ML20024A302
| ML20024A302 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07109134 |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1983 |
| From: | Prichard R ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Macdonald C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024A303 | List: |
| References | |
| 22390, NUDOCS 8306160664 | |
| Download: ML20024A302 (5) | |
Text
>
7/- 9/3Y
/W utM j
3cjg$
Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20545
- JUN 0 21983 t-e RECElyEO y g
JUN 7
m
"?
3 EE.auctrAantll Wen C. E. NacDonald, Chief y-
' cogu,33, Transportation Certification Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and m,Q f
Material Safety 4
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission m
Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. MacDonald:
NRC CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE USA /9134/AF The Department of Energy has approved the use of the ETR Fuel Element Shipping Containers (USA /5705/AF(DOE-ID), Revision 2) for the shipment of unirradiated reactor fuel other than ETR and GETR fuel elements.
Since NRC licensees utilize this package it is requested that the companion NRC Certificate of Compliance, USA /9134/AF, be revised to pennit shipment of this material.
If additional information is required please contact John Cece, 353-5486.
Sincerely,
f&V Reuben P. Prichard Director, Safety Engineering and Analysis Division Office of Operational Safety
Enclosure:
EG&G Idaho Rpt. No. PR-T-79-012 (8 cys.)
DOECert,ofComplianceUSA/5705/AF(D0E-ID),
Revision 2 (8 cys.)
C Summary Evaluation, Oct. 82 (8 cys.)
A cc:
R. Rawl, DOT w/encls.
Docxmn g) usnac p.
~
b JUN 81983 >
3
"@sm u-cum N
M C
0 fhfh4 PDR m9s
/
i%%
U.S. OEPARTMENT OF ENERGY IDAHO OPERATIONS OFFICE
SUMMARY
EVALUATION ETR FUEL ELEMENT SHIPPING CONTAINERS USA /5705/ AF) DOE-ID OCTOBER 1982 GENERAL The ETR Fuel Element Shipping Containers are part of the following family of shipping containers of similar design which have been issued Certificates of Compliance:
DOE NRC 1.
ATR Fuel Element USA /5705/ AF( D0E-ID)
USA /9099/AF Shipping Containers 2.
MTR Fuel Element (Not issued)
USA /5705/ AF Shipping Containers This Summary Evaluation addresses these features unique to the ETR-Fuel Element Shipping Container and should be ' considered an addendum to the Safety Evaluation for the ATR Fuel Element Shipping Container, USA /5705/
DESCRIPTION The designs of the ATR-ETR-MTR Fuel Element Shipping Containers incorporate an inner steel-covered plywood container, with fuel element positioning com-partments, within an overpack constructed of steel-covered plywood with aluninun honeycomb impact -limiters on the ends.
TESTING The basic design of these containers was tested in 1968 and demonstrated the ability to successfully withstand the drop, fire, and impact tests required by ERDA Manual Chapter 0529 and 10 CFR 71.
The results of these tests are contained in Aerojet Nuclear Co. Report TR-466, ATR Fuel Element Shipping Container Safety Analysis, dated June 30,1975 (subsequently reissued as EG&G Idaho, Inc., Report No. PR-T-79-011 (TR-466), Revision A, same title, dated April 10,1978).
Therefore, all analyses performed for tne ATR Fuel Element Shipping-Containers apply to the ETR Fuel Element Shipping Containers.
The safety analysis for the ETR Fuel Element Shipping Containers is contained in EG&G Idaho, Inc., Report No. PR-T-79-012, ETR Fuel Element Shipping Containers - Addendum to PR-T-79-011 ( TR-466), dated August 7,1979.
Those sections of tne analysis common to botn ATR and ETR containers are not.re-y iterated in the Addendun out are cross-referenced.
Therefore, the Addendum deals primarily with the description (size, weight, construction, etc.),
authorized contents, and criticality safety considerations of the ETR Fuel 1
Element Shipping Containers.
)
i s
AUTHORIZED CONTENTS The autnorized contents permit the shipment of a maximum of six ETR or GETR f uel elements, arranged in two layers of three each divided by a polyethylene and cadmium separator.
The ETR and GETR fuel elements are exactly the sane except for a slight difference in the end box of the EiR fuel element (the end box contains no uranium).
Additional fuel assemblies were authorized in October 1982.
These' assemblies (MIT, Michigan, Virginia, Rhode Island, and Lowell) also resemble ETR elements in that they are aluninun plate type assemblies with similar lower reactivity characterisitcs.
CRITICALITY
SUMMARY
Because the GETR fuel elements are near exact duplicates of the ETR fuel elements, no new criticality analyses were performed.
Instead, the analyses performed previously for the ETR fuel were reviewed by EG&G and 00E-ID criticality experts to confirm the validity of the previous work.
Compa-rison of neutronically important parameters follows:
ETR Fuel GETR Fuel 235 U
Loading per element 500 grams 510 grams 235 Enrichment in U 93%
93%
Fuel Composition UAi U-A alloy x
Remaining fuel element material A.
Ai Fuel Element Cross Section (mm) 76.2 x 76.2 77.7 x 76.2 Fuel Element Thickness (mm) 1.27 1.27 Nanber of Fuel Plates 19 19 Center to Center Fuel Plate Spacing (mm) 3.94 - 4.29 4.06 Width of Water Void Between Plates 2.77 2.72 Fuel Meat Thickness (mm)
.508-
.508 Fuel Meat Width (mm) 63 57 Fuel Meat length 902 - 907 914 similiar to ETR fuel elements.The remaining authorized contents (MIT, RI, VA, MI, and The cross sectional area of each fuel i
assembly is less than or equal to ETR, and generally the fuel oearing volume coupled with equal or lower cross sectional area assures that these !
. -. ~.
remaining fuels are even mere under moderated than the ETR fuel assemblies, under fully flooded conditions.
The model used for the ETR fuel assemblies was very conservative, and the conservatism is much higher for the fuel elements listed in Table 1.
Althougn small amounts of natural boron may be present in the ETR elements, no credit was taken for material in the analysis.
The ETR criticality analyses previously performed showed a K of 0.64 ff ditions assuning an overloading *h of 0.975 for optimum watef moderated con-under normal conditions and a K approximately 30%.
Two independent analyses used different calculational methods to arrive at similar conclusions.
^
The criticality analyses assunes that all or certain parts of the cadmium poison remains intact within the shipping box.
A thorough visual inspection was recently completed by EG&G Quality Assurnace to verify physical condition of the boxes including the presence of cadmitsn sheets.
Furthermore three shipping containers were sampled at random with a neutron reduction measurement to verify the presence of a neutron absorber.
All inspections were completed satisfactorily.
Based upon the above information, it is concluded that adequate provisions, analyses, and inspections have been made to assure criticality safety for all normal and credible abnormal events.
CONCLUSION Therefore, ID has concluded that based on an assessment of the tests performed on similarly-designed containers and the limitation of the autnorized contents of ETR, GETR, MIT, Michigan, Rhode Island, Lowell, and Virginia fuel elements contained in the Addendum (PR-T-79-012) the ETR Fuel Element Shipping Copntainers meet the requirements of DOE Order 5480.1 Chapter III (update of ERDAM 0529), 10 CFR 71, and 40.CFR, parts 100 - 199.
O
,lLGl{c It/lcz dd./
w Stephen W. Farkas Health Physicist Operational Safety Division
(
l l 1
~. _.
4 j-i Table 1.
Descriptive Parameters of Variables UA Type Fuels x
MII Rf & LowelT VA
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~R f~ ~ ~~~ ~
iTR i
i 235 j
Total U (g) 506 125 220 140 500 Enrichment (%)
93 93 93 93 93 j
Cheinical Comp.
UAl UA!
UAi UAi UA/x x
x x
1 l
Cross Section Dim (an) 63.5x68.6 76.2x76.2 74.7x82.6 74.8x82.5 76.2x76.2 l
Element Length (mn) 660 1003 864 873 1378 Fuel Heat Dim.(ave.)
Thickness (en) 0.76 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 Width (mm) 52.7 57.8 47.0 47.0 62.1 j
Lenth (nnn) 568 578 610 610 914 Gap Between Plates (nn) 1.98 2.54 3.2 3.05 2.77 Shape (Cross Section) j Linear Fuel Density (g/f t) 271.5 66 110 70 167 l
Water Volune Fraction 0.46 0.57 0.66 0.66 0.68 1
I i
j l
i i
3 1
1 l
1-t
-. -.