ML20078D132

Resonds to NRC Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Repts 50-321/83-17 & 50-366/83-17.Corrective Actions:Boxes Prepared for Shipment Elevated on One End W/Drain Plug Removed for 24 H to Allow for Liquid Drainage

ML20078D132
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	08/12/1983
From:	Nix H GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML20078D126	List: ML20078D132
References
NED-83-404, NUDOCS 8310040366
Download: ML20078D132 (4)

Text

, e

~

':# *' '7*

Georga Power Company,

.' 333 Piedmont Avenue .

. Atlanta Georgia 30308 '

,s Tetephone 404. 526-6526 ~ =

Masng Address. ,

hOIl .'I Post Othee Box 4545 -"'tA. vECRGy Atlanta. Georgta 30302:

4 Georgia Power Power Generation Departrnent :

-August 12,-1983 NED-83-404 U. S. MJclear Regulatory Commission

REFERENCE:

Office of: Inspection and Enforcement RII: JP0

-_ Region :II -Suite 2900 50-321/50-366

-101 Marietta Street, NW . Inspection Report Atlanta, Georgia 30303 83 ATTENTION: --Mr. James P. O'Reilly

' GENTLEMEN:

The. following information is submitted in response to Inspection - Report 83-17.concerning the . inspection conducted by Mr. J. B. Kahle of the NRC office on May 23-27, 1983. One apparent-violation was identifiea.

^ 2 VIOLATION 10 CFR 20.301 specifies authorized methods for disposal of licensed material and prohibits 'dispocal by other means. One authorized method is by- transfer l to an - authorized recipient pursuant to the specific . license requirements of the recipient.

Contrary to the above,, on March 22, 1983, the licensee disposed of nine, ninety-six ' cubic foot metal boxes of compacted radioactive waste, by transfer for land burial to Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc., whose South-Carolina License (No. 097) does not. authorize receipt of liquid waste for

~

-land _ burial. One box (HW-83-321) contained' approximately five quarts of free standing liquid.

This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement IV).

RESPONSE

. Admission or denial of alleged violation: GPC does not believe the particular

events described above violate PRC regulations.

. Discussion: Georgia Power Company (GPC) admits the particular events occurred as described in the Notice of Violation and Inspection Report. However, we do not agree that these events' constitute a violation 'of NRC requirements. As referenced in your transmittal letter, GPC. discussed its concerns with Region IIL staff on several~ occasions and delivered formal legal briefs for your staff's review. - The arguments which lead us to the conclusion that the

. specific problem is not within the NRC's jurisdiction is summarized below.

B310040366 830919

.PDR ADOCK- 05000321 G ,

PDR

GeorgiaPower A l

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office ~of Inspection and Enforcement Region II - Suite 2900 August 12, 1983' Page Two

- The WC bases jurisdiction upon two regulations: 10 CFR 20.301 as specified in the Notice of Violation, and 10 CFR 150.15(a)(1) to exclude waste oisposal activities from Agreement State exemptions (10 CFR 150). Use of 10 CFR 150.15(a)(1), however, is not appropriate in that it does not authorize the EC to regulate disposal of by-product material at a site which is in an Agreement State but is not an NRC-licensed production or utilization facility. .10 CFR 150.15(a) specifies only a limited number of exceptions to the general Agreement State exemptions granted by the Atomic Energy Act from licensing requirements and from NRC regulations imposing requirements upon

. persons receiving, possessing, using, or transferring by-product material.

Although the EC does retain authority under 10 CFR 150.15(a)(1) to regulate the " operation" of production and utilization facilities, even where a state agreement exists, rules of statutory construction provide that " operation" be given its ordinary, contemporary, and common meaning because it is not defined by the Act and is only narrowly defined by 10 CFR 150.15(a)(1) itself.

Moreover, by specifically and specially defining the term to include storage and handling of wastes at the site, the NRC arguably recognized that

" operation" would not ordEarily include disposal activities. Furthermore, rules of- statutory construction preclude defining operation to include disposal activities away from the site because subsequent provisions of the Act and WC regulations specifically address disposal activities. Thus , 10 CFR 150.15(a)(1) is not a proper basis for regulating activities at disposal sites which are in Agreement States but which are not production or utilization facilities.

Nor does the NRC have jurisdiction under 10 CFR 20.301 to issue a notice of violation for activities which are lawfully regulated by an Agreement State.

Although the EC has general authority to regulate radiological hazards associated with by-product material, it has lawfully relinquished its authority to do so in South Carolina by an agreement with that State.

Pursuant to- the agreement, South Carolina has enacted and is enforcing

. comprehensive laws and regulations for the transportation, storage and disposal- of by-product material, including shipments by out-of-state shippers. Moreover, it has done so with NRC recognition and approval.

Because Congress expressed a clear intention that either a state or the NRC, but not both, regulate radiological hazards associated with nuclear material, the agreement with South Carolina and that State's enforcement program effectively preclude WC' jurisdiction.

s

,rL - ,

s

~

1Geo lalbiverN '

-U. S. NtJclearL Regulatory Commission

Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region II'-! Suite 2900 August 12, 1983

Page cThree:

7 GPC has responded to the South Carolina ~ enforcement actions' per the. agreement requirements.: GPC. has' . implemented a- number of corrective measures, as h_==mted 'in' that1 response. ' The reason for the occurrence and corrective measures.are summarized below:

Reason' for the occurrence:' Our investigation found that box number HPP-83-123

,.was processed at our WS-TST-facility on March 14, 1983. While a full drum of used laundry bags-(returned from a contractor) was being placed into the box,

! water started ' pouring out of the drum into the box.- The . drum was quickly uprighted but not before an estimated one gallon of water had been transferred into the box.

The ~ single drain plug on the bottom of the box was fulled to allow drainage,

. and ' dry-up : towels were used to collect ' free standing water observed in the box. The container was then filled and the lid sealed. The box was again inspected by pulling the single drain plug to check for . liquids on a pre-shipment inspection. . No liquids =were observed on -the pre-shipment '

inspection, thus the drain plug was reinstalled and sealed.

Our. investigation has found that after compacting, there can be a bulge' in the bottom of these type boxes which is below ~ the- drain plug. This low point

- would allow liquid to be present. ~but not detectable by . opening the drain plug. It has been concluded that this was the cause of the violation noted on March 22, 1983. x Corrective Steps Which Have Been Taken to Avoid Future Occurrences: Boxes being prepared for shipment are now being elevated on one end, with the drain plug removed for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to allow ' for liquid drainage from the- low point

. after: cor.pacting before they are released' for shipment. If any liquid "is observed, the box ~1s rejected 'for shipment. Drums are prepared for ' shipment in the same ; manner :as' boxes. i.To precluJe the inclusion of liquid in (shipments,' damp waste such'as mop l heads and' laundry bags are being placed in a drying; room for at least 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />'before being placed in shipment containers.

Corrective Steps 'Which Will Be -Taken ' To Avoid- Future Occurrences: Our B-25V

, type. shipment boxes have been redesigned to include 3 drains. These - drains will"be located 'on the bottom centerline of the box, near each end and in 'the center. All 3. drain plugs will be removed for - 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after compacting; observed leakage will reject the box for shipment. These boxes with the nedly designed drains will replace existirig inventory as it is used.

s

. l

• ~

. Georgia Power A U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement' Region II - Suite 2900 August 12, 1983 Page Four Status of Compliance: All shipments made after March 23, 1983, have included the actions listed above for the checking of liquid content in drums and boxes released for shipment. Based upon these actions, full compliance with disposal requirements have been met and assured since March 23, 1983.

Conclusion:

'In light of the legal arguments presented above and the differing positions taken by the Region II enforcement staff, we believe this difference of interpretation cannot be resolved at the Regional Level. Since the

- contention revolves around the line of jurisdiction between tEC and delegated Agreement State authority, we respectfully request that the NRC, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, refer the disagreement to the General Counsel for an official interpretation.

As always, we are prepared to discuss this item at any time with you and your staff.

. Sincerely yours, H. C. Nix, .

General Manager SCE

~

xc: J. T. Beckham, Jr.

T. V. Greene Senior Resident Inspector

_. _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _