ML20207C736
| ML20207C736 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/01/1988 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Udall M HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207C740 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8808100133 | |
| Download: ML20207C736 (20) | |
Text
__ _ _ _
l
~ pa atauq'o UNITED STATES Og l
"[ '
NUCLEt R REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g
e
%..... p' July 1,1988
- [02p CHAIRMAN The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As requested in your letter dated May 19, 1988, enclosed are responses to questions for the record of the Subcommittee's May 12, 1988 hearing on nuclear waste transportation.
Sincerely, W.
Lando W. Ze Jr
Enclosures:
As Stated cc:
The Honorable Manuel J. Lujan, Jr.
The Honorable Edward J. Markey The Honorable Wayne Owens l
l 8808100133 880701 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDC
,-_______.D
Rep. Markey QUESTION 11 Messrs. Charles Kay, Thomas Hindman, Hugh Thompson and Alan Roberts, in the past there have been problems over notification of and consultation with States through which class C or route-controlled quantities of nuclear material have been transported.
Will any of these transportation bills pending before the Committee strengthen these requirements, and, if so, why should we think you will do a better job of notification and consultation in the future?
ANSWER:
NRC has not identified specific problems with its present advance notification procedures.
To aid in State emergency planning, Congress directed in 1980 that the NRC require advance notice to the states of scheduled shipments of high level nuclear waste and spent fuel.
NRC licensees who transport large quantities of high level radioactive waste or l
spent fuel are required to notify the Governor (or the Governor's designee) in each State through which shipment is planned.
In general, for spent fuel shipments the required notif f 'atita must be made seven days prior to departure.
The Governor'= office determines who in each State should have access to the scheduling information.
The notification
Rep. Markey QUESTION 1.
(Continued) includes the planned route and schedules, shipment description, and the carrier's name and address.
As a security measure, the NRC further restricts disclosure to the public of scheduling information for spent fuel shipments until 10 days after the shipment, or the last shipment in a series reaches its destination.
The bills before the Committee.would require the NRC to make various additional notifications to the chief officials of any political subdivision of a State and of an Indian tribe regarding the transport of high level radioactive waste and j
Class C waste, including receipt of an application to transport and advance notification for specific shipments.
Studies on risk associated with the transportation of radioactive waste indicate that the risk is small and with the current notifica-tion process, the NRC does not believe that additional notification would result in any improvement in the protecting of public health and safety.
With respect to spent fuel shipments, the NRC believes that additional dissemination of shipment information through expanded notifications to local municipalities and others in some cases could potentially impact the security of the shipments without any corresponding benefit.
~
Rep. Markey QUESTION 3:
Messrs. Kay, Hindman and Thompson, does the NRC certify the containers used to transport the damaged TMI core materials?
Would this certification be required under these bills?
ANSWER 1 Although certification is not required under current NRC regulations, the transport ca.sks for the TMI core materials were certified by the NRC at the request of the Department of Energy.
The proposed legislation would require an NRC-certified cask for shipment of TMI core materials.
D
Rep. Markey QUESTION 4:
Messrs. Kay, Hindman, Thompson and Roberts, it seems to me that there is a preference to ship nuclear waste by train rather than by truck.
Shouldn't we have definitive studies of the general problem of the comparative risks and studies for each specific route before determining the best transportation mode? If there is a lower likelihood of accident, would that be offset in any way by the greater volume involved?
ANSWER:
NRC has performed a generic transportation assessment in its "Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Materials by Air and Other Modes" (NUREG-0170).
This study found, on a generic basis, that the risks of shipping spent fuel by either truck or train are small.
)
Although the risks may not be identical, the risk of shipment by either mcde is small and is conducted under a regulatory system that provides adequatt 6ection of public health and safety.
Rep. Markey i
QUESTION 4.
(Continued) 2-For the above reasons, we do not believe that performing comparative risk studies for each specific route before cetermining the transportation mode would result in any significant improvement to public health and safety.
[
,--,,------.-,-----r,--------------,,--.-w-------+w-r---,-,
.w.-
-1 y-
.-wy
-= r
Rep. Owens QUESTION 1:
Please describe the NRC certification process for Type B shipping containers.
What opportunities exist for public involvement in the NRC certification process?
Are full-scale j
cask tests required as part of the NRC cask certification process?
ANSWER:
Before a cask design can be used, the NRC must issue a certificate of compliance (approval).
Any number of casks may be fabricated to the approved design, provided the fabrication is conducted under a quality assurance program approved by the NRC.
To use an approved cask, licensees must first register with the NRC.
Operation and shipment of the cask must be in accordance with the terms :ind conditions of the approval.
Applicants for approval of transportation casks must demonstrate to the NRC that the design can safely withstand conditions likely to occur in both normal and accident conditions of transport.
Casks must be evaluated for a series of hypothetical accident conditions which include:
(1) a 30-foot drop test onto an essentially unyielding surface; (2) a 40-inch drop test onto a 6-inch diameter pin; and (3) a l
1._
Rep. Owens QUESTION 1.
(Continued) 2-30-minute fire test.
Applicants must demonstrate that, following the test sequence, the cask design would meet NRC requirements for containment of radioactive material, for maintaining external radiation levels within acceptable limits, and for maintaining the contents in a subcritical condition.
Under the regulations, this demonstration may be by means of full scale testing, scale model testing, engineering analysis, or a combination of these methods.
No full-scale physical tests have been conducted on current NRC-licensed casks.
Engineering analysis has been the primary means used to demonstrate that cask designs meet NRC regulations.
However, in some instances, scale model testing has been used to supplement and to confirm the engineering analysis.
We understand that DOE intends to conduct scale model testing of all the casks that will be used for NWPA shipments.
The results of these tests will supplement the engineering analyses that will also be performed on the casks.
,,--____,-__._._,.-,_,,,_.,,,y__,,_
Rep. Owens QUESTION 1.
(Continued) The public is not directly involved in cask design approval or certification. However, the standards and safety requirements for shipping casks contained in 10 CFR Part 71, "Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material," were subject to public review and comment.
Public comment is currently being sought for a revision to Part 71 to make them compatible with those of the International Atomic Energy Agency for the safe transport of radioactive material.
Additional opportunities exist when documents such as NUREG-0170, "Final Environmental Statement of the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes," are published for public comment.
I l
Rep. Owens QUESTION 2:
What is the status of NRC certification of the WIPP shipping container, TRUPACT II?
Has DOE provided NRC with any TRUPACT II engineering analyses or mathematical models confirming that the components meet NRC certification requirements?
When does NRC expect to complete the certification process?
ANSWER:
To date, NRC does not have an application from DOE for certification of the TRUPACT II shipping container.
NRC staff has met with 00E, Westinghouse, and Nucleat Packaging during the past ten months to be briefed on the details of the TRUPACT II design and intended contents.
NRC representatives have also toured several DOE facilities to determine how TRU waste is being generated, characterized, ind stored.
NRC staff also intends to observe some of the full-scale testing that DOE is i
undertaking in support of TRUPACT II certification.
A formal application is expected in August, 1988.
The application should contain the results of full-scale thirty-foot drop, puncture, and fire tests being conducted
Rep. Owens QUESTION 2.
(Continued) ]
at Sandia in June and July 1988.
NRC intends to expedite its review of the TRUPACT II container.
Although DOE has requested certification by September 23, 1988, NRC does not expect to complete its review by that time.
j
Rep. Owen; r
i QUESTION __3:
Please comment on the safety problems associated with gas generation within TRU waste shipping containers and the potential for explosions.
ANSWER:
DOE plans to ship a large variety of waste forms in TRU waste shipping containers.
Some of these wastes generate hydrogen and other gases as a result of radiolytic and thermal decomposition.
DOE is currently studying the rates at which hydrogen and other gases would be generated within the TRU shipping container for various waste forms.
The resu,1 ts of these studies would form the basis for defining an acceptable contents for the TRU shipping package.
It is NRC's intent to limit the hydrogen concentration generated within the TRV waste shipping container to 5%.
This is the lower flammable limit for hydrogen in air, and hydrogen at this concentration would not detonate.
Similar limits would be imposed on other flammable or explosive gases which are determined to be present in any of the waste forms.
1
l Rep. Owens QUESTION 3.
(Continued) The normal shipping time for a TRU waste shipment from a DOE site to the WIPP facility is about four days.
DOE is designing the container and limiting the contents so that the hydrogen concentration generated within a TRU shipping container would not exceed 5% in a sixty day period.
This design should assure that the hydrogen concentration would not exceed safe limits during shipments.
\\
Rep. Owens QUESTION 4:
Licenses for spent fuel dry storage are issued under 10 CFR Part 72 of NRC's regulations.
Please describe the process for licensing dry storage casks and/or MRS facilities?
How many such casks and/or facilities have already received a license for use?
ANSWER:
Licensing of dry spent fuel storage under 10 CFR Part 72 includes storage of spent fuel in independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSI), which may be located at reactor sites or on separate sites.
Part 72 provides for: (1) one step licensing of spent fuel storage outside of reactor basins, and (2) the issuance of a materials license.
Spent fuel to be stored must have decayed at least one year after discharge from a reactor core to eliminate short-lived volatile radioisotopes.
Storage is licensed under specified requirements for up to 20 years with opportunity for license renewal, Monitored j
retrievable storage (MRS) is proposed to be covered under an amendment to 10 CFR Part 72 (51 Fed. Reg. 19106 May 27, 1986).
The Commission has the final rulemaking proposal under consideration.
Rep. Owens QUEST 10h_4.
(Continued) Topical Reports (TRs) for dry storage technologies designs are being submitted by vendors (or safety reviews by MRC staff.
TRs, when approved, may be referenced in site-specific license applications.
To date, five designs have been approved; three for dry storage cask designs, one for a modular concrete and stainless canister system design, and one for a modular concrete vault design.
Two licenses for dry spent fuel storage have been issued by the NRC.
The first was issued in July 1986 to Virginia Electric i
and Power Company for a site at its Surry Power Station in Surry County, Virginia.
The second license was issued in August 1986 to Carolina Power and Light Company for a site at its H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Power Plant, Unit 2, in Darlington County, South Carolina,
l Re p. 'Jwe n s j
quCSTION 5:
On May 27, 1986 NRC issued a proposed rule for comment which would modify the licensing requirements for the storage of nuclear waste.
Please summarize the changes contemplated in this proposed rule change.
What is the status of the proposed rule change?
ANSWER:
The proposed rule, "Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-level Radioactive Waste," (51 Fed. Reo 19106) was issued May 27, 1986, for public comment.
It amends 10 CFR Part 72 to provide for licensing of dry storage for spent fuel and solidified high-level radioactive waste in a monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS) authorized by the Congress and in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
Thus, many of the changes proposed are explicitly applicable to the Department of Energy as the sole license applicant for monitored retrievable storage and address its role as such.
The most notable tech-nical change is the broadening of the scope of Part 72 to include storage of high-level waste as well as spent fuel at an MRS.
Technically, the storage of solidified high-level waste is not significantly different from the storage of spent fuel, except that there is no criticality consideration with respect to the storage of solidified high-level waste because of reduced presence of special nuclear material.
j Rep. Owens QUESTION _S.
(Continued) Public comment on the proposed rule was received.
NRC staff submitted a proposed final rule to the Commission for con-sideration.
Subsequently, Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 (NWPAA).
The NRC staff has revised the proposed final rule to address the NWPAA, and the rule is now being considered by the Commission.
f Rep. Owens QUESTION 6.
Under current law DOE must abide by NRC regulations regarding advance notification of state and local governments prior to repository and/or MRS shipments.
Please describe NRC requirements for advance notification.
ANSWER To aid in State emergency planning, Congress directed the NRC to require advance notice to the states of scheduled shipments of nuclear waste and spent fuel.
NRC licensees who transport large quantities of radioactive waste or spent fuel are required to notify the Governor (or the Governor's designee) in each State through which shipment is planned.
In general, for spent fuel shipments the required notification must be made seven days prior to departure to the Governor (or the Governor's designee) in each State through which the shipment is planned.
The notification includes the planned route and schedules, shipment description, and the carrier's name and address.
As a security measure, the NRC further restricts disclosure to the public of scheduling information for spent fuel shipments until 10 days after the shipment, or
Rep. Owens QUESTION 6.
(Continued) the last shipment in a series reaches its destination.
The Governor's office determines who in each State should have access to the scheduling information.
NRC does not require notification to local governments.
)
1
l Rep. Owens i
gUESTION 7:
How many NRC inspectors devote their full time to the inspection of nuclear waste shipments?
When are such inspections conducted, i.e..,
before or after shipments, etc.?
ANS)JR1 The NRC currently has no full time inspectors dedicated to the inspection of nuclear waste shipments.
At the present time, the shipment of spent fuel and high-level waste from NRC licensees is limited, since there are no commercial repository or storage facilities for these materials.
Some transfers of spent fuel have taken place between facilities, usually for the purpose of optimizing use of onsite storage capacity.
Inspection of transportation activities (consisting primarily of shipment of low-level wastes) at NRC licensed facilities is typically performed as part of a f acility inspection, and therefore inspectors are normally not dedicated full time to j
transportation activities.
In 1986, NRC conducted 1.458 trans-1 portation inspections at various facilities throughout the U.S.
These inspections would normally be performed after a shipment has taken place and consist of a review of documenta-tion generated during shipment preparation and transport.
If transportation activities are taking place during an inspec-tion, an inspector may observe and review these activities.
---