LR-N14-0042, SL-012270, Revision 0, Salem Generating Station Flood Hazard Reevaluation, Page 2-18 Through Page 2-34
Text
PSEG Nuclear LLC Sa l em Generating Station Flood Hazard Reeva l uation WSE tt) (NAVD88) I!II-'-IJ H i gh: 35 L ow: O Page 2-18 Figure 2.1-7 Maximum Water Surface Elevation 0 PSEG
- Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stat i ons LlP/PMP FLO*2D Analysis Figure 6 -SL-012270 Revision 0 Project No.: 12800-213 Max i mum Water Surface E l evation N ---i f 300 600 Feet 1.20 0 cri t i ca l Door Loca t i ons --_. Veh i cle Barrier System (VBS) c:J Bu il dings 1-fi WSE Con t ours (NAVD88) * ** Model Outflow Boundary Sargent &
PSEG Nuclear LLC Salem Generating Station Flood Hazard Reevaluation Page 2-19 Max Veloc i ty (fps) o 0_0 -0_5 (no color) 0 0_5-1_0 _1_0-1_5 "1_5-2_0 0 2_0-2.5 2.5 -3_0 _3_0-3_5 0 3_5-4_0 _4_0-7_0 _7_0-12_0 F igure 2.1-8 Maximum Veloc o SL-012270 Revision 0 Project No.: 12800-213 PSEG -Salem and Hope Creek Gene r at i ng stations L I P/PMP FLO-2D Ana l ys i s Figure 7-Maximum Veloc i ty 300 eoo 1.2 00 f eec t Clitica l Door Loca t ions Veh.ic l e Ba r r i e r Sys t em (VBS) c:::J Bu i l dings """T"1I""""II Mode l Outflow Boundary Sargent & Lundy"*
PSEG Nuclear LLC Salem Generating Station Flood Hazard Reevaluation Page 2-20 Final Flow Depth Contours (At End of 12-hr Simulation)
Depth Contour (ft) " 0.5 _0.7 5 " 1 2 _3 _4 _5 Figure 2.1-9 Final Depth (Above Grade) o SL-012270 Revision 0 Project No.: 12800-213 PSEG -Salem and H ope Creek Gene r at i ng Stations L I P/PMP F L O-2D Analys i s Figure 9 -F i na l Depth (Above Grade) 300 eoo F eet C ri tica l Doo r Loc at i ons Mode l Outflow Boundary Vehic l e Ba r rie r Sys t em (VBS) 1.20 0 D Bu il di n gs Sargent &
PSEG Nuclear LLC Sa l em Generating Station Flood Hazard Reevaluation 3.5 Figure 2.1-10 LIP Flow Depth -Door location 10 (Gr i d Cell 218164) I I -F l ow O e pth -Depth t o OOo r E le v a ti on I -+; Ii ;-j I I .-2.5 I I I I' 1 I ...... I I I "'-I I r..... I I , --... ! I 1 SL-012270 Revis i on 0 Project No.: 12800-213 I I I I I o.s I t-I ! ! ! 1---;--r-l -.::. Page 2-21 o 3 2.S 2 -£ I.S 2-o 1 0.5 o o o I I I 2 4 6 8 Time (hours) Figure 2.1-11 LIP Flow Depth -Door location 11 (Grid Cell 228711) I i I -F l aY/O e pt h -D ep t h to OO o r El evat i on I I I I I i I f"""o r-... : I I I I I I I """" I i I ! :-I ! -I ! i I , 2 4 6 8 Time (hours) I 10 12 I I I I -I 12 Sargent & Luncty**c PSEG N uclear LLC Sa l em Generat in g Statio n F loo d H azar d Ree v a l ua t io n 3 I ! 1/ "\ J I 2 / 1 o o Figure 2.1-12 UP F l ow Depth -Door Location 12 (Grid Cell 229767) -F l o wO@p t l1 -OI!pth t o Doo r E l e vatio n I I I " 1 I ....... r--..... I I I J r--I I I I , I I I 2 4 6 8 Time (hours) Figure 2.1-13 LIP F l ow Depth -Door Location 13 (Gr i d Cell 233928) 3 -r-I -I -Flo w De p t h -D e p t h t o D oo r E l evat i o n t-r-I j I " I I I I I Ii ! I I ..... i I 2 /1 : I I .... -..i., I i I I I I ' J 1 1 I , I I o o 2 4 6 8 10 Time (hours) Page 2-22 SL-0 1227 0 Re v ision 0 Pro j ect N o.: 128 00-2 1 3 I 1 I 1 12 , I I I I I I I 12 Sarg e nt &
PSEG Nuc l ear LLC Salem Generat i ng Statio n F lo od Haza r d Ree v a lu at i on 3 2.S Figure 2.1-14 LIP F l o w Depth -Door L ocat i on 14 [Grid Cell 236010) r _F l ow Oe p lh _Oep tJi t o Doo r E l e yat i o n I I I I L " ! I , I '-I I r I /1 1 I O.S [I o 3 -'r---' I' 2.S 2 I /1 1 O.S I o o Page 2-23 i' I I ...... 1'-0. I I I , I i I . I ..... I I ! --I I 2 4 6 8 lima [hours) Figure 2.1-15 LI P Flow Depth -Door Location 15 (Gri d Cell 229261) I I -F l ow Oe pt h -O e p th t o O oo r E l e v a t i on i I I I I I " ! I I I I I I ."-I I ....... "-. I I ---.. I I I I I 2 4 6 8 lime (hours) 10 S L-0 1227 0 Re v is i on 0 Pro j ect N o.: 1 28 00-2 1 3 I I -I 12 ,---....-I --1 0 12 Sargent & Lundyu C
.. PSEG Nuclear LLC Salem Generating Station Flood Hazard Reevaluation 3.S I / f' I+-f-2.S 1 0 5 o o Figure 2.1-16 LIP Flow Depth -Door Location 16 (Grid Cell 220837) I -F l ow Depth -Oepth to 000 1' E l evat i on I I i-It -"" I .............
I I r--... I-i-I I I I i"-I I I , Tn I I ! J : I I I 2 4 6 8 Time (hou rs) Figure 2.1-17 LIP Flow Depth -Door Location 17 (Grid Cell 213366) .-10 3.S -,-.-I -*l owOepth -Oepth to Doo r E t eva t i.on I -Page 2-24 2.S 2 J:! .. a.. 1.S 1 (l.S o I " I I o l' I I -..............
I I I ! I I I I :2 I I I I I I I I r---. , I I I ...... I --I I I I I I I 1\ 6 8 10 Time (hoLlrs) SL-012270 Revision 0 Project No.: 12800-213 i ! I I f I r-12 I -12 Sarg e nt &
PSEG Nuclear LLC Salem Generating Station Flood Hazard Reevaluation 3.S Figure 2.1-18 UP Flow Depth -Door Location 18 (Grid Cell 210680) -f l ow Depth -Depth t o Door E l evation I t-y '-.:; I ---, I-I 3 \ I I I ! i r-.... 2.S I Iii -SL-012270 Revision 0 Project No.: 12800-213 , f-I , I -;---,------to--1 O.S o o 3 I r J 2.S 2 I I 1 , O.S o Page 2-25 I ...... 1 I I --I , i I I I 2 8 Time (hoLlrs) Figure 2.1-19 LIP Flow Depth -Door Location 19 (G rid Cell 2 17666) F l ow Depth Depth to Doo r E l eya tio n , I I I I , I '" I I I I I i' , I I K I I I I '" I I I i I ....... I -............, 1 I I 1:--I ! ! I I 2 6 8 Time (hoLlrs) ! -10 12 I I I I I -I I-1 10 12 Sargent & Lundy" C PSEG N u clear LLC Salem Generating Station F l ood H azard Ree v a lu ation 2.5 J \ -2 I 0.5 o o Figure 2.1-20 LIP Flow Depth -Door location 20 (G r i d Cell 231368) I -l owOept h -D epth t o D oo r E l e v ation I I 1 I I 1 I I J I .-1-;-' .-1--,--I ....... i'.l... I I ..........
....... -U I ! I 1 , I I I 2 4 6 8 Tim e (h ou rs) Figure 2.1-21 LIP Flow Depth -Door location 21 (Gr i d Ce ll 237564) 2.5 I
.. -O ....
I 2 g 1.5 <II o 1 ,+ I I I I J I ............ I I I I ! r"'" ____ 1 I I I I I I I -'1 ! 0.5 o ! o 2 4 6 8 Tim e [hou r s) Page 2-26 10 10 SL-012270 Re vi s i o n 0 Project N o.: 128 00-2 1 3 I I I-I r-12 I --:=: 12 Sargent & Lundyl l C PSEG Nuclear LLC Salem Generating Station Flood Hazard Reevaluation
SL-012270 Revision 0 Project No.: 12800-213 Page 2-27 2.2 FLOODING IN STREAMS AND RIVERS
In this section, the hydrometeorological conditions are developed to determine the extent of flooding on the Delaware River. The probable maximum flood (PMF) on streams and rivers is investigated to determine peak water surface elevation in the Delaware River near the SGS.
The PMF on streams and rivers is the hypothetical flood "that is considered to be the most severe reasonably possible, based on comprehens ive hydrometeorological application of PMP and other hydrologic factors favorable for maximum flood runoff such as sequential storms and
snowmelt" (Reference 2.2-1).
This section uses a combination of river flooding analyses developed for the PSEG Site SSAR and storm surge modeling performed for SGS to determine the effect of the PMF on SGS. Due to the dominance of the coastal effects at the PSEG Site, when considering the combined events criteria required in NUREG/CR-7046 and ANS 2.8, tidal effects and storm surge dominate the resultant maximum water surface elevations.
2.2.1 Summary of River Flooding Analysis
This subsection presents a summary of the simulation details and results of the PMF analysis performed for the PSEG Site SSAR. Figure 2.2-1 shows the location of the PSEG Site in relation to the Delaware River Basin. The watershed upstream of the site is approximately 11,500 square miles (sq. mi.). The Delaware River at the site is tidally influenced. Three different methods are used to determine the PMF. Two of the methods simulate river flood levels resulting from two different PMP event
- 59. The resulting PMF water levels are then combined with other flood-producing events which may occur simultaneously. The highest water level at the plant location resulting from these three methods is considered the PMF.
Two potential PMP events are developed using Hydrometeorological Report (HMR) Number (No.) 51 and No. 52 (References 2.2-2 and 2.2-3). The first of the two potential PMP events evaluated is designed to yield maximum rainfall throughout the Delaware River Basin. The second potential PMP event is designed to yield more intense rainfall in the portion of the basin near and upstream of the PSEG Site.
Flooding is simulated for PMP of a 15,000 sq. mi. storm centered over Doylestown, PA, oriented to produce maximum total rainfall within the Delaware River Basin (Reference
2.2-1). Flooding is simulated for PMP of a 2150 sq. mi. storm centered over Philadelphia, PA, oriented to produce more intense rainfall in the portion of the lower Delaware River
Basin upstream of the PSEG Site (Reference 2.2-1).
Of these two PMP events, the one resulting in the highest water levels at the new plant location is selected to simulate a PMF. Alternatively, a PMF is determined using discharge from the Approximate Method from NRC RG 1.59, Appendix B. Of these two simulations, the one producing the highest water levels at the PSEG Site, without tidal influence, is identified as the
PMF.
PSEG Nuclear LLC Salem Generating Station Flood Hazard Reevaluation
SL-012270 Revision 0 Project No.: 12800-213 Page 2-28 Once the PMF is defined, additional calculations are performed to address a combination of flooding events in accordance with ANSI/ANS 2.8-1992 and NUREG/CR-7046. The PMF can affect water levels at the PSEG Site, but tide and storm surge have been observed to have a greater effect than precipitation events. ANSI/ANS-2.8-1992 (Reference 2.2-1) is used to determine a conservative combination of events to establish the flood level at the PSEG Site associated with the PMF event. Appendix H of NUREG/CR-7046 recommends the same combined events criteria, citing ANSI/ANS-2.8-1992 as the source.
Section 9.2.2 of ANSI/ANS-2.8-1992 describes three combined event alternatives for flooding along the shores of open and semi-enclosed bodies of water that include PMF events, Alternatives I, II, and IV. Alternative IV is applicable only for drainage areas less than 300 sq. mi, and thus is not evaluated for the PSEG Site. Alternative III described in Section 9.2.2 of ANSI/ANS-2.8-1992 is applicable to the storm surge analysis presented in Section 2.4. The combined events simulated for the PSEG Site location include:
Alternative I One-half PMF or 500-year flood, whichever is less Surge and seiche from the worst regional hurricane or windstorm with wind-wave activity 10 percent exceedance high tide Alternative II PMF 25-year surge and seiche with wind-wave activity 10 percent exceedance high tide
Simulation of the PMF is performed using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic Modeling System(HEC-HMS) (Reference 2.2-5) and the USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) (Reference 2.2-6) modeling software. HEC-HMS is used to calculate PMF discharge to the Delaware River from the watershed. Results of the HEC-HMS models are then applied as inputs to the HEC-RAS model, which simulates hydraulic processes within the Delaware River, routing subbasin runoff downstream for determination of maximum WSEL at the PSEG Site. Comparative analysis of the results of the three alternative PMP methods for estimating the PMF, without tidal influence, indicates that the highest WSEL at the PSEG Site of 2.6 ft. NAVD results from the PMP centered over the upper estuary (Philadelphia, PA).
Further details of the modeling performed for the PSEG Site are provided in Subsection 2.4.3 of Reference 2.2-4.
2.2.1.1 River Flooding Analysis Results
As presented in Subsection 2.4.3 of Reference 2.2-4, the following results of the PMF analysis, including the effects of the coincident 10 percent exceedance high tide:
A peak water level for the simulated full PMF river discharge event and coincident 10 percent exceedance high tide of 7.3 ft NAVD (Table 2.4.3-5 in Reference 2.2-4). For this calculation, the maximum value for the simulated full PMF event and coincident 10 percent exceedance high tide is used rather than the time dependent water levels.
PSEG Nuclear LLC Salem Generating Station Flood Hazard Reevaluation
SL-012270 Revision 0 Project No.: 12800-213 Page 2-29 A peak water level for the simulated one-half PMF river discharge event and coincident 10 percent exceedance high tide of 6.6 ft NAVD (Table 2.4.3-4 in Reference 2.2-4). For this calculation, the maximum value for the simulated one-half PMF event and coincident 10 percent exceedance high tide is used rather than the time dependent water levels.
2.2.2 Analysis of Worst Regional Hurricane All available verified historical hourly water level data are downloaded from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) online database for stations located in the Delaware Bay region (see Table 2.2-1) for the time period January 1, 1900 through December 31, 2012. After the data are downloaded, they are sorted based on the water level values to identify the top historical storm events. For this analysis, successive peak water level values that occurred on the same day or within a few days of each other were considered to be the same event since model simulations typically cover 5-10 days.
After reviewing the top storm events at each NOAA water level gauge, it is apparent that Hurricane Sandy (October 29-30, 2012) is the storm of record for the Delaware Bay region. It produced the greatest surge event at 5 of the 10 water level stations that were active during that time period, the second greatest surge event for three of the stations, and was in the top five for the remaining two stations (the eight remaining stations-out of the 18 shown in Table 2.2 were not active during this time period). As a result, Hurricane Sandy was chosen for simulation to help identify the worst regional hurricane event.
In addition, Hurricane Hazel is identified as a potentially significant surge event within the Delaware Bay and is selected for simulation based on the previous analysis in Reference 2.2-4.
The same modeling system that is used to produce the storm surge still water level described in Section 2.4 is also used for this analysis to produce the Hurricane Hazel and Sandy storm surge results at the PSEG Site.
Two simulations were performed using the ADCIRC+SWAN model for Hurricanes Hazel and Sandy. Both simulations were run without the influence of astronomic tides or river discharge included as initial/boundary conditions in the model. These factors were not simulated with the surge to allow identification of the surge only component to use in the combined event analysis along with the simulated PMF and 10 percent exceedance high tide values previously identified in Reference 2.2-4. In addition, including the river discharge and astronomic tides in the surge simulations would likely lead to a less conservati ve combined event peak water level at the site since the storm surge component would be less in the event of deeper water.
Figures 2.2-2 and 2.2-3, respectively, provide the time series storm surge results for Hurricanes Hazel and Sandy, simulated using the ADCIRC+SWAN model. The peak water level results at the PSEG Site for Hurricanes Hazel and Sandy were 5.26 ft NAVD and 6.52 ft NAVD, respectively. Based on the review of the historical water level data described above and results from the simulations, it is apparent that Hurricane Sandy produced the worst regional surge event for the PSEG Site and surrounding areas.
2.2.3 25-year Surge and Seiche Event
Data obtained from United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for their Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region III coastal flood study included the return PSEG Nuclear LLC Salem Generating Station Flood Hazard Reevaluation
SL-012270 Revision 0 Project No.: 12800-213 Page 2-30 period flood level data throughout the region. This data includes the location and flood level values for the 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, 500-, and 1,000-year return periods for many points along the coast of Delaware Bay. The 25-year flood level of 7.71 ft. NAVD at the PSEG Site is extracted from this dataset for use in Alternative II of the combined event analysis herein.
Flood levels contained in this dataset are a combination of the storm surge, wind-wave setup, and a contribution from the astronomic tide. The tidal contributions identified in Region III coastal flood study are identified through a probabilistic convolution method, similar to the procedure detailed in Section 2.4.3.1.2.1.4. Since the astronomic tide contributions are not explicitly provided for the 25-year flood level, the tidal adjustment identified in Section 2.4.3.1.2.1.4 for the PSEG Site (0.59 ft.) is used to remove the tidal adjustment from the FEMA Region III flood levels. This allows for a consistent comparison between the Hurricane Sandy and Hazel results presented herein and the 25-year flood level at the PSEG Site. Therefore, the FEMA Region III 25-year flood level (7.71 ft. NAVD including tidal effects) at the site is defined as 7.12 ft. NAVD without the tidal component.
2.2.4 Results and Conclusions
The storm surge results for the Hurricane Sandy simulation are used in Alternative I of the combined event analysis, as shown in Table 2.2-2. The value for the simulated one-half PMF flood event combined with the 10 percent exceedance high tide in the table below was obtained from Reference 2.2-4. Note that this value is for River Mile 52 (i.e. the new plant site) and represents a slightly conservative value when applied to the existing Salem and Hope Creek sites located approximately 1 mile south. The tota l still water elevation for Alternative I is 13.12 ft. NAVD (102.9 ft. PSD).
The FEMA Region III 25-year flood level is used in Alternative II of the combined event analysis (see Table 2.2-3). The value for the simulated full PMF flood event combined with the 10 percent exceedance high tide in the table below was obtained Reference 2.2-4. The total still water elevation for Alternative II is 14.42 ft. NAVD (104.2 ft. PSD).
It is clear that Alternative II produces the largest combined event at the PSEG Site. These results do not consider the coincident wave runup that would occur under such conditions. The stillwater and total water level results provided in Section 2.4 clearly indicate that the probable maximum storm surge analysis will dictate the governing flood levels at the PSEG Site since that water level is considerably higher than the water level results presented in this section. In addition, while the combined PMF event does exceed site grade, the effect of the PMP and river discharge component of the flood event is minor compared to the surge and tidal components.
2.2.5 References
2.2-1 American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society, "Determining Design Basis Flooding at Power Reactor Sites," ANSI/ANS-2.8-1992, Nuclear Standard 2.8, 1992.
2.2-2 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, HMR-51 1978, "Hydrometeorological Report No. 51, Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, United States East of the 105th Meridian," U.S. Department of Commerce, 1978.
PSEG Nuclear LLC Salem Generating Station Flood Hazard Reevaluation
SL-012270 Revision 0 Project No.: 12800-213 Page 2-31 2.2-3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, HMR-52 1982, "Hydrometeorological Report No. 52, Application of Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates - United States East of the 105th Meridian," U.S. Department of Commerce, 1982.
2.2-4 PSEG Power, LLC and PSEG Nuclear, LLC. PSEG Site Early Site Permit Application, Part 2, Revision 2, Subsection 2.4.3. 2013.
2.2-5 U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, "HEC-HMS 3.3 Software," Website, http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-hms/download.html, accessed February 23, 2009. 2.2-6 U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, "HEC-RAS 4.0 Software," Website, http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/hecras-download.html, accessed February 23, 2009.
PSEG Nuclear LLC Salem Generating Station Flood Hazard Reevaluation
SL-012270 Revision 0 Project No.: 12800-213 Page 2-32 Table 2.2-1 NOAA Water Level Stations in the Delaware Bay Region Station Number Station Name 8534720 Atlantic City, NJ 8536110 Cape May, NJ 8536581 Bidwell Creek Entrance, Delaware Bay, NJ 8536915 Fortescue, Delaware Bay, NJ 8537121 Ship John Shoal, NJ 8537614 Artificial Island, NJ 8537961 Sinnickson Landing, Salem R., NJ 8538231 Deepwater, Delaware River, NJ 8540433 Marcus Hook, PA 8545240 Philadelphia, PA 8545530 Philadelphia (Pier 11 North), Del. River, PA 8551762 Delaware City, DE 8551910 Reedy Point, DE 8554399 Mahon River Entrance, DE 8554501 Elbow of Cross Ledge Light, DE 8555889 Brandywine Shoal Light, DE 8557380 Lewes, DE 8570283 Ocean City Inlet, MD
PSEG Nuclear LLC Salem Generating Station Flood Hazard Reevaluation
SL-012270 Revision 0 Project No.: 12800-213 Page 2-33 Table 2.2-2 Alternative I Results of the Combined Event Analysis Combined Event Component WSEL (ft. NAVD) Simulated One-Half PMF Flood and 10% High Tide 6.6 + Surge from Worst Regional Hurricane (Sandy) 6.52 Total = 13.12 PSEG Nuclear LLC Salem Generating Station Flood Hazard Reevaluation
SL-012270 Revision 0 Project No.: 12800-213 Page 2-34 Table 2.2-3 Alternative II Results of the Combined Event Analysis Combined Event Component WSEL (ft. NAVD) Simulated Full PMF Flood and 10% High Tide 7.3
+ 25-year Surge Event 7.12 Total = 14.42