ML20134C307

Forwards Supplemental RAI on Resolution of USI A-46,per .Response Should Be Provided within 60 Days of Ltr Date

ML20134C307
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	01/30/1997
From:	Jabbour K NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Woodard J GEORGIA POWER CO.
References
REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR TAC-M69451, TAC-M69452, NUDOCS 9701310342
Download: ML20134C307 (5)

Text

._,.._...._.. _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ ._ _,_.

January 30, 1997 I

Mr. Jack D. Woodard i i- Senior Vice President - 1 l- Nuclear Operations l

Georgia Power Company i i P. O. Box 1295 '

Birmingham, Alabama 35201

SUBJECT:

SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE RESOLUTION OF UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE A EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. M69451 AND M69452) i

Dear Mr. Woodard:

) By letter dat'ed August 23, 1996, you provided a response to the staff's 1- request for additional information (RAI) on the plant-specific summary report l addressing.the resolution of unresolved safety issue (USI) A-46 program at the i Hatch Nuclear Plant. The staff has reviewed your response and determined that i supplemental additional information, as outlined in the enclosure, is needed l before we can complete our review.

I

! A significant item in the enclosure relates to your statement in the July 31,

! 1996, letter that you have changed the plant licensing bases to incorporate

the Generic Implementation Procedure methodology in the Final Safety Analysis Report prior to receiving the plant-specific safety evaluation on the USI A-46 resolution. In this regard, we request that you submit for staff review the complete documentation of your eval Jation associated with 10 CFR 50.59.

i We request that you provide the additional information within 60 days from the

! date of this letter. Please contact me at (301) 415-1496 if you have any j questions.

j. Sincerely,

j. Original signed by:

Kahtan N. Jabbour, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate II-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366

Enclosure:

As stated j cc w/ encl: See next page gQ h.

Distribution:

Docket File SVarga LBerry ACRS EMerschoff, RII nLJ g ( I}

PUBLIC JZwolinski KJabbour PD 11-2 Rdg. HBerkow OGC PSkinner, RII DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ HATCH \A46.RAI *See previous concurrence To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box C= Copy w/o attachment / enclosure E= Copy with attachment / enclosure N = No copy 0FFICE PM:PDII-2 6 LA:PDII-2* D:PD11f2 m NAME KJabbour D M ' LBerry HBfrko k /

DATE 01/ff/97 1/22/97 //M/97 ,

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY i

.9701310342 970130 PDR ADOCK 05000321 P PDR j

]

. -. jp ario g 't UNITED STATES l g

j NUCLEAR RE2ULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20656-4001 January 30, 1997 Mr. Jack D. Woodard Senior Vice President -

Nuclear Operations Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama SS201 i

SUBJECT:

SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE RESOLUTION OF UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE A EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. M69451 AND M69452)

Dear Mr. Woodard:

By letter dated August 23, 1996, you provided a response to the staff's request for addition . information (RAI) on the plant-specific summary report addressing the resolution of unresolved safety issue (USI) A-46 program at the Hatch Nuclear Plant. The staff has reviewed your response and determined that supplemental additional information, as outlined in the enclosure, is needed before we can complete our review.

A significant item in the enclosure relates to your statement in the July 31, 1996, letter that you have changed the plant licensing bases to incorporate the Generic Implementation Procedure methodology in the Final Safety Analysis Report prior to receiving the plant-specific safety evaluation on the USI A-46 resolution. In this regard, we request that you submit for staff review the complete documentation of your evaluation associated with 10 CFR 50.59.

We request that you provide the additional information within 60 days from the date of this letter. Please contact me at (301) 415-1496 if you have any questions.

Sincerely, adC M.

Kahtan N. Jabbour, Senior Projeu. Wanager Project Directorate II-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366

Enclosure:

As stated 4 cc w/ encl: See next page

i l

l Georgia Power Company Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant )

l cc:

Mr. Ernest L. Blake, Jr. Mr. Thomas P. Mozingo Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Program Manager  !

2300 N Street, NW. Nuclear Operations Washington, DC 20037 Oglethorpe Power Corporation 2100 East Exchange Place Mr. D. M. Crowe P. O. Box 1349 Manager Licensing - Hatch Tucker, Georgia 30085-1349 '

Georgia Power Company l P. O. Box 1295 Charles A. Patrizia, Esquire ,

Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker 10th Floor I Mr. L. Sumner 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue l General Manager, Nuclear Plant Washington, DC 20004-9500 '

Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 439 Chairman Baxley, Georgia 31513 Appling County Commissioners County Courthouse Resident Inspector Baxley, Georgia 31513 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11030 Hatch Parkway North Steven M. Jackson Baxley, Georgia 31513 Senior Engineer - Power Supply Municipal Electric Authority Regional Administrator, Region II of Georgia U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commirsion 1470 Riveredge Parkway, NW 101 Marietta Street, NW. Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30328-4684 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

SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION l [

j EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 i

USI A-46 i

1. With regard to the concern involving the use of proper seismic demand I for equipment within 40 feet above the effective grade level, the .

staff's assessment is that your response of August 23, 1996, did not l

address the requested information. In the SQUG/NRC meeting held on i j August 28, 1996, the staff elaborated its concern and the primary focus  !

i of the request for additional information (RAI) question. As a result i

of considerable discussion on the subject, the staff agreed to clarify i the question. The following represents the revised question, which is l being forwarded to the affected USI A-46 licensees for their response:

I Referrina to the in-structure resDonse sDeCtra DroVided in Vour 120 daV i

resDonse to the NRC's reauest in SuDD1enent No.1 to Generic Letter (GL) \

87-02. dated Mav 22. 1992. the followina information is reauested: l

} a. Identify structure (s) that have in-structure response spectra (5%

! critical damping) for elevations within 40 feet above the effective

grade, which are higher in amplitude than 1.5 times the SQUG

Bounding Spectrum.

j b. With respect to the comparison of equipment seismic capacity and i seismic demand, indicate which method in Table 4-1 of the Generic

Implementation Procedure (GIP) GIP-2 was used to evaluate the

' seismic adequacy for equipment installed on the corresponding floors in the structure (s) identified in Item (a) above. If you have i elected to use method A in Table 4-1 of the GIP-2, provide a

technical justification for nrt using the in-structure response j spectra provided in your 120-day response. It appears that some A-

]' 46 licensees are making an incorrect comparison between their plant's safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) ground motion response s spectrum and the SQUG Bounding Spectrum. The SSE ground motion  !

i response spectrum for most nuclear power plants is defined at the  ;

plant foundation level. The SQUG Bounding Spectrum is defined at '

the free field ground surface. For plants founded on deep soil or rock, there may not be a significant difference between the ground <

. motion amplitudes at the foundation level and those at the l ground surface. However, for sites where a structure is founded on shallow soil, the amplification of the ground motion from the foundation level to the ground surface may be significant.

1

c. For the structure (s) identified in Item (a) above, provide the in-structure response spectra designated according to the height above the effective grade. If the in-structure response spectra identified in the 120-day response to Supplement No. I to Generic Letter 87-02 was not used, provide the response spectra that were actually used to verify the seismic adequacy of equipment within the structures identified in Item (a) above. Also, provide a comparison of these spectra to 1.5 times the Bounding Spectrum.

ENCLOSURE

4 l

2. In reference to your letter dated July 31, 1996, regarding the i completion of actions in accordance with Supplement I to GL 87-02, you

^

stated that you have changed the plant licensing bases prior to receipt of the plant-specific safety evaluation. The changes performed were related to the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), for Units 1 and 2, l that incorporate the USI A-46 GIP methodology for verifying the seismic adequacy of new, replacement, and existing electrical and mechanical equipment. We request that you submit, for the staff's review, the  !

complete documentation associated witn your evaluation of the unreviewed  !

safety question associated with 10 CFR 50.59 for carrying out the FSAR J

changes for equipment qualification.

3. Your response to NRC staff's question No. 9, transmitted by our letter dated June 27, 1996, stated in part that: "For Plant Hatch, the only l issue identified is the possible loss of the normal lighting system, in which case the operators rely upon emergency lighting or hand-held

lights to perform their duties."

Describe what, if any, other barriers to successful operator performance to reset the DG relays were considered and resolved as part of the

, seismic and relay evaluation. In addition to lighting, discuss what, if any, other hazards or environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, debris, or damaged structures, which could inhibit an operator

, from accomplishing the task of resetting the DG relays in the time-frame allotted, were considered.

.