ML20035C298
| ML20035C298 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/04/1992 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035C296 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9304070020 | |
| Download: ML20035C298 (8) | |
Text
.
(
e b.'
CD /7(o DEC e 41992 4
MEMORANDUM FOR: Nugh L. Thompson, Jr.
fp' Deputy Executive Director for a _ - 7,-
r-Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards, h:i and Operations Support h ij FROM:
Richard L. Bangart, Team Leader Mi
(,g 4 ga j
,c Independent Review Team
SUBJECT:
INDEPENDENT REVIEW TEAM EVALUATION OF ARNOLD GUNDERS!
~
t This memorandum replies to your memorandum of November 6,1992, same subject as above. The enclosure contains the Independent Review Team'(IRT) responses to the three questions you identified. All members of the IRT concur with these responses, with the exception of Ste.ve Ruffin, who was on travel the week of November 30. We are not' aware of any additional significant developments for which the Office of :nspector General should be 1
advised.
h/
Richard L. Bangart, Team Leader I
Independent Review Team
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
J. Taylor, EDO J. Sniezek, DEDR B. Hayes, 01 D. Williams. OIG 1
W. Parler, OGC i
T. Martin, RI i
R. Bernero, NMSS L. Norton, OIG
~
Distribu11gni R. Bangart S. Ruffin R. Fonner D. Collins J. Grobe-1
~
a a
f I?.
l.
OFF :
IMNS OGC \\ l b<.
RIllf. /-
f.s RII N 9!
LLW4*is NAME:
SRuffin RFonne~r' JGrobe
/
DCollins l'
RBangart DATE:
/ /92 9 /l /92
- /J /92 e / 4 /92 i)/a/92 i-0FFICIAL RECORD COPY File
- Pi\\HLTQS.RLB 9304070020 930129 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
- )
Q
,y :
.t 00ESTION 1.
Did the NRC deny the veracity of Mr. Gundersen's allegations-prior to December 19917 ANSWER.
Several of Mr. Gundersen's allegations were reviewed and substantiated during the 1990 NRC inspection of NES~ activities. Several other allegations Mr.
i Gundersen raised were not reviewed retrospectively until the 1992 inspection-1 effort.
i Radioactive Material Stored in an Unrestricted Area - This issue wasL e
perceived by the Section Chief as having potential safety significance.
.l when the initial allegation was received.and this. natter was reviewed y
extensively by the inspectors during the 1990 inspection. The inspection report issued in October 1990 confirmed that there was radioactive materials stored at the Danbury facility as alleged, but' those materials were of low enough activity.to be exempt from NRC l
requirements.
2 Radiation 59fety Officer Named on License not Available to Oversee
.t e
~
Licensed Activities'.This issue was resolved by the licensee shortly after the allegations were received through an amendment' to the license adding a new individual to the license as Radiation Safety Officer.
(R50). 'The October 1990 inspection report acknowledges that the R50 position had been vacated and the license had been~ amended to provide a new RSO.
^
OVESTION 1.
(Continued) I NRC Form 3 not Posted at Facility - The inspectors did not review this allegation retrospectively during the inspection.
The inspectors confirmed that NRC Form 3 posting was adequate at the time of the inspection. The inspection report confirms that the licensee was in compliance with the posting requirements at the time of the inspection.
Unidentified Container with Radioactive Material Markinos located in Parkino Lot - The inspectors did not evaluate whether this allegation could be substantiated due to the difficulty in accessing personnel who could provide information regarding the alleged event while onsite.
Subsequent follow up was not conducted due to a belief on the par of Region I staff that the alleged event was likely to have had little safety significance.
The NRC did not deny the veracity of the allegations from Mr. Gundersen. The Section Chief corresponded with the alleger on October 26, 1990, stating that
'No unsafe conditions were found and no violations were observed." While this may be a factually correct statement, it is not relevant to the allegers concerns that violations had occurred in the past. The letter to the alleger further stated that "The inspectors determined that the Radiation Safety Officer listed on the license still holds that position..." This statement is incorrect within the context of the allegation that the former RSO on the license had left the company. The allegation was in fact substantiated as documented in the inspection report. However, the letter to the alleger did not address the issue within the same context as the inspection report or the allegation.
4 0
QUESTION 1.
(Continued).
I.*
The letter to the alleger further stated that "several NRC Form 3 forms were posted..." Again, this statement regarding current compliance status does not address the allegation of past violation of the posting requirements in 10 CFR Part 19. Finally, the letter to the alleger stated that "The inspectors noted that all work conducted by NES involving licensed radioactive materials has been performed under the authority of the NRC licenses issued to NES's customers." While this statement is also reflected in the inspection report, this statement is clearly inconsistent with the information in the docket file and the knowledge of at least one of the inspectors.
i The purpose of this letter to the alleger was to describe to the alleger what actions the NRC had taken in response to the identified concerns. While the.
i inspection addressed all of the safety significant issues raised by the
+
t i
alleger and resolved most of the alleger's concerns, the letter to the alleger l
did not respond to the concerns identified in the allegations, but rather discussed present day compliance of the NES program.
I e
i l
l
j r
i t
DUESTION 2.
Did the NRC fail to _act upon violations of 10 CFR 30.9 ' caused l
by the assurances of the NES president?
l i
ANSWER.
i In the context of Mr. Gundersen's letter of October 9,1992,- and the IG report i
referred to therein, the " assurances" appear to have been a statement or statements made by Mr. Manton to the inspectors that the NES license was:
~
inactive, i.
e., that NES was not doing any work under its own license.
This statement to the inapz: tors ~1s characterized by_ Mr. Gundersen as the NES -
president having misled the NRC in violation of 10 CFR 30.9.
i The charter of the IRT did not encompass investigation of potential individual I
violation of regulations or misconduct. The record compiled by the IRT does not' i,
answer the question of whether. Mr. Manion's1 statement referred: only to NES.
I activities at the time of the inspection, or whether it referred to NES activies since the issuance of the license.
j 1
q If Mr. Manion's statement referred only to NES activities at the' time of the.
)
inspection, it could not have misled the inspectors because it would then be f
correct. For Mr. Gundersen's allegation of misleading the NRC to be credible one l
1 must assume that Mr. Manion's statement covered all of NES activities since the j
issuance of the license and that the inspectors and their supervisor _ relied upon it.
The record compiled by the IRT shows, however, that the NRC was timely 1
advised by letters signed by a company official of the two known instances.on which NES used its license. In addition, one inspectar at least recounted that 1
-J l
u
.I i
1 1
c
- o ;-
I OVESTION 2.
(Continued) i e
Mr. Manion showed him the A. D. Little file kept by NES during the course of the first inspection. Finally, the lead inspector recommended that NES activities f
in Region III be inspected to verify Mr. Manion's statement about license use.
The relationship of the " assurance" given by Mr. Manion to a violation of
{
10 CFR 30.9 is obscure.
10 CFR 30.9(a) relates to completeness and accuracy c
given by a licensee or applicant shall be complete and accurate in all respects.
10 CFR 30.9(b) relates to information identified by the license as having a
{
significant implication for public health and safety or connon defense and j
security. Not knowing the scope of Mr. Manion's statement the IRT is not able to say whether there was any violation of 10 CFR 30.9(a). As to 10 CFR 30.9(b),
i 4
the IRT has not identified any significant implication for public health' and j
safety in Mr. Manion's statement. It should be noted that the second inspection
(
report concluded that paper work omissions and errors in the shipping of the-cobalt 60 irradiator for A. D. Little did not pose a significant health and I
r J
safety problem.
h The-IRT concludes that the issue raised by Mr. Gundersen's letter is more fundamentally one of an allegation of individual misconduct by an employee of a licensee in submitting allegedly incomplete or inaccurate infomation in.some j
1 respect material to the NRC. As such it is more appropriately subject matter for inve'stigation by the Office of Investigations.(01); the IRT understands that 01 has initiated an investigation of this matter.
The IRT did not identify any I
violations of 10 CFR 30.9 in its examination of records and personnel of Region I and Headquarters, and the record compiled does not now give an answer to the critical question of the scope of Mr. Manion's statement to the inspectors.
a
-1 t
f 00ESTION 3.
Did two NRC staff members, clearly recognizing that the inspection report was too limited, notify NRC management of the problem and recommend an additional inspection?
Did management fail to respond to this recommendation?
ANSWER.
"to Region I NRC inspectors performed an inspection of the NES license on July 24, 1990.
Ttis inspection, although prompted by allegations from Mr.
Gunderson, reviewed areas normally reviewed during a " routine" inspection, in part to assure that NES could not link the inspection to the receipt of allegations. It is general NRC policy to not indicate that the NRC is inspecting allegations. This is done as part of the NRC process to protect the identity of allegers.
The inspection was limited in that most of the NES work with radioactive materials was conducted at customer sites, and'thus there were no ongoing uses of radioactive materials to be observed at the Danbury site, and there were few workers with whom to discuss activities. The inspection involved a tour of facilities, independent measurements of radiation levels, discussions with those few NES employees at the site, mostly with the President of NES, and review of records.
An inspection report documenting the results of the inspection was issued on October 24,1990. Both inspectors who conducted the NES inspection concurred in the report.
The two inspectors stated that they, after completion of the inspection at NES, recommended to their Section Chief that Region I request that Region III check at least one of the NES clients to verify that NES was conducting work under clients' licenses. They reconrnended this be done by Region III because they had
OUESTf0N 3.
(Continued),
1 determined, from records review and discussions with NES representatives, that most, if not all, NES work was being done for utilities in Region III.
The 1
Section Chief did not recall that such a recommendation had been sade. The IRT did not pursue whether Region III recalled any request by Region I to conduct special inspections at NES clients' sites. The fact that NES was operating under clients' licenses for most of their activities is in accordance with NRC policy.
This policy requires, in most instances, that work done at a licensee's site be conducted under that licensee's license rather than under a service company's (like NES) license. The recommendation from the two inspectors likely occurred well before the inspection report was written and could not have been made as a result of concern about the scope of the inspection report.
.