ML13330B370

Requests That Encl Questions Be Addressed at 880812 Meeting Re Proposed Transshipment of Spent Fuel from Facility

ML13330B370
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	08/11/1988
From:	Trammell C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Baskin K SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.
References
TAC-66869, NUDOCS 8808250187
Download: ML13330B370 (5)

Text

August 11, 1988 Docket No. 50-206 Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin Vice President Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770

SUBJECT:

SPENT FUEL TRANSSHIPMENT (TAC NO. 66869)

In reviewing the information that you provided in your letter of June 10, 1988 relating to the proposed transshipment of spent fuel from Unit 1, we would like to request that you address the enclosed questions at our meeting planned for August 12, 1988. These questions will serve as the agenda for the meeting.

Sincerely, original signed by Charles M. Trammell, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

See next page.

Distribution Docket File NRC & LPDr CTrammell (2)

GHolahan JLee OGC PDV Plant File EJordan BGrimes ACRS (10)

DHickman FRinaldi NWagner QFQJ

)FC :DRSP DV/PM :DRSP/ :PDV 1AME :

imell:cw:G1irghton

)ATE :08/N\\/88

08a\\/88 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 8808250187 880811 PDR ADOCK 05000206 p

__PDC

tpftREG 0

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 August 11, 1988 Docket No. 50-206 Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin Vice President Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770

SUBJECT:

SPENT FUEL TRANSSHIPMENT (TAC NO. 66869)

In reviewing the information that you provided in your letter of June 10, 1988 relating to the proposed transshipment of spent fuel from Unit 1, we.would like to request that you address the enclosed questions at our meeting planned for August 12, 1988. These questions will serve as the agenda for the meeting.

Sincerely, Charles M. Trammell, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects -

III, IV, V and Special Projects

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See next page.

Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin San Onofre Nuclear Generating Southern California Edison Company Station, Unit No. 1 cc Charles R. Kocher, Assistant Mr. Jack McGurk, Acting Chief General Counsel Radiological Health Branch James Beoletto, Esquire State Department of Health Southern California Edison Company Services Post Office Box 800 714 P Street, Office Bldg. 8 Rosemead, California 91770 Sacramento, California 95814 David R. Pigott Mr. Hans Kaspar, Executive Director Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Marine Review Committee, Inc.

600 Montgomery Street 531 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 105 San Francisco, California 94111 Encinitas, California 92024 Mr. Robert G. Lacy Mr. Dennis M. Smith, Chief Manager, Nuclear San Diego Gas & Electric Company Radiological Programs Division San iegoGas Elctri ComanyGovernor's Office of Emergency Svcs.

P. 0. Box 1831 State of California San Diego, California 92112 2800 Meadowview Road Sacramento, California 95832 Resident Inspector/San Onofre NPS U.S. NRC P. 0. Box 4329 San Clemente, California 92672 Mayor City of San Clemente San Clemente, California 92672 Chairman Board of Supervisors County of San Diego 1600 Pacific Highway Room 335 San Diego, California 92101 Director Energy Facilities Siting Division Energy Resources Conservation &

Development Commission 1516 - 9th Street Sacramento, California 95814 Regional Administrator, Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596

SONGS 1 Spent Fuel Transshipment ESGB Questions Regarding SCE's June 10, 1988 Submittal

1. The plan view (Figure 1) needs to be supplemented by one or more vertical sections through the Decontaimination Pad, Cask Laydown Area, Upender Area, Spent Fuel Pool and New Fuel Area, and the Turbine Deck Areas.

2. You identify a Category B seismic event and a 0.67g seismic event.

Define these events.

3. Discuss the basis for the selection of the 10'- 6" and 2'-8" heights for the postulated cask drop without the impact limiter. The 2' - 8" is close to the 2' - 3" cask lift height identified in your response to question 6.

Please clarify your assumptions. Also, expand your explanation of the values of 0.09" and 1.92" on page 3.

4. In your response to Questions 6 and 7 you address the potential impacts of the cask on the walls and components within the Decontamination Area and Spent Pool walls, as result of the postulated cask tipping after a 4',

2', 3', and 42 -7", height cask drops. Please address the bases for the various selected drop heights and provide results that include forces and reactions related to the various postulated impacts and the respective stress levels as related to FSAR allowables.

5. Figure 4 shows a 3-D view of the impact limiter. However, it doesn't convey dimensional-values of the limiter. Additional information is needed to fully describe the impact limiter and the various cask impact scenarios identified in your previous responses. Also, in the second paragraph of item 2 for the response to Question 6 you state conclusions with respect to portions of a postulated damaged wall falling in the new fuel areas. However, you do not provide analytical results supporting your conclusion that the new fuel racks will not be affected.

6. Your responses to Question 7 and 10 address the postulated cask drop in the spent fuel pool.

More information with regard to the details of this analysis are required to allow the staff to reach the same conclusions.

This information should include: material properties, modeling, computational models, analysis procedures and results for the evaluation of the pool walls, slab, and liners. Also, you should address the drop orientations considered and the controlling drop orientation.

7. In your response to Question 12 you describe the requirements for the turbine deck load bearing test. The loads address the previous mode of fuel movement (air pallet). State why the new load should not be the 105 tons resulting from the new load (70-Tons) increased by the dynamic factor.

-2

8. In your response to Questions 9 and 10 you address several staff concerns. We request the following clarifications:

o State the criteria that established the value of the 100 ton load used on the analysis of the gantry crane 0

The seismic accelerations considered for Seismic Category B loads (0.13g and 0.2g) are considerably different then-the 0.67 g identified in your response to Question 5. Address these differences.

o The 20 kips load on the crane identified in Item (c) fails to state if its direction was considered. Also, the rope capacity in item (e) is identified as 9 tons while the load on the crane is established as 20 kips. Discuss these staff concerns.

o Your response to Question 10 describes the structural components of the sliding roof. State if itis considered as a Seismic Category I structure and if it has been designed for the related FSAR requirements.

9. Your response to Question 17 identifies the daily discharge, from the wells for the leak chase system of the spent fuel pool, as 10 gallons perday.

From these results it appears that the liner is not providing adequate leakage protection. Describe your plans for repair of the liner.

10. Your responses provided in your submittal dated June 10, 1988, reworded some of the original questions provided by the staff. Although they include most of the requested information, they appear to have missed our Question 12 which said "State if you'plan to provide a technical specification equivalient to Item 4.13, Attachment 1, for the proposed transport mode." Please address this staff request.