ML20203C657
| ML20203C657 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/11/1998 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-63FR8362, RULE-PRM-71-12 NUDOCS 9802250229 | |
| Download: ML20203C657 (6) | |
Text
l c
DOCKETED USNRC i
% FEB 1217M P]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOggp,
7.
RU' d ~ Ti
- N ' '. ' M 10 CFR Part 71 ADJd6Ui M " $ p
[ Docket No. PRM 71 12]
Intemational Energ/ Consultants, Inc.;
DOCKETNUMBER Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking PETUM W {Ry W-g
( G3 F# g 34,2,)
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Notice of receipt.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received and requests public comment on a petition hr rulamaking filed by the Intemational Energy Consultants, Inc.
The petition has been docketed by the Commission and has been assigned Docket No.
PRM-71-12. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations that govem packaging and transportation of radioactive material. The petitioner believes that special requirements for plutonium shipments should be eliminated.
5,t998 Submit comments by (75 de%"=;m; pub';;et;;, b th: Ped ::t 9:pMed.
j; f; DATE:
Comments recented after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before this date.
l ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C ommission, g
Weshington, DC 20555. Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
gl j; {) >
,m 3 5 //
9802250229 980211
...f
. f, f.,].l ]f.l.
D_g
- 4. m s/nl9s
Del'ver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 am and a
4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
For a copy of the petition, write: David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking website through the NRC home page (http1/www.nrc. gov). This site provides the availability to upload comments as files (any format), if your web browser supports that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking website, contact Carol Gallagher, 301-415-5905 (e-mail:
CAG@nrc. gov).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. Meyer, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone: 301-415-7162 or Toll Free: 800-368-5642 or e-mail: DLM1@nrc. gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Nuclear Regulcary Commission received a petition for rulemaking submitted by Frank P. Falci on behalf of the Intemational Energy Consultants, Inc. in the form of a letter addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, dated September 25,1997. The petitioner believes that 10 CFR 71.63(b) should be eliminated. As an option, the petitioner believes that 10 CFR 71.63(a) should also be eliminated. This option would totelly eliminate 10 CFR 71.63.
The petitioner made the same recommendation in a letter dated July 22,1997, which he provided as a comment in the Commi..i s proposed rulemaking amending 10 CFR 71.63(b) 2 l
l l
l l
to remuve canisters containing vitrified high-level waste from the packaging requirement for double containment.
The petition was docketed as PRM-71-12 on October 22,1997. Tne NRC is soliciting public comment on the petition. Public comment is requested on both the petition to eliminate 10 CFR 71.63(b), as well as the option to eliminate 10 CFR 71.63 totally, as discussed below.
Discussion of the Petition NRC's regulations in 10 CFR Part 71, entitled " Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material," include, in S 71.63, special requirements for plutonium shipments:
$71.63 Special requirements for plutonium shipments.
(a) Plutonium in excess of 20 Ci (0.74 TBq) per package must be shipped as a solid.
(b) Plutonium in excess of 20 Cl (0.74 TBq) per package must be packaged in a separate inner container placed within outer packaging that meets the requirements of subparts E and F of this part for packaging of materialin nonnal form, if the entire package is subjected to the tests specified in $71.71 (" Normal conditions of transport"),
the separate inner container must not release plutonium as demonstrated to a sensitivity of 104 Afh. If the entire package is subjected to the tests specified in $71.73
(" Hypothetical accident conditions"), the separate inner container must restrict the loss of plutonium to not more than A in 1 week. Solid plutonium in the following forms is 2
exempt from the requirements of this paragraph:
(1) Reactor fuel elements; (2) Metal or metal alloy; and (3) Other plutonium bearing solids that the Commission determines should be exempt from the requirements of this section.
3
o The petitioner requests that 6 71.63(b) be deleted. The petitioner believes that provisions stated in this regulation cannot tw supported technically or logically. The petitioner states.lat based on the "Q-System for the Calculation of A and A Values,' an A, quantity of i
2 any radionuclide has the same potential for damaging the environment and the human species as an A, quantity of any other radionuclide. The petitioner further states that the requirement that a Type B package must be used whenever package content exceeds an A quantity should 3
be applied consistently for any radionuclide. The petitioner believes that if a Type B package is sufficient for a quantity of a radionuclide X which exceeds A, then a Type B package should be 2
sufficient for a quantity of radionuclide Y which exceeds A, and this should be similarly so for 2
every other radionuclide.
The petitioner states that while, for the most part, the regulations embrace this simple logical congruence, the congruence fails under 9 71.63(b) because packages containing pittonium must include a separate inner container for quantities of plutonium having an activity exceeding 20 curies (0.74 TBq). The petitioner believes that if the NRC allows this failure of congruence to persist, the regulations will be vulnerable to the following challenges:
(1) The logical foundation of the adequacy of A values as a proper measure of 2
1 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 every radionuclide which, if exceeded, would require a separate inner container, is an inherently inconsistent safety practice; I
and (3) The performance requirements for Type B packages as called for by 10 CFR l
Part 71 establish containment conditions under different levels of package trauma. The satisfaction of these requirements should be a matter of proper design work by the 4
l package designer and proper evaluation of the design through regulatory review. The imposition of any specific package design feature such as that contained in 10 CFR 1
71.63(b)is gratuitous. The regulations are not formuiated as package design specifications, nor shoJid they be.
The petitioner believes that the continuing presence of 6 7163(b) engenders excessively high costs in the transport of some radioactwe materials wl;hout a ( my measurable net safety benefit. The petitioner states that this is so in part because the ultimate release limits allowed under Part 71 package performance requirements are identical with or without a "saparate inner container," and because the presence of a ' separate inner container" promotes additional exposures to radiation through the additional handling required for the
' separate inner container." The petitioner further states that "... excessively high costs occur in some transport campaigns,' and that one example ".. of damage to our national budget is in the transport of transuranic wastes." Because large numbers of transuranic waste drums must be shipped in packages that have a " separate inner container" to compt with the existing rule, the petitioner believes that large savings would accrue without this rule. Therefore, the petitioner believes that elimination of 6 71.63(b) would resolve these regulatory
- defects "
As a corollary to the primary petition, the petitioner believes that an option to eliminate
$ 71.63(a) as well as 6 71.63(b) should also be considered. This option would have the effect of totally eliminating 6 71.63. The petitioner believes that the arguments propounded to support the elimination 9 71.63(b) also support the elimination of 9 71.63(a).
The Petitioner's Conclusions The petitioner has concluded that NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 71 which govem packaging and transportation of radioactive material must be amended to delete the provision regarding special requirements for plutonium shipments. The petitioner believes that a Type B 5
_. - _.... ~_-.___ _
package should be sufficient for a quantity of radionuclide Y which exceeds the A, limit if such a package is sufficient for a quantity of radionuclide X which exceeds the A, limit. It is the petitioner's view that this should be true for every other radionuclide including plutonium.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this /
day of February 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
J' r
A b
' hn C. Hoy.
j cretary of the Commission.
2 1
t 6