Docket Nos. 50-27550-323

September 9, 1986 DISDI STRI BUTDocket FiPD¹3 Rdg.H. SchierlingC. Vogan

MEMORANDUM FOR: H. Denton*R. Vollmer*J. Lyons*H. Thompson*F. Miraglia*R. Bernero*G. Holahan*T. NovakF. Schroeder

R. W. HoustonD. CrutchfieldE. RossiG. LainasT. SpeisW. RussellJ. MilhoanR. BallardC. Berlinger

F. RosaV. BenaroyaB. ClaytonL. Rubenstein* .G. LearB. J. YoungbloodS. VargaV. Noonan

THRU:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Steven A. Varga, DirectorProject Directorate ¹3Division .of PWP, Licensing-A

Hans E. Schierling, Senior Project ManagerProject Directorate ¹3Division of PWR Licensing-A

DAILY HIGHLIGHT

Plant Name Diablo Canyon Reinstallation of Original Spent FuelRacks under 10 CFR 50.59

On September 5, 1986 Region V requested NRR to review the PGLE safetyevaluation performed according to 10 CFR 50.59 for the reinstallation of., thp.original fuel racks into the Unit 1 spent fuel pool. 5RR staff will discusswith PGEE details of the installation in a meeting on Wednesday, September 10,1986. Originally the racks had been bolted to the spent fuel pool floor usinganchors. The bolts had been cut off and the liner surface prepared for the new;high density racks which would be freestanding. The original racks are beingreinstalled by welding the feet to embed plates which are welded to the liner.PGRE started the welding process on September 5, 1986 and all original racks areexpected to be fully reinstalled by September 19, 1986. As of September 8, 1986the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had not issued a final decision regardingintervenors reouest for a stay of our license amendment authorizing use of thehigh density racks, pending a hearing on this matter.

Hans Schierling, Senior Project ManagerProject Directorate ¹3Division of PWR Licensing-A

PD¹3, ) PJM~~-~HSchie i%g SVarga9/$ /86 9~/5 '/86

THESE COPIES MUST BE HANDCARRIED

ENCLOSURE 3

PGIIE Design Changes Safety Eva1uation Summaryand Design Change Detai 1s

(25 pages)

C,I

>PRIORITY

Required Condition, Mode, orOperability Status to Implement:

PlantSystemComponent

r oreAt

1of1

~0: N r-KQSz~ IDESIGN CHANGE COVER SHEET

hg O RevieÃer 'h» v+ ~

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE:

re]ew ~ ~ ~ i~ 8'~

REASON FOR CHANGE:

Q» ~p/»/r $ Aj» Q~ei D~7g+~ E/vlf'~g

EFFECT ON PLANT OPERATION

D Not Applicable

~ /P

/g i P/f $$JP/g ~/f /yygP 4 i/'S ////~//~~7 4/» p//~~/ ~P ~r~jg err~/ ~~gg+crgr////ygn.

RESPONSIBLE DISCIPLINE

TR-56 - l/23/86

+I

43

DESIGN CHANGE PACKAGE FOLLOWER

P dure No . ONAttach BP of I

DCPN ~-g 5 /5 +- R /COST 6 SCHEDULING/ENGINEERING

\ ~ ~C 5 l 1I'Iyt A IEngineering Start 4-i-8Construction CompleteEst ima ted Total Cost

0yrCost, 6 Scheduling Spv. 4~

D

Engineer 5 I'/2Approved (EGS)Accepted (PE)

ate6 (II . / 7 Not Required (level of effort)

Scope Approved

NPG APPROVAL

By DateSchedule Approved

By Date

Package Separation Requested / yes

Budget Approved: / 7 additionaPackage re)ected (reason)

Authorizing Job Estimate Job Order Num

/ / no

/ / existing'

L Oo o tSsI

DESIGN

Engineer

Approved (grp ldr)

CONSTRUCTION PL T STAFF REVIEWBy Date By Date

ENGINEERINGB Dae By Date

Pr

Accepted (PE) )(IkflÃNRT)'dfk i" 8 ) 8 6jj

Received by EMPSRC Approves (y/n)Reason for Re5ection

Plant Manager ApprovalTransmitted By

Imp to Env

Date

(y

CONSTRUCTION

By DateReceived Installation CompleteStart Up Complete As Builts-Attd (y/n)Released by Package Coordinator DateFC No. FCTs

ACCEPTANCE PLANT STAFF

By DateReceived uork complete Staff revieu comPlete

By Date

By Date

Plant Manager Final ApprovalTransmitted By Date

ENGINEERING CLOSE OUT

Date

All design documents issued for Operation:

RES PurgedBy Date

Pro)ect EngineerRMS Indexed

Date

By Date

TR-56 - I/23/86

edure N ONhttac GP 1 of

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DCP8~ - 5 5/5Z- RPage 1 of J

DCN NUMBER

bc — &-X5/h26c/- EC- s /5

CURRENTREVISION ATTACHED LATER"

SEE NEXT SHEET FOR ADDITIONAL DCNS / / Yes ~/ No

* DCNs identified to be-provided under approved package separation

D

TR-56 - 1/23/86

'1

f

P.

%1

c

H

'4

'G+Es

UrtAttac i CP tof2

I-

0cc

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COENGINEERIN DfPARTMENTSANNO. L O gPRIORITY NO.

Tot

Structure or System:

Component: ~>D...;pt,......:r

Reason for ange: ~

f'UC

LIA ll ~ VI ~ 4 Pl PLANNTDESIGN CKANGE

(P NT)

F.

DATEDCN NO. ~~"35/5 Z.REV. NO.~SHEET 5 Oi

Sys No. s

ScheduleiJustirication:

List of Attachments Not on DDL.

Requested by: ~

CO

Requested Change is:

D Approved per delegation of authorityg. Approved

D Noted, document change not required0 Rejected (explain)

0 Ptr telecon with on(lf required by delegation of authority)As built documents required

C3 Approved, document change only

Discipline Engineer ate

Safety Related Work: P Yts D NcrImportant to Environmental Quality: 0 Yes JiZ. NoRevitwed By:

Group Leader,'Supervisor

,,r, -/.',.

/ 'Date

OCN required to close an NCR 0 Yes JH- NoNCR No.

z'

su

Installation Complete

Start up Complete

Bv Date

Receive>4 Engineering

Accepted Engineering

By Date

Revisions ApprovedAccepted NPO

pip;/rJ~i~tw] .oi P'h~ ~

*

p4

R

gE

DESIGN EVALUATIONdure ON

Atta Ce2of2

DCN No. LORY

Page 2 of

1. DFRTGN DOCUMENT REVIEW. The following documents are relevant to this change andhave been originated, reviewed, or require revision as indicated:

Document. No.. Rev. ~Ori ineted Revieved Re vires Revision~ Q-List~ Design Criteria Memorandums

~ Calculations

~ Design Verification Reports

2. LICENSING. The following NRC Licensing submittals are relevant to this changeand have been reviewed as indicated below. Where a revision is required,Licensing has been notified.

Document Revieweda. FSARb.

Re uires Revision~ '

3. SAFETY ISSUES. The following issues could affect the safety evaluation;Engineering results/conclusions for each are a follows (Use additional sheets

~ %%@WC=~

~ Issue BResults Conclusions:

4. COORDINATIONDesign Package Lead Discipline

Coordination Required: [ ) No ~ Yes Coordinated With:De artment En i er (Si nature) Date

E i-$6DCN Re uired

NoYesYesYesYesYes

.r Yes

No

NoNo

TR-56 - I/23/86

f(

b+~8CI~W-$$/S 2. rtf/P'~

~P! 3/g 4 /+~PiJ y'e

r+J4l

eagrevW - A.

hl'

@~ gl+Jg4 < 1+~ digm/s 4 ~ gyi Xu~4g~4/

17

4

PACZF~ QAS 44n ~f.RVFRTt! chHPANYDEPAR~ OF NUCLEAR PLANT OPERATIONS ~

DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT UNIT NOS. ) AND 2

DESIGN CHANGE SAFETY EVALUATION SVMMARY

6USJRCTg Remove Jose h Qae hS h donsSt v gI t f»ol g:tnt' g'Asks Andbrid e lates from el ool. Modif and reinstall ori anals ant uel store e racks.

DCP Number< M-35152 R)

2. Classification

DCSE Numbers 1078 Ul

Does this change affect~

Ae The FSAR7B. The Q-List7C. Security7D. The Emergency Plen7Ee Pire Protectian7P. Does the proposed design change have the

potential..to impact any area of the environ.ment or the Environmental QualificationReport7

G. Xs the affected equipment important tosafety7

H. Es the affected equipment important toenvironmental quality2

I. Xs radioactive material contained in thesystem or does the change affect ALA1%7

Is the change a ma)or radioactive Mastetreatment system change7

K. Will it require a change in the TechnicalSpecifications7

~es No

(x) ( }(x) ( )( ) (x)

} .(x)( ) (x)( } (x)

(x) ( -)( ) (x)(x) ( )( ) (x)(x) ( )

3. ReferencestDCP M-35152 ROFSAR Q.l 3.2 3.8.2

Tech. S ecs. 3 4.9e ulator Guide 1. 13 Rev. 1

If any af phe~revious questions have been answered"yes", co+lgt4~epext page(s) befare answering L.L. Hes thts been de4xblge I Q.wnnstitnte an ( ) ( X )

unreviewed safety question,"~:gn Ieagyviewedenvironmental question7(Yes if any of questions )p 2, 3, or 4b'gafollowing page(s) are marked yes) 'j

DC)>,c>

Performed by: P. V. Holton Datei 8 19/86

Bevkaw@4 bye s R @~oh t

PSRC Review!

Tlat a I

AUG 28 1986

>i

I tv

DESIGN CHANGE PACKAGE SAFETY EVALUATION

Is the possibility of an accident or malfunction of adifferent type than any evaluated previously in the'FSAR created7

Yes No( ) ( x )

The racks being re-installed are of the «arne configuration asthose on vhich the FSAR's original accident and malfunctionevaluations vere based. The modifications to the

racks'racingand the welding to the liner pI@a are per code and donot oppose current FSAR restrictions. Note that the abovestatements are made assuming the re-installation is performedonly vhile the spent fuel pool is void of any new or spentfuel.

2. Is the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Yes NoTechnical Specification reduced2 ( ) ( x )

While Tech Spec...section 3/4.9 (Figure 3.9-1) vill have tobe revised, the bases supporting this section do not defineany specific safety margin that vould be decreased by thismodification.

3. Is the probability of occurrence or the consequencesof an accident or malfunction of equipment importantto safety previously evaluated in the FSAR increased2

Yes No( ) ( x )

For the reasons stated in item 1 above, returning the spentfuel storage racks to their original configuration (vith smallmodifications) is consistent vith previous accident andmalfunction evaluations and would therefore not increase theprobability or consequences of the FSAR evaluations.

4. h. Environmental Evaluation

Briefly describe the nature of the environmental impact(s) causedby the design change.

Negligible. Production of radioisotopes from reactor operationsvould be unchanged. The vork will be done while the spent fuelpool is void of fuel so there vould not likely be any significantradiological impact to vorkers or generation of rad-vaste duringconstruction phase. Since the racks have already been fabricated,the increase in resources needed to perform the work vould beminimal.

B. Unrevieved Environmental Question

Does the change involve an unreviewedenvironmental question2,

Yes No

( ) ( x )

Explain.

See 4A above.

f

I]/

V~

'RIORITY

Required Condition, Mode, orOperability Status to I--I"m"nt:

PlantSystemComponent

ura

1of1

~o: ~ 3~+9'z~ /DESIGN CHANGE COVER SHEET

NPO Reviewer Date

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE:

4W fdic WArr i~+/ig~~n~ ~~r~kf

REASON FOR CHANGE:

g» ~pa~ $ Pi» G~i &7g+y5e''Pe/fg»/rg 4'Mri

EFFECT ON PLANT OPERATION:

C3 Not Applicebie /P~/kc, jQiz EC/is ~> Idden I/'»

IlESPONSIBLE DISCIPLINE

TR-56 - I/23/86

g4

J$

P>',

DESIGN CHANGE k'At MGi FOLLOWER

P dure No . ONhttachmP of I

DCPP ~-g 5 /5 2 - R /D t

Prsm'c -'

y ateNot Required (level of effort)Cost 6 Scheduling Spv.

COST 6 SCHEDULING/ENGINEERINGESTIHATEEngineering Start EngineerConstruction Complete -" - ~ hpproved (EGEstimated Total Cost Accepted (PE

Scope Approved

NPG APPROVALBy Date

Schedule gpprovedBy Date

/ / existing

Package Separation Requested / yes ~ noBudget hpproved: f7 additiona

Package re5ected (reason)huthorising Job Estimate Job Order Num L Z UZ- oooo'/DESIGN

Engineer

hpproved (grp ldr)

CONSTRUCTION

Received by EMPSRC hpproves (y/n)Reason for Rejection

T STAFF REVIEWBy Date

imp to Environ (y

By Date

ENGINEERINGDa e By Daterr C

~ ~

dcceptcd (PE} I}(I(()(((NRT}'e}k} 8-}8 (}t} .

Plant Manager ApprovalTransmitted By Date

Da

CONSTRUCTION~ By . Date

Received installation CompleteStart Sp Complete ds Su(its-gttd (y/n}Released by Package Coordinator DateFC No. FCTs

By Date

hCCEPTANCE PLANT STAFFBy Date

Received work complete Staff review completeBy Date

Plant Manager Final ApprovalTransmitted By Date

ENGINEERING CLOSE OUT

Date

hll design documents issued for Operation:RMS Purged

hy (m tea

Pro5ect EngineerRMS Indexed

Dare

B Bre /gTR-56 - I/23/86

$t f

edure N . ONhttac GP 1 of

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DCPS ~ - 5 i /$ Z- R (Page 1 of ~

DCN NUNBER

ec - m- 5/~2-bc(- EC-7 r5

CURRENTREVISION ATTACHED LATER*

SEE NEXT SHEET FOR ADDITIONALDCNS / 7 Yes ~/ No

* DCNs identified to be provided under approved package separation 4 I'1

D

TR-56 - 1/23/86

Qlf

P 6+K

NUC LEAR POVYE R PLANTDESIGN CHANGEPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

PRIORITY NO

DCNND i Cf a-i,-9s/82REV. NO.SHEET 1 OF

~q) P

~~.'.

1

c

DESIGN EVALUATION

DCN No 2t"/-eC - aSVS-ZRev ~ No. '

»ge 2 tf1. DESIGN DOCUMENT REVIEl". The folloving documents are relevant to this change and

have been originated, revieved, or require revision as indicated:

Document, No., Rev.~ Q-List~ Design Criteria Memorandums

C-3 ~

No

~ CalculationsSZ ~ IS

~ Design Verification Reports

2. LlCENSING. The folloving NRC Licensing aubmittals are relevantand have been re;ieved as indicated belov. Mhere a revision isLicensing has been notified.

to this changerequired,

Documenta. FSARb.

Revieved Re uires RevisionY'c=g

l3

3 ~ SAPETY ISSt'ES. The following issues could affect the safety evaluation;Engineering results/conclusions for each are as follovs (Use additional sheetsas needed):

~ Issue h Se~~ AResults/Conclus ons:

~ Issue BResults Conclusions:

4. COORD1NAT10NDesign Package Lead Discipline ~ac%~ ~LCM

Coordination Required: ( ) No M Yes Coordinated Pith:De artmentMe

En ineer (Si n ure)~gdn/inca r)

DCN Re uiredAI4vves

YesYesYesYesYea

NoNoNoNoNo

l3TR-se - I/23/ge

i ,M C

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANYENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

DESIGN DOCUMENTS LIST~ DOCLIMENTSAFFECTED BV DESIGN CHANGE NOTICE IDCN}

~ I

.ANT DCN NUM8ER '/-EC- 9'S'/O'Z REVISION DATE Z ~~~~ ENGINEER

OOCUMEIIT

NUMIERef/'n/-ca gr4~cg 4/7

SH r REVISIOII

CURREIIT IIITERIM AS 8UILTOOCUMEIITTITL'E

Pmm Der>rL,s - Sj our FveC P~6)9L — r~ tT

Spe p~e/'&rapa R~&sSe r~s Z g spcgW

e/ Sero e a

DATE

COMI'LETEO

DATE

AtfROVED

TR-56 - I/23/86

b ~

k~ ~

f0725-0 4

Q3 —=-%

ur. 'IT~P sHr2

f 5'-9

I

g T> 2~fP Si>7:Q.

7-0 .t 9 -0

CASKP/7

95-0 4

5ppg7 FIDEL POOL PcAhf 5> ELE'I/.99'M8/=P4 I 'OCC'7IOM F'L-

X1C

g

E

l&1885

~o~ ~~ abc/e7.

EXIS7; BOLT 4 Hum

SHINl 4 AS g&20

1

I~ S~T Fua( EAc'K

I

II

I

I h/P78'AZL, SZrg g~f~o/ /I u

~ 'I

l

'L

Ml-CC- 8 ~~(SX R I Setsg'NID4 Tozz) DMN BRAcgE7

Al8kV3"plN/ gp

NMn~s em s inc IwgcIv g jw L+ACE

I

I

I

I EXi~7: earsg H~z ce

I

sei~W a~'kEC2'D

g'F hl844/

+ FAR WRD ~izE, -E~ -«A~F~l~QCHOC PL

v e~~e-~ rJc &Itic~ ic

~EL,O Size Q ~sw~d TH.

CASe lT

DATE SCALEh/7 5

Q]49L 0 CANYON/ oRAWING NUMIIEII ~PACIFIC OA5 AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ZK-491- ~lSAN FltAHCJSCO. CALlPOltNIA

e NIC sC'".I!

1'

pJ ~Gal s ~r- M.

Qu

V SCih+

(( of cc//(Ty~.'l

I:9't, I'9':9'I iI

I

Art"E

Eoc*~S

(JS cc/ld

I ~

... - lI-'-ct i

(wI.+II

(.$ .~.) l

C~ +7(SSca/9

r~z's(SOu//i)

it of COntaismt~t

e

f

I

.'

~fI

t'

JI

I

~ I-C ofcell

O I g

Al PLJEL S'7 ORAWAY RACKS-Z OCArio~ p~A~ EEL 9V

A,vP'EL.D5'EF.

DwS. cf 9V 5'I 5

ls~rs

g]4 9L 0 CAA/YON 'N IT I ovwwr au~szaPACIFJC GA5 ANb ELECTltlC COMPANY

IAX F JLAXCLSCO, CALI'FOltHLA

h

h 9't>m 4 e~f '4lrg e

i t '

bvQg7'r oQ

~f~1 seek ~ t de P Slihiny eyes t

~eslP/. 0 e 8JV. XS.

qLJ AJI

~ ~ $ ~

.~7„'SOT.

—CZstsfgJsgtgf C&~f

~ts-I4—hay. CM'c.

beck@- J s~ >i

~ ~I

I ~-)

'SYTT'<'

s (pe)

y ~ ~ as i q e ~

C.dsvsj.

C~ate> ~ Ln o4

J5ar Csg

SEC7lGA/ " Z . s~4

PATE SCALE> l

'P

j

Ki.EC-9 &I&2 P Ir%PW

TYP BOP/END5

7)cN sar Q ps )g

I I

I

I i~

~

A/ElV8Ag 2 «/4S.S, AS'-24ii7v're Soph7/A/ LEN~Th' I —4

~x/sr,

>SATE

Ace ver~./s A~a ex/sr/A/sExc'Ep7 As zwwrv,

g mam aaRex/sr GAS

73E TA /l > sm5'vp

8 pc.~cd /E:a ~AC<

TE SCALErv 7S

7C

D!4BL0 CANTO/VPACIFIC GA5 AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

SAN FltANCLICO, CAUFOltNIA

NiCROF II.

s i l~'g~

Z galaxyEP'iST- g2xzx jj

G)c/57

'EXES 7; )—.f>V-'g

EXi~~is

II

I

I

IIII

IIII

I IIIII

I

I

III

I

~isr.)BRAC/uC> g ~ p+

B4R Pg xbEA/S7 .

8/Fl. g0 VER/Ff'

'ap~/ Z/~eq

IIIII

IIII'l

I

?e ~ ~ S ri ~ ~

~\ ~ t

SPEuT FuE/ RACK Nu. 8W'ES7 Fj4 C 2 On/L. 7

ZETA/L.

A E SCALEurS

O'ACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANYSAX FltAHCtSCO, CAUFOltXIA

SMEET NO. OFDRAWING NUMSER fKt'o

SK-48ysol&ICPQF II N

'I

ey rI,

f

A

~ .

~ Sprrrr OI f rra TS'. a Irrga(l~)t

I"

Qc. l-0' $ = iSR W (I pc< 5sT 1$ c F;4.NOTe S/ ~~/ l. >".-I«g

'lpl

WN- ZC(- a.C-S Sz R.l DCH 5HZ 12 eel

Bechtel National, Inc.Engineers-Constructors

FiftyBeate StreetSan Francisco. CaliforniaMsi(Address, p 0 Bol 3966.sanFranciaco,ch 94119

A. Sudhakar

Diablo Canyon Pro)ect, LovDensity Spent Fuel RackBechtel Welding,Job 18269

T. J. AndersonB. D. HackneyR.A.Manley/F.C.BreismeisterDCC 15521-53

Date:

From'Of:

ht:

August 15, 1986

T. C. Wiesner

R&D/Materials & QualityServices Department

50/15/A12 8-3114

Materials and Quality Services has reviewed the proposed DCN (No. DCl-EC-35152) and have the following comments and recommendations.

A plyvood mock-up constructed in our laboratory has demonstrated that allof the proposed velds of the hold down brackets to the liner embeds arecapable of being made. Some of the velds are more difficult to make thanothers due to restricted access. The attached sheet is an enlargement ofSheet 7 of the DCN and shovs the eight racks and the four welds on each(indicated by letters).

The racks should be installed in such a sequence as to reduce the number of"difficult"velds (those vith the tightest access problems). The suggestedsequence is: Rack Ol, 4, 7, 8, 3, 6, 2 and 5 ~ the most difficult veldsbeing 8IA, 8D, 5B and 6B. It is recommended that prior to actual velding,the velders be trained on a full scale mock-up or the actual racks.M&QS foresees no distortion problems with velds to the embeds. Sheet 9 of12 of 'the DCN does shov a potential distortion problem vhen adding the new2" x 1V'tainless bar to the existing cross bracing or stiffener. Thesevelds should be made by velding toward the "free" or unrestrained end orsection {i.e. the side velds at one end should be velded first, then theopposite end side velds folloved by the end velds).

Option 2 on sheet ll of 12 for repair of damaged bar is preferred. Ifdamaged bar can be left in place option 2 becomes even better.M&QS is available to provide additional mock-ups or welder training shouldthe pro5ect require. Please call this office if you have further questions.

T. C. WiesnerTCW/sla

Attachment

tL

~ ~ 7'0

~ e

5'0'lyccn(rp~!

~ e7-'0 ~ v-o 7'o

~ ~ 0 ~ t

I jL ~

I

C'

I

c

e

c'C

~l

c 0

0 1~'>

,'2

I1

~t

I

Ji

rk of C'ontdinmtnf

a~ ~» aaJ

GM~PVEL zTORARE RAcK5:~'&CARI&A/.Wc'.A/I/ 9'L 99'5

ENCLOSURE 4

I

PG&E Telephone Call SummaryList of 21 NRC questions

of September 8, 1986(5 pages)

J"

lg

,I

PV ~ 7 t OQ~ QQ

DRAFT

See Below

to See Below

TELEPHONECALLS

DF

OF

""'re.l4JOI Mo.

$0820

OATS

9I8I86I

TIME],pp

tTIae nF O!SCVaa!ON ACTIOtt RED'b tlNCLUDK 'NAMSS L bATSS)

Sub ect: S ent Fuel Racks

From: B. S. Lew

S. Johnson

B. Giffin

M. R. Tres.le.r.

C, 0. Coffer

G. H. Moore

.R. Lieber

J. Gisclon

PGandE

To:

P. Beckham

E. C, Connell

D. Ovadia

S. Bhattacharya

D. W, Ogden

Holton

H. E. Schierlin

D. Jeng

F. Rinaldi

Bechtel

Kaiser

NRC

Hans indicated the discussion should be

~ limited to technical issues, and not the 10 CF'.-", 50.59

evaluation.

P. Jen had thp fnllowinc !;

'\

E

fv

Vv ~ Z g PVi PQPage 2 ofg

thOM .F I;

To

TELEPHONECALLS

OF

OF

""'ZS.14DOS NO.

N4t0

~9/8/86

1:00 p.m.

ITRMS OF DSCV$$ 10N ACTION REO'D. (INCLVDE NAAlgla DATIgI

010COI 1 S

to 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation

2. What is the status of installation of the

original rocks? What was done to remove1

the anchor bolts? (Tinkle)

3. NRR would l'ike to review the proposed

FSAR changes associated with reins-

tallation of the original racks (Civil)

.4. What does "essentially unchanged" mean

as used in the Hechanical design evaluatio

(DC1-EN-35152). Me should be more specifi

what are the differences? (NOS and Civil)

5. What is the basis for the 50 pound

criteria for drag load testing? (Tresler)

6. We indicated the original racks will be

cleaned before reinstallation; what

procedures will be used? (i.e., no iron,

etc.) (Tinkle)

7. Justify why there is no need to change

the design calculatibns for the racks;

address seismic adequac . Are the

ea Ili & l conclusions stil 1 valid? (Civil)B. Di~:us~ z'.~ engineering analysis to show

hc': '.h! le=.d transfer path may have chang

fro.. bo't'ng to welding, (State

It

pdla,(1

t

I C' t O' QV ~ 7 I QV~ VV

Page 3 of 5

TELEPHONECALLS

Of 026,14 9/8/e6

Oe JOI No,N4FOTIME

1:OQ p.m.

ITIMsor DIscuaaION ACTIok 100'D. IIHCI UOE NAMEIa OATEII

a m i etc. Civil

etr din s on the rack

iv

10, r in weld reinforcement - wh did we

make the"modification to the rack bracin ?

id we consider all the effects of the

chan e? (i.e., local considerations,t m r ture etc. Civil

ll. N hect 9 of 9 - what is the basis for1983 versi n of ASIDE Code? Civil

12. U1CCUSC the snstal)at>on se uence tor the

ori inal ~acks weldin access and sequenc

etc. Tinkle

13. Rh were the anchor bolts not restored to

the ori inal condition. (Civil)

4 Ar uirements and the materials

the sam as initiall revved b the Stafhat are the differences? Tinkle)

15. Clarif the details of the embedded lates

d h r late. Ex lain the load

0 5 OCD I 5 1

pat f r mi ds o he slabCi'vi 1

rate further on the statement that

S r sees no roblem with distortion,

P,.l~

~.q

~p

Page 4 of 5

To

TELKPHONF.CALLS

OF

SII.E026.14

JOS NO.%5ltD

OATE9/8/86

I

{

I

TIME1:00 p.m.

ITEMS OF DISCuSSION ACTION hEO'D. (INClUOE NAMES L DATESI

>OCNt >

war fn etc. with re ard to welding to

the embedded lates. Mill welding affect

the leak-ti htness of. the liners (Civil)

17. Have the holddown brackets on the corner

of each .rack been revised in any way from

the orf fnal designs If so, howl Are theload paths different? (Civil)

18. Were war fn and dstortfon considered when

desi nfn the rack bracing modfffcatfon7

Civil/GC

19; Does the new anchorage and other rack modi

ffeatfons affect the seismic analysis and

ualiffcatfon of the orfgfnal racks'narticular, th ensfon and compression

aspects arising from rack rocking should

be addressed. (Civil)

20. Consfderin the limited access, how can

we be assured that the anchorage

'eldments will be of good qua1ity and abl

to transfer the design laodst (GC)

21. What t e of analysis was originallyerformed for the racks7 What was done

recentl which caused the changes'ow

did we consider the interaction of the

CQ

Page 5 of

to

TELEPHONECALLS

OF

OF

F II.%026.14

JDl NO.fNF0

9/TIME

1:

ITIMbOF DIbCVSSION ACTION hKQ'D. IINClVDKNAMbb4 D

8 rack modu1es as part of the original

ualification of the racks? (Civil)

A meet)ng was scheduled for September 10, 1986

$ n Sethesda to discuss these qustions.

DAO den:ry

ENCLOSURE 5

PG8E Viewgraphs Used at Meeting September 10, 1986(ll pages)

I

1

I<

1

I

J4 ~ v r Ir g ~o

seek!(r! f9'IIINIM(sass asttseslts sl NII.at teee aeesee sr r Isl N gee tr r

vi

hSCC IO IIN CCLLC)

I ~ae»

ACR WC(tC CCLLC)

11'at(aa CCLLC)

hsCR lO ~(COCCLLC)

II

I

I AS)(stet

~last

rw ttselhsCR Nl5(O'I CCLLC)

hiO( hL0($% CCLLC)

11C(( h(L 2(3$ CCLLCI)

1LC(( It(L ~(3C CCLLC)

Cg

l lllkj I%ISEQIQ!LJL-

MI% WN % ~R0 Is &I ress &WCS A &~ Nwe I rsr.r ~ ~t

sa!saL4

testee &ItlaesN taasf (ste)% tra taW N tf

ital

SNI+)

$8%%QC%%

L gns ~~ &~IIIrra 0 c(IL(tats Wa rs ~ ts ~ ~ lQgI

i r re eat r q ass ~ ~ aS~t Cllrcsln+SIC that h WI IStall ate Ire as~i ~ IL(sr~tent 0%%,

L ~N~ WCS Ns taact Oa& WI~ N 4% t&a irate wsa.

g rect tra %IS %l rr IO SNS s N (tata'atlsa~ ~. ~ Nail ~lw N tssas II~sll

~IN,~ acta seNLI aas attsM w Nates w wr Iw Isle

~tt ease eee tse Irrtee r aee searsstela' ~ aa wast Neesssee r

~ eats eel aasaa N startle IINLfall lel,~0 watt r aal Narsa aaea re llaees

~assis aaasa N eaeNMI se ee aee Isaacte sat &l stsa eesa

IL reseal aasseeet ~ IINeNN r tateaeeaaa tasee eaa N see te Oo~ale I%a seeeL

FSAR POATEUNlTS 0 AND 2

OIAbLO CANYON IlTEFIOUhfLt ~ 2

Sff.NT FL%LSTOhA0%

J.

V„

rV

F/

rlI V

I;

I ~

. DELETE REFERENCE TO1" gf BOLT

~AH~ ~ M WK ~ %K f %%Wf ~ McO M %KM(-Fof F

AIKHOh Qk.T ttMIIIO tLATf(fTt)SCCLNLCO %0 tOOL tlAXA tV Ci~Oa

QCgLL ( g LCCLL

Ol ~I 4

KVJ~i

7I~tI

Lttttg~t)

mm'ITION F-FCTI N

PROPOSED FSAR CHANGE

C

ti,

S ~OI/a 4mr.s

g LPs Jag

~ ~ Naif

AT

ca eQ~+ ceeeer

. CAet.-/cga

Lse6

e

I

~Coj Safal

IllCINfle

BACKGROUND

o RACKS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED IN 1970FOR DE AND DDE LOAD1NG CONDITIONS

o RACKS CHECKED FOR POSTULATED

HOSGRI 'EVENT USING ORIGINAL

METHODOLOGY

a DESIGN AND DESIGN METHODOLOGY

REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED BY NRC

(PER SER, OCT. 16, 1974)

EXTRACTED FROM HERp OCTOBER 3.6g 1974

Nev and Spent Fuel Stora e

Fuel handling anc} ¹torage facilities for each un're provided forstorage and transfer of nev and spent fuel. Spent fuel vtll be atoretundarvater in the spent fuel ¹torage pool awk net fuel villbe Itoroh dryin the new tuel storage area. The new and syent tuel itorage racks are de-

signed to prevent a¹¹enblies froa being placai in other than prescribed

locations. The nev fuel ¹torage area accoae4ates one-thir6 of a cora

and the spent fuel pool zccoaodate¹ a full core pLus the eornaL quantityof spent fuel as¹ambLie¹ froI the reactor durSag refueling (usually

one-third ot a core).'he fuel i¹ ¹tored in a verticaL array vith sufficientcenter to -cen-ter distance betueen assemblies to assure that k gg will notexceef Oe90, even if unborataf eater i¹ used to f&1 the pool. ~

1

'e

concluc}e that the de¹in¹ of the nev and spent fuel storage

facilitie¹ are acceptable.

. D RACKS RE-EVALUATED FOR DE i DDE ANDHOS GRI LOADING CONDITIONS IN 1986,USING ORE GINAL NETHQQOX OGY i ANDSHOWN TO BE ADEQUATE.

(

Design load forcritical anchor

ISONETRIC TYP. RACK

1jl Pie eq

ilOi

NEiVEL4g 2 «I+4.s.s. Asrri 8-z4Pvvee an+Nuf LfASQi/-4

E'P/S7. HA+

PROCEuuRE To QIRlWZE EiSTORTIOQ

Qlhese ~l@s aheuld be aude by welding toward the "free"

mr ~~t:rained end or section (i.e. the side welds at

wee cimii ahold be welded first, then the opposite endolde ee.]ds folloved by the end velds a.e Shown).

~ ~'a

TY( ~ ~

~ ~~as~a

g4

-3

CrtSrP)7

I .

~pI

~ ~

II

-o e

5PENT FOES PML RAN 8 ELEY-99BNBED C LOCÃTlOV PL AAl

IllCROFJLK

ce

I

II

II

II

.IIIIIII

~4

I4 sTuD g2>g P A5L.B

drwe Ba&-uP~+so W

DE7A lL kflhle I SPENT FueL~CKSAvc~C + /

H~m LIu+R 4kw~P

~ g ~ + ~~ ~r

~ ~

~ ~' ~

I II

GASES ~ P~.Q @~"x 8+2 "~+2

'%U

~ ~ ~

~ ~

e

~ ~

SEC TIOA/ 4

lo

illCROFNJl

0'4

I

~WRI~~l5MR&R~I

4&

r

dh

r ~ rr

e ~