ML20127A410
| ML20127A410 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/06/1983 |
| From: | Bernero R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | TRANSPORTATION, DEPT. OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127A006 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-3 NUDOCS 8301120497 | |
| Download: ML20127A410 (4) | |
Text
.-
G. e $tf~.w/ -
.(
JAN 0 61983 Dockets Branch liatorials Transportation Dureau Department of Transportation l!ashinDton, D.C. 20590 Ocntlenen:
This is in response to your flotice of proposed Rulensking, Docket I:0. Ki166p. Ilotice No. 32-8, dated October 7,1982 (47FR44350). The notice is entitled "p.adiation Level Linits for Exclusive lise Shipnents of Radioactive flaterials."
The Nuclear Reculatory Concis: ion welcomes those portions of the proposed rule which clarify the provisions of existing 49CFp.173.393(1) and (j),
but offer the follouing negative corcents with respect to new provisions of the proposed rule:
. 1. The proposed rule raises the issue as to whether or not it is intendad -
that spent-fuel casks and other large packan.cs for exclusive-uso shipnents must be designed to ocet the more restrictive radiction level lir.its of 5173.393(i). If the intent of the proposed rule is to require reasonabic efforts to meet the limits of 5173.393(1) even for spent-fuel casks, ue believe the rule is misguided and would result in designs that would be far from cost-effective. Further, it is not clear what would constitute
" reasonable efforts." If that is not the intent of the proposed rule, then uc suggest deletion of the words "despite reasonable efforts and ,
accepted radiation safety practici:s," to preclude an interpretation that
. would require a good faith effort to moet the icvels of 5173.393(i) for
> spent-fuel casks and other large packages for exclusive-use shipnent;
- 2. The proposed rule scons not to recognize the radiation safety benefits of the use of exclusive-use transport. The proposed rule enphasizes that the exclusive-use radiation level provisions apply only when the non-exclusive-use limits are unavoidably exceeded "and sone other method of controlling exposure is necessary." I!c take the position that the ex-clusive-use radiation level provisions sheuld be an equal alternative to the non-exclusive-use provisions, not dependent on having a high radiation
. Icvel package included in the vehicic load. De take this position for .
the following reasons: .
i a. Radiation exposure of the vehicle cre.: and the general public
, associated uith an exclusive-use vehicle is comparabic or core il restrictive than the radiation exposure associated with shippin3; j r C
~the same pachaucs by a ncn-exclusivd-use vehicic; and L
0
)) --
e.,,,:::...::::::= 'y ~:::::::::::::::::
n-w
- j % .. . .... .......
=2....:::::::::::. :.:.::. .:.:.:.:::. n n .:.::.:.::.:
- h ._ -
w_ . . . -
l .t.
- b. The exclusive-use radiation level 11 nit provisions require the use of a radiation measurinD instrument by the shipper to verify
, that radiation icvels are tdthin the limits both in the crew compartment and external to the vehicle. Actual measurement of radiation levels around the vehicle provides a higher level ,
> of assurance of safety than does the secondary system of control inherent in the non-exclusive-use system of counting transport indices and neasuring cparation distances.
- 3. Consideration of the provision of 4DCFR 5177.842(a), which provides an exenption from the limit of 50 transport ir. dices per vehicle, together. with the exclusive-use provisions in 5173.393(j)onwhichitisdependent 1 by reference provides the following reasons for the exclusive-use pro-visions to be available for use as an equal alternative:
- a. The unrestrained use of exclusive-use vehicles in combination with 5177.842(a) would allow more than 50 transport indices to be trans-ported in the same vehicle within the same radiation levels. This
! reans the same radioactive raterial could be transported in feuer vehicles, with resulting lower annual radiation exposure to crm; and the general public, lower risk of nonradiological accidental deaths i and injuries, lower use of vehicle fuel, tires, naintenance, and thcro-fore shipping costs, and lower vehicic exhaust emissions.
- b. The current rule requires that at least one package in a vehicle load must exceed the non-exclusive-uso limits before the exclusive-use pro-
" visions can be applied. It follows that the provisions of 5177.042(a),
which provides an exemption from the limit of 50 transport indices per-vehicle, cannot apply unless at least one package in the vehicle has high radiation levcis. This encourages shippers who tant to use the 50 TI exception of 5177.842(a) to add a high radiation level package to the vehicle load in order to qualify for exclusive-use and thus the 50 TI exenption. This remedy for the present restrictio.. in DOT rules is clearly counter-productive as. is the restriction itself and the pro- i posed clarification of the restriction. The exclusive-use pro-visions and the 50 TI exemption should both be equal alternatives to the non-exclusive-use provisiens.
To sunmarize this important position, we suggest that the eEclusive-use provisions of proposed 5173.393(j) be allowed as an equal alternative to the non-exclusive-use provisions of 5173.393(i), that the 50 TI exemption provisions of 5177.842(a) be allowed in combination with exclusive-use transport without T
.h[
w
.f
,. Da't [ .. ....... . ... .. ........... ..... . . . . . .. . .. .. .... .
.2
?.
th:: restriction of the current or proposed rules, and that shipment of spent-fuel casks and other large packages be allowed under the provisions of 5173.393(.1) without any " good-faith" effort to incet the radiation level limits of. 5173.393(1). These positions favor adoption of the proposed changes to 5173.393(j), but without the restrictive provisions in the section preanbic which read "...which, despite reasonable efforts and accepted radiation safety practices, do not ccs' ply with the radiation level limits of paragraph (1) of this section....."
Robert 11. Bernero, Director
" Division of Risk Analysis Office of !!uclear Regulatory Research cc: A. tiendell Carriker. DDT OK!, (DilT-223)
Distribution TMRB/rdg file -
DCS -
Subj Chron/ Circ RMinogue '
Dross RCunningham, NMSS CEMacDonald, NMSS BBuchbinder DSo1 berg AGre11a, IE -
ATse DHopkins
,.O h
L$. ix .
E cmcep "TMRB/DRA:RRS TMRBfDRKiRES
"- -BBuchbinder- TMRB/DRA:
, .E.S _ , , , , , _ , , _ , _ _ , _ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,, , ,,,,,,,
DHopkins:dir" DSolberg 1/pf83--- ~11\-/83--. l . ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ . - - . - . . - ~ ~ . . . . . - - . . - - -
--11-}783.-- ~3ygyg3.-- .
f
,,. f -
," L y 1
- .L.. . .
h fh. '-
JAN 0 61983 p;/g g,-c., MF.I Dockets Branch 6 $ (s#se.jffid A~ 1
.g g y m(f[:
./
liatcrials Transportation Dureau Departi:'ent of Transportation .f 4
!!ashinr: ton, D.C. 20590
((C ,
Ocntim:n: -
This is in response to your I:ctice of Proposed T.olemking, Dochet
!!o. Irl66P, !!otice I;o. P2-S, dated October 7.1f0? (/.7FR44350). Tnc notice is entitled "P.adiation Level Linits for Exclusive Use Shipnents of Padicactive !!aterials."
- I;uclear F.crulatory Cc=.ission welcoi:es those pcrtions of the prcrosed e which clarify the provisions of existing 49CFP.173.393(i) and (j),
. t:u 6 offer the follouina negative corr: ants with respect to new provisions of the proposed rule:
i
- 1. The proposed rul'e raiscs the issue as to whether or not'it is intendad that spent-fuel casks and other large pactar!cs for exclusive-use ship'ents r.ust be designed to acet the core restrictive radiction level linits of 5173.393(i). If the intent of the proposed rule is to recuire reasonable efforts to reet the liuits of 5173.393(i) even for spent-fuel casks, ne hulieve the rule is nisguidcd and t'culd result in designs that uould be far from cost-effective. Furthr:r, it is not clear what would constitute ,
" reasonable efforts." If that is not the intent of the Proposed rule, then we suggest deletion of the words "despite reasonable efforts and accepted radiation safety practices," to preclude an interpretation. that would receire a good faith effort to r.:ect the icvels of 5173.3E3(i) for spent-fuel casks and other large pacta.ocs for exclusive-use shipt. cat:
[:
a 2. T'he proposed rule secc.is not to recogniza the radiation safety benefits-of the use of exclusive-use transport. The propo' sed rule enphasizes that the exclusive-use radiation level provisions apply only t.4:en the non- '
cxclusive-use limits are unavoidably excecded "and some other nothod of controlling exposure is necessary." I!c take the position that the ex-
- clusive-use radiation level provisions should be an equal alternative
- to the non-exclusive-use provisions, not depen (ent on having a hic:h radiatien icycl packace included in th:: vehicle load. !w take this position for thc f ollowing reasons:
n a. undiation exposure of the veicle crcu 6nd the general pus 1ic 1- associated uith an exclusive-us. vehicle is conparable er r ore .
" restrictive than the radiation exnosurc associated seith ship (ing t'ee scue pachayes by a nen-cxclusive-use vehicle; ant' 1.
o t-l ii wc>l..................,................. ..................
! P * ...... .... . ... ... ... ........ .. ........ ...... . ..... ........'.................:.... . . . . .. ..
- I
]L, t s 't >; .
l l **** ** * * * + * * * **
'....... ........f................*.*..*.*....*.***,...****.*.*.....********************