ML081620031

Revised Electrical Questions on Monticello Extended Power Uprate Amendment

ML081620031
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	06/09/2008
From:	Tam P NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLIII-1
To:	Gunderson L Nuclear Management Co
Tam P
References
TAC MD8398
Download: ML081620031 (3)

Text

Accession No. ML081620031 From: Peter Tam Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 2:50 PM To: 'Gunderson, Lynne'

Subject:

Monticello - Revised EPU Electrical Questions (TAC MD8398)

Lynne: Our reviewer, Sheila Ray, informed me that the electrical questions, as revised during the conference call of 6/5/08 and as recorded by you (e-mail below), are acceptable.

Please supplement your EPU application in the area of electrical issues according to the revised questions you recorded.

Peter S. Tam, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 3-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Peter - Based on the summary NMC and NRC performed at the end of yesterday's call, NMC believes the questions originally provided to us on Wednesday, June 4, have changed. I've summarized the new questions/action items from yesterday's call below. Could you please confirm that the revised questions are acceptable? The original email with the June 4 th questions is also below.

Revised EEEB Questions: 1. Provide the staff with the USAR section number that describes the AC load Study. 2. The licensee will provide statements that the margins discussed in the acceptance review response for the batteries will be met during the development of the modifications. 3. For the EQ analyses, clearly state that it has been completed and that NMC has identified the equipment that is impacted by EPU conditions. 4. The licensee states the SBO analysis has been revised for EPU conditions, but does not explain what the changes are. The licensee agreed to develop a table that outlines the changes in the SBO analysis from CLTP to the EPU. The table should include the standard acceptance criteria as well as changes in assumptions.

After confirmation of which questions we are responding to, I can work on a schedule with the project team and a date for submittal.

Thanks, Lynne Monticello today 763-295-1688 From: Peter Tam Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 1:56 PM To: 'lynne.gunderson@nmcco.com' Cc: Lois James

Subject:

Monticello EPU Electrical Issues Lynne:

I am informally providing these 4 questions from our Electrical Engineering Branch. Please show them to your folks and tell me what they think ASAP.

Peter

>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) The licensee did not adequately answer Question 2 with enough details to support their conclusions.

For the offsite and onsite power systems, the licensee states that the safety-related loads do not change and the existing analyses show sufficient voltage and capacity is available, but there is no basis for this conclusion and also, does not include the impact of nonsafety-related loads on the offsite and onsite AC systems. The licensee discusses the AC Load Study but is unclear whether it is completed or not - they should provide a comparison of the current and EPU conditions as it affects full plant load, ECCS/LOCA load. Furthermore, the analysis that verifies the degraded voltage relay setpoints has not been completed.

(2) The design for the modification to the 1R and 2R transformers needs to be completed and described in the application. The licensee states that the modifications are in the conceptual stage. 4) It is unclear whether DC onsite power system evaluations have been completed - the licensee states no changes are expected for 250

-VDC battery loads. What are the changes, if any? For the 125

-VDC system, the licensee states that the load profile is not significantly affected - it is unclear what the impact of the EPU is and more detail is expected.

The licensee states in response to Question 3 that the DC system may be modified to include changes for certain EPU modifications. To complete our review, we need to know what the modifications are to the DC system and the licensee needs to delineate the changes.

(4) The licensee states the SBO analysis has been revised for EPU conditions, but does not explain what the changes are.

E-mail Properties Mail Envelope Properties (C56E360E9D804F4B95BC673F886381E71442579170)

Subject:

Monticello - Revised EPU Electrical Questions (TAC MD8398)

Sent Date: 06/09/2008 2:50:24 PM Received Date: 06/09/2008 2:50:00 PM From: Peter Tam

Created By: Peter.Tam@nrc.gov

Recipients:

Lynne.Gunderson@nmcco.com ('Gunderson, Lynne')

Tracking Status: None

Post Office:

HQCLSTR02.nrc.gov

Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 15973 06/09/2008

Options Expiration Date:

Priority: olImportanceNormal ReplyRequested: False Return Notification: False

Sensitivity: olNormal Recipients received: