ML17054C552

From kanterella
Revision as of 00:40, 8 July 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1 - Documentation of the Completion of Required Actions Taken in Response to the Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident
ML17054C552
Person / Time
Site: Clinton Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 06/28/2017
From: Marshall J E
Japan Lessons-Learned Division
To: Bryan Hanson
Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear
Bernardo R J, NRR/JLD 415-2621
References
Download: ML17054C552 (26)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 Mr. Bryan C. Hanson Senior Vice President Exelon Generation Company, LLC President and Chief Nuclear Officer Exelon Nuclear 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville , IL 60555 June 28 , 2017

SUBJECT:

CLINTON POWER STATION , UNIT NO. 1 -DOCUMENTATION OF THE COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIONS TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO THE LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE FUKUSHIMA DAl-ICHI ACCIDENT

Dear Mr. Hanson:

The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge and document that actions required by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in orders issued following the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station have been completed for Clinton Power Station , Unit No. 1 (Clinton). In addition , this letter acknowledges and documents that Exelon Generation Company , LLC (Exelon , the licensee) has provided the information requested in the NRC's March 12 , 2012 request for information under Title 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f), related to the lessons learned from that accident.

Completing these actions and providing the requested information , in conjunction with the regulatory activities associated with the Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events (MBDBE) rulemaking , implements the safety enhancements mandated by the NRC based on the lessons learned from the accident.

Relevant NRC , industry, and licensee documents are listed in the reference tables provided in the enclosure to this letter. The NRC will provide oversight of these safety enhancements through the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP). BACKGROUND In response to the events in Japan resulting from the Great Tohoku Earthquake and subsequent tsunami on March 11 , 2011 , the NRC took immediate action to confirm the safety of U.S. nuclear power plants:

  • On March 18 , 2011 , the NRC issued Information Notice 2011-05 , "T ohoku-Taiheiyou-Oki Earthquake Effects on Japanese Nuclear Power Pl a nts" (Reference 1.1 ). The inform ation notice was issued to inform U.S. operating power re ac tor licens ees and applicants of the effects from the earthquake and tsunami. Recipients were expected to review the information for applicability to their facilities and consider actions, as appropriate. Suggestions contained in an information notice are no t NRC requirements
therefore , no specific action or written response was required.
  • On March 23 , 2011, the NRC issued Temporary In struc tion (Tl) 25 1 5/183 , "Fo llowup to the Fukushima Daiichi Fuel Damage E v ent." The purpose of Tl 25 1 5/183 w as to provide NRC inspectors with guidance on confirming the reliability of lice nsees' strategies intended to B. Hanson maintain or restore core cooling , containment , and spent fuel pool cooling capabilities following events that may exceed the design basis for a plant. The results of the inspection for each licensee were documented in an inspection report (Reference 1.2).
  • On March 23 , 2011 , the Commission provided staff requirements memorandum (SRM) COMGBJ-11-0002 , " NRC Actions Following the Events in Japan." The tasking memorandum directed the Executive Director for Operations to establish a senior level agency task force , referred to as the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF), to conduct a methodical and systematic review of the NRC processes and regulations to determine whether the agency should make additional improvements to the regulatory system and make recommendations to the Commission within 90 days for its policy direction (Reference 1.3).
  • On April 29 , 2011 , the NRC issued Tl 2515/184 , " Availability and Readiness Inspection of Severe Accident Management Guidelines (SAMGs)." The purpose of Tl2515/184 was to inspect the readiness of nuclear power plant operators to implement SAMGs. The results of the inspection were summarized and provided to the NTTF , as well as documented in a 2011 quarterly integrated i nspection report for each licensee (Reference 1.4).
  • On May 11 , 2011 , the NRC issued Bulletin (BL) 2011-01 , "Mitigating Strategies

." BL 2011-01 required licensees to provide a comprehensive verification of their compliance with the regulatory requirements 10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2), as well as provide information associated w i th the licensee's mitigation strategies under that section. 1 O CFR 50.54(hh)(2) states , in part: " Each licensee shall develop and implement guidance and strategies intended to maintain or restore core cooling, containment, and spent fuel pool cooling capabilities under the circumstances associated with loss of large areas of the plant due to explosions or fire ... " BL 2011-01 required a written response from each licensee (Reference 1.5).

  • On July 21 , 2011 , the NRC staff provided the NTTF report , " Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 2 P' Century: The Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident" to the Commission in SECY-11-0093 , " Near-Term Report and Recommendations for Agency Actions Following the Events in Japan" (Reference 1.6).
  • On October 3 , 2011 , the staff prioritized the NTTF recommendations into three tiers in SECY-11-0137 , " Prioritization of Recommended Actions To Be Taken i n Response to Fukushima Lessons Learned." The Commission approved the staff's prioritization , with comment , in the SRM to SECY-11-0137 (Reference 1.7). A complete discussion of the prioritization of the recommendations from the NTTF report , additional issues that were addressed subsequent to the NTTF report , and the disposition of the issues that were prioritized as Tier 2 or Tier 3 is provided in SECY-17-0016 , " Status of Implementation of Lessons Learned from Japan's March 11 , 2011 , Great Tohoku Earthquake and Subsequent Tsunami" (Reference 12.10). A listing of the previous Commission status reports, which were provided semiannually , can be found in Table 12 in the enclosure to this letter. The NRC undertook the follow i ng regulatory activities to address the majority of the Tier 1 recommendations

B. Hanson

  • On March 12, 2012, the NRG issued Orders EA-12-049, " Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events ," EA-12-050 , "Issuance of Order to Modify Licenses with Regard to Reliable Hardened Containment Vents ," and EA-12-051 , "Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation," and a request for information under 1 O CFR 50.54(f) (hereafter referred to as the 50.54(f) letter) to licensees (References 1.8 , 1.9 , 1.10 , and 1.11 , respectively).
  • On June 6 , 2013 , the NRG issued Order EA-13-109 , " Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Hardened Containment Vents Capable of Operation under Severe Accident Conditions" (Reference 1.12), which superseded Order EA-12-050, replacing its requirements with modified requirements.
  • In addition to the three orders and the 50.54(f) letter , the NRG is considering a new regulation (1 O CFR 50.155, " Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events"). The draft final rule and supporting documentation were provided to the Commission for approval in SECY-16-0142 , " Draft Final Rule -Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events (RJN 3150-AJ49)" (Reference 1.13). The MBDBE rulemaking would consolidate several of the recommendations from the NTTF report. The draft final rule , as provided to the Commission, contains provisions that make generically applicable the requirements imposed by Orders EA-12-049 and EA-12-051 and supporting requirements for the integrated response capability that includes staffing , communications, training, drills or exercises , and documentation of changes. The draft final rule also contains requirements for licensees to consider the effects of the reevaluated se i smic and flooding hazard information identified in response to Enclosures 1 and 2 of the 50.54(f) letter. Three proposed regulatory guides (References 1.14 , 1.15 , and 1.16) were included to provide methods and procedures that the NRG staff considers acceptable for licensees to demonstrate compliance with the MBDBE rule , if approved by the Commission.

This letter acknowledges and documents that the actions required by the NRG in response to the orders , as well as the information provided in response to the March 12 , 2012 , 50.54(f) letter , have been completed for Clinton. However , the staff is not determining whether the licensee complies with the draft final MBDBE rule. Oversight of compliance with the final draft MBDBE rule at Clinton will be conducted through the ROP , if the Commission approves the rule. DISCUSSION Mitigation Strategies Order Order EA-12-049 , which applies to Clinton, requires licensees to implement a three-phase approach for mitigation of beyond-design-basis external events (BDBEE). It requires licensees to develop , implement , and maintain guidance and strategies to maintain or restore core cooling , containment , and spent fuel pool (SFP) cooling capabilities in the event of a BDBEE that results in a simultaneous loss of all alternating current (ac) power and loss of normal access to the ultimate heat sink (LUHS). Phases 1 and 2 of the order use onsite equipment , while Phase 3 requires obtaining sufficient offsite resources to sustain those functions indefinitely. In August 2012 , the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) issued industry guidance document NEI 12-06 , " Diverse and Flexible Coping Strategies (FLEX) Implementation Guide ," as guidance B. Hanson to comply with the order. The NRC endorsed the guidance in Japan Lessons-Learned Directorate (JLD) interim staff guidance (ISG) document JLD-ISG-2012-01 , " Compliance with Order EA-12-049 , Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Requirements for Mit i gation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events" (Reference 2.1 ). Under the order , licensees were required to provide an overall integrated plan (OIP) to describe how they would comp l y with the order , along with status reports every 6 months until compliance was achieved (Reference 2.2). The NRC staff provided an interim staff evaluation (ISE) related to the OIP (Reference 2.3). Based on a review of the OIP and the first 6 month update , the NRC concluded in the ISE that the licensee provided sufficient information to determine that there is reasonable assurance that the plan , when properly implemented , including satisfactory resolution of the open and confirmatory items , would meet the requirements of Order EA-12-049 at Clinton. The NRC staff also conducted a regulatory audit of the licensee's strategies and issued a report which documented the results of the audit activities (Reference 2.4). Upon reaching compliance with the order requirements, the licensee submitted a compliance letter and a final integrated plan (FIP) to the NRC (Reference 2.5). The FIP describes how the licensee is complying with the order at Clinton. The NRC staff completed a safety evaluation (SE) of the licensee's FIP (Reference 2.6). The SE informed the licensee that its integrated plans , if implemented as described, provided a reasonable path for compliance with Order EA-12-049 at Clinton. The staff then evaluated the implementation of the plans through inspection , using Tl 2515/191 , "Implementation of M i tigation Strategies and Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation Orders and Emergency Preparedness Communications/Staffing/

Multi-Unit Dose Assessment Plans." An inspection report was issued to document the results of the Tl 2515/191 inspection (Reference 2.7). The NRC will oversee i mplementation of the mitigation strategies requirements under the proposed MBDBE rule requirements, i f approved by the Commission , through the ROP. Phase 3 of Order EA-12-049 required licensees to obtain sufficient offsite resources to sustain the required functions indefinitely. There are two redundant National SAFER (Strategic Alliance for FLEX Emergency Response)

Centers (NSRCs), one located in Memphis , Tennessee , and the other in Phoenix , Arizona , which have the procedures and plans in place to maintain and deliver the equipment needed for Phase 3 from either NSRC to any participating U.S. nuclear power plant when requested (Reference 2.8). The NRC staff evaluated and inspected the NSRCs and the SAFER program , plans , and procedures (References 2.9 and 2.10). The NRC concluded that licensees may reference the SAFER program and implement their SAFER response plans to meet the Phase 3 requirements of the order. The licensee's FIP (Reference 2.5) includes the plans for utilizing the NSRC equipment at Clinton. In its SE (Reference 2.6), the NRC staff concluded that the licensee has developed guidance that , if implemented appropriately , should allow utilization of offsite resources following a BDBEE consistent with NEI 12-06 guidance and should adequately address the requirements of the order. Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation Order Order EA-12-051 , which applies to Clinton , required licensees to install rel i able SFP level instrumentation with a primary channel and a backup channel , independent of each other , and with the capability to be powered independent of the plant ac and direct current (de) power distribution systems. NEI issued NEI 12-02 , " Industry Guidance for Compliance with NRC Order EA-12-051 , as guidance to be used by licensees to comply with the order and the NRC endorsed the guidance in JLD-ISG-2012-03 , " Compliance with Order EA-12-051 , Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation" (Reference 3.1 ). The order required licensees to provide an OIP to B. Hanson describe how they would comply with the order , along with status reports every 6 months until compliance was achieved (Reference 3.2). The NRC issued an ISE , providing feedback on the OIP and requesting additional information (Reference 3.3). The NRC staff conducted a regulatory audit of the licensee's strategies and issued a report that documented the results of the audit activities (Reference 3.4). Upon reaching compliance with the order requirements , the licensee submitted a compliance letter to the NRC (Reference 3.5), describing how the licensee complied with the order at Clinton. The NRC staff completed an SE of the actions taken by the licensee in response to the order (Reference 3.6). The SE informs the licensee whether its integrated plan , if implemented as described , provided a reasonable path for compliance with Order EA-12-051 at Clinton. The staff then evaluated the implementation of the plan through inspection , using Tl 2515/191. An inspection report was issued to document the results of the Tl 2515/191 inspection (Reference 3.7). The NRC will oversee implementation of the SFP instrumentation requirements under the proposed MBDBE rule requirements, if approved by the Commission , through the ROP. Reliable Hardened Containment Vent Order Order EA-13-109 is only applicable to boiling-water reactors (BWRs) with Mark I and Mark II containments.

Because Clinton is a General Electric BWR-6 with a Mark Ill containment , this order i s not applicable to Clinton. Request for Information Under 1 O CFR 50.54(f) The 50.54(f) letter requested licensees to:

  • reevaluate the seismic and flooding hazard at their sites using present-day NRC requirements and guidance , and identify actions that are planned to address plant-specific vulnerabilities associated with the reevaluated seismic and flooding hazard;
  • perform seismic and flooding walkdowns to verify compliance with the current licensing basis; verify the adequacy of current strategies and maintenance plans; and identify degraded , nonconforming, or unanalyzed conditions related to seismic and flooding protection; and
  • provide an assessment of their current emergency communications and staffing capabilities to determine if any enhancements are needed to respond to a large-scale natural emergency event that results in an extended loss of ac power to all reactors at the site , and/or impeded access to the site. In COMSECY-14

-0037 , " Integration of Mitigating Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events and the Reevaluat[i]on of Flooding Hazards" (Reference 6.11 ), the NRC staff described issues related to the implementation of Order EA-12-049 and the related MBDBE rulemaking , and the completion of flooding reevaluations and assessments.

In the SRM to COMSECY-14-0037 (Reference 6.12), the Commission directed the NRC staff to ensure that licensees of operating nuclear power plants address the reevaluated hazard within their mitigat i on strategies for BDBEE. The SRM also directed the NRC staff to provide a plan for achieving closure of the flooding hazard assessments to the Commission for review and approval.

The plan was provided in COMSECY-15-0019 , " Closure Plan for the Reevaluation of B. Hanson Flooding Hazards for Operating Nuclear Power Plants" (Reference 6.13), and approved by the Commission in the SRM to COMSECY-15-0019 (Reference 6.14). Hazard Reevaluations (Enclosures 1 and 2 of the 50.54(f) letter) Each licensee followed a similar two-phase process to respond to the hazard reevaluations requested by the 50.54(f) letter. In Phase 1, licensees submitted hazard reevaluation reports using NRG-endorsed, industry-developed guidance.

The guidance specified that a licensee should determine if interim protection measures were needed while a longer-term evaluation of the impacts of the hazard was completed. The NRC staff reviewed the reevaluated hazard information.

Using the reevaluated hazard information and a graded approach , the NRC identified the need for, and prioritization and scope of, plant-specific assessments.

For those plants that were required to perform a flooding integrated assessment or a seismic probabilistic risk assessment (SPRA), Phase 2 decisionmaking (as described in a letter dated September 16, 2016 (Reference 5.16)) would determine whether additional plant-specific regulatory actions were necessary.

In addition , as discussed in COMSECY-15-0019 and the draft final MBDBE rule, each licensee performed a mitigation strategies assessment (MSA) to confirm that the licensee had adequately addressed the reevaluated hazards within their mitigation strategies developed for BDBEEs. Seismic Hazard Reevaluation (Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter) Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter requested each operating reactor licensee to complete a reevaluation of the seismic hazard that could affect their sites using updated seismic hazard information and present-day regulatory guidance and methodologies to develop a ground motion response spectrum (GMRS). The licensee was asked to compare their results to the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) ground motion and then report to the NRC in a seismic hazard screening report. To provide a uniform and acceptable industry response, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) developed a technical report , EPRI 1025287 , "Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic ," and the NRC endorsed the guidance in a letter dated February 15 , 2013 (Reference 5.1 ). Between November 2012 and May 2014 , the NRC and the industry provided guidance for the performance of the reevaluated hazard reviews (References 5.2-5.7).

The licensee provided a seismic hazard screening report for Clinton on March 31, 2014 (Reference 5.8). If the new GMRS was not bound by the current design basis (COB) SSE , more detailed evaluations of the impact from the hazard was requested.

Also, the licensee was requested to evaluate whether interim protection measures were needed while the more detailed evaluation was completed.

NEI provided a proposed path forward and schedules in a letter from NEI dated April 9, 2013. The NRC endorsed this approach in a letter dated May 7 , 2013. The guidance to perform the interim protective measures evaluation, EPRI report 300200704 , " Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic ," was provided as Attachment 1 to the NEI letter (Reference 5.3). This expedited seismic evaluation process (ESEP) is a screening, evaluation, and equipment modification process conducted by licensees to provide additional seismic margin and expedite plant safety enhancements for certain core cooling and containment components while the more detailed and comprehensive plant seismic risk evaluations are being performed.

If an ESEP was required, then the NRC staff completed a technical review of the ESEP report and documented its review in response letters. As discussed in Section 2.2 of EPRI 300200704 , the licensee B. Hanson was not required to perform an ESEP for Clinton since the SSE envelopes the reevaluated GMRS in the 1 to 1 O Hertz (Hz) region, as noted by the NRG staff in Reference 5.11. By letter dated May 9, 2014 (Reference 5.10), the NRG informed licensees of the initial screening and prioritization results based on a review of the licensees' seismic hazard screening reports. The NRG updated the screening and prioritization in a letter dated October 3, 2014 (Reference 5.11 ). The NRG provided the final determination of seismic probabilistic risk assessments in a letter dated October 27 , 2015 (Reference 5.17). This letter specified the remaining seismic evaluations for each licensee.

These evaluations could consist of an SPRA (Reference 5.1, SPID, Section 6.1.1 ), limited scope evaluations (High Frequency (Reference 5.13) and/or SFP (Reference 5.14)), or a relay chatter evaluation (Reference 5.4). If an SPRA was required, then additional Phase 2 regulatory decisionmaking was required (References 5.15 and 5.16). The NRG staff completed and documented its review of the licensee's reevaluated seismic hazard in a staff assessment (Reference 5.9). In order to complete its response to the 50.54(f) letter, the licensee submitted a high frequency evaluation for Clinton (Reference 5.18). The NRG reviewed the high frequency evaluation submittal and confirmed that Clinton met the Limited High Frequency criteria (Reference 5.19) and no additional evaluations were needed. The NRG staff reviewed the information provided and, as documented in the staff assessments (References 5.9 and 5.19), determined that the licensee provided sufficient information in response to Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. The staff acknowledges that all seismic hazard reevaluation activities requested by Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter have been completed for Clinton. No further information related to the reevaluated seismic hazard is required.

Flooding Hazard Reevaluation (Enclosure 2 of the 50.54(f) letter) Enclosure 2 of the 50.54(f) letter requested each operating reactor licensee to complete a reevaluation of applicable flood-causing mechanisms at their site using updated flooding hazard information and present-day regulatory guidance and methodologies.

Licensees were asked to compare their results to the COB for protection and mitigation from external flood events. The NRG developed guidance to conduct the reevaluations (References 6.1 through 6.6). The licensee submitted a flood hazard reevaluation report (FHRR) for Clinton (Reference 6.7) to the NRG as requested by the 50.54(f) letter. A regulatory audit to support the review of the FHRR was not required (Reference 6.8). The NRG staff reviewed the FHRR and provided an interim hazard letter (Reference 6.9) to provide feedback on the staff's review of the flooding hazard reevaluations.

The interim hazard letter was used by the licensee to complete the flood hazard MSA and other flood hazard evaluations. Separately, the NRG staff documented the technical bases for its conclusions in the interim hazard letters by issuing a staff assessment (Reference 6.10). In COMSECY-14-0037 (Reference 6.11 ), the NRG staff requested Commission direction to more clearly define the relationship between Order EA-12-049 , the related MBDBE rulemaking , and the flood hazard reevaluations and assessments.

In the SRM to COMSECY-14-0037 (Reference 6.12), the Commission affirmed that licensees of operating nuclear power plants need to address the reevaluated flooding hazard within their mitigation strategies.

The Commission also directed the NRG staff to provide a plan for achieving closure of the flooding portion of NTTF Recommendation 2.1 to the Commission for its review and approval.

On June 30 , 2015, the NRG staff provided a plan to the Commission in COMSECY-15-0019 (Reference 6.13). On July 28, 2015, the Commission approved the plan in the SRM to B. Hanson COMSECY-15-0019 (Reference 6.14). On September 29 , 2015 , the NRC issued a letter to licensees to describe the graded approach to the flood hazard reevaluations approved by the Commission (Reference 6.15). The COMSECY-15-0019 action plan required the NRC staff to develop a graded approach to identify the need for, and prioritization and scope of, plant-specific integrated assessments and evaluation of plant-specific regulatory actions. The NRC staff's graded approach *enabled a site with hazard exceedance above its COB to demonstrate the site's ability to cope with the reevaluated hazard through appropriate protection or mitigation measures which are timely , effective, and reasonable. Integrated assessments were focused on sites with the greatest potential for additional safety enhancements.

New guidance for performing the integrated assessments and focused evaluations was developed for this graded approach. On July 18, 2016, the staff issued JLO-ISG-2016-01, "Guidance for Activities Related to Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1, Flooding Hazard Reevaluation, Focused Evaluation and Integrated Assessment" (Reference 6.16). The ISG provided the guidance for Phase 1 flooding assessments, as described in COMSECY-15

-0019 , and endorsed industry guidance provided in NEI 16-05, "External Flooding Integrated Assessment Guidelines" (Reference 6.16). If an integrated assessment was necessary , then Phase 2 regulatory decisionmaking was required (References 6.18 and 6.19). As noted in the interim hazard response letter (Reference 6.9), the reevaluated flooding hazard at Clinton was bounded by the COB. The NRC staff documented its review of the FHRR in a staff assessment (Reference 6.10) and concluded that the licensee provided sufficient information in response to the 50.54(f) letter. Because the reevaluated flood mechanisms are bounded by the COB , it was not necessary for Clinton to perform a focused evaluation or an integrated assessment.

The NRC staff reviewed the information provided by the licensee and has concluded that sufficient information was provided to be responsive to Enclosure 2 of the 50.54(f) letter. The staff acknowledges that all flooding hazard reevaluation activities requested by Enclosure 2 of the 50.54(f) letter have been completed for Clinton. No further information related to the reevaluated flood hazard is required.

Mitigation Strategies Assessment In addition to the closure plan for NTTF Recommendation 2.1, the action plan approved by the Commission in the SRM to COMSECY-15-0019 (Reference 7.4) identified the staff efforts to ensure licensees would address the reevaluated hazard information in their mitigation strategies.

Performance of the MSA is necessary to support compliance with the final MBOBE rule, if approved by the Commission. The objective of the MSA is to determine whether the mitigation strategies developed for Order EA-12-049 can still be implemented given the reevaluated hazard levels. If it was determined that the mitigation strategies could not be implemented for the reevaluated hazard levels , the MSA could provide other options such as performing additional evaluations, modifying existing mitigation strategies, or developing alternate mitigation strategies or targeted mitigation strategies to address the reevaluated hazard levels. The process used to develop the MSAs was provided in Appendices G and H of NEI 12-06, as endorsed by the NRC in JLO-ISG-2012-01 (Reference 7.5).

B. Hanson Both a flood hazard MSA (Reference 7.6) and a seismic hazard MSA (Reference 7.8) were provided by the licensee.

The NRC staff reviewed the MSA submittals and issued staff assessments (References 7.7 and 7.9) documenting its review. The NRC staff concluded that the licensee has demonstrated that the mitigation strategies appropriately address the reevaluated hazard conditions at Clinton. Oversight of the modifications to strategies resulting from the MSAs will be included in the longer-term oversight of mitigation strategies through the ROP. Walkdowns (Enclosures 3 and 4 of the 50.54(f) letter) Enclosures 3 and 4 of the 50.54(f) letter requested that licensees perform plant walkdowns to verify compliance with the current licensing basis as it pertains to seismic and flood protection.

Techn i cal Report EPRI 1025286 , " Seismic Walkdown Guidance" (Reference 8.1 ), was provided as guidance to licensees for conducting the seismic walkdowns and the NRC endorsed that guidance by letter dated May 31 , 2012 (Reference 8.2). NEI issued NEI 12-07 , " Guidelines for Performing Verification Walkdowns of Plant Flood Protection Features" (Reference 9.1 ), as guidance to licensees for conducting the flooding walkdowns and the NRC endorsed that guidance by letter dated May 31 , 2012 (Reference 9.2). The licensee provided a report for both the seismic and flooding walkdowns at Clinton (References 8.3 and 9.3). Onsite inspections were conducted per Tl 2515/188 , " Inspection of Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdowns" (Reference 8.4) and Tl 2515/187 , " Inspection of Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Flooding Walkdowns" (Reference 9.4), and the inspection results were documented in a quarterly integrated inspection report. The NRC staff issued staff assessments for both the seismic and flooding walkdowns (References 8.5 and 9.5). For those items that were inaccessible during the initial licensee seismic walkdowns , the licensee submitted a delayed seismic walkdown report after accessing the areas (Reference 8.5). The NRC documented its review of the delayed walkdown reports in a letter dated September 25 , 2015 (Reference 8.7). The NRC staff reviewed the information provided by the licensee and determined that sufficient information was provided to be responsive to Enclosures 3 and 4 of the 50.54(f) letter. The staff acknowledges that all seismic and flooding walkdown activities requested by the 50.54(f) letter have been completed for Clinton. Communications and Staffing (Enclosure 5 of the 50.54(f) letter) Enclosure 5 of the 50.54(f) letter requested licensees to assess their means to power equipment needed to communicate onsite and offsite during a prolonged station blackout event and to identify and implement enhancements to ensure that communications can be maintained during such an event. Also , licensees were requested to assess the staffing required to fill all necessary positions to respond to a multi-unit event with impeded access to the site , or to an extended loss of all ac power for single unit sites. Licensees were requested to submit a written response to the information requests within 90 days , or provide a response within 60 days and describe an alternative course of action and estimated completion dates. The licensee proposed an alternative course of action and schedule for Clinton (Reference 10.2), which included a partial response (Reference 10.3). The NRC acknowledged the schedule changes in a letter dated July 26 , 2012 (Reference 10.4). The communications and staffing evaluation reports were developed using NRG-endorsed , industry-developed guidance (Reference 10.1 ). Guidance document NEI 12-01 , " Guideline for Assessing Beyond Design Basis Accident Response Staffing and Communications B. Hanson Capabilities

," was endorsed by the NRC in a letter dated May 15 , 2012. The licensee provided the communications assessment and implementation schedule for their fleet , including Clinton (Reference 10.5), and the NRC completed a safety assessment of the licensee's communications assessment (Reference 10.6). Licensees responded to the staffing portion of the 50.54(f) letter in two phases to account for the implementation of mitigation strategies. Phase 1 staffing assessments were based on the existing station blackout coping strategies with an assumption of all reactors at the site being affected concurrently.

Phase 1 staffing assessments were only required for mult i unit sites and were not required for Clinton. In Phase 2 , all licensees assessed the staffing necessary to carry out the mitigation strategies (Reference 10.9). The NRC staff issued a staffing assessment response letter (Reference 10.10). An onsite inspection using Tl 2515/191 was conducted to verify that the emergency communications and staffing plans at Clinton have been implemented as described by the licensee (Reference 10.11 ). The draft final MBDBE rule would make generically applicable the staffing and communications requirements to support the mitigation strategies.

Regulatory Guide 1.228 (Reference 1.16) is expected to endorse , with clarifications , NEI 12-01 , NEI 13-06 , " Enhancements to Emergency Response Capabilities for Beyond-Design

-Basis Events and Severe Accidents" (Reference 11.18), and NEI 14-01 , " Emergency Response Procedures and Guidelines for Beyond-Design-Basis Events and Severe Accidents" (Reference 11.8), to provide acceptable methods for implementing the MBDBE rule requirements. The NRC will oversee the communications and staffing requirements , and a periodic drill or exercise , under the proposed MBDBE rule requirements , if approved by the Commission , through the ROP. The NRC staff reviewed the information provided by the licensee and determined that sufficient information was provided to be responsive to Enclosure 5 of the 50.54(f) letter. The staff acknowledges that all emergency preparedness communications and staffing activities requested by Enclosure 5 of the 50.54(f) letter have been completed for Clinton. No further information related to the communications and staffing assessments is required.

Additional Industry Commitments Update and Maintain Severe Accident Management Guidelines The staff provided the proposed MBDBE rule to the Commission on April 30 , 2015 , in SECY-15-0065 , " Proposed Rulemaking:

Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events (RI N 3150-AJ49)" (Reference 11.1) and the Commission issued the SRM to SECY-15-0065 on August 27 , 2015 (Reference 11.2). The Commission approved publication of the proposed rule subject to removal of the proposed requirements pertaining to the severe accident management guidelines (SAMGs). The Commission also directed the staff to update the ROP to explicitly provide periodic oversight of industry's implementation of the SAMGs. In a letter dated October 26, 2015 (Reference 11.3), NEI described the industry initiative , approved by the Nuclear Strategic Issues Advisory Committee as mandatory for all NEI members , to update and maintain the SAMGs. Specifically , each licensee will perform timely updates of their site-specific SAMGs based on revisions to generic severe accident technical guidelines.

Licensees will also ensure that SAMGs are considered within plant configuration management processes. As noted in the NEI letter , the licensee provided a letter (Reference 11.4) to establish a site-specific regulatory commitment for Clinton. Subsequently , the licensee submitted a revised site-specific regulatory commitment for Clinton (Reference 11.5).

B. Hanson In a letter to NEI dated February 23, 2016 (Reference 11.6), the staff outlined its approach for making changes to the ROP in accordance with the Commission direction.

The staff engaged NEI and other stakeholders to identify the near-term and longer-term changes to the ROP, consistent with the Commission direction and the licensees' near-term and longer-term SAMG commitments.

The staff then revised Inspection Procedure 71111.18, "Plant Modifications" (Reference 11.7), to provide oversight of the initial inclusion of SAMGs within the plant configuration management processes to ensure that the SAMGs reflect changes to the facility over time. Multiunit/Multisource Dose Assessments In COMSECY-13-0010 , "Schedule and Plans for Tier 2 Order on Emergency Preparedness for Japan Lessons Learned," dated March 27, 2013 (Reference 11.14), the staff requested Commission approval to implement the NTTF recommendation concerning multiunit/multisource dose assessments by having licensees document their commitment to obtain multiunit/multisource dose assessment capability by the end of 2014, rather than by issuing an order. Multiunit dose assessment capabilities would be made generically applicable through subsequent rulemaking.

The Commission approved the staff's requests in the SAM to COMSECY-13-0010, dated April 30 , 2013 (Reference 11.15). The NRC staff included the multiunit/multisource dose assessment requirement in the proposed MBDBE rulemaking (Reference 11.1 ). However, in response to a public comment concerning the 1 O CFR 50.109 backfitting justification for the proposed multiple source term dose assessment requirements, the staff determined that this requirement did not meet the criteria for imposition under 1 O CFR 50.109(a)(4)(ii).

The NRC staff also concluded that this could not be justified as a compliance backfit or as a substantial safety improvement whose costs, both direct and indirect, would be justified in light of the potential safety gain. Therefore, these requirements were removed from the draft final rule (Reference 11.17). The licensee provided the requested information for Clinton in a letter dated June 27 , 2013 , which stated that it will have multiunit/multisource dose assessment capabilities by December 31, 2014 (Reference 11.12). The NRC acknowledged the licensee submittal (Reference 11.13), verified the implementation of these dose assessment capabilities through inspection per Tl 2515/191, and issued an inspection report (Reference 11.16). CONCLUSION The NRC staff concludes that Exelon , the licensee, has implemented the NRG-mandated safety enhancements resulting from the lessons learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident through its implementation of Orders EA-12-049, EA-12-051, and its response to the 50.54(f) letter for Clinton. No further regulatory decisionmaking is required for Clinton related to the Fukushima lessons-learned.

A listing of the applicable correspondence related to the Fukushima lessons-learned activities for Clinton is included as an enclosure to this letter.

B. Hanson If you have any questions , please contact Robert Bernardo of my staff at 301-415-2621 or by e-mail at Robert.Bernardo@nrc.gov. Docket No. 50-461

Enclosure:

Documents Related to Required Response cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv ane E. Marshall , Director apan Lessons-Learned Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Clinton Power Station , Unit No. 1 Reference Documents Related to Required Response to the Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident TABLE 1 Initial Actions in Response to the Events in Japan Caused by the Great Tohoku Earthquake and Subsequent Tsunami ADAMS Ref Document Date Accession No. 1.1 NRC Information Notice 2011-05 March 18, 2011 ML 110760432 1.2 NRC Follow-up to the Fukushima Dai-ichi Fuel Damaqe Event Temporary Instruction (Tl) 2515/183 March 23, 2011 ML 113220407 NRC Tl 2515/183 Inspection Report May 13, 2011 ML 111320336 2011-011 1.3 NRC Tasking Memorandum , Staff March 23 , 2011 ML 110820875 Requirements Memorandum (SAM) to COMGBJ-11-0002 1.4 NRC Availability and Readiness Inspection of SAMG NRC Availability and Readiness April 29 , 2011 ML 11115A053 Inspection of SAMG -Tl 2515/184 NRC Integrated Inspection Report July 29, 2011 ML 11213A091 2011-003 (Tl 2515/184 inspection results) NRC Tl 2515/184 Inspection Results , June 1 , 2011 ML 111520396 Region 3 Summary NRC Summary of Tl 2515/184 Results June 6 , 2011 ML11154A109 1.5 NRC Bulletin 2011-01, "Mitigation Strategies" NRC Bulletin 2011-01 May 11 , 2011 ML 111250360 Exelon 30 day response to BL 2011-01 June 8, 2011 ML 111600096 Exelon 60 day response to BL 2011-01 July 8 , 2011 ML 111920162 NRC Request for Additional Information November 22 , 2011 ML 113120057 (RAI) regarding Exelon 60 day response to BL 2011-01 Exelon response to RAI December 20, 2011 ML 113550139 NRC Closeout of BL 2011-01 for August 2 , 2012 ML 12178A215 Exelon 1.6 NRC NTTF Report (SECY-11-0093)

July 21, 2011 ML 11186A950 1.7 NRC SECY-11-0137 , Prioritization of Recommended Actions To Be Taken in Response to Fukushima Lessons Learned NRC SECY-11-0137 October 3, 2011 ML 11272A 111 SRM-SECY-11-0137 December 15 , 2011 ML 113490055 1.8 NRC Order EA-12-049 March 12 , 2012 ML 12054A735 1.9 NRC Order EA-12-050 March 12 , 2012 ML 12054A694 1.10 NRC Order EA-12-051 March 12 , 2012 ML 12054A679 1.11 NRC Reque s t for Information Under March 12 , 2 01 2 ML 12053A340 1 O CFR 50.54(f) (the 50.54(f) letter) 1.12 NRC Order EA-13-109 June 6 , 2013 ML 13143A321 Enclosure Clinton Power Station , Un it No. 1 TABLE 1 Initial Actions in Response to the Events in Japan Caused by the Great Tohoku Earthquake and Subsequent Tsunami ADAMS Ref Document Date Accession No. 1.13 NRG SECY-16-0142 , "Draft Final Rule: December 15, 2016 ML 16301 A005 Mitiqation of Bevond-Desiqn-Basis Events" 1.14 Regulatory Guide 1.226, Flexible Mitigation November 2016 ML 16301A128 Strategies for Beyond-Design

-Bas i s Events (Draft Final Version) 1.15 Regulatory Guide 1.227 , Wide Range Spent November 2016 ML 16211A167 Fuel Pool Level Instrumentation (Draft Final Version) 1.16 Regulatory Guide 1.228 -Integrated Response November 2016 ML 16218A236 Capabilities for Beyond-Design

-Basis Events (Draft Final Version)

Clinton Power Station , Unit No. 1 TABLE 2 Order to Modify Licenses with Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events -EA-12-049 ADAMS Ref Document Date Accession No. 2.1 Guidance for Compliance with EA-12-049

-Diverse and Flexible Copinq Strateqies (FLEX) Industry Guidance on Diverse and August 21, 2012 ML 12242A378 Flexible Coping Strategies (FLEX) NEI 12-06 , Revision O NRC endorsement of NEI 12-06 , August 29 , 2012 ML12229A 17 4 Revision 0 -JLD-ISG-2012-01 , Revision 0 2.2 Licensee Overall Integrated Plan (OIP) Licensee 01 P submittal February 28, 2013 ML 13064A274 01 P 1st six month status report August 28 , 2013 ML13241 A241 OIP 2nd six month status report February 28 , 2014 ML 14059A429 OIP 3rd six month status report Auqust 28 , 2014 ML 14248A231 OIP 4th six month status report February 27 , 2015 ML 15058A513 2.3 NRC Interim Staff Evaluation of OIP December 17 , 2013 ML 13225A571 2.4 NRC audit of EA-12-049 OIP N RC Notification of Audit of EA-12-049 Auqust 28 , 2013 ML 13234A503 NRC Audit Plan February 18 , 2015 ML 15042A557 NRC Audit Report April 27 , 2015 ML15100A051 2.5 Licensee Final lnteqrated Plan Licensee Compliance Letter and FIP for July 15 , 2015 ML15198A115 EA-12-049 Licensee Revised Fl P for EA-12-049 December 14, 2015 ML15349A911 2.6 NRC Safety Evaluation of FIP December 23 , 2015 ML 15324A238 2.7 NRC Inspection of Licensee Responses to EA-12-049 , EA-12-051 , and Emergency Preparedness Information NRC Temporary Instruction 2515/191 October 6 , 2014 ML 14273A444 NRC Tl 2515/191 Inspection Report September 22 , ML 16266A301 2016-007 2016 2.8 Industry White Paper -National SAFER September 11 , ML 14259A221 Response Centers (NSRC) 2014 2.9 NRC Staff Assessment of NSRCs September 26 , ML 14265A 107 2014 2.10 NRC Inspection of Implementation of EA-12-049 Regarding the use of NSRC NRC Inspection Procedure (IP) 43006 September 30 , ML 16273A318 2016 NRC Vendor Inspection of the Phoenix January 12 , 2017 ML17012A 186 NSRC Report No. 99901013/2016-201 NRC Vendor Inspection of the Memphis May 5 , 2017 ML 17117A576 NSRC Report No. 99901013/2017-201 Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1 TABLE 3 Order to Modify Licenses with Regard to Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation

-EA-12-051 ADAMS Ref Document Date Accession No. 3.1 Guidance for Compliance with EA-12-051

-Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation Industry Guidance for Compliance with August 2012 ML 12240A307 EA-12-051

-NEI 12-02 , Revision 1 NRC endorsement of NEI 12-02, August 29, 2012 ML 12221 A339 Revision 1 -JLD-ISG-2012-03 3.2 Licensee Overall lntearated Plan (OIP) Licensee 01 P February 28 , 2013 ML 13059A306 01 P 1st six month status report Auaust28,2013 ML 13241 A237 OIP 2nd six month status report February 28 , 2014 ML 14062A058 OIP 3rd six month status report Auaust 28, 2014 ML 14248A213 OIP 4th six month status report February 27 , 2015 ML 15058A622 3.3 NRC Interim Staff Evaluation of OIP November 15 , 2013 ML 13280A326 3.4 NRC Audit of EA-12-051 N RC Notification of Audit of EA-12-051 March 26 , 2014 ML 14083A620 NRC Audit Report of Westinghouse August 18 , 2014 ML 14211 A346 SFPI desian specifications N RC Notification of Audit of EA-12-051 March 26, 2014 ML 14083A620 NRC Audit Plan February 18, 2015 ML 15042A557 NRC Audit Report April 27 , 2015 ML 151 OOA051 3.5 Licensee Compliance Letter for EA-12-051 July 15 , 2015 ML 15198A 113 3.6 NRC Safety Evaluation of Implementation of December 23, 2015 ML15324A238 EA-12-051 3.7 NRC Inspection of Licensee Responses to EA-12-049 , EA-12-051 , and Emergency Preparedness Information NRC Temporary Instruction 2515/191 October 6, 2014 ML 14273A444 NRC Tl 2515/191 Inspection Report September 22, ML 16266A301 2016-007 2016 Note: TABLE 4 RELATES TO THE HARDENED CONTAINMENT VENT SYSTEM AND IS NOT APPLICABLE TO CLINTON Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1 TABLE 5 Request for Information Pursuant to Title 1 O of the Code Of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Enclosure 1: Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation ADAMS Ref Document Date Accession No. Guidance Documents 5.1 Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) Industry Guidance (SPID) -November 2012 ML 12333A 170 EPRI 1025287 NRC letter endorsinq SPID February 15, 2013 ML12319A074 5.2 NRC guidance for performing a Seismic November 16, 2012 ML 12286A029 Margin Assessment (SMA) -JLD-ISG-2012-04 5.3 Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process (ESEP) Industry Letter -Proposed path April 9, 2013 ML 13101A345 forward for NTTF Recommendation 2.1: Seismic Industry Guidance -Expedited April 2013 ML13102A142 Seismic Evaluation Process (ESEP) -EPRI 3002000704 NRC letter endorsing the ESEP May?, 2013 ML 13106A331 approach and extension of due date to 3/31/14 (Central and Eastern U.S.) 5.4 Industry letter on relay chatter review October 3, 2013 ML 13281 A308 5.5 NRC letter with guidance on the content of February 20, 2014 ML 14030A046 seismic reevaluation submittals (includes operability and reportability discussions) 5.6 Industry letter on seismic risk evaluations for March 12, 2014 ML 14083A596 CEUS plants 5.7 NRC background paper -Probabilistic seismic May 20, 2014 ML 14140A648 hazard analysis Seismic Hazard Screening Report 5.8 Licensee Seismic Hazard Screening Report March 31, 2014 ML 14091A011 5.9 NRC Staff Assessment of Reevaluated October 19, 2015 ML 15281 A226 Seismic Hazard Information Screening and Prioritization Results 5.10 NRC Letter -Seismic screening and May 9, 2014 ML14111A147 prioritization results for CEUS plants NRC Support Document for Screening May 21, 2014 ML 14136A 126 and Prioritization

-Preliminary ground motion response spectra for CEUS plants 5.11 NRC Letter -Updated seismic screening and October 3, 2014 ML 14258A043 prioritization results 5.12 NRC letter regarding development of Seismic December 10, 2014 ML 143078707 Risk Evaluations

-suitability of updated seismic hazard information for further assessments Clinton Power Station , Unit No. 1 TABLE 5 Request for Information Pursuant to Title 1 O of the Code Of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Enclosure 1: Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation ADAMS Ref Document Date Accession No. Additional Guidance Documents 5.13 High Frequency Program Application Guidance Industry HF Application Guidance -July 30 , 2015 ML 15223A095 EPRI 3002004396 NRC letter endorsing HF Application September 17 , ML 15218A569 Guidance 2015 5.14 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Guidance Industry SFP evaluation guidance -February 23 , 2016 ML 16055A017 EPRI 3002007148 NRC letter endorsing SFP evaluation March 17 , 2016 ML 15350A 158 Quidance 5.15 NRC Letter -Treatment of Seismic and September 29 , ML15127A401 Flooding Hazard Reevaluations in the Design 2015 and LicensinQ Basis 5.16 NRC Guidance for Regulatory September 21 , ML 16237A103 Decisionmaking of reevaluated flooding and 2016 seismic hazards Final Determinations of Required Seismic Evaluations 5.17 NRC Final Determination of Required Seismic October 27 , 2015 ML 15194A015 Evaluations 5.18 Licensee Required Seismic Evaluations Licensee Limited Scope Evaluation November 30 , 2015 ML 15335A389 (High Frequency Supplement) 5.19 NRC Staff Assessment of High Frequency February 18 , 2016 ML 15364A544 Confirmation (Note 1) Note 1: In this letter , the NRC staff concluded that no further response or regulatory actions ass ociated with the 50.54(f) letter review of Phase 2 of the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1 "Seismic" are required for Clinton Power Station , Unit No. 1. This letter closed out the NRC efforts associated with Phase 1 and Phase 2 of NTTF Recommendation 2.1 " Seismic".

Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1 TABLE 6 Request for Information Pursuant to Title 1 O of the Code Of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Enclosure 2: Recommendation 2.1 Flooding Hazard Reevaluation ADAMS Ref Document Date Accession No. Initial Guidance Documents 6.1 NRC prioritization of plants for completing May 11, 2012 ML 12097 A509 flood hazard reevaluations 6.2 NRG-issued guidance for performing an November 30 , 2012 ML12311A214 integrated assessment for external flooding (JLD-ISG-2012-05) 6.3 NRG letter to industry describing when an December 3, 2012 ML 12326A912 integrated assessment is expected 6.4 NRG-issued guidance for performing a January 4, 2013 ML 12314A412 tsunami, surge, or seiche hazard assessment (JLD-ISG-2012-06) 6.5 NRG letter to industry with guidance on the March 1, 2013 ML 13044A561 content of floodinq reevaluation submittals 6.6 NRG-issued guidance for assessing flooding July 29, 2013 ML13151A153 hazards due to dam failure (JLD-ISG-2013-01)

Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report 6.7 Licensee FHRR Submittal Package March 12, 2014 ML 14079A415 6.8 FHRR Regulatory Audit NRG FHRR Audit Plan July 21, 2015 ML 15148A286 NRC FHRR Audit Report No audit required NA 6.9 NRG Interim Staff Response to Reevaluated September 3, 2015 ML 15230A012 Flood Hazards 6.10 NRG Staff Assessment of FHRR October 27 , 2015 ML 15279A 134 Modified Approach to Flood Hazard Reevaluations 6.11 NRG COMSECY-14-0037, "Integration of November 21, 2014 ML 14309A256 Mitigating Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events and the Reevaluation of Flooding Hazards" 6.12 NRG SAM for COMSECY-14-0037 March 30, 2015 ML 15089A236 6.13 NRG COMSECY-15-0019 "Closure Plan for June 30, 2015 ML 15153A 104 the Reevaluation of Floodinq Hazards" 6.14 NRG SRM-COMSECY-15-0019 July 28, 2015 ML 15209A682 6.15 NRG letter describing the graded approach to September 1 , 2015 ML 15174A257 flood hazard reevaluation directed by SRM-COMSECY-14-0037 Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1 TABLE 6 Request for Information Pursuant to Title 1 O of the Code Of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Enclosure 2: Recommendation 2.1 Floodina Hazard Reevaluation ADAMS Ref Document Date Accession No. 6.16 Floodinq Assessment Guidance NEI 16-05, "External Flooding April 2016 ML 16165A178 Assessment Guidelines" NRG endorsement of NEI 16-05 -July 11, 2016 ML 16162A301 JLD-ISG-2016-01 6.17 Licensee Required Evaluations No further evaluations were required -See FHRR Staff See FHRR SA reevaluated flood hazard was bounded Assessment (SA) by the COB 6.18 NRG Letter -Treatment of Seismic and September 29 , ML 15127A401 Flooding Hazard Reevaluations in the Design 2015 and Licensinq Basis 6.1 9 NRG Guidance for Regulatory Decision-September 21, ML 16237A103 making of reevaluated flooding and seismic 2016 hazards TABLE 7 Mitigating Strategies Assessments (MSA) ADAMS Ref Document Date Accession No. 7.1 NRG COMSECY-14-0037, Integration of November 21 , 2014 ML 14309A256 Mitigating Strategies with Hazard Reevaluations 7.2 NRG SRM-COMSECY-14-0037 March 30, 2015 ML 15089A236 7.3 NRG COMSECY-15-0019, Closure Plan for June 30, 2015 ML 15153A104 Floodinq Hazard Reevaluations 7.4 NRG SRM-COMSECY-15-0019 Julv 28, 2015 ML 15209A682 7.5 Process for Mitigating Strategies Assessments (MSA) Industry Guidance for performing December 2015 ML 16005A625

-NEI 12-06, Revision 2, includinq Appendices E, G, & H NRG endorsement of NEI 12-06, January 22, 2016 ML 15357A163 Revision 2 -JLD-ISG-2012-01, Revision 1 7.6 Licensee's MSA submittal

-Floodinq March 24, 2016 ML 16084A859 7.7 NRG Staff Assessment of MSA -Floodinq June 29, 2016 ML 16120A007 7.8 Licensee's MSA submittal

-Seismic May 26, 2016 ML 16147A560 7.9 NRG Staff Assessment of MSA -Seismic June 20, 2016 ML 16166A 121 7.10 NRG MSA Audit Plan December 6, 2016 ML 16259A 189 7.11 NRG MSA Audit Report (if needed) Not required Not required Clinton Powe r Station , Unit No. 1 TABLE 8 Request for Information Pursuant to Title 1 O of the Code Of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Enclosure 3: Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown ADAMS Ref Document Date Accession No. 8.1 Industry Seismic Walkdown Gu i dance with May 31 , 2012 ML 12188A031 NRC endorsement letter -EPRI 1025286 8.2 NRC letter endorsinQ EPRI 1025286 May 31 , 201 2 ML 12145A529 8.3 Licensee Seismic Hazard Walkdown Report November 27 , 2012 ML 123400395 PackaQe 8.4 NRC Inspection of Seismic Walkdowns NRC Tl 2515/188 July 6 , 2012 ML 12156A052 NRC Integrated Inspection Report April 23 , 2013 ML 13114A 1 1 7 2013-002 (Tl 2515/188 i nspection results) 8.5 Licensee delayed seismic walkdown report Delayed seismic walkdown report September 16 , ML 13260A083 2013 Supplemental Response completing December 17 , 20 1 4 ML 14353A031 delayed se i smic walkdown report 8.6 NRC Staff Assessment of Seismic Walkdown May 14 , 2 01 4 ML 14065A559 Report 8.7 NRC review of seismic delayed walkdown September 25 , ML 15268A477 reports 2015 TABLE 9 Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code Of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Enclosure 4: Recommendation 2.3 Flooding Walkdown ADAMS Ref Document Date Accession No. 9.1 Industry Flooding Walkdown Guidance -NEI May 31 , 201 2 ML 1 2 173A 2 15 12-07 9.2 NRC lett e r e ndors i ng NEI 1 2-07 M a y 31 , 2 01 2 ML 1 2144 A1 42 9.3 Licensee FloodinQ Hazard Walkdown Report FloodinQ Hazard Walkdown Report November 27 , 2 01 2 ML 12332A30 4 Supplement to flooding ha z ard June 19 , 2013 ML 1 3 17 1 A 273, w a lkdown report 9.4 NRC Inspection of Flooding W a lkdown s NRC T l 25 1 5/18 7 June 2 7 , 2 01 2 ML 1 2 1 29 A 108 NRC Integrated Inspection Report April 2 3 , 2 013 ML 13114A 1 17 2013-002 , (Tl 2515/187 inspection results) 9.5 NRC St a ff A s s e ssment of Flood i ng W a lkdown Jun e 26 , 2 01 4 ML 1 4 16 4 A 298 Report Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1 TABLE10 Request for Information Pursuant to Title 1 O of the Code Of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Enclosure 5: Recommendation 9.3 Emergency Preparedness Communications and StaffinQ ADAMS Ref Document Date Accession No. 10.1 Guidance Documents Industry Guidance for Emergency May 2012 ML 12125A412 Preparedness staffing and communications

-NEI 12-01 NRC letter endorsinq NEI 12-01 Mav 15, 2012 ML 12131 A043 10.2 Licensee 60 day response and proposed May 14, 2012 ML 12136A064 alternative course of action 10.3 Licensee 90 day response to communications June 11, 2012 ML 12164A572 and staffinq information requests 10.4 NRC letter -status of 90-dav response Julv 26 , 2012 ML 12200A 106 10.5 Exelon Fleet communications assessment October 31 , 2012 ML 12306A 199 and implementation schedule 10.6 NRC safety assessment of licensee's July 12, 2013 ML 13114A067 communications assessment 10.7 Licensee Phase 1 staffing assessment (multi-Not Required Not Required unit sites only) 10.8 NRC Phase 1 staff assessment response Not Required Not Required 10.9 Licensee Phase 2 staffing assessment response Licensee Phase 2 staffing assessment December 17 , 2014 ML 14352A209 for functions related to mitigating strateqies Licensee response to RAI April 28, 2015 ML 15120A276 10.10 NRC Phase 2 staff assessment response September 9, 2015 ML 15231 A036 10.11 NRC Inspection of Licensee Responses to EA-12-049, EA-12-051, and Emergency Preparedness Information NRC Temporary Instruction 2515/191 October 6, 2014 ML 14273A444 NRC Tl 2515/191 Inspection Report September 22, ML 16266A301 2016-007 2016 Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1 TABLE11 Additional Licensee Commitments

-SAMGs and Multisource Dose Assessments ADAMS Document Date Accession No. Update and Maintain SAMGs 11.1 SECY-15-0065

Proposed Rulemaking:

April 30 , 2015 ML 15049A201 Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events (RIN 3150-AJ49) 11.2 SRM-SECY-15-0065 August 27, 2015 ML 15239A 767 11.3 NEI Letter describing industry initiative to October 26, 2015 ML 15335A442 update and maintain SAMGs 11.4 Exelon Fleet Commitment to Maintain December 4, 2015 ML 15338A 125 SAM Gs 11.5 Clinton -Revision to Exelon Fleet October 28, 2016 ML 16302A455 Commitment to Maintain SAMGs 11.6 NRG letter to NEI describing approach to February 23, 2016 ML 16032A029 SAMG oversiqht 11.7 NRG Inspection Procedure 71111.18, "Plant November 17, 2016 ML 16306A 185 Modifications" (Effective Date January 1, 2017) 11.8 NEI 14-01, "Emergency Response February 2016 ML 16224A619 Procedures and Guidelines for Extreme Events and Severe Accidents, Revision 1 Multisource Dose Assessments 11.9 NEI Letter: Industry survey and plan for January 28, 2013 ML 13028A200 multiunit dose assessments 11.10 NRG Letter to request additional information February 27, 2013 ML 13029A632 from NEI on multiunit dose assessment capability 11.11 NEI Letter: Commitment for Implementation March 14, 2013 ML 13073A522 of Multiunit Dose Assessment Capability 11.12 Exelon Response Regarding the Capability to June 27 , 2013 ML 13179A098 Perform Offsite Dose Assessment During an Event lnvolvinq Multiple Release Sources 11.13 NRG Acknowledgement of Licensee Dose January 29, 2014 ML 13233A205 Assessment Submittals 11.14 COMSECY-13-0010 March 27, 2013 ML 12339A262 11.15 SRM-COMSECY-13-0010 April 30, 2013 ML 13120A339 11.16 NRG Inspection of Licensee Responses to EA-12-049, EA-12-051, and Emergency Preparedness Information NRG Temporary Instruction 2515/191 October 6, 2014 ML 14273A444 NRG Tl 2515/191 Inspection Report September 22, ML 16266A301 2016-007 2016 11.17 Draft Final Rule: Mitigation of December 15, 2016 ML 16301A005 Beyond-Design-Basis Events NRG SECY-16-0142, Packaqe Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1 TABLE 11 Additional Licensee Commitments

-SAMGs and Multisource Dose Assessments ADAMS Document Date Accession No. 11.18 NEI 13-06, "Enhancements to Emergency February 2016 ML 16224A618 Reponses Capabilities for Beyond Design Basis Accidents and Events, Revision 1 Clinton Power Station , Unit No. 1 TABLE12 NRC Semi-Annual Status Reports to the Commission ADAMS Document Date Accession No. 12.1 SECY-12-0025, Enclosure 8 , "Proposed February 17 , 2012 ML 12039A 103 Orders and Requests for Information in Response to Lessons Learned from Japan's March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami" 12.2 SECY-12-0095

-Enclosure 1: Six-Month July 13 , 2012 ML 12165A092 Status Update On Charter Activities

-February 2012 -July 2012 12.3 SECY-13-0020

-Third 6-Month Status Update February 14, 2013 ML 13031A512 On Response To Lessons Learned From Japan's March 11 , 2011 , Great Tohoku Earthquake And Subsequent Tsunami 12.4 SECY-13-0095

-Fourth 6-Month Status September 6, 2013 ML 13213A304 Update on Response to Lessons Learned from Japan's March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and Subsequent Tsunami 12.5 SECY-14-0046

-Fifth 6-Month Status Update April 17, 2014 ML 14064A520 on Response to Lessons Learned From Japan's March 11 , 2011 , Great Tohoku Earthquake and Subsequent Tsunami 12.6 SECY-14-0114

-Sixth 6-Month Status Update October 21 , 2014 ML 14234A498 on Response to Lessons Learned from Japan's March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and Subsequent Tsunami 12.7 SECY-15-0059

-Seventh 6-Month Status April 9, 2015 ML 15069A444 Update on Response to Lessons Learned from Japan's March 11 , 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and Subsequent Tsunami 12.8 SECY-15-0128:

Eighth 6-Month Status October 14, 2015 ML 15245A4 73 Update on Response to Lessons Learned from Japan's March 11 , 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and Subsequent Tsunami 12.9 SECY-16-0043:

Ninth 6 Month Status Update April 5 , 2016 ML 16054A255 on Response to Lessons Learned from Japan's March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and Subsequent Tsunami 12.10 SECY-17-0016:

Status of Implementation of January 30, 2017 ML 16356A084 Lessons Learned from Japan's March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and Subsequent Tsunami B. Hanson

SUBJECT:

CLINTON POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 -DOCUMENTATION OF THE COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIONS TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO THE LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE FUKUSHIMA DAl-ICHI ACCIDENT DATED JUNE 28, 2017 DISTRIBUTION

PUBLIC JLD R/F RidsNRRJLD Resource RidsNrrDorllpl3 Resource RidsNrrDorl Resource RidsNrrPMClinton Resource RidsNrrlaSLent Resource RidsOgcMailCenter Resource RidsOpaMail Resource RidsAcrsAcnw MailCtr Resource RidsNroDsea Resource RidsRgn3MailCenter Resource ADAMS Accession No. ML 17054C552
  • Via e-mail OFFICE NRR/JLD/PM NRR/JLD/LA*

NRR/JLD/JHMB/BC*

NAME RBernardo Slent NSanfilippo DATE 4/11/2017 4/12/2017 4/13/17 OFFICE OGC (NLO)* NRR/JLD/D NAME BHarris JMarshall DATE 5/17/2017 6/28/2017 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY SBailey , NRR JBoska, NRR NSanfilippo , NRR RBernardo, NRR PBamford, NRR NRR/JLD/JOMB/BC(A)*

JBoska 4/14//2017

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17054C552&oldid=837711"