ML19209C645
| ML19209C645 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07109116 |
| Issue date: | 09/27/1979 |
| From: | Macdonald C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Simchuk J NUCLEAR PACKAGING, INC. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910170154 | |
| Download: ML19209C645 (4) | |
Text
-
- a Go..
,{
UNITED STATES y h,(p ',
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- g,, j
CIP 0 - '979 FCTC: RHO 71-9116 Nuclear Packaging, Inc.
ATTN:
Mr. John D. Simchuk 1733 So. Fawcett Tacoma, WA 98402 Gentlemen:
This refers to your application dated March 20, 1978, as amended, requesting approval to deliver the Model flo. CN6-80B packaging to a carrier for transport.
In connection with our review, we need the information identified in the enclosure to this letter.
Please advise us within thirty (30) days from the date of this letter when this information will be provided. The additional information requested by this letter should be submitted in the form of rev; sed pages to the original Safety Analysis Report in order to preserve the continuity of your application.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, we will be pleased to meet with you and your staff.
Sincerely, b
'n Charles
- t. MacDonald, Chief Transportation Certification Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety
Enclosure:
As stated 1148 104 i
I 7910170 f 4
Nuclear Packaging, Inc.
Model No. CN-6-808 Packaoing Enc 1 to ltr dtd: O :.~ 7979 General 1.
Design criteria under the normal transport and hypothetical accident conditions should be specified. NRC Reg. Guide 7.6 for containment vessel and ASME Code III Class 1 component rules for fastener (bolt and weldment) may be used to develop the necessary design criteria.
Use of criteria that is different from t.7at cited above should be justi fied.
2.
Show that for low temperature environments, the package integrity is maintained (i.e., cask does not fracture) under hypothetical accident conditions.
Package Descriotion 1.
Include dimensions for lid, bolt circle, plate, and shell layer thickness in the engineering drawings.
2.
Provide fracture toughness properties for cask (shell, plate, bolt, and weldment) materials.
General Standards for All Packaging 1.
Discuss the solidification of the resin process and access that there will be no significant chemical, galvanic, or other reaction among the packaging and the packaging contents.
2.
Lifting Devices - Reevaluate the secondary lid stresses, page 1-9a, considering the peripheral, nonunifomity of the bolt loading and evaluate the effects of the plate edge restraining moment on the bolt, if applicable.
Evaluation of a Single Package 1.
One-Foot Drop - Show that the entire or a portion of overpacks would not separate from the cask body under the impact loading condition.
2.
30-Foot Drop (a) General - Dynamic stress amplification on effects (if any) should be considered if the quasi-static impact stress analysis method is used in stress evaluation.
Also see item General above.
1148 105
-7 (b) Top End Drop Evaluate bolt stresses by considering the effects of elevated temperature (hot day) on material strength property, and show that there are no dynamic stress amplification effects.
Also see item General 1. above.
Provide a stress evaluation for the secondary lid.
(c) Side and Oblique Impacts Provide a stress evaluation for the cask shell.
Consider multiple stress (axial, bending, shear, etc) component effects (if applicable) in the evaluation.
Show that the impact limiters would not detach from the cask body under an oblique impact loading; otherwise, a stress evaluation should be made by assuming that there is no impact limiter present.
Demonstrate the validity of the analysis in the lid attachments loads for the lid corner drop. The statements regarding conservatism, pages 1-38 and 1-49, are based on the following assumptions which should be justified:
(a) The loading due to impact limiter material crushed less than 7% is negligible; (b) The average stress in the region (90%) crushed less than 70% is 2000 psi; and i
(
(c) The area centroid location, L (page 1-29), is the effective load point for the applied force. The applied force does not result from a uniform impact limiter force but from a forca varying from a peak near the point of impact to zero at the extreme edge of the footprint.
, g'
- v. ;)'C '
The statement is ade (page 1-31) that two regions of " unbacked"
(
impact limiter w>
ransidered, i.e., the region associated with the end void in t
. pact limiter and the region outboard of the cask 70-1/4" diamt ;ei.
It is not clear from the computer input data (revised submittal pages 1-42 and 1-42) that the later 4
" unbacked" region was accounted for or that a condition where this region was neglected, was considered.
.a.l -
c h.,
3.
Puncture - With respect to the shell puncture analysis, either provide
..f f justification for tne following or if justification cannot be made, J N;:
revise the analysis:
w,;.g
)\\48
\\06
. (a) Applicability of the plate puncture data contained in the cited ORNL-NSIC-68 report (Fig. 2.3 of SAR) in the shell puncture design as it was also shown in the ORNL report that the puncture energy absorbing capacity of a realistic lead-shielded circular cylindrical cask shell can be 30". less than that of the corresponding plate.
(b) Neglect of the portion of applied potential energy that would be contributed to shell deflection / indention (which is estimated to be approximately 4 inches).
(c) The steel UTS of 66.8 ksi used in the puncture analysis is different from that (58 ksi) given in page 1-2.
(e) Without providing a reasonable safety margin to account for puncture test data scattering behavoir and other uncertainties.
1148 107-