LR-N14-0207, PSEG Nuclear Llc'S 90-day Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Flooding Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident

PSEG Nuclear Llc'S 90-day Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Flooding Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident

ML14268A469
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	09/23/2014
From:	Sindoni J Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
LR-N14-0207
Download: ML14268A469 (21)

Text

PSEG Nuclear LLC P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038-0236 10 CFR 50.54(f)

LR-N 14-0207 SEP~~2 3 2014 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Hope Creek Generating Station Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-57 NRC Docket No. 50-354 Salem Generating Station Units 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 NRC Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311

Subject:

PSEG Nuclear LLC's 90-day Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Flooding Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident

References:

1. NRC letter, "Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident," dated March 12, 2012

2. PSEG Letter LR-N14-0041, "PSEG Nuclear LLC's Response to Request for Information Regarding Flooding Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident- Hope Creek Generating Station Flood Hazard Reevaluation," dated March 12, 2014

SEP' 2 3 2014 10 CFR 50.54(f)

Page 2 LR-N 14-0207

3. PSEG Letter LR-N14-0042, "PSEG Nuclear LLC's Response to Request for Information Regarding Flooding Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident- Salem Generating Station Flood Hazard Reevaluation," dated March 11, 2014

4. NRC Letter, "Hope Creek Generating Station, Request for Additional Information Regarding Flooding Hazard Reevaluation (TAC No. MF3924 )," dated July 2, 2014

5. NRC Letter, "Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Request for Additional Information Regarding Flooding Hazard Reevaluation (TAC Nos. MF3790 and MF3791 )," dated June 28, 2014

6. PSEG Letter LR-N14-0170, "PSEG Nuclear LLC's 30-day Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Flooding Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident," dated July 28, 2014 On March 12, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) sent PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) a request for information (Reference 1) pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f),

associated with Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1 for flooding. In response to Reference 1, PSEG provided flooding hazard reevaluation reports for the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) and Salem Generating Station (SGS), via References 2 and 3, respectively. References 4 and 5 transmitted NRC Requests for Additional Information (RAis) regarding the flooding hazard reevaluation reports for HCGS and SGS, respectively. Reference 6 provided the combined HCGS and SGS response to RAI questions 1 through 4. Enclosure 1 provides the combined HCGS and SGS response to RAI question 5. Enclosure 2 contains the electronic files in response to RAI question 5.

There are no regulatory commitments contained in this letter.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Brian Thomas at 856-339-2022.

SEP~ 2 3 2014 10 CFR 50.54(f)

Page 3 LR-N 14-0207 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

J~/-=--1L(....a....___ __

Executed on --+Cf-+(_'"2----::!-

(Date~

Sincerely, fr-~'

Joseph M. Sindoni Director- Regulatory Affairs

Enclosures:

1. Response to RAI Regarding Flooding Hazard Reevaluation -

Question No. 5

2. Electronic Files in Response to RAI Question No. 5 cc: Director of Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (w/o Enclosure 2)

Administrator, Region I, NRC (w/o Enclosure 2)

Project Manager, NRC NRC Senior Resident Inspector, Hope Creek (w/o Enclosure 2)

NRC Senior Resident Inspector, Salem (w/o Enclosure 2)

Mr. P. Mulligan, Manager IV, NJBNE (w/o Enclosure 2)

Hope Creek Commitment Tracking Coordinator (w/o Enclosure 2)

Salem Commitment Tracking Coordinator (w/o Enclosure 2)

PSEG Corporate Commitment Coordinator (w/o Enclosure 2)

LR-N 14-0207 Enclosure 1 Response to RAI Regarding Flooding Hazard Reevaluation -

Question No. 5 Hope Creek Generating Station Salem Generating Station Units 1 and 2 PSEG Nuclear LLC

LR-N 14-0207 Response to RAI Regarding Flooding Hazard Reevaluation -

Question No. 5 NRC Question No.5 The NRC staff requests the licensee provide the information listed below related to the probabilistic evaluation of storm surge. In conjunction with the items below, the staff requests that the licensee include supporting information to assist the staff in identifying relevant information provided as part of the request for additional information (RAJ) response such as provision of (1) indices describing the content of various input/output files and (2) field titles (e.g., column headers and row identifiers) for datasets and tables of information. Input and output files, as well as any supporting information, are requested in their native file format (e.g., *.xlsx, *.txt, etc.). Tables of information are requested to be provided in a format suitable for import into mathematical software packages (e.g., as delimited text files or spreadsheets). POFs of files are not requested to be submitted unless specifically requested in that format.

a) The licensee is requested to provide a tabulation of input data used to support development of probability distributions for relevant storm parameters and (if applicable) examination of parameter correlations.

This includes the HURDA T database pre- and post-application of any filters such as the line-crossing approach used to screen historical hurricanes for evaluation of the distribution for central pressure and associated sampling uncertainty. In addition, the licensee's FHRR references Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) studies as the basis for the following information: (1) historical storm rate, (2) distribution for Rmax (3) distribution for vr and (4) storm track distribution. If the supporting data used to derive these distributions is available to the licensee, the licensee is requested to provide a tabulation of input data used to support development of the above distributions and storm rate.

b) The licensee is requested to provide computer codes (including subroutines and supporting calculations) and input/output files associated with processing data, computing probability distributions for storm parameters, examining parameter correlations, generating the response surface, developing parameters for the error term distribution, performing the JPM integration, and evaluating sampling uncertainty.

c) The licensee is requested to provide a tabulation of the complete response surface (including values generated using numerical models, the pressure-differential relationship, interpolation, and extrapolation) for each combination of storm parameters. In addition, the licensee is requested to identify the method (e.g., numerical model, Page1of17

LR-N14-0207 pressure-differential relationship, interpolation/extrapolation) used to generate each value.

d) The licensee is requested to provide a tabulation of the probability mass functions associated with each storm parameter and error term.

e) The licensee is requested to provide a tabulation of the joint probability mass functions associated with each combination of storm parameters.

PSEG Response to NRC RAI:

a) During the development of the Joint Probability Method -Optimal Sampling (JPM-OS) based storm surge analysis for the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations at the PSEG Site, PSEG relied on previously prepared Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) analysis of the storm parameter distributions. These distributions were augmented by site specific assessments to better fit the PSEG Site. During the development of the response to the subject RAI, PSEG. determined it would no longer rely on the FEMA prepared distributions and develop the required distributions from the best available storm parameter data and previously published statistical analyses.

Developing the required storm parameter distributions affects two primary areas of the Flood Hazard Reevaluation Reports (FHRRs): Section 2.4.3.4, Storm Parameter Probability Distributions and Section 2.4.3.8, Aleatory Uncertainty.

Storm Parameter Distributions The purpose of this section is to describe the process used to estimate the probability distributions associated with each of the storm parameters included in the JPM-OS based storm surge analysis. The following subsections describe the calculations used to estimate the parameter distributions associated with the storm size (radius to maximum *winds), central pressure difference, forward speed, Holland B parameter, and storm track and frequency.

Page 2 of 17

LR-N14-0207 Radius to Maximum Winds Reference RAI-5-1 provides a detailed analysis of applying various statistical models to best estimate the probability distribution associated with radius to maximum data along the U.S. coast. Based on the analysis in Reference RAI-5-1 (provided in Enclosure 2), the following probability relationship for storm size was identified and is used directly in this calculation. Note that this relationship was derived with radius to maximum winds having units of kilometers; however, it is converted to nautical miles for this analysis.

p(Rma.xlcp) = Log-no-rmal[ln(Rmax)J,ain(Rmax)]

ln(Rma_J(k;rn) = 3JJ1S- 6.29t*x: 10-5 (Ap}t:+0.0337W (where\¥ islatitude;i-n.deg*rees)

Uin(lh:nax) = 0.44 where all parameter values used in developing this RAI response are consistent with the Reference RAI-5-1 values for a latitude of 38.8° N (approximate mouth of Delaware Bay).

Figure RAI-5-1 shows the behavior of the Rmax function versus central pressure difference for the entire data range available around the United States (reproduced from Figure 8 in Reference RAI-5-1 ). The extensive data set used in the Reference .

RAI-5-1 analysis is reproduced in Table RAI-5-1.

Figure RAI-5-1. The absolute value of the Rmax model error (km) as a function of central pressure difference (mb). Figure obtained from Reference RAI-5-1.

1.4~------------------~----------------------------~

o Absolute Value of Error 0 --Absolute Value of Error Running Mean 1.2 +----------f"j----- - - - B - -

• Std Deviation e,_

1...

0 0 D

- - Modeled Standard Deviation w Ill! 0

§ 1.0 +---o----=-- - -

0 0

-r:fSl--=:--s---------a..,u-------------------------------j 0 0 0 D D 01 D Do

~ 0 D 0

~ 0.8 +-------~------~~-------;r-~------------------~

0 0 Q)

I

-m o.6 +----..,;&iilfF-'1....--8-n---S---JUI'I---aa---HlB'

.s

-5 0.4

(/)

.c

<( 0.2 +----~~!I!Cjl;jli-1 0

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Central Pressure Difference (mbar)

Page 3 of 17

LR-N 14-0207 Table RAI-5-1. List of data used in Reference RAI-5-1 which forms the basis of the Rmax distribution in the probability formulation developed here. Table reproduced from Reference RAI-5-1.

Total number Observations

• • Storm Year of %Retained Comments Retained Observations Data extracted manually from no-name 1938 5 5 100.00 Myers & Jordan (1956)

Anita 1977 20 20 100.00 David 1979 24 17 70.83 Frederic 1979 62 38 61.29 Allen 1980 125 43 34.40 t.p<25mb for all the cases, except Gert 1981 78 1 1.28 one.

Alicia 1983 50 39 78.00 Arthur 1984 22 0 0.00 t.p <25mb for all the cases.

Diana 1984 128 67 52.34 Danny 1985 26 0 0.00 LJ.p <25mb for all the cases.

Elena 1985 122 99 81.15 Gloria 1985 42 24 57.14 Isabel 1985 48 0 0.00 LJ.p <25mb for all the cases.

Juan 1985 36 6 16.67 Charley 1986 28 0 0.00 LJ.p <25mb for all the cases.

40 out of 56 profiles have flight Emily 1987 56 1 1.79 level pressure <700mb.

Floyd 1987 22 0 0.00 LJ.p <25mb for all the cases.

Florence 1988 20 11 55.00 Gilbert 1988 50 39 78.00 Joan 1988 6 5 83.33 Dean 1989 12 1 8.33 Gabrielle 1989 12 10 83.33 Flight level pressure <700mb for Hugo 1989 40 0 0.00 all the cases Jerry 1989 17 5 29.41 Gustav 1990 84 82 97.62 Bob 1991 92 34 36.96 Claudette 1991 73 71 97.26 Andrew 1992 141 95 67.38 Debby 1994 10 0 0.00 t.p <25mb for all the cases.

57 out of 83 profiles have 6p Gordon 1994 83 8 9.64

<25mb.

35 out of 39 profiles have 6p Allison 1995 39 3 7.69

<25mb.

Chantal 1995 72 0 0.00 6p <25mb for all the cases.

Erin 1995 97 66 68.04 Felix 1995 130 59 45.38 Page 4 of 17

LR-N 14-0207 Total number Observations Storm Year of %Retained Comments Retained Observations Gabrielle 1995 16 0 0.00 lip <25mb for all the cases.

Iris 1995 132 41 31.06 Luis 1995 130 77 59.23 Marilyn 1995 116 96 82.76 Opal 1995 76 21 27.63 Roxanne 1995 141 52 36.88 Bertha 1996 78 56 71.79 Cesar 1996 34 0 0.00 lip< 25mb for all the cases Edouard 1996 178 135 75.84 Fran 1996 143 102 71.33 Hortense 1996 109 59 54.13 Josephine 1996 23 1 4.35 Kyle 1996 8 0 0.00 lip< 25mb for all the cases Lili 1996 68 28 41.18 lip< 25mb for all the cases, Marco 1996 67 1 1.49 except two Erika 1997 56 36 64.29 Bonnie 1998 193 113 58.55 Danielle 1998 133 48 36.09

• Earl 1998 32 3 9.38 Georges 1998 202 125 61.88 Mitch 1998 86 57 66.28 Bret 1999 102 49 48.04 Dennis 1999 158 83 52.53 Floyd 1999 163 103 63.19 Keith 2000 50 40 80.00 Leslie 2000 29 0 0.00 lip< 25mb for all the cases Michael 2000 21 11 52.38 Humberto 2001 46 13 28.16 Michelle 2001 89 61 68.54 Page 5 of 17

LR-N14-0207 Central Pressure Differential Information from the Atlantic hurricane database (HURDAT2) is used to analyze historical storm characteristics and landfall data. The dataset used in this analysis is provided in Enclosure 2 as "HURDAT2013.txt". References RAI-5-2, RAI-5-3, and RAI-5-4 provide supplemental information regarding analysis of the HURDAT2 database. In order to avoid inclusion of too many storms which are unrepresentative of the immediate coastal areas along the Delaware- New Jersey coast, only storms that crossed a line extending from 37° N latitude, 76 ° W longitude to 41° N latitude, 72 ° W longitude (Figure RAI-5-2) were included into the data set to be analyzed.

Table RAI-5-2 contains the list of all 14 storms which entered into the defined area and had a minimum central pressure less than or equal to 980mb, where the angle is given in terms of its heading in a standard mathematical convention with zero degrees denoting a storm moving due east, 90 degrees denoting a storm moving due north, and 180 degrees denoting a storm moving due west. In this system, the limits of the 22.5-degree "slice" of angles defined in the FHRR Subsection 2.4.3.1.4 would be 153.5 degrees to 131 degrees (i.e., centered on the bisecting angle between the zero-degree storms in FHRR Table 2.4-5 and the -22.5-degree storms in FHRR Table 2.4-5).

Page 6 of 17

LR-N 14-0207 Figure RAI-5-2. Line of demarcation used to identify storms in the HURDAT dataset that pass near the site.

Page 7 of 17

LR-N 14-0207 Table RAI-5-2. List of storms and characteristics at closest location to landfall that crossed the line of demarcation shown in Figure RAI-5-2.

Forward Central Heading Year Name Speed Pressure (mb) (deg)

(knots) 1867 Unnamed 969 61.9 16.3 1869 Unnamed 950 79.6 38.4 1879 Unnamed 979 63.4 26.9 1936 Unnamed 968 90.0 13.0 1938 Unnamed 940 87.2 41.0 1958 Daisy 970 58.6 20.0 1960 Donna 965 47.6 30.0 1972 Agnes 977 47.3 20.1 1976 Belle 977 79.7 22.2 1985 Gloria 951 71.0 30.0 1991 Bob 953 58.0 26.7 1999 Floyd 974 56.9 25.9 2011 Irene 958 63.4 13.8 2012 Sandy 940 127.5 6.7 The pressure differentials (defined here as the peripheral pressure, taken to be 1018 mb in this analysis, minus the central pressure) exhibited significant departure from the Gumbel distribution; consequently a Generalized Extreme Value Distribution is used here. In this equation, the cumulative distribution function is defined as:

where i!ip- ao z=---

and, the three parameters of the distribution (a 0 ,apc;) are fit via the method of moments and determined to have values of a0 = 42.96, a1 = 16.77, and~= 6.494.

Figure RAI-5-3 shows a comparison of the historical data points plotted in their plotting positions and the "best-fit" line, using the three parameter values given above in conjunction with the cumulative distribution function. This is a Fisher-Tippett Ill class of distribution (Weibull) and tends toward an upper limit. Table RAI-5-3 gives the central pressures in terms of the number of storms between the occurrences (e.g., it's estimated that every 1oth storm will have a central pressure of 943.15 mb ). This value is equal to the central pressures for storms given that one storm occurred each year.

Page 8 of 17

LR-N 14-0207 Figure RAI-5-3. Comparison of the historical central pressure values and the best fit line using the Generalized Extreme Value Distribution .

-.....,E t.n 1-0 t.n

'+-

0 1-10 CJ.)

2

~----~~---------+---------+--------~

..Q E

J c

'C 0

'1.':

CJ.)

c..E1o 1 ~-------+------~~--------+-------~

- :J CJ.)

0:::

C) 0

...J 1 ~0~0~~~~9~2~5~~~~9~5-0~~~~9~75~~~~1~000 Central Pressure {mb)

Table RAI-5-3. Central pressure values for various mean recurrence intervals in terms of number of storms.

Mean Recurrence Central Pressure (number of storms) (mb) 2 969.06 5 952.58 10 943.15 25 932.69 50 925.86 100 919.77 500 907.97 Page 9 of 17

LR-N 14-0207 Forward Speed From the data in Table RAI-5-2, we find that the distribution of forward speeds for storms approximately follows a Normal distribution with mean forward speed of 23.6 knots and standard deviation of 9.6 knots. This distribution is given by:

v (vr-v/)1 1 --,-

J f

F(vf) = j2; e 2a; dvf 0 (J'v

.r 2ff where the overbar denotes the average value of v1 .

Figure RAI-5-4 below shows the Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) plot for the forward speed.

distribution. The linear behavior of the data points on this plot indicates that the data are normally distributed.

Figure RAI-5-4. Q-Q plot for the forward speed distribution.

_?(

0.9 Iii

//

0.8 II /

/

I//

l.fl

~ 0.7

II/'

c:: ~/

~ 0.6 0 Ill ~//

"ffi 0.5

.. /

u Ll e o.4 0

/

Q)

~ 0.3 Ill

,/

v/

._/

0.2 /

/~

II I

0.1

,/

~*/ I II I I I I I I I 0

o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Sample Quantiles Page 10 of 17

LR-N 14-0207 Holland B Parameter Similar to what was done for Rmax, the Holland B value for the region along the Delaware- New Jersey coast is chosen to be consistent with the Reference RAI-5-1 study. Figure RAI-5-5 shows the estimated values of the Holland B parameter as a function of sea surface temperature (SST). As can be seen here, a mean value of 1.1 with a 0.1 standard deviation provides a conservative representation of the data in the range of SSTs expected during hurricane season along the Delaware-New Jersey coast (20-24 degrees C based on the data presented in Reference RAI-5-5).

Figure RAI-5-5. Data from Reference RAI-5-1 showing distribution of Holland B values as a function of SST. SST values in the Delaware-New Jersey coastal area during hurricane season are in the 20-24 degrees C range (based on the data presented in Reference RAI-5-5).

RMW(km) 2.50 y =0.059 -0.391 2

R =0 45 J...

(l) 2.00

(!,)

E ra 1.50 J...

ra 0..

Ill "C 1.00 12 0

c 0.50 0.00 10 15 20 25 30 Sea Surface Temperature (Degrees C)

Storm Track and Frequency The only remaining information to be quantified on the storm distribution is the storm track distribution and rate of occurrence (i.e., the number of storms per year within o~e degree of the site). From the data provided in Table RAI-5-2, the mean heading (B) is 70.9 degrees in the mathematical coordinate system used here (i.e.,

19.1 degrees east of north) and the standard deviation (ae) of these angles is 21.1 degrees. Using a Normal distribution to represent the heading directions suggests that the closest angle in the total "slice" included in the JPM integral is Page 11 of 17

LR-N 14-0207 118.75 degrees, which is 2.3 standard deviations away from the mean. Using this information, the cumulative distribution function (CDF) can be written as:

1 1 (.11s.7s - a)*.

F(x) =-+ ~erf .. ~ .:

2 2 . U(J'¥'2 Based on this distribution, storm tracks that extend beyond this limit into the region contributing significantly to the JPM integral have a probability of 1-F(x), which comes out to be 1.17°/o for this region. Furthermore, in this area (the coastal region

• defined in Figure RAI-5-2) there have only been 6 landfalling storms (Unnamed 1938, Donna, Belle, Gloria, Irene, and Sandy) over the last 163 years. Thus, the frequency of storms in our range of angles is given by number of landfalling storms divided by the number of years (6/163) divided by the number of degrees along the line defined as the crossing boundary here (5.93) times the fraction that travel in this direction (0.0117), which results in a storm frequency value at the PSEG site of 7 .26x1 o-s storms per year per degree.

Results and Conclusions In summary, based on the analysis presented above, the following probability distributions are used for joint-probability estimations in the JPM calculations at the PSEG Site described in FHRR Subsection 2.4.3.6. Based on the results of the sensitivity analysis provided in FHRR Subsection 2.4.3.1.2.1.2, the Holland 8 parameter is treated in the error term rather than as an additional dimension in the integral.

where 8F(z) p{ilp) = ~ (\Vhere .F(z) is defined on PagH 8) p(R.ma.-:t,I.Ap):! $\[ln.(R.i'nax)rcrh<Rmax] (lognormal distribution) with Rmax is in *units of nautical miles (1nn) ulnR-mi!l..'!ir- = 0.176 (convertedtonrn)

~- exp(3.015- 6.291 x 10-5 l1p 2 + 0.03371J])

R*max. = - - - - - - ,o-.:c-k:-.rr-1..1-.- - - - -

1.o::t2 Jn:rn (where k~yu1 x is the median of the distribution) and

.. ~ lis P(x"" l = Jl-

- IJ- 60 vvhere Page 12 of 17

LR-N 14-0207 A.= 7.26 X 10- 5 is the storm frequency per 60nm along-coast distance within our defined 45-degree angle band, and os =:the spacing between tracks in nautical miles and vr (vr-vJ )2

. 1 -2T F (v1 ) = fo (Jvr

..j2; e 2Jr v dv1 where the overbar denotes the average value of v1 .

Aleatory Uncertainty Contributions from uncertainty due to sampling or aleatory uncertainty can also be quite significant at very low probabilities (FHRR References 2.4-24 and 2.4-35).

Aleatory uncertainty must consider the effects of randomness on the estimated 1o- 6 annual exceedance probability (AEP) still water surface elevation (WSEL) and total WSEL. As discussed in FHRR References 2.4-24 and 2.4-35, the primary contributor to aleatory uncertainty at very large return periods is related to uncertainty in the central pressure of the storms. Due to the reassessment of the central pressure distribution described above, and the key role central pressure plays in evaluating the aleatory uncertainty, the procedure employed was revisited for this RAI response.

For this analysis, the estimated uncertainty band is obtained using the Maximum Likelihood Method (Reference RAI-5-6) for the Generalized Extreme Value distribution. Table RAI-5-4 gives the values of central pressure (based on the mean recurrence in terms of number of storms; from Table RAI-5-3), pressure differential, standard deviation of the confidence band (a-a) at that pressure differential, and the ratio of the standard deviation to the pressure differential ( !!_g_ ). Figure RAI-5-6 M

shows the estimated ratio of the standard deviation in the confidence bands as a function of the central pressure.

Table RAI-5-4. Estimation of the ratio of the standard deviation in the confidence bands as a function of the central pressure.

Mean Recurrence Central Pressure Pressure ~

(number of a-a (mb)

(mb) Differential (mb) M storms) 2 969.06 48.94 5.21 0.106 5 952.58 65.42 6.41 0.098 10 943.15 74.85 7.48 0.100 25 932.69 85.31 9.47 0.111 50 925.86 92.14 12.07 0.131 100 919.77 98.23 15.42 0.157 500 907.97 110.03 24.49 0.223 Page 13 of 17

LR-N 14-0207 Figure RAI-5-6. Comparison of the estimated ratio of the standard deviation in the confidence bands as a function of central pressure.

~ 0.25 -:-:-:-:-r--:-:-:-:--.---:-=-:-=--,------,--=-=-=-=--...--:-:-=-=-,

c:

~

~ ***<****:****!***:***

~ ' * *'* * * *" o *

• I * * '

• 0

• * ~

• o o 0

! o

• o ! **' o *

~

2: 0. 2 1-"t---7----:---:--f---:-~""'7-7-1-~*---;*~*-*c--1---:-----c--~-+-*:---:-*~* ---7".-+----:--~~-1

s en en

~

Q.

0

=0.15 ...........~~~_,__...._~~'"'----t~;~;~;~;-t---~~~-+--~~~-!-----'-~~--'----1 0

=~

Q)

"C

• • • • • • • >***:****:**** ****:****:****:****:*** ***<****:****=***:*** ****>***:****:****:*** ...

...; .. ' .:. ... ~ ... ; . . . . ...:.... :.... ; ... ; . . . . ...;.... ~ ... ; ... : ... . .. .:. ... ; ... ; ....:. . . . ... :. ... ; ....:... ~. . . . ... ; ' .. ; ... ~ ... .:. ...

. . ~ ... *:* ... ~ ... ~ . . . . .. ~ ... *:* ... ~ ... ! ' . . . .. *:* ... ~ ... : ... : . . . . .. *:* ... :* ... ! ... ~. .. . ... ~ ... ~ ... ~ ... *:. . . . ... ~ ... : ... *: ... *:* ...

~10 920 930 940 950 960 970 Central Pressure Since the storm frequency is low at the PSEG Site, 7.26x1 o-5 storms per year per degree, the central pressures for surges in the range of the 1o-6 AEP would be equivalent to the largest storm in a sample of 72.6 storms (i.e., 7 .26x1 o- 5 multiplied by 1 ,000,000) on the average. From the estimated central pressure values for selected return periods, this is expected to fall in the range of approximately 923 mb (from interpolation of the mean recurrence values shown in Table RAI-5-4). Based on Figure RAI-5-6, this yields an estimate for the ratio of the standard deviation in the confidence bands to the pressure differential of 0.143 (i.e., crrt=0.14311), which is used for the estimated value of the standard deviation of aleatory uncertainty term in the JPMZ2P.FOR code provided in Enclosure 2.

1o- 6 Annual Exceedance Probability Still WSEL The above described changes to the storm parameter distribution and aleatory uncertainty procedure ultimately impact the JPM integration process described in FHRR Subsection 2.4.3.6. The changes described above are made to the Fortran Page 14 of 17

LR-N 14-0207 based JPM-OS integration code (provided in Enclosure 2) and re-run to establish the 1o- 6 AEP still WSEL at the PSEG Site. The resultant still VVSEL is 21.7 ft. NAVD (6.6 m), and is less than the value reported in the FHRR. Therefore, the total WSELs, including wave run up at locations around the PSEG Site, are not adversely impacted by the changes presented in this RAI response. The conclusion of both the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Station FHRRs does not change.

b) Computer codes and input/output filesrelated to the JPM-OS based storm surge analysis for the PSEG Site are provided in Enclosure 2. Also provided in Enclosure 2 is the file "Enclosure2_README.txt" that describes the purpose of each file.

c) The tables provided in the FHRR (FHRR Tables 2.4-6 through 2.4-9) present the portion of the response surface that most closely bounds the 1o-6 AEP; however, the JPM code provided in Enclosure 2 also considers the influence in probability space of central pressure values of 908 mb, 938 mb, and 948 mb. Therefore, the complete response surface with values from all combinations of track, central pressure (Cp),

angle, and radius to maximum winds (Rmax) is provided in Table RAI-5-5. The formatting for Table RAI-5-5 aligns with the convention provided in the FHRR tables, i.e., normal font represents values produced by the ADCIRC+SWAN model (with the storm number noted in parentheses, see FHRR Table 2.4-5), italic and bold font represents values computed with the pressure differential, and underlined represents values that were interpolated/extrapolated.

Page 15 of 17

LR-N 14-0207 Table RAI-5-5. Complete response surface for all combinations of track, central pressure, and radius to maximum winds.

Cp Rmax Angle Surge Value (m)

(mb) {nm) (deg) Track 1 Track 2 Track 3 Track 4 Track 5 Track 6 Track 7 948 30 0 2.8 3.73 4.2 4.2 3.97 3.5 3.03 938 30 0 3.2 4.27 4.8 4.8 4.53 4 3.47 928 30 0 3.6 (39) 4.8 (40) 5.4 (41) 5.4 (42) 5.1 4.5 3.9 918 30 0 3.8 (18) 5.1 (19) 5.4 (12) 5.8 (13) 5.7 (14) 5 (15) 4.3 (16) 908 30 0 4.18 5.61 5.94 I 6.38 6.27 5.5 4.73 948 45 0 2.96 4.36 4.9 4.74 3.97 3.19 2.33 938 45 0 3.38 4.98 5.6 5.42 4.53 3.64 2.67 928 45 0 3.8 5.6 6.3 6.1 5.1 4.1 3 918 45 0 4.2 (24) 6.2 (25) 7 (20) 6.8 (21) 5.7 (22) 4.5 (23) 3.3 908 45 0 4.62 6.82 7.7 7.48 6.27 4.95 3.63 948 30 -22.5 2.57 4.2 4.59 4.12 3.58 3.03 2.49 938 30 -22.5 2.93 4.8 5.24 4.71 4.09 3.47 2.84 928 30 -22.5 3.3 (35) 5.4 (36) 5.9 (37) 5.3 (38) 4.6 3.9 (54) 3.2 918 30 -22.5 3.5 (31) 6 6.3 (33) 5.7 (34) 5 4.3 3.6 908 30 -22.5 3.85 6.6 6.93 6.27 5.5 4.73 3.96 948 45 -22.5 2.57 5.21 '4.98 4.28 3.58 2.72 1.94 938 45 -22.5 2.93 5.96 5.69 . 4.89 4.09 3.11 2.22 928 45 -22.5 3.3 6.7 6.4 5.5 4.6 3.5 (56) 2.5 918 45 -22.5 3.6 (30) 7.3 (27) 7.1 (28) § 5 3.9 2.8 908 45 -22.5 3.96 8.03 7.81 I 6.6 5.5 4.29 3.08 d/e) The probability masses listed in the "probmasses.txt" file provided in Enclosure 2 contain the incremental probabilities used in the JPM integration. In this integral, there are three variables which are treated as independent (univariate only) distributions. These are the angle distributions (50°/o in each angle), the forward speed (defined as a Normal distribution with mean velocity of 23.6 knots and standard deviation of 9.6 knots), and the epistemic uncertainty term (defined as a Normal distribution around the deterministic value with a standard deviation of 0.8 meters). Radius to maximum winds and central pressure are treated as a joint probability with the central pressure following a Generalized Extreme Value form and the radius to maximum winds following a lognormal form with parameters dependent on central pressure.

Page 16 of 17

LR-N 14-0207 References RAI-5-1 Vickery, P.J. and D. Wadhera. 2008. Statistical Models of Holland Pressure Profile Parameter and Radius to Maximum Winds of Hurricanes from Flight-Level Pressure and H*Wind Data. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, Volume 47, pages 2497-2517 RAI-5-2 Bell, G.D., S.B. Goldenberg, C.W. Landsea, E.S. Blake, T.B. Kimber!ain, J. Schemm, and R.J. Pasch. 2013. Tropical Cyclones- Atlantic Basin, State of the Climate in 2012. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 94, S85-S89 RAI-5-3 Landsea, C.W., A. Hagen, W. Bredemeyer, C. Carrasco, D.A. Glenn, A.

Santiago, D. Strahan-Sakoskie, and M. Dickinson. 2013. A reanalysis of the 1931 to 1943 Atlantic hurricane database. Submitted to Journal of Climate. Supplemental information RAI-5-4 Landsea, C.W., and J.L. Franklin, 2013: Atlantic Hurricane Database Uncertainty and Presentation of a New Database Format. Mon. Wea.

Rev., 141, 3576-3592 RAI-5-5 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Oceanographic Data Center, Average Water Temperature Table of the Central Atlantic Coast, http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdtlcwtg/all meanT.html RAI-5-6 Jenkinson, A.F. 1969. Statistics of Extremes. Estimation of maximum floods. WMO Technical Note No. 98, pg. 183-228 Page 17 of 17