L-2025-108, Response to Requests for Additional Information (Rals) Regarding License Amendment Request L-2024-138, Fuel Methodology Changes in Support of St. Lucie Unit 2 Transition to 24-Month Fuel Cycles
| ML25150A005 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 05/29/2025 |
| From: | Mack K Florida Power & Light Co |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Document Control Desk |
| Shared Package | |
| ML25150A004 | List: |
| References | |
| L-2025-108 | |
| Download: ML25150A005 (1) | |
Text
l=PL.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington D C 20555-0001 RE:
St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 Docket No. 50-389 Renewed Facility Operating License NPF-16 May 29, 2025 L-2025-108 10 CFR 50.90 Response to Requests for Additional Information (RAls) Regarding License Amendment Request L-2024-138, Fuel Methodology Changes in Support of St. Lucie Unit 2 Transition to 24-Month Fuel Cycles
Reference:
- 1.
Florida Power & Light Company letter L-2024-138, License Amendment Request L-2024-138, Fuel Methodology Changes in Support of St. Lucie Unit, September 11, 2024 (ADAMS Accession No. ML24255A120 and ML24255A118)
- 2.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission electronic memorandum dated April 27, 2025, Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, St. Lucie Unit 2 - Fuel Methodology Changes in Support of Transition to 24-Month Fuel Cycles, Florida Power & Light Company Saint Lucie, Unit 2, Docket No. 05000389 (ADAMS Accession No. ML25119A284)
In Reference 1, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) requested an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License (RFOL) NPF-16 for St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 (St. Lucie Unit 2). The proposed license amendment would revise St. Lucie Unit 2 Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.3, Core Operating Limits Report, by updating the listing of NRG-approved analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits.
Specifically, changes to the fuel thermal-mechanics, core thermal-hydraulics, emergency core cooling, nuclear design, and select design basis event analyses were proposed using NRG-approved advanced codes and methods in support of a St. Lucie Unit 2 transition to 24-month fuel cycles.
In Reference 2, the NRC requested additional information deemed necessary to complete its review. to this letter provides FPL's response to the NRC's requests for additional information (RAls).
Additionally, Enclosure 1, Appendix A, provides information supplementing a methodology departure described in Reference 1. This issue was discussed with the NRC during a May 12, 2025 audit session. contains information that Framatome, Incorporated (Framatome), the owner of the information, considers to be proprietary in nature. Enclosure 2 provides Framatome's Application for Withholding Proprietary Information from Public Disclosure accompanied by an affidavit signed by Framatome. The application sets forth the basis upon which the information may be withheld from public disclosure by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("Commission") and addresses with specificity the considerations listed in Section 2.390, paragraph (b)(4) of the Commission's regulations. Accordingly, FPL requests that the information deemed proprietary to Framatome be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390. Correspondence with respect to the proprietary aspects of Enclosure 1 or the supporting affidavit should be addressed to Mr. Morris Byram, Manager, Licensing & Regulatory Affairs, Framatome, Inc.,. Enclosure 3 provides a non-proprietary (redacted) version of Enclosure 1.
Additionally, subsequent to the Reference 1 submittal, FPL became aware of three Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) references relating to the RODEX2 evaluation model that were erroneously marked for deletion in the marked up pages for TS 5.6.3, Core Operating Limits Report, and one COLR reference Florida Power & Light Company 6501 S. Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, FL 34957
St. Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-389 L-2025-108 Page 2 of2 relating to the Biasi CHF correlation that was unnecessarily included in the marked up pages for TS 5.6.3. provides revised TS markup pages which correct the COLR references of TS 5.6.3, as described in the responses to RAl-1 and RAl-2 of Enclosure 1 (and redacted Enclosure 3). The revised TS markup pages of Enclosure 4 supersede and replace the TS markup pages of Reference 1 in their entirety.
The information in this RAI response provides additional information that clarifies the application, does not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and should not change the NRC staff's originally proposed notice of determination of no significant hazards as published in the Federal Register.
This letter contains no regulatory commitments.
Should you have any questions regarding this submission, please contact Ms. Maribel Valdez, Fleet Licensing Manager, at 561-904-5164.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on the 291h day of May 2025 Ke~
Director, Licensing and Regulatory Compliance Florida Power & Light Company cc:
USNRC Regional Administrator, Region II USNRC Project Manager, St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 USNRC Senior Resident Inspector, St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Mr. Clark Eldredge, Florida Department of Health
Enclosures:
- 1.
Response to Requests for Additional Information (proprietary)
- Appendix A: Supplemental License Amendment Request (LAR) Information
- 2.
Application for Withholding Proprietary Information from Public Disclosure Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390
- 3.
Response to Requests for Additional Information (non-proprietary)
- 4.
Technical Specification markup pages (revised)
St. Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-389 Application for Withholding Proprietary Information From Public Disclosure Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390 (3 pages follow)
- 1.
My name is Morris Byram. I am Manager, Licensing & Regulatory Affairs for Framatome Inc. (Framatome) and as such I am authorized to execute this Affidavit.
- 2.
I am familiar with the criteria applied by Framatome to determine whether certain Framatome information is proprietary. I am familiar with the policies established by Framatome to ensure the proper application of these criteria.
- 3.
I am familiar with the Framatome information contained in Enclosure 1 to Florida Power and Light Company letter with subject "Response to Request for Additional Information (RAls) Regarding License Amendment Request L-2024-138, Fuel Methodology Changes in Support of St. Lucie Unit 2 Transition to 24-Month Fuel Cycles," and referred to herein as "Documents." Information contained in these Documents has been classified by Framatome as proprietary in accordance with the policies established by Framatome for the control and protection of proprietary and confidential information.
- 4.
These Documents contain information of a proprietary and confidential nature and is of the type customarily held in confidence by Framatome and not made available to the public. Based on my experience, I am aware that other companies regard information of the kind contained in these Documents as proprietary and confidential.
- 5.
These Documents have been made available to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in confidence with the request that the information contained in this Document be withheld from public disclosure. The request for withholding of proprietary information is made in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390. The information for which withholding from disclosure is
requested qualifies under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(4) "Trade secrets and commercial or financial information."
- 6.
The following criteria are customarily applied by Framatome to determine whether information should be classified as proprietary:
(a)
The information reveals details of Framatome's research and development plans and programs or their results.
(b)
Use of the information by a competitor would permit the competitor to significantly reduce its expenditures, in time or resources, to design, produce, or market a similar product or service.
(c)
The information includes test data or analytical techniques concerning a process, methodology, or component, the application of which results in a competitive advantage for Framatome.
(d)
The information reveals certain distinguishing aspects of a process, methodology, or component, the exclusive use of which provides a competitive advantage for Framatome in product optimization or marketability.
(e)
The information is vital to a competitive advantage held by Framatome, would be helpful to competitors to Framatome, and would likely cause substantial harm to the competitive position of Framatome.
The information in these Documents is considered proprietary for the reasons set forth in paragraph 6(c), 6(d), and 6(e) above.
- 7.
In accordance with Framatome's policies governing the protection and control of information, proprietary information contained in this Document has been made available, on a limited basis, to others outside Framatome only as required and under suitable agreement providing for nondisclosure and limited use of the information.
- 8.
Framatome policy requires that proprietary information be kept in a secured file or area and distributed on a need-to-know basis.
- 9.
The foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on: (5/22/2025)
BYRAM M
. Digitally signedbyBYRAM orns Morris Date: 2025.05.22 11 :13:56 -07'00' (NAME) morris.byram@framatome.com
St. Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-389
[Non-Proprietary]
Response to Requests for Additional Information (RAls)
L-2025-108 Regarding License Amendment Request L-2024-138, Fuel Methodology Changes in Support of St. Lucie Unit 2 Transition to 24-Month Fuel Cycles (12 pages follow)
St. Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-389
[Non-Proprietary)
L-2025-108 Page 1 of 12 In Reference 1 below, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) requested an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License (RFOL) NPF-16 for St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 (St. Lucie Unit 2). The proposed license amendment would revise St. Lucie Unit 2 Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.3, Core Operating Limits Report, by updating the listing of NRC-approved analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits. Specifically, changes to the fuel thermal-mechanics, core thermal-hydraulics, emergency core cooling, nuclear design, and select design basis event analyses were proposed using NRC-approved advanced codes and methods in support of a St. Lucie Unit 2 transition to 24-month fuel cycles.
In Reference 2, the NRC requested additional information deemed necessary to complete its review, as indicated below. FPL's response follows:.
Regulatory Basis [for Request for Additional Information (RA/) 1 and RAl-2]
The regulation at 10 CFR 50.36(c)(5) requires that TSs include Administrative Controls. Per 10 CFR 50.36(c)(5), Administrative controls are in part the provisions relating to organization and management, procedures, recordkeeping, review and audit, and reporting necessary to assure operation of the facility in a safe manner. St. Lucie, Unit 2, TS 5.6.3 (core operating limits report) supports compliance with the reporting aspect of this regulatory requirement.
In the LAR dated September 11, 2024, the licensee identified proposed changes to TS 5.6.3 in Attachment 1 to Enclosure 1 (St. Lucie Unit 2 TS Page Markups). Insert B to Attachment 1, added References 65 through 74. These references provide analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits.
However, the NRC staff identified that Reference 71 (EMF-2310, Revision 1, Supplement 2P-A) was not described in the LAR technical evaluation section where all the other proposed changes to TS 5.6.3 were identified and addressed. As such, it is not clear if Reference 71 should remain in the list of analytical methods referenced in the proposed changes to TS 5.6.3. Therefore, the NRC staff requests the licensee review all proposed changes to TS 5.6.3 (including Reference 71) to ensure that all proposed changes are identified and addressed in the LAR technical evaluation section and vice versa.
FPL Response to RAl-1 After additional consideration, FPL has determined that Reference 71, EMF-2310, Revision 1, Supplement 2P-A, is no longer necessary and appropriate to remain in the list of analytical methods referenced in the proposed changes to TS 5.6.3, Core Operating Limits Report. Enclosure 4 provides revised TS markup pages which removes Reference 71 from TS 5.6.3.
In addition, subsequent to the Reference 1 submittal, FPL became aware of three Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) references relating to the R0DEX2 evaluation model that were erroneously marked for deletion in Section 3.1 of Reference 1 and in the accompanying marked up pages for TS 5.6.3. The revised TS markup pages of Enclosure 4 reinstate References 52, 53, and 54 that were erroneously marked for deletion in Reference 1. The revised TS markup pages of Enclosure 4 supersede and replace the TS markup pages of Reference 1 in their entirety.
All proposed changes to TS 5.6.3, Core Operating Limits Report were reviewed and are identified and addressed in the LAR technical evaluation section and vice versa.
In the LAR dated September 11, 2024, the licensee identified proposed changes to TS 5.6.3 in Attachment 1 to Enclosure 1 (St. Lucie Unit 2 TS Page Markups). The NRC staff identified several editorial issues (e.g.,
inconsistent punctuation and spacing when compared to existing St. Lucie TS 5.6.3 references to NRC-
St. Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-389
[Non-Proprietary]
L-2025-108 Page 2 of 12 approved analytical methods) with the markups (examples listed below; not all inclusive) and requests the licensee to review the markups and make changes, as appropriate:
Titles for Insert A and Insert B refers to LIMIS (likely a misspelling of LIMITS)
Insert A:
Ref. 49 uses a single versus a double quotation mark Ref. 49 contains extra spacing Refs. 49, 50, and 51, have missing and misplaced commas Insert B:
Refs. 67, 68, 69, 70, and 71, are missing quotation marks Refs. 65, 66, 72, 73, and 74, are missing commas Refs. (multiple) contain extra spacing FPL Response to RAl-2 to this letter provides revised TS markup pages, including revisions to Inserts A and B which correct the above-identified deficiencies. The revised TS markup pages of Enclosure 4 supersede and replace the TS markup pages of Reference 1 in their entirety.
RAI 3 Regulatory Basis Appendix A to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (10 CFR 50), General Design Criterion (GDC) 10, Reactor Design. The reactor core and associated coolant, control, and protection systems shall be designed with appropriate margin to assure that specified acceptable fuel design limits are not exceeded during any condition of normal operation, including the effects of anticipated operational occurrences.
The fuel rod bowing methodology applied in the Rod Ejection Accident (XN-75-32(P)(A) and Supplements 1, 2, 3, & 4, Computational Procedure for Evaluating Fuel Rod Bowing, February 1983) has the following Limitation and Condition (L&C):
If the residual DNBR penalties due to fuel rod bowing are partially or totally offset by using generic or plant-specific DNBR margin, the margin used to offset these penalties must be documented in the bases to the technical specifications and any remnant penalties must be accommodated into the technical specifications.
To address this L&C, the LAR states (in Enclosure 6 and Enclosure 3):
Residual Departure from Nucleate Boiling Ratio (DNBR) penalties are not used to offset generic or plant-specific margins. Therefore, this L&C is met.
The resolution of the L&C does not address the concern that plant-specific or generic penalties are used to offset residual DNBR penalties due to fuel rod bowing. Instead, the resolution states plant-specific or generic margins are used without documenting their effects on the residual DNBR penalties. This L&C must be met so this fuel rod bowing methodology can be applied for the Rod Ejection Accident.
Request:
St. Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-389
[Non-Proprietary]
L-2025-108 Page 3 of 12 Clarify how the statement in the LAR addresses the limitation and condition related to generic or plant-specific DNBR margins offsetting residual DNBR penalties FPL Response to RAl-3 Upon further review of this question, FPL has determined that the L&C response offered in Enclosure 3 and Enclosure 6 of the original LAR submittal (Reference 1 ), as quoted below, was incorrect.
Residual Departure from Nucleate Boiling Ratio (DNBR) penalties are not used to offset generic or plant-specific margins. Therefore, this L&C is met.
A correction to the above response is that the generic and/or plant-specific margins are not used to offset the application of residual Departure from Nucleate Boiling Ratio (DNBR) rod bow penalties in the St. Lucie Unit 2 analyses discussed in Enclosures 3 and 6. Since this method discussed in the condition was not performed, there is no requirement to document this in the technical specifications bases. Thus, this condition is met.
RAls 4-10 Regulatory Basis 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, "General Design Criteria," General Design Criterion 10, "Reactor Design,"
requires that the reactor core and associated coolant, control, and protection systems shall be designed with appropriate margin to ensure that Specified Acceptable Fuel Design Limits (SAFDLs) are not exceeded during any condition of normal operation, including the effects of anticipated operational occurrences. The NRC reviews and approves analysis methods to ensure that they provide a realistic or conservative result, such as determining margin to SAFDLs, and that they adhere to applicable regulatory requirements. These methods frequently contain Limitations and Conditions that an applicant must demonstrate adherence to in order to have assurance that realistic or conservative results are obtained.
In audit meetings that took place from 2/24/2025 to 3/21/2025, the NRC staff discussed, with the applicant, several points regarding the method of adherence to ARITA Limitation and Condition 6, which requires, in the absence of pertinent plant-specific data or information, that licensees ((
)) With regard to this Limitation and Condition and the discussions that took place, please confirm the following:
For the St. Lucie 24-month fuel cycle license amendment request (LAR), that ((
))
[I
))
FPL Response to RAl-4 FPL confirms the NRC's understanding relative to Limitation and Condition 6 as described in RAl-4.
The justification provided in ANP-4105P, Revision 2 regarding adherence to ARITA Limitation and Condition 8 discusses the ((
St. Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-389
[Non-Proprietary]
L-2025-108 Page 4 of 12
)) with respect to the coupled and static evaluation model variants. However, regarding the zero-dimensional evaluation model variant, ((
11 In audit meetings that took place from 2/24/2025 to 3/21/2025, the NRC staff discussed with the applicant several points regarding the method of adherence to Limitation and Condition 8. Please confirm the following:
For the St. Lucie 24-month cycle LAR, that ((
11 For future analyses that ((
))
FPL Response to RAl-5 FPL confirms the NRC's understanding relative to Limitation and Condition 8 as described in RAl-5.
The justification provided in ANP-4105P, Revision 2 regarding adherence to ARITA Limitation and Condition 9 discusses how ((
)) The NRG staff understands that, for the St. Lucie Unit 2 24-month cycle LAR, ([
)] Please provide a brief discussion of the type of analysis that will be performed to demonstrate adherence to this Limitation and Condition. In this discussion, please include the magnitudes of ((
)]
FPL Response to RAl-6 Reference 3 Limitation and Condition 9 specifies that, in the absence of additional data, the ARITA methodology shall justify that a ((
)]
((
St. Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-389 (Non-Proprietary]
L-2025-108 Page 5 of 12
))
The justifications provided in ANP-4105P, Revision 2 regarding adherence to ARITA Limitation and Conditions 12 and 13 discuss the establishment of ((
)) In audit meetings conducted from 2/24/2025 to 3/21/2025, Framatome indicated that ((
.]) Please provide a brief description of the generation of ((
)) the applicable lower pressure range, and the mean, standard deviation, and type of distribution. Additionally, please ((
))
FPL Response to RAl-7
((
St. Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-389
[Non-Proprietary]
Figure 1 Mean Level Swell Void Changes vs. Sampled Parameters
((
))
L-2025-108 Page 6 of 12
))
The explanation provided in ANP-4105P, Revision 2 regarding adherence to ARITA Limitation and Condition 15 discusses how justification will be established for the ((
)) for any event that exhibits a prompt critical response. Please indicate the events that have been identified for the St. Lucie Unit 2 24-Month Cycle LAR to exhibit a prompt critical response and provide a brief discussion of the analysis approach that was performed for these events. In this discussion, please include the magnitudes of ((
St. Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-389 figures of merit.
FPL Response to RAl-8
[Non-Proprietary]
L-2025-108 Page 7 of 12
)) and identify the impact on pertinent Limitation and Condition 15 states that for any event that exhibits a prompt critical response, a justification must be provided for the [(
))
((
11 In audit meetings conducted from 2/24/2025 to 3/21/2025, the NRG staff noted several items regarding the basis for Item 1 a under Section 2.1. 3, "Methodology Clarifications" of AN P-4105P, Revision 2. Methodology Clarification Item 1 a discusses the modeling of ((
)) Please confirm the following items regarding the uncertainty treatment for Methodology Clarification Item 1 a:
. ((
. ((
performed ((
FPL Response to RAl-9
((
))
)) Thus, analyses are 11
St. Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-389
))
RAI 10
[Non-Proprietary]
L-2025-108 Page 8 of 12 The justification provided in ANP-4087, Revision 1 regarding adherence to ARITA Limitation and Condition 11 discusses ((
)] This same comparison was provided in the ARITA topical report, ANP-10339P-A. While the results provided ANP-10339P-A demonstrate ((
)) which is conservative for a main steam line break event, the NRG staff has concerns with regard to the scaling applicability of the test facility to full-size
((
)) and the assurance that ((
)] will be conservatively predicted in future analyses for all relevant reactor designs. In particular, the scaling analysis report for the test facility indicates ((
)]
In light of this, please provide a discussion on the scaling applicability of the ((
steam line break event. In particular, please discuss ([
))
)) for the main
St. Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-389 FPL Response to RAl-10
((
))
[Non-Proprietary]
L-2025-108 Page 9 of 12 The remainder of the response is provided to specifically address the five specific questions in the second part of this RAI.
((
11 REFERENCES
- 1.
Florida Power & Light Company letter L-2024-138, License Amendment Request L-2024-138, Fuel Methodology Changes in Support of St. Lucie Unit, September 11, 2024 (ADAMS Accession No. ML24255A120 and ML24255A118).
St. Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-389
[Non-Proprietary]
L-2025-108 Page 10 of 12
- 2.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission electronic memorandum dated April 27, 2025, Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, St. Lucie Unit 2 - Fuel Methodology Changes in Support of Transition to 24-Month Fuel Cycles, Florida Power & Light Company Saint Lucie, Unit 2, Docket No. 05000389, (ADAMS Accession No. ML25119A284).
- 3.
ANP-10339P-A, Revision 0, "ARITA-ARTEMIS/RELAP Integrated Transient Analysis Methodology."
- 4.
EMF-2310(P)(A), Revision 1, "SRP Chapter 15 Non-LOCA Methodology for Pressurized Water Reactors," May 2004.
- 5.
U.S. NRC, NUREG/CR-7218, Volume 1, Rod Bundle Heat Transfer Facility Two-Phase Mixture Level Swell and Uncovery Test Experiments Data Report.
- 6.
U.S. NRC, NUREG/CR-7218, Volume 2, Rod Bundle Heat Transfer Facility Two-Phase Mixture Level Swell and Uncovery Test Experiments Data Report.
St. Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-389
[Non-Proprietary)
L-2025-108, Appendix A Page 11 of 12 Supplemental License Amendment Request (LAR) Information Supplemental information is provided regarding the application of the initial axial offset (AO), total integrated radial peaking factor (Fc.H), and initial linear heat rate (LHR) limits.
Background
((
))
Resolution
((
))
License Amendment Report Modification Based on the resolution discussed above, methodology departure #3 in Section 2.1.2 of Reference 2, is modified. The previous and revised versions are identified below:
Previous Methodology Departure #3
(( 3.
))
St. Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-389
[Non-Proprietary]
L-2025-108, Appendix A Page 12 of 12 Supplemental License Amendment Request (LAR) Information Revised Methodology Departure #3
References:
(( 3.
JI
- 1.
ANP-10339P-A, Revision 0, "ARITA - ARTEMIS/RELAP' Integrated Transient Analysis Methodology." (ADAMS Accession No. ML23206A130).
- 2.
Florida Power & Light Company letter L-2024-138, License Amendment Request L-2024-138, Fuel Methodology Changes in Support of St. Lucie Unit, September 11, 2024 (ADAMS Accession No. ML24255A120 and ML24255A118).
St. Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-389 Response to Requests for Additional Information (RAls)
L-2025-108 Regarding License Amendment Request L-2024-138, Fuel Methodology Changes in Support of St. Lucie Unit 2 Transition to 24-Month Fuel Cycles St. Lucie Unit 2 Technical Specifications Page Markups (Revised)
(4 pages follow)
Reporting Requirements 5.6 5.6 Reporting Requirements 5.6.3 CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (continued)
- 43.
Letter, W. Jefferson Jr. (FPL) to Document Control Desk (USNRC),
"St. Lucie Unit 2 Docket No. 50-389: Proposed License Amendment WCAP-9272 Reload Methodology and Implementing 30% Steam Generator Tube Plugging Limit," L-2003-276, December 2003 (NRC SER dated January 31, 2005, Letter B.T. Moroney (NRC) to J.A. Stall (FPL), TAC No. MC1566).
- 44.
WCAP-14882-P-A, Rev. 0, "RETRAN-02 Modeling and Qualification for Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor Non-LOCA Safety Analyses," April 1999.
- 45.
WCAP-7908-A, Rev. 0, "FACTRAN-A FORTRAN IV Code for Thermal Transients in a U02 Fuel Rod," December 1989.
- 46.
WCAP-7979-P-A, Rev. 0, "TWINKLE -A Multi-Dimensional Neutron Kinetics Computer Code," January 1975.
- 47.
WCAP-7588, Rev. 1-A, "An Evaluation of the Rod Ejection Accident in Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors Using Special Kinetics Methods," January 1975.
- 48.
WCAP-16045-P-A, Revision 0, "Qualification of the Two-Dimensional Transport Code PARAGON," August 2004.
- 49.
EMF 96 029(P)0A,), Volumes 1 and 2, "Reactor Analysis System for
~R-e-p-la_c_e_w-it_h_#_4_9_
P'vVRs, Volm11e 1 Metl,odology Desc1iptio1,, Volume 2 Bel'lehmarkil'lg from INSERT A Results," Siemel'ls Po'o'o'er Corr,oratiol'l, Jal'luary 1997.
- 50.
XN-NF-78-44 (NP)(A), "A Ge1,erie Al'lalysis of the Col'ltFOI Rod
~R-e-p-la_c_e_w-it_h_#_5_0_
Ejectio11 Tt a,,sie1,t for Pressurized \\/\\later Reactors," Exxon Nuelear from INSERT A Gompal'ly, ll'le.," October 1983.
- 51.
XN-Y5-2Y(A) and Supplements 1 lltroaglt 5, "Exxon Nuclea,
,....R_e_p-la_c_e_w-it_h_#-5-1--.
Neabo11ics Design Metl1ods fot P1essutized 'lo'ate, Reactors," Exxon Nuolear Company, Report and Supplement 1 dated April 1977, from INSERT A Supple1,,ent 2 dated December 1980, Supplement a dated September 1981 (P), Supple, 11e11t 4 dated Dece11,be1 1986 (P), a1,d Supplement 5 Reinstate per this RAI response letter.
St. Lucie - Unit 2 dated February 1987 (P).
5.6-6 Amendmentzea..
INSERT A (revised)
ST. LUCIE UNIT 2 TS 5.6.3, CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT NEW AND REVISED REFERENCES
- 49.
ANP-10297P-A, Revision 0, "The ARCADIA Reactor Analysis System for PWRs Methodology Description and Benchmarking Results," February 2013.
- 50.
ANP-10338P-A, Revision 0, "AREA' -ARCADIA Rod Ejection Accident," December 2017.
- 51.
ANP-10297, Revision 0, Supplement 1 P-A, Revision 1, "The ARCADIA Reactor Analysis System for PWRs Methodology Description and Benchmarking Results," December 2020.
Reporting Requirements 5.6 5.6 Reporting Requirements 5.6.3 Reinstate per this RAI response letter
\\dd References 65 through 74 from INSERT B St. Lucie - Unit 2
/
XN-NF-85-92(P)(A), "Exxon Nuclear Uranium Dioxide/Gadolinia Irradiation Examination and Thermal Conductivity Results," Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc., November 1986.
ANF-88-133(P)(A) and Supplement 1, "Qualification of Advanced Nuclear Fuels PWR Design Methodology for Rod Burnups of 62 GWd/MTU," Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation, December 1991.
- 55.
EMF-92-116(P)(A), Rev. 0, "Generic Mechanical Design Criteria for PWR Fuel Design," Siemens Power Corporation, February, 1999.
- 56.
BAW-10240(P)(A), Rev.a, "Incorporation of M5' Properties in Framatome ANP Approved Methods," Framatome ANP, Inc., May 2004.
- 57.
XN-NF-82-21 (P)(A), Revision 1, "Application of Exxon Nuclear Company PWR Thermal Margin Methodology to Mixed Core Configurations," Exxon Nuclear Company, September 1983.
- 58.
EMF-92-153(P)(A), Revision 1, "HTP: Departure from Nucleate Boiling Correlation for High Thermal Performance Fuel,"
January 2005.
- 59.
EMF-1961 (P)(A), Revision 0, "Statisticalrrransient Methodology for Combustion Engineering Type Reactors," Siemens Power Corporation, July 2000.
- 60.
EMF-231 O(P)(A), Revision 1, "SRP Chapter 15 Non-LOCA Methodology for Pressurized Water Reactors," Framatome ANP, Inc.,
May 2004.
- 61.
XN-75-32(P)(A), Supplements 1, 2, 3, and 4, "Computational Procedure for Evaluating Fuel Rod Bowing," October 1983.
- 62.
BAW-10231 P-A Revision 1, "COPERNIC Fuel Rod Design Computer Code," January 2004. ~Revision 3 1
- 63.
EMF-2103(P)(A) Revisier, 0, "Realistic Large Break LOCA_k'- Pune 2016 !
Methodology for Pressurized Water Reactors," Ap1 ii 2003.
- 64.
EMF-2328 (P)(A) Revision 0, "PWR Small Break LOCA Evaluation Model, S-RELAP5 Based," March 2001.
5.6-7 Amendment200.
INSERT B (revised)
ST. LUCIE UNIT 2 TS 5.6.3, CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT NEW AND REVISED REFERENCES
- 65.
EMF-2328(P)(A}, Revision 0, Supplement 1 (P)(A) Revision 0, "PWR Small Break LOCA Evaluation Model, S-RELAP5 Based," December 2016.
- 66.
ANP-10349P-A, Revision 0, "GALILEO Implementation in LOCA Methods," November 2021.
- 67.
ANP-10311 P-A, Revision 1, "COBRA-FLX: A Core Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis Code,"
October 2017.
- 68.
ANP-10311, Revision 1, Supplement 1P-A, Revision 0, "COBRA-FLX: ORFEO-HMP Critical Heat Flux Correlation," March 2023.
- 69.
ANP-10339P-A, Revision 0, "ARITA-ARTEMIS/RELAP Integrated Transient Analysis Methodology," October 2023.
- 70.
BAW-10227P-A, Revision 2, "Evaluation of Advanced Cladding and Structural Material (MS) in PWR Reactor Fuel," January 2023.
- 71.
[Not used]
- 72.
ANP-10337P-A, Revision 0, "PWR Fuel Assembly Structural Response to Externally Applied Dynamic Excitations," April 2018.
- 73.
ANP-10323P-A, Revision 1, "GALILEO Fuel Rod Thermal-Mechanical Methodology for Pressurized Water Reactors," November 2020.
- 74.
BAW-10084P-A, Revision 3, "Program To Determine In-Reactor Performance of BWFC Fuel Cladding Creep Collapse," July 1995.