ML20357A471
| ML20357A471 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/21/2020 |
| From: | NRC/OCIO |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20357A467 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA, NRC-2021-000036 | |
| Download: ML20357A471 (11) | |
Text
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Smith Chris MARK MORGAN; Brookhart. Lee; Si(DQSOn. Eric: Pjotter. Jason RE: RE: {Extemal):BB Questions Friday, March 1, 2019 2:36:00 PM Thanks for the update Mark.
Fr,om: MARK MORGAN <Mark.Morgan@sce.com>
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 2:27 PM To: Brookhart, Lee <Lee.Brookhart@nrc.gov>; Simpson, Eric <Eric.Simpson@nrc.gov>; Smith, Chris
<Chris.Smith@nrc.gov>; Piotter, Jason <Jason.Piotter@nrc.gov>
Cc: MARK MORGAN <Mark.Morgan@sce.com>
Subject:
[External_Sender] RE: (External):BB Questions
- Lee, I wanted to confirm with you that we received your question and will be preparing a response over the weekend. Chris, I got your questions on the thread bolt engagement yesterday and we're working on that response, too.
Also, we've decided to tag out MPC-20 so that we can't load it until we resolve any issues surrounding it. We're hoping that will take 1t out of the cnt1cal path to re-starting fuel movement.
- Thanks, Mark (949) 368-6745 Fr,om: Brookhart, Lee [maHto Lee Brookhart@nrc gov)
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2019 11:51 AM To: MARK MORGAN ; Simpson, Eric <Eric Sjmoson@nrc gov>; Smith, Chris
<Chris Smith@nrc gov>; Piotter, Jason <Jason P1otter@nrc gov>
Cc: ALBERT BATES <AL BATES@sce com>; Kenneth Wilson <Kenneth R Wilson@sce com>
Subject:
(External):BB Questions First Belly Band (BB) Questions:
- 1. In the new Appendix D (to me) it appears the calculation is assuming that the VCT/HI-TRAC (w/o belly band) is at rest (not moving forward/reverse). As I don't see any conversation about 2 bodies in motion when driving. Because when transporting w/o belly band the HI-TRAC has been seen to be moving in an opposite direction (swinging front to back) as the operator stops/goes/stops/goes etc, maneuvering the VCT in between the lids as he approaches the mating device.
- a. Am I reading correctly? Or does the driving motion and 2 bodies in either parallel/reverse motion not affect the bounding values presented?
- b. If the calculation assumes bodies at rest, will operation procedures be changed, such that transportation (forward/reverse) must have the BB in place?
- 2. Is there any discussions on how the pendulum effect and associated moment arm could affect the HI-TRAC SLD and the VCT (non-SLD) attachment points during this unconstrained seismic movement? Even if the w/o belly frequency is bounded by w/belly frequency for sliding and tipping evaluations. The SLDs are seeing new forces when allowing a 5.2 degree pendulum swinging effect when belly band is not installed. I would assume that previous evaluations only reviewed a static calculation since the BB was assumed to be in place and the Transfer Cask would not create a pendulum affect. I guess it would apply to both side-side and front-back pendulums.
Thanks Lee F11om: MARK MORGAN [mailto*Mark Morgan@sce com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 3:23 PM To: Brookhart, Lee <Lee Brookhart@nrc 1rnv>; Katanic, Janine <Jarnne Katanic@nrc aov>; Simpson, Eric <Erjc.Simoson@nrc gay>; Smith, Chris <Chris Sm1tb@occ gay>
Cc: MARK MORGAN <Mark.Mornao@sce com>; ALBERT BATES <AL.BATES@sce.com>
Subject:
[External_Sender) FW: Documents Related to VCT Seismic Stability (Use of Cask Restraint, a.k.a., Belly Band)
- All, At tached are the new analyses to demonstrate acceptable operation of the VCT with the belly band loosened or disconnected.
Please let me know if you have any questions. regarding this.
- Thanks, Mark 86745
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Hi Dennis, Anderson Stephanie "DENNIS EVANS" Steefy. Chris: Smith Chris: Katanjc. Janine: MARK MORGAN: ALBERT BATES Inspection Friday, March 8. 2019 10:47:01 AM We have decided to come out on April 22-26, 2019, to do another inspection just to look at IP 40801. The team will be led by Chris Steely. Myself and Chris Smith will also be on the team. Please let me know if you have any questions. We will send a document request soon for the inspection. This inspection does not replace the inspection scheduled for June 3-6, 2019.
- Thanks, Stephanie Anderson
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Hi Al/Mark, Katanjc Janine ALBERT BATES; ' MARK MORGAN" Howell Linda Status of GE canister inspection report Thursday, March 28, 2019 4:06:00 PM Sorry you may have already had this conversation with others in NRC, but I was just checking in on the status of the report from GE's inspection of the canisters. When should we expect to receive it for review?
Thanks Janine Janine F. Katanic, PhD, CHP Chief, Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch Division of Nuclear Materials Safety US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV office: 817-200-1151 email: Janine Katanic@nrc gov
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Brookhart Lee MARK MORGAN; ALBERT BATES: Kenneth WilSoD Smith Chris: Plotter Jason: Davis Marjooo; strooson Erk: Wise Joly); cau Michel Test Report Question Wednesday, March 06, 2019 2:14:3 PM SKM C4581903061456Q.odf Question on the Test Report:
The summary section of the test report is vague. So vague, that I have to come up with my own conclusion and try to place the test report outcome into my own perspective.
5.0 Summary Section states:
S,mulation of a high load contact force interaction between a 304 SS plate and SA 240 Type 316/316 L surface conducted at Orrvilon suggests a worse case scratch depth of
- 0. 008" occurring on the 304 SS plate as in Tnal 14.
Since there is no other guidance in the summary section. I am left to attempt to use the numbers from Trial 14 to see if it bounds the prediction as presented in Hl-2188437 using Archard's equation.
So using Trial 14 inputs:
F = 5000 lbf HBr = 86.6 N/mm2 Width = 0.57 in The maximum depth of a possible scratch per Archards wear equation = 0.00698" or 6.98 mils (see my attached equation)
However, the test recorded a scratch depth of 0.008" (8 mils). So now I am confused, I thought the reason for the tests was to show the calculation was conservative.
Unless my math is wrong.... which it very well could be, the test summary (as pr,esented in the Summary Section) does not seem to bound the conservative equation.
Question on Test Report:
- 2. Can SCE provide an enhanced summary section on how the test data can be used to bound the calculations and evaluation presented in Hl-2188437?
If I had a math error please let me know and I will retract the question, Thank you Lee
_ o. oa, 1i ir\\
I or I
"* '1i "': l
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Brookhart Lee MARK MORGAN: ALBERT BATES Smith Chris: payjs Marlone: Howen Unda: Katanjc Janjne: Simoson Ede VT Procedure and VCT Seismic Concern Monday, March 18, 2019 1:50:00 PM For the visual examination procedure:
1.) Visual Examination Procedure 2.) Program for qualifying the visual examination procedure
- Looking for the procedure qualification record (PQR) o Which demonstrate that the examination procedure was adequate per ASME Section V Article 9, T-941.4 Normally when we review these procedures we assume the Visual Testing method meets ASME Section V and Section Ill for welding VT inspection requirements. I am not sure if the same criteria applies. But normally we would ensure the procedure contains:
o Contains Minimum Elements per Section V Article 9, T-941.2 o Want to understand how you meet Section V Article 9, T-952 o Would think the procedure contains all acceptance criteria of Section Ill, NF 5360 Let us know if this VT procedure is meeting a different section of ASME code.
VCT Seismic Concern (as I understand):
It was noted that Appendix B (sliding and tip over analysis) used the methodology in ASCE 43-05 Appendix A. As discussed in the RIS, the values for permissible angle of rotation and the associated safety factors from the ASCE 43-05 are acceptable. However, the methodologies for calculating tipping angle and sliding distance are completely different (RIS vs ASCE). The NRC has not approved 43-05 methodology for performing sliding and tipping analysis. The RIS states an acceptable approach would be to use a time history analyses.
Thanks Lee
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Brookhart Lee MARK MORGAN; ALBERT BATES; Kenneth Wilson Smith. Chris: Davis Marlooe: Wise. John: can. Michel New questions Thursday, March 07, 2019 6:18:53 PM Scratch Cale Questions:
Holtec Report No. Hl-2188437 (dated 3/1/2019) establishes the acceptance criteria for the allowable scratch depth by referencing ASME Code Section XI, Table IWB-3514-1. It is our understanding that the UMAX design is not subject to ASME Section XI, but rather is subject to ASME Section Ill.
The fact that the NRC has guidance that references IWB is immaterial to SONGS and the UMAX system. The guidance in NUREG-1927 and NUREG-2214 is associated with inspections to identify stress corrosion cracks in canisters that are in their renewed storage period (beyond 20 years). The UMAX system is not in its renewed storage period, and the NRC has not reviewed/approved a canister inspection program for this system.
6.) Why has SCE/Holtec not referenced ASME Section Ill criteria for the allowable wear in the eval?
Also, Table IWB-3514-1 contains acceptance criteria for cracks (planar defects), not wear marks. Nevertheless, even if Section XI IWB was the correct code of reference, it appears Holtec does not calculate the flaw acceptance criteria correctly per IWB. Note (2) in Table IWB-3514-1 states that, for the purposes of the allowable flaw calculation, the wall thickness is the "nominal wall thickness or actual wall thickness if determined by UT examination." In plain language, this means that you can choose to look up the wall thickness in the fabrication drawings or just use the actual wall thickness measured by UT.
In either case, the wall thickness is the real, physical dimension (not some minimum determined by design calculations).
As a result, IWB would state, for a long surface planar flaw, the allowable depth would be 10 percent of 0.625 inches for the SONGS canister, or 0.0625 inches deep.
7.). What ASME basis does SCE/Holtec have that the calculation of the flaw depth should be based on a design basis material of 0.50 inch thickness and then adding in the extra 0.125 inches of material?
Test Report Question:
3.) Should this test been performed in accordance with 72.162 as a basis to "demonstrate that SSCs will perform satisfactorily in service"?
So the total no is:
BB question: 7 (Q1/Q2 have been answered)
Test Report: 3 (01 been answered, but needed follow-up)
Scratch/Scar Cale: 7 FSAR/ECO: 2 Thanks Lee
From:
Brookhart Lee To:
MARK MORGAN; ALBERT BATES; Kenneth Wilson Cc:
Piotter. Jason: Simpson. Erjc: Smith. Chris: Wise John: payjs. Marlane
Subject:
RE: Questions status at end of Tues Attachment is Date:
Attachments:
Wednesday, March 06, 2019 11:07:59 AM publicly available at RIS 12-05. odf ML113050537 New questions related to BB Seismic Evaluation:
- 3. Is SONGS treating the adoption of a revision to the Hl-2156626 (VCT Stability Analysis) into the 72.212 Evaluation as an editorial/administrative correction?
- 4. If the answer to question 1 is YES, then did SONGS revise the original 10 CFR 72.48 evaluation to assess the conditions that were not bounded by the UMAX FSAR?
- 5. How could the differences in the expanded evaluation affect the old method of evaluation (MOE)?
- Questions 3 - 5 are related to why SCE only performed a Applicability Determination to accept the new BB evaluation and did not perform a 72. 48 screen and if necessary an evaluation.
- Just an Applicability Determination does not seem to be in-line with RIS 2012-005 (attached)
- 6. Is there any additional single failure scenarios SONGS need to consider with the new expanded evaluation?
- 7. What about effects of equipment failures such as the belly band?
Total now is:
7 open questions on BB calc.
2 open questions on ECO 5 open questions on Scratch/Scar Cale 1 open question on the Test Report Thanks Lee From: Brookhart, Lee Sent: Tuesday, March OS, 2019 5:28 PM To: 'MARK MORGAN" <Mark.Morgan@sce.com>; 'ALBERT BATES' <AL.BATES@sce.com>; 'Kenneth Wilson' <Kenneth.R.Wilson@sce.com>
Cc: Piotter, Jason <Jason.Piotter@nrc.gov>; Simpson, Eric <Eric.Simpson@nrc.gov>; Smith, Chris
<Chris.Smith@nrc.gov>; Wise, John <John.Wise@nrc.gov>; Davis, Marlone
<Marlone.Davis@ nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Questions status at end of Tues Sorry I spoke too soon. We have one new question:
Test Report Question:
1.) In Hl-2188450 (scratch test report), please describe the method used to determine the scratch depth.
Specifically, what measurement and test equipment was used, was it controlled M&IE and have a current calibration?
So the total now is:
2 open questions on BB calc.
2 open questions on ECO 5 open questions on Scratch/Scar Cale 1 open question on the Test Report Thanks
Lee From: Brookhart, Lee Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 5:18 PM To: MARK MORGAN <Mark.Morgan@sce.com>; ALBERT BATES <AL.BATES@sce.com>; Ken neth Wilson <Kenneth.R.Wilson@sce.com>
Cc: Piotter, Jason <Jason.Piotter@nrc.gov>; Simpson, Eric <Eric.Simpson@nrc.gov>; Smith, Chris
<Cbris.Smitb@nrc gov>; Wise, John <John Wise@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Questions status at end of Tues I have not received any new questions to add to the on-going list.
Status at end of Tuesday is:
2 open questions on BB calc.
2 open questions on ECO 5 open questions on Scratch/Scar Cale Thanks Lee
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Brookhart. Lee MARK MORGAN: Simpson. Eric: Smith. Chris: Katanic. Janine: Howen. Linda: Wise. John: can. Michel; ~
~
ALBERT BATES: Kenneth Wilson RE: RE: Scratch Test Report Monday, March 04, 2019 8:41:51 AM I will need to get John Wise. Michel Call. and Marlene Davis access to the Certrec Portal as soon as possible, so they can start their review of the documents.
Thanks Lee From: MARK MORGAN [1]
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2019 11:28 PM To: Brookhart, Lee <Lee.Brookhart@nrc.gov>; Simpson, Eric <Eric.Simpson@nrc.gov>; Smith, Chris
<Chris.Smith@nrc.gov>; Katanic, Janine <Janine.Katanic@nrc.gov>; Howell, Linda
<Linda.Howell@nrc.gov>
Cc: ALBERT BATES <AL.BATES@sce.com>; MARK MORGAN <Mark.Morgan@sce.com>
Subject:
[External_Sender] RE : Scratch Test Report
- All, The Scratch Evaluation, FSAR change, and associated 72.48 are now available in the Electron ic Reading Room. They are named "Scratch Eva luation," "Scratch ECO/FSAR change," and "Scratch 72.48," respectively. At th is time, we have provided you with all 5 of t he major deliverables that we have been working on. We are still working on other issues, such as procedure changes to address issues raised during the recent inspection, as well as responses to questions on the latest documents.
We ca n discuss in more detail in the Monday morning phone ca ll.
Let me know if you have any questions regarding this.
- Thanks, Mark (949) 368-6745