ML20092N369
| ML20092N369 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1984 |
| From: | Otoole J CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC. |
| To: | Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20092N365 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8407030072 | |
| Download: ML20092N369 (3) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _
John D. OToole o
vu em en Consewed EJ400 Company (;f New York. Mc 4 ifve) Pace. New YCra, NY 1(yMJ To% phone p12) 400 2i31 May 8, 1904 Re Indian Point Unit No. 2 Docket No-50-247 Mr. Thomas T. Martin, Director Division of Engineering and Technical Programs U. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pa.
19406 Dear Mr. Martin We write regarding your letter of December 15, 1903 and the Notice of Violation which accompanied your letter of September 9,
1903.
We continue tia v!av that there was no item of non-compliance with NRC requirements, and for the reasons set forth telow respectfully request that the NRC's position in this matter again be teevaluated and that the Notice of Violation be rescinded.
In addition, we have learned that key information, available for the state of South Carolina in aaking their detetuination that no violation occurred, may not have been known by your staf f prior to December 15, 1983.
The licensed material was fixed and for the reasons described below could not have possibly become unfixed.
The Notice of Violation suggests that in connection with a shipment of licenne material on July 26, 1903, provisions of 49 Crn 173.24 were not complied with. That section providen in pertinent part that:
"(a) Each package used for shipping hasandora materials under this subchapter shall be so designed and constructed, and its contents so limited, that under conditions normally incident to transportation -
(1)
These will be no significant release of the hasardous materials to the environments (and]
(2)
The ef fectiveness of the packaging will not be substantfally reduced...."
We submit that the circumstances of the July 26 nnipment conclusively establish the offectivenose of the packaging could not possibly have been toduced, notwithstanding the two puncture holes which fotm the basis for the claimed violation.
An indicated in our september 13, 1903 letter to the south Carolina Department of Health and Environmental control (copy enclosed), the licensed material comprising this shipment consisted of h7 0
G PDM w
i scrap steel, which had undergone two successive decontamination washon at I
the site prior to shipment.
There was thus no possibility that the contamination could have become unfixed, with resultant leakage.
Since the two container pin-hole punctutes to which you tefer could not possibly have permitted any release of the licensed material within, there could have been no toduction in the ef fectiveness of the packaging, much less the " substantial" reduction which would be necessary to austain a violation.
your December 15 letter was therefore not applicable in suggesting that
" experience with similar packages and contents indicate potential for rileases of radioactivity under these conditions."
In fact, surveys of the container upon arrival at the disposal site verified that there was no vjolation of regulatory limits for contamination on the exterior of the packaging.
We realise that your office was not informed in our October 9,
1983 letter of these citcumstances, and thus could have assumed that a potential for a telease existed, which for the reasons stated was not in fact the case.
We believe that subsection (c) (6) of 49 CFR 173.24 upon which the NRC rollen in the Notice of Violation offers a close analogy to the present circumstances.
It ptovides thatt "Clemutes shall be adequate to ptevent inadvettent leakage of the contenta under notual conditions incident to transportation...."
Other sections of the applicable regulations even petmit the une of "fibertoard boxes" under contain conditions (49 CrH 173.25) no long as the principal objectives of pteventing significant releases and substantial reduction in packagino effectiveness ate manuted.
The absonce of any Hpc observation not.essitates that the licensee and the south Carolina officials be depended upon for the basic underlying facts of this occurrence.
These citcumstances and facts preclude either a significant release or a
substantial reduction in packaging effectiveness.
There can therefote be no ba sis for a finding that a violation of 49 CFR 173.24 occurred.
In light of the packaging circumstance and the condition of the licensed materials an described ateve, we accoadingly toquest that you toevaluate whether the effectiveness of the packaging in pteventing a significant release of hasardous materials to the envitonment was in fact substantially toduced in this instance. We emphasire that our conviction that there was no violet.lon of NHC regulations does not diminish our commitment to effective and thotough waste handling ptocedut ent however, we must oppose the imposition of a violation which we ano convinced in
.p.
.o
=.
unustranted in this instance.
If you desire any further info 1metion negerding this event or the circumetences which we have set forth above, j
d, please senteet us.
L.
Very ruly yours,
/
Y J
ty' V John D. O'Too Vice President een ler. Themse roley, Benior Resident Inspector
.U. 8. Isueleer Regulatory commission P. O. Son 38 Buchanan, New York 10511 3
i
--.