ML20197J280: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML20197J280
| number = ML20197J280
| issue date = 12/04/1998
| issue date = 12/04/1998
| title = Responds to 981001 Ltr to NRC Commissioners Re Concerns That 980924 Response to 980827 Ltr Was Not from Commissioners. Weiss Response to Subj Ltr Reflects Positions & Policies Established by Commission
| title = Responds to to NRC Commissioners Re Concerns That 980924 Response to Was Not from Commissioners. Weiss Response to Subj Ltr Reflects Positions & Policies Established by Commission
| author name = Collins S
| author name = Collins S
| author affiliation = NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
| author affiliation = NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
Line 11: Line 11:
| contact person =  
| contact person =  
| document report number = 2.206, DD-95-15, DD-97-16, NUDOCS 9812150031
| document report number = 2.206, DD-95-15, DD-97-16, NUDOCS 9812150031
| title reference date = 10-01-1998
| package number = ML20197J283
| package number = ML20197J283
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
Line 25: Line 26:
==Dear Ms. Blockey-O'Brien:==
==Dear Ms. Blockey-O'Brien:==


I am responding to your letter to the Commissioners of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) dated October 1,1998. In your letter, you expressed a concern that our response, dated September 24,1998, to your letter dated August 27,1998, was not from the NRC Commissioners, but was from Dr. Weiss. Following our policy and practices, we assigned this responsibility to Dr. Weiss, because he is the manager responsible for the l          Georgia Tech Research Reactor. His response to your letter dated August 27,1998,and this response, reflect the positions and policies estaMished by the Commission.
I am responding to your letter to the Commissioners of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) dated October 1,1998. In your letter, you expressed a concern that our response, dated September 24,1998, to your {{letter dated|date=August 27, 1998|text=letter dated August 27,1998}}, was not from the NRC Commissioners, but was from Dr. Weiss. Following our policy and practices, we assigned this responsibility to Dr. Weiss, because he is the manager responsible for the l          Georgia Tech Research Reactor. His response to your {{letter dated|date=August 27, 1998|text=letter dated August 27,1998}},and this response, reflect the positions and policies estaMished by the Commission.
In your letter, dated October 1,1998, you indicated that you were also concerned about the Commissioners' review of your 10 CFR 2.206 petition related information. All l          information related to Director's Decisions DD 95-15 dated July 31,1995, and DD 97-16 l          dated June 27,1997, was available for review by the Commission, according to the NRC l          procedures. This information included your additional correspondence, your written j          testimony, and the 500 pages of backup documents provided for the Atomic Safety and l          Licensing Board hearing. NRC staff by letters dated August 29,1995, and July 24,1997, informed you that the time provided by NRC regulation within which the Commission may i          act to review the Director's Decisions had expired. Accordingly, since the Commission j          took no review of the Director's Decisions, the decisions became final agency action.
In your letter, dated October 1,1998, you indicated that you were also concerned about the Commissioners' review of your 10 CFR 2.206 petition related information. All l          information related to Director's Decisions DD 95-15 dated July 31,1995, and DD 97-16 l          dated June 27,1997, was available for review by the Commission, according to the NRC l          procedures. This information included your additional correspondence, your written j          testimony, and the 500 pages of backup documents provided for the Atomic Safety and l          Licensing Board hearing. NRC staff by letters dated August 29,1995, and July 24,1997, informed you that the time provided by NRC regulation within which the Commission may i          act to review the Director's Decisions had expired. Accordingly, since the Commission j          took no review of the Director's Decisions, the decisions became final agency action.
L          Therefore, the NRC plans no further action on these issues.
L          Therefore, the NRC plans no further action on these issues.
Line 39: Line 40:


m l
m l
         ~ Ms. Pamela Blockey-O'Brien                      2                            Decernber 4,1998 l        With regard to your concern about the transfer of heavy water authorized by NRC export license XMAT0392, the NRC closed that issue by letter dated February 27,1998,and                  l reaffirmed that closure in a letter to you dated June 9,1998, The 1000 kilogram annual            I limit applies to exports under the generallicense in 10 CFR 110.24(a). Greater quantities
         ~ Ms. Pamela Blockey-O'Brien                      2                            Decernber 4,1998 l        With regard to your concern about the transfer of heavy water authorized by NRC export license XMAT0392, the NRC closed that issue by {{letter dated|date=February 27, 1998|text=letter dated February 27,1998}},and                  l reaffirmed that closure in a letter to you dated June 9,1998, The 1000 kilogram annual            I limit applies to exports under the generallicense in 10 CFR 110.24(a). Greater quantities
;        require a spscific NRC export license, which, in this case, was requested by Cambridge isotopes, Inc. The NRC issued XMATO392 in accordance with applicable regulations on              i the recommendation of the Executive Branch, subject to a number of conditions. Your l
;        require a spscific NRC export license, which, in this case, was requested by Cambridge isotopes, Inc. The NRC issued XMATO392 in accordance with applicable regulations on              i the recommendation of the Executive Branch, subject to a number of conditions. Your l
l        assertion that the NRC and the Executive Branch agencies violated NRC's export licensing regulations in this authorization is incorrect. However, a copy of your letter and the response will be forwarded to the NRC Office of the Inspector General for any action deemed appropriate.
l        assertion that the NRC and the Executive Branch agencies violated NRC's export licensing regulations in this authorization is incorrect. However, a copy of your letter and the response will be forwarded to the NRC Office of the Inspector General for any action deemed appropriate.
Line 52: Line 53:


           -    _ .      _ . - . - ~ - . .-.-            .-...- - - - .-.- -...-                              .
           -    _ .      _ . - . - ~ - . .-.-            .-...- - - - .-.- -...-                              .
Ms. Pamela Blockey-O'Brien                                2 With regard to your cencern about the transfer of heavy water authorized by NRC export license XMAT0392, the NRC closed that issue by letter dated February 27,1998, and reaffirmed that closure in a letter to you dated June 9,1998. The 1000-kilogram annual limit applies to exports under the generallicense in 10 CFR 110.24(a). Greater quantities require a specific NRC export license, which, in this case, was requested by Cambridge Isotopes, Inc. The NRC issued XMATO392 in accordance with applicable regulations on the recommendation of the Executive Branch, subject to a number of conditions. Your assertion that the NRC and the Executive Branch agencies violated NRC's export licensing regulations in this authorization is incorrect. However, a copy of your letter and the
Ms. Pamela Blockey-O'Brien                                2 With regard to your cencern about the transfer of heavy water authorized by NRC export license XMAT0392, the NRC closed that issue by {{letter dated|date=February 27, 1998|text=letter dated February 27,1998}}, and reaffirmed that closure in a letter to you dated June 9,1998. The 1000-kilogram annual limit applies to exports under the generallicense in 10 CFR 110.24(a). Greater quantities require a specific NRC export license, which, in this case, was requested by Cambridge Isotopes, Inc. The NRC issued XMATO392 in accordance with applicable regulations on the recommendation of the Executive Branch, subject to a number of conditions. Your assertion that the NRC and the Executive Branch agencies violated NRC's export licensing regulations in this authorization is incorrect. However, a copy of your letter and the
;            response will be forwarded to the NRC Office of the inspector Genatal for any action j            deemed appropriate.
;            response will be forwarded to the NRC Office of the inspector Genatal for any action j            deemed appropriate.
l            The NRC will continue to ensure compliance with the regulations for the protection of the
l            The NRC will continue to ensure compliance with the regulations for the protection of the

Latest revision as of 20:48, 8 December 2021

Responds to to NRC Commissioners Re Concerns That 980924 Response to Was Not from Commissioners. Weiss Response to Subj Ltr Reflects Positions & Policies Established by Commission
ML20197J280
Person / Time
Site: Neely Research Reactor
Issue date: 12/04/1998
From: Collins S
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To: Blockeyobrien
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML20197J283 List:
References
2.206, DD-95-15, DD-97-16, NUDOCS 9812150031
Download: ML20197J280 (6)


Text

- ~ _ . . . - -. . .- - . _ .

pn car

[ #*4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D.C. 20666 0001

%, # December 4, 1998

. . . . . ,o Ms. Pamela Blockey O'Brien D23 Golden Valley 7631 Dallas Highway Douglasville Georgia 30134

Dear Ms. Blockey-O'Brien:

I am responding to your letter to the Commissioners of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) dated October 1,1998. In your letter, you expressed a concern that our response, dated September 24,1998, to your letter dated August 27,1998, was not from the NRC Commissioners, but was from Dr. Weiss. Following our policy and practices, we assigned this responsibility to Dr. Weiss, because he is the manager responsible for the l Georgia Tech Research Reactor. His response to your letter dated August 27,1998,and this response, reflect the positions and policies estaMished by the Commission.

In your letter, dated October 1,1998, you indicated that you were also concerned about the Commissioners' review of your 10 CFR 2.206 petition related information. All l information related to Director's Decisions DD 95-15 dated July 31,1995, and DD 97-16 l dated June 27,1997, was available for review by the Commission, according to the NRC l procedures. This information included your additional correspondence, your written j testimony, and the 500 pages of backup documents provided for the Atomic Safety and l Licensing Board hearing. NRC staff by letters dated August 29,1995, and July 24,1997, informed you that the time provided by NRC regulation within which the Commission may i act to review the Director's Decisions had expired. Accordingly, since the Commission j took no review of the Director's Decisions, the decisions became final agency action.

L Therefore, the NRC plans no further action on these issues.

With regard to the cobalt-60 (Co 60) irradiator sources, as wo have informed you in our f l letters, dated June 5,1995, December 12,1997, and September 24,1998, this material is j l

under the jurisdiction of the State of Georgia, through the NRC Agreement State Program.

Therefore, regarding your concerns with the Co-60 sources, you should contact the l

responsible State of Georgia representative specified in our letter, dated September 24.

The fact that the pool, which you referenced in your letter, dated October 1,1998, stored fp?j

{ materials licensed by both the NRC and the State of Georgia does not change the i jurisdiction for the regulation of the Co-60 sources.

9f493 150002 ,, n 9812150031 981204

/bijI"7-'"%D PDR ADOCK 05000160 ( ,g j ./q jny gMa / /

O PDR y.+,n afw

m l

~ Ms. Pamela Blockey-O'Brien 2 Decernber 4,1998 l With regard to your concern about the transfer of heavy water authorized by NRC export license XMAT0392, the NRC closed that issue by letter dated February 27,1998,and l reaffirmed that closure in a letter to you dated June 9,1998, The 1000 kilogram annual I limit applies to exports under the generallicense in 10 CFR 110.24(a). Greater quantities

require a spscific NRC export license, which, in this case, was requested by Cambridge isotopes, Inc. The NRC issued XMATO392 in accordance with applicable regulations on i the recommendation of the Executive Branch, subject to a number of conditions. Your l

l assertion that the NRC and the Executive Branch agencies violated NRC's export licensing regulations in this authorization is incorrect. However, a copy of your letter and the response will be forwarded to the NRC Office of the Inspector General for any action deemed appropriate.

The NRC will continue to ensure compliance with the regulations for the protection of the health and safety of the public, the workers, and the environment for NRC licensed activities, including those at the Georgia Tech Research Reactor and by entities licensed to export heavy water to foreign countries.

Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY: R. Zinmerman for Samuel J. Collins, Director l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l cc: Thomas Hill Radioactive Materials Program i Department of Natural Resources l State of Georgia 4244 International Parkway, Suite 114 ,

Atlanta, Georgia 30354 l l

"This correspondence addresses policy issues previously resolved by the Commission, transmits factual Information, or restates Comrnission policy."

DISTRIBUTION: See next page .

  • See previous concurrence TECH ED.* PDND:LA* PDND:PMM OIP* NRR*

BCallure EHylton MMendonca RHauber RO'Connell 11/2/98 11/4/98 12/ ///98 11/4/98 11/4/98 PDND:D* DRPM:(A)D* DONRR* EDO* OCA* DONRR g

! SWeiss JRoe SCollins WTravers SJackson 'JCollins j 11/4/98 11/5/98 11/9/98 11/13/98 12/2/98 12/4/98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: G:\SECY\ACT_lTM\GT623.MM

- _ . _ . - . - ~ - . .-.- .-...- - - - .-.- -...- .

Ms. Pamela Blockey-O'Brien 2 With regard to your cencern about the transfer of heavy water authorized by NRC export license XMAT0392, the NRC closed that issue by letter dated February 27,1998, and reaffirmed that closure in a letter to you dated June 9,1998. The 1000-kilogram annual limit applies to exports under the generallicense in 10 CFR 110.24(a). Greater quantities require a specific NRC export license, which, in this case, was requested by Cambridge Isotopes, Inc. The NRC issued XMATO392 in accordance with applicable regulations on the recommendation of the Executive Branch, subject to a number of conditions. Your assertion that the NRC and the Executive Branch agencies violated NRC's export licensing regulations in this authorization is incorrect. However, a copy of your letter and the

response will be forwarded to the NRC Office of the inspector Genatal for any action j deemed appropriate.

l The NRC will continue to ensure compliance with the regulations for the protection of the

! health and safety of the public, the workers, and the environment for NRC licensed l activities, including those at the Georgia Tech Research Reactor and by entities licensed to l export heavy water to foreign countries.

Sincerely, i

4 a uel J llins, Director ice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: Thomas Hill Radioactive Materials Program Department of Natural Resources State of Georgia 4244 International Parkway, Suite 114 Atlanta, Georgia 30354 l

l i

t

~

ACTION l

EDO Principal Correspondence Control

[Dof f m

! FROMt DUE: *10/28/98

! EDO CONTROL: G19980623 f-DOC DT: 10/01/98 FINAL REPLY:

l'J / '

I - Pcm6.La Blockey-O'Brien t

Douglasville, Georgia TO:

Commission FOR. SIGNATURE OF : ** GRN **

CRC NO: 98-0940 Collins, NRR DESC: ROUTING:

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY NEELY RESEARCH Travers REACTOR CONTAMINATION Thompson Norry Blaha Burns Reyes, RII

DATE
10/19/98 Paperiello,NMSS ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT:

NRR Collins SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

Add EDO and Chairman on for concurrence.

Chairman's office to review response prior to dispatch.

Raf. G980545 and GT96785.

i NRR Ac.Tios: Dee ms, 10N l g et Recewsu. omber n,mg -

, , _ n 3. ,n r 2

! '"t"- -

N t(t Rou+wm: Cotiins /micqa.

O b"' a /'t) Oli 9f Sheron R.o e.

i zimwmd g g (y\ qi) [00(Y\

j j

' ~

l OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY I CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER: CRC-98-0940 LOGGING DATE: Oct 13 98  !

l ACTION OFFICE: EDO AUTHOR: PAMELA B O'BRIEN AFFILIATION: GEORGIA l

. ADDRESSEE: CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS LETTER DATE: Oct 1 98 FILE CODE: MHS-3-2

SUBJECT:

REF COMM'S RESPONSE TO AUG 27TH LTR RE GA INSTITUTE OF TECH NEELY RESEARCH REACTOR CONTAMINATION.... REQ ADDL RESPONSE FM THE COMM j ACTION: Direct Reply DISTRIBUTION: CHAIRMAN, COMRS l

SPECIAL HANDLING: SECY TO ACK CONSTITUENT:

NOTES: REF CRC 98-0820.... SIGNED BY WEISS ON 9/24/98 CHAIRMAN SHOULD REVIEW RESPONSE PRIOR TO DISPATCH DATE DUE: Oct 30 98 SIGNATURE: . DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

i 1

1 l

i i

i l

EDO -- G980623 i_. -. . _ - - - . ._ _-. =. .-.. . . - . -_ - . . . - - - - . . - . . - - . . .-. -

.-c. '

D2cember 4, 1998 DISTRIBUTION: DOCUMENT NAME: G:\SECY\ACT_lTM\GT623.MM HARD COPY File Center (w/ incoming)

PUBLIC (w/ incoming)

EDO #GT19980623

' EDO r/f PDND r/f (w/ incoming)

WTravers (OS-E6)

HThompson (05-E6)

PNorry (05-E6)

JBlaha (OS-E6) l SBurns (015-818)

Reyes, Rll i Paperiello, NMSS (T 8A-23) I SCollins/FMiraglia (OS-E7)

BBoger (014-E4)

BSheron (05-E7) l JRoe (012-ES) l l

RZimmerman (OS-E7)

NRR Mailroom (GT19980623) (05-E7)

SWeiss EHylton (w/ incoming)

MMendonca (w/ incoming)

OGC (015 B18)

OPA (02-G5)

OCA (017-A3)

MManahan (GT19980623) (012-E5)

Region 11 OlG (w/ incoming) (T-5-D28)

< I E-MAIL COPY AAdams CBassett I TBurdick .

PDoyle. l TDragoun WEresian SHolmes l Pisaac TMichaels r