l

UCRL-ID- 126677

Enclosed Firing Facility NTS Holmes and Narver Report = HN 104-1021C

W. B. Crowley

November 11,1958 J:

*'

This is an informal report intended primarily for internal or limited external distribution. The opinions and conclusions stated are those of the author and may or may not be those of the Laboratory. Work performed under the auspices of the US. Department of Energy by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-ENG-48.

DISCLAIMER

This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the University of California nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completenes, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any spedfic commeraal product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect thce of the United States Government or the University of California, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy.

Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scienti6c and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Prices available from (615) 5768401, FTS 6268401

Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Rd.,

!3pringfield, VA 22161

Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. fmaees are produced from the best available originral document.

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liabili- ty or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, appa- ratus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily codtute or imply its endorsement, recomme&tion, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necesar- ily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

TO : C. Violet

FRZ-I: : Id. Q. Crowley

S!RJEC,T: E?clos& Firinc Facil i t y ?:TS Holmes & Yarver Ekport E1 lob? 031C

The following review of t h e Holmes ?z Xarver feasi3ility s t x d y is broken into t he followin? catecories:

A. Conclusions

B. Xscussion

1. St rx t i i r e

2. System an.? Operat inn

3. ?fecllanical ?ea tg res

The IJCRL user criteria €or t h i s project nay be br i e f ly resbted as follows:

1. Total contatmerit of t h e equivalent of 300 ?ounds of E'. E. and reuseable.

2. The fac i l i ty to h a w 5 ft. minimum 1. R.

3 . Frost OT nm*o:is ice t o i e w e d for shock a t tenuat ion ,

h. Pressure rel ief v m t i w arid purging to be pmvided.

2.. Conclusions

'.' I

W*d , To : C. Violet ,' mobl t w. R. 'Jmwlty 33 SUBJZCTt PAGE I 2

Enclosed Fifing Facility Hl% I % k s & Narver Report ~ t'"'

A. Conchs ions (continued}

in sumntary states t h a t the p r o j e c t is feasible and recommends the use of a steel sphere i n s t a l l e d i n a %innel facility. "he suqcsted de le t ion of the i c e - f i l l i n g is not feasible f r o m the chemical recovery sti?n&oint. Ke do not ayree with t h e p r o j e c t e s t i m b e d c o s t which is stated as $231,973.00 i n Section 1.4 of t h e repor t ; This cos t est5.rat.e a;peary unconservative, that is t o say, too low. The pro3cct bud-et allowance should be ir! the order of $$330,000.00 i n accordance w i t h tke detailed discussion f onotrin- .

1. Stracture

The steel schere c o s t appears to be n e T l i g i b 3 d i f f e r e n t betwee? the 16 ft. and 20 f t . dianeters, (ret-. Section 4.1). The 20 ft. sphere would be nore easily pmtected aga ins t shrapnel and j e t t i n g since nore moa would be available fo r sandbaeqing and the increased radius m;fd reduce the sur- face s h r a ~ r e l damage i n t e n s i t y by a factor of %%, (1-16~/202 = . 36). problem probsbly precludes t he use of the larger sphere. The se l ec t ion of T-1 alloy steel has beer! discissod previously by this writer and Eolmes & Narver. Altho: U. S. Steel literatiire on T-1 stresses its ease of weldin;. and lack of requirenent for stress relievinr-., these stateitxmts are subdect to closer exaxination. Another factor wbich should be consid- ered i s t he d u c t i l i t y of t h i s n z t e r i a l in comparism with normal pressure vessel plate SA 285. The T-1 has a :!i:~imurn 16% elowation whereas SA-235 has a minimum 2C$ eloneation. It would apnear that an additional f a c t o r of safety i n favor of SA-285 would exist due t o its greater capac i ty for energy absorption i n plastic deformstio:! when stressed above t he yield, (due to areater ductility and mass).

;Flowever, t h e increased chemical recovery

2. system

“Tovember ll, 1958

TO : 1:. Violet FROM : E. C r o w l e y SiT9JSCT: PAGE : 3

Znclosed Firing; Fac i l i t l TI‘S fiolrnes 4 h’arver Report

- i

B. Dfscussion -<

2.

#

3.

Systen! (cont inued)

and handling equii>mer,t a t tlne job-si te would afford m o r e insvrance of Paving t h e speciffed qualitv of ice avai lah lo f o r filling the sphere.

Yechsr,ical Features

Afthot .cautioned or( t h i s point Ii’nlmes ’- !iarver have IR inriicn tec! a breech-block t,.yte Patcf- openin? outward.

order t ’ -e t contamtn.ti.on m y be confirm3 to t he s : . h e ~ 3G3L cont .eqlates installation of a drj-box over t k e o p e w ing acd the htch cover must therefore ope.] inward. A possible alternate night be a slide-Kate tyre cover o;:erat- i n r horizon t;.?lly, wholly -&-thin t h e dry-hox,

these had n o t been speci!’icd ?or corsideration b g €!olmes 4 %arver.

f ac i l i t y and block ice storage w i l l be mq\iimd.

Additional diagnostics por t s xo:ild be recluiwd, bu t

As dircussed =it:ove w d e r ItSysternn, an ice-shaving

Economics

As s t a t e d Earlier t h e writer bellevez tktt t k c estiwted cost pay be =o:wAat, unconscrvative an.! we s u b m i t a p a r i l l e l cos t comrarison f o r considerati <>no ( Fefcr Sec t i n n L. 3 f o r I!ol:nes ?: ?krvzr cos t ePtimte)

10. Engineering

?.olmes 4 Narver

.

To : C. Violet

a3JBJECT: PAGE : L rn0P.l t w, P. Crowley

%closed Fi r ing Faci l i ty NTS Holmes ?i !tamer Report

. ..

h . ,Economics (continued)

T ~ t a l Project $231 9 9 7 3 00

3 Venti la t im w i t h absolute f i l t r a t i o n about ~20,OoC.OO and recovery by Tdnr;.ing with concentration by evaporatim about $30,000.00, ref’erence YF(I, 3bemistry.

These costs were not requested of IioLqes 3~ ?kwver by UCZ.

c

+H+

I P C : evb Dis t r ibu t ion:

W. Arnold ?. 3ntzel/K. .‘.treet J, ?e l l 7 . Srmfey I*:. 3ecker F. Fai rbro ther 3 . F o s t e r Y. Carnil tor& . ?‘enedix 0. I;igr;ins t; . Johnson D. ;Veilsen { V S ) D. Oakley G o Pelror

9 , %well

/

Puhin

c

W. B. C r o w l e y

.