[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8362-8363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-4146]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 1998 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 8362]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. PRM-71-12]


International Energy Consultants, Inc.; Receipt of 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 
International Energy Consultants, Inc. The petition has been docketed 
by the Commission and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-71-12. The 
petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations that govern 
packaging and transportation of radioactive material. The petitioner 
believes that special requirements for plutonium shipments should be 
eliminated.

DATES: Submit comments by May 5, 1998. 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: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff.
    Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 
between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
    For a copy of the petition, write: David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001.
    You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking 
website through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc.gov). This site 
provides the availability to upload comments as files (any format), if 
your web browser supports that function. For information about the 
interactive rulemaking website, contact Carol Gallagher, 301-415-5905 
(e-mail: [email protected]).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. Meyer, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001. Telephone: 301-415-7162 or Toll Free: 800-368-5642 or e-
mail: DLM[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission received a petition for 
rulemaking submitted by Frank P. Falci on behalf of the International 
Energy Consultants, Inc. in the form of a letter addressed to the 
Secretary of the Commission, dated September 25, 1997. The petitioner 
believes that 10 CFR 71.63(b) should be eliminated. As an option, the 
petitioner believes that 10 CFR 71.63(a) should also be eliminated. 
This option would totally eliminate 10 CFR 71.63. The petitioner made 
the same recommendation in a letter dated July 22, 1997, which he 
provided as a comment in the Commission's proposed rulemaking amending 
10 CFR 71.63(b) to remove canisters containing vitrified high-level 
waste from the packaging requirement for double containment.
    The petition was docketed as PRM-71-12 on October 22, 1997. The NRC 
is soliciting public comment on the petition. Public comment is 
requested on both the petition to eliminate 10 CFR 71.63(b), as well as 
the option to eliminate 10 CFR 71.63 totally, as discussed below.

Discussion of the Petition

    NRC's regulations in 10 CFR Part 71, entitled ``Packaging and 
Transportation of Radioactive Material,'' include, in
    Sec. 71.63, special requirements for plutonium shipments: 
Sec. 71.63 Special requirements for plutonium shipments.
    (a) Plutonium in excess of 20 Ci (0.74 TBq) per package must be 
shipped as a solid.
    (b) Plutonium in excess of 20 Ci (0.74 TBq) per package must be 
packaged in a separate inner container placed within outer packaging 
that meets the requirements of subparts E and F of this part 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/h. 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 1 
week. Solid plutonium in the following forms is exempt from the 
requirements of this paragraph:
    (1) Reactor fuel elements;
    (2) Metal or metal alloy; and
    (3) Other plutonium bearing solids that the Commission determines 
should be exempt from the requirements of this section.
    The petitioner requests that Sec. 71.63(b) be deleted. The 
petitioner believes that provisions stated in this regulation cannot be 
supported technically or logically. The petitioner states that based on 
the ``Q-System for the Calculation of A1 and A2 
Values,'' an A2 quantity of any radionuclide has the same 
potential for damaging the environment and the human species as an 
A2 quantity of any other radionuclide. The petitioner 
further states that the requirement that a Type B package must be used 
whenever package content exceeds an A2 quantity should be 
applied consistently for any radionuclide. The petitioner believes that 
if a Type B package is sufficient for a quantity of a radionuclide X 
which exceeds A2, then a Type B package should be sufficient 
for a quantity of radionuclide Y which exceeds A2, and this 
should be similarly so for every other radionuclide.
    The petitioner states that while, for the most part, the 
regulations embrace this simple logical congruence, the congruence 
fails under Sec. 71.63(b) because packages containing plutonium must 
include a separate inner container for quantities of plutonium having 
an activity exceeding 20 curies (0.74 TBq). The petitioner believes 
that if the NRC allows this failure of congruence to persist, the 
regulations will be vulnerable to the following challenges:
    (1) The logical foundation of the adequacy of A2 values 
as a proper measure of the potential for damaging the environment and 
the human species, as set forth under the Q-System, is compromised;
    (2) The absence of a radioactivity limit for every radionuclide 
which, if

[[Page 8363]]

exceeded, would require a separate inner container, is an inherently 
inconsistent safety practice; and
    (3) The performance requirements for Type B packages as called for 
by 10 CFR Part 71 establish containment conditions under different 
levels of package trauma. The satisfaction of these requirements should 
be a matter of proper design work by the package designer and proper 
evaluation of the design through regulatory review. The imposition of 
any specific package design feature such as that contained in 10 CFR 
71.63(b) is gratuitous. The regulations are not formulated as package 
design specifications, nor should they be.
    The petitioner believes that the continuing presence of 
Sec. 71.63(b) engenders excessively high costs in the transport of some 
radioactive materials without a clearly measurable net safety benefit. 
The petitioner states that this is so in part because the ultimate 
release limits allowed under Part 71 package performance requirements 
are identical with or without a ``separate inner container,'' and 
because the presence of a ``separate inner container'' promotes 
additional exposures to radiation through the additional handling 
required for the ``separate inner container.'' The petitioner further 
states that ``* * * excessively high costs occur in some transport 
campaigns,'' and that one example ``* * * of damage to our national 
budget is in the transport of transuranic wastes.'' Because large 
numbers of transuranic waste drums must be shipped in packages that 
have a ``separate inner container'' to comply with the existing rule, 
the petitioner believes that large savings would accrue without this 
rule. Therefore, the petitioner believes that elimination of 
Sec. 71.63(b) would resolve these regulatory ``defects.''
    As a corollary to the primary petition, the petitioner believes 
that an option to eliminate Sec. 71.63(a) as well as Sec. 71.63(b) 
should also be considered. This option would have the effect of totally 
eliminating Sec. 71.63. The petitioner believes that the arguments 
propounded to support the elimination Sec. 71.63(b) also support the 
elimination of Sec. 71.63(a).

The Petitioner's Conclusions

    The petitioner has concluded that NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 71 
which govern packaging and transportation of radioactive material must 
be amended to delete the provision regarding special requirements for 
plutonium shipments. The petitioner believes that a Type B package 
should be sufficient for a quantity of radionuclide Y which exceeds the 
A2 limit if such a package is sufficient for a quantity of 
radionuclide X which exceeds the A2 limit. It is the 
petitioner's view that this should be true for every other radionuclide 
including plutonium.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of February 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-4146 Filed 2-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P