ML19221A956
| ML19221A956 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-75-087, NUREG-75-087-02.4.3, NUREG-75-87, NUREG-75-87-2.4.3, SRP-02.04.03, SRP-2.04.03, NUDOCS 7907120049 | |
| Download: ML19221A956 (17) | |
Text
NU R EG-75/087
- p. a t o g'o
}
.)m.'t U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA~ ORY COMM13SION S
'i STANDARD REVIEW PLAN i'%.**j/
OFFICE OF NUCLFAR REACTOR REGULATION
+
SECTICN 2.4.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (PPF) ON STRE/MS AN3 RIVERS l
REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary - Hydrology & Meteorology Branch (HMB)
Secondary - None I.
AREAS CF FEVIEW In this section of the safety analysis report (SAR) the hydrometeorological design basis is developed to determine the extent of any flood protection required for those structures, systems, and components necessary to assure the capability to shut c'own the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition. The areas of review include the probable maximum precipitation (PMP) potential and precipitation losses over the applicable drainageI area, the runoff response characterist;cs of the watershed, the accumulation c' flood runof f through river channels and reservoirs, the estimate of the discharge rate trace (hydrograph) of the PMF at the plant site, ihe determination of PMF water level conditions at the site, and the evaluation of coincident wind generated wave conditions that could occur with the PMF.
Included is a review of the details of design bases for site drainage
(.hich is summarized in SAR Sect;cn 2.4.2); a review of the runoff for site drainage and i
dra nage areas adjacent to the plant site, including the roofs of safety-related structures, resulcing from potential PHP; and a review of the potential effects from erosion and sedimentation. The analyses involve modeling of physical rainfall and runoff process,s to estimate the upper level of possible flood conditions adjacent to and on site.
Regulatory Guide 1.59 describas two positions with respect to flood protection for which a PMF estimate is requira to determine the controlling desien basis conditions. If Position 1 is chosen, all safety-related systems, structures, and components must be capable of withstanding the effects from the controlling flood design basis. Position 2 limits the review to specific safety-related structures, systems, and components necessary for cold shutdown and maintenance thereof.
II.
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The PMF as defined in Re;Jlatcry Guide 1.59 has been adopted as one of the conditions to be evaluated in establishing the applicable stream and river flooding oesign basis referred to in General Design Criterien 2, Appendix A, 10 CFR Part 50.
PMF estimates are required USNRC STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
.t.nd.r.,
pa.n.
pr.p
,he gu6..ac... th 1,.
Off.c.. Nuct,...et
, aggwl.to.n r
n.it,se.
- h.. 6
.f.p.iice,6.n.,. con.t ruet.n.
........w
.,,, ~
r,... -.
..~.
...c......
,,.~,.
9
.,,,c.....
.,..,,m.......,.......-..2...........c...........
.....~.........-.............,,,..,..,....,y.r
,q c..
..,.-,, ~..
....u.
..,c
...om....
l..r.3 LO
...oc R"
1 7007120049
for all adjacent streams or rivers and site drainage (inc?uding the consideration of PMP on the roofs of safety-related structures). The criteria for accepting the applicant's PMF-related design basis depend on one of the following three conditions.
1.
The elevation attained by the PMF (with coincident wind waves) establishes a required l
protection leve, to be used in the design of the facility.
2.
The elevation attained by the PMF (with coincident wind waves) is not controlling; the design basis flood protection level is established by another flood phenomena (e.g., the probable m;ximum hurricane).
3.
The site is " dry", that is, the site is wel. above the elevation attained by a PMF (with coincident wind waves).
When condition 1 is applicable the staff will assess the flood level (described in Subsection III). The assessment may be made inaependently from basic data, by detailed review and checking of the applicant's analyses, or by.omparison with estimates made by others which have been reviewed in detail. The applit,t's estimates of the PMF level and the coincident wave action are acceptable if the es*imates are no more than 5% less conservative than the staff's estimates. If the applican', estimates of discharge are more than 5% less conserva-tive than the staf f's, the applicant rhould fully document and justify its estimates or accept the staff's estimates and redesign applicabl( flood protection.
When conaitions 2 or 3 apply, the staff analyses may be less rigorous (described in Subsection III). For condition 2, acceptance is based on the protection level estima 9 d for another flood producing phenomenon exceeding the staff estimate of PMF water levels.
For condition 3, the site grade must be. cell above the staff assessment of FMr water levels. The evaluation of the adequacy of the margin (difference in flood and site elevations) is general'y a matter of engineering judgment. The judgment is based on the confidence in the flood level estimate and the degree of conservatism in each parameter used in the estimate.
Appropriate sections of the following documents ata used by the staff to determine the acceptability of the applicant's data and analyses. Regulatory Guide 1.59 provides guidance for estimating the PMF design basis. Regulatory Guide 1.135 describes methods for determining normal water levels.
(Al' estimated water levels should be referenced to mean or normal water levels.) Regulatory Guide 1.29 identifies the safety-related structures, systems, and components, and Regulatory Guide 1.102 describes acceptable flood protection to prevent the safety-related facilities from being adversely affected.
Publications of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Corps of Engineers may be used to estimate PMF discharge and water level condition at the site and coincident wind generated wave activity.
\\t6 230 $
Rev. 1 2.4.3-2
III. REVIEW PROCEDURES for conditions 1 and 2 (described in Subsection II), the methods used for evaluating flooding potential are separated into two parts - PMF on adjacent streams and lacal PMF.
The review procedure is outlined in the attached Figures 2.4.3-1 (for PMF on atjacent streams) and 2.4.3-2 (for local PMF). (The procedure for evaluating the adeq m y of site drainage facilities based on a local PMF is outlined in SRP section 2.4.2.)
C<rps of Engineers PMF assessments for specific locations or generalized PMF assessment' for a geographical area approsed by the Chief of Engineers and contained in publishet or unpublished reports of that agency may be usei in lieu of staff-developed analyses. In the Obsnce of such assessments, both large and snall basin PMP estimates by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); published techniques of the World Meteorological Orgar.iza-tion; and runoff, impoundment, and river routing models of the Corps of Engineers are used by the staff to estimate PMF discharge and water level at the site. A comprehensive review of the applicant's analyses will be performed and a simplified analysis using calcula-tional procedures or models with demonstrably conservative coefficients and assumptions is performed. If the applicant's PMF estimates are within acceptable margins (described in subsection II), the staff positions will indicate concurrence with the applicant's PMF estimates and the SER input will be written accordingly. If the simplified analysis indicates a potential problem with the applicant's estimates, a detailed analysis using more realistic techniques will be performed. The staff will develop a position b6 sed on the detailed analysis; resolve, if possible, differences between the applicant's and staff's estimates of PMF design basis; and prepare the SER input accordingly.
Wind generated wave action will be independently estimated usinc. Corps of Engineers criteria such as the Shore Protection Manual." When sufficient water depth is available, l the significant wave height and runup are used for structural design purposes, and the one percent wave height and runup are used for flood level estimates. Where depth limits wave height, the breaking or broken wave heignt and runup is used for both purposes.
For condition 3 (i.e., a " dry site"; one not subject to steam flooding by virtue of local topographic considerations), the following procedures apply:
1.
Use Corps of Engineers PMF estimates for other sites in the region to develop " regional drainage area vs. PMF discharge (cubic feet per second/ square mile)" data, for extrapo-lation to the site.
2.
Envelope the above data points to obtain an estimate of the PMF applicable to the site.
3.
Increase the estimate based on a judgment as to the applicability of the basic estimates. An increase in the range of 10 tn 50 percent is generally appropriate.
4.
If warranted by relative elevation differences between the site and adjacent stream, l
est.imate the ficod level at the site using slope-area techniqu'_s or water surface profile computations.
S.
Estimate wind (2 yr. extreme windspeed) wave runup based on breaking or one percent wave ' eights. Criteria for estimating windspeed are discussed in ANSI N170 and Reference 16.
mb 2. 4. 3 -3 Rev. 1
(s.
Compare resultant water level with proposed plant grade and lowest safety-related facility that can Je af'ected.
fhe above it(ms of review are performed only when applicable to the site of site region.
Some items of review may be done on a generic basis.
IV.
EVALUAfl0N FINDINGS f or construction permit (CP) reviews the findings will summarize the applicant's and staff's estimates of the peak PMi runoff rate and water level (in.luding allowance for coincident wind generated wave activity) at the site.
If the applicant's estimates are within the criteria (descr bed in Subsection II), staf f concurrence will be stated.
If the staff's i
estimates are 5% more conservative than the applicint's estimates, if the flood conditions may adversely affect the proposed plant, and if the applicant has been unable to support his estimates, a statement requiring use of the staff bases will De made.
If the flood conditioni do not constitute a design basis, the findings will so indicate.
for operating license (OL) reviews which have received detailed PMI reviews during the CP review, the CP conclusicns will be re f erenc ed.
Any finod potential not identified during j the CP review will be noted.
If Regulatory Guide 1.59, iosition 2, is elected by the applicant, a statement describing lessor design bases will be included in the findir gi with a staf f cenclusio j of adequacy.
A sample statement for a CP reviu folloe.
"fhe Probable Maximum f lood (PMf) resulting f rom the Probable Mauimum Precipitation (PMP' on the ABC River drainage basia yielded in estimated ma-stillwater level at the intak.' structure on the D ?. E Canal of about s.0 feet P.
"fhe PMF resulting from a local PMP storm on the drainage basins for the small streams near the site yielded an estimcted maximum stillwater level of about f>0 feet MSL, which is about 20 feet belew plant grade.
"The local PMF resulting from the estim3ted local PMP was found not to cause flooding of safety-related facilities, since the site drainage system will be ccpablt of func-tioniig adequately during such a storm. Catch basins will be provided as part of the storm drainage system and will be located throughout the plant site to drain local areas. The plant yard will be graded with gentle slopes away f rom high polni.s at the plant buildings, and storm water will drain away from the buildings into the local streams at lower elevations."
V.
REFERENCES In addition to the following specific references, Design Memoranda, Civil Works Investigations and research and development reports of the Corps of Engineers and reports of other federal and state agencies relevant to ficod estimates at a specific site will be used on an "as dvailable" basis.
rL lQ
] 'l j i
2.4.1-4
1.
Reports of the Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army:
EM 1110-2-1411, " Standard Project Flood Determinations," 26 March 1952 (rev. March 1965).
EC 1110-2-27, " Policies and Procedures Pertaining to Determination of Spillway Capacities an., Fraeboard Allowances for Dams," 19 February 1968.
EM 1110-2-1405, " Flood Hydrograph Analysis and Computations," 31 Augus' EM 1110-2-1408, " Routing of Floods Through River Channels," 1 Ma;ch 1960.
EM 1110-2-1406, " Runoff frcm Snowmelt," 5 January 1960.
EM 1110-2-1603, " Hydraulic Design of Spillways," 31 March 1965.
EM 1110-2-1409, " Backwater Curves in River Channels," 7 December 1959.
Technical Bulletin No. 8, Sacramento District, " Generalized Snowmelt Runoff Frequencies,"
September 1962.
EM 1110-2-1601, " Hydraulic Design of Flood Control rhannels," 1 July 1970.
EM 1110-2-1607, " Tidal Hydraulics," 2 August 1965.
CE 1308, " Stone Protection," January 1948.
EM lllJ-2-1410, " Interior Drainage of leveed Urban Areas: Hydrology," 3 May 1965.
Technical Report No. 4, Coastal Engineering Research Center, " Shore Protection, Planning and Design" (1966) and " Shore Protection Manual" (1973).
Waterways Experiment Station, " Hydraulic Desigr Crit, ria," continuously updated.
TSP 17, " Riprap Stability on Earth Embankments Tested in Large-and Small-Scale Wave Tanks," June 1972.
ETL 1110-2-120, "Additior.al Guidance for Riprap Channel Protection," May 1971.
2.
Hydrometeorological Reports of the U.S. Weather Bureau (now U.S. Weather Service, NOAA)
Hydrometeorological Branch:
No.
l., " Maximum Fossible Precipitation Over the 0mpompanoosuc Basin above Union Village, Vt." (1943).
No.
2., " Maximum Possible Precipitation over the Ohio River Basin above Pittsburgh, Pa." (1942).
lhb 2b 2.4.3-5 Rev. I
No.
3., " Maximum Possible Precipitation over the Sacramento Basin of California" (1943, No. 4.
" Maximum P)ssible Precipitation over the Panama Canal Basin" (1943).
No.
5., " Thunderstorm Rainfall" (1947).
No.
6., "A Preliminary Report on the Probable Occurrence of Excessive Precipitation over Fort Supply Basin, Okla." (1938).
No. 7., " Worst Probable Meteorological Condition on Mill Creek, Butler and Hamiltor<
Counties, Ohio" (1937), unpublisned. Supplement (1938).
No.
8., "A Hydrometeorological Analysis of Possible Maximum Precipitation over St.
Francis River Pisin above Wappapello, Mo." (1938).
No. 9, "A report on the Possible Occurrence of Maximum Precipitation over White River Basin above Mud Mountain Dam Site, Wash." (1939).
No.
10., " Maximum Possible Rainfall over the Arkansas River Basin above Caddoa, Colo."
(1939). Sup;
.aent (1939).
No. 11., "A Preliminary Report on the Maximum Possible Precipitation over the Dorena, Cottage Grove, and Fern Ridge Basins in the Willamette Basin, Oreg." (1939).
O No.
12., " Maximum Possible Precipitation over the Red River Basin above Cenison, Tex."
(1939).
No. 13., "A Report on the Maximum Possible Precipitation over Cherry Creek Basin in Colorado" (1940).
No. 14., "the Frequency of Flood-Producing Rainfall over the Pajaro River Basin in California" (1940).
No. 15., "A Report on Depth-Frequency Relations of Thunderstorm Rainfall on the Sevier Basin, Utah" (1941).
No.
16., "A Preliminary Report on the Maximum Possible Precipitation over the Potomac and Rappahanneck River Basins" (1943).
No. 17., " Maximum Possible Precipitation over the Pecos Basin of New Mexico" (1944),
unpublished.
No.
18., " Tentative Estimate
<imum Possible Flood-Producing Meteorological Conditions in the Columbia Riven dasin" (1945).
Rev. I 2.4.3-6
/ T.
19' 4
rJ LU
No.
19., " Preliminary Report en Depth-Duration-Frequency Characteristics of Precipita-tion over the Muskingum Basin for l-to 9 week Periods" (1945).
No. 20., "An Estimate of Maximum Possible Flood-Producing Meteorological Concitions in the Missouri Rivee B3 sin above Garrison Dam Site" (1945).
No. 21., "A Hydrometeorological Study of the Los Angeles Area" (1939).
No. 2iA., " Preliminary Report on Maximum Possible Precipitation, Los Angeles Area, California" (1944).
No. 21B., " Revised Report on Maximum Possible Precipitr' ion, Los Angeles Area, California" (1915).
No. 22., "An Estimate of Maximum Poss:t:_ tlood-Producing Meteorological Conditions in the Missouri River Basin Between Garrison and Fort Randall" (1946).
No. 23., " Generalized Estimates of Maximum Possible Precipitation over the United States East of the 105th Meridian, for Areas of 10, 200, and 500 Square Miles" (1947).
No. 24., " Maximum Possible Precipitation over the San Joaquin Basin, Calif." (1947).
No. 25., " Representative 12-hour Dewpoints in Major United States Storms East of the Continental Divide" (1947).
No. 25A., " Representative 12-hour Dewpoints in Major United States Storms East of the Continental Divide," 2d edition (1949).
No. 26., " Analysis of Winds over Lake Okeechobee during Tropical Storm of August 26-27, 1949" (1951).
No. 27., " Estimate of Maximum Possible Precipitation, Rio Grande Basin, Fort Quitman to Zapata" (1951).
Fo. 23., " Generalized Estimate of Maximum Possible Precipitation over New England and New York" (1952).
No. 29., " Seasonal Variation of the Standard Project Storm for Areas of 200 and 1,000 Square Miles East of the 105th Mcrilian" ('953).
No. 30., " Meteorology of Floods at St. Louis" (1953), unpublished.
No. 31., " Analysis and Synthesis of Hurr cane Wind Patterns ovar Lake Okeechobee, i
Florida" (1954).
O mm 2.4.3-7 Rev. 1
No. 32., " Characteristics of United States Hurricanes Pertinent to Levee Design for Lake Okeechobee, Florida" (1954).
No. 33., " Seasonal Variation of the Probable Maximum Precipitation East of the IU5th Meridian for Areas from 10 to 1,000 Square Miles and Durations of 6, 12, 24, and 48 Hours" (1956).
Draf t Report, "All-Season Probable Maximum Precipitation, United States East of the 105th Meridian for Areas Froia 1,000 to 20,000 Square Miles and Durations Fram 6 to 72 Hours" (1972).
No. 34., " Meteorology of Flood-Producing Storms in the Mississippi River Basin" (1956).
No. 35., " Meteorology of Hypothetical Flood Sequences in the Mississippi River Basin" (1959).
No. 36., " Inter!.a Ret robable Vaximum Precipitation in California" (196;), revised (1969).
No. 37., " Meteorology of Hydrologically Critical Storms in California" (1962).
No. 38., " Meteorology of Flood-Producing Stcrms ir, the Ohio River Basin" (1961).
No. 39., " Probable Maximum Precipitation in the Hawaiian Islands" (1963).
No. 40., " Probable Maximum Precipitation, Susquehanna River Drair. age above Harrisburg, Pa." (1965).
No. 41., " Probable Maximum and TVA Precipitation ove-the Tennessee River Basin above Chattanooga" (1965).
No. 42.
" Meteorological Conditions for the Probable Maximum Flood on the Yukon River above Rampart, Alaska" (1966).
No. 43., " Probable Maximum Precipitation, Northwest States" (1966).
No. 44., " Probable Maximum Precipitation over South Platte River, Colorado, and Minnesota River, Minnesoto" (1969).
No. 45., " Probable Maximum and TVA Precipitation for lennessee River Basin up to 3,000 Scuare Miles in Area and Durations to 72 Hours" (1969).
No. 46., " Probable Maximum Precipitation, Mekong River Basin" (1970).
t
(
Rev. 1 2.4.3-8
No. 47., " Meteorological Criteria for Extreme Floods For Four Basins in the Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins" (1973).
No. 48., " Probable Maximum Precipitation and Snowmelt Criteria for Red River of the North Above Pembinz, and Souris River Above Minot, North Dakota" (1973).
3.
Technical Papers of the U.S. Weather Bureau (Now U. S. Weather Service, NOAA): No. 2,
" Maximum Recorded United States Point Rainfall for 5 Minutes to 24 Hours at 207 First Order Stations," Rev. (1963).
No.
5., " Highest Persisting Dewpoints in the Western United States" (1948).
No.
10., "Mean Precipitable Water in the United States" (1949)
No. 13., "Mean Monthly and Annual Evaporation Data from Free Water Surface for the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and the West Indies" (1950).
No. 14., " Tables of Precipitable Water and Other Factors for a Saturated Pseudo-Adiabatic Atmosphere" (1951).
No.
15., " Maximum Station Precipitation for 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, and 24 Hours:" Part 1:
Utah (1951); Part II: Idaho (1951); Part III: Florida (1952); Part IV: Maryland, Delaware, and District of Columbia (1953); Part V: New Jersey (1953); Part VI: New England (1953); Part VII: South Carolina (1953); Part VIII: Virginia (1954); Part IX:
Georgia (1954); Part X: New York (1954); Part XI: North Carolina (1955); Part XII:
Gregon (1955); Part XIII: Kentucky (1955); Part XIV: Louisiana (1953); Part XV:
Alabama (1955); Part XVI: Pennsylvania (1956); Part XVII: Mississippi (1956);
Part XVIII: West Virginia (1956); Part XIX: Tennessee (1956); Part XX: Indiana (1956);
Part XXI: Illinois (1958); Part XXII: Ohio (1958); Part XXIII: California (1959);
Part XXIV: Texas (1959); Part XXV: Arkansas (1960); Part XXVI: Oklahoma (1961).
No.
16., " Maximum 24-Hoer Precipitation in the United States" (1952).
No. 25., "Rainf all Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves for Selected Statior.s in the United States, Alaska, Hawaiian Islands, and Puerto Rico" (1955).
No. 28., " Rainfall Intensities for Local Drainage Dasign in Western United States for Durations of 20 Minutes to 24 Hours and 1-to 100-Year Return Periods" (1956).
No. 37., " Evaporation Maps for the United States" (1959).
No. 38., " Generalized Estimates of Prnbable Maximum Precipitation for the United States West of the 105th Meridian for Areas to 400 Square Miles and Durations to 24 Hours" (1960) h 145 28B 2.4.3-9 EUV-I
No. 40., " Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States for Durations from 30 Minutes to 24 Hours and Return Periods from 1 to 100 Years" (1961).
No. 42., "Generalizad Estin tes of Probable Maximum Precipitation and Rainfall-Frequercy Data for Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands" (1961).
No. 43., " Rainfall-Frequency Atlas of the Hawaiian Islands for Areas to 200 Square Miles, Durations to 24 Hours, and Return Periods from 1 to 100 years" (1962).
No. 47., " Probable Maximum Precipitation and Rainfall-Frequency Data for Alaska for Areas to 400 Square Miles, Durations to 24 Hours, and Return Periods from 1 to 100 Years" (1963).
No. 48., " Characteristics of the Hurricane Storm Surge" (1963).
4.
Unpublished Hydrometeorological Reports of the U.S. Weather Bureau (now U.S. Weather Service, NOAA):
"Rappahannock River above Salem Church Dam Site, Va." (11/28/50).
"Dotomac River, Va., Md., W. Va. (12 sub-basins)" (6/29/56).
" Delaware River above Trenton, Chestnut Hill, and Belvidere Dam Sites" (11/19/56).
" Delaware River above Tock's Island Dam Site" (12/16/65).
"St. John River above Dickey Dam Site, and Between Dicky and Lincoln School Dam Sites, Maine" (12/20/66).
"Coosa River above Howell Mill Shoals Dam Site, Ala." (3/3/50).
" Cape Fear River above Smil ?y Falls Dam Site, N.C." (11/16/50).
" Savannah River above Har*.well Dam Site, N.C." (1/5/51).
" Alabama and Appalachicola Rivers, Ala. and Fla."
(3/19/52).
" Black Warrior River above Holt Lock Dam Site, Ala." (12/10/59).
" South Fork of Holston Rive, above Boone Dam Site, Tenn." (8/14/50).
" Allegheny River above Allegheny River Reservoir, Pa." (9/28/56).
" Kentucky River, Ky. (2 basins)" (3'12/58).
"New River abo 2 Moores Ferry Dam Site, Va." (5/13/63).
" Licking River, Ky, and White River, Ind." (11/9/G4).
}Q3 0l Rev. 1 2.4.3-10
" Iowa River above Coralville Dam Site, Iowa" (11/20/47).
" Des Moines River above Saylorville, Iowa and Howell Dam Site, Iowa" (3/19/48).
" Salt River, Mo." (1/21/55).
" James River above Jamestown Dam Site, N. Dak." (9/16/48).
" Big Blue River above Tuttle Creek Dam Site, Kans." (10/23/51).
" Republican River at (a) abo';e proposed Milford Dam Site, Kan., and (b) b. ween Harlan Co. Jam and proposed Milford Dam Site, Kans." (11/24/58).
"Meramec River Basin, Missouri" (12/21/61).
" Republican River above Harlan Co. Res., Neb." (3/7/69).
" Canadian River above Eufaula Dam Site, Okla." (12/19/47).
" White River above Table Rock Scm Site Mo." (3/19/48).
" Eleven Point River above Water Valley Dam Site, Ark." (3/19/48).
"Kiamichi River above hugo Dam Site, Okla." (4/9/48).
" Boggy Cr*ek above Boswell Dam Site, Okla." (4/9/48).
" North Cana1ian River above Optima (Hardesty) Dam Site, Okla." (12/22/49).
" Lower Cana,ian River, Okla." (6/10/48).
' Gainer Cre ik Dam Site, Okla." (5/13/48).
"Ooapa-Can.dian (combined) Dam Site, Okla." (5/13/48).
" Verdigris &iver above Oologah Dam Site, Okla." (5/4/50).
"Little Red River above Green Ferry, Ark." (7/24/50).
" Grand (Neosho) River above Strawn Dam Site, Kans." (11/14/51).
" Pinon Canyon above Trinidad, Colo." (4/10/52).
" Beaver Reservoir, White River, Ark." (12/1/55).
"Kisatchie Dam Site on Kisatchie Bayou, La." (3/1/56).
2.4.3-11 Rev. 1
" Cypress Creek above Mooringsport, La." (8/27/56).
"Little Rive, above at (a) Millwood Dam Site, Ark., and (b) Broken Bow, Okla." (S/14/59).
" White River Drainage above Wo t f Bayou, Ark." (3/31/66).
" Upper Arkansas River, Colorado (sub-basins)" (2/13/67).
" Arkansas River Drainage Between John Martin Dam, Colo., and Great Bend, Kans." (9/23/69).
" Leon River above Belton Dam Site, Tex." (12/9/47).
"Jemez Creek, N. Mex." (12/9/49).
"Chama River above Chamita Dam Site, N. Mex." (1/18/50).
"Rio Hondo above Two " sers Reservoir, N. Mex." (12/19/56).
"Richland Creek, Tex." (4/6/56).
" Basque River above Waco Reservoir, Tex ' (4/6/56).
" Leon River above Proctor Reservoir Project near Hasse, Tex." (12/5/56).
"Pecos River abo.
\\lamogardo Reservoir, N. Mex." (7/24/an.
"Fecos River above Los Esteros, N. Mex." (7/24/57).
" Intervening Drainage between Los Esteroc and Alamogardo, N. Mex." (7/24/57).
"Rio Grande between Cerro and Cochiti Dam Site, H. Mex." (2/26/58).
" Combined Drainage of Santa Fe Creek a. d Rio Galisto above Galisto Dam Site, N. Mex."
(2/26/58).
"Lamposas River above proposed Lamposas Dam Site, Tex." (4/17/58).
"Navasota River, Tex. (7 sub-basins)" (11/2/59).
' Colorado River above Fox Crossing, Tex." (11/12/63).
" Lower Rio Grande, United States and Mexico (between Falcon and Anzalduas Dams)" (7/68).
" Gila Rive" above Coolidge Dam Site, Ariz." (9/14/53).
O Rev. I 2.4.3-12 rJ
" Queens Creek, Gila River Basin, Ariz." (4/26/55).
" Bill Williams River above proposed Alamo Dam Site, Ariz." ('/14/58).
" Santa Rosa Wash Basin, Ariz." (8/2/68).
" Black Creek, Ariz." (6/20/69).
" Preliminary Estimate for Drainages North of Phoenix, Ariz." (9/29/72).
"Humboldt River, Devils Gate Dam Site, Nev." (11/20/51).
"Mathews Canyon Dam Site (Virgin River), Nev. and Pine Canyon Dam Site (Virgin River),
Nev." (8/9/54).
" Dell Canyon Reservoir, Utah" (8/26/57).
"Las Vegas Wash, Nev." (ll/22/C9).
"Henderson Wash, Nev." (11/22/60).
" West Fork (Mojave River), Calif." (11/22/60).
"Tahchevah Creek, Calif." (11/22/60).
" San Gorgonio River above Cabazon Dam Site, Calif." (4/13/62).
"Whitewater River above Garnet Dam Site, Calif." (4/13/62).
"Martis Creek, Calif " (3/18/64).
"Merced River, Calif." (6/4/62).
"American River above Folsom Dam, Calif." (8/1/68).
" North and Middle Forks of American River above Auburn Dam Site, Calif." (8/1/68).
" Intervening Drainage between Auburn Dam Site and Folsom Dam" (8/1/68).
"Yuba River above Marysville, Calif." (11/29/68).
"Los Angeles District, Calif. (18 basins in Calif., Nev. and Ariz.)" (12/2/68).
" San Diego River Watershed, Calif. (13 sub-basins)" (3/16/73).
9
. as a Rev. 1 2.4.3-13
"Skagway River, Alaska" (7/8/47).
"Bradley Lake Basin, Alaska" (5/19/61).
"Chena River, Alaska" (8/1/62).
"Long take portion of the Snettisham Project" (4/19/65).
"Takatz Creek, Bar anof Island, Alaska" (2/21/67).
"lanana River Basin for (a) Chena River above Chena Dam Site; (b) Little Chena River above Little Chena Dam; and (c) Tana River between Tanacioss and Nenana, Alaska" (6/5/69).
" Preliminary Estimates, Vicinity of Junea: Mendenhall River, Lemon Creek, and Montana Creek" (11///69).
" Preliminary Estimates, Vicinity of Ketchikan: Whipple Creek near Wards Cove, Carlanna Creek near Ketchikan, Hoadley Creek near Ketchikan, and Ketchikan Creek near Ketchikan"
( 1/ 7/ 74 ).
" Eastern Panama and Northwest Colombia" (9/65).
" Hypothetical Rainstorms over Rio Atrato Basin, Colombia, Soutn America" ( 7/67).
" Probable Maximum Thunderstorm Precipitation Estimates Southwest States" (3/30/73).
5.
J. R. Weggel, " Maximum Breaker Height," Jour. Waterways, He.rbors and Coastal Engineering Division, Proc. Am. Soc. of Civil Engineers, Vol. 98, No. WW4, pp. 529-548 (1972).
6.
Technical Note 98, " Estimation of Maximum Floods," WMO-No. 233, World Meteorological Organization (1969).
l.
C. O. Clark, " Storage and the Unit Hydrograph," Trans. Am Soc. Civ;l Engineers, Vol.
110, No. 2261, pp. 1419 i R8 (1945).
8.
U.S. Department of Comeerce, " Snow Hydrology," PB-151660, undated.
9.
Bureau of Reclamation, "Ef fect of Snow Compaction f rom Rain on 'now " Engineering Monograph No. 35, U.S. Department of the Interior (1966).
10.
Dureau of Reclamation, " Design of Small Dams," Second Edition, U.S. Department of the Interior (1973).
11.
Regulatory Guide 1.59, " Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants."
< er
-),
lbj C
Rev, i 2.4.3-14
12.
Regulatory Guide 1.70, "Starird Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants."
13.
Regulatory Guide 1.102, " Flood Protection for Nuclear Power Plants."
14.
Regulatory Guide 1.135, " Normal Water Level and Discharge at Nuclear Power Plants."
15.
Regulatory Guide 1.29, " Seismic Design Classification."
16.
l8 C. S.
Thom, "New Distribution of Extreme Winds in the United States,"
Journal of the Structural Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, ST7, July 1968.
17.
ANSI N170, " Standards for Determining Design Basis Flooding at Power Reactor Sites':
Rev. 1 2.4.3-15
6t.L Edi j 4 11
$f ant ii )4-) v if A 01 A N F
a /4 i s1-t.'
',1 H f / > %-
<1; 5gi ti) I f i T [ N f 14 54! Y '.11 i f.f t i
% f fr 6
. 1,56 s t 7 it 6
Asat /6 i
,1 P a s4 A l f ( v iI 6t 6f
.*4 s i sf6
',6*
t 6 ; 6.
t1i i
6
'4 8
,i f
I i j &
I l
,)
' j',
s
,, 6
< af! '
y, f e e H F *.Pi r f r h 5 A Y ',
4 e y l 64
[.i p f ( ' a t s 1 64; si e I tN A N
'i(
gA 1 t r.i N ; E,i f [ $ l.
Pt )$'
H 1 y I Fif+
t:ag,
i A e
- tPt5 i i.4 4 Nf f 15 $<F4] J464i T a t$il f tif 5 I, f>at 646 /
y
'I 6> f w I( W r (jyp% v 6 gog,,pi, py6 [ % T tV A 7 E lt J
A ( l P T AIt'i tfy A I I 6 4 Plt I,s t N Y 6 4 A f Id i%
i,,V E 'H y.i T E A,
t
,., q A,4,
7,U a i t
(,,
r t,
4tt,g_
9,,
, A NY '*#ICI
3 i ga a g g r, 5 4g upg
[,. ;
gg.,g, g g t,ge g r g i t.
- g e 7&
1 i At
,' I f AREA A*. I NI) V A h 44 I N f F H Yi lia A ? [ l 6 s 3'
l'-
I A si f A f ( t s 15. s' t T W GFNTe<>
f A f t:
4:.5 T i46 i
f A l i 'i i I '. f.' A ' r 6
t I
iA:N si Av' a
t i s N A,.1
%6 6
'. f.
9 A*.'
if
$ A 4 t's N; i T 4 ; F ATi i
a
'W l
NWArs VP( ) P AP[ H t
- 4 PS f F $ *,
y V i P.
E*i I Y H j P4,417 % i 114 fl A ',r N N h t P t 's i f *,
EI1 I
( h t.'
I 6 i Pr f
Nit (
b I{6 9 Nt [t c A l 1i j'F
, )b F b i',)
6 I t ' f fy. A P.;) Vi /16 1 t [ ) i i 6
',6 5
) 8J
- e 6 4 f,
P 4 i Al'Pt q( ANT" i i h Ps (' 6 t Ni.F a'i WA'6i pa t ;
6
(*
L v,' 1
- A P A
)64 { V( 18i ANfs y 8<( '
tL T I 1-t )6 OAY ti e 3
g t HF( or i A Hi I YA***
'.V06'1' I?ATh a. P Yl' ;
3,;i,
,,,f
,,yn,,,
,, g,, a, 7, a B s1 eV AI 5, I t ti N'1 A A H H V t i 6i 5 8r ib* T 5 1 d#3
, t,,,, y ej 4 pg g g,, g j,,.
i ;N P + tt i i 5;) "< t 1 A A p a y str,VF T Hl or H TS f t) if r%
( $6 f "i I f ', i 16 !it b I t f rP 5'YP iiN'.f(
.15 iN i
% 7 (,t6'M s i h i t ', A N ! ) (,N A *.8i 6 Ti( +4 Ni l f t * ' ad 6'
? F H#f a aN '
.i
>6
+ 6 is t si t i I,6 A*.
l lWAe f6 84 A t f{H I t 5 i st s i f >l 1 *. p e 1% $ '
's / t 6 l( tFfp
+ i t5t P
1
. ' t. f A II, A N A 1 y % f S
]
vt'
- [.t i Irf 4.14 s t F ' Pr
.5
( >g st
,i N i y
16 Y f 64 V ' N l ',P F Peil ( Pt t A l i+ 3
's t ii 6.J T E ' %
c e ' PS t6 6e se, ( r - f est t t 16 s,s A4i L % 4, ( l jl4 6 % f ]i [ NI,6 4, { V 111')/14II 84p'.IT w ' l i f d *, t . f [ %
..!Nr 64 A d I/ F [1 6f li A t f
- (
i!Il H1 A I 8
6 r, t.ii y A t l N i i V A L 11 A f t #4 6 %
(J ;
o,i: 6 V.
iA, )
i e i i o
.o :
6 iH,
,n.fe s i i, (.
i s' 6.s.
6 i - % I i f Y I {I d
1 4
- e'i f a WAItH 3 A-I i tfs a + il 1i6 4i v i.. re,
.i,u o A f
voni c n A r F H i,n e, ew,, n e s os i N., <,..
_$_(
(H f N',64 ', ('t i;F H
/
r6 i nAny
,nA.,
. mN, i n.
.,A+N H, > -
iiin a s su 6u e. i,,,,rP..
n.4,Ai h
F (t v A t u A t t APPi n A N r s e t o; o rut i f i c f e,,.
HITt54 3 A P A*.1 [] [15" 'N A {1:)V f l%YfVAIF5
~
F _i f a *' h t<6 kit ( 6,fA16
, i A f g g V r. y trie$.
jy, gi r n i ev A arr t. s_ A N r r
P9d p P T H f 's I4 5 [ ( )r pt l A l t f i t t,5-l '[t J 9h i
L o
H av 1 24316
Figure 2. 4. 3-2 Standard Review Plan Section 2.4.3 Site Drainage and Adjacent Drair. age etermine plant location & drainage areas of adjacent streams.
I Prepare probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimate of 6, 12,24, & 48 hr. precipitation for site drainage & adjacent areas from:
Use appropriate hydromet (NOAA) report:
See References 17 64 Determine whether any basic data missing from SAR.
Request missing data.
Determine 1-6 hour distribution of precipita-tion using Corps of Engineers engineering mar.aal E M 1110 21411 (roised March 1965).
Develop runoff model using Corps of Engineers synthetic unit hydrograph USB R, etc.
NO Determine whether drainage channels used.
YES Estimate peak runof f rate using eithar hand comp., or Corps of Engineers code H E C-1.
Compare with apphcant's estimate.
Evaluate responses. h Compute water levels by hand or using Corps of Engineers Code HEC 2.
l Evaluate impour.dinent ef fects.
Develop staf f positions]
9 I.)
}lj [j b/
j t
Attempt to resolve with applicant through LPM.
Write SER input.
R ev.1 2.4.3 17