ML20138F999
| ML20138F999 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/26/1992 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138F923 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-348 NUDOCS 9610180138 | |
| Download: ML20138F999 (7) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _
l I
a8%g%
UNITED STATES
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8
wasHmotoN. D.C. 30646
\\..../
g March 26, 1992 1
0FFICE OF THF.
1 INSPECTOR GENERAt.
MEMORANDUM FORT File 92-33I FROMt.
SUBJECT:
l MEETING BETWEEN OIG AND NMSS TO DISCUSS DISPOSAL OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL (SNM)
On March 25, 1992, a meeting was held at NRC Headquarters, Rockville, between representatives of Office of Inspector General 4
I (OIG) and Nuclear Material Safet and rds NMSS) bcaff.
Present from OIG were l
Also present were the loving i
irector, NMSS i
1 Cycle Safety Branch NMSS Fuel Cycle Safety Branch 4
office o neral counsel It was noted that M routinely advised NMSS on licensing issues.
The NRC staff were advised OIG is collaborating with 1
DOE-IG on an investigation of the alleged disposal of SNM by an i
unlicensed company in. Baton Rouge, IA.
The company, Rollins j
Environmenbal Services (RES-LA), was recently fined by.the j
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 particul3r 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 j
regulation allowing for possession of small quantities 'of SNM.
However, he said the " rule of reason" applies to numerous i
situationd in which possession of an insignificant amount.of i
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, wheroin possessors are not licensed due to the lov amounts of radioactive materials in possession.
He added i
1
.0ll0R0lb aicenn-oausn = naes:so se
'L o
't o soa I
9610180138 961016 PDR FOIA GOURLEY96-348 PDR
t
)
)
that the public's safety ic NR determining whether a " peau.n"C's primary consideration in requires'a licensa.
l l
stated that 10 CFR, Part 150.11 provides for NRC to gate to Agreement States the licensing and regulation.of 4
persons possessing.SNM in amounta smaller than 350 grams.
also noted this allowable quantity is based on "each-qpensjon He person is in possess SNM, rather than cumulative.
u a 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 n bove ground at any one time."
a Energy Act 4 AEA), Section 274 Under the Atomic to revoke ~ the authority of an Agreement State, according to(J), how i
Fonner.
j While Bernero agreed with
. that NRC is obligated to intercede if SNM is not handled in astatement, he manner that guarantees the public's safety.
i 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 possessica 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 compare regulations and statutes involving the possession and disposal of SNM,6 replied that various applicable regulations implement the Atomic Energy Act.
that these regulations are consistent with the Act, He added but regulations cannot supersede a statute.- Fonner cited 10 CFR Parts 70.3, 61, 150, NRC's licensing process.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 i
^
impact statements, prepares federal register notices and reprasents the staff at hearings, according to NMSS was identified as the NRC component responsible for determining whether a person requires a license to possess S.
It was explained that the various NMSS divisions provide inpQt to i
the licensing process procsseing 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." 61argely 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 rate None 4
4
- PI d 6 G : 60 26 "L O *to cod E I C O NPI-O M N s n
~~
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 that this information be obtained from Carl Kammerer in the Agreement States office, t
Bernero stated that NRC regulations withhold certain regulatory a
authority from Agreement States as required by the AEA.
For example, Agreement States are restricted from licens15g the import or export of SNM and other specified radioactivo i
materials into/from the United States.
While the scope of each Agreement may vary, NRC's authority remains standard, according to Barnero.'
~
The staff was asked whether NRC ever intercoded with or deliberated in a licensing issue involving a commercial entity performing work for a DOE contractor.
They responded with numerous examples,.... NPS-Erwin, B&W Lynchburg, UNC-Montville, i
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' i
the foregoing should be divided into separate categories:
- 1) DOE and its Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated (GOCO) facilities, and 2) subcoutractors and others.
In the first instance, DOE is alvavs exempt from NRC oversight.as stipulated in the Atomic Energy Act, a Cos can also be exempt under 10 CFR, Part 70, according to He added that, i actica, the NRC has never intervened with DOE's GOCOs.
said exemptions will not apply to the second category, a e was certain no l
exemptions had ever been granted to " subs and others" by the NRC.
In the 1960's, certain discretionary exemptions were granted by the Atomic Ene Commission to contractors at a GOCO site, according to i
The staff agreed that RES-LA, as a private, commercial entity, qualified as a " person" under the AEA.
They noted thatsRES-LA 4
never requested an exemption as a DOE contractor under 10 CFR, 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 DOE-regulated contractor or a non-regulated contractor to DOE.
j Bernero explained, "From what we've seen so far,...Rollins would 1
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 limit. of 350 grams of SNM above ground at any one time.
4 When asked if a potential licensee is responsible-for requesting a license from the NRC, Bernero replied, "we view it as their 4
responsibility, but it depends on their awareness.u 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.
2 h
ZTCGNIM-DMNsn
- I4d69: 60 26 *LO
- to tOd
. _ _~ - - -. -.-....
i 1
f'
\\
\\
s The staff remarked that it is DOE's responsibility under the AEA to recover any amounts of SNM in determined to require a license. possession of a " person" Furthermore any abandoned SNM i
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 depaared to have been insufficient SNM in the company's possession to requir% one.
One j
disadvantage to an NRC license would be RES-LA's requirement.to operate under NRC control and under NRC inspection, according to the staff.
It was noted that NRC inspectors' activities are i
billed to licensees at the rate of $120/ hour.
i t
l 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 Avift referred to Relatory Guide 1.86 as an l
example of the accepted guidance which NRC licensees use for releasing certain contaminated wastes, not to include SNM.
4 It was noted that a DOE Type B Investigative Report of the RES-LA incident cited a " Federal dose standard" regarding the exposure of the public to SNM.
Bernero 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,and other exposures..There j
needs to be a substantially lower standard for acceptance of j
" radioactive residuos," according to Bernero.
t It was mentioned by OIG the Type B Report noted that DOE has no
}
approved policy for the incineration of SNM and its removal to i
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 l
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 i ~
deposited in a landfill.
again replied that 10 CFR Part 150.11 would determine wh her 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 i
noted that appropriate amounts and concentrations of certain radioactive ash vaste may be safely commingled with other wastes for deposit to a landfill under the Agreement States' authority.
1 i
i 3
saa atconn-ownsn
- Wass:eo se%O
'*O
t Document Number 203 Sl t
4 g
IM W
11; J ' JT , 'J Vl1!h the f fcCdQIt'i Of !;,iOf. JIPJ'l T
A'l, '21:717.'?.15.._
7d' ~ 7f/ I F 1' A.
l
.......