View source for NL-17-1560, CFR 72.48(d)(2)Biennial Report

{{Adams
| number = ML17262A966
| issue date = 09/19/2017
| title = CFR 72.48(d)(2)Biennial Report
| author name = Myers D
| author affiliation = Southern Nuclear Operating Co, Inc
| addressee name = 
| addressee affiliation = NRC/Document Control Desk, NRC/NMSS, NRC/NRR
| docket = 05000424, 05000425, 07201039
| license number = 
| contact person = 
| case reference number = NL-17-1560
| document type = Annual Operating Report, Letter type:NL
| page count = 3
}}

=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Darin J. lllyers        7821 River RD A Southern Nuclear                                    VJCe President Vogtle Units 1-2 Wcr,riesbaiO GA,
                                                                              '1IJ6..848.0004 tel 30830 1Q6.848.3321 fax SEP 1 9 2017 Docket Nos.: 50424                                                                   NL-17-1560 50425 72-1039 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission A TIN: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 10 CFR 72.48(d)(2l Biennial Report Ladies and Gentlemen:
The purpose of this biennial report is to inform the NRC of changes to the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) or change to the cask designs used in conjunction with the VEGP ISFSI by Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) in accordance with the provision of 10 CFR 72.48. This report reviewed the activities during the reporting period from September 1, 2015 to August 31, 2017. The enclosed report contains a description of the change implemented during this reporting period.
This letter contains no NRC commitments. If you have any questions, please contact Ken McElroy at 205.992.7369.
Respectfully submitted, DJM/KCW

==Enclosure:==
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 10 CFR 72.48(d)(2) Biennial Report Cc: Regional Administrator NRR Project Manager- Vogtle 1 & 2 Senior Resident Inspector- Vogtle 1 & 2 RType: PP1 .006, CVC7000

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 10 CFR 72.48(d)(2) Biennial Report Enclosure Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 10 CFR 72.48(d)(2) Biennial Report

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 10 CFR 72.48{d)(2) Biennial Report Enclosure Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 10 CFR 72.48(dK2) Biennial Report 10 CFR 72.48 Evaluation Summary The Vogtle 10 CFR 72.212 report was revised to allow use of the Cask Transfer Facility (CTF) for downloading the fuel loaded Multi-Purpose Canister (MPC) into the HI-STORM overpack when the 3-day rolling average ambient temperature is less than or equal to 90&deg;F instead of the current 80&deg;F limit. This change was determined to be acceptable in CTF thermal evaluation Hl-2125180 revision 4 that was performed by the Certificate of Compliance (CoC) holder {Holtec) and subsequent Vogtle analysis SNC808485, CTF Thermal Calculation. The 72.212 report was also revised to note a reduction of the maximum allowed MPC decay heat loads from 31 kW to 30 kW for an MPC backfilled to the high narrow range specified in the CoC, and from 26 kW to 25.78 kW for an MPC that is backfilled to the low wide range in the CoC. Additionally, the fuel selected for loading in UFLO 3 remained bounded by the revised CTF thermal evaluation. All the fuel for UFLO 3 resulted in an MPC decay heat load of less than 25.78 kW. The 80&deg;F temperature used in the original CTF thermal evaluation was based on the ISFSI annual average temp~rature given in the HI-STORM 100 FSAR revision 9.
Appropriate procedures were also revised to reflect the changes being made to the 72.212 report. The 10 CFR 72.48 screening was performed and the changes did screen in as being, an adverse change and required an evaluation. The evaluation determined that the change did not result in a more-than-minimal increase in the frequepcy of an accident, likelihood of a malfunction, the consequences of an accident, consequences of a malfunction. It also did not create the possibility of a different type of accident, or create the possibility of a malfunction with a different result than previously analyzed. It also did not have an impact on the integrity of the fuel cladding or MPC confinement boundary, and it did not result in a departure of a method of evaluation. Therefore, it was determined that prior NRC approval for this change was not required.}}