ML20050F879
| ML20050F879 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/05/1980 |
| From: | Higginbotham NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Miller W NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19280B442 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-512, REF-SSINS-6020 NUDOCS 8204130410 | |
| Download: ML20050F879 (1) | |
Text
~ Y ~.
~
MY:
?'
L -.
TERA N
J 1
DEC 5 1980
. nWPT e_
MEMORANDUM FOR: William 0. Miller, Chief. License Fee Management...
. 4..
, F.i
(~
Branch ADM.
,.c<<..
. ' 4.Z :.(
=-w:
t :-
.. ? :.:. =gg,
.y
.
9--
FROM:.29..
u.
Leo B.. Higginbotham, Chief,-Radiological Safety Branch,;
.:y=m u. j g.
T =U " '-~~
. Division of Radiological Safety Inspec. tion. IE.- 5. -5
- --4 '.~.; E
.-7.. :g.q :
- = - 2 ~: 7 7=
SUBJECT:
P
.TORDER.T0 SHOW CAUSE -- J. C. HAYNES CO., LICENSE 34-13774-01'.
^- - -
f 3
1.- -
- =
.. x:
.:=..
We do not concur in the issuance of the order to show cause. There are -...:.~
several reasons, but the basic. underlying one is the problem of disposing 'of' '
lii?
~
the Americium-241 if we revoke the license. There is no place authorized to..;' -
receive the waste material; there are 85 millicuries of " waste" Am-241 in'
~i=.
a holding tank, and the 25 curies of Am-241 stored in the glove box my have
. ps:s no comercial value,. f'.e., the licensee may not be able to return or re-sell.?-
~
- it.
,7.-
. y.
Thus, if the licensee does not respond to the order, we are faced with the ~
2 act of revoking his license. And if we revoke the license we would necessarily G
need to first order him to get rid of the material--but there is no authorized l
means for him to do' this (as explained above). We could, of. course.'not revoke his license, but modify it to allow storage only--but this is precisely what he requested in his letter of. October 23, 1980.
g.:
One further factor. Enclosed is a copy of an article appearing in the November 21 issue of the Columbus Citizen Journal.
The licensee is being sued by the bank which holds the mortgage on the licensee's. facility, charging c
that the facility has been contaminated and the property, thus, devalued.
]
We do not disagree 14 this particular case with the use of.the ultimate sanc-V tion of licenser revochtion, but the problem of disposing of the Am-241 must firsc be solved. This problem is not unique to this one case; we are faced F
with the same situation in a current enforcement action and there will be
....F others in the future,-
Based on the licensee's letter of October 23, I suggest we renew our efforts to contact him--telephone, certified mail, telegram--and try to resolve the issue of the license fee.
g..
Leo B. Higginbotham i
Chief
=
7 Radiological Safety Branch 9-Division of SRSI:IE E:'
E#
l
Enclosure:
As stated A
............,,.,,,,,l,,
E yLERSIQhE__
hin 1
~ ~ ~. - - - -
4:-l:Mitu%a-
-. -...... w
+
' " ~ "
r 8204130410 820125
~ - - - - - - -
.-