ML20032A569
| ML20032A569 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07106601 |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1981 |
| From: | Macdonald C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Reynolds L CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110300399 | |
| Download: ML20032A569 (6) | |
Text
'71-c c ci
/Jchum4 aA D CT 1 4 iggg FCTC: RHO 71-6601 Agf'f cu d/'
Chem-Nuclear Systeas, Inc.
ATT!!: Mr. Louis E. Reynolds tj OCT2 2 Dag ~ '
P.O. Box 1866 b, u,5, %
Bellevue,llA 98009
[1 Nmov d,'
' fr Gentlemen:
dilTy By application dated January 7,1981, a consolidated application was submitted in support of changes to the Certificate of Compliance No. 6601 for the Model No. CMS 8-120 package.
As a result of our review of the application for these requested changes, we have identified several natters which require further evaluation. These matters are described in the enclosure to this letter.
Please inform me within 30 days when the additional information requested will be submitted.
from the date of this letter.The submittal date should be no more than 120 days Sincerely, a iz n u r in.ne d b'I ag m ;. mcrcHALD Charles E. MacDonald, Chief Transportation Certification Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, IEtSS
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ encl: See attached list Distribution w/ encl:
'C3iscljona1d c
RH0degaarden CRChappel1 NRC PDR Docket File V GJackson IEHQ(6)
NMSS R/F FCTC R/F STAT 6 AE A G O CEC A' 811n700399 811014
{DRnDOCK 07106601 PDR omak..FCTC ]
,gn FC ~
sumM0denaar en: alm CRchgppell CEM donald 1
10Q/[l"[ ~107/5781
~T070 81' cm i
l j
' t_
" "f1_ _ _
enc ec w ais omeo> sncu 024o Z "I'
_.--_ "i'
t!_ _ __
OFFICI AL RECQBf01 CCY@M-
___ DCT 14193g cc w/ encl:
Alabama Power Company Duke Power Company ATTN: Mr. W. G Hairston, III ATTN: Mr. W. 0. Parker, Jr.
P.O. Box 470 422 South Church Street Ashford, AL 36312 Charlotte, NC 28242 Ames Laboratory Duquesne Light Company Department of Energy ATTN: Mr. J. A. Werling ATTN:
Mr. A. F. Voigt P.O. Box 4 Iowa State University Shippingport, PA 15077 Ames, IA 50010 Florida Power & Light Company Battelle Columbus Laboratory ATTN: Mr. C. M. Wethy ATTN: Mr. Harley L. Toy P.O. Box 128 505 King Avenue Ft. Pierce, FL 33450 Columbus, OH 4320:
Florida Power Corporation Boston Edison Company ATTN:
Dr. Patsy Y. Baynard ATTN:
Mr. G. Carl Andognini P.O. Box 14042 800 Boylston Street St. Petersburg, FL 33733 Boston, MA 02199 Georgia Power Company Carolina Power & Light Company ATTN: Mr. Max Manry ATTN: Mr. B. H. Webster P.O. Box 442 Route 1, Box 327 Baxley, GA 31513 New Hill, NC 27562 Jersey Central Power & Light Company Conmonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Mr. Ivan R. Finfrock, Jr.
Attn: Mr. R. H. Graves Madison Avenua at Punch Bowl Road j
P.O. Box 127E Morristown, NJ 07960 East Hampton, CT 06424 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Consolidated Edison Company of NY, Inc.
ATTN: Mr. Lincoln Clark, Jr.
ATTN: Mr. W. Monti 138 Albany Street Broadway & Bleakly Avenues Department of Nuclear Engineering New York, NY 10511 Cambridge, MA 02139 Consumer Power Company Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company ATTN: Mr. Thomas P. Neal ATTN: Mr. Edwin C. Wood 212 West Michigan Avenue Box 450, RFD 2 Jackson, MI 49201 Wiscasset,'ME 04578 Dairvland Power Cooperative Metropolitan Edison Company ATTN: Mr. R. E. Shim,hak ATTN:
Mr. C. P. Del tete P.O. Box 135 P.O. Box 480 Genoa, WI 54632 Middletown, PA 17057
I 007 1 4 1981 Nebraska Public Power District Department of Energy ATTN: Mr. Jerry V. Sayer ATTN: Mr. James M. Peterson P.O. Box 98 P.O. Box 550 Brownville, NE 68321 Richland, WA 99352 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company U.S. Department of Transportation ATTN: Mr. Gooch Cheatham Materials Transportation Bureau P.O. Box 128 ATTN: Mr. Richard R. Rawl Waterford, CT 06385 B4T 221 Washington, DC 20590 Omaha Public Power District ATTN: Mr. W. C. Jones Department of Energy 1623 Harney ATTN:
Dr. Donald M. Ross Omaha, NE 68102 MS E-201 u=shington, DC 20545 Public Service Electric & Gas Company ATTN: Mr. H. J. Midura P.O. Box 168 Han;ccks Bridge, NJ 08038 Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation ATTN: Mr. John E. Maiser 89 East Avenue Rochester, NY 01464 Tennessee Valley Authority ATTN-Mr. L. M. Mills 400 Lnestnut Street, Tower II Chattanooga, TN 37401 UNC Nuclear Industries ATTN: Mr. Thomas F. Demmitt 2900 George Washington Way Richland, WA 99352 Virginia Electric and Power Company ATTN: Mr. B. R. Sylvia P.O. Box 26666 Richmond, VA 23261 Wisconsin Electric Power Company ATTN: Mr. Sol Burstein 231 West Michigan Milwaukee, WI 53201
Model No. CNS 8-120 Packaging Docket No. 71-6601 Encl to ltr dtd:
4D 1.
The evaluation of the 30-foot drop test (Sect. 2.7.1) does not adequately demonstrate t!:e integrity of the containment vessel.
The analysis snuuld be revised to indicate the stresses that would be present in the containment vessel and to show that these stresses are within acceptable limits to assure the integrity of the vessel.
The analysis of impact effects should consider the lateral pressure of the lead acainst the steel shells as we'.1 as the axial stresses that would result from the steel supporting the lead.
The analysis should also evaluate the effects of differential thermal expaneion (axial and radial) between the lead and the steel shells.
Note the statement on page 2-i4 that the lead and steel are bonded together and that the steel would support the lead during impact.
2.
The evaluation of 30-foot end drop (Sect. 2.7.1.1) only considers slumping of the lead.
The analysis shouid be revised to demonstrate the integrity of the containment vessel and closure under top and bottom end drop conditions.
3.
The analysis of the 30-foot top corner drop (Sect. 2.7.1.3) should be revised to provide the following information in connection with demonstrating that an adequate seal will be maintained under accident conditions.
a.
Show that the rim which projects above the cover would deform by crushing, as was assumed in the analysis, rather than by local bending, shearing, buckling or some other mechanism which would dissipate less energy.
Provide a sketch showing exactly which area of the rim is considered to be the deformed volume.
Note that the shape of the deformed volume which was assumed in the analysis (i.e., solid cylindrical wedge, see sketch pg. 2-17) is not consistent with the actual geometry of the package (see Detail C, DRWG. 119-0500-E01).
Therefore, it appears that the equations used to evaluate top corner impact (pgs. 2-16 and 2-17) are not valid for this purposa.
b.
Show that the closure design is adequate to resist the shear forces that act in the plane of the cover.
The analysis (pg. A-
- 9) apparently assumes that a portion of shear force would be reacted solely by the rim that extends above the cover.
- However, this does not consider tha the rim, under impact forces, would deform inward and bare against the cover.
Also, the cover is made of laminated plates.
The revised analysis should show that the connections between the plates are adequate to tran:,fer shear forces from one plate to another.
V-c.
The revised analysis should show that an adequate seal would be maintained following the test, considering the deformation and distortion that would occur in the area of the cover and the flange.
d.
Show that the cylindrical cask walls', and the connection between the walls and the flange, are adequate to resist the loads imposed by top corner impact.
This should include the lateral pressure (if any) from the lead.
e.
Revise the calculated closure bolt stress (pg. A-8) to consider the additional stresses due to pre-load and horizontal shear (if any).
Note that the content weight considered in the analysis (pg. 2-23) should apparently be greater than 10,000 pounds to be consistent with the weights specified on page 2-2.
f.
Justify that it is appropriate to consider the outer edge of the cover plate to be fixed, as was done in the analysis on page A-13.
Provide a free-body sketch of the cover and flange which explicitly shows how the necessary moment reaction is developed to provide fixity.
Also, the analysis should be revised to consider that the cover is made of laminated plates rather than being a solid 4-inch thick plate (pg. A-14).
~
4.
The analysis of the 30-foot bottom corner drop (Section 2.7.1.3) should be revised to provide the following information:
a.
Show that the drain line (see Detail D, DRWG. 119-0500-E01) would remain sealed following a 30-foot bottom corner drop test.
Note that this line is located in the region that would apparently be crushed according to the analysis on pg. 2-18.
b.
Provide additional narrative and sketches which clearly show the deriviation of equations (10) and (11) on pg. 2-17.
Also, show the equation used on that page to tabulate the values of coefficient "C".
3 c.
Justify that a value of 60,000 in-lb/in is appropriate for the energy absorbing constant used on pg. 2-18.
This should coasider l
the specific types of steel used to construct the cask.
d.
Clarify the value of kinetic energy that the cask is considered to have under 30-foot drop conditions.
Note that the 60,000 pound values used on pgs. 2 18 and 2-19 do not agree with 74,000 pound weight listed on pg. 2-2.
The analysis of stresses in the plates and welds at the bottom e.
end of the cask (pg. A-17) should be revised to includt the additional stresses that would result from the axial component of the inertial force of the contents and bottom closure.
j^
, l 5.
Show that the cask closure and bottom end plates are adequately designed to resist the shear forces that would act in the plane l
i of cover under 30-foot side drop conditions.
Also, show that the drain line would remain sealed following a 30-foot side drop test, 6.
The revised analysis should evaluate the effects of the 40-inch I
puncture test considering the cask to be orier.ted so that the pin would impinge upon the end of the cask. The analysis should consider both the top ard bottom ends. The analysis should include the effects in the local vicinity of the pin and the overall effect upon the end plates.
The analysis of top end impact should include an evaluation af the pin striking the plugs located in the lid.
Note that the p;ncture aaalysis (pg. 2-21) should apparently be revised to consider a weight of 74,000 pounds rather than 60,000 pounds.
7.
Section 2.6.6 should be revised to explicitly demonstrate that the package meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 71 under 1-foot drop test conditions.
8.
The package drawings should be revised to provide the following
, information:
a.
The torque to which the cover bolts are tightened.
b.
The method or devices used to close and seal the drain plug.
c.
The torque to which the cover plugs are tightened and the method or devices which provide a seal at these plugs.
d.
The clearances of the closure bolts and cover which are discussed on page 2-28.
_ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _