ML20195C105
| ML20195C105 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/13/1988 |
| From: | Krammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Bernstein R TEXAS, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8806220117 | |
| Download: ML20195C105 (10) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
sFo /
l JUN 1319%
Robert Bernstein, M.D., Comissioner Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756
Dear Dr. Bernstein:
This confirms the discussion Mr. Robert J. Doda held with you and Messrs. Cochran and Lacker on April 22, 1988, following our review and evaluation of the Texas radiation control program.
Other NRC staff members l
attending this meeting included Mr. John F. Kendig and Dennis M. Sollenberger.
As a result of our review of the State's program and the routino exchange of information between the NRC and the State of Texas, the staff believes that the Texas program for the regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect public health and safety and is compatible with NRC's program for regulation of similar materials.
The State's incident response procedures for radioactive materials were l
discussed at some length during the review meeting. Texas' excellent record of response to radiological incidents was further highlighted by the recent onsite surveys that were conducted for contamination caused by leaking 3M static eliminators. Texas inspectors were out conducting surveys during the entire first weekend of the incident and supplied some of the early information that was used by the NRC to establish a national response action to this problem.
l We congratulate the State on its outstanding performance in addressing this problem. contains our technical coments regarding the program, and you may wish to have Mr. D. K. Lacker respond directly to these comments. An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs is attached as Enclosure 2'.
We would like to call to your attention one correent (Enclosure 1, number A.1) for which the Department has primary responsibility.
It concerns legal support to the radiation control program regarding the scheduling of hearings for certain escalated enforcement cases.
Our review disclosed that most other program indicators were within NRC guidelines. Also, a number of other technical matters were discussed with the radiation control staff and resolved during the course of the review meeting.
This year's review used a team approach, which involved eight NRC staff members at various times during the review visit.
This allowed more time for individual discussions with members of the Bureau's staff.
On April 12, 1987, NRC reorganized its staff. The State Agreements Program is now a part of the new Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, which reports b
V9
?/
G SBPag944; gg4
(f j5
)
<>L
'fi
+(-
p
,'i to the Comission. One purpose of this organizational chalige was toCprovide an imprcved focus for NRC relationships with the States. Our regional offices will continue to administer and implement NRC's regulatory progrart. We
,. encourage you and your staff to continue to look to the Regional Adit!inistrator and his staff as the primary contact with NRC.
i:
I appreciate the courtesy :nd cooperation you and your staff extended te ~
Mr. Doda and the other NRC reviewers during the review meeting. Also, I am '
of this letter for placement in the State Public Document Room enclosing a copy'oe made available for review.
or to otherwise e
9 Sincerely,
/-
M Carlton Kamerer, Director State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs
{
Enclosures:
As stated N,'
i cc w/encls:
D. K. Lacker, Chief Texas Bureau of Radiation Control
(
State Public Document Room
/
3 I
,/
NRC Public Document Room I
4 N
bec w/encls:
I g
V. Stelle, EDO D. A. Nussbaumer, SLITP 3
R. D. Martin 4
M. Knapp
/
1 W. L. Brown W. L. Fisher i
G. F. Sanborn j
J. T. Gilliland Texas File DMB:SP01 Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Carr Comissioner Rogers SA R/F Dir R/F l
Osee previous concurrences 0FC:*RI:SAO
- RA
- SLITP
- 5L
/D
- EDO
~
..........................................___..... g.............................__..........
' NAME:RJDoda:bh
- RDMartin
- DANussbaumer:C amerer aVStello DATE:6/ /88
- 6/ /88
- 6/ /88
- 6//(188 S
2
^
)
i to the Comission. One purpose of this' organizational change was to provide an improved focus fors NRC relationships with t)1e states.
Our regional raffices will continue to ad inister and implementfiRC's regulatory progran. We encourage you and yo staff to continue o look to the Regional Administrator and his staff as the p mary contact wi NRC.
/
)
I appreciate the courtes and coopera ion you and your staff extended to Mr. Doda and the other NRC ' reviewers during,the review meeting. Also, I am enclosing a copy of this letler for placement in the State Public Document Room or to otherwise be made available fjor review.
\\.
Sincerely.
,I
/
/
Ca rl ton C. Kamer.?r, Dira. tor State, local and Indian
['
Tr,1be Programs >
Enclosures:
/
As stated
\\
i 1
cc w/encis:
\\
k O. K. Lacker, Chief Texas Bureau of Radiatio Control State Public Document oom NRC Public Document om bec w/encis:
t V. Stello, ED0
\\
D. A. Nussbaumer, SLITP R. D. Martin M. Knapp W. L. Brown
'j, W. L. Fisher r
G. F. Sanborn J. T. Gilliland i
Texas File DMB SP01 Comissioner Roberts Commissioner Carr
,I I,
Comiacioner Rogers re j
t
,f, k
i A
y 1
M SL D/SLITP W
/.
tela {
- Je DMartin DA ssbaumer CKamerer i/q /68 6 l/88 6/l /88 6/g/88 6/g88 o
~
ui ty j.
r
(),
I 1
)
,,a
(
TECHNICAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION _5 pl(
ON THE TEYAS RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM
- I A.
Radiation Control Program other than Uranium Mills 1.
Legal Assistance (Category II Indicator) p [' Coment l
)
Curing the review of three escalated e'forcement cases, it was n
determined that the Bureau's procedures were followed and appropriate actions taken. However, we also fcamWuring this review that the naming of a hearing officer and the establishment of a hearing date were taking an inordinate amount of time, 10-20 months or more.
(NOTE: These cases involved the assessment of an administrative penalty, for which the licensee had a right to ask for a hearing.)
We understand the Department's legal staff was heavily cc;nmitted to other higher priority work during the same time period but believe it is necessary, in the interest of effective enforcement action, to inform the Department of our findings in this matter.
Rxomendation iWile we recognize the individual nature of and the variable amount of t'*me necessary to conclude certain enforcement cases, we believe the Department should monitor the hearing aspect of these cases and take steps to remedy long lead times when they become the nom rather than the exception.
2.
Management (Category II Indicator)
I Comment The Bureau,has since 1981 discussed and worked with'the Texas low Level Radiation Waste Disposal Authority regardigg th.e waste disposal facility that will be sited within the State and operated by the Authority. Our discussions with staff during the review meeting indicate that the Bureau has begun planning and assessing its program for the processing of a low level radioactive waste disposal license application for this facility but has not documented these efforts as yet.
It is appropriate at this time for the Bureau's management to develop a preliminary plan for this major licensing action. We recognize
/
that this plan will be an evolving document and may include changes in schediqe as progress toward licensing action is made, s
.f 6
n fs
\\
i
. 1 A
' Enclosure 1 Rccommendation We recommend that the Bureau begin work on such a plan.and address, at 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. We note that the licensing approach has been discussed among the Bureau's management staff but has not yet been documented for planning purposes.
3.
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (Category I Indicator)
Coment (Minor Significance)
Our review disclosed that Texas has six licensees that meet NRC criteria for major licensees needing contingency plans for radiological emergencies. We have sent the State information on contingency planning for major licensees on several occasions, i.e.,
June 21, 1986, and at a meeting in San Francisco on October 7, 1986.
We believe this is a minor comment since most, if not all, elements of contingency planning are contained in the licensing files for these licensees. However, there were no distinct plans that could be used as a reference by persons who might have to deal with a radiological emergency at these facilities. We understand the State's preference is that such requirements be made by rule rather than by order.
Recorrendation We recomend that the Bureau require major licensees to develop contingency plans for radiological emergencies that are acceptable for use as a reference by all affected persons; i.e., licensee personnel, Bureau staff, and State and local emergency resporders.
4.
Licensing Procedures (Category II Indicator)
Coment The Bureau's policy regarding not requiring dose calibrators at small receiving hospitals when radiopharmacies provide individual calibrated doses to those hospitals was discussed with the medical licensing staff. While there is some merit to this practice, the NRC has long believed that a measurement of the amount of activity administered to each patient should be made at the administering facility.
. Enclosure 1 Recomendation We recomend that the Bureau require a dose calibrator at receiving hospitals and that the licensee be required to assay before medical use the activity of each radiophartnaceutical dosage that contains photon-emitting radionuclides.
5.
Status of Inspection Program (Category I Indicator)
Coment (Minor Significance)
Our review disclosed that no priority 1 and 99 priority 2 licenses were overdue for inspection by more than 50% of the inspection frequency.
We believe this is a comment of minor significance since the Bureau has a plan to eliminate these overdue inspections and has recently notified its regional offices of a schedule to bring these overdue inspections up to date. Reasons for the backlog include:
(1) The Houston region has had only one inspector (out of three) for some period of time while replacements are hired, and (2) Inspection efforts were redirected early in 1988 to contamination surveys for the recent 3M static eliminator problem.
During this review, we have noted very good management control and data processing capability with respect to inspection status and planning. We visited two regional offices during the review and found both to have complete information on inspection workload and scheduling of overdue inspections.
Recomendation We recomend that the Bureau complete its effort to bring all inspections, particularly priority 1 and 2, up to date.
6.
Response to Actual and Alleged Incidents (Category I Indicator) j Coment (Minor Significance)
{
An evaluation of the Bureau's policy and procedures for incident l
response was made during the review meeting. Also, fc110wup actions to a number of recent incidents were reviewed.
In general, the Bureau's response actions have been appropriate and timAy. The Texas program has in numerous cases taken early and definitive action with regard to incidents involving radioactive materials.
In fact, this subject was discussed in a special meeting during the review to explore the ways that this policy is implemented by individuals from
)
both the Austin staff and the regional staff. The recent response by Texas to survey user facilities for contamination from 3M static eliminators was reviewed in light of the outstanding work done by Texas inspectors during the entire first weekend of this incident.
. Enclosure 1 Nevertheless, with respect to NRC's incident management system, which includes notifications by Agreement States, there were two recent incidents (Houston Inspection Labs and North Shore X-Ray) where an earlier telephone notice should have been made to the NRC regional office. The Houston Inspection Labs case was of particular interest to NRC because a Type B package (radiography camera) failed to retain the source during a transportation accident situation.
Recomendation As a reminder to the Bureau of our November 23, 1984 and July 22, 1986 guidance letters regarding significant incidents, note that a telephone call should be made to the NRC regional office within five working days after the Bureau becomes aware of a significant incident.
7.
Inspection Procedures (Category'II)
Comment With respect to recent inspection activities at Texas Nuclear Corporation (inspection of July 22,1987), we noted several rounds of enforcement correspondence and the discussion of a "fence line" issue regarding an area where the radiation dose could exceed 100 millirem in any seven consecutive days.
Recommendation We recomend that the Bureau take steps to resolve this case, since we understand the conditions at the fence line had been corrected some time ago.
The fence line issue, in particular, appears to be clear-cut.
B.
Radiation Control Program for Uranium Mills 1.
Administrative Procedures (Category II Indicator)
Comment The program review disclosed that the State does not have written procedures regarding licentee guarantees for reclamation, decomissioning, and long-tern care of uranium mill facilities.
The NRC has policy guidance concerning parent company guarantees with accompanying financial tests. Af ter our preceding progran review, Dr. Bernstein's letter of October 21, 1986 stated that similar policy guidance would be established.
' Enclosure 1 Recomendation
(
We believe that Texas should have similar policy guidance for uranium mill facilities.
2.
Staffing Level (Category II Indicator)
Comment l
With reductions in staff and the elimination of the Division of Environment within the Bureau during 1987, we noted one staffing area that is presenting a delay in the development of environmental I
assessments for uranium mill license renewals. At the present time, the Bureau has five licenses in timely renewal awaiting environmental assessments. We understand this represents a 1-to li-year backlog for the Bureau's five remaining staff members in environmental activities.
This problem is expected to be compounded when the Bureau begins environmental work relating to the licensing action for the low level radioactive waste site in the State, sometime within the next year.
Recomendation We recomend tnat the environmental staff workload be monitored closely and that measures be taken to assure that the current backlog for environmental assessments has u trend toward reduction in the future.
3.
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (Category 1 Indicator) 1 Comment (Minor Significance)
The Bureau has groundwater detection monitoring programs in place at all uranium recovery facilities with tailings impoundments or waste ponds. The Bureau provided, during the review meeting, its first draf t of amended regulations to implement the groundwater requirements of 40 CFR 192. We believe the Bureau is now able to expand the groundwater monitoring programs that are in place at the uranium tailings impoundments to provide sufficient detail to support compliance with the regulations.
Recomendation Based on NRC's experience in the application of groundwater requirements to its licensed facilities, we recomend the following program components be established:
. Enclosure 1.
(1) Designate a well to determine background concentrations of monitored constituents.
(2) Establish points of compliance (P0C).
(3) Expand the list of monitored constituents, at both the background and POC wells, to include constituents likely to be in or derived from the disposal of byproduct materials.
(4) Establish compliance standards for monitored constituents (either background or drinking water standard).
This will eliminate the need for a statistical test per 40 CFR 192 and conform with 10 CFR 40, Appendix A.
4.
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (Category I Indicator)
Coment (Minor Significance)
During the review of the Rhone Poulenc license file, it was noted that the licensing document (Lic. No. 2807) does not state that secondary uranium recovery is an authorized activity. However, uranium recovery is covered as a side circuit in the original application and is included in the license tie-down condition.
Recomendation We believe the Bureau should add secondary uranium recovery as an authorized use on the license for ease in identifying licensed activities. This could be added during the next major amendment or rerewal of the license.
i
z Application of "Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" The "Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" were published in the Federal Register on June 4,1987, as an NRC Policy Statement. The Guide provides 29 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 T 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 several Category I indicator areas, then the need for improvements may be critical.
Category II indicators address program functions which provide essential technical and administrative support for the primary program functions. Good perfomance 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.
It is the NRC's intention to use these categories in the follcwing 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 and is compatible with the NRC's progran.
If one or more significant Category I coments are provided, 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 of improvement in particular program areas is critical.
If, following receipt and evaluation, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I coments, 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 confimed 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.
The Commission will be infonned 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.
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 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
-