ML053210133
| ML053210133 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/2005 |
| From: | Daniel Merzke NRC/NRR/ADRO/DLR/RLRA |
| To: | Nuclear Management Co |
| Merzke, D., NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-3777 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML053210133 (7) | |
Text
November 16, 2005 LICENSEE: Nuclear Management Company, LLC FACILITY: Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON OCTOBER 28, 2005, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC CONCERNING DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff (the staff) and representatives of Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC) held a telephone conference call on October 28, 2005, to discuss and clarify the staffs draft request for additional information (D-RAI) concerning the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal application. The conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of the staffs D-RAI. provides a listing of the meeting participants. Enclosure 2 contains a listing of the D-RAIs discussed with the applicant, including a brief description on the status of the items.
The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary.
/RA/
Daniel J. Merzke, Project Manager License Renewal Branch A Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.: 50-263
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/encls: See next page
November 16, 2005 LICENSEE: Nuclear Management Company, LLC FACILITY: Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON OCTOBER 28, 2005, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC CONCERNING DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff (the staff) and representatives of Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC) held a telephone conference call on October 28, 2005, to discuss and clarify the staffs draft request for additional information (D-RAI) concerning the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal application. The conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of the staffs D-RAI. provides a listing of the meeting participants. Enclosure 2 contains a listing of the D-RAIs discussed with the applicant, including a brief description on the status of the items.
The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary.
/RA/
Daniel J. Merzke, Project Manager License Renewal Branch A Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.: 50-263
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/encls: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See next page ADAMS accession no.: ML053210133 DOCUMENT NAME: E:\Filenet\ML053210133.wpd OFFICE DLR:RLRB:PM DLR:LA DLR:RLRB:BC (A)
NAME DMerzke MJenkins LLund DATE 11/14/05 11/14/05 11/16/05 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant cc:
Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire Commissioner Vice President, Counsel & Secretary Minnesota Department of Commerce Nuclear Management Company, LLC 85 7th Place East, Suite 500 700 First Street St. Paul, MN 55101-2198 Hudson, WI 54016 Manager - Environmental Protection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division Resident Inspectors Office Minnesota Attorney Generals Office 2807 W. County Road 75 445 Minnesota St., Suite 900 Monticello, MN 55362 St. Paul, MN 55101-2127 Manager, Regulatory Affairs John Paul Cowan Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Executive Vice President & Chief Nuclear Nuclear Management Company, LLC Officer 2807 West County Road 75 Nuclear Management Company, LLC Monticello, MN 55362-9637 700 First Street Hudson, WI 54016 Robert Nelson, President Minnesota Environmental Control Nuclear Asset Manager Citizens Association (MECCA) Xcel Energy, Inc.
1051 South McKnight Road 414 Nicollet Mall, R.S. 8 St. Paul, MN 55119 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Commissioner Mr. James Ross Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Nuclear Energy Institute 520 Lafayette Road 1776 I Street, NW, Suite 400 St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Regional Administrator, Region III Patrick Burke U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission License Renewal Project Manager 801 Warrenville Road Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Lisle, IL 60532-4351 Nuclear Management Company, LLC 2807 West County Road 75 Commissioner Monticello, MN 55362-9637 Minnesota Department of Health 717 Delaware Street, S.E. Mr. Douglas F. Johnson Minneapolis, MN 55440 Director, Plant Life Cycle Issues Nuclear Management Company, LLC Douglas M. Gruber, Auditor/Treasurer 700 First Street Wright County Government Center Hudson, WI 54016 10 NW Second Street Buffalo, MN 55313
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant cc:
David R. Lewis Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1122 Mr. George Crocker North American Water Office P.O. Box 174 Lake Elmo, MN 55042
DISTRIBUTION: Summary of telecon held on October 28, 2005, with NMC, re: Monticello LRA Date: November 16, 2005 Adams accession no.: ML053210133 HARD COPY DLR R/F E-MAIL:
RidsNrrDrip RidsNrrDe G. Bagchi K. Manoly W. Bateman J. Calvo R. Jenkins J. Fair RidsNrrDssa RidsNrrDipm D. Thatcher R. Pettis G. Galletti K. Winsberg (RidsOgcMailCenter)
R. Weisman M. Mayfield A. Murphy S. Smith (srs3)
S. Duraiswamy Y. L. (Renee) Li DLR Staff L. Raghavan L. Padovan A. Stone, RIII B. Burgess, RIII P. Lougheed, RIII R. Orlikowski, RIII A. Hodgdon M. Woods OPA
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS THE MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION October 28, 2005 Participants Affiliations Daniel Merzke U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Amar Pal NRC Matthew Yoder NRC Patrick Burke Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC)
Joe Pairitz NMC Ron Siepel NMC Dave Musolf NMC Enclosure 1
DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (D-RAI)
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT (MNGP)
LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION October 28, 2005 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff (the staff) and representatives of Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC) held a telephone conference call on October 28, 2005, to discuss and clarify the staffs draft request for additional information (D-RAI) concerning the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, license renewal application (LRA). The following D-RAIs were discussed during the telephone conference call.
D-RAI B2.1.6-2 With regard to the corrective action element for Bus Duct Inspection Program, it is stated that requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Processing Plants, is applicable to MNGP. However, the staff notes that GALL XI.E4 under corrective actions, states that further investigation and evaluation are performed when the acceptance criteria are not met. Corrective actions may include but are not limited to cleaning, drying, increased inspection frequency, replacement, or repair of the affected metal enclosed bus components. If an unacceptable condition or situation is identified, a determination is made as to whether the same condition or situation is applicable to other accessible or inaccessible metal enclosed bus. Please revise corrective actions in B2.1.6 to add specific requirements or provide justification why these corrective actions are not necessary.
Discussion: The applicant indicated that the question is clear, but did not necessarily agree with it. This D-RAI will be sent as a formal RAI.
D-RAI 4.7-1 The environmental qualification of electrical equipment results described in Section 4.7 indicate that the aging effects of the environmental qualification (EQ) of electrical equipment identified in the Time-Limited Aging Analysis (TLAA) will be managed during the extended period of operation under 10 CFR 54.21(c)(1)(iii). The important attributes of a re-analysis include analytical methods, data collection and reduction methods, underlying assumptions, acceptance criteria and corrective actions. Please discuss how the important attributes for re-analysis of an aging evaluation of electrical equipment identified in the TLAA to extend the qualification under 10 CFR 50.49(e) will be implemented at MNGP, (e.g., how the temperature data used in an aging evaluation is collected at MNGP).
Discussion: The applicant indicated that the question is clear. This D-RAI will be sent as a formal RAI.
D-RAI B2.1.21-1 In AMP B2.1.21, inaccessible medium voltage (2kV to 34.5 kV) cables not subject to 10 CFR 50.49 EQ Requirements, the applicant described under the Preventive Action element that periodic actions are taken to prevent medium voltage cables from being subject to prolonged exposure to significant moisture, such as inspecting for water collection in cable manholes and conduit, and draining water, as needed. The staff requests the applicant to state the inspection frequency and its basis.
Enclosure 2
In addition, because it is the staff position that inaccessible medium voltage cables be tested and inspected, the staff requests the applicant remove the following line from the Preventive Action element, Medium-voltage cables, for which such actions are taken, are not required to be tested since operating experience indicates that prolonged exposure to significant moisture and being energized for significant periods of time are required to induce this effect.
Discussion: The applicant indicated that the question is clear. This D-RAI will be sent as a formal RAI.
RAI 3.5.2.1.15-1 Section 3.3.2.2.10 of the license renewal application (LRA) mentions a Boral Coupon Surveillance Program but does not provide details of that program. The staff requests the applicant confirm that the Boral Coupon Surveillance Program will continue to monitor degradation into the period of extended operation and to discuss the schedule for coupon removal and testing during this period to demonstrate continued Boral performance.
The applicants previous response, dated September 16, 2005, required additional information for the staff to complete its evaluation, specifically, when the last coupon was to be removed, and how the applicant intended to ensure there were going to be no aging effects through the period of extended operations.
Discussion: The applicant indicated that the question is clear and will provide a written response.