ML112290040
| ML112290040 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 08/11/2011 |
| From: | William Allen NRC/NMSS/SFST/LID/LB |
| To: | Pacific Gas & Electric Co |
| Allen W NMSS/SFST 492-3148 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML112290040 (2) | |
Text
Page 1 NRC FORM 699 u.s. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DATE (9-2003) 08/1112011 CONVERSATION RECORD TIME
\\1:00am NAME OF PERSON(S) CONTACTED OR IN CONTACT WITH YOU TELEPHONE NO.
TYPE OF CONVERSATION See Below 877-481-7043 D V ISIT ORGANIZATION D CONFERENCE Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)
~
SUBJECT TELEPHONE Discussion of Request for Additional Information Letter
~
INCOMING D OUTGOING
SUMMARY
(Continue on Page 2)
NRC: William "Chris" Alleo, Chris 8ajwa, Matthew Gordon PG&E: David Sokolsky, Larry Pulley Holtee International: Stefan Anton, Tammy Morin, Evan Rosenbaum, Joe McManus, John Griffin, Kelly Kozink Call was requested by PG&E to discuss how they andlor Holtec intended to address tbe Request for Additional Information (RAI) letter to insure their approach met the intent of the RAIs. Holtee, in addressing the first RAJ, began by pointing out differences between the Humboldt Bay (HB) Greater Than Class C (GTCC) waste and tbe waste discussed in the paper supplied as a reference in the RAI letter. (See MLl1I650412.) Such differences included the following: waste form (liquid for the reference and solid for HB), waste constituents (nitrates and organics for the reference and none for HB), thermal (waste in the reference generated heat and HB waste does not). Based upon thes e differences, Holtec was proposing to perform a short evaluation of low to moderate complexity to resolve this RAJ. NRC staff inquired if this evaluation would be text only or if it would involve some sort of calculation. Holtee indicated th e evaluation would probably incorporate both.
Staff indicated an evaluation which identified the amount of water present as well as the waste constituents would be acceptable, but they suggested the calculation employ bounding values for water and radiation source term. HoUec indicated such a calculation might be tbe simplest approach and would definitely consider it. For the second RAI, PG&E stated tbat sealing a GTCC Waste Container (GWC) would be accomplis bed in exactly the same manner as for a Multi-Purpose Canister (MPC) which contained fuel. Staff asked several questions botb to check this statement and verify the potential to ignite flammable gases was low. Staff also stated adding a statement to the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) pointing out these similarities between the GWC and the MPC would be helpful. PG&E then indicated that the gap between the GWC and the GTCC overpack would not be fiUed with helium (wbich is not the case for an overpack with an MPC containing fuel). PG&E also stated the torque values for the lid bolts on the GTCC overpack were not as high as the torque values for an overpack containing fuel. Staff recognized that these differences could be identified in site specific procedures which are not reviewed by the NRC. Staff therefore left it to the judgement of PG&E if revising the SARto identify these differences was necessary.
In addressing the third RAI, Holtee indicated uncertainty as to whether staff h ad specific questions on how the code would be implemented or if the questions were more general. After staff indicated the question was more general in nature, Holtec stated they were evaluating wbetber to use ACI-3I8 or ACI-349, and that the fin al decision would be made based upon Continue on Page 2 ACTION REQUIRED NAME OF PERSON DOCUMENTING CONVERSATION S IGNq;~
~
DATE Chris Allen C.
08/16/2011 AcnON TAKEN TITLE OF PERSON TAKING ACTION SIGNAT URE OF PERSON TAKING Acn ON DATE NRC FORM 699 (9*2003)
PRINTED 0 N RECYCLED PAPER
Page 2 CONVERSATION RECORD (Continued)
SUMMARY
(Continue on Page 3) the needs of PG&E. Holtec also indicated that there would be some deviations from the code such as omitting aggregate and not peforming a slump test. However, Hollec did provide assurances that the grout would be sufficiently nuid to fill all free space within the GWc. At this point, staff participation in the call was no 10 nger necessary. Therefore, staff disconnected from the call at approximately 11 :30 A.M. to allow PG&E and Hollec 10 discuss 1 heir responses 10 the RAJ letter.
Continue on Page 3