ML24352A305
| ML24352A305 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/13/2024 |
| From: | NRC/OCIO |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NRC-2016-000468, FOIA | |
| Download: ML24352A305 (2) | |
Text
\\\\~mu\\t ~ -\\C\\,
C, ',, \\ - ;
- J
- ....i.. '-A\\' '*.. ',, \\ \\..,['
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 March 5, 1975 NOTE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS David Burnham of The New York Times has expressed considera-ble interest in the comments by George Murphy of the Joint Committee staff on the March 1974 "MUF" at NUJ\\IEC at Apollo, Pennsylvania.
These comments were made at the February 20 authorization hearing.
In response to Burnham's questions, we identified the facility as NUMEC, now known as the Nuclear Materials Division of Babcock and Wilcox Company and provided the following general information:
.. In March 1974 NUMEC voluntarily reported to the AEC an inven-tory discrepancy and the facility was shut down to reinventory.
As the reinventory progressed, it was determined by NUMEC, and confirmed by the AEC, that the discrepancy was associated with scrap material.
NUMEC agreed to reprocess the scrap to resolve the discrepancy by October 1974 but was not able to meet that commitment because of the technical complexities of the re -
processing effort; the AEC was so advised.
We also told Burnham that the question of the quantity of material involved is part of the general question of the hand-ling of_MUF information now being studied by the National Security Council so that we could not respond.
We noted that the scrap reprocessing work is nearly complete and the dis-crepancy is nearing resolution.
NUMEC is keeping NRC advised of its progress.
Further, NRC has made eight insp~..5tiofts and conducted more than 100 independent measurements t o;J con~1rm the facts in this situation.
-=-
5
- .;
- ::l
-- --1 Burnham then followe*d up with two additional speci:fic questions:
(1) What is NRC Is policy in regard to placing MUF 1:nforma tion\\
aside from information about quantities of materia~ inv~ived; ;
in the Public Document Room? (2) What information i s containe:O, in the Public Document Room related to AEC actionsfJm 1t9,e NUMEC MUF on March 27, April 15 and December 30, 1974?..
~~
- J
~
CA..e.._,{
~~l_,,,
\\'..
u.)
c.,..)
The -Commissioners 2 -
March 5, 1975 He was told:
(1) That MUF-related documents are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and if they contain information subject to the provisions of 2.790 of NRC Regulations (proprietary information), they are withheld.
Basically, this means that no detailed information on MUFs is contained in the Public Document Room files.
(2) The AEC's March 27 action he mentioned probably refers to a March 28 immediate action letter to NUMEC which is not in the Public Document Room; the April 15 action was a telephone approval for NUMEC to resume operations; the December 30 action was a verbal cita-tion to NUMEC for failure to meet its commitment to complete scrap rep-recessing by October 1974.
In the latter case, the citation was documented in an inspection report transmitted to NUMEC on January 28, 1975.
The transmittal letter is in the Public Document Room but not the inspection repori:*
A number of other transmittal letters, but not their attach-ments, regarding the March 1974 MUF are in the Public Docu-ment Room and Burnham has been provided with the dates of these letters -- May 2 and 10, June 3, July 3, October 16, November 6 and 17, 1974.
We expect Burnham to write something shortly, perhaps for Sunday.
cc:
Gen. Gossick Don Knuth I
L j
/'~k I
/.John A. Harris, Director
/,. Office of Public Affairs
. I I I V L