Design Calculation or Analysis Cover Sheet BSC 2. Page 1 ...

ENG.20080204.0007

BSC Design Calculation or Analysis Cover Sheet

Complete only applicable items.

1. OA: QA

2.

3. System 4. Document Identifier

Monitored Geologic Repository 000-PSA-MGRO-01900-000-00A

5. Title

Flood Hazard Curve of the Surface Facility Area in the North Portal Pad and Vicinity

6. Group

PCSA

7. Document Status Designation '04_

• Prelimina ry g Committed cN

"Conf i rmed Confirmed • Cancelled/Superseded

8. Notes/Comments

a. Procedure compliance, documentation, input/output data verification checking: Yue Hao

b. Hydrologic methodology and documentation checking: Reed Maxwell

Attachments Total Number of Pages

Attachment 1: GIS files for basin delineation 1 page and 1 CD-ROM

Attachment 2: Excel and Matlab script files 1 page and 1 CD-ROM

Attachment 3: HEC-1 input and output Files 1 page and 1 CD-ROM _

RECORD OF REVISIONS

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 9. 10.

Total # Last Originator Checker EGS Approved/Accepted No. Reason For Revision

of Pgs. Pg. # (Print/Sign/Date) (Print/Sign/Date) (Print/Sign/Date) (Print/Sign/Date)

00A Initial issue 40 40 Q. Duan Y. Han M . Frank 0 senburg

K2...../1 R.M. Maxwell

, (

,e.

i i ,\ 09,

Flood Hazard Curve of the Surface Facility Area in the North Portal Pad and Vicinity 000-PSA-MGRO-01900-000-00A

DISCLAIMER

The calculations contained in this document were developed by Bechtel SAIC Company, LLC

(BSC), and are intended solely for the use of BSC in its work for the Yucca Mountain Project

(YMP).

2 February 2008

Flood Hazard Curve of the Surface Facility Area

in the North Portal Pad and Vicinity 000-PSA-MGRO-01900-000-00A

CONTENTS

Page

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 6

1. PURPOSE 7

2. REFERENCES 8 2.1 PROJECT PROCEDURES/DIRECTIVES 8

2.2 DESIGN INPUTS 8

2.3 DESIGN CONSTRAINTS 10

2.4 DESIGN OUTPUTS 10

3. ASSUMPTIONS 10

3.1 ASSUMPTIONS REQUIRING VERIFICATION ' 10 3.2 ASSUMPTIONS NOT REQUIRING VERIFICATION 11

4. METHODOLOGY 13

4.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE 13 4.2 USE OF SOFTWARE 14

4.3 DELINEATION OF THE HYDROLOGIC BASINS AND FLOW PATHS 15 4.4 SPECIFICATION OF HEC-1 MODEL PARAMETERS 15

4.5 CALCULATION OF PRECIPITATION INPUTS TO THE HEC-1

HYDROLOGIC MODEL 18

5. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 19

6. BODY OF CALCULATION 19

6.1 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF HYDROLOGIC BASINS AND FLOW

PATHS 19

6.2 CALCULATION OF PRECPITATION INPUTS 24 6.3 FLOOD PEAK SIMULATIONS 27

6.4 SENSITIVITY OF THE PEAK FLOW SIMULATION TO PARAMETER

UNCERTAINTY 27 6.5 DEVELOPMENT OF THE FLOOD HAZARD CURVE 33

7. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 36

ATTACHMENT 1 - GIS FILES FOR BASIN DELINEATION 38

ATTACHMENT 2- EXCEL and MATLAB SCRIPT FILES 39

ATTACHMENT 3- HEC-1 INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES 40

3 February 2008



FIGURES

Page

1. Delineation of Hydrologic Basins and Flow Paths 20

2. Schematic Diagram of the Watershed Network 22

3. PMP Temporal Distribution 25

4. Comparison of Peak Flows for the Hydrologic Drainage Basin above CP3 Due to

Different Hydrologic Model Parameters 29

5. Sensitivity of Peak Flows to Specification of Initial Loss Parameter for Floods of

Different Magnitude 30

6. Sensitivity of PMF Peak Flow to Specification of the Uniform Loss Parameter 31

7. Sensitivity of PMF Peak Flow Due to Specification of the Time-Lag Parameter 31

8. Sensitivity of PMF Peak Flow Due to Specification of Manning's n 32

9. Precipitation Frequency Curve 34

10. Flood Frequency (Hazard) Curve 35

4 February 2008



TABLES

Page

Table 1. List of Software Usage 14

Table 2. Hydrologic Basins and Physical Properties 21

Table 3. Stream Channels and Physical Properties 21

Table 4. Properties of the Overland Flow Elements 22

Table 5. Time-Lag Parameters of Hydrologic Basins Computed by NRCS Method 23

Table 6. Characteristics of Flow Channels 24

Table 7. Local and General PMP Values for Hydrologic Drainage Area above CP3 24

Table 8. Annual Maximum Precipitation Values and Associated Return Periods 26

Table 9. Peak Discharges for All Precipitation Events at CP3 27

Table 10. PMF Peak Discharges for Different Basins and Confluence Points for the Hydrologic

Drainage Basin above CP3 28

5 February 2008


ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronyms

ARF areal reduction factor

BSC Bechtel SAIC Company, LLC

CD-ROM compact disc read-only memory

GROA geologic repository operations area

HEC-1 Hydrologic Engineering Center-1

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPP North Portal pad

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

PCSA preclosure safety analysis

PMF probable maximum flood

PMP probable maximum precipitation

PRF peak rate factor

YMP Yucca Mountain Project

Abbreviations

cfs cubic feet per second

elev elevation

ft foot

ft/mi feet per mile

hr hour

in. inch

in/hr inches per hour

mi mile

sq mi square mile

6 February 2008



1. PURPOSE

Per 10 CFR Part 63 (Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at

Yucca Mountain, Nevada (Ref. 2.3.1)), the preclosure safety analysis (PCSA) for the geologic

repository operations area (GROA) must identify and analyze naturally occurring hazards, which

may lead to event sequences that could result in exposure of individuals to radiation. The

technical basis for inclusion or exclusion of a hazard must be provided. The purpose of this

study is to develop a probabilistic flood hazard curve in order to determine if floods should be

fully developed into such event sequences.

The key result of this study is the estimation of the severity of a flood, in terms of volumetric

flow rate, for a return frequency of 10 -6 per year (i.e., a return period of 1 million years). In

accordance with 10 CFR Part 63, event sequences associated with preclosure operations at or

below this return frequency do not require evaluation of dose and criticality consequences. Therefore, demonstration that the designed volumetric flow rate flood capacity exceeds the

million year return period flood is deemed to be sufficient to demonstrate that flood event

sequences may be excluded from the further event sequence analysis in the PCSA.

In the process of development of the flood hazard curve, a probable maximum precipitation

(PMP) and a probable maximum flood (PMF) were estimated. The PMP and PMF developed in

this analysis are simply a part of the independent development of the hazard curve. These

estimates are not intended to replace the PMP and PMF used as the basis for the flood design

features of the GROA.

A secondary purpose of this calculation is to provide a comparison to the results of Preliminary

Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.5), Hydrologic

Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.6), and Yucca Mountain

Project Drainage Report and Analysis (Ref. 2.2.10), which are a series of deterministic analyses

used as the basis for the design of the flood protection for the GROA. As shown in the

conclusion of this analysis, the results of Yucca Mountain Project Drainage Report and Analysis

(Ref. 2.2.10) are validated by this analysis.

7 February 2008



2. REFERENCES

2.1 PROJECT PROCEDURES/DIRECTIVES

2.1.1 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2007. Quality Management Directive. QA-DIR-10,

Rev. 2. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20080103.0002.

2.1.2 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00037, Rev. 10. Calculations and Analyses. Las Vegas, Nevada.

Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG. 20071018.0001.

2.1.3 IT-PRO-0011, Rev. 7. Software Management. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC

Company. ACC: DOC.20070905.0007.

2.1.4 LS-PRO-0201, Rev. 5. Preclosure Safety Analysis Process. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20071010.0021.

2.2 DESIGN INPUTS

2.2.1 ANSI/ANS-2.8-1992. 1992. American National Standard for Determining Design

Basis Flooding at Power Reactor Sites. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear

Society. TIC: 236034.

2.2.2 ArcGIS V. 9.2. 2007. Windows XP. STN: 11205-9.2-00.

2.2.3 Bonnin, G.M.; Martin, D.; Lin, B.; Parzybok, T.; Yetka, M.; and Riley, D. 2006.

Semiarid Southwest (Arizona, Southeast California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah).

Volume 1 Version 4.0 of Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States. NOAA Atlas 14. Silver Spring, Maryland: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration. ACC: MOL.20071018.0294.

2.2.4 Boufadel, M.C. 2000. "Estimation of the HEC1 Loss Parameters for Routing the Probable Maximum Flood." Journal of American Water Resources Association, 36 (1), 203-213. Middleburg, Virginia: American Water Resources Association.

TIC: 259734.

2.2.5 BSC 2002. Preliminary Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and

Vicinity. ANL-EBS-MD-000060 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC

Company. ACC: MOL.20021028.0123.

2.2.6 BSC 2004. Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity.

000-00C-CD04-00100-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company.

ACC: ENG.20040504.0005; ENG.20050823.0020.

2.2.7 BSC 2006. LMY Storm Drainage Calculations. 780-CDC-MNDO-00100-000-000.

Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20060712.0001;

ENG.20071015.0004.

8 February 2008



2.2.8 BSC 2007. Geologic Repository Operations Area Overall Site Plan.

000-000-MGRO-00201-000 REV 00D. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20071116.0003.

2.2.9 BSC 2007. IED Surface Facility and Environment. 100-IED-WHS0-00201-000 REV 00C. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20071026.0013.

2.2.10 BSC 2007. Yucca Mountain Project Drainage Report and Analysis. 000-CDC-MGRO-00100-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20070924.0043.

2.2.11 BSC 2008. Geologic Repository Operations Area North Portal Site Plan.

100-000-MGRO-00501-000 REV 00F. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20080125.0007.

2.2.12 CRWMS (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System) M&O (Management and Operating Contractor). 1999. Software Qualification Report for HEC-1 V4.0. CSCI: 30078 V4.0, DI: 30078-2003, REV. 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990521.0220.

2.2.13 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2007. Software Independent Verification and

Validation Report ArcGIS Version 9.2. Document ID: 11205-IVVR-9.2-01. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Repository Development. ACC: MOL.20070312.0260.

2.2.14 FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) 2001. "Determination of the Probable Maximum Flood." Chapter 8 of Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of

Hydropower Projects. Washington, D.C.: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. ACC: MOL.20071012.0075; MOL.20071024.0355.

2.2.15 Hansen, E.M.; Schwarz, F.K.; and Riedel, J.T. 1977. Probable Maximum Precipitation

Estimates, Colorado River and Great Basin Drainages. Hydrometeorological Report No. 49. Silver Spring, Maryland: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. TIC: 220224.

2.2.16 HEC-1 V4.0. 1999. Windows 95-DOS Emulation. CSCI: 30078-V4.0-.

2.2.17 Hui, S. 2006. "Review of Yucca Mountain PMF Studies." E-mail from S. Hui to A. Findikakis, July 19, 2006. ACC: MOL.20071018.0292.

2.2.18 Hydrology Subcommittee of the Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data 1986. Feasibility of Assigning a Probability to the Probable Maximum Flood. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20071012.0073.

2.2.19 Maidment, D.R., ed. 1993. Handbook of Hydrology. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 0-07-039732-5. TIC: 236568.

2.2.20 M00002SPATOP00.001. Topographic Grid Data. Submittal date: 02/24/2000.

9 February 2008



2.2.21 Newton, D.W. 1983. "Realistic Assessment of Maximum Flood Potentials." Journal

of Hydraulic Engineering, 109 (6), 905-918. New York, New York: American

Society of Civil Engineers. TIC: 259732.

2.2.22 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) 2005. Semiarid

Precipitation Frequency Project. Update of Paper No. 49 and NOAA Atlas 2. Silver

Spring, Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

ACC: MOL.20071017.0002.

2.2.23 SNF29041993001.002. Percolation Test Data, EFS Muck Storage Area. Submittal

date: 12/21/1994.

2.2.24 Solanki, H. and Suau, S.M. 1996. "Reconciliation of Hydrologic Models to Coastal

Flatland Watersheds." Chapter 4 of Advances in Modeling the Management of

Stormwater Impacts. James, W., ed. Chelsea, Michigan: Ann Arbor Press. TIC:

259876.

2.2.25 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1990. HEC-1, Computer Program, User's Manual.

CPD-1A, Version: 4.0. Davis, California: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

TIC: 243325.

2.2.26 USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) 1998. Tables of Percentage Points of the

Pearson Type III Distribution. Technical Release 38 (TR-38). Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Agriculture. ACC: MOL.20071213.0002.

2.2.27 Wang, B-H. and Revell, R.W. 1983. "Conservatism of Probable Maximum Flood

Estimates." Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 109, (3), 400-408. New York, New

York: American Society Civil Engineers. TIC: 259733.

2.3 DESIGN CONSTRAINTS

2.3.1 10 CFR 63. 2007. Energy: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic

Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

2.4 DESIGN OUTPUTS

This calculation report is part of the PCSA.

3. ASSUMPTIONS

3.1 ASSUMPTIONS REQUIRING VERIFICATION

None

10 February 2008



3.2 ASSUMPTIONS NOT REQUIRING VERIFICATION

3.2.1 Homogeneity of Watershed Hydrologic Characteristics

Assumption—All precipitation inputs used in this calculation are assumed to be uniformly

distributed over the watershed, and the composition of the soils within the watershed is assumed

to be homogeneous.

Rationale—This assumption is justified because the watershed under study is relatively small,

less than 20 sq mi, as determined by ArcGIS in Section 6.1.1.

3.2.2 Precipitation Areal Reduction Factor

Assumption—The annual maximum precipitation values of different frequencies (from 1-year to 1,000-year events) are obtained from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) Atlas 14 (Semiarid Southwest [Arizona, Southeast California, Nevada, New Mexico,

Utah] (Ref. 2.2.3)). Those values are developed for point-scale applications. If they are used for

large-scale modeling, an areal reduction factor (ARF) is usually applied ((Ref. 2.2.3), Section 7,

p. 62). The Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center is currently developing the ARF for

area sizes of 10 to 400 sq mi for semiarid regions (Semiarid Precipitation Frequency Project

(Ref. 2.2.22), Section 3.3). However, this work is still continuing, and no values are available.

In this calculation, it is assumed that ARF is equal to 1 (i.e., no reduction factor is applied).

Rationale—This assumption is reasonable because the area size in this calculation is small

(approximately 13.75 sq mi) and is close to the minimum area size of 10 sq mi considered by the

Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center. By assuming an ARF value of 1, the flood peak

estimation is slightly more conservative.

3.2.3 Layout of Surface Facilities

Assumption—The locations of the surface facilities, including the North Portal pad (NPP)

nuclear waste receiving and processing facilities, aging pad, roads, dikes, and ditches are

assumed to follow the Geologic Repository Operations Area Overall Site Plan (Ref. 2.2.8) and the Geologic Repository Operations Area North Portal Site Plan (Ref. 2.2.11). This assumption

is used throughout because the calculation is dependent on the configuration of the surface

facilities in relation to the flood plain.

Rationale—Although the final design of the surface facilities is not complete and it is likely to be

different from the two site plans used in this calculation, the calculation results are valid as long as the locations and dimensions of the facilities are approximately the same.

3.2.4 Man-Made Channels

Assumption—The GROA site plans (Geologic Repository Operations Area Overall Site Plan

(Ref. 2.2.8) and Geologic Repository Operations Area North Portal Site Plan (Ref. 2.2.11)) include man-made channels to divert water around and away from the surface facilities. The

exact geometric dimensions of the man-made channels are not known at present because the final

surface facility design is still not complete. This calculation follows approximately the

11 February 2008



geometric dimensions of man-made channels as specified in Yucca Mountain Project Drainage

Report and Analysis (Ref. 2.2.10, Table 6-2). A list of the man-made channels and their

geometric dimensions is presented in Section 6.1.1.

Rationale—Even though the exact design of the man-made channels is yet to be finalized, the

geometric dimensions in Ref. 2.2.10 are reasonable. Furthermore, the exact geometry, which

was used to determine the Manning's roughness coefficient, has little effect on the flood peak

flow rate because the sensitivity study in Section 6.4.4 shows that flood peaks are not sensitive to

Manning's roughness coefficient. The flood stage height, however, is dependent on the channel

geometry. If the flood stage height exceeds the design standard, it may become necessary that

the bottom width of the channel design be widened to lower the flood stage height or a higher

dike be built to prevent channel floodwater flowing over the bank.

3.2.5 Probability of PMF Components

Assumption—It is assumed that there are three major independent events contributing to the

calculation of probability of PMF: (1) the PMP, (2) the antecedent moisture condition, and (3) storm orientation and temporal distribution. PMF peak discharge was computed using an initial

loss of 0 in. and a uniform loss of 0.1 in./hr, which • represents a totally saturated watershed

condition. It is assumed that the probability of a saturated condition occurring prior to a PMP

event in the study area is 7.69 x 10 -4 (i.e., a 25-year storm has hit the area within one week prior

to the PMP hitting the area, which results in a probability of 0.04/52 = 7.69 x 1 0 -4 , where 0.04 is

the frequency of 25-year storm and 52 is the number of weeks in a year). It is further assumed

that a probability value of 0.1 is assigned to the condition such that the storm is perfectly aligned

to the basin shape and that temporal distribution is optimized, with the center of the storm

situated in the later half of the storm.

Rationale—This assumption is justified because PMF is always associated with PMP, and

a 25-year storm, which has a total of 1.75 in. of precipitation during the storm period, represents

the smallest storm that has enough water to satisfy the initial and infiltration losses while

producing some runoff. Additionally, it is conservative to assume that the basin remains

saturated after a 25-year storm has occurred within the past week, storms rarely align perfectly

with the basin shape, and temporal distribution of the storm is rarely optimized. A probability

value of 0.1 for this situation is a conservative estimate.

3.2.6 Temporal Distribution of Precipitation Events of Different Frequencies

Assumption—The temporal distribution of precipitation events of different frequencies is

assumed to be similar to the PMP temporal distribution.

Rationale—This assumption is justified because all of the extreme storm events in the YMP area

are storm events of the same type.

12 February 2008



3.2.7 Initial and Uniform Loss Parameters

Assumption—The initial loss parameter for the Hydrologic Engineering Center-1 (HEC-1) model

is assumed to be equal to 1 in. for floods, whose frequency ranges from 1 to 1,000 years. For

PMF simulation, the initial loss parameter is assumed to be equal to 0 in. The uniform loss

parameter is assumed to have a value of 0.1 in./hr for all flood events.

Rationale—Section 4.4.1 discusses how these loss parameters are derived. Ideally, they are

calibrated using historical hydrologic data. Because there are no historical hydrologic data for

the YMP area (i.e., the area draining through the surface facility layout location), these

parameters were estimated based on available literature values.

3.2.8 Exceedance Probability of Annual Maximum Flood Peaks and Annual Maximum

Precipitation Events

Assumption—It is assumed that the flood peak discharge has the same frequency or exceedance

probability as the annual maximum precipitation, which is used as input to the HEC-1 hydrologic

model to compute flood peak. This assumption is applied to all events except PMP and PMF.

Rationale—The probability values of annual maximum precipitation and maximum flood events

depend on how the basin initial and boundary conditions are set up. If these conditions reflect

proper hydroclimatic conditions of the underlying events, then the floods resulting from the

underlying storms should have the same frequency. Because there are no historical data to judge

the proper conditions, conservative initial and boundary conditions were used in this calculation

report.

3.2.9 Flow Bulking Factor

Assumption—A bulking factor of 10% is assumed, which would increase flood peak estimates by

10% to account for sediment and debris transport, as well as air entrainment.

Rationale—Flood volume can be bulked up at the basin outlet by air entrainment and by

sediment and debris transported from upstream subbasins. The HEC-1 hydrologic model used to

compute flood peaks does not consider this effect. A 10% bulking factor is assumed because

there are no data to estimate the bulking factor. A bulking factor of 10% is conservative

according to Preliminary Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity

(Ref. 2.2.5, Section 5.10).

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE

This calculation was prepared in accordance with EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00037, Calculations and

Analyses (Ref. 2.1.2), and LS-PRO-0201, Preclosure Safety Analysis Process (Ref. 2.1.4).

QA-DIR-10, Quality Management Directive (Ref. 2.1.1), Section 2.1.C.1.1.a.iii, applies to this

calculation, and the final version is designated as "QA: QA" because it is part of the PCSA.

13 February 2008


The Geologic Repository Operations Area North Portal Site Plan (Ref. 2.2.11), the Geologic

Repository Operations Area Overall Site Plan (Ref. 2.2.8), Manning's Roughness Coefficient

(LMY Storm Drainage Calculations (Ref. 2.2.7), Section 4.3.7), and properties of channels used

in the HEC-1 model (Yucca Mountain Project Drainage Report and Analysis (Ref. 2.2.10),

Table 6-2) are obtained from "QA: N/A" sources. However, the use of these sources as inputs is

justified because these sources depict information for systems classified as not important to

safety and not important to waste isolation.

4.2 USE OF SOFTWARE

This calculation used both qualified software obtained from Software Configuration

Management and commercial off-the-shelf software. The list of qualified software used is

shown in Table 1. The HEC-1 hydrologic model, developed by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center, was used to calculate flood hydrographs and flood

peaks (HEC-1 V4.0. 1999 (Ref. 2.2.16); HEC-1 Computer Program, User's Manual (Ref.

2.2.25)). HEC-1 was run on a Dell Optiplex Gn personal computer operated under the

Windows 95 operating system. The computer is located at Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory in Livermore, California. The HEC-1 software has been used within the range of

validation according to Software Qualification Report For Hec-1 V4.0 (Ref. 2.2.12). The

ArcGIS software was used to delineate hydrologic basin units and flow paths (ArcGIS V. 9.2.

2007. Windows XP (Ref. 2.2.2)). The run was made on November 28, 2007, using the qualified

ArcGIS version 9.2 on a Dell Optiplex 745 computer operated under the Windows XP operating

system located at BSC Building 1450 in Las Vegas (Computer identification number:

YMP005035). The ArcGIS software has been used within the range of validation according to

Software Independent Verification and Validation Report: ArcGIS v9.2-00 (Ref. 2.2.13).

Table 1. List of Software Usage

Name STN/CSCI Identifier CPU Operating Platform CPU Operating System

HEC-1 V4.0 30078-V4.0 PC Windows 95/DOS

ArcGIS V9.2 11205-9.2-00 PC Windows XP

NOTE: CPU = central processing unit; CSCI = computer software configuration item; DOS = disk operating system;;

HEC-1 = Hydrologic Engineering Center-1; PC = personal computer; STN = software tracking number.

Source: Original.

The commercial off-the-shelf software used in this calculation includes Word and Excel from

Microsoft Office 2003 and MATLAB 7.0.1. The use of the aforementioned software is

classified as Level 2 per IT-PRO-0011, Software Management (Ref. 2.1.3), Attachment 12.

Excel, run on a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Dell OptiPlex GX270 operated under

the Windows XP operating system (Computer identification number: 55274-640-1062534-

23906), was used to calculate PMP values and hydrologic parameters such as the time-lag

parameter of the unit hydrograph and stream slopes used in HEC-1. Word, run on the same

computer, was used to develop this report. MATLAB, also run on a Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory OptiPlex GX270 under Windows XP, was used to make graphics and

compute statistics for this calculation report. Word documents, Excel calculations, and

MATLAB calculations have all been verified by hand calculations. All other computations are

hand calculations, and results in all figures have been verified by visual inspection.

14 February 2008



4.3 DELINEATION OF THE HYDROLOGIC BASINS AND FLOW PATHS

,ArcGIS V9.2 was used to delineate hydrologic basins and flow paths for this calculation.

ArcGIS processes a gridded digital elevation model dataset with a spatial resolution of 100 ft for

the YMP area (IED Surface Facility and Environment (Ref. 2.2.9); DTN:

M00002SPATOP00.001 (Ref. 2.2.20)) to produce a map of hydrologic basins and flow paths.

The delineation is accomplished by the hydrologic analyst tool within ArcGIS V9.2. The

delineation procedure is briefly described as follows: (1) compute the flow directions for the

entire data domain; (2) identify and fill the sinks so that the flow path from any point within the

basin to the basin outlet can be clearly defined; (3) compute the flow accumulation areas; (4)

create basins of interest at pertinent locations using the interactive properties tool within the

hydrologic analyst; (5) overlay surface facilities, as outlined in the surface facility site plans

(Geologic Repository Operations Area Overall Site Plan (Ref 2.2.8) and Geologic Repository

Operations Area North Portal Site Plan (Ref. 2.2.11)) on the watershed map; and (6) compute the basin area sizes and channel lengths. The ArcGIS software has an internal function that

computes the number of pixels of each basin unit. The basin area is equal to the number of

pixels times grid cell size (e.g., 100 x 100 sq ft). The channel length is obtained using the

measuring tool in ArcGIS. The output of the delineation is shown in Section 6.1.1. The list of

basins and flow paths and associated physical properties is presented in Section 6.1.

Attachment 1 contains all of the ArcGIS files, including input files, output files, and a Microsoft

Word file that describes the steps in using ArcGIS software to perform basin and flow path

delineation ("Steps in Delineating Hydrologic Basins Using ArcGES.doc").

It should be noted that the surface facility site plans (Ref 2.2.11 and Ref. 2.2.8) are still not

finalized, and further changes to these plans may result in different basin delineation and flow

paths. However, any changes to the surface facility site plans in the future are not expected to

affect this calculation (Assumption 3.2.3 and Assumption 3.2.4).

4.4 SPECIFICATION OF HEC-1 MODEL PARAMETERS

Flood hydrographs and flood peaks at pertinent locations in the NPP and vicinity area were

calculated using the HEC-1 computer software. The HEC-1 software treats the watershed as a series of interconnected networks of hydrologic and hydraulic components (HEC-1 Computer

Program, User's Manual (Ref 2.2.25), Section 2). To run HEC-1, precipitation inputs must be

provided, and model parameters for each of the hydrologic and hydraulic components must be

specified. Section 4.5 describes the procedure for computing precipitation inputs for HEC-1.

The procedure for specifying HEC-1 model parameters is discussed here. The HEC-1 software uses a conceptual hydrologic model, and ideally its parameters should be calibrated using

historical precipitation and streamflow data (HEC-1 Computer Program, User's Manual

(Ref 2.2.25), Section 4); however, there are no historical hydrologic data for the YMP area.

Therefore, the HEC-1 parameters were defined based on the assumptions given in Assumption

3.2.7 in the case of initial and uniform loss parameters.

4.4.1 Initial and Uniform Loss Parameters

There are two loss parameters in the HEC-1 model: initial loss and loss during a precipitation

event. There are several options within the HEC-1 software to simulate these losses in the

15 February 2008



model. The Preliminary Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity

flood analysis established that it is reasonable to use the initial loss and uniform loss option

((Ref. 2.2.5), Section 5.8). This calculation also adopts the same option. In both the Preliminary

Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.5) and the Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.6) flood

analyses, the initial loss was 1 in., and the uniform loss was 1.5 in./hr throughout the

precipitation event. The uniform loss rate in these analyses was based on a percolation test

conducted in the YMP area (DTN: SNF29041993001.002 (Ref. 2.2.23)). There were questions

raised on the specification of loss parameters in these analyses. The value of 1.5 in./hr for

uniform loss is regarded as too high in Preliminary Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the

North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.5) and Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North

Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.6) according to the comments in the Hui e-mail Review of

Yucca Mountain PMF Studies (Ref. 2.2.17). It was pointed out that the use of percolation

capacity to represent the uniform loss is not reasonable because the percolation test is not indicative of how the infiltration process occurs during a storm runoff event. Infiltration during a

storm is a surficial phenomenon that is dependent on local surface conditions (e.g., initial

wetness, soil degradation, vegetation cover), slope, rainfall intensity, and saturation extent during

the storm. On the other hand, percolation capacity of the soil represents the standing (or

ponding) water condition, in contrast to storm runoff conditions. Therefore, the uniform loss

should be much smaller than 1.5 in./hr. This is especially true for the PMF calculation, which

would occur only under extremely moist conditions. As pointed out in "Determination of the

Probable Maximum Flood," Chapter 8 of Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of

Hydropower Projects (Ref. 2.2.14), published by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, "For PMF runoff computations, the soil should be assumed to be saturated with infiltration occurring at the minimum rate applicable to the area-weighted average soil type

covering each subbasin."

In "Estimation of the HEC1 Loss Parameters for Routing the Probable Maximum Flood,"

Boufadel (Ref. 2.2.4) optimized the HEC-1 loss parameters for a PMF for a basin in southwest

Ohio using 20 historical extreme events and reported that the initial loss parameter is about 1 in.,

but the uniform loss parameter is only 0.1 in./hr. Because loss parameters cannot be calibrated

for the YMP area due to the lack of historical data, it is necessary to estimate them based on local

soil group information and on storm conditions. For the North Portal pad (NPP) and vicinity, the

Preliminary Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity flood analysis reported that the soil group of the area belongs predominantly to soil groups B and D,

but soil group A and C are also present in a few soil samples (Ref. 2.2.5), Appendix II.

According to the Federal Energy Regulation Commission guidelines for the evaluations of

hydropower projects, the minimum loss for soil group A is 0.3 to 0.45 in./hr, for soil group B

0.15 to 0.3 in./hr, for soil group C 0.05 to 0.15 in./hr, and for soil group D 0 to 0.05 in./hr

("Determination of the Probable Maximum Flood" (Ref. 2.2.14), p. 55).

For this calculation, a range of initial and uniform loss parameters for a PMF were tested, as well

as flood events of various frequencies (Section 6.4.2). It was found that flood peaks of all

frequencies are sensitive to the uniform loss parameter. The sensitivity of flood peaks to initial

losses is dependent on storm intensity. The higher the storm intensity, the less sensitive are the

flood peaks to initial loss parameter. Because initial loss represents precipitation loss due to

canopy interception, filling of surface depressions, and surface absorption, this term should be

16 February 2008



relatively constant for all design storms except PMF. Consequently, several initial loss values

were examined, and a value of 1 in. for all events except the PMF was ultimately used. For the

PMF, the initial loss parameter was assigned a value of 0 in. to reflect the most extreme moist

condition. For the uniform loss parameter, a conservative value of 0.1 in./hr was used for all

flood events (Assumption 3.2.7).

4.4.2 Unit Hydrograph Time-Lag Parameter

The unit hydrograph method was used to develop the precipitation-runoff hydrograph for each

basin. Two parameters prescribe a unit hydrograph: the basin area and the time lag between the

storm midpoint and the flood peak. Basin area was determined by the ArcGIS software in this

calculation. There are different ways to determine the time-lag parameter. Previous BSC flood

analyses adopted the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Dimensionless Unit

Hydrograph (Preliminary Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity

(Ref. 2.2.5), Section 5.6, and Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and

Vicinity (Ref 2.2.6), Section 4.2.4). The equation for computing time lag in hours using the

NRCS method is:

L lag = C

L( '

where

(Eq. 1)

coefficient

length of the main channel (mi)

ca = length along the main channel from the basin outlet to the point nearest the

basin centroid (mi)

slope of the main channel (ft/mi).

In the Preliminary Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity

(Ref 2.2.5) and the Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref

2.2.6) flood analyses, C took the value of 1.1. It was pointed out in the Hui e-mail (Review of

Yucca Mountain PMF Studies (Ref 2.2.17)) that a C value of 1.1 corresponds to an average

terrain condition, with a "peak rate factor (PRF)" of 484. PRFs range from 600 for steep terrain

down to 300 in very flat, swampy terrain (Advances in Modeling the Management of Stormwater

Impacts (Ref 2.2.24), p. 51). For the NPP and vicinity, the terrain is in the steep category, with

a slope of >7%. Accordingly, a conservative PRF value of 600 is chosen instead of a value of

484. This would result in a C value of 0.887, which was used in this calculation.

4.4.3 Manning's Roughness Coefficient for Flow Channels

This calculation used two methods to route water from upstream basins to downstream

confluence points: Muskingum-Cunge and kinematic wave. The Muskingum-Cunge method is

a superior method compared to the kinematic wave method (HEC-1 Computer Program, User's

Manual (Ref 2.2.25), Section 3.6.10). It was used for channel routing of all natural channels.

17 February 2008



For flow routing for short man-made channels, the simpler kinematic wave method was used.

For both methods, Manning's roughness coefficient (n) must be specified. In the Preliminary

Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.5) and the

Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.6) flood

analyses, Manning's n was set to 0.09. This calculation report used the same value as these two

analyses. In Samuel Hui's e-mail, a comment was made that the selection of Manning's n might

impact peak flow simulation (Review of Yucca Mountain PMF Studies (Ref. 2.2.17)). To address

Hui's comment, a sensitivity study of Manning's n was done (Section 6.4.4).

4.5 CALCULATION OF PRECIPITATION INPUTS TO THE HEC-1 HYDROLOGIC

MODEL

Precipitation inputs are needed to drive the HEC-1 model. In this calculation, two types of

precipitation events were considered: the PMP and the annual maximum precipitation for

different frequencies. The PMP is defined as the theoretically greatest depth of precipitation for

a given duration that is physically possible at a particular location at a particular time of the year

(Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, Colorado River and Great Basin Drainages (Ref. 2.2.15), Section 1.4). The annual maximum precipitation of a given frequency represents the

annual maximum precipitation event that would, on average, not recur within a specified time

period, also known as the return period. The annual maximum precipitation of a given frequency

is sometimes known as the design storm (e.g., 1-year storm, 2-year storm, 1,000-year storm).

For both PMP and design storms, only 6-hour events were considered because the flood peaks for the basin size under consideration occur within a 6-hour time frame. Further, it is assumed

that all precipitation events are uniformly distributed over the watershed because of the relative

small watershed size (Assumption 3.2.1).

The procedure for calculating PMP is described in NOAA Hydrometeorological Report No. 49

(Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, Colorado River and Great Basin Drainages (Ref.

2.2.15), Section 6). There are two types of storms that would likely result in PMP: a convective

summer local storm (local) and a large-scale winter frontal storm (general). Both the general and

the local 6-hour PMP for the NPP and vicinity were computed. The local PMP is more intense

and about 2 times higher than the general PMP. Therefore, this calculation used the local PMP

to compute flood peaks.

The annual maximum precipitation values of different frequencies are obtained from NOAA

Atlas 14 (Semiarid Southwest [Arizona, Southeast California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah]

(Ref. 2.2.3)), whose data are in the form of isohyet precipitation maps. The 6-hour data for the

location corresponding to the centroid of the watershed were extracted. As pointed out in

Assumption 3.2.2, no ARF is applied here. The precipitation values for the NPP and vicinity

area are presented in Section 6.2.

18 February 2008



5. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Number of Pages

Attachment 1. GIS files for basin delineation 1 page and 1 CD-ROM

Attachment 2. Excel and Matlab script files 1 page and 1 CD-ROM

Attachment 3. HEC-1 input and output files 1 page and 1 CD-ROM

6. BODY OF CALCULATION

6.1 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF HYDROLOGIC BASINS AND FLOW PATHS

6.1.1 Delineation of Hydrologic Basins and Flow Paths

Using the procedures described in Section 4.3, a map of hydrologic basins and flow paths was

derived using the ArcGIS software (Figure 1) (ArcGIS V. 9.2 (Ref. 2.2.2)). There are nine

natural basins and two overland flow elements, which were drawn based on surface facilities site

plans (Geologic Repository Operations Area Overall Site Plan (Ref. 2.2.8) and Geologic

Repository Operations Area North Portal Site Plan (Ref. 2.2.11)). The centroid of the watershed

is located at 36°5T North, 116°29' West (Preliminary Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the

North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.5), Section 4.1.2.1). Table 2 shows the list of hydrologic

basins and associated physical properties. Table 3 displays the list of channels used by the

HEC-1 software to route flow from upstream basins to downstream outlets, along with their

geometry and properties. Table 4 lists the properties of the two overland flow elements. Data

for Tables 2 through 7 in this section are included in Attachment 2 on a CD-ROM.

19 February 2008

555000

I 0

'D 0

N.

575000 570000 565000 560000

)

-\ 1

1137

rtI N.

■D

N.

JINNI

5550130

loot

0

560000

10,000 Feet

1 I

575000

\\ reir. L

570000 565000

0 2,500 5,000

2 Miles


in the North Portal Pad and Vicinity 000-P SA-MGRO-01900-000-00A

Creerted on 11128(2007, by Gt. Dun on 0-Computer Optid ex 745 OD: Ytrt P005035)

Source: Original.

Figure 1. Delineation of Hydrologic Basins and Flow Paths

20 February 2008



Table 2. Hydrologic Basins and Physical Properties

Elevation at Elevation at Average Average Area Flow Path Head of Basin Outlet Channel Slope Channel

Name (sq mi) Length (ml) Basin (ft) (ft) (ft/mi) Slope (ft/ft, %)

NB1 1.336 3.37 4,850 3,780 317.47 6.01%

NB2 0.671 2.88 4,000 3,500 173.80 3.29%

_...... NB3 1.540 _ 3.95 5,600 3,750 _ 468.05 8.86%

NB4 0.675 2.61 3,950 3,500 172.59 3.27%

NB5 1.159 3.40 5,250 3,750 _ 440.82 8.35%

NB6 1.957 3.77 5,800 4,000 477.98 9.05%

NB7 2.187 3.09 4,900 3,650 404.12 7.65%

NB8 1.764 2.60 4,900 3,700 462.29 8.76%

NB9 1.054 1.67 3,800 3,500 179.51 3.40%

FAC1 0.273 0.72 3,850 3,700 209.86 3.97%

FAC2 1.135 1.33 3,820 3,550 _ 203.14 3.85%

Total 13.751 29.38 4,611 _ 3,671 319.06 7.23%a

NOTE: °Area weighted average slope for basins NB1 through NB9.

Source: Original.

Table 3. Stream Channels and Physical Properties

Channels Length Max Elev Min Elev Slope

Name (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft, %)

NB1CP1 1,534 3,780 3,750 1.96%

CP1CP2 2,576 3,750 3,700 1.94%

FAC2CP3 1,630 3,550 3,500 3.07%

CP2CP3 7,013 3,700 3,500 2.85%

NB6NB7 9,934 4,000 3,650 3.52%

NB7CP3 5,304 3,650 3,500 2.83%

NB8CP3 8,824 3,700 3,500 2.27%

FAC1 Main 3,774 3,850 3,700 3.97%

Channel

FAC2 Main 7,018 3,820 3,550 3.85%

Channel

Source: Original.

21 February 2008

%16

CP1CP2

NB6NB7 NB7CP3 NB7 0 CP3 NB6

(1(5 1Z/ LN,

NB9 NB4

NB5 FAC1



Table 4. Properties of the Overland Flow Elements

Overland

flow

length Max elev Min elev Slope Resistance %

(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) Factora % area Impervious '

FA1,

Impervious 3,960 3,850.00 3,700 3.79% 0.100 25.00% 100.00%

Pervious 4,462 3,850.00 3,700 3.36% 0.100 75.00% 0.00%

FA2

Impervious 3,200 3,820.00 3,550 8.44% 0.100 50.00% 100.00%

Pervious 7,290 3,820.00 3,550 3.70% 0.100 50.00% 0.00%

NOTE: 'Based on Ref. 2.2.6, p. 16 of Section 4.3.2.

bApproximation based on facility layout plans, Ref. 2.2.11, and Ref. 2.2.8.

Source: Original.

Figure 2 displays the schematic diagram of the watershed network. There are several key confluence points over the watershed, marked by CP1, CP2, and CP3. The confluence points are locations where floodwater from upstream basins and channels collects.

For this calculation, the focus is the peak flow from the hydrologic drainage area above CP3, which has a total area size of 13.75 sq mi. The final flood hazard curve is based on the drainage area above CP3 because CP3 is the outlet of the entire watershed, and it experiences the largest flood peak.

Source: Original.

Figure 2. Schematic Diagram of the Watershed Network

6.1.2 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Parameters of the Watershed

Based on the physical properties of the basins and flow paths, the hydrologic and hydraulic parameters were computed using the methods presented in Section 4.4. The loss parameters

22 February 2008



were specified in a manner described in Section 4.4.1, with initial loss ranging from 0 in. for the

PMF and 1 in. for all other flood events. The uniform loss is equal to 0.1 in./hr for all flood

events. The time-lag parameters were computed using the NRCS method (Eq. 1). The time-lag

results are presented in Table 5. This calculation report uses the time-lag parameters

corresponding to the last column, with C = 0.887 instead of C = 1.1, because the watershed is

relatively steep. The two overland flow elements are not listed in the table because the time-lag

parameters are not used in the overland flow calculation by HEC-1.

Table 5. Time-Lag Parameters of Hydrologic Basins Computed by NRCS Method

Lag Lag (C=1.1) (C=0.887)

Name L (mi) Lca (mi) S (ft/mi) LLca/S0.5 (hrs) (hrs)

NB1 3.370 1.685 317.47 0.319 0.754 0.608

NB2 2.877 1.438 173.80 0.314 0.750 0.605

NB3 3.953 1.976 468.05 0.361 0.786 0.634

NB4 _ 2.607 1.304 172.59 0.259 0.704 0.568

NB5 3.403 1.701 440.82 0.276 0.719 0.580

NB6 3.766 1.883 477.98 0.324 0.759 0.612

NB7 3.093 1.547 404.12 0.238 0.685 0.552

NB8 2.596 1.298 462.29 0.157 0.597 0.481

NB9 1.671 0.836 179.51 0.104 0.522 0.421

NOTE: C = coefficient; hrs = hours; L = total channel length; L = length along the flow path from

the basin outlet to the point opposite the centroid of the basin area; Lag = time lag;

NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation Service; S = slope of the channel.

Source: Original.

To run channel flow routing schemes, parameters including channel length, side slope, channel shape, and Manning's roughness coefficient (n) need to be specified. Channel lengths and channel slopes can be determined using the ArcGIS software. The shape of all channels is trapezoidal in this calculation report, the same as in Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the

North Portal Pad and Vicinity flood analysis (Ref. 2.2.6). The bottom width and side slopes of all channels are based on the Yucca Mountain Project Drainage Report and Analysis (Ref. 2.2.10, Table 6-2). Because Manning's n is not measurable, it should be determined based on

channel physical properties. Previous flood analyses in the Yucca Mountain area suggested that Manning's n is in the range of 0.03 to 0.055 (Preliminary Hydrologic Engineering Studies for

the North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.5), Section 4.1.2.3). In the Preliminary Hydrologic

Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.5) and the Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.6) flood analyses, a value of 0.09 was assigned to Manning's n to take into account the sediment and debris effect on channel flow (Preliminary Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.5), Table 5-1). This calculation report also used the same Manning's n as in these flood analyses. The Hui e-mail (Review of Yucca Mountain PMF Studies (Ref. 2.2.17)) raised a question concerning the selection of Manning's n on flood peak simulation and flood inundation in the Preliminary Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.5) flood analysis. A sensitivity study presented in Section 6.4.4 shows that the selection of Manning's n is not critical to flood peak simulation because it is not sensitive to Manning's n

23 February 2008


(Preliminary Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref 2.2.5), Section 5.9). Channel characteristics including Manning's n and channel dimensions are listed in Table 6.

Table 6. Characteristics of Flow Channels

Channel Bottom Width Side Bank Channel

Name Manning's na Shapeb (ft)b Slope (h:1)b Liningc

NB1CP1 0.09 TRAP 68 3 Concrete

CP1CP2 0.09 TRAP 88 3 Concrete

FAC2CP3 0.09 TRAP 30 4 Concrete

CP2CP3 0.09 TRAP 30 4 Natural

NB6NB7 0.09 TRAP 30 10 Natural

NB7CP3 0.09 TRAP 30 10 Natural

NB8CP3 0.09 TRAP 30 10 Natural

FAC1 main

0.09 TRAP 30b 3C

Concrete channel

FAC2 main

0.09 TRAP 30` ac Concrete channel

NOTE: a Based on Ref. 2.2.6, Section 4.3.3. bBased on Ref. 2.2.10, Table 6-2. `Based on Ref. 2.2.11 and Ref. 2.2.8.

Source: Original.

6.2 CALCULATION OF PRECIPITATION INPUTS

6.2.1 Probable Maximum Precipitation

Using Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, Colorado River and Great Basin Drainages

((Ref 2.2.15), Section 6) procedures with the geographic data (namely the area and location of the watershed) as described in Section 6.1.1, the local PMP values were calculated for the drainage area above CP3 (13.75 sq mi). The general PMP for the drainage area above CP3 was also computed. The Excel spreadsheet for calculating the PMP is included as Attachment 2 of this calculation ("PMP calculation final.xls"). The final PMP values are shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Local and General PMP Values for Hydrologic Drainage Area above CP3

Area sq mi 13.751

Local PMP in./6hr 11.907

General PMP in./6hr 5.535

NOTE: hr = hour; in. = inch; PMP = probable maximum precipitation.

Source: Original.

Local PMP is much more intense than general PMP (11.907 vs. 5.535) and is, therefore, used in this calculation report. For hydrologic drainage above CP3, the PMP value is 11.91 in./6 hr.

24 February 2008

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

01



There are different ways to distribute precipitation temporally over the storm duration. Two

temporal distributions are recommended in Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates,

Colorado River and Great Basin Drainages, which place the maximum intensities in the middle

of the storm period (Ref. 2.2.15, Section 4.7). The difference between the two distributions is

that one distribution places the precipitation peak in the later half of the period, while the other

places it in the first half. The temporal distribution with a later precipitation peak would result in

higher peak flow. Therefore, the Preliminary Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North

Portal Pad and Vicinity ((Ref. 2.2.5), Figure 2) and the Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the

North Portal Pad and Vicinity ((Ref. 2.2.6), Figure 4.3) flood analyses adopted this temporal

distribution. This calculation report also adopts the same distribution as these flood analyses.

Figure 3 shows the PMP temporal distribution hyetograph.

0 Elimmoman.111M11111111111111111111111111111 11111111111M1111111116mommit. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time (hr)

NOTE: hr = hour; in = inch; min = minute.

Source: Original.

Figure 3. PMP Temporal Distribution

Pre

cip

ita

tio

n (

in/3

min

)

25 February 2008



6.2.2 Annual Maximum Precipitation of Different Frequencies

The armual maximum precipitation values of different frequencies for 6-hour duration at the

centroid of the watershed were obtained from Semiarid Southwest (Arizona, Southeast

California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah) (Ref. 2.2.3). Because the watershed size is small, no

ARF was applied to the precipitation values (Assumption 3.2.2). Table 8 lists the annual

maximum precipitation values and associated return periods. The PMP value is also included in

the table and is assigned to a return period calculated in Section 6.5.1. In Section 6.5.1, a

reasonable probability value for PMP is discussed. The temporal distribution for precipitations

of all frequencies follows a typical distribution as described in Assumption 3.2.6. Precipitation

multiplied by the series of all frequencies is included in an Excel file included in Attachment 2

("precip_all_freq.xls").

Table 8. Annual Maximum Precipitation Values and Associated Return Periods

Nonexceedance

Return Period (yr) Probability Precipitation (in.) a

1 0 0.65

2 0.5 0.84

5 0.8 1.12

10 0.9 1.40

25 0.96 1.75

50 0.98 2.00

100 0.99 2.40

1,000 0.999 4.00

70,000b 0•9999857b 11.91

NOTE: aAll precipitation values except PMP are obtained from

Semiarid Southwest (Arizona, Southeast California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah) (Ref. 2.2.3).

bObtained from Section 6.5.1.

Nonexceedance probability is equal to 1 minus the reciprocal of the return period.

in. = inch; PMP = probable maximum precipitation; yr = year.

Source: Original.

26 February 2008



6.3 FLOOD PEAK SIMULATIONS

6.3.1 Flood Peak Discharge Simulations for the Hydrologic Drainage Area above CP3

Section 6.1 and Section 6.2 presented the inputs needed to run the HEC-1 model (HEC'-1 V4.0

(Ref 2.2.16)). The HEC-1 model was run using the precipitation and parameter values described

in these sections. Table 9 summarizes the peak discharges at CP3 for all precipitation events.

The last row of Table 9 shows the PMF value, which is the peak discharge value that resulted

from the PMP event. As stated in Assumption 3.2.8, the exceedance frequency of the peak

discharges of all storms except PMP was assigned at the same value as the associated annual

maximum precipitation events. The frequency of PMF is calculated in Section 6.5.1. Based on

Assumption 3.2.9, a bulking factor was applied to the flood peak discharges (Column 4 of Table

9). Table 10 shows the PMF peak discharges for different basins and confluence points. The

flood peaks for 1-year and 2-year return periods are not listed because there are no floods resulting from 1-year or 2-year precipitation events (i.e., the combined initial and uniform loss

for these events exceeds the precipitation input). Attachment 3 contains all of the input and

output files of HEC-1 model runs.

Table 9. Peak Discharges for All Precipitation Events at CP3

Peak Discharges w/

Nonexceedance Peak Discharges @ 10% bulking factor

Return Period (yr) Probability CP3 (cfs) @ CP3 (cfs)

5 0.8 243 267

10 0.9 1,437 1,581

25 0.96 3,343 3,677

50 0.98 5,033 5,536

100 0.99 7,745 8,520

1,000 0.999 19,003 20,903

90.9x109a 0.9999999989 a 68,842 75,726

NOTE: aObtained from Section 6.5.2.

Nonexceedance probability is equal to 1 minus the reciprocal of the return period.

cfs = cubic feet per second; PMF = probable maximum flood; yr = year.

Source: Original.

6.4 SENSITIVITY OF THE PEAK FLOW SIMULATION TO PARAMETER

UNCERTAINTY

The peak flow simulations presented in Section 6.3 used some of the parameters that were

specified differently from the Preliminary Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal

Pad and Vicinity (Ref 2.2.5) and the Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad

and Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.6) flood analyses. This section examines the sensitivity of flow peaks to

parameter uncertainty.

27 February 2008


Table 10. PMF Peak Discharges for Different Basins and Confluence Points for the Hydrologic Drainage Basin above CP3

Basins and Confluence Peak Discharge w/10°/0 Points Peak Discharge (cfs) Bulking Factor (cfs)

FA1 1,904 2,094

FA2 7,951 8,746

NB1 6,962 7,658

NB2 3,507 3,858

NB3 7,817 8,599

NB4 3,669 4,036

NB5 6,219 6,841

NB6 10,156 11,172

NB7 20,961 23,057 _

NB8 10,603 11,663

NB9 6,852 7,537

CP1 20,955 23,051

CP2 21,965 24,162

CP3 68,842 75,726

NOTE: cfs = cubic feet per second.

Source: Original.

6.4.1 PMF Simulation Using the Parameter Setup from the 2004 BSC Flood Analysis

Using the parameter setup from the Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad

and Vicinity ((Ref. 2.2.6), Sections 4.2 and 5.2) flood analysis, the HEC-1 model was run for the

hydrologic drainage basins above CP3. The peak flows at key confluence points are compared to

those presented in Section 6.3 (Figure 4). For the drainage area above CP3, the peak flow at

basin outlet CP3 simulated using Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and

Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.6) parameter setup is 29% less than the peak flow simulated using the

parameter setup presented in this calculation report (Figure 4). This information shows that the

new parameter setup results in peak flow simulations that are significantly higher than the

previous flood analysis. In the following sections, the individual parameters contributing most to

the difference in peak flows are discussed.

6.4.2 Sensitivity of Peak Flows to Loss Parameters

This section examines the sensitivity of peak flows to the specification of loss parameters in the

HEC-1 model. In both the Preliminary Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal

Pad and Vicinity (Ref 2.2.5) and the Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad

and Vicinity (Ref 2.2.6) flood analyses, the initial loss was set to 1 in., and the uniform loss was

set to 1.5 in./hr. Section 4.4.1 describes how the loss parameters were specified in this

calculation report. For the PMF, the initial loss parameter was set to 0 in., and the uniform loss

parameter was set to 0.1 in./hr. For flood events of lesser magnitude, the initial loss parameter

was set to 1 in., and the uniform loss parameter was set to 0.1 in./hr for all flood events.

28 February 2008

(1) 40n00 .1••

0 30000 LL

201A)0

10000

0


70000

60000

50'00

• 2007 Parameter Setup

• 2004 Parameter Setup

CP1 CP2 CP.3

Confluence Points

NOTE: cfs = cubic feet per second.

Source: Original.

Figure 4. Comparison of Peak Flows for the Hydrologic Drainage Basin above CP3 Due to Different

Hydrologic Model Parameters

Figure 5 illustrates the effect of initial loss parameter on flood peaks. This figure shows the ratio of flow peaks simulated using an initial loss parameter equal to 1 in., divided by flow peaks simulated using an initial loss parameter equal to 0 in. For a 5-year flood event, the flood peak ratio is approximately 5%, while for the PMF, the difference is very low (<1%).

Figure 6 shows the difference in peak flows due to the specification of the uniform loss parameter. Peak flow is very sensitive to the specification of the uniform loss parameter. The use of a uniform loss parameter of 1.5 in./hr (as in the case of Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.6)) would result in an 18% lower peak flow compared to the use of 0.1 in./hr (as in this calculation report). These sensitivity results show that the specification of loss parameters can significantly influence the flood peak calculation.

29 February 2008

Iii.. I

5 10


Pe

ak F

low

Ra

tio (

%)

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

25 50 IOU

Return Period (Yr)

1000 10000+ (PMP)

Source: Original.

Figure 5. Sensitivity of Peak Flows to Specification of Initial Loss Parameter for Floods of Different

Magnitude

6.4.3 Sensitivity of Peak Flow to the Time-Lag Parameter

This section investigates the sensitivity of peak flow to the specification of the time-lag parameter. As discussed in Section 4.4.2, the time-lag parameters used in Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.6) correspond to the average basin condition with a PRF of 484, as compared to the steep basin condition of the Yucca Mountain area, which should have a PRF of 600. Figure 7 displays the difference in peak flows due to differences in time-lag parameters. The flood peaks for CP1, CP2, and CP3 using the Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.6) time-lag parameters are about 12 to 13% less than the flood peaks using the time-lag parameter used in this calculation report.

30 February 2008

05 1 15

5_00%

0.00%

35

,o

-500% -

2

a -a

- 10.00%

2 LL

Ca a.)

-15.00%

-20.0W,b

03

60000

50000

17') _a 40000

20000

10000

CP1


in the North Portal Pad and Vicinity 000-PSA-MGRO-0 1 9 00 - 000-00 A

Uniform Loss Parameter (in/hr)

NOTE: in/hr = inches per hour.

Source: Original

Figure 6. Sensitivity of PMF Peak Flow to Specification of the Uniform Loss Parameter

70000

• PRF=600

• PRF=484 _

-4 30000

a.

CP2 CP3

Confluence Point

NOTE: cfs = cubic feet per second; PRF = peak rate factor.

Source: Original.

Figure 7. Sensitivity of PMF Peak Flow Due to Specification of the Time - Lag Parameter

31 February 2008

CP1

PP

( 1 , 3


6.4.4 Sensitivity of Peak Flow to Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n

Manning's roughness coefficient, n, is the parameter needed for channel flow and overland flow routing. The Preliminary Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity

(Ref. 2.2.5), Table 5-1 and the Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and

Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.6, Section 4.2.5) flood analyses assigned a value of 0.09 for both natural and man-made channels. This calculation report tested Manning's n based on channel lining

materials. As specified in Section 4.3.7 of LMY Storm Drainage Calculations (Ref. 2.2.7), the n value is set to 0.013 for concrete channel lining. Based on Preliminary Hydrologic Engineering

Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.5, Section 4.1.2.3), a value of 0.045 was assigned to natural channels. The peak flows simulated using the two different sets of Manning's n are displayed in Figure 8. The peak flow using both sets of Manning's n is virtually the same. This result confirms the finding from the Preliminary Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.5) flood hazard study.

•Manning Used

IN Manning Tested

80000

70000

60000

50000

o acl000

.x

a- 30000

2nonn

10000

0

CP2

Confluence Point

NOTE: cis = cubic feet per second.

Source: Original.

Figure 8. Sensitivity of PMF Peak Flow Due to Specification of Manning's n

32 February 2008


6.4.5 Summary of Parameter Sensitivity Studies

Section 6.4 examines the sensitivities of peak flows to different parameters in the HEC-1 model.

The results from Section 6.4.1 show that the peak flows simulated using the parameter setup

from the Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref. 2.2.6)

flood analysis are up to 29% less than those using the parameter setup in this calculation report.

In other words, using the parameter setup from this calculation to simulate flood peaks would

result in more conservative estimates of flood peaks. The most sensitive parameters are the

uniform loss parameter and the time-lag parameter, in the case of PMF simulation. The

combined effect of these two parameters accounts for almost all of the PMF peak discharge

difference. The sensitivity of flood peaks to the specification of the initial loss parameter

depends on the flood magnitude, with lesser floods having higher sensitivity.

6.5 DEVELOPMENT OF THE FLOOD HAZARD CURVE

Section 6.3 calculates the flood peaks resulting from annual maximum precipitation events of

different frequencies, and Section 6.4 demonstrates the sensitivity of flood peaks to different

parameter specifications. This section uses the results from the preceding sections to develop the

flood hazard curve (i.e., the frequency curve of flood peaks).

6.5.1 Probability of PMP

Before discussing how the flood hazard was derived and how probability was assigned to the

PMF, the probability of the PMP, which was used as input by the HEC-1 model to simulate the

PMF, will be investigated. Figure 9 displays the scattergram of maximum annual precipitation

value and return period (or frequency). Also plotted on the figure is the log-Pearson type III distribution curve, which is the widely accepted probability distribution for extreme storms in the

United States (Handbook of Hydrology (Ref. 2.2.19), Section 18.7.2; Tables of Percentage

Points of the Pearson Type III Distribution (Ref. 2.2.26), Table 1). From the figure, the log-

Pearson type HI curve fits the data reasonably well. Based on the extrapolation of the log-

Pearson curve, the 10,000-year storm event has a precipitation value close to 8 in. Further

extrapolating the log-Pearson curve (i.e., the red dashed line) to intersect the PMP line gives a

return period of about 70,000 years, equivalent to an exceedance probability of 1.43 x 10 -5 for

the PMP. The blue dashed line in the figure is the extrapolation based on storm data alone. This

line intersects the PMP line at 150,000 years, equivalent to an exceedance probability of

0.67 x 10-5 . Considering that the log-Pearson curve overpredicts the 1,000-year event, an

exceedance probability of 1.43 x le assigned to the PMP is a conservative and reasonable

estimate. The estimate of the PMP probability is used in Section 6.5.2 to derive the PMF

probability.

33 February 2008

- 4. -1_11 1-1111_ -L 1 1 1_11_111 - -1- I. 11-1 1.111- --1

— log Pearson III

—40—Data

Extrapolation-Log-Pearson III

102

Ii

101

10o

Annua

l M

ax

imu

m P

recp

itati

on

(in)

11111111 (IllIrlil 1 I I 1 1 1111 1

I 1 1 I I 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 I I 1 1 1 1111 1

-.L. :101 al= I Ellin 7.. =1.7. tri air - - - 4- -1 -1-f H- - 1- 4 + 4-14-144 I I- 4-14 1414- -1

r- T-1-17 n171 - - r IT - - -

1 1 1 I I 11 I I 11 1111 I 1 1 1 1 1111

1111111

- 1-1 1-1141- - L 4 4 L

1 I 1 1111 I I ti

_11 U111_ _ Li

1 1 11111

lIlIi i 1 it

III-- 14- 141

1 111,,e1i;o1

_1 1411- - _1 _

1 1 1 1111 1

- 4- L1J L1.11 _ J _

111111 i

1 1 111111 i

111111 1

- 4- 1- I.4 1414- - -4-

III

1111

1111

4114 - -

III!

II

10-1 ,

100 10 1

1 1

I 1

I 1

4_1 r 1

1111

1111

1111

I 1 I

1

I I 1

_11ULL1__L _l_LL

-1 -111111 -- 1- 111-

- iTO rTI - i -TI r

r

Ii 1.1111_ _ L. .11 1 1 111.1 _ _ 1 11111 1 1 1 1 11111

1 1 11111 1 1 1 1 11111

LIU _

-

nn

-

1


Extrapolation-Data 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1111 1

_ 1 _1 _1 1.11 _ L .1 1 /.1 1.11-1

- LI tit-1r - t -1 7 11 1-1 111 r 1 -i ri 11

__111.1.11__1_1_111.11.U__L111_11.1

1_1_1111111__411UU

- 1 1 1111 1 1 1 1111 1 1 1 1 111

I 11111 I 1 I 1 11111 I 1 1 11111

- 14+1441- - + -1 +HI-H- -4-4-4 HH

111111 1 1 1 111111 I I 1 IIIII

- +1,4- - 4- -■ 4-1-4144 - - 4 44,411-1.

P M

--1 TM 1--„To7f..ta.111 := 1:2200 -; H v+t I-- 4 1-i 1-1

7 T -1 T IT! nn

1,,

-

Ccritl 1 1 111111 1

r 1 11111

1111 1 1 1 1 I 1111 1 1 I 1 III

111171 7 77 11nn, _ _ 4_1414141__1-41 LAO

1 1 1 1 11111 1 1111111

4.JJ1U1.1.1_ _L_L 1 LJU - 1 11111 1 Illilill 1 1 I

1 1 1111 111111111 1 1 1 1 I 111

1111 I 1 1 1 1 1111 1 I 1 I I 111

- 4.1441- - + -1 4.1-1144 - - 4 4 I-1 I-1

-1 11111_ _ .a a .L11111_ _L .14 LI 11 L.

ririr

LI unit - T77717171 r- T I nnr 7 T1171- - I 771'11 - 1- 1 1 Fin r -1 1- 11-11- T -1 T 11 111 r ri r

_I 1 1111 1 I 1 1111 1 1 111

1 1111 I I 1 1111 1 1 111

,1,1 I 111

I

1 1111 1 4111 1

1 1111 1 1 111

I 1111 I 1 I 1111 1 I 111

1 1111 I 1 I 1111 1 I III I 11 1

III

III

LII

.L LL141.11_J _

- 1. 1- 1 -1 1111- -

- r rn RIT - LI - ¶ ill Ill - LI

- t- i -t rtur - -t

_ L1.11.111 _ J

1 I 1 1111

1 1 I 1111

1 1 1 1111

1 I I 1111

1 1 1 1111 1 1 1 1111

102

103

104

106 106

Return Period (yr)

NOTE: in = inch; PMP = probable maximum precipitation; yr = year.

Source: Original.

Figure 9. Precipitation Frequency Curve

6.5.2 Flood Hazard Curve

The key to developing the flood hazard curve is the estimation of the exceedance probability of

the flood events. As stated in the assumption (Assumption 3.2.8), the frequencies of all flood

events considered in this calculation, except the PMF, are assumed to follow the same

frequencies as the underlying precipitation events, provided that the initial and boundary

conditions of the basin reflect the proper hydroclimatic condition. The estimation of proper

hydroclimatic condition is achieved through the proper specification of hydrologic model

parameters. In this calculation report, it was done through the proper choice of the HEC-1 loss

parameters. If there are adequate historical hydrometeorological data available, it would be

advisable to calibrate these parameters to the data. Since there are no historical data in this case,

the loss parameters were selected such that the estimated flood peaks are biased toward the

conservative side. Using the loss parameters as presented in Section 4.4.1, the flood peak

discharges were simulated (Section 6.3.1). Figure 10 displays the flood peak discharges and

associated return periods at confluence point CP3 for all flood events.

III

34 February 2008

105

An

nu

al

Max

imu

m F

loo

d (

cfs

) 10

4

102

100 108

1010


102

104

106

Return Period

NOTE: cfs = cubic feet per second; PMF = probable maximum flood.

Source: Original.

Figure 10. Flood Frequency (Hazard) Curve

It is important to design the surface facilities such that the annual exceedance frequency of PMF is less than 10-6. Ensuring that the frequency of PMF is less than 1(1 6 is not a trivial issue because of the difficulty in assigning a probability value to the PMF. According to the Hydrology Subcommittee of the Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, "no procedure proposed to date is capable of assigning an exceedance probability to the PMF or to near-PMF floods in a reliable, consistent, and credible manner" (Feasibility of Assigning a Probability to

the Probable Maximum Flood (Ref. 2.2.18), p. 43). This document concludes that "Given the paucity of rare-flood data and the lack of an adequate theoretical foundation, it does not appear possible to objectively define the probability of the PMF, at least within reasonable confidence limits" ((Ref. 2.2.18), p. 44). Nevertheless, the committee discussed several alternative methods, including extrapolation of frequency curve, joint probability, regional data methods, paleohydrology methods, and Bayesian techniques. Each of the methods has advantages and disadvantages.

The extrapolation method is based on statistical analysis of measured discharge data at the site. The regional data approach combines flood frequency curves from several sites of similar climatic, physiographic, and hydrologic properties located within a homogeneous region including the site of interest. The paleohydrology method estimates the probability of the PMF by utilizing historical records of floods that occurred several thousand years ago at the site. The Bayesian technique makes inferences about the likelihood of future events by exploiting many sources of information at the site in a Bayesian framework. These four methods all rely on historical data of different sorts, which are not available in the YMP area, making the joint probability method the logical approach employed for this calculation.

35 February 2008


A number of researchers have investigated the joint probability approach ("Realistic Assessment

of Maximum Flood Potential" (Ref. 2.2.21); and "Conservatism of Probable Maximum Flood

Estimates" (Ref. 2.2.27)). The joint probability method estimates the PMF probability by

computing the joint probability of several events relevant to PMF. The relevant events may

include antecedent moisture condition, loss rate during the storm, storm orientation, and

temporal distribution. For a series of independent events, the joint probability, P(PMF), can be

expressed as:

P(PMF) = P(A).P(B) -P(C) (Eq. 2)

where

A, B, and C represent the independent events relevant to PMF.

For this calculation report, there are three major independent events contributing to the PMF: (1)

the PMP (A), (2) the antecedent moisture condition (B), and (3) storm orientation and temporal

distribution (C) (Assumption 3.2.5). From Section 6.5.1, the exceedance probability of the PMP

is less than 1.43 x 10-5 (i.e., P(A) 1.43 x 10-5). Based on Assumption 3.2.5, P(B) = 7.69

x le and P(C)=0.1. The three events are obviously independent. If all the probabilities of the

relevant events are combined, the joint probability obtained, P(PMF)= 1.43 x 10-5 X 7.69 x 10-4 x 0.1 = 1.0997 x 10-9, is equivalent to a return period of approximately 90.9 million years.

With the PMF and the associated return period plotted in Figure 10, the solid and dashed blue

lines form the flood hazard curve. From this figure, the peak discharge corresponding to

1,000,000-year and 500,000-year return periods (i.e., probability of 10 -6 and 2 x 10-6) can be

interpolated. The 1,000,000-year peak discharge is equal to approximately 40,000 cfs, and the

500,000-year peak discharge is equal to approximately 37,500 cfs.

7. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Using the flood peaks simulated with the more conservative parameters recommended in Review

of Yucca Mountain PMF Studies (Ref. 2.2.17), a flood hazard curve (Figure 10) was developed.

The analysis presented in Section 6 demonstrates that the exceedance probability of the PMP is

less than 1.43 x i0, and the exceedance probability of the PMF is less than 1.0997 x 10 -9. This

calculation uses the same procedure for deriving the PMP values and employs the same HEC-1

hydrologic model as existing BSC flood analyses (Preliminary Hydrologic Engineering Studies

for the North Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref 2.2.5), Hydrologic Engineering Studies for the North

Portal Pad and Vicinity (Ref 2.2.6), and Yucca Mountain Project Drainage Report and Analysis

(Ref 2.2.10)). However, this analysis used more conservative input parameters, as

recommended in Review of Yucca Mountain PMF Studies (Ref 2.2.17). These more

conservative parameters are shown to yield as much as 29% higher runoff volume than those

derived using the parameter setup from the previous flood analyses. Nevertheless, the

1,000,000-year peak (exceedance probability less than 1 x 10 -6) discharge of approximately

40,000 cfs is less than the minimum design capacity of 55,000 cfs provided in the Yucca

Mountain Project Drainage Report and Analysis (Ref 2.2.10). Therefore, this analysis is

deemed to be sufficient to demonstrate that flood event sequences may be excluded from further

36 February 2008



event sequence analysis in the PCSA. This analysis also confirms that the design presented in

the Yucca Mountain Project Drainage Report and Analysis (Ref. 2.2.10) satisfies the

probabilistic criteria of ANSI/ANS 2.8 (American National Standard for Determining Design

Basis Flooding at Power Reactor Sites (Ref 2.2.1)).

37 February 2008


ATTACHMENT 1

GIS FILES FOR BASIN DELINEATION

(Electronic Files)

38 February 2008


in the North Portal Pad and Vicinity 000-P SA-MGRO-01900-000-00A

ATTACHMENT 2

EXCEL AND MATLAB SCRIPT FILES

(Electronic Files)

39 February 2008



ATTACHMENT 3

HEC-1 INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES

(Electronic Files)

40 February 2008

OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT 1. QA: QA

SPECIAL INSTRUCTION SHEET Page 1 of 1

This is a placeholder page for records that cannot be scanned.

2. Record Date.

3. Accession Number

01/30/2008 ATT TO: ENG.20080204.0007

4. Author Name(s) 5. Authorization Organization

DUAN, Q LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY

(LLNL)

6. Title/Description

FLOOD HAZARD CURVE OF THE SURFACE FACILITY AREA IN THE NORTH PORTAL PAD AND VICINITY

(ATTACHMENTS 1, 2, 3)

7. Document Number(s) 8. Version Designator

000 -PSA-MGRO -01900-000 00A

9. Document Type 10. Medium

MEDIA 2 CD's

11. Access Control Code

N/A

12. Traceability Designator •

000-P SA-MGRO -01900-000 -00A

13. Comments

CD'S: 1 ORIGINAL & 1 COPY

VALIDATION OF COMPLETE FILE TRANSFERRED. ALL FILES COPIED. SOFTWARE USED: HEC-1 V4.0; ARCGIS

V9.2, WORD 2003; EXCEL 2003, MATLAB 7.0.1

14. RPC Electronic Media Verification

MOL.20080206.0037

XREF _ THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC

FEB 06 2008 °y-OiazAzi /Bsc - ES ATTACHMENT

MD5 Validation

FORM NO. A171-1 (Rev. 11/10/2006) AP-17.1Q

12/04/2007 10:39a 03/27/2007 07:56a 03/14/2007 07:23a 02/21/2007 09:52a 02/21/2007 09:53a 02/21/2007 09:54a 02/21/2007 09:55a 02/23/2007 08:11a 02/21/2007 02:11p 02/21/2007 02:11p 02/21/2007 02:12p 02/21/2007 02:13p 03/23/2007 01:15p

<DIR> <DIR>

Volume in drive H is home4 Volume Serial Number is BB03-1DF6

Directory of H:\

di r

01/30/2008 02/04/2008 01/31/2008 03/27/2007 01/09/2008 01/21/2008 01/17/2008 01/15/2008 01/15/2008 01/25/2008 02/23/2007 08/24/2006 01/29/2008 01/25/2007 02/22/2007 01/26/2008

01:52p <DIR>

10:14a <DIR>

12:50p <DIR>

07:56a <DIR>

11:30a <DIR>

04:03p <DIR>

11:27a <DIR>

03:26p <DIR>

02:04p <DIR>

11:01a <DIR> 01:02p

11:21a <DIR>

09:07a <DIR>

11:05a <DIR>

09:47a <nil>

11:26a <DIR> 1 File(s)

F

~~

orms SIS Documentum suplier Records MYSCAN IWProcess PC

17,920 DocumDistribution.xls ZAP Points Administration Transportation designPro Index-Titles

17,920 bytes

Directory of H:\Forms

01/31/2008 01/30/2008 01/14/2008 04/05/2007 05/17/2007 02/01/2007 05/21/2007 05/22/2007 06/27/2007 05/22/2007 05/22/2007 05/22/2007 08/01/2007

<DIR> <DIR>

12:50p 01:52p 04:00p 11:48a 02:53p 12:41p 01:38p 01:22p 07:03a 01:23p 01:23p 01:23p 06:21a

11 File(s)

36,864 R

~~

M-DSK-3006.1-rl.doc 24,576 Document Control Checklist.doc 21,504 RPC DAILY BATCH SHEET dec 04.doc 33,280 240-A20-CB00-00301-000-00A OUO SIS.doc 59,392 RM-PRO-5002.3-r0-Copyright.doc 58,880 V0-CY05-NHC4-02143-00005-001-002.doc 25,600 SCREENING CHECKLIST 021606.doc 58,368 V0-CY05-NHC4-02143-00001-001-002.doc 58,368 V0-CY05-NHC4-02143-00002-001-002.doc 58,368 V0-CY05-NHC4-02143-00003-001-002.doc 58,368 Tr-Nuclear Corp.-copyright.doc 493,568 bytes

Directory of H:\SIS

03/27/2007 01/30/2008 12/04/2007 02/04/2008

07:56a <DIR>

01:52p <DIR>

10:39a <DIR>


O

~~

LD SIS FORM NEW SIS FORM

0 bytes

Directory of H:\SIS\OLD SIS FORM

32,256 800-MQC-HE00-00100-000-00A-SIS.doc 33,280 050-POK-WHOO-10101-000-00A-SIS.doc 33,280 050-POK-WHOO-10102-000-00A-SIS.doc 33,280 050-POK-WHOO-10103-000-00A-SIS.doc 32,768 050-POK-WHOO-10104-000-00A-SIS.doc 33,280 060-POK-CR00-10101-000-00A.doc 33,280 060-POK-CR00-10102-000-00A.doc 33,280 060-POK-CR00-10103-000-00A.doc 33,280 060-POK-CR00-10104-000-00A.doc 33,280 060-POK-CR00-10105-000-00A.doc 32,768 200-DBC-RF00-00100-000-00A-SIS.doc

Page 1

03/26/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007 03/07/2007 03/07/2007 02/15/2007 02/15/2007 02/15/2007 02/15/2007 03/13/2007 03/22/2007

03:57p 08:15a 08:15a 08:16a 08:17a 08:18a 09:27a 09:24a 03:44p 03:43p 03:43p 03:43p 09:15a 11:04a

25 File(s)

02/04/2008 11:49a 03/27/2007 07:56a 11/30/2007 10:51a 03/27/2007 07:47a 03/27/2007 07:46a 03/14/2007 07:18a 10/03/2007 12:33p 10/09/2007 10:21a 03/28/2007 11:31a 03/27/2007 12:55p 03/28/2007 09:23a 10/19/2007 02:13p 03/30/2007 09:00a 03/30/2007 10:20a 03/30/2007 01:31p 03/30/2007 03:08p 03/31/2007 10:15a 04/02/2007 12:41p 04/18/2007 11:45a 04/18/2007 11:49a 04/18/2007 11:50a 10/15/2007 03:10p 05/09/2007 07:58a 05/09/2007 08:00a , 05/17/2007 01:49p 01/23/2008 10:02a 01/23/2008 10:02a 05/17/2007 01:52p 05/17/2007 01:53p 01/23/2008 10:03a 01/23/2008 10:04a 05/17/2007 01:57p 05/23/2007 09:36a 05/24/2007 10:01a 05/24/2007 02:02p 05/29/2007 11:00a 05/30/2007 12:23p 05/30/2007 01:46p 06/01/2007 01:36p 10/23/2007 11:29a 10/23/2007 12:56p 10/10/2007 02:17p 06/06/2007 07:38a 06/14/2007 03:52p 06/19/2007 12:03p

<DIR> <DIR>

dir 32,768 200-DBC-RF00-00200-000-00A-SIS.doc 32,256 200-POK-RF00-10101-000-00A.doc 33,280 200-POK-RF00-10102-000-00A.doc 33,280 200-POK-RF00-10103-000-00A.doc 32,768 200-POK-RF00-10104-000-00A.doc 32,768 200-POK-RF00-10105-000-00A.doc 32,256 26D-POK-EG00-00101-000-00A.doc 32,768 26D-POK-EG00-00102-000-00A.doc 33,280 51A-POK-IH00-10101-000-00B-SIS.doc 33,280 51A-POK-IH00-10102-000-00B-SIS.doc 32,768 51A-POK-IH00-10103-000-00B-SIS.doc 32,768 51A-P0K-IH00-10104-000-00B-SIS.doc 32,768 800-MQC-HE00-00100-000-00A.doc 32,768 000-M0C-P5PO-00100-000-00B - OUO.doc 823,808 bytes

Directory of H:\siS\NEw KS FORM

31,744 0'50-SYC-WHOO-00800-000-00A.doc 32,256 200-DBC-RF00-00200-000-00A-SIS-NEw.doc 32,256 800-E8C-EEN0-00100-000-00A-SIS-NEW.doc 33,280 A171-1-sis.doc 31,232 050-SSC-WHOO-00300-000-00B.doc 31,744 800-MQC-HE00-00200-000-00A.doc 32,256 200-DBC-RF00-00300-000-00A-SIS-NEW.doc 32,256 050-SYC-WHOO-00200-000-00A.doc 31,744 000-00C-MGRO-02500-000-00A.doc 31,232 V0-CY05-QHC4-00459-00016-001-006.doc 32,256 26D-M0A-FP00-00100-000-00A-OUO.doc 32,256 51A-SSC-IH00-00200-000-00A.doc 32,256 060-M0A-FP00-00100-000-00A.doc 32,256 000-MOC-FP00-00100-000-00A.doc 32,256 51A-SSC-IH00-00300-000-00A.doc 32,256 51A-Ssc-IH00-00400-000-00A.doc 32,256 060-POK-CR00-10101-000-00B.doc 32,256 060-POK-CR00-10102-000-00B.doc 32,256 060-POK-CR00-10103-000-00B.doc 31,744 26D-E8C-EE00-00100-000-00A.doc 31,232 000-00R-G000-00800-000-000.doc 32,256 000-00R-G000-00700-000-000.doc 31,744 060-P10-CR00-00101-000-00A-oU0.doc 31,744 060-P10-CR00-00102-000-00A-OUO.doc 32,256 060-P10-CR00-00103-000-00A-OUO.doc 32,256 060-P10-CR00-00104-000-00A-OUO.doc 32,768 060-P10-cR00-00105-000-00A-000.doc 32,768 060-P10-CR00-00106-000-00A-OUO.doc 32,768 060-P10-CR00-00107-000-00A-OUO.doc 32,256 060-P10-CR00-00108-000-00A-OUO.doc 31,744 000-PSA-mGRO-00700-000-00A.doc 32,768 050-M0A-FP00-00100-000-00A-OUO.doc 31,744 050-DBC-WHOO-00200-000-00A.doc 32,768 51A-M8C-VCTO-00100-000-00A-SIS.doc 32,256 26D-SYC-EG00-00100-000-00A.doc 32,768 200-M6C-PSHO-00100-000-00A.doc 32,256 26D-SYC-EG00-00200-000-00A.doc 32,256 000-00A-MGRO-00100-000-00A.doc 32,256 000-PSA-MGRO-01300-000-00A.doc 32,256 000-MJO-H000-01201-000-00C-OUO.doc 31,744 000-PSA-MGRO-00600-000-00A.doc 32,256 200-SYC-RF00-00400-000-00B.doc 31,744 26D-SOC-EG00-00200-000-00A.doc

Page 2

10/25/2007 09:30a 06/06/2007 07:39a 06/19/2007 12:05p 06/06/2007 07:40a 06/21/2007 11:26a 06/25/2007 04:01p 07/09/2007 02:54p 07/11/2007 09:24a 07/30/2007 01:57p 07/24/2007 09:06a 10/16/2007 10:06a 11/16/2007 11:44a 10/19/2007 02:30p 10/22/2007 12:19p 10/22/2007 12:31p 10/22/2007 12:33p 10/22/2007 12:35p 10/22/2007 12:37p 10/22/2007 12:39p 10/22/2007 12:40p 10/22/2007 12:42p 10/24/2007 10:26a 10/24/2007 10:30a 10/24/2007 10:28a 10/24/2007 10:30a 11/01/2007 12:18p 11/01/2007 12:17p 11/02/2007 08:16a 11/05/2007 11:15a 11/05/2007 11:19a 11/05/2007 11:19a 11/05/2007 11:19a 11/05/2007 11:18a 11/05/2007 11:18a 11/05/2007 11:18a 11/05/2007 11:18a 11/02/2007 08:32a 11/05/2007 09:13a 11/08/2007 10:33a 11/08/2007 10:32a 11/08/2007 10:32a 11/08/2007 10:32a 11/08/2007 10:32a 11/08/2007 10:32a 12/05/2007 11:04a 11/15/2007 03:21p 11/16/2007 07:10a 11/16/2007 07:29a 11/06/2007 09:25a 11/07/2007 11:16a 11/16/2007 10:44a 02/04/2008 11:15a 12/05/2007 11:19a 11/20/2007 11:14a 11/20/2007 11:06a 11/20/2007 02:22p 11/20/2007 03:12p 11/20/2007 03:15p 11/26/2007 02:57p 11/29/2007 01:13p 11/29/2007 01:13p 11/29/2007 01:11p 12/06/2007 10:53a

dir 32,768 26D-E2C-EE00-00100-000-00A.doc 32,768 000-P5A-MGRO-00600-000-00A-OUO.doc 32,256 26D-SOC-EG00-00300-000-00A.doc 31,744 000-PSA-LW00-00100-000-00A.doc 31,232 000-00C-G000-01400-000-00C.doc 32,768 160-30R-LW00-00100-000-000.doc 31,232 V0-HX00-QHC4-03115-00001-001-001.doc 31,744 v0-w000-SRPA-04469-00015-001-001-0u0.doc 31,744 000-00C-DN00-00100-000-00B.doc 31,744 200-30R-RF00-00300-000-000.doc 32,256 050-M0A-FP00-00100-000-00B-OUO.doc 31,744 050-E8C-EE00-00100-000-00B.doc 31,232 v0-CY05-QHC4-00459-00025-001-004.doc 32,256 v0-CY05-QHC4-00459-00032-001-004.doc 31,744 vO-CY05-QHC4-00459-00042-001-003.doc 31,744 VO-CY05-QHC4-00459-00049-001-004.doc 31,744 v0-CY05-QHC4-00459-00057-001-002.doc 31,744 V0-CY05-QHC4-00459-00072-001-001.doc 31,744 vO-CY05-QHC4-00459-00074-001-001.doc 31,744 v0-cY05-QHc4-00459-00075-001-001.doc 31,744 v0-CY05-QHC4-00459-00076-001-001.doc 31,744 V0-CY05-QHC4-00459-00040-001-003.doc 31,232 VO-CY05-QHC4-00459-00041-001-003.doc 31,744 VO-CY05-QHC4-00459-00043-001-003.doc 31,744 v0-CY05-QHC4-00459-00044-001-003.doc 32,256 V0-CY05-QHC4-00459-00063-001-002.doc 31,744 vO-CY05-QHC4-00459-00067-001-002.doc 32,768 170-DBC-AP00-00100-000-00A.doc 32,256 51A-P10-IH00-00101-000-00B.doc 32,256 51A-P10-IH00-00102-000-008.doc 32,256 51A-P10-IH00-00103-000-00B.doc 32,256 51A-P10-IH00-00104-000-00B.doc 32,256 51A-P10-IH00-00105-000-00B.doc 32,256 51A-P10-IH00-00106-000-00B.doc 32,256 51A-P10-IH00-00107-000-00B.doc 32,768 51A-P10-IH00-00108-000-00B.doc 33,280 800-MQC-HE00-00200-000-00B.doc 31,744 200-30R-RF00-00300-000-001.doc 31,232 26D-E20-EEE0-00101-000-00B.doc 31,232 26D-E20-EEE0-00201-000-00B.doc 31,232 26D-E20-EEN0-00101-000-00A.doc 31,744 26D-ERO-EuR0-00101-000-00A.doc 32,256 26D-ERO-EUR0-00201-000-00A.doc 32,256 26D-ERO-EuR0-00301-000-00A.doc 32,256 060-M0A-FP00-00100-000-00B.doc 31,744 000-00C-G000-01300-000-00B.doc 31,744 v0-cY05-QHC4-00459-00018-001-003.doc 31,232 VO-CY05-QHC4-00459-00061-001-002.doc 32,256 51A-SYC-IH00-00400-000-00A.doc 31,744 000-00C-MGRO-03400-000-00A.doc" 31,744 000-00C-MGRO-04600-000-00A.doc 32,768 000-PSA-WIS0-00100-000-00A.doc 31,744 26D-SYC-EG00-00500-000-00A.doc 31,232 100-00C-WHS0-00600-000-00A.doc 31,744 100-00C-WHS0-00600-000-00A-Ou0.doc 31,744 050-E2C-EE00-00100-000-00B.doc 31,232 26D-DBC-EG00-00100-000.doc 31,232 26D-DBC-EG00-00100-000-00A-Ou0.doc 31,744 RPM.DE.11.16.07.001-0UO.doc 31,744 51A-SSC-IH00-00600-000-00A.doc 31,744 51A-SSC-IH00-00600-000-00A1.doc 32,256 51A-SSC-IH00-00600-000-00A2.doc 32,256 51A-DBC-IH00-00100-000-00A.doc

Page 3

11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 12/01/2007 12/01/2007 12/01/2007 12/01/2007 12/02/2007 12/02/2007 12/03/2007 12/04/2007 12/04/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/17/2007 12/17/2007 12/18/2007 01/30/2008 12/20/2007 01/08/2008 01/30/2008 01/28/2008 01/30/2008

10:52a 12:49p 02:14p 07:55a 08:02a 09:13a 01:35p 09:55a 10:02a 10:15a 10:44a 10:45a 04:13p 04:14p 04:15p 04:16p 04:17p 04:17p 04:18p 04:19p 08:37a 01:06p 10:34a 10:42a 01:44p 02:09p 09:18a 10:57a 01:17p 135 File(s)

dir 31,232 060-SYC-CR00-00600-000-00A.doc 31,744 050-SYC-WHOO-01400-000-00A.doc 31,744 200-E2C-EE00-00100-000-00B.doc 31,744 050-00C-WHOO-00300-000-00A.doc 31,744 050-00C-WHOO-00300-000-00A-OUO.doc 31,744 200-SYC-RF00-01500-000-00A.doc 31,232 050-SYC-WHOO-01100-000-00A.doc 32,256 26D-DBC-EG00-00200-000-00A.doc 32,256 26D-SYC-EG00-00100-000-00A-OUO.doc 31,744 51A-SYC-IH00-00800-000-00A.doc 32,256 050-M70-HMH0-00201-000-00C.doc 32,256 050-M70-HMH0-00202-000-00C.doc 32,768 200-P10-RF00-00101-000-00B.doc 32,256 200-P10-RF00-00102-000-00B.doc 32,256 200-P10-RF00-00103-000-00B.doc 32,256 200-P10-RF00-00104-000-008.doc 32,256 200-P10-RF00-00105-000-00B.doc 32,256 200-P1O-RF00-00106-000-00B.doc 32,256 200-P10-RF00-00107-000-00B.doc 32,768 200-P10-RF00-00108-000-00B.doc 31,744 050-E2C-EE00-00100-000-00C.doc 32,768 51A-E2C-EE00-00100-000-00C.doc 33,280 26D-E1C-EEE0-00300-000-00A.doc 31,744 060-E2C-EE00-00100-000-00C.doc 31,232 160-E2C-EE00-00100-000-00B.doc 31,232 000-00C-MGRO-03900-000-00A.doc 31,744 800-00C-WIS0-00700-000-00A.doc 32,256 V0-HMDD-QP0A-00002-00174-001-001.doc 31,744 000-00C-MGRO-03500-000-00B.doc

4,322,304 bytes

Directory of H:\Documentum

01/09/2008 11:30a <DIR>

01/30/2008 01:52p <DIR> 06/27/2007 01:33p

02/04/2008 11:39a <DIR> 04/17/2007 10:08a 08/02/2007 02:14p

3 File(s)

25,600 060.doc Checkout

61,952 list meeting minutes.doc 37,888 Meeting Minutes List.xls 125,440 bytes

Directory of H:\Documentum\Checkout

02/04/2008 01/09/2008 02/04/2008 02/04/2008 09/05/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006

11:39a 11:30a 09:12a 12:31p 02:29p 02:30p 02:35p

5 File(s)

<DIR> <DIR>

156,770 RPMDC-08-00138.pdf 204,424 RPmDc-08-00140.pdf 94,208 110-E10-EEN0-00301-000.pdf 94,208 110-E10-EEN0-00401-000.pdf 94,208 110-E10-EEN0-00301-0000.pdf 643,818 bytes

Directory of H:\suplier

01/21/2008 04:03p 01/30/2008 01:52p 11/15/2007 01:01p 11/15/2007 01:01p 01/21/2008 03:50p 01/14/2008 02:56p 11/06/2007 03:04p 11/06/2007 02:57p 01/21/2008 03:51p

<DIR> <DIR>

46,080 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.6-r4.doc 80,384 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.7-r4.doc 84,480 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.7-r4-ATS.doc 84,480 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.7-r4-P&H.doc 83,968 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.7-r3-INL.doc 43,520 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.6-r3-INL.doc 47,104 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.6-r5-ATS.doc

Page 4

12/17/2007 01/14/2008 12/17/2007 09/05/2006 12/15/2006 03/12/2007 09/05/2006 09/05/2006 12/04/2006 10/04/2006 03/12/2007 12/05/2006 12/15/2006 05/30/2007 04/25/2007 05/29/2007 06/27/2007 06/27/2007

10:56a 03:30p 10:56a 09:14a 12:10p 10:17a 09:34a 09:34a 03:35p 02:05p 10:17a 09:16a 12:10p 08:50a 01:49p 12:24p 09:01a 09:13a

25 File(s)

dir 84,480 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.7-r4-AT&F.doc 46,592 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.6-r5-P&H.doc 47,104 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.6-r5-AT&F.doc 74,752 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.7-r3-Ces.doc 74,240 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.7-r3-ENER.doc 70,656 G-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.7-r3-WDC.doc 43,520 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.6-r3-J.0at.doc 43,520 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.6-r3-Ces.doc 43,008 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00096.6-r3-J.0at.doc 43,008 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.6-r3-INL-REPORTS.doc 43,520 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.6-r3-WDC.doc 70,656 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.7-r3-J.0at.doc 43,520 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.6-r3-ENER.doc 70,656 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.7-r3-Kleinfelder.doc 43,520 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.6-r3-Kleinfelder.doc 43,520 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.6-r3-P&H.doc 43,520 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.6-r3-COM.doc 71,168 EG-PRO-3DP-GO4B-00058.7-r3-CSM.doc

1,470,976 bytes

Directory of H:\Records

01/17/2008 01/30/2008 01/17/2068 12/15/2006 02/13/2007

11:27a <DIR>

01:52p <DIR> 11:27a

03:18p <DIR>


19,968 26D.doc Record TRA Record Packages-TOC

19,968 bytes

Directory of H:\Records\Record TRA

12/15/2006 01/17/2008 10/13/2006 10/24/2006 10/18/2006 10/18/2006 11/28/2006 10/24/2006 12/07/2006 11/10/2006 11/10/2006 11/27/2006 11/27/2006 12/14/2006 11/28/2006 11/28/2006 11/28/2006 11/28/2006 11/28/2006 12/07/2006 12/14/2006

<DIR> <DIR>

03:18p 11:27a 10:38a 11:23a 02:11p 02:51p 08:25a 10:13a 10:38a 03:42p 03:44p 09:52a 11:24a 02:29p 08:43a 08:59a 09:10a 09:43a 10:08a 12:58p 02:50p

19 File(s)

168,960 660-E9J-EUGO-00106-000-00B.doc 168,448 800-S0C-SS00-00100-000.doc 168,960 000-e9J-EUGO-00105-000-00B.doc 168,960 000-E9J-EUGO-00107-000-00B.doc 168,448 000-3DR-MGRO-00300-000-000.doc 168,960 780-EPC-EEN0-00100-000-00A.doc 168,448 000-m6J-MGRO-00101-000-00A.doc 168,448 000-MJO-HL00-00101-000-00A.doc 168,448 000-WO-HL00-00102-000-00A.doc 168,448 000-00C-DNFO-00100-000-00B.doc 168,448 000-3DR-MGRO-00300-000-000-CBCNO02.doc 168,448 000-MW0-DSCO-00101-000-00A.doc 168,448 000-M6J-MGRO-00102-000-00A.doc 168,448 000-m63-mGRO-00103-000-00A.doc 168,448 000-M63-MGRO-00104-000-00A.doc 168,448 000-M63-MGRO-00105-000-00A.doc 168,448 000-M63-MGRO-00106-000-00A.doc 168,448 000-MW0-DSCO-00103-000-00A.doc 168,448 000-MW0-DSCO-00102-000-00A.doc 3,202,560 bytes

Directory of H:\Records\Record Packages-TOC

02/13/2007 09:19a 01/17/2008 11:27a 10/11/2006 09:35a 10/19/2006 12:03p 10/19/2006 12:04p 10/25/2006 08:42a 11/06/2006 09:39a

<DIR> <DIR>

174,080 CC-PRO-1001.doc 172,544 000-E93-EUGO-00106-000-00Bshort term.doc 172,032 000-E9J-EUGO-00105-000-00B.doc 171,008 780-EPC-EEN0-00100-000-00A.doc 172,032 ERB BLDG 1450.doc

Page 5

10/18/2006 11/27/2006 10/24/2006 11/07/2006 11/13/2006 12/04/2006 11/13/2006 11/29/2006 12/05/2006 12/14/2006 12/04/2006 12/07/2006 12/14/2006 12/04/2006 12/04/2006 12/04/2006

02:49p 02:18p 11:20a 01:24p 02:53p 08:38a 02:47p 09:42a 03:03p 02:45p 09:10a 12:56p 02:50p 09:15a 09:16a 09:18a

21 File(s)

dir 172,032 000-E9J-EUGO-00107-000-00B.doc 85,504 000-00C-DNFO-00100-000-00B.doc 173,056 800-SOC-SS00-00100-000.doc 76,800 000-3DR-MGRO-00300-000.doc 90,624 000-MJ0-HL00-00102-000-00A.doc 75,776 000-M6J-MGRO-00101-000-00A.doc 81,408 000-M30-HL00-00101-000-00A.doc 89,088 000-3DR-MGRO-00300-000-CBCNO02.doc 84,992 000-M6J-MGRO-00103-000-00A.doc 79,360 000-MW0-DSCO-00101-000-00A.doc 86,016 000-M6J-MGRO-00102-000-00A.doc 88,576 000-MWO-DSCO-00103-000-00A.doc 90,624 000-MW0-DSCO-00102-000-00A.doc 87,040 000-M63-MGRO-00104-000-00A.doc 85,504 000-M6J-MGRO-00105-000-00A.doc 85,504 000-M6J-MGRO-00106-000-00A.doc

2,393,600 bytes

Directory of H:\MYSCAN

01/15/2008 03:26p <DIR.>

01/30/2008 01:52p <put> 0 File(s)

Directory of H:\IWProcess

01/15/2008 02:04p <put>

01/30/2008 01:52p <DIR> 0 File(s)

0

~~

bytes

0

~~

bytes

<DIR> <DIR>

Directory of H:\PC

01/25/2008 11:01a 01/30/2008 01:52p 01/22/2008 01:53p orienation.pdf 01/22/2008 01:24p 01/22/2008 01:52p 01/22/2008 01:50p Accounts. pdf 01/22/2008 09:36a 01/22/2008 01:45p Profile (section 1).pdf 01/22/2008 01:47p 01/22/2008 01:31p Overview.pdf 01/22/2008 01:27p Commitments Part 1.pdf 01/22/2008 01:29p Part 2.pdf 01/22/2008 02:07p Part 3.pdf 01/17/2008 01:03p

12 File(s)

4,435,596 P

~~

articipantGuide Project Controls

1,337,681 BudgetMaintenanceCourseGuide.pdf 3,583,129 Participant%20GuideGeneric Project.pdf 2,473,560 Participant%20GuideProject Code of

1,646,446 BudgetDevelopmentCourseGuide.pdf 2,886,394 PC183B_CourseGuidePFSR Project Financial

6,623,878 PC183C_CourseGuidePFSR Sections 2 to 15.pdf 1,507,706 PC255_ParticipantGuideePCWorks Forecast

2,213,279 PC263ParticipantGuide_06da042607ePCWorks

945,396 PC264ParticipantGuideePCWorks Commitments

2,363,925 PC265_PartGuide071607da06ePCWorks Commitments

1,294,405 ProgressReportsCourseGuide.pdf 31,311,395 bytes

Directory of H:\zAP Points

08/24/2006 01/30/2008 07/17/2006 08/24/2006

<DIR> <DIR>

11:21a 01:52p 08:01a 11:21a

2 File(s)

53,248 e

~~

rgonomic questionnarie.doc 39,936 Personal Safety Plan.doc 93,184 bytes

Page 6

01/29/2008 01/30/2008 11/20/2006 11/02/2007 01/29/2008 11/16/2007 11/14/2006 08/25/2006 02/10/2007 02/09/2007 04/30/2007 04/30/2007 05/17/2007 06/20/2007

• 07/24/2007

<DIR> <DIR>

20,480 0-26-07.doc 19,456 000.doc 39,936 bytes

Directory of H:\Administration di r

09:07a <DIR> .

01:52p <DIR>

12:40p 19,456 600.doc

08:03a 115,200 HR-DIR-64.1-r0.doc

09:07a 190,976 hr-211_january_2008.doc

08:02a 31,232 2008 Personal Safety P1an2008.doc

10:31a 41,472 2007 Personal Safety Plan.doc

08:22a 100,864 hr-218_july_2006_goals.doc

10:39a 19,456 DOCUMENTS TO BE PEER.doc

07:14a 190,464 Annual Performance Evaluation.doc

12:42p 40,448 TIMESHEET CORRECTION - 04-30-07.xls

12:43p 40,448 TIMESHEET CORRECTION.xls

01:48p 19,456 RPMDC-07-00284.doc

07:53a 245,545 Informacion del doctor y declaracion.pdf

02:43p 41,984 2007 Personal Safety Plan2007.doc 13 File(s) 1,097,001 bytes

Directory of H:\Transportation

01/25/2007 01/30/2008 01/19/2007 10/12/2006 01/19/2007 01/19/2007 01/19/2007 01/19/2007 01/19/2007 01/19/2007 01/25/2007 01/25/2007

<DIR> <DIR>

11:05a 01:52p 10:21a 07:18a 10:25a 10:02a 10:43a 10:26a 10:26a 10:44a 10:56a 11:05a

10 File(s)

43,520 Stamp.doc 33,792 Special Instruction Sheet SIS.doc 43,008 Stampdvd.doc 299,493 pedigree.pdf 46,080 Attached List-Stamp.doc 12,801 distribution.pdf 73,216 distribution.doc 12,734 Attached List - Stamp.pdf 33,792 SIS V0-CY07-NHC4-03345-00399-001.doc 34,304 SBG V0-CY07-NHC4-03345-00399-001-001.zdp 632,740 bytes

Directory of H:\designPro

02/22/2007 09:47a <DIR> .

01/30/2008 01:52p <DIR> ..

10/30/2006 10:22a 63,488 Documentl.zdp 1 File(s) 63,488 bytes

Directory of H:\Index-Titles

01/26/2008 01/30/2008 01/26/2008 10/31/2007

11:26a 01:52p 11:26a 11:59a

2 File(s)

Total Files Listed: 286 File(s) 46,751,706 bytes 56 Dir(s) 1,525,325,824 bytes free

Page 7

Design Calculation or Analysis Cover Sheet BSC 2. Page 1 ...

Documents

Transcript of Design Calculation or Analysis Cover Sheet BSC 2. Page 1 ...