ML21237A176: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:Request for Supplemental Information Docket No. 72-1032 Holtec International HI-STORM Flood/Wind Multipurpose Canister Storage System Certificate of Compliance No. 1032 Amendment No. 7 Thermal RSI 4-1 | {{#Wiki_filter:Request for Supplemental Information | ||
Staff reviewed the Licensing Drawing No. 11897 (Sheets #1 and #2) of the proposed FSAR and found that the dimensions (e.g., thicknesses) of HI- | |||
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with | Docket No. 72-1032 Holtec International HI-STORM Flood/Wind Multipurpose Canister Storage System Certificate of Compliance No. 1032 Amendment No. 7 | ||
Confinement RSI 9-1 | |||
In its Statement of Proposed Changes, the applicant proposed to modify vent and drain penetrations to include the option of second port cover plate. The applicant also stated that the addition of a second cover plate for these | Thermal RSI | ||
The weld on the port cover plate cannot have been executed | |||
Consequently, welds potentially subjected to helium pressure ( | 4-1 Provide dimensions (e.g., thickness) for the unventilated o verpack components (as indicated below) depicted on the Licensing Drawing No. 11897 of the proposed Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). | ||
Staff reviewed the Licensing Drawing No. 11897 (Sheets #1 and # 2) of the proposed FSAR and found that the dimensions (e.g., thicknesses) of HI-ST ORM FW lifting rib plate (item 3), full depth rib plate (item 9), RIB-I plate (ite m 12), and RIB-II plate (item 13) are missing on the drawing. The applicant should provide the d imensions of these unventilated overpack components depicted on the licensing draw ings for verification that the dimensions relied on by the thermal analyses are consi stent with the design drawings. | |||
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with 1 0 CFR 72.236(b) and (f). | |||
Confinement RSI | |||
9-1 Demonstrate that Proposed Change #2 will reasonably maintai n confinement of radioactive material under normal, off-normal, and credible acc ident conditions. | |||
In its Statement of Proposed Changes, the applicant proposed to modify vent and drain penetrations to include the option of second port cover plate. The applicant also stated that the addition of a second cover plate for these penetration s removes the need to do field helium leak testing of these cover plates. | |||
The weld on the port cover plate cannot have been executed unde r conditions where the root pass might have been subjected to pressurization from the helium fill in the canister itself. When executing vent and drain connection cover plate w elds, one should not assume that the fill and drain closure valves quick-disconnects, or similar, are leak tight without performing helium leak testing. It is assumed that mec hanical closure devices (e.g., a valve or quick-disconnect) permit helium leaks. Field experience has shown that such leaks occur and have been responsible for causing leak pat hs through the weld. | |||
Consequently, welds potentially subjected to helium pressure (b y way of leakage through a mechanical closure device) during the welding process must be subsequently helium leakage tested in accordance with the method in ANSI N14.5. In addition, ANSI N14.5 does not allow for the elimination of leakage rate testin g based on the use of multiple barriers. | |||
Enclosure | Enclosure | ||
This information is required to satisfy 10 CFR 72.236(d), (j), and (l). | This information is required to satisfy 10 CFR 72.236(d), (j), and (l). | ||
Observations OBS 4-1 | |||
For the Proposed Change #5, the use of a computational fluid | Observations | ||
The staff notes that Section A.6.5 of Report HI-2200191, | |||
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with | OBS 4-1 Provide a description of HI-STORM FW UVH fire in HI-STO RM FW FSAR. | ||
OBS 4-2 | |||
The applicant stated, in the proposed SAR Section 4.5.7, that | For the Proposed Change #5, the use of a computational fluid dy namics (CFD) analysis for the site-specific fire scenario, the applicant pro vided a description of the HI-TRAC VW fire in the proposed HI-STORM FW FSAR Section 4.6.2. 1 and Table 4.6.11, but did not include a description of the UVH fire (fire accident on the unventilated overpack containing MP C) in the HI-STORM FW FSAR. | ||
The staff needs this information to verify that adequate time- | |||
The staff notes that Section A.6.5 of Report HI-2200191, Therm al Analysis of HI-STORM FW UVH System, provides a description on the evaluation of the HI-STORM FW UVH fire, which could inform a description in the FSAR. | |||
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with 1 0 CFR 72.236(f). | |||
OBS 4-2 Clarify how the thermal conditions of the transfer cask are determined for the cases of the HI-DRIP ancillary cooling system failure during short-te rm operations. | |||
The applicant stated, in the proposed SAR Section 4.5.7, that t he HI-DRIP system has been approved for use with HI-STORM 100 system. However, f or HI-STORM FW system, the applicant needs to clarify in the application ho w the thermal conditions (initial conditions) of the transfer cask are determ ined and used in the time-to-boil calculation if the plants water supply system wer e to fail. | |||
The staff needs this information to verify that adequate time-t o-boil values (based on realistic thermal conditions) are determined and properly appli ed to prevent fuel cladding from exceeding temperature limits. | |||
This information is needed to determine compliance with 10 CFR 72.236(b) and (f). | This information is needed to determine compliance with 10 CFR 72.236(b) and (f). | ||
b) Instead of a fixed heat rejection value from the cask | OBS 4-3 Provide the details of how the cooling water flow rate from HI-DRIP ancillary cooling system is sized, monitored, and/or controlled. | ||
The applicant stated, in the proposed FSAR Section 4.5.7, HI-D RIP, that the HI-DRIP system has been approved for use with HI-STORM 100 system and provided a calculation of heat rejection from the external surface of the cask to the ambient when the MPC water boils. However, given that the transfer cas k HI-TRAC VW, used for HI-STORM FW system, is different from the transfer cas k models used for HI-STORM 100 system, the applicant needs to clarify the followi ng issues: | |||
a) The cooling water flow rate depends on the rate of heat extr action required and the duration of the short-term operation. The applicant should customize the cooling water flow rate for each storage system. | |||
b) Instead of a fixed heat rejection value from the cask extern al surface to the ambient, the water temperature variations inside the MPC can be transient (dynamic) and, therefore, may make the heat rejection from the cask external surface be transient as well. Under this circumstance, the app licant should describe how to monitor and/or control the cooling water flow r ate from HI-DRIP ancillary cooling system. | |||
This information is needed to determine compliance with 10 CFR 72.236(b) and (f). | This information is needed to determine compliance with 10 CFR 72.236(b) and (f). | ||
With the conditions described above, the applicant should | OBS 4-4 Provide rationales for (a) the use of a heat transfer c oefficient of 15 BTU/ft2-hr-°F from the vaporization-aided cask surface in calculation of the heat rejection rate, and (b) initiation of the cooling water drip, no later than 50% of the time into Interval 2, in operation of the HI-DRIP system. | ||
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with | |||
OBS 4-7 Clarify the statements regarding thermal conductivity | The applicant stated, in Section 4.5.7 of the proposed FSAR, th at a heat rejection rate of 291,431 BTU/hour or 85 kW is calculated assuming a heat transfer coefficient of 15 BTU/ft2-hr-°F from the vaporization-aided cask surface and the cooling water drip should be initiated no later than that 50% of time into In terval 2 (a time period when the MPC, full of water, is out of the pool in an ambient e nvironment). The applicant should explain how these underlined numbers are deter mined in the analysis and operation of the HI-DRIP system. | ||
The applicant stated, in Appendix N.5.14 (the labeling should | The staff needs this information to determine compliance with 1 0 CFR 72.236(f). | ||
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with | OBS 4-5 Clarify the heat load limits presented in Technical Spe cifications (TS) Appendix B Table 2.3-7A, Figures 2.3-14 (Loading Pattern 1), and 2.3-15 (L oading Pattern 2) for the MPC-37P stored in a ventilated overpack. | ||
OBS 4-8 Clarify the values for the MPC-44CBS pressure found in Table 4.4.5 of the proposed FSAR and Table Z.5.2 of Report HI-2094400 for the accident with 100% fuel rod rupture under long-term storage The applicant presents MPC-44CBS pressures of 183.6 psig in | |||
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with | The applicant indicated a maximum heat load of 45 kW in TS Appe ndix B Table 2.3-7A for MPC-37P stored within a ventilated overpack. Table 2.3-7A refers to TS Appendix B Figure 2.3-14 for heat load limit per cell in Loadin g Pattern 1 and Figure 2.3-15 for heat load limit per cell in Loading Pattern 2. | ||
The total heat loads for Loading Patterns 1 and 2, by adding th e heat load limit per cell, are both 49.5 kW, which exceeds the maximum heat load of 45 kW listed in Table 2.3-7A for MPC-37P stored in a ventilated overpack. The applicant should clarify this discrepancy in heat load limits between Table 2.3-7A and Figures 2.3-14 and 2.3-15. | |||
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with 1 0 CFR 72.236(f). | |||
OBS 4-6 Clarify the applicability of the heat load data present ed in TS Appendix B Tables 2.3-1A, B, and C to the MPC-37P. | |||
The applicant provided MPC cavity drying limits in Table 3-1 of TS Appendix A and referred the heat loads of the MPC-37P to Tables 2.3-1A, B, and C of TS Appendix B, i.e., Patterns A and B for fuel assemblies with burnups less than or equal to 45,000 MWD/MTU in Table 2.3-1A, and Patterns A and B for fuel a ssemblies with burnups greater than 45,000 MWD/MTU in Tables 2.3-1A, B, and C. | |||
With the conditions described above, the applicant should consi der including the MPC-37P in the titles of Tables 2.3-1A, B, and C or add a note to these tables that indicates that the MPC-37 heat load data is also applicable to the MPC-37P for clarification. | |||
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with 1 0 CFR 72.236(f). | |||
OBS 4-7 Clarify the statements regarding thermal conductivity o f carbon steel found in items | |||
#3 and #4 of Appendix N.5.20 of Report HI-2094400, Thermal Eva luation of HI-STORM FW. | |||
The applicant stated, in Appendix N.5.14 (the labeling should b e corrected to N.5.20), Onsite Transfer using HI-TRAC at Low Ambient Temperat ures of Report HI-2094400, that the thermal conductivity of all materials exce pt carbon steel increases with a decrease in temperature (item #3 on page N-22) and that the thermal conductivity of carbon steel increases with a decrease in temperature (item | |||
#4 on page N-22). It seems that the statement in item #3 indic ates that the thermal conductivity of carbon steel will NOT increase with a decrease in temperature which is inconsistent with the statement in item #4. | |||
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with 1 0 CFR 72.236(f). | |||
OBS 4-8 Clarify the values for the MPC-44CBS pressure found in Table 4.4.5 of the proposed FSAR and Table Z.5.2 of Report HI-2094400 for the accident with 100% fuel rod rupture under long-term storage | |||
The applicant presents MPC-44CBS pressures of 183.6 psig in Tab le 4.4.5 of the proposed FSAR and 193.4 psig in Table Z.5.2 of Report HI-209440 0 for the accident with 100% fuel rod rupture under long-term storage. The applic ant should clarify any discrepancy between the tables mentioned. | |||
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with 1 0 CFR 72.236(f). | |||
OBS 4-9 Describe or locate notes as indicated in the documents below. | OBS 4-9 Describe or locate notes as indicated in the documents below. | ||
Describe notes in Report HI-2200191, Thermal Analysis of HI- | |||
Describe notes in Report HI-2200191, Thermal Analysis of HI-STO RM FW UVH System | |||
* Note 2 in Table A.6.2 of Appendix A | * Note 2 in Table A.6.2 of Appendix A | ||
* Note 4 in Table A.6.4 of Appendix A | * Note 4 in Table A.6.4 of Appendix A | ||
* Note 2 in Table B.6.1 of Appendix B Locate notes in the proposed FSAR | * Note 2 in Table B.6.1 of Appendix B | ||
Locate notes in the proposed FSAR | |||
* Notes 2 and 3 in Table 4.4.2 | * Notes 2 and 3 in Table 4.4.2 | ||
* Notes 1 and 2 in Table 4.5.1 | * Notes 1 and 2 in Table 4.5.1 | ||
* Note 2 in Table 4.5.19 The staff needs this information to determine compliance with | * Note 2 in Table 4.5.19 | ||
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with 1 0 CFR 72.236(f). | |||
OBS 4-10 Add a note for threshold heat load limit for the MPC -37P (with MPC heat load 33.3), in Table 3-1 of TS Appendix A and Table 2.3-7B of TS App endix B. | |||
The staff observed that there is a significant difference in th e maximum heat load limit between Table 2.3-7A (45.0 kW) and Table 2.3-7B (33.3 kW) in TS Appendix B for the MPC-37P containing high burnup fuel assemblies placed w ithin the ventilated overpack. This difference is also observed for the MPC-37P in Table 3-1 (page 3.4- | |||
The staff observed that there is a significant difference in | |||
: 2) of TS Appendix A. | : 2) of TS Appendix A. | ||
To avoid any confusion over the significant difference in the | |||
To avoid any confusion over the significant difference in the h eat load limits, add a note to specify that the threshold heat load limit is listed for MPC-37P (with MPC heat load 33.3) in Table 3-1 of TS Appendix A (page 3.4-2) an d Table 2.3-7B of TS Appendix B. | |||
This information is needed to determine compliance with 10 CFR 72.236(f). | This information is needed to determine compliance with 10 CFR 72.236(f). | ||
OBS 4-11 Correct typo Table 1.2.3c to Table 1.2.3e on page 2-3 of the proposed FSAR. | OBS 4-11 Correct typo Table 1.2.3c to Table 1.2.3e on page 2-3 of the proposed FSAR. | ||
The applicant stated on page 2-3 of the proposed FSAR in the | |||
Staff finds Table 1.2.3c is for alternative MPC-37P heat load | The applicant stated on page 2-3 of the proposed FSAR in the pr oposed language that MPC-37P follows a storage pattern shown in Figure 1.2.9, while MPC-44CBS is uniformly loaded as specified in Table 1.2.3c. | ||
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with | |||
OBS 7-1 | Staff finds Table 1.2.3c is for alternative MPC-37P heat load d ata and Table 1.2.3e is for MPC-44CBS heat load data. The applicant should correct the typo Table 1.2.3c (underlined above) to Table 1.2.3e in the quoted statement above for clarification. | ||
Table 2.1-1.V of TS Appendix B states in Section C: Up to | |||
a) These two statements appear to be in conflict with each | The staff needs this information to determine compliance with 1 0 CFR 72.236(f). | ||
b) Also, if BPRAs are limited to no more than 22, the applicant should clarify if this restriction applies to other non-fuel hardware components, such as TPDs, WABAs, etc. It would appear that a similar limit is needed for other non-fuel hardware components for which BPRAs are used to bound their | |||
OBS 7-1 Clarify the loading requirements for BPRAs and other no n-fuel hardware in the MPC-44. | |||
Table 2.1-1.V of TS Appendix B states in Section C: Up to twen ty-two (22) BPRAs are authorized for loading in the MPC-44. Note 1 to this sect ion states: Fuel assemblies containing BPRAs, TPDs, WABAs, water displacement gu ide tube plugs, orifice rod assemblies, or vibration suppressor inserts, with o r without ITTRs, may be stored in any fuel storage location. | |||
a) These two statements appear to be in conflict with each othe r. It is not clear why BPRAs may be allowed in any location when the number of BPR As must be limited. | |||
b) Also, if BPRAs are limited to no more than 22, the applicant should clarify if this restriction applies to other non-fuel hardware components, such as TPDs, WABAs, etc. It would appear that a similar limit is needed for other non-fuel hardware components for which BPRAs are used to bound their eff ects in the shielding analyses. | |||
This information is needed in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 72.236(a), (c) and (d). | This information is needed in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 72.236(a), (c) and (d). | ||
OBS 7-2 Provide the correct figure or locations for DFCs to be stored in the MPC-44. | OBS 7-2 Provide the correct figure or locations for DFCs to be stored in the MPC-44. | ||
Table 2.1-1.V of Appendix B, Section B states: DFCs may be | |||
Table 2.1-1.V of Appendix B, Section B states: DFCs may be sto red in fuel storage locations 3-1 through 3-3, 3-6, 3-9 through 3-12, 3-15, and 3-1 8 through 3-20 (see Figure 2.1-5). However, Figure 2.1-5 does not contain these l ocations and is not consistent with Figure 2.1.1d of the proposed FSAR which does h ave these locations. | |||
This information is needed in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 72.236(a). | This information is needed in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 72.236(a). | ||
OBS 7-3 Provide information on how basket deflections | |||
Section 6.3.1 (page 6-35) of the HI-STORM FW FSAR Revision 9 ( | OBS 7-3 Provide information on how basket deflections associate d with off-normal and accident conditions were accounted for in the criticality evalu ation of the MPC-44. | ||
: 44. It is not clear if the analysis of basket deflections | |||
Section 6.3.1 (page 6-35) of the HI-STORM FW FSAR Revision 9 (A DAMS Accession No. ML21169A038) has a discussion on how basket defle ctions for the MPC-37 and MPC-89 were accounted for within the criticality saf ety evaluation for the HI-STORM FW. This section does not include change bars to include the MPC- | |||
: 44. It is not clear if the analysis of basket deflections perf ormed for the MPC-37 and MPC-89 associated with off-normal and accident conditions was i ntended to also include (or bound) the MPC-44. The FSAR should address basket deflections for the MPC-44 criticality safety analyses. | |||
This information is needed in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 72.236(c). | This information is needed in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 72.236(c). | ||
OBS 7-4 Provide the lengths and locations of the partial length rods for the 10X10J assembly class. | OBS 7-4 Provide the lengths and locations of the partial length rods for the 10X10J assembly class. | ||
Page 6-24 of the proposed FSAR states the condition that was | |||
Page 6-24 of the proposed FSAR states the condition that was de termined to be bounding for the 10X10J assembly class, considered short and lo ng partial length rods. Providing the locations and the lengths of these partial length rods associated with the real assembly would help the staff to determine if t he conditions selected by the applicant are bounding. | |||
This information is needed in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 72.236(a) and (c). | This information is needed in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 72.236(a) and (c). | ||
moderated, so the condition where there is more fuel and less | OBS 7-5 Justify the modeling assumption for the variable diamet er water rod for the 10X10J assembly class and provide the location of the water rod within this assembly class. | ||
Page 6-25 of the proposed FSAR states: For BWR assembly class 10x10J, a water rod may be with a variable diameter that displaces 4 or 12 fuel rods. But in all the calculations of this analysis, a water rod segment that displac es 4 fuel rods is assumed along the entire active fuel length. This is conservat ive since smaller water rod contains less material thus displaces less water, and the a mount of fissile material may be potentially larger. Spent fuel assemblies are generally under moderated, so the condition where there is more fuel and less w ater may not be the most reactive condition. The staff seeks additional informatio n justifying the assumption that the water rod displaces 4 versus 12 fuel rods i s bounding for criticality safety. In addition, providing the location of the water rod within the assembly would help the staff determine if the assumption is bo unding. | |||
This information is needed in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 72.236(a) and (c).}} | This information is needed in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 72.236(a) and (c).}} | ||
Latest revision as of 23:40, 19 November 2024
| ML21237A176 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07201032 |
| Issue date: | 08/25/2021 |
| From: | Yen-Ju Chen Storage and Transportation Licensing Branch |
| To: | Elisio D Holtec |
| Y J CHEN NRC/NMSS/DFM/STLB 3014151018 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML21237A175 | List: |
| References | |
| EPID L-2021-LLA-0053 | |
| Download: ML21237A176 (7) | |
Text
Request for Supplemental Information
Docket No. 72-1032 Holtec International HI-STORM Flood/Wind Multipurpose Canister Storage System Certificate of Compliance No. 1032 Amendment No. 7
Thermal RSI
4-1 Provide dimensions (e.g., thickness) for the unventilated o verpack components (as indicated below) depicted on the Licensing Drawing No. 11897 of the proposed Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
Staff reviewed the Licensing Drawing No. 11897 (Sheets #1 and # 2) of the proposed FSAR and found that the dimensions (e.g., thicknesses) of HI-ST ORM FW lifting rib plate (item 3), full depth rib plate (item 9), RIB-I plate (ite m 12), and RIB-II plate (item 13) are missing on the drawing. The applicant should provide the d imensions of these unventilated overpack components depicted on the licensing draw ings for verification that the dimensions relied on by the thermal analyses are consi stent with the design drawings.
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with 1 0 CFR 72.236(b) and (f).
Confinement RSI
9-1 Demonstrate that Proposed Change #2 will reasonably maintai n confinement of radioactive material under normal, off-normal, and credible acc ident conditions.
In its Statement of Proposed Changes, the applicant proposed to modify vent and drain penetrations to include the option of second port cover plate. The applicant also stated that the addition of a second cover plate for these penetration s removes the need to do field helium leak testing of these cover plates.
The weld on the port cover plate cannot have been executed unde r conditions where the root pass might have been subjected to pressurization from the helium fill in the canister itself. When executing vent and drain connection cover plate w elds, one should not assume that the fill and drain closure valves quick-disconnects, or similar, are leak tight without performing helium leak testing. It is assumed that mec hanical closure devices (e.g., a valve or quick-disconnect) permit helium leaks. Field experience has shown that such leaks occur and have been responsible for causing leak pat hs through the weld.
Consequently, welds potentially subjected to helium pressure (b y way of leakage through a mechanical closure device) during the welding process must be subsequently helium leakage tested in accordance with the method in ANSI N14.5. In addition, ANSI N14.5 does not allow for the elimination of leakage rate testin g based on the use of multiple barriers.
Enclosure
This information is required to satisfy 10 CFR 72.236(d), (j), and (l).
Observations
OBS 4-1 Provide a description of HI-STORM FW UVH fire in HI-STO RM FW FSAR.
For the Proposed Change #5, the use of a computational fluid dy namics (CFD) analysis for the site-specific fire scenario, the applicant pro vided a description of the HI-TRAC VW fire in the proposed HI-STORM FW FSAR Section 4.6.2. 1 and Table 4.6.11, but did not include a description of the UVH fire (fire accident on the unventilated overpack containing MP C) in the HI-STORM FW FSAR.
The staff notes that Section A.6.5 of Report HI-2200191, Therm al Analysis of HI-STORM FW UVH System, provides a description on the evaluation of the HI-STORM FW UVH fire, which could inform a description in the FSAR.
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with 1 0 CFR 72.236(f).
OBS 4-2 Clarify how the thermal conditions of the transfer cask are determined for the cases of the HI-DRIP ancillary cooling system failure during short-te rm operations.
The applicant stated, in the proposed SAR Section 4.5.7, that t he HI-DRIP system has been approved for use with HI-STORM 100 system. However, f or HI-STORM FW system, the applicant needs to clarify in the application ho w the thermal conditions (initial conditions) of the transfer cask are determ ined and used in the time-to-boil calculation if the plants water supply system wer e to fail.
The staff needs this information to verify that adequate time-t o-boil values (based on realistic thermal conditions) are determined and properly appli ed to prevent fuel cladding from exceeding temperature limits.
This information is needed to determine compliance with 10 CFR 72.236(b) and (f).
OBS 4-3 Provide the details of how the cooling water flow rate from HI-DRIP ancillary cooling system is sized, monitored, and/or controlled.
The applicant stated, in the proposed FSAR Section 4.5.7, HI-D RIP, that the HI-DRIP system has been approved for use with HI-STORM 100 system and provided a calculation of heat rejection from the external surface of the cask to the ambient when the MPC water boils. However, given that the transfer cas k HI-TRAC VW, used for HI-STORM FW system, is different from the transfer cas k models used for HI-STORM 100 system, the applicant needs to clarify the followi ng issues:
a) The cooling water flow rate depends on the rate of heat extr action required and the duration of the short-term operation. The applicant should customize the cooling water flow rate for each storage system.
b) Instead of a fixed heat rejection value from the cask extern al surface to the ambient, the water temperature variations inside the MPC can be transient (dynamic) and, therefore, may make the heat rejection from the cask external surface be transient as well. Under this circumstance, the app licant should describe how to monitor and/or control the cooling water flow r ate from HI-DRIP ancillary cooling system.
This information is needed to determine compliance with 10 CFR 72.236(b) and (f).
OBS 4-4 Provide rationales for (a) the use of a heat transfer c oefficient of 15 BTU/ft2-hr-°F from the vaporization-aided cask surface in calculation of the heat rejection rate, and (b) initiation of the cooling water drip, no later than 50% of the time into Interval 2, in operation of the HI-DRIP system.
The applicant stated, in Section 4.5.7 of the proposed FSAR, th at a heat rejection rate of 291,431 BTU/hour or 85 kW is calculated assuming a heat transfer coefficient of 15 BTU/ft2-hr-°F from the vaporization-aided cask surface and the cooling water drip should be initiated no later than that 50% of time into In terval 2 (a time period when the MPC, full of water, is out of the pool in an ambient e nvironment). The applicant should explain how these underlined numbers are deter mined in the analysis and operation of the HI-DRIP system.
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with 1 0 CFR 72.236(f).
OBS 4-5 Clarify the heat load limits presented in Technical Spe cifications (TS) Appendix B Table 2.3-7A, Figures 2.3-14 (Loading Pattern 1), and 2.3-15 (L oading Pattern 2) for the MPC-37P stored in a ventilated overpack.
The applicant indicated a maximum heat load of 45 kW in TS Appe ndix B Table 2.3-7A for MPC-37P stored within a ventilated overpack. Table 2.3-7A refers to TS Appendix B Figure 2.3-14 for heat load limit per cell in Loadin g Pattern 1 and Figure 2.3-15 for heat load limit per cell in Loading Pattern 2.
The total heat loads for Loading Patterns 1 and 2, by adding th e heat load limit per cell, are both 49.5 kW, which exceeds the maximum heat load of 45 kW listed in Table 2.3-7A for MPC-37P stored in a ventilated overpack. The applicant should clarify this discrepancy in heat load limits between Table 2.3-7A and Figures 2.3-14 and 2.3-15.
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with 1 0 CFR 72.236(f).
OBS 4-6 Clarify the applicability of the heat load data present ed in TS Appendix B Tables 2.3-1A, B, and C to the MPC-37P.
The applicant provided MPC cavity drying limits in Table 3-1 of TS Appendix A and referred the heat loads of the MPC-37P to Tables 2.3-1A, B, and C of TS Appendix B, i.e., Patterns A and B for fuel assemblies with burnups less than or equal to 45,000 MWD/MTU in Table 2.3-1A, and Patterns A and B for fuel a ssemblies with burnups greater than 45,000 MWD/MTU in Tables 2.3-1A, B, and C.
With the conditions described above, the applicant should consi der including the MPC-37P in the titles of Tables 2.3-1A, B, and C or add a note to these tables that indicates that the MPC-37 heat load data is also applicable to the MPC-37P for clarification.
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with 1 0 CFR 72.236(f).
OBS 4-7 Clarify the statements regarding thermal conductivity o f carbon steel found in items
- 3 and #4 of Appendix N.5.20 of Report HI-2094400, Thermal Eva luation of HI-STORM FW.
The applicant stated, in Appendix N.5.14 (the labeling should b e corrected to N.5.20), Onsite Transfer using HI-TRAC at Low Ambient Temperat ures of Report HI-2094400, that the thermal conductivity of all materials exce pt carbon steel increases with a decrease in temperature (item #3 on page N-22) and that the thermal conductivity of carbon steel increases with a decrease in temperature (item
- 4 on page N-22). It seems that the statement in item #3 indic ates that the thermal conductivity of carbon steel will NOT increase with a decrease in temperature which is inconsistent with the statement in item #4.
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with 1 0 CFR 72.236(f).
OBS 4-8 Clarify the values for the MPC-44CBS pressure found in Table 4.4.5 of the proposed FSAR and Table Z.5.2 of Report HI-2094400 for the accident with 100% fuel rod rupture under long-term storage
The applicant presents MPC-44CBS pressures of 183.6 psig in Tab le 4.4.5 of the proposed FSAR and 193.4 psig in Table Z.5.2 of Report HI-209440 0 for the accident with 100% fuel rod rupture under long-term storage. The applic ant should clarify any discrepancy between the tables mentioned.
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with 1 0 CFR 72.236(f).
OBS 4-9 Describe or locate notes as indicated in the documents below.
Describe notes in Report HI-2200191, Thermal Analysis of HI-STO RM FW UVH System
- Note 2 in Table A.6.2 of Appendix A
- Note 4 in Table A.6.4 of Appendix A
- Note 2 in Table B.6.1 of Appendix B
Locate notes in the proposed FSAR
- Notes 2 and 3 in Table 4.4.2
- Notes 1 and 2 in Table 4.5.1
- Note 2 in Table 4.5.19
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with 1 0 CFR 72.236(f).
OBS 4-10 Add a note for threshold heat load limit for the MPC -37P (with MPC heat load 33.3), in Table 3-1 of TS Appendix A and Table 2.3-7B of TS App endix B.
The staff observed that there is a significant difference in th e maximum heat load limit between Table 2.3-7A (45.0 kW) and Table 2.3-7B (33.3 kW) in TS Appendix B for the MPC-37P containing high burnup fuel assemblies placed w ithin the ventilated overpack. This difference is also observed for the MPC-37P in Table 3-1 (page 3.4-
- 2) of TS Appendix A.
To avoid any confusion over the significant difference in the h eat load limits, add a note to specify that the threshold heat load limit is listed for MPC-37P (with MPC heat load 33.3) in Table 3-1 of TS Appendix A (page 3.4-2) an d Table 2.3-7B of TS Appendix B.
This information is needed to determine compliance with 10 CFR 72.236(f).
OBS 4-11 Correct typo Table 1.2.3c to Table 1.2.3e on page 2-3 of the proposed FSAR.
The applicant stated on page 2-3 of the proposed FSAR in the pr oposed language that MPC-37P follows a storage pattern shown in Figure 1.2.9, while MPC-44CBS is uniformly loaded as specified in Table 1.2.3c.
Staff finds Table 1.2.3c is for alternative MPC-37P heat load d ata and Table 1.2.3e is for MPC-44CBS heat load data. The applicant should correct the typo Table 1.2.3c (underlined above) to Table 1.2.3e in the quoted statement above for clarification.
The staff needs this information to determine compliance with 1 0 CFR 72.236(f).
OBS 7-1 Clarify the loading requirements for BPRAs and other no n-fuel hardware in the MPC-44.
Table 2.1-1.V of TS Appendix B states in Section C: Up to twen ty-two (22) BPRAs are authorized for loading in the MPC-44. Note 1 to this sect ion states: Fuel assemblies containing BPRAs, TPDs, WABAs, water displacement gu ide tube plugs, orifice rod assemblies, or vibration suppressor inserts, with o r without ITTRs, may be stored in any fuel storage location.
a) These two statements appear to be in conflict with each othe r. It is not clear why BPRAs may be allowed in any location when the number of BPR As must be limited.
b) Also, if BPRAs are limited to no more than 22, the applicant should clarify if this restriction applies to other non-fuel hardware components, such as TPDs, WABAs, etc. It would appear that a similar limit is needed for other non-fuel hardware components for which BPRAs are used to bound their eff ects in the shielding analyses.
This information is needed in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 72.236(a), (c) and (d).
OBS 7-2 Provide the correct figure or locations for DFCs to be stored in the MPC-44.
Table 2.1-1.V of Appendix B, Section B states: DFCs may be sto red in fuel storage locations 3-1 through 3-3, 3-6, 3-9 through 3-12, 3-15, and 3-1 8 through 3-20 (see Figure 2.1-5). However, Figure 2.1-5 does not contain these l ocations and is not consistent with Figure 2.1.1d of the proposed FSAR which does h ave these locations.
This information is needed in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 72.236(a).
OBS 7-3 Provide information on how basket deflections associate d with off-normal and accident conditions were accounted for in the criticality evalu ation of the MPC-44.
Section 6.3.1 (page 6-35) of the HI-STORM FW FSAR Revision 9 (A DAMS Accession No. ML21169A038) has a discussion on how basket defle ctions for the MPC-37 and MPC-89 were accounted for within the criticality saf ety evaluation for the HI-STORM FW. This section does not include change bars to include the MPC-
- 44. It is not clear if the analysis of basket deflections perf ormed for the MPC-37 and MPC-89 associated with off-normal and accident conditions was i ntended to also include (or bound) the MPC-44. The FSAR should address basket deflections for the MPC-44 criticality safety analyses.
This information is needed in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 72.236(c).
OBS 7-4 Provide the lengths and locations of the partial length rods for the 10X10J assembly class.
Page 6-24 of the proposed FSAR states the condition that was de termined to be bounding for the 10X10J assembly class, considered short and lo ng partial length rods. Providing the locations and the lengths of these partial length rods associated with the real assembly would help the staff to determine if t he conditions selected by the applicant are bounding.
This information is needed in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 72.236(a) and (c).
OBS 7-5 Justify the modeling assumption for the variable diamet er water rod for the 10X10J assembly class and provide the location of the water rod within this assembly class.
Page 6-25 of the proposed FSAR states: For BWR assembly class 10x10J, a water rod may be with a variable diameter that displaces 4 or 12 fuel rods. But in all the calculations of this analysis, a water rod segment that displac es 4 fuel rods is assumed along the entire active fuel length. This is conservat ive since smaller water rod contains less material thus displaces less water, and the a mount of fissile material may be potentially larger. Spent fuel assemblies are generally under moderated, so the condition where there is more fuel and less w ater may not be the most reactive condition. The staff seeks additional informatio n justifying the assumption that the water rod displaces 4 versus 12 fuel rods i s bounding for criticality safety. In addition, providing the location of the water rod within the assembly would help the staff determine if the assumption is bo unding.
This information is needed in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 72.236(a) and (c).