ML093060197

Conversation Record: Diablo Canyon Site Specific ISFSI, TAC L24210, Docket No. 72-26, Held on October 7, 2009

ML093060197
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	10/07/2009
From:	Goshen J M NRC/NMSS/SFST/LID/LB
To:	Hagler R J, Heggli G W, Kabour A, Kozink K, Morin T, Parker L, Rosenbaum E, Strickland J W Holtec, Pacific Gas & Electric Co
Goshen, JM, NNSS/SFST, 492-3325
References
Download: ML093060197 (2)

Text

NRCFORM699 (9-2003)U.S.NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DATEPage1 10/07/2009 CONVERSATION RECORDNAMEOFPERSON(S)

CONTACTEDORINCONTACTWITHYOUSeebelow ORGANIZAT ION PG&E.HoUec SUBJECT Clarification of Responses to Diablo Canyonsitespecific ISFSILAR#1 I TELEPHONE NO.805-545-4162 TIME 3:30pm

SUMMARY

(ContinueonPage2)

PacificGasand Electric (PG&E)-Rich Hagler, Greg Heggli, Larry ParkerT, Chris Pendleton, hrl StricklandHoltec-Adam Kabo, Kelly Kozink, Tammy Morin, Evan Rosenbaum Contacted PG&E to I.Clarify several RAI responses provided on September1,2009.2.Discussthe confusion regarding the Diablo Canyon (DC)referencestothe Holtec generically licensed HI-STORM 100 MPC32,andDC's intenttoutilizea9" shortened versionofthe standard MPC 32.3.Thetimelineofthe changeofthe MPC32designin relationtoLAR1 and the June2008FSAR revision update.4.Have PG&E explainwhythe changeinthe MPC32designwasnot addressed 1 referencedintheLAR.5.Discuss editorial discrepancies on several pages.Proprietary stamps were provided on severalpagesonone attachment that was non-proprietary.

6.PG&E'sneedto provide a separate Proprietary Affidavitforitsspecific proprietary documents.

PG&E had provided onlytheHoltec Proprietary Affidavit for HoUec's proprietary portionoftheRAI response.Discussion

1.1 askedDCto

identify new informationintheRAI responses thatwasnot providedinthebaseLAR.Ihad reviewed theLARalongwiththeRAIsandRAI responsesandwas having difficulty determining whatspecificnew information was provided versus what was just clarification.

Mostofthenew information pertained discussedtheeffectofthe reduction of the standard MPC32by9"andtheeffect thathadonthethermal,hydraulic and confinement evaluations.

PG&E stated thatitwas their belief thattheyhadmostly clarified information that had been previously providedinthe originalLAR.I asked PG&E to'provide a table showing the RAlsalongwiththe references to information providedinthe originalLAR.I also clarified the materialsRAIs#12,13,and14.The NRC's RAI request of April9,2009, requested that PG&Erevisethe FSAR to clarifyspecificitems.The intentofthe RAlswasfor PG&E to provide responsestospecific situations,andthen commit to revising the FSARinthe future to include these responses.

Therefore, PG&E responsestoRAIs12 ,13,and14will become regulatory commitments.

Continue on Page 2ACTIONREQUIRED PG&E to providecopyof10 CFR 72.48 evaluationsusedin adopting a shortened version ofMPC 32 PG&E to provide affadavit for their proprietary responses.NAMEOFPERSONDOCUMENTING CONVERSATION John GoshenACTIONTAKEN I SIGNATURE1/DATE 10/30/2009 Reviewed 10 CFR 72.48 evaluations and forwarded to Thermal and Containment Branch PG&E provided affadavit on 10/28/09.TITLEOFPERSONTAKINGACTION Proiect ManaaerNRCFORM699(9-2003

)ISIGNATUREOFPERSONTAKINGACTION DATE 10/30/2009PRINTEDONREC YCLED PAPER Page2 CONVERSATION RECORD (Continued)

SUMMARY

(C ontinue onPage3)2.Holtec stated that during the original licensing processofthe HI-STORM 100 systemitwas decidednottospecifyadesign heightofanyofthe proposed MPCs.Thiswastoallowfor differentsitespecific requirements.

The heightusedinthe original analyseswas170".Holtec's intentwastoallow userstheflexibilityto vary the height for their specific applications,andthen either perform bounding analyses or have Holtec providespecificsitespecific calculations.

Therefore PG&E's continued referencestoan MPC-32 as approved in HI-STORM 100 general license certificate 1014 amendment1is correct even though the height was reducedby9"tomeet DC's requirements.Inits original license application DC intendedtouse the"target" MPC32which requiredDCto transport the MPC horizontallyoutthe spent fuel building hatch.In2007DC madethedecisionto changetoa shortened model thatwouldallowitto transport the MPC vertically.

This change was performed under 10 CFR 72.48 per DC's Licensing Basis Impact Evaluations (LBIEs)program.LBIE 2008-16 approved the 9" MPC-32 height reduction.

During the process of preparing the LBIEs, Jearl Strickland and Terry Grebel (ISFSI Project Licensing Manager)discussed the modifications with Randy Hall,whowastheNRC Project Manager at thattime,andhisstaff.I requested that PG&E pro videmethe applicable HI-STORM 100 and ISFSI 10 CFR 72.48 evaluations.

3.As stated above PG&E decidedin2007to changetoa shorter MPC thatwouldallowfor vertical transportation through the spent fuel building hatch.LBIE2008-16was preparedon11/23/2007and submitted for management approval.Holtec Report HI-2053376,Revision5"Thermal-HydraulicAnalysesfor Diablo Canyon Site-Specific HI-STORM System Design" was provided as supporting documentationforthissitespecific evaluation.

Other Holtec calculations and analyses were referenced in LBIE 2008-16.PG&E Letter DIL-08-003, dated March20,2008, containsthe10 CFR 72.48 Report of Changes,Tests,and Experiments for the Period of March 1,2006 , through February 29, 2008.The letter indicates that there wereno72.48s completed during that time period.PG&E requested and received a one-time exemptiontodelayits submittal oflSFSI FSAR Update,Revision2 , toallowtimeto incorporatesignificantchanges identifiedinthe attached LBIEs.PG&E did not request a one-time exemption todelayits72.48 Report , whichwas due March22,2008.PG&E submitted LAR#1on April6,2008.The LARmadeno mentionofthe changetothe MPC height or other system changessincetheywerebeing performed under 10 CFR 72.48.LBIE2008-16was approved on April 7 , 2008.FSAR Revision 2 update was provided in June 2008, and it included the reduced height MPC.4.PG&E again stated this change was evaluated and approved per 10 CFR72.48,and thereforedidnot require NRC pre-approval.

I stated thatmaybe true, but that the subsequent confusion that it createdattheNRC expended needless hours and wasted critical time.PG&E stated that they had discussed these changeswiththeNRC project managerin2008.I stated that althougheachspecific change was approvablevia10 CFR 72.48 ,theydid actually impactsomeoftheTS changes requestedintheLAR.5.1 indentified severalpageson non-proprietary material thathada proprietary notationonthem.Itold PG&E thatIhad correctedtheseand resentthemtothe document control desk.6.1 informed PG&E that a Proprietary Affidavit neededtobe provided for their portionofthe Proprietary RAI responses, and informedthemI neededthisassoonaspossible.Itold PG&E thatIwouldreviewthe10 CFR 72.48 evaluationsandwouldcallthem backifIhadany further questions.

Continue on Page 3