Uncertainties in Local Intense Precipitation Flood Modeling
In the Task 1 report for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) funded Local Intense Precipitation (LIP) Probabilistic Flood Hazard Assessment (PFHA) Pilot Study, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) reviewed hydrologic and hydraulic modeling approaches for estimation of LIP flooding and their implementation in readily available simulation software packages (Prasad and Yuan 2020). NRC’s interest is in developing guidance for performing LIP PFHA at nuclear power plant (NPP) sites. This report describes the work done under Task 2 of the study that focused on describing uncertainties associated with LIP flood modeling. Two main types of uncertainties exist in LIP flood modeling: (1) aleatory uncertainties that arise from the inherent natural variability of the hydrometeorological system and (2) epistemic uncertainties that arise from the analysts’ incomplete knowledge of the hydrometeorological and site configuration. Principal sources for aleatory variability in LIP flood simulations at NPP sites include precipitation (i.e., magnitude, duration, and temporal distribution of LIP events), initial conditions (e.g., soil moisture content, stormwater drainage discharge, surface storage), boundary conditions (e.g., upstream discharge, downstream water surface elevations), and long-term temporal trends (e.g., climate change). This report describes approaches used for estimating the aleatory variability in precipitation including precipitation-frequency analysis, numerical weather prediction, and stochastic weather generation. Data sources that can be used to estimate aleatory variability in initial and boundary conditions are also described. Approaches to include effects of long-term trends like those from climate change into estimation of aleatory variability are summarized. Sources of epistemic uncertainty in LIP flood simulations at NPP sites include process representation (e.g., multiple approaches to represent runoff generation, stormwater drainage, and hydraulic routing), site configurations (e.g., site layout, flow features, status of temporary flood protection, blockage of drains), model resolution, and long-term temporal trends (e.g., known/planned site alterations, land-use changes at and in the vicinity of the site). The report describes alternative process representations (methods and models), particularly those implemented in the LIP flood simulation software packages reviewed in Task 1 report, and lists the associated model parameters. Approaches for estimating model parameters when surface and subsurface water exchanges occur are also described.