ML20127B071
| ML20127B071 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/17/1983 |
| From: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Deyoung R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127A006 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-3 NUDOCS 8312120082 | |
| Download: ML20127B071 (4) | |
Text
__ . _ _ - ___._ _
- ?-
- Eww3Sg UNITE) STATES a
- g% NUCLEAR RESULATORY COMMIS$lON
^
8 REGION lli -
{* .
too moosEVELT, ROAD OLEN ELLYN, ILLINott 80137 ooo *
, NOV 17 E83 MEMORANDUM FOR: R. C. DeYoung, Director, IE
. . j FROM: James G. Keppler. Regional W4nistrator -
SUBJECT:
GUIDANCE CONCERNING %.t. RING SPENT FUEL CASKS The recent resu=ption of co-arcial power reactor spent fuel shipping in Region III has focused renewed attention on a recurrent problem associated !
vith spent fuel shipments. The problem is cask " weeping", that is, an 1 increase in the removable radioactive conta ' nation on the external surfaces '
,cf the cask subsequent to decontamination. The weeping phenomenon was '
officially recognized in the July 1, 1983 revision of Department of Trans-
. portation regulations for transportatien of radioactive materials. Section ..
173.443 of those regulations now imposes a factor of ten lower removable conta=ination limit at the beginning of transport than during transport for exclusive use shipments. The removable contmeinstion limit during transport has not changed.
- a , .- .
DOT regulation 49CFR173.443, "Contaminacion control", and 10CFR71.87 limit the removable contamination levels as measured by the package (cask) surface et the time of departure to 22 dpr/cm . Due to " weeping", removable con-ta=ination levels on the cask surface are allowed to rise by a factor of ten during transport. There are no DOT /NRC limits for fixed contamination levels other than direct radiation limits.
The problen arises when the 220 dpm/cy2 value is exceeded during shipment, as has occurred in four occasior.s recently, eveg though vfpes at the beginn4 4 of transport were less than 22 dpr/cm We are in need of guidance concerning enforcenent sanctions, if any, NRC should be imposing in these cases. As you may be aware, the General Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions (10CFR Part 2. Appendix C) categorizes surface contamlnation exceeding, but less than a factor of three above, NRC (DOT) requirements as a Severity III violation, which requires consideration and usual imposition of civil penalties. Before proceeding with this enforcement action, we feel several catters warrant your consideration, as follows. ;
1 J
) '
%n 7( v\tg[b C-I y
j
=
'J., -
r'4. _
^ . '
R. C. DeYoung NOV 2 7 23
- 8,
. ~
- 1. Is the shipper legally responsible for ensuring compliance with the removable contamination limits during transport when he has com-plied with the more restrictive removable contamination limits applicable at the beginning of transport?
~
- 2. Can enforcement actions, including. civil penalties, be imposed on an NRC licensee (shipper) when the only substantiation of the violation comes from a third party (receiver)? In a majority of 3 instances this third party will be another NRC licensee.
- 3. Must a minimum surface area of the cask exceed 220 dpm/cm2 before the DDT limit is exceeded? Prior to July 1,1983, DOT regulations specified that removable contamination levels could be averaged over 300 cm2 of package surface area (see old 49CFR173.397). Al- ,
. though the Federal Register did not indicate a change in this averaging technique, it appears that under the new regulations -
(see 49CFR173.443) ave raging may only be allowed over the actual .
. area wiped with the smear. In one or two of the contaminated cask *
- incidents noted above, averaging' over a 300 cm 2 area with two or more smears would have resulted in removable contamination levels
' less than the DOT limit.. -
- 4. Can allowance be made for the actual efficiency of the wipes (smears) for determining the removable contamination on the casks? Section 173.443 of Title 49 specifies that the level of removable con- !
ta=ination on packages may be determined by specified wiping (smears) or by other methods of assessment; when otbar methods of assessment are used, the detection efficiency of the method shall be taken into account. As noted in yederal Register, Volu:na 48, Nu=ber 131, dated July 7,1983, page 31216,
- smears are conservatively estimated to be
~ ~
only ten percent efficient; this assu=ption was incorporated in the July 1,1983 DOT revision by reducing the previous conta ination limits by a factor of ten and specifying the limit based on smear activity rather than as removable contamination on the package surface. Due to the relat,ively smooth spent fuel cask surfaces, smears have been demonstrated to be greater than ninety percent efficient for measuring cask removable contamination for the current spent fuel shipments rather than the ten percent assumed by DOT. l l
l 1
l
.- 8# -
, L C. DeYoung
- 3 .; .
NOV 17 583 .
~
p .
In all four of the contaminated cask incidents noted above, allowing
~
use of a twenty six percent sasar efficiency, which is conservative with respect to the demonstrated afficiencies, would be sufficient
- to remain within DOT co'ntamination limits.
We would appreciate your prompt attention to..this request for guidance due to the current extensive public, and political interest in spent fuel ship-ments, and due to the enforcement implications inherent in repetitive Severity III violations. If you need additional information regarding this matter, please catact' Robert Gregar (FIS 388-5644) of my staff.
- ~. .
.: f.
~
C\,,__. d Oa_
gJames C. Kappl .
Regional-Administrator G. E. Cunningham, ELD
-
- cc: . .
J. A. Axelrad IE A. W. Gre11a, IE - m
'W. H. Schultz, RIII, , ; ,, -
Enforcement Coordinators ' ;
RI, RII, RIV, RV R. E. Cunningham, NMSS e
wh m Wg e
e I
l e
- - , - _ . - - .- .y_n .._,.,.-.__..,,__w.-.-
, 7, _._w_,_ . - , - . . , , . , , , _ y_. . ,__-- - -.. . , _ - - _ . - _ _ _ , - _ _ . _ m,-.-m,,,__.c.---
h' f,( vrL lu llN ' ,
, "',. orn55
,g 1.!
i s+ g* " UNITED STATES i f, NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION i
\ /;
REGION lli
- - ;E 799 MooSEVELT MoAo -
,K GLEN ELLYN, ILLINotS 60137 .
% y***.,s o
'd . y NOV 17 983 2 c 4- M 74s, F
MEMORANDUM FOR: R. C. DeYoung, Director, IE $} '
FROM: James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator & [Ng%,*W [
SUBJECT:
GUIDANCE CONCERNING WEEPING SPENT FUEL CASKS The recent resumption of commercial power reactor spent fuel shipping in Region III has focused renewed attention on a recurrent problem associated with spent fuel shipments. The problem is cask " weeping", that is, an increase in the removable radioactive contamination on the external surfaces of the cask subsequent to decontamination. The weeping phenomenon was officially recognized in the July 1, 1983 revision of Department of Trans-
,portation regulations for transportation of radioactive materials. Section 173.443 of those regulations now imposes a factor of ten lower removable contamination limit at the beginning of transport than during transport for exclusive use shipments. The removable contamination limit during transport has not changed.
DOT regulation 49CFR173.443, " Contamination Control", and 10CFR71.87 limit the removable contamination levels as measured by the package (cask) surface at the time of departure to 22 dpm/cm . Due to " weeping", removable con-tamination levels on the cask surface are allowed to rise by a factor of ten during transport. There are no DOT /NRC limits for fixed contamination levels other than direct radiation limits.
2 The problem arises when the 220 dpm/cm value is exceeded during shipment, ashasoccurredinfouroccasionsrecently,evegthoughwipesatthe beginning of transport were less than 22 dpm/cm .
We are in need of guidance concerning enforcement sanctions, if any, NRC should be imposing in these cases. As you may be aware, the General Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions (10CFR Part 2, Appendix C) categorizes surface contamination exceeding, but less than a factor of three above, NRC (DOT) requirements as a Severity III violation, which requires consideration and usual imposition of civil penalties. Before proceeding with this enforcement action, we feel several matters warrant your consideration, as follows.