ML20197C614

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Addl Tech Info Re Packaging,Test,Method of Assembly & Optional Strap Bolting to Be Inserted Into Subj Appl Per 780915 NRC Request
ML20197C614
Person / Time
Site: 07109128, 07109126, 07109127
Issue date: 10/25/1978
From: Richardson H
NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC.
To: Macdonald C
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
References
NUDOCS 7811210141
Download: ML20197C614 (27)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:__ a 3. @RC PUBDC DOCUMENT ROOM) p a ma n Sb,8S ~ 22% 3ro ouss4u Avtsue eo. sox 2s43 8410~ aouac. LOUISIANA 70821 TEL (504) 383 7791 lELEX 586473 October 25, 1978 Mr. Charles E. MacDonald, Chief Transportation Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coramission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr.11acDonald:

Please refer to your letter dated September 15, 1978, FCTR:JEJ, 71-9126, 71-9127, and 71-9128. ] Data provided herein are to provide additional information as requested. The format of this letter is to cite your request, followed p by a response. Where appropriate, additional pages are included for b^ inserting into the application. 1. Provide an evaluation of the packaging for the lif ting and tie-down requirements of 10 CFR 71.31 (c), 71.31 (d) (2), and 71.31 (d) (3). This information is provided on pages 1.6a, 1.6b,.. 1.6g.

RESPONSE

These pages can be inserted into the application. 2. Revise the application to show packaging compliance with the requirements in 10 CFR 71.35 for the hypothetical accident 30' free drop and puncture test by including the following: a) Justification for not testing all packaging model;

RESPONSE

T?.is information was given in Section 7.3 page 7.5. A clarifying statement was made on page 7.5a for inserting into the application. b) Justification for the tests in the appropriate attitudes to the exclusion of other attitudes: "t 18 1210/Yf, 11199 PROGRiSS THRL.,.3H JNNO\\ATION 2

l j J () RESPONSE: Maximum damage to. shielding integrity will occur when the source assembly moves from its optimum ~ -shield location. This position _is controlled by j the lock box and ONLY by the lock box. It is - a fact that the housing is malleable. It is my opinion that the housing was not anticipated to crack open like a brittle eggshell and spill its uranium shielding into the environment, thereby exposing the source. This situation is adequately proved by the tests. Pages 7.10a, and 7.10b are elaborating -statements for inserting into the application. c) Justification for including the inflated tires, which act as i mpact mitigations; RESPONSE: There is no clair, in the application to use the ) tires to mitigete impacts. Pages 7.13 and 7.14 clearly indicate the tires are not involved in the initial impact. Page 7.12a is submitted for inserting into the application. d) A clarification of the specific tests performed for each package and the results of acceptance testing evaluation ) -for each package.

RESPONSE

Section 7. 3. 2. 2, page 7.8 states that "... hypothetical accident conditions were applied sequentially to j determine their cumulative effect upon GAMMATRONS." The tests were accomplished precisely as described i in 7.3.2.2. J No significant changes in shielding effectiveness occurred as a result of tests. Pages 7.16a, 7.17a, and 7.18a have been revised to add actual test data for both the thick and thin ' housings. It should be noted that no significant change in shielding effective-ness occurred in any test. All impact and puncture tests were well within acceptable test criteria of 1,000 mrem /hr. @ 3ft. (NOTE: To gain a higher confidence level, additional drop tests were made. The RETROFIT lock box guard was also tested. None of these tests showed sign-ificant changes in shielding effectivenest.) O l l

~ ./ -t 4 () f3. ' Provide. appropriate identification'and description of each package.for which certification is. requested. This shorld include all partinent safety features, including the following: RESPONSE: " Appendix C contains a Bill of Material and drawings which-describe the model C-8 assembly. Section 0.2.2.2-is a " Description of Gammatron Source Ex-changer' Model C-8;" Safety features are included in the description. ' Appendix C contains a Bill of Materials and drawings.which describe the Models 100, 100A, 200, and 200A. Section 0.2.2.1 is a " Description of Models 20, 20A, 50, 50A, 100, 100A, 200, and 200A." Safety features are included in the description. Appendix C contians a Bill of Materials and drawings which describe the Models.20- 20A, 50, and 50A. Section 0.2.2.1 is a " Description of Nodels 20, 20A,-50, 50A, 100, 100A, 200 and 200A." Safety features are included in the description. a) Drawings to describe the Model C-8.

RESPONSE

Appendix C contains a Bill of. Materials and drawings T,/~% ~ which describe the Model C-8. 'An additional drawing 3 V-is included for inserting into Appendix C. b) Drawings,to describe an assembly with a thinner wall, if applicable. RESPONSE: There would be no difference in the GAMMATRONS ex-cept housing wall thickness. For this reason, no separate drawings were deemed necessary. c) Method of assembly e.g., welding sizes / type: As shown on the drawings,

RESPONSE

Full penetration welds are used on the housing and end covers. All other welds are fillet welds having I rufficient throut thickness to develop thrength equal to or greater than the metals being joined, d) Density of polyurethane foam;

RESPONSE

Foam density on older models was 1 to 1.5 pounds per . cubic foot. Foam density on GAMMATRONS manufactured after November 1, 1978.will use foam having density 6 pounds ~per cubic foot. i>,

k' } j ' l .l - (e) ' Optional strap bolting. (Dwg. _101--7001-005) t l RESPONSE: This is a part number designated to be a 3/8 NC16 0 1.5' inches. 1 (f)- Drawings: 801-1001-408 1 801-1001-410 801-1001-411-801-1001-412 801-1001-413 RESPONSE: Copies of these drawings.are included for inserting into Appeniix C of the application. I -Please let.me.know if additional information is requirem for your favorable review. i Sincerely yours, s 34MA INDUSTRIES ~

/~d V

..r . O. 1 1 i i i ,1 J

-1. 6a. 'Re: Mr.'Mac Donald's letter dated September 15,-1978 l '. Provide an evaluation of the packagings for.the' lifting and tie-down requirements of1: 'a. 10 CFR 71.31(c) (1) Structural part of'the package shall be capabl'e of supporting three times the weight of the loaded package without generating stress in any material of the package in excess of its yield s trength. ~ (1.) A selection of two lifting arrangements may be used: ) (a) -One.has two lifting eyes, as shown on drawing 180-01. 1)) Assume only one eye might be used as the worst case. 2)) The maximum weight of any Gammatron is 500#. 3)) Maximum load would be 3x500=1.5 Kips. 4)) PLSC Manual of Steel Construction rates these bolts at 8.14 Kips. CONCLUSION: A single eye bolt (even though.twc are provided) having rated value 8.14 Kips can withstand a load of 1.5 Kips. (b) One selection has a handle as shown on drawing 821 1001 128. This could be used for lifting. This handle is welded to the housing with 4 bars having section dimensions 1/4"x 1". 1)) Assume only one-bar udght be used to lift the Gammatron. 2)) The maximum weight of any.Gammatron is 500#. .( ), 3)) Maximum load would be 3x500='l.5 Kips. 4)) A = Area to withstand load A = LxW L = Bar length, in. W = Bar. width, in. A = 1.0 x 0.25 = 0.25 in.2 5)) Material used is mild steel 2 6)) Mild steel has yield strength of 60 Kips /in, P S = Stress, #/in2 b95 P = Load, # A = Area, in2 2 S = 1. 5 = 6 Kips /in - .25 CONCLUS10N: A~ single bar (ev,n though four are provided)having 2 can withstand the load 6 Kips /in.2, yield strength 60 Kips /in ( 2. ) 1he eye bolt or the handle would obviously be the proper itens for lif ting - however' - someone may choose to lift the GAMMATRON. by some other part: O

.~ 'l -1.6b- ~ Re: Mr.'MacDonald's letter dated September 15, 1978 Item No.- 12-180-04 on dwg.180-01 or Item No. 14 on dwg 821-1001-128 or Item No. 15 on dwg 821-1001-129 might be used even though it would be most inconvenient. This part-2 is made of. mild steel with area 1/2" x 1/2" = 0.25 in, S =.P = 1.5'= 6-Kips /in A .25 2 CONCLUSION: These items having yield strength 60 Kips /in can with-2 stand the. load 6 Kips /in, -./ ( 3.) Wheel axles are used on all GAMMATRONS. The 1" diameter is the least rugged part of the ax1d assembly. Assume only one axte. might be a lifting device: n(l) 2 = 0.7854 in2 Area =nd = 4 .4 1 S = P = 1.5~= 1.9 Kips /in.2 A.7854 2 ' CONCLUSION: A single axle having yield strength 80- Kips /in can with-2 stand the load 1.9 Kips /in, ( 4.) The handle, item 6-180-05 dwg. 180-01 might be used as a lifting . device. This is secunad to the housing with two 3/4" x 3/4" square 3 bars. .l Area =.75 x.75 = 0.56 in2 2 bars required; effective A <= 2 x.56 = 1.12 P 1.5 2 S = A = l.12 = 1.34 Kips /in 2 CONCLUSION:. The mounting bars having yield strength 60 Kips /in can 2 withstand the load 1.34 Kips /in at; the attachment to the housing. ( 5. ) Items 6-180-05 dwg.180-01 are reduced to 3/4" diameter for in-serting into the tubular handle, Item No. 6-186-05 dwg. 1GO-01. Two insertions are used. Area = nd2 = 3.14'x.752 =.44 in2 4 4 Two are used giving effective' area 2 x.44 =.88 in2 .S'= P,= 1.5 - 1.7 Kips /in2 A .88

-1.6c-i Re: =Mr. MacDonald's letter dated September.15, 1978 CONCLUSION: The reduced section of the mounting bars having yield 2 strength 60.' Kips /in can withstand the load 1.7 Kips /in, .1 'l (6.) Items 6'180-05 dwg.- 180-01 have additional area reduction .) ~to accommodate a 1/4"' diameter bolt. The area for with-standing stress now becomes: A = Td2 _ drilled area 4 L-Ef fective area = Trx.752 .75 x.25 = 0.25 in2 4 ) 4 2 .I S = P_ = 1.5 = 6 Kips /in A .25 CONCLUSION: The mounting bar section at the drilled hole, having yield strength 60 Kips /in, can withstand the load 6 Kips / in2, 2 ( 7.) The handle Item No. 6-180-05 dwg. 180-01 should not but might be used.as a lifting device. It is fabricated of 1" diameter tubing having 1/8" wall. thickness. Area = d - nd$ di = outside diameter 4 4 d2 = inside diameter V 2 A = Trl - n.752-=.35 in2 4 4 j Any attempt to lift the CAMMATRON with the. handle would develop j stress in both sides of the handle, developing stress in 2 cross 2 section areas - effective area = 2 x 0.35 .70 in, 2 S = P_ = 1. 5 = 2.1 Kips /in A .70 2 CONCLUSION: The handle having yield strength 60 Kips /in can withstand 2 'the load 2.1 Kips /in ( 0.) The handle is attached to the mounting bar with 1/4" diameter bolts. A 1/4". diameter hole must be drilled through the tubing to receive the bolt, there5'r decreesing the effective section area. Two areas would withstand the load. 2 2 A = 2 x [ (Trd - Ed ) - 2 (Drill diam. x Tube Thickness)) 4 4

-1.6d-Res s Mr. MacDonald's letter dated September. 15, 1978 2 2 2 \\- A '= 2 x I( W1 - n.75 ) -2 (. 25 x.125) ). =. 565/in 4 4 S.= P.= 1.5 - 2.65 Kips /in j A.565 The rgduced section of the tubular handle, hgving yield CONCLUSION: strength 60 Kips /in, would withstand: the load 2 65 Kips /in. b. 10 CFR 71.31 (c) (2) ' - not applicable c. 10 CFR 71.31 (c) (3) - not applicable d. 10 CFR 71.31 (c) (4) - Each device that might be used as a lifting device is attached to the GAMMATRON in such manner that failure of of-the. lifting device would not exert a stress in the GAMMATRON housing as great as that in the lif ting device. The loads are distributed into the housings with weld fillets in such manner that larger areas and resulting lower stress occur in the housing. No lif ting device is related to shielding or operations of the GAM-MATRON. e, 10 CFR 71.31 (d) (1) - G10BATRONS have been shipped by land, sea, and. air. In shipments observed, GAMMATRONS are crated or attached - [~h, to skids and loaded onto trucks, boats, barges or ships, or air-planes., Permissible floor loading on aircraft.would preclude loading without a skid mount. Reality notwithstanding, the following tie-down arrangements are analyzed: j' Only the eye-bolts or the handle (part No. 801-10.01-283) could be anticipated for use as tie-down devices. Each of these will be separately considered as a tie-down device. (1) Des'.gn considerations specified in 10 CFR,71.31,(d) (1): l (a load to be applied to the center of gravity. (u) Yield stress of components.to be used with no factor of safety specified. (c) Static load applied to C.G. to be: 1)) Fx = 10 x GAMMATRON Weight = 10 x 500 = 5,000 # 2)) Fy = 2 x GAMMATRON Weight = 2 x 500 - 1,000 # j 3)). Fz = 5 x GAMMATRON Weight = 5 x 500 = 2,500 # i (2) Refer to Case 1 Tie-Down, page -l.6 - 9 - Upon applying the required load to the GAMMATRON center of gravity, the device will move in the direction of the load since there is no restraint except at the eye-bolt or handle. This will approach a configuration to apply a tensile load .() on the. sling and eye-bolt or handle. m ma--

i -1.6e- 'Re: Mr, MacDonald's letter dated September 15, 1978 For. maximum stresses, assume the three loads are applied sitnul-taneously. 2 I Fx + Fy 4 pz F = T FT= 1,0002 + 5,0002 + 2,5002 = 5,679#/in or 5.679 Kips Eye-bolt specifications: Material - 1035 carbon steel quenched and tempered 69,000 p.s.i. yield strength Application c.f F as a tensile load would provide stress: T S = P,= 5.679 - 18.51 Kips A .3068 CONCLUSION: The eye-bolt can withstand the 18.51 Kip lo~ad since yield strength is 69,000 p.s.,i. Case,1 - IIandle Tie-Down (Part No. 801-1001-283) Handle specifications: Material - mild steel 60,000 p.s.i. yield strength (a) Application of F as a tensile load would provide stress: T S = P_ = 5.769 = 5.769 Kips /in A (1) COtJCLUSION: The handle can withstand the 5.769 Kips /in load since yield strength is 60,000 p.s.i. (3) Refer to Case 2 Tie-Down, page -1,6g-Yn this case, movement in the x direction is constrained by a 4" x 4" (assumed incompressible) block which is secured to the floor or deck. (Assume the inflated tires are regid to permit identifying a fulcrum.) The block will attempt to prevent motion in the x direction and establish a fulcrum at the point indicated. S* 7 of. moments to determine sling tension and correspondina 1 eye-bolt or handle follows: x 17" {M = 'ector Sum Fx + Fz) 9.5" - Fy x 6" - Tgyg =(N 52 + 2.5 ) 9.5" - (1.5' (4) -T x 17" 2 sling

g 4 , 1 -1.6f- .Re: Mr. MacDonald?s letter dated September 15, 1978 t sling = 2.77 Kips which is also the load on'the eye-bolt or handle - T Eye-bolt Tie-Down S = P_ = 2.77 = 6.52 Kips /in2 A .3068 2 . CONCLUSION: The eye-bolt will withstand the 6.52 kips /in load since its - yield strength is 69,000 p.s.i. Har/.lle' Tie-Down 2 S = P = 2.77 = 2.77 Kips /in 4 1)0D A Q1 2 CONCLUSION: The handle will, withstand the 2.77 Kips /in load since its yield strength is 60,000 p.s.i. 4 O. u j l j h 'w-- er w n -:n.- n

-1.6g-O Stiso cOutD BE Tied TO EYEBOLT OR HANDLE / C.G. /% F = 5.68 KIPS \\, 7 /'] FLOOR OR O. DECK \\ 45 45' Y O Y i y ANCHOR TIE DOWN CASE .i O SLING COULD BE TIED TO EYEBOLT OR HANDLE of Q Fx 1 Fg = 5,59 KI PS c.G gFy=M eLc_ FLOO R D0hK ) f 2. 4 4. BLOCK x ANCHOR 6 ' r*- TIE DOWN O CASE 2

-7. S a-Re: Mr. MacDonald's letter dated September 15, 1978 O 2. Revise the application to show packaging compliance with the require-ments in 10 CFR 71.35 for the hypothetical accident 30' free drop and puncture test b'y including the following: a) Justification for not testing all packaging models: Section 7.3 Testing Protocol, page 7.5, states..." Shielding Integrity-two model 200 GAMMATRONS were tested. These were selected be-cause of their heaviest weight - assuming this would cause the most damage." It seems' reasonable that 500 pounds gross weight.containing 350 pounds of uranium would more likely cause impact and penetration damage than 325 pounds gross weight containing 210 pounds of uranium. No other differences are deemed significant relative to damage during the tests. i O

+ -7.10 a-Re: Mr. MacDonald's letter dated Septenber 15, 1978' 2. b) Justification for the tests in the appropriate attitudes to the exclusion of other attitudes; -10 CFR 71 appendix B states: "1. Free Drop..., striking the surfach in a position for which maxinum damage is expected." It is believed that maxinum effect upon shielding integrity will occur as a result of noving the source assanbly relative to the uranium shield. This will most likely result from damage to the lock box which determines the source assenbly location. If the lock box were (1) dam-aged to release the source or (2) if the lock box were to be krocked off the housing, the source assembly could be renoved fran the optinium shielding location and cause excessive external radiation. For this release the drop attitude was selected for the lock box area to become /' \\ the initial impact point. The drop upon the 6" pin from 40 inches could not possibly inflict as severe damage as the 30 foot drop upon the lock box guard. Therefore, it was determined to drop the GtWRTRONS upon the area which might be ruptured by the 6" pin. This attitude is shoan on page 7.14. There is possible only a relatively small novanent of the uranium shield within the housing because the cavity within the housing is al-most filled by the casting ard supporting structures. Since the source asst.bly is fixed in position by the lock box the source will not be significantly removed from the optimum position by limited uranium move-ment likely to occur during inpact and penetration tests. O 10 CFR 71.36 (a) (1) states that the package shall be so designed and cc:structed and its contents so limited that if subjected to hypothetical 9

-7.10b-- O Re: Mr..MacDonald's letter' dated' September. 15, 1978 accident conditions that the redbetion of shielding would not be sufficent to increase external radiation dose to more than 1,000 mrem /hr. at 3 feet from the external surface of.the package. This situation is confirmed by radiation profiles measured before' and af te - tests as recorded in Chapter 7.0, pages 7.15, 7.16, 7.17, and 7.18. 'In no case does the external radiation at three feet from the surface exceed 11 mrem /hr. while the permissible limit is 1,000 mrem /hr. It is believed that all requirements of 10 CFR appendix B were fulfilled by the drop indicated on page 7.14 and the top of page 7.13. To attain a higher confidenca level, additional' drops were ( ).' made with the attitude shown on the bottom of page 7.13. A test model having the thick shell was tested. A test model having the thin shell was tested even though it is not anticipated these will ever again.be manufactured. CONCLUSION: There was no displacement, in any test, of the (1) lock box, (2) source assembly, or (3) uranium shield which caused radiation to exceed 11 mrom/hr compared to permissible 1,000 mrem /hr. This is deemed adequate proof of the tests. O

,l' -7.12 a-Re: Mr. MacDonald's letter dated September 15, 1978 O %.) 2. (c) Justification for including the inflated tires, which act as inpact mitigations; 1 It is the understanding by Ganma Irr3ustries personnel that devices t are to be teste9. in the form that would be existing during transportation. For this reason the tires and all attachnents were intact as the tests were initiated. The application does not claim the inflated tires, wheels, or any other attachment would mitigate against the muinum inpact. As shcwn upon pages 7.13 and 7.14 the inflate.d tires were not the initial impact location. ~ oV

Typical GMIMATRON Radiation Profiles Measurements made with 34 Ci CO-60 Data recorded as extrapolated to 200 Ci Co-60 All data expressed in mr/Hr Measurements made a 3 ft. from surface Before Drop Tests Side View S-1 S-2 S-3 5-4 5-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 5-8 -2 Thick Housing 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.6 3.6 / hl -o. 5-3 ThinIkousing 2.8

2. 8 2.9 3.1 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.2

] . F-1 L S-6 ! S-4 F-8' f !i o S-5 f! ~ O' F-2 / l N p;!dj! Front View F-l' ' F-2 F-3 F-4 F-5 F-6 F-7 F-8 h [lC F-3 F-7 I G Thick Housing 3.0 2.7 1.5 2.4 3.3 3.0 2'4 1.8 '{'l j -C j N' Thin Housing 2.8 2.5 1.8 2.3 34 3.1; 2.6 1.9 i 7 F-6 F-4 0F-5 g_ P-8 P-2 -Eb Plan View P-1 P-2 "-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 'P-8 'q! .f. 7 Il\\= /fl. i-P~3 Thick Housing 3.0 3.0 2.4 1.8 2.1 2.4 1.8 1.2 II .ke,] Thin Housing 2.9 2.4 1.8 3.0 3.8 2.9 2.6 2.7 J P-4 / P-6 o P-5 l O O O

^ Typical GAMMATRON Radiation Profiles * ' Ii 'l Measurements made with.34.Ci CO-60 data re' corded as extrapolated to'200 Ci Co-60 All data expressed in mr/Hr Measurements made a 3 ft. from surface 1 After 30 ft. Drop Test \\ d S-1 Side View S-1 5-2 5-3 S-4 S-5 5-6 S-7 S-8 OS'8 -2 /. 'Ihick Housing 1.8 1.5 3.0 2.4 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.1 hl .-[ J 5-3 Thin Housing 2.0 2.6 3.2 2.5 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.3 P-5 i P-1 F-1 U 5-6 ' 5-4 -~' F-8 I 6 S-5 0 l F-2 I N '3115=2" Front View F-l' F-2 F-3 F-4 F-5 F-6 F-7 F-8 'v _shfl F-3 I F-7 Thick Housing 1.8 1.2 1.8 1.5 2.4 0.9 0.' 9 1.2 3 ben

f e

I Thin Housing 2.0 2.4 3.1 2.8 2.1 1.'6, 1.2 1.2 ~ i F-6 F-4 \\ b -1 P $r;g Plan View P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 \\ I_ P- .N/[ p3 'Ihick Housing 3.0 0.9 1.8 1.8 4.2 2.1 3.0 1.8 = o Thin Housing 3.2 2.9 3.1 2.8 2.6 1.7 1.2 1.6 + P-4 P-6 o P-5 O

f) d cal ~ GAMMATRON Radiation Profiles [ MeasuremenEs made with 34 Ci CO-60 ' Data recorded as extrapolate'd to 200'Ci Co - All daba expressed in mr/Hr Measure.ments made a 3 ft.'from surface -Aftef 40 inch Drop Onto Steel Pin g 3_) Side View S-1 S-2 S-3 3 S-5 S-6 'S-7 S-8 5-8 0-2 Thick Housing 2.4 3.0

3. 0-2.4 1.8 2.7 3.0 3.9 S7

~ Thin Housing 2.6 2.9 3.1 2.6 2.4 2.9 3.2 3.3 -b 5-3 1 'o F-1 _R F-8 ,P__ - S-6i 5-4 65-5 Nb F-2 l' a Front View F-l F-2 F-3 F-4 _F-5 F-6 F-7 F-8 en b Thick Housing 1.8 1.2 0.9 0.9 3.0 1.8 2.1 2.1 5b -;p@_. F-3 s Thin Housing 2.6 1.6 1.9 1.7 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.5 m l, ~ F-6 F-4 \\ hp-1 P-8 P-2 b Plan View P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 i-Thick Housing 3.6 1.2 0.9 1.5' 2.4 1.8 3.0 2.4 9 J- ~3 Thin Housing 3.1 2.5 1.9 2.6 3.2 2.81 2.3 2.2 i P P-6 o- .l P-5.

f "'~r '\\ Q,) N.J q.) k 7[ R 3f N / Y 7 ~~ l* ~ 4 5 y GA V V A N JU S~~ R E S B.R. L A. [C.S. PL ATE (4 55 -7007-102). =c^'r' h I ^ """ v'o av ' oa^wa av KPH 11- 01 -7 8 otrei armco GUARD GUSSET 20 20A,50 EOA " ^ * ' " * " ' " " * " GAMMATRON IOd,100A 2OO,2OOA 8 01-1001-4 13

Q \\'N N i 't i 4kO.D.,3 3 L D. -= xEc.s. Pipe GAV V A fx JUS 7 ES B.R.,LA. 3 ECALEt !

  • l APPROVED BYi DRAWN BY K H

o Arr: 10 7 8 Reviseo . LOCKBOX GUARD 20,20A,50,5OA " ^ * ' " ""*"'" G AMM ATRON 8 01-1001-412 inninn4 onnonn^

L) G i) l _ CUT TO FIT l.D. 0F CA N / r u 4h Z 4.50 DI A. x- ~ 4 C.S. P I P E, S C H E DU L E - 40 .237 WALL MV V A N IS ~~R =S B. R. L A. (455-7003-014) ocus, y2 1 ^ " " " " " ' ' "^"'" av KRH l l- 01 -7 8 oATr: arviam SH,lELD SUPPORT PA RT IA ((t IO I" G A MM A TRON. 20,20 A 50,50A 4I

O ,/ l / / / ---2f ~FO R + / MODELS / 20,20A,50,50 A / 3,5" FO R g MOD ELS / IOO'IOOA,2OO. [ 8R 2OOA s I +h " ~ 3 ? GAV V A N JUS-~ R E S B. R. LA. NONE ^""" " M SCAMI oa^*" "Y K RH j - g C.S. PL AT E (4 5 5 -700 7-102) t I-Ol-78

^m ams

SHIELD S!DE SUPPORT PAR T 2. G A MM A TRON 20,20 A,50 s50A f"Ob'Ib" 410 ^" Koro) EXML Sfdvot 2corrow.

CU T TO FIT 1.D. 0 F CAN / y ~ 6.62 5' D I A. x' 4' r-i 6"C.S. P! PE, SCH. 40 GAM \\4 A IIS JUS -~ RI = S B.R. LA. .260 WALL 2'I

  • ^ ' ' '

KRH (455-7003-017) " Aw" " 11 7 8 o^T=> orvi.co SHIELD SIDE SUPPO RT PA RT IB l DRAWING NUMB R t --. n G A M M A T RON----. LOD _XQQ A___200 200A_______1rarch sc,tcu em ---

i i P 1! Q,;,,____.____.. = m T'. l + I t 4, s tr 6'

  • 7%

5 s - O m a g - - C - s I g e w-

  • C h

'g , 2 ' 7-l N u s y -, :.h. A s L

  • (~

t x r.), s,', . = s. ; s s - w.i N \\ t"- / s ,/ l E -< ~ ~; -r m r. E i F*

  1. g i 2

- E ,/ ). -.o i I

U !I' s

t' C We O %s \\ / \\ / 1 I = 1 ._ A i l / o s 6 f e' } t s / ) s s / \\ r:'f9

  • .g l

\\s / s - + l l ft / \\g-t i i I / / l s s N n. to T~ 3 ie e d u n. Q, ve,% 5 j N. 'i Y e pr 2 6 .e = d - i t,- V 2 1 J K 94 2* q s - ao l l Ps L'" i {.

  • +

<g k we j i ( l l i 1 1 i s. \\ l N j l \\ __.3W& 'L e -~ \\ 1 - i , g g/9_ _._. i l <1 C ) a4:%V s 4 ('

  1. 1 e

i l \\ N i . N - w t I .\\ i x. i %**4 ~Y 1 i s l . L'? il l i 8 s i I i, g W }4 L i e b ( 'm ) m

gg A n, h e L g h 3 R I ~i 7: I. ~ R 3 B Tl O S P, F FI U R S I S ID A U I 0 S 0 a a D ~ 2, D 0 NI l 0 E 2, a_ A H A I 7 0 M S 0 7 M i 9 1, f 1 0 l 0 A t 1 G c. \\ \\ x \\ h l g \\ \\ =_ \\ / 2 / /v\\ / k A 2 a a0 l - 0 E7 T0 A 0 L 7 P-5 S .5

C4 c

L 'TA M t J t L lll llllji l 1i

\\ l k g3' _ r g L OC K BOX 3 q p-* A

f _ _ es
- b =E = i= # #

? ,/ gl I ( --.-._- :_ - =:-- - L i Jg C.S. PL AT E --A NMb' -.-J t _1 _. A-A C H A tJ tJl 4

  • X 5. 4

\\ /

i 2 3 j -- .________3; ~ C [ / CUARD GUSSEls LOCKBCx SC-0014 5- - N GUSSET-Ii> LATE s, f i A ,!=!ih qq 2 - - _.- - T 4 N I' BOLT J- ~ - 2: '-- S il F F E N E A 3,[xPa~ PLATE l 4 RE 6D. GAMM A INDUSTRIE S B.R.LA. .^2o-027e Nhi[LA~ ""2" " * " GAM M AT RON MODEL C-8 $Eil'~7'833 ~ o e

I __?.. 1 ( h /w i MAT' L: C. S. PL AT E - 1/4 455-7007-002 I

N 7f ~ E zr i GAVVA N JL S~ R ES B.R., LA. KJR V2 i ^""" "' " o a** " = < Sc ^ "' one, I j-19-77 nmoro SHIELD SIDE SUPPORT gi^j*._'"60-5"O8 100,IOO A,200 200 A-3 \\.

s-y + ~ #UBlyn nacus:,DepL*DU S ANA I 821 7/ ~ b-. <n V Gamma Industries 2255 TED DUNHAM AVENUE PO 801 2543 BATON ROUG. I t J TEL (504) 383 7791 1ELEX 586473 i J i 4 October 25, 1978 1 1 1 .1 Mr. Charles E. NacDonald, Chief Transportation Branch' Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 4 l

Dear Mr. MacDonald:

Please refer to your letter dated September 15, 1978, FCTR:JEJ, 71-9126, 71-9127, and 71-9128. l Data provided herein are to provide additional information as requested. The format of this letter is to cite your request, followed (~}- by a response. Where appropriate, additional pages are included for 4 \\- inserting into the application. 1. Provide an evaluation of the packaging for the lif ting and tie-down requirements of 10 CFR 71.31 (c), 71. 31 (d) (2), i and 71. 31 (d) (3). This information is provided on pages 1.6a, 1.6b, 1.69-

RESPONSE

These pages can be inserted into the application. 2. Revise the application to show packaging compliance with the i j requirements in 10 CFR 71.35 for the hypothetical accident 30' l free drop and puncture test by including the following-l a) Justification.for.not testing all packaging model; i

RESPONSE

This information was given in Section 7.3 page 7.5. A clarifying statement was made on page 7.5a for inserting into the application, b) Justification for the tests in the appropriate attitudes to the exclusion of other attitudes . /- t( 1 PRCTGRESS THROl)GH lNNOVA?lON l 1

~. ' RESPONSE: Maximum damage to shielding integrity will occur when the, source assembly moves from its optimum shield location..This position is controlled by the. lock box and ONLY. by the lock bon. It is - a fact that the housing.is malleabic. it is'my opinion that the housing was not anticipated to crack open.like a brittle eggshell and spill its uranium shielding -into the environment, thereby exposing 1 the source..This situation is adequately proved by the tests. Pages 7.10a, and 7.10b are elaborating statements for inserting into the application, c) Justification for including the inflated tires, which act as impact mitigations;

RESPONSE

There is no claim in the application to use the tires to mitigate Lmpacts. Pages 7.13 and 7.14 clearly -indicate the tires are not involved in the initial impact. Page 7.12a is submitted for inserting into the application. d) A clarification of the specific tests performed for each package and the results of acceptance testing evaluation (} for each package.

RESPONSE

Section 7. 3.2. 2, page 7 8 's tates that "... hypothetical accident conditions were applied sequentially to determine their -cumulative effect upon GAMMATRONS. " The tests were accomplished precisely as described in 7.3.2.2. 1 No significant changes in shielding effectiveness occurred as a result of tests. Pages 7.16a, 7.17a, and 7.18a.have been revised to add actual test data for both the thick and thin housings. It should be noted that no significant change in shielding effective-ness occurred in any test. All impact and puncture tests were well within -acceptable test criteria of 1,000 mrem /hr. @ 3ft. (NOTE: .To gain a higher confidence 1evel, additional drop tests were made. The RETROFIT lock box guard was also tested. None of these tests showed sign-ificant changes in shiciding effectiveness.) O

l i 3. Provide appropriate identification and desctiption of each package for which certification 'is requested. This should ) include all pertinent safety features,. including the following: l RESPONSE: Appendix.C contains.a Bill of Material and drawings l I which describe the model C-8 assembly. Section ' O.2. 2.2 is a " Description of Gammatron Source Ex- - j changer Model C-8." Safety features are included j in the description. Appendix C contains a Bill of[ Materials and a drawings which describe the Models 100, 100A, 200, j and 200A. Section 0.2.2.1 is a " Description of j Models 20, 20A, 50, 50A, 100, 100A, 200, and 200A." Safety features are included in the description. Appendix C contians a Bill ojf Materials and drawings which describe'the Models 20, 20A, 50, f and 50A. Section 0.2.2.1 is a " Description of j Models 20, 20A, 50, 50A, 100, 100A, 200 and 200A."~ Safety features are included in the description. a) Drawings to describe the Model C-8.

RESPONSE

Appendix C contains a Bill of Materials and drawings ()- which describe the Model C-8. An' additional drawing is included for inserting into Appendix C. b) Drawings.to describe an assembly with a thinner wall, if applicable. RESPONSE: There would be no difference in the GAMMATRONS ex-cept housing wa.11 thickness. For this reason, no separate drawings were deemed necessary. c) Method of assembly e.g., welding sizes / type: As shown on the drawings,

RESPONSE

Full penetration welds are used on the housing and end covers. All other welds are fillet welds having sufficient throat thickness to develop thrength equal to or greater than the metals being joined. d) Density of polyurethane foam;

RESPONSE

Foam density on older models was 1 to 1.5 pounds per cubic foot. Foam density on GAMMATRONS manufactured after November 1, 1978 will use foam having density 6 pounds per cubic foot.

~.... -. - -. -. - -.... - - -, - - -. - - -. -..... -.. ~..... i , g. t '(e)-- Optional strap bolting (Dwg. 10]-7001-005) RESPONSE: :This is a part number' designated to be a 3/8 NC16 0-1.5 inches.- -(f), Drawings: 801-1001-408 801-1001-410 801-1001-411 801-1C01-412 801-1001-413- ' RESPONSE: Copies of these drawings are: included for inserting -~ into Appendix C of the application. Please let me know-if additional information is required for your, favorable review. Sincerely yours, s GAiMA INDUSTRIES v7. / e m1 m.reson O. "oa/r"+ h I a .m.. M-3. l c E.+. J =.- ..*,,.e .,-,v + e -- -y.~,.. m.,,,

4 -1.6a-() Re: Mr. Mac, Donald's letter dated September' 15, 1978 ' l.

Provide an. evaluation of the packagings for the lifting and tie-down requirements of,:

'a. 10 CFR 71. 31(c) (1) Structural;part of the package shall be capable of supporting three times the weight' of the loaded package without generating stress in any material of:the package in excess of'its yield ' strength. (1. ). A selection of two lifting arrangements may be'used: .(a) One has two lifting eyes, as shown on drawing;180-01. 1)) Assume only one eye might be' used as the worst case. 2)) The maximum weight of any Gammatron is 500#. 3)) Maximum load would be 3x500=1.5 Kips. 4)) AI.SC Manual of LSteel Construction rates these bolts.at 8.14 Kips. CONCLUSION: A single eye bolt (even though two are provided) having . rated value 8.14 Kips can withstand a load of 1.5 Kips. (b) One selection has a handle as shown on drawing 821 1001 128. This could be used for lifting. This handle is welded to the housing with 4 bars having section dimensions 1/4"x 1". 1)) Assume only one bar might be used to lift the Gammatron. 2)) ' The maximum ' weight of any Gammatron is 500#. ,/, 3)) Maximum load would be 3x500= 1.5 Kips. 4)) A = Area'to withstand load A = LxW L = Dar length, in. W = Bar width, in. A = 1.0 x 0.25 = 0.25 in.2 5)) Material used is mild steel 2 Mild steel has yield strength of 60 Kips /in, .P S = Stress, #/in2

  1. $5 P = Load, #

2 A = Area, in. 2 S = 1. 5 = 6 Kips /in .25 CONCLUSION: A single bar (even though. four are provided)having 2 yield strength 60 Kips /in can. withstand the load 6 Kips /in.2, ( 2.,) The eye bolt or the handle 'would obviously be the proper items for lifting - however - someone may choose to lift the GAMMATRON by some other part:

I () ' 1.6h- ~ Re: Mr. MacDonald's letter dated September 15, 1978 Item No. 12-184-04 on'dwg 180-01 or Item No. 14 on dwg 821-1001-128 or Item No. 15 on'dwg 821-1001-129 might ' be used even though it would be most incor.venient. This part 2 is made of mild steel with area 1/2" x 1/2" = 0.25 in, 2 i S = P = 1.5 = 6 Kips /in A .25 2 can with-CONCLUSION: These items having yield strength 60 Kips /in 2 stand the load 6 Kips /in, ( 3.) Wheel axles are used on d 1 GAMMATRONS. The 1" diameter is the least rugged part of the oxLe assembly. Assume only one axlu might be a lifting device: M1)2 = 0.7854 in2 Area = n d = .4 4 i l S = P = 1.5 = 1.9 Kips /in.2 A.7854 j 2 CONCLUSION: A single Axle having yield strength 80 Kips /in can with- /~% stand the load 1.9 Kips /in2, V.' ( 4.) The handle, item 6-180-05 dwg. 180-01 might be_used es a lifting device. This is secured to the housing with two 3/4" x 3/4" square ) bars. 1 Area =.75 x.75 = 0.56 in2 2 bars required; effective A <= 2 x.56 = 1.12 P 1.5 2 S = A = 1.12 = 1.34 Kips /in CONCLUSION: 'The mounting bars having yield strength 60 Kips /in? can withstand the load 1.34 Kips /in2 at the attachment to the housing. ( 5. ) Items 6-180-05 dwg. 180-01 are reduced to 3/4" diameter for in-serting into the tubular handle, Item No.- 6-180-05 dwg. 180-01. Two insertions are used. Area = Ud2 = 3.14 x.752,,44.in2 4 4 quo are used giving effective area 2 x.44 =.88 in2 S = P = 1.5 - 1.7 Kips /in2 A .88

] .-1.6c-Re: Mr. MacDonald's letter. dated. September 15, 1978 CONCLUSION: The reduced section of theImounting bars having yield 2 2 strength 60 Kips /in can withstand the load 1.7 Kips /in, (6.) Items 6 '180-05 dwg.' 180-01 have additional ' area reauct3on to accommodate a 1/4" diameter bolt. The area for with-standing stress new becomes-A =,Wd2 - drilled area 4 Effective area = Ux.752 .75 x.25 = 0.23 in2 4 2 .S = P_ = 1.5 = 6 Kips /in A .25 CONCLUSION: The mounting -bar section at the drilled hole, having l 2 2 . yield strength 60 Kips /in, can' withstand the-load 6 Kips / in, ( 7.) The handle Item No. 6-180-05 dwg. 180-01 should not but might be used as a lifting device. It is fabricated of 1" diameter tubing having 1/8" wall thickness. Area = d,,nd3 .di = outside diameter inside diameter 4 4 d2 = 2 A = W1 - n.752 =.35 in2 4 4 Any attempt to lif t the GAMMATRON with the handle would develop l stress in both sides of the handle, developing strees in 2 cross 2 section areas - effective area = 2 x 0.35 .70 in, 2 S = P = 1. 5 = 2.1 Kips /in A .70 2 CONCLUSION: The. handle having yield strength 60 Kips /in can withstand 2 the load 2.1 Kips /in ( 8.) The handle is attached to the mounting bar with 1/4" diameter f bolts. A.1/4" diameter hole must be drilled through the tubing to receive the bolt, thereby decreasing the effective section 1 area. Two areas would withstand the load. 2 2 A = 2 x [(Ed .nd ) -2 (Drill diam. x Tube Thickness)) 4 4 i-O- d. a

-1.6d- = Re : Mr. MacDonald's letter dated September 15, 1978 2 2 ~ A, = 2 x l( Ul - 7.75 ) -2 (. 25 x.125) ] =.565/in 4 4 2 'S = P = 1.5 - 2.65 Kips /in A .565 The rgduced section of-the tubular handle, hgving yield . CONCLUSION: . strength 60 Kips /in,1 would withstand the load 245 Kips /in. b. 10 CFR 71.31 (c)' (2) - not applicable-c. .10 CFR 71.31 (c) (3) - not applicable d. 110 CFR 71. 31^ (c) (4) - Each device.that might be used as a lifting device is attached to the GAMMATRON in such manner that failure of of the lifting device would not exert a stress in the GAMMATRON housing as great as that in the lif ting device. The loads are distributed into' the housings with weld fillets in such manner that larger areas and resulting lower stress occur in the housing. _ No lifting device is related to shielding or operations of the GAM-MATRON. e. 10 CFR 71.31 (d) (1) - GAh2ATROMShave been shipped by land, sea, and air. In shipments observed, CAMMATPONS are crated or attached ( to skids and loaded onto trucks; boats, barges or ships, or air-planes. Permissible. floor loading on aircraft would preclude loading without a skid mount. Reality notwithstanding, the following tic-down arrangements are analyzed: b Only the eye-bolts or the handle (part No. 801-1001-283) could be anticipated for'use as tie-down devices. Ea :h of these will be separately considered as a tie-down device. (1) Design considerations specified in 10 CFR,71.31 (d) (1) : (a) Load to be applied to the center of gravity. (b) -Yield stress of components to be used with no factor of safety specified. (c) Static load applied to C.G. to be: 1)) Fx = 10 x GEMMATRON Weight = 10 x 500 = 5,000 # 2)) Fy = 2 x.GAMMATRON Weight = 2 x 500 - 1,000 # 3)) Fz = 5 x GAMMATRON Weight a L x 500 = 2,500 # (2) Referfto Case 1 Tie-Down, page -1.6 - 9 .Upon applying the required load to the GAMMATRON center of gravity, the device will move in the direction of the load since there is no restraint except at the eye-bolt or handle.

f g This will approach-a configuration to apply a tensile load

(_f. on the sling and eye-bolt or handle.

-1.6e-Re: Mr. MacDonald's letter dated September 15, 1978 rh 4 (V For maximum stresses, " assume the three loads are applied. imul-taneously. Fx2 + py2 + pg2 F = T 2 1,0002 + 5,0002 + 2,5002 = 5,679#/in F, = or 5.679 Kips Eye-bolt specifications: Material - 1035 carbon steel quenched and tempered 69,000 p.s.i. yield strength Application of F as a tensile load would provide stress: T S =.P,= 5.679 - 18.51 Kips A .3068 CONCLUSION: The eye-bolt can withstand the 18.51 Kip lond since yield strength is 69,000 p.s.i. Case 1,- Handle Tie-Down (Part No. 801-1001-283) Handle specifications: e-Material - mild steel ()). 60,000 p.s.i. yield strength (a) Application of F as a tensile load would provide stress: T S = P_ = 5.769 = 5.769 Kips /in 7 (1) CONCLUSION: The handle can withstand the 5.769 Kips /in load since yield strength is 60,000 p.s.i. (3) Refer to Case 2, Tie-Down, page -1.6g-In this case, movement in the x direction is constrained by a 4" x 4" (assumed incompressible) block which is secured to the floor or deck. (Assume the inflated tires are regid to permit identifying a fulcrum.) The block will attempt to prevent motion in the x direction and establish a fulcrum at the point indicated. Summation of moments to determine sling tension and corresponding load on the eye-bolt or handle follows: {M = (Vector Sum Fx + Fz) 9.5" - Fy x 6" - Tsling * =(d 52 + 2.5 ) 9. 5" - (1. 5 (4) -T 2 sling

  • 17"

4 4 -1.6f- .Re: Mr. MacDonald's letter dated September 15, 1978 -D . (_/ sling = J 77 Kips which is also the load on the eye-bolt or haadle T Eye-bolt Tie-Down S = P = 2.77 = 6.52 Flps/in2 A .3068 j 2 CONCLUSION: The eye-bolt will withstand the 6.52 kips /in load cince its yield strength is 69,000 p.s.i. pandle Tie-Down S = P = 2.77 = 2.77 Ki" /in 4 1)OD A Q CONCLUSION: The handle will withstand the 2.~// Kips /in2 loed.since its yield strength is 60,000 p.s.i. C. .O: l-m + o a

L -1.6 - 9 SLING COULD BE TIED TO EYEBOLT OR HANDLE / 'I N >- F = 5 68 KIDS C.G. A 7 3 O DECK / s '45 45' -} _ ~ k ANCHOR TIE DOWN CASE 1 o. -SLING COULD BE TIED TO EYEBOLT OR HANDLE / 'A Fx 1 Fa = 5.59 Ki pS C'.G. s , h A / d8-o FULCRUM FLOO R Fy= c OR 5* 2.'5 PSM gi 4~x4' BLOCK DECK KI ANCHOR 6 ' + TIE DOWN q CASE 2

-7. 5 a-

Re:

Mr. MacDonald's letter dated. September 15, 1978 2. Revise the application to show packaging compliance with the require-ments in 10 CFR 71.35 for the hypothetical accident 30' - free drop and puncture. test by including' the following: a); Justification for notLtesting all packaging models: Section 7.3 Testing Protocol, page 7.5, states..." Shielding Integrity-two model 200 C.AMMATRONS were' tested. These were selected be-cause of their heaviest weight-- assuming this would cause the most damage." It seems. reasonable that'500 pounds gross weight containing 350 pounds of ' uranium would more likely cause impact and penetration damage than 325 pounds gross weight containing 210 pounds of uranium. No other differences are deemed significant relative to danage during the tests. O 'l

-7.10 a-Re: Mr. FucDonald's letter dated Septenber 15, 1978 rm k) ~ 2. b) Justification for the tests in the appropriate attitudes to the exclusion of other attitudes; 10 CFR 71 appendix B states: "1. Free Drop..., striking the ] surface in a position for which nnxinum damage' is expected." It is believed that max 2 nun effect upon shielding integrity will occur as a result of moving the source assembly relative to the uranium shield. This will most likely result from damage to the lock box which determines the source assembly location. If the lock box were (1) dam-aged to release the source or (2) if the lock box were to be knocked otf j the housing, the source assenbly muld be renoval fran the optinium shielding location and cause excessive external radiation. For this release the drop attitude was selected for the lock box area to become O U the in.itial inpact point. The drop upon the 6" pin from 40 inches could not possibly inflict as severe damage as the 30 foot drop upon the lock box guard. Therefore, it etas determined to drop the GAbfMTRONS upon the area which might be ruptured by the 6" pin. This attitude is shown on page 7.14. There is possible only a relatively all movanent of the uranium shield within the housing because the cavity within the housing is al-most filled by the casting and supporting structures. Since the source assanbly is fixed in position by the lock box the source will not be significantly renovcd fran the optimum position by limited uranium move-ment _likely to occur during impact aM penetration tests. en 8 10 CFR 71.36 (a) (1) states that the package shall be so designed and

constructed aM its contents so limited that if subjected to hypothetical

1 4., 't -7.10b-O Ret Mr. MacDonald's letter dated September 15, 1978 accident conditions that the redbetion of shielding would not be - sufficent to increase external radiation dose to more than 1,000 mrem /hr. at 3 feet from the external surface of the package. This situation is confirmed by radiation profiles measured before and after tests as recorded in Chapter 7.0, pages 7.15, 7.16, 7.17, and 7.18. In no case does the external radiation at three fcet-from the surface exceed 11 mrem /hr. while the permissible limit is 1,000 mrem /hr. It is believed that all requirements of 10 CFR appendix B were fulfilled by the drop indicated on page 7.14 and the top of page ( ). - 7.13. To attain a higher confidence level, additional drops were made with the attitude shown on the bottom of page 7.13. A test model having the thick shell was tested. A test model having the thin shell was tested even though it is not anticipated these will over again be manufactured. CONCLUSION' There was no displacement, ~ in any test, of,the (1) lock box, (2) ' source assembly, or (3) uranium shield which caused radiation to exceed 11 mrem /hr compared to. permissible 1,000 mrem /hr. This is deemed adequate proof of the tests. O w

-7.12a-Re: Mr. MacDonald's letter dated Septeninr 15, 1978 O-2. (c) ' Justification for including the infhted tires, which act as inpact mitigations; It is the understanding by Gwmn Irr.lustries personnel that devices are to be tested in the form that would be existing during transportation. For this reason the tires and all attachnents were intact as the tests wcre initiated. The application does not claim the inflated tires, wheels, or any other attachnent would mitigate against the nnxinum impact. As shown upon pages 7.13 and 7.14 the inflated tires were not the initial impact location. O. v l '. OV t -9

Typical GAMMATRCN Ra @ ation Profiles Measurements made with 34 Ci CD-60 Data recorded as extrapolated to 2b0 Ci Co-60 All data expr essed 4 n mr/Gr Measurements,made a 3 ft. from surface Before Drop Tests lo S-1 Side View S-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 S-5 .S-6 5-7 S-8 b-0 / -2 hick Housing 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 1.0 3.0 3.6 3.6 d-k7 s-3 Thiniiousing 2.8

2. 8 2.9 3.1 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.2 1(_u

'o F-1 ~ 9 S-6 'S-4 F-8, m _- S-5 l y N F-2 Front View F-l' ' F-2 -3 F-4 F-5 F-6 F-7 F-8 F-7 l hy3 (] F-3 Thick Housing 3.0 2.7 1.5 2.4 3.3 3.0 2' 4 1.8 '~J- ~ 1 4 -i l Thin Housing 2.8 2.5 1.8 2.3 34 3.1; 2.6 1.9 8 7 F-4 l F-6 OF-5 P-8 P-2 .7 Plan View. P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 'P-8 ~i hick Housing 3.0 3.0 2.4 1.8 2.1 2.4 1.8 1.2 -3 0 Nl Thin Housing 2.9 2.4 1.8 3.0 3,. 8 2.9 2.6 2.7 'c)- J .P-4 P-6 6 P-5 9 O

O O O ~ Typt. cal GA!'F.ATRON Radiation Profiles *,' I; I: Measurements made with 34,Ci CO-60 data recorded as extrapolated to 200 Ci Co-60 All data expressed in mr/Hr ~ Measurements made'a 3 ft. from surface t After 30 ft. Drop Test 5-1 5-8 Side view S-1 S-2 ' S-3 S-4 5-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 N-2 Thick Housing 1.8 1.5 3.0 2.4 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.1 5-7 .-- } },5_3 Thin Housing 2.0 2.6 3.2 2.5 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.3 P-5 P-1 F-1 d', S-6 ' 5-4 F-8 I d 5-5 \\ u l F-2 1 _\\ 4 g N;EE Front View ' F-l' F-2 F-3 F~4 F-5 F-6 F-7 F F-7 l'E g' F-3 Thick Housing 1.8 1.2-1.8 1.5 2.4 0.9 0.9 1.2 3 M[. .!I -m Thin Housing 2.0 2.4 3.1 2.8 2.1 1.'6, 1.2 1.2 I F-6 F-4 DF-5 l P-1 i. p-8 P-2 [. Plan View P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 b7 ~ l P-3 Thick Housing 3.0 0.9 1.8 1.8 4.2 2.1 3.0 1.8 c f Thin Housing 3.2 2.9 3.1 2.8-2.6 1.7 1.2 1.6 LJ P-4 P-6 ./~,.. p_5 ~

a m p(/ ' 1 zeal ). GAMMATRON' Radiation Profiles Measuremen$s made with 34 Ci CO-60 Data recorded as extrapolated to 20.0'Ci Co-60 All daba expressed in :nr/Hr Measurements made a 3 ft.'from surface After 40 inch Drop Onto Steel Pin 3_)- hL2 Side View S-1 S-2 5-3 S-5 S-6 5-7 S-8 b0 a-2 Thick Housing 2.4 3.0 3.0 2.4 1.8 2.7 3.0 3.9 ) c l --b -.i. ~1 Thin Housing 2.6 2.9 3.1 -2.6 2.4 2.9 3.2 3,3 ) 5-3 'o l F-1 S-6 i S-4 . _ = F-8 S-5 O' F-2 .a Front View F-1 F-2 F-3 F-4 F-5 F-6 F-7 F-8 Thick Housing 1.8 1.2 0.9 0.9 3.0 1.8 2.1 2.1 J { F-3 7 [(i Thin Housing 2.6 1.6 1.9 1.7 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.5 F-6 F-4 0F-5 t &P-1 P-8 P-2 Plan View P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 /- ~ Q \\l- --o Thick Housing 3.6 1.2 0.9 1.5. 2.4 1.8 3.0 2.4 P-3 Thin Housing 3.1 2.5 1.9 2.6 3'. 2 2.8! 2.3 2.2 i y i P-4 P-6 c. P-5 s

o O O ~ A 7h R 1' 3 4 m __i 4 y 5 = GAV V A N JUS RI E S B.R. LA. [C.S. PL ATE (455 -7007- ! 021 =c^m k'2 ~ l oa^*" " - K P H ^ "a " " orm I l- 01 -7 8 arvi = = , GUARD GUSSET ^ GAMMATRON IOO,100A,200,2OOA 8 01-!O01-413

l m \\ \\ ( c 3 4 3 0.D.,3 L3, LO-3T 16 xkc.s. pipe GAVVA N JUS 7 ES B.R.,LA. 3 3 W.i Areaoveo era sc u r: KRH o,.,.1 10 7 8 o n e: arvi co ' LOC K BOX GUARD .G MMATDord 20,20A,50,50A _ ____ _ j_ " ^ * ' " " ' " " ' " y _ __

O O e I l ~ r i CUT TO FIT { l.D. 0F CAN / t .C ( f 4.50 DI A. 4 t 5 4 C.S PI PE, SC H E DULE 40 MMM IN S ~~ R l =_ S & R. d' (455-7003-0141 .cxts, y2 ' I ^ " " " " " " ' ' KRH "^*""Y Il-01-78 o^rr-l armco SH,lELD SUPPORT PART l A DRAWING NUMBER G A MM A TRON. 20,20 A,50,50A goi_ toot.4ji

O e e ,/ /Y l~ / >i w-2g FOR /, MODELS f 20,20A,50,50 A ,e j/ - 3,k" FO R MODELS IOO,100A 200. -8R -2OOA m-f" >f3 GA V M A IN JUS-a E S

8. R. LA.

g. . cit.z 2 NONE- ^ " " " " " ' ' K RH oa^wa =v g C.S. PL AT E (4 5 5 -7007-102) I l-01 -7 8 ~ arvi== o^m SHIELD SIDE SUPPORT PAR T 2 l G A MM A TRON 20.20 A,50,50 A caxwisa uumor. W XOD Yo/aA -_9an__2cvaa _ __ _ __ _, 80 I-100 l - 410

e 2 ~ CU T TO F1T 1.D. O F CAN j t 6.62 5' D I A. F# 4' 6"C.S. PI PE, SC H. 4 0 GAM M A IN JUS ~~ ll ES B.R. LA. .260 WALL (455-7003-017)

  • ^'** V2 : I

^ " " " ' ' ' " " KRH oa^w" =v o e r. I t-OI -78 Reviuo SHIELD SIDE SUPPO RT PA RT IB DRAWING NUMBER GA M M A T RON IO O. LOO A,2OO,2.O O A Anitont a m

( 1 4 n 1 l u i I 44 r l [ Y! l 1 l 1 I i MAT'L: C. S. PL AT E - 1/4 455-7007-002 i nettf PatstTE D ON WQ. 100004CLSARPWIKT ,s, ~~, ~ v a- , w m, e r, n -,,,,,, - - -, e ,e,- -,+-,w,e-,-m-, ~-,w., - - ,v,,w,m. -..-,-.~.enn.,,,vn.,-~ --.w-.,,mn -e

\\s 7h \\ s l 1 Li zr 1 GAVVA N JL S~ R ES B.R., LA. oa*wn =< M R . cur, - 1/2 auino o^m I H8-77 SHIELD SIDE SUPPORT DRAWING NUMagR IOO.,100A,2OO.,2OO A~ 811-100140p l 1 i

n 4 p 1 1 1 i LOC K BOX ,mm~.n ( l*$ h W4 A 4 M g -a i i I I i I .1________.__.-__-. . - _. _ l 'C jf .S. PL AT --A 'enh-b) H &l' i ... W i SECTigh AA CHANNE 4* X 5. 4 a ,.. t c. i

o ( u 23j _ _ _ _. _ - _. - _ _. _ _. ~ i O ,/ i -GUA RD GUSSE TS L0 KBC Soi.tCX)I-413 q 6 01-10 01-412 / \\ f p- / / GUSSEi - k' PLATE 's s lkE;5 ?:h= '! QTp --- - 3 y i i l l 4" s . ~60LT - STIFF ENE R 3 k[X h ' PL A T E 4 R E O'D. I i GAMM A INDUSTRIE S B.R.LA. ......,, n- ...11-02 78 w GAM MATRON MODEL C-6 62 t - 1001 - 033 \\

1 f c, v 8 a n SMSS 22ss itD DUNHAM AVENUE PO. BOX 2543 BAT IN ROUGE. LOUI5i AN A 70821 TEL (504) 383 7791 TELEX 58(473 p-g ra m' tr m i t"tm "T october 25, 1978 Mr. Charles E. MacDonald, Chief Transportation Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. MacDonald:

Please refer to your letter dated September 15, 1978, FCTR:JEJ, 71-9126, 71-9127, and 71-9128. Data provided herein are to provide additional information as j requested. The format of this letter is to cite your request, followed (A3 by a response. Where appropriate, additional pages are included for \\ inserting into the application. 1. Provide an evaluation of the packagi.1g for the lifting and tie-down requirements of 10 CFR 71.31 (c), 71.31 (d) (2), and 71.31 (d) (3). This information is provided on pages 1.6a, 1.6b, 1.6g.

RESPONSE

These pages can be inserted into the application. 2. Revise the application to show, compliance with the requirements in 10 CPR 71.35 for thetical accident 30' m free drop and puncture test by incluu.. _he following: a) Justification for.not testing all packaging model;

RESPONSE

This information was given in Section 7.3 page 7.5. A clarifying statement was made on page 7.5a for inserting into the application. b) Justification for the tests in the appropriate attitudes to the exclusion of other attitudes: ,O gj l PROGRESS THROUGH INHOM?iCN { 111ss

t r-(_)s RESPONSE: Maximum damage to shielding integrity will occur when the source assembly moves from its optimum shield location. This position is controlled ",y j the lock box and ONLY by the lock box. It is ~ a fact that the housing is malleable. It is my j opinion that the housing was not anticipated to crack i open like a brittle eggshell and spill its uranium shielding into the environment, thereby exposing j the source. This situation is adequately proved ) by the tests. Pages 7.10a, and 7.10b are elaborating statements for inserting into the application. c) Justification for including the inflated tires, which act as impact mitigations;

RESPONSE

There is no claim in the application to use the tires to mitigate impacts. Pages 7.13 and 7.14 clearly indicate the tires are not involved in the initial impact. Page 7.12a is submitted for inserting into the application. d) A clarification of the specific tests performed for each 1 package and the results of acceptance testing evaluation I'N for each package. V.

RESPONSE

Section 7.3.2.2, page 7.8 states that "... hypothetical accident conditions were applied sequentially to determine their cumulative effect upon GAMMATRONS." The tests were accomplished precisely as described in 7.3.2.2. No significant changes in shielding effectiveness occurred as a result of tests. Pa ge s 7.16 a, ' 7.' 17 a', and 7.18a have been revised to add actual test data for both the thick and thin housings. It should be noted that no significant change in shielding ef fective-ness occurred in any test. All' impact and puncture tests were well within acceptable test criteria of 1,000 mrem /hr. @ 3ft. (NOTE: To gain a higher confidence level, additional drop tests were made. The RETROFIT lock box guard was also tested. None of these tests showed sign-ificant changes in shielding effectiveness.) /~% ( )

i I 1 l (~ l ( j) 3. Provide appropriate identification and description of each package for which certification is requested. This should include all pertinent safety features, including the following: RESPONSE: Appendix C contains a Bill of Material and drawings which describe the model C-8 assembly. Section

0. 2. 2.2 is a " Description of Gammatron ' Source Ex-changer Model C-8." Safety features are included in the description.

Appendix C contains a Bill of Materials and drawings which describe the Models 100, 100A, 200, and 200A. Section 0.2.2.1 is a " Description of Models 20, 20A, 50, 50A, 100, 100A, 200, and 200A." Safety features are included in the description. Appendix C contians a Bill oj[ Materials and drawings which describe.the Models 20, 20A,.50, and 50A. Section 0.2.2.1 is a " Description of Models 20, 20A, 50, 50A, 100, 100A, 200 and 200A." Safety features are included in the description. a) Drawings to describe the Model C-8.

RESPONSE

Appendix C contains a Bill of Materials and drawings (~) which describe the Model C-8. An additional drawing \\ 2-is included for inserting into Appendix C. b) Drawings.to describe an assembly with a thinner wall, if applicable. RESPCISE: There would be no difference in the GAMMATRONS ex-cept housing wall thickness. For this reason, no separate drawings were deemed necessary. c)~ Meth'od of assembly e.g., welding sizes / type: As shown on the drawings,

RESPONSE

Full penetration welds are used on the housing and j end covers. All other welds are fillet welds having sufficient throat thickness to develop throngth equal to or greater than the :aetals being joined. d) Density of polyurethane foam;

RESPONSE

Foam density on older models was 1 to 1.5 pounds per cubic foot. Foam density on GAMMATRONS manufactured af ter November 1,1978 will use foam having density 6 pounds per cubic foot. 'x >

r.. .r I i -t i -(e) Optional.' strap bolting-(Dwg.- 101.7001-005)

1. RESPONSE:

This'is a=part. number designated to be a 3/8 NC16 .@ 1.5 inches. (f) Drawings: 801-1001-408 801-1001-410 801-1001-411 801-1001-412 801-1001-413

RESPONSE

Copies of these' drawings are included for inserting into Appendix C of the application, Please let me know if additional information is required for your favorable review. Sincerely yours, GAMMA INDUSTRIES .J - J, - - O. """'9"9 O

=f v -1.6a- ~Re: Mr.1Mac. Donald's..l'etter dated September'15, 1978 1. Provide.an evaluation of the;packagings for the lifting _and tie- -down requirements of : ca. - 10 CFR 71.31(c) (1) '/ Structural-part of the package shall be capable of supporting. -three times the' weight of the loaded package without generating' cbress in any material of the package in excess of its yield _1 strength. q t I (1.) A selection of two lifting arrangements may be used: (a) One has two lifting eyes,fas.shown on drawing 180-01. 1)) Assume only one eye might be used as the worst case. 'l 2)) The' maximum weight of any 'Gammatron is 500#. 3)) Maximum load would be 3x500=1.5 Kips. 4))J ELSC Manual of Steel Construction rates these bolts at 8.14 Kips. j CONCLUSION: A single eye bolt (even though two are provided) having rated value 8.14 Kips can withstand a load of 1.5 Kips. (b) One selection has-a handle as shown on drawing 821'1001 128. j This could be used for lifting. This handle'is welded to the housing with 4 bars having section dimensions 1/4"x 1". 1)) Assume only one bar ndght be used to ' lift the Gammatron. - 2)) The maximum weight'of any Gammatron is f>00#, ( ), 3)) Maximum load would be 3x500= 1.5 Kips. 4)) A = Area to withstand load A = LxW L = Bar length, in. W = Bar width, in. A = 1.0 x 0.25 = 0.25 in.2 5)) Material used is mild steel' 2 6)) Mild steel has yield strength of 60 Kips /in, E S=A P = Load, # 2 A = Area, in 2 S = 1.5 = 6 Kips /in .25 CONCLUSION: A single bar (even though four are provided)having yield strength 60 Kips /in2'can withstand the' load 6 Kips /in.2, t ( 7. ') The eye. bolt or the handle would obviously be the proper items for lifting - howeverJ-someone may choose to lift the GAMMATRON by some -other;part: -D ; V 4

) J 't j Re: ,Mr. MacDon'ald's letter dated September 15, 1978 i Item No. 12-180-04 on dwg 180-01 or l Item No. 14;on dwg 821-1001-128 or Item No. 15 on dwg' 821-1001-129 might be used even though it would be most inconvenient. This part 2 'is made of mild steel with area 1/2" x 1/2" = 0.25 in, 2 S = P = 1.5'= 6 Kips /in-A' .25 2 can with-CONCLUSION: These' iteh:a having yic1d strength 60 Kips /in 2 stand the load 6 Kips /in, ( 3.) Wheel axles are used on all GAMMATRONS. The 1" diameter io the 1 east rugged part of the axLd. assembly. Assume only one axle might be a lifting device: Area =wd = ' m(l') 2 = 0. 78 54 in2 4 4 S = P = 1.5 = 2 Ips/in. A' .7854 2 CONCLUSION: A single axle having yield strength 80 Kips /in can with-2 stand the load 1.9 Kips /in, O-( 4.) The handle, item 6-180-05 dwg. 180-01 might be used as a lifting device. This is secunxi to' the housing with two 3/4" x 3/4" square bars. Area =.75 x.75 = 0.56 in2 2 bars required; effective A <= 2 x.56 = 1.12 P 1.5 2 S = A = 1.12 = 1.34 Kips /in CONCLUSION: The mounting bars having yield strength 60 Kips /in2 can 2 a - withstand the load 1.34 Kips /in at the attachment to the housing. -( 5. ) Items 6-180-05 dwg. 180-01 are reduced to 3/4" diameter for in-serting into the tubular handle, Item No. 6-180-05 dwg. 180-01. i Two insertions are used. Area = nd2 3.14 x.752 =.44 in2 4 4 Two are used giving effective area 2 x W=.88 in2 S = P = 1.5 - 1.7 Kips /in2 '(q A .88 _/'

k -1.6c-Re: 'Mr. MacDonald's11etter dated September. 15, 1978 k-CONCLUSION: The reduced section of the mounting bars having yield 2 an withstand the load 1.7 Kips /in, 2 strength 60 Kips /in c (6.) Items 6'180-05 dwg. 180-01 have additional area reduction to accommodate a 1/4" diameter bolt. The area for with-standing stress now becomes: A = nd2 - drilled area 4 Effective area = Ux.752 .75 x.25 = 0.25 in2 4 2 S = P = 1.5 = 6 Kips /in A .25, CONCLUSION: The mounting bar section at the drilled hole, having 2 2 yield strength 60 Kips /in, can withstand the load 6 Kips / in, ( 7.) The handle Item No. 6-180-05 dwg.'180-Ol should not but might be. ) used as a lifting device. It is f abricated of 1" diameter tubing having 1/8" wall thickness. Area = ncf, - md3 di.-= outside diameter j 4 4' d2 = inside diameter A = W12 - U.752 =.35 in2 4 4 i Any attempt to lift the GAMMATRON with the handle would develop i stress in both sides of the handle, developing stress in 2 cross 2 section areas - effective area = 2 x' O. 35 .70 in, 2 S = P = 1.5 = 2.1 Kips /in A .70 CONCLUSION: The handle having yield strength 60 Kips /in can withstand 2 the load 2.1 Kips /in ( 8.) The ' handle is attached to the mounting bar with 1/4" diameter bolts. A'1/4" diameter hole must be drilled through the tWbing to receive the bolt, thereby decreasing the effective section j area. Two areas would withstand the load. 2 2 A = 2 x [ (Ed - Ud ) -2 (Drill diam. x Tube Thickness)) l 4' 4 O w

l l

4 a -1.6d- 'Re: Mr. MacDonald's letter dated September 15, 1978 2 2 A = 2 x ' I( Ul*- ' W. 75 ) -2 (. 25 x.125) ) =. 565/in '4 4 S =.P = 1.5.- 2.65 Kips /in A .565' The rgduced section of the tubular handle, hgving yield CONCLUSION: -strength 60 Kips /in,. would withstand the load 245 Kips /in. b. 10 CFR 71.31 (c). (2) - not applicable c. 10 CFR 71.31-(c) (3) - not applicable d. 10 CFR 71.31 (c) (4) - Each device that might be used as a lifting. device is attached to the GAMMATRON in such manner that failure of .of the lifting device would not exert a stress in the GAMMATRON housing as. great as thatLin the lifting device. The loads are-distributed into the housings with weld fillets in such manner that larger are'as and resulting lower stress occur in the housing. No lifting device is related to shielding or operations of the GAM-MATRON. e. 10 CFR 71.31 (d) (1) - GA}&ATRONS have been shipped by land, sea, and air. In shipments observed, GAMMATRONS are crated or attached /'T to skids and loaded onto trucks, boats, barges or ships, or air- \\/ planes. Permissible floor loading on aircraft would preclude loading without a' skid mount. Reality notwithstanding, the following tie-dcan arrangements are analyzed: ll Only the eye-bolts or the handle (part No. 801-1001-283) could be anticipated for use as tie-down devices. Each of these will il be separately considered as a tie-down device. (1) -Design considerations specified in 10 CFR 71.31 (d) (1) : (a) Load to be applied to the center of gravity. ' j (b) Yield stress of components to be used with no factor - of safety. apecified. (c) Static load applied to.C.G. to be: 1)). Fx = 10 x GAMMATRON Weight = 10 x 500 = 5,000 # 'j 2)) Fy = 2 x GAMMATRON Weight = 2 x 500 - 1,000 #

3) )

Fz ' = 5 x GAMMATRON Weight -= 5 x 500 = 2,500 # (2) Refer to Case 1 Tie-Down, page -1.6 - 9 Upon apply'ng the required load to the GAMMATRON center of 'I gravity, the device will ' move in the direction of the load - since there is no restraint except at.the eye-bolt or handle. This will appre ;h a configuration to apply a tensile load ~ on the 's? ing - and. eye-bolt or handle. () l .i, .t 4 +

s -1.6e-Re: Mr. MacDor.ald's letter dated September 15, 1978 i .q k/ For maximum stresses, assume the three loads are applied simul-taneously. Fx + Fy2 + 732 F = T T = \\f 1,0002 + 5,0002 + 2,5002 = 5,679#/in F or 5.679 Kips Eye-bolt specifications: Material - 1035 carbon steel quenched and tempered 69,000 p.s.i. yield strength Application of F as a tensile load would provide strese ? 7 S = P = 5.679 - 18.51 Kips A .3068 CONCLUSION: The eye-bolt can withstand the 18.51 Kip load since yield strength is 69,000 p.s.i. Case 1 - Handle Tie-Down (Part No. 801-1001-283) Handle specifications: Material - mild steel ps i ). 60,000 p.s.i. yield strength v (a) Application of F as a tensile load would provide stress; T S = P = 5.769 = 5.769 Kips /in 2 CONCLUSION: The handle can withstand the 5.769 Kips /in load since yield strength is 60,000 p.s.i. (3) Refer to Case 2 Tie-Down, page -1.6g-In this case, movement in the x direction is constrained by a 4" x 4" (assumed incompressible) block which is secured to the floor or deck. (Assume the inflated tires are regid to permit identifying a fulcrum.) The block will attempt to prevent motion in the x direction and establish a fulcrum at the point indicated. Summation of moments to determine sling tension and corresponding i load on the eye-bolt or handle follows: j{M = (Vector Sum Fx + Fz) 9.5" - Fy x 6" - Tsling

  • 17" e

,S = (N 52 + 2.5 ) 9.5" - (1.5 (4) -T x 17" 2 ) sling i

? .e -1.6f-Re: 'Mr.' MacDonald's letter' dated September 15, 1978 (Q) : o gying[= 2.'77 Kips which is also the load' on the eye-bolt or handle T Eye-bolt Tie-Down S = P_ = 2 77 = 6.'52' Kips /in2 'A .3063 CONCLUSION: The. eye-bolt will withstand the 6.52 kips /in2. load since its yield strength is 69,000 p.s.i. Handle Tie-Down S = P = 2.77 = 2.77 Kips /in A 41(Q Ch 2 CONCLUSION: The handle will withstand the 2.77 Kips /in load since its yield strength is 60,000 p.s.i. (~h. s_- I I ) i Q.

-1.6g- - 8 4 i \\ b SLING COULD BE TIED TO EYEBOLT ~ O R HANDLE / i C.G. ) F = s.es Kips 7 ,/, 3 FLOOR I OR O DECK q f f f ANCHOR l TIE DOWN CASE 1 (D V SLING COULD BE TIED TO EYEBOLT O R HANDL E / 'N - 'h Fx i Fg = 5.59 Ki ps C.G. 3' 98 O FULCRUM FLOO R xFy= N/ D0$K

  1. s 2.

9 g 4x ' BLOCKY ANCHOR + 6' + TIE DOWN gO CASE 2

-7.5a-i.

i I..I'I Re: Mr..MacDonald's' letter dated September 15, 1978 \\_/- t '2. Revise the application to show packaging compliance with the require-i ments in 10 CFR 71.35 for the hypothetical accident 30' free drop and puncture test by including the following: 1 a) Justification for not testing all packaging models: j Section 7.3 Testing Protocol, page 7.5, states..." Shielding 2 i Integrity-two model 200 GAMMATRONS were tested. These were selected be-I j cause of their heaviest weight - assuming this would cause the most damage." i It seems reasonable that 500 pounds-gross weight containing 350 pounds of ' uranium would more likely cause impact and penetration damage e than 325 pounds gross weight containing 210 pounds of uranium. No other differences are deemed significant relative to. damage during the tests. ('T 1 V i i f i J t 'd I l 4 ?

-7.10 a- ' l ,~ Re: Mr. MacDanald's letter dated Septenber 15, 1978 ] O 2. b) Justification for the tests in the appropriate attitudes to the j exclusion of other attitudes; 10 CFR 71 appendix B states: 1. Free Drop..., striking the surfach in a position for which maxinun damage is expected." I It is believed that noximum effect upon shielding integrity will occur as a result of moving the source assably relative to the uranium j shield. This will most likely result from danage to the lock box which determines the source assembly' location. If the lock box were (1) dam-aged to release the source or (2) if the lock box were to be knocked off j the housing, the source assembly could be rerroved frcm the optinium shielding location and cause excessive external radiation. For this i release the drop attitude was selected for the lock box area to become Q L the initial impact point. The drop upon the 6" pin fram 40 inches could not possibly inflict ) as severe damage as the 30 foot drop upon the lock box guard. Therefore, it was determincd to drop the GAMMATRONS upon the area which might be ruptured by the 6" pin. This attitude is shoan on page 7.14. ] l There is possible only a relatively small movanent of the uranium i a shield within the housing because the cavity within the housing is al-l most filled by the casting and supporting structures. Sin the source assembly is fixed in position by the lock box the source will not be l l significantly renovcd from the optimum position by limited uranium move-j ment likely to occur during impact ard penetration tests. ) O V 10 CFR 71.36 (a) (1) states that the package shall be so designed and 1 construcwd and its contents so limited that if subjected to hypothetical l 1 w

] c. -7.10b-Re: Mr. MacDonald'sTletter dated September 15, 1978 ~ accident conditions that' the redbetion of shielding would not be sufficent to increase external radiation dose to more than 1,000 mrem /hr. at 3 feet from the external surface of the package. This situation is confirmed by radiation profiles measured before and'after-tests as recorded in. Chapter 7.0, pages 7.15, 7.16, 7.17, and 7.18. In no case does the external radiation at three feet from the surface exceed 11 mrem /hr. while'the permissible limit i is 1,000 mrem /hr. .It is believed that all requiremente of 10 CFR oppendix B were - fulfilled by the drop indicated on page 7.14 and the top of page () 7.13. To attain a higher confidence level, additional drops were made with the attitude shown on the bottom of page 7.13. A test model having the thick shell was tested. A test model having the thin shell was tested even though it is not anticipated these will ever again be manufactured. f CONCLUSION: There was no displacement, in any test, of the (1) lock box, (2) source assembly, or (3) uranium shield which caused radiation to exceed 11 mrem /hr compared to permissible 1,000 mrem /hr. This is deemed adequate proof of the tests. 1 i

Ik ~ -7.12a-Fe: Mr. MacDonald's letter dated September 15, 1978 l\\ V . Justification for including the inflated tires, which act as . c)- ( 2. inpact mitigations; It is the understading by Ganma Irdustries personnel that devices are to be tested in the form that would be existing during transportation. For this reason the tires and all attadiments were intact as the tests were initiated. The' application does not claim the inflated tires, wheels, or any other attachnent would mitigate against the maximnn impact. i As shcwn upon pages 7.13 and 7.14 the inflated tires were not the initial JJapact location. O O

_ Typical GNC1ATRON Rad,iation Profileb Measurements made with 34 Ci CO-60 Data recorded as extrapolated to 2b0 Ci Co-60 All data expressed in mr/Hr Measurements made a 3 ft. from surface Before Drop Tests 5-1 Side View S-1 S-2 S-3 5-4 E-- 5, S-6 S-7 S-8 3-8 /S. 2 lE /% Thick Hcusing 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.6 3.6 k _.8 4 " ~/,3-3 Thiniiousing 2.8

2. 8 2.9 3.1 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.2 I

v v, X? f F-1 b S-6l S-4 F-8'! 6 S-5 s F-2 l Front View F-l'

  • F-2 F-3 F-4 F-5 F-6 F-7 F-8
Y' Ee lC F-7 F-3

~ G Thick Fausing 3.0 2.7 1.5 2.4 3.3 3.0 2.4 1.8 i{g 1; o - L. ! i Thin Housing 2.8 2.5 1.8 2.3 34 3.1; 2.6 1.9 ,f i 7 F-6 F-4 { \\ bP-1 P-8 P-2 CH Plan View. P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 ~ P-8 rgi L Thir:k Housing 3.0 3.0 2.4 1.8 2.1 2.4 1.8 1.2 fif b,7 li PJ -p-)- - Py ' 1 l i t Thin Housing 2.9 2.4 1.8 3.0 3.8 2.9 2.6 2.7 P-4 P-6 0 . P-o. i + O O O ,e

~ L) Typ' heal A ' GAMMATRON Radiation Profiles * -:. -J t; Measurements made with 34.Ci C0-60 Data recorded as extrapolated to'200 Ci Co-60 All data expressed in mr/Hr Me'asurements made a 3 ft. from surface After 30 ft. Grop Test f 5-1 S-8 --side View S-1 s-2 s-3 s-4 s-5 s-6 s-7 s-8 -2 Thick. Housing 1.8 1.5 3.0 2.4 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.1 e hl / 5-3' Thin Housing 2.0 2.6 3.2 2.5 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.3 P-5 P F-1 U .S-4 S-6lS-5 .= -. F-8 o ~ F-2 l -Front View ' F-l' F-2 F-3 F-4 F-5 F-6 F ^# F-8 lf'D2$ b['-]-r--e F F-3 Thick Housing 1.8 1.2 1.8 1.5 2.4 0.9 0.9 1.2 0 ,~ - 1l Thin Housing 2.0 2.4 3.1 2.8 2.1 1.6, 1.2 1.2 _H I F-6 F-4 ~ \\ bp-1 P-8 P-2 b Plan View P-1 P-2 F-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 L 'Ihick Housing 3.0 -0.9 1 1.8 4.2 2.1 3.0 1.8 P-3 s r c 'Ihin Housing. .2 2.9 3.1 2.8 2.6 1.7 1.2 1.6 u P-4 P-6 o i P-5. L-

f^s sm p/ g tal L) -u GAMMATRCN Radiation Profiles Measurement!s made with 34 Ci CO-60 Data recorded as extrapolate'd to 20.0 'Ci Co-60 All daba expressed in mr/Hr Measurements made a 3 ft.'from surface 4 Aftef 40-inch-Drop Onto Steel Pin 5_ ). Side-View S-1 S-2 5-3 bbl .S-5 S-6 5-7 S-8 b'O -2 Thick Housing. 2.4 3.0 3.0 2.4 1.8 2.7 3.0 3.9 5-7 Thin Housing 2.6 2.9 3.1 2.6 2.4 2.9 3.2 3.3 ~~N,- 5_3 0 S-6 I 5-4 sF-8 7 6 S-5 cr F-2 / l .a Front View F-1 F-2 F-3 F-4 F-5 F-6 F-7 F-8 Thick fiousing 1.8 1.2 0.9 0.9 3.0 1.8 2.1 2.1 0-ej.=L M -3 _ F N Thin Housing 2.6 1.6 1.9 1.7 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.5 - 'd F-6 F-4 0F-5 N -l- \\ bP-1 i P-8 P-2 Plan View P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 ,) p!-I-g 0 Thick Housing 3.6 1.2 0.9 1.5' 2.4 1.8 3.0 2.4 P~3 i -_-c Thin Housing 3.1 2.5 1.9 2.6 3'. 2 2.8! 2.3 2.2 P-4 P-6 o-P-5 i N

m ~ O O o A 7h R I 3 4 / Y 7 'N _I ' + 4 ~ 5 -x z; GAV V A N JU S-R E S B.R. LA. [C.S. PL ATE (455 -7007-1021 "c^* P2 : I ^ " " " " " " KPH o"^*" "v o^m 1 l- 01 -7 8 arviero , GUARD GUSSET 20 20A,50 EOA I "^*'" """"'" G A MM A T RO N lod,tOOA,2OO,2OOA 80HOOL - 4 I 3

4h QD.,3 k LD. Zf -= x 1 d x I C.S. PIPE GAVVA IN JUS ~~7 ES B.R.,LA. %:I ca^wn av ' K R H ^""" v5 "v' Sc^t r 10 7 8

DATE, arviero

' LOCK BOX GUARD 20,2OA,50,5OA t GAMMLATanM g'"gy""'" y

p,_ g , _:. = - '- _; -~ ~ - --~ C U O 'CU T TO 'FI-T I-: 1.0. O F CA N / d 4 4.50 DI A. 4 C.S PE, SC HEDULE 40 MMVA N IS~~ R S & R. u. (455-7003-0141 ~ . cur. y2 ' I ^""""' "" oa^w" av KRH o u r- . l- 01 -7 8 navisto SH,lELD SUPPORT PART 1 A l DRAWING NUMBER G AMM A TRON 20,2O A,50 SOA gog. tool _4 tl

a n. r O O o l '/ / / b ,/ -<-2h FO R _ + MODELS / 20,20A,50,50 A' { 3, 'FO R / j MODELS IOO,100A,2OO. -8R 2OOA I +} - 2 GA V M A IN JUS TR E S B. R. LA. . cit.r> NONE ^ " " ' ' ' " ' *- "^*" =v ~ K R H f,C.S. P L AT E (4 5 5 -700 7-102) 1l-01-7 8 ~ ou=> SHIELD SIDE SUPPORT PART 2 G A M M A TRON 20,20 A,50,50 A =a^ = = =ra SOPIOOI-410 l 006IOOA.2OO. 200A

C 1 2 CU T TO F1T 1.D. OF ' CAN / t 4 6.6 2 5' D 1 A. 4' =--- 6'C.S. PI P E, S CH. 4 0 GAMV A IS JUS-~RI ES B.R. LA. .260 WALL SCALES

  • l APPROVED BY KRH DRAWN BY (455-7003-017) oArz: I l 7 8 Revicco SHIELD SIDE SUPPORT PART IB DTsAWING NUMBER

.a GA M MA T[20Ni-- IO(dt LOMA \\ -. PXoYdt '2 OfdA-------- >evat scuu le oA--

p---..---_-- i t \\', { J 13' --e L _] A LOCK 80X c.,z s ... - f 1 I i -- A E Ek g% -._ -.- - ag i l I I t ,1_,_.----------- -- E jf .S. PL AT. C -A -e%. q D7Q _sgc23p3 A.A CHANNEt 4*X54e k-I 1

y y b ', / 8 'h k /- ,~.._..___.-.--.---23j--- --...- ~ -~' k s ~ s-i / 4 i / / //--GUA R D GUSS E l S LOCKBCX-S01-1001-413 CUARD / / 6011006 212 \\ l ......h, .N g i I '7 f/ I k,ptAit s\\ f cusseT.m ~ /- / -[L. / _O_ 'y . :; :-{g ? - ~~ - f. - - -. :. w ,g_

.a.

f i .i / s e l l 4' \\ i i l 1, gag .u'. ..t .v -- 5 Tif f E N E F1 3}[X ka' PL Al E ( /- 4L CD t e n u s si GAMM A INDU STRIE S B.R.L A. .. ~..... M,f [.l. 4.~ -~ -- ~x n~ ~ ~ ~ - 5it .,... i i. o 2 _ y e GAMMATRON MODEL C-6 S21- 0 01-033 ( q-G% 1

t: 4h / i J 1 MAT'L: C. S. PL AT E - 1/4 455-7007-002 i 193$1 PMINTRO ONsec. 100064CLE A R Palpry

= .) 7h l 1 'd . JL S~R ES B.R., LA. \\ GAVVA KJR ^ " " " " " o a^* " = < V2 . cur, nuiuo one Il-18-77 SHIELD SIDE SUPPORT IOO,100A,2OO.,2OO A-gi^l*_'"$hy_" "O8

71 Dhm M"MUW UNITED STATES 4,

  • $c

--' t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ! -- ) 1 o REGION lll 799 ROOSEVELT RoAO <%..,p NOV 8 1978 GLEN E LLYN, ILLINots 60137 St. John's Mercy Medical Center License No. 24-00794-03 ATTN: Sister Mary Angelique Foto, R.S.M. Vice President 615 South New Ballas Road St. Louis, MO 63141 L tr Sister Mary Angelique: Thank you for your let ter dated October 11, 1978, informing us of the steps you have taken to correct the noncompliance identified in our letter dated September 26, 1978. We will examine your cor-rective action during a future inspection. Your cooperation with us is appreciated. j Sincerely, A. B. Davis, Chief Fuel Facility and j Materials Safety Branch cc: Douglas R. Lilly, M.D. George D. Oliver, Ph.D., RSO Central Files Reproduction Unit NRC 20b j PDR NSIC 161121014'4 ) -}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20197C614&oldid=4107524"