ML20128E013
| ML20128E013 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 02/11/1969 |
| From: | Vassallo D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Boyd R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212070448 | |
| Download: ML20128E013 (4) | |
Text
_ _
m hcMt FL
^
UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION l ', '4 d l
W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20545 5
February ll, 1969 R. S. Boyd, Assistant Director for Reactor Projects, RL g THRU:
D. R. Muller, Chief, Reactor Project Branch #1
SUMMARY
OF TECHNICAL MEETING - MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET No. 50-263 Location and date:
Bethesda, January 23 and 24, 1969 Attendance list attached.
This meeting was the first technical meeting we had with Northern States Power Company (NSP) and its contractors, the General Electric Company (GE) and Bechtel. The major portion of the meeting was devoted to defining those areas of the FSAR which we consider will require additional informa-tion.
We also presented a tentative review schedule to the applicant, indicating a target date of October 1969 for the final ACRS meeting.
With respect to the proposed review schedule, NSP noted that it would be tight.
Their concern is that they have strong evidence that there will be an intervention.
This could result in a significant delay in the planned fuel loading date, even with our optimistic review schedule.
The major topics discussed at the meeting included: R&D items, reactor coolant system, containment systems, plant structures, engineered safety features, accident analysis, radwaste system, reactor auxiliary systems, plant operations, and general observations pertaining to electrical and instrumentation systems.
The salient points derived from this meeting are as follows:
1.
Accommodation of a Failure in ECCS Piping Complex The applicant was advised that our concern for protection of the ECCS pumps against flooding from excessive leakage in the ECCS piping complex was expressed in our letter to the Millstone Point Company. GE stated it did not consider sealing of the corner rooms, as was done on Oyster Creek, to be the best solution.
GE indicated that for Monticello continuity of core cooling would be maintained by supplying water to the core from the RHR service water pumps through a crosstie to the RHR system. GE stated that it would support this design by showing through a rigorous analysis that consideration of all reasonable leakage paths would not lead to an unacceptable situation. Therefore, sealing of the pump compartments is not being proposed for Monticello.
9212070448 690211 PDR ADOCK 05000263 A
Q d
R. S. Boyd February 11, 1969 We reiterated that our concern was for leakage beyond the capacity of the sump pumps to handle in-leakage. We advised NSP that we needed more informa-tion on its proposal and that we would submit a formal question.
2.
Auto-Relief Valves We advised NSP that other plants which are similar in design to Monticello have made a number of modifications to the system logic for the auto-relief valves. The modifications made to Oyster Creek are listed below. NSP's position follows the statement of each modification.
a.
Automatic actuation of the auto-relief valves by coincident indicatior.
of only reactor low-low water level and high drywell pressure, deleting the requirement for a third coincident signal indicating low flow in the HPCIS and/or feedwater systems.... NSP stated this change will be made for Monticello.
b.
All valves above the minimum required for depressurization are programmed to open upon receipt of the initiation signal.... NSP said that although only two valves are required for Monticello, three valves will be programmed to open, An interlock is provided to prevent blowdown of the reactor vessel c.
whenever a.c. power is not available.
NSP stated that it has no plans to provide this interlock for Monticello, since it considered this requirement for the Oyster Creek facility was arbitrary and not in good practice.
We advised the applicant that we would submit a formal question on these design changes.
3.
Conduct of Operations In regard to this topic, A. Brauner of Operational Safety discussed certain areas of the FSAR that needed clarification or required additional information for the POL review.
Mr. Frank Kelly of Operator Licensing reviewed the operator licensing program.
We advised the applicant that he could expect questions to be formally sub-mitted requesting the specific information which was discussed at the meeting.
With one exception, NSP indicated it had no serious objections to the request for more information.
It appears that the only objection that NSP has, is the advisability of including the staffing qualifications in the Technical Specifications.
.....,.... ~.
f' e
4 m)
R. S. Boyd February 11, 1969 4.
Reactor Building Leakage Rate We discussed the adequacy or sensitivity of using the flow of the standby gas treatment system to measure reactor building leakage rate. NSP stated that they expect to have additional information on this subject following the leakage rate test to be conducted on Oyster Creek.
We decided that this subject would be further discussed at our proposed meeting with NSP in March 1969.
D. B. Vassallo, Project Leader Reactor Project Branch #1 Division of Reactor Licensing
Enclosure:
Attendance List Distribution:
Docket Filer aya RL Reading RPB-1 Reading D. Skovholt S. Levine R. DeYoung D. Muller D. Vassallo C. Hale L. Kintner N. Blunt CO (2)
Branch Chiefs, RP f.
..m
(
9 i
l 1
R. S. Boyd l 1
ATTENDANCE LIST l
l TECHNICAL MEETING - M')NTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT January 23 & 24. 1969 1
4 Northern States Power Co.
General Electric Co.
C. J. Ross L. W. Wolf K. E. Ge11e G. L. Davis R. J. Jensen J. W. Lingafelter 1
C. E. Larson John Barnard Leon R. Eliason Donovan D. Bohn W. V. Jokela M. H. Clarity Bechtel Corp.
K. Wiedner AEC/ Compliance L. Kornblith*
C. D. Feierabend, Reg. 111 AEC/DRL I
Dr. M. M. Mann*
D. R. Muller D. B. Vassallo A. Gluckman*
C. J. Hale F. D. Anderson A. R. Brauner C. W. Moon
- i J. P. Knight
- W. R. Johnson
- F. L. Kelly
- R. Mattson*
- - Part-tir.e
-