Electric Power Research Institute; Seismic Evaluation Guidance, 13097-13099 [2013-04396]
Download as PDF
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2013 / Notices
particular one rendered through a
voluntary system—should be
enforceable. In addition to monetary
damages, such a judgment might
include some form of injunctive relief.
Participants offered a range of
suggestions on the matter of
enforcement. Some indicated that the
Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1 et
seq., might to some degree serve as a
model for obtaining an enforceable
federal court judgment following
adjudication by the small claims
tribunal. Participants also commented
on the practical aspects of collecting on
judgments. Noting that the challenges of
enforcing a judgment, once obtained, are
not unique to the copyright context,
some suggested that successful small
claims plaintiffs could avail themselves
of existing federal and state court
procedures. The Office welcomes
further discussion of existing or
potential mechanisms that successful
plaintiffs might employ to enforce small
claims judgments without incurring
prohibitive costs.
13. Unknown defendants. Some
hearing participants observed that in
many instances—especially in the case
of internet-based infringement—the
infringer’s identity may not be known
and/or the infringer may be difficult to
locate. Web sites may lack usable
contact data and/or may be registered
anonymously. Should the small claims
procedure permit parties to pursue
claims against ‘‘John Doe’’ defendants,
including, when appropriate, the means
to subpoena an internet service provider
to learn the identity and location of
such a defendant? The Office invites
comments on how such a process might
work, with reference to existing
practices in other courts as appropriate.
14. Multiple tracks or proceedings.
During the hearings, some participants
discussed the possibility of having more
than one type of small copyright claims
proceeding—a highly simplified process
for straightforward claims with perhaps
only a few hundred or few thousand
dollars at stake, and a more robust
process for matters of greater complexity
or economic consequence that are still
too small to be practically pursued in
federal district court. Stakeholders
considered whether, even within the
small claims context, there should be a
greater amount of discovery and
procedure in certain types of cases, for
example, when an injunction is sought.
The Office seeks further comment on
whether a tiered system would be
desirable, or whether a single, unified
approach to small claims is the better
alternative, perhaps with the possibility
of developing additional ‘‘tracks’’ over
time if warranted.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Feb 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
15. Constitutional issues. The Office
continues to be interested in learning
more about the constitutional impact of
any small copyright claims procedure.
Thus, the Office requests additional
comments on whether a small copyright
claims system might implicate any one
or more of the following constitutional
concerns—or any other constitutional
issue—and, if so, how the particular
concern might be addressed:
a. Separation of powers questions
arising from the creation of specialized
tribunals outside of the Article III
framework, including how a right of
review by an Article III court might
impact the analysis;
b. The Seventh Amendment right to
have a copyright infringement case tried
by a jury, as confirmed in Feltner v.
Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523
U.S. 340 (1998);
c. Constitutional requirements for a
court’s assertion of personal
jurisdiction, in particular when
adjudicating claims of a defendant
located in another state; and/or
d. Due process considerations arising
from abbreviated procedures that
impose limitations on briefing,
discovery, testimony, evidence,
appellate review, etc.
16. International issues. At the public
hearings, some participants sought to
ensure that the small claims procedure
would be available to foreign plaintiffs
seeking redress for infringing activity in
the United States, as well as to U.S.
plaintiffs seeking to take action against
foreign defendants, as is permitted
under the existing federal system. The
operation of a small copyright claims
system could have implications for the
United States’ rights and responsibilities
under the Berne Convention, the
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS),
and other instruments. The Office
welcomes additional comments on the
international implications of a small
claims system, including how the
voluntary or mandatory nature of such
a system might affect the analysis.
17. Empirical data. Previous
comments provided helpful empirical
data relevant to the adjudication of
small copyright claims, including
surveys by the American Bar
Association Section on Intellectual
Property Law and the Graphic Artists
Guild. The Office welcomes additional
surveys and empirical studies bearing
upon:
a. Whether copyright owners are or
are not pursuing small infringement
claims through the existing federal court
process, and the factors that influence
copyright owners’ decisions in that
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13097
regard, including the value of claims
pursued or forgone;
b. The overall cost to a plaintiff and/
or a defendant to litigate a copyright
infringement action to conclusion in
federal court, including costs and
attorneys’ fees, discovery expenditures,
expert witness fees and other expenses
(with reference to the stage of
proceedings at which the matter was
concluded);
c. The frequency with which courts
award costs and/or attorneys’ fees to
prevailing parties pursuant to 17 U.S.C.
505, and the amount of such awards in
relation to the underlying claim or
recovery; and/or
d. The frequency with which litigants
decline to accept an outcome in state
small copyright claims court and seek
de novo review (with or without a jury
trial) or file an appeal in a different
court.
Parties considering the submission of
additional survey or empirical data may
wish to review the studies mentioned
above, which are available at https://
www.copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims/.
18. Other issues. Please comment on
any other issues the Copyright Office
should consider in conducting its small
copyright claims study.
Dated: February 20, 2013.
Maria A. Pallante,
Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 2013–04466 Filed 2–25–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2013–0038]
Electric Power Research Institute;
Seismic Evaluation Guidance
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Endorsement letter; issuance.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing an
endorsement letter with clarifications of
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)1025287, ‘‘Seismic Evaluation
Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and
Implementation Details (SPID) for the
Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term
Task Force Recommendation 2.1:
Seismic,’’ Revision 0, hereafter referred
to as the SPID report. This SPID report
provides guidance and clarification of
an acceptable approach to assist nuclear
power reactor licensees when
responding to the NRC staff’s request for
information dated March 12, 2012,
Enclosure 1, ‘‘Recommendation 2.1:
Seismic.’’ The NRC staff’s endorsement
E:\FR\FM\26FEN1.SGM
26FEN1
13098
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2013 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
letter includes additional clarifications
on the: (1) Use of the Individual Plant
Examination of External Events (IPEEE)
submittals for screening purposes; (2)
development of foundation input
response spectra (FIRS) consistent with
the site response used in the
development of the site-specific ground
motion response spectrum (GMRS); (3)
updating the seismic source models;
and (4) development of the site
response.
ADDRESSES: You may access information
related to this document, which the
NRC possesses and is publicly available,
by searching on https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
NRC–2013–0038.
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2013–0038. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–492–3668;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publiclyavailable documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search,
select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and
then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The NRC
staff’s endorsement letter is available
under ADAMS Accession No.
ML12319A074. The NRC staff’s request
for information dated March 12, 2012,
Enclosure 1, ‘‘Recommendation 2.1:
Seismic’’ is available under ADAMS
Accession No. ML12053A340.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs.
Lisa M. Regner, Japan Lessons-Learned
Project Directorate, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
1906; email: Lisa.Regner@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background Information
The endorsement letter for the SPID
report is being issued to the public to
describe guidance that is acceptable for
responding to the request to reevaluate
seismic hazards at operating reactor
sites, as discussed in Enclosure 1
‘‘Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,’’ of the
NRC staff’s request for information
(RFI), ‘‘Request for Information Pursuant
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Feb 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
to Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Part 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 12,
2012.
The NRC issued the RFI following the
NRC staff’s evaluation of the earthquake
and tsunami, and resulting nuclear
accident, at the Fukushima Dai-ichi
nuclear power plant in March 2011.
Enclosure 1 to the RFI requests licensees
and holders of construction permits
under 10 CFR Part 50, to reevaluate the
seismic hazards at their sites using
present-day NRC requirements and
guidance, and identify actions taken or
planned to address plant-specific
vulnerabilities associated with the
updated seismic hazards. Based on this
information, the NRC staff will
determine whether additional regulatory
actions are necessary to protect against
the updated hazards. The principal
purpose of the SPID report is to provide
guidance for responding to the RFI by
describing strategies for screening,
prioritization, and potential interim
actions, as well as implementation
guidance for the risk evaluation that are
acceptable to the NRC staff.
Basis for Endorsement
The NRC staff interacted with the
stakeholders on development of the
SPID report with a focus on screening,
prioritization, and implementation
details as they relate to performing a
seismic reevaluation. The SPID report is
the product of significant interaction
between the NRC, Nuclear Energy
Institute, EPRI, and other stakeholders
at over fifteen public meetings 1 over a
9-month period. These interactions and
the insights gained from the meetings
allowed for the development of this
document in a very short time frame.
The meetings helped develop the
expectations for how licensees would
perform plant evaluations after having
updated their seismic hazard
information. At each meeting, the NRC
staff provided its comments on the
current version of the SPID report and
discussed with stakeholders subsequent
proposed revisions to the document.
This iterative process, over several
months, resulted in the final version of
the document. The NRC staff’s
endorsement of the SPID report, subject
to the additional guidance noted below,
is based on this cumulative
development process resulting from the
1 Public meetings were held on March 1–2, April
2–3, May 15–16, June 14, July 24–25, August 16 and
30, September 11 and 21, October 9 and 18,
November 5, 9, 14, 20, and 26, 2012.
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
extensive interactions between
stakeholders and the NRC staff.
The NRC staff has reviewed the SPID
report and confirmed that it would
provide licensees with the guidance
necessary to perform seismic
reevaluations and report the results to
the NRC in a manner that will address
the Requested Information items (1)
through (9) in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f)
letter. The SPID report is intended to
provide sufficient guidance for all sites,
however, each site is unique and
requirements for analysis can vary. In
cases where the SPID report may not
account for the unique characteristics of
a site, prudent and sound engineering
judgment should be employed to assure
all issues bearing on the hazard and risk
evaluations are adequately addressed.
Instances when unique site
characteristics require such engineering
judgment, or require analysis that is not
included in the SPID report, should be
clearly identified, along with the
measures taken to assure the unique site
characteristics are appropriately
addressed. Although the NRC staff finds
that the performance and reporting of
the seismic reevaluation in accordance
with this document would be
responsive to the 50.54(f) letter, there
are four further issues described below
for which the staff provides additional
guidance. These issues are: (1) The use
of the IPEEE submittals for screening
purposes; (2) development of FIRS
consistent with the site response used in
the development of the site-specific
GMRS; (3) updating the seismic source
models; and (4) development of the site
response.
Use of IPEEE for Screening
Section 3.3 of the EPRI guidance
document provides the criteria used to
determine if the licensee’s previous
IPEEE submittal is adequate to use for
screening purposes. A seismic
assessment performed as part of the
IPEEE program that demonstrates a
plant capacity that is higher than the
new GMRS can be used to screen out
plants, provided they meet certain
adequacy criteria.
Each licensee has the option of
demonstrating the adequacy of its
previous IPEEE submittal for screening
purposes as part of its response to the
50.54(f) letter. The NRC staff will review
each submittal and determine whether
the provided information demonstrates
the adequacy of the IPEEE analysis and
risk insights. The licensee’s description
of each of the adequacy criteria,
described in Section 3.3 of the SPID
report, will be reviewed by the NRC
staff in its integrated totality, rather than
using a pass/fail approach. As such,
E:\FR\FM\26FEN1.SGM
26FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2013 / Notices
even if one or more of the criteria are
not deemed to be adequate, the NRC
staff may still decide that the overall
IPEEE analysis is adequate to support its
use for screening purposes. The NRC
staff may conduct site visits to view
IPEEE documentation referenced in
support of the IPEEE adequacy
submittal.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Development of FIRS
The SPID report does not discuss the
development of FIRS used for
performing soil-structure interaction
analyses. Consistent with guidance
described in DC/COL–ISG–017,
‘‘Ensuring Hazard-Consistent Seismic
Input for Site Response and Soil
Structure Interaction Analyses,’’ the
FIRS should be derived in a manner
consistent with the site response used in
the development of the site-specific
GMRS. As such, the FIRS should be
derived as performance-based sitespecific response spectra at the
foundation level in the free field. The
starting point for development of the
FIRS should be the same hard rock
elevation used as the starting point for
developing the GMRS. As the
engineering properties of soil are straindependent and can be highly non-linear,
the characterization of soil layers and
their associated properties used in the
GMRS analysis should also be used for
the derivation of the site-specific FIRS
at the foundation elevation. The
performance-based FIRS can be
developed using either a full-column
outcrop motion that includes the effect
of the soil above, or as a geologic
outcrop motion for which the soil layers
above the foundation elevation have
been removed.
Updating the Central and Eastern
United States (CEUS)-Seismic Source
Characterization (SSC) Model
Section 2.2 of the SPID report
provides an overview of the CEUS–SSC
model and explains why it is
appropriate to use without update for
the seismic reevaluations. Specifically,
Section 2.2 states ‘‘for site-specific
licensing applications or site-specific
safety decisions, these seismic sources
would be reviewed on a site-specific
basis to determine if they need to be
updated. Such evaluations would be
appropriate in a licensing application,
where focus could be made on sitespecific applications. However, for a
screening-level study of multiple plants
for the purpose of setting priorities, the
use of these seismic sources as
published is appropriate.’’
The NRC staff agrees that the CEUS–
SSC model does not need to be updated
for the seismic reevaluations, but the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Feb 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
staff’s rationale is different than that
presented in the SPID report.
Specifically, the staff has determined
that the CEUS–SSC model does not
need to be updated because the model
is up-to-date and is sufficiently refined
to allow a site-specific source model to
be developed. To adequately respond to
the 50.54(f) letter, a site-specific GMRS
should be calculated for each plant so
that an informed decision can be made
regarding which plants will be required
to complete a risk evaluation. Further,
the site-specific GMRS will also be used
in the risk evaluations.
Prior to issuing the CEUS–SSC model,
the Technical Integration Team
considered potentially significant events
(such as the 2011 Mineral, VA
earthquake) that had occurred after the
model was developed, and determined
that those events did not change their
interpretations of seismic sources or
earthquake recurrence rates. If a
significant earthquake in the CEUS were
to occur or new information were to
emerge during the reevaluation period
that could require an update of the
CEUS–SSC model, the staff expects
licensees to evaluate the significance of
the new information to determine if the
CEUS–SSC model needs to be updated
in order to appropriately respond to the
50.54(f) request.
Site Response
Section 2.4.1 and Appendix B of the
SPID report provides guidance on how
to develop the site response in cases
where limited site response data exists.
As stated in Appendix B, the NRC staff
expects licensees to use available
geologic, geotechnical, and geophysical
data collected during the initial
licensing or subsequent activities at the
site to the extent practicable. Where
limited site response data exists,
information from core borings and data
collected from site and regional
evaluations should be used to develop
the site response amplification. Section
4 of the SPID report states that licensees
should provide the basis for the site
responses used in the reevaluations. The
NRC staff expects site-specific geology,
geotechnical, and geophysical
information to be a significant part of
the basis.
Non-Concurrence
An NRC staff member did not agree
with some content of the SPID report
and submitted a non-concurrence on the
SPID endorsement letter. In accordance
with the NRC’s non-concurrence
process, NRC management and staff
worked to address the staff member’s
concerns, and documentation of the
non-concurrence can be found in
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13099
ADAMS at Accession No.
ML12324A195.
60-Day Response
In accordance with the 50.54(f) letter,
each licensee is to submit to the NRC its
intention to follow the NRC-endorsed
seismic reevaluation guidance, or an
alternative approach, 60 days after the
issuance of the NRC-endorsed guidance.
For the purpose of meeting this
deadline, the 60-day response period
commences on the date the
endorsement letter is published in the
Federal Register.
Backfitting and Issue Finality
This endorsement letter does not
constitute backfitting as defined in 10
CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) and is not
otherwise inconsistent with the issue
finality provisions in Part 52, ‘‘Licenses,
Certifications, and Approvals for
Nuclear Power Plants,’’ of 10 CFR. This
endorsement letter provides guidance
on an acceptable method for
implementing the March 12, 2012, RFI.
Applicants and licensees may
voluntarily use the guidance in the SPID
report, as clarified by the NRC staff in
the endorsement letter, to comply with
the RFI. Methods, analyses, or solutions
that differ from those described in the
SPID report may be deemed acceptable
if they provide sufficient basis and
information for the NRC staff to verify
that the proposed alternative is
acceptable.
Congressional Review Act
This endorsement letter is a rule as
designated in the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801–808). The Office of
Management and Budget has found that
this is a major rule in accordance with
the Congressional Review Act.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day
of February 2013.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David L. Skeen,
Director, Japan Lessons-Learned Project
Directorate, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2013–04396 Filed 2–25–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Sunshine Federal Register Notice
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, [NRC–2013–
0001].
Weeks of February 25, March 4,
11, 18, 25, April 1, 2013.
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\26FEN1.SGM
26FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13097-13099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04396]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2013-0038]
Electric Power Research Institute; Seismic Evaluation Guidance
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Endorsement letter; issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an
endorsement letter with clarifications of Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI)-1025287, ``Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening,
Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of
Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,'' Revision
0, hereafter referred to as the SPID report. This SPID report provides
guidance and clarification of an acceptable approach to assist nuclear
power reactor licensees when responding to the NRC staff's request for
information dated March 12, 2012, Enclosure 1, ``Recommendation 2.1:
Seismic.'' The NRC staff's endorsement
[[Page 13098]]
letter includes additional clarifications on the: (1) Use of the
Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) submittals for
screening purposes; (2) development of foundation input response
spectra (FIRS) consistent with the site response used in the
development of the site-specific ground motion response spectrum
(GMRS); (3) updating the seismic source models; and (4) development of
the site response.
ADDRESSES: You may access information related to this document, which
the NRC possesses and is publicly available, by searching on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2013-0038.
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0038. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly-available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The NRC staff's endorsement
letter is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML12319A074. The NRC
staff's request for information dated March 12, 2012, Enclosure 1,
``Recommendation 2.1: Seismic'' is available under ADAMS Accession No.
ML12053A340.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Lisa M. Regner, Japan Lessons-
Learned Project Directorate, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone:
301-415-1906; email: Lisa.Regner@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background Information
The endorsement letter for the SPID report is being issued to the
public to describe guidance that is acceptable for responding to the
request to reevaluate seismic hazards at operating reactor sites, as
discussed in Enclosure 1 ``Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,'' of the NRC
staff's request for information (RFI), ``Request for Information
Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part
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 12, 2012.
The NRC issued the RFI following the NRC staff's evaluation of the
earthquake and tsunami, and resulting nuclear accident, at the
Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in March 2011. Enclosure 1 to
the RFI requests licensees and holders of construction permits under 10
CFR Part 50, to reevaluate the seismic hazards at their sites using
present-day NRC requirements and guidance, and identify actions taken
or planned to address plant-specific vulnerabilities associated with
the updated seismic hazards. Based on this information, the NRC staff
will determine whether additional regulatory actions are necessary to
protect against the updated hazards. The principal purpose of the SPID
report is to provide guidance for responding to the RFI by describing
strategies for screening, prioritization, and potential interim
actions, as well as implementation guidance for the risk evaluation
that are acceptable to the NRC staff.
Basis for Endorsement
The NRC staff interacted with the stakeholders on development of
the SPID report with a focus on screening, prioritization, and
implementation details as they relate to performing a seismic
reevaluation. The SPID report is the product of significant interaction
between the NRC, Nuclear Energy Institute, EPRI, and other stakeholders
at over fifteen public meetings \1\ over a 9-month period. These
interactions and the insights gained from the meetings allowed for the
development of this document in a very short time frame. The meetings
helped develop the expectations for how licensees would perform plant
evaluations after having updated their seismic hazard information. At
each meeting, the NRC staff provided its comments on the current
version of the SPID report and discussed with stakeholders subsequent
proposed revisions to the document. This iterative process, over
several months, resulted in the final version of the document. The NRC
staff's endorsement of the SPID report, subject to the additional
guidance noted below, is based on this cumulative development process
resulting from the extensive interactions between stakeholders and the
NRC staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public meetings were held on March 1-2, April 2-3, May 15-
16, June 14, July 24-25, August 16 and 30, September 11 and 21,
October 9 and 18, November 5, 9, 14, 20, and 26, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC staff has reviewed the SPID report and confirmed that it
would provide licensees with the guidance necessary to perform seismic
reevaluations and report the results to the NRC in a manner that will
address the Requested Information items (1) through (9) in Enclosure 1
of the 50.54(f) letter. The SPID report is intended to provide
sufficient guidance for all sites, however, each site is unique and
requirements for analysis can vary. In cases where the SPID report may
not account for the unique characteristics of a site, prudent and sound
engineering judgment should be employed to assure all issues bearing on
the hazard and risk evaluations are adequately addressed. Instances
when unique site characteristics require such engineering judgment, or
require analysis that is not included in the SPID report, should be
clearly identified, along with the measures taken to assure the unique
site characteristics are appropriately addressed. Although the NRC
staff finds that the performance and reporting of the seismic
reevaluation in accordance with this document would be responsive to
the 50.54(f) letter, there are four further issues described below for
which the staff provides additional guidance. These issues are: (1) The
use of the IPEEE submittals for screening purposes; (2) development of
FIRS consistent with the site response used in the development of the
site-specific GMRS; (3) updating the seismic source models; and (4)
development of the site response.
Use of IPEEE for Screening
Section 3.3 of the EPRI guidance document provides the criteria
used to determine if the licensee's previous IPEEE submittal is
adequate to use for screening purposes. A seismic assessment performed
as part of the IPEEE program that demonstrates a plant capacity that is
higher than the new GMRS can be used to screen out plants, provided
they meet certain adequacy criteria.
Each licensee has the option of demonstrating the adequacy of its
previous IPEEE submittal for screening purposes as part of its response
to the 50.54(f) letter. The NRC staff will review each submittal and
determine whether the provided information demonstrates the adequacy of
the IPEEE analysis and risk insights. The licensee's description of
each of the adequacy criteria, described in Section 3.3 of the SPID
report, will be reviewed by the NRC staff in its integrated totality,
rather than using a pass/fail approach. As such,
[[Page 13099]]
even if one or more of the criteria are not deemed to be adequate, the
NRC staff may still decide that the overall IPEEE analysis is adequate
to support its use for screening purposes. The NRC staff may conduct
site visits to view IPEEE documentation referenced in support of the
IPEEE adequacy submittal.
Development of FIRS
The SPID report does not discuss the development of FIRS used for
performing soil-structure interaction analyses. Consistent with
guidance described in DC/COL-ISG-017, ``Ensuring Hazard-Consistent
Seismic Input for Site Response and Soil Structure Interaction
Analyses,'' the FIRS should be derived in a manner consistent with the
site response used in the development of the site-specific GMRS. As
such, the FIRS should be derived as performance-based site-specific
response spectra at the foundation level in the free field. The
starting point for development of the FIRS should be the same hard rock
elevation used as the starting point for developing the GMRS. As the
engineering properties of soil are strain-dependent and can be highly
non-linear, the characterization of soil layers and their associated
properties used in the GMRS analysis should also be used for the
derivation of the site-specific FIRS at the foundation elevation. The
performance-based FIRS can be developed using either a full-column
outcrop motion that includes the effect of the soil above, or as a
geologic outcrop motion for which the soil layers above the foundation
elevation have been removed.
Updating the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS)-Seismic Source
Characterization (SSC) Model
Section 2.2 of the SPID report provides an overview of the CEUS-SSC
model and explains why it is appropriate to use without update for the
seismic reevaluations. Specifically, Section 2.2 states ``for site-
specific licensing applications or site-specific safety decisions,
these seismic sources would be reviewed on a site-specific basis to
determine if they need to be updated. Such evaluations would be
appropriate in a licensing application, where focus could be made on
site-specific applications. However, for a screening-level study of
multiple plants for the purpose of setting priorities, the use of these
seismic sources as published is appropriate.''
The NRC staff agrees that the CEUS-SSC model does not need to be
updated for the seismic reevaluations, but the staff's rationale is
different than that presented in the SPID report. Specifically, the
staff has determined that the CEUS-SSC model does not need to be
updated because the model is up-to-date and is sufficiently refined to
allow a site-specific source model to be developed. To adequately
respond to the 50.54(f) letter, a site-specific GMRS should be
calculated for each plant so that an informed decision can be made
regarding which plants will be required to complete a risk evaluation.
Further, the site-specific GMRS will also be used in the risk
evaluations.
Prior to issuing the CEUS-SSC model, the Technical Integration Team
considered potentially significant events (such as the 2011 Mineral, VA
earthquake) that had occurred after the model was developed, and
determined that those events did not change their interpretations of
seismic sources or earthquake recurrence rates. If a significant
earthquake in the CEUS were to occur or new information were to emerge
during the reevaluation period that could require an update of the
CEUS-SSC model, the staff expects licensees to evaluate the
significance of the new information to determine if the CEUS-SSC model
needs to be updated in order to appropriately respond to the 50.54(f)
request.
Site Response
Section 2.4.1 and Appendix B of the SPID report provides guidance
on how to develop the site response in cases where limited site
response data exists. As stated in Appendix B, the NRC staff expects
licensees to use available geologic, geotechnical, and geophysical data
collected during the initial licensing or subsequent activities at the
site to the extent practicable. Where limited site response data
exists, information from core borings and data collected from site and
regional evaluations should be used to develop the site response
amplification. Section 4 of the SPID report states that licensees
should provide the basis for the site responses used in the
reevaluations. The NRC staff expects site-specific geology,
geotechnical, and geophysical information to be a significant part of
the basis.
Non-Concurrence
An NRC staff member did not agree with some content of the SPID
report and submitted a non-concurrence on the SPID endorsement letter.
In accordance with the NRC's non-concurrence process, NRC management
and staff worked to address the staff member's concerns, and
documentation of the non-concurrence can be found in ADAMS at Accession
No. ML12324A195.
60-Day Response
In accordance with the 50.54(f) letter, each licensee is to submit
to the NRC its intention to follow the NRC-endorsed seismic
reevaluation guidance, or an alternative approach, 60 days after the
issuance of the NRC-endorsed guidance. For the purpose of meeting this
deadline, the 60-day response period commences on the date the
endorsement letter is published in the Federal Register.
Backfitting and Issue Finality
This endorsement letter does not constitute backfitting as defined
in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) and is not otherwise inconsistent
with the issue finality provisions in Part 52, ``Licenses,
Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,'' of 10 CFR.
This endorsement letter provides guidance on an acceptable method for
implementing the March 12, 2012, RFI. Applicants and licensees may
voluntarily use the guidance in the SPID report, as clarified by the
NRC staff in the endorsement letter, to comply with the RFI. Methods,
analyses, or solutions that differ from those described in the SPID
report may be deemed acceptable if they provide sufficient basis and
information for the NRC staff to verify that the proposed alternative
is acceptable.
Congressional Review Act
This endorsement letter is a rule as designated in the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). The Office of Management
and Budget has found that this is a major rule in accordance with the
Congressional Review Act.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of February 2013.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David L. Skeen,
Director, Japan Lessons-Learned Project Directorate, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2013-04396 Filed 2-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P