ML14071A457

SL-012271, Revision 0, Hope Creek Generating Station Flood Hazard Reevaluation, Page 2-57 Through Page 2-92

ML14071A457
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	03/12/2014
From:	Blount D, Chalfant L Public Service Enterprise Group, Sargent & Lundy
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML14071A505	List: LR-N14-0041, 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 - Flood Hazard Reevaluation LR-N14-0041, SL-012271, Revision 0, Hope Creek Generating Station Flood Hazard Reevaluation, Cover Through Page 1-4 LR-N14-0041, SL-012271, Revision 0, Hope Creek Generating Station Flood Hazard Reevaluation, Page 1-5 Through Page 1-7 LR-N14-0041, SL-012271, Revision 0, Hope Creek Generating Station Flood Hazard Reevaluation, Page 1-8 Through Page 2-6 ML14071A450 ML14071A451 ML14071A452 ML14071A456 ML14071A457 ML14071A458 ML14071A507 ML14071A508 ML14071A510
References
SL-012271, Rev 0
Download: ML14071A457 (36)

Text

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Tidal effects on surges ranging from 16.4 to 29.5 ft. (5 to 9 m) in 3.28 ft. (1 m) intervals (five total) are assessed by representing each surge value as a Gaussian form centered on the maximum WSEL using the following equation:

(Equation 2.4-7) where:

'1(t) surge at time t

'1max maximum surge value to time of the maximum surge cr standard deviation used to characterize the surge variation around the peak To evaluate the mean tidal displacement of the storm surge when combined with the tide, the start time for each surge interval is started at each of the 6720 three minute intervals, and a maximum combined WSEL is recorded for each starting interval. The average displacement of the combined (surge plus tide) water level is then computed by adding all the maxima together and dividing by the number of samples and subtracting the surge value for that surge interval.

The standard deviation of the tidal effect is computed by analyzing the 6720 displacements to characterize the variation in the duration of the storm surge around the peak value. The result for each interval of storm surges is presented in Table 2.4-4. Given the expected range of the 10-6 AEP storm surge WSEL at the PSEG Site, a mean tidal displacement value of 0.59 ft. (0.18 m) and a standard deviation value of 1.6 ft. (0.49 m) is used in the analysis and confirmed upon determination of the final WSEL.

2.4.3.1.3 JPM-OS Integral for the PSEG Site Integrating over all dimensions of Equation 2.4-5 and including the results of the sensitivity studies provides the final form of the JPM-OS Integral for the PSEG Site:

F('7)= (Equation 2.4-8) f.J p(/j,p, R l11ax ' Of' Xo)p(Vr )p(8)0C; Jd /j,pdRlllaxdOrdxodvrd8 where 0(: ) = H[17 - {'7Uh1x (/j,p, Rlllax ' Of' Xo) x (l + 1.009()vf) + \llnd<,s) + 8} ]

'1 estimated surge

'1 max estimated maximum surge L\p peripheral pressure minus central pressure Rmax distance from the eye of the storm to maximum winds Sf angle of storm heading xo along coast location of landfall

£ deviation in storm surge due to potential errors in the estimate Vf storm forward velocity

'1tides mean displacement of the tidal effect 2.4.3.1.4 Selection of Production Storms 6

The estimated 10- AEP storm surge can only be evaluated after the storm simulations are complete and the duration characteristics of the surges are quantified. From the form of Page 2-57 SargentS Lundy""

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Equation 2.4-8, it is apparent that simulations need to cover a range of the four primary parameters affecting the surges at the PSEG Site that is sufficient to estimate the 10-6 AEP storm surge. The four primary parameters are central pressure, radius to maximum winds, track angle, and landfall location. Of these four parameters, track angle and landfall location are greatly impacted by the geographical characteristics of the PSEG Site location on the Delaware Bay. Therefore, their variations in the storm simulations can be limited as discussed below.

The axis of the Delaware Bay runs along a line rotated approximately 49 degrees north of due west. Only a narrow band of track angles can produce wind fields which are aligned with the axis of Delaware Bay. Storms moving at angles due north must pass over land once they pass the Virginia-North Carolina border, so it is physically impossible for extremely intense storms to approach from this direction. On the other hand, storms passing at angles rotated even 22.5 degrees counterclockwise from along the axis of Delaware Bay have wind directions which blow away from the northern portion of the Bay until the center of the storm has passed by the site.

To determine the track angles to consider in the storm simulations and ultimately the JPM-OS integration process, an assessment of track angles 22.5 degrees clockwise, 0 degrees, 11.25 degrees counterclockwise, and 22.5 degrees counterclockwise from the axis of the bay is undertaken (see Figure 2.4-6). The results of these simulations (see Table 2.4-5) indicate storm headings within the 22.5-degree storm track window created by the track 0 degrees and 22.5 degrees counterclockwise from the axis of the bay are expected to produce surges capable of contributing to the 10-6 AEP storm surge. Storms heading along the track bisecting this window (11.25 degrees counterclockwise from the axis of the bay) have only slight differences in surge WSEL than those to either side of this bisecting angle. Therefore, the 0 degrees and 22.5 degrees counterclockwise from the axis of the bay tracks are considered in the JPM-OS integration.

Previous studies have shown that only storms which pass within a specific landfall region, such that the region of maximum wind speeds is in the vicinity of a site, can produce large surges at that site (References 2.4-11, 2.4-12 and 2.4-35). Therefore, the landfall location is scaled relative to the radius to maximum winds (Rmax value) for each simulation such that the maximum wind speeds are realized in the vicinity of the PSEG Site. The Rmax scaling for landfall locations was performed in the vertical (north-south) direction. A factor is used to convert the vertical spacing between parallel storm tracks into orthogonal spacing in a physical space coordinate system. For the two storm track angles (0 degrees and 22.5 degrees counterclockwise) used the analysis, this conversion factor equates to 0.57 for the 0-degree track and 0.85 for the 22.5 degrees counterclockwise track. Figure 2.4-6 shows the reference tracks where landfall displacement equals zero.

Central pressure and radius to maximum winds are the two remaining parameters which are analyzed to set the appropriate range of storm which must be simulated in order to estimate the 10-6 AEP. Using estimates based on scaling arguments similar to those advanced in Reference 2.4-12, a preliminary estimate of the range of storms required for simulations was made and a set of storms was defined for the initial surge model simulations. An iterative process is used to develop the storm set: once initial simulations are completed, more information is available and is used to determine additional storms to be simulated. Table 2.4-5 provides the set of the 48 storms, 29 of which are ultimately used to establish the surge response surface at the PSEG Site (see Subsection 2.4.3.3). Figure 2.4-7 presents the tracks of each of the storms simulated.

Page 2-58

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 2.4.3.2 Simulation of Production Storms The storm parameters are input to the modeling system described in Subsection 2.4.2 and resultant peak still WSEL and total WSEL are produced at the locations around the PSEG Site shown in Figure 2.4-4. The maximum results for each storm are presented in Table 2.4-5.

The storm simulations are performed with a constant tide set at 0 ft. NAVD (no tidal effects) and a typical peripheral pressure of 1018 millibars (mb). Total simulation time for each of the production storms was 5.5 days, with the peak surge timed to occur at the PSEG Site at approximately 4.2 days into the simulation. The ADCIRC+SWAN model was executed with a one second time step and results were output every five minutes.

2.4.3.3 Surge Response Functions for the PSEG Site The maximum still WSEL for storms presented in Table 2.4-5 are used along with interpolation, extrapolation and a scaling function based on ratios of pressure differentials to establish a response surface for each storm set (Rmax and track heading) as a function of landfall location.

The following procedure is used to establish the surge response functions.

Identification of the simulated surge results within the response surface matrix.

Estimation of a continuous function for all seven tracks, two track angles, and the 918 and 928 mb central pressures, using interpolation, extrapolation and the pressure differential scaling procedure.

Use pressure differential scaling to establish the response function for the 908, 938 and 948 mb central pressures.

The resultant storm surge WSEL as a function of differential pressure is shown in previous studies as (Reference 2.4-11 and 2.4-19):

2 = (p2/p1)*1 (Equation 2.4-9) where:

1 surge of Storm 1 2 surge of Storm 2 p1 pressure differential of Storm 1 p2 pressure differential of Storm 2 In this scaling function, the surge levels have been shown to be proportional to the pressure differential of a hurricane (peripheral pressure minus central pressure). In cases where all the other storm parameters (size, track angle, Holland B, forward storm velocity and landfall location) remain constant, this approximation has proven to provide a reliable estimate of the effect of varying a storm pressure differential on the resulting storm surge. A peripheral pressure of 1018 mb is used in this analysis.

Table 2.4-6 provides the surge response matrix for storms with an Rmax of 30 nautical miles (NM) and track angles rotated 22.5 degrees counterclockwise from the axis of the Delaware Bay. Table 2.4-7 provides the surge response matrix for storms with an Rmax of 45 NM and track angles rotated 22.5 degrees counterclockwise from the axis of the Delaware Bay. Table 2.4-8 provides the surge response matrix for storms with an Rmax of 30 NM and track angles Page 2-59

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 parallel to the axis of the Delaware Bay. Table 2.4-9 provides the surge response matrix for storms with an Rmax of 45 NM and track angles parallel to the axis of the Delaware Bay.

Figures 2.4-8 and 2.4-9 illustrate the surge response functions for track angles parallel to the axis of the Delaware Bay and track angles rotated 22.5 degrees counterclockwise from the axis of the Delaware Bay, respectively.

2.4.3.4 Storm Parameter Probability Distributions The next step of the JPM-OS process is to establish the key climatological probabilities of the storm parameters used in Equation 2.4-8. These probabilities are established by evaluating the climatological record for the study area and applying a statistical distribution to fit the data. For the PSEG Site region, FEMAs recent work in the Region II storm surge studies has established these probability relationships. The following relationships are defined for this area:

p ( Rmax l c p ) Lognormal[ln( R max ), ln(Rmax) ]

(Equation 2.4-10)

( ) l[ ( ) ]

and p ( v f ) N o r m a l [ v f ( c p ), ]

vf (Equation 2.4-11)

Where the parameter values for these relationships were taken to be consistent with the FEMA results for this area:

ln( R max )( km) 3.015 6.291 10 5 ( p ) 2 0.0337 (where is latitude in degrees) ln(Rmax) 0.44 v f ( kt ) 6 0.4 p p p0 c p v (kt ) 7 f

While these relationships are reasonable for the return periods associated with the FEMA storm surge studies at return periods from 25 to 500 years, the truncated Weibull distribution used to represent the central pressure implies an asymptotic upper limit at very low probability events, which has not been established for the PSEG Site area. The following subsections establish the central pressure and storm rate relationship for the PSEG Site, and summarize the probability relationships used for the PSEG Site JPM-OS integration.

2.4.3.4.1 Central Pressure Sensitivity Central pressure is evaluated for the PSEG Site area by reviewing the NOAA Hurricane Research Divisions HURDAT dataset (References 2.4-2, 2.4-15 and 2.4-16). A line-crossing approach is used to screen the historical hurricanes that have approached the east coast of the United States in the general region of the PSEG Site. Figure 2.4-11 shows the line of demarcation defined for the PSEG Site region. Based on the screening of the HURDAT Page 2-60

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 dataset, Table 2.4-10 lists the set of historical storms that cross this line heading towards the coast and their corresponding parameters. Even though only one of the 15 storms, Sandy, is headed in the critical track angle window for the PSEG Site, all of the storms in Table 2.4-10 are included in the definition of the complementary probability distribution of storm central pressures, (i.e., the probability of a central pressure given that a storm occurs).Table 2.4-11 shows the results of this calculation for a best-fit Gumbel distribution in terms of the complementary probability distribution. This is the distribution of central pressures given that a storm occurs (i.e., a storm with a central pressure of 908.85 mb is expected to occur once every 100 storms). Similar to the definition of a conditional probability, this provides estimates that can be interpreted on a per storm basis. The equation for the central pressure best-fit Gumbel distribution is:

F ( z ) exp[ exp( z )] (Equation 2.4-12) p a0 where z with a0 =36.68 and a1 =14.67 and p is converted to central pressure.

a1 2.4.3.4.2 Historical Storm Rate The storm rate is established to determine the probability of a storm occurring in the region. As discussed in Subsection 2.4.3.1.4, storm track angle or heading is critical to develop 10-6 AEP storm surges at the PSEG Site. Therefore, these two parameters are considered together to establish a historical probability of a storm forming and heading in the critical storm track needed to generate 10-6 AEP storm surges. Although the FEMA storm surge study focused on surges for a much lower range of return periods than those of interest in this analysis, the objective measure of storm rate within the angle range of interest is used for the PSEG Site, as the catalog of historical storm data is the same. In the FEMA storm surge study the omni-directional storm rate in the vicinity of the mouth of Delaware Bay is approximately 0.045 storms per year per degree.

The storm track distribution is assumed to be a Gaussian fit with a mean heading of 4 degrees east of north and a standard deviation of 10 degrees. Instead of the FEMA study mean heading of 22 degrees east of north, a mean heading of 4 degrees east of north is used to better represent storms that have the potential to impact the PSEG Site. By using this mean heading instead of the mean heading defined by FEMA, the track angle probabilities are conservative (i.e., have a higher rate of occurrence). When conservatively considering a 45 degree storm track window enveloping the 22.5 degree storm track window discussed in Subsection 2.4.3.1.4, the cumulative percentage of storms is only 0.1695 percent of the total omni-directional storm population. The storm rate, adjusted for storm track, is 7.628 x 10-5 storms per year per degree.

This value is used for the frequency of storms in the PSEG Site region in the JPM-OS integration discussed in Subsection 2.4.3.6.

2.4.3.4.3 PSEG Site Storm Parameter Probability Distributions In summary, the set of probability distributions used for joint-probability estimations in the JPM-OS calculations at the PSEG Site, as per Equation 2.4-8, can be summarized as:

p ( p, Rmax , f , x0 ) p ( p ) p ( Rmax l p ) p ( x0 ) (Equation 2.4-13)

Page 2-61

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 where:

F ( z )

p (p ) exp[ exp( z )]

z z where:

p a0 ez a1 where:

ao=36.68 and a1=14.67 and p is estimated from the central pressure via the operation p=1018-cp and:

p ( Rmax l p ) [ln( Rmax ), ln Rmax ]

where:

ln R 0.44km 0.24nm (where Rmax is the median of the distribution) max Rmax exp(3.015 6.291105 p2 0.0337 ) /1.852.

and:

s p ( x0 )

60 where:

7.628 x 10-5 is the storm frequency per 60 NM along-coast distance with the defined 45 degree angle band s Spacing between tracks in nautical miles 2.4.3.5 Epistemic Uncertainty Epistemic uncertainty provides a method to characterize factors of the storm surge analysis that are known, but in the practical sense are not accounted for in the storm surge estimate. In Subsections 2.4.3.1.2.1.2 and 2.4.3.1.2.1.4, the effects of the Holland B parameter and tides are assigned uncertainty values of 0.3 ft. (0.1 m) and 1.6 ft. (0.49 m), respectively. In addition to these parameters, the potential inaccuracies of the modeling system are accounted for by estimating an uncertainty value to contribute to the epistemic term.

The primary components of the modeling system described in Subsection 2.4.2 are the TC96 wind and pressure model, and the ADCIRC+SWAN model. Examples of potential inaccuracies of the modeling system include (1) differences between actual (very complex) space-time varying winds in a real hurricane and the parametric representation of these winds in a model driven by a small set of parameters; (2) errors related to imperfections in numerical surge models (in both the physics and numerical approximations utilized within such models); and (3) errors in bathymetric representations of the coastal area being modeled. For example, even if we had a perfect bathymetry at the time of this study, the coast is always in a state of change, so the use of present-day topographic/bathymetric representations in simulations of future storms may not be precise. For these reasons, based on past studies using the TC96 and ADCIRC+SWAN platform, a 2 ft. (0.6 m) uncertainty term is assigned to the modeling system.

Page 2-62

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Taking all the individual epistemic uncertainty terms as independent, the total value of the epistemic uncertainty for the PSEG Site is defined as (References 2.4-11, 2.4-19, 2.4-26 and 2.4-35,):

Tot tide 2

m2 & w Holland 2

(Equation 2.4-14) where:

tide standard deviation of maximum surge levels around the mean tidal displacement m&w standard deviation of surge estimation errors due to modeling system inaccuracies Holland standard deviation of surge levels due to neglecting the Holland B term Based on the values discussed above, the total epistemic uncertainty value is estimated to be 2.6 ft. (0.8 m).

2.4.3.6 JPM-OS Integration and 10-6 AEP Still WSEL With the response functions, storm probability parameters and epistemic uncertainty established, numerical integration of Equation 2.4-8 is performed. Integration of the equation is performed using the same type of code used in previous JPM-OS efforts (Reference 2.4-35). A summary of the JPM-OS integration steps are as follows:

(1) Integration along the coast was performed using the seven values shown on Figures 2.4-8 and 2.4-9.

(2) Integration over central pressures was performed over the five central pressures shown on Figures 2.4-8 and 2.4-9 (908 mb, 918 mb, 928 mb, 938 mb, 948 mb).

(3) Integration over Rmax was performed using the two categories of storm size shown on Figures 2.4-8 and 2.4-9. It should be noted here that a variation in Rmax changes the actual size of the along-coast spatial increment included in this integration step. An adjustment to the frequency per degree of latitude/longitude (60 NM) must be made to account for this variation. For the 30 NM and 45 NM values for radius to maximum winds used in these simulations, this yields factors of 0.5, and 0.75, respectively, which are multiplied by the 7.628 x 10-5 storms per year per degree factor to convert to storm frequency along each storm track simulated.

(4) Integration over storm track angle was performed using the two categories of headings shown on Figures 2.4-8 and 2.4-9 (parallel to the axis of Delaware Bay and 22.5 degrees counterclockwise from the axis of Delaware Bay).

(5) Integration over storm forward velocity was performed by discretizing the forward velocity range into four 10 kt increments (10 kt, 20 kt, 30 kt and 40 kt).

(6) Integration over the epsilon term was performed by discretizing the epsilon probabilities into 51 0.3 ft. (0.1 m) increments around the mean value, which is Page 2-63

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 taken as zero assuming that the numerical model has been calibrated to be unbiased.

Figure 2.4-10 shows a plot of the results of the JPM-OS integration in terms of occurrences per million years. The 10-6 AEP still WSEL is approximately 19.4 ft. NAVD (5.9 m) without accounting for aleatory uncertainty.

2.4.3.7 Total WSEL Determination As described in Subsection 2.4.2, the modeling system outputs both still WSELs and total WSELs, accounting for wave setup and run-up, at the locations around the PSEG Site shown on Figure 2.4-4. The maximum still WSEL for each of the storm simulations is shown in Table 2.4-5. The maximum total WSEL plotted as a function of the maximum still WSEL for each storm is shown on the corresponding Figures 2.4-14 through 2.4-20, as presented in the Table 2.4-13. Table 2.4-13 provides the linear regression equations which closely fit the data shown in the corresponding figures for each critical location around the PSEG Site.

To determine a total WSEL at the 10-6 AEP using the equations provided in Table 2.4-13, the influence of the tides must be removed from the 10-6 AEP still WSEL established in Subsection 2.4.3.6 because the regression equations are developed without the mean tidal value included.

Therefore, the 0.59 ft.(0.18 m) mean tide value described in Subsection 2.4.3.1.2.1.4 is removed from the 10-6 AEP still WSEL, the total water surface elevation computed, the mean tide value added back in, and a 10-6 AEP total WSEL with tides is determined for each point, listed on Table 2.4-13.

2.4.3.8 Aleatory Uncertainty The JPM-OS procedure to this point includes reasonable estimates of the relevant epistemic uncertainty in the storm surge estimation process used for the PSEG Site. However, contributions from uncertainty due to sampling or aleatory uncertainty can also be quite significant at very low probabilities (References 2.4-24 and 2.4-35). Aleatory uncertainty must consider the effects of randomness on the estimated 10-6 AEP still WSEL and total WSEL. As discussed in 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. The estimated uncertainty band is obtained from the error term:

1 .1 0 0 0 y 2 1 .1 3 9 6 y 1 (Equation 2.4-16)

T N

where:

distribution of the standard deviation T root mean squared (rms) error at return period, T N number of samples used to estimate the distribution parameters y reduced Gumbel variate where:

Page 2-64

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 y=(-ao)/a1 variate of interest, surge level ao, a1 parameters of the Gumbel distribution The reduced Gumbel variate and return period are related by:

T (Equation 2.4-17) y ln ln T 1 which for T>7 approaches an exponential form given by:

1 T e y

2 Equation 2.4-16 shows that the rms error at a fixed return period is related to the distribution standard deviation and the square root of a nondimensional factor involving the ratio of different powers of y (y2, y1 and y0) to the number of samples used to define the parameters. By the method of moments, the Gumbel parameters are defined as:

6 a 0 a1 a1 where:

Eulers constant (=0.57721) m distribution mean Thus, the distribution standard deviation is related to the slope of the line represented by the above equation and can be used for estimating the expected width of the confidence limits for a specified return period.

The analyses of central pressures for the PSEG Site (see Subsection 2.4.3.4.1) found that the estimated value of standard deviation varied with return period as expected. Based on the initial results developed in Subsection 2.4.3.6, the range of contributions to the 19.7 ft. NAVD (6 m)

(10-6 AEP) expected range of surges was generated by storms with central pressures in the range of 918 to 928 mb. Table 2.4-12 shows the values for the standard deviation based on the complementary probability distribution (i.e., that only one storm per year occurred for the 15 historical storms identified in Table 2.4-10) versus central pressure.

The historical record reviewed actually has 162 years of data and an argument could be made that a reduction of would be possible based on the square root of the ratio of the total number of years to the number of years used in developing the estimates shown here. However, the quality of the data for many of the older storms suggests that the amount of information might not be well-suited for this assumption. Thus, the values of are unmodified as a conservative indicator of the aleatory uncertainty in the historical data.

Using the pressure differential factor, the impacts of the standard deviation terms for the three central pressure values can be estimated as shown in Table 2.4-12. Thus, the uncertainty equal to one standard deviation in central pressure translates into an approximate variation in the surge levels equal to 16 percent to 19 percent. The standard deviation in terms of surge levels can then be estimated from:

Page 2-65

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 p (Equation 2.4-18) p and, since the surges at the 908 to 928 mb central pressure range combine probabilistically to produce a 10-6 AEP surge WSEL of approximately 19.7 ft. NAVD (6 m), the estimated standard deviation for the surges is given by

= 1.2 at 19.7 ft. NAVD (6 m)

Furthermore, since the percentage deviation is roughly constant over the range of storms affecting the 10-6 to 10-7 AEP surge WSEL, the slightly conservative estimate that = (1.2/6.0)

= 0.2, is used for the estimated value of the standard deviation of aleatory uncertainty term in the final JPM-OS integration.

The resulting estimate of the 10-6 AEP still WSEL with aleatory uncertainty included is 22.0 ft.

NAVD (6.7 m) as shown on Figure 2.4-10.

2.4.3.9 10-6 AEP Total WSEL with Aleatory Uncertainty Following the procedure described in Subsection 2.4.3.7 and using the 10-6 AEP still WSEL of 22.0 ft. NAVD (6.7 m), including aleatory uncertainty, the 10-6 AEP total WSEL for the locations around the PSEG Site is presented in Table 2.4-14. The maximum total WSEL around the HCGS powerblock buildings is estimated at 119.5 ft. PSD. The maximum total WSEL at the SWIS is estimated at 125.6 ft. PSD.

2.4.4 Potential Sea Level Rise NOAA has evaluated the trend of sea level at the NOAA Reedy Point tidal gage station.

Measurements at any given tide station include both global sea level rise and vertical land motion, such as subsidence, glacial rebound, or large-scale tectonic motion. The monthly sea level trend based on monthly mean sea level data from 1956 through 2006 is 1.14 ft./century, with an upper 95 percent confidence limit of 1.35 ft./century (Reference 2.4-21). The maximum flood levels reported in Table 2.4-14 include 0.5 ft. to conservatively account for sea level rise over the projected remaining 32 years on the longest operating license of the three units on the PSEG Site (Hope Creek Generating Station).

2.4.5 10-6 AEP Storm Surge Water Surface Elevation Combining the 10-6 AEP total water level with the potential sea level rise produces a storm surge still WSEL of 22.5 ft. NAVD or 112.3 ft. PSD for the PSEG Site. Total WSELs for each of the critical locations around the PSEG Site are presented in Table 2.4-14.

2.4.6 Sediment Erosion and Deposition Associated with Storm Surge Tidal current velocities normally range from 2 to 3 ft/sec in the vicinity of the PSEG Site.

Velocities determined by the ADCIRC+SWAN models simulation of the Storm 11 surge show that maximum velocities at the service water intake structures during a storm surge are similar to the tidal currents. These calculated current velocities are conservatively considered sufficient to cause resuspension of natural sediments and cause erosion (Reference 2.4-5). Therefore, an Page 2-66

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 assessment of post event deposition in the Delaware Bay is considered, along with the localized effects of sedimentation and erosion at the PSEG Site.

Gross deposition is determined by conservatively assuming that all total suspended solids in the water column are deposited within a few days after passage of the hurricane. Observations of total suspended solids concentrations (TSS) in other bays and estuaries shortly after passage of hurricanes indicate that TSS increase approximately tenfold more than normal pre-storm levels (References 2.4-13, 2.4-37, and 2.4-38). TSS levels near the bottom of the Delaware Bay normally range between 450 and 525 mg/L during the flood and ebb periods in the tidal cycle (Reference 2.4-5). Therefore, TSS levels immediately after the storm could reach 5000 mg/L, ten times greater than the normal level of approximately 500 mg/L. Since current velocities are higher in the river channel near the PSEG Site than would generally occur throughout Delaware Bay, net erosion is more likely to occur than net deposition. Since the intake structure is protected from erosion, net deposition could occur immediately around the intake structure.

Calculations based on the assumption that 5000 mg/L of total suspended solids deposit shortly after the passage of the hurricane indicate that deposition is not expected to exceed 2 in. of sediment.

In regards to the potential concern for erosion at the site inundated safety related structures under hurricane conditions, a maximum average water velocity of approximately 4 ft/sec was recorded for locations around the PSEG Site (see Figure 2.4-4). The areas surrounding the safety-related structures are highly compacted and covered with pavement, concrete, or gravel.

Thus, the potential for erosion during a hurricane event is low, since the flow velocities are less than the maximum permissible velocities shown in Reference 2.4-42. The velocities are high enough at most locations to minimize any sedimentation issues around the safety-related structures according to the minimum recommended velocity (2 ft/sec) identified in Reference 2.4-43. A few locations (ID Nos. 9-10, 18-19, and 22, see Figure 2.4-4) have low enough velocities that could potentially cause minor sedimentation, depending on the type of sediments being transported in the water column.

The effect of the storm surge related sediment deposition and erosion is not expected to adversely affect operation of safety-related SSC.

2.4.7 Probable Maximum Wind Storm (PMWS)

The storm events analyzed in developing the hurricane induced storm surge analysis bound the PMWS that could cause flooding at the PSEG Site. A 31-year record (1978 through 2008) of wind speed and direction data from Dover, DE (11 miles west of the center of Delaware Bay) was analyzed. The Dover weather station is the closest to the center of Delaware Bay, and thus the most appropriate location for evaluating winds over the bay that could cause wind setup or seiche activity. Setup of Delaware Bay has been observed when strong winds parallel to its long axis (i.e., northwest-southeast) persist for durations of 2 to 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. Winds at Dover were averaged over 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, a sufficient duration to cause wind setup of Delaware Bay. Analysis of historical records shows that 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> average winds parallel to the long axis of Delaware Bay did not exceed 35 mph (30 kt) at Dover. Over water winds are expected to be 50 kt when overland winds are 30 kt (Reference 2.4-20). Therefore winds of sufficient duration to cause wind setup or seiche did not exceed 50 kt over Delaware Bay during the period 1978 through 2008. By comparison, the 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> wind speeds associated with the storm events analyzed in developing Page 2-67

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 the storm surge are approximately 80 kt near the PSEG Site. Therefore, the hurricane induced storm surge exceeds any potential surge associated with a PMWS for the PSEG Site.

2.4.8 References 2.4-1 American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society, Determining Design Basis Flooding at Power Reactor Sites, ANSI/ANS-2.8-1992, 1992.

2.4-2 Bell, G.D., S. B. Goldenberg, C. W. Landsea, E.S. Blake, T.B. Kimberlain, J.

Schemm, and R.J. Pasch, Tropical Cyclones - Atlantic Basin, State of the Climate in 2012, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 94, S85-S89, 2013.

2.4-3 Cardone, V.J., C.V. Greenwood, and J.A. Greenwood, 1992. Unified program for the specification of hurricane boundary layer winds over surfaces of specified roughness. Final Report. Contract Report CERC-92-1. Dept. of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

2.4-4 Chow, S. H., 1971. A study of the wind field in the planetary boundary layer of a moving tropical cyclone. Master of Science Thesis in Meteorology, School of Engineering and Science, New York University, New York, N.Y.

2.4-5 Cook, T.L., C.K. Sommerfield and K. Wong, Observations of Tidal and Springtime Sediment Transport in the Upper Delaware Estuary, Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science,72: p. 235 - 246, 2007.

2.4-6 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Operating Guidance No. 8-12, Joint Probability - Optimal Sampling Method for Tropical Storm Surge Frequency Analysis, 2012.

2.4-7 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Storm Surge Study - FEMA Region III Coastal Analysis and Mapping, Website, http://www.r3coastal.com/home/storm-surge-study, accessed October 14, 2013.

2.4-8 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Coastal Flood Study Overview -

FEMA Region II Coastal Analysis and Mapping, Website, http://www.region2coastal.com/coastal_flood_study, accessed October 14, 2013.

2.4-9 Ho, F.P. and V.A. Myers, Joint Probability Method of Tide Frequency Analysis applied to Apalachicola Bay and St. George Sound, Florida, NOAA Technical Report WS 18, 1975.

2.4-10 Holland, G.J., An Analytic Model of the Wind and Pressure Profiles in Hurricanes, Monthly Weather Review: Vol. 108, No. 8, 1980.

2.4-11 Irish, J.L., D.T. Resio, and M.A. Cialone, A surge response function approach to coastal hazard assessment:part 2, quantification of spatial attributes of response functions, Nat Hazards 51(1):183-205. doi:10.1007/s11069-9381-4, 2008.

Page 2-68

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 2.4-12 Irish, J.L., and D.T. Resio, A hydrodynamics-based surge scale for hurricanes, Ocean Engineering 37:69-81, 2010.

2.4-13 Jones, S.H., et al., Transport and Fate of Microbial Contaminants and Suspended Sediments in the GreatBay: Effects on Water Quality and Management Implications, Technical Completion Report #59 (USGS Grant),

1992.

2.4-14 Kerr, P.C., J.J. Westerink, J.C. Dietrich, R.C. Martyr, S. Tanaka, D.T. Resio, J.M.

Simth, H.J. Westerink, L.G. Westerink, T. Wamsley, M. van Ledden, and W. de Jong, Surge generation mechanisms in the lower Mississippi River and discharge dependency, J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, ASCE 139:326 - 335, 2013.

2.4-15 Landsea, C.W., A. Hagen, W. Bredemeyer, C. Carrasco, D.A. Glenn, A.

Santiago, D. Strahan-Sakoskie, and M. Dickinson, A reanalysis of the 1931 to 1943 Atlantic hurricane database. Submitted to Journal of Climate, Supplemental information, 2013.

2.4-16 Landsea, C.W., and J.L. Franklin, Atlantic Hurricane Database Uncertainty and Presentation of a New Database Format, Monthly Weather Review, 141, 3576-3592, 2013.

2.4-17 MASER Consulting, PA ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey for PSEG Nuclear LLC of Block 26, Lots 4, 4.01, 5 and 5.01, Job Number 05001694D, Index Number HASU023453, dated June 13, 2008.

2.4-18 Myers, V.A., Storm Tide Frequencies on the South Carolina Coast, NOAA Technical Report NWS-16, 1975.

2.4-19 Niedoroda, A.W., D.T. Resio, G.R. Toro, D. Divoky, H.S. Das, and C.W. Reed, Analysis of the coastal Mississippi storm surge hazard, Ocean Engineering, Volume 37:82-90, 2010.

2.4-20 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Meteorological Criteria for Standard Project Hurricane and Probable Maximum Hurricane Wind fields, Gulf and East Coasts of the United States, NOAA Technical Report NWS 23, 1979.

2.4-21 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Sea Level Trends Online, 8551910 Reedy Point, Delaware, Website, http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8551910, accessed April 27, 2009.

2.4-22 PSEG Power LLC, Response to Request for Additional Information, RAI No. 67, Probable Maximum Storm Surge and Seiche Flooding, Letter No. ND-2013-0039, November 27, 2013.

2.4-23 Resio, D.T., White Paper on Estimating Hurricane Inundation Probabilities, 2007.

Page 2-69

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 2.4-24 Resio, D.T., J.L. Irish, J.J. Westerink, and N.J. Powell, The effect of uncertainty on estimates of hurricane surge hazards, Nat Hazards: DOI 10.1007/s11069-012-0315-1, 2013.

2.4-25 Thompson, E. F. and V. J. Cardone, 1996. Practical modeling of hurricane surface wind fields, ASCE Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering. 122, 4, 195-205.

2.4-26 Toro, G., D.T. Resio, D. Divoky, A.W. Niedoroda, and C. Reed, Efficient joint probability methods for hurricane surge frequency analysis, Ocean Engineering, Volume 37:125-134, 2010.

2.4-27 Ulbrich, U., G.C. Leckebusch, and J. G. Pinto, Extra-tropical cyclones in the present and future climate: A review, Theoretical and Applied Climatology, DOI 10.1007/s00704-008-0083-8, 2009.

2.4-28 University of North Carolina, Introduction - ADCIRC, Website, http://adcirc.org/home/documentation/users-manual-v50/introduction/, accessed October 14, 2013.

2.4-29 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Manual, Engineer Manual 1110-2-1100, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. (in 6 volumes), 2002.

2.4-30 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA Region III Storm Surge Study, Coastal Storm Surge Analysis System Digital Elevation Model, ERDC/CHL TR-11-1, Report 1, 2011.

2.4-31 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA Region III Storm Surge Study, Coastal Storm Surge Analysis: Computational System, ERDC/CHL TR-11-1, Report 2, 2011.

2.4-32 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA Region III Storm Surge Study, Coastal Storm Surge Analysis: Modeling System Validation, ERDC/CHL TR-11-1, Report 4, 2013.

2.4-33 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants, Regulatory Guide 1.59, Revision 2, 1977.

2.4-34 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Design-Basis Flood Estimation for Site Characterization at Nuclear Power Plants in the United States of America, NUREG/CR-7046, November 2011.

2.4-35 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, The Estimation of Very-Low Probability Hurricane Storm Surges for Design and Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants in Coastal Areas, NUREG/CR-7134, October 2012.

Page 2-70

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 2.4-36 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Interim Staff Guidance for Performing a Tsunami, Surge, or Seiche Hazard Assessment, JLD-ISG-2012-06, January 2013.

2.4-37 Walker, Nan, Tropical Storm and Hurricane Wind Effects on Water Level, Salinity, and Sediment Transport in the River-Influenced Atchafalaya-Vermilion Bay System, Louisiana, USA, Estuaries 24(4): p. 498 - 506, 2001.

2.4-38 Wilber, D.H., et al, Suspended Sediment Concentrations Associated with a Beach Nourishment Project on the Northern Coast of New Jersey, Journal of Coastal Research 22(5): p. 1035 - 1042, 2006.

2.4-39 Catini, F., F. Montagna, L. Franco, G. Belloti, S. Corsini, R. Inghilesi, and A.

Orasi, Development of a High-Resolution Nearshore Wave Forecasting/Hindcasting System for the Italian Coasts, Coastal Engineering Proceedings, 1(32), 2011.

2.4-40 Muraleedharan, G., A.D. Rao, M. Sinha, and D.K. Mahahaptra, Analysis of a Triple Collocation Method for validation of model predicted significant wave height data, Journal of Indian Geophysical Union, Volume 10, Number 2, pp. 79-84, 2006.

2.4-41 Smith, J.M., Full-Plane STWAVE with Bottom Friction: II Model Overview, CHETN-1-75. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 2007.

2.4-42 Chow, V.T. Open Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York. 1959.

2.4-43 Gupta, R.S. Hydrology and Hydraulic Systems., Waveland Press, Illinois. Page 523. 1989.

Page 2-71

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Table 2.4-1 River Discharge Sensitivity Results (a)

River Water Radius to Discharge Surface Central Maximum Landfall Storm Forward at Elevation Pressure Winds Holland B Displacement Heading Speed Trenton (m (b)

(mb) (NM) Parameter (degrees)(c) (kt) (cfs) NAVD)(d) 918 30 1.2 0 0 30 0 4.832 918 30 1.2 0 0 30 4000 4.837 918 30 1.2 0 0 30 15,000 4.839 a) Simulated storms follow the track of Storm 1 on Figure 2.4-7.

b) Landfall displacement is relative to the center of the Delaware Bay at the coast, scaled by Rmax. Positive displacement is to the south.

c) Angle of storm heading relative to axis of Delaware Bay (degrees). Negative rotation is measured counterclockwise from the axis of Delaware Bay.

d) WSEL is reported in meters NAVD consistent with the modeling system output. Conversion from meters to feet is accomplished by multiplying by a factor of 3.2808.

Page 2-72

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Table 2.4-2 Holland B Parameter Sensitivity Results (a)

Water Radius to Storm Surface Central Maximum Landfall Heading Forward Elevation Storm Pressure Winds Holland B Displacement (degrees) Speed (m (b) (c)

Number (mb) (NM) Parameter (kt) NAVD)(d) 41 928 30 1.1 2 0 30 5.43 43 928 30 1.3 2 0 30 5.49 50 918 20 1.3 1 0 30 3.99 51 918 20 1.1 1 0 30 4.07 a) Simulated storms follow the tracks shown on Figure 2.4-7.

b) Landfall displacement is relative to the center of the Delaware Bay at the coast, scaled by Rmax. Positive displacement is to the south.

c) Angle of storm heading relative to axis of Delaware Bay (degrees). Negative rotation is measured counterclockwise from the axis of Delaware Bay.

d) WSEL is reported in meters NAVD consistent with the modeling system output. Conversion from meters to feet is accomplished by multiplying by a factor of 3.2808.

Page 2-73

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Table 2.4-3 Forward Velocity Sensitivity Results (a)

Water Radius to Storm Surface Central Maximum Landfall Heading Forward Elevation Storm Pressure Winds Holland B Displacement (degrees) Speed (m (b) (c)

Number (mb) (NM) Parameter (kt) NAVD)(d) 41 928 30 1.1 2 0 30 5.43 57 928 30 1.1 2 0 20 5.13 58 928 30 1.1 2 0 40 5.93 a) Simulated storms follow the tracks shown on Figure 2.4-7.

b) Landfall displacement is relative to the center of the Delaware Bay at the coast, scaled by Rmax. Positive displacement is to the south.

c) Angle of storm heading relative to axis of Delaware Bay (degrees). Negative rotation is measured counterclockwise from the axis of Delaware Bay.

d) WSEL is reported in meters NAVD consistent with the modeling system output. Conversion from meters to feet is accomplished by multiplying by a factor of 3.2808.

Page 2-74

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Table 2.4-4 Mean Displacement and Standard Deviation of Tidal Effects(a)

Surge Mean Displacement Standard Value (m) (m) Deviation (m) 5 0.22 0.47 6 0.18 0.49 7 0.16 0.50 8 0.14 0.51 9 0.13 0.51 a) The values in this table are reported in meters. Conversion from meters to feet is accomplished by multiplying by a factor of 3.2808.

Page 2-75

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Table 2.4-5 Production Storm Parameters, Maximum Still Water Surface Elevation and Total Water Surface Elevation (a)

Sheet 1 of 3 Radius to Maximum Still Central Maximum Storm Water Surface Storm Pressure Winds Holland B Landfall Heading Forward Elevation (m Number (mb) (NM) Parameter Displacement(b) (degrees)(c) Speed (kt) NAVD)(d) 11 918 45 1.0 2 0 30 6.71 12 918 30 1.1 2 0 30 5.38 13 918 30 1.1 3 0 30 5.79 14 918 30 1.1 4 0 30 5.66 15 918 30 1.1 5 0 30 5.04 16 918 30 1.1 6 0 30 4.31 17 918 30 1.1 7 0 30 3.66 18 918 30 1.1 0 0 30 3.79 19 918 30 1.1 1 0 30 5.09 20 918 45 1.1 2 0 30 7.01 21 918 45 1.1 3 0 30 6.75 22 918 45 1.1 4 0 30 5.70 23 918 45 1.1 5 0 30 4.53 24 918 45 1.1 0 0 30 4.20 25 918 45 1.1 1 0 30 6.24 26 918 45 1.1 1 +22.5 30 4.91 27 918 45 1.1 1 -22.5 30 7.31 28 918 45 1.1 2 -22.5 30 7.09 (e) 29 Not Used 30 918 45 1.1 0 -22.5 30 3.63 31 918 30 1.1 0 -22.5 30 3.49 32 Not Used(e) 33 918 30 1.1 2 -22.5 30 6.28 34 918 30 1.1 3 -22.5 30 5.71 35 928 30 1.1 0 -22.5 30 3.34 36 928 30 1.1 1 -22.5 30 5.39 37 928 30 1.1 2 -22.5 30 5.89 38 928 30 1.1 3 -22.5 30 5.32 Page 2-76

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Table 2.4-5 Production Storm Parameters, Maximum Still Water Surface Elevation and Total Water Surface Elevation (a)

Sheet 2 of 3 Maximum Radius to Still Water Central Maximum Storm Surface Storm Pressure Winds Holland B Landfall Heading Forward Elevation Number (mb) (NM) Parameter Displacement (b) (degrees) (c) Speed (kt) (m NAVD)(d) 39 928 30 1.1 0 0 30 3.57 40 928 30 1.1 1 0 30 4.80 41 928 30 1.1 2 0 30 5.43 42 928 30 1.1 3 0 30 5.41 43 928 30 1.3 2 0 30 5.49 44 943 30 1.1 1 -22.5 30 4.91 45 943 30 1.1 2 -22.5 30 5.26 46 943 20 1.1 1 -22.5 30 3.95 47 Not Used(e) 48 943 30 1.1 2 0 30 4.87 49 943 20 1.1 2 0 30 3.94 50 918 20 1.3 1 0 30 3.99 51 918 20 1.1 1 0 30 4.07 52 918 20 1.1 3 0 30 4.83 53 918 20 1.1 -1 0 30 2.65 54 928 30 1.1 5 -22.5 30 3.93 55 Not Used(e) 56 928 45 1.1 5 -22.5 30 3.48 57 928 30 1.1 2 0 20 5.13 58 928 30 1.1 2 0 40 5.93 59 928 30 1.1 2 -11.25 30 5.96 60 918 30 1.1 2 -11.25 30 6.37 61 Not Used(e) 62 Not Used(e) 63 918 45 1.1 3 +22.5 30 5.56 64 918 45 1.1 4 +22.5 30 5.52 Page 2-77

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Table 2.4-5 Production Storm Parameters, Maximum Still Water Surface Elevation and Total Water Surface Elevation (a)

Sheet 3 of 3 a) Simulated storms follow the track shown on Figure 2.4-7.

b) Landfall displacement is relative to the center of the Delaware Bay at the coast, scaled by Rmax. Positive displacement is to the south.

c) Angle of storm heading relative to axis of Delaware Bay (degrees). Negative rotation is measured counterclockwise from the axis of Delaware Bay.

d) Maximum Still WSEL are reported in meters NAVD consistent with the modeling system output. Conversion from meters to feet is accomplished by multiplying by a factor of 3.2808.

e) Not Used indicates storms run during the production sequence, but were not used due to modeling issues during execution.

Page 2-78

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Table 2.4-6 Surge Response Matrix for 30 NM Rmax- 22.5 Degrees Counterclockwise Storms(a)(b)(c)(e)

Track Still WSEL Still WSEL Number(d) (m NAVD), (m NAVD),

Cp = 918 Cp = 928 mb mb 1 3.5 (31) 3.3 (35) 2 6.0 5.4 (36) 3 6.3 (33) 5.9 (37) 4 5.7 (34) 5.3 (38) 5 5.0 4.6 6 4.3 3.9 (54) 7 3.6 3.2 a) Surge values with a number in parentheses adjacent to it are values from ADCIRC+SWAN simulations. The number in the parentheses correlates to the Storm Number on Table 2.4-5.

b) Surge values italicized and bolded are established from the pressure differential relationship discussed in Subsection 2.4.3.3.

c) Surge values underlined are established by interpolation or extrapolation.

d) Track number is indexed by one value from the landfall displacement described in Table 2.4-5 (i.e., a Track Number of 1 equals a Landfall Displacement of 0).

e) Still WSEL is reported in meters NAVD consistent with the modeling system output.

Conversion from meters to feet is accomplished by multiplying by a factor of 3.2808.

Page 2-79

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Table 2.4-7 Surge Response Matrix for 45 NM Rmax - 22.5 Degrees Counterclockwise Storms(a)(b)(c)(e)

Track Still WSEL Still WSEL Number(d) (m NAVD), (m NAVD),

Cp = 918 Cp = 928 mb mb 1 3.6 (30) 3.3 2 7.3 (27) 6.7 3 7.1 (28) 6.4 4 6.0 5.5 5 5.0 4.6 6 3.9 3.5 (56) 7 2.8 2.5 a) Surge values with a number in parentheses adjacent to it are values from ADCIRC+SWAN simulations. The number in the parentheses correlates to the Storm Number on Table 2.4-5.

b) Surge values italicized and bolded are established from the pressure differential relationship discussed in Subsection 2.4.3.3.

c) Surge values underlined are established by interpolation or extrapolation.

d) Track number is indexed by one value from the landfall displacement described in Table 2.4-5 (i.e., a Track Number of 1 equals a Landfall Displacement of 0).

e) Still WSEL is reported in meters NAVD consistent with the modeling system output.

Conversion from meters to feet is accomplished by multiplying by a factor of 3.2808.

Page 2-80

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Table 2.4-8 Surge Response Matrix for 30 NM Rmax - 0 Degrees Storms(a)(b)(c)(e)

Track Still WSEL Still WSEL Number(d) (m NAVD), (m NAVD),

Cp = 918 Cp = 928 mb mb 1 3.8 (18) 3.6 (39) 2 5.1 (19) 4.8 (40) 3 5.4 (12) 5.4 (41) 4 5.8 (13) 5.4 (42) 5 5.7 (14) 5.1 6 5.0 (15) 4.5 7 4.3 (16) 3.9 a) Surge values with a number in parentheses adjacent to it are values from ADCIRC+SWAN simulations. The number in the parentheses correlates to the Storm Number on Table 2.4-5.

b) Surge values italicized and bolded are established from the pressure differential relationship discussed in Subsection 2.4.3.3.

c) Surge values underlined are established by interpolation or extrapolation.

d) Track number is indexed by one value from the landfall displacement described in Table 2.4-5 (i.e., a Track Number of 1 equals a Landfall Displacement of 0).

e) Still WSEL is reported in meters NAVD consistent with the modeling system output.

Conversion from meters to feet is accomplished by multiplying by a factor of 3.2808.

Page 2-81

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Table 2.4-9 Surge Response Matrix for 45 NM Rmax - 0 Degrees Storms(a)(b)(c)(e)

Track Still WSEL Still WSEL Number(d) (m NAVD), (m NAVD),

Cp = 918 Cp = 928 mb mb 1 4.2 (24) 3.8 2 6.2 (25) 5.6 3 7.0 (20) 6.3 4 6.8 (21) 6.1 5 5.7 (22) 5.1 6 4.5 (23) 4.1 7 3.3 3.0 a) Surge values with a number in parentheses adjacent to it are values from ADCIRC+SWAN simulations. The number in the parentheses correlates to the Storm Number on Table 2.4-5.

b) Surge values italicized and bolded are established from the pressure differential relationship discussed in Subsection 2.4.3.3.

c) Surge values underlined are established by interpolation or extrapolation.

d) Track number is indexed by one value from the landfall displacement described in Table 2.4-5 (i.e., a Track Number of 1 equals a Landfall Displacement of 0).

e) Still WSEL is reported in meters NAVD consistent with the modeling system output.

Conversion from meters to feet is accomplished by multiplying by a factor of 3.2808.

Page 2-82

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Table 2.4-10 Historical Storms with Headings Towards the PSEG Site(a)(c)

Central Track Pressure Longitude Latitude Forward Angle (mb) Deg. East Deg. North Velocity (kt) (deg)(b) Year Name 963 71.9 41.0 44.4 67.9 1869 Unnamed 984 73.4 39.5 27.2 41.9 1879 Unnamed 990 72.5 41.0 22.8 49.1 1916 Unnamed 941 72.9 40.7 14.0 90.0 1938 Unnamed 966 71.5 42.1 30.1 57.1 1944 Unnamed 976 71.8 43.1 30.1 67.5 1954 Carol 969 75.9 36.6 10.0 84.3 1955 Connie 980 73.4 40.2 20.1 98.5 1972 Agnes 977 73.8 38.8 22.5 77.2 1976 Belle 951 74.5 38.4 41.0 67.5 1985 Gloria 990 75.2 37.4 14.8 46.2 1986 Charley 964 71.4 41.4 27.3 55.3 1991 Bob 980 73.5 40.6 29.4 55.3 1999 Floyd 958 75.0 38.1 15.0 63.4 2011 Irene 943 74.0 38.8 8.0 148.0 2012 Sandy a) Storms passing over a Line from a point at Latitude 36.5 degrees North, Longitude 76 degrees East to a point at Latitude 41.5 degrees North, 71 degrees East (see Figure 2.4-11).

b) Track Angle convention is 0 degrees denotes a storm moving east, 90 degrees denotes a storm moving north and 180 degrees denotes a storm moving west.

c) References 2.4-2 and 2.4-16.

Page 2-83

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Table 2.4-11 Central Pressure Gumbel Distribution Estimated Return Period (per Central Number of Storms) Pressure (mb) 5 954.32 10 943.32 25 929.41 50 919.09 100 908.85 150 902.88 200 898.65 250 895.37 500 885.19 1000 875.01 Page 2-84

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Table 2.4-12 Central Pressure Standard Deviation and Associated Surge Effect Central Standard Relative Surge Effect (mb)(a) Ratio Pressure (mb) Deviation (mb) 929.41 14.5 ((1018-929.41) + 14.5)/(1018-929.41) 1.16 919.09 17.4 ((1018-919.09) + 17.4)/(1018-919.09) 1.17 908.85 20.4 ((1018-908.85) + 20.4)/(1018-908.85) 1.19 a) The relative surge effect uses the pressure differential relationship discussed in Subsection 2.4.3.3.

Page 2-85

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Table 2.4-13 Relationship between SWL and TWL at Each Location Regression 2

Location Regression Equation R Plot Figure Number 1 TWL = 1.11*SWL-0.14 0.85 2.4-14 2 TWL = 1.34*SWL+0.68 0.97 2.4-15 3 TWL = 2.10*SWL-2.97 1.00 2.4-16 4 TWL = 1.32*SWL-0.80 0.98 2.4-17 19 TWL =1.40*SWL-1.39 1.00 2.4-18 20 TWL =1.80*SWL-2.87 0.99 2.4-19 21 TWL = SWL 1.00 N/A 22 TWL = 1.49*SWL-1.84 0.99 2.4-20 Page 2-86

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Table 2.4-14 Total Water Surface Elevations Total Total Total Total WSEL Location WSEL WSEL WSEL with Sea Level (m NAVD) (ft. NAVD) (ft. PSD) Rise (ft. PSD) 1 7.3 23.9 113.7 114.2 2 9.6 31.5 121.3 121.8 3 10.9 35.8 125.6 126.1 4 8.0 26.2 116.0 116.5 19 7.9 26.0 115.8 116.3 20 9.0 29.7 119.5 120.0 21 6.7 22.0 111.8 112.3 22 8.1 26.4 116.2 116.7 Page 2-87

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No. : 12800-213 Figure 2.4-1 FEMA Region III ADCIRC Mesh plateau o 195 390

• Miles Legend

• PSEG Site Page 2-88 SargentS Lundy l ~ ~

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Figure 2.4-2 ADCIRC Mesh Refinement at PSEG Site Page 2-89 Sargent & Lundy~ ~C

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Proj ect No.: 12800-2 13 Figure 2.4-3 Comparison of Refined PSEG Site Mesh versus Unmodified FEMA Region III Mesh Water Level Comparison for Hurricane Isabel (Tides+Surge+Waves) at One Mile North of Site

• • • • • • • R-cVL;,cd Grid - - FEMAGrid

• 1

.,9112103

~--------------------------------------~

9ill/OJ 9114/03 9;'1>103 9116/03 9/ 17103 9118/03 91 19/03 9/ 10103 rti'llf" Water Lev el Comparison for Hurricane Isabel (Tides+Surge+Waves) at One Mile South of Site Water Level Comparison for Hurricane Isabel * . .* * - . Re"i ~{'<.IGnd - - F"UlIAGlld (Tides+Surge+Waves) at One Mile West of Site

. ... .. . RCVlscdGrid - - FE M AGrid

• 1

• 2

. 3 L -________ ~ ______________ ~ ______________..J

.j 9112/03 9i13/03 9/ J4/03 9/1S/03 ~116/03 ~/17f03 9/18/03 9f19/01 9110.'03

• 2 DMt

., ~----------------------------------------~ Legend 9/1 2/03 9/ 13/03 9/ 14/03 9/1 5/03 9/ 16/ 03 9/1 7/0 1 '9/1SJ IH 9!19/113 (J /20/0 J 6, Locations One Mile Around Site PSEG Site Power Block Page 2-90 Sargent & Lundy*

• C-

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Figure 2.4-4 Wave Run-up Computation Locations around the PSEG Site Page 2-91

PSEG Nuclear LLC SL-012271 Hope Creek Generating Station Revision 0 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Project No.: 12800-213 Figure 2.4-5 PSEG Site Location within the Delaware Bay Region Legend PSEG Site Page 2-92