ML20044G044
| ML20044G044 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1993 |
| From: | Jabbour K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR GL-87-02, GL-87-2, NUDOCS 9306010357 | |
| Download: ML20044G044 (33) | |
Text
,
4 pft Rf C
.z
., o UNITED STATES
[.DZL/." j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- 1s e
WASHINGTON, D.C. 205E60001 May 18, 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 APRIL 20 AND 21, 1993, MEETING ON THE SEISMIC ADEQUACY OF RELAYS AT HATCH UNITS 1 AND 2 Introduction On April 20 and 21, 1993, the NRC staff and its consultants from Brookhaven National and Idaho National Engineering Laboratories met.with Georgia Power Company (GPC or licensee) and its consultants from Southern Nuclear Company and Southern Company Services in Birmingham, Alabama, to review the licensee's process for assessing the seismic adequacy of relays at Hatch Units I and 2. lists the attendees, and Enclosure 2 contains the meeting agenda.
Discussion After brief introductory remarks by NRC and GPC regarding the objective of the audit, Ms. D.-McCombs, Southern Nuclear Company (SNC), discussed the licensee's seismic program, the organization of the project team, and the involvement of industry groups such as the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and.the.. Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG). She provided a comparison between the seismic margin program and Generic letter (GL) 87-02 (USI A-46; The most notable differences are the postulation of a'small loss-of-coolant accident and flooding in -
the seismic margin program while these conditions were omitted in the-GL. ~The viewgraphs used for her presentation are included -as.
Mr. K. Wooten, Southern Company Services (SCS), discussed the relay chatter evaluation. He stated that the project team reviewed. elementary drawings to establish the list of equipment needed for safe shutdown.
Subsequently, a relay list was established. The results of the relay chatter evaluation were provided. Furthermore, Mr. Wooten stated that the licensee's team had become more experienced as a result of their work on the relay chatter evaluation for Hatch Unit 1.
He noted that Hatch Unit I was the first plant to perform the relay evaluation for the combined program of USl A-46 and -the seismic margin assessment and, at that time, the approved relay evaluation procedure and criteria were not available. Therefore,' the total time spent by GPC included the time necessary to gain the experience needed for the evaluation process.
.Thus, any rework on Unit 1 or GPC's planned work on Unit 2 can be done more efficiently. The viewgraphs used for his presentation are included as Enclosure 4.
I
{;i{y [hMI g 60 g y $ $$
1
- P l
.i
i May 18, 1993 (3) The licensee should differentiate-between the equipment seismically qualified-in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.100, Revision 1 (IEEE 344-1975), and those evaluated by GERS.
(4) The licensee should clearly state whether or not solid state relays t
have been evaluated for the presence of mechanical contacts.
(5) In the case of the high pressure coolant injection system, the schematics reviewed did not support the licensee's conclusion that the system would not seal-in during a seismic event.
(6) The licensee should review the relay chatter evaluation to ensure that sensors and level switches, along with their associated components, were included.
(7) The licensee should consider, in its evaluation of the operator response, the several inadvertent safety systems' actuations that could occur.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
Kahtan N. Jabbour, Project Manager Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
List of Attendees 2.
Meeting Agenda
.3.
Seismic Program Objectives 4.
Hatch A-46 Relay Chatter Evaluation
+
5.
In-Structure Response Spectra cc w/ enclosures:
See next page DISTRIBUTION Docket. Filet..
i NRC & Local PDRs
~
PDII-3 R/F T. Murley/F. Miraglia,12G18 J. Partlow, 12G18 S. Varga G. Lainas
- 0. Matthews L. Berry OGC, 15B18 E. Jordan, MNBB3701 K. Jabbour ACRS (10), P-315 L. Plisco, EDO,17G21 E. Merschoff, RII H. Garg, 8H3 P. Chen, 7E23 D. Smith, 10D24 J. Stewart, BH3
- See Previous Concurrence J. Norberg, 7E23 J.-Wermeil, 10D24 d
/J PD[p,3/D W. Swenson, 10D24 9
r PDil-3/LA*
PDII-3/PM/6dINRR/EMEB*
NRR/HHFB*
NRR/HHFB*
Il-d LBerry KJabbour/rst JNorberg JWermeil WSwenson DMat(hews 05/11/93 f//$/93 05/11/93 05/13/93 05/14/93
[////93 DOCUMENT NAME:
G:\\ HATCH \\MTGAPR20.SEI
l i
! I Mr. D. Moore, SCS, discussed the in-structure response spectra and the seismic capacity versus demand. He noted that the relay evaluation procedures and the capacity of relays, as represented by the Generic Equipment Ruggedness Spectra (GERS) criteria, were established in the l
1988-1989 time frame. The Unit I relay evaluation was performed at that
(
time as part of the seismic margin assessment program and USI A-46 l
1.
review.
The NRC staff stated that the licensee should compare the original work to the final relay evaluation procedure and the relay GERS (described in the SQUG Generic Independent Procedure, Revision 2 (GIP-
[
2)) which were approved, with conditions, by the NRC staff in a safety evaluation report (SER), Supplement 2, dated May 22, 1992.
The licensee responded that they are in the process of updating the previous Unit 1 1
relay evaluation to comply with the currently approved procedures for j
This task has not been completed.
However, the updated relay evaluation will be included in the Hatch USI A-46 report which will be submitted to the NRC.
The viewgraphs used for Mr. Moore's presentation are included as Enclosure 5.
l Following the licensee's presentation, the NRC staff and their l
consultants reviewed the details of the licensee's evaluation process.
4 Breakout groups were formed to do indepth reviews in the areas of seismic analysis, instrumentation and control, and human factors.
I j
Conclusion
+
1 At the conclusion of the meeting, the staff indicated that the licensee had conducted a thorough relay seismic functionality evaluation. The-shifting of the peak spectral accelerations of the floor response spectra due to the new soil-structure interaction was helpful in the resolution of the seismic functionality evaluation discussed above.
However, the relay chatter evaluation procedure and the criteria used l
for the seismic adequacy were established in the 1988-1989 time frame.
These criteria are substantially different from those approved by the NRC staff in 1992, which are documented in GIP-2 as supplemented by the l
staff's SER, Supplement 2, dated May 22, 1992.
Because the licensee has not yet completed the relay seismic adequacy verification in accordance with the approved criteria, the staff could I
not reach any conclusion regarding the overall acceptability of its l
l relay chatter evaluation program.
Based on the reviews performed on.
i April 20 and 21, 1993, the NRC staff provided the following observations.
i (1) The licensee should document its justification for the use of in-situ tests and those cases where the capacity spectra do not entirely envelop the demand spectra.
(2) The licensee should continue its effort to upgrade the Unit I relay evaluation to comply with the 1992-approved procedures and criteria, (e.g., GERS, amplification and safety factors), for the resolution of the USI A-46 issue.
i l
i
Georgia Power Company Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant cc:
f Mr. Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
Mr. R. P. Mcdonald Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Executive Vice President -
2300 N Street, NW.
Nuclear Operations i
Washington, DC 20037 Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 1295 Mr. J. T. Beckham Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Vice President - Plant Hatch Georgia Power Company Mr. Alan R. Herdt, Chief; P. O. Box 1295 Project Branch #3 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Mr. S. J. Bethay Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Manager Licensing - Hatch Georgia Power Company Mr. Dan H. Smith, Vice President _
P. O. Box 1295 Power Supply Operations Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Oglethorpe Power Corporation 2100 East Exchange Place Mr. L. Sumner Tucker, Georgia 30085-1349 General Manager, Nuclear Plant Georgia Power Company Charles A. Patrizia, Esquire Route 1, Box 439 Paul, Hastings Janofsky & Walker Baxley, Georgia 31513 12th Floor 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW.
Resident Inspector Washington, DC 20036 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 1, Box 725 Mr. W. G. Hairston, III Baxley, Georgia 31513 Senior Vice President --
Nuclear Operations Regional Administrator, Region II Georgia Power Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 1295 101 Marietta Street, NW. Suite 2900 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. Charles H. Badger Office of Planning and Budget Room 610 270 Washington Street, SW.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Harold Reheis, Director Department of Natural Resources 205 Butler Street, SE., Suite 1252 Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Chairman Appling County Commissioners County Courthouse Baxley, Georgia 31513 i
l
ENCLOSURE 1-April 20 and 21. 1993 NRC/GPC Meetino List of Attendees NRC GPC K. Jabbour D. Moore J. Hansen (Consultant)
K. Wooten H. Garg J. Graham P. Y. Chen T. Barr K. Bandyopadhyay (Consultant)
J. Branum S. Shteyngart (Coasultant)
J. Smith D. Smith D. McCombs J. Stewart J. Heidt
- f
- Attended exit meeting only l
\\
i E
1 i
l
ENCLOSURE:2 f
i NRC AUDIT OF HATCH UNIT 1 RELAY EVALUATION l
ENTRANCE MEETING i
APRIL 20,1993 AGENDA i
'I INTRODUCTION DEANNA MCCOMBS - SNC -
i h
AUDIT OBJECTIVES NRC l
t SEISMIC PROGRAM BACKGROUND DEANNA MCCOMBS - SNC t
L RELAY EVALUATICN OVERVIEW KEITH WOOTEN - SCS SEISMIC CAPACITY VS. DEMAND DON MOORE - SCS j
CLOSING DEANNA MCCOMBS - SNC i
~
ENCLOSURE 3 i
T.~.
'I
~
SEISMIC PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 1
e TO IMPLEMENT THE EPRI SEISMIC MARGINS i
PROGRAM FOR RESOLUTION OF HATCH SPECIFIC SEISMIC ISSUES.
e TO IMPLEMENT THE TECHNICAL RESOLUTION-TO GENERIC LETTER 87-02 AND USI A-46.
TO IMPLEMENT THE TECHNICAL RESOLUTION I
TO GENERIC LETTER 88-20 IPEEE.
'I
i 1
PROJECT TEAM g.=
~
o GPC/SNC CORPORATE
- HATCH NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND LICENSING 1
e ARCHITECT ENGINEER
- SOUTHERN COMPANY SERVICES, INC.
e INDUSTRY ORGANIZATIONS
- ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE
- SEISMIC QUALIFICATION UTILITY GROUP
)
l
'I
s BASIC COMPARISON BETWEEN SEISMIC MARGINS AND G.L. 87-02 1
87-02 MARGINS ASSUME NO LOCA, SLBA, ASSUME SMALL LOCA OR HELB EVALUATE EXISTING SITE REVISED SOIL SPECTRA SPECTRA EVALUATION PERFORM 100% WALKDOWN OF PERFORM SAMPLE WALKDOWN ANCHORAGE FOR EQUIPMENT, ANCHORAGE FOR EQUIPMENT, RELAYS, AND CABLE TRAYS RELAYS, AND CABLE TRAYS DO NOT CONSIDER FLOODING CONSIDER FLOODING CONSIDER EQUIPMENT ONLY INCLUDES CIVIL STRUCTURES,
- SUBSTRUCTURES, SOIL LIQUlFACTION THESE ITEMS REPRESENT DIFFERENCES - SIMILARITIES ARE NOT LISTED
~
ENCLOSURE 4 t
i 1
HATCH A-46 RELAY CHArrER EVALUATION
- Relay List
- Identify Seismically Rugged and Vulnerable (i.e.,
' Bad Actor') Devices
' System Level' Screening i
- Capacity vs. Demand Screening
' Component Level' Screening 1
i
- Identify Operator Actions
- Relay Walkdown
- Results i
I i
HATCH A-46 RELAY CHNITER EVALUATION RELAY LIST
- Assemble and Review Elementary Drawings for SSEL Equipment
- Includes All Electrical Devices With Contacts:
Control Switches Pressure, Level, Flow, Temperature & Limit Switches Contactors Relays
- Entered on Database:
Plant ID Number Panel Location Vendor Name Model Number (Partial)
Reference Drawing
HATCH A-46 RELAY CHATTER EVALUATION IDENTIFY SEISMICALLY RUGGED
& VULNERABLE DEVICE
- Seismically Rugged Devices:
Solid State Relays Mechanically Actuated Contacts, e.g., Control Switches & Limit Switch Contacts Listed as ' Seismically Acceptable'
- Seismically Vulnerable Devices (App. E-1, EPRI NP-7148-SL)
Must Be Assumed To Chatter 23 Identified Resolved By Operator Action or as ' Chatter Acceptable'
HATCH A-46 RELAY CHATTER EVALUATION i
SYSTEM LEVEL SCREENING t
- Main Steam Isolations Valves
[
i i
r
)
t I
i I
l b
1 i
i i
l i
HATCH A-46 RELAY CHA' ITER EVALUATION i
SEISMIC CAPACITY vs DEM.AND
- Ensure Relay Chatter Will Not Occur
- Capacity Based on GERS or Existing Test Data t'
i
.i
l
[
i HATCH A-46 RELAY CHATTER EVALUATION i
COMPONENT LEVEL SCREENING j
t Circuit Analysis for Relay-Component Combinations not Previously Screened Out k
l i
I 1
I i
f i
R 1
s_,
HATCH A-46 RELAY CHArrER EVALUATION OPERATOR ACTIONS
- Result of Seal-in, Lockout, or ' Bad Actor' Relays not Previously Screened Out
- Supported By Procedures
h f
HATCH A-46 RELAY CHATTER EVALUATION i
RELAY WALKDOWN i
Spot Check of Essential Relays j
Performed in Conjunction with Seismic Capability Walkdown Verify Mounting, Relay Model, & Location with a
Drawings 9
h e
HATCH A-46 RELAY CHArrER EVALUATION RESULTS Number of Status Combination l
Chatter acceptable 3461 Not vulnerable 730 Resolved by operator actions 56 Seismically adequate based on GERS 949 Dual status - GERS/CA 42 1
Components not affected by relays 242 j
Correction required 0
Total 5480
ENCLOSURE 5-
[
h k
1 e
i i
L a
PLANT HATCH COMBINED SMA/A-46 I
i 4
b 4
IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA j
t 9
i i
b i
i a
i f
.l
i BACKGROUND i
SMA/A-46 EVALUATIONS FOR HATCH UNIT 1 PERFORMED DURING 1988-89 i
PERFORMED UNIT 1 A-46 EVALUATION USING 3
1/2 SME IRS 4
A-46 SEISMIC DEMAND TAKEN AS REALISTIC, j
MEDIAN-CENTERED FOR COMPARISON TO GERS AND FOR EQUIPMENT ANCHORAGE HATCH SUBMITTED THE SME IRS FOR USE IN THE j
UNIT 1 A-46 EVALUATION TO THE NRC FOR L
REVIEW BY LETTER DATED MARCH 14, 1989 i
i FINAL HCLPF 0F PLANT HATCH UNIT 1 > 0.3s PGA PENDING MINOR MODIFICATIONS i
FINAL SMA REPORT ISSUED 1990 i
FINAL NRC SEISMIC DESIGN MARGIN WORKING GROUP REPORT & NRC PEER REVIEW REPORT ISSUED MAY 1990 UNIT 1 MODIFICATION COMPLETED BY 12/31/91 NRC ACCEPTS 1/2 SME IRS FOR A-46 1
EVALUATIONS
k HATCH UNITS 1 & 2
?
SCALING 0F IPEEE IRS FOR-A-46 i
A-46 IRS = 1/2 SME IRS 1
1 ADDED CONSERVATISM BY TREATING AS MEDIAN-l CENTERED TYPE IRS i
i i
l l
I l
~i
1 HATCH U1 DBE 5%
SME5%
0.8 O
-I y
- 0.6 Z
l'
\\
O j
s s
s f
4 (E
/
N 3j
/
'N d0.4
./
'N
/
g s
7
's
/
's - -.
/
/
.A-A.,,'
,/
s.
d', a,
0.2
/
s,
- e..s. a.,s....,..
,8-'
,e
,,,..s~~**
" ' " ~ ~ ~
g 01 0.3 0.5 0.7 1
2 3
5 78 10 20 30 40 50 FREQUENCY (HZ}
t i
l l
e l
{
i I
i r
i i
i i;j t
l UNIT 1 DBE (5% DAMPED) s 1/2 SME (5% DAMPED) l l
i l
l I
i l
- t l
I l
l l
l l
I o
I i
I I
i I
4 4
0 1
HATCH U1 DBE 5%
1/2 SME 5%
0.8
- 0.6 ZO G<
tr lij 1
lij0 0.4 0<
p-+e-e.m..e
. m.
9 ee n 9,
I g
1
~~.
r s ~ ~.^
0.2
.W y
l..G ~ _,,.. - W Q
l 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 1
2 3
5 78 10 20 30 40
.,0 FREQUENCY (HZ)
1 HATCH U2 DBE 5%
SME5%
0.8 W
O I
\\
- 0.6 -
e z
/
\\
O j
s I--
s if
/
-s 3
'./
V N
tilo 0.4 -
/
s
/
y<
/
s
...u.
o
.o
.j 6
/
/'
9.
9' 0.2 -
.i s
?
,/
O
. o.
- n.. u..
.o-'
.a,
/
,..,,.....-s' 0
i i
i i
i i
i i
l l
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 1
2 3
5-78 10 20 30 40 50 FREQUENCY (HZ) l l
---m__
h a
m 4.
UNIT 2 DBE (5% DAMPED) s 1/2 SME (5% DAMPED) l i'
-ii.llp a
i l
A I l' At 'llfil.ffl 15 1
H iCH U2 DBE 5%
..O...
1/2 SME 5%
- 0. 8 -
W O
-- 0.6 -
Z OF 111 0.4 -
0O
<C y. _ u.. a.
o.
N
/-'
N..'.
.i
s. s 7
u.
0.2 -
a..
~
-n.
.- s f
. n.. n. '.' %._.. -- -
s./
s **
" ' ~ ~,,,,,..
- g.: p n.
O i
i i
i i
i i
ii i
i i
11 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 1
2 3
5 70 10 20 30 40 50 FREQUENCY (HZ)
d A i
)
i HATCH SMA SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS SRP REQUIREMENTS i
~
i T
'l
.t e
)
1 J
t l
I 4
A e
r
ALL PREVIOUS UNIT 1 A-46 WORK P RFORMED USED 1/2 SME IRS AND TREATED As REALISTIC, MEDIAN-CENTERED TYPE IRS t
[
2 i
4 1
l i
f CONCLUSION
)
i GEORGIA POWER COMPANY PROPOSAL FOR"A-46 IRS:
SCALE SME IRS BY ONE-HALF FoR BOTH UNITS RATIONALE FoR THIS Positron l
DEVELOPMENT OF SME IRS ~ SRP i
FOR ADDITIONAL CONSERVATISM TREAT As REALISTIC, MEDIAN-CENTERED TYPE IRS 4
(I.E.,
SEISMIC DEMAND ASSESSMENT FoR GERS & EQUIPMENT ANCHORAG")
PREVIOUS UNIT 1 A-46 WORK USED_1/2 SME IRS 4
r 1
~
SEISMIC CAPACITY VS.
DEMAND
"~
FOR RELAYS 5
CAPACITY:
SQUG RELAY GERS EXISTING TEST DATA I
DEMAND:
IRS x FS x AF IRS = IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA FS
= FACTOR OF SAFETY TO ACCOUNT FOR TYPE OF IRS AF
= IN-CABINET AMPLIFICATION FACTOR CAP > IRS x FS x AF i
f
i PLANT HATCH UNIT 1 SMA (1988-89) f CAP 2 IRS x FS x AF
'l WHERE:
IRS = SME IRS AT 5 Hz & HIGHER 1
FS = 1.3 (P.2-49 EPRI NP-6041, Ocr '88)
)
AF = 6 (HIGHEST SQUG AF AT TIME)
CAP 2 SME IRS x 1.3 x 6 = 7.8 SME IRS a
+
--r-
PLANT HATCH UNIT 1 & 2 IPEEE/A-46 (> 1993) u PLANT HATCH IS A FOCUSED SCOPE PLA,N,T'FOR
]
IPEEE/ SEISMIC & A-46 PLANT 3
RELAY EVALUATION -- PERFORM A-46 RELAY EVALUATION, EXPAND To FIND Low-SEISMIC-RUGGEDNESS RELAY IF FOUND j
UNDER A-46 EVALUATION
. CAP 2 IRS x FS x-AF WHERE:
IRS = (SME IRS) x 0.5 AT 5 Hz & HIGHER
- 1 FS = 1.5 1
FoR HIGHEST SEISMIC DEMAND:
CAP 2 [(SME IRS) 0.53 x 1.5 x 7 = 5.25 SME IRS
?
CAP vS.
DEMAND CHECK ALSO AT ZPA i
- REVIEW OF PANELS PER APP. I OF EPRI NP-7148-SL j
s
-