ML20128C167
| ML20128C167 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1992 |
| From: | Jabbour K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hairston W GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128C169 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR GL-87-02, GL-87-2, TAC-M69451, NUDOCS 9212040268 | |
| Download: ML20128C167 (4) | |
Text
a
,e
>3 MQy..
S 4f UNITED STATES E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'[
f W ASHINGTON, D. C,20$$5
/
November 20, 1992 Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Mr. W. G. Hairston, III Senior Vice President -
Nuclear Operations Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201
Dear Mr. Hairston:
SUBJECT:
EVALUATION OF PLANT HATCH, UNITS 1 AND 2, 120-DAY RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENT N0. 1 TO GENERIC LETTER 87-02 (TAC NOS. M69451 AND M69452) provides the NRC staff's evaluation of your response to Supplement No. I to Generic Letter (GL) 87-02 for Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The response was submitted to the staff by a letter. dated September 16, 1992.
Supplement No. I to GL 87-02 required that all addressees provide, within 120 days of the issue date of the supplement, either a commitment to use both the Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG) comitments and'the implementation guidance described in the Generic Implementation Procedure, Revision 2 (GIP-2), as corrected on February 14, 1992, and as supplemented by the staff's Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report'No. 2 (SSER No. 2) on GIP-2, or else provide an alternative method for responding to GL 87-02. The supplement 'also required that those addressees comittim to implement GIP-2 provide an-implementation schedule, and provide the detailed;information as to what procedures and criteria'were used to generate the in-structure response spectra to be used for~USI A-46.--
In' addition, the staff requested in SSER No. 2, that the licensees inform the staff in the 120-day response if they intend to change their licensing basis to reflect a commitment to the USI A-46
.(GIP-2) methodology for. verifying the seismic adequacy of mechanical and electrical equipment, prior to receipt of the staff's plant-specific safety =
evaluation resolving USI A-46.
Your response is unclear as-to whether or not you; intend to implement both the SQUG commitments and the implementation guidance.
The staff interprets your -
response as a-commitment-to the entire GIP-2 including both the SQUG' commitments and the implementation guidance, and therefore considers-it' acceptable.
If the staff's interpretation'is: incorrect, then in accordance with Supplement No. I to GLL87-02, you should provide ~ for-staff review, as-soon as practicable prior to implementation, your ~ alternative criteria. and
-procedures for responding to GL 87-02. Additionally, you should not merely-follow the August 21,-1992, SQUG letter for. implementing GIP-2.as stated in your submittal, but should also refer to Enclosure 2 to this letter which y,.'
9212040268 921120 -
gg e;# t*yg fg hyhg[L g[}
re P ADOCK:050003 1
' fDR.-
v 4
we w
ryer g
eH--s+-
sy
- -e
Mr. W. G. Hairston, 111 November 20, 1992 provides the staff's response to the SQUG 1etter.
Your proposed implementation schedule is within the 3-year response period requested by the staff in Supplement No. I to GL 87-02 and is therefore acceptable.
Your response regarding in-structure response spectra is adequate and acceptable.
Regarding the timing of NRC staff responses to requests for additional information from the licensee, you should refer to Item I.2 in Enclosure 2 for the staff's position on this issue.
You indicated that you intend to change your licensing basis methodology, via 10 CFR 50.59, for verifying the seismic adequacy of new, replacement, and existing electrical and mechanical equipment upon receipt of a final plant-specific SER resolving USI A-46.
The staff recognizes that, upon receipt of a plant-specific SER resolving USl A-46 at Plant Hatch, Units 1 and 2, you may revise your licensing basis in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 to eflect the acceptability of the USI A-46 (GIP) methodology for verifying the seismic adequacy of electrical and mechanical equipment covered by the GIP.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at 504-1496.
Sincerely, Kahtan N. Jabbour, Project Manager Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Safety Evaluation 2.
NRC Response to SQUG cc w/ enclosures:
See next page DISTRIBUTION:
DMatthews Docket--File KJabbour NRC & Local PDRs LBerry PDII-3 R/F OGC, 15B18 Hatch R/F ACRS (10), P-315 SVarga EMerschoff, RII Glainas JNorberg, 7E21
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE
/
~
PDII-3: Aj KJabbour:p q JNorberg (tthews PDII-3:PM BC:EMEB*
I-3 LBcrry C cw l} go/92 g / u/92 b
11/19/92
//S/92 DOCUMENT NAME:
G:\\ HATCH \\SQUG
l",1 ll s:
Mr. W. G. Hairston, III November 20,-1992 provides the staff's response to the SQUG letter. :Your proposed
- implementation-schedule is:within the 3-year response period requested by the staff in Supplement No. I to GL 87-02'and is'therefore acceptable. Your response regarding in-structure response spectra is adequate and acceptable.
Regarding the timing of NRC staff responses to requests for additional information from the licensee, you should refer to Item I.2 in Enclosure 2 for the staff's position on this issue.
You indicated that you intend to change your--licensing basis methodology, via 10 CFR 50.59, for verifying the seismic adequacy of new, replacement, and
^
existing electrical and mechanical equipment upon receipt of a final _ plant -
specific SER resolving USI A-46.
The staff recognizes that, upon receipt of a plant-specific SER resolving USI A-46 at Plant Hatch. Units 1 and 2, you may revise your licensing basis in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 to reflect the acceptability of the USI A-46 (GIP) methodology for verifying the seismic adequacy of electrical and mechanical equipment covered by the GIP.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at-504-1496.
Sincerely,
/hh%$
' 4thtan N. Jabbour,- Project Manager Project Directorate 11 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Safety Evaluation-2.
NRC~ Response to-SQUG cc w/ enclosures:
See next page 2,:_
y 4
Mr. W. G. Hairston, III~
- Georgia Power Company.
Edwincl. Hatch Nuclear Plant-CC' Mr. Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
Mr,- R. P. Mcdonald Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Executive Vice President'-
2300 N Street, NW.
Nuclear Operations 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-Smith' 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 Baxley, Georgia 31513 Regional Administrator, Region-II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission 101 Marietta Street,-NW. Suite 2900 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 1
Chairman.
Appling County Commissioners County _ Courthouse Baxley, Georgia 31513 j
i j