ML20210T645
| ML20210T645 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/30/1986 |
| From: | Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Bernstein R TEXAS, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8610090121 | |
| Download: ML20210T645 (6) | |
Text
3 SEP 3 01986 Robert Bernstein, M.D., Commissioner 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 August 29, 1986, following our review and evaluation of the Texas radiation control program.
The results of our review indicate that the Texas radia*. ion control program is adequate to protect the public health and safety. However, we are unable to offer a statement of compatibility pending the State's adoption of two regulations that are deemed to be matters of compatibility. Both of these regulations are already included in proposed amendments to the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation, which were approved for publication by the Texas Board of Health on August 16, 1986. These are expected to become effective regulations in November 1986, and a finding of compatibility would then follow.
Overall, our review disclosed that most program indicators were within NRC guidelines. Also, we wish to highlight the quality of the Bureeu's management and data processing controls. A number of electronic data processing programs are in place which provide the Bureau's management with close control over licensing functions, inspection workload and status, and personnel management. We believe the Bureau's dedicated staff and your Department's support are largely responsible for the development of these functional areas within the radiation control program.
Our review of the Bureau's uranium mill program disclosed three areas of concern which were discussed at some length with the staff. I would appreciate your review of these program areas and receiving your specific plans to address them.
The first area involves the promulgation and implementation by Texas of ground water protection regulations for uranium recovery facilities (NRC's proposed regulations on ground water protection were published on July 8,1986). Even i
though other State agencies will be involved in regulating this area, e.g.,
the Texas Water Commission and the Railroad Commission of Texas, we look to the j
Bureau of Radiation Control as the lead agency in this effort. The second area involves licensee guarantees for reclamation, decommissioning, and long-term i
care of uranium mill facilities. The NRC has policy guidance concerning parent l
l
\\
W i
f I
RIV:SGAS SP EDQ,
p RJDoda;ap JtU err i'
s
. r in h
/.
86 3/b/86
>$/lb/86
'/ / r/86 8610090121 860930 PDR STPRG ESGTX PDR l
4 Robert Bernstein,
company guarantees with accompanying financial tests. We believe that Texas' should have similar policy guidance for new license applications for uranium mill facilities. The third area involves the use of wastes from in situ uranium extraction facilities for irrigation. The NRC has recently commented negatively on this authorized use. However, from information received during the review, we believe that further disctasions with the Bureau's staff are necessary. We plan to contact the Bureau fcr an acceptable time for further discussions on the irrigation issue.
Enclosures 1 and 2 contain additional comments regarding the technical aspects of our review of the program. The comments were discussed with Mr. Lacker during our exit meeting with the Bureau's managenent staff. Mr. Lacker was advised at the time that response to these findings would be requested by this office and you may wish to have Mr. Lacker address the Enclosure 1 and 2 comments. contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs.
I an also enclosing a copy of this letter for placement in the State Public Document Room or to otherwise be made available for public review. I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended by your staff to Mr. Doda and other NRC representatives during the review.
Sincerely, Original signed by, but S. Ch'ck Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
1 and 2.
Comments and Recommendations on the Technical Aspects of the Texas Radiation Control Program 3.
Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" i
cc w/ enclosures:
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/ enclosures:
V. Stello W. L. Fisher, RIV J. H. Sniezek, DED/ROGR R. J. Doda, RIV R. D. Martin, RIV R. S. Heyer, RIV P. S. Check, RIV G. F. Sanborn, RIV I,
R. L. Bangart, RIV State File C. E. Wisner, RIV D. A. Nussbaumer W. L. Brown, RIV D. M. Sollenberger, NMSS M. J. Seemann, NMSS p,DMB (SP01) l
ENCLOSURE 1 Technical Comments and Pecommendations on the Texas Radiation Control Program (not Including the Uranium Mill Program)
I.
Legislation and Regulations A.
Status of Regulations (Category I indicator) 1.
Comment (Significant)
The review of the State's radiation control regulations disclosed that two regulatory amendments, which are matters of compatibility, have not been adopted by the State within a 3-year period after adoption by the NRC. These amendments concern the control of licensed material in unrestricted areas and the control of radiation exposure to transient workers.
These two amendments are already included in proposed amendments to the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation, which were approved for publication by the Texas Board of Health on August 16, 1986.
Recommendation Since a finding of compatibility for the State is predicted upon ele final adoption of those rules, we recommend that the Bureau notify us as soon as these ragulations become effective.
II.
1.icensing i
A.
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (Category I indicator) 1.
Comment (Minor Significance)
Our review disclosed that Texas has four licensees that meet NRC criteria for major licensees needing contingency plans for radiological emergencies. We have sent the States information on contingency planning for major licensees on several occasions, with the most recent being on June 21, 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. The NRC plans to provide further guidance on contingency planning to all affected State programs during the j
Annual All Agreement State Meeting in October 1986.
Recorcendation We recommend that the Bureau require major licensees to develcp contingency plans for radiological emergencies thac are acceptable for use as a reference by all affected persons; i.e., licensee personnel, Bureau staff, and State and Iceni emergency responders.
III. Compliance A.
Status of Inspection Program (Category I indicator) 1.
Comment (Minor Significance)
Dur review disclosed that 20 priority 1 and 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 in the next 45 days and also since the number has decreased from 41 overdue for the previous program review.
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. Region 11 (Houston), in particular because of its large size, demonstrated good usage of data processing to scheduling inspections according to zip code to minimize transit time between inspections.
Recommendation We recommend-that the Bureau complete its effort to bring all inspections, particularly priority 1 and 7, up to date.
l l
[
1 l
l l
EMCIOSURE 2 Technical Cortents and Recommendations on the Texas Radiation Control Program for Uranium Mills I.
Licensing A.
Licensing Procedures (Category II indicator) 1.
Comment The program review disclosed that the Bureau had recently terminated three licenses for in situ uranium facilities:
- 1) Urex Santonio (Lic. No. 8-3141), 2) Mobil Nell (Lic.
No. 8-2600), at6 3) Mobil Brelum (Lic. No. 8-2485). One facility had never operated, another had operated but had little production of uranium, and the last had operated and produced uranium. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, provides that prior to the termination of any-Agreement State license for. byproduct material as defined on section 11(e)2 of the Act or for any activity that results in the production of such material, the Commission shall have made a determination that all applicable standards and requirements pertaining to such material have been met.
Since NRC had not supplied final precedures for completing this determination to the affected States, no such deterninations were made for the above three licenses prior to termination. A conference call between the NRC's Uranium Recovery Field Office (URFO) and the Texas Bureau of Radiation Control was held during the review meeting on August 13, 1986.
It was agreed that the Bureau would send certain information eo URF0 regarding each license termination.
This information vaa.,711ed and sent to URF0 by September 2, 1986.
Recommendation 1
We recommend that the Bureau coordinate any future terminations I
of uranium mill licenses with URF0 so that the determination can be made that all applicable standards and requirements have been met.
Since these procedures are not fully in place, it is l
necessary that NRC and the State cooperate early in the license termination process.
r O
Frclosure 3 Application of "Cuidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs,"
were pubifshed in the Federal Register on December 4, 1981, as an NRC Policy Statement. The Guide 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 indicators into 2 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 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.
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 cat'egory of each comment made. If no significant Category I comments are provided, this will indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety. If at least one significant Category I comment is provided, 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 comment is provided, the State will be notified that the need of improvement in the particular program areas is critical. The NRC would request an immediate response, and may perform a followup review of the program within aix months.
If the State program has not improved or if additional deficiencies have developed, the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement. Category II comments would concern functions and activities which support the State program and therefore would not be critical to the State's ability to protect the public. The State will asked to respond to these comments and the State's actions will be evaluated during the next regular program review.