ML14323A027, Screening and Prioritization Results - JAF
Screening and Prioritization Results
December 31, 2014
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 Vice President, Operations Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. December 31, 2014 James A FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant P.O. Box 110 Lycoming, NY 13093
SUBJECT: JAMES A FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT- SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS OF INFORMATION PROVIDED PURSUANT TO TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULA T/ONS 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 NO. MF3725)
Dear Sir or Madam:
The purpose of this letter is to transmit to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the licensee) the results for James A FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAF) regarding the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) seismic screening and prioritization review. The NRC staff reviewed the JAF Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report dated March 31, 2014, and supplemental letters dated August 21, 2014 and December 5, 2014, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Nos. ML 14090A243, ML 14237A097, and ML 14339A773, respectively), and evaluated the information using NRCendorsed guidance. The results of the review are provided below.
BACKGROUND
On March 12, 2012, the NRC issued a request for information pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (1 0 CFR), Part 50, Section 50.54(f) (hereafter referred to as the 50.54(f) letter) (ADAMS Accession No. ML 12053A340). 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 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, Entergy submitted its reevaluated seismic hazard for JAF in March 2014. The JAF Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report specified that the Individual Plant Examination for External Events (IPEEE) program meets the screening criteria in the SPID to demonstrate a higher plant capacity than the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and that JAF screens out for performing a seismic risk and high frequency evaluations. Additionally, Entergy concluded that a spent fuel pool evaluation and an expedited approach evaluation would be performed.
Subsequently, by letter dated May 9, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 14111A147), 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. Accordingly, during the NRC's screening and prioritization 30-day review, the staff identified several plants where a determination could not be made and interactions with the licensee were needed to reach resolution. The staff designated these plants as conditionally screened-in because additional information was needed to support a screening and prioritization decision. In the May 9, 2014, letter, the NRC staff identified that JAF conditionally screens in to perform a seismic risk (Prioritization Group 3), expedited approach, high frequency, and spent fuel pool evaluation for the purposes of screening and prioritization.
SCREENING PROCESS
As discussed in the May 9, 2014, letter, the NRC staff's screening review was performed using the SPID guidance. For the purpose of the licensees' analyses and the NRC staff's review, the SPID identified three frequency ranges of particular interest: 1-10 Hertz (Hz), a low frequency range of less than 2.5 Hz, and a high frequency range of greater than 10 Hz. The frequency range of 1-10Hz was the focus of the screening review for performing a risk evaluation, as this range has the greatest potential effect on the performance of equipment and structures important to safety.
Additionally, the SPID provides guidance on seismic screening criteria when the ground motion response spectrum (GMRS) is above the SSE, but bounded by the IPEEE capacity spectrum. To use the IPEEE capacity spectrum for seismic screening, licensees needed to demonstrate meeting the SPID IPEEE program screening criteria, including that the IPEEE program was conducted with sufficient adequacy and identified modifications had been completed and maintained. 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 screens out of conducting a seismic risk evaluation. Further information, including specific details related to the NRC staffs focus and scope of review, is contained in the May 9, 2014, letter.
SCREENING REVIEW
The staff review focused on the screening criteria defined in the SPID. On June 19, 2014, a public meeting was conducted between NRC staff and Entergy to address the staff's questions, in part, regarding the adequacy of JAF's IPEEE evaluation to meet the SPID guidance for screening purposes. Of particular note, the staff identified that additional information was necessary to make a determination regarding the high confidence of a low probability of failure (HCLPF) value associated with unreinforced block walls near the emergency diesel generators (EDG).
The methodology used by the licensee was not the approach used in the originaiiPEEE program. The NRC staff requested additional clarification on the methodologi that was used. By letters dated August 21, 2014, and December 5, 2014, Entergy responded to the request for additional information with further details and sensitivity studies to address specific issues in support of the NRC's final screening and prioritization determination for JAF.
Based on the staff's review of the licensee's response, the staff concludes that Entergy demonstrated that there is reasonable assurance of sufficient seismic capacity in the unreinforced block walls given the overall low seismic hazard for the plant. The staff concludes the licensee's use and explanation of the methodology was sufficient for screening purposes only. The staff also concludes that the JAF IPEEE program satisfies the SPID IPEEE screening criteria and screens out from performing a seismic risk evaluation provided that Entergy completes the required full scope IPEEE relay chatter review.
Separately, by letter dated December 5, 2014, the licensee affirmed its commitment to perform the expedited approach, an IPEEE relay chatter review, high frequency evaluation, and spent fuel pool evaluation.
This letter transmits the NRC staff's result of the screening and prioritization of the seismic hazard submittal for JAF. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard. As such, the staff will continue its review of the seismic hazard reevaluation submittal, and the staff may request additional plant-specific information to support this review. The staff plans to issue an assessment for JAF on the reevaluated seismic hazard no later than the third quarter 2015.
FINAL SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION
The table below provides the updated status of the staff's review of the JAF seismic hazard screening results.
| Screening Result | Expedited Approach Evaluation | Seismic Risk Evaluation (Prioritization Group) | High Frequency Evaluation | Low Frequency Evaluation | Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant | out | X | X | X |
Expedited Seismic Risk Limited-scope Evaluations Screening Approach Evaluation High Low Spent Result Evaluation (Prioritization Frequency Frequency Fuel Pool Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation James A. FitzPatrick out Nuclear Power Plant X X X 3 DOE/EH-0545 "Seismic Evaluation Procedure for Equipment in U.S. Department of Energy Facilities" -4- If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Nicholas J. DiFrancesco, Senior Project Manager for the Japan Lessons-Learned Division at 301-415-1115. Docket No. 50-333 cc: Listserv Sincerely, '"' / i / { /1 ⢠!..'- William M. Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation - 4- If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Nicholas J. DiFrancesco, Senior Project Manager for the Japan Lessons-Learned Division at 301-415-1115. Docket No. 50-333 cc: Listserv DISTRIBUTION: PUBLIC JLD r/f