ML20138F999

Partial Deleted Summary of Meeting Between OIG & NMSS Re Disposal of SNM on 920325

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: IA-96-348, Partially Deleted Rept of Interview Re Case 92-33I ML20138F918 ML20138F969 ML20138F999 ML20138G006 ML20138G012
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

i Also present were the loving irector, NMSS '

i

1 Cycle Safety Branch NMSS Fuel Cycle Safety Branch -

4 office o neral counsel

It issues.was noted that M routinely advised NMSS on licensing 1 The NRC staff were advised OIG is collaborating with DOE-IG on an investigation of the alleged disposal of SNM by an j

i unlicensed company in. Baton Rouge, IA. The company, Rollins j

Environmenbal Services (RES-LA), was recently fined by.the 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 j

material. Barnero said there are no exemptions in this 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 soa aicenn-oausn = naes:so se 'L o 't o I

9610180138 961016

PDR FOIA

GOURLEY96-348 PDR ,

t l

)

)

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. He also noted person is in this allowable possess quantity is based on "each-qpensjon u a l

possessions of SNM. SNM, rather than cumulative.

clarified this point in noting that

Agreement States have final authority on decisions involving the handling 350 grams/ disposal nabove ground of SNMatas anylong oneastime."

the amounts are lower than

• Energy Act 4 AEA), Section 274 Under the Atomic i to revoke Fonner. ~ the authority of an Agreement State, according to(J), how j

' While Bernero agreed with

. that NRC is obligated to intercede if SNM is not handled in astatement, he i

manner that guarantees the public's safety. He explained that as littlepose can as two or three serious grams danger to aof SNM in a highly-concentrated form 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. He added that these regulations are consistent with the Act, but regulations Parts 70.3, 61, cannot 150,supersede a statute.- Fonner cited 10 CFR 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.

i During licensing review, OGC examines environmental

^

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. .

i It was the explained licensing that the various NMSS divisions provide inpQt to process procsseing a license a,pplicationand the time and expense associated with providing specific examples, siderable. Without

' 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 None rate 4

4 cod E I C O NPI- O M N s n

• PI d 6 G : 60 26 "L O *to

~~

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 Kammerer that this information in the Agreement States office, be obtained from Carl t

a Bernero stated that NRC regulations withhold certain regulatory authority from Agreement States as required by the AEA. For example, Agreement States are restricted from licens15g the i

import or export of SNM and other specified radioactivo materials into/from the United States. While the scope of each Agreement to Barnero.' may vary, NRC's authority remains standard, according ~

The staff was asked whether NRC ever intercoded with or

, deliberatedwork performing in a for licensing a DOE issue involving a commercial entity contractor.

They responded with i numerous and others.' examples, . . . . NPS-Erwin, B&W Lynchburg, UNC- Montville,

' intercede when the DOE,They were also asked a Department if regulations component, a contallowed NRC to tor, or i

a subcontractor failed to follow AEA requirements. said' the foregoing should be divided into separate categories: 1) and its Government-Owned, DOE and 2) subcoutractors and Contractor-Operated (GOCO) facilities, l others. In the first instance, DOE is alvavs Energy Act, a exempt from NRC oversight.as stipulated in the Atomic I l

according to CosHe canadded also be exempt under 10 CFR, Part 70,

' 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 the 1960's, Atomic Ene certain discretionary exemptions were granted by according to Commission to contractors at a GOCO site, i

The qualified staffas agreed that RES-LA, a " person" under the asAEA.

a private, commercial entity, 4 - They noted thatsRES-LA 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 j DOE-regulated contractor or a non-regulated contractor to DOE.

1 Bernero explained, "From what we've seen so far, . . .Rollins would not be a candidate for an exemption." He again referred to the i authority of Louisiana as an Agreement State to deal with RES-LA, based on the assumption that RES-LA did not exceed the possession time. limit. of 350 grams of SNM above ground at any one 4

When a licenseasked from ifthe a potential NRC, Bernero licensee is responsible-for requesting replied, "we view it as their responsibility, but it depends on their awareness.u He explained 4

that a person knowing it. Bernero may be in violation of NRC regulations without 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 -

tOd ZTCGNIM-DMNsn

• I4d69: 60 26 *LO *to

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

. i 1

l

. I f' -

s

\ \

The staff remarked that it is DOE's responsibility under the AEA to recover any amounts of SNM in i

determined to require a license. possession ofany Furthermore a " abandonedperson" SNM 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 j

insufficient SNM in the company's possession to requir% one. One disadvantage to an NRC license would be RES-LA's requirement.to ,

operate under NRC control and under NRC inspection, according to i

the staff. It was noted that NRC inspectors' activities are

! 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

}

i approved policy for the incineration of SNM and its removal to

' 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

' ~ 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 W

Sl t 4 g IM

' 11; J ' JT , 'J Vl1!h the f fcCdQIt'i Of !;,iOf.TJIPJ'l A'l, '21:717.'?.15.._

F 1' A. 7d' ~ 7f/ I l

.. . . . . .