ML20206E979

EDO Control of Rulemaking Package Re 10CFR51.52, Environ Impact Assessment of Transportation of Radioactive Matl to & from Nuclear Power Plants. Termination of Rulemaking Approved

ML20206E979
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/19/1985
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
References
NUDOCS 8606240063
Download: ML20206E979 (46)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:, JUN 191985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING By memorandum of February 13, 1984, " Control of NRC Rulemaking by Offices Reporting to the EDO," Offices were directed that effective April 1,1984, (1) all offices under EDO purview must obtain my approval to begin and/or continue a specific rulemaking, (2) resources were not to be expended on rule-makings that have not been approved, and (3) RES would independently review rulemaking proposals forwarded for my approval and make reconnendations to me i concerning whether or not and how to proceed with the rulemakings. In accordance with my directive, the following proposal concerning rulemaking has been forwarded for my approval. Proposed revision of 10 CFR 51.52, Table S-4, entitled " Environmental Impact Assessment of the Transportation of Radioactive Material to and from Nuclear Power Plants." (Sponsored by RES _ memorandum, Minogue to EDO dated June 3, 1985.) I approve termination of this rulemaking. The NRC Regulatory Agenda (NUREG-0936) should be modified to reflect the status of this rulemaking. (gip SVR!tlam1.D W. William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations cc: V. Stello J. Roe H. R. Denton J. Taylor J. G. Davis 8606240063 85o619 RM pDR P. G. Norry {o Distribution: WJDircks JHSniezek VStello WSchwink JPhilips JHenry ED0 rf Central File DEDR0GR cf A 0FC :ROGR/S

RO R/D

DE OGR

EDO F :

_____:._. _c_____: q _____ : _ __ f NAME :W nk zek 3 .WDfrck ._ __ __ __ :.g _1 8 5 _,._______: __ 3.______:____________:..._________:___________ [85

6/l /

6// I/85 DATE :6/14/85

6/

f[ \\ UNITED STATES 6s,' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [p F o 5 E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 %.....) L JUN 3 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM: Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING: RES REVIEW 0F ONG0ING RES SPONS0 RED RULEMAKING Based on our review of the ongoing RES sponsored rulemaking, Environmental Impact Assessment of the Transportation of Radioactive Material To and From Nuclear Power Plants, RES recommends that this rulemaking activity be terminat_ed. This recommendation in draft form has been coordinated with the Divisions of System Integration and Engineering, NRR; and the Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS; and the Office of the Executive Legal Director. The basis for our recommendation is as follows: o The Environmental Impact Assessment of Transportation of Radioactive Mat-erial To and From Nuclear Power Plants has been used primarily by potential applicants for a permit to construct a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor. The assessment (Table S-4, 10 CFR 51.52) can be referenced in the applicant's required Environmental Report if the transportation of cold fuel to the reactor and irradiated fuel and solid radioactive waste from the reactor is within the scope of 10 CFR 51.52. The Table is also used in individual license amendment cases relating to the transhipment of spent fuel. The Table should be revised to reflect, among other things, the higher fuel burn-up at some power plants and the increased frequency of transportation of spent fuel. However, although the present Table S-4 is in need of updating, the staff is not aware of substantive errors which would invalidate the tabulated impacts. o Approximately 1-2 staff years of effort would need to be expended to complete the rulemaking necessary to update Table S-4. Given the limited resources available in RES the expenditure of resources cannot be justified at this time. If this situation changes in the future, the staff will recommend to the ED0 that this rulemaking effort be reinitiated. The complete RES review package has bean sent to OE00 (Attention: DEDR0GR)and to the following Directors, Division of System Integration and Engineering, NRR; and the Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS; and the Office of the Executive Legal Director. Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

1 - . Dete ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP JUN 3 1985 10 esos symbol, seem number, Battlets Date Agency /reen

s. OGDO ( W s.'DGDRostD n

IA 4NA 3. /,'h 0% -) E Xnomen roe \\ V mete end Retum neorevel For e- ';x: v7pw converesuon Ao.. - ^^ For C.- ^* Propero Itaply Circulate For Your lefosmetion See the E: -- :^ investigste Signature r_ m_ g MMARKS (A 6 ( m s a h b vt) aes.- 9 a sA. m % ;( 9 " UP*k ' g@Aa. 5 -9 M 61.- 3 . DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvels, concurrences, Pm clearencee, and similar actione FR008:(Name, org. symbol, Agency /Peet) Room No.-84ds. f~)ff(. 3 ) Bast-tet OPfl0NAL F01108 41 (Itev. 7-76) p NrunM I -11.ms . u.aeso.: we6421.sz,/6 2 t

N$h? ^ ^ M-" 'Distribttion 95 RAMRB r/f a; -

ig _ -

Circ /Chron/Subj / C mi: WLahs F JMalaro '7 FG111espie Dross [ RHinogue + IEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks ~ Executive Director for Operations FROM: Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research $U8 JECT: CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING: RES REVIEW 0F ONGOING RES SPONSORED RULEMAKING Based on our review of the ongoing RES sponsored rulemaking, Environmental 'p Impact Assessment of the Transportation of Radioactive Material To and From Nuclear Power Plants, RES recommends that this rulemaking activity be terminated. This recosamendation in draft fom has been coordinated with the [ Divisions of System Integration and Engineering, NRR; and the Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety,IMSS; and the Office of the Executive Legal Director. i The basis for our recommendation is as follows: o The Environmental Impact Assessment of Transportation of Radioactive Mat-1 erial To and From Nuclear Power Plants has been used primarily by potential applicants for a pemit to construct a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor. The assessment (Table S-4, 10 CFR 51.52) can be referenced in the applicant's required Environmental Report if the transportation of cold fuel to the reactor and irradiated fuel and solid radioactive waste from the reactor is within the scope of 10 CFR 51.52. The Table is also used in individual license amendment cases relating to the transhipment of spent fuel. The Table should be revised to reflect, among other things, the higher fuel burn-up at some power plants and the increased frequency of transportation of spent fuel. However, although the present Table S-4 is in need of updating, the staff is not aware of substantive errors which would invalidate the tabulated impacts. o Approximately 1-2 staff years of effort would need to be expended to complete the rulemaking necessary to update Table S-4. Given the limited resources available in RES the expenditure of resources cannot be justified at this time. If this situation changes in the future, the staff will recomend to the EDO that this rulemaking effort be reinttiated. The complete RES review package has been sent to OEDO (Attention: DEDROGR) and to the following Directors, Division of System Integration and Engineering, NRR; and the Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, MMSS; and the Office of the Executive Legal Director, W Ni s ., " " ". = > ..Wlahs/mf

i. !.

RAMF hES ,l ,,, h,,,,.,,,DD : RES,, gue ,[,, .. laro I spie os D te JCMa

5..

.. J. . -.... obe Di t .... f.. .ffi. .9 f.. ...e .Regu,1,a.tgr,v,, Rey,g!!h.. M ?N. 1_ uxc ronu ne no. son aacu cuo OdTFiCIAL RECORD COPY r

M -aoM-o &t. t k' w 1. F' 9. ent - 6 M RES REVIEW PACKAGE i I I k ) 1

1 .f 'RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD e ' VOTING SHEET 7 i T0: F. P. GILLESPIE CHAIRMN, RIRB FROM: G. A. Arlotto Member, RIRB TITLE OF RULEMAKING: Uodate of Table S-4, Part 51 ~ I AGREE WITH RECOMENDATIONS h IN RES RULEMAKING REVIEW ING. PACKAGE 4 MDDIFY RECOMENDATIONS IN NOT PMTICIPATING. RES RULEMAKING REVIEW l' PACKAGE AS INDICATED BELOW Co mENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: l l s l l l 8 \\ i MEM ER, RIRB %1n/ DATE e '- .... v.y

y RES INDEPENDEf3 1.EVIEk' BOARD T VOTING SMEET r .[ T0: F. P. GILLESPIE, CHAIRMAN, RIRB FROM: W. M. Morrison, Member, RIRB TITLE OF RULEMAKING: Update of Table S-4, Part 51 AGREE WITH REC 0fftENDATIONS REQUEST RIRB X IN RES RULEMAKING REVIEW MEETING. PACKAGE e 9 MODIFY REcolttENDATIONS IN NOT PARTICIPATING. RES RULEMAKING REVIEW PACKAGE AS INDICATED BELOW COP 9 TENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: STRAIGHT APPROVAL. l IVluM A W. M. MORRISON MEPBER, RIRB MARCH 28, 1985 DATE a.

t 1. i RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD VOTING SHEET TO: F. P. GILLESPIE, CHAIRMAN, RIRB FROM: K. R. Goller, Member, RIRB TITLE OF RULEMAKING: Update of Table S-4, Part 51 i \\/ AGREE WITH REC 0f0(ENDATIONS A IN RES RULEMAKING REVIEW ~ PACKAGE MODIFY REC 0letENDATIONS IN NOT PARTICIPATING. RES RULEMAKING REVIEW PACKAGE AS INDICATED BELOW COP 94ENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: s \\ MEPBER, RIRB 0 OE dATE 96 0

g y k T }- RIR6 REVl64) of RSS-SPM50R6D bh 8MhntNir MAR 2 51985 acumes m mu my Suk ease e,mnes, seem emeeer, Isaiene asse AgesEF/Feef) 3, W. M. Morrison, Member, RIRB g K. R. Goller, Member, RIRB g G. A. Arlotto, Member, RIRB 4. a 4 X nesten fue feste and natum negroval For Clostence Per Conversation no u r_: per carmeen prepare nessy Derenstete For Your Information SeeIse Domment E-. ^^ Signature P _1 i^fi Judify ^ ansAstus ijg4I.__ 7 M,a, S y, pgjt f/ RIRB members are requested to conduct an independent review of the attached RES rulemaking review package and provide the Chairman, RIRB, with their voting sheets indicating their positions on the rulemaking.. 1 E Responses by c.o.b. will be appreciated. RAMRB will 'use the voting sheets to assemble the complete RES review package for eventual transmittal to the OEDO and the Director of the user office. DO 9007 see this term es a REo0ftD of approwels, eencurrences, ilieposals, esserences, and aimaer actions 73o08. (Nesne, erg. symael, Agency / Pest) flee m H e 4 RAtiRB stafff pm, e No. sest-see .panna 4a piev. 7-7s) 88 I YE

• spo: sees 0 - set-52s (232) e l

1

. ~ -.---. 5 t t' Ty ) o r -by TASK LEADER REVIEW PACKAGE WITH DIVISION DIRECTOR CONCURRENCE l

_[' In

st E

c- + F ~ 3 s A MEMOR4NDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations I FROM: Robert B. Minogue. Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

CONTROL 0F NRC RULEMAKING: RES REVIEW OF ONGOING l. RES SPONSORED RULEMAKING l Based on our review of the ongoing RES sponsored rulemaking. Environmentel 'y impact Assessment of the Transportation of Radioactive Materiel To and From ~ Nuclear Power Plants. RES recomands that this rulemaking activity be L teminated. This recom:*ndation in draft fonn has been coordinated with the Divisions of System Integration and Engineering, NRR; and the Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety. NV.SS. The basis for our reconnendation is as follows: o The Environmental Impact Assessment of Transportation of Radioactive l Material To and From Nuclear Power Plants is used primarily by potentiel applicants for a permit to construct a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor. The assessment (Table S-4, ID CFR 51.5?) can be referenced in the applicant's required Environmental Report if the i transportation of cold fuel to the reactor and irradiated fuel and solid radioactive waste from the reactor is within the scope of 10 l CFR 51.52. Given the present outlook for new construction pemits. l there is no need to upgrade and update Table S-4, at this time. t l o Approximately 1-2 staff yeers of effort would need to be expended to detemine and explain the reasons for changes in the assessed Table S-4 impacts. This expenditure of resnurces is not justified at this time for the reason given above. The complete RES review package has been sent to OEDO (Attention: DEDP0GR)and to the Director Divisionsof System Integration and Engineering, NRR; and the Division of Fuel Cycle and Material SPfety, N".SS. Distribution Robert B. Minoguc-Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research RES Cental Riles R-2913.1 Circ /Chron/Sub3 7w cc u w.~ R. anaeu. ; van, saa en rc.r MLahs Dross o'~e ce m r~ sewc su r a ku ='a~ d *~"M ' "' **""'. JMalaro RMinogue m / ~....c e * 'e M " d a n""*~"""" ai'an^'"a e'C~"e MErnst enj A... we/ema FGillespie O rc re a u,,,, s/g /,,e

h......... RAM *:RES DD:

0:RES '" " 0:RES DD:RES D:RES b S " - ~ ~ l .-..... n.... /.nf 4te efa r t il pie Dross RMinogue .....y ;,,,p .1../,p../.85..... 1 .. /. 8 5......... v05...... 1../..l.j./.85......... \\..... 5... 1 L.. /85....... 1/ /85 l N C FORM Sie (10 80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

r tc: r e r i E c DRAFT v r.D A TE D i tJ RL gSSuu Arony A GSNDA WWY e ~'

p 4 k ? TITLE: J Update of Table S-4, Part 51 CFR CITATION: 10 CFR 51 ABSTRACT: Table S-4 helps provide a means for meeting the NEPA requirements for an environmental assessment at the construction permit state of a new reactor. The technical basis for this table, WASH-1236, was published in 1972. A revised and updated version of WASH-1238 (NUREG/CR-2325) that includes normalized transportation data and impacts for the 1985-1990 time-frame was published in December 1983. This normalized information would be adjusted based on staff calculations of the impacts of the higher burnups and increased enrichments currently in use in many reactors. The s proposed rule would amend Table S 8 to ensure that the table reflects the current environmental impacts. The staff effort needed to develop and defend the updated Table S-4 impacts has been estimated at 1-2 staff 2. years. TIMETABLE: Activity terminated. LEGAL AUTHORITY: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 4332 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT: William R. Lahs l Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 (301) 443-7874 l l l ..x - w

-. ~ - - - - - - -

t-4y a; j":- i R ss TA sk As4deg RE4 sew AND R6Cous<SNDATs o N i = -, ~ c

~ $T fb' r 1 TASK LEADER REVIEW OF PART 51 AMENDMENT TO UPDATE AND UPGRADE TABLE S-4,

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION OF FUEL AND WASTE TO AND FROM ONE LIGHT-WATER-COOLED NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR Screening Process: a. Issue To Be Addressed n. The environmental impacts tabulated in Table S-4 are based on a 1972 Environmental Survey (WASH-1238) and a supplement to this survey issued in 1975. The applicability of the Table is conditioned on presumptions iden-tified in 10 CFR 51.52. The issue involves updating and upgrading Table S-4 to reflect current needs and data. b. Necessity and Urgency for Addressing the Issue A contractor report updating the impacts from transportation of radioactive material to and from U.S. nuclear power

plants, (NUREG/CR-2325) is available.

The need to upgrade the conditions of applicability (i.e., fuel burn-up) and the technical bases stated in supporting documents (e.g., gap activities assumed in Table 2 of WASH-1238) has been identified. However, since Table S-4 pertains to the required environmental report submitted with the application for a permit to construct a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor, no urgency for the updating and upgrading action has been identified. c. Alternatives To Rulemaking As 10 CFR 51.52 states, if the transportation impacts do not fall within the scope of 10 CFR 51.52, a full description and detailed analysis of the environmental effects of such transportation will be required.

I ~ .m_ .~ = r2 -[ F p. d. How The Issues Will Be Addressed Through Rulemaking 1 ~ The proposed amendment would update and upgrade the environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and waste to and from one light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor currently summarized in Table S-4. The updating and upgrading would be based on the normalized results documented in NUREG/CR-2325 adjusted to consider the need for a broader base for the Table's applicability. e. Effect On Public, Industry, And NRC y. The public would be essentially unaffected by the expected changes required in Table S-4. Given the status for potential construction permit applications, no immediate impact on industry is foreseen. For similar reasons, the immediate impacts of any change to Table S-4 on NRC are also considered non-existent. f. NRC Resources And Scheduling This rulemaking could be controversial. Preliminary reviews of NUREG/CR-2325 suggest that considerable effort would be required to explain the reasons for changes in the assessed impacts. Modeling and format changes, as well as data base upgrades, are involved. If the rulemaking activity continues, the need for about 1-2 staff years of effort is estimated. g. Preliminary Judgment At some future date, the need to update and upgrade Table S-4 may be justified. The tabulated impacts are somewhat outdated and the table's applicability could be negated if a new construction permit application involves operating parameters outside the currently defined envelope. Quality Control Evaluation Any rule involving changes to Table S-4 would require processing through CRGR.

YI 3 g C 7 ei No OMB approvals are anticipated. No special considerations for small busi-f nesses would be required. The technical base (NUREG/CR-2325) would require extensive review before being judged adequate to support this rulemaking action. Drafting Recommendations The rulemaking action should be terminated. A l 9

r 9 Q.. 1p - A' ke ? I S vePO RTIN b

)otp mf

NTA rl o M 1

l I \\

W. f. 9 +a amiTDsTAvts W / ,4*\\ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON ( h masumstow,o.c.sosss Mv I >p

• j

'o 3 ~E April 1.1977 p f, k.... Q. I p. a s J R \\ / g Note to: Lee G ssi , EDO 6 4 From: Bill ks A/EDO NEED TO UPDATE TABLE S-4 g> h'[

Subject:

i As you may(recall, we spoke some time ago abou A Transportation) in much the same manner as the review L and update that was recently done for Table S-3. Y Table 5-4 l d I spoke to Bob Barker concerning the matter and recently I fo } Currently, up with a discussion on the same issue with Jim Henry. for OSD is developing a program plan for Transportation that calls According a contract to update WASH-1238 beginning in January 1978. be published to Henry, any changes called for in Table S-4 would not until June 1979. S-4 While the schedule laid out by OSD regarding the review of T h may be entirely appropriate, there are some outside experts w l l3' I have discussed would advise us to move at a faster pace. firm,Pickard, Lowe, and Garrick,is one such expert. y to Garrick's opinions with Bob Minogue and Bob agreed to attemp Q meet with Gerrick next week when Garrick is in Washington. i be Since I will be on vacation next week, I thoug l to 2M fill you in on the results of his meeting. ( f h, Bill Dircks, A/E00 ,A d 'J R. Minogue, SD cc: H. Shapar, ELD i,,. j d 1 'P ,I - - - - ~ ~.......

• k.e

?* .f'*"*%, /M [ omnostaTss j wuctuan nEGULATORY COMMISSION nasmucros.o.c usss j y' y. . f,. APR 20 a e MEMORANDUM POR: Files FROM: Donald R. Hopkins Transportation and Product Standards Branch Office of Standards Development

SUBJECT:

MEETING WITH B. JOHN GARRICK - 7 April 1977 R. B. Minogue, R. F. Barker, and D. R. Hopkins met with B. John Garrick, Ph. D.,.of Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc., Consultants - Nuclear Power, (714) 640-5401, Suite 312, 200 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660, e on 7 April 1977. Dr. Garrick has recently served as a witness for the utilities at the ICC hearings on "special train" service for rail transportation of nuclear spent fuel, and wanted to express his opinions as to the need to update available documents relative to transportation of nuclear spent fuel and high level waste. The discussion, however, was only with respect to spent fuel transportation. e Dr. Garrick believes that WASE-1238 " Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants," prepared under the coordination of R. F. Barker and publis'hed in December 1972, could be significant-ly improved by: 1. Updatips t package responses; he accident statistics and the related \\ 1, 2. Completing the risk analysis by describips.the . radioactive material releases;.andconsequences in terms of the healt 3. Determinips the " quality factor" by relatips t level of dosages,to dollar values; dollars per man-rem.he Dr. Garrick was advised that updating and upgradipg of WASH-1238 was a part of our transportation standards plan, and scheduled for completion within the next couple of years. Dr.. Garrick believes that the level of public concern over transportation of radioactive material is high and rising. N g -. -e~

c,' t[ Memo for: Files 2 APR 2 0 M77 ? He cites the Sun Desert Reactor Hearings as an example of ^ an inordinant amount of time being spent on testimony related to transportation of radioactive material. He referred specifically to testimony by Walton Rogers and himself. Dr. Garrick made a good case for updating WASH-1238 in as short a time period as possible. In our current develop-ment of a transportation plan relating ongoing work on transportation standards and guides,'we are considering the priority for updating WASH-1238. 1 s. ,f' GJ% 8 ? Donald R. Hopkins cc: L. Gossick, EDO W. Dircks, EDO R.B. Minogue, SD G.A. Arlotto, SD R.E. Barker, SD to l e l 9 1 8*

RBrEnor.,us NLawaau n j e% RGSmith DRHopkins g$, j" i m GAArlotto SD r/r l E-RFBarker TPSB r/f Hl b' BAY t 8 577NAEisenberE 7 1 1

l,

MEMORANDUM FOR-W. J. Dircks, A/EDO q( FROM: R. B. Minogue, Director, OSD {;

SUBJECT:

NEED TO UPDATE TABLE S-4 f3 l This is in response to your note of April 20, 1977, regarding Y, the SD schedule to update Table S-4 of Part 51, and its basis 5' ' in WASH-1238. The draft program plan sheet for that under-g taking is enclosed along with the corresponding draft MBO 3 sheet. g The key to initiatin's the contract to update WASH-1238 is j receipt of data on fission product release from an. ongoing = research study. The,most current estimates are that data v 5 will be aviilable earlier than expected. If that develops, i we will initiate our contract earlier and gain some 4 - 5 months on the schedule. It is possible that the contract work oculd be accelerated, and we will investigate that possibility. It would still, however, be late FY 79 or early FY 80 before an amendment to Table S-4 could be pub-d lished for public comunant. R I spoke to Dr. John Garrick on April 7, 1977, about his i views on the urgency in this matter. A copy of the meeting 4 is enclosed. His emphasis was report, dated April 20, 1977,8 more on updating the WASH-123 report to provide a good i reference to current, well-founded data on the impacts of shipments to and from nuclear power plants, than it was on

T,1 the need to update the S-4 table.

We will proceed with this program as quickly as possible, l recognizing that key features of the program plan are beyond .f our eentrol. i s.g. a. - wd by (p agarJ.Maumon i l. Robert ~B. Minogue,' Director-Office of Standards Development 1 . I- -j ^

Enclosures:

1. Program Plan '.3:.- 2. MBO Sheet 13 3 Memo for Files dated April 20, 1977 j co.w/eneli L.T.'Gossiek ONTROL i SD 1024-77 c ? c-m -n- ---m:- S(W u omen _SD. __SD.;. 3_ P' UM if) sumaame _D 1 Dad F____B 4T.kti otto R.B_n,, r,gue ..s ohl7 _____.___ /d/_U __..___5Ad!_'l7 5 /77

=

r .c. m o.n n..c.. <.e,, .,-n,-... _.n,..

v,~ ' h, .. g ..m. 7.. g..........,.. ..-y,..... F I DISTRIBUTION ss/646 ~ RBMinogue GAArlotto i t k RGSmith 001 il W RMBernero RF8arker W1.ahs, RES NAEisenberg, DRHopkinsV i SD r/f t. MElDRANDW1 FOR: Files TPSB r/f \\ s FROM: Donald R. Hopkins Transportation and Product Standards Branch. OSD

SUBJECT:

TRAISPORTATION RESEARCH A tiecting was held on 17 October '77 of the Designated Source Selection Board for the rcsearch project " Scoping Study - Spent Fuel Transport Accidents". The draft Statemtnt'-).' ort was modified and clarified, and the background material and selection criterie were !(, discussed. Representatives from RES, DC. E1.D. and SD participated; a rae:ter from 141455 has not yet been chosen. The purpose of the research is to consolidate existing information related to fission

~i product releases in spent fuel transport accidents, to recc::nend pricritics for davelopment of infomation icportant to completion of the source tern analysis, and to complete gcuping calculations I

where good information is not availabic. Portions of this study 4 are intunded as a starting point for a technical assistance contract making action on 10 CFR 51.20(9) pdate WsS!i-1238 preparatory to (Transportation Hts 0 II-3-13) to u 4 (Table S-4). Because this research contract is in the chain of events leadinp to rule mking action regarding Yable S 4, un tried to accelerata its schedule by cahing it an " add-on" to an existing contrhet with Battelle-Colurtus. This would have eliminated the delays inherent in the compctitive procurer.unt process, and would have been consistent with R. B. liinogue's statement to W. J. Dircks (memo dated I'.ay 26, 1977) that "we will proceed with this proDram as quickly as possible..." Although both RES and DC rejected our proposal to accelerate the . schedule, they did agree to codify the competitive procuremant schedule 8 so that delays beyond those of sole source procurcs.:ent are reduced so t i 2-4 weeks. This schedule appears to be satisfactory for our purposes. ~ l ~ i s Aj Donal( R Hopkins Transportation & Product Standards Branch t Office of Standards Development i

Enclosure:

1 Hu.io dated May 26, 1977 .i, TASK No. enew .50.GP5 1. sua**** DRHopki

5Ac.

• • '* 1QL U D ].......

+

T. y T { EXTENDED BURNUP EA DUTLINE A. Introduction Discussion of Petition Explanation of High/ Extended Burnup Fuel l' Projected Industry Usage Licensing Experience 8. Environmental Effects Potential environmental impacts will be assessed. The Part 51 specified forinat for EA's states that the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to the projected action will be analyzed. The single alternative to extended burnup is burnup at present rates. Therefore, the environmental assessment will be focused on the incremental effects which might be expected from going beyond 33,000 MDT* burnup. The maximum burnup to be considered should be no more that 65,000 MDT, and in most cases a lower figure, such as 55,000 MDT, will suffice as the outside l limit for analysis. Tables S-3 and S-4 may be used in many cases as the baseline for the incremental analysis. The analysis should be sufficient to allow a deterinination to be made of either no significant environmental impact, or of an environmental impact significant enough to warrant preparation of an EIS. l i

• Megawatt days per ton.

04/04/84 1 EXTENDED BURNUP EA OUTLINE

n ,T.. bi 6 1. Core Performance - (m / ,[M

1. A j

a. Effects of extended burnup on fission prducts/ spent fuel content. Sl C d # 2. Norinal Operating Effects of High Burnup - y f a. Norinal operating releases of high burnup to the environment. 3. Accident Evaluation - Accident source term - Comparison of accident source terms for JT8 a. extended vs. ortlinary burnup at a reference reactor. b. Accident risk analysis - based on 2 a., differences in risk due to extended burnup will be evaluated. -fr 4. Occupational Exposure - K /) /,d,4/x4 Analysis of any differences in worker exposure due to extended [ burnup. 5. Waste Manaaement Implications -

1. 8 46 a.

Quantities and types of waste which would be likely due to extended burnup. b. Implications for transportation and waste management risk. 6. Economic Evaluation - p y Direct economic effects of utilization of extended burnup fuel. a. b. Indirect effects on uranium mining, fuel cycle, waste management. 2 EXTENDED BURNUp EA OUTLINE 04/04/84 e + * - ' - - ,w- - - - - -.,. _, __,___,Q_,

g.,

E o- ? \\ 7. Reprocessing - 4 / c c gg e ff y p a. Impilcations of extended burnup should reprocessing be part of the fuel cycle. 6 6 s 5 e i i l l l l 3 EXTENDED BURNUP EA OUTLINE 04/04/84 o- -.

E I Environmental Assessment i 51.30 Environmental assessment. (a) An environmental assessment shall identify the proposed action and include: (1) A brief discussion of: (1) the need for the proposed action; (ii) alternatives as required by section 102(2)(E) of NEPA; (iii) the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives as appropriate; and (2) A list of agencies and persons consulted, and identification of sources used. I 51.31 Deteminations based on environmental assessment. Upon completion of an environmental assessment, the appropriate NRC staff director will determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact on the proposed action. As provided in i 51.33, a detemination to prepare a draft finding of no significant impact may be made. 04/04/84 4 EXTENDED BURNUP EA GUTLINE

g-I EFFECTS OF EXTENDED BURNUP AND INCREASED ENRICHMENT T 0F REACTOR FUEL ON TABLE 5-4 ~ Suminary Table 5-4 of 10 CFR 51.20 lists the environmental impact of transpor-tation of fuel and waste to and from one light-water-cooled power reactor. The values appearing in the table are based on the ' typical" nuclear power reactor described in WASH-1238.a The values for fuel burnup and fuel enrich-ment from WASH-1238 are specified in paragraph 10 CFR 51.20(g)(2). At the present time some utilities are resorting to higher burnups than those described in WASH-1238 and are requiring higher enrichments as well. As a result of this, the values listed in Table S-4 should be reassessed in the light of these changes to determine if a revision of the table is required. The supporting technical document for Table S-4 and 10 CFR 50.20(2)(g); WASH-1238, is currently in the process of revision and updating. The revised ver-sion will assess the effects of extended fuel burnup and increased enrichments. Since the revised version is not yet available, however, an evaluation of these effects has been obtained from a series of computer calculations made at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. These are described below. Calculations were made with the Oak Ridge "0RIGEN-S (SCALE-SAS-2)2 code for six different cases with the parameters shown in Table 1. Case 6 is considered f to be the base case [ average irradiation level specified in 10 CFR 50.20(g)(2)] for comparison purposes. . Other main input characteristics of the cases run were: (1) A constant specific power of 37.5 MW/MTU with a capacity factor of 80% (i.e., 292 effective full power days per year). . (2) Used 30 equal-time intervals in the ORIGEN-S irradiation cases, with zero power (down-time) in increments 4, 8, 14, 18, 24, and 28 and full power in all other increments. I

y. .= E-TABLE 1 (* Burnup Case (WD/NTU)* Wt.g assy yt,g asey 1 40,000 4.0 0.035 2 46,000 4.0 0.035 3 50,000 4.5 0.040 4 55,000 4.5 0.040 5 55,000 3.3 0.029 6 33,000 3.3 0.029 "(WD/MTU) Megawatt Days per Metric Ton of Uranium. 7 (3) Used decay times of 10, 30, 60, 90,120,180, 365, 730,1825, and 3650 days after discharge. (4) Produced three separate ORIGEN-S libraries in each SA52 case, using the fuel compositions at the mid-time of reactor exposure during each cycle and assuming 20% down-time per cycle. (5) Fuel lattice geometry of a Westinghouse 15 x 15 assembly. (6) Moderator temperature, 580*F, water pressure and density corresponding to that of the Trojan Reactor. (7) Constant 8'8 density = 4.388 x 10 s atoms / barn-ca. (8) Used the standard SCALE 27-energy group cross section (ENDF/8-IV derived) library for producing time-dependent libraries for ORIGEN-5. (9) Used the starting ORIGEN-S Library composert of 24G light element,101 heavy element, and 821 fission product nuciides. 2

.y. V St (10) Used the " typical" light element concentrations, as applied by M. J. Bell ~ in the demonstration case in report ORNL-4628 in ORIGEN-S cases. i (11 Used photon / disintegration spectra data derived from the ORNL Master Photon Library which mainly utilizes data from the Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File (ENSDF) at ORNL. These photon data were applied in computing the " Photon Release Rates" tables printed near the end of each subcase. The group structure is identical to that in report ORNL-4628 (p. 31-32)* with groups denoted under "EMEAN" by the mid poir.t energy of the group. (12) Updates of ORIGEN-5 cross-sections were performed for asey, assy, assy, as? p, assPu, asePu, neoPu, se Pu, se Pu, 888Am, assam, a**Ca, assCs, and N 1 assy,, The results of the cases run are discussed below as they apply to the para-meters of Table 5-4. HEAT Table 5-4 lists the environmental impact due to heat from an irradiated fuel cask in transit at 250,000 BTU /hr which is approximately 73 kW. This value is based on the heat released from a rail cask carrying 7 PWR fuel elements which have been irradiated to an average level of 33,000 MWD /MTU and cooled for 150 days. Extending the level of irradiation (burnup) increases the quantity of radio-active material in the fuel elements which in turn leads to an increase in the heat output of the fuel elements as well. The heat output obtained from the ORIGEN code for three levels of burnup is listed in Table 2. The results are also shown graphically on Figure 1. The values given in Table 2 and plotted on Figure 1 include the total heat output from the three categories of elements used in the ORIGEN code, (light element, heavy element, fission product). An inspection of Figure 1 and Table 2 indicates that the 55,000 MWD /MTU fuel has a heat output greater than the base case (33,000 WD/MTU), by about 13% for 10 day old fuel and about 90% for 10 year old fuel. The change in this 3

g 9 ~ TABLE 2 HEAT OUTPUT VERSUS TIME (THERMAL WAT15/MTU) Days After Shutdown 0 10 90 180 365 730 1825 3650 Burnup (WD/MTU) 33,000 2.21+6* 8.25+4 2.72+4 1.74+4 1.00+4 5.28+3 1.95+3 1.26+3 46,000 2.20+6 8.90+4 3.12+4 2.06+4 1.24+4 6.93+3 2.86+3 1.89+3 55,000 2.20+6 9.34+4 3.38+4 2.27+4 1.40+4 8.07+3 3.56+3 2.37+3 C2.21+6 = 2.21x108 i f i [ O b e 4

y en = .. e-er e-er en = m as - o-e-e. er eri = m ow g. ~ .M; . lT..) l . li.: 4 ~ .[ l-e. y .6 y ?. 7 ..h kkf h

• y:'

I-l- + ~

t

.:: ::: :T:4. :- - - - n...;.; -

nt

+ .. ::: :h :::n::. -l@ h ::::: ::n:

s 2::

n* t. _ ' - ~..... g. .--. -,. -m - ~ . ut.m. --. a. y _"ll.4 4 e. es A l". g - -. g - - ' ~ ,,. 9 e g u . w-s E g,.:.,-. p a , s,::;

, y

^ E-e ,.? W

:::: 3 y

y m Pt en E w t- -2 e = -.g -. c ets '.+ att 1 i 1 r <n .F lh 1 F A .r r d .Lang i g l' id f Il t a f fl Ii i k hF ,s ,r. i, i r. .81 1 J I' .#'~ l It i i' I Em d' I # i t it . I en s '9 f, a' f ll il -i! i fild 't s il 'e 18 O f.i.- f l ll l 91 11 1, . i l. i i II 3,mn , m : :: .-:E: r-_ ~- W.=u -- =?.Ii 0. " = :- .,y.

w. g.,-

) w __7: P -.19

==a = 2-r- 'l A' i. ~.,- -f "vf ..i" s ! i B 1. 1 m N F .F ' E I It I A E a. X a n 1 ~ a guld E l

h. -

Q La3 p'

q g

i

3 Q

L- _ aC 8 l3 ED.e s> e. en l sa. . r er, s i ,i, o i i 1 g 1 1 si 1 1 e 1, i E,

• l.

I 11 I I I 1 I J I i T I I I I I I e i i n o r

• • %.m

. 2 1 a si i i i .sii o 11 i i 3.3 3 i i i ..s* 1 .. i i 4 i

• = si i

ii i .i e i is n i, i i i o i. .i .i i i fg yv ui i e i il i i I .I i i i .i . ee i i r.i Jr. e e. i

• Ie

'o .i I i-ii 6 9y ..i e i., e it o' i i f u m e' .t ist o

• it o

ei es e $3 a f,h L, .F i e i I il di J<#e / 1 i .i 6 its e ,,. i t i' e i t l .ii .i i i' s I I i, !i M I/ i e ei.i i .l y u....., 6i tij 'l*l 'll ill (l i s il I l

tli Il fif.

/ t i I .r; il WW lbi. i Ll,le l l 9 4 i II ll ll ljI 4ll Ail 'I I 10ll C) 4" I l!}, 1 Ill 'Ill Il@ a g:- __ = = -= E,, 5 Me ~ 9 I __ ~ -, st D j m' l'm .m G O8 .m 5" 3 i,'_, / i .f .I l i X X. I I 'l' I I I 1 1 I .I e I, I I] .1 F K EA . I I ' i l I I I E I1i i 1 1 - 1 I y i I I Y I 3 I i I e i I I g g 1." "7. O

1,

-~ 1, a m 1. I LA I Iy I a E I I L E .X 1 Mr i i I i 1 I ..A il .11 (1 5. II yM X 1 il l 3 I lAl il' 8 il 1 1 B I I rI. T3 ^; i fE FII 0 g . a I i ,a = t ilt 1 J f I 'i I e a *11: LF is s e l 'I t i gig i I i. t I a :F F J 'I i il e i e il l .g ,] t .at gg1 y ] l j{ g 'Fd E l 'll 's 8 'i' 8 3 I l e 4, l-{ t48[ 'l 0e ee g eg el e.ge 'fg f fl il il l 96 i l l a 6, }, .i 'Is ilit e 16 . a je. i.e, i i - i li i I. I ti .,1, s.t is s' es.. It i se6 i e i ,sg I'l' i l Il itt I i 4 IIIIli 'l i;e l11 li s.*' O J ' illI l I il l ltl il l l '!I 'lll I

• l Ill 't

'sil e J er 4', em aa s. e> e> go as es eq ggg ' a. ~ei. a b s. a 2 nm / suvn wmH1 S E .--.r..

r [ ratio with time is associated with increased amounts of long lived activities in the higher burnup fuel. It would appear on the basis of this analysis that [ the, environmental impacts should also change. Table 5-4, however, specifies thi's impact (HEAT) as that due to an irradiated fuel cask in transit. Since such fuel casks are licensed for decay heat loads however, the cask, and not the fuel detemines the upper limit of impact. Table 3 lists the currently available fuel casks

• and the largest of these, the NLI 20/24, is licensed for a decay heat load of only 70 W or somewhat less than the value specified in Table 5-4.

The conclusion reached from all of the above then is that extended burnup and increased enrichments do not affect the environmental impact due to heat in Table 5-4. WEIGHT Extended burnup and increased enrichments have no effect on the environmental impact due to weight. These limits are governed by federal and state regula-tions and the casks currently available (Table 3) fall within the weight restrictions of Table 5-4. TRAFFIC DENSITY The traffic density generated by extending the fuel burnup to a batch average burnup of 55,000 WD/MTU with either a 12-month or an 18-month fuel cycle is as follows: l l (a) 12-month fuel cycle At the specific power of 37.5 MW/MTU and a capacity factor of 80%, fuel burnup at the end of one year would be 10,950 MWD /MTU. Once equilibrium i was reached, it would then take 5 years to reach a batch average burnup of 55,000 WD/MTU. This would require the replacement of one-fifth of the core (appro'ximately 20 MTU or 40 PWR elements) annually. Transport l of these would require 40 truck casks / year or 6 rail casks / year (assume l that the smallest rail cask is used). These numbers are considerably smaller than the environmental impacts of 1 truck cask / day or 3 rail casks / month listed in Table 5-4. 6

---

A+.

__a-,- . a,,, rm i i i LICENSED AND AVAILABLE SHIPPING CASKS FOR CURRENT GENERATION LWR TABLE 3 } m Maximum Loaded Usual Heat

1. '" 'I A# I

Shieldino ~ Cask Cask Transport Cavity

Removal, Designation PWR BWR Weight, MT Mode Gamma Neutron Coolant kW Status 4

4 NFS-4 1 2 23 Truck Lead and Borated Water 11.5 Licensed steel water and (NAC-1) antifreeze )i 1 NFS-5 2 3 25. Truck Uranium Borated Water 24.7 SAR submitted and steel water and in U.S. antifreeze i .I NLI 1/2 1 2 22 Truck

lead, Water and Helium 10.6 Licensed t

uranium antifreeze I and steel TN-8 3 36 Truck Lead and Borated Air 35.5 Licensed a i steel solid resin f TN-9 7 36 Truck Lead and Borated Air 24.5 Licensed a steel solid j resin j I TN-12 12 32 97 Rail Steel Borated Air 135 Licensed in Europe solid only, SAR submitted j l resin in U.S. j IF-300 7 18 63 Rail Uranium Water and Water 76* Licensed b and steel antifreeze or air i NLI 10/24 10 24 88 Rail

Lead, Water and Helium 97 ggg g j

d

uranium, antifreeze l

and steel [

• From NUREG/CR-0811, SAI-0R-79-140-04 a Overweight permit required.

b Truck shipment for short distances with overweight permit. " A Scoping Study of Spent Fuel Cask h

• Licensed decay heat load is 62 kW.

Transportation Accidents "

1 n w [ (b) 38-month fuel cycle . At the same specific power and capacity factor specified above, the fuel burnup at the end of 18 months would be 16,425 DWD/MTU and at the end of 4.5 years would be 49,275 BWD M U. To maintain this burnup level would require the replacement of one-third of the core (approximately 34 MTU or 68 PWR elements) every 18 months. (Note: It would take a 20-month fuel cycle to provide a burnup of 55,000 DWDMU if a one-third core replace-ment cycle was used). Transport of these would require 68 truck casks every 18 months, (45 truck casks / year) or 10 rail casks every 18 months (7 rail casks / year). Again, these numbers are considerably smaller than the impacts listed in Table S-4. EXPOSED POPULATION The increased amount of radioactive material produced by extended burnup not only increases the heat output from the fuel elements; it increases the amount of radioactivity emitted from them as well. Some of this radiation is absorbed by the elements but the emission of gamma rays shows an increase with burnup. l Table 4 lists the gamma ray output from the fuel elements for three levels of burnup obtained from the ORIGEN code calculations. These results are plotted on Figure 2. The gamma-ray output listed in Table 4 and plotted on Figure 2 includes the gamma rays from the three element categories (light elements, heavy elements and fission products) used in the ORIGEN code. i An inspection of Figure 2 'and Table 4 indicates that the 55,000 MWDMU burnup fuel has a gamma-ray output greater than the base case (33,000 MWDMU), by about 12% for 10-day old fuel and about 70% for 10 year old fuel. It would appear then this additional gamma-ray output should have an effect on the exposed population. However, the Cumulative Dose values for the exposed popu-1ation given in Table S-4 were determined by calculation, assuming that the external radiation levels at the transport vehicle were at the regulatory i limits. These regulatory limits are a part of the Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations and they remain constant whether the vehicle is transporting low burnup fuel or high burnup fuel. The result of this is that the higher L burnup has no additional effect on the exposed population beyond that given in Table S-4. l 8

r 5: p. -bs p TABLE 4 GMMA-RAY OUTPUT VERSUS TIME (GMMA WAT15/MTU) 0:ys After Shutdown 0 10 90 180 365 730 1825 3650 Burnup (MWD /MTU) 33,000 1.03+6* 4.53+4 1.10+4 5.79+3 2.67+3 1.61+3 8.18+2 4.57+2 i 46,000 1.03+6 4.84+4 1.25+4 7.06+3 3.72+3 2.41+3 1.21+3 6.53+2 55,000 1.03+6 5.06+4 1.36+4 7.93+3 4.44+3 2.95+3 1.48+3 7.88+2 i' 01.03+6 = 1.03x105 l l 46 e 9

sa6 -Eer + f' O . ) 5 4. .. 4.. 4.. I I '"f"" ' ' ' " *t**1 ++' "+ 't s i,ji iiii mt "'t 1 i 1., g 4-- Hit t+ - t< .-f -- ---- tt++ 7 4 i hi ;- y +., ; n,U,E, u ~ m e o m

n; I'q; b, r,

a g gu g

,, =.. E

' ;23

g 81 1 r r

t.,=

1"' 12 t '::*! a. a.. - .7 -2: :" ~: ': w !!1 3,-

p

.b., --st:

..hg n$ $..;

, m-3 ..-m.,

w-- + 4

. g.; 1- ,;;; 3; 3, I n :

: :- 1 g

< -4 4 =iNlh,. --- s m,,

::= :. t ze m.

,m < t .m S ,$qg gg.;.. h N tgi: u.'., . TT I e - z: a - _ SPENT FUEL

.I I.

A,' e - -*- - 9 .. i 3 %g-- g 1,. "l' H, (Mh .I a- ,, l, ' GAMMA-RAY OUTPUT b l m, h q t i n i o ! ei - r in-(L m i vs is , on i -- r ii .n-i i 3p' l * ..x- " TIME ,-+ u m' 7:":" 1 I ,..1, e .1-c .m m i i n m,. e 5 g g ga 18.. I 4 4 3.,,,I _l g g s il B 864 6a4{ l I 4 5 54 o 4 liiB lla v 4 e .m--.,c:a _ - - L g -e. m .W ~ ^ =t- =- w g-i ~ h h i'l s-A,, N

55.000 MWD /MTU

= n', m, g g 9 9" I T-I [ l' I _s-- s_._, ar4 a M.u. o G m aw- =G-.=-.r. e. Q - dk~ = (W 9 .,. 4 I t i I y I RY Y R E I I

• ]

P k i s, 1 3 g . 3 ,3 g y ' E f Y I I a I I ' AI I I I 1. Ik A y k m' 1,, ,j, {, p y g g 3,, .I . m . i m.s. 46,000 MWD /MTU x i. i x, , v de - i. .i i i i i - i in. i.. . e_ x ,,a i i, s ni i is nn... i., .n, r r , as i. .i .....u g7;p c , i n

u. x

. n i;,, .y r n na i,, ,i n., ..., on .,o o. .h f q = ,q e g o,. m, a e y .v -.,x. s. I5 h a. 33,000 MWD /MTU e',, r ' = ..m.. 4 .n. s. p h., M.a -a i t n .s e _ g p g 4 i i 1 1 Y A k I L E I I g I I 1 I y y [ [ . i y O - -- l l S ,h 1 1 I t i I I I 1 1 I. i I 1 4 .I, I E I , e ,I I a .i,, . 6 e. 1 l a Iai 1 1.I i j o. .a. 1 i , i i n .o. .+ "s .i. 'r r.. r- .'. s' r'.. e" 4 t i i i n, ei $v, ,7 i, i. i ...i i i, in, r i i T 10g i i oni n ,m i. ,,o , i, ,,.o on ti, i n .a i i 4 10

• * * ' * ' 1'00

1h00 ) DAYS AFTER SHUTDOWN 1 1 1 I il I 1

r iY. ic + ACCIDENTS IN TRANSPORT The. environmental risks due to radiological effects from transportation acci-dents are not quantified in Table 5-4 but are listed as small. The effect of transporting higher burnup fuel should not change the risks significantly since the increase in those isotopes which contribute to this risk changes by only a factor of 2 in the higher burnup fuel. Thus, the risk would still be considered small. The common or non-radiological risks should not change either since the traffic density still falls within the range specified in Table 5-4. MISCELLANY + since some interest has been expressed in the buildup of heavy elements and fission products in fuel elements as a function of burnup, the output of the ORIGEN code was collected for these items. Figure 3 is a plot of the buildup of some of the transuranic elements and U-235 as a function of burnup and Fig-ure 4 shows the buildup and decay of some selected fission products. The decays were not plotted on Figure 3 because of the long half-life of most of the trans-uranics.

SUMMARY

The environmental impacts from the transportation of fuel and waste to and from reactors, listed in Table 5-4, are not affected by extended burnups or increased enrichments over the range of these parameters considered here. 11

m an' 5-w 10 e -1 t i i F i FIGURE 3 i ~ i m . 1.. HEAVY ELDIENT INVENTORY . i k E gL 7 _., /.' + L = i- + 4- %.ir 2 4 -- 4 L. _:. .==__2. _ %.. . _: r_ _. BURNUP w.. : =_.. -: =_ -:.... m:_: = ' _ - =.=='"l" ~

-m"*" O 1

= I ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ _ y _, n.4 10 c ~ rs. x 'n m 4 ' ', ++ w.. -1:.%._- hi =.i er - O-? s-t 't T--- Jd s9d -- t -i -.. :E :en 9 -*-i,*- r-i d - g.N ): e a3- .-i '--7 ] - {= ] ~: ak" Q_ __. =. f _gi. _w;.J.. t,, $ __.i' '; -j t,,j i}.

=~~-

=^-- -. _ = = . - - " = - .n__.. .; r u a .. W..4-.=___~$----..

• = -..._:

q, QF i e t a e-J - 4 s J.z. - s a

• ~

4 4' I. 3 1-

pi a

4==y =r _.p_.5 - -- 4= 5 : ! +- a : 1 -; - , & i, . r.+_4

-_-- a i.

g. --n. gr :

.;_=_;+:4 - r" i : - y

-< p; 1d

-:q-e =g t il.r 5_-_=--- i Pg.Ng q.-

b!_~_a L 7-i : _*--! M F - -M _ _* -fM k=~' * ' O 5:5 h ME:N:

t6:1pF_ ~_ - - ~ ~ 1.: _: - 1

==f,._:-- . _ _ =_. = :.- : : :===:.- =. :.. c----,4:..._.-pe_._ ' --- m-7u-a 41: =

:= :-

==

== -- m n = 2.=- 4._ gj. -n ,w g j[ .hl k 10 . i 1 .w - 4 /_2 r L-- [ e i 4 - J-gg-4 3-v:z 4....:

1. s _ j Q. s.r s

,r Q x^.n.a c.a..:* _=_.nz..,

.: n :.. -

L. . n.3 j f : C' _:.k :M.s p u

r.. u-

.s. 2 -~~~~-; l'-.i j '" = ; - 3 h.i L'"'" Yd,UN '" =i -_--+ -- ~-5.'"-$ *i 5 ~N-N W ' h e#=~-~ ~ = 5--R.1 $5 i= 5 ?:E.*~- 2 r+s.TrE :-i =" :-/ _=g-WM =-~.____-i-5-- ;-+- "== g~.dE=:j =- -X =g Fu-T38 6 E - f .tf. ._ - e ./>.. - - e i f m _f a :- .m 4 - i u _w. _. m 1 . f. W -=_=_ _c_=- .-._-t==-~. = e.. m. - + _ m 4-ur rs ._=____m=_1:=_.. m.__-e.w..,. e_ --. =-/-. =- - = = - =L__ - =. = -r.ar -==..P.=_=.-._ en __ _._.. g _ =g=== s---_.=p,------ -. _ _. - _ _ = - - _=.=_;-,=-, r = .=

== = y 5.:_ _ g ...____..g a-y- e / / g. 1;r - Em-144 _ ? m. ,J ^- 2: i-e i ^m:P41 10 - =- ~ " s-- - "--._ w ap-r a > -- uo -r---- 2 :- = - _L ,r-- _n.- c.; 'Y.e'.',' E1 Wr MM T '. P = _: e==E3'1; M

=='& 3 'i. J -- _i- - _ E,U _r.:=' e _- 1.__ __ _

"ih_ __.___/= _

.__-.-/.i=~. _ f.- - ~~.1_ _x._ _.= E2_5M= =4_W_.E :== =__.r. M r -_1_._~- tag- ____._._r:==..--. ___ - - - _ .--___m_- + _ _ - _.. _ _. __=_=:-:---- . =. r_ t_=. -e- - -p

__g

- m -4 ~w ,-u_- --I = :v F s a. n -e?-= r-e 2 - L ?.w-Md=1-dat.%u 4n_5 v J % " w --?% e 1 -n. . =6 R=.: wa~. _2E = =J_ W =.'= -.._~-'=Y~',& A"__n d ' -.*_ =L /_-K.R=.2_-= ^EEu.1-s E;-~.== - 4 = p ___ -.. =- _.M. ='&UN'S 7 ;n=i=t = - _r 7.- _L__. __. :_z __ 2-.

---

D.=="'""",M.:--_----

_..__L-c_- - c -n-------' r : =, - r.___ r-rr m __._ _.a - - ---i=--- _,=_:-. m. =7 r r -~ =._ a.: = - s-- 7-a _ __ .a I -Ei -_E --e -vr-# r-- 1 ~ W.. ~ ll l ri f 1 >l D 10 ~ ~ + -n- "-+ - - ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~.m q ~=sms ~ --w~- = _ et = r=-rai'+ U = =- =a-w E / '5s 1.h? M -5=9 R - 51.'="i

=====p-a = =-i ---9h-

-3

_. - &.-~$ ~.5NWS.. - 5=:i -- _- =S~MW ! - f-' ~5 -l Y f. = -- : =?N~~5'=%. W.. -?. l -W ='S~ .I=5~ 5 :&. --__'^?-E--

h _K.

- ~ __--.,,._g - - ~* * ~ _ ' ' " _ " " _ - ^ *. " * *. *.,,. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _---3D :/_= _- m= 7. ' ~

• 7_.

- - * - ". _ ~ -' _ _ __ _ _ C _ _ _ _.. - p _- __= 4 f._@ = = r s =. rn f e-r=rs a-i i I.Wr i a_-

.w mrn

- mu r, -; a m- ~w=e- =-m.-m - ". -. b-r-3 M JfC' ' T-HIE lEjd ..___ f fIjf ~ = * - ' ~ E. ~- Uh M : * *.=- '55 *- ' -I d-5.d. N-2 5=555I_-i-d ' 3. A. E Yd N =:rW2" '. _.I__-.= N i= M N r-- ~~~~N 'h ~ ~ - _ ~ .'5 l==s @- 1$ ~ NT.__ J' .._ _. =. .,. ___ r E __ 5 ';..z._---=_=_: =.,1._,- _4. _ _T_ -_;= _ ~., _. _. s 2_. i,.r_ ___ s_-.___.___; __ - _ - - _ - -. - _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ ~ _ - _. _ _ .3. /_. _ _... r. ,__.g -:~ jg __=.j _.._-2/f --l-- 1 -r-4-l -= l! O a l I i 10 l 0 10 20 30 l 40 3 x 50 60

.a 4,...,..l...,.... )... l..... "I.... _ ; .,... 1..... e ..,.4....,. dy ..e...< (. I. g.......... .-m ....s 4 9p* .,,4 e J 1. g .J==.

9..e.-

.J &.i al.4. E J...g. e... A p 3,, ,.]... j .I... J... . 4....... .4. -, ..,l...J.. A .J..-.. .e. 4 2 4 a_. 4 -.-. 4. ej f. i ..d..J.- 2 l 6< .J . d.. e. + 3 + .A J. ..A- ...J..L.,,h a. 4. ..a.. .d ..m-. -i- ,.. ] .J..,... Q... J, .A-3, -.{ g g . L..- - .--4. J <,..$.i..g.- ..s. . 9 -.i A m.- .h .b..e..$ - e us m...= 4 -- h. =..,. =. .y ..a a. dm ~ mL -..9 . - = .m t 9 I 4 n.. i ei .m=f

• -'=.a=.

m =.* -= y s I ] i I i 1 1 q I i I ; ] ] 1 n 1 I d 1 I 1 i 1 ' 1 I ' I I A 1 6 I I I I 5 I I I i .I I i [ l Y I I 3 . S.h lII 1 ' I .Ah N' v y N y ,y"" %P [ a 1 i F I W I yD P rr' "" P g Y a E I ] ,k I I i i u l E E ,,9 ,' A f .m L ~ I u..s

==. g=ay m=.jpll1 I = j -j a" - j i j. mm.>=-n. g""* .y y y d* 7 t 5 J .B /

22 C

polN._ [:; r l .. I m J' C-7r. t*, ,r. 4. lN )""" [ E i g I I 1. I A I "*=.m "a I r. ma.. a 1 F .j g-p i 3 1 3 I MI E E ' g y g 1 l I

1. .f

[~ ~ 'E L"=' 3 [ ~ f "-a -f g 8 ua f r p I g I f [l M J J M q r r f 8 O .r y a F a F .,d L y pg r m t ,a i c -7n..,, I E ,r-i r 4, -3 e l 37 b iF E 1 .E I J EP BV W . F F I Y' i

• a

.'I

F F.

4F 0 K~""' t V il""' ""I"""""*" iE l4"k r r i E I i I 7 E Ei 5 3 ,,B as "y m" 91 r"

• " M f.

9" t-a .E i e a

h f i

---i l i 1. ed S 5, d d. 2. r. i - JP_ d I 3 I 'E J l. _F e T I e i ir I ri 1 I y e I . 2F # 2 I I n"S Jd .I 1 ..c -ra a i, i su _m'" 1 JW. W N 4 P a i rF ' up n AF_r

E.

EE n. X~ 8'8 i rI '[.E I e .E ,F ,N I m _g .A A E d, - a i i i i mi i = m ,3 i h' Ii um it I p I RE 1 6 'E ~~ 8'* I l .g a 3 I I il ~R D 1 9= I a I y 6 lk g k l ( . 1, k.' = I is i I i I E i 'E R g """"" ""Y g = li l i i B. s. 3**""" i g "." = " 7 ia i e 5 o t--- p=Mh

=== A.- n $j j 6-.-"", v 3g rm E.l. i m, h"""'" ,s k, g,, I L --" g',. ~ ~ .R u 'l"'*""""W 4 ] 1 3 e [ ug ], T 1 y e .'.l """8'"

• • ""'"T**

g -== ,,1 .8 ' Ill e B I l 7" n e' r. E.=,g,,,. u, .,.a.+ T 'u 1 m Jg ) g .4 y. E. y M,.4 -- E.q u g-s' e a ts# 1 L lIk L E i I i 11, %) R ' 1 l' I 9 1 .,,g, aL' I ' E. T 4 J I p. g 'E 3 1 'IL R' i E .t L 1 mm a ---j I a ._k l e k I 1 i g* E'"him i am n. . L 4 =* MF "$1.' Ea i a g, l[ 9' a WW _ <E p_ t it L e a I L e 1m R u gP* ~ g ya g i 1 TT M A T I as ""

• 'g I

tu 1 L L EE q i pu 7 L

• • ""~h
• D a

L 151 1i s L 1 i N I ' 1""' 1, a 1 i j g a a 1 1 i I 'L-9. 1 1 -N I B <1 L I Jk 'l ' I . i 1 1m t a 1 i L f 'k 1 1 I 31 h" i I u. A a '__a y)! T a i E AW" I i Ep Mm .f i 1 ] I a E .Y Y k- .EJ U 51 ' L I e i y ( 'A g"' i m . n. s m a a A A t X ,,e m (' I ^ 8 i . c g, = s i i _ i s "d i l I I I I a I a I I I e i y i I T I I I I W M T M S. 1 O O C C .C. c. .=

• =

a. (

1 g. e U~- y. 1 ' REFERENCES ~

1..* U.S. Atomic Energy Commission " Environmental survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials To and From Nuclear Power Plants" WASH-1238 December 1972.

2. M. J. Bell, "0RIGEN - The ORNL Isotope Generation and Duplication Code," Dak Ridge National Laboratory Report ORNL-4628, May 1973. 3. W. R. Rhyne, R. L. Ritzman, H. E. Cothran, Jr., J. P. A11geier and C. J. Barton, Sr., Science Applications, Inc., "A Scoping Stu@ of Spent Fuel Cask Accidents" NUREG/CR-0811, June 1979. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA 22161. s >+ o e e e 14

l .y,,.4, y. t t- [ 4% k s.dnq. t 4-4,.y Q.4 4#g cBm)., J.,w,,.n d %p ~ ,/s./et, m Am 6 - m& s,

e. #..

7.4/e 5-V e.LT %,d ud m d P*bI g wk, losas n 1Lfn '- c k d W.t. af I %,s .L. CII,$4.I. k n.f, tl JKer CL.,s.$ 6f t - s~na aL d, - as., aud L nsti an-,-4sJam Ay L, k utu,LJ r-s-t4 1 c.c. 3ds$ Lols QL.a

9 'k e E. c I VSSR OFFI CG CooRDt h) ATIo^)

• (

i j t I l I i l l l l l l I l \\ -.

Fv i L. JAN 3 01985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert M. Bernero, Director Division of System Integration Office of Nuclear Rea: tor Regulation FROH: Frank P. Gillespie Director Division of Risk Analysis and Operations 6 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

DRAFT REC 0tfENDATIONS TO EDO CONCERHING WHETHER AND HOW TO CONTIhuE WITH ONGOING RULEMAKING SPONSORED BY RES - EIA 0F THE TRANSPORTATION OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL TO AND FROM NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Enclosed for your consideration are draft reconnendations supported by draft office review concerning whether and how to continue with ongoing ruiu.aking sponsored by RES for which your office is identified as the user office. This memorandum constitutes my concurrence in the enclosed draft recom-mendations. I plan to dispatch this memorandum with the enclosed draft recommendations to the Director, RES, two weeks from the above date. Please acknowledge receipt by returning this memorandum with or without connents on the draft recommendation as listed below. Frank P. Gillespie, Director Division of Risk Analysis and Operations Office of Nuclear Regulaicry Research

Enclosure:

As stated Receipt Acknowledged. No connent Receipt Acknowledged. Coencnts as follows: Distribution kJ/o M-RES Central Files R-2913.01 r Chron/Subj JCBelote i JMalaro MErnst i FGillespie Robert M. Bernero, Director Division of System Integration Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ^ 'RN6RBIRES S RAM'S:RES DD* 0:RES. . DRA.0 S R .mc> ........Ya>.,. -..... Ernst . 9"" at.pte ......i 'JCM aro WLahs/mf JC 5 .g. " " "" 1/ '/85 1 ~ i wuc mcw ne no soi nacu ono OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

y. ~~ b ic ; 9 /* "8 49 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y j WASHINGTON. D. C. 20655 1.,,..... JAN 161985 IfMORANDUM FOR: Richard E. Cunningham, Director Division of Fuel Cycle & Material Safety Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards FROM: Frank P. Gilles>ie, Director Division of Risc Analysis and Operations Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

DRAFT REC 0ttiENDATIONS TO EDO CONCERNING WHETHER AND HOW TO CONTINUE WITH ONGOING RULEMAKING SPONSORED BY RES - EIA 0F THE TRANSPORTATION OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL TO AND FROH NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Enclosed for your consideration are draft recomendations supported by draft office review concerning whether and how to continue with ongoing rulemaking sponsored by RES for which your office is identified as the user office. This memorandum constitutes my concurrence in the enclosed draft recom-mendations. I plan to dispatch this memorandum with the enclosed draft recomendations to the Director, RES, two weeks from the above date. Please acknowledge receipt by returning this memorandum with or without coments on the draft recomendation as listed b low. [ L' f Fran[P. Gillespie, rector Division of Risk Analysis and Operations Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Enclosure:

As stated Receipt Acknowledged. No coment Receipt Acknowledged. Coments as follows: Richard E. Cunningham, Director Division of Fuel Cycle & Material Safety Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards

/

• UMTED STATES 8

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o ( g. g;. 3 l suAsMinoTow, p. c. zosss 5 \\*****p# JAN 3 01985 1 NEMORANDUM FOR: Fr4nk P. Gillespie, Director D', vision of Risk Analysis and Operations, RES FROM: Richard E. Cunningham, Director Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS

SUBJECT:

UPDATE OF TABLE S-4, 10 CFR PART 51 The Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety staff has reviewed your draft recomendation to teminate the Office of Nuclear Regulatory e Research rulemaking activity to update Table S-4,10 CFR Part 51. = We have no coment. f.sLJ129 Richard E. Cunningham, Director Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS f 1 l

7 IV r TO l y. MEMORANDUM FOR: Guy H. Cunningham, Director Office of the Executive Legal Director FROM: Frank P. Gillespie, Director Division of Risk Aralysis and Operations Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS TO EDO CONCERNING WHETHER AND HOW TO CONTINUE WITH ONGOING RULEMAY.ING SPONSORED BY RES--EIA 0F THE TRANSPORTATION OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL TO AND FROM + ^ NUCLEAR PGWER PLANTS Enclosed for your consideration are draft recomendations supported by draft office review concerning whether and how to continue with ongoing rulemaking sponsored by RES for which your office is identified as the user office. This memorandum constitutes my concurrence in the enclosed draft recom-mandations. I plan to dispatch this memorandum with the enclosed draft recommendations to the Director, RES, two weeks from the above date. Please acknowledge receipt by returning this memorandum with or without comments on the draft recommendation as listed below. Frank P. Gillespie Director Division of Risk Analysis and Operations Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l l

Enclosure:

As stated Receipt Acknowledged. No comment Recaipt Acknowledged. Coments as follows: l Distribution w/o encl. RES Central Files R-2913.01 l Circ /Chron/Subj WLhas JCBelote Guy H. Cunningham, Director JCMalaro Office of the Executive Legal Director MErnst FGillespie Dross J/ A [ a-= > RMinogue RA'MRB}RES....

RORE,

. R...:S. ..D. D..:..D..R. A..O..:..R..E. ~S.. ..D..:..D..R..A. 0..:..R..E..S. ES ...Lahs./,mf..,,.,yd d..te..,, jpf .,Mg.m.s.t., ,,,ffG.jli g.sp.j e. ~" W l ..4//7/85..... .4/ 85..... .y.f.9/85...... 4/..../85- . 4/.... /85... I cmrmvvwvuvomemn .-}}