ML20127B170
| ML20127B170 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/23/1983 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Ashley Roberts TRANSPORTATION, DEPT. OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127A006 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-3 NUDOCS 8401250206 | |
| Download: ML20127B170 (4) | |
Text
.-
- l. .
a"" FEB 2 31983 Mr. A. I. Roberts
- Associate Director for Hazardous Materials Regulation Materials Transportation Bureau U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 02590
Dear Mr. Roberts:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION ON SHIPPER ELECTIVES OF PACKAGED VS
. UNPACKAGED BULK LSA MATERIALS In accordance with DOT regulations a shipper of radioactive material may elect either of several alternatives in packaging and shipment. Specifically, in the case of low specific activity (LSA) shipped as unpackaged bulk
.(5173.392(d)) by exclusive-use highway or rail, a shipper could elect to
" package" the material for transport, rather than to transport it or offer it for transport as "unpackaged" bulk. Providing the LSA material meets the requirements of 5173.392(d), the " package" per se is clearly then not a regulatory requirement, as it would be in the case of LSA material shipped under the provisions of 5173.392(b) and (c), wherein a " strong, tight package" is required. .
We have during the past year had a specific case wherein an NRC licensee /
offered a shipment of exclusive-use, " packaged" LSA materials under the provisions 5173.392(b) and (c). During an inspection of the incoming pa'ckages to a commercial burial site, several deficient, breached packages were observed.
These were, at the time, considered a violation of 5173.392(c)(1),withthe licensee subsequently being cited for a violation thereof. In his response to the citation, the licensee responded that the shipment ". . . could have been transported unpackaged because the content of the shipment was a LSA radioactive material, was transported in a closed transport vehicle assigned for the sole-use of the Turkey (Point This 173.392(d)(1)iii). Plantparagraph and, otherwise metthat provides thematerials criteria stipulated in 49 CFR of low radioactive concentration may be transported unpackaged; . . . . . However the material was contained in 55 gallon drums primarily to satisfy conditions in the Barnwell Sit'e disposal criteria."
The licensee / shipper subsequently queried DOT (copy enclosed) asking for an interpretation of the provisions of 5173.392(d) as they applied to their shipment.
In DOT's response (copy attached), it was stated that "any packaging o'f your choice
$173.392(dmay)be
." Onusedtheprovided basis ofthere is compliance N that interpretation, with all requirements C withdrew of the violation.'
We have some concern over this type of situation, because it allowed the licensee /
shipoer to recategorize his LSA material, even though there existed a pervasive weight of evidence that it had originally been considered to be and was described in the shipping papers as "packagec", rather than "unpackaged, bulk" LSA, r
!$W2}
-- IE FEt CO?f:. "9 !
ccB 2 31983 S!i3SCD. @N E3 l
.Mr. A.-I. Roberts 2 003 EMI We are interested in issuing an IE Information Notice to address this type of situation. We would inform licensee / shippers that once they have described their shipment as " packaged" or "unpackaged bulk" LSA materials, that NRC would expect compliance with the applicable requirements. We would point out that recategorizing the shipments after-the-fact, especially if violations were detected, is inappropriate. We would base our co'nclusion of determining which option the shipper had selected on the basis of examining the shipping paper description and the package / vehicle marking. We would also encourage that whenever the- shipment was in fact shipped as unpackaged bulk, that the shipping paper description contain an additional notation to that :
effect, particularly when the " packages" are not actually a transport regulatory requirement.
We would appreciate your views on the above matter, particularly with regard to whether you agree with us that in expost facto determination such as the above is inappropriate. I have enclosed a copy of our file of information on the subject case.
Origh21 SID3d DT.
hms13.I@
James M. Taylor, Director Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards, and Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
- 1. Memo fm C E Anderson, R.II to D Thompson, IE, dtd 9/2/81
- 2. Memo fm D Thompson, IE to C E Anderson, R.II, dtd 9/14/81
- 3. Ltr to J P 0'Reilly, RII fm R E Uhrig, FPL, dtd 7/13/81
- See previous page for concurrences.
SMP':B QASIP:IE* SMPB:QASIP:IE* D:QASIP:IE7,v,T A.W.Grella/dm L.I.Cobb J.M. Taylor 02/ /83 02/ /83 02/G;/83 I
.l. ..
A. I. Roberts 2 N ,
We are interested in issuing an IE Information Notice to address this ,
type of situation. We would inform lice'nsee/ shippers that once they have described their shipment as " packaged" or "unpackaged bulk" LSA materials,
~
that NRC would expect compliance with the applicable requirements. We would point out that recategorizing the shipments after-the-fact..especially if violations were detected, is unappropriate. We would base our conclusion of determiningwhichoptiontheshipperhadselectedonthebasisofexamininh the shipping paper description and the package / vehicle marking. We would also encourage that whenever the shipment was in fact shipped as unpackaged bulk, that the shipping paper description contain an additional notation to that effect, particularly when the " packages" are not actually a transport regulatory requi rement.
We would appreciate your views on the above matter, particularly with regard to whether you agree with. us that on expost facto determination such as the above is inappropriate. I have enclosed a copy of our file of information on the subject case. .
James M. Taylor, Director Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards, and Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
- l. Memo fm C E Anderson, R.II to D Thompson, IE, dtd 9/2/81
- 2. Memo fm 0 Thompson, IE to C E Anderson, R.II, dtd 9/14/81 3 '. Ltr to J P 0'Reilly, RII fm R E Uhrig, FPL~, dtd 7/13/81 I
t SMP':B QA :IE SMPB: :IE D: -
- A.W.Grel dm L.I.Cobb J.M i o 02/p/8 02hs/83 02/3 G3 .
! ]
L
ee. ..,.a. -
Mr. A. I. Roberts cc w/ enclosures:
R. R. Rawl ,- DOT W. - H. Nalley, DOT -
DISTRIBUTION:
IE-FILES IE RDG QASIP.-RDG SMPB RDG J.M.Tay1or,-IE-B.K. Grimes, IE E.L. Jordan, IE L.I.Cobb, IE A.W.Grella, IE MMacDonald, NMSS D.R.Hopkins, RES-E. Flack, IE D. Holody, RI C.Alderson, RII W. Schultz, RIII E. Johnson, RIV -
A. Johnson, RV 6
L
- b. -