2011/11/02 Turkey Point COL Hearing - FW: L-2011-456 - … · 2012-12-06 · 1 PMTurkeyCOLPEm...

1

PMTurkeyCOLPEm Resource

From: Comar, MannySent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 3:17 PMTo: TurkeyCOL ResourceSubject: FW: L-2011-456 - Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter No. 030 (eRAI

5818) Standard Review Plan Section 02.04.06 Probable Maximum Tsunami FloodingAttachments: L-2011-456 signed 10-28-2011 Response to NRC RAI Letter No. 030 (eRAI 5818).pdf

From: Burski, Raymond [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 11:28 AM To: Matthews, David; Maher, William; Comar, Manny; Stewart, Scott; McCree, Victor Subject: L-2011-456 - Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter No. 030 (eRAI 5818) Standard Review Plan Section 02.04.06 Probable Maximum Tsunami Flooding U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Re: Florida Power & Light Company Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Docket Nos. 52-040 and 52-041 Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter No. 030 (eRAI 5818) Standard Review Plan Section 02.04.06 Probable Maximum Tsunami Flooding

Reference:

1. NRC Letter to FPL dated July 18, 2011, Request for Additional Information Letter No.030 Related to 02.04.06 - Probable Maximum Tsunami Flooding for the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 6 and 7 Combined License Application

2. FPL Letter to NRC dated August 17, 2011 Schedule for Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter No. 030 (eRAI 5818) - Standard Review Plan 02.04.06 - Probable Maximum Tsunami Flooding

Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) provides, as an attachment to this letter, its response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) Request for Additional Information (RAI) 02.04.06-5 provided in Reference 1. FPL provided a schedule for the responses to RAI 02.04.06-5 in Reference 2. The attachment identifies changes that will be made in a future revision of the Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Combined License Application (if applicable Ray Burski New Nuclear Plant - Licensing FPL Contractor (O) 561-694-4496 (C) 504-909-6436 Florida Power & Light Company Mail Stop NNP/JB B3318 700 Universe Blvd Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420

2

This transmission is intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) and may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. If this information is received by anyone other than the named addressee(s), the recipient should immediately notify the sender by E-MAIL and by telephone (561) 694-4311 and permanently delete the original and any copy, including printout of the information. In no event shall this material be read, used, copied, reproduced, stored or retained by anyone other than the named addressee(s), except with the express consent of the sender or the named addressee(s)

Hearing Identifier: TurkeyPoint_COL_Public Email Number: 467 Mail Envelope Properties (377CB97DD54F0F4FAAC7E9FD88BCA6D0806E6DD1FE) Subject: FW: L-2011-456 - Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter No. 030 (eRAI 5818) Standard Review Plan Section 02.04.06 Probable Maximum Tsunami Flooding Sent Date: 11/2/2011 3:16:44 PM Received Date: 11/2/2011 3:16:48 PM From: Comar, Manny Created By: [email protected] Recipients: "TurkeyCOL Resource" <[email protected]> Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQCLSTR01.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2482 11/2/2011 3:16:48 PM L-2011-456 signed 10-28-2011 Response to NRC RAI Letter No. 030 (eRAI 5818).pdf 1207564 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received:

Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Docket Nos. 52-040 and 52-041 L-2011-456 Page 2

cc:PTN 6 & 7 Project Manager, AP1000 Projects Branch 1, USNRC DNRL/NRO Regional Administrator, Region II, USNRCSenior Resident Inspector, USNRC, Turkey Point Plant 3 & 4

Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Docket Nos. 52-040 and 52-041 FPL Response to NRC RAI No. 02.04.06-5 (eRAI 5818) L-2011-456 Attachment Page 1 of 47

NRC RAI Letter No. PTN-RAI-LTR-030 SRP Section: 02.04.06 - Probable Maximum Tsunami FloodingQuestion from Hydrologic Engineering Branch (RHEB) NRC RAI Number: 02.04.06-5 (eRAI 5818) Section C.I.2.4.6.4 of Regulatory Guide 1.206 (RG 1.206) provides specific guidance with respect to tsunami analysis. This includes providing a complete description of the analysis procedure used to calculate tsunami wave height and period at the site, including the theoretical bases of the models, their verification and the conservatism of all input parameters. In response to NRC RAI 2.04.06-2 (Question 18185), FPL provided a reasonable description of the site-specific numerical modeling they performed to determine water levels related to an offshore Lisbon earthquake tsunami source which they determined is the PMT source. This modeling takes into account the regional and local bathymetry/topography. However, there are some unresolved issues listed below that relate to the theoretical basis of the model, its verification and the conservatism of all input parameters:

1) In terms of setting up the model, FPL did not specify what type of offshore boundary condition is used. The applicant should verify that artificial reflections off this boundary do not influence their predictions (note there is a way to create a non-reflective boundary condition for sinusoidal waves but they do not mention using it).

2) It is unclear as to the effect of having a closed southwest boundary. There may be spurious reflections off this closed boundary. Please perform another simulation (in the nature of sensitivity study) where the southwest boundary is extended a bit further into the Gulf of Mexico to show that shifting this boundary does not affect the model results, especially since the boundary is still fairly close to the site.

3) FPL indicates that the water level at the site is higher when they used a Manning’s nvalue of 0.02 instead of 0.025 which they prefer (pg.14 of the FPL response to NRC RAI 2.04.06-2). For conservatism, the applicant should use the lower n-value unless it can demonstrate that the water-level difference is negligible.

4) In FPL's description of DEFLT3D on pg. 7 of the FPL response to NRC 2.04.06-2 RAI, FPL indicates that the model does not include a wave breaking mechanism. This statement needs should be verified. Please discuss the general conservatism of DELFT3D under the assumption listed in Section 2.4.6.4.1 of the FSAR revision.

5) It is unclear that the sinusoidal wave that the applicant uses is the most conservative waveform. While they tune it to the wave amplitude and period obtained by Mader (2001) for the 1755 Lisbon tsunami at 783 feet water depth, it is possible that a steeper non-sinusoidal wave would have larger run-up. With regard to the numerical modeling provided in response to NRC RAI 2.04.06-2: (1) Specify what type of offshore boundary condition is used and verify that any artificial reflections off this boundary do not influence water level predictions; (2) Verify that


shifting the southwest boundary of the model does not affect water level predictions at the site; (3) Clarify whether use of a Manning’s n value of 0.02 yields more conservative water level predictions at the site, compared to a Manning’s n value of 0.025; (4) Clarify whether DELFT 3D includes the effects of wave breaking as used to determine PMT water levels; (5) Determine whether alternate boundary conditions yield higher runup values compared to the sinusoid waveforms used for the model boundary conditions in the deep Atlantic Ocean.

FPL RESPONSE: The responses to the RAI are addressed below in three parts. Items 1, 2, and 3 of the RAI are addressed in Part 1 of the response. Items 4 and 5 of the RAI are addressed in Parts 2 and 3 of the response, respectively. Part 1. The Use of Manning’s n of 0.02 and Non-reflective Boundary Conditions

a. Manning’s n value As discussed in FSAR Subsection 2.4.6.4.2, the tsunami model for Units 6 & 7 site adopted a Manning’s n of 0.025, which represents roughness in natural channels in good condition (Reference 222 of FSAR Section 2.4.6), and it is a typical value appropriate for the site condition. A sensitivity analysis was performed for Manning’s n of 0.02 and 0.03. The sensitivity analysis results showed that the maximum tsunami water level at the site is higher by about 0.43 meters (1.4 feet) for the Manning’s n of 0.02 compared to Manning’s n of 0.025, as indicated in Figure 1. Therefore, a Manning’s n of 0.02 is adopted in the revised tsunami simulation used to determine the maximum water level at the site. This Manning’s nvalue represents roughness conditions similar to a smooth earth surface (Reference 222 of FSAR Section 2.4.6). However, water levels in deep areas, such as off Miami at water depth of 783 meters (2569 feet), would not be sensitive to the range of Manning’s n value tested because of very small flow velocities associated with deep areas. Water levels in shallow areas are sensitive to Manning’s n values (Reference 3) because of relatively higher velocities.

b. Non-reflective boundary conditions To make the forcing boundary where the incoming tsunami waves were specified and the open boundary at the southwest boundary of the tsunami model domain non-reflective, Riemann-type boundary conditions (Riemann BCs) were specified (Reference 1). The forcing boundary and the southwest model boundary are shown in Figure 2. The forcing boundary is segmented based on water depth so that a non-reflective boundary condition, which depends on water depth, is specified. Details of the non-reflective boundary condition (Riemann BC) are described below.

The Riemann BC approximates a non-reflective boundary condition that allows waves to pass a boundary without being reflected back into the modeling domain. The Riemann BC is specified based on linearized Riemann invariants (R) that correspond to two waves propagating in opposite directions.


The formulation for the linearized Riemann invariants is as follows:

dggdUR /2 �� (1)

Where U is flow velocity, g is acceleration due to gravity, d is water depth with respect to still water level, and � is water level variation with respect to still water level. The signs in Equation 1 depend on the direction of propagation of incoming waves. The flow velocities at the forcing boundary were estimated based on water level and depth by adopting the linear/long wave theory, as described in Reference 2. Based on the theory, the velocity is related to water level and depth as follows:

dgU /�� (2)

The sign in Equation 2 depends on the direction of the velocity. Because the Riemann invariants depend on the depth of water, with respect to still water level, the forcing boundary was segmented into 12 sections based on water depth variation along the boundary. The Riemann invariant was specified for each segment separately. For the southwest boundary of the model, where propagating tsunami waves are allowed to leave the model domain, the flow velocity and water level variation in the Riemann invariants were specified as zero. However, the second term of the Riemann invariant in Equation 1 was still determined internally by Delft3D. As described in Reference 1, Riemann BC has a weaker control on the water levels, especially for complex flow conditions. Therefore, the Riemann invariant that was determined for the incoming sinusoidal tsunami waves by using Equations 1 and 2 was adjusted so that the expected water level variation is obtained at the forcing boundary and also off Miami at water depth of 783 meters (2569 feet). The Riemann invariants were adjusted by a factor of 1.3 throughout the forcing boundary segments. The adjustment factor was determined by trial and error. The water level time histories at the forcing boundary and off Miami at 783 meters (2569 feet) are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively.The tsunami water level time history at the Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 site with and without Riemann BCs is shown in Figure 5. As indicated in the figure, the maximum water level at the site for the case without Riemann BC is slightly higher by 0.1 meters (0.3 feet), compared to the case with Riemann BCs. This demonstrates that the impact of the Riemann BC on the maximum water level at the site is not significant. After the arrival of the maximum water level, the use of the Riemann BC results in a slightly larger difference in the predicted water level as indicated in Figure 5. In summary, the Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 site tsunami model was re-run with Manning’s n of 0.02 and also by specifying Riemann BCs, both at the forcing boundary where the incoming tsunami waves were specified and at the southwest boundary of the model. The results obtained are used to revise FSAR Section 2.4.6. Details of the revised tsunami simulation results and proposed revision to the section are included subsequent to the responses.


Part 2. Conservatism of Delft3D-FLOW Tsunami Modeling AssumptionsThe governing flow equations solved by Delft3D-FLOW are based on non-linear shallow water equations (NLSWEs) (Reference 1) and the assumptions made are discussed in FSAR Subsection 2.4.6.4.1. These equations do not include an explicit wave-breaking mechanism or criteria. However, the model accounts for energy loss and turbulence associated with breaking waves through the use of the conservation of momentum principle in the governing equations (Reference 4). As described in Reference 4, although the model does not predict local wave breaking dynamics and shoaling process near breaking, the model does predict well both breaking and non-breaking tsunami run-ups and inundations. Apotsos et al. (Reference 4) conducted seven benchmark tests of the model based on analytical results and laboratory observations. Based on the results they conclude that Delft3D predicts well the general hydrodynamic processes associated with tsunami nearshore propagation and inundation for a wide range of conditions and therefore is appropriate for tsunami simulation of run-up and inundation for both breaking and non-breaking long waves, which are mostly associated with earthquake-induced tsunamis. Because of the hydrostatic pressure assumption basis of NLSWEs, dispersion effect is not simulated by NLSWEs. Therefore, ignoring any dispersion effect would over-predict tsunami wave amplitudes. Part 3. The Effect of Non-Sinusoidal Steeper WavesTo test the effect of steeper tsunami waves on the maximum water level at the site, two wave forms with steeper wave fronts at the forcing boundary were considered: 1) isosceles N-wave (same crest and trough wave amplitude) and 2) steeper sinusoidal wave. Details are given below.The first wave form is isosceles N-wave that was formulated based on Reference 2 as given below:

))('tanh())('(cosh233)( 2

nn ttkttkAt �� (3)

Where � is water level with respect to still water level, � is wave height adjustment factor, t is time, A is wave amplitude, ' is a factor that determines the shape of the wave, andtn is time associated with the location of the center of the wave. The following isosceles N-wave parameters were selected so that the approximate wave period and wave height

of the isosceles N-wave match that of a sinusoidal wave:

k

332

�� , = 0.077/min., and

tn = 45 min. An adjustment factor of 1.3 was also applied to the Riemann invariants, similar to the sine-wave tsunami case discussed in Part 1 of this response. Figure 6 shows the wave form of the isosceles N-wave and sine-wave.

'k

The second wave form tested is a combination of two sinusoidal wave forms such that the rising portion of the wave form is steeper than a regular sinusoidal wave. To accomplish this, the wave period of the rising portion was reduced by a factor of three


(from 90 to 30 min.), and the wave period of the falling portion was increased by a factor of 1.67 (from 90 to 150 min.) so that the overall period is the same as the regular sinusoidal wave (90 min.). The formulation used is provided below:

For t = 0 to 7.5 min. (first rising portion): �

�� tAt9023sin)( �� (4a)

For t = 7.5 min. to 82.5 min. (falling portion): ��

��

��

�)5.7*290(2)30(2sin)( tAt �� (4b)

For t = 82.5 min. to 90 min. (end rising portion):

�

�� ))5.7*490((9023sin)( tAt �� (4c)

where t is time in min. An adjustment factor of 1.3 was also applied to the Riemann invariants similar to the sine-wave tsunami case discussed in Part 1 of this response. Figure 7 shows the wave form of the regular and steep sine-waves. Figures 8 to 10 compare the water levels between the base case that did not include steepening of the wave form and the sensitivity test case with steepened sine-wave at the forcing boundary, off Miami at 783 m depth, and at the site, respectively. Figures 11 to 13 compare the water levels between the base case that did not include steepening of the wave form and the sensitivity test case with isosceles N-wave at the forcing boundary, off Miami at 783 m depth, and at the site, respectively. As shown on Figures 10 and 13, the results indicate that wave steepening does not increase the maximum water level at the site. One of the reasons is that the steepened wave forms have less wave volume compared to the non-steepened sinusoidal wave form in that the amount of wave energy available to produce run-up is less, especially in regards to the isosceles N-wave.In conclusion, the following changes were made to the tsunami analysis in determining the maximum water level at the site: 1) Manning n of 0.02 is used instead of 0.025; 2) a non-reflective boundary condition is specified at the offshore model boundary (where the incoming waves are specified); and 3) a non-reflective boundary condition is specified at the southwest boundary. In additon, an explanation is provided in regards to the indirect wave breaking mechanism of Delft3D.

This response is PLANT SPECIFIC.


References:1. Deltares, “Delft3D-FLOW, Simulation of multi-dimensional hydrodynamic flows and

transport phenomena, including sediments,” Rotterdamseweg 185, 2009.

2. Apotsos, A., Jaffe, B., and Gelfenbaum, G., “Wave characteristics and morphologic effects on the onshore hydrodynamic response of tsunamis,” Coastal Engineering,v. 58 (2011), pp. 1034-1048, November 2011.

3. Dao, M. H. and Tkalich P., “Tsunami propagation modelling – a sensitivity study,” National Hazards Earth System Sciences, v. 7, pp. 741-754, 2007.

4. Apotsos, A., M. Buckley, G. Gelfenbaum, B. Jaffe, and D. Vatvani, “Nearshore tsunami inundation model validation: Toward sediment transport applications,” Pure and Applied Geophysics, DOI 10.1007/s00024-011-0291-5, 2011.


Figure 1. Water Level Time History at the Site for Manning’s n of 0.025, 0.02, and 0.03


��Forcing�Boundary��undary�

SouthwestBo

�

Figure 2. Location of the Riemann BCs, Including Segments of the Forcing Boundary(Not to Scale)


Figure 3. Water Levels at the Forcing Boundary for Incoming Tsunami Sine-wave with and without Riemann BC


Figure 4. Water Levels off Miami at Water Depth 783 m for Incoming Tsunami Sine-wave with and without Riemann BC


Figure 5. Water Levels at the Site for Incoming Tsunami Sine-wave with and without Riemann BC


Isosceles�N�wave�Form

�2.0

�1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180

Time,�min.

Water�Level,�m

�MSL

Isosceles�N�wave

Regular�Sine�Wave

Figure 6. Isosceles N-wave Form in Comparison with a Sine-wave Form


Figure 7. Steepened Sine-wave Form in Comparison with a Regular Sine-wave Form


Figure 8. Time History of Water Level at the Forcing Boundary for Steepened Sine-wave Form


Figure 9. Time History of Water Level off Miami at Water Depth of 783 m for Steepened Sine-wave Form


Figure 10. Time History of Water Level at the Site for Steepened Sine-wave Form


Figure 11. Time History of Water Level at the Forcing Boundary for Isosceles N-wave Form


Figure 12. Time History of Water Level off Miami at Water Depth of 783 m for IsoscelesN-wave Form


Figure 13. Time History of Water Level at the Site for Isosceles N-wave Form


ASSOCIATED COLA REVISIONS: The third paragraph in Subsection 2.4.6.4.1 will be updated in a future revision as indicated below:

Delft3D-FLOW assumes hydrostatic pressure distribution, and therefore ignores frequency dispersion, and does not include wave breaking mechanism. As a result, model simulation results on tsunami propagation generally show steeper wave fronts with larger wave amplitudes compared to analytical solutions or benchmark laboratory test results (Reference 221). The shallow water conditions adopted in Delft3D-FLOW therefore are capable of resolving the tsunami wave propagation where the frequency dispersion is not significant and would be conservative in simulating the nearshore tsunami amplitude.

The tenth paragraph in Subsection 2.4.6.4.2 will be updated in a future revision as indicated below:

Bed Roughness ConditionBed roughness conditions in the tsunami model are specified through Manning's nroughness coefficient. For the initial tsunami model that is used to validate the open boundary condition where incoming tsunami waves are specified, aAconstant Manning's roughness coefficient of 0.025 (a typical value appropriate for the site) is used for the entire model domain, which represents natural channels in good condition (Reference 222). However, a Manning’s n of 0.02 is used conservatively in the final analysis because the Manning’s n sensitivity analysis results indicate that lower values give higher maximum tsunami water level at the site. This Manning’s n value represents roughness conditions similar to a smooth earth surface (Reference 222). Water levels in deep areas, such as off Miami at water depth of 783 meters (2569 feet), would not be sensitive to Manning’s n values because of very small flow velocities associated with deep areas. Water levels in shallow areas are sensitive to Manning’s n values because of relatively higher velocities.

The title of Subsection 2.4.6.4.4 will be updated in a future revision as indicated below: 2.4.6.4.4 Sensitivity of Model Parameters and Conditions

The first paragraph in Subsection 2.4.6.4.4 will be updated in a future revision as indicated below:

Model sensitivity analysis is conducted for the following parameters and conditions:grid size, time step, Manning's nn value, tsunami wave period, and Coriolis effects,non-reflective boundaries, and tsunami wave form and steepness.

The fourth paragraph in Subsection 2.4.6.4.4 will be updated in a future revision as indicated below:


Manning's n valueModel simulations are performed for two additional Manning's n values of 0.02 and 0.03. The results indicate that a lower Manning's n value produces a higher water level at the site. However, fFor this analysis a Manning's n of 0.025 is selected conservatively, which represents a smooth earth surfacebased on typical coastal area surface characteristics (Reference 222). Because the selected boundary condition provides conservative tsunami amplitude at the site, as described in Subsection 2.4.6.4.3, the selected bed roughness conditions are considered adequate.

The following paragraphs will be added at the end of Subsection 2.4.6.4.4 in a future revision: Non-reflective BoundariesA sensitivity analysis is performed to assess the effect of non-reflective boundary conditions on the maximum tsunami water level at the site. The two open boundaries of the model, i.e., the forcing boundary where the incoming tsunami waves are specified and the southwest boundary where no-flow boundary conditions were specified, are made non-reflective by utilizing the Riemann type boundary condition (Riemann BC) of Delft3D (Reference 219). This type of boundary allows waves approaching the boundary from within the modeling domain to leave the boundary without reflecting back into the modeling domain. The sensitivity analysis results indicate that the maximum tsunami water level at the site is not sensitive to the non-reflective boundary condition. The tsunami water level time history at the site with and without Riemann BCs is shown in Figure 2.4.6-229. As indicated in the figure, the maximum water level at the site for the case without Riemann BC is slightly higher by 0.1 meters (0.3 feet), compared to the case with Riemann BCs. This demonstrates that the impact of Riemann BC on the maximum water level at the site is not significant. After the arrival of the maximum water level, the use of the Riemann BC results in a slightly larger difference in the predicted water level as indicated in Figure 2.4.6-229.

The following paragraphs will be added at the end of Subsection 2.4.6.4.4 in a future revision: Tsunami Wave Form and SteepnessTo test the effect of steeper tsunami waves on the maximum water level at the site, two wave forms with steeper wave fronts at the forcing boundary were considered: (1) isosceles N-wave (same crest and trough wave amplitude) and (2) steeper sinusoidal wave. Details are given below. The first wave form is isosceles N-wave that was formulated based on Reference 224 as given below:

))('tanh())('(cosh233)( 2

nn ttkttkAt �� (1)

where � is water level with respect to still water level, � is wave height adjustment factor, t is time, A is wave amplitude, is a factor that 'k


determines the shape of the wave, and tn time associated with the location of the center of the wave. The following isosceles N-wave parameters were selected so that the approximate wave period and wave height of the isosceles N-wave matches

that of a sinusoidal wave: 332

�� , = 0.077/min., and tn = 45 min. Figure

2.4.6-230 shows the wave form of the isosceles N-wave and sine-wave.

'k

The second wave form tested is a combination of two sinusoidal wave forms such that the rising portion of the wave form is steeper than a regular sinusoidal wave. To accomplish this, the wave period of the rising portion was reduced by a factor of three (from 90 to 30 min.), and the wave period of the falling portion was increased by a factor of 1.67 (from 90 to 150 min.) so that the overall period is the same as the regular sinusoidal wave (90 min.). The formulation used is provided below:

For t = 0 to 7.5 min. (first rising portion): �

�� tAt9023sin)( �� (2a)

For t = 7.5 min. to 82.5 min. (falling portion): ��

��

��

�)5.7*290(2)30(2sin)( tAt �� (2b)

For t = 82.5 min. to 90 min. (end rising portion):

�

�� ))5.7*490((9023sin)( tAt �� (2c)

where t is time in min. Figure 2.4.6-231 shows the wave form of the regular and steep sine-waves. Figures 2.4.6-232 to 2.4.6-234 compare the water levels between the case that did not include steepening of the wave form and the sensitivity test case with steepened sine-wave at the forcing boundary, off Miami at 783 meters (2569 feet) depth, and at the site, respectively. Figures 2.4.6-235 to 2.4.6-237 compare the water levels between the case that did not include steepening of the wave form and the sensitivity test case with isosceles N-wave at the forcing boundary, off Miami at 783 meters (2569 feet) depth, and at the site, respectively. As shown on Figures 2.4.6-234 and 2.4.6-237, the results indicate that wave steepening does not increase the maximum tsunami water level at the site. One of the reasons is that the steepened wave forms have less wave volume compared to the non-steepened sinusoidal wave form in that the amount of wave energy available to produce run-up is less, especially in regard to the isosceles N-wave.

The paragraph in Subsection 2.4.6.5 will be updated in a future revision as indicated below: The time history of tsunami water level at the site is given in Figure 2.4.6-226. The maximum tsunami water level at the site from model simulation results is 4.174.5


meters (13.714.8 feet) MSL or 12.813.9 feet (3.94.2 meters) NAVD 88, including the initial water level of 1.36 meters (4.46 feet) MSL, which is rounded up to 14.0 feet (4.3 meters) NAVD 88. This maximum tsunami water level is 12 feet lower than the entrance floor elevation of all safety-related structures at 26 feet NAVD 88.

Subsection 2.4.6.8 (References) will be updated in a future revision as indicated below (Reference 223 is added in response to RAI 02.04.06-6):

224. Apotsos, A., Jaffe, B., and Gelfenbaum, G., “Wave characteristics and morphologic effects on the onshore hydrodynamic response of tsunamis,” Coastal Engineering, v. 58 (2011), pp. 1034-1048, November 2011.

The following figures will be updated in a future revision as indicated on subsequent pages.


Figure 2.4.6-219a Tsunami Water Level Contours 30 Minutes into the Model Simulation (with Manning’s n of 0.02 and non-reflective boundaries)

Note: Water levels are in meters relative to 1.36 m MSL



Figure 2.4.6-219b Tsunami Water Level Contours 1.0 hour into the Model Simulation (with Manning’s n of 0.02 and non-reflective boundaries)



Figure 2.4.6-219c Tsunami Water Level Contours 1.5 hours into the Model Simulation(with Manning’s n of 0.02 and non-reflective boundaries)

Note: Water levels are in meters relative to 1.36 m MSL.


Figure 2.4.6-219d Tsunami Water Level Contours 2.0 hours into the Model Simulation (with Manning’s n of 0.02 and non-reflective boundaries)



Figure 2.4.6-219e Tsunami Water Level Contours 2.5 hours into the Model Simulation (with Manning’s n of 0.02 and non-reflective boundaries)



Figure 2.4.6-2 l Simulation (with Manning’s n of 0.02 and non-reflective boundaries)


19f Tsunami Water Level Contours 3.0 hours into the Mode


Figure 2.4.6-21 el Simulation (with Manning’s n of 0.02 and non-reflective boundaries)


9g Tsunami Water Level Contours 3.5 hours into the Mod


Figure 2.4.6-21 el Simulation (with Manning’s n of 0.02 and non-reflective boundaries)


9h Tsunami Water Level Contours 4.0 hours into the Mod


Figure 2.4.6-2 l Simulation (with Manning’s n of 0.02 and non-reflective boundaries)


19i Tsunami Water Level Contours 4.5 hours into the Mode


he Model Si ter Level at Site (with Manning’s n of 0.02 and non-reflective boundaries)

Note: Water levels are in meters relative to 1.36 m MSL; some (dry) land elevations are shown as flood water levels according to designation in Delft3D-FLOW.

Figure 2.4.6-220 Tsunami Water Level Contours near the Units 6 & 7 Site 4.5 Hours into mulation Corresponding to the Time Close to the Maximum Wat


Figure tive to 1.36 m MSL (with Manning’s n of 0.02 and non-reflective boundaries)

2.4.6-222 Tsunami Marigrams at Monitoring Points along Track 1, rela


Figure 2.4.6-223 Tsunami Marigrams at Monitoring Points along Track 2, relative to 1.36 m MSL (with Manning’s n of 0.02 and non-reflective boundaries)


Figure 2.4.6-224 Tsunami Marigrams at Monitoring Points along Track 3, relative to 1.36 m MSL (with Manning’s n of 0.02 and non-reflective boundaries)


Figure 2.4.6-225 Tsunami Marigrams at Monitoring Points in Biscayne Bayand Vicinity, relative to 1.36 m MSL (with Manning’s n of 0.02 and non-reflective boundaries)


Figure 2.4.6-226 Simulated Tsunami Marigram at the Units 6 & 7 Site(with Manning’s n of 0.02 and non-reflective boundaries)


The following figures will be added in a future revision as indicated below:

Figure 2.4.6-229 Water Levels at the Site for Incoming Tsunami Sine-wave with and without Riemann BC


Figure 2.4.6-230 Isosceles N-wave Form in Comparison with a Sine-wave Form

Isosceles�N�wave�Form

�2.0

�1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180

Time,�min.

Water�Level,�m

�MSL

Isosceles�N�wave

Regular�Sine�Wave


Figure 2.4.6-231 Steepened Sine-wave Form in Comparison with a Regular Sine-wave Form


Figure 2.4.6-232 Time History of Water Level at the Forcing Boundary for Steepened Sine-wave Form


Figure 2.4.6-233 Time History of Water Level off Miami at Water Depth of 783 meters(2569 feet) for Steepened Sine-wave Form


Figure 2.4.6-234 Time History of Water Level at the Site for SteepenedSine-wave Form


Figure 2.4.6-235 Time History of Water Level at the Forcing Boundary for Isosceles N-wave Form


Figure 2.4.6-236 Time History of Water Level off Miami at Water Depth of 783 meters(2569 feet) for Isosceles N-wave Form


Figure 2.4.6-237 Time History of Water Level at the Site for Isosceles N-wave Form

ASSOCIATED ENCLOSURES:None

2011/11/02 Turkey Point COL Hearing - FW: L-2011-456 - … · 2012-12-06 · 1 PMTurkeyCOLPEm...

Documents

Transcript of 2011/11/02 Turkey Point COL Hearing - FW: L-2011-456 - … · 2012-12-06 · 1 PMTurkeyCOLPEm...