4. The dams were modeled as reservoir elements. Junctions 2 and 3 were used to calculate the total corresponding resultant flow from runoff and dam failure for each subwatershed, and Junction 1 was used to calculate the total resultant flow from the entire contributory watershed. The calculated total outflow from the Deer Creek Watershed with dam breach is 8,140 cfs, and the calculated total outflow from the Mill Creek Watershed with dam breach is 20,530 cfs. The resultant combined peak outflow at Ginna is 28,460 cfs. Breaching of the upstream dams within the Deer Creek and Mill Creek watersheds during the PMF resulted in no significant change in the peak PMF calculated in Reference 1. These results are presented in Table 3. The HEC-HMS calculated outflow hydrographs from the dam breach during the PMF simulation are shown in Figures 5 through 7. Inputs and outputs from the HEC-HMS simulations are included in Appendix G. 6.1.3 Perform Hydraulic Simulations with Combined PMF and Dam Breach Outflow to calculate the probable maximum Stillwater elevation on Deer Creek The FLO-2D model developed in AREVA Document 32-9190274-000 (Reference 2) was used to estimate the peak stillwater elevation resulting from the combination of upstream dam failures and the PMF. The HEC-HMS calculated flow hydrographs from Section 6.1.2 were used as inflows in the FLO-2D model. The calculated probable maximum stillwater elevations at the site are shown in Table 4. The probable maximum stillwater elevation is 272.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Reactor Containment Building, 272.6 ft, NGVD29 at the Auxiliary Building, 258.1 ft, NGVD29 at the Turbine Building, 272.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Page 21

FHR-COMBINED Page 32 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Control Building, 271.3 ft, NGVD29 at the All-Volatile Building, 272.8 ft, NGVD29 at the Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building, 273.5 ft, NGVD29 at the proposed Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building Annex, 258.1 ft, NGVD29 at the Screen House, and 258.3 ft, NGVD29 at the Diesel Generator Building. FLO-2D inputs and outputs are included in Appendix H. 6.2 Results of Wind-Generated Wave Effects on Deer Creek 6.2.1 Determine the Greatest Straight Line Fetch The inundation extent at Ginna due to the combination of upstream dam failures and the PMF in Deer Creek and Mill Creeks calculated in Section 6.1.3 was used to determine wetted top width for the fetch shown in Figure 9. The total length of the fetch was 870 ft and the average water depth was determined to be 15.7 ft. 6.2.2 Calculate the Sustained Wind Speed Using the Gumbel Distribution on the 2-minute wind speed data (see Appendix F for ExcelTM spreadsheet and formulas), the 2-year return period wind speed was determined to be 22.5 m/sec or 73.9 ft/sec. The Gumbel Distribution yielded a conservative value for the calculated 2-year wind speed. The modeled values for selected return periods were plotted against the observed data. The calculated value for the 2-year wind speed is nearly the same as the "observed" approximate 2-year wind speed (see Figure F-1, Appendix F). The data from NCDC Station GHCND: USW000014687 is presented in Appendix E. 6.2.3 Calculate the Wave Height and Period The wave prediction application of the CEDAS-ACES v.4.03 was used to determine the shallow water significant wave height and period. The outputs from the model are provided in Appendix I. The wind duration of 120 minutes was conservatively used. The wave height was calculated to be 0.7 ft with a wave period of 1.2 seconds. 6.2.4 Determination of the Wave Runup The wave runup on impermeable structures application was selected to calculate the wave runup at Ginna from the CEDAS-ACES v.4.03 program. The inputs for the wave runup calculation are presented in Table 4. Calculated results are shown in Appendix I. The results indicate maximum wave runup at the southern end of the power block at Ginna (south end of Contaminated Storage Building) of 0.9 feet. 6.3 Calculate the Probable Maximum Water Elevation at Ginna resulting from the floods caused by precipitation event The probable maximum water elevation resulting from the combined-effect flood caused by precipitation event at Ginna is the combination of this Stillwater elevation and wave runup induced by Page 22

FHR-COMBINED Page 33 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant the 2-year wind speed. Wave runup resulting from Deer Creek flooding is not expected to influence the stillwater elevations at the site with the exception of the southern end of the site. The probable maximum water surface elevations resulting from a precipitation event causing flooding in Deer Creek, in ft, NGVD29 are those stated in Section 6.1.3. 6.4 Calculate the Probable Maximum Water Elevation resulting from the combined-effect of floods along the shores of Enclosed Bodies of Water. The results of the alternatives outlined under the criteria for floods along the shore of enclosed bodies of water (Streamside location) (NUREG/CR-7046, Appendix H, Section H.4.2) are discussed in Sections 6.4.1 to 6.4.3. 6.4.1 Combination of one-half of the PMF, worst regional surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario. The peak flow rate from one-half of the PMF at Ginna is calculated to be 14,230 cfs. The worst regional surge is calculated to be 1.3 ft (Appendix L) and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario is calculated to be 248 ft, NGVD29 (Reference 27). The overtopping flow rates resulting from the combination of the worst regional surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario are shown in Table 5 (Reference 28). FLO-2D model results from the combination of one-half the PMF, and the overtopping flow rates resulting from the combination of the worst regional surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario, is shown in Table 8. Flooding at Ginna from this alternative is limited to the Turbine Building, Proposed Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building, Screen House and the Diesel Generator Building. Maximum Flood Elevations at the Turbine Building, Proposed Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building, Screen House and the Diesel Generator Building are 255 ft, NGVD29, 270 ft, NGVD29, 254.9 ft, NGVD29 and 254.9 ft, NGVD29 respectively. 6.4.2 Combination of the PMF in Deer Creek, a 25-year surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in the Lake Ontario. 6.4.2.1 Calculation of the 25-year Surge The 25-year surge elevation on Lake Ontario at Ginna was evaluated using the the recorded hourly water levels at NOAA Station 9052058 (Reference 32) in Rochester, NY for the period 1962 - 2012. The results of the transformation are presented in Appendix L, Table L-1. The calculation of the 25-yr surge water level is presented in Appendix L, Table L-2. The 25-year surge water level was calculated to be 0.95 feet. 6.4.2.2 Combination of PMF in Deer Creek and overtopping flow rates from the combination of the 25-year surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario The Deer Creek PMF peak flow rate at Ginna was computed in Reference 1 to be 28,460 cfs. The 25-year surge on Lake Ontario is calculated to be 0.95 ft and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario is calculated to be 248 ft, NGVD29 (Reference 27). Page 23

FHR-COMBINED Page 34 of 231 A AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant The overtopping flow rates resulting from the combination of the 25-year surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario are listed in Table 6 (Reference 28). FLO-2D model results from the combination of the PMF with upstream dam failures, and the overtopping flow rates resulting from the combination of the 25-year surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario is shown in Table 9. The resulting maximum water surface elevations from this alternative are 272.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Reactor Containment Building, 272.6 ft, NGVD29 at the Auxiliary Building, 258.2 ft, NGVD29 at the Turbine Building, 272.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Control Building, 271.3 ft, NGVD29 at the All-Volatile Building, 272.8 ft, NGVD29 at the Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building, 273.5 ft, NGVD29 at the proposed Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building Annex, 258.2 ft, NGVD29 at the Screen House, and 258.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Diesel Generator Building. 6.4.3 Combination of the 25-year flood in Deer Creek, the probable maximum surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in the Lake Ontario. The peak flow rate from the 25-year storm in Deer Creek at Ginna is calculated to be 3,000 cfs. The peak flow of 3,000 cfs results from a total precipitation depth of 3.79 inches over 24 hours. (Appendix M). The probable maximum surge is calculated to be 3.2 ft (Reference 27) and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario is calculated to be 248 ft, NGVD29 (Reference 27). The overtopping flow rates resulting from the combination of the probable maximum surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario are shown in Table 7 (Reference 28). FLO-2D model results from the combination of the 25-year storm in Deer Creek at Ginna, and the overtopping flow rates resulting from the combination of the probable maximum surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario are shown in Table 10. Flooding at Ginna from this alternative is limited to the Turbine Building, Screen House and the Diesel Generator Building due to wave activity (i.e., flooding in Deer Creek due to the 25-yr flood does not affect the site). Maximum Flood Elevations at the Turbine Building, Screen House and the Diesel Generator Building resulting from this alternative is 254.9 ft, NGVD29. 6.5 Determine the controlling Probable Maximum Water Surface Elevations at Ginna The combination of PMF in the Deer Creek at Ginna with the 25-year surge with wind wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario yields the highest water surface elevations at Ginna (Section 6.4.2). This alternative is therefore the controlling alternative in determining the probable maximum water surface elevations at Ginna. The Probable Maximum Water Surface Elevation at Ginna is 272.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Reactor Containment Building, 272.6 ft, NGVD29 at the Auxiliary Building, 258.2 ft, NGVD29 at the Turbine Building, 272.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Control Building, 271.3 ft, NGVD29 at the All-Volatile Building, 272.8 ft, NGVD29 at the Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building, 273.5 ft, NGVD29 at the proposed Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building Annex, 258.2 ft, NGVD29 at the Screen House, and 258.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Diesel Generator Building. 7.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS NUREG/CR-7046 presents updated methodologies relative to Regulatory Guide 1.59 which are incorporated into this calculation. These include: Page 24

FHR-COMBINED Page 35 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

  • Use of computerized hydrologic, hydraulic and wave height simulation models (i.e., HEC-HMS, FLO-2D and CEDAS-ACES v.4.03 ) to develop the dam breach outflow, maximum flood elevations and wave height;
  • Identification of specific alternatives (i.e., Appendix H of NUREG/CR-7046) for evaluation in combined effect flooding.

The following summarizes the results and conclusions:

1. The bounding combined-effect flooding mechanism at Ginna is the combination of the PMF on the Deer Creek with the 25-year surge with wind-wave activity on Lake Ontario and the maximum controlled water level on the Lake. Under this alternative, waves overtop the stone revetment and discharge canal, increasing the PMF water surface elevations at the northern end of the site by 0.1 ft.
2. The Probable Maximum Water Elevation at Ginna including wave effects is calculated to be 272.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Reactor Containment Building, 272.6 ft, NGVD29 at the Auxiliary Building, 258.2 ft, NGVD29 at the Turbine Building, 272.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Control Building, 271.3 ft, NGVD29 at the All-Volatile Building, 272.8 ft, NGVD29 at the Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building, 273.5 ft, NGVD29 at the proposed Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building Annex, 258.2 ft, NGVD29 at the Screen House, and 258.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Diesel Generator Building.

8.0 REFERENCES

1. AREVA Document No. 32-9190273-000, "Probable Maximum Flood Flow in Streams near R.E.

Ginna", GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., 2013.

2. AREVA Document No. 32-9190274-000, "Probable Maximum Flood Elevations in Streams near R.E. Ginna", GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., 2013.
3. VERTCON - North American Vertical Datum Conversion, by National Geodetic Survey, http:/twww.ngs.noaa.gov/TOOLSNertcon/vertcon.html, revised November 1, 2012, accessed November 1, 2012. See Appendix A.
4. NUREG-0800, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Standard Review Plan, revised March 2007.
5. Regulatory Guides, RG 1.102 - Flood Protection for Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 1, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Standards Development, dated September 1976.
6. Regulatory Guides, RG 1.59 - Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 2, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Standards Development, dated August 1977.
7. Design Basis Flood Estimation for Site Characterization at Nuclear Power Plants -NUREG/CR-7046, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 2011.
8. American National Standard for Determining Design Basis Flooding at Power Reactor Sites (ANSI/ANS 2.8 - 1992).

Page 25

FHR-COMBINED Page 36 of 231 A AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

9. AREVA Document No. 38-9196713-000, "GZA Computer Program Certification for CEDAS-ACES Version 4.03 PC," 2013.
10. New York State Inventory of Dams, Department of Environmental Conservation, http://www.dec.ny.gov/pubs/42978.html, revised September 13, 2011, accessed March 12, 2013. See Appendix B.
11. Guidelines for Dam Breach Analysis, State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources, Office of the State Engineer Dam Safety Branch, February 2010.

See Appendix C.

12. Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects, Chapter 2 - Selecting and Accommodating Inflow Design Floods for Dams, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), October 1993, http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/safety/guidelines/eng-guide.asp, revised June 28, 2010, accessed February 4, 2013. See Appendix C.
13. Uncertainty of Predictions of Embankment Dam Breach Parameters, T. L. Wahl, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, May 2004. See Appendix C.
14. Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS Technical Reference Manual, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center, March 2000.
15. Ginna Topo by McMahon LaRue Associates 04-01-12.dwg - Current site topographic and existing conditions data (in AutoCADTM format), See AREVA Document No. 38-9191389-000.
16. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center, Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS, User's Manual, August 2010.
17. The National Map, National Geospatial Program (NGP) (http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/),

revised April 14, 2008, accessed August 20, 2012. See Appendix D.

18. ESRI ArcGIS Online World Imagery map service (http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=

10df2279f9684e4 a9f6a7f08febac2a9), revised July 18, 2012 by ESRI, accessed December 17, 2012. See Appendix D.

19. The National Landcover Database (NLCD) 2006 Land Cover (http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd06_data.

php), U.S. Geological Survey, February 2011, Edition 1.0, accessed August 27, 2012. See Appendix D.

20. Manning's n Coefficients for Open Channel Flow, LMNO Engineering, Research, and Software, Ltd, (http://www.lmnoeng.com/index.shtml), revised February 5, 2013, accessed February 20, 2013. See Appendix D.
21. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center, Climate Data Online (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets/GHCN D/stations/GHCND: USWO0014768/detail, revised March 18, 2013, accessed March 19 and 21, 2013. See Appendix E.
22. Automated Coastal Engineering System Technical Reference, Leenknecht, D., Szuwalski, A.,

Version 1.07, September 1992.

23. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Revision 23, Constellation Nuclear Energy Group, December 6, 2011 (See AREVA Document No. 38-9191389-000).

Page 26

FHR-COMBINED Page 37 of 231 A ARE VA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

24. AREVA Document No. 38-9192635-00, "Computer Software Certification - FLO-2D Pro", GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., 2013. See Appendix J.
25. AREVA Document No. 38-9191662-00, "Computer Software Certification for HEC-HMS Version 3.5 PC", GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., 2012. See Appendix J.
26. AREVA Document No. 51-9190872-000 "Tsunami Hazard Assessment at R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Site", 2013.
27. AREVA Document No. 32-9190277-000, "Probable Maximum Storm Surge near R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant", GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., 2013.
28. AREVA Document No. 32-9190279-000, "Wind Generated Waves near R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant", GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., 2013.
29. AREVA Document No. 32-9190276 "Probable Maximum Wind Storm near R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant", GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., 2013.
30. AREVA Document No. 32-9190271-000, "Probable Maximum Precipitation for Streams near R.E. Ginna", GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., 2013.
31. Extreme Precipitation in New York and New England (http://precip.eas.cornell.edu\), Version 1.12, by Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) and Northeast Regional Climate Center (NRCC), revised October 19, 2011, accessed March 28, 2013.
32. NOAA Tides & Currents Great Lakes Water Level Data. Website:

http://tidesandcurrents. noaa.gov/stationretrieve.shtml?type=G reat+ Lakes+Water+ Level+ Data, date revised: November 2005, date accessed: August 20, 2012.

33. (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1982) "Guidelines For Determining Flood Flow Frequency", Bulletin
      #17B of the Hydrology Subcommittee, U.S. Department of the Interior, Geologic Survey, Office f Water Data Collection, Revised September 1981, Edited March 1982.

Page 27

FHR-COMBINED Page 38 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant TABLES Page 28

FHR-COMBINED Page 39 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Table 1: Dam Breach Parameters Top Damof/ Bottom Side Average Brah Bottom Deveacent Top Damof of Breach Width Trigger Development Dam Name Height of Breach / Pool l Breach 1 Slope Width t Method Start Surface Height of Dam Elevation Time (hr) Area (ft) (ft) (ft) (acres) Macinnes 5 0 0.5 15 12.5 Jan 8, 0.17 19 Marsh Dam 18:20 William Daly 6 6 0 0.5 18 15 Specific Jan 8, 0.17 5 Marsh Dam Time 19:10 Fruitland Mill 10 10 0 0.5 30 25 Jan 8, 0.17 6 Dam I I I I I 1 1 19:20 1 Elevations are relative. Assigned all reservoir bottoms to be at elevation zero. 2 Based on simulation beginning on January 1 at 00:00. 3 Used development time of 0.17 hr for earthen dams. Page 29

FHR-COMBINED Page 40 of 231 A AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Table 2: Muskingum-Cunge Parameters Average Manning's Reach Length (ft) Bed Width (ft) n Slope Macinnes Marsh Dam 14550 0.0026 40 0.04 William Daly Marsh 56700 0.0041 40 0.04 Dam Fruitland Mill Dam 30410 0.0024 40 0.04 Table 3: Peak Flow with Dam Breach and 72-hour PMP HEC-HMS Element Unit 72-hour PMP Peak Outflow from Mill Creek Watershed (cfs) 20,530 Peak Breach Outflow from William Daly Marsh (cfs) 480 Dam Peak Breach Outflow from Fruitland Mill Dam (cfs) 1,910 Total Discharge from Mill Creek Watershed (cf s) 20,530 Peak Outflow from Deer Creek Watershed (cf s) 8,140 Peak Breach Outflow from Maccines Marsh Dam (cfs) 430 Total Discharge from Deer Creek Watershed (cfs) 8,140 Combined Peak Outflow at Ginna Nuclear Station (cfs) 28,460 Page 30

FHR-COMBINED Page 41 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Table 4: Probable Maximum Stillwater Elevations at Ginna from Riverine Flooding Representative Design Basis PMF Peak Maximum Maximum Grid Element Flood Levels Elevation Flow Flow Structure Number (ft, NGVD29) (ft, Depth (ft) Velocity (fps) Reactor Containment 6193 272.0 272.4 2.2 1.1 Auxiliary Building 6651 272.0 to 273.8 272.6 2.1 2.8 Turbine Building 4364 256.6 258.1 4.1 3.1 Control Building 5740 272.0 272.4 2.1 2.1 All-Volatile-Treatment-Building 5286 272.0 271.3 0.7 5.3 Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump 6879 273.0 272.8 2.7 4.1 Proposed Standby Auxiliary Feedwater 7105 273.8 273.5 3.6 2.9 Screen House 3840 256.6 258.1 4.5 3.3 Diesel Generator Building 4014 256.6 258.3 4.7 4.3 Page 31

FHR-COMBINED Page 42 of 231 A AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Table 5: Overtopping Flow Rates for Worst Historic Surge with Wind-Wave Activity Design Base Depth at T H, (Ft.) CEDAS Runup CEDAS Over-Length Water Structur Peak Hs (CEDAS Runup Elev Over- topping (ft.) Level e Toe (T) (Ft.) '(t. (NGV topping Reach (NGVD (Ft.) Calc.) (t D29) (cfs.) (cfs) 29) 1 60 249.2 5.40 10 4.20 3.0 6.55 255.75 0 0.0 2 88 249.2 5.50 10 4.29 3.0 6.67 255.87 0 0.0 3 245 249.2 7.30 10 5.69 4.3 8.49 257.69 0.015 3.7 4 47 249.2 7.70 10 6.00 4.6 14.6 263.8 5.53 259.9 5 233 249.2 8.20 10 6.39 5.0 9.37 258.57 0.019 4.4 6 110 249.2 7.30 10 5.69 4.3 8.50 257.7 0.003 0.3 7 105 249.2 5.70 10 4.44 3.2 6.87 256.07 0 0.0 See Figure 8 for Transect Locations Page 32

FHR-COMBINED Page 43 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Table 6: Overtopping Flow Rates for 25-year Surge with Wind-Wave Activity Design Depth T H0 (Ft.) CEDA CEDAS Over-Transec Lengt Base at Pea Hs (CEDA S Runup Over- topping t h (ft.) Water Structu k (Ft.) S Runup ENle9) topping Reach (NGVD29) (Ft.) (TT Calc.) (Ft.) (cfs.) (cfs) 1 60 248.8 5.00 10 3.85 2.7 6.08 254.88 0 0.0 2 88 248.8 5.10 10 3.95 2.8 6.21 255.01 0 0.0 3 245 248.8 6.90 10 5.38 4..0 8.10 256.90 0.005 1.2 4 47 248.8 7.30 10 5.68 4.3 14.15 262.95 4.13 194.1 5 233 248.8 7.80 10 6.07 4.7 8.97 257.77 0.007 1.6 6 110 248.8 6.90 10 5.38 4.0 8.10 256.9 0.001 0.1 7 105 248.8 5.30 10 4.13 2.9 6.46 255.26 0 0.0 See Figure 8 for Transect Locations Page 33

FHR-COMBINED Page 44 of 231 A AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Table 7: Overtopping Flow Rates for Probable Maximum Surge with Wind-Wave Activity Design Base DepthH (Ft.) CEDAS Runup CEDAS Over-Length Water Structure Hs (CE Elev. Over-Transect (ft.) Level Toe Peak(Ft) (CEDAS Runup (NGV topping Rgc (NGVD (Ft.) (TO) Calc.) (Ft.) D29) (cfs.) (each 1 (cfs) 29) 1 60 251.1 7.3 10 5.7 4.3 8.4 259.5 0.07 4.2 2 88 251.1 7.4 10 5.8 4.3 8.5 259.6 0.08 7.0 3 245 251.1 9.2 10 7.2 5.7 10.2 261.3 0.33 80.9 4 47 251.1 9.6 10 7.5 6.0 16.7 267.8 15.8 742.6 5 233 251.1 10.1 10 7.9 6.3 11.1 262.2 0.34 79.2 6 110 251.1 9.2 10 7.2 5.7 10.2 261.3 0.14 15.4 7 105 251.1 7.6 10 5.9 4.5 8.7 259.8 0 0.0 See Figure 8 for Transect Locations Page 34

FHR-COMBINED Page 45 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Table 8: Peak Water Surface Elevations resulting from the combination of the riverine PMF, worst historic surge with wind-wave activity and maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario Design PMF Peak Maximum Maximum Basis Flood Elevation Flow Flow Representative Levels (ft, Depth (ft) Velocity (fps) Grid Element (ft, NGVD29) Structure Number NGVD29) Reactor Containment 6193 272.0 272.0 to Auxiliary Building 6651 273.8 - - Turbine Building 4364 256.6 255.0 1.0 1.2 Control Building 5740 272.0 - - All-Volatile-Treatment-Building 5286 272.0 Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building 6879 273.0 Proposed Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building Annex 7105 273.8 270.3 0.4 0.5 Screen House 3840 256.6 254.9 1.2 0.4 Diesel Generator Building 4014 256.6 254.9 1.2 1.0 Note: "-"implies that the flooding from the scenario does not impact the given location. Page 35

FHR-COMBINED Page 46 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Table 9: Peak Water Surface Elevations resulting from the combination of the riverine PMF, 25-year surge with wind-wave activity and maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario Design PMF Peak Maximum Maximum Basis Flood Elevation Flow Flow Representative Levels (ft, Depth (ft) Velocity (fps) Grid Element (ft, NGVD29) Structure Number NGVD29) Reactor Containment 6193 272.0 272.4 2.2 1.1 272.0 to Auxiliary Building 6651 273.8 272.6 2.0 2.8 Turbine Building 4364 256.6 258.2 4.2 3.1 Control Building 5740 272.0 272.4 2.0 2.1 All-Volatile-Treatment-Building 5286 272.0 271.3 0.7 5.3 Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building 6879 273.0 272.8 2.7 4.0 Proposed Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building Annex 7105 273.8 273.5 3.6 2.8 Screen House 3840 256.6 258.2 4.5 3.3 Diesel Generator Building 4014 256.6 258.4 4.7 4.4 Page 36

FHR-COMBINED Page 47 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Table 10: Peak Water Surface Elevations resulting from the combination of the 25-year flood in Deer Creek, Probable Maximum Storm Surge with wind-wave activity and maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario Design PMF Peak Maximum Maximum Basis Flood Elevation Flow Flow Representative Levels (ft, Depth (ft) Velocity (fps) Grid Element (ft, NGVD29) Structure Number NGVD29) Reactor Containment 6193 272.0 - 272.0 to Auxiliary Building 6651 273.8 - - Turbine Building 4364 256.6 254.9 0.9 0.8 Control Building 5740 272.0 - - All-Volatile-Treatment-Building 5286 272.0 - Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building 6879 273.0 - - Proposed Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building Annex 7105 273.8 - - Screen House 3840 256.6 254.9 1.2 0.9 Diesel Generator Building 4014 256.6 254.9 1.2 0.8 Note: "-"implies that the flooding from the scenario does not impact the given location. Page 37

FHR-COMBINED Page 48 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant FIGURES Page 38

FHR-COMBINED Page 49 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Figure 1: Locus Map Note: Illegible text or features in this figure are not pertinent to the technical purposes of this document Page 39

FHR-COMBINED Page 50 of 231 A AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Figure 2: Site Layout (Reference 23) U.n I&;; t_ (ad Note: Illegible text or features in this figure are not pertinent to the technical purposes of this document Page 40

FHR-COMBINED Page 51 of 231 A AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Figure 3: Dam Locations Note: Illegible text or features in this figure are not pertinent to the technical purposes of this document Page 41

FHR-COMBINED Page 52 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Figure 4: HEC-HMS Basin Model Note: Illegible text or features in this figure are not pertinent to the technical purposes of this document Page 42

FHR-COMBINED Page 53 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Figure 5: Total Contributory Watershed Hydrograph with Dam Breach Jtmcuion "JuncUon-l" Results for Run "PMF Darn Breach" 25.000 - 20.000 - 4*: *Jnn 30,000 20,000" 25.000" 

           ' 1IU.UUU 0

10.000 

               -p.I-I'
                                ý,

9K j I 2 13 4 5 6 1If1 8 *I I 101 11 1 121 Jan20OO m- 

              -RwLUFW   0afn Breach EWmntnULI4JC1ON-1 ResttuftDkow Page 43

FHR-COMBINED Page 54 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Figure 6: Mill Creek Watershed Hydrograph with Dam Breach Junchon "Junchon-2" Results for Run "PMF Dam Breachu 

                               '                                               a 2.UUUU' 20.000-__                                        _it 15,000" tV'll'lz,,

15.000- -________ 41'11 0

UIUULRI Mr 5,0001- .J-fl f -

I Y - I L . 21 31 4 5 6 P q 71 8 K9 I 10 P Y 11 i12 Jan200 

               -R~m:PW               DAM BREACH EkmxwULLHCllOt-2 RzesfiLOutcow Page 44

FHR-COMBINED Page 55 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Figure 7: Deer Creek Watershed Hydrograph with Dam Breach Junction "Junctm-3" Results for Run PMF Darn Breach" 9,.UOfl 7,000-- 6,000 - 5,000- -__ 0 4.oao- ___ 3,000- - 21,00--z A w I UUU

n. ~ - I JL - - I - U~ U - I-9 I 10 11 12 Jan2000 RmimW DAM BREACH EBrnnUUNCTON-3 ReafDft~uw Page 45

FHR-COMBINED Page 56 of 231 A AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Figure 8: Transect Locations for Wave Overtopping Note: Illegible text or features in this figure are not pertinent to the technical purposes of this document Page 46

FHR-COMBINED Page 57 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Figure 9: Straight Line Fetch over Deer Creek EL 

                                                                                              =
                                                                                             .1*               ,

Note: Illegible text or features in this figure are not pertinent to the technical purposes of this document Page 47

FHR-COMBINED Page 58 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Figure 10: NOAA Station Location Map Note: Illegible text or features in this figure are not pertinent to the technical purposes of this document Page 48

FHR-COMBINED Page 59 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Figure 11: Probable Maximum Water Surface Elevations at Ginna (ft, NGVD29) (Combination of PMF on Deer Creek and 25-year Surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario) Note: Illegible text or features in this figure are not pertinent to the technical purposes of this document Page 49

FHR-COMBINED Page 60 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Figure 12: Elevation at Grid Cell (ft, NGVD29) Note: Illegible text or features in this figure are not pertinent to the technical purposes of this document Page 50

FHR-COMBINED Page 61 of 231 A AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000 Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Figure 13: Probable Maximum Flow Depths at Ginna (ft, NGVD29) (Combination of PMF on Deer Creek and 25-year Surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level In Lake Ontario) Note: Illegible text or features in this figure are not pertinent to the technical purposes of this document Page 51

FHR-COMBINED Page 62 of 231 A AR EVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant APPENDIX A: DATUM CONVERSION Page A-1

FHR-COMBINED Page 63 of 231 tiý -rut JaTýi A, (1 ajj-4-1 "W.-- d""Alut, VERTCON NAVD 88 minus NGVD 29 Datum Shift Contour Contous at 20 cm Wsr#MW ai-I um w, 9 WN* 12(W 14-Wf IwW WW WW m2M 18016 140 120 NOw80 tao 04 20 0 20-H -40 Height Difference (cm) See the text version of an article about VERTCON that appeared in the ProfessionalSurveyor magazine, March 2004 Volume 24, Number 3 Wasm OWnerW. 

                                                                   ?4UW   GW    W 4IVy t' LMt flfm~dd "

eodtla WGS WOemOeWr Jan 24 2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 64 of 231 Questions concerning the VERTCON process may be mailed to NGS Latitude: 43 16 40.00 Longitude: 77 18 32.00 NAVD 88 height: 0.00 FT Datum shift(NAvD 88 minus NGVD 29): -0.689 feet Converted to NGVD 29 height: 0.689 feet http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/VERTCON/vertcon2.prl 11/1/2012

FHR-COMBINED Page 65 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant APPENDIX B: NEW YORK STATE INVENTORY OF DAM Page B-1

FHR-COMBINED Page 66 of 231 $. PLMk- F- mw. mw~.0 Go"* mw " Googi. Maps and Earth 

                 *I*,       keketog4~g~IkE~                      ~ke..ke          .4 .oka~.a9M at DECa.*V is ftdc... 110.                Ub Ca.

oaa a..aýký Or)a "aaatM lab..ft WWW"toa.D aa W- 

                                                                        ý W"a P..

ftoga.,E I CTCa f t CtaOCmat mb"aTaa "c. ECOft DECLa. bg.e katbf ad. awm~ea *to Pmwa akj" - a4d'aa aaa"aa Owr 5-f nae b mE 0bcCECass . fae -COlt Lft C.4- Mp 0 N, 

                                                                                                             .4"%

7 -*

FHR-COMBINED Page 67 of 231 New York State Inventory of Dams Name of Dam: Macinnes Marsh Dam State ID: 045-2684 Hazard Code: A See below for hazard code definition Year Completed: im Most Recent Inspection: 1/16/2002 CENTRAL LK ONTARI 

                     ~71612009 Note - The Hazard Code denotes the downstream hazard potential in the event of a dam failure:

C = High Hazard 

             *  = Intermediate Hazard A = Low Hazard 0 = Null; No hazard code assigned I

Ae~wI

FHR-COMBINED Page 68 of 231 New York State Inventory of Dams Name of Dam: William Daly Marh Dam Stats ID: 0451 903 Hazard Code: A See below for hazard code definltion Year Completed: 1963 Most Recent Inspection: 116/2002 Note - The Hazard Code denotes the downstream hazard potential in the event of a dam failure; C = High Hazard B = Intermediate Hazard A = Low Hazard 0 = Null; No hazard code assigned Also Note - This data was exported from DEC's database on 08/30/11. Updates to data that occurred after 08/30/11 are not reflected here.

FHR-COMBINED Page 69 of 231 A New York State Inventory of Dams Name of Dam: Fruitland Mill Dam State ID: 045-0330 Hazard Code: 0 See below for hazard code definition Year Completed: 1800 Most Recent Inspection: 12/31/19801 Note - The Hazard Code denotes the downstream hazard potential In the event of a dam failure: C = High Hazard 

              *  = Intermediate Hazard A = Low Hazard 0 = N01- Nn hmLrd rnrip as.innpr1 4

FHR-COMBINED Page 70 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) Metadata also available as Metadata: 

    " Identification    Information
    "   Data Quality Information
    "   Spatial Data Organization Information
  • Spatial Reference Information
    "   Entity and Attribute Information
    "   Distribution Information
    "   Metadata Reference Information IdentificationInformation:

Citation: Citation_Information: Originator:New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Originators Division of Water Originator:Dam Safety Section PublicationDate.20091125 Title. Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) GeospatialData_PresentationForm. vector digital data Publication Information: PublicationPlace.Albany, NY Publisher: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Online Linkage: 

                            <http://www.nysgis.state.ny.us/gisdata/inventories/details.cfmi?DSID= 1130>

Description. Abstract: A point file to show the location of dams in the New York State Inventory of Dams. Purpose. This dataset is used to show the location of dams in New York State's inventory of dams, and lists selected attributes of each dam. Supplemental Information.

1. While we try to maintain an accurate inventory, this data should not be relied upon for emergency response decision-making. We recommend that critical data, including dam location and hazard classification, be verified in the field. The presence or absence of a dam in this inventory does not indicate its regulatory status. Any corrections should be submitted to the Dam Safety Section with supporting information.
2. There are approximately 17 dams in this dataset that do not have X Y locations.

Time Period of Content. TimePeriod Information: Single_Date/Time. Calendar Date. 20110912 Currentness

Reference:

publication date file:///J:/1 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%20Files/GIS/Dat/NYS_dams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 71 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) Status: Progress:Complete Maintenance and UpdateFrequency:Annually SpatialDomain: BoundingCoordinates: WestBoundingCoordinate:-79.982799 EastBoundingCoordinate."-72.112362 NorthBoundingCoordinate:45.006295 South BoundingCoordinate:40.426335 Key,'ords." Theme: ThemeKeyword Thesaurus. ISO 19115 Topic Category ThemeKeyword: environment Theme Keyword: 007 ThemeKeyword: inlandWaters Theme Keyword." 012 ThemeKeyword.: structure ThemeKeyword.: 0 17 ThemeKeyword: utilitiesCommunication Theme_Keyword: 019 Theme: ThemeKeywordThesaurus: None ThemeKeyword." custodial ThemeKeyword: dam Theme Keyword": watercourse ThemeKeyword."flood Theme Keyword: hydroelectric Theme_Keyword: storm water ThemeKeyword."recreation Theme Keyword: water supply Place: PlaceKeywordThesaurus: Geographic Names Information System 

                             <http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic>

PlaceKeyword: New York State Access Constraints.N/A UseConstraints.

1. The NYS DEC asks to be credited in derived products. 2. Secondary Distribution of the data is not allowed. 3. Any documentation provided is an integral part of the data set.

Failure to use the documentation in conjunction with the digital data constitutes misuse of the data. 4. Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information, errors may be reflected in the data supplied. The user must be aware of data conditions and bear responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect to possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology, currency of data, and other conditions. Point ofContact: Contact Information: ContactOrganizationPrimary: ContactOrganization:New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ContactPerson:Division of Water, Dam Safety Section Contact Address: file:///J:/1 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYSdams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 72 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) Address_Type: mailing and physical address Address: 625 Broadway Address: 4th Floor City: Albany State or Province: NY Postal Code: 12233-3504 Country: USA ContactVoiceTelephone: 518-402-8151 DataSetCredit:NYS DEC, Div. of Water, Dams Section SecurityInformation: SecurityClassification System. None Security Classification:Unclassified Security HandlingDescription:None Native Data Set Environment. Microsoft Windows XP Version 5.1 (Build 2600) Service Pack 2; ESRI ArcCatalog 9.3.1.3500 Data Quality Information: LogicalConsistencyReport:None CompletenessReport:None Lineage: Process_Step: Process

Description:

A feature class is created from data extracted from the Divison of Water's Dam Safety Section database. Latitude/Longitude in decimal degrees is calculated from the latitude/longitude degrees, minutes, seconds fields extracted from the database. Data is then projected to NAD83, NYTM Zone 18 from GCS, WGS 1984.. ProcessDate:20070501 Process_Step: Process

Description:

Updated feature class created from updated data, using latittude and longitude coordinates from the dataset, converted into decimal degrees. ProcessDate:20081027 Process Step: Process-Description: Updated feature class with newest data set from Dam Safety. New data set consisted of various changes in field names and field structure. Metadata was updated accordingly. ProcessDate:20091125 Process_Step: Process-Description: Updated feature class with newest data set from Dam Safety. New data set consisted of various changes in field names and field structure. Projected the data to UTM Zone 18. Metadata was updated accordingly. ProcessDate:20110912 file:///J:/ 170,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS-dams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 73 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) Spatial Data Organization Information: DirectSpatialReferenceMethod: Vector Pointand_Vector Object Information. SDTS_TermsDescription: SDTSPointandVectorObjectType:Entity point PointandVectorObjectCount:6906 SpatialReference Information. HorizontalCoordinateSystem Definition. Planar: Grid Coordinate System: GridCoordinateSystemName:Universal Transverse Mercator UniversalTransverseMercator. UTM Zone Number. 18 Transverse Mercator. ScaleFactor atCentralMeridian.:0.999600 Longitude of CentralMeridian.-75.000000 Latitude_ofProjection Origin: 0.000000 FalseEasting:500000.000000 FalseNorthing:0.000000 PlanarCoordinateInformation: PlanarCoordinateEncodingMethod.: coordinate pair Coordinate Representation: Abscissa Resolution: 0.000100 Ordinate Resolution. 0.000100 Planar DistanceUnits:meters GeodeticModel: Horizontal DatumName. North American Datum of 1983 EllipsoidName: Geodetic Reference System 80 Semi-major Axis. 6378137.000000 Denominator ofFlatteningRatio:298.257222 VerticalCoordinateSystemDefinition: Altitude System Definition: Altitude DatumName: NA Altitude Resolution: 1.000000 Altitude Distance Units: NA Altitude_Encoding Method. Explicit elevation coordinate included with horizontal coordinates Entity and AttributeInformation. Detailed-Description: Entity Type: EntityTypeLabel: Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) Entity Type Definition: Point Feature Class EntityTypeDefinitionSource: ESRI Attribute.: AttributeLabel: OBJECTID file:///J:/1 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS-dams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 74 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) Attribute Definition: Internal feature number. Attribute Definition Source: ESRI AttributeDomain Values: UnrepresentableDomain: Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated. Attribute: Attribute Label. COUNTY NAM Attribute-Definition:Name-of New York State county in which the dam is located. Attribute DefinitionSource.NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values. UnrepresentableDomain:Names. Attribute: Attribute Label. NAMEONE Attribute Definition: Official dam name. Attribute Definition Source: NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: UnrepresentableDomain:Names. Attribute: AttributeLabel: FEDERALID AttributeDefinition: The National Dam Inspection Program ID Number in the Inventory of Dams. The first two characters are NY followed by a five digit serial number. Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values: CodesetDomain: Codeset Name: ID Number CodesetSource."National Dam Inspection Program Attribute: Attribute Label. NAME TWO Attribute Definition: Alternate dam name. Attribute DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomainValues. UnrepresentableDomain:Names. Attribute. Attribute Label. STATEID AttributeDefinition: Unique identifier incorporating quad sheet number and serial number of dam separated by a hyphen. Attribute DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values. UnrepresentableDomain:Unique identifier. Attribute: AttributeLabel: LATDEGREE Attribute Definition: Degrees latitude of dam location. Attribute DefinitionSource.NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: Range Domain." Range_DomainMinimum:0 Range_Domain_Maximum: 90 AttributeUnits_ofMeasure:degrees Attribute: file:///J:/l 70,000-179,999/171356/I71356-OO.DML/Work%20Files/GIS/Data/NYS-dams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 75 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) Attribute Label: LATMIN AttributeDefinition:Minutes latitude of dam location. Attribute DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomainValues: RangeDomain: RangeDomainMinimum. 0 Range_DomainMaximum: 60 AttributeUnitsofMeasure:minutes Attribute: Attribute Label. LATSEC Attribute Definition: Seconds latitude of dam location. Attribute DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values.' RangeDomain." Range_DomainMinimum: 0 Range_DomainMaximum: 60 Attribute_Units_ofMeasure:seconds Attribute: Attribute Label. LONG DEGREE Attribute Definition: Degrees longitude of dam location. Attribute DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: RangeDomain.' Range_DomainMinimum: 0 Range_DomainMaximum: 180 AttributeUnits_ofMeasure:degrees Attribute: Attribute Label. LONGMIN Attribute Definition: Minutes longitude of dam location. Attribute Definition Source: NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: RangeDomain: Range_DomainMinimum:0 Range_DomainMaximum: 60 AttributeUnitsof Measure.' minutes Attribute: Attribute Label.' LONG SEC AttributeDefinition:Seconds longitude of dam location. Attribute DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: RangeDomain.' Range_Domain Minimum: 0 Range_DomainMaximum: 60 AttributeUnits_ofMeasure: seconds Attribute.' Attribute Label.: MUNI Attribute Definition: The name of the municipality in which the dam is located. May accommodate more than one municipality, each one separated by a comma. Attribute DefinitionSource.:NYSDEC AttributeDomainValues: file:///J:/170,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%/2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYSdams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 76 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) UnrepresentableDomain:Names. Attribute: Attribute Label: RIVERSTRE Attribute Definition: The official name of the watercourse on which the dam is located. If the stream is not named, enter as a tributary to first larger, named stream in form: TR-stream name. Attribute DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: UnrepresentableDomain:Names. Attribute: Attribute Label: NRCITYNA Attribute Definition: Official name of the nearest downstream community. Attribute DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: UnrepresentableDomain:Names. Attribute: Attribute Label: NR CITY DI AttributeDefinition." Distance, to the nearest mile, from the dam to the nearest downstream community. Attribute DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: RangeDomain: Range_DomainMinimum:0 Range_DomainMaximum: 9999999999 AttributeUnitsofMeasure:miles Attribute. Attribute Label: CONSTRTYP Attribute Definition. Type of dam construction. Field can accommodate more than one construction type, each one separated by a comma. Attribute DefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values. EnumeratedDomain: Enumerated DomainValue: OT - Other EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Some other construction type. EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource.NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values. Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value: CB - Buttress EnumeratedDomain-_Value Definition: The dam is a buttress construction type. EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values: Enumerated Domain: EnumeratedDomainValue:CN - Concrete Gravity EnumeratedDomainValue Definition: The dam is a concrete gravity construction type. EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: file:///J:/ 170,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Worký/02Files/GIS/Data/NYS-dams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 77 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) Enumerated Domain: Enumerated DomainValue: ER - Rockfill EnumeratedDomain_Value-Definition:The dam is a rockfill construction type. EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDEC Attribute DomainValues: Enumerated Domain: EnumeratedDomainValue:LS - Laid Up Stone EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: The dam is a laid up stone construction type. EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values. Enumerated Domain: Enumerated DomainValue: MS - Masonry EnumeratedDomainValue Definition. The dam is a masonry construction type. EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute DomainValues. Enumerated Domain: Enumerated DomainValue: MV - Multi-Arch EnumeratedDomain_ValueDefinition:The dam is a multi-arch construction type. EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated DomainValue. RE - Earth EnumeratedDomain-Value Definition: The dam is an earth construction type. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values. Enumerated Domain: Enumerated DomainValue. ST - Stone EnumeratedDomainValue Definition: The dam is a stone construction type. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: Enumerated Domain. Enumerated Domain Value: TC - Timber Crib EnumeratedDomain-Value Definition: The dam is a timber crib construction type. EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value: VA - Arch EnumeratedDomainValue Definition: The dam is an arch construction type. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition Source: NYSDEC Attribute. Attribute Label. PURPOSES Attribute Definition: The purpose for which the dam is used. Field may accommodate more than one file:///J:/1 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-OO.DML/Work%2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS dams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 78 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) purpose, each one separated by a comma. Attribute Definition Source. NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values. EnumeratedDomain: EnumeratedDomainValue:Water Supply - Other Enumerated DomainValue Definition: The dam is used for water supply other than primary source. EnumeratedDomainValue Definition Source: NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values., Enumerated Domain: Enumerated DomainValue. Debris Control EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: The dam is used to control debris. EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values. Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value. Fish & Wildlife Pond EnumeratedDomainValue Definition: The dam is used to create fish and wildlife pond. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values: EnumeratedDomain. EnumeratedDomainValue:Hydroelectric EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: The dam is used to produce hydroelectric power. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute DomainValues.: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated DomainValue: Irrigation Enumerated-_DomainValue Definition: The dam is used to supply water for irrigation. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values. Enumerated Domain: Enumerated DomainValue: Navigation EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: The dam is used to supply water for navigation. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value. Other EnumeratedDomain-Value Definition: The dam is used for some other purpose. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition Source: NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values: Enumerated Domain. Enumerated Domain Value. Fire Protection, Livestock, or Farm Pond EnumeratedDomain-Value Definition: The dam is used to supply water for fire protection, livestock,irrigation, or is a farm pond dam. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NYSDEC file:///J:/l170,000-179,999/171356/171356-OO.DML/Work%20Files/GIS/Data/NYS dams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 79 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) AttributeDomain Values: Enumerated Domain. Enumerated Domain Value: Recreation EnumeratedDomain-Value Definition: The dam is used to contain water for recreation. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values.' EnumeratedDomain: EnumeratedDomainValue:Water Supply - Primary EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: The dam is used as a primary source water supply. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute DomainValues: Enumerated Domain: EnumeratedDomainValue:Tailings EnumeratedDomain_ValueDefinition:The dam is used to contain tailings waste. EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values.: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value: Flood Control/Storm Water Management EnumeratedDomain-Value Definition: The dam is used for flood control or for storm water management. EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource.NYSDEC Attribute: Attribute Label.' YEARBUILT Attribute Definition: The year original construction was completed, or the year of the latest major reconstruction. Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: UnrepresentableDomain:Dates. Attribute. Attribute Label: DAMLENGTH Attribute Definition." Crest length, in feet, of the dam. Total horizontal distance measured along the axis at the elevation of the top of the dam between the ends of the dam. This includes spillways, power house sections, and navigation locks where they form part of the dam retaining structure. Attribute Definition Source.: NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: RangeDomain: Range_DomainMinimum:0 RangeDomainMaximum.:9999999999 Attribute_Units_oLMeasure:feet Attribute.: Attribute Label.' DAM HEIGHT Attribute Definition: Height, in feet to the nearest foot, of the vertical distance of the dam from the lowest point on the crest of the dam to the lowest point in the original streambed. file:///J:/170,000-179,999/171356/171356-0O.DML/Work%2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS-dams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 80 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) AttributeDefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: Range Domain: Range_DomainMinimum:0 RangeDomainMaximum: 9999999999 AttributeUnits_ofMeasure:feet Attribute: Attribute Label: MAXDISCHR Attribute Definition: The number of cubic feet per second which the spillway is capable of discharging when the reservoir is at its maximum designed water surface elevation. AttributeDefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: RangeDomain: RangeDomainMinimum: 0 Range_Domain Maximum: 9999999999 AttributeUnits-ofMeasure:cubic feet per second Attribute: Attribute Label. MAXSTORAG Attribute Definition. Volume impounded by the dam, in acre feet, at the maximum attainable water surface elevation. Attribute DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomainValues: RangeDomain: Range_DomainMinimum: 0 Range_Domain_Maximum. 9999999999 Attribute Units_ofMeasure:acre feet Attribute: Attribute Label: NORMALSTO Attribute Definition: Volume impounded by the dam, in acre feet, at the elevation of a single or service spillway. AttributeDefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: RangeDomain: Range_DomainMinimum. 0 Range_DomainMaximum: 9999999999 AttributeUnits_of Measure: acre feet Attribute: Attribute Label: SURFACEAR Attribute Definition: Reservoir surface area, in acres, at pool elevation of a single or service spillway. Attribute DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: RangeDomain: Range_DomainMinimum:0 RangeDomainMaximum: 9999999999 AttributeUnits_ofMeasure:acres file:///J:/170,000-179,999/171356/171356-OO.DML/Worko2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS dams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 81 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) Attribute. AttributeLabel. DRAINAGEA Attribute Definition: The area that draws to the dam on a river or stream, in square miles. AttributeDefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomainValues: RangeDomain." RangeDomainMinimum. 0 Range_DomainMaximum:9999999999 AttributeUnits ofMeasure: square miles Attribute: Attribute Label: OWNERS Attribute Definition: The name of the owner(s). Field can accommodate more than one owner, each one separated by a comma. Attribute Definition Source. NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: UnrepresentableDomain:Names. Attribute: Attribute Label: PI INSPDE Attribute Definition: Army Corps of Engineers Phase I Inspection Report program results description. Attribute DefinitionSource.NYSDEC Attribute DomainValues: Enumerated Domain: EnumeratedDomainValue:Unsafe Stability EnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Phase I Inspection rated the dam unsafe due to inadequate stability. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values: EnumeratedDomain: EnumeratedDomainValue:Unsafe Spillway Capacity EnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Phase I Inspection rated the dam unsafe due to inadequate spillway capacity. EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values. Enumerated Domain: EnumeratedDomainValue:Unsafe Emergency EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Phase I Inspection rated the dam "Unsafe - Emergency" EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value: OK EnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Phase I Inspection found that the dam met safety criteria. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource.NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: EnumeratedDomain. file:///J :1170,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%/2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYSdams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 82 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) Enumerated DomainValue. None EnumeratedDomainValue Definition: No Phase I inspection report present. EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource.NYSDEC Attribute DomainValues.: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value: Null/Blank EnumeratedDomainValue Definition: No Phase I inspection report present EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute: Attribute Label. LSTINSPD Attribute Definition: Date of the most recent NYSDEC Dam Safety Section inspection of the dam. Attribute DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: UnrepresentableDomain:Dates. Attribute: Attribute Label: HAZARDCOD Attribute Definition: The hazard classification code of the dam. Attribute DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomainValues: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value: A EnumeratedDomain-Value Definition: Class "A" or "Low Hazard" dam: A dam failure is unlikely to result in damage to anything more than isolated or unoccupied buildings, undeveloped lands, minor roads such as town or county roads; is unlikely to result in the interruption of important utilities, including water supply, sewage treatment, fuel, power, cable or telephone infrastructure; and/or is otherwise unlikely to pose the threat of personal injury, substantial economic loss or substantial environmental damage. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: Enumerated Domain. Enumerated Domain Value: B Enumerated-_Domain-_ValueDefinition: Class "B" or "Intermediate Hazard" dam: A dam failure may result in damage to isolated homes, main highways, and minor railroads; may result in the interruption of important utilities, including water supply, sewage treatment, fuel, power, cable or telephone infrastructure; and/or is otherwise likely to pose the threat of personal injury and/or substantial economic loss or substantial environmental damage. Loss of human life is not expected. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values. Enumerated Domain. Enumerated DomainValue.C EnumeratedDomain Value Definition: Class "C" or "High Hazard" dam: A dam failure may result in file:///J:/l 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS-dams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 83 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) widespread or serious damage to home(s); damage to main highways, industrial or commercial buildings, railroads, and/or important utilities, including water supply, sewage treatment, fuel, power, cable or telephone infrastructure; or substantial environmental damage; such that the loss of human life or widespread substantial economic loss is likely. EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value: D EnumeratedDomain-Value Definition: Class "D" or "Negligible or No Hazard" dam: A dam that has been breached or removed, or has failed or otherwise no longer materially impounds waters, or a dam that was planned but never constructed. Class"D" dams are considered to be defunct dams posing negligible or no hazard. The department may retain pertinent records regarding such dams. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values. Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value. 0 EnumeratedDomain-ValueDefinition:Hazard Code has not been assigned EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition Source: NYSDEC Attribute: AttributeLabel. QUAD Attribute Definition: A letter (A, B, C, D) to designate on which 7.5 quad of the original 15 minute quad the dam is located. Attribute Definition Source. NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values: EnumeratedDomain: Enumerated Domain Value: A EnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Top left. EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values. Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value: B EnumeratedDomain-Value Definition: Top right. Enumerated_DomainValueDefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values. EnumeratedDomain: Enumerated DomainValue: C EnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Bottom left. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value: D EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition:Bottom right. EnumeratedDomainValue-DefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute: file:///J:/170,000-179,999/171356/I71356-00.DML/Work%2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS-dams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 84 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) Attribute Label: BASINNAME AttributeDefinition:Name of drainage basin in which the dam is located. Attribute Definition_Source: NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: UnrepresentableDomain.Names. Attribute. Attribute Label: REGIONNAM Attribute _Definition: DEC region in which the dam is located. Attribute DefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values: Unrepresent-ableDomain:Names. Attribute: Attribute Label. DIKELENGT Attribute Definition: Crest length, in feet, of all closures, retaining or diversion dikes not directly attached to main dam. AttributeDefinitionSource.NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values. RangeDomain." Range_Domain Minimum: 0 RangeDomain Maximum: 9999999 AttributeUnitsofMeasure.feet Attribute. Attribute Label: SPILLWY TI AttributeDefinition. Single or service spillway. Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDEC Attribute DomainValues. EnumeratedDomain: Enumerated Domain Value. Uncontrolled Overflow EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Uncontrolled Overflow. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated DomainValue: Drop Inlet or Riser Enumerated-_Domain-ValueDefinition.: Drop Inlet or Riser. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: Enumerated Domain. EnumeratedDomainValue:Drop Structure EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Drop Structure. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition Source. NYSDEC AttributeDomainValues: Enumerated Domain. Enumerated Domain Value: Culvert - No Control EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Culvert - No Control. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated DomainValue: Gated EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Gated. Enumerated_DomainValue DefinitionSource:NYSDEC file:///J:/1 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%/020Files/GIS/Data/NYS dams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 85 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) Attribute Domain Values: Enumerated Domain. Enumerated Domain Value: Uncontrolled Overflow with flashboards EnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Uncontrolled Overflow with flashboards. EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values: EnumeratedDomain: EnumeratedDomainValue.Stop Log sluice EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Stop Log sluice. EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value. Taintor Gate EnumeratedDomain-Value Definition. Taintor Gate. EnumeratedDomain_Value__DefinitionSource: NYSDEC Attribute DomainValues. Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value. Other EnumeratedDomainValue-Definition:Other. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value: Null/Blank Enumerated-_Domain-Value Definition: Single or service spillway information is not available EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource.NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values.: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated DomainValue: None EnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Single or service spillway information is not available EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute: Attribute Label: SPILLWY WD Attribute Definition: Total width, in feet, of all spillway facilities. Attribute DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: RangeDomain: Range_DomainMinimum:0 RangeDomainMaximum: 9999999999 AttributeUnits_ofMeasure:feet Attribute. Attribute Label: SCS Attribute Definition: Dam designed or financed by USDA Soil Conservation Service. Attribute DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values. EnumeratedDomain. Enumerated DomainValue: Y EnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Dam designed or financed by USDA Soil Conservation Service. file:///J:/ 170,000-179,999/171356/I71356-00.DML/Work%20Files/GIS/Data/NYS-dams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 86 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated DomainValue:N Enumerated_DomainValue Defnition. Dam not designed or financed by USDA Soil Conservation Service. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition Source.' NYSDEC Attribute.: Attribute Label: EAPDOCDA Attribute Definition. Date on which the dams' emergency action plan was instituted or revised. Required of all high hazard dams. Attribute DefinitionSource.NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values.: UnrepresentableDomain:Dates. Attribute: Attribute Label.: LAST MODIFI Attribute Definition: The most recent date information was edited. Attribute Definition Source: NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: UnrepresentableDomain:Dates. Attribute: Attribute Label: LAT2 Attribute Definition: Decimal Degrees latitude of dam location. Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDEC AttributeDomainValues: RangeDomain: Range_DomainMinimum: 0 Range_DomainMaximum: 180 Attribute_Units_oLfMeasure.' decimal degrees Attribute: Attribute Label.: LONG2 AttributeDefinition:Decimal Degrees longitude of dam location. Attribute DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: RangeDomain: RangeDomain Minimum: 0 RangeDomain Maximum.' 180 Attribute_Units_ofLMeasure.' decimal degrees Attribute.' Attribute Label.' SHAPE Attribute Definition: Feature geometry. Attribute DefinitionSource.' ESRI AttributeDomain Values: UnrepresentableDomain.'Coordinates defining the features. Attribute: Attribute Label.' SPILLWY T2 AttributeDefinitionSource-: NYSDEC AttributeDefinition:Auxiliary or emergency spillway. AttributeDomain Values.' Enumerated Domain.' file:///J:/l 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%/2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS dams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 87 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) Enumerated DomainValue: Grassed Earth Channel EnumeratedDomainValue Definition. Grassed Earth Channel. EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute DomainValues: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated DomainValue: Channel cut in rock EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Channel cut in rock. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition_Source:NYSDEC AttributeDomainValues.: Enumerated Domain. Enumerated DomainValue. Concrete Overflow EnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Concrete Overflow. EnumeratedDomain_ValueDefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values: EnumeratedDomain: Enumerated DomainValue. Concrete Overflow with Flashboards Enumerated-Domain-ValueDefinition: Concrete Overflow with Flashboards. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated DomainValue. Other EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Other. EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource.NYSDEC Attribute DomainValues. Enumerated Domain. EnumeratedDomain Value: None Enumerated-_Domain-ValueDefinition:Dam does not have an auxiliary or emergency spillway EnumeratedDomainValue_DefinitionSource. NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated DomainValue. Null/Blank EnumeratedDomainValue Definition. Auxiliary or emergency spillway information is not available EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDEC Attribute: Attribute Label: EAPSTATUS Attribute-DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values. Enumerated Domain: Enumerated DomainValue: On file EnumeratedDomainValue Definition: EAP is on file EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute Definition: Emergency Action Plan Status AttributeDomain Values. Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value: None EnumeratedDomainValue Definition. There is no EAP on file. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource.NYSDEC Attribute. file:///J:/l 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-OO.DML/Work%20Files/GIS/Data/NYS-dams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 88 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) Attribute Label. EAPLSTEX Attribute Definition Source: NYSDEC Attribute Definition: Last time an EAP was exercised. AttributeDomain Values. UnrepresentableDomain:Dates. Attribute: Attribute Label: EAP REQ Attribute DefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values. Enumerated Domain: Enumerated DomainValue. Y EnumeratedDomain_Value Definition: Yes. An EAP is required. Enumerated DomainValue DefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute Definition: An EAP is required for this dam. Attribute DomainValues: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value: N EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: No. An EAP is not required. EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute: Attribute Label: LSTINSPD Attribute-DefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute Definition: Last time a dam was inspected. AttributeDomain Values. UnrepresentableDomain:Dates. Attribute: Attribute Label: LASTDEFIC Attribute DefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute Definition: Last deficiencies noted during the last inspection. Attribute DomainValues: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value: BR EnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Man made breach Enumerated Domain_ValueDefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated DomainValue: FA EnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Natural failure, breached, or cause unknown EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values: EnumeratedDomain: Enumerated DomainValue: MA Enumerated DomainValue Definition: Dam has maintenance issues EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NYSDEC Attribute DomainValues: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value: NA EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: No dam stability analysis Enumerated DomainValue DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: file:///J:/1 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%/2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS dams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 89 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) Enumerated Domain: EnumeratedDomain Value: NC EnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Incompleted/not built EnumeratedDomainValue_DefinitionSource. NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values., Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value. NL Enumerated-_Domain-Value Definition: Dam no longer exists EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition_Source.NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated DomainValue.None EnumeratedDomain-_Value Definition. No deficiencies were observed EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values: Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value. NS Enumerated-Domain-ValueDefinition: No spillway capacity analysis EnumeratedDomain-Value DefinitionSource.NYSDEC Attribute DomainValues. Enumerated Domain: Enumerated DomainValue. SA EnumeratedDomain_Value-Definition:Dam has inadequate structural stability EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values: Enumerated Domain. Enumerated DomainValue."SC EnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Dam has insufficient spillway capacity EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values. Enumerated Domain: Enumerated Domain Value: SE EnumeratedDomain-Value Definition: Dam has seepage EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource.NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values. Enumerated Domain. Enumerated DomainValue: SR EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Dam has structural issues EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource.NYSDEC Attribute: Attribute Label. FERCSTATU AttributeDefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute Domain Values: EnumeratedDomain. Enumerated Domain Value: A Enumerated_DomainValue Definition: Application submitted EnumeratedDomainValue Definition Source. NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values. Enumerated Domain: file:///J:/1 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-OO.DML/Work%2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS dams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 90 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) Enumerated DomainValue: E EnumeratedDomain-_Value Definition: FERC Licensed Exempt Dam EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDomain Values. Enumerated Domain. Enumerated DomainValue: L EnumeratedDomain-_Value Definition. FERC Licensed Dam EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute Definition. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission status, if applicable Attribute Domain Values: EnumneratedDomain: Enumerated DomainValue:Null EnumeratedDomain-_Value Definition: Not Applicable EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource:NYSDEC Attribute.- Attribute Label. FERC INFO AttributeDefinitionSource:NYSDEC AttributeDefinition:FERC Project Number AttributeDomain Values. UnrepresentableDomain.Unique Identifier OverviewDescription: Entity_andAttributeOverview." The names of fields listed in the Attribute Table are the exact column headings in the DAMS Point Attribute Table. Originally, ArcGIS only allowed use often characters for field names. The layerfile is running off of aliases. The longer more descriptive names follow some of the field names in the definition. Entity andAttributeDetailCitation:Dam Safety Section Distribution Information. Distributor: ContactInformation. ContactOrganizationPrimary: ContactOrganization:New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Contact Person. Division of Information Services, GIS Unit ContactAddress: AddressType: mailing and physical address Address: 625 Broadway Address. 3rd Floor City: Albany State or Province.: NY PostalCode. 12233-2750 Country: USA ContactVoiceTelephone: (518) 402-9860 Contact_Facsimile Telephone: (518) 402-9031 Contact_ElectronicMailAddress:enterpriseGlS@gw.dec.state.ny.us Resource Description. New York State Inventory of Dams DistributionLiability: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) provides these file:///J:/1 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%20Files/GIS/Data/NYSdams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 91 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) geographic data "as is". NYSDEC makes no guarantee or warranty concerning the accuracy of information contained in the geographic data. NYSDEC further makes no warranty, either expressed or implied, regarding the condition of the product or its fitness for any particular purpose. The burden for determining fitness for use lies entirely with the user. Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system at NYSDEC, no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the accuracy or utility of the data on any other system or for general or scientific purposes. This disclaimer applies both to individual use of the data and aggregate use with other data. It is strongly recommended that careful attention be paid to the contents of the metadata file associated with these data. NYSDEC shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use od the data described and/or contained herein. StandardOrderProcess: Digital-Form: Digital Transfer Information: Format Name: SHP FormatVersionDate."20080912 Transfer Size: 0.183 DigitalTransferOption: Online Option. Computer Contact Information: Network Address.' NetworkResourceName.' unknown Fees.' none MetadataReference Information.: Metadata Date.: 20111012 Metadata

Contact:

Contact__nformation: ContactOrganizationPrimary." ContactOrganization:New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Contact Person: Division of Information Services, GIS Unit ContactAddress: Address_Type: mailing and physical address Address: 625 Broadway Address.: 3rd Floor City: Albany State or Province: NY PostalCode: 12233-2750 Country.' USA ContactVoiceTelephone:(518) 402-9860 ContactFacsimile-Telephone:(518) 402-9031 ContactElectronicMailAddress:enterpriseGIS@gw.dec.state.ny.us Metadata Standard Name: FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata MetadataStandard Version.' FGDC-STD-00 1-1998 Metadata Time Convention.' local time Metadata Extensions: Online_Linkage: <http://www.esri.com/metadata/esriprof80.html> Profile-Name: ESRI Metadata Profile 

**e:HIJ:ll 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS-dams/...                  3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 92 of 231 Inventory of Dams - New York State (NYSDEC) Generated by m_version 2.9.6 on Thu Nov 03 16:05:54 2011 file:///J:/1 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%/2OFiles/GIS/Data!NYS dams/... 3/13/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 93 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant APPENDIX C: BREACH PARAMETER CALCULATIONS Page C-1 I

FHR-COMBINED Page 94 of 231 FERC: Hydropower - Safety and Inspection - Engineering Guidelines 

                 ,           FERC FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ENGINEERING Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects      GUIDELINES Main Page Preface =                                                              Final Dam Safety Surveillance Monitoring Plan - Appendices J and K Chapter 1 a    - General Requirements                                  Emergency Action Plans, Chapter 6 (Final Version)

Embankment Dams, Chapter 4 Chapter 2 = - Selecting and Accommodating Inflow Design Floods for (Draft Version) Dams Status of Proposed New Chapters and Proposed Revisions Chapter 3 m - Gravity Dams Evaluation of Seismic Hazards, Chapter 13 (Draft Version) Chapter 4 = - Embankment Dams Chapter 5 - - Geotechnical Investigations and Studies Chapter 6 -- Emergency Action Plans Chapter 7 = - Construction Quality Control Inspection Program Chapter 8 - - Determination of the Probable Maximum Flood Chapter 9 =n - Instrumentation and Monitoring Chapter 10 m - Other Dams Chapter 11 = - Arch Dams Chapter 12 - - Penstock and Water Conveyance Facilities (In Preparation) Chapter 13 = - Evaluation of Seismic Hazards (Draft Version) Read More Chapter 14 = - Dam Safety Performance Monitoring Program - Updated: July 1, 2005 Updated: June 28, 2010 http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/safety/guidelines/eng-guide.asp 2/4/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 95 of 231 Preface These engineering guidelines have been prepared by the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) to provide guidance to the technical Staff in the processing of applications for license and in the evaluation of dams under Part 12 of the Commission's regulations. The Guidelines will also be used to evaluate proposed modifications or additions to existing projects under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission). Staff technical personnel consist of the professional disciplines (e.g. professional engineers and geologists) that have the responsibility for reviewing studies and evaluating designs prepared by owners or developers of dams. The guidelines are intended to provide technical personnel of the Office of Energy Projects, including the Regional Office and Washington Office personnel with procedures and criteria for the engineering review and analysis of projects over which the Commission has jurisdiction. In addition, these guidelines should be used by staff in the evaluation of consultant or licensee/exemptee conducted studies. The guidance is intended to cover the majority of studies usually encountered by Staff. However, special cases may require deviation from, or modification of; the guidelines. When such cases arise, Staff must determine the applicability of alternate criteria or procedures based upon their experience and must exercise sound engineering judgment when considering situations not covered by the guidelines. The alternate procedures, or criteria, used in these situations should be justified and accompanied by any suggested changes for incorporation in the guidelines. Since every dam site and hydropower related structure is unique, individual design considerations and construction treatment will be required. Technical judgment is therefore required in most analytical studies. These guidelines are not a substitute for good engineering judgment, nor are the procedures recommended herein to be applied rigidly in place of other analytical solutions to engineering problems encountered by staff. Staff should keep in mind that the engineering profession is not limited to a specific solution to each problem, and that the results are the desired end to problem solving. These guidelines are primarily intended for internal use by OEP stafi but also provide licensees, exemptees, and applicants with general guidance that should be considered when presenting any studies presented to the Commission under Parts 4 and 12 of the Regulations (18 CFR, Parts 4 and 12). When any portions of the Guidelines becomes outdated, obsolete, or needs revision for any reason, it will be revised and supplemented as necessary. Comments on, or recommended changes, in these Guidelines should be forwarded to the Director of the Division of Inspections for consideration and possible inclusion in future updates. New pages will be prepared and issued with instructions for page replacements.

FHR-COMBINED Page 96 of 231 CHAPTER II SELECTING AND ACCOMMODATING INFLOW DESIGN FLOODS FOR DAMS October 1993

FHR-COMBINED Page 97 of 231 TABLE 1 SUGGESTED BREACH PARAMETERS (Definition Sketch Shown in Figure 1) Parameter Value Type of Dam Average width of Breach (BR) BR = Crest Length Arch (See Comment No. 1)* BR = Multiple Slabs Buttress BR = Width of 1 or more Masonry, Gravity Monoliths, Usually BR _ 0.5 W HD_ ltBR 5HD .......... Earthen, Rockfill, (usually between ............ Timber Crib 2HD & 4HD) B3R Ž_ 0.8 x Crest ........... Slag, Refuse Length Horizontal Component of Side 0 _ Z :g slope of valley walls ... Arch Slope of Breach (Z) Z = 0................... Masonry, Gravity (See Comment No. 2)* Timber Crib, Buttress 1/4/4 Z _ 1 ................. Earthen (Engineered, Compacted) 1 _gZ*_ 2 .................. Slag, Refuse (Non-Engineered) Time to Failure (TFH) TFH :_0.1 ........... Arch (in hours) 0.1 !g TFH _<0.3 ........... Masonry, Gravity, (See Comment No. 3)* Buttress 0.1 _ TFH :g 1.0 ........... Earthen (Engineered, Compacted) Timber Crib 0.1 _ TFH _ 0.5 ........... Earthen (Non Engineered Poor Construction) 0.1 _< TFH _ 0.3 ........... Slag, Refuse Definition: HD - Height of Dam Z - Horizontal Component of Side Slope of Breach BR - Average Width of Breach TFH - Time to Fully Form the Breach W - Crest Length Note: See Page 2-A-12 for definition Sketch 

*Comments: See Page 2-A 2-A-11 October    1993

FHR-COMBINED Page 98 of 231 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DAM SAFETY BRANCH GUIDELINES FOR DAM BREA CH ANAL YSIS February10, 2010 Telephone (303) 866-3581 1313 Sherman Street Website: Facsimile (303) 866-3589 Room 818 Centennial Building http://water.state.co.us Denver, Colorado

FHR-COMBINED Page 99 of 231 Guidelines for Dam Breach Analysis February 10, 2010 Table of Contents List of Variables .......................................................................................................................................... ii 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. I

2.0 Purpose and Scope

........................................................................................................................................            1 2.1       Colorado Dam Breach Analysis Requirem ents .......................................................................................                                    2 3.0       Dam Breach M echanism s .............................................................................................................................                 5 3.1       Failure of Rigid Dam Structures ..........................................................................................................                            5 3.2       Overtopping Failure of Earthen D am s .....................................................................................................                           5 3.3       Piping and Internal Erosion of Earthen Dam s .........................................................................................                                5 4.0       A Brief History of D am Breach Analysis ................................................................................................                              6 5.0       D am Breach Analysis Tools .........................................................................................................................                  7 5.1       Com parative Analysis ..................................................................................................................................              7 5.2       Em pirical M ethods .......................................................................................................................................           7 5.3       Physically-Based M odels .............................................................................................................................                8 5.4       Param etric M odels ........................................................................................................................................          8 5.4.1     Hydrologic M odels .......................................................................................................................................            8 5.4.2     Hydraulic M odels .........................................................................................................................................           8 6.0       A Tiered Dam Breach Analysis Structure .............................................................................................                                  9 6.1       Screening ......................................................................................................................................................      9 6.2       Sim ple ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 6.3       Interm ediate ................................................................................................................................................       11 6.4       A dvanced ....................................................................................................................................................      11 7.0       Recom mendations for Dam Breach Analysis .......................................................................................                                     11 7.1       Breach Param eter Estim ation .....................................................................................................................                  12 7.1.1     Em pirical M ethods .....................................................................................................................................            12 7.1.1.1   Piping Failure Considerations with Em pirical M ethods .......................................................................                                      15 7.1.1.2   Spreadsheets ...............................................................................................................................................        17 7.1.2     Physically Based M odels ............................................................................................................................                19 7.2       Breach Peak D ischarge Estim ation .......................................................................................................                           19 7.2.1     Empirical M ethods .....................................................................................................................................             19 7.2.2     Parametric M odels ......................................................................................................................................           21 7.2.2.1   Hydrologic M odels .....................................................................................................................................            21 7.2.2.2   Hydraulic M odels .......................................................................................................................................           22 7.2.2.3   Param eters Com m on to Hydraulic and Hydrologic M odels ................................................................                                           25 7.2.2.3.1 Orifice Coefficients (Cp) .............................................................................................................................             25 7.2.2.3.2 Weir Coefficients (C ,) ...............................................................................................................................             27 7.2.2.3.3 Breach Progressions ...................................................................................................................................             28 7.3       Breach Flood Routing .................................................................................................................................              29 7.4       Hydraulics at Critical Locations .................................................................................................................                  29 8.0       Lim itations .................................................................................................................................................. 30 9.0       Annotated Bibliography .............................................................................................................................                31 List of Appendices Case Study Inventory ....................................................................................................................................................      A HEC-RAS Example - Upstream Storage Area Connected to a Channel with a Dam that Fails ..............................                                                             B i

FHR-COMBINED Page 100 of 231 February 10, 2010 Guidelines for Dam Breach Analysis List of Variables (See Figures l&2) Hb = Height of breach in feet, which is the vertical distance between the dam crest and breach invert. Hw. Maximum depth of water stored behind the breach in feet (usually depth from emergency spillway crest down to breach invert for a full, fair-weather breach) V. = Reservoir volume stored corresponding to H, in acre-feet (AF) BFF (Breach Formation Factor) = HwV, in acre-feet 2 - used for MacDonald & Langridge-Monopolis and Washington State methods only. Ver = Volume of dam eroded in cubic yards during a breach. Used for MacDonald & Langridge-Monopolis and Washington State methods only. This is the same as BavgWav 1g for a full breach or D2L for a piping only failure (variables defined below). Bavg= Average breach width in feet. For a trapezoidal section, this is the width of the breach at the mid-point, Hb/2. Zb = Side slopes of breach (Zb Horizontal: 1 Vertical). Zd = slopes of downstream face of the embankment (Zd Horizontal: I Vertical). Z. = slope of the upstream face of the embankment (Z. Horizontal: 1 Vertical). Zt = sum of the upstream and downstream embankment slopes, Z, + Zd Bb= breach bottom width in feet: Ba 9g - HbZb Wang = Average width of dam in direction of flow (feet). This is the width at the mid-point of Hb: Wa g= C + Hb (Zu+Zd) 2 Tf = breach development time in hours. C= width of the dam crest in feet. 2 g = acceleration due to gravity, which equals 32.2 feet/sec S$= Storage Intensity = V1w/IH-w acre-feet/foot ER - Erosion Rate = Bavg/Tf feet/hour L = Length of piping hole, feet D = Piping hole height/width (assumed square), feet D Hp = Height from center of piping hole to dam crest = Hb -2 A,= Surface area of reservoir (acres) at reservoir level corresponding to H" Q = Discharge in cfs Qp = Peak dam break discharge at the dam in cfs Qr = Routed peak discharge in cfs at a certain distance, X, downstream of the dam X = Distance downstream from the dam along the floodplain in miles Oso ý Mean soil particle diameter in millimeters A = Area of the piping hole in square feet: D2 Cp = Piping orifice coefficient Cw = Weir coefficient f= Darcy friction factor r = Instantaneous flow reduction factor = 23.4 AI/Bay 9 Ko = Froehlich Failure Mode Factor ii

FHR-COMBINED Page 101 of 231 flhluIpllnpQ fnr fl2m 1~P2rh An~a1vQk Fe'hrnlrv 1O_ 2010 Guidelin-s for Dam Breach Anal .L sis Febnl.qrv 10 I 201 

                                                            ............ d I4L -I Figure 2 - Piping Hole Variable Definition Sketch iii

FHR-COMBINED Page 102 of 231 Guidelines for Dam Breach Analysis February 10, 2010 estimate of flood magnitude and velocity at critical locations. HEC-RAS is the most widely used hydraulic model for dam safety analyses in the United States and can be utilized for steady and unsteady flow analyses. The latest versions of HEC-RAS (since version 3.0) have a parametric dam breach routine that can calculate a breach outflow hydrograph within an unsteady flow simulation. Another hydraulic model that has been widely used for unsteady flow analyses is the NWS DAMBRK model. The BOSS Corporation has added a graphical user interface while keeping the same numeric algorithm to make the model more user-friendly. This version is called BOSS DAMBRK. The model is based upon the same basic unsteady routing hydraulic principles as HEC-RAS, but DAMBRK was specifically developed for modeling dam failures. The cross-section input requirements for routing dam break floods require the same number of points to represent every cross section, which limits its usefulness. 6.0 A Tiered Dam Breach Analysis Structure Given the wide range of conditions that could exist at a dam and in its failure path, and the modeling options available, there are many choices to be made while performing a dam breach analysis for a hazard classification study or to develop inundation maps for emergency preparedness documents. Because dam breach analyses will not always require the most sophisticated tools available, a tiered approach is recommended. The tiered approach matches the appropriate level of analysis with a given situation. The goal is to make the most efficient use of time and available tools while producing results that are appropriately conservative. Table 1 shows a matrix of the tiered dam breach analysis structure. As shown, various tools can be utilized in part or all together, depending on the nature of the analysis that is required. Rows in the table represent the level of analysis and the columns represent a four-step breach analysis process. In general, as the level of analysis increases, so does the level of effort (time) needed to complete it. However, as the analysis increases in complexity, less conservative assumptions can be used, and the results are considered more accurate. 6.1 Screening Assuming that a presumptive determination (by inspection) of hazard classification is not practical, the first level of analysis is Screening. Screening is meant to be a cursory, yet conservative level of analysis that can be performed rapidly. The analysis ignores dam break hydrograph development. The breach parameters determined from empirical methods are calculated and used for input into the SMPDBK peak discharge equation, or an orifice equation assuming instantaneous piping hole formation. Empirical routing equations or nomographs can be used to estimate the attenuation of the flood wave downstream of the dam. One empirical routing equation was developed by the USBR in 1982 "Guidelines for Defining Inundation Areas Downstream from Bureau of Reclamation Dams". This equation follows: Qr = l0t09(Q')-O'O1X Where: X= distance in miles downstream of the dam measured along the flood plain. Q,-- peak discharge in cfs corresponding to distance X. Q,= peak dam break discharge at the dam in cfs. 9

FHR-COMBINED Page 103 of 231 February 10. 2010 Guidelines for Dam Rreach Analvsis Februarv 10 2010 The hydraulic conditions at critical locations downstream of the dam can usually be determined with normal depth calculations as long as steady, uniform flow is a valid assumption (i.e. no significant backwater effects in the vicinity of the section). Because the screening level of analysis is very conservative, it can be used to determine if further analysis is required. It is expected that, if the hydraulics calculated at critical locations indicate a specific hazard classification with a screening-level analysis, then more sophisticated analyses would not likely result in a higher hazard classification. So if a screening analysis indicates a Low Hazard, no further analysis is required. If the screening analysis indicates High or Significant Hazard, a more accurate, less conservative approach may show a lower hazard classification and additional analysis may be warranted to demonstrate this depending on the situation. Note that the screening level of analysis does not lead to inundation maps which are required for Significant and High Hazard dams. The minimum level of analysis required to develop inundations maps is the next level: Simple. 6.2 Simple The Simple level of analysis is slightly more sophisticated than the screening analysis. Results of the Simple level of analysis may provide the necessary conclusion, or may indicate that the intermediate or advanced approach is warranted. This analysis uses the recommended empirical methods to determine the breach parameters and then uses a hydrologic parametric model (HEC-HMS or HEC-1) to compute a breach hydrograph. The hydrologic tool can then be used to route the flood downstream to critical locations. At that point, a steady-state hydraulic model can be used to calculate the hydraulic conditions where required. 10

FHR-COMBINED Page 104 of 231 Guidelines for Dam Breach Analysis February 10, 2010 The Simple approach is considered moderately conservative. In most cases, it is not as conservative as the Screening level because the breach hydrograph typically has a smaller peak due to the parametric modeling of the breach formation, and the hydrologic routing typically results in flood wave attenuation by the time it reaches critical locations. A steady-state hydraulic model can then be used to accurately predict hydraulic conditions at critical locations. The results of the steady-state hydraulic model can be used to create inundation mapping for Emergency Action Plans. If this method results in a borderline situation, it may be necessary to employ a more advanced approach. 6.3 Intermediate The Intermediate approach lies between the simple approach and advanced approach in accuracy and sophistication. Similar to the simple approach, it uses empirical equations to determine the breach parameters (geometry and failure time). Those dimensions are then input into a hydrologic parametric model (HEC-HMS or HEC-1) to calculate the breach flood hydrograph which is then input into a hydraulic model (HEC-RAS) in an unsteady flow simulation to route the flood downstream and calculate the hydraulic conditions at critical locations. This approach may not be as accurate as the advanced approach for piping failures of smaller dams because the usage of HEC-1 and HEC-HMS to develop the dam break hydrographs may not model this process as accurately as HEC-RAS or DAMBRK. However, it may be just as accurate as the advanced approach for overtopping scenarios or for piping failures of larger dams. This approach is a viable option for developing flood inundation mapping for Emergency Action Plans. 6.4 Advanced The Advanced approach is the most rigorous level of analysis. Similar to the Simple approach, it uses empirical equations to determine the breach parameters (geometry and failure time). Those dimensions are then input into a hydraulic parametric model (HEC-RAS or DAMBRK) to calculate the breach flood For DAMBRK the hydrograph is then input into (HEC-RAS) in an unsteady flow simulation to route the flood downstream and calculate the hydraulic conditions at critical locations. For HEC-RAS, the dam failure simulation and downstream routing is performed in the same simulation. The increased accuracy of the Advanced approach comes at the expense of more time required to develop, debug and refine the unsteady hydraulic model. This level of analysis can be time consuming, particularly if the downstream drainage is complex and critical sections are located well downstream. 7.0 Recommendations for Dam Breach Analysis The recommendations presented herein for modeling dam breaches are intended to provide the most realistic dam breach flood estimates while still being appropriately conservative. For the purposes of these recommendations, the term "conservative" means an analysis that tends to overestimate the magnitude and impacts of the dam breach flood. For example, an increase in the estimate of average breach width for a given development time leads to an increase in the peak breach discharge and associated impacts downstream. Being appropriately conservative at this time is warranted because of the need for better physically-based modeling of the erosion processes of dam failures, which is still in the developmental stage. These recommendations are based on case studies performed on a range of dams within Colorado. A summary of the case study results is presented in Appendix A. 11

FHR-COMBINED Page 105 of 231 Uncertainty of Predictions of Embankment Dam Breach Parameters Tony L. Wahl1 Abstract: Risk assessment studies considering the failure of embankment dams often require the prediction of basic geometric and temporal parameters of a breach, or the estimation of peak breach outflows. Many of the relations most commonly used to make these predictions were developed from statistical analyses of data collected from historic dam failures. The prediction uncertainties of these methods are widely recognized to be very large, but have never been specifically quantified. This paper presents an analysis of the uncertainty of many of these breach parameter and peak flow prediction methods. Application of the methods and the uncertainty analysis are illustrated through a case study of a risk assessment recently performed by the Bureau of Reclamation for a large embankment dam in North Dakota. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2004) 130:5(389) CE Database subject headings: Dam failure; Uncertainty analysis; Peak flow; Erosion; Dams, embankment; Risk management. Introduction rather is idealized as a parametric process, defined by the shape of the breach, its final size, and the time required for its development Risk assessment studies considering the failure of embankment (often called the failure time). Breaches in embankment dams are dams often make use of breach parameter prediction methods that usually assumed to be trapezoidal, so the shape and size of the have been developed from analysis of historic dam failures. Simi- breach are defined by a base width and side slope angle, or more larly, predictions of peak breach outflow can also be made using simply by an average breach width. relations developed from case study data. This paper presents an The failure time is a critical parameter affecting the outflow analysis of the uncertainty of many of these breach parameter and hydrograph and the consequences of dam failure, especially when peak flow prediction methods, making use of a previously com- populations at risk are located close to a dam so that available piled database (Wahl 1998) of 108 dam failures. Subsets of this warning and evacuation time dramatically affect loss of life. For database were used by other investigators to develop many of the the purpose of routing a dam-break flood wave, breach develop-relations examined. ment begins when a breach has reached the point at which the The paper begins with a brief discussion of breach parameters volume of the reservoir is compromised and failure becomes im-and prediction methods. The uncertainty analysis of the various minent. During the breach development phase, outflow from the methods is presented next, and finally, a case study is offered to dam increases rapidly. The breach development time ends when illustrate the application of several breach parameter prediction the breach reaches its final size; in some cases, this may also methods and the uncertainty analysis to a risk assessment recently correspond to the time of peak outflow through the breach, but for performed by the Bureau of Reclamation for a large embankment relatively small reservoirs the peak outflow may occur before the dam in North Dakota. breach is fully developed. The breach development time as de-scribed above is the parameter intended to be predicted by most failure time prediction equations. Breach Parameters The breach development time does not include the potentially long preceding period described as the breach initiation phase Dam-break flood routing models [e.g., DAMBRK (Fread 1984) (Wahl 1998), which can also be important when considering and FLDWAV(Fread 1993)] simulate the outflow from a reservoir available warning and evacuation time. This is the first phase of and through the downstream valley resulting from a developing an overtopping failure, during which flow overtops a dam and breach in a dam. These models focus their computational effort may erode the downstream face, but does not create a breach on the routing of the breach outflow hydrograph. The develop- through the dam that compromises the reservoir volume. If the ment of the breach is not simulated in any physical sense, but overtopping flow were quickly stopped during the breach initia-tion phase, the reservoir would not fail. In an overtopping failure, 

   'Hydraulic Engineer, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of            the length of the breach initiation phase is important, because Reclamation, Water Resources Research Laboratory D-8560, P.O. Box         breach initiation can potentially be observed and may thus trigger 25007, Denver, CO 80225-0007. E-mail: twahl@do.usbr.gov                   warning and evacuation. Unfortunately, there are few tools pres-Note. Discussion open until October 1, 2004. Separate discussions ently available for predicting the length of the breach initiation must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing phase.

Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos- During a seepage-erosion (piping) failure, the delineation be-sible publication on June 25, 2002; approved on September 25, 2003. tween breach initiation and breach development phases is less This paper is part of the Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 130, apparent. In some cases, seepage-erosion failures can take a great No. 5, May 1, 2004. ©)ASCE, ISSN 0733-9429/2004/5-389-397/$18.00. deal of time to develop. In contrast to the overtopping case, the JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004 / 389

FHR-COMBINED Page 106 of 231 loading that causes a seepage-erosion failure cannot normally be flow from a breached dam. These methods are used for removed quickly, and the process does not take place in full view, reconnaissance-level work and for checking the reasonability of except that the outflow from a developing pipe can be observed dam-break outflow hydrographs developed from estimated breach and measured. One useful way to view seepage-erosion failures is parameters. This paper considers the relations by Kirkpatrick to consider three possible conditions: (1977), SCS (1981), Hagen (1982), Bureau of Reclamation

1. Normal seepage outflow, with clear water and low flow rates; (1982), MacDonald and Langridge-Monopolis (1984), Singh and
2. Initiation of a seepage-erosion failure with cloudy seepage Snorrason (1984), Costa (1985), Evans (1986), Froehlich (1995b),

water that indicates a developing pipe, but flow rates are still and Walder and O'Connor (1997). low and not rapidly increasing. Corrective actions might still All of these methods, except Walder and O'Connor, are be possible that would heal the developing pipe and prevent straightforward regression relations that predict peak outflow as a failure. function of various dam and/or reservoir parameters, with the

3. Active development phase of a seepage-erosion failure in relations developed from analyses of case study data from real which erosion is dramatic and flow rates are rapidly increas- dam failures. In contrast, Walder and O'Connor's method is based ing. Failure cannot be prevented. upon an analysis of numerical simulations of idealized cases Only the length of the last phase is important when determining spanning a range of dam and reservoir configurations and erosion the breach hydrograph from a dam, but both the breach initiation scenarios. An important parameter in their method is an assumed and breach development phases may be important when consid- vertical erosion rate of the breach; for reconnaissance-level esti-ering warning and evacuation time. Again, as with the overtop- mating purposes, they suggest that a range of reasonable values is ping failure, there are few tools available for estimating the length 10 to 100 m/h, based on an analysis of case study data. The of the breach initiation phase. method makes a distinction between so-called large-reservoir/

fast-erosion and small-reservoir/slow-erosion cases. In large-reservoir cases, the peak outflow occurs when the breach reaches Predicting Breach Parameters its maximum depth, before there has been any significant draw-To carry out a dam-break flood routing simulation, breach param- down of the reservoir. In this case, the peak outflow is insensitive eters must be estimated and provided as inputs to the dam-break to the erosion rate. In the small-reservoir case, there is a signifi-and flood routing simulation model. Several methods are avail- cant drawdown of the reservoir as the breach develops, and thus able for estimating breach parameters; a summary of the available the peak outflow occurs before the breach erodes to its maximum methods was provided by Wahl (1998). The simplest methods depth. Peak outflows for small-reservoir cases are dependent on (Johnson and Illes 1976; Singh and Snorrason 1984; Bureau of the vertical erosion rate and can be dramatically smaller than for Reclamation 1988) predict the average breach width as a linear large-reservoir cases. The determination of whether a specific function of either the height of the dam or the depth of water situation is a large- or small-reservoir case is based on a dimen-stored behind the dam at the time of failure. Slightly more sophis- sionless parameter incorporating the embankment erosion rate, ticated methods predict more specific breach parameters, such as reservoir size, and change in reservoir level during the failure. breach base width, side slope angles, and failure time, as func- Thus, so-called large-reservoir/fast-erosion cases can occur even tions of one or more dam and reservoir properties, such as storage with what might be considered "small" reservoirs and vice versa. volume, depth of water at failure, depth of breach, etc. All of This refinement is not present in any of the other peak flow pre-these methods are based on regression analyses of data collected diction methods. from actual dam failures. The database of dam failures used to develop these relations is relatively lacking in data from failures of large dams, with about 75% of the cases having a height less Developing Uncertainty Estimates than 15 m (Wahl 1998). Physically based simulation models are available to aid in the In a typical risk assessment study, a variety of loading and failure prediction of breach parameters. None are widely used at this scenarios are analyzed. This allows the study to incorporate vari-time, but the most notable is the National Weather Service ability in antecedent conditions and the probabilities associated (NWS)-BREACH model (Fread 1988). These models simulate with different loading conditions and failure scenarios. The un-the hydraulic and erosion processes associated with flow over an certainty of key parameters (e.g., material properties) is some-overtopping dam or through a developing piping channel. times considered by creating scenarios in which analyses are car-Through such a simulation, an estimate of the breach parameters ried out with different parameter values and a probability of may be developed for use in a dam-break flood routing model, or occurrence assigned to each value of the parameter. Although the the outflow hydrograph at the dam can be predicted directly. The uncertainty of breach parameter predictions is often very large, primary weakness of the NWS-BREACH model, and other simi- there have previously been no quantitative assessments of this lar models, is the fact that they do not adequately model the uncertainty, and thus breach parameter uncertainty has not been headcut-type erosion processes that dominate the breaching of incorporated into most risk assessment studies. cohesive-soil embankments (e.g., Hanson et al. 2002). Recent It is worthwhile to consider breach parameter prediction un-work by the Agricultural Research Service (e.g., Temple and certainty in the risk assessment process because the uncertainty of Moore 1997) on headcut erosion in earth spillways has shown breach parameter predictions is likely to be significantly greater that headcut erosion is best modeled with methods based on en- than all other factors, and could thus dramatically influence the ergy dissipation. outcome. For example, Wahl (1998) used many of the available relations to predict breach parameters for 108 documented case Predicting Peak Outflow studies and plot the predictions against the observed values. Pre-diction errors of +/-75% were not uncommon for breach width, In addition to the prediction of breach parameters, many investi- and prediction errors for failure time often exceeded one order of gators have proposed simplified methods for predicting peak out- magnitude. Most relations used to predict failure time are conser-390 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004

FHR-COMBINED Page 107 of 231 Von Thun & Gillette (1990) Froehlich (1995) Reclamation (1988) 300 300 r .300 a 250 250 I 250 200 200.. 200 150 150 . 150 E M 100 .. 1" .100 62, 50 50* 50 2 . 00 50100 I I150200I2 2 250 300I 050 0 100150 200 I I 2 I300 250 0050100 1 I 150200I 250300 I I 

                       -100O                                          1000 r                                   .1000 e4*

100 

                                                   %~IV.                                            I.

o 10 10 I-.. . . ,.. . .. 1,, 1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000 Observed Breach Width (meters) Observed Breach Width (meters) Observed Breach Width (meters) Fig. 1. Predicted and observed breach widths (Wahl 1998), plotted arithmetically (top) and on logarithmic scales (bottom) vatively designed to underpredict the reported time more often The uncertainty analysis was performed using the database than they overpredict, but overprediction errors of more than one- presented in Wahl (1998), with data on 108 case studies of actual half of an order of magnitude did occur several times. embankment dam failures, collected from numerous sources in The first question that must be addressed in an uncertainty the literature. The majority of the available breach parameter and analysis of breach parameter predictions is how to express the peak flow prediction equations were applied to this database of results. The case study datasets used to develop most breach pa- dam failures, and the predicted values were compared to the ob-rameter prediction equations include data from a wide range of served values. Computation of breach parameters or peak flows dam sizes, and thus, regressions in log-log space have been com- was straightforward in most cases. A notable exception was the monly used. Fig. I shows the observed and predicted breach peak flow prediction method of Walder and O'Connor (1997), widths as computed by Wahl (1998) in both arithmetically scaled which requires that the reservoir be classified as a large- or small-and log-log plots. In the arithmetic plots, it would be difficult to reservoir case. In addition, in the case of the small-reservoir situ-draw in upper and lower bound lines to define an uncertainty ation, an average vertical erosion rate of the breach must be esti-band. In the log-log plots, data are scattered approximately mated. The Walder and O'Connor method was applied only to evenly above and below the lines of perfect prediction, suggesting those dams that could be clearly identified as large-reservoir that uncertainties would best be expressed as a number of log (where peak outflow is insensitive to the vertical erosion rate) or cycles on either side of the predicted value. This is the approach small-reservoir with an associated estimate of the vertical erosion taken in the analysis that follows. rate obtained from observed breach heights and failure times. Two The other notable feature of the plots in Fig. I is the presence of some significant outliers. Possible sources of these outliers other facts should be noted: include the variable quality of the case study parameter observa- I. No prediction equation could be applied to all 108 dam fail-tions being used to test the predictions and the potential for mis- ure cases, due to the lack of required input data for the spe-application of some of the prediction equations in the analysis cific equation or the lack of an observed value of the param-described here due to lack of detailed firsthand knowledge of each eter of interest. Most of the breach width equations could be case study situation. Such problems should not affect a careful tested against about 70 to 80 cases, the failure time equations future application of these prediction equations to a specific case, against 30 to 40 cases, and the peak flow prediction equa-and we do not wish for them to affect the present analysis of the tions against about 30 to 40 cases. uncertainties of the methods themselves. Admittedly, much of the 2. The testing made use of the same data used to originally scatter and the appearance of outliers are probably due to the develop many of the equations (since the 108-dam database inherent variability of the data caused by the variety of factors was compiled from these and other sources), but each equa-that influence dam breach mechanics, and this variability should tion was also tested against additional cases, the number be preserved as we analyze the uncertainties of the prediction varying depending on the method. This should provide a fair equations. To exclude the truly anomalous data (the statistical indication of the ability of each equation to predict breach outliers) and retain the characteristic variability, an objective out- parameters for future dam failures. (It is difficult to say ex-lier exclusion algorithm was applied (Rousseeuw 1998). The se- actly how many additional cases were analyzed for each lected algorithm has the advantage that its performance is itself method, since the exact number of failures used to develop insensitive to the presence of the outliers, which overcomes a each method is not indicated clearly in literature for all common problem encountered when attempting to exclude outli- methods, and some are based on a combination of statistical ers. analysis of case studies and physically based theory.) JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 0 ASCE / MAY 2004 / 391

FHR-COMBINED Page 108 of 231 A step-by-step description of the uncertainty analysis method to 60% for two of the breach width equations (Bureau of Recla-follows: mation 1988; Von Thun and Gillette 1990) and four of the peak

1. Plot predicted versus observed values on log-log scales. flow equations [Kirkpatrick 1977; SCS 1981; Bureau of Reclama-
2. Compute individual prediction errors in terms of the number tion 1982; Singh and Snorrason 1984 (the first of the two equa-of log cycles separating the predicted and observed value, tions shown in Table I)]. All of these prediction equations are ei=logl 0(-)-log 0(xl)=Iog1 0 (x/x), where ei is the predic- based solely on the dam height or water depth above the breach tion error, i is the predicted value, and x is the observed invert, suggesting that dam height by itself is a poor predictor for value. breach width or peak outflow.
3. Apply the outlier-exclusion algorithm to the series of predic-tion errors computed in Step 2. The algorithm is described by Rousseeuw (1998).

Summary of Uncertainty Analysis Results

  • Determine T, the median of the ei values. T is the estima-tor of location.
  • Compute the absolute values of the deviations from the The four methods for predicting breach width (or volume of ma-median, and determine the median of these absolute devia- terial eroded, from which breach width can be estimated) all had tions (MAD). absolute mean prediction errors less than one-tenth of an order of
  • Compute an estimator of scale, SMAD= 1.483*(MAD). magnitude, indicating that on average their predictions are on The 1.483 factor makes SMAD comparable to the standard target. The uncertainty bands were similar (+/-0.3 to +/-0.4 log deviation, which is the usual scale parameter of a normal cycles) for all of the equations except the MacDonald and distribution. Langridge-Monopolis equation, which had an uncertainty of
  • Use SMAD and Tto compute a Z score for each observation, +/-0.82 log cycles.

Zi= (ei- T)/SMAD, where the ei's are the observed predic- The five methods for predicting failure time all underpredict tion errors, expressed as a number of log cycles. the failure time on average, by amounts ranging from about one-

  • Reject any observations for which IZJl>2.5. fifth to two-thirds of an order of magnitude. This is consistent
  • If the samples are from a perfect normal distribution, this with the previous observation that these equations are designed to method rejects at the 98.7% probability level. Testing conservatively predict fast breaches, which will cause large peak showed that application to normally distributed data would outflows. The uncertainty bands on all of the failure time equa-lead to an average 3.9% reduction of the standard devia- tions are very large, ranging from about +/-0.6 to +/- I order of tion. magnitude, with the Froehlich (1995a) equation having the small-
4. Compute the mean, e, and the standard deviation, Se, of the est uncertainty.

remaining prediction errors. If the mean value is negative, it Most of the peak flow prediction equations tend to overpredict indicates that the prediction equation underestimated the ob- observed peak flows, with most of the "envelope" equations served values, and if positive the equation overestimated the overpredicting by about two-thirds to three-quarters of an order of observed values. Significant over or underestimation should magnitude. The uncertainty bands on the peak flow prediction be expected, since many of the breach parameter prediction equations are about +/--0.5 to - 1 order of magnitude, except the equations are intended to be conservative or provide enve- Froehlich (1995b) relation which has an uncertainty of +/-0.32 lope estimates, e.g., maximum reasonable breach width, fast- order of magnitude. In fact, the Froehlich equation has both the est possible failure time, etc. lowest prediction error and smallest uncertainty of all the peak

5. Using the values of e and S., one can express a confidence flow prediction equations.

band around the predicted value of a parameter as {E- 10 -e-2S.,j. 1 0 -e+2S}, where i is the predicted value. The use of +/- 2Se approximately yields a 95% confidence band. Application Table 1 summarizes the results. The first two columns identify the method being analyzed, the next two columns show the num- To illustrate the application of the uncertainty analysis results, a ber of case studies used to test the method, and the next two case study is presented. In January 2001 the Bureau of Reclama-columns give the prediction error and the width of the uncertainty tion conducted a risk assessment study for a large embankment band. The last column shows the range of the prediction interval dam in North Dakota (Fig. 2). Two potential failure modes were around a hypothetical predicted value of 1.0. The values in this considered: (I) Seepage erosion and piping through foundation column can be used as multipliers to obtain the prediction interval materials, and (2) seepage erosion and piping through embank-for a specific case. ment materials. No distinction between the two failure modes was Although the detailed data are not shown in Table 1, prediction made in the breach parameter analysis, since most methods used errors and uncertainties also were determined prior to applying to predict breach parameters lack the refinement needed to con-the outlier exclusion algorithm to determine its effect. Outlier sider differences in breach morphology for such similar failure exclusion reduced the values of Se by at least 5% up to about 20% modes. Breach parameters were predicted using most of the meth-in most cases. Since this exceeds the 3.9% reduction one would ods discussed earlier in this paper, and also by modeling with the expect when applying the algorithm to a normally distributed NWS-BREACH model. dataset, it suggests that true outliers were excluded rather than The potential for failure and the downstream consequences just occasional extreme values that one would expect in normally from failure increase significantly at higher reservoir levels, al-distributed data. The use of outlier exclusion did not materially though the likelihood of occurrence of high reservoir levels is change the results of the study (i.e., the same methods had the low. The reservoir rarely exceeds its top-of-joint-use elevation lowest uncertainty before and after outlier exclusion). One no- (the water surface elevation corresponding to the maximum table fact is that the outlier exclusion algorithm reduced Se by 30 amount of storage allocated to joint use, i.e., flood control and 392 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004

FHR-COMBINED Page 109 of 231 Table 1. Uncertainty Estimates for Breach Parameter and Peak Flow Prediction Equations Number of case studies Mean Width of Before After prediction uncertainty Prediction interval outlier outlier error band, +/- 2S, around hypothetical Reference Equation exclusion exclusion (log cycles) (log cycles) predicted value of 1.0 Breach width equations Bureau of Reclamation (1988) B_85= 3h w 80 70 -0.09 +/-0.43 0.45-3.3 0 769 MacDonald and Vt= 0.0261 ( V,,.h j) _ earthfill 60 58 -0.01 +/-0.82 0.15-6.8 0 52 Langridge-Monopolis (1984) Var= 0.00348( Vbh)j . nonearthfills (e.g., rockfills) Von Thun and Gillette (1990) Bag = 2.5h,.+ C, 78 70 +0.09 +/-0.35 0.37-1.8 Froehlich (1995a) B0 g= 0.1803KoV23 2 ho19 77 75 +0.01 +/-0.39 0.40-2.4 Failure time equations tf= 0.0179 er3 MacDonald and 37 35 -0.21 +/-0.83 0.24-I1 Langridge-Monopolis (1984) Von Thun and Gillette (1990) tf=0.015h,, highly erodible 36 34 -0.64 +/-0.95 0.49-40 tf=0.020h,.+ 0.25 erosion resistant Von Thun and Gillette (1990) tf = Bag /(4h,.) erosion resistant 36 35 -0.38 +/-0.84 0.35-17 if=pBg/(4hý,+6l) highly erodible 00254 53 9 Froehlich (1995a) tf=0. ( V,) ' hb 0 34 33 -0.22 +/-0.64 0.38-7.3 Bureau of Reclamation (1988) tf= 0.011 (Bavg) 40 39 -0.40 +/-1.02 0.24 -27 Peak flow equations Kirkpatrick (1977) Q,= 1.268(h.+ 0.3)2_5 38 34 -0.14 +/-0.69 0.28-6.8 SCS (1981) Q,= 16.6(hw)j' 5 38 32 +0.13 +/-0.50 0.23 -2.4 05 Hagen (1982) Q, = 0.54(S. hd)° 31 30 +0.43 +/-0.75 0.07-2.1 5 Bureau of Reclamation (1982) Qp= 19.1(h,.) '. envelope eq. 38 32 +0.19 +/-0.50 0.20-2.1 89 Singh and Snorrason (1984) Qp= 13.4(hd)'" 38 28 +0.19 +/--0.46 0.23-1.9 0 47 Singh and Snorrason (1984) Q,= 1.776(S) . 35 34 +0.17 +/-0.90 0.08-5.4 MacDonald and Qp = 1. 154( Vý.h u.)0.412 37 36 +0.13 -0.70 0.15-3.7 Langridge-Monopolis (1984) 041 MacDonald and Q,,= 3.85(V,.h j) _ ' envelope eq. 37 36 +0.64 +/-0.70 0.05-1.1 Langridge-Monopolis (1984) 057 Costa (1985) Qp= 1.122(S) . 35 35 +0.69 +/- 1.02 0.02-2.1 Costa (1985) Qp= O.981(S. h a)0.42 31 30 +0.05 +/-0.72 0.17-4.7 Costa (1985) Qp= 2.634(S. hd)5 44 31 30 +0.64 +/-0.72 0.04-1.22 0 3 Evans (1986) Qp=0.72(Vj.)' 39 39 +0.29 +/--0.93 0.06-4.4 Froehlich (1995b) Qp = 0.607( V1_2 95 kh,;24 ) 32 31 -0.04 +/-0.32 0.53-2.3 Walder and O'Connor (1997) Qp estimated by computational and 22 21 +0.13 +/-0.68 0.16-3.6 graphical method using relative erodibility of dam and volume of reservoir Note: All equations use metric units (M, M3 , m3/s). Failure times are computed in hours. Where multiple equations are shown for application to different types of dams (e.g., earthfill versus rockfill), a single prediction uncertainty was determined, with the set of equations considered as a single algorithm. conservation purposes), and has never exceeded an elevation of Dam Description 440.7 m. Four potential reservoir water surface elevations at fail-ure were considered in the study: The case study dam is located a few kilometers upstream from a

  • Top-of-joint-use, elevation: 436.67 m, reservoir capacity of city with a population of about 15,000. It was constructed by the about 45.6X 106 m 3, Bureau of Reclamation in the early 1950's. The dam is operated
  • Elevation 438.91 m, reservoir capacity of about 105 by Reclamation to provide flood control, municipal water supply, X 106 Mi3 , and recreational and wildlife benefits.
  • Top-of-flood-space (the design maximum reservoir level The dam is a zoned-earth fill with a height of 24.7 m above the reached during the temporary storage of flood runoff), eleva- original streambed. The crest length is 432 m at an elevation of tion 443.18 m, reservoir capacity of about 273X 106 M3 , and 448.36 m and the crest width is 9.14 m. The design includes a
  • Maximum design water surface, elevation: 446.32 m, storage central compacted zone I of impervious material, and upstream of about 469X 106 M 3 . and downstream zone 2 of sand and gravel, shown in Fig. 3. The For illustration purposes, only the results from the top-of-joint- abutments are composed of Pierre Shale capped with glacial till.

use and top-of-flood-space cases are presented here. The main portion of the dam is founded on a thick section of JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004 / 393

FHR-COMBINED Page 110 of 231 Breach Width Predictions of average breach width are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 also lists the predictions of the volume of eroded embank-ment material made using the MacDonald and Langridge-Monopolis equation, and the corresponding estimate of average breach width. The uncertainty analysis described earlier showed that the Reclamation equation tends to underestimate the observed breach width, so it is not surprising that it yielded the smallest values. The Von Thun and Gillette equation and the Froehlich equation produced comparable results for the top-of-joint-use scenario, in which reservoir storage is relatively small. For the top-of-flood-space scenario, the Froehlich equation predicts significantly larger Fig. 2. Aerial photo of the dam and reservoir considered in the case breach widths. This is not surprising, since the Froehlich equation study application relates breach width to an exponential function of both the reser-voir storage and reservoir depth. The Von Thun and Gillette equa-tion accounts for reservoir storage only through the Cb offset alluvial deposits. Beneath the dam, a cutoff trench was excavated parameter, but Cb is a constant for all reservoirs larger than to the shale on both abutments, but between the abutments, foun- 12.3X 106 m 3 , as was the case for both scenarios. dation excavation extended to a maximum depth of 7.6 m, and did Using the MacDonald and Langridge-Monopolis equation, the not provide a positive cutoff of the thick alluvium. The alluvium estimate of eroded embankment volume and associated breach beneath the dam is more than 37 m thick in the channel area. width for the top-of-joint-use scenario is also comparable to the There is a toe drain within the downstream embankment near other equations. However, for the top-of-flood-space scenario, the the foundation level, and a wide embankment section to help prediction is much larger than any of the other equations, and in control seepage beneath the dam, since a positive cutoff was not fact is unreasonable because it exceeds the dimensions of the constructed. Based on observations of increasing pressures in the dam. foundation during high reservoir elevations and significant boil The prediction intervals developed through the uncertainty activity downstream from the dam, eight relief wells were in-analysis are sobering for the analyst wishing to obtain a definitive stalled along the downstream toe in 1995 and 1996. To increase result, as the ranges vary from small notches through the dam to the seepage protection, a filter blanket was constructed in low a complete washout of the embankment. Even for the top-of-areas downstream from the dam in 1998. joint-use case, the upper bounds for the Froehlich equation and the Von Thun and Gillette equation are equivalent to about one-Results-BreachParameterEstimates half of the length of the embankment. Predictions were made for average breach width, volume of eroded material, and failure time. Side slope angles were not pre- Failure Time dicted because equations for predicting breach side slope angles Failure time predictions are summarized in Table 3. All of the are rare in literature; Froehlich (1987) offered an equation, but in equations indicate increasing failure times as the reservoir storage his later paper (I 995a), he suggested simply assuming side slopes increases, except the second Von Thun and Gillette relation, of 0.9:1 (horizontal:vertical) for piping failures. Von Thun and which predicts a slight decrease in failure time for the top-of-Gillette (1990) suggested using side slopes of 1:1, except for flood-space scenario. For both Von Thun and Gillette relations, cases of dams with very thick zones of cohesive materials where the dam was assumed to be in the erosion resistant category. side slopes of 0.5:1 or 0.33:1 might be appropriate. The predicted failure times exhibit wide variation, and the rec-After computing breach parameters using the many available ommended values shown at the bottom of Table 3 are based on equations, the results were reviewed and judgment applied to de- much judgment. The uncertainty analysis showed that all of the velop a single predicted value and an uncertainty band to be pro- failure time equations tend to conservatively underestimate actual vided to the risk assessment study team. These recommended failure times, especially the Von Thun and Gillette and Reclama-values are shown at the bottom of each column in the tables that tion equations. Thus, the recommended values are generally a follow. compromise between the results obtained from the MacDonald IAJI~ td~m QSACtd day, sand. ad F"WcnPadsdby Topow"-. E 2251 Qag2 44.30 m Sctudsd MW "ýWWnPWdy mndyaa "V pad . "_ 061-MPAWW1 I's- .. '11K-E. 4,31 &nW oW t 124mbc laym 4Xu 

                                                        'Ž;e~n 0".61-%ni
                                                                                     .       i   :1/4 1:,:. 03   ..-
                                                                                                              ~V*2:1 omaa
                                                                                                                                ~     RIVAER BED OkLSOf ffa Oror CIAMI          of' - W                                      *~- ~w"              TFos"i
                                                                                                         *711 Ecvf 0*p MAXIMUM     sEcTIoN Fig. 3. Cross section through the case study dam 394 /JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004

FHR-COMBINED Page 111 of 231 Table 2. Predictions of Average Breach Width Top of joint use, elevation of 436.68 m Top of flood space, elevation of 443.18 m Predicted breach 95% prediction Predicted breach 95% prediction Equation width (m) interval width (m) interval Bureau of Reclamation (1988) 39.0 17.7-129 58.5 26.2-193 Von Thun and Gillette (1990) 87.5 32.3-157 104 38.4-187 Froehlich (1995a) 93.6 37.5-225 166 66.4-398 MacDonald and Langridge-Monopolis (1984) 146,000 22.200-991,000 787,000 118,000-5.350.000 Volume of erosion (mi3) Equivalent breach width (m) 85.6 12.8-582a 462' 69.2-3140' Recommended values (m) 90 35-180 165 60-400 'Exceeds actual embankment length. and Langridge-Monopolis and Froehlich relations. Despite this when the breach reaches its maximum size, before significant fact, some very fast failures are documented in literature, and this drawdown of the reservoir has occurred. Despite the refinement possibility is reflected in the prediction intervals determined from of considering large- versus small-reservoir behavior, the Walder the uncertainty analysis. and O'Connor method was found to have uncertainty similar to most of the other peak flow prediction methods (about +/-0.75 log cycles). However, among the 22 case studies to which the method Results-Peak Outflow Estimates could be applied, only four proved to be large-reservoir/fast-Peak outflow estimates are shown in Table 4, sorted in order of erosion cases. Of these, the method overpredicted the peak out-increasing peak outflow for the top-of-joint-use scenario. The flow in three cases, and dramatically underpredicted in one case lowest peak flow predictions come from those equations that are (Goose Creek Dam, South Carolina, failed 1916 by overtopping). based solely on dam height or depth of water in the reservoir. The Closer examination showed some contradictions in the data re-highest peak flows are predicted by those equations that incorpo- ported in literature for this case. On balance, it appears that the rate a significant dependence on reservoir storage. Some of the Walder and O'Connor method may provide reasonable estimates predicted peak flows and the upper bounds of the prediction limits of the upper limit on peak outflow for large-reservoir/fast-erosion would be the largest dam-break outflows ever recorded, exceed- cases. ing the 65,000 mi3 /s peak outflow from the Teton Dam failure. For this application, results from the Froehlich method were (Storage in Teton Dam at failure was 356X 106 M3 ). The length of considered to be the best estimate of peak breach outflow, and the the reservoir (about 48 km) may help to attenuate some of the results from the Walder and O'Connor method provided an upper large peak outflows predicted by the storage-sensitive equations, bound estimate. since there will be an appreciable routing effect in the reservoir itself that is probably not accounted for in the peak flow predic-NWS-BREACH Simulations tion equations. The equation offered by Froehlich (I995b) clearly had the best Several simulations runs were made using the NWS-BREACH prediction performance in the uncertainty analysis, and is thus model (Fread 1988). The model requires input data related to highlighted in Table 4. This equation had the smallest mean pre- reservoir bathymetry, dam geometry, the tailwater channel, em-diction error and narrowest prediction interval by a significant bankment materials, and initial conditions for the simulated pip-margin. ing failure. The results for the Walder and O'Connor method are also The results of the simulations are very sensitive to the eleva-highlighted. As discussed earlier, this is the only method that tion at which the piping failure is assumed to develop. In all cases considers the differences between the so-called large-reservoir/ analyzed, the maximum outflow occurred just prior to the crest of fast-erosion and small-reservoir/slow-erosion cases. This dam the dam collapsing into the pipe; after the collapse of the crest, a proves to be a large-reservoir/fast-erosion case when analyzed by large volume of material partially blocks the breach and the out-this method (regardless of the assumed vertical erosion rate of the flow becomes weir controlled until the material can be removed. breach-within reasonable limits), so the peak outflow will occur Thus, the largest peak outflows and largest breach sizes are ob-Table 3. Failure Time Predictions Top of joint use, elevation of 436.68 m Top of flood space, elevation of 443.18 m Equation Predicted failure time (h) 95% prediction interval Predicted failure time (h) 95% prediction interval MacDonald and Langridge-Monopolis (1984) 1.36 0.33-14.9 2.45' 0.59-26.9 Von Thun and Gillette (1990), tf=f(h,,) 0.51 0.25-20.4 0.64 0.31-25.6 Von Thun and Gillette (1990), tf=f(B,hJ) 1.68 0.59-28.6 1.33 0.47-22.6 Froehlich (1995a) 1.63 0.62-11.9 4.19 1.59-30.6 Bureau of Reclamation (1988) 0.43 0.10-11.6 0.64 0.15-17.4 Recommended values 1.5 0.25-12 3.0 0.3-17 'Predicted erosion volume exceeded total embankment volume; total embankment volume was used in the failure time equation. JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004 / 395

FHR-COMBINED Page 112 of 231 Table 4. Predictions of Peak Breach Outflow Top of joint use, elevation of 436.68 m Top of flood space, elevation of 443.18 m Predicted peak outflow 95% prediction Predicted peak outflow 95% prediction 3 Equation (m /s) interval (m3/s) interval Kirkpatrick (1977) 818 229-5,570 2,210 620-15,100 SCS (1981) 1,910 439-4,590 4,050 932-9,710 Bureau of Reclamation (1982) (envelope) 2,200 439-4,620 4.660 932-9,780 Froehlich (1995b) 2,660 1,410-6,110 7,440 3,940-17,100 MacDonald/Langridge-Monopolis (1984) 4,750 714-17,600 11,700 1,760-43,400 Singh/Snorrason (1984), Qp=f(hd) 5,740 1,320-10,900 5,740 1,320-10,900 Walder and O'Connor (1997) 6,000 960-21,400 12,200 1,950-43,500 Costa (1985), Qp=f(S*hd) 6,220 1,060-29,200 13,200 2,240-61,900 Singh/Snorrason (1984), Qp=f(S) 7,070 570-38,200 16,400 1,310-88,400 Evans (1986) 8,260 496-36,300 21,300 1,280-93,700 MacDonald/Langridge-Monopolis (1984) 15,500 776-17,100 38,300 1,910-42,100 (envelope) Hagen (1982) 18,100 1,270-38,100 44,300 3,100-93,000 Costa (1985), QP=f(S*hd) (envelope) 25,300 1,010-30,900 55,600 2,220-67,800 Costa (1985), Qp=f(S) 26,100 521-54,700 72,200 1,440-152,000 tained if the failure is initiated at the base of the dam, assumed to are large for all methods, and thus it may be worthwhile to incor-be at an elevation of 423.67 m. This produces the maximum porate uncertainty analysis results into future risk assessment amount of head on the developing pipe, and allows it to grow to studies when predicting breach parameters using these methods. the largest possible size before the collapse occurs. Table 5 shows Predictions of breach width generally have an uncertainty of summary results of the simulations. For each initial reservoir el- about +/- 1/3 order of magnitude, predictions of failure time have evation, a simulation was run with the pipe initiating at an eleva- uncertainties approaching +/- I order of magnitude, and predictions tion of 423.7 m, and a second simulation was run with the pipe of peak flow have uncertainties of about +/--0.5 to +/- I order of initiating about midway up the height of the dam. magnitude, except the Froehlich peak flow equation, which has an There is a wide variation in the results depending on the as- uncertainty of about +/- 1/3 order of magnitude. sumed initial conditions for the elevation of the seepage failure. The uncertainty analysis made use of a database of informa-The peak outflows and breach widths tend toward the low end of tion on the failure of 108 dams compiled from numerous sources the range of predictions made using the regression equations in literature (Wahl 1998). Those wishing to make use of this da-based on case study data. The predicted failure times are within tabase may obtain it in electronic form (Lotus 1-2-3, Microsoft the range of the previous predictions, and significantly longer Excel, and Microsoft Access) on the Internet at http:// than the very short (0.5 to 0.75 h) failure times predicted by the www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulicsjlab/twahl/ Bureau of Reclamation (1988) equation and the first Von Thun The case study presented here showed that significant engi-and Gillette equation. neering judgment must be exercised in the interpretation of pre-dictions of breach parameters. The results from use of the physi-cally based NWS-BREACH model were reassuring because they Conclusions fell within the range of values obtained from the regression-based methods. However, at the same time, they also helped to show This paper has presented a quantitative analysis of the uncertainty that even physically based methods can be highly sensitive to the of various regression-based methods for predicting embankment assumptions of the analyst regarding breach morphology and the dam breach parameters and peak breach outflows. The uncertain- location of initial breach development. The NWS-BREACH ties of predictions of breach width, failure time, and peak outflow simulations demonstrated the possibility for limiting failure me-chanics that were not revealed by the regression-based methods. Table 5. Results of National Weather Service-BREACH Simulations of Seepage-Erosion Failures Notation Initial water Initial Breach The following symbols are used in this paper: surface elevation Peak Time-to-peak width at Bay = average breach width (m); elevation of piping outflow, outflow, tp time /p Cb = offset factor in the Von Thun and Gillette breach (m) failure (m) (m3/s) (h) (m) width equation, varies as a function of reservoir Top of joint use volume; 436.68 423.7 2,280 3.9 15.7 e = average prediction error; 436.68 430.1 464 2.1 6.5 ei = individual prediction errors, log cycles; hb = height of breach (m); Top of flood space hd = height of dam (m); 443.18 423.7 6,860 4.0 24.7 h,, = depth of water above breach invert at time of 443.18 430.1 1,484 1.4 10.3 failure (m); 396 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004

FHR-COMBINED Page 113 of 231 Ko = overtopping multiplier: 1.4 for overtopping; 1.0 for Froehlich, D. C. (1987). "Embankment-dam breach parameters." Hy-piping; draulic Engineering, Proc. 1987 ASCE National Conf on Hydraulic MAD = median of absolute deviations from T; Engineering, New York, 570-575. Froehlich, D. C. (1995a). "Embankment dam breach parameters revis-Qa = peak breach outflow (m3/s); ited." Water Resources Engineering, Proc. 1995 ASCE Conf on Water S = reservoir storage (M 3 ); Resources Engineering, New York, 887-891. Se = standard deviation of the errors; Froehlich, D. C. (1995b). "Peak outflow from breached embankment SMAD = estimator of scale derived from the median of the dam." J. Water Resour Plan. Manage. Div, Am. Soc. Civ. Eng.. absolute deviations, analogous to standard deviation; 121(1), 90-97. T = median of the errors, an estimator of location; Hagen, V. K. (1982). "Re-evaluation of design floods and dam safety." tf = failure time (h); Proc., 14th Congress of Int. Commission on Large Dams, Intema-Ve = volume of embankment material eroded (m3 ); tional Commission on Large Dams, Paris. V,, = volume of water stored above breach invert at time Hanson, G. J., Cook, K. R., and Temple, D. M. (2002). "Research results of failure (m3 ); of large-scale embankment overtopping breach tests." 2002 ASDSO 

       = predicted value of parameter;                                      Annual Conf, Association of State Dam Safety Officials, Lexington, Ky.

x = observed value of parameter; and Johnson, F. A., and lles, P. (1976). "A classification of dam failures." Int. Zi = standardized error. Water Power Dam Constr., 28(12), 43-45. Kirkpatrick, G. W. (1977). "Evaluation guidelines for spillway ad-equacy." The evaluation of dam safety, Engineering Foundation References Conf, ASCE, New York, 395-414. MacDonald, T. C., and Langridge-Monopolis, J. (1984). "Breaching Bureau of Reclamation. (1982). Guidelinesfor defining inundated areas characteristics of dam failures." J. Hydraul. Eng., 110(5), 567-586. downstreamfrom Bureau of Reclamation dams, Reclamation Planning Rousseeuw, P. J. (1998). "Chapter 17: Robust estimation and identifying Instruction No. 82-11, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of outliers." Handbook of statisticalmethods for engineers and scien-Reclamation, Denver, 25. tists, 2nd Ed., H. M. Wadsworth Jr., ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, Bureau of Reclamation. (1988). "Downstream hazard classification 17.1-17.15. guidelines." ACER Tech. Memorandum No. 11, U.S. Department of Singh, K. P., and Snorrason, A. (1984). "Sensitivity of outflow peaks and the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 57. flood stages to the selection of dam breach parameters and simulation Costa, J. E. (1985), "Floods from dam failures." U.S. Geological Survey, models." J. Hvdrol.. 68, 295-310. Open-File Rep. No. 85-560, Denver, 54. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). (1981). "Simplified dam-breach rout-Evans, S. G. (1986). "The maximum discharge of outburst floods caused ing procedure." Tech. Release No. 66 (Rev. I), 39. by the breaching of man-made and natural dams." Can. Geotech. J., Temple, D. M., and Moore, J. S. (1997). "Headcut advance prediction for 23(4), 385-387. earth spillways." Trans. ASAE, 40(3), 557-562. Fread, D. L. (1984). DAMBRK: The NIWS dam-break flood forecasting Von Thun, J. L., and Gillette, D. R. (1990). "Guidance on breach param-model, National Weather Service, Office of Hydrology, Silver Spring, eters." Internal Memorandum, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Md. Reclamation, Denver, 17. Fread. D. L. (1988) (revised 1991). BREACH: An erosion model for Wahl, T. L. (1998). "Prediction of embankment dam breach earthen dam failures, National Weather Service, Office of Hydrology, parameters-A literature review and needs assessment." Dam Safety Silver Spring, Md. Rep. No. DSO-98-004, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclama-Fread, D. L. (1993). "NWS FLDWAV model: The replacement of DAM- tion, Denver. BRK for dam-break flood prediction." Dam Safety '93, Proc., l0th Walder, J. S., and O'Connor, J. E. (1997). "Methods for predicting peak Annual ASDSO Conf., Association of State Dam Safety Officials, Lex- discharge of floods caused by failure of natural and constructed earth ington, Ky., 177-184. dams." Water Resour Res., 33(10), 12. JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004 / 397

Table 1 from Text Top of Top of Pool / Bec of Side Slope Average Breach Btom Bott Trigger Breach Start Development Dam Sufe Height of Dam Bottom Breach (ft) Wdth (ft) Method Time2 Time (hr) urface Elevation (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft) (acres) Macinnes Marsh Dam 5 5 0 0.5 15 12.5 Jan 8, 18:20 0.17 19 William Daly Marsh Dam 6 6 0 0.5 18 15 Specific Time Jan 8, 19:10 0.17 5 Fruitland Mill Dam 10 10 0 0.5 30 25 Jan 8, 19:20 0.17 6 Assumed reservoir bottom elevation at zero. 2 Based on simulation beginning on January 1 at 00:00. 3 Used development time of 0.5 hr for earthen dams. 0 0 CO CD Table 1 Formulas 0 1DA B C D E F G H I J K Top of Top of Dam Bottom Height of / Pool of Side Average Bottom Width Trigger Breach Start Development Dam Dam Name Breach E Slope Breach 2 3 Surface (ft) Elevation Breach (--) Width (ft) (ft) Method Time Time (hr) Area 2(ft) (ft) (acres) 3 Macinnes Marsh Dam 5 5 0 0.5 =3*B3 =F3-2*0.S*B3/2 Jan 8, 18:20 0.17 19 4 William Daly Marsh Dam 6 6 0 0.5 =3*B4 =F42*0.5*B4/2 Specif Jan 8, 19:10 0.17 5 5 Fruitland Mill Dam 10 10 0 0.5 =3*B5 =F5-2*0.5*B5/2 Jan 8, 19:20 0.17 6 6 Assumed reservoir bottom elevation at zero. 7 2 Based on simulation beginning on January 1 at 00:00. 8 3 used development time of 0.17 hr for earthen dams.

FHR-COMBINED Page 115 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant APPENDIX D: REACH PARAMETER CALCULATIONS Page D-1

FHR-COMBINED Page 116 of 231 SECTION 1.0 DEM METADATA

FHR-COMBINED Page 117 of 231 FHR-COMBINED Page 118 of 231 Digital Elevation Models (DEM) - New York State 

  " Identification Information
  " Data-Quality Information
  "  Spatial Reference Information
  "  Entity and Attribute Information
  "  Distribution Information
  "  Metadata Reference Information Identification-Information:

Citation: Citation-Information: Originator:U.S. Geological Survey PublicationDate:Unknown Publication Time: Unknown

Title:

Digital Elevation Models (DEM) - New York State PublicationlInformation: Publication-Place:Reston, VA Publisher:U.S. Geological Survey OnlineLinkage: http://cugir.mannlib.cornell.edu/datatheme.isp?id=2 3

Description:

Abstract: A Digital Elevation Model (DEM) contains a series of elevations ordered from south to north with the order of the columns from west to east. The DEM is formatted as one ASCII header record (A-record), followed by a series of profile records (B-records) each of which include a short B-record header followed by a series of ASCII integer elevations per each profile. The last physical record of the DEM is an accuracy record (C-record). The 7.5-minute DEM (10- by 10-m data spacing, elevations in decimeters) is cast on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection (the quads UTM zone can be found in the header record (Record A)) in the North American Datum of 1927. It provides coverage in 7.5- by 7.5-minute blocks. Each product provides the same coverage as a standard USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle, but overedges are published as separate DEM files. Coverage is available for all quads completely contained within New York State, plus some additional ones falling along the borders and containing significant area of the State's land.

Purpose:

DEMs can be used as source data for digital orthophotos and as layers in geographic information systems for earth science analysis. DEMs can also serve as tools for volumetric analysis, for site location of towers, or for drainage basin delineation. These data are collected as part of the National Mapping Program. Supplemental Information: 7.5-minute DEMs have rows and columns which vary in length and are staggered. The UTM bounding coordinates form a quadrilateral (no two sides are parallel to each other), rather than a rectangle. The user will need to pad out the uneven rows and columns with blanks or flagged data values, if a rectangle is required for the user's application. Some software vendors have incorporated this function into their software for input of standard formatted USGS http://cugir.mannlib.comell.edu/transform~xml=36dea.xml8/021 8/20/2012

FHR-COMBINED Page 119 of 231 DEMs. TimePeriodof Content: TimePeriod Information: Single Date/Time: CalendarDate:unknown Currentness.

Reference:

ground condition Status: Progress:Complete Maintenance~and UpdateFrequency:Irregular SpatialDomain: Bounding-Coordinates: WestBounding- Coordinate:-79.77 EastBounding-Coordinate:-71.85 NorthBounding.Coordinate:45.02 SouthBounding-Coordinate: 40.49 Keywords: Theme: Theme KeywordThesaurus:None ThemeKeyword: digital elevation model Theme Keyword: digital terrain model Theme-Keyword: hypsography ThemeKeyword: altitude ThemejKeyword: height Theme.Keyword: landforms Theme Keyword: relief Theme-Keyword: topography Theme-Keyword: raster ThemejKeyword: grid Theme-Keyword: cell Theme: ThemeLKeywordi. Thesaurus: Library of Congress Subject Headings ThemejKeyword: Hydrography Theme-Keyword: Digital Mapping Theme Keyword: Digital mapping -- Automation ThemeLKeyword: Cartography -- Automation Theme-Keyword: New York (State) -- Dept. of Environmental Conservation Theme: Theme Keyword_Thesaurus: ISO 19115 Topic Category ThemeLKeyword: elevation Theme-Keyword: 006 Place: PlaceKeywordThesaurus:Department of Commerce, 1987, Codes for the Identification of the States, The District of Columbia and the Outlying Areas of the U.S., and Associated Areas (Federal Information Processing Standard 5-2): Washington, Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/fip5-2.htm) Place-Keyword: New York Place-Keyword: 36 http://cugir.mannlib.comell.edu/transfonn'?xml=36dea.xmi 8/20/2012 

                                                                                              /021

FHR-COMBINED Page 120 of 231 PlaceLKeyword: NY Place: Place KeywordThesaurus:Library of Congress Subject Headings Place Keyword: New York (State) Place: Place Keyword Thesaurus:Geographic Names Information System http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic Place-Keyword: New York State AccessConstraints:None Use. Constraints:1. The NYS DEC and the U.S. Geological Survey asks to be credited in derived products. 2. Secondary Distribution of the data is not allowed. 3. Any documentation provided is an integral part of the data set. Failure to use the documentation in conjunction with the digital data constitutes misuse of the data. 4. Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information, errors may be reflected in the data supplied. The user must be aware of data conditions and bear responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect to possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology, currency of data, and other conditions. Point ofContact: ContactInformation: ContactOrganizationPrimary: Contact Organization:New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Division of Water ContactPosition:Watershed Geographic Information Technologies Support Group, Chief ContactAddress: AddressType: mailing and physical address Address: 625 Broadway Address: 4th floor City: Albany State-or Province:New York Postal Code: 12233-3500 ContactVoice...Telephone:518-402-8259 ContactElectronicMailAddress:watergis@gw.dec.state.ny.us ContactInstructions:All questions regarding metadata and/or data should go through the internal DEC contact. NativeData Set Environment: 24,000 scale hypsographic contour linework drawn by photogrametric, plane table or other methods by USGS, US Army Corp of Engineers, Tennessee Valley Authority or others. Linework copied onto stable-base mylar. Raster image of linework created by USGS, Reston, with Optronics drum scanner at an aperture of 20um, to give an equivalent resolution of 1024 DPI. Raster data converted to vector with line-center algorithm in LT4X v. 3.1, 11/11/93, by John Dabritz of Infotec Development Inc. Grid elevations calculated with 8-profile weighted linear interpolation, with cubic smoothing of slope at the contour line as per algorithm in above mentioned LT4X v. - export in DEM format, UTM meters, - grid height and width of 10 mt, - clipping (overedge) coordinate in UTM mt, - input coord feet or meters (depending on source material), output in meters/decimeters, - DEM grid points which are on a profile section longer than 80 mt are smoothed by passing the grid through a low pass-filter twice. The filter size (see below) is of 9 cell diameters (aprox 9 mt). The purpose here is to leave http://cugir.mannlib.comell.edu/transform?xml=36dea.xml 8/20/2012

FHR-COMBINED Page 121 of 231 well-contoured areas untouched while smoothing areas of less than 5-2.5% slope (to lessen streaking in flat areas typical of multiple-profile DEM derivation). - cubic smoothing of elevation profile across contours to 35% of the distance between adjacent contours. These profiles have a smaller, but still discontinuous change in slope at contour intersection than if not rounded. - 9 cell diameter for smoothing reach, - use all 8 directions (from grid point to N, S, E, W ,NE, NW, SE, SW) for each cell, - no line feeds. export dem <contour data name> 2 10.00 10.00 2 1 4 80 2 0.35 9 8 0 CrossL Referen ce: CitationInformation: Originator:US Geological Survey PublicationDate:unknown

Title:

Digital Elevation Model (DEM) OnlineLinkage: http://eros.usgs.gov/guides/dem.html Data-Quality Information: AttributeAccuracy: AttributeAccuracyReport: 10 mt gridding cell spacing is the maximun that can be meaningfully extracted from hypsography contour lines. This allows very good hypsographic contour reproduction in all areas except very flat ones. Elevation resolution_ is 1 decimeter (0.1 meter). Elevation accuracy is 24,000 contour data, i.e. plus/minus half the contour interval. LogicaLConsistencyReport:The fidelity of the relationships encoded in the data structure of the DEM are automatically verified using a USGS software program upon completion of the data production cycle. The test verifies full compliance to the DEM specification. Completeness..Report: DEM visually inspected using Delta3D version 2.0, 1995 by John Dabritz and S. Phan of Infotec Development Inc. Checked for completness and drainage characteristics matching the USGS Hydrography Digital Line Graphs published at the same time as the model. Further validation for logical consistency performed previous to submission for archiving. PositionaLAccuracy: HorizontalPositional_Accuracy: HorizontalPositionalAccuracyReport:The horizontal accuracy of the DEM is expressed as an estimated root mean square error (RMSE). The estimate of the RMSE is based upon horizontal accuracy tests of the DEM source materials with equal to or less than intended horizontal RMSE error of the DEM. The testing of horizontal accuracy of the source materials is accomplished by comparing the planimetric (X and Y) coordinates of well-defined ground points with the coordinates of the same points as determined from a source of higher accuracy. Quantitative HorizontalPositionaLAccuracyAssessment: HorizontaLPositionalAccuracyValue: 3 meters (estimated) HorizontalPositionalAccuracy.Explanation: Digital elevation models meet horizontal National Map Accuracy Standards (NMAS) accuracy requirements. VerticalPositionalAccuracy: VerticaLPositionaLAccuracy.Report:A vertical RMSE of one-half of the contour interval of the source map is the maximum permitted. Systematic errors may http://cugir.mannlib.comell.edu/transformxml=36dea.xml 8/20/2012

FHR-COMBINED Page 122 of 231 not exceed the contour interval of the source graphic. Level 2 DEMs have been processed or smoothed for consistency and edited to remove identifiable systematic errors. Quantitative VerticalPositionalAccuracyAssessment: VerticalPositionalAccuracy.Value: 6 to 8 meters VerticalPositionalAccuracy.Explanation: DEMs meet vertical National Map Accuracy Standards (NMAS) accuracy requirements. Vertical Positional Accuracy Vaue varies with each quad. Lineage: Source Information: Source Citation: Citation-Information: Originator:U.S. Geological Survey PublicationDate:Unknown Publication Time: Unknown

Title:

Albany PublicationInformation: Publication.Place:EROS Data Center, SD Publisher:U.S. Geological Survey Type-of Source-Media: mylar separate from original color separation plate Source_ Time-Period of Content: Time-Period Information: SingleDate/Time:. CalendarDate:unknown Source-Currentness

Reference:

ground condition SourceCitation-Abbreviation:CONTOUR1 Source_Contribution:elevation values for interpolation SourceLInformation: Source-Citation: Citation Information: Originator:U.S. Geological Survey or National Geodetic Survey (NGS) (ed.) PublicationDate:Unknown Publication-Time:Unknown

Title:

project control PublicationInformation: PublicationPlace:EROS Data Center, SD Publisher:U.S. Geological Survey Type-of Source-Media: field notes SourceTime-Period..ofContent: Time-Period Information: Single-Date/Time: CalendarDate: unknown SourceCurrentnessL

Reference:

ground condition Source Citation-Abbreviation:CONTROL1 SourceContribution:ground control points Source-Information: SourceCitation: Citation-Information: http://cugir.mannlib.comell .edu/transformxml=36dea.xml 8/20/2012

FHR-COMBINED Page 123 of 231 Originator:U.S. Geological Survey (ed.) PublicationDate:Unknown Publication_Time: Unknown

Title:

photo ID number PublicationInformation: PublicationPlace:EROS Data Center, SD Publisher:U.S. Geological Survey Type.ofLSource-Media: transparency Source TimePeriod..ofContent: TimePeriodInformation: Single..Date/Time: CalendarDate: unknown SourceCurrentness

Reference:

ground condition Source Citation-Abbreviation:PHOTO1 SourceContribution:elevation values from photogrametry Process Step: Process

Description:

The process can be seen as divided into several tasks, each with associated sub-processes. A. Original Data Source Preparation: 1. The United States Geological Service (USGS) office of Map Production (Mid Continent Mapping Center, Rolla, MO) selects the most recent original printing plates (1:24,000 or 1:25,000 scale) for each published quadrangle map. These plates are archived under controlled environmental conditions and are produced from the original map scripting materials onto dimensionally stable material (Mylar). A copy of the separate is made by contact methods onto photosensitive, opaque, dimensionally stable material. The separate plate copy is shipped to the USGS Mapping Applications Center (Reston, VA). 2. The MAC scans the separate plate with an Ektaprint (a.k.a. Optronics) drum scanner with an aperture of 24um (corresponding to a linear resolution of approx 1030 DPI) into a run-length encoded (RLE) formatted raster file. Contours lines have typically a thickness of 25 to 30 pixels. The file, typically between 10 and 20 Mb, would be checked for completeness and distortion. If satisfactory MAC forwards both the raster file, the plate separate and the corresponding published quadrangle to the digitization workshop at the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Water GIS unit in Albany, NY. B. Raster file batch processing 1. The raster file was loaded into Line Tracer for X Windows (LT4X, Infotec Inc., Portland, Oregon) version 3.1. With it is georegistered and trimmed of any excess margin. 2. The file is put through an automated raster-to-vector batch process in which a vector following the center of the raster line is created, with a minimum vertex separation of 25 pixels. Once the vector has been calculated and the topology of the resultant data established, the resolution of the original raster was reduced to 500 DPI, to allow faster processing in the succeeding steps. C.Vector Contour Edit, Edge Matching and Labeling. 1. The vectorized contours are edited carefully to correct any line breaks, vector webbing (due to pen thickness or lack of resolution of the originals drafting process), labels and special line symbols (depressions, road fills, etc). 2. The contours are labeled with their corresponding elevations, as tagged in the original material. 3. The eight adjoining maps' vector contours are brought in and checked against those of http://cugir.mannlib.comell.edu/transform?xml=36dea.xml 8/20/2012

FHR-COMBINED Page 124 of 231 the map being edited. Vectors of matching labels are snapped together if the gap is less than 3 line-thicknesses. Otherwise they are tagged as "disagreement in the original" (see DLG standards for hypsography layer). For each border only one of the maps is edited. 4. An independent quality control check of contour edits and labeling is carried out. 5. The Digital Elevation Model is interpolated in a batch process (see "Native Dataset Environment" above). D. DEM Edit and Quality Control 1. The resultant DEM is loaded in Delta3D (Infotec Inc., Portland, OR) v. 2.1, together with the corresponding hydrography vectors. The DEM is checked for the presence of irregular patterns, in which case it is returned to the previous process; water body height (e.g. in large lakes) is set for all grid cells within the water body; and drainage along vector streams is enforced by lowering cells higher than the upstream one along the stream. Water retention areas (wetlands, marshes...) are not modified except for stream entrance and exit. - Edge matching with the adjoining eight DEMs. 2. From thirty to thirty-five height reference markers are collected from the corresponding cultural separate for the quadrangle. These are compared to heights as read from the DEM and an statistical RMS is calculated, this is recorded in the DEM's C record. 3. The quadrangle record A is filled and checked for consistency. 4. A final DEM-formatted elevation dataset for the quadrangle is recorded. E. Final Quality Control and Databasing 1. The DEM file is shipped to USGS's Rocky Mountain Mapping Center (Boulder, CO). There it undergoes a separate quality control process which essentially mimics D. 2. The corresponding quality control flags are established. The DEM is sub-sampled to 30 mt grid spacing and the resultant file is forwarded to USGS's EROS Data Center, were it is catalogued into the National Elevation database. The 10 mt grid spacing file is returned to NYS DEC, from where it is forwarded to Cornell University's Mann Library. Process_Date:Unknown SpatialtReferencejinformation: Horizontal Coordinate System-Definition: Planar: GridCoordinate.System: GridCoordinateSystem.Name: Universal Transverse Mercator Universal TransverseMercator: UTMZoneNumber: 17 or 18 or 19 TransverseMercator: ScaleFactoratCentralMeridian:.9996 Longitude.of CentralMeridian:+075.000000 Latitude-of Projection-Origin:+00.000000 FalseEasting:0 FalseNorthing:0 PlanarCoordinate-Information: PlanarCoordinate.EncodingMethod:row and column CoordinateRepresentation: AbscissaResolution: 10 http://cugir.mannlib.comell.edu/transform'?xml=36dea.xmi /021 8/20/2012

FHR-COMBINED Page 125 of 231 OrdinateResolution:10 PlanarDistanceUnits:Meters GeodetichModel: HorizontalDatumName:North American Datum of 1927 Ellipsoid Name: Clarke 1866 Semi-major Axis: 6378206.4 DenominatorofFlattening-Ratio:294.9787 Vertical-CoordinateSystem-Definition: Altitude.SystemnDefinition: AltitudeDatumName:National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 AltitudeResolution: 1 AltitudeDistance.Units: decimeters AltitudeEncoding-Method:Explicit elevation coordinate included with horizontal coordinates Entity.and AttributelInformation: OverviewDescription: Entity.andAttribute-Overview:The digital elevation model is composed of an elevation value linked to a grid cell location representing a gridded form of a topographic map hypsography overlay. Each grid cell entity contains an 8-character value between - 32,767.0 and 32,768.0. Entity.and..AttributeDetaiiCitation:U.S. department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 1992, Standards for digital elevation models: Reston, VA, a hypertext version of the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) is available at: http://eros.usgs.gov/guides/dem.html (see Cross Reference) DistributionInformation: Distributor: ContactInformation: ContactOrganization-Primary: Contact Organization:Mann Library ContactAddress: AddressType: mailing Address: Cornell University City: Ithaca State-or Province: NY Postal Code: 14853 Country: USA ContactVoice-Telephone: 607-255-5406 ContactElectronicMaiLAddress:mann ref@cornell.edu DistributionLiability:Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system at the U.S. Geological Survey, no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the accuracy or utility of the data on any other system or for general or http://cugir.mannlib-comell.edu/transform?xml=36dea.xmi 8/20/2012 

                                                                                              /021

FHR-COMBINED Page 126 of 231 scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. This disclaimer applies both to individual use of the data and aggregate use with other data. It is strongly recommended that careful attention be paid to the contents of the metadata file associated with these data. Neither the U.S. Geologial Survey nor the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation shall be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein. Cornell University provides these geographic data "as is." Cornell University makes no guarantee or warranty concerning the accuracy of information contained in the geographic data. Cornell University further makes no warranty either expressed or implied, regarding the condition of the product or its fitness for any particular purpose. The burden for determining fitness for use lies entirely with the user. Although these files have been processed successfully on computers at Cornell University, no warranty is made by Cornell University regarding the use of these data on any other system, nor does the fact of distribution constitute or imply any such warranty. StandardOrderProcess: DigitalForm: DigitaLTransferInformation: Format Name: DEM FileDecompression_Technique: zip DigitaLTransfer_.Option: OnlineOption: Computer Contact Information: NetworkAddress: NetworklResource Name: http://cugir.niannlib.cornell.edu/datatheme.isp?id=23 Fees: None Metadata Reference Information: MetadataDate:20080414 MetadataReviewDate:20080414 Metadata

Contact:

Contact Information: ContactOrganization.Primary: Con tact Organization:New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ContactPosition:Division of Information Services; GIS Unit ContactAddress: AddressL Type: mailing and physical address Address: 625 Broadway Address: 3rd floor City: Albany State or Province:New York Postal Code: 12233-2750 ContactVoice Telephone: 518-402-9860 ContactFacsimileTelephone:518-402-9031 ContacLElectronicMailAddress: enterpriseGIS(gw.dec.state.nyus http://cugir.mannlib.comell.edu/transform'?xml=36dea.xmi /021 8/20/2012

FHR-COMBINED Page 127 of 231 Metadata_Standard_Name:FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata Metadata_StandardVersion:FGDC-STD-001-1998 http://cugir.manniib.comnell.edu/transformi~xml=36dea.xml8//21 8/20/2012

FHR-COMBINED Page 128 of 231 SECTION 2.0 ORTHOIMAGERY REFERENCE

FHR-COMBINED Page 129 of 231 ArcGIS - World Imagery Page 1 of 4 Resource Center Show: Web Content Only Help Sign In Find maps, applications and more... World Imagery This map service presents satellite imagery for the world and high-resolution imagery for the United States and other areas around the world. C' MapSerice by esri Last Modified: January 29, 2013 (29 ratings, 555,806 views) Sign in to rate this item. Facebook Twitter Description This map was last updated December 2012. World Imagery provides one meter or better satellite and aerial imagery in many parts of the world and lower resolution satellite imagery worldwide. The map includes NASA Blue Marble: Next Generation 500m resolution imagery at small scales (above 1:1,000,000), i-cubed ISm eSAT imagery at medium-to-large scales (down to 1:70,000) for the world, and USGS 15m Landsat imagery for Antarctica. The map features 0.3m resolution imagery in the continental United States and O.6m resolution imagery in parts of Western Europe from DigitalGlobe. In other parts of the world, 1 meter resolution imagery is available from GeoEye IKONOS, i-cubed Nationwide Prime, Getmapping, AeroGRID, IGN Spain, and IGP Portugal. Additionally, imagery at different resolutions has been contributed by the GIS User Community. To view this map service now, along with useful reference overlays, click here to open the Imagery with Labels web map. Tip: This service is one of the basemaps used in the ArcGIS.com map viewer and ArcGIS Explorer Online. Simply click one of those links to launch the interactive application of your choice, and then choose Imagery or Imagery with Labels from the Basemap control to start browsing the imagery. You'll also find this service in the Basemap gallery in ArcGIS Explorer Desktop and ArcGIS Desktop 10. i-cubed Nationwide Prime is a seamless, color mosaic of various commercial and government imagery sources, including Aerials Express 0.3 to 0.6m resolution imagery for metropolitan areas and the best available United States Department of Agriculture Farm Services Agency (USDA FSA) National Agriculture tmagery Program (NAIP) imagery and enhanced versions of United States Geological Survey (USGS) Digital Ortho Quarter Quad (DOQQ) imagery for other areas. The coverage for Europe includes AeroGRID 1m resolution imagery for Belgium, France (Region Nord-Pas-de-Calais only), Germany, Luxembourg, and The Netherlands and 2m resolution imagery for the Czech Republic, plus 1m resolution imagery for Portugal from the Instituto Geogrsfico Portugu~s. For details on the coverage in this map service, view the list of Contributors for the World Imagery Map. View the coverage maps below to learn more about the coverage for the high-resolution imagery:

  • World coverage map: Areas with high-resolution imagery throughout the world.
  • Imagery update maps for United States and Western Europe: Areas where imagery was updated in this release.

Metadata: This service is metadata-enabled. With the Identify tool in ArcMap or the ArcGIS Online Content Viewer, you can see the resolution, collection date, and source of the imagery at the location you click. The metadata applies only to the best available imagery at that location. You may need to zoom in to view the best available imagery. To compare this service with the other imagery services available through ArcGIS Online, use the Imagery comparison app. Reference overlays: The World Boundaries and Places service is designed to be drawn on top of this service as a reference overlay. This is what gets drawn on top of the imagery if you choose the Imagery With Labels basemap in any of the ArcGIS clients. The World Transportation service is designed to be drawn on top of this service to provide street labels when you are zoomed in and streets and roads when you are zoomed out. There are three ready to use web maps that use the World Imagery service as their basemap, Imagery, in which both reference layers are turned off, Imagery with Labels, which has World Boundaries and Places turned on but World Transportation turned off, and Imagery with Labels and Transportation, which has both reference layers turned on. Feedback: Have you ever seen a problem in the Esri World Imagery Map that you wanted to see fixed? You can use the Imagery Map Feedback web map to provide feedback on issues or errors that you see. The feedback will be reviewed by the ArcGIS Online team and considered for one of our updates. ArcGIS Desktop use: This service requires ArcGIS 9.3 or more recent. If you are using ArcGIS 9.2, use the Prime Imagery map service in your map to get the best free imagery available to you. Note that the Prime Imagery map service is in extended support and is no longer being updated. The World Imagery map service is not available as a globe service. If you need a globe service containing imagery use the Prime Imagery (3D) globe service. However note that this is no longer being updated by Esri. http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=l 0df2279f9684e4a9f6a7f08febac2a9 2/1/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 130 of 231 ArcGIS - World Imagery Page 2 of 4 Tip: Here are some famous locations as they appear in this map service. The following URLs launch the Imagery With Labels and Transportation web map (which combines this map service with the two reference layers designed for it) and take you to specific locations on the map using location parameters included in the URL. Grand Canyon, Arizona, USA Golden Gate, California, USA Taj Mahal, Agra, India Vatican City Bronze age white horse, Uffington, UK Uluru (Ayres Rock), Australia Machu Picchu, Cusco, Peru Okavango Delta, Botswana Scale Range: 1:591,657,528 down to 1:1,128 Coordinate System: Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere (WKID 102100) Tiling Scheme: Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Map Service Name: World-Imagery ArcGIS Desktop/Explorer URL: http://services.arcgisonline.com/arcgis/services ArcGIS Desktop files: MXD LYR (These ready-to-use files contain this service and associated reference overlay services. ArcGIS 9.3 or more recent required). ArcGIS Server Manager and Web ADF URL: http://server.arcgisonline.com/arcgis/services/World-Imagery/MapServer REST URL for ArcGIS Web APIs: http://server.arcgisonline.com/ArcGIS/rest/services/World_Imagery/MapServer SOAP API URL: http://services.arcgisonline.com/ArcGIS/services/Worldjlmagery/MapServer?wsdl Access and Use Constraints Sesri-This work is licensed under the Web Services and API Terms of Use. View Summary I View Terms of Use Map Contents World Imagery http://services.arcgisonline.com/ArcGIS/rest/services/World-Imagery/MapServer Properties Tags world, imagery, basemap, satellite, aerial, community, community basemap, orthophotos, maps, AFA25O base Credits Sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, [GN, IGP, and the GIS User Community Size 1 KB Extent Left:- 180 Right: 180 Top: 85 Bottom: -85 Comments (18) a lgreene2 (January 31, 2013) [ failed to mention that my post below was in response to the speed issues of having the online layer in an mxd. lgreene2 (January 31, 2013) If you turn off all your layers (except the aerial image), switch to data view, export to jpg making sure that you export a wld file, you can then pull this in as a raster image. Define projection if you plan to use outside of that particular .mxd. tosa.yasunari@gmail.com (January 22, 2013) Please make sure that each resolution has the same time frame. We were looking at the Atlanta airport. The lower resolution image is the old image where one of the runways is missing the pavement ;-). The higher resolution image has the new runway clearly seen. http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=1 0df2279f9684e4a9f6a7f08febac2a9 2/!/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 131 of 231 ArcGIS - World Imagery Page 3 of 4 Dorothee (November 14, 2012) The data was last updated on the 15.11.12 but that's misleading because although there is more detailed imagery available for regional Australia, in my particular area of interest (near Moranbah, QLD) the Imagery is from between 2004 and 2008. Most of the Mines in that area were developed later than that. Brisbane City Imagery is from 2003... acoffin (November 7, 2012) I want to use this base map (North America) in a printed map that will be published as a project fact sheet (noncommercial, quasi-academic publication). Can you tell me what the appropriate attribution should be for this product? Esri? i-cubed? MissJesie (November 4, 2012) what pherout said helps me now,thanks tomstonel947 (September 4, 2012) How do I find if there is archival imagery for a region? I am hoping to go back perhaps 10 years for a region in the upper great plains. pherout (August 21, 2012) Setting the data frame's extent to a clipped area of interest seems to help make working with these basemaps a lot more tolerable - Right click, data frame properties, data frame, clip options, clip to shape, specify shape, current visible extent. Took me a hot minute to figure that out. Hope it might help some others. Emergell (May 24, 2012) Use a higher spec computer, keep panning to a minimum, set bookmarks to avoid excessive panning, download an aerial instead kphaneuf (May 10, 2012) Why when I switch to layout view does the map get blurry? mahabal (February 7, 2012) just recently uploaded this layer to ArcGIS 9.3.1 but the image is just BLACK. tmmoc (January 18, 2012) If you do most of your editing in the layout view (if that's possible for your kind of work) it doesn't lag. Having these kinds of files open in the data view causes my computer to lag, so I do everything I can (editing attribute tables, drawing in property lines, etc.) from the layout view. nice2835 (December 27, 2011) I'd suggest that when you open it within arc-map 10. just zoom to one of your data layers, and it will load the images from there. margaretannsclass (November 28, 2011) And i just like pie chino-is@hotmail.com (September 28, 2011) I'm using an Intel Core 2 6700 at 2.66GHz with 2 G RAM ... it's not a very fast machine but I am on a university network in a university computer lab so I expect the problem is one of bandwidth. It lags but not so much that I can't keep productive momentum. snelsonbanff (September 20, 2011) That doesn't really make sense though - it's very fast when I use the same service in my FLEXviewer, but as soon as I drop the same service into ArcMap it's too slow to use. tbwester (September 16, 2011) They are interenet based, so you need a fast connection. snelsonbanff (September 14, 2011) Hmm, everytime I try to use these basemaps inside ArcMap 10 - it makes ArcMap so slow it's un-useeble. Any suggestions as to why, or how to overcome this? Sign in to add a comment. Esricom I Terms of Use I Privacy I Contact Us I Report Abuse http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=l 0df2279f9684e4a9f6a7f08febac2a9 2/1/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 132 of 231 SECTION 3.0 NATIONAL LANDCOVER DATABASE METADATA

FHR-COMBINED Page 133 of 231 Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) National Land Cover Database (NLCD) Product Description Wwib)*d Cover Database 2006 Data Downloads Legend National Land Cover Database 2006 Statstics (NLCD2006) Is a 16-class land cover dassification scheme that has been References applied consistently across the conterminous United States at a spatial NLCD 2001 resolution of 30 meters. NLCD2006 Is Product Description based primarily on the unsupervised dasslfication of Land.Ehc Data Downloads Themai Mapper+ (ETM+) circa 2006 satellite data. NLCD2006 also quantifies Legend land cover change between the years 2001 to 2006. The NLCD2006 land cover change product was generated by comparing statistics spectral characteristics of Landset imagery between 2001 and 2006, on an Individual References path/row basis, using protocols to identify and label change based on the trajectory from NLCD2001 products. It represents the first time this type of 30 meter resolution land cover Retrofit Land Cover Change change product has been produced for the conterminous United States. A formal accuracy Product Description assessment of the NLCD2006 land cover change product is planned for 2011. Data Downloads Generation of NLCD2006 products helped to identify some issues in the NLCD2001 land cover and percent developed imperviousness products only (there were no changes to the Legend NLCD2001 percent canopy). These issues were evaluated and corrected, necessitating a References reissue of NLCD2001 products (NLCD2001 Version 2.0) as part of the NLCD2006 release. A majority of the NLCD2001 updates occurred in coastal mapping zones where NLCD2001 was NLCD 1992 published prior to the completion of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Product Description (NOAA) Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) 2001 land cover products. NOAA C-CAP 2001 land cover has now been seamlessly integrated with NLCD2001 land cover for all Data Downloads coastal zones. NLCD2001 percent developed imperviousness was also updated as part of this process. Legend statstiea Preferred NLCD2006 citation: Fry, 3., Xian, G., 3in, S., Dewitz, 3., Homer, C., Yang, L, Barnes, C., Herold, N., and Wickham, 3., 2011. Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover References Database for the Conterminous United States, PEMRS, Vol. 77(9):858-864. Other MRLC Program Publications for NLCD2006 Wickham, J.D., Stehman, S.V., Gass, L, Dewltz, 2., Fry, I.A., and Wade, T.G. 2013. Accura assessment of NLCD 2006 land cover and imoervious surface Remote Sensing of Environment, Vol. 130, pp. 294-304. Xian, G., Homer, C.G., Bunde, B., Danielson, P., Dewitz, J.A., Fry, -. A., and Pu, R., 2012, flntWf,,ln hJn -. I - .rIni I*r-nr.. k..n. r11 M nA t inn* fl..lf u W M14 - ,.1. Geocarto International, v. 27, no. 6, p. 479-497. Xlan, G., Homer, C., Dewitz, J., Fry, J., Hossein, N., and Wickham, 1., 2011. The Chaoe impervious surface area between 2001 and 2006 in the conterminous United State.PhotogrammetricEngineeringand Remote Sensing, Vol. 77(8): 758-762. XMan,G, Homer, C, and Fry, -. 2009. cover classification to 2006 by usino 1Larlo*a[ imaQerv crlanoe amr.moaan m*nggz, nemote Sensing of Environment, Vol. 113, No. 6. pp. 1133-1147. To view and print the PDF you must obtain and install the Acrobat& Reader, available at no charge from Adobe Systems. http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2006.php

FHR-COMBINED Page 134 of 231 IdentificationInformation: Citation: Citation-Information: Originator: U.S. Geological Survey Publication-Date: 20110216

Title:

NLCD 2006 Land Cover Edition: 1.0 GeospatialData_.Presentation_.Form: remote-sensing image Series-Information: Series Name: None Issue-Identification: None Publication-Information: PublicationPlace: Sioux Falls, SD Publisher: U.S. Geological Survey OtherCitationDetails:

References:

(1) Homer, C., Huang, C., Yang, L., Wylie, B., & Coan M., (2004). Development of a 2001 National Land Cover Database for the United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 70, 829 - 840. (2) Jin, S., Yang, L., Xian, G., Danielson, P., Fry, J., and Homer C., (2011). A multi-index integrated change detection method for updating the National Land Cover Database (In Preparation). (3) Nowak, D. J., & Greenfield, E. J., (2010). Evaluating the National Land Cover Database tree canopy and impervious cover estimates across the conterminous United States: A comparison with photo-interpreted estimates. Environmental Management, 46, 378 - 390. (4) Wickham, J. D., Stehman S. V., Fry, J. A., Smith, J. H., & Homer, C. G., (2010). Thematic accuracy of the NLCD 2001 land cover for the conterminous United States. Remote Sensing of Environment, 114, 1286 - 1296. (5) Xian, G., Homer, C., and Fry, J., (2009). Updating the 2001 National Land Cover Database land cover classification to 2006 by using Landsat imagery change detection methods. Remote Sensing of Environment, 113, 1133-1147. (6) Xian, G., and Homer C., (2010). Updating the 2001 National Land Cover Database impervious surface products to 2006 using Landsat imagery change detection methods. Remote Sensing of Environment, 114, 1676-1686. The USGS acknowledges the support of USGS NLCD 2006 Land Cover Mapping Teams in development of data for this map. Online-Linkage: http://www.mrlc.gov

Description:

Abstract: The National Land Cover Database products are created through a cooperative project conducted by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. The MRLC Consortium is a partnership of federal agencies (www.mrlc.gov), consisting of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Previously, NLCD consisted of three major data releases based on a 10-year cycle. These include a circa 1992 conterminous U.S. land cover dataset with one thematic layer (NLCD 1992), a circa 2001 50-state/Puerto Rico updated U.S. land cover database (NLCD 2001) with three layers including thematic land cover, percent imperviousness, and percent tree canopy, and a 1992/2001 Land Cover Change Retrofit Product. With these national data layers, there is often a 5-year time lag between the image capture date and product release. In some areas, the land cover can undergo significant change during production time, resulting in products that may be perpetually out of date. To address these issues, this circa 2006 NLCD land cover product (NLCD 2006) was conceived to meet user community needs for more frequent land cover monitoring (moving to a 5-year cycle) and to reduce the production time between image capture and product release. NLCD 2006 is designed to provide the user both updated land cover data and additional information that can be used to identify the pattern, nature, and magnitude of changes occurring between 2001 and 2006 for the conterminous United States at medium spatial resolution. For NLCD 2006, there are 3 primary data products: 1) NLCD 2006 Land Cover map; 2) NLCD 2001/2006 Change Pixels labeled with the 2006 land cover class; and 3) NLCD 200.6 Percent Developed Imperviousness. Four additional data products were developed to provide supporting documentation and to provide information for land cover change analysis tasks: 4) NLCD 2001/2006 Percent Developed Imperviousness Change; 5) NLCD 2001/2006 Maximum Potential Change derived from the raw spectral change analysis; 6) NLCD 2001/2006 From-To Change pixels; and 7) NLCD 2006 Path/Row Index vector file showing the footprint of Landsat scene pairs used to derive 2001/2006 spectral change with change pair acquisition dates and scene identification numbers included in the attribute table. In addition to the 2006 data products listed in the paragraph above, two of the original release NLCD 2001 data products have been revised and reissued. Generation of NLCD 2006 data products helped to identify some update issues in the NLCD 2001 land cover and percent developed imperviousness data products. These issues were evaluated and corrected, necessitating a reissue of NLCD 2001 data products (NLCD 2001 Version 2.0) as part of the NLCD 2006 release. A majority of NLCD 2001 updates occur in coastal mapping zones where NLCD 2001 was published prior to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) 2001 land cover products. NOAA C-CAP 2001 land cover has now been seamlessly integrated with NLCD 2001 land cover for all coastal zones. NLCD 2001 percent developed imperviousness was also updated as part of this process. Land cover maps, derivatives and all associated documents are considered "provisional" until a formal accuracy assessment can be conducted. The NLCD 2006 is created on a path/row basis and mosaicked to create a seamless national product. Questions about the NLCD 2006 land cover product can be directed to the NLCD

FHR-COMBINED Page 135 of 231 2006 land cover mapping team at the USGS/EROS, Sioux Falls, SD (605) 594-6151 or mrlc@usgs.gov.

Purpose:

The goal of this project is to provide the Nation with complete, current and consistent public domain information on its land use and land cover. Supplemental-Information: Corner Coordinates (center of pixel, projection meters) Upper Left Corner: -2493045 meters(X), 3310005 meters(Y) Lower Right Corner: -177285 meters(X), 2342655 meters(Y) TimePeriod_ofContent: TimePeriodInformation: Range-of-Dates/Times: BeginningoDate: 20050211 Ending-Date: 20071003 Currentness-

Reference:

ground condition Status: Progress: In work Maintenance-andUpdateFrequency: Every 5 Years Spatial-Domain: Bounding-Coordinates: WestBoundingCoordinate: -230.232828 EastBoundingCoordinate: -63.672192 North_BoundingCoordinate: 52.877264 SouthBoundingCoordinate: 21.742308 Keywords: Theme: ThemeKeywordThesaurus: None Theme-Keyword: Land Cover ThemeKeyword: GIS Theme-Keyword: U.S. Geological Survey Theme-Keyword: USGS Theme-Keyword: digital spatial data Theme: ThemeKeywordThesaurus: ISO 19115 Category Theme_Keyword: imageryBaseMapsEarthCover Theme-Keyword: 010 Place: Place_KeywordThesaurus: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1995, Countries, dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, and their principal administrative divisions, Federal Information Processing Standard 10-4,): Washington, D.C., National Institute of Standards and Technology PlaceKeyword: United States Place-Keyword: U.S. Place-Keyword: US Access-Constraints: None UseConstraints: None PointofContact: Contact-Information: ContactOrganizationPrimary: ContactOrganization: U.S. Geological Survey Contact_.Position: Customer Services Representative Contact_Address: Address-Type: mailing and physical address Address: USGS/EROS Address: 47914 252nd Street City: Sioux Falls State-orProvince: SD PostalCode: 57198-0001 Country: USA Contact_Voice_Telephone: 605/594-6151 Contact_FacsimileTelephone: 605/594-6589 Contact_.Electronic_Mail_A.ddress: custserv@usgs.gov Hoursof_Service: 0800 - 1600 CT, M - F (-6h CST/-5h CDT GMT) Contact-Instructions: The USGS point of contact is for questions relating to the data display and download from this web site. For questions regarding data content and quality, refer to: http://www.mrlc.gov/mrlc2k.asp or email: mrlc@usgs.gov DataSetCredit: U.S. Geological Survey Security-Information: SecurityClassificationSystem: None Security-Classification: Unclassified SecurityHandlingDescription: N/A NativeDataSetEnvironment: Microsoft Windows XP Version 5.1 (Build 2600) Service Pack 3; ESRI ArcCatalog 9.3.0.1770 Data_Quality_Information: Attribute_Accuracy: Attribute_.AccuracyReport: Data quality information for the NLCD 2001 re-issued base unchanged pixels is reported in the manuscript: Wickham, J., D., Stehman, S. V., Fry, J. A., Smith, J. H., & Homer, C. G., (2010), Thematic accuracy of the NLCD 2001 land cover for the conterminous United States, Remote Sensing of Environment, 114, 1286 - 1296. Accuracy for the NLCD 2006 changed pixels is currently being assessed. QuantitativeAttribute__AccuracyAssessment: AttributeAccuracy_Value: Unknown AttributeAccuracy_.Explanation: This document and the described landcover map are considered "provisional" until a formal accuracy assessment is completed. The U.S. Geological Survey can make no guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of this information, and it is provided with the understanding that it is not guaranteed to be correct or complete. Conclusions drawn from this information are the responsibility of the user.

FHR-COMBINED Page 136 of 231 LogicalConsistencyReport: The NLCD 2006 final seamless products include: 1) NLCD 2006 Land Cover map,

2) NLCD 2006 Percent Developed Imperviousness ; 3) NLCD 2001/2006 Change Pixels labeled with the 2006 land cover class; 4) NLCD 2001/2006 Percent Developed Imperviousness Change; 5) Maximum Potential Spectral Change; 6) NLCD 2001/2006 From - To Change pixels; 7) NLCD 2006 Path Row Index.

Completeness-Report: This NLCD product is the version dated February 14, 2011. Positional-Accuracy: HorizontalPositionalAccuracy: HorizontalPositional_AccuracyReport: N/A Vertical-PositionalAccuracy: VerticalPositional_AccuracyReport: N/A Lineage: Process-Step: ProcessDescription: Landsat image selection and preprocessing. For the change analysis, a two-date pair of Landsat scenes was selected for each path/row restricting temporal range to reduce the impact of seasonal and phenological variation. A pre-processing step was performed to convert the digital number to top of atmosphere reflectance using procedures similar to those established for the NLCD 2001 mapping effort (Homer et al., 2004). Reflectance derivatives, including a tasseled-cap transformation and a 3-ratio index, were generated for each scene to use in the modeling process as independent variables. Where present, clouds and cloud shadows were digitized for masking. NLCD 2006 Percent Developed Imperviousness (Final Product) and Percent Developed Imperviousness Change Analysis. Because the four NLCD developed classes are derived from a percent imperviousness mapping product, an overview of steps required to update the NLCD 2001 imperviousness to reflect urban growth captured in 2006 era Landsat imagery is provided here (Xian, et al., 2010). First, 2001 nighttime lights imagery from the NOAA Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) was imposed on the NLCD 2001 impervious surface product to exclude low density imperviousness outside urban and suburban centers so that only imperviousness in urban core areas would be used in the training dataset. Two training datasets, one having a relatively larger urban extent and one having a smaller extent, were produced through imposing two different thresholds on city light imagery. Second, each of the two training datasets combined with 2001 Landsat imagery was separately applied using a regression tree (RT) algorithm to build up RT models. Two sets of RT models were then used to estimate percent imperviousness and to produce two 2001 synthetic impervious surfaces. Similarly, the same two training datasets were used with 2006 Landsat imagery to create two sets of RT models that produce two 2006 synthetic impervious surfaces. Third, the 2001 and 2006 synthetic impervious surface pairs were compared using both 2001 impervious surface products to retain 2001 impervious surface area (ISA) in the unchanged areas. The 2006 DMSP nighttime lights imagery was then employed to ensure that non-imperviousness areas were not included and that new impervious surfaces emerged in the city light extent. After this step, two 2006 intermediate impervious surfaces were produced. Finally, the two intermediate products and 2001 imperviousness were compared to remove false estimates in non-urban areas and generate a 2006 impervious surface estimate. Imperviousness threshold values used to derive the NLCD developed classes are: (1) developed open space (imperviousness < 20%), (2) low-intensity developed (imperviousness from 20 - 49%), (3) medium intensity developed (imperviousness from 50 -79%), and (4) high-intensity developed (imperviousness > 79%). During this process, inconsistencies in the NLCD 2001 Percent Developed Imperviousness product were corrected with the new product, NLCD 2001 Percent Developed Imperviousness Version 2.0, included as part of the NLCD 2006 product release. Land Cover Change Analysis. For the NLCD 2006 Land Cover Update, a new change detection method, Multi-Index Integrated Change (MIIC), was developed to capture a full range of land cover disturbance and potential land cover change patterns for updating the National Land Cover Database (Jin, et al., In Preparation). Recognizing the potential complementary nature of multiple spectral indices in detection of different land cover changes, we integrated four indices into one model to more accurately detect true land cover changes between two time periods. Within the model, normalized burn ratio (NBR), change vector (CV, Xian, et al., 2009), relative change vector (RCV), and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) are calculated separately for the early date (circa 2001) and late date (circa 2006) scenes. The four pairs of indices for the two dates are differenced and then evaluated in a final model conditional statement that categorizes each pixel as either biomass increase, biomass decrease, or no change. Individual path/row raw results from this change analysis process are assembled into a seamless national product to form the NLCD 2001/2006 Maximum Potential Change map. The integrated change result is clumped and sieved to produce a refined change/no-change mask used below. NLCD 2006 Land Cover Classification. Land cover mapping protocols used during NLCD 2006 processing are similar to those used to label the NLCD 2001 product (Homer, et al., 2004), but applied on a path/row basis instead of multiple path/row MRLC zones (Xian, et al., 2009). Classification was achieved using decision tree modeling that employed a combination of Landsat imagery, reflectance derivatives, and ancillary data (independent variables) with training data points (dependent variable) collected from a refined version of the NLCD 2001 land cover product. Training points were randomly sampled and limited to those areas that were determined to be unchanged between 2001 and 2006 during the MIIC spectral change analysis process. Training data for pixels changed to developed land cover were not collected since the four classes in urban and sub-urban areas were mapped separately using a regression tree modeling method (described in the Imperviousness Change Analysis process steps above). Post classification modeling and hand-editing were used to further refine the decision tree output. Following classification, the 2006 land cover was masked with the change/no-change result (captured during the MIIC change analysis modeling) to extract a label for spectrally changed pixels. Labeled change pixels were then compared to the NLCD 2001 land cover base to exclude those pixels identified as spectral change, but classified with the same label as the corresponding 2001 pixel. NLCD 2006 percent developed impervious pixels, identified as changed, were extracted to NLCD developed class codes using NLCD 2001 legend thresholds for developed classes and added to the change pixel map. This intermediate change pixel product was generalized using the NLCD Smart Eliminate tool with the following minimum mapping units (mmu) applied: 1 acre (approximately 5 ETM+ 30 m pixel patch) for developed classes (class codes 21, 22, 23, and 24); 7.12 acres (approximately 32 ETM+ pixel patch) for agricultural classes (class codes 81 and 82); and 2.67 acres (approximately 12 ETM+ pixel patch) for all other classes (class codes 11, 12, 31, 41, 42, 43, 52, 71, 90, and 95). The smart eliminate aggregation program subsumes pixels from the single pixel level to the mmu pixel patch using a queens algorithm at doubling intervals. The algorithm consults a weighting matrix to guide merging of cover types by similarity, resulting in a product that preserves land cover logic as much as possible. During the NLCD

FHR-COMBINED Page 137 of 231 2006 analysis and modeling process, inconsistencies in the NLCD 2001 Land cover product were corrected with the new product, NLCD 2001 Land Cover Version 2.0, included as part of the NLCD 2006 product release. NLCD 2006 Land Cover (Final Product). Additional processing steps were designed to create the final NLCD 2006 land cover map. Individual path/row change pixel results were assembled to form an intermediate seamless national product. This seamless change pixel map was reviewed and edited to remove regional inconsistencies. Refined NLCD 2006 change pixels were then combined with the re-issued NLCD 2001 Land Cover Version 2.0, and the resulting image was smart-eliminated to a 5-pixel mmu. This final step eliminated single pixels and patches less than 5 pixels in extent that appeared as a result of combining the separate images. NLCD 2006 Change Pixels (Final Product). A comparison of the NLCD 2001 re-issued base and the NLCD 2006 Land Cover was necessary to extract a final version of the NLCD 2006 Change Pixels. In a model, pixels that were labeled with the same land cover class code were removed and only those pixels that did not agree in the two classifications were retained as final NLCD 2006 Change Pixels. NLCD 2001/2006 Percent Developed Imperviousness Change (Supplementary Raster Layer). The NLCD 2001 Percent Developed Imperviousness Version 2.0 and the NLCD 2006 Percent Developed Imperviousness were compared in a model to provide the user community with a layer that highlights imperviousness change between 2001 and 2006. NLCD 2006 Maximum Potential Spectral Change (Supplementary Raster Layer). A raster layer containing all pixels identified in the raw change detection process and additional pixels identified as changed in NOAA C-CAP 2001-2006 change products. Raw change includes areas of biomass increase (value 1) and biomass decrease (value 2) with background (127) and clouds (value 250) identified separately. Only a portion of these pixels were ultimately selected as real change during our final protocols. This product was assembled from individual path/row MIIC raw change results. NLCD 2006 From-To Change Pixels (Supplementary Raster Layer). Although similar to the NLCD 2006 change pixel map, the from-to change pixel image was derived from a direct comparison between the re-issued seamless NLCD 2001 Land Cover Version 2.0 Map and the seamless NLCD 2006 Land Cover Map. An index value for each possible change combination was assigned using a from-to change matrix with sequentially numbered cells (see matrix and index values in entity and attribute section). Pixels are labeled with an index value created from a matrix of every possible change combination (see entity and attribute information for details). NLCD 2006 Path/Row Index (Supplementary Vector Layer). To create seamless national layers from individually processed path/rows required assembly of components. The path/row index identifies each Landsat scene pair footprint and includes a Landsat acquisition date attribute and scene identification number attribute for each scene pair used during the NLCD 2006 change analysis and land cover modeling process. The mosaic was made using a model to code each footprint with the appropriate path/row value using a <path>0<row> scheme. For example, all pixels in the footprint for path 29/row 30 would be value 29030 in the path/row index vector file. Landsat data and ancillary data used for the land cover prediction - For a list of Landsat scenes and scene dates by path/row used in this project, please see: appendixlnlcd2006-scene-list-by-path-row.txt Data Type of DEM composed of 1 band of Continuous Variable Type. Data Type of Slope composed of 1 band of Continuous Variable Type. Data Type of Aspect composed of 1 band of Categorical Variable Type. Data type of Position Index composed of 1 band of Continuous Variable Type. Data type of 3-ratio index composed of 3 bands of Continuous Variable Type. SourceUsedCitationAbbreviation: Landsat ETM, Landsat TM, DEM, USGS/EROS Process-Date: Unknown SourceProduced-CitationAbbreviation: USGS NLCD ProcessContact: Contact-Information: ContactOrganizationPrimary: ContactOrganization: U.S. Geological Survey Contact-Position: Customer Service Representative ContactAddress: AddressType: mailing and physical address Address: USGS/EROS Address: 47914 252nd Street City: Sioux Falls StateorProvince: SD Postal_Code: 57198-0001 Country: USA ContactVoiceTelephone: 605/594-6151 ContactFacsimileTelephone: 605/594-6589 ContactElectronicMailAddress: custserv@usgs.gov Hours-ofService: 0800 - 1600 CT, M - F (-6h CST/-5h CDT GMT) Process-Step: ProcessDescription: Metadata imported. SOurce_UsedCitationAbbreviation: C:\DOCUME-l\jfry\LOCALS-l\Temp\xm193.tmp ProcessDate: 20110211 ProcessTime: 16103000

FHR-COMBINED Page 138 of 231 SpatialDataOrganizationInformation: Direct-SpatialReferenceMethod: Raster RasterObjectInformation: RasterObjectType: Pixel Row_Count: 104424 ColumnCount: 161190 Vertical-Count: 1 SpatialReferenceInformation: Horizontal_CoordinateSystemDefinition: Planar: Map-Projection: Map_Projection_.Name: Albers Conical Equal Area Albers_Conical_Equal_Area: StandardParallel: 29.500000 Standard_.Parallel: 45.500000 Longitudeof_Central_Meridian: -96.000000 Latitude-ofProjection-Origin: 23.000000 False__Easting: 0.000000 False-Northing: 0.000000 PlanarCoordinateInformation: PlanarCoordinateEncodingMethod: row and column Coordinate-Representation: Abscissa-Resolution: 30.000000 Ordinate-Resolution: 30.000000 PlanarDistanceUnits: meters Geodetic Model: Horizontal_Datum_.Name: North American Datum of 1983 Ellipsoid_Name: Geodetic Reference System 80 Semi-majorAxis: 6378137.000000 Denominatorof_FlatteningRatio: 298.257222 EntityandAttribute_Information: Detailed-Description: Entity-Type: EntityTypeLabel: Layeril EntityTypeDefinition: NLDC Land Cover Layer EntityTypeDefinitionSource: National Land Cover Database Attribute: Attribute-Label: ObjectID Attribute-Definition: Internal feature number AttributeDefinitionSource: ESRI AttributeDomainValues: UnrepresentableDomain: Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated. Attribute: Attribute-Label: Count Attribute-Definition: A nominal integer value that designates the number of pixels that have each value in the file; histogram column in ERDAS Imagine raster attributes table AttributeDefinitionSource: ESRI AttributeDomainValues: UnrepresentableDomain: Integer Attribute: Attribute-Label: Value Attribute-Definition: Land Cover Class Code Value. AttributeDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions AttributeDomainValues: Enumerated-Domain: EnumeratedDomainValue: 11 EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Open Water - All areas of open water, generally with less than 25% cover or vegetation or soil EnumeratedDomainValue_DefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions Enumerated-Domain: EnumeratedDomainValue: 12 Enumerateo_DomainValueDefinition: Perennial Ice/Snow - All areas characterized by a perennial cover of ice and/or snow,generally greater than 25% of total cover. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions Enumerated-Domain: EnumeratedDomain Value: 21 EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Developed, Open Space - Includes areas with a mixture of some constructed materials, but mostly vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. Impervious surfaces account for less than 20 percent of total cover. These areas most commonly include large-lot single-family housing units, parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes. EnumeratedDomain_ValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions Enumerated-Domain: EnumeratedDomainValue: 22 EnumeratedDomain_ValueDefinition: Developed, Low Intensity -Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 20-49 percent of total cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units. EnumeratedDomain_Value_DefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions Enumerated-Domain: EnumeratedDomainValue: 23 Enumerated_DomainValueDefinition: Developed, Medium Intensity - Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 50-79 percent of the total cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units. Enumerated_DomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions

FHR-COMBINED Page 139 of 231 Enumerated-Domain: EnumeratedDomainValue: 24 EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Developed, High Intensity - Includes highly developed areas where people reside or work in high numbers. Examples include apartment complexes, row houses and commercial/industrial. Impervious surfaces account for 80 tol00 percent of the total cover. EnumeratedDomainValue_DefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions Enumerated-Domain: EnumeratedDomainValue: 31 EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) - Barren areas of bedrock, desert pavement, scarps, talus, slides, volcanic material, glacial debris, sand dunes, strip mines, gravel pits and other accumulations of earthen material. Generally, vegetation accounts for less than 15% of total cover. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions Enumerated-Domain: EnumeratedDomainValue: 41 EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Deciduous Forest - Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater than 20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree species shed foliage simultaneously in response to seasonal change. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions Enumerated-Domain: EnumeratedDomain..Value: 42 EnumeratedDomain-ValueDefinition: Evergreen Forest - Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater than 20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree species maintain their leaves all year. Canopy is never without green foliage. EnumeratedDomain_.ValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions Enumerated-Domain: EnumeratedDomain_.Value: 43 EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Mixed Forest - Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater than 20% of total vegetation cover. Neither deciduous nor evergreen species are greater than 75 percent of total tree cover. EnumeratedDomainValue_DefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions Enumerated-Domain: EnumeratedDomainLValue: 51 EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Dwarf Scrub - Alaska only areas dominated by shrubs less than 20 centimeters tall with shrub canopy typically greater than 20% of total vegetation. This type is often co-associated with grasses, sedges, herbs, and non-vascular vegetation. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions Enumerated-Domain: EnumeratedDomain_.Value: 52 EnumeratedDomainValue_Definition: Shrub/Scrub - Areas dominated by shrubs; less than 5 meters tall with shrub canopy typically greater than 20% of total vegetation. This class includes true shrubs, young trees in an early successional stage or trees stunted from environmental conditions. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions Enumerated-Domain: EnumeratedDomainValue: 71 EnumeratedDomain.ValueDefinition: Grassland/Herbaceous - Areas dominated by grammanoid or herbaceous vegetation, generally greater than 80% of total vegetation. These areas are not subject to intensive management such as tilling, but can be utilized for grazing. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions Enumerated-Domain: EnumeratedDomainValue: 72 EnumeratedDomainValue_Definition: Sedge/Herbaceous - Alaska only areas dominated by sedges and forbs, generally greater than 80% of total vegetation. This type can occur with significant other grasses or other grass like plants, and includes sedge tundra, and sedge tussock tundra. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions Enumerated-Domain: EnumeratedDomainValue: 73 EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Lichens - Alaska only areas dominated by fruticose or foliose lichens generally greater than 80% of total vegetation. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions Enumerated-Domain: EnumeratedDomainValue: 74 EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Moss- Alaska only areas dominated by mosses, generally greater than 80% of total vegetation. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions Enumerated-Domain: EnumeratedDomainValue: 81 EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Pasture/Hay - Areas of grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for livestock grazing or the production of seed or hay crops, typically on a perennial cycle. Pasture/hay vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions Enumerated-Domain: EnumeratedDomainValue: 82 Enumerated-DomainValue-Definition: Cultivated Crops - Areas used for the production of annual crops, such as corn, soybeans, vegetables, tobacco, and cotton, and also perennial woody crops such as orchards and vineyards. Crop vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. This class also includes all land being actively tilled. EnumeratedDomain__Value_DefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions EnumeratedDomain: EnumeratedDomainValue: 90 EnumeratedDomainValue_.Definition: Woody Wetlands - Areas where forest or shrub land vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered with water. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions

FHR-COMBINED Page 140 of 231 Enumerated-Domain: EnumeratedDomainValue: 95 EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands - Areas where perennial herbaceous vegetation accounts for greater than 80 percent of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered with water. EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions

FHR-COMBINED Page 141 of 231 SECTION 4.0 MANNING'S COEFFICIENT REFERENCE

Mauiovi a vahie. cumq)d fvom the nrienc~es hootd mtda iur o n Raf wde as wgaed refinmun at dho bottom of this pag. Mamuing ui ha so =itks. To: LS pwmRwPe(m ahraltrw a ýIm aw U 0.030 -0.022 

                                                                                                                                                       -n 0--035                   ýý-tony Cobbles h 0416       Dier Po                                                                                                                                      0 0O40                                                                    0.03-0
                                                                                                                       -0.035                          0
                                                                      *7oody~m                                                                         9 z

9.011 -0.035 M 

                                             ý-013                                                                     -. 050
                                                                                                                       -).075
                                              ~.0M2                                                                     ).15                           0 0.010                                                                     0.012 Obusled Conafzt
                                                                                                                       ý.014

[S.dohSle (P) _ _ __.tdi _ W029 0.025 - - a&d (an-Metalshmwc--WA-f ý.025 OýWooW j .012 

                                            *F                                                                           }.013
                                                                                                                       *)00090.015 0018-0w025
                                                                                                                       - .009-0.011

FHR-COMBINED Page 143 of 231 SECTION 5.0 SLOPE CALCULATION

FHR-COMBINED Page 144 of 231 Slope Claculation for Muskingum-Cunge Routing Macinnes Fruitland William Daly Marsh Dam Mill Dam Marsh Dam Upstream Elevation (ft) 400 430 500 Downstream Elevation (ft) 280 270 270 Reach Distance Between Elevations (ft) 45400 30240 56690 Slope s (-) 0.0026 0.0053 0.0041 Slope Claculation Formulas A B C D Macinnes Marsh 1 Dam Fruitland Mill Dam William Daly Marsh Dam 1 Dam 2 Upstream Elevation (ft) 400 430 500 3 Downstream Elevation (ft) 280 270 270 4 Reach Distance Between Elevations (ft) 45400 30240 56690 5 Slope s (-) =(B2-B3)/B4 =(C2-C3)/C4 =(D2-D3)/D4

FHR-COMBINED Page 145 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant APPENDIX E: NCDC RAW DATA AND DOCUMENTATION Note: Due to the size of the data in this appendix, the information has been archived in the AREVA file management system, ColdStor. The path to the file is: 

                  \cold\GeneraI-Access\32\32-9190280-000\officiaI Page E-1

FHR-COMBINED Page 146 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant APPENDIX F: 2 YEAR WIND SPEED CALCULATION F.1 Wind Speed Calculation Step 1: Maximum Wind Speeds from each year for the period of record (Station: GHCND USW00014768) Year Max (.1 m/s) Max (m/s) 1996 192 19.2 1997 264 26.4 1998 304 30.4 1999 232 23.2 2000 201 20.1 2001 259 25.9 2002 264 26.4 2003 228 22.8 2004 215 21.5 2005 192 19.2 2006 246 24.6 2007 197 19.7 2008 268 26.8 2009 197 19.7 2010 201 20.1 2011 228 22.8 2012 232 23.2 Step 2: Uetermine the 2 year return period wind spee using the Gumbel Distribution Peak Wind Return Year Speed (m/s) Rank Gringorten Period (years) 1998 30.4 1 0.03 30.57 2008 26.8 2 0.09 10.97 1997 26.4 3 0.15 6.69 2002 26.4 4 0.21 4.81 2001 25.9 5 0.27 3.75 2006 24.6 6 0.32 3.08 1999 23.2 7 0.38 2.61 2012 23.2 8 0.44 2.26 2003 22.8 9 0.50 2.00 2011 22.8 10 0.56 1.79 2004 21.5 11 0.62 1.62 2000 20.1 12 0.68 1.48 2010 20.1 13 0.73 1.36 2007 19.7 14 0.79 1.26 2009 19.7 15 0.85 1.18 2005 19.2 16 0.91 1.10 1996 19.2 17 0.97 1.03 Period of Record (years) 17.00 Mean Peak Wind Speed (m/s) 23.06 sV-6 f = ýZ- O.5772cg Standard Deviation 3.29 a a 9_ 2.56 21.58 ff xv, = t - cxhin(- in(p)) Return Period (years) I Nonexceedance I Exceedance I Wind Speed Page F-1

FHR-COMBINED Page 147 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Probability Probability (m/s) 500 0.998 0.002 37.5 200 0.995 0.005 35.2 100 0.99 0.01 33.4 50 0.98 0.02 31.6 25 0.96 0.04 29.8 10 0.9 0.1 27.4 50 0.98 0.02 31.6 2 0.5 0.5 22.5 73.86058 ft/sec Page F-2

FHR-COMBINED Page 148 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant F.2 Wind Speed Calculation Formulas Page F-3

FHR-COMBINED Page 149 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Modeled Wind Speed versus Obsved Wind Speed 40 Observed Wind Speed 35 U Exceedance Probability U 1 -~--~--P-I U U 3U 7~ 25 4'.. 20 l 15 A 10 5 0 1 10 100 1000 Return Period (Years) Figure C-1: Modeled Wind Speed versus Observed Wind Speed Page F-4

FHR-COMBINED Page 150 of 231 A AR EVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant APPENDIX G: HEC-HMS INPUTS AND OUTPUTS Page G-1

FHR-COMBINED Page 151 of 231 DamFailure Basin: Dam Failure Last Modified Date: 13 March 2013 Last Modified Time: 13:28:34 Version: 3.5 Filepath Separator: \ Unit System: English Missing Flow To Zero: NO Enable Flow Ratio: No Allow Blending: No Compute Local Flow At Junctions: No Enable Sediment Routing: No Enable Quality Routing: No End: subbasin: Mill Creek Watershed Canvas X: 309913.96877561207 Canvas Y: 4785464.710326405 Area: 10.82 Downstream: Junction-2 Canopy: None Surface: None LossRate: SCS Percent Impervious Area: 0.0 Curve Number: 89.4 Transform: User-Specified UH Unit Hydrograph Name: Adjusted Mill Creek Baseflow: None End: Reservoir: W. D. Marsh Dam Canvas X: 310391.9083864886 Canvas Y: 4783335.486876718 Downstream: Junction-2 Route: Controlled Outflow Routing Curve: Elevation-Area Initial Elevation: 6 Elevation-Area Table: William Daly Marsh Dam Adaptive Control: On Main Tailwater Condition: None Auxiliary Tailwater Condition: None Dam Breach: Overtop Breach Dam Breach Outlet: Main Breach Top Elevation: 6 Breach Bottom Elevation: 0 Breach Bottom Width: 15 Left Side Slope: 0.5 Right side slope: 0.5 Trigger Type: Time Trigger Time: 8 January 2000, 19:10 Development Time: 0.5 Progression Type: Linear End Dam Breach: Evaporation Method: Zero Evaporation End Evaporation: End: Reservoir: F.M. Dam Canvas X: 309549.26459730905 Canvas Y: 4788290.232357093 Downstream: Junction-2 Route: Controlled Outflow Routing Curve: Elevation-Area Initial Elevation: 10 Elevation-Area Table: Fruitland Mill Dam Adaptive Control: On Main Tailwater Condition: None Auxiliary Tailwater Condition: None Page 1

FHR-COMBINED Page 152 of 231 DamFailure Dam Breach: Overtop Breach Dam Breach Outlet: Main Breach Top Elevation: 10 Breach Bottom Elevation: 0 Breach Bottom width: 25 Left Side slope: 0.5 Right Side Slope: 0.5 Trigger Type: Time Trigger Time: 8 January 2000, 19:20 Development Time: 0.5 Progression Type: Linear End Dam Breach: Evaporation Method: Zero Evaporation End Evaporation: End: Junction: Junction-2 Canvas X: 309751.4991067121 Canvas Y: 4790009.2256870195 Downstream: Junction-1 End: Subbasin: Deer Creek watershed Canvas X: 308267.7507324683 Canvas Y: 4792259.101159017 Area: 3.65 Downstream: Junction-3 Canopy: None Surface: None LossRate: SCS Percent Impervious Area: 0.0 Curve Number: 90.4 Transform: User-specified UH Unit Hydrograph Name: Adjusted Deer Creek Baseflow: None End: Reservoir: M.M. Dam Canvas X: 307729.15401268116 Canvas Y: 4793413.506595305 Downstream: Junction-3 Route: Controlled Outflow Routing Curve: Elevation-Area Initial Elevation: 5 Elevation-Area Table: Macinnes Marsh Dam Adaptive Control: On Main Tailwater Condition: None Auxiliary Tailwater Condition: None Dam Breach: Overtop Breach Dam Breach Outlet: Main Breach Top Elevation: 5 Breach Bottom Elevation: 0 Breach Bottom width: 12.5 Left side Slope: 0.5 Right side slope: 0.5 Trigger Type: Time Trigger Time: 8 January 2000, 18:20 Development Time: 0.5 Progression Type: Linear End Dam Breach: Evaporation Method: Zero Evaporation End Evaporation: End: Junction: Junction-3 Canvas X: 309105.82537261426 Canvas Y: 4793216.900747756 Downstream: Junction-i End: Page 2

FHR-COMBINED Page 153 of 231 DamFailure Junction: Junction-1

Description:

Combination of Deer Creek and Mill Creek Flows Canvas X: 312413.7098393652 Canvas Y: 4794305.967682988 End: Basin schematic Properties: Last View N: 4795132.499925232 Last View S: 4779897.500216865 Last View W: 305301.5002035737 Last View E: 313628.50023320835 Maximum view N: 4795132.499925232 Maximum view S: 4779897.500216865 Maximum View W: 305301.5002035737 Maximum View E: 313628.50023320835 Extent Method: Elements Maps Buffer: 10 Draw Icons: Yes Draw Icon Labels: Yes Draw Map Objects: No Draw Gridlines: No Draw Flow Direction: No Fix Element Locations: No Fix Hydrologic order: No Map: hec.map.aishape.AiShapeMap Map File Name: ):\170,000-179,999\171356\171356-00.DML\Work Files\GIS\Data\Watersheds\Deer Creek watershed\GlobalwatershedNY.shp Minimum Scale: -2147483648 Maximum scale: 2147483647 Map shown: Yes Map: hec.map.aishape.AiShapeMap Map File Name: J:\170,000-179,999\171356\171356-00.DML\Work Files\GIS\Data\watersheds\Mill Creek watershed2.shp Minimum scale: -2147483648 Maximum Scale: 2147483647 Map Shown: Yes End: Page 3

FHR-COMBINED Page 154 of 231 Fruitland Mill Dam Elevation-Area Function Paired Data I.T?_*.~*: Name: Fruitland Ki- Dam Desciption: I I Data Source: . .. . .- _T,. 

                                                        ]

Units:r __ _A Elevalaon t Area (AC) 0.0 0.0 8.0 3.5 10.0 6.0 7" 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1g0 Elevation (F'r)

FHR-COMBINED Page 155 of 231 Macinnes Marsh Dam Elevation-Area Function k, Paired Data jTa Graph Name: Madimes Marsh Dam Descripltion: J-H Data Source: [Manual.ntry-Units: FT:ACP IPaired Data Table Graph [ 20-18_ 16-- 14-- 12-- a) 

 ýz   8-0      0.5     1   1.5    2 2.5 3      3.5 4 4.5  5 Elevation (FT)

FHR-COMBINED Page 156 of 231 William Daly Marsh Dam Elevation-Area Function L*_ Paired Data Name: Widiam ~aIV Marsh Dam

Description:

F7I kL% ird Data =Table Graph [ 5. 4-a.) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Elevation (FT)

FHR-COMBINED Page 157 of 231 ftett G""4 PW 5k Asion Runi: PW~ Dan Breach Statol'Rux: 01.lan2000, 00:0 Basin Model. Dam f1fie End of Run: 133ai2D00, DOW0 Memlgc Model: 72hrFW Canpute That: 2GIar2013, 11:43:54 Control Specificatons: 12-day 9XMw SMiW~r 7Aements Mokxn Units #I ()AC-FT 140kolo* I *,ýag Arem IPeakD~dwmgej TOo~e 1konine Iein0" Z(C I I (1 Mill Creek Watershed 10.82 20528.7 083an2000, 19:40 4L36 W. D.Marsh Dam 0.00 483.3 083an2000, 19:50 Read'-3 0.00 1L4 09Ja2000, 00:10 F.M. Dam 0.00 1910.4 083a2000, 19:50 Reach-2 0.00 490.8 083an2000, 21:00 Ainction-2 10.82 20528.7 083an2000, 19:40 41.41 Deer Creek Watershed 3.65 8138.2 08Jan2000, 18:50 41.48 M.M. Dam 0.00 425.1 083an2000, 19:00 Reach-i 0.00 216.2 063an2000, 20:20 

 ,ruction-3                 3.65           8138.2     083an2000, 18:50            41.64 Junction-1                   14.47         28460.4     08Jan2000, 19:20            41.47

FHR-COMBINED Page 158 of 231 Jm*ondpTRwhtrbfaJnUDvhred" kum RO A O&LVMWjb ROWPAFRDM &&M~ OM MTMVIRSf Ruinkwg RwM BWBwmtFA PmGuk~m Rim:P1 DA &WAC BemvtREAC Rintjflo

FHR-COMBINED Page 159 of 231 JwftokWRe"*f&ziPUDan&ud -K ObtK WtCIONibw AFVtM.ROW 

          &fHfwWOA Ratk~b

FHR-COMBINED Page 160 of 231 1/2 PMF & 25 Year Flood Basin File BasinLArcIIINLA.basin Basin: Basin 1-ArcII-INLA Last Modified Date: 13 September 2012 Last Modified Time: 13:07:38 version: 3.5 Filepath Separator: \ unit System: English Missing Flow To Zero: No Enable Flow Ratio: NO Allow Blending: No Compute Local Flow At Junctions: No Enable sediment Routing: No Enable Quality Routing: NO End: subbasin: Mill creek watershed canvas x: 309397.98409064166 Canvas Y: 4788810.645207537 Area: 10.82 Downstream: Junction-1 Canopy: None surface: None LossRate: SCS Percent Impervious Area: 0.0 curve Number: 89.4 Transform: user-Specified UH unit Hydrograph Name: Adjusted Mill Creek Baseflow: None End: Subbasin: Deer Creek watershed Canvas X: 308370.4034651506 canvas Y: 4792943.30641875 Area: 3.65 Downstream: Junction-1 Canopy: None Surface: None LossRate: SCS Percent Impervious Area: 0.0 curve Number: 90.4 Transform: user-Specified UH unit Hydrograph Name: Adjusted Deer Creek Baseflow: None End: Junction: Junction-1

Description:

combination of Deer Creek and Mill creek Flows Canvas X: 312413.7098393652 Canvas Y: 4794305.967682988 End: Basin schematic Properties: Page 1

FHR-COMBINED Page 161 of 231 1/2 PMF & 25 Year Flood Basin File Basin.lArcIIlNLA.basin Last view N: 4795132.499925232 Last view S: 4779897.500216865 Last view W: 305301.5002035737 Last view E: 313628.50023320835 Maximum View N: 4795132.499925232 Maximum View S: 4779897.500216865 Maximum view w: 305301.5002035737 Maximum View E: 313628.50023320835 Extent Method: Elements Maps Buffer: 10 Draw Icons: Yes Draw Icon Labels: Yes Draw Map objects: No Draw Gridlines: No Draw Flow Direction: No Fix Element Locations: No Fix Hydrologic order: No map: hec.map.aishape.AiShapeMap Map File Name: J:\170,000-179,999\171356\171356-OO.DML\Work Files\GIS\Data\Watersheds\Deer creek watershed\GlobalwatershedNY.shp Minimum Scale: -2147483648 Maximum Scale: 2147483647 Map Shown: Yes Map: hec.map.aishape.AiShapeMap Map File Name: J:\170,000-179,999\171356\171356-00.DML\Work Files\GIS\Data\watersheds\Mill creek watershed2.shp Minimum Scale: -2147483648 Maximum Scale: 2147483647 Map Shown: Yes End: Page 2

FHR-COMBINED Page 162 of 231 Project: GINNA PMF Simulation Run: 1/2 PMF Start of Run: 01Jan2000, 00:00 Basin Model: Basin 1-ArcllNLA End of Run: 13Jan2000, 00:00 Meteorologic Model: 72hrPMP Compute Time: 28Mar2013, 11:34:06 Control Specifications: 12-day Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak DischargeTime of Peak Volume Element (M12) (CFS) (IN) Mill Creek Watershed 10.82 10264.3 08Jan2000, 19:40 20.68 Deer Creek Watershe 3.65 4069.1 08Jan2000, 18:50 20.74 Junction-1 14.47 14230.2 08Jan2000, 19:20 20.69

FHR-COMBINED Page 163 of 231 Ih~n14 rok teiVsfor Rm niI2PW - Ruz:lfl MFamMIICREKYATERMWfouS~m~ - ivutWIREWA1ERM E~ebA Rm:172 PF~f eqm~Lms - Rwrlfl PM Buns .CREES(VATEWB RsM WD

FHR-COMBINED Page 164 of 231 Wb* Teer Creek W*W b* for Pkm '10 PW HM,-~ I VoV 0.5t 1.0t a. 0 1.5V-2lo M5 !U - Rtnl72 IFS.. tMCERCEKWMMMRSREDR$*tru4 -Run:172PFW&oBEAUtE8 WET8RM MRE WRoeut Lsmnls - RK172 rVEFuuutDEERcRMEMOM M*itft buLf I72PkFtDEER MEKYJSE O RnitBusb

FHR-COMBINED Page 165 of 231 Ar&'kd*I'R%*trPbVPW 0 i. - Riinl?2FiF BintA)JMlN. Ruittdm ---Rzl2FWNW~miMHVATMGf~fmt&d FaI2PW ......inTEROW DRUOMWO

FHR-COMBINED Page 166 of 231 Project: GINNA PMF Simulation Run: 25 Year Storm Start of Run: 01Jan2000, 00:00 Basin Model: Basin 1-ArclIINLA End of Run: 04Jan2000, 00:00 Meteorologic Model: 25-YR Compute Time: OlApr2013,16:41:52 Control Specifications: 3-day Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharc Time of Peak Volume Element (M12) (CFS) (IN) Mill Creek Watershed 10.82 2137.2 O0Jan2000, 17:00 2.66 Deer Creek WatersheV3.65 894.6 OlJan2000, 16:00 2.76 Junction-I 14.47 2995.0 01Jan2000, 16:30 2.69

FHR-COMBINED Page 167 of 231 Wb* CWWaS~e RA orP gnYarS C 0. 129 too 1200 13J2D ouumI ia - Rw2YefhuhnsimlM GREEK YMTRflDRutt*Wm - Rm2YEMSTOrM&=tVK= ERSHED *Lws - W YOSNft B=ML MBEEWATER Rafft -- kOWSTOFiMtEWMUQWMMMWWW~m

FHR-COMBINED Page 168 of 231 SAbWCAWaWeRotfo Rn tbnU 4Yo GO~ U 0.1 0.1" I C" 0.3t I. 0 0.41-0.51 0.6" IL 12:0 O0z 12 1~220 o1JaQDm 02Ju -bOReff 5Yw~M&WDR~KTWH ED Restciad W YER MW~wTOEW~ERMHuMM WA)MLou - Rw2YWWSM BwERMRWT9W~ED Oinkw~ RWr2YEAR $TQORVWREEftDWMTMbtsb

FHR-COMBINED Page 169 of 231 Jkidm 'kinpon.1' ~for Rm5YefcSW 1100 Giu200 mm~J -b RnYw sm &tMC1ON. Rmtftbw --- WYWSWM&MMQWsTmWDj&w YwaNm .W BmnutiOW VATM RWAk~ib

FHR-COMBINED Page 170 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant APPENDIX H: FLO-2D INPUTS/OUTPUTS AND ADDITIONAL FLO-2D RESULTS FOR BOUNDING ALTERNATIVE Page H-1

FHR-COMBINED Page 171 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant FLO-2D INPUTS AND OUTPUTS Note: Due to the size of the data in this appendix, the information has been archived in the AREVA file management system, ColdStor. The path to the file is: 

                  \cold\General-Access\32\32-9190280-000\official Page H-2

FHR-COMBINED Page 172 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant ADDITIONAL FLO-2D RESULTS Page H-3

A~la~~Ifw 73sf F.HRMOMM Page 174of231 35 70 140

FIR-COMBINED Page 175of 231 J*61*! A 

                                  +

F.-o0MBNED Pogp176 of231 Logeno at Cd cWoru, 

   %Ad-    frn
                                               +1

FHR-COMBINED Page 177 of 231 Element: (4364) - North of Turbine Building 258.50 T - 258.00 I 

            -    Flood Elevation at North of Turbine Building 257.50       -    Design Basis Flood Level                              -

257.00 I - - j - 256.50 - , I I iii 255.00 IM6i 254.50 1 - - 254.00 * ¶ 253.50 i .. L i - 010 20 30 40 so 60 Time (hours)

FHR-COMBINED Page 178 of 231 Element: (3840) - South of Screen House 258.50 SI I I I - 

                   -1Flood     Elevation at South of Screen House                                        i
              --      s*gn Basis Flood Level                                       -                            -

258.00 257.50 257.00 -a U, 256.50 

                                                                                                       -I-I  256.00 255.50 u  255.00         -      -  -    -      - -      -       -   -    -      -      -       -     -    -       -   -   -    -                       _

254.50 

                             -      -     -         -                        -                        iI 254.00 253.50 253.00 0.00                        10.00                      20.00                       30.00                     40.00             50.00  60.00 Time (hours)

FHR-COMBINED Page 179 of 231 Element: (4014) - North of Diesel Generator Building 259.00 - I It--'- - - Flood Elevation at North of Diesel Generator Building 

                 -  Design Basis Flood Level 258.00       ----
          -                            I 257.00{

256.00 -- 255.00 - I -F-* - 254.00 I 253.00 1 . . 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (hours)

FHR-COMBINED Page 180 of 231 Element: (6193) - East of Reactor Containment 273.00 I I I I I III I it I - I 

              -_Flood   Elevation at East of Reactor Containment
           -IDesign      Basis Flood Level 272.50 272.00 271.50

.2 IL 271.00 t - - -- - -- 270.50 

                                 -.-                    ----                           I-     -

270.00 269.50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (hours)

FHR-COMBINED Page 181 of 231 Element: (5286) - All-Volatile-Treatment Building 272.o00 Flood Elevation at All-Volatile-Treatment Building 

                -   Design Basis Flood Level                                              I 271.80                                                                                                    -

271.60 -J-I r-271.00 zt -- 270.40 i 270.80 - - - - r ~ r 1 270.60 ---- 0 10 20 30 40 so 60 Time (hours)

FHR-COMBINED Page 182 of 231 Element: (6651) - East of Auxiliary Building 274.00 

                    -.-                           II                                            1I-273.50     -   Flood Elevation at  East of Auxiliary  Building
         -Design        Basis Flood Level 273.00 272.50                                       I                 I U1 272.00 271.50 271.00 I I '    i.
                  -       -K--

270.50 270.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (hours)

FHR-COMBINED Page 183 of 231 Element: (5740) - East of Control Building 272.50 272.00 271.50

  • 271.00 270.50 270.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (hours)

FHR-COMBINED Page 184 of 231 Element: (7105) - Proposed Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building 274.00 Annex ý I ý . . ý I . I I ý . I *

  • I I P * *
  • I I I

P 4 P 4 P

  • P 4 P 4 P 4 P ! P 273.50
             --       Flood Elevation at Proposed Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building Annex
                /Design             Basis Flood Level 273.00                                                                        I                                                                   -

272.50 I

  • 272.00 w 271.50
                                                                                               --- *b-~-    -                    -   -           -

271.00 270.50 II 

                        -{--~-----             -   ------      i--    -

ti~i - 

                                                                                                                      -]-~.-         ---------

I I- - - 270.00 

                                              -    -~-+-~-            -     -    -

269.50 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (hours)

FHR-COMBINED Page 185 of 231 Element: (6879) - West of Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building 273.50 - _ _ 273.00 - - 

              -Flood        Elevation at West of Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building
              -225
                -- Design Basis Flood Level 272.50   -----                                                                                         - -

272.00 - - 271.50 _ 270.50 270.00 W -L----------- -- 269.50 - - - I j 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (hours)

FHR-COMBINED Page 186 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant APPENDIX I: CEDAS OUTPUTS Page I-1

FHR-COMBINED Page 187 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 1.1 Wind Wave Prediction Project: Ginma Wind Wave Run Up Group: Ginna Run Up Calculion Case: Wave Prediction Deer Creek - south Windspeed AdAuMent and Wave Growth El of Obeervd Wnd (Zets) 3M lkduW DeepopsWider-Oboed W-ndSpetd (U ) r Ak Se Temp. DO. (d -V7.00 IF Our o Oberved Wiod (Dm0 20 7vM DOr dF Fna WMnd (Duwf) 0MM LAt of Obeervaeo (LAl) 4325 WMd Feld Lemk (F) Eq Mindra Wind Sed( Aquaesd VWinmdspeed (s Watve He fo Wave Pealod WAve Growth: Dee" Page 1-2

FHR-COMBINED Page 188 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nudear Power Plant 1.2 Wave Runup Prediction Project: Ginna Wind Wave Run Up Group: Gna Run Up Cak*uation Case: Wave Runup Deer Creek - south Wave Fluup and Overtopping on kIpenreable Structures Wane t~~: kreguiar Sic"e twoe: Smooth Flt estmale: Ruime Breammn crlelsd: 0.780 hiciwde wane hIsMN 0.740dft Peak wao period (: 1210 0 COTAN of nmhom slope (cot ph): 40.000 WMier depthi at sitruclre Ine (do): 5200 It__ OTANooabrUc. M .op .(cot.: o0 V Stbucte height above toe (hs):l 0o0.o0 n I Page 1-3

FHR-COMBINED Page 189 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant APPENDIX J: SOFTWARE VERIFICATION SECTION 1.0 SOFTWARE CERTIFICATION SECTION 2.0 POST CALCULATION VALIDATION RESULTS Page J-1

FHR-COMBINED Page 190 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant SECTION 1.0: SOFTWARE CERTIFICATION

FHR-COMBINED Page 191 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant CEDAS VERSION 4.03 Program Capability / Intended Use The CEDAS v.4.03 computer program was originally developed by the Army Corp of Engineers to accompany the Coastal Engineering Manual. CEDAS v.4.03 is a comprehensive collection of coastal engineering software. Veri-Tech, Inc. purchased the software suite and enhanced the existing models with windows-based interface with graphics. The module of CEDAS used for the calculations of wave prediction, setup, and runup at Ginna is ACES. ACES is an interactive computer based design and analysis system in the field of coastal engineering containing six functional areas. These functional areas include wave prediction, wave theory, wave transformation, structural design, wave runup, and littoral processes. Purpose The purpose of this Computer Program Certification is to document that CEDAS v.4.03 is an acceptable computer software program for its intended use in calculating wave prediction, setup, and runup for Flood Hazard Re-evaluation Project sites, in accordance with AREVA's Controlled Document No.0402-01 (Rev.43, dated September 2012). The certification methodology, documentation and results of CEDAS v.4.03 are presented below. Methodology To perform the certification of wave prediction and runup, a computer analysis was performed using CEDAS v.4.03 for benchmark calculations presented in the Automated Coastal Engineering System User's Guide (Reference 1). The output wave predictions and wave runup of the CEDAS v.4.03 computer analysis are then compared to the results of the benchmark CEDAS v.4.03 calculations run on a GZA workstation. For wave setup, CEDAS v.4.03 results were compared to those results from an example calculation as part of the USACE Coastal Engineering Manual Chapter 4, Part II (Reference 3). This certification methodology is consistent with AREVA Controlled Document Nos.0402-01 (Rev.43, dated September 2012) and 0902-30 (Rev.6, dated September 2012). Upon achieving a good agreement between the calculated results and the benchmark calculation, the accuracy of the software is verified and validated. Inputs The example calculation selected for the software certification is consistent with the intended use for Flood Hazard Re-evaluation Projects. Inputs to CEDAS v.4.03 for calculating wave prediction are as follows:

FHR-COMBINED Page 192 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Parameter Description GZA ACES User's Guide Elevation of observed wind speed 60 ft 60 ft Observed Wind Speed 30 knots 30 knots Air-sea temperature difference -9 deg F (equivalent) -5 deg C Duration of observed wind speed 1 hr 1 hr Duration of final wind speed 3 hr 3 hr Latitude of wind observation 45 deg 45 deg Wind Observation type Overwater (ship) Overwater (ship) Wind Fetch Option Open Water Open Water Open water wave growth equation Deep Deep Length of wind fetch 60 mi 60 mi The example calculation selected for the software certification is consistent with the intended use for Flood Hazard Re-evaluation Projects. Inputs to CEDAS v.4.03 for calculating wave runup are as follows: Parameter Description GZA ACES User's Guide Incident wave height 7.5 feet 7.5 feet Wave period 10 seconds 10 seconds Cotan of nearshore slope 100 100 Water depth at structure toe 12.5 feet 12.5 feet Cotan of structure slope 3 3 Structure'height above toe 20 feet 20 feet Empirical coefficient (alpha) 0.076463 0.076463 Empirical coefficient (QO') 0.025 0.025 Onshore wind velocity 59.073 ft/sec (equivalent) 35 knots The example calculation selected for the software certification is consistent with the intended use for Flood Hazard Re-evaluation Projects. Inputs to CEDAS v.4.03 for calculating wave setup are as follows: Parameter Description GZA USACE CEM Chapter 4 Part II Beach slope 0.01 0.01 Deep water wave height 2 feet 2 feet Period 10 seconds 10 seconds Results Results by CEDAS-ACES The inputs and outputs to CEDAS ACES v.4.03 are shown in Figures 1 and 2. The calculated predicted wave height and period are 4.74 feet and 4.65 seconds. The calculated wave runup is 21.366 feet, respectively.

FHR-COMBINED Page 193 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Figure 1: Wave Prediction Calculator Screen Project: Grand Gulf Wind Wave Run Up Group: Verification and Validation Case: Wave Prediction Verification Windspeed Adjustment and Wave Growth Br- crib da 0.7M0 E of Observed wind (Zob) I-I-60.00 feet Overwater (ship) Deep openwater Observed Wind Speed (Uobs) 30.00 knots Air Sea Temp. Diff. (dT) -9.00 deg F Dur of Observed WAnd (DurO) 1.00 hours Dur of Final Wind (DurF) 3.00 hours Lat. of Observation (LAT) 45.00 dog Results Wind Fetch Length (F) Eq Neutral Wind Speed (U.) Adjused Wind Speed (Ua) Wave Height (Hmo) Wave Period (Tp) Wave Growth: Deep Wave Growth: Deep

FHR-COMBINED Page 194 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Figure 2: Wave Runup Calculator Screen Project Grand Gulf Wind Wave Run Up Group: Vedfwcion &VAdalon Case: Smooth Slope Runup Wave Runup and Overtopping on Impermeable Structures Wave type: Irregular Slope type: Smooth Rate estimate: Runup and Overtopping Breaking criteria: 0.710 ncMdt sMg ant Mwv M(M): 7.500 tRunu for inicnt ve (R):p Peak wave pedod (T): 1.000 Onshoe dnd velocty (U):I N.O$73fthwc COTAN of narshore slope (cot pld):l 0.000 DI wro significat ve Water deth at tcture toe (dsl:l 12.SO0ft Readtve heigh (d COTAN of structure slope (cot thet): &0"o Wave st5ee0pns lo/T): StMM h above toe (hs): M0."ofOep coef(AIw o-IOad I I* I 

                                                                            ¶ OveoppiNg COqQ'O:l 0.025j Ovropn         ae IQ):

_________________ JI_________ -- - Figure 3: Setup Calculator Screen

FHR-COMBINED Page 195 of 231 A E Fllood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Project Grand Gulf Wind Wave Run Up Group: Verflcation & Valldion Case: Setup Verification Wave Setup Across Surf Zone A-Mra4on of wraft to): 9ANOM nLsec em- M ly0 T 10.000000 o.01oooo 1immO KR H (uwreac-4d) n b (Sl- RwdO, zoo dfMutt s-tx swfzý 

                                            -sum Wawii MWOMM wimi.

Wide

FHR-COMBINED Page 196 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Results from the ACES User's Guide Tables 1 and 2 show the example inputs and outputs to the CEDAS v.4.03 for wave prediction and wave runup. Table 1: Wave Prediction inputs/outputs example from Reference I ACES User's Guide Wave Prediction Example 2 - Shipboard Wind Observation - Open-Water Fetch - Deepwater Wave Equations Input Main Input Screen item Symbol YaJiiM initi Elevation of observed wind Zob 60 ft Observed wind speed Uob. 30 knots Air-sea temperature difference AT -5 deg C Duration of observed wind DUR I hr Duration of final wind DUR 3 hr Latitude of wind observation LAT 45 deg Wind Observation Type -> Overwater (ship) Wind Fetch Option -> Open Water Open-Water Wave Growth Equations Requestor Open-Water Wave Growth Equation -> Deep Length of wind fetch F 60 mi Output hItm Symbol Value Maim Equivalent neutral wind speed U. 27.71 knots Adjusted wind speed Us 36.18 knots Wave height H,. 4.74 ft Peak wave period Tp 4.65 sec Wave Growth: Deepwater Duration- limited 1-1-18 Windspeed Adjustment and Wave Growth

FHR-COMBINED Page 197 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Table 2: Wave Runup inputs/outputs example from Reference I ACES User's Guide Wave Runup, Tranmission. and Overtopping Example 8 - Irregular Wave - Smooth Slope Runup and Overtopping Input litem Value VnJM Incident wave height H, 7.50 ft Wave period T 10.00 sec Cotan of nearshore slope cot 100.00 Water depth at structure toe d, 12.50 ft Cotan of structure slope cot 0 3.00 Structure height above toe h, 20.00 ft OvertoppD item Empirical coefficient a 0.076463 (computed) Empirical coefficient Q.0 0.025 Onshore wind velocity U 35.000 kn Output Symbol Y1111M ulkill Deep water Wave height 6.386 ft Relative height 1.957 2 Wave steepness H.o/gT' 0.001985 Runup 21.366 ft 3 Overtopping rate ft /s-ft Q 2.728 5-2t-14 Wave Runup and Overtopping on lmpmnnmable Structuree

FHR-COMBINED Page 198 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Results from the USACE Coastal Engineering Manual Figure 4: Results from the USACE Coastal Engineering Manual EM-1110-2-1100 Part II (Change 1) 31 July 2003 EXAMPLE PROBLEM 11-4-2 FIND: Setup across the surf zone. GIVEN: A plane beach having a I on 100 slope, and normally incident waves with decpwatcr height of 2 m and period of 10sec (see Example Problem 1]-4-1). SOLUTION: The Incipient breaker height and depth were determined in Example Problem 11-4-I as 2.7 m and 3.2 m, respectively. The breaker index is 0.84, based on Equation 11-4-5. Setdown at the breaker point is determined from Equation 11-4-21. At breaking, Equation 11-4-21 simplifies t1 2 

                     = - 1/16 ,b d., (sinh 2&d/L 2/I.., and ll, = y,d6), thus 2
                                                             =-1/16 (0.84) (3.2) =-0.14 m Setup at the still-water shoreline is determined from Equation 114-24 i, - -0.14+ (3.2 + 0.14) + 1/(1 + 8/(3 (.84))) = 0.56 m The gradient in the setup is determined from Equation 11-4-23 as di/dx = I/(I + 8/(3 (0.84)Y)XI/100) = 0.0021 and from Equation 11-4-25, Ax = (0.56)/(1/100 - 0.0021) = 70.9    m, and F_ = 0.56 + 0.0021(64.6) - 0.65 m For the simplified case of a plane beach with the assumption of linear wave height decay, the gradient in the setup is constant through the surf zone. Setup may be calculated anywhere in the surf zone from the relation r"
                 = ;-F+ (di/dx)(xb - x), where x. is the surf zone width and x = 0 at the shoreline (x is positive offshore).

x.m E h.m I q. m 334 3.3 -0.14 167 1.7 0.21 0 0.0 0.56 

                                                      -71                 -0.7                0.71 Setdown at breaking is -0.14 m, net setup at the sfill-water shoreline is 0.56 m, the gradient in the setup is 0.0021 m/m, the mean shoreline is located 71 m shoreward ofthe still-water shoreline, and maximum setup is 0.71 in (Figure 11-4-10).
                                                                                                               ,=.71m Figure 11-4-10. Example problem 11-4-2 11-4-16                                                                                                    Surf Zone Hydrodynamic

FHR-COMBINED Page 199 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Comparison of Results The comparison between CEDAS-ACES v.4.03 and benchmark calculations from Reference 1 are presented in Table 3 below. Table 3: Summary of Calculated Results Calculation Output CEDAS USACE ACES User's Percent v.4.03 CEM Ch.4 Manual Difference Part II benchmark Wave Wave Height 4.74 ft - 4.74 ft 0.0% Prediction Wave Period 4.65 sec - 4.65 sec 0.0% Wave Runup Runup 21.366 ft - 21.366 ft 0.0% Wave Setup Max setup .66 m .65 m -_1.5% The results indicate no difference of the computed runup and wave prediction by CEDAS-ACES from the benchmark calculation results in Reference 1. Results for wave setup indicated a minor (less than 2%) error compared to the example calculation provided in Reference 3. The percent difference is insignificant and believed to be a result of:

1. More input parameters were used by the software than the hand calculation using Reference 3.
2. Inherent variability in the hand calculation (i.e. rounding error).

Therefore, CEDAS v.4.03 is determined to be acceptably accurate for its intended use for wave prediction, setup, and runup at GGNS. CEDAS-ACES User's Manual I Documentation The CEDAS-ACES User's Guide is filed with the project records. The source code is proprietary and not readily available or distributed by the software vendor. Known Deficiencies All known deficiencies of the software have been reviewed and have no effect on the accuracy of the data created by this software. By monitoring the software provider's website, notifications of errors (bugs) and updates are evaluated for significance and resolved. Program Access/Security This example calculation, selected for the software certification, is consistent with the intended software application Flood Hazard Re-evaluation projects. The computer software certification analysis was performed on the GZA workstation used for the calculation:

  • System Name: Microsoft Windows 07
   "   Version:                        2002, Service Pack 3
   "   Computer Name:                  01-BONAV
  • Processor Intel Corem2 Duo CPU
  • Memory: 2.96 GB of RAM

FHR-COMBINED Page 200 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant The software is maintained on designated computers as an executable file to prevent unauthorized editing. Access to each computer is password protected to restrict access and deletion. Passwords are selected by the employee. The GZA headquarters in Norwood, Massachusetts maintains the computer software on the following designated computers. Computer Name Program Name 01-wangbin CEDAS v.4.03 REFERENCES

1. "Automated Coastal Engineering System Users Guide", Coastal Engineering Research Center, Leenknecht, David; Szuwalski, Andre, Version 1.07, September 1992.
2. "Automated Coastal Engineering System Technical Reference", Coastal Engineerng Research Center, Leenknecht, David; Szuwalski, Andre, Version 1.07, September 1992.
3. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE). Coastal Engineering Manual, Report Number EM 1110-2-1100 Part II Chapter 4 Surf Zone Hydrodynamics, U.S. ACE Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory - Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station -

Vicksburg, Mississippi, August 2008.

FHR-COMBINED Page 201 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant USACE HEC-HMS VERSION 3.5 AND FLO-D2 VERSION 2012.02 Note: Due to the size of the data in this appendix, the information has been archived in the AREVA file management system, ColdStor. The path to the file is: IcolIdGeneraI-Accessl32132-91 9O28O-OOO1officiaI

FHR-COMBINED Page 202 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant SECTION 2.0: POST-CALCULATION VALIDATION RESULTS HEC-HMS v3.5 was tested on the computer used for this document by Kenneth Hunu on March 25, 2013. The inputs for the installation test were the same as those used in the software verification reports (Reference 25). The results of the installation test were acceptable.

FHR-COMBINED Page 203 of 231 Project: Post-Project-Verification Simulation Run: Run 1 Subbasin: Subbasin-1 Start of Run: 24Jan2012, 00:00 Basin Model: Basin 1 End of Run: 25Jan2012, 00:00 Meteorologic Model: Met 1 Compute Time: 25Jan2013, 09:00:11 Control Specifications: Control 1 Volume Units: IN Computed Results Peak Discharge: 2317.5 (CFS) Date/Time of Peak Discharge: 24Jan2012, 06:20 Total Precipitation 5.00 (IN) Total Direct Runoff: 3.37 (IN) Total Loss: 1.63 (IN) Total Baseflow: 0.00 (IN) Total Excess: 3.37 (IN) Discharge : 3.37 (IN)

FHR-COMBINED Page 204 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant FLO-2D Pro Version 2012.02 was tested on the computer used for this document by Kenneth Hunu on April 4, 2013. The inputs for the installation test were the same as those used in the software verification reports (Reference 24). The results of the installation test were acceptable.

FHR-COMBINED Page 205 of 231 BASE (C) COPYRIGHT 1989, 1993, 2004 J. S. OBRIEN THIS FLO-2D COMPUTER SOFTWARE PROGRAM IS PROTECTED BY U. S. COPYRIGHT LAW. UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION, SALES OR OTHER USE FOR PROFIT IS PROHIBITED (17 USC 506). INFLOW HYDROGRAPH AT NODE 1 HOUR CFS 0.00 0. 0.50 2000. 2.00 2000. INFLOW HYDROGRAPH AT NODE 2 HOUR CFS 0.00 0. 0.50 2000. 2.00 2000. INFLOW HYDROGRAPH AT NODE 3 HOUR CFS 0.00 0. 0.50 2000. 2.00 2000. INFLOW HYDROGRAPH AT NODE 4 HOUR CFS 0.00 0. 0.50 2000. 2.00 2000. THIS OUTPUT FILE WAS CREATED ON: 4/ 4/2013 AT: 15: 6:25 Pro Model - Build No. 12.09.01 MODEL TIME = 0.10 HOURS TOTAL TIMESTEP NUMBER = 536. NODE BED ELEV. DEPTH Q-OUT MAX. VEL. AVE. VEL. 2 NO DISCHARGE AT THE SPECIFIED CROSS SECTIONS

  • AT THIS TIMESTEP CROSS SECTION # 1 77 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 79 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CROSS SECTION # 1
  • NO DISCHARGE
  • CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 0.00 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 0.00 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 0.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 0.00 FT CROSS SECTION # 2 157 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 158 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 159 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 160 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CROSS SECTION # 2
  • NO DISCHARGE
  • CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 0.00 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 0.00 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 0.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 0.00 FT CROSS SECTION # 3 233 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 234 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 235 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 236 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CROSS SECTION # 3
  • NO DISCHARGE
  • Page 1

FHR-COMBINED Page 206 of 231 BASE CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 0.00 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 0.00 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 0.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 0.00 FT MIN. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.36 MAX. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 30.00 MEAN TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.67 MODEL TIME = 0.20 HOURS TOTAL TIMESTEP NUMBER = 1383. NODE BED ELEV. DEPTH Q-OUT MAX. VEL. AVE. VEL. CROSS SECTION # 1 77 6.00 3.22 -626.86 3.91 -3.34 78 6.00 3.22 -626.89 3.92 -3.15 79 6.00 3.22 -625.84 3.91 -3.14 80 6.00 3.22 -625.19 3.92 -3.33 CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 2504.79 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 3.89 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 3.22 FT CROSS SECTION # 2 157 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 158 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 159 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 160 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CROSS SECTION # 2

  • NO DISCHARGE
  • CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 0.00 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 0.00 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 0.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 0.00 FT CROSS SECTION # 3 233 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 234 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 235 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 236 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CROSS SECTION # 3
  • NO DISCHARGE
  • CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 0.00 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 0.00 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 0.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 0.00 FT MIN. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.35 MAX. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.51 MEAN TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.43 MODEL TIME = 0.30 HOURS TOTAL TIMES7TEP NUMBER = 2542.

NODE BED ELEV. DEPTH Q-OUT MAX. VEL. AVE. VEL. CROSS SECTION # 1 77 6.00 4.47 -1051.95 4.72 -4.03 78 6.00 4.47 -1052.07 4.72 -3.80 79 6.00 4.47 -1051.42 4.73 -3.80 80 6.00 4.47 -1047.25 4.72 -4.00 CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 4202.68 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 4.70 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 4.47 FT CROSS SECTION # 2 157 3.00 3.95 -877.72 4.46 -3.81 158 3.00 3.95 -877.73 4.46 -3.59 Page 2

FHR-COMBINED Page 207 of 231 BASE 159 3.00 3.95 -877.39 4.47 -3.59 160 3.00 3.95 -875.65 4.47 -3.80 CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 3508.49 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 4.44 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 3.95 FT CROSS SECTION # 3 233 0.15 3.34 -603.73 3.62 -3.09 234 0.15 3.34 -603.58 3.62 -2.91 235 0.15 3.34 -602.47 3.61 -2.91 236 0.15 3.34 -604.40 3.63 -3.09 CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 2414.17 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 3.62 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 3.34 FT MIN. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.05 MAX. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.42 MEAN TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.31 MODEL TIME = 0.40 HOURS TOTAL TIMESTEP NUMBER = 3068. NODE BED ELEV. DEPTH Q-OUT MAX. VEL. AVE. VEL. CROSS SECTION # 1 77 6.00 5.52 -1471.17 S.34 -4.56 78 6.00 5.52 -1471.06 5.34 -4.30 79 6.00 5.52 -1471.01 5.34 -4.29 80 6.00 5.52 -1470.83 5.34 -4.56 CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 5884.06 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.33 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 5.52 FT CROSS SECTION # 2 157 3.00 5.19 -1328.7S 5.13 -4.38 158 3.00 5.19 -1328.25 5.13 -4.13 159 3.00 5.19 -1328.11 5.13 -4.13 160 3.00 5.19 -1328.07 5.13 -4.38 CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 5313.18 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.12 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 5.19 FT CROSS SECTION # 3 233 0.15 4.97 -1173.76 4.73 -4.04 234 0.15 4.97 -1174.87 4.73 -3.81 235 0.15 4.97 -1173.07 4.72 -3.80 236 0.15 4.97 -1174.78 4.73 -4.04 CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 4696.48 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 4.73 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 4.97 FT MIN. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.42 MAX. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.95 MEAN TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.69 MODEL TIME = 0.50 HOURS TOTAL TIMESTEP NUMBER = 3438. NODE BED ELEV. DEPTH Q-OUT MAX. VEL. AVE. VEL. CROSS SECTION # 1 77 6.00 6.44 -1882.63 5.86 -5.00 78 6.00 6.44 -1882.63 5.86 -4.71 79 6.00 6.44 -1882.63 5.86 -4.71 Page 3

FHR-COMBINED Page 208 of 231 BASE 80 6.00 6.44 -1882.63 5.86 -5.00 CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7530.53 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.85 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.44 FT CROSS SECTION # 2 157 3.00 6.19 -1757.61 5.68 -4.85 158 3.00 6.19 -1757.61 5.68 -4.57 159 3.00 6.19 -1757.61 5.68 -4.57 160 3.00 6.19 -1757.61 5.68 -4.85 CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7030.43 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.68 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.19 FT CROSS SECTION # 3 233 0.15 6.05 -1630.78 5.40 -4.61 234 0.15 6.05 -1630.78 5.40 -4.34 235 0.15 6.05 -1630.78 5.40 -4.34 236 0.15 6.05 -1630.78 5.40 -4.61 CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 6523.11 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.39 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.05 FT MIN. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.92 MAX. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 1.03 MEAN TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.97 MODEL TIME = 0.60 HOURS TOTAL TIMESTEP NUMBER = 3846. NODE BED ELEV. DEPTH Q-OUT MAX. VEL. AVE. VEL. CROSS SECTION # 1 77 6.00 6.79 -1992.48 5.87 -5.01 78 6.00 6.79 -1992.48 5.87 -4.73 79 6.00 6.79 -1992.48 5.87 -4.73 80 6.00 6.79 -1992.48 5.87 -5.01 CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7969.91 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.87 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.79 FT CROSS SECTION # 2 157 3.00 6.74 -1974.05 5.86 -5.00 158 3.00 6.74 -1974.05 5.86 -4.71 159 3.00 6.74 -1974.05 5.86 -4.71 160 3.00 6.74 -1974.05 5.86 -5.00 CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7896.20 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.86 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.74 FT CROSS SECTION # 3 233 0.15 6.71 -1944.82 5.79 -4.95 234 0.15 6.71 -1944.82 5.79 -4.66 235 0.15 6.71 -1944.82 5.79 -4.66 236 0.15 6.71 -1944.82 5.79 -4.95 CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7779.29 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.79 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.71 FT MIN. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.85 MAX. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.92 MEAN TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.88 Page 4

FHR-COMBINED Page 209 of 231 BASE MODEL TIME = 0.70 HOURS TOTAL TIMESTEP NUMBER = 4269. NODE BED ELEV. DEPTH Q-OUT MAX. VEL. AVE. VEL. CROSS SECTION # 1 77 6.00 6.82 -1999.13 5.86 -5.00 78 6.00 6.82 -1999.13 5.86 -4.72 79 6.00 6.82 -1999.13 5.86 -4.72 80 6.00 6.82 -1999.13 5.86 -5.00 CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7996.52 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.86 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.82 FT CROSS SECTION # 2 157 3.00 6.82 -1997.04 5.86 -5.00 158 3.00 6.82 -1997.04 5.86 -4.72 159 3.00 6.82 -1997.04 5.86 -4.72 160 3.00 6.82 -1997.04 5.86 -5.00 CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7988.16 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.86 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.82 FT CROSS SECTION # 3 233 0.15 6.81 -1993.78 5.85 -5.00 234 0.15 6.81 -1993.78 5.85 -4.71 235 0.15 6.81 -1993.78 5.85 -4.71 236 0.15 6.81 -1993.78 5.85 -5.00 CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7975.11 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.85 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.81 FT MIN. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.85 MAX. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.86 MEAN TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.85 MODEL TIME = 0.80 HOURS TOTAL TIMESTEP NUMBER = 4692. NODE BED ELEV. DEPTH Q-OUT MAX. VEL. AVE. VEL. CROSS SECTION # 1 77 6.00 6.82 -1999.90 5.86 -5.00 78 6.00 6.82 -1999.90 5.86 -4.72 79 6.00 6.82 -1999.90 5.86 -4.72 80 6.00 6.82 -1999.90 5.86 -5.00 CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7999.60 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.86 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.82 FT CROSS SECTION # 2 157 3.00 6.82 -1999.66 5.86 -5.00 158 3.00 6.82 -1999.66 5.86 -4.72 159 3.00 6.82 -1999.66 5.86 -4.72 160 3.00 6.82 -1999.66 5.86 -5.00 CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7998.63 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.86 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.82 FT CROSS SECTION # 3 233 0.15 6.82 -1999.28 5.86 -5.00 234 0.15 6.82 -1999.28 5.86 -4.72 235 0.15 6.82 -1999.28 5.86 -4.72 236 0.15 6.82 -1999.28 5.86 -5.00 Page 5

FHR-COMBINED Page 210 of 231 BASE CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7997.14 CFS AVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.86 FPS CROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FT AVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.82 FT MIN. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.84 MAX. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.85 MEAN TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.85 MAXIMUM WATER SURFACE VALUES FOR FLOODPLAIN NODE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ELEVATION 15.67 15.67 15.67 15.67 15.52 15.52 15.52 15.52 15.37 15.37 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.99 5.99 5.99 5.99 5.98 5.98 5.98 5.98 5.98 5.98 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.99 5.99 5.99 5.99 5.98 5.98 5.98 5.98 5.98 5.98 DEPTH 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66 TIME 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.S0 NODE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ELEVATION 15.37 15.37 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.07 15.07 15.07 15.07 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.98 5.98 5.97 5.97 5.97 5.97 5.97 5.97 5.97 5.97 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.98 5.98 5.97 5.97 5.97 5.97 5.97 5.97 5.97 5.97 DEPTH 6.66 6.66 6.65 6.65 6.65 6.65 6.64 6.64 6.64 6.64 TIME 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 NODE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ELEVATION 14.92 14.92 14.92 14.92 14.77 14.77 14.77 14.77 14.62 14.62 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.96 5.96 5.96 5.96 5.96 5.96 5.96 5.96 5.95 5.95 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.96 5.96 5.96 5.96 5.96 5.96 5.96 5.96 5.95 5.95 DEPTH 6.63 6.63 6.63 6.63 6.62 6.62 6.62 6.62 6.62 6.62 TIME 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 NODE 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ELEVATION 14.62 14.62 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.32 14.32 14.32 14.32 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 DEPTH 6.62 6.62 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 TIME 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 NODE 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ELEVATION 14.17 14.17 14.17 14.17 14.02 14.02 14.02 14.02 13.87 13.87 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 Page 6

FHR-COMBINED Page 211 of 231 BASE 6.82 VELOCITY 5.94 5.94 5.94 5.94 5.94 5.94 5.94 5.94 5.93 5.93 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.94 5.94 5.94 5.94 5.94 5.94 5.94 5.94 5.93 5.93 DEPTH 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 TIME 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 NODE 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 ELEVATION 13.87 13.87 13.72 13.72 13.72 13.72 13.57 13.57 13.57 13.57 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 DEPTH 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 TIME 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 NODE 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 ELEVATION 13.42 13.42 13.42 13.42 13.27 13.27 13.27 13.27 13.12 13.12 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 DEPTH 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 TIME 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 NODE 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 ELEVATION 13.12 13.12 12.97 12.97 12.97 12.97 12.82 12.82 12.82 12.82 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.92 5.92 5.91 5.91 5.91 5.91 5.91 5.91 5.91 5.91 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.92 5.92 5.91 5.91 5.91 5.91 5.91 5.91 5.91 5.91 DEPTH 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 TIME 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 NODE 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 ELEVATION 12.67 12.67 12.67 12.67 12.52 12.52 12.52 12.52 12.37 12.37 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.91 5.91 5.91 5.91 5.90 5.90 5.90 5.90 5.90 5.90 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.91 5.91 5.91 5.91 5.90 5.90 5.90 5.90 5.90 5.90 DEPTH 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 TIME 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 NODE 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 ELEVATION 12.37 12.37 12.22 12.22 12.22 12.22 12.07 12.07 12.07 12.07 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.90 5.90 5.90 5.90 5.90 5.90 5.89 5.89 5.89 5.89 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Page 7

FHR-COMBINED Page 212 of 231 BASE MAX VEL 5.90 5.90 5.90 5.90 5.90 5.90 5.89 5.89 5.89 5.89 DEPTH 6.60 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 TIME 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 NODE 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 ELEVATION 11.92 11.92 11.92 11.92 11.77 11.77 11.77 11.77 11.62 11.62 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.89 5.89 5.89 5.89 5.89 5.89 5.89 5.89 5.89 5.89 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.89 5.89 5.89 5.89 5.89 5.89 5.89 5.89 5.89 5.89 DEPTH 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.62 6.62 6.62 TIME 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 NODE 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 ELEVATION 11.62 11.62 11.47 11.47 11.47 11.47 11.32 11.32 11.32 11.32 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.89 5.89 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.88 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.89 5.89 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.88 DEPTH 6.62 6.62 6.62 6.62 6.62 6.62 6.63 6.62 6.63 6.62 TIME 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 NODE 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 ELEVATION 11.17 11.17 11.17 11.17 11.02 11.02 11.02 11.02 10.87 10.87 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 DEPTH 6.63 6.63 6.63 6.63 6.64 6.64 6.64 6.64 6.65 6.64 TIME 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 NODE 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 ELEVATION 10.87 10.87 10.72 10.72 10.72 10.72 10.57 10.57 10.57 10.57 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 S.87 5.87 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 DEPTH 6.64 6.64 6.65 6.66 6.65 6.66 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 TIME 0.55 0.55 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 NODE 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 ELEVATION 10.42 10.42 10.42 10.42 10.27 10.27 10.27 10.27 10.12 10.12 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 DEPTH 6.69 6.69 6.69 6.68 6.72 6.72 6.72 6.72 6.82 6.82 TIME 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.80 Page 8

FHR-COMBINED Page 213 of 231 BASE 0.80 NODE 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 ELEVATION 10.12 10.12 9.97 9.97 9.97 9.97 9.82 9.82 9.82 9.82 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 NODE 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 ELEVATION 9.67 9.67 9.67 9.67 9.52 9.52 9.52 9.52 9.37 9.37 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 NODE 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 ELEVATION 9.37 9.37 9.22 9.22 9.22 9.22 9.07 9.07 9.07 9.07 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 NODE 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 ELEVATION 8.92 8.92 8.92 8.92 8.77 8.77 8.77 8.77 8.62 8.62 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 NODE 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 ELEVATION 8.62 8.62 8.47 8.47 8.47 8.47 8.32 8.32 8.32 8.32 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 NODE 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 ELEVATION 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.02 8.02 8.02 8.02 7.87 Page 9

FHR-COMBINED Page 214 of 231 BASE 7.87 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 NODE 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 ELEVATION 7.87 7.87 7.72 7.72 7.72 7.72 7.57 7.57 7.57 7.57 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 NODE 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 ELEVATION 7.42 7.42 7.42 7.42 7.27 7.27 7.27 7.27 7.12 7.12 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 NODE 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 ELEVATION 7.12 7.12 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 MAX DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 VELOCITY 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 MAX VEL 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 5.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DEPTH 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 6.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TIME 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MASS BALANCE INFLOW - OUTFLOW VOLUME

  • INFLOW (ACRE-FEET)
  • WATER INFLOW HYDROGRAPH 363.84
  • OUTFLOW (ACRE-FT)
  • OVERLAND FLOW WATER FLOODPLAIN STORAGE 92.43 Page 10

FHR-COMBINED Page 215 of 231 BASE FLOODPLAIN OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH 271.41 FLOODPLAIN OUTFLOW AND STORAGE 363.84 TOTALS

  • TOTAL OUTFLOW FROM GRID SYSTEM 271.41 TOTAL VOLUME OF OUTFLOW AND STORAGE 363.84 SURFACE AREA OF INUNDATION REGARDLESS OF THE TIME OF OCCURRENCE:

(FOR FLOW DEPTHS GREATER THAN THE "TOL" VALUE TYPICALLY 0.1 FT OR 0.03 M) THE MAXIMUM INUNDATED AREA IS: 13.77 ACRES COMPUTER RUN TIME IS  : 0.00049 HRS THIS OUTPUT FILE WAS TERMINATED ON: 4/ 4/2013 AT: 15: 6:27 Page 11

FHR-COMBINED Page 216 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant CEDAS-ACES 4.03 was tested on the computer used for this document by Bin Wang on March 25, 2013. The inputs for the installation test were the same as those used in the software verification reports (Reference 9). The results of the installation test were acceptable. Project: Glinna Wind Wave Run Up Group: Post Verflcaton Case: Smooth Slop Runup 342512013 Wave Runup and Overtopping on Impermeable Structures Wave type: brgulr Slope type: Smooth Rate esfmate: Runp and Overtopping Brednacttera:i 0.7W 

    .cident- signiicman_

wav- ht (HI): 7--f Runup tor at COTAN of neuhou e (cot phil I"o.oo I Water depth at stuctr toe (ds): 12- ft COT of uctur slope (cot Usets):j 3.,_o_ Structure height above toe (ha): 20.0ft n C _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ I I I _ _

FHR-COMBINED Page 217 of 231 A AR EVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nudear Power Plant Project: Ginna Wind Wave Run Up Group: Post Verilication Case: Wave Prediction Verification 3/2512013 Windspeed Adjustment and Wave Growth 0.71 8 of Oibe e-e Wind (Zobs) I-I- ouewmr aymww) [nopewasiw bet Obesd oind Speed (Uo) 3.0A AP Sea TOmp. Duf. (drl) deg F Omr s ObWeved Wod (Dm0) hours Dur of Rina rWnd (Du*F) 3A0hota Lat. of Obervaulon (LAT) 45M0 dog Results Wind Feth LengM (F) Eq Nutra Wnd Speed (Up) A4usefd Wkd Sped (OW) Wov He I'M  !(ao) awaPoriod (Op) Wove Growth: DMP

FHR-COMBINED Page 218 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant APPENDIX K: 1 HOUR WATER LEVEL DATA Note: Due to the size of the data in this appendix, the information has been archived in the AREVA file management system, ColdStor. The path to the file is: 

                  \cold\GeneraI-Access\32\32-9190280-000\officiaI Page K-1

FHR-COMBINED Page 219 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant APPENDIX L: 25 YEAR SURGE CALCULATION Page L-1

FHR-COMBINED Page 220 of 231 Table L-1: Rochester, NY Yearly Maximums and Logarithmic Transformations Year Surge (m) Log(Surge) 1989 0.3962 -0.402 1996 0.3146 -0.502 1964 0.3003 -0.522 1986 0.2476 -0.606 2001 0.2462 -0.609 1974 0.236 -0.627 2006 0.2268 -0.644 1992 0.2229 -0.652 2000 0.2218 -0.654 1973 0.2202 -0.657 1988 0.2048 -0.689 1999 0.2047 -0.689 2008 0.2026 -0.693 1993 0.1995 -0.700 1984 0.1954 -0.709 1972 0.184 -0.735 2011 0.1787 -0.748 1994 0.1763 -0.754 2003 0.1744 -0.758 1966 0.1721 -0.764 1977 0.1676 -0.776 1985 0.1664 -0.779 1981 0.1661 -0.780 2007 0.1661 -0.780 1998 0.163 -0.788 2010 0.1595 -0.797 1968 0.1589 -0.799 1983 0.1587 -0.799 1965 0.1523 -0.817 2009 0.1446 -0.840 1991 0.1398 -0.854 1980 0.139 -0.857 1990 0.1384 -0.859 1967 0.1356 -0.868 1969 0.1328 -0.877 1982 0.1327 -0.877 1971 0.1316 -0.881 1975 0.131 -0.883 2002 0.1305 -0.884 1979 0.1302 -0.885 1963 0.1297 -0.887 2005 0.1296 -0.887 1995 0.1289 -0.890 1997 0.1251 -0.903 1978 0.1245 -0.905 1962 0.122 -0.914 1976 0.1206 -0.919 1987 0.1158 -0.936 1970 0.1084 -0.965 2004 0.0991 -1.004

FHR-COMBINED Page 221 of 231 I A I B I CH 1 Table L-1: Rochester, NY Yearly Maximums and Logarithmic Transformations 2 Year Surge in) Log(Surge) 3 1989 0.3962 =LOG(B3) 4 1996 0.3146 =LOG(B4) 5 1964 0.3003 =LOG(BS) 6 1986 0.2476 =LOG(B6) 7 2001 0.2462 =LOG(B7) 8 1974 0.236 =LOG(B8) 9 2006 0.2268 =LOG(B9) 10 1992 0.2229 =LOG(B1O) 11 2000 0.2218 =LOG(B11) 12 1973 0.2202 =LOG(B12) 13 1988 0.2048 =LOG(B13) 14 1999 0.2047 =LOG(B14) 15 2008 0.2026 =LOG(B15) 16 1993 0.1995 =LOG(B16) 17 1984 0.1954 =LOG(B17) 18 1972 0.184 =LOG(B18) 19 2011 0.1787 =LOG(B19) 20 1994 0.1763 =LOG(B20) 21 2003 0.1744 =LOG(B21) 22 1966 0.1721 =LOG(B22) 23 1977 0.1676 =LOG(B23) 24 1985 0.1664 =LOG(B24) 25 1981 0.1661 =LOG(B25) 26 2007 0.1661 =LOG(B26) 27 1998 0.163 =LOG(B27) 28 2010 0.1595 =LOG(B28) 29 1968 0.1589 =LOG(B29) 30 1983 0.1587 =LOG(B30) 31 1965 0.1523 =LOG(B31) 32 2009 0.1446 =LOG(B32) 33 1991 0.1398 =LOG(B33) 34 1980 0.139 =LOG(B34) 35 1990 0.1384 =LOG(B35) 36 1967 0.1356 =LOG(B36) 37 1969 0.1328 =LOG(B37) 38 1982 0.1327 =LOG(B38) 39 1971 0.1316 =LOG(B39) 40 1975 0.131 =LOG(B40) 41 2002 0.1305 =LOG(B41) 42 1979 0.1302 =LOG(B42) 43 1963 0.1297 =LOG(B43) 44 2005 0.1296 =LOG(944) 45 1995 0.1289 =LOG(B45) 46 1997 0.1251 =LOG(B46) 4711978 0.1245 =LOG(B47) 48 1962 0.122 =LOG(B48) 49 1976 0.1206 =LOG(B49) 50 1987 0.1158 =LOG(B50) 51 1970 0.1084 =LOG(B51) 52 2004 0.0991 =LOG(B52)

FHR-COMBINED Page 222 of 231 Table L-2: Statistical Analysis of Maximum Hourly Surge Water Level Data at Rochester, NY No. Years in Record 50 Average Surge Water Level (SWL) (m) 0.173 Average Log of SWL -0.78 Variance Log of SWL (m) 0.01591 Stdev Log of SWL (m) 0.12613 Skew (Sy) 0.80 Skew = 0.80 Return Period Exceedance Probability K Log SWL (m) SWL (m) SWL (ft) 2 0.5 -0.132 -0.797 0.160 0.51 5 0.2 0.780 -0.682 0.208 0.67 10 0.1 1.336 -0.612 0.245 0.78 25 0.04 1.993 -0.529 0.296 0.95 50 0.02 2.453 -0.471 0.338 1.09

FHR-COMBINED Page 223 of 231 AI B I C I DE F 1 Table L-2: Statistical Analysis of Maximum Hourly Surge Water Level Data at Rochester, NY 2 No. Years in Record =COUNT('Table L-1'!A3:A52) 3 Average Surge Water Level (SWL) (m) =AVERAGE('Table L-1'!B3:BS2) 4 Average Log of SWL =AVERAGE('Table L-1'!C3:C52) 5 Variance Log of SWL (m) =VAR(Table L-1'!C3:C52) 6 Stdev Log of SWL (m) =STDEV('Table L-1'!C3:C52) 7 Skew (Sy) =SKEW('Table L-1'!C3:C52) 8 10 Skew = =B7 11 Return Period Exceedance Probability K Log SWL (m) SWL (m) SWL (ft) 12 2 =1/A12 -0.13199 =SB$4+(C12*$BS6) =10^D12 =E12"3.2084 13 5 =1/A13 0.77986 =SB$4+(C13*SBS6) =10^D13 =E13*3.2084 14 10 =1/A14 1.3364 =$B$4+(C14*$B$6) =10AD14 =E14"3.2084 15 25 =1/A15 1.99311 =SB$4+(C15*SB$6) =10AD15 =E15"3.2084 16 50 =1/A16 2.45298 =$B$4+(C16*SB$6) =10^D16 =E16"3.2084

FHR-COMBINED Page 224 of 231 A AREVA Flood Hazard Re-evaluation - Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant APPENDIX M: 25 YEAR PRECIPITATION DATA Page M-1

FHR-COMBINED Page 225 of 231 FHR-COMBINED Page 226 of 231 Extreme Precipitation Tables: 43.277°N, 77.31FW Page 1 of I Extreme Precipitation Tables Northeast Regional Climate Center Datarepresentspoint estimates calculatedfrom partialdurationserie&All precipiationamounts are displayed in inches Smoothing No State New York Location near 1487 Lake Road, Ontario, NY 14519, USA Longitude 77.3 10 degrees West Latitude 43.277 degrees North Elevation 270 feet Date/Time Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:52:45 -0400 Extreme Precipitation Estimates I5min 10min 15min 30min 60min 120min Ihr 2hr 3hr 6hr I12hr 24hr 48hr Iday 2day 4day 7day IOday lyr 0.26 0.40 0.49 0.66 0.81 0.92 lyr 0.70 0.90 1.03 1.27 1.53 1.85 2.07 lyr 1.64 1.99 2.39 2.87 3.30 lyr 2yr 0.30 0.47 0.57 0.78 0.96 1.09 2yr 0.83 1.06 1.19 1.47 1.77 2.17 2.43 2yr 1.92 2.34 2.75 3.26 3.73 2yr 5yr 0.35 0.55 0.68 0.93 1.18 1.35 5yr 1.02 1.32 1.49 1.80 2.18 2.66 2.99 5yr 2.35 2.88 3.35 3.92 4.48 5yr 10yr 0.41 0.62 0.77 1.08 1.39 1.59 10yr 1.20 1.55 1.76 2.11 2.55 3.10 3.51 10yr 2.74 3.37 3.90 4.51 5.15 1Oyr 25yr 0.49 0.74 0.92 1.32 1.73 1.97 25yr 1.49 1.93 2.20 2.60 3.15 3.79 4.32 25yr 3.36 4.16 4.76 5.44 6.20 25yr 50yr 0.56 0.85 1.06 1.52 2.04 2.33 50yr 1.76 2.28 2.60 3.05 3.70 4.42 5.07 50yr 3.91 4.87 5.54 6.26 7.14 50yr 70 0.640yr 0.97 1.22 1.76 2.41 2.75 100yr 2.08 2.69 3.09 3.58 4.36 5.16 5.94 100yr 4.56 5.71 6.45 7.21 8.21 lOOyr r 0200y 

             .74   1.12     1.4 1   2 .0 5 2 .8 5 3 .26        yr  2200
                                                                      .46 3 .18 3 .6 8  4 .2 1  5 .12  6 .0 1  6 .9 7 200 y r  5.32   6 .7 1 7 .5 1  8 .30   9 .4 6 2 00y r 500yr    0       1.34
                      .90   1.73    2.51   3.57   4.07     500yr   3.08   3.98  4.63    5.22    6.37   7.38    8.62   500yr   6.53    8.29   9.18    1001   11.40   500yr Lower Confidence Limits 5min 10min 15min 30min 60min 120mrin                      Ihr    2hr   3hr    6hr     l2hr   24hr    48hr           Iday    2day    4day   7day   lOday lyr     0.21 0.33       0.40 0.54       0.66  0.74       lyr   0.57    0.72  0.83   1.07     1.41   1.71    1.81    lyr 1.51       1.74   2.20    2.55   2.98 lyr 2yr     0.29 0.45       0.55 0.75       0.92  1.03       2yr   0.80    1.01  1.15   1.41     1.71  2.12     2.38    2yr 1.87      2.28    2.69    3.18   3.65 2yr 5yr     0.33 0.50 0.62 0.86 1.09              1.23       5yr   0.94    1.20  1.35   1.65     2.01   2.50   2.82     5yr 2.21      2.71    3.14    3.69   4.23     53r 10yr     0.36 0.55       0.68 0.95       1.22  1.38      10yr    1.06   1.35  1.51   1.85     2.24   2.81    3.19    10yr 2.49     3.07    3.50    4.10   4.68 lOyr 25yr     0.40   0.61     0.76     1.09   1.43  1.61      25yr    1.24   1.57  1.75   2.14     2.58   3.25    3.77 25yr 2.88.3.63 4.03 4.71                5.37 25yr 50yr     0.44   0.67     0.84     1.20   1.62  1.80      50yr    1.40   1.76  1.95   2.40     2.86   3.64   4.27 50yr 3.22 4.1t 4.49 5.23                 5.94 50yr 1OOyr     0.49   0.73     0.92     1.33   1.82  2.01     IOOyr    1.57   1.97  2.15   2.67     3.17  4.06    4.84        vr 3.59 lO 4.65 5.01 5.80            6.57 IOOyr 200yr     0.53   0.80      1.01      47   205   2.26     200yr    1.77   2.21  2.38   2.98     3.49  4.53     5.48 200yr 4.01 5.27 5.55 6.42               7.25 200          yr 500yr 0.60   0.90      1.15    1.67   2.38  2.62     500yr    2.05   2.56  2.72   3.44     3.97   5.21    6.48          500yr 4.61 6.23 6.34 7.34           8.26           500yr Upper Confidence Limits 5m in 10m in    15m i 30mri 60mri 120m    r in          Ilhr 2hr     3hr    6hr     12hr   24hr    48hr            Iday   2day    4day    7day   10day lyr     0.29 0.45       0.55 0.74 0.91        1.02      lyr    0.78 1.00    1.14   1.40    1.72   1.99    2.26      lyr   1.76   2.17    2.57     3.05   3.54     lyr 2yr     0.31 0.49       0.60 081        1.00  1.13      2yr    0.86 1.11    1.25   1.52    1.85   2.26    2.50     2yr    2.00   2.40    2.85     3.34   3.85     2yr 5yr     0.38 0.59       0.74    1.01    L     1.48
                                                   .28      5yr    1.11 1.44    1.63   1.95    2.34   2.85    3.19     5yr    2.52   3.07    3.56     4.14   4.75     5yr 10yr     0.45 0.70       0.87     1.21   1.56  1.81      10yr   1.35 1.77    2.00   2.38    2.83   3.42    3.84     10yr   3.03   3.70    4.24     4.88   5.60    10yr 25yr     0.58 0.88       1.09    1.56 2.05     2.40     25yr    1.77 2.35    2.64   3.09    3.65   4.38    4.93    25yr    3.87   4.74    5.36     6.08   6.96    25yr 50yr     0.68 1.04       1.30    1.86 2.51     2.96     50yr    2.16 2.89    3.27   3.78    4.42   5.26    5.95    50yr    4.65   5.72    6.40     7.19   8.23    50yr 100yr     0.82 1.24        1.55 2.24 3.07       3.65     10      2.650yr3.57  4.04   4.60    5.38   6.36    7.18    100yr   5.63   6.91     7.66    8.49   9.72   Io0yr 200yr     098 147          1.86 270 3.76        4.51     200yr   3.25 4.41    5.02   5.62    6.53   7.67    8.66    200yr   6.79   8.33    9.16    10.03   11.49  200yr 50           0yr 5 1              8 7.2 2 3.85  3 46 4 .9 3   5.9 8    50 0y r 4 .2 5 5 .84 6 .6 9 7.35    8 .4 7 9 .84   11.13   50 0y r 8 .7 1 10 .70  1 1.6 2 12 .53  14 .35  ;00 yr
~ oeeyAIS file:///C:AJsers/christine.suhonen/Downloads/output%20( 1).htm                                                                                                   3/28/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 227 of 231 Precipitation Distribution Curve Page 1 of 5 Precipitation Distribution (43.224N, -77.347W) - 25yr - Smoothed 1.0- ... ..... .............. ........ ............. .. . 0.9- 

                                        ".  .....          ' i '- ' "i' --i ----

i" .". .-- 

                                                                                                     "...""     -' '- i......'-- "-'" " ......

I 0.8-0.7-w- 0.6- 

                         . . . ..ii-...-::

i . .. i. . .. .....-.- .--. ............. 0.5- 

*0 0.4-
                                                                              .i   ... ..

E 0.3- 

                .......                          .... ................ .. . ....                                  *i          :     !       *...

0.2- 

            ... ...................                i i -i i !                   .             ......ii......
                                                                                         .........                                  i  ~  i '-

0.1 - 

              *    .       !                                                                                                    CJ!n ae Center 0.0-I I       I      I       I       I    I      I    I   I     I     I               I       I           I   I  I    I   I  I    I 0    1      2       3      4       5     8      7    8  9     10    11    12  13    14 15   18   17     18  19 20 21 22 23 24 Duraton (hours)

Time 25yr Accumulation (hours) (dimensionless) 0.0 0.0000 0.1 0.0008 0.2 0.0016 0.3 0.0024 0.4 0.0032 0.5 0.0040 0.6 0. 0049 0.7 0.0057 0.8 0.0065 0.9 0.0074 1.0 0.0082 1.1 0.0091 1.2 0.0099 1.3 0.0108 1.4 0.0117 1.5 0.0126 http://precip.eas.comell.edu/data.php?1364482846652 3/28/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 228 of 231 Precipitation Distribution Curve Page 2 of 5 1.6 0. 0134 1.7 0.0143 1.8 0.0152 1.9 0.0161 2.0 0.0170 2.1 0.0180 2.2 0.0189 2.3 0.0198 2.4 0.0207 2.5 0.0217 2.6 0.0226 2.7 0.0236 2.8 0.0245 2.9 0.0255 3.0 0.0264 3.1 0.0274 3.2 0.0284 3.3 0.0293 3.4 0.0303 3.5 0.0313 3.6 0.0323 3.7 0.0333 3.8 0.0343 3.9 0.0353 4.0 0.0363 4.1 0.0374 4.2 0.0384 4.3 0.0394 4.4 0.0405 4.5 0.0415 4.6 0.0426 4.7 0.0436 4.8 0.0447 4.9 0.0458 5.0 0.0468 5.1 0.0479 5.2 0.0490 5.3 0.0501 5.4 0.0512 5.5 0.0523 5.6 0.0534 5.7 0.0545 5.8 0.0556 5.9 0.0568 6.0 0.0579 6.1 0.0595 6.2 0.0612 6.3 0.0629 6.4 0.0646 6.5 0.0663 6.6 0.0681 6.7 0.0699 6.8 0.0717 6.9 0.0735 7.0 0.0754 7.1 0.0773 7.2 0.0792 7.3 0.0811 7.4 0.0830 7.5 0.0850 http://precip.eas.comell.edu/data.php?1 364482846652 .3/28/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 229 of 231 Precipitation Distribution Curve Page 3 of 5 7.6 0.0870 7.7 0.0890 7.8 0.0910 7.9 0.0930 8.0 0.0951 8.1 0.0972 8.2 0.0993 8.3 0.1015 8.4 0.1036 8.5 0.1058 8.6 0.1080 8.7 0.1103 8.8 0.1125 8.9 0.1148 9.0 0.1171 9.1 0.1202 9.2 0.1233 9.3 0.1266 9.4 0.1300 9.5 0.1335 9.6 0.1371 9.7 0.1409 9.8 0.1447 9.9 0.1487 10.0 0.1528 10.1 0.1570 10.2 0.1613 10.3 0.1658 10.4 0.1703 10.5 0.1750 10.6 0.1819 10.7 0.1891 10.8 0.1967 10.9 0.2048 11.0 0.2132 11.1 0.2233 11.2 0.2341 11.3 0.2454 11.4 0.2573 11.5 0.2697 11.6 0.2917 11.7 0.3149 11.8 0.3466 11.9 0.3908 12.0 0.4708 12.1 0.6092 12.2 0.6534 12.3 0.6851 12.4 0.7083 12.5 0.7303 12.6 0.7427 12.7 0.7546 12.8 0.7659 12.9 0.7767 13.0 0.7868 13.1 0.7952 13.2 0.8033 13.3 0.8109 13.4 0.8181 13.5 0.8250 http://precip.eas.comell.edu/data.php?] 364482846652 3/28/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 230 of 231 Precipitation Distribution Curve Page 4 of 5 13.6 0.8297 13.7 0.8342 13.8 0.8387 13.9 0.8430 14.0 0.8472 14.1 0.8513 14.2 0.8553 14.3 0.8591 14.4 0.8629 14.5 0.8665 14.6 0. 8700 14.7 0.8734 14.8 0.8767 14.9 0.8798 15.0 0.8829 15.1 0.8852 15.2 0.8875 15.3 0.8897 15.4 0.8920 15.5 0.8942 15.6 0.8964 15.7 0.8985 15.8 0.9007 15.9 0.9028 16.0 0.9049 16.1 0.9070 16.2 0.9090 16.3 0.9110 16.4 0.9130 16.5 0.9150 16.6 0.9170 16.7 0.9189 16.8 0.9208 16.9 0.9227 17.0 0. 9246 17.1 0.9265 17.2 0. 9283 17.3 0.9301 17.4 0.9319 17.5 0.9337 17.6 0.9354 17.7 0.9371 17.8 0.9388 17.9 0.9405 18.0 0.9421 18.1 0.9432 18.2 0.9444 18.3 0.9455 18.4 0.9466 18.5 0.9477 18.6 0.9488 18.7 0.9499 18.8 0.9510 18.9 0.9521 19.0 0.9532 19.1 0. 9542 19.2 0.9553 19.3 0.9564 19.4 0.9574 19.5 0.9585 http://precip.eas.cornell.edu/data.php? 1364482846652 3/28/2013

FHR-COMBINED Page 231 of 231 Precipitation Distribution Curve Page 5 of 5 19 .6 0.9595 19.7 0.9606 19.8 0.9616 19.9 0.9626 20.0 0.9637 20.1 0.9647 20.2 0.9657 20.3 0.9667 20.4 0.9677 20.5 0.9687 20.6 0.9697 20.7 0.9707 20.8 0.9716 20.9 0.9726 21.0 0.9736 21.1 0.9745 21.2 0.9755 21.3 0.9764 21.4 0.9774 21.5 0.9783 21.6 0.9793 21.7 0.9802 21.8 0. 9811 21.9 0.9820 22.0 0.9830 22.1 0.9839 22.2 0. 9848 22.3 0.9857 22.4 0.9866 22.5 0.9874 22.6 0.9883 22.7 0.9892 22.8 0.9901 22.9 0.9909 23.0 0.9918 23.1 0.9926 23.2 0.9935 23.3 0.9943 23.4 0.9951 23.5 0.9960 23.6 0.9968 23.7 0.9976 23.8 0.9984 23.9 0.9992 24.0 1.0000 http://precip.eas.comell.edu/data.php? 1364482846652 3/28/2013}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML15072A013&oldid=2449547"