SAFKEG-LS – DEVELOPMENT AND LICENSING OF A SMALL 6M REPLACEMENT PACKAGE

Year
2013
Author(s)
Sarah Marshall - Croft Associates Ltd
RA Vaughan - Croft Associates Ltd
File Attachment
424.pdf725.49 KB
Abstract
In 2007 the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR) contracted with Croft to develop two Type B packages in accordance with 10CFR71 [1]. These packages were required to serve the medical, research and industrial isotope market and to replace the 6M and 20 WC DOT Spec packages in use by MURR at that time. This paper details the development of the smaller, lightly shielded package – the Croft Safkeg-LS – which is to replace the DOT 6M package. The larger, heavily shielded package – the Croft Safkeg-HS – which is to replace the DOT 20WC package is currently at the SAR review stage. The paper covers development to a very tight specification, prototype manufacture, testing under low temperature conditions, data collection for stress analysis and stress analysis to support the test program. The paper also covers the process of developing the design expressly to facilitate approval by the NRC. The process of discussing options with the NRC to determine the most prudent approach to design of specific details, and approaches to be included in the SARP preparation is also covered. The benefits of preparation before SARP submission are given, and the speedy process of SARP review that resulted is described. Croft decided to have the Safkeg-LS manufactured in the USA by CHT, NC. Planning for manufacture included review of Croft’s Quality Management System (QMS) by the NRC – this presented particular challenges (which are covered) as Croft’s ISO 9001 QMS did not cover certain issues required by the NRC – issues not detailed in 10CFR71 Subpart H on Quality Assurance (QA) – these issues are covered by the paper. The paper also covers the issues that arose in the manufacture of the production packages, NRC QA inspections of manufacture, and how these issues were managed with respect to the licensing process. The total time for development, licensing and supply of packages is given, which despite the relatively short licensing time was 5 years: comments are made on how this process can be accelerated.