ML20043F280
| ML20043F280 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/26/1988 |
| From: | Doda R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Bunch W HENRY, KELLY & LOWERRE (FORMERLY HENRY, KELLY, BUNCH |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043F230 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-TUYL90-36 NUDOCS 9006140320 | |
| Download: ML20043F280 (2) | |
Text
-
1 4
e g-I a. n - c' Mr. William G. Bunch Henry, Kelly, Bunch & Hess Attorneys at Law 2103 Rio Grance Austin, Texas 78705
Dear Mr. Bunch:
This is in response to the four questions contained in your letter of August 17, 1988, which was addressed to our Uranium Recovery Field Office in Denser, Colorado. The general subject of your letter related to the regulation of radioactive materials at a Texas facility, the Panna Maria Uranium Project.
As you are aware, the state of Texas is an Agreement State and exercises its own regulatory authority over uranium milling and tailings disposal activities in Texas Consequently, the NRC has no jurisdiction over specific licensing, inspection, and disposal activities in the state of Texas. Therefore, it is best to direct to the Texas Bureau of Radiation Control your questions concerning the length of time the Panna Maria Uranium Project license has been in timely renewal, the number of amendments issued during timely renewal status, and the proposed license conditions for the license renewal process.
NRC practice regarding timely renewal follows. In any case in which a licensee, not less than 30 days prior to expiration of an existing license, has filed an application in proper form for renewal, such existing license shall not expire until the application has been finally determined by the Agency.
Licenses under timely renewal status are subjected to the same regulatory controls as any other license, such as inspections for compliance with the regulations and license conditions, and the issuance of amendments for the purposes of modifying and uriating the license. Texas follows essentially the same practice.
in referenco to your question number 3, the NRC has continued to find the Texas radiation control program adequate to protect the public health and safety and compatible with the NRC's regulatory program for similar materials, in addition to these findings from recent program reviews, we have made a number of specific recomendations for improving the Texas radiation control program at the conclusion of our office visits. With respect to our guidelines for RIV:SA0 40 URF0 SLITP W NMSS RA RJDoda:,c WLBrown HPettengill J0Lubenau DSo11enberger ROMartin 9/19/88 9/20/88 9/20/88 9/20/88 9/22/88 9/ /88
- Previously concurred.
\\ \\
9006140320 900423 q
OM M J $d
e SsJ T.,=.
s
.u.*:
m William G. Bunch i these program reviess, we have no specific guidance criterion regarding the length of time that a particular license may remain in timely renewal status.
However, for licenses in timely renewal status, our reviews do cover. selected amendments that are used to update these licenses and selected inspection activities that are.useJ to assure compliarice with the regulations and the license conditions.
With regard to reclarAtion and stabilization plans, the Texas regulations require, "a closure plan and cost estimate" for the purpose of establishing an-adequate financial security arrangement. A preliminar, closure plan was received, and a su.*ety.irrangement has been established for the Panna Maria Uranium Project basei upon methods used by the Texas Department of Health, which were found to be acceptable during the most recent NRC review of the Texas radiation control program.
Sincerely, w
Robert J. Doda State Agreement Program cc:
David K. Lacker, Chief Texas Bureau of Radiation Control 2
bCC:
Joel 0. Lubenau, SLITP
-R. Dale Smith, URF0 t
D. M. Sollenberger, NMSS R.'D. Martin ur W. L. Brown 7"
J. T. Gilliland R. L. Bangart C. A. Hackney Texas File W
M.
E MM EL
.