RS-15-255, Response to NRC Audit Review Request for Additional Information Regarding Fukushima Lessons Learned - Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report
| ML15273A138 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/2015 |
| From: | Jim Barstow Exelon Generation Co |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RS-15-255 | |
| Download: ML15273A138 (49) | |
Text
Exelon Generation 10 CFR 50.54(f)
RS-15-255 September 30, 2015 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18 NRC Docket No. 50-244
Subject:
Response to NRC Audit Review Request for Additional Information Regarding Fukushima Lessons Learned - Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report
References:
- 1. Exelon Generation Company, LLC Letter to USN RC, Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding the Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Flooding, dated March 11, 2015 (RS-15-069)
- 2. NRC Letter, Request for Information Pursuant to Title 1O of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, dated March 12, 2012 In Reference 1, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC) provided the Flooding Hazard Reevaluation Report (FHRR) for the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant in response to the March 12, 2012 Request for Information Enclosure 2, Recommendation 2.1, Flooding, Required Response 2, (Reference 2). The NRC conducted an audit/webinar review of the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant FHRR on August 27, 2015. In support of the FHRR audit, the NRC provided audit information needs items. The information provided by EGC to address the audit information needs items was subsequently reviewed by the NRC during the audit. Based on the audit review, the NRC identified items that required additional information.
The purpose of this letter is to provide the responses to the NRC requested additional information items identified during the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant FHRR audit review on August 27, 2015. The enclosure to this letter provides the individual responses to each of the items identified by the NRC during the audit.
This letter contains no new regulatory commitments. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Ron Gaston at (630) 657-3359.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Response to NRC Audit Review Request for Additional Information (Flooding Hazard Reevaluation Report)
September 30, 2015 Page 2 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 30th day of September 2015.
Respectfully submitted, a~~
James Barstow Director - Licensing & Regulatory Affairs Exelon Generation Company, LLC
Enclosure:
R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Response to NRC Audit Review Request for Additional Information Regarding Fukushima Lessons Learned - Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report cc: NRC Regional Administrator - Region I NRC Project Manager, NRA - R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant NRC Senior Resident Inspector - R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Ms. Tekia Govan, NRR/JLD/PPSD/HMB, NRC
Enclosure R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Response to NRC Audit Review Request for Additional Information Regarding Fukushima Lessons Learned - Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report (46 pages)
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 1 of 46 Information Need 1: All Flood Causing Mechanisms - Comparison of Reevaluated Flood Hazard with Current Design Basis
Background:
Recommendation 2. 1 of the 50.54(f) letter provides instructions for the Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report (FHRR). Under Section 1, Hazard Reevaluation Report, Items c and d, licensees are requested to perform:
- c. Comparison of current and reevaluated flood causing mechanisms at the site. Provide an assessment of the current design basis flood elevation to the reevaluated flood elevation for each flood causing mechanism. Include how the findings from Enclosure 4 of this letter (i.e.,
Recommendation 2.3 flooding walkdowns) support this determination. If the current design basis flood bounds the reevaluated hazard for all flood causing mechanisms, include how this finding was determined.
- d. Interim evaluation and actions taken or planned to address any higher flooding hazards relative to the design basis, prior to completion of the integrated assessment described below, if necessary.
The Ginna FHRR provides a comparison of the reevaluated flood hazards with the current licensing basis (CLB) instead of the current design basis. Section 3.0 of the report summarizes of this comparison.
Request: Clarify and where necessary correct the comparison of the reevaluated flood hazard to the current design bases.
Response
Discussions in the FHRR which includes the terminology "design basis" indicates information developed to determine flooding hazard and requirements for flood protection, as indicated in Section 2.4 of the UFSAR (Ginna, 2011) and the 2012 Walkdown Report (Ginna, 2012).
By definition, Current Licensing Basis (CLB) (per 10CFR54.3(a)) includes any NRC requirements, current and effective licensee commitments, operation, and any design basis information for the site as documented in the most recent final safety analysis report.
For the purposes of the Ginna Flood Hazard Re-evaluation Report, the two terms, design basis and licensing basis, can be considered to have the same meaning. Additionally, Table 3.4-1 of the FHRR provides a comparison of the design basis flood levels for the Ginna site against the controlling re-evaluated flood hazard.
References:
Ginna, 2011. R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Revision 23, December 6, 2011.
Ginna, 2012. Response to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Request for Information Recommendation 2.3 Flooding, Constellation Nuclear Energy Group, November 27, 2012, NRC Accession No. ML12335A029.
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 2 of 46 Information Need 2: All Flood Causing Mechanisms - Location of Site Features
Background:
The FHRR for the Ginna site includes several figures that show some of the site locations that are mentioned but lacks annotations or figures that shows all of the site locations that are referred to in the FHRR clearly. In FHRR Figures 2. 1-2, 2. 1-3, 2.2-11, 2.2-12, 2.2-13, for example, the cell identification number are not sufficiently clear to reference the location of these site locations for the purpose consistent with this information need.
Request: Describe the buildings and site feature locations discussed in the FHRR. Figure 1.2-1 could be modified or additional similar figures provided to illustrate the location of the structures listed in Table 1 to Table 4 of Enclosure 1 "Flood Hazard Reevaluation Tables for Flood-Causing Mechanism and Combined-Effects Floods Not Bound by the Reevaluated Hazard", RC, TB, CB, SH, and DGBs, AB, A VTB, SAFWB, SAFWB Annex, Canister Preparation Building, Contaminated Storage Building, and the ("shoreline" or "stone" revetment),
Ginna Access Road (and Culverts) and Driveway Bridge.
Response
Please see Figure 2-1 (revised from FHRR Figure 1.2-1) for locations of buildings identified in Table 1 through Table 4 of Enclosure 1.
Culverts were assumed to be non-functional during the FHRR flood mechanisms, and as a result were not identified in any drawings provided with the FHRR.
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 3 of 46 Figure 2-1: Ginna Site Layout LAKE ONTARIO Soore1ne
~- ' Slooe Revelment
=~- ..
§
~
OFFsm
~~
WARfHOUSE ~!
WEST PASSM BARRlER -
SYSTEM PRllWIY\."'
CATE SECONDARY CATE
\
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 4 of 46 Information Need 4: Stream and River Flooding
Background:
FL0-20 simulated water depth due to stream flooding. The staff evaluated Manning's n values assigned in the FL0-20 in a same way described in Information Need 4 and noticed that several cells' n values for shrubs or grass are considered very low, i.e., 0.08.
These areas (see figure in Information Need 4) are along the pathway that slowdown the stream overflow from southwest to northeast based on the velocity vector plot.
Request: Describe the justification of n values assigned for vegetation areas surrounding the plant (not just circled examples below in the figure) especially areas near the plant and structures.
Figure showing examples of Manning's n values used for vegetation areas in FL0-20 model for stream flooding analysis Figure showing vegetation areas surrounding the plant with recent aerial photograph.
Original Response:
The assigned Manning's roughness coefficients were based on land use classes (polygons) as defined in the 2006 National Land Cover Data (NLCD2006; USGS, 2011), recommended Manning's roughness coefficients contained in the FL0-20 reference manual (FL0-20, 2012a) and engineering judgment, as described in the Ginna PMF Elevations Calculation (AREVA, 2013). A Manning's roughness coefficient GIS shapefile was created by assigning Manning's roughness coefficients to the land classes defined in the NLCD2006 data. The land cover types
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 5 of 46 shown on a recent aerial photograph of the site area may be slightly different from those defined in the NLC02006 dataset since land cover changes seasonally and over time.
Selected Manning's n values for the area in question of 0.08 are conseNative for shrub and grass areas. The range of Manning's n values for floodplain areas of brush and light tree cover (in summer) is between 0.04 and 0.08, with a normal value of 0.06 (Chow, 1959). The Manning's n-value of 0.08, used in the PMF reevaluation analysis at Ginna (AREVA, 2013) is reasonable for varying land cover consisting of grass, brush and small areas of trees. The area of interest is shown in Figure 4-1.
Follow-Up Response (based on discussion during 8/27/15 audit webinar)
Technical justification for FL0-20 Manning n-values
- 1. Roughness values used in FL0-20 vary by depth, with relatively higher values for shallower depths.
FL0-20 uses the continuity and dynamic wave momentum equations in its computations. The friction slope component of the dynamic wave momentum equation as implemented in FL0-20 is based on Manning's equation (FL0-20, 2012a). Manning's roughness coefficients used in FL0-20 for overland flow accounts for surface roughness conditions (vegetation, concrete, etc.)
in addition to non-uniform and unsteady flow conditions, which are the flow conditions being simulated. Manning's roughness coefficients are a function of flow depth (FL0-20, 2012a) with shallow flows (generally depths less than 0.5 feet) requiring higher Manning's roughness coefficients to account for increased resistance due to relatively greater surface roughness conditions. FL0-20 assumes a limiting depth for complete submergence of surface roughness to be 3 feet (FL0-20, 2012b). FL0-20 has the option of using depth variable Manning's roughness coefficients in its computations. When the depth variable roughness option is used, the following rules apply to the Manning's roughness coefficients used in computations (FL0-20, 2012b):
0.0 <flow depth< 0.2 ft (0.06 m) n = SHALLOWN value 0.2 ft (0.06 m) <flow depth< 0.5 ft (0.15 m) n =SHALLOWN I 2.
tw.rDeptl:I.
0.5 ft (0.15 m) <flow depth< 3 ft (1 m) n =Specified n 11alue x 1.5 x e -( s )
3 ft (1 m) <flow depth n =specified n-value For the Ginna PMF reevaluation analysis, the variable roughness option was used and a "SHALLOWN" value of 0.2 was used. Unlike the specified Manning's n values, the "SHALLOWN" is a global value and does not vary spatially (Chapter 4 of FL0-20, 2012b). The selected "SHALLOWN" value of 0.2 is a conseNative representation of varying floodplain land cover types ranging from concrete to trees. The "SHALLOWN" value of 0.2 is also conseNative because most of the site area (where shallow flow conditions are most likely to occur) is paved.
The specified Manning's roughness coefficients for the Ginna reevaluation work were applicable for flow depths greater than 3 feet, indicating flow conditions where surface roughness is completely submerged (FL0-20, 2012b). It is noted that flood depths in the vicinity of the Deer Creek channel are well above 3 ft, occasionally exceeding 1Oft deep (see Figure 4-2).
Therefore, the specified Manning's roughness values used are judged to be appropriate for PMF-type flood analyses and may not strictly adhere to those shown in Table 1 of the FL0-20 reference manual.
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 6 of 46
- 2. Other technical standards or resources, other than the FL0-20 manual, recommend a more reasonable range of Manning n-values (appropriate for a 20 model) for deeper flow depth conditions.
A review of Manning's n values applied to other 20 models including Riverflow2D and HEC-RAS 20 was performed. The Riverflow-20 reference manual states in practical applications of 20 models, the n values required can be 30 percent lower than those normally used for 1D model on the same river reach (Hydronia, 2014).
Recommended Manning's n values for overland areas from ASCE HEC-RAS 20 training materials have also been included as Table 4-2 and 4-3 in this response. Two separate tables for Manning's n values are included in the training materials: one table for shallow flow conditions and another table for typical flow conditions. The table for the shallow flow conditions is the FL0-20 reference manual Manning's n table. However, the Manning's n values for typical flow conditions are much less than those in the FL0-20 reference manual and similar to those presented in standard references such as Chow, 1959.
Review of Selected Manning's n-values A review of the selected Manning's n-values for the Ginna PMF reevaluation was performed.
Figure 4-2 presents an overlay of the Manning's n-value shapefile used in the reevaluation calculation and an orthophotograph of the site area. The map shows the assigned Manning's n-values for each land use classification. The land use class definitions are included as Table 4-1.
It is acknowledged that the NLCD dataset used as a source for delineating land use classification is somewhat coarse relative to small-scale variation in land cover apparent in the orthophotographs. However, the assigned land use classes appear to reasonably represent the apparent land use classes at the site based on the orthophotograph.
A map showing an overlay of the FL0-20 predicted flood depths and the assigned (specified)
Manning's n-values is included as Figure 4-3. This map indicates that flood depths in the area in question (area with a Manning's n value of 0.08 on the southeastern end of the plant) are generally between 5 and 23 feet. Surface roughness in this area is completely submerged (FL0-20, 2012b) during the PMF, indicating that the use of the upper end of the Manning's n range for the land cover type of "light brush and trees, in summer (0.040 to 0.080) in Chow, 1959 is conservative. The value of 0.080 is also in the upper end of the recommended range in HEC-RAS 20 for non-shallow flow conditions and land cover types of pervious areas, minimal (grassed) to thick (trees) vegetation (0.030 to 0.120). This composite land cover is representative of the area in question. Other areas with deep flows during the PMF, including the area south of the creek, were assigned the FL0-20 recommended higher Manning's n values.
In conclusion, the Manning n-values assigned in the FL0-20 model are judged to be appropriate for the existing land cover and modeled PMF flow depths with a reasonable degree of conservatism.
References:
AREVA, 2013. AREVA Document No. 32-9190274-000, "Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -
Probable Maximum Flood Elevations near R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant", GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., Revision 0, 2013.
Chow, 1959. "Open-channel hydraulics", McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959.
FL0-20, 2012a. FL0-20 Professional Version Reference Manual, FL0-20 Software Inc.,
Nutrioso, Arizona, 2012.
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 7 of 46 FL0-2D, 2012b. FL0-2D Professional Version Data Input Manual, FL0-2D Software Inc.,
Nutrioso, Arizona, 2012.
Hydronia, 2014. "RiverFL0-2D Plus User's Guide", Hydronia, LLC, March, 2014.
USGS, 2011. The National Land Cover Database 2006, by U.S. Geological Survey, http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd06_data.php, U.S. Geological Survey, February 2011, Edition 1.0, accessed August 27, 2012.
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 8 of 46 Table 4-1: Specified Manning's n-Values and NLCD2006 Land Use Classes NLCD 2006 CODE NLCD DEFINITION MANNING'S N 11 Water 0.025 12 Perennial Ice Snow 0.05 21 Low Intensity Residential 0.1 22 High Intensity Residential 0.08 23 Commercial/lndustrialff ransportation 0.06 24 Developed High Intensity 0.05 31 Bare Rock/Sand/Clay 0.08 41 Deciduous Forest 0.4 42 Evergreen Forest 0.6 43 Mixed Forest 0.5 51 Dwarf Scrub 0.35 52 Shrub/Scrub 0.4 71 Grasslands/Herbaceous 0.35 72 Sedge/Herbaceous 0.35 73 Lichens 0.35 74 Moss 0.35 81 Pasture/Hay 0.3 82 Cultivated Crops 0.25 90 Wood Wetlands 0.1 95 Emergent Wetlands 0.1
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 9 of 46 Table 4-2: ASCE HEC-RAS 20 Training Manning's n Values for Shallow Flow Switce 11-value Dense turf 0.17 - 0.80 Bermuda and dense 2f3SS. dn1~ \ *~2er.ation 0.17 - 0.48 Shrubs and fortst litter. P:t'>hltt' 0.30 - 0.40 Avtta~ grass covtt 0.20 - 0.40 Poor grass covn- on rough surface 0.20 . 0.30 Short mairie grass 0_10. 0.20 Soar~ ve2etatioo 0.05. 0.13 Sparse rangeland with debris 0% 00\'et 0.09-0.34 20 % cover 0.05. 0.25 Plowed or tilled fields Fallow - no rtsidue 0.008 - 0.012 Conventional tillage 0.06- 0 22 Chisd plow 0.06 - 0.16 Fall disking 0.30*0.SO No till - no residue 0.04 - 0.10 No till (20 - 4~o residue cover) 0.07. 0 17 No till (60 - I 00% residue cowr) 0.17 - 0.47 Ooen grOWld with debris 0.10 - 0.20 Sh:tllow ~low on asvb.1.h or concrde (0.15" to 1.0") 0.10 . 0.15 Fallo\"\"fidds 0.08 - 0.12 0Deti growid, DO debris 0.04 . 0.10
- .i\suhalt or concrete 0.02. 0.05
' Adapted from COE. HEC-1 Manual. 1990 and the COE. Technical Engineering and Design Guide. No 19, 1997 with modifications.
Source: FL0-20 Reference Manual, FL0-20 Software, 2012 Take Home Messages
- 1. Above table is recommended for 20 modeling of shallow flow conditions.
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 10 of 46 Table 4-3: ASCE HEC-RAS 20 Training Manning's n Values for Non-Shallow Flow Land Uso Typo 0.2- 0..5 0.1- 0..2 0.2- o.s 03- 0 05 0.02. 0.04
-0 0.015- 0 trl 0.02- 0.03 0.05-0.08 0.02- 0.04 Source: Australian Rainfall & Runoff Revision Projects, Project 15: Two Dimensional Modelling in Urban rand Rural Floodplains, November 2012 Take Home Messages
- 1. Above table is recommended for 20 modeling of non-shallow flow conditions.
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 11 of 46 Figure 4-1: Google Earth Image of the Site
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 12 of 46 Figure 4-2: Overlay of Specified Manning's n-values on Orthophotograph of the Site Area
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 13 of 46 Figure 4-3: Comparison of flow depths with specified Manning's n-values
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 14 of 46 Information Need 6: Storm Surge Datum Conversions
Background:
FHRR Table 1. 1-1 states that 0. 7 ft should be added to elevations given with respect to IGLD85 to get elevations with respect to NGDV29. The FHRR states the antecedent water level in Lake Ontario is 247.3 ft IGLDB5 (Section 2.4.2.3) and then states the PMSS height is 3.2 ft (Section 2.4.3) and the predicted PMS elevation is 251.1 ft NGVD29 and 250.5 ft IGLD85; a 0.6 ft difference which is inconsistent with FHRR Table 1.1-1.
Request: Explain the discrepancy introduced when converting between datums which may be attributed to rounding, and if necessary, provide the correct value.
Response
The datum conversion shown in FHRR Table 1.1-1 contains typographical errors. The correct datum conversion from elevation in IGLD85 to elevation in NGVD29 is 0.62 ft (AREVA, 2013).
Please see Table 6-1 below for the correct datum conversion information:
Table 6-1: Datum conversion relationships for Ginna.
To:
MSL (ft) IGLD85 (ft) NGVD29 (ft) NAVD88 (ft)
MSL 0 -0.62 0 -0.69 E IGLD85 0.62 0 0.62 0.07 0
LL NGVD29 0 -0 .62 0 -0.69 NAVD88 0.69 -0.07 0.69 0 The datum conversions in the FHRR are based on calculation documents which used the conversions shown in Table 6-1. Based on review of the FHRR and supporting calculations, the typographical errors noted above were confined to the FHRR Table 1.1-1. Elevations reported throughout the FHRR report use appropriate conversion factors.
References:
AREVA, 2013. AREVA Document No. 32-9190277-000, "Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -
Probable Maximum Storm Surge - R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant", GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., Revision O, 2013.
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 15 of 46 Information Need 7: Stream and River Flooding
Background:
The FHRR presents that the peak flow from flood re-evaluation for PMF is 28,460 (rounded to 28,500) cfs, which is about three-fourth of the peak flow (38,700 cfs) estimated in the previous study in 1982. FHRR Section 2.2.3 explains that the discrepancy is mainly caused by dividing the watershed into two contributory watersheds (Deer Creek and Mill Creek) in the re-evaluation flow model, which results in a Jess composite peak flow due to difference in peak time between two peak flows. The staff found that the peak flow for re-evaluation PMF is 20,530 cfs for Mill Creek and 8, 140 cfs for Deer Creek. The sum of two peak flow without considering difference in peak timing is 28, 670 cfs, which is much Jess than the previous flow study.
Request: Justify why the reevaluated PMF is conservative and bounding in terms of peak flow.
If necessary, provide a comparison between the reevaluation PMF model and the previous PMF model.
Response
A more detailed comparison between the reevaluated PMF (AREVA, 2013) and the previous circa 1982 studies (NUS, 1981 and NRC, 1982) was performed to further our understanding of the differences in methods applied for each. In general, the reevaluation uses a more detailed approach than the 1982 study, including up-to-date watershed input data such as land use and soil types. The following key differences were identified:
- 1. The reevaluation simulated the response of the watershed in greater detail, using two subwatersheds to represent the distinct branches of Deer Creek and Mill Creek, respectively. The 1982 study lumped these distinct streams into a single watershed and used a single lag time and curve number (CN) as described below.
- 2. The CN describes the runoff potential of the watershed based on hydrologic soil groups and land use data within watershed area. The 1982 study (NRC, 1982) used a CN of 94 while the reevaluation used a CN of 89.7 (90.4 for Deer Creek with a drainage area of 3.7 sq. mi. and 89.4 for Mill Creek with a drainage area of 10.8 sq. mi.). The 1982 study (NRC, 1982) states that ARClll antecedent runoff condition was used but does not discuss in detail how the CN of 94 was calculated. The calculated CN for the PMF reevaluation used site specific data and conservative assumptions including:
- a. SGS hydrologic soil group classification for the soils within the delineated subwatersheds obtained from the Natural Resources Conservative Service (NRCS) (NRCS, 2011 and NRCS, 2012). The re-evaluation curve number calculation is presented in Appendix D of the Ginna PMF flow re-evaluation calculation (AREVA, 2013) and indicate the following percentage breakdown of the SGS hydrologic soil groups in the Deer Creek and Mill Creek watersheds:
- i. Deer Creek: 2-percent A; 0-percent B; 9-percent C; and 89-percent D ii. Mill Creek: 4-percent A; 16-percent B; 11-percent C; and 69-percent D For soil types assigned with a dual-classification (e.g., B/D), the soil group with the higher runoff potential was conservatively used.
- b. Land use/Land cover data for the delineated watersheds obtained from the United States Geological Survey 2006 Land Cover Dataset (USGS, 2011 ). The
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 16 of 46 land cover data for the Deer Creek and Mill Creek watersheds shown in Figure 5 and Appendix C of the Ginna PMF flow reevaluation calculation indicate that majority of the land cover types in the two watershed are classified as either "Deciduous Forest" or "Pasture/Hay". For Curve Number categories with multiple hydrologic conditions (good, fair and poor), the most conservative was assigned based on engineering judgment and detailed descriptions of each land use classification.
The representative curve number used for each watershed is an area-weighted value of the curve numbers for each of the four soil types within each watershed.
- c. Assumption of wet antecedent runoff conditions (ARC Ill).
The FHRR evaluation is based on a more precise runoff estimate than in the design basis calculation (by using a more detailed breakdown of soils and land use) and is conservative because of the ARC-Ill adjustment.
- 3. Lag Time: The lag time has an effect on the time to peak and peak flowrate from a watershed with shorter lag times usually resulting in higher peak flows. The 1982 study (NRC, 1982) appears to use a simplified method to estimate the lag time, as reproduced below from a preceding study performed in 1981 (NUS, 1981 ):
The watershed time of concen~ration, Tc, is 9iven by: (3)
Tc * [ll.: L'] O.lBS where:
L channel len9th in ~iles e "' elevation difference in f~t.
The time of concentration for the Deer Creek watershed ia 4,3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />. The basin laq is approximately 0.6 Tc, or 2.6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
The simplified method does not use up-to-date methodology. The lag time calculation for the reevaluated PMF was based on the Natural Resource Conservation Service method (NRCS, 2010) for time of concentration, which separately estimates sheet flow, shallow concentrated flow, and channel flow as compared to just the channel flow lag time estimate used in the simplified method. Actual travel path within a watershed covers these steps of sheet flow from the watershed divide, shallow concentrated flow through wooded areas, and channel travel. The segmented approach for calculating the time of concentration is more representative of the watershed and longer than that calculated using the simplified approach in the design basis calculation. Lag time was also estimated as 0.6 times the time of concentration. The reevaluation lag time calculation used watershed-specific data including:
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 17 of 46
- a. Stream flow length based on site/basin orthoimagery
- b. Channel slope based on National Elevation Dataset (USGS, 2008)
- d. Conservative 2-year 24-hour rainfall values from the Northeast Regional Climate Center (NRCC, 2011)
The lag time(s) used in the reevaluation of the PMF is therefore appropriate and conservative.
- 4. The 1982 study conservatively applied a simplified 10-square-mile PMP value from HMR-52 to the approximately 14-square-mile Deer Creek watershed. The reevaluation used BOSS HMR-52 to more accurately apply the PMP over the actual watershed area.
This results in minor differences in the 6-hour PMP value (23.5 inches vs. 21.2 inches).
- 5. The reevaluation uses the up-to-date HEC-HMS computer program while the older studies used HEC-1 (e.g., the predecessor to HEC-HMS). This could result in minor differences due to the updates in software codes.
The reevaluation uses widely accepted methods (i.e., the NRCS method) that are also discussed in NUREG/CR-7046 Section 3.3 and Appendix C. Conservative assumptions are used, including:
- Use of wet antecedent runoff conditions (ARClll);
- Non-linearity adjustments of lag time and unit hydrograph peak flow for PMF conditions;
- Use of HMR-51 and HMR-52 in lieu of performance of a site-specific PMP study.
The reevaluation approach is consistent with the Hierarchical Hazard Assessment approach outlined in NUREG/CR-7046, which may be considered to refine the results of the older evaluation to develop a conservative and bounding PMF. In general, the 1982 era studies use simplified methods (particularly for application of the PMP and calculation of lag time) which are outdated and/or not as accurate as the methods used in the reevaluation.
References:
AREVA, 2013. AREVA Document No. 32-9190273-000, "Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -
Probable Maximum Flood Flow in Streams near R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., Revision 0, 2013.
NRC, 1982. TER-C5257-419. "Ginna Nuclear Power Plant - Final Evaluation of SEP Topics 11-3.A, 11-3.B, 11-3.C, and 11-4.D" United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 27, 1982.
NRCC, 2011. 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, revised October 19, 2011, accessed September 5, 2012.
NRCS, 2010. "Chapter 15 Time of Concentration", Part 630 Hydrology, National Engineering Handbook, U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service, May 201 O.
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 18 of 46 NRCS, 2011. Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm), revised December 20, 2011, accessed August 27, 2012. See AREVA, 2013.
NRCS, 2012. Soil Survey Geographic Database for Wayne and Monroe Counties, New York, Natural Resources Conservation Services (http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/ ssurgo/),
revised December 19, 2011, accessed August 22, 2012. See AREVA, 2013.
NUS, 1981. "Ginna Station Design Basis Flooding Study for Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation," NUS Corporation, August, 1981.
USGS, 2008. The National Map, National Geospatial Program (http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/), revised April 14, 2008, accessed August 20, 2012.
USGS, 2011. The National Landcover Database 2006 Land Cover (http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd06_data. php), U.S. Geological Survey, February 2011, Edition 1.0, accessed August 27, 2012.
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 19 of 46 Information Need 9: Flood Event Duration Parameters
Background:
The March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) Jetter, Enclosure 2, requests the licensee to perform an Integrated Assessment of the plant's response to the reevaluated hazard if the reevaluated flood hazard is not bounded by the current design basis. Flood scenario parameters from the flood hazard reevaluation serve as the input to the Integrated Assessment.
To support efficient and effective evaluations under the Integrated Assessment, staff will review flood scenario parameters as part of the flood hazard reevaluation and document results of the review as part of the staff assessment of the flood hazard reevaluation. This information is also necessary for conducting the Mitigating Strategies Assessment in accordance with NE/ 12-06 AppG.
Request: Provide the applicable flood event duration parameters (see definition and Figure 6 of the Guidance for Performing an Integrated Assessment, JLD-ISG-2012-05) associated with mechanisms that trigger an Integrated Assessment using the results of the flood hazard reevaluation. This includes (as applicable) the warning time the site will have to prepare for the event (e.g., the time between notification of an impending flood event and arrival of floodwaters on site) and the period of time the site is inundated for the mechanisms that are not bounded by the current design basis. Provide the basis or source of information for the flood event duration, which may include a description of relevant forecasting methods (e.g., products from local, regional, or national weather forecasting centers) and/or timing information derived from the hazard analysis. The FHRR does state a PMF flood duration (6.5 h) but other parameters are lacking.
In Section 3.3 of the FHRR, LIP, flooding on rivers and streams, and two combined-effects flood scenarios were stated to exceed the current licensing basis (which needs to be evaluated/corrected per Information Need #1 ). The FHRR did not provide sufficiently clear information on all flood duration parameters.
Response
Local Intense Precipitation and the combined effect of PMF on Deer Creek, the 25-yr storm surge on Lake Ontario, and 2-yr wind generated waves are the two controlling flood mechanisms determined in the FHRR.
Time series graphs for the LIP flood mechanism at key locations are provided as Figures 9-1 through 9-9. Time series graphs for the combined effect PMF flood mechanism at key locations are provided as Figures 9-1 O through 9-19.
The FHRR indicates flood protection measures described in the FSAR trigger on flood levels at Driveway Bridge. Based on detailed time-series data for the combined effect flood scenario (bounding Deer Creek flooding scenario), there is a 35+ hour delay between the triggering flood levels at Driveway Bridge and flood levels above grade near plant structures.
Detailed evaluation of timing required for potential flood mitigation strategies will be addressed as part of the Integrated Assessment phase of work.
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 20 of 46 Figure 9-1: LIP Time Series Plot for Grid Element 6193- East of Reactor Containment 272.2 I I I 272 I I I
I
! I I
I i
iI II 1
- LIP Elevation at East of Reactor Containment 271.8 +-----------*,_...J,._..j I j . 1 I I
- Design Basis Flood Level -
271.6 ~ ,
I 1
I 1
l__j_I nI 1 I
s 271.4 +--------~_._i __I I I I IL-~--+---
1:1 z
t
£.
~
c 0
271.2 271 +------,- -
1
.+----,--,.----:--~-~
I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
i
,--L.
I r-I I
I I
i I I ii lY: 270.8 ~ _,~-------------------------+--.--+--+----~-+-~--
ill
- I I I L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
\.. I I' I I 270.6
"°"'\. I ! I I I r-- ~ 11 I I '
270.4 I I I I I I
. I : I ---- I I 270.2 I I I i ! : I L_J i I I ! I I I I ! I 270 I I I I 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Time (hours)
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 21 of 46 Figure 9-2: LIP Time Series Plot for Grid Element 6651 - East of Auxiliary Building 272.2 ~--------------------------------,,-------,-
- LIP Elevation at East of Auxiliary Building
- Design Basis Flood Level 272
-~~~I IIT-,
271.8 I - ,
1
- - ; 1 Oi' 271.6 +---
N c
I!>
z
.;- 271.4 . I I I
~
I
~
c 0
~
l: 271.2 I - I - ' 11
!,, r- ' I' I 0
0
~ _j_-----L-,--~-- L
~-I ~- ~ ~ ;~,
il: 271 111 -
270.8 I I I
' I 1
270.6 ,?
I
~-
~- L~ -
I l
I ----l I I I
I I I II I I I
270.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Time (hours)
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 22 of 46 Figure 9-3: LIP Time Series Plot for Grid Element 4364 - North of Turbine Building 257 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
- UP Elevation at North ofTurbine Building
- Design Basis Flood Level 256.5 +-- I ,---* I
- -r----i
- -~-* _L, ~---_L : I 11 I '~
256 - - - -*
~
~
c
~... 255.5
~
II "' r r l 1:;*1i i 0
- o:
~
--=--,~ ~lj--
255
....Lil I :
8 ii:
254.5 .L______ __, ~ __ _J__ I I 1--rl-254 I I _j_-~--~r--
i j_' i 1
253.5 +------.----'----~~-----,------,.-------.~----.------,..---.!___l_-,----~-'--~---'-~
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Time (hours)
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 23 of 46 Figure 9-4: LIP Time Series Plot for Grid Element 5740 - South of Control Building 272.2 I
272
- LIP Elevation at South of Control Building 271.8 +-~------~-----~~--;-------,*
~De*"'"' _L
. Flood Level I :
a;-
271.6 J__[ ---;---'-------*
- ----- *- I lJI
=-+-! ~-I N
c _J_
i; 271.4 z
c 0
271.2 -------i-------- ' --r----'*
- I ~rr iil 271 ---i----*
"Cl 0
0 il:
I ,
270.8 ---'---~------~
I '
l 270.6 II ~
I I 270.4 ----, ----------'~*--
I 270.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Time (hours)
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 24 of 46 Figure 9-5: LIP Time Series Plot for Grid Element 5286- East of All-Volatile-Treatment Building 272 .2 -r-- ,------------.
- LIP Elevation at East of All-Volatile-Treatment Building
- Design Basis Flood Level 272
. --~~
I I I
- -. I ---~~-----*--- J_r!I II
- If I I !: I II ;' lI
-L -- : I ' , ,
- ------~-
271.8 -L-_J_______ - -,- - ,
_L I:
-~-
I __, - .
1271.6 ---'-r--- -1..__ I ' I : -, fI ) - '
~~
., 271* ' I i8 2712
~
I !I I -
___ ____.)____ :
I I- r-,,
I I
':I r !
- 211 - . *
"°*' +--
270.6 -/\..._
,-.~~~~'
-+ : .:
I
--~-,i .
I
- -- ,--- 1. I II I I ---.--~ I .
270.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Time (hours)
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 25 of 46 Figure 9-6: LIP Time Series Plot for Grid Element 6879 - East of Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building 273.5 ~--------------------------*-----------------------~~-----~
- LIP Elevation at East of Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building
- Design Basis Flood Level
'I 273 I 1 , , '
272 .5 +--. __J~ ~---'. -~--..:--~~~-~----__!..._I I-~_,I_ --'---~- I I I I
ii
~
N 272 I
I I I I
I ~ --r_:
I I . I
_____;.__I z I I I I I
..- '. I I i5 271.5 I I
!I I
- Ii I I
~ . I
~
~
~
271 I I :'I ~ III I I
'I
~ ,~,~-1--:
- 1 ~
4~~ -
270.5 +------L_ ~-~ ! _,_L. _ _ ___,_l_____ ~ I _ _J_µ_1_
"- I i 270 I . I I '
I I 269.5 '
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Time (hours)
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 26 of 46 Figure 9-7: LIP Time Series Plot for Grid Element 7105- East of Proposed Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building Annex 274 I I I
273.5 I I I I - LIP Elevation at East of Proposed Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building Annex I
- Design Basis Flood Level 273 1_1_ I ~
I
~
I I
a; 272.5 I I I
I I
N c I L~
Cl z
272 ...__.
I I I I lc I
I i., 271.5 I I
i I
.,,ljj 0
0 iI:
271
' I I I I' I
I I I
I I I I 270.5 I I I I r\_ I 270 -* I ~
I I I i I I
II I I I
269.5 I I 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Time (hours)
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 27 of 46 Figure 9-8: LIP Time Series Plot for Grid Element 3840 - South of Screen House 257 .----~~--*~----~~~~~~~~~----~~~--~~~~~~---~~~~~~~~~-~---~~
I - LIP Elevation at South of Screen House
- Design Basis Flood Level L ---i~*
i: :
256.S -----j - -I -------,
r1 256
_______L_
.L__I_' -.- -n~
°'>
N ti I- r,-:--,-I Q
"2:.... 255.5
~
c 0
ii
...g iii 255 *- *'----'* L _J_ _ I_
_LT I I u:: I I 254.5 -~-------------*---- __..___,--i- I I
II I I 254 .Jl___L_ ' I ~--+-- - r r
L :
I 253.5 I
I 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Time (hours)
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 28 of 46 Figure 9-9: LIP Time Series Plot for Grid Element 4014 - North of Diesel Generator Building 257 ~---
~LIP Elevation at North of Diesel Generato~
1
- Design Basis Flood Level _ I 256.5 -+--~-----
__l_,,__.__~--1L-.-=,.--.----
. ---r_L______~~==~
256 ~~* 1 ~1 I.
~
g C1 z 255.5 r- - .
' I I: i II I :
t g I I j 255 ~' I I ~ '--------- ~-.- ,-
i I ' I i I I I I
~
..5! I ::_L_ - "-.._
. I I I-254.5 _L_ - -= +1 I II I I_ _L_I_
254 l . ~--,-+,---1'---.!-I~----~~~*
II 253.5 +------~------.------.,.-------..--------.-------.......------..---~-~--.r-~----.,.-------.
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Time (hours)
- c E
Cl)
- I-I
+ ! . !-.- lj f I 0
U"l
~!~ t t! ! f~
- c
"(ij t f ~ ~ 1 -11 { t I r r f{ t H 1 c l 0
0 0
...0
- f~- f H tU Cl) tj f' -
l 1 :
t--
11
~
I I
[ti=lt1' I
-t-tI f- ' ~ j
+ t r- ~ t U"l
'<t
-- rlli- fr'.I! /(i 1 11:1JH t I, I I a: 0
'<t 0
1 Ill t t i l
tU t L 1 I w
I r U"l
('()
C')
0) t i t I ff HJ t i.
j f l ! rt .~ ~ ~ t I t
0 a.
CD cCl) +
r I r 0 i
ll
('()
Q) E i a: i c iii Cl)
I I t i I l i 1- .
'<ii'
~
0 ell
- J "C
- .:::: I t U"l
- I
.c 0
CJ
...0 N -
-c::
CD ell E a:
Q)
Q) 0 t L ttt i=
"O..... c ftt 0 ell Ill ~ .J- L N
I N
ell en Cl)
Cl)
Q)
_J w
Vl I
l*i I t "O *v; 0
- v; I
.-i i=
I ~
Q) c Lt 0
LL 0
r f
- .;:::; ~
ell CL ~
E l 0
..... 0 .-i It ! t t I 0 Cl) c l
...... 0 c
w
'+:>
>Q)
L I
i r
~
ell "C w c Cl) 0 c "00 U"l
~
- .c u::
II
- 0 1 "O
<t:
E I I t t~
t I 0
..... 0 t I 0
en 0
,.... ! : l 0 Q) I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- J 0) 0 U"l 0 U"l 0 U"l 0 er Q) ...
Cl)
- l cvi
,.... N N
N N
N N
ci N
ci N
a: N
- 0 Q) Q) c.o
'<;f" 0
en ..._ er>
C) u:: (lSllll 'ill uo1ie11a13 poo1:1 oc :::J en C\J
- a. 0 Q) en u 0>
Q) c ell a: w a..
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 30 of 46 Figure 9-11: Combined Effect PMF Time Series Plot for Grid Element 6651 - East of Auxiliary Building 274.00 .....-----.------.----.....-----.-------.----.....-----.---.---.....----T"'"----r--...,
-+- I t ,_ ~-+-+-1-+ 1- 1- +-+-'-+-i r
273.50 t* l i-.l* l t~~
Flood Elevation -
... ,...._ ... ,.... 't Design Basis Elevation
+
t r
-t
+
1- ...
-1i
+--- t-
+-+-
-i-*-
-r-I E
t*-.
-+
273.00 __J-
- -+---'-
t .--1 i*
~ - ..L
-t ii' 272.50 -j---+--+--.-1-t---~~+-<*
- E g
c
.2 272.00 --<-
1;;
> i .* + + i -t-L -
t
- Wr--
+- t 0
0
+--: i -+_J_
t* + ,,. +--1---T-
+ ._
Li: 271.50
~-t I t-J -~-J
- .-~~
II+:_:-1 I
i -
+- ! t
~ ; r !- . -r-+-
I +-+ .1.
270.50 I
+T
,.~
T' ~....,
270.00
~
- j. .
+-
I t +- j . I l I -r--,-
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (hours)
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 32 of 46 Figure 9-13: Combined Effect PMF Time Series Plot for Grid Element 5740 - East of Control Building 272.50 - . - - - - . . . . . . . . . - - - - . . . . . . . - - - - - . - - - - . . . . - - - - - - , . - - - - . . - - - - - - - . - - - - . - - - - - - . - - - - - - - .
- Flood Elevation
- Design Basis Flood Level ... -~~
272.00 . . . . . . .
"'t-+ t -+ + -
+ t + - 1 t tt *~ 1-t"I ~ '
- ,~ ~ r +- *4- T t- -*-
r-
- l"
- ii 271.50 _I_--+-~~.
£c +* '"1..
- ./'- .. I
-t +
...j
.. .Jo- I t' -T- * +- ..... +---*
t- + t- + t--r f-- *- *
-a g 271.00 +-----+--* .- -1
. j- + -r ...--*
-
- I t r i ~ 1 ~ i + r ' ** * **- .
i
- t ...
270.50 ---+--~--I-----*>-~~-+~~ --I---- ..__L . ----+--- I I I I ' I I
-t- -+-+ 1" -r-~ -
.. ;. +* *
- t + I* r ~ + t I t t +
r 270.00 +-
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (hours)
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 33 of 46 Figure 9-14: Combined Effect PMF Time Series Plot for Grid Element 5286 -All-Volatile-Treatment Building 272.50 ........~~~_,...~~~~.....--~~~-.-~~~---.~~~~~~~~--r~~~~.--~~~-.-~~~"""'T~~~---.
i ..
- Flood Elevation
- Design Basis Flood Level -1; r -~ r 1
.. +- """" ,..
I I
-1+-I
- +--+--i- ._,_Li 1-- -+ -
I 272.00 . ' ' . ' ' ' ' . .
trrt I ~ *-~ ~
- t t-f - . -+ ,.._
I I i-r-t -t-*t-- +--
rtt--
I I I r
+ ~ 1--
-+ -+--+
I r r--
r: tr .:=~n u~
I r->-- ---'--
_L_
I + ~ ' I 11 l I
~
-r-.r t-
!=:11*
t- .....-
I
~ I I r + i I I ~_j__! ;**if-
-I~--
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (hours)
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 34 of 46 Figure 9-15: Combined Effect PMF Time Series Plot for Grid Element 6879-West of Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building 273.SO
- Flood Elevation -!-----L--- - +- +.-;..
- Design Basis Flood Level I
273.00 '
i!
t H
~J t --t* T- -
272 . so +-_I--+
r
__ _, t tt -+-- I ~ f- -' - I -~1 .;:__.._
. I r*~ .
t t *t- /
+ L * ~~, ~
I
~I
~
... I t t r
I n t**l '
I 1 to--t-
~L1_i_:
I 11 :_ 'I:-J r } H-:r-:
'~--+-
+--;- -
Ill 2
272.00 1 l i
~~ t+ i ::~. Li tiff-. ; -
' ' + ' I
- c I *
-t--'!--1 0
- ~ 271.SO Ill
> I !* !-
I r t I ~ ~
CD U,j
' t . ~\ , i'
.-t "IS 0
0 +---,---! +- I t- ;.
~-rp::: ~ t h
- 271.00 t"" -t I jT
+-+
270.SO L-+-t-
' -'- -r---,---r---,- t:
- ,. t I
' -i
.. +
- t t
.. t ~ {I _ht I~lL t rt ~
I
' L 270.00 I I I
- - ---- _,___I
~,.
i.I - ,.
'tt
. t -
.. t
'r
~ +-
- __; +-+ -
~-* I L-r . - ~
... -~
~ I + t r-~ .I +,
269.SO I I I. I I I
~--t--
0 s 10 lS 20 2S 30 3S 40 4S so Time (hours)
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 35 of 46
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 36 of 46 Figure 9-17: Combined Effect PMF Time Series Plot for Grid Element 3840- South of Screen House 258.50 , I I ~ ~
I [ ... "' "" 1 '*- _... I + _..
mt-+/-ct*_.- :*_ :-** _:.
- Flood Elevation .,,. --t- .:::._::.
258.00 +- - Design Basis Flood Level - - .!="""--L-1-~ 1 -i--<*
257.50 ....
~
- ~ - '"
_*~~
+ -
-f..
<i*
1 ffi--+-
+
I~~~-~
i-*
too
- -+-+
+ -+
r: : : . .:
257.00 I r-' '::- =~
~
+ ..
~
- 256.50 ------'~-
~ .,. +
- E .., .&. j- +-_-: :- ~~
'"t'
-t--':
£c 256.00
-l
~ **-*-
- **:-_ +-
_ _+
+---- -~
.::_ _ + _ +_
+- ...
__..__~t-*-+_
t-"'f"
' -\::.'::
+ -f-t- I ~.* - l I .,._ _,.
.2 .. .,. - ""t~-+ -.r 1~ + t 1' I ,. t -+ *-i I: 1' 1D .,. . . . . .,.- *. + .,. t +- ~ -+
> -"! T-t ... -t- .,....., f. -+'- +r
..!!! 255.50 -L~ ..,..- -- - - . -- ~ . '
~
0 t L:. f~ .;..
i .
~--+,:-::
_r-I, J:_ !-t.-* ~
r--*
~ *t ~ ~ 4+ ~*
~_I i=ttl
... 255.00 --- - --- __,.
tt r +
t --
t I-r
~
T-
+ +-
~- -
1 + ,. ~
+
~- -
- r T 254.50 I II ~t ~ ~ _ :_::::::_ +- _:_1-...: t - ..._ _]' ~_ I -t- ~
r:
+-
254.00 +--1'.tlJ. --i-
,J ~..
r+-
-'-- r +
t...
r i' tl
~_j rt ~ t=f
- --t _
- i p
- _!_ t l t + '- w~ ~ J - lf* r.
253.50 .+----; I ~ ~ : -- ... t:-. _+-r t-t -t- i.:___ .....:t:=t -~=,
- t.
~ .. *-' 1- i= ++~ i+-l--*l--J.+ ++ ++ -i---l- - _ti 253 . 00 -r I -H I i-< ~ t-+ *I I I I . -*,.......; c I - t=t 0 5 W ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~
Time (hours)
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 37 of 46 Figure 9-18: Combined Effect PMF Time Series Plot for Grid Element 4014- North of Diesel Generator Building 259.00 ..,..-----.------,-------.----...------r-----.------,-------.r----...------,
1- . "'i~
- Flood Elevation 1- i
' i* ~ +- ...
i i !-,*
- +-
+ .. '
- Design Basis Flood Level
. + +-+-t-r-t -i*-+---t--
258.00 +--~-*
257.00
-+-+--t t '
+ .....
- I
.. --t----i-*
T ~
I-
~-
~I-
~
- .. _,.. -r-t-
"'::E -+--t l--* '-i +---1 ic ~ +- I- I" ~
i0 256.00 *-+---'--.--<*
w "Cl
.. .. +--+-t- t 0 ........ +
.2 t + +-t*
255.00 *. -- -r- -.--
-+ *
-. + - -+
+-+
.... t +- !+
~
254.00 *r-
+-
+
-;- i-"t -
t +
--:- . 1--* _,_
- l * *- y +
-t
+-t- ..--
+-+I
- t t
t h 253.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 so Time (hours)
Cl) tn "i::; ----------------~
m ~-~-~-~-~~~~~-~ o
! I rr I I I 1 I f t t' t I
Tr l.O I I I 0 fr ; l f l'rll! ):- I r ; ; l .r ; ~ I rl -1+ '. r l t L :- i ~. I - tr - ! ;
I Ci t0 E 1 1- -Y
- a. as Q) a:
~
inQ. r I i c
0
+::
rn I
r 1 t I
t-1 1 1*
~
0
- J a; f---+--~ ' '- - - r - + - - - - - - + - + - + - - - - r - - - - - + - - - - I
~ m I l 0 ;
- £ j l rt*
M Q) ~ ~
~
I IJ '!, I Q) r I .- . I '.'.
a: .g "O
E C!)
E ~ ~ . * 't I
f l
- ~
~ -*~_,_ ~
rn N
rn
- c ! 1* t l lf '.-. LI _ 1J "O
0 0
LL c
0
+::
rn E.....
.2c 0
rn .....
c 0
'+;:;
15 "O
<(
0 Lil 0 r-. r-.
N N
Response to Request for Additional Information {Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 39 of 46 Information Need 1O: Flood Height and Associated Effects
Background:
Flood scenario parameters from the flood hazard reevaluation serve as the input to the Integrated Assessment. To support efficient and effective evaluations under the Integrated Assessment, the staff will review flood scenario parameters as part of the 50.54(f)
FHHR and document results of the review as part of the staff's assessment. The March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) letter, Enclosure 2, requests that the licensee perform an Integrated Assessment of the plant's response to the reevaluated hazard if the reevaluated flood hazard is not bounded by the current design basis. This information is also necessary for conducting the Mitigating Strategies Assessment in accordance with NE/ 12-06 App G.
Request: Provide the flood height and associated effects (as defined in Section 9 of JLD-ISG-2012-05) that are not described in the FHRR for mechanisms that trigger an Integrated Assessment. This includes the following quantified information for each mechanism (as applicable):
- Wind waves and run up,
- Hydrodynamic loading, including debris,
- Effects caused by sediment deposition and erosion (e.g., flow velocities, scour),
- Concurrent site conditions, including adverse weather,
- Groundwater ingress The FHRR indicated that the Integrated Assessment will include LIP, flooding on rivers and streams, and two combined-effects flood scenarios. For these mechanisms or their combination not all the associated effects listed above were stated in the FHRR. Provide the analysis used to support the conclusions for each associated effect. Provide analysis of associated effects for these flood causing mechanisms that will be included in the Integrated Assessment or a clear justification of why these effects are excluded.
Response
Wind waves and run up are addressed in the response to Information Need No. 8, discussed in the NRC audit.
Hydrodynamic loading. including debris loading, is not anticipated to adversely affect Ginna during flood conditions. Hydrodynamic loading is essentially a function of flow velocity acting at structures. The maximum flow velocity at representative grid locations for the plant critical structures is 5.3 feet per second (Table 10-1 ). This maximum flow velocity is considered relatively low and, in combination with the direction of flow which is typically parallel to or away from important structures, it is expected to generate hydrodynamic loading that is bounded by other COB loading (i.e., tornado/missile loading). Localized, higher velocities up to a maximum of 9.2 feet per second at the northern end of the All-Volatile-Treatment Building exist during the PMF condition (Figure 10-1 ). The localized higher velocities are also relatively low and are expected to result in hydrodynamic loads that are bounded by other COB loading.
Debris loading is not expected to be significant at critical structures due to the resultant shallow maximum flow depths {Table 10-1), limited availability of debris, and distance of the Deer Creek channel to the powerblock area. As shown in Figure 10-1, the predominant flow path of the
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 40 of 46 PMF is along the Deer Creek channel. Other higher-velocity areas occur along or near site access roads, which have fairly shallow flow depths generally on the order of less than 2 ft (Figure 10-2, reproduced from Figure 2.9-6 of the FHRR). The shallow depths are likely to prevent large debris from being transported to Ginna from the main flow area (i.e., Deer Creek channel).
Areas of localized flow depths greater than 3 feet and higher velocities such as the area at the northern end of the All-Volatile-Treatment Building may experience some loading from localized debris (i.e. cars, trees branches, etc.).
Table 10-1: 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 Maximum PMF Peak Maximum Representative Flow Structure Elevation Flow Grid Element Velocity (ft, NGVD29) Depth (ft)
Number (fps)
Reactor Containment 6193 272.4 2.2 1.1 Auxiliary Building 6651 272.6 2.0 2.8 Turbine Building 4364 258.2 4.2 3.1 Control Building 5740 272.4 2.0 2.1 All-Volatile-Treatment-BuildinQ 5286 271.3 0.7 5.3 Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building 6879 272.8 2.7 4.0 Proposed Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building Annex 7105 273.5 3.6 2.8 Screen House 3840 258.2 4.5 3.3 Diesel Generator Building 4014 258.4 4.7 4.4 In response to the Information Need request, FL0-2D was used to approximate impact pressure loading as a result of the PMF. The results are provided in Figures 10-3 and 10-4. FL0-2D uses the Deng impact pressure equation, which is a function of maximum velocity (regardless of direction) and the density of water (FL0-2D, 2012). The impact pressure is reported as a force per unit length (impact pressure times flow depth). FL0-2D also reports static pressure based on flow depth and the specific weight of water (FL0-2D, 2012). The results are anticipated to be bounded by existing loading requirements for tornado/missile loading, with the exception of
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 41of46 the Auxiliary Building. Flow velocities in the vicinity of the Auxiliary Building are relatively limited.
Impacts of both hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loading at all critical locations for the site will be addressed during the Integrated Assessment phase of work.
Effects caused by sediment deposition and erosion (e.g., flow velocities, scour)
The maximum flow velocity among the critical structures is 5.3 feet per second (fps), which is not expected to result in erosion at buildings. Well established grass cover has a permissible velocity of about 6 feet per second (USAGE, 1984). Higher velocities located away from the buildings are generally in paved areas and do not exceed the permissible velocity for pavement of 12 feet per second (USAGE, 1984). Therefore, erosion/scour is not expected to impact Ginna.
Sediment deposition is also not expected to result in significant impacts at Ginna. The PMF combined effect flood reevaulation results already assume blockage of culverts at the Ginna access road (by sediment, debris, or other). The resulting flood travels from the Deer Creek channel overland, past the plant, and eventually into Lake Ontario (Figure 10-1 ). Velocities are fairly low (less than 1O feet per second) but not stagnant (generally more than 1 foot per second) such that significant sediment deposition leading to higher flood levels is not expected.
Groundwater The design basis groundwater level was determined using results of monitoring of groundwater levels over a 4-year period from 1983 through 1987, resulting in a groundwater level of 265.0 ft msl. This value was based on a peak recorded groundwater level of 264.69 ft and using a 2%
maximum expected error in the recording system. An engineering evaluation was subsequently performed to determine the effects of the design-basis groundwater level on safety related structures below grade. As a conservative approach, the engineering evaluation considered a groundwater level at grade elevation 270.0 ft msl, or 5 ft higher than the design-basis level. The evaluation demonstrated that the below-grade safety-related structures were adequately designed to resist the loads associated with groundwater levels at grade (270.0 ft msl) without requiring strengthening modifications. (Ginna, 2011)
The design-basis groundwater level of 265 ft MSL is well above the regulated maximum Lake Ontario level, and would only be exceeded by surface flooding for relatively short durations during the postulated flood events (PMF on Deer Creek and LIP at the site). As a result, groundwater elevations are not anticipated to be significantly impacted by flood mechanisms detailed in the FHRR. Additionally, the evaluation performed to determine the impacts of groundwater on below-grade safety related structures indicated that no adverse impacts would occur if groundwater levels were at plant grade (270.0 ft MSL).
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 42 of 46 Figure 10-1: FL0-20 velocity vectors and peak velocity values (in feet per second) for the PMF combined effect flood.
0.45 1.65 4 *32,- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 iis 21/1 - 1,95 0 0 0 046 0 51 0 .5 3 0 0 I - -- -
Legend Velocity at Cell (Vectors )
006 0.52 aJl o:79 o8e a8 2.1 9 o o o o o 0 0 -0 0 ffi Velocrty at Cell 0.31 OQ8 1.73 2.55 3.33 3.2 4.11 'Z.22 0.88 (),34 0.21 0.17 0.34 0 0.64 1.0',2 1.47 2.13 3.13 3 31\5 h 75 0 042it1.15 13'1 5.39 0.19 Cl 1.22 1.52 2.07 2. 7~ 3.14 3.15 259 2.53 242 268 2.6 329 3.87 4.92 147 0:28 0;3 0 0 0 0.82 1~16 0.28 4'43 2.93 D.27 M5 0"5 D,29 1.99 2. " 4 5.01 2.M 0;-73 0.41 Cl 2..51 2.731 2.oJ 2.es :1n 1
. ~8 11 2 1074 0.44 0121 0.138 0.37 0.31 0.15 0.48 0.59 0 .87 0 7 6.52 MB S 98 2.8 1 5e 0-97 0,55 1.53 0.1 0 5.28 4.5 5:01 2~1 1.74 -1 1.DJ 1 ~5 2.1 \ 0 0 1.39 1 29 *214 2.73 2.98 2.
0 2.15 64 0.51 1.19 1 G3 2.28 2.71 352'~ .28 4 0.52 0.59 0.113 5 81 1 35 2 oe 2.Bs 3.64 4.se 5.26 5.
0.62 0 76 1 *1& HIS 1.72 1.67 3.18 3.'02 1~ 139 0.65 0.92 1 Q3 2.23 2.3 1l36 087 u1 1.0 . 1 9.l>i 2t11 2 11 1.sr oraa 0.1'6 1.11 1\1! 21s 2oe 1.01 1.83 21121 4.87 2.53 2.<17:1'2.43< 2.34 1.15 0.'71 1.24 4 2.Hl 2 23 2.15 241< 2.22 2.3*1 2':8 1.83 1.9 1 93 255 1M 0.83 095 12.5 145 UB 2.55 2.49 2.58 2.34 2.38 2.55 2 .<10 4. 218 111 0;9 104 104 Me 1Aa 2.76 2;119 2.73 2.62 2.79 2.82 Z.94 3.02 3.411 3.97 1.72 1.93 2.48 3.IM 3.81 4.71 517*8 8.1 6.QZ !!:M *s.84 5 58 6.06 e 58 5 .56 4.60"3 .G i 2.S6 , .82 1;2 ~8 0.83 1.0t 1 Q7 1 ~3
-;-., . ---i c: ~ - .:*"'
2.84 2.87 2.95 3.01 3.09 3.14 3.06 2.85 2.61f 1:e3 1.37 2.67 3.02 3.a 4.88 5.47 5.55 5.44 5.8i *5.67 s.s2 6.01 '5.21 4.96 s2s*~~:o1 0.75 0.61 089 1.HI 1.11 1.38 3.03 3.05 3.09 ,-3.115 3.18 3.17 3 2.92 2.85 3.29 3.28 3.37 3.92 4.88 5.43 5.37 5.02 5.08 ,5, 39 6.16 ~67;. S1l3 3P1" 2.43 ' 4,37 279 0.52 1.32 f,J 1.d'2 1.36 2,96 2.99 3.09 3.16 3.11 3.12 3.08 3.29 3.35 3.78 417 4.39 4.84 5.14 4.98 5.05 5.12 5.35 5.17 5.06 5.08 ,.S:48-..;5,5e-" 521 2.7 1-2 1.23 1~5 2.03 2'41 1.05 1.2 7
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 43 of 46 Figure 10-2: Peak flow depths (ft) during the PMF combined effect flood (Figure 2.9-6 of the FHRR) 0'" 1.91 Q.I 2.79 II.I 1.1 0.1 01 Q.j Q.I Q.I 01 0.f CU II.I 1.1 G:-1 03' 0.41 t&4 A.It 123 1U3 Q.2 U4 Ot ti 0.1 01 0.1 01 0.1 0.1 :, o.ae
- ~1 I.I t.1 j l° 35 70 140 Feet I
Legend HJ Row Depth 31 cell 0.1 IJllll 2 3.49 2.111 2A ,. ta ,. tlll ll &42 1~ &71 1.211 8,115 OJI& 0.1 0.1 D.1 tU O.! 0.1 Q.I 0.1 0.00 II.DD D.08 0~2Jlll ...054.ll3 4 2M 2.42 2.85 1.& 1,JI I. IS Q.20 o.t o.e2 2.1 4JR 407 3§1 l!.111 112 0.0&
'* t.21 2.18 3.58 141 1.111 0.1
~ tM MO 2.21 2.73 122 U2 !! 425 4.2& 4.Ja 4.34 444 4Jl9 11'3 U1 01 Q.T 0.45 G.I 3.t OJ 1.4~ U? li 3.1~ 2:11 Gig 2jJ3 4.W 2.3 0.87 1.29 0.74 OJt 2.17 !.14 14' J.79 _U7 41 us 1t :U7 071 ;ue u1 lt2< o.4 1t u1 1 059 o:re 1.u 1 1.113 0 .79 0.2S 0.311 2.IJD !AZ 2.01 2.Dll ... 0.13 0.87 ll Ut f.2 1.34 1.24 t.16 11.117 8.41 1'2 IA2 1.14 1T UI ua 120 , ... IM o.a 0.1 004 l.11 0.11 , . . 10 D.09 Q.7a 1111 1.IO t.U 1.' n 1.74 117 1.111 11.01 0.1 ue 345 ;i:n ii 11111 1.87 2.311 1.81 I.lit t.22 I 03 1.t!I 1.17 2.W 3.113 !i.3a 5.21 Z.18 1..86 o.n 110 U! .HI 2.04 UO I.el 1.ee UJ !I l... 4.64 u 7.U 1"4 . 4.l't
-oo* o..- 4 207 ut 222 2.21 l.SI 2. U 208 Ill 11 3.80 1 J.87 '" &.112 5.34 .* 1At .. 71f 1.n " 101 u D.118 477 271 ... 2-.22 ~ :U2 U3 2:49 277 2.et 1.95 4.71 7311 IU ,: ..11 6 .. 041 a.si 10.1*
UI !.31 0.12 Ull 3.51 . . 114 2.38 1.11 444 OS 2.21 4 ... IO.ee 15.14 14.N tt.12 11lt IU 3_4t US Ut - ll ZA 2.114 3.71 383 4.U 2.114 2.65 UI Ull U4 U2 3.311 4611 1U I.le 10.2S HM ta37 1411 3.71 4.33 .,. !> 629 U6 <.05 UI 273 3.711 3.00 0.2 778 :u 421' 4.17 . . . 1112* tU4 13.26
- .21 *' " 5.111 **ue *.115 4.M t.1111 U2 33 1113 !Ult 0.11 U!l 4.ll 4.TI> 1.80 IS It 13.81' .. tue l!Jll 4.114 4. ..... *n :r.es *
- 11u11 141 U U2 :U3 4ll7 t.22 1.211 U11 U3 US 10.a"I 14.8 !6.05 3Jlll 4.lll 5 1.112 4.54 4*<40 M7 !i.D1 4..11 11.22 11211 528 !>25 u 11.34 3.e1 ;1.73 4.0t 0.4311 5.13 3.70 4.6 li.31 11 UJ UM 1aJM ~ 17 1.71 871 11 . . IU 4.&e 4..57 4.811 4.9'7 ~1 IU4 U& UI ~U~ .. ~~~~~-~~~M~~~W~~ 11* U U4 0.47 171 11 7.11 *.22 11.31 IA! UT &.2$ Ull UI 11.!8 ,,ee S,51 0.37 5Jlll " Ue !I.Cl& U2 UI 4110 441 U II.VI U2 ID.II 12* 1346 1421 ,.l< 14.17 lit UI Uf 477 Uf **an *~
0.12 5.97 e.aa 5.95 5.& u 5.!i!i 5.57 5.a!! llU7 e.211 11n 5.5 5.5 11.12 11.14 11.112 sn il.D1 5Jl3 587 nn u.1111 un 1111 " u1 us 703 e 19 UI IUO 11.92 5J3 5.44 5.37 U2 &.al' SM 5.82 5'42 U7 $.00 U5 6.311 1M 1.27 11M a.a II.el 14.llll tUI te.22 1046 ua u , u1 11 >.t7 *~
§.31 t43 GM &45 5.23 5.2 5.17 M8 M3 508 Ml 517 '75 08 '5 5.07 593 08 HO Uli O.?I 13 1240 15.ll 17.'48 - 10 It 324 ll ua 1! 108 2
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 44 of 46 Figure 10-3: FL0-20-generated impact forces during the PMF combined effect flood (pounds per foot) 0 12 128 21 18 Q Legend M 182 8 0 t't 19 IP--J!.;l° ~j~ee~I t+/-l Impact Force at Cell ao es 110 121 111 M 101 25 3 0 Q 52t39881114U8 60 Q e:~ 17 57 71 73 10 112 23 ~ 118 n M u ~ n n m ~ m n o o 2 0 18 a ~ ea ~ M 35 ~ n 38 *
- G - 60 o 0 14 84 118 81 o 228 102 .. 221 HI 13 -411 30 ** 1t I M II ;278 142 18 0
.. 14 179 95 1641 __ _
I ~ 0 0 15 24 3 Q 0
- 12
.. 37 ~4* 4 2 1-13 1.f1 25 183 - 0 0 0 0
- 147 14 93 .. 84 248 71 40 282 I07 3S 12 ..
21 178 12.6 101 83 21 I 121 317 117 26 & 5 13 ... 34 148 129
- II 2.f'"" 2: 483810131113 5 11 13 1641 483 107 113 159 141 4730~2012 n n ~ - =- 83 ~ 20 2 -
48 158 .. 823353428 24 u w m ~ w - - m m ~
7 -
101 421 0 a ~ 22 ~ ~ 38 a 83 ~ ~ - a = - 284 m m ~
- 5
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
10 407 2IM - M 18 - - - - - I- W 2 22 ..
211 48 ~ - = ~ - m 118 ru ~ ~ ~ - m 60 0 10 a ta 11 93 t2'4* 323 329 39 10 t31 2D8 "'°' 335 228 158 234 il70 1649 478 158 7Q 18 llO 118 2li 355 327
- t11 197 184 -45< 562 196 284 1Sll 1- - 284 19 14214315652~
345 -
15 'M
- 10 211 24' :J74 073 2151 260 380 623 1431 13Z1 178 .
28 31 - M ~ 51 39 40 Cl 2SO 120 'f23 145 3 a 22 43 .228 243 383 M4 528 288 34-' 502 1037 1271 1-41 42 ffl 37
~ M g U 52 156 M - ~ ~ ~ 118 ~ ~ 3 q ~ 260 281 312 809 487 212 ~7 '428 A42 Qr4.4 133 U 17 12 20 II 4 ea n ea~ M ~ ~ - ~ - ~ ~- - ~ n ~ ~ - ~ - ~ ~ ~ m - ~ - ~ - - ~ 180 25 14 t7 25 32
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m = ~ =
~~N=m=---m~-~~--~
317 38 15 a 13 Z7 m rn m ~ ~ ~ m - ~ n 20 97 t21 193 323 462 42 411 603 4'68 51"4 1030 840 rJT7 1131 11M 384 41
- 3 210201733 138 143 142 143 138 133 118 111 103 1-43 141 148 211 349 -463 450 371 - = ll08 11211 en .et 223 m 308
- t2 15 18 II 19 138 140 148 130 *120 119 118 129 131 174 233 239 272 286 271 315 381 479 -442 410 - - 11511 1- 759 21l7 lll3101013 33 49 3 8 2
- mrnm-=-mmm~-m~-~~--m=~wm 357 Zl4 I~ 8t ll
- lill 1.03 2ll
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 45 of 46 Figure 10-4: FL0-20-generated static water loads (pounds per foot) during the PMF combined effect flood.
14~ee~I 28 122 243 'li1 0 0 0 0 0 5 14 41 0 0 0 0
- lo 35 10 Legend ~ m ~ ~ m ~ g 1 " 50 21 211 0 0 0 0 0 ffi
._____) Static Pressure at Cell 132 512 607 ..fW 311 318 ,ge 183 131 70 56 40 0 12 138 517 518 .397 - It& 132 90 34 6i1 148 400 371 <408 126 81 0 0 3 78 150 M2 233 323 470 555 572 5g& 588 122 15-13 433 112 0 0 15 6 ,,. .. 180 m 343 *P!I "93 572 !IM _ 5-15 eae m 910 6&4 ""° o 0 112 *21 30I I ... I.I t28 ~339 an 7T1 115 41 0 t-811 .. -
-4 211 112 -.7 211 J: ,., "43 .. fig 187 llS -
., - 3111 17 2 ttt. 312 10ll 11 1 8 4 0 42 3319 404 176 11 171 -
.. no **
- ne 139-l M
38 111 121 411 12 132 16 24 21 19 48 41 14 37 233 : 7 92 82 74 .. 90 51 50 70 80 1 -21 J
- :MO 307SS3 .. 13 1a B2 n se ea D5 100 32 0 211 372 333 120 100 !73 111 m M 48 M M q ~ ~ - - - ~ - - ~
--t 3211 100 2&3 .. ~=mnM211*116~-~=~---~
r---
13 674 13' l20 153 <<G 142 132 110 90 68 468 1931 786 881 1741 1671 1002 390 m 1894 1538 1881 30 '10 2311 711 140 156 19-4 23Q 221 119 03 1705 810 *2 1314 2205 :2450 177'0 17'40 2829 3231
...J
'4489 117 11 116 8112 385 llZ 11a t74 2-42 114 sn 1&2 62t 1527 2-43 110 1115 3543 7152 1112 U7fii 6489 54-40 383 388 342 .. 211 217 .+45
- 1--
130 205 471 1350 1338 343 353 l4G 1518 2441 3280 9Q78 55lS81182 412 -
.* 684 l'OI 781 870 183 512 147 1111 1113 233 ... * - 20fl1 1880 2911 553 ..2 - 1171 73'4 . .'IV 572-78371187Mll72- 689 2022 .* - n3 408 339 482 1111 ag1 859 eo1 101 1844 Ma tom 7311 15827 18* n7 . 1 717 1798 3539 3138 1 2231 1152 .,.. 718 450 ... 347 853 1207 1645 738 171 ICHMI 3'18! 11833 8040 5212 .5065 5tl3 478 435 502 1290 8Z2 440 *633 D03 3047 447 7054
-~--~~-----~~1172--~-
_ , 28311 2W1 23114 - 611111
- ~ -~~~ --m * ~~~~---~-~--~ -r
- ~-~~~~~~ eoee 21&1 1482 1m 1407 1112 32111 885 121 834 aea 872 181 m 905 1153 1080 129& 891 Q31 9SM GM iM7 181 738 828. 871 totl 1057 3222 6001 M47 l2Sl8 8301 91122 1<MI 673 ..., 711 871 ,... 242!
11SG 1113 1154 1057 1048 9'2 060 Ge7 SM12 to38 1233 gag 042 044 1169 117& 10SS lil85 1090 105G 1471 41<<> 5360 8211 8St7 8091 7273 .,, "' tt3 1t9 844 1112 928 1543 11116 1242 1-1sa6 t092 987 024 age 919 8Q9 937 095 9 15 1004 1120 1258 1276 1138 1&60 Z3Z1 2025 4263 1271 1160 8207 M4e 18 461 !/l7 420 MU
-'--r-+--+-*1-~' ~-<-f--t- - . - . - -r-* + "--i 7B8S - -
129<1 12llO 1296 1 Q26 652 I 843 836 804
- 790 805 946 I 833 I 708 656 632 801 1097 1443 1398 1337 1201 2111111 - 827'11 - 8323 8180 m 205 328 3158 35 125 1579 1'H3 1618 .t.568 1653 16&2 1625 1825 1798 1903 2119 1970 2047 1832 1826 1985 1921 2035 21'42 2984 6201 9744 116&4 . . . 9237 3381. 21IS2 1348 248 2.38 29: 417 M7 2315 887.
Response to Request for Additional Information (Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report)
Enclosure Page 46 of 46
References:
AREVA, 2013. AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000, "Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -
Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant," GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., Revision O, 2013.
Ginna, 2011. R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)
Revision 23, December 6, 2011.
USAGE, 1984. "Drainage and Erosion Control Mobilization Construction," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EM 1110-3-136, April 1984. See below:
EH 1110-3-136 9 _Apr 811 .
Table 10-1.
Sugge1ted Coef ficienta of Roughneaa and Maximum Peraia1ible Kean Velo~itiea for Open Channel*
Maximum.
Parmiuible Mean Velocity Material ~ Feet per Second Concrete, with 1urfaces as indicated:
Formed, no finish 0.014
, , , Trowel* finish 0.012 Float finish 0.012 Gunite, good section 0.016 30 Concrete, bottom float finish, aide* aa indicated:
Cement rubble ***onry 0.020 20 Cement rubble masonry, plastered 0.018 25 Rubble lined, uniform section 0.030-0.045 7-13 Asphalt:
Smooth 0.012 15 Rough 0.016 12 Earth, uniform section~
Sandy ai.lt, weathered 0.020 2.0 Silty clay 0.020 3.5 Soft shale 0.020 3.5 Clay
- 0.020 6.0 Soft sandstone 0.020 8.0 Cravelly aoil, clean 0.025 6.0 Natural earth, with vegetation 0.03-0.150 6.0 Grass awales and ditche1l 6.0