ML20127P016

Summary Statement by Div of Reactor Licensing,Aec in Matter of Northern States Power Co

ML20127P016
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	04/20/1970
From:	US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:
References
NUDOCS 9212010480
Download: ML20127P016 (7)

Text

i April 20, 1970 1

i I l

t i-i

SUMMARY

STATDIENT ]

BY THE )

I DIVISION OF REACTOR LICENSING f l

U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER 0,F, NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT UNIT 1 l

DOCKET NO. 50-263 I

1

• • ?'

s I

9212010480 700420 PDR ADOCK 05000263 PDR A

_c , .

....e o . , , , _ . - - - _ . . - ._ _ . _ .

3  :

.. g-m

+ . . .

I i

On Auguac 1, 1966, the Northern States Power Company applied to

, l the Atomic Energy Commission for all necessary AEC 'Aicenses to construct i and operate the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant located in Wright County about three miles northwest of Monticello, Minnesota.

, The Facility Description and Safety Analysis Report and Amend-j ments 1-8, submitted in support of the application for a ' construction permit, was evaluated by the AEC Regulatory staff and the Advisory Committee un Reactor Safeguards. An atomic safety and licensing i

3 board, designated by the Commissf.on, authorized issuance of a 4 construction permit on June -19,1967, following a public hearing before the Board held in Buffalo, Minnesota on May 25-26, 1967.

J 4

In Amendment No. 9 to the application dated November 7, 1968, i

Northern States Power Company filed its Final Safety Analysis Report in connection with its application for a provisional operating license which would authorize operation of the f acility at thermal power levels up to 1670 MW. The information submitted in the Final Safety

/

' Analysis Report was subsequently supplemented by Amendments 10-25 to the applitstion.

During the period since November 7,1968, we have conducted our evaluation of this facility using standards and criteria developed by the Commission. .In the course of our evaluation, we have held a number of meetings with the applicant and its principal contractors to discuss and clarify various safety-related aspects of the facility i

I P

,r , ,-- ,u--

T l

(' ,r')

l . .

i l-f i

1 l design. As a result of requests for specific information related to a

! facility design modifications and program changes to meet AEC j

regulatory criteria and AEC policies, the applicant subiltted 16 amendments to the application.

l. i j Within the Division of Reactor Licensing Reactor Projects Branch-j i No.1, one of the six branches of the Reactor Projects group was sssigned overall responsibility for the safety review, analysis and L

i evaluation'of this application. Rer. ' t cr krojects Branch No. I was 4-i

' assisted in the" review by specialists in the Reactor Technology group l

of the Division of Reactor Licensing. Specialized' aspects of the

j.  !

l review undertaken by various branches of Reactor Technology included 1.

i l site-characteristics and environmental considerations; the adequacy _

I of the facility _ to withstand the ef fects of natural phenomena,_ such ~

i

as earthquakes, tornados and flooding; adequacy of the-seismic

design'of vital structures, components,Cand equipment; adequacy of

[ ,

the instrumentation, control, and electrical systems; and adequacy L

! of the containment systems. -In' addition,.we evaluated the technical i

and financial qualifications of the applicant, the conduct of 1

operations and the ' applicant's . plans to cope _with' an emergency i affecting onsite personnel and/or the public._ In t%e course of our i review we received advice from expert consultants,. including other-i -

Federal agencies. The reports of these consultants are included.as- _

1..

h appendices to our Safety Evaluation.-

i 1,

a

+- <r,,*

h

)

4

- -_c _;-_-_ . , . _ , . . . . _ n. ,.ni,_.-....C_,___,,_,,,_u_-..--_..,_,,,m.,-_,,,_..-

_.. _ _ _ _ . _ _ . ~ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . ~ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . . . _ _ - _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _.

) . . ,

b[L t

l The Division of Compliance, as an integral part of the Commission's.

! regulatory staff, has conducted exhaustive field inspections of the I facility. Prior to licensing the facility and again prior to opera-l l tion, the Division of Compliance will assure that the f acility will i

! be completed in conformance with the provisional construction permit; i . the application as amendm.i; the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act f of 1954, as amended; and the rules' and regulations of the Commission.

l-The Division of. Compliance will conduct periodic inspections of the ,

i-

s facility throughout the lifetime of the f acility.

i

! All applications for authority to construct and operate nuclear-f power plants are reviewed by the Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.. The Advisory Committee on Reactor. Safeguards ~

i l conducts an independent review of the safety of the facility and-t f advises the AEC on the results of its review.

l_

The ACRS reported on the suitability of the.Monticello site l

l in a letter dated May 11, 1966, and reported f avorably the results ' of its construction permit review'of the Minticello facility in a letter i

dated April 13, 1967. On the basis of our current review, we conclude-4 h .

that the matters raised by the ACRS in these reports have been f I l satisfactorily resolved during,the design and construction of the-i l facility.

i r

4 c

~

l Lr 1

s

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

e .-.

, r. ,

a-r l 1- -

1 .

}

l' 4 I

b In its report of January 10, 1970, on the Monticello Nuclear

- Generating Plant, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards made i

several recommendations and noted several items to be resolved by

i. .

4

} the applicant and the regulatory staff, either before plant operation e

i .l i l or on an acceptable time scale subsequent to initial operation.

j The applicant has agreed to' implement the recommendations of the i .

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. The Advisory Committee on l

Reactor Safeguards concludes in its letter that if due regard is given to the items mentioned in its report, and subject to satisfactory j

l completion of construction and preoperational testing, there is i .

j reasonable assurance that the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

[ Unit 1 can be operated at thermal power levels up to 1670 MW without i i

undue risk to the health and safety of the public.

l In our review we focused on verifying-the adequacy of the I

facility design, and on evaluating the operating- characteristics of i

! the facility to assure safe operation under all. conditions including startup, power operation, power load changes, anticipated transients, i

! shutdown and refueling. In this connection, the Technical Specifications, which define certain characteristics and conditions -governing operation-f j of the f acility _ that cannot be changed without prior approval of the AEC, have been established for the facility.

i j

4 e 4- ,

3 5

i g

.i 1

-,a . - - , , . - . . - . , . . . , . . - , . . - - . . .

The Technical Specifications will be made part of the provisional operating license. The Technical Specifications include sections covering safety limits and limiting safety system settings, limiting conditions for operation, surveillance requirements, design features and administrative controls. Safety limits apply to plant process

) variables which are continually observable and measurable, e.g. ,

l pressures, temperatures, flow rates, reactor power, and neutron flux.

1 The variables subject to safety limits are those directly related to 1

4 the performance and integrity of fuel and coolant barriers. The 6

safety limit is a value of the particular variable which represents a threshold of an abnormal condition, but at which no serious con-sequences will occur. The limiting safety system settings are settings on instrumentation which automatically initiates protective action at a level such that the safety limits will not be exceeded. The limiting conditions for operation specify the minimum acceptable levels of system performance necessary to assure safe startup and operation of the facility. When *hese conditions nre met, the plant i can be operated with a margin of safety, such that should abnormal situations occur, they can be safely controlled. Surveillance.

requirements specify tests, calibrations and inspections necessary

, to verify performance and availability of equipment and components which are essential to safety. Specifications are imposed on administra-i tive systems and procedures for operation of the f acility, and require-ments are set for record keeping and reporting, t

t

~ .

I The Technical Specifications also include specifications on airborne and liquid effluents to assure that radioactive material is not released to the environment in an uncontrolled manner and to i assure that any material released is kept as low as practicable and in any event below numerical values specified in the Commission's I

regulations. Also, in accordance with the program specified in the Technical Specifications the applicant will conduct environmental radiation monitoring to evaluate the ef fects of plant operation on the environment.

As a result of our evaluation of the Monticello plant, we conclude there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the provisional operating license can be corducted without endangering I'

the health and safety of the public, and that such activities will be 1

conducted in accordance with the definitive set of Technical Specifi-i cations and the Commission's regulations under the continued scrutiny i

of the Commission's regulatory staf f throughout the plant lifetime.

l