ML090820031: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 03/20/2009
| issue date = 03/20/2009
| title = Draft RAI Re. Health Physics Issues for the Proposed Extended Power Uprate Amendment
| title = Draft RAI Re. Health Physics Issues for the Proposed Extended Power Uprate Amendment
| author name = Tam P S
| author name = Tam P
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLIII-1
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLIII-1
| addressee name = Pointer K, Salamon G
| addressee name = Pointer K, Salamon G
Line 9: Line 9:
| docket = 05000263
| docket = 05000263
| license number = DPR-022
| license number = DPR-022
| contact person = Tam P S
| contact person = Tam P
| case reference number = TAC MD9990
| case reference number = TAC MD9990
| document type = E-Mail
| document type = E-Mail
Line 25: Line 25:
Monticello - Draft RAI from  re. Reactor Inspection Branch re. Proposed EPU Amendment (TAC MD9990)
Monticello - Draft RAI from  re. Reactor Inspection Branch re. Proposed EPU Amendment (TAC MD9990)
Ken:  Our review of your 11/5/09 application for an extended power uprate (EPU) amendment is ongoing. Our Reactor Inspection Branch has provided the following draft RAI questions in the health physics area. Please contact me to set up a conference call to discuss these questions. If you desire to have the proposed conference call during 3/24/09 - 4/10/09 when I am on leave, please contact my back up Karl Feintuch (301-415-3079).
Ken:  Our review of your 11/5/09 application for an extended power uprate (EPU) amendment is ongoing. Our Reactor Inspection Branch has provided the following draft RAI questions in the health physics area. Please contact me to set up a conference call to discuss these questions. If you desire to have the proposed conference call during 3/24/09 - 4/10/09 when I am on leave, please contact my back up Karl Feintuch (301-415-3079).
: 1. The Safety Analysis Report for the Monticello Constant Power Uprate, dated October 2008, page 2-343, indicates that an analysis predicts only a 3 percent increase in dose rates at the high pressure (HP) turbine due to increased N-16 in the steam entering the turbine. This is somewhat lower than analysis provided for similar uprates at other BWRs in the U.S.  
: 1. The Safety Analysis Report for the Monticello Constant Power Uprate, dated October 2008, page 2-343, indicates that an analysis predicts only a 3 percent increase in dose rates at the high pressure (HP) turbine due to increased N-16 in the steam entering the turbine. This is somewhat lower than analysis provided for similar uprates at other BWRs in the U.S.
: a. Provide a detailed description of this analysis and input parameters. Include the main steam transient time, from the reactor head to the HP-LP turbine crossover line under full power CLTP conditions; and the corresponding transient time under full power EPU conditions.  
: a. Provide a detailed description of this analysis and input parameters. Include the main steam transient time, from the reactor head to the HP-LP turbine crossover line under full power CLTP conditions; and the corresponding transient time under full power EPU conditions.
: b. It is the staff's understanding that the steam crossover line from the HP to LP turbines is the major source of N-16 gamma radiation shine from BWR turbine buildings. Verify that this is the case for Monticello or provide the transient time information in 1.a. above from the reactor head to the turbine building component determined to be the major gamma source.  
: b. It is the staff's understanding that the steam crossover line from the HP to LP turbines is the major source of N-16 gamma radiation shine from BWR turbine buildings. Verify that this is the case for Monticello or provide the transient time information in 1.a. above from the reactor head to the turbine building component determined to be the major gamma source.
: 2. The Safety Analysis Report for the Monticello Constant Power Uprate, dated October 2008, page 2-344, indicates that "EPU may result in a maximum sky shine source dose rate increase of up to 34.4 percent" and that this results in a maximum increase in offsite dose due to sky shine at EPU conditions of less than 6 mrem/yr.  
: 2. The Safety Analysis Report for the Monticello Constant Power Uprate, dated October 2008, page 2-344, indicates that "EPU may result in a maximum sky shine source dose rate increase of up to 34.4 percent" and that this results in a maximum increase in offsite dose due to sky shine at EPU conditions of less than 6 mrem/yr.
: a. Resolve the apparent discrepancy between the 3 percent increase stated on page 2-343 and the 34.4 percent increase stated on page 2-344.  
: a. Resolve the apparent discrepancy between the 3 percent increase stated on page 2-343 and the 34.4 percent increase stated on page 2-344.
: b. Describe how Monticello currently demonstrates that the annual dose to the maximum exposed member of the public meets the 25 mrem/yr requirement of  
: b. Describe how Monticello currently demonstrates that the annual dose to the maximum exposed member of the public meets the 25 mrem/yr requirement of  


40 CFR 190. c. What is the nominal annual dose (allowing for variations from year to year) to the maximum exposed member of the public from Monticello operations under CLTP conditions?  What are the contributions to this dose from N-16 shine, Nobel Gas, and other plant effluents?
40 CFR 190. c. What is the nominal annual dose (allowing for variations from year to year) to the maximum exposed member of the public from Monticello operations under CLTP conditions?  What are the contributions to this dose from N-16 shine, Nobel Gas, and other plant effluents?
: 3. The Safety Analysis Report for the Monticello Constant Power Uprate, dated October 2008, page 2-343, Table 2.10-2, indicates a possible increase in localized dose rates in the balance-of plant (BOP) of up to 1130% under EPU conditions. Verify that these increases do not change the radiation zoning of the BOP spaces.  
: 3. The Safety Analysis Report for the Monticello Constant Power Uprate, dated October 2008, page 2-343, Table 2.10-2, indicates a possible increase in localized dose rates in the balance-of plant (BOP) of up to 1130% under EPU conditions. Verify that these increases do not change the radiation zoning of the BOP spaces.
: 4. The Safety Analysis Report for the Monticello Constant Power Uprate , dated October 2008, page 2-340, Table 2.9-1, indicates the dose consequences in the Control Room and Technical Support Center, from a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident under EPU conditions, as 3.80 rem and 0.83 rem, respectively. Verify that these results include direct radiation exposure from plant systems containing the accident source term, consistent with the assumptions in NUREG-0737, item II.B.2. If not, demonstrate that the direct radiation dose rates for these two vital areas meet the GDC-19 dose criteria, as specified in NUREG-0737, item II.B.2.
: 4. The Safety Analysis Report for the Monticello Constant Power Uprate , dated October 2008, page 2-340, Table 2.9-1, indicates the dose consequences in the Control Room and Technical Support Center, from a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident under EPU conditions, as 3.80 rem and 0.83 rem, respectively. Verify that these results include direct radiation exposure from plant systems containing the accident source term, consistent with the assumptions in NUREG-0737, item II.B.2. If not, demonstrate that the direct radiation dose rates for these two vital areas meet the GDC-19 dose criteria, as specified in NUREG-0737, item II.B.2.
This e-mail aims solely to prepare you and others for the requested conference call. This e-mail does not convey a formal NRC staff position, and does not formally request for additional information. Peter S. Tam , Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch III-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Tel. 301-415-1451  
This e-mail aims solely to prepare you and others for the requested conference call. This e-mail does not convey a formal NRC staff position, and does not formally request for additional information. Peter S. Tam , Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch III-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Tel. 301-415-1451  

Revision as of 02:09, 12 July 2019

Draft RAI Re. Health Physics Issues for the Proposed Extended Power Uprate Amendment
ML090820031
Person / Time
Site: Monticello Xcel Energy icon.png
Issue date: 03/20/2009
From: Tam P
Plant Licensing Branch III
To: Pointer K, Salamon G
Northern States Power Co
Tam P
References
TAC MD9990
Download: ML090820031 (3)


Text

Accession No. ML090820031

From: Peter Tam Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 4:21 PM To: 'Pointer, Kenneth'; 'Salamon, Gabor' Cc: Roger Pedersen; Karl Feintuch

Subject:

Monticello - Draft RAI from re. Reactor Inspection Branch re. Proposed EPU Amendment (TAC MD9990)

Ken: Our review of your 11/5/09 application for an extended power uprate (EPU) amendment is ongoing. Our Reactor Inspection Branch has provided the following draft RAI questions in the health physics area. Please contact me to set up a conference call to discuss these questions. If you desire to have the proposed conference call during 3/24/09 - 4/10/09 when I am on leave, please contact my back up Karl Feintuch (301-415-3079).

1. The Safety Analysis Report for the Monticello Constant Power Uprate, dated October 2008, page 2-343, indicates that an analysis predicts only a 3 percent increase in dose rates at the high pressure (HP) turbine due to increased N-16 in the steam entering the turbine. This is somewhat lower than analysis provided for similar uprates at other BWRs in the U.S.
a. Provide a detailed description of this analysis and input parameters. Include the main steam transient time, from the reactor head to the HP-LP turbine crossover line under full power CLTP conditions; and the corresponding transient time under full power EPU conditions.
b. It is the staff's understanding that the steam crossover line from the HP to LP turbines is the major source of N-16 gamma radiation shine from BWR turbine buildings. Verify that this is the case for Monticello or provide the transient time information in 1.a. above from the reactor head to the turbine building component determined to be the major gamma source.
2. The Safety Analysis Report for the Monticello Constant Power Uprate, dated October 2008, page 2-344, indicates that "EPU may result in a maximum sky shine source dose rate increase of up to 34.4 percent" and that this results in a maximum increase in offsite dose due to sky shine at EPU conditions of less than 6 mrem/yr.
a. Resolve the apparent discrepancy between the 3 percent increase stated on page 2-343 and the 34.4 percent increase stated on page 2-344.
b. Describe how Monticello currently demonstrates that the annual dose to the maximum exposed member of the public meets the 25 mrem/yr requirement of

40 CFR 190. c. What is the nominal annual dose (allowing for variations from year to year) to the maximum exposed member of the public from Monticello operations under CLTP conditions? What are the contributions to this dose from N-16 shine, Nobel Gas, and other plant effluents?

3. The Safety Analysis Report for the Monticello Constant Power Uprate, dated October 2008, page 2-343, Table 2.10-2, indicates a possible increase in localized dose rates in the balance-of plant (BOP) of up to 1130% under EPU conditions. Verify that these increases do not change the radiation zoning of the BOP spaces.
4. The Safety Analysis Report for the Monticello Constant Power Uprate , dated October 2008, page 2-340, Table 2.9-1, indicates the dose consequences in the Control Room and Technical Support Center, from a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident under EPU conditions, as 3.80 rem and 0.83 rem, respectively. Verify that these results include direct radiation exposure from plant systems containing the accident source term, consistent with the assumptions in NUREG-0737, item II.B.2. If not, demonstrate that the direct radiation dose rates for these two vital areas meet the GDC-19 dose criteria, as specified in NUREG-0737, item II.B.2.

This e-mail aims solely to prepare you and others for the requested conference call. This e-mail does not convey a formal NRC staff position, and does not formally request for additional information. Peter S. Tam , Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch III-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Tel. 301-415-1451

E-mail Properties Mail Envelope Properties (3D6B1F4F51D25E4E9B6C93FF92DAE5171443BF3C27)

Subject:

Monticello - Draft RAI from re. Reactor Inspection Branch re. Proposed EPU Amendment (TAC MD9990)

Sent Date: 3/20/2009 4:21:23 PM Received Date: 3/20/2009 4:21:00 PM From: Peter Tam

Created By: Peter.Tam@nrc.gov

Recipients:

Kenneth.Pointer@xenuclear.com ('Pointer, Kenneth') Tracking Status: None Gabor.Salamon@xenuclear.com ('Salamon, Gabor') Tracking Status: None Roger.Pedersen@nrc.gov (Roger Pedersen)

Tracking Status: None Karl.Feintuch@nrc.gov (Karl Feintuch)

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

HQCLSTR02.nrc.gov

Files Size Date & Time

MESSAGE 17372 3/20/2009

Options Expiration Date:

Priority: olImportanceNormal ReplyRequested: False Return Notification: False

Sensitivity: olNormal Recipients received: