ML20198M115
| ML20198M115 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/14/1997 |
| From: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-96-215-C, SECY-97-218-C, SECY-97-235, SECY-97-235-01, SECY-97-235-1, SECY-97-235-R, NUDOCS 9710280061 | |
| Download: ML20198M115 (4) | |
Text
__ . _ _ _ _ _ _
i
( ,
j nets &D To mE Pon
{(""%,,1 Ab
- i. mkfNZ m inu3 i RULEMAKING ISSUE (Information)
October 14.1997 SECY-97-235 EDE: The Commissioners ERQM: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations SUBJECI: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO SECY 07 218, "SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR TRANSPORT OF LARGE QUANTITIES OF PLUTONIUM" PURPOSE:
To inform the Commission of recolpt of a petition for rulemaking related to the double-containment provisions of 10 CFR 71.03. This petition was recolved after the staff response to the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM)- SECY 06 215, had been forwarded to the Commission.
DISCUSRlON:
The staff prepared its response to the SRM for SECY 06 215, regarding the validity of the provisions of 10 CFR 71.03. The information paper was sent to the Commisslor, as ,
A copy of the attached petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802 was received on September 30,1997, by the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. Since CONTACT: R. Chappell, SFPO/NMSS NOTE: To BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IN 415-8510' 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF TilIS PAPER (yMl,
!!!!k!h,k!i. "
y r3 g /d ' I 0 9710290061 971014 \' b d L '".ogu PDR SECY 97-233 R PDR (o
i The Commissioners 2-it is closely related to SECY 97 218, it is forwarded for your information This petition will be evaluated and processed under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.802.
COORDINATION This paper has been coordinated with the Office of the General Counsel, which has no legal objection.
A h "'
/bL, osep, Callan Executive Director for Operations
Attachment:
Petition DISTRIBUTION:
Connaissioners oGC olG OPA OCA CIO CFO EDO SECY
s
, INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONOIJLTANTO, INC.
890$ COPINHAVER DRIV!
l POTOMAC. MARYLAND 20t54 (301ho 00 (301) 340 2229 fax September 25,1997 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisslor.
Attn: Chief, Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 0001 Re: Petition for Rulemaking Pursuant to Provisions of 10 CFR 2.802 Regarding the "Special Requirements for Plutonium Shipments",10 CFR 71.63
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I have previou;ly communicated with you about the NRC Rulemaking on Requirements for Shipping Packages Used to Transport Vitrified High Level Waste, Docket Number 71 11, by my letter to you dated July 22,1997. Receipt of my letter was acknowledged by your office in a notice postmarked July 25,1997.
One of my earlier comments was:
"De Notice cf Proposed Rulemaking referred to a NRC Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) dated October 31,19% nis SRM directed the stafito initiate and expedite the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and this has been accomplished. He SRM also stated, 'In the longer term, the staff should also address whether the technical basis for 10 CFR 71.63 remain valid, or whether a revision or elimination of portions of 10 CFR 71.63 is needed to provide flexibility for current and future technologies.' His broader look at 10 CFR 71.63 is to be completed by September 26,1997. I recommend that pursuit of the total elimination of 10 CFR 71.63 be
, undertaken forthwith."
In keeping with the intent of my earlier recommendation,I hereby petition the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory !
Commission (NRC) for a rulemaking under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.802. I request that 10 CFR 71.63 (b) be deleted in its entirety. ;
His action is needed to remove from Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations, provisions which cannot be supported technic:Jiy or logically. Based on the "Q System for the Calculation of A, and A, Values", an !
A 3quantity of any radionuclide has the same potential for damaging the environment and the human species -
as an A, quantity of say other radionuclide. Herefore, the requirement that a Type B package must be used l whenever package content exceeds an A, quantity should be applied consistently for any radionuclide. nat is, if a Type B package is sufficient for a quantity of radionuclide X which exceeds A,, then a Type B l package should be sufficient for a quantity of radionuclide Y which exceeds A,. And this should be similarly so for every other radionuclide. i Attachsent ,
l
-y -
m_+
d y U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission September 25,1997 i
While the regulations d,o embrace this simple logical congruence for the most part, the congruence fails under 10 CFR 71.63 (b) wherein packages containing plutonium must include a separate inner container for quantities of plutonium having a radioactivity exceeding 20 curies (with certain exceptions).
If the NRC allows this failure o~ congruence to persist, these regulations will be vulnerable to the following challenges:
(1) ne logical foundation of the adequacy of A, values as a proper measure of the potential for damaging the environment and the human species, as set forth under the Q-System, is compromised.
(2) The absence of a radioactivity limit for eveiy radionuclide which, if exceeded, would require a separate inner container, is an inherently inconsistent safety practice.
(3) The performance requirements for Type B packages as called for by 10 CFR 71 establish containment conditions under different levels of package trauma. He satisfaction of these requiremente should be a matter of proper design work by the package designer and proper evaluation of tne design through regulatory review. He imposition of any specific pachage design feature such as that contained in 10 CFR 71.63 (b)is gratuitous. He regulations are not formulated as package design specifications, nor should they be.
In addition, the continuing presence of 10 CFR 71.63 (b) engenders excessively high costs in the transport of some radioactive materials with no clearly measurable net safety benefit. His is so in part because the ultimate release !saits allowed under 10 CFR 71 package performance requirements are identical with or without a " separate inner cor.tainer", and because the presence of a " separate inner container" promotes additional exposures to radiation through the additional handling required for the " separate inner container".
Further, excessively high costs occur in snme transport campaigns. One instance of such damage to our national budget is in the transport of transuranic wastes. Large numbers of transuranic waste drums must be shipped in packages which have a " separate inner container" to comply with the existing rule. Large savings would accrue without this rule.
De elimination of 10 CFR 71.63 (b) in its entirety would resolve these regulatory defects.
I recognize that the arguments presented here also reflect upon 10 CFR 71.63 (a) because 10 CFR 71.63 (a) also relates only to a limited group ofindionuclides. I request that NRC consider this matter as a corollary to the basic petition.
Sincerely, s -
b Frank P. Falci President FPF/aw