ML20197A900

Forwards RAI Re USI A-46, Seismic Evaluation Rept. Response Requested by 980508

ML20197A900
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	02/27/1998
From:	Kim T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Richard Anderson NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.
References
REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR TAC-M69460, NUDOCS 9803100024
Download: ML20197A900 (3)

Text

_______ _____- ___ _- -

February 27, 1998 Mr. Roger O. Anderson, Director Licensing and Management lasues Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401

SUBJECT:

MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE (USI) A-46, SEISMIC EVALUATION REPORT (TAC NO. M69460)

Dear Mr. Anderson:

The NRC staff has reviewed the Northern States Power (NSP) Company's submittals dated l November 20,1995, and April 29,1997, related to the subject USl A-40 seismic evaluation report Additional information in the area of human factors, as discussed in the enclosure, is requested in order for the staff to complete its review. NRC requests that NSP respond by

! May, 8,1998.

l If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me al(301) 415-1392.

I Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Tae Kim, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate ill 1 Division of Reactor Projects Ill/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50 263

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ encl: See next page N

\

DISTRIBUTION:

3 Docket File: OGC GGalletti g PUBLIC ACRS PD31 r/f Q\pk JMeqrmick Bargar, Rlli EAdensam (EGA1) KManoly DOCUMENT NAME: G:\WPDOCS\MONTICEL\ MON 69460,RA3

v. m . . .. a v,i.

e om.aua ic. in .. .. v . em w .w.n.nma,. v . em n .w.n.n==,. v . u. copy OFFICE PM:PD31 , lE LA:PD31 [E D:PD31 - lE NAME TJKim:db 7(IA~. CJamerson OiVCCarpenterrAt DATE V 2///19 8 2//W98 // 2//498 OFFICIAb4ECORD CONY ll*' l ll llllllll

• o *-

p p r, 7 r- n-.

9000100024 980227

• k "" i Ud N 3 PDR ADOCK 05000263 P PDR

9 g- Mr. Roger O. Anderson, Director Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Northem States Power Company cc:

J. E. Silberg, Esquire Kris Sanda, Commissioner Shaw, Pittman,90tts and Trowbridge Department of Public Service 2300 N Street, N. W. 121 Seventh Place East Washington DC 20037 , Suite 200 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 2145 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident inspector's Office Adonis A. Nebiett 2807 W. Coanty Road 75 Assistant Attomey General Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Office of the Attomey General 445 Minnesota Street Plant Manager Suite 900 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 2127 ATTN: Site Licensing Northem States Power Company 2807 West County Road 75 Monticello, Minnesota 55362 9637 Robert Nelson, President Minnesota Enviror. mental Control Citizens Association (MECCA) 1051 South McKnight Road St. Paul, Minnesott 5511g Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St Paul, Minnesota 5511g Regional Administrator, Region til U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, Illinois 00532-4351 Commissioner of Health Minnesota Department of Health 717 Delaware Street, S. E.

Minneapolis, Minnes 3ta 55440 Daria Groshens, AuditotTreasurer Wright County Govemmei.t Center 10 NW Second Street '

Buffalo, Minnesota $5313 w yim m

O l

e REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO USl A46, SEISMIC EVALUATION REPORT MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT

1. Describe the reviews that were performed to determine if any local operator actions required to safely shut down the react : ' (i.e., implement the SSEL [ safe shutdown equipment list)) could be effected by potentially adverse environmental conditions (such as loss c' lighting, excessive host or humidity, or in plant barriers) resulting from the seismic event. Describe how staffing was evaluated and describe the reviews that were conducted to ensure operators had adequate time and resources to respond to such events.

2. Have you identitled any control room structures that could impact the operator's ability to respond to the seismic event during your review? Such items might include but are not limited to: MCR [ main control room) ceiling tiles, nonbolted cabinets, and nonrestrained pieces of equipment (i.e., computer keyboards, monitors, stands, printers, etc.).

Describe how each of these potential sources of interactions has bson evaluated and describe the schedule for implementation of the final resolutions.

3. Describe what reviews were performed to determine if any local operator actions were required to reposition " bad actor relays.' For any such activities describe how adverse environmental conditions (such as loss of lighting, excessive heat or humidity, or in-plant barriers) resulting from the seismic event were analyzed and dispositioned. Describe how staffing was evaluated as well as the reviews that were conducted to ensure operators had adequate time and resources to respond to such events.

4. Describe which of the operator actions associated with resetting SSEL equipment affected by postulated relay chatter are considered to be routins and consistent with the skill of the craft if not considered skill of the craft, what training and operational aids were developed to ensure the operators will perform the actions required to reset' affected equipment?

5. If the alarms associated with

• bed actor relays

• are expected to annunciate during the seismic event, would the operators then have to respond to those annunciators and review the annunciator response procedures for potential action? How would those additional a:ilons impact the operators' ability to implement the Normal, Abnormal, and Emerger:cy Operating Procedures required to place the reactor in a safe shutdown condition?

6. To the extent that Normal, Abnormal, and Emergency Operating Procedures were modified to provide plant staff with additional guidance on mitigating the A-46 Seismic Event, describe what training was required and provided to the licensed operators, nonlicensed operators, and other plant staff required to respond to such events.

Enclosure

• * -  % se e e e4

_ . , -