ML20202C882

Proposed Final Rept, Integrated Matls Performance Evaluation Program Review of Utah Agreement State Program, 981116-20

ML20202C882
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/20/1998
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20202C868	List: ML20202C862 ML20202C882
References
NUDOCS 9902010204
Download: ML20202C882 (61)

Text

!

L l

l lNTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM REVIEW OF UTAH AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM 1

November 16-20,1998  ;

~

i i

l i

PROPOSED FINAL REPORT U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

1 ATTACHMENT 1

(

9902010204 990120 PDR STPRC ESOUT PDR l

• I l

Utah Proposed Final Report Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

I 1

I This report presents the results of the review of the Utah radiation control program. The review )

was conducted during the period November 16-20,1998 by a review team comprised of l technical staff members from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Agreement State of Tennessee. Review team members are identified in Appendix A. The review was conducted in accordance with the " Implementation of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program and Rescission of a Final General Statement of Policy," published in the Federal Reaister on October 16,1997, and the November 25,1997, revised NRC Management Directive 5.6, " integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)." Preliminary results of the review, which covered the period June 18,1994 to November 20,1998, were discussed with Utah management on November 20,1998.

[A paragraph on the results of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting will be included ' l here in the final report.)  !

The Utah Agreement State program is administered by the Division of Radiation Control (DRC) located in the Department of Environmental Quality (DEO). Organization charts for the DRC and DEO are included as Appendix B. The Utah program regulates approximately 214 specific licenses authorizing agreement materials. The review focused on the materials program as it is

carried out under the Section 274b. (of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended)

Agreement between the NRC and the State of Utah.

l in preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common and non-common l performance indicators was sent to the State on September 3,1998. The State provided a l response to the questionnaire on October 19,1998. A copy of the questionnaire is included in l Appendix F of this report.

l

The review team's general approach for conduct of this review consisted of

(1) examination of l l Utah's response to the questionnaire; (2) review of applicable Utah statutes and regulations; l (3) analysis of quantitative information from the DRC licensing and inspection database; l (4) technical review of selected licensing and inspection actions; (5) field accompaniments of l two Utah inspectors; and (6) interviews with staff and management to answer questions or l

clarify issues. The review team evaluated the information that it gathered against the IMPEP criteria for each common and applicable non-common performance indicator and made a preliminary assessment of the DRC's performance.

Section 2 below discusses the State's actions in response to recommendations made following the previous review. Results of the current review for the IMPEP common performance indicators are presented in Section 3. Section 4 discusses results of the applicable non-common performance indicators, and Section 5 summarizes the review team's findings and j recommendations. Recommendations made by the review team are comments that relate l

directly to program performance by the State. A response is requested from the State to all i recommendations in the final report.

L

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS The previous review of the Utah radiation control program concluded on June 17,1994. The

review consisted of an evaluation of 30 program indicators per the 1992 Policy Statement. In I

b Utah Proposed Final Report Page 2 conjunction with the review, a pilot IMPEP review using common performance indicators was r also performed. The review conducted under the 1992 Policy Statement was the review of record.

The following is an open recommendation from the April 1992 Review and August 1993 Review l

Visit as well as the current statust l We recommend that the State provide documentation in their Safety Evaluation Report, Ground Water Discharge Permit Statement of Basis or other such document, how the site meets regulatory standards for the off-site release of radioactivity.

1994 Status: The Utah State Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is in the process of I revising the Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit for the Envirocare Low-Level l Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility. As part of the Statement of Basis for the revised -

ground water quality discharge permit, the DWO plans to provide documentation on the conclusion reached that the site meets regulatory standards. The basis will conclude that because of the high total dissolved solids content of the shallow ground ' water at the Envirocare facility, the ground water pathway would not be considered as a realistic pathway in a pathway dose assessment required by 10 CFR Part 61. The ground water quality at the facility is being protected under Utah ground water quality protection regulations in that for a five hundred year period the ground water pathway will contribute less than four millirem per year at any ground water monitoring well. The I revised draft permit is expected to be issued for public comment within the next 3 months. NRC requested that Utah transmit a copy of the draft permit for comment to NRC at the beginning of the public comment period.

Current Status: Envirocare has a Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit in accordance with the Utah Water Quality Act. The permit is renewed on a five-year frequency. The current permit, with an expiration date of September 10,1998, is under timely renewal. This recommendation is closed.

During the last review,13 recommendations were made in the December 6,1994 letter to j Dianne Nielson, Executive Director, DEO. Nine items were closed in the May 5,1995 letter to Utah based on the State's September 21,1994 and March 17,1995 response letters. Two additional items were closed in NRC's November 8,1997 letter which responded to Utah's l September 17,1997 letter. The team's review of the current status of the remaining open i recommendations is as follows:

1. We recommend that the State of Utah review the problems that caused the State to adopt a delayed implementation approach and to take actions for future rulemaking so that the State of Utah can implement promulgated regulations without delay.

Current Status: The State no longer uses a delayed implementation approach to rulemaking. Promulgation of regulations is up-to-date, with no regulations overdue for adoption. This recommendation is closed.

2. To assure continuity and uniformity in regulatory practice, we recommend that the DRC take the necessary steps to complete its revision of these procedures and provide them to all employees.

u

Utah Proposed Final Report Page 3 Current Status: The Administrative Policy Document, which includes inspection, licensing, enforcement and administrative procedures, has been finalized and is available to all employees. This recommendation is closed.

3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IMPEP identifies five common performance indicators to be used in reviewing both NRC Regional and Agreement State programs. These indicators are: (1) Status of Materials inspection Program; (2) Technical Quality of Inspections; (3) Technical Staffing and Training; (4) Technical Quality of Ucensing Actions; and (5) Response to incidents and Allegations.

3.1 Status of Materials inspection Proaram The team focused on four factors in reviewing this indicator: inspection frequency, overdue

, inspections, initial inspection of new licensees, and timely dispatch of inspection findings to l licensees. The review team's evaluation is based on Utah's questionnaire responses relative to

! this indicator, data gathered independently from the State's licensing and inspection computer I printouts, the examination of completed inspection casework, and interviews with the staff.

The team's evaluation of the State's inspection priorities showed that the State's inspection frequencies for the various types or groups of licenses are the same or more frequent than similar license types or groups listed in the NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2800. Two i categories, Research and Developmental- Broad, multisite-multiregional and Strontium-90 Eye l Applicator, had inspection frequencies greater than the interval outlined in IMC 2800; however, i l the State has no licensees in these categories and the inspection frequencies were changed, l l during the review, to match the inspection frequencies in IMC 2800, it was noted that the State  !

has utilized their procedures to increase or decrease the next inspection frequency, based on the licensee's inspection history. )

l The staff uses a database for their tracking system in which information is exported to Excel j software to generate reports. The data is maintained on a network and is available to all staff. '

This allows them to project the next inspection due date and to sort the inspection data as needed. The staff updates the information on this system continuously to keep it up-to-date, in their response to the questionnaire, the State indicated that they had no inspections overdue by more than 25% of the NRC frequency. During the week of the review, the team verified that there were no inspections that were overdue by this frequency.

l With respect to initial inspections of new licensees, a list of licenses issued since the last review l

was requested and the licensees' respective inspection files were reviewed to determine their l initial inspection date. There were 50 licenses issued since the last review, of these 4 are still I within the six month inspection frequency; 5 have been terminated so they were not reviewed; 37 were inspected within six months; 2 others were inspected within seven months; and the remaining 2 were inspected at around one year (both of these licenses were issued in 1994).

The timeliness of the issuance of inspection findings was evaluated during the inspection casework review. With two exceptions, inspection correspondence was sent within 30 days after the inspection. One of those exceptions was due to the request of the licensee's corporate radiation safety officer (RSO) for a face-to-face close out meeting and the other was l

l

___ = . . _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ .__ ___ _ _ _ _ . _ _

1 Utah Proposed Final Report Page 4 sent at 41 days after the inspection. Licensee responses were received and responded to in a timely manner.

In their response to the questionnaire, Utah reported that as of fiscal year 1999 (starting July 1,1998) they have adopted the inspection frequencies for reciprocity outlined in NRC IMC 1220. Thus far in the fiscal year, the State has met the objectives for priority 1 reciprocity inspections, but none of the other priorities. The previous year reciprocity inspections also showed that prior to the adoption of IMC 1220, the State would have only met the priority 1 inspection goal. The review team recommends that the State continue in their ongoing efforts to meet the reciprocity inspection frequencies outlined in IMC 1220. '

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Utah's performance ,

with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program, be found satisfactory.

3.2 Technical Quality of Inspections The team evaluated the inspection reports, enforcement documentation, and interviewed inspectors for 20 radioactive materialinspections conducted during the review period. Currently there are two Environmental Scientist (ES) lli inspectors who conduct radioactive material inspections. A cross training effort has been initiated with other inspectors in the x-ray program. The casework included both inspectors and covered inspections of various types including, medical institutions, industrial radiography, well logging, nuclear pharmacy, irradiator, academic broad scope, academic / medical broad scope, decontamination services, and reciprocity. Appendix C lists the inspection casework reviewed for completeness and adequacy with case-specific comments.

Utah's inspection procedures are consistent with NRC procedures, inspections are routinely unannounced. The review team no'ted that, of the 20 inspections evaluated, only one was announced, this was due to the inability to perform an inspection after an unannounced attempt.

Based on casework, the review team noted that the routine inspections covered all aspects of the licensees' radiation programs. The team noted that the inspections are performance-based. Team inspections were performed when appropriate and for training purposes.

The inspection findings are issued under the signature of the DRC Director, after a review of the inspection report by a peer and the approval of the Radioactive Materials & X-ray (RM&X)

Section Manager. Inspection findings are routinely sent to the licensee within 30 days with licensee responses returned in a timely manner. Those responses are reviewed and replied to  !

in a timely manner. The inspection files were found to be complete and in good order. Field J notes have been developed to cover all types of inspections that are conducted by the DRC.  ;

4 These field notes provide documentation for the scope of the licensees' program and cover all t areas that need to be reviewed. The information contained in the field notes is comparable with NRC's Inspection Procedure 87100.

As noted in the questionnaire, the State has available a variety of portable instruments for routine confirmatory surveys and use in incidents and emergency conditions. The instruments are calibrated on an annual, or as needed, basis. The calibrations are done by an ES Ill on staff using a one curie cesium-137 source in a J. L. Shepherd calibrator and an electronic

. pulser for exposure rate instruments. Instruments used for contamination surveys are l

-- . . =~ . _- . - . - - - - , - . - - . - . - - - - _ -

t l

Utah Proposed Final Report Page 5 calibrated with a variety of alpha and beta sources.  ;

The RM&X Section Manager has accompanied both ES lil inspectors, who conduct inspections of radioactive material licensees, on an annual basis since the last review.

During the week of November 2,1998, a review team member performed accompaniments c,f .

l the two State inspectors on separate inspections of licensed facilities (see Appendix C). The l

inspections were of two industrial radiography licensees. During the accompaniments, i inspectors demonstrated appropriate inspection skills and knowledge of the regulations. The j inspectors were well prepared and thorough in the review of licensee programs. Inspection techniques were observed to be performance-oriented and the technical performance of both inspectors was excellent. The inspections were adequate to assess radiological health and safety at the licensed facilities.

A good practice was noted during the review, that being the use of an inspection compliance history form both for the materials program and the low-level radioactive waste disposal program. The compliance history form includes all of the past inspection findings for the facility and is used not only to help the inspector prepare for the inspection, but also as a teaching tool during the inspection to help the licensee better understand the issues and past history of the licensee's performance.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Utah's performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, be found satisfactory.

3.3 Technical Staffino and Trainina issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the radioactive materials program staffing level and staff turnover, as well as the technical qualifications and training histories of the staff. To evaluate these issues, the review team examined the State's questionnaire responses relative to this indicator, interviewed DRC management and staff, and considered any possible workload backlogs.

At the time of the review, Utah's radioactive materials program was staffed by the DRC Director, two Section Managers,13 full-time ES llis, one Environmental Engineer lil, and one ES IV. The DRC organization consists of the RM&X Section, Waste and Environmental (W&E)

Section and Administration. The work assignments were divided as follows: 4.7 FTE assigned to radioactive materials inspection / licensing activities,4.0 FTE to the low-level waste program, 4.9 FTE to the X-ray / mammography program,0.2 FTE to the uranium mills program, and 0.2 FTE to the radon program. No technical staff members have left the RM&X Section since the last review. There are no vacancies in either the RM&X Section or the W&E Section. A vacant ES 111 position identified during the last review was filled in February 1995. In March 1997, one new staff member (ES 111 geologist) was hired into the low-level waste program.

The qualifications of the staff were determined from the questionnaire, training records, and interviews of personnel. The DRC has a training program in place for the staff which is taken from the *NRC/OAS Working Group Recommendations for Agreement State Training Programs." The staff are well qualified from an education and experience standpoint. All have Bachelor's degrees in the sciences. The primary license reviewers / inspectors have attended most of the training courses prescribed by IMC 1246 and are very familiar with Utah

I l

l L

Utah Proposed Final Report - Page 6 regulations, policies, and procedures. However, the team noted that no one has attended the core course, Teletherapy and Brachytherapy. The team believes all technical staff performing brachytherapy licensing or inspections would benefit from the course or equivalent training.

Also, it was noted that no staff member has completed the NRC-sponsored Irradiator l Technology course or equivalent training, and the State licenses one poolirradiator. Although the irradiator course is a supplementary or specialized course, the team believes that training in i this area is needed and that staff performing licensing actions or inspection activities on pool l Irradiators should have the irradiator course or equivalent training. The review team l recommends that the State provide training to technical personnel in the areas of medical I

brachytherapy and irradiator technology.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Utah's performance

! with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found satisfactory. .

3.4 Technical Ouality of Licensina Actions The review team examined completed licenses and casework for 21 licensing actions, representing the work of five license reviewers and RM&X Section Manager. The license reviewers and supervisor were interviewed to supply additional information regarding licensing decisions or file contents.

Licensing actions were evaluated for completeness; consistency, proper isotopes and quantities l

used, qualifications of authorized users, adequate facilities and equipment, and operating and emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing actions. Licenses were reviewed for accuracy, appropriateness of the license and of its conditions and tie-down conditions, and overall technical quality. Casework was evaluated for adherence to good health physics practices, reference to appropriate regulations, supporting documents, peer or supervisory review, and proper signature authorities. The files were checked for retention of necessary documents and supporting data. i The licensing actions reviewed included the following types of licenses: academic / medical broad scope; academic broad scope; pool irradiator; self-shielded irradiator; industrial radiography; well logging; large medical; small medical; research and development; portable gauge; and fixed gauge. Licensing actions included four new licenses, nine amendments, five l renewals, and three terminations. A list of these licenses with case-specific comments may be l l found in Appendix D. 1 i

The review team noted that each licensing action is thoroughly reviewed by a second, qualified l reviewer. In addition, complex cases are completed using a team of reviewers, including the I RM&X Section Manager, and often include frequent interactions with senior NRC reviewers. l Moreover, every tenth action, and most complex actions, are reviewed by the RM&X Section l Manager. The RM&X Section Manager's review includes the use of a checklist. Each license is signed by the DRC Director or designee.

The review team found that the licensing actions were thorough, complete, consistent, and of i high quality, with health and safety issues property addressed. Tie-down conditions are backed i by information contained in the file, and are inspectable. Deficiency letters clearly state i

regulatory positions, are used at the proper time, and identify deficiencies in the licensees' documents. Terminated licensing actions are well-documented, showing appropriate transfer l

t Utah Proposed Final Report Page 7 and survey records. License files are complete and well organized. Finally, applicable guidance documents are complete, well organized, available to reviewers, and appear to be followed.

The review team noted that the reviewers also work as inspectors. The review team identified three occasions when the results of an inspection were used in an effective manner to improve '

a license through either a licensing amendment or renewal.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that the State of Utah's performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be found satisfactory.

3.5 Response to incidents and Alleaations In evaluating the effectiveness of the State's actions in responding to incidents, the review team examined the State's response to the questionnaire regarding this indicator, evaluated selected incidents reported for Utah in the " Nuclear Material Events Database" (NMED} against those contained in the Utah files, and evaluated the casework and supporting documentation for 11 ,

materialincidents. The team also evaluated the State's response to 11 materials allegations j and three low-level waste allegations. One materials allegation and three low-level waste allegations were referred to the State by NRC during the review period. A list of incident casework examined along with case specific comments is contained in Appendix E. ,

I' The review team interviewed DRC management and staff to discuss the State's incident and allegation process, file documentation, the State's equivalent to the Freedom of Information 4 :t, l NMED, and notification of incidents to the NRC Operations Center.

When notification of an incident or an allegation is received, the RM&X Section Manager ar .: I staff normally meet to discuss the initial response and the need for an on-site investigation The safety significance of the incident / allegation is evaluated to determine the type of rest onse  !

that Utah will take. The DRC has written guidance for handling incidents and allegations i i their )

" Inspection Guidance Procedures" manual.

The 11 incidents selected for review, out of the 46 total reported, included radiation alarm events at landfills and steel manufacturers, damaged portable gauge equipment, and a radiographer overexposure. The review team found that the State's responses to incidents and allegations were complete and comprehensive. Initial responses were prompt and well-coordinated. In fact, in all cases, the DRC responded either the first day or within 2-3 working days after notification of the event. The level of effort was commensurate with th< health and safety significance. Inspectors were dispatched for on-site investigations when vpropriate and the State took suitable enforcement action. The review team found the documentation of the incidents to be consistent and that incidents were followed up at the next inspection or in a timely fashion.

The staff was familiar with the guidance contained in the " Handbook on Nuclear Event Reporting in the Agreement States," although there was some confusion of the reporting requirements. After a review of the incidents and discussions with staff, the review team found that one of the incidents, an overexposure, had not been previously voluntarily reported to the NMED system. The incident involved an overexposure of a radiographer in January 1998, as

r.

Utah Proposed cinal Report Page 8 i

discussed in Appendix E. The DRC reported the overexposure to the NMED system prior to the end of this review.

During the review period, there was one materials allegation referred to the State by the NRC and 10 allegations reported directly to the program. The review of the State's allegation file indicates that the State took prompt and appropriate action in response to the concerns raised.

The review team noted that all documentation related to the investigation of allegations was appropriately maintained in a separate file.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Utah's performance with respect to the indicator, Response to incidents and Allegations, be found satisfactory.

4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS .

IMPEP identifies four non-common performance indicators to be used in reviewing Agreement State programs: (1) Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility; (2) Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program; (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program; and (4) Uranium Recovery Program. Utah's Agreement does not include a uranium recovery program, so only the first three non-common performance indicators were applicable to this review.

4.1 Lecislation and Proaram Elements Reauired for Comoatibility 4.1.1 Leaislation Utah became an Agreement State in 1984. Title 19, Chapter 3 of the Utah Code contains the Radiation Control Act. The Act was amended in 1992 to establish a Radiation Control Board comparable to boards established for the other divisions within the DEO. In 1994, an amendment to the law further delineated the duties and responsibilities of the Radiation Control Board. The Board is vested with overall responsibility for the program, with the Board's Executive Secretary, the DRC Director, carrying out day-to-day responsibilities.

The Board has 11 members, appointed by the Governor: the DEO Executive Director, two members of the public, a dentist, a physician, a health physicist, a representative from the radioactive waste management industry, an academic representative, an industry representative, and representatives from a local health department and a county government.

Board members are provided a copy of the Radiation Control Board Conflict of Interest policy and are required to complete conflict of interest forms.

The review team examined Board meeting minutes and completed conflict of interest forms. It was noted that the meeting minutes occasionally identified instances in which Board members would recuse themselves from matters in which they had a conflict of interest.

4.1.2 Proaram Elements Reauired for Comoatibiliq The Utah regulations for radiation control, found in U.ah Administrative Rules R313, apply to all l ionizing radiation, whether emitted from radionuclides or devices. Utah requires a license for l possession and use of all radioactive material including naturally occurring materials, such as

radium, and accelerator-produced radionuclides.

l l

l

i' Utah Proposed Final Report Page 9

, The review team examined the State's administrative rulemaking process and found that the l process takes approximately three months after filing a draft administrative rule. Draft administrative rules are sent to the Radistion Control Board for permission to get public  !

comments and to file the proposed rule. The draft rules are published in the State Bulletin. l After a public comment period, the rule is returned to the Radiation Control Board for final  !

approval. The State has the authority to issue legally binding requirements (e.g., license i conditions)in lieu of regulations until compatible regulations become effective.  !

l Each state agency must review each of its administrative rules every five years to be retained in the Utah Administrative Ccde. The purpose of the review is to remind agencies to amend or repeal rules that are no longer necessary. The review team examined a status summary for the j five-year review of radiation control rules, j

~

The team evaluated Utah's responses to the questionnaire and reviewed the status of regulations required to be adopted by the State during the review period. All regulations l required to be adopted are currently in effect. Discussions with program staff indicated a good i awareness of recently adopted rules. Some NRC regulations are adopted by reference, including 10 CFR Part 34 industrial radiography rules. l The following regulations will become due in the future and are included here to remind the State of the need to address them in rulemakings or by adopting alternate generic legally i binding requirements:

• " Compatibility with the Intemational Atomic Energy Agency," 10 CFR Part 71 amendment (60 FR 50248) that became effective April 1,1996. DRC currently has this rule in process and expects it to be adopted by March 1999.

• " Recognition of Agreement State Licenses in Areas Under Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction Within an Agreement State," 10 CFR Part 150 amendment (62 FR 1662) that became effective February 27,1997.

• " Radiological Criteria for License Termination," 10 CFR Parts 20,30,40, and 70 amendments (62 FR 39057) that became effective August 20,1997.

• " Exempt Distribution of a Radioactive Drug Containing One Microcurie of Carbon-14 Urea," 10 CFR Par 130 amendment (62 FR 63634) that became effective January 2, 1998. DRC currently has this rule in process and expects it to be adopted by March 1999.

• " Deliberate Misconduct by Unlicensed Persons," 10 CFR Parts 30,40,61,70, and 150 amendments (63 FR 1890 and 13773) that became effective February 12,1998.

It is noted that Management Directive 5.9, Handbook, Part V, (1)(c)(iii), provides that regulations required for compatibility issued prior to September 3,1997, should be adopted by the State as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 3 years after the September 3,1997 effective date of the Commission Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility,i.e.

l September 3,2000.

I l

Utah ProooseG Final Report Page 10 l 1

Based en tNe IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Utah's performance i with resmt to the indicator, Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility, be l found satisfactory. l 4.2 Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Proaram  ;

1 Effective June 1,1996, NRC reassumed regulatory authority for sealed source and device evaluations in Utah, in response to a request from the State to relinquish that authority. No I sealed source or device evaluations were performed in Utah in the early part of the review  ;

period, prior to relinquishment. Accordingly, the review team did not evaluate this indicator.

4.3 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Procram This non-common performance indicator was used by the review team to evaluate the low-lever radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal regulatory program in the State of Utah and included assessment of the following sub-indicators: (1) Status of L' ',W Dispose' Inspection Program; (2) Technical Quality of Inspections; (3) Technical Staffing and Training; (4) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; and (5) Response to incidents and Allegations. Because Envirocare of Utah (hereafter referred to as Envirocare) is the only operating LLRW disposal site in the State of Utah, the major portion of this evaluation involves an assessment of the State's regulation of the Envirocare facility. Envirocare holds Utah License No. UT 2300249.

4.3.1 Status of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Inspection Proaram Since the State of Utah has adopted NRC inspection guidance and procedures, the review team examined inspection files and conducted interviews with inspectors to determine: (1) if the LLRW disposal licensee is inspected at least as frequently as the intervals prescribed in i IMC 2800; (2) whether deviations from the prescribed frequencies in IMC 2800 are normally l coordinated between working staff and management; and (3) whether inspection findings are communicated to licensees in a timely manner, as specified in IMC 0610-10.

The review team determined that, through an examination of the State's inspection files and interviews with State inspectors, the State conducts an annual inspection at Envirocare, in accordance with the frequency required by IMC 2800, for a priority one facility. In addition, the State has also conducted what are called " daily inspections" at the Envirocare facility. These daily inspections resulted in an inspection frequency that is over and above the prescribed frequency and normally occurred three out of five business days a week in support of the State's announced goal of sixty percent full time inspection coverage. There has been no reduction from the prescribed IMC 2800 frequency, in fact, the State has exceeded the prescribed frequency contained in IMC 2800.

The review team finds that, for the period evaluated during this review, the State has also met the recommendation of IMC 2800 to communicate inspection findings to the licensee within a

! 30-day period.

I f

l

• l l

'c Utah Proposed Final Report Page 11 4.3.2 Technical Quality of Inspections The review team assessed the quality of LLRW disposal inspections by determining whether:  ;

(1) accompaniments and on-site review of inspection files indicate well founded and well documented inspections findings; (2) inspection field notes and completed reports indicate that most inspections are complete and promptly reviewed by management; (3) procedures are in

{

place for identifying root causes and poor licensee performance; (4) following inspections, l l inspectors address previously identified open items or past violations; (5) inspection findings l lead to appropriate and prompt regulatory action; and (6) supewisors accompany inspectors on an annual basis.

I Supervisory accompaniments have been conducted for each LLRW inspector during the past two years and in many cases supervisory accompaniments exceed the recommended ,

frequency n one per year, as inspections have often been conducted with teams of two or three inspectors. The findings in the two annual inspections reviewed for this assessment are well documented in annual inspection reports. Daily inspection findings and observations are maintahed in an inspection log with detailed observations and descriptions, and field notes reflectir,g findings during ongoing operations. Daily findings are noticed in the daily documented working log and followed up on the next inspector visit. The W&E Section

)

Manager reviews the inspection findings and periodically issues enforcement letters to the j licensee. Each annualinspection report has been reviewed and signed by management and l inspection findings and observations are tracked to completion. All open items from the previous year's inspection files were either closed out.or scheduled for follow-up action during the 1997 annual inspection.

The State has generated a database showing a " Breakdown of Violations" versus severity level for various categories of violations. This is a good State practice and this system is valuable in assessing which Envirocare LLRW disposal operations are most prone to violations. This database also assists in establishing the root cause for violations. This is identified as a " good practice" as identified in Section 3.2.

4.3.3 Technical Staffina And Trainina issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include: (1) whether qualification of the technical staff are commensurate with expertise necessary to regulate a LLRW disposal facility; (2) whether management has developed and implemented a training program for the staff; and (3) if staffing trends that could have an adverse impact on the quality of the program are tracked, analyzed, and addressed.

The W&E Section staffing has essentially remained unchanged since the beginning of the program. There are seven staff members in the section and the W&E Section Manager who supervises both licensing reviews and inspections. An assessment was performed of the staff's education and experience against the "NRC/OAS Training Working Group Recommendations for Agreement State Training" and " Suggested State Requirements and Criteria for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site Regulatory Program." The assessment indicates that the staff is qualified in the technical and administrative areas addressed in these documents. Individual W&E Section staff training documentation indicates that the State has identified some of the core courses, that NRC requires for inspection and licensing qualification for its staff, as necessary for State staff training. The review team noted that the State has not developed l

l l

o 4.

Utah Proposed Final Report Page 12 individual training plans for the technical staff which could be utilized for projecting training needs and as a career enhancement tool.

4.3.4 Technical Quality of Licensina Actions Evaluation of this indicator requires an assessment to determine that: (1) pre-licensing interaction with the applicant is occurring on a regular basis; (2) special license tie-down conditions are usually stated clearly and are able to be inspected; (3) deficiency letters clearly state regulatory positions and are used at the proper time; (4) reviews of amendments and renewal applications demonstrate a thorough analysis of a licensee's inspection and enforcement history; (5) applicable guidance documents are available to reviewers and are generally followed; (6) public hearings, in accordance with State administrative laws, have

' occurred; (7) review of certain technical aspects of the LLRW licensing files indicate that .

reviews are generally thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable technical quality; (8) health and safety issues are properly addressed; and (9) evaluation of the license review

! process indicates that the process is thorough and consistent.

In June 1997, the State received a siting application from Laidlaw Environmental Services (now i Safety Kleen) for the construction and operation of a low-level waste disposal facility in Tooele County, Utah. The proposed facility would be known as the Grassy Mountain Facility. The l l State has met on several occasions with the potential licensee and provided guidance in such 1 l

areas as siting, pre-operational monitoring, construction and operational phases of a low-level j waste disposal facility. .The State reviewed and approved the siting criteria in the Laidlaw's l siting application. This is the first step in the State's licensing process for a new LLR'W facility.  :

I l In October 1998, the State completed a review of the Envirocare license renewal application for the Envirocare low-level waste disposal site. In order to determine if the State makes use of inspection and enforcement history during the renewal process, the review team tracked two  ;

significant inspection findings regarding: (1) the requirement for the licensee to develop a " test '

pad" (to assure the use of clay with the correct properties, equipment with the correct l specifications, and to assure that the correct test procedures were used); and (2) the

! requirement that the licensee meet the possession limit (350 gram mass limit) and individual I l shipment limits for special nuclear material (SNM).

In the first instance, an inspection finding, in October 1996, revealed that Envirocare failed to follow approved procedures regarding installation of a disposalliner and development of a test

! pad. Follow-up documentation shows that the State required the applicant to revise the renewal application and incorporate additional procedures for developing a plan, to be submitted to the Executive Secretary of the Utah Radiation Control Board, in advance, when a test pad would be developed. The newly amended license contains Condition No. 35 which clearly supports this requirement.

In May 1997, the second finding (regarding possession of SNM over the 350 gram limit) was made, apparently because the licensee was receiving material that exceeded stated license

! concentration limits but then engaged in down-blending once the material reached the i Envirocare site. Condition No.13 of the license is now written to consider any waste containing i SNM, not disposed on the day delivered, as in possession of the license. Thus, this material is now counted against the 350 gram possession limit.

• l i

4 Utah Proposed Final Report Page 13 The review team evaluated documentation of State meetings with the licensee to discuss the compliance history. The DRC Director met personally with the President of Envirocare in this regard. Weekly meetings attended by Envirocare and DEO staff are held in the State offices.

The State's procedures require that before reviewing a license in category 1,2, or 3, that the compliance history of the license should be checked to determine whether additional requirements should be part of the license.

4.3.5 Resoonse to Incidents and Alleaations During the review period, there were three allegations involving LLRW referred to the State by the NRC. In 1997, an allegation that Envirocare was accepting shipments containing quantities of uranium-235 that exceeded their possession limit was referred to Utah. The State performed an inspection, which resulted in a Notice of Violation and civil penalties. Also in 1997, an  ;

allegation was referred to Utah that Envirocare failed to include ground water modeling in the ~ l site safety analysis. The State sent information to the NRC in April 1998 which indicated that ground water monitoring studies had been provided and we;e very < nuervative. The third allegation is currently under review by the Utah State Attorney General's office.

l The review of the State's allegation file indicates that the State took prompt and appropriate 4 action in response to the concerns raised. The review team noted that all documentation related to the investigation of allegations was appropriately maintained in a separate file.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Utah's performance with respect to the indicator, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program, be found satisfactory.

5.0

SUMMARY

1 As noted in Sections 3 and 4 above, the review team found Utah's performance to be satisfactory for all of the indicators. Accordingly, the review team recommends that the MRB find the Utah Agreement State Program to be adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC's program.

Below is a summary list of recommendations, as mentioned in earlier sections of the report, for implementation and evaluation, as appropriate, by the State. Also, the " good practice" noted in the report is identified for consideration by the MRB.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The review team recommends that the State continue in their ongoing efforts to meet the reciprocity inspection frequencies outlined in IMC 1220. (Section 3.1).

2. The review team recommends that the State provide training to technical personnel in the areas of medical brachytherapy and irradiator technology. (Section 3.3).

4 Utah Proposed Final Report Page 14 GOOD PRACTICE:

A good practice was noted during the review, that being the use of an inspection compliance history form both for the materials program and the low-level radioactive waste disposal program. The compliance history form includes all of the past inspection findings for the facility and is used not only to help the inspector prepare for the inspection, but also as a teaching tool during the inspection to help the licensee better understand the issues and past history of the license. (Sections 3.2 and 4.3.2).

9

LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS Appendix A iMPEP Review Team Members Appendix B Utah Organization Charts Appendix C inspection Casework Reviews Appendix D License Casework Reviews Appendix E incident Casework Reviews Appendix F Utah's Questionnaire Response .

Attachment Utah's :sponse to Draft IMPEP Report Dated Jwiuary 12,1999

('

l-l

i

. , f APPENDIX A iMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS t

Name Area of Responsibility

{

James Lynch, Region 111 Team 1.cader  ;

Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility Allen Grewe, Tennessee Status of Materials inspection Program i Technical Quality of inspections Linda McLean, Region IV Technical Staffing and Training l Response to incidents and Allegations ,

.i Michael Weber, Region lli Technical Quality of Ucensing Actions LeRoy Person, NMSS Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposa! Program i

1 l

l i

.I l

I i

)

l I

~

l APPENDIX B l

STATE OF UTAH  !

l DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY I and DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL ORGANIZATION CHARTS t

i a

4 I

I i

I / i l

Department of Environmental Quality Organizational Chart State of Utah 6 Mikeleavitt i Govemor

[

l I Department of Environmental Quality i Dr.Dianne Nielson Executive Director  !

Brent Bradford l

Deputy Director Human Resource Managemen Planning & Extemal Affairs Division of Air Quality Division of Drinking Water DMslon of Environmental Dan Brentel Leah Ann Lamb Ursula Trueman "

Kevin Brown Response & Remediation Director Director Director Director Kent Gray, Director .

Air Quality Board Drinking Water Board t

Support Services Director Division of Radiation Control DMsion of WaterQuality Div.of Solid & Hazardous Wast i

Steve Higley William Sinclair Don Ostler Dennis Downs I

Director Director Director Director 1muuuuuuumm - nimummmussummmmmmusumu Radiation ControlBoard WaterQuality Board Solid & Hazardous Board l

l:. f(;  !,' il(  :!I  ; t{!ljt!l !j[l'  ! [  ;! nI a t

y f

e a )

l s ) )

_ l s l S I er l i

i i

l n

o t

i s ne n0 d ic t

s t

is n ef f 5 U t itans e t r n ts t n i oii aOm p ig ie ei d a d aiqS uc c o t iSr c RRlua l et r

Pf a yM e lo e hL l

terHt n nSt a eHl a s o n gt t r n a dhone o ne n mee

. Wno lI J o m n itaom t itap r

oi n

db m yo n HRo r

._ l I) r L

e v

e iv E

r n pd sa n

aR

@ Erovni i E

v n

. a e w ( r ( (

T tn r e egd r g o moa w mnfMa el i

I ivMna n i EnF onm etn e

&te c an t y

t e s r ty t

sS a

eDrov i f

a )

I; ig o

)

V e

e ) f e

)

S a W

l n I t

lo I n l I

S i

i E n s e t s ig r l

( o 5 n e n t i

t n s-3 w

t n EWn e o is yt cne ia n e t

S n ia yie l

da sS od ei iv pig HoS r imn d ec Rl el a CaE alps eNt eMl a teCl a Ri e Ra l

s ye n t

t ts aeenn s wt n t a a a Wmemn s yn t

WRmno Wo r m ar r e l

e r l Ln e o leWo v

WJemn v

e i

v n

v e i r

v eWi v r

l e

v ,i m L L n l n e v E E n w ( w ( w E l E L

o L o L o (

L w

o

(

)

_ l r o

r t o

t n a ) )

C o h dr ie!

r !

h n n ia o r lc r

n ono

$aseC o s a pi oic d n

a r n in i on itat da cS i

r r sa h

Sc h h e tsL e a c rT e i

c e Rim f

r Di !a i

n mienr i

n e gTec o

n W

i dMS A t d !c ai

!o!

i f

f o O r

o Y(0 avm is p (

M p u

D S

_ ( _

) ) )

i a 11 l l

1 i

• ' n yn N t it s

n t

it s

n a e ei e

_ s's wi c toS i

c liS c leice l

hc S "i al Gt na Fa el t ia ne ient Mtl n ym e ne w n lumn om 2 Dn J

Go r o r o r

y a )I "

iv n iv n iv r

n

- r E E E X e ( ( (

g

_ &r e a is gs n iaa e a

- r e a ol n nM _ - -

_ taMJ Mnign ta

_ eir vt oam e it cCn

. c e o aS i r

v

)

i i

)l )

i

)

i

)

io n l

I i i i

_ d E lts t l

t l

t l

a ( i 5

s is is t

s R t n n t ,i t

n n tn n t e s e g e e ii e sd ei hi W

nd s c c BeS iS d rS e iS a

_ nta en dl ia Gtn la fn tea Pt n l

S l d ta n Kml ra e n

o e

ume Sn o u

ye la m Cn o r

a e h m c n r i o Rr iv n iv r

n nn iv r

n iv n

E

( E

( E

( E E

( (

APPENDlX C f

INSPECTION CASEWORK REVIEWS NOTE: ALL INSPECTIONS LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT ARE INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS ONLY; NO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE REVIEW TEAM.

File No.: 1 Licensee: Timpanogos Regional Hospital License No.: UT 2500409 Location: Orem, UT inspection Type: Initial, Unannounced License Type: Medical Institution Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 5/21/98 Inspectors: GG/PG File No.: 2 Licensee: Cottonwood Hospital Medical Center License No.: UT 1800023 Location: Murray, UT Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced License Type: MedicalInstitution Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 11/7-8/96 Inspectors: SG/JF File No.: 3 Licensee: Heart Center License No.: UT 1800319 Location: Salt Lake City, UT inspection Type: Routine, Announced License Type: Medicalinstitution Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 10/14/97 Inspector: GG Comment:

a) Inspection letter sent 41 days after inspection completed.

File No.: 4 Licensee: Salt Lake Clinic License No.: UT 1800277 Location: Salt Lake City, UT inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced License Type: Medical Institution Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 3/5/98 Inspector: GG File No.: 5 Licensee: Mark Steel License No.: UT 1800293 Location: Salt Lake City, UT inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 4/22/98 Inspector: GG File No.: 6 Licensee: Professional Service industries, Inc. License No.: UT 1800087 Location: Salt Lake City, UT inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 4/24-27/98 Inspector: GG Comment:

a) Inspection not conducted within 25% of scheduled frequency because the license did not show up on the inspection list, inspected at first possible date after it was discovered.

i

{ t I- Utah Proposed Final Report ~

l l~ Page C.2 l

l. Inspection Casework Reviews L .

File No.: 7- i Licensee: Geneva Steel Safety Department License No.: UT 2500292 Location: Vineyard, UT ' .

Inspection Type: Initial, Announced ,

License Type: Decontamination Services Priority: 2  !

j- Inspection Date: 12/17/96 inspector: JF l-  !

File No.: 8 i l Ucensee: Computalog Wireline Services License No.: UT 0400412 I Location: Price, UT inspection Type: Initial, Unannounced . l License Type: Well Logging Priority: 2 l

. Inspection Date: 9/2-3/98. Inspector: GG-l File No.: 9 Licensee: Utah Power & Light Company . License No.: UT 1800136 i Location: Salt Lake City, UT Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced .j License Type: Well Logging Priority: 2

. Inspection Date: -12/10/97 Inspector: JF

, Comment: .

I

_a) . Inspection letter sent 55 days after inspection due to request by corporate RSO for a

.' face-to-face close out meeting that was held on 2/3/98. Letter sent immediately after meeting.

File No.: 10 Licensee: Schlumberger Technology Corporation . License No.: UT 2400065 Location: Vemal, UT Inspection Type:- Routine, Unannounced License Type: Well Logging Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 6/2-4/98 Inspector: GG File No.: 11 Licensee: Alta View Hospital License No.: UT 1800240 Location: Sandy, UT Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced License Type: MedicalInstitution Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 12/6/95 Inspector: JF File No.:- 12.

Licensee: Castleview Hospital License No.: UT 0400009 Location: Price, UT Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced License Type: MedicalInstitution Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 8/21/96 Inspector: JF File No.: 13

. Licensee: MDS Nordion, Inc. License No.: NRC 54-28275-01 Location:- Murray, UT Inspection Type: Special, Unannounced License Type: Irradiator Service Priority: Reciprocity inspection Date: 7/15/98 Inspector: JF l

l~

.- . . - . . . . - - . , - . . -- , - - -. --_-- ~

Utah Proposed Final Report Page C.3 i inspection Casework Reviews '

File No.: 14

• Licensee: Longview Inspection, Inc. License No.: TX LO1774 '

. Location: N/A - Inspection Type: Special, Unannounced .

License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: Reciprocity  !

Inspection Date: 8/31/98- Inspector: GG

. File No.: 15 Licensee: Brigham Young University License No.: UT 2500081 j Location: Provo, UT Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced i License Type: Broad Academic Type B Priority: 2 inspection Date: 2/24/97 & 3/7/97 Inspector. JF 1

t L File No.: 16

Licensee: Pharmaceutical & Diagnostic Services License No.: UT 1800225  !

Location: Salt Lake City, UT Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced l License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Priority: 1 '

- Inspection Date: 5/27-28/97- Inspector: JF '

- File No.: 17  ;

Licensee: Central Utah Medical Clinic License No.:' UT 2500361 l Location: Provo, UT Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced  !

License Type: MedicalInstitution Priority: 3  !

. Inspection Date: 12/19/97- Inspector: GG i h

File No.: 18 l Licensee: University of Utah .

License No.: UT 1800001  !

Location: Salt Lake City, UT Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced - ,

- License Type: Academic Broad Scope Priority: 1- l l

Inspection Date:- 3/10-13/98 Inspectors: GG/JF ,

File No.: 19

. Licensee: Paracelsus Pioneer Valley Hospital License No.: UT 1800080

- Location: West Valley City, UT Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced  !

l Licensee Type: Medical Institution - Priority: 3  !

' Inspection Date: 8/19-20/98 inspector: JF <

t File No.: 20 l _ Licensee: Isomedix Operations, Inc. License No.: UT 1800074 l ~ Location: Sandy, UT Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced

- License _ Type: Pool Irradiator Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 2/19/98 Inspectors: GG/JF  ;

i L

j L

4 4

4

- ~ v , -rw,--wwr- -, - --- w-.,-- - , - - -

l Utah Proposed Final Report Page C.4 ,

l Inspection Casework Reviews  !

INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS '

l l The following inspection accompaniments were made as part of the on-site IMPEP review: i Accompaniment No.: 1 Ucensee: Westinghouse Electric Co. License No.: UT 2900016 Location: Ogden, UT Inspection Type: Routine, Announced '

License Type: Industrial Radiography-Fixed Facility Priority: 1 i inspection Date: 11/5/98 Inspector: JF Accompaniment No.: 2 Licensee: Met-Chem Testing Laboratories of Utah, Inc. License No.: UT 1800146 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced l License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1  :

Inspection Date: 11/6/98 Inspector: GG '

l l

l t

i

---

. - - - - _ . - . - . - . _ _ - . - . . - . - .- - ..~ .

l APPENDIX D LICENSE CASEWORK REVIEWS NOTE: ALL LICENSES LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT ARE INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS ONLY; NO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE REVIEW TEAM. ,

' ALSO, THE DRC LICENSE REVIEWERS ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED SINCE ALL l REVIEWS WERE DONE BY TEAMS. '

File No.: 1 Licensee: University of Utah License No.: UT 1800001 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Amendment No.: 29

. License Type: Academic / Medical Broad Scope Type of Action: Amendment Date Issued: 11/20/97 Reviewer: Team File No.: 2 Licensee: Brigham Young University License No.: UT 2500081 Location: Provo, UT . Amendment No.: 3 License Type: Academic Broad Scope Type of Action: Renewal Date issued: 10/22/97 Reviewer: Team File No.: 3 Licensee: Isomedix Operations, Inc. License No.: UT 1800074 Location: Sandy, UT Amendment No.: 13 License Type: PoolIrradiator Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 2/18/98 Reviewer: Team File No.: 4 Licensee: American Red Cross Blood Services License No.:: UT 1800408 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Amendment No.: 0 .;

License Type: Self-Shielded Irradiator Type of Action: New 1 Date issued: 11/12/97 Reviewer: Team Comment:

a) Amendment number incorrect; corrected on next amendment.

File No.: 5 -

Licensee: American Red Cross Blood Services License No.: UT 1800408

. Location: Salt Lake City, UT Amendment No.: 2

. Ucense Type: Self-Shielded irradiator Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 8/13/98 Reviewer: Team File No.: 6 Licensee: Mark Steel Corp. License No.: UT 1800293 Location: Pit Lake City, UT Amendment No.: 7 i License Type: industrial Radiography Type of Action: Amendment i Date issued: 7/13/98 Reviewer: Team j i

l

9 Utah Proposed Final Report Page D.2 :

License Casework Reviews File No.: 7 Licensee: Halliburton Energy Services License No.: UT 2400026 Location: Houston, TX Amendment No.: 12 License Type: Well Logging Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 7/6/98 Reviewer: Team  ;

File No.: 8 I Licensee: Utah Valley Regional Medical Center License No.: UT 2500129 Location: Provo, UT Amendment No.: 14 License Type: MedicalInstitution Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 11/10/98 Reviewer: Team File No.: 9 Licensee: Utah Valley Regional Medical Center License No.: UT 2500125 Location: Provo, UT Amendment No.: 11 License Type: Medical Institution Type of Action: Renewal

> Date issued: 3/21/95 Reviewer: Team J File No.: 10 ,

Licensee: Timpanogos Regional Hospital License No.: UT 2500409 '

Location: Orem, UT Amendment No.: O l License Type: MedicalInstitution Type of Action: New Date issued: 12/2/97 Reviewer: Team l

Comment:

a) NRC Policy & Guidance Directive 3-16, Revision 1, dated 3/7/97, was not followed, apparently because it was not received by the DRC. (At the time of the IMPEP review, the reviewers and supervisor were not aware of the document.)

File No.: 11 Licensee: Utah Valley Heart Clinic License No.: UT 1800378 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Amendment No.: O License Type: MedicalInstitution Type of Action: New Date issued: 10/21/94 Reviewer: Tearn File No.: 12 Licensee: FHP Hospital, Utah Region License No.: UT 1800359 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Amendment No.: N/A License Type: Medical Institution Type of Action: Termination Date issued: 3/11/98 Reviewer: Team i File No.: 13 Licensee: McKay-Dee Hospital Center License No.: UT 2900147 Location: Ogden,UT Amendment No.: 14 License Type: Medical Institution Type of Action: Renewal Date issued: 7/7/95 Reviewer: Team i

l

.e-p  !

l Utah Proposed Final Report Page D.3 i License Casework Reviews File No.:'14 ,

Licensee: McKay-Dee Hospital Center License No.: UT 2900147  !

L Location: Ogden, UT. . .

Amendment No.: 16 i License Type: Medicalinstitution Type of Action: Amendment i Date issued: 4/2/98 Reviewer: Team l l

l File No.: 15 l-Licensee: State of Utah Crime Laboratory License No.: UT 1800316  :

Location:' Salt Lake City, UT .

Amendment No.: N/A  ;

License Type: Research and Development Type of Action: Termination  ;

Date lasued: 6/12/96 Reviewer: Team  ;

i File No.': .16 i

. Licensee: Speck Construction, Inc. License No.: UT 1800399 ~ .

Location: West Jordan, UT - Amendment No.: 0 4 u

License Type: Portable Gauge Type of Action: New Date issued: 2/4/97.' Reviewer: Team File No.: 17. l Licensee: MCM Engineering,Inc. License No.: UT 2600355 i

' Location: Hober, UT Amendment No.: N/A t License Type: Portable Gauge . Type of Action: Termination i

. Date issued: 9/29/98 Reviewer: Team j i  ;

File No.:.18 ]

. Licensee: Vernal City Corp. License No.: UT 2400281 l Location: Vernal, UT : Amendment No.: 4 L License Type: Portable Gauge Type of Action: Amendment l Date issued: 3/27/98 Reviewer: Team Comment:

- a) License Condition No. 8.C. contained an incorrect SI unit conversion.

File No.: 19 Licensee: AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. License No.: UT 1800164 l Location: Salt Lake City, UT- Amendment No.: 6 l License Type: Portable Gauge Type of Action: Renewal I. Date issued: 6/12/95 Reviewer: Team File No.: 20 Licensee: AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. License No.: UT 1800164 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Amendment No.: 8 License Type: Portable Gauge Type of Action: Amendment E Date issued: 4/20/98. Reviewer: Team i

' Comment:

L  : a)' License Condition No. 8.C. contained an incorrect SI unit conversion.

..I p<

l

, ._, .~ _

Utah Proposed Final Report Page D.4

• License Casework Reviews  ;

i File No.: 21  !

Licensee: Geneva Steel License No.: UT 2500251 .

-Location: Vineyard, UT Amendment No.: 14 License Type: Fixed Gauge

~

Type of Action: Renewal Date issued: 6/3/98 Reviewer: Team t

1 l

e i

i i

4 - - , - . - ,

APPENDIX E INCIDENT CASEWORK REVIEWS 1

NOTE: ALL INCIDENTS LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT ARE INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS ONLY; NO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE REVIEW TEAM.

File No.: 1 Licensee: Creamer & Noble Engineering incident ID No.: N/A Location: Carbon County, UT License No.: UT 2700367  ;

Date of incident: 9/30/98 Type of Incident: Damaged Portable Gauge Investigation Date: 10/2/98 investigation Type: On-site Summary:

A nuclear gauge was run over by a truck at the work site in Carbon County, UT. The . I sealed sources were not damaged.

File No.: 2 Licensee: OHM Remediation Services Corp. Incident ID No.: N/A l Location: Utah License No.: UT 1900400 l Date of incident: 9/25/98 Type of Incident: Damaged Portable Gauge Investigation Dates: 9/28-30/98 investigation Type: Telephone j 1

Summary:

]

A nuclear gauge was run over by a truck at the work site. The sealed sources were not I damaged.

File No.: 3 l Licensee: AGRA Earth & Environmental incident ID No.: N/A l Location: Salt Lake City, UT License No.: UT 1800164 l Date of incident: 8/4/98 Type of Incident: Damaged Portable Gauge I investigation Date: 8/5/98 Investigation Type: On-site Summary:

A nuclear gauge was run over by smooth barrel compactor at a work site in Salt Lake City, UT. The sealed sources were not damaged. The State issued a Notice of Violation and a crvil penalty.

File No.: 4 Licensee: Magnesium Corporation of America incident ID No.: N/A Location: Salt Lake City, UT License No.: UT 1800054 Date of incident: 1/7/98 Type of incident: Potential Overexposure Investigation Date: 1/12/98 investigation Type: On-site 1

Summary: '

An untrained worker removed a damaged fixed gauge from its bracket. Exposure was minimal.

l

O Utah Proposed Final Report Page E.2 Incides.t Casework Reviews File No.: 5 Licensee: Life Time Products (non-licensee) Incident ID No.: N/A Location: Ogden, UT License No.: N/A Date of incident: 6/9/98 Type of Incident: Co-60 Contaminated Steel Investigation Date: 6/11/98 investigation Type: On-site Summary:

Steel contaminated with cos 4-60 was found at manufacturer. NRC and EPA were notified. The steel was shipped back to the distributor. <

File No.: 6 '

License: Applied Geotechnical Engineering Consultants incident ID No.: N/A Location: Knolls, UT Licensee No.: UT 1800298 l Date of incident: 9/12/98 Type of incident: Damaged Portable Gauge  !

Investigation Date: 9/15/98 investigation Type: On-site  !

Summary:

A nuclear gauge was run over by heavy construction equipment at a work site in Knolls, f

UT. The sealed sources were not damaged. The State issued a Notice of Violation. l File No.: 7 Licensee: Consolidated Engineering Laboratories incident ID No.: N/A ,

Location: Utah License No.: UT 1800312 l' Date of incident: 9/4/97 Type of Incident: Lost Portable Gauge investigation Date: 9/4/97 investigation Type: On-site I l

Summary:

The nuclear gauge was found undamaged. The State issued a Notice of Violation.

File No.: 8 Licensee: AlliantTechsystems incident ID No.: N/A Location: Magna,UT License No.: G3-028 Date of incident: 3/20/97 Type of incident: Lost Po-210 Source <

Investigation Date: 3/20/97 investigation Type: Telephone l

Summary:

The general licensee provided a 30-day report to the State.

File No.: 9 i Licensee: Envirocare of Utah incident ID No.: N/A Location: Clive, UT License No.: UT 2300320 Date of incident: 4/27/97 Type of incident: Damaged Portable Gauge investigation Date: 4/29/97 investigation Type: On-site Summary:

The sealed sources were not damaged. The State issued a severity level lli violation l and a civil penalty.

l

l i

Utah Proposed Final Report Page E.3 '

incident Casework Reviews File No.: 10 l

' Licensee: University of Utah IncidentID No.: N/A l Location: Salt Lake City, UT License No.: UT 1800001 ,

Date of incident: 6/23/97 Type of incident: Lost 1-125 Seed Investigation Date: 6/27/97 investigation Type: Telephone Summary.

Source was not recovered. The licensee provided a 30-day report to the State. 1 File No.: 11  !

Licensee: Professional Services Industries incident ID No.: N/A r Location: Chevron, UT License No.: UT 1800087 i Date of incident: 1/29/98 Type of incident: Radiographer Overexposure. l Investigation Date: 2/2/98 investigation Type: On-site ,

Summary:

The licensee reported an employee's film badge reading of 4.98 rem for the period 1/25-2/24/98. The film badge results for the period of 12/25/97-1/24/98 were reported  :

as 130 millirem, resulting in an overexposure. The State conducted an investigation of the incident and issued a Notice of Violation, but did not realize, at the time, that the -

combination of the two reporting periods constituted an overexposure. The incident was

. reported to NMED prior to the end of the IMPEP review.

! I

, I

d i

1 APPENDIX F STATE OF UTAH i

QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE  ;

I l

i l

i l

\

l l

.l Approved by OMB'  ;

No. 3150-0183 i Expires 5/31/2001 1

INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM QUESTIONNAIRE  !

Utah Program .

Reporting Period: June 18,1994 to November 15,1998 i A. COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS -

1. Status of Materials insnar+ ion Proaram

1. Please prepare a table identifying the licenses with inspections that are overdue by more than 25% of the scheduled frequency set out in NRC inspection Manual Chapter 2800. The list should include initialinspections that are overdue.

I Insp. Frequency ,

Licensee Name '(Years) Due Date Months O/D l Currently, there are no licensees with inspections that are overdue by more than I 25% of the scheduled frequency set out in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800.  !

1

2. Do you currently have an action plan for completing overdue inspections? If so, please describe the plan or provide a written copy with your response to this questionnaire.

A computerized tracking system for inspections calculates and lists the date by which the inspection is overdue by greater than 25% of the inspection frequency.

This helps avoid the problem of overdue iWons. However, if an inspection should become overdue, it is conducted on the first possible date after the discovery of the overdue inspection.

3. Please identify individual licensees or groups of licensees the State / Region is inspecting more or less frequently than called for in NRC inspection Manual Chapter 2800 and state the reason for the change.

2 Estimated burden per response to comply with this voluntary collection request: 45 hours5.208333e-4 days <br />0.0125 hours <br />7.440476e-5 weeks <br />1.71225e-5 months <br />. Forward comments regarding burden estimate to the information and Records Management Branch (T-6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to the Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-0183), Office of Management and Budget,

. Washington, DC 20503. If an information collection does not display a currently valid OMB control number, NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information collection.

1

l l

See the attached table titled: RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL LICENSE INSPECTION PROGRAM

4. Please complete the following table for licensees granted reciprocity during the reporting period.

Prior to Calendar Year 1998, reciprocity inspections were tracked by the Division by fiscal year. Inspection priority was not tracked.

Number of Fiscal Year Licensees Granted inspections Division inspection Reciprocity Permits Performed per Goal per Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Each Calendar Year Licensee (% of Notifications ,

Notification per Licensee) i 1994 38 3 Inspections 25% ofFeasible of 9 Feasible Inspection Inspections Notifications l 1995 31 1 Inspection 25% of Feasible of 3 Feasible Inspection l Inspections Notifications 1996 29 6 Inspections 10% ofNotifications i of26 l Licensee l Notifications 1997 42 3 Inspections 10% ofNotifications of29 Licensee Notifications l

1998 27 3 Inspections 10% ofNotifications l of32 Licensee Notifications l

2 1 - --

I 1

• Number of Number of Notifications Licensees inspected per Licensee for FY 1999 for FY 1999 Priority (to the present) (to present) I Service Licensees FY 1999 1 FY 1999 1 performing teletherapy and irradiator source installations or changes 1

1 1 FY 1999 4 FY 1999 2 2 FY 1999 0 FY 1999 0 l

l 3 FY 1999 6 FY 1999 0 1 l ATTEMPT 4 FY 1999 0 FY 1999 0 All Other FY 1999 2 FY 1999 0 Note: As of FY 1999, MC 1220, Appendix 111 was adopted.

Repeat licensee notifications per fiscal year not included.

5. Other than reciprocity licensees, how many field inspections of radiographers were performed?

i An attempt is made to conduct a field inspection of radiographers for each radiography licensee inspected. Field inspections may not be performed on a licensee if field work is not scheduled within a reasonable time period from the  !

opening of the inspection or if the licensee is not authorized to work at temporary job sites. Presently, there are seven licensees authorized to conduct radiography outside of a permanent radiographic installation (one new licensee in 1998 and one new licensee in 1997). Since the last review, Division of Radiation Control inspectors performed field inspections cfradiographers on 16 occasions.

l 6. For NRC Regions, did you establish numerical goals for the number of inspections to be performed during this review period? If so, please describe  ;

your goals, the number of inspections actually performed, and the reasons for any l

differences between the goals and the actual number of inspections performed. '

l A response is not provided, since the question is not applicable to the Utah Radiation Control Program i

11. Technica) Quality of insoections

7. What, if any, changes were made to your written inspection procedures during the reporting period?

l

1 Changes were made to the frequency ofinspections to assure that the inspections  !

performed by Division of Radiation Control inspectors are no less frequent than '

the frequency given in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800. Program directions were also given to inspectors to address the inspection of NRC or Agreement State licensees operating under reciprocity in areas of Utahjurisdiction. The directions state that the inspection of reciprocity licensees follow the frequency

{

outlined in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 1220. Additional guidance for

)

writing field notes were provided to the inspectors. i

8. Prepare a table showing the number and types of supervisory accompaniments made during the review period. Include:

1 Insoector Suoervisor License Cat. Date Julie Felice Craig Jones 4-b 10/94

~

Julie Felice Craig Jones 4-b 4/95 Julie Felice Craig Jones / Bill Sinclair 4-b 6/95 Julie Felice Craig Jones 3-f(ii) 11/96 Julie Felice Craig Jones 3-1.5 12/97 l

)

Susan Giddings Craig Jones 4-b 10/94 Susan Giddings Craig Jones 4-b 4/95 Susan Giddings Craig Jones / Bill Sinclair 4-b 6/95 Susan Giddings l

Craig Jones 3-1.7 8/96 l Susan Giddings Craig Jones 3-1.1 8/96 Gwyn Galloway Craig Jones 3-1.1 12/97 Gwyn Galloway Craig Jones 7-b.2 12/97 l The information in the above table covers FY95 through FY98 (7/1/94 through 6/30/98)

9. Describe intemal procedures for conducting supervisory accompaniments of inspectors in the field. If supervisory accompaniments were documented, please provide copies of the documentation for each accompaniment.

It is a responsibility of the radioactive materials supervisor to oversee the inspection activities of technical staff. The supenisor is to accompany all inspectors who have been assigned to perform inspections of specific licensees.

The accompaniments are to occur at least once each year and the purpose is to evaluate the inspector's performance on health and safety issues.

To fulfill this responsibility, the supervisor randomly selects an inspection for a supervisory accompaniment. The selection comes from the regular nonfications ofinspection work scheduled by the materials inspectors. Approximately one day advance notice is given to the inspector that the supervisor intends to evaluate the inspectors's performance. An evaluation form is provided to the inspector, the 4

1 contents are discussed, and the role of the supervisor is also discussed. After the inspection, the supervisor provides feedback to the inspector and provides a copy of the evaluation form to the individual.

10. Describe or provide an update on your instrumentation and methods of calibration. Are allinstruments properly calibrated at the present time?

Exposure rate instruments and dosimeters are calibrated using a one curie cesium-137 source. The calculated source intensity is adjusted for decay prior to each calibration session. Each instrument is placed on a small table at a specified distance from the source to obtain the desired reading on multiple scales or decades.

Contamination instruments are calibrated using a variety of beta or alpha sources. ,

Sources are chosen based on energy and activity. Ratemeters or scalers are calibrated with specific probes. An electronic pulser is also used to check high voltage settings, threshold settings, mstrument linearity, and digital displays.'

All instruments currently used by inspectors are properly calibrated. A listing of instrumentation calibrated by the Division of Radiation Control is attached.

III. Technical Staffino and Trainina

11. Please provide a staffing plan, or complete a listing using the suggested format below, of the professional (technical) person-years of effort applied to the agreement or radioactive material program by individual. Include the name, position, and, for Agreement States, the fraction of time spent in the following areas: administration, materials licensing & compliance, emergency response, LLW, U-mills, other. If these regulatory responsibilities are divided between offices, the table should be consol; dated to include all personnel contributing to the radioactive materials program. Include all vacancies and identify all senior personnel assigned to monitor work of junior personnel. If consultants were used to carry out the program's radioactive materials responsibilities, include their efforts.

5

l UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION COhTROL TECHNICAL STAFFING PLAN SEPTEMBER 1998 NAME POSITION AREA OF FTE%

EFFORT Best, Karen Environmental X-ray 1 ScientistIII Giddings, Susan Emironmental X-ray 1 Scientist III Sanborn, Richard Environmental X-ray 1 ScientistIII Felice,Julie Environmental Radioactive materials 1 ScientistIII inspection / licensing Galloway, Gwyn Environmental Radioactive materials ScientistIII inspection / licensing, .9 FDA mammography ,.1 inspections 1 Griffm, Phil Environmental X-ray .5 ScientistIII Radioactive materials J inspection / licensing 1 Petersen, Clay Environmental X-ray .5 ScientistIII Radioactive materials J inspection / licensing 1 Mitchell, Don Environmental Radioactive materials 1 ScientistIII licensing Herben, Rob Environmental Low-level waste .7 Scientist III Radioactive materials licensing suppon .1 (groundwater)

Uranium mills - Title 2 I(groundwater) 1 6

.e  :

l t

L Campbell, Woodrow Environmental Low-Level Waste  !

.9 EngineerIII Radioactive i Materials Licensing J- .

l Support 1 l

f o

D t

+

I

• f i

f t

e t

-i

.i 1

l 1

1 i

I i

~

i. i 1

i t

f 7

i

, , _ . ..c-. . . - - - ,,,- - e

• e ' - " * '~ 1

UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL TECHNICAL STAFFING PLAN SEPTEMBER 1998 NAME POSITION AREA OF FTE%

EFFORT Hultquist, John Environmental Low-level waste .75 Scientist III Radon li 1

Morton, Loren Environmental Low-level waste .9 ScientistIV Radioactive materials licensing support 2 (groundwater) 1 Nelson, Ray Environmental Low-level waste 1 Scientist III Ripley, Jerry Environmental Low-level waste 1 Scientist III Craig, Bill Environmental Instrument 1 ScientistIII calibration and repair Transportation c

Finerfrock, Dane Environmental Low Level Waste .8 ManagerI Radon 2 1

Jones, Craig Environmental Radioactive materials ManagerI licensingTmspection .5 X-ray ,.1 1

Sinclair, Bill Environmental Low Level Waste .33 ManagerIII Radioactive materials licensing / inspection .33 X-ray al 1

12. Please provide a listing of all new professional personnel hired since the last review, indicate the degree (s) they received, if applicable, and additional training and years of experience in health physics, or other disciplines, if appropriate.

8

a n

Karen Best - Hired by the Division of Radiation Control on April 20,1996. She i holds the following degrees: Masters of Business Administration, Bachelors of Science in Sociology, and Bachelors of Science in Business. She is certified as a Registered Radiologic Technologist. Karen's professional experience includes 23 ,

years of experience in x-ray technology. l l

13. Please list all professional staff who have not yet met the qualification requirements of license reviewer / materials inspection staff (for NRC, inspection '

Manual Chapters 1246; for Agreement States, please describe your' qualifications requirements for materials license reviewers and inspectors). For each, list the courses or equivalent training / experience they need to attend and a tentative schedule for completion of these requirements.

He current training needs identified in the Division are to have Philip Griffin and Clay Petersen be fully qualified as radioactive material license reviewers and -

inspectors. His will be accomplished through formal instruction and on-the-job training in a mentor program. The courses needed to complete the formal instruction for these persons is as follows: Philip Griffin - Industrial Radiography, Clay Petersen - Transportation and Well Logging. Mr. Griffin and Mr. Petersen are already in a mentor program where, under supervision, they review licensing actions and assist in licensee inspections. At the completion of the mentor process, the qualified reviewerTmspector acting as a mentor will make specific written recommendations to division management that the trainee be authorized to perform independent license reviews and/or licensee inspections. Once approval is granted, a copy of the approved recommendations will be placed in the individual's training file.

Formal instruction in specific training areas will be accomplished through one of a variety of methods. Appendix F of the NRC / Organization of Agreement States Working Group recommendations discusses the merits and drawbacks of various training options. The training method used to provide the necessary traimng will depend on budgetary constraints, the availability of courses or course material, and the availability of the individual to attend a course or to engage in independent study. He needed instruction for Mr. Griffin and Mr. Petersen to be able to act independently. in license reviews and inspections for all types of licensees in the State will be completed as soon as is reasonably achievable.

Future staff training needs will be assessed, formal instruction will be prosided, -

and on-the-job traming (mentoring) will be given.

14. Please identify the technical staff who left the RCP/ Regional DNMS program during this period.

No technical staff members have left the Radioactive Materials Licensing / Inspection Section from June 18,1994 to the present.

15. List the vacant positions in each program, the length of time each position has been vacant, and a brief summary of efforts to fill the vacancy.

9 r+=w = w -- - --- - .-r -e y e- +'--n a ev + - * - w - ~

There are no vacant positions in the Radioactive Materials Licensing / Inspection Section.

IV. Iggbnical Quality of Licensino Actions

16. Please identify any major, unusual, or complex licenses which were issued, l

received a major amendment, were terminated, decommissioned, submitted a i

bankruptcy notification or renewed in this period. Also identify any new or I

amended licenses that now require emergency plans.

i .Ycar Licensee Action Dalg License Number i 1994 Rad. Safety & Nuc. Products Renewal 09/15/94 UT 1800014 l 1994 Energy Fuels Nuclear,Inc. Termination 12/06/94 UT 1800226 l 1995 Western Electric Corp. Renewal 02/06/95 UT 2900176 L 1995 University of Utah Renewal ~

)

07/26/95 UT 1800145 j 1995 Isomedix Operations, Inc. Renewal 12/14/95 UT 1800074 l

l. 1995 Brush Wellman,Inc. Termination 12/19/95 UT 1400196 1995 Larsen Laboratories l Termination 12/31/95 UT 2500183.

1996 RWM-Utah, Inc. Renewal 01/05/96 UT 1800308 1996 University of Utah Renewal 02/28/96 UT 1800001 1996 Cosray Research Institute )

i Termination 05/31/96 UT 1800382  ;

1997 Pharm. & Diag. Services Renewal 05/20/97 UT 1800225 i 1997 .Brigham Young University Renewal 10/22/97 UT 2500081 I 1997 University of Utah Amendment 11/20/97 UT 1800001 i 1998 Utah State University Renewal 08/07/98 UT 0300159 There are no new licenses or amended licenses that now require emergency plans.

l

17. Discuss any variances in licensing policies and procedures or exemptions from the regulations granted during the review period.

On March 6,1998, the Utah Radiation Control Board voted to exempt from regulatory control persons who received capsules contaming carbon-14 urea in quantities less than 1 microcurie. This exemption remains in effect until the Division of Radiation Control staff prepare a rulemaking action to address this issue. The miemaking has been prepared and is scheduled to be presented to the Board at the November 1998 meeting.

On three occasions during the period of this review, the radiation control program advised a licensee that the renewal application would be treated as ifit had been filed in a timely manner. This was limited to circumstances where the licensee l couldjustify that there would be an adverse consequence if the Executive i Secretary decided to suspend licensed operations until the renewal was processed j by the program staff. l

18. What, if any, changes were made in your written licensing procedures (new l

procedures, updates, policy memoranda, etc.) during the reporting period?

10 j

.,e -- - - - - , ,.

A number of changes have been made during the period of this review. A new procedure was implemented in June of 1997 for the review oflicensing requests.

The procedure directs that one senior licensing reviewer perform an initial review (Phase I review) of all amendments, renewals or new license applications. The licensing action is then brought to closure (Phase II review) by another license reviewer.

Rs.diation Control Program staffhave made updates to a number oflicensing review checklists, application guides, standard license conditions, and model

!!Eenses. These updates have been electronically filed in a protected document file. The system helps assure easy access by license reviewers and helps avoid unintentional cormption of the document.

19. For NRC Regions, identify by licensee name, license number and type, any -

renewal applications that have been pending for one year or more.

A response is not provided, since the question is not applicable to the Utah Radiation Control Program.

V. Resoonse to incidents and Alleaations

~

20. Please provide a list of the reportable incidents (i.e., medical misadministration, overexposures, lost and abandoned sources, incidents requiring 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or less notification, etc. See Handbook on Nuclear Material Event Reporting in Agreement States for additional guidance.) that occurred in the Region / State during the review period. For Agreement States, information included in previous submittals to NRC need not be repeated (i.e., those submitted under OMB clearance number 3150-0178, Nuclear Material Events Database). The list should be in the following format:

Licensee Name License # Date of incident /Reoort Tvoe of incident Deseret Generation UT2400037 Incident Date Damage to Gauge 01/31/96 Event report number UT-96-02 was reported, by facsimile transmittal, to the NRC on Febmary 21,1996.

21. During this review period, did any incidents occur that involved equipment or source failure or approved operating procedures that were deficient? If so, how and when were other State /NRC licensees who might be affected notified? For States, was timely notification made to NRC7 For Regions, was an appropriate and timely PN generated?

One incident occurred which involved equipment failure. The NRC was notified through  ;

the nonnal process ofincident reporting on February 21,1996. Since the manufacturer of I the device is located in Illinois and the Illinois Radiation Control Program performed the device safety evaluation, the information was discussed with appropriate regulatory personnel on February 5,1996.

11

22. For incidents involving failure of equipment or sources, was information on the incident provided to the agency responsible for evaluation of the device for an assessment of possible generic design deficiency? Please provide details for each case.

For the Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-Op., identified in question 20, Division of Radiation Control staff discussed this incident with Illinois Radiation Control Program staff on February 5,1996.

23.

In the period covered by this review, were there any cases involving possible wrongdoing that were reviewed or are presently undergoing review? If so, please describe the circumstances for each case.

There is currently one case that is being reviewed because ofpossible wrongdoing. Since the case is enforcement sensitive, information may be discussed and shared with the IMPEP team members at the time of their visit. -

24.

Identify any changes to your procedures for handling allegations that occurred during the period of this review.

There have not been any substantive changes to the procedures for handling allegations during the period of review._ lt was requested by the program director, during the April 1998 Annual Program Meeting with NRC, that any allegations refened to the Disision of Paliation Control from the NRC be marked " Enforcement Sensitive" so that the allegation is treated as confidential. Otherwise the allegation referral must be handled as a public record in accordance with Utah law, a.

For Agreement . cas, please identify any allegations referred to your program by the NRC that hau not been closed.

All allegations, pertaining to the Radioactive Materials Licensing / Inspection Section, refctred to the Division of Radiation Control by the NRC have been closed.

VI. General

25. Please prepare a summary of the status of the State's or Region's actions taken in response to the comments and recommendations following the last review.

The previous review of the Utah Radiation Control program, which concluded on June 17, 1994, evaluated the program against the 30 program indicators established in the

" Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs", published in the Federal Register on May 28,1992. The review was conducted in conjunction with the pilot Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) in which common performance indicators were used to evaluate both the NRC regional offices and the Agreement State programs. The results of the IMPEP review were discussed with the IMPEP Management Review Board (MRB) on October 7.1994. At that time, the MRB found that the Utah radiation control program was adequate to protect public health and j safety and compatible with NRC's program.

12

't The final results of the routine review were transmitted to Dr. Dianne Nielsen, Executive Director of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality on December 6,1994. In a letter  !

dated March 17,1995, the state responded to the NRC recommendations. Based on the  !

review and evaluation of the State's responses, several items were closed in a May 5,1995, letter from Richard Bangart, Director, Office of State Programs.

During the annual meeting of April 22,1998, action on previous review findings were summanzed. The summary is provided below and has been updated to reflect changes since the annual meeting.

A. Recommendation: We recommend that the Radiation Control Board (RCB) consider establishing a written policy for conflicts ofinterest consistent with other division boards within the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). If appropriate, the policy should be coordinated with the Attorney Generals Office. ~

Current Status: Based on the State's written response, this item was considered closed in the May 5,1995 letter. However, four new Board members joined the Radiation Control Board on October 2,1998. At that time, new Board members were briefed by Denise Chancellor, l Assistant Attorney General, on conflict ofinterest and the Utah Ethics Act. New Board l members were briefed on and provided a copy of the Rad.iation Control Board Conflict of l

Interest policy. Board members were given updated conflict ofinterest forms to complete  !

and retum to the Division. Board member conflict ofinterest forms are on file with the i

! Division and the Utah Attorney Generals Office.

B. Recommendation: We recommend that Utah review the problems that caused the State to adopt a delayed implementation approach and to take actions for future rulemaking so l that the State of Utah can implement promulgated regulations without delay.

l Current Status: The current Division policy is to adopt NRC rules within the three-year time i frame. Rulemaking trainmg was provided to all staffin December 1997 to further increase the staff capability to adopt regulations in a timely manner. This item was closed.

C. Recommendation: We recommend that procedures be developed and implemented by DRC in the selection of contractors to support the low-level waste regulatory program to avoid conflict ofinterest with regard to those contractors working or supporting the license.

l l

Current Status: Item was closed in the May 5,1995 letter. This closed item was re-opened by OSP in a letter dated August 19,1997 after unfavorable comments regarding Envirocare were received. The State cooperated because of the unusual circumstances but was concerned that a precedent had been set regarding re-opening of closed review items.

D. Recommendation: To assure continuity and uniformity in regulatory practice, we recommend that DRC complete its revision and distribution of the Administrative Policy Document.

13

~

1

=

l Current Status: The General Administrative Policy Document has been completed and is available to staff under the " Common Directory" on staff computers. Procedures have been updated and made available to staff. This item remained "open" from the annual meeting.

E. Recommendation: DRC should take the necessary steps to fund and fill the vacant Environmental Scientist Ill position within the Materials program and the funded vacancy in the LLRW program to assure that adequate levels of support remain available.

Current Status item was closed per the May 5,1995 letter. The LLRW section has gained l another hydrologist. The radioactive materials program needs are being met by cross-working and staff realignments which have added the equivalent of 1 FTE to the radioactive materials program No backlogs exist in any of the program elements.

F. Recommendation: DRC should conduct airborne pathway analysis of Carbon-14 and tritium for additional radionuclides.

Current Status: This was another previously closed item that was reopened by OSP. The Envirocare license has been renewed with increased concentration limits up to Class A limits in some instances.

G. Recommendation: For consistency and uniformity in the licensing process, we I recommend the state develop and implement new license procedures, including checklists and modellicenses.

Cunent Status: This item was closed in the May 5,1995 letter.

H. Recommendation: We recommend DRC review their inspection priority list and make minor changes to some of the data to more closely confonn to the NRC program codes.

DRC should inspect the three licensees who had not been inspected as of the time of the i review and should provide greater attention to assuring that new licensees are inspected within 6 months oflicense issuance.

Current Status: Closed by the May 5,1995 letter. New licensees are inspected within the six months time frame and there are currently no overdue inspections.

I. Recommendation: We recommend that even if DRC does not immediately respond to every reported incident, those licensees where there is damage to devices contammg radioactive materials and equipment where there is a potential for significant exposures to workers or the public, should be inspected to investigate circumstances and examine corrective action to prevent reoccurrence.

Current Status: Closed by the May 5,1995 letter. Damaged gauges are routinely investigated as well as responding to portal monitor alarms at landfills and scrap metal facilities.

14

J. Recommendation: When a licensee response to a NOV is inadequate, DRC should require a satisfactory response or escalate the enforcement action. Ifinspections result in numerous violations, DRC should address the issue of management breakdown.

Current Status: Closed by the May 5,1995 letter The State routinely uses escalated -

enforcement in tenns of severity levels, civil penalties, and management resiew and approval.

K. Recommendation: We recommend that DRC should develop a fonnal inspection procedure on documenting inspections.

Current Status: State procedures, although not identical to NRC, are adequate for documenting inspections. The NRC staff at the annual meeting recommended this item to be closed. -

L. Recommendation: We recommend that DRC inspectors orally debrief their supervisor upon retuming from an inspection that has any significant siolations.

Cunent Status: Closed by the May 5,1995 letter. The supervisor is orally debriefed if significant violations occur and good practices are discussed that may be shared with other licensees.

M. Recommendation: We recommend that DRC revise the inspection field notes to cover the inspection results in more detail, and especially to better document the inspector's observations and demonstrations.

Current Status The staff at the annual meeting recommended this item be closed. Field note forms have been revised to more completely document the results. Also, an attachment to the field notes addresses incidents in narrative fonn to describe in detail any additional information about the inspection actisities.

N. Reccmmendation: We recommend the inspector supervisor review all inspection reports (field notes) and sign off on the cover report page before issuing the licensee a letter documenting the inspection.

Current Status: Closed by the May 5,1995 letter. The State confirmed that, under the new procedures, the supervisor reviews and signs off on all inspection reports. Approximately one in ten is reviewed in depth.

O. Recommendation: We recommend that DRC calibrate all survey instrumentation at a frequency at or more frequent than that required of the licensee being inspected, or only use instruments on inspections that have been calibrated within the standards applicable to the licensee.

Current Status: Closed by the May 5,1995 letter. DRC only uses instruments that have been calibrated to the standards applicable to the licensee.

15

- _ ~ .- -.-- . - - . .. - - _ . .

s

SUMMARY

All items from the 1994 program review have been closed with the exception ofitem D which is pending closure at the upcoming program review.

26. Provide a brief description of your program's strengths and weaknesses. 1hese strengths and weaknesses should be supported by examples of successes, problems or difficulties which occurred during this review period. .

l Utah Procram Strenc_ths:

The Division received the Utah Quality Award in 1996, one of six state agencies recognized by the Govemor as providing outstanding customer service.

= l The Division has received positive feedback from customer feedback forms regarding licensing, inspection, and reported back to customers regarding feedback. ,

The Radioactive Materials workgroup held the first license workshop for portable gauge users in November 1997 which was attended by 75 individuals representing half ofUtah portable gauge licensees.

The changes made to the licensing review system have resulted in more efficient and effective processing of the work load.

The Division has maintained a stable workforce (no loss of professional staff since last program review.

Teamwork between the Sections /workgroups and the Division is good.

Our World Wide Web (WWW) site has been recognized by the Health Physics Society as being one of the "better" state sites.

The Low Level Waste staff was able to interpret existing rules to develop criteria for review of the Laidlaw Siting application which was successfhlly accomplished.

Cross-working opportunities were made available to the Division staff.

The Division staff has survived the Envirocare scandal - renewal of the Envirocare license has been completed despite the many challenges.

Utah nrocram challences:

I The Emirocare situation has caused an increased workload due to records requests,  !

l attomey inquiries due to lawsuits, increased inspection / investigation actisity by federal counterparts (EPA, NRC, DOE).

The Division is having a difficult time " keeping up" with technology demands - the Executive Director recently approved the purchase of additional computers from DEQ surplus funds.

The proposed Safety-Kleen (Laidlaw) Grassy Mountain low-level waste facility , ifit moves forward will require additional resources to manage the licensing and inspection of two low-level waste facilities. Safety-Kleen has indicated that a 42 volume

application will be submitted in the near future.

The Division looks forward to the opportunity to future litigation conceming sham disposal of alternate feed materials at uranium mills although such litigation is time consuming for both the NRC and the State.

Allegation communication should be a two-way street, the status of allegations referred to the NRC should be communicated to the State.

16

_ __ _ m.. -.. ._.

I' 4-B. NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

1. Leaislation and Procram Elements Recuired for Comoatibility

27. Please list all currently effective legislation that affects the radiation control program (RCP).

L,egislative changes have included amendment of the Utah Administrative Procedures to exclude the Division from certain enforcement requirements afforded to all Department of Emironmental Quality Divisions. The Radiation Control Act has been amended to better define Utah Radiation Board membership and to require licensing by and payment of fees for off-site spent fuel storage facilities proposed in the State. The Act was also amended to allow the State to pursue accreditation of mammography facilities under the Mammography Quality Standards Act and established requirements for individuals to oversee a Quality Assurance program for a mammography facility. Fees have been added to the Deparunent Fee schedule that increased all radioactive material licensing fees by 50%, allow for reimbursement for review of decommissioning plans, provide for independent review of I misadministrations, and provide more monies for consultant services for review oflow-level l

waste applications (cap increased from S362.000 to $500,000). l

28. Are your regulations subject to a " Sunset" or equivalent law? If so, explain and include the next expiration date for your regulations.

In 1989, a new tool for the Administrative Rules Review Committee (ARRC) of the Utah Legislature was added to Utah rulemaking by H.B. 408 and amended by S.B. 86 in 1998.

These bills provided that all administrative rules in effect on February 28 expire on May I each year unless reauthorized by the legislature. During each general session, the ARRC files a bill reauthorizing all rules except any listed as "not reauthorized." The bill may except for reauthorization an entire rule, a single section of a rule, or any complete paragraph of a rule. Agencies whose rules are listed as not reauthorized have the opportunity to respond before passage of the bill. If the reauthorization bill fails to pass, the govemor may reauthorize all rules by publishing a notice in the Bulletin. (In effect, the govemor may override the legislature's veto of a rule!)

Exempted from the May I expiration are all rules explicitly mandated by federal law or  !

regulation, or rules founded on a provision of Utah's constitution that vests the agency with specific constitutional authority to regulate. This reauthorization scheme has been  ;

controversial, but it has not been constitutionally tested in the courts. Nonetheless, it stands l in Utah law as a modest form oflegislative veto of executive branch rulemaking.

Also, the Rulemaking Act requires an agency to review each ofits administrative rules I

within five years of the rule's original effective date or last five-year review. To retain a rule as part of the Utah Administrative Code, an agency must also file a "Five-Year Notice of Review and Statement of Continuation" before the rule's anniversary date. The purpose of the review is to remind agencies to amend or repeal rules that are archaic in form, are no 17

. - - - - . .~ .-- .. .- .-

(

)

longer used, for which statutory authority no longer exists, or are otherwise unnecessary. A summary of the status for the five-year review of radiation control rules is available.

)1

29. Please complete the enclosed table based on NRC chronology of amendments. Identify i those that have not been adopted by the State, explain why they were not adopted, and discuss any actions being taken to adopt them. Identify the regulations that the State has adopted through legally binding requirements other than regulations.

i All necessary rulemaking has been completed (see chronology of amendments table).

30. If you have not adopted all amendments within three years from the date of NRC rule promulgation, briefly describe your State's procedures for amending regulations in order to maintain compatibility with the NRC, showing the normal length of time anticipated to complete each step.

)

It appears that all applicable amendments have been adopted within three years (or very  !

shortly thereafter) from the date of the NRC rule promulgation. The Division of Radiation '

Control expects to maintain this status for future amendments finialed by the NRC. I l

11. Low-LevelWaste Prooram

31. Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they apply to the Low-level Waste Program: 1

1. Status of Materials Inspection Prooram

1. Please prepare a table identifying the licenses with inspections that are overdue by more than 25% of the scheduled frequency set out in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800. The list should include initial inspections that are overdue.

Envirocare of Utah is inspected annually. Oversight at the facility is conducted several times weekly and as a result, nonroutine inspections may occur.

2. Do you currently have an action plan for completing overdue inspections? If so, please describe the plan or provide a written copy with your response to this questionnaire.

Envirocare of Utah is not overdue for an inspection.

3. Please identify individual licensees or groups of licensees the State / Region is inspecting more or less frequently than called for in NRC inspection Manual Chapter 2800 and state the reason for the change.

Not Applicable

11. Technical Quality of Insoections

7. What, if any, changes were made to your written inspection procedures during the reporting period?

18

The LLW Section follows the inspection procedures for the other radioactive materials licensees.

8. Prepare a table showing the number and types of supervisory accompaniments made during the review period. Include:

Insoector Supervisor License Cat. Date Ray Nelson Dane Finerfrock 4-a 5/97 Loren Morton Dane Finerfrock 4-a 6/98 John Hultquist Dane Finerfrock 4-a 6/98

9. Describe intemal procedures for conducting supervisory accompaniments of inspectors in the field. If supervisory accompaniments were documented, please provide copies of the documentation for each accompaniment. -

It is a responsibility of the low-level waste supervisor to oversee the inspection activities of technical staff. The supervisor is to accompany all inspectors who have been assigned to perform inspections at the Envirocare of Utah waste disposal site. The accompaniments are to occur at least once each year and the purpose is to evaluate the inspector's performance on health and safety issues.

10. Describe or provide an update on your instrumentation and methods of calibration. Are all instruments properly calibrated at the present time?

See response to question 10 for the common performance indicators.

111. Technical Staffino and Trainina

11. Please provide a staffing plan, or complete a listing using the suggested format l below, of the professional (technical) person-years of effort applied to the agreement or radioactive material program by individual. Include the name, position, and, for Agreement States, the fraction of time spent in the following areas: administration, materials licensing & compliance, emergency response, LLW, U-mills, other. If these regulatory responsibilities are divided between offices, the table should be consolidated to include all personnel contributing to i the radioactive materials program. Include all vacances and identify all senior personnel assigned to monitor work of junior pen onnel. If consultants were used to carry out the program's radioactive materials esponsibilities, include their efforts.

See response to question 11 for the common performance indicators.

l 12. Please provide a listing of all new professional personnel hired since the last l

review, indicate the degree (s) they received, if applicable, and additional training and years of experience in health physics, or other disciplines, if appropriate.

Woodrow W. Campbell, Bachelor of Science in Geological Engineering, Licensed Professional Engineer in Civil Engineering. He has three years l

19

m m,,

! i i

professional experience as a civil engineer and ten years experience as an ,

environmental engineer. i Roben Herbert, Bachelor of Science and Master of Science in Geology. He has six years ofprofessional experience as a hydro geologist.

1

' 13. Please list all professional staff who have not yet met the qualification l requirements of license reviewer / materials inspection staff (for NRC, inspection '

Manual Chapters 1246; for Agreement States, please describe your qualifications requirements for materials license reviewers and inspectors). For each, list the )

courses or equivalent training / experience they need to attend and a tentative j

schedule for completion of these requirements.

j See response to question 13 for the common performance indicators. '

14. Please identify the technical staff who left the RCP/ Regional DNMS program  !

during this period.

j Scott Hacking, engineer, left the Division of Radiation Control shortly after the last program resiew.

15. List the vacant positions in each program, the length of time each position has been vacant, and a brief summary of efforts to fill the vacancy.

There are no vacant positions in the low-level waste program.

IV. Technical Quality of Licensino Actions

16. Please identify any major, unusual, or complex licenses which were issued, received a major amendment, were terminated, decommissioned, submitted a bankruptcy notification or renewed in this period. Also identify any new or amended licenses that now require emergency plans.

For the past two to three years, Division of Radiation Control staff have been engaged in the renewal of the Emirocare of Utah low-level radioactive waste disposallicense.

17. Discuss any variances in licensing policies and procedures or exemptions from the regulations granted during the review period.

None

18. What, if any, changes were made in your written licensing procedures (new procedures, updates, policy memoranda, etc.) during the reporting period?

The Division of Radiation Control /Section adopted a form for requests for public information. Previously, most requests were handled less formally. However, 20 l

there has been such a demand for copies ofinfonnation from the Envirocare of Utah records, that it was detennined that a prescriptive form would be used.

A policy was implemented that all facilities constructed at Envirocare of Utah, which required Division of Radiation Control approval, would be field inspected prior to use. Previously, constructed facilities could be utilized by the licensee without Staffinspection. .

A document was prepared for Staff regarding personal conduct and inspection procedures while performing field inspections at Envirocare of Utah.

V. Resoonse to incidents and Alleoations l

20. Please provide a list of the reportable incidents (i.e., medical misadministr~ation, overexposures, lost and abandoned sources, incidents requiring 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or less notification, etc. See Handbook on Nuclear Material Event Reporting in Agreement States for additional guidance.) that occurred in the Region / State during the review period. For Agreement States, information included in previous submittals to NRC need not be repeated (i.e., those submitted under OMB l clearance number 3150-0178, Nuclear Material Events Database).  !

l None

21. During this review period, did any incidents occur that involved equipment or source failure or approved operating procedures that were deficient? If so, how and when were other State /NRC licensees who might be affected notified? For States, was timely notification made to NRC7 For Regions, was an appropriate and timely PN generated?

An incident involving the tracking of the SNM possession limit at Envirocare of Utah occurred resulting in the licensee possessing greater than the 350 gram limit of SNM, undisposed. The NRC was notified formally by letter and by a telephone  ;

call to a Region IV representative.

22. For incidents involving failure of equipment or sources, was information on the incident provided to the agency responsible for evaluation of the device for an assessment of possible generic design deficiency? Please provide details for each case.

None

23. In the period covered by this review, were there any cases involving possible wrongdoing that were reviewed or are presently undergoing review? If so, please describe the circumstances for each case.

Because the incident identified in Item 21 above occurred over a long period of time and involved a very large exceedance of the SNM limit, the inspection results were evaluated from the perspective of negligence or intentional l 21

~

i

.-_ ~. .- .

0 l

r.

L l'

misconduct. Discussions were held with the Section Staffinvolved with the inspection, the Section Manager, the Division Director, and an Assistant Anorney General.

i l

l l

l l

e '

+

i k

i I

• l 1

! 1 l i 1

l l

l i

I

)

22 r-

,( i

TABLE FOR QUESTION 29.

OR-DATE DATE 10 CFR RULE DUE ADOPTED CURRENT EXPECTED  !

STATUS ADOPTION Any amendment due prior to 1991. Identify each regulation (refer to the Chronology of a

Amendments)

Decommissioning; 7/27/91 Previously l Parts 30,40,70 closed t Emergency Planning: 4/7/93 Previously Parts 30,40,70 closed Standards for Protection Against Radiation: 1/1/94 Previously Part 20 closed Safety Requirements for Radiographic 1/10/94 Previously Equipment; Part 34 closed Notification of incidents; 10/15/94 10/26/94 Pads 20, 30, 31,34, 39, 40, 70 Qus!!1y Management Program and 1/27/95 3/10/94 Misadministrations; Part 35 Licensing and Radiation Safety Requirements for 7/1/96 6/16/95 frradiators; Part 3G Definition of Land Disposal 7/22/96 5/31/96 and Waste Site QA ProDram; Part 61 Decommissioning Recordkeeping: Documenta- 10/25/96 11/15/96 tion Additions; Parts 30,40,70 ,

Self-Guarantee as an Additional Financial 1/28/97 11/15/96 Mechanism; Parts 30,40,70 Uranium Mill Tailings: Conforming to EPA 7/1/97 N/A Standards; Part 40 Timeliness in Decommissioning 8/15/97 7/18/97 Parts 30. 40. 70 1

1

- . _ _ . _ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ . - - - _ . - - _ . - . . . . - _ _ . - - - _ . _ _ . - - . _ - . . - _ _ _ _ - - _ . - _ - - - . _ _ . . _ . - - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - - . - - - - - _ _ _ . , ~_ , _ , , - - - ,v . , . , - - - . . - , - , - , - - <-w - -r. v- n - - - - - - - - .

. is OR DATE DATE 10 CFR RULE - -DUE ADOPTED CURRENT EXPECTED STATUS ADOPTION Preparation Transfer for Commercial Distritmtion, 1/1/98 1/23/98 and Use of Byproduct Material for Medical Use:

Parts 30,32,35 '

Frequency of Medical Examinations for Use of 3/13/98 1/23/98 Respiratory Protection Equipment -

Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information 3/1/98 1/23/98 and Reporting Petformance Requirements for Radiography 6/30/98 7/18/97 Equipment Radiation F, vim, tion Requirements: Amended 8/14/98 1/23/98 Definitions and Criteria Clarification of Deco.. ,L.L,;..y Funding . 11/24/98 7/18/97 Requirements 9

(

10 CFR Part 71: Competitdlity with the 4/1/99 in process Intemational Atomic Energy Agency Medical Administration of Radiation and 10/20/98 1/23/98 Radioactive Materials.

Termination or Transfer of Licensed Activities 6/16/99 1/23/98 Recordkeeping Requirements Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airbome 1/9/00 3/20/98 Effluents of Radioactive Materials: Clean Air Act Fissile Material Shipments and Exemptions 2/10/00 NRC lesue Recognition of Agreemord State Licenses in 2/27/00

Areas Under Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction Within an 4.u. .t State Criteria for the Release of Individuets 5/29/00 3/20/98 Administered Radioactive Material Licenses for Industrial Radiography and 6/27/00 12/12/97 Radiation Safety Requirements for Industrial Radicaraohv Operations

Final Rule 2

' t

- t

, t 9 l >

s

. DN _

E TI O CT EP _

PO _

XD EA R _

O T .

NS _

EU _

RT R TA 6 U

CS _

3 D

E ET T

A P DO D A

E T E 0 AU 0 DD 2

/

0

/

8 n _

io t

a _

n _

imr e

T e

s n

e ic .

L .

r f

o i

a _

r t

e i

r E C _

L U la R c ig R o F lo _

C i d .

0 a R

1 _

E

it n ,

y L JU 13 G99 1

) & )

l*

I DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY  !

l DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL Michael O. Leavia f 168 North 1950 West G""'

l

i P.o. Box 144850 i Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D. 1 salt Lake City, Utah 84114 4850 Eminne D""  ; j (801) 536 4250 Williarn J. sinclair 1 (801) 533 4097 Fax D"" (801) 536 4414 T.D.D.

www.deq. state.utus Web January 12,1999 Exnress Mail i

Paul Lohaus, Acting Director Office of State Programs .

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Dear Mr. Lohaus:

This correspondenceis in response to the draftIntegrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program l (IMPEP) report of December 16,1998. The Division of Radiation Control staff has reviewed the draft report and provides the following " technical corrections" for your consideration:

l l

• Page 2, under " Current Status" relating to the Groundwater Discharge Permit (about mid-page), the report states that: "The permit is renewed a two-year basis . . . " This should be changed to indicated the permit is renewed on a five-year basis.

• Page 3, paragraph 3, first sentence under Status of Materials Inspection Procram. should be revised to state: "The staff uses a database for their tracking system in which information is exported to Excel software to generate reports." l l

• Page 7, Item 3.5 (last paragraph): Reporting was optional until the Division received SP '

040, " Guidance for Reporting Material Events on May 13, 1998." Upon receipt of the Guidance,it was recognized that such reporting became mandatory. The incident that is l

l referred to in the Draft IMPEP report occurred in January 1998 (prior to receipt of SP 040) and was reported voluntarily.

• Page 12, paragraph 2: Reference is made to the " State receiot a license application." The State received a siting application, not a license appliccion. The license application has not yet been submitted by Safety-Kleen.

The Division appreciated the thoroughner,s and quality of the IMPEP progrun review. Discussions between Division staff and IMPEP team member, resulted in a mutual exchange of useful information. Movement toward a performance,-based review was evident. The Division does not l

l ATTACHMENT i

s January 11,1999 Page 2 disagree with the Recommendations as stated in the report. However, for the purposes ofdiscussion, the following is offered regarding the recommendations:

Technical staffine and trainine The draft IMPEP report recommends that the State provide training to technical personnel in the areas of medical brachytherapy and irradiator technology. The State appreciates the need for staff training. However, the review did not conclude that because of the " lack of" training in the areas of brachytherapy or inadiator technology that the inspection or licensing phases relating to both technologies were suffering or in questiori. When the NRC and the Organization of Agreement States were meeting on the issue of training, thquestion of evaluation of State equivalent training relating to IMPEP reviews was raised. The opinion of the States involved in the workgroup was that NRC needs not to raise any question regarding State training if the program demonstrates satisfactory performance. In the case where deficiencies could be identified in the inspection and licensing area, it would be necessary to take a more detailed look at the training issue. The Management Review Board may want to examine this as a policy question.

The IMPEP review team suggested a number of attematives to attending and paying tuition / travel for the NRC courses. The State, in response to this recommendation and alternatives suggested by the team, has submitted applications for Radioactive Materials staff to attend the NRC courses on brachytherapy and irradiator technology on a " space available" basis. However, we note only two opportunities are offered for the brachytherapy course during 1999. No opportunity for the irradiator technology course by the NRC is outlined in the 1999 training schedule.

The State also has the course materials available from the Oak Ridge traming center for the brachytherapy and irradiator technology course. Ifformal training does not become available during 1999, the staff will be requested to self-study the materials and demonstrate to the Radioactive Materials Section Manager a proficiency in the course materials. Such self-study and management sign-off will be included in the current training record. It was also recommended by the team that the State could contact the irradiator manufacturer, Nordion and arrange training. In our opinion, for the State of Utah, such contact and training could be viewed as inappropriate especially because of recent events occurring in the State with another licensee.

Status of the Material Inspection Procram In response to the questionnaire, we indicated that as of fiscal year 1999 (starting July 1,1998), the l inspection frequencies for reciprocity outlined in NRC IMC 1220 had been adopted. These frequencies are represented as " goals" in the draft IMPEP report. What are the hTC expectations for completion of the " goals?" If the expectations are that inspection frequencies for all priorities are strictly adhered to, then the " goal" is a " requirement." If States are to be judged during the IMPEP process on goals that actually are " requirements," there needs to be a policy clarification.

l t

~

L.t l, l

0 January 11,1999  !

Page 3 l r

'Ihe State has focused and will continue to focus on meeting the inspection reciprocity frequencies  ;

in NRC IMC 1220.- ,

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft report  !

Sincerely,- .

j E

William J. Sinclair, irector

~

c: Dianne R. Nielson, Executive Director, UDEQ  !

Charles Hackney,NRC Region IV  ;

I i

i l

l 1

l

(

l.

i 1

r g-l  !

l Aaenda for Manaaement Review Board Meetino i Monday. February 1.1999 2:00 - 4:00 p.m.. TWFN. 2-B-5 L

1. Convention. MRB Chair convenes meeting

~ 2. New Business - Consideration of Utah IMPEP Report i A. Introduction of Utah IMPEP Team Members (J. Lynch) l i B. Introduction of Utah representatives and other State representatives participating through teleconference. ]

C. Findings regarding Utah Program (IMPEP Team) ~

,j Status of Materials inspection Program

. Technical Quality of Inspections Technical Staffing and Training Technical Quality of Licensing Actions Response to incidents and Allegations I -

Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility j -

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program D. Questions (MRB Members)

E. Comments from State of Utah F. MRB Consultation / Comments on issuance of Report l

l -

Recommendation for next IMPEP review

3. Status of Upcoming Reviews

4. Adjoumment l Attendees: Frank Miraglia, MRB Member, DEDR l- Paul Lohaus, MRB Member, OSP Karen Cyr, MRB Member, OGC l Carl Paperiello, MRB Member, NMSS Frank Congel, MRB Member, AEOD Roland Fletcher, OAS Liaison to MRB

l. Craig Jones, UT l_ James Lynch, IMPEP Team Leader, Rlli l

Linda McLean, IMPEP Team Member, RIV l Allen Grewe, IMPEP Team Member, TN  ;

I LeRoy Person, IMPEP Team Member, NMSS I

Michael Weber, IMPEP Team Member, Rlli Kathleen Schneider, OSP Lance Rakovan, OSP Brenda Usilton, OSP ATTACHMENT 2

_ _