ML22028A380
| ML22028A380 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Holtec |
| Issue date: | 01/28/2022 |
| From: | Holtec |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML22028A371 | List: |
| References | |
| 5014939 | |
| Download: ML22028A380 (42) | |
Text
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 Move to Appendix B Section 1 as it meets the criterion for inclusion in the new TS format (Use and Application).
Page 1 of 42
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 Move to Appendix B Section 1 as it meets the criterion for inclusion in the new TS format (Use and Application).
Page 2 of 42
CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A
No change to text as the existing Purpose, Background, and Examples are helpful to understand the use and application of Logical Connectors.
Page 3 of 42
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 Move to Appendix B Section 1 as it meets the criterion for inclusion in the new TS format (Use and Application).
Page 4 of 42
CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A
No change to text as the existing Purpose, Background, Description, Examples, and Immediate Completion Time are helpful to provide guidance on the use and application of Completion Times.
Page 5 of 42
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 Move to Appendix B Section 1 as it meets the criterion for inclusion in the new TS format (Use and Application).
Page 6 of 42
CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A
No change to text as the existing Purpose, Description, and Examples are helpful to understand the use and application of Frequency.
Page 7 of 42
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 Yes the probability or These LCO and SR applicability requirements are consequences of an necessary to ensure that safety functions are accident previously maintained as described in the individual LCOs and evaluated in the cask SRs.
Risk Insight**: FSAR?
Will removing The possibility of a new or No this different kind of accident requirement being created compared from the CoC/TS to those previously result in evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in Yes the margin of safety for These LCO and SR applicability requirements are ISFSI or cask operation? necessary to ensure that safety functions are maintained as described in the individual LCOs and SRs.
Evaluation Summary Move to Appendix B Section 3.0. Applies generically to all three criteria (L1, L2, L3).
Page 8 of 42
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 No Risk Insight**: the probability or Will removing consequences of an this accident previously requirement evaluated in the cask from the CoC/TS FSAR?
result in The possibility of a new or No different kind of accident being created compared
Page 9 of 42
CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A
to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in Yes the margin of safety for This LCO ensures an inert atmosphere around the ISFSI or cask operation? fuel cladding, and that oxidation of the fuel cladding does not occur, preserving the integrity of the fuel cladding fission product barrier. Its removal would reduce the margin of safety for confinement.
Evaluation Summary Move to 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 10 of 42
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 No Risk Insight**: the probability or Will removing consequences of an this accident previously requirement evaluated in the cask from the CoC/TS FSAR?
result in The possibility of a new or No different kind of accident being created compared
Page 11 of 42
CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A
to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in Yes the margin of safety for This LCO ensures fuel cladding temperatures remain ISFSI or cask operation? below the limit for normal storage operations, preserving the integrity of the fuel cladding fission product barrier. Its removal would reduce the margin of safety for confinement.
Evaluation Summary Move to 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 12 of 42
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 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 Yes the margin of safety for This LCO ensures that the MPC cavity pressure limit is ISFSI or cask operation? not exceeded during reflooding such that the
Page 13 of 42
CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A
integrity of the MPC enclosure vessel confinement boundary is compromised.
Evaluation Summary Move to Appendix B Section 3 as this LCO ensures that the MPC cavity pressure is below the 100 psig limit before reflooding operations the MPC is then reflooded with water at a controlled rate and/or the pressure monitored to ensure that the pressure remains below 100 psig. The integrity of the MPC depends on maintaining the internal cavity pressures within design limits. This is accomplished by introducing water to the cavity in a controlled manner such that there is no sudden formation of large quantities of steam during MPC reflooding, preserving the integrity of the MPC enclosure vessel confinement boundary (fission product barrier).
(Criterion L2)
Page 14 of 42
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 No Risk Insight**: the probability or Will removing consequences of an this accident previously requirement evaluated in the cask from the CoC/TS FSAR?
result in The possibility of a new or No different kind of accident being created compared
Page 15 of 42
CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A
to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in Yes the margin of safety for This LCO ensures fuel cladding temperatures remain ISFSI or cask operation? below the limit for normal storage operations, preserving the integrity of the fuel cladding fission product barrier. Its removal would reduce the margin of safety for confinement.
Evaluation Summary Move to 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 16 of 42
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 No Specifications Operation (LCOs)* L3 Yes and Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
(Selection Criteria)
Section 4 Administrative No Controls Risk Insight**: A significant increase in No increase to the probability of any accident.
Will removing the probability or this consequences of an requirement accident previously
Page 17 of 42
CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A
from the CoC/TS evaluated in the cask Slight increase in consequences due to increased result in FSAR? dose from contamination, but not a significant increase.
The possibility of a new or No different kind of accident being created compared to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in No the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Evaluation Summary Move to 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 18 of 42
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 Yes the probability or The probability of a criticality accident would be Risk Insight**: consequences of an increased.
Will removing accident previously this evaluated in the cask requirement FSAR?
from the CoC/TS The possibility of a new or No result in different kind of accident being created compared to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
Page 19 of 42
CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A
A Significant reduction in Yes the margin of safety for Loss of criticality control would cause a significant ISFSI or cask operation? reduction in the margin of safety.
Evaluation Summary Move to Appendix B Section 3 as this LCO ensures that a subcritical configuration is maintained.
(Criterion L2)
Page 20 of 42
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 See evaluation of LCO 3.1.1 above the probability or consequences of an accident previously Risk Insight**: evaluated in the cask Will removing FSAR?
this The possibility of a new or See evaluation of LCO 3.1.1 above 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 See evaluation of LCO 3.1.1 above the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Page 21 of 42
CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A
Evaluation Summary Move to Appendix B Section 3 as these tables provide information needed to complete LCO 3.1.1. (Criterion L1)
Page 22 of 42
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 See evaluation of LCO 3.1.1 and 3.1.4 above the probability or consequences of an accident previously Risk Insight**: evaluated in the cask Will removing FSAR?
this The possibility of a new or See evaluation of LCO 3.1.1 and 3.1.4 above 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 See evaluation of LCO 3.1.1 and 3.1.4 above the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Page 23 of 42
CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A
Evaluation Summary Move to Appendix B Section 3 as these Tables provide information needed to complete LCOs 3.1.1 and 3.1.4. (Criterion L1)
Page 24 of 42
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 No the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the cask Risk Insight**: FSAR?
Will removing The possibility of a new or No this different kind of accident requirement being created compared from the CoC/TS to those previously result in evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in Yes the margin of safety for This LCO ensures fuel cladding temperatures remain ISFSI or cask operation? below the limit for normal storage operations, preserving the integrity of the fuel cladding fission product barrier. Its removal would reduce the margin of safety for confinement.
Page 25 of 42
CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A
Evaluation Summary Move to Appendix B Section 2 as this Table provides heat load limits (72.236(a)). (Criterion A1)
Page 26 of 42
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 No the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the cask Risk Insight**: FSAR?
Will removing The possibility of a new or No this different kind of accident requirement being created compared from the CoC/TS to those previously result in evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in Yes the margin of safety for This LCO ensures fuel cladding temperatures remain ISFSI or cask operation? below the limit for normal storage operations, preserving the integrity of the fuel cladding fission product barrier. Its removal would reduce the margin of safety for confinement.
Page 27 of 42
CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A
Evaluation Summary Move to Appendix B Section 2 as this Table provides heat load limits (72.236(a)). (Criterion A1)
Page 28 of 42
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 See evaluation of LCO 3.1.2 above the probability or consequences of an accident previously Risk Insight**: evaluated in the cask Will removing FSAR?
this The possibility of a new or See evaluation of LCO 3.1.2 above 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 See evaluation of LCO 3.1.2 above the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Evaluation Summary Move to Appendix B Section 3 as the information in these Tables relates to completion times for LCO 3.1.2.
Page 29 of 42
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).
- a. The HI-STORM 100 Cask System does not create any radioactive materials or have any radioactive waste treatment systems.
Therefore, specific operating procedures for the control of radioactive effluents are not required. Specification 3.1.1, Multi-Purpose Canister (MPC), provides assurance that there are not radioactive effluents from the SFSC.
- b. This program includes an environmental monitoring program. Each general license user may incorporate SFSC operations into their environmental monitoring programs for 10 CFR Part 50 operations.
- c. An annual report shall be submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3).
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 30 of 42
CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A
A significant increase in No the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the cask FSAR?
The possibility of a new or No different kind of accident being created compared to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in First statement (quoted in Evaluation Summary the margin of safety for below) - No ISFSI or cask operation?
Risk Insight**: a. - No Will removing The first sentence establishes that the HI-STORM this System does not create any radioactive materials or requirement have any radioactive waste treatment systems. The from the CoC/TS second sentence merely explains that specific result in operating procedures and reporting is not required based on the first sentence. This is not necessary for safety as implementing the unnecessary procedures and reporting would not decrease any margin to safety for the system. Similarly, the third sentence merely points to an LCO providing additional assurance that the first statement is true.
- b. - Yes Without this environmental monitoring program, radioactive material may not be controlled appropriately.
- c. - No This statement merely specifies a regulatory requirement that must be met.
Evaluation Summary Remove This program implements the requirements of 10 CFR 72.44(d) as this is a regulatory requirement that must be met. Also remove Specification 3.1.1, Multi-Purpose Canister (MPC),
provides assurance that there are not radioactive effluents from the SFSC. from item a as these are not necessary based on the risk insight discussion above. Also remove item c An annual report shall be submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) as this is a regulatory requirement that must be met.
Move the rest of the text to Appendix B Section 4, Administrative Controls. The remaining sentences in
Page 31 of 42
CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A
item a are not a safety concern but should be kept in the CoC Appendix B as they reduce the regulatory burden on the licensees. Item b should be kept in the CoC Appendix B as this program is necessary to assure that the operations involved in the storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI are performed in a safe manner.
Page 32 of 42
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 33 of 42
CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A
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 Yes the margin of safety for A significant reduction in the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation? confinement is possible if there were no restrictions on equipment used for lifting a loaded cask.
Evaluation Summary Move to Appendix B Section 4, Administrative Controls, as this provides restrictions on what equipment can used to transfer the HI-STORM System casks and canisters when they are loaded with fuel. These controls are necessary to assure that the operations involved in the storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI are performed in a safe manner such that the casks will not be dropped which could impact safety functions such as confinement.
Page 34 of 42
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 (This table is referenced in A-5.5)
Controls A significant increase in See evaluation of A-5.5 above the probability or consequences of an accident previously Risk Insight**: evaluated in the cask Will removing FSAR?
this The possibility of a new or See evaluation of A-5.5 above 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 See evaluation of A-5.5 above the margin of safety for ISFSI or cask operation?
Evaluation Summary Move to Appendix B Section 4, Administrative Controls, as this provides restrictions on what equipment can used to transfer the HI-STORM System casks and canisters when they are loaded
Page 35 of 42
CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A
with fuel. These controls are necessary to assure that the operations involved in the storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI are performed in a safe manner such that the casks will not be dropped which could impact safety functions such as confinement.
Page 36 of 42
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 There would be no increase in the probability of any consequences of an accident.
accident previously There would only be an increase in the consequences evaluated in the cask of accidents due to increased dose from the FSAR? Overpack or Transfer Cask if there was an area of Risk Insight**: reduced shielding. This protection program verifies Will removing that there is no such area of reduced shielding but this does not include an overt action involving an SSC that requirement provides shielding.
from the CoC/TS The possibility of a new or No result in different kind of accident being created compared to those previously evaluated in the FSAR?
A Significant reduction in No the margin of safety for There would be a slight reduction in the margin of ISFSI or cask operation? safety for the shielding function, but only if an area of reduced shielding exists.
Evaluation Summary 5.7.1 - Move to Appendix B section 4
Page 37 of 42
CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A
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-Move to Appendix B section 4.
These controls are important as they provide dose rate information in assessing worker dose and potentially identifying a misload.
Page 38 of 42
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 Yes and Application
Page 39 of 42
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 No Controls A significant increase in Yes the probability or This test confirms the MPC has been manufactured consequences of an correctly and will provide confinement as designed.
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 Keep in Appendix A as it describes a test to provide reasonable assurance that an MPC has been manufactured and will operate in conformance with the certified design, and that the confinement safety function will be performed.
Page 40 of 42
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 41 of 42
CoC Condition/Technical Specification Evaluation Form - CoC original Appendix A
Section 4 Administrative Yes Controls A significant increase in Yes - Lack of appropriate evaluation of the effects of the probability or aging on the dry storage equipment could result in an consequences of an increase to the consequences of a previously accident previously evaluated accident.
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 Yes - Lack of appropriate evaluation of the effects of the margin of safety for aging on the dry storage equipment could result in a ISFSI or cask operation? significant reduction in safety over time.
Evaluation Summary Move to Appendix B Section 4.
Page 42 of 42