ML19312D625

Submits Summary of Revisions Made to SAR for Model OH-142. Revisions Provide Refinement to Previous Analysis & Demonstrate Existence of Larger Positive Safety Margin. Revisions Have No Adverse Affect on Integrity of Package

ML19312D625
Person / Time
Site:	07109073
Issue date:	02/18/1980
From:	Hansen L NUCLEAR PACKAGING, INC.
To:	Macdonald C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
References
15557, NUDOCS 8003250105
Download: ML19312D625 (3)

Text

% v%

1 7

NUCLEAR D

2

@c PACKAGING, INC.

go 815 SO.2STH STREET. TACOM A. WASHINGTON 93409. (206) S72-7775 838-1243 3,\\ 3 00 S. ~)*G" February 18, 1980

' i1G 3,s A..

rq CG i c.2 MS

• ysil09 Mr. Charles A. MacDonald, Chief Transportation Branch Division'of Materials & Fuel Cycle Facility Licensing United States Nuclear Regulatory

- Commission Washington, DC 20555

SUBJECT:

NuPac OH-142 Safety Analysis Report (Certificate of Compliance No. 9073)

Dear Mr. MacDonald:

On December 3, 1979 we submitted Revision 10 to the subject Safety

/'

Analysis Report.

The purpose of this submittal was to incorporate 4'.

additional data and analysis requested by the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada relative to the OH-142 Mark II configuration.

l Revision 10 makes one change to the SAR drawing (Drawing Y 202D).

This is the only safety related structural change and it provides a i

significant improvement in the structural integrity of the cask as vell as enhancing its cold weather properties.

The original Mark II configuration was approved using A-36 carbon steel throughout.

Revision 10 proposes changing the J.-36 to A-516 material.

This steel provides increased strength as well as a significant improvement in nil ductility _and cold weather performance.

Because of its increased strength (i.e., 70,000 psi vs. 55,000 psi) it's possible to decrease the thickness of the external skin from 1.125 inches to 1.000 inches.

The resultant package provides a larger positiva Margin of Safety than the one previously approved.

This represents the only safety related change and the only change to the drawing.

Numerous other revisions have been made to the SAR, as you will see, for the most part, provide a refinement to the previous analysis and demonstrate the existence of a larger positive Margin of Safety.

Other revisions simply provide additional data.

For completeness, we are providing a page by page summary of each of the revisions.

1)

Pages 0-3 through 0 These pages modify the cask description section referencing the material change for the Mark II configuration.

i aAlW o ')b 15557

[d C soomn

,4

-Prga 2 NRC l~j~

.I February 18, 1980 2)

Page 1-5b - added a note that secondary lid lugs vill be covered during. transport.

3)

Page 1-7a - changed sketch to clarify dimensioning

.y.

location.

~

4)

Pages 1-13 and 1-13a - provided test data on foam at

-400F denonstrating a small change from room temperature properties.

I

5) 'Page 1-18b - revise secondary lid weight ~for Mark II configuration.

~

6) '. Pages 1-20c thru l-20m - ptovided an additional analy-sis substantiating that adequate foam exists in the ove'r-

. pack corners through the area of localized flats.

7)

Pages 1-22c-1 thru l-22d provides a more detailed analysis.of binder loads.

Analysis shows previous results to be very conservative.

8)

Pages 1-22d-3 thru l-22d correcte,d an error in the bolt loads on the Mark I configuration.by 7% to account for smaller bolt centerline reaction pattern.

Small reduc-tion in positive Margin of Safety.

9)

Page 1-22g provide bearing stress check on attach-ment lugs.

Margin of Safety equals +.82.

10)

Pages'1222h thru'l-22i - corrected lug analysis to use actual allowable stress of 115,000 psi vs. 55,000 psi.

11)

Pages 1-24b thru l-24c - corrected typographical error from 38.50 to 33.50

-This reduced acceleration from 155 g's to 138 g's.-

12)

Pages 1-24d thru 1 24e - recalculated secondary lid bolt loads using reduced accelerations.:

13)

Pages 1-25 thru l-25a - revised puncture analysis to account for A-516, Grade 70 and 1 inch thick material.

Existing Margin of Safety with A-36 is +.02.

Revised Margin of Safety with A-516 is +.06.

This represents the only safety significant revision and does result in a drawing change for the Mark II configuration.

14)

Pages 1-52a thru l-52c - provide additional thermal analysis evaluating the effect of reduced insulation associated with a post dropped overpack.

Results indicated an insignificant

.074% increase in temperature.

e 4

.~t

~

r I;.

e,,

1 i

.i i -

.t c

./

-Pega 3

/-,4 NRC

)

- - 1 February 18, 1980

-4

., g..

j 15)

Pages 3-1 thru 3 provide a leak rate analysis for.

the Mark II configuration.

Not safety significant.

16)

Pages 6-2 and 7 reference leak rate data calculated above.

17)

Pages 8-1 thru 8 Upgraded QA presentation to repre-

~sent latest format previously submitted to the NRC.

~

h, 18)' Reviscd Dwg. ~Y-20-202D, Rev. B'to include A-516 material.

3

n.,

(

~.-.

- - _' As noted above, these revisions.in no way adversely affect the structural' integrity of-the'ackage.

On the contrary, the'OH-142 p

~. Mark II configuration is' enhanced by the substitution of A-516 material over,the A-36..

$hould you require additional clarification, please do not hesitate to call.

Thank you for your. cooperation.

y __-

3 Yours truly,

~

'le

^

~

NUCLEA ACKAGING, INC.

9 k

,/

pg g@'

Larry Hansen LJH/dmd

.-4 m

%s. fir-n g

-s..

g I

e 9

9

,15557 J.

'