ML20138F969
| ML20138F969 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/23/1992 |
| From: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138F923 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-348 NUDOCS 9610180132 | |
| Download: ML20138F969 (3) | |
Text
~ -- - - - _ _ _ _ __ _
l
. l a as4 UNITED STATES
+*p #,
0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisStoN REGION til g 7,, ROOSEvtLT RC AO
$ cLaseLLvN itusois scisr APR 2 31992 HEMORANDUM FOR: Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards, and Operations Support FROM: A., Bert Davis, Regional Administrator, RIII
SUBJECT:
ANSWERS TO CONGRESSMAN HILLER'S QUESTIONS REGARDING DOE DISPOSAL OF RADI0 ACTIVE CONTAMINATED WASTE (LETTER TO NRC CHAIRMAN DATED APRIL 1, 1992)
This is in response to your April 6,1992, memorandum to all Regional Administrators regarding the subject congressional letter to Chairman Selin.
We have worked .ry closely with Mr. John Hickey in preparation of answers to this congressional inquiry.
< Ny staff ,first became aware of this matter in January 1992, when we received a letter (undated) on Ja7aary 22, 1992, fr.om DOE headquarters discussing the suspect facilities in Ohio, CECOS landfill and S. D. Meyers oil waste an treatment facility. On February 14, 1992, Mr. W. L. Axelson contacted Mr. Lee Stevens of DOE to get further clarification for the two Ohio facilities.
Hr Lee Stevens indicated that all materials shipped to the Ohio facilit'ies were DOE originated waste from its Oak Ridge Operations (Portsmith Ohio and Paducab,KY). He further stated that the NRC would be getting a breakdown of manifest specifics of these shipments and DOE will be performing further dose assessments of the Ohio waste, and depending on its dose assessments, DOE would conduct surveys and remediate the site, if warranted. DOE also inforced us that appropriate congressional and state agencies were notified including We Ohio requested andEPA, they however, DOE did not notify Ohio Department of-Health.This information was provided
. agreed to notify the 4)hio Department of Health.
to Mr. John Hickey and it was agreed that NMS$ headquarters would take the agency lead on this matter because it involves several states.
Our preliminary review of the DOE data for the Ohio facilities shows very low levels of enriched uranium (approximately 1.7 mci) which was disposed in drum volumes totally about 81,000 kilograms (about 90 tons). Most of this material (about 50%) was shipped in the 1904 timeframe to the CECOS landfill in Williamsburg, Ohio, and according to CEC 05, this material was subsequently buried in that landfill.
aca atconn-ounsn = nac,: to se oc to 9610180132 961016 PDR FOIA
. . - - . _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . ~ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I ilugh L. Thompson 2 APR 2 31932 1
This landfill is currently closed. Accordingly, my staff believes this represents a minimal risk to public health and safety. )
W A. Bert Davis Regional Administrator
, cc: - J. Taylor, E00 -
J. H. Sniezek DEDR R. M. Bernero, NMSS J. Lieberman OE C. Xammerer ,SP' J. T, Taylor. OIG T. Combs, OCA X. Stablein, OEDO J. Hickey, NPss-Regional Administrators RI, RII, RIY, RV i l
1 f i e
i i
i i
cod EICONW-OHNSn
- MdCt: LO 88 'O C '90
/
o s
i 1
i W
s 4
.1
.4 i
i a
0 4
v,
.1 Document Number 180
. 0 1
1 4
r
'l
-l 4
O 4
1 l
r 4
1 4
. . . . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . ~ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ - . . _ . .
~.
UNITED sTATIs
/ ,h, , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$lON
' W ASHINGToN, D. C. 20984 f April 24, 1992 ,
comunn The Honorable George Miller, Chairman Connittee on Interior and Insular Affairs -
United States House o'f Representatives 20515-6291
' Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
f April 1, 1992 low leveIs of The Commission is responding to your letter o i regarding the shipment of various wastes contain ngtive (D0E) radioactive contamination from Department of Energy l facilities to waste processors not licensed to handle h Atomic materials. The answers to your questions i
Regulatory C.ommission's responsibility to enfo l
are enclosed. Sincerely,
) _
Ivan Salin
Enclosure:
As stated Rep. Don Young cc:
100/NMSS Originating Office:
Ref: CR-92-071
- (Commission Correspondence) _ _ _
i
- see crevious concurrenc,e i l
, ocs
' ........l............................
, oce..... ..
J
_ - >r..w. h.. ...s.. ... 7 oCA *
-> ..n.~.3. u .... .. 4.9. m . m%...... :Md h...4 t...E h.......... ...........>......................
.ueco isem.
~
- q g . .a.......>... w .$Tfmgrygl"-ownsn .....s l.RECORD 4
. MCOPY a e r : c' I se *c r .g a
~ ~ ' NhNdY~ %)
I 4
4 i
..e 1
Doctracnt Ntnber 182 i
1 l
y - 5 1
9 m
i 4
e 4
a
. .= -- - - . . . . -
1
. I ENCLOSURE l
1 flRC STAFF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM 4
THE HONORABLE GEORGE MILLER QUESTION 1; When did the NRC first learn that unlicensed treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDs) had been handling special l l nuclear and byproduct materials from 00E weapons complexes? l How did the NRC learn of these shipments?
ANSWERt j Based upon staff notesand recollections reviewed as of this date, we conclu that NRC staff first learned cf such shipments in late April or early May 1991, by telephone from a newspaper reporter, who specifically identified Also, a DOE staff unlicensed f acility in Louisiana an Agreement State.
member informed the URC staff in May 1991 of the shipments and indicate t d there were probably other shipments to facilities in both. Agreemen pn DOE also indicated that it had Imposed a moratorium on non-Agreement States.
waste shipments, would evaluate past shipments, would inform NRC of th
. DOE later provided 1 results, and would take remedial action as appropriate.
specific data on waste sent to Louisiana showing the waste to be centaminated with enriched uranium and technetium, but.not at levels public health hazard warranting NRC intervention.
1 il to The NRC staff has fcilowed the actions taken by Louisiana health off
, Louisiana inspected the confirm that DOE waste shipments were terininated.
i disposal facility and did not find any contamination in ash resid NRC has also monitored actions taken by three other incinerated waste.
Texas in July 1991, and Arkansas and Kansas in early 1992.
Agreement States:
90d iCOnn_ogggSU
- Md8T : 0t gg .C T '90
. I at _ _ _ __
C. .
2-In January 1992, 00E notified NRC of past waste shipments from its Oak Ridge f acilities to two unlicensed f acilities in Ohio, a non-Agreer.ent State, Review of the data provided by DOE indicated plus several Agreecent States.
that the waste was slightly contaminated with enriched uranium and technetium, NRC made and did not posi a health hazard' warranting NRC intervention.
follow-up contacts' with DOE, and DOE confirmed that they would pcrform Subsequent contacts additional evaluations-and provide NRC with the results.
with COE have affirmed this comitment, t
f E
80d aIceux-ounsn
- Wast :oI ce c'T so
' i Has the NRC invescigated possible violations of the /.tomic Energy QUEST:0N 2:
Please provide Act by TSDs receiving waste from DOE complexes?
full and complete details of all investigations.
ANSWER:
Except to support the ongoing DOE Inspector General's investigative effort, NR The 00E has not. conducted any investigation of disposal'of DOE waste.
Inspector General'haIs requested the assistance of the NRC Inspector Gener
~
with respect to a DOE Jnvestigation of waste disposal in Louisiana, an The Agreement State, and the NRC Inspecto'r Generai is.providing assistance.
00E investigation is still pending. NRC interds to review the results of the DOE investigation for new information about weste disposal in non-Agreement -
States and take any regulatory action warranted to protect the public health and safety, 1
a e
4Od 8ICONW~ogNsn
. (
OUESTION 3:
What procedures has NFC put in place to make certain that 00E does not ship nuclear and byproduct waste to unlicensed facilities? What procedures should 00E put in place to make certain that such' shipments do not occur in the future?
ANSWERt With certain exceptions 00E facilities are exempt from NRC regulation.
~ '
Inherent in DOE's ' operating authority are the necessity and responsibility to make decisions regarding release of airborne effluents, liquid effluents, equipment, and waste which may contain slight levels of radioactive con-00E is responsible for assuring that appropriate criteria tamination.
are established for releasing slightly contaminated waste to unlicensed facilities, and that waste is properly monitored for compliance with the i furthenpore, DOE is also obligated to ensure criteria prior to release.
that the parties to whom the waste is to be transferred hold a valid license or do not require one.
In general, NRC has statutory authority to regulate only the private DOE has identified about who may be receiving s1ightly contaminated 00E waste.
The 150 such potential recipient f acilities, and there could be raore.
resources required to inspect and evaluate DOE disposals at all of thes facilities would be large, and the potential public health hazard asso Nevertheless, the NRC with waste contaminated at very low levels is small.
staff will inspect or evaluate DOE disposals at comerciald facilities i Agreement States if there is an indication of a threat to the pu safety.
saa atcenn-ounsn - nast ot se ct so
t s
QUESTION 4: What other action has the NRC taken to ensure that the Atemic Energy Act is currently being enforced?
RESP 0!tSE:
!!RC is prepared to take and will take any appropriate action necessary to protect the public health and safety with respect to radioactive material under our jurisdiction, including actions at unlicensed f acilities in non-Agreement
~
It is our understanding that 00E has. imposed a States who receive DOE waste.
inoratorium on. suspect waste shipments which remains in effect, is evaluating past' shipments with respect to public health significance, will continue to advise the NRC staff of the results, and will take remedial action where -
Thus far, the levels of radioactive contamination that DOE has warranted.
identified are very slight and do not appear to pose a threat to public health and safety such that NRC_ intervention is warranted.
'80d Icenn-ousn * "d6I : OI se c so
Document Number 107 .
4 t
9 4
9 9
- 4 g#
e
'~ '
743y(
0<