ML20128P902

Partially Deleted Discussion of 920325 Meeting Between OIG & NMSS in Rockville,Md to Discuss Disposal of Snm. Rept of Interview Re Case 92-331,drafted 920511,encl

ML20128P902
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/26/1992
From:	NRC OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG)
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20128P868	List: ML20128P863 ML20128P890 ML20128P902
References
FOIA-GES96-347 92-331, NUDOCS 9610180153
Download: ML20128P902 (9)

Text

- - - .. . . - - - .

l 1

.e j 1

.~

)

o Document Number 107 .

e e

o e

,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

1

1. g angg\ () UNITED STATES

! a

$ I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WA8HING70N, D.C. 20585 l

s.,...../

March 26, 1992 OFFICE OF THF. '

INSPECTOR GENEEAl.

l MEMORANDUM FOR: File 92-33I FROM;.

SUBJECT:

MEETING BETWEEN CIG AND NMSS TO DISCUSS DISPOS'AL OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL (SNM) l l

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 I

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 material.to have an NRC license regardless of the quantity of 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.

e stated that 10 CFR, Part 150.11 provides for NRC to .

gate to Agreement States the licensing and regulation-of persons possessing.SNM in amounts smaller than 350 grams. He also noted person is inthis allowable possess quantity is based on "each-qpcasion" a possessions of SNM. SNM, rather than cumulative-clarified this point in noting that Agreement States have final authority on decisions involving the handling 350 grams/ disposal of SNMatasany "above ground long one astime."

the amounts are lower than -

Energy Act 4 AEA), Section 274 Under the Atomic to revoke Fonner. the authority of an Agreement State, according to(J) , howev 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  !

littlepose can as two or three serious grams danger to aofperson.

SNM in a highly-concentrated form l 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 Parts 70.3, 61, 150 cannot supersede a statute. - Fonner cited 10 CFR 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 process. During licensing review, OGC examines environmental 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 the explained licensing that the various NMSS divisions provide inpQt to process processing a license a,pplicationand the time and expense associated with siderable.

providing specific examples, Without 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 cod 8ICONW-DENSn . Wd69: 80 86 *L O *to

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. It was recommended Kammerer that this information in the Agreement be obtained from Carl States Office.

authority from Agreement States as required by the For AEA.Bernero example, import or Agreement export of States are restricted from licensing the SNM and other specified radioactive matetlals into/from the United States. While the scope of each Agroerent to Bernwro.may vary, NRC's authority remains standard, according

• The staff,was asked whether NRC ever interceded with or

. deliberatedwork performing in a for licensing t DOE issue involving a commercial entity contractor. They responded with numerous and others' examples,

. . . . NPS-Ervin, B&W Lynchburg, UNC- Montville, intercede when the DOE,They were also asked a Department component, if regulations a cont allowed NRC to tor, or a subcontractor failed to follow AEA requirements.

the foregoing should be divided into separate categories: said' and its Government-owned, 1) DOE Contractor-operated and 2) subcontractors and others. In the first instance, DOE is (GOCO) facilities, always exempt from NRC oversight as stipulated in the Atomic Energy Act, a g

according to Cos He canadded also be exempt under 10 CFR, Part 70, 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 the 1960's, Atonio E certain discretionary exemptions were granted by 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 They noted entity, 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. l They also stated that NRC does not recognize RES-LA as either a l DOE-regulated Bernero axplained, contractor or a non-regulated contractor to DOE.

"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- I LA, based on the assumption that RES-LA did not exceed the possession time. limit of 350 grams of SNM above ground at any one When a licenseasked from ifthe a potential NRC, Bernero licensee is responsible for requesting-replied, "We view it as their responsibility, but it depends on their awareness." He explained that a person knowing may be in violation of NRC regulations without 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 determined amountsa of to require license. SNM in possession of a " person" Furthermore any abandoned SNM posing a danger to the public must be recovere,d by DOE.

The staff have saidlicense, an NRC there were no recognizable needs for RES-LA to 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 the under NRC control and under NRC inspection, according to 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, factor.

noting that DOE was making this a reasonable 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.

such standard. However, he saidBornero commented there is no 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 land policy disposal for the. incineration of SNM and its removal to (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 thestandard.

gram deciding authority on citing violations based on the 350 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

l e

S 9

, * ,I} ,I,' g, , g g ,f] l, ,

1. 6 0 $*

in ..h ci I,FQ . 'l tha ff -'-' bit) 01 i",'ijfITitK'n

,s .. . m ..... e..,.

o .. .

(0Y -

)

s e

Of ICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERA.

U.S. Nudear Regulatory Commisalon Egrert of Interview Case No.92-33I On May 5, 1992 of ak R , Department

, T was erviewed has worked W Martin Mar ergy S an effort to identify and quantify shipments.of MM) 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 wasteofoilwaste gallons from oil.

a shipment 'that might contain 40,000 to 50,000 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 skilledamounts quantifying in.the United of Uranium. States when it came to detecting and 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 have beenwere adequate from a scientific point of view they could 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 aca I9/OQOl(>-

aIceuw JuNsn

• MaIy :so se *e t *G o

1 e

d ,

s a

w i

e Ibcument Number 203

'Ir' lt; Jg , ) J ,1 -

, 6 '/l ) ,) .! p l '}

ut D ;idr.u. :.th tite i:cedj:;i g; ', .:r, i.it.ori N I. 0? e.'!f'* r!,1 s . . _.7. . ._

i Jld .. ~]

\

1

d

/ UNITED STATES

[ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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-coa e I c e n n.- o u n s n - natt: eo se eI so

_. .