ML15341A113

Email Response from Southern Nuclear Operating Company to Staff Question the Flood Hazard Re-Evaluation Report for Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2

ML15341A113
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	12/02/2015
From:	Giddens J Southern Nuclear Operating Co
To:	Minarik A Japan Lessons-Learned Division
Minarki, Anthony Nrr/JLD 415-6185
References
Download: ML15341A113 (2)

Text

From: Giddens, John M.

To: Minarik, Anthony

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: Farley Date: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 9:43:51 AM Attachments: image004.png

Anthony, The preceding paragraph prior to the Table 5.1 clearly states that (t)he current and reevaluated flood causing mechanisms at the site were compared to assess whether the reevaluated flood hazard is bounded by the current design basis flood elevation. The comparison is provided in Table 5-1. Since it is obvious that the CLB and the CDB are synonymous, please consider the answer below as sufficient.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) submitted the Flooding Hazards Reevaluation Report (FHRR) for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant on October 21, 2015. The FHRR compares the current design basis flood elevations to the reevaluated flood hazard information. For the postulated flooding events in the FHRR, SNC does not differentiate between current design basis (CDB) and current licensing basis (CLB). CDB and CLB are considered synonymous in the FHRR for postulated flooding.

Please consider not requiring this obvious clarification statement to be submitted on the docket. As I discussed with Mo Shams recently, my management has challenged us on the cumulative effects of submittals like this.

If you determine that it is still necessary to submit a docketed letter, I will proceed with that; however, if this is sufficient, please let me know as soon as possible.

John M. Giddens, Jr.

Licensing Project Manager Regulatory Affairs - SAM/Fukushima Southern Nuclear Operating Company Direct: 205.992.7924 Cell: 205.542.0983 Email: jmgidden@southernco.com From: Minarik, Anthony Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 8:24 AM To: Giddens, John M. (JMGIDDEN@southernco.com) <JMGIDDEN@southernco.com>

Subject:

FW: Farley John, The question and the attached examples for St. Lucie (see page 3 of the .pdf) and Point Beach (see page 4 of the .pdf)

Anthony Minarik, PM (301) 415-6185

NRR/JLD/JHMB From: See, Kenneth Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 4:25 PM To: Minarik, Anthony <Anthony.Minarik@nrc.gov>

Cc: Cook, Christopher <Christopher.Cook@nrc.gov>; Rivera-Varona, Aida <Aida.Rivera-Varona@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Farley

Anthony, After reviewing Farleys FHRR, I have only one question. The document consistently discusses the current design basis for the various hazards with the exception of Section 5, where Table 5-1 uses the term Licensing Basis.

Table 5-1 appears to contain design basis information, but is titled licensing basis. We need the licensee to clarifydid they mean design basis, but used licensing basis or are the two terms used synonymously?

Thanks Ken Kenneth R. See, P.E.

Senior Hydrologist U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of Site and Environmental Analysis Hydrology and Meterology Branch (301)415-1508 kenneth.see@nrc.gov

From: Giddens, John M.

To: Minarik, Anthony

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: Farley Date: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 9:43:51 AM Attachments: image004.png

Anthony, The preceding paragraph prior to the Table 5.1 clearly states that (t)he current and reevaluated flood causing mechanisms at the site were compared to assess whether the reevaluated flood hazard is bounded by the current design basis flood elevation. The comparison is provided in Table 5-1. Since it is obvious that the CLB and the CDB are synonymous, please consider the answer below as sufficient.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) submitted the Flooding Hazards Reevaluation Report (FHRR) for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant on October 21, 2015. The FHRR compares the current design basis flood elevations to the reevaluated flood hazard information. For the postulated flooding events in the FHRR, SNC does not differentiate between current design basis (CDB) and current licensing basis (CLB). CDB and CLB are considered synonymous in the FHRR for postulated flooding.

Please consider not requiring this obvious clarification statement to be submitted on the docket. As I discussed with Mo Shams recently, my management has challenged us on the cumulative effects of submittals like this.

If you determine that it is still necessary to submit a docketed letter, I will proceed with that; however, if this is sufficient, please let me know as soon as possible.

John M. Giddens, Jr.

Licensing Project Manager Regulatory Affairs - SAM/Fukushima Southern Nuclear Operating Company Direct: 205.992.7924 Cell: 205.542.0983 Email: jmgidden@southernco.com From: Minarik, Anthony Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 8:24 AM To: Giddens, John M. (JMGIDDEN@southernco.com) <JMGIDDEN@southernco.com>

Subject:

FW: Farley John, The question and the attached examples for St. Lucie (see page 3 of the .pdf) and Point Beach (see page 4 of the .pdf)

Anthony Minarik, PM (301) 415-6185

NRR/JLD/JHMB From: See, Kenneth Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 4:25 PM To: Minarik, Anthony <Anthony.Minarik@nrc.gov>

Cc: Cook, Christopher <Christopher.Cook@nrc.gov>; Rivera-Varona, Aida <Aida.Rivera-Varona@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Farley

Anthony, After reviewing Farleys FHRR, I have only one question. The document consistently discusses the current design basis for the various hazards with the exception of Section 5, where Table 5-1 uses the term Licensing Basis.

Table 5-1 appears to contain design basis information, but is titled licensing basis. We need the licensee to clarifydid they mean design basis, but used licensing basis or are the two terms used synonymously?

Thanks Ken Kenneth R. See, P.E.

Senior Hydrologist U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of Site and Environmental Analysis Hydrology and Meterology Branch (301)415-1508 kenneth.see@nrc.gov