ML20004B257
| ML20004B257 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Framatome ANP Richland |
| Issue date: | 05/04/1981 |
| From: | Malody C SIEMENS POWER CORP. (FORMERLY SIEMENS NUCLEAR POWER |
| To: | Book H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004B253 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105270456 | |
| Download: ML20004B257 (6) | |
Text
O' G:lj(ON' NUCLEAPt COMPANY,Inc.
PESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2955 George Washington Way. Ricnland. Washington 99352 PHON E: (509) 375-7100 May 4, 1981
@*i, f
h C
AS+.
g Mr. H. E. Book, Chief C
A t-Radiological Safety Branch Y
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W
\\
1990 N. California Boulevard t
Suite 202, Walnut Creek Plaza Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Docket No. 70-1257 License No. SNM-1227
Dear Mr. Book:
This letter is in response to the Notice of Violation dated April 17, 1981, and is being submitted as required by 10 CFR 2.201.
On March 10, 1981, Contaminated Waste Shipment H-10 departed Richland, Washington for Beatty, Nevada. On March 12, 1981, Exxon Nuclear was advised by U.S. Ecology, operator of the Beatty site, that some l
packages in the shipment violated DOT packaging standards. On March 13, 1981 a representative of Exxon Upelear visited the Beatty site and inspected the packages. The inspection confirmed that certain seams on four of v.he boxes had a few gaps large enough to permit insertion of a wire coat hanger. No evidence of leakage or contamina-tion was observed or measured. The Exxon Nuclear representative authorized U.S. Ecology to close the gaps by nailing, to be followed I
by burial of the shipment. The stepe nutLined above provided resolu-e l
tion to the immediate incident.
I l
Attached is a copy of a letter to Mr. Edmundson of the Nevada Division of Health which explains why we feel that the problem which resultad i
in the cited violation could not have permitted leakage of radioactive material from the packages. As seen from the letter, it is the position of Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc. that the citation for viola-tion of DOT regulatio:a 49 Cra 173.392(c) (1) by the State of Nevada Division of Health was based on a difference in interpretation of that regulation.
Cur letter to Ne'rada authorities describes pertinent portions of the i
l procedures already in place to assure that our waste packages meet l
applicable State and ;ederal regulations. For example, the letter states as follows:
l l
l l
AN AFFILIATE OF EXXON CoRPoR ATION
!8105270%56
._=
\\
H. E. Book May 4, 1981 4
t 1.
Item:3.3.1 of Rev. 3 of Exxon Nuclear's operating procedure 1.3.13 (dated 7/31/80) entitled " Packaging of Low Level Radioactive Waste" requires verification that there is no visual contamination on or in equipment and materials packaged for off-site shipment as waste.
2.
All waste materials are packaged under the supervision of an Exxon Nuclear Company Health Physics Technician who lists the individual items in each package and certifies that no significant smearable contamination exists on the items packaged as waste.
t
?urthermore, copies of detailed packing lists for each box of the shipment show that the identifiable items were quite large and contam-instedwithonlyminimalquantitiesoj3gowenricheduranium.
(The shipment contained only two grams of U within the ten packages.)
Paragraph 173.392(c) (1) of 49 CFR states:
I
~
" Materials must be packaged in strong, tight packeges le that there will be no leakage of radioactive material under conditions noreslly incident to transportation".
While it is recognized that the term " tight" is somewhat anbiguous in nature, the clarification (i.e., no leakage) in the above paragraph l
establishes a possibility of determining adequacy based on performance.
The above noted observations relative to the precautions taken by Exxon Nuclear to assure that only items were included wip4 insignifi-l cant fixed contamination, plus the results of extensiva surveys l
performed at the Beatty site which demonstrated that there had indeed been no leakage of radioactive raterial from the packages, leads us to conclude that the packages were in full compliance with the details and intent of Paragraph 173. 392 (c) (1) of 49 CFR.
Consequently,
{
it is requested that the Notice of Violation be reconsidered and withdrawn.
Although we feel that the citation by the State of Nevada is unwar-ranted, we nevertheless recognize that a consensus must be reached between Exxon Nuclear and the State of Nevada on this matter. Proced-ures, in addition to those already in place, which will be implemented to assure in the future that packages are tight are outlined below:
" Irrespective of package contents, each radioactive waste packaga having visible cracks shall be renailed and the cracks taped and/or caulked."
i f
l l
l t
l l
t l
l
_,,.---mm. m. y.4 _,,_ -.
e H. E. Book 3
Rty 4, 1981 "Second-party inspections shall be made to assure that all NRC, DOT and State Regulations are met prior to shipping. A detailed check list shall be used to assure the completeness of this inspection".
It is anticipated that the above procadural modifications will be completed by June 30, 1981.
In any event, they will be completed prior to any future shipments to the Beatty Nevada site.
In addition to the above, alternative packages and/or package con-struction methods are being considered for future use. Notably, consideration will be given to the use of prefabricated metal con-tainers and to the possibility of us.'ng wooden containers which are of nailed and glued construction.
I certify that all infomation cortained in this letter, including any supplements attached thereto, is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
A d [O [/
C. W. Malody, Manage e, 3 Dat6
/
Licensing & Compliance,
/.
Operating Facilities
,5 STATE OF WASHING' ION )
'l
- 1
)
ss.
COUNTY OF Benton )
/ ' tM SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to me before this [ M. day of A_ /[N.
1981.
4f
~M i
if6tary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Richland, WA l
I l
i l
l r
l l
l I
e ATTACHMENT,
~
Cfj(ON NUCLEAR COMPANY,Inc.
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2955 Geoece wnhington way. Richiand,Wnnojton 09352 March 26, 1981 HONE: f 509) 3754100 Mr. J. A. Edmundson, Chief Bureau of Consumer Itcalth Protection Services State of Nevada, Division of Health 505 East King Street Carson City, Nevada 89710 i
Ref: 1)
Nevada State Site Use Permit No. 359 2)
Letter, J. Vaden to P.R. McMurray, dated March 20, 1981
\\
Dear Mr. Edmundson:
On March 12, 1981 an Enon Nuclear Company shipment of low level radioactive waste material was received at the Beatty, Nevada site. Upon inspection, your site representative noted that there were small gaps in a few locations along the seams of four of the ten waste packages. Those observations were confirmed by an Enon Nuclear Company representative (Mr. T. C. Smith) who visited the site on March 13, 1981 prior to the burial of that shipment on March 16, 1981. The Exxon Nuclear Company was later cited (see reference 2) for four violations of two COT regulations, 49 CFR 173.392(c) (1) and 49 CFR 173.393 (n) (2), and four violations of Article 2.3 of the Nevada State Board of Health Regulations Governing iN Use of Site for Disposal of Radioactive Waste.
As a result of the problems with that shipment, we have reviewed both our waste packaging methods and the applicable regulations. That review, together with the observations of our representative who visited the Beatty site, leads us to conclude that the citation resulted from a difference in our respective interpretations of the COT requirement that LSA materials be packaged in strong, " tight" packages.
1.
? review of our packaging procedures and other facts relative to the shipment in question results in the following observations.
o Item 3.3.1 of Rev. 3 of our operating procedure 1.3.13 (dated 7/31/80) and entitled " Packaging of Low Level Radioactive Waste" requires verification that there is no visual contamination on or in equipment and materials packaged for off site shipment as waste, o
All waste materials are packaged under'the supervision of an Exxon Nuclear Company !!ealth Physics Technician wh0 lists the individual items in each package and certifies that no sianificant smearable contamination esists on the items packaged as waste.
e y,
AN AFFil.l ATE CF E x XON CORPOR ATioN m.
m
e e,
d Mr. J. A. Edmundson March 26, 1981 Copies of detailed packing lists for each box in question show o
that the identifiable items were quito large and contaminated (The with only minimal quantitics of low enq(~ched urani13.
shipment contained only two grama of '
within the tan i
packageu.)
paragraph 173.39;(c) (1) of 49 CFR atates:
" Materials must be packaged in strong, tight packages so that i
there will be no leakage of radioactive material under conditions normay incident to transport."
While it i recognized that the term " tight" is somewhat ambiguous l
in nature, the clarification (i.e., no leakage) in the above paragraph
]
establishes a possibility of determining adequacy based on performance.
The above noted observations relative to.the precautions taken by i
Exxon Nuclear to assure that only items were included with insignificant fixed contamination, plus the results of extansive surveys performed j
at the Beatty site which demonstrated that there had indeed been no leakage of radioactive material f. rom the packages, leads us to conclude that the packages were in full compliance.with the details l
and intent of paragraph 173. 392 (c) (1) of 49 CFR.
t
()
2.
With respect to the citation for violation of DOT regulation 49 CFR 173.393 (n) (2), it should be noted that shipments of LCA material consigned as exclusive use shipments are exempted frcm all requirements of 49 CFR 173.393 by paragraph 173.392(b). Despite the exemption, the damage to one package that was originally
~
believed i. be in an impaired condition (a splinter in one layer of the plywood bottom of one package), was shown by detailed examination 4
by the site operators, the Nevada inspector, and our Mr. Smith to be of a superficial nature.
3.
Article 2.3 of the " Nevada State Board of Health Regulations Governing Use of Site for Disposal of Radioactive Waste" at the Boatty site specifies only that materials must be packaged and reco1ved at the sito in pc.ckages that moot applicabic state and federal regulations. Sinco nc additional clarification beyond that in 49 CFR is known to us to exist against which one can define the.
term " tight", it can only be reiterated that the packages satisfied all applicable requirements.
1 1
4 a
O k
I 3
o e
Mr. J. A. Edmundson March 26, 1981 i
i As a result of our detailed review, the citation for violations is believed to be based on an overly stringent interpretaticn of the DOT regulations and in our opinion, is unwarrantut!. Sine;u the violationn were based on a. Judgment that radioactive materials could have been released from the packages,. wit.hout prior knowledyc of the precautions taken by Exxon Nuclear to assure that no radioactivo materials could be released, it is requested that the citations be withdrawn and that our Use Permit No. 359 be reinstated pending audit of our facility by 21IS and subsequent issuance of a Nevada State Qualification Permit.
We would appreciate your reconsideration of this important matter and welcome any opportunity to further discuss the above facts with you.
Sincerely, 4
R. Nilson, Manager Corporate Licensing & Compliance RNicle cc ^ HE Book WJ Cooley D Nussbaumer J Vaden l
t l
l Approved:
E'.R.Astisy,pcePresident Fuels Manufact;1 ring Department O
-