ML20039G969
| ML20039G969 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07106698 |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1981 |
| From: | Macdonald C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Clay Johnson NAC INTERNATIONAL INC. (FORMERLY NUCLEAR ASSURANCE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201190359 | |
| Download: ML20039G969 (9) | |
Text
~
'H-6.c,ejg
/tb1u1b S
DEC 2 0 981 1
k;I,hard-im
)
jjg >
FCTC: RHO 9
O 71-6698 f'
4,
'</
dECE;nio Q
{' T"""*'gggs W DECB 01 Huclear Assurance Corporation
.f ATTN: Mr. Charles R. Johnson i
s 24 Executive Park Hest Atlanta, GA 30529
'x
>V
./
Gentlemen:
This refers to your application dated June 5,1981, requesting an amendment to the Model No. NFS-4 packaging.
In connection with our review, we need the information identified in the enclosure to this letter.
The additional information requested by this letter should be submitted in the fom of revised pages within 180 days from the date of this letter. Failure to provide the additional infomation within the specified period will be considered sufficient grounds to deny the June 5,1981 application for an amendment. If you have any questions regarding this matter, we would be pleased to meet with you and your staff.
Sincerely, Of 00 c
3 Charles E. MacDonald, Chief Transportation Certification Branch DiYision of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, retSS
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enc 1: See attached list Distribution: w/ encl CEMacDonald RH0degaarden (2)
CRChappell l
Docket File '
NMSS R/F FCTC R/F 8201190359 911229 NRC PDR PDRADOCK07106g C
j IEHQ(3) g
-"am.(.....FCTC 1
CEMa ld I
F
.degaarden: alm sunsa I
I NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
MODEL NO. NFS-4 PACKAGING USA /6698/B( )F Addressee's: w/ encl Ltr dated:
Babcock and Wilcox Company Florida Power and Light Company ATTN: Mr. D. W. Zeff ATTN: Mr. Robert E. Uhrig P.O. Box 800 P.O. Box 529100 1,ynchburg, VA 24505 Miami, FL 33152 Baltimore Gas & Electric Company Florida Power Corporation ATTN: Mr. A. E. Lundvall, Jr.
ATTN: Dr. Patsy Y. Baynard P.O. Box 1475 P.O. Box 14042 Baltimore, MD 21203 St. Petersburg, FL 33733 i
Battelle Columbus Laboratories General Electric Company ATTN: Mr. Harley L. Toy ATTN: Mr. D. M. Dawson 505 King Avenue 175 Curtner Avenue Columbus, OH 43201 Mn Jose, CA 95125 Boston Edison Company Jersey Central Power & Light Company j
ATTN: Mr. G. Carl Andognini ATTN: Mr. John Sullivan, Jr.
800 Boylston Street P.O. Box 388 3
Boston, MA 02199 Forked River, NJ 08731 I
Comonwealth Edison Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.
l ATTN: Director of Nuclear Licensing ATTN: Mr. L. H. Heider j
P.O. Box 767 Turnpike Road (RT 9) i Chicago, IL 60690 Westboro, MA 01581 1
j Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Northern States Power Company
]
ATTN: Mr. R. H. Graves ATTN: Mr. L.O. Mayer i
R.R. No.1, P.O. Box 127E 414 Nicollet Mall, 8th Floor East llampton, CT 06424 Minneapolis, MN 55401 l
Dairyland Power Cooperative Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
ATTN: Mr. R. E. Shimshak ATTN: Mr. Larry Wiedemann l
P.O. Box 135 P.O. Box 124 Genoa, WI 54632 West Valley, NY 14171 Department of Energy Oak Ridge National Laboratory ATTN: Mr. A. T. Newmann ATTN: Mr. William E. Terry P.O. Box 14100 P.O. Box X Las Vegas, NV 89114 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 i
Department of Energy Reynolds Electric and Engineering ATTN: Mr. James M. Peterson Company, Inc.
i P.O. Box 550 ATTH: Mr. Arden E. Bicker Richland, WA 99352 P.O. Box 14400 Las Vegas, NV 89114 Duke Power Comparty ATTN: Mr. W. O. Parker, Jr.
Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation 422 South Church Street ATTN: Mr. L. D. White, Jr.
I Charlotte, NC 28242 89 East Avenue 1
l Rochester, NY 14649 r
N""*"'>
^ " >
l b"C """ ' " _" ;* ' " "'" 2 '
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
0, Southern California Edison Company ATTN: Mr. William H. Seaman P.O. Box 800 Rosemead, CA 91770 Westinghouse Electric Corporation ATTN: Mr. A. J. Nardi P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Wisconsin Electric Power Company ATTN: Mr. Sol Burstein 231 West Michigan Milwaukee, WI 53201 4
l OFFICE k
- $URNAMEk DATEf unc roxu sia io. o, uncu c2' OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Nuclear Assurance Corporation Model No. NFS-4 Package Docket No. 6698 Encl to ltr dtd: DEC 2 9 9
1.
The evaluation in Section 2.10.2 does not provide. sufficient information to demonstrate that the impact limiters are adequately designed.
The information in Sections 2.3.5 and 2.3.6 should be combined with the evaluation in Section 2.10.2 to clearly and explicitly show how the impact limiter forces and deformations were calculated.
Section 2.10.2 should be revised to show the equations used to determine cross-sectional area (Aj) and crush strength (oj) as a function of crush depth (x) for each impact orientation. The evaluation should indicate the maximum percent compression of the balsa and redwood and show that the impact limiters do no~t " bottom-out" before dissipating l
the kinetic energy of the fall. Note that the analysis of the l
stainless steel tubes under side impact (Section 2.10.2.3) does not consider inelastic buckling after the tubes have yielded in compression l
and is not adequate to justify the assumption that the tubes will deform by compression rather than buckling.
Provide the calculations used to obtain the force-deflection relationship for the impact limiters under one-foot, 30-foot, and puncture test conditions.
2.
The application should be revised to demonstrate that the impact limiters are effective for corner and oblique angle impact orientations.
This should include an explicit assessment of impact limiter forces and deformat' ions for various oblique angles as well as demonstrating that the impact limiters would remain attached to the package under oblique impact orientations. Notethestatement(pg.2-227)that oblique angles are bounded by corner and side drop angles is not correct with respect to the impact limiters separating from the cask.
Provide a free-body sketch of the impact limiter showing the magnitude, direction, and location of all external forces and all reactions that act on the impact limiter under corner and oblique drop orientations. Show that the external loads and reaction forces on the impact limiter are in equilibrium.
Show how the reaction loads are developed by the cask.
3.
Provide a drawing which shows a bottom end projection of the cask.
Revise Drawing No. 301-211-F1, Sheet 5, to shew the bottom end dimensions on Sections K-K and L-L.
Revise the discussion of impact limiter performance to consider the adequacy of Part No. 99 and other cask components at the lower end of the cask to provide the necessary reaction forces for the impact limiter under various drop test orientations.
l l
2 E
/
4.
The analysis of containment) vessel stresses under longitudinal impact (Section 2.10.1.3) should be revised to consider the lateral pressure loading on the shell due to the inertia of the lead. Note the statement (pg. 2-305 and 2-317) that only axial stresses are present in the shells is incorrect (e.g., hoop stresses would be produced by the lateral pressure of the lead).
The analysis should include the discontinuity stresses which occur at the ends and thickness transitions of the containment vessel. Also, the description of how axial stresses were calculated is confusing.
The Section should be revised to include a free-body diagram of the inner and outer shells at axial locations A, B, and E, which clearly shows the concentrated and distributed loads'that are considered to be applied to each region of the cask and which shows that the internal axial forces in the shells are in equilibrium with the applied forces.
5.
The analysis of stresses under side drop conditions (Section 2.10.1.4) represents the cask as a simple beam and includes the lead in calculating the transformed moment of inertia of the section (pg.
2-323). This section should be revised to show that the stresses and temperatures in the lead will be sufficiently low to justify the values of "E" and "G" used in the calculations on page 2-323.
Also, note in Tables 2-159 and 2-164 that axial stresses have not been included for all of the evaluation points and that these
~
stresses should be classified as membrane stresses rather than bending stresses.
6.
The analysis of stresses under corner drop orientations (Section 2.10.1.4.3) should be revised to consider the following:
a.
The analysis should consider oblique angle orientations (i.e.,
the largest combined axial and lateral bending stress may not occur at a cask orientation of 0 or 90 ),
b.
The axial stresses included in Table 2-164 should be classified as membrane stresses rather than bending stresses.
c.
The discontinuity stresses which occur at the ends and thickness transitions of the containment vessel.
d.
Note the evaluation of corner and obliaue drops in other sections of the application should consider the combined stresses due to both axial forces and lateral moments.
i 1
~.---
?
, 3-7.
Revise the analysis of thermal stresses (Section 2.10.1.1) to clearly show how the stresnes in Tables 2-140 through 2-146 were determined. This should include a description of how discontinuity i
stresses were calculated in the containment vessel at its ends and at thickness transitions.
Provide sufficient narration and descriptive sketches to enable the accuracy of the results to be verified. The application should also explain why thermal stresses are classified into both primary and secondary categories in these tables.
Show the temperature distributions within the cask that were considered for the cases involving internal heat loads (i.e., Tables 2143 through 2-146).
8.
The analysis of containment vessel strssses due to internal pressure (Section 2.10.1.2) should include an evaluation of the secondary stresses which occur at its ends and at thickness transitions.
9.
The analysis of the one-foot drop test (Section 2.6.6) should show that the effectiveness of the neutron shield tank and the expansion tank would not be impaired under end, side, and corner drop orientations.
Note that the analysis of these systems (pgs. 2-145 and 2-153) does not consider the end regions of the shells (i.e., the circumferential circular plates and the conical end section).
- 10. Provide a drawing which clearly shows the location and details of all containnicnt vessel penetrations, all lines to those penetrations, the valves or fittings which close the lines, and the rings, boxes or other protection which is provided for the valves and fittings.
Show that the fittings and lines to the containment vessel would not be damaged under nonnal or accident conditions.
Show that the fittings to the neutron shield system would not be damaged under normal conditions. Note the discussion in Sections 2.7.2.1 and 2.7.2.2 is confusing and does not contain sufficient narrative and sketches to permit the conclusions to be' verified.
Clearly show which valve box covers (if any) would be subject to crushing loads from the impact limiters.
9 g
.A
f
?
- 11. The evaluation in Section 2.7.3 is not adequate to demonstrate that the package has sufficient 3tructural integrity to withstand the fire test. The Section should be revised to show the temperature of the inner and outer shells, the stresses in the shells, how the stresses were determined, and that the stresses are within allowable limits. The application (pg. 2-262) states that the stresses in Table 2-136 were obtained by adding appropriate multiples of unit load stresses in Section 2.10.1. However, Section 2.10.1 does not contain a unit load case corresponding to the post-fire condition of the cask. The application should also justify the statement (pg. 2-263) that the axial stresses in the containment vessel are tensile and evaluate the stresses in the copper fins and their connections.
- 12. Revise the application to show the maximum pressure in the containment vessel for:
(a) 100 F day with full heat load, (b) waterhamer effect under one-foot and 30-foot drops, (c) the combined pressure of (a) and (b) under nomal and accident condition drop tests, and (d) the pressure under post fire conditions.
Compare these pressures to the relief pressure and show that the relief system will not vent under nomal or accident conditions.
Note that 1.d in Regulatory Guide 7.8 specifies that all pressurized gases inside the fuel assemblies should be considered in determining the maximum pressure under normal and accident conditions. Show that the other lines and fittings to the containment vessel can withstand the maximum pressure.
- 13. Revise the application to show the maximum pressure in the jacket tank and expansion tank for: (a) 100 F day with full heat load, (b) waterhammer effect under one-foot drop test, and (c) the conbined pressure of (a) and (b). Show that relief system for the neutron shield water would not vent under normal conditions.
- 14. The application should be revised to show that stresses in the cMsure plate and closure bolts are within allowable limits under normal and accident conditions.
This should include a description of the model and assumptions used to detemine the stresses as well as the numerical calculations.
Note that Section 2.10.1.0.2 only considers pre-load and differential themal expansion and does not address other applied loads (i.e., impact and internal pressure) or the stresses in the closure plate.
Revise the drawings of the package to specify the torque to which the closure bolts are tightened.
.w...
m.
~...,... ~. - --
. 15.
In several places, the application states that stresses were determined by adding appropriate multiples of the unit load stresses in Section 2.10.1.
The application should be revised to clarify what multiples and which cases were combined to obtain the stresses for each load combination.
- 16. Revise the application to show explicitly that the stresses in the containment vessel are within the limits specified in C.7 of Regulatory Guide 7.6.
Note the conclusion (pg. 2-13) that this condition could not limit the design is not correct since the range includes primary as well as secondary stresses and stress concentrations.
- 17. Show that the package meets the requirements of 571.31(c)(4) and 571.31(d)(3) considering any valves or other fittings which may be enclosed within the lifting or tie-down devices.
Provide a drawing which shows the features and details of the rotation trunnions.
1 Provide a sketch showing the loads discussed in Section 2.4.4.1.
- 18. The application should be revised to show that the containment vessel shell was not subject to buckling as a result of the thennal stresses which occurred while the lead was molten (i.e., the stresses shown in Figures 2-20 through 2-23). Provide the calculations for this analysis. Account for the stresses which occurred before the' one second interval shown on the figures.
Note that the lateral restraint assumptions made in Section 2.1.2.2.3(a) would not apply to this case.
- 19. Revise the discussion of bending buckling (pg. 241) to explain how the effect that bowing would have on bending buckling was determined by the ANSYS code. Explain what is meant by " relative maximum bending stress" in Table 2-13.
- 20. Justify that the procedure described on page 2-43 is adequate to evaluate possible inelastic buckling.
Explain how the maximum plastic strain in the vessel could be determined from an elastic analysis as described in Step 1.
Justify the appropriateness of superimposing stresses, as described in Step 3, to obtain the total inelastic stress. Provide the calculations that were made to determine E and E for all instances or cases where this procedure t
was used to evaluale inelastic buckling.
i $ms J E
w
.o 0 21. Justify the appropriateness of using a lead modulus of 1.94 x (10)6 psi in the equation on page 2-49, considering the temperature of the lead and the level of stress to which the lead is subjected for the case (s) being evaluated for buckling.
- 22. Verify that thermal stresses, as well as primary stresses, were l
considered in all buckling evaluations. Note that only primary stress components are listed as potential sources te produce buckling in Table 2-18.
l 7
.=em-w.
m+==,--
.w u
vd w.am eP
'k
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _... _ _. _ _