ML050140063
| ML050140063 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 01/31/2005 |
| From: | Padovan L NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD3 |
| To: | Thomas J. Palmisano Nuclear Management Co |
| Padovan L, NRR/DLPM, 415-1423 | |
| References | |
| TAC MC3299 | |
| Download: ML050140063 (7) | |
Text
January 31, 2005 Mr. Thomas J. Palmisano Site Vice President Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Nuclear Management Company, LLC 2807 West County Road 75 Monticello, MN 55362-9637
SUBJECT:
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT - SECOND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CHANGE REQUEST TO APPLY ALTERNATIVE SOURCE TERM (AST)
METHODOLOGY TO RE-EVALUATE THE FUEL-HANDLING ACCIDENT (TAC NO. MC3299)
Dear Mr. Palmisano:
The Nuclear Management Companys, LLCs, letter of April 29, 2004, as supplemented November 23, 2004, submitted a license amendment request for selective-scope application of AST methodology for re-evaluation of the fuel-handling accident at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is reviewing your request and finds that additional information is needed as shown in the enclosed request for additional information (RAI).
I discussed the enclosed RAI with Mr. Richard Loeffler of your organization on January 24, 2005, and he agreed to respond within 30 days of receipt of the RAI. Please contact me at (301) 415-1423 if you have questions.
Sincerely,
/RA/
L. Mark Padovan, Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate III Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-263
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page
ML050140063 NRR-088 OFFICE PDIII-1/PM PDIII-1/LA PDIII-1/(A)SC NAME MPadovan:mp DClarke for THarris MKotzalas DATE 01/24/05 01/24/05 01/31/05
ENCLOSURE Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP)
Fuel Handling Alternative Source Term (AST) Submittal Second Request for Additional Information Docket No. 50-263 Meteorological Measurements and Data
- 1. Were comparisons made between the 1998 through 2002 hourly wind speed data in the ARCON96 format and the joint wind speed, wind direction and atmospheric stability (jfd) data used in the PAVAN calculations? U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff estimate a slightly higher occurrence of calm winds when generating a jfd from the hourly data in comparison to the frequency in the jfds used in the PAVAN calculations. Further, the incidence of calms reported for 1980 in MNGPs Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (USAR) also appears to be higher than in the jfds used in the PAVAN calculations. Provide further detail of the comparisons made between the 1980 jfd wind speed and direction frequency data and the 1998 through 2002 jfds to support the statement on page 3 of calculation number 2004-01852 (CA-04-036) which asserts that the new data are generally consistent with the USAR historical data.
- 2. Did the MNGP onsite meteorological measurement program meet the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.23, Onsite Meteorological Programs, from 1998 through 2002?
Onsite X/Qs
- 3. With regard to the April 29, 2004, letter on selective scope application of the AST, page 23 of Enclosure 1 states that the reactor vent was determined to be the limiting and representative release point for the AST FHA [fuel-handling accident]. Staff notes that reference CA-04-037 which describes how estimates were made includes results from a number of calculations, some with higher atmospheric dispersion factors (/Q values) than that for the postulated release from the reactor vent to the control room. Please confirm that the only two relevant release/receptor pairs for the FHA are from the off-gas stack and the reactor building vent to the control room. Does this assessment include consideration of factors such as single-failure, loss of offsite power, open penetrations (e.g., personnel or equipment hatches), or possible intake to the technical support center?
- 4. In the elevated release calculation, it appears that the effective stack height was input as the distance between the top of the stack and ground level rather than the distance between the top of the stack and the control room air intake. If this is the case, is the /Q value for the release from the plant vent still limiting?
Offsite X/Qs
- 5. What is the basis for use of wind measurements from the 43-meter level in the calculation of ground level /Q values from the plant vent to the exclusion area boundary and low population zone rather than measurements taken at the 10-meter level? Are the /Q values calculated using the 43-meter data more limiting than those using the 10-meter wind measurements?
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant cc:
Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire Vice President, Counsel & Secretary Nuclear Management Company, LLC 700 First Street Hudson, WI 54016 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office 2807 W. County Road 75 Monticello, MN 55362 Manager, Regulatory Affairs Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Nuclear Management Company, LLC 2807 West County Road 75 Monticello, MN 55362-9637 Robert Nelson, President Minnesota Environmental Control Citizens Association (MECCA) 1051 South McKnight Road St. Paul, MN 55119 Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 60532-4351 Commissioner Minnesota Department of Health 717 Delaware Street, S. E.
Minneapolis, MN 55440 Douglas M. Gruber, Auditor/Treasurer Wright County Government Center 10 NW Second Street Buffalo, MN 55313 Commissioner Minnesota Department of Commerce 85 7th Place East, Suite 500 St. Paul, MN 55101-2198 Manager - Environmental Protection Division Minnesota Attorney Generals Office 445 Minnesota St., Suite 900 St. Paul, MN 55101-2127 John Paul Cowan Executive Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Management Company, LLC 700 First Street Hudson, WI 54016 Nuclear Asset Manager Xcel Energy, Inc.
414 Nicollet Mall, R.S. 8 Minneapolis, MN 55401