ML17172A689
| ML17172A689 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 06/21/2017 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | NRC/NRO/DNRL/EPB |
| References | |
| Download: ML17172A689 (3) | |
Text
1 ClinchRiverESPSafRAINPEm Resource From:
Fetter, Allen Sent:
Wednesday, June 21, 2017 3:48 PM To:
Schiele, Raymond Joseph Cc:
Sutton, Mallecia; pshastings (pshastings@tva.gov); ClinchRiverESPSafRAINPEm Resource; Colaccino, Joseph; Heeszel, David
Subject:
Issuance of RAI pertaining to Section 2.5.2, Vibratory Ground Motion, RAI Number 3, eRAI-8893 Attachments:
CRNS ESP RAI VGM03 8893.pdf Good Afternoon, This email is a formal issuance of an RAI pertaining to Section 2.5.2, Vibratory Ground Motion, for the Clinch River Nuclear Site ESP application review. Question 2 in the document relates to information need VGM-02 from NRCs Seismic and Geotechnical audit that took place from May 8-9, 2017. The draft version of the RAI was provided to TVA on 6/16/2017, and a clarification call on the draft RAI was requested by TVA. The clarification call took place on 6/19/2017, and TVA gained a better understanding of the level of detail needed by NRC staff in order to help ensure that an effective RAI response is provided.
This is the third safety RAI prepared (Number 3) for the Clinch River Nuclear Site ESP application review, and it has a unique e-RAI identifying number of eRAI-8893.
The schedule we have established for the review of the application assumes technically correct and complete responses within 30 calendar days of receipt of RAIs. For any RAIs that cannot be responded to within 30 calendar days, it is expected that a date for receipt of this information will be provided to the staff within the 30-day period so that the staff can assess how this information might impact the published schedule.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
- Thanks, Allen H. Fetter, Senior Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of New Reactors Division of New Reactor Licensing Licensing Branch 3 Washington, D.C.
301-415-8556 (Office) 301-385-5342 (Mobile)
Hearing Identifier:
ClinchRiver_ESP_SafRAI_NonPublic Email Number:
6 Mail Envelope Properties (cc4e9dd62c63445290986a0cc274f5d7)
Subject:
Issuance of RAI pertaining to Section 2.5.2, Vibratory Ground Motion, RAI Number 3, eRAI-8893 Sent Date:
6/21/2017 3:47:42 PM Received Date:
6/21/2017 3:47:43 PM From:
Fetter, Allen Created By:
Allen.Fetter@nrc.gov Recipients:
"Sutton, Mallecia" <Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "pshastings (pshastings@tva.gov)" <pshastings@tva.gov>
Tracking Status: None "ClinchRiverESPSafRAINPEm Resource" <ClinchRiverESPSafRAINPEm.Resource@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Colaccino, Joseph" <Joseph.Colaccino@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Heeszel, David" <David.Heeszel@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Schiele, Raymond Joseph" <rjschiele@tva.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
HQPWMSMRS07.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1591 6/21/2017 3:47:43 PM CRNS ESP RAI VGM03 8893.pdf 98790 Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:
Request for Additional Information, Number 3, eRAI-8893 Issue Date: 06/21/2017 Application
Title:
Clinch River Nuclear Site, ESP Operating Company: Tennessee Valley Authority Docket No.52-047 Review Section: 02.05.02 - Vibratory Ground Motion Application Section: 2.5.2 QUESTIONS 02.05.02-01 Section 2.5.2.6 of the SSAR provides the results of a sensitivity study evaluating the potential impact of 2-D site effects on site response. This sensitivity study includes a comparison of the 2-D site response and a 1-D site response using a similar approach used for the 2-D results. However, the 1-D site response used in this comparison is not used for establishing the permit basis of the Clinch River site. The comparison presented in the SSAR does not currently show that the 1-D site response used for licensing adequately captures the 2-D site effects explored by the sensitivity study.
In order to satisfy requirements in 10 CFR 100.23(d)(1) as it relates to seismic hazard and for the staff to make a determination about the adequacy of the 2-D sensitivity study, please provide a comparison of the 2-D site response to the 1-D site response results used to establish the Clinch River site GMRS.
02.05.02-02 Updated SSAR Section 2.5.2.5.1.1 discusses the approach used to model epistemic uncertainty at the CRN site. A site profile is developed by grouping all available site data (as well as information from TVA dam sites) and calculating a log-mean and standard deviation. This is then used to calculate upper and lower site profiles. This approach is expected to account for dip across the site through the use of the three profiles. However, there is no justification made for this assertion in the text of the SSAR. Specifically, the SSAR does not explain how this approach accounts for the dipping structure across the site. Because the site is underlain by multiple rock layers with a dip of 33 degrees, it is necessary to explain how the 1-D site response approach is expected to accommodate the 2-D nature of the site.
In order to satisfy requirements in 10 CFR 100.23(d)(1) as it relates to seismic hazard and for the staff to make a determination about the adequacy of the site response inputs, please explain how the use of a log-mean profile, combined with upper and lower profiles based on the statistical analysis, accounts for the dipping stratigraphy of the site.