ML20135B787
| ML20135B787 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/30/1995 |
| From: | Snell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Mccormick NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20135B362 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-529 NUDOCS 9703030200 | |
| Download: ML20135B787 (3) | |
Text
~
e .
From: William G. Sne,l1 (WGS) /T To: JWM. MFW /7Y L orimcyg Wo bf E-/ NM J J Date: Wedne sday[. Augu 30.
s.t 1995 3:04 pm
Subject:
Engelhard -Forwarded Forwarded mail received from: JWM In response to the attached message:
There appears to be a misunderstanding about our involvement in Engelhard. First, we are involved with Engelhard. Currently there are two remediation efforts underway at Engelhard. Chevron is in the process of remediating Building "C" and the footprint on which it otands, and Engelhard is remediating the area surrounding the building, out to a distance of about 50_ meters (varies by direction). ;
Background:
This was never an NRC licensed operation. Work was ,
performed in 40's & SO's for AEC. DOE reviewed this site and in 1984 stated they had no authority. They therefor.e notified the State of Ohio's Dept of Health (ODH) and epa. Subsequently, (I'm not sure exactly wheni ODH asked Engelhard to register their site with the State and that the State would have oversight for :
remediation efforts. Engelhard did this, and in fact completed remediation and demolishion of another building at the site in the early 1990's. However, when it came to Building "C", which was owned by Chevron. Chevron balked. Chevron was concerned over who had regulatory authority. They did not want to decommission !
the building to the State's satisfaction only to have the NRC step in and say that it wasn't acceptable. Therefore. Chevron contactea the NRC. I believe in about June of 1993. This was the !
first knowledge that we had that the site existed. Elli l subsequently forwarded the information to NMSS who sent it to OGC.
The response from OGC was that "the only visible basis for NRC jurisdiction would be that the uranium contamination exceeds the unimportant quantity threshold in 10 CFR 40.13(a). and presents an unacceptable risk to health and safety requiring regulatory oversight". As such, we discussed this response with ODH and it was jointly agreed that NRC would assume oversight for the Chevron remediation of. Building "C". This was done in part due to the limited resources of ODH. When the question of Engelhard came up, we could only presume that the same NRC position would apply, even though OGC did not specifically address Engelhard.
ODil was somewhat reluctant to give up control over Engelhard l though due the past good working relationship that they had with Engelhard, as evidenced by the previous remediation of the other building. However, because the remediation of Building "C" by Chevron would be in conjunction with Engelhard's remediation of the surrounding area, they agreed it only made sense for the NR q j to have the lead for both of these projects. ODH did state tf - v they wanted to assist as a " participatory" agency. In this {
regard we have provided them an opportunity to provide comme r}Ms l
on the plan reviews and they have participated in our last r
! 9703030200 970221 l PDR FOIA l BABCOCK 96-529 PDR
. - . - - - - . . - - - - _ , - - .. - - . - - - . . - - ~ . - . - - - ~
'l-( (
o several inspections.
Beyond the above remediation projects, there are still a few additional areas of the site that are contaminated. The extent of this contamination appears to be minimal. However, the areas are inside of-buildings ~that are currently leased to another company.and being used. The contaminated. areas are roped off and posted, and is fixed contamiantion. Engelhard has taken the position'that they will not remediate these areas at this time because they anticipate that when the lease is up, they will not renew it and the other company will move out. That should be within a year or two. 'Their position is it will be easier and.
have less health risk to remediate when the building is empty.
Therefore, as part of our discussions with the State of Ohio, it was agreed that we would have oversight of all current remediation work. Any areas: that are still-contaminater
'following the satisfactory' conclusion of these projects will' fall' under the State of Ohio's jurisdiction to effect an adequate-remediation. The State favored this approach and frankly, since this was never'NRC licensed material to begin with, the State'had already been effectively working with Engelhard to remediate the site before we ever got involved, and it is non-fee recoverable work for us, we saw this as win-win approach for everyone.
Another point on this is that both Engelhard and Chevron have.
been very cooperative and very anxious to move ahead with these projects. Because of this it was decided that these would not be-placed on the SDMP list. Both these projects were started in l
June / July 1995._ Both have seperate contractors. Based on my.
last contacts, Engelhard has completed their characterization.
They plan on no remediation until Chevron _has completed their decontamination to avoid the potential for having to redo work if contaminated dust or debris from the building were to inadvertently fall on their area outside the building.
Getting'back to the original comment. I am handling these as two L seperate site remediations. I have generated Status Summary on j both of them and am using seperate TAC numbers for both. J
'For a " heads-up", the following developments have recently taken place regarding Chevron that may. change the scope of this
_ project. When Chevron began work in July, the first thing they did was bring in some HP Techs to better scope out the level of contamination. What they discovered was the amount of contamination that exists is more widespread than originally thought. They discovered for example that a four inch concrete
- floor had been poured over an older concrete floor, and in-between was yellowcake. They also found contamination on the 1 top of the horizontal pipes along the ceiling that had been undetected before. So, why is this relavent? Because they may decide that to pay a tech to survey every peice of material that i comes out of the building is not cost effective versus generating
- more waste and increasing disposal cost. However, based on their review of past license's, it appears AEC never relinquished
- ownership of the material. Therefore, Chevron is going to i
-- _ ; l
' t
( ( .
contact DOE to convince them the waste is DOE's responsibilty, which may impact on how much they generate, ^pparently there is
'past precedent for saying it's DOE's waste.
CC: Cbpl. JLCl -
Files: m0: MESSAGE 1
l l
l I
i i
1
!