ML20033B813
| ML20033B813 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07106601 |
| Issue date: | 11/04/1981 |
| From: | Sieber J DUQUESNE LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Macdonald C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| 19916, NSL:JDS:1153, NUDOCS 8112020273 | |
| Download: ML20033B813 (1) | |
Text
'//-- #6/
cy$
l0$
t A
j
-l)
(
4 NelsENE.~
7, DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY
'"U>
f Beaver Valley Power Station 7.
\\?,j[W Ga
(
Post Office Box 4
\\/
N aug Shippingport, g {t % -0004 m
.s v
i
?
ini 6 NSL:JDS:ll l)' of,98'l f Pf Q 3 November 4, l u.
NOV 131981' U
Model No. CNS 8-120 Packaging w " ~ ~"
c />
kb' Charles E. MacDonald, Chief C
Transportation Certification Branch 3
Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'J '
Washington, D.
C.
20555 i
Dear Mr. MacDonald:
This letter refers to your letter dated October 14, 1981 to Mr. Louis E. Reynolds, Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc., Bellevue, Washington regarding a Certificate of Compliance for the Model No. CNS 8-120 package.
Duquesne Light Company (Mr.
J.
A. Werling) was included on the distribution of your letter.
We wish to request that any future correspondence regarding this or any other related subject be directed to our Mr. J. A.
Kosmal, the Radiological Operations Coordinator for Duquesne Light Company's Nuclear Division, at the above address.
We will appreciate your attention to this request.
Very truly yours, I
'; a.
~ '. - I'V N 9%
/J.
Sieber, Manager l.
'{ ' ' l N..! ? T
(/ Nuclear Safety and j !* I i
!f j Licensing
Attachment:
NRC October 14, 1981 Letter to Chem Nuclear 8112O20273 811104 PDR ADOCK 07106601 doA*
C PDR
IO Oc UNITED STATES og I
o, NbcLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON
[
y( (,g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/O b
%h /'
k'[a cW
%, '% /
OCT 141981
,IdiC:RH0 71-6601
(/
~
OCT 231981 Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.
ATTN: Mr. Louis E. Reynolds P.O. Box 1866 CEMTRAT. FILE -
Bellevue, WA 98009 M L' -
Gentlemen:
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. CNS 8-120 package. As a result of our review of the application for these requested changes, we have identified several matters 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.
The submittal date should be no more than 120 days from the date of this letter.
Sincerely, M
Charles E. MacDonald, Chief Transportation Certification Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ encl:
See attached list D@e ausses*
. OCT 141981 cc w/ encl:
Alabama Power Company Duke Powtr Company ATTN: Mr. W. G Hairston, III ATTN: Mr. W. O. Parker, Jr.
P.O. Box 470 422 South Church Street Ashford, AL 36312 Charlotte. NC -28242 7
Ames Laboratory uquesne 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 N
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 43201 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 Jersay Central Power & Light Company Comonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Mr. Ivan R. Finfrock, Jr.
Attn: Mr. R. H. Graves Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road 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 Dairyland Power Cooperative Metropolitan Edison Company ATTN: Mr. R. E. Shimshak ATTN: Mr. C. P. Deltete P.O. Box 135 P.O. Box 480 Genoa, WI 54632 Middletown, PA 17057
- 007 24 1991 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 DMT 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 Washington, DC 20545 Public Service Electric & Gas Company ATTN: Mr. H. J. Midura P.O. Box 168 Hancocks 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 Chestnut 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 t
k
Model No. CNS 8-120 Packaging Docket No. 71-6601 j
I4IE Enci-to ltr dtd:
1.
The evaluation of the 30-foot drop test (Sect. 2.7.1) does not adequately demonstrate the integrity of the containment vessel.
The analysis should be revised to indicate the stresses that would be present in the containment vessel anj 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 against the steel shells as well as the axial stresses that.would result from the steel supporting the lead.
The analysis should also evaluate the effects of differential thermal expansion (axial and radial) between the lead and the steel shells.
Note the statement on page 2-14 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 a alysis should 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 (3ect. 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 purpose, i
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 transfer shear l
forces from one plate to another.
. 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. 2-25) 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 infonnation:
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 consider the specific types of steel used to construct the cask.
d.
Clarify the value of kinetic energy that the cask is conside;ed ~
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.
e.
The analysis of stresses in the plates and welds at the bottom end of the cask (pg. A-17) should be revised to include the additional stresses that would result from the axial component of the inertial force of the contents and bottom closure.
- - ~..
. - +. -
,.w.
' 5.
Show~ that the cask closure and bottom end plates are adequately designed to resist the shear forces that would act in the plane 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 puncture test considering the cask to be oriented so that the pin would impinge upon the end of the cask.
The analysis should consider both the top and 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 of the pin striking the plugs located in the lid.
Note that the puncture analysis (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 folicwing 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.
r 13316
---w
.cw