ML20134C667

Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp 50-160/96-02 on 960718

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: IR 05000160/1996002 ML20134C667
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 l

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 0i * **

.

~

z/

'

9609270351 960909

PDR 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 l

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 l

Floyd Tower E 1166 l

205 Butler Street, SE, Suite 1252

..

J

Atlanta, GA 30334

(cc w/ encl cont'd - see page 3) {

,

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

-

.

,

.

'

.

i

GIT 3 l

(cc w/ encl cont'd)

Mayor of the City of Atlanta  !

55 Trinity Avenue, SW

Suite 2400

Atlanta, GA 30335

l

Pamela Blockey 0'Brien l

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

l Alfred L. Evans, Jr. , Esq.

l Georgia Department of Law

l

40 Capitol Square, NW

Atlanta, GA 30334 1300

Distribution w/ encl: (See Page 4) -

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

!

. l

• i

.

l

GIT 4

l

Distribution w/ encl: ,

M. Mendonca, NRR l

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 91T-hNM9 PTT nNW9 Pif nPA Pff Efr9 NkE e=,

SIGNATURE I

I NAME CBassett e'n E CEvans # N ,, M&Meh j

'

'

DATE OfLL 2'f / 96 08 /J l / 96 08 / 2 L/ 96 08 / M O 96 OPF / 96 08 / / 96

COPY? (VES ) NO YES N0 h NO YES N0 DES) NO YES NO

'

l

OFF]CIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENI NAME: I:\f f B]I\REPORISWAI9602R.RS5 A g/ ,r

, 650. )Y Ny

$hh

-

.

,

.

'

.

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

4 requirements of the Department of Transportation (DOT) in 49 CFR Parts 170

through 189.

?

i

'

49 CFR 172.704(a) specifies the general awareness, function specific, and

4

safety training requirements for hazmat employees.

.

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

t

packagings as qualified for use in the transportation of hazardous materials.

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

j'

'

regulatory authority of the State of Georgia. 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. 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

under the NRC license. This clarification was accepted by the ins)ector

,

i

!

i because the shipping documents a

t were made under the NRC license.ppeared to indicate

.The licensee's that several

response counters sli:ments

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 l

! 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

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

1

regulations, it did not satisfy the content, testing and certification

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