Re[2]: Certification of Type A Packages

[<L691731@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>]

I know no physical/mechanical reason why your proposal would not work
for demonstrating the required level of package integrity. I have never
seen a regulatory opinion on the idea, but I know that others have done
it in their test programs. Our radwaste broker supplied us with drum
testing data which we could use to support calling our 55 gal. drums 7A
Type A. As I indicated in a previous message, we performed the tests
ourselves anyhow because we weren't satisfied that the generic test
results could be applied to the way we intended to use the package. The
pressure test portion of the supplied data looked good and was done
generally in the manner you suggest. The company that did it was:

Nuclear Sources and Services, Inc., 5711 Etheridge, PO Box 34042,
Houston Texas 77234, (713) 641-0391. You might ask them about their
experience defending the approach to regulators.

Steven Souza, Lockheed Missles and Space Co., Inc.
Alternate Radiation Safety Officer    tel (408) 742-0767
Sunnyvale, CA 94089                   fax (408) 742-0611
PROFS: SSOUZA  Internet: L691731@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
Received: from eagle.lmsc.lockheed.com by LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
   (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Wed, 29 Jun 94 10:11:13 PDT
Received: from vixen.cso.uiuc.edu by eagle.lmsc.lockheed.com
 (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3)
	id AA14301; Wed, 29 Jun 1994 10:08:38 -0700
Received: from romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu by vixen.cso.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA16456
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5); Wed, 29 Jun 1994 12:05:30 -0500
Received: by romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (NX5.67d/NeXT-2.0)
	id AA15889; Wed, 29 Jun 94 12:04:20 -0500
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 94 12:04:20 -0500
Message-Id: <9405297729.AA772908119@ccmail.orst.edu>
Errors-To: mandel@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Originator: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Sender: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: forrere@ccmail.orst.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re[2]: Certification of Type A Packages
X-Listserver-Version: 6.0 -- UNIX ListServer by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Radiation Safety Distribution List


          This may seem like a very basic question, but, what would
          the difference be between putting a container inside a
          chamber and dropping the pressure or putting a valve on the
          container and increasing the pressure inside.  It seems to
          me the test is to determine if the container can withstand a
          certain pressure differential not necessarily a specific
          internal reduced pressure.  Correct me if I am wrong, and I
          often am, but won't a pressure differential of ten pounds
          (random number) have the same effect whether you have
          atmospheric pressure on the outside and an increased
          pressure on the inside or atmospheric on the inside and some
          reduced pressure on the outside.  I thought that a good way
          to test steel drums would be to install an automotive wheel
          stem valve on the lid and pressurize it.  You could easily
          check the pressure and monitor any decreases in the
          pressure.  Has, can and should it be tried?  Why?  Why not?

          Gene Forrer