ML17230A088: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML17230A088
| number = ML17230A088
| issue date = 08/10/2017
| issue date = 08/10/2017
| title = McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Submittal of High Frequency Supplement for Information Per 10CFR50.54(f) Re Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident
| title = Submittal of High Frequency Supplement for Information Per 10CFR50.54(f) Re Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident
| author name = Capps S D
| author name = Capps S D
| author affiliation = Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
| author affiliation = Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Line 25: Line 25:


==References:==
==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 ML 12053A340 2. NEI Letter, Final Draft of Industry Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI 1025287), dated November 27, 2012, ADAMS Accession Number ML 12333A168 and ML 12333A170 3. NRC Letter, Endorsement of Electric Power Research Institute Final Draft Report 1025287, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic", dated February 15, 2013, ADAMS Accession Number ML 12319A074
: 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 ML 12053A340  
* 4. Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic," as an Acceptable Alternative to the March 12, 2012, Information Request for Seismic Reevaluations, dated May 7, 2013, ADAMS Accession Number ML 13106A331 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . August 10, 2017 Page2 5. Duke Energy Letter, Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC 10 CFR 50.54(f) 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 20, 2014,
: 2. NEI Letter, Final Draft of Industry Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI 1025287), dated November 27, 2012, ADAMS Accession Number ML 12333A168 and ML 12333A170  
* ADAMS Accession Number ML 14098A421 6. NRC Letter, Screening and Prioritization Results regarding information pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) regarding seismic Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Reviews of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident, dated May 9, 2014, ADAMS Accession Number ML14111A147 7. 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-lchi Accident, dated October 27, 2015, ADAMS Accession Number ML 15194A015 8. NEI Letter, Request for NRC Endorsement of High Frequency Program: Application Guidance for Functional Confirmation and Fragility Evaluation (EPRI 3002004396), dated July 30, 2015 ADAMS Accession Number ML 15223A 100 I ML 15223A 102 9. NRC Letter to NEI: Endorsement of Electric Power Research Institute Final Draft Report 3002004396: "High Frequency Program: Application Guidance for Functional Confirmation and Fragility", dated September 17, 2015 ADAMS Accession Number ML 15218A569 10. Duke Energy letter, Supplemental Information Regarding Reevaluated Seismic Hazard Screening and Prioritization Results -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, dated October 20, 2016, ADAMS Accession ML 16295A342
: 3. NRC Letter, Endorsement of Electric Power Research Institute Final Draft Report 1025287, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic", dated February 15, 2013, ADAMS Accession Number ML 12319A074
* 11. NRC Letter, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 and McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Screening and Prioritization results regarding Seismic Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident, dated December 22, 2016, ADAMS Accession Number ML 16344A313 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. The required response section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report within 1.5 years from the date of the letter for Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) nuclear power plants. By NRC letter dated May 7, 2013 (Reference 4), the date to submit the report was extended to March 31, 2014. In response to the 50.54(f) letter, MNS submitted the reevaluated seismic hazards on March 20, 2014 (Reference 5). By letter dated May 9, 2014 (Reference 6), the NRC transmitted the initial results of the screening and prioritization review of the seismic hazards reevaluation submittal for MNS. In accordance with the screening, prioritization, and implementation details report (SPID) and Augmented Approach guidance (References 2, 3 and 4 ), the reevaluated seismic hazard is U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 10, 2017 Page 3 used to determine if additional seismic risk evaluations are warranted for a plant. As noted in the May 9, 2014 letter, MNS is to conduct limited-scope evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool, and high frequencyr Within the May 9, 2014 letter (Reference 6), NRC acknowledged that these limited scope evaluations will require additional development of the assessment process. By Reference 8, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) submitted an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) report entitled, High Frequency Program: Application Guidance for Functional Confirmation and Fragility Evaluation (EPRI 3002004396) for NRC review and endorsement. NRC endorsement was provided by Reference 9 By letter dated October 27, 2015 (Reference 7), the NRC issued its final determination to (1) inform power reactor licensees of the remaining seismic evaluations that each licensee will perform, (2) inform those licensees that will perform a Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (SPRA), and (3) establish the associated due dates for the seismic evaluations and SPRAs to complete licensees' responses to the 50.54(f) letter. For MNS the October 27, 2015 letter stated that SPRA were judged to be warranted, based on the information available to the NRC at that time, primarily based on containment type (ice condenser containment). On September 14, 2016, a public meeting was held to discuss additional information which provided a technical basis for reconsideration of the decision to necessitate an SPRA for MNS. By letter dated October 20, 2016 (Reference 10), the topics discussed during the public meeting and the corresponding site-specific information for MNS and Catawba Nuclear Station (CNS) were submitted by Duke Energy. The October 20, 2016, Duke Energy submittal stated that the seismic risk at CNS and MNS is not significant and performance of SPRAs would not provide meaningful additional risk insights for the sites because of the significant body of knowledge already available. Specifically, Duke cited reevaluated seismic hazard and associated seismic demand-versus-capacity information, previous generic and site-specific seismic risk evaluations, and site-specific Conditional Containment Failure Probability (CCFP) analyses. By Letter dated December 22, 2016 (Reference 11 ), the NRC staff concluded that the specific combination of seismic hazard exceedances, the general estimation of the Seismic Core Damage Frequency (SCDF), and the insights related to the CCFP at MNS/CNS indicate that the increase in seismic risk due to the reevaluated seismic hazard is addressed within the margin inherent in the design and that a SPRA is not warranted. Therefore, SPRA for MNS/CNS is no longer necessary to fulfill the response to the seismic portion of the 50.54(f) letter. Further, high frequency evaluation and mitigating strategies assessment continue to be necessary to gain insights into MNS/CNS response to high frequency ground motion and to ensure that mitigating strategies capabilities address the reevaluated seismic hazard conditions. MNS has performed a High Frequency Confirmation evaluation in response to the NRC's 50.54(f) letter using the methods in EPRI report 3002004396. The attachment to this letter provides the Seismic High Frequency Confirmation Report for MNS. This completes the scope of work described in Section 4.2 of Reference 5, for MNS.
* 4. Guidance:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 10, 2017 Page4 This letter contains no new Regulatory Commitments and no revision to existing Regulatory Commitments Please address any comments or questions regarding this matter to Joseph Hussey at 980-875-5045. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 10, 2017. Sincerely, Steven D Capps  
Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic," as an Acceptable Alternative to the March 12, 2012, Information Request for Seismic Reevaluations, dated May 7, 2013, ADAMS Accession Number ML 13106A331 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . August 10, 2017 Page2 5. Duke Energy Letter, Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC 10 CFR 50.54(f) 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 20, 2014,
* ADAMS Accession Number ML 14098A421  
: 6. NRC Letter, Screening and Prioritization Results regarding information pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) regarding seismic Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Reviews of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident, dated May 9, 2014, ADAMS Accession Number ML14111A147  
: 7. 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-lchi Accident, dated October 27, 2015, ADAMS Accession Number ML 15194A015  
: 8. NEI Letter, Request for NRC Endorsement of High Frequency Program: Application Guidance for Functional Confirmation and Fragility Evaluation (EPRI 3002004396), dated July 30, 2015 ADAMS Accession Number ML 15223A 100 I ML 15223A 102 9. NRC Letter to NEI: Endorsement of Electric Power Research Institute Final Draft Report 3002004396: "High Frequency Program: Application Guidance for Functional Confirmation and Fragility", dated September 17, 2015 ADAMS Accession Number ML 15218A569  
: 10. Duke Energy letter, Supplemental Information Regarding Reevaluated Seismic Hazard Screening and Prioritization Results -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, dated October 20, 2016, ADAMS Accession ML 16295A342
* 11. NRC Letter, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 and McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Screening and Prioritization results regarding Seismic Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident, dated December 22, 2016, ADAMS Accession Number ML 16344A313 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.
The required response section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report within 1.5 years from the date of the letter for Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) nuclear power plants. By NRC letter dated May 7, 2013 (Reference 4), the date to submit the report was extended to March 31, 2014. In response to the 50.54(f) letter, MNS submitted the reevaluated seismic hazards on March 20, 2014 (Reference 5). By letter dated May 9, 2014 (Reference 6), the NRC transmitted the initial results of the screening and prioritization review of the seismic hazards reevaluation submittal for MNS. In accordance with the screening, prioritization, and implementation details report (SPID) and Augmented Approach guidance (References 2, 3 and 4 ), the reevaluated seismic hazard is U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 10, 2017 Page 3 used to determine if additional seismic risk evaluations are warranted for a plant. As noted in the May 9, 2014 letter, MNS is to conduct limited-scope evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool, and high frequencyr Within the May 9, 2014 letter (Reference 6), NRC acknowledged that these limited scope evaluations will require additional development of the assessment process. By Reference 8, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) submitted an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) report entitled, High Frequency Program: Application Guidance for Functional Confirmation and Fragility Evaluation (EPRI 3002004396) for NRC review and endorsement.
NRC endorsement was provided by Reference 9 By letter dated October 27, 2015 (Reference 7), the NRC issued its final determination to (1) inform power reactor licensees of the remaining seismic evaluations that each licensee will perform, (2) inform those licensees that will perform a Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (SPRA), and (3) establish the associated due dates for the seismic evaluations and SPRAs to complete licensees' responses to the 50.54(f) letter. For MNS the October 27, 2015 letter stated that SPRA were judged to be warranted, based on the information available to the NRC at that time, primarily based on containment type (ice condenser containment).
On September 14, 2016, a public meeting was held to discuss additional information which provided a technical basis for reconsideration of the decision to necessitate an SPRA for MNS. By letter dated October 20, 2016 (Reference 10), the topics discussed during the public meeting and the corresponding site-specific information for MNS and Catawba Nuclear Station (CNS) were submitted by Duke Energy. The October 20, 2016, Duke Energy submittal stated that the seismic risk at CNS and MNS is not significant and performance of SPRAs would not provide meaningful additional risk insights for the sites because of the significant body of knowledge already available.
Specifically, Duke cited reevaluated seismic hazard and associated seismic demand-versus-capacity information, previous generic and site-specific seismic risk evaluations, and site-specific Conditional Containment Failure Probability (CCFP) analyses.
By Letter dated December 22, 2016 (Reference 11 ), the NRC staff concluded that the specific combination of seismic hazard exceedances, the general estimation of the Seismic Core Damage Frequency (SCDF), and the insights related to the CCFP at MNS/CNS indicate that the increase in seismic risk due to the reevaluated seismic hazard is addressed within the margin inherent in the design and that a SPRA is not warranted.
Therefore, SPRA for MNS/CNS is no longer necessary to fulfill the response to the seismic portion of the 50.54(f) letter. Further, high frequency evaluation and mitigating strategies assessment continue to be necessary to gain insights into MNS/CNS response to high frequency ground motion and to ensure that mitigating strategies capabilities address the reevaluated seismic hazard conditions.
MNS has performed a High Frequency Confirmation evaluation in response to the NRC's 50.54(f) letter using the methods in EPRI report 3002004396.
The attachment to this letter provides the Seismic High Frequency Confirmation Report for MNS. This completes the scope of work described in Section 4.2 of Reference 5, for MNS.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 10, 2017 Page4 This letter contains no new Regulatory Commitments and no revision to existing Regulatory Commitments Please address any comments or questions regarding this matter to Joseph Hussey at 980-875-5045.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 10, 2017. Sincerely, Steven D Capps  


==Attachment:==
==Attachment:==
50.54(f) NTTF 2.1 Seismic High Frequency Confirmation for McGuire Nuclear Station xc: C. Haney Region II Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Avenue NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 J.P. Beska, Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 M. Mahoney Project Manager (MNS) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Mail Stop 8 G9A Rockville, MD 20852-2738 G.A. Hutto NRC Senior Resident Inspector McGuire Nuclear Station Justin Folkwein American Nuclear Insurers 95 Glastonbury, CT. 06033-4453
 
}}
50.54(f) NTTF 2.1 Seismic High Frequency Confirmation for McGuire Nuclear Station xc: C. Haney Region II Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Avenue NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 J.P. Beska, Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 M. Mahoney Project Manager (MNS) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Mail Stop 8 G9A Rockville, MD 20852-2738 G.A. Hutto NRC Senior Resident Inspector McGuire Nuclear Station Justin Folkwein American Nuclear Insurers 95 Glastonbury, CT. 06033-4453}}

Latest revision as of 03:21, 16 March 2019

Submittal of High Frequency Supplement for Information Per 10CFR50.54(f) Re Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident
ML17230A088
Person / Time
Site: Mcguire, McGuire  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 08/10/2017
From: Capps S D
Duke Energy Carolinas
To:
Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17230A085 List:
References
MNS-17-034
Download: ML17230A088 (4)


Text

e{-,DUKE ENERGY August 10, 2017 MNS-17-034 ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS), Units 1 and 2 Docket No. 50-369, 50-370 Renewed License No. NPF-9 and NPF-17 Steven D. Capps Vice President McGuire Nuclear Station Duke Energy MG01VP J 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Huntersville, NC 28078 o: 980.875.4805 f: 980.875.4809 Steven.Capps@duke-energy.com 10 CFR 50.54(f) 10 CFR 50.4

Subject:

High Frequency Supplement to Seismic Hazard Screening Report, Response 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 ML 12053A340
2. NEI Letter, Final Draft of Industry Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI 1025287), dated November 27, 2012, ADAMS Accession Number ML 12333A168 and ML 12333A170
3. NRC Letter, Endorsement of Electric Power Research Institute Final Draft Report 1025287, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic", dated February 15, 2013, ADAMS Accession Number ML 12319A074
  • 4. Guidance:

Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic," as an Acceptable Alternative to the March 12, 2012, Information Request for Seismic Reevaluations, dated May 7, 2013, ADAMS Accession Number ML 13106A331 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . August 10, 2017 Page2 5. Duke Energy Letter, Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC 10 CFR 50.54(f) 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 20, 2014,

6. NRC Letter, Screening and Prioritization Results regarding information pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) regarding seismic Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Reviews of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident, dated May 9, 2014, ADAMS Accession Number ML14111A147
7. 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-lchi Accident, dated October 27, 2015, ADAMS Accession Number ML 15194A015
8. NEI Letter, Request for NRC Endorsement of High Frequency Program: Application Guidance for Functional Confirmation and Fragility Evaluation (EPRI 3002004396), dated July 30, 2015 ADAMS Accession Number ML 15223A 100 I ML 15223A 102 9. NRC Letter to NEI: Endorsement of Electric Power Research Institute Final Draft Report 3002004396: "High Frequency Program: Application Guidance for Functional Confirmation and Fragility", dated September 17, 2015 ADAMS Accession Number ML 15218A569
10. Duke Energy letter, Supplemental Information Regarding Reevaluated Seismic Hazard Screening and Prioritization Results -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, dated October 20, 2016, ADAMS Accession ML 16295A342
  • 11. NRC Letter, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 and McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Screening and Prioritization results regarding Seismic Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident, dated December 22, 2016, ADAMS Accession Number ML 16344A313 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.

The required response section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report within 1.5 years from the date of the letter for Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) nuclear power plants. By NRC letter dated May 7, 2013 (Reference 4), the date to submit the report was extended to March 31, 2014. In response to the 50.54(f) letter, MNS submitted the reevaluated seismic hazards on March 20, 2014 (Reference 5). By letter dated May 9, 2014 (Reference 6), the NRC transmitted the initial results of the screening and prioritization review of the seismic hazards reevaluation submittal for MNS. In accordance with the screening, prioritization, and implementation details report (SPID) and Augmented Approach guidance (References 2, 3 and 4 ), the reevaluated seismic hazard is U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 10, 2017 Page 3 used to determine if additional seismic risk evaluations are warranted for a plant. As noted in the May 9, 2014 letter, MNS is to conduct limited-scope evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool, and high frequencyr Within the May 9, 2014 letter (Reference 6), NRC acknowledged that these limited scope evaluations will require additional development of the assessment process. By Reference 8, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) submitted an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) report entitled, High Frequency Program: Application Guidance for Functional Confirmation and Fragility Evaluation (EPRI 3002004396) for NRC review and endorsement.

NRC endorsement was provided by Reference 9 By letter dated October 27, 2015 (Reference 7), the NRC issued its final determination to (1) inform power reactor licensees of the remaining seismic evaluations that each licensee will perform, (2) inform those licensees that will perform a Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (SPRA), and (3) establish the associated due dates for the seismic evaluations and SPRAs to complete licensees' responses to the 50.54(f) letter. For MNS the October 27, 2015 letter stated that SPRA were judged to be warranted, based on the information available to the NRC at that time, primarily based on containment type (ice condenser containment).

On September 14, 2016, a public meeting was held to discuss additional information which provided a technical basis for reconsideration of the decision to necessitate an SPRA for MNS. By letter dated October 20, 2016 (Reference 10), the topics discussed during the public meeting and the corresponding site-specific information for MNS and Catawba Nuclear Station (CNS) were submitted by Duke Energy. The October 20, 2016, Duke Energy submittal stated that the seismic risk at CNS and MNS is not significant and performance of SPRAs would not provide meaningful additional risk insights for the sites because of the significant body of knowledge already available.

Specifically, Duke cited reevaluated seismic hazard and associated seismic demand-versus-capacity information, previous generic and site-specific seismic risk evaluations, and site-specific Conditional Containment Failure Probability (CCFP) analyses.

By Letter dated December 22, 2016 (Reference 11 ), the NRC staff concluded that the specific combination of seismic hazard exceedances, the general estimation of the Seismic Core Damage Frequency (SCDF), and the insights related to the CCFP at MNS/CNS indicate that the increase in seismic risk due to the reevaluated seismic hazard is addressed within the margin inherent in the design and that a SPRA is not warranted.

Therefore, SPRA for MNS/CNS is no longer necessary to fulfill the response to the seismic portion of the 50.54(f) letter. Further, high frequency evaluation and mitigating strategies assessment continue to be necessary to gain insights into MNS/CNS response to high frequency ground motion and to ensure that mitigating strategies capabilities address the reevaluated seismic hazard conditions.

MNS has performed a High Frequency Confirmation evaluation in response to the NRC's 50.54(f) letter using the methods in EPRI report 3002004396.

The attachment to this letter provides the Seismic High Frequency Confirmation Report for MNS. This completes the scope of work described in Section 4.2 of Reference 5, for MNS.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 10, 2017 Page4 This letter contains no new Regulatory Commitments and no revision to existing Regulatory Commitments Please address any comments or questions regarding this matter to Joseph Hussey at 980-875-5045.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 10, 2017. Sincerely, Steven D Capps

Attachment:

50.54(f) NTTF 2.1 Seismic High Frequency Confirmation for McGuire Nuclear Station xc: C. Haney Region II Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Avenue NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 J.P. Beska, Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 M. Mahoney Project Manager (MNS) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Mail Stop 8 G9A Rockville, MD 20852-2738 G.A. Hutto NRC Senior Resident Inspector McGuire Nuclear Station Justin Folkwein American Nuclear Insurers 95 Glastonbury, CT. 06033-4453