MNS-16-060, Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Supplemental Report, Response to NRC Request for Information Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident

From kanterella
Revision as of 17:05, 10 November 2019 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Supplemental Report, Response to NRC Request for Information Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident
ML16236A074
Person / Time
Site: Mcguire, McGuire  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 08/18/2016
From: Capps S
Duke Energy Carolinas
To:
Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
MNS-16-060
Download: ML16236A074 (8)
v • d • e


Text

Steven D. Capps el_-. DUKE

  • Vice President McGuire Nuclear Station
  • ~;ENERGY Duke Energy MGOIVP 1*12700 Hagers Ferry Road Huntersville, NC 28078 o: 980.875.4805 f: 980.875.4809 Steven.Capps@duke-energy.com 10 CFR 50.4 10 CFR 50.54(f)

August 18, 2016 MNS-16-060 ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS), Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 Renewed License Nos, NPF-9 and NPF:-17

Subject:

Spent Fuei Pool Evaluation Supplemental Report, Response to NRC Request for Information Pl.irs1,1ant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident

References:

1. NRC Letter, Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, dated
2. NRC Letter; Final Determination of Licensee Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessments.
  • Under the Request for Information Pursuant to Title 1Oof the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 "Seismic" of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, dated October 27, 2015, ADAMS Accession Number ML15194A015.
3. NEI Letter, transmits EPRI 3002007148 for NRC endorsement, dated February 2~, 2016, ADAMS Accession Number ML16055A017.
4. EPRI 3002007148", Seismic Evaluation Guidance SpE3nt Fuel Pool Integrity Evaluation, dated,* February 2016, ADAMS Accession Number ML16055A021.
5. NRC Letter, provides endorsement of EPRI 3002007148,.dated March 17,. 2016, ADAMS Accession Number ML15350A158.
6. Duke Energy Letter, Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC 10 CFR 50.54(f) Request for Information Pursuant to Title 1O of the Co.de of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) regarding Recommendations 2 .. 1, 2.3 and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, dated March 20, 2014, ADAMS Accession Number ML14098A421.

ft DID

~.(Lf-

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 18, 2016 Page2

/

7. NRC Letter, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 - Staff Assessment of Information provided Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50, Section 50.54(f), Seismic Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima DAl-ICHI Accident, dated July 20, 2015, ADAMS Accession Number ML15182A067. '
8. EPRI 1025287, Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details [SPID] for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, dated February 15, 2013, ADAM~ Accession Number ML12319A074.

On March 12, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a Request for Information per 10 CFR 50.54(f) (Reference 1) to all power reactor licensees~ Enclosure 1, Item (9) of the 50.54(f) letter requested addressees to provide limited scope spent fuel pool (SFP) evaluations. By letter dated Octob.er 27, 2015 (Reference 2), the NRC transmitted final seismic information request tables which identified that Duke Energy's McGuire Nuclear Station is to conduct a limited scope SFP Evaluation. By Reference 3, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) submitted an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) report entitled, Seismic Evaluation Guidance Spent Fuel Pool Integrity Evaluation (EPRI .30020071A8) (Reference 4) for NRC review arid endorsement. NRC endorsement was provided by Reference 5.

EPRI 3002007148 provides criteria for evaluating the seismic adequacy of a SFP to the reevaluated ground motion response spectrum (GMRS) hazard levels. This report supplements the guidance in the SPID (Reference 8), for plants where the GMRS peak spectral acceleration .

is less than or equal to 0.8g. Section 3.3 of EPRI 3002007148 lists the parameters to be verified to confirm that the results of the report are applicable to Duke Energy's McGuire Nuclear Station, and that the. McGuire Nuclear Station SFP is seismically adequate in accordance with NTTF 2.1 Seismic evaluation criteria.

The attachment to this letter provides the data for McGuire Nuclear Station that confirms applicability of the EPRI 3002007148 criteria, confirms that the SFP is seismically adequate, and provides the requested information in response to Item (9) of the 50.54(f) letter associated with NTTF Recommendation 2.1 Seismic evaluation criteria.

This letter contains no new Regulatory Commitments and no revision to existing Regulatory Commitments .

.Should you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact George Murphy at 980-875-5715.

  • I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 18, 2016.

Sincerely, Steven D. Capps

Attachment:

Site~Specific Spent Fuel Pool Criteria for McGuire Nuclear Station

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 18, 2016 Page 3 xc:

C. Haney, Region II Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Marquis One _Tower 245 Peachtree Center Avenue NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1257 J.P. Beska, Project Manager John.Boska@nrc.gov

  • G.E. Miller, Project Manager Ed.Miller@nrc.gov V. Screenivas, Interim Project Manager V.Screenivas@nrc.gov A. Hutto NRC Senior Resident Inspector McGuire Nuclear Station Justin Folkwein American Nuclear Insurers .

95 Glastonbury, CT. 06033-4453

ATTACHMENT Duke Energy McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS), Units 1 arid 2 Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 Renewed License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17 Site-Specific Spent Fuel Pool Criteria for McGuire Nuclear Station

Site-Specific Spent Fuel Pool Criteria for McGuire Nuclear Station Page 2 of 5 The 50.54(f) letter requested that, in conjunction with the response to NTTF Recommendation 2.1, a seismic evaluation be made of the SFP. More specifically, plants were asked to consider "all seismically induced failures that can lead to draining of the SFP." Such an evaluation would be needed for any plant in which the ground motion response spectrum (GMRS) exceeds the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) in the 1 to 1o~Hz frequency range. The staff confirmed through References 2 and 7 that the GMRS exceeds the SSE and concluded that a SFP evaluation is merited for Duke Energy's McGuire Nuclear Station. By letter dated March 17, 2016,

. [Reference 5], the staff determined that EPRI 3002007148 was an acceptable approach for performing SFP evaluations for plants where the peak spectral acceleration is less than or equal to 0.8g.

The table below Hsts the criteria from Section 3.3 of EPRI 3002007148 along with d?ta* for McGuire Nuclear Station that confirms applicability of the EPRI 3002007148 criteria and confirms that the SFP is seismically adequate and can retain adequate water inventory for 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in accordance with NTTF 2.1 Seismic evaluation criteria.

,* SFJ?.,Cri~~ri.'! Jr~~ ',E.~Rl'.;~,~*02<!9-!1'~~ .. ;J Si\~.'."Sp:ec:if~.~ D~ta .; .*. -;,',,.; ~:; .,.: <Z*:. -. ,~..*,: .. -. -~,

,,,'.::- : ~: *<< ~ :

Site Parameters

1. The site-specific GMRS peak The GMRS peak spectral acceleration in Reference spectral acceleration at any 6 as accepted by the NRC in Reference 7 is 0.676g, frequency should be less than or which is :::;; 0.8g; therefore, this criterion is met.

equal to 0.8g.

Structural Parameters l

2. The structure housing the SFP . The SFP is housed in the Fuel Building (part of the should be designed using an SSE . Auxiliary Building structure), which is seismically with peak ground acceleration (PGA) designed to the site SSE with a PGA of 0.15g [Ref.

of at least 0.1g. McGuire UFSAR Section 3.1 and Reference 12].

The McGuire Nuclear Station PGA is greater than 0.1 g; therefore, this criterion is met.

3. The structural load_path to the SFP The structural load path from the foundation to the should consist of some combination SFP consists of four foot thick concrete shear walls of reinforced concrete shear wall and with an integrated concrete frame [Ref. UFSAR elements, reinforced concrete frame Section 3.8.4.1.1, UFSAR Figures 3-104 through 3-elements, post-tensioned concrete 107, and References 9 and 1O]; therefore, this elements and/or structural steel criterion is met for McGuire Nuclear Station.

frame elements.

4. The SFP structure should be The SFP structure is included in the McGuire Nuclear included in the Civil Inspection Station Civil Inspection Program in accordance with P,rogram performed in accordance 10 CFR 50.65, which monitors the performance or with Maintenance Rule. condition of structures, systems, or components (SSCs) in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that these SSCs are capable of fulfilling their intended functions [Ref. UFSAR Section 18.2.17, UFSAR Table 18-1, and Reference 13].

Therefore, this criterion is met for McGuire Nuclear Station.

. /

Site-Specific Spent Fuel Pool Criteria for McGuire Nuclear Station Page 3 of 5 Non-Structural Parameters

5. To confirm applicability of the piping \ Piping attached to the SFP is evaluated to the SSE in evaluation in Section 3.2 of EPRI accordance with McGuire's UFSAR Section 3.1 -

3002007148, piping attached *to the Discussion for Generic Design Criteria 61, which SFP up to the first valve should have assures "the spent fuel pool is designed such that no been evaluated for the SSE. postulated accident could cause excessive loss of coolant inventory as well as McGuire UFSAR Section 3.7 and Table 3-4 [See References 7.5 through 7.8 of MCC-1612.00-00-0001 for a complete list of relevant piping drawings which contain QA conditions of the piping sections], therefore, this criterion is met for McGuire Nuclear StatiOI").

6. Anti-siphoning devices should be The McGuire Unit 1 and 2 SFP relies on passive installed on any piping that could design features to limit the amount of inventory which lead to siphoning water from the .could be inadvertently drained [Ref. UFSAR Sections SFP. In addition, for any cases 9.1.3.1.3 and 9.1.3.3.2]. In general, the mechanical

_where active anti-siphoning devices piping interfaces below the SFP normal water level are attached to 2-inch or smaller are either equipped with siphon breakers, and/or the piping and have extremely large pipe elevation does not extend more than 2-4' below extended operators, the valves normal SFP water level. The potential for rapid should be walked down to confirm drawdown on SFP inventory due to attached piping adequate lateral support. was examined in depth in McGuire calculation MCC-1612.00-00-0001, which was in response to the 10 CFR 50.54(f) request for information regarding the Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF)

Recommendation 2.3 for Seismic Walkdowns [See References 7.5 through 7.8 of MCC-1612.00 a 0001 for complete list of relevant piping drawings].

As described, anti-siphoning devices are installed on all SFP piping that could lead to siphoning; therefore, this criterion is met for McGuire Nuclear Station.

As described above, there are no anti-siphoning devices attached to 2-inch or smaller piping with extremely large extended operators. Therefore, this criterion is met for McGuire Nuclear Station.

7. To confirm applicability of the The McGuire Nuclear Station SFP has a length of 67 sloshing evaluation in Section 3.2 of ft., a width of 21.5 ft. and a depth of 40 ft. based on EPRI 3002007148, the maximum McGuire's UFSAR Section 3.8.4.1.1 and References SFP horizontal dimension (length or 9 and 1O; therefore, this criterion is met.

width) should be less than 125 ft, the The McGuire Nuclear Station GMRS maximum SFP depth should be greater than spectral acceleration in the frequency range less 36 ft, and the GMRS peak Sa should than 0.3 Hz is 0.0326g from Reference 6, which is be <0.1 g at frequencies equal to or less than 0.1 g; therefore, this criterion is met.

less than 0.3 Hz.

Site-Specific Spent Fuel Pool Criteria for McGuire Nuclear Station.

Page 4 of 5

-,

8. To confirm applicability of the The surface area of the McGuire Nuclear Station evaporation loss evaluation in SFP is 1087.6 ft2 [Calculated based on References 9 Section 3.2 of EPRI 3002007148, and 1O], whicr is greater than 500 ft 2* Licensed the SFP surface area should be reactor thermal power for McGuire Nuclear Station is greater than 500 ft2 and the licensed 3469 MWt per unit [Ref. UFSAR Section 1.1], which reactor core thermal power should is less than 4,000 MWt per unit; therefore, these be less than 4,000 MWt per unit. criteria are met.

References:

1. NRC Letter, Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, dated
2. NRC Letter, Final Determination of Licensee Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessments Under the Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 "Seismic" of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from ~he Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, dated October 27, 2015, ADAMS Accession Number ML15194A015. *
3. NEI Letter, transmits EPRI 3002007148 for NRC endorsement, dated February 23, 2016, ADAMS Accession Number ML16055A017.
4. EPRI 3002007148, Seismic Evaluation Guidance Spent Fuel Pool Integrity Evaluation, February 2016, ADAMS Accession Number ML16055A021.
5. NRC Letter, .provides endorsement of EPRI 3002007148, dated March 17, 2016, ADAMS Accession Number ML15350A158.
6. Duke Energy Letter, Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC 10 CFR 50.54(f) Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3 and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, dated March 20, 2014, ADAMS Acces$ion Number ML14098A421.
7. NRC Letter, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 - Staff Assessment of Information provided Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50, Section 50.54(f), Seismic Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima DAl-ICHI Accident, dated July 20, 2015, ADAMS Accession Number ML15182A067.
8. EPRI 1025287, Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details [SPID] for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, February 15, 2013, ADAMS Accession Number ML12319A074.
9. McGuire Drawings MC-1230-01.00 through MC-1230-09.00; Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool Concrete and Reinforcing Drawings

Site-Specific Spent Fuel Pool Criteria for McGuire Nuclear Station Page 5 of 5

10. McGuire Drawings MC-1230-12.00 through MC-1230-20.00; Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Concrete and Reinforcing Drawings
11. McGuire Calculation MCC-1612.00-00-0001, Rev. 2; "10CFR50.54(f) Recommendation 2.;3 Fukushima Near-Terni Task Force (NTTF) Seismic W,alkdown Inspections"
12. McGuire Specification MCS-1108.00-00-0002, Rev. 9; "Specification for the Response Spectra and Seismic Displacements for Category I Structures"
13. EDM-410, Rev. 17; "Inspection Program for Civil Engineering Structures and Components"
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=MNS-16-060,_Spent_Fuel_Pool_Evaluation_Supplemental_Report,_Response_to_NRC_Request_for_Information_Regarding_Recommendation_2.1_of_the_Near-Term_Task_Force_Review_of_Insights_from_the_Fukushima_Dai-ichi_Accident&oldid=2084027"