ML19015A377

Appendix 2.10.9 - Alternative Secondary Lid Leak Test Port Performance Through Chapter 8

ML19015A377
Person / Time
Site:	07109291
Issue date:	01/10/2019
From:	Orano USA, TN Americas LLC
To:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Shared Package
ML19015A399	List: ML19015A366 ML19015A370 ML19015A372 ML19015A373 ML19015A377
References
E-52931, Rev. 1
Download: ML19015A377 (73)

Text

Appendix 2.10.9 Alternative Secondary Lid Leak Test Port Performance 2-27

Alternative Secondary Lid Leak Test Port Performance Introduction The LiquiRad (LR) provides a leak-tight closure at the primary and secondary lids using double 0-ring seals. Leak test p011s are provided at each double 0-ring seal to facilitate the required leakage tests.

The primary lid test p011 is a vertical po11 located on the primary lid, as shown in Detail L of drawing LR-SAR, sheet 3 (see Appendix 1.3.1). The seconda1y lid test pm1 has three optional configurations: a ve11ical po11 located on the secondmy lid, a horizontal pm1 located on the secondary lid, and a horizontal pm1 located on the secondary lid flange (also shown on LR-SAR, sheet 3).

The performance test prototype (described in Appendix 2.10.4) used the vertical test ports at both the primaiy lid and the secondmy lid. The objective of this evaluation is to demonstrate that the 0-ring seal performance is not compromised by the use of the optional test port configurations that were not present in the performance testing.

Discussion During the pe1formance testing of the LR prototype, the package was subjected to a 30-foot drop onto the top end of the package,. Post-test inspection of the outer lid and inner lid assembly showed that the outer lid had contacted the secondary lid, leaving an imprint on the outer lid as shown in photo 1. The secondary lid was found to be undamaged.

Thus, the design pe1formed as expected, with the outer lid absorbing the energy of the impact.

The vertical test pm1 used for the performance tests {Test P011 Option 1) is plugged when not in use and has a relatively low profile. Impact by the outer lid during the 30-foot drop scenario did not occur, since the pm1 plug was shielded by the secondaiy lid bolts.

Indeed, the test pm1 plug was easily removed and the test port performed as required during post-test leakage testing.

Test Port Option 2 provides a horizontal test p011 on the secondary lid that is plugged during shipment. Again, the low profile of the plug assures that impact by the outer lid under hypothetical accident drop conditions does not occur. Tims, the secondary lid and flange are not subjected to additional stresses during impact that could disrupt the 0-ring seal.

Test Port Option 3 provides a horizontal test port on the secondary lid flange with a capped elbow fitting to facilitate pre-shipment leakage testing.

Tl1e capped elbow remains in place during shipment. With the secondruy lid in place, the elbow is recessed approximately 1/32" from the upper surface of the secondary lid. However, the elbow projects approximately l" beyond the radial edge of the secondary lid. These dimensions are shown in Figure 1. This placement allows the elbow to be impacted by the outer lid during hypothetical accident drop conditions, applying load to both the elbow and the 2.10.9-1of5 J 55~ ~

(

secondary lid flange. In order to assure that the elbow does not disrupt the 0-ring seal on impact during hypothetical accident conditions, a stress groove is placed just beyond the NPT threading. The stress groove assures that the elbow yields before plastic deflection of the flange occurs.

Analysis As stated in the discussion section, Option 1 and Option 2 do not impact the perfonnance of the secondary lid seal during drop conditions; therefore, Options 1 and 2 are not analyzed. The Option 3 configuration has the potential to disrupt the secondary lid seal; thus, it was analyzed. The objective of the analysis was not to quantify the load applied to the elbow/flange connection during the drop impact, but rather to demonstrate that the elbow will yield and fail before the flange.

If the elbow is impacted during hypothetical accident conditions, there are three possibilities: the elbow yields and fractures before any plastic defonnation of the flange, both the flange and elbow are deformed plastically, or the flange yields and fractures before any plastic deformation of the elbow.

Since the weakest part of the flange is the section below the test po1t, its dimensions are used in the analysis. The material properties of the flange and the elbow are provided in Table 2.10.9-1. The maximum wall thickness at the stress groove, as shown in Figure 2.10.9-1, is 1116". The thickness of the flange below the test po1t is 0.122.

Considering only direct shear and assuming a thread engagement of 0.431 ", the force required to initiate yield in the flange below the test port is:

2(0.122")(0.431 ")(30,000 psi)= 3,155 lb.

The force required to initiate yield in the elbow at the stress groove, conservatively neglecting bending, is:

[rc ((0.180"+2(0.0625"))2 - 0.180"2)/4] (32,000psi) = 1,523 lb.

Thus, the elbow yields before the flange, and the factor of safety is:

3,155 lb/1,523 lb= 2.07.

The force required to fracture the flange below the test port is:

2(0. l 22")(0.43 l ")(75,000 psi) = 7,887 lb.

The force required to fracture the elbow at the stress groove, conservatively neglecting bending, is:

[rc ((0.180"+2(0.0625))2 - 0.180"2)/4] (64,000psi) = 3,047 lb.

Thus, the elbow fractures before the flange, and the factor of safety is:

7,887 lb/ 3,047 lb = 2.588.

Thus, conservatively considering only direct shear, the elbow fractures at a load below that causing plastic deformation iu the flange. The factor of safety against plastic yielding of the flange is:

3,155 lb I 3,047 lb = 1.04.

If the elbow is oriented in any direction other than vertical, a torsional stress will be induced in the elbow, causing fracture of the elbow at a much lower load. Therefore, the ve11ical orientation evaluated is conservative. Additionally, bending stresses in the stress groove are significant when the load is applied at the free end of the elbow. If bending stresses are considered, the elbow yields at a load of approximately 150 lb (loaded at the free end of the elbow).

In order for bending of the bolted lid/flange to occur (at a location other than the test port), the loading at the free end of the elbow would have to exceed 5,000 lb:

30,000 psi (0.45159 in4) I (Y.!")(3.456') = 5,227 lb.

Thus, the elbow yields and fractures well before any plastic bending of the bolted lid/flange occurs.

Thus, in all cases (direct shear, torsion, and bending), the elbow yields and fractures before any plastic deflection of the flange. Since the elbow yields and fractures before plastic deflection of the flange occurs, the 0-ring seal is not disrnpted by an impact to the elbow during hypothetical accident conditions.

Following an impact, the elbow fitting may be sheared completely from the flange (leaving the threaded po11ion of the elbow intact with the flange). Because the test p011 does not access the containment boundary, the un-sealed test p011 itself does not represent a loss of containment. Containment of the payload is first assured by the primary lid seals, and then by the innermost 0-ring on the Secondary Lid. Since the Primary Lid seals and the Secondary Lid inner 0-ring are not dishtrbed by an impact sustained by the elbow fitting, containment of the payload during hypothetical accident conditions is not compromised. Movement of the loose fitting within the annulus area is not a concern, since there are no vulnerable pai1s in that area and the brass fitting is softer than the steel material used throughout the remainder of the packaging.

Conclusion The optional test pot1 configurations that were not tested as a pa11 of the performance test program do not compromise the 0-ring seal performance as a result of hypothetical accident conditions.

2.10.9-3of5 /SS-.;(

(

Table 2.10.9-l Material Properties

.. Sec<mdary Lid:Ii'htnge

• ~lb~wfi~ting. and _cap Material of constrnction 304 or 316 Stainless Steel Forged Brass Yield Strength 30 ksi 32 ksi Density 0.286 lb/in3 0.305 lb/in3 Modulus ofElastiticty 28.3E3 ksi 14.2E3 ksi Poisson's Ratio 0.3 0.33 Photo l Outer Lid Performance Test Damage 2.10.9-4 of5 I ss-~

DOL T CENTERLINE STRESS GRIJOVE

,-~--1 0.4 31

(\\j

(\\j 1.300

1. 781 Figure l Dimensions of the Elbow Fitting used for Test Port Option 3 2.10.9-5of5 J..ss -~

D m 0

' D D

ID

SECTION3 THERMAL EVALUATION TABLE OF CONTENTS 3

THERMAL EVALUATION.................................................................-........................................................ 3-1 3.1 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................................................,.... 3-1 3.2 D ESCRIPTION OF THERMAL DESIGN............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2.1 Design Features................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2.2 Contents Decay Heat.......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2.3 Maximum Working Pressure and Temperature................................................................................. 3-1 3.3 THERMAL EVALUATION FOR NORMAL CONDITTONS OF TRANSPORT............................................................ 3-2 3.3.1 Maximum Package and Content Temperatures................................................................................. 3-2 3.3.2 Minimum Package and Content Temperatures.................................................................................. 3-3

3. 3. 3 Maximum Normal Operating Pressure.............................................................................................. 3-3 3.3.4 Maximum Thermal Stresses............................................................................................................... 3-3 3.4 nmRMALEVALUATION FORHYPOTIIETICALACCIDENT............................................................................. 3-3 3.4.1 Initial Conditions............................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.4.2 Package Temperatures....................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.4.3 Maximum Internal Pressure............................................................................................................... 3-4

3. 4. 4 Maximum Thennal Sh*esses............................................................................................................... 3-4 3.5 APPENDIX................................................................................................................................................. 3-4 3.5. I Report of Thermal Evaluation............................................................................................................ 3-8 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3-1 THERMAL ANALYSIS AND TEsT RES UL TS................................................................................................ 3-5 TABLE 3-2 RELEVANT THERMAL MATERIAL PROPERTIES......................................................................................... 3-5 TABLE 3-3 PACKAGE DIMENSIONS............................................................................................................................ 3-6 TABLE 3-4 APPLIED HEAT LOADS AND INITIAL CONDITIONS..................................................................................... 3-6 TABLE3-5 llfERMALDECAY HEAT.......................................................................................................................... 3-7 3-i

3 THERMAL EVALUATION

3. 1 Discussion The Eco-Pak LR is designed to maintain the temperature of the contents within specified limits during normal transportation and hypothetical accident conditions. The temperature of the contents must be maintained below 210°F. This limit is provided to prevent damage to the containment vessel. Analytical evaluations were performed to assure that, under the worst-case normal conditions, the content temperature and internal pressure of the vessel remain within the specified limits. In order to evaluate the worst case hypothetical accident condition, fire testing was performed. The results of these analyses and tests, provided in Table 3-1, demonstrate that the Eco-Pak LR meets the requirements of 10CFR7 l for both the normal and hypothetical accident conditions.

3.2 Description of Thermal Design 3.2.1 Design Features The Eco-Pak LR is provided with insulation around the entire surface of the containment vessel to assure that the contents are maintained below the liquid's boiling point. Several different types of insulation are used, including rigid foam, ceramic fiber board, and ceramic Jiii fiber blanket insulation. The thermal conductivity of these insulators are provided in Table 3-

2. Table 3-3 lists the containment vessel dimensions used, and Table 3-4 lists the heat loads and initial conditions imposed. These insulators have been shown by the manufacturer to perform adequately over extended periods of time, with no shrinkage, settling, or loss of insulative properties. Additionally, these insulators do not burn, and their melting points are well above the temperature of the 1475°F fire specified by 10CFR7 l.73.

3.2.2 Contents Decay Heat The worst-case contents of the package consists of uranyl nitrate solution as described Section

1. Table 3-5 provides the disintegration energy per isotope and the total energy available for thennal dissipation. The total energy available is less than 0.18 BTU/hr. Therefore, the heat input due to radiological decay is negligible when compared with the insolation and fire heat input.

3.2.3 Maximum Working Pressure and Temperature The maximum allowable working pressure of the contents and packaging is 50 psig. The nominal package internal pressure is 0 psig and pressurization to 50 psig does not occur unless the contents begin to change from liquid to gaseous phase. Therefore, to avoid the phase change, the maximum working temperature is 210°F (99°C).

3-1

3.3 Thermal Evaluation for Normal Conditions of Transport 3.3.1 Maximum Package and Content Temperatures No significant heat is generated from radioactive decay of the contents during transport; therefore, under the normal condition, the only heat source is that provided by incident solar radiation. Table 3-2 provides the material properties used in the annlysis. Table 3-3 lists the containment vessel dimensions used, nnd Table 3-4 lists the heat loads and initial conditions imposed. The absorptivity of the outer shell is conservntively assumed to be 1.0. The convection heat transfer coefficient is conservatively assumed to be 1 Btu/hr-ft2* Assuming steady state conditions:

where:

qinsolation

£ cr A

Touter shell Tambient is the specified thermal energy incident upon the pnckage averaged over a 24-hour period, is the absorptivity of the surface ( 1.0),

is Boltznrnn's Constant, is the surface area affected by the insolation, is the surface temperature of the outer shell of the pnckage, is the ambient nir temperature ( 100°F),

is the convection heat transfer coefficient.

An insolation rate of 800 g-ca1/cm2 per 12-hour period is applied to the top surface of the packaging. An insolation rate of 400 g-ca1/cm2 per 12-hour period is applied to the curved vertical sides of the pnckaging. Insolation is not applied to the base of the packaging. With these insolntion rntes avernged over a 24-hour period and at stendy stnte, the maximum nverage tempernture reached nt the surface of the package for the normal condition of transport is l 79°F (82°C).

At the steady stnte, the temperature of the contents cnn not be hotter than the exterior of the packaging, since there is no appreciable decay hent associnted with the contents. Therefore, the maximum nvernge temperature of the contents is less thnn l 79°F (82°C). This is well below the maximum allowable tempernture of 210°F.

Due to the fact that the contents are largely water, the thermal response of the system is fairly rnpid (Cr is approxinrntely 4.1 kJ/kg-K) nnd the contents rench the stendy state tempernture within one 24-hour period.

Without insolation and with an ambient temperature of 100°F, the maximum temperature of the nccessible surfaces of the pnckaging is I 00°F, and the mnximum temperature of the contents does nol exceed I 00°F.

3-2

3.3.2 Minimum Package and Content Temperatures Table 3-2 provides the material properties used in the analysis. Table 3-3 lists the containment vessel dimensions used, and Table 3-4 lists the heat loads and initial conditions imposed. Assuming steady state conditions, with no sources of the1mal energy present, the minimum temperature reached by the package and contents is -40°F (-40 °C).

3.3.3 Maximum Normal Operating Pressure The maximum normal temperature reached by the contents is clearly much less than the boiling point of the liquid; therefore, any pressure increase due to vaporization of the contents is well below the internal pressure limit for the package. Because the contents are largely made up of water, the internal vapor pressure is essentially that of the vapor pressure of water at the maximum nmmal temperature, l.5 psig.

At low temperatures, the liquid contents freeze and expand. This expansion causes a reduced headspace in the packaging, and the air occupying the space is compressed. Using the density of water at 24°C (62.26 lb/fr1) and the density of ice (57 lb/ft3) and assuming the maximum fill volume of 230 gallons (870 liters), the headspace is reduced from 33 gallons to l 2 gallons.

• Using the ideal gas law and assuming the original air pressure was atmospheric, the final pressure of the air in the package due to the expansion of the contents is 31 psia.

The additional gas generated due to radiolysis of the solution increases the maximum pressure by approximately l psi for the frozen condition described above (see Section 2.4.4.2).

Therefore, the maximum nmmal operating pressure is 32 psia.

3.3.4 Maximum Thermal Stresses Because the maximum operating temperature of the containment vessel is not significantly different from nominal, there are no significant thermal stresses induced.

3.4 Thermal Evaluation for Hypothetical Accident The LR was drop tested and fire tested consistent with the requirements of 10CFR7 l.73. The conditions and results of the fire testing are provided in Appendix 2.10.5. An additional analytical evaluation is provided in Appendix 3.5.1.

3.4.1 Initial Conditions Prior to the fire test, the package was subjected to the Free Drop and Puncture tests required by 10CFR7 l.73. The damage accumulated due to these tests is documented in Section 2.

Containment of the vessel was not breached; however, there was a significant reduction of the insulation thickness at the puncture test impact location. The minimum insulation thickness was compressed from the 4.5" nominal to approximately 0.5. There was also a small tear in the outer shell at the same location as a result of the puncture test.

The contents of the package were simulated using a saltwater solution and steel shot. Because the uranyl nitrate solution to be shipped is largely water, the saltwater solution used in the 3-3

simulation is a good approximation for the relevant physical properties (physical form, density, specific heat, boiling point) of the contents.

Due to variations in wind speed during the fire test, the flame test wns repeated on the same package, with no repairs or modifications to it (with the exception of a weld seam that split during the first fire test). The conditions reported in this Section are those of the second fire test performed. The measured ambient temperature during the fire lest was 99°F. The average wind speed during the first half-hour of testing was 3.1 mph. The package rested upon a simple support system that was incapable of shielding the package from the fire or cooling the package in any significant way. The1mocouples and thermal insulation labels were placed both on the surface of the package and on the interior of the containment vessel. In order to obtain a fulJy engulfing fire, the fuel source extended beyond the package between 2 and 4m, exceeding the requirements of 10CFR7 l.73.

3.4.2 Package Temperatures The duration of the fire was 31 minutes, and the average measured flame temperature was l 375°F. The fire was allowed to burn until all of the fuel was consumed, and folJowing the test the package was protected from precipitation and wind effects to eliminate enhanced cooling of the package. Temperature monitoring of the package continued for 20 minutes after the fire burned out. The maximum bulk temperature of the package contents during the fire test was 148°F (64°C). The maximum temperature attained by the package during the fire test was approximately I l50°F (621°C). The maximum temperatures attained are well within the acceptable short-term temperature limits for the package.

3.4.3 Maximum Internal Pressure The contents of the package remained below the boiling point throughout the fire test; therefore, a change of phase did not occur. Since the contents remain in liquid form, even during a fire, the maximum internal pressure for the hypothetical accident condition is bounded by the Normal Cold condition (32 psia).

3.4.4 Maximum Thermal Stresses Because the design of the package is such that the containment vessel and outer shell are not restrained from thermal expansion, thermal stresses during a fire event are negligible. The outer shell is much hotter than the containment vessel, and as a result, a gap grows between the two shells. However, the outer shell and containment vessel are not attached and there is no stress applied to either component. The insulation provided between the outer shell and the containment vessel is not affected by the thermal expansion.

3.5 Appendix 3.5.1 Report of Thermal Evaluation 3-4

(

Table 3-1 Thermal Analysis and Test Results N01mal Hot Transport 179 82 179 82 16.7 Normal Cold Transp01t

-40.0

-40.0

-40

-40 32.0 Fire Accident 148 64 1150 621

<17.7

• Table 3-2 Relev:mt Thermal Material Properties Thermal Density Specific lVIelting Continuous Material Conductivity1 (lblft3)

Heat Emmisivitylabsorptivity Point Use Limit (BTU/hr*ft*R) ffiTU/lb 0 F)

(K)

(K)

Carbon 21.8 488 0.104 1

1750 588 Steel Stainless 8.6 493 0.115 NIA 1670 588 Steel NIA Foam insulation is Foam difficult to ignite and Insulation 0.046 NIA NIA NIA tends to not support combustionwhen the flame source is removed.

0-ring NIA NIA NIA NIA 543 477 Ceramic Fiber 0.013 NIA NIA NIA 2033 1533 Board Ceramic Fiber 0.205 8.0 NIA NIA 2033 1533 Blanket Uranyl Boiling Nitrate 0.350 63.7 0.999 NIA point NIA Solution 373.15 1 The the1mal conductivity listed is the maximum allowable for the material. This is conservative, since a lower the1mal conductivity results in lower payload temperatures for Normal Hot and Fire Accident conditions. For Normal Cold transpo11, a lower themrnl conductivity does not change the resulting payload temperature.

3-5

Table 3-3 Package Dimensions Component Dimension (in)

Package OD 56 Minimum Insulation thickness 4.5 Containment Vessel ID 46 Overall Package height 64.75 Package top surface area 2,463 in 1

Package vertical curved surface area 11,390 in 1

Table 3-4 Applied Heat Loads and Initial Conditions Parameter Normal Normal Hypothetical Transport Transport Accident Hot Cold Ambient Temperature, °F 100

-40 99.5 Top surface insolation, BTU/hr*ft.'.

123 0

NIA Vertical curved surface insolation, 61.5 0

NIA BTU/hr*ft2 Radiological Decay Heat, BTU/hr 0

0 0

Analysis perfom1ed Steady State Steady State Tested Initial Package/Content Temperature NIA N/A 99.5 Average Flame Temperature, °F NIA NIA 1375 3-6

Table 3-5 Thermal Decay Heat Isotope Maximum content Total Total Energy of Energy availabJe Energy available

Activity, Activity, disintegration, for deposit into for deposit into Ci 1 DPS MeV the package, the package, MeV/sec BTU/hr U232 2.00E-09 g/gU 5.60E-03 2.07E+08 5.4 J.12E+09 6.l lE-04 U234 2.00E-03 g/gU l.55E+OO 5.74E+l0 4.9 2.81E+ll l.54E-Ol U235 5.00E-02 g/gU l.35E-02 4.96E+08 4.5 2.23E+09 l.22E-03 U236 2.50E-02 g/gU 2.02E-Ol 7.47E+09 4.6 3.44E+l0 1.88E-02 U238 9.23E-Ol g/gU 3.73E-02 l.38E+09 4.3 5.95E+09 3.25E-03 NP237 J.66E-06 g/gU l.46E-04 5.40E+06 5

2.70E+07 l.48E-05 PU238 6.20E-l l g/gU l.32E-04 4.88E+06 5.5 2.69E+07 l.47E-05 PU239/240 3.04E-09 g/gU 3.69E-05 l.37E+06 5.25 7.17E+06 3.92E-06 Gamma l.91E+08 MeV-Bq l.91E+08 l.05E-04 Emitters Total 0.18BTU/HR 1 Based on 263 gallons nt 125 g U/li ter 3-7

Appendix 3.5.1 Report of Thermal Evaluation 3-8

s 0 u T H w E s T R E s E A R c H I N s T I T u T ETM 6220 CULEBRA ROAD POST OFFICE DRAWER 28510

• SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78228-0510, USA (210) 684*5111 WWW.SWAl.ORG CHEMISTRY AND CHEMICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF FIRE TECHNOLOGY WWW.FIR E.SWRI. ORG FAX (210) 522-3377 Mr. Tom Dougherty Chairman Columbiana Boiler Company (CBC) 4580 E. 71' 1 Street Cleveland, Ohio 44125 Phone No. 216/271-6100 Fax No. 216/271-5403 E-mail: DCPARTNERS@AOL.COM

Subject:

Pool Fire Exposure Conditions of IO CFR Part 71.73 August 21, 2001 Ref:

SwRIFinalReportNo. 01-02759, "Hypothetical Accident ENGINEERING EVALUATION Testing of Uranyl Nitrate Shipping Containers per Title I 0 (Consisting of 7 Pages)

CFR Part 71.73," Eco-Pak Liqui-Rad 250

Dear Mr. Dougherty:

This let~er and attachments are provided in accordance with your request to address the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) request for additional information (RAO concerning the pool fire exposure conditions during the above-reference test program.

As you know, 10 CFR Part 71. 73, Section ( 4) Thermal states:

"Exposure of the specimen, fully engulfed, exct;pt for a simple support system, in a hydrocarbon fueVair fire of sufficient extent, and in sufficiently quiescent ambient conditions, to provide an average emissivity coefficient of at least 0.9, with an average flame temperature of at least 800°C (1475°F) for a period of 30 minutes, or any other thermal test that provides the equivalent total heat input to the package and which provides a time averaged environmental temperature of 800°C. The fuel source must extend horizontally at least I m (40 in.), but may not extend more than 3 m (10 ft),

beyond any external surf ace of the specimen, and the specimen must be positioned 1 m (40 in.) above the surface of the fuel source. For purposes of calculation, the surface absorptivity coefficient must be either that value which the package may he expected to possess if exposed to the fire specified or 0.8, whichever is greater; and the convective coefficient must be that value which may be demonstrated to exist if the package were exposed to the fire specified. Artificial cooling may not be applied after cessation of external heat input, and any combustion of materials construction, must he allowed to proceed until it terminates naturally."

The pool fire exposure test conducted September 22, 1999, on the Eco-Pak Liqui-Rad 250 shipping container met the intent of the hypothetical fire exposure conditions specified in 10 CFR 71.73.

This repo~ Is for the Information of the client It may be used In its entirely for the purpose of securing product acceptMce from du\\y oonsmuted approval authorities. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, Yi.thou! the wrilten approval of s,.RI. Neilher this report nor the name of the lnstitu\\e shall be used In publicity or adVertis!ng.

DETROIT, MICHIGAN (248) 353-2550

• HOUSTON, TEXAS (713) 977-1377 WASHINGTON, DC (301) 881-0289

Columbiana Boiler Company SwRI Project No. 01.02759 August 21, 2001 Page2 The Eco-Pak Liqui-Rad 250 shipping container was exposed to a diesel fuel pool fire which reached temperatures in excess of 2000°F with a maximum temperature over 2400°F (see Figure 1 ). Figure 2 presents the average flame temperature for the four flame thermocouples (TC's) located on the north, south, east and west side of the shipping container. The integrated area beneath the time temperature curve for the period of 2 to 32 min yields an average flame temperature of approximately l 400°F. Calculation of the weighted average flame temperature yields 1500°F. Omitting the East TC, which was affected by wind conditions, yields an average flame temperature of 1533°F for the 30-min period.

The wind direction and velocity plots are shown in Figures 3 and 4. These plots show the trend that increased wind velocity from the East caused flame displacement from the East TC and reduced temperature readings. Note that the size of the pool fire and the position of the test article are fixed by the test procedure.

Increasing the size of the pool fire would reduce the effect of wind on the flame temperature. It is important to note that 10 CFR 71.73 does not specify where the flame temperatures should be measured. Relocatiu~ the flame TC' s as little as 6 in. lower into the flame plume would minimize the effect of wind on the flame temperature measurements and yield much higher average flame temperature readings. Note that it would still be the same fire exposure but you would have higher temperature readings.

Alex B. Wenzel Director Department of Fire Technology ABW/jgm Attachment A: Figures 1 - 4

(

Columbiana Boiler Company SwR[ Project No. 01.02759 August 21, 2001 ATTACHMENT A Consisting of 4 Pages

Client: ECO-PAK Specialty Packaging Project No: 01.02759_001 Date: 22 September 1999 File: 265ECOP2.DAT Figure 1.

Flame Temperatures 2500 2000 I II f lo r I.I.

I _A l M rn WI Ali I..

I\\.

~ 1500 I I I A n

"' IA I

1\\l.1-J Q)

~

s -

~

Q) c..

E

~ 1000 500 South -TC 13

--<r-East - TC 14

-tr-North - TC 15

--<>-West - TC 16 I

0+---.---,-~.--......--.----,-.--.--....,..---,.--......--.---.-.....,......--,-.--,---,---,.---.---,,---,---,---,.---,r--.---r--r-.--.---.-.....,......__,...--.---,---.,.---,.--;

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 Time (min)

Client: ECO-PAK Specialty Packaging Project No: 01.02759.001 Date: 22 September 1999 File: 265ECOP2.DAT Figure 2.

Weighted Average Flame Temperature

~00

- ~

l 200011~~~~~~~~~~~--.1-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-H--i-t--Mfl.-~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

ii:' 1500 I

/JI I ~f " 1~

r'/ \\111

\\\\ 'l--1 f \\

If lxl1 x\\

,. A ';JIJf \\,d

\\', ~ A I

HU\\\\ld\\ Hd ~ l,)J/

~

0 -

m

~

~

~

m

c.

E

~ 1000~~~~~~~~~-=~~~~~~~~~::':'.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Flame TC S+E+N+W Avg.

500

- Flame TC S+N+W Avg.

-- Flame TC Weighted Average Flame TC S+E+N+W Avg. 2-32 Min.= 1399°F Flame TC S+N+W Avg. 2-32 Min.= 1533°F Flame TC Weighted Average (.25*1399+.75*1533) 2-32 min. = 1500°F 0-+--.---...--,---.-----.--,..--.....----.---...--.--..----.-~..--.....----.---...--.---..--...-....---..-.,.--.--.---.--...--...--.--..--...-....---..--.--..----.-----,

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 Time (min)

Client: ECO-PAK Specialty Packaging Project No: 01.02759.001 Date: 22 September 1999 File: 265ECOP2.DAT Figure3.

Flame Temperatures Vs. Wind Direction 2500 360 NW 2000 I II I 10 f

LI I I I R 111 WJ+-11:11 I.

II..

270 SW~

L~~~~~-j-~~~;=-t-~~~~~~~1\\-~r-~~-

@ ~

Ill

1

.:........lb..--r,...--=--i---r-:

~ ~

.L;...i..~~~

n c IL" 1500 180 ::: ""

lll

~

~n I?

0 g'

a 3,

~

SE ~

c.

E

~ 1000 X.

~.. ~_

500 i.

.. /. '"**,.

9

~ ---Y

/)/:"*-..... ~......x ---*.

--x.

' '\\"-. --'<

Y ".-""..... "

~*

_;~-

south - TC 13

--o-East - TC 14

--tr-North - TC 15

-<>-West-TC 16

-~- Wind Direction

-- ~**

./

90 NE 0

0 0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Time (min)

• • .... ~

Client: ECO-PAK Specialty Packaging Project No: 01.02759.001 Date: 22September1999 File: 265ECOP2.DAT Figure4.

Average Flame Temperature vs. Wind Speed 2500

--r 6 5

2000+-~~~~~~~~_,,_~~~~~---~~~~~~~~~--;;-----...i--~~~~~~~~~~---i-4

~ 1500 I U---0.'1 I.IL.. \\

.I r'"i\\ IV,'

1.\\

A II I\\

'1/

\\ \\,ll,.I

• IWI Lil

\\H I\\

I

,ii\\ l'\\\\\\JI flxl \\NI 1

~

~

Q)...

)'

~

Q)

Q.

E

~ 1000 500-r1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- Flame TC S+E+N+W Avg.

-- Flame TC S+N+W Avg.

--Flame TC Weighted Average

-O-Wind Speed

l Q.

3cn "O

(1)

(D a.

2 1

3 "O :r -

0 0

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 Time(min)

CBC MEMORANDUM Date: 06/25/01 To:

US NRC with respect to Request for Additional Information for the Model No. Eco-Pak Liqui-Rad Transport Unit Pcakage dated May 15,2001 Cc:

File From: Tom Dougherty, Chairman RE:

Explanatory Representation as to the average flame temperature of the fire test performed at Southwest Research Institute THERMAL EVALUATION The LR experienced two separate fire events, as set forth in IO CFR 71.73, on two separate days, without any repairs or modifications. The first fire event generated an average flame temperature, as measured by all the thermocouples of 1315 degrees F. This condition was caused by intermittent winds as described in the Safety Analysis Report.

The second fire event generated an average flame temperature, as measured by all the thermocouples of 1375 degrees F. This condition was caused by inte1mittent winds as described in the Safety Analysis repo1t In the first fire event TC South, TC West averaged above 1475 degree F. TC East and N01th averaged below 1475 degrees F, while experiencing periods that exceeded 1475 degrees F.

In the second fire event TC North averaged significant above 1475 degrees F. TC West averaged significantly above 1475 degrees F. TC South averaged below 1475 degrees F while generating significant periods in excess of 1475 degrees F.

It is the opinion of the applicant that all periods oflow temperatures were cause by intermittent wind conditions. Fmther the LR package experienced more than 60 minutes of fire events (2 x the required). The LR package accumulated four thermocouples that accumulated an average temperature of 1532 degrees F over two fire events, therefore meeting the average flame temperature requirements stated in 10CFR 71.73 9c) (4). See Test 1-TC-l plus Test Two TC-1, TC-3, TC-4.

Thomas F. Dougherty, Chairman

November 16, 1999 Eco-Pak Specialty Packaging Division of CBC 200 West Railroad Street Columbian;i, OH 44408 LAW LAWGIBB Group Member~

Attention:

Mr. Mike Arnold/Mr. Jerry Rase!

Subject:

Report of Thermal Analysis Eto-Pok Liqui-Rad-250 Shipping Container Law Engineering and Environmental Services Project 10810-9-7003, Phase 13 t>ear Mt. Arnold:

Per your verbal request and as authorized by signing our annual Proposal Acceptance Sheet, Law Engineering and Envirorunental Services (LAW) is pleased to present this report of thennal analysis for the Eco-Pak Liqui*Ra.d*2SO container.

The pwpose of this thermal analysis was to calculate the approximate temperature of the container water at the end of a 30 minute fire test. this report provides our understanding of the background information, services performed, and results.

Ba~kground Information Mr. Mike Arnold and Ms. Heather Little of Eco-Pak Specialty Packaging requested LAW to perfonn a thermal analysis of the subject container during a 30 minute fire test considering the fotlowing conditions:

Container is~ full of water (approximately 125 gaJlons of water).

Initial temperature of inside vessel and water is 100°F.

Outside fire temperature is 1S00°F (conrunt).

We were provided the following drawings:

Preliminnry Design Arrangement for the Eco-Pak Liqui-Rad-250 Drawing No. 111898/250 Sheet 1 of2 LAW Engineering and Environmental Services, Im;.

2801 Yorkmont Road

• Charlotta, NC 28208 704-357-8600

• Fai: 704*357-11638

• \\

E~o-Palc Spcclalry Pat:lwMi1tg LE£S Proj,cl J0810*9-700J, J'lra.r~ 13 Preliminary Design Arrangement for the Eco* Pak Liqui*Rad-250 Drawing No. 111898/250 Sheet2 of2 Description of Vessel J///6199 l'Q.gr 2 The subject container consists of a rectangular box supported on eight legs. There is an outer shell constructed of 0.135 inch thick carbon steel plate (A-S69). Dimensions of the outer shell are SS inch in diameter and 64 foch high. In addition, there is an inner shell constructed of 0.135 inch thick stainless steel plate. Housed inside the inner shell is a vessel measuring approximately 46 inch in diameter and 44 inch high. TI1e vessel is constructed of 0.25 inch thick stainless steel plate (316 SS). There are three layers of Fiberfrax. insulation between the outer and inner shells, totaling approximately 4.5 inch thick.

The top section of the Liqui-Rad-250 container contains an air pocket approximately 7 inch high and 8 inch high Durnboard insulation. In addition. it has 18 inches of Thermo Cor H support insulation.

The bottom section of the container contain!i approximately 8 inch high of TI1ermo.Cor II support insulation.

Please refer to your drawing number 111898/250, Preliminary Design Arrangement for the ECO-PAK LIQUI-RAD-250, for a more deto..iled description of the vessel construction.

Services Performed The heat transferred to the vessel due to the fire was calculated assuming three components to it as fo!Jows:

Heat transfermi through the shell Heat transferred through the top section Hellrt traniferred through the bottom section In our analysis we assumed conduction to be the mode of he.at uan.sfer and that the heat transfer rate per unit area is proportional to the nonnal temperature gradient

(

£eo-I'u/I. S'peciulty Packaging M1:£S Proj11c1 /08/fl-9-7003, Pho:w /3 Heat Transferred through the Shell Jl//6199 l'ap 3 The heat transfer due to the outside fire through the side walls of the container was calculated. The calculations were performed neglecting the effect, if any, of the rectangulor box. It was a4iswncd that the h~ transfer rate was affected by the outer sht!ll, Fiberfrox insulation, inner sbeJJ and the vessel and its contents. Please refer to figure 1, attached to this report showing a s;chematic of the heat transfer path. In addition, the following data was used.

Initial temperature of vessel and water is 100°F Outside fire temperature is l 500°F constant Conductance of outer surface air is 2 BTIJ/hr/ft2/°F Conductance of air inside vessel is 2 BTU/hr/ft2fOF Conductivity of stainless steel materiaJ is 8 BTIJ/hr/ft!OF Conductivity ofFiberfrax insulation is 0.62 BTU inlhr/ft2/°F at 600bf (copy attached)

Conductivity of cnrbon steel material is 26 l31U/hr/ft/°F Heat Transferred through Top 11ection The heal transfer due to the outside fire through the top section of the container was calculated. The calculations were performed neglecting the effect. if any, of the rectangular box. It was assumed that the heat transfer rate was llffccted by the top plate, top li~ Thenno Cor TT support insulation, Duraboard, air pocket and the vessel and its contents. Please refer to Figure l, attached to this report showing a schematic of the heat transfer path. Jn addition. the following data was used.

Initial temperature of vessel and water is lOODf Outside fire temperature is 1500°F constant Conductance of outer surface air is 2 BTIJ/hr/ft2f'f Conductance of air inside vessel is 2 BTIJ/hr/ft2/°F Conductivity of stainless steel material is 8 BTU/hr/ft/°F Conductivity of II support insulation is 0.318 BTU jn/br/ft2f'f

FEB 02 '00 13;35 FR LHW ENG lNu ~uCS Ii et>-Pak.\\~cialry Padrdg/ng LEES Pm;"ec.t 10810-9-7003, Phau /:J 11116199 Pag.: 4 (Ms. Heather Little provided this infonnation. Thermo-Cor II support insulation thermal properties arc reportedly similar to ESP-PF-1 phenolic foam thermal properties. Copy ofthcnnal properties for ESP-PF-1 is attached to this report.).

Conductivity of carbon steel material is 26 BTU/hr/ftl°F Conductivity of air is 0.032 BTU/hr/ft/°F Conductivity of Duraboard (LD type) is 0.556 BTU in./hr/ft2JOF at 400"F (copy attached)

Heat Transferred through Bottom section The heat transfer due to the outside fire through tJ1e bottom seclion of tJ1e container was calculated. The calculations were perfom1ed neglecting the effect. if any, of the rectangular box. It was assumed that the heat transfer rate was affected by the bottom plate, Thcrmo-Cor II.support insufntion and lhe vessel and itS contents. Please refer to Figure l~ attached to this report showing a schem.atic oftJ1e heat transfer path. In addition. the foUowing data was used.

Tnitial tcmpcrawre of vessel and water is l00°F Outside fire temperature is 1500°F constant Conductance of outer surface air is 2 BTU/hr/ft2JOF Conductance of air inside vessel is 2 BTU/hr/ft2JOF Conductivity of stainless i,1eel material is 8 BTU/hr/ft/°F Conductivity ofThermo-Cor ll support insulation is 0.318 BTU inlhr/ft2f'F Conductivity of carbon steel material is 26 BTU/hr/ftl°F Results Obtained Based on our thermal analysis, we calculated a total heat transfer rate of approximately 3.81 BTU/sec from outside ro the vessel. That is equivalent to approximately 6858 BTU's transferred to the vessel over a 30 minute fire test. The distribution of heat transfer raie is shown in following table for three components.

Mo-Pak SpBcially Packaging LEF.S Pro}~cl /08J0*9-700J, Plrwc I J

/1116199 Pages Component Heat Transfer Rate BTU/sec Heat Transfer over 30 Minutes lnBTU Sidewalls 3.42 6156 Top section 0.13 234 Bottom Section 0.26 468 Total 3.81 6858 As a result of 6858 BTU's heat transfer to the container aind ossuming specific heat of water to be I BTU/lbm/°F, the temperature of 125 gaUoa11 container water would riae from. 100°F to approximately 106.6°F at the end of a 30 minute fire test.

Qualification This report summllri.zes our thennal llllalysis for Eco-Pak Liquid Rad-250 container. The results of our analysis are based on the information provided to us. If the data contained in this report are known to be incorrect or inappropriate for use in this analysis, please contact us so that we may reevaluate our calculations accordingly.

Law Engineering and Envirownent11l Services appreciates the opportunity to assist you with this project.

Please contact this office at 704-357-8600 if you have any questions. We look forward to continuing our worl<lng relationship with you on this and future projects.

Sincerely, LAW ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

\\\\)\\,~ -~~\\vk Mike N. Parikh, P.E.

Senior Engineer

Attachment:

Figure; J

~~

Director of Projects Facsimile Copy from Ms. Heather dated July 30, 1997 (Fiberfrax Duraboard Product Specifications)

Facsimile Copy from Ms. Heather dated July 23, 1997

November 16, 1999 Eco.Pak Specialty Packaging Division of CBC 200 West Railroad Street Columbiana, OH 44408 Attention:

Mr. Mike Arnold/Mr. Jeny Rasel

Subject:

Report of Thermal Analysia Eco-Pak Liqui-Rad-250 Shipping Container r.~1

/

..1,.-,

Law Engineering and Environmental Services Project 10810-9-7003, Phue 13

Dear Mr. Arnold:

Per your verbal request and as authorized by signing our annual Proposal Acceptance Sheet, Law Engineering and Envirorwiental Services (LAW) is pleased to present this report of thermal analysis for the Eco-Pak Liqui-Rad-250 container.

The purpose of this thermal analysis was to calculate the approximate temperature of the container water at the end of a 30 minute fire test. This report provides our understanding of the background infonnation, services performed, and results.

Background Information Mr. Mike Arnold and Ms. Heather Little of Eco-Pak Specialty Packaging requested LAW to pcrfonn a thermal analysis of the subject container during a 30 minute fire test considering the following conditions:

Container is '12 full of water (approximately 12S gallons of water).

Initial temperature of inside vessel and water is I 00°F.

Outside fire temperature is 1500°F (constant).

We were provided the following drawings:

Preliminary Design Arrangement for the Eco-Pak Liqui-Rad-2SO Drawing No. 1118981250 Sheet 1 of2

SCHEMATIC OF HEAT TRANSFER BY CONDUCTION HEAT TRANSFER THROUGH THE TOP SECTION OUTSIDE FIRE TOP LID TOP PLATE THERMO-COR INSULATION HEAT TRANSFER THROUGH THE SHELL HEAT FLOW AIR POCKET DUR.ABOARD OUTER SHELL OUTSIDE FIRE HEAT TRANSFER THROUGH THE BOTTOM SECTION VESSEL BOTTOM HEAD HEAT FLOW OUTSIDE FIRE BOTl'OM PLATE HEA.T FLOW iP VESSEL SHEIL i LAWGIBB A: GROUP INNER SHELL LAY ENGINEERINC lNDUBTRJAL SERY'ICES CHARWl"l'E. NORTH CAROLJNA; ECO-PAK. SPECIALTY PACKAGING ECO-PAK LIQUI-RAD-250 SHIPPlNG CONTAINER COLUMBIA, OH JOB FIGURE:

1 DRAWN BY: MNP CALE: NTS APPR'D BY: {S DATE:tt-15-99 n

0 IS I\\

IS IS 1-(,

i r

l n

c

~

I:

lJ

~

lJ

('.

.r t

l.'

0 (1

t

-(

~ t t c J

( '

I'

(

t v c c

~ '

~co ~' * ~~ i~;~6 ~~ ~HW ~Nu 1NU ~"""~

eJ/3e/l~99 l6:eq 4~3913120~

To:

Frt>tn: Headier Linle Re:

CC:

(~~ ~~( 00~1 IU.~~~~O~~~~~

n N LJ.111.C:.

Date:

Hestbe:r.Lltrto

&o-Pak Spcdalty Pawgiog 107 Mt:adowv~ fnrw. Drive JODabt;iJougb, 'rn J76S9 Phone/Fu: (423) 9JJ..J205 704-357-8637 July 30. 1999 CJ Urgent D For R9view 0 Please Coinnaot CJ Pblse Reply LIPleaseRecycle 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Hcpe these help. The graph I used to get appro:ldmalely 0.45 is on tha mt page.

Have a good vac:ationlf

lj,i' /3~/ 19'39

~

CARlilCRUNCUM TM Calborundum CQrnpatrj F1bel3 Olvblon P.QBox808 Niagara fulls,~ 'mrk14.'.l0'2-C808 Teleptlone: 71ll 2.78"°221 Telex: 68-543:l5 Tolefi>>c 716 278-4962 Catie (~lgn)! CRl3Cfl\\IUW lrrtrceuction Fiberfrax.8 Dinboald"' product:; aro ;i fGmlly Of rigid, high IBm-perall.n ceramic fiber boards manut11ctured in a wet torming proces.s ucNig eart:oruneum~ Fmtrax alumlnca-Gill~ ~be~

and bindero. All Ouraboeld pn:xiuci.:; g1fe.rlcw thal'Tl'lal QalCUC-

!ivity, hlgl"I !Qmperabn stol:lUll'/, ~lferm ~eNl!y, and extflllli!nl ts.Slstance to lhermal l1hcick anll eriernical ;i~!<.

'They are alee welhiuted for aullc.uions a~rienc!ng \\liCfa-tiOf'I, me<;hel\\i:al st1'868 llld S(nlng eros:iVIJ klrce:i. Th111.,~ellone rigidly~ mc:Oulus of ~re

~essed by lheSe boarcs maus

l"lem.stieng and sie"'8ur::i:on:inO. yet :ela:r.eiy li.;t:r.veighl 4lr.d easy to c,,,1 CC" machine.

These product fi!alum& alOW !er qui<:!<, lllfi~an1 nancilng and t.ic;tl i~llitlcn raie'J, lheteb)' er.si:Jing ~

!l.lm81'C\\Jl'ld ~m8'$ ln a variety a1 h:ustrlai lf\\il.Jl!Zlm.a!'Plcai!ons. Cne8 rnaalled. they can halp rec:uc::e energy ooGtg and C'/Clrr.g time& a.is to their high irnn.ilating ew~. ss W9ll as seMr.g lO ~

~ry aurtacas rr~ tl"lem\\al stiodc.

Product Range "Jampenttuna o.n8't<J Ballld

( t:.I~

...J~ '

OD-> i H H LL f ILt.

Fiberf rax" Duraboarcf" Products Product Speciflca1ions 23<VF 15-1.81 15-1~

F;G e A *di l1'91c:iud StJriaJ:& !lnisll ar.d high MOR give a~

eccnemic rW&C.Cr19f'SCe ;r.:~uc.

A hiQhe< ~us.II~ :iurfar:911nlsn and -O:gl'lter dlmcmlonal tolera11'95 mw tt:l:J ccard :u*tbl.c;e 'tr c.sa In sitlJ11tk;n5'Nt.ere ae-~ quellly ea ~I a.e p.er!crrr.ence is irnp=r.snL

~scciaF

3CCO"F l'bftD C.'wal

-~

2~-~

3E1i 12-14#

10..1.2'2

• !IJ90,.... c.......-... ~,

,\\JI~~

,r1NldltlUM.

P"'Ol'HIU HD C3H 2SOO 3000 The ac:QtiQn of~

si~ a highor eer.gjty, >.DR. and strer:g\\h.

A DOard manlll~red viith ~c; blndng sgent3 encl p:;st*~ ~ 9~ an ir.c~il11ic, high density pl"Oduct.

Fermed trcm a ~ocial ~of re;ular Fieertr.u alumina 5lJb ii:ers ar.d Fi~<l:t3.*111.. :1:~

ftbeis. Theee bcan2s give hli;h :rtabii!y at al8Y1118d temperaruras.

Foormed hem a OJ*ial ~lend Of regular Fllerfr.u alumina silica titer.> sn<I Fll:errr.a:c ML'!ll1s fibens. Ther.e boards~ hlg\\.s1al:llry at slevat9d 19mperaD.:l"lllS.

r-t::.1:1 la~ ' 1::11::1 :i..:::,:.:::,*( ft< ~HW i::.NG lNJ.J ;:,v'-;:,

~~/30/l'S~

li:~a d239l~!~U~

AvaJlabtnty 1NdcnM411

~-

I/,

W' f~~ ~~I oo~r 1u ~~~~~o'~~~~

M l~ I..& I 11.C:.

W1" Slllil8t Siie

snwn.

13"""

2!fmm Hl'l'lin 12x::wi GH""

HO HD 3Q6K9W trWT'I

'!al18 2600 2800 4S'lx 451' rrwn 3000 3000 2*:1124 2BOO 2600 610* 61 D INTI 3COO 3000 24:11:36 LD L.O LO LD 11Dx!H* mm HD HO 2'll4'J AQ G1D.r:t12Dmrn LO LO LO J.10 i.io 2.500 2600

3000 3000 42X48 LD LD LO

~

i'E>& Dinbolrd LO 1W cMiMlblt 3" I. -'"'tl\\.lck bytpedalotdw.

"Oilier aiu. II)' "*181 NqU.._

Product PropeJ1Jes

~ :

Bo9rd.

Pf0pettftll9 AG LO HD GH MOO NomlMI Oera~

b'!Pkgl~

111 1e 2S8 2ll

• 111

~5

~ 14 224 Con!inuoua use Uml!

-F/"C 2300 1260 2900 1260 2300 1280 2300 1280 2SCO 1421 Pl'Oduet Meling PDiN.

1F/"C 3200 1760 3200 17$) 321X>

1760 3200 1760 3.'.ix>

1818 MOAPSI

~(typ,)

250 200

~

300 180 FlPed ~

IW@tont. uee) 110 60 125 125 65 l.Ot 1% ""~

5-7%

~7%

f-7'~

0

~

Dialm;.1r1c ~

21volls/mU 27 ~ll:s/rnil 27wks/mn Color' Clffftl co 1811 c.,.,ywhila CtaAm wtil9 c.r.em 8lriika9'

~

24Hr$@Conl. UM Lbnit

~

4.6%

45%

~

f.5(1&8Pn1.S)

""@~re 0%

2' ta @lll009FN20'C.

1~

1.7%

~Hnl@~l'IS<<3'C 1.-'%

24 tb@2600"FfMZ7"'C a&._'@ 21'DIPF1t"82'C WS thO!J&SO-F~C

,... ~

Ouu1pcoa::iw Slr.nglh lild G1Hl1 Filed Chen Fired GI081'1 Flr.d ~

Flred G111an Ami

~@

5,,.

~

25

~

ZS 59 JS 22 1Q 10%

81 25 151) 22 70 33

.2S 18 1~

71 25 S7 23 B1

J2 ZT 16

,..... CCll1'lllnt Fbmx9'"

100%

100%

100%

,~"

7!l~*

25'9

• lbenMI~

lMnp!,...

~IP*F eoo-F1'1S'C 0..8:2 O.B2 Q.7*

0.s) 10CXM=IS3S-C a.as llaS 1.0'7 0.71 t~llta'C 1.1-4 1.44 IM 1.0:Z 1 eo>'Flilll"C 1.53 Ui6 1.83 1.3e 2200'Fl1DGS-C UIS

""'Fktlulll~\\....._,"°°""'121i1D"CMIOIP'*"-.~eec.

-n>lrnl**~----smoof/SlO'Opiiiir~mwh--

-Ati;wtASJMC-tn

~

CARDQRUNDUM 2"

&'1 l'IM1\\

HO 2800 0000 aGOO

.sooo LD HD RG LI>

HD 2600 3000 30QD 12 f92 3000

\\6-ie 5'00* um 150

~

<C*6%

Cn!em 1-'l~

1.0%

,~

1~

Giwn rnd

~

14 44 14 41,..

60%

50%

o..rr o.n 1.16 1.70

.2.AO

~7/30/~999 16:04 423913120~

C.Olor Whte Whi19 CantinuoUs UM Unr 982"C (1800'"F) 12eo-c (2300°A 17SO-C (3200"F) 2.5-3.5 mk:mns (msanl MolSng Pon l &4e-C (sooo-F)

Fiber Oiameilar SpacHlcHecn

@iosa*c ('ZOOO°F)

Speck Gravity

~Tendl~

CASTM 686-7Gl 2-4 mlcn:inS (me Ml 11soJA:g 0c (D.27 etunb Of) 2.73gfcm~

44%

51%

5%

<1Dppm 1130J~"C (0.27 BIUllO 0F}

2.1Sgtcm' S.6 lt>/in2@4 PCF 8.9*lbllrtit@e PCF 12.5 blina@ 8 PCP 64, ee, 126

~8,8) 5 mlcrans fmeen) 13 mk:rDnG {mesn)

Upto~:!:B4mm(10")

96.kg/ml (9 llJl-1) 3-0%

Whim 1260-C(~Fl 1760"C (320Ct-'F) 2.S-3...5 mlerons (mean) itSOJ~°C (0.27 Btu/lb *F) 2.~g/cm' Flbennat"" Bianka I 31..$5%

5o-64o/t 6%

1.3%

1.7%

-~..

g,So/,

<10ppm r-J...::....

DurabMnbt2600 Whlle 1 ~c (2600"F) t 780°C (~OOVfJ 3.6mlcron6 (average) 1 t30.J.llqj *c (0.27 Blu/lb

• F) 2.73g/cm3 96, 128 (8, 8)

Flbenn.u* llat 72%

27%

D.02%

0.001%

0.()15%

Cl.05%

0.1(J')D

,, ppm

~

AJoom1Ht1ca 10939C f2DOO"F) 17aa-c (3Z609F)

\\90-290 lqp'rn8 (12*18 iblrf')

113.0 J/kg 'C (0.27ewtb ~

Wet* 12l 10-N/mt(17psi)

Dry= 3.6 x 1 O' Nlmt (tiO pS}

Hat Gu eo&m ~

Tllflt pracedura bleed on EWlll.lh Gu Council Rerr lll'dt Comm.

GC173* over 80.5 mleec f100 bf MC)

Nonnat ihelf llt'eoneyearln i.mpened~

~

CARDORUNCtUIYI

Colar.

Conlfnuoue Usie l.bNr:

Filer~

Spec:ific GnM?y:

Nomilal Weignt

~

Dui..... llmt*S

~HP.S

~

.. tHOO White 780-C (1400°F) z.5.3..S micrw.a (IN8t'I)

2. 7'3 glarrrl

~"~*

S.70Z/ft 1'" lhiCknlU

• 73 mJ1t" r tl'Uclcnea5* 14. 7 ozlft' 7-10 ~

(lypCal)

Percatt Rec<Mlr)'

as 82 71

(~~ ~ ~f OO ~t i~ *~~~~u~~~ J~

CQ)Qr.

~UsaUmil';

~Poirlt Flbet Dllnicner.

S9&CMc&./~

Speclllc Hell Ca~

llt1~ (2QOODF):

Fiber &ilfac.a Area:

\\\\'ha 1850-C (3000"F) 1 rrtO"C ("J4CO-Fl 2~ mlc1t!n1 (mean}

3g/cm1 1246J/1CQ °C (Q.287 Blulb *F)

'7.8.S~g TMnnaJ COnclus1Mty

• llMt rem,...an (per AS111 c.1m**

.:J'T5(:u)

.34GpAJ Ii:"

i:

.317 12-2)

~.288(2.0) l

..2GDC1..8)

.116(0.IJ

,OITT(a.e)

.OSO(OA} --

/

86 kg/mi' (6 lill'ft'I)

/

J *

/

/ *' **

~~~Jb~

/

.~

v -***

Ir.

/ **'

./,,... '

v...

~**

.~..

~-*.... --

__,,. ~;:;..~

es 204

$1&

l.!r1 538 MO 790 m

882

~ t'600)

(800!

(800l (1000)

(1200;1 fl4(.q f1800)

(tlOO)

MMn~-ecM=)

~

CAllllBDRUNDUM

rc:.u 67/23/1999

~~*~Q r~ ~nw ~~u c:i:.:~*:u..:I.I. ~Cl:.>

To:

FU!

DatD:

Re; CC:

o Urgent a For RaYiaw a Please CaMJent 0.316 0.200

?

'Remflar Little Ea>hl:. Speciab:y Pu.being 107~f&nll3Dri~

Jo.oe:sborcugh,. TN 37659 PboDc/f..-: (423) 9ll-J2.05 7().4...3S7*863 7 July 23, 1999 I \\MS'l l had mere. bl4 I v.G try to get more~ andanim R1tion of blae runbets b )'ClJ, Mmldaymoming.

r *

• • TOTAL PAGE.14 **

SECTION FOUR CONTAINMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS 4

CONTAINMENT..................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4. l CONTAINMENT BOUNDARY............................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.l Contain111enl vessel....................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Contain111ent Penetrations............................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.3 Seals and Jfelds............................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.4 Closure....................................................................... :................................................................. 4-1 4.2 REQUIREMENTS FOR NORMAL CONDITIONS OF TRANSPORT.............................................................. 4-1 4.2.l Containment of Radioactive.Nfaterial.......................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.2 Pressurization of Containment Vessel.......................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.3 Containment Criterion..............................................................................,.......................,.......... 4-3 4.3 CONTAINMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR HYPOTHETICAL ACCIDENT CONDITIONS.................................. 4-3 4.3. l Fission Gas Products................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3.2 Containment of Radioactive Material.......................................................................................... 4-3 4.3.3 Containntent Criterion................................................................................................................. 4-4 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 4-1 PACKAGE TOT AL MA,'{U.fin..1 RADIOACTIVITY................................................................. :.................. 4-5 TABLE 4-2 MIXTURE A2 CALCULATION..............................................................................................,'.................. 4-6 TABLE 4-3 NORMAL CONDITION FLUID PROPERTIES............................................................................................ 4-7 TABLE 4-4 HAC FLUID PROPERTIES..................................................................................................................... 4-7 LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 4-i

_../

4 CONTAINMENT 4.1 Containment Boundary The containment boundary is def med as the containment vessel, primary lid (excluding the portion inside the secondary wall) and seal, and secondary lid and seal.

4.1.1 Containment vessel Although it is not stamped as such, the containment vessel is built in accordance with the ASME pressure vessel Code (Section VIII Division 1). The containment vessel's primary closures are at the primary and secondary lids. The primary lid is sealed using a double 0-ring and is secured by sixteen 5/8" stainless steel studs and nuts. The primary lid includes a fill port consisting of a vent and pressurization valve and a stainless steel threaded (plugged) quick-disconnect fitting. The secondary lid assembly provides a sealed enclosure around the valving and fittings on the primary lid. The secondary lid is sealed using a double 0-ring and is secured by twelve 5/8" stainless steel bolts and nuts.

4.1.2 Containment Penetrations The LR containment vessel has no penetrations.

4.1.3 Seals and Welds The containment vessel uses four circumferential welds: the joint between the lower head and the vessel body, the joint between the upper head and the vessel body, the joint between the upper head and the studding outlet, and the joint on the primary lid assembly. All welds are completed, inspected, tested, and maintained in accordance with Drawing Number LR-SAR, Sheets 1, 2, 3, & 4 for the Liqui-Rad Transport Unit (Appendix 1.3.1). Minimum requirements are specified in Sections 7 and 8 of this Safety Analysis Report.

Both the primary and secondary lids are sealed using a double 0-ring rated for continuous use up to 400°F.

4.1.4 Closure The containment vessel has two closures, one at the primary lid and one at the secondary lid. The primary lid is sealed using a double 0-Ring and is secured by sixteen 5/8" stainless steel studs and nuts. The secondary lid is sealed using a double 0-ring and is secured by twelve 5/8 stainless steel bolts and nuts. The closure torque required for each bolt or stud is 75 ft.-lbs. [+ 10-0].

4.2 Requirements for Normal Conditions of Transport 4.2.1 Containment of Radioactive Material The package contents, as defined in Section 1.2.3, are assumed to be completely releasable in LiquiRad SAR Rev 8 4-1

(

the form of uranyl nitrate liquid at the maximum Normal Hot content temperature (l 79°F) and the maximum Normal Hot pressure for the package (16.7 psia) (see Section 3). It is noted that the No1mal Cold pressure is higher (32.0 psia); however, the contents are solid under the N01mal Cold condition and therefore are not completely releasable. Thus, the Normal Hot condition is bounding.

The maximum total radioactivity contained in the package is 2.32 Ci (calculated in Table 4-1). The maximum volume of liquid contained in the cylinder is 9.96E05 cm3. The radioactivity concentration (releasable activity per unit volume) of the package for both No1mal and Hypothetical Accident conditions is therefore:

2.32 Ci I 9.96EOS cm3 = 2.33E-06 Ci/cm3.

The A1 value for the mixture in the package is 0.192 Ci (calculated in Table 4-2).

I 6s The maximum allowable release rate for normal conditions, per ANSI NI 4.5-1997, is:

1 o-6 A1 per hour= 1 o-6 (0.192 Ci) per hour = 5.3E-l 1 cilsec.

I ps The maximum allowable leakage rate for normal conditions is:

5.3E-11 Ci/sec I 2.33E-06 Ci/cm3 = 2.3E-05 cm3/sec uranyl nitrate solution.

For the normal condition, the uranyl nitrate is conservatively assumed to be liquid with the properties of water. The leakage of liquid from the package is assumed to be laminar, and Poiseuille's Law is applied consistent with the methods described in ANSI Nl4.5.. 1997. The uranyl nitrate maximum allowable leakage rate is conelated to the reference air le'akage rate using the methods described in ANSI N14.5-1997 Annex Band the conditions listed in Table 4-3. The calculated allowable leak rate for the package for the normal condition is 1.72E-3 ref-cm3 /sec.

4.2.2 Pressurization of Containment Vessel Although the LR is designed as an ASME pressure vessel, the contents are not meant to be shipped in a pressurized environment. Pressurization of the vessel will occur if the contents

• are pe1mitted to exceed the boiling point of the solution; however, all tests for heat, cold, and fire demonstrate that the solution is maintained well below the boiling point under no1mal and hypothetical accident conditions.

During cold weather shipments it is possible that the contents will freeze. The volumetric expansion of the contents due to the phase change causes a reduction in the ah* headspace, resulting in a pressure increase to 31 psia (see Section 3.3.3). In addition, the UN solution produces hydrogen gas due to radiolysis. The hydrogen production rate, calculated in Section 2.4.4.2, is 1.7 liters/year. After a year of transport time, under the Normal Cold (frozen) condition, the maximum internal pressure is 31.4 psia.

The internal pressure of the containment vessel is maintained below the design pressure of 50 psig under normal and hypothetical accident conditions.

LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 as supplemented 4-2

4.2.3 Containment Criterion Leak tests will be performed pre-shipment per the requirements of ANS~ N14.5-1997, as 6s described in Section 7. Leak tests will be performed post-fabrication and periodically per the requirements of ANSI N14.5-1997, as described in Section 8. Post-fabrication, the package containment boundary is tested to leaktight conditions. The maximum allowable leakage rate of 1.72E-03 ref-cc/sec (as bounded by the normal condition) is conservatively reduced to 1.00E-03 ref-cc/sec for periodic and pre-shipment tests.

Leak test ports are provided at each double 0-ring seal to facilitate the required leak tests.

Although several optional leak test po1i configurations are provided, all perform in the same manner. Further information concerning the optional test port designs is provided in Appendix 2.10.9.

The primary lid is usually only operated during periodic testing and maintenance activities; therefore, it has been fitted with loops to secure tamper-indicating devices. The devices are intended to indicate to the User whether or not the lid has been operated in the time since the last periodic test. If the primary lid has not been opened from the time of the last periodic test (as indicated by the presence of the tamper indicating devices located at the primary lid seal), the pre-shipment leakage test may be waived for the primary lid only.

4.3 Containment Requirements for Hypothetical Accident Conditions.

4.3.1 Fission Gas Products Fission gas products are not present in the contents to be transported in the LR.

4.3.2 Containment of Radioactive Material The package contents, as defined in Section 1.2.3, are assumed to be completely releasable in the form of uranyl nitrate liquid at the maximum allowable working temperature (210°F) and a conservative bounding pressure for the package ( 100 psig). The maximum total radioactivity contained in the package is 2.32 Ci (calculated in Table 4-1). The maximum volume of liquid contained in the cylinder is 9.96E05 cm3* The radioactivity concentration (releasable activity per unit volume) of the package for both Normal and Hypothetical Accident conditions is therefore:

2.32 Ci I 9.96E05 cm3 = 2.33E-06 Ci/cm3.

The A2 value for the mixture in the package is 0.192 Ci (calculated in Table 4-2).

The maximum allowable release rate for HAC, per ANSI N14.5-1997, is:

A2 per week = (0.192 Ci) per week = 3.2E-7 Ci/sec.

The maximum allowable leakage rate for HAC is:

3.2E-7 Ci/sec /2.33E-06Ci/cm3 = 1.4E-01 cm3/sec uranyl nitrate solution.

LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 as supplemented 4-3

The uranyl nitrate maximum allowable leakage rate is correlated to the reference air leakage rate using the methods described in ANSI Nl 4.5-1997 Annex B and the conditions listed in Table 4-

4. The calculated maximum allowable leak rate calculated for the package for HAC is l.60E-O 1 ref-cm3 /sec.

4.3.3 Containment Criterion Leak tests will be performed pre-shipment per the requirements of ANSI Nl4.5-1997, as 6s described in Section 7. Leak tests will be performed post-fabrication, periodically, and pre-shipment per the requirements of ANSI N 14.5-1997, as described in Section 8. Post-fabrication, the package containment boundary is tested to leaktight conditions. The maximum allowable leakage rate of l.72E-03 ref-cc/sec (as bounded by the n01mal condition) is conservatively reduced to 1.00E-03 ref-cc/sec for periodic and pre-shipment tests.

Leak test ports are provided at each double 0-ring seal to facilitate the required leak tests.

Although several optional leak test port configurations are provided, all perfotm in the same manner. Further information concerning the optional test port designs is provided in Appendix 2.10.9.

The primary lid is usually only operated during periodic testing and maintenance activities; therefore, it has been fitted with loops to secure tamper-iudicating devices. The devices are intended to indicate to the User whether or not the lid has been operated in the time since the last periodic test. If the primary lid has not been opened from the time of the last periodic test (as indicated by the presence of the tamper indicating devices located at the primary lid seal), the pre-shipment leakage test may be waived for the primary lid only.

LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 as supplemented

• 4-4

U232 2.00E-09 g/gU 2.49E-04 0.83 2.07E-04 U234 2.00E-03 g/gU 2.49E+02 2.30E-04 5.74E-02 U235 5.00E-02 g/gU 6.24E+03 8.00E.. 08 4.99E-04 U236 2.50E-02 g/gU 3.12E+03 2.40E-06 7.48E-03 U238 9.23E-01 g/gU

1. l 5E+05 1.20E-08 1.38E-03 NP237 1.66E-06 g/gU 2.07E-Ol 2.61E-05 5.40E-06 PU238 6.20E-l l g/gU 7.73E-06 6.33E-01 4.90E-06 PU2391240 3.04E-09 g/gU 3.79E-04 3.60E-03 l.37E-06 Gamma Emitters 1.91E+08 MeV-Bq NIA NIA 1.90E-02 Total 0.09 1 Based on 263 gallons at 125 gU/l.

2 10CFR71, App. A LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 4-5 5.60E-03 l.55E+OO 1.35E-02 2.02E-01 3.73E-02 l.46E-04 l.32E-04 3.69E-05 5.15E-01 2.32

Table 4-2 Mixture A2 Calculation U232 0.027 2.41E-03 8.93E-02 U234 0.16 6.67E-Ol 4.17E+OO U235 Unlimited NIA NIA U236 0.16 8.69E-02 5.43E-01 U238 Unlimited -

NIA NIA NP237 0.054 6.28E-05 l.16E-03 PU238 0.027 5.68E-05 2.IOE-03 PU239/240 0.027 1.59E-05 5.88E-04 Gamma Emitters 0.54 2.22E-Ol 4.IOE-01 LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6

. 4-6

Table 4-3 Normal Condition Fluid Properties I

Upstream Pressure, atm 1.136 1.00 Downstream Pressure, atm 1.00 0.01 Temperature, K 355 298 Molecular Weight, g/gmol NIA 29 Viscosity, cP 0.3460 0.0185 Assumed hole length, cm 1.0 1.0 Hole diameter, cm l.435E-03 l.435E-03 Table 4-4 HAC Fluid Properties Upstream Pressure, atm 7.80 1.00 Downstream Pressure, atm 1.00 0.01 Tern erature, K 372 298 Molecular Weight, g/gmol NIA 29 Viscosity, cP 0.2848 0.0185 Assumed hole length, cm 1.0 1.0 Hole diameter, cm 4.5E-03 4.5E-03 3 No1mal Hot pressure for the vessel.

4 Physical properties of water, CRC Handbook, 60t1 1 Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1980.

5 Calculated for Uranyl Nitrate per ANSI N14.5-1997 Annex B, Section B.3, Equations B.3 and B.9.

6Conservative bounding pressure for the package.

7 Viscosity of water, CRC, 601h Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1980.

& Calculated for Uranyl Nitrate per ANSI N14.5-1997 Annex B, Section B.3, Equations B.3 and B.9.

LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 4-7

I SECONDARY /UPPER LID INNER SEAL ~

LID HANDLE (OPTIONAL)

PRIMARY LID BOLTS STUDDING OUTLET

J

~~====l,1===~~

I

' I.

I.

I.

DRAW PIPE~:

I I

I I

I I.

~---1---.-""'!

I no21 SECONDARY /UPPER LID SECONDARY /UPPER LID FLANGE I SECONDARY /UPPER WALL I INNER SEA

.CONTAINMENT VESSEL CONTAINMENT BOUNDARY COMPONENT OF CONTAINMENT BOUNDARY CONTAINMENT VESSEL FIGURE 4-1 CONTAIN11ENT BOUNDARY LiquiRad SAR Rev. 8 as supplemented 4-8

SECTION 5 SHIELDING EVALUTATION 5

SHIELDING EVALUATION........................................................................................................................ 5-1 5-i

5 SHIELDING EVALUATION Gamma and neutron shielding is not required for the vessel because the 3/ 16-inch thick storage vessel walls provide more than adequate shielding for the material being transported. The estimated dose rate on the surface of the package is less than 5 mrem/h, based on the worst case contents and 263 gallons (996 liters). This dose rate is well below the limits specified in I OCFR71.47. However, it is the responsibility of the shipper to assure compliance with IOCFR71.47 regarding radiation standards for each shipment.

5-1

SECTION 6 CRITICALITY EVALUATION TABLE OF CONTENTS 6

CRITICALITY EVALUATION.................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 DISCUSSION AND RESULTS................................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 PACKAGE FUEL LOADING.................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.3 MODEL SPECIFICATION...................................................................................................................... 6-2 6.3. I Description of Calculational Model............................................................................................. 6-2 6.3.2 Package Regional Densities......................................................................................................... 6-4 6.4 CRITICALITY CALCULATION.............................................................................................................. 6-4

6. 4. 1 Calculational Method................................................................................................................... 6-4 6.4.2 Loading Optimization................................................................................................................... 6-4

6. 4. 3 Crificality Results......................................................................................................................... 6-4 6.5 CRITICAL BENCHMARK E)t.'l'ERTh1ENTS.............................................................................................. 6-5 6.6 APPENDIX - SCALE43 INPUT DECKS - BOUNDING CASES................................................................ 6-5

6.7 REFERENCES

..................................................................................................................................... 6-9 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLE 6-1 QUANTITY OF FISSILE ISOTOPES EVALUATED...................................................... 6-10 TABLE 6-2 SU!'vflvfARY OF RESULTS....................................................................................... 6-11 TABLE 6-3 PACKAGE FUEL LOADING.................................................................................... 6-12 TABLE 6-4 LIQUI-RAD MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION AND RELEVANT DIMENSIONS......... 6-13 FIGURE 6-1 LIQUI-RAD UNIT MODEL FOR NORMAL CONDITIONS......................................... 6-14 FIGURE 6-2 HAC 1 UNIT MODEL - PRECIPITATION AND LAYERED FREEZING..................... 6-15 FIGURE 6-3 HAC 2 UNIT MODEL-RADIAL FREEZING........................................................ 6-16 FIGURE 6-4 MUL TlPICA TlON FACTOR AS A FUNCTION OF INTERSPERSED MOD ERA TJON....... 6-17 6-i

(

6 Criticality Evaluation The Liqui-Rad is a Type B packaging designed for shipment of uranyl nitrate solution with concentrations up to 125 grams of Uranium per liter and enriched to 5wt% U-235. Non-fissile chemical impurities do not adversely impact the critical behavior of the material and packaging; therefore, they may be present in any quantity in the uranyl nitrate solution.

Fissile impurities are limited to the quantities specified in Table 6-1. Although U-233 is included in the criticality evaluation for conservatism, actual U-233 content in the solution remains below measurable quantities. Any number of packages may be stored together in any airnngement in either a vertical or horizontal orientation.

The Liqui-Rad consists of a stainless steel cylindrical containment vessel with a total capacity of 263 gallons (996 liters) including ullage encased in a carbon steel cylindrical outer liner. A rectangular frame constructed of carbon steel angle provides stability for the package. The overall package dimensions are 56" x 56" x 73". The overall height of the containment vessel is 41.1875" with an outer diameter of 46.25". The volume between the containment vessel and the outer packaging surface is filled with a fire-retardant foam and fibrous insulation. The containment vessel is centered radially within the outer shell. An insulation-filled gap of approximately 6.5" and 12" exists between the bottom and the top, respectively, of the containment vessel and the outer shell.

6. 1 Discussion and Results Criticality control of the Liqui-Rad relies on control of the uranyl nitrate concentration and emichment, and non-U235 fissile impurity levels.

An unlimited number of packages contahiing ur!lnyl nitrate solution at the maxhnum enrichment and concentration, with the maximum quantities of the isotopes specified in Table 6-1, are subcritical with optimum interspersed hydrogenous moderation under Normal conditions.

Additionally, an infinite anay of packages is subcritical in any anangement under Hypothetical Accident conditions with optimum interspersed hydrogenous moderation.

Table 6-2 provides a summaty of the results of the criticality evaluation of the Liqui-Rad. A I detailed description of the analytical models and methodology is provided in Section 6-4.

For Uranyl Nitrate concentrations less than or equal to 125 gU/L and enrichment 5::5w% U-235, an unlimited numbel' of packages may be shipped together in any anangement and no nuclear criticality safety controls are required during transpmt. Therefore, the Criticality Safety Index (CSI) is 0.

6.2 Package Fuel Loading Table 6-3 summarizes the maxhnum fuel loading and conditions for the Nonual and Hypothetical Accident conditions. The nominal foel loadh1g for the Liqui-Rad is 230 gallons (870 liters) of uranyl nitrate solution at a concentration of 125 gU/L or less and enriched to 5wt% U-235 or less. It is possible to over-fill the package, resulting in a maximum fuel LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 6-1

loading of 263 gallons (996 liters). The fuel is assumed to be in solution f01111, with no free acid, under Normal conditions. Under Hypothetical Accident conditions, the entire mass of the fuel is assumed to be concentrated and/or c1ystallized in the cylinder. Both the Nonnal and Hypothetical Accident fuel loadings are conservative with respect to anticipated working loads.

6.3 Model Specification 6.3.1 Description of Calculational Model The Liqui-Rad is a large package, and as such, there is very little neutron leakage from the package. Each package is an isolated system. Therefore, modeling a single package yields the same result as modeling an infinite anay of the packages.

However, the number of packages stipulated by regulatory requirements has been analyzed for expediency.

6.3.1.1 Normal Conditions of Transport The Nonnal Transport condition postulates an unlimited number of Liqui-Rad packages, close-packed in a rectangular-pitched infinite anay, with optimum interspersed moderation.

Table 6-4 provides the materials and key dimensions for the Liqui-Rad [Reference 6.1]. The maximum volume of liquid contained in the package is 263 gallons [230 gallons + 33 gallon ullage] (996 liters). An additional 10% is added for conservatism, for a total of 289 gallons modeled.

This additional 10% exceeds any variances in the package capacity due to tolerancing of the pai1s. Additionally, the steel walls of the outer shell and the insulation used in the package were conservatively neglected and were modeled as fuel and moderator, respectively.

The U-234 and U-236 contained in the package was also conservatively neglected. The Liqui-Rad was modeled in an infinite ail'ay as an eqnivalent-vohune sphere with a homogeneous concentration of Uranyl Nitrate solution and maximum fissile impurities using the SCALE package [Reference 6-2]. The assumption that there is no free acid in the solution is conservative, since nitrogen is an absorber.

Figure 6-1 provides a graphical representation of the model. A single package with full reflection and optimum interspersed moderation was also modeled.

6.3.1.2 Hypothetical Accident Conditions (HAC)

Hypothetical accident conditions postulate an infinite anay of damaged packages with optimum interspersed moderation. However, the results of the testing repo11ed in Section Two showed minimal strnctural damage to the package under Hypothetical Accident conditions. The strnctural damage sustained did not cause the containment vessel to shift, nor would the damage at the outer wall of the package lead to an overall decrease in the package-to-package spacing.

Therefore, the package-to-package and vessel-to-vessel pitch was maintained at the nominal dimensions rep011ed for the Nonna} condition.

6.3.1.2. l HAC 1: Precipitation Precipitation of the uranyl nitrate solution could be initiated by the addition of a strong base to the package. Data from industry [Reference 6-3] shows that the maximum concentration achieved due to the introductiou of non-fissile impurities from a precipitating agent is 300 LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 6-2

(

gU/L. Higher concentrations are not attainable unless the water is decanted and the solid dried. The precipitate and impmities, due to their weight, settle to the bottom of the package.

Although it would be ve1y difficult to precipitate the entire mass of uranium due to the limited volume available for addition of a precipitant (33 gallon ullage), all of the uranium (136 kg for 289 gallons at 125 gU/l), along with the maximum allowable fissile impurity content, is assumed to precipitate. The precipitate was modeled in a slab on the bottom of the upright cylinder at a concentration of 300 gU/L. The remainder of the cylinder was filled with water.

The free acid, U-234 and U-236 contained in the package were conservatively neglected.

The package was also modeled in a horizontal orientation; however, the horizontal orientation creates a thinner slab of material with a higher surface area, resulting in lower multiplication factors.

Table 6-4 provides a listing of the materials and dimensions used to model the Hypothetical Accident condition. Figure 6-2 provides a graphical representation of the model. A single package with full reflection and optimum interspersed moderation was also modeled.

6.3.1.2.2 RAC 2: Freezing Severe cold weather conditions could cause freezing of the package contents.

At a concentration of 125 gU/L and a nitric acid nonnality between 0 and 1, the solution is approximately 17 wt% UNH, 82 wt% water, and 1 wt% HN03. The Gmelin Handbook of Inorganic Chemistry [Reference 6-4] lists the crystallization temperatures of U02(N03) 2 in vaiious nitric acid concentrations. Interpolation of the data shows that crystallization of the 125 gU/L solution begins at -4°C. The differential between the crystallization point of the uranyl nitrate solution and the crystallization point of water, and the high water content of the liquid, suggests that the solution develops a concentration gradient as it freezes. However, because the differential crystallization temperature is smaU ( 4°C), the concentration gradient is also expected to be small. Preliminary testing performed at Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. in Erwin, Tennessee indicates that the solution freezes in layers, with a layer of concentrated solution (approximately twice the nominal) falling to the bottom of the container. As shown previously (see Precipitation), a layer of the entire mass of uranium concentrated to more than twice the oiiginal 125 gU/l is snbcritical in both the ho1izontal and ve1tical orientations for a single package and an infinite anay of packages. Therefore, layered freezing is subcritical for the maximum fuel loading of the Liqui-rad.

It is also possible that a concentration gradient may develop radially in the frozen solid, with a higher concentration of UN at the core. In this scenario, the solution freezes in annular sections, moving from the exterior cylinder surface to the interior, with the more exposed surfaces freezing sooner. This pattern of freezing would be the same, regardless of whether the cylinder is vertical or ho1izontal. The preliminary test data provided by Nuclear Fuel Services does not support this scenario; however, to assure that the package has been evaluated for the worst case conditions the annular freeze scenario was analyzed.

In order to analyze the effects of radial freezing on the c1iticality of the system, the package was conservatively modeled as an infinite array of spheres in water. Each sphere contains LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 6-3

concentric layers of solution concentration, 550 gU/L at the core and dissipating radially in a linear concentration gradient, for a total uranium mass of approximately 136 kg (300 lb). The concentrations modeled are highly conse1vative, with the core area modeled at more than 4 times the nominal solution concentration of 125 gU/L (approximately half the density of pure UNH crystals). The overall average concentration of the sphere is 125 gU/L. Once again, the free acid, U-234, and U-236 were conservatively neglected. Table 6-4 provides a listing of the mate1ials and dimensions used to model the Hypothetical Accident condition. Figure 6-3 provides a graphical representation of the model. A single package with full reflection and optimum interspersed moderation was also modeled.

6.3.2 Package Regional Densities The material density for each region of the models is provided in Table 6-4. The default atomic number densities from the SCALE library were used for all materials and mixtures.

6.4 Criticality Calculation 6.4.1 Calculational Method The SCALE43 code with the 44 Group Standard Cross Section Library was used to evaluate Keff of the Liqui-Rad Transport Unit under all conditions of transpo11. Input decks for all bounding cases are provided in Section 6.6.

6.4.2 Loading Optimization 6.4.2.1 Moderation Optimization The full range of interspersed moderation densities for the package was evaluated. There is very little neutron leakage from the package and thus, there is almost no interaction between packages. Figure 6-4 plots the multiplication factor as a function of interspersed moderation.

For the accident scenarios (RAC 1 and RAC 2), the individual packages are isolated from one another, and the multiplication factor is maintained almost constant.

For the Nmmal condition, a slight peak exists at an interspersed moderation density of 0.0001 gH20/cc, primarily due to the conse1vative modeling of the package spacing (packaging walls neglected).

6.4.3 Criticality Results All results demonstrate a package subcritical margin of more than 5%. Table 6-2 presents the results of the analysis. As a final check, a 250 gallon sphere of the Uranyl Nitrate solution was modeled in an infinite a nay. Also, an infinite mass of the solution was also evaluated. As shown in Figure 6-4, both the infinite mass and infinite array of spheres produced results very close to the results of the cylinder model due to the absence of neutron leakage and interaction in this system.

LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 6-4

6.5 Critical Benchmark Experiments Reference 6-5 documents 303 critical experiments (ranging in enrichments from 0.74 to 10.0 wt% U-235) modeled using the SCALE43 code with the 44 Group Standard Cross Section Library.

Of the 303 experiments, 15 were uranyl nitrite solutions in cylinders with enrichments from 5 to 1 Owt% U-235 and solution concentrations from 225 to 420 gU/L. The KENO results of the expe1imental uranyl nitrate solutions were evaluated as a group in Reference 6-5. The bias and uncertainty associated with the uranyl nitrate critical expe1iments repm1ed in Reference 6-5 was +0.0009 and 0.0054, respectively. Reference 6-5 additionally repo11s an upper subcritical limit of 0.9928 based on Keff + 2cr for the uranyl nitrate group; however, for conservatism, an administrative upper subcritical limit of 0.95, adjusted for the bias and unce11ainty reported in Reference 6-5, is used in this study. The adjusted upper subcritical limit for the SCALE43 code with the 44 Group Standard Cross Section Library is therefore 0.9500 - 0.0054 = 0.9446 (neglecting the positive bias as recommended by NUREG 5661).

6.6 Appendix - SCALE43 Input Decks - Bounding Cases LIQUI-RAD Normal Case 289 gallon equivalent sphere (63.873 radius sphere volume equals 289 gallons) at 5 wt% U235 and with max impurities, infinite array in optimum moderation 44GR INFHOM H20 2 0.0001 294 END SOLNU02(N03)2 3 125 0 0.99998 294 92232 0.000002 92233 0.005 92235 5.0 92238 94.994998 END SOLNPU(N03}4 3 125 0 0. 00002 294 94239 100 END H20 4 1.0 294 END END COMP 5 wt% U235 and with max impurities, infinite array in optimum moderation READ PARM NUB=YES GEN=305 NPG=600 NSK=5 FLX=YES FDN=YES END PARM READ GEOM GLOBAL UNIT 1 SPHERE CUBOID 3 1 63.873 2 1 6P63. 873 END GEOM READ BOUNDS ALL=REFL END BOUNDS END DATA END LIQUI-RAD HAC 1 - precipitation Explicit cylinder modeled with prec ipitate settling in a slab at the bottom, 300gU/liter, 5% enrichment, water above.

42.281 cm is the depth required for all of uranium at 300 gU/liter.

44GR INFHOM H20 2 0.1 294 END LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 6-5

(

SOLNU02(N03)2 3 300 0 0.99998 294 92232 0.000002 92233 0.005 92235 5.0 92238 94.994998 END SOLNPU(N03)4 3 300 0 0.00002 294 94239 100 END H20 4 1. 0 294 END END COMP Explicit cylinder modeled with precipitate settling in a slab READ PARM NUB=YES GEN=305 NPG=600 NSK=5 FLX=YES FDN=YES END PARM READ GEOM GLOBAL UNIT 1 CYLINDER 3 1 58.42 42.281 0.0 CYLINDER 4 1 58.42 101.6 0.0 CUBOID 2 1 4P58.42 101.6 0.0 END GEOM READ BOUNDS ALL=REFL END BOUNDS END DATA END LIQUI-RAD HAC 2 -

freezing Equivalent volume sphere with frozen UN layered concentrations from 550 gU/ l iter at the core to pure water at the outer shell.

44GR INFHOM H20 2 0.4 233 END SOLNU02(N03)2 3 550 0 0.99998 233 92232 0.000002 92233 0.005 92235 5. 0 92238 94.994998 END SOLNPU(N03)4 3 550 0 0.00002 233 94239 100 END SOLNU02(N03)2 4 440 0 0.99998 233 92232 0.000002 92233 0.005 92235 5.0 92238 94.994998 END SOLNPU(N03)4 4 440 0 0.00002 233 94239 100 END SOLNU02(N03)2 5 330 0 0.99998 233 92232 0.000002 92233 0.005 922 35 5.0 92238 94. 994998 END SOLNPU(N03)4 5 330 0 0.00002 233 94239 100 END SOLNU02 (N03)2 6 230 0 0.99998 233 9223 2 0. 000002 92233 0.005 92235 5.0 92238 94.994998 END SOLNPU(N03)4 6 230 0 0.00002 233 94239 100 END SOLNU02(N03)2 7 115 0 0.99998 233 92232 0.000002 92233 0.005 92235 5.0 92238 94.994998 END SOLNPU(N03)4 7 115 0 0. 00002 233 94239 100 END SOLNU02(N03)2 8 33 0 0.99998 233 92232 0.000002 92233 0.005 92235 5.0 92238 94. 994998 END SOLNPU(N03)4 8 33 0 0.00002 233 94239 100 END H20 9 1.0 2 33 END END COMP frozen UN layered READ PARM NUB= YES GEN=305 NPG=600 NSK=5 END PARM READ GEOM GLOBAL UNI T 1 SPHERE 3 1 12 SPHERE 4 1 22 SPHERE 5 1 32 LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 6-6

(

SPHERE 6 1 42 SPHERE 7 1 52 SPHERE 8 1 62 SPHERE 9 1 63.873 CUBOID 2 1 6P63.873 END GEOM READ BOUNDS ALL=REFL END BOUNDS END DATA END LIQUI-RAD Normal Case Single Package 289 gallon equivalent sphere {63.873 radius sphere volume equals 289 gallons) at 5 wt% U235 and with max impurities, full reflection, optimum moderation 44GR INFHOM H20 2 0.0001 294 END SOLNU02(N03)2 3 125 0 0.99998 294 92232 0.000002 92233 0.005 92235 5.0 92238 94.994998 END SOLNPU(N03)4 3 125 0 0. 00002 294 94239 100 END H20 4 1. 0 294 END END COMP 5 wt% U235 and with max impurities, Single Package READ PARM NUB=YES GEN=305 NPG=600 NSK=5 FLX=YES FDN=YES END PARM READ GEOM GLOBAL UNIT 1 SPHERE 3 1 63.873 CUBOID 4 1 6P94.353 END GEOM END DATA END LIQUI-RAD HAC 1 - precipitation Single Package Explicit cylinder modeled with precipitate settling in a slab at the bottom, 300gU/liter, 5% enrichment, water above.

42.281 cm is the depth required for all of uranium at 300 gU/liter.

44GR INFHOM H20 2 0.0001 294 END SOLNU02(N03)2 3 300 0 0.99998 294 92232 0.000002 92233 0.005 92235 5.0 92238 94. 994998 END SOLNPU(N03)4 3 300 0 0.00002 294 94239 100 END H20 4 1.0 294 END END COMP Explicit cylinder modeled with precipitate settling in a slab READ PARM NUB=YES GEN=305 NPG=600 NSK=5 FLX=YES FDN=YES END PARM READ GEOM GLOBAL UNIT 1 CYLINDER 3 1 58.42 42.281 0.0 CYLINDER 4 1 58.42 101. 6 0.0 CUBOID 4 1 4P88. 90 132.08 -30.48 LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 6-7

(

END GEOM END DATA END LIQUI-RAD HAC 2 - freezing Single Package Equivalent volume sphere with frozen UN layered concentrations from 550 gU/liter at the core to pure water at the outer shell.

44GR INFHOM H20 2 0.0001 2 33 END SOLNU02(N03)2 3 550 0 0. 99998 233 92232 0.000002 92 233 0.005 92235 5.0 92238 94.994998 END SOLNPU(N03)4 3 550 0 0.00002 233 94239 100 END SOLNU02(N03)2 4 440 0 0.99998 233 92232 0.000002 92233 0.005 92235 5.0 92238 94.994998 END SOLNPU(N03)4 4 440 0 0.00002 2 33 94239 100 END SOLNU02(N03)2 5 330 0 0.99998 233 9223 2 0.000002 92233 0.005 92235 5.0 92238 94.994998 END SOLNPU(N03)4 5 330 0 0.00002 233 94239 100 END SOLNU02(N03)2 6 230 0 0.99998 233 92232 0. 000002 92233 0.005 92235 5.0 92238 94.994998 END SOLNPU(N03)4 6 230 0 0.00002 233 94239 100 END SOLNU02(N03)2 7 115 0 0.99998 2 33 92232 0. 000002 92233 0.005 92235 5.0 92238 94.994998 END SOLNPU(N03)4 7 115 0 0.00002 233 94239 100 END SOLNU02(N03)2 8 33 0 0.99998 233 922 32 0.000002 92 233 0.005 92 23 5 5.0 92238 94.994998 END SOLNPU(N03)4 8 33 0 0.0000 2 233 94239 100 END H20 9 1.0 233 END END COMP frozen UN layered READ PARM NUB=YES GEN=600 NPG=800 NSK=5 END PARM READ GEOM GLOBAL UNIT 1 SPHERE 3 1 12 SPHERE 4 1 22 SPHERE 5 1 32 SPHERE 6 1 42 SPHERE 7 1 52 SPHERE 8 1 62 SPHERE 9 1 63.873 CUBOID 9 1 6P63.873 CUBOID 9 1 6P94.353 END GEOM END DATA END LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 6-8

(

6. 7

References:

[6-1]

Drawing Number LR-SAR, Sheets I, 2, 3, & 4, Revision 0 for the Liqui-Rad Transport Unit

[6-2]

SCALE 43: Modular Code System for Perfonning Standardized Computer Analyses for Licensing Evaluation, NUREG/CR-200, Rev. 4, CCC-545, Radiation Shielding Infonnation Center, Oak Ridge National Laborato1y.

[6-3]

Sanders, C.F. and RD. Montgomery. Criticality Evaluation of UN storage Tanks, Westinghouse NFD, 1994.

[6-4] Becker, Richard, et. al. Gmelin Handbook of Inorganic ChemistJ)', 8'" Edition, Uranium Suppliment Volume Cl, Compounds with Nitrogen, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1981.

[6-5]

Montgomery, Rosemary A. Validation of SCALE-PC for Uranium Systems with Enrichments between 0.72 and 10.0 wt% U-235, MTS985, Rev. 1, 10/99.

LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 6-9

(

Table 6-1 Quantity of Fissile Isotopes Evaluated Fissile Isotope l\\'Iaximum Allowable Concentration (Uranium Basis)

U-232 20 oob U-233 50 ppm 1

U-235 5.0wt%

Pu-239/240/241 2000111 1 The U-233 isotope is included for conservatism only. Actual U-233 content in the solution is below the measurement capabilities of current instrnmentatiou, and is therefore negligible.

LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 6-10

Table 6-2 Summary of Results Number of U-235 Close Interspersed Applicable Transport Case packages in Array Size Enrichment Water Moderation Kerr cr K.,ff + 2cr Upper Array Reflection (2/cc H20)

Subcritical Limit Normal Unlimited Infinite 5wt%

NIA 0.0001 0.6280 0.0004 0.6288 0.9446 Hypothetical Accident -

Unlimited Infinite 5wt%

NIA 0.1000 0.9337 0.0009 0.9355 0.9446 Precipitation Hypothetical Accident-Unlimited Infinite 5wt%

NIA 0.4000 0.9405 0.0011 0.9427 0.9446 Freezing Normal 1

lxlxl 5wt%

Yes NIA 0.5910 0.0006 0.5922 0.9446 Hypothetical Accident -

1 lxlxl 5wt%

Yes NIA 0.8554 0.0010 0.8574 0.9446 Precipitation Hypothetical Accident-1 lxlxl 5wt%

Yes NIA 0.9363 0.0006 0.9375 0.9446 Freezing LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 6-11

Table 6-3 Package Fuel Loading Transport Case Fuel Maximum Maximum U-232 U-233 Plutonium Enrichment Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Normal Uranyl Nitrate 5wt%

125 _gU/L 20ppb 50ppm 20ppm Hypothetical Accident Uranyl 5wt%

550 gU/L at the 20ppb 50ppm 20ppm

- Freezing Nitrate/UNH core Hypothetical Accident Uranyl 5wt%

Layer of 300 gU/L 20ppb 50ppm 20ppm

- Precipitation Nitrate/UNH concentrate on the bottom LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 6-12

Table 6-4 Liqui-Rad Materials of Construction and Relevant Dimensions Component Actual Dimension Actual Modeled Actual Modeled Modeled Modeled Modeled Volume Volume Material Material Normal HACl HAC2 inches cm cm3 cm3 Condition Density Density Density (glee)

(glee)

(g/cc)

Uranyl Uranyl Containment 45.5 ID 115.57 ID 9.464E5 1.090E6 Nitrate Nitrate 1.1688 1.4025 1.7806 to vessel with free without free 1.0689 acid acid Uranyl Containment 0.25 0.635

>2.412E4 0

Stainless Nitrate 1.1688 1.4025 1.7806 to vessel wall thickness thickness Steel without free 1.0689 acid Vessel 4.62525 11.74725 2.305E5 0

Foam Water 0.0001 0.1000 0.4000 Insulation thickness thickness Insulation Outer Liner 0.138225 0.35125 0

0 Carbon Water 0.0001 0.1000 0.4000 wall thickness thickness Steel LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 6-13

5 gU/L 289 gal L36 KgU Uuit Spbere Figure 6-1 Liqui-Rad Unit Model for Normal Conditions LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 6-14

300 gU/L 136 KgU Figure 6-2 HAC 1 Unit Model - Precipitation and Layered Freezing LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 6-15

~c=?!!~~~i~.;;!~~~~~j. rti:~~r T~:~~s Figure 6-3 HAC 2 Unit Model - Radial Freezing LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 6-16

1.000 0.950 0.900

'?,)°->

1,

,CV kv tt IO:;

~

'"f.>O:;

~

0;"5 oJ

~

oJ oJ oJ oJ

(

0;"::i

~-

0;"5 OJ~

~9>

~*

~.>j

~ *

()cp

~*

~*

~*

~-~i

~*

......L.

~

II:

_t:~

-~<o

~'1'

-1'.'1' f::>j

~

~

g,

~~

~-

~'?

~-:.)

~~*

~°?

~*

~°?

()°?

~cp

~

~*

~cp 0.850 I 0.800

"""'"'1"~ N or m a I 0.750

_.._HAC 1

..,_HAC2 0.700 0.650 R>co

~ ro'V

~

<o t..

~~ll<

<3'.

.c\\'

~

,. t::i~

( ~

~

,. ~

\\

.dt:>

<,;;°->'V

~""'~*~,

~.

<:,'?S

~f>

~~1

~f>

~~i

~<9

~-

.,11111,,,,4~~~,,

~.

~ - I

~-

~"ltN:!J.;"

0.600

. 'lth\\lli""""'"*'to:*.

<* * ~

,,Jl:i\\l!~~~.r>>'~~~~l~W°(~l9.~~!\\lS;:ll:~~~l~~tW.Ai>>>,\\.%~~tt.~f ~~i:,.~~:u"YM~~fW.\\.~i-~.~~111Jr~~~~~w~<irM~ii~W{~~*~ml.?4W';;umn~l!tf~i1;f.~4:Ji'~~*n~~~~~~~1<<\\\\'i"1~~~iw:.~~"S(.1i'(J:~<i.w..~1f~~~.r;,~)t~~~~Mcw.,1r~ilw.mtt:~1-.?r';.._~t~,~~~*

0.550 0.00 0.10 LiquiRad SAR Rev. 6 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Interspersed Moderation, glee Figure 6-4 Multiplication Factor as a function of Interspersed Moderation 6-17

SECTION SE.VEN OPERATING PROCEDURES TABLE OF CONTENTS 7

OPERATIN"G PROCEDURES....................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Procedure for Loading the LR................................................................................. 7-1 7.2 Procedures for Unloading the LR........................................................................... 7-2 7.3 Preparation of Empty LR for Transpo1t.................................................................. 7-3 7.4 Use of the MVE Feature......................................................................................... 7-3 7-i

7 OPERATING PROCEDURES The LR is loaded, unloaded, inspected and handled in accordance with standard, in-plant, operating procedures as stipulated in this section. The only approved commodity is uranyl nitrate solution that falls within the specifications delineated in Section 1.2.3.

7. 1 Procedure for Loading the LR The isotopic distribution of the material to be shipped must be determined prior to loading and the contents must meet the specifications of Section 1.2.3. If the contents are verified and documented as containing less than an A2 quantity, the leak test requirement of 7.1.2(d) can be waived.

7.1.1 Pre-loading inspection

a.

Inspect the LR exterior for visible flaws. Visually inspect all accessible welds for cracks or corrosion. The exterior welds should be free of cracks, and the exterior surface should not be tom or substantially crushed (more than 2 inches of crush depth). If the exterior surface is tom or substantially crushed, or if cracks or corrosion are discovered, the unit should not be used.

b. If the MVE feature is present, remove the MVE lid and verify that the test valve is closed. If the optional MVE feature is used, verify that the valve is operational. If the valve is found to be non-operational it should be replaced prior to loading the LR. After verification, replace the MVE lid and torque the bolts to 30 ft-lbs [ + l 0 -

O].

c.

Remove the outer lid and check the annulus space for radioactive contamination or debris. If radioactive contamination is present, decontaminate. Remove any solid debris. If standing water is present, it must be removed. Visually inspect the outer lid tor corrosion or damage to the stud holes. Visually inspect the studs for stripping, cracking and corrosion. If any are found to be defective, replace them with an equivalent stud.

d. Remove the secondary lid and inspect for corrosion or damage to the bolt holes.

Visually inspect the bolts for stripping, cracking and corrosion. If any are found to be defective replace them with an equivalent bolt. Visually inspect the optional elbow fitting (if present) and the secondary lid flange at the elbow connection for deformation or misalignment. While deformation or misalignments at this location do not impact the performance of the containment boundary, they could be a source of over-estimation of the pre-shipment, maintenance or fabrication leakage rate, and should be corrected if possible.

e.

Check for scratches or nicks on sealing surfaces. If scratches or nicks me observed, leak check the package prior to loading per 7. l.2 ( d).

f.

Visually inspect the LR secondary lid 0-rings and the outer lid gasket. They should be in place, intact, and in serviceable condition. If any are found to be defective, they must be replaced. Regular replacement of the 0-rings is LiquiRad SAR Rev. 9 May 2018 7-1

recommended and does not require testing per 8.2(g) except during the maintenance activities described in Section 8.

7.1.2 Loading the Contents and Securing the Package for Shipment

a.

Filling of the containment vesselshall be performed in accordance with the Shipper's operating procedures. Remove old labels prior to filling, and re-label the packaging for the contents to be transported. The label shall include the actual gallons of the content loaded.

UN solution content must not exceed 230 gallons (870 liters).

b. Install the secondary lid. Nut and bolt threads should be lubricated with anti-seize to avoid galling. Hand tighten until the nuts or bolts are snug against the flange.

c. All secondary lid closure bolts shall be torqued to 75 [+10 -0] ft-lbs, alternating bolts on opposing sides of the lid. After reaching 100% of final torque, the torque should be checked one final time using clockwise or counter clockwise sequence around the flange.

d. Confirm that the containment system is properly assembled for shipment. Perform a leak test of the primary and secondary lid seals to show no detected leakage when tested to a sensitivity of 1x10- 3 ref-cm3/sec per ANSI Nl4.5. If the primary lid has not been opened from the time of the last periodic test required by Section 8.1 (c) or 8.2(h) (as indicated by the presence of the tamper indicating devices located at the primary lid seal), this test may be waived for the primary lid only. If tamper indicating devices are not present, perform the maintenance required by Section 8.2(h). After testing, install the port plug at each leak test port and tighten to 60 [ + 10 -0] in-lbs.

e. Install outer lid. Nut and stud threads should be lubricated with anti-seize to avoid galling.

The stud nuts should be hand tightened snug against the flange.

f.

All outer lid stud nuts shall be tightened to 30[+10 -0] ft-lbs, alternating stud nuts on opposing sides of the lid. After reaching 100% of final torque, torque should be checked one final time using a clockwise or counter sequence around the flange.

g. Install security seals and record their numbers.

h. Complete contamination survey in accordance with 10 CFR Part 71.87 (i) and (j).

1.

Load the LR on the conveyance and secure per the Shipper's Operating Procedures. Shackles shall be removed or secured to top angle with nylon tie to prevent shackle from being used as tie down. Visually inspect all tie-down devices to confirm they are in place.

7.2 Procedures for Unloading the LR Unload the LR as follows:

a. Complete a receiving report per the Receiver's operating procedures and specifications.

b. Remove and record the package seal.

c. If the MVE feature is present and it is desired to check the annulus pressure or vent the annulus area as directed in Section 7.4, complete these functions before continuing.

d. Remove the outer lid from the LR.

e.

Survey for radioactive contamination in the annulus area of the package. If contamination is present, decontaminate as required.

LiquiRad SAR Rev. 9 May 2018 7-2

f.

Remove the secondary lid by loosening and removing the secondary lid bolts. Care should be taken to avoid impacting the elbow fitting on the secondary lid flange (if present).

g. If the package has been stored filled for more than six months venting of the containment vessel is recommended prior to unloading. Venting can be accomplished using the quick disconnect fittings available on the fill port. Any venting should be performed using a filtered system. Packages must be unloaded within one year of filling.

h. Unload the containment vessel in accordance with the Receiver's operating procedures. A temporary draw pipe, of smaller diameter than the permanent draw pipe, may be inserted through the fill port identified in Detail D of drawing LR-SAR to unload the containment vessel. If the permanent draw pipe is suspected of being damaged, such as by experiencing reduced or no flow when unloading through the permanent draw pipe, then the package shall be emptied using the temporary draw pipe mentioned above, and the package maintained per SAR section 8.2(g).

I. Following unloading, the package should be decontaminated as is practical, and the lids secured in place for storage. Ali shipment labeling should be removed and replaced with markings that meet DOT requirements.

7.3 Preparation of Empty LR for Transport

a. After initial usage, all-applicable steps set forth in Section 7.1.2 are required for transportation of the empty packaging, with the exception that the leak test required by 7.1.2 (d) can be waived ifthe heel contains less than an A2 quantity. A newly fabricated package that has never carried UN solution is exempted from the requirements of Section 7.

7.4 Use of the MVE Feature The outer lid of the LR may include an optional Manual Valve Enclosure (MVE) that allows the User to check the pressure of the package annulus space and to vent the annulus space if necessary.

a. Unless the package is being venting or the annulus pressure is being measured, the MVE valve should be closed.

b.

If the MVE feature is present and it is desired to check the pressure within the annulus space, loosen and remove all bolts on the MVE lid. Connect any required equipment to the MVE valve and measure the package annulus pressure. Following the pressure measurement, disconnect all equipment and close the MVE valve. If the package annulus will be vented, continue to 7.4(c); otherwise, replace the MVE lid. Bolt threads should be lubricated with anti-seize to avoid galling. The bolts should be hand tightened snug against the MVE lid. All MVE lid bolts shall be tightened to 30 [+10 -0] ft.-lbs.

c. If the MVE feature is present and it is desired to vent the annulus space, loosen and remove all bolts on the MVE lid. The User should use a filtered system to vent the package annulus. Connect any required equipment to the MVE.

If the venting system provides pressure regulation, the venting system pressure must be within the design pressure of the package (-11 to 30 psig external to the containment vessel). Open the MVE valve and vent the package annulu~ venting, disconnect all LiquiRad SAR Rev. 9 May 2018 7-3

equipment and allow the package annulus to return to atmospheric pressure by opening the MVE valve to atmosphere. Close the MVE valve. Replace the MVE lid. Bolt threads should be lubricated with anti-seize to avoid galling. The bolts should be hand tightened snug against the MVE lid. All MVE lid bolts shall be tightened to 30 [+10 -0] ft.-lbs.

LiquiRad SAR Rev. 9 May 2018 7-3a

SECTION EIGHT ACCEPTANCE TESTS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM TABLE OF CONTENTS 8

ACCEPTANCE AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS............................................................................. 8-1 8.1 ACCEPTANCE TESTS..................................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 MAINTENANCE PROGRAi\\.fS.......................................................................................................................... 8-1 8-i

8 ACCEPTANCE AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS This section describes the activities to be performed in compliance with Subpait G of 10CFR71 to assure that the LR conforms to the requirements of this Safety Analysis Rep01t for Packaging and remains in conformance following loading.

8. 1 Acceptance Tests Each newly fabricated LR shall be inspected to document compliance with the following requirements:

a.

The as-built dimensions of the following components shall be within the tolerances prescribed by the fabrication drawings:

Contairunent vessel dimensions Outer package dimensions Closure bolt locations Lifting shackles Assembled package weight

b. Installation of the following components shall be verified and documented:

Gaskets and 0-rings Security seal tabs Fastening Components Permanent markings and nameplates

c. Prior to acceptance for use, each packaging shall be subjected to the following tests:

Prior to first use, leak rate testing of the primary lid and secondary lid seals sh al I be performed per ANSI N14.5-l 997 to a rate less than 1.0 x 10-7 std. cc/sec. and per the requirements of Sections 4 of this SARP. After testing the primary lid, tamper indicating devices shall be installed at the primary lid seal.

Hydrostatic testing of the containment vessel per the requirements of ASME Section 8, Division I 8.2 Maintenance Programs The user shall establish written procedures for the annual maintenance and inspection of each LR requiring the following as a minimum.

a.

Inspect the LR exterior for visible flaws. Visually inspect all accessible welds for cracks or corrosion. The exterior welds should be free of cracks, and the exterior surface should not be torn or substantially crushed (more than 2 inches of crush depth). If the exterior surface is torn or substantially crushed or cracks are discovered, the unit should be repaired by the owner and re-certified for use. The user may remove light surface corrosion by polishing as required. If the corrosion is not easily removed or if pitting or scaling is observed, the unit should be repaired by the owner and re-ce1iified for use.

LiquiRad SAR Rev. 7 August 2011 8-1

b. Remove the MVE lid and verify that the test valve is operational and closed. If the valve is found to be non-operational is must be replaced. After verification, replace the MVE lid and torque the bolts to 30 ft-lbs [+10-0].

c. Remove the outer lid and check the annulus space for radioactive contamination and debris. If radioactive contamination is present, decontaminate. Remove any solid debris.

If standing water is present, it must be removed. Visually inspect the outer lid for corrosion or damage to the stud holes. Visually inspect the studs for stripping, cracking and corrosion. If any are found to be defective, replace them with an equivalent stud.

d. Check that the lifting shackles and all closure bolts and supports are sound and free from weld cracks, damage and deterioration.

e.

Check that the outer lid and secondary lid closure surfaces are sound and undamaged.

f.

Check that outer lid gasket, secondary lid 0-ring, and primary lid 0-ring is in place, intact, and is not damaged or deteriorated. The owner recommends replacement of 0-rings and gaskets every 12 months. After replacement of 0-rings, each package shall be leak tested as per paragraph (h) below.

g. Check that the weld of the draw pipe to the primary lid and the draw pipe itself are in good condition, with no cracks; repair if necessary.

h. Periodic leak tests, as described by ANSI Nl4.5-l 997, shall be performed to verify that the containment boundaries of the package remain capable of limiting leakage of the payload to less than the maximum allowable leakage rate criterion of 1.0 x 10*3 ref-cc/sec (see Section 4). The seal at the primary lid and the seal at the secondary lid shall be leak tested to a rate less than 1. 0 x 10*3 ref-cc/sec using a test having a sensitivity of at least 0.5 x 10-3 ref-cc/sec. Install tamper indicating seals on primary lid. If the leak test results are unacceptable, remove the lid and inspect the sealing surface and 0-rings. Clean the sealing surface and replace the 0-ring as required. Also inspect the optional elbow fitting on the secondary lid flange (if present) and assure that it is properly installed. Install the lid, liberally using an anti-seize lubricant on the stud threads.

Tighten all studs/bolts, alternating opposing sides of the lid, to the proper torque of 7 5 ft-lbs [ + 10 -0]. Re-test as per above. If the leak results continue to be unacceptable, the unit should be repaired by the owner and re-certified for use.

I.

As a minimum, the optional elbow fitting (if present) located at the secondary lid flange should be inspected yearly by successful leak test examination at the exterior stress groove. If any defects are found, the elbow should be replaced with an identical item per drawing provided in Appendix 1.3.1 J.

Sandblasting is permitted provided material thickness remains greater than minimum wall thickness. Coating of sandblasted surfaces shall use Sherwin Williams Macropoxy 646 Fast Cure B58 Series primer or equivalent.

LiquiRad SAR Rev. 9 May 2018 8-2