ML20134J830
| ML20134J830 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/22/1996 |
| From: | Madera J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Cool D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134J810 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9611180084 | |
| Download: ML20134J830 (2) | |
Text
_- . . - - - - . - - - . . - _ _ . . .
FEB 271996 1 REGIONAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCEREQUESTFORM d Dats: 2/22/96
^
MaH or E-MaH to: Donald A. Cool, Director DMslon of Industdal and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS T)?>- -
From: John R. Madera, Ch i Nuclear Matedals fety a d Safeguards Branch, Region ill Lic:nsee: N/A License No. N/A i
- D Control No. (if spi's/ cable) 1 a letter dated
- Feb.1,1996 i'
a Suggested change in Mcensing procedure (enclosed):
I D Problem / issue: We recently received the attached 2/1/96 letter from the State of Michigan.
Estli:r this year the State was notified of an alarm that went off at a scrap yardin the State of l Pennsylvania. The waste was returned to it's originator - Cannon-Muskegon Corporation in
! Muskegon, Michigan. The State of Michigan reviewed the matter and concluded that the type
- cnd quantity of matedal that was shipped to the scrap yard fans within the purview of 10 CFR l 40.13(a) or 40.22. Therefore, the State believes the materialin question is either an
! unimportant quantity (not requidng a license), or generaHy licensed material exempt from Part 20.
i l The purpose of the State of Michigan's letter is to request the NRC provide them with an interpretation of 10 CFR Part 40, sections 40.13 and 40.22. In addition, the State points out j th:t the number of these types ofincidents is on the rise, and additionalNRC guidance would tssist the State in resolving these issues.
t n Action Requked: Please review the attached letter from the State of Michigan andprovide l cn ofHcialinterpretation of the requirements in Part 40. Also, address the issue concerning the
- needidenti6ed by the State in developing guidance in dealing with future incidents of this nxture.
o Recommended Action (with revisions): a Approve or o Reject 1 W3 concur with the State's assessment of the incident in that it appears that the material that j went to the scrap yard faHs within the purview of either 40.13 or 40.22, and therefore can be i treated as nonradioactive waste. However, concerning 40.13, we are not certain as to how l ene shouM apply the 0.05% by weight, i.e., should it be applied to the individual fragments, or the aggregate? Ifit is applied to individual fragments, then it does not appear the material
- S
= x
.-__7-_
4 FEB B 71996 would quaNfy as unimportant quantities.
Remarks:
H:adquarters Reviewer:
Regional Rev!awer: Kevin nun R: viewer Code: R2 R: viewer Phone No.: (708)B29-9854 Fax No.: (708)515-1259 Request Needed by: // (date) Form TAR-10 8/93 cc: Cindy Pederson i
l 4
-- ,. .