Text

Units 1 & 2, Supplemental Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Associated with Flooding re-evaluation
	ML14148A491
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	05/28/2014
From:	Pierce C; Southern Co, Southern Nuclear Operating Co
To:	; Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	NL-14-0664
	Download: ML14148A491 (15)
	v • d • e

Charles R. Pierce Southern Nuclear Regulatory Affa~rs Director Operating Company, Inc.

MAY 2 8 mn Docket Nos.: 50-424 50-425 40 Inverness Center Parkway Post Office Box 1295 B1rrnmgham AL 35201 Tel 205 992 7872 Fax 205 992 7601 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission A TIN: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 SOUTHERN<<\\

COMPANY NL-14-0664 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant-Units 1 and 2 Supplemental Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Associated with Flooding Re-evaluation

Reference:

1. NRC Letter, Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Daiichi Accident; dated March 12, 2012.

2. Letter to NRC, Flooding Recommendation 2.1 Hazard Reevaluation Report for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Requested by 10 CFR 50.54(f), dated March 5, 2013.

3. Letter to NRC, Supplemental Letter to Flooding Hazard Reevaluation Report for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant dated May 24, 2013.

4. NRC Letter, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 - Request For Additional Information (TAC MF1117 and MF1118), dated February 7, 2014.

5. Letter to NRC, Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Associated with Flooding Re-evaluation, dated March 6, 2014.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

On March 12, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Reference 1 to all power reactor licensees and holders of construction permits in active or deferred status. Enclosure 1 of Reference 1 requested each addressee perform and submit a Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report (FHRR).

By letter dated March 5, 2013, as clarified by letter dated May 24, 2013, Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) submitted the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) flooding hazard reevaluation report (References 2 and 3). On February 7, 2014, SNC received a request for additional information on the VEGP FHRR (Reference 4). As discussed with NRC staff on February 20, 2014, the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NL-14-0664 Page2 Enclosure to that letter did not include the responses to questions number 5, 6, 8, and 9. SNC's response to these questions is included in the Enclosures to this letter. This completes the NRC requested actions from Reference 4.

This letter contains no new NRC commitments. If you have any questions, please contact John Giddens at 205.992.7924.

Mr. C. R. Pierce states he is the Regulatory Affairs Director of Southern Nuclear Operating Company, is authorized to execute this oath on behalf of Southern Nuclear Operating Company and, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the facts set forth in this letter are true.

Respectfully submitted, Ci{,~

C. R. Pierce Regulatory Affairs Director

~ *. - *.

~.....

CRP/JMG/RCW Swom to and subscribed before me this ~~ day of Jr?fA.!:J

~4_e(:'~--t_

Notary PubliC My commission expires: /0 /F /c2a1 7

Enclosures:

1. Supplemental RAJ Responses for VEGP FHRR

2. RAI6 Additional Information cc:

Southern Nuclear Operating Company Mr. S. E. Kuczynski, Chairman, President & CEO Mr. D. G. Best, Executive Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer Ms. T. E. Tynan, Vice President - Vogtle Mr. D. R. Madison, Vice President - Fleet Operation Mr. B. L. lvey, Vice President-Regulatory Affairs Mr. B. J. Adams, Vice President - Engineering RTYPE: CVC7000 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. V. M. McCree, Regional Administrator Mr. R. E. Martin, NRR Senior Project Manager-Vogtle Mr. L. M. Cain, Senior Resident Inspector-Vogtle State of Georgia Mr. J. H. Turner, Environmental Director Protection Division

. 2014.

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant-Units 1 and 2 Supplemental Response to NRC RAI Associated with Flooding Reevaluation Supplemental RAI Responses for VEGP FHRR to NL-14-0664 Supplemental RAJ Response for VEGP FHRR NRC RAI 5 Local Intense Precipitation Flooding - PMP The licensee stated in Section 2.1 of the FHRR that the local intense precipitation (LIP) flood analysis is based on a 6-hr onsite probable maximum precipitation (PMP) scenario. Since a longer duration PMP may induce higher flood levels and/or longer inundation durations, the licensee is requested to justify, based on a sensitivity analysis, whether the 6-hr probable maximum precipitation scenario used in the LIP analyses bounds the flood effects of LIP in comparison with alternative-duration PMP scenarios, such as 12hr, 48-hr, and 72-hr probable maximum precipitation values.

SNC Response to RAI 5 Sensitivity analyses were performed which determined that the reported 6-hr probable maximum precipitation (PMP) scenario used in the local intense precipitation (LIP) analyses bounds the LIP flood effects in comparison with longer-duration PMP scenarios.

The "Frequency Storm" meteorological model option is used in HEC-HMS to develop precipitation hyetographs for the 6-, 12-,24-, and 48-hr PMPs. As shown in Table 2, the maximum flood level in VEGP Units 1 & 2 power block area from the 6-hr storm is identical to those resulting from the 12-hr, 24-hr, and 48-hr storms. Similarly, the individual maximum flood flow rate for these storms is essentially the same. The "Frequency Storm" option in HEC-HMS does not have the 72-hr duration, thus, the 72-hr storm was not analyzed. However, based on the results of the other durations, as shown in Table 2, it is anticipated that the 72-hr storm also would provide essentially the same outcome. As a result, the 6-hr PMP scenario used in the LIP analysis and reported in FHRR bounds the flood effects from storms with longer durations.

Method The storms considered included 12-hr, 24-hr, and 48-hr PMP storms.

The PMP data used for storm durations up to 6-hr are from the Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report (FHRR) and for storms of 12-hr and longer durations are from Hydrometeorological Report No. 51 (HMR51) (Reference 1). The precipitation data are shown in Table 5-1.

Table 5 Probable Maximum Precipitation Data Storm Rainfall Reference Duration Depth (in) 5-min 6.20 FHRR 15-min 9.80 FHRR 1-hr 19.20 FHRR 2-hr 23.52 FHRR 3-hr 25.95 FHRR 6-hr 31.0 FHRR 12-hr 37.0 HMA51 24-hr 43.6 HMR51 48-hr 48.0 HMR51 The computer simulation sensitivity analyses for the longer storms followed the same methodology and procedures as the 6-hr storm and included the following sequential steps for each storm:

E1-1 to NL-14-0664 Supplemental RAI Response for VEGP FHRR

i.

Perform a HEC-HMS computer simulation for Units 3&4 to obtain inflow hydrographs to main drainage ditch located in the Units 3&4 area, ii.

Perform a HEC-RAS computer simulation for VEGP Units 3&4 main drainage ditch to obtain overflow hydrograph to VEGP Units 1 &2 power block area, and iii.

Perform a HEC-HMS computer simulation for VEGP Units 1 &2, including the overflow flood hydrograph from VEGP 3&4, to obtain the maximum PMP flood level.

The summary of the computer simulation results for all storm durations is shown in Table 5-2.

Table 5 VEGP 1&2 PMP Maximum Water Level for Different Storm Frequencies Storm Time of Maximum Maximum Elevation Outflow Duration Peak feet cfs 6-hr 3:09 219.31 4,702.5 12-hr 6:09 219.31 4,699.5 24-hr 12:09 219.31 4,700.0 48-hr 24:09 219.31 4,700.1 As shown in Table 5-2, the maximum flood level in the VEGP Units 1 & 2 power block area from the 6-hr storm is identical to 12-hr, 24-hr, and 48-hr storms. Similarly the maximum flood flow rates for all storms are essentially the same.

NRC RAI 6 Local Intense Precipitation Flooding - Power block The licensee stated in the FHRR (page 15) that the Ll P flooding within the Units 1 and 2 power block area is simulated by HEC-HMS with an assumption that the entire power block area is represented by a single hypothetical reservoir encompassed by the Vehicle Barrier System. The licensee also assumed that the LIP flood level is instantaneously leveled over the power block area, and that the flood level within power block area is determined by weir flow over the top of the Vehicle Barrier System. This simulation scheme may result in an underestimation of the LIP flood level if the level-pool assumption is not consistent with conditions at the time of the peak precipitation. In general, terrain and flood levels within the power block area varies and overland flow can be interrupted by buildings; both potentially causing water to accumulate to a greater depth. Based on these considerations. the licensee is requested to: (a) clarify the assumed flow path of water between the various structures in the power block area, and (b) determine the maximum water heights near safety-related structures based on flood routing using measured elevation data within the power block area.

SNC Response to RAI 6 (a) clarify the assumed flow path of water between the various structures in the power block area At the peak of the LIP event and due to the presence of the vehicle barrier system (VBS),

flood water leaves the site in the form of weir flow along the northern and eastern boundaries as shown on Sheet 1 of Enclosure 2. Since the flow width is wide, the associated average cross sectional flow velocities within the power block area are small with E1-2 to NL-14-0664 Supplemental RAI Response for VEGP FHRR no significant velocity head. There is not a dominant flow stream or a unidirectional flow path within the power block area. Major assumptions in the numerical model include:

i.

All storm drains are completely blocked.

ii.

The rainfall is introduced over the site uniformly.

iii.

The PMP rainfall event first fills the power block area and then spills over the VBS to the outside.

iv.

All pedestrian openings and vehicle entrance gates are considered blocked/closed and are modeled as the VBS without openings.

v.

The PMP generated flood occurs on VEGP Units 1 & 2 and Units 3 & 4 sites simultaneously filling both areas. No overflow from the VEGP Units 1 & 2 power block area to Units 3 & 4 site was considered.

vi.

The inflow from VEGP Units 3 & 4 is assumed to be one way; meaning the flood flow freely enters into the VEGP Units 1 & 2 power block area over the VBS and backwater effects on the downstream side (Units 1 & 2 power block) was not considered.

vii.

The runoff from all roofs within the VEGP Units 1 & 2 power block area is added to the runoff from the yard area instantaneously without accounting for any time delay or storage.

(b) determine the maximum water heights near safetv-related structures based on flood routing using measured elevation data within the power block area The maximum peak water level is 219.3 feet while the lowest safety-related SSC is at Elevation 219.6 feet. The yard grade around these structures gently slopes downward from this level. Thus, the safety-related SSCs are above the maximum calculated flood level at all times with no major stream flow around the safety-related buildings or structures.

Discussion The VEGP Units 1 & 2 power block area is encompassed by a double row VBS on four sides in a nearly rectangular shape for security purposes (Enclosure 2, Sheet 1 ). The barrier consists of 3.5-ft high concrete blocks placed around the exterior edge of the power block area. The crest elevation of these barriers is 3.5-ft above the ground elevation on which they are placed and varies depending on the yard grading around the power block perimeter. The major openings in the VBS are pedestrian openings and Sally Port vehicle entrance(s).

The VEGP Units 1 & 2 power block is located on an elevated area above the Savannah River floodplain. The only flood source affecting the power block facilities is the Local Intense Precipitation (LIP) directly over the area. For conservative flood level modeling purposes, all pedestrian openings and vehicle entrance gates are considered blocked/closed and are modeled as the VBS without openings. Along with assumption that all storm drains are completely blocked, the modeling of VBS essentially treats the power block area inside the VBS enclosure as a pool. This is a highly conservative approach.

Based on the physical and topographical features of the site and the existence of 3.5-ft high VBS on four sides, the PMP rainfall event first fills the power block area and then spills over the VBS to the outside. Since the rainfall is introduced over the site uniformly and in absence of any outflow, the level pool technique is the correct methodology. At the peak of the LIP event E1-3 to NL-14-0664 Supplemental RAI Response for VEGP FHRR and due to the presence of the VBS, flood water leaves the site in the form of weir flow along the northern and eastern boundaries as shown on Sheet 1 of the Attachment RAI 6-1. The total active weir length during the peak flood level at elevation 219.3 feet is about 1,960 linear feet (see highlighted cells on Enclosure 2, Sheet 3).

As shown on Enclosure 2, Sheet 1, there is not a dominant flow stream or a unidirectional flow path within the power block area. Outflow from the site is spread out over a wide area. Due to rainfall being uniformly applied over the site area, the maximum flow rate occurs at the outlet.

Discharges decrease in the upstream direction with a discharge of zero at far upstream end.

Since the flow width is wide, the associated average cross sectional flow velocities within the power block area are small with no significant velocity head. With the flow decreasing in the upstream direction, the average flow velocities also become smaller.

As stated in FHRR, the lowest safety-related SSC is at Elevation 219.6 feet with the yard grade around these structures gently sloping downward from this level. Considering the maximum peak water level of 219.3 feet, the flow around the safety-related SSCs in the yard area, generated by direct rainfall over that area, is in the form of sheet flow moving away from the SSCs. Due to the presence of low average velocities across the power block area and no distinguished unidirectional flow (a) the difference between energy gradient and calculated flood level is insignificant, and (b) the safety-related SSCs are above the maximum calculated flood level at all times with no major stream flow around the safety related buildings or structures.

In addition to the flow regime described above, the level pool routing methodology used in calculating flood levels has the following conservative modeling assumptions:

Pedestrian openings are not modeled. The bottom of these openings is at local grade level (i.e. 3.5 feet below VBS crest) which would provide outflow conveyance for the entire flood period.

The Sally Port vehicle entrance was not modeled as an opening. This opening would also provide outflow conveyance for the entire flood period.

The inflow from VEGP Units 3 & 4 is assumed to be one way; meaning the flood flow freely enters into the VEGP Units 1 & 2 power block area with no backwater effect from the downstream flood levels in the power block. The PMP generated flood occurs on the two sites simultaneously filling both areas simultaneously. As water levels rise on both sides of the divide between the two sites, flow could be in either direction (flow from Units 3 & 4 to Units 1 &2 and vice a versa) depending on the water levels on each side.

However in the HEC-HMS model, no overflow from the VEGP Units 1 & 2 power block area to Units 3 & 4 site or backwater effects on the downstream side (Units 1 & 2 power block) were considered.

The runoff from all roofs within the VEGP Units 1 & 2 power block area is added to the runoff from the yard area instantaneously without accounting for any time delay or storage. This has been achieved by including the roof areas as part of the entire power block drainage area receiving precipitation with the volume of buildings and structures being subtracted from the stage-storage relationship. In reality, the roofs, scuppers, and gutters store a portion of the rain and delay the runoff.

As demonstrated in the level pool routing model and during the maximum flood level period, flood water will spill over the VBS at several locations and there is no single direction of E1-4 to NL-14-0664 Supplemental RAJ Response for VEGP FHRR outflow from the site which requires a backwater flow analysis. In addition, the level pool routing has several measures of conservatism as stated above in Part (a), items (iv) through (vii).

NRC RAI 8 Hazard Input for the Integrated Assessment - Duration parameters The March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) letter, Enclosure 2, requests the licensee to perform an integrated assessment of the plant's response to the reevaluated hazard if the reevaluated flood hazard is not bounded by the current design basis. Flood scenario parameters from the flood hazard reevaluation serve as the input to the integrated assessment. To support efficient and effective evaluations under the integrated assessment, the NRC staff will review flood scenario parameters as part of the flood hazard reevaluation and document results of the review as part of the staff assessment of the flood hazard reevaluation.

The licensee is requested to provide the applicable flood event duration parameters (see definition and Figure 6 of the Guidance for Performing an Integrated Assessment, JLD-ISG-2012-05) associated with mechanisms that trigger an integrated assessment using the results of the flood hazard reevaluation. This includes (as applicable) the warning time the site will have to prepare for the event (e.g., the time between notification of an impending flood event and arrival of floodwaters on site) and the period of time the site is inundated for the mechanisms that are not bounded by the current design basis. The licensee is also requested to provide the basis or source of information for the flood event duration, which may include a description of relevant forecasting methods (e.g., products from local, regional, or national weather forecasting centers) and/or timing information derived from the hazard analysis.

SNC Response to NRC RAI 8 The applicable flood events that trigger an integrated assessment from the Flood Hazard Reevaluation report for VEGP site are:

A maximum LIP level of 219.3 feet, which is 0.2 feet above the current licensing basis (CLB) LIP level of 219.1 feet.

A maximum dam breach flood level of 178.1 feet, including wind wave run-up, on the Savannah River, which is 1 0.1 feet above the CLB dam breach flood level of 168.0 feet, including wind wave run-up. Even though the reevaluated dam breach level is higher than the CLB, the floor elevation of safety-related SSCs is still more than 41 feet above the reevaluated flood level.

The applicable warning time the site will have to prepare for the flooding events that are above the current CLB are:

For the LIP, several hours (usually more than 12) based on local forecasts of storm events with the potential for very large precipitation volumes.

For the dam breach, about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months until the initial flood wave begins to arrive at the site location on the Savannah River and about 34 hours3.935185e-4 days 0.00944 hours 5.621693e-5 weeks 1.2937e-5 months until the peak water level arrives at the site location. The times are based on the travel time for the flood wave to travel E1-5 to NL-14-0664 Supplemental RAI Response for VEGP FHRR down the Savannah River from the time of the J. Strom Thurmond dam breach, as presented in the reevaluated dam breach analysis performed for FHRR.

The VEGP Units 1 & 2 safety-related SSCs are not threatened by either of the above stated reevaluated flooding mechanisms that are not bounded by the current design basis. Thus, the duration of inundation is zero minutes for both events for safety-related SSCs. The basis or source information for the flooding event durations are the flooding analyses performed for the Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report.

Discussion The reevaluated local intense precipitation (LIP) results in a maximum flood level of 219.3 feet, which is 0.2 feet above the CLB level of 219.1 feet. Since the reevaluated LIP level is higher than the CLB level, an integrated assessment will be prepared and submitted to NRC separately at a later date.

The reevaluated LIP level is below the lowest safety-related sse floor level of 219.6 feet and no new flood vulnerabilities are introduced as a result of the 0.2 foot increase above the CLB LIP level.. Figure RAI 8-1 depicts the LIP level versus time for the VEGP Units 1 & 2 power block area. As shown in Figure RAI8-1, the duration of LIP levels above the CLB LIP level of 219.1 feet is about 16 minutes, which also is the same for the longer storm durations.

The LIP is a result of the local probable maximum precipitation (PMP) over the site. The basic PMP data are from Hydrometeorological Report No. 51 (HMR51) (Reference 1), where over 500 storms were analyzed in the development of the data. Based on information presented in this report, local PMP events are generally the result of large storms and as such can be forecast several hours or days in advance by agencies such as the National Weather Service. Thus, the warning time for a potential heavy rain or PMP producing event would be at a minimum several hours.

As stated in the FHRR, the reevaluated dam breach flood level results in a maximum flood level of 178.1 feet, which is 10.1 feet above the CLB level of 168.0 feet. Since the reevaluated flood level is higher than the CLB flood level, an integrated assessment will be prepared and submitted to the NRC at a later date. Nonetheless, the floor elevation for VEGP Units 1 & 2 safety-related SSCs is still more than 41 feet above the reevaluated flood level, which poses no new flooding hazard to the site.

There is no other impact to CLB flood levels as a result of the flood hazard reevaluation report.

The reevaluated flood levels will be used as hazard inputs to the integrated assessment.

E1-6 to NL-14-0664 Supplemental RAI Response for VEGP FHRR 219.

218.5

~ 218.

[ij 217.5 217.

00:00 I

01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 01Jan2000 Figure RAI 8 LIP (PMP) Flood Level versus Time for the VEGP Units 1 & 2 Power Block Area.

NRC RAt 9 Hazard Input for the Integrated Assessment-Flood height The March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) letter, Enclosure 2, requests the licensee to perform an integrated assessment of the plant's response to the reevaluated hazard if the reevaluated flood hazard is not bounded by the current design basis. Flood scenario parameters from the flood hazard reevaluation serve as the input to the integrated assessment. To support efficient and effective evaluations under the integrated assessment, staff will review flood scenario parameters as part of the flood hazard reevaluation and document results of the review as part of the staff assessment of the flood hazard reevaluation.

The licensee is requested to provide a summary of the flood height and associated effects (as defined in Section 9 of JLD-ISG-2012-05) for mechanisms that trigger an Integrated Assessment. This includes the following quantified information for each mechanism (as applicable):

Flood Height Wind waves and run-up, Hydrodynamic loading, including debris, Effects caused by sediment deposition and erosion (e.g., flow velocities, scour),

Concurrent site conditions, including adverse weather, Groundwater ingress, and Other pertinent factors.

E1-7 to NL-14-0664 Supplemental RAI Response for VEGP FHRR SNC Response to NRC RAI 9 As stated in the SNC Response to NRC RAI 8, the applicable flood events that trigger an integrated assessment from the Flood Hazard Reevaluation report for VEGP Units 1 & 2 are the reevaluated local intense precipitation (LIP) event and the dam breach flood level in the Savannah River adjacent to the site. The reevaluated LIP flood results in a maximum flood level of 219.3 feet, which is 0.2 feet above the current licensing base (CLB) flood level of 219.1 feet. The reevaluated maximum dam breach results in a flood level of 178.1 feet, which is 1 0.1 feet above the CLB dam breach flood level of 168.0 feet. Even though the reevaluated dam breach level is higher than the CLB, the floor elevation of safety-related SSCs still is more than 41 feet above the reevaluated dam breach flood level. Since the reevaluated Ll P level and dam breach flood level are higher than the CLB levels, an integrated assessment will be prepared and submitted to NRC separately at a later date.

The flood height and duration also is addressed in the SNC Response to RAI 8 and average flood velocities are assessed in the SNC Response to RAI 6, respectively. From this information and the absence of any major stream within the power block area, the average flood flow velocities are small and so are the associated hydrodynamic forces. It should also be noted that all safety-related SSCs are located above the LIP level and river flood level and will not experience any hydrodynamic forces. Due to flood water depth of about 1 to 2 feet within the power block area, the existence of various buildings and structures scattered in the area, and the weir flow regime over the VBS during maximum flood event, there is no dominant direction for wind generated waves to create significant wave run-up. Also, because the site is elevated with respect to the outside flood plain there are no sources of sediment or groundwater to affect the calculated flood levels. All underground storm drains and culverts are assumed clogged and non-operational accounting for blockages due to sediment deposition, debris, ice or other site related factors.

The reevaluated LIP and dam breach levels are both below the lowest safety-related SSC floor level of 219.6 feet and there is no other impact to the CLB flood elevations as a result of the flood hazard reevaluation report. The reevaluated flood levels will be used as hazard inputs to the integrated assessment.

RAI

Reference:

1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Hydrometeorological Refort No. 51, "Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, United States, East of the 105 Meridian,"

June 1978.

E1-8

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant-Units 1 and 2 Supplemental Response to NRC RAI Associated with Flooding Reevaluation RAI 6 - Additional Information 10 Nl-14-0664

~

VEGP UNITS 3 & 4 OVERFLOW VEGP UNITS 3 & 4 OVERFLOW VEGP UNITS 3 & 4 OVERFLOW RAJ 6

Additional Information Sheet 1 of 3

1' ~

L

....... ~

..... C"

'"'Ts<<~ 'C,

0, A

.. r.4 ~

/

~:d...

---~

\\I

---.. ~~-::-==---. -

~~::,~=;:~t::!lr

, ___ ~P(l); ~NIIC.. 0,..

i¥.1~'-.!...-..,.:-..r--- I'{ D. OPI'IolNC "{r ilt;l!"*',.,...:.....oW.I~Mr=-:=------ P£0. OI'()<NC -rr 1'{0. ()P[NI(; -cr

'Hrl--1---:r--

P£0. OPI'NNC "Hr t:~:i~::J~~;;::==- 1'{0. OP{~~ *~r 1'{0. OP{NII\\C "1<1.

1'{0. OP(I<NC 't r

"'~~" ~

-=~XIS I INC Y1lS Nl) 1-(W VB'l INI(RSECT 0 5166*61.04

~

P{O. ~~INC "NV' PEDESTRIAN OPENINGS ARE NOT MODELED VEGP UNITS 1 & 2 PMP FLOOD OUTFLOW PATH LOCATIONS ALONG PERIMETER VBS to NL-14-0664 RAI 6

Additional Information Sheet 2 of3 Water Level Elevation (Wl ) and Corresponding Segmental Weir Inflow (dO) for VEGP Units 1&2 Western VBS (i.e. Overflow from VEGP Units 3&4) 1 7

13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 81 87 73 79 as 91 97 103 109 115 121 HW (ft) dQ (d>)

dQ (el>)

dQ (cts) dQ (<!$)

dQ (Chi) dQ (ehl) dQ (eh) dO (c,s) dQ (efs) dQ (cts) dQ (<1*)

dQ (th) dQ (ch) dQ (ch) dQ (cts) dQ (tis) dQ (ei>J dO lctsl dQ (Cis) dQ (eh) dQ (<l* l 217.0 0

0 0

217.1 0

0 0

217.2 0

0 0

217.3 0

0 0

211.4 0

0 0

217,5 0

0 0

217.8 0

0 0

217.7 0

0 0

217.8 0

0 0

217,9 0

0 0

218 0 0

0 0

218.1 0

0 0

218.2 0

0 0

218,3 0

0 0

218.

0 0

0.15 0 15 0

0 0

21a 5 0

0 1.65 160 0

0 0

107 094 0

0 218.6 0

0 3.61 358 8&8 0

0 0

0 2 72 3.04 0

0 21a 7 0

0 6.02 601 22 27 O.Sll 0 75 0

0 0

0 4.82 s 75 031 0

21a.a 0

0.60 a91

&97 39 06 239 260 5.91 0

0 0

7.38 DOS 3 2a 0

21&.9 0

32 ~

12 25 12 42 51132 473 500 24.06 0

0 0

1038 12 D5

7. 17 0

219.0 0

17.4.6 15.06 16 37 82 gg 762 7.84 48.07 123 0.73 0

0 0

0 3 73 13&1 17 44 11 oa 0

2191 0

134.06 2032 2082 110 08 1106 11 43 77 92 306 2 18 205 0

0 0

20.65 11.71 22 s*

17.71 0

219 2 0

202.75 25.06 25 77 14060 15 OS IH8 113 62 5.<<

.09 9 13 0 57 0

0 0

0 42.71 2206 26 23 24 38 0

2111.3 0

2&3.58 30 25 31 22 174 55 10 59 20 07 155 17 8.33 5.<<

1a.so 2 2a 1 16 0

0 0

59.&8 2686 34.51 3183 0

219.4 0

376.(7 35.90

37. 16 211 02 24&8 25.20 202.58 11.75 923 30 16 H D 2 83 6 85 0

0 102 11 32 11 4 1.co

.co 42 0

210 s 0

48L48 4202 43.61 252.72 3032 30.ao 255.83 15.89 1241

"" 12 7 21 4 95 21.&5 0

0 139.59 37.80

aaa

D aJ 0

219&

0 598.81

'8.60 so 55

-84 311 so 37.12 314.9-4 20.15 1515 60.37 10.43 750 4095 0

0 182.12 43.95 S89e 60 IS 0

21D 7 0

727.83 5554 57 gg 344 59 43.24

-43 91 379,90 25.15 20.30 78 92 "16 10

a 64 54 0

0 229.77 so 55 6564 7140 0

219.a 2 48 869.17 53.15 65.93 395.67 so 52 51.24 450.70 30.65 24.&8 99 76 1a 3D 13.DO 92.44 0

0 282.54 57.60 H.D2 83 58 144 2 HUI

11. 16 102261 71,11 74,37 450 t7 58 30 59.12 527.36 36.71 29.91 122.88 23,13 17.76 124,63 0

0,00 340 43 65.10 84,79 9e 84 5 30 220 0 22.82 118a.15 79.54 83.31 sea 10 68.74 67.54 609.87 4-3.27 35.38 148 32 28 37 22.06 16 1.11 2.34 0.89 403.44 73.05 95.26 11065 10.15 220 2 55.05 1555.57 97.79 10288 634,24 85.16 86.04 79*2.44 57,98 47.67 206.00 40 38 31 96 246.98 12.55 6.68 544.82 90.30 117.99 141.41 22.87 220.4 99.20 1971.40 117.88 124,05 77409 105.77 106.73

!X18.41 74.78 61.74 272.97 54.40 43,81 350.04 27.60 15,72 706.67 109 35 143 12 17585 3960 220.6 155.24 2435.69 139.82 147.41 D27.84 12a.58 129.61 1227.78 93.68 77.50 349 05 70 44 57.00 470.28 o47.SO 28.0 1 889.01 130,20 170,63 213.96 60 33 SUUOI'ICl.*

"'9*31 ' 1 1 ~

46 C1 12*fl0... c 11*1$ 14 l)olfH

l* ll' f<l

- - 04$*

~ *MX

S*i':l' <

I~ * !JI <,~

I' * *At, t

,,..,.,(1"

,,, l'): &t 17*"*'t 1 ~ * !'3~11 1&-;,71

l'O *.f.JO~

i"'j o ~.o, (if

]Oo 1J.,)I 11*\\._,,...

li* U I ~

Seo tnef'IIW'ICSlh*

73 24 30884 14.43 15.70 100 56 14.00 14 98 150.69 13.10 11 15 59 73 U37 1221 120.32 35 63 2009 150 26 12 03 16 05 2884 30 49 Seoment Crest t:l 219.76 218.80 218.39 218.39 218.51 218.68 218.65 218.76 218.91 218.93 219.00 219 16 219 21 219.34 219.93 219.95 218.97 218.41 218.44 2 18.09 219 75

Endosure 2 to NL-14-0664 RAt 6

Additionallnfonnation Sheet 3 of 3 Water Level Elevation (WL) and Corresponding Segmental Weir Outflow (dO) for VEGP Units 1&2 Northern and Eastern VBS 127 133 139 145 l SI 157 163 1&9 175 181 187 183 199 205 211 217 223 229 2:35 241 247 253 259 265 271 277 283 2&9

IllS

!<)1

!<)7 l l l

~(ft) dO ltfl) 40 (cfll dO ld5 ~ dO (<hi 00 (Ch ) CliO (cf$) dQ (t:bl dO (chi dO(ebl dO'" dO ltbl dO (thl dO'" dO,..., dO fds) dO (eft! dO (ell) oo (ds} dO {eh. dO {cf\\1 dO tcbS dO ldl! dO l<kl dO (ds) cO (c:kt dO (eft.} dO lcb) dO Ids! dO {c:b ) dO (ctsl dO tctsl co (ebl 2170 0

0 0

0 217.1 0

0 0

0 217.2 0

0 0

0 217.3 0

0 0

0 217...

0 0

217.5 0

0 0

0 217 6 0

0 0

0 217 7 0

0 0

0 211 a 0

0 0

0.08 101 0

0 0

211.9 0

0

-4.135 0

0 060 38 0

0 0

2180 0

108 2.10 0

0 1.30 7.7 0

0 0

oc.s 0

0 0

218.1 0

36 4 4.95 0

0 2.15 12.4 0

0 0

8 0 0

0 0

0.51 0

0 0

218.2 0

70.4 8.50 0

0 3.2 18.2 0

0 0

0 70 0

187 0

0 0

57 0

0 0

218.3 0

113 12.75 0

0 4.3 25.0 0

0 0

48 0

32 3 0

0 0

12.7 0

0 0

218,4 0

16-4 17.71 0

0 5.7 32.7 0

0 0

0 1<8 10,4 u.o

<9 0 0

0 0

21.5 0

0 0

218.5 4.30 224 23.37 0

0 7.2 41.4 0

0 0

15.7 37 8 17.5 47.0 68.8 0

0 0

32.2 0

0 0

218.6 153 292 29.73 0

0 8.8 51.1 0

0 0

45.5 68.1 26.1 91.0 91.5 0

0 0.65 0.62 0

0 0

.t4.7 0

0 0

218.7 301 368 36.79 0

0 10.6 61.8 5.17 0

0 84.7 105 36.3 146 117 2.6 0

7.3 5.2 0

0 0

1.7 0

59 0 0

0 0

21a a 488 453

<<.56 0

0 12.6 73.4 13 42 0

0 133 ISO 48.1 212 1415 7 0 0

16.5 11.5 0

0 0

5.1 0

75.1 0

0 0

218 9 708 547 5303 24 0 190 14.!

86.0 24 18 0

6.8 192 201 61.3 289 178 12.7 0

28.4 196 0

0 0

9 4 0

93.1 0

0 0

2190 9U 849 62.21 71 I 9 4 17 1 99.6 37.43 0

17.2 259 280 76.1 377 2 13 18 7 0

42 3 2!1 5 0

0 0

14 8 0 27 113 0.60 0

0 0

0 219. 1 1265 760 72.08 132 194 195 114 53 19 0

30.7 l38 325 92 4 476 251 2111 0

599 411 0

0 0

21 2 3

135 50 0

0 0

0 2151.2 1600 879 82.68 208 31.8 22.1 130 71 45 0

47.3 423 3gf) 110 586 2112 37e 0

79.5 54 5 0

0 0

28 5 7

158 109 0

0 0

0 219.3 1872 1006 93.94 2114 46 7 24 9 146 92 21 0

669 519 478 130 707 336 48 9 0

102 6516 0

0 0

369 12 183

18.

0 0

219.4 238 1143 106

~ 64 0 27.9 16-4 115 0

89.7 624 56-4 151 839 383 614 0

127 ass 0

0 0

46 2 17 210 27.4 0.06 1.7 0.05 2.16 0

0 219.5 283 1287 119 5 11 83.8 31.0 182 141 5.13 116 739 658 173 983 433 75.1 0.62 154 105 3.02

-4.70 000 58.5 24 239 37.9 0.29 14.3 0.44 18.0 0

0 219.6 331 1440 132 640 106 34.2 202 170 12.9 145 864 759 197 1137 486 90.2 3.6 16-4 126 7.6 35.4 39 67.9 32 270 50.0 0.6 31.7 0.97 40.0 1.83 1 6-4 219.7 383 1602 146 783 131 37.7 222 200 23 0 177 998 867 223 1302 542 107 7.6 217 148 136 686 16.0 80.2 40 303 63.6 1.0 53.9 1.65 68.1 4.91 4.93 219.8 439 1772 161 939 158 41.3 244 234

35.

212 1141 982 2SO 1478 602 124 12.7 252 172 20 9 153 32.0 93.5 so 337 78.7 1 5 81.0 2

a 102 8.93 8.98 219.9 4119 19!1'1 176 1109 187 45 268

169 50 250 1294 1104 278 1665 664 144 18 9 290 19'7 3D 2:34 52 108 61 373 95 2

113 3

143 14 14 2200 582 2138 193 1293 220 49 289 308 67 291 1456 1233 308 1863 7211 164 262 330 2.25 40 330 78 123 72 411 11 4 3

ISO 5

189 20 20 2202 700 2538 2.27 1701 291 57 339 392 108

=

1&09 1512 373 2292 869 209 44.0 419 285 6-4 568 134 157 gg 493 154 238 7

300 35 35 220 4 853 21172 264 216-4 372 66 393 4&6 159 -

2200 1819 1766 1021 259 66.1 518 352 9<

866 209 19<

129 582 202 6

345 II 435 5J 53 220.6 1021 3440 305 2681 464 76 4SO 590 218 604 2628 2155 521 3283 1185 315 92.7 628 427 129 1225 -

238 163 678 255 8

472 14 5115 75 76 Sl!UM(::l.* >> *"'-*

*

n~~ :o~* i$ 2-

t*fOK,.]:'('( :tool: or

i* ~l, )O* U" Vloti')Y

!1 *.tH1 >>***,..,,,,) """'"

le*1C* 1,._nr

-.~"I* I~*

Y.i* '>)t:.r

......, **.,unu 11-*I:"S.S~

.U* 51~ ***)I 0,......,.,"(

~

f>>17 ;.a..:,7t<"

l'll *(t')"'f* )101\\tS..

'j)..Q.)((

-"3+-:7.!:..--

~ * -..':!(*

V..*I)OJ 1~

S'lo*:-87*

Segmeni 'Width*

88 52 201 4"1 2.2.20 363 33 64 40 500 23 16 59 22 54.97 7333 22398 100 87 3629 260.59 71 80 31 80 25 73 61 62 41 69 32.39 356.40 120.60 Jl 09 30.67 57 05 4774 2 00 114 SO 3.SO 144 so 22.43 22.56

~omon t C,e.st EL 21D.4' 217.94 217.90 218.83 218 87 217.78 217.75 218 61 219.41 218 81 218.43 218.31 218.18 218.34 217.99 218 62 219.47 218 59 218 58 2 19.41 219.50 219.56 218.63 218.99 218.09 218.98 219.37 219.38 219.38 2 19.38 219.52 219.52

v t e Letter Sequence Supplement
TAC:MF1117, (Open)
Initiation Request, Request Acceptance... Supplement Administration Questions 7 February 2014 Answers 6 March 2014 6 March 2014 6 March 2014 6 March 2014 Results Approval... Other: ML14279A352
MONTHYEAR2014-02-07 [Table View]

NL-14-0664, Units 1 & 2, Supplemental Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Associated with Flooding re-evaluation

Text

Reference:

Enclosures:

Reference:

Navigation menu

NL-14-0664, Units 1 & 2, Supplemental Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Associated with Flooding re-evaluation

Text

Reference:

Enclosures:

Reference:

Navigation menu

Search