ML20128P902
| ML20128P902 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/26/1992 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128P868 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-GES96-347 92-331, NUDOCS 9610180153 | |
| Download: ML20128P902 (9) | |
Text
-
l j
.e
.~
)
o Document Number 107 e
e e
o
,6I.
ld g
111.KC'.,f JWfe ?,1@, th0 fit'edy,m Ll jn[r.;rM;)h00 Act, ec.nt' %. 2_0 FO'. A-. f/'JY/
I k\\'
(
9610180153 961016 PDR FOIA VAN GES96-347 PDR
()
- g angg\\
UNITED STATES I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
WA8HING70N, D.C. 20585 s.,...../
March 26, 1992 OFFICE OF THF.
INSPECTOR GENEEAl.
MEMORANDUM FOR:
File 92-33I FROM;.
SUBJECT:
MEETING BETWEEN CIG AND NMSS TO DISCUSS DISPOS'AL OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL (SNM)
On March 25, 1992, a meeting van held at NRC Headquarters Rockville, between representatives of Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Nuclear Material Saf and rds NMSS) staff.
Present from OIG were Also present were the loving R
irector, NMSS el Cycle Safety Branch NMSS Fuel Cycle Safety Branch office o eneral Counsel It was noted thatMroutinely advised NMSS on licensing issues.
The NRC staff were advised OIG is collaborating with DOE-IG on an investigation of the alleged disposal of SNM by an unlicensed company in Baton Rouge, IA.
The company, Rollina Environmenhal Services (RES-LA), was recently fined by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for violation of various state regulations.
A copy of the DEQ report describing the violations was provided by oIG to Bernero.
In response to a series of questions posed by OIG, the staff provided the following information. NRC regulations, in particular 10 CFR 70.3, require each " person" in possession of SNM to have an NRC license regardless of the quantity of material.
Barnero said there are no exemptions in this regulation allowing for possession of small quantities 'of SNM.
However, he said the " rule of reason" applies to numerous situationd in which possession of an insignificant amount of other radioactive materials would require no license.
As examples, Bernero cited the use of other radioactive materials to manufacture certain vrist watches smoke alarms, and other common household items, wherein possessor,s are not licensed due to the lov amounts of radioactive materials in possession.
He added
&l0R0lb-3aa atconn-ownsn
- Waes:eo se so 70 W?
' )
)
that the public's safety is NRC's primary consideration in determining whether a " person" requires'a license.
stated that 10 CFR, Part 150.11 provides for NRC to e
gate to Agreement States the licensing and regulation-of persons possessing.SNM in amounts smaller than 350 grams.
also noted this allowable quantity is based on "each-qpcasion" a He person is in possess SNM, rather than cumulative-possessions of SNM.
clarified this point in noting that Agreement States have final authority on decisions involving the handling / disposal of SNM as long as the amounts are lower than 350 grams "above ground at any one time."
Under the Atomic Energy Act 4 AEA), Section 274 to revoke the authority of an Agreement State, according to(J), howev Fonner.
While Bernero agreed withMstatement, he readily noW4
. that NRC is obligated to intercede if SNM is not handled in a manner that guarantees the public's safety.
He explained that as little as two or three grams of SNM in a highly-concentrated form can pose serious danger to a person.
Therefore, weight measurement is not the only factor in determining whether an Agreement State will have final authority over possession of SNM.
Bernero commented that NRC has only retaken authority from an Agreement State on two occasions, when some of the State of New Mexico's authority was retaken at the request of. the Governor, and when the same occurred with the State of Idaho.
When asked to compara regulations and statutes involving the possession and disposal of SNM, @ replied that various applicable regulations implement the Atomic Energy Act.
He added that these regulations are consistent with the Act, but regulations cannot supersede a statute. - Fonner cited 10 CFR Parts 70.3, 61, 150 NRC's licensing proc,ess.and 30 among the regulations affecting the While OGC provides assistance to NMSS on a variety of legal issues, Fonner said his office always has a role in the licensing During licensing review, OGC examines environmental process.
ispect statements, prepares federal register notices and represents the staff at hearings, according to NMSs was identified as the NRC component responsible for determining whether a person requires a license to possess SNM.
It was explained that the various NMSS divisions provide inpQt to the licensing process processing a license a,pplicationand the time and expense associated with siderable.
Without providing specific examples, maintained an applicant may wait from several months to several years before receiving an NRC license to operate an SNM disposal facility and at a cost of
" hundreds of thousands of dollars." Wlargely attributed this high cost to the extent of review and the NRC's billin of $120 per staff hour during the licensing review process.g rateNone'
~
m Wd69: 80 86
- L O *to cod 8ICONW-DENSn
I i
of the staff were able to estimate a general licensing cost or the time required to be licensed by a given Agreement State.
was recommended that this information be obtained from Carl It Kammerer in the Agreement States Office.
authority from Agreement States as required by the AEA.Bernero For example, Agreement States are restricted from licensing the import or export of SNM and other specified radioactive matetlals into/from the United States.
While the scope of each Agroerent may vary, NRC's authority remains standard, according to Bernwro.
The staff,was asked whether NRC ever interceded with or deliberated in a licensing issue involving a commercial entity performing work for t DOE contractor.
They responded with numerous examples,.... NPS-Ervin, B&W Lynchburg, UNC-Montville, and others' intercede when the DOE,They were also asked if regulations allowed NRC to a Department component, a cont tor, or a subcontractor failed to follow AEA requirements.
said' the foregoing should be divided into separate categories:
and its Government-owned,
- 1) DOE Contractor-operated (GOCO) facilities, and 2) subcontractors and others.
In the first instance, DOE is always exempt from NRC oversight as stipulated in the Atomic g
Energy Act, a Cos can also be exempt under 10 CFR, Part 70, according to He added that, in actice, the NRC has never intervened with DOE's GOCOs.
said exemptions will not apply to the second category, an e was certain no exemptions had ever been granted to " subs and others" by the NRC.
In the 1960's, certain discretionary exemptions were granted by the Atonio E according to Commission to contractors at a goc 0 site, The staff agreed that RES-LA, qualified as a " person" under the AEA.as a private, commercial entity, They noted that RES-LA never requested an exemption as a DOE contractor under 10 CFR, i
Parts 70.3 and 61 to possess SNM or dispose it in a landfill.
They also stated that NRC does not recognize RES-LA as either a
'l DOE-regulated contractor or a non-regulated contractor to DOE.
Bernero axplained, "From what we've seen so far,...Rollins would not be a candidate for an exemption. "
He again referred to the authority of Louisiana as an Agreement State to deal with RES-LA, based on the assumption that RES-LA did not exceed the possession limit of 350 grams of SNM above ground at any one time.
When asked if a potential licensee is responsible for requesting-a license from the NRC, Bernero replied, "We view it as their responsibility, but it depends on their awareness."
He explained that a person may be in violation of NRC regulations without knowing it.
Bernero said if the NRC learns of a potential violation, the violator is "made aware" of the need to apply to the NRC for a license review.
h,g gtcoun_aansn Maes4 eo ae %O
- O
4 k
\\
The staff remarked that it is DOE's responsibility under the AEA to recover any amounts of SNM in possession of a " person" determined to require a license.
Furthermore any abandoned SNM posing a danger to the public must be recovere,d by DOE.
The staff said there were no recognizable needs for RES-LA to have an NRC license, since there appeared to have been insufficient SNM in the company's possession to requi-r4 one.
disadvantage to an NRC license would be RES-LA's requirement toOne operate under NRC control and under NRC inspection, according to the staff.
It was noted that NRC inspectors' activities are billad to, licensees at the. rate of $120/ hour.
The staff was asked if residual activity limits were a viable issue in the argument against licensing RES-LA.
They replied affirmatively, noting that DOE was making this a reasonable factor.
Jerry Swift referred to Regulatory Guide 1.86 as an example of the accepted guidance which NRC licensees use for releasing certain contaminated wastes, not to include SNM.
It was noted that a DOE Type B Investigative Report o# the RES-LA incident cited a " Federal dose standard" regarding the exposure of the public to SNM.
Bornero commented there is no such standard.
However, he said 10 CFR Part 20 establishes a maximum acceptable rate of 100 millirem /yr for the public's exposure to radioactive releases needs te be a substantially lower.and other exposures.
There
" radioactive residues," according to Bernero. standard for acceptance of It was mentioned by O1G the Type B Report noted that DOE has no approved policy for the incineration of SNM and its removal to land disposal (p.22-23).
Furthermore, the report said DOE is required to adhere to NRC regulations in its handling of SNM.
The staff was queried as to their involvement in resolving infractions of NRC regulations at Y-12 and DOE-Oak Ridge.
They responded that NRC would have no involvement unless there was a change to the AEA which would make DOE subject to NRC regulation.
The staff was also asked if ash containing U-235 presented a danger due to its higher concentration, particularly when it was deposited in a landfill. M again replied that 10 CFR Part 150.11 would determine whether Louisiana, as an Agreement State, is the deciding authority on citing violations based on the 350 gram standard.
Bernero reiterated NRC's responsibility to protect the public from unsafe concentrations of SNM,'but he noted that appropriate amounts and concentrations of certain radioactive ash vaste may be safely commingled with other vastes for deposit to a landfill under the Agreement States' authority.
saa a i c o re n - o u te s n Waes:so se
'L O
'O
9 1
(
8
- i 4
.s e
=
0 0
0 0
DOCUMENT 202 l
e S
- 6 0
,I}
,I,' g,, g
,f]
l, 9
g in..h ci I,FQ. 'l tha ff -'-' bit) 01 i",'ijfITitK'n
,s... m.... e..,.
o (0Y
)
s Of ICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERA.
e U.S. Nudear Regulatory Commisalon Egrert of Interview Case No.92-33I On May 5, 1992
, Department of ak R T
was erviewed has worked W Martin Mar ergy S MM) an effort to identify and quantify shipments.of hazardous wasta sent from DOE facilities to disposal fadilities which may have also contained small amounts of Uranium 235.
@ explained the process of calculation necessary to arrive at a gram weight for each shipment of waste.
She said that the amounts were based strictly on a, computer estimate. For instance, the MM lab people at Y -12 would take several samples of waste oil from a shipment 'that might contain 40,000 to 50,000 gallons of waste oil.
She said that the lab people would from these samples, test and calculate the amounts of many diffacent metals and other contaminants in the projected load.
She emphasized the amounts represented computed amounts not an actual weighing of the enount of 235 in each shipment.
She opined that she laboratory staff which conducted the testing were among the most skilled in.the United States when it came to detecting and quantifying amounts of Uranium.
She stated that she had no doubts personally about the amounts and accuracy of the calculations for these shipments.-
M.
dded that if she were to criticize any part of the analysis process used by the MM people in estimating the contents of the loads of waste, that it might be the sampling methods versus the lab techniques.
She stated that while the methods of sampling were adequate from a scientific point of view they could have been better.
She stated that given that opinion she saw no deliberate attempt to deceive in the process.
Report of Interview drafted on May 11, 1992.
== m THI6 ooCUMENT IS THE PnoPERTY oF THE NRC. iF LOANED To ANoTHEA AGENCY rr ANo ITS CONTENTS AAE N oR D6STRIBUTED ourSOE THE RECEMNG AGENCY WITHouT THE PEAMLSSON oF THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECrom Q I9/OQOl(>-
aca aIceuw JuNsn
- MaIy :so se
- e t
- G o
1 e
d s
a w
i e
Ibcument Number 203
' ) J,1
'Ir'
, 6 '/l
),)
.! p l
'}
lt; Jg ut D ;idr.u. :.th tite i:cedj:;i g; ',.:r, i.it.ori N I. 0? e.'!f'* r!, s.. _.7..
1 i Jld..
~]
\\
1
/
UNITED STATES
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION d
3 WASHINGTON D.C. 2 CME
%4~...
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL q
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Filo 92-31I FROM:
SUBJECT:
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL BY DOE CONTRACTOR On M 4-7 ewed records i le possession of Office of Inspector General, apa ment o Energy Oak Ridge, TN.
The records examined consisted of six xero,x paper boxes containing shipping documents, purchase requests, contract documents and laboratory analysis sheets.
The folders contained the files from both Martin Marietta Energy Systems (MM) and Rollins Environmental, Baton Rouge (REM) on hazardous waste. shipped from DOEs Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge.
Also reviewed were all reports of-interview conducted by DOE IG and any other documentation r ati to the REM investigation that had been assembled by Specifically, the shipping documents were compared wi the tsbles prepared by y-12 personnel to verify the total amount of Special Nuclear Material (SNM), in phis case U235, in each shipment to REM Baton Rougo, LA.
For those shipments for which a Laboratory Analysis existed, subsequent to 1986, the calculations were verified.
No inconsistencies with the amounts of SNM represented in the Y-12 calculations were found.
The total for which verifiable amount were.available, for all years, 1986-1991, was 76.8 grams.
For the years 1984 and 1985 no laboratory analysis is available and no estimate of how much SNM was contained in each shipment to REM is available or can be reconstructed. No information contained in reports of interview or other documentation contained information which would indicate any regulatory interest in MM or REM.
I't t 0 R.0tG-natt: eo se eI so coa e I c e n n.- o u n s n
.