{"operation":"document","citation":"18-0014","title":"Nuclear Energy Institute — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2018-08-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"18-0014 response to Nuclear Energy Institute concerning 173.401, 173.403, 173.436.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-18-0014.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-18-0014.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-18-0014","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/interpretations/62851/180014.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nAUG 2 1 20\\8\nJanet Schlueter\nSenior Director\nNuclear Energy Institute\n1201 F Street NW, Suite 1100\nWashington, DC 20004\nReference No. 18-0014\nDear Ms. Schlueter:\nThis letter is in response to your January 18, 2018, email requesting clarification of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to non-radioactive\nsolid objects with surface radioactive contamination. Specifically, you ask about amendments\nmade in the HM-250 Final Rule (79 FR 40590; July 11, 2014).\nWe have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:\nQ 1. You ask if the threshold for low toxicity alpha emitters---0.4 Bq/cm2-applies for\nuranium-234 (U-234) when determining levels of contamination.\nAl. The answer is no. The definition of low toxicity alpha emitters includes natural uranium,\ndepleted uranium, uranium-235, and uranium-238. It specifically excludes enriched\nuranium, including uranium-234. Therefore, the more stringent contamination limit for\nother alpha emitters would apply---0.04 Bq/cm2\n• ·\nQ2. You note that the HM-250 Final Rule added§ 173.401(b)(5) to except non-radioactive\nsolid objects with low levels of surface contamination from the HMR requirements for\nradioactive substances. You ask whether this amendment invalidates a letter of\ninterpretation previously issued by this Office under Reference No. 06-0274.\nA2. The answer is no. The addition of§ 173.401(b)(5) excludes certain materials from the\nrequirements of 49 CFR 173 Subpart I, in addition to the exemptions found in§ 173.436.\nPHMSA addressed Reference No. 06-0274 in the HM-250 Final Rule, stating that\n§ 173.401(b)(5) was added to clarify that non-radioactive solid objects with radioactive\nsubstances present on any surfaces in quantities not exceeding the limits cited in the\ndefinition of contamination in§ 173.403 are not subject to the Class 7 (radioactive)\nmaterial requirements of the HMR.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nHM-250 also explains that radioactive contaminated items below the consignment\nexemption limits in§ 173.436 are not regulated as radioactive materials. Thus, while\nuranium-234 may not be excepted from the HMR based on§ 173.401(b)(5), it is possible\nthat it would not be regulated as a radioactive material based on exempted material\nactivity concentrations in§ 173.436.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nDodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nFrom: Kelley, Shane (PHMSA)\nSent: To: Cc: Subject: Thursday, January 25, 2018 9:07 AM\nDodd, Alice (PHMSA); January, Ikeya CTR (PHMSA)\nDerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA); Nickels, Matthew (PHMSA); Foster, Glenn (PHMSA)\nFW: Need for Official PHMSA Position on Selecting Appropriate Contamination Limits\nfor Alpha Emitters\nAttachments: 01-18-18_DOT_Contamination Limits for Alpha Emitters.pdf\nPlease log for response as an interp request. Thanks\nFrom: Falat, Lad (PHMSA)\nSent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 12:35:42 PM\nTo: Meidl, Rachel (PHMSA); Klinger, Patricia (PHMSA); Kelley, Shane (PHMSA); Tackett, Christina (PHMSA); Pfund, Duane\n(PHMSA)\nSubject: FW: Need for Official PHMSA Position on Selecting Appropriate Contamination Limits for Alpha Emitters\nShane, should we treat this as a interp request?\nFYI.\nLad\nFrom: SCHLUETER, Janet [mailto:jrs@nei.org]\nSent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 5:18 PM\nTo: Falat, Lad (PHMSA) <lad.falat@dot.gov>\nCc: Boyle, Rick (PHMSA) <rick.boyle@dot.gov>; Williams, James (PHMSA) <James.Williams@dot.gov>\nSubject: Need for Official PHMSA Position on Selecting Appropriate Contamination Limits for Alpha Emitters\nTHE ATTACHMENT CONTAINS THE COMPLETE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER\nJanuary 18, 2018\nMr. Lad Falat, Director\nDivision of Sciences, Engineering, and Research\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nWashington, DC 20590\nSubject: Need for Official PHMSA Position on Selecting Appropriate Contamination Limits for Alpha\nEmitters\nDear Mr. Falat,\nOn behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEI) fuel cycle facility members (hereinafter referred to as industry), we\nwould like to highlight the nuclear industry's commitment to adhering to the Department of Transportation (DOT) /\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) regulations as outlined in 49 Code of Federal\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nRegulations (CFR), not only from a regulatory compliance standpoint, but in ensuring the safety of the public and\nenvironment during transportation of radioactive materials on public roads.\nIf you have any questions about the content of this letter, please contact me, Hilary Lane (hml@nei.org, 202-739-\n8148) or Jerry Hiatt (jwh@nei.org, 202-739-8171) of my staff.\nSincerely,\nJanet R. Schlueter\nSenior Director\nRadiation and Materials Safety\nNuclear Energy Institute\n1201 F Street N.W., Suite 1100\nWashington, DC 20004\nwww.nei.org\nP: 202. 739.8098\nE: jrs@nei.org\nc:\nRick Boyle, DOT/PHMSA\nJim Williams, DOT/PHMSA\nThis electronic message transmission contains information from the Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. The information is intended solely for the use of the addressee and its use by\nany other person is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, disclosure, copying or distribution of\nthe contents of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or by\nelectronic mail and permanently delete the original message. IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS and other taxing\nauthorities, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the\npurpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on ony taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed\nherein.\nSent through www.intermedia.com\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nJANET R. SCHLUETER\nSenior Director, Radiation and\nMaterials Safety\n1201 F Street, NW, Suite 1100\nWashington, DC 20004\nP: 202.739.8098\njrs@nei.org\nnei.org .\n~I\nNUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE\nJanuary 18, 2018\nMr. Lad Falat, Director\nDivision of Sciences, Engineering, and Research\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nWashington, DC 20590\nSubject: Need for Official PHMSA Position on Selecting Appropriate Contamination Limits for\nAlpha Emitters\nDear Mr. Falat,\nOn behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEI)1 fuel cycle facility members (hereinafter referred to as\nindustry), we would like to highlight the nuclear industry's commitment to adhering to the Department of\nTransportation (DOT) / Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) regulations as\noutlined in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), not only from a regulatory compliance standpoint, but in\nensuring the safety of the public and environment during transportation of radioactive materials on public\nroads.\nAs industry does its due-diligence in evaluating their shipping programs and complying with DOT\nregulations, NB was recently made aware of certain revisions to DOT regulations that are proving to be\nunnecessarily burdensome from a resource perspective with no added safety benefit. The purpose of this\nletter is to bring these issues to your attention, and to offer a proposed solution for mitigating the impact of\nthis rule.\nAs you are aware, through a 2015 rulemaking, the scope of 49 CFR 173.401(b) was revised to add\nparagraph (5). 173.401(b)(5) states the subpart does not apply to:\n\"Non-radioactive solid objects with radioactive substances present on any surfaces in quantities not\nexceeding the threshold limits set forth in the definition of contamination in 49 CFR 173. 403.\"\n1NEI is r~ponsible for establishing unified nuclear industry policy on matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including regulatory,\nfinancial, technical and legislative issues. NEI members include all companies licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the\nUnited States, nuclear plant designers, major architect/engineering firms, fuel fabrication facilities, materials licensees, and other\norganizations and individuals involved in the nuclear energy industry.\nNUCLEAR. CLEAN AIR ENERGY\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nMr. Lad Falat\nJanuary 18, 2018\nPage 2\nAdditionally, the definition of \"contamination\" in 49 CFR 173.403 (''Definitions'') is outlined below:\n\"Contamination means the presence of a radioactive substance on a sutface in quantities in excess of 0.4\nBq/cni for beta and gamma emitters and low toxicity alpha emitters or 0. 04 Bq/cni for all other alpha\nemitters .... \"\nThe above referenced rulemaking change in 49 CFR 173.401(b) makes it critical to distinguish whether\nitems contaminated with enriched uranium (or high enriched uranium) classify as a \"low toxicity alpha\nemitter\" or \"all other alpha emitters\" (i.e. high toxicity alpha emitter), particularly given the limit for \"all\nother aipha\" is more restrictive by a factor of 10 compared to the limit for \"low toxicity alpha emitters.\" The\ndefinition of \"low toxicity alpha emitter\" as codified in 49 CFR 173.403 is outlined below:\n\"Low toxicity alpha emitters means natural uranium; depleted uranium; natural thorium; uranium-235 or\nuranium-238; thorium-232; thorium-228 and thorium-230 when contained in ores or physical and chemical\nconcentrates; and alpha emitters with a half-life of less than 10 days. \"\nThis definition clearly excludes U-234 (the primary contributor to the total activity of enriched uranium) and\nenriched uranium from the \"Low Toxicity\" definition; therefore, based on industry's interpretation, the limit\nis not meant to be used for either U-234 or enriched uranium. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC)\ndefinition of \"low toxicity alpha emitters\" in 10 CFR 71.4 is consistent with the DOT's definition, in that there\nis no mention of \"enriched uranium\" or uranium-234.\nOther federal partners maintain that enriched uranium (and high enriched uranium) classify as \"low toxicity\nalpha emitter\" based on analysis using the NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 8.21, Appendix B Table 1. In this\ntable, U-234 is listed as a low toxicity alpha emitter. However, this does not align with industry's plain\nlanguage interpretation of DOT's above referenced definition, which by deduction, classifies enriched\nuranium and high enriched uranium as a \"high toxicity alpha emitter.\" While industry would like to gain\nalignment with their federal partner's interpretation, which would be favorable for all parties involved in\nsuch routine shipping transactions, industry must nevertheless abide by the DOT regulations for materials\ntransported in commerce on public roads. Shipments conducted wholly by a government entity do not fall\nunder the jurisdiction of the DOT.\nThis discrepancy of interpretation between stakeholders has had a disruptive effect on industry shipments\nand ongoing business operations. Using the \"all other alpha emitters\" threshold for defining contamination\nwill undoubtedly cause an increase in Class 7 shipments of equipment from industry sites (when equipment\nis not being used as part of a conveyance2 for a Class 7 shipment). Industry's selection of the appropriate\ntoxicity limit is critical, in maintaining continuity of operations and ensuring that the hazards present for\neach shipment are properly communicated (markings, labels, placards, and paperwork) to protect human\nhealth and the environment.\n2 A conveyance is a transport vehide which includes all securement devices used for blocking and bracing, such\nas pallets, chains, and straps.\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nMr. Lad Falat\nJanuary 18, 2018\nPage 3\nNEI understands that PHMSA issued a formal Letter of Interpretation on this matter in the past, referenced\nas 06-0274, which now appears invalidated by the 2015 rulemaking change referenced above. As you are\naware, industry maintained substantial reliance on the prior Letter of Interpretation.\nIndustry Proposed Solution: NEI requests confirmation from PHMSA on whether the previous Letter of\nInterpretation referenced above can still be applied. If this guidance no longer applies, NEI requests a new\nLetter of Interpretation (or other official response) that indicates: 1) the current PHMSA position, 2)\nadditional clarity on whether the contamination limits for low toxicity alpha can be applied to materials\ncontaminated with enriched uranium and high enrichment uranium and 3) other acceptable exemptions\nfrom the regulations as ably demonstrated in the previous Letter of Interpretation.\nGiven the rulemaking changes, and inconsistent interpretations between industry and other federal entities,\na validation of or issuance of a new Letter of Interpretation would be both timely and appropriate. With\neither option, we are requesting that an official response be expeditiously generated. Without a standing\nLetter of Interpretation from PHMSA, industry's current interpretation of the DOT regulations (which may be\noverly conservative) could be resulting in unjustified increased regulatory burden for surface contaminated\nmaterials in commerce. Amidst industry's broad day-to-day operating, business, and regulatory compliance\nresponsibilities in an environment of increased regulation, we must strive to create an atmosphere that\nencourages and promotes regulatory clarity and efficiency. Addressing this uncertainty would be a prime\nexample in fostering those aforementioned objectives. We look forward to your timely response on this\nimportant matter.\nIf you have any questions about the content of this letter, please contact me, Hilary Lane (hml@nei.org, 202-\n739-8148) or Jerry Hiatt (jwh@nei.org, 202-739-8171) of my staff.\nSincerely,\nJanet R. Schlueter\nc:\nRick Boyle, DOT/PHMSA\nJim Williams, DOT/PHMSA\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nDepartment of Energy\nWashington, DC 20585\nJanuary 16, 20 I 8\nMr. Rick Boyle\nChief, Radioactive Materials/ Research & Development (PHH-23)\nEngineering and Research Division\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Ave. SE\nWashington D.C. 20590-0001\nDear Rick Boyle:\nThe U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) requests the Department of Transportation (DOT)\nconcurrence (or comment) with the enclosed, Technical Basis for the Determination of the\nToxicity of Highly Enriched Uranium at the Y-12 National Security Complex, Document No.\nRCO/TBD-110, Rev 0, dated October 19,2017. This document forms a technical basis for\nuranium-235 (enriched uranium), including the uranium-234 in uranium-235 (enriched\nuranium), being considered a low toxicity alpha emitter.\nIf you have any questions or need more details please call at 301-903-5513 or\njames.shuler@em.doe.gov.\nI\"\nJames M. Shuler\nManager, DOE Packaging Certification Program\nU.S. Department of Energy\nOffice of Packaging and Transportation\nEM-4.24, 270CC - Rm 3113\nWashington, DC 20585\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nDepartment of Energy\nNational Nuclear Security Administration\nProduction Office\nP.O. Box 2050\nOak Ridge , Tennessee 37831\nP.O. Box 30030\nAmarillo, Texas 79120\nJanuary 12, 2018\nt-1,,s,4 Nation a l Nuclear Security Administration\nMEMORANDUM FOR DR. JAMES SHULER\nMANAGER, DOE PACKAGING AND CERTIFICATION\nPROGRAM, EM-4.24\nFROM: BECKY EDDY ~ ~ry\nNUCLEAR MA TEfu~~Nf GER Q\nFOR PROGRAMS & PROJECTS\nSUBJECT: Request for Assistance and Technical Basis for the Determination of the\nToxicity of Highly Enriched Uranium at the Y-12 National Security\nComplex\nRecently, there is some debate amongst hazardous material shippers if uranium-234 should be\nconsidered a high toxicity hazard or a low toxicity hazard. The radiological aspects (specific\nactivity, dose coefficients, dosimetric models) of uranium-234 have been evaluated, and it has\nbeen determined that the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12 NSC) will continue to consider\nuranium-234 as a low toxicity hazard pending additional clarification from Department of\nTransportation (DOT) and based on supporting and scientific analysis. Therefore, I am writing\nto request your assistance to formally transmit to DOT the attached \"Technical Basis for the\nDetermination of the Toxicity of Highly Enriched Uranium at the Y-12 National Security\nComplex\", Document No. RCO/TBD-110, Rev 0, dated October I 9, 2017. This document forms\na technical basis for uranium-235 (enriched uranium), including the uranium-234 in uranium-235\n( enriched uranium), being considered a low toxicity alpha emitter.\nThe Y-12 NSC and other Department of Energy (DOE) uranium production facilities historically\nconsidered all enrichments of uranium to be low toxicity alpha emitters in regards to compliance\nwith DOT regulations. The domestic and international nuclear fuel production community\noperate in a manner where uranium-235 and its small mass percentage of uranium-234 is treated\nas a low toxicity alpha emitter. However, regulatory definitions for low-toxicity alpha emitters\nare inconsistent amongst international and United States regulations, and 49CFRI 73.403 is\nsomewhat ambiguous in regards to the toxicity of enriched uranium. To address the ambiguity,\nin 201 I, the DOE, Oak Ridge Operations, Science Integrated Support Center, issued a complex-\nwide Packaging and Transportation Safety Regulatory Bulletin stating that enriched uranium is\nconsidered a low-toxicity alpha emitter.\nAlthough DOE, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and Nuclear Regulatory\nCommission (NRC) regulations do not define uranium-234 as a low toxicity alpha emitter,\nneither do they define uranium-234 as a high toxicity emitter. It should be noted that one source\nof confusion for uranium-234 being omitted from the low-toxicity definition where uranium-235\nis included, could be the result of implied definition of uranium-235 as enriched uranium in\nAPPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE\nThi1dooWHDtlm~lleelaa far ...... todle,-Yllfl\n•-B•Wh-'\"->~ ,ji4,/,s\nNP~-¥ri4Jllta CJIIIINr DIii\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nDr. James Shuler -2- January 12, 2018\ncertain parts of the regulations, where uranium-234 is included as enriched uranium. For\nexample, 49 CFR 173 .403 ( 1 )(i) - (I )(iii), Definitions - \"Uranium - natural, depleted or\nenriched\" provide an individual definition for natural, depleted and enriched, and 49 CFR\n173.403 (2) states \"In all cases listed in this definition, a very small mass percentage of uranium-\n234 is present.\" In some cases, reference to uranium-235 may imply enriched uranium, however\nit is not stated. This may be the case for the uranium-234 content in uranium-235 (enriched\nuranium) unspecified in the low toxicity alpha emitter definition.\nPending a DOT evaluation of enriched uranium as a low toxicity alpha emitter, the Y-12 NSC is\nmaking special accommodations to the company with a differing opinion for which I serve as the\nContracting Officer's Representative. This has resulted in increased cost and schedule to Y-12\nNSC operations; therefore, it has become very important to remove ambiguity in the regulations.\nI respectfully request your assistance to consult with DOT on this matter and request that DOT\nconsider the Y-12 NSC technical basis and other technical bases, along with consideration of\nhow the DOE complex and domestic and foreign commercial uranium processors apply DOT,\nNRC and IAEA rules, and furthermore consult with DOE and other interested parties in the\nissuance of clarification based on appropriate technical and scientific analysis and identification\nof any impacts as applicable.\nI look forward to working with you to resolve this matter. If you have any questions or require\nadditional information, please contact me at (865) 576-4119 or becky.eddy@npo.doe.gov.\nAttachment:\nRCO/TBD-110, Rev. 0\ncc w/attachment\nM. Padilla, NPO-70\nJ. Armstrong, NPO-70\nE. Hogan, NPO-70\nS. Morris, NPO-60\nM. Hitson, NPO-60\nK. Kleinhans, CNS\nCharlie Irons, CNS\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nQGC\\ NS I consolidated\n1\\\\. nuclear security, lie\nlY\" f ,\\ ~·t~ \"1.lf<4 I I• •' •\n. ,, 1: ..\n•,111 -,. : ,1,; ·, ~~,,., .. ,,.\nRCO/TBD-110, Rev. 0\nConsolidated Nuclear Security, LLC\nY-12 National Security Complex\nRadiological Control Organization\nTechnical Basis Document\nTechnical Basis\nFor\nThe Determination of the Toxicity of Highly Enriched Uranium\nAt The Y-12 National Security Complex\nOctober 19, 2017\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\nRCO/TBD-110, Rev. 0\nTechnical Basis\nFor\nThe Determination of the Toxicity of Highly Enriched Uranium\nAt The Y-12 National Security Complex\nOctober 19, 2017\nDigitally signed by Kyle R (KRP) Kleinhans\nKy e R KRP) K e,n ans ou= Y-12NationalSecurityComplex,ou=CAs,ou=people,\nI ( I . h ON: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=Department of Energy,\ncn=Kyle R (KRP) Kleinhans\nDate: 2017.10.1912:50:35 -04'00'\nPrepared by:-------------------------\nK.R. Kleinhans, CHP, Radiological Engineer\nDigitally signed by Jelf,y T (QJF) Bruner\ne ry r u n e r ou=Y-12 National security Complex, ou=CAs. ou=people,\nJ ff T (QJ F) B DN: c=US,o=U.S.Govemment,ou=DepartmentofEnergy,\ncn=Jeffry T (QJF) Bruner\nApproved by: ______________ o._te:_20_11_.10 __ 24_,_,,04_:0_ 1 _-04_·00_ ·\n______ _ _\nJ.T. Bruner, CHP, Radiological Engineering Manager\nPrepared by the\nRadiological Control Organization\nY-12 National Security Complex\nOak Ridge, Tennessee 37831\nmanaged by\nConsolidated Nuclear Security, LLC\nfor the\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 4\n2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 4\n3.0 PREVIOUS DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DIRECTION .................................................... 6\n4.0 DEFINITION OF LOW TOXICITY ALPHA EMITTERS ....................................................... 6\n5.0 SPECIFIC ACTIVITY .......................................................................................................... 7\n6.0 DOSE CONVERSION FACTORS FROM ICRP 119, COMPENDIUM OF DOSE\nCOEFFICIENTS BASED ON IRCP PUBLICATION 60 ....................................................... 7\n7.0 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 8\n8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 8\n\n<<<PAGE 14>>>\n\nTechnical Basis for RCOff'BD-11 O\nThe Determination of the Toxicity of\nHighly Enriched Uranium At The Y-12 National Security Complex\n1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\nRegulatory definitions for low-toxicity alpha emitters are inconsistent amongst international and\nUnited States regulations. There is some debate amongst hazardous material shippers if\nUranium-234 should be considered a high toxicity hazard or a low toxicity hazards. The\nradiological aspects (specific activity, dose coefficients, dosimetric models) of Uranium-234\nhave been evaluated and it has been determined that Y-12 will consider Uranium-234 as a low-\ntoxicity hazard.\n2.0 INTRODUCTION\nY-12 has historically considered all enrichments of uranium to be low toxicity alpha emitters in\nregards to compliance with DOT regulations. The DOT regulations, specifically 49CFR173.403\nare somewhat ambiguous in regards to the toxicity of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU). As can\nbe seen from Figure 2-2 from DOE-STD-1136-2009, Guide to Good Practice for Occupational\nRadiological Protection in Uranium Facilities, by about 1 wt% the U-234 alpha activity exceeds\n50% of the total alpha activity. Between 10 wt% and 20 wt%, the U-234 alpha activity accounts\nfor approximately 50% - 70% of the total alpha activity. Therefore in all HEU, defined as\ngreater than 20 wt%, the toxicity of the U-234 would determine the toxicity of the uranium.\nOctober 19, 2017 Page 4 of 8 Rev. O\n\n<<<PAGE 15>>>\n\nTechnical Basis for RCOff BD-110\nThe Determination of the Toxicity of\nHighly Enriched Uranium At The Y-12 National Security Complex\nDOE-STD-1136-2009\nGuide of Good Practice~ for Occupational Radlologiul Protection in Uranium Facilltie~\nFigure 2-2. % Total Radloacth1~· by hotope n. % Wright 215uEnrkbment\nCalculat~d fi-om SA= (0.4 + 0.38E+o.0034E1104 Cl/g (pwous difflHioa proc\"5)\n(1''RC Rrg GulM 8.11)\n1111\nI\n,_....\nv\n.,\n70\nlO\n2D\nID\n-\nOctober 19, 2017\nPage 5 of 8 Rev. O\n\n<<<PAGE 16>>>\n\nTechnical Basis for RCO/TBD-110\nThe Determination of the Toxicity of\nHighly Enriched Uranium At The Y-12 National Security Complex\n3.0 PREVIOUS DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DIRECTION\nIn October 2011 , the U.S. Department of Energy/Oak Ridge Operations, Science Integrated\nSupport Center, published a Packaging and Transportation Safety Regulatory Bulletin that\nstated enriched uranium is considered a low-toxicity alpha emitter. This analysis recognized the\nlack of harmonization between international and United States transportation regulation, and\nbased its interpretation on technical references.\n4.0 REGULATORY DEFINITIONS OF LOW TOXICITY ALPHA EMITTERS\nIAEA Specific Safety Requirements {SSR-6), Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive\nMaterial:\n227.Low toxicity alpha emitters are: natural uranium, depleted uranium, natural thorium,\nuranium-235, uranium-238, thorium-232, thorium-228 and thorium-230 when contained in ores\nor physical and chemical concentrates; or alpha emitters with a half-life of less than 1 O days.\nIAEA Specific Safety Guide (SSG-26), Advisory Material for the IAEA Regulations for the Safe\nTransport of Radioactive Material:\n227 .1 . The identification of low toxicity alpha emitters is based on the specific activity of the\nradionuclide (or the radionuclide in its 'as shipped' state). For a nuclide with a very LSA, its\nintake cannot, because of its bulk, be reasonably expected to give rise to doses approaching\nthe dose limit. The radionuclides U-235, U-238 and Th-232 have specific activities four to eight\norders of magnitude lower than Pu-238 or Pu-239 (4 x 103 to 8 x 104 Bq/g as opposed to 2 x\n109 to 6 x 1011 Bq/g). Although Th-228 and Th-230 have specific activities comparable to those\nof Pu-238 and Pu-239, they are only allowed as 'low toxicity alpha emitters' when contained in\nores and physical and chemical concentrates, which inherently provides for the low activity\nconcentration required.\n49CFR 173.403 ( current as of July 21, 2017)\nLow toxicity alpha emitters means natural uranium; depleted uranium; natural thorium; uranium-\n235 or uranium-238; thorium-232; thorium-228 and thorium-230 when contained in ores or\nphysical and chemical concentrates; and alpha emitters with a half-life of less than 1 O days.\nOctober 19, 2017 Page 6 of 8 Rev. O\n\n<<<PAGE 17>>>\n\nTechnical Basis for RCO/fBD-110\nThe Determination of the Toxicity of\nHighly Enriched Uranium At The Y-12 National Security Complex\n5.0 SPECIFIC ACTIVITY\nBased upon use of the specific activity in the definition of Low Toxicity Alpha Emitters in IAEA\nSSG-26, the specific activity of both 20 wt% and 93 wt% uranium have specific activities three\nto six orders of magnitude lower than Pu-238 or Pu-239 and would be considered low toxicity\nalpha emitters.\nNuclide T,12 Specific\n(Years) Activity (Bqlg)\nPu-238 87.74 6E+11\nPu-239 24065 2E+09\nTh-232 1.405E+01 4E+03\nLEU (20 wt%) NIA 4E+05\nHEU (93 wt%} NIA 2E+06\nU-235 703.8E+06 8E+04\nU-238 4.468E+09 1E+04\nThe specific activity for the individual radionuclides were calculated from the half-\nlives published in ICRP 119. The specific activity for the two enrichments of\nuranium were calculated from the formula Specific Activity of Enriched Uranium\n= (0.4 + 0.38E + 0.0034E2)10-6 Ci/g, where E = percent enrichment~ 0.72 from\nDOE-STD-1136-2017, Good Practices for Occupational Radiation Protection in\nUranium Facilities.\n6.0 DOSE CONVERSION FACTORS FROM ICRP 119, COMPENDIUM OF DOSE\nCOEFFICIENTS BASED ON ICRP PUBLICATION 60\nAs demonstrated by ICRP 119, Table A 1, Effective dose coefficient for ingested and inhaled\n(AMAD = 1 and 5 µm) particulates by workers, and Table G.1 . Effective dose coefficients for\ninhalation of radionuclides by members of the public, the effective dose coefficients for the U-\n234 is slightly higher than both U-235 and U-238 but at least an order of magnitude less than\nthat for Th-232. Th-232, not as an ore, is considered a low toxicity alpha emitter, therefore U-\n234 would also be considered as a low toxicity alpha emitter based upon the effective dose\ncoefficients found in IRCP 119.\nTab A 1 Eff\nffi . tf td d\"hld rf It f k\nle .. ect1ve d osecoe c1en or mges e an m a e pa 1cu a es orwor ers.\nEffective Dose Coefficient (SvlBQ} Inhalation\nNuclide AMAD 1µm AMAD 5µm\nF M s F M s\nTh-232 - 4.2E-05 2.3E-05 - 2.9E-05 1.2E-05\nU-234 5.5E-07 3.1E-06 8.5E-06 6.4E-07 2.1E-06 6.8E-06\nU-235 5.1E-07 2.8E-06 7.7E-06 6.0E-07 1.8E-06 6.1E-06\nU-238 4.9E-07 2.6E-06 7.3E-06 5.8E-07 1.6E-06 5.7E-06\nOctober 19, 2017 Page 7 of 8 Rev. O\n\n<<<PAGE 18>>>\n\n..\nTechnical Basis for RCO/TBD-110\nThe Determination of the Toxicity of\nHighly Enriched Uranium At The Y-12 National Security Complex\nTable G.1. Effective dose coefficients for inhalation of radionuclides for adult members\nof the public.\nNUCLIDE Effective Dose Coefficient\n(Sv/Bq) Inhalation (AMAD 1 um}\nTvoe F M s\nTh-232 1.1 E-04 4.SE-05 2.SE-05\nU-234 5.6E-07 3.SE-06 9.4E-06\nU-235 5.2E-07 3.1 E-06 8.SE-06\nU-238 5.0E-07 2.9E-06 8.0E-06\n7.0SUMMARY\nIAEA SSG-26 bases the definition of Low Toxicity alpha emitters on the specific activity and the\ndosimetric aspects of an intake of the material. Highly enriched uranium will be considered a\nlow toxicity alpha emitter based on our evaluation of both components of this definition.\n8.0 REFERENCES\n• DOE-STD-1136-2009, DOE Standard, Guide of Good Practices for Occupational\nRadiological Protection in Uranium Facilities (July 2009)\n• DOE-STD-1136-2017, Good Practices for Occupational Radiation Protection in Uranium\nFacilities.\n• DOE/OAK RIDGE PACKAGING AND TRANSPORTATION SAFETY REGULATORY\nBULLETIN, OCTOBER 2011 .\n• IAEA Specific Safety Requirements (SSR-6), Regulations for the Safe Transport of\nRadioactive Material\n• IAEA Specific Safety Guide (SSG-26), Advisory Material for the IAEA Regulations for\nthe Safe Transport of Radioactive Material\n• ICRP, 2012. Compendium of Dose Coefficients based on ICRP Publication 60.ICRP\nPublication 119\n• 49CFR173.403 (current as of July 21, 2017)\nOctober 19, 2017 Page 8 of 8 Rev. O","truncated":false,"body_characters":30468}