ML13211A056: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
Created page by program invented by StriderTol
Created page by program invented by StriderTol
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[NRC 2013-0075, Response to Request for Additional Information from July 22, 2013, Regulatory Conference to Discuss Inspection Report 05000266-13-011 and 05000301-13-011, Preliminary Yellow Finding]]
| number = ML13211A056
| issue date = 07/29/2013
| title = Response to Request for Additional Information from July 22, 2013, Regulatory Conference to Discuss Inspection Report 05000266-13-011 and 05000301-13-011, Preliminary Yellow Finding
| author name = Meyer L
| author affiliation = NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC
| addressee name =
| addressee affiliation = NRC/Document Control Desk, NRC/RGN-III
| docket = 05000266, 05000301
| license number = DPR-024, DPR-027
| contact person =
| case reference number = EA-13-125, NRC 2013-0075
| document type = Letter
| page count = 69
}}
See also: [[followed by::IR 05000266/2013011]]
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:July 29, 2013 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
ATTN: Document Control Desk 11555 Rockville
Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Dockets 50-266 and 50-301 Renewed License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27 NEXT era POINT BEACH NRC 2013-0075
Response to Request for Additional
Information
from July 22, 2013, Regulatory
Conference
to Discuss Inspection
Report 05000266/2013011
and 05000301/2013011, Preliminary
Yellow Finding References:
1) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 NRC Integrated
Inspection
Report 05000266/2013011
and 05000301/2013011;
Preliminary
Yellow Finding, dated June 18, 2013. (ML 13169A212)
2) Point Beach letter NRC 2013-0054, Response to Inspection
Report 05000266/2013011
and 05000301/2013011
Preliminary
Yellow Finding, dated June 28, 2013 (ML 13179A333)
3) Point Beach letter NRC 2013-0069 , Supporting
Documentation
for July 22, 2013 Regulatory
Conference
to Discuss Inspection
Report 050000266/2013011
and 05000301/2013011, Preliminary
Yellow Finding, dated July 15, 2013 (M13197A118)
On June 18, 2013, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) provided NextEra E nergy Point Beach, L L C (NextEra)
with the results of the Temporary
Instruction (TI) 2515-187, "Inspection
of Near-Term
Task Force Recommendation
2.3 Flooding Walk Downs," conducted
at the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) during the first quarter of 2013. The results of the Tl included a performance
deficiency
related to the PBNP implementation
of certain procedures
intended to mitigate postulated
flooding events (Reference 1 ). The Reference
1 letter further informed NextEra that NRC had preliminarily
determined
that the significance
of the identified
performance
deficiency
was yellow. On June 28, 2013, Next E ra requested
a Regulatory
Conference
to discuss the significance
determination (Reference
2). On July 15, 2013, NextEra provided a summary of the updated wave run-up analysis and an explanation
of the results which clearly demonstrate
that the safety significance
of the performance
deficiency
is very low (Reference
3). NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, 6610 Nuclear Road, Two Rivers , WI 54241 
Document Control Desk Page 2 The updated analysis and results were discussed
at the July 22, 2013, Regulatory
Conference
during which NRC requested
additional
information.
The responses
to the additional
information
requests are contained
in the Enclosure
to this letter. NextEra maintains
that using the updated external flooding analysis and Probabilistic
Risk Assessment (PRA) models are the best available
information
to assess the safety significance
of the subject performance
deficiency.
As discussed
in the enclosure
to this letter, the results show that the Turbine Building is only impacted by postulated
flood frequencies
in the range of E-06/yr resulting
in a change in core damage frequency
of 1.E-08/yr.
Consequently, the safety significance
of the performance
deficiency
is very low, with margin. This letter contains no new Regulatory
Commitments
and no revisions
to existing Regulatory
Commitments.
If you have any questions
or require additional
information, please contact Mr. Ron Seizert, Licensing
Supervisor
at (920)755-7500.
Very truly yours, Larry Meyer Site Vice President
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC Enclosure
cc: Administrator, Region Ill, USNRC Project Manager, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, USNRC Resident Inspector, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, USNRC Branch Chief, Plant Support, Division of Reactor Safety, Region Ill, USNRC 
ENCLOSURE
NEXTERA ENERGY POINT BEACH, LLC POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
UPDATED FLOODING ANALYSIS AND SIGNIFICANCE
DETERMINATION
Summary The external flooding analysis for Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) contained
in the station's
Individual
Plant Examination
of External Events (IPEEE) is dominated
by conservative
estimations
and assumptions.
The cumulative
effect of these conservative
assumptions
results in overestimating
the impact of external flooding events, including
wave run-up. NextEra developed
an updated storm surge/wave
run-up analysis utilizing
more recent and best-available
information
and modeling which provides a more reliable analytical
basis for assessing
the associated
safety significance
of the postulated
flooding event. The application
of this updated analysis shows that the identified
performance
deficiency
is of very low safety significance, with margin. During the July 22, 2013 Regulatory
Conference
to discuss the significance
determination
of the performance
deficiency
as described
in Reference
1, and the updated analysis and results that were provided in Reference
3, the NRC requested
additional
information.
This Enclosure
contains the NRC requests and the NextEra responses.
Attachment
2 is an updated safety significance
determination
evaluation.
The results show that the Turbine Building is only impacted by postulated
flood frequencies
in the range of E-06/yr resulting
in a change in core damage frequency (t1CDF) of 1.E-08/yr.
Consequently, the safety significance
of the performance
deficiency
is very low, with margin. Request 1: The Wave Run-Up Calculation
references
a draft FEMA document.
Is it appropriate
to use the draft FEMA document?
Response 1: The Draft FEMA (2012) Report was only used as a supporting
document and not for any of the run-up calculations.
However, the Draft FEMA (2012) Report has since been issued final. ENERCON has reviewed the final issued FEMA (2012) Report. There are no changes in that final report that impact the results or conclusions
of ENERCON's
total run-up calculation.
Request 2: Are the values in Point Beach Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Table 2.5-1 average values or maximum values? Page 1 of 10 
Response 2: The wave heights listed in Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Table 2.5-1 are maximum deep water wave heights (not mean wave heights) for the " Full Year" and "Ice-Free
Period" for each recurrence
frequency
that is listed. The information
contained
in FSAR Table 2.5-1 is based on Sargent & Lundy report , "Maximum Deep Water Waves & Beach Run-up at Point Beach," dated January 14, 1967. The Sargent & Lundy report was prepared to support the preliminary
safety analysis for Point Beach and provided an evaluation
review of probable wave conditions
and wave run-up for recurrence
frequencies
up to 1 in 500 years. FSAR 2012 Section 2.5 Hydrology (Page 2.5-2) states: "The predicted
magnitude
of deep water wave heights is shown in Table 2.5-1." The Sargent & Lundy report, Section II, (page 4) states: " ... the following
maximum deep water waves are calculated:
... " The list of calculated
values includes 23.5' as the maximum calculated
deep water wave occurring
once each 500 years. Request 3: Provide copy of the Bathymetry/topography
calculation
that defines site topography
in the updated analysis.
Response 3: ENERCON Calculation
FPL-076-CALC
-001, "Bathymetry
and Topography
Data Processing (DELFT3D Domain)," is included as Attachment
1. Citations
in this document, i.e., "(NOAA, 1996)," refer to references
in that calculation. (The input data for the calculation
is not included in Attachment
1 due to its volume.) Discussion:
The site topography
used in the analysis is the combination
of a June 2013 site survey and publicly available
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and United States Geological
Survey (USGS) information. The best available
and most recent data were used directly for development
of the model. The purpose of the bathymetry
and topography
calculation (FPL-076-CALC-001)
is to convert the raw data into a format that can be imported into the DEL F T3D software.
A brief summary of each data source follows. 1 Lake Michigan Bathymetry
Bathymetric
data was obtained from the NOAA National Geophysical
Data Center (NGDC) website (NOAA, 1996) as an ASCII grid file. The data were published
in 1996 and are the best available
bathymetric
data for Lake Michigan.
2 Site-Specific
Topography
From June 12-14, 2013, a survey team from AECOM, led by a Registered
Land Surveyor in the State of Wisconsin, performed
a topographic
survey at PBNP specifically
for this analysis (NEE, 2013a). The survey included the general area and specific features around the Circulating
Water Pump House (CWPH), bounding the land areas and features which would potentially
be affected by wave action from Lake Michigan and extending
into a bathymetric
survey of the lake by taking actual depth measurements
as far as safety would allow. This survey provided a much higher resolution (smaller grid size) for the immediate
site area than publicly available.
An image of the CAD drawing file is located on page 17 of 48 in the attached calculation.
Page2of10 
3 General Topography
The general topography
is included for completeness
of the model. The 1 /3-arc second ( -10 meter resolution)
National Elevation
Datasets (NEDs) were downloaded
from the USGS National Map website (USGS , 2011 ). The NEDs were published
in 2011 and are the best available
elevation
data. Request 4: Provide insights on acceptability
and validation
of DELFT3D software. Has NRC reviewed it or has another federal agency approved or used it? Response 4: DELFT3D has undergone
extensive
development
and is used worldwide.
DELFT3D is a suite of integrated
modules that simulate a host of processes: two-and three-dimensional
hydrodynamic
flows , sediment transport , waves , water quality, morphological
development , and ecology. The model was developed
over decades by Deltares, an independent
applied research institute
in the Netherlands.
Through development, it showed good agreement
against laboratory
data (e.g., Henrotte , 2008) and field measurements (e.g., Booij eta/., 1999; Elias, 1999; Luijendijk , 2001) and is now an open-source
software. Internationally, DELFT3D has been used for tsunami and storm surge analysis for power plants in the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, the Netherlands , and Canada (Lake Huron) by Rizzo Associates , Inc. The DELFT3D software has been internally
verified by ENERCON ENERCON maintains
a 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Quality Assurance
program for safety related nuclear projects.
The DELFT3D software has been internally
verified under this program. DELFT3D has been applied and validated
by governmental
agencies in the United States. * In their validations, the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) found " in general , DELFT30 has been shown to be robust and accurate in predicting
nearshore
wave heights and flows." NRL has performed
surf prediction, wave modeling, and circulation/flow
analyses across the country with DELFT3D (NRL , 2002; 2006; 2008; 2009). * DELFT3D has been selected to replace the Navy Standard Surf Model (NSSM) for official Navy use (Rogers/NRL
; 2009). * The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) hindcasted
a winter storm (i.e., modeled waves and currents)
along Long Island with DELFT3D (USACE , 2004). DELFT3D has been used in five site evaluations
submitted
to the NRC. * South Texas Project, Units 3 and 4 (Texas), for Combined License Application (COLA) and FSAR for breach and wave modeling Turkey Point (Florida), Units 6 and 7 , for COLA tsunami wave analysis Turkey Point (Florida), Units 3 and 4, for the post-Fukushima
flood hazard re-evaluation
Nine Mile Point (New York) for nearshore
wave heights and periods * Victoria County (Texas) Station Early Site Permit Application, for Cooling Basin Breach Analysis Page 3 of 10 
Additionally, questions
were asked at the July 22, 2013 Regulatory
Conference
about the conservatisms
that were included as DELFT3D model inputs. A summary of the most important
inputs and outputs of the wave setup and incident run-up calculation, which add conservatisms, are provided below. This information
is included to show that the DELFT3D model inputs were selected to obtain results that had the greatest impact at the site. * The deep-water
wave height (23.5 feet) was determined
from the maximum 500-year event in the PBNP FSAR (2012), Section 2.5, "Hydrology", which states " ... only waves of lesser height actually need to be considered
in the run up of the beach." Use of 23.5' deep-water
wave height is conservative
and leads to a higher wave run-up. * Multiple deep-water wave directions
were prescribed
to determine
the most critical value (120 °, with respect to north, 0 °). Only water levels from the critical wave direction
were used in subsequent
calculations.
* The maximum sustained
easterly wind, as determined
by the Sargent & Lundy Runup Report (1967) and UFSAR (PBNP, 2012) were used in DELFT3D. The inclusion
of wind in the DELFT3D wave setup calculations
is a conservative
approach, since wind setup had already been included in the starting still water levels (e.g., worst-case
Individual
Plant Examination
for External Events (IPEEE) scenario, 587 feet IGLD 1955). * Depths near the seaward edge of the discharge
flumes were increased (made deeper) up to three meters to produce larger waves (and, thus, higher water levels) near PBNP. * The Manning's
coefficient
for bottom roughness (n) was set at 0.02, which is the suggested
value from USACE (2012). That value corresponds
to a sandy lake bottom. Although most of Lake Michigan is covered with sand, this is still a conservative
approximation, since other bottom irregularities
would have a higher n value and corresponding
decreased
wave set-up. * The wind drag coefficient
(0.0028) was a suggested
value from "FEMA Great Lakes Coastal Guidelines, Appendix 0.3" and is conservative.
This makes the wave heights greater near PBNP. * Run-up did not account for infiltration
and was assumed to be uninterrupted
by rundown. No barrier effects or reduction
factors due to surface roughness
are considered
to interrupt
run-up. These assumptions
are conservative.
Based on the above conservatisms
and the use of best available
and most recent topography
and bathymetry, the external water levels calculated
at the Turbine Building are concluded
to be the highest levels for leakage analysis.
As previously
indicated, DELFT3D has been used by a number of federal agencies including
its use in submittals
to the NRC. Request 5: IPEEE Table 5.2.5-2 is titled, "Mean Lake Level Hazard Curve For Point Beach." Are the values in the table mean or maximum values? What is the result of using starting lake level values shifted to the 95 1 h percentile
level to assess the range of potential
water levels in the turbine building?
What is impact on statistical
uncertainty
around the results from the Point Beach deterministic
evaluation?
What is the trend in Lake Michigan level during the past 20 years? Page 4 of 10 
Response 5: Table 5.2.5-2 of the IPEEE is entitled, "Mean Lake Level Hazard Curve for Point Beach." The basis of these data is the USAGE study (Revised Report on Great Lakes Open-Coast
Flood Levels) performed
in 1988. The study states that the listed levels are based on an analysis of the maximum instantaneous
levels recorded each year. Given this clarification, the "still water elevation" values in Table 3 of the safety significance
determination
provided in Attachment
2 of NRC 2013-0069
are not actually mean lake levels, but represent
recorded data of maximum yearly lake levels. The lake level frequency
analysis in the IPEEE is based on the TAP A-45 report (NUREG/CR-4458). Both of these documents
used a statistical
approach to determine
the frequency
of flooding on Lake Michigan.
Re-calculating
the wave run-up with a deterministic
approach is consistent
with the previously
used approach.
Based on industry guidance for PRA (e.g., EPRI TR-1 05396, "PSA Applications
Guide"), estimate models and data should be used to accurately
reflect the plant. This guidance further defines best-estimate as the point estimate of a parameter
utilized in a computation
which is not biased by conservatism
or optimism.
Generally, the mean value of a parameter
is considered
to be the best estimate.
However, a sensitivity
case was performed
using a 95th percentile
curve to represent
the annual flood frequency, rather than the values in the IPEEE. The results of that sensitivity
case show that even using the 95th percentile
curve, the
is only 3E-08/yr.
The base
resulting
from using the IPEEE annual flood frequency
curve is 1 E-8/yr. These values are both of very low safety significance.
Next E ra has concluded
that the flood frequency
that impacts equipment
in the Turbine Building is in the range of E-06/yr. Additionally, questions
were asked at the July 22, 2013 Regulatory
Conference
related to the trend in Lake Michigan water level data during the last 20 years. A review of Lake Michigan water levels over the last two decades since the PBNP IPEEE actually shows that the level has been steadily lowering. Request 6 (Equipment-Specific
Questions):
Engineering
Evaluation, EC 279398 , documents
the flood elevations
at which equipment
that is credited in the Point Beach PRA is assumed to be lost. The measurements
of the most limiting subcomponents
were considered
accurate within Yz". The recorded values are rounded down to the next closest Yz". The following
are the equipment-specific
questions
and responses
with respect to the flood failure elevations. Request 6.1: 1 A-05 and 2A-05 ( 4.16 kV Vital Switchgear)
have wires that are routed to the contact stabs which dip below the elevation
of the stabs on the block. Therefore, these wires will be wetted at a lower flood elevation
than that stated in the engineering
evaluation. Why does the evaluation
use the height of the lowest stab instead of the wire bundle height? Page 5 of 10 
Response 6.1 : This response is not limited to just those conductors
questioned
in the 4.16 kV Vital Switchgear. It includes other conductors
that are the subject of subsequent
questions. The photos contained
in EC 279398 which show the elevations
of electrical
equipment
subject to potential
submergence
depict several insulated
cables and internal wires that may be routed below the postulated
water elevation
stated in the engineering
evaluation.
As discussed
in greater detail below, these low voltage insulated
conductors
are not subject to electrical
failure due to a postulated
short duration immersion
in flood water. Previous industry experience
with insulation
failures due to immersion
in water has been noted when immersion
durations
are on the order of many years of continuous
or intermittent
immersion, and is more prevalent
in higher voltages than those carried by the conductors
in question.
As a result, the insulated
conductors
will not be impacted during the duration of a flooding event. Based upon inspection
of the photos contained
in EC 279398, all of the subject cables and internal wires are considered
low voltage conductors, typically
carrying 125VDC, 120VAC, or 480VAC. EPRI Report, "Plant Support Engineering:
Aging Management
Program Development
Guidance for AC and DC Low-Voltage
Power Cable Systems for Nuclear Plants ," contains guidance regarding
cable wetting or submergence.
Excerpts from Section 6 of this document, "Actions for Low-Voltage
Power Cables in Wet Environments," are provided below: 'The insulation
of low-voltage
power cable subjected
to long-term
wetting may deteriorate
over time. Insulated
Cable Engineers
Association
manufacturing
standards
required insulation
stability
testing to be performed
by manufacturers
to prove stability
of cable insulation
under wet conditions, so that no significant
deterioration
should occur for an extended period unless the conditions
of the soil or water are particularly
aggressive.
In /ow-voltage
cables, the thickness
of insulation
and jacketing
that are used is driven by mechanical
protection
capabilities
rather than by voltage withstand.
Therefore, the voltage stress in the insulation
is quite low by comparison
to that of medium-voltage
cable, and no electrically
driven failure mechanism
such as water treeing is expected to occur. Failures have occurred, possibly due to long-term
chemical deterioration
of jackets and insulations, but failures are more often due to installation
or post-installation
damage." The cables have their protective
jackets intact until entering the various boxes, and are routed in protective
metal conduits when low in the building structure.
The jacketing, conduits, and enclosures
prevent post-installation
damage to the wire insulation.
Similarly, the jacketing
on the cables protects the individual
conductor
insulation
from being damaged during installation
while pulling the cable thorough the conduits.
In the case of the cable bundle for the auxiliary
contact connection
block on the 4 kV breakers, the bundle is enclosed in a protective
braided metal sheath. This provides protection
while ensuring flexibility
of the bundle to accommodate
relative motion of the breaker components.
As noted in the EPRI Report guidance, the thickness
of the insulation
on low voltage conductors
is dictated by mechanical
protection
capabilities, not dielectric
requirements.
Therefore, even if some damage to the individual
conductor
insulation
is present, it is highly unlikely that it would lead to grounding
of the conductor
upon immersion
in water. Continuing
with the EPRI Report: "Rain and drain conditions
will not adversely
affect jacketed cables. Water takes a number of months to years to migrate into the jacket. Low-voltage
power cables are not susceptible
to Page6of10 
water treeing because the voltage stresses in the insulation
are too low to induce the electrochemical/electromechanical
degradation
mechanisms
involved.
Other water-related
* degradation
mechanisms
may exist; however, manufacturers'
water stability
tests indicate that water-related
degradation
should not occur." PBNP operating
experience
supports the conclusions
in the EPRI Report. The only significant
cable failures due to water submergence
that have occurred at PBNP were associated
with medium voltage cables where the electrical
stresses are sufficient
to cause water treeing over an extended period of time. For example, a failure of an underground
cable from transformer
1X-04 occurred in 2008 due to long term periodic wetting. This cable had been in service since original plant construction (more than 35 years). Prior to performing
improvements
to reduce and mitigate water intrusion
in electrical
manholes, numerous low voltage cables at PBNP had been exposed to numerous periods of water submergence, with no failures.
Internal wiring at PBNP is typically
type SIS switchboard
wire, which is rated for dry or wet environments.
Underwriters
Laboratories
Standard UL 44, "THERMOSET-INSULATED
WIRES AND CABLES," provides testing requirements
for this cable type, which includes a dielectric
withstand
test in water. Section 36.1 of UL 44 states: "The insulation
shall enable a finished wire or cable capable to withstand
for 60 s without breakdown
the application
of the test potential
indicated
in Table 36.1 under the following
conditions.
The wire or cable shall be immersed in tap water at room temperature
for not less than 6 h, following
which it shall be subjected
to the voltage test while still immersed.
The dielectric
voltage-withstand
test shall be conducted
before the insulation-resistance
test .... " The dielectric
test voltage for 600V type SIS wire is a minimum of 3,000V, which far exceeds the actual voltages in use. Although the wiring in the EC 278398 photos may be routed below the maximum postulated
flood elevation;
this wiring is rated for wet environments
and will not fail upon being submerged
during a flooding event. Therefore, the elevations
included in the subject engineering
evaluation (height of lowest exposed electrical
device) remain valid. There is no need to postulate
any increase in failure probability
of equipment
due to wetted insulated
conductors. Request 6.2: In the C-78 DC Power Transfer Control Panel there is at least one wire that drops from the lowest terminal block to the bottom of the panel (-6" above the floor), and will be wetted at a lower flood elevation
than that stated in the engineering
evaluation.
Why does the evaluation
use the height of the terminal block rather than the wire elevation?
Response 6.2: As discussed
in detail in the response to question 6.1, low voltage insulated
wires and cables such as those seen in the C-78 power transfer control panel are not subject to electrical
failure from direct immersion
in water for the periods of interest in a flooding event. Request 6.3: The local control panel (C-62) for P-35A, Electric Fire Pump, rests on a very low concrete base (-1" high). The flood vulnerability
of P-35A is discussed
in the evaluation;
however, C-62 is not. Are there components
in C-62 that are vulnerable
to wetting at low flood elevations?
Page 7 of 10 
Response 6.3: As stated in the evaluation, the Electric Fire Pump was included in the engineering
evaluation "for completeness
of information," and was not the subject of any of the other three documents (PRA internal flooding notebook, IPEEE, or Flooding Vulnerability
Report). The higher elevation
of the vulnerable
components
in the control panel for the pump were known to the preparer and verifier of the engineering
evaluation
to be well above the elevation
of the pump motor windings.
As a result, discussion
of the control cabinet was inadvertently
omitted from the evaluation.
The vulnerable
components (i.e., un-insulated
exposed electrical
conductors)
are more than 31" above the 7' elevation
floor slab (19" above the 8' plant elevation).
This is bounded by the lower elevation
of the pump motor windings, which are listed as 12" above the 8' elevation
in the evaluation.
Request 6.4: In the photographs
that are included in the engineering
evaluation
of D-01 and D-02, 125V DC Distribution
Panels, the lowest cables dip below the 12.5" listed in the evaluation, and will be wetted at a lower flood elevation
than that stated in the evaluation.
Why does the evaluation
use a height of 12.5" rather than the wire elevation?
Response 6.4: As discussed
in detail in the response to question 6.1, low voltage insulated
wires and cables such as those seen in the D-01 and D-02 DC panels are not subject to electrical
failure from direct immersion
in water for the periods of interest in a flooding event. Request 6.5: In the photograph
that is included in the engineering
evaluation
of the junction box on K-38, Service Air Compressor, there are several wires running along the bottom of the box at -1 0.5'' above the floor level. Why does the evaluation
use a height of 12.5" rather than the wire elevation?
Response 6.5: As discussed
in detail in the response to question 6.1, low voltage insulated
wires and cables such as those seen in K-38 terminal box are not subject to electrical
failure from direct immersion
in water for the period of interest in a flooding event. The bottom location(s)
on the terminal strips are unused. The first (lowest) terminal strip used is located at 12W'. Request 6.6: In the photograph
that is included in the engineering
evaluation
of C-61, Control Panel for P-358 Diesel Fire Pump, there are cables -11" above the floor. The Pumphouse
floor is at the plant 7' elevation, not the 8' elevation.
Yet the evaluation
concludes
that a flood vulnerability
height of 16" should be used. How is this justified?
Page8of10 
Response 6.6: The evaluation
did not consider insulated
conductors
to be vulnerable
to shorting or grounding
as a result of direct immersion
in water. This is why the elevation
of the lowest [bare] terminal lugs were used rather than the lowest wire in the various cabinets and enclosures.
The basis for this is discussed
in greater detail in the response to question 6.1. The 16" value stated in the summary spreadsheet
at the back of Engineering
Evaluation
279398 is in error. As stated in the evaluation: " ... the lowest un-insulated
terminal strips in the DFP control panel (C-61 ), which are slightly more than 16" above the 7' floor. Therefore, a value of 16" should be used for flood risk assessments".
The intent of the evaluation
was that the vulnerable
elevation
is 16" above the 7' elevation, not the 8' elevation.
However, when this was transcribed
into the spreadsheet
summary at the end of the evaluation, an error occurred that indicated
the elevation
is ">16" above the 8' plant elevation.
The entries in the spreadsheet
summary were to all be referenced
to the 8' plant elevation, and the one foot correction
for this component
was not made. Additionally, the FSAR describes
the elevation
as 4.5" above the 8' plant elevation.
Further review of the photographs
confirmed
that the lowest vulnerable
component
in the cabinet is at least 16.5" above the 7' floor elevation.
Therefore, the entry in the spreadsheet
should have been 4.5" rather than ">16". The error has been documented
in the corrective
action program, and two independent
reviews were immediately
performed
to determine
the extent of condition. Both reviewers
concluded
that all other entries in the spreadsheet
for equipment
located in the Pumphouse
were correctly
adjusted for the difference
in floor elevations.
The engineering
evaluation
will be amended to correct this error via the corrective
action program. Additionally, the actual flood vulnerability
elevation
for C-62 is reflected
in the revised PRA model by including
the failure of P-35B, Diesel Fire Pump at a flood water elevation
range of 4" to <8". This correction
results in a revised .6.CDF of 1.E-08/yr
as compared to the .6.CDF of 7.E-09/yr determined
with the Diesel Fire Pump failure at a flood water elevation
range of 12.5" to <17". The Updated Point Beach External Flood Safety Significance
Determination
is included as Attachment
2. This update did not materially
change the result of the safety significance
of the performance
deficiency, which remains very low. Request 6.7: The engineering
evaluation
describes
the D-63 and D-64 panels as having been modified to install insulating
end caps on the exposed bus bars to prevent them from being wetted from water up to 18" deep. However, no photographs
were included.
There are conduits entering these cabinets from the sides, suggesting
that there are wires or cables in the conduits that might be wetted at lower elevations.
Are these conduits sealed to prevent wetting of the wires or cables in them? Response 6. 7: As discussed
in greater detail in the response to question 6.1, insulated
internal wires and cables are not subject to failure due to direct immersion
from the postulated
flooding.
Therefore, although the wiring in the side entry conduits could be wetted, this would not cause electrical
failure. Page 9 of 10 
The modification
that installed
the panels specifically
assessed the potential
for water intruding
into the cabinets and made provisions
to protect exposed electrical
conductors
that are below the potential
flood elevation. Sealing of the conduits and other penetrations
to prevent flood i ng impact was determined
to not be necessary.
Per CRN 261586 (ECN 15158) and 206911 (ECN 14483), field verification
showed the D-63 and D-64 main bus bar elevations
to be approximately
%'' below the centerline
of the P-38A and P-38B pump motor windings. A Raychem insulated
heat shrink end cap and heat shrink tubing were installed
on the bottom of each exposed bus bar. This provides protection
up to the P-38A and P-38B pump motor winding centerline
height. CRN 261586 states: "Raychem environmental
qualification
testing results included in EDR-5389, Rev. 0 and EDR-5336 , Rev. 5 , concluded
that the end caps and sleeve tubing (respectively)
used in this modification
are environmentally
qualified
for a LOCA accident environment
... The test samples were also subject to 24 hours submergence
in tap water at room temperature , +I-25&deg;C at least 12 inches below the water surface with a DC voltage applied of 500 volts for 1 minute. This test is similar to conditions
expected during a L OCA accident condition
in this application
... The Raychem end cap and tubing sleeve will not be subjected
to a harsh environment
as described
by DG-G11 " Environmental
Qualification
Service Conditions
': Therefore , the end cap and tubing sleeve are acceptable
for use in this installation." Request 6.8: A walkdown of the 1 and 2P-29 Turbine Driven Auxiliary
Feedwater
Pumps found that
there are junction boxes associated
with the 1-MS-2082 and 2-MS-2082 valves (trip and throttle valves) that are located -6" above the floor. These junction boxes do not appear to have been addressed
in the evaluation.
Please provide information
on the content of these boxes and the potential
consequences
of their being wetted. Response 6.8: These boxes were not specifically
addressed
because they were not included in the three documents
that were being reconciled , and because previous efforts had confirmed
that there are no exposed energized
electrical
components
w i thin the boxes. These boxes were verified to contain direct runs of insulated
wires, with no terminal blocks, splices, or other potent i ally exposed conductors.
As discussed
in detail in the response to question 6.1, low voltage insulated
wires are not subject to electrical
failure due to direct immersion
for the periods of time being considered
for flooding events. Attachments
Attachment
1: FPL-076-CALC-001, " Bathymetry
and Topography
Data Processing (DELFT3D Domain" Attachment
2: "Updated Point Beach E xternal Flood Safety Significance
Determination" Page 10 of 10 
ATTACHMENT
1 NEXTERA ENERGY POINT BEACH, LLC POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT BATHYMETRY
AND TOPOGRAPHY
DATA PROCESSING (DELFT3D Domain) 48 Pages Follow 
CALC. NO. O ENERCON CALCULATION
COVER SHEET FPL-076-CALC-001
REV. 0 PAGE NO. 1 of 48 Title: Bathymetry
and Topography
Data Processing (DELFT3D Client: NextEra Energy (NEE) Domain) Project: FPLPB025 Item Cover Sheet Items Yes No 1 Does this calculation
contain any assumptions
that require confirmation?
X (If YES, identify the assumptions)
2 Does this calculation
serve as an "Alternate
Calculation"? (If YES, identify the X design verified calculation
.) Design Verified Calculation
No. 3 Does this calculation
supersede
an existing calculation? (If YES, identify the X superseded
calculation.)
Superseded
Calculation
No. Scope of Revision:
Initial Issue Revision Impact on Results: Not Applicable
to Revision 0. Study Calculation
D Final Calculation
IZI Safety-Related
IZI Non-Safety
Related D (Print Name agd Sign) Originator:
Mandy Searle 'f Date: 7 /II I dO/_? Design Verifier:
Justin Pistininzi
Jud 1\ P.\.t 1 11 * * Date: 1/1 1 J JatS. Approver:
Paul Martinchich L --Date: "1 1 d lz(l l '0 / I 
CALC. NO. CALCULA liON FPL-076-CALC-001
[J E N E R C 0 N REV. 0 REVISION STATUS SHEET PAGE NO. 2of 48 CALCULATION
REVISION STATUS REVISION DATE DESCRIPTION
0 July 11,2013 Initial Issue PAGE REVISION STATUS PAGE NO. REVISION PAGE NO. REVISION All pages 0 A(mendlx/Attachment
REVISION STATUS Attachment
NO. PAGE NO. REVISION NO. Attachment
NO. PAGE NO. REVISION NO. Attachment -A All Pages 0 
CALC. NO. n E N E R C O N CALCULATION
FPL-076-CALC-001
DESIGN VERIFICATION
PLAN REV. 0 AND SUMMARY SHEET PAGE NO. 3 of 48 Calculation
Design Verification
Plan: Apply CSP Number 3.01, Revision 6, Section 4.5.a, Design Review Method and to include at a minimum: 1. Review and verify the design inputs, references
and tables to ensure that the Calculation
Results, as they conform to the design methodology , are correct. (Print Name and Sign for Approval-mark "NIA" If not required)
Approver:
Paul Martinchich Date: -J} 1 I)_ {2:> Calculation
Design Verification
Summary: F After reviewing
this calculation
and all related documents
for Revision 0, I have come to the following
conclusions:
1. The methodology, design inputs and approach are appropriate
for the derivation
of all calculated
results. 2. The results of the Calculation
are reasonable
based on verified input values. 3. The report text and general flow of the document is clear and concise. Based on the above summary, the calculation
is determined
to be acceptable. (Print Name and Sign) Design Verifier:
Justin Pistininzi
:r-wt>" D. r\{
: {!& ;(ffJf Date: 7 j II J :1 o/3, Others: N/A // I 
CALC. NO. IO ENERCON CALCULATION
FPL-076-CALC-001
DESIGN VERIFICATION
REV. 0 CHECKLIST
PAGE NO. 4 of 48 Item Cover Sheet Items Yes No N/A 1 Design Inputs -Were the design inputs correctly
selected, referenced
X (latest revision), consistent
with the design basis and incorporated
in the calculation?
2 Assumptions -Were the assumptions
reasonable
and adequately
X described, justified
and/or verified , and documented?
3 Quality Assurance
-Were the appropriate
QA classification
and X requirements
assigned to the calculation?
4 Codes, Standard and Regulatory
Requirements -Were the applicable
X codes, standards
and regulatory
requirements, Including
Issue and addenda, properly identified
and their requirements
satisfied?
5 Construction
and Operating
Experience-
Has applicable
construction
X and operating
experience
been considered?
6 Interfaces-
Have the design interface
requirements
been satisfied, X including
interactions
with other calculations?
7 Methods -Was the calculation
methodology
appropriate
and properly X applied to satisfy the calculation
objective?
8 Design Outputs-Was the conclusion
of the calculation
clearly stated, X did it correspond
directly with the objectives
and are the results reasonable
compared to the inputs? 9 Radiation
Exposure-Has the calculation
properly considered
X radiation
exposure to the public and plant personnel?
10 Acceptance
Criteria -Are the acceptance
criteria incorporated
in the X calculation
sufficient
to allow verification
that the design requirements
have been satisfactorily
accomplished?
11 Computer Software -Is a computer program or software used, and if X so , are the requirements
of CSP 3.02 met? COMMENTS: (Print Name and Sign) Design Verifier:
Justin Pistininzl
:lw/:..*'"
Date: 1 J 11 h_ 0 1 "? ,. Others: N/A 
CALC. NO. E N E R C 0 N FPL-076-CALC-00
1 CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 PAGE NO. 5 of48 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .........................................................................................................................................
5 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE .................................................................................................................................
7 2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
.........................................................................................
7 3. REFERENCES
........................
........................................................................................................................
7 4. ASSUMPTIONS
...............................................................................................................................................
9 5. DESIGN INPUTS .............................................................................................................................................
9 6. METHODOLOGY
............................................................................................................................................
9 7. CALCULATIONS
.................................................................
........................
..................................................
18 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF TOPOGRAPHIC
AND BATHYMETRIC
DATA USED AS INPUT .........................................................
11 TABLE 2. VERTICAL DATUM CONVERSION
FOR JERSEY BARRIERS AND DISCHARGE
CANALS .......................
.....................
46 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF PBN ON TWO CREEKS, WI QUADRANGLE (USGS, 2010A) ..........................................................
10 FIGURE 2. MASK AREA FOR BATHYMETRIC
AND TOPOGRAPHIC
DATA .............................................................................
11 FIGURE 3. LAKE MICHIGAN BATHYMETRY (NOAA, 1996) ........................
...........................................................................
12 FIGURE 4. 1/3-ARC SECOND NED (USGS, 2011) .................................................................................................................
14 FIGURE 5. SNAPSHOT OF THE SURVEY ELEVATION
POINTS IN "P,N,E,EL,D" TEXT FORMAT (NEE, 2013A) ........................
16 FIGURE 6. SITE SURVEY, CAD DRAWING FILE (NEE, 2013A) ..........................................................................
.....................
17 FIGURE 7. CLIP (DATA MANAGEMENT)
TOOL INPUT PARAMETERS
....................
..............................................................
19 FIGURE 8. POINT FEATURES OF THE LAKE MICHIGAN BATHYMETRY, 176.0 M-LWD IGLD85 ............................................
19 FIGURE 9. RASTER TO POINTS INPUT PARAMETERS
..........................................................
................................................
20 FIGURE 10. POINT FEATURE OF THE LAKE MICHIGAN BATHYMETRY, 176.0 M-LWD IGLD85 ........................
....................
20 FIGURE 11. ADD XV COORDINATES
INPUT PARAMETERS
..........
................................................................
.........................
21 FIGURE 12. ENVIRONMENTAL
SETIINGS, ADD XV COORDINATE
TOOL .............................................................................
21 FIGURE 13. FIELD CALCULATOR
TOOL, CONVERT UNITS TO NEGATIVE VALUE ................
........................................
......... 22 FIGURE 14. SNAPSHOT OF FINAL BATHYMETRY
TAB DELIMITED
XYZ TEXT FILE ......................................
.................
......... 23 FIGURE 15. CLIP (DATA MANAGEMENT)
INPUT PARAMETERS
..........
................................................................................
24 FIGURE 16. 1/3-ARC SECOND OEM CLIP TO MASK .............................................................................................................
24 FIGURE 17. GREAT LAKES SYSTEM PROFILE: VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL
RELATIONSHIPS (NOAA, 1992) .......................
26 FIGURE 18. RASTER CALCULATOR
TOOL INPUT PARAMETERS
...........................................................................................
27 FIGURE 19. ENVIRONMENTAL
SETIING PARAMETERS, RASTER CALCULATOR
TOOL ........................................................
27 FIGURE 20. RASTER TO POINT TOOL INPUT PARAMETERS
................................................................................................
28 FIGURE 21. TOPOGRAPHIC
FEATURE POINTS ....................................
.................................................................................
28 FIGURE 22. ADD XV TOOL INPUT PARAMETERS
.................................................................................................................
29 FIGURE 23. ENVIRONMENTAL
SETIINGS, ADD XV TOOL.. .................................................
.................................................
29 FIGURE 24. FIELD CALCULATOR
TOOL, CONVERT UNITS TO NEGATIVE VALUE ..............................................
................... 30 FIGURE 25. SNAPSHOT OF FINAL TOPOGRAPHIC
TAB DELIMITED
XYZ TEXT FILE ..............................................................
31 FIGURE 26. SHORELINE
CLIPPED WITHIN MASK ............................
.....................................................................................
32 FIGURE 27. SHORELINE
FEATURE POINTS (0 M-LWD IGLD85) ...........................................................................................
32 
CALC. NO. N E R C ON FPL-076-CALC-001
CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 PAGE NO. 6 of48 FIGURE 28. ADD XY COORDINATES
TOOL INPUT PARAMETERS
........................................
.................................
................
33 FIGURE 29. ENVIRONMENTAL
SETIINGS, ADD XY COORDINATES
TOOL ..............................
.............................................
33 FIGURE 30. SNAPSHOT OF FINAL SHORELINE
TAB DELIMITED
XYZ TEXT FILE ............
........................................................
35 . FIGURE 31. ADD XV DATA TOOL INPUT PARAMETERS
FOR SURVEY ELEVATION
POINTS ..................................................
36 FIGURE 32. SURVEY POINTS AS A SHAPEFILE, REFERENCED
TO FT-NAVD88
.....................................................................
37 FIGURE 33. QUERY BUILDER TOOL, XYZ DATA ................................
...................................................................................
38 FIGURE 34. XYZ SURVEY ELEVATION
POINTS, REFERENCED
TO FT-NAVD88
.........................
..........
...................................
39 FIGURE 35. SITE SURVEY CONTOURS SHOWN AS POINT FEATURES .................
; ................................................................
40 FIGURE 36. CONTOURS OF DISCHARGE
CANALS ..........................
............................
................
...........................
............... 41 FIGURE 37. ADD XV COORDINATES
TOOL INPUT PARAMETERS
.........................................................................................
42 FIGURE 38. ENVIRONMENT
SETIINGS, ADD XV COORDINATES
TOOL .................
..............
................................................
42 FIGURE 39. FIELD CALCULATOR, CONVERSION
FROM FT-NAVD88
TO M-LWD IGLD85 ....................................
..............
... 43 FIGURE 40. FIELD CALCULATOR
TOOL, CONVERT UNITS TO NEGATIVE VALUE ............
................
.....................................
44 FIGURE 41. SNAPSHOT OF FINAL SURVEY TAB DELIMITED
XYZ TEXT FILE .........................................................................
45 
CALC. NO. 1: i ::1 E N E R C 0 N FPL-076-CALC-001
CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 1.1 I PAGE NO. 7 of 48 1. Purpose and Scope This calculation
is performed
under NextEra Energy (NEE) Contract Order 02306247, to evaluate wave runup and related Inundation
effects due to surge In Lake Michigan at the Point Beach Plant (PBN) The purpose of this calculation
is to compile Lake Michigan bathymetry
and near site topography
and suNey data into a tab delimited
xyz text file (.xyz). The output files are referenced
to a horizontal
datum in the World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84) geographic
coordinate
system (GCS) and a vertical datum referenced
to Lake Michigan low water datum (LWD) at the International
Great Lakes Datum of 1985 (IGLD85) with units in meters. The files will be created using publically
available
bathymetric
data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and topographic
data from the United State Geological
SuNey (USGS). The latest site suNey completed
in June 2013 will also be used to obtain site elevation
information. The following
output files from this calculation
will be utilized In FPL-076-CALC-003 "DELFT3D Model: " 1. Lake Michigan bathymetric
points, 2. Near site topographic
elevation
points, 3. Site suNey elevation
points, 4. Site suNey contours denoted as point features, 5. Lake Michigan shoreline
denoted as point features, 6. Additional
elevation
points In discharge
canals. 2. Summary of Results and Conclusions
The text delimited
xyz file (.xyz), referenced
to WGS84 GCS meters-IGLD85, is based on available
bathymetric
data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA, 1996), United States Geological
SuNey (USGS) National Elevation
Datasets (NED) (USGS, 2011 ), and site suNey elevation
points (NEE, 2013a). Spacing of bathymetric
data Is approximately
90 meters; spacing for the NEDs Is 10 meters; and spacing for the site suNey is variable, between one to ten meters. Thus, the output text files (.xyz format) containing
bathymetry
and topographic
elevations
are appropriate
for use as Input for calculation
FPL-076-CALC-003 " DELFT3D Model". The input files, output text files and references
are included on a DVD in Attachment
1. 3. References
The references
are available
In Attachment
A (on DVD). 3.1 AECOM, 2013, ''RE: Topographic
SuNey ," e-mail correspondence
from AECOM to ENERCON, June 20, 2013. 3.2 Deltares, 2011, "DELFT3D-RGFGRID
User Manual," Version 4.00, Revision 15423, 2600 MH Delft, The Netherlands.
3.3 ENERCON, 2012, ENERCON SeNices Inc. (ENERCON), " ENERCON QA Master File: ArcGIS Desktop Version 1 0.1," Murrysville, PA (Pittsburgh
Office), 2012. 
CALC. NO. I FPL-076-CALC-001
F. ::I E N E R C ON CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 PAGE NO. 8 of48 3.4 ESRI, 2012, Environmental
Systems Research Institute (ESRI), "ArcGIS Desktop 10.1 ," Computer Program, ESRI: Redlands, California, 2012. 3.5 NGS, 2013, National Geodetic Survey (NGS), NGS Data Sheet: LSC 7 B 81, PID: PM0368, received in e-mail correspondence
from AECOM to ENERCON, June 17,2013. 3.6 NGS, 2012, National Geodetic Survey (NGS), "DYNAMIC_HT," NGS Geodetic Tool Kit Website, http://www.ngs.noaa
.gov/TOOLS/DYNHT/dynamic_ht.pdf, Accessed June 2013. 3.7 NEE, 2013a , Nex!Era Energy (NEE), "Topography
Survey Data of CWPH Area for External Flooding Analysis," Design Information
Transmittal (DIT) PBNP Engineering
Evaluation
EC 279589, Source of Information
: AECOM, PO 02306247, July 9, 2013. 3.8 NEE, 2013b, NextEra Energy (NEE), "FW: Plant Datum," e-mail correspondence
from NextEra to ENERCON, June 24, 2013. 3.9 NOAA, 2013a, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), "Great Lakes Low Water Datums," Tides and Currents Website, http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/gldatums.shtml, Accessed June 2013. 3.10 NOAA, 2013b, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), "Great Lakes Water Dashboard
-Water Level Data Detail ," Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory (GLERL) Website, http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/dbd/levels2
.html, Accessed June 2013. 3.11 NOAA, 1999 , National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), "Bathymetry
of the Lake Erie and Lake Saint Clair," National Geodetic Data Center Webs i te, http://www.ngdc
.noaa.gov//mgg/greatlakes/erie
.html , Accessed June 2013. 3.12 NOAA, 1996 , National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), "Bathymetry
of Lake Michigan," National Geodetic Data Center (NGDC) Website, http://www.ngdc
.noaa.gov/mgg/gdas/gd_des
i gnagrld.html?dbase=grdglb, Accessed June 2013. 3.13 NOAA, 1995, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), "Establishment
of International
Great Lakes Datum (1985)," The Coordinating
Committee
on Great Lakes Bas i c Hydraulic
and Hydrologic
Data , NOAA Tides and Currents Website, http :1/tidesa
ndcurrents.
noaa. gov/pu bl ications/Establish
men!_ of _International_
Great_ Lal<es _Datum_ 19 85.pdf, Accessed June 2013. 3.14 NOAA, 1985, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), "Orthometric
Height Determinlnation
Using GPS Observations
and the Integrated
Geodesy Adjustment
Model," NOAA Technical
Report NOS 110 NGS 32, NGS Publication
Website, http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/TRNOS11
ONGS32.PDF, Accessed June 2013. 3.15 USACE, 1992 , United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), "Bro c hure on the International
Great Lakes Datum of 1985 (IGLD85)," USACE Website, http://www
.lre.usace.army.mii/Portals/69/docs/Grea!Lakeslnfo/docs/IGLD/BrochureOnThelnternational
Grea!LakesDatum1985.pdf, Accessed June 2013. 3.16 USGS, 2011, United States Geological
Survey (USGS), "1/3-Arc Second National Elevation
Dataset (NED)," NED grid n45w088_1, USGS National View Webs i te, http://viewer
.nationalmap.gov/viewer, Accessed June 2013. 
CALC. NO. F.l l::J FPL-076-CALC-001
E N E R C ON REV. 0 CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET } PAGE NO. 9 of48 3.17 USGS, 201 Oa, United States Geological
Survey (USGS), "Two Creeks, Wisconsin," 7.5-minute Quadrangle , USGS Website, http://store.
usgs .gov/b2c _ usgs/usgs/maplocator/(xcm=r3sta
nda rd pitrex_prd
& layout=6 _1_ 61_ 48& ui area =2&ctype=areaDetails&carea=%24ROOT)/
.do, Accessed June 2013. 3.18 USGS, 201 Ob, United States Geological
Survey (USGS), "NHDH0406," National Hydrography
Dataset, USGS National Hydrolography
Dataset Viewer Website, http://viewer.nationalmap
.gov/viewer/nhd.html?p=nhd, Accessed June 2013. 4. Assumption
s 4.1 Lal<e Michigan LWD, established
by NOAA, is set to 176.0 meters-IGLD85 (NOAA, 2013a). It is assumed the LWD is the average water level (established
at the Lake Michigan master gauging station at Harbor Beach, Michigan)
which is considered
constant at all locations
around Lake Michigan (NOAA, 2013b). 4.2 The site survey (NEE , 2013a), delivered
in CAD (.dwg) and microstation
(.dgn), does not include ground elevation
along the discharge
flumes. For the purposes of this calculation, the contours lines provided in the file will connect across the discharge
flume area. Since the discha r ge flume area is considered
an obstruction
for wave action In the DELFT3D coastal modeling software, it is assumed bathymetry
within this area is negligible. 5. Design Input s The following
are the digital file inputs that were utilized for this calculation:
5.1 Lake Michigan Bathymetry, Gridded Bathymetric
Data (ASCII): Michigan_lld (NOAA , 1996). The NOAA Lake Michigan bathymetric
data is the best bathymetry
available
at the time of this calculation.
The grid data is in North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) GCS, referenced
to IGLD85 vertical datum at 176.0 meters LWD. 5.2 National Elevation
Dataset from the USGS, 1/3-arc second (10 meters) grid: n45w088_13 (USGS, 2011 ). The NED is in the NAD83 GCS, referenced
to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) with units in meters. 5.3 Topographic
Survey of PBN by AECOM (NEE, 2013a), with elevation
points In a " Point, Northing, Easting, Elevation, Description" format and a CAD file conta i ning contours and breaklines (G60302156_PBNP
_ Topo.dwg). The horizontal
coordinates
are in the Wisconsin
State County System of Manitowoc
County, referenced
to NAVD88 with units in feet (AECOM, 2013). The input files are provided in Attachment
A (on DVD). 6. Methodology
The location of the PBN was determined
utilizing
the USGS Two Creeks, WI Quadrangle
referenced
to NAD83 (USGS , 2010a). The latitude and longitude
of the approximate
center point of PBN, obtained from the Two Creeks, WI Quadrangle (USGS, 2010), is 44' 16' 52.0" North, 8?-32' 12" West. The plant location, as shown on Figure 1, was used to obtain the required bathymetry
and topography
data. 
CALC. NO. F.. ::1 E N E R C 0 N FPL-076-CALC-001
CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 ) PAGE NO. 10 of 48 17')3' 'N ! i -i 'i)J I Lake ! Michigan 'ill a Figure 1. Location of PBN on Two Creeks, WI Quadrangle (USGS, 2010a) The output from this calculation
will be used as input for the DELFT3D coastal modeling software. The DELFT3D modeling software user's manual states that if the user wants to use spherical
coordinates, the coordinates
system of the data must be in WGS84 (Deltares, 2011 ). Thus, the bathymetry
and topography
will be converted
to the WGS84 to meet the criteria. The ESRI ArcGIS Desktop 10.1 software (ESRI, 2012a) was utilized to create tab delimited
xyz text files (.xyz) containing
longitude (x), latitude (y), and height (z). Topography
and bathymetry
will be in the WGS84 GCS at JGLD85 vertical datum in meters at LWD for Lake Michigan.
Table 1 provides a summary of the topographic
and bathymetric
data used as Input. 
CALC. NO. ' FPL-076-CALC-001
F. ::d E N E R C 0 N CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 \ ' PAGE NO. 11 of 48 Table 1. Summary of topographic
and bathymetric
data used as input Horizontal
Coordinate
Vertical/
Vertical Area Data Type Source Resolution
System Tidal Units Datum Lake Bathymetry, ASCII NOAA, 1996 -90 meters NAD83 LWD-meters Michigan grid (.asc) IGLD85 Site grid 1/3-arc second USGS, 2011 10 meters NAD83 NAVD88 meters NED (.fit) Topography
Spot Wisconsin
System Site (P,N,E,EL,D
.txt and NEE, 2013a elevation, -Manitowoc
NAVD88 feet Survey G60302156_BPNP
feet County _topo.dwg) Due to the localized
settings for subsequent
calculations
using the output files from this calculation, ail topographic
and bathymetric
data will be clipped to a user-defined
mask (shown on Figure 2). The mask is approximately 2,535 square
miles, extending
from 86&deg; 35' 13.07" and 87&deg; 53' 51.52" West to 43&deg; 59' 49.88" and 44&deg; 33' 28.92" North. .,., ...  "L
* ---*-'\1 \ t LL f:\'U I: ... "''*>.*')&#xa5;. Figure 2. Mask Area for bathymetric
and Topographic
Data 6.1 Lake Michigan Bathymetry
Lake Michigan bathymetry (shown on Figure 3) was obtained from NOAA's NGDC website as an ASCII grid file (.asc) with an approximately
90 meter resolution (NOAA, 1996). The bathymetry
is referenced
to the IGLD85 vertical datum at 176.0 meters LWD. The LWD is defined as the geopotential
elevation (geopotential 
CALC. NO. FPL-076-CALC
-001 F.' ::1 E N E R C 0 N CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 ' PAGE NO. 12 of 48 difference)
for each of the Great Lakes and the corresponding
sloping surfaces of the St. Mary's, St. Clair, Detroit, Niagara, and St. Lawrence Rivers to which are referred the depths shown on the navigational
charts and authorized
depths for navigation
projects (NOAA, 1995). Lake Michigan Figure 3. Lake Michigan Bathymetry (NOAA, 1996) Lake Michigan Bathym<try
LWO (176.0m*IGL035)
Valu< * H i gh : 341.937 The following
outlines the steps to re-project
bathymetry
binary float file (.asc) to the WGS84 GCS {horizontal), referenced
to 176.0 meters-LWD
IGLD85 (vertical), then exported to a tab delimited
xyz file that 
CALC. NO. l FPL-076-CALC-001
F.' :d E N E R C 0 N CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 PAGE NO. 13 of 48 can be used in the DELFT3D modeling software.
The detailed processing
using the ESRI ArcGIS Desktop 10.1 SP1 (ESRI, 2012) and Microsoft
Access 1 is described
under Calculations, Section 7.0 of this calculation. 1. Clip Lake Michigan bathymetry
to a mask (extent to which the data will be clipped).
2. Convert raster to points, where each point represents
elevation
in 176.0 meters-LWD
IGLD85 3. Add longitude (x) and latitude (y) in WGS84 GCS to the attribute
table in decimal degrees. 4. Convert elevation
to sounding data (values are expressed
as positive downward from the reference
plane 176.0 m-IGLD85), per DELFT3D user's manual (Deltares, 2011 ). 5. Export X-Y-Z data to a tab delimited
xyz text file using Microsoft
Access. 6.2 Topography-
Digital Elevation
Model The 1/3-arc second NEDs were obtained from the USGS with an approximate
10 meter resolution (USGS, 2011). The NEDs are in NAD83 GCS and referenced
to the NAVD88 in meters. One NED (shown on Figure 4) covers the PBN site area. 1 Microsoft
Access (version 10.4.6029.1
000) is only used to export data into the correct format. 
CALC. NO. F. :ii E N E R C ON FPL-076-CALC-001
CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 PAGE NO. 14 of 48 Value High : 309.902 Low: 167.682 Figure 4. 1/3-arc Second NED (USGS, 2011) The following
outlines the steps to re-project
the NED grid files to the WGS84 GCS (horizontal), referenced
to 176.0 meters-LWD
IGLD85 (vertical}, then exported to a text delimited
xyz file that can be used in DELFT3D modeling software (Deitares, 2011 ). The detailed processing
using the ESRI ArcGIS Desktop 10.1 SP1 (ESRI, 2012) and Microsoft
Access 2 is described
under Calculations, Section 7.0 of this calculation.
2 1bid. 1. Clip to shoreline
within the mask (extent to which the data will be clipped).
2. Convert vertical datum from NAVD88 to 176.0 m-LWD IGLD85 using the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) monument 'LSC B 81' (NGS, 2013) for vertical adjustment.
3. Convert raster to points, where each point represents
elevation
in meters-NAVD88. 4. Add longitude (x) and latitude (y) in WGS84 GCS to the attribute
table in decimal degrees. 5. Convert elevation
to sounding data (values are expressed
as negative upward from the reference
plane 176.0 m-IGLD85}, per DELFT3D user's manual (Deltares, 2011 ). 6. Export X-Y-Z data to tab delimited
xyz text file using Microsoft
Access. 
CALC. NO. F. ::I E N E R C ON FPL-076-CALC-001
CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 PAGE NO. 15 of 48 The shoreline
within the mask area will also be clipped and converted
to a point feature class. The elevation
of the points will be at 0 m-LWD at IGLD85. 7. Clip shoreline (USGS, 2010b) to mask (extent to which the data will be clipped).
8. Convert shoreline
feature to points. 9. Add longitude (x) and latitude (y) in WGS84 GCS to the attribute
table in decimal degrees. 10. Add elevation
points (z) at 0 m-LWD IGLD85. 11. Export X-Y-Z data to tab delimited
xyz text file using Microsoft
Access. 6.3 Topography-
Site Survey A site survey of the discharge
canals and near-shore
bathymetry
located along the shoreline
of PBN was completed
in June 2013 (NEE, 2013a). The survey included a text file of the elevations
in a "Point, Northing, Easting, Elevation, Description" text format (shown on Figure 5) and a CAD drawing showing contours and structures (shown on Figure 6). The horizontal
coordinates
are in the Wisconsin
State County System of Manitowoc
County, referenced
to NAVD88 with units in feet (AECOM, 2013). 
CALC. NO. F.: ::.1 E N E R C 0 N FPL-076-CALC-001
CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 l r::!J Surwy Point Dollt PNEELD form*tt<t -Not e pad f i le E dit F o rn ut ViEw Hel p 59 , 369946.1460,265743.9740,588.5250,TPT
MAG 60 369751.9360,265822.5360
590.4730 TPT MAG 106,369685
.8880 , 265851.3866,594.8106, TPT MAG 101,369767.1370,265816.7140,589
.5490,EOC1
102,369778.6080,265828.9950,589.0000,EOC1
103,369769.5340,265837.9500,589
.9880,EOC1
104,369767.9240,265844.0720,590.2440,EOC1
105,369751.8070
, 265851.5830,591
.2630,EOC1
106,369732
.5960,265860.3990,592
.6260,EOC1
107,369712.2150,265869.5100,594.2700
1 EOC1 108,369713
.2840,265849.8520,593.4470,EOC1
109,369699
.3810,265846.3760,594.0090,EOC1
110,369699
.0030,265845.6660,594
.0350,EOC1
111,369713.8710,265839.2930,593
.0590,EOC1
112,369730.8060,265832.0800,591.9880,EOC1
113 , 369745.4530,265825.8530,590.9530,EOC1
114,369767
.0240,265816.7230,589.5510,EOC1
115,369770.8390,265842.8580,590.5340,1-liS
116,369770.0600,265844.6870,590
.4310,EOC2
117,369769.7620,265842.1480,590
.4420,EOC2$
118,369772.2880,265842.0660,590.4450,EOC2S
119,369772.1630,265844.5040,590.4440,EOC2S
120,369770
.0530 , 265844.6530,590.4300,EOC2
121,369769.8040,265844
.7630,590.0710 , XYZ 122,369769
.5940,265841.9140,590.0430,XYZ
123,369772.3994,265841.9364
, 589.8210,XYZ
124,369772.3337,265844.7859,589
.9580,XYZ 125,369777.5510,265830
.1590,589.1150,EOB1
126,369790
.2130,265834
.5730,588.4850,EOB1
127 ,369798.7650,265837.1640,588.2430,EOB1
128,369802.5340,265844.3240,588.1520,EOB1
130,369809
.6320,265841.7580,588.0450,EOB1
131,369816.4580,265838
.4340,588.2120,EOB1
132,369822
.9530,265848.4890,588.1080,EOB2
133,369817.6170,265851
.0940,588.0520,EOB2
134,369821
.6670,265863
.0880,587.8340,EOB2
135,369816
.9880,265874.3170,587.6920,EOB2
136,369817.0840,265879.1700,587.6320,EOB2
137,369820.7240
, 265888.5040,587.3390,EOB2
138,369834.5760
, 265887.3310,587
.0790,EOB2
139,369844.2880,265887.5890,587.1560
, EOB2 140,369816
.8260,265891.2670,588.0160,LTP
141,369812.0970,265884.3810,588.2810,XYZ
142,369804.3380,265871.9370,588
.6770,XYZ 143,369794.0600,265854.1300,589.2150,XYZ
144,369785
.0630,265839.3050,589.2110,XYZ
145,369729.1740,265846.9120,592.4850,XYZ
146,369745
.3250,265840.1680,591.2790,XYZ
147,369761.9720
, 265832.5590,590.2900,XYZ
148,369779.9220,265813.9980,588.8740,XYZ
149,369780.6540,265795.9540,589.0640,XYZ
150,369763.7990,265801
.7520,590.0260,XYZ 151,369745.5860,265809.2800,591.0420,XYZ
152,369724.6920,265818
.6570,592.3190,XYZ
153,369704.0590,265828.4430
, 593.5620,XYZ
154,369687.4860,265835.3860,594.6090,XYZ
155,369699.0720,265845.9320,594.0400,EOB3
156,369682
.9860,265853
.3620,594.9800,EOB3
157,369663.3250,265862.2790,596.1900,EOB3
Note: 1 51 column= P =Point ID 2"d column = N = Northing 3'd column = E = Easting PAG E NO. 4th column= EL = Elevation (ft-NAVD88)
5th column = D = Description
of point ' *--Figure 5. Snapshot of the survey elevation
points in "P,N,E,EL,D" text format (NEE, 2013a) 16 of 48 
F.' ::1 E N E R C 0 N I \ CA L C. NO. FPL-076-CALC-001
CALCULA T ION CONTROL SH EE T R E V. 0 PAG E NO. 17 of 48 El.EV A TI OS S 5 1-i O'o\'NAi'l! 1\: i'E!'i.':C!: T Or ,.,: VEi'I T D ATU!.\ O f 1 g.33 Fl\0 1.1 NA'I O.la !l!V A T OM TO 1\EACH I"'.AI>T I:.'AT UI , I Figure 6. Site Survey, CAD Drawing file (NE E , 2013a) The following
outlines the steps to re-project
the survey elevat i ons points to the WGS84 GCS (horizontal), referenced
to 176.0 meters-LWD IGLD85 (vert i cal), then exported to a text delimited
xyz file that can be used i n the DE L FT3D modeling software (Delta res, 2011 ). The detailed processing
using the ESRI ArcGIS Desl<top 10.1 SP1 (ESRI , 2012) and M i crosoft Ac c ess 3 i s described
under Calculations , Section 7.0 of this calculation. 3 l bid. 
CALC. NO. F. :d E N ERCO N FPL-076-CALC-001
CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET R E V. 0 PAGE NO. 18 of48 1. Import survey elevation
points (NEE, 2013a) using Add XY dialog tool and create a shapefile.
2. Query only XYZ data so only ground elevation (ID as XYZ) is used.4 3. Convert site survey contour lines (NEE, 2013a) to point feature shapefile.
4. Add points to the contour feature points along the discharge
flumes 5. 5. Add longitude (x) and latitude (y) in WGS84 GCS to attribute
tables in decimal degrees. 6. Convert NAVD88 to 176.0 m-LWD IGLD85 using the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) monument 'LSC B 81' (NGS, 2013) for vertical adjustment.
7. Convert elevation
to sounding data (values
are expressed
as negative upward from the reference
plane 176.0 m-IGLD85), per DELFT3D user's manual (Deltares, 2011). 8. Export X-Y-Z data to tab delimited
xyz text file using Microsoft
Access. The height of the jersey barrier and the discharge
canals will be included at the end of this calculation
in IGLD55, NAVD88 and LWD IGLD85. These will be included as the input parameters
to calculation
FPL-076-CALC-003 " DELF3D Model." The Input files are provided in Attachment
A (on DVD). 7. Calculations
7.1 Lake Michigan Bathymetry
7.1.1 Clip Lake Michigan bathymetry
to a mask. The Clip (Data Management)
tool was utilized to clip the bathymetry
data to the shoreline
within the mask area. The Output Coordinates
in the Environmental
Settings were set to WGS84. Figures 7 and 8 show the Clip tool input parameters
and the resulting
clipped bathymetric
grid in WGS84, respectively.
4 The survey point file includes elevations
for top of wall, buildings, manholes, base of light pole, electric pedestal , etc. In order to eliminate
discrepancy, only XYZ ground points were used for the model. 5 The survey file does not show contour lines within the discharge
flumes. The DELFT3D software cannot read this area, so the points are added to the point feature file to eliminate
discrepancy
in the software (see Assumption
4.2). 
p::!::t E N E R C 0 N CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET j ..... bathyme.try (l7 6.0 nl*L\'/OIG L035) Ou!pJl ExlMl (o;>l>>l!l)
jbs thy_Mask X l*fnift.m x Ha.xm .. r n -37.692119 [11 Ut' np..A Foe mns Ge:-m*'
*9.9 9io)00!.003
HH7d3Z <J.9 9Jl 5l Figure 7. Clip (Data Management)
Tool Input Parameters
-85.SS1ll 5 CALC. NO. FPL-076-CALC-001
REV. 0 PAGE NO . 19 of 48 Output Raster Dataset Tht output ras t e r dataset. Make .surt thil thi s output fom1at is abl!l to support th e prop11r pixel d e f{h. When staling th e raster data set in a file forn 1a t , you need to
the Me e>.1'ln si o n: * .bii-Esri BIL * .bip-Esri SIP * .bmp-Br.IP
* .b s<t--Esri ssa * .dat-EINI OAT *.
* .img-EROAS II.IAGII-IE
* .jpg--JPEG
* .jp2-JPEG 2000 * .png-PIIG *. t if-Tlff * no e xt ens io n for Esri Grid When storing a ra s ter data se t in a g eo database , no fila extension
should te added to the name or lht
dataset. When storing your raster datas e t to aJPEG file. a JPEG 2000 file. * Tlff fil*. or a g e odatabase.
yo u can specify a compre:;5ion
typi and compres sion quality. lal:* Michigan bathymetry
(176.0 m*L W O IGL035) Value High:O Figure 8. Point features of the Lake Michigan bathymetry, 176.0 m-LWD IGLD85 7.1.2 Convert raster to points , where each point represents
elevation
in 176.0 meters-LWD
IGLD85. The Raster to Points tool was utilized to convert the ASCII grid file to point feature file. When converting
a raster to point, each cell in the input raster converts to a point in the output. That is, each new point is 
CALC. NO. I FPL-076-CALC-001
F. ,::1 E N E R C 0 N CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 PAGE NO. 20 of 48 positioned
at the center of the cell it represents.
The Raster to Point tool input parameters
and the resulting
output point feature file is shown on Figures 9 and 10, respectively. Ra;;ler to Point JL*k* Michig*n b*thymelry
(176.0 m*LWO !GLOSS) ll e!H op_J!;<l"l _ Va!u e OutputJX-int
feab.ns
-Field (optional)
The fi e ld to assign values hom the cells in the inpllt raster to the points in the output dataset. It can be an integer. floating point. or string field. OK II C61lCel IJEn\&#xa5;""""'nts ... IJ <<lf de H e b I
Figure 9. Raster to Points Input Parameters
0.010895 -51.811798
* 51.811799
-106.209900 * 106.209901 -152.407394
* 152.407395
-203.405502
* 203.405503
-275.890015
Figure 10. Point Feature of the Lake Michigan bathymetry, 176.0 m-LWD IGLD85 7.1.3 Add longitude (x) and latitude (y) in WGS84 GCS to the attribute
table in decimal degrees. The Add XY Coordinates
tool was utilized to add the longitude (x) and latitude (y) coordinates
to the point feature file. The coordinates
were set to the WGS84 GCS. Figures 11 and 12 show the Add XY Coordinates
tool input parameters
and the associated
Environmental
Settings, respectively. 
CALC. NO. FPL-076-CALC-001
F.1 1::1 E N E R CO N CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 ' ,.,. Add XV Co o r din1tes Inpot Feab.xes Jr*ich i gan_bathy_176
.0 m*LWD iJ Ol< II c ane<! J J Em i rOMltflts
... Jj <<Hd*H!'p Figure 11. Add XV Coordinates
Input Parameters
PAGE NO. 21 of 48 Input Features Tite point feature3 w hose x , y coordinates
will be appended as POINT_X and POINT_Y fields. TorJH e!p Environment
Settings ; Geographic
Transformations
'
r-Output Coordinates
Specify transformation
methods that can be used Output Coordinate
System I Same as Display .. to project data on the fly. You can create a list of -transformation
methods the application
can f G Cs=wG s_i9: H -*--*-*-----* -=-=_ __ .1 b'l choose from which includes custom .. ______ ---transformations (those created using the Create
TransfcrmaUons
Geographic
Transformation
tool) and system , I .. , supplied transformations (those out of the box). *---Geographic
TraM formations
r J ames [+/-] When working with geographic
transformations , if r*IAD_I933_To_I'I'GS_I934_
4 the direction
is not indicated, geoprocessing
tools will handle the directionality
automatically. For [1 1 example. if converting
data from WGS 1984 to NAD 1927. you can pick a transformation
called i l l NAD_1927_to_WGS_1984_3.
and the software will apply it correctly. , --. -..... --_ ----J I ..-I OK II Cancel II<< H ide Help I I Tool Help J Figure 12. Environmental
Settings, Add XV Coordinate
Tool 7.1.4 Convert elevation
to sounding data (values are expressed
as positive downward from the reference
plane 176.0 m-LWD IGLD85), per DELFT3D user's manual (Deltares, 2011 ). Per DELFT3D User's Manual (Deltares, 2011), the bathymetry
was converted
to sounding data so that positive units indicate values below the reference
plane and negative units indicate values above the reference
plane. Since the bathymetry
is referenced
to 176.0 m-LWD IGLD85, all bathymetric
values will be positive below the 176.0 m-IGLD85 elevation, which is at elevation
0 m for the bathymetric
data. The Field Calculator
dialog tool was used to convert the bathymetric
depths to a positive value by multiplying
the elevation
field ('Z') by -1. Figure 13 shows the Field Calculator
dialog conversion. 
CALC. NO. 1 FPL-076-CALC-001
F. ::IE N E R C ON CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 ' PAGE NO. 22 of 48 f i efd C alcu h to r p.,.., G*\11 Sa',>t (J P r th oo Ao:ds: T\'P" *-, Abs () oeE:TJ o l&sect;*f l.ubtr
A ln() poinlid ()S!r'r>l C os () f><>() gid_com Fix () X lnt() y L O')() Sn() z Sq< () T"'() D Sho ... C oddllod< c:J00 0 0G z-1 [oM_com J * *1 I . Abou t O'Jb.Litbo
fittdi I l oad ... I -------------------I e w e! I Figure 13. Field Calculator
Tool, Convert Units to Negative Value 7.1.5 Export X-Y-Z data to a tab delimited
xyz text file us i ng Microsoft
Access. The X-Y-Z data was exported from Microsoft
Access as a tab delimited
xyz text file due to the fact ArcGIS Desldop 10.1 software does not have the functionality
to export to the correct format. This was achieved by Importing
the associated
database file (.dbf) in Microsoft
Access and exporting
to a tab delimited
xyz text file. Three files were exported at approximately
8.3 MB In size. A snapshot of the output tab delimited
xyz text file is shown in Figure 14. 
CALC. NO. F.'f:d FPL-076-CALC-001
I t' E N E R C ON CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 PAGE NO. 23 of 48 I * * * 4 * * * I * * * 5 ' ' * I * * * 6 * * * I * * * ] ' -87.477505
44.170008
-87.476672
44.170008
-87.475839
44.170008
-87.475005
44.170008
-87.474172
44.170008
-87.473339
44.170008
-87.472505
44.170008
-87.471672
44.170008
-87.470839
44.170008
-87.470005
44.170008
-87.469172
44.170008
-87.468339
44.170008
-87.467505
44.170008
-87.466672
44.170008
-87.465839
44.170008
-87.465005
44.170008
-87.464172
44.170008
-87.463339
44.170008 -87.462505
44.170008
-87.461672
44.170008
-87.460839
44.170008
-87.460005
44.170008
-87.459172
44.170008
-87.458339
44.170008
-87.457505
44.170008
-87.456672
44.170008
-87.455839
44.170008
-87.455005
44.170008
-87.454172
44.170008
-87.453339
44.170008
-87.452505
44.170008
-87.451672
44.170008
-87.450839
44.170008
-87.450005
44.170008
-87.449172
44.170008
-87.448339
44.170008
-87.447505
44.170008
-87.446672
44.170008
-87.445839
44.170008
-87.445005
44.170008
-87.444172
44.170008
-87.443339 44.170008
-87.442505
44.170008
-87.441672
44.170008
-87.440839
44.170008
-87.440005
44.170008
-87.439172
44.170008
-87.438339
44.170008
-87.437505
44.170008
-87.436672
44.170008
-87.435839
44.170008
------------0 _l __ 27.610305
28.110305
28.510192
29.010192
29.410202
 
29.810195
30.210205
30.610198
 
31.010192
31.310195
:n. no2o5 32.010101
32.310104
32.610107
32.910110
33.210113
33.510101
33.810104
34.010101
34.309997
34.610000
35.009994
35.410003
35.910003
36.410003
36.910003
37.509994
38.110000
38.709899
39.309890
40.009887
40.709899
41.409896
42.109893
42.809890
43.409896
44.109802
44.709808
45.309799
45.909805
46.609802
47.209808
47.809799
48.509704
49.109703
49.809700
50.409706
51.009704
51.609703
52.109703
52.609703
Note: 1'1 column= X= Longitude
2"d column = Y = Latitude 3'd column = Z = depth below/above
reference
(0) plane (+down from plane,-up from plane) Figure 14. Snapshot of Final Bathymetry
Tab Delimited
XYZ Text File Output files are provided on a DVD in Attachment
A. 
CALC. NO. FPL-076-CALC-001
F.: ::1 E N E R C 0 N CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 PAGE NO. 24 of 48 7.2 Topography-
Digital Elevation
Model 7.2.1 Clip to shoreline
within the mask area. The Clip (Data Management)
tool was utilized to clip the OEM binary float grid to the shoreline
within the mask area. The Output Coordinates
in the Environmental
Settings were set to WGS84. Figures 15 and 16 show the Clip tool input parameters
and the resulting
clipped bathymetric
grid in WGS84, respectively.
)(f*kl'rn.rn -6 , , 0UHI [i]U,. hpt.< F,,. ... , I CI'CTU>\'\;1
G-!<<VOO!IJ
R45tu 03ta t ct
.... -9.9'J 9000ot-+4>
Jl -8.f , 72JN2 The output raster dataset. f.1a k e sure th a t lh i s ovtpot formal;, able to support the proper p ix el depth. Wh&n storinglha
raster dataset in a file f o rmat , you ne t d to spe:c i f>J the file e xte nsion: * .b i l-E sri BIL * .bip-EsriBIP
* .bmp-SMP * .bsq--Esri
BSQ * .dal--E! lVI OAT o .gif-GIF * .img--ERDAS
II.IAGII-IE
* .jpg-JPEG * .jp2-JPEG 2000 * .pr1g-PIIG
* .lif-llFF * na e" 1ension for Esri Grid When storing a raster datas e t in a geod a tabaa. no file extension
should be
to the name o f U1 e raster dataset When storing your raster dalasello
a JPEG file , a * <<lfdoll<\>
Figure 15. Clip (Data Management)
Input Parameters
Figure 16. 1/3-arc Second OEM Clip to Mask 
CALC. NO. I FPL-076-CALC-001
F.l'::l *. * E N E R C ON CALCULATION
CONTROL SH EE T R E V. 0 I PAG E NO. 25 of 48 7.2.2 Convert NAVD88 to 176.0 m-LWD IGLD85 using the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) monument 'LSC 8 81' (NGS, 2013) for vertical adjustment.
Converting
the OEM binary float grid vertical datum from m-NAVD88 to 176.0 m-LWD IGLD85 is a two-step process. F i rst , the data is converted
from NAVD88 to IGLD85. Then the LWD of 176.0 (NOAA, 2013) is added to IGLD85 to obtain the LWD IGLD85 height for Lake Michigan. According
to the art i cle "Establishment
of International
Great Lakes Datum (1985)" published
by the Coordinating
Committee
on Great Lal<es Basic Hydraulic
and Hydrologic
Data , "the development
of the NAVD (1 988) was to include vert i cal control networks of the U.S., Canada and Mex i co, as well as International
Great Lakes Datum data. For NAVD (1988), a minimum-constraint
adjustment
was performed
also holding fixed the primary benchma r k at Pointe-au-Pere/Rimouski.
Therefore, IGLD (1985) and NAVD (1988) are one and the same. The only diffe r ence between IGLD (1985) and NAVD (1988) Is that the IGLD (1985) bench mark elevations
are published
as dynamic heights 6 and the NAVD (1988) elevations
are published
as Helmert orthometric
helghts 7" (NOAA, 1995, p. 13). The benchmark
LSC 7 8 81 (NGS, 2013) was used as the vertical benchmark
for the site survey as indicated
in an e-mail from AECOM to ENERCON, dated June 20, 2013 (AECOM, 2013). According
to benchmark
LSC 7 B 81, the difference
between the established
NAVD88 height and the dynamic height i s 0.027 m (0.09 ft). The Raster Calculator
tool was utilized to convert NAVD88 to IGLD85 using a difference
of 0.027 m. The IGLD85 LWD for Lake Michigan Is 176.0 meters (NOAA, 2013a), which is the reference
plane for the bathymetric
dataset (NOAA, 1996r The IGLD85 datum could also be considered
as a height equivalent
above mean sea level , based on the adopted elevation
at Rimouski , Quebec, Canada (Rimouski) (NOAA , 1999). Figure 17 shows the reference
point for IGLD85 at Rimouski with the associated
vertical and horizontal
relat i onship to the Great Lakes-St Lawrence River System (NOAA, 1992). 6 The dynamic height of a benchmark
is the he i ght of a refe r ence latitude of the geopotential
surface through that benchmarl<.
In general, the dynamic height Is computed from the geopotentlal
height. [Geopotential_ht
= ortho_ht *(gravity+
(4.24 E-S * o r tho_ht))]
Dynamic height is then obtained by dividing the adjusted NAVD88 geopotential
heigth of a benchmark
by the normal gravity, G, computed on the GRS80 ellipsoid
at 45&deg; North. [G = 980.6199 gal] (NGS, 2012). 7 Orthometric
height is the difference
between ellipsoidal
heights, h, and geoidal heights, N. [H = h -N) (NOAA, 1985). 8 176.0 m-ILGD85 = 0 m Lake Michigan LWD for the dataset. That is, data below the 176.0 meters if negative and data above is positive in the dataset (NOAA, 1996). 
** F. :dE N E R C ON I' St. Marys River CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET CALC. NO. FPL-076-CALC-00
1 REV. 0 PAGE NO. 26 of 48 Lake St. Lawrence (72.&) a t long sault Dam , Ontar i o Lake St. Francis (46.2) at Summerstown, Ontllrlo Lnke St. IA!uia (:10.4) at Point e Claire, Ou6bec
IGLD 11185 Relorent:O
l'olot Figure 17. Great Lakes System Profile: Vertical and Horizontal
Relationships (NOAA, 1992) To convert to LWO at IGLD85 for Lake Michigan, 176.0 m was subtracted
from the OEM binary float grid file. The elevation
at 176.0 m becomes the 0 m elevation
point for which the data below that reference
point becomes negative and data above Is positive.
For example, the maximum elevation
in the OEM grid file is 315.83 meters-NAV088. To convert to LWO at iGL085, the dynamic height of 0.027 m and the LWO of 176.0 m was subtracted
from the data. So, an elevation
of 315.83 m-NAV088 would equate to 139.80 m-LWO IGL085 (315.83-0.027-176.0). Thus, the maximum height in the clipped OEM dataset is 139.80 meters above LWO (176.0 m-iGL085).
The Raster Calculator
was used to subtract the dynamic height of 0.027 m and the LWO of 176.0 m from the OEM binary float grid. The output coordinates
were set in the Environmental
Settings to convert from NAD83 to WGS84. Figures 18 and 19 show the Raster Calculator
tool input parameters
and the associated
Environmental
Settings, respectively. 
CALC. NO. FPL-076-CALC-001 F.' ::IE N E R C ON CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 Ca!c ullt c r l ayer s an d var i a bl es Co nd i tio n a l (>dUfS: ':&#xa2; , Con 0 Rootn4>*:.Q3 S_ll.!t "n-45'N S3_dp .. * 0.027-176 L_._: OI(:.:.' _ _, II C&'l<tl llfm v omltllts ... ll << H'deH.O Figure 18. Raster Calculator
Tool Input Parameters En v ir c-nmer.t S!ttings Workspace
A Output Coordinates
Out;'\tt Co-ordnste:
S)'lt e: n I ..
lltl:> .... ----------*--GCS.WGS_t S H
----
l+/-J @ [t J r+/-l *C '" ----------'
' -*--==----Processing
Extent Resolution
nnd Tolerance
&#xa5; H VBiues Z Values Geodalabase
Advanced <<HdeHc\> . " . I PAGE NO. 27 of 48 l = l @) [-.1.3-j Map Algebra expression
TI1a Map Algebra
you want to run. The e x pression is composed by specifying
the inputs, values, operators , and tools to use. You can type in the expression
direclly or usa the buttons and controls to help you create it. * TI1e Layers and variables
list identifies
the datasets available
to use in the Map Algebra expression. * TI1e buttons are used to enter num e rical v alues and operators
into the TI1e ( and ) buttons can be used to apply parentheses to th e e x pression. * A list of commonly used tools is pro,ided for you. Environment
Settings . Emironm e nl settings sp e cified in this dialog box are values that w ill be applied to appropriate
resulls from running tools. Tltey can be set hierarchically , nleaning lhat they can be set for the application
you are working in , so they apply to all tools; for a model, so they apply to all processes
\\ithin the model; or for a particu l ar process \'.ithin a model. Em;ronments
set for a process 1\ithin a model will o*10rride all other " settings.
Emironments
set for all processes
in a model will override those set in the application. GeopfOcessing
emironment
settings are additional
parameters
that affect a tool's results. Th e y differ normal tool param e ters in that they donl appear on a tears dialog box (with certain exceptions). Ralher, they are values you se t once using a separate dialog bo x and are interrogated
and used by tools when they are run. Chang i ng the err.ironment settings is often a prerequisite
to p e rforming geoptocessing
tasks. For example. you may aheady be familiar \',ith t he Current and Scratch w orkspace emironment
s e ttings, w hich allow you to set works paces for inputs and outputs. Another e x ample is the E xt ent en vi ronment settina. \'*hich allows vcur . I TociHfb I Figure 19. Environmental
Setting Parameters, Raster Calculator
Tool 
CALC. NO. FPL-076-CALC-001
F. 1::1 E N E R C 0 N I' CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 I PAGE NO. 28 of 48 7.2.3 Convert raster to points, where each point represents
elevation
in meters-NAVD88.
The Raster to Points tool was utilized to convert the OEM binary float grid to a point feature file, where each point represented
the ground elevation
in m-NAVD88.
The Raster to Point tool input parameters
and the resulting
output point feature file is shown on Figures 20 and 21, respectively. Ru ter to P o int lr9Jtrast!f J n45 w88_clip fl tl j(OjltiO<UQ_ \'oklo p:rh t f tab.J'.!:!_ __________________________
_______ _ --------*------Figure 20. Raster to Point Tool Input Parameters
Figure 21. Topographic
Feature Points Output point features Th i o utput f u ture class th a t \*,i ll contain the con v 4rt&d p o int s. n44w088_LWD
grid_ code 0 -0.438 -33.192 * 33.193-53.449 0 53.450 -70.811 0 70.812 -86.659 0 86.660 -139.808 
CALC. NO. FPL-076-CALC-001
F.t ::1 E N E R C 0 N CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 PAGE NO. 29 of 48 7.2.4 Add longitude (x) and latitude (y) in WGS84 GCS to the attribute
table in decimal degrees. The Add XY Coordinates
tool was utilized to add the longitude (x) and latitude (y) coordinates
to the OEM point feature file. The coordinates were set to the WGS84 GCS. Figures 22 and 23 show the Add XY Coordinates
tool input parameters
and the associated
Environmental
Settings.
lnputfea b.N e s I n 441*.0 S3_L VI D Input Features Th e p o int features w hose x.y coordinat e s \1 1i ll b e ap pe nd ad as POU*IT_X and POU.If_Y fi e lds. C anc el Jlrm>"OM>el1 ts ... JJ <<H d.!H<p T ocl H e!p Figure 22. Add XY Tool Input Parameters En v ironment Settings -. Geographic
Transformations .
-
Coordinates
Specify transformation
methods that can be used OUtput C oor d in ate S y stem I Sam e as Displa y .. to project data on the fly. You can create a list of -transformation
methods the application
can --==--=.-------* -* ----, [d choose from w h i ch includes custom ---* ---transfom1ation
s (tho s e created u s ing th e Create Geographic
Transformation
too l) and system I .. I supplied transformations (those out of the bo x). r--l+/-l Ge O!Y aph l c Tra n sf or m a ti o ns 1 4ame s When wor ki ng w ith g e ogra p hic transformations , if NA D_1933_To_
W GS_!93 4_ 4 the direction
is not i ndicated , g e oprocess i ng tools wi ll handle the dir e ctionality
automatically. For 11 1 ex ampl e, if con v erting data from W GS 1984 to NAD 1927. you can pick a transformation
called I!! NAD_1927_to_WGS_19
3 4_3. and the soft w are w ill ap p l y i t correclly. ' I . rrr _ _j I .. T . I OK I I Conc e l II <<Hide H e lp I I T ool H el p J Figure 23. Environmental
Settings, Add XY Tool 7.2.5 Convert elevation
to sounding data (values are expressed
as negative upward from the reference
plane 176.0 m-IGLD85), per DELFT3D user's manual (Deltares, 2011). Per DELFT3D User's Manual (Delta res, 2011 ), the bathymetry
was converted
to sound i ng data so that positive units indicate values below the reference
plane and negative units indicate values
above the reference
plane. 
CALC. NO. F.. :d E N E R C 0 N FPL-076-CALC-001
CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 PAGE NO. 30 of 48 The Field Calculator
dialog tool was utilized to convert the elevation
points ('Z') to a negative value by multiplying
the elevation
field by -1. Figure 24 shows the Field Calculator
dialog conversion. f i e l d C.1 k ul a t or ParRr \U Soll t ()Python F" te!<h: T)p<: F!.k'lCt:tM
J: 06JECTIO----7
Ab s() S hoP' Aln() pointid 0 SJrn7 C o s ( E>p ( gid_cod e Fi x () X !nt() () y S: 'O () z S!Y () T on () -O sho;, C odd>locJ<
c:J 0 0 0 0 GJ Z* [9'\d_c ode) * ft I I I ' Abcy l G!laktr.o-
f -----Figure 24. Field Calculator
Tool, Convert Units to Negative Value 7.2.6 Export X-Y-Z data to tab delimited
xyz text file using Microsoft
Access. The X-Y-Z data was exported from Microsoft
Access as a tab delimited
xyz text file due to the fact ArcGIS Desktop 10.1 software does not have the functionality
to export to the correct format. This was achieved by importing
the associated
database file (.dbf) in Microsoft
Access and export i ng to a tab delimited
xyz text file. Five files were exported at approximately
147MB in size. A snapshot of a file output tab delimited
xyz text file is shown in Figure 25. 
CALC. NO. F.: a E N E R C 0 N FPL-076-CALC-001
CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 PAGE NO. 31 of 48 ' 1 ' ' ' I ' *
-97.999107
44.557739
-97.999015
44.557739
-97.997922
44.557739
-97.897829
44.557739
-87.897737
44.557739
-87.897644
44.557739
-87.897552
44.557739
-87.897459
44.557739
-87.897366
44.557739
-87.897274
44.557739
-87.997181
44.557739
-97.997099
44.557739
-87.896996
44.557739
-87.896903
44.557739
-97.896911
44.557739
-87.896719
44.557739
-87.896626
44.557739
-87.896533
44.557739
-87.896440
44.557739
-97.996349
44.557739
-97.996255
44.557739
-87.996163
44.557739
-97.996070
44.557739
-87.895977
44.557739
-97.895885
44.557739
-87.895792
44.557739
-87.895700
44.557739
-87.895607
44.557739
-87.895515
44.557739 -87.895422
44.557739
-87.895329
44.557739
-97.895237
44.557739
-87.895144
44.557739
-87.895052
44.557739
-87.894959
44.557739
-97.994966
44.557739
-97.894774
44.557739
-87.994691
44.557739
-97.994599
44.557739
-97.894496
44.557739
-87.894403
44.557739
-97.894311
44.557739
-87.894219
44.557739
-97.894126
44.557739
-97.894033
44.557739
-87.893940
44.557739
-97.993848
44.557739
-97.893755
44.557739
-97.893663
44.557739
-97.893570
44.557739
44.557739
-19.943740
-19.949952
-20.029244
-20.016403
-19.795486
-19.331100
-19.164810
-19.094299
-18.847503
-19.760726
-18.934915
-19.929376
-18.982971
-18.974390
-18.998840
-19.901214
-18.897232
-18.928619
 
-18.889565
-18.993600
-19.938903
-19.093765
-19.309959
-19.093297
-19.223388
-19.212142
-19.262908
-19.364288
-19.426071
-19.515838
-19.694305
-19.865661
-19.994338
-20.079086
-20.193313
-20.291305
-20.366012
-20.555053
-20.666976
-20.978356
-21.099380
-21.134475
-21.044479
-21.039321
-21.062896
-21.122833
-21.164932
-21.229317
-21.391174
-21.540512
-21.711364
Note: 1st column = X = Longitude
2"d column = Y = Latitude 3'd column = Z =depth below/above
reference
(0) plane (+down from plane,-up from plane) Figure 25. Snapshot of Final Topographic
Tab Delimited
XYZ Text File 
CALC. NO. l FPL-076-CALC-001
F.1 :tl E N E R C 0 N CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 PAGE NO. 32 of 48 7.2.7 Clip shoreline (USGS, 2013) to mask (extent to which the data will be clipped). The Clip (Data Management)
tool was utilized to clip the shoreline
to the mask area. Figure 26 shows the clipped shoreline.
Figure 26. Shoreline
Clipped within Mask 7.2.8 Convert features to points at every 10 feet intervals.
The Features to Points tool was utilized to convert the shoreline
to points. Figure 27 shows the point features class. Figure 27. Shoreline
Feature Points (0 m-LWD IGLD85) 
CALC. NO. FPL-076-CALC-001 F.1 1::1 E N E R C O N CALCULATION
CONTROL SH EE T R E V. 0 PAG E NO. 33 of 48 7.2.9 Add longitude (x) and latitude (y) in WGS84 GCS to the attribute
table in decimal degrees. The Add XY Coordinates
tool was utilized to add the longitude (x) and latitude (y) coordinates
to the OEM point feature file. The coordinates
were set to the WGS84 GCS. Figures 28 and 29 show the Add XY Coordinates
tool input parameters
and the associated
Environmental
Settings. "\ Add XV Input Feature s I
O K II Cancel II En v ironments
... II < < Hid e H e lp Figure 28. Add XY *coordinates
Tool Input Parameters
E m ir o n m e n t S e tt i ng s \Yorkspace Output CoordJnates
Output Coor<fn ate S y stem I Sa m e as Dis pl a y [ **-_ -==* -----*------. --*-I . ---. -**--** ***-*-I .. , --[+/-] Ge o gr a ph l cT r a ns f Of m ation s N a m e* 4 0 If) l f l
111 _! ' --*--I O K I I C a n cclf l <<H ide H elp ' E l Input Features The point featur e s w hose x.y coordinat e s w ill b e appended as POINT_X and POINT_Y fields. To o l Help Geographic
Transformations
Sp e cify transf o rmation method s that can be used to project data on th e fly. You can create a list of transformation
m e thods the application
can choose from 1 1i 1ich includ e s custom transformations (those created using the Create Geogra p h i c Transformation
tool) and system suppli e d transformations (those out of the bo x). Wh e n wor k ing w ith geogr ap hi c transformations. if the direct i on i s not indicated, g e oprocessing
tools w ill handle th e directionality
automat i cally. For e x ample , if c o n v erting data from WGS 1984 to N A D 1927, y ou can p i ck a transf o rmation call e d N A D_1927_to_WGS_1984_3, and the softwar e w ill apply it correctly. . I To o l H e lp I Figure 29. Environmental
Settings, Add XY Coordinates
Tool 
CALC. NO. F. ,] E N E R C 0 N FPL-076-CALC-001
CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 I PAGE NO. 34 of 48 7.2.10 Add elevation
points (z) at 0 m-LWD IGLD85. The elevation
'Z' was added to the attribute
table as a double type numerical
field. The Field Calculator
was utilized to denote a 0 elevation
for all the attributes.
7.2.11 Export X-Y-Z data to tab delimited
xyz text file using Microsoft
Access. The X-Y-Z data was exported from Microsoft
Access as a tab delimited
xyz text file due to the fact ArcGIS Desktop 10.1 software does not have the functionality
to export to the correct format. This was achieved by importing
the associated
database file (.dbf) in Microsoft
Access and exporting
to a tab delimited
xyz text file. Five files were exported at approximately
713 I<B in size. A snapshot of a file output tab delimited
xyz text file is shown in Figure 30. 
CALC. NO. ::I E N E R C 0 N FPL-0 76-CALC-001
CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 PAGE NO. 35 of 48 *1'' 'I'' '8' ''I'' *1''' I''' 2'' '' 3''' I''' 4''' I''' 5'' 'I'' *6*'' I'''] * -87.691853
43.998814
-87.691838
43.998839
-87.691822
43.998864
-87.691806
43.998889
-87.691791
43.998914
-87.691775
43.998939
-87.691759
43.998964
-87.691744
43.998989
-87.691728
43.999014
-87.691712
43.999039
-87.691697
43.999064
-87.691681
43.999089
-87.691664
43.999114
-87.691647
43.999138
-87.691629
43.999162
-87.69161143.999186
-87.691593
43.999211
-87.691575
43.999235
-87.691558
43.999259
-87.69154 0 43.999283
-87.691522
43.999308
-87.691504
43.999332
-87.691486
43.999356 -87.691468
43.999380
-87.691448
43.999403
-87.691429
43.999427
-87.691409
43.999451
-87.691390
43.99947 4 -87.691370
43.999498
-87.691350
43.999521
-87.691331
43.999545
-87.691311 43.999568
-87.691292
43. 999592 -87.691272
43.999615
-87.691256
43.999640
-87.691242
43.999665
-87.691229
43.999691
-87.691215
43.999717
-87.691201
43.999742
-87.691188
43.999768
-87.691174
43.999793
-87.691160
43.999819
-87.691147
43.999845
-87.691133
43.999870
-87.691119
43.999896
-87.691107
43.999922
-87.691095
43.999948
-87.691083
43.999974 -87.691072
44.000000
-87.691060
44.0 00026 -87.691048
44.0 0 0 052 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000 0 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.0 00000 0.00000 0 0.000000 0.000000 0.000 0 00 0.000000 0.000000 0.0 0 0000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Note: 1 51 column= X= Longitude
2"d column = Y = Latitude 3'd column = Z =depth below/above
reference
(0) plane (+down from plane,-up from plane)
.. *----*------
-Figure 30. Snapshot of Final Shoreline
Tab Delimited
XYZ Text File Output files are provided on a DVD in Atta c hment A. 
CALC. N O. FPL-076-CALC-001
1' E N E R C ON CALCULATION
CONTROL SH EET R E V. 0 PAG E NO. 36 of 48 7.3 Topography-
Site Survey 7.3.1 Import elevation
points using Add XY dialog tool and create a shapefile.
The Add XY Data tool as utilized to import the survey elevation
points. The Coordinate
System was set to NAD_1983_HARB_WISCRS_Manltowoc_County
_Feet , with the Z Coordinate
System set as NAVD 1988. Figures 31 and 3 1 show the Add XY Data tool input parameters
and the result i ng shapefile, respectively.
A talk WltU1n;J X ni YCOO"dnsted
J lJ
to h IN;Jasal*l'tr
Cho&#xa2;se * t!bt=: fi"an IN IUPOtt("o:.se lltt!:
3
lF.old' l""'' lF.old' n COO"drute
of [rp.,l
0&-.....oi:lton:
' I ___ _!!_ __ :::=J rrcjot."fo'\:Tra-v
i wt*Jteab'
FCtjlrl"ii"4:0.1)H
lh=N Uib (O.JH!->>*H'Ullt!)
O IG l OIUS Q lmm:] Q UG'ID19N Jl E:l Ocu: u ll El 54c.M,&mtriu
D EJWerld
ll.l', t U9-ll -*---\WJ'>:OO J k'f,o.rt,,EF-&#xa3;1
l..i'lu'Uits;t-\tt.
p;W)o'C 1.0 F igure 31. Add XY Data Tool Inpu t Parame t ers for Survey E levation Points 
N E R C ON CALCULATION
CONTROL SH EE T ..... .. ' . .. t t t t 't' :* ': t t I ...... ;, .. *.:\\ *.: : .. .... *
: ** t '. * ..
! . . * tt **! # I * I : '. tt t : .. .... . , . . ... ,,. \' Z\ ** * * ' * . . I * * ,,: ... ., *... : *. * .... ' ;:a.. . ... 'I J'*' .* **** *. :* . (', *. *: . . . . .. . .. ,'\:. ** * * # ......... \ ** .. * ***: t*; t * 'L.:k; * ,-.:. . . . \.'' . . ** , d. ' * * ** * .. ** ... Tt tt** .. . ... . ..,**.: ... * .. ........ . .. ' .. . . .. * : t * . . :: .... *: .. . * * ... * ..t ' ,. ... * . .... '' ... * *:.*. . ....... .,. * * t : ** **... .. *** :*. **' fl * * * * * * .. 9 t 1 ' .'(+ .. t ti ft/At', 't't I t t :I I ',, .. t I', t * t ' . "'' \ *: . : .. ' ' -. . . t 1:. .... 1 t \-t I t l t t t * * *** ** * ** t ** :**l i **.. .. . . . . ... , .. * !.t .. . . . . . . . . ... . ... . . . . ***** ......... . . .. .. . "*' * * l ... * * *** * * tt * . . .. . .. .. .. . . . .. .. . . .... ... ** * .., ' ** t *** ...... , Figure 32. Survey Points as a Shapefile, Referenced
to ft-NAVD88
7.3.2 Query only XYZ data so only ground elevation (ID as XYZ) is used.9 CALC. NO. FPL-076-CALC
-001 REV. 0 PAGE NO. 37 of 48 Survey Point Data P,N,E,EL,D
format EL 574.102000.
579.769000
0 579.769001 * 585.581000 585.581001
-592.13 5000 * 592.135001
-598.889000
598.889001
-609.390000
Since the ground survey elevation
will be used in the DELFT3D modeling software (Deltares, 2011 ), the survey point feature dataset was queried to only use those points. The Query Builder dialog tool was utilized to query the points designated
as 'XYZ' in the description
field. Figures 33 and 34 show the Query Builder input parameters
and the resulting
dataset, respectively.
0 The survey point file includes elevations
for top of wall, buildings, manholes, base of light pole, electric pedestal, etc. In order to eliminate
discrepancy, only XYZ ground points were used for the model. 
I ::I E N E R C 0 N CALCULATION
CONTROL SH EE T ) 1-::----:--..-=----'1 Qu*'Y Bu ader I !:! I
'I f' ---** I *e:* 'E L' " 0" GJ B u OD L.,?l:fl: ______ __,* O!J j ..
J Go T o: S ELECT' F ROJ.I Scn*O'f Poi't D>lo
bt_F ehn s 'D"*?l:fl: I O K I I Cancel I i lrt*'r . ) Figure 33. Query Builder Tool, XYZ data CALC. NO. FPL-076-CALC-001 R E V. 0 PAGE NO. 38 of 48 
F.[ ::I E N E R C ON I . . . . . .. *, . . .. .. . . .... . . . . ., . . . . . . ' . . . *. . . .. . . . ** * 0 CALC. NO. FPL-076-CALC-001 CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 . \ . . . . .. . . . . *' . . . . . : . . .... .. .. . *'. . .. ... .. . . .. PAGE NO. 39 of 48 Survey Point Data P,N,E , EL,D format EL 574.102000
-579.769000
* 579.769001
-585.581000
585.581001
-592.135000
* 592.135001-598
.889000 598.889001
-609.390000
Figure 34. XYZ Survey Elevation
Points, Referenced
to ft-NAVD88
7.3.3 Convert site survey contour lines (NEE, 2013a) to point feature shapefile.
The contour lines were queried in the Drawing Layers tab under the CAD file Layer Properties. The Features to Points tool was utilized to convert the contour lines into point features.
Figure 36 shows the resulting
contour point features. 
' F.1 ::1 E N E R C 0 N Contour (ft-NAVD88)
Elevation
574.5 -577.5 577.6 -581.0 ** 581.1 -584.0 584.1-587.0 587.1 -590.0 * 590.1 -593.0 * 593.1 -596.5 * 596.6 -599.0 599.1 -602.0 602.1-607.0
CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET Figure 35. Site Survey Contours Shown as Point Features CALC. NO. FPL-076-CALC-001
REV. 0 PAGE NO. 40 of 48 
CALC. NO. F.' ::1 E N E R C 0 N FPL-076-CALC-001
CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 I PAGE NO. 41 of 48 7.3.4 Add points to the contour feature points along the discharge
flumes 10. To eliminate
discrepancy
between the discharge
flume area that does not designate
elevation
and the contoured
area within the DELFT3D modeling software , contour lines were connected
within both discharge
canals. The contour lines were then converted
to points utilizing
the Points to Features tool. Figure 36 shows the contour lines and the point feature class within the discharge
canals. Figure 36. Contours of Discharge
Canals Con t o u rs of O is ch u ge C1 n.ls (ft-U AVQ.3 3) NAV03S * 5715 * * * 5Sil.6. *
* ' 58 5.6*537.0 10 The survey file does not show contour lines within the discharge
flumes. The DELFT3D software cannot read this area, so the points are added to the point feature file to eliminate
discrepancy
in the software (see Assumption
4.2). 
CALC. NO. FPL-076-CALC-001 E N E R C 0 N CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 ) PAGE NO. 42 of 48 7.3.5 Add longitude (x) and latitude (y) in WGS84 GCS to the attribute
table In decimal degrees. The Add XY Coordinates
tool was utilized to add the longitude (x) and latitude (y) coordinates
to the suNey elevation
point feature file. The coordinates
were set to the WGS84 GCS. Figures 37 and 38 show the Add XY Coordinates
tool input parameters
and the associated
Environmental
Settings.
'\ Add XV
Input
I Survey_NAVDSS
iJ OK II Cancel I I Environments
... j j <<Hide Help Figure 37. Add XY Coordinates
Tool Input Parameters En ...
Settings Workspace
Coordinates
OutJ:ut Input Features The point features whose x , y coordinates
will be appended as POIIH_X and POINT_Y fields. Tool Help 8 Output Coordinate
System ISane**lli'I'I*Y
*I
===-==_= .... =.=_=_= __ =_=. _-:_=_-:::_ -:::_= __ !' d
Tools that honor the Output Coordinate
System environment
will create output geodatasets
with the specified
coordinate
system. Processing (calculat i on of g e om e tric relationships
and modification
of geometries)
occurs in the same coordinate
system as the output geodatuet.
This environment
overrides
the default * .......... *-**-* ............. --.............. ----*-... OK ] I Cane.<! II << Hde He\> Tool H el p Figure 38. Environment
Settings, Add XY Coordinates
Tool 7.3.6 Convert NAVD88 to 176.0 m-LWD IGLD85 using the National Geodetic SuNey (NGS) monument 'LSC B 81' (NGS, 2013) for vertical adjustment.
Converting
the suNey elevation
point feature vertical datum from m-NAVD88 to 176.0 m-LWD IGLD85 is a two-step process. First, the data Is converted
from NAVD88 to IGLD85. Then the LWD of 176.0 (NOAA, 2013) is added to IGLD85 to obtain the LWD IGLD85 height for Lal<e Michigan.
See Section 7.2.2 for a detailed description
of converting
the vertical datum NAVD88 to 176.0 m-LWD IGLD85. An attribute
field 'Z' was added to the suNey elevation
point feature dataset as a double numeric type. The Field Calculator
dialog tool was utilized to convert from ft-NAVD88
to m-LWD IGLD85. Figure 39 shows the Field Calculator
input parameters. 
CALC. NO. F. ::I ENERCON FPL-076-CALC-001 R E V. 0 II CALCULATION
CON T ROL SHEE T PAG E NO. 43 of 48 F iel d Ca l rul*tor P ,erse r Saip t ()P ython Fi eld s: T vp<: Fyn c li ons: ,--------------------------; Ab*() A D ' A tn() Shape Co s () p E>-p() I I t)Q_a t e Fi x () E [llt() L og () El Sin ( ) D Sqr () X Te n () y . 0 Show C odeblod< c::J00GJOGJ
z-i ([Ell -Q.Q2 5 *17 6 * i I I I ! I I I I i I I -' I Abou t calrula ti no fie l ds ---------------------***--*-------------****-----* Figure 39. Field Calculator, Conversion
from ft-NAVD88
to m-LWD IGLD85 7.3.7 Convert elevation
to sounding data (values are expressed
as negative upward from the reference
plane 176.0 m-IGLD85), per DELFT3D user's manual (Deltares, 2011 ). Per DELFT3D User's Manual (Deltares, 2011 }, the bathymetry
was converted
to sounding data so that positive units indicate values below the refe r ence plane and negative units indicate values above the r eference plane. The Field Calculator
dialog tool was utilized to convert the elevation
points ('Z') to a negative value by multiplying
t he elevation
field by -1. Figures 40 shows the Field Calculator
dialog convers i on. 
CALC. NO. ** FPL-076-CALC-001
F.' ::1 E N E R C 0 N CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 PAGE NO. 44 of 48 Fie l d C4 k ul<t!or Puset *-? \'a Sall t O P,*Ihco
f)l)t: fV>clioru:
r-::------[J**-Abs ()
p Aln () t
Cos () II E>:p() E
El. Int( 0 1 01 () Sn () X S<r () y Ton() z -O S/,,-., C odetlod< c::J00GOGJ
l* i [Z) '-I I I I -l.bo.J t
fdcH I Qtu ------
Figure 40. Field Calculator
Tool, Convert Units to Negative Value 7.3.8 Export X-Y-Z data to tab delimited
xyz text file using Microsoft
Access. The X-Y-Z data was exported from Microsoft
Access as a tab delimited
xyz text file due to the fact ArcGIS Desl<top 10.1 software does not have the functionality
to export to the correct format. This was achieved by importing
the associated
database file (.dbf) In Microsoft
Access and exporting
to a tab delimited
xyz text file. One file was exported at approx i mately 13 KB in size. A snapshot of a file output tab delimited
xyz text file is shown in Figure 41. 
CALC. NO. F.'i:d FPL-076-CALC-001
E NER C ON REV. 0 , I CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET ) PAGE NO. 45 of 48 *1* .. I ** 'A' .. I ** *1 ... I'. *2 ... I ** *3 ... I *. *4 ... I ** *5 ... I ** *6* .. I ** *7. -87.535319
44.281026
-87.535330
44.281025
-87.535330
44.281033
-87.535319
44.281033
-87.535168
44.281142
-87.535216
44.281121
-87.535284
44.281093
-87.535340 44.281068
-87.535311
44.280915
-87.535337
44.280959
-87.535366
44.281005
-87.535437
44.281054
-87.535506
44.281056
-87.535484
44.281010
-87.535455
44.280960
-87.535419
44.280902
-87.535382
44.280846
-87.535355
44.280800
-87.535193
44.280550
-87.535219
44.280589
-87.535252
44.280640
-87.535283
44.280691
-87.535318
44.280744
-87.535351
44.280795
-87.535220
44.280823
-87.535226
44.280824
-87.535227
44.280819
-87.535223
44.280818
-87.535219
44.280820
-87.535190
44.280815
-87.535184
44.280814
-87.535183
44.280819
-87.535189
44.280819
-87.535108
44.280578
-87.535206
44.280676
-87.535199
44.280672
-87.535190
44.280678
-87.535196
44.280684
-87.535204
44.280683
-87.535207
44.280677
-87.535209
44.280909 -87.535239
44.280984
-87.535277
44.281001
-87.535210
44.281020
-87.535216
44.281055
-87.535277
44.281036
-87.535449
44.281106
-87.535523
44.281097
-87.535507 44.281067
-87.535450
44.281079
-87.535382
44.281100
-3.828640
-3.820106
-3.752440
-3.794198
-3.283048
-3.403749
-3.567732
-3.566512
-4.564428
-4.196839
-3.895392
 
-3.463795
-3.521707
-3.814924
-4.124601
-4.513831
-4.892697
 
-5.211823
-6.764169
-6.576412
-6.309408
-5.973213
-5.582764
-5.241998
-5.222186
-5.207251
 
-5.222796
-5.245046
 
-5.211823
-5.571792
-5.619036
-5.580936
-5.561124
-6.783981
-6.110983
-6.108240
-5.965288
-5.950353
-6.009484
-6.132014
-4.848501
-4.323331
-4.089244
-3.886857
-3.583581
 
-3.774386
 
-3.181855
 
-3.233976
-3.429962
-3.351933
-3.309566
Note: 1 51 column= X= Longitude
2"d column = Y = Latitude I 3'd column = Z = depth below/above
reference
(0) plane (+down from plane,-up from plane) Figure 41. Snapshot of Final Survey Tab Delimited
XYZ Text File 
CALC. NO. FPL-076-CALC-001
CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 PAGE NO. 46 of 48 7.3.9 The following
elevations
will be used when examining
wave runup in the DELFT3D modeling.
Based on client provided data (NEE, 2013b), the height of the jersey barriers are at an elevation
589.3 ftIGLD55. Based on site survey (NEE, 2013a) the top of the northern discharge
wall is at 588.55 ft-NAVD88 and the top of the southern discharge
wall is at 588.16 ft-NAVD88.
To convert from ft-LWD at IGLD85 to ft-IGLD55, add 576.47 feet. This is based on the following
calculation:
[Starting
elevation
LWO IGL08S] +[low water datum for Lake Michigan]+
[dynamic height (NGS, 2012) between NAV088 and IGL085] -[elevation
difference
between NAV0088 and !GLOSS (NEE, 2013a)] = elevation
in !GLOSS 0 ft-LWD + 577.5 ft +0.09 ft -1.12 ft = 576.47 ft !GLOSS For example, the top elevation
of the jersey barriers is at 12.83 ft-LWD IGLD85 , thus 576.47 ft would be added to obtain the top elevation
at ft-IGLD55:
12.83 ft-LWO !GLOBS+ 576.47 ft = 589.30 ft-JGLOSS
Table 2 provides the conversions
for the jersey barriers and the discharge
wall in IGLD55, NAVD88, and LWD in IGLD85. Table 2. Vertical Datum Conversion
for Jersey Barriers and Discharge
Canals Structure
ft*IGLD55 (m) ft-NAVD88 (m) ft*LWD IGLD85 (m) Top Elevation
of Jersey 589.30 (179.62) 590.42 (179.96) 12.83 (3.91) Barrier Maximum Elevation
of 587.13 (178.96) 588.25 (179.30) 10.66 (3.25) Northern Discharge
Wall Maximum Elevation
of 587.04 (178.93) 588.16 (179.27) 10.57 (3.22) Northern Discharge
Wall Output files are provided on a DVD in Attachment
A. 
CALC. NO. F.1 E N E R C 0 N FPL-076-CALC-001
CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 ' PAGE NO. 47 of 48 Attachment
A File Name Revision Reference
Input Output Michigan_lld
(.asc grid) (NOM, 1996) NA X Floatn45w088_13
(.fit) (USGS, 2011) NA X Survey Point Data P,N,E,EL,D
format.txt (NEE, 2013a) 0 X G60302 1 56_PBNP _ Topo.dwg (NEE, 2013a) 0 X AECOM, 2013 NA X Deltares, 2011.pdf NA X ENERCON, 2012.pdf 0 X ESRI , 2012.pdf NA X NGS, 2013.pdf X X NGS, 2012.pdf NA X NEE , 2013a.pdf
NA X NEE, 2013b.pdf
NA X NOM, 2013a.pdf
NA X NOAA , 2013b.pdf NA X NOAA, 1999.pdf NA X NOAA, 1996.pdf NA X NOAA , 1995.pdf NA X NOAA, 1985.pdf NA X USAGE, 1992.pdf NA X USGS, 2010a.pdf
NA X USGS, 2010b.pdf
NA X USGS, 2011.pdf NA X Michigan1.xyz
0 X Michigan2.x yz 0 X Michigan3.xyz
0 X Topo1.xyz
0 X 
CALC. NO. I FPL-076-CALC-001
F. :d E N E R C ON CALCULATION
CONTROL SHEET REV. 0 PAGE NO. 48 of 48 Topo2.xyz
0 X Topo3.xyz
0 X Topo4.xyz 0 X ShorelineOm.xyz
0 X Survey _points.xyz
0 X Survey_ contour.xyz
0 X Discharge
_points.xyz
0 X 
ATTACHMENT
2 NEXTERA ENERGY POINT BEACH, LLC POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT UPDATED POINT BEACH EXTERNAL FLOOD SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE
DETERMINATION
Performance
Deficiency
The licensee failed to maintain external flood mitigation
features, procedures , processes, and relevant descriptions
in the CLB that address maximum wave run-up. Executive
Conclusion
The safety significance
of this issue is assessed to be very low for Units 1 and 2. Table 4 provides the core damage frequency
with and without barriers as well as the change in core damage frequency
with and without the barriers.
The basis of this conclusion
is that a detailed wave run-up analysis results in a calculated
water level much lower than the water levels previously
evaluated
in the IPEEE. This analysis confirms that the IPEEE analysis was conservative
for the 1 E-06 frequency
event. Background
The IPEEE response to GL 88-20 evaluated
external flood hazards for Point Beach. This evaluation
was based in part on the analysis for external flood events conducted
in conjunction
with the NRC's TAP A-45 study. In order to evaluate the safety significance
of this issue, the data provided in the IPEEE was used in conjunction
with our updated analyses to evaluate the change in core damage frequency (CDF) and large early release frequency (LERF). For the purpose of this evaluation
the "change" being considered
is the plant with and without the barrier protection
to 589.2 IGLD 1955, as described
in the IPEEE report. To perform this evaluation, some simplifying
conservative
assumptions
are made: 1) At the time of the identification
of this issue, PC 80 Part 7 (Lake Water Level Determination)
directed the plant to install concrete Jersey Barriers if the Lake Michigan mean level was greater than or equal to a plant elevation
of +0.5 feet (580.7 ft IGLD 1955. This elevation
is 6.5 feet below the floor of the CWPH and 7.5 feet below the floor of the Turbine Building).
For the purposes of this evaluation, no credit is given to these barriers since the barriers would have been partially
effective.
2) The water level on site reaches the same height, inside and outside of the turbine building during the event providing
margin. 3) Above 589.2 ft IGLD 1955 (+9ft), the impact of the flood is the same with and without barriers. While the flow rate into buildings
would be lower with barriers than without, the extended duration assumed for this flood would result in the same Page 1 of 8 
impact with or without the barriers providing
margin. 4) Below 588.2 ft IGLD 1955 ( +8 ft), there is no impact from the flood (with or without barriers). 5) It is assumed that the reason for the high lake water level is a storm that results in a dual-unit loss of offsite power (LOOP) which is conservative
and provides margin. Risk Assessment
PBNP PRA Model Rev. 5.02 was used for this assessment.
The following
directory
paths were used for the computer files used in this assessment:
Since this evaluation
will be applying the frequency
of the external flood outside of the PRA model, all initiators
in the internal events model were set to 0.0 with the exception
of the weather-centered
LOOP initiator (INIT-T1W). By doing this, the value being quantified
is the conditional
core damage probability (CCDP), i.e., the core damage probability
assuming the initiator (external
flood in this case) occurs. The following
flags were used in all runs discussed
in this evaluation:
The following
steps were taken to evaluate the significance
of this issue: 1) Run CAFTA cases (average T&M) for Units 1 and 2 with an E-1 0 truncation
limit with flags set to account for the postulated
equipment
failures.
The results of the cases representing
the CCDPs for the five bins comprising
varying depths of water are shown in Table 1. For simplicity, only the maximum CCDP for each bin will be carried through the rest of this calculation.
2) The results of the calculated
water level based on the still water elevation
based on still water lake elevation
are shown in Table 2. 3) The results of the curve-fit
of the flood exceedance
frequencies
from Table 5.2.5-2 of the IPEEE are presented
in Table 3. Note that due to the data, two curve fits are presented.
The first curve fit represents
still water elevations
ft IGLD 1955 and the second curve fit represents
still water elevations
>585.1 ft IGLD 1955. 4) The informat ion on Tables 1, 2, and 3 are combined into Table 4 which calculates
the CDF with and without barriers along with a LlCDF that represents
the worst case value applicable
to Unit 1 and Unit 2. Note that based upon previous evaluations
and the very small CDF values, values for LERF were not calculated.
Due to the nature of the initiating
event, it is judged that there is no unique challenge
to LERF. Thus , the LlLERF for this evaluation
is judged to be well below 1 E-09/yr. The final calculation
of LlCDF for this issue is determined
to be 1 E-08/yr , which is of very low safety significance, with margin. Margin The flood consequence
evaluation
is considered
to be bounding and conservative
for the following
reasons: 1) All equipment
affected by the flood is assumed to be failed at time zero. In actuality, there would be a relatively
slow progression
of the postulated
flood throughout
the plant and Page 2 of 8 
equipment
would likely fail at various times. 2) There is no assumed duration for the flood, which necessitates
the assumption
that the water level throughout
the plant is equalized.
It is highly unlikely that water inside the buildings would remain
at those levels for an extended time since the cause of the water would eventually
stop and normal drainage would occur.
3) No credit for flood mitigation
actions taken in response to rising water levels throughout
the plant has been modeled. Due to the relatively
slow progression
of the postulated
flood, there should be time for the plant to respond to the rising water level and to protect and/or realign equipment
that may be in danger. 4) No credit for recovery actions taken in response to equipment
issues in the plant has been modeled. It is expected that some equipment
may be able to be recovered
and that other means to provide decay heat removal could be used, e.g., pumper trucks, B.5.b equipment, and portable generators.
5) The concrete barriers installed
at a lake level of 580.7 IGLD 1955, in accordance
with PC 80 Part 7, are assumed to be ineffective
in limiting the quantity of water. Page 3 of 8 
Table 1 Maximum Conditional
Core Damage Probability
vs. Water Level Range Bins Range of CCDP (max) Bin Water Level Equipment
Assumed Failed (1 ,5) (4) (inches) (2,3) Offsite power assumed lost, Offsite Power
Transformers
(1X-01/03, 2X-01/03), 1 0 to <4 RHR Pumps (1/2P-10AIB), 4.25E-05 RHR Pump Suction from Containment
Sump B (1/2SI-851AIB)
Charging Pumps (1 CV-2AIB/C
and 2CV-2AIB/C), 2 4 to <8 Station Battery Chargers (D-07/D-08/D-09)
4.83E-3 Diesel Fire Pump (P-35B) A Train Emergency
Diesel Generators (G-01 , G-02), G-01/G-02
EDG Alarm & Electrical
Panels (C-34/C-35), G-01/G-02
EDG DC Power Transfer Control Panels (C-78/C-79), 3 8 to :::;12 4.16 KV Switchgear
(1/2A-03/04), 7.70E-03 4.16 KV Vital Switchgear
A Train (1/2A-05), 1/2HX-11A, B RHR HX Shell Side Inlet Valves (1/2CC-738A/B), Non-Safety
Related 480V MCCs (B-33, B-43), Steam Generator
Feedwater
Pump Seal Water Injection
Pumps (1/2P-99A/B)
Electric Fire Pump (P-35A) 480 V Vital MCCs A Train (1/2B-32), Safeguards
Batteries (D-01, D-02), 4 >12 to <17 Service Air Compressor (K-3B) 9.00E-02 Instrument
Air Compressors (K-2AIB) Turbine Driven Auxiliary
Feedwater
Pump (2P-29) Condensate
Pumps (1/2P-25AIB), Feedwater
Pumps (1/2P-28AIB), Service Water Pumps (P-32AIB/C/D/E/F), DC Distribution
Panels (D-63, D-64), 5 ;:o::17to
:::;24 Stand-by Steam Generator
Pumps (P-38AIB), 1.00 Turbine Driven Auxiliary
Feedwater
Pump (1 P-29), Motor Driven Auxiliary
Feedwater
Pumps (1/2P-53), Service Air Compressor (K-3A), Safety Injection
Pumps (1/2-P15AIB)
Notes: (1) "Equipment
Assumed Failed" for each range of water levels greater than 588.2 feet is based on the elevation
of the limiting vulnerable
subcomponent.
(2) "Range of Water Level" is based on inches of water on the turbine building floor. (3) "Range of Water Level" 0 inches equals 588.2 IGLD 1955. Page 4 of 8 
(4) The maximum CCDP from either unit is used in the downstream
calculations.
(5) Equipment
failures at the water level elevations
have been validated
against the most recent walkdowns
as documented
in EC279398.
Note that AR 1891921 (ENG EVAL EC 279398 FLOODING VULNERABILITY
HEIGHT ERROR) identified
an error in that EC with regard to the failure height of the Diesel Fire Pump. For this reason, the Diesel Fire Pump was moved from Bin 4 to Bin 2 above. Page 5 of 8 
L:O L{) 0) ...... I 0 _J C) Qi > Q) _J ... Q) -m s "0 Q) 1&sect; :::J (.) ro () Table 2 Calculated
Water Level Based on Still Water Lake Elevation
Still Water Elevation
to Calculated
Water Level Relationship
Still Water Calculated
Water Lake Elevation
Level (ft. IGLD-1955) (ft. IGLD-1955)
* 587.64 588.89 587.00 588.51 586.00 587.24 585.00 585.84 583.00 583.96 Relationship
Between Still Water Lake Elevation
and Calculated
Water Level (Level Against Turbine Hall) 590 589 588 587 586 585 584 583 582 583 584 585 586
587 Still Water Elevation (ft IGLD-1955)
588 NOTES: *Calculated
Water Level is taken from Table 7-3 of Enercon Calculation
FPL-076-CALC
-004 Page 6 of 8 
Annual Table 3 Annual Frequency
Bas e d on Still Water Elevation
[Derived from Information
in IPEEE] Flood Frequency-
Curve Fit Equations
Frequency-
Curve Fit (per yr) Still Water Elevation
Frequency (ft IGLD-1955)
from IPEEE StiiiWaterFREQ1
IPEEE StiiiWaterFREQ2 (per yr) IPEEE Table 5.2.5-2 3.69E-02 582.5 3.7E-02 2.53E-04 585.1 2.7E-04 4.8E-04 3.45E-07 588.0 4.1 E-07 8.25E-11 591.0 2.9E-1 0 Note where two values are provided, IPEEE Still Water FREQ2 was used. 'i:' >----->-0 1: Q) :::::1 C" Q) .... LL. iii :::::1 1: 1: <( Point Beach Flood Hazard Frequency (from IPEEE Table 5.2.5-2) 1.E-01 -.-----------------------------, 1.E-03 StiiiWaterFre
1 1.E-04 1.E-05 I StiiiWaterFreq2
1.E-06 1.E-07 -1----------------------'l ik----------; 1.E-10
580.0 582.0 584.0 586.0 588.0 590.0 592.0 Still Water Flood Elevation (ft IGDL-1955)
Page 7 of 8 
Table 4 LlCDF Calculation
With and Without Barriers ill I IPEEE Effective
IPEEE Flood Incremental
Still Water Water Level Bin Frequency
Flood Lake (Range) CCDP CDF CCDP CDF .6CDF Elevation
I Frequency
(1) peryr per y r ft (IGL0-1955)
in c h es per v r peryr peryr 1 5.6E-06 2.9E-06 586.93 0 to <4 4.25E-05 1.23E-10 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 1.23E-10 2 2.7 E-06 1.4E-06 587.23 4to <8 4.83E-03 6.7 1E-09 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 6.71 E-09 3 1.3E-06 6.7 E-0 7 587.53 8 to <12 7.70E-03 5.15E-09 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 5.15E-09 4 6.2E-07 3.8E-07 587.83 >12 to <17 9.00E-02 3.38E-08 9.00E-02 3.38E-08 O.OOE+OO 5 2.5E-07 2.5 E-0 7 588.21 to s24 1.00E+OO 2.48E-07 1.00E+OO 2.48E-07 O.OOE+OO I CDF Total I 2.93E-07 II CDF Total -] 2.8 1 E-07
Notes: (1) Effective
water level is the level of water in the turbine building.
Page 8 of 8
}}

Latest revision as of 07:38, 19 August 2019

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML13211A056&oldid=1880280"