Document: NRC Regulatory Guide
Document ID: a4944d20-ef6e-480b-a45d-14425bedd2e5
Document Type: regulatory_guide
Title: ASME Code Cases Not Approved for Use (Rev. 8)
Source: NRC Regulatory Guide Division 1
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2219/ML22196A065.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-05
Chapter: 
Section ID: RG-1.193
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
9 only applies to one U.S. Department of Energy aluminum vessel. Annulled 2/3/03 N-595 N-595-1 N-595-2 N-595-3 N-595-4 Requirements for Spent Fuel Storage Canisters, Section III, Division 1 Regulatory approval for the use of multipurpose casks is presently addressed by Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation (SFST) Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) 4, “Cask Closure Weld Inspections,” Revision 1 (Ref. 12), and SFST-ISG-18, “The Design and Testing of Lid Welds on Austenitic Stainless Steel Canisters as the Containment Boundary for Spent Fuel 2/26/99 9/24/99 12/8/00 4/8/02 Annulled 10/14/11 DG-1408, Page 25 CODE CASE NUMBER TABLE 4 ANNULLED OR SUPERSEDED UNACCEPTABLE SECTION III CODE CASE ANNULLMENT / REVISION DATE Storage,” Revision 1 (Ref. 13). The ISGs provide a framework to ensure that the as-designed cask system, when fabricated and used in accordance with the conditions specified in its Certificate of Compliance, meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 72, “Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C Waste” (Ref. 14). Note that Code Case N-717 replaces Code Case N-595-X. N-645 N-645-1 Use of Rupture Disk Devices on Nuclear Fuel Storage Canisters, Class 1, Section III, Division 1 The NRC does not permit the use of rupture disk devices in spent nuclear fuel storage canister designs. 6/14/00 2/3/03 Annulled 2/9/15 N-659 N-659-1 Use of Ultrasonic Examination in Lieu of Radiography for Weld Examination, Section III, Division 1 The NRC conditionally approved Code Case N-659 in Revision 34 of Regulatory Guide 1.84. The NRC’s issues and proposed conditions were discussed in the statement of considerations for the proposed rule. The public comments discussed a number of concerns with the proposed conditions. Because of the number of issues raised by the NRC staff and because of the concerns expressed in the public comments, the NRC determined that a more effective