ML20031F045

Revised Pages to 791130 Procedures,License & SAR for CNS 4-45 Type B Radwaste Shipping Cask

ML20031F045
Person / Time
Site:	07106375
Issue date:	09/30/1981
From:	CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20031F043	List: ML20031F042 ML20031F045
References
NUDOCS 8110190096
Download: ML20031F045 (39)

Text

a

_a_

a ea_

m-Ar

_a_

ma

_.,m

4

_ma m

e C

o O

'l i

ATTACHMENT 1 O

O P*awong:p, PUR

t O

Responses to NRC request for information dated April 2,1980, Docket 71-6375.

REQUEST 1.

Show that the containment vessel, and its closure system, are adequate to meet the containment requirements of 10 CFR 71 under one-foot drop test conditions. Consider end, side, corner, and oblique impact oruntations.

RESPONSE

The containment requirements of 10 CFR 71, Paragraph 71.35, state that, "There will be no release of radioactive material from the containment vessel" under the normal conditions ef transport. The contents intended for shipment include non-fissile irradiated hardware shipped dry.

The one-foot drop test analysis demonstrated no openings occurring in the containment vessel through which solids could escape.

Since no leakable contents (i.e., radio-active gases, vapors or liquids) are permitted to be trans-(Q ported, no additional analysis is required to insure the

\\._/

leak-tightness of the package.

l REQUEST 2.

Show that the containment vessel, and its closure system, are adequate to meet the containment requirements of 10 CFR 71 under 30-foot drop test conditions. Consider end, side, corner.

and oblique impact orienta,tions.

Show that the trunnions adequately protect the penetration closures.

RESPONS[

The containment requirements of 10 CFR 71, Paragraph 71.36, state that, "A package... shall be so designed and con-structed and its contents so limited that if subjected to the hypothetical accident conditions... it will meet the following

... (2) No radioactive material would be released from the package except for gases and contaminated coolant containing total radioactivity exceeding neither:

(1) 0.1 percent of the total radioactivity of the package contents; nor (ii) 0.01 curie of Group I radionuclides, 0.5 curie of' Group II radionuclides, 10 curies of Group III radionuclides,

)

1.000 curies of inert gases irrespective of transport group".

I

i O

The 30-foot drop test analysis demonstrated no openings occurring in the containment vessel through which solids could escape.

Since no leakable contents (i.e., radioactive gases, vapors or liquids) are pemitted to be transported, no additional analysis is required to insure the leak-tightness of the package.

Similarly, consider the hypothetical accident condition where the trunnion penetration closure is torn off at the outer shell wall.

Since the drain tube curves around the outer wall into the inner cavity (see detail of CNS 4-45 Shipping Cask, Draw-ing number C-110-E-0001), and since the tube is only one-half inch diameter, no solids of the size carried in the container could escape. Also, since no leakable contents are permitted to be transported, no additional analysis is required to eval-uate protection of the penetration closures by the trunnion.

REQUEST O

~

3.

Evaluate the adequacy of the containment vessel closure system under 40-inch puncture test condition: considering the 6-inch diameter pin to contact the end region of the package with the package oriented in an end or corner drop position.

RESPONSE

A detailed structural analysis was performed to determine the adequacy of the closure system. Stresses in both the outer lid and the lid bolts were less than the ultimate strengths of the materials, even though the effects of the overpack were conservatively neglected.

Since no leakable contents exist which would result in any loss of containment through small openings, and since the lid remains in-tact and bolted to the container such that solids cannot escape, the containment requirements are satisfied.

Section 2.7.2 has been rewritten to encorporate the details of the structural analysis.

REQUEST 4.

Revise the drawings to indicate the materials of construction used for the outer shell and the containment vessel and its closure system.

RESPONSE

Revised drawing CNS 4-45 Shipping Cask, number C-110-E-001, is enclosed in Section 1.3.2.

Materials of construction are included in this revision.

O REQUEST-5.

Show that the containment vessel closure system is adequately resistant to brittle failure under the 30-foot drop test and the puncture test I

with cold ambient temperature conditions (-20*F).

RESPONSE

Since there has not been established, to this date, a criteria for evaluating the resistance of a containment vessel to brittle failure under the 30-foot drop test and the puncture test with cold ambient con-ditions (-20*f), no response at this time will be made to this question.

As soon as a criteria is established for judging adequacy of a cask under 4

these conditions, Chem-Nuclear will evaluate the cask upon request of the j

NRC.

l0 l

i

~

i I

l l

l

t

[

(

I r

1 ATTACHMENT 2.

l l

i l

]

t i

t t

h f

i I

l i

I i

l i

t i

e i

I 1

I i

l i

i i

! h I

Instructions for Incorporating Revision 1 to CNS 4-45 SAR i

)

i l

REMOVE PAGES ADD PAGES I

1.

Front cover Front cover

}

i - 111 1 - iii 4

l 1-4 1-4 1 1-20 l

2-25 2 l 2-46 2 2-46s 2 2-83 9 9-6 i

I O

}-

i i

4 i

t i

i-t

!e o

s e

l 4

)

$*n--------

.~ n..--

__.,_<..,L,--,---..,_

Revision 1 Septembe '81 Safety Analysis Report For The 4-45 Shipping Cask November 30, 1979 Rev. 1 September 1981 Subm)tted:

Chem-Nuclear System, Inc.

P. O. Box 1866 Bellevue, WA 98099 J

r Revision 1 September 1981 O

Table of Contents for the

~

4-45 Shipping Cask Page 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1-1 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.2 Package Description 1-2 1.2.1 Packaging 1-2 1.2.2 Operational Features 1-4 1.2.3 Contents of Packaging 1-4 1.3 Appendix 1-16 1.3.1 References 1-16 1.3.2 Drawing No. C-110-E-0001, CNS 4-45 Shipping Cask (W &, Model No. PB-1) 1-17 2.0 STRUCTURAL EVALUATION 2-1 2.1 Structural Design 2-l' 2.2 Weights and Centers of Gravity 2-1 2.3 Mechanical Properties of Materials 2-1 2.4 General Standards for All Packages 2-2 2.4.1 Chemical and Galvanic Reactions 2-2 2.4.2 Positive Closure 2-2 2.4.3 Lifting Devices 2-3 2.4.4 Tiedown Devices 2-10 2.5 Standards for Type B and Large Quantity Packaging 2-13 2.5.1 Load Resistance 2-13 4

2.5.2 External Pressure 2-17 2.6 Normal Conditions of Transport 2-20 2.6.1 Heat 2-20 2.6.2 Cold 2-20 2.6.3 Pressure 2-20 2.6.4 Vibration 2-20 Q-2.6.5 Water Spray 2-21 b

i

~

_ _ _.~.

Revision 1 September 1981 2.6.6 Free Drop 2-21 2.6.7 Corner Drop 2-23 2.6.8 Penetration

" 2-23 2.6.9 Compression 2-31 2.7 Hypothetical Accident Conditions 2-31 2.7.1 Free Drop 2-31 2.7.2 Puncture 2-46 2.7.3 Thermal 2-46s f

2.8 Special Form 2-47 2.9 Fuel Rods 2-47 2.10 Appendix 2-55 2.10.1 References 2-55 2.10.2 Appendix B 2 2.10.3 Appendix C 2-60 2.10.4 Appendix D 2-66a 2.10.5 Appendix E 2-73 2.10.6 Appendix F 2-78 2.10.7 Appendix G 2-81 3.0 THERMAL EVALUATION 3-1 3.1 Discussion 3-1 3.2 Thermal Model 3-1 3.2.1 Analytic Model 3-1 3.3 Hypothetical Accident Thermal Evaluation 3-4 3.4 Appendix 3-15 3.4.1 Computer Codes Description 3-15 4.0 CONTAINMENT 4-1 5.0 SHIELDING EVALUATION 5-1 5.1 Discussion 5-1 l

5.2 Source Specification 5-2 5.3 Model Specification 5-3 5.4 Shielding Evaluation 5-6 5.5 Appendix 5-8 11

_ - =. _. _,

- ~.

t Revision i September 1981 O

6.0 CRITICALITY EVALUATION

6-1 6-1 Discussion 6-1 i

6-2 Package Fuel Loading 6-2 6.3 Model Specification 6-3 l

6.4 Criticality Calculation 65 6.4.1 Criticality Results 6-12 6.5 Appendix 6-13.

i 6.6.1 Computer Codes Description 6-13 7.0 OPERATING PROCEDURES 7-1 7.1 Pror.edures for '_oading the Package 7-1 7.2 Procedures for Unloading the Package 7-2 f

8.0 ACCEPTANCE TESTS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM 1 8.1 Acceptance Tests 8-1 8.1.1 Fabrication Inspection 8-l' 8.1.2 Preliminary Inspection 8-1 4

8.1.3 Routine Inspection 8-2 8.2 Appendix 8-3 i

i

~

9.0 APPENDIX A 91 9.1 Cover Letter for Revision 1 Response 9~2 9.2 Revision 1 Response Summary 9-3 9.3 Instructions for Incorporating Revision I 9-6 O

iii a

Revision 1 September, 1981 bundle of 2 i in. nominal diameter x 18 guage mechanical tubing O

between i in. 304 stainless steel plates and enclosing the bundle with a 1/ R in. 304 stainless steel shell as shown on Drawing C-110-E-0001, Revision 0, sheet 2 of 3.

A 4 in. long skirt fits 1

over the cask for added resistance to radial motion in a corner drop.

Construction Specifications Complete detailed drawings with construction specifications for the W&K Model No. PB-1 shipping cask will be furnished to the cask fabricator.

Quality control procedures will be performed by experienced Battelle personnel to verify that construction and material specifications are met.

1.2.2 Operational Features Not applicable.

1.2.3 Contents of Packaging In accordance with the requirements of 5 71.22 (b) of 10CFR71, SLspart B, the materials planned for shipment in the W&K Model l

No. PB-1 Cask are described as follcws:

()

(1)

Identification and maxi.num radioactivity of radioactive 1

constituents.

(a)

Solid non-fissile irradiated hardware, maximum weight of contents, including any container shall be 10,000 pounds.

As needed, appropriate component spacers shall be used in the cask cavity to limit movement of contents during shipment.,

e es U

Was Drawing 9123-0001.

1-4

, -.. +,.,, -

r m

Revision 1 September 1981 O

1.3.2 Drawing No. C-110-E-0001, CNS 4-45 Shipping Cask (W & K Model No. PB-1)

O O

1-17

i

.i l

y I

e i

s v

H it o' ga S.7 ** OLE ~ '

\\

mw

=

m":: "" X 1

,x.

e x\\

n tu N *1 m

-. r,bT!

[ * ' _ a.

l.s N, d_,c-O f-' k sasew u m m**Ns_-

a

,p NdW j,. !a. gil g%

ks.Y.

~

4 ASV ut ccw

,y Fs 2 N,

L 4

,x

_'N y' I

a

..-l I

dr i

sasew PLu6 :

'A no SEE DETAli a T' /% ---W gg I

h b

O-

_gg 7

- ^Y4kk

,/j rop covre assy-w SEE CETA'L j

c.-r 1

-- __ _ _ -/

N.J t9*).

sa a curTY LENGTH 1;~ KTML E

C AY A sca.m vs

+

• I caNLmm J', '

=W en, e.

e,-

y ijfe$ NSa$

,N

' v$(Nh'b lv+D - - - - - - -

I i

/l'h

$?$

o

/

p/Pk y

\\,D s g

-n' es pot. sca so

1. , wo < ;

r r<

7 nL

,.32v

(~.,,: m \\,.

g9

& w_e g _ ' 2p.cv

_\\

_ iip r-----

h' Nf.l{Y $&

h Si,

~~

f- ~yj, N

f.g ']

{

t_ vi '

L' 7g ' ' '

V

p.x; g' A M "l ?

@ HO "# s c

~~~

' e ri 4"

-.cr u-ra.

iqv SEE CETAIL O _v_ 2 g gg,g ppg

...p.d r b, $j.

C t v,se

,e

, -g-p,

t. p

'h El

\\

9CMn

%^*,"

'6"

. hp

'~

/r v4 20 M aSt* cap i

E nd 6 PLES Cw g

s"Ya t MtaT *ltandifWt Macw$ s 6 4 P45)-

Few se 6A fis tgagt.,

• ""pl

. 4;c'

'"" D c:wt. B

[

tbcALaL '/2 1

%. /.h

,Y I

e e4' of'

.V k'

f/

f sec. Tom H-H et.D SODT A

a; To ao' d#th'rt*CA

$' ALE : VI.

gas >=Osa a Ya So estE.

ki k

a j

s a

7 g

t

I f

4 1

3 f

d I

~

.1-,

6 i i

4 H

l og r/a'. 7 2 te* ts e xv

=

ss'= a:s ce *ta~u ee6ts cca s w o=)

S=' S o

J

~ - - - -

_a--

-,l -

I-9 s

g,

• Q'

.: r m.

l s %s us 3

, s s

v,,

s i

CC>

.n l

\\

\\

i

.r_.e..- - _ _

6 i etCo I

sw-7. to 6xT

/

k S4 M

as m als CarLa*tt t s'osas * *.cs.

F l{ s-t s

,4

/

(*e me a no--c ',

N act ese G

.i' N.

a c

y l

i /

j _.,4 j

f'.$,

"N.

-m" ~

sw L

2 D \\

,d

/

-,.A s - - -t -

.lz i

1 ENS VEW k

_, g 33.,

A sei I

am cme ass, "In E M Ab (h i

,i+

/s'

'asma.C*e99pp0NT f-W* 'i ' ',6. < 7 i+LAft

+Y. iY m. to 4' toepaCT L,84itt.A

,,,- g

\\ j D a c# (NT

/

.=

• #Nk -

,//,'*/, /.* h '!,a j

2

' ~/,Q:&,'J

'\\/

7m

>es

~ v s

s em

'Q," **l.,

-YW d

\\ r, ii

> n-.s _ ;;_..q _.c-q_

C> ' "4 q ;

x'.NN(

g<

<i

's Es y

e f 'Q,_4 M ]e '-Nx ; v % ;t N'Q N's'N j' ' ~'].

C) ^~re a- [,q ""

^151 'o2 5 A

n

. s e. ~.... - a, -

6 /

PN 1 xx

,J

ven, e-y g-3 av '

Spe c <a c =* cas (TYP Q

t geo si e se raa V3 Q G-L i

'4 Gaast C

/\\

.MW8 p

7,, cG# f e A St e* O $2 E'8 g r_,

__ m - -

D ex m as ca WA

\\

i I

,g,,,, y Q.

casa e.sv ' Si i'C L85 aft e Tsce C) pas sa.us.

TYP

',*y,7.ea f6I. I' ig CDvt1 **ta73 (2 PLCS)-

9 assv t

H D TAIL A se,,

e< ast esAza l

C C

%* 6 k 'Z A,a O kfC=Jt. Cs.5 4A A w' w N' A 6,J

.va i

RtrtRtuct MS DEamswa CN5! D=0 we C tio f 0001 D ola." M' T N O '.*[ N Ese 7oc$f

!' d 'O EC dE ~)

"* ASE W C cev e % oaeta e arv-Sa me cm.a e s.,0 Wt ena*f t amt a%') C6DSwee 5'9f d ogj,'

l O A RC (KTTER maCLCSuat 'asTs Pts f"tes e 08

a-o 7:.

m cuss ec f A*t 3 ApsbL 2ese WSO.

1. .E_,,

e.=.an =

g.g gg g

-3K_

.::::::. oW_.""*4 e e em Os CNS 4 45

~

s.

5HPPING CASK

^

,"" Y R A

ua e-sy G

f e < act. A*. p e 0

' -aC -E - Ca':

l nlu. "/rs/J Z

I w as a

..w n~--_,

,c.,

2 l

3 4

I I

i 6

\\,

i 7

i e

i s

v v.-,

t he Cha L

,^

~a,m,....~

Q T. x-M C.'.%

s t,-; y;.s5lyta n

-,a

< m.n,n,,a.a pl.

se

,v: - c.

, e,

s. %: os m.,

I

\\

\\

T twsw m

-s-Sc w a-

++-

- ~,

n r.4.,. (

E. m(2 8 Da===

+

j s

,o.

, ~ s w w

~.

w O b Cta j L.fTied t*t J-p:

i a

I s_

-:ggvg""w.

b '"

I c

r i

. c.a M

,-.u-n,g-~ ~ c

p

~

n

,G a

p -=

/x em. >.

-,-s

/

s s

..t..a e m_' \\ (n-. -

/

.n-

/

-c x.

s

, / g.} A' g

'8 (TDG C0vte Caa.fl w

G of.-g(.yg

--H e

~~

v+ O i

- h, 1

,l

. >. ~ -

..r

%. /[ =-"

/

=

wg %vg "*

~ ~~

see eer M

' 4

-ND T4"7, -

i G

F sav. 2 p.V _ g

{

w_

/

. p'+- D g

-I

's

' fd,.:.

(E)

J

=g s

~

y.

N i

-D 1

u

ca E-l!

yp-DETAIL U v i sc.a is COVER A55Y DETAJL

/T**

.8 * [\\

\\0 0

4

/

-r-u N

^

~~

~

D

~

\\

('.'k-8' A "s.% 2 %I/

T; A y 4

as ~

j

_ _ i_.

/

4 e

i,

/

l

%g5}

/

+

I t

__ __. (..

l

/

j '~~ \\[

-[/ -

g. b S i

N c

'w; '] \\,

NNi

~

) l.... -__ - -

-... % %+

Aole*

l l

av l

i

(

i "M

l s

J O \\,

,v

, f_.p, j t'

N' i

-U A

l j_

//

s' vz x,c.-

- (

D; u_ Tuo. a\\.a A

0;ll TAIL O D a7 I

cs x 54 46* ca e:

5 scat :',4 M@,CT L 6,i~F. A D D $j[=.Y.o h I,

7 l

i s

+

e l

I 4

t J

t a

e emme ee's*

sme==

1w: asise~

j i 4 4

6

/

68EAD A [\\ T v,2-(

[\\M _[I r

r

. < s, A8 MAT) h0 jm 0*S SAD

' 80*

u.,2 u e g

te u %i04%,-

V Cf7 AIL,b S4.9 : t om4 rp..,g a h*a %e a 4e pega,

W,

{4 A% r>< ek e C

=

tot -

n.

W. ---

i ee - m.,

, - - y% ' x

,y sr.

w Ir3- -

%.u OM' net t*t L **

s g

-~

. 3

\\, !

s%sen:s g 3

i x

[

\\

,f<

x

,_s eb l

s a

.o:re-9.--

- g - j,yp -.g-j-SE N

S

/

t,----

W '6 loc.. ees.

W N'.

Y < 'gg g ap,gg d

\\

^*"

ov s.3 (sas a

CAD 6025.

h*Mb)

Yr p

set Ce%L 987 2

- -4 vs Y-Y MIMi wt4 SN W.A cc.uw *.s (TcP covin owv)

E B

l

,6* V I

l-C85LL 4 TAP ES'-86 M 2 S

[(4 PLC$) EQJ'- $PACLD

+

m' n,

s b

---y, 7,, 8 ~ -a n O

o

/

ryh,g.

evt l I

i i

DETA!L M sceuf.

v l

\\

c I

- - - -y +

I i

w a

?

i i

e

s..-

M

-MN -

geymam spas, g, w-

,,,,,..n w,,

.::5:.

_3-<

'hae-sV"- e ~ CNS 4 45 l

7,V;-;y;,;'*'*

T'> d SHIPPING CA A

M < < e.

.S <

,m.,

se,)

i

=(

sw E

C-U C-E-CCO '.

3 a,.mm.,

==.

um

[v. a f. s_ ora '

=

esp 4' 4'e 3

.mu=

4 l

l 2

l j

- /-M i

A

7 I

I s

t l

M J

t

'x o

/AA;)26':'N x..:,

o

?

is!!yt'h*L 4 -

-%g,x%

/

s aa. nu u c.

s c.

...... c.

N es

'\\

) ys v "

c 1,';%,78'**** W O/ ~

' s \\

N

'N

\\

ac wewT_

/

pee A4 ***e Pi=

('

\\.Y \\ \\ '

0

't,

j

'j

,U.J L,'it,[..?_____s

. _. &c!J _

//

i

- g, -

1 Ae v..

,,w 4i i a,.

SW i>

{t',,\\ \\

Ut.?lliol

\\

//

}

\\

's o

TEOw%

s r

nr -

c y 794 to M ***

a 2' V!*f **cLE

\\ Ys -'

g' p *E pata N

,N

/

\\N

)

ho gg

/<*'

'Q.

';;; -~; ' '

e4/e,s* OD LL neau

'2*

~

TAP IYa

• UNC 12 PLCS ac gL 50*

}

P 19es' CE a TWRV f

Tap 5,4 so we?

(2 rd* iBO* Araaf) t 0.c%.9414 BC.

tr,

K +J t

VIEW I" I

s. + i sae V4 f.J IMPACT LJM 'tt+1 ANO CC/*T. AffV 6.0T S.*C m N FOG CLAEiTY

'/4's 4Se wta Sc% ENDS cp 9 9 PLATE.

5

)

C' '/ er o

": *5'cs("o^s*cs Pw s 5

0 e:m tw

_/

~

o.s C

s Iti'.

/

W 1

,/.

i s

/

%5$3L~

g s

wt-

'V

/

\\

,,.(-

A SECTION N - N - i ec.a, v.

(

i r

7 j

i I

4 1

1 2

1 I l k

I g,..

m

. msm,

/

\\

._fD )

r oi in a en D

i. n o e

se.1 mm.

1 som su. -

w%

y - g i

.'N f[si- / / / [ -

E

-m u

$o,i

,A,. c

.l,,,...,'

l8 SECTION (I-G saa : vi i,'

vr o a sea I

g y

PM DAa p

" C. Scat.t ras :a1 w ces TY8 (1 PL4$)

' I 1.v If 9FETY DLud (2) i

.:. v:*.

e< e:>.as so c. ne

+ss sur,v

.a.e

(

eus s-eo aso e.,w una m Jlvyng L

A}

!I

\\-

/

SW /

Y

//

/ ^)

.crios K-K SECTIOy J - J sc,:_vi

+

t D

/

c-some iW pa e V2'

' cup

,a. w2* PLA7.

\\

\\)

L- %s m. stet D its..' c.a

. / $ $ FJtg bras D C

e~

P TTn,.,.I n.

ETt*ll N SdT 1 SCA.E Va l

B l

=== 1 *" l e==== 1

-*='**"e"""

me m-TF:":<8 newsmm muus, sc.

.=:. 1c

~~

C<

<*f;.rme L7 e- " C *J 5 4 - 4 5

"" + r SH PP NG CASK A

_. m -

"""2

,e

. :. s

( 4 L wrE

• .0 D B-i)

- f seca E 54e45 C-..C-E CCol

,.. /,, =/ /. '

e..

i i

/-as

Revision 1 September 1981 2.6.8.2 Porous Stainless Steel Plate - The design of the plate assures protection of the valves.

The modification is l

shown in Drawing No. C-110-E-0001, Revision 0, sheet.1 of 3 sheets.

The desian includes the addition of a cross-structure to the bottom side of the porous plate. The structure, made of 1/4 in. x 3/4 in.

4 l

stainless steci is welded to the bottom surface of the plate. The ends of the cross rest on lugs welded to the inner vall of the trunnion.

l In the event of impact by a 1-1/4 in. bar, the contribution of the j

porous plate is neglected. Thus, the situation can be represented by the sketch below.

P 7

4

/

3/4 5.25 i

t.

[

i 1/4 n

F F

The force, P, at which' yielding of the cross w-1; occur is P=

where s.y. y 3

1 = 2(

)

(the factor "2" is used since the two equal arms of the cross resist the load) e l

l 2-2'i

Revision 1 September 1981 2.7.2.

Puncture Second in the sequence of hypothetical accident conditions to which the cask must be subjected is the 40 in. drop onto a 6 in.

diameter cylinder. Two configurations of the cask are analyzed:

side drop and end or corner drop. The first of these is detailed 1

below.

i An empirical equation for the minimum steel shell thickness required-for lead filled casks has been developed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (15)

The equation has the form:

t = ( p ).71 W

tu m

Where:

t = minimum shell thickness, in.

W = weight of lead-lined cask, lb.

F

= ultimate tensile strength, psi.

tu Therefore, the required shell thickness is:

= (68,460) '7I t = (ptuW).71

= 1.18 in.

54,500 On the basis of an outer shell thickness of 1.75 in., the present cask shell design is shown to comply with the regulatory puncture criteria for a side drop cask configuration.

The remainder of this section (2.7.~2.) describes the analysis of the O

cask ueder end or corner dren nesitiers. T84s is summarized 8eiew.

2-46

Revision 1 September 1981 A detailed structural analysis was performed to determine the adequacy of the containment vessel closure system under 40-inch puncture test conditions considering the 6-inch diameter pin to contact the end region of the package with the package oriented in an end or corner position.

Stresses in both the outer lid and the lid bolts were less than the ultimate strengths of the materials, even though the effects of the overpack were conservatively neglected.

Since no leakable contents (i.e., radioactive gases, vapors, or liquids) exist which would result in any loss of containment through small openings (i.e.,

damage to the lid seal area), and since the lid remains intact and bolted to the container such that solids cannot escape, the containment requirements for puncture test conditions are fully satisfied.

2.7.2.1 Container Orientation During Puncture Conditions s

If the effects of the overpack are neglected, an end drop oriant. -

a tion of the container is a more severe condition than a corner drop orientation during puncture. The normal component of the impact force would be reduced to F Cos e, where F is the impact force and e is the angle of impact ( e = 0 for end drop). Since corner im-pact is near the outer diameter of the lid, it receives far greater l

support from the 1.75 inch steel shell. This effect, which will reduce normal deflections, will also reduce membrane stresses in the outer lid.

(Membrane stresses become very significant after plastic deformation begins in the lid.) Finally, any damage to l

the shielding will be much more severe for the end condition due to l

its closer proximity to the source. Thus, because it is the more severe of the two orientations, only the end condition will be analyzed.

l l

o i

L)

~ 2-46a l

l l

t c * +-

~

m a-r-.-

Revision 1 2.7.2.2 Lid Thickness Minimum required lid thickness was found to be 1.00 inch in order to prevent the 6-inch pin from puncturing through the. thickness of the 1.50 inch lid.

Details of this calculation are given in Sec-tion 2.7.2.7.

2.7.2.3 Lid Integrity The finite element method (see Section 2.7.2.8.1) was used in the evaluation of lid integrity during puncture conditions. The r;m-puter program ANSYS (see Section 2.7.2.8.2) was used in this evaluation.

First, the outer 1.5 inch thick steel lid was loaded at its center with progressively increasing puncture loads.

(Note,that,for conservatism, the effect of the overpack was ignored.) A nonlinear o

stress - strain curve was used for the type 304 stainless steel so that plastic deformation could be accurately modeled.

(Matert 'l properties are shown in Figure 2.7.2-1.)

The impact load was gadu-ally increased until the deformation of the steel lid equaled 'that which was required to absorb the energy generated in dropping the 2

containment vessel from a 40-inch height. The dynamic flow pressure concept was used to correlate the deformation of the steel to that of the impact energy.

It was found that, under the load at which all impact energy was absorbed, maximum deflection at the center of the outer lid was 0.42 inches.

Peak stresses, which also occurred at the center of the lid, were 36,341 psi, which is well below the 68,000 psi ulti-

- mate tensile strength of the stainless steel.

In the computer model of the inner lid, the points where the lid bolts were located were constrained from rotating and translating.

Reaction forces at the bolt locations were thus obtained from the V

finite element analysis. The radial force exerted by the bolt onto 2-46b

=

'i I

Revision 1 i

September 1981 1

• • A 240 - ASTM Type 304 Stainless Steel

• Assumed Values per

• Current ASTM Original SAR Values Yield Strength 28,000 psi 30,000 psi Ultimate Tensile Strength 68,000 psi 75,000 psi Percent Elongation 60%

40%

• Assumed values are conservative for material strength. Assumed value for percent elongation is valid if elongation does not exceed 40 percent.

(Maximum elongation calculated was 13 percent.)

O 1

• • ASTM A325 (11 - 7) Bolts Tensile Area:

.969 in2 Ultimate Tensile Strenth:

105,000 psi i

l

• • 1980 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 4 Figure 2.7.2-1.

Material Properties t

l O

~ 2-46c i

h

Revision 1 September 1981 the lid was 24,796 lbs., which is much less than the 75,889 lb.

load the edge can withstand as calculated from the conventional 40* shear out equation.

The finite element model and analysis of the outer lid is described in detail in Section 2.7.2.8.3.

Calculation of the required deformation according to the dynamic flow pressure concept, and its correlation to the finite element analysis is described in Section 2.7.2.8.4.

The edge margin calculation is contained in Section 2.7.2.8.5.

2.7.2.4.

Bolt Stress Analysis To ensure that the lid bolts would re; rain intact during puncture conditions, the stresses in the bolts due to the combined shear and axial loads were calculated.

(The shear and axial loads were obtained from the reaction forces at the bolt location in the finite element analysis.) Maximum principal stress in the bolts was found to be 96,600 psi, which is below the 105,000 psi ultimate tensile strength of the ASTM A325 bolts.

(Material properties are shown in Figure 2.7.2-1.

Details of this calculation are given in Section 2.7.2.9.)

2.7.2.5.

Shielding Effects Maximtr dose rates were calculated to be 76.6 mrem /hr at 3 feet after puncture test conditions. Since this value is much less than the allowed 1000 mrem /hr at 3 feet, all shielding require-ments in the lid have been met. Details of this calculation are given in Section 2.7.2.10.

Od 2-46d

R: vision 1 S:ptemb:r 1981 i

2.7.2.6.

Conclusions Through a combination of structural analysis techniques, it has been shown that the present closure system design is adequate to prevent failure of its critical components. Thus, the containment requirements of the closure system have been satisfied for the puncture test condition.

2.7.2.7.

Calculation of Top Lid Thickness An empirical equation for the minimum steel shell thickness required for lead filled casks has been developed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Nelmes, " Structural Analysis of Shipping Casks, Vol. 3, Effects of Jacket Physical Properties and Curvature on Puncture Resistance," ORNL-iM-1312, Vol. 3, June,1968). The equation has the form:

.71

,y t= g n.

where:

t = minimum plate thickness, in.

W = weight of lead-lined cask, Ib.

F u = ultimate tensile strength, psi.

t Therefore, the required plate thickness is:

(W

) 71 (68,460) 71 1.00 in.

(68,000) t = (F u )

=

=

t Since the thickness of the outer lid and the inner lid i 1.50 in.

each, the 6-in. pin will not puncture through either lid.

2.7.2.8.

Lid Stress Analysis 2.7.2.8.1.

Finite Element Method The finite element method is a state-of-art technique comonly used for structural analysis. A description of this method is given O}

\\

in Appendix F, Section 2.10.6.

2-46e

___ _a

Revisicn 1 September 1981 2.7.2.8.2.

ANSYS General Description e

The ANSYS computer program is a widely used finite element code for solving structural analysis problems. A complete descripti.on of this program is given in Appendix G Section 2.10.7.

2.7.2.8.3.

Finite Element Model of Lid 4

Using the ANSYS program, a finite element model was developed to calculate the stresses, deflections, and reaction forces in the lid of the container for the 40" puncture test. The only component of the lid which was modeled was the outer steel lid.

(Figure 2.7.2-2 shows the lid components.) The inner steel lid was not modei?d in this analysis, but it was considered in the sense that it was assumed to provide a rigid base to support the Outer lid at the support point indicated in Figure 2.7.2.-2.

The finite element mesh used to model the outer lid is shown in Figure 2.7.2-3.

Nodes, which are simply points in space, are indicated by uncircled numbers. Elements, which in this case are formed by connecting three nodes, are shown as circled numbers.

/

Due to the symetry of the lid, only a 15* sector was modeled. All nodes along the two edge radii (at O' and -15') were constrained i

from translating tangentially and from rotating about the radial and

/

O d

p w*

/

~'

2-46f i

Revision 1 September 1981 O

l OVERPACK SUPPORT POINT g

3 4

)

i.s 5

L d

(INNER STEEL LlO OUTER STEEL LID O

FIGURE 2.7.2-2 LIO ARRANGEMENT 2-469 l

Revision 1 September 1981 y

O

=

30::

20

@ i,

. BOLT l

h @,@ @ '

Ese h

RADIUS AT WHICH g 17 U INNER LID SUPPORTS OUTER LID 27 26 16 5

g 25 X = FIXED 0 = SIMPLY SUPPORTED l

E4 4

{

23 @3 22 2

Ye 1

FI9UPE ?. 7.2-3 LID F'si. r.: EMENT MODEL O

2-46h

~

l Revision 1 September 1981 normal axes.

Inaddition,thecenternode(node 1)wasconstrained from moving in every direction except the normal and from rotating in any direction. Nodes 8, 18 and 28 were constrained from displacing in the nonnal direction due to the support.

Node 30, v',ue the center of the bolt is located, was constrained from trans-lating or rotating in any direction.

(These reaction forces were, then, one half of the forces exerted by the lid onto a bolt.)

Uniform pressure was applied over the face of elements @, @,

and@tosimulateimpactofthecaskontothepin.

Triangular elements were selected instead of quadrilateral elements for use in the model.

For shell and plate elements, triangular elements usually give more reliable results than equivalent sized quadrilateral elements. Quadrilateral shell and plate elements must lie in an exact flat plane. Otherwise, a loss of equilibrium will result since the element resisting stiffness is based upon the element plane (defined by the first three nodes) while the structure assumes that the resisting stiffness is at the nodes.

If the fourth node of the element does not lie in the element plane, a moment imbalance.results.

In addition, triangular shell and plate elements are recommended over quadrilateral shell and plate elements for large deflections analyses since the quadrilateral element, even if inithily flat, may deflect to a warped geometry.

(This is true of the present model.)

The plastic triangular shell element of ANSYS (STIF 48) was used in this model. This element has both bending and_ membrane capabilities, with both inplane and normal loads permitted. The element has six degrees of freedom at each node:

translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions and rotations abdut the nodal x, y, and z axes.

It has plasticity, creep, and swelling capa-

+

bilities, as well as stress stiffening and large deflection capabilities. Other options are available for variable thickness, elastic foundation supports, deleting stiffness effects, and 4

O concentrating pressure loadings.

V 4

2-461

Revision 1 September 1981 The large deflection option of ANSYS was used in this analysis.

This procedure is based on an updated stiffness matrix and a changing load vector containing kinematic correction terms for large rotations. A large deflection solution is required wherever the displacements are large enough such that the structure stiffness matrix based on the geometry at the beginning of the iteration does not characterize the deformed structure at the end of the iteration.

(This is true of our model in that only bending stresses can exist if the normal loads are applied to the undeformed geometry.

In order for membrane stresses to exist, the normal loads have to be applied to the deformed structure.)

If the large deflection option is activated, the calculated nodal displacements are added to the previous nodal coordinate locations. These updated locations are used in determining the element stiffness matrix and load vector for the next iteration.

ANSYS uses the initial strain approach (also called the residual O

strain method) for analyzing plasticity effects. This procedure a

defines a reference elastic material stiffness, with associated reference elastic strains. The procedure uses an iterative solution technique with a changing load vector.

Yielding is based on the von Mises yield criterion, and multi-axial effects are handled with the Prandtl-Reuss flow equations. The nonlinear stress-strain curve used in this model is shown in Figure 2.7.2-4.

2.7.2.Q.4.

Dynamic Flow Pressure Calculation and Correlation to ANSYS Analysis The kinetic energy resulting from a 40-inch drop of the cask onte a rigid pin is given as:

6 (40) (68,460) = 2.7384x10 in.lbs.

HW K.E.

=

=

where H = drop height W = cask weight O

Since the pin is assumed to be non-yielding, all energy must be absorbed in the elastic and plastic deformation of the container.

2-46j

Revision 1 September 1981 70 -

68 j

60 -

/

50 -

3 k

l l

J 40 --

3 (10 PSI) 28 jE=23x106 l

20 -

10 -

t 0

i i

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7 FIGURE 2.7.2-4 (ASSUMED STRESS-STRAIN CURVE USED IN ANALYSIS (PER FIGURE 2.7.2-1) FOR A 240-ASTM TYPE 304 STAINLESS, STEEL)

<(h 2-46k

Revision 1 September 1981 I

As a conservative approach, all effects of the overpack will be ignored.

It is assumed that all energy will be absorbed in deformation of the outer steel lid (see Figure 2.7.2-2.)

Using the concept of dynamic flow pressure as developed by Shappert (Cask Designers Guide, page 57), the energy absorbed (which must equal

~

KE)is:

= os Vs KE E

=

a energy absorbed where E

=

a dynamic flow pressure of steel = 40,000 psi a

=

s volume of steel deformed (in3)

V

=

s 4E6 V

=

=

s From the finite element analysis described in Section 2.7.2.8.3, deflections of the outer lid were calculated as the load around the

~

center of the outer lid was gradually increased. Deformation of the steel was considered to include deformation of all the elements in the model.

Calculation of the deformed volume is shown in Figure 2.7.2-5.

The volume of each element was calculated by multiplying the area of the element by its average normal displacement (defined as the average of the normal displacements of each of the three nodes which make up the triangular eicment). As is noted in Figure 2.7.2-5, the total volume deformed under a 262,716 lb. (3.8G) load is 3.21 in.3, which is greater than the 2.85 in.3 required to absorb all the impact energy. Thus, stresses, deflections, and reaction forces determined under this load will be used to evaluate lid integrity.

Maximum deflection in the center of the outer lid is 0.42 inches.

Peak stresses-in this same area were 36,341 psi, which is well below the 68,000 psi ultimate strength of the material. A plot of deflection vs. radius is shown in Figure 2.7.2-6.

Element stresses are shown in O

ri9ere 2 7 2 2-461

Revision 1 September 1981 3.21 in.3 3.8Gs; Total Volume 262,716 lbs.

F

=

=

=

ELEMENT N0 DES AVE. N0DE VOLUME DISP.

No.

Area (A)

DISP. (6)

(A 6) 1

.291 1,2,22

.41

.119 2

.434 23,22,2

.37

.161 3

1.08 2,3,23

.35

.378 4

1.72 24,23,4

.26

.447 5

1.08 3,4,23

.29

.313 6

1.72 25,24,4

.20

.344 7

2.37 4,5,25

.17

.403 8

1.52 26,25,16

.09

.137 9

2.47 25,5,16

.12

.296 10 1.52 5,6,16

.09

.137 11 1.52 27,26,16

.06

.091 12 1.85 16,17,27

.04

.074 13 1.85 17,16,7

.04

.074 h

14 1.52 6,7,16

.06

.091 15 2.17 28,27,18

.01

.022 16 1.85 17,18,27

.02

.037 17 1.85 18,17,7

.02

.037 18 2.17 7,8,18

.01

.022 19 1.20 29,28,18 0

0 20 1.30 18,19,29 0

0 21 1.30 19,18,9 0

0 22 1.20 8,9,18 0

0 23 1.40 30,29,20 0

0 24 1.30 19,20,29 0

0 25 1.30 20,19,9

.01

.013 26 1.40 9,10,20

.01

.014 Figure 2.7.2-5.

VOLUME OF LID DEFORMATION O

U 2-46m

O 4-t i

i l

s i

1

)

i

?

i i

f I

i i

/

l, 3

y y

/

~ _.___.

n

/

L.42" m

t h

SUPPORT BOLT t

(

4 FIGURE 2.7.2-6 t

LID DEFLECTED SHAPE 3

om I

V<

r+ *

@ 4.0 3 -**

c' o O3 l

a 1

a W

CD 1-d I

i i

1 t'

L, l

l

Revision 1 September 1981 O

27,975 28Alo 27,356 27992 28p% 28,295 2a,29 2 crG ET3G 29,151

\\

2872f.h 2866 to,Ch2 26p22 238%

27380 ft,720 27,71/

27656 21618 2788L_

1

26) 38 31,357 3,*t O

p1GURE 2 7 2-g73gg STRESSgs ALONG O W SygpgcE OF OUTER LID 2-460

Revision 1 September 1981 O

Reection forces et the co streint where the 8eit is ioceted were 12,398 lbs. radial and 40,964 lbs. normal. Due to the symmetry of the model for which only a 15 sector was modeled, these reaction forces must be doubled to 24,796 lbs. and 81,928 lbs. respettively to account for the full 30 sector which the bolt must support.

These forces will be applied to the bolt as described in Section 2.7.2.9.

In addition, they will be tsed in the edge margin calculation as described in the next section.

2.7.2.8.5.

Edge Margin Calculation in Lid The conventional 40 shear out equation may be written for the lid bolt holes as:

2t[EM-fcos 40 ]

F Ps

=

sy radial load at hole (lbs.)

where P

=

3 Fsy = yield stress = 28,000 psi plate thickness =.78 in.

t

=

edge margin = 2.875 in, EM

=

hole diameter = 3.0 in.

d

=

Note that, very conservatively, the holes were considered to have the diameter of the counterbore, and the plate thickness was etn-sidered to be only the counterbore depth instead of the full 1.5 inch thickness.

=(28,000)(2)(.78)[2.875-fcos40]

Ps P

= 75,389 lbs.

3 The actual radial load is 24,796 lbs., which is much'less than the 75,389 lb. maximu-allowed value.

2.7.2.9.

Bolt Stre_3 Analysis Bolt stresses were calculated by applying to the bolt the normal

(

and radial reaction forces given at the bolt location in the finite 2-46p

Revision 1 September 1981 element analysis.

(These rea:: tion forces are a, plied to the axial and radial directions respectively of the bolt.) The stresses resulting from these two loads are then combined to find the maximum

'~

stress in the bolt. This stress was calculated to be 96,600 psi, which is less than the 105,000 psi ultimate strength of the ASTM A325 bolts.

It should be noted that the stress calculations are based on the results of a finite element analysis which was very conservative in that the effects of the overpack were neglected.

Details of the bolt stress analysis are given below.

The normal stress due to the axial load is:

Fn

=

on mi normal stress due to F where o

=

n n

axial load = 81,928 lbs.

F

=

n effective bolt area =.969 in.2 A

=

n 9

84,549 psi

=

n

.969 The maximum shear stress for a solid circular cross-section due to the later il load is given by Roark (Formulas for Stress anc. strain, Fifth Edition, pg. 93, egn.13) as:

4 V

Max T

'g g

=

where Max T = maximum shear stress V = shear force = 24,796 lbs.

A = effective bolt area =.969 in.2 Max T

=4 24, 34,119 psi

=

y

= 84,549, oy = 0, and Txy = 34,119, Using Mohr's circle, with o

=o x

n it can be shown that the maximum principal stress, o ), is p

aj=

x

+

[ x\\

+

T 0

p Y

( 2) 84549f'+(34,119)2 84,649

+

p2 =

l oj= 96,600 psi p

L 2-46q

Revision 1 September 1981 This is less than the 105,000 psi ultimate strength of the bolt material.

2.7.2.10 shielding Calculations

~~

Dose rates ay be estimated by using the rule of thumb expression:

D0

= lon x

Where D = final dose rate after passing through shielding x

n>aterial D = initial dose rate g

n = number of 1/10 value thickness Prior to puncture test conditions, the lid consists of two 11 inch thick steel plates and 4 inches of lead.

In order to be conservative, the shielding effects of the steel are ignored. Thus, since the tanth thickness of lead is 2 inches, n)= 2, and D0 D..

=. 01 D

=

o "1

10 As a result of puncture test conditions, the finite element analysis showed that the lead thickness was reduced by.42 inches from 4.00 inches to 3.58 inches.

(This deflection was calculated by considering all of the impact kinetic energy to be absorbed in the outer shell steel lid.) Thus, 3.58

),79 n=

2 D

D

.016 D

=

x2 "

1J9 o

10 If we consider the pre-and post-accident requirements,'then 200 mrem /hr (maximum)

D

(@ surface)

=

D

(@ 2 meters) = 10 mrem /hr (maximum) x x2 (@ 3 feet) 1000 mrem /hr.(maximum)

U

=

2-46r

i Revision 1 September 1981 Since the dose rate is proportional to the square of the distance j

from the source, the dose rate at 2 meters will govern the pre-accident conditions, and (6. 6)2 Dx (0 2 meters)

Dx (0 3 feet)

=

Dx (0 3 feet) 4.79 Dx (0 2 meters)

=

(4.79)(10) = 47.9 mrem /hr (maximum) or D (0 3 feet)

=

Note that the distance from the source was conservatively taken as the distance from the outer lid surface.

The dose rate as a result of the puncture test condition is increased by a factor of D

.016 Dg 1.6

=

=

D

.01 Do or D

= 1.6 D x2 xj Thus, if the maximum pre-accident dosage rates are assumed to exist (47.9 mrem /hr 0 3 feet), then 1.6 D

(*

• • )

(03 feet)

=

xt

= (1.6)(47.9)

= 76.6 mrem /hr (0 3 feet)

Since this is much less then the 1000 mrem /hr 0 3 feet requirement after an accident, it has been shown that all shielding requirements have been met in the lid under puncture test conditions.

2.7.3 Thermal - The results of the thermal transient analysis indicate that the cask inner cavity liner temperature reaches a maximun valut of 416 F, 60 minutes after the fire begins. This increase in temperature causes a pressure rise inside the fuel can O

sive" es:

2-46s

~-

Revision 1 September 1981 O

l l

l l

2.10.6 APPENDIX F F

'E ELEMENT METHOD O

i O

i 2-78

Revision 1 September 1981 Finite Element Method The finite element method is a numerical procedure for solving the differential equations of physics and engineering.

Fr6m its birth in the aerospace industry in the 1950s, it quickly spread to use in other engineering areas in the 1960s. More recently, the finite element method has advanced from a numerical procedure for solving structural problems to a general numerical procedure for solving systems of differential equations. This advancement has been assisted by the development of high-speed digital computers which provide a rapid means of performing the many calculations involved.

The fundamental concept of the finite element method is that any continuous qu~..t u, such as temperature or displacement, can be v

approximated by a discrete model composed of a set of piecewise continuous functions defined over a finite number of subdomains.

The discrete model is constructed as follows:

1.

A finite number of points i, the domain is identified.

These points are called noda! points or nodes.

2.

The value c' the continuous quantity (displacement, in this case) at each nodal point is denoted as a variable which is to be determined.

i l

3.

The domain is divided into a finite number of sub-domains called elements. These elements are connected l

at common nodal points and collectively approximate f

the shape of the domain.

l 4.

The displacement is approximated over each element by a polynomial that is defined using the nodal values of the displacement. A different polynomial is defined for each element, but the element polynomials are

{

selected in such a 'try that continuity is maintained i

along the element boundaries.

5.

These polynomials uniquely define the state of strain and stress within the elements as a function of the j

i nodal displacements and the coordinates.

2-79

Revision 1 September 1981 6.

Using the principle of virtual work (which says that a virtual [very small] change of the internal strain energy must be offset by an identical change in external work due to the applied loads), the state of stress and strain is replaced by a system of concentrated forces acting at the nodes.

7.

Assembling the finite elements acco. ding to the shape of the structure with the appropriate material properties leads to a stiff wss matrix which is a relationship between the concentrated loads and the displacements at the nodes.

8.

The equations thus derived are solved using numerical techniques and high speed computers. Generally, stresses and dynamic characteristics of the structure are thus obtained.

O O

2-80

1 Revi: ion 1 Scutember 1981 O

l 2.10.7 l

APPENDIX G ANSYS GENERAL DESCRIPTION O

J O

1 O

i 2-81

....-,-,..--..w-.

-,,,,m.,,,.,.,

,,-,n,,

,,__.,_.._,______,.-.,,._.,,_,.,.__.n_,

Revision 1 September 1981 ANSYS General Description The ANSYS computer program is a large-scale general purpose computer program employing finite element technology for the solution of several classes of engineering analysis problems. The program has been used for production analyses since 1970 by the structural, nuclear, mining, chemical, and automotive industries, as well as l

by many consulting firms. ANSYS is presently recognized as one of the most widely used and most capable programs of its type.

The program capabilities include structural analyses (static and dynami:; elastic, plastic, creep and swelling; small and large deflections), and heat transfer analyses (steady-state and transient; conduction, convection, and radiation). Structural and heat transfer analyses may be made in one, two or three dimensions, including axisymmetric and plane problems. Coupled thermal-fluid flow capacity, coupled thennal-electric capability, substructuring, and wave motion analysis capability are also available.

The matrix displacement method of analysis based upon finite element idealization is employed throughout the program. The library of finite elements available numbers more than forty for static and dynamic analysis, and twenty for heat tragfer analyses.

Loading on the structure may be forces, displacements, pressures, temperatures, or response spectra. Loadings may be arbitrary time functions for linear and nonlinear dynamic analyses.

Loadings for heat transfer analyses include internal heat generation, convection and radiation boundaries, and specified temperatures or heat flows.

The ANSYS program uses the wave front direct solutio method for the system of simultaneous linear equations developed by the matrix displacement method, and gives results of high accuracy in a minimum of computer time. The program has the capability of solving large I

structures.

ANSYS has the capability of generating substructures (or superelements).

These substructures may be stored in a library file for use in other analyses. Substructuring linear portions of a model can result in considerable computer time savings for nonlinear analyses.

______ ___ _ _ _--__ _ _ _ h(R

Revision 1 September 1981 O

Geometry plotting is available for all elements in the ANSYS library, including isometric, perspective, section views, and hidden line plots of three dimensional structures.

Plotting routines are also available for the plotting of stresses and displacements from two and three dimensional solid or shell analyses, mode shapes from dynamic analyses, distorted geometries from static analyses, transient forces and displacements vs. time curves from transient dynamic analyses, and stress-strain plots from plastic and creep analyses.

Postprocessing routines are available for albegraic modification, differentiation, &nd integration of calculated results. Root-sum-square operations may be performed on seismic modal results.

Results from various loading modes may be combined for harmonically loaded axisymmetric structures.

The input data for the ANSYS prograr has been designed to make it as easy as possible to define the problem to the' computer. Options for multiple coordinate systems in cartesian, cylindrical, or spherical coordinates are available, as well as multiple region generation capabilities to minimize the input data for repeating regions.

Sophisticated geometry generation capabilities are included for two dimensional plane and axisyninetric structures and for intersecting three dimensional shell and solid structures.

The ANSYS program capabilities are continually being enhanced by the addition of new or improved elements, new analysis capabilities, and new input, output and graphic techniques. ANSYS is continuously being verified by the developers (Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc.),

new users, governmental agencies, and engineering committees, in order to ensure that accurate results are obtained wt.9n the program is correctly used.

2-83

Revision 1 September 1981 9.0 APPENDIX A

SUMMARY

OF REVISION 1, SAR MODIFICATIONS f

O O

O 9-1

9.1 Cover Letter for Revision 1 Response Revision 1 September 1981 CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS INC.

i.*

P.O. Box 186G e Bellevue, Washington 98009 e (206) 827-0711 e

September 29, 1981 Mr. Charles E. MacDonald, Chief Transportation Certification Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555

Reference:

Docket No. 71-6375

Dear Mr. MacDonald:

We respectfully submit our response to the questions posed by your April 2,1980 letter (Attachment 1) regarding the Model CNS 4-45 (P8-1) shipping package.

Our response is in the form of revised pages (Attachment 2) to the Safety Analysis Report.

In accordance with the suggestion in Regulatory Guide 7.9, we have identified the revision by a vertical line in the right margin. We ask that you insert the revised text into the original binder sent to you on November 26, 1979.

Our letter of September 8,1980 contained a summary of modifications to the Safety Analysis Report which included the removal of fuel and neutron source component provisions.

Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions regarding this matter.

Sincerely, CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC.

^7bh Chryl A. Marsh Licensing Coordinator CAM: sis-Enclosure cc:

Lou Reynolds 9-2

Revision 1 September 1981 O

9.2 Revision 1, Response Sumary REQUEST 1.

Show that the containment vessel, and its closure system, are adequate to meet the containment requirements of 10 CFR 71 under one-foot drop test conditions. Consider end, side, corner, and oblique impact orientations.

RESPONSE

The containment requirements of 10 CFR 71, Paragraph 71.35, state that, "There will be no release of radioactive material from the containment vessel" under the normal conditions of transport. The centents intended for shipment include non-fissile irradiated hardware shipped dry.

The one-foot drop test analysis demonstrated no openings occurring in the containment vessel through which solids could escape. Since no leakable contents (i.e., radio-active gases, vapors or liquids) are pennitted to be trans-ported, no additional analysis is required to insure the leak-tightness of the package.

REQUEST 2.

Show that the containment vessel, and its closure system, are adequate to meet the containment requirements of 10 CFR 71 under 30-foot drop test conditions. Consider end, side, corner, and oblique impact orientations. Show that the trunnions adequately protect the penetration closures.

RESPONSE

The containment requirements of 10 CFR 71, Paragraph 71.36, state that, "A package... shall be so designed and con-structed and its contents so limited that if subjected to the hypothetical accident conditions... it will meet the following

... (2) No radioactive material would be released from the package except for gases and contaminated coolant c6ntaining total radioactivity exceeding neither:

(i) 0.1 percent of the total radioactivity of the package contents; nor (ii) 0.01 curie of Group I radionuclides, 0.5 curie of Group II radionuclides, 10 curies of Group III radionuclides, 1.000 curies of inert gases irrespective of I

transport group".

9-3

Revision 1 September 1981 h) 9.2 Revision 1, Response Summary (continued) v The 30-foot drop test analysis demonstrated no openings occurring in the containment vessel through which solids,,

could escape.

Since no leakable contents (i.e., radioactive gases, vapors or liquids) are permitted to be transported, no additional analysis is required to insure the leak-tightness of the package.

Similarly, consider the hypothetical accident condition where the trunnion penetration closure is torn off at the outer shell wall. Since the drain tube curves around the outer wall into the inner cavity (see detail of CNS 4-45 Shipping Cask, Draw-ing number C-110-E-0001), and since the tube is only one-half inch diameter, no solids of the size carried in the container could escape.

Also, since no leakable contents are permitted to be transported, no additional analysis is required to eval-uate protection of the penetration closures by the trunnion.

REQUEST 3.

Evaluate the adequacy of the containment vessel closure system under 40-inch puncture test conditions considering the 6-inch diameter p%

to contact the end region of the package with the package oriented in an end or corner drep position.

RESPONSE

A detailed structural analysis was performed to determine the adequacy of the closure system. Stresses in both the outer lid and the lid bolts were less than the ultimate strengths of the materials, even though the effects of the overpack were conservatively neglected.

Since no leakable contents exist which would result in any loss of containment through small openings, and since the lid remains in-tact and bolted to the container such that solids cannot escape, the containment requirements are satisfied.

Section 2.7.2 has been rewritten to encorporate the. details of the structural analysis.

REQUEST 4.

Revise the drawings to indicate the materials of construction used for the outer shell and the containment vessel and its closure system.

g s

RESP 0NSE Revised drawing CNS 4-45 Shipping Cask, number C-110-E-001, is enclosed in Section 1.3.2.

Materials of construction are included in this revision.

9-4

Revision 1 September 1981 9.2 Revision 1, Response Summary (continued)

REQUEST 5.

Show that the containment vessel closure system is adequately resistant to brittle failure under the 30-foot drop test and the puncture test with cold ambient temperature conditions (-20*F).

RESPONSE

Since there has not been established, to this date, a criteria for evaluating the resistance of a containment vessel to brittle failure under the 30-foot drop test and the puncture test with cold ambient con-ditions (-20*f), no response at this time will be made to this question.

As soon as a criteria is established for judging adequacy of a cask under these conditions, Chem-Nuclear will evaluate the cask upon request of the NRC.

O e

e 9-5

~

Revision 1 September 1981 O

1 9.3 Instructions for Incorporating Revision 1 to CNS 4-45 SAR

~

4 l

REMOVE PAGES ADD PAGES i

Front cover Front cover i - iii 1 - iii j

1-4 1-4 i

1 1-20 2-25 2-25 2-46 2 2-46s 2 2-83 9 9-6 i

i IlO

~

1 i

t i

i I

1 O 19769 96

.