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

["Nardi, A. Joseph" <nardiaj@WESTINGHOUSE.COM>]

You are correct in this analysis of the regs but there are some other

constraints.  If the material is dispersed then you get into the question of

how to rearrange the material after dispersal to evaluate nuclear

criticality safety.  The IAEA Safety Guide says that you have to assume that

any dispersed material from all of the containers rearranges into the most

reactive arrangement for the nuclear criticality safety evaluation.  That is

a major driver in the licensing today.  In reality, uranium dioxide in fuel

tubes is not a very readily dispersible material.  You are correct that the

radiological consequences of the dispersal of the Type A quantity of low

enriched uranium are not considered in the licensing of the container

because that falls within the definition of what constitutes a Type A

quantity.



> ----------

> From: 	William V Lipton[SMTP:liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM]

> Reply To: 	William V Lipton

> Sent: 	Wednesday, January 14, 2004 12:27 PM

> To: 	radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> Subject: 	[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/

> 

> 

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

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/