ML15264A585

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re 880331 Submittal Concerning ISFSI within 45 Days of Ltr Date

ML15264A585
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	02/15/1989
From:	Pastis H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
References
TAC-68026, TAC-68027, TAC-68028, NUDOCS 8902230681
Download: ML15264A585 (3)

Text

February 15, 1989 Docket Nos.: 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 Mr. H. B. Tucker Nuclear Production Department Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242

SUBJECT:

INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL INSTALLATION - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TACS 68026/68027/68028)

Re:

Oconee Nuclear Station - Units 1, 2, and 3 The staff has reviewed your March 31, 1988, submittal on the independent spent fuel storage installation and concluded that additional information is needed. Please respond to the enclosed request within 45 days of the date of this letter.

The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents;.therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.

Sincerely, Original Signed By:

Helen Nicolaras Pastis, Project Manager Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects -I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl.:

See next page DISTRIBUTION

<D'"ketZFle-NRC PDR R. Perfetti 8-D-1 Local PDR PDII-3 Reading J. Roberts 6--H-3 G. Lainas 14-E-4 E. Adensam 14-H-3 D. Matthews 14-H-25 M. Rood 14-H-25 H. Pastis 14-H-25 OGC 15-B-18 E. Jordan MNBB-3302 B. Grimes 9-A-2 ACRS (10)

P-315 OCONEE PLANT FILE PD PD\\1

-3 MI 1s:sw DMatthews 2/ /89 2/

26/89

@i-89P02230)681 89C2-15 F'D ADOCK 050002 69 P

C

Mr. H. B. Tucker Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Rower Company Units Nos. 1, 2 and 3 cc:

Mr. A. V. Carr, Esq.

Mr. Paul Guill Duke Power Company Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 33189 Post Office Box 33189 422 South Church Street 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.

Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Suite 525 1700 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Manager, LIS NUS Corporation 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33515 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 2, Box 610 Seneca, South Carolina 29678 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. Heyward G. Shealy, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Office 'of Intergovernmental Relations 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Honorable James M. Phinney County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, South Carolina 29621

ENCLOSURE

1. The licensee's Justification and Safety Analysis assumes a worst case accident for Unit 3 that involves damage to all 825 storage locations (Attachment 1, page 3).

The proposed Technical Specification Change 3.8.13 d. limits the movement of the dry storage transfer cask in the Unit 3 spent fuel pool to times when all spent fuel stored in that pool will be decayed a minimum of 57 days. However, existing Technical Specification 3.8.13 b. addresses movement of a presumably smaller spent fuel cask and limits the movement of this cask to situations where the spent fuel stored in the first 33 rows of the Unit 3 pool closest to the spent fuel cask handling area contain fuel decayed a minimum of 70 days.

This existing Technical Specification appears more restrictive than the proposed change 3.8.13 d..

How-is this apparent discrepancy resolved?

2. The licensee's 100 ton cask drop accident analyses indicate that simulta neous (or near simultaneous, i.e., within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />) cask drops in both the Unit 1&2 spent fuel pool and the Unit 3 spent fuel pool could cause doses to the thyroid that exceed 25% of the 10 CFR Part 100 limits. Do the existing or proposed Technical Specifications prohibit the simultaneous operation of dry storage casks over the two spent fuel pools? If not, what are the approximate risk estimates of such an event, and is there a possible common mode failure, such as station black-out, that could contribute to this risk?