ML14231A964

Screening and Prioritization Results of Information Provided Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50, Section 50.54(f), Seismic Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation 2.1 Fukushima

ML14231A964
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	09/17/2014
From:	Dan Dorman Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Hamrick G Duke Energy Progress
Balazik M, NRR/JLD, 415-2856
References
TAC MF3824, TAC MF3825
Download: ML14231A964 (4)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 September 17, 2014 Mr. George T. Hamrick, Vice President Brunswick Steam Electric Plant P.O. Box 10429 Southport, NC 28461

SUBJECT:

BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2- SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS OF INFORMATION PROVIDED PURSUANT TO TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS PART 50, SECTION 50.54(f), SEISMIC HAZARD REEVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF INSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA DAI-ICHI ACCIDENT (TAC NOS. MF3824 AND MF3825)

Dear Mr. Hamrick:

The purpose of this letter is to inform Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke Energy) of the results for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP), Units 1 and 2, regarding the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) seismic screening and prioritization review. The staff has determined that BSEP screens out of conducting a seismic risk evaluation since the Individual Plant Examination for External Events (IPEEE) demonstrates plant seismic capacity to levels higher than the ground motion response spectra (GMRS) in the 1-10 Hertz (Hz) range and Duke Energy demonstrated that the IPEEE-related screening criteria in the NRC-approved industry guidance was met. The NRC staff concurs with Duke Energy's determination to conduct the high frequency and spent fuel pool seismic evaluation which is consistent with commitments contained in the March 31, 2014, letter (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML14106A461 ). The high frequency evaluation will be performed because the GMRS exceeds the existing safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) in the greater than 10 Hz range. The spent fuel pool evaluation will be performed because spent fuel pools were not included in the original scope of the IPEEE evaluation.

This letter only transmits the NRC staff's result of the screening and prioritization of the seismic hazard submittal for BSEP. The NRC staff is continuing its review of the seismic hazard reevaluation submittal and may request additional plant-specific information to support this review. The NRC staff plans to issue an assessment for BSEP on the reevaluated seismic hazard no later than the third quarter 2015.

BACKGROUND On March 12, 2012, the NRC issued a request for information pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Section 50.54(f) (hereafter referred to as the 50.54(f) letter)

(ADAMS Accession No. ML12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning, in part, seismic hazards at each operating reactor site and to enable the NRC staff to determine whether licenses should be modified, suspended, or revoked. Further, the 50.54(f) letter stated that the NRC would provide screening and prioritization results to indicate deadlines, if necessary, for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations that assess the total plant response to the reevaluated seismic hazard. In response to the 50.54(f) letter, all

G. Hamrick addressees committed to follow the Electric Power Research Institute Report (EPRI), "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic," 1 as supplemented by the EPRI Report, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic"2 (referred to as the expedited approach).

In response to the 50.54(f) letter, Duke Energy submitted their reevaluated hazard for BSEP in March 2014. The Report specified that BSEP screens out for performing a seismic risk evaluation, however screens in for performing a high frequency and spent fuel pool seismic evaluation. Subsequently, by letter dated May 9, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14111A147), the NRC staff informed all licensees of operating reactors in the central and eastern United States of the screening and prioritization results to support completing seismic risk and limited-scope evaluations, as described in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. In the May 2014 letter, the NRC staff identified that BSEP conditionally screens in to perform a seismic risk (Prioritization Group 3), high frequency, and spent fuel pool evaluation for the purposes of the screening and prioritization review because additional information was needed to demonstrate BSEP's IPEEE adequacy for the purpose of seismic screening.

SCREENING PROCESS As discussed in the May 2014 letter, the NRC staff's screening review was performed using the SPID guidance. The SPID provides guidance on seismic screening when the ground motion response spectra (GMRS) is above the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE), but bounded by the IPEEE capacity spectrum. To use the IPEEE capacity spectrum for seismic screening, Duke Energy needed to demonstrate the adequacy of BSEP's IPEEE evaluation by satisfying specific criteria in the SPID. If the IPEEE capacity is greater than the GMRS in the 1-10 Hz range and meets the IPEEE-related screening criteria in the SPID, a plant would screen out of conducting a seismic risk evaluation.

SCREENING REVIEW ASSESSMENT A public meeting (Meeting Summary available in ADAMS Accession No. ML 1421 OAOSO) was conducted on June 30, 2014, between the NRC staff and Duke Energy, in part, to address the staff's questions regarding adequacy of BSEP's IPEEE evaluation to demonstrate plant seismic capacity and meet the corresponding screening criteria in the SPID. The NRC staff issued Duke Energy a request for additional information (RAI) on July 16, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14195A071) to support the NRC's final screening and prioritization determination for BSEP. Duke Energy submitted its response to the RAis by letter dated August 14, 2014, (ADAMS Accession No. ML14241A432).

The RAI response clarifies a reference within the seismic reevaluated hazard submittal and describes the basis for screening out slope stability along the cooling intake canal under the 1

The SPID guidance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12333A170. The staff endorsement letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12319A074.

2 The Expedited Approach guidance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13102A142.

G. Hamrick review level earthquake loading. Based on the NRC staff's review of the March 2014 Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report and information provided in the RAI response, BSEP meets the IPEEE-related screening standards.

FINAL SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION Seismic Risk Limited-scope Evaluations Plant name Screening Expedited Evaluation High Low Spent Result Approach (Prioritization Frequency Frequency Fuel Pool Evaluation Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Brunswick Steam Electric Out x3 X X Plant, Units 1 and 2 If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Michael Balazik, Project Manager for the Japan Lessons-Learned Division at (301) 415-2856 or at Michaei.Balazik@nrc.gov.

Sincerely, Daniel H. Dorman, Acting Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324 cc: Listserv 3

As committed in the March 31,2014, letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML14106A461).

ML14231A964 OFFICE NRR/JLD/JHMB/PM NRR/JLD/JHMB/LA NRO/DSEA/RGS2/BC NRR/JLD/JHMB/BC NAME MBalazik SLent DJackson SWhaley DATE 08/21/14 08/21/14 08/26/14 08/25/14 OFFICE NRR/DORL!LPL2-2/PM* OGC NRR/JLD/0 NRR/AD NAME AHon BHarris JDavis (JMcHale for) DOorman DATE 08/ /14 08/29/14 09/15/14 09/17/14