Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Docket Nos. 50-27550-323
September 9, 1986 DISDI STRI BUTDocket FiPD¹3 Rdg.H. SchierlingC. Vogan
MEMORANDUM FOR: H. Denton*R. Vollmer*J. Lyons*H. Thompson*F. Miraglia*R. Bernero*G. Holahan*T. NovakF. Schroeder
R. W. HoustonD. CrutchfieldE. RossiG. LainasT. SpeisW. RussellJ. MilhoanR. BallardC. Berlinger
F. RosaV. BenaroyaB. ClaytonL. Rubenstein* .G. LearB. J. YoungbloodS. VargaV. Noonan
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Steven A. Varga, DirectorProject Directorate ¹3Division .of PWP, Licensing-A
Hans E. Schierling, Senior Project ManagerProject Directorate ¹3Division of PWR Licensing-A
DAILY HIGHLIGHT
Plant Name Diablo Canyon Reinstallation of Original Spent FuelRacks under 10 CFR 50.59
On September 5, 1986 Region V requested NRR to review the PGLE safetyevaluation performed according to 10 CFR 50.59 for the reinstallation of., thp.original fuel racks into the Unit 1 spent fuel pool. 5RR staff will discusswith PGEE details of the installation in a meeting on Wednesday, September 10,1986. Originally the racks had been bolted to the spent fuel pool floor usinganchors. The bolts had been cut off and the liner surface prepared for the new;high density racks which would be freestanding. The original racks are beingreinstalled by welding the feet to embed plates which are welded to the liner.PGRE started the welding process on September 5, 1986 and all original racks areexpected to be fully reinstalled by September 19, 1986. As of September 8, 1986the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had not issued a final decision regardingintervenors reouest for a stay of our license amendment authorizing use of thehigh density racks, pending a hearing on this matter.
Hans Schierling, Senior Project ManagerProject Directorate ¹3Division of PWR Licensing-A
PD¹3, ) PJM~~-~HSchie i%g SVarga9/$ /86 9~/5 '/86
THESE COPIES MUST BE HANDCARRIED
ENCLOSURE 3
PGIIE Design Changes Safety Eva1uation Summaryand Design Change Detai 1s
(25 pages)
C,I
>PRIORITY
Required Condition, Mode, orOperability Status to Implement:
PlantSystemComponent
r oreAt
1of1
~0: N r-KQSz~ IDESIGN CHANGE COVER SHEET
hg O RevieÃer 'h» v+ ~
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE:
re]ew ~ ~ ~ i~ 8'~
REASON FOR CHANGE:
Q» ~p/»/r $ Aj» Q~ei D~7g+~ E/vlf'~g
EFFECT ON PLANT OPERATION
D Not Applicable
~ /P
/g i P/f $$JP/g ~/f /yygP 4 i/'S ////~//~~7 4/» p//~~/ ~P ~r~jg err~/ ~~gg+crgr////ygn.
RESPONSIBLE DISCIPLINE
TR-56 - l/23/86
+I
43
DESIGN CHANGE PACKAGE FOLLOWER
P dure No . ONAttach BP of I
DCPN ~-g 5 /5 +- R /COST 6 SCHEDULING/ENGINEERING
\ ~ ~C 5 l 1I'Iyt A IEngineering Start 4-i-8Construction CompleteEst ima ted Total Cost
0yrCost, 6 Scheduling Spv. 4~
D
Engineer 5 I'/2Approved (EGS)Accepted (PE)
ate6 (II . / 7 Not Required (level of effort)
Scope Approved
NPG APPROVAL
By DateSchedule Approved
By Date
Package Separation Requested / yes
Budget Approved: / 7 additionaPackage re)ected (reason)
Authorizing Job Estimate Job Order Num
/ / no
/ / existing'
L Oo o tSsI
DESIGN
Engineer
Approved (grp ldr)
CONSTRUCTION PL T STAFF REVIEWBy Date By Date
ENGINEERINGB Dae By Date
Pr
Accepted (PE) )(IkflÃNRT)'dfk i" 8 ) 8 6jj
Received by EMPSRC Approves (y/n)Reason for Re5ection
Plant Manager ApprovalTransmitted By
Imp to Env
Date
(y
CONSTRUCTION
By DateReceived Installation CompleteStart Up Complete As Builts-Attd (y/n)Released by Package Coordinator DateFC No. FCTs
ACCEPTANCE PLANT STAFF
By DateReceived uork complete Staff revieu comPlete
By Date
By Date
Plant Manager Final ApprovalTransmitted By Date
ENGINEERING CLOSE OUT
Date
All design documents issued for Operation:
RES PurgedBy Date
Pro)ect EngineerRMS Indexed
Date
By Date
TR-56 - I/23/86
edure N ONhttac GP 1 of
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DCP8~ - 5 5/5Z- RPage 1 of J
DCN NUMBER
bc — &-X5/h26c/- EC- s /5
CURRENTREVISION ATTACHED LATER"
SEE NEXT SHEET FOR ADDITIONAL DCNS / / Yes ~/ No
* DCNs identified to be-provided under approved package separation
D
TR-56 - 1/23/86
'1
f
P.
%1
c
H
'4
'G+Es
UrtAttac i CP tof2
I-
0cc
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COENGINEERIN DfPARTMENTSANNO. L O gPRIORITY NO.
Tot
Structure or System:
Component: ~>D...;pt,......:r
Reason for ange: ~
f'UC
LIA ll ~ VI ~ 4 Pl PLANNTDESIGN CKANGE
(P NT)
F.
DATEDCN NO. ~~"35/5 Z.REV. NO.~SHEET 5 Oi
Sys No. s
ScheduleiJustirication:
List of Attachments Not on DDL.
Requested by: ~
CO
Requested Change is:
D Approved per delegation of authorityg. Approved
D Noted, document change not required0 Rejected (explain)
0 Ptr telecon with on(lf required by delegation of authority)As built documents required
C3 Approved, document change only
Discipline Engineer ate
Safety Related Work: P Yts D NcrImportant to Environmental Quality: 0 Yes JiZ. NoRevitwed By:
Group Leader,'Supervisor
,,r, -/.',.
/ 'Date
OCN required to close an NCR 0 Yes JH- NoNCR No.
z'
su
Installation Complete
Start up Complete
Bv Date
Receive>4 Engineering
Accepted Engineering
By Date
Revisions ApprovedAccepted NPO
pip;/rJ~i~tw] .oi P'h~ ~
*
p4
R
gE
DESIGN EVALUATIONdure ON
Atta Ce2of2
DCN No. LORY
Page 2 of
1. DFRTGN DOCUMENT REVIEW. The following documents are relevant to this change andhave been originated, reviewed, or require revision as indicated:
Document. No.. Rev. ~Ori ineted Revieved Re vires Revision~ Q-List~ Design Criteria Memorandums
~ Calculations
~ Design Verification Reports
2. LICENSING. The following NRC Licensing submittals are relevant to this changeand have been reviewed as indicated below. Where a revision is required,Licensing has been notified.
Document Revieweda. FSARb.
Re uires Revision~ '
3. SAFETY ISSUES. The following issues could affect the safety evaluation;Engineering results/conclusions for each are a follows (Use additional sheets
~ %%@WC=~
~ Issue BResults Conclusions:
4. COORDINATIONDesign Package Lead Discipline
Coordination Required: [ ) No ~ Yes Coordinated With:De artment En i er (Si nature) Date
E i-$6DCN Re uired
NoYesYesYesYesYes
.r Yes
No
NoNo
TR-56 - I/23/86
f(
b+~8CI~W-$$/S 2. rtf/P'~
~P! 3/g 4 /+~PiJ y'e
r+J4l
eagrevW - A.
hl'
@~ gl+Jg4 < 1+~ digm/s 4 ~ gyi Xu~4g~4/
17
4
PACZF~ QAS 44n ~f.RVFRTt! chHPANYDEPAR~ OF NUCLEAR PLANT OPERATIONS ~
DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT UNIT NOS. ) AND 2
DESIGN CHANGE SAFETY EVALUATION SVMMARY
6USJRCTg Remove Jose h Qae hS h donsSt v gI t f»ol g:tnt' g'Asks Andbrid e lates from el ool. Modif and reinstall ori anals ant uel store e racks.
DCP Number< M-35152 R)
2. Classification
DCSE Numbers 1078 Ul
Does this change affect~
Ae The FSAR7B. The Q-List7C. Security7D. The Emergency Plen7Ee Pire Protectian7P. Does the proposed design change have the
potential..to impact any area of the environ.ment or the Environmental QualificationReport7
G. Xs the affected equipment important tosafety7
H. Es the affected equipment important toenvironmental quality2
I. Xs radioactive material contained in thesystem or does the change affect ALA1%7
Is the change a ma)or radioactive Mastetreatment system change7
K. Will it require a change in the TechnicalSpecifications7
~es No
(x) ( }(x) ( )( ) (x)
} .(x)( ) (x)( } (x)
(x) ( -)( ) (x)(x) ( )( ) (x)(x) ( )
3. ReferencestDCP M-35152 ROFSAR Q.l 3.2 3.8.2
Tech. S ecs. 3 4.9e ulator Guide 1. 13 Rev. 1
If any af phe~revious questions have been answered"yes", co+lgt4~epext page(s) befare answering L.L. Hes thts been de4xblge I Q.wnnstitnte an ( ) ( X )
unreviewed safety question,"~:gn Ieagyviewedenvironmental question7(Yes if any of questions )p 2, 3, or 4b'gafollowing page(s) are marked yes) 'j
DC)>,c>
Performed by: P. V. Holton Datei 8 19/86
Bevkaw@4 bye s R @~oh t
PSRC Review!
Tlat a I
AUG 28 1986
>i
I tv
DESIGN CHANGE PACKAGE SAFETY EVALUATION
Is the possibility of an accident or malfunction of adifferent type than any evaluated previously in the'FSAR created7
Yes No( ) ( x )
The racks being re-installed are of the «arne configuration asthose on vhich the FSAR's original accident and malfunctionevaluations vere based. The modifications to the
racks'racingand the welding to the liner pI@a are per code and donot oppose current FSAR restrictions. Note that the abovestatements are made assuming the re-installation is performedonly vhile the spent fuel pool is void of any new or spentfuel.
2. Is the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Yes NoTechnical Specification reduced2 ( ) ( x )
While Tech Spec...section 3/4.9 (Figure 3.9-1) vill have tobe revised, the bases supporting this section do not defineany specific safety margin that vould be decreased by thismodification.
3. Is the probability of occurrence or the consequencesof an accident or malfunction of equipment importantto safety previously evaluated in the FSAR increased2
Yes No( ) ( x )
For the reasons stated in item 1 above, returning the spentfuel storage racks to their original configuration (vith smallmodifications) is consistent vith previous accident andmalfunction evaluations and would therefore not increase theprobability or consequences of the FSAR evaluations.
4. h. Environmental Evaluation
Briefly describe the nature of the environmental impact(s) causedby the design change.
Negligible. Production of radioisotopes from reactor operationsvould be unchanged. The vork will be done while the spent fuelpool is void of fuel so there vould not likely be any significantradiological impact to vorkers or generation of rad-vaste duringconstruction phase. Since the racks have already been fabricated,the increase in resources needed to perform the work vould beminimal.
B. Unrevieved Environmental Question
Does the change involve an unreviewedenvironmental question2,
Yes No
( ) ( x )
Explain.
See 4A above.
f
I]/
V~
'RIORITY
Required Condition, Mode, orOperability Status to I--I"m"nt:
PlantSystemComponent
ura
1of1
~o: ~ 3~+9'z~ /DESIGN CHANGE COVER SHEET
NPO Reviewer Date
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE:
4W fdic WArr i~+/ig~~n~ ~~r~kf
REASON FOR CHANGE:
g» ~pa~ $ Pi» G~i &7g+y5e''Pe/fg»/rg 4'Mri
EFFECT ON PLANT OPERATION:
C3 Not Applicebie /P~/kc, jQiz EC/is ~> Idden I/'»
IlESPONSIBLE DISCIPLINE
TR-56 - I/23/86
g4
J$
P>',
DESIGN CHANGE k'At MGi FOLLOWER
P dure No . ONhttachmP of I
DCPP ~-g 5 /5 2 - R /D t
Prsm'c -'
y ateNot Required (level of effort)Cost 6 Scheduling Spv.
COST 6 SCHEDULING/ENGINEERINGESTIHATEEngineering Start EngineerConstruction Complete -" - ~ hpproved (EGEstimated Total Cost Accepted (PE
Scope Approved
NPG APPROVALBy Date
Schedule gpprovedBy Date
/ / existing
Package Separation Requested / yes ~ noBudget hpproved: f7 additiona
Package re5ected (reason)huthorising Job Estimate Job Order Num L Z UZ- oooo'/DESIGN
Engineer
hpproved (grp ldr)
CONSTRUCTION
Received by EMPSRC hpproves (y/n)Reason for Rejection
T STAFF REVIEWBy Date
imp to Environ (y
By Date
ENGINEERINGDa e By Daterr C
~ ~
dcceptcd (PE} I}(I(()(((NRT}'e}k} 8-}8 (}t} .
Plant Manager ApprovalTransmitted By Date
Da
CONSTRUCTION~ By . Date
Received installation CompleteStart Sp Complete ds Su(its-gttd (y/n}Released by Package Coordinator DateFC No. FCTs
By Date
hCCEPTANCE PLANT STAFFBy Date
Received work complete Staff review completeBy Date
Plant Manager Final ApprovalTransmitted By Date
ENGINEERING CLOSE OUT
Date
hll design documents issued for Operation:RMS Purged
hy (m tea
Pro5ect EngineerRMS Indexed
Dare
B Bre /gTR-56 - I/23/86
$t f
edure N . ONhttac GP 1 of
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DCPS ~ - 5 i /$ Z- R (Page 1 of ~
DCN NUNBER
ec - m- 5/~2-bc(- EC-7 r5
CURRENTREVISION ATTACHED LATER*
SEE NEXT SHEET FOR ADDITIONALDCNS / 7 Yes ~/ No
* DCNs identified to be provided under approved package separation 4 I'1
D
TR-56 - 1/23/86
Qlf
P 6+K
NUC LEAR POVYE R PLANTDESIGN CHANGEPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
PRIORITY NO
DCNND i Cf a-i,-9s/82REV. NO.SHEET 1 OF
~q) P
~~.'.
1
c
DESIGN EVALUATION
DCN No 2t"/-eC - aSVS-ZRev ~ No. '
»ge 2 tf1. DESIGN DOCUMENT REVIEl". The folloving documents are relevant to this change and
have been originated, revieved, or require revision as indicated:
Document, No., Rev.~ Q-List~ Design Criteria Memorandums
C-3 ~
No
~ CalculationsSZ ~ IS
~ Design Verification Reports
2. LlCENSING. The folloving NRC Licensing aubmittals are relevantand have been re;ieved as indicated belov. Mhere a revision isLicensing has been notified.
to this changerequired,
Documenta. FSARb.
Revieved Re uires RevisionY'c=g
l3
3 ~ SAPETY ISSt'ES. The following issues could affect the safety evaluation;Engineering results/conclusions for each are as follovs (Use additional sheetsas needed):
~ Issue h Se~~ AResults/Conclus ons:
~ Issue BResults Conclusions:
4. COORD1NAT10NDesign Package Lead Discipline ~ac%~ ~LCM
Coordination Required: ( ) No M Yes Coordinated Pith:De artmentMe
En ineer (Si n ure)~gdn/inca r)
DCN Re uiredAI4vves
YesYesYesYesYea
NoNoNoNoNo
l3TR-se - I/23/ge
i ,M C
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANYENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
DESIGN DOCUMENTS LIST~ DOCLIMENTSAFFECTED BV DESIGN CHANGE NOTICE IDCN}
~ I
.ANT DCN NUM8ER '/-EC- 9'S'/O'Z REVISION DATE Z ~~~~ ENGINEER
OOCUMEIIT
NUMIERef/'n/-ca gr4~cg 4/7
SH r REVISIOII
CURREIIT IIITERIM AS 8UILTOOCUMEIITTITL'E
Pmm Der>rL,s - Sj our FveC P~6)9L — r~ tT
Spe p~e/'&rapa R~&sSe r~s Z g spcgW
e/ Sero e a
DATE
COMI'LETEO
DATE
AtfROVED
TR-56 - I/23/86
b ~
k~ ~
f0725-0 4
Q3 —=-%
ur. 'IT~P sHr2
f 5'-9
I
g T> 2~fP Si>7:Q.
7-0 .t 9 -0
CASKP/7
95-0 4
5ppg7 FIDEL POOL PcAhf 5> ELE'I/.99'M8/=P4 I 'OCC'7IOM F'L-
X1C
g
E
l&1885
~o~ ~~ abc/e7.
EXIS7; BOLT 4 Hum
SHINl 4 AS g&20
1
I~ S~T Fua( EAc'K
I
II
I
I h/P78'AZL, SZrg g~f~o/ /I u
~ 'I
l
'L
Ml-CC- 8 ~~(SX R I Setsg'NID4 Tozz) DMN BRAcgE7
Al8kV3"plN/ gp
NMn~s em s inc IwgcIv g jw L+ACE
I
I
I
I EXi~7: earsg H~z ce
I
sei~W a~'kEC2'D
g'F hl844/
+ FAR WRD ~izE, -E~ -«A~F~l~QCHOC PL
v e~~e-~ rJc &Itic~ ic
~EL,O Size Q ~sw~d TH.
CASe lT
DATE SCALEh/7 5
Q]49L 0 CANYON/ oRAWING NUMIIEII ~PACIFIC OA5 AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ZK-491- ~lSAN FltAHCJSCO. CALlPOltNIA
e NIC sC'".I!
1'
pJ ~Gal s ~r- M.
Qu
V SCih+
(( of cc//(Ty~.'l
I:9't, I'9':9'I iI
I
Art"E
Eoc*~S
(JS cc/ld
I ~
... - lI-'-ct i
(wI.+II
(.$ .~.) l
C~ +7(SSca/9
r~z's(SOu//i)
it of COntaismt~t
e
f
I
.'
~fI
t'
JI
I
~ I-C ofcell
O I g
Al PLJEL S'7 ORAWAY RACKS-Z OCArio~ p~A~ EEL 9V
A,vP'EL.D5'EF.
DwS. cf 9V 5'I 5
ls~rs
g]4 9L 0 CAA/YON 'N IT I ovwwr au~szaPACIFJC GA5 ANb ELECTltlC COMPANY
IAX F JLAXCLSCO, CALI'FOltHLA
h
h 9't>m 4 e~f '4lrg e
i t '
bvQg7'r oQ
~f~1 seek ~ t de P Slihiny eyes t
~eslP/. 0 e 8JV. XS.
qLJ AJI
~ ~ $ ~
.~7„'SOT.
—CZstsfgJsgtgf C&~f
~ts-I4—hay. CM'c.
beck@- J s~ >i
~ ~I
I ~-)
'SYTT'<'
s (pe)
y ~ ~ as i q e ~
C.dsvsj.
C~ate> ~ Ln o4
J5ar Csg
SEC7lGA/ " Z . s~4
PATE SCALE> l
'P
j
Ki.EC-9 &I&2 P Ir%PW
TYP BOP/END5
7)cN sar Q ps )g
I I
I
I i~
~
A/ElV8Ag 2 «/4S.S, AS'-24ii7v're Soph7/A/ LEN~Th' I —4
~x/sr,
>SATE
Ace ver~./s A~a ex/sr/A/sExc'Ep7 As zwwrv,
g mam aaRex/sr GAS
73E TA /l > sm5'vp
8 pc.~cd /E:a ~AC<
TE SCALErv 7S
7C
D!4BL0 CANTO/VPACIFIC GA5 AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
SAN FltANCLICO, CAUFOltNIA
NiCROF II.
s i l~'g~
Z galaxyEP'iST- g2xzx jj
G)c/57
'EXES 7; )—.f>V-'g
EXi~~is
II
I
I
IIII
IIII
I IIIII
I
I
III
I
~isr.)BRAC/uC> g ~ p+
B4R Pg xbEA/S7 .
8/Fl. g0 VER/Ff'
'ap~/ Z/~eq
IIIII
IIII'l
I
?e ~ ~ S ri ~ ~
~\ ~ t
SPEuT FuE/ RACK Nu. 8W'ES7 Fj4 C 2 On/L. 7
ZETA/L.
A E SCALEurS
O'ACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANYSAX FltAHCtSCO, CAUFOltXIA
SMEET NO. OFDRAWING NUMSER fKt'o
SK-48ysol&ICPQF II N
'I
ey rI,
f
A
~ .
~ Sprrrr OI f rra TS'. a Irrga(l~)t
I"
Qc. l-0' $ = iSR W (I pc< 5sT 1$ c F;4.NOTe S/ ~~/ l. >".-I«g
'lpl
WN- ZC(- a.C-S Sz R.l DCH 5HZ 12 eel
Bechtel National, Inc.Engineers-Constructors
FiftyBeate StreetSan Francisco. CaliforniaMsi(Address, p 0 Bol 3966.sanFranciaco,ch 94119
A. Sudhakar
Diablo Canyon Pro)ect, LovDensity Spent Fuel RackBechtel Welding,Job 18269
T. J. AndersonB. D. HackneyR.A.Manley/F.C.BreismeisterDCC 15521-53
Date:
From'Of:
ht:
August 15, 1986
T. C. Wiesner
R&D/Materials & QualityServices Department
50/15/A12 8-3114
Materials and Quality Services has reviewed the proposed DCN (No. DCl-EC-35152) and have the following comments and recommendations.
A plyvood mock-up constructed in our laboratory has demonstrated that allof the proposed velds of the hold down brackets to the liner embeds arecapable of being made. Some of the velds are more difficult to make thanothers due to restricted access. The attached sheet is an enlargement ofSheet 7 of the DCN and shovs the eight racks and the four welds on each(indicated by letters).
The racks should be installed in such a sequence as to reduce the number of"difficult"velds (those vith the tightest access problems). The suggestedsequence is: Rack Ol, 4, 7, 8, 3, 6, 2 and 5 ~ the most difficult veldsbeing 8IA, 8D, 5B and 6B. It is recommended that prior to actual velding,the velders be trained on a full scale mock-up or the actual racks.M&QS foresees no distortion problems with velds to the embeds. Sheet 9 of12 of 'the DCN does shov a potential distortion problem vhen adding the new2" x 1V'tainless bar to the existing cross bracing or stiffener. Thesevelds should be made by velding toward the "free" or unrestrained end orsection {i.e. the side velds at one end should be velded first, then theopposite end side velds folloved by the end velds).
Option 2 on sheet ll of 12 for repair of damaged bar is preferred. Ifdamaged bar can be left in place option 2 becomes even better.M&QS is available to provide additional mock-ups or welder training shouldthe pro5ect require. Please call this office if you have further questions.
T. C. WiesnerTCW/sla
Attachment
tL
~ ~ 7'0
~ e
5'0'lyccn(rp~!
~ e7-'0 ~ v-o 7'o
~ ~ 0 ~ t
I jL ~
I
C'
I
c
e
c'C
~l
c 0
0 1~'>
,'2
I1
~t
I
Ji
rk of C'ontdinmtnf
a~ ~» aaJ
GM~PVEL zTORARE RAcK5:~'&CARI&A/.Wc'.A/I/ 9'L 99'5
ENCLOSURE 4
I
PG&E Telephone Call SummaryList of 21 NRC questions
of September 8, 1986(5 pages)
J"
lg
,I
PV ~ 7 t OQ~ QQ
DRAFT
See Below
to See Below
TELEPHONECALLS
DF
OF
""'re.l4JOI Mo.
$0820
OATS
9I8I86I
TIME],pp
tTIae nF O!SCVaa!ON ACTIOtt RED'b tlNCLUDK 'NAMSS L bATSS)
Sub ect: S ent Fuel Racks
From: B. S. Lew
S. Johnson
B. Giffin
M. R. Tres.le.r.
C, 0. Coffer
G. H. Moore
.R. Lieber
J. Gisclon
PGandE
To:
P. Beckham
E. C, Connell
D. Ovadia
S. Bhattacharya
D. W, Ogden
Holton
H. E. Schierlin
D. Jeng
F. Rinaldi
Bechtel
Kaiser
NRC
Hans indicated the discussion should be
~ limited to technical issues, and not the 10 CF'.-", 50.59
evaluation.
P. Jen had thp fnllowinc !;
'\
E
fv
Vv ~ Z g PVi PQPage 2 ofg
thOM .F I;
To
TELEPHONECALLS
OF
OF
""'ZS.14DOS NO.
N4t0
~9/8/86
1:00 p.m.
ITRMS OF DSCV$$ 10N ACTION REO'D. (INCLVDE NAAlgla DATIgI
010COI 1 S
to 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation
2. What is the status of installation of the
original rocks? What was done to remove1
the anchor bolts? (Tinkle)
3. NRR would l'ike to review the proposed
FSAR changes associated with reins-
tallation of the original racks (Civil)
.4. What does "essentially unchanged" mean
as used in the Hechanical design evaluatio
(DC1-EN-35152). Me should be more specifi
what are the differences? (NOS and Civil)
5. What is the basis for the 50 pound
criteria for drag load testing? (Tresler)
6. We indicated the original racks will be
cleaned before reinstallation; what
procedures will be used? (i.e., no iron,
etc.) (Tinkle)
7. Justify why there is no need to change
the design calculatibns for the racks;
address seismic adequac . Are the
ea Ili & l conclusions stil 1 valid? (Civil)B. Di~:us~ z'.~ engineering analysis to show
hc': '.h! le=.d transfer path may have chang
fro.. bo't'ng to welding, (State
It
pdla,(1
t
I C' t O' QV ~ 7 I QV~ VV
Page 3 of 5
TELEPHONECALLS
Of 026,14 9/8/e6
Oe JOI No,N4FOTIME
1:OQ p.m.
ITIMsor DIscuaaION ACTIok 100'D. IIHCI UOE NAMEIa OATEII
a m i etc. Civil
etr din s on the rack
iv
10, r in weld reinforcement - wh did we
make the"modification to the rack bracin ?
id we consider all the effects of the
chan e? (i.e., local considerations,t m r ture etc. Civil
ll. N hect 9 of 9 - what is the basis for1983 versi n of ASIDE Code? Civil
12. U1CCUSC the snstal)at>on se uence tor the
ori inal ~acks weldin access and sequenc
etc. Tinkle
13. Rh were the anchor bolts not restored to
the ori inal condition. (Civil)
4 Ar uirements and the materials
the sam as initiall revved b the Stafhat are the differences? Tinkle)
15. Clarif the details of the embedded lates
d h r late. Ex lain the load
0 5 OCD I 5 1
pat f r mi ds o he slabCi'vi 1
rate further on the statement that
S r sees no roblem with distortion,
P,.l~
~.q
~p
Page 4 of 5
To
TELKPHONF.CALLS
OF
SII.E026.14
JOS NO.%5ltD
OATE9/8/86
I
{
I
TIME1:00 p.m.
ITEMS OF DISCuSSION ACTION hEO'D. (INClUOE NAMES L DATESI
>OCNt >
war fn etc. with re ard to welding to
the embedded lates. Mill welding affect
the leak-ti htness of. the liners (Civil)
17. Have the holddown brackets on the corner
of each .rack been revised in any way from
the orf fnal designs If so, howl Are theload paths different? (Civil)
18. Were war fn and dstortfon considered when
desi nfn the rack bracing modfffcatfon7
Civil/GC
19; Does the new anchorage and other rack modi
ffeatfons affect the seismic analysis and
ualiffcatfon of the orfgfnal racks'narticular, th ensfon and compression
aspects arising from rack rocking should
be addressed. (Civil)
20. Consfderin the limited access, how can
we be assured that the anchorage
'eldments will be of good qua1ity and abl
to transfer the design laodst (GC)
21. What t e of analysis was originallyerformed for the racks7 What was done
recentl which caused the changes'ow
did we consider the interaction of the
CQ
Page 5 of
to
TELEPHONECALLS
OF
OF
F II.%026.14
JDl NO.fNF0
9/TIME
1:
ITIMbOF DIbCVSSION ACTION hKQ'D. IINClVDKNAMbb4 D
8 rack modu1es as part of the original
ualification of the racks? (Civil)
A meet)ng was scheduled for September 10, 1986
$ n Sethesda to discuss these qustions.
DAO den:ry
ENCLOSURE 5
PG8E Viewgraphs Used at Meeting September 10, 1986(ll pages)
I
1
I<
1
I
J4 ~ v r Ir g ~o
seek!(r! f9'IIINIM(sass asttseslts sl NII.at teee aeesee sr r Isl N gee tr r
vi
hSCC IO IIN CCLLC)
I ~ae»
ACR WC(tC CCLLC)
11'at(aa CCLLC)
hsCR lO ~(COCCLLC)
II
I
I AS)(stet
~last
rw ttselhsCR Nl5(O'I CCLLC)
hiO( hL0($% CCLLC)
11C(( h(L 2(3$ CCLLCI)
1LC(( It(L ~(3C CCLLC)
Cg
l lllkj I%ISEQIQ!LJL-
MI% WN % ~R0 Is &I ress &WCS A &~ Nwe I rsr.r ~ ~t
sa!saL4
testee &ItlaesN taasf (ste)% tra taW N tf
ital
SNI+)
$8%%QC%%
L gns ~~ &~IIIrra 0 c(IL(tats Wa rs ~ ts ~ ~ lQgI
i r re eat r q ass ~ ~ aS~t Cllrcsln+SIC that h WI IStall ate Ire as~i ~ IL(sr~tent 0%%,
L ~N~ WCS Ns taact Oa& WI~ N 4% t&a irate wsa.
g rect tra %IS %l rr IO SNS s N (tata'atlsa~ ~. ~ Nail ~lw N tssas II~sll
~IN,~ acta seNLI aas attsM w Nates w wr Iw Isle
~tt ease eee tse Irrtee r aee searsstela' ~ aa wast Neesssee r
~ eats eel aasaa N startle IINLfall lel,~0 watt r aal Narsa aaea re llaees
~assis aaasa N eaeNMI se ee aee Isaacte sat &l stsa eesa
IL reseal aasseeet ~ IINeNN r tateaeeaaa tasee eaa N see te Oo~ale I%a seeeL
FSAR POATEUNlTS 0 AND 2
OIAbLO CANYON IlTEFIOUhfLt ~ 2
Sff.NT FL%LSTOhA0%
J.
V„
rV
F/
rlI V
I;
I ~
. DELETE REFERENCE TO1" gf BOLT
~AH~ ~ M WK ~ %K f %%Wf ~ McO M %KM(-Fof F
AIKHOh Qk.T ttMIIIO tLATf(fTt)SCCLNLCO %0 tOOL tlAXA tV Ci~Oa
QCgLL ( g LCCLL
Ol ~I 4
KVJ~i
7I~tI
Lttttg~t)
mm'ITION F-FCTI N
PROPOSED FSAR CHANGE
C
ti,
S ~OI/a 4mr.s
g LPs Jag
~ ~ Naif
AT
ca eQ~+ ceeeer
. CAet.-/cga
Lse6
e
I
~Coj Safal
IllCINfle
BACKGROUND
o RACKS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED IN 1970FOR DE AND DDE LOAD1NG CONDITIONS
o RACKS CHECKED FOR POSTULATED
HOSGRI 'EVENT USING ORIGINAL
METHODOLOGY
a DESIGN AND DESIGN METHODOLOGY
REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED BY NRC
(PER SER, OCT. 16, 1974)
EXTRACTED FROM HERp OCTOBER 3.6g 1974
Nev and Spent Fuel Stora e
Fuel handling anc} ¹torage facilities for each un're provided forstorage and transfer of nev and spent fuel. Spent fuel vtll be atoretundarvater in the spent fuel ¹torage pool awk net fuel villbe Itoroh dryin the new tuel storage area. The new and syent tuel itorage racks are de-
signed to prevent a¹¹enblies froa being placai in other than prescribed
locations. The nev fuel ¹torage area accoae4ates one-thir6 of a cora
and the spent fuel pool zccoaodate¹ a full core pLus the eornaL quantityof spent fuel as¹ambLie¹ froI the reactor durSag refueling (usually
one-third ot a core).'he fuel i¹ ¹tored in a verticaL array vith sufficientcenter to -cen-ter distance betueen assemblies to assure that k gg will notexceef Oe90, even if unborataf eater i¹ used to f&1 the pool. ~
1
'e
concluc}e that the de¹in¹ of the nev and spent fuel storage
facilitie¹ are acceptable.
. D RACKS RE-EVALUATED FOR DE i DDE ANDHOS GRI LOADING CONDITIONS IN 1986,USING ORE GINAL NETHQQOX OGY i ANDSHOWN TO BE ADEQUATE.
(
Design load forcritical anchor
ISONETRIC TYP. RACK
1jl Pie eq
ilOi
NEiVEL4g 2 «I+4.s.s. Asrri 8-z4Pvvee an+Nuf LfASQi/-4
E'P/S7. HA+
PROCEuuRE To QIRlWZE EiSTORTIOQ
Qlhese ~l@s aheuld be aude by welding toward the "free"
mr ~~t:rained end or section (i.e. the side welds at
wee cimii ahold be welded first, then the opposite endolde ee.]ds folloved by the end velds a.e Shown).
~ ~'a
TY( ~ ~
~ ~~as~a
g4
-3
CrtSrP)7
I .
~pI
~ ~
II
-o e
5PENT FOES PML RAN 8 ELEY-99BNBED C LOCÃTlOV PL AAl
IllCROFJLK
ce
I
II
II
II
.IIIIIII
~4
I4 sTuD g2>g P A5L.B
drwe Ba&-uP~+so W
DE7A lL kflhle I SPENT FueL~CKSAvc~C + /
H~m LIu+R 4kw~P
~ g ~ + ~~ ~r
~ ~
~ ~' ~
I II
GASES ~ P~.Q @~"x 8+2 "~+2
'%U
~ ~ ~
~ ~
e
~ ~
SEC TIOA/ 4
lo
illCROFNJl
0'4
I
~WRI~~l5MR&R~I
4&
r
dh
r ~ rr
e ~