View source for LR-N16-0094, Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Supplemental Report, Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident

{{Adams
| number = ML16342C496
| issue date = 12/06/2016
| title = Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Supplemental Report, Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident
| author name = Mcfeaters C
| author affiliation = PSEG Nuclear, LLC
| addressee name = 
| addressee affiliation = NRC/Document Control Desk, NRC/NRR
| docket = 05000272, 05000311
| license number = DPR-070, DPR-075
| contact person = 
| case reference number = LR-N16-0094
| document type = Letter type:LR, Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI)
| page count = 9
| project = 
| stage = Response to RAI
}}

=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:PSEG Nuclear LLC P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038-0236 0PSE:G NudearLLC 10 CFR 50.54(f)
LR-N 16-0094 DEC 06 2016 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Salem Generating Station Units 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 NRC Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311

==Subject:==
Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Supplemental Report, Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident

==References:==
: 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 Dai-ichi Accident,"
dated March 12, 2012, ADAMS Accession Number ML12053A340
: 2. NRC Letter, "Final Determination of Licensee Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessments Under the Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 'Seismic' of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident,"
dated October 27, 2015, ADAMS Accession Number ML15194A015
: 3. NEI Letter transmitting EPRI 3002007148 for NRC endorsement, dated February 23, 2016, ADAMS Accession Number ML16055A017
: 4. EPRI 3002007148, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance Spent Fuel Pool Integrity Evaluation," February 2016
: 5. NRC Letter endorsing EPRI 3002007148, dated March 17, 2016, ADAMS Accession Number ML15350A158

Page2                                                                        10 CFR 50.54(f)
LR-N16-0094
: 6. PSEG Letter LR-N13-0205, "Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding the Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident - Base Case Velocity Profiles with Supporting Subsurface Materials and Properties," dated September 10, 2013, ADAMS Accession No. ML13253A391
: 7. NRC Letter, "Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2- Staff Assessment 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 (CAC Nos. MF3922 and MF3923)," dated February 18, 2016, ADAMS Accession Number ML16041A033
: 8. EPRI 1025287, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic," February 2013
: 9. PSEG Letter LR-N14-0051, "PSEG Nuclear LLC's Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites) Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident- Salem Generating Station," dated March 28, 2014, ADAMS Accession No.
ML14090A043 On March 12, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a Request for Information per 10 CFR 50.54(f) (Reference 1) to all power reactor licensees. , Item (9) of the 50.54(f) letter requested addressees to provide spent fuel pool (SFP) seismic evaluations. By letter dated October 27, 2015 (Reference 2), the NRC transmitted final seismic information request tables which identified that PSEG is to conduct a limited scope SFP evaluation for Salem Generating Station (SGS),
Units 1 and 2. By Reference 3, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) submitted an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) repor(entitled, Seismic Evaluation Guidance Spent Fuel Pool Integrity Evaluation (EPRI 3002007148) (Reference 4) for NRC review and endorsement. NRC endorsement was provided by Reference 5.
EPRI 3002007148 provides criteria for evaluating the seismic adequacy of a SFP to the reevaluated ground motion response spectrum (GMRS) hazard levels. This report supplements the guidance in the Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) (Reference 8), for plants where the GMRS peak spectral acceleration is less than or equal to 0.8g. Section 3.3 of EPRI 3002007148 lists the parameters to be verified to confirm that the results of the report are applicable to SGS Units 1 and 2, and that the SGS Units 1 and 2 SFPs are seismically adequate in accordance with NTTF 2.1 seismic evaluation criteria. to this letter provides the data for SGS Units 1 and 2 that confirms applicability of the EPRI 3002007148 criteria, confirms that the SFPs are seismically adequate, and provides the requested information in response to Enclosure 1, Item (9)

Page 3                                                                     10 CFR 50.54(f)
LR-N 16-0094 of the 50.54(f) letter associated with NTTF Recommendation 2.1 seismic evaluation criteria.
This transmittal completes Commitment No.4 from Reference 9. There are no regulatory commitments contained in this letter. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Lee Marabella at 856-339-1208.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on __     ( _l_/_1!1:.....:../_t_ _
(Date)
Charles V. McFeaters Site Vice President Salem Generating Station

Page 4                                                                 10 CFR 50.54(f)
LR-N16-0094 :       Site-Specific Spent Fuel Pool Criteria for Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 cc:   Mr. Daniel Dorman, Administrator, Region I, NRC Ms. Carleen J. Parker, Project Manager, NRC/NRRIDORL Mr. Nicholas DiFrancesco, Project Manager, NRC/NRRIJLD Mr. Patrick Finney, NRC Senior Resident Inspector, Salem Mr. Patrick Mulligan, Chief, NJBNE Mr. Thomas Cachaza, Salem Commitment Tracking Coordinator Mr. Lee Marabella, PSEG Corporate Commitment Coordinator

Page 5                                                                  10 CFR 50.54(f)
LR*N 16-0094 (The bee list should not be submitted as part of the DCD submittal- remove this page prior to submittal and make the bee distribution accordingly) bee:    President and Chief Nuclear Officer Vice President - Salem Plant Manager - Salem Senior Director- Regulatory Operations Director- Regulatory Compliance Manager- Emergency Preparedness BOB Response Manager Manager - Licensing Document Control

LR-N 16-0094 Attachment 1 Site-Specific Spent Fuel Pool Criteria for Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2

LR-N16-0094 Site-Specific Spent Fuel Pool Criteria for Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 The 50.54(f) letter (Reference 1) 1 requested that, in conjunction with the response to NTTF Recommendation 2.1, a seismic evaluation be made of the Spent Fuel Pool (SFP). More specifically, plants were asked to consider "all seismically induced failures that can lead to draining of the SFP." Such an evaluation would be needed for any plant in which the ground motion response spectrum (GMRS) exceeds the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) in the 1 to 10 Hz frequency range. The staff confirmed through References 2 and 7 that the GMRS exceeds the SSE and concluded that a SFP evaluation is merited for the Salem Generating Station (SGS), Units 1 and 2. By letter dated March 17, 2016 (Reference 5), the staff determined that EPRI 3002007148 was an acceptable approach for performing SFP evaluations for plants where the peak spectral acceleration (Sa) is less than or equal to 0.8g.
The table below lists the criteria from Section 3.3 of EPRI 3002007148 along with data for SGS Units 1 and 2 that confirms applicability of the EPRI 3002007148 criteria and confirms that the SFP is seismically adequate and can retain adequate water inventory for 72 hours in accordance with NTTF 2.1 seismic evaluation criteria.
SFP Criteria frorn EP~I 3002007148                 Site-Specific Data Site Parameters
: 1. The site-specific GMRS peak Sa at               The GMRS peak Sa described in the site-any frequency should be less than               specific GMRS submittal (Reference 9) as or equal to 0.8g.                               accepted by the NRC (Reference 7) is 0.33g, which is ::; 0.8g; therefore, this criterion is met for SGS Units 1 and 2.
Structural Parameters
: 2. The structure housing the SFP                   The SFP is housed in the Fuel Handling should be designed using an SSE                 Building, which is seismically designed to with a peak ground acceleration                 the site SSE with a PGA of 0.2g. The SGS (PGA) of at least 0.1 g.                        PGA is greater than 0.1 g; therefore, this criterion is met for SGS Units 1 and 2.
1 References in this attachment are listed in the transmittal letter.
Page 1 of 3

LR-N 16-0094 SFP Criteria from EPRI3002007148           Site-Specific Data
: 3. The structural load path to the SFP     The structural load path from the foundation should consist of some combination      to the SFP consists of an 11 ft. thick of reinforced concrete shear wall       reinforced concrete mat with reinforced elements, reinforced concrete frame     concrete walls varying in width from 4 ft. to elements, post-tensioned concrete       9.6 ft. with a stainless steel liner. The walls elements and/or structural steel        go from the top of the foundation mat, 11 ft.
frame elements.                         below grade to 30 ft. above grade, as shown on drawing 201082, Revision 5, "Salem Nuclear Generating Station No. 1 Unit- Fuel Handling Area Sections F-F & G-G."
Therefore, this criterion is met for SGS Units 1 and 2.
: 4. The SFP structure should be             The SGS SFP structures are included in included in the Civil Inspection        PSEG procedure ER-AA-31 0-101, Program performed in accordance         "Condition Monitoring of Structures," in with Maintenance Rule.                  accordance with 10 CFR 50.65, which monitors the performance or condition of structures, systems, or components (SSCs) in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that these SSCs are capable of fulfilling their intended functions. Therefore, this criterion is met for SGS Units 1 and 2.
Non-Structural Parameters
: 5. To confirm applicability of the piping  Piping attached to the SFP is evaluated to evaluation in Section 3.2 of            the SSE as described in UFSAR Section EPRI 3002007148, piping attached        9.1.3.3; therefore, this criterion is met for to the SFP up to the first valve        SGS Units 1 and 2.
should have been evaluated for the SSE.
Page 2 of 3

LR-N 16-0094 SFP Criteria from EPRI 3002007148          Site-Specific Data
: 6. Anti-siphoning devices should be        As described in UFSAR Section 9.1.3.3, the installed on any piping that could     spent fuel pool cooling suction connection lead to siphoning water from the       enters near the normal water level so that SFP. In addition, for any cases         the pool cannot be gravity-drained. The where active anti-siphoning devices     cooling water return lines contain anti-are attached to 2-inch or smaller       siphon holes to prevent the possibility of piping and have extremely large         gravity draining the pool.
extended operators, the valves should be walked down to confirm        As described, anti-siphoning devices are adequate lateral support.               installed on all SFP piping that could lead to siphoning; therefore, this criterion is met for SGS Units 1 and 2. There are no anti-siphoning devices attached to 2-inch or smaller piping with extremely large extended operators; therefore, this criterion is met for SGS Units 1 and 2.
: 7. To confirm applicability of the         The Salem SFP has a length of 37ft, a sloshing evaluation in Section 3.2 of   width of 28.5 ft. and a depth of 40.5 ft from EPRI 3002007148, the maximum            the top of the stainless steel liner at base SFP horizontal dimension (length or     elevation 89.5 ft. to the top of the liner at width) should be less than 125 ft,      elevation 130 ft. based on Drawing 204836, the SFP depth should be greater         Revision 11 .
than 36ft, and the GMRS peak Sa         The Salem GMRS maximum Sa in the should be <0.1 g at frequencies         frequency range less than or equal to 0.3 Hz equal to or less than 0.3 Hz.           is 0.0344g from Reference 6 which is less than 0.1g.
Therefore, these criteria are met for SGS Units 1 and 2.
: 8. To confirm applicability of the         The surface area of the Salem SFP is evaporation loss evaluation in          1054.5 ft 2 , which is greater than 500 ft2; and Section 3.2 of EPRI 3002007148,         licensed reactor thermal power for Salem is the SFP surface area should be          3459 MWt per unit which is less than greater than 500 ft 2 and the licensed  4,000 MWt per unit, therefore, these criteria reactor core thermal power should       are met for SGS Units 1 and 2.
be less than 4,000 MWt per unit.
Page 3 of 3}}