ML19345B620
| ML19345B620 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07105768 |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1980 |
| From: | Macdonald C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Austin M BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012020234 | |
| Download: ML19345B620 (1) | |
Text
- *
., s g.o "e n
f_*
ug%
UNIT $D STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
4.:,h".e WASW NGTON, D. C. 20555 e
,,p
'+
N sov is1980
]
e g
FCTC: RHO 33 q._
~sE;'
C g]
$4
=
p 23
% c:
Babcock & Wilcox Company N
O
'd ATTN: Mr. Michael A. Austin G
T 609 North Warren Avenue Apollo, PA 15613 Gentlemen:
This refers to your application dated September 26, 1980, requesting renewal of the Model No. B8-250-2 shipping container.
In connection with our review, we need the information identified in the enclosure to this letter.
Please advise us within thirty (30) days frota the date of this letter when this infonration will be provided. The additional information requested by this letter should be submitted in the form of revised pages to the consolidated 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 Certification Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS
Enclosure:
As stated I
)
G E
-8012020#M g
e, a
f Babcock & Wilcox Company Model No. 88-250-2 Container
[
i z.
. L ":
NOV 181980
. = -
Enc 1 to ltr dtd:
I
^
6 I
1.
Drawing 10-F-771, View E-E has shown six'(6)' bolts securing the container outer lid to the container outer shell.
But Section F-F i
and the description of materials on the same drawing has shown six (6), 1/2-13x2 studs, class 2A, were used. Please revise the drawing to eliminate the inconsistency. Also, the types of material for the i
inner and outer lids should be shown on the drawing.
2.
In Section 2.4, the test results of Pu-10-1 and LA-36 containers were used to show that 88-250-2 container satisfies the performance require,
ments of 10 CFR 71 under hypothetical accident conditions. However, both of the Pu-10-1 and LA-36 containers were smaller and weighed considerably less than the BB-250-2 container.
Please justify how the use of smaller and less weight container test results can provide reasonable assurance that the BB-250-2 container will meet the requirements of 10 CFR 71.
6 5
aw-we' h
4 0
,. ~.
7 M
g