ML20127B175
| ML20127B175 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/19/1984 |
| From: | Deyoung R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127A006 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-3 NUDOCS 8401260540 | |
| Download: ML20127B175 (4) | |
Text
-
)%L UNITED STATES b b-
'# 'o
[ )
g g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ],
. f W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 r, g :
l CRef co..* h jg y MEMORANDUM FOR:
James G. Keppler, Administrator, Region III FROM:
Richard C. DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
GUIDANCE CONCERNING WEEPING SPENT FUEL CASKS This memorandum is in response to your memorandum of November 17, 1983 on the above-captioned subject. A meeting was held on December 13, 1983 with several members of the IE Headquarters staff, Region I and III represbntatives, and members of the DOT staff to discuss the problems and issues raised by your memorandum. As a result of that meeting, the following conclusions were reached and are provided in response to the four items identified in your memorandum.
- 1. Compliance During Transport vs. At The Beginning of Transport The shipper _ is the person legally responsible for compliance with removable contamination limits during transport as well as at the beginning of transport. It was, however, brought out during the meeting -
that for shipments involving an exclusive-use closed, dedicated vehicle, and marked as such - in contrast with an exclusive-use vehicle - the provisions of 49 CFR 173.443(d) effectively allow for the less restrictive " factor of 10" higher removable contamination limits at the beginning of transport.
- 2. Substantiation of Enforcement Actions Enforcement actions, including civil penalties, can be taken against an NRC licensee (shipper) when the only substantiation of the violation comes from a third party (receiver), as long as NRC approves of the survey techniques used and the third party is willing, if necessary, to attest to his findings.
- 3. Averacing of Wipe Samples D0T expressed the view that the recent revision to 49 CFR 173.443 appears r area to preclude the averaging of multiple wipe samples within any 300 cm of a package surface. Such averaging was clearly provided for in the previous 49 CFR 173.397. D0T stated that the apparent deletion DOTof stated the provision to average samples in this manner was inadvertent.
its agreement that such averaging would be permissible in current applications and agreed to consider making a rule change to clarify the regulation. The text of a suggested proposed word change that we are c-I8
=
8 '/ o 12 C 0 CY'- D~
- m. .. .
_s James G. Keppler 2 submitting to DOT is enclosed. Pending a rule change, we will not take enforcement action against licensees whose samples are averaged over .
300 cm2 and do not exceed the limits.
,4. Wipe Sample Efficiency DOT expressed the view that the "...other methods of assessment of equal ~or greater _ efficiency ...." may in fact be wipe sam)1es of a demonstrated efficiency exceeding 10 percent. In both 49 CR 173.443 as well as its predecessor, 49 CFR 173.397, the wipe sample efficiency has been assumed to rbe 10 percent. Therefore, the currently applicable limits of 2,200 dpm/100 cm (for non-exclusive use or exc.lusive use vehicles at start of transport) or
- 22,000 dpm/100 cmr (for exclusive use during transport) are limits which do not apply to values based on a demonstration of an efficiency higher than 10 percent. Any such demonstration of higher efficiency wipt samples obviously should be documented by the licensee and reviewed by regional
? NRC staff. In assessing higher efficiency wipe samples such important
- variables as the wipe sample absorbency and package surface should be j considered. -
- 5. Exterior " Wrapping" of Casks Although this issue was not raised in your letter, we discussed at the meeting the question of whether exterior " wrapping" of casks in plastic
^
or equivalent could be routinely used to assure compliance with contamination limits. The general consensus on this was as follows: .
The addition of " wrapping" to an NRC-certified package would not be permissible without obtaining authorization of the modification for the applicable NRC certificate. In proposing such a provision, 1
an applicant's safety analysis obviously would have to address
, heat. retention since the contents are a heat source.
I l
- The '" wrapping" of a non-NRC-certified package would not relieve the shipper from compliance with the removable contamination limits applicable to the exterior surface of the unwrapped package unless the wrapping constituted an integral part of a DOT Specification 7A, type A package design. In such cases, the shipper's documented package safety evaluation would need t to address whether the wrapping would maintain its closure integrity during the normal conditions of transport.
We are preparing a letter to D0T requesting its formal concurrence with the conclusions and positions reached at the December 13 meeting, as they are i described above. DOT expressed the opinion that a timely response would be provided to NRC. In the interim, the above information should be considered i as guidance. Upon receipt of a written reply from 00T we will develop and issue an appropriate IE Information Notice to advise licensees of our position in these areas.
e P *
^
M 36 m i James G. Keppler 3 Should you have further questions on this matter, please contact A. W. Grella (492-7746) or G. R. Klingler (492-4923).
f:= ?
ll Richard C. oung, D ector
- Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Text of suggested proposed change cc:- Regional Administrators I, II, IV, and V J. Axelrad ES G. Cunningham, ELD J. Lieberman, ELD .
A. Grella, IE Enforcement Coordinators I, II, III, IV, and V
l R. Gregor, RIII D. Hopkins, RES ,
C. MacDonald, NMSS J. Cook, NMSS R. Rawl, 00T J. Shober, 00T l .
L .
i e
9 4.
N L
~
ENCLOSURE SUGGESTED REVISION TO 49 CFR 173.443(a)
- 1173.443 Contamination control (a) The level of e'xternal non-fixed surfaces (removable) of each package radioactive contamination offered for shipment onkept
.shall be the' as low as practicable. The level of non-fixed radioactive contamination may be determined by wiping the surface concerned with an absorbent material using moderate pressure, and measuring the activity on the wiping material. Sufficient measurements shall be taken in the most appropriate locations on the surface to yield a representative assessment of the non-fixed contamination levels.
Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section the amount of radioactivity measured when averaged over any area of not more than 300 cmr shall not exceed the limits given in Table 10 at any time during transport. Other methods of assessment, if demonstrated to be of equal, or greater efficiency, may be used. When other methods are used the detection efficiency of the method used shall be taken into account and in no case shall the non-fixed contamination on the '
external surfaces of the package exceed ten times the limits listed in Table 10.
(b) Exceptasprovidedinparagraph(d)ofthissectioninthecaseof packages transported as exclusive use shipments by rail or public highway only, the removable (non-fixed) radioactive contamination on any package at any time during transport shall not exceed ten times .
the levels prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section. The levels at the beginning of transport shall not exceed the levels prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section.
4 9
l
[
4 I