ML20125E465
| ML20125E465 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07106639 |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1985 |
| From: | Saintman L TRANSPORTATION, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Cochran R ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| 25292, NUDOCS 8506130126 | |
| Download: ML20125E465 (3) | |
Text
, g 7/- fo 6 3 7 US Dep(ytryievit 400 s.v.nm si...e s w i
ggg WasNngton D C mw g' @
nose n no W
l
. U s}c 3%S.
A coc m a 2 3 1985 l
mc 7
-e a
w 1
E_ MAY 2 3 f)SS > 2
~
Mr. Ronald W. Cochran
'b mm Deputy Assistant Scoretary mt stenog O
RECEIVED U. 8. Department of Energy N' ftoutrctin [s
[
f"AY2fE5> ;
for Nuclear Materials s
n o s. w y"' y*'
WmMngton, DC 20545
'(
s,'
Dear Mr. Coehran:
sk,
,a l
f?
l F
l Earlier tMs year you met with Administrator Cindy Dougies to disons the,, V I
Department of Energyt (DOE) plans to commence transportation of spent nudear y
fuel from Brooldiaven National Laboratory on Long Idand, New York, to Idaho FaBs, Idaho. At that time, you doomsed several topics of mutual interet, ) had
[
including eartain gestions wMoh the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC l
raised concerning the MH-1A eask wMeh had been certified by DOE using the NRC performance standar4 set forth in 10 CFR Part 71.
i By tetter dated January 17,1985, you stated that NRC representatives had agreed i
that all questions had been positively addressed in a meeting with members of your l
staff. Aeoordngly, the MH-1A esk was delivered to Brookhaven and
(
transportation commenced shortly thereaf ter.
l The Department of TransportationAs (DOT) willingness to provide regdatory l
receptition of DOE-epproved package destys is based on the premise that the DOE evaluation and appeevd process wlR provide an assurance of safety equivalent to that regired by the NRC. Such assiranee can be provided only by:
1.
Regsfring that DOE paelege designe meet the standards of 10 CFR Part 71 or their eqdvalent; and l
l 2.
Ensiring that the evaluation methods tsed to demonstrate l
compliance with the standare are equivalent to those imod i
by NRC in their evaluation of commercial package designs.
i The reqdroment of 49 CFR 173.7W)is very clear on the first point, allowing the use of DOE-approved packagings only when "... evaluated, approved, and certified by the Department of Energy against packaging standards equivalent to those 1
l speelfied in 10 CFR Part 71." The second point is implicit and inescapable since eqdvalent safety can only be assured through the me of equivalent evaluation i
techniques and methodologies. Additionally, DOE has always maintained that its i
)
l evaluation technipes and methodologies are at least eqdvalent to those of NRC.
i i
l The case of the MH-1 A cask design has raised gestions concerning the equivalence l
of these evaluation processes and DOE's compliance with section 173.7(d). On l
May 21,1985, I partleipated in a meeting with representatives of both DOE and i
hffg 9
. e. 4 2
NRC to discuss some of the concerns which NRC had expressed earlier tNs year.
Although these questions had been ad&emed earlier, it appears that they have yet to be resolved. The essence of the meeting was stated succinctly in Mr. Richard E.
Cunningham's letter of May 22,1985, to Mr. David B. Leclaire (enclosed). The premise upon wMoh DOE based its appileation for NRC certification of the MH-1 A cask is that it provides a level of safety far in excess of that which is actually required for the type of wastes being transported from Brookhaven. As Mr.
Cunningham pointed out, this approach might not be the only way in wNeh DOE could demonstrate that the MH-1A cask meets the standards of 10 CPR Part 71.
But having taken that approach, DOE must provide the analysis to support its premise. It la this mderlying analysis wMoh NRC has preliminaruy found to be defective.
Since DOE has asked NRC for an evaluation and the NRC has responded with substantial reservations, DUT met conclude that serious questions exist as to the
" equivalence" of the evaluation on wNeh DOE based its certifloation of the MH-1 A cask. Clearly, NRC concerns mist be resolved before eqdvalence is assured to any a
/
degree. 'this will require that DOE respond to the NRC concerns and with&aw the cask from service until NRC has formany agreed with the resolution of the imues.
I understand that DOE, upon being notified of NRCs concerns, volutarily postponed a planned shipment from Brookhaven which was to have used the MH-1 A cask. Fendingresolution of those concerns, DOE may wish to continue the Brookhaven sNpping campaign using casks other than the MH-1 A. I further undestand that DOE is giving consideration to revisingits appilaation for NRC certification by seeking separate approvals for (1) use of the cask for Brookhaven-type wastes; and (2) use of the cask ac set forth in the original appilaation. This is 2
an eminently reasonable course of action.
I am sure you appreciate the seriousness of this situation and request that you keep me Informed of DOE's actions to resolve the imus.
Since g
l a
44~
. D.
tman, Director Materials Transportation Bureau Enclosure ces (w/o enal.):
Mr. Richard E. Caningham, Director Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
' s.5..
F i
i L
2/~ 6 /> 3 9,
cocner no._
CONTE 0L 150,,.
,QS)Q}
M[
DATE OF D00._ [d[ J DATE RCVD._
t FCITF__
PDft _ /_,
j FCAF_
l I.PDit ML Inl: REF. _ [
wnat-san:cuanns _
FClC_
Ont!;iL _
n.u a u m e me1WA fx^<W 0lY lu
\\
e_yG=%5 C
$w sy.,wk.
MM<uu9.a4
^ ~Emwlbs L2-1, M NITIAL_ M [# g
,___>%wa**