ML20009D342
| ML20009D342 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07109022 |
| Issue date: | 05/13/1981 |
| From: | Charles Brown SIEMENS POWER CORP. (FORMERLY SIEMENS NUCLEAR POWER |
| To: | Macdonald C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009D343 | List: |
| References | |
| 19148, NUDOCS 8107230385 | |
| Download: ML20009D342 (2) | |
Text
7/-
@ 2. L L}..*eEM NUCLEAR COMPANY,Inc.
//O 2101knAnaintsA6ed
- )
P. ll Bar 15 RcMant Washngton.9W2
^
Phone: (509) 375-8100 Telex: 15-2878 May 13, 1981
?d IC 27 3
~"
ST Mr. Charles E. MacDonald, Chief
~
s c c 'f; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Transportation Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. MacDonald:
It is requested that Certificate of Compliance No. 9022, Rev. 5 (Model CE-250-2) be amended to allow the UO, contents of the package to be contained within sealed steel as welI as stainless steel containers as defined in Part 5(b) (2) of the certificate. The use of " steel" as opposed to " stainless steel" as the UO ntainer material will have no 2
significant impact on either the structural integrity or criticality safety of the shipping package. Justification for this change is given in Attachment I for your review and approval.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me (Telephone No. 509-375-8572).
(
4 Sincerely, DOC %UED S
5"#
\\\\,
MI Craig O. Brown, Sr. Engineer 9'
MwSS
//
Licensing and Compliance, E
Operating Facilities g
M g/
COB:cle N
Attachment As Noted
?/./
r--
w Apeli8ent.$ y*)*fg * * * *
- Check No,Qf3, Arnount/ Fee Category.I 3"(j,* ~)/*'
/
D sype of Fse,M,yg D$te Check Re g,j****l Received g,,
y 10 7.3 8107230385 810513 an arritsars or axxou coneonation PDR ADOCK 07109022 C
ATTACHMENT I Engineering Justification for the Use of Steel CE-25bContainerfortheModel In the UO 2 Shippir.g Container 1.0 Mechanical Properties of Materials As stated in Section 2.3 of the renewal application for the Model No. CE-250-2 shipping container submitted by Cambustion Engineering, Inc. on January ll, 1980, " Materials of all atructural components
.used in~the manufacture of the container have physical and mechanical properties equivalent to or better than 16 gauge steel." Even though the UO e ntuiner is not a " structural compenent" of the CE-2 250-2 package, it would nevertheless meet the above-stated requirement that the container material be 16 gauge steel or better. Also, there would continue to be no significant chemical, galvanic or other reactions between the container and other components and 9ackage contents.
2.0 Thermal Evaluation As described in Section 3.0 of the CE renewal application, the
_ package with a UO steel container would meet the thermal accident 2
conditjons.
3.0 Criticality Safety Evaluation The criticality safety analysis of the CE-250-2 shipping package assumes a UO ccntainer made out of stainless steel (see Section 2
6.0 of the CE renewal application). In the KENO calculation model, the replacement of the stainless steel U0 container with a 2
mild steel container will result in keff values slightly higher than reported in Section 6.4 of the renewal application. This is due primarily to the lower thermal absorption cross section of mild steel relative to stainless steel.
The change in keff due to the different steel, however, would be small and the worst case keff I
value reported in Section 6.4 of the renewal application would not be expected to exceed 0.90 at the 95% confident level for the mild steel case.
L t
l 4 "[
l
~
- - ~ _ - _
, _ _ _