ML11164A257

License Amendments, Authorizing Change to the UFSAR Allowing Use of Fiber Reinforced Polymer on Masonry Brick Walls for the Mitigation of Differential Pressure Created by High Winds-TAC ME1710-ME171

ML11164A257
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	06/27/2011
From:	Stang J Plant Licensing Branch II
To:	Gillespie P Duke Energy Carolinas
Stang J, NRR/DORL/LPL2-1, 415-1345
References
TAC ME1710, TAC ME1711, TAC ME1712
Download: ML11164A257 (27)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555*0001 June 27, 2011 Mr. Preston Gillespie Site Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 7800 Rochester Highway Seneca, SC 29672

SUBJECT:

OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3, ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS REGARDING AUTHORIZING A CHANGE TO THE UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT ALLOWING THE USE OF FIBER REINFORCED POLYMER ON MASONRY BRICK WALLS FOR THE MITIGATION OF DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE CREATED BY HIGH WINDS (TAC NOS. ME1710, ME1711, AND ME1712)

Dear Mr. Gillespie:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment Nos. 373, 375, and 374 to Renewed Facility Operating Licenses DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55, for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The amendments consist of authorizing changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in response to your application dated June 29, 2009, as supplemented June 24, 2010, February 15, 2011, June 6, 2011! and June 15, 2011.

These amendments authorize changes to the UFSAR, to allow the use of fiber reinforced polymer to strengthen masonry brick walls for uniform pressure loads resulting from a tornado event.

A copy of the related Safety Evaluation is also enclosed. A Notice of Issuance will be included in the Commission's biweekly Federal Register notice.

P. Gillespie - 2 If you have any questions, please call me at 301-415-1345.

Sincerely,

~ng5rOject Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Manager Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287

Enclosures:

1. Amendment No. 373 to DPR-38

2. Amendment No. 375 to DPR-47

3. Amendment No. 374 to DPR-55

4. Safety Evaluation cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555*0001 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC DOCKET NO. 50-269 OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 AMENDMENT TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 373 Renewed License No. DPR-38

1. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:

A. The application for amendment to the Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (the facility),

Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-38 filed by the Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (the licensee), dated June 29,2009, as supplemented June 24, 2010, February 15, 2011, June 6, 2011, and June 15, 2011, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations as set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B. The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C. There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; D. The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E. The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.

-2

2. Accordingly, the license is hereby amended as indicated in the attachment to this license amendment, and Paragraph 3.B of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-38 is hereby amended to read as follows:

B. Technical Specifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No. 373 , are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.

3. Further, Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-38 is hereby amended to authorize changes to the Updated Final Safety Report (UFSAR) to allow the use of fiber reinforced polymer on masonry brick walls for uniform pressure loads resulting from a tornado event.

4. This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Prior to implementation the licensee shall complete all commitments made in the June 15, 2011, supplement, and as evaluated in the associated Safety Evaluation by the Commission's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation dated June TI ,2011. The UFSAR revision should be reflected in the next update of the UFSAR submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pursuant to 10 CFR 50.71(e).

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Gloria Kulesa, Chief Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Attachment:

Changes to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-38 and the Technical SpeCifications Date of Issuance: June 27, 2011

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC DOCKET NO. 50-270 OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT 2 AMENDMENT TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 375 Renewed License No. DPR-47

1. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:

A The application for amendment to the Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (the facility),

Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-47 filed by the Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (the licensee), dated June 29,2009, as supplemented June 24, 2010, February 15, 2011, June 6, 2011, and June 15, 2011, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations as set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B. The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C. There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; D. The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E. The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CF R Part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.

-2

2. Accordingly, the license is hereby amended as indicated in the attachment to this license amendment, and Paragraph 3.B of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-47 is hereby amended to read as follows:

B. Technical Specifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No. 375 ,are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.

3. Further, Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-47 is hereby amended to authorize changes to the Updated Final Safety Report (UFSAR) to allow the use of fiber reinforced polymer on masonry brick walls for uniform pressure loads resulting from a tornado event.

4. This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Prior to implementation the licensee shall complete all commitments made in the June 15, 2011, supplement, and as evaluated in the associated Safety Evaluation by the Commission's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation dated June 27,2011. The UFSAR revision should be reflected in the next update of the UFSAR submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pursuant to 10 CFR 50.71 (e).

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Gloria Kulesa, Chief Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Attachment:

Changes to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-47 and the Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: June 27, 2011

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC DOCKET NO. 50-287 OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 3 AMENDMENT TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 374 Renewed License No. DPR-55

1. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:

A. The application for amendment to the Oconee Nuclear Station. Unit 3 (the facility).

Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-55 filed by the Duke Energy Carolinas. LLC (the licensee). June 29.2009. as supplemented June 24.2010, February 15. 2011, June 6, 2011, and June 15, 2011, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations as set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B. The facility will operate in conformity with the application. the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C. There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; D. The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E. The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.

-2

2. Accordingly, the license is hereby amended as indicated in the attachment to this license amendment, and Paragraph 3.B of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-55 is hereby amended to read as follows:

B. Technical Specifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No. 374 , are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.

3. Further, Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-55 is hereby amended to authorize changes to the Updated Final Safety Report (UFSAR) to allow the use of fiber reinforced polymer on masonry brick walls for uniform pressure loads resulting from a tornado event.

4. This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Prior to implementation the licensee shall complete all commitments made in the June 15, 2011, supplement, and as evaluated in the associated Safety Evaluation by the Commission's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation dated June 27, 2011. The UFSAR revision should be reflected in the next update of the UFSAR submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pursuant to 10 CFR 50.71(e).

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c(~

Gloria Kulesa, Chief Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Attachment:

Changes to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-55 and the Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: June 27, 2011

ATIACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 373 RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-38 DOCKET NO. 50-269 AND TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 375 RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-47 DOCKET NO. 50-270 AND TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 374 RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-55 DOCKET NO. 50-287 Replace the following pages of the Licenses with the attached revised pages. The revised pages are identified by amendment number and contain marginal lines indicating the areas of change.

Remove Pages Insert Pages Licenses Licenses License No. DPR-38, page 3 License No. DPR-38, page 3 License No. DPR-47, page 3 License No. DPR-47, page 3 License No. DPR-55, page 3 License No. DPR-55, page 3

-3 A. Maximum Power Level The licensee is authorized to operate the facility at steady state reactor core power levels not in excess of 2568 megawatts thermal.

B. Technical Specifications The Technical Sppcifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No 373 are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.

C. This license is subject to the following antitrust conditions:

Applicant makes the commitments contained herein, recognizing that bulk power supply arrangements between neighboring entities normally tend to serve the public interest. In addition, where there are net benefits to all participants, such arrangements also serve the best interests of each of the partiCipants. Among the benefits of such transactions are increased electric system reliability, a reduction in the cost of electric power, and minimization of the environmental effects of the production and sale of electricity.

Any particular bulk power supply transaction may afford greater benefits to one participant than to another. The benefits realized by a small system may be proportionately greater than those realized by a larger system. The relative benefits to be derived by the parties from a proposed transaction, however, should not be controlling upon a decision with respect to the desirability of participating in the transaction. Accordingly, applicant will enter into proposed bulk power transactions of the types hereinafter described which, on balance, provide net benefits to applicant. There are net benefrts in a transaction if applicant recovers the cost of the transaction (as defined in 1j'1(d) hereof) and there is no demonstrable net detriment to applicant arising from that transaction.

1. As used herein:

(a) "Bulk Power" means electric power and any attendant energy, supplied or made available at transmission or sub transmission voltage by one electric system to another.

(b) "Neighboring Entity" means a private or public corporation, a govemmental agency or authority, a municipality, a cooperative, or a lawful association of any of the foregoing owning or operating, or proposing to own or operate, facilities for the generation and transmission of electricity which meets each of Renewed license No. DPR-38 Amendment No. 373 I

-3 A Maximum Power Level The licensee is authorized to operate the facility at steady state reactor core power Jevels not in excess of 2568 megawatts thermal.

B. Technical Specifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No. 375 are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications, C. This license is subject to the following antitrust conditions:

Applicant makes the commitments contained herein, recognizing that bulk power supply arrangements between neighboring entitles normally tend to serve the public interest. In addition, where there are net benefits to all partiCipants, such arrangements also serve the best interests of each of the participants. Among the benefits of such transactions are increased electric system reliability, a reduction in the cost of electric power, and minimization of the environmental effects of the production and sale of electriCity.

Any particular bulk power supply transaction may afford greater benefits to one participant than to another. The benefits realized by a small system may be proportionately greater than those realized by a larger system. The relative benefits to be derived by the parties from a proposed transaction, however, should not be contrOlling upon a decision with respect to the desirability of participating in the transaction. Accordingly, applicant will enter into proposed bulk power transactions of the types hereinafter described which, on balance, provide net benefits to applicant There are net benefits in a transaction if applicant recovers the cost of the transaction (as defined in 111 (d) hereof) and there is no demonstrable net detriment to applicant arising from that transaction.

1. As used herein:

(a) "Bulk Power" means electric power and any attendant energy, supplied or made available at transmission or sub-transmission voltage by one electric system to another.

(b) "Neighboring Entity" means a private or public corporation. a governmental agency or authority, a municipality, a cooperative, or a lawful association of any of the foregoing owning or operating, or proposing to own or operate, facilities for the generation and transmission of electricity which meets each of Renewed Ucense No. DPR47 Amendment No. 375

-3 A. Maximum Power Level The licensee is authorized to operate the facility at steady state reactor core power levels not in excess of 2568 megawatts thermal.

B. Technical Specifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No 374 are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical SpeCifications.

C. This license is subject to the following antitrust conditions:

Applicant makes the commitments contained herein, recognizing that bulk power supply arrangements between neighboring entities normally tend to serve the public interest. In addition, where there are net benefits to all participants, such arrangements also serve the best interests of each of the participants. Among the benefits of such transactions are increased electric system reliability, a reduction in the cost of electric power, and minimization of the environmental effects of the production and sale of electricity.

Any particular bulk power supply transaction may afford greater benefrts to one participant than to another. The benefits realized by a small system may be proportionately greater than those realized by a larger system. The relative benefits to be derived by the parties from a proposed transaction, however, should not be controlling upon a decision with respect to the desirability of participating in the transaction. Accordingly, applicant will enter into proposed bulk power transactions of the types hereinafter described which, on balance, provide net benefits to applicant. There are net benefits in a transaction if applicant recovers the cost of the transaction (as defined in 111 (d) hereof) and there is no demonstrable net detriment to applicant arising from that transaction.

1. As used herein:

(a) "Bulk Power" means electric power and any attendant energy, supplied or made available at transmission or sub-transmission voltage by one electric system to another.

(b) "Neighboring Entity" means a private or public corporation. a governmental agency or authority, a municipality. a cooperative.

or a lawful association of any of the foregoing owning or operating, or proposing to own or operate, facilities for the generation and transmission of electricity which meets each of Renewed License No. DPR-55 Amendment No. 374

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555*0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 373 TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-38 AMENDMENT NO. 375 TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-47 AND AMENDMENT NO. 374 TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-55 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-269, 50-270, AND 50-287

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By application dated June 29,2009 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML091871223), as supplemented by letters dated June 24, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML101830011), February 15, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML110490532), June 6, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11159A211), and June 15, 2011 ADAMS Accession No. ML11167A237) , Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke, the licensee),

requested approval of changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee 1/2/3). The supplements dated June 6, 2011, and June 15, 2011, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed and renoticed, and did not change the staff's proposed no Significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register on December 14, 2010 (75 FR 77908), and May 25,2011 (76 FR 30399).

The proposed license amendment request (LAR) requested authorization of changes to the UFSAR to allow the use of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) to strengthen masonry brick walls for uniform pressure loads resulting from a tornado event. Installation of the FRP system will not adversely affect the current structural qualification of the masonry walls (e.g., seismic) by significantly increasing mass or stiffness nor will it have immediate or long-term deleterious effect on the masonry wall materials of construction. The use of the FRP system on these walls will ensure that the wall units are able to withstand the differential pressure load resulting from a tornado.

-2

2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION

Section 3.B.4.7 of the Oconee 1/2/3 UFSAR states that, (1) the auxiliary building concrete masonry walls are non-structural, in-fill panels serving as partitions with some walls having pressure, fire, and radiation barrier applications; and (2) pursuant to I.E. Bulletin BO-11 "Masonry Wall Design" (ADAMS Accession No. MLOB031 0664), all masonry walls were re-evaluated.

I.E. Bulletin BO-11 was issued, because of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) concerns with the adequacy of design criteria used for the design of masonry walls at nuclear power plants. The guidance used by the licensee in the re-evaluation of the masonry walls was the American Concrete Institute (ACI) 531-79, "Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures." In addition, UFSAR Section 3.B.4.7 states that "NUREG-OBOO, Standard Review Plan (SRP) for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR

[Light Water Reactor] Edition," Section 3.B.4, Appendix A, "Interim Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation," Revision 1, July 19B1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML0523405BO) was the guidance used by the licensee in evaluation of masonry walls.

Oconee 1/2/3 UFSAR, Section 3.3.2 indicates that Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.76, "Design-Basis Tornado and Tornado Missiles for Nuclear Power Plants" (ADAMS Accession No. ML070360253, March 2007), was incorporated into the plant's licensing basis. Any new systems (and their associated components and/or structures) installed at the site will be required to resist tornado loading and will conform to the tornado wind, differential pressure, and missile criteria specified in RG 1.76, Revision 1.

The application of FRP and its ability to strengthen existing masonry brick walls to withstand tornado-induced pressure was evaluated by the NRC staff in accordance with guidance contain in the SRP, Section 3.B.4, "Other Seismic Category I Structures." This section of the SRP references ACI 531-79. Its provisions were also used by the NRC staff in the review of the LAR.

The licensee submitted a similar LAR to the NRC for authorization of the application of the FRP system on masonry block walls dated June 1, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML0615B007B), and was subsequently approved by the NRC in License Amendment Nos. 360, 362, and 361 dated February 21, 200B (ADAMS Accession No. MLOB0320065). This license amendment served as a precedent for the NRC staff's review of this LAR.

3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

The Oconee 1/2/3 auxiliary buildings' west penetration rooms' walls discussed in the LAR are double-wythe B-inches thick solid masonry brick walls constructed as in-fill exterior panels between the Oconee 1/2/3 auxiliary buildings reinforced concrete structural framing members.

The FRP system will be used on the exterior face of the existing brick walls for flexural strengthening. The typical FRP application will consist of a matrix of glass fiber bonded directly to the existing masonry brick walls with a polymer and overlapped to provide both horizontal and vertical reinforcement to resist tensile stresses induced at the exterior face of the brick walls by the tornado differential pressure.

The licensee stated, in the June 29, 2009, LAR, that (1) the FRP system will be used in a bond-critical application for flexural strengthening of the existing brick walls; (2) the wall loading condition is determined in accordance with the Oconee 1/2/3 current licensing basis, UFSAR 3.3.2, to be a uniform pressure of 1.2 pounds per square (psi) resulting from tornado-induced

- 3 differential pressure; (3) the FRP system wi" be subjected to a benign environment of ambient temperature and humidity conditions associated with the local climate; (4) although applied to the exterior surfaces of masonry brick walls, the FRP system will be shielded from sunlight (Le.,

ultraviolet radiation), adverse weather conditions (e.g., rain, snow, ice, etc.) by structural siding supported by a structural steel girt system attached to the auxiliary building structural framing members; and (5) future use of FRP, as proposed, will be predicated on the satisfactory completion of performance testing, commercial grade dedication of the FRP system and the incorporation of subsequent periodic surveillance requirements into the existing plant programs.

In the June 15, 2011, LAR supplement, the licensee clarified that (1) the structural siding supported by a structural frame/girt system will be installed on the reinforced concrete frame of the auxiliary building to resist tornado wind loads; and (2) the protection for the existing masonry walls against tornado generated missiles will be addressed in a separate license amendment.

The NRC staffs technical review covered information found in the LAR, and LAR supplements provided by the licensee. The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's proposed design methodology for FRP strengthening of the existing masonry brick walls that had been established based on a performance testing program. The acceptability and applicability of the licensee's methods for design, qualification, installation and preservice inspection, and inservice inspection are discussed below.

3.1 Performance Testing Program Due to a lack of available research on FRP strengthened double-wythe solid masonry brick walls, the licensee sponsored a performance testing program conducted at North Carolina State University (NCSU). The objective of the performance testing program was to determine the effectiveness of the strengthening of brick walls with glass FRP sheets to increase their flexural capacity.

As stated in the LAR, 14 wall specimens were tested in the NCSU performance testing program.

These test specimens were constructed using construction materials as closely as possible to the as-built materials of the existing brick walls of the Oconee 1/2/3 auxiliary buildings' west penetration rooms. The test specimens were both single- and double-wythe and were built, within reinforced concrete frames, using 4-inch solid concrete bricks. The brick wall test specimens were constructed under the supervision of the licensee's representatives to ensure that they were built in a manner consistent with the existing brick walls.

The testing program consisted of unstrengthened walls (control specimens) and strengthened walls with SO/50 to 100/1 00 percentages of FRP coverage in the vertical and horizontal directions.

The aspect ratios of the test specimens were selected as 1.0, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6, which closely correlated with the aspect ratios of the existing brick walls. A uniform loading simulating the tornado-induced differential pressure load was applied to the test specimens using an air bag.

FRP composite system materials proposed for strengthening the Oconee 1/2/3 auxiliary buildings' west penetration rooms' brick walls, Tyfo SEH-51A composite system (using Tyfo S Epoxy) manufactured by Fyfe Company LLC, were utilized in the performance testing program. The licensee stated that the same FRP material will be used in modifying the existing brick walls.

-4 As stated in the LAR, shrinkage cracks along the sides and settlement cracks along the top of the test specimens, at the mortar joint interface with the reinforced concrete framing members, were discovered during the course of the performance testing program conducted at NCSU. As a result, structural steel restraints were installed at the sides and top of the five final test specimens to preclude premature sliding shear failure of the test specimens. These five test specimens were constructed of double-wythe with no mortar in the collar jOint between the wythes. The licensee confirmed that this construction detail is consistent with the as-built condition of the existing brick walls at Oconee 1/2/3. These five test specimens were loaded to 3.9 psi, with the shear restraints in place, and no visible damage was indicated. One of the five test specimens were loaded beyond 3.9 psi with shear restraints in place and the results showed an elastic load-deflection behavior up to an applied pressure of approximately 5 times the design pressure of 1.2 psi.

3.1.1 NRC Staff's Evaluation The NRC staff finds the installation of the shear restraints necessary (1) to eliminate the premature sliding shear failure; (2) to provide consistency between the configuration of test specimens and the as-installed wall configuration at Oconee 1/2/3; and (3) to provide assurance that using a simply supported flat plate model, to determine the forces and moments in the masonry brick wall, is reasonable. In addition, although a total offourteen specimens were tested, the NRC staff finds the results of the performance testing of these five test specimens, that were constructed consistent with the as-built condition of the existing brick walls with shear restraints installed at the top and sides of the wall, to be relevant in determining the acceptability of the proposed FRP system design methodology.

3.2 FRP System Design Methodology The licensee proposes (1) to use working stress design for the FRP system design considering only the outer 4-inches wythe effective; (2) to use simply supported flat plate classical solution or computer analysis to determine the forces and moments in the wall; (3) to install shear restraints at the top and sides of the walls; (4) to use flexural and shear capacities based on allowable stresses provided in ACI 531-79 as supplemented by SRP 3.8.4, Appendix A; (5) to use an upper limit of 50 psi for the masonry shear stress allowable and an upper limit of 0.7 times compressive strength of masonry for the allowable flexural compressive stress; and (6) to use a maximum effective FRP strain of 0.0029, considering an environmental reduction factor of 0.65 and a bond dependent coefficient factor of 0.2.

The NRC staff's review primarily focused on the methodology of working stress design and its applicability to the masonry brick walls considering the results of the performance tests conducted at NCSU.

The design methodology only focuses on flexural strengthening of unreinforced brick walls and sizing the FRP system to resist the tornado differential pressure of 1.2 psi. In the June 24, 2010, LAR supplement, the licensee stated that field walk-downs of the Oconee 1/2/3 auxiliary building west penetration room exterior masonry walls have been performed in August 2009 and these walk-downs were repeated in April 2010. The licensee stated that no safety-related attachments would be adversely affected by outward deflection of the brick walls resulting from the design-basis tornado differential pressure loading condition.

- 5 In the June 6, 2011, LAR supplement, the licensee stated that, (1) the inspection of each of the masonry wall elements subject to FRP-strengthening is performed and documented by the responsible plant civil engineer, in accordance with Duke's Engineering Directive EDM-410; (2) this individual, who is a professional engineer, will examine the masonry walls for cracks in joints, unsealed penetrations, missing or broken bricks/blocks, sharp edges, protrusions, separation from supports and other defects; (3) in addition to the inspection performed by the professional civil engineer, a second inspection of the masonry walls surface areas and perimeters is performed by the Duke's craft supporting the FRP installer, prior to FRP installation, in accordance with the FRP installation procedure and any observed structural defect is brought to the attention of the responsible plant civil engineer for further evaluation; and (4) as part of the inservice inspection program of the FRP-strengthened walls, the bottom edge of the masonry walls will be inspected periodically to ensure its integrity.

In the June 6, 2011, LAR supplement, the licensee stated that (1) these shear restraints will be fastened to the auxiliary buildings' reinforced concrete structural framing members to provide support for the existing FRP strengthened brick walls; (2) the reaction forces imposed on these restraints resulting from the design basis tornado are enveloped by those associated with the design basis seismic event; (3) all shear restraints will be designed to resist masonry wall reactions resulting from the design-basis tornado differential pressure loading while meeting the design code allowable stresses; and (4) these restraints will be designed to ensure that their deflection, at the design loading, would not exceed the prescribed deflection criterion of 1116 (0.0625) inch.

The licensee stated, in its LAR supplements dated June 24, 2010, and June 6, 2011, that Duke has evaluated the effects of the increased masonry walls' stiffness resulting from the installation of FRP on the existing Oconee 1/2/3 auxiliary building masonry walls and concluded that the use of the FRP system on these walls has no adverse effect on the analyses and/or modifications performed in response to I.E. Bulletin 80-11.

3.2.1 NRC Staff's Evaluation The NRC staff considers the proposed design methodology for the design of the FRP system acceptable because (1) based on a review of the results of the performance tests, the ultimate strength of the test specimens with double-wythes was approximately 5 times the ultimate strength of the test specimens with single wythe, demonstrating that considering only the outer 4-inch wythe effective, provides additional margin of safety; (2) installation of shear restraints and the inspection of the bottom edge of the masonry walls, prior to FRP installation and during the inservice inspection program, will provide assurance that the boundary conditions assumed in the proposed analytical plate model are reasonable; (3) the allowable masonry stress levels for flexural compression and for shear conform to ACI 531-79, as supplemented by SRP 3.8.4, Appendix A with limitations on the shear stress allowable and allowable flexural compressive stress, are consistent with the previous NRC License Amendment Nos. 360, 362, and 361 dated February 21, 2008, approving FRP; (4) the results of the performance test of five test specimens with shear restraints indicate that the walls are capable of resisting 3.9 psi pressure with no visible damage; (5) the results of the performance test of one test specimen with shear restraints indicated an elastic load-deflection behavior up to an applied pressure of approximately five times the design pressure of 1.2 psi; (6) the licensee demonstrated that when the proposed design methodology was applied to the test specimens' configuration, the results indicated that there is sufficient margin of safety to resist the flexural and shear stresses due to 1.2 psi pressure; (7) the

-6 proposed design methodology effectively limits the FRP maximum strain to only 13 percent of the ultimate strain by considering an environmental reduction factor of 0.65 and a bond dependent coefficient factor of 0.2; (8) there is sufficient margin against the FRP maximum effective strain of 0.0029 in/in used in the proposed design methodology when compared against the recorded strains during the performance test due to 1.2 psi pressure; (9) no safety-related attachments to the FRP strengthened brick walls would be adversely affected by outward deflection of these walls resulting from the design-basis tornado differential pressure loading condition; and (10) the installation of the proposed FRP system has no adverse effects on the analyses and/or modifications performed in response to I.E. Bulletin 80-11.

In addition, the NRC staff finds the licensee's proposed methodology for the design of the shear restraints, based on a deflection criterion of 1/16 inch and compliance with the allowable stresses of the Oconee 1/2/3 structural steel design basis code, acceptable.

3.3 Applicability of the FRP System DeSign Methodology The licensee stated, in the LAR. that test specimens were subjected to a statically applied uniform loading to simulate a tornado-induced differential pressure load. In its June 15, 2011, LAR supplement, the licensee clarified that structural siding supported by a structural frame/girt system will be installed on the reinforced concrete frame of the Oconee 1/2/3 auxiliary building to resist tornado wind loads. The licensee also stated that the protection for the existing masonry walls against tornado generated missiles will be addressed in a separate LAR Therefore, the NRC staff's scope of review related to this LAR is limited to the design of the FRP system to resist the differential pressure load resulting from a design-basis tornado event.

The NRC staff reviewed the FRP system design methodology proposed in the LAR, considering the results of the experimental test of the masonry brick walls. As such, the NRC staff considers the proposed design methodology for the FRP system only applicable to flexural strengthening of the Oconee 1/2/3 auxiliary buildings brick walls to resist statically applied uniformly distributed out of plane loading. of the LAR lists 31 brick walls in the Oconee 1/213 auxiliary buildings that will be modified to install FRP. The aspect ratios, width-to-height or height-to-width ratio, of these walls range from approximately 1.0 to 1.6 with the exception of one wall located in Oconee 2 at elevation 809'-3", column line X and between column line 78a and the Oconee 2 reactor building.

The aspect ratio of this wall is approximately 3.0 and is outside of the range of the aspect ratios used for the test specimens. In the June 6, 2011, LAR supplement, the licensee stated that the height of this wall will not be modified to bring its aspect ratio within the range used in the performance test program conducted at NCSU. Accordingly, the NRC staff finds this wall outside of the parameters used in the performance test program. Thus, the design methodology for the FRP system design discussed in this safety evaluation is not applicable to this wall.

3.4 FRP System Qualification Method As stated in the LAR, installation of the FRP system will result in the use of a commercially available item in a QA Condition 1 application. The licensee committed to perform a technical evaluation of the FRP system (fibers and polymeriC resin) to demonstrate that (1) the FRP system qualifies as commercial grade in accordance with the licensee's Supply Chain Directive (SCD) 230, "Commercial Grade Items;" (2) the supplier is capable of supplying a quality product in

-7 accordance with SCD 230; and (3) the quality of the FRP system has been evaluated in accordance with "Acceptance Criteria for Concrete and Reinforced and Unreinforced Masonry Strengthening Using Externally Bonded Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composite Systems,"

International Code Council (ICC) AC12S, January 2007.

In the June 24, 2010, LAR supplement, the licensee stated that (1) Duke has procured, by commercial grade dedication for quality assurance (QA) Condition 1 application, the FRP primer, epoxies and fiberglass fabric through independent qualification testing by Nuclear Logistics, Inc.

(NU); (2) NUts Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part SO, Appendix B, program has been reviewed, audited, and approved in accordance with Duke's Supply Chain Directive SCD230; (3) NUts overall "Inspection and Testing Plan" and individual component "Verification Plans" were approved by Duke prior to qualification testing; (4) qualification testing was performed in accordance with ICC AC12S using American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard test methods for each selected parameter; (S) pre-installation qualification tests were performed by NU in accordance with these plans and referenced standards; and (6) test results were accepted by Duke and were consistent with the component manufacturer's stated values.

The licensee also stated that the manufacturer of the FRP products has provided Duke with a certificate of compliance certifying that both the FRP product and its installation procedures meet all applicable requirements.

3.4.1 NRC Staffs Evaluation According to Oconee 1/213 UFSAR, Section 3.1.1.1, Duke established the QA-1 program to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part SO, Appendix B. Considering that the licensee (1) will perform a technical evaluation in accordance with the appropriate industry guidance and established plant procedure for commercial dedication to demonstrate the quality of the FRP system in a safety-related application and the ability of the FRP vendor to supply a quality product; (2) stated that the manufacturer of the FRP products has provided Duke with a certificate of compliance certifying that both the FRP product and its installation procedures meet all applicable requirements; and (3) will use independent qualification testing to demonstrate the critical design parameters of the FRP system are consistent with the manufacturer's stated values, the NRC staff concludes that the quality of the FRP system is reasonably assured.

3.S FRP System Installation and Preservice Inspection As stated in Enclosure 2 to the LAR, the licensee (1) will utilize technical procedures to control testing of the brick wall substrate and installation and inspection of the FRP system in accordance with ICC AC12S, ACI 440.2R-02, "Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures," and ICC AC178, "Acceptance Criteria for Inspection and Verification of Concrete and Reinforced and Unreinforced Masonry Strengthening using Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composite Systems," June 2008; (2) will have personnel certified and trained by the FRP system manufacturer to install the specified system; (3) will use certified installers and accredited quality control inspectors during installation of the FRP system.

As discussed in Section 3.2 of this safety evaluation, the licensee will perform an inspection of each wall subject to FRP-strengthening by a professional civil engineer, in accordance with Duke's Engineering Directive EDM-410. The licensee also stated that a second inspection of the

-8 masonry walls is performed prior to FRP installation, in accordance with the FRP installation procedure, and appropriate repairs will be performed as a result of either inspection's findings.

Also, as stated in the June 24 2010, LAR supplement, the licensee stated, that to control installation of the FRP system, technical procedures for each unit have been written, reviewed and approved in accordance with Duke's quality assurance program requirements. The technical procedures are identical for each unit and address the installation of the FRP system as well as quality control inspections and tests including both in-process testing and post-installation testing, and the quality requirements specified by the FRP manufacturer.

3.5.1 NRC Staff's Evaluation Considering that the licensee will (1) use certified installers; (2) use quality control personnel oversight; (3) inspect each wall supject to FRP-strengthening according to the plant's engineering directive EDM-41 0 prior to installation of the FRP system; (4) perform in-process and post-installation testing of the FRP system; and (5) comply with the industry standards ICC AC125, ACI440.2R-02, and ICC AC178, the NRC staff concludes that the quality of the FRP system installation and adequacy of the inspection of the existing brick walls prior and subsequent to application of the FRP system is reasonably assured.

3.6 FRP System Inservice Inspection The licensee stated that (1) the FRP system will be subjected to ambient temperature and humidity conditions associated with the local climate; (2) although applied to the exterior surfaces of masonry walls, the FRP system will be shielded from sunlight and adverse weather conditions (e.g., rain, snow, ice, etc.) by structural siding; and (3) the FRP system will not be exposed to high temperature gas and/or liquid or significant radiation levels.

In LAR supplements dated June 24,2010, and June 6,2011, the licensee provided additional information to substantiate that the maximum expected temperature in the confined space between the metal siding and the brick walls is approximately 121.3 degrees (0) Fahrenheit (F),

which is below the manufacturer's stated FRP glass transition temperature of 180 OF, providing an approximate margin of 60 OF. The licensee calculated the expected temperature of 121.3 OF, based on approximately 100 years of local climate temperature data.

In the June 24,2010, LAR supplement, the licensee further clarified that (1) based on radiation testing of the Tyfo glass fiber reinforced polymer, no adverse effects in the mechanical properties of the FRP system were observed; and (2) based on a review of recent radiological surveys in the vicinity of FRP applications, the expected dose rates are far below the dose rate used in the FRP system radiation testing that was conducted.

In the LAR supplement dated June 24,2010, the licensee stated, that (1) four FRP test panels will be installed on the auxiliary building masonry walls for the inservice inspection of the FRP system; (2) the FRP test panels will be installed in the same manner as the design applications; (3) the FRP test wall panels will be subject to the same environmental conditions as the design FRP-strengthened wall elements; and (4) to facilitate inservice inspection of the FRP test panels, small removable portions of siding will be installed.

As stated in the LAR supplements dated February 15, 2011, and June 6, 2011, the licensee committed to incorporate the FRP testing and inspection into the Oconee 1/2/3 aging

-9 management program. As stated in the LAR supplement dated June 6,2011, the licensee will perform inservice inspection of the FRP system installed on the Oconee 1/2/3 auxiliary building masonry block and brick walls through the end of its operating license. For the first 6 years after the installation of the FRP system, the inservice inspections will be performed at each unit's outage, nominally every 2 years. Then, the interval may be increased to 4 years (every other unit outage) provided no FRP degradation is identified in previous inspections. Based on continued no observed FRP degradation, the inspection interval may be increased to a nominal 6 years (every third unit outage) thereafter through the end of the operating license in July 2034. For specifics, see Section 3.7, Commitment NO.4.

As part of the inservice inspection of the FRP strengthened masonry walls, the licensee will perform visual inspections, both using direct "eyes-on" inspection and remote video camera inspections, to identify changes in color, debonding, peeling, blistering, cracking, moisture intrusion and other anomalies. The licensee will perform visual inspections and adhesion pull-off testing on designated test panels using methods specified in the "Standard Test Method for Pull-Off Adhesion Strength of Coatings on Concrete Using Portable Adhesion Testers,"

ASTM D7234.

The licensee will use a random sampling process in its inservice inspection program of the FRP strengthened walls. The licensee will select the number of random samples in accordance with the guidelines of draft regulatory guide DG-1070, "Sampling Plans Used for Dedicating Simple Metallic Commercial Grade Items for use in Nuclear Power Plants." In addition to the random samples, the inservice inspection plan will include control samples of wall elements, which will be inspected at each inspection interval, to monitor the long-term performance of the FRP strengthened walls. As stated in the June 6, 2011, LAR supplement the licensee will provide two removable siding panels at each unit's auxiliary building (one for the cask decontamination tank room and one for the west penetration room) for the purpose of "eyes-on" inspection of the control samples.

The licensee stated that the inservice inspection reports will be maintained as quality assurance records in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, for the life of the plant.

3.6.1 NRC Staff's Evaluation The licensee provided additional information to demonstrate that (1) the FRP system will be subjected to a maximum expected temperature of 121.3 OF which is 60 OF below the FRP glass transition temperature; and (2) the expected dose rates are far below the dose rate used in the durability tests performed for the FRP system. The NRC staff finds the licensee's response to the RAI acceptable because (1) there are adequate margins of safety against the glass transition temperature limit and the dose rate used for the durability testing of the FRP system, and (2) the licensee committed to include the inservice inspection of the FRP system into Oconee 1/213's aging management program and the intervals of the inservice inspections are reasonably spaced to provide effective monitoring of the FRP system.

Furthermore, the NRC staff notes that the underlying premise of draft regulatory guide DG-1 070 is that individual inspection lots should be sampled in a way that will give a high confidence of a low defect rate. The number of random samples required in Table 1 of DG-1070 provides 95 percent confidence that no more than 5 percent of the acceptable items could have defects. This will provide an adequate number of random samples used for inservice inspection of the FRP system

- 10 installed on the Oconee 1/2/3 auxiliary buildings' walls. Additionally, including control samples in the inservice inspection program of the FRP system, visual inspections, and pull-off testing of four FRP test panels, further supplements the random sampling process and provides the means to monitor the development and progression of defects. Therefore, the NRC staff finds that the licensee's proposed inservice inspection of the FRP strengthened masonry walls, including the use of random and control samples and inspection intervals, provide reasonable assurance that the aging effects will be adequately monitored.

3.7 Regulatory Commitments , Attachment 2.2 of the LAR includes a list of regulatory commitments. Subsequently, in its June 15, 2011, LAR supplement, the licensee expanded and revised the regulatory commitments associated with this LAR. The following table identifies those actions committed to by the licensee:

Commitment Completion Date Staff's Evaluation Addressed in SE

1. Duke will perform qualification testing and Complete Section 3.5.1 reporting in accordance with ICC AC125

[Approved 10/2006, Effective 1/1/2007] for the selected FRP System.

2. Duke will perform and document a technical Complete Section 3.4.1 evaluation of the FRP system (fibers and polymeric resin) in accordance with Duke's Supply Chain Directive SCD230 [Reference 7 of Enclosure 2] to demonstrate that:

• The item qualifies as a commercial grade item.

• The supplier is capable of supplying a quality product.

• The quality of the item can be reasonably assured.

3. Duke will utilize technical procedures to Complete Section 3.5.1 control testing of concrete substrate and installation and inspection of the FRP system in accordance with ICC AC125 [Approved 10/2006, Effective 1/1/2007], ACI 440.2R-02

[Effective 7/1/2002], and ICC AC178

[Approved 6/2003, Effective 7/1/2003, editorially revised 6/2008J.

- 11 Commitment Completion Date Staff's Evaluation Addressed in SE

4. Duke will perform long-term inspection of the Prior to implementation Sections 3.6 and FRP system as described in UFSAR Section of the approved license 3.6.1 18.3.13 and EDM-410, and meeting the amendment for the FRP requirements of ICC AC125 [Approved UFSAR changes.

10/2006, Effective 1/1/2007], ACI 440.2R-02

[Effective 7/1/2002], and ICC AC178

[Approved 6/2003, Effective 7/1/2003, Editorially revised 6/2008], on the following schedule: at each unit's outage cycle for the first 6 years from 2012 through 2017, then, if justified based on no observed FRP degradation, transition to every-other outage cycle for the next 4 years from 2018 through 2021, then, if justified based on continued no observed FRP degradation, transition to every third outage cycle thereafter from 2022 until end of license in July 2034. Inspections of the installed FRP system will include:

• visual inspections of test walls and portions (both random and controlled locations) of WPR inservice walls for changes in color, debonding, peeling, blistering, cracking, crazing, deflections and other anomalies;

• tension adhesion testing of cored samples taken from designated test walls using methods specified in ASTM D7234; and,

• visual inspections of mortar joints located along the bottom edge of FRP-strengthened masonry walls.

For each inspection interval, the portions of FRP-strengthened masonry walls to be inspected will be chosen in accordance with a sampling plan developed from guidance provided by a) Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1070, "Sampling Plans Used for Dedicating Simple Metallic Commercial Grade Items for use in Nuclear Power Plants",

and b) EPRI NP-7218 document "Guidelines for the Utilization of Sampling Plans for Commercial Grade Item Acceptance" (NCIG-19), as implemented at Oconee 1/2/3 by Supply Chain Directive SCD-290 [(new) Reference 21 of ].

- 12 Commitment Completion Date Staff's Evaluation Addressed in SE

5. Duke will install mechanical shear restraints Prior to implementation Sections 3.1.1 along the brick masonry wall perimeter (top of the approved license and 3.2.1 and sides only) and block masonry wall amendment for the FRP perimeter (top only) to remediate potentially UFSAR changes.

limiting conditions of construction.

6. Duke will incorporate the FRP testing and Prior to implementation Sections 3.6 and inspection program into Oconee 1/2/3 aging of the approved license 3.6.1 management program. amendment for the FRP UFSAR changes.

7. As discussed with the Staff, Fyfe Company, Complete Section 3.4.1 LLC, the manufacturer of the FRP products, will provide Duke with a Certificate of Compliance certifying that both the FRP product and its installation meet all applicable requirements.

4.0

SUMMARY

In the June 15, 2011, LAR supplement, the licensee clarified that structural siding supported by a structural frame/girt system will be installed on the reinforced concrete frame of the Oconee 1/2/3 auxiliary building to resist tornado wind loads. The licensee also stated that the protection for the existing masonry walls against tornado generated missiles will be addressed in a separate LAR.

Therefore, the NRC staff's scope of review related to this LAR was limited to the acceptability of the proposed design methodology of the FRP system, supported by the results of the performance test program conducted at NCSU, to strengthen the existing masonry brick walls to resist the differential pressure load resulting from a design basis tornado event. '

On the basis of the technical evaluation of the licensee's proposed design methodology, qualification, installation and preservice inspection, inservice inspection of the FRP system, and the licensee's regulatory commitments, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed design methodology for the FRP system is acceptable for use to strengthen the existing masonry brick walls in the Oconee 1/2/3 auxiliary buildings' west penetration rooms to withstand the differential pressure loads resulting from a design basis tornado event. The NRC staff notes that 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B requirements are applicable to the design, purchase, fabrication, handling, shipping, storage, inspection, testing, and installation of the FRP system.

The NRC staff also notes that the aspect ratio of one wall, located in Oconee 2 at elevation 809'-3",

column line X and between column line 78a and the Oconee 2 reactor building, is approximately 3.0 and is outside of the range of the aspect ratios used in the performance test program. Thus, the design methodology for the FRP system design discussed in this Safety Evaluation is not applicable to this wall.

- 13

5.0 FINAL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION

The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92(c), "Issuance of amendment," state that the Commission may make a final determination that a license amendment involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility in accordance with the amendment would not:

(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences or an accident previously evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

As required by 10 CFR 50.91 (a), the analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:

Criterion 1: The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

Response: Physical protection from a tornado event is a design basis criterion rather than a requirement of a previously analyzed UFSAR accident analysis. The current licensing basis (CLB) for Oconee states that systems, structures, and components (SSC's) required to shut down and maintain the units in a shutdown condition will not fail as a result of damage caused by natural phenomena.

The in-fill masonry walls to be strengthened using an FRP system are passive, non-structural elements. The use of an FRP system on existing Auxiliary Building masonry walls will allow them to resist uniform pressure loads resulting from a tornado and will not adversely affect the structure's ability to withstand other design basis events such as earthquakes or fires.

Therefore, the proposed use of FRP on existing masonry walls will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 2: The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

Response: The final state of the FRP system is passive in nature and will not initiate or cause an accident. More generally, this understanding supports the conclusion that the potential for new or different kinds of accidents is not created.

Criterion 3: The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Response: The application of an FRP system to existing Auxiliary Building masonry walls will act to enhance the margin of safety, e.g., the West Penetration Room walls, by increasing the walls' ability to resist tornado-induced differential pressure.

- 14 Consequently, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Based on this review, the NRC staff has concluded that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c}

are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff has made a final determination that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.

6.0 STATE CONSULTATION

In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the South Carolina State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The amendments change a requirement with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and change surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts and no significant change in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has made a final no significant hazards consideration finding with respect to the amendments. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c}(9}. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.

8.0 CONCLUSION

The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor: F. Farzad Date: June 27, 2011

P. Gillespie - 2 If you have any questions, please call me at 301-415-1345.

Sincerely, IRA!

John Stang, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287

Enclosures:

1. Amendment No. 373 to DPR-38

2. Amendment No. 375 to DPR-47

3. Amendment No. 374 to DPR-55

4. Safety Evaluation cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC LPLII-1 RIF RidsAcrsAcnw_MailCtr Resource RidsNrrDirsltsb Resource RidsNrrDorlDpr Resource RidsNrrDorlLp2-1 Resource RidsNrrEmcb Resource RidsNrrLAMOBrien Resource (hard copy)

RidsNrrPMOconee Resource (hard copy)

RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn2MailCenter Resource F. Farzad NRR ADAM S Accession No. ML11164A257 s . d by memo d ated 6/1 51201 1

• E transmltte OFFICE NRRlLPL2-1/PM NRRlLPL2-1/LA NRRlEMCB/BC OGC NLO NRR/LPL2-1IBC NRRlLPL2-1/PM NAME JStang MO'Brien MKhanna* DRoth GKulesa JStang DATE 6/14/11 6120/11 6/15/11 6/16/11 6121111 6/27/11 OFFICIAL RECORD COpy