ML21068A392
| ML21068A392 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Holtec |
| Issue date: | 03/09/2021 |
| From: | Holtec |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML21068A360 | List: |
| References | |
| 5014917, CoC No. 1014 | |
| Download: ML21068A392 (34) | |
Text
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: ___A-1.1_______
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A Section 1.1: Definitions CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use Yes and Application Section 2 Approved A1 No Contents (Selection A2 No Criteria) A3 No Appendix B. Section 3 Limiting L1 No Technical Conditions for L2 No Specifications Operation (LCOs)* L3 No and Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative No Controls A significant increase in N/A the probability or consequences of an accident previously Risk Insight**: evaluated in the cask Will removing FSAR?
this The possibility of a new or N/A requirement different kind of accident from the CoC/TS being created compared result in to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in N/A the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Evaluation Summary Retain in Appendix B Section 1 Page 1 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: ___A-1.2_______
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A Section 1.2: Logical Connectors: The purpose of this section is to explain the meaning of logical connectors.
CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use Yes and Application Section 2 Approved A1 No Contents (Selection A2 No Criteria) A3 No Appendix B. Section 3 Limiting L1 No Technical Conditions for L2 No Specifications Operation (LCOs)* L3 No and Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative No Controls A significant increase in N/A the probability or consequences of an accident previously Risk Insight**: evaluated in the cask Will removing FSAR?
this The possibility of a new or N/A requirement different kind of accident from the CoC/TS being created compared result in to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in N/A the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Evaluation Summary Retain in Appendix B Section 1 Page 2 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: ___A-1.3_______
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A Section 1.3: Completion Times: The purpose of this section is to establish the Completion Time convention and to provide guidance for its use.
CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use Yes and Application Section 2 Approved A1 No Contents (Selection A2 No Criteria) A3 No Appendix B. Section 3 Limiting L1 No Technical Conditions for L2 No Specifications Operation (LCOs)* L3 No and Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative No Controls A significant increase in N/A the probability or consequences of an accident previously Risk Insight**: evaluated in the cask Will removing FSAR?
this The possibility of a new or N/A requirement different kind of accident from the CoC/TS being created compared result in to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in N/A the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Evaluation Summary Retain in Appendix B Section 1 Page 3 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: ___A-1.4_______
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A Section 1.4: Frequency: The purpose of this section is to define the proper use and application of Frequency requirements.
CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use Yes and Application Section 2 Approved A1 No Contents (Selection A2 No Criteria) A3 No Appendix B. Section 3 Limiting L1 No Technical Conditions for L2 No Specifications Operation (LCOs)* L3 No and Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative No Controls A significant increase in N/A the probability or consequences of an accident previously Risk Insight**: evaluated in the cask Will removing FSAR?
this The possibility of a new or N/A requirement different kind of accident from the CoC/TS being created compared result in to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in N/A the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Evaluation Summary Retain in Appendix B Section 1 Page 4 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: ___A-3.0______
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A Section 3.0: LCO and SR Applicability CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use No and Application Section 2 Approved A1 No Contents (Selection A2 No Criteria) A3 No Appendix B. Section 3 Limiting L1 Yes Technical Conditions for L2 Yes Specifications Operation (LCOs)* L3 Yes and Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative No Controls A significant increase in N/A the probability or consequences of an accident previously Risk Insight**: evaluated in the cask Will removing FSAR?
this The possibility of a new or N/A requirement different kind of accident from the CoC/TS being created compared result in to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in N/A the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Evaluation Summary Retain in Appendix B Section 3.0. Applies generically to all three criteria (L1, L2, L3).
Page 5 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: ___A-3.1.1_______
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A LCO 3.1.1: Multi-Purpose Canister (MPC)
The MPC shall be dry and helium filled.
Table 3-1 provides decay heat and burnup limits for forced helium dehydration (FHD) and vacuum drying.
FHD is not subject to time limits. Vacuum drying of MPCs may be subject to time limits, from the end of bulk water removal until the start of helium backfill, as shown in Table 3-1.
CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use No and Application Section 2 Approved A1 No Contents (Selection A2 No Criteria) A3 No Appendix B. Section 3 Limiting L1 No Technical Conditions for L2 Yes Specifications Operation (LCOs)* L3 No and Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative No Controls A significant increase in N/A the probability or Risk Insight**:
consequences of an Will removing accident previously this evaluated in the cask requirement FSAR?
from the CoC/TS The possibility of a new or N/A result in different kind of accident being created compared Page 6 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in N/A the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Evaluation Summary Retain in Appendix B Section 3 as this LCO ensures an inert atmosphere around the fuel cladding and that oxidation of the fuel cladding does not occur, preserving the integrity of the fuel cladding fission product barrier. (Criterion L2)
Page 7 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: __A-3.1.2________
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A LCO 3.1.2: SFSC Heat Removal System The SFSC Heat Removal System shall be operable.
Note: The SFSC Heat Removal System is operable when 50% or more of the inlet and outlet vent areas are unblocked and available for flow or when air temperature requirements are met. This LCO does not apply to the HI-STORM 100 UVH overpack, which does not include an SFSC heat removal system.
CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use No and Application Section 2 Approved A1 No Contents (Selection A2 No Criteria) A3 No Appendix B. Section 3 Limiting L1 No Technical Conditions for L2 Yes Specifications Operation (LCOs)* L3 No and Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative No Controls A significant increase in N/A the probability or Risk Insight**:
consequences of an Will removing accident previously this evaluated in the cask requirement FSAR?
from the CoC/TS The possibility of a new or N/A result in different kind of accident being created compared Page 8 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in N/A the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Evaluation Summary Retain in Appendix B Section 3 as this LCO ensures fuel cladding temperatures remain below the limit for normal storage operations, preserving the integrity of the fuel cladding fission product barrier. (Criterion L2)
Page 9 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: __A-3.1.3________
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A LCO 3.1.3: MPC Cavity Reflooding The MPC cavity pressure shall be < 100 psig Note: The LCO is only applicable to wet UNLOADING OPERATIONS.
CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use No and Application Section 2 Approved A1 No Contents (Selection A2 No Criteria) A3 No Appendix B. Section 3 Limiting L1 No Technical Conditions for L2 Yes Specifications Operation (LCOs)* L3 No and Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative No Controls A significant increase in N/A the probability or consequences of an accident previously Risk Insight**: evaluated in the cask Will removing FSAR?
this The possibility of a new or N/A requirement different kind of accident from the CoC/TS being created compared result in to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in N/A the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Page 10 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A Evaluation Summary Retain in Appendix B Section 3 as this LCO ensures an inert atmosphere around the fuel cladding and that oxidation of the fuel cladding does not occur, preserving the integrity of the fuel cladding fission product barrier. (Criterion L2)
Page 11 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: ____ A-3.1.4______
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A LCO 3.1.4: Supplemental Cooling System A supplemental cooling system (SCS) shall be operable.
Note: Upon reaching steady state operation, the SCS may be temporarily disabled for a short duration (< 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br />) to facilitate necessary operational evolutions, such as movement of the TRANSFER CASK through a door way, or other similar operation.
CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use No and Application Section 2 Approved A1 No Contents (Selection A2 No Criteria) A3 No Appendix B. Section 3 Limiting L1 No Technical Conditions for L2 Yes Specifications Operation (LCOs)* L3 No and Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative No Controls A significant increase in N/A the probability or Risk Insight**:
consequences of an Will removing accident previously this evaluated in the cask requirement FSAR?
from the CoC/TS The possibility of a new or N/A result in different kind of accident being created compared Page 12 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in N/A the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Evaluation Summary Retain in Appendix B Section 3 as this LCO ensures fuel cladding temperatures remain below the limit for normal storage operations, preserving the integrity of the fuel cladding fission product barrier. (Criterion L2)
Page 13 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: ___A-3.2.2_______
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A LCO 3.2.2: Transfer Cask Surface Contamination Removable contamination on the exterior surfaces of the TRANSFER CASK and accessible portions of the MPC shall each not exceed:
- a. 1000 dpm/100 cm2 from beta and gamma sources
- b. 20 dpm/100 cm2 from alpha sources.
Note: This LCO is not applicable to the TRANSFER CASK if MPC TRANSFER operations occur inside the FUEL BUILDING.
CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use No and Application Section 2 Approved A1 No Contents (Selection A2 No Criteria) A3 No Appendix B. Section 3 Limiting L1 No Technical Conditions for L2 Yes Specifications Operation (LCOs)* L3 No and Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative No Controls Risk Insight**: A significant increase in N/A Will removing the probability or this consequences of an requirement accident previously Page 14 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A from the CoC/TS evaluated in the cask result in FSAR?
The possibility of a new or N/A different kind of accident being created compared to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in N/A the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Evaluation Summary Retain in Appendix B Section 3 as this LCO ensures compliance with contamination limits for normal storage operations when not occurring in Fuel Building. (Criterion L3)
Page 15 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: __A-3.3.1________
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A LCO 3.3.1: Boron Concentration As required by CoC Appendix B, Table 2.1-2, the concentration of boron in the water in the MPC shall meet the following limits for the applicable MPC model and the most limiting fuel assembly array/class and classification to be stored in the MPC: (see existing CoC text)
CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use No and Application Section 2 Approved A1 No Contents (Selection A2 No Criteria) A3 No Appendix B. Section 3 Limiting L1 No Technical Conditions for L2 Yes Specifications Operation (LCOs)* L3 No and Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative No Controls A significant increase in N/A the probability or consequences of an Risk Insight**:
accident previously Will removing evaluated in the cask this FSAR?
requirement The possibility of a new or N/A from the CoC/TS different kind of accident result in being created compared to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
Page 16 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A A Significant reduction in N/A the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Evaluation Summary Retain in Appendix B Section 3 as this LCO ensures that a subcritical configuration is maintained.
(Criterion L2)
Page 17 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: __A-Tables 3-1a and 3-1b_______
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A Table 3-1a: MPC Cavity Drying Limits for Ventilated Overpack Table 3-1b: MPC Cavity Drying Limits for Unventilated Overpack CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use No and Application Section 2 Approved A1 No Contents (Selection A2 No Criteria) A3 No Appendix B. Section 3 Limiting L1 Yes Technical Conditions for Referenced by LCO 3.1.1 Specifications Operation (LCOs)* L2 No and Surveillance L3 No Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative No Controls A significant increase in N/A the probability or consequences of an accident previously Risk Insight**: evaluated in the cask Will removing FSAR?
this The possibility of a new or N/A requirement different kind of accident from the CoC/TS being created compared result in to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in N/A the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Page 18 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A Evaluation Summary Retain in Appendix B Section 3 as these tables provide information needed to complete LCO 3.1.1.
(Criterion L1)
Page 19 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: ___A-Tables 3-2a and 3-2b_______
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A Table 3-2a: MPC Helium Backfill Limits for Ventilated Overpack Table 3-2b: MPC Helium Backfill Limits for Unventilated Overpack CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use No and Application Section 2 Approved A1 No Contents (Selection A2 No Criteria) A3 No Appendix B. Section 3 Limiting L1 Yes Technical Conditions for Referenced by LCO 3.1.1 and 3.1.4 Specifications Operation (LCOs)* L2 No and Surveillance L3 No Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative No Controls A significant increase in N/A the probability or consequences of an accident previously Risk Insight**: evaluated in the cask Will removing FSAR?
this The possibility of a new or N/A requirement different kind of accident from the CoC/TS being created compared result in to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in N/A the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Page 20 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A Evaluation Summary Retain in Appendix B Section 3 as these Tables provide information needed to complete LCOs 3.1.1 and 3.1.4. (Criterion L1)
Page 21 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: ___A-Table 3-3_______
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A Table 3-3: Regionalized Storage Cell Heat Load Limits CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use No and Application Section 2 Approved A1 Yes Contents (Selection A2 No Criteria) A3 No Appendix B. Section 3 Limiting L1 No Technical Conditions for L2 No Specifications Operation (LCOs)* L3 No and Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative No Controls A significant increase in N/A the probability or consequences of an accident previously Risk Insight**: evaluated in the cask Will removing FSAR?
this The possibility of a new or N/A requirement different kind of accident from the CoC/TS being created compared result in to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in N/A the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Evaluation Summary Retain in Appendix B Section 2 as this Table provides heat load limits (72.236(a)). (Criterion A1)
Page 22 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: ___A-Table 3-4_______
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A Table 3-4: Uniform Storage Cell Heat Load Limits CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use No and Application Section 2 Approved A1 Yes Contents (Selection A2 No Criteria) A3 No Appendix B. Section 3 Limiting L1 No Technical Conditions for L2 No Specifications Operation (LCOs)* L3 No and Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative No Controls A significant increase in N/A the probability or consequences of an accident previously Risk Insight**: evaluated in the cask Will removing FSAR?
this The possibility of a new or N/A requirement different kind of accident from the CoC/TS being created compared result in to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in N/A the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Evaluation Summary Retain in Appendix B Section 2 as this Table provides heat load limits (72.236(a)). (Criterion A1)
Page 23 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: __A-Table 3-5________
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A Table 3-5: Completion Time for Actions to Restore SFSC Heat Removal System Operable CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use No and Application Section 2 Approved A1 No Contents (Selection A2 No Criteria) A3 No Appendix B. Section 3 Limiting L1 No Technical Conditions for L2 Yes Specifications Operation (LCOs)* Referenced by LCO 3.1.2 and Surveillance L3 No Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative No Controls A significant increase in N/A the probability or consequences of an accident previously Risk Insight**: evaluated in the cask Will removing FSAR?
this The possibility of a new or N/A requirement different kind of accident from the CoC/TS being created compared result in to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in N/A the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Evaluation Summary Retain in Appendix B Section 3 as the information in these Tables relates to completion times for LCO 3.1.2.
Page 24 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: ___A-5.4_______
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A Section 5.4: Radioactive Effluent Control Program This program implements the requirements of 10 CFR 72.44(d).
CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use No and Application Section 2 Approved A1 No Contents (Selection A2 No Criteria) A3 No Appendix B. Section 3 Limiting L1 No Technical Conditions for L2 No Specifications Operation (LCOs)* L3 No and Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative Yes Controls A significant increase in No the probability or consequences of an accident previously Risk Insight**: evaluated in the cask Will removing FSAR?
this The possibility of a new or No requirement different kind of accident from the CoC/TS being created compared result in to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in No the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Page 25 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A Evaluation Summary Remove This program implements the requirements of 10 CFR 72.44(d) as this is a regulatory requirement that must be met. Retain the rest of the text in Appendix B Section 4.
Page 26 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: ___A-5.5_______
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A Section 5.5: Cask Transport Evaluation Program This program provides a means for evaluating various transport configurations and transport route conditions to ensure that the design basis drop limits are met. For lifting of the loaded TRANSFER CASK or OVERPACK using devices which are integral to a structure governed by 10 CFR Part 50 regulations, 10 CFR 50 requirements apply. This program is not applicable when the TRANSFER CASK or OVERPACK is in the FUEL BUILDING or is being handled by a device providing support from underneath (i.e., on a rail car, heavy haul trailer, air pads, etc...) or is being handled by a device designed in accordance with the increased safety factors of ANSI N14.6 and having redundant drop protection.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 72.212, this program shall evaluate the site-specific transport route conditions.
CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use No and Application Section 2 Approved A1 No Contents (Selection A2 No Criteria) A3 No Appendix B. Section 3 Limiting L1 No Technical Conditions for L2 No Specifications Operation (LCOs)* L3 No and Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative Yes Controls Page 27 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A A significant increase in N/A the probability or consequences of an accident previously Risk Insight**: evaluated in the cask Will removing FSAR?
this The possibility of a new or N/A requirement different kind of accident from the CoC/TS being created compared result in to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in N/A the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Evaluation Summary Retain in Appendix B Section 4.
Page 28 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: __A-Table 5-1________
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A Table 5-1 Transfer Cask and Free-Standing Overpack Lifting Requirements CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use No and Application Section 2 Approved A1 No Contents (Selection A2 No Criteria) A3 No Appendix B. Section 3 Limiting L1 No Technical Conditions for L2 No Specifications Operation (LCOs)* L3 No and Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative Yes Controls A significant increase in N/A the probability or consequences of an accident previously Risk Insight**: evaluated in the cask Will removing FSAR?
this The possibility of a new or N/A requirement different kind of accident from the CoC/TS being created compared result in to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in N/A the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Evaluation Summary Retain in Appendix B Section 4.
Page 29 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: __A-5.7________
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A Section 5.7: Radiation Protection Program CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use No and Application Section 2 Approved A1 No Contents (Selection A2 No Criteria) A3 No Appendix B. Section 3 Limiting L1 No Technical Conditions for L2 No Specifications Operation (LCOs)* L3 No and Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative Yes Controls A significant increase in No the probability or consequences of an accident previously Risk Insight**: evaluated in the cask Will removing FSAR?
this The possibility of a new or No requirement different kind of accident from the CoC/TS being created compared result in to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in No the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Evaluation Summary 5.7.1 -Retain in Appendix B section 4 5.7.2 - Combine main statement with existing Section 5.7.3 as these discussions are currently repetitive.
Refer to appropriate Part 72 Section: 72.212(b)(5)(iii) 5.7.3 through 8- Retain in Appendix B section 4 Page 30 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: ___A-5.8_______
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A Section 5.8: Fabrication Helium Leak Test At completion of welding the MPC shell to baseplate, an MPC confinement weld helium leak test shall be performed using a helium mass spectrometer. This test shall include the base metals of the MPC shell and baseplate. A helium leak test shall also be performed on the base metal of the fabricated MPC lid. The confinement boundary leakage rate tests shall be performed in accordance with ANSI N14.5 to leaktight criteria. If a leakage rate exceeding the acceptance criteria is detected, then the area of leakage shall be determined and the area repaired per ASME Code Section III, Subsection NB requirements. Re-testing shall be performed until the leakage rate acceptance criterion is met.
Casks initially loaded to Amendments No. 2 through 7 must meet the following:
- Casks fabricated on or after July 1, 2009 a fabrication helium leak test at completion of the welding of the MPC shell to baseplate must be performed in accordance with the above requirements.
- Casks loaded before July 1, 2009 must meet the fabrication helium leak test requirements of the lid base metal of the amendment to which they were originally loaded.
- Casks loaded before July 1, 2009 do not meet the above fabrication helium leak test requirements after MPC shell to baseplate welding. These casks may be upgraded to Amendment 15.
CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use No and Application Page 31 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A Appendix B. Section 2 Approved A1 No Technical Contents (Selection A2 No Specifications Criteria) A3 No Section 3 Limiting L1 No Conditions for L2 No Operation (LCOs)* L3 No and Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative Yes Controls A significant increase in N/A the probability or consequences of an accident previously Risk Insight**: evaluated in the cask Will removing FSAR?
this The possibility of a new or N/A requirement different kind of accident from the CoC/TS being created compared result in to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in N/A the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Evaluation Summary Retain in Appendix B Section 4.
Page 32 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A CoC Condition/TS Identifier: ___A-5.9_______
- All LCOs also require an Applicability, Condition(s), Required Action(s), Completion Time(s),
Surveillance Requirement(s), and Frequency(ies). Refer to NUREG-1745 for additional guidance.
- In performing the risk insight evaluation above, the evaluator should think about subsequent changes to a relocated CoC requirement. Specifically, ask the question what is the likelihood and worst possible consequences of a future change to this requirement in the less conservative direction?
Requirement Appendix A Section 5.9: Aging Management Program Each general licensee shall have a program to establish, implement, and maintain written procedures for each AMP described in the FSAR. The program shall include provisions for changing AMP elements, as necessary, and within the limitations of the approved licensing bases to address new information on aging effects based on inspection findings and/or industry operating experience provided to the general licensee during the renewal period.
The general licensee shall establish and implement these written procedures within 365 days after the effective date of the renewal of the CoC or 365 days of the 20th anniversary of the loading of the first dry storage system at its site, whichever is later.
Each general licensee shall perform tollgate assessments as described in Chapter 9 of the FSAR.
CoC Body Section I. Technology No Certified Design Section II. Design Features No Appendix A - Inspections, Tests, and No Evaluations Section 1 Definitions, Use No and Application Section 2 Approved A1 No Contents (Selection A2 No Appendix B. Criteria) A3 No Technical Section 3 Limiting L1 No Specifications Conditions for L2 No Operation (LCOs)* L3 No and Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Page 33 of 34
Attachment 30 to Holtec Letter 5014917 CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A Section 4 Administrative Yes Controls A significant increase in N/A the probability or consequences of an accident previously Risk Insight**: evaluated in the cask Will removing FSAR?
this The possibility of a new or N/A requirement different kind of accident from the CoC/TS being created compared result in to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in N/A the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Evaluation Summary Retain in Appendix B Section 4.
Page 34 of 34