ML19269C558
| ML19269C558 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/24/1979 |
| From: | Ryan R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Greenberg P CALIFORNIA, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19261A683 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902060044 | |
| Download: ML19269C558 (274) | |
Text
-
- [.Y.*
UNITED STATES
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
[
< I o
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 i h xw I, lE 4'b~/
JAN 2 41979 Mr. Phillip A. Greenberg Special Consultant California-Resources Agency' 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311 Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr. Greenberg:
Thank you for your letter to Chairman Hendrie, requesting the Nuclear.
Regulatory Commission to review the Transportation Section from the 0~ctober 1978 Draft Report of the Secretary of Resources' State Task Force on' Nuclear Energy and Radioactive Materials.
The NRC has reviewed the report and has made a number of suggestions and comments, which have been incorporated in two enclosures which I am forwarding to you. is concerned primarily with correcting errors of fact and offering comments on specific points in the background and discussion parts of the Transportation Section., on the other hand, deals exclusively with staff response to the 28 recommendations.
In general, the Transportation Section is well written and appears to present well resear.ched backgrcund. We are concerned, however, that the large number of recommendations may convey the impression that transportation of radioactive materials is a severe safety problem.
In our discussion of the 28 recommendations provided in Enclosure 2, additional information has been provided in an attempt to put the important issues in better perspectiv'e.
The Federal government has already considered and in several cases has begun work on some of the recommendations. Besides providing this additional information for your consideration, we also would like to suggest that more analysis
.of cost-benefit factors involved in carrying out the recommendations be performed.
This review was devoted to the Transportation Section of the Task's Force Draft Report as well as the Executive Summary.
We find that the Executive Summary tracks very well with the main Report, and our comments apply.to both documents.
D02060049
e 2-Mr. Phillip A 'Greenberg I hope this review is helpful.
Sincerely.
Robert G. Ryan, Director /
Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
1.
NRC Staff Correcti.ons and Comments.
2.
NRC Staff Com,ments on Recommendations.
3.
Letters to Users of NRC-Approved Package Designs dtd 5/1/78, 5/22/78 and 6/28/78.
4.
Review and Assessment of Package Requirements (Yellowcake) and Emergency Response to Transportation Accidents, Joint NRC/ DOT Study Group, October '78.
G e
e I
'a r
NRC STAFF CORRECTIONS AND COMMENTS ON CALIFORNIA 1ASK FORCE DRAFT REPORT
" TRANSPORTATION OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS"*
Chapter 24:
The " General Background" section of Chapter 24 uses the phrase E
" accident or incident" as though the two terms were identical in the context of transportation of radioactive material.
As it becomes apparent in Chapter 29, the term " nuclear. incident" has a very precise legal definition relating to personal injury and property d: mage caused by nuclear material.
(See 42 U.S.C. 2014(q).)
Thus, a transportation accident is not necessarily a (nuclear) incident.
[
Pace 9, line 15:
i i
The radionuclide identified as thorium-204 should probably be E
thallium-204.
Page 11, second footnote of Table I:
Should read:
++ Shipper who was originally selected as " minor" shipper but annually ships more than 500 packages of radioactive material.
Page 13, line 27:
The radionuclide shculd be molybdenum-99.
Page 20, line 5:
The statement, " Regulatory authority over the shipment of ra'dioactive materials is also exercised, although to a lesser extent than NRC '
and DOT, by the Federal Aviation Administration,... the U. S. Coast Guard..." does not seem to take'into account that both of ~these modal administrations, along witt Federal Highway Administration and Federal Railroad Administration, are part of DOT.
- For comments on the Recommendations contained in the repo.rt, see Enclosure 2.
Pace 20, line 14-Refers to a Memorandum of Understanding between D0T and NRC, signed March 22, 1973.
Actually, that memorandum was between DOT and AEC.
An updated memorandum between 00T and NRC will probably be signed in early 1979.
Pace 21:
Erroneously states that 10 CFR Part 70 governs the import and export of SNM. The import and export of materials and facilities is now regulated by the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR Part 110.
(See 43 F.R. 6915, February 17, 1978.)
Pace 22, line 1:
The U. S.' Coast Guard regulations governing the shipment of radioactive materials by water.hevc been incorporated into 49 CFR Part 176.
Pace 24, last paragraph:
Sheuld read:
Low Specific Activity (LSA) Materials.
Some packages of material with a relatively lov hazard potential are exempted from certain require-ments in the regulations.
Typical LSA materials are uranium and thorium ores, and residues from their processing.
Typ A quantities of LSA material currently shipped in " exclusive use" vehicles
- require only strong, tight packaging.
Pace 25, line 16:
Should read:
- or radioactive materis :s shipped in " exclusive use" vehicles the dose rate limits are:
Pace 26, line 8:
Change "TI of 3" to "TI to 2.3"; the next sentence, enclosed by paren-thesis,'should be corrected to read:
"(Regulations require rounding up' to thh. next highest tenth; e.g., 2.21 becomes 2.3.)" (49 CFR 173.389i)
' vehicles used for the exclusive use of nne shipper.
-~--IE=u.
Pace 28, Footnote:
Change " Radioactive Yellow - 11 label" to " Radioactive Yellow - III label".
Pace 29, line 6:
Chan'ge "10 feet" to "7 feet".
Pace 36, 1st paraaraph:
This section should be updated to reflect DOT action to study the need and possible methods for establishing routing requirements for highway carriers of radioactive materials (Federal Register notice, August 17, 1978).
A public hearing was held in Washington on November 29, 1978.
Written comments are due by January 1,1979.
Should the rule making proceed to completion, a final rule would probably be published in 1980.
Page 50, lines 1-3:
This paragraph should indi; ate that the plutonium package tests, funded by NRC, and the spent fuel cask tests, funded by DOE, have been. completed, and should summarize the results.
Page 54, line 1:
.It should be noted that the three-month surveys of radioactive materials package handling constituted a pilot program.
States may now enter into one to three-year contracts with NRC and 00T to ondertake inspection and surveillance of radioactive material in Lransport within their States.
The results of tne first year's ronitoring by Pennsylvania and South Carolina were published by NRC in NUREG-0286 (April 1978) and NUREG-0266 (April 1978).
Both States found that the public health and safety and the environment are not being endangered by the transportation of radioactive materials.
Under these contracts, the States perform data collection and conitoring activities, at least quarterly, at major highway, river, rail, and airline terminals.
Under an agreement with Illinois, NRC and 00T loaned the State radiation detection instru. mentation
.to equip 16 State Police cruisers to monitor passing vehicles for radiation.
Page 90, line 21:
It is stated that none of the parties involved in the Colorado incident had.any standing plans to respond to the accident.
This is incorrect.
The bill of lading in the truck was accompanied by written detailed emergency instructions which had been prepared by Exxon.
These instructions directed the individuals who arrived first at.the-scene to notify.the shipper and to cover the spilled i.
material with tarpaulins-or heavy plastic sheeting to prevent airborne dispersion.
Chapter 29:
The section on " Accident Cost Recovery" is very confusing and sometimes incorrect:
a.
Page 95, the last line should read:
" damages from a ' nuclear incident' involving certain NRC licensees (and ' persons indemnified'):
(1) liability and" b.
To be objective, the paragraph at the top of page 97 should mention that the Act specifically provides that "in the event of a nuclear incident involving that amount of aggregate liability, the Congress will thoroughly reviek the particular incident and will take whatever action is deemed.necessary and appropriate to protect the public of the consequences of a disaster of such magnitude".
c.
The last sentence on page 97 is wrong.
The NRC considered separate indemnity agreements for transportation of nuclear material in developing regulations to implement Public Law 94-197.
(See 41 F.R. 11327, March 18, 1976, and 41 F.R. 40511, September 20, 1976.)
Since no one expressed any need or desire for such agreements, the final rule (42 F.R. 46, January 3,1977) contained no provision for indemnity agreements of this kind.
d.
Pace 98, item 1:
" Shipment's neither to nor from a licensed facility."
(i)
. Del.ete the word " Full" at the beginning of the first line (the term " full Price-Anderson protection" makes no sense), and delete the words "the maximum" in line 2.
(ii)
Line 4:
There is no such thing as " plutonium storage facilities".
r (iii)
Lines 4 and.5:
Persons li. censed to possess and use special nuclear materials at " plutonium processing and fuel fabrication plants" (as defined in 10 CFR Part 140) must maintain financial protection and are entitled to government indemnity.
(See 42 F.R. 46, January 3,1977. ).
(iv)
Lines 7 and 8:
There are no " fuel reprocessing plants" licensed to operate.
( v.)
Lines 11 and 12:
For any particular situation to which Price-Anderson applies, t'he minimum amount of funds available in the event of a nuclear incident is 5500 million.
e.
Pace 99, items 3 and 4:
The basis for the conclusory statements in these two items is set forth in a June 1975 study entitled
" Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Study Concerning Financial Protection Against Potential Harm Caused by Sabotage or Theft of Nuclear Materials" which was prepared by the NRC at the request of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.
- ace 106, line 12:
Add " proposed" before " personnel reliability program".
~
- ace 112, 3rd line from bottom
'dd "for strategic quantities of special nuc' lear material" before "wnich include provisions..."
e 9
e e
t
'w
__g_ w we -. s. w ame= a m -
r.
~
NRC STAFF COMMENTS ON RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN
- CALIFORNIA TASK FORCE DRAFT REPORT,
" TRANSPORTATION OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS" Recommendation R1.. Extensive Public Review of NUREG-0170 and SAND 77-1927.
Recognizing. the complexity of its Final Environmental Statement on Transportation (NUREG-0170), the NRC', in its Federal Register notice of availability of the document, stated that it would consider holding a public meeting on the document if sufficient need for clarification became apparent in the requested public comments. More than 1100 copies of the document were distributed.
Of the 11 letters of comment received, only those from the U. S. Ehvironmental Protection Agency and the State of New York i,ndicated some degree of misunderstanding or dis-agreement with assumptions used in the analysis. This is in contrast to the 71 letters of comment expressing concerns early in the Trans-portation Rule Making Proceeding (of which the issuance of NUREG-0170 was a part), and the 28 letters of comment on the draft statement issued in 1976.
Recognizing the apparent acceptance of NUREG-0170 as a fair, or conservative, description of transportation impacts, and the high cost in time and money of verifying assumptions used in the analysis, such as package release fractions, the NRC staff concluded that it is in the-public interest to verify the analysis through emphasis on accident experience rather than a test program.
The transportation accident in 1977 in Colorado involving a U 0 truck 2 p shipment caused the release of a large fraction of the total shTpment.
We consider.that this accident experience confirmed the NUREG-0170 analysis w'here release of the entire, shipment was assumed.
Although 'the urban study has not yet been issued as a Draft EIS, with the associated public comment procedures, the NRC staff, working with its contractor, Sandia Laboratories, has attempted to obtain early and continuous public input to the study as it develops.
In particular, two interim reports (Generic Environmental Assessment on Transportation of Radioactive Material Near and Through a Large, Densely Populated Area, April 29, 1977; and SAND 77-1927, May 1978) have been released ano dis-tributed to the public on request (. bout 630 copies of SAND 77-1927 have been di'stributed and more are being printed).
In addition,.Sandia Laboratories conducted five open meetings of an Ad Hoc Task Group, comprised of persons affiliated with government, industry, environmental activism, and academia [9/20/76, New York; 11/16-17/76, Arlington, Va.; 3/29-30/77, Baltimore, Md.; 7/13-14/77, Houston, Texas; 7/24-25/78, New York]; public participation in these open meetings was encouraged and obtained.
u The NRC intends to start what is being called a Modal Study (i.e., an investigation.of accident conditions for different modes of transporta-tion). This study will involve considerable package testing and will take sev.eral years to complete.
The study will.be a systematic attempt to check the analytical assumptions against actual conditions such as is called for by the recommendation.
The study has not been given high priority since the transportation risks, as reported in both NUREG-0170 and SAND 77-1927, are very small.
It is apparent that a heightened public concern over the transportation of radioactive materials exists today when compared with 1976.
The NRC has encouraged, and will continue to encourage, active public discussion of the issue and participation in the search tor a resolution of the problems.
We expect and encourage public scrutiny and comment on the Modal Study as well as other studies and regulatory activities that relate to the hazards associated with the transportation of radioactive materials.
R2.
Upgrading Package Requirements for Most Hazardous Shipments.
The recent NRC re-examination (NUREG-0170) of its regulations on the transportation of radioactive materials, including packaging, concluded that the risks are so low that shipments may continue in all modes under the present regulatory system.
It is possible that the results of the Modal Study, referred to in Rl., above, may point to the need for upgrading packages for some types of materials.
Although it doesn't appear necessary to upgrade package requirements at this time, the NRC has taken action to upgrade the assoc.iated quality assurance programs.
(See comments on R4.)
R3. 'Plu onium Packages for Polonium.
The regulations of the NRC and the D0T require use of Typ.e A and Type B packages for certain specified quantities of radioactive materials.
Type A packages must meet normal transport conditions.
Type B packages must
~
meet normal transport and accident conditions.
No further package categories are considered necessary at this time for polonium.
1/ MacDonald, C. E.:
Letter to Users of HRC-Approved Pack..r e Designs, May 22,1978 (attached).
(Also attached are letters of May 1 and June 28,1978.)
s Consideration of this issue is included in NUREG-0170.
As stated in the footnote on page VI-50, "the emphasis on polonium in the risk calculations is somewhat artificial." Therefore, the NRC staff believes it is premature to require that large shipments of polonium be made only in packages with the equivalent accident-resistance of plutonium packages.
R4.
Upgrading Quality Assurance Programs for Most Hazardous and Largest-Quantity Shipments.
NRC has established quality assurance requirements for packages of radioactive materials, which will be' ome effective January 1, 1979 (10 c
CFR 71.51).
As stated in a letter 1/ sent to all users of NRC-approved package designs, the quality assuraiice, program of each licensee for shipping packages of radioactive material must contain general and specific provisions.
The general provisions are based on criteria in Appendix E of 10.CFR Part 71, and these criteria are to be applied in a graded approach, i.e., applied to an extent consistent with their importance to safety.
The specific provisions are discussed in the referenced letter.
R5.
Use of Highway Patrol a-s Inspectorate for Radioactive Materials Transportation This recommendation is of special interest to the NRC. The NRC and the DOT have been contracting with interested States whereby the States monitor radioactive materials transportation activities within their borders. The program is valuable for Federal-State cooperation, training of State p,ersonnel, increasing awareness of the national regulations on transportation of radioactive materials, and detecting instances of noncomnliance with the regulations.
R6.
Federal Funding for Expansion of Enforcement Activities.
.As mentioned in R5., above, the NRC and DOT jointly sponsor programs with cert:.in States for the surveillance of radioactive materials in transport.
Partial Federal funding is available for those States that wish to participate in the program.
R7.
Reconsider Adequacy of Worker-Related Package Dose Rate Limits.
Although a National Committee on Radiological Protection Study.2/ and NUREG-0170 support the view that current standards for package dose rate limits are adequate, the staff is continuing to study certain 'spects of the issue to determine the cost effectiveness of some changes in the regulations which could further reduce radiation risk.
-2/
" Review of the Current State.of Radiation Protection Philosophy," National Committee on Radiation Protection, Report No. 43 (January 15, 1975).
R8. Joint State-Federal Training Programs in Handling Radioactive Materials in Trusportation, The responsibility of training employees lies with the employer. There-fore, it would be more appropriate to require employers to undertake training programs to educate their workers in the proper handling of radioactive materials.in transport.
However, we agree that the State and Federal Government.should cooperate in providing guidance to the employer for such training. Most recently, the NRC and the DOT prepared and distribut.ed pamphlets and posters for ready reference of package
. handlers and their supervisors.
R9.
Spot Surveys of Work'er Exposure
-Spot surveys to measure worker exposure, with recommendations for correc-tive action, are part of the NRC-DOT-State program for the surveillance of 'radioa,ctive materials in transport. - NRC encourages State of California participation in this program.-
R10.
Review Risk of Transportation of Spent Fuel and Plutonium in California.
See comment on R2.
Ril.
Regulation of Naturally-0ccurring and Accelerator-Produced Ma teri al s.
At present it is the view of an NRC task force that the NRC should seek authority to regulate. natural and accelerator-produced radioactive r.aterials (NARM), especially radium; 3/ the Commission has not yet decided the issue.
State views on this issue. are welcome.
It might be pointed out that NARM materials are indirectly covered, even though in a fragmentary manner, by Federal regula.tions promulgated by the DOT, the U. S.. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW).
R12.
Analyze Aovantages and Disadi.Intages of Advance Notification.
The joint NRC-DOT study group on transportotion regulations and emergency responses has completed its draf t report 4_/ (referenced en p. VI-94), and has developed several recommendations, one of 'which is for the NRC and the DOT'to initiate discussions with States on the merits of advance notice requirements for shipments of radioactive material.
An advance copy of this report is attached to these comments.
3/
" Regulation of t!3turally Occurring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials, A Task Force Review," NUREG-0301, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U. 5.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (July 1977).
'/
" Review and Assessment of Package Requirements (Yellowcake) and Emergency Response to Transportation Accidents," Draft Report pre-pared by the Joint Study Group, U. S. Nuclear hegulatory Commission and U. 5. Department of Transpc -tation (October 1978), attached.
Fncinenro 7
u R13.
Assessment of Special Routing and Travel-Time Requirements.
The D0T is cohducting a rule making proceeding on highway movements of radioactive materials. 5/ The NRC is considering the best form of joint or concurrent participation with the DOT on this matter.
A State study., such as is called for by this recommendation, would provide useful information to these. proceedings.
R14.
Analyze Ad' vantages and Disadvantages of Special Trains and Roadbed Inspections.
No comment.
R15.
Analyze Advantages and Disadvantages of a Tracking System for the Most Hazardous Radioactive Materials.
In the joint.NRC-D0T study group on transportation regulations and emergency responses, 4/ such a system was considered and found to have the following advantages and disadvantages.
First, such a system does not improve. safety,' although it may lead to improved emergency response.
It would provide information to enable good risk assessment. However, it might be ouite costly compared to the benefits gained. A copy of the study group,'s report is attached.
R16.
Upgrading Emergency Preparedness.
The NRC is supportive of any program of assuring that State and local governments are adequately prepared to respond to accidents involving radiological material at fixed nuclear facilities and in transportation.
We are, therefore, interested in the results of any study that would be conducted.
It is suggested that the sentence starting on line 7 of the' reconnenda-tion be expanded to read:
"The OES review should also examine the distribution of trained response personnel, facilities capable of treatina injured and contaminated oersons, and equipment..."
5/
" Highway Routing of Radioactive Materials; Inquiry," U. S.
Department of Transportation, F.R. 40, No. 160, 36492 (August 17, 1978).
R17.
Providing the Carrier with Accident Instructions Specific to the Material Transported.
This action was considered in the NRC-DOT Staff Study / roup Report on G
transportation regulations and ' emergency responses.4 The conclusion
.was reached that shipping paper information is adequate for emergency.
response, although. it was deemed advisable to add the phone number of an information source.
This could be the shipper or a hazards information center, such as CHEMTREC. The group also recommended that shippers be encouraged to voluntarily supply emergency instruc-tions tb carriers regarding actions to take in the event of accidents'.
R18. Require Vehicle Placards and Package Labels to Note that Driver Carries Emergency Information.
No comment.
R19. Require ' Emergency Response Plans to Include Special l
Precautions for Radioactive Materials.
The NRC ' supports this recommendation.
See comments on R16.
R20. Fill Recognized Gaps in Financial Protection for Transportation Accidents.
Shipments of high hazard materials, such as spent fuel and plutonium, are frequently covered under the Price-Anderson Act because the facili-ties that would be involved with them, namely reactors, fuel reprocessing plants, and plutonium fuel fabrication plants, are indemnified' under, that Act.
As discussed in the joint NRC-D0T study group repo~rt,4/ the e
O 9
u Commission h'as considered the question of transportation coverage under the Price-Anderson Act and after a public comment period decided not to extend Price-Anderson coverage to transportation.
The NRC is also presently studying whether to indemnify additional fuel cycle and other nuclear facilities which, if enacted, would effectively affprd more transportation coverage.
R21. Require Physical-Protection for Special Nuclear Material of Moderate and Low Significance.
The NRC welcomes State support for the proposed amendments to our regulations in this area.
R22. Assess Need for Physical Protection of Cer tain Non-Fissile Radioactive Materials.
NRC's recent re-examination (NUREG-0176) of its regulations on the transportation of radioactive materials concluded that the risks of sabotage of _ these materials are sufficiently small and, therefore, constitute no major adverse impact on the environment.
The NRC staff is considering this issue in the draft environmental impact statement dealing with " Transport of Radionuclides in Urban Environs," and is expected to be published in 1979.
R23.
Study Need for Improved Security for Commercial Spent Fuel Shipments.
In.the NRC ongoing environmental impact statement on transportation of radioactive materials through cities (SAND 77-1927) and. in the. D0T rule making proceeding on highway movements of radioactive. materials, 5/
this question is being given close scrutiny. Any quantitative infor- ~
'mation available from States would be useful in these proceedings.
R24.
Expand. Emergency Response Planning for Sabotage and Theft Attempts.
'The NRC supports this reccmmendation.
See comments on R16.
RES., Survey Radioactive Material Transportation Operations for which Essential Information is Lacking.
This recommendation is of interest to the NRC.
See comments on RC, R6, R8,'and R9.
-R26.
Request Advance Notification from Department of Energy and Department of Defense.
No comment.
R27.
Evaluate ' Adequacy of Emergency Preparedness.
This recommendation is essentially the same as R16.
Both recommendations are of interest to the NRC.
See comments on R16.
R28.
Evaluate Adequacy of Emergency Planning at Seaports.
This recommendation is of interest to the NRC.
~
k e
S 9
9