ML20043F240
| ML20043F240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/25/1983 |
| From: | Jay Collins NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Bernstein R TEXAS, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043F230 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-TUYL90-36 NUDOCS 9006140280 | |
| Download: ML20043F240 (7) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -.
- 4 Robert Bernstein, M. D., Corrnissioner Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th Street Austin,. Texas -78756
Dear Dr. Bernstein:
This' confirms the discussion R. J. Doda, R. S. Heyer, and D. A. Nussbaumer held with you and Messrs. Cochran and L6cker on September 16, 1983, following our review of the Texas radiation control program..The review covered the principal acipinistrative and technical aspects of the program. This included an examination of the program's legislation and regulations, organization,.
management and administration, personnel, and licensing and compliance activities.
Field accompaniments of five State inspectors were clso conducted during the review.
Other NRC representatives assisting in the review included J. Philip and C. A. Flory from our headquarters' offices.
Our review used as a reference the NRC policy statement, " Evaluation of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs," published in the Federal Register on December 4, 1981.. The guidelines ccntain 30 Indicators for program eval-uation.
A description of how the indicators are used in reporting the results of program reviews to State management is enclosed (Enclosure 1).
At the beginning of our review, there was an initial finding of one significant problem in a Category I indicator, Status of-Inspection Program, relating to the number of overdue inspections for agreement material licenses existing at the time of the review..Approximately 800 licenses were overdue for inspection at the end of the review period, which represents over 40% of all agreement material-licenses in the State.
Included in this total were 142 overdue inspections in Priority I and-II licenses, i.e., licenses-which present the more significant potential for radiological hazards based on type, quantity, and use of authorized materials. We recomend that the Department, to reduce this backlog, establish-a formal action-plan for the next six months that sets goals, establishes priorities, and provides progress reports to management.
Discussions with Mr. Lacker, at the.end of the review meeting, indicated that the. staff had already initiated actions for the early reduction of the number of' overdue inspections, in particular, those in the Priority I and I! eategories We believe these actions will be adequate to address this problem, a
~
~
..s SGRS ',
'3GRS ' '.
HGEB WMLL 's EDO i
RJDoda RSHeyer JPhil. lip CAFlory GWKerr'3 JT lins WJDircks 11/ /83 11/
/83 11/p/83 11/ n/83 11//j/8 11
/83 11/ /83.
I. e sN 9006140200 900423T PDR FOIA VAN'TUYL90-36 PDR-l l
2//
- h. Bernstein, M. D.,, Commissioner 28'NC' iip.^3 Texas Department of health 1
As a result of our review of the State's program and the routine exchange-of information between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the State of Texas, the staff believes that the Texas program for the regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the Commission's program for the regulation of similar materials.
Our review disclosed th'at most other program indicators were within NRC guidelines.
A number of technical comments were developed during the course-t of the review meeting, and these were discusseo at length with the radiation.
control staff.
We also believe-it is important to mention two program' areas where the Department has performed in an exemplary fashion curing the review period.
The Department's staff has responded in a very timely and responsible manner to a number _of the incidents involving radiological materials.
Several of these incioents have. required the expenditure of significant staff efforts.
he also noted the Department's strong commitment to staff technical training.
he-support this activity and believe that it has contributed significantly to the overall capability of the radiation control staff.
Enclosed in this letter are comments regarding the technical aspects of the program-(Enclosures 2 and 3),
You may wish to have Mr. Lacker respond directly to these comments.
I am also enclosing a copy of this letter for placement in the State Public Do'ument Room or to otherwise be made availnbie c
for public review.
I will look forward to your response to the significant-comment stated above.
Sincerely,
% CO.liW John T. Collins Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
As stated cc: w/encls Mr. D. K. Lacker, Texas Dept. of Health G. Wayne Kerr, Director Office of State Programs, NRC State Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room
.bec: - w/encls W. J. Dircks, EDO R. E. Hall, RIV V. Stello, Jr., DED/ROGR R. J. Doda, RIV J. T. Collins, RIV
,#: S. Heyer, RIV P. S. Check, RIV G. F. Sanborn, RIV R. L. Bangart, RIV Texas File C.'E. Wisner, RIV W. L._ Brown, RIV DMB fcr dist. (SP01)
I Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of s.creement 5 tate kaciation Control Programs" The " Guidelines for NkC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs,"
wer( publishec in the Federal Register on December 4, 1981, as an NRC Policy
. Statement.
The Guioe provides 30 Indicators for evaluating Agreement State program areas.
Guidance as to their relative importance to an Agreement State program is provided by categorizing the inoicators into 2 categories.
Category I incMators address program functions which cirectly relate to the State's ability to protect the public health and safety.
If significant problems exist in.several Category I indicator areas, then the need for
. improvements may be critical.
Category II incicators adoress 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 avoic the development of problems in one or more of the principal program areas, i.e., those that fall under Category I inoicators.
Category II indicators frequently can be used to identify uncerlying problems that are causing, or contributing to, cifficulties in Category I indicators.
It is the NRC's intention to use these categories in the following manner.
In reporting findings to State management,-the NRC will indicate the category-of each coment made.
If no significant Category I coments are provided, this will-indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety.
If at 'least one significant Category I coment is provideo, the State will be notified that the program deficiency may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and should be addressed on a priority basis. When more than one significant Category I coment is provided, the State will be notifieo that the need of improvement'in the particular program areas is critical.. The NRC would request an imediate response, and may perform a followup review of the program within six months.
If the State program has not improved or if additional deficiencies have e
oeveloped, the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement.
Category II coments woulo concern functions ano activities which support the State program and therefore would not be critical to the State's ability to protect the public.
The State will be asked to respond to these comments and the State's actions will be evaluated during the next regular, program review.
1 1
91 Technical Comments and Recommendations on the Texas Uranium Mill Program 1
1.
- Personnel A.
Staffing Level is a Category 11 indicator.
Comment y
The personnel neeced in processing a-license application for uranium.
.t mills.can be identified or grouped according to technical, acminis-trative, and support skills.
It is necessary that the. State include.
in its environmental assessments the proper evaluations regarding I
-raciological safety, meteorology, hydrology, geology, dam construction, and operations.
Our review of several conventional and in situ licenses.under timely renewal showed that a complete geological evaluation.was delayed due to limittd staff resources and had not p
been incorporated into the environN ntal assessments.
Recomendation In order to have a complete and current assessment available for each L
uranium facility, it is necessary to incorporate a detailec geological evaluation.
It is recomended that the Bureau cunsider adding an additional geologist to the uranium mill program or allow more staff' effort to complete the assessment for those licenses that have'been I
L under timely renewal for one year and, primarily, for those uranium facilities that are' actively processing or treating uranium ore.
II.
Licensing A.
Technical' Quality of Licensing Actions.is a Category.I indicator.:
s The following minor coments and recomendations are made.
. Coment g
s Discussions were held during the review meeting with Bureau staff-and NRC representatives regarding the use of NRC Regulatory Guide 3.11.
" Design, Construction, and Inspection of Embankment Retention ~ Systems-for Uranium Mills." The existing conventional mill tailings dams in Texas (3 in number) were built before the publication of Regulatory Guide ~3.11 ano have not been subjected to a design analysis in accordance with Regulatory Guide 3.11.
/ccording to Bureau staff, it aprars that only one of these tailings dams will be in.an operational mode in the foreseeable'futu e.
The Bureau staff also indicated they had comitted to the use of NRC's Regulatory Guides, in areas.where corresponding Texas guidas were not available, in the State's request for an amended agrtement for uranium mills and tailings, which was dated November 6, 1981.
..y
4 2
Recommenoation he recommeac for appropriate conventional uranium mills that the Bureau, it the time of license renewal or major amendment (or-for a new l icensel require a design analysis for taiiings dams equivalent to Regulatory Guide 3.11.
The State should also perform a geo-p technical review of tne cesign analysis ano include a written evaluation in the Bureau's files and in any environmental assessment report developed by the bureau.
The review should be conducted by qublified professional staff.
B.
Comment Baseo on discussions with Bureau staff members, it was agreed that strict conformance with Regulatory Guide 3.11 regarding a design i
analysis for in situ uranium solution pond impoundments was not i
necessary.
At the same time, it was agreed that any in situ uranium mill applicant should include in the application technical information regarding the design and construction of in situ solution ponc impounoments.
CL dance on the nature of the information required d
may be obtained trom relevant sections of P.egulatory Guide 3.11..
Recommendation We recommend for in situ uranium mill applicants that the Bureau review the design of in situ solution pond impoundments and include a written evaluetion' in the Bureau's files and in any environmental assessment report oeveloped by the Bureau.
The review should be conducted by qualified professional staff.
C.
Comment A review of the Wyoming kinerals Corporation Lamprecht facility (License No. 8-2538) and the Everest Minerals Corporation, Hobson facility (License No. 8-2663) identified that documentation relevant to licensee audits and inspections; radiation safety program, control and monitoring; ano licensee audit and inspection' records vere rot evaluated in complete detail or, at least, not q.
documenteo adequately in the safety evaluation report or environ-mental assessment.
Recommenoation The Bureau should develop more detailed preceduNs for evaluating license applications and preparation of environmental assessments.
It is expected that the Bureau will review, evaluate and provide an orderly documentation of these evalu6tions.
We recommend that these i
topics be specifically addressed in the respective documents to provide complete supporting information for the license conditions developed by e.he Bureau, t
4 3
r D.
Comment Discussions'were held during the review meeting with Bureau staff and liRC representatives regarding the use'of Regulatory Guide 3.11.1,
" Operational Inspection ano Surveillance of Embankment Retention Systems for Uranium Mill Tailings." The Bureau staff indicateo they l
had committed to the use of hRC's Regulatory Guices, in areas where corresponding Texas Guides were not available, in the State's request
- for an amended agreement for uranium mills and tailings, which was, dated November 6, 1981.
An examination of the Bureau's inspection-files revealed that inspections committee to by the licensee appear-to follow some provisions of Regulatory Guide 3.11.1, but nct all of them, i
Recommendation
[
We recommend for appropriate conventional uranium mills that the bureau require the performance of inspections of impoundments in accordance with Regulatory Guide 3.11.1 or equivalent and-document the licensee's performance during the State's inspections of the' mill.
Also, certain sections of Regulatory Guide 3.11.1 are applicable to the performance of inspections of in situ solution pond impoundments.
Comment 1
It was not clear from our review of several conventional mill licenses I
whether the licensee was submitting written reports specifyi.ng the quantity of each principal racionuclide released to unrestricted areas in liquid and in gaseous effluents.
Recommendation The Bureau does confirm that the potential annual raciation doses to the public comfly with EPA's 40 CFR'190.
In order to also assure' l
that releases of adioactive material to unrestricted areas comply.
L with Texas regulations :it is-recommended that the Bureau -require l L
the licensees (per license condition) to submit within 60 days 'after January 1 and July 1 of each~ year, reports specifying the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas' in liquid and in saseous effluents curing the previous six.onths of operation.
3 1
k i
f
a Technical Comments and Recommendations on tne lexas Racioactive Materials Program (but incluaing tne uranium mili program) 1.
Leuislation and Regulations Status of Regulations is a Category I indicator.
The following minor conment ano recommendation is made.
Comment During our review of several irradiator license files, it was noted that the-Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation did not have regulations for irradiator entry control and alarms, which are equivalent to sections D.203(c)(6) and D.203(c)(7) of the Suggested State Regulations for Control of Radiation (SSRCR).
This comment is of minor significance since the necessary requirements have been incorporated in irradiator licenses during~the license review process.
Recommendation Since~ sections D.203(c)(6) ano D.203(c)(7) of the SSRCR are matters of compatibility, the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation should be amenced to include compatible regulations at the earliest practicable time.
11.
Compliance Inspection Procedures is a Category II Indicator.
Comment During our review of the Department's regional operations, it was noteo that, in two cases, licensee-operations manu61s were not available in regional office files for use by reoional inspectors during _
cany inspection activities.
These cases were: '(1) Region 9-AMFBiological and Diagnostic Products (Texas License No. 9-2045), ano (2) Region 2 -
the University of Texas Marine Sciences Center (Texas-License No. 6-485).
Recommendation We recommend that all regional license files be complete with respect to those documents necessary for the performance of agreement material inspections; in particular, licensee operations manuals should be available in these files.
_ - - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ -