ML19309G818
| ML19309G818 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000572 |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1980 |
| From: | Schimmel R MONSANTO RESEARCH CORP. |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309G817 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005070621 | |
| Download: ML19309G818 (2) | |
Text
_-
___ [
-l
-w N ? -
w-
- u $N A...,.....
8 0 0 5 0 7 0fo
/
EN0hCERED Mr00UCTS MONSANTO RESEARCH CORPORATION Dayton Laboratory 1515 Nicholes Roa d P. O. B o s 8. S t a tio n B Osyton. Ohio 45407 Phones f513) 268-8789 (513) 268-34I1 Telegrap h: TWX 810-459 1681 19 March 1980 11r. James G. Keppler, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn Illinois 60137
Dear Mr. Keppler:
This is written in response to your letter of February 12, 1980, regarding inspection of NRC license SNM567 by Mr. D. J. Sreniawski of Region III.
USNRC. On page 4 of the letter, additional information was requested "to explain what consideration has been given to generic problems re-lated to the shipping container."
Monsanto Research Corporation considers the word generic to mean those items pertaining to the design of the container. MRC has given consider-ation to design of the shipping container, and it has decided that the design per se was not at fault.
In our 14 December 1979, letter to Region III, we stated the reason for the shipment having dose levels in excess of D0T regulations was because of personnel failure (1) to use proper source holder hardware in the container and (2) to check the radiation at all sides of the container during both primary and secondary inspections prior to shipment..
While the problem of human error can not be entirely eliminated, it is felt by MRC management that by providing better procedures and parts call-outs on container drawings, the possiblity of human error can be reduced.
For this reason, MRC has agreed to take or has taken those actions specified in our above referenced letter and summarized here.
(1) We will review all Type A shipping container drawings in order to assure that formal documentation calls out details required by MRC containers so that DOT regu-lations are met.
Restrictions will be placed on the package drawings to reduce the latitude allowed per-sonnel handling the radioactive shipments.
(2) Written procedures have been developed and are in prac-tice which require both primary shipper and second-party inspector signatures prior to a shipment of radio-active material.
WAR 24 980
.......,........... c......
J, Mr. James G. Keppler 19 March 1980 (3) MRC made a new cask and source holder shield for PG&E. Prior to our shipping the container to them, we checked the radiation levels on all sidns ~
of the container with a source similar to PG&E's in the container. The reasons a new cask and holder were sent to PG&E were essentially for customer con-venience and for MRC to be able to double-check our analysis of the shipping container problem.
In summary, K7C has concluded that there were no design (generic)
, ;il::: "!!!-the shipping container; the problem was essentially that of a single occurrence of human error. However, procedural reviews are in order and changes to procedures will be made to re-duce the chance for human error in future shipments.
Should you have further questions regarding the above, please contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely.
ENGINEERED PRODUCTS DEPARTMENT C f. (
Robert L. Schimmel Manager RRT:bo cc:
H. L. Williams, Monsanto Research Corp.
E. F Janzow, Monsanto Research Corp.
l t
l 1