ML20129C575
| ML20129C575 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07109192 |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1985 |
| From: | Macdonald C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Jerome Murphy ANEFCO, INC. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8506050589 | |
| Download: ML20129C575 (3) | |
Text
-
7 /- 7/ 9t RETUM TO A. MacMin 396-55 FCTC: RHO GAY 171!N5 71-9192 i
.y
'ANEFCO, Inc.
ATTft:- Dr. John D. Murphy, Sr.
P.O. Box 433 i
Ridgefield, CT 06877 Gentlemen:
This refers to your application dated May 1,1984; supplemented July 31, August 3, November 29,' and December 4,1984; and February 13 and April 9, 1985; requesting approval of the Model No. AP-300 Type A packaging.
In connection with our review, we need the information identified in the enclosure to this letter.
l The additional information requested by this letter should be submitted L
in the fom of revised pages,to your original application within 90 days from the date of this letter.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, we would be pleased to meet with you and your staff.
Sincerely.
ntA y y Charles E. l'acDonald, Chief Transportation Certification Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NHSS
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution: w/ enc 1 RH0degaarden (2)
HWLee WHLake CRMarotta CEWilliams Docket File NRC PDR 8506050509 850517 IE HQ PDR ADOCK 07109192 Region I C
.) {
4 g
algTC R/F g
{ RHsF6 's' ' "
['CEWiT1Tsss' yQ pCTC
-FCTC(W[
TCTC FCTC TC e ei= >
.u. mMehai"dE6?siin' "HWCee' ';
MCiks "
"CEMstDoWaTd" "U5/R/55"" ' "'ds/jr /85' ' "d5/p/85" "05///./85" "05//7/85"
"'05/q/85" nac rocu sis cio so) Nacu o24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
.a-AfiEFCO, Inc.
tiodel flo. AP-300A Packane Docket flo. 71-9192 MAY 171135 Enc 1 to ltr dtd:
STRUCTURAL; 1.
On Drawing flo. 133-1, Rev. 3, the required number of parts B-0 (lifting pad) should be four rather than one as shown.
2.
Section 2.4.4 - Tie-down Devices a.
Since the tie-down cables can resist tensile force only, the analysis should not assume the resultant force is equilly distributed to all four tie-down lugs. The naxinun tie-down force acting on one lug should be derived on equalibriun condition considering the angles between the tie-down cable with the vertical and the direction of travel and also the reaction force of the chocking ring at. the base of the cask.
b.
For fillet welds, the effective throat area should be used (seepage 2.4-12).
c.
Page 2.4-14 states that the tie-down lugs were welded to the cask body using full penetration weld all around. Drawing flo.138-1, Rev. 4, however, shows 5/8" fillet weld all around.
Please clarify the size and type of welds for the tie-down'
. lugs.
3.
The evaluations of the top end drop is not adequate. Since the
. cask lifting lugs are stronger than the welds attaching the lugs to the cask, the lugs would be sheared off rather than be crushed.
Therefore, the analysis should show that the lid closure bolts can sustain an inpact force large enough to shear off the lugs without damage. For sinplicity, the analyses may use a dynanic load.
factor of two against the static value of the lifting lug weld capacity to simulate an inpact condition. After the cask lifting lugs are sheared off, the cask will then impact on the lid lif ting lugs (see~ Drawing flo.133-1, Rev. 3).
It would be necessary then to show that the lid would not deform significantly under this secondary impact condition and that the cask would remain sealed.
4.
For the Heli Coil inserts, show explicitly how the bolt thread length, the overall bolt length, the insert length, and the full tapped depth are selected based on the strength of the base metal and the bolts.
5.
The response to our question regarding the corner drop is not adequate. Provide the following infornation:
"'C'>
, sun- >
^">
- NRC FIRM 318 1080) N RCM O240 OFFICE RECORD COPY
_ _ _ _ s a.
Since the cask.is constructed by thin plates and shells filled with lead, it is not reasonable to assume that all cask deformation will be crushing of steel without any indention or flexure.
The applicant should show (by clastic analysis) that the cask indention or flexure deformation is insignificant when the cask is subjected to the inpact force associated with the corner drop so that the lid will remain sealed.
load has On page 2.6-17a, it appears that the equivalent "g") and b.
been resolved into vertical (parallel to cask axis horizontal (perpendicular to cask axis) components. Thus, there is no justification to further reduce the nonent arn by nultiplying sin 40.28' to the cask radius.
It is also noted that the analysis has not conbined the effects of tension and shear on the bolts. These factors should be considered in analysis.
6.
The evaluation for the botton drop condition is not adequate.
Provide an analysis to show that the lid would not have significant defornation due to the large equivalent "g" load associated with the botton end drop so that the cask would remain scaled.
SilIELDING Provide a shielding analysis demonstrating the package can transport 150 thernal watts of radioactive naterial.
ACCEPTANCE TESTS AND fiAINTENANCE PROGRAF!
In Section 8.2.2, provide an acceptance criterion for the annual lx10-3 atn-cc/see hellun leak test.
"'C'>
" " " ' ^ * >............
^">
RC P. M 318 00 80) N RCM 024 OFFICML. RECORD COPY
.