ML20134C667
| ML20134C667 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Neely Research Reactor |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1996 |
| From: | Mallett B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Karam R Neely Research Reactor, ATLANTA, GA |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134C670 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9609270351 | |
| Download: ML20134C667 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000160/1996002
Text
'
,
,
s
$
.-
^
.
September 9, 1996
Georgia Institute of Technology
I
ATTN: Dr. Ratib A. Karam Director
Neely Nuclear Research Center
I
225 North Avenue
Atlanta, GA 30332
SUBJECT:
NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50 160/96 02
.
Dear Dr. Karam:
)
Thank you for your response of July 18, 1996, to our Notice of Violation which
was. issued on July 3,1996, concerning activities conducted at your Georgia
l
Institute of Technology Research Reactor. We have examined your response and
found that it meets the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201.
l
1
In your response, you provided corrective actions for both cited violations
(A and B).
You denied that violation B was committed under- your NRC license.
After careful consideration of the bases of your denial of the violation, we
have concluded, for reasons presented in the enclosure to this letter, that
the violation occurred as stated in the Notice of Violation.. We also
l
determined that the violation should be modified to make it clear that it was
!
for NRC licensed activities connected with the shipment of unirradiated and
!
irradiated reactor fuel in January and February 1996. No further response
!
regarding this violation is necessary because your July 18, 1996, response
' described the steps which you plan to take to correct the violation, the
results you expect to achieve, the corrective steps which will be taken to
'
avoid further violations, and the date when full compliance will be achieved.
J
You should note, however, that training under your Procedure 9510 alone, does
i
not satisfy the training requirements set forth in 49 CFR 172.704 as indicated
,
in Enclosure 1.
A revised Notice of Violation is preser,ted in Enclosure 2.
Your letter requested clear, well-defined boundaries for jurisdictional
responsibilities between the NRC and the State of Georgia in this case.
In
the. case of transportation, the boundaries are clear, the transport of
materials, defined as licensed materials in 10 CFR 71.4, is subject to NRC
jurisdiction.
Your corrective actions associated with the violations and the deviation noted
in NRC Inspection Report 50 160/96 02 will be reviewed during future
inspections.
n **j 3 0 * **
i
z/
~
.
'
9609270351 960909
ADOCK 05000160
-
- . . . -
.
_.
.
.
_
h
I
~
-
.
,
.
GIT
2
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us.
Sincerely,
f/iVm'
Bruce S. Mallett, Director
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety
Docket No. 50 160
License No. R 97
Enclosures:
1. Evaluation and Conclusion
2. Revised Notice of Violation
!
cc w/encls
Dr. John A. White, Dean
-
'
College of Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
225 North Avenue
Atlanta, GA 30332
'
Dr. William G. Vernetson
Director of Nuclear Facilities
Department of. Nuclear Engineering
Sciences
University of Florida
l
202 Nuclear Sciences Center
i
Gainesville, FL 32611
i
Pedro B. Perez, Associate Director
Nuclear Reactor Program
North Carolina State University
P. O. Box 7909
Raleigh, NC 27695-7909
Dr. R. U. Mulder, Director
Reactor Facility
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22901
James.Setser, Chief
Program Coordination Branch
Environmental' Protection Division
Department of Natural Resources
Floyd Tower E 1166
205 Butler Street, SE, Suite 1252
..
J
Atlanta, GA 30334
(cc w/ encl cont'd - see page 3)
{
,
.
. _ .
_
_
_
._
._
-_.
-
.
,
.
'
.
i
GIT
3
(cc w/ encl cont'd)
Mayor of the City of Atlanta
55 Trinity Avenue, SW
Suite 2400
Atlanta, GA 30335
Pamela Blockey 0'Brien
023 Golden Valley
I
Douglasville, GA 30134
Office of Commission Appellate
Adjudication
i
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555
Administrative Judge
Jerry R. Kline
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Mail Stop T 3 F 23
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555
Administrative Judge
'
Peter S. Lam
'
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Mail Stop T-3 F 23
.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555
,
Administrative Judge
Charles Bechoefer
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
'
Mail Stop T 3 F 23
,
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-
Washington, DC 20555
,
Randy A. Nordin, Esq.
E. Gail Gunnells, Esq.
Georgia Institute of Technology
400 10th Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30332 0420
l
Glenn Carroll
139 Kings Highway
!
Decatur, GA 30030
Patricia Guilday, Esq.
I
Alfred L. Evans, Jr. , Esq.
l
l
Georgia Department of Law
l
40 Capitol Square, NW
Atlanta, GA 30334 1300
Distribution w/ encl:
(See Page 4)
-
..
..
-. .
. . .
._. . - .
-.
.
.
i
.
GIT
4
Distribution w/ encl:
,
M. Mendonca, NRR
C. Bassett, RII
E. McAlpine. RII
J. White, RI
C. Pederson. RIII
l
B. Murray, RIV
F. Wenslawski, RIV
,
S. Turk, 0GC
PUBLIC
l
,
i
.
!
0FFirF
pif nNM9
PTT nNW9
Pif nPA
Pff Efr9
NkE
e=,
SIGNATURE
I
I
NAME
CBassett
e'n
E
CEvans
N
M&Meh
j
,,
OfLL 2'f / 96
08 /J l / 96
08 / 2 L/ 96
08 / M O 96
OPF / 96
08 /
/ 96
DATE
'
'
COPY?
(VES )
NO
YES
N0
h
NO
YES
N0
DES)
NO
YES
NO
'
OFF]CIAL RECORD COPY
DOCUMENI NAME: I:\\f f B]I\\REPORISWAI9602R.RS5 A
g/ ,r
650.
)Y
$hh
Ny
,
_.
-
.
,
.
'
.
EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION
On July 3,1996, a Notice of Violation (Notice) was issued for violations
identified during a routine NRC inspection. Georgia Institute of Technology
(Georgia Tech) responded to the Notice on July 18, 1996.
In that response.
Georgia Tech denied violation B.
The NRC's evaluation and conclusion
regarding the licensee's arguments are as follows:
Restatement of the Violation:
10 CFR 71.5 requires each licensee who transports licensed material outside
,
the confines of its plant or other place of use to comply with the applicable
,
requirements of the Department of Transportation (DOT) in 49 CFR Parts 170
4
through 189.
?
i
49 CFR 172.704(a) specifies the general awareness, function specific, and
safety training requirements for hazmat employees.
'
4
.
l
49 CFR 172.704(c) specifies that a hazmat employee employed after July 2,1993
shall be initially trained prior to October 1,1993.and at least once every
.
two years thereafter.
i
49 CFR 172.704(d)(4) requires certification that the hazmat employee has been
trained and tested as required by this subpart.
I
!
- 49 CFR 171,8 defines a hazmat employee as an individual employed by a hazmat
i
employer who, during the course of employment, loads or unloads or handles
a
hazardous materials; prepares hazardous material for transportation; is
responsible for safety of transporting hazardous materials; or tests,
.
j
reconditions, modifies, marks, or otherwise represents containers, drums, or
packagings as qualified for use in the transportation of hazardous materials.
t
49 CFR 172.702(d) requires each hazmat employer to ensure.that each hazmat
employee is tested by appropriate means on the training subjects covered in
49 CFR 172.704.
Contrary to the above, since October 1,1993, the licensee failed to train
and a>propriately test all hazmat employees on the subjects covered in
49 CFR 172.704 in that the hazmat employees had not received the specified
training with the exception of one emaloyee who was trained on the safety
portions of the requirements of 49 CFR 172 in December 1995.
Summary of Licensee's Resoonse:
The licensee admitted that all employees at the Neely Research Center were not
trained and appropriately tested for safe handling, packaging, and shipping of -
hazardous material. The licensee argued that, although only one em)loyee had
been trained and tested in compliance with the requirements of 49 C:R 172.704,
no shipments of hazardous materials were made under the NRC license until
Enclosure 1
-
_. .
-
--
-
_ - - - _. - . -
-
- - - -
-
-_
---
i
,
,
j
-
.
.
I
2
'
January 31, 1996. All the other shipments containing radioactive material
'
from Georgia Tech were made under the broad license, which is under the
regulatory authority of the State of Georgia. The licensee also argued that
j '
training on the material covered in Procedure 9510 Radioactive Material
'
Shipment, met or exceeded the requirements in 49 CFR 172.704. Therefore, the
only deficiency was that the licensee did not test the trainees on their
j
proficiency in all relevant materials in Procedure 9510.
1
4
NRC Evaluation:
,
!
The NRC concludes that the licensee's argument that there were no shipments of
!
material under the NRC jurisdiction is invalid. There was one shipment of
unirradiated fuel made on January 31, 1996 and a second shipment of irradiated
i
fuel made on February 18, 1996 under the NRC license. With regard to the
!
other shipments made, during the period an NRC inspector reviewed the shipping
i
documents for radioactive material shipped from August 1994 through April
1996.
Because the shipments appeared to be a mixture of NRC and State of
i
Georgia licensed material, the nature of the material and the license under
which the material was shipped were discussed with licensee representatives
'
during the inspection. The Manager, Office of Radiation Safety (MORS)
indicated that several of the shipments made during that period had been made
i
under the NRC license. This clarification was accepted by the ins)ector
,
because the shipping documents a
were made under the NRC license.ppeared to indicate that several sli:ments
i
t
.The licensee's response counters t11s by
i
saying, in writing, that the shipments were made under the broad license,
'
which is under the State of Georgia jurisdiction. The NRC accepts this and
will modify the violation to state that it only occurred with regard to the
shipments made under NRC jurisdiction.
.
I
The licensee admitted that only one employee had been trained, tested, and
certified in all the requirements of 49 CFR 172.704 at the time the irradiated
.
!
fuel shipment was made on January 31, 1996.
However, the licensee indicated
that one staff member was train 3d in an OSHA course and the health physics
[
staff were trained in the licensee's procedures.
As stated in the Notice 49 CFR 171.8 defines a hazmat employee as an
individual employed by a hazmat employer who, during the course of employment,
,
',
loads or unloads or handles hazardous materials; prepares hazardous material
for transportation; is responsible for the safety of transporting hazardous
!
materials; or tests, reconditions, modifies, marks, or otherwise represents
,
i
containers.-drums, or packagings as qualified for use in the transportation of
hazardous materials. As indicated, this requirement applies not only to those
,
j
who handle hazardous material but to those w b represent or certify that the
j
packagings are qualified for use.
In the case of Georgia Tech, this
i
definition would apply to those who routinely handle hazardous (radioactive)
material, to those who package the material for shipment, and to those who
represent or certify that the packaging is qualified for use in transportation
i
of hazardous material such as a person who reviews the shipping pa)ers and
2
signs that the aaoerwork is in order and the material is ready to )e shipped.
j
Specifically, t;is requirement would apply to health physics personnel and to
Enclosure 1
i
l
E
. - - , -.
%~
, - - - -
m
_
--.,-~.a-.
- - - _
.
,
--,
,
.
_ _ . _
__ -__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ .
_
-
.
,
1
-
'
.
3
the HORS because they routinely prepare the radioactive material for shipment,
review the shipping paperwork to ensure that the shipment complies with the
regulations, and are responsible for the safety of transporting hazardous
materials. Given the fact that employees who handled the material as
described above were not trained and tested, the violation should stand as
issued.
The licensee also argued that training on the material covered in Procedure
.
9510. Radioactive Material Shipment, met or exceeded the requirements in
49 CFR 172.704: however, a deficiency existed in that the licensee did not
,
test the trainees on their proficiency in all relevant materials in Procedure
9510. 49 CFR 172.704 specifies that hazmat employee training shall
include the following:
(1) General awareness / familiarization training:
(2) Function specific training; and (3) Safety training. Although the
!
licensee's procedure appears to provide an acceptable method for packaging and
shipping of radioactive materials to ensure that package integrity is
!
maintained during transportation and to ensure compliance with the shipping
regulations, it did not satisfy the content, testing and certification
1
requirements of 49 CFR 172.704. Specifically, the following was noted: (1)
the procedure did not address how the em)loyee is to recognize and identify
hazardous materials consistent with the lazards communications standards as
'
part of the General awareness / familiarization training: (2) the procedure did
'
not include emergency response information recuired by subpart G of part 172
as part of the Safety training: (3) the procecure did not include the measures
for 3rotecting employees from the dangers associated with hazardous materials
'
to w11ch they may be exposed in the work place.
This includes specific
measures the hazmat employer has implemented to protect employees from
exposure and the methods and procedures for avoiding accidents, such as the
proper procedures for handling packages containing hazardous materials as part
of the Safety training.
'
t
NRC Conclusion:
For the above stated reasons, the NRC staff concludes that the violation
!
'
occurred as stated, but should be modified to indicate it was only for
shipments of materials licensed by the NRC.
+
Enclosure 1