ML24116A158
| ML24116A158 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07201042 |
| Issue date: | 04/25/2024 |
| From: | Shaw D TN Americas LLC |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Document Control Desk |
| References | |
| E-63426 | |
| Download: ML24116A158 (1) | |
Text
April 25, 2024 E-63426 Orano TN 7160 Riverwood Drive Suite 200 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Columbia, MD 21046 Attn: Document Control Desk USA One White Flint North Tel: 410-910-6900 11555 Rockville Pike Fax: 434-260-8480 Rockville, MD 20852
Subject:
Submittal of Biennial Report of 10 CFR 72.48 Evaluatio ns Performed for the NUHOMS EOS System, CoC 1042 for the Period 7/18/2023 to 4/25/2024, Docket 72-1042
References:
[1] Letter from Prakash Narayanan (TN Americas LLC) to Document Control Desk (NRC), Biennial Report of 10 CFR 72.48 Evaluation s Performed for the Period 01/30/20 to 01/31/22, Docket 72-1042, January 31, 2022 (E-62082)
[2] Letter from Prakash Narayanan (TN Americas LLC) to Document Control Desk (NRC), Certificate of Compliance 1042, NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR),
Revision 5 Docket 72-1042 and Biennial Report of 10 CFR 72.48 Evaluations Performed for the NUHOMS EOS System, CoC 1042, for the Period 01/31/22 to 07/17/23, Docket 72-1042, July 17, 2023 (E-62379)
Pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 72.48(d)(2), TN Americas LLC hereby submits the subject 10 CFR 72.48 summary report. Enclosure 1 provides a brief description of changes, tests, and experiments, including a sum mary of the 10 CFR 72.48 evaluation of each change implemented from 7/18/2023 to 4 /25/2024, including indication as to whether the evaluations had associated Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) changes that will be incorporated into the UFSAR for the CoC 1042 NUHOMS EOS System.
LRs 721042-203 Revision 0 and 721042-250 Revision 0 were both s ummarized in the January 31, 2022 submittal (E-62082) [1]. Each was subsequ ently revised to reconcile the conclusions with CoC 1042 Amendment 2, with no ch anges needed.
While neither revision is yet 24-months in the past at this tim e, those revised versions should have been accounted for in the July 17, 2023 submittal ( E-62379) [2], but were
E-63426 Document Control Desk Page 2 of 2
inadvertently omitted. They are included herein. In 2023 a co rrective action program item resulted in changes to better account for the 72.48 summaries, and revised summaries, to be included in our biennial reports.
Should NRC staff have any questions or require additional information regarding this submittal, please contact Mr. Glenn Mathues by telephone at (410) 910-6538, or by email at Glenn.Mathues@orano.group.
Sincerely,
Digitally signed by SHAW SHAW Donis Donis Date: 2024.04.25 06:50:56
-04'00' Don Shaw Licensing Manager
cc: Christian J. Jacobs (NRC DFM/STLB)
Enclosure:
Biennial Report of 10 CFR 72.48 Evaluations Performed for CoC 1 042 for the Period 7/18/2023 to 4/25/2024
Enclosure 1 to E-63426
Biennial Report of 10 CFR 72.48 Evaluations Performed for CoC 1042 for the Period 7/18 /2023 to 4/25/202 4
LR No. Description of Change, Test, or Experiment Summary of Evaluation 721042-
203 The change limits the lowest internal pressure of the DSC to 0.75 Torr The procedural limit for vacuum drying pressure is based on an existing Revision 1 during vacuum drying operations in Step 17 and Step 24 of Section analysis that examines the thermal conductivity of helium at low 9.1.3 of the UFSAR. The change alters the vacuum drying procedure by pressures to ensure that the helium continues to transfer heat away introducing a procedural control limiting the minimum internal pressure from the spent fuel cladding during vacuum drying operations. The to 0.75 Torr. There is no effect on the design functions of the dry evaluation summary and conclusions of this LR remain unchanged. All shielded canisters (DSCs) for the change. eight 72.48 evaluation criteria were met.
The change was initiated prior to Amendment 2 becoming effective and
- The associated UFSAR changes were incorporated into UFSAR was revised to reconcile conclusions with the final Amendment 2 Revision 4.
provisions.
250 The change evaluates the effect of a temporary standoff wall (i.e., a The HSM provides environmental protection and heat rejection for the Revision 1 Jersey Barrier or Baffle) placed in front of the EOS-HSM-FPS (Flat Plate spent nuclear fuel. The HSM performs only structural, thermal, and Support rail option) inlet opening and the effect of flow resistance and shielding design functions.
air temperature on the EOS-37PTH DSC, fuel cladding and the The effect of the Jersey barrier placement in front of the HSM vent horizontal storage module (HSM). The change analyzes a wall height of opening was evaluated. A thermal calculation evaluated the effect of a 55.5 inches at a distance of 18.5 inches from the front face of the HSM standoff wall placed in front of the HSM inlet opening and the effect on to support the installation of a contemplated wall height of 48 inches at a flow resistance and air temperature in the HSM. It also conservatively distance of 48 inches from the HSM. The proposed change results in a considered the standoff wall to be 18.5 inches in front of the inlet vent slight increase in component temperatures, but the allowable limits are opening versus 48 inches.
not exceeded.
The change was initiated prior to Amendment 2 becoming effective and The analysis determined that the effect of the standoff wall on the was revised to reconcile conclusions with the final Amendment 2 bounding normal storage conditions resulted in an increase in provisions. temperatures and decrease in mass flow at the inlet for the various components. However, it concluded that the temperature increases were limited and did not affect the overall thermal performance of the DSC stored in the HSM because the resultant slight increase in component temperatures remained below the allowable temperature limits for the HSM and fuel cladding. The evaluation summary and conclusions of this LR remain unchanged. All eight 72.48 evaluation criteria were met.
- No associated UFSAR changes were required.
Page 1 of 4 Enclosure 1 to E-63426
LR No. Description of Change, Test, or Experiment Summary of Evaluation 721042-
331 The change evaluates the EOS-TC108, EOS-TC125, EOS-TC135, EOS-This review addresses revisions to the augmented missile parameters Revision 0 HSM, and EOS-HSMS for revised site-specific design loads involving necessary to bound site-specific parameters for a client transitioning augmented tornado missile spectra. The change is not intended to from the Standardized NUHOMS System to the EOS System.
revise the generic design basis tornado (DBT) missiles described in the The EOS-TC provides structural support to the DSC and the principal EOS System UFSAR Sections 2.3.1.3 and 2.3.2.2 which are limited to biological shielding and heat rejection mechanism for the DSC and spent the automobile missile, solid steel sphere and steel pipe. Rather, the fuel assemblies during handling in the fuel or reactor building, DSC change evaluates revised tornado missile parameters to demonstrate closure operations, transfer to the independent spent fuel storage that a customers site-specific licensing requirements are met. installation (ISFSI), and placement in the EOS-HSM. The EOS-TC also The evaluation for the EOS-HSMs and the EOS-TCs demonstrated provides tornado missile protection for the loaded DSC.
adequate protection to the loaded DSC under the revised site-specific The evaluation of the EOS-HSM demonstrated the structural adequacy tornado missile parameters. of the EOS-HSM concrete components for local and global effects due to the revised site-specific tornado missile parameters. The EOS-HSM is demonstrated to remain stable against overturning with an acceptable sliding displacement.
The evaluation of the EOS-TC demonstrated that the primary membrane intensity and combined membrane plus bending stresses due to the revised tornado missile parameters are within the allowable values. The penetration resistance of the EOS-TC outer shell and top cover plate was found to be adequate for the revised tornado missile parameters.
The EOS-TC is demonstrated to be stable on the standard transfer trailer for the combined effect of DBT wind and missile loads. Therefore, the EOS-TC is structurally adequate and remains stable on the trailer during transfer operations for the revised site-specific tornado missile parameters. The EOS-HSM and EOS-TC continue to provide adequate protection to the loaded DSC under the revised site-specific tornado missile parameters. All eight 72.48 evaluation criteria were met.
- No associated UFSAR changes were required.
Page 2 of 4 Enclosure 1 to E-63426
LR No. Description of Change, Test, or Experiment Summary of Evaluation 721042-
350 This change under Revision 0 evaluates the effect of increased weight Only the structural design function was addressed in the evaluation Revision 1 of the NUHOMS EOS Segmented Horizontal Storage Module with Flat because there was no adverse effect on the credited thermal or Plate Support (EOS-HSMS-FPS). Currently, a concrete weight density shielding design functions of the EOS-HSMS-FPS. Structural analyses of 160 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) is considered when determining the evaluated the impact of the increased HSM weight on the design maximum HSM weight used for the deadweight load case in the functions of the EOS-HSMS-FPS. The analyses show that all the structural evaluations of the HSM. The proposed activity considers the components have sufficient capacities to withstand the design basis HSM weight based on the fresh concrete density of 160 pcf plus the load combinations after the changes. Therefore, the change does not rebar weight corresponding to an HSM composite weight density of impact the structural adequacy of the EOS-HSMS-FPS, and the storage
~169 pcf for reinforced concrete and evaluates the impact of the module meets its intended structural design function as described in the increased weight on the credited design functions of the EOS-HSMS-UFSAR. Since the structural design function is satisfied, there is no FPS system. impact on the confinement design function of the stored DSC.
Revision 1 incorporated clarifications to the Evaluation. All eight 72.48 evaluation criteria were met under Revision 0 and remain unchanged under Revision 1.
- The associated UFSAR changes under Revision 0 were unchanged under Revision 1 and will be incorporated into UFSAR Revision 6.
352 The change evaluates the impact of using the optional Greiner SEFIRO An analysis was performed, accounting for the key dimensional and Revision 0 transfer trailer with the EOS System in conjunction with the EOS transfer corresponding weight differences between the UFSAR described skid and the impact on the EOS System stability from rotating the Greiner standard trailer and the Greiner SEFIRO trailer, that concluded Hydraulic Ram Cylinder by 45 degrees during loading operations. that when using the Greiner SEFIRO trailer in conjunction with the EOS skid and EOS-TC125 loaded with the EOS-37PTH DSC, the SEFIRO transfer system is structurally adequate and maintains its stability against the design basis tornado (DBT) wind pressure and massive missile impact loads for the most limiting configuration including when the hydraulic ram is rotated up to 45° horizontally. All eight 72.48 evaluation criteria were met.
- No associated UFSAR changes were required.
Page 3 of 4 Enclosure 1 to E-63426
LR No. Description of Change, Test, or Experiment Summary of Evaluation 721042-
355 The change evaluates the impact of the hydraulic ram, including when Based on the analysis, it was concluded that when using the standard Revision 0 rotated by 45°, on the stability of the EOS System due to seismic and transfer system, consisting of the generic EOS transfer trailer in DBT wind pressure and missile impact loads. The EOS-37PTH DSC conjunction with the EOS skid, EOS-TC125 loaded with the EOS-37PTH System described in the UFSAR utilizes the EOS-TC125 transfer cask to DSC, and hydraulic ram, is structurally adequate and maintains its transfer the DSC into the EOS-HSM for dry storage of spent nuclear fuel stability against the DBT wind pressure and massive missile impact using the Greiner standard transfer trailer and EOS transfer skid. loads for the most limiting configuration, including the hydraulic ram rotated up to 45° horizontally. All eight 72.48 evaluation criteria were met.
- No associated UFSAR changes were required.
Page 4 of 4