ML20150B762
| ML20150B762 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000824 |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1988 |
| From: | Frye C, Hayner G BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150B737 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8807120167 | |
| Download: ML20150B762 (11) | |
Text
,'
I ac 254 Babccck & Wilcox ne"ch and o've'oement oivi' ion a Mc Dermott company Lynchburg Research Center Lynchburg, Virginia 24506 1765 To A. F. OI.SEN, SENIOR LICENSE ADMINISTRATOR rroaG. O. HAYNER/C. 3. FRYE NUCLEAR MATERIALS SECTION co..
r.ie %
NNFD-RL Subj.
Date INTEGRITY OF WASTE STORAGE JUNE 17, 1988 Th.s letter to cover one customer and one subject only.
1.
INTRODUCTION Your letter of March 30, 1988, requested that we provide documentation showing the expected drum life and maximum weight that each of the three sizes of drums will withstand when stored in the Temporary Storage Facility (TSF).
The drums that will be used to store the hot cell waste will be either 30, 55, or 80
{
gallon sizes.
The drums are fabricated from a Type 304 stainless steel with welded seams and bolted sealing ring with gasket at the top.
The TSF has no roof and, therefore, will be exposed to rain water.
The drums will be stored below grade in eight concrete storage tubese Each tube is six feet in diameter and 13 feet high with a nominal seven inch wall thickness.
Two 12 inch thtd concrete covers (without gaskets) will be placed on top of each concrete storage tube.
Each storage tube contains a 2 inch drain line at the bottom which drafras into a sampling pit.
The sampling pit is not drained and relies on periodic monitoring and removal of collected water.
The drums can be stacked in at least three different configurations as shown in Figure 10-3 on License No SNM-778 Each layer is separated by a fiber glass spacer to promote more uniform load distribution.
The drums must be able to maintain their integrity against leakage under the conditions of storage for up to 30 years.
These containers must also be able to withstand the weight of the column of drums under storage conditions.
The 80 and 55 gallon drums can be loaded to a maximum gross weight of 1000 pounds.
The 30 gallon drum can be loaded to a mximu i gross weight of 500 pounds.
2.
ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions were made concerning the TSF:
a.
The area adjacent to the welded seam on each drum will 'contain sensitized Type 304 stainless. steel.
b.
The mechanical joint and the ring seal at the bottom and top of each drum
{
could act as a potential site for crevice corrosion.
l c.
The normal (reference) environment for the exterior of the drums would be damp air at ambient temperature.
8807120167 880620
{DR ADOCK 07000824 PDR 1
d.
The possibility of one or more concrete storage tubes to become filled with rain or ground water is creditable but unlikely.
i e.
All liquids and reactive solids contained inside the drums will be scaled in suitable secondary containers such as high density poljethylene, f.
The drums will be gently placed in the storage tubes such that sharp objects on the inside of the drums will not penetrate the drums by impact or.cther mechanical means.
9 The exterior of each drum will be inspected just prior to insertion in the storage tubes.
3 WORKSCOPE Four steel drums were tested on the Baldwin Universal Tester to determine the maximum load capacity of the drums.
The load was applied to each drum in 1000 pound increments with a return to zero load between each 1000 pound increment.
Defction of the drum was measured using a Baldwin PD-2M deflectometer attached to
' plate that the drum was sitting on.
The load applications were repeated yielding and permanent deformation of the drum occurred.
,e following drums and test conditions were used:
Drums Tested:
One 80 gallon carbon steel 00T 17H overpack; one 55 gallon carbon steel D0T 17H drum; one 30 gallon carbon steel 00T 17H drum; one 30 gallon stainless steel 00T 17H drum.
Load Scale:
24,000 pounds (Calibrated 7/28/87; calibration due 7/27/88)
Drum Condition:
Used drums tested, empty with head in place and ring tightened as for normal use.
Load Application:
Drum was sitting upright on a steel plate with two 1/2-inch thick x 30-inch square aluminum plates on the top. Load was applied to center of aluminum plate through an 8-inch diameter steel compression plate.
A literature survey was performed to determine the corrosion resistance of Type 304 stainless steel.
l 4.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Testing Results The load deflection diagrams for each drum are shown in Figures 1 through 4.
The mode of deformation of all the drums was the same. As the load was applied the drums compressed elastically until the ultimate load was achieved.
At the ultimate load the drums failed by bt:kling at one or more of the rolling hoops.
Maximum loads and maximum elastic compression taken from the load deflection diagrams and the best machine gage are tabulated below.
e Maximum Load Maximum Compression
' Drum (pounds)
(inches)*
80 gal, 19,200 0.575 55 gal.
11,400 0.450 30 941. c. stl.
12,600 0.325 30 gal, s. stl.
14,600**
0.338
- Includes any mechanical deformation such as seating of heads.
- Achieved 15,000 pounds and reduced to zero.
Upon reloading buckling occurred at indicated load.
4.2 Discussion of Test Results The load tests on empty drums showed the drums to be capable of withstanding loads well in excess of those anticipated to occur during storage.
Assuming the 80 gallon drums are used for containing 55 gallon drums loaded to the maximum permissible shipping weight of 1000 pounds, the drums could be stacked nineteen high before failure of the bottom drum by compressive overload occurred. The 55 gallon drums loaded to a gross weight of 1000 pour.ds could be stacked to a height of twelve drums and the 30 gallon drums loaded to a gross weight of 500 pounds could be stacked to a height of twenty-five druts.
Based on the published properties of the materials of construction, it would be expected that the stainless steel drums would have at least as good strength as the carbon steel.
In fact, in the comparative tests ca the 30 gallon drums: the strength of the stainless steel drum was significantly better than that of the carbon steel drum.
Eccentric loading could have an adverse effect on the load carrying capacity of the drums and the above discussion applies only to a uniformly distributed load.
In addition, the materials of construction will have a distribution of strengths, and it is not known where the tested drums lie within this distribution.
Therefore, the load capacities reported should be considered typical and not minimum, j
i In any event, the stacking arrangement shown in Figure 10-3 on Cicense No. SNM-778 will result in no drum being loaded to more than approrfmately 30% of its typical strength when each drum is loaded to its maximum gross shipping capacity of 1000 pounds for a 55 gallon drum or 500 pounds for a 30 gallon drum.
In addition to the data reported in this document, a report of data from a DOE evaluation document was reviewed (1).
The 00E document reports results that indicate Type 17H 30 gallon and 55 gallon drums will withstand a compressive load of >5 times the gross shipping weight for a period of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> without j
detectable ef fects.
4,3
_L 1 tera ture, Survey Literat are sources were reviewed in the following areas:
a.
General corrosion rates of Type 304 stainless stcel in damp air, rain water and ground water.
b.
General corrosion rates of sensitized Type 304 stainless steel in damp air, rain water and ground water, c.
Pitting corrosion potential of Type 304 stainless steel when slight changes are made to normal rain water chemistry, d.
Crevice corrosion potential of Type 304 in pure water.
Reference 2 discusses the suscep tibili ty of s'ainle ss s teel to atmospheric corrosion.
The atmospheric contaminants most responsible for the corrosion of.
structural stainless steels are chlorides and metallic f ron dust.
If these contaminants are coupled with a high humidity, corrosion and pitting can result.
Stainless steel specimens have been exposed for long periods of time in the industrial area of New York City and Niagara Falls and in the marine atmosphere of Kure Beach, NC. The results obtained are summarized in Table 1 Table 1 Atmospheric Corrosion of Type 304 Stainless Steel Average Average Corrosion Depth of Exposure Ra te Pits location (years)
(mils / year)
(mils)
Appearance New York City 26 No Attack Niagara Falls 6
Rust spots and pitted Kure Beach 15
<.001 1.1 Spotted with slight rust stains on 15% of surface These environments are considered to be more severe than the reference environ-ment, therefore, air atmosphere corrosion or pitting in the storage' tubes is not expected to be significant.
Reference 3 contains a corrosion table which gives the degree of attack on Type 304 stainless steel in a wide range of aqueous environments.
Some of the more potentially significant environments and results are summarized in Table 2.
The drum wall thic* ness is approximately 1.2 mm or 46 mils.
As indicated f a Table 2, only very hostile environments such as seawater which should never be present in the storage tubes will cause significant general corrosion or pitt-ing.
Therefore, even if the storage containers were completely filled with acid rain (noto 0.5% H;S04 results), the bulk drum material would be fully resistant to corrosion damafe and pitting.
As noted previously, the material in drums immediately adjacent to the weld seam will contain a narrow band of sensitized material.
The bulk Type 304 material is in the solution annealed condition, however, in the sensitized area large j
amoun ts of chromium carbides precipita te at grain boundary regions.
This locally depletes the base metal of chromium close to the grain boundaries.
Table 2 i
Aque'ous Corrosion of Type 304 Stainless Steel in Several Di f ferent Environments Degree of Tempera ture Attack i
Environment
('C)
(m/ year)
Comments i
Orinking Water Up to 100
<0.1 No Attack 1% FeCl 20 0.1-1.0 Risk of Pitting 3
10% FeS0 2i)
<.1 No Attack 4
2.5% MgC1 20
<.1 Risk of Pitting 2
l 5% MgSO 20
<.1 No At'ack 4
1% HNO3 + 5% H SO4 20
<1 No Attack 2
Seawa ter 20-50 0.1-1.0 Risk of Pitting 3% Nacl 20-60 0.1-1.0 Risk of P1ttirg 0.5% H SO 20
<.1 No Attack 2 4 10% Na0H 20
<.1 No Attack Urine 20
<.1.
Risk of Pitting Since the passivation capacity of Type '304 stainless steel declines with chromium content, it is possible that an electrolyte may be aggressive enough to.
activate the sensitized zone but not the bulk metal.
Low PH or chloride environments are most dangerous in this respect.
This risk can be practically eliminated by using Type 304L or stainless steels stabilized with Ti or Nb (such as Types 321 or 347).
Reference 4 indicates that sensitized Type 304 was not susceptible to corrosion attack or stress corrosion cracking (SCC) in a dimp atmos,,heric environment.
Reference 5 indicates that sensitizsJ Type 304 was susceptible to SCC attack in the form of U-bend specimens (high stress) when exposed to grouid water at room tempera tu re.
These specimens, however, were not susceptible to SCC attack in-detonized water.
Thsse results indicate that the sensitized natorial can crack if the material is highly stressed in ground water, however, the sensitized material will not crack in air or very pure water.
Little specific data was available concerning crevice correston of Type 304.
In general, a creviced aqueous environment with this material can produce pitting 4
if the wate is impure.
Normally, however, this is not a problem unless the solution is boiling. Grevice corrosion is not a problem for an air atmosphere.
5 CONCLUSIONS a.
00T Type 17H drums are capable of withstanding the compressive loads anticipated during storage with a safety factor on the order of 3 f f the gross drum weights do not exceed the traximum permitted shipping weight of 1000 pounds for 55 gallon drums or 500 pounds for 30 gallon drums.
b.
The Type 304 stainless steel drums should have at least a 30 year lifetime in an air environment, c.
Even if the storage tubes flooded (credible, but unlikely), corrosion resul ting from exposure to rain water or ground water should not cause penetration of the drums within a 30 year period unless the water was contaminated with >100 ppm chloride and not drained.
6.
REFERENCES 1.
DOE Evaluation Document for DOT 7A Type A
Pac'kaging, 'MLM-3245, 00E/DP/00053-H1, March 1987.
2.
Metals Handbook, 9th Ed., Vol.13 - Corrosion, ASM,1987, Page 555, 3.
Handbook of Stainless Steels, Pecknor and Berns tein, McGraw-Hill, 1977, Chapter 16, Table 1.
4.
T.
Furnya, et al.,
"S tudy of Gamma-Ray Irradiation Effects on Corrosion Resistance of Alloys for Storage of High-level Waste Packages," JAERI-M 061, June 1982.
5.
"Study on Gamma-Ray Irradiation Ef fects on Corrosion Resistance of Canister Material under Simulated Disposal Conditions," JAERI-M-86-045, March 1986.
i Wd
/
(/ G. O. Hayner/
dia Q
e
~
c:
H.H. Davis P.S. Ayres
~_.
j c
l 1
- 1..
. /
.{
7
\\
y
- 4. O. 0 Z5,.,
_....j-.
1 r _.
._j(,
....... )
2OC f_.s UU j
r.
i
.. _ _ _.._.j
..._L...__._
J
..a.
\\
I
._.../..
j j-. - -.....
-.s i
. ~......_..,;
_.J 1
_s.
p
- ll i
- - - - - - -. - - - ~ -. -
l l
IN fh j3000 futd L Put...I---
. l.
6nk4 in U S A.
Figure 1.
Load-Elongation diagram for 80 gal-carbon steel drum. Maximum load was 19,200 pounds.
..=
.. _. _...... _ __.. ~..... _.
.4.. o.. %._ s "_. _. _ _ _>_...m.y.
.._._.4
....~ -......... _ - _.
... _j_.._.._
.. _..._.__.~.,.w-7.000 pcti
.3. i.. 2.
._a.
.. n.. _
._,s_3.,....
.,.. a.. ~ }. L.
.. _. 7 i
..... ~...
.... u, _.. p.
..n.
. _..... L.
._,.s_...-
. -.... 4. s. s.a..
. s..
[ _.
..s.
~_._.
..L+. _.
-+-
v.
..;..~,_.
...... ~...
... ~.........
..~..,
....., ~ _.__..
_...._.,_...i
.-.. -.._.t..
.,L
...2
_... -.... g. _J r.
t
,..t
.. )
l..
.._..._.h12 cuar Nc SATEC Syster..s Inc.. Grove City. Pa. 16127 pi Figure 2.
l.ong-Elongation diagram for 55 gal carbon ~
steel drum. Maximum load was 11,400 pounds.
1 1
l c_.
._s.~
.,,.n 4__..
y........,.
. O.0 2 5......
.... 3.
_..1...
2000'_. punO S 1.-~
_m..
-~--.-_ - ~ - -
g
~.
_ _...{ 1_.._, _. f _.
_.. _.,__. d a
.l.
._.....__..__,J
,[]
O CHART NO 1o12 SATEC Systeens. Inc Figure 3.
Long-Elongation diagram for 30 gal carbon steel drum.
Maximum load was 12,600 pounds.
.. e 1
F._. _..
1
~~
1 2.._._._.._.
_.....r.__.__..
i 4.
y 4_. O. 0 2.5.....
t
._ 1
__..yg.._.
2000_. P..OO n S..._..
.7..._... _. _.... _.. _....
,r.._____
, _... _... ~.
,e,,
. _ r,.
m _; _.. ;,
l i
1 tinted in U S A.
Figure 4.
Load-Elongation diagram for 30 gal stainless steel drum. Maximum load was 14,600 pounds.
l 4
90-BM n r;u t80.
CONTROL NO.
24dN l9Nb DATE OF 000.
^1 s
DATE RCVD.
Tu n. 24'198A FCUF
/
PDR FCAF LPDR I & E REF.
/
SAFEGUARDS I
FCTC OTHER DATEb1M INIT! Alh_ __
...