[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Type A transport containers



Thanks for all the info so far. Some more more
important info about the source and container.  The
source is special form (296GBq) and is surrounded by a
stainless steel sheat at the centre of the shielding.
The container is also used for storage when the source
is used at temporary work sites.  The TI is 3.0. The
cost of each container is in the region of $1500. 
This particular container is 6 years old.  

--- Glen.Vickers@ucm.com wrote:
> Some companies will supply documentation showing the
> packages passed all of
> the required tests.  As an example, the DOT Type A
> casks that used to fall
> under the NRC, now come with a binder of about 200
> pages which demonstrate
> compliance.  There is absolutely no way a cask user
> is going to attempt the
> DOT tests.
> 
> A company which provides good documentation is
> Skolnik.  We use their 10,
> 30, 55, and 85 gallon drums.  Their documentation
> describes the applicable
> tests and provides the results.  They also provide
> good detail as to what
> the shipper's responsibilities are with respect to
> using the package within
> the design specifications.  I believe their drums
> run from $25-45.  This
> seems inexpensive when you consider what you're
> getting.  I've seen some of
> these fancy box packagings for hazardous materials
> and I don't believe the
> costs are any better.
> 
> If the company does not have the documentation to
> certify that a package can
> meet the Type A tests, then I'd look for another
> supplier.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Glen Vickers
> glen.vickers@ucm.com
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Jerry Wiza [SMTP:ramservices@lsol.net]
> > Sent:	Wednesday, May 24, 2000 8:56 AM
> > To:	Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject:	Re: Type A transport containers
> > 
> > One additional practical point to take into
> consideration.  When we had a
> > container tested for Type-A certification by a
> commercial vendor, they
> > required 10 prototypes of each container.  This
> included not only the
> > package, but as Mr. Lipton notes, simulated
> contents as well.  We
> > concocted
> > simulated lab trash - pipette tips, tubes, petri
> dishes, etc., and this
> > proved the real expense for the test.  While the
> Type-A tests for solids
> > are
> > not terribly stressful on the package, we also had
> containers tested for
> > liquids.  These tests will generally not leave the
> packaging in re-usable
> > condition (they require a Type-B drop test).
> > 
> > Also note that the back of the IATA guide contains
> a global listing of
> > testing laboratories qualified to perform testing
> to IATA specs.
> > 
> > Don Jordan
> > RAM Services, Inc.
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Don Edling <dedling@home.com>
> > To: Multiple recipients of list
> <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 10:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: Type A transport containers
> > 
> > 
> > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> > > --------------D608F563AF51287758E4B31C
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > >
> > > First a brief summary of my background:
> > >
> > > I initiated the DOE's Type A testing program in
> 1975 (at Mound Lab.),
> > > conducted all of the DOE's Type A testing for
> the next 22 years and
> > > published the Type A packaging catalogs (the
> "Red Book") until I retired
> > > and the program went to Hanford. Thus, I know as
> much about Type A
> > > packaging testing and certification as anyone in
> the world.
> > >
> > > Response to your questions:
> > >
> > > Without further information it is difficult to
> answer your questions,
> > > but, I will generalize for a bit. Within the
> next week I will respond in
> > > more detail.
> > >
> > > Question: Is it possible to repair Type A
> transport containers?
> > > Response: "Yes" at times.
> > >
> > > Question: Is it possible to repair Type A
> transport containers
> > >   (drums)that have small rust holes in them.
> > > Response: From a practical standpoint, "No."
> > >
> > > Question: Would the container have to be
> re-certified?
> > > Response: "Yes"
> > >   Discussion: This re-certification could be by
> any of the means
> > >       given in 173.461 - prototype testing,
> actual
> > >       testing, testing of models, reference to
> similar
> > >       testing, calculations, etc. And, this
> > >       must be documented and made part of the
> > >       documentation required per 173.415(a).
> > >
> > >       The difficult part to address in this
> > >       re-certification would be, "What is the
> condition
> > >       of the rest of the drum, the parts that
> have not
> > >       rusted through as yet?" And, "How do I
> know!!"
> > >       Plus the obvious question, "How do I know
> my
> > >       repairs to the "rusted" areas are as
> strong as the
> > >       original steel?"
> > >
> > >             Remember, when one introduces this
> "refurbished"
> > >       or any Type A package into commerce, as
> the
> > >       shipper, one is saying that "It meets or
> exceeds
> > >       the ability of the original test package
> to comply
> > >       with the DOT Type A performance
> requirements!"
> > >
> > >       The shipper has to be able to logically
> defend the
> > >       above position/statement. Try convincing a
> > >       concerned person from the public, an
> inspector
> > >       from the DOT or the NRC or the State or
> the DOE
> > >       that a rusty, patched-up steel drum is as
> good as
> > >       the new drum/package and would perform as
> well in
> > >       actual testing.
> > >
> > >       The fact that the epoxy resin might not
> spill out
> > >       is not of any significance. One would have
> to be
> > >       concerned abut water getting into the drum
> and
> > >       corroding the steel from the inside -
> undetected
> > >       until a hole opens.
> > >
> > > Other information of interest - the type of drum
> closure, is the AmBe
> > > source certified as Special Form, how old are
> these packagings?
> > >
> > > Just some thoughts, but I think it will be
> cheaper to buy new packagings
> > > than to try fix & patch & re-certify. As long as
> you did this work in
> > > compliance with the intent of the DOT
> regulations.
> > >
> > > Don Edling
> > > CROFT Inc.
> > >
> > > andrew neil wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear radsafers,
> > > >
> > > > Is it possible to repair Type A transport
> containers
> > > > that have small rust holes in them.  Would the
> > > > container have to be re-certified.
> > > >
> > > > The container was puchased from a vendor who
> certified
> > > > it as a Type A transport container.  The
> container is
> > > > cylindrical in shape and measures 21"x19"x19".
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html