ML20052D034
| ML20052D034 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07109158 |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1982 |
| From: | Macdonald C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Ridihalgh J EGGERS, RIDIHALGH PARTNERS, INC. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205060209 | |
| Download: ML20052D034 (5) | |
Text
,.
7/- 9/58 Distribution: w/ encl RH0degaarden HWLee hun WHLake l
M 15 g CRHarotta gy;yc t~
l CEWilliams J9g,,5) l Docket File FCTC: RHO NRC PDR 71-9158 IE HQ (3)
NMSS R/F FCTC R/F co I t o O,
/
Ridihalgh, Eggers, & Associates yg
~
ATTN: Mr. John L. Ridihalgh 9
1 2219 Sunnit Street b
o% a#
Ig- ;p} ',s# {T2 Columbus, OH 43201 p*
Gentlemen:
/
M i This refers to your application dated January 26, 1982, requestig l io approval of the Model No. GPU-80 packaging.
In connection with our review, we need the information identified in the enclosure to this letter.
Please advise us within thirty (30) days from the date of this letter when this information will be provided. The additional infonnation requested by this letter should be submitted in the form of revised pages.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, we would be pleased to meet with you and your staff.
Sincerely.
Original signea by CF.l g E.V.C C Charles E. MacDonald, Chief Transportation certification Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS
Enclosure:
As stated 8205060209 B20415 PDR ADOCK 07109150
^
C PDR omaW.pa rden: alm HWLee}g
...!?.TS.
EA]...f.S
...CE cDon ld....
0". '..........'.9.
WHLak rotta CEWi iams SUR o4M/82 o4/gg/,82 o4/g/82 04/1982 04/./.Gaz
.o4/!D.82.,,
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY g
Mod 11 No. GPU-80 Prckagirq Docket No. 71-9158 I
Mk 151982 j
Enc 1 to ltr dtd:
STRUCTURAL 1.
The assumption of composite sections for the cask (i.e., wall, l
base, and closures) is improper and inconsistent with the construction l
of the cask. For those parts of the application, where composite sections have been used, the stress and buckling analysis should be l
revised to consider the actual sectional properties.
2.
The stress analysis of the cask for the following loads should be revised to comply with the actual load distributions unless it can be shown that the asstmed load distributions are appropriate:
a.
Forces generated by the tie-down devices; b.
Impact forces resulted from the crushing of the redwood in the impact limiter; c.
The reaction force of the secondary lid; d.
Forces between the liner skirt and the primary lid.
3.
Justify the use of fixed boundary for stress analysis at the bolted edges of the primary and secondary lids.
4.
For the ispact limiter analyses:
a.
Justify the use of static crush strength for the redwood.
Note that the ratio of dynamic specific energy to static specific energy may be much greater than unity for redwood crushed perpendiculcr to the grain. The effects of redwood strength for dynamic loadings should be considered in the impact analysis.
b.
Show that the redwood is confined to avoid splitting before crushing. Assess the effects on cask if the material used for confinement is considered in the impact analysis.
c.
For the corner or oblique impact conditions, justify the use of redwood crush strength based on the average of high (parallel to grain) and low (perpendicular to grain) strength.
If Hankinson formula (Wood Handbook) is used to estimate the redwond strength on surfaces inclined to grain, a much lower redwadcrushstrength(about46% lower)mayresult. Show that the impact limiter and the cask are adequately designed for this kind of large variation of redwood strength.
"'c'>
" " " " " ' ' ' " ~ * ' " " * " " * '
OFFICIAL RECO_RD. COPY
/
2 1
d.
For side impact, justify that the impact limiter not directly backed up or supported will absorb impact energy.
e.
For corner and oblique impact, the impact limiter crush depth and crush volume should take into account the voids in the impact limiter.
f.
What are the effects of moisture content on redwood strength?
If significant effects exist, provide a means to maintain constant moisture content of the redwood.
5.
Consider the case of side impact directly on tie-down/ lifting lug.
6.
Show that the vent and drain lines will not be damaged from corner / oblique angle impact or lead slump (including buldging of the cask wills).
7.
The distance between the top of liner to bottom of lid is 14.25".
For the top end drop condition, show that:
a.
The lid (primary and secondary) can sustain the impact force, b.
If a spacer is used, provide an analysis to show the adequacy of the spacer and show pertinent details of the spacer on the drawings.
8.
For bottom end impact condition, the stresses in the lead and the amount of lead slump should be determined.
9.
Provide stress analysis and evaluation of the effects for the following cases:
a.
Puncture at the center of the secondary lids; l
b.
Puncture on the voids of the top impact limiter at the vicinity of the primary lid closure bolts; l
c.
Puncture directly on drain and vent lines.
l
- 10. Show that indention of the cask due to puncture will not significantly i
reduce shielding.
l l
- 11. Provide detailed analysis of closure bolts and the lids for impact conditions. The analysis should include the pre-load, the shear, the bending, and the offset moment. Show that the length of threads engaged is adequate to develop the bolt strength. Also, show that the criteria of leakage and containment will be met.
i t
( " "C '
~" '""C"'
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 2
j-12. The analysis of the tie-down devices should be revised to show:
a.
Tie-down forces satisfy the equilibrium conditions.
b.
The capability of the tie-down structs to support large compressive
- load, c.
Failure of the devices under excessive loads would not impair the ability of the package to meet other requirements of 10 CFR Part 71.
- 13. The vibration analysis should be revised to include the impact limiter and the tie-down system.
- 14. Themal stress has been shown to exceed the ultimate stress of the stainless steel (page 2-42). Provide a discussion with regard to the possible warping or defomation of the cask wall and the effect and possibility of large residual stresses.
- 15. Justify that the allowable shear stress of lead (e.g., page 2-65) and the bolt shear stress (e.g., page 2-88) may be increased by the friction force.
- 16. The computer program has not been benchmarked to demonstrate its applicability and adequacy nor has the results of the program been utilized in the analysis.
THERMAL 1.
The thermal model assumes the contents to act as a heat sink. This is particularly significant for the 1/2-hour fire test where cask temperatures are low due to heat absorbtion by the contents. To avoid tha necessity of specifying minimurn heat absorbtion properties for the contents, the thermal analysis could be revised to minimize the heat absorbtion by the contents. However, heat generation, internal pressures, and other properties represent design loads; their maximums must be included in any evaluation to set limitations on the contents.
2.
Provide additional detail to show development of the thermal connection between the fire shell and cask outer shell.
3.
Revise the thermal analysis to include the partial pressure of water vapor in determining internal cask pressures for accident conditions.
" 'c ' >
i'"""^"'>
DATE)
~ * '
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
/ SHIELDING The effectiveness of the lead shielding as a result of lead slump and reducedshielding(Section5)sectionoftheapplication.
thickness as a result of puncture should be addressed in the Shielding CONTt.ItetENT 1.
Establish containment acceptance criteria for normal conditions of transport and hypothetical accident conditions. Regulatory Gu If leaktesting is done to a sensitivity of 1x10 fde 7.4 may be used.
3 atm-cm/secatstandardconditionsspecifiedinANSIgl4.5(airat 25'C and 1 atm pressure differential leaking to 1x10- ata),the system meets the definition of leaktight and no further justification of the criteria is necessary.
2.
Shod that the design satisfies the established containment criteria for normal and accident conditions.
3.
Provfde the acceptance criteria that will be followed and steps to be taken to ensure that radiolytic decomposition of water in the package will not result in excessive pressure or explosive mixtures.
OPERATING PROCEDURES, ACCEPTANCE TESTS, AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM Show that the packaging leak test sensitivities satisfy the established containment criteria and that the testing schedules are adequate for the use of the package. Regulatory Guide 7.4 may be used for acceptance I
testing and for periodic testing. For assembly verification it is l
recomended that a test of sufficient sensitivity to limit the maximun release to a Type A quantity ig 10 da, used, however, a leak test minimum sensitivity of 1x10 f ats-sensitivity greater than 1x1
/sec, would not be required. The atm-cm /sec as specified in AFI N14.5 i
should be met.
l DRAWINGS l
Show there is sufficient gasket thickness to effect a seal taking into consideration the tolerances applied to the primary lid assembly and the sealing surface of the cask, and the secondary lid assembly, and the sealing surface of the primary lid.
t l
i cmu>
!5ua" * >
l " "" '
OFFlCIAL RECORD COPY
"[ ' " * ( " "f * *
'