ML20039A468
| ML20039A468 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07106679 |
| Issue date: | 11/27/1981 |
| From: | Macdonald C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Scoville J U.S. ECOLOGY, INC. (FORMERLY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112170643 | |
| Download: ML20039A468 (4) | |
Text
f 7
Distribution w/Inc1:
CEW1111ams CRChappell RH0degaarden (2) tNSS R/F FCTC R/F NOV 2 71981 hC R
E HQ (6) h, tM FCTC:CEW 71-6679 5
f NW O
. '.4 pO
-}
U.S. Ecology o
g
)
ATili: Mr. J.J. Scoville
~'
(9gk P.O. Box 7246 Louisville, KY 40207 y\\.%.
9 Gentlemen:
fM, This refers to your consolidated application dated flovember 17, 1980, for renewal of Certificate of Compliance flo. 6679 for the Model flo. 6679 packaging.
In connection with our review, we need the infonnation identified in the enclosure to this letter.
The information requested should be submitted within 120 days from the date of this letter. Failure to provide the additional information within the specified period will be considered sufficient grounds to deny the cpplication for renewal. The additional infomation requested by this letter should be submitted in the fom of revised pages. If you have any ocestions regarding this matter, we would be pleased to meet with you and your staff.
Sincerely,.
m.u;u.a1. Sis " W p g.y,3z ' cDON M s
Charles E. MacDonald, Chief Transportation Certification Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety,f4 MSS
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enc 1:
See attached list l
l 8112170643 811127 DR ADOCK 07106 i
.sto
.m
=>
FC,T '
J.CTC....
..FC.TC.E... F.GTg..
I 5""*"0EWil.l.i des"!. alm. CR appell..
.RH0degaarden.CEMacDonald.............
"H...11M81.....RH8!.
..1 /F/.81 11
...R/.81 1
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Model No. 6679 Packaging USA /6679/B( JF Addresses: w/ encl Ltr dtd: NOV 2 71981
-Argonne National Laboratory Metropolitan Edison Company ATTN: Mr. Elbert M. Kwirant ATTN: Mr. L.P. King 9700 South Cass Avenue P.O. Box 480 Argonne, IL 60439 Middletown, PA 17057 Arkansas Power & Light Company Nebraska Public Power District ATTN: Mr. David C. Trimble ATTN: Mr. Jerry V. Sayer P.O. Box 551 P.O. Box 98 Little Rock, AR 72203 Brownville, NE 68321 Babcock & Wilcox Co.
Rockville International ATTN: Mr. Michael A. Austin ATTN: Dr. M. E. Memley 609 N. Warren Avenue P.O. Box 309 Apollo, PA 15613 Canoga Park, CA 91304 Battelle Columbus Laboratory Sacramento Municipal Utility District ATTN: Mr. Harley L. Toy ATTN: Mr. Roger I. Miller 505 King Avenue Rouge 1, Box 550 Columbus, OH 43201 Herald, CA 95638 4
Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.
Teledyne Energy Systems J
ATTN: Ms. Chryl A. Marsh ATTN: Mr. Dick Hanna P.O. Box 1866 110 West Timonium Road Bellevue, WA 98009 Timonium, MD 21093 Consumer Power Company U.S. Ecology ATTN: Mr. Thomas P. Neal ATTN: Mr. J.J. Scoville 212 West Michigan Avenue P.O. Box 7246 i
Jackson, MI 49201 Louisville, KY 40207 Daryland Power Cooperative Virginia Electric and Power Company ATTN: Mr. R.E. Shimshak ATTN: Mr. B.R. Sylvia P.O. Box 135 P.O. Box 26666 Genoa, WI 54632 Richmond, VA 23261 1
l Fenni National Accelerator Laboratory I
ATTN: Mr. Larry.Coulson i
P.O. Box 500 Batavia, IL 60510 Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory ATTN: Mr. John Ramsey P.O. Box 990 i
Los Alamos, NM 87545 i
"'C'>
mac ronu m oo. o> uncu o2' OFI ICIAL RECORD COPY
U.S. Ecology Model No. 6679 Packaring Docket No.71-667!
Encl to ltr dtd:
i i~
1.
The consolidated application must include all the information contained in the correspondence referenced on page 2 of the SAR.
Specifically, the thermal calculations defining the decay heat limit for Mode "A" configuration (March 22, 1972 letter). On page 25 of the SAR, the reference to Mode "A" should be to Mode "B".
2.
The " Table of Plates" should include all the drawings listed in the November 17,1980 letter of application. Also, Plate "C" drawing i
number should be 32106. The number 32106-3 is a part number not a drawing number.
i 3.
The application is incomplete in that the requirements of Subpart D of 10 CFR 71 have not been addressed.
4.
The application should be revised to clearly define which components of the package comprise the containment vessel for Mode A and Mode B and any alternate arrangement of the Mode B configuration.
4 5.
The application must be revised to explicitly demonstrate that the containment vessel,, identified for Mode A and Mode B, has sufficient integrity to maintain an adequate seal under the normal and accident conditions specified in 10 CFR 71. Containment criteria should be established and should be used to specify leak sensitivities for i
packaging acceptance, packaging periodic testing, and package testing prior to each shipment.
i 6.
The evaluation of the 25 psig test (Section 4.13) and the reduced pressure test (Section 4.3.1) are not. adequate to demonstrate that the package meets the requirements of 10 CFR 71, for the following reasons:
(a) The evaluation does not show that the foam has sufficient strength and rigidity to cause the inner and outer plates to j
behave as a composite section.
1 (b) The application does not demonstrate that the foam will be i
adequately bonded to the inner and outer plates after fabrication and that it would remain bonded throughout its service life.
r 4
5
'omer >
1
...... ~... ~ ~
\\"""""'>
. -. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -.
- ~~
- ~ac,w 3i.,oso;unc" OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
, NOV 271981 7.
The analysis of tie-down and lifting devices (Section 4.15) should be revised to show how the allowable loads were determined for the ISOfittings(i.e., 215,000 pounds and 182,200 pounds on page 30).
The discussion on page 30 should also be clarified to explain what is meant by " Area A" and " Area B".
'8.
Inc.onnectionwiththe30-footdroptestevaluation(Section4.10),
the application should be revised to explicitly demonstrate that the package design meets the requirements of 10 CFR 71. The evaluation which was submitted is based upon reference to the " Super Tiger" i
package. However, the application does not contain a sufficiently detailed comparison of the features of the two designs to conclude that their structural perfomance would be similar. The structural evaluation of the package is also incomplete in that it only considers the degree of foam compression and does not demonstrate the adequacy of other features of the package (e.g., closure lid, closure bolts, flange,etc.).
1 a
l c~>l
" "~^ A onTE) e oo. oi nam oa' OFFICIAL RECORD COPY j unc ro
_