ML20128E066
| ML20128E066 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1968 |
| From: | Muller D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Boyd R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212070462 | |
| Download: ML20128E066 (6) | |
Text
_
p j
j e
Sum REM fiE E Y December 4, 1968 l
n R. S. Boyd, Assistant Director for Beseter Projoets, RL PROPOSED PROVIS106tAL OPERATING LICENSE M Y1W PLAN FOR MDirf!CELth WUCLEAR GENERATING PMNT, WRIT 1, 90 TERT 50, 50-263 3 A proposed review plan and schedule to dieeussed-tai h O ammerandum.',
t D. B. Vassallo has been assigned lead reviewer for this project and will be assisted by C. J. Hale.
INTRODUC7, ION Cs November 7,1968, Northern States Power Company (NSP) filed Amend-ment No. 9 to the Construction Fermit and Operating License Application for Monticello Unit 1.
This amendesnt consists of the Final Safety Analysis Repor;, (FSAR). Appendices B (Stock Release Limit Calculations) and D (Pre-operational and Startup Tests) of the FSAR were submitted in Amendment 10, dated November 12, 1968. The proposed Technical Specifications will be submitted December 9,1968. A report on the "as built" field fabricated reactor vessel and containaant vessel will be submitted in February 1969.
s In Amendment No. 9, NSP formally applied for an operating license at the " stretch" power level of 1670 Mw thermal- (545.4 Mee). For the son-sts.ction permit review, the core thermal and hydraulic characteristics were evaluated at a power level of 1469 Ma thermal.
PROPOSED REVIEW PLAN AND SCHEDULE Monticello is in the low power density class of GE reactors and is most similar to Minatene, Qaed-Cities 1 and 2, and Dresden 2 and 3.. Meet a
of the topics which will be considered.in the Meeties11o POL review are
- /
being, or have been, subjoeted to ta-depth reviews is esonesties withd the above mestiemed plaats, as well asifer. the Oyster Creek and Rime '
c Mile Point applications.- Therefore, with=the asasytten of site?ps8 meed items, the detailed review plam for Qaed-cities'I and 2 da11aeostag the t
responsibilities of RF, RT, and 30 will be followed for the Meeti' anna review and are not repeated in this sonorandum. l Tabla I hi$11$te the e,<
g
'I
~ ~ '
T '; u 9212070462 681204 PDR ADOCK 05000263 A
h h
R. S. Boyd December 4,1968 major areas where assistance is requested from RT and RO.
Each reviewer should use to the fullest extent possible the results and decisions of the past reviews, and consider only the differences as they af fect the safety review of the Monticello plant.
Each reviewer should:
a) identify potential safety problems and pro-vide suggested questions for additional information, b) participate in technical meetings, c) write a report including scope of review,'
conclusions, and d) comment on applicable items in the Technical Specifications.
The proposed review schedule is shown in Table II.
4 L. R. Huller,.221ef i
Resetor Project Branch il
!~
Division of Reector Licensing Enclosures
- 1. Table I
- 2. Table II Distribution:
C. K. Beck H. M. Mann P. A. Morris o
T. Schroeder D. Skovholt S. Levine R. DeYoung
,y Branch Chiefs, RL:RP D. Vassallo C. Hale
/. V N. Blunt Suppl.
RL Reading RPB-1 Reading k
.; ?
Y h
t J
.?
.7. h... -.
.. N E N S -
- ~ - -
~ ~ -
OFVtCt >
... -N llo/eb M
$URNAME>
-.... - - -)vF7
- - + -
DATE>
~g.
IDrru AI'O.314 (Rev. 6-63) u.s. aovrnutwi ramTms ornts :1h-o 2t. 4m m.w. y
v u
JABLE I SU)04ARY OF TOPICS FOR VHICH ASSISTANCE IS REQUESTED FROM REACTOR TECHNOLOGY AND REACTOR OPERATIONS A.
fj,0VL31ER ASSISTANCE FROM RI 1.0 SITE AIG _ DOSE EVALUATION 1.1 Review the results of onsite mateorological data and compare with pre-viously used 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 recommandations.
, v.;
1.3 Calculate potential doses from accidents including lors of coolant, control rod drop, refueling accident, steam line break, and coolant line break in the reactor building.
1.4 Evaluate acceptability of using 1000-year flood in determining flood stage in light of current requirements for using the maximu:n probable flood.
1.5 Evaluate possible airborne radiological effects of cooling tower usage including effect on micro-meteorology (see 50-277/278 Peach Botton 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 vill operate on a closed or partially closed cycle (See Section 9.2.0 and Section 11.6.0 of the Monticello TSAR, also Question 3.5 in Amendment 4 to the Monticello PSAR).
2.0 _ REACTOR VESSEL AND CLASS I MECRANICAL SYSTEMS 2.1 Review field fabricated reactor vessel with respect to code certifica-tion, adoquacy of stress report, thermal shock, and blowdown forces, quality assurance, and provisions for in-service inspection. Evaluate extent of compliance with " Tentative Regulatory Supplementary Criteria for ASHE Code-Constructed !Juclear Pressure Vassals." (These criteria were not available during the Monticello construction parait review).
2.2 Review details of seismic design for reactor internals and Class I~
mechanical systems, including reactor coolant system. Coordinate concnents of Newmark and Hall in this area.
omcr >
sunnAmt >
Daft > _
Furrn AUC-81ft (Ret,643)
U S sovtanwirt ranmas critz ana-oru o
-O, l
+s',
c r; 1
2.3 Evaluate extent of compliance with Criterion 35.
T.
2.4 Evaluate potential for flow induced vibration of reactor internals.
3.0 CONTAINMENT 1
3.1 Determine the adequacy of the structural and seisnie designMetailed I
~
analyses of the containment structures including penetrations.7 1
Coordinate comments of Newmark and Hall in this area.
r, 3.2 Evaluate problem relating to post-accident radiolytic hydrogen pro-duction and applicant's decision not :te inert the primary eestainment. "*
4 3.3 Review bases and requirements for functional testing.'
['['
f\\
1 4.0 INSTRtMENTATION CONTROL AND ELECTRICAL SYSTDtS i
4.1 Perform a comparative evaluation with Dresden 2 and 3 and Quad-cities up i
-;.. ir '
j 1 and 2, identifying and evaluating differences from previously approved systems.
j{1.(
4.2 Review extent of compliance with Criterion 11, including provisiont
.Qf for cold shutdown capability.
M,p, ?
e r 5.0 LNCINEERED SAFETY FEATURES AND EMERCENCY SYSTEMS m,._
5.1 Review the adequacy of the experimental and analytical tests to con-
,e firm integrated performance of ECCS at high fuel clad temperatures.
%. 4 R
"[?
5.2 Evaluate the adequacy of GE's revised model for the analysis of loss of coolant accidents.
Rl 5.3 Evaluate adequacy of the seismic design of d.c. battery racks.
' ' td :
~j$$'$
's,..
6.0 QllALITY ASSURANCE i
..uR4M 6.1 Evaluate plant quality assurance program and quality centrol :.k
- Rfp procedures.
w n" -wR,, " 3,,j. g, g
. + 1 Wg,,'
(
,.,.3 7.0 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 1
' ' (c -
% g[ggy 7.1 Provide assistance and input where required.
.[
r M;di.
omet >
& _4
- b' SURN4ME>
oan >
Wrm AEC=818 @M W u sommin Mmmemd ihm*9
~Pe mp '
e
()
g
~.
3 B.
REQUESTED ASSISTANCE FROM RD 1.0 Evaluate conduct of operations, including:
a.
Organisation b.
Operating procedures c.
Tmergency plans and procedures d.
Records e.
Pre-operational and star'.up test programs f.
Periodic in-service inspection.
4 2.0 With regards to Technical Specifications, provide assistance and input where required.
/
'f, t
.g>
OrrICE >
SURNAME >
DAU >
h8 Flu AIXbStB (IkT. F63) g I
h
.h i
TABLE II PROPOSED REVIEW SCitEDULE, MONTICELLO. UNIT 1_
_ ITEM DATE Type of review POL Application filed 11/7/68 Plant tour and initial meeting with applicant 11/19-20/68 Technical meeting - discussion of major problas areas 1/22/69 Written questions from RT and RO for additional information 2/26/69 Comments from consultants outlining principal concerns 3/5/69 Technical meeting with draf t questions 3/11/69 Additional information request to applicant 4/1/69 Additional information received from applicant 5/fi9 Finsi reports required from consultants, RT and R0 8/1/69 Technical meeting including discussion of Technica?. Specifications 8/69 ACRS site visit 9/69 ACRS Report deadline 10/69 ACRS Subcommittee meeting 10/69 Y
ACRS meeting 11/69 4
Safety Evaluation 12/69 omcc >
su=Nriac >
our>
...m.._......
MiTIII AE0 318 (key, S $3) p,
,