ML20212H106

Submits follow-up to from J Orban Expressing Concerns Over Issue of Fees Assessed by NRC on Subcontractor to DOE Performing Source Recovery Actions Under Off-Site- Source Recovery Program

ML20212H106
Person / Time
Site:	West Valley Demonstration Project
Issue date:	06/08/1999
From:	Turi J ENERGY, DEPT. OF
To:	Cool D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
Shared Package
ML20212H058	List: ML20212H053 ML20212H106
References
NUDOCS 9909300207
Download: ML20212H106 (2)

Text

c, .. . .

l t

l Department of Ensrgy l- -

4 l Germantown, MD 20874-1290  !

June 8, 1999 i l

i Mr. Donald A. Cool, Director

- Division ofIndustrial and -

Medical Nuclear Safety Office of Nuclear Material Safety-and Safeguards j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001-9

Dear Mr. Cool:

I am writing to follow up to the letter of April 16,1999, from James E. Orban of our Albuquerque Operations Office (enclosed). That letter expressed concem over the issue of fees  ;

assessed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on subcontractors to the l Department of Energy (DOE) performing source recovery actions under the Off-Site Source ,

Recovery (OSR) program. .

To review, the OSR program developed out of the letter agreement of April 7,1992, and the subsequent draft Memorandum of Understanding. Since that time, our offices have worked closely together to respond to approximately 15 requests to accept scaled sources for management. In addition, we recently completed a pilot program which recovered 56 americium / beryllium neutron sources from high priority licensees. Cte of the purposes of the pilot program was to test out various methods for DOE to collect sources. In particular, we had our prime contractor for the OSR program, the University of Califomia operating the Los Alamos National Laboratory, subcontract the work of packaging and transporting the sources.

. The reason we used a subcontractor was to keep costs down compared to using our prime contractor to do this work. Our goal is to try to recover sources at the lowest possible cost.

-The first issue concems the exemption from NRC regulation for activities conducted by DOE prime and subcontractors under 10 CFR 30.12. In using a subcontractor for the OSR program, DOE does not wish to invoke the exemption available under 10 CFR 30.12. Invoking the exemption requires DOE to essentially regulate the subcontractor through the terms of the  !

contract, which in this case defeats the purpose of using a subcontractor. We would haye utilized our prime contractor for this work had we wished the contractor to be exempt. DOE is specifically requiring a licensed subcontractor to perform the work under this program and we are not extending the exemption of 10 CFR 30.12 to the subcontractor.

4 i

Since the subcontractor in this case was an Agreement State licensee, the issue of reciprocity arose when they performed work outside the state. Under 10 CFR 150.20, a fee is required for an o Agreement State licensee performing work outside the state. Under the OSR program, DOE is l recovering sealed sources which are a DOE responsibility under the Low-Level Radioactive l

Printed with soy ink on recycled paper 9909300207 990927 PDR ADOCK 05000201 P PDR

s. . . .

7 J

' Waste Policy Amendments Act of1985 (Public Law 99-240) Under the pilot program referred to above, we were specifically taking sources from licensees which were recommended by the )

NRC as high priority licensees due to issues concerning their ability to maintain control of.the

]

material in the long term. The fee provisions under 10 CFR 150.20 work against the program's j efforts to keep costs down and remove sources from high priority licensees.

J DOE would like to propose a waiver of the fee provisions under 10 CFR 150.20. We believe a waiver is appropriate for two reasons. First, DOE is taking sources from licensees who, in j general, are no longer active and have storage-only licenses. Many are paying reduced fees or no 1 fees. DOE is also taking sources prioritized based on risk, which we have worked closely with l your office to determine the risk ranking. Therefore, when DOE takes a source, it is typically from a licensee where there is a concern regarding their ability to control the material. These licensees require increased regulatory oversight by NRC or Agreement States. When DOE takes the source, the licensee typically terminates their license. Therefore, in taking sources, DOE is 4 reducing the number of problematic licensees requiring regulatory oversight, which in the long term saves NRC and Agreement States money.

A second reason we believe a waiver is appropriate is to keep costs to the taxpayer down. Since ,

DOE and NRC are both Federal agencies, we would simply be trading tax dollars back and forth which in itself costs money due to administrative burden. We believe it would be simpler and more cost effective to simply waive the fee.

Therefore, we are formally requesting your consideration to waive the fee requirements of )

10 CFR 150.20 when DOE uses a subcontractor in carrying out the mission of taking sealed i sources which are a DOE responsibility under Public Law 99-240.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 903-7100, or have a member of your staff contact Robert Campbell at (301) 903-7127.

Sincerely,

/ I YA4AA O) W & i J mes A. Turi cting Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management 1 Environmental Management Enclosure cC'

3. Orban, AL ,

J. Grimm, AL J