ML20245B992

Responds to 870604 Rev 02-P to CENPD-273-P, Topical SAR for C-E Dry Cap Cask for ISFSI (Dry Storage). Preliminary Exam Revealed Numerous Discrepancies & Omissions.Submittal Neither Complete or Consistent

ML20245B992
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/25/1987
From:	Roberts J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Scherer A ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING NUCLEAR FUEL (FORMERLY
References
REF-PROJ-M-43 NUDOCS 8707010521
Download: ML20245B992 (2)

Text

._

. Groject M-43 Combustion Engineering, Inc.

ATTN: A.E. Scherer, Director Nuclear Licensing M I 6 198I 1000 Prospect Hill Road P.O. Box 500 Windsor, Connecticut 06095-0500 Gentlemen:

This is in response to your submittal dated June 4, 1987, of your revised topical report (TR); " Topical Safety Analysis Report for the Combustion Engineering Dry Cap Cask for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (Dry Storage)," (CENPD-273-P, Rev. 02-P). Although other TRs, submitted prior to yours, are currently occupying NRC staff reviewers' attention, we have given your TR a preliminary examination. A number of diecrepancies and omissions have been observed (see enclosure). As a result of these, the submitted revised TR is neither cc nplete or consistent.

You may note in the enclosure that NRC staff has not mentioned issues related to criticality analyses and burn-up credit allowances. As has been previously discussed with you, examining a TR not associated with a license application is not er: effort and expense that can be readily justified. NRC staff has initiated a research effort to examine the issue of burn-up credit allowance in criticality analysis on a generic basis with a view toward establishing a branch technical position related to cask storage designs. When we have progressed to that point, NRC staff will be in a position that would allow us to address this issue in topical report reviews.

We see no reason in principle not to complete a review of your cask design, except for the criticality portion of the review. That can be left as either a site-specific issue in a licence application or for future review upon development of a staff technical position.

Let me conclude by noting that the revised TR, as submitted, needs additional work before NRC staff can continue its review. Please re-edit and resubmit it.

) If you wish to meet to discuss this, please contact Jim Schneider of my staff

) (Telephone Number 301-427-4205).

Sincerely,

[ORIGMAL mm) g John P. Roberts v-Acting-Section. Leader -

e7c7010521 e70620 Irradiated Fuel Section >

Fuel Cycle Safety Branc

, gppg PDR PROJ PW Division of Fuel Cycle, MedicEl, ~~~ ~

M-43 Academic, and Commercial Use Safety

Enclosure:

Limited Comments ec: C. Molnar

[)yc -g g g4,. -

DljlR!BUTIDNw/ enclosure .

{roject M y PDR FBrown JSchneider JPRoberts NMSS R/F "FCIF - -R/F

- FCSB RiF FS rz L c/ b e-

• 0FC: FCIF L4 %/

FC  :  :

FC tr'_ ?M __

NAME:JSch eider /as:dfiloberts: LCRouse  : /PDR_.UT____._.,..

DAh6/hf8h 6hh8h 6h[81 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY hk thtb s-m '00

Limited Comments on CE Topical Report (Rev 02-P)

Page Number ,

Responses B 3-47 In table 3.3-5, the k values calculated have been changed without 8bng noted or explained.

3-64&65 The units on the ordinate axis should be GWDjMTU or,1000 MWD /MTU. J 7-6 7-15 This section still says that the top and bottom of the cask are similar although your proposed response

• indicated that there wculd be a correction here.

Also see related tables 7.3-12 and 13 on pages 7-34 and 35.

7-7 Sections 7.4, 7.5, 7.6', and 8.1.2 should be addressed.

8-2 8-13 In section 8.2.1.2.1 the revised TR states that the radiation shield is " completely removed" during the drnp accident. However, in section 8.2.1.3 on page 8-24, it states that the cask remains intact during all drop accidents and therefore there is no increase in radiation.

5 Possible loss of the radiation shield should be addressed in the following sections of the revised TR:

Page Page Section Hevised TRJ (Proposed Responses *)

8.2.1 8-24 8-6 and 8-9

- 8.2.2 8-26 I 8-10 8.2.3 8-27 8-10 8.2.5 8-34 8-12 8.2.6 8-35 8-13~

8.2.7 8-37 8-13 8.2.9 8-39 8-14 8.2.10

• 8-45 8-14 If any of these accidents could cause a loss or reduction in shielding, dose calculations should be

^

provided.

8-9 8-24 Section 8.2.1.3 did not change as the proposed

< response

• indicated it would.

8-13 8-38 The analysis requested in our initial comments for section 8.2.8.2 of the TR was not provided.

• Contained in your submitted letter dated October 17, 1987.

1 s b ~