ML19347D574
| ML19347D574 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/05/1981 |
| From: | Shaffer W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8103260663 | |
| Download: ML19347D574 (2) | |
Text
_
i putou eg 4
UNITED STATES 7*
g,)c(j g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- c \\7 y
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 a
MAR 5 1031
?
/.b?R[{y'f'h
..,n D:2 p( [,.
- ' ~' g l o, m g g !
WM-S.33 MEMORANDUM FOR: The Files g.
THRU:
Ross A. Scarano, Chief
\\N)
Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch
'N FROM:
William M. Shaffer III, Project Manager Uraniuw Re(overy Licensing Branch
SUBJECT:
Meeting with DOE Regarding Fencing of UMTRAP Sites (January 30, 1981)
D_iscussion: The subject meeting was called at the request of DOE.
Robert L. Fonner (ELD), Frank Anastasi, and myself met with Anthony Brazley, DOE-ASEV staff and Steven Miller, DOE-Office of General Counsel (0GC).
The meeting focus centered around interpretation of DOE's November 10, 1980 letter from Ruth C. Clusen, DOE-ASEV to Mr. William J. Dircks, NRC-EDO and our December 16, 1980 response to it. We expressed the view that Ms. Clusen's letter clearly requested the NRC to take steps to initiate action to install or upgrade fencing at eight specific UMTRAP sites.
Our December 16, 1980 response indicated that the NRC staff felt it was DOE's responsibility, as stated in the UMTRCA, to assess potential radioactive public health hazards at the UMTRAP sites and take remedial actions, as necessary,to eliminate these hazards. Presumably this could include interim actions such as fencing of sites for access control.
DOE-ASEV and OGC staff felt however that we should have interpreted their referenced letter to reflect their view that such an interim remedial action as fencing was more in the nature of a regulatory action which might be considered for implementation by NRC. They therefore wished to discuss this potential interpretation and whether NRC felt it had the authority to formally l
advise UMTRAP property owners, or other responsible individuals, of the desirability of fencing if not actually require it as an overt NRC regulatory action.
.In support of this view, the attached July 1,1980 letter from the Department
)
of Justice (DOJ) to DOE-ASEV was provided. That letter and attachments explored the possibility of DOE advising property owners, or other responsible individuals, of concern regarding the incremental health hazards which might result due to not providing adequate access control fencing.
I
@I08260 M
~
~
M.5 1931 During the
'se of the ensuing discussion at the meeting, the following ataff views were presented:
^
1.
Our December 16, 1980 lette-was a direct resp',rw to DOE's request as literally stated in their November 0,1980 letter.
2.
In the case of any properly assessed and documented significant radioactive health hazards to the public, the NRC has the inherent general regulatory authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to require and implement whatever measures are needed to insure public health and safety.
Fencing to provide access control would be such a measure.
3.
If the DOE were to document to the NRC staff, that in its judgement, and supported by appropriate radiological assessments, i= proved fencing of some of the designated UMTRAP sites was necessary to protect public health and safety, NRC would have the authority, as noted in Item 2., to require fencing installation and upgrade.
Equally, however, we feel the DOE has the authority itself to take such action under the general intent of the UMTRCA.
4 If the DOE concludes that the potential public health hazard, due to current fencing provisions at the sites, warrants only cautionary letters to owners and responsible officials, as suggested by the draft proposed it.tters provided by D0J, then we feel the situation does not exist such that utilization of the NRC authority noted in Item 2. could be justified and backed up by execution of NRC regulatory orders.
5.
In light of Item 4., the NRC staff feels that any cautionary letters could be sent by DOE if the DOE feels its current assessment of the UMTRAP sites warrants upgraded fencing as an interim remedial action to either take on its own or to stimulate others to implement.
Conclusion and Aareement: I feel it was agreed by all present at the meeting nat the DOE should further explore this matter within its own staff and with the D0J and possibly reconfer with NRC at a later date.
C)t4 ll. y N William M. Shaffer III, Project Manager Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch cc:
Dr. William C. Mott, DOE-ASEV Robert W. Ramsey, DOE-ASNE Richard H. Campbell, DOE-Albuq.
Steven Miller, DOE-0GC Anthony Bra: ley, DOE-ASEV Robert L. Fonner, ELD
.