ML14197A583
| ML14197A583 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point, Arkansas Nuclear, FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 09/18/2014 |
| From: | Nicholas Difrancesco Japan Lessons-Learned Division |
| To: | Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| Uribe J, NRR/JLD, 415-3809 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML14197A583 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 September 18, 2014 LICENSEE: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
FACILITIES: Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2 Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 2 and 3 James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF THE JUNE 19, 2014, CATEGORY 1 PUBLIC MEETING WITH ENTERGY TO DISCUSS SEISMIC HAZARD REEVALUATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF JAPAN LESSONS-LEARNED NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1.
On June 19, 2014, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) held a Category 1 public meeting 1 with Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the licensee) to discuss Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO), Units 1 and 2, Indian Point Nuclear Generating (Indian Point),
Unit Nos. 2 and 3, and James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAF). The purpose of this meeting was to discuss issues resulting from the staff's screening and prioritization for several of the Entergy facilities related to Enclosure 1, Recommendation 2. 1: Seismic of the March 12, 2012, NRC request for information per Title 10 to the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Section 50.54(f) (hereafter referred to as the 50.54(f) letter"'). By letter dated May 9, 2014, 3 the NRC staff categorized ANO, Units 1 and 2 as a "conditional screen in", prioritization group 3 plant, JAF as a "conditional screen in", prioritization group 3 plant and Indian Point, Unit Nos. 2 and 3 as screened-in, prioritization group 1 plants. The due dates for the seismic risk evaluation are December 31, 2020 and June 30, 2017, for prioritization group 3 and group 1 plants, respectively. By memo dated May 21, 2014, 4 the NRC staff documented its preliminary Ground Motion Response Spectra (GMRS) curve in comparison to all licensee GMRS curves along with the plant's Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) and Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) High Confidence Low Probability of Failure (HCLPF) Spectra, also known as the IHS (IPEEE HCLPF Spectra). The public meeting supported an information exchange and understanding of engineering differences to achieve subsequent technical resolution.
In regards toANO and JAF, the discussion was limited to the review of the NRC staff draft Requests for Additional information (RAis) related to the IPEEE evaluation performed by the licensee in order to assure alignment and a common understanding of the intent and purpose of the draft RAis.
1 The original meeting notice is available via the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession No. ML14169A078.
2 The 50.54(f) letter and Enclosure 1 are available at ADAMS Accession Nos. ML12053A340 and ML12056A047, respectively.
3 The May 9, 20141etter is available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14111A147.
4 The May 21, 2014 memo is available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14136A126.
In regard to Indian Point, the NRC staff and the licensee representatives presented 5 the engineering details on the modeling inputs used to develop GMRS curves. The meeting highlights included:
- The NRC staff and licensee discussed differences in methods used to calculate kappa (i.e. soil seismic energy damping).
- The NRC staff and licensee discussed differences in velocity profiles, available onsite data, and modeling epistemic uncertainties represented in the profiles.
- Based on interactions, the NRC staff indicated it would consider the licensee's information and may develop a RAI to resolve differences.
Additionally, the licensee discussed a potential request to revise the seismic screening and prioritization for Indian Point, Unit 3 (IP3) from a prioritization Group 1 plant for seismic probability risk assessment (SPRA) to a Group 3 SPRA plant.
- The licensee stated that IP3 should be screened out from having to perform an additional risk evaluation. The licensee stated its belief that the NRC staff used inappropriate information when generating the ground motion response spectra curves. The licensee considers the site as a hard rock site whereas NRC used a softer rock value. In addition, the licensee wanted the NRC to consider its June 26, 2013 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML13183A279 and ML13183A280) submittal to the NRC of a re-evaluation of the highest risk contributing components and revised hazard information from its original IPEEE submittal. In this letter, the licensee estimated that the seismic core damage frequency (SCDF) was reduced from 1.0E-04 to 7.1 E-06 for IP3. Finally, the licensee has three reactor units screened in as prioritization Group 1 (Indian Point 2
& 3 and Pilgrim) and the licensee considers this an undue burden.
- NRC staff explained its position that the licensee's re-evaluation of plant capacity calculation was not consistent with the staff endorsed guidance6 and is insufficient to support screening out IP3 from a SPRA.
- During follow-up discussions with the licensee, the NRC staff expressed its view that the technical basis to revise IP3 from prioritization Group 1 to Group 3 was not sufficient. The staff understood that there may be a policy case for hardship since the licensee has three plants in Group 1. The NRC staff explained that the licensee would have to request a change by letter and provide sufficient arguments for proposed changes.
In summary, the NRC staff stated that the primary differences between the NRC staff and licensee GMRS curves for Indian Point appear to result from:
- The licensee not performing a site response analysis, citing P-wave refraction as justification, and the NRC staff's use of available on-site data to perform a site response analysis.
- The difference(s) in plant characterization as a hard rock site.
5 The NRC staff and Entergy slides can be found at ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14169A489 and ML14169A072.
6 "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic", this guidance document is found in ADAMS at Accession No. ML12333A170. The staff endorsement letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS at Accession No. ML12319A074.
Finally, the NRC stated that a follow-up RAI may be issued to obtain documentation of the licensee's technical basis and background information, as well as any other clarifications associated with the information presented at the meeting.
Subsequent to the public meeting by letter dated August 18, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14241A026), the licensee requested NRC review to prioritize IP3 from a Group 1 plant to a Group 3 plant. The NRC will review the licensee's supplemental information and provide a response.
No regulatory decisions or commitments were made during the meeting. The public was invited to observe the meeting and was given several opportunities to communicate with the NRC staff during the public meeting and before adjourning. The NRC staff received a few public comments/questions that were discussed and resolved during the meeting, and no follow-up actions remained. No meeting feedback forms were received by the NRC staff.
Please direct any inquiries to me at 301-415-1115, or Nicholas.DiFrancesco@ nrc.gov.
Nicholas J. DiFrancesco, Senior Project Manager Hazards Management Branch Japan Lessons-Learned Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-313, 50-368, 50-247, 50-286 and 50-333
Enclosure:
List of Attendees cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv
List of Attendees U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting with Entergy Concerning Seismic Hazard Reevaluation Submittals Japan Lessons-Learned Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic June 19, 2014 Name Organization Name Organization Jon Ake NRC/RES/DE Lois James NRC/NRRIDLR Cliff Munson NRC/NRO/DSEA Andrew Mauer NEI Diane Jackson NRC/NRO/DSEA Saive Prassmon Entergy Juan Uribe NRC/NRRIJLD Jennifer Butler AREVA Michael Balazik NRC/NRRIJLD Richard Drake Entergy Donnie Harrison NRC/NRO/DSRA Greg Hardy Simpson, Gumpertz and Heger Andrea Kock NRC/NRO/DSEA Jeremy Picard AREVA RasooiAnooshehpoor NRC/RES/DE Bryan Ford Entergy Thomas Weaver NRC/RES/DE Mike Krupa Entergy Sherwin Turk NRC/OGC John Sipos State of NY OAG Nilesh Chokshi NRC/NRO/DSEA Donald Moore Southern Nuclear Co (SNC)
Doug Pickett NRC/NRRIDORL Roger Gish TVA Brian Harris NRC/OGC Natalie Mosher Entergy Peter Bamford NRC/NRR!DORL Ronald Wittschen SNC Yang Li NRC/NRR/DE Jeff Thomas Duke Energy Kamal Manoly NRC/NRR/DE George Zinke John Favara David Heaszel NRC/NRO/DSEA Robin Mcguire Lettis Consultants International (continues to next page)
Abbrev1at1ons:
DE - Division of Engineering DSEA - Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis DSRA - Division of Safety Systems & Risk Assessment EPRI- Electric Power Research Institute IPT- International Program Team JLD- Japan Lesson Learned Project Directorate NRO- Office of New Reactors NRR- Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation RES - Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research NEI - Nuclear Energy Institute TVA- Tennessee Valley Authority SNC- Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
Enclosure
Name Organization Name Organization Calvin Wong AREVA MJ Jardaneh N RC/N RO/DSEA Richard Quittmeyer Rizzo Associates Ron Knott Duke Energy John Giddens SNC Jordan Vaughan Duke Energy Benjamin Beasley NRC/DORL Jeff Kimball Rizzo Associates Justin Huber TVA Paul Guill Duke Energy Ram Srinivasan --
Joshua Best TVA Doug Tift NRC/RGN I Mark Rutherford --
John Skonieczny --
Robert Enis TVA Bob Torkian ENERCON Wayne Schmidt NRC/RGN I Zuhan Xi NRC/NRO/DSEA Melanie Brown SNC John Voss Dominion Bridget Frymire --
Tarek Elkhoraibi Bechtel Jose Blanco Rizzo Associates Marc Hotchkiss Dominion American Electric Brenda Kovarik Power John Richards EPRI Dan Ludwig XE Nuclear Tim Graf --
ML14241A026), the licensee requested NRC review to prioritize IP3 from a Group 1 plant to a Group 3 plant. The NRC will review the licensee's supplemental information and provide a response.
No regulatory decisions or commitments were made during the meeting. The public was invited to observe the meeting and was given several opportunities to communicate with the NRC staff during the public meeting and before adjourning. The NRC staff received a few public comments/questions that were discussed and resolved during the meeting, and no follow-up actions remained. No meeting feedback forms were received by the NRC staff.
Please direct any inquiries to me at 301-415-1115, or Nicholas.DiFrancesco@nrc.gov.
IRA/
Nicholas J. DiFrancesco, Senior Project Manager Hazards Management Branch Japan Lessons-Learned Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-313, 50-368, 50-247, 50-286 and 50-333
Enclosure:
List of Attendees cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC RidsNroOd DiFrancesco, NRR RidsNrrDorl JLD R/F RidsOgcMaiiCenter KManoly, NRR RidsOpaMail DJackson, NRO RidsAcrsAcnw_MaiiCTR SWhaley, NRR RKaras, NRO RidsRgn1 MaiiCenter LYong, NRR CMuson, NRO JAke, RES RidsOgcMaiiCenter LRegner, NRR MJardaneh, NRO RidsNroDsea DPickett, NRR RidsNrrLASLent RidsNrrDe ADAMS Accession No*.. ML14197A583 *Concurrence via e-mail OFFICE NRR/JLD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA* OGC (NLO) NRR/JLD/PMB/BC NRR/JLD/PMB/PM NAME NDiFrancesco Slent BHarris (w/ comments) SWhaley NDiFrancesco DATE 09/04/14 09/15/14 09/10/14 09/18/14 09/18/14