ML19308C742
| ML19308C742 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07109139 |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1980 |
| From: | Macdonald C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Cunningham G GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002010231 | |
| Download: ML19308C742 (4) | |
Text
.
o gon Y MOUg m'o,j UNITED STATES
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
g E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20%5 e
g JAN 141980
~
FCTC: RHO 71-9139
, ;!.F General Electric Company ATTN: Mr. G. E. Cunningham P.O. Box 460 Pleasanton, CA 93556 Gentlemen:
This refers to your application dated October 4,1979, requesting approval to deliver the Model No. GE-589 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 infonnation will be provided. The ' additional information requested by this letter should be submitted in the form of revised pages to the original Safety Analysis Report in order to pre;erve 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, s
Charles E. MacDonald, Chief Transportation Certification Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety
Enclosure:
As stated l
800 2 010 2.3 f
~
General Electric Company Model No. GE-589
.a_
Encl to ltr dtd:
JAN 141980 e
Structural
~
1.
Provide legible copies of revised drawings showing all pertinent safety features including sizes, types, and locations of weldments (e.g., weld sizes in Detail 7). All drawings should W.' *4ntified by Drawing No. and Revision No.
2.
Specify the allowable stress criteria to whi'h the containment vessel and its closure are designed.
3.
State the material condition of SA-516, Grade 70, carbon steel that will be used for~ container fabrication (e.g., normalized, quenched,and tempered or hot-rolled).
Show that the containment vessel is adequately
~
designed against nonductile fracture for the one-foot drop loading at low temperatu e.
4.
Provide a stress and buckling evaluattn of the containment vessel under cold test conditions (Section 1.6.?) and One-Foot Free-Drop test conditions (Section 1.6.4).
Show that the ", tresses in the vessel and its closure are within allowable limits (.Ne item 2, above). The evaluation should consider side, end, and top and bottom corner drop orientations.
Consider dymanic amplification effects (if any) in the evaluation if a quasi-static method of impact response analysis is used.
5.
Note that the corner test requirement discussed in Section 1.6.6.4 (pg.1-50) is not the one-foot free-drop te.it.
The application should show that the package is adequately designed for a one-foot drop test onto the top corner.
For a top corner impa:t orientation:
a.
Provide a free-bcdy diagram of the clos Jre. Show that the binders are adequctely designeo for this condition considering the -effects of non-uniform distribution of reaction forces.
b.
Show that distortion or deformation of the closure and seal area would not compromise the ability of the package to meet the containment requirements in 10 CFR 71.
c.
The analysis of g-loads is confusing and cannot be followed. The analysis should be revised to clearly show how the g-loads are evaluated. Also, the analysis should ba revised to consider peak g-load values rather than average values.
d.
Show that an oblique drop orientation, with the con OrfWM %:
position intermediate to the top corner and side positions, is not more damaging to the containment vessel and its fasteners.
_,m.
4 JAN 14 IS60.
6.
Evaluate possiLle loadings on the containment vessel that could be produced by the trunnion striking the impact surface with the package g
in a side or oblique drop orientation.
7.
State whether the lead shielding is bonded to either the inner or outer steel shells.
Show that the containment vessel is adequately designed against buckling failure under top or bottom end impact orientations for the one-foot drop test.
Consider both axial forces and lateral pressure from the lead.
8.
The analysis of tie-down devices is confusing and cannot be followed.
Revise the analysis to clearly show how maximum forces are evaluated and how stres;es were deterained considering the 2-g, 5-9, and 10-g components to act simultaneously.
Clarify whether any device, other than friction, is used to prevent the cask bottom from sliding relative to the bed of the vehicle. Also in the tie-down evaluation:
a.
The use of a shear yield strength value that is 71.4% of tensile yield strength is not acceptable. A commonly used percentage value is 50%.
b.
Justify the validity of using the equivalent thickness concept in the shell stress analysis (pp l-28 to 1-30). Note that this method is applicable only if (1) the steel shells are bounded monolithically to lead, (2) no detachment of steel shells from lead can occur, (3) the lead itself does not split (breik) under an excessively large deformation, and (4) lead deformation in the thickness direction is small.
9.
Show that the cask lifting devices can support three times the weight of the packag ? (150,000 pounds) without yielding. Note that the measurements made following the load test described on page 1-13 are not sufficient to show that yielding did not occur.
- 10. The Bill of Materials specifies an asbestos 0-ring and Section 1.4.1 (p 1-6) states the gasket material is an elastomer (Buna N).
Please clari fy. Alsc, the 0-ring is not shown on the drawings.
11.
The Operating Procedures are incomplete. The procedures do not provide for inspection of the packaging in accordance with 10 CFR 571.54.
No provisions have been made for leak testing the package in accordance with Regulatory Guide 7.4.
For assembly verification it is recommended that a test of sufficient sensitivity to limit the maximum release to a Type A quantity in 10 l
days is used, however, a leak test sensitivity greater than lx10-3 3
at-cm /sec, would not be required. The minimum sensitivity of lx10-1 3
at-cm /sec (air at 1 atm and 25*C leaking to a 10-2 at ambient) as specified in ANSI N14.5 should be met.
l l
I JAN 141980 I
- 12. The Acceptance Tests and Maintenance Progr.m should clearly state the initial acceptance tests in Section 7.1
'.nitial, periodic, and prior j
to each shipment leak testing should be des cribed. Replacement schedules for lid gasket should be establithed.
l l
i 0
0 i
}
i i
I i
s L m*h I
5 I
i l
L.