enclosure 2 to bnp-2012-122, rizzo 2011 calculation ... · calculation number: if-tr ic, 4 fl, ......

May 21, 2012 BNP-2012-122 Enclosure 2

Enclosure 2

RIZZO 2011 calculation package "Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis of Walker Run-BBNPPRev 2"

I

[2C*MiEN kl=illLiIi LI

CALCULATION COVER PAGE

Part 1 - General qb Pl/a/

Calculation Number: iF-tr IC, 4 Fl, -" Ft Revision No.: 2

Calculation Title: Post Construction HEC-RAS Analysis of Walker Run -BBNPP

Project Number: 104310 Project Name: Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant

Number of Pages in Calculation: 118

If this is a revision to a calculation, explain reason for revision: Revision to site layout drainage

Have superseded versions of the calculation been stamped VOID or destroyed as required by Paragraph 8.2?Yes

If answer is No, explain:

Part 2 - Completed by OriginatorI. Does the calculation contain the information required by Section 4.4 of QP-l 5? Yes

If answer is No, explain:

2. Has design or analysis software been used for the calculation? Yes

If Yes, complete the following:

Software Name:. HEC-GeoRAS, HEC-RAS, ArcGIS Version Number: 4.2.93, 4.1, 9.3

V&V Revision Number: 0, 0, 0 V&V Date: 4/22/2011, 4/19/2011,12/16/2008

Printed Name of Originator: Abiot Gemechu, Paul J. Martinchich, Kyle M. Kamiinski,

Signature: ,../,... . . •5 / .

Part 3 - Completed by Checker1. Were the design inputs correctly selected and appropriately documented? • Yes [J No

2. Has the appropriate calculation methodology been used? [ Yes E" No

3. Are assumptions described and justified? EYes F1 No

4. Has the input been correctly selected and incorporated into the calculation? ] Yes El No

5. Is information and equations from external sources referenced and appropriate? J] Yes [I No

6. Are numerical calculations correct and have they been completely documented? Yes El No

7. Are results reasonable considering the input? Yes E- No

Printed Name of Checker: Jemie A. Dababneh

Signature Date:

Part 4 - Approval (Completed by Project Manager or Principal-in-Charge)

Printed Name: John Paul Giunta

Signature Date:

Rev 2 By:.•• Date: jl -aII Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 1 of 118Checked By: Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. .104310

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS PAGE

1.0 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE ........................................................................... 22.0 DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY USED ................................................. 2

3.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND JUSTIFICATION ...................................................... 10

4 .0 IN P U T .................................................................................................................... 12

5.0 NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS .................................................................... 12

6.0 COM PUTER OUTPUT ..................................................................................... 12

7.0 R ESU LT S .......................................................................................................... 13

8.0 CON CLU SION ................................................................................................. 22

9.0 REFEREN CES ................................................................................................ 23

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: FIGURES

APPENDIX B: TABLES

APPENDIX C: CD WITH MODEL INPUTS AND OUTPUTS

ReCheck

v 2 By: k Date: [cJNJ If Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 2 of 118ed By: .|4 Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 ProjectNo. 104310

1.0 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

The purpose of this calculation is to evaluate the water surface elevation during a ProbableMaximum Flood (PMF) at the proposed Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant (BBNPP) Site. A HEC-RAS model will be used to evaluate the Post-Construction flood elevations during the PMF at theWalker Run, Tributary # 1, and Tributary # 2 (Figures A-5-1 to A-5-13, Appendix A). Inaddition to the standard PMF flow, several additional model runs were constructed to analyzelandslide and blocked bridge conditions and their impact on water level at the proposed Site.

Although the plant grading was updated (Ref. #21), the changes were restricted to a small regionnear the power block area (refer to Appendix A, Figure A-5-14). This calculation was revised byupdating cross-sections affected by the grade change. The following cross-sections wereupdated: Walker Run Upstream: Cross-section 13928.43 through 10829.10, Walker RunDownstream: Cross-section 10497.04 and 10308.74, and all cross-sections of UnnamedTributary # 1 and # 2. Therefore the HEC-RAS model was developed using new cross-sectionsbased on the current site grading and geometric information obtained from Ref. #22 HEC-RASmodel. Parameters such as Manning's "n" values and contraction and expansion coefficients aredirectly from Ref. #22 HEC-RAS model. The HEC-RAS model was run using the updated PMFflow values (refer to Ref. #3 for more information).

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY USED

This analysis utilized the HEC-RAS (v.4.1) and HEC-GeoRAS (v.4.2.93) programs to determinethe Post-Construction water surface elevations along Walker Run, Tributary # 1 and Tributary #2during a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) (Figures A-5-1 to A-5-13, Appendix A). Geometryfor the Post-Construction model was derived from the Pre-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis ofWalker Run-BBNPP (Ref. #5) and the Proposed Site Grading Plan (Ref. #1). The Post-Construction geometry was created without altering any characteristics outside of the proposedplant area. Therefore, the Pre and Post-Construction models have identical characteristics,outside the site area.

HEC-RAS 4.1 is a hydraulic model used for simulating one-dimensional steady and unsteadyflows in river channels. The modeler must supply geometric information to describe the channel,floodplain, and major obstructions (such as bridges, culvert, and weirs), along with discharge,boundary conditions, cross-sections roughness coefficient, expansion and contraction coefficients,and other parameters. HEC-GeoRAS 4.2.93 contains a set of procedures, tools, and utilities forprocessing geospatial data in ArcGIS using a graphical user interface (GUI). The interface allowsthe preparation of geometric data for import into HEC-RAS and processes simulation resultsexported from HEC-RAS.

Rev 2 By: ?4( I ,,•'PL Date: (o "6[ I • Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 3 of 118Checked By: 4j Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 104-310

In this analysis, topographic elevation data for the existing conditions are retrieved using LightDetection and Ranging (LiDAR) data (horizontal ground resolution of 3.2 feet) of LuzerneCounty (Ref. #8). The stream network shapefile was obtained from the United States GeologicalSurvey (USGS) (Ref. #14) and was overlaid in ArcMap 9.3 (Ref. #7) with the USGS orthophoto(Ref. #14).The stream centerline was digitized from upstream to downstream by tracing over theUSGS stream shapefile. Then bank lines, over bank flowpaths and cross-section cutline layerswere generated. Refer to the HEC-GeoRAS user manual (Ref. #13) for step-by-step instructionsfor creating HEC-RAS layers.

Manning's n values to individual cross-sections were assigned based on land cover condition.For areas outside the boundaries of the Site, this is accomplished in HEC-GeoRAS using a landuse feature class with Manning's n values stored for different land use types. Land use featurewas created by digitizing the land use types from the Berwick Aerials Image (Ref. #9). From theaerial image, forest and farming (cultivated land) land use categories were identified (Figure A-3, Appendix A). Depending on the intersection of cross-sections with land use polygons,Manning's n values are extracted for each cross-section. Manning's n for forest, farming(cultivated land) and for the channels is reported in Tables 2-2 and 2-3.

For the post-construction conditions, the manning roughness was manually adjusted to resemblethe characteristics of the land cover (see Assumption #13).

The extracted channel geometry and elevation data were then exported using HEC-GeoRASsoftware to the HEC-RAS program and incorporated into the HEC-RAS model. The exportedfile contain the cross-section station and elevation, downstream reach lengths, bank stations andManning's n values. Section 2.2 provides detailed information on the HEC-RAS model datainputs. The data were manually checked before using in HEC-RAS to confirm that a properautomatic transfer of data was conducted.

Additional model runs were developed to evaluate landslide and blocked bridge conditions andtheir impact on water level at the proposed Site. For the landslide analysis, a blocked obstructionwas created to simulate a channel bank or slope failure in a stream location which wasconsidered to be the most detrimental to the site location. The failure location determination wasbased on the following factors:

1. Upstream Hydrology (amount of water that would be flowing through the area);2. Probability of a channel bank or slope failure in the location; and3. Proximity to site

The location assumed to represent the landslide is approximately 4,000 feet downstream(following the channel route) of the plant at a natural choking point of the stream just after theconfluence of Unnamed Tributary #1 (See Figures A-5-3 and A-5-4, Appendix A andAssumption 14). The additional flow value from the confluence of the tributary, in addition to

Re'Check

v 2By: =Date: Fo•jrj Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 4 of 118.ed By: At' Date: Iti/I of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 ProjectNo. 1104310

the choking point of Walker Run at such a close proximity to BBNPP makes this the most likelypoint to adversely affect the plant.

The probability of a slope failure at this location in Walker Run is unlikely given the 3:1 slopeand the heavily wooded area that was assumed to be the location of the landslide. Howeverunlikely the probability of a landslide is at any location along Walker Run, this scenario wasdeveloped as the worst case scenario to confirm that such event would not have an adverseimpact on the proposed Site.

2.1 SOFTWARE USED

HEC-RAS (v.4.1): used for hydraulic analysis (Ref. #6)HEC-GeoRAS (v.4.2.93): used for geometric data extraction (Ref. #4)ArcGIS (v.9.3): used for geometric data extraction (Ref. #7)

2.2 HEC-RAS MODEL DEVELOPMENT

HEC-RAS model parameters were developed using a combination of manualprocedures and automation tools within ArcGIS (v.9.3) and HEC-GeoRAS (v.4.2.93).

The Post-Construction Walker Run PMF model was constructed using Light Detection andRanging (LiDAR) data (horizontal ground resolution of 3.2 feet) of Luzerne County (Ref. #8) forexisting areas outside of the BBNPP site layout. For areas within the BBNPP site, grading plans(Ref. #1) were used to depict post-construction conditions.

2.2.1 Cross-Sections

Walker Run, Tributary # I and Tributary # 2 (Figure A-I, Appendix A) were modeled bydeveloping cross-sections of the stream, selected at an appropriate spacing to ensure thedevelopment of a hydraulically stable model. The HEC-RAS model cross-section locations areshown on Figure A-1, Appendix A. Floodplain areas significantly below the top of the streambanks that are not hydraulically connected to the stream downstream are modeled as ineffectiveflow areas.

For the ungraded area within the proposed site, which is the existing wetlands, a combination ofpre and post-construction topography was used to represent future conditions. Using a polygonwhich represent the wetlands and a buffer zone around the wetlands from the proposed BBNPPgrading plan (Ref. #1), the existing topography within the polygon was retained to represent theexisting conditions of the wetland. The topography outside of the polygon was altered fromexisting to match the proposed site grading (Ref. #1).

Re,Check

v2Byqr;, -fij4iIM Date: I{ o - Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 5 of 118ed By: Date: ofWalkerRun-BBNPPRev. 2 ProjectNo. 104310

2.2.2 Bridges

A total of eight bridges were examined in this analysis. The location of the modeled bridges isshown on Figure A-2, Appendix A. Bridge data for the HEC-RAS model such as top of the deckelevations, bounding bridge cross-sections (i.e., cross-sections at short distance from theupstream and downstream face of the bridge structure), bridge opening dimensions, and invertelevations were obtained by surveying each bridge structure. The surveyed data (Ref. #18) are(X-Coordinates, Y-Coordinates, Z-Coordinates (Elevations); these data were processed inCivil3D and GIS and manually entered into the HEC-RAS model. The bridges bounding cross-sections geometry obtained from the LiDAR data were modified using the surveyed bridgecross-sections. This is required to properly model the losses through the bridges structure (Ref. #12).

Bridge 1 (see Figure A-2, Appendix A) and the railroad bridge next to it at the downstream sideare fairly close to each other (10.6 feet apart) and have similar opening dimension (14.5 feet by9.2 feet). This means flow will not be able to expand after exiting the upstream bridge. Asdescribed in Ref. #12, the two bridges can be modeled as one bridge.

Bridge 0 (see Figure A-2, Appendix A) is completely submerged by the PMF water level fromthe Susquehanna River (Ref. #5), which means the bridge structure has no obstructive effect onthe Walker Run River; therefore, this bridge is not modeled.

Outflow from the Teardrop wetland is routed through the proposed box culvert. Dimension ofthe box culvert was obtained from Ref. #20. The top of the roadway over the box culvert isassumed to be level with the access road elevation (EL 695 feet, Ref. # 19); therefore, the top ofthe roadway over the box culvert is assumed to be at EL 695 feet (Ref. # 19).

Floodplain areas within the hydraulic shadow of roadway encroachments caused by contractionand expansion of flow through the bridge and culvert openings were modeled as ineffective flowareas. Ineffective flow areas were considered for both upstream and downstream cross-sectionsof bridge and culvert structures. These were estimated using a 1:1 contraction and 1:1.5expansion ratios, respectively. As described in Ref. #11, 1:1 and a 1:1 to 1:3 ratios can beselected for contraction and expansion reach, respectively; 1:1.5 expansion and a 1:1 contractionratios can be also selected according to Ref. #12. On the upstream cross-section of the bridge andculvert, the low roadway elevation (i.e., the lowest elevation of the high chord) was selected as aconstraint elevation for weir flow. At the downstream cross-section the elevation constraint wasset equal to the average of the highest low chord elevation and the lowest roadway surfaceelevation (Ref. #11; Ref. #12). Culvert input parameters (Table 2-1) were set as per USACEguidelines (Ref. #12).

Rev 2 By: # Date: 101-!>l Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 6 of 118Checked By: Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. '104310

The roadway section of the bridge and culvert was assumed to be rectangular; therefore, highflow over the bridge and culvert decks is modeled as a broad-crested weir flow using a WeirCoefficient(C) of 2.6 (U.S. units) (Ref. #12).

Table 2-1: Manning's "n", Entrance and Exit Loss Coefficient for Culvert (source: Ref.#12).

Description Entrance Loss Exit Loss Coefficient Manning's nCoefficient

Corrugated Metal Pipe 0.5 1 0.03Brickwork 0.5 1 0.03

Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert 0.5 1 0.013

2.2.3 Junctions

In order to simulate the entire Walker Run stream network in one model, the use of streamjunctions is needed. Two stream junctions were created as shown in Figure A-1. The onlyrequired junction data entered into the HEC-RAS model is the stream length across the junctionbetween the two bounding cross sections. This length was automatically calculated within HECGeo-RAS and manually checked before using in the HEC-RAS model.

The hydraulics at the junctions were examined using the Energy equation (Ref. #12)

2.2.4 Manning's Roughness Coefficient

Values for Manning's n values used in this analysis were determined using the modified Cowanmethod (Ref. #17). Cowan equation is very useful for deriving an analytic estimate of channelroughness (Ref. #11). The formula assesses the various components that comprise the overallestimate of the channel roughness. By using the Cowan Equation (Equation 1), the roughnessvalue for the flood plain and channel were determined by selecting a base value of nb for thenatural bare soil surface of the flood plain and the channel and adding adjustment factors due tosurface irregularity, obstructions and vegetation.

n= (nb +nI +n2 +n3 +n4) m Equation 1

Where:nb = a base value of "n" for the flood plains and channel natural bare soil surfacen, = a correction factor for the effect of surface irregularities on the flood plain and channeln2 = a value for variations in shape and size of the flood-plain and channel cross sectionn3 = a value for obstructions on the flood plain and channeln4 = a value for vegetation on the flood plain and in the channel

Rev 2 By: Date: {t•j[l - Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 7 of 118Checked By: Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2' ProjectNo. '104310

m = a correction factor for sinuosity of the flood plain and channel

Refer to Table 2-2 for nb, hi, n2, n3 and n3 values for the different land cover types. Comparisonof the calculated Manning's n values based on Cowan method (Table 2-2) and values reported inRef. #11 (Table 2-3) indicate that the calculated Manning's n values are conservative.Therefore, Manning's n the values reported in Table 2-2 were used for the areas outside theboundaries of the proposed Site.

Manning roughness for the proposed Site was manually altered in I-EC-RAS to resemble thecharacteristics of the land cover (see Assumption #13).

Table 2-2: Manning's Roughness Coefficient Calculation using Cowan Method

Cowan Methodn= (nb +n, +n 2 +n3 +n4 )m

Land cover/Channel nb .n n2 n3 n4 m nForest 0.032 0.005 0 0.004 0.1 1 0.141

Farming 0.032 0.005 0 0.004 0.025 1 0.066Stream/Channel 0.032 0.005 0 0.004 0.01 1 0.051

Notes:1) Base value for Manning's roughness coefficient (nb) is based on the assumption that thechannel and flood plains are stable (i.e., channel and flood plain made of firm soil) (Ref. #17)2) The channel/stream roughness includes adjustment for grass and trees in the stream andstream alignment (Ref. #17)

* Channel soil type = firm soil (nb--0.0 3 2 )* Degree of Irregularity (ni) = Minor* Variation in channel cross section (n2) = Gradual• Effect of obstruction (n3) = Negligible* Amount of vegetation (n4) = Small* Degree of Meandering (m) = Minor

3) The flood plain roughness includes adjustment for flood plain irregularity, effect ofobstruction (e.g., debris deposits, stumps, logs, isolated boulders etc.) and vegetation (e.g. trees)(Ref. #17)

* Flood plain soil types = firm soil (nb--0.0 32 )* Degree of Irregularity (nI) = Minor* Variation of Flood-Plain cross section (n2) = Gradual• Effect of obstruction (n3) = Negligible* Amount of vegetation (n4) = Medium (Farming) and Very Large (Forest).• Degree of Meandering (m) = Minor

Rev2By: Date:t(j -61 Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 8 of 118Checked By: -- - Date: I[•l [il of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 104310

Table 2-3: Values of Manning's n based on Chow (Source: Ref. #11)

Manning's nLand Cover/Channel Land Cover Description Maximum

Brush Light brush and trees, in summer 0.080Farming/Cultivated Land Mature field crops 0.050

Natural Streams Clean, straight, full stage, no rifts or deep pools,some weeds and stones 0.050

2.2.5 Upstream and Downstream Boundary Condition

Since both subcritical and supercritical flow is anticipated, a mixed flow regime was assumed.For mixed flow analysis, both upstream and downstream boundary conditions need to beprovided.

For subcritical flow the program steps upstream, computing water-surface elevations at eachcross section. Starting water surface is necessary in order for the program to begin thecalculation; this is specified in the form of boundary conditions. Since Walker Run dischargesinto the Susquehanna River, the estimated water surface elevation at the confluence of WalkerRun and Susquehanna River for the PMF flow profile was used as a downstream boundarycondition (Ref. #5). The PMF water surface elevation at the confluence of Walker Run andSusquehanna River was previously calculated to be 536.81 feet (Ref. #5). This value was used asa downstream boundary condition.

The upstream boundary condition was set to critical depth.

2.2.6 Probable Maximum Flood

Flood flow used in this analysis is the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) determined using theHEC-HMS model for Walker Run watershed (Ref. #3). To account for changes in flow due tocontributing subwatersheds and flow accumulation downstream (Figure A-4, Appendix A),flow change locations were added. Flow change locations and the corresponding cross-sectionsare reported in Table 2-4.

Rev 2 By: r,- l¢ Date: " 0 ti Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 9 of 118Checked By: -)ADate: #6/jl!i of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No.

Table 2-4: PMF flow and Flow Change Locations

River Name River Station HEC-HMS1 PMF 2(ft) Junctions/Outlets (cfs)

Walker Run 19611.64 Junction B-2 16396.0Walker Run 15788.7 Junction B-3 19663.3Walker Run 13352.65 Junction B-4 19492.3Walker Run 10497.04 Junction A-I 24963.5Walker Run 8567.727 Junction A-2 27835.4Walker Run 6600.763 Junction A-3 31569Walkemin TR#1_I 1614.092 Junction C-3 4940.9

Outlet of Reach SB3-2Walkerrun TR#1 2 2594.424 +Outlet of SB 3-2 3218.10Walker TR#2 1645.505 Outlet of SB3-3 1025.5

Note: 'Refer to Figure A-4, Appendix A, 2 Refer to Ref. # 3

2.2.7 Additional PMF Scenarios

In addition to the standard PMF analysis, three additional scenarios were compiled as follows:

1. PMF assuming all bridges are blocked by debris and sedimentation (Scenario A).2. PMF including a slope failure which blocks the stream channel, approximately 4,000 feet

downstream (following the channel route) of the proposed plant (Scenario B).3. PMF with all bridges blocked and a slope failure blocking the Walker Run channel

(Scenario C).

There was no change in drainage areas or flow with respect to changes in scenarios so the PMFflow, determined by the HEC-HMS BBNPP Post-construction calculation (Ref. #3), will remainthe same for all scenarios.

Scenario A was constructed to simulate the effects of debris blockage on all bridges alongWalker Run during the standard PMF calculation. Due to the small openings on many of thebridges and culverts in addition to Walker Run flowing through a heavily wooded area, thisscenario is highly likely. To eliminate errors within the HEC-RAS run results, very smallopenings (<0.15ft), were created to allow the program to run smoothly.

Scenario B was constructed to simulate a failure of a bank or adjacent slope which wouldproduce a stream blockage of approximately 20 feet high. The blockage essentially fills theentire stream channel and brings the invert elevation equal to that of the rest of the valley floor.

Rev 2 By: f Date: of bl t Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 10 of 118Checked By: Date: A.$42.0 . of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 104310

Scenario C was constructed to simulate the failure of a bank or slope combined with theblockage of bridges. The geometry for this scenario was created by combining the two priorscenario geometries; therefore all characteristics of the prior geometries should be present.

The results of all above listed three scenarios, including the standard PMF are discussed in moredetail in Section 7.0. For water surface elevations at given points along Walker Run and theUnnamed tributary for all scenarios including the standards PMF, see Tables 5-1 to 5-4 and 6-1to 6-4.

3.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND JUSTIFICATION

1. References to Elevation values in this section are referenced to the North American VerticalDatum of 1988 (NAVD 88), unless otherwise stated. Peak PMF water surface elevationsmust, therefore, be compared to safety related structures and ground elevations referenced toNAVD 88. The power block is approximately assumed to be at EL 719 feet.

2. Flow was assumed to be steady and one dimensional; therefore, a steady flow analysis wasconducted.

3. Since both supercritical and subcritical flow is anticipated, a mixed flow regime wasassumed.

4. Bridge 1 (see Figure A-2, Appendix A) and the railroad bridge next to it are fairly close toeach other (10.6 feet apart) and have similar opening (14.5 feet by 9.5 feet) (Ref. #12). Thismeans flow will not be able to expand after exiting the upstream bridge. As described in Ref.#12, the two bridges can be modeled as one bridge.

5. Bridge 0 (see Figure A-2, Appendix A) is completely submerged by the PMF water levelfrom the Susquehanna River, which means the bridge structure has no obstructive effect onthe Walker Run River; therefore, this bridge is not modeled.

6. Use Contraction Coefficient = 0.3 and expansion Coefficient = 0.5 for bridge/culvertopenings. These are recommended values for bridge/culvert openings (Ref. #10).

7. The roadway section of the bridges and culverts was assumed to be rectangular, therefore,model flow over bridge and culvert decks as broad-crested weir flow, Weir Coefficient(C)=2.6 (U.S. units) (Ref. #12).

8. Known water surface elevations at the confluence of Walker Run and Susquehanna Riverwere retrieved from the evaluation of the Susquehanna River PMF water level analysis.Therefore, the downstream boundary condition water elevation was set at 536.81ft (Ref. #23)

9. For mixed flow regime calculations in HEC-RAS model, both upstream and downstreamboundary condition need to be provided. The upstream boundary condition was set to criticaldepth.

10. Ineffective flow areas locations were estimated at upstream and downstream cross-sectionsof bridge and culvert structures using a 1:1 contraction and 1:1.5 expansion ratios (Ref. #12;Ref. #11), respectively.

Rev 2 By:•:,h :7 Date: L1c. 1 Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 11 of 118

Checked By: Date:. of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 104310

11. Values for Manning's "n" values were determined using the modified Cowan method (Ref. #17). Cowan equation is very useful for deriving an analytic estimate of channel and floodplain roughness (Ref. #11).

12. Bridges that are to be added during site construction across the Unnamed Tributary/wetlandwere not added to the Walker Run PMF model. Based on deck height and the inability toaffect the wetland, the proposed bridge will not affect flow conditions on the UnnamedTributary (Ref. #1).

13. The proposed BBNPP ground surface will be a combination of concrete, asphalt, and grasssurfaces. The Manning's n values for these surfaces are 0.015, 0.016, and 0.030 respectively(Ref. #11). The exact percentages of concrete, asphalt, and grass are unknown so the mostconservative value of 0.03 will be used to represent any surfaces within the BBNPP site.

14. A landslide approximately 4,000 feet downstream (following the channel route) of theproposed plant was assumed to be the most detrimental to the BBNPP location during thePMF. Using five cross sections, the landslide was modeled as a blocked obstruction. Thecenter cross section has the highest "top of landslide" elevation with the blocked obstructionreducing by 5 feet at the next cross section location in both the upstream and downstreamdirection. The top of landslide elevation at it's highest point was assumed to be 20 feetabove the channel invert, this was sufficient in completely blocking the channel. See FigureA-8-1, Appendix A, and Section 2.0 Methodology for a more in-depth explanation.

15. The Teardrop wetland within the BBNPP site is to be left as existing conditions (Ref. #1).16. For the Blocked Bridge scenarios, the bridge/culvert openings were reduced to 0.1 feet at the

bottom of the structure to represent a blocked bridge due to debris or ice.17. Outflow from the Teardrop wetland will drain to a box culvert that discharges to Junction #

2. Dimension of the box culvert was obtained from Ref. #20. The top of the roadway over thebox culvert is assumed to be level with the access road elevation (EL 695 feet, Ref. #19);therefore, the top of the roadway over the box culvert is assumed to be at EL 695 feet (Ref. #19) (refer to Figures A-5-9 through A-5-12, Appendix A).

18. Although the plant grading was updated (Ref. #21), the changes were restricted to a smallregion near the power block (refer to Appendix A, Figure A-5-14). This calculation wasrevised making necessary changes (updating cross-section affected by the grade change). Thefollowing cross-sections were updated: 1) Walker Run Upstream: Cross-section 13928.43through 10829.10, 2) Walker Run Downstream: Cross-section 10497.04 and 10308.74, 3) allcross-sections of Unnamed Tributary # I and # 2.

DC""44-D'Iffith.-Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 12 of 118

of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2' Project No. :104310

4.0 INPUT

The model input includes geometry data (cross-section stations and elevation), downstream reachlengths between cross sections, Manning's n values, downstream boundary condition, expansionand contraction coefficients, bridge and culvert opening dimensions and peak PMF flow rates.

All model input files are located under: T:\AG\BBNPPOct 17\HEC

Project Title/File:

Geometry File Titles:

Flow File Title:

Plan File Titles:

BBNPP Post-Construction HEC-RAS Model

Post constructionl Rev 2Post Con._Blocked Bridges._Rev2Post ConstructionLandslide Rev2Post Con. LandSlide&Blocked Bridges_..Rev2

Post Construction Flow

Standard PMFBlocked BridgesLandslideBlocked Br and Landslide

NOTE: All the model inputs are saved to the CD that is attached to this calculation (Appendixc).

5.0 NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS

HEC-RAS is a hydraulic model used for simulating one-dimensional steady and unsteady flowsin river channels. In this analysis, the model was run for steady analysis using the flow,geometry, expansion and contraction coefficients, bridge and culvert opening dimensions andManning's n values discussed previously (Refer to Section 2.0).

6.0 COMPUTER OUTPUT

The model output printouts can be found in Appendix B (Tables B-I through B-4).

ReChecd

v 2 By: *A Date: Lt.0 1 _..1 Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 13 of 118ked By: Date: J[L/11 of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 104310

7.0 RESULTS

The evaluation of the impact of the above listed scenarios was based on the water level results atthe cross sections nearest the BBNPP site. A comparison of Table 5-1 through Table 6-4illustrate the results of the four scenarios at the cross sections evaluated. Figure A-5-13 displaysa plot of the water surface elevations along the length of Walker Run. The maximum watersurface elevation on the Walker Run at the proposed BBNPP site which would affect the safetyrelated structures was EL. 675.69feet at cross section 12764.15. This was a result of the Postconstruction 1 Rev 2 geometry (Table 5-2). There was only a small difference in water surfaceelevations between all four scenarios (Tables 5-1 through 5-4), ranging from EL. 675.69 feet toEL. 674.50 feet at cross section 12764.15.

For Tributary #1, the maximum water surface elevation at the proposed BBNPP site was EL.672.34 feet at cross section 1614.092 (Tables 6-1 through 6-4).

For Tributary #2, the maximum water surface elevation at the proposed BBNPP site was EL.715.03 feet at cross section 1645.505 (i.e., near the inlet of Teardrop wetland) (Tables 6-1through 6-4).

The peak PMF water surface elevation near the inlet of the box culvert (i.e., near the outlet of theTeardrop wetland) is EL. EL. 696.38 feet at cross-section 742.3789 (Tables 6-2 and 6-4; FigureA.1, Appendix-A).

The printouts of HEC-RAS output tables can be found in Appendix B, Tables B-1 through B-4.

Rev 2 By: f, Date: f.c Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 14 of 118Checked By: Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. ' 104310

Table 5-1: Estimated PMF Peak WSE at Various River Stations (near the proposedBBNPP between Bridge # 5 and Junction # 1) Resulting from the Estimated Standard PMFPeak Discharge.

Q Total W.S. Elev. (ft)Reach River Station (cfs) (NAVD88)

Walker Run Upstream 12790.74 ( Bridge @ Market St) Bridge N/AWalker Run Upstream 12764.15 19492.30 675.69Walker Run Upstream 12621.46 19492.30 672.10Walker Run Upstream. 12484.2 19492.30 671.28Walker Run Upstream 12378.4 19492.30 671.04Walker Run Upstream 12288.75 19492.30 670.92Walker Run Upstream 12223.66 19492.30 670.57Walker Run Upstream 12125.81 19492.30 669.86Walker Run Upstream 12005.02 19492.30 669.40Walker Run Upstream 11827.5 19492.30 669.02Walker Run Upstream 11691.35 19492.30 668.56Walker Run Upstream 11607.94 19492.30 668.31Walker Run Upstream 11513.03 19492.30 668.15Walker Run Upstream 11424.58 19492.30 667.98Walker Run Upstream 11363.19 19492.30 667.99Walker Run Upstream 11351.37 (Access Bridge to the BBNPP) Bridge N/AWalker Run Upstream 11331.06 19492.30 667.84Walker Run Upstream 11257.47 19492.30 667.79Walker Run Upstream 11070.75 19492.30 667.80Walker Run Upstream 10926.4 19492.30 667.78Walker Run Upstream 10829.1 19492.30 667.77

Rev 2 By: .,-•Date: trjl- j[[I Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 15 o 118Checked By: Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. _'104310

Table 5-2: Estimated PMF Peak WSE at Various River Stations (near the proposedBBNPP between Bridge # 5 and Junction # 1) Resulting from the Estimated PMF PeakDischarge assuming all bridges to be blocked by debris.


Walker Run Upstream 12790.74 ( Bridge @ Market St) Bridge N/AWalker Run Upstream 12764.15 19492.30 675.60Walker Run Upstream 12621.46 19492.30 671.88Walker Run Upstream 12484.2 19492.30 671.20Walker Run Upstream 12378.4 19492.30 670.93Walker Run Upstream 12288.75 19492.30 670.79Walker Run Upstream 12223.66 19492.30 670.43Walker Run Upstream 12125.81 19492.30 669.62Walker Run Upstream 12005.02 19492.30 669.11Walker Run Upstream 11827.5 19492.30 668.67Walker Run Upstream 11691.35 19492.30 668.10Walker Run Upstream 11607.94 19492.30 667.78Walker Run Upstream 11513.03 19492.30 667.57Walker Run Upstream 11424.58 19492.30 667.35Walker Run Upstream 11363.19 19492.30 667.35

11351.37 (Access Bridge to theWalker Run Upstream BBNPP) Bridge N/AWalker Run Upstream 11331.06 19492.30 667.20Walker Run Upstream 11257.47 19492.30 667.13Walker Run Upstream 11070.75 19492.30 667.14Walker Run Upstream 10926.4 19492.30 667.10Walker Run Upstream 10829.1 19492.30 667.10

DC"N-DRev 2 By:

Checked By:Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 16 of 118

of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 1 104310

Table 5-3: Estimated PMF Peak WSE at Various River Stations (near the proposedBBNPP between Bridge # 5 and Junction # 1) Resulting from the Estimated PMF PeakDischarge with a landslide occurring approximately 4,000 feet downstream of the proposedBBNPP.


Walker Run Upstream 12790.74 ( Bridge @ Market St) Bridge N/A

Walker Run Upstream 12764.15 19492.30 674.50Walker Run Upstream 12621.46 19492.30 672.63


Walker Run Upstream 12288.75 19492.30 672.51Walker Run Upstream 12223.66 19492.30 672.43Walker Run Upstream 12125.81 19492.30 672.20Walker Run Upstream 12005.02 19492.30 671.98

Walker Run Upstream 11827.5 19492.30 671.80Walker Run Upstream 11691.35 19492.30 671.56Walker Run Upstream 11607.94 19492.30 671.48Walker Run Upstream 11513.03 19492.30 671.42


Walker Run Upstream 11351.37 (Access Bridge to the BBNPP) Bridge N/A

Walker Run Upstream 11331.06 19492.30 671.35




Rev 2 By: Date: to]LJI[ Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 17 of 118Checked By: Date: 40]34JL of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 104310

Table 5-4: Estimated PMF Peak WSE at Various River Stations (near the proposedBBNPP between Bridge # 5 and Junction # 1) Resulting from the Estimated PMF PeakDischarge with a landslide occurring approximately 4,000 feet downstream of the proposedBBNPP and assuming all bridges to be blocked by debris.


Walker Run Upstream 12790.74 ( Bridge @ Market St) Bridge N/AWalker Run Upstream 12764.15 19492.30 675.44Walker Run Upstream 12621.46 19492.30 672.59Walker Run Upstream 12484.2 19492.30 673.29




Walker Run Upstream 11827.5 19492.30 672.67Walker Run Upstream 11691.35 19492.30 672.44Walker Run Upstream 11607.94 19492.30 672.39


Walker Run Upstream 11363.19 19492.30 672.30Walker Run Upstream 11351.37 (Access Bridge to the BBNPP) Bridge N/A


Walker Run Upstream 11257.47 19492.30 672.28Walker Run Upstream 11070.75 19492.30 672.29Walker Run Upstream 10926.4 19492.30 672.28


Rev 2 By: k Er'rh Date: 0,,>] I Subject. Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 18 of 118Checked By: JAW Date: A | of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 104310

Table 6-1: Estimated PMF Peak WSE at Various River Stations of Unnamed Tributariesnear the Proposed BBNPP Resulting from the Estimated Standard PMF Peak Discharge.


WalkerrunTR#1_1 624.6631 4940.90 667.86WalkerrunTR#1 _1 741.0195 4940.90 667.86WalkemunTR#1_l 995.4287 4940.90 667.87WalkerunTR#1_1 1129.112 4940.90 667.87WalkerrunTR#1_1 1225.459 4940.90 667.87WalkerrunTR#1_l 1299.731 4940.90 667.89WalkerrunTR#1_1 1447.257 4940.90 667.96WalkerrunTR#1_1 1614.092 4940.90 667.99WalkerrunTR#1 _2 351.9543 3218.10 668.25WalkemmunTR#1 2 462.8771 3218.10 668.40WalkerrunTR#1_2 688.9208 3218.10 668.68WalkefrunTR#1_2 805.65 3218.10 668.90WalkerrunTR#1_2 1098.944 3218.10 669.67WalkermnTR#1_2 1269.473 3218.10 670.62WalkerrunTR#1_2 1471.046 3218.10 672.13WalkerrunTR#1_2 1687.279 3218.10 673.69WalkerrunTR#1_2 1939.839 3218.10 675.38WalkerrunTR#1 2 2285.067 3218.10 678.90WalkerrunTR#1_2 2594.424 3218.10 682.29

WalkerTR#2 53.11654 925.50 668.23WalkerTR#2 149.6818 925.50 668.23WalkerTR#2 722 Culvert N/AWalkerTR#2 742.3789 925.50 695.86WalkerTR#2 843.369* 925.50 695.86WalkerTR#2 944.3609 925.50 695.87WalkerTR#2 1056.754 925.50 695.82WalkerTR#2 1213.469 925.50 698.91WalkerTR#2 1336.411 925.50 705.41WalkerTR#2 1645.505 925.50 715.03Note: * indicates interpolated cross section

Rev 2 By:*F-4 Date:10l__1 ItChecked By: Date: 4

Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 19 of 118

of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 ProjectNo. 104310

Table 6-2: Estimated PMF Peak WSE at Various River Stations of Unnamed Tributariesnear the Proposed BBNPP Resulting from the Estimated PMF Peak Discharge assuming allbridges to be blocked by debris.


WalkerrunTR#1_l 624.6631 4940.90 667.20WalkerrunTR#1_l 741.0195 4940.90 667.20WalkerunTR#1 1 995.4287 4940.90 667.22WalkerrunTR#1_1 1129.112 4940.90 667.21WalkerrunTR#1_l 1225.459 4940.90 667.21WalkerrunTR#1_l 1299.731 4940.90 667.25WalkerrunTR#1 1 1447.257 4940.90 667.33WalkerrunTR#1_1 1614.092 4940.90 667.36WalkerrunTR#1_2 351.9543 3218.10 667.72WalkerrunTR#1_2 462.8771 3218.10 667.92WalkerrunTR#1 2 688.9208 3218.10 668.29WalkerrunTR#1_2 805.65 3218.10 668.56WalkerunTR#1_2 1098.944 3218.10 669.53WalkerrunTR#1._2 1269.473 3218.10 670.59WalkerrunTR#1_2 1471.046 3218.10 672.11WalkerrunTR#1 2 1687.279 3218.10 673.71WalkemunTR#1_2 1939.839 3218.10 675.39WalkerrunTR#1 2 2285.067 3218.10 678.89WalkerrunTR#1_2 2594.424 3218.10 682.27

WalkerTR#2 53.11654 925.50 667.69WalkerTR#2 149.6818 925.50 667.68WalkerTR#2 722 Culvert N/AWalkerTR#2 742.3789 925.50 696.38WalkerTR#2 843.369* 925.50 696.38WalkerTR#2 944.3609 925.50 696.38WalkerTR#2 1056.754 925.50 696.36WalkerTR#2 1213.469 925.50 699.89WalkerTR#2 1336.411 925.50 704.78WalkerTR#2 1645.505 925.50 715.03

Note: * indicates interpolated cross section

Rev 2 By: Date: (3I~j I .. Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 20 of 118Checked By: Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 1104310

Table 6-3: Estimated PMF Peak WSE at Various River Stations of Unnamed Tributariesnear the Proposed BBNPP Resulting from the Estimated PMF Peak Discharge with alandslide occurring approximately 4,000 feet downstream of the proposed BBNPP.


WalkerunTR#1_l 624.6631 4940.90 671.36

WalkerunTR#1_1 741.0195 4940.90 671.36

WalkerrunTR#1 1 995.4287 4940.90 671.37

WalkerrunTR#I 1 1129.112 4940.90 671.36

WalkerrunTR#1l 1 1225.459 4940.90 671.36

WalkerrunTR#1_l 1299.731 4940.90 671.36

WalkemmunTR#1l 1 1447.257 4940.90 671.39

WalkerrunTR#1_I 1614.092 4940.90 671.40

WalkerrunTR#1_2 351.9543 3218.10 671.48

WalkerrunTR#1 2 462.8771 3218.10 671.52

WalkerunTR#1-2 688.9208 3218.10 671.59

WalkerrunTR#1_2 805.65 3218.10 671.63

WalkemunTR#1 2 1098.944 3218.10 671.78

WalkerrunTR#1_2 1269.473 3218.10 672.02

WalkerrunTR#1 2 1471.046 3218.10 672.77

WalkerrunTR#1_2 1687.279 3218.10 673.92

WalkermunTR#1 2 1939.839 3218.10 674.18

WalkerrunTR#1 2 2285.067 3218.10 679.28

WalkerrunTR#l 2 2594.424 3218.10 682.16

WalkerTR#2 53.11654 925.50 671.49

WalkerTR#2 149.6818 925.50 671.48

WalkerTR#2 722 Culvert N/A

WalkerTR#2 742.3789 925.50 695.92

WalkerTR#2 843.369* 925.50 695.93

WalkerTR#2 944.3609 925.50 695.93

WalkerTR#2 1056.754 925.50 695.89

WalkerTR#2 1213.469 925.50 698.91

WalkerTR#2 1336.411 925.50 705.41

WalkerTR#2 1645.505 925.50 715.03Note: * indicates interpolated cross section

v 2By: f44iDate: ( bi 4.ReCheck

Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 21 of 118of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 ProjectNo. '104310

red By: .M Date:

Table 6-4: Estimated PMF Peak WSE at Various River Stations of Unnamed Tributariesnear the Proposed BBNPP Resulting from the Estimated PMF Peak Discharge with alandslide occurring approximately 4,000 feet downstream of the proposed BBNPP andassuming all bridges to be blocked by debris.

Q Total W.S. Elev. (ft)Reach River Station (cfs) (NAVD88)WalkerrunTR#1 1 624.6631 4940.90 672.30WalkerrunTR#1 _1 741.0195 4940.90 672.30WalkerrunTR#1 1 995.4287 4940.90 672.31WalkerrunTR#1_l 1129.112 4940.90 672.30WalkerrunTR#1_ 1 1225.459 4940.90 672.30WalkerrunTR#1 ! 1299.731 4940.90 672.31WalkerrunTR#1_1 1447.257 4940.90 672.32WalkermnTR#1 1 1614.092 4940.90 672.34WalkerrunTR#1l2 351.9543 3218.10 672.40WalkemmnTR#1_2 462.8771 3218.10 672.42WalkerrunTR#1 2 688.9208 3218.10 672.47WalkerrunTR#1 2 805.65 3218.10 672.50WalkerrunTR#1_2 1098.944 3218.10 672.59WalkerrunTR#1 2 1269.473 3218.10 672.75WalkerrunTR#1_2 1471.046 3218.10 673.26WalkerrunTR#1 _2 1687.279 3218.10 674.13WalkerrunTR#1_2 1939.839 3218.10 674.37WalkerrunTR#1_2 2285.067 3218.10 676.28WalkerrunTR#1_2 2594.424 3218.10 683.58

WalkerTR#2 53.11654 925.50 672.40WalkerTR#2 149.6818 925.50 672.40WalkerTR#2 722 Culvert N/AWalkerTR#2 742.3789 925.50 696.38WalkerTR#2 843.369* 925.50 696.38WalkerTR#2 944.3609 925.50 696.39WaIkerTR#2 1056.754 925.50 696.36WalkerTR#2 1213.469 925.50 699.89WalkerTR#2 1336.411 925.50 704.78WalkerTR#2 1645.505 925.50 715.03Note: * indicates interpolated cross section

Rev 2 By:4•4, Date: L[ 21J11 Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 22 of 118Checked By: Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 104310

8.0 CONCLUSION

The maximum Water Surface Elevation (WSE) of the PMF, for Walker Run which would affectthe BBNPP site for all four scenarios is EL 675.69 feet NGDV88 at River Station 12764.15. Thepower block is approximately at EL 719 feet. Consequently, the minimum free board along theWalker Run River of the power block area will be about 43.31 feet.

The maximum WSE resulting from PMF flow in Tributary #2 is EL 715.03 feet at River Station1645.505 (i.e., near the inlet of Teardrop wetland). The topography of the area around RiverStation 1645.505 has caused this high WSE. As can be seen from Figure A 7-2 (River Station1645.505), the water surface elevation of 715.03 feet at River Station 1645.505 is located atmuch lowered elevation than the right bank elevation (750.08 feet), therefore, the power blockarea is not prone to the PMF flooding from Tributary #2. For Tributary #1, the maximum watersurface elevation at the proposed BBNPP site was EL. 672.34 feet at cross section 1614.092. Theplant grade at the power block is approximately at EL 719 feet. Consequently, the maximumfree board along Tributary # 1 and 2 of the power block area will be about 46.66 feet.

The peak PMF water surface elevation near the inlet of the box culvert (i.e., near the outlet of theTeardrop wetland) is EL 696.38 feet at cross-section 742.3789 (Tables 6-2 and 6-4; Figure A-I,Appendix-A). The top of the ESWEMS pond berm is at elevation 700 feet. Therefore, theminimum free board along the west berm of the ESWEMS pond will be 3.62 feet.

Rev 2 BChecked B

Y: iA ugm Date: AIC lz-l Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 23 of 118

Y: ".| [• Date: •• hof Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. '104310

9.0 REFERENCES

1. Sargent & Lundy, 29 April 2010- Drawing number SK-12198-400-00-002 Rev 4A.zip2. Rizzo, 2010a, "USNRC Reg. Guide 1.59 Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) Analysis

(Response to RAI #19)," Rizzo Calculation, 02 March 2010.3. Rizzo, 201 Ia, "Postconstruction PMF Analysis for Walker Run Watershed - BBNPP,

Rev. 1 17 October 2011, Calculation # F-8.4. Rizzo, 201 lb, "V&V of the HEC-GeoRAS Version 4.2.93 Rev 0," Rizzo Calculation, 22

April 2011.5. Rizzo, 2010c, "Pre-construction HEC-RAS Analysis of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev 0,"

Rizzo Calculation F-5, 08 September 2010.6. Rizzo, 2011c, "HEC-RAS 4.1 Verification & Validation Rev 0," Rizzo Calculation, 19

April 2011.7. Rizzo, 2008a, "ArcGIS 9.3 Validation and Verification Rev 0," Rizzo Calculation, 16

December 2008.8. PADCNR, 2006a, "PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PADCNR),

Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, 3.2 ft Digital Elevation Model (DEM) ofPennsylvania," Website: http:llwww.pasda.psu.edu, Accessed: April 2010.

9. PADCNR, 2006b, "PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PADCNR),Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, Digital Orthophoto," Website:http://www.pasda.psu.edu, Accessed: April 2010.

10. Thomas, 2007, "Common Modeling Mistakes using HEC-RAS," 1. M. Thomas, D.T.Williams, World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, Restoring our NaturalHabitat.

11. Totz, C. (ed), 2007, "Floodplain Modeling Using HEC-RAS", Haestad Methods WaterSolutions, Bentley Institute Press, Exton, Pennsylvania.

12. USACE, 2008, "Hydrologic Engineering Center- River Analysis System (HEC-RAS),"Hydraulic Reference Manual, March 2008.

13. USACE, 2005, "Hydrologic Engineering Center- River Analysis System (HEC-RAS)"HEC-GeoRAS, GIS tools for support of HEC-RAS using GIS, User Manual, Version 4.2, September 2005.

14. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1996, "Berwick PA, 1:24,000 7.5-minuteQuadrangle"

15. USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), May 2005, HEC-RAS Version 4.1.16. USACE, 2003. Susquehanna River, Columbia, Luzeme, Montour, Northumberland, and

Snyder Counties, Pennsylvania Flood Insurance Study (Draft), Prepared by: U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers (USACE) Philadelphia District, Prepared for: Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA), September 2003.

17. USGS, 2010, "Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients for NaturalChannels and Flood Plains," United States Geological Survey Water-supply Paper 2339.

D2C'NRev2 By: U, Date:

Checked By: _ Date:Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 24 of 118

of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. "104310

18. Peters Consultants, Inc., 2010, Bridge/Culvert Survey Report for Bell Bend NPP, 100Robbins Avenue Berwick, PA, 18603.

19. Sargent & Lundy, 03 December 2010, Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) RunoffFlow Path Analysis, Calculation No.2010-12298.

20. Sargent & Lundy, 28 July 2010, Conceptual Design of Stormwater Management BellBend Nuclear Power Plant, Report No. SL-009446

21. RFI PCR BER 019- Drawings SLL-BBNPP-925- Report SL-009450 R9, September 1,2011.

22. Rizzo, 2010d, "USNRC Reg. Guide 1.59 Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) Analysis(Response to RAI #19)," Rizzo Calculation, 02 March 2010.

D-CQRev 2 By:

Checked By:Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis

of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2

Sheet No. 25 of 118Project No. .104310

APPENDIX A:CROSS-SECTION LOCATION MAP

BRIDGE AND CULVERT LOCATIONSDIGITIZED LAND USE/LAND COVER FOR MANNING'S N COMPUTATIONS

WATERSHED AND FLOW CHANGE LOCATIONSPMF WATER SURFACE PROFILE

PEAK PMF WSE'S FOR SAMPLE CROSS-SECTIONS

LANDSLIDE CROSS-SECTIONS

==--D.,.'e,•,,="..=.--QL•ed~. .. .!•'D,• •/luký_

Re'Check


of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 104310

Figure A-i: BBNPP Walker Run River HEC-RAS Model Cross Sections Plot

i OF PW Yw Tdls TO* Sa"d 1*

iQ wswO*rIOPMU~ ýr~S itý

54

Walker RunUpstream

Junction #1i

-, 15414.40

-14138.5214014 52

il.U 473

112UnnamedTributary I and 2,see next pageFigure for thedetails

PB4m

Walker RunDownstream

Note: Not to Scale

Date: jC j jJ| Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 27 of 118Date: 431/1 of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. '104310

Figure A-1: Continued...

Note: Not to Scale

Rev 2 By" Date: jkj j 1 MID Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 28 of 118Checked By: A Date: I•1•Vb of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 104310

Figure A-2: BBNPP Walker Run River HEC-RAS Model Bridges Location.

I

IN

4Va 0.15 02 CAj 09 1,2

W4ies

Rev 2 By: M"Date: IqaIJIL Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 29 of 118

Checked By: Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. '104310

Figure A-3: Digitized Land Use/Cover for Manning's n Coefficient Computation

Ul S 0 .ISUlm ,

II ...... .IIII I IIIII II , .8

Rev 2 By: &Iý 15L Date: Lo i >, L SubJect: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 30 of 118Checked By: Proec No.e 1.'1.I

.C By: Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 104310

Figure A-4: Schematic Layout of HIEC-HMS Model: Watershed and Flow Change

Locations (RIZZO, 2011a)

i

V Junction 81

Reach SB2-2

883-1

C1

SB3-2

Junction Al

Reach 81-2

Junction A2

Note: Not to Scale

Rev 2 By: - Date: te 1-:51111 Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS AnalysisChecked By: I JA Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2

Figure A-5-1: Standard PMF Water Surface Profile Plot for Walker Run River

Sheet No. 31 of 118Project No. , 104310

BONPP Post-Construction HEC-RAS Model Plan Standard PMFOmu po ftnd'udw RV2

9 VSPNw~flm tGround qr

i

BBNPP

;0 14 leA or h H1 is I m;ltAI SMI"milR41

1c6MMo hW1ON=u Cal

IMo

Note: Not to Scale

Rev 2 By: A Date: If •Jj 2 1 Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 32 of 118Checked By: Date: 4L[I/| of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 104310

Figure A-5-2: Standard PMF With Blocked Bridges Water Surface Profile Plot for WalkerRun River

BBNPP Poo-Connenlon HEC.RAS Model Plow Blocked BhdgeJ

O.Post ecentfetAMO v2 lMsB2

m

61im

BBNPP

OweI du (N)

Note: Not to Scale

Rev2By: P Date: ii c 1- f Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 33 of 118Checked By: Date: ..J31!Li of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 ProjectNo. ý104310

Figure A-5-3: Standard PMF With Landslide Water Surface Profile Plot for Walker RunRiver

BBNPP Poest-Constructlon HEC-RAS Model Plan 1] Landslide ,Oea•c Post €crmm Rsv2

lot PWVleIw Run~Liixclm

NIlTOO,

em

BBNPP

ir lo "1 po 4o10 1 1 •oo Iwo 5wo I 150M0 20000

MWusn Cimo Mown (N) JNote: Not to Scale

Rev 2 By: A .. (J201 Date: 3CJ. J•[t Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 34 of 118Checked By: Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. '104310

Figure A-5-4: Standard PMF With Blocked Bridges and Landslide Water Surface Profile

Plot for Walker Run River

BBNPP Post-Conslruclion HEC-RAS Model Plan. 1) Slde&sE.Bdd J

Omair Pod cuw€orwkW d R&v2

m

II2

IW

hbrwI

=mooAbr~~ rG"

BBNPP

101 HMIo •11

.............

I , ,

Men Chund DW.nco (NJ)ts1O5

Note: Not to Scale

Rev 2 By: A ,. 4v' Date: LIIi I1 | Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 35 of 118

Checked By: Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2' Project No. 104310

Figure A-5-5: Standard PMF Water Surface Profile Plot for Unnamed Tributary 1

Ph oph4Kiu

Reach.ett'9 r PkIl f"Cwtd RAead Doe

BBNPP Post-Conslruction HEC-RAS Model Plan: Standaid PMFGreM Post Conhbucft RRV2

M rPWVAW rho~

M

I 4 I ASao 2000

Main O'ral Dwat" (R)305M

Note: Not to Scale

FX"'"v-DRev 2 By:

Checked By:Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 36 of 118


Figure A-5-6: Standard PMF With Blocked Bridges Water Surface Profile Plot forUnnamed Tributary 1

Ph Oplbs fl*

R~hes ~jtj PuSee . . nbwiC.•- Reslo.JOda I-4

iiNPP Post-Conatrulion HEC-RAS Model Plan- Blocked BudgesGemK Pod uJz~ d&Wdpesft~2

-I

as

Ii670

6IwPw rkmetRM-

30IU

a

61

IN

0 SIX low0 1500 2=0 gM• lnrmwl •orn (f

Note: Not to Scale

Rev 2 By: 4 ]C4_Date: t[0 N I Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 37 of 118

Checked By: Date: I&/ of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 ProjectNo. 104310

Figure A-5-7: Standard PMF with Landslide Water Surface Profile Plot for Unnamed

Tributary I

FileOptions H

-is _itj ± L., _ _

BBNPP Poul.Construction HEC-RAS Modal Plan. LandslideGemso [Cmut Id Rev2

LZI

I

- Fbtrh1C~dlION RdadDI Id- J

IO WVVbeAMI

40cc

a

11

Es

a 500 t So Is00 2000 2500 200

Ma &ADbm(t

Note: Not to Scale

Rev 2 By: *•ra- o- Date: { 1i i |i Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 38 of 118Checked By: J)fi Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 ProjectNo. 104310

Figure A-5-8: Standard PMF With Blocked Bridges and Landslide Water Surface ProfilePlot for Unnamed Tributary 1

IFl optum Hu*

Pec..adws r PWIu"iCcnui.

B8NPP Post-Constmction HEC-RAS Modal Pian: S1oked Br and LandsideGam PON CmckL ed 8arMft4

am,

on~

ps

IE W sVw rkmwjJ ct v4w~iira1I6l

I-Iun

an

8mo

am

1; ~'-I.- -.-.--

e. R

600 IsmMein Chanmd VlI,, (dI)

2i00

Note: Not to Scale

Rev2By: -{,G-/•/ ' 1 Date: (t)131 Ii Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 39 of 118Checked By: ) Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. '104310

Figure A-5-9: Standard PMF Water Surface Profile Plot for Unnamed Tributary 2

ft ptMH

rnde IiI.J-bJ__ _

I•i*t • I,• BBNPP Pout-Constmcion HEC.RAS Maoe Phot Standrd PWQO - teo wdmIlw2

- PhIhMCa*.m _w ýdO

JI -p VMa'U

'U

jut

m

U?

I

I t W0 0 400 M0 CIr

Gio No lo 104M 0b -o

Note: Not to Scale

DCI-QWA.-Rev 2 By:

Checked By:



Figure A-5-10: Standard PMF With Blocked Bridges Water Surface Profile Plot for

Unnamed Tributary 2

fil Oms HAFro mbdtwuso~w e wI

t

BBNPP Post-Consrucflon HEC-RAS Model Plant Blocked Brdgesoem P CwkJ*=Ogd 0AI Jtv2

_J

E

OR FWAW" RunaI -

Orour

flu.

1U

0 1I

0 200 41o 160 ado 100VWm Cherod NdVence (d)

I2icD 1460 1400b 18600

Note: Not to Scale

Rev 2By:.• Date: -0 31 11 Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 41 of 118Checked By: Date: &;J61 of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 104310

Figure A-S-li: Standard PMF With Landslide Water Surface Profile Plot for UnnamedTributary 2

FhO ttm oH*

Reasbes I#itý Prose. I'pJFJ -PIwIfr"jcwwuRdada

5BNPP Post-Construction HEC-RAS Model Plarx Landslideoem Pad PadructoniAr" R"2

1o

13

INO 3

M~n ChOW DidOwic (11)

Note: Not to Scale

Rev 2 By: Date: to| [ ii Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 42 of 118Checked By: Date: 43/J11"J of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 ProjectNo. 104310

Figure A-5-12: Standard PMF With Blocked Bridges and Landslide Water Surface ProfilePlot for Unnamed Tributary 2

me oN. "do

Reas.'

ONPP Post-Consticdlon HEC-RAS Model Plant Elecked Br and tL.dshdes Pad CpmW.L.min&ad M ples b2

d r E:lI".

1|"•m

F-

09

2iD 4i0 06 W00 low

kw nMDnn utn(fl)

Note: Not to Scale

Rev 2 By: Date: 101 I61

Checked By: JA' Date,



Figure A-5-13: PM[F Water Surface Profile Plot for Walker Run

B6NPP PgsI.mdlgudwn HEC-WA Model Plem 1) SK&ftL~d 2) E=okft 3) Lafldb 4) Stauda~d~O..K Pad 10* 2

VV w MV~m rm. ~s43lea

WIE PwYm 01. Lomwam

m ;WI ~ tftmn.m- rdW

aisn

kMbOiIVD Ct*)

Rev 2By: 1q;ZD Date: to [ Lj Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 44 of 118

Checked By: )A" Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 104310

Figure A-5-14: Revised Cross-Sections Based On the New Site Grading (Revised Cross-

Sections are shown in red).

Note: Not to Scale

r-- eoL'.(.Jl Date: '[•0 1" Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 45 of 118flu Date: T of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 104310

Figure A-6-1: Bridge #1

Date: 1-0 Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 46 of 118Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 ProjectNo. '104310

-1 T i Date: 0oj•l| tg Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 47 of 118

"fDate: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 104310


Date: jcj-6tJ Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 48 of 118

Date: l/av//. of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 ProjectNo. 104310

Figure A-6-4: Bridge #2 (blocked)

I Date: Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 49 of 118

JAW Date: & of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No.. 104310


/t- L Date: I V 13 Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 50 of 118Date: o of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. '104310

Date: (()13. if Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 51 of 118Date: :0 5 of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. ' 104310


Rev 2 By, Date: 1 J0 Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet N•o 52 of 118checked By: _____________ Date: •- _of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project NO. 104310


DC"N-DSubject:. Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNNo. 53 of 118

of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. o310Q

JDate: I a Is I I Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 54 of 118Date: (Y0 . of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2' Project No. "-'-310


D ("N_ DImbb-

Subject Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 55 of 118of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 104310


RS=14I24.54 BIdge # 6Upseam (Culvert)

700, IeI

Barl M

690

0

LU680-

670- K>i I I v I I I I I . I I I , I I V p1980 1980 2000 2020 2040

RS=14124.54 Bridge # 6Downstrean, (,Cvut)

700-

690

0

LU680

670

11 1980 2000

Station (Mto

2020 *2040

if Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 56 of 118

a- of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2' Project No. -104310

Figure A-6-12: Bridge #6 (blocked)RS=14124.54 Bridge # 6Upstrem (Culvert)

/U n v -- %

w

690-

680-

670-

660-

650-

LAWJ

... M .- v -.v v -1980 2000 2020 2040 2080

9^^ I RS14124.54 BrIde # I owIIeam (CIivert)

I

690-

680-

670-

660-

650-

-. v v - .1980 20OO 2020 2040 2O~

station (ft)

FXO"* N_Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 57 of 118

of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 ProjectNo. '104310

&I I Date: C 314 SubjecL- Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 58 of 118

Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 104310


#1 Date: j i Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 59 of 118

Date: 'of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 104310


rx""N_ Q -Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 60 of 118

of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 ' Project No. ! 104310


RS=17132.36 Bde 8Upstre-,TI (Culvert)

T5iI

ii~

780ý

7680

740-

720'12 .... . . .... 0.... .... 11 .... 4... .

1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160

Ig

Station (ft)

Date- Subject. Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 61 of 118

Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2, Project No. !104310

Figure A-6-17: Bridge on Tributary #2

v 2By: Date: Subject: ýPost-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 62 of 118

ige By: 6D-8of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 jt o.k4310

Figure A-&-18: Bridge on Tributary #2 (Blocked)

Rev 2 y:.A.--/jgifj'• Date: EpJ jl) { Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 63 of 118wcked By: . )A• Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. :104310

Figure A-7-1: Standard PMF WSE's at Various River Stations near the Proposed BBNPP(between Bridge # 5 and Junction # 1)

IIII III IIIII III I III

SNPP Post.Conalrudlon HEC-RAS Model Plan Stmdard PMFG~m Pamu4w14n 014

Rbaf.rmwua* Rea!8.IslaUI•P RS * 1270.74BERr .w • ... ".C_ISNPP Post-Coanrmllon HEC-RAS Mode Plan Slandard PmF

Goma Post omanubim Rav2R• . W- emlm Ri,111- WINA"P R0 1 12714 tI

444~~ ~~ 5~-1?-~ J-I4 , sr

1140 (II)

SONPP Post-ConstrtmOm NEC-PAS Modal Plan Standard PMF0M. PadOcanIRaV2

Rndr-WdaMeRm Ruch-WmW R'- 1252144

OiMl

4 LMeJ I UPW1" R,

I72

0 s low 15Ml 2 250stlm• f~q

BSNPP Post-Constructon HEC-RAS Model Plan Sltadard PMFGaOl? PON tCfi*144l 0W42

RJ~r. W-Vk~Ia. ROmilfte.lallUP RD -1245421

rn--l--- ---

Grma

7w2Bam

By: •0 Date: o t Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 64 of 118

By: Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 ProjectNo. ' 104310

BBNPP Post-Coniructlon HEC-RAS Moda Plan Standard PMF BSNPP Post-Corstmrucon HEC-RAS Model Plan Standard PMFG PodMcosdlnl Rw4 0o Para con.,*snl Rs.

Ahar -W sAO~ RUMa V WNWVP AR3 123760A RhIS - AWtomS Roanl - WNP.IUP PS *122M.75

7 -li

4 I. 4 4 Leo

WS PUPWmW ASIW PP CALT

CGl PPP Walter Runl CV 1O PUPWd•U

rgg

all me.• q,

so

I us lm Ift 2000 2600 load00 1500 2000 2sis 3

BBNPP Post-Corstruct1on HECRAS Model Plan Standard PMF BBNPP Port Coristruchf WHECRAS Model Pier Standard PMFGUM PON Lml*utmonl R4 Dean POst cohmmmsknl pra

Avr- V~Wwfetur Resel - WSt4mrJP AS 1 2223 66 R~val Warunelw RearS 0 WSUIJUP AS 12125M1

4L and4Lolr

WO PJAF WarerRu WSFPUPWIw RueI

Cit PMF Waltr Rui CM PMFW&IwftI

,.-- G rnd

74 n"71,Iar:s

1• 1 ' Date: I. U ] Subjecb Post-ConstructionHEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 65 of 118Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 104310

Rev 2By: Lt.,-'/i/J f"dr.. Date: .AL Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 66 of 118

Checked By: Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 1104310Ch:Zed~~~ ~ ~~ B "i:ýofWle uný141

Rev 2 By:-6 -J• ,i/,q Date: (0 °j[ ( Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 67 of 118Checked By: Date: of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. 104310

I'MI, 1\111%, S* & S 1 1, 1 11Revk2 By: Ak KI3 Date: to[ 11J1 Subject:

Checked By: Date: 4 ILPost-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 68 of 118


BBNPP PoSt-Conetneon HEC-RAS Model Plan Standard PMFG•- PON mvaaucni PAV2

RW - Wa1mwun Reath . W3•-QP Ra-1 ¶26 AG

IW9PMTWakarOhl

,I- J

BBNPP Post-Constnmlion HEC-RAS Model Plan. Stldard PMFGeOM Pot CeOTIaUCOI RQV,

R" Walmrinh Ret• mu a IrP RS - 10M8.10

I -1) 1 -1

: ,r

m

! I

11

Wa PAF Waker Run

CMPFWMIVRm

14;Ief

eaosca

Im

-i 800 163100 - f d 2800 -3 S 2400M 4600Shtw, fi)

Idle) 23

Slow, m

- 30 41in

Revk2 By:Checked By:

Date: tVI Jfi Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis SheetNo. 69 of 118Date: | of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 Project No. J04310

Figure A-7-2: Standard PMF WSE's at Unnamed Tributary #2BBNPP Post-Comtruclon HEC-RAS Model Plan Standa•d PMF

Gwwn Paot car•wonl RBY2RNw Wa'wTFW2 Ruch - Um.madWLI IRS 1845.508

w WIF PUlVnel

CftPMFVAWRM 01

Nam

BSNPP Posh-Constvuction HEC-RAS Model Plan. Standard PMFGCem Pale cordMcntnl 04

RO. WhlwlrTI•2 Pal.Vh UameMOTWRI R-. 12134U

-r -141 141 ---

SUON00011BBNPP Pbst-Constnxclon HEC-RAS Model Rlan StAldard PMF

Gewm Oofl Pos2c = fton

L wW.IuIWR2 Reach-*IfLAWNWTdIM- RI *'0615754141 ~~14f1 ---

By: *-• '•.g V)M Date: 101 ýJj Subject: Post-Construction HEC-RAS Analysis Sheet No. 70 of 118

3y: ADfl Date: -I|431/L of Walker Run-BBNPP Rev. 2 ProjeetNo. 104310- I I

BSNPP Post-Consihtlon HEC-RAS Model Plan Standard PMF BBNPP Post-Construdlon HEC-RAS Modal Plan Stanlard PW

Omm Poolcomlimmmal Rr4 Game. Pod consudiant 989Rw * WWTR*2 ReP *UnnummTR021 S * 94644 Me r-W.ItrTRF2 Amac-Unnmmed1lT2 1i RS- 43JW

14- -- 141 j [ 1,'---'--

7•an I all L•

jWS OMFW0herRumJ so9 SP8IFMWbwRw,

Cot os P aim RunC• t PMP Walkew Run

71 7,

C 2W9 4w sk a1I6 '26i 800 689 'no 1101

SBBEPPPoat-Comlruon lEC-RAS Model Plan Standard PMF BBNPP Post-Coflstruc&onHNEC-RAS Model Plan Standard PMOver Pon calluttmol RW* camU Fos tUInUsauRI R042

* wM.rTA2 RHO,. I-lvunadTRS2l1 RB *72 3789 1*1*1 *8959T1.2 Reach * UnflmheffS2l RS *M CuI*

0- -fs-- 1U41-t L¶413.P Lgn

I89W P1*F Wills! RIBun PP W all!! 91*

CIIPMF*0lIWRIM c,4 PSF WNW mm*

7

7'1

Mabon go stsaf aSWan PR 9.589gw)

enclosure 2 to bnp-2012-122, rizzo 2011 calculation ... · calculation number: if-tr ic, 4 fl, ......

Documents