ML20035A589
| ML20035A589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/23/1993 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Garza J, Danni Smith TEXAS, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9303290056 | |
| Download: ML20035A589 (13) | |
Text
g?'us ucy4+o s
., e 4
UNITED STATES i
Wi E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ig n I
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
%,'ud p#
March 23, 1993 David R. Smith, M.D.
Commissioner Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756 Mr. Jesus Garza, Executive Director Texas Water Commission 1700 North Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78711
Dear Dr. Smith and Mr. Garza:
This confirms the individual discussions Robert J.
Doda held with Dave Lacker, Acting Associate Commissioner, Texas Department of Health (TDH), and James Haley, Director, Office of Waste Management and Pollution Cleanup, Texas Water Commission (TWC),
on January 28, 1993, after our followup review of the Texas radiation control program for the disposal of radioactive waste.
John Thoma and Jennifer Davis of NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, also participated in the review during January 25-28, 1993, in Austin, Texas.
This followup review focused almost exclusively on the progress made by the TWC in its assumption of regulatory authority for the disposal of radioactive waste in Texas.
On March 1,
- 1992, primary regulatory responsibility for the disposal of uranium mill tailings and low-level radioactive waste was statutorily assigned to the TWC.
The rest of the 274b agreement materials program has remained with TDH.
Even though the interagency agreement between TWC and TDH had not yet been finalized at the time of the followup review, we found nothing to affect our previous finding that the Texas program for the regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC's program for regulation of similar materials.
A significant portion of time during the review was spent on matters relating to the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority's application for disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) at its proposed disposal site near Sierra Blanca, Texas.
The staff of the TWC explained and 1
provided backup information about the review of this license l
application to the NRC staff reviewers.
The NRC representatives provided information about the use of NRC's guidance regarding the regulation of LLRW disposal to the TWC staff.
They also evaluated the requirements under Texas' regulations for the issuance of a license for a LLRW disposal site.
NRC comments f}hl I
9303290056 930323 PDR STPRO ESGTX o
/
I
~
O MM 2 31933 Letter to Smith and Garza,
regarding this subject were discussed with the staff during the course of the followup review meeting.
While we have concluded that the State's program is adequate and compatible at this time, we are aware that the State faces a number of issues which will have to be addressed in an appropriate manner in order to maintain a consistent radiation control program while the division of authorities between TWC and TDH progresses.
These issues are included in Enclosure 2 which contains our summary of assessments regarding the program.
In addition to the comment and recommendation regarding the i
finalization of an interagency agreement, other comments and recommendations are included regarding other aspects of the program.
These were discussed with the TWC staff for radioactive waste disposal during the week of the review.
We request specific responses from the TWC on the current review comments and recommendations in Enclosure 2.
An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs is attached as Enclosure 1.
In accordance with NRC practice, I am also enclosing a copy of this letter for placement in the State's Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available fur public review.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation you and your staff extended to Mr. Doda and the other NRC representatives during the review meeting.
I am looking forward to your comments regarding our findings and your staff responses to the Enclosure 2 recommendations.
i-ncerely mpm arlton Kammerer, Director Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
See next page.
1
t Letter to Smith and Garza.
cc w/ enclosures:
J. M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, NRC J. L. Hilhoan, Regional Administrator Region IV, NRC D. K. Lacker, Chief Texas Bureau of Radiation Control, TDH Susan S.
Ferguson, Director Industrial and Hazardous Waste Division, TWC
+
Chairman, Texas Radiation Advisory Board Texas Bureau of Radiation Control, TDH State Liaison Officer NRC Public Document Room State Public Document Room i
i t
1 p
E i
f i
l i
i
-[
Letter to Smith and Garza MAR 2 3 1993 f
i i
bec w/encls:
[
The Chairman i
Commissioner Rogers i
commissioner Curtiss i
Commissioner Remick
[
Commissioner de Planque i
Distribution:
SA RF Dir RF j
EDO RF JMTaylor HLThomoc-CKamm -
SSchwaru i
VMiller i
RBernero CHMaupin SDroggitis RBangart l
IJCallan l
CAHackney RJDoda f
e JGilliland
[
WBrown
}
TX File DCD (SPO1)
^
i l
/
RIV:SAO[W/MMIV k.def[] RIV:RAAP '/ SP:SA:Abf f SPyDd ! k I
RDoda h'
JMontgomery JLMilhba VMillekf/[ d wdrtz 6/ 4/93 3/6/93 3/$/93
$/k/93[
3 //#/93
,, o
[ 'h
/
SP,[D EDO:DEDSp EDO[
NMSS:D Cfammp JTahor HThojip RBerner r
n
$//[/93
/93 3/fk/93' W 6/93 l
g: texas. chm
.I
9 f
i APPLICATION OF " GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW OF AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS" r
The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation control Programs" were published in the Federal Recister on May 28, 1992, as an NRC Policy Statement.
The guidelines provide 30 indicators for evaluating Agreement State program areas.
Guidance as to their relative importance to an Agreement State program is provided by categorizing the indicators into two categories.
Category I indicators address program functions which directly relate to the State's ability to protect the public health and safety.
If significant problems exist in one or more Category I indicator areas, then the need for improvements may be critical.
Category II indica
- ors address program functions which provide essential technical and administrative support for the primary program functions.
Good performance in meeting the guidelines for these indicators is essential in order to avoid the development of problems in one or more of the principal program
- areas, i.e, those that fall under Category I indicators.
Category II indicators frequently can be used to identify underlying problems that are causing, or contributing to, difficulties in Category I indicators.
l It is the NRC's intention to use the categories in the following manner.
In reporting findings to State management, the NRC will indicate the category of each comment made.
If no significant i
Category I comments are provided, this will indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with NRC's program.
If one or more Category I comments are noted as significant, the State will be notified that the program deficiencies may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and that the need i
for improvement in particular program areas is critical.
The NRC would request an immediate response.
If, following receipt and evaluation, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I comments, the staff may offer findings of adequacy and compatibility as appropriate or defer such offering until the State's actions are examined and their effectiveness confirmed in a subsequent review.
If additional information is needed to evaluate the State's actions, the staff may request the information through follow-up correspondence or perform a follow-up or special, limited review.
NRC staff may hold a special meeting with appropriate State representatives.
No significant items will be left unresolved over a prolonged period.
ENCLOSURE 1 4
t I
If the State program does not improve or if additional significant Category I deficiencies have developed, a staff finding that the program is not adequate will be considered and the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement in accordance with Section 274j of the Act, as amended.
The Commission will be informed of the results of the reviews of the individual Agreement State programs, and copies of the review correspondence to the States will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
L L
l
t
[
SUMMARY
OF ASSESSMENTS AND COMMENTS FOR THE TEXAS RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM l
FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL FOLLOWUP REVIEW JANUARY 25-28, 1993 I
SCOPE OF REVIEW
[
t This review was a followup review to evaluate the State's progress after transferring the authority for regulating radioactive waste disposal from the Texas Department of Health'
)
(TDH) to the Texas Water Commission (TWC).
j i
This followup review was conducted in accordance with the Commission's. Policy Statement for reviewing Agreement State l
Programs published in the Federal Reaister on May 28, 1992, and the internal procedures established by the Office of State l
Programs.
The State's program was reviewed against the 30 program indicators provided in the Guidelines.
The followup i
review included a number of detailed discussions with program management and staff, technical evaluation of the State's j
procedures for reviewing an application for the disposal of,LLRW, and an evaluation of the State's progress regarding the transfer i
from TDH to TWC of authority for regulating radioactive waste j
disposal in Texas.
i The followup review meeting with TWC representatives was held i
during the period of January 25-28, 1993, in Austin, Texas.
The State was represented by Ms. Susan Ferguson and Mr.
C.
D. Rao and q
his staff, all from the TWC..The NRC was represented by Robert J. Doda, Region IV State Agreements Officer, and j
Jennifer Davis and John Thoma, both from the Division of l
Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, Office of Nuclear i
Material Safety and Safeguards.
Summary meetings regarding the results of the regillatory program
}
review were held with Dave Lacker, Acting Associate Commissioner, TDH, and Jim Haley, Director, Office of Waste Management and j
Pollution Cleanup, TWC, on January 28, 1993.
j i
CONCLUSIONS i
i Even though the interagency agreement between TWC and TDH had not l
3 yet been finalized at the time of the followup review, sat found nothing to affect our previous finding _that the Texas program for l
the regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect i
public health and safety and compatible with NRC's program.for regulation of similar materials.
.l STATUS OF PROGRAM RELATED TO PREVIOUS NRC FINDINGS i
The previous NRC program review was concluded on March 27, 1992, and comments and recommendations were sent to the State in a-letter dated June 16, 1992.
i i
^
- e i
At that time, the program was found to be adequate to protect the l
public health and. safety and compatible with the NRC's program i
for the regulation of similar materials.
1 The comments and recommendations from the previous program review will be followed up and the State's responses will be evaluated 1
for adequacy at the time of the next routine program review.
l However, it was noted during the followup review that the decommissioning regulation is still on track for adoption.in the 1
Texas regulations by July 1993.
I REVIEW COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS l
The Texas radiation control program for the regulation of radioactive waste disposal satisfies the Guidelines in all of the program indicators at the present time.
However, several comments and recommendations were developed that may have near-i term significance for the radioactive waste disposal program.
i These are listed below along with some general observations that-
[
1 may be of interest to the TWC.
A.
RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THE REGULATION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL
~
e 1.
Leaal Authority (Category I' Indicator)
I i
Comment:
Texas, in the early 1980s, adopted suggested l
i state legislation with the then-current-limit for 4
transuranic waste.
Later, when this limit changed, Texas recognized the need to amend this statutory l
c i
difference at some future date.
This comment is to.
remind the State of this old issue, which is described 1
as follows:
In both part 45 of_the Texas Regulations' for Control of Radiation (TRCR), and in the Texas LLRW l
Disposal Authority Act (Health & Safety Code, Title 5, Chapter 402), the upper concentration limit'for transuranic LLRW allowed for disposal in Texas,is 10 nCi/g.
The upper limit allowed in NRC's 10 CFR Part i
61, is 100 nCi/g.
This stated difference in allowable concentration of transuranic LLRW could create an
" orphan waste" in Texas.
This is a minor-comment,:at
' j present, since Texas knows their LLRW disposal site j
will not be operational before 1996 and, therefore, there is no near-term need to dispose of LLRW in this category.
l t
8 i
?
r
Recommendation In order to conform to the mandate in the Low Level Radioactive Policy Amendments Act of 1985, that all Class A, B and C waste is the responsibility of the
(
States, Texas should amend the statutory limit or address how it will regulate transuranic wastes with concentrations between 10 and 100 nCi/g.
j 2.
Status and Compatibility of Reculations (Cateaorv I Indicator)
Comment NRC's last routine review of the Texas radiation control program, which concluded on March 27, 1992, determined that the TWC adopted the applicable parts of l
TDH's regulations for control of radiation by reference on an emergency basis (17 TexReg 2241).
The effectiveness of these emergency rules was later extended as noted in 17 TexReg 5055, dated July 21, 1992.
Permanent adoption by reference of the I
applicable parts of TDH's regulations for control of radiation was noted in 17 TexReg 5727 (effective date of November 5, 1992).
l NRC's followup review, during the week of January 25, 1993, disclosed that TDH was proposing the deletions of those sections in the TDH regulations that pertain to the disposal of radioactive waste; thus, the TWC would have to adopt these same sections of the regulations, concurrently, in order to have continuously effective radioactive waste disposal regulations in the State of Texas.
Recommendation This is a minor Category I comment because, at present, f
all the necessary regulations for the disposal of radioactive waste are in place as effective regulations, as referenced by the TWC.
However, if the TDH waste disposal regulations are deleted and the TWC l
does not concurrently adopt the same regulations, then this would immediately become a sianificant Category I comment because of the lack of compatible regulations.
Therefore, we recommend that a coordinated effort between TWC and TDH be established to ensure the continuance of the appropriate regulations for the disposal of radioactive waste in Texas.
I
, i i
t 3.
Location of Radiation Control Procram Within State Orcanization (Category II Indicator)
Comment l
An interagency agreement between the TDH and TWC has been in development for some time now.
It appears that most of the questions relating to transfer of staff and i
records from TDH to TWC have been largely resolved.
The remaining issues are expected to be resolved soon, and the interagency agreement should become effective
{
before the end of March of this year.
Both departments have been working cooperatively in completing a preacceptance review of the LLRW site application and in completing a proposal for decision in the Texcor Industries case.
However, due to the intricacies involved in the separation of the Texas radiation control program, the NRC needs to be assured of the continuance of appropriate regulations and the maintenance of a qualified and adequate staff (see Comment Numbers 2 and 4).
Recommendation We recommend the interagency agreement be concluded at an early date to provide a secure basis for the Texas radioactive waste disposal program.
A copy of the final interagency agreement should be provided to the NRC.
4.
Manacement (Cateoorv II Indicator)
Comment i
The Bureau of Radiation Control (Bureau) in TDH has worked in the past with the Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority regarding the licensing process for the LLRW disposal. facility that will be sited within the State and operated by the Authority.
NRC discussions with Bureau staff during previous review meetings indicated that the Bureau had planned and documented its program for the processing of a low-level radioactive waste disposal license for this facility.
The plan for this major licensing action is called " Regulatory Plan for the Review of a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility License Application."
This plan is an evolving document and may include changes in schedule as progress toward licensing action is made.
The plan should address, as l
I
l 1
l
' l l
l a minimum, the staffing requirements, the technical guidance to be used, and how the State plans to meet the 15-month review requirement for an application, as stipulated in Public Law 99-240.
The plan has been supplied to the TWC staff; however, it has not been updated per TWC management requirements.
Recommendation We recommend that the " Regulatory Plan for the Review of a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility License Application" be updated per TWC requirements and signed off by TWC management.
This plan can then be provided to the Texas LLRW Disposal Authority as a reference for the licensing review process.
5.
Licensina Procedures (Catecory II Indicator)
Comment Since there is a possibility that the regulatory authority for the rest of the uranium recovery program may be transferred to the TWC, the NRC reviewers determined what licensing workload might exist for the TWC if such a transfer were to occur.
At present, there exist approximately 16 amendments and 6 renewals for licensing action.
These are predominantly for in situ facilities.
While some of these actions may be combined, some may involve only minor amendments, and i
some involve facilities going into restoration, they still cumulatively represent a significant workload for a licensing staff.
The NRC reviewers were also fully aware of the major i
effort that Texas has recently applied to a contested hearing case regarding Texcor Industries, an applicant for a radioactive waste disposal site.
Major efforts such as this by a licensing staff normally result in a buildup of licensing actions such as those mentioned in the paragraph above.
Recommendation i
We recommend that, if the regulatory authority for the rest of the uranium recovery program is transferred to the TWC, then an evaluation of the licensing workload be made for the safety significance of the actions, a setting of priorities and goals be established, and an l
assurance of adequate staffing or contractual help be provided.
1
.- B.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS - TEXAS FOLLOWUP REVIEW OF
.i JANUARY 28, 1993 l
The following list includes general observations made by NRC l
staff during the Texas followup review.
These observations j
may be considered by the State for areas where improvements in the program can be made, however, no formal response to NRC regarding these observations is expected.
i 1.
There is a general need for a proper licensee / regulator relationship in the review of a LLRW disposal site application.
Since both the licensee and the regulator are State agencies in Texas, the TWC must be alert to
.l any potential conflict of interest.
For example, if l
the licensee uses a particular contractor, State j
agency, or university to directly prepare a part of the license application, the TWC as regulator must be careful to avoid using that same contractor or-organization to review the application.
l 2.
At the current time, despite the inefficiencies associated with an extended reorganization, the.
transferred TDH staff appears to be highly motivated' l
and well prepared for the review of the LLRW disposal l
license application.
They function well as a team,.and the majority of the staff working in this area are well into the technical aspects of the license application l
review process.
j i
3.
It has been NRC's experience that a certain levelaof I
management oversight and involvement with technical j
issues and decisions is necessary.
Frequently, persons working closely with technical issues may have some difficulty in seeing the overall picture and higher levels of management can be very effective in determining policies and in supporting technical decisions.
Such management oversight is also an
}
effective means of. quality control.
In Texas, it
-j appears that the LLRW staff transferring to the TWC is j
mak.ing all technical decisions.
Also, the supervisor i
of this transferring staff appears to be over-extended i
in responsibilities at the present time.
He not only 1
has the responsibilities for the technical and i
reorganizational issues for the radioactive waste program, but-also is faced with efforts involving statutory changes, regulations consistency, and policy i
questions.
f i
?
l 1
! i t
4.
The State should fill the vacant positions in the regulatory group as soon as soon as possible.
One person is currently filling two full-time positions
- manager for the regulatory group, and technical project manager for the license application review.
This situation should be corrected.
SUMMARY
DISCUSSIONS WITH STATE REPRESENTATIVES Summary meetings regarding the results of the follow-up program review were held with Dave Lacker, Acting Associate Commissioner, TDH, and Jim Haley, Director, Office of Waste Management and Pollution Cleanup, TWC, on January 28, 1993.
Mr. Haley stated that the regulations and staffing issues were Very important to the TWC.
He also indicated the TWC may be able f
to address these issues in a satisfactory manner.
The referencing of regulations from other agencies appears to be a common practice in the TWC.
He also expressed the State's appreciation for any NRC assistance and training for the TWC staff.
i 1
i i
1