[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