ML19330B019
| ML19330B019 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000054, 07000687 |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1980 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19330B017 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-80-014, EA-80-14, NUDOCS 8007300040 | |
| Download: ML19330B019 (5) | |
Text
.. _ _ _
- Fe O
llh UNITED STATES OF: AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
Facility License No. _ R-81 Union Carbide Corporation
)
Special Nuclear Material Medical Products Division
)
License No. SNM-639 P. O. Box 324
)
EA-80-14 Tuxedo, New York 10987
)
ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY I
Union Carbide Corporation, Medical Products Division, P. O. Box 324,-Tuxedo, New Yorx (the "licensae") is holder of Facility License No. R-81 and Special Nuc? :ar Material License No. SNM-639 (the " licenses").
License No. R-81 authorizes the operation, at steady-state power levels up to 5,000 kilowatts (thermal), the pool-type nuclear reactor located on its site in Sterling Forest, New York, and is due to expire June 30, 1980.
License No. SNM-639 authorizes the use of special nuclear materials in accordance with the statements, repre-sentations and conditions specified in the numerous licensee applications and I
is due to expire January 31, 1981.
II
~
An investigation of the licensee's activities'under.the licenses was conducted on J*anuary 2-29,' 1980, at the Sterling Forest Research Center, Tuxedo, New York.
As a result of this investigation, it appears that the licensee has-not conducted its activities in full compliance with the conditions of the licenses.
A written Notice of Violation was served upon the licensee by letter dated April 7, 1980, specifying the itet of noncompliance, in accordance with 10 CFR -2.201.
A Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties was concurrently served upon the licensee in accordance with Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.J. 2282) and 10 CFR 2.205, incorporating by 8007Spoogg
o e
, reference the Notice of Violation, which stated the nature of_the item of noncompliance and the provisions of NRC Regulations and license conditions.
An. answer dated April 28, 1980, to the Notice of Violation and the Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties was received from the licensee on May 5, 1980.
III After consideration of the nswer received and the statements of fact, explanation, and argument in denial or mitigation contained therein, as set forth in Appendix A to this Order, the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement has determined that the penalty proposed for the item of noncompliance designated in the Notice of Violation should be mitigated to One Thousand Dollars.
In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2282) and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT,:
-The licensee pay the civil penalty in the total amount of One Thousand Dollars within twenty-five days of the date of this Order, by check, draft, or money order payable-to the Treasurer of the United States, and mailed to the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
V The licensee may, within' twenty-five days of the date of this Order, request a
. hearing.
If a hearing is requested,' the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of hearing.
Upon failure of the licensee to request a hearing within twenty-five days of the date of this Order, the
, t provisions-of this Order shall be effective without further proceedings and, if payment has not been made by that time, the. matter may be referred to the
~
Attorney General for collection.
_VI In.the event the licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the issues to
~be considered _at such hearing shall be:
(a) whether the licensee was in noncompliance with the Commission's
. regulations ~as designated in the Notice of Violation referenced in Sections II and III above; and, (b) whether, on the basis of such an item of noncompliance, this Order-should be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
./l
-a
~ ictor Ste}4, Jr.
//-
V Director Office of Inspecti n and Enforcement i
Dated this 11 t h-day of July 1980 at Bethesda, Maryland
Enclosure:
Appendix A, Evaluation and Conclusion.
y g
w c-.A3
-p..sr y-e ay
---ys-.mp
APPENDIX A EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION For the iter of noncompliance and associated civil penalty identified in the Notice of Violation (dated April 7,1980), the original item of noncompliance is restated and the Office of Inspecticn and Enforcement's evaluation and conclusion regarding the licensee's response to the item (dated April 28, 1980) is presented.
Statement of Noncompliance 10 CFR 71.5(a) Transportation of Licensed Material requires that NRC licensees comply with the applicable packaging and transportation requirements of the Department of Transportation in 49 CFR Parts 170-189.
49 CFR 173.393(j) requires packages with radiation dose rates at certain levels to be shipped in a vehicle consigned as exclusive use.
49 CFR 173.392(c)(9) requires that the shipper must provide specific
~
instructions to the carrier for maintenance of exclusive use shipment controls for low specific activity (LSA) radioactive materials shipped in an exclusive use vehicle.
These instructions must be included with the shipping paper information.
Contrary to the above, on December 10, 1979, Union Carbide delivered to a carrier LSA licensed materials with radiation dose rates at the levels in 49 CFR 173.393(j) without providing specific instructions for maintenance of exclusive esc shipping controls.
This is a Severity Level II Vinlation (Civil Penalty $3,000)
Evaluation of Licensee Response The,licergee ad,mits the item of noncompliance but requests that the amount of the civil penalty be reduced.
The basis of the request is that although the licensee was the ostensible shipper of the material and prepared the shipping documents, it relied upon the consignee, Nuclear Engineering Company, Incorpo-lated (NECO) to make the shipping arrangements.
According to the licensee. it had an understanding and contractual arrangement with NECO, which ar;a ently obligated NECO to provide exclusive use vehicles for the licensee's shipments.
It also claims the carrier was obligated by its rate-tariff to supply an exclusive use vehicle, and that any violation resulted from confusion as to the respective obligations of NECO and the licensee.
The item of noncompliance is not based on whether or not the vehicle was in fact an exclusive use vehicle
]
~
under NECO's control, but whether the carrier was provided the required instruc-l tions.
By holding itself out as the shipper in this instance, the licensee assumed the responsibility for following the applicable Department of Transpor-tation (DOT) regulations.
The carrier's tariff is evidence of an intention to offer exclusive use vehicles, but is not sufficient to demonstrate compliance with 00T requirements.
Whatever arrangement the licensee had with NECO, the fact remains that the carrier was not provided with the required specific instructions for uaintenance of exclusive use shipping controls by either
Appendix A.
i party.
The conftsitn as to respective obligations mentioned by the licensee is not a basis for reducing the penalty, but rather should be viewed as an example of inadequate control of the shipment of radioactive materials by the licensee.
However, there is evidence that NECO did provide a '!:hicle controlled only by NECO.
At least the vehicle did not mak.e any pickups and deliveries'-not consonant with the requirements imposed un exclusive use vehicles.
Conclusion Since the particular facts of this case tend to indicate that the licensee (the shipper) was not totally unaware of his obligation to provide shipping instructions and his responsibility for following DOT Regulations, and since the licensee, carrier, and consignee did intend for the carrier to only follow NEC0's instructions and apparently an exclusive use vehicle was supplied by NECO, the civil penalty is hereby mitigated to Onc Thousand Dollars.
--.