[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 50 (Monday, March 15, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12185-12186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-554]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 71-6703]
General Atomics Model No. Rg-1 Package; Issuance of Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding a Proposed
Exemption
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is
considering issuance of an exemption, pursuant to 10 CFR 71.8, from
certain requirements of 10 CFR 71.38 ``Renewal of a certificate of
compliance or quality assurance program approval'' to General Atomics
Company. The exemption would permit renewal of Certificate of
Compliance No. 6703 for the Model No. RG-1 radioactive material
transportation package even though General Atomics Company, the
certificate holder, did not request renewal at least 30 days before the
expiration of the Certificate of Compliance. Therefore, as required by
10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact.
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Identification of the Proposed Action: Requirements for renewal of
a certificate of compliance are specified in 10 CFR 71.38.
Specifically, 10 CFR 71.38(b) states:
In any case in which a person, not less than 30 days before the
expiration of an existing Certificate of Compliance or Quality
Assurance Program Approval issued pursuant to the part, has filed an
application in proper form for renewal of either of those approvals,
the existing Certificate of Compliance or Quality Assurance Program
Approval for which the renewal application was filed shall not be
deemed to have expired until final action on the application for
renewal has been taken by the Commission.
Certificate of Compliance No. 6703, Revision No. 5, expired on May
31, 1990. General Atomics Company requested renewal on May 29, 1990.
Although the renewal application was dated before the certificate
expiration date, it was not at least 30 days before expiration. The
certificate was deemed to have expired on May 31, 1990, and NRC
terminated use of the package by letter dated June 13, 1990, stating
that the termination was due to the late filing of the application.
General Atomics Company by application dated February 26, 2004, has
again requested renewal of Certificate of Compliance No. 6703. Although
this renewal application from General Atomics Company is not timely, as
defined in 71.38(b), NRC proposes to renew Certificate of Compliance
No. 6703 for approximately an 18-month period to authorize use of the
package for the limited shipments identified in the renewal
application.
The Model No. RG-1 package is a radioisotope thermoelectric
generator (RTG). It is approximately cylindrical, is 18 inches high,
and has a base diameter of 14 inches. The package incorporates a fixed
radioactive source within a main housing that is closed by a bolted
closure flange. The radioactive source is a maximum 8,300 curies of
strontium-90 titanate doubly encapsulated in a Type 304L stainless
steel liner and Hastelloy C capsule. The thermoelectric module, that
converts the radioactive heat source into low voltage electrical power,
and uranium and tungsten shields are also fixed within the main
housing. The package has an electrical connector, top end lifting lugs,
and a bottom flange used for package tie-down. The device is designed
to be transported and operated as an integral unit. It is designed for
marine use at sea depths which may result in external pressures up to
10,000 psi. The package weighs approximately 800 pounds.
The Need for the Proposed Action: The proposed exemption would
allow renewal of Certificate of Compliance No. 6703 for the Model No.
RG-1 package for a limited period of time (approximately 18 months) for
the purpose of authorizing the shipment of two packages from the
General Atomics Company site in San Diego, California, to the Los
Alamos National Laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico, for storage and
final disposition.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: Continued use of
certain Type B packages previously-approved by the NRC (including the
Model No. RG-1 package) is authorized under general license by the
provisions in 71.13(a). Section 71.13 includes several restrictions
with respect to continued use of these packages, including limited
fabrication of new units (71.13(a)(1)) and limited modifications to the
package that can be authorized (71.13(c)). Renewal of Certificate of
Compliance No. 6703 would allow continued use of this package, subject
to the conditions specified in 71.13, the general license provisions of
71.12, and the Certificate of Compliance.
The Certificate of Compliance will be renewed for approximately an
18-month term that will expire on September 30, 2005. The following
condition will be included in the renewed certificate:
This certificate authorizes a one-time shipment from General
Atomics Company site in San Diego, California, to the Los Alamos
National Laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico, for two packages
(Serial Nos. -001 and -002).
The potential environmental impact of transporting radioactive
material pursuant to 10 CFR part 71 was initially presented in the
``Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive
Material by Air and Other Modes,'' for the proposed rule to amend 10
CFR part 71 (40 FR 23768(1977)). The environmental statement was
published in 1977 as NUREG-0170, Volumes 1 and 2. A categorical
exclusion for transportation package approvals is given in 10 CFR
51.22(c)(13).
NUREG-0170 included an evaluation of environmental impacts from
three parts: The radiological impact from normal, incident-free
transport, the risk of radiological effects from accidents involving
vehicles carrying radioactive materials, and all non-radiological
impacts. The principal unavoidable environmental effect was found to be
the population exposure resulting from normal transport of radioactive
materials. The much smaller risk from accidents that have the potential
for releasing radioactive material from packages will always be
present, but such accidents have a very small probability of
occurrence. The calculated, unavoidable non-radiological impact
resulting from transport amounts to about two injuries and one fatality
every five years, from transportation accidents from all radioactive
material transport. Other non-radiological impacts such as the use of
vehicle fuel and other resources were found to be insignificant. The
assessment included impacts due to shipments such as the RG-1 package,
that is, shipment of sealed, industrial sources within accident-
resistant packages.
The RG-1 package design was originally approved by NRC on November
28, 1972. The Certificate of Compliance was subsequently renewed on
January 23, 1975; February 6, 1980; and May 30, 1985. Although the
renewal application in 1990 was filed late, there is no indication that
the renewal request would have been denied if the application had been
[[Page 12186]]
timely. No specific design or safety problems were identified as
contributing to the decision not to renew the certificate. Because it
considered shipments similar to the shipments proposed in the RG-1
package, it is concluded that the environmental impacts of the proposed
action would not change the potential environmental effects assessed in
the 10 CFR part 71 rulemaking (40 FR 23768 (1977)). Therefore, the NRC
has determined that there will be no significant environmental impacts
as a result of approving the exemption for the one-time shipments of
the two Model No. RG-1 packages.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action: The following alternatives
were identified that could eliminate the need for an exemption to
71.38. The identified alternatives are: (1) Denial of the exemption
request (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative), (2) repackaging the
radioactive sources in an alternative, certified transportation
package, and (3) repackaging the RG-1 device within a certified
transportation package i.e., overpacking the RG-1 package).
The no-action alternative would result in the sources remaining at
the current location for the indefinite future, since funding for
recovery of these sources is currently available, but may not continue
to be available indefinitely. This alternative would increase the
likelihood of loss of control of this radioactive material that is
currently stored at some expense from a facility that no longer has a
use for this material. It is judged that the sources would eventually
need to be transported from the facility, in which case any
environmental impacts associated with transport will also be incurred.
Therefore, it is concluded that the no-action alternative is not
desirable and does not reduce environmental impact.
General Atomics Company has stated that it knows of no currently-
certified packagings that could be readily made available and used to
transport the sources. Other packages designed for the transport of RTG
sources are not suitable and cannot be used for transporting sources
designed for the RG-1 package. This is because the sources and
transport package, which also serves as the RTG device housing and
radiation shield, are designed as an integral unit and are not intended
to be separated for the useful lifetime of the source. Other
transportation packages that could be used for these sources would
likely need design modifications to safely accommodate these sources,
and the certificates of compliance for these alternative packages would
almost certainly require amendment to authorize these specific sources.
These design and certificate changes would constitute a lengthy and
expensive process that would not result in an increase in safety for
these shipments. Transferring the sources from the RG-1 package would
also require handling the ``bare'' sources, that is, handling the
sources outside of the package's radiation shielding. This process can
be accomplished; however, it is an evolution that presents significant
safety risk and potential radiation exposure to workers. In addition,
General Atomics Company has decommissioned and dismantled its hot cell
facility, which would further complicate source removal. It is judged
to be desirable from a safety and environmental impact perspective to
limit the handling of the sources outside the shielded configuration.
Handling the bare sources would not be required if the RG-1 package
could be placed within another certified transportation package.
However, a package that can accommodate the RG-1 package and is
authorized for transport of the type of source in the RG-1 package does
not currently exist.
It is therefore concluded that safety is enhanced if the RG-1
package is expeditiously shipped intact with its integral sources.
Agencies and Persons Consulted: On March 1, 2004, Mr. Richard
Boyle, Chief of the Radioactive Materials Branch of the U.S. Department
of Transportation, Office of Hazardous Materials Technology, was
contacted about the EA for the proposed action and had no comments. In
addition, on March 1, 2004, Mr. James Shuler, Health Physicist, Office
of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy, was also
contacted and had no comments. The NRC has determined that a
consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not
required because the proposed action is administrative/procedural in
nature and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. The NRC
has also determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity
having the potential to cause effects on historic properties because it
is an administrative/procedural action. Therefore, no further
consultation is required under section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
Conclusion: Granting the exemption to the timely-renewal provision
that authorizes the shipments proposed in the Model No. RG-1 package
will result in insignificant environmental impact. These shipments fall
well within the number and types of shipments considered in NUREG-0170,
which found that the transportation of radioactive materials in the
U.S. results in acceptably small radiological and non-radiological
impacts.
Sources Used:
1. General Atomics application dated February 26, 2004,
ML040650103.
2. ``Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of
Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes,'' NUREG-0170, Vols. 1 and
2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, December 1977,
ML022590265.
Finding of No Significant Impact
The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed
in accordance with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51. Based
upon the foregoing EA, the Commission finds that the proposed action of
granting an exemption to 10 CFR 71.38(b) by renewing Certificate of
Compliance No. 6703 for limited shipments without a timely application
being filed will not significantly impact the quality of the human
environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that a Finding
of No Significant Impact is appropriate, and that an environmental
impact statement for the proposed exemption is not necessary.
For further details with respect to the exemption request, see the
General Atomics Company renewal application dated February 26, 2004.
The renewal request and request for exemption was docketed under 10 CFR
part 71, Docket No. 71-6703. These documents are available for public
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, One White Flint
North Building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, or from the
publicly available records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System (ADAMS). These documents may be accessed
through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If there are problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public
Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or
by e-mail at [email protected].
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of March, 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nancy L. Osgood,
Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E4-554 Filed 3-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P