ML19294A550
| ML19294A550 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07106346 |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1978 |
| From: | Macdonald C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Mowry W GENERAL ATOMICS (FORMERLY GA TECHNOLOGIES, INC./GENER |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812140320 | |
| Download: ML19294A550 (5) | |
Text
.
~
i
=
- n nec g
- g UNITED STATES 6
3\\,
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$..( ) A WASHINGTON, D. C. 20s55
- t&.3 r
S%
g
'%.. * *,P CEC 01 1973 FCTR: R110 71-6346 General Atomic Company ATFN :
Mr. William R. hbwry PO Box 81608 San Diego, CA 92138 Gentlemen:
'Ihis refers to your application dated August 15, 1978, requesting approval to deliver the Model No. FSV-1 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 revised pages to Addendum I 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, Charles E. MacDonald, Chief Transportation Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety
Enclosure:
As Stated 7812140 32D
Docket No. 71-6346 Encl to ltr dtd:
DEC 01.1978 GENERAL 1.
Provide copies of the pertinent parts of the following references:
Page 3-7, References 11 and 13.
Page 5-29, References 2, 5 & 6.
Page 5-58, References 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6.
2.
Revise the drawing to show all pertinent safety features, e.g.,
materials of construction, fasteners, welds, bonds and seals; dimensions; and lid bolt preloads.
3.
Provide specific design criteria to ensure that the packaging would meet the requirements of 10 CFR SS71.35 and 71.36.
Consideration should be given to the use of NRC Regulatory Guide 7.6 (for elastic analyses only).
4.
Evaluate the potential for thermal cycling growth of the lid uranium shield.
5.
For the pressure condition analysis contained on pages 5-6 through 5-28, provide the following information:
a.
Input and output for the computer codes used; and b.
A discussion of the effects of bolt overloading, if the prcload cannot be accurately applied.
6.
Provide an analysis of the lids for the following load conditions:
a.
b.
Vibration normally incident to transport (10 CFR Part 71, Appendix A, Condition 4); and c.
Normal condition free drops (10 CFR Part 71, Appendix A, Condition 6).
7.
Show that the specified criteria are met for the free drop condi-tionsat-20Fwithnodecayheatloadandinso$ation.
(See Regula-l tory Guide 7.8, " Load Combinations for Structur Analysis of Shipping Casks for Irradiated Fuel.") Consider specifically the high strength steel bolts and outer lid and the uranium iid shield.
.. 8.
Provide brief synopses of the inhouse computer codes, e.g., SAC, STRESS-3, the impact limiter code (pages 5-118 through 5-129) and M V5iPHI. The discussion should include code applicability, capabilities and limitations and benchmark, to verify them.
MATERIALS 1.
Provide additional discussion of the material properties used in the code considering the range of properties actually experienced by the model.
If necessary, the following information should be provided.
Justify the use of average material properties for derivation a.
of data for use in the codes and to establish stress and strain allowables.
Consider the use of enveloping properties.
b.
Justify the elongation calculated )n the bottom of page 5-41 when the supplier's data (page 5-40) indicates an elongation of 3%.
Verify that the limits of applicability of the stress-strain c.
curve on page 5-43 is not exceeded in the analysis.
d.
Specify the applicable strain rate range for the curve on page "
5-43.
f the extreme strain rate sensitivity over the range 10 6 e.
Justif summarized on page 5-57 for Materials 2 and 3.
to 10 f.
Since the cylinder shield (Material 3) properties are based on compression properties, show that tensile stresses are not experienced for the conditions evaluated and since the lid shield (Material 2) properties are based on tensile properties, show that compression stresses are not experienced for the conditions evaluated or show that the properties utilized are conservative.
g.
Justify the procedures used to derive elevated temperature and strain rate properties for the specified alloy by interpolation or extrapolation of properties of other alloys.
2.
Provide justification for the strain hardening effects for Material 6 shown on page 5-54.
The curves sh un on page 5-55 indicate virtually no strain hardening for that particular heat treatment
3.
Provide additional identification of the impact limiter material.
Material properties of wood differ significantly between grades and species and may vary considerably within a grade.
Justify the use of the material properties shown on page 5-103, if they cannot be considered conservative.
4.
Evaluate the attachment of the laminations of the plywood plys to themselves and to the cylindrical aluminum end cap.
HYP0THETICAL ACCIDENT CONDITIONS 1.
The following comments apply to the 30' bottom end impact analysis:
a.
Describe the boundary conditions of the uranium shielding used in the model, b.
Describe the impact forcing function resulting from the impact.
Verify that the prescribed material properties are valid in the region of the impact.
c.
Show that the cylinder component stresses (shown on page 5-68) meet the specified criteria.
Consider the stresses on component weldments (which may require different criteria).
d.
The stress summary on page 5-68 shows only an axial component for Element 468, however the data on page 5-75 shows a signifi-
- ant stress.
e.
Provide a summary of the maximum component stresses for the strain rate insensitive case.
2.
The following comm.ents apply to the 30' side impact analysis:
The analysis of the impact limiter forces (page 5-107 through a.
5-117) should be revised to show the following:
(i) A calculation of the loads for the impact limiter dissipat-ing the impact energy.
The maximum forces should consider bottoming of the limiter due to excessive crushing.
The depth of crush at which bottoming occurs should be justified.
(ii) How the loads on the extended portion (beyond the aluminum cylindrical end cap) of the impact limiter are transmitted to the aluminum end cap.
. (iii) Justify the inclusion of friction forces for the evaluation of the impact limiter attachment bolts (pages 5-109 through 5-113).
If friction is justified show that the friction coefficient is conservative.
I b.
Show that the addition of the lid end impact limiter does not result.in more severe cask stresses.
If the stresses are higher with the impact limiter, show that the specified criteria are met.
c.
Justify the strain criteria implied on page 5-136 for the materials used.
Consider the criteria as applied to welds.
3.
Show that the lids and lid attachments could sustain the inertial loads of the lids and contents for the 30' free drop impacts at an angle greater than through the center of gravity on the lid end corner.
Combine the tensile and shear loads on the fasteners, if applicable.
4.
Evaluate the cask under combined axial and bending leads resulting from a 30' free drop on the bottom corner at an angle greater than through the center of gravity.
Consider the added weight at the lid end of the packaging.
CONTAINMENT 1.
Identify the containment l'oundary and all penetrations to that boundary.
2.
Describe the leak testing and maintenance program to be used to ensure the package containment capability initially and under continued use.
Regulatory Guide 7.4 may be used for leak tests before first use and for periodic leak testing.
The test and maintenance program should cover the primary containment boundary and all penetrations to it.
,