1 / 18

Historical Technical Basis for IAEA Regulations on Radioactive Material Transportation

This presentation provides an overview of the historical development and current contents of the Technical Basis Document (TecBasDoc) for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Regulations on the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material. It covers the classification of materials, classification of packages, package design and testing, graded approach, and studies on accident test conditions. The purpose is to preserve and track the technical bases used in establishing regulatory requirements.

perezj
Télécharger la présentation

Historical Technical Basis for IAEA Regulations on Radioactive Material Transportation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Session Title: Regulatory and Institutional Issues: IAEA Regulations from Past to Future Presentation Title: Developing the Historical Technical Basis for the Material and Package Classification and the Package Test Requirements of the International Transport Safety Regulations Ronald PopeConsultant to the IAEAUSA

  2. Developing the Historical Technical Basis for the Material and Package Classification and thePackage Test Requirements of the International Transport Safety Regulations

  3. Overview • Historical Background • Purpose and Plans • Overview of Classification of Materials Chapter • Overview of Classification of Packages Chapter • Overview of Package Design and Testing Chapter • Overview of Appendixes 3 and 4 • Applying the Graded Approach • Follow-on Studies into the Adequacy of Accident Test Conditions • Summary • Questions?

  4. Historical Background • In the previous presentation, the historical background and the process for and status of the development of a Technical Basis Document (TecBasDoc) was summarized • The development of the draft document “Technical Basis for the IAEA Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material (SSR-6)” • was undertaken to document the scientific and technical heritage of the Transport Regulations • was initiated in 2010 • is well along in its development

  5. Purpose of the TecBasDoc Effort • The purpose of the TecBasDoc effort is to • preserve, for future generations, the basis that was used by experts in establishing regulatory requirements • capture the technical bases, from the 1950s onward • when and why each individual regulatory provision was first introduced • track that provision with time as it may have changed with later editions of the Regulations • provide for the document to grow with additional information as future changes are made to the Regulations • locate and electronically capture as much of the supporting documentation that can be found, and make those files available to the transport community on the internet

  6. Purpose of this Presentation • This presentation provides an overview of the current contents of the TecBasDoc effort in the following areas • Chapter 8: Classification of materials • Chapter 9: Classification of packages • Chapter 10: Package design and testing • Appendix 3: The technical basis for applying the graded approach • Appendix 4: Follow-on studies into the adequacy of the accident conditions of transport • A companion document on criticality safety will be presented later in this symposium

  7. Overview of Chapter 8:Classification of Materials Categorization of all nuclides, grouping them into three simple groups Categorization physically – considered these characteristics Fissile Material had its own Category • The TecBasDoc illustrates that the first (i.e. 1961) edition classified the materials in the following manner: • Group I – very high radioactivity • Group II – high radioactivity • Group III – moderate radioactivity • Large radioactive sources • Non-friable massive solids that are non-solublein water and non-reactive with air or water • Pyrophoric radioactive material • Explosive radioactive material • Radioactive materials of low specific activity • Fissile materials

  8. Overview of Chapter 8:Classification of Materials - Continued • The TecBasDoc discusses the bases for changing the material categories with time, leading to the current categorization • 1985 • Each radionuclide classified according to its radioactive characteristics for special form and other than special form derived using the Q system • Classification of LSA-I, LSA-II, LSA-III, SCO-I and SCO-II established • 1996 • Classification for UF6 established – tied to package test requirements • low dispersible radioactive material (LDRM) – tied to introduction of Type C packages • 2009 • emphasis placed on the classification of material. The title of Section IV of the Regulations was changed from “ACTIVITY LIMITS AND MATERIAL RESTRICTIONS” to read “ACTIVITY LIMITS AND CLASSIFICATION” Authors are still looking for technical bases for many of these changes, especially for the LSA material and SCO classifications introduced in the 1985 edition, and for the LDRM concept introduced in the 1996 edition

  9. Overview of Chapter 9:Classification of Packages Does not include the specific package types that address fissile material. The types of packages for fissile material are Type AF, Type B(U)F, Type B(M)F, and Type CF • Chapter 9 traces a similar trend in terms of the designation of package types over the 15 publications of the Regulations • In the first editions of the Regulations there were five basic types of package types specified • Exempt and empty packages • Strong, leak-proof packages • Type A packages • Type B packages • Large radioactive source packages • Today we have ten package types • Excepted Package / Empty Package • Industrial Package Types 1, 2 and 3 • Type A, Type B and Type C packages • H(U) and H(M) packages Authors are still looking for technical bases for many of these changes, specifically for bases for the graded requirements for the Industrial Package types introduced in the 1985 edition

  10. Overview of Chapter 10:Package Design and Testing • Chapter 10 is extensive in nature, attempting to trace the technical bases for each routine, normal and accident condition of transport over the 15 publications of the Regulations • Specifically, this chapter is structured as follows: • 10.1. Technical basis for routine conditions of transport for packages • 10.2. Technical basis for the target for mechanical testing of packages • 10.3. Technical basis for normal conditions of transport package tests • 10.4. Technical basis for accident conditions of transport package tests • 10.5. Technical basis for industrial packages IP-1, IP-2 and IP-3 • 10.6. Technical basis for Type C package tests • 10.7. Technical basis for uranium hexafluoride (UF6) package tests • The insights that have been developed into the history behind each of the accident test requirements are significant and enlightening • Four examples of the findings and insight are summarized in the following slides

  11. Example 1 – Packages to be Recoverable after an Accident • Recoverability of a Type B package that has been involved in an accident • For example, Fairbairn and George noted that in the 1961 edition, the concept was that: “…Type B packaging must be capable of withstanding the accident to an extent that safe recovery of such packages was feasible within overall emergency plans and procedures. It was never conceived that after such recovery the packaging should be suitable for re-use; in other words, Type B packaging was never required to withstand a succession of so-called ‘maximum credible accidents’.” [emphasis with underlining added][Book by Gibson, 1966] • That concept holds true today!

  12. Example 2 – Elimination of the Maximum Credible Accident Concept The first edition (1961) of the Regulations imposed the requirement that Type B packages must adequately survive “the most severe accident which is considered credible for the mode of transport involved” This maximum credible accident concept became a significant driver for modifying package design requirements in the second edition (i.e. the 1964 edition) of the Transport Regulations

  13. Example 2 – Elimination of the Maximum Credible Accident Concept - Continued Messenger and Fairbairn noted that: “The requirement for the packaging to be able to withstand the ‘maximum credible accident’ is novel in the transport field; it has not been applied as a mandatory requirement to the carriage of non-radioactive dangerous goods, some of which, for example, cyanides, may be far more hazardous than many radioactive materials”. [emphasis with underlining added] [UKAEA 1963 document] Appleton and Servant stated that: “The conditions defined are somewhat vague and the concept of the maximum credible accident appeared particularly objectionable and so unpracticable that it was discarded. On the basis of experience and work done in the interim period in Member States a major effort was made during the recent revision of the Agency transport regulations to make such conditions more objective in terms of testing procedures.” [emphasis with underlining added] [PATRAM 1965] Accident condition tests were instituted in the 1964 edition!

  14. Example 3 – Sequencing of Tests In the transition from the maximum credible accident requirement (1961) to the series of accident test requirements (1964), extensive deliberations were documented Fairbairn, George and Messenger noted that this “led to the decision by the Packaging Panel to simulate the damaging effects of transport accidents by the combining of the mechanical and thermal tests as resulted in being specified in the 1964 Edition of the Regulations”. [emphasis with underlining added] [Book by Gibson, 1966; and UKAEA 1963 document] Appleton noted that “it was emphasized that the introduction should make it quite clear that the sample package should be subjected consecutively to the mechanical and thermal test, and in that order”. [emphasis with underlining added] [Final notes of IAEA panel meeting, 1964] Sequencing of tests still is specified today!

  15. Example 4 – Depth used for Water Immersion Test People reported that the water immersion test for Type B packages was determined based on the depth of the Bay of Naples But, the Bay of Naples is deeper than 15 m In searching through the IAEA Archives, the report of the 2nd technical meeting for the 1964 edition of the Regulations was found Fairbairn initially suggested 50 m depth. Then the report stated: “The U.K. has carried out the review and it was found that 15 m was a more appropriate figure for the depth of water at quays and wharves at which packages of radioactive materials could be dropped during loading or unloading. (It was subsequently learned that the 50 m was a figure in respect of an offshore loading anchorage in Naples Bay where a special radioactive material consignment was loaded). There was considerable discussion and it was thought that the type B tests were adequate to ensure that the containment vessel would withstand the 50 m depth without referring to that figure. “It was eventually agreed however to keep the requirement but to reduce the depth to 15 m.” [emphasis with underlining added]

  16. Appendixes 3 and 4 • Appendix 3 expands at great length on how the graded approach concept has been applied to: • packaging contents activity limits, • types of package designs and the tests required of each type, • package design performance standards, and • package design approval. • Appendix 4 is quite extensive, and is growing rapidly • it looks at follow-on studies into the adequacy of the accident condition tests • it considers documentation of studies from the mid-1970s onward, and currently covers follow-on studies for the following topics: • the 9 m drop accident test scenario • the1 m puncture probe accident test scenario • the dynamic crush accident test scenario • the accident-simulating thermal test • the enhanced 200 m water immersion test

  17. Summary The TecBasDoc efforts in the areas of classification of materials, classification of packages, and package design and testing are well along Much work has yet to be accomplished These chapters will go a long way toward comprehensively defining why the provisions in the Regulations in these areas were established With the expected growth of Appendix 4, the adequacy of these provisions will be further established The contribution of many individuals, organizations, and TRANSSC is acknowledged in the paper If anyone has historical documents that theythink may be of use to this effort, you are requested to contact one of the authors of this paper

  18. Questions? Thank you Ronald B. Pope poper787@comcast.net Christopher S. Bajwa C.Bajwa@iaea.org

More Related