ML20198L976
| ML20198L976 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/23/1997 |
| From: | Piccone J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Cool D, Haughney C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198L311 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-63FR32600, RULE-PRM-71-11 AF59-2-018, AF59-2-18, NUDOCS 9801160162 | |
| Download: ML20198L976 (66) | |
Text
_.
f s u.
U201
).-
j ),/
l NDTE T0:
Donald A. Cool, Director Division of Industrial and Medical Nucitar L ftty Charles J. Haughney, Director Spent Fuel Project Dffice Josephine M. Piccone, Chief A'".s
~
~
FROM:
~
p Dperations Branch, i
Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety
SUBJECT:
FINAL RULE TO AMEND 10 CTR PART 73, REW)REMENT5 FOR 5 HIPPING PACKASES USED TO TRANSPORT VITRIFIED HIGMEVIL WA5TE (PRM 7111) it i
Attached for your concurrence is the Comission Paper package for the final rule to remove plutonium from the double containment requirement for sealed canisters containing vitrified high irvel waste.
To meet the IDD due date, the package will need your concurrence by January 6, 1990. Please let me kno 'if you foresee any problems in meeting this date.
Attachment:
Comission Paper Package 9eot16o162 9 g M PDR ORG pon
r 6
i C0 K SSIDX PA3R 4
e f
O a
f
(
e
,,.c
. e.
.m.,.
0, I.2:
The Comissioners I.12:
L. Joseph Callen Ixecutive Director for Operations
$ $ E I:
FINtd RULE: RIOJ1REMEhT5 FOR SHJPPIN3 PACKAGES USED TO TRANSPORT VITRJF]ED HIGH LEVIL WA5TE Ptenntr:
scald To request Comission approval to issue a final rule that would add anisters centsining vitrified high level waste (HLW) to the forms of plutonium which are exempt from the double containment packaging requirements for transportation of plutonium. The final rule would also make a minor correction to the usage of metric and English units to be consistent with existing NRC policy, fLarrrjnDy; This paper covers a routine matter.
Bafrs:n'NB:
This rulemaking it, consistent with an SRM dated October 31.1996, in which the Comission (1) risapproved a staff re:omendation in SECY 96 215 to make a determinatto*.inder 10 CFR 71.63(b)(3) regarding canisters containing plutonium bear 1y vitrified wastes: and (2) requested the staff develop a C0hTACTS:
Philip Brochen, NM55,415 8592 Mark Haisfield, NM55, 415 6196
,-a-.
w
The Ccmissioners 2
rulenating on an e@ edited basis to satisfy the timeliness requirenents of the Departerent of Energy (DX),
In the SRf1 dated April 4.1997 (in response to SECY 97 047, dated February 26, 1997), the Comission approved publication of the proposed rule. The proposed rule was published in the Federal ReMiter on May 8,1997, f'r F W F J. h ; 7r, sd W p p;. - a,..
The3nEry1rpose foi double containment is to prov6de two independent barriers to assure that plutonium N
wout1 not be released from a transportation package under normal or accident condnions. The provisions J
of to CFR lemut 71.e4(b) exempt certain sohd forms of plutonium from the double containment R
requirement $. The DOE petalon for rulemaking (PRM 7111) requested that plutonium in the form of withfied HLW contained in a sealed canister be exempt from the double containment requirement l The staff believes that canistered vnnfied HLW provides a level of protection comparable to irradiated reactor
~ fuel elements which do not require double containment, and therefore double containment is unnecessary for sealed canisters containing vttnfied HLW.
g..=: yr
-~ _
"d% Mig 'y]sef 7)
(,
SECY 96 236, date. Mc,g /m8,1996.g$6dU" p
, anMhe Federal the proposed r Register notice for.neVeel rule ttent H rovide a detailed discussion of why the NRC established a double containment requirement for plutonium shipments, DX's petition, and the interaction with DDE to hold the petition in abeyance until a decision has been reached on a determination recuest filed under 30 CFR 73.63(b)(3r Se;;;arto re::t;t cr.d or.:1ysis-ef m-+ t m the ernnntaf rein "Ee staf has prepared a final rule to add #
sealect canisters containing vitrified HLW to t e forms of plutonium which are exept from the double containnent packaging equirements. The final rule change will allow 3 =c+ :::'. :thswnea of transporting this waste with no significant 1 pact to public hea?th nd safety, a n 2 )t1e R n ili v e -
to"e1 nit 10N:
The Office of the General C el has no legal objection to the proposed 4
rulerating. The Office of he Chief Financial Officer has no resource related objection to this rulema ng. The Office of the Chief Inforration Officer concurs that there vill no inforration technology ifepacts, I
q' w g a g b M dla q htup 4 HL M Am &""
wwM
l l
The Comissioners 3
I atcwrmTsj:
That the Comission:
2.
hvuve for publication in the Federal Reitter the final amendments to 20 CFR Part 72 on vitrified Hi.W shipments (Attachent 2).
2.
2 13:
i a.
That the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Susiness Administration will be infomed of the certification and the reasons for it, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act..
5 U.S.C. 605(b).
b.
A Regulatory Analysis has been prepared for this rulemaking (Attachment 2).
An Environmental Assessment has t+en prepared Yor this rulemaking c.
(Attachment 3).
d.
The appropriate Congressional comittees will be infcmed of this action (Attachment 4).
e.-
The staff has detemined that this is not a
- major" rule as defined in the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Faimess Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C. 804(2), and has confimed this detemination with the Office of Management and Budget. The appropriate Congressional and GAD contacts will be infomed (Attachment 5).
- -. - - = - - -, - '
e
)
l The Comissioners 4
i T.
That a public announcement will be issued by the Office of Public f
Affairs when the final rulemaking is filed with the Office of the i
Federal Register (Atterhment 6).
i L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations Attachments: As stated (6) 4 I
s k
p
)
--.r..-.-..
c.
...n..
-wa.
I 1
I I
i i
ATTACF VEhT 1 i
FEDfRAL REGISTER NOTICE 1
e O
4 48 e
e c
,,n,.
-n n-.-
n.--.
.~...-
+
r -. -. -. --
l
[759001.P]
i W% LEAR REGULATORY COHHISSION 20 CFR Part 71 RIN 3150.AT59 Requirements for Shipping Packapes Used to Transport Vitrified High Level Waste AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
i.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) is amending its regulations SealecI to addfcanisters containing vitrified high level waste (HLW) to the forms plutonium which are exempt from the double containment packaging requirements for transportation of plutonium. This amendment responds to a petition for rulemaking (PRM 7121) submitted by the Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Mancgement (DDE/DCRWM). This final rule will also make a minor correction to the usage of metric and English units to be consistent with existing NRC policy.
EFFICTIVE DATE:
(45 days from date of publication in the Federal Register).
~. _.
4 S
FOR FURTHER INFORMT10N C0hTACT: Ierl Easton. Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Washington, DC 20555 000), telephone (301) 415 5520. e mail EXEenre. gov or Mark Haisfield.
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Washington, DC 20555 0001, telephone (301) 415 6195. e mail MFHPnrc. gov.
. SUPPLEMEh7ARY INFORMTION:
Background
In 1974, the N special requirements in 30 CFR 71.63,,witA ac;7c.tto oeinf' e P eln'Me?!?: W 59 plutonium in excess of 0.74 terabecquerels (TBq) y Pach e 3
[20 Curies These requirements specify that plutonium mast be in solid fom and that packages used to ship plutonium must provide a separate inner containment (the
- double containment
- requirement).
In adopting these requirements, the NRC specifically excluded plutonium in the fom of reactor fuel elements, metal or metal alloys, and, on a case by-case basis, other plutonium bearing solids that the NRC detemines do not require double containment. As stated by the Comission in the Statements c'! Consideration for the original rule (39 FR 20950, dated June 17, 1974). *. - solid fonr.s of plutonium th!it are essentially nontespirable should be exempted from the double containment requirement.*
2
swId.<a,;,OnNovemb,er 3,0, 1993. DOE /DCR6ei petitioned the NRC to amend $ 71.63(b) l
+,,,,,,;,,,
t itrified HLW to the forms of plutonium which are exempt from the double. containment packaging requirements of Part 71. The NRC Published a notice of receipt for the petition, docketed as PRM 7133. in the Federal Register on February 28.1994 (59 FR 8143). Three comments were received on the petition.
t Pursuant to the Nuclear Weste Policy Act of 1982 as amended. DOE is the Federal spency responsible for developing and administering a geologic In Idly repository for the deep disposal of HLW spent nuclear fuel. In the cantsfuod vih'IN'Y S
petition. DDE proposes to ship the HLW from three storspe locations: Aiken.
South Carolina: Hanford Washington: and West Valley.,NeNork; directly to the geologic repository in transportation packspes certified by the NRC.
Currently, this HLW exists nestly in the form of liquid and sludge resulting from the reprocessing of defense reactor fuels. DOE proposes to solidify this material into a boresilicate glass in which the HLW is dispersed and imobilized. The glass would be placed into seal welded stainless steel canisters for storage and eventual transport to the geologic repository.
DOE's request for an amenecnt to the ule will allow it to transportent the reele) coststens s**1*inins AWM q
Ji:;;;; c,fkHLW in e re mt effo-the :L efficient manner withcut adversely 9
affecting public health and safety and the environment, trJ SW A[ne packspes used to transport anisters of vitrified HLW be certified by the NRC as, Type B packspes. Type B packages are designed to 3
hlkl, 'n 3ehen!, 00f 53 h*i '"b)'ci YO 'l& ReEdMe*c etis of tocFR Psat 71,"WW%'$kWL
"$s kffk !=&& Ar+c W
j r.;2.d r/r : :::' i %: --f : ; r.;;f-^d t; mee; t,he t{st3 for hypothetical
. a,%
.. w,
accident conditions specified in 5 71.?3]The' HLW will also be subject se
~
s ransport controls for a
- Highway Route Controlled y* pursuant I
to U.S. Department o s ortation regulj.ti.
. eined in 49 CrR Part 397.
In addition, the Nuclear West 32, as amended, requires DOE to provide fechnical ce and funds to train emergency dets along the pla
- e. j DX asserts that shipment of vitrified NLW d?n sealel canisteo Aeat "ed1: n 31;;; t-d will not adversely affect public health and safety and the environment. This c =^-
" a
- --4"' g""--
'--v"- ' firovi.le d by ne freinten sket wnte en e kly de ere ofconfinement is "
- ""-*-'*U**"'
go,I 5i~rIE0'keipWE6TilI'y If Wk 55AW,~flNe'nIderdean[r}e,wi.stnii%h~ns.
mie ne' t!Mn:r;. Coa;;;;:ncy, tu psw is in er.4n=i:11; cantsiens, en%:elng
_ WMPabia h In addition. DX argues that vitrified HLW provide l a cccparable level of protection to thet of reactor fuel elements, which the Comission p eviously detemined should be exe:rpt from th* double containment requirement (39 FR 20950). DX also noted that the plutonium concentrations in the vitrified HLW will be considerabiy 1cer than concentrations existing in irradiated reactor fuel elements.
Dn June 1.1995. NRC staff met with DDE in a public meeting to discuss the petitioner's request and the possible elternative of requesting an NRC i n s e aled s emirr u s detemination under i 71.63(o)(3) to exempt vitrified HLffrom the double containment requirement. DX infomJ the NRC in a letter dated January 25.
1995, of its intent to seek a detemination under 5 71.63(b)(3) and the NRC
~
received DOE's request on July 16.1996. DDE requeste; that the original petition for rulemaking be heid in abeyance until a de:1sion was reached on the detemination request.
In response tc DOE's request, the NRC staff prepared a Comission paper (SECY.96 215. dated October 8.1996) outlining and requesting Comission approval of the NRC staff's proposed ap ch for making a detemination under r
671.63(b)(3). In 1979, the NRC staff approved one exemption to 6 71.63(b) 4
. for the Model 6400 shipping package (NRC Certificate No. 72 6400). This
/j a d orit-col 1
packspe 6 for shipment of plutonium contaminated equipment and waste which contained up to 200 grams of plutonium. This approval was based on FNin$ n; the plutoniumpt p n enWe"y ea*e!*'-ele'ST by applying a
< ahab i n lac e eM
' strip or clear coating or polyurethane foam
- to the package contents.
i M.her, MM n 2,i:h n:t;N; ;ie pr;;;nt. the 200 0*r* c' P'*?'r
_01h in U ;; pckeie ;;r. e;i.e1 ;r. ::thit;, heti 4.ich ren;;; fi;- 9.0 n AMG 17 is 1.0 m a ma u.= x w w.s,e x av 6.vr DDE's request for g
determination is the first to be submitted to the Comission since 1979.
Because of the significance of the large number of shipments of HLW which would occur over a protracted period of time, the NRC staff had so9pht h s u I<J contatv ts Comission approval for exenting vitrified HLWrfrom the requirements of I71.63(b).
Never, in a staff requirement's memorandum dat*d October 31.1996, the tcmission disapproved the NRC staff's plan and directed that this policy 5
l
pyW 1ssee be addressed by rulemakin On May 8.1997, the NRC published a t
proposed rule in the Federal Register (62 FR 25146) in response to DX's petition. That Federal Register notice provides a more ccrrplete discussion of DX's petition, the ccanents received on the petition.' and NRC's analysis of these coments.
b Coments on the Proposed Rule This section presents a sumery of the principal coments received on the proposed rule, the NRC's response to the coments, and changes made to the final rule as a result of these coments. The Comission)eceived seven me was L
letter'. comenting on the proposed rule, t 'e e from/memberRof the public, two were from national laboratories, one was from a transportation cask dest neg 3
3 g on e WA5 bd & c**8vlhM com r*9
( = aft:t
- 7. and one was from DNlC-:2-7 In addition. DX sub,itted a subsequent letter comenting on one of the other coments. Dverall, five of the six ctanenters supported the proposed rule and the remaining cementer, while not specifically opposing the rule, proposed changes e,i:5.yrette W w.'n ac i';" ff teat',
4 4Le caggag an.I lio,,itinh the eteessed egie -- Copies of these letters are its c.onfestts.
geg4ft:g
- A 4=t_.-t-available for public inspection and copying for a fee at the Comission's Public Document Room located at 2120 L Street. W (Lower Level). Washington.
DC.
6
\\
__.___.____.m... _ _. -.. _ _, _ _ _, _.,... _ _ _ _ _,..
r t
lection 6 71 OfM ene ini resoirmnu fee clutenic thin ~+mtt I
Pre"sted Pole: for shipments of plutonium in excess of 0.74 TBq Pa % s.
3 (20 C1). sealed canisters containing vitrified high level waste (Hl.W). that meet the design criteria in 20 trR 60.335(b) and (c), would be added to the i
list of solid fonns of plutonium which are exempt from the double containment reWirements of $ 71.63(b).
&%$ W f*" YWdh Ae.Yonge s7%lf) hS i
r Coment : Four of the six comenters stated that the NRC should evaluate the technical bases for 71.63, or referred to a Comission staff requirements memorandum (SRM) to SECY-96-215, dated October 31, 1996, which directed the NRC staff to "... address whether the technical basis for 10 CFR 71.63 remains valid, or whether a revision or elimination of portions of 10 CFR 71.63 is i
needed to provide flexibility for current and future technologies...'.
One of the commenters noted that IAEA standards do not impose a double containment requirement.
Four of the comenters recommended that if the NRC retained the double containment provision, that the rule use performance-based criteria for dispersibility and respirability as a basis for exemption, or that double containment only be required for ' highly dispersible materials.' One of the comenters recomended that 71.63 be eliminated entirely.
One comenter expressed an interest in any Comission action on 10 CFR 71.63, and 2
recommended that the evaluation of 10 CFR 71.63 take the form of an Advanced
' Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
- e Res nons e.: The NRC staff believes that those coments to evaluate the technical bases for 10 CFR 71.63, to revise 10 CFR 71.63 (other than for vitrified HLW in canisters), or to eliminate the rule, are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. NRC staff has recently reviewed the technical bases for 10 CFR 71.63, as directed in the staff requirements memorandum to SECY-96-215, dated 00tober 31,1996. TheNRCstaffconcluded(SECY-97-218,datedSepsmber 29,1997f that the technical bases remain valid, and that the provisit.ns i
provide adequate flexibility for current and future technologies.
Except for i
the changes being considered in this rulemaking 'or vitrified HLW in A $ p491-24 canisters, the staff concluded that the provisions in 10 CFR 71.63 should p
remain unchanged.
l
\\
atated that it was conside ing imobili ation of that plutonium in a waste iom different from vit fled glass. Addi ion of that contemplated sie fem to 5 71.63(b) would quire further rulemaki Four of the ix comenters suppested that f the NRC de: ides that double containment of utonium is technically required, n 6 71.63 shoul d be
~evised to sore consistent with the Comission's p wral approac to rules pertainin to the contairrnent of radioactive materials a this appr1ach should risk infomed and perfoman:e based. The criteria which the rul should be based are the dispersibility and respirability e the fom of One of the co r+nters suneesisd that tM *: Wine "hibi y onim 8
Mieptenkle saterial' in a venner mistantvith hcw the IAEA has defph, N
f l'
dispersable snaterial' for Type C packages in standard ST 1.
The NRC staff believes that those coments to e m R "*:
1 :hnical s for i 72.63, eliminate the rule in its entir y, or to terraft
'th t rule into a sk inforsed, perfomance based approach re beyond the tcope ofkthis blemaking a are sore properly the subject a separate rulemaking.
i The NRC also notes that September 25.1997, one f the comenters on tre
. prc posed rule. Internations nergy Consultant. Inc., submitted a petition for rulemaking to eliminate i 7 63(b) wit an additional option to eliminate i7 l.63 entirely (Docket No. PRM.7J 12). The NRC published a notice of re tipt for the petition in the feder Register on
( FR
)
UPDATE 1
The NRC staff notes that/'although thi rule has been in effect for fore t an 20 years, significant mpact is only n:w ing felt by shippers
( 3rimar11y DDE) and thi impact is occurring prin. pally in shipnents of r idioactive waste.
ditionally, the plutonium pres 'it in a waste shipme711s 13yoneofmany uclides present in a sh1pment of vitr ied Hl.W (and in o
11 ct is a smal percentage of the total radiological risk To com/
pare the appropriateness of adding this waste fo of plutoniu9 to the exis ing exempt foms, the NRC staff researched the regulato history or this ule to identify the relevant infomation used by the Atomic grgy c[issonTAEc> in 1974. to develop the current double c 9
i
\\
4 i
i a
tion for reactor fuel elements. Thi%ted that wasj e i stms plutonium were not specifically addressed in that 1974 rul.sking i
i b ecause the echnology and plans for waste disposal had not bee velopd.
The NRC s ff found that the original basis for the p1 ium doul>1e ccntainment rule res with MC concerns with possible le ape during shipmenu'of liquid plut ium nitrate. An increasing r of shipments of 11huid plutonium nitrate we expected to occur in he late 1970's as pl rt of l
, tte nuclear industry's reprocess ng of the s fuel and recovery and veuse j
c1 plutonium
'(he MC had two prin pal c trns with these potential sh ipments of plutonium (see stCY.R.702, sed June 2.1973). First,be :ause of an anticipated increase in the n.
r shipments of liquid plutontam l
n11 rate, the MC believed that a e trespondi increase in the probabi' ity of hwan error would occur. Tnes human errors wer likely to involve licensee personnel failing to proper secure or seal a plut ium. nitrate tra nsportation package, onsequently, the MC believ en increase in probability of a leak f liquid plutonium nitrate to the nvironment would als's occur unless second seal was required. Second, the pecific activity of ' the plutoni expected to be shipped was also expected te neresse vith tint due to nticipated increases in reactor fuel burnup limits. This higher spe cific ctivity plutonium would cause greater pressure generati in the I
litio shipping containers, greater heat generation, and greater ga Wnd l
MAron radiatialevels N transes-tatim ergs 4" "*Let that t ne 20 I
.A
i t
f inermty etivity elutmium,
'e 1 5e C believed that larger plutonium nitrate transportation package whi:h would capable of handling higher activity plutonium, could be signed a
pret exist g regulatory standards, because of both the potenti safety ca ncern of in eased probability of leakage occurring during transportation acciderd and the ceic concern with need to design and nufacture new trensportation packs s, the AIC determined that shi nts of liquid plut snium
.. sFould be prohibited.
In SECY R 74 5. date July 6,1973, the C discussed the technical and regulatory bases for requirin that all pl onium should be shipped in a solid i
foM, The AEC stated:
s-l The arguments for requirin sol d fom of plutonium for shipments are largely s jective in hat there is no hard evidence on which to ase statistical p obabilities or to assess quantitatively 1 - incremental increase i safety which is epected. The iscussion in the Regulatory aff paper.
SECY R 702. s not intended to be a technical a ument which incontro rtibly leads to a conclusion. It is, ra r, a presentation of t rationale which has led the Regulatory staff t its conclusion t
a possible problem may develop and that the propese action <.sa
- taeid 16Fe~ased assuranceMnst the problem develop \\N 11 p-.
,._._,....,..,3
- m___,
l l
- '?? d:=tly 6:51 t'et th !!Md L. vi plutonium shou [e A
sh ip in a 'special fom* capsule contained within a Type B package coWnsate or not specifying a nonrespirable fom for shipment. T s pnlposed rule published in the Federal Register on August 1973 (38 D 204 L2).
'esed on p lic coments and other considerations 1 sed by the AEC starf. the Comission.
SECY R 74172, dated April 38 1974, sodified its preg osed rule to the 'doubl containment' requi
. Additionally, two I
exertions and provision for 1 ure exemptions re provided. The applicab t language reads:
An inner containment vessel m be sed and the inner containment l
Vessel mst be designed to intain it - integrity, after the entire l
package has been subjet d to the normal a accident test conditions described in Part 71 c
Solid plutoniuy in the fo11cwing Toms vill be exemp from the double e
containment requirements because they are essentially n respirable:
j (1) ren or fM1 elements. (2) metal or metal alloy, and other k
plut um bearing solids that the Comission detemines suitab for su exemption, these would be other essentially nonrespirable f of
/
lutemite 6
12 1
a
i i.(
i Nt firal rule wat W9hinfTn~tE mm Reginer un June H. I li.
(39 FR 960) and only minor changes have been made since then. H>e r, it i
rule' 6 bas premise has remained unchanged for sore than 20 years All l
shipa rnts of p onim sore than 0.74 TBq (20 C1) sust be tra orted in Packa pes with d e containment, with two forms of pluton specifically exertted and generic rovisions for future exemption o additional forms of plutt oi m allowed on a e.by case basis.
The AIC's decision ca - also be viewed as reflection of concems with r
11cen; tes' quality assurance p rams and consequent ability of those programs to prevent human errors se ing or securing the transportation packages: and thereby prevent leaks during accidents. bever, the NRC l
staff believes that since the ru e was iginally promulgated. licensees' quality assurance programs ha e significan y inproved. Further. NRC's overs ght of quality assur ce programs and a ivities including review.
inspe: tion, and enfore nt activities, have been oth broadened and inproved consi krably. Today the NRC has such greater exper ce and confidence in 11cen,ees' abilit to develop and implement a quality as rance program with the et jective minimizing human error events. Additional 1 large scale reprot essin of spent fuel and recycling of plutonium has not oc cred, and therefore neither have large numbers of plutonia, shipnents. The NR taff believ that the rationale which was the basis for the original rule has tk me,qu e s
13
i i
- :. e,ite..;;h; eppae9 te r;:httin; tM M! ! 4" **1rN %ble d
l 4
cost nt of plutonium, the NRC staff compared the 6 values conta d 1h Pact 71, pendix A. Table A.2, for plutonium against that of et rnuclides.
Thi 6 values ontained in Table A 1 are the limits on the g niity of a particular nucli which can be shipped in a Type A tra ortation packapt l
Gre ater'quentities te ire a Typt 5 package. These values reflect the het Ith hazard (radiologi
- 1. biological, and toxi ogical) associated witt the transport of a particul nuclide and the cific 6 values are international consensus standa s develope y the IAEA and world health orgonintions, which the NRC has corp sted into Part 71. However, when vieed as a whole, the 6 values con ined in Table A 3 ca'n alsb be seen as a ran ting of the relative health t ards tween different nuclides (i.e., tr e sma ller the 6 limit for a s cific nuclide, the greater the associated hea lth harurd). Using that appt sch, a comparison of 6 values indicates that fout nuclides present greater health hazard than lutonium - Actinium 227 i
Cur' um 24B, Protec nium 231, and Thorium.229. Additi ally. 13 other l
nucl ides presen a health hazard equal to plutonium. Howev
, for all 15 o l
the,e nucli
's, Part 71 does not cequire double containment dar transpor1.
The NRC s aff also notes that neither IAEA transportation standards r any othe ountries' transportation standards require double contairment for ny nuc1 L t.--
i l
l 14 l
l
Chuv.lutPP)
.Co m t:
comenter objected to Eth"[certif1 cation of a
, u po n n e q u,< e~ en ts i n Pad. 40) transportation package under Part 73 Wr: at!. dth $ciO" !"iteric ' r-E' peMSP +het d11 L...viTed in a iiiyh li.el repo31107.r Zder Ieit f4 -
,g rey'4": Ntfr because this establishes a specious relationship between two 3
,jO separate sections of the regulations. The cementer believes that these
> fg regulations were forrulated separately, have separate technical bases, and D
combining them my lead to unforeseen and unnecessary entanglements in the
,g)
, certification and licensing process for transport on the one hand, and waste a]I disposal in geologic repositories on the other. The comenter believes that v:tawa 35 any perfortr.ance criteria for transportation of HtW canisters should to-
! _ _ d " 'selate fe f4a owpdef,n loo.liocy alene.*:
sen e r,;;
a orr! 72.-
g
- 4 solag teles h +4388t**thd CAlefus g}
Another comenter believes the 4T,rgister.;est; eppr;;;d f:r j
Met *!m! ' er i 73.63 with rules for disposal of HtW under il 60,135(b) r and (c), assumes that the shipments will not take place until a repository or I
interim storage facility becomes available, further an application for 2
E]j certification of a transport package my be pursued prior to sub't.ission of a E
license application for a repository or interim storage facility.
]g Consequently, the comenter was concemed that such a situation could f,e complicate and impede progress on the HLW cask certification process.
RMo$m: The NRC staff agrees that the technius, bases and design b
requirements for a transportation package and a HLW disposal package are not b
15 L
~
i#
l the same and that the NRC should avoid tieing the two sections of the regulations together if possible.
l The NRC staff has reviewed the design criteria contained in $5 60.235(b) and (c) for applicability to the vitrified waste fom. The relevant criteria would require that the vitrified HLW package not contain explo>ive.
ps nue.n tie t
pyrophoric, chemically reactive or combustible uterials. /1he NRC staff 12
,g;-,-- ' ; this design requirement was to ensure that y HLWsgal.faestetv<a.s P'^
, contents would not adversely effect the ability of the transportation package To Met the norm 1 and hypothetical accident conditions specified in Part 72.
However, after further review, the NRC staff has concluded that the existing alesse criteria for transportation packages which are contained in i 71.43(d) are sufficient for vitrified HLW. Section 72.43(d) states that:
A package must be ude of uterials and construction that assure that there will be no significant chemical, galvanic, or other reaction among the packaging components, among package contents, or between the packaging components and package contents.
includitig possible reaction resulting from inleakspe of water. to the eximum credible extent. Account sust be taken of the behavior of sterials under irradiation.
26 I
..,s
......~.-..-.__-,.m.~...--.~,.__--___--..,r
_.. _, _, _ - - ~... -
.. -,.,,,. ~,.
- l em a page.
The NRC staff believes that the requirements of i 71.43(d) meetfh of i
the proposed rule in specifying design requirements for the vitrified HLW Which assures that the packspe and its contents are corqpatible. Additionally.
l these requirements do not create any unnecessary ties between Part 71 and i
Part 60, meeting the intent of this carpent, further, be:ause these requirements are contained in Part 72 they _yl, t: " %p" " t r;R.pon+d a e asl*%d % +ue,s
- eler, o n., u,,,,.n,,..,u.,u,.s,.
g&ys au e valuated Aw43 *M W': r::::; ;r,;' ;;".ifi :ti= +, m...
^ :- rl'y. it.;.: 1;r : ;: :t: ?: ;_:;; d-tM #d-M -?^ 7:f:r ' ; t;
"-- --, d : :
- 1: c :::::::,.
Finni rule: Based on these cornents, 5 71.63(b)(3) of the proposed rule is revised to read as follows: Vitrified high level waste contained in a sealed canister.
Cmnt : One comenter suppested that the proposed rule be changed to require HLW Wister design, fabrication, test, and fill be conducted under a Aus11ty assurance program that meets, to the satisfaction of the NRC, the requirements of Part 71. Subpart H.
The comenter also suppested that the proposed rule be changed to require that the exemption will only apply to canisters of HLW in shipping packspes which have been demonstrated by analysis or test to adequately
- contain the HLW canisters without allcwing canister failure under the 17 1
4-----
.--.._,,__--m--
--..---...,-,-.m....,----.
,w_,.,
-m,
.,,,m.
..,,m,
,,mg,,-
s hypothetical accident conditions of Part 71, Subpart F. When considered as a transportation system.
The commenter recommended these changes based on the following:
(1)the
'(
canister design, fabrication, and testing are not evaluated by NRC, (2) the final waste forms to be shipped have not been established, and may not ce subject to DOE oversight for process control and waste acceptance criteria,
,q (3) the HLW acceptance criteria established by DOE are not, intro 11ed by NRC, y
(4) the drop tests results reported may not meet NRC standards for data quality, (5) the drop test results reported may not be applicable to thinner-Y walled canisters, (6) the canister *1eak-tightness" criterion is not
'N consistent with AN51 N14.5-77.
'}
\\
_/.
Resoonse: The technical basis given in the DOE petition for an exemption is that a separate inner container is unnecessary because of the high degree of confinement provided by the stainless steel waste canister and the non-respirability of the solid, plutonium-bearing waste form.
In support of its petition, DOE submitted a technical justification which included a detailed description of a representative HLW canister together with the results of 7-and 9-meter drop testing of the canisters and a description of the standards used for canister fabrication and filling.
(va:A Aueptance Spkm leq&%h hcon+
I When the proposed rule was published for comment, the staff noted that h
the criteria for design and fabrication of canisters were specified in DOE's kt.v,0,, uGch wa; rebuceds iMt Sffwl.s hc.ua.al douunch,0rcl h I[WASRD)/which was subject to change. Toaddress(hisconcern,theproposed rule specified that the canisters meet the waste package criteria in 10 CFR Part 60.
In comenting on the proposed rule. DOE noted that NRC uses performance-based standards for certification of transportation package designs and that this approech is preferable to use of prescriptive standards n
which could limit design flexibility.
& RCu p g O f D k iYu e b h e f a g -c f
x
I The NRC staff performs technical reviews to certify package designs.
For a HLW package, the review would include the sealed canister as well as the t-L radioactive contents in the form of vitrified HLW.
It is.txpected that an f
papplication for approval of a HLW package design would include a canister A
i gdesignandvitrifiedHLWcontentswithcharacteristicsandattributes kcomparabletothosedescribedintheDOEpetition. Therefore, the final rule does not include the waste package criteria in lo CFR Part 60.
remnt: One comenter suppested that the proposed rule be changed to
. require that the exemption will only apply to vitrified HLW from which plutonium has been removed prior to transfer to HLW storage tanks. The comenter suppested the vitrified HLW be restricted to no more than 3.7 TBq 000 C1) of plutenium.
l tlc $}olemo'Yo f Con,*.truiron k th e entsi"*l 'tde-Perssnie: 49 M:1: fc-this prcp;;ed sweti:n 1; = ead = :n:1;:ts (s9 pg Rott.o) did no+ discuss ae.fivi+3 limik (quntty limik,); rs*<.lici tut th : fem cf ph;tc.ir 1: e:se : tie y nnncav4 rem.
" di:::::iea w.
n ge Co micsion ado f aef;M* limi+c Fo< % e htsen bms OS etwity "-it: la93-*+y Smito is cNinined <n tha St:t;;;at ef-l luton ium y2-etee+<^nfnethae*4ht aae oey(39 re rpm om,t % $ 71 4 3 th).
?
34rel rule
,.3 3 gw. e
.1;;;p;;i-ecin W 11:11: em the +e e-1 tin; sw&t fem.; cf piste.;a.- Neither 1
kee the En-eittinn iP!S0 sed any D?+1"itj lis,its 0.. OM @ ntity-of OG-@t-fe o
--;hr.oni= 2.i ch !!n ha th4 n*+4 "a** + h* ""*reat r.is. Rather, any limitations on the quantity of plutonium that can be shipped for either of these exempt forms are an inherent design feature of the specific transportation package being used; and these design features are reviewed by the NRC as part of the package certification process. The commenter has not 19
j
- h l<fonium
\\;m;f;p % e quanfl f
provided any technical basis for *em't-tr.g i.t.^
- , ye.9,n o F se.ld e.anistea cenfordiy vifdk&p1vh.ie LE ieid. - 1le f
=:te Mf: : it e yttruied, 9: e; tt,; ca;:nter p :cin d
'eeweal C
fzom / 7/. 430),
9515 er i asi.,; en;sity li-it: -- eit m c.".w, e:- = : r: "
x:S&
e Q fino! bde cl*es MbisfecifJ 4M ta ex::tir ::-;t e-2. consequently. 4,==t:tir ef thi: a.a R_muel quan bif
_ty... m.Jimif % if e exemf en*
il
. 2
.,_ __ _,..... u 3 7 3 g,, g, o f e 5 y f,7,7,1.e F
i
- plutwin wh~n 3 y:1;g h ;;; 1:7 :d :ni:,
Regulatory Action 1
4 The NRC is amending 20 CFR 71.63 based on its evaluation of the petition e
l submitted by DX: the attachment to the petition, "Te:hnical Justification to Support the PRM by the DX to Exempt HLW Canisters from 20 CFR 71.63(b)*: the three coments received on the petition after its publication in the Federal Register: and the coments received on the proposed rule. 30 CFR 71.63(b) specifies special provisions when shipping plutonium in excess of 0.74 TBq (20 curies) per package, including a separate inne* containment system, except j
when plutonium is in solid form of reactor fuel elements, metal. or metal alloys. 3n atending 5 71,63(b), the NRC is accenting the petition submitted sceie) csarsfen.s contar i=4 by DM to eliminate these special provisions for shipping vitrified HLW.
In I
the proposed ruit the NRC would have required that the HLW canister meet the design criteria contained in 55 60,135(b) and (c). In the final rule, the design criteria has been eliminated thhD.ih
- ftff-ur.;2; ica 20
htWpdihM tranta) ;,ev;ew of an app ication klr;r.;chage appnovel wo;ld inelde l
pe t t t n ieti ; d;;i; 7; ti;,;r.1; 1;,7 :
- t
- ti
- , p;;L;;;'; w/445,---
- 2. Review' eP-4f s;,;c46 nueitals tia and attn lFufes af fde
- "43 e*e ~ted-"d S : 7;.4;(;;, ;r; ;;,;i;;P-t t: te :t;r. ;rd; em iti c canis fma deitsn and 'is v;4nified Hl W con tents.
i,t b p*ep0!ed re1e. rm.gg7, g;;;;; gg 73;g<77 7 t3.v<;t $ a; ; 7;,.
MM, -07; :17;;;j :ppliceLie te ;11 T,p; " trer.epristier, p;;b"^! Or.f d r,et
=;f 10 7:;::ted ir, tM hr,; ;;; cW.;ir.;d ir. ; 72.C'M.
4 Compatibility of Agreement State Regulation.
Under
- Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement States
- approved by the Comission on June 30.1997. 5 71.631s listed as compatibility category *NRC
- TMs regulation is re, serve 5,to the NRC, 1
05P PLEA 5E VERIFY Finding of No 51gniffernt Environmental Impact: Availability The Comission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Comission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule will not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and therefore.
l an environmental impact statement is not required. The final rule change l
l exempts shipments of vitrified HLW contained in sealed canisters frm the 21
6dle containment packaging requirements of 5 71.63(b). The primary purpose
, psov;Je %o indepen Jn+ boutens 16. ossun c.1kot yl %;um for double containment is toDrura that anv **s-A rebh
- Pir till =t smid notle Asien*J %.n a imspost*% pa%e unsee k a.,d og ga!@.teatco J;fros X$trified HLW is e;;er)is11j is.re;; ten; ME 15.t:
ja,el of p>no1*cm th:
is po..'Je JOtttW"W 9:bh and L <*ntoin t Ie scol.) cao.rs therefore, the packaging requirements for double containment are unnecessaryf,5 ft.l.s fa s e. a P m a + e st a l.
The NRC has sent a copy of the environmental assessment and the proposed rule to every State Liaise D'ficer and requested their coments on the environmental assessment. The final environmental assessment and finding of
. no significant impact on which this detemination is based are available for inspe: tion at the NRC Public Do:ument Room. 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level).
Washington. D. Single copies of the environmental assessment and the finding of no significant impact are eve 11able from Mark Haisfield. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Washington, D: 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415 6196.
Paperwork Reduction A:t Statement This final rule does not contain a new or amended infonnation colle: tion requirement subje:t to tht P!;ticii Redu: tion A:t of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirenents were approved by the Office of Managemerd and Budget, approval number 3150 0008.
22
Public Protection Notification The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OKB control runber.
Regulatory Malysts The Comission has prepared a final regulatory analysis on this final regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives consiocred by the Comission. The analysis is available for inspe: tion in the NRC Public Do:ument Room. 2120 L Street NW (toer level). Washington DC.
Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Mark Haisfield. Office of MW $$4d S W9
i Nuclear %;.1;L.., ";;;;r:h. U.S. Nu;1 ear Regulatory Comission. Washington, DC 20555 000), telephone (301) -115 6195.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification i
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)).
the Comission certifies that this rule. if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial nxoer of small entities. The 23
l' 1
rulemaking only affects DOE shipments of vitrified HLW. No other entities are involved.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1995, the NRC has detemined that this action is not a major rule and i
. has verified this determination with the Office of Infomation and Regulatory Affairs. Office of Management and Budget.
Backfit Analysis The NRC his determinec that the backfit rule. 30 CFR 50.309. does not apply to this rule, and therefore, a backfit analysis is not required because j
these amendments do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).
24
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 71 Criminal pent,1 ties. Hazardous meterials transportation, Nu: lear esterials. Packaging and containers. Reporting and re:ord keeping regairements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the
. Atomic Energy A:t of 3954, as amended: the Energy Reorganization A:t of 1974, as amended: and 5 U.S.C. 553: the NRC is adopting the folicwing amendments to 20 CFR Part 71.
l PART 71--PACKA31NG AND TRANSPORTAT]DN DF RADIDACT]VE MATERIAL i
l
- 1. The auth:arity citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:
AUTH3RITY: Se:s. 53. 57, 62. 63. 81. 161. 382. 183. 6B Stat. 930. 932.
~
933. 935, 948. 953, 954, as amended, se:. 1701.105 Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953 (42-i U.S.C. 2073. 2077. 2092. 2093. 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233. 2297f): secs. 201, as i
randed. 202, 206. 88 Stat.1242. as amended. 1244, 2246 (42 U.S.C. 5841.
l 5842. 5646). Se:tien 71.97 also issued under se:. 301. Pub. L. 96 295.
94 Stat. 789 790.
L ADM - PLEASE VERIFY THAT THIS CITATION 15 CONSISTENT WITH THE DELIBERATE MISCONDUCT RULE. WIICH WILL PRDBABLY BE 155UED FIRST 25 l
1 o
- 2. Section 72.63 is revised to read as fo11cws:
1 71 43 seedal resuirements for clutonium shinm nts.
(a) Plutonium ir, excess of 0.74 TBq (20 C1) per package aust be shipped as a solid, (b) Plutonium in excess of 0.74 TBq (20 C1) per package sust be packaged in a separate inner container placed within outer packaging that meets the requirements of Subparts I and F of this part for packaging of material in nonral form. If the entire package is subjected to the tests specified in 5 72.72 ("Nonral conditions of transport"). the separate inner container must not release plutonium as demonstrated to a sensitivity of 10' A
lf the entire package is subjected to the tests spe'cified in i 71.73 a /,/h.
Th
(*Kypothetical accident conditions"), the separate inner container sust k
restrict the loss of plutonium to not more than A,in I week. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply to solid plutonium in the follcwing fonr.s:
(1) Reactor fuel elements:
(2) Metal or metal alloy:
(3) Vitrified high level waste contained in a sealed canister: and l
26 i
..m.
(4) Other plutonium bearing solids that the Comission detemines should be exempt from the requirements of this section.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of
. 1998.
ror the Wa 1 ear Regulatory Comission.
John C. Hoyle, Se:retary of the Comission.
27 r
L
ATTACHV Eh ( 2 E.
t RE.GULATORY ANALYSIS 2
4 es 4
4 4
4
_V q
.U R Wj Regulatory Analysis for Rulemaking on 4
Requirements for Shipping Packages Used to Transport Vitrified High Level Waste.
3
- 1) y[
- 2. Statement of the Problem and Objectives l
staatryn YY l
- T In 1974.'the ic sion (AEC) special requirements AyI in 10 CFR 71.63 L..
lutonium in excess of 0.74 l
0 b terabecquerels (20 Curies >! These requirements specify that plutonium sust be in solid form and that pack 6 pes used to ship plutonium must provide a separate
'A D [
inner containment (the " double containment
- requirement). In 6dopting these O
t
.. requirements, the Comission specifically excluded plutonium in the form of l
l'g w " reactor fuel elements, metal or metal alloys, and other plutonium bearing i
- 3--
solids that the Comissior: detemines, on a case by-case basis, from the I.hd '
double containment requirement because these solid forms of plutonium are essentially nonrespirable.
4 u,,;stee o t.i 1 2
On November 30. 1993, he Department of Energy (DOE)' petitioned the NRC l
o to amend l 71.63(b) to add vitrified high level waste (HLW) to the forms of l
K, s
'e plutonium wMeh are emmt from the double containment packaging requirements.
iain arguments were tha3 c:-1;t. :d riv..." 5 i:
....if 1;11,,
j
,n;- g -e. ';- a f e w, er m : 'r provides a level of protection l
comparable to reactor fuel elements, and that plutonium concentrations in the vitrified HLW will be lower than the concentrations in irradiated reactor fuel elements. Tne NRC published a notice of receipt for the petition, docketed as PRM 7211, in the Igjeral Retirter on February 18,1994, requesting public comment by May 4.1994. The public coment period was subsequently extended to June 3.1994, at the request of the Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory (INEEL) Oversight Program of the State of Idaho.
Coments were received from three parties: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Nye County, Nevada (the site for the proposed spent fuel and high level waste-(HLW) repository at Yucca Mountain); and the INEEL Oversight Program of the State of 3daho. EPA reviewed the petition in i
accordance with its responsibilities under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, and had no specific coments. Nye County agreed with the rationale and arguments advanced by DOE and had no objection to DOE's petition. Tne State of Idaho commented that the petition was premature because it did not specify the parameters or performance standards that HLW sust meet.
On June 1.1995, the NRC staff met with DOE in a public meeting to discus! the petitioner's request and the possible alternative of requesting an
NRC detemination under 5 71.63(b)(3) to exempt vitrified HLW from the double containment requirement. DOE informed the NRC in a letter dated January 26, 1996. of its intent to seek this determination and the NRC received DDE's request on July 16. 1996. The original petition for rulemaking was requested to be held in abeyance until a decision was rea:hed on the determination request.
cyy fe yfc cuf,ygn,% 5::ude,4 cere c s m M c #
J.necime.<.t rv 0 revica.' f a.czopc c:ptma /_,
In rest onse to DOE's request, the NRC staff prepared a Comission paper (SECY 96 215 dated October 8.1995) outlining and requesting Comission approval of t N'C staff's proposed approach for making a detemination under l 73.63(b)(3).
detemination would have been the f,it;t made by the Comission after the promulgation of the original rule which was published in the Federal Redster on June 17.1974 (39 FR 20960). In a staff requirements memorandum dated October 31.1996. the Comission disapproved the NRC staff's plan and directed that this policy issue be addressed by rulemaking.
In resoonse, the NRC staff reactivated DOE's petition developed a proposed rule, and published it in the Federni Redster on May 8,1997 (62 FR 25146), with public corrnents requested by July 22,1997.
DISCLR$103 In developing the double containment rule in 1974, the AEC was concerned with possible leakage during shipments of liquid plutonium nitrate. The number of shipments of liquid plutonium nitrate was expe:ted to increase in the late 1970's as part of the nu: lear industry's reprocessing of the spent fuel and re:overy and reuse of plutonium. The AEC had two principal con: erns with these potential shipments of plutonium nitrate. First, be:ause of an anticipated in:rease in number of shipments of liquid pl tonium nitrate, the AIC believed that a corresponding in:rease in the probability of human error would c: ur. These human errors could likely involve licensee personnel failing to properly secure or seal a plutonium nitrate transportation package.
Consequently, the AEC believed an increase in probability of a leak of liquid plutonium nitrate to the environment would also occ *. Second, the spe:1fic activity of the plutonium expe:ted to be shipped was also expected to increase due to in:reases in reactor fuel burnup limits. This higher specific-a:tivity plutonium would cause greater pressure generation in the liquid shipping containers, greater heat generation, and greater gama and neutron radiation levels. The transportation packages in use at that time, were not capable of safely shipping this in:reased a:tivity plutonium and would thus become obsolete. But the AEC also believed that larger plutonium nitrate transportation pa:kages, which would be capable of handling higher a:tivity plutonium, could be designed to meet existing regulatory standards.
2 e
dem3 f0Am$ o r I.t To n o u r as co C.
^
eneenYan n,a.<
- gab, pu ye sem to e*rr N 3 & be nerkJ &
fiase h.5, Nevertheless, for both the potential! safe concern of increased probability.
of leakage occurring during a transporta' on accident and the economic concern with need to design and manufacture new ransportation packages, the AEC determined that the existing policy sh aid be changed and shipments of liquid plutonium should be prohibited for q ntities in excess of 0.74 terabecquerels (TBq)[20 curies).
The principal'alternativ o licuid plutonium nitrate is plutonium dioxide, a powder. Mcwever.
cause the AEC had concerns with dispersability and respirability of plut um dioxide powder as well as plutonim nitrate liquid, the AEC also re tred tha*t shipments of plutonium greater than 0.74 TBq (20 curies) be sh ped in a separate inner container. However, the AEC also recognized that -tMc M' **mir=nt M SMid 1
- d froh wiedmt =r r c;sM'e da rm cituttM;. Consequently. the AEC also included two specific exemtions and a generic provision for future ce@tions when it promulgated this rule.
The specific exemptions were for plutonium in the form of reactor fuel elements and metal or metal alloys.
In the Statement of Considerations to the i
119a11974 rule, the AEC stated that:
Since the double conteirant provision compensates for the fact that the plutonium may not be in a "nonrespirable" form, solid forms of plutonium that are essentially nonrespirable should be l
exempted from the double containment requirement. Therefore, it L
appears appropriate to exe@t from the double containment l
requirements reactor fuel elements, metal or metal alloy, and other plutonium bearing solids that the Comission determines
_ suitable for such exention. The latter category provides a means l.
for the Comission to evaluate, on a case by case basis, requests for exemption of other solid material where the quantity i.nd form of the material permits a determination that double containment is unnecessary.
l l
DOE's petition to amend i 71.63(b). by adding vitrified HLW sealed in canisters to the list of forms of plutonium which are exempt from the double containment packaging requirements, is based principally on thep;;;;
m <et. w uit rif 4=d y'y :cte th; icter,t ei the rac M;;;;
t,
- ht--1 =
h 4-r er m tic Q n = ;;%iebis feiA. The DOE petition o contends that l
vitrified HLW contained in sealed stainless sttel rs provides a level 5
of protection equivalent to that'provi adiated reactor fuel eleme.nts.
h stenlev steel wo.sts ca,;,& ?4.n, n 42 no"-u&*klib A the sond, plutonia besey waste %.
-__s p
..y.
-p-m, y-.
s
__.-.;.-e.,
.~
s.
Specifically. in the technical inforation supporting the petitiord. DDE sought to demonstrate that the waste acceptance specifications and process controls in the Vitrification process and the waste and canister characteristics compare favorably to irradiated reactor fuel elements-in terms of the dispersability and respirability of the contents during the noral and hypothetical accident conditions of transport. DOE maintained that impact and leak tests on the canisters, chemical annlyses of. spent nuclear fuel and simulated HLW boros111cate glass mixtures, and other studies of the levels of radioactivity present in the proposed transportation packaps: demonstrate that vitrified HLW canisters are analogous to irradiated reactor fuel elements.
The DDE petition refers to plutonium in the form of boros111cate glass as being essentially ronrespirable. This is because a minute quantity of respirable particles could result if the glass fractures (e.g., *'ing cooldom after being poured into the HLW canisters, normal handling and transport conditions, or hypothetical accident conditions).
In the technical inforution supporting the petition. DOE compared the physical and chemical characteristics of the vitrified HLW glass mixture to spent fuel pellets.
Because impact studies of simulated waste glass from DDE's Savannah River Site have shown comparable levels of fratture resistance and similar fractions of respirable particles when compared to unirradiated uranium fuel pellets and other potential waste forn uterials, DOE concluded that the fracture resistance of HLW glass is expected to be comparab10 to that of uranium fuel pellets. DDE also stated that the plutonium concentration present in an irradiated reactor fuel element is more than 100 times greater than that the plutonium concentration in a HLW canister.
DOE also noted that the vitrified HLW canisters will be enclosed within an NRC certified shipping cask. A certified shipping cask must demonstrate by test or analysis that it meets the requirements of Part 71.
In response to the concent on the petition from the INEEL Oversight Office of the State of ]daho, the NRC inserted language in the proposed rule to require that vitrified HLW canisters meet the design requirements of 55 60,135(b) and (c). H>ever, the NRC received several connents on the proposed rule which argued that this language created a specious relationship between Part 71 and Part 60 and combining them might lead to unnecessary entanglements in both the certification and licensing for transportation and
. disposal. The "I Tfe==-1 fMher eah M den ?! eM &&ed 9t +h.
Mw. it Is unnecessay in, ryaetG tkt sealed canist'eu contain;G 1 Technical Justification to Support the PRM by the DDE to Exempt HLW Canisters from 10 CFR 71.63(b). dated September 30, 1993.
[
4 l
l L
f
P*&sc c<!typ< }ec.ou.m -
vi+n, ft<J Hb w o, eat to c n M40 e,,,n w
s D
-1 c M L"**l Mc"I'*
- F 0 i ' M h* N "fo<fotionpedoye.
w of ch ono eTenostica ehd *TfM*A=fas of Ne tanis7wg" V
hatT' ~
!Yby%*!A<.,J$bsi
,p Y'n r d'Jtff Y' L- -* - ~< "" ~ a "
7, -
orl 'acks r fu' ding vihdit d Mr ots for the c~~ M f trans ' '
p N ' anisters) a e need to r nee il 60.
and (c) was ecessal y.
B t:ause 5 (d) already les to all B transporte
. pac p}e rae 0;, afer 'o 5 72.4* ro i n + hi < r i t ai m "nv 5 0'.
- 2. Identification and Analysis of Alternative Approaches There are three alternatives to resolving the petition from ICE:
A!TERNATIVE 1: Deny the petition. This would require ICE to use a double containment system for shipping vitrified HLW or atte@t to use alternative 2.
The NRC agrees with DOE's assessment that HLW canisters are essentially
, nonres >1rable, Consequently, the NRC agrees that there are no significant health and safety inacts to exc@ ting canistered, vitrified HLW from the L
double containment packaging requirements of 5 71.63(b). Therefore, denying thi petition would impose an unnecessary regulatory burden on DOE, Scaleb Hake a determination under 5 71.63(b)(3) on whether[ canist l
AITEoNAT1vE 2:
containing vitrified HLW should be exe@t from the double' containment packaging requirements. In SECY-96 215, dated October 8,1996, the NRC staff l
proposed this approach to the Comission. In the staff requirements memorandum, dated October 31,1996, the Comission stated that this was a policy issue, and therefore, should be addressed through rulemaking.
5esleel L
1 Change the regulations in 5 71.63(b) to addfcanisters i
AITERNATIVE 3:
containing vitrified HLW to the forms of plutonium which are exe@t from the i
double coatainment packaging requirements. As discussed above, the NRC *$$$Yj]'
e'asin th:t th= Ptitina=* 1: :;rre;;- that re-1: :r: c;nt:inic,, m.rme5c. r.i qr tr.s 51- _fe-of r' *maiu :nd :h;uld bc ;;;gt"Q,,[*,*
A H v a da !* ette-24el'y.:.re:pir:
l f*- th d;41 conu moe..; re;A rviod.. E n wre11j,the T.C:.: int: irs
.%,, m.t l
tut th; pi;ieve warnt: reasir;::nt: :< ! 7;.Cd) cc: :1*eady eppiira51e tn *alQ,'/',"fg e
3
.sitr4<1: %L' :hipp:0 in:ide : $*tifi 'Nbrgp;,rtetic,g, pe;Le e. This v
-elt=~!!1ua would allow ="E-?
M8b means of transporting this waste s
with no significant impact to public health and safety and the environment.
/
3.
Estimate and Evaluation of Values and Impacts DDE has not quantitatively evaluated the cost savings of exempting tweled c8a;*Y" u.ttiaiaj vitrified HLW from the double containment requirements. H: wever, they have identified potential benefits. Be:ause the NRC agrees with DOE that there are 5
l.
(.
- ~. -
N no significant-health and safety issues, a detailed quantitative analysis is
-not necessary f 8ased on-DOE doctanents. it is estimated that there will be i;
3.500 shipments of vitrified HLW by 2030.~ -These shipments.are not expected to__
i start until a geologic repository or an interim storage facility for HLW becomes available. However. DOE's statement of 3,500 shipments is based on-loading two HLW canisters in each use of the intended snipping cask. _-ff-s-g The'NRC has concluded that this rule would not resun in an increase in the n'ur'nber of'shiprMritEof'
~
this HLW. In concluding this, the staff has presumed that, if the requrements for a separate inner.
containment is retained, the packaging for t*ensport of the vitrified H'.W could be changed, or ausmatively, the canisters themselves would be evaluated as a separate inner containment; but that the primary factors which would incrosse the numbers of shipmentr, (e.g., the number of canisters per package or the physical size and wei considerations....... _,. ~..ght of each canister) are generaNy not related to Part 71 I
Adopting this rule could result in reducing the to'al number of shipments of vitrified HLW.
Since a separate inner containment vessel would not be requ(red, the quantity of vitrifled HLW per package could, in some instances, be increased. Increasing the quantity per package could result in f
i fewer shipments. Therefore, in those instances, the proposed rule could have the benefit of reducing L
transport costs and the public and occupational radiation exposures that would be incurred, due to a
- decrease in the total number of shipments.
4.
Decision Rationale.
L The NRC is amending 5 71.63(b). This section imposes special requirements when shipping plutonium in quantities in excess of 0.74 TBq (20 C1). This section requires that plutonium be shipped inside a separate inner container. Two exemptions to this requirement are defined for plutonium in the form of reactor fuel elements and metal or metal allogFor the reasons presented under the heading
- Discussion.%ca 1sters of vitrif
'3 NRC.......s that the yttr-t:
l
- n. nt p utonium contained 1 u r=We'1y,:r:!Pnhia cr.d thic '= ;f f?29 should be exempt from the double containment packaging requirements. The rule change would allow an s/hwh
=c c :::t effe:tive means of transporting this radioactive material with no significant impact to public health and safety and the environment.
In addition, the NRC is making a minor correction to the usage of' units 4
in 5 7L63 to be consistent with existing NRC policy. Hetric units are reported first with English units in parenthesis.
6 i
- - < - =
_y_
.-a
.,,,,,---E,
- 5. Japlementation This final rule, as modified by the NRC in response to public ecmwnts on the proposed rule, should be implementtd 45 days from the date this rule is published in the rederal cesster, Se G
g 0
I
?
I
--a.=
.e 2-.
--m
+
4 a
a
-s u.
.s<-,
a+, *a w.
me-r-a-.a 3,
~a-
<mn-a--mmm-=-
.2-s+
ni,~
1 e-.--
4'
- e t
S g
9-en e e
O eS 9
e 4
4 ATTA 3H VEhT 3 ENVIRONMEN"Al ASSESSVENT 9
4' e
4 94 9
j e
4 i
i e
-w,-
y
,,,,-e m
--+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
i
)
~
Final Environmental-Assessment and finding of i
No Significant Environmental Japact Final Rule: Requirements for Shipping Packages Used to Transport Vitrified High Level Weste R Ar m o & A'D In 1974. the Atomic Energy Comission (AIC) imposed special requirements in 10 CFR 71.63 on licensees who ship plutonium in excess of 0.74 terabecquerels (20 Curies). These requirements specify that plutonium sust be 4
in solid fom and that packages used to ship plutonium aust provide a separate inner containment (the " double contaiment* requirement).
In adopting these
, requirements the Comission specifically excluded plutonium in the fem of
- reactor fuel elements, metal or metal alloys, and other plutonium bearing
- solids that the Comission detemines, on a case by case basis, are exempt from the double containment requirement because these solid Toms of plutonium are essentially nonrespirable.
.On November 30. 1993. DOE petitioned the NRC to amend 5 71.63(b) to add M
+
- 4**Mrified high level waste (HLW) to the foms of plutonium which are exempt from the double containment packaging equirements. DOE's main arguments were j=
thap+*9te**$ vitH *y qu <t 3: e-t w i n;= ::p m bt fera sf ma y
j
-- p-Pt it 5 provides a leve' of protection comparable to reactor
!.,1 fuel elements, and that plutonium concentrations in the vitrified HLW will be lower than the concentrations in irradiated reactor fuel elements. The NRC
,j, published a notice of receipt for the petition, docketed as PRM 71-11, in the
[
g(fl k
FeSen1 Re m ter on February 18,1994, requesting public coment by Hay 4 1994 The public coment period was subsequently extended to June 3,1994 at d.
the request of the Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory jf4
-(1NEEL) Oversight Program _of the State of Idaho.
- yb Coments were received from three parties
- the U.S. Environmental c.
Protection Agency (EPA): Nye County Nevada (the site for the proposed spent fuel and high level waste (HLW) repository at Yucca Mountain): and the INEEL Je Oversight. Program of the State of Idaho. EPA reviewed the petition in v
accordance with its responsibilities under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.
Rh".
and had no specific coments. Nye County agreed with the rationale and fy arguments advanced by DOE. and had no obje: tion to DOE's petition. The State
=
- E of Idaho comented that the petition was premature because it did not specify the parameters or performance standards that HLW must meet.
g
>i
)
On June 1.1995, the NRC staff met with DOE in a public meeting to bJ discuss the petitioner's request and the possible alternative of requesting an
..~..e.
,.,e,.
.p M c n uteu co tn=1aj 4
NRC detemination under 5 71.63(b)(3) to exempt vitrifief Hl.W from the double containment requirement. DOE informed the NRC 'in a lette dated January 25.
1996, of its intent to seek this detemination and the NRC received DOE's request on July.16,1996. The original petition for rulemat'.ng was requested to be held in abeyance until a decision was reached on the determination 18e-/Le %g hw made b Cowe$an 4v5 a IU? *..
Excep+/m+ h c jm Won fa clop cgwf request.
Oo s-c In respen to DDE's request, the NRC staff prepared a Comission paper (SECY 96 215, d ted October 8,1996) outlining and requesting Comission i
approval of the NRC staff's proposed approach for making a determination under 6 71.63fb)(3). @e detemination would have been the first made after the promulgation of the original rule which was published in the Federal Redster on June 17,1974 (39 FR 20960).
In a staff requirements memorandum dated October 31,1996, the Comission disapproved the NRC staff's plan and directed that this policy issue be addressed by rulemaking.
In response, the NRC staff reactivated DOE's petition. developed a proposed rule, and published it in the Federal ceM ster on May 6,1997 (62 FR 25346). h1th public coments requested by Juiy 22,2997.
Dis M 5109
]n developing the double containment rule in 1974, the AEC was con:erned with possible leakage during shipments of liquid plutonium nitrate. The nut.ber of shipments of liquid plutonium nitrate was expected to increase in the late 1970's as part of the nuclear industry's reprocessing of the spent fuel and re:overy and reuse of plutonium. The AEC had two prin:1 pal concerns with these potential shipments of plutonium nitrate. First, because of an anticipated in:reased in number of shipments of liquid plutonium nitrate, the AEC also believed that a corresponding increase in the probability of human error would 0: cur. These human errors could likely ir.volve licensee personnel failing to properly secure or seal a plutonium nitrate transportation package.
Consequently, the AEC believed an in:rease in probability of a leak of liquid plutonium nitrate to the environment would also o: cur. Second, the specific activity of the plutonium expe:ted to be shipped was also expe:ted to increase due to increases in reactor fuel burnup limits. This higher spa:ific-activity plutonium would cause praeter pressure generation in the liquid shipping containers, greater heat generation, and greater game and neutron radiation levels. The transportation packages, in use at that time, were not capable of sgfely shipping this increased activity plutonium and would thus become obsolete. - But the AEC also believed that larger plutonium nitrate transportation packages, which would be capable of handling higher activity plutonium, could be designed to meet existin; regulatory standards.
2 I
7 _ __
g I sgTanist m went. C5Sen rWI Cne,No+, use hama 8 < *d* '" e d e 3 N e
y jJ 9,a, e Nevertheless, for both the potential safety concern of increased probability-of leakage occurring ring a transportation accident and the economic concern with need to design a $ manufacture new transportation packages, the AEC detemined that the ex sting policy should be changed and shipments of liquid plutonium should be prohibited for quantities in excess of- 0.74 terabecquerels (TBq)[20 curies).
The principal alternative to liquid plutonium nitrate is plutonium i
dioxide, a powder. HMver, because the AEC had concerns with dispersability and respirability of pistonium dioxide powder as well as plutoniin nitrate liquid, the MC also r quired that shipments of plutonium greater than 0.74 TBq (20 curies) be s pped in a separate inner container. Hwyer, the AEC also recognized that fit eel r:a.:ir;;;nt of ;;110 fe 2 er.d sje,4li
!^*ttirr nt r. ".w;riebli ir ser, sit eti;.;. Consequently, the AEC also included two specific exemptions and a generic provision for future exemptions when it promulgated this rule.
The spJcific exemptions were for plutonium in the fem of reactor fuel elements and metal or metai alloys. Jn the Statement of Considerations to the l
final.1974 rule. the AEC stated that:
t.
Since the double containment provision compensates for the fact l
that the plutonium may not be in a *nonrespirable" fort, solid l
forms of plutonium that are essentially nonrespirable should be exempted from the double containment requirement. Therefore it appears appropriate te exempt from the double containment requirements reactor fuel elements, metal or metal alloy and l
other plutonium bearing solids that the Comission determines suitable for such exemption. The latter category provides a means l
Tor the Comission to evaluate, on a case by case basis, requests for exemption of other solid material where the quantity and form of the material persits a deterzination that double containment is unnecessary.
E0E's petition to amend i 71.63(b), by adding vitrified HLW sealed in i
ranisters to the list of forms of plutonium which are exempt from the double l
containment packaging requirements is based principally on thep;:pl 1tir Wt re-1:tered, vitrified ";L';;;te tre intEG cf tte role M;;.;;:.7, 5 ir. ;n iiigatielly n,nr;;;ireble fem. The DOE petition so contends that 4
vitrified HLW contained in sealed stainless steel rs provides a level of protection equivalent to that provi radiated reactor fuel elements.
L d 0 h Yb $ Y Y**E
-,s -%.: ley ~ee of cm fi en eT Pad *k' a,"
L1 b u --,,;. up p l.< % ; ~ - w <: q w u te & ~.
l
l i
i..
Specifically in the technical information supporting the petition. DOE-1 L
sought to demonstrate'that the waste acceptance specifications and process.
controls i_n the vitrification process and the waste and canister characteristics compare favorably to irradiated reactor fuel elements in tems of the dispersability and respirability of the contents during the nomal and hypothetical accident conditions of transport. DDE maintained that inpact and leak tests on the canisters, chemical analyses of spent nuclear fuel and i
simulated NLW boros111cate glass mixtures, and other studies of the levels of radioactivity present in the proposed transportation packages demonstrate that vitrified HLW canisters are analogous to irradiated reactor fuel elements.
The DOE petition r?fers to plutonium in the form of-borosilicate glass as being essentially nonrespirable. This is because a minute quantity of respirable particles could result if the glass fractures (e.g., during
. cooldun after being poured into the HLW canisters, normal handling and transport conditions, or hypothetical accident conditions).
In the technical information supporting the petition. DDE compared the physical and chemical characteristics of the vitrified HLW glass sixture to spent fuel' pellets.-
Because impact studies of simulated waste glass from DOE's Savannah Rivtr Site have shwn comparable levels of fracture resistance and similar fractions of respirable particles when compared to unirradiated uraniumYuel pellets and other potential waste form materials, DDE concluded that the fracture resistance of HLW glass is expected to be comparable to that of uranium M1 pellets. DOE also stated that the plutonium concentration present in an 1rradiated reactor fuel element is more than 200 times greater than that the plutonium concentration in a HLW canister.
DOE also noted that the vitrified HLW canisters will be enclosed within an NRC certified shipping cask. A certified shipping cask must demonstrate by test or analysis that it meets the requirements of Part 71.
In response to the coment on the petition from the ]NEEL Oversight Office of the State of Idaho, the NRC inserted language in the proposed rule to require that vitrified HLW canisters meet the design requirements of H 60.235(b) and (c). However, the NRC received several coments on the proposed rule which argued that this language created a specious relationship between Part 71 and Part 60 and combining them might lead to unnecessary entanglements in both the certification and licensing for transportation and disposal itm iG; wi;d f Gts ieh of "&G 71 soJ wodum us. Oa Aleg it-p one<*may ts sj:me% th& sealed cauntw csatoi=u.y 3 Technical Justification to Support the PRM by the DOE to Exempt HLW Canisters from 10 CFR 71.63(b), dated September 30, 1993.
4 i
.-,,,v
--r
.c
m
.a.
voscittea en* ~ ' '*
- * * - s
- n ' < v w. !- pa*3 c' " '" ~'* * ' e ive s= im c:t cf *2. ofyka+mu An fun &*k pooka e o p ! woeId incI#Je o nevie w r9 %
e chaeodenuf* **cI*0' Lfu A N coa < elesy** <! iA' vihW'N HMU cadrata rpquirc:*'N e*t da 5 ?!.C) r uviwa acequate swiusms R ded;n t equi nts for contents ransportatio ekages cluding vit fl ed*,
F canisters d the o reference 5 60.
and (c annecessa Becaus 1.43(d) air y app 11 ede n, iJ..- J c, refer t: $ 7.M3(d) d-.hu n,b is.h; "- gs o all T tran F
r
.m ry.
ENVIRDWINTA! 00G1DrRAT106 The Comission has determined, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Comission's regulations in Subpart A of' 20 CFR Part 51, that this rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore, an environmental 1spect statement'(EIS) is not required.
The NRC's generic E15 on transportation. NUREG 01702, covers all types of radioactive material and transport by all modes (road, rail, sir, and water). The environmental impact of radioactive material shipments (including plutonium) in all modes of transport under the regulations in effect as of June 30,1975, is sumarized by NUREG 0170 as follows:
Transportation accidents involving packages of radibetive material present potential for radiological egosure to transport worker and to
-members of the general public. The epected values of the annual radiological impact from such potential egosure are very small, estimated to be about one latent cancer fatality and one genetic effect for 200 hundred years of shipping at,1975 rates.
The principal nonradiological irpacts were found to be two injuries per year. and less than one accidental death per 4 years.
On the basis of the analysis and evaluation set forth in this statement, the staff concluded that:
Maximum radiation egosure of individuals from normal transportation is generally within recomended limits for members of the general public.
The average radiation dose to the population at risk from nomal transportation is a small fractf A of the limits recomended for members of the general public from'all sources of radiation other than natural 8 NUREG 0170.
- Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes.* December 1977.
5
l and medical sources and is a small fraction of the natural background
- dose, The radiological risk from accidents in transportation is small.
amounting to about one half percent of the normal transportation risk on an annual basis.W.c;dm
..te,4 3 The addition o vitrified HLW to the forms of plutonium which are exempt from the double cent nment requirements of 10 CFR 71,63(b) should not result in any additional shipments of radioactive material. Shipment of vitrified HLW to a repository is a necessary cuiv,er.t of the national HLW disposal or strategy, is permitted under current regulations (with double contairenent),
and would need to occur regardless of this change to Part 71, In concluding that this rule would not increase the number of shipments, the NRC staff has
. presumed that, if the requirement for a separate inner containment is retained, the packaging for transport of the vitrified HLW would be changed, or alternatively, the canisters themselves would be evaluated as a separated X
-inner containment: but that the primary factors which would increase the numbers of shipments (e.g., the number of canisters per package or the physical size and weight of each canister) are generally not related to Part 73 considerations.
Adopting this rule could result in reducing the total number of shipments of vitrified HLW.
Since a separate inner containment vessel would i
not be required, the quantity of vitrified HLW per package could, in some.
instances, be increased.
Increasing the quantity per package could result in 4
fewer shipments.y I nc;% Because, as shoc by NUrdG 0170, the grist'e'st contributor to the overall riIk of transportation of radioactive material is related to the normal (non.
accident) conditions of transport, this reduction potential in the total number of shipments could offset any minimal additional risk which night be incurred by not requiring double containment of the canistered, vitrified HLW.
Shipments offplutonium bearing vitrified HLW, as requested in the petition, are only expected to be made from three DDE facilities: West Valley, New York: Savannah River Site ($RS) South Carolina; and Hanford, Washington to a federal geologic ripository. Hwver, the possibility also exists of intermediate shipments to an interim storage facility. DDE has inventoried the HLW stored within the DOE complex and estimated the total number of vitrified HLW canisters that will be produced and transported to a geologic l
6 9
~.
8 repository. This inventory estimates the total number of HLW canisters at:
Hanford - 7,067: SRS - 5,717; and West Valley - 300. This yields approximately 13,000 canisters, to be processed and stored at these sites by 2030. This number of HLW canisters could change if plutonium production were to resume or if weapons' plutonium were to be combined with HLW for disposal purposes. Ade'itionally, approximately 700 HLW canisters from INEEL may also be generated and transported to the geologic repository. These canisters were not considered in the petition because the HLW treatment technology to be used at 1NEEL had nct yet been selected.
Current repository conceptual designs place four or five vitrified HLW canisters per package. Conservatively assuming four canisters per transportation package, the number of shipments of plutonium bearing vitrified HLW glass from the ICE complex to the repository would be about 3.500 total, to be spread out over several years. These shipments would not start until a geologic repository or an interim storage facility becomes available. The risk associated with this number of shipments is incidental to, and bounded by, the environmental impacts of all radioactive materials transportation, as described in NUREG 0170.
i The only impact of this rule is expected to be that shipments of vitrified HLW will not be required to be made in packages which have a separate inner containment.
Vitrified HLW is shipped in Type B packspes.
Every Type B package is required to meet the standards for normal and hypothetical accident conditions set forth in Part 71. The Snipping casks for vitrified HLW are anticipated to be similar in design and robustness to shipping casks for irradiated reactor fuel elements. Irradiated reactor fuel elements are exempt from the double containment requirement of 5 71.63(b).
Also, irradiate 1 reactor fuel elements typically contain a significantly higher concentration of plutonium than the vitrified HLW being proposed by DDE.
In 1957 the NRC performed a model study (NUREGICR-4829), which examined the accident risks associated with transport of spent nuclear fuel, by relating the thermal and mechanical forces that the NRC certified packages could withstand, to the frequencies of accidents that could result in such forces. The conclusion of this study was that the ability of spent nuclear fuel packages to withsta'd the hypothetical accident conditions in Part 71, as
- 8 DDE/RW.0006. Rev.11. *]ntegrated Data Base Report - 1994 U.S. Spent Fuel and Radioactive Weste Inventories, Projections, and Characteristics.*
1 Septenber 1995.
7
required during the NRC-certification,-bounded the actual accidents which might occur during transport, such tha'. the fraction of accidents resulting in any radiological hazard was less than 0.6 percent, and the annual risks of transporting sper.t nuclear fuel are estimated at less than one third the NUREG 0170 estimates for all radioactive materials.
Because of: (1) % M11ef th:t vitrific W.! ;; ee;er, tis 11.7-e m M eeb'?: (2) the xpected similarities beten design and robustness of irradisted reactor fuel element packages and the vitrified HLW packspes:
(3) the greater number f shipments of irradiated reactor fuel elements as compared to vitrified 'W: U) tS b ;
serce t
- veihbic for Mh : :s -
e 'e!"'t e' ea ecc49 "4t'"i t "'.!! ; :k?/:t 4~fehd.r,g : :gr.t fel pt&; e: ented t: ; -and ($ the previous findin t
- radioactive materia s shipments in NUREG 0170, and spent fuel shipments in NUREG/CR 4829); t NRC finds that there is no significant effect on the quality of the e ironment assoedated with this rulemaking.
kig b degnee cf con Reement poi. led b He Sfainlass daeJ wah co ;she and He n--e.yyiet:H ei g
tke of:f p etniu -benay w e te % ;
l 9
8
t NTACXYE \\ T 4
- s 4
CONGRESSIONAL LETTERS e
O4 e
f og I.-
UNffED STATE 8
)
WUCLEAR REQULNf 0RY COMMisS10N eumwetow, o.s. men.am
. g,..ow I
h Nw*',,)c.<h*J The Honorable Dan Schaefer, Chaiman Subcormittee on Energy and Power
,$#j)c p #88,,g ** e,.d 5
Comittee on Comerce h # pa *T' tay f*'
t4 "f United States House of Representatives e
F ;e pte=' #,,,
Washington, DC 20515 f.
9 a
Dear Mr. Chairman:
p, led The NRC has sent to the Office of Federal Register for publication the i
enclosed final mendment to the
..ission's rules in 10 CFR Part 71. The amendment adds canisters conta ing vitrified high level waste to the forms of plutonium which are exempt fr the double containment packaging requirements 10' transportation _ of plut um. This amendment is in response to a petition
, for rulemaking submitted the Department of Energy., The primary purpose for double containment is to.2're tMtfe!"4"8'ef "+^ad'- d'l nt bc 10"^d 1
1:t t % st ::;F.:r:. The NRC agrees with the petitioner that. vitrified high-level wastes : : ers=* ally =a ::pireth, and therefore the packagi s; requirement for double containment is unnecessa This apprusch is consistent th that currently used for the he rule change will allcw a%yI gfnucle ir reactor fuel elements.
........ i ve means of transport 1 this waste with no significant i act to public walth and 4
safety. T e rule will also make a minor to ection to the spe of metric and English its to be consistent with exist g NRC policj.
sa s'tabe L sh; e.,Te4 Lv.l.'^'"r&
Se canisfex$
ylg flincerely,
k.
c m %,3 a
j a
Dennis K. Rathbun. Director Office of Congressional Affairs J
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice cc: Representative Ralph Hall
+
a
,+
,---w
-,e-m-s e
v--
<,,a
-s,-,
a w
The::fonor6ble Den Schaefer. Chaiman Subc:mnittee on Energy and Power -
Comittee on Comerce United States House of Representatives Weshington, DC-20515
Dear Hr. Chairman:
)
The NRC has sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the enclosed. final amendment to the Comission's rules in 30 CFR Part 73. The amendment adds canisters containing vitrified high level waste to the forms of plutonium which are exempt from the double containment packaging requirements for transportation of plutonium. - This amendment is in response to a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Department of Energy. The primary purpose for double containment is to ensure that respirable plutonium will not be leaked into the atmosphere. The NRC agrees with the petitioner that vitrifia'd high.
level wastes are essentially nonrespirable, and therefore the packaging requirement for double containment is unnecessary. This approach is i
consistent with that currently used for the shipmr~.t of nuclear reactor fuel elements. The rule change will allow a more cost effective means of-transporting this waste with no significant impact to public health and safety. The rule will also make a minor correction to the usage of metric end English units to be consistent with existing NRC policy.
Sincerely.
e Dennis K. Rathbun. Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice 1
cc: Representative Ralph Hall L
Distribsim:
Sub.1/ central. EDO R/F DOCUMENT NAME:IO:\\MA3SFIEL\\PU\\CGLFIN 5.g g e
. w v i s ) - =. - i v.c= = =
,=
0FF]CE IMDB
.l IMDB l
D:1MNS l
OCA l
[
NA*iE MHaisfield
- JPiccone -
DCool l DKRathbun DATE
/ /97
/ /97
/ /97
/ /
OFFJCIAL RECORD COPY
c L.
\\*
.* msss p
uwrTrotrAtss l
NUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMISSION tr&&Nikt1Def. 9,8. anthesM l
\\'*.Crw The Honorcble James M. Inhofa. Chaiman i
Subcom'ittee on Clean Air. Wetlands. Private Property and Nuclear Safety Comittee en Invironment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 4
4
Dear Mr. Chairman:
h he Ett hat m et te t M A<<ica / +he rederal Register for publication the Med final amendment tojdIt Comission's run Part 71. The amendment adds canisters ntaining vitrified high level was foms of plutonium which are ex. - from the double contairynent packaging req nts for transportation of g utonium. This amendment is in response to a pet t(on for rulemaking submittM by the Department o'? Energy.. The primary purpose for i
double containment is to ensure that respirable plutonium will not be leaked \\
into the atmosphere. The NRC agrees with the petitioner that vitrified high-
\\
level wastes are essentially nonrespirable, and therefore the packaging reQuiretaent for double containment is unnecessary, This approach is i
consistent with that currently used for the shipment of nuclear reactor fuel elements. The rule chenpe will allow a more cost effective means of
\\ transporting this waste with no significant inpact to public health and ty, The rule will also make a minor correction to the usage of mepnd j
9 units to be cons'otent with existing NRC policy.
r Sincerely.
Dennis K. Rathbun. Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice ec: Senator Bob Graham
e t
The Honorable James M. Inhofe, Chairman Subcomittee on Clean Air. Wetlands, Private i
Property and Nuclear Safety Comittee on Environment and Public Works i
United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 i
Dear Mr. Chairman:
1 The NRC has sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the enclosed final amenthent to the Cumission's rules in 20 CFR Part 71. The amendment adds canisters containing vitrified high level waste to the forms of plutonium which are exerrpt from the double containment packaging requirements for transportation of plutonium. This amen 6 ment is in response to a petition for rulerr.sking submitted by the Department of Energy. Tht primary purpow for double containment is to ensure that respirab1; plutonium will not be leaked into the atmosphere. The NRC agrees with the petitioner that vitrified high.
level wastes are essentially nonrespirable. and inerefore the packaging requirement for double containment is enecesnry. This approach is i
cor.sistent with that currently used for the s pmer,t of nuclear reactor fuel i
elements. The rule change will allow e more cost effective means of transporting this waste with no significant imonet to public health and safety, The rule will also make a mir,or correction to the usage of metric and English units to be (9nsistent with existing WRC poli 1l~ 44 da Sincerely.
6y f
Dennis f., Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs Inclosure:
Federal Register Notice cc: Senator Bob Graham myribution:
Subj/ central. EDO R/,
DDOUMEhi NAME:(0:\\MA15FIEL\\PU\\CGLJIN) t
..I. C,Yd'N U wr.c ug. gym,. rem r.~ ~,.v iorrict 1Moe 1
IMas l
D: m s 1
OCA 1
I
{MME Maisfield JPiccone D;ool DKRathbun lDATE
/ /97
/ /97
/ /97
/ /
8 J
I a
l ATTACF WEhT 5 SVIALL BUSINESS REGULATORY ENNORCEMENT FAIRNESS ACT LETTERS r
l~
l i
. _ _,. _ _ _ _ _... _,.,, _ _.. _. -., _ _.. _ _,..., _,.,,,,, - -. - _. ~,,,.... _,, _,....,,
,,.._y.,
/
/s UNITto 8 TATE 8 NUCLEAR REQULATORY CoMMiss10N
[g eras wewst p. 8 1 6
('..CW I
Mr. Robert P. Murphy General Counsti General Accounting Office Res 71/5 44 ' G. St., NW.
Washington, DC 20548
\\e5
Dear Mr. Harphy:
- 8 Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Busi s Re;ulatory Enforcement Faimess Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C. 801. the Nucitar R gulatory Comission (NRC) is submitting a final amendment to the C
..ission's rules in 10 CFR Part 72. The NRC 9 amending its re;ulations to pdd canisters containing vitrified high-level waste to the foms of plutonium which are exempt from the double conta1nment packaging requirements for transportation of plutunium. This amendment responds to a petition for rulemakirg ! tmitted by the Department of Fnergy.
We have detemined that this rule is not a ' major rule
- as defined in 5 U.S.C.
804(2). We have confirmed this detemination with the Office of Management and Budget.
Inclosed is a copy of the final rule that is being transmitted to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. This final rule will becoma effective 45 days after it is publisheo in the Federal Register.
1 Sincerely.
Dennis K. Rathbun. Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Final Role l
a*
Mr. Robert P. Murphy General Counsel General Accounting Office Room 7175 442 G. St., NW'.
t Washington. DC 20548
DearMr. Murphy:
Pursuant to Subtitle I of the small Busine [ Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C. 801, the Nuclear R 91 story Comission (NRC) is submitting a final amendment to the
.1ssion's rules in 10 CFR Part 71. Th; NRC is amending its regulations to ad canisters containing vitrified high-level waste to the foms of plutonium which are exenpt from the double containment packaging requirements for transportation of plutonium. This amendment responds to a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Department of
-Energy..
We have detemirmf that this rule is not a
- major rule
- as twined in 5 U.S.C.
804(2). We have confimed this detemination with the Office of Management and Budget.
Inclosed is a copy of the final rule that is being transmitted to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. This final rule will become effective 45 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
Sincerely.
Dennis K. Rathbun. Director Office of Congressional Affairs Inclosure: Final Rule Dismatrrtrw.
EDO R/F DDCUMERT NAME:0:\\MA15FIEL\\PU\\CEL. FAIR To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box:
'C' = Copy without atteehwnt/ enclosure
'E' = copy with attachment / enclosure
- N' = No copy 0 See previous concurrence (DFFICE IH3 1
lH3 1
D:lMNS l-D:0CA l
l
!NAME MHaisfield
_ JPiccone D;ool DRathbun l
DATE
/ /97
/ /97
/ /97
/ /
l OFFjCIAL RICORD CDPY I
o
s uey a
UNf7Eo STATES p
{
NUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMISSION e
e Alt (IN GT ON, D.C. A g,4....
c,T The Honorable Al Gore President of the United States Senate Washington, DC 20530 l
Dear Mr. President:
p\\e Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Busine Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C. S')), the Nu: lear R' ulatory Comission (NRC) is submitting a final amendment to the C assion's rules in 30 CFR Part 71. The NRC is amending its regulations to add canisters containing vitrified high.
level waste to the foms of plutonium A1ch are exempt from the double containment pa:kaging requirements for transportation of plutonium. This amendment responds to a petition for rulemakir.; submitted:by the Department of Energy.
We have deter 7nined that this rule is not a
- major rule
- as defined in 5 U.S.C.
8 04(2). We have confirmed this detemination with the Office of Management and Budget.
En:losed is a copy of the final rule that is being transmitted to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. This final rule will become effe:tive 45 days after it is pab11shed in the Federal Register, Sin:erely, Dennis K. Rathbun. Director Office of Congressional Affairs En:losure: Final Rule
g a
l '.
The Honorable Al Gore j
President of the United States Senate Washington, DC 2D5)o g
Dear Mr. President:
t Pursuant to Subtitle E of the small Busi s Regulatory Enforcement Faimess l
'Act of 3996. 6 U.S.C. 803, the Nuclear pulatory Commission (NRC) is l
sutnitting a final amenoment to the C
.ission's rules in 20 CFR Part 71. The NRC is amending its regulations to ad canisters containing vitrified high.
l 1evel weste to the forms of plutonium which are exenpt tros the doct>1e contairvnent packaging requirements for transportation of plutonium. This amendment responds to a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Department of
, Enemy.
l We have detamined that this rule is not a
- major rule
- as defined in 5 U.S.C.
804(2). We have confirmed this deterninetton with the Dffice of Management and Sudatt.
Enclosed is a copy of the final rule that is being transmitted to the Dffice of the Federal Register for publication. This final rula will become effective 45 days after it is published in the Federal Register, t
Sincerely.
Dennis K. Rathbun. Director Dffice of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Final Rule D1rrR199T1CW-EDO R/F DOCUMEhT NAME 0:\\HA15FIEl,\\PU\\CGi.. FAIR To receive a copy of this document indicate in the box:
- C' = Copy without attachment / enclosure
- E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure
- N' = No copy o see previous concurrence ornCt ja 1
la
- 1. l o: Inss I
DioCA 1
l NAME MHaisfield JPicconc DCool DRathbun l
DATE
/ /97
/ /97
/ /97
/ /
l OFFJClAL RECORD CDPY
p'* *Q.
- l UNfM o STATES p
[
WUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMissl0N
)
w u win st e m. o.s. e -
\\,m c,w e,,*
The Honorable Newt Gingrich Speaker of the United States House of Representatives V*y)
Washington DC 20$15
Dear Mr. Speaker:
t Pursuant to Subtitle ! cf the Small Busi ss Regulatory Enforcement Faimess Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C. 801. the Nuclear gulatory Comission (NRC) is submitting a final amendment to the C ission's rules in 30 CFR Part 73. The NRC is amending its regulations to ad canisters containing vitrified high.
level aste to the form of plutonium which are exempt from the double containment packaging requirements for transportation of plutonium. This amen 0 ment risponds to a petition for ruleuking submitted,by the Department of Entrgy.
R We have deterzined that this rule is not a " major rule
- as defined in 5 U.S.C.
8 04(2). We have confirmed this deterwir.ation with the Office of Management and Pudget.
Enclosed is a copy of the final rule that is being transmitted to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. This final rule will become effective 45 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Final Rule
'I
/
\\
,s
.,m.
_,,m-
%-m.-....
,... ~,,.. _ _ __
hs The Honorable Newt Gingrich Speaker of the United States House of Representatives
[
Washington, DC 20515 y
l V
Dear Mr. Speaker:
/
i Pursuant to subtitle E of the $ mall Busi s Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 6 U.S.C. 801, the Nuclear gulatory Comission (NRC) is submitting a final amendment to the
.ission's rulas in 10 CFR Part 71. The NRC is amending its regulations to add canisters containir.; vitrified high.
level weste to the forms of plutonium which are exegt from the double containment packaging requirements for transportation of plutonium. This amendment responds to a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Departarnt of Energy.
We have determined that this rule is not a " major rule
- as defined in 5 U.S.C.
804(2). _ We have confirmed this determination with the Office of Management end Sud9tt.
Inflosed is a copy of the final rule that is being transmitted to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. This final rule will become effective 45 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
Sincerely.
Dennis K. Rathbun. Director
. Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Final Rule i
D15TRIRLfilDh EDD R/F DDCUMEhi NAME:0:\\HA15FIEL\\PU\\CGL FAIR To receive a copy of this doceent. indicate in the box:
'C' = Copy without attachment / enclosure
- E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure
- N' = No copy o see previous concurrence DFFICE IMDB'
]
IM3B
-l D:1MN.S l-D:0CA l
l NAME MHaisfield JPiccone
. DCool
- DRathbun l
1 DATE
-/--/97
/ /97
/ /97
/ /
l OFF]C M RECORD COPY
..n.,-,--n-,_,-.~,,-._,_,,.
m____...~4 s_
2..-,_
..a.,_
_u,u-
- m. 6m,_ m m
.m
.--.m.-.m___..
I I
O e
6 l
ATTACHMENT 6 f'
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT W
w, r
.,w--
e,----a~e--
.e w m,r
,w
-~--we-------
r
-n~
+'
---n<.-r--
-e-
-~=e--
ej D
C" 70 BI COMPLDED BY DPA 1_
4
y
_ _ fewme*e. V 4
The Comissioners 4
1.
That a public announcement will be issued by the Office of Public Affairs when the final rulemaking is filed with the Office of the Federal Register (Attachment 6).
L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations
, Attachments: As stated (6)
Distribution:
IDO r/f RECORD NOTE: A draft copy of the final rule was sent to O!G for information on 1997 DOCUMENT NAMI: 0:\\MA15FJEL\\PU\\5ECYJJN v.
w.
- *.. ~ m. m u i.
w.: e. c.,
.n. ~,v. = r
- c. n.
. - w -
- s r.
OFFICE IMDB l
IMDB l
D/5FPO
]
D/IMNS l
D/05P l
NAMI MHaisfield JPiccone CHaughney DCool RLBangert DATE
/ /97 muu/ /97
/ /97
/ ~[97
/ /
Imammmmummummmmmmmmmmum um mmmmerumam um mummmmmmmmmmasum man umwammmmmme muu i 0FFICE D/DE OGC ADM 1RM l
NAME JLiebeman KCyr DMeyer BJ5helton DATE
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
NAME JFunches AGalante CJPaperiello AThadani LJCallan
'tDATE
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
l OFFJCIAL RICORD COPY l
~