[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Fwd: Re: WIPP shipment through Albq. NM]



I took another look at the regs, and maybe I wasn't  wrong on this.

(This is what I enjoy and Radsafe; the chance to test my knowledge and

learn.)



I think that you're referring to the requirements of 10 CFR 71.55,

"General requirements for fissile materials packages."  Indeed, fissile

material packages (above exempt quantities) have to be tested to the

"hypothetical accident conditions" of 10 CFR 71.73, in addition to the

"normal conditions of transport", of 10 CFR 71.  However, the acceptance

criteria for the the accident conditions tests are limited to:  "...

under the tests specified in 10 CFR 71.71 ("Hypothetical accident

conditions") the package would be subcritical..."  For the "Normal

conditions of transport" test, the acceptance criteria, in 10 CFR 71.43,

includes:  "there would be no loss or dispersal of radioactive

contents..."  



Thus, while Type A fissile packages must be tested to accident

conditions, they are not required to contain the material, only prevent

criticality.  In fact, the dispersal of the material would be a good way

to prevent criticality.  



While I'm not familiar with the specific test results for the packages

involved in the Springfield event, as far as I can tell there is no

regulatory requirement that they  not disperse their contents under

accident conditions.



The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Curies forever.



Bill Lipton

liptonw@dteenergy.om



-------- Original Message --------

From: William V Lipton <liptonw@dteenergy.com>

Subject: Re: WIPP shipment through Albq. NM

To: "Nardi, A. Joseph" <nardiaj@WESTINGHOUSE.COM>

CC: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu



I stand corrected; thanx.



Bill Lipton

liptonw@dteenergy.com





"Nardi, A. Joseph" wrote:



>         Bill Lipton wrote:

>

>         "I remember a new fuel shipment, c.a. 1995, which had a head on

> collision

> with a drunk driver on I-91, in downtown Springfield, MA.  There was a

> potential for the equivalent of a 'dirty bomb,' since the Type A packages

> containing the fuel were not designed or tested to survive an accident and

> fire.  Fortunately, they held up."

>

> This statement incorporates a misunderstanding of the licensing of new fuel

> shipping containers.  Although a shipment of low enriched new fuel contains

> a Type A quantity of radioactivity, under NRC regs it has a fissile quantity

> of uranium and must be shipped in a licensed container that meets the

> accident sequence for the design and licensing.  It should not be confused

> with the normal understanding of a Type A package.

>

> ************************************************************************

> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

> unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

> text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

> with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

> http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/