Nukem Corporation — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

Page 1of Transportation U.S. Department 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Pipeline and Administration Hazardous Materials Safety SEP 29 2006 Mr. Stan Hodges Nukem Corporation Senior Project Manager Ref. No. 06-0189 3800 Fernandina Road Suite 200 Columbia, SC 29210 Dear Mr. Hodges: This is in response to your August 15, 2006 letter requesting clarification regarding the applicability of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) to HEPA vents. Your question pertains to § 173.412(f) which requires the containment (3.6 psi). Specifically, you ask if a passive HEPA vent may be installed in a Type A system to retain its radioactive contents under the reduction of ambient pressure to 25 kPa package to meet the pressure requirement in § 173.412(f) as long as the resultant containment system would not release any radioactivity to the environment. The HMR do not prohibit the use of vents in Type A packagings containing Class 7 (radioactive) materials. However, the packaging must be an authorized packaging for the Class 7 (radioactive) material under the HMR, meet the HMR design specification (if applicable), and comply with the general packaging requirements in Part 173, Subpart B. The Type A packaging, with the vent, must meet the design and construction requirements in § 178.350, which also requires compliance with §§ 173.403, 173.410, 173.412, 173.415, 173.465 and 173.466. I hope this information is helpful. Tille z. Abbake Hattie L. Mitchell, Chief Regulatory Review and Reinvention Office of Hazardous Materials Standards 173.412(f) 060189#

Page 2Message Satterthwaite Page 1 of 3 §173.412 Drakeford, Carolyn <PHMSA> Packages From: Williams, James <PHMSA> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 3:11 PM 06-0189 To: Drakeford, Carolyn <PHMSA> Subject: FW: 49 CFR 173.412 (f) Attachments: 49 CFR 173.412(f).xls Second Interpretation Request Jim Williams From: Stan Hodges [mailto:shodges@nukem.com] -----Original Message----- Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:08 AM To: Williams, James <PHMSA> Subject: FW: 49 CFR 173.412 (f) Cc: Richard Byars; Nate Patterson Did you ever get a response to the question that I have underlined below? I suppose the question is - "Can Stan Hodges (0) 803-214-5848 Sr Project Manager (F) 803-214-5804 (M) 803-318-7493 From: Stan Hodges To: 'James. Williams@dot.gov' Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 6:21 PM Subject: RE: 49 CFR 173.412 (f) pressures with various elevations and comparing these elevations with both DOT's regulation (49 CFR 173.412(f) After taking another look at it, I believe you are correct. I put together a spreadsheet comparing atmospheric reduction to 25 kPa) has a sounder technical argument. Take a look and see what you think from my argument on and IAEA paragraph 643). My recommendation is to adopt the reduction in atmospheric pressure to 60 kPa (vs. a the attached spreadsheet. Also, as another quick question - Is there anything in the regulations that allows you to utilize passive vents (i.e. 8/17/2006#

Page 3Message Page 2 of 3 HEPA vents) in packages (i.e. Type A or IP-2 packages)? I did a quick search and could not find where this topic Stan Hodges (0) 803-214-5848 Sr Project Manager (F) 803-214-5804 (M) 803-318-7493 (Note - New Number) Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:24 PM From: James. Williams@dot.gov [mailto:James.Williams@dot.gov] Subject: RE: 49 CFR 173.412 (f) To: Stan Hodges internal pressure of 11.1 psi. I read this as they agree with me - an ambient pressure drop from 14.7 to 3.6, which would result in an Jim Williams Office of Hazardous Materials Technology, Room 8430 Radioactive Materials Branch, PHH-23 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. U.S. Department of Transportation James. Williams@dot.gov Washington, D.C. 20590 (202) 366-6177 Website http://hazmat.dot.gov/ Subject: FW: 49 CFR 173.412 (f) Jim: I have highlighted the document in the below e-mail message relative to where I found the notation from e USNRC. I will take a look at the document link that you sent to me and get back to you. I left RNL relative to an internal pressure of 3.6 psi. Please note that I only skimmed the letler from ORNL 1 message for Fred to call me back. Stan Hodges 8/17/2006#

Page 4Message Page 3 of 3 (0) 803-214-5848 Sr Project Manager (F) 803-214-5804 (M) 803-318-7493 (Note - New Number) Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:13 PM From: Stan Hodges Subject: 49 CFR 173.412 (f) To: Richard Byars Richard: In a text (Document No. ORNL/NRC/LTR - 02/12 - address the design condition delineated in the subject regulatory section. They note in the text: "The most http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/rpt/113628.pdf) prepared by ORNL for the USNRC, they f 11.1 psi) and a 1-ft drop of the package onto a flat horizontal surface. igniticant of the design conditions are the reduction of ambient pressure to 3.6 psi (i.e., internal pressure Based on this statement, I believe they are essentially saying that the container cannot release any radioactivity in a vacuum condition of 3.6 psi (equivalent to 7.33 inHg). lave a call into Jim Williams with the DOT (Rick Boyle is out this week) and will talk to him about th about the Type B () cask shipping scenarios. sue and whether or not a HEPA vent would be acceptable in a Type A package. I also want to talk to h delineated in a separate subsection of the regulation. Pls note that the drop test height is dependent on the weight of the package with contents and is Stan Hodges (0) 803-214-5848 Sr Project Manager (F) 803-214-5804 (M) 803-318-7493 (Note - New Number) 8/17/2006#