[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 34 (Friday, February 18, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-3766]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: February 18, 1994]
VOL. 59, NO. 34
Friday, February 18, 1994
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 71
[Docket No. PRM-71-11]
U.S. Department of Energy, Receipt of a Petition for Rulemaking
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 for rulemaking filed by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE). The petition has been docketed by the
Commission and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-71-11. The petitioner
requests that the NRC amend its regulations governing packaging and
transportation of radioactive materials to specifically exempt
canisters containing vitrified high-level waste from the double
containment requirement specified in NRC's regulations. The petitioner
believes such an amendment would permit more cost-effective high-level
radioactive waste management by DOE in the geologic repository and
would not adversely affect the safety of the transportation package.
DATES: Submit comments by May 4, 1994. Comments received 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.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Attention: Docketing and Service
Branch.
Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,
between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
For a copy of the petition, write: Rules Review Section, Rules
Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and
Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555. Telephone: 301-492-7758 or Toll Free: 800-368-5642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received a petition for
rulemaking dated November 30, 1993, submitted by the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE). The petition was docketed as PRM-71-11 on December 6,
1993. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations
specified in 10 CFR part 71 that govern packaging and transport of
radioactive materials. Specifically, the petitioner is seeking a
specific exemption for canisters containing vitrified high-level waste
(HLW) from the requirements currently contained in 10 CFR 71.63(b)
regarding special requirements for plutonium shipments. The petitioner
notes that current NRC special requirements for plutonium shipments (10
CFR 71.63) specify that all shipments of plutonium with an activity
greater than 20 curies per package must meet the double containment
requirement in 10 CFR 71.63(b).
Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), as amended, DOE
is responsible for developing a geologic repository for the disposal of
high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel. Shipments of HLW must be
approved for shipment through DOE's Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management System (CRWMS) for transport to and disposal in the geologic
repository. Also, under the NWPA, all packages used to transport spent
fuel and HLW must be certified by NRC. On June 17, 1974 (39 FR 20960),
the NRC published a final rule requiring that shipments of plutonium
with activity greater than 20 curies per package meet the double
containment requirement of 10 CFR 71.63(b).
The petitioner admits that 10 CFR 71.63(b) applies to the shipments
of vitrified HLW. However, the petitioner also claims that these
shipments should be exempt from the double containment requirement
because this material is analogous to spent fuel. As the petitioner
notes, the preamble to the final rule states that spent fuel is exempt
from the double containment requirement specified in 10 CFR 71.63(b)
because these solid forms of plutonium were determined to be
``essentially nonrespirable.'' The petitioner also indicates that the
evaluation of the respirability potential of canisters filled with
vitrified HLW is based mainly on the results of impact tests.
In support of the petition for rulemaking, the petitioner has
included a document entitled ``Technical Justification to Support the
PRM by the DOE to Exempt HLW Canisters from 10 CFR 71.63(b)''
(technical justification). The petitioner claims that the tests
described in the technical justification demonstrate that the canisters
containing vitrified HLW compare favorably with the physical integrity
of the metal cladding surrounding the spent fuel pellets in reactor
assemblies. The petitioner believes that because canisters containing
vitrified HLW are analogous to spent fuel, these canisters should be
exempt from the double containment requirement specified in 10 CFR
71.63(b).
The NRC is soliciting public comment on the petition submitted by
DOE that requests the changes to the regulations in 10 CFR part 71 as
discussed below.
The Petitioner
Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended
(NWPA), the petitioner is the Federal agency responsible for developing
and administering a geologic repository for the deep disposal of high-
level radioactive waste and spent fuel. The petitioner proposes to ship
the HLW from each of its three storage locations at Aiken, South
Carolina; Hanford, Washington; and West Valley, New York, directly to
the geologic repository in casks certified by the NRC. The HLW
currently exists mostly in the form of liquid and sludge resulting from
the reprocessing of defense reactor fuels. The petitioner proposes to
solidify (vitrify) this material into a borosilicate glass form in
which the HLW is dispersed and immobilized and place it into stainless
steel canisters for storage and transport to the geologic repository.
The petitioner indicates that it is submitting this petition for
rulemaking to amend 10 CFR part 71 so that it can manage the
transportation and disposal of high-level waste in a cost-effective and
efficient manner without adversely affecting the safety of the
transportation package.
Discussion of the Petition
The petitioner has submitted this petition for rulemaking because
it believes it will be adversely affected by the current regulations
that require plutonium shipments with activity greater than 20 curies
per package to be shipped in a double containment format. The
petitioner's primary concern is that the double containment requirement
specified in 10 CFR 71.63(b) will prevent it from effectively
performing its responsibility under the NWPA to administer the
transportation of canisters containing vitrified high-level radioactive
waste for disposal in the geologic repository in an efficient and cost-
effective manner.
The petitioner states that although the current regulations are
appropriate in exempting reactor fuel elements from the double
containment requirement specified in 10 CFR 71.63(b), canisters
containing vitrified HLW should also be exempted. The petitioner states
that spent fuel was exempted from the double containment requirement in
10 CFR 71.63(b) because the fuel pellet itself and the surrounding
metal cladding were found to provide adequate protection against the
possible dispersion of plutonium particles both under normal transport
conditions and during hypothetical accident conditions. The petitioner
believes that the tests described in the technical justification
provide sufficient technical information to indicate that the
borosilicate glass mixture and the storage canisters are analogous to
spent fuel that is exempt from the double containment requirement.
In the technical justification, the petitioner describes the
physical characteristics of the austenitic stainless steel canisters
that will house the vitrified HLW and indicates that the packages will
pass a 7-meter drop test onto a flat, essentially unyielding surface
without a release of its contents. The petitioner emphasized that this
test should not be confused with the hypothetical accident tests
specified in 10 CFR 71.73, ``Hypothetical Accident Conditions.'' The
petitioner also clarifies that the 9-meter drop test required in 10 CFR
71.73(c)(1) applies to the entire package, including the cask which
must be certified by the NRC used to transport the canisters containing
the vitrified HLW.
The petitioner provides a detailed comparison in the technical
justification between the steel canister that will house vitrified HLW
and the reactor fuel elements that are exempt from the double
containment requirement in 10 CFR 71.63(b). The petitioner notes that
the plutonium contained in reactor fuel elements is encased in solid
ceramic fuel pellets surrounded by a sealed, sturdy metal cladding that
inhibits dispersion of radioactive particles. The petitioner believes
the impact tests performed during the past 20 years on canisters
containing simulated HLW glass forms indicate that these canisters
qualify for exemption from the double containment requirement.
Helium leak tests and dye penetrant tests performed after the
impact testing have demonstrated that the vitrified HLW canisters can
withstand a 9-meter drop test. The petitioner acknowledges that reactor
fuel elements were exempted from the double containment requirement in
10 CFR 71.63(b) because they are considered to be ``essentially
nonrespirable.'' The petitioner believes that because the canisters
have not been exposed to the high levels of radiation present in a
commercial reactor, these packages will not be subject to molecular-
level changes in material properties, such as increased embrittlement,
unlike spent reactor fuel cladding. The petitioner concludes that the
numerous impact and followup tests on simulated vitrified HLW canisters
indicate that the canisters provide, at minimum, protection comparable
to that provided by spent fuel cladding.
In the technical justification, the petitioner also compares the
physical and chemical characteristics of the vitrified HLW glass
mixture to spent fuel pellets. The petitioner notes that production of
potentially respirable particles from the glass mixture could result
from cooldown processes after being poured into the HLW canister,
normal handling and transport conditions, and hypothetical accident
conditions. Because impact studies of simulated waste glass from the
DOE Savannah River site have shown comparable levels of fracture
resistance and similar fractions of respirable particles when compared
to unirradiated uranium fuel pellets and other potential waste form
materials, the petitioner believes that the fracture resistance of
simulated HLW glass is comparable to that of uranium fuel pellets. The
petitioner asserts that leak tests performed for both normal transport
and hypothetical accident scenarios indicate that the quantity of
respirable material produced is minute and fully supports the
conclusion that the vitrified HLW canister waste form is ``essentially
nonrespirable'' and, therefore, analogous to reactor fuel elements.
The petitioner also notes that evaluations show that the total
concentration of plutonium in an individual fuel assembly is more than
100 times greater than that in an HLW canister from the Savannah River
site. The petitioner indicates that the maximum quantity of plutonium
projected for the Hanford and West Valley HLW canisters is much less
than that of the Savannah River HLW canisters. The petitioner also
notes that canisters containing vitrified HLW will be enclosed within a
shipping cask that has been certified by NRC during actual transport
conditions. The petitioner concludes that this arrangement will further
reduce the potential for canister damage and for a release of
respirable particles of radionuclides.
The petitioner asserts that proposed disposal criteria would result
in a cost-effective option that would not adversely affect public
health, environmental quality, the safety of the transportation
package, or the safety of workers who handle the transportation
package. The petitioner also asserts that the current regulatory limits
on radioactivity in the transportation package are intended to protect
not only individuals who transport and handle the waste but also the
general public if a transportation accident en route to the geologic
repository site results in a release of radioactive material.
Adverse Effects on the Petitioner
The petitioner believes that it will be adversely affected if the
double containment requirement in 10 CFR 71.63(b) is applied to
canisters containing vitrified HLW. The petitioner notes that the only
alternative would be to design and construct a double containment
transportation cask. The petitioner believes that a double containment
requirement would add additional handling steps to the loading and
unloading of the HLW canister, resulting in an increase of time and
expense in HLW shipments. The additional handling process would
increase the radiation dose received by workers and create additional
contaminated metal hardware, resulting in increased disposal effort and
expense. The petitioner also asserts that a double containment
requirement for this HLW form would require additional shipments
because of a potential decrease in payload capacity of the cask.
Additional shipments would create a corresponding increase in risk to
affected populations along the transportation route to the geologic
repository. The petitioner believes that the double containment
requirement would impose an unnecessary and unduly burdensome rule that
cannot be justified in terms of any incremental benefits to public
health and safety.
The Petitioner's Proposed Amendment
The petitioner requests that 10 CFR part 71 be amended to overcome
the problems the petitioner has itemized and recommends the following
revision to the regulations:
The petitioner proposes that Sec. 71.63 be amended by revising
paragraph (b) to redesignate paragraph (b)(3) as paragraph (b)(4) and
adding a new paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 71.63 Special requirements for plutonium shipments.
* * * * *
(b) Plutonium in excess of 20 curies per package must be packaged
in a separate inner container placed within outer packaging that meets
the requirements of Subparts E and F for packaging of material in
normal form. If the entire package is subjected to the tests specified
in Sec. 71.71 (Normal Conditions of Transport), the separate inner
container must not release plutonium, as demonstrated to a sensitivity
of 10-6 A2 per hour. If the entire package is subjected to
the tests specified in Sec. 71.73 (Hypothetical Accident Conditions),
the separate inner container must restrict the loss of plutonium to not
more than A2 in one week. Solid plutonium in the following forms
is exempt from the requirements of this paragraph:
(1) Reactor fuel elements;
(2) Metal or metal alloy;
(3) Canisters containing vitrified high-level waste; and
(4) Other plutonium-bearing solids that the Commission determines
should be exempt from the requirements of this section.
The Petitioner's Conclusion
The petitioner has concluded that the double containment
requirement specified in 10 CFR 71.63(b) should not be applied to
shipments of canisters containing vitrified HLW because this waste form
is analogous to spent reactor fuel elements, which are exempt. The
petitioner believes that impact and leak tests on the canisters,
chemical analyses of spent fuel and simulated HLW borosilicate glass
mixtures, and other studies of the levels of radioactivity present in
the proposed transportation packages demonstrate that canisters
containing vitrified HLW are analogous to spent reactor fuel elements
and, therefore, should be exempt from the double containment
requirement in 10 CFR 71.63(b). The petitioner has proposed an
amendment to the current regulations in 10 CFR part 71 that it believes
will permit more cost-effective disposal of high-level waste without
adversely affecting the safety of the transportation package, the
workers who handle the package, affected populations along the
transportation corridor, or the environment.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of February, 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Chilk,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 94-3766 Filed 2-17-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
