ML20128E061

Discusses Assignments for Pol Review of Facility.Proposed Review Schedule & Procedural & Background Notes Encl

ML20128E061
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	01/07/1969
From:	Morris P US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Boyd R, Levine S, Skovholt D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 9212070461
Download: ML20128E061 (7)

Text

.. . _ _ _

e

, /w /

/ l

+ ) (

GR Docket No. 50263 s

Those listed below ASSIGNMENTS FOR Tile POL REVIEW OF NORTilERN STATES POWER COMPANY'S' '-

MONTICELLO STATION '

E w f A

andproposed POL review RT representatives at plan for the a meeting Monticello held on December station 13,was 1968. discus,ned

" This y RP meeting was attended by R. C. DeYoung, P. W. Ilowe, V. A.' Moore. A. W.

Dromerick, M. Rosen, D. B. Vassallo, and D. R. Muller acting for. R; S.' Boyd. _

The review plan and assignments agreed to at this meeting are presented in Table 1. The revie < schedule is presented in Table II. Procedural and background notes applicable to this review are also attached.

The responsibility for this project has been assigned to Reactor Project Branch No. 1. D. B. Vassallo has been ass 4gneu ao lead reviewer and will be assisted by C. J. Hale.

h[

6 Peter A. Morris, Director Division of Reactor Licensing Addressees '

D. J. Skovholt I. Spickler 11. L. Price S. Levine L. Porse C. K. Beck R. S. Boyd S. S. Pawlicki M. M. Mann R. C. DeYoung J. P. Knight R. L. Doan D. R. Huller A. L. Gluckmann R. Tedesco T. A. Ippolito C. Long O. J. Smith R. E. Ireland 11. Specter D. Knuth C. W. Moon ,

D. B. Vassallo . 's >

A. Brauner C. J. Itale N. Blunt _ _ .4

@ 4 4 .

Branch Chiefs, R0 Suppl.d EX Branch Chiefs, RT RL kcading &.g RPB-1 Reading cf :55.,,.*

DR Reading -

,4y R

11. L. Price p C. K. Beck 4 , gg , i M . M. Mann 6 !;

R. L. Doan ,_g ,

l 9212070461 690107 , m PDR ADDCK 05000263. -

h PDR 3 omer > .RL : RP Bp,,,,,,,, ,,,RL : RP B-1 RL:KT , ,, ,_,, P. , ... .....R. N RI ,

D u B vd j Sch odd r su m ur> . (.*.I.......Y.N. , , . . _

Fb s y om , 12/20/68 12// c /68 12/_ k /68 .. 12/g /68 --12/g~/68 -

W -/68 {

rwm ux.m m,,. un

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~~ ~ ,,_gj~,y" "- ~,;;- ) -j i

. /

( l j g* UNITED STATES

,] app , , ,

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20545 January 7, 1969 Docket No. 50-263 Those listed below ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE POL REVIEW OF NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY'S MONTICELLO STATION A proposed POL review plan for the Monticello station was discussed by RP and RT representatives at a meeting held on December 13, 1968. This meeting was attended by R. C. DeYoung, P. W. Hove, V. A. Moore; A. W.

Dromerick, M. Rosen, D. B. Vassallo, and D. R. Muller acting for R. S. Boyd.

The review plan and assignments agreed to at this meeting are presented in Table I. The review schedule is presented in Table II. Procedural and background notes applicable to this review are also attached.

The responsibility for this project has been assigned to Reactor Project Branch No. 1. D. B. Vassallo has been assigned as lead reviewer and will

, be assisted by C. J. Hale,

, t Peter A. Morris, Director Division of Reactor Licensing Addressees:

D. J. Skovholt 1. Spickler S. Levine L. Porse R. S. Boyd S. S. Pavlicki R. C. DeYoung J. P. Knight D. R. Muller A. L. Gluckmann R. Tedesco T. A. Ippolito C. Long O. J. Smith R. E. Ireland H. Specter D. Knuth C. W. Moon D. B. Vassallo A. Brauner C. J. Hale N. Blunt Branch Chiefs, R0 Suppl.

Branch Chiefs, RT RL Reading RPB-1 Reading DR Reading H. L. Price C. K. Beck L. M. Mann R. L.Doan I

l

_ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ I

~ _ .

, (

MONTICELLO UNIT 1 BACKGROUND AND REVIEW PLAN PROCEDURES In Amendment No. 9. NSP formally applied for an operating license at the

" stretch" power level of 1670 He thermal (545.4 Mwe). For the construc-tion permit review, the core themot and hydraulic characteri;. tics were evaluated at a pow 9r level of 1469 Ms thermal.

Monticello is in the low power density class of GE reactors and is most similar to Quad-Cities 1 and 2, and Dresden 2 and 3. Most of the topics which will be considered in the Monticello POL review are being, or have been, subjected to in-depth reviews in connection with the above mentioned plants. Therefore, with the exception of site related items, the detailed review plan for Quad-Cities 1 and 2, which delineates in detail the responsibilities of RP, RT, and RO, will be followed for the Monticello review and is not repeated in this memorandum. Table 1 highlights the major areas where assistance will be received from RT and RO. Each reviewer should use to the fullest extent possible the esults and decisions

. of the past reviews for identical systems and features. However, a reviewer should ascertain, from the applicant if reed be, that systems and analyses are identical and applicable to Monticello.

Each reviewer should a) identify potential safety problems and provide suggested questions for additional information, b) participate in technical meetings, c) write a report including scope of review, con-clusions, and d) comment on applicable items in the Technical Specifica-tions.

%. ~)

TABLE I TOPICS ASSIGNED TO REACTOR TECHNOLOGY AND REACTOR OPERATIONS A. TOPICS ASSIGNED TO RT 1.0 SITE AND DOSE EVALUATION (I. Spickler) 1.1 Review the results of onsite meteorological data and compare with pre-viously un s J data in PSAR. Evaluate ESSA meteorology report. Develop routine gaseous release rate limits for site.

1.2 Review the environmental monitoring program as related to Fish and Wildlife recommendations.

1.3 Calculate potential doses from accidents including loss of coolant, control rod drop, refueling accident, steam line break, and coolant line break in the reector building.

1.4 Evaluate acceptability of using 1000-year flood in determining flood stage in light of current requirements for using the maximum probable flood. Include effects of upstream dams.

1.5 Evaluate possible airborne radiological effects of cooling tower usage including effect on micro-meteorology (see 50-277/278 Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3. Amendment 3, p. 4 and Amendment 4, pp.1 and 3) .

1.6 Determine if there are any special restrictions on liquid rad-waste discharge for low river flow conditions when cooling towers will operate on a closed or partially closed cycle (See Section 9.2.0 and Section 11.6.0 of the Monticello FSAR, also Question 3.5 in Amendment 4 to the Monticello PSAR),

2.0 REACTOR VESSEL AND CLASS I MECHANICAL SYSTEMS 2.1 Review field fabricated reactor vessel with respect to code certifica-tion, blowdown forces, quality assurance, and provisions for in-service inspection. Evaluate extent of compliance with " Tentative Regulatory Supplementary Criteria for ASME Code-Constructed Nuclear Pressure Vessels."

(L. Porse) 2.2 Review details of seismic design for reactor internals and Class 1 mechanical systems. Coordinate comments of Newmark and Hall in this area.

(S. S. Pawlicki) f

• .  ?

g.

l

]

2.3 Evaluate extent of compliance with criterion 35. (S. S. Pavlicki)

I 2.4 Evaluate potential for flow induced vibration of reactor internals.

i (J. P. Knight) a i 3.0 CONTAINMENT AND OTHER CLASS I STRUCTURES i 3.1 Determine the adequacy of the structural design of all Class I structures identified in Section 12.2 of the FSAR. (A. L. Gluckmann) i 3, 2 Evaluate the tornado design of the reactor building. (A. L. Gluckmann)

I 4.0 INSTRUMENTATION CONTROL. AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS 4.1 Perform a standard POL evaluation of the instrumentation, control and electrical systems. (T. A. Ippolito) 4.2 Evaluate the adequacy of the seismic design of d.c. battery racks.

(Coordinate with Newmark-Hall) 5.0 ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES AND EMERGENCY SYSTEMS

, 5.1 Review the adequacy of the experimental and analytical tests to confirm integrated performance of ECCS at high fuel clad temperatures. (O. J. Smith) 5.2 Evaluate the adequacy of GE's revised model for the analysis of loss of coolant accidents. (O. J. Smith) 5.3 Evaluate containment design bases. (H. Specter) 5.4 Evaluate problem of post-accident radiolytic hydrogen production. (M. Rosen) 5.5 Establish functional performance requirements of standby liquid control system. (C. W. Moon) 6.0 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 6.1 Provide assistance and input where required.

r

, . . _ . . ~ _ _ . - _ _ , __

p s J-4 ~3-I

i B. TOPICS ASSIG"ED TO RQ (A. Brauner) i l

1.0 Evaluate conduct of operations, including: 1

e. Organization i

b. Operating procedures

c. Emergency plans and procedures t

d. Records

e. Pre-operational and startup test programs

f. Periodic in-service inspection.

2.0 With regards to Technical Specifications, provide assistance and input where required.

V i

1

• • ~ w .

g ,

)

~

TABLE II REVIEW SCHEDULE MONTICELLO, UNIT 1 ITE DATE T';pe of review POL Application filed 11/7/68 Plant tour and initial weating with applicant 11/19-20/68 Technical meeting - disc 1;sion of major problem areas 1/22/69 4 Written questions from RT and RO for additional information 3/21/69 Comments frs% cengditoits outlining principal cencerns 3/21/69 Technical meeting witia draft questions 3/27/69 -

Additional inforration request to applicant 4/11/69 Additional information received f rom applicant 6/1/69 Finr1 reports required from consultants, RT and RO 8/1/69 Technical meeting including discussion of Technical 8/69 Specifications ACRS site visit 9/69 ACRS Report deadline 9/69 ACRS Subcommittee meeting 9/69 ACRS meeting 10/69 Safety Evaluation 11/69 7