ML20036C174
| ML20036C174 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 06/07/1993 |
| From: | Jabbour K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306150125 | |
| Download: ML20036C174 (2) | |
Text
.
t
[ *%,
,c 4
E 1
G UNITED STATES E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k.....,/
WASMNGTON, D.C. 20555 @ 01 June 7, 1993 Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 LICENSEE: Georgia Power Company, et al.
FACILITY: Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MAY 12, 1993, MEETING ON THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES AND THE LICENSING BASIS Introduction On May 12, 1993, the NRC staff met with Georgia Power Company representatives (GPC or licensee) -in Rockville, Maryland, to discuss the licensee's process for assessing the differences, at Hatch Nuclear Plant, between the emergency operating procedures (E0Ps) and the licensing basis. lists the attendees, and Enclosure 2 contains the meeting agenda.
Discussion The meeting was held at NRC staff request as a followup to a letter from W.
Russell, NRC, to R. Binz IV, Chairman, BWR Owners' Group (BWROG), dated May 12, 1992. After brief introductory remarks by NRC and GPC regarding the objective of the meeting, Mr. O. Vidal, GPC, stated that the licensee had reviewed each event in the transient and accident analyses (i.e., Chapters 14 and 15 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)) and compared it to the appropriate E0P.
For example, the sequence of events listed in the FSAR for the loss of feedwater flow event was compared to the reactor water level control path of Hatch E0Ps. The comparison focused on whether or not the event listed in the FSAR resulted in an E0P entry condition.
If the event resulted in an E0P entry condition, then the licensee investigated the differences between the E0P and the FSAR actions.
For the differences identified, the licensee analyzed them as potential unreviewed safety questions and developed resolutions for all of them, using the guidance generated by the BWROG task force regarding this issue.
The licensee's resolutions were reviewed and independently verified by General Electric.
The licensee reviewed 39 events for Hatch Unit 1 and 42 events for Hatch Unit 2.
Moreover, all other sections of the FSAR were reviewed against the applicable portions of the E0Ps. As a result of this process, ten differences were identified; eight had been resolved and two remai~ open (i.e., ADS inhibit, and the use of nitrogen containment atmosphere dilution for combustible gas control). The viewgraphs used for his presentation are included as Enclosure 3.
Following the licensee's presentation, the NRC staff reviewed the details of I
r the licensee's evaluation process.
I' g 70 i
7 9306150125 930607
'~u~;A PDR ADDCK 05000321 s,*
2 P
i R
s i
June 7, 1993 i
Conclusion i
At the conclusion of the meeting, the NRC staff indicated that the licensee had conducted a thorough evaluation of the above subject. Furthermore, the staff indicated its agreement with the licensee's approach to the generic BWROG methodology for the resolution of this issue for Hatch Nuclear Plant, f
Units 1 and 2.
4 ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
Kahtan N. Jabbour, Project Manager Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
[
1.
List of Attendees 2.
Meeting Agenda 3.
GPC Presentation i
cc w/ enclosures:
See next page NOTE:f FIRST PAGE OF MEETING
SUMMARY
I DISTRIBUTION INADVERTENTLY OMITTED ON tDocket: File-ORIGINAL DISTRIBUTION COPY NRC & Local PDRs PDII-3 R/F- -
SEE ATTACHED T. Murley/F. Miraglia,12G18 J. Partlow, 12G18 S. Varga G. Lainas D. Matthews L. Berry OGC, 15B18 i
E. Jordan, MNBB3701 i
K. Jabbour ACRS (10), P-315 L. Plisco, EDO, 17G21 E. Merschoff, RII I
R. Jones f7 R. Barrett PDM /PD PDII-3/LA-PDII-3/PM RXB NR LBerryypf KJabbour/rst n,s RBa r t DMatthews SAG /93 5/ Z.493
/L./93 5/(/93 g / /93 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ HATCH \\EOPVSSAR i
i
.g