ML14058A030: 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)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 19: Line 19:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:2U3,'1t' ui'iaiu , -ensi [/U.SNRC
{{#Wiki_filter:2[/U.SNRC U3,'1t'             ui'iaiu
""=I In nf6~ d'nOconee Flood Protection and the10 CFR 50,54() ResponseNRR ET MeetingOctober 23, 2008October 23, 2008 fri , i,, I knlxt -1 S caiuse )ensi ve(Ij2S.NRC  
                      ""=I           ,- ensi nf6~
=naIUnatNifectil h~opfa and ihg &avironmw"I-Objectives Purposes-Summarize the licensee's responses
In  d'n e*
-Discuss the staff's evaluation
Oconee Flood Protection and the 10 CFR 50,54() Response NRR ET Meeting October 23, 2008 October 23, 2008       fri i,,,I knlxt -
-Receive ET feedback on the merits ofproposed key messages to the licenseeOctober 23, 20082 unfici ausenai ensivUSNRC Ia Infar,Nwcing People and Ow Envronment
1
 
S caiuse   )ensi ve (Ij2S.NRC                                 =naIUnat andihg&avironmw"I-Nifectil h~opfa Objectives Purposes
            -Summarize the licensee's responses
            -Discuss the staff's evaluation
            -Receive ET feedback on the merits of proposed key messages to the licensee October 23, 2008                                      2
 
unfici ausenai   ensiv USNRC                                  Ia Infar, Nwcing People andOwEnvronment


===Background===
===Background===
, NRC inspections in 1994 and 2005Issues regarding Oconee external flooding licensing basis, FERC-required inundation study (1992)-Site flood height as high as 16.8 fp.et, Unclear demonstration of flood height foradequate protection s Underestimated Jocassee Dam failurefrequency
, NRC inspections in1994 and 2005 Issues regarding Oconee external flooding licensing basis
@ 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter to Duke to addressflooding concernsOctober 23, 20083
, FERC-required inundation study (1992)
( USNRCP*fiq~an P"oPke : te £acwomwuld Principal 10 CFR 50.54(f Questions Regarding Oconee Flood1. Explain the bounding external flood hazard atOconee and the basis for excluding consideration ofother external flood hazards, such as those described in the Inundation Study, as the bounding case.2. Provide your assessment of the Inundation Study andwhy it does or does not represent the expected floodheight following a Jocassee Dam failure.3. Describe in detail the nuclear safety implications offloods that render unavailable the SSF andassociated support equipment with a concurrent lossof all Alternating Current power.October 23, 2008 Official ly -Se it e 4x,-~f'rnal Info 't~o iLicensee's ResponseWritten response-Assessed inundation levels based on current drought conditions
        -   Site flood height as high as 16.8 fp.et
-Committed to increase current flood walls by 2.5 feet byFebruary 2009-Proposed further analysis by February 2010-Relied heavily on test and inspection of dam to support lowfrequency assumptions
, Unclear demonstration of flood height for adequate protection s Underestimated Jocassee Dam failure frequency
-Asserted that seismic failure is "not credible"
@10 CFR 50.54(f) letter to Duke to address flooding concerns October 23, 2008 3
-Asserted that other dam failure modes (i.e., overtopping)  
 
"notcredible"
( USNRC  P"oPke P*fiq~an : te £acwomwuld Principal 10 CFR 50.54(f Questions Regarding Oconee Flood 1.Explain the bounding external flood hazard at Oconee and the basis for excluding consideration of other external flood hazards, such as those described inthe Inundation Study, as the bounding case.
@ Oral response-Stated that watertight doors could be procured for the SSF-Stated that SSF walls can accommodate the impact of a 16.8foot floodOctober 23, 2008 0 ff'IUse -Sen sve 5Intr Inora ' n  
2.Provide your assessment of the Inundation Study and why itdoes or does not represent the expected flood height following aJocassee Dam failure.
(-ýUS.NRCC In omtReview of Licensee's Response@ Interim continued operation acceptable if:-Licensee commits to water management of Jocassee Lakelevels-Licensee addresses SSF availability
3.Describe indetail the nuclear safety implications of floods that render unavailable the SSF and associated support equipment with aconcurrent loss of all Alternating Current power.
# Insufficient basis for final resolution-current and future-Limited scope> Lack of adequate seismic analysisLack of a probable maximum precipitation (PMP) analysis-Inadequate dam failure modelingTime of failure> Size of breachAnalysis model-Inadequate probabilistic argumentOctober 23, 20086 I I?megdteEzRC Inm rngProposed Key Messages For November 5, 2008Meeting with Licensees Interim continued operation acceptable if:-Licensee commits to water management of Jocassee Lake levels-Licensee addresses SSF availability e Insufficient basis for final resolution-current and future-Limited scope> Lack of adequate seismic analysis> Lack of a probable maximum precipitation (PMP) analysis-Inadequate dam failure modeling> Time of failure> Size of breach> Analysis model-Inadequate probabilistic argument.SSF improvements
October 23, 2008               Official       ly - Se it e       4 x,-~f'rnal Info 't~o
-Scope, timing, and commitment unclear.Emphasis on timely resolution
 
.Letter conveying these concerns will be issued by November 21, 2008October 23, 20087}}
iLicensee's Response Written response
      - Assessed inundation levels based on current drought conditions
      - Committed to increase current flood walls by 2.5 feet by February 2009
      - Proposed further analysis by February 2010
      - Relied heavily on test and inspection of dam to support low frequency assumptions
      - Asserted that seismic failure is"not credible"
      - Asserted that other dam failure modes (i.e., overtopping) "not credible"
@Oral response
      - Stated that watertight doors could be procured for the SSF
      - Stated that SSF walls can accommodate the impact of a 16.8 foot flood October 23, 2008           0 ff'IUse     -Sen sve                     5 IntrInora ' n
 
(-ýUS.NRCC                             In omt Review of Licensee's Response
  @Interim continued operation acceptable if:
        - Licensee commits to water management of Jocassee Lake levels
        - Licensee addresses SSF availability
  # Insufficient basis for final resolution-current and future
        - Limited scope
              > Lack of adequate seismic analysis
* Lack of a probable maximum precipitation (PMP) analysis
        - Inadequate dam failure modeling Time of failure
              > Size of breach
* Analysis model
        - Inadequate probabilistic argument October 23, 2008                                                      6
 
I I
  ?megdteEzRC                                 Inm       rng Proposed Key Messages For November 5,2008 Meeting with Licensee s Interim continued operation acceptable if:
    - Licensee commits to water management of Jocassee Lake levels
    - Licensee addresses SSF availability e Insufficient basis for final resolution-current and future
      - Limited scope
            > Lack of adequate seismic analysis
            > Lack of aprobable maximum precipitation (PMP) analysis
    - Inadequate dam failure modeling
            > Time of failure
            > Size of breach
            > Analysis model
    - Inadequate probabilistic argument
. SSF improvements
      - Scope, timing, and commitment unclear
. Emphasis on timely resolution
. Letter conveying these concerns will be issued by November 21, 2008 October 23, 2008                                                      7}}

Latest revision as of 08:44, 4 November 2019

NRR ET Meeting on Oconee Flood Protection and the 10 CFR 50.54(f) Response
ML14058A030
Person / Time
Site: Oconee  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 10/23/2008
From:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML14055A421 List: ... further results
References
FOIA/PA-2012-0325
Download: ML14058A030 (7)
v • d • e


Text

2[/U.SNRC U3,'1t' ui'iaiu

""=I ,- ensi nf6~

In d'n e*

Oconee Flood Protection and the 10 CFR 50,54() Response NRR ET Meeting October 23, 2008 October 23, 2008 fri i,,,I knlxt -

1

S caiuse )ensi ve (Ij2S.NRC =naIUnat andihg&avironmw"I-Nifectil h~opfa Objectives Purposes

-Summarize the licensee's responses

-Discuss the staff's evaluation

-Receive ET feedback on the merits of proposed key messages to the licensee October 23, 2008 2

unfici ausenai ensiv USNRC Ia Infar, Nwcing People andOwEnvronment

Background

, NRC inspections in1994 and 2005 Issues regarding Oconee external flooding licensing basis

, FERC-required inundation study (1992)

- Site flood height as high as 16.8 fp.et

, Unclear demonstration of flood height for adequate protection s Underestimated Jocassee Dam failure frequency

@10 CFR 50.54(f) letter to Duke to address flooding concerns October 23, 2008 3

( USNRC P"oPke P*fiq~an  : te £acwomwuld Principal 10 CFR 50.54(f Questions Regarding Oconee Flood 1.Explain the bounding external flood hazard at Oconee and the basis for excluding consideration of other external flood hazards, such as those described inthe Inundation Study, as the bounding case.

2.Provide your assessment of the Inundation Study and why itdoes or does not represent the expected flood height following aJocassee Dam failure.

3.Describe indetail the nuclear safety implications of floods that render unavailable the SSF and associated support equipment with aconcurrent loss of all Alternating Current power.

October 23, 2008 Official ly - Se it e 4 x,-~f'rnal Info 't~o

iLicensee's Response Written response

- Assessed inundation levels based on current drought conditions

- Committed to increase current flood walls by 2.5 feet by February 2009

- Proposed further analysis by February 2010

- Relied heavily on test and inspection of dam to support low frequency assumptions

- Asserted that seismic failure is"not credible"

- Asserted that other dam failure modes (i.e., overtopping) "not credible"

@Oral response

- Stated that watertight doors could be procured for the SSF

- Stated that SSF walls can accommodate the impact of a 16.8 foot flood October 23, 2008 0 ff'IUse -Sen sve 5 IntrInora ' n

(-ýUS.NRCC In omt Review of Licensee's Response

@Interim continued operation acceptable if:

- Licensee commits to water management of Jocassee Lake levels

- Licensee addresses SSF availability

  1. Insufficient basis for final resolution-current and future

- Limited scope

> Lack of adequate seismic analysis

  • Lack of a probable maximum precipitation (PMP) analysis

- Inadequate dam failure modeling Time of failure

> Size of breach

  • Analysis model

- Inadequate probabilistic argument October 23, 2008 6

I I

?megdteEzRC Inm rng Proposed Key Messages For November 5,2008 Meeting with Licensee s Interim continued operation acceptable if:

- Licensee commits to water management of Jocassee Lake levels

- Licensee addresses SSF availability e Insufficient basis for final resolution-current and future

- Limited scope

> Lack of adequate seismic analysis

> Lack of aprobable maximum precipitation (PMP) analysis

- Inadequate dam failure modeling

> Time of failure

> Size of breach

> Analysis model

- Inadequate probabilistic argument

. SSF improvements

- Scope, timing, and commitment unclear

. Emphasis on timely resolution

. Letter conveying these concerns will be issued by November 21, 2008 October 23, 2008 7

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML14058A030&oldid=2052812"