|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | number = ML071090039 | | | number = ML071090039 |
| | issue date = 04/26/2007 | | | issue date = 04/26/2007 |
| | title = Request for Additional Information Alternate Source Term Application (TAC Nos. MD2934 and MD2935) | | | title = Request for Additional Information Alternate Source Term Application |
| | author name = Martin R | | | author name = Martin R |
| | author affiliation = NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLII-1 | | | author affiliation = NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLII-1 |
| Line 18: |
Line 18: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:April 26, 2007Mr. Dennis R. MadisonVice President - Hatch Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant 11028 Hatch Parkway North Baxley, GA 31513 | | {{#Wiki_filter:April 26, 2007 Mr. Dennis R. Madison Vice President - Hatch Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant 11028 Hatch Parkway North Baxley, GA 31513 |
|
| |
|
| ==SUBJECT:== | | ==SUBJECT:== |
| EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 (HNP) - REQUESTFOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI) REGARDING ALTERNATE SOURCE TERM APPLICATION (TAC NOS. MD2934 AND MD2935) | | EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 (HNP) - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI) REGARDING ALTERNATE SOURCE TERM APPLICATION (TAC NOS. MD2934 AND MD2935) |
|
| |
|
| ==Dear Mr. Madison:== | | ==Dear Mr. Madison:== |
|
| |
|
| By letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated August 29, 2006, Southern NuclearOperating Company, Inc., proposed to revise the HNP licensing and design basis with a full scope implementation of an alternative source term. We have reviewed your application and have identified a need for additional information on containment analyses as set forth in the Enclosure. | | By letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated August 29, 2006, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., proposed to revise the HNP licensing and design basis with a full scope implementation of an alternative source term. We have reviewed your application and have identified a need for additional information on containment analyses as set forth in the Enclosure. |
| | We discussed this issue with your staff on April 17, 2007. Your staff indicated that it plans to submit a response to this issue within sixty (60) days of receipt of this letter. |
| | Sincerely, |
| | /RA/ |
| | Robert E. Martin, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch II-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 |
|
| |
|
| We discussed this issue with your staff on April 17, 2007. Your staff indicated that it plans to submit a response to this issue within sixty (60) days of receipt of this letter. Sincerely,/RA/Robert E. Martin, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch II-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationDocket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366
| | ==Enclosure:== |
| | RAI cc w/encl: See next page |
|
| |
|
| ==Enclosure:==
| | - ML071090039 *transmitted by memo dated OFFICE NRR/LPL2-1/PM NRR/LPL2-1/LA NRR/SCVB/BC NRR/LPL2-1/BC NAME RMartin:nc MOBrien RDennig by memo EMarinos DATE 04/26/07 04/26/07 04/12/07* 04/26/07 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE TERM FOR EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 (HNP) |
| RAI cc w/encl: See next page
| | Requests for Additional Information (RAIs) related to the Turbine Building Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (TB HVAC) System HNP has proposed to credit the TB HVAC system for dose mitigation by purging the area around the main control room beginning 9 hours following design basis accidents (DBAs). The TB HVAC system design was not previously reviewed for this safety function. Please respond to the following questions concerning the use of the TB HVAC system for dose mitigation: |
| | : 1. Since the TB HVAC system is not classified as safety-related, please provide the information requested below to show that the TB HVAC system is comparable to a system classified as safety-related. If any item is answered in the negative, please explain why the TB HVAC system should be found acceptable for dose mitigation. |
| | a) Are inservice inspection and inservice testing programs performed on the TB HVAC system in accordance with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code)? |
| | b) Have you considered adding a Limiting Condition for Operation to the Technical Specifications for this system including surveillance requirements? What kind of testing and surveillance do you propose? |
| | b) Is the TB HVAC system incorporated into the plants Maintenance Rule program consistent with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.65, Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants? |
| | c) Does the TB HVAC system meet 10 CFR 50.49, Environmental qualification of electrical equipment important to safety for nuclear power plants, and General Design Criterion (GDC) 4, Environmental and dynamic effects design bases? |
| | : 2. Describe any changes to plant procedures that implement the dose mitigation function for the TB HVAC system and whether any training is necessary for plant personnel to implement the function. |
| | : 3. The air for all TB HVAC dampers is supplied by interruptible service instrument air and failure of the air systems of both Units 1 and 2 would render both HVAC systems incapable of performing their required exhaust functions. In the event that pneumatic systems fail, have manual actions or overrides been developed to change the damper position? |
| | RAIs on the Standby Liquid Control (SLC) System Please respond to the following questions concerning the use of the SLC system for pH control of the suppression pool: |
| | |
| | HNP has proposed to credit control of the pH in the suppression pool following a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) by means of injecting sodium pentaborate into the reactor core with the SLC system. The SLC system design was not previously reviewed for this safety function (pH control post-LOCA). Licensees proposing such credit need to demonstrate that the SLC system is capable of performing the pH control safety function assumed in the alternate source term (AST) LOCA dose analysis. The following questions are from a set of generic questions developed by the staff and are being provided to all boiling water reactor licensees with pending AST license amendment requests. In responding to questions regarding the SLC system, please focus on the proposed pH control safety function. The reactivity control safety function is not in question here. For example, the SLC system may be redundant with regard to the reactivity control safety function, but lack redundancy for the proposed pH control safety function. If HNP believes that the information was previously submitted to support the license amendment request to implement AST, please refer to where that information may be found in the documentation. |
| | : 1. Please Identify whether the SLC system is classified as a safety-related system as defined in 10 CFR 50.2, Definitions, and whether the system satisfies the regulatory requirements for such systems. If the SLC system is not classified as safety-related, please provide the information requested in Items 1.1 to 1.5 below to show that the SLC system is comparable to a system classified as safety-related. If any item is answered in the negative, please explain why the SLC system should be found acceptable for pH control agent injection. |
| | 1.1 Is the SLC system provided with standby AC power supplemented by the emergency diesel generators? |
| | 1.2 Is the SLC system seismically qualified in accordance with Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.29, Seismic Design Classification and Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 (or equivalent used for original licensing)? |
| | 1.3 Is the SLC system incorporated into the plants ASME Code inservice inspection and inservice testing programs based upon the plants code of record (10 CFR 50.55a)? |
| | 1.4 Is the SLC system incorporated into the plants Maintenance Rule program consistent with 10 CFR 50.65? |
| | 1.5 Does the SLC system meet 10 CFR 50.49 and Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 (GDC-4, or equivalent used for original licensing)? |
| | : 2. Please describe proposed changes to plant procedures that implement SLC sodium pentaborate injection as a pH control additive. In addition, please address Items 2.1 to 2.5 below in your response. If any item is answered in the negative, please explain why the SLC system should be found acceptable for pH control additive injection. |
| | 2.1 Are the SLC injection steps part of a safety-related plant procedure? |
| | 2.2 Are the entry conditions for the SLC injection procedure steps symptoms of |
| | |
| | imminent or actual core damage? |
| | 2.3 Does the instrumentation cited in the procedure entry conditions meet the quality requirements for a Type E variable as defined in Tables 1 and 2 of RG 1.97 on accident monitoring instrumentation? |
| | 2.4 Have plant personnel received initial and periodic refresher training in the SLC injection procedure? |
| | 2.5 Have other plant procedures, (e.g., Emergency Response Guidines) that call for termination of SLC as a reactivity control measure been appropriately revised to prevent blocking of SLC injection as a pH control measure? (For example, the override before Step RC/Q-1, If while executing the following steps: ....it has been determined that the reactor will remain shutdown under all conditions without boron, terminate boron injection and....) |
| | : 3. Please show that the SLC system has suitable redundancy in components and features to assure that for onsite or offsite electric power operation its safety function of injecting sodium pentaborate for the purpose of suppression pool pH control can be accomplished assuming a single failure. For this purpose, the check valve is considered an active device since the check valve must open to inject sodium pentaborate. If the SLC system cannot be considered redundant with respect to its active components, the licensee should implement one of the three options described below, providing the information specified for that option for staff review. |
| | 3.1 Option 1 Show acceptable quality and reliability of the non-redundant active components and/or compensatory actions in the event of failure of the non-redundant active components. If you choose this option, please provide the following information to justify the lack of redundancy of active components in the SLC system: |
| | 3.1.1 Identify the non-redundant active components in the SLC system and provide their make, manufacturer, and model number. |
| | 3.1.2 Provide the design-basis conditions for the component and the environmental and seismic conditions under which the component may be required to operate during a design-basis accident. Environmental conditions include design-basis pressure, temperature, relative humidity and radiation fields. |
| | 3.1.3 Indicate whether the component was purchased in accordance with Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50. If the component was not purchased in accordance with Appendix B, provide information on the quality standards under which it was purchased. |
| | 3.1.4 Provide the performance history of the component both at the licensees facility and in industry databases such as Equipment Performance and Information and Exchange System and Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System. |
| | |
| | 3.1.5 Provide a description of the components inspection and testing program, including standards, frequency, and acceptance criteria. |
| | 3.1.6 Indicate potential compensating actions that could be taken within an acceptable time period to address the failure of the component. An example of a compensating action might be the ability to jumper a switch in the control room to overcome its failure. In your response, please consider the availability of compensating actions and the likelihood of successful injection of the sodium pentaborate when non-redundant active components fail to perform their intended functions. |
| | 3.2 Option 2 Provide for an alternative success path for injecting chemicals into the suppression pool. If you chose this option, please provide the following information: |
| | 4.2.1 Provide a description of the alternative injection path, its capabilities for performing the pH control function, and its quality characteristics. |
| | 42.2 Do the components which make up the alternative path meet the same quality characteristics required of the SLC system as described in Items 1.1 to 1.5, 2, and 3 above? |
| | 4.2.3 Does the alternate injection path require actions to be taken in areas outside the control room? How accessible will these areas be? What additional personnel would be required? |
| | 3.3 Option 3 Show that 10 CFR 50.67 dose criteria are met even if the pH is not controlled. If you chose this option, demonstrate through analyses that the projected accident doses will continue to meet the criteria of 10 CFR 50.67 assuming that the suppression pool pH is not controlled. The dissolution of cesium iodide (CsI) and its re-evolution from the suppression pool as elemental iodine must be evaluated by a suitably conservative methodology. The analysis of iodine speciation should be provided for staff review. The analysis documentation should include a detailed description and justification of the analysis assumptions, inputs, methods, and results. The resulting iodine speciation should be incorporated into the dose analyses. The calculation may take credit for the mitigating capabilities of other equipment, for example the standby gas treatment system, if such equipment would be available. A description of the dose analysis assumptions, inputs, methods, and results should be provided. Licensees proposing this approach should recognize that this option may incur longer staff review times and will likely involve fee-billable support from NRC staff contractor support. |
|
| |
|
| - ML071090039 *transmitted by memo datedOFFICENRR/LPL2-1/PMNRR/LPL2-1/LANRR/SCVB/BCNRR/LPL2-1/BCNAMERMartin:ncMO'BrienRDennig by memoEMarinos DATE04/26/0704/26/0704/12/07*04/26/07 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONCONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE TERMFOR EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 (HNP)Requests for Additional Information (RAIs) related to the Turbine Building Heating Ventilationand Air Conditioning (TB HVAC) SystemHNP has proposed to credit the TB HVAC system for dose mitigation by purging the areaaround the main control room beginning 9 hours following design basis accidents (DBAs). The TB HVAC system design was not previously reviewed for this safety function. Please respond to the following questions concerning the use of the TB HVAC system for dose mitigation:1.Since the TB HVAC system is not classified as safety-related, please provide theinformation requested below to show that the TB HVAC system is comparable to a system classified as safety-related. If any item is answered in the negative, please explain why the TB HVAC system should be found acceptable for dose mitigation.a)Are inservice inspection and inservice testing programs performed on the TBHVAC system in accordance with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code)?b)Have you considered adding a Limiting Condition for Operation to the TechnicalSpecifications for this system including surveillance requirements? What kind of testing and surveillance do you propose?b)Is the TB HVAC system incorporated into the plant's Maintenance Rule programconsistent with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section50.65, "Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants?"c)Does the TB HVAC system meet 10 CFR 50.49, "Environmental qualification ofelectrical equipment important to safety for nuclear power plants," and General Design Criterion (GDC) 4, "Environmental and dynamic effects design bases?"2.Describe any changes to plant procedures that implement the dose mitigation functionfor the TB HVAC system and whether any training is necessary for plant personnel to implement the function.3.The air for all TB HVAC dampers is supplied by interruptible service instrument air andfailure of the air systems of both Units 1 and 2 would render both HVAC systems incapable of performing their required exhaust functions. In the event that pneumatic systems fail, have manual actions or overrides been developed to change the damper position?RAIs on the Standby Liquid Control (SLC) SystemPlease respond to the following questions concerning the use of the SLC system for pH controlof the suppression pool: HNP has proposed to credit control of the pH in the suppression pool following a loss-of-coolantaccident (LOCA) by means of injecting sodium pentaborate into the reactor core with the SLC system. The SLC system design was not previously reviewed for this safety function (pH control post-LOCA). Licensees proposing such credit need to demonstrate that the SLC system is capable of performing the pH control safety function assumed in the alternate source term (AST) LOCA dose analysis. The following questions are from a set of generic questions developed by the staff and are being provided to all boiling water reactor licensees with pending AST license amendment requests. In responding to questions regarding the SLC system, please focus on the proposed pH control safety function. The reactivity control safety function is not in question here. For example, the SLC system may be redundant with regard to the reactivity control safety function, but lack redundancy for the proposed pH control safety function. If HNP believes that the information was previously submitted to support the license amendment request to implement AST, please refer to where that information may be found in the documentation. 1.Please Identify whether the SLC system is classified as a safety-related system asdefined in 10 CFR 50.2, "Definitions," and whether the system satisfies the regulatory requirements for such systems. If the SLC system is not classified as safety-related, please provide the information requested in Items 1.1 to 1.5 below to show that the SLC system is comparable to a system classified as safety-related. If any item is answered in the negative, please explain why the SLC system should be found acceptable for pH control agent injection.1.1Is the SLC system provided with standby AC power supplemented by theemergency diesel generators? 1.2Is the SLC system seismically qualified in accordance with Regulatory Guide(RG) 1.29, "Seismic Design Classification" and Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 (or equivalent used for original licensing)?1.3Is the SLC system incorporated into the plant's ASME Code inservice inspection and inservice testing programs based upon the plant's code of record (10 CFR 50.55a)?1.4Is the SLC system incorporated into the plant's Maintenance Rule programconsistent with 10 CFR 50.65?1.5Does the SLC system meet 10 CFR 50.49 and Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 (GDC-4, or equivalent used for original licensing)? 2.Please describe proposed changes to plant procedures that implement SLC sodiumpentaborate injection as a pH control additive. In addition, please address Items 2.1 to 2.5 below in your response. If any item is answered in the negative, please explain why the SLC system should be found acceptable for pH control additive injection.2.1Are the SLC injection steps part of a safety-related plant procedure?2.2Are the entry conditions for the SLC injection procedure steps symptoms of imminent or actual core damage?2.3Does the instrumentation cited in the procedure entry conditions meet the qualityrequirements for a Type E variable as defined in Tables 1 and 2 of RG 1.97 on accident monitoring instrumentation?2.4Have plant personnel received initial and periodic refresher training in the SLCinjection procedure?2.5Have other plant procedures, (e.g., Emergency Response Guidines) that call fortermination of SLC as a reactivity control measure been appropriately revised to prevent blocking of SLC injection as a pH control measure? (For example, the override before Step RC/Q-1, "If while executing the following steps: ....it hasbeen determined that the reactor will remain shutdown under all conditions without boron, terminate boron injection and....")3.Please show that the SLC system has suitable redundancy in components and featuresto assure that for onsite or offsite electric power operation its safety function of injectingsodium pentaborate for the purpose of suppression pool pH control can be accomplished assuming a single failure. For this purpose, the check valve is considered an active device since the check valve must open to inject sodium pentaborate. If the SLC system cannot be considered redundant with respect to its active components, the licensee should implement one of the three options described below, providing the information specified for that option for staff review.3.1Option 1 Show acceptable quality and reliability of the non-redundant activecomponents and/or compensatory actions in the event of failure of the non-redundant active components. If you choose this option, please provide the following information to justify the lack of redundancy of active components in the SLC system: 3.1.1Identify the non-redundant active components in the SLC system andprovide their make, manufacturer, and model number.3.1.2Provide the design-basis conditions for the component and theenvironmental and seismic conditions under which the component may be required to operate during a design-basis accident. Environmental conditions include design-basis pressure, temperature, relative humidity and radiation fields. 3.1.3Indicate whether the component was purchased in accordance withAppendix B to 10 CFR Part 50. If the component was not purchased in accordance with Appendix B, provide information on the quality standards under which it was purchased. 3.1.4Provide the performance history of the component both at the licensee'sfacility and in industry databases such as Equipment Performance and Information and Exchange System and Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System. 3.1.5Provide a description of the component's inspection and testing program,including standards, frequency, and acceptance criteria.3.1.6Indicate potential compensating actions that could be taken within anacceptable time period to address the failure of the component. An example of a compensating action might be the ability to jumper a switch in the control room to overcome its failure. In your response, please consider the availability of compensating actions and the likelihood of successful injection of the sodium pentaborate when non-redundant active components fail to perform their intended functions.3.2Option 2 Provide for an alternative success path for injecting chemicals into thesuppression pool. If you chose this option, please provide the following information:4.2.1Provide a description of the alternative injection path, its capabilities forperforming the pH control function, and its quality characteristics. 42.2Do the components which make up the alternative path meet the samequality characteristics required of the SLC system as described in Items 1.1 to 1.5, 2, and 3 above? 4.2.3Does the alternate injection path require actions to be taken in areasoutside the control room? How accessible will these areas be? What additional personnel would be required? 3.3Option 3 Show that 10 CFR 50.67 dose criteria are met even if the pH is notcontrolled. If you chose this option, demonstrate through analyses that the projected accident doses will continue to meet the criteria of 10 CFR 50.67 assuming that the suppression pool pH is not controlled. The dissolution of cesium iodide (CsI) and its re-evolution from the suppression pool as elemental iodine must be evaluated by a suitably conservative methodology. The analysis of iodine speciation should be provided for staff review. The analysis documentation should include a detailed description and justification of the analysis assumptions, inputs, methods, and results. The resulting iodine speciation should be incorporated into the dose analyses. The calculation may take credit for the mitigating capabilities of other equipment, for example the standby gas treatment system, if such equipment would be available. A description of the dose analysis assumptions, inputs, methods, and results should be provided. Licensees proposing this approach should recognize that this option may incur longer staff review times and will likely involve fee-billable support from NRC staff contractor support.
| |
| Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2 cc: | | Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2 cc: |
| Laurence BergenOglethorpe Power Corporation 2100 E. Exchange Place P.O. Box 1349 Tucker, GA 30085-1349Mr. R. D. BakerManager - Licensing Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. | | Laurence Bergen Mr. Jeffrey T. Gasser Oglethorpe Power Corporation Executive Vice President 2100 E. Exchange Place Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. |
| P.O. Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201-1295Resident InspectorPlant Hatch 11030 Hatch Parkway N. | | P.O. Box 1349 P.O. Box 1295 Tucker, GA 30085-1349 Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 Mr. R. D. Baker General Manager Manager - Licensing Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. |
| Baxley, GA 31531Harold Reheis, DirectorDepartment of Natural Resources 205 Butler Street, SE., Suite 1252 Atlanta, GA 30334Steven M. JacksonSenior Engineer - Power Supply Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia 1470 Riveredge Parkway, NW Atlanta, GA 30328-4684Mr. Reece McAlisterExecutive Secretary Georgia Public Service Commission 244 Washington St., SW Atlanta, GA 30334Arthur H. Domby, Esq.Troutman Sanders Nations Bank Plaza 600 Peachtree St, NE, Suite 5200 Atlanta, GA 30308-2216ChairmanAppling County Commissioners County Courthouse Baxley, GA 31513Mr. Jeffrey T. GasserExecutive Vice President Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. | | P.O. Box 1295 U.S. Highway 1 North Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 P.O. Box 2010 Baxley, GA 31515 Resident Inspector Plant Hatch Mr. K. Rosanski 11030 Hatch Parkway N. Resident Manager Baxley, GA 31531 Oglethorpe Power Corporation Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Harold Reheis, Director P.O. Box 2010 Department of Natural Resources Baxley, GA 31515 205 Butler Street, SE., Suite 1252 Atlanta, GA 30334 Steven M. Jackson Senior Engineer - Power Supply Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia 1470 Riveredge Parkway, NW Atlanta, GA 30328-4684 Mr. Reece McAlister Executive Secretary Georgia Public Service Commission 244 Washington St., SW Atlanta, GA 30334 Arthur H. Domby, Esq. |
| P.O. Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201-1295General ManagerEdwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
| | Troutman Sanders Nations Bank Plaza 600 Peachtree St, NE, Suite 5200 Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 Chairman Appling County Commissioners County Courthouse Baxley, GA 31513}} |
| U.S. Highway 1 North P.O. Box 2010 Baxley, GA 31515Mr. K. RosanskiResident Manager Oglethorpe Power Corporation Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant P.O. Box 2010 Baxley, GA 31515}}
| |
Letter Sequence RAI |
|---|
|
|
MONTHYEARML0630700372006-11-14014 November 2006
Edwin I Hatch, Nuclear Plant Unit No. 1 & 2, Request for Additional Information for Alternate Source Term Review (TAC Nos. MD2934 & MD2935)
Project stage: RAI
ML0632800652006-11-14014 November 2006
Meeting Summary Handouts, Enclosure 2 (Tac Nos. MD2934 and MD2935)
Project stage: Meeting
ML0632401972006-12-11011 December 2006
Summary of November 14, 2006, Meeting with Southern Nuclear Operating Co., on Alternative Source Term Submittal
Project stage: Meeting
ML0704602852007-02-22022 February 2007
Request for Additional Information Regarding Alternate Source Term Application
Project stage: RAI
ML0706502982007-03-15015 March 2007
Edwin I Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (HNP) - Request for Additional Information Alternative Source Term Application
Project stage: RAI
ML0708902972007-04-10010 April 2007
RAI Regarding Alternative Source Term Application
Project stage: RAI
ML0710900392007-04-26026 April 2007
Request for Additional Information Alternate Source Term Application
Project stage: RAI
ML0710900572007-05-0808 May 2007
Request for Additional Information Alternate Source Term Application
Project stage: RAI
ML0712801262007-05-30030 May 2007
Request for Additional Information the Revision of the Licensing and Design Basis with a Full Scope Implementation of an Alternative Source Term
Project stage: RAI
ML0721904682007-08-16016 August 2007
Nos. Units 1 and 2, (Hnp), RAI, Request for Additional Information Regarding Alternate Source Term Application
Project stage: RAI
ML0726806972007-10-0303 October 2007
Request for Additional Information Regarding Alternate Source Term Application
Project stage: RAI
NL-07-1949, Request to Implement an Alternative Source Term Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Turbine Building Ventilation and Leakage Treatment Piping Seismic Evaluations2007-12-11011 December 2007
Request to Implement an Alternative Source Term Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Turbine Building Ventilation and Leakage Treatment Piping Seismic Evaluations
Project stage: Response to RAI
ML0800702622008-01-0909 January 2008
(Hnp), Request for Additional Information (RAI) Regarding Alternate Source Term Application Tac Nos. MD2934 and MD2935)
Project stage: RAI
ML0801100512008-01-30030 January 2008
Discussion of Review Schedule Regarding Alternate Source Term Application
Project stage: Other
NL-08-0035, Request to Implement an Alternative Source Term Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Unit 1 Main Steam Isolation Valve Alternate Leakage Treatment Seismic Evaluation2008-02-0404 February 2008
Request to Implement an Alternative Source Term Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Unit 1 Main Steam Isolation Valve Alternate Leakage Treatment Seismic Evaluation
Project stage: Response to RAI
ML0803801412008-02-13013 February 2008
E.I Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Hnp), RAI Regarding Alternate Source Term Application
Project stage: RAI
NL-07-1389, Request to Implement an Alternative Source Term Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Radiological Consequences Analyses2008-02-25025 February 2008
Request to Implement an Alternative Source Term Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Radiological Consequences Analyses
Project stage: Response to RAI
NL-07-1532, Request to Implement an Alternative Source Term Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Turbine Building Ventilation and Standby Liquid Control Systems2008-02-27027 February 2008
Request to Implement an Alternative Source Term Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Turbine Building Ventilation and Standby Liquid Control Systems
Project stage: Response to RAI
NL-08-0351, Request to Implement an Alternative Source Term Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Power Sources for the Turbine Building Ventilation System2008-03-13013 March 2008
Request to Implement an Alternative Source Term Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Power Sources for the Turbine Building Ventilation System
Project stage: Response to RAI
NL-08-0524, Request to Implement an Alternative Source Term Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Atmospheric Dispersion Factors2008-04-0101 April 2008
Request to Implement an Alternative Source Term Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Atmospheric Dispersion Factors
Project stage: Response to RAI
NL-08-0634, Request to Implement an Alternative Source Term Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Radiological Consequences Analyses2008-05-0505 May 2008
Request to Implement an Alternative Source Term Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Radiological Consequences Analyses
Project stage: Response to RAI
ML0814201722008-05-30030 May 2008
Request for Additional Information Regarding Alternative Source Term Application
Project stage: RAI
NL-08-0903, Request to Implement an Alternative Source Term Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Turbine Building Ventilation Exhaust System Fans2008-06-25025 June 2008
Request to Implement an Alternative Source Term Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Turbine Building Ventilation Exhaust System Fans
Project stage: Response to RAI
NL-08-1022, Request to Revise the Unit 1 and Unit 2 Operating Licenses to Extend the Interim Period for the Use of Potassium Iodide2008-07-0202 July 2008
Request to Revise the Unit 1 and Unit 2 Operating Licenses to Extend the Interim Period for the Use of Potassium Iodide
Project stage: Request
ML0819001752008-07-0909 July 2008
Request for Additional Information, Alternate Source Term Application
Project stage: RAI
ML0819003312008-07-14014 July 2008
Transmittal of Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments for Alternate Source Term Application
Project stage: Other
ML0819003382008-07-14014 July 2008
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments for Alternate Source Term Application
Project stage: Other
ML0819703922008-07-14014 July 2008
Edwin I. Hatch, Transmittal of Responses to Request for Additional Information Addition of License Conditions to Operating Licenses for Request to Implement an Alternative Source Term
Project stage: Request
NL-08-1269, Request to Implement an Alternative Source Term Response to Requests for Additional Information Regarding Turbine Building Ventilation Exhaust Systems and Operating License Changes2008-08-14014 August 2008
Request to Implement an Alternative Source Term Response to Requests for Additional Information Regarding Turbine Building Ventilation Exhaust Systems and Operating License Changes
Project stage: Response to RAI
ML0817700752008-08-28028 August 2008
Issuance of Amendment Nos. 256 and 200, Alternate Source Term
Project stage: Approval
2008-02-13
[Table View] |
Similar Documents at Hatch |
|---|
Category:Letter
MONTHYEARML24292A1602024-10-22022 October 2024
Request for Withholding Information from Public Disclosure License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements to Increase Safety/Relief Valve Setpoints
ML24290A0792024-10-18018 October 2024
SLR Environmental Preapplication Meeting Summary
IR 05000321/20244012024-10-10010 October 2024
Security Baseline Inspection Report 05000321-2024401 and 05000366-2024401
ML24256A0282024-09-12012 September 2024
2024 Hatch Requal Inspection Corporate Notification Letter
NL-23-0930, Application to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-591, Revise Risk Informed Completion Time (RICT) Program2024-09-11011 September 2024
Application to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-591, Revise Risk Informed Completion Time (RICT) Program
NL-24-0337, Interim 10 CFR 21.21(a)(2) Report Regarding Operation Technology, Inc., ETAP Software Error in Transient Stability Program2024-09-0909 September 2024
Interim 10 CFR 21.21(a)(2) Report Regarding Operation Technology, Inc., ETAP Software Error in Transient Stability Program
ML24249A1362024-09-0404 September 2024
EN 57304 - Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC, Final Report - No Embedded Files. Notification of the Potential Existence of Defects Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 21
NL-24-0334, 0 to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Technical Specifications Bases Changes, Technical Requirements Manual Changes, License Renewal 10 CFR 54 .37(b) Changes, 10 CFR 50.59 Summary Report & Revised Nrc2024-09-0303 September 2024
0 to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Technical Specifications Bases Changes, Technical Requirements Manual Changes, License Renewal 10 CFR 54 .37(b) Changes, 10 CFR 50.59 Summary Report & Revised Nrc
IR 05000321/20240912024-08-27027 August 2024
NRC Investigation Report 2-2023-003 and NOV - NRC Inspection Report 05000321/2024091 and 05000366/2024091
IR 05000321/20240052024-08-26026 August 2024
Updated Inspection Plan for Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 - Report 05000321/2024005 and 05000366/2024005
NL-24-0313, Application to Revise Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirements to Increase Safety/Relief Valves Setpoint Response to Request for Additional Information2024-08-23023 August 2024
Application to Revise Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirements to Increase Safety/Relief Valves Setpoint Response to Request for Additional Information
IR 05000321/20240022024-08-0808 August 2024
Edwin I Hatch Nuclear Plants, Units 1 and 2 – Integrated Inspection Report 05000321-2024002 and 05000366-2024002
NL-24-0290, Response to Request for Additional Information Related to Request for Specific Exemption2024-07-26026 July 2024
Response to Request for Additional Information Related to Request for Specific Exemption
NL-24-0276, Post-Audit Supplement to License Amendment Request to Revise Renewed Facility Operating Licenses to Adopt an Alternative Seismic Method for Categorization of Structures, Systems, and Components2024-07-26026 July 2024
Post-Audit Supplement to License Amendment Request to Revise Renewed Facility Operating Licenses to Adopt an Alternative Seismic Method for Categorization of Structures, Systems, and Components
NL-24-0261, 10 CFR 50.46 ECCS Evaluation Model Annual Report for 20232024-07-19019 July 2024
10 CFR 50.46 ECCS Evaluation Model Annual Report for 2023
ML24198A1252024-07-16016 July 2024
Edwin I Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 - 2 Notification of Conduct of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50
NL-24-0260, Inservice Inspection Program Owner’S Activity Report (OAR-1) for Refueling Outage 1R312024-07-0909 July 2024
Inservice Inspection Program Owner’S Activity Report (OAR-1) for Refueling Outage 1R31
NL-24-0240, Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) System Inoperable Due to Mispositioned Link2024-07-0303 July 2024
Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) System Inoperable Due to Mispositioned Link
NL-24-0237, Incorrectly Installed Temporary Modification Results in Multiple Conditions Prohibited by Plant Technical Specifications2024-07-0303 July 2024
Incorrectly Installed Temporary Modification Results in Multiple Conditions Prohibited by Plant Technical Specifications
NL-24-0143, Proposed Alternative to Use ASME Code Case N-752, Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment for Repair/ Replacement Activities in2024-06-27027 June 2024
Proposed Alternative to Use ASME Code Case N-752, Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment for Repair/ Replacement Activities in
NL-24-0239, Response to Apparent Violation in NRC Inspection Report 05000321, 366/2024090: EA-23-1392024-06-17017 June 2024
Response to Apparent Violation in NRC Inspection Report 05000321, 366/2024090: EA-23-139
ML24163A0532024-06-14014 June 2024
Audit Plan - Alternative Seismic Method LAR
ML24149A0492024-06-0404 June 2024
SNC Fleet - Regulatory Audit in Support of Review of the License Amendment Request to Revise TS 1.1, Use and Application Definitions, and Add New Technical Specification 5.5.21 and 5.5.17, Online Monitoring Program,
NL-24-0148, Report of Changes to Emergency Plan and Summary of 50.54(q) Analysis2024-06-0404 June 2024
Report of Changes to Emergency Plan and Summary of 50.54(q) Analysis
NL-24-0202, SNC Response to Regulatory Issue Summary 2024-01: Preparation and Scheduling of Operator Licensing Examinations2024-05-24024 May 2024
SNC Response to Regulatory Issue Summary 2024-01: Preparation and Scheduling of Operator Licensing Examinations
IR 05000321/20240902024-05-15015 May 2024
NRC Inspection Report 05000321-2024090 and 05000366-2024090, Investigation Report 2-2023-003; and Apparent Violation
NL-24-0191, Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 20232024-05-10010 May 2024
Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2023
NL-24-0166, Manual Reactor Trip Due to Loss of Feedwater2024-05-0909 May 2024
Manual Reactor Trip Due to Loss of Feedwater
NL-24-0195, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt Risk Informed Completion Times for Residual Heat Removal Service Water.2024-05-0707 May 2024
Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt Risk Informed Completion Times for Residual Heat Removal Service Water.
NL-24-0064, Units 1 & 2 and Hatch Nuclear Plant - Units 1 & 2 License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specification 1.1 and Add Online Monitoring Program to Technical Specification 5.52024-05-0303 May 2024
Units 1 & 2 and Hatch Nuclear Plant - Units 1 & 2 License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specification 1.1 and Add Online Monitoring Program to Technical Specification 5.5
NL-24-0165, Annual Non-Radiological Environmental Operating Reports and Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports for 20232024-04-25025 April 2024
Annual Non-Radiological Environmental Operating Reports and Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports for 2023
IR 05000032/20240112024-04-25025 April 2024
Notification of Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant - Comprehensive Engineering Team Inspection (CETI) Baseline Inspection Report 0500032/2024011 and 05000366/2024011
NL-24-0157, Incorrectly Installed Temporary Modification Results in a Condition Prohibited by Plant Technical Specifications2024-04-24024 April 2024
Incorrectly Installed Temporary Modification Results in a Condition Prohibited by Plant Technical Specifications
IR 05000321/20240012024-04-22022 April 2024
Integrated Inspection Report 05000321/2024001 and 05000366/2024001
NL-24-0026, Application to Revise Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirements to Increase Safety/Relief Valves Setpoint2024-04-19019 April 2024
Application to Revise Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirements to Increase Safety/Relief Valves Setpoint
NL-24-0144, Primary Containment Penetration Exceeded Maximum Allowable Primary Containment Leakage Rate (La)2024-04-0909 April 2024
Primary Containment Penetration Exceeded Maximum Allowable Primary Containment Leakage Rate (La)
NL-24-0115, Response to Request for Additional Information Exemption Requests for Physical.2024-04-0404 April 2024
Response to Request for Additional Information Exemption Requests for Physical.
NL-24-0116, Nuclear Property Insurance Coverage as of April 1, 2024 and Licensee Guarantees of Payment of Deferred.2024-03-29029 March 2024
Nuclear Property Insurance Coverage as of April 1, 2024 and Licensee Guarantees of Payment of Deferred.
NL-24-0062, Report of Changes to Emergency Plan and Summary of 50.54(q) Analysis2024-03-12012 March 2024
Report of Changes to Emergency Plan and Summary of 50.54(q) Analysis
ML24069A0012024-03-0909 March 2024
– Correction of Amendment No. 266 Regarding License Amendment Request Regarding Relocation of Specific Surveillance Frequencies to a Licensee-Controlled Program (TSTF-425, Revision 3)
NL-24-0089, Correction of Technical Specification Omission2024-03-0909 March 2024
Correction of Technical Specification Omission
ML24047A0362024-03-0404 March 2024
Response to Hatch and Vogtle FOF Dates Change Request (2025)
NL-24-0061, Cycle 32 Core Operating Limits Report Version 12024-03-0101 March 2024
Cycle 32 Core Operating Limits Report Version 1
IR 05000321/20230062024-02-28028 February 2024
Annual Assessment Letter Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 - Nrc Inspection Report 05000321/2023006 and 05000366/2023006
NL-24-0067, 10 CFR 72.48(d)(2) Biennial Report2024-02-26026 February 2024
10 CFR 72.48(d)(2) Biennial Report
NL-24-0051, License Amendment Request to Revise Renewed Facility Operating Licenses to Adopt an Alternative Seismic Method for Categorization of Structures, Systems, and Components2024-02-20020 February 2024
License Amendment Request to Revise Renewed Facility Operating Licenses to Adopt an Alternative Seismic Method for Categorization of Structures, Systems, and Components
NL-24-0042, Response to Request for Additional Information Exemption Requests for Physical Barriers2024-02-13013 February 2024
Response to Request for Additional Information Exemption Requests for Physical Barriers
NL-24-0033, Response to Question for Withholding Information from Public Disclosure Exemption Requests for Physical Barriers2024-02-0505 February 2024
Response to Question for Withholding Information from Public Disclosure Exemption Requests for Physical Barriers
IR 05000321/20230042024-01-31031 January 2024
Integrated Inspection Report 05000321/2023004 and 05000366/2023004
NL-24-0014, Revised Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request to Relax the Required Number of Fully Tensioned Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Closure Studs in Technical.2024-01-30030 January 2024
Revised Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request to Relax the Required Number of Fully Tensioned Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Closure Studs in Technical.
2024-09-09
[Table view]
Category:Request for Additional Information (RAI)
MONTHYEARML24278A0052024-10-0303 October 2024
Document Request for Hatch Nuclear Plant - IP 92702 Follow-Up Radiation Protection Inspection - Inspection Report 2024-04
ML24211A0162024-07-26026 July 2024
NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Additional Information - Hatch, Units 1 and 2, Revise TS SRs (3.4.3.1 & 3.1.7.7) to Increase SRV Setpoints LAR
ML24208A1742024-07-26026 July 2024
Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request to Revise TS SRs (3.4.3.1 & 3.1.7.7) to Increase S/Rv Setpoints
ML24193A1182024-07-10010 July 2024
Email to SNC with RAI for Hatch Exemption Request
ML23341A2042024-01-12012 January 2024
Request for Additional Information Exemption Requests for Physical Barriers (EPID L-2023-LLE-0018 & L-2023-LLE-0021)
ML23354A2032023-12-18018 December 2023
Document Request for Hatch Nuclear Plant - Radiation Protection Inspection - Inspection Report 2024-01
ML23250A0472023-09-20020 September 2023
Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request to Relax Required Number of Fully Tensioned Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Closure Bolts in Technical Specifications Table 1.1-1, Modes
ML23264A0142023-09-14014 September 2023
NRR E-mail Capture - (External_Sender) Draft Round-2 RAI - Hatch, Units 1 and 2, Revise TS 1.1-1 Modes LAR
ML23198A1552023-07-17017 July 2023
NRR E-mail Capture - for Your Action - Request for Additional Information (RAI) - Hatch, Farley, and Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 Quality Assurance Topical Report (QATR) Submittal Dated June 15, 2023
ML23018A1872023-01-17017 January 2023
2023 HNP CGD Inspection Information Request
ML22355A2082022-12-21021 December 2022
NRR E-mail Capture - RAI - Hatch, Units 1 and 2, Reactor Pressure Vessel 'Rpv Head Studs' LAR
ML23026A2372022-11-16016 November 2022
2023001 Hatch RP RFI Final
ML22208A1332022-07-26026 July 2022
NRR E-mail Capture - RAI - Hatch, Units 1 and 2, TSTF-208 LAR
ML22157A3542022-06-0606 June 2022
NRR E-mail Capture - RAI - Hatch, Units 1 and 2, TSTF-505 LAR
ML22140A1192022-05-20020 May 2022
NRR E-mail Capture - RAIs - Hatch, Units 1 and 2, TSTF-505 LAR
ML22073A0842022-03-21021 March 2022
an NRC Fire Protection Team Inspection (NRC Inspection Report Nos. 05000321/2022011 and 05000366/2022011) and Request for Information
ML22025A2142022-01-21021 January 2022
Plant Hatch 2022001 RP Baseline Inspection Information Request
ML21265A3402021-09-22022 September 2021
NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Additional Information - Hatch, Unit 1, Emergency TS 3.7.2 LAR
ML21111A3032021-04-21021 April 2021
NRR E-mail Capture - RAI - Hatch Unit 2 - One-Time Emergency RHR LAR (L-2020-LRO-0068)
ML21110A6842021-04-20020 April 2021
NRR E-mail Capture - RAI - Hatch Unit 2 - One-Time Emergency RHR LAR (L-2020-LRO-0068)
ML21013A4112021-01-13013 January 2021
Notification of Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Design Bases Assurance Inspection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspection Report 05000321/2021010 and 05000366/2021010
ML20293A0752020-10-14014 October 2020
NRR E-mail Capture - RAIs for SNC Fleet EP LAR (L-2020-LLA-0150 and L-2020-LLA-0151)
ML20253A2732020-09-0909 September 2020
Requalification Program Inspection Hatch Nuclear Station
ML20149K6252020-05-27027 May 2020
NRR E-mail Capture - RAIs for SNC Fleet Fire Protection Exemption Requests
NL-19-1532, Units 1 and 2 - Response to Requests for Additional Information Regarding Application to Adopt 10 CFR 50.69, Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures. Systems and Components for Nuclear Power Reactors2019-12-18018 December 2019
Units 1 and 2 - Response to Requests for Additional Information Regarding Application to Adopt 10 CFR 50.69, Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures. Systems and Components for Nuclear Power Reactors
ML19336A0142019-12-0101 December 2019
NRR E-mail Capture - RAI: Hatch Emergency TS 3.7.1 Residual Heat Removal Service Water (RHRSW) System LAR
ML19280A0082019-10-0404 October 2019
NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Additional Information (RAI) - Hatch TSTF-51 LAR (L-2019-LLA-0091)
ML19224C0552019-08-12012 August 2019
NRR E-mail Capture - RAI - Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, LAR Regarding Degraded Voltage (L-2019-LLA-0108)
ML19220A0362019-08-0808 August 2019
NRR E-mail Capture - RAI - Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, LAR Regarding Adoption of NFPA 805, Request for Additional Information, EPID L-2018-LLA-0107
ML19164A2582019-06-13013 June 2019
Notification of Inspection and Request for Information for NRC Problem Identification and Resolution Inspection
ML19107A4962019-04-17017 April 2019
NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Additional Information - Hatch 1 & 2 Application to Adopt Title 10 of Code of Federal Regulations 50.69 RISK-INFORMED Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems and Components for Power Reactors
ML19088A0092019-03-29029 March 2019
NRR E-mail Capture - Hatch 1 and 2 - LAR to Adopt NFPA 805 Fire Protection Standard, EPID L-2018-LLA-0107, Request for Additional Information
ML19029B3402019-01-23023 January 2019
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Draft Request for Additional Information for the License Amendment Requests to Adopt the Risk-Informed Provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulat
ML19016A3422019-01-10010 January 2019
U2 ISI 2019001 RFI - Bcc
ML18355A4772019-01-0404 January 2019
Request for Additional Information Revise TS 5.2.2.g and Update Emergency Plan Minimum On-Shift Staff Tables
ML18337A4032018-12-0606 December 2018
Request for Additional Information Revise Technical Specification 5.2.2.G and Updating Emergency Plan Minimum On-Shift Staff Tables
ML18085A0132018-03-0808 March 2018
Draft Request for Additional Information on Alternative RR-V-11, Proposed Extension to Main Steam Safety Relief Valve Testing Requirements
ML18058A0812018-02-27027 February 2018
Enclosurequest for Additional Information(Rai for Review of Southern Nuclear Operating Company'S Decommissioning Funding Plan Updates for Joseph M. Farley,Unit 1 and 2;Edwin I. Hatch,Units 1 and 2; and Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit
ML17306A0872017-11-0808 November 2017
Request for Additional Information Regarding the Decommissioning Funding Status Reports (EPID L-LRO-2017-0008)
ML17284A3542017-11-0707 November 2017
Request for Additional Information Regarding Generic Letter 2016-01, Monitoring of Neutron Absorbing Materials in Spent Fuel Pools
ML17270A1402017-09-27027 September 2017
PIR Notification Letter 2017
ML17290A3172017-09-19019 September 2017
NRR E-mail Capture - Hatch 1 and 2 - Draft Request for Additional Information Request for Alternative No. HNP-ISI-ALT-05-05
ML17111A5792017-04-26026 April 2017
Request for Additional Information, Fourth 10-Year ISI Interval Relief Requests
ML17110A2112017-04-24024 April 2017
Request for Additional Information
ML16330A1282016-12-0505 December 2016
Request for Additional Information
ML16307A1842016-11-0202 November 2016
Request for Additional Information (Non-Proprietary)
ML16271A1692016-10-17017 October 2016
Request for Additional Information
ML16222A2952016-08-29029 August 2016
Request for Additional Information
ML16205A0012016-07-22022 July 2016
Requalification Program Inspection - Plant Hatch
ML16195A4002016-07-13013 July 2016
Request for Additional Information License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specifications Regarding TSTF-500
2024-07-26
[Table view] |
Text
April 26, 2007 Mr. Dennis R. Madison Vice President - Hatch Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant 11028 Hatch Parkway North Baxley, GA 31513
SUBJECT:
EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 (HNP) - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI) REGARDING ALTERNATE SOURCE TERM APPLICATION (TAC NOS. MD2934 AND MD2935)
Dear Mr. Madison:
By letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated August 29, 2006, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., proposed to revise the HNP licensing and design basis with a full scope implementation of an alternative source term. We have reviewed your application and have identified a need for additional information on containment analyses as set forth in the Enclosure.
We discussed this issue with your staff on April 17, 2007. Your staff indicated that it plans to submit a response to this issue within sixty (60) days of receipt of this letter.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Robert E. Martin, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch II-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366
Enclosure:
RAI cc w/encl: See next page
- ML071090039 *transmitted by memo dated OFFICE NRR/LPL2-1/PM NRR/LPL2-1/LA NRR/SCVB/BC NRR/LPL2-1/BC NAME RMartin:nc MOBrien RDennig by memo EMarinos DATE 04/26/07 04/26/07 04/12/07* 04/26/07 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE TERM FOR EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 (HNP)
Requests for Additional Information (RAIs) related to the Turbine Building Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (TB HVAC) System HNP has proposed to credit the TB HVAC system for dose mitigation by purging the area around the main control room beginning 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> following design basis accidents (DBAs). The TB HVAC system design was not previously reviewed for this safety function. Please respond to the following questions concerning the use of the TB HVAC system for dose mitigation:
- 1. Since the TB HVAC system is not classified as safety-related, please provide the information requested below to show that the TB HVAC system is comparable to a system classified as safety-related. If any item is answered in the negative, please explain why the TB HVAC system should be found acceptable for dose mitigation.
a) Are inservice inspection and inservice testing programs performed on the TB HVAC system in accordance with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code)?
b) Have you considered adding a Limiting Condition for Operation to the Technical Specifications for this system including surveillance requirements? What kind of testing and surveillance do you propose?
b) Is the TB HVAC system incorporated into the plants Maintenance Rule program consistent with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.65, Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants?
c) Does the TB HVAC system meet 10 CFR 50.49, Environmental qualification of electrical equipment important to safety for nuclear power plants, and General Design Criterion (GDC) 4, Environmental and dynamic effects design bases?
- 2. Describe any changes to plant procedures that implement the dose mitigation function for the TB HVAC system and whether any training is necessary for plant personnel to implement the function.
- 3. The air for all TB HVAC dampers is supplied by interruptible service instrument air and failure of the air systems of both Units 1 and 2 would render both HVAC systems incapable of performing their required exhaust functions. In the event that pneumatic systems fail, have manual actions or overrides been developed to change the damper position?
RAIs on the Standby Liquid Control (SLC) System Please respond to the following questions concerning the use of the SLC system for pH control of the suppression pool:
HNP has proposed to credit control of the pH in the suppression pool following a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) by means of injecting sodium pentaborate into the reactor core with the SLC system. The SLC system design was not previously reviewed for this safety function (pH control post-LOCA). Licensees proposing such credit need to demonstrate that the SLC system is capable of performing the pH control safety function assumed in the alternate source term (AST) LOCA dose analysis. The following questions are from a set of generic questions developed by the staff and are being provided to all boiling water reactor licensees with pending AST license amendment requests. In responding to questions regarding the SLC system, please focus on the proposed pH control safety function. The reactivity control safety function is not in question here. For example, the SLC system may be redundant with regard to the reactivity control safety function, but lack redundancy for the proposed pH control safety function. If HNP believes that the information was previously submitted to support the license amendment request to implement AST, please refer to where that information may be found in the documentation.
- 1. Please Identify whether the SLC system is classified as a safety-related system as defined in 10 CFR 50.2, Definitions, and whether the system satisfies the regulatory requirements for such systems. If the SLC system is not classified as safety-related, please provide the information requested in Items 1.1 to 1.5 below to show that the SLC system is comparable to a system classified as safety-related. If any item is answered in the negative, please explain why the SLC system should be found acceptable for pH control agent injection.
1.1 Is the SLC system provided with standby AC power supplemented by the emergency diesel generators?
1.2 Is the SLC system seismically qualified in accordance with Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.29, Seismic Design Classification and Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 (or equivalent used for original licensing)?
1.3 Is the SLC system incorporated into the plants ASME Code inservice inspection and inservice testing programs based upon the plants code of record (10 CFR 50.55a)?
1.4 Is the SLC system incorporated into the plants Maintenance Rule program consistent with 10 CFR 50.65?
1.5 Does the SLC system meet 10 CFR 50.49 and Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 (GDC-4, or equivalent used for original licensing)?
- 2. Please describe proposed changes to plant procedures that implement SLC sodium pentaborate injection as a pH control additive. In addition, please address Items 2.1 to 2.5 below in your response. If any item is answered in the negative, please explain why the SLC system should be found acceptable for pH control additive injection.
2.1 Are the SLC injection steps part of a safety-related plant procedure?
2.2 Are the entry conditions for the SLC injection procedure steps symptoms of
imminent or actual core damage?
2.3 Does the instrumentation cited in the procedure entry conditions meet the quality requirements for a Type E variable as defined in Tables 1 and 2 of RG 1.97 on accident monitoring instrumentation?
2.4 Have plant personnel received initial and periodic refresher training in the SLC injection procedure?
2.5 Have other plant procedures, (e.g., Emergency Response Guidines) that call for termination of SLC as a reactivity control measure been appropriately revised to prevent blocking of SLC injection as a pH control measure? (For example, the override before Step RC/Q-1, If while executing the following steps: ....it has been determined that the reactor will remain shutdown under all conditions without boron, terminate boron injection and....)
- 3. Please show that the SLC system has suitable redundancy in components and features to assure that for onsite or offsite electric power operation its safety function of injecting sodium pentaborate for the purpose of suppression pool pH control can be accomplished assuming a single failure. For this purpose, the check valve is considered an active device since the check valve must open to inject sodium pentaborate. If the SLC system cannot be considered redundant with respect to its active components, the licensee should implement one of the three options described below, providing the information specified for that option for staff review.
3.1 Option 1 Show acceptable quality and reliability of the non-redundant active components and/or compensatory actions in the event of failure of the non-redundant active components. If you choose this option, please provide the following information to justify the lack of redundancy of active components in the SLC system:
3.1.1 Identify the non-redundant active components in the SLC system and provide their make, manufacturer, and model number.
3.1.2 Provide the design-basis conditions for the component and the environmental and seismic conditions under which the component may be required to operate during a design-basis accident. Environmental conditions include design-basis pressure, temperature, relative humidity and radiation fields.
3.1.3 Indicate whether the component was purchased in accordance with Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50. If the component was not purchased in accordance with Appendix B, provide information on the quality standards under which it was purchased.
3.1.4 Provide the performance history of the component both at the licensees facility and in industry databases such as Equipment Performance and Information and Exchange System and Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System.
3.1.5 Provide a description of the components inspection and testing program, including standards, frequency, and acceptance criteria.
3.1.6 Indicate potential compensating actions that could be taken within an acceptable time period to address the failure of the component. An example of a compensating action might be the ability to jumper a switch in the control room to overcome its failure. In your response, please consider the availability of compensating actions and the likelihood of successful injection of the sodium pentaborate when non-redundant active components fail to perform their intended functions.
3.2 Option 2 Provide for an alternative success path for injecting chemicals into the suppression pool. If you chose this option, please provide the following information:
4.2.1 Provide a description of the alternative injection path, its capabilities for performing the pH control function, and its quality characteristics.
42.2 Do the components which make up the alternative path meet the same quality characteristics required of the SLC system as described in Items 1.1 to 1.5, 2, and 3 above?
4.2.3 Does the alternate injection path require actions to be taken in areas outside the control room? How accessible will these areas be? What additional personnel would be required?
3.3 Option 3 Show that 10 CFR 50.67 dose criteria are met even if the pH is not controlled. If you chose this option, demonstrate through analyses that the projected accident doses will continue to meet the criteria of 10 CFR 50.67 assuming that the suppression pool pH is not controlled. The dissolution of cesium iodide (CsI) and its re-evolution from the suppression pool as elemental iodine must be evaluated by a suitably conservative methodology. The analysis of iodine speciation should be provided for staff review. The analysis documentation should include a detailed description and justification of the analysis assumptions, inputs, methods, and results. The resulting iodine speciation should be incorporated into the dose analyses. The calculation may take credit for the mitigating capabilities of other equipment, for example the standby gas treatment system, if such equipment would be available. A description of the dose analysis assumptions, inputs, methods, and results should be provided. Licensees proposing this approach should recognize that this option may incur longer staff review times and will likely involve fee-billable support from NRC staff contractor support.
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2 cc:
Laurence Bergen Mr. Jeffrey T. Gasser Oglethorpe Power Corporation Executive Vice President 2100 E. Exchange Place Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 1349 P.O. Box 1295 Tucker, GA 30085-1349 Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 Mr. R. D. Baker General Manager Manager - Licensing Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 1295 U.S. Highway 1 North Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 P.O. Box 2010 Baxley, GA 31515 Resident Inspector Plant Hatch Mr. K. Rosanski 11030 Hatch Parkway N. Resident Manager Baxley, GA 31531 Oglethorpe Power Corporation Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Harold Reheis, Director P.O. Box 2010 Department of Natural Resources Baxley, GA 31515 205 Butler Street, SE., Suite 1252 Atlanta, GA 30334 Steven M. Jackson Senior Engineer - Power Supply Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia 1470 Riveredge Parkway, NW Atlanta, GA 30328-4684 Mr. Reece McAlister Executive Secretary Georgia Public Service Commission 244 Washington St., SW Atlanta, GA 30334 Arthur H. Domby, Esq.
Troutman Sanders Nations Bank Plaza 600 Peachtree St, NE, Suite 5200 Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 Chairman Appling County Commissioners County Courthouse Baxley, GA 31513
