[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Apparent Illegal Shipment
I assume your use of the term, "priceless," is intended as a compliment.
In any event, here's the law, from 49 CFR:
§ 171.2 General requirements.
(a) No person may offer or accept a hazardous material for transportation in
commerce unless that person is registered in conformance with subpart G of part
107 of this chapter, if applicable, and the hazardous material is properly
classed, described, packaged, marked, labeled, and in condition for shipment as
required or authorized by applicable requirements of this subchapter, or an
exemption, approval or registration issued under this subchapter or subchapter A
of this chapter.
(b) No person may transport a hazardous material in commerce unless that person
is registered in conformance with subpart G of part 107 of this chapter, if
applicable, and the hazardous material is handled and transported in accordance
with applicable requirements of this subchapter, or an exemption, approval or
registration issued under this subchapter or subchapter A of this chapter.
...
These requirements come into effect when the material is identified as DOT
hazardous, i.e. when the monitor alarms and the alarm is confirmed. I am not
aware of any provisions in the hazmat regulations regarding a requirement that a
shipment be "accepted" before the regulations apply. I am also unaware of any
provisions in DOT regulations defining when a shipment is "accepted." You could
say that it was accepted when the facility decided to monitor the vehicle. The
original shipper is probably not at fault, at least regarding DOT requirements,
although he has other problems, since he wasn't aware that the material is
hazardous, assuming that he had no reason to suspect radioactive material in
this waste. The waste facility, however, made a determination that the material
is hazardous and then knowingly offered it for transportation in violation of
DOT requirements. Whether the carrier is also at fault depends on whether the
driver was made aware that he was transporting hazardous material.
This subjects them to other parts of 49 CFR, including:
§ 171.1 Purpose and scope.
(c) Any person who knowingly violates a requirement of the Federal hazardous
material transportation law, an order issued thereunder, subchapter A, an
exemption issued under subchapter A, of this subchapter, is liable for a civil
penalty of not more than $32,500 and not less than $275 for each violation. (For
a violation that occurred after January 21, 1997, and before October 1, 2003,
the maximum and minimum civil penalties are $27,500 and $250, respectively.)
When the violation is a continuing one and involves the transporting of
hazardous materials or the causing of them to be transported or shipped, each
day of the violation constitutes a separate offense. Any person who knowingly
violates §171.2(g) of this subchapter or willfully violates a provision of the
Federal hazardous material transportation law or an order or regulation issued
thereunder shall be fined under (Title) ____________________________________ 18,
United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
[Amdt. 171–150, 62 FR 1215, Jan. 8, 1997, as amended by Amdt. 171–152, 62 FR
2977, Jan. 21, 1997; Amdt. 171–154, 62 FR 49566, Sept. 22, 1997; 65 FR 58618,
Sept. 29, 2000; 66 FR 45378, Aug. 28, 2001; 68 FR 52856, Sept. 8, 2003]
I'd get the exemption approved - a "get out of jail free" card. To use your
word, "priceless."
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
The following is posted with the permission of the author.
Bill
"Morris, William GS (RASO)" wrote:
> Priceless
>
> The waste facility is not going to let a truck sit on their property while
> various regulators dither about a decision, particularly with such limited
> information. It is not the waste facility's problem since they have not
> accepted the shipment. The shipment is the responsibility of the shipper
> until the consignee decides to accept it. No acceptance the shipper gets it
> back. AND if their is unanticipated radioactive material on the truck, get
> it back as soon as possible. Hopefully if the levels were something like 10
> R/hr, the state would be notified and perhaps take a different course of
> action based on potential public health threats would be directed by the
> state.
>
> I bet this provokes some reaction on the list.
>
> William Morris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William V Lipton [mailto:liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM]
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 8:20 AM
> To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Subject: Apparent Illegal Shipment
>
> I noticed the attached event in the NRC Daily Event Report. A truck
> arriving at a waste incineration facility alarmed a radiation monitor
> and was found to be reading 0.13 mrem/hr. According to the report,
> "...The driver of the truck was told to return the load back to its
> origin, BFI facilities, in Peabody, MA without any stops...." This
> implies that the site made a radioactive materials shipment without the
> required DOT controls. Assuming the material shipped would qualify as
> a "Limited Quantity", they needed the required notice, and the driver
> had to be hazmat employee trained. It does not seem that this was done,
> although I say, "apparent," because the report may be incomplete. This
> would be a violation of DOT regulations. If the contamination is
> identified as NRC licensed material, this would also be a violation of
> NRC regulations. It does not seem that anyone involved, including the
> MA regulators, noticed this.
>
> Recognizing that this type of shipment represents a low degree of
> hazard, DOT has issued exemptions, which may allow this shipment to
> procede without meeting all of the normal DOT requirements (DOT-E 11406
> for waste, DOT-E 10656 for scrap metal). These exemptions require
> approval by state authorities. Again, I say "apparent," since one of
> these exemptions may have been used and not noted in the report.
>
> I'd appreciate further information on this.
>
> The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
> It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> Curies forever.
>
> Bill Lipton
> liptonw@dteenergy.com
>
> General Information or Other Event Number: 40511
> Rep Org: MA RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM
> Licensee:
> Region: 1
> City: HAVERHILL State: MA
> County:
> License #:
> Agreement: Y
> Docket:
> NRC Notified By: MARIO IANNACCONE
> HQ OPS Officer: CHAUNCEY GOULD Notification Date: 02/10/2004
> Notification Time: 11:12 [ET]
> Event Date: 02/10/2004
> Event Time: [EST]
> Last Update Date: 02/10/2004
> Emergency Class: NON EMERGENCY
> 10 CFR Section:
> AGREEMENT STATE
> Person (Organization):
> KENNETH JENISON (R1)
> ROBERTO TORRES (NMSS)
>
> Event Text
>
> LOAD OF WASTE ARRIVING AT A WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITY SET OFF RADIATION
> MONITORS
>
> A load of waste or recycle materials that had been transported to
> Covanta Haverhill, Inc (a waste-to-energy facility) in Haverhill, MA had
> a radiation measurement of 0.13 mrem/hr when it entered the facility.
> The driver of the truck was told to return the load back to its origin,
> BFI facilities, in Peabody, MA without any stops. Once at the origin of
> the shipment, the load is to be isolated until mitigation by a
> consultant. A report detailing material identification and disposition
> shall be submitted to the MA Radiation control Program.
>
> ************************************************************************
> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To
> unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the
> text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,
> with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at
> http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/