ML20127B241

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests Concurrence W/Conclusions Reached on Issues Discussed at 831213 Meeting Re Clarification of DOT Regulations for Removable Radioactive Surface Contamination on Packages.Meeting Notice,Agenda & Background Info Encl
ML20127B241
Person / Time
Issue date: 02/21/1984
From: Partlow J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To: Ashley Roberts
TRANSPORTATION, DEPT. OF
Shared Package
ML20127A006 List:
References
FOIA-85-3 NUDOCS 8402270333
Download: ML20127B241 (3)


Text

'

>,....i February 21, 1984 9 .

Mr. A. 1. Roberts Associate Director for Hazardous Materials Regulation Materials Transportation Bureau

[

Research and Special Programs Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr.. Roberts:

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION ON DOT REGULATIONS FOR REMOVABLE RADIDACTIVE SURFACE CONTAMINATION ON FACKAGES

.This refers to the meeting at DOT Headquarters on December 13, 1983, attended by several members of the NRC. Headquarters and Regional Staff, with Messrs R. R. Rawl and 'J. M. Shuler of the Materials Transportation Bureau Staff. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss the current application and interpretation of the provisions of 49 CFR 173.443 and to obtain clarification on several aspects thereof. The recent resumption of shipments of commercial power reactor spent fuel has focused renewed attention on a recurrent problem associated with spent fuel shipments. This problem involves " cask weeping" and the application of the '

regulatory limits of $49 CFR to wipe sampling of casks. ,

A copy of the meeting notice, agenda and other background information is enclosed.

The purpose of this letter is to confirm our mutual understanding, as well',as to obtain your concurrence with the conclusions reached on the specific issues discussed at the meeting. We have already provided our Regional Offices interim guidance based on these conclusions. Upon receipt of your reply we plan to develop and issue an IE Information Notice to inform our licensees, as appropriate.

1. Averaging of Wipe Samples ,

Th'e language of $173.443(a) has been modified somewhat from that contained in the previous (173.397(a). The new language no longer specifically addresses a ceraning of nultiple wipe samples within any given 3CO cm2 area cf a pach-age surface. We understand that it was not DOT's intention to disailcw such averaging and further that DOT will consider processing a future rule char.gc to restore such a provision to $173.443. A suggested text for such a mcdifi-i cation is enclosed. In the interim, until the text has been formally modified., ,

we will continue to consider that averaging of multiple wipe sample over.any 300 cm2 area of a package surface is an acceptable practice.

l

. \

g G

.4%

g2' 7 70 3J3 C-19

' - 1 l

, 4.... ,

. l Mr. A. I. , Roberts 2

2. Wipe Sample kfficiency ,

i

. We understand that D0T considers that the refere'nce in 1173.443(a) stating  !

that "other methods of assessment of equal or greater efficiency may be i used " may include other wipe sampling methods wherein the . efficiency has actually been demonstrated to be greater'than 10 percent. Therefore, in effect, the wipe sample limits stated in 5173.443(a)and(b)andTable s 10 therein, are'11mits "by default," which do not take advantage of utili-zing an efficiency which has been demonstrated to be greater than 10 per-cent. In our evaluations of licensees' package surveys, we therefore plan to accept assessments based on efficencies which have been appropriately

demonstrated to have a higher than 10 percent efficiency. .

i 4 -

3. '"Wrapping" of Packages (Casks) i The issue of whether exterior " wrapping" of casks can be used to achieve compliance with removable contamination ifmits has been raised on a number

'of occasions. Our position on this, with which 1 understand you also concur, is as follows:

i

. The addition of " wrapping" to an NRC-certified package would not be permissible without obtaining prior authorization of the modifi-cation in the* applicable NRC certificate. In proposing such a ,

i provision, an applicant's safety analysis obviously would have - i

. to address heat retention since the contents are a heat source. l 1

j. -

The " wrapping" of a non-NRC-certified package would not relieve i

the shipper from compliance with the removable contamination

! limits applicable to the exterior surface of the unwrapped pack-

! age unless the wrapping constituted an integral part of a DOT

. Specification 7A, type A package design. In such cases, the shipper's documented package safety evaluation would need to l address whether the wrapping would maintain its closure integrity during .the ncrmal conditions of transport. .

. I would appreciate hearing from you with your confirmation of our cutual agreement ,

i- with the positions taken on the above issues. We very much appreciate your t l attention and assistance on this matter. '

Sincerely, ,

James G. Partlow, Acting Director '

- Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards, I and Inspection Prog ~r

- Office of Inspection a,amsnd Enforcement

}

I

Enclosures:

j 1. SuggestedRevisionof149CFR173.443(a) .

, 2. Meeting Notice and List of Issues ,

3. Background letter from Region III I49 CFR 173.443(a)

6.. , .

1 Mr.'A. I. Roberts 3 Distribution Regional Administrators -

J. Taylor IE E. Jordan, IE -

J. Axe.1 rad ES -

t G. Cunningham, ELD J. Lieberman, ELD A. Grella IE

/ Enforcement Coordinators, Regions I, II, III, IV, and V.

R. Cunningham, HMSS M. Ernst, RES ,

G. Klingler, IE -

J. Wigginton, IE P. Clemons, RI J. Roth, RI J R. Gregor, RI!!

  • D. Hopkins, RES C. MacDonald, NMSS -

J. Cook, HMS$ '

DCS '

SMPBsubject/ reading QASIP reading / subject * '

L. I. Cobb IE -

b J. G. Partlow, IE -

(seepreviousconcurrence) n

+

. SMPB
IE
  • SMPB:IE* AD:QAS IE

'AGre11a LCobb JPartloF ' '

2/'/84sc 2/ /84 2/ /84 r '

1