|
---|
Category:- No Document Type Applies
MONTHYEARML24040A0532024-01-31031 January 2024 FOIA-2024-000081 - Released Record ML24036A0902024-01-29029 January 2024 FOIA-2024-000076 - 2023 Glomar Responses ML24036A0672024-01-18018 January 2024 FOIA-2024-000067 - Released Set ML24029A0182024-01-18018 January 2024 NRC-2022-000124 - Resp 1 - Released Record ML24019A0702024-01-16016 January 2024 FOIA-2024-000032 - Resp 1 - Released Set ML24012A0602024-01-0808 January 2024 NRC-2022-000120 - Resp 1 - Final, Agency Records Subject to the Request Are Enclosed ML24005A2252023-12-20020 December 2023 NRC-2019-000284 - Released Set ML24005A2372023-12-11011 December 2023 FOIA-2024-000022 - Released Set ML24005A2422023-12-0808 December 2023 FOIA-2024-000036 - Responsive Record ML24036A0562023-12-0101 December 2023 FOIA-2024-000028 - Released Record Set ML24033A2312023-11-29029 November 2023 FOIA-2023-000124 - Resp 1 - Final, Agency Records Subject to the Request Are Enclosed ML23332A1232023-11-16016 November 2023 REF-2023-000006 - Resp 3 - Responsive Records ML23331A3082023-11-14014 November 2023 FOIA-2023-000056 - Resp 1 - Final, Released Set ML23346A0612023-11-0808 November 2023 CON-2024-000001 - GSA Consult - Ravnitzky 2022-001513 ML23346A0622023-11-0808 November 2023 CON-2024-000001 - Responsive Records ML23312A1632023-11-0606 November 2023 NRC-2016-000539 - RES Part 2_RELEASED Set ML23312A1652023-11-0606 November 2023 NRC-2016-000539 - Nrr&Nro_Released Set ML23312A1672023-11-0606 November 2023 NRC-2016-000539 - RES Part 3_RELEASED Set ML23312A1682023-11-0606 November 2023 NRC-2016-000539 - RES Part 1_RELEASED Set ML23312A1692023-11-0606 November 2023 NRC-2016-000539 - Opa&Regions_Released Set ML23313A0472023-11-0202 November 2023 FOIA-2023-000181 - Resp 2 - Final - Incoming Request - Redacted ML23313A0512023-11-0202 November 2023 FOIA-2023-000181 - Resp 2 - Final - I Incoming Request - Attachment ML23313A0522023-11-0202 November 2023 FOIA-2023-000181 - Resp 2 - Final, Agency Records Subject to the Request Are Enclosed ML23291A0862023-10-0303 October 2023 FOIA-2023-000231 - Responsive Record ML23269A0372023-09-18018 September 2023 FOIA-2023-000018 - Resp 1 - Final, Agency Records Subject to the Request Are Enclosed ML23270B1102023-09-14014 September 2023 FOIA-2023-000163 - Resp 2 - Final, Part I.D - Comments - the First Interim Response, Which Consisted of Records That Were Either All Already Publicly Available, or Released in Their Entirety, Was Sent Via e-mail on August 31, 2023 ML23254A0682023-09-13013 September 2023 CUI Challenge Request Form Screenshot ML23263A9872023-09-0707 September 2023 FOIA-2023-000207 - Resp 1- Final, Agency Records Subject to the Request Are Enclosed ML23263A9892023-09-0707 September 2023 FOIA-2023-000207 - Resp 1 - Final, Agency Records Subject to the Request Are Enclosed ML23251A0242023-08-31031 August 2023 FOIA-2023-000163 - Responsive Record - Public ADAMS Document Report. Part 6 of 19 ML23251A0332023-08-31031 August 2023 FOIA-2023-000163 - Responsive Record - Public ADAMS Document Report. Part 2 of 19 ML23251A0322023-08-31031 August 2023 FOIA-2023-000163 - Responsive Record - Public ADAMS Document Report. Part 3 of 19 ML23251A0312023-08-31031 August 2023 FOIA-2023-000163 - Responsive Record - Public ADAMS Document Report. Part 4 of 19 ML23251A0302023-08-31031 August 2023 FOIA-2023-000163 - Responsive Record - Public ADAMS Document Report. Part 10 of 19 ML23251A0292023-08-31031 August 2023 FOIA-2023-000163 - Responsive Record - Public ADAMS Document Report. Part 11 of 19 ML23251A0282023-08-31031 August 2023 FOIA-2023-000163 - Responsive Record - Public ADAMS Document Report. Part 17 of 19 ML23251A0272023-08-31031 August 2023 FOIA-2023-000163 - Responsive Record - Public ADAMS Document Report. Part 16 of 19 ML23251A0262023-08-31031 August 2023 FOIA-2023-000163 - Responsive Record - Public ADAMS Document Report. Part 18 of 19 ML23251A0252023-08-31031 August 2023 FOIA-2023-000163 - Responsive Record - Public ADAMS Document Report. Part 14 of 19 ML23251A0162023-08-31031 August 2023 FOIA-2023-000163 - Responsive Record - Public ADAMS Document Report. Part 9 of 19 2024-01-08
[Table view]Some use of "" in your query was not closed by a matching "". |
Text
-*om: Mitman, Jeffrey nt: Thursday, June 18, 2009 9:46 AM
. u: Galloway, Melanie
Subject:
RE: Keowee Dam If Duke raised only the Keowee Dam proper, meaning the dam from the spillway on the east to the CCW discharge on the west, they would protect the Keowee power-house which, as you know, is their source of emergency power. They would also protect the switchyard which is their source of offsite power.
If they continued the flood protection further to the west and south to include the Little River portion of the reservoir, they would also prevent failure and flooding at the intake canal structure. This would increase protection against water coming over the dike and onto the yard near the SSF (which is the source of the flooding predicted by the 1992 analysis. Presumably, this added protection would also prevent water from flowing down Highway 130 (what I've been calling the backdoor) onto the yard at the SSF.
A combination of the two above changes would also protect the !(b)(7XFl. (bX3) 16 u s.c. § 8240-l(d)
!(bX7XF>. (bX3):I6 us c . § s24o-l(d) I Under the current design not only is electrical power lost to these systems but the rooms where the pumps are located are physically threatened by water entering the rooms.
With this raising of flood protection Duke could also elevate one or more of the roads and/or bridges onto the site. This would increase the reliability of offsite access during and after any failure.
This buys them much more than simply raising the local flood protection of the SSF. As we've discussed 1ising and/or improving the local SSF flood protection leaves them still dependent on a highly unreliable SSF Nith a failure probability of ~27%). The increased "dam" height reduces the dependency on the SSF because the normal and emergency systems remain available during the transients . In PRA jargon, the increased height reduces the risk importance of the SSF during floods. This appears to add substantially to their defense-in-depth, something that raising the locally SSF flood protection does not achieve.
A couple of comments on this potential solution. I'm not a civil/structural engineer, but this looks like a lengthy and difficult process, especially near the intake canal. There is little room to widen the base of the dike here that would allow them to build a higher dike. Second, the discussion about overtopping becomes even more significant under this potential fix, because in all probability increasing the amount of water and the size of the break at Jocassee, increases the flood height at ONS. This will increase the height of the required dam to protect it against these higher flood heights. For example, currently HEC-RAS is predicting a flood height of
... X3....
l(b... u-s"""c...11f we include overtopping, a larger breach size and a worst case scenario not the conservative realistic 1~...
):...
/3~:
flood Duke currently wants to use) they may be looking at a flood of 16 or 3~: 16 U.S.C .S.C Jeff From: Galloway, Melanie Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 7:51 AM To: Mitman, Jeffrey
Subject:
Keowee Dam Mike and I were discussing a bit what the lie would hope to gain by raising Keowee. Can you elaborate?
Saving the hydro units? Not flooding the SSF? the turbine building? The switchyard? Any details you can
, rovide would be appreciated. Thanks