LR-N24-0011, Supplemental Information to License Amendment Request (LAR) to Modify the Salem and Hope Creek Exclusion Area Boundary

Supplemental Information to License Amendment Request (LAR) to Modify the Salem and Hope Creek Exclusion Area Boundary

ML24096A184
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek, Salem
Issue date:	04/05/2024
From:	Jennings J Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
LAR S23-04, LAR H23-02, LR-N24-0011
Download: ML24096A184 (1)

Text

Jason Jennings Director - Site Regulatory Compliance, PSEG Nuclear PO Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038-0221 856-339-1653 Jason.Jennings@PSEG.com

10 CFR 50.90 LAR S23-04 LAR H23-02 LR-N24-0011 April 5, 2024 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 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 Hope Creek Generating Station Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-57 NRC Docket No. 50-354

Subject:

Supplemental Information to License Amendment Request (LAR) to Modify the Salem and Hope Creek Exclusion Area Boundary

References:

1. PSEG letter to NRC, License Amendment Request (LAR) to Modify the Salem and Hope Creek Exclusion Area Boundary, dated September 6, 2023 (ADAMS Accession No. ML23249A260)

2. Email from James Kim (NRC) to PSEG, Questions re: Salem / Hope Creek EAB LAR, dated January 29, 2024 (ADAMS Accession No. ML24045A268)

In the Reference 1 letter, PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) submitted a license amendment request (LAR) to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos DPR-70 and DPR-75 for Salem Generating Station (Salem) and NPF-57 for Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) to modify the Exclusion Area Boundary for the PSEG site.

In the Reference 2 email, the NRC submitted questions regarding the dose consequence analyses for both Salem and Hope Creek described in the Reference 1 submittal. Following a January 31, 2024, clarification call with the NRC regarding the Reference 2 questions, it was agreed that a supplement to the LAR be provided to summarize all changes between the latest docketed dose consequence calculations and the current calculations supporting the proposed change to the Exclusion Area Boundary.

PSEG has determined that the information provided in this submittal does not alter the conclusions reached in the 10 CFR 50.92 no significant hazards determination previously submitted. In addition, the information provided in this submittal does not affect the bases for concluding that neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the proposed amendment.

o PSEG I NUCLEAR

April 5, 2024 10 CFR 50.90 LR-N24-0011 LAR S23-04 Page 2 LAR H23-02

6

There are no regulatory commitments contained in this letter. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mr. Michael Wiwel at Michael.Wiwel@pseg.com.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on________________

Respectfully, Jason Jennings Director, Site Regulatory Compliance PSEG Nuclear LLC

Attachment:

Salem and Hope Creek Accident Analysis Input Values Comparison Tables cc:

Administrator, Region I, NRC Mr. J. Kim, Project Manager, NRC NRC Senior Resident Inspector, Salem NRC Senior Resident Inspector, Hope Creek Ms. Ann Pfaff, Manager, NJBNE PSEG Commitment Tracking Coordinator

Jennings, Jason Digitally signed by Jennings, Jason Date: 2024.04.05 09:48:17

-04'00'

LR-N24-0011 Attachment A1 LAR S23-04 LAR H23-02 A1-1 Attachment A1 Supplemental Information to License Amendment Request (LAR) to Modify the Salem and Hope Creek Exclusion Area Boundary, LAR S23-04 and LAR H23-02 Salem and Hope Creek Accident Analysis Input Values Comparison Tables

LR-N24-0011 Attachment A1 LAR S23-04 LAR H23-02 A1-2 Salem and Hope Creek EAB Accident Dose Input Values Comparison Tables To facilitate the review of the LAR and to assess the impact of the revised Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) more readily at Salem Generating Station (Salem) and Hope Creek Generating Station (Hope Creek), summary tables are provided in this attachment. These tables provide a comparison of dose calculation input parameters between the Last Docketed Calculation (LDC) revision and the calculation revision due to the change in EAB distance. NRC Docket Nos. are provided below for clarification. These calculations are available for review via an electronic reading room established for this LAR.

Note that the calculations discussed have had multiple revisions since the LDC. The reason for change for updates made under previous calculation revisions (and not the current calculation revision under the EAB project) is simplified below as Previous change reviewed under the 50.59 process.

List of Accident Dose Calculations Included in Summary: NRC Accession No. / PSEG Calculation No.

Table 1 - Salem Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) ML042740509 / S-C-ZZ-MDC-1945 Table 2* - Salem Steam Generator Tube Rupture (SGTR) Accident ML042740514 / S-C-ZZ-MDC-1949 Table 3 - Hope Creek Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) ML102371018 / H-1-ZZ-MDC-1880 Table 4 - Hope Creek Main Steam Line Break (MSLB) Accident ML063110168 / H-1-AB-MDC-1854

• Note for Salem SGTR there are multiple tables and figures used: Table 2 & 2A and Figures 1 & 2.

Only input variables that impact a significant activity release path for dose at the EAB are included in the summary tables in this document. To simplify the comparisons presented in this supplement, most of the variables that are used to calculate RADTRAD inputs or are intermediaries on the way to calculating a RADTRAD input are not included unless their inclusion is deemed to improve clarity. In other words, the final RADTRAD nodalization values are provided. Significant activity release paths for the above listed event Tables are detailed below.

Table 1 (Salem LOCA)

Containment Leakage (4.56 rem) + ESF Leakage (2.06 rem) = 6.62 rem.

These two pathways make up 96.6% of total EAB dose (6.85 rem).

There is 18.15 rem margin from the allowable TEDE limit (25 rem - 6.85 rem).

Table 2 (Salem SGTR)

P-T-S Iodine Release (Flashing) for Salem Units 1 & 2, Preaccident & Concurrent Iodine Spike Preaccident Iodine Spike Case - EAB dose:

o Unit 1: 2.10 rem or 96.3% of total (2.18 rem). There is 22.82 rem margin total (25 rem - 2.18 rem).

o Unit 2: 2.25 rem or 95.7% of total (2.35 rem). There is 22.65 rem margin total (25 rem - 2.35 rem).

Concurrent Iodine Spike Case - EAB dose:

o Unit 1: 2.08 rem or 96.3% of total (2.16 rem). There is 0.34 rem margin total (2.5 rem - 2.16 rem).

o Unit 2: 2.10 rem or 95.5% of total (2.20 rem). There is 0.30 rem margin total (2.5 rem - 2.20 rem).

Table 3 (Hope Creek LOCA)

Containment Leakage (1.58 rem) + ESF Leakage (2.25 rem) + MSIV Leakage (9.11 rem) o These three pathways make up 100% of total EAB dose (12.9 rem).

There is 12.1 rem margin from the allowable TEDE limit (25 rem - 12.9 rem).

Table 4 (Hope Creek MSLB)

The MSLB Accident reports only one activity release path, referred to as just the calculated dose.

Preaccident Iodine Spike Case - EAB dose:

o 4.05 rem. There is 20.95 rem margin (25 rem - 4.05 rem).

Maximum Equilibrium Iodine Concentration Case - EAB dose:

o 0.241 rem. There is 2.26 rem margin (2.5 rem - 0.241 rem).

RADTRAD Revision Notice:

The LDCs were prepared using RADTRAD Version 3.02, while the new calculations were prepared using RADTRAD Version 3.03.

LR-N24-0011 Attachment A1 LAR S23-04 LAR H23-02 A1-3 Table 1: Salem LOCA Inputs and Assumptions Input/Assumption LDC Value New Value Reason for Change Calc Section 5.3 - Containment Leakage Parameters 5.3.1.2 Isotopic Aerosol Core Inventory (Ci/MWt) [Values from Table 3 (LDC) and Table 3A (New Calc)]

RB-86 1.496E+01 1.646E+01 Previous change reviewed under the 50.59 process.

The LDC values are the RADTRAD default aerosol values for a standard PWR. The new values are the RADTRAD default values scaled by 10%. The 10% scale factor is applied in order to correlate the 10% increase in the plant-specific calculated iodine inventory over the RADTRAD default iodine inventory.

This change has no impact on the final dose results shown in the Calculation Section 7.0 results summary. The listed aerosol inventory values here are placed in the RADTRAD nuclide inventory file (NIF). In order to compensate for the 10%

decrease in the listed LDC aerosol values, the approach used in the calculation was to scale the RADTRAD output aerosol dose contribution by hand using a scale factor of 1.10. This was done in Section 6.0 of the calculation.

SR-89 2.844E+04 3.128E+04 SR-90 1.535E+03 1.689E+03 SR-91 3.656E+04 4.022E+04 SR-92 3.805E+04 4.186E+04 Y-90 1.647E+03 1.812E+03 Y-91 3.465E+04 3.812E+04 Y-92 3.819E+04 4.201E+04 Y-93 4.320E+04 4.752E+04 ZR-95 4.377E+04 4.815E+04 ZR-97 4.562E+04 5.018E+04 NB-95 4.138E+04 4.552E+04 MO-99 4.830E+04 5.313E+04 TC-99M 4.169E+04 4.586E+04 RU-103 3.598E+04 3.958E+04 RU-105 2.340E+04 2.574E+04 RU-106 8.175E+03 8.993E+03 RH-105 1.621E+04 1.783E+04 SB-127 2.208E+03 2.429E+03 SB-129 7.820E+03 8.602E+03 TE-127 2.132E+03 2.345E+03 TE-127M 2.823E+02 3.105E+02 TE-129 7.341E+03 8.075E+03 TE-129M 1.935E+03 2.129E+03 TE-131M 3.707E+03 4.078E+03 TE-132 3.690E+04 4.059E+04 CS-134 3.425E+03 3.768E+03 CS-136 1.042E+03 1.146E+03 CS-137 1.915E+03 2.107E+03 BA-139 4.976E+04 5.474E+04 BA-140 4.924E+04 5.416E+04 LA-140 5.032E+04 5.535E+04 LA-141 4.615E+04 5.077E+04 LA-142 4.449E+04 4.894E+04 CE-141 4.476E+04 4.924E+04 CE-143 4.352E+04 4.787E+04 CE-144 2.697E+04 2.967E+04 PR-143 4.273E+04 4.700E+04 ND-147 1.911E+04 2.102E+04 NP-239 5.120E+05 5.632E+05 PU-238 2.902E+01 3.192E+01 PU-239 6.545E+00 7.200E+00 PU-240 8.254E+00 9.079E+00 PU-241 1.390E+03 1.529E+03 AM-241 9.181E-01 1.010E+00 CM-242 3.514E+02 3.865E+02 CM-244 2.056E+01 2.262E+01

LR-N24-0011 Attachment A1 LAR S23-04 LAR H23-02 A1-4 Table 1: Salem LOCA Inputs and Assumptions Input/Assumption LDC Value New Value Reason for Change Calc Section 5.3 - Containment Leakage Parameters (cont.)

5.3.2.6 Flow Rate From Sprayed to Unsprayed Volume 21,833 cfm 43,251 cfm Previous change reviewed under the 50.59 process 5.3.2.7 Flow Rate From Unsprayed to Sprayed Volume 21,833 cfm 43,251 cfm Previous change reviewed under the 50.59 process Note: To calculate the Containment Leakage dose, the source is split between the sprayed region and unsprayed region.

RADTRAD was identified to have a non-conservative software error for models in which more than one compartment receives a part of the released radionuclides and there is a timed release with radionuclide decay. This software error is addressed in a revision to the calculation following the LDC, which was reviewed under the 50.59 process. The change performed multiple runs in which the fractional releases into compartments are run in two separate RADTRAD files (one for the sprayed region (75%) and one for the unsprayed region (25%)).

Calc Section 5.4 - ESF Leakage Parameters 5.4.2 ESF Leakage Rate 1 gpm (2 gpm*)

0.45 gpm (0.9 gpm*)

Previous change reviewed under the 50.59 process.

• x2 value used in the RADTRAD analysis 5.4.3 ESF Leakage Initiation Time 20 min*

0 min*

Previous change reviewed under the 50.59 process

• with ECCS operating at maximum capacity 5.4.5 ESF Leakage Iodine Flashing Factors Previous change reviewed under the 50.59 process 0 to 1.0 hour0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> 10%

5.26%

1.0 to 16.67 hours7.75463e-4 days <br />0.0186 hours <br />1.107804e-4 weeks <br />2.54935e-5 months <br /> 10%

3.76%

> 16.67 hours7.75463e-4 days <br />0.0186 hours <br />1.107804e-4 weeks <br />2.54935e-5 months <br /> 10%

2%

5.4.7 Fraction of Core Iodine in Sump Water 0.05824 40%

Previous change reviewed under the 50.59 process There is a difference in the reported value for 5.4.7.

The LDC provides the Fraction of Elemental Core Iodine (0.4 x 0.0485 x 3 = 0.0582) while the current calculation provides the total Fraction of Core Iodine.

Note 0.0485 was applied to the LDC to take credit for a mechanistic model of iodine transport to the sump and that a factor of 3 was applied to the LDC for additional conservatism which are no longer applied.

Calc Section 5.6 - Site Boundary Release Model Parameters 5.6.1 EAB Atmospheric Dispersion Factor (/Q) (sec/m3) 1.30E-04 2.44E-04 Revised due to the change in EAB distance from 1270 m to 695 m.

Calc Section - 7.0 Results Summary Post-LOCA EAB, LPZ, and CR doses at the Salem Nuclear Generating Station are summarized as follows:

2 Tables 1 Table Previous change reviewed under the 50.59 process.

The LDC provided 2 Tables under Section 7.0. One table without the interruption of containment spray and one table with the 10-minute interruption of containment spray. The results with the 10-minute interruption are conservative and are used as the standard in the current calculation revision.

Calc Table 25 - Calculated Effective Decontamination Coefficients Effective Removal Coefficient dep,K (hr -1) @ Time Period Previous change reviewed under the 50.59 process.

Note that the LDC did not include these hand calculated coefficients (calculated as a result of a RADTRAD software error) as the coefficients were calculated within the RADTRAD code (using the 10% percentile Powers Aerosol Decontamination Model).

0 - 0.5 hr (K = 2) 2.978E-02 0.5 - 1.8 hr (K = 3) 2.535E-02 1.8 - 3.8 hr (K = 4) 9.005E-02 3.8 hr - 13.8 hr (K = 5) 1.180E-01 13.8 hr - 22.22 hr (K = 6) 8.600E-02

> 22.22 hr 0

Additional Discussion:

The LDC contains an evaluation for an Iodine Transport to Sump Analysis in order to take credit for a mechanistic model of iodine transport to the sump in lieu of the deterministic approach. This alternative mechanistic approach was removed from the calculation in a revision to the calculation following the LDC which was reviewed under the 50.59 process. The mechanistic approach was replaced with the deterministic approach (i.e., 40% fuel iodine instantaneously transferred to the sump).

LR-N24-0011 Attachment A1 LAR S23-04 LAR H23-02 A1-5 Table 2: Salem SGTR Accident Inputs and Assumptions Input/Assumption LDC Value New Value Reason for Change Calc Section 5.4 - Activity Transport Models 5.4.6 SG liquid iodine partition coefficient Revised to be consistent with RG 1.183, Appendix F, Section 5.6 and Appendix E, Section 5.5.4.

Primary and secondary liquid partition coefficient of 100 is for iodine in primary and secondary liquid that doesnt flash and is from steaming. These values are used in the Flowrate of iodine released due to steaming node in Figures 1 & 2.

Primary Liquid 1

100 Secondary Liquid 10 100 5.4.7 RCS nominal operating pressure N/A 2249.7 psia These values are added as they are used as inputs to calculate the flashing fraction (FF). The FF is then used to calculate the Flowrate of RCS liquid released due to flashing node in Figures 1

& 2.

5.4.8 RCS outlet temperature (High Tavg)

N/A 613.1°F 5.4.9 Design steam pressure (High Tavg)

N/A 869 psia (U1) 900 psia (U2)

Calc Section 5.6 - Site Boundary Release Model Parameters 5.6.1 EAB atmospheric dispersion factors (/Q) (sec/m3) 1.30E-4 1.97E-04 (U1) 2.44E-04 (U2)

Revised due to the change in EAB distance from 1270 m to 695 m. Note the Unit 1 SGTR accident required additional margin; therefore, an EAB distance of 790 m is used solely for this accident.

Additional Discussion:

In the LDC, the SGTR evaluation of Salem Unit 1 and Unit 2 are combined. In a revision to the calculation following the LDC, which was reviewed under the 50.59 process, the analysis was separated, and each unit has an independent RADTRAD run.

As a result, the variables and tables used as inputs for the RADTRAD analysis are effectively doubled. There are now four RADTRAD runs conducted, (2) Pre-accident Iodine Spike Case for each Unit 1 & Unit 2 and (2) Concurrent Iodine Spike Case for each Unit 1 & Unit 2. This is why there are now four tables in Section 7.0 Results Summary compared to two tables in the LDC.

There are numerous inputs that are revised between the LDC and the new calculation. Due to the nature of the changes, and the doubling of RADTRAD analyses, an effort was made to simplify the changes and present the information in a more streamlined manner. Figures 1 through 4 in the new calculation (equivalent to Figures 1 and 2 in the LDC) present the values required for RADTRAD nodalization. In lieu of presenting all changes to variables from Section 5.0 Design Inputs in Table 2 above, the figures are recreated to represent the values required for RADTRAD nodalization (a mix of values from Calc Section 5.0 as well as those calculated in Calc Section 6.0 Calculations). Specific inputs revised under the EAB reduction project from Calc Section 5.0 that are not clearly displayed in the figure but contribute to the change in EAB dose results are shown in Table 2 above. See Figures 1 and 2 in this Attachment.

In addition, tables revised that include RADTRAD Nuclide Inventory File (NIF) input information are presented in Table 2A below to clearly represent the changes required for the updated RADTRAD analysis. The NIF values were updated in a revision to the calculation following the LDC, which was reviewed under the 50.59 process.

LR-N24-0011 Attachment A1 LAR S23-04 LAR H23-02 A1-6 Table 2A: Salem SGTR RADTRAD Nuclide Inventory File (NIF)

Input LDC Value New Value Calc Table 6 (LDC) / 9 (Current Rev): Total Iodine & Noble Gas Activities in RCS Pre-accident Iodine Spike Isotope Table 6 - Units 1 & 2 (Ci)

Table 6 - Unit 1 (Ci)

Table 9 - Unit 2 (Ci)

I-131 0.1652E+05 0.1568E+05 0.1687E+05 I-132 0.1652E+05 0.1568E+05 0.1687E+05 I-133 0.2478E+05 0.2352E+05 0.2530E+05 I-134 0.3363E+04 0.3192E+04 0.3433E+04 I-135 0.1357E+05 0.1288E+05 0.1385E+05 Kr-83m 0.1409E+03 0.1338E+03 0.1439E+03 Kr-85m 0.5989E+03 0.5685E+03 0.6115E+03 Kr-85 0.2889E+04 0.2742E+04 0.2950E+04 Kr-87 0.3523E+03 0.3344E+03 0.3597E+03 Kr-88 0.1057E+04 0.1003E+04 0.1079E+04 Xe-131m 0.7398E+03 0.7022E+03 0.7554E+03 Xe-133m 0.5989E+04 0.5685E+04 0.6115E+04 Xe-133 0.9160E+05 0.8694E+05 0.9352E+05 Xe-135m 0.1726E+03 0.1639E+03 0.1763E+03 Xe-135 0.2995E+04 0.2842E+04 0.3057E+04 Xe-138 0.2149E+03 0.2040E+03 0.2194E+03 Calc Table 9 (LDC) / 14 (S1 Current Rev) / 15 (S2 Current Rev): Total Iodine & Noble Gas Activities in RCS Concurrent Iodine Spike Isotope Table 9 - Units 1 & 2 (Ci)

Table 14 - Unit 1 (Ci)

Table 15 - Unit 2 (Ci)

I-131 0.1006E+06 0.1020E+06 0.1023E+06 I-132 0.3217E+06 0.3106E+06 0.3266E+06 I-133 0.1837E+06 0.1843E+06 0.1870E+06 I-134 0.1387E+06 0.1330E+06 0.1415E+06 I-135 0.1442E+06 0.1421E+06 0.1467E+06 Kr-83m 0.1409E+03 0.1338E+03 0.1439E+03 Kr-85m 0.5989E+03 0.5685E+03 0.6115E+03 Kr-85 0.2889E+04 0.2742E+04 0.2950E+04 Kr-87 0.3523E+03 0.3344E+03 0.3597E+03 Kr-88 0.1057E+04 0.1003E+04 0.1079E+04 Xe-131m 0.7398E+03 0.7022E+03 0.7554E+03 Xe-133m 0.5989E+04 0.5685E+04 0.6115E+04 Xe-133 0.9160E+05 0.8694E+05 0.9352E+05 Xe-135m 0.1726E+03 0.1639E+03 0.1763E+03 Xe-135 0.2995E+04 0.2842E+04 0.3057E+04 Xe-138 0.2149E+03 0.2040E+03 0.2194E+03 Calc Table 10 (LDC) / 16 (S1 Current Rev) / 17 (S2 Current Rev): Secondary Side Iodine Activity Isotope Table 10 - Units 1 & 2 (Ci)

Table 16 - Unit 1 (Ci)

Table 17 - Unit 2 (Ci)

I-131 0.1810E+02 0.1690E+02 0.1805E+02 I-132 0.1810E+02 0.1690E+02 0.1805E+02 I-133 0.2715E+02 0.2535E+02 0.2708E+02 I-134 0.3684E+01 0.3441E+01 0.3675E+01 I-135 0.1487E+02 0.1388E+02 0.1483E+02

Figure 1: RADTRAD Nodalization For SGTR Accident with a Preaccident Iodine Spike Release Flowrate of RCS liquid released due to flashing Flowrate of iodine released due to steaming Flowrate of noble gas from RCS to Faulted SG P-T-S Leakage Iodine Release Path (Steaming)

Noble Gas Release Path Secondary Liquid Iodine Release Rates P-T-S Leakage Iodine Release Path (Flashing)

Note: Flashing pathway was not considered in the LDC.

Notes: The Flashing release pathway was not considered in the LDC.

Notes: *The LDC used a timeframe of 0 - 2 hrs for iodine release.

Notes: **The LDC used a timeframe of 0 - 32 hrs for leakage rate.

LR-N24-0011 LAR S23-04 LAR H23-02 A1-7 I

I I

I I

Faulted Steam r*.J*-*.J

~*

Fu1 = 17.189 cfm I

. _ \\. -

0-0.5 hrs Fu2 = 14.841 cfm I

Generator I

I

-*-*-*-*~

I Steam Space

~

I E

Vu1 = 1 ft3

~*+*-*~

Fu1 = Ocfm P-T-S Leakage 0.5 - 32 hrs I

Vu2 = 1 ft3 Fu2 = Ocfm Iodine Release J

Path (Flashing)

~--------------------,

N

+

(

I I

I I

Leakage Rate to Faulted Steam I

FLDc = 43.56 cfm I

Faulted SGs Generator

.. I 0-0.5 hrs r+

Fu1 = 0.398 cfm I

I

- I I -

V I

(0-0.5 hrs)

Volume I

Fu2 = 0.4598 cfm I

VLDc = 1,911 ft3 I

FLDc = 103.07 cfm I

I Fu1 = 87.81 cfm Vu1 = 1,911 ft3 I

I I

Fu2 = 79.28 cfm Vu2 = 2,040 ft3 I

FLDc = 89.63 cfm*

I I

I I H 0-0.5 hrs J---+

Fu1 = 1.217 cfm I

'l I

Fu2 = 1.397 cfm I

I I

I R

I P-T-S Secondary I

FLDc = 89.63 cfm*

I I

Leakage -

Secondary Liquid Volume I H 0.5-2 hrs r+

Fu1 = 0.8192 cfm Liquid I

I Iodine Iodine

• • • • • • VLDc = 7,643 ft3..... I..

Fu2 = 0.9372 cfm I

0 Release I

I Release 3

I Path Vu1 = 7,644 ft I

FLDc = 67.78 cfm I

r-Path 3

(Steaming)

Vu2 = 8,160ft I H r+

I 2-8 hrs Fu1 = 0.6195 cfm I

N

~

I Fu2 = 0.6955 cfm I

I I

I I

• r I

I FLDc = 36.21 cfm Leakage Rate to Intact Steam I H 8-24 hrs r+

Fu1 = 0.3310 cfm I

M Reactor Coolant System Volume Intact SGs Generator I

Fu2 = 0.3021 cfm I

(0.5 - 32 hrs)

Volume I...

I V LDC = 12,446 ft3 FLDc = 0.188 cfm**

VLDc = 5,732 ft3 I -

FLDc = 30.23 cfm I

Vu1 = 11,816 ft3 Fu1 = 0.191 cfm Vu1 = 5,733 ft3 I H 24-32 hrs r+

Fu1 = 0.2762 cfm I

E Vu2 = 6,120ft3 I

Vu2 = 12,707 ft3 Fu2 = 0.191 cfm Fu2 = 0.3021 cfm I

~

J

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

I

-- ------------------- '\\

N I

(

I L----------------------

I I

I i~

~

FLDc = 103.26 cfm I

Fu1 = 105.00 cfm I

I I

0-0.5 hrs T

I Noble Gas Fu2 = 94.12 cfm I

I L-*

Release 1 I

Path I ~~

~*

FLDc = 0.188 cfm I

0.5-32 hrs Fu1 = 0.191 cfm I

I Fu2 = 0.191 cfm I

Figure 2: RADTRAD Nodalization For SGTR Accident with a Concurrent Iodine Spike Release Flowrate of RCS liquid released due to flashing Flowrate of iodine released due to steaming Flowrate of noble gas from RCS to Faulted SG P-T-S Leakage Iodine Release Path (Steaming)

Noble Gas Release Path Secondary Liquid Iodine Release Rates P-T-S Leakage Iodine Release Path (Flashing)

Note: Flashing pathway was not considered in the LDC.

Notes: The Flashing release pathway was not considered in the LDC.

Notes: *The LDC used a timeframe of 0 - 2 hrs for iodine release.

Notes: **The LDC used a timeframe of 0 - 32 hrs for leakage rate.

LR-N24-0011 LAR S23-04 LAR H23-02 A1-8 I

I I

I I

Faulted Steam r*.J*-*.J

~*

Fu1 = 17.189 cfm I

. _ \\. -

0-0.5 hrs Fu2 = 14.841 cfm I

Generator I

I

-*-*-*-*~

I Steam Space

~

I E

Vu1 = 1 ft3

~*+*-*~

Fu1 = Ocfm P-T-S Leakage 0.5 - 32 hrs I

Vu2 = 1 ft3 Fu2 = Ocfm Iodine Release J

Path (Flashing)

~--------------------,

N

+

(

I I

I I

Leakage Rate to Faulted Steam I

FLDc = 43.56 cfm I

Fuel Faulted SGs Generator

.. I 0-0.5 hrs r+

Fu1 = 0.398 cfm I

I

- I I -

V I

Volume (0-0.5 hrs)

Volume I

Fu2 = 0.4598 cfm I

VLDc = 1,911 ft3 I

1,000 ft3 FLDc = 103.07 cfm I

I Fu1 = 87.81 cfm Vu1 = 1,911 ft3 I

I I

Fu2 = 79.28 cfm Vu2 = 2,040 ft3 I

FLDc = 89.63 cfm*

I I

H J---+

I I

0-0.5 hrs Fu1 = 1.217 cfm Fuel I

'l I

Fu2 = 1.397 cfm I

I Activity I

I R

Release I

P-T-S Secondary I

FLDc = 89.63 cfm*

I I

Rate@

Leakage -

Secondary Liquid Volume I H 0.5-2 hrs r+

Fu1 = 0.8192 cfm 0- 8 hrs Liquid I

I 9.60cfm Iodine Iodine

• • • • • • VLDc = 7,643 ft3..... I..

Fu2 = 0.9372 cfm I

0 Release I

I Release 3

I Path Vu1 = 7,644 ft I

FLDc = 67.78 cfm I

r-Path 3

(Steaming)

Vu2 = 8,160ft I H r+

I 2-8 hrs Fu1 = 0.6195 cfm I

N

~

~

I Fu2 = 0.6955 cfm I

I I

I I

1J I

I FLDc = 36.21 cfm Leakage Rate to Intact Steam I H 8-24 hrs r+

Fu1 = 0.3310 cfm I

M Reactor Coolant System Volume Intact SGs Generator I

Fu2 = 0.3021 cfm I

(0.5 - 32 hrs)

Volume I...

I V LDC = 12,446 ft3 FLDc = 0.188 cfm**

VLDc = 5,732 ft3 I -

FLDc = 30.23 cfm I

Vu1 = 11,816 ft3 Fu1 = 0.191 cfm Vu1 = 5,733 ft3 I H 24-32 hrs r+

Fu1 = 0.2762 cfm I

E Vu2 = 6,120ft3 I

Vu2 = 12,707 ft3 Fu2 = 0.191 cfm Fu2 = 0.3021 cfm I

~

J

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

I

-- ------------------- '\\

N I

(

I L----------------------

I I

I i~

~

FLDc = 103.26 cfm I

Fu1 = 105.00 cfm I

I I

0-0.5 hrs T

I Noble Gas Fu2 = 94.12 cfm I

I L-*

Release 1 I

Path I ~~

~*

FLDc = 0.188 cfm I

0.5-32 hrs Fu1 = 0.191 cfm I

I Fu2 = 0.191 cfm I

LR-N23-0071 Attachment A1 LAR S23-04 LAR H23-02 A1-9 Table 3: Hope Creek LOCA Accident Inputs and Assumptions Input/Assumption LDC Value New Value Reason for Change Calc Section 5.3 - Containment Leakage Parameters 5.3.1.3 Isotopic Average Core Inventory (Ci/MWt) (LDC Values from Calc Table 1D, New Values from Calc Table 1B)

KR-85 3.330E+02 3.760E+02 Previous change reviewed under the 50.59 process.

KR-85M 7.350E+03 6.980E+03 KR-87 1.420E+04 1.340E+04 KR-88 2.000E+04 1.890E+04 RB-86 6.350E+01 7.540E+01 SR-89 2.690E+04 2.530E+04 SR-90 2.640E+03 3.000E+03 SR-91 5.300E+04 5.060E+04 SR-92 3.610E+04 3.460E+04 Y-90 2.810E+03 3.190E+03 Y-91 3.440E+04 3.280E+04 Y-92 3.620E+04 3.480E+04 Y-93 4.160E+04 4.010E+04 ZR-95 4.850E+04 4.760E+04 ZR-97 1.468E+05 1.459E+05 NB-95 4.870E+04 4.780E+04 MO-99 5.100E+04 5.130E+04 TC-99M 4.460E+04 4.470E+04 RU-103 7.700E+04 8.000E+04 RU-105 2.700E+04 2.900E+04 RU-106 2.940E+04 3.370E+04 RH-105 2.530E+04 2.720E+04 SB-127 2.800E+03 2.940E+03 SB-129 8.490E+03 8.760E+03 TE-127 2.780E+03 2.920E+03 TE-127M 3.710E+02 3.890E+02 TE-129 8.350E+03 8.710E+03 TE-129M 1.240E+03 1.280E+03 TE-131M 2.764E+04 2.801E+04 TE-132 3.810E+04 3.830E+04 I-131 2.670E+04 2.700E+04 I-132 3.870E+04 3.900E+04 I-133 5.510E+04 5.480E+04 I-134 6.060E+04 6.060E+04 I-135 6.220E+04 6.260E+04 XE-133 5.300E+04 5.390E+04 XE-135 1.820E+04 1.790E+04 CS-134 5.350E+03 6.970E+03 CS-136 1.860E+03 2.210E+03 CS-137 6.760E+03 7.890E+03 BA-139 4.950E+04 4.920E+04 BA-140 4.780E+04 4.730E+04 LA-140 5.080E+04 4.920E+04 LA-141 4.510E+04 4.410E+04 LA-142 4.370E+04 4.330E+04 CE-141 4.540E+04 4.490E+04 CE-143 4.220E+04 4.130E+04

LR-N23-0071 Attachment A1 LAR S23-04 LAR H23-02 A1-10 Table 3: Hope Creek LOCA Accident Inputs and Assumptions Input/Assumption LDC Value New Value Reason for Change Calc Section 5.3 - Containment Leakage Parameters (cont.)

5.3.1.3 Isotopic Average Core Inventory (Ci/MWt) (LDC Values from Calc Table 1D, New Values from Calc Table 1B)

CE-144 7.424E+04 7.485E+04 Previous change reviewed under the 50.59 process.

PR-143 4.080E+04 4.020E+04 ND-147 1.810E+04 1.800E+04 NP-239 5.220E+05 5.470E+05 PU-238 9.040E+01 1.350E+02 PU-239 1.090E+01 1.170E+01 PU-240 1.410E+01 1.690E+01 PU-241 4.090E+03 4.700E+03 AM-241 4.600E+00 5.800E+00 CM-242 1.090E+03 1.510E+03 CM-244 5.240E+01 1.020E+02 Calc Section 5.7 - Site Boundary Release Parameters 5.7.1 EAB X/Q (0-2 Hrs) (sec/m3) 1.9E-04 8.14E-04 Revised due to the change in EAB distance from 901 m to 337 m.

Calc Section 7.0 - Calculations 7.2.5 MSIV Leakage to Environment Previous change reviewed under the 50.59 process.

Note that these Section 7.2.5 values are reported in Table 7 and are updated there as well. Where 4.783 cfm = 287.0 cfh & 3.183 cfm = 191 cfh.

7.2.5.1 MSIV Failed MS Line 2.5 cfm 4.783 cfm 7.2.5.2 Intact MS Line 1.667 cfm 3.183 cfm Calc Table 3 - Hope Creek Main Steam Piping Volume Total Modeled Inside Volume (Horizontal + Vertical) (ft3)

Previous change reviewed under the 50.59 process.

Note these values are also presented in Figure 4 of the Calculation HCGS MSIV Leakage RADTRAD Nodalization.

Header A - MSIV Failed Line 1240.93 1139.04 Header D - Intact Line 1539.70 1136.00 Calc Table 6 - Gravitational Deposition Aerosol Removal Efficiency on Horizontal Pipe Surface with 40th%/40th%

Settling Velocity Aerosol Removal Efficiency (%) - Failed Line Previous change reviewed under the 50.59 process.

0 - 24 hr 97.93 95.75 24 - 96 hr 97.93 95.75 96 - 720 hr 0.00 0.00 Aerosol Removal Efficiency (%) - Intact Line 0 - 24 hr 98.88 97.12 24 - 96 hr 98.88 97.12 96 - 720 hr 0.00 0.00 Calc Table 9A - BWR DBA Aerosol Natural Deposition Decontamination Coefficients RADTRAD Manual Table 2.2.2.1-3 BWR DBA Natural Removal Decontamination Coefficient (hr -1)

Previous change reviewed under the 50.59 process.

Note that the LDC did not include these hand calculated coefficients (calculated as a result of a RADTRAD software error) as the coefficients were calculated within the RADTRAD code (using the 10% percentile Powers Aerosol Decontamination Model).

0 - 0.5 hr 7.481E-01 0.5 - 2.0 hr 2.986E-01 2.0 - 5.0 hr 1.056E+00 5.0 hr - 8.33 hr 6.393E-01 8.33 hr - 12.0 hr 5.574E-01 12.0 hr - 19.4 hr 5.240E-01 19.4 hr - 24.0 hr 5.072E-01

LR-N23-0071 Attachment A1 LAR S23-04 LAR H23-02 A1-11 Calc Table 4: Hope Creek MSLB Accident Inputs and Assumptions Input/Assumption LDC Value New Value Reason for Change Calc Section 5.3 - Main Steam Line Break Accident Parameters 5.3.2.1 Activity release rate (volume percent/day) 2E+07*

2E+06 Previous change reviewed under the 50.59 process.

• Note the LDC had 2E+05 volume/day. This is converted to 2E+07 volume percent/day to be consistent with the new calculation units.

5.3.2.5(6)* Source volume (ft3)

• 5.3.2.6 in LDC

• 5.3.2.5 in New Calc 100 200,000 Previous change reviewed under the 50.59 process. The source volume, along with the activity release rate (volume percent/day), is used to model a single puff release using a RADTRAD volume node. Although the difference in source volume between the LDC value and the new value is significant, the activity released for both the LDC model and the new model equates to a majority of available activity being released within a very short period of time (i.e., puff release).

Calc Section 5.3.4 Site Boundary Release Parameters 5.3.4.1 EAB atmospheric dispersion factor (/Q) (sec/m3) 1.9E-04 8.14E-04 Revised due to the change in EAB distance from 901 m to 337 m.