Letter Sequence Other |
---|
|
|
MONTHYEARML13079A2272013-03-12012 March 2013 Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report in Response to NRC Ltr. Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Re Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident Project stage: Request ML13077A1782013-03-18018 March 2013 3/25/13 Forthcoming Meeting with Duke Energy Carolinas to Discuss Response to NRC Request for Information for a Flooding Hazard Reevaluation for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Project stage: RAI ML13092A3632013-04-0404 April 2013 3/25/2013 - Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Summary of Meeting with Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, to Discuss the Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report Project stage: Meeting ML13254A2262013-09-11011 September 2013 Meeting Notice with Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, to Discuss the Seismic Review of the Jocassee Dam for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Tac Nos. MF0518, MF0519, MF0520, MF1012, MF1013, and MF1014) Project stage: Meeting ML13275A2252013-09-24024 September 2013 9/24/13 Meeting Slides from Meeting with Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3, Jocassee Dam Seismic Analysis Project stage: Request ML13281A5412013-10-21021 October 2013 9/24/2013 - Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Summary of Meeting with Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, to Discuss the Jocassee Dam Seismic Analysis Project stage: Meeting ML14064A5912014-03-20020 March 2014 Request for Additional Information Regarding Fukushima Lessons Learned Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report (TAC Nos. MF1012, MF1013, and MF1014) Project stage: RAI ML14258B2222014-09-15015 September 2014 NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Additional Informaiton - Oconee Flooding Hazard Reevaluation Report (TAC Nos. MF1012, MF1013, and MF1014) Project stage: Other ML14356A0062014-12-0303 December 2014 Presentation at December 3, 2014, Category 1 Public Meeting with Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC to Discuss NTTF Recommendation 2.1, Flooding Response Project stage: Request ML14356A0052014-12-31031 December 2014 Summary of December 3, 2014, Category 1 Public Meeting with Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC to Discuss NTTF Recommendation 2.1, Flooding Response for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Project stage: Meeting ONS-2015-011, Submittal of Revised Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report Per Nrc'S Request for Additional Information2015-03-0606 March 2015 Submittal of Revised Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report Per Nrc'S Request for Additional Information Project stage: Request ML15118A4602015-05-0808 May 2015 Audit Plan for the Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report Submittal Relating to the Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 - Flooding Project stage: Other ML15239B2612015-09-24024 September 2015 Interim Staff Response to Reevaluated Flood Hazards Submitted in Response to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Information Request - Flood-Causing Mechanism Reevaluation Project stage: Other ONS-2016-001, Transmittal of Supplemental Information Regarding NRC 2008 and 2012 Requests for Information, Pursuant to 10 Cer 50.54(f) Pertaining to External Flooding - Revision 12016-01-0808 January 2016 Transmittal of Supplemental Information Regarding NRC 2008 and 2012 Requests for Information, Pursuant to 10 Cer 50.54(f) Pertaining to External Flooding - Revision 1 Project stage: Supplement ML15355A1642016-01-12012 January 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report for the Audit of Duke Energy Carolinas, Llc'S Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report Submittal Related to the Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1-Flooding for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 Project stage: Other ONS-2016-042, Notification of External Flood Modifications Completion2016-04-29029 April 2016 Notification of External Flood Modifications Completion Project stage: Other 2014-12-31
[Table View] |
|
---|
Category:E-Mail
MONTHYEARML23349A0272023-12-15015 December 2023 Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specification 5.5.2 ML23284A3322023-10-11011 October 2023 Request for Additional Information Alternative Request (RA-22-0174) (L-2022-LLR-0060) ML23270B8362023-09-26026 September 2023 Code Case N-752 Audit September 26, 2023, E-mail Providing Additional Information Regarding the Use of Owner'S Requirements and Engineering Judgment in Lieu of Code and Standards ML23267A0032023-09-21021 September 2023 RP Inspection Document Request ML23269A0412023-08-22022 August 2023 Code Case N-752 Audit; August 22, 2023, E-mail Providing Additional Information Regarding Design and Quality Program Requirements ML23172A0132023-06-20020 June 2023 Duke Fleet - Correction to June 2, 2023, Request for Additional Information Proposed License Amendment Request to Revise Restrictive Surveillance Requirement Frequencies ML23153A1892023-06-0202 June 2023 Duke Fleet - Request for Additional Information Proposed License Amendment Request to Revise Restrictive Surveillance Requirement Frequencies ML23151A3482023-05-30030 May 2023 Duke Fleet - Request for Additional Information Proposed Alternative for Pressurizer Welds in Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(z)(1) ML23144A0862023-05-24024 May 2023 Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Proposed Relief Request (RA-23-0018) to Use ASME Code Case 853 ML23142A2732023-05-22022 May 2023 Duke Fleet - Request for Additional Information Proposed Alternative for Steam Generator Welds in Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(z)(1) ML23125A1452023-05-0505 May 2023 Change in Estimated Review Schedule and Level of Effort for Proposed Alternative to Use Code Case N-752 ML23124A1212023-05-0404 May 2023 Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Duke Fleet Proposed Alternative for Pressurizer Welds in Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(z)(1) ML23095A0052023-04-0404 April 2023 002 Radiation Safety Baseline Inspection Information Request ML23086C0362023-03-27027 March 2023 Request for Additional Information Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report (03R31) ML23073A2282023-03-13013 March 2023 Duke Fleet- Adoption of TSTF-554, Revision 1, Revise Reactor Coolant Leakage Requirements - Acceptance Review ML23058A0562023-02-27027 February 2023 Acceptance of Amendment to Revise Surveillance Frequencies for RCS Pressure Isolation Valve Operational Leakage Testing and Reactor Trip System Instrumentation ML23048A1512023-02-16016 February 2023 Acceptance Review - Proposed Alternative for Steam Generator Welds (L-2023-LLR-0003) ML23038A1832023-02-0707 February 2023 Request for Additional Information Alternative Request (RA-22-0174) to Use ASME Code Case N-752 ML23031A1552023-01-17017 January 2023 1/17/2023 Email from John Moses, Deputy Director, Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support, to Diane Curran, Counsel to Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club, Request for Extension of Scoping Comment Period for Oconee EIS ML22294A0812022-10-21021 October 2022 Nrc/Duke Steam Generator Inspection Call for November 8, 2022 NRC-2100-2022, EN 55999 Valcor Coil Shell Assemblies Final Notification (004)2022-09-12012 September 2022 EN 55999 Valcor Coil Shell Assemblies Final Notification (004) ML22251A2902022-09-0808 September 2022 Request for Additional Information Additional Mode Change Limitations Applicable to the Adoption of Technical Specifications Tasks Force Traveler (TSTF) No. 359, Revision 9 ML22235A6552022-08-23023 August 2022 Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Proposed Alternative to Use ASME Code Case N-752 NRC 2110-2022, EN 55999 - Valcor Engineering Corporation (009)2022-07-18018 July 2022 EN 55999 - Valcor Engineering Corporation (009) ML22234A1262022-07-0808 July 2022 Email from NRC to Duke - Feedback on Trp 76 RAI Responses - July 8, 2022 ML22234A1272022-06-14014 June 2022 Email from NRC to Duke - Feedback on Trp 76 RAI Responses - June 14, 2022 ML22154A2142022-06-0101 June 2022 Email from NRC (Angela Wu) to Duke (Paul Guill) - Oconee SLRA - 2nd Round RAI B2.1.7-4b ML22157A0012022-06-0101 June 2022 Email from NRC (Angela Wu) to Duke (Paul Guill) - Oconee SLRA - Additional NRC Comments on RAI 4.6.1-1a ML22124A2052022-05-0404 May 2022 Summary of May 4, 2022, Clarification Call with Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Application to Revise TS 3.7.7, Low Pressure Service Water (LPSW) System ML22124A1612022-05-0303 May 2022 Email from Angela Wu (NRC) to Steve Snider (Duke) - Oconee SLRA - 2nd Round RAI B2.1.7-4a ML22122A0192022-04-28028 April 2022 Email from Angela Wu (NRC) to Steve Snider (Duke) - Oconee SLRA - 2nd Round RAI B2.1.9-2a ML22122A1322022-04-27027 April 2022 Email from Angela Wu (NRC) to Steve Snider (Duke) - Oconee SLRA - 2nd Round Requests for Additional Information (FE 3.5.2.2.2.6 - Irradiation Structural) ML22115A1412022-04-25025 April 2022 NRR E-mail Capture - Duke Common EOF Relocation - Request for Addition Information ML22130A0112022-04-25025 April 2022 Email: Oconee SLRA - RAI 4.6.1-1a - NRC Staff Comments ML22112A1892022-04-22022 April 2022 Acceptance Review for Additional Mode Change Limitations Applicable to the Adoption of TSTF- 359, Revision 9 ML22112A0072022-04-20020 April 2022 Email from Marieliz Johnson (NRC) to Steve Snider (Duke) - Oconee SLRA - Request for Confirmation of Information 3.5.2.2.2.6-L ML22113A0082022-04-20020 April 2022 Email from Marieliz Johnson (NRC) to Steve Snider (Duke) - Oconee SLRA - Request for Additional Information 3.1.2-1 ML22088A0452022-03-28028 March 2022 Radiation Safety Baseline Inspection Initial Information Request Inspection Report 2022002 ML22081A0052022-03-21021 March 2022 Email from Angela Wu (NRC) to Steve Snider (Duke) - Oconee SLRA - 2nd Round RAI B4.1-3 ML22080A0792022-03-16016 March 2022 Email from Angela Wu (NRC) to Steve Snider (Duke) - Oconee SLRA - Requests for Additional Information - Set 4 (2nd Round Rais) ML22075A2032022-03-11011 March 2022 Email from Duke to NRC - Follow-Up Items from March 7, 2022 Public Meeting ML22074A0022022-03-11011 March 2022 Email from Duke to NRC - Follow-up Item from March 7, 2022 Public Meeting - SSW Tendon AMP ML22069A0022022-03-0808 March 2022 Email from Angela Wu (NRC) to Steve Snider (Duke) - Oconee SLRA - Requests for Confirmation of Information - Set 4 ML22063A4502022-03-0404 March 2022 Request for Additional Information Application to Revise TS 3.7.7, Low Pressure Service Water (LPSW) System, to Extend the Completion Time for One Required Inoperable LPSW Pump ML22063A1152022-02-23023 February 2022 Email from Duke to NRC - Follow Up Item from February 17, 2022 Public Meeting ML22038A1572022-02-0707 February 2022 NRR E-mail Capture - Duke Energy Fleet - Acceptance of License Amendment Request Regarding Adoption of TSTF-541, Revision 2 ML22035A1892022-01-31031 January 2022 Email from NRC (Angela Wu) to Duke (Paul Guill) - Oconee SLRA - Request for Public Meeting ML22018A0272022-01-18018 January 2022 2022 All RFI Responses - Exercise and Program Inspections - Revl ML22019A1032022-01-18018 January 2022 Email from Angela Wu (NRC) to Steve Snider (Duke) - Oconee SLRA - Requests for Additional Information - Set 3 ML22012A0432022-01-11011 January 2022 SLRA - Requests for Additional Information - Set 2 2023-09-26
[Table view] |
Text
1NRR-PMDAPEm ResourceFrom:Kuntz, RobertSent:Monday, September 15, 2014 2:52 PMTo:David.Haile@duke-energy.comCc:Hall, Randy; Whaley, Sheena
Subject:
Request for Additional Informaiton - Oconee Flooding Hazard Reevaluation Report (TAC NOS. MF1012, MF1013, AND MF1014)Attachments:Oconee RAI on XuZhang.docxMr. Haile, By a letter dated March 12, 2013, Duke Energy submitted its flood hazard reevaluation report (FHRR) for Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2, and 3 (ADAMS Accession Number: ML13079A227).
Based on a review of the submittal, the NRC staff has determined that the attached request for additional information (RAI) is required in order to complete its review. As we discussed in our clarification call, the NRC staff requests that Duke provide a response, or a schedule to provide a response, within 30 days of this email.
The NRC staff has determined that no security-related or proprietary information is contained herein.
Sincerely, Robert Kuntz Sr. Project Manager NRR/JLD/JHMB (301) 415-3733 Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 1573 Mail Envelope Properties (Robert.Kuntz@nrc.gov20140915145200)
Subject:
Request for Additional Informaiton - Oconee Flooding Hazard Reevaluation Report (TAC NOS. MF1012, MF1013, AND MF1014) Sent Date: 9/15/2014 2:52:25 PM Received Date: 9/15/2014 2:52:00 PM From: Kuntz, Robert Created By: Robert.Kuntz@nrc.gov Recipients: "Hall, Randy" <Randy.Hall@nrc.gov> Tracking Status: None "Whaley, Sheena" <Sheena.Whaley@nrc.gov> Tracking Status: None "David.Haile@duke-energy.com" <David.Haile@duke-energy.com> Tracking Status: None Post Office: Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 762 9/15/2014 2:52:00 PM Oconee RAI on XuZhang.docx 32982 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received:
Request for Additional Information Fukushima Lessons Learned Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report Oconee Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3 (TAC NOS. MF1012, MF1013, AND MF1014)
Failure of Dams and Onsite Water Control/Storage Structures (Choice of Methodology and Technical Rationale - Dam Breach Parameters Estimation)
Background and Discussion By a letter dated March 12, 2013, Duke Energy submitted its flood hazard reevaluation report (FHRR) for Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2, and 3 (ADAMS Accession Number:
ML13079A227). The flood hazard reevaluation report contains dam breach analyses performed using the dam breach parameter estimation methodology proposed by Xu and Zhang1. Initial review of the breach methodology by the staff resulted in the following observations:
- The methodology has not been applied for use in past hazard assessments related to the siting of new nuclear facilities by NRC staff.
- The methodology relies on highly subjective erodibility criteria with no clear ties to soil engineering and hydraulic properties, and moreover, the erodibility classes were inferred in many instances by indirect methods.
- The database used in the development of the equations by Xu and Zhang uses information from sites in China with minimal verifiability and assumptions about the prevailing conditions that are necessary to deduce information on erodibility.
- The methodology appears to have a different implementation of the dam breach time parameter as compared to other methodologies.
- The parameters used to determine failure time do not appear to be suitable to use as the breach formation time parameter in the hydraulic model HEC-RAS, which is a widely used modeling environment and the one selected for use in the Oconee FHRR.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) subsequently commissioned a study to determine the suitability of the Xu and Zhang methodology. The study was conducted by Mr. Tony Wahl, P.E., of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). He is the author of the 1998 report on breach parameter estimation2 with over a decade of collaboration with developers modeling software such as WinDAM and HR-BREACH. The study was peer reviewed by some of the leading experts in this technical area.
The details of the USBR study are published in the report "Evaluation of Erodibility-Based Embankment Dam Breach Equations" (Hydraulic Laboratory Report HL-2014-02 June, 2014)3. 1 Xu, Y. and L.M. Zhang, 2009. Breaching parameters for earth and rockfill dams. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 135(12):1957-1970. 2 Wahl, T.L., 1998. Prediction of embankment dam breach parameters: a literature review and needs assessment, Dam Safety Research Report DSO-98-004, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, July 1998. 3 The report is published online at http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab/pubs/HL/HL-2014-02.pdf Key findings of the study are as follows:
- The evaluation showed that the Xu and Zhang breach height, breach width, and peak outflow equations produced reasonable predictions of observed breach parameters for medium- and high-erodibility dams.
- Despite the necessarily subjective manner in which erodibility classifications were assigned to the case study dams, erodibility classification is a valuable input parameter.
- The failure times predicted by the Xu and Zhang equations (both 'best' and 'best simple') were consistently and significantly longer than observed breach formation times. Xu and Zhang's mixture of failure times does not represent a single parameter but is instead an ill-defined combination of different times. This negates the value of their failure time equation for most practical purposes, since one cannot know reliably what it represents. Therefore, the Xu and Zhang failure time equation cannot be applied with confidence because it is based on data that represents an undefined mix of breach formation times and total breach times
- For breach outflow hydrograph modeling, the times are too long and will yield unrealistically low estimates of peak breach outflow. The equation is also not useful for predicting breach initiation time, since it represents something approaching total failure time, and there is no way to separate out only the breach initiation time.
- For predicting the breach formation time to be used as input to a parametric dam failure model, other existing equations should be utilized, such as Froehlich4, Von Thun and Gillette5, or others.
- It was impossible to effectively test the Xu and Zhang equations for dams with low erodibility. Only seven dams in this category were present in the original data set, and four of these were cases from China which there was no English-language supporting documentation. Of the 3 remaining cases, examination of supporting documents revealed that Winston Dam was composed of very weak soils and had an uncertain observed failure time, Frankfurt Dam was of unknown composition (only described as "earthfill") with an uncertain failure time, and Oros Dam was low-erodibility but had an unreliable observed peak outflow. With such limited data, the low-erodibility adjustment factors presented in Xu and Zhang equations cannot be verified.
- With regard to rockfill dams, failure times were overpredicted for all five cases and medium-erodibility appears reasonable for rockfill dams.
In addition to the FHRR, the staff reviewed a report submitted by Duke Energy on the validation of the dam breach methodology developed by Xu and Zhang, titled "Validation of HRR Breach Hydrograph for Jocassee Dam" by Mr. Joseph L. Ehasz, P.E., and Dr. David S. Bowles. This report reviews the suitability of the dam breach parameters for Jocassee Dam and discusses the suitability of the Xu and Zhang regression equation for use as input to HEC-RAS and SRH-2D computer models. Since the Jocassee Dam is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulation Commission (FERC), NRC requested that FERC review the Ehasz and Bowles report. By a letter dated August 14, 2014, FERC responded to NRC's request via a technical memo. The FERC memo stated that the Xu and Zhang regression equations do not have an adequate dataset to apply the methodology to large, rockfill structures with substantial reservoir volumes 4 Froehlich, David C. (2008), "Embankment Breach Parameters and Their Uncertainties", Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 134(12), pp. 1708-1721. 5 Von Thun, J. L., and Gillette, D. R. (1990), Guidance on Breach Parameters unpublished internal memorandum, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Denver, Colorado.
such as the Jocassee Dam. The FERC memo also affirmed NRC's determination by concluding that relying on the Xu and Zhang equations alone for determining breach parameters at Jocassee Dam is not appropriate. Information Requested Based on the findings of the USBR study commissioned by the NRC and independent conclusions reached by FERC, the Xu and Zhang equations are not appropriate as applied in the submitted FHRR by Duke Energy. In particular, the USBR study and FERC memo conclude that there is inadequate data on low-erodibility dams to support the Xu and Zhang equations for the low-erodibility category. In addition, the Xu and Zhang equations for dam failure time cannot be reliably applied for the purposes of breach hydrograph prediction since the predicted times do not represent the HEC-RAS breach formation time. Instead, results produced using the Xu and Zhang equations represent an uncertain mix of breach initiation and breach formation times.
The staff requests that Duke Energy reanalyze and resubmit the dam failure analyses for the ONS, Units 1, 2 and 3 FHRR after applying alternate breach-parameter estimations than those predicted using the Xu and Zhang methodology. Because of the large uncertainties, inconsistencies, and potential biases associated with breach modeling in general, the staff requests that the model results not rely on a single methodology. Instead, the staff requests comparison of results for several models judged appropriate (although the Oconee FHRR was submitted before JLD-ISG-2013-1 (ML13151A153) which was completed in July, 2013, this JLD-ISG may provide useful guidance regarding application of breach models the NRC staff find appropriate for use). Justification should be provided for the selection of the candidate breach models used as well as the selected value(s) used in the hydraulic model. Parameter uncertainty as well as parameter sensitivity in the final model results should be explicitly addressed in the response.