ML20235E941

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 870630 Meeting W/Util & Other Listed Organizations Re Feasibility & Desirability of Conducting Seismic Margin Analysis on Plant.Attendees List & Viewgraphs Encl
ML20235E941
Person / Time
Site: Hatch  Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 07/02/1987
From: Crocker L
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8707130145
Download: ML20235E941 (28)
v • d • e


Text

, s' '

88800

( +.

8[9 [og o

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

% E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k...s JUL 0 2' 1987 Docket Nos.: .50-321 and 50-366 1

1 LICENSEE: Georgia Power Company FACILITY: Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units l'and 2

SUBJECT:

HEETING

SUMMARY

A meeting was held in Bethesda on June 30, 1987, at the request of Georgia Power Company to discuss the feasibility and desirability of conducting a seismic margin analysis on the Hatch Nuclear Plant. Attendees are listed in Enclosure 1..

There are a number of seismic issues relating to Hatch I and 2 that have been the subject of considerable correspondence and a number of meetings.

The three principal issues have to do with peak broadening in the original seismic analysis, the adequacy of cable tray supports, and the appropriate soil properties that should be used in the seismic analysis. Resolution of these issues still remains elusive in spite of the effort expended both by the licensee and by the staff.

q Georgia Power Company has now been approached by EPRI with a proposal to use Hatch Unit I as the lead BWR for performance of a seismic margin analysis. Similar analyses have been conducted by the staff on Maine ,

j Yankee and by EPRI on Catawba. Both of these analyses involved PWRs on J rock sites. The analysis on Hatch would be the first for a BWR and the first for a deep soil site. The seismic margin analysis-is aimed at examining the as-built plant to detennine actual capabilities as regards seismic loadings. There appears to be a consensus. view that the plants as-built are capable of withstanding much higher seismic loadings than are claimed in the analyses presented in the FSARs. If this margin can be i satisfactorily demonstrated, then many of the seismic. issues go away.- For example, if the seismic margin analysis can demonstrate that the plant is capable of withstanding an SSE of 0.39 ,'it would no longer. matter whether'  !

the original design was based upon an SSE of 0.lg or 0.15g.

Before conrnitting to participation with EPRI in the seismic margin analysis program, Georgia Power Company wanted to discuss the program with the staff-to ascertain the staff's views on the value of the program and to obtain-assurance that successful completion of the program really would resolve '

many of the nagging seismic issues on Hatch. The discussion by GPC is outlined on the briefing slides, provided as Enclosure 2. The actual work-really would be done on Unit I which.is the older unit, designed to less stringent seismic. criteria. The results could then be expanded to also include Unit 2, with special effort as necessary to address those items  ;

that could not be resolved by comparison to the Unit I results.

$b P-

[

JUL 0 21987 The staff reaction to GPC proposal was very positive. We, too, view the seismic margin program as being a way to resolve many of the outstanding seismic-related concerns. In addition to the benefits of resolving the present outstanding seismic issues and the use to respond to Generic Letter 87-02 and generic issue A-46 as discussed by GPC, the staff also views the effort as being of considerable potential use at such tine as the Conrnission issues its Policy Statement on Severe Accidents. The staff encouraged GPC to proceed with the study, and agreed to participate as necessary in the planning stages to assure that the study results are of maximum usefulness.

Dan Guzy of Research will act as the NRC point of contact while the program plan is being formulated, and the NRC oversight of the program will- be i primarily a Research function. NRR will participate as needed.to stay abreast of what is going on, but does not have the technical resources to devote a great deal of effort to the project. Gauta Bagchi will most likely be the NRR point of contact. The importance of having a peer review group look over the program was emphasized. l The meeting was adjourned on the note that the next action is between GPC and EPRI to arrange for necessary resources and to develop a schedule for conduct of the seismic margin analysis program. When this has been developed, we will arrange another meeting, probably in the late-summer or early-fall, 1987, to discuss the schedule and the specifics of the proposed program to  ;

assure that it will cover all of the concerns. {

fh i

Lawrence P. Crocker, Project Manager Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II  !

l

Enclosures:

1. Attendance List 1
2. Briefing Slides cc: See next page PD#II-3/DRP-I/II PD#{I RP-1/II LCrocker/mac BJYdu od 07/l/87 07/p/87

- The staff reaction to GPC proposal was very positive. We, too, view the seismic margin program as being a way to resolve many of the outstanding seismic-related concerns. In addition to the benefits of resolving the '

present outstanding seismic issues and the use ' to respond to Generic Letter 87-02 and generic issue A-46 as discussed by GPC, the staff also views the effort as being of considerable potential use at such time as the Commission issues its Policy Statement on Severe Accidents. The staff encouraged GPC to proceed with the study, and agreed to participate as necessary in the planning stages to assure that the study results are of maximum usefulness. ,

Dan Guzy of Research will act as the NRC point of contact while the program plan is being formulated, and the NRC oversight of the program will be primarily a Research function. NRR will participate as needed tt, stay abreast of what is going on, but does not have the technical resources to devote a great deal of effort to the project. Goutam Bagchi will most likely be the NRR point of contact. The importance of having a peer review group look over the program was emphasized.

The meeting was adjourned on the note that the next action is between GPC and EPRI to arrange for necessary resources and to develop a schedule for conduct of the seismic margin analysis program. When this has been developed, we.will arrange another meeting, probably in the late-sumer or early-fall, 1987, to discuss the schedule and the specifics of the proposed program to assure that it will cover all of the concerns.

Pk Lawrence P. Crocker, Project Manager Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II

Enclosures:

1. Attendance List
2. Briefing Slides

~

cc: See next page

)

Enclosure 1 Attendance List Hatch Seismic Margin Meeting June 30, 1987 l

NRC Jim Richardson, AD for Engineering, NRR Goutam Bagchi, Chief, Structural & Geosciences Branch, NRR Dan Guzy, RES Andrew Murphy, RES Newton Anderson, EIB, RES Nilesh Chokshi, PRAB, RES Larry Crocker, Project Manager, Hatch, NRR GPC Jim Heidt, Nuclear Safety Licensing Kermit Whitt, Nuclear Safety Licensing.

Keith Fry, Project Manager Dan Crowe, Nuclear Safety Manager Othe_r Robert Kassawara, EPRI C. L. Weaver, Bechtel Donald Moore, Southern Company Services Robert Kennedy, Structural Mechanics Consulting Howard Eckert, NUS Corporation David Buttemer, Pickard, Lowe & Garrick, Inc.

l

~

Enclosure 2

  • j i

l PRESENTATION TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

i' PLANT HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM GEORGIA POWER COMPANY I

JUNE 30,1987 l

I

I l

LIST OF ATTENDEES REPRESENTING l GEORGIA POWER COMPANY D. M. CROWE - NUCLEAR SAFETY MANAGER, GPC K. A. FRY - PROJECT MANAGER, GPC J. D.. HElDT - NUCLEAR GENERATION ENGINEER, GPC  !

K. W. WHITT - NUCLEAR GENERATION ENGINEER, GPC D. P. MOORE - PRINCIPAL ENGINEER, SCS R. P. KENNEDY - STRUCTURAL MECHANICS CONSULTANT K. P. KASSIWARA - PROGRAM MANAGER, EPRI i

1

AGENDA PLANT HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM  !

1 NRC HEADQUARTERS WASHINGTON, D.C.

JUNE 30,1987 l I

1 INTRODUCTION DON CROWE

  • INTRODUCE PEOPLE
  • PURPOSE OF MEETING INTRODUCTION NRC BACKGROUND
  • PLANT HATCH SEISMIC CONCERNS JIM HElDT l
  • EPRI SEISMIC MARGINS PROGRAM KEITH FRY l

PLANT HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM KERMIT WHITT I

, ASSISTANCE FROM NRC DON CROWE NRC COMMENTS NRC l

SUMMARY

DON CROWE 2

l

PURPOSE-i

  • GPC PLANT HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM  ;

- RESOLVE PLANT HATCH UNIQUE SEISMIC CONCERNS

- RESOLVE APPROPRIATE PLANT HATCH GENERIC CONCERNS l

  • NRC PARTICIPATION

- WORK WITH GPC IN DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUALLY  ;

l ACCEPTABLE PROGRAM

- WORK WITH GPC IN IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAM

- PROVIDE AN SER REFLECTING WORK DONE IN y,l PLANT HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM- .

l 3 .

)

i 1

PLANT HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM-(PHSP) q e SEISMIC MARGINS PROGRAM (EASTERN EARTHQUAKE) J

  • PREUMINARY INVESTIGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF GENERIC LETTER 87 -,

l VERIFICATION OF SEISMIC ADEQUACY OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL .

EQUIPMENT IN OPERATING REACTORS $1, q

? 'l

'* INVESTIGATION OF FREQUENCY DEPENDENT PRESSURE VESSEL RESEARCH m COMMITTEE (PVRC) DAMPING VALUES

^ oh a

.3 e P, LANT HATCH SEISMIC CONCERNS

-PEAK BROADEMING i'

-CABLE TRAf SUPPORTS

-SOIL PARAMETERS / DYNAMIC VALUES r

s.

( y

't 4

l ,, a

)

I I

)

PLANT HATCH SEISMIC CONCERNS {

1

  • PEAK BROADENING l 1
  • CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS

}

  • S0lL PARAMETERS / DYNAMIC VALUES 5

l PEAK BROADENING-  ;

1

  • PAPERWORK DISCREPANCY NOTED DURING RECIRCULATION PlPING REPLACEMENT IN UNIT 2 FSAR -l

- 10% PEAK BROADENING VS 15% PEAK BROADENING

- PART 21 EVALUATION

- HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS RESEARCHED

- EQUIPMENT WALKDOWNS

- NEW FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA GENERATED

- SEISMIC ANALYSES REVIEWED

- SELECTED EQUIPMENT REANALYZED  !

II SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY ,

HAZARD DOES NOT EXIST A

6

l

~

l l

CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS l

  • CONCERN DISCOVERED BY GPC DURING SEISMIC REVIEW  !
  • 100% WALKDOWN PERFORMED 1

e FINAL RESOLUTION PENDING SQUG CRITERIA 1

)

l NO OPERABILITY ISSUES WITH i CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS ,

7

SolL PARAMETER / DYNAMIC VALUE 1

  • QUESTIONS RAISED DURING AN NRC MEETING
  • METHODOLOGY CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE-OF-THE-ART l

AT THE TIME OF THE ANALYSIS

  • METHODOLOGY NOT CONSISTENT WITH RECENT STATE-OF-THE-ART DYNAMIC SOIL VALUE REPRESENTATIVE OF

! COMPOSITE VALUES 1

8

- \

l l

i l

l 1

)

i EPRI SEISMIC MARGINS PROGRAM J

l l

  • OBJECTIVE l i

k l

  • METHODOLOGY  !

i 1

l l

  • APPROACH ,

1 i

  • EXPECTED RESULTS l

1 l

9

.s

1 1

I OBJECTIVE TO DEVELOP AN ENGINEERING CONCEPT WITH PRACTICAL GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING THE CAPABILITY OF NUCLEAR PLANTS TO WITHSTAND EARTHQUAKES LARGER THAN SSE.

1 i

1 l

l I

10 l

l

1 1

l MAJOR ISSUES l

l l

NRC EVALUATION OF EASTERN US SEISMICITY l l

l l

i l

  • SEISMICITY OWNERS GROUP PROGRAM i

l l

l 11 l

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ a

l METHODOLOGY

  • DETERMINE SEISMIC CAPABILITY OF PLANT

12

i

. J l

APPROACH-4 1

  • SELECT EARTHQUAKE LEVEL o' SELECT EVALUATION TEAM e IDENTIFY CRITICAL SYSTEMS AND POSSIBLE SUCCESS PATHS TO ACHIEVE HOT SHUTDOWN AND ~ MAINTAIN FOR 72 HOURS l
  • CHOOSE A PREFERRED PATH AND AN ALTERNATE PATH
  • SCREEN STRUCTURES AND COMPONENTS BASED ON GENERIC RUGGEDNESS J
  • PERFORM WALKDOWN OF PREFERRED PATH
  • VERIFY SCREENING USING ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT, AND IDENTIFY OUTLIERS
  • PERFORM REEVALUATION OF SELECTED NON-SCREENABLE ELEMENTS 13

{

l EXPECTED RESULTS f

  • SHOW THAT STRUCTURES AND COMPONENTS IN THE PREFERRED PATH HAVE SEISMIC CAPABILITY SUBSTANTIALLY ABOVE THE SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE l
  • IDENTIFY WEAKEST LINKS-COMPONENTS HAVING l LOWEST "HIGH CONFIDENCE OF LOW PROBABILIT(

OF FAILURE" (HCLPF) 14

PLANT HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM (PHSP) e SEISMIC MARGINS PROGRAM (EASTERN EARTHQUAKE)

  • PREUMINARY INVESTIGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF GENERIC LETTER 87-02, VERIFICATION OF SEISMIC ADEQUACY OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT IN OPERATING REACTORS
  • INVESTIGATION OF FREQUENCY DEPENDENT PRESSURE VESSEL RESEARCH COMMilTEE (PVRC) DAMPING VALUES e PLANT HATCH SEISMIC CONCERNS

- PEAK BROADENING

- CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS

- SOIL PARAMETERS / DYNAMIC VALUES 15

1 l

i 1

SElSMIC MARGINS PROGRAM

-1 G0ALS:

  • TO DETERMINE A GROUND MOTION LEVEL FOR WHICH ONE HAS A HIGH CONFIDENCE-OF-A-LOW PROBABILITY OF SElSMIC INDUCED CORE DAMAGE. j l

1

  • TO IDENTIFY ANY " WEAKER LINK" COMPONENTS WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY TEND TO REDUCE THE SEISMIC MARGIN CAPABILITY OF THE PLANT FOR WITHSTANDING 1 EARTHQUAKES LARGER THAN THE SSE.

1 i

1 l

16

____.__z___j

J GL 87-02, SEISMIC ADEQUACY OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUlPMENT IN OPERATING REACTORS I

GOALS:

  • TO SEEK THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE SOLUTION TO USI A-46 BY USING EARTHOUAKE DATE SUPPLEMENTED BY ANALYSIS AND TEST RESULTS l TO VERIFY THE SEISMIC CAPABILITf 0F EQUIPMENT BELOW SPECIFIED f EARTHQUAKE MOTION BOUNDS i

17 i

l INVESTIGATION OF FREQUENCY DEPENDENT PVRC DAMPlNG VALUES

'1 j

G0AL:

~i

  • SHOULD ADEQUATE MARGINS EXIST AS DETERMlNED BY SEISMIC MARGIN PROGRAM, GPC WANTS TO USE PVRC DAMPING VALUES IN FUTURE DESIGNS, MODIFICATIONS AND A SNUBBER REDUCTION PROGRAM.

I 1

l l

l . i i

l

.j 18

l 1

.)

I l

SIGNIFICANT HIGHLIGHTS OF PHSP 1

  • GPC WILL USE SIMILARlLY T0' ADDRESS UNIT.1 AND 2 l
  • WALKDOWNS AND INVESTIGATIONS" WILL BE COMMON-BETWEEN

- SEISMIC MARGINS

- G.L. 87-02

- OTHER ASPECTS OF PHSP l y

i

  • SEISMIC MARGINS PROGRAM WILL ADDRESS S0IL STRUCTURE INTERACTION (BY NRC) AND TANKS IN THE SHUTDOWN PATH TO SATISFY ANTICIPATED <

A.40, SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA - SHORT TERM. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS l

l -

i 19

,1 .,

!: 1 i

ASSISTANCE FROM NRC y a

  • INVOLVEMENT WITH THE SElSMIC MARGIN PROGRAM, INCLUDING- 1 1

1 SOIL STRUCTURE ANALYSIS

  • SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR PLANT HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM 1 1

THAT WILL ADDRESS ALL APPROPRIATE' ISSUES  !

20

.c L .;

I

SUMMARY

]

  • GPC PLANT- HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM

- RESOLVE HATCH UNIQUE SEISMIC CONCERNS

- RESOLVE APPROPRIATE PLANT HATCH NRC GENERIC CONCERNS

  • NRC PARTICIPATION

- WORK WITH GPC IN DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE PROGRAM l

i - WORK WITH GPC IN IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAM ,

- PROVIDE. AN SER REFLECTING WORK DONE IN  ;

1 PLANT HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM l

l 21

1 Mr. James P. O'Reilly Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant,- i Georgia Power Company Units Nos. 1 and 2 j cc:

G. F. Trowbridge, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge-1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. L. T. Gucwa l Engineering Department Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 l I

Nuclear Safety and Compliance Manager Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 442 Baxley, Georgia 31513 Mr. Louis B. Long Southern Company Services, Inc.

P. O. Box 2625 Bimingham, Alabama 35202 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission l Route 1. P. O. Box 279 Baxley, Georgia 31513 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georiga 30323 Mr. Charles H. Badger Office of Planning and Budget Room 610 270 Washington Street, S.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Mr. J. Leonard Ledbetter, Commissioner Department of Natural Resources 270 Washington Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Chairman Appling County Commissioners County Courthouse Baxley, Georgia 31513 l l

-1

5n 011 -

MEETING

SUMMARY

DISTRIBUTION JUL 0 2 E67 CQoTMDj NRC Participants NR ~PDK Jim Richardson L PDR Goutam Bagchi NSIC Don Guzy PRC System Andrew Murphy PD#II-3 Rdg Newton Anderson Project Manager L. Crocker Nilesh Chokshf ,

M. Duncan B. Kolostyak W. Troskoski (MNBB 6113)

OGC-Bethesda ACRS(10) 1 OTHERS 1

i l

bec: Licensee & Service List l

\

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20235E941&oldid=3191637"