ML15265A487

St. Lucie Plant - Request for Information Response and Electronic Input/Output Files Supporting the Flooding Hazards Reevaluation Report

ML15265A487
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	08/20/2015
From:	Katzman E S Florida Power & Light Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-2015-216
Download: ML15265A487 (3)

Text

0L-2015-216 August 20, 2015 10 CFR 50.4F PLoU. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control DeskWashington, DC 20555St. Lucie Units 1 and 2Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389RE: FPL/St. Lucie Plant's Request for Infoi.mation (RFI) Response and Electronic Input/Output Files Supporting the Flooding Hazards Reevaluation Report

References:

1) FPL Letter dated March 10, 2015, "FPL/St.

Lucie Plant's Flooding Hazards Reevaluation for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f)

Regarding Flooding Aspects ofRecommendations 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from theFukushima Dai-Ichi Accident,"

Accession No. ML15083A306.

2) NRC Letter dated June 1, 2015, "Nuclear Regulatory Commission Plan for the Audit ofFlorida Power and Light Company's Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report Submittal Relating to the Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1-Flooding for St. Lucie Plant,Units 1 And 2 (TAC No. MF6113 and MF6114),"

Accession No. ML15147A591.

3) NRC email from Tekia Govan to Eric Katzman dated May 14, 2015, "Request:

AuditPreparation Documents for St. Lucie."4) FPL Letter L-2015-168 dated June 3, 2015, "FPL/St.

Lucie Plant' s Electronic Input/Output Files Supporting the Flooding Hazards Reevaluation Report,"

Accession No. ML 15166A089.

5) FPL/NRC Telecon dated July 29, 2015 related to the St. Lucie FHRR.Reference 1 provided the Flooding Hazards Reevaluation Report (FHRR) for the St. Lucie Plant.Reference 2 notified Florida Power & Light (FPL) of the upcoming audit activities pertaining tothe St. Lucie FHRR. In Reference 3, the NRC requested that FPL provide the electronic versionsof the numerical model files (i.e., input and output files) that support the FHRR and FPLprovided the requested information in Reference 4.During the Reference 5 teleconference, The NRC requested some clarifications.

The attachment provides this information.

Additionally, the NRC requested the computer output files for theLocal Intense Precipitation depth results.

The requested electronic files are within the CDaccompanying this letter.This letter makes no new commitments or changes to any existing commitments.

Florida Power & Light Company /-G"6501 S. Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, FL 34957 _

L-2015-216 Page 2If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Eric Katzman, St.Lucie Licensing

Manager, at (772) 467-7734.

Respectfully submitted, Eric S. KatzmanLicensing ManagerSt. Lucie PlantESK/KWFAttachment CD labeled -St. Lucie Power Plant, NRC Information Need 3: Local Intense Precipitation perConference Call of 07/29/2015 cc: USNRC Regional Administrator, Region II, w/o CDUSNRC Senior Resident Inspector, St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 w/o CD L-2015-216 Attachment Page 1 of XClarification request:

All Flood Causing Mechanisms

-Comparison of Reevaluated FloodHazard with Current Design Basis

Background:

The FHRR for the St Lucie site provides comparisons of the reevaluated floodhazards with the CLB for all flood causing mechanisms for which a CLB had been established inSection 3.0. FHRLR Section 5.14 of the report is a summary of this comparison.

The §50.54(f) letter requested a comparison with the current design basis.Request:

The licensee is requested to provide clarification regarding the inconsistencies identified in the FHRR with regard to the comparison of the reevaluated flood hazard to thecurrent design basis and submit a revised hazard comparison consistent with the instructions provided in the §50.54(f) letter.Response:

The current licensing basis (CLB) flooding information used for comparison in Section 5 isconsistent with the current design basis (CDB) for flooding at PSL. The comparisons in Section5.14 are not affected by the change in terminology and remain valid for a comparison of theFHRR to the CDB.