ML20045B679
| ML20045B679 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/04/1993 |
| From: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Lieberman J SENATE |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9306180268 | |
| Download: ML20045B679 (1) | |
Text
_ ___
N(
pa neog UNITED STATES
! \\,
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION yc4 W ASHINGT ON, D. C. 20555
~
- .,,A
'%.^.... ?
June 4,1993 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Lieberman:
On October 27, 1992, I wrote to you to respond to concerns of one of your constituents, Mr. Arnold Gundersen, about safety and labor matters at the fluclear Energy Services' (f1ES) facility in Danbury, Connecticut. At that time, the f1RC staff was reviewing the NES response to the June 12, 1992 t1RC inspection report and Notice of Violation (fl0V).
The staff has completed its review. and I have encloseo for your information copies of the staff's March 11 and April 7,1993 responses to NES.
The staff believes that t1ES has satisfactorily addressed the flRC concerns raised in the June 12, 1992.
inspection report and NOV and plans to follow-up on NES's implementation of corrective and preventive actions during a future inspection of f1ES's licensed program.
Sincerely,
' /.
.~. ;*?/%.
Ivan Selin
Enclosures:
As stated a
9306180268 930604 COMMS NRCC PDR CORRESPONDENCE PDR
MAR 111993 Docket No. 030-22060 License No. 06-20775-01 Nuclear Energy Services A'ITN: William J. Manion President 1000 Shelter Rock Road Danbury, Connecticut 06810
Dear Mr. Manion:
Subject:
Inspection No. 030-22060/92-001 This refers to your letter dated August 14,1992, in response to our letter and Notice of Violation dated June 12, 1992.
Thank you for informing us of the corrective and preventive actions documented in your letter in response to items A, B.1, B.3, C.1, C.2, and C.3 of the Notice of Violation. 'Diese actions will be examined during a future inspection of your licensed program.
Regarding your response to item A, we have reviewed your response and concluded that the failure to have an NRC-approved Radiation Safety Officer remains a violation of your license requirements for the reasons described in the 92-001 inspection report. The individual named as Radiation Safety Officer by your license must perform the duties of the Radiation Safety Officer for as long as your license is in effect. Some duties may be delegated to the Radiological Site Supervisor, or others, but the named Radiation Safety Officer must be available to ensure that these duties are performed properly. You have provided adequate corrective and preventive actions for this violation and need not respond further.
Regarding your response to item B.1, you state that should any Radiation Safety Committee member be unavailable to attend the scheduled quarterly meeting, the meeting will be beld without that member present. Please note that your current license r'.quir:rnent, as described in Document 82A8001, item 2.1.1, states that the five members of t1e Radiation Safety Committee constitute a quorum and that they or their designees mu,t be present for Radiation Safety Committee functions. If the intent of your corrective action is to hold Radiation Safety Committee meetings without the five-member quorum, or their designees, this change must be approved by amendment of the license before implementation.
i l
ENCLOSURE (1)
~__
7 r. _.
f._
l Nuclear Energy Services 2
Regarding your response to item B.2 of the Notice of Violation, the failure of your Radiation Safety Committee to review licensed activities prior to initiation of the activities remains a violation of your license requirements as described in Document 82A8001, Item 2.1.2.A, of your Radiation Protection Manual. 10 CFR 33.13(c)(3)(iii) provides one of the bases for the approval of an application for a Type A specific license of bmad scope. When NES applied for its Type A license of broad scope, it submitted as part of its application to the NRC its document 82A8001, Item 2.1.2.A which stated that the NES Radiation Safety Committee will review "all Nuclear Energy Services activities which may involve radiological safety in onier to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and the Nuclear Energy Services Radiation Safety Program." 10 CFR 33.13(c)(3)(iii) specifies the need for pligt review and approval of proposed uses by the radiation safety committee. Further, it is not reasonable to assume that the NES Radiation Safety Committee can " ensure" compliance thmugh any mechanism that does not include pliGI review. This violation, therefore, remains and you need to submit corrective and preventive actions. Please submit to this office within twenty (20) days of the date of this letter a written statement or explanation pertaining to this violation, including: (1) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Corrective actions must include Radiation Safety Committee review of Nuclear Energy Services licensed activities prior to the initiation of these activities.
In Enclosure H of your letter dated August 14, 1992, you provided a review and evaluation of the 92-001 inspection report and requested that certain specific changes be made to the report. We have reviewed your concerns and found no basis for amending our report. Your concems are noted and your letter will be included with other documentation fmm the inspection in the appropriate file in the Public Document Room. Specific responses to your comments follow, identified by the corresponding sections of your Enclosure II of your letter:
1.
PURPOSE NES Comment Much of the Inspection Report content has nothing to do with NES activities under its NRC License No. 06-20775-01. While NRC is free to review any work perforTued by NES, it is not proper to include that infonnation (even though it reflects good and proper work practices by NES) in an inspection of our license activities. Some of the narrative in the inspection report has gone so far as to create "what if" scenarios that not only create obfuscation, but ignore the true facts of NES past performance.
l
)
Nuclear Energy Services 3
1
\\
NRC Regenst j
i The NRC includes in its reports whatever information necessary to explain the scope and findings ofits inspections. Many of the unlicensed activities described in the report are activities which could have been performed under the NES license and, therefore, were reviewed during the inspection, in part, to determine the scope of NES licensed activities.
3.
EVALUATION REOUESTS 3.1 NES Comment Mrst paragraph, line 14, between "... customer's license." and "Furthermore,...", delete the period after license and add, "...and the restriction applies to the licensee's address."
Hasis for the Icaticst: Mr. Lawrence Friedman, Ex-NRC Licensing Reviewer (now with SAIC in Oaj Ridge, Tennessee), advised and informed NES that the words "nmporary job sites" excluded our headquarter location in Danbury. This is the main reason why our NES-5 Cask is temporarily stored in Tennessee. Both of these locations belong to other licensecs.
Second paragraph, line 14, add a new sentence at the end of the paragraph, "The inspectors confinned that the licensec does not store licensable radioactive material at the Danbury facility and that in one instance, the licensee did possess scaled sources, but they were exempt from licensing."
~
Balls for the reauest: Ms. Taylor and Mr. Roberts were satisfied that the alleged safety concerns (referenced in the June 11,1992 IR) could not be substantiated. In addition, Section 6 of the current IR again confirms the above statements.
NBC Response An NRC licensee authorized to use licensed material at temporary job sites may use this material anywhere that the NRC maintains jurisdiction over byproduct material, including at its headquarters location. Any guidance to the contrary is incorrect.
Nuclear Energy Services 4
The report states that the sources in the safe were exempt from regulatory requirements and we believe that the report adequately describes the inspectors' review of the storage of the sources in the safe, i
3.2 NES Comment NES fonnally requests that this section be deleted in its entirety from the IR.
Ilah for Reauest: ' Die commercial and contractual obligations of NES with its clients, that do not involve the use of NRC IJcense No. 06-20775-01, are of no concern to the NES license under NRC Region I.
Furthermore, it is yet to be determined if our future business opportunities will be impacted by the inquiries referenced in Section 4 of j
the IR.
NRC Response The inspectors reviewed a wide range of NES activities during the course of their inspection in an effort to determine the scope of activities performed under the NES license. It is appropriate to document the inspectors' review in their inspcction report.
13 NES Comment Page 10, third paragraph, line 5 - after "... the license.", add the following sentence, "IIowever, an NRC Region I authorized Radiological Site Supervisor was present at all times during the period that licensed activities were perfonned."
_B_as ist Request: On July 30,1985, NES stated that the RSO 2r his designee (e.g. Radiation Site Supervisor) shall ensure compliance with our license condition. Our license dated August 30,1985 fully acknowledges the referenced July 30,1985 transmittal.
Page 12, first paragraph, line 1-after "... the NES license." delete the next sentence in its entirety.
Page 12, first paragraph, last sentence - amend, as necessary based on the merits of our request (see below):
Nuclear Energy Services 5
Basis fE the Reauests: Item 2.1.2.A in NES' Document No. 82A8001 does not contain statements obligating the RSC to perform any kind of initial reviews on new radiological activities. Therefore, this is not a violation.
He NES RSC is intended to function in a quality assurance mode. Hat is, it ensures that an adequate radiation safety program exists; that it is understood by the NES staff; and through periodic program audit and periodic review meetings, that the program is being properly carried out.
'Ihe NES Radiation Safety Committee does not, nor should it, function as an element of the line organization nor usurp the line organization's responsibility for planning individual projects.
NRC Response While it may be true that an authorized Radiological Site Supervisor was present at all times during the period that licensed activities were performed by NES, the inspectors did not review this question in detail or draw any conclusion about it during the inspection, and, therefore, did not include this conclusion in their inspection report.
The responsibilities of the Radiation Safety Committee and the NES position are discussed above regarding the response to item B.2 of the Notice of Violation.
3.4 NFS Comment Page 15, second paragraph - delete all but the first sentence.
Page 15, third paragraph - delete this paragraph in its entirety, including the balance of the paragraph on Page 16.
Basis fg ihr Recuests: NRC's IJcense Condition No.17 requires NES to provide written notification to the NRC Region I of any upcoming licensed activities. NES has complied in every instance with this licensing requirement. Herefore, the speculative statements, requested to be deleted, have no historical or factual foundation. Furthermore, our license does not rtcognize our Danbury location as a temporary job site, and NES has never stored licensable materials at Danbury. The simple fact is TIIAT TIIE SOURCES WERE NRC EXEMPT.
l 4
i
Nuclear Energy Services 6
NRC Resmnse Although yItu may view this as speculation, the discussion of the requirements for sealed sources under the NES license is appropriate for completeness and for putting into context the significance of the findings in this area.
In item 4 of Enclosure II of your letter, you requested clarification of the Nuclear Energy Services license type. Be advised that the Nuclear Encrgy Services license is a Type A specific license of broad scope.
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Sincerely, D,.-ic=.r.el Sicr.el ?.7:
_ racis M. Costello T
Francis M. Costello, Chief Industrial Applications Section Nuclear Materials Safety Branch cc:
Public Docket Room (PDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
State of Connecticut 1
a
.m a
mr MJCLEAR ENERGYSERVICE5' M
44 $HELilR ROCK ROAD LLL%D(!KY, CT OG81O (203) 7%-$000 e
August 14,1992 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Mr.nomas T. Martin Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 S bject:
Response to Notice of Violation
Reference:
(I) NRC Notice of Violation dated June 12,1992 (2) NRC's Inspection Report No 030 22060/92-001 (3) NRC License No. 06-20775-01
Dear Mr. Martin:
his letter is the NES timely response to the subject inspection. Enclosure I is the response to the NRC Notice of Violation and Enclosure IIis the NES evaluation of the subject Inspection Report. Our responses have been prepared after careful evaluation of the Notice of Violation and the Inspection Report.
I believe that certain of the points raised by NRC and the actions taken by NES will enhance our Radiation Safety Program to the benefit of the workers and the general public.
NES is fully committed to the implementation of the corrective actions and actions to prevent recurrence as contained in our response to the Notice of Violation.
Please note that in Enclosure II to this letter, NES is requesting significant changes to the Inspection Report to climinate non-pertinent information. While I can understand the pressures your staff may be under, I do not believe that is a reason to lose objectivity. As we have noted in Enclosure II, the Inspection Report should be limited to the information relevant to the NES license. Obviously NRC may utilize the additional information presemtly included in the report in any way it chooses Even though the review by the NRC inspectors of the non-NES license work showed that NES performed the work properly and in accord with NRC regulations, the information dJes not belong in this inspection report.
I an available and most willing to discuss this matter personally with you at your convenience.
I Sincerely, Willi J. Manion President Enclosures NSG 5200 fp.q-pM-5 g 3 cc: F. Costello P. Swetland
=
Enclos:re i Docket No. 030-22060 Respo:se in NRC's Notice of Violations NSG 5200
~
- 1. GENERAL NES is herein presenting its response to the NRC's letter dated June 12,1992 transmitting a Notice of Violation as Appendix A and also the NRC Region ! Inspection Report No. 030 2206092 001.
NES may amend this response upon receipt and review of the documentation requested via FOIA No.92-335.
- 2. APPLICABLE REFERENCES NES has prepared its response based on the following documents:
(1) NRC's transmittal letter dated June 12,1992 with enclosures.
(2) NES' letter, Reference No. NSG 5170 dated June 24,1992 (FOIA Request).
(3) NES' License Application dated November 1,1984.
(4) NES' letter, Reference No. WMS-662 dated July 30,1985.
(5) NES' Document No. 82A8001, Radiological Safety Program, Revision 3.
(6) NES' letter, Reference No. PS-866 dated June 1,1989.
(7) NRC License No.06-2077541.
(8) Docket No. 030-22060.
(9) 10CFR Parts 2,19,20,30 and 33.
- 3. ITEM 1 ZED RESPONSES NOTE: NES' responses are keyed to the Notice of Violation per Reference (1) above.
A. Mr. Howard J. Larson, former NES Radiation Safety Officer (RSO), although on a leave of absence, was covered by NES as a full-benefitted employee with the option to terminate his leave of absence at any time and resume his NES organizational posnion. Based on the above, NES met its licensing requirements as follows:
Based on our license application dated November 4,1984, specifically Attachment 2 to item 6 of NRC o
Form 3131, the NRC authorized Mr. Francisco Trejo to use or directly supervise the use oflicensed material Based on our transmittal letter dated July 30,1985, NES was further authorized to deputize our i
o Radiological Site Supervisors to ensure compliance with our license conditions. Thus, our licensed activities at Chemetron during the period of September 1989 to December 1989 are performed under the direction of an authorized individual.
o Based on License Condition No.12, Mr. W. J. Manion, President of NES and Chairman of the Radiation Safety Committee (RSC), acted on behalf of Mr. Larson and. as such, conducted a radiation safety review at the Chemetron site during the fall of 1989 to assure compliance with our license conditions. The l
Statement of Policy in NES Document No. 82A8001 says,"Ihc ultimate responsibility for verification that this program is being properly administered shall be undertaken by the Presuient of Nuclear Energy Services".
The role of the Radiation Safety Officer under our particular usage of our license does not require a full-time effort since it oaly authorizes activitics at unlicensed temporaryjob sites. It is NES' common practice to assign an individual as a Radiological Site Supervisor for each specific project.
NES does not agree that there has been a violation. NES strongly asserts that it has complied with license requirements. Nevertheless. NES will amend its NRC notification procedures as follows:
(1) NES shall notify the NRC Region I within twenty-four hours of any unforeseen or unexpected circumstance that may affect our license (e.g., sudden resignation of an employee who had been named as RSO).
+t-t-
Docket Na. 030 22060 NSG 5200 (2) NES shall try n appoint a new RSO within two vecks after the original verbal and/or faxed transmittal notification to NRC, Region I.
(3) NES shall promptly file an updated license amendment appointing a replacernent RSO after completing the selection process.
The above notification procedure has already gone into effect.
B.1 NES will initiate a tickler date system that will serve as a reminder for setting up each quarterly RSC meeting.
Notification of the pending meeting will go out to the members two weeks prior to the scheduled date.
Should any RSC member be unavailable, either due to vacation, illness, professional trips, or the. like, the meeting shall be held without that member present, and a note of this shall be made in the RSC minutes of that meeting. In addition, all of the RSC members, present and absent, will be given a copy of the RSC minutes.
NES may elect to hold these meetings via telecon if no licensed activities were performed or are planned to be performed during the quarter. His procedure shall go into effect immediately.
B.2 Item 2.1.2.A in NES' Document No. 82A8K1 does not contain statements obligating the RSC to perfor n any kind of initial reviews on new radiological activities. Herefore, this s not a violation.
The NES RSC is intended to function in a quality assurance mode. Dat is,it ensures that an adequate radiation safety program exists; that it is understood oy the NES staff; and through periodk: program audit ari periodic review meetings, that the program is being properly carried out. The NES Radiation Safety Con mittee does not, nor should it, function as an ekment of the line organization nor usurp the line organization's responsibility for planning individual projects.
As a matter of standard procedure, competent health physics procedures are built into all NES projects prior to implementation. He RSC reviews these procedures and their subsequent implementation during the course of a project or thereafter, depending on the schedule of the 7.iarterly meeting.
A detsited review of the two jobs performed under our license yielded the following safety facts:
(1) A.D. Little Project:
Pre-performance meeting with NRC Region I representatives on February 10,1989. NES provided a o
description of the work scope to be performed.
Prior to initiation of project work, NES and A.D. Little gave project personnel specific safety training in o
accordance with 10CFR 19 and 10CFR 20, including the discussion of the project safety plan.
(2) Chemetron Project:
De NRC Region 111 conducts bimonthly inspections of our activities and, to date, we have had no o
findings.
It is important to note the scope of NES' licensed activities and that of the client with respcct to the Chemetron project:
Handling and packaging of the contaminated soil were covered under Chemetron's license.
a.
b.
Imading of packaged containers and the turning over of them to a licensed waste broker were covered under NES' license.
All of the above activities were performed under the supervision of the NES Radiation Site c.
Supenisor per NRC approved procedures.
Docket No. 030 22060 NSG 5200 B.3 The NES President has included, as part of the QA Corporate Audit Program, the responsibility to track the annual radiation safety program review compliance date.
C.1 Future radioactive material (ram) shipments shall be reviewed for proper shipping names and identification numbers, as defined in Section 172.101 or Section 172.102 of 49CFR 172, so as to prevent additional data entry errors of this or any other kind from occurring. Furthermore,if questions arise as to the correct data entries needed, the individuals invohal shall be briefed on whom to contact (e.g., NES' RSO) for technical assistance in this matter.
C.2 Fnture ram shipments shall be reviewed against 49CFR 172 and include, but not be limited to, the following sections: Section 172.203(d)(4) to ensure each package label contains the correct qualitative and quantitative data on package ram content; Section 172.203(d)(5) to ensure that the shipping papers contain an entry bearing the description of the label category (e.g., RADIOACTIVE WHITE-1; RADIOACTIVE YELLOW-II; or RADIOACTIVE YELLOW-III) applied to each package; and Section 172.203(d)(8) to ensure that the shipping papers contain a notation of each package identification marking that is presenkd by the applicable DOT or NRC approval certificate.
C.3 Future ram shipments shall be reviewed against 49CFR 172.204/d}/1) to ensure that 49CFR 172.204(a) certificatio a form be legibly signed by a principal, ofl1cer, partner or NES employee or his agent.
De above corrective measures will be imp!cmented immediately. All personnel, both office and field, involved with ram shipwnts shall be briefed of these violations and proper procedures.
?
l
.... =,
Enclostre II Dock:t Nn.033 22060 -
~
Review nd Ev lusti=a cf NRC Region iInspection NSG 5200 Report Ns. 030-22060/92-001 (January 9 -June 11,1992)
- 1. PURPOSE The objective of this document is to formalize, in writing, NES' evaluation of the above stated Inspection Report and to express a number of concerns regarding the scope of the subject inspection into areas outside the ran3e of -
our NRC license. In addition, consider our evaluation as a response to the letter dated April 29,1992 from Mr.
Richard W. Cooper II, NRC Region I Director, whereby he described some of the procedural changes in the Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards and also stated that he would welcome Region I licensees comments and input to these procedural changes.
Much of the Inspection Report content has nothing to do with NES activities under its NRC license No. 06 2077541. While NRC is free to review any work performed by NES, it is not proper to include that information (even though it reflects good and proper work practices by NES) in an inspection of our license activities. Some of the narrative in the inspection report has gone so far as to create 'what if" scenarios that not only create obfuscation, but ignore the true facts of NES past performance.
- 2. REFERENCES NES used the following references while conducting its review and evaluation of the NRC's Impection Report No. 030-2206092-001:
(1) NRC's transmittal letter dated June 12,1992 with enclosures.
(2) NES' letter, Reference No. NSG 5170 dated June 24,1992 (FOIA Request).
(3) NES' License Application dated November 1,1984.
(4) NES' letter, Reference No. WMS-662 dated July 30,1985.
(5) NES' Document No. 82A8001, Radiological Safety Program, Revision 3.
(6) NES' letter, Reference No. PS-866 dated June 1,1989.
(7) NRC License No. 06-20775-01.
(8) Docket No.030-22060.
(9) 10CFR Parts 2,19,20,30 and 33.
(10) 1.etter dated April 29,1992 from Mr. Richard W. Cooper R. NRC Region Director.
(11) NRC Region i Inspection Report No. 030 22060/90001 dated October 24,1990.
- 3. EVALUATION REOUESTS ne following additions and/or deletions are hereby requested to be part of the subject Inspection Report (IR):
3.1 Section 2 - Backcround (Pace 3 of the IR) o First paragraph,line 14, between
- customer's license.' and "Furthermore, ", delete the period after license and add. "..and the restriction applies to the licensee's address *,
Basis for the request: Mr. Lawrence Friedman, Ex-NRC Licensing Reviewer (now with SAIC in Oak Ridge, TN), advised and informed NES that the words "temporaryjob sites
- excluded our headquarter location in Danbury. His is the main reason why our NES-5 Cask is temporarily stored in Missouri and our DECON equipment is temporarily stored in Tennessee Both of these locations belong to other licensees.
o Second paragraph,line 14, add a new sentence at the end of the paragraph *The inspectort mnfirmed that the licensee does not store licensable radioactive material at the Danbury facility and that in one instance, the licensee did possess sealed sources, but they were exempt from licensing *.
Basis for Reauest: Ms. Taylor and Mr. Roberts were satisfied that the alleged safety concerns (referenced in the June 11,1992 IR) could not be substantiated. In addition. Section 6 of the current IR again conlirms the above statements.
Dock t No. 030 22060 NSG 5200 3.2 Section 4 - Activities Conducted Under Client License (Paces 8 throuch 10 of the IR)
NES formally requests that this section be deleted in its entirety from the IR.
o Basis for Reauest: De commercial and contractual obligations of NES with its clients, that do not involve the use of NRC License No. 06-20775-01, are of no concern to the NES license under NRC Region I.
Furthermore, it is yet to be determined if our future business opportuni',:s will be impacted by the inquiries referenced in Section 4 of the IR.
3.3 Section 5 - Radiation Safetv Committee Activities (Paces 10 and 12 of the IR) o Page 10, third paragr ph, line 5 - after " the license.", add the following sentence, "However, an NRC Region I authorized Radiological Site Supervisor was present at all times during the period that licensed activities were performed".
Basis for the Reauest: On July 30,1985, NES stated that the RSO plhis designee (e.g Radiation Site Supervisor) shall ensure compliance with our license conditions. Our license dated August 30,1985 fully acknowledges the referenced July 30,1985 transc ittal.
Page 12, first paragraph, line 1 - after "- tbe NES license.", delete the next sentence in its entirety.
o o Page 12, first paragraph, last sentence - amend, as necessary, based on the merits of our request (see below):
p_ asis for the Recuests: Item 2.1.2.A in NES' Document No.82A8001 does not contain statements obligating the RSC to perform any kind of initial reviews on new radiological activities. Derefore, this is not a violation.
He NES RSC is intended to function in a quality assurance mode. Dat is, it ensures that an adequate radiation safety program exists; that it is understood by the NES staff; and through periodic program audit and periodic review meetings, that the program is being properly carried out. The NES Radiation Safety Committee does not, nor should it, function as an element of the line organization nor usurp the line organization's re.ponsibility for planning individual projects.
3.4 Section 6 - Radioactive Material Security and Storace (Paces 15 and 16 of IR) o Page 15, second paragraph - delete all but the first sentence.
Page 15, third paragraph - delete this paragraph in its entirety, including the balance of the paragraph on o
Page 16.
Basis for the Recuests: NRC's License Condition No.17 requires NES to provide written notiScation to the NRC Region I of any upcoming licersed activities. NES has complied in every instance with this licensing requirement. Herefore, the speculative statements, requested to be deleted, have no historical or factual foundation. Furthermore, our license does not recognize our Danbury location as a temporary job site, and NES has never stored licensable materials at Danbury. De simple fact is THAT THE SOURCES WERE NRC EXEMPT.
- 4. NES' REOUEST FOR CLARIFICATION We formally request an answer to the clarification listed below:
What type of license do we have-Broad Scope (A, B or C) or Specific Scope?
o
NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES 44 SilELTER ROCK ROAD DANSURY. CT. 06810 rM31 M3000 Docket No. 030-22060 March I8, I993 ESH-3195 Mr. Francis M. Costello Chief, Industrial Applications Section Nuclear Materials Safety Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region 1 475 Allendale Road King of Pmssia, PA 19406-1415
Subject:
Proposed Corrective Actions -
Reference:
(1) NRC's letter dated March II,1993 (2) NES' letter dated August 14,1992 (Re: Response to NOV)
(3) NRC License No. 06-20775-01 (4) NRC's Notice of Violation dated June 12,1992
Dear Mr. Costello:
NES is presenting herein the following corrective actions, in accordance with above referenced NRC Letter (Ref. (1)).
. Item Il 1 -
NES will prepare an amendment to its license modifying Document 82 A8001, Section 2.1.1 whereby The Radiation Safety Committee membership will consist of five members, and a quomm wit! consist of four members. NES plans to submit this amendment to NRC Region I on or abou! April 22,1993.
. Item B.2:
- 1) NES will modify its Document 82A8001, Section 2.1.2A to state that any activity performed by NES under its NRC license will be resiewed by the Radiation Safety Committee afler NES has notified NRC Region I, per Condition No.17 ofits license, but before NES begins any licensed activities. This corrective action shall prevent any further violations.
- 2) NES has not performed any licensed activities, nor has activated its license since we stopped shipping waste for the Chemetron Project as presented in our August 14,1992 resnonse to the Notice of Violation.
1 ENCLOSURE (2)
._q:gQ%ge+\\
Docket No. 030-22060 ESH-3195
- 3) NES will modify its Document 82A8001, Section 2.1.2A to reflect the above change on or about April 22,1993.
- 4) NES will not activate its license until this change has been implemented.
We are sure that this response will satisfy the Notice of Violadon in its entirety. Ifyou need additional information please do not hesitate to call me at (203) 796-5220.
Sincerely,
,f47-cc4
)
i Willi m J. Manion President WJM: pas h
APR 071993 Docket No. 030-22060 License No. 06-20775-01 Nuclear Energy Services ATTN: William J. Manion President 1000 Shelter Rock Road Danbury, Connecticut 06810
Dear Mr. Manion:
Subject:
Routine Inspection No.92-001 This refers to your letter dated March 18,1993, in response to our letter dated Mareh 11,1993.
Thank you for informing us of the corrective znd preventive actions documented in your letter. These actions will be examined during a future inspection of your licensed program.
Your cooperation with us is apprecia*ed.
Sincerely, Odgine] Eigned By:
irancis M. Costello Francis M. Costello, Chief Industrial Applications Section Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards ec:
Public Document Room (PDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
State of Connecticut ENCLOSURE (3)
- Q b (p d + ty tt3 C ~%
~ 30$EPH ll LIEBET. MAN 8'j,0g' ',8yy",*,
CONNECTN (202)224-4041 consesmens r ei osses ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORK $
OmaCowes,eem P e GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
,,2 s
oca 06103 i
$ MALL SU$1 NESS WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0703
%,,88[,'Mf,,,,og.
December 19, 1991 Mr. Kenneth M. Carr Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dear Mr. Carra I'm enclosing a copy of the latest letter which.I received from Arnold Gundersen concerning safety and labor _ issues at the Nuclear Energy Services (NES) facility in Danbury, Connecticut.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would review"his correspondence in which he indicates to me that previous responses from the NRC contain technical errors.
Thank you for your continued cooperation in this matter.
S cerel a
f J si p I. Lieberman JILivh Enclosure 1
i 1
[
n!
x-'& }h~
l PRINT [D ON Rf CYCLfD PAPER j
4 144 Above All Road Warren, Cr 06754 November 261991 The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Lieberman:
Thank you for keeping me informed about the progress of the Inspector General's investigation.
I did meet with two OIG investigators three and one half weeks ago. I provided them with details of the cozy business relationship between the NRC and NES. I also provided them with information relating to the inadequacy of the NES audit which NRC performed last year.
The OIG investigators will nc1 be evaluating the technical issues surrounding my claims. I write to you now because there were many technical errors in the two letters which you received from James Taylor, NRC's Executive Director. I request that technical personnel at the NRC review these glaring errors.
To begin, Taylor's July 29,1991 letter to you includes the NRC's initial audit report. Item 2.1 of that report is wrong. Information in the Public Document Room shows several occasions when NES did perform services under its license.,
Item 2.5 notes that NRC Form 3's were required to be posted. I told NES that these forms were j
required to be posted and was fired as a result. After my termination, Form 3's were posted.
But for 5 years before that, they were not. Note that in Item 2.5 the NRC acknowledges that posting Form 3's in Danbury was required.
Item 2.4 is wrong. The NES license was amended by a sales person in violation of NES internal procedures. NES procedures are incorporated into its license through paragraph 18. The i
Radiation Safety Officer is required to be approved by the Radiation Safety Committee, which never occurred. Additionally, NES emergency procedures indicating the appointment of a new i
RSO were not modified.
Item 2.4 is also wrong because it states that no licensed wolk was conducted during the nine months in which there was no RSO. The Public Document Room has evidence that shows that
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman Page 2 November 26,1991 licensed activity occurred in 1989. NES procedure 82A8003, paragraph 3 states that the RSO must write an Annual Report in April to discuss licensed activity in the previous year. There was no RSO in April 1990 to write about 1989 activity. NES is in violation of this paragraph which is incorporated into its license through paragraph 18.
Item 2.2 A wro.,g also. The NRC never interviewed any personnel about radioactive material which was fouad in the parking lot. Additionally, paragraph 2.3.2 of NES procedure 82A8001 states that "All radioactive material, including... calibration sources shall be restricted to controlled areas...". Paragraph 18 of the NES license states that the NRC's regulations shall govern unless the licensee's application is more restrictive. 82A8001 is part of the application and clearly places restrictions on calibration sources. Yet in paragraph 2.2 of the audit the NRC chooses to ignore that calibration sources were stored in a general access Accounting safe, not in a controlled area. In 1990 I provided documentation to NRC in which NES's President acknowledged this obvious error. The NRC ignored this evidence.
In Mr. Taylor's September 6,1991 letter, the NRC reverses its position of the 1990 audit. Item 2 states that Form 3's were not required. This is in complete disagreement with the 1990 audit which stated that Form 3's were required.
Item 2 is wrong also for the following reasons. The NRC seems to believe that no licensed activities ever occurred in Danbury. This is not true. During the 5 years when NRC Form 3's and the NES licenses were n21 Posted, there were at least 3 meetings of the Radiation Safety Committee giving guidance and advice on licensed activity in Danbury. Clearly this is a license activity.
Additionally, Home Office engineering and technical support occurred in Danbury, while licensed quantities of radioactive material were being handled at remote locations. Personnel were routinely rotated from Danbury to field locations, and billable work was performed in both locations, Clearly, NRC Form 3 should be posted where engineering and technical support of licensed activities is occurring. I note for example that 30 utilities I have visited post Form 3's where engineering is occurring.
Radioactivity was routinely returned to Danbury as part of license activities. I discovered i
material in the Accounting safe. Another employee discovered it in the parking lot. This despite the fact that radioactive calibration sources are required by NES procedures to be stored in controlled areas.
Five years is a long time to go without posting NRC Form 3's. Who knows what problems may j
have been brought to your attention if Danbury based personnel working on licensed activities were aware of their rights as elaborated on the Form 3's.
Tne Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman Page 3 November 26,1991 Item 1 of Taylor's September 6,1991 letter i.; wrong and is discussed in an earlier paragraph of this current letter.
Item 3 indicates that the NRC did not independently verify that the material in the Accounting safe was licensable. I have suggested to OIG that the University of Cincinnati, NES, and the NRC were brought together in a questionable manner, yet NRC is relying on these licensees to support its unverified conclusion.
Item 3 is also wrong in that paragraph 18 of the NES license states that the NRC's regulations shall govern unless the licensee's application is more restrictive. Additionally, paragraph 2.3.2 of NES procedure 82A8001 states that "All radioactive material, including... calibration sources shall be restricted to controlled areas...". 82A8001 is part of the application and clearly places restrictions on calibration sources. Yet in Item 3 of Taylor's September 6 letter, NRC chooses to ignore that calibration sources were stored in a general access Accounting safe, not in a controlled area.
In 1990 I provided documentation to NRC in which NES's President acknowledged this obvious error. The NRC ignored this evidence.
Finally, Item 3 of the September 6 letter ignores the radioactive material found placed in the parking lot.
I request that someone at the NRC review these facts and reopen the NRC investigation into the technical adequacy of the NRC's initial audit of NES.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely, Arnold Gundersen Iks
.