ML20215G660
| ML20215G660 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/18/1987 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Vernon T COLORADO, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8706230343 | |
| Download: ML20215G660 (7) | |
Text
f v
d#
UNITED STATES j
c
_ g --
-.g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
g.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%....+
yjg ig g Thomas A. Vernon, M.D.
Executive Director Department of Health 4210 East lith Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220
Dear Dr. Vernon:
l This confirms the discussion Mr. Ralph S. Heyer held with you, Mr. Tom
)
-Looby, and Mr.-Al Hazie on April 30, 1987, following our review of the Colorado radiation control program.
As a result of our review, coments and recomendations were developed, which included two concerning Category I Indicators, Status of Inspection Program and Enforcement Procedures (Enclosures 1 and 2). In view of these findings we cannot offer a finding of adequacy and compatibility of the program until after we have reviewed and evaluated the state's response to the specific technical comments and recomendations. Therefore, I would appreciate your review of our recommendations and receiving your plans to address these program areas.
You may wish to have Mr. Hazie respond directly to the other technical comments.
An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs is attached as Enclosure 3. is a copy of this letter for placement in the State Public Document Room or to otherwise be made available for public review.
On April 12, 1987, NRC reorganized its staff. The State Agreement Program is now a part of the new Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, which reports to the Commission. One purpose of this organizational change was to provide an improved focus for NRC relationships with the States. Our regional offices will continue to administer and implement NRC's regulatory programs. We encourage you and your staff to continue to look to the Regional Administrator and his staff as the primary contact with NRC.
l 6706230343 970$g9
)\\
(
L y
. sg Thomas A. Vernon, M.D. I appreciate-the courtesy and cooperation extended to' Mr. Heyer duringL the review meeting.
Sincerely, b Whum.
aditon C. Kamerer Director State, local and Indian Tribe Programs
Enclosures:
4 As stated cc w/encls::
Chairman Zech Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal Comissioner Carr Victor Stello,-Executive Director for Operations,-NRC..
T. Looby, Director Office of Health and Environmental Protection Al Hazle, Director Radiation Control Division R. D. Martin, Regional Administrator, Region IV State Public Document Room l
NRC Public Document Room l
r i
j j
a, l
'c ENCLOSURE 1 TECHNICAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE COLORADO RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM (NOT INCLUDING THE URANIUM MILL PROGRAM)
I.
Compliance -
A.
Status of Inspection program (Category I)
Comment:
Our review disclosed that 14 priority 1, 2 and 3 licenses were overdue for inspection by more than 50% of the inspection frequency.
Recommendation:
We recommend that management establish a short-term action plan for the next 3 to 6 months to deal with this minor backlog. Such a plan should include goals and set benchmarks, establish priorities, and provide progress reports to management.
B.
EnforcementProcedures(CategoryI)
Comment:
Our review disclosed that enforcement letters were not issued withintherecommended30daysfollowingtheinspection(in some cases the enforcement letters were sent 3 months to 8monthsafterthetimeofinspection).
It was also noted that the licensee responses to enforcement letters were not received within the recommended 20 days (in some cases the response time was at long as 3 months). There were also cases where there was no documentation of a letter of acknowledgement from the state.
1 Recommendation:
We recommend development of a tracking system to maintain f
up-to-date information on the status of compliance and i
enforcement activities. The systen should cover key milestones such as the date the enforcement letter was sent to the licensee, the date the licensee is requested to respond i
(usually 20-30 days), the date of the response, and whether j
each case is resolved or needs further attention. This would provide a means to monitor individual enforcement actions and provide statistical infonnation about the program,
)
r 4
j C.
Inspection Reports (Category II)
Comment:
During the review of selected compliance files and associated inspection reports, it was identified that not all reports adequately and completely documented the results of the inspection.
It was noted that some of the reports did not identify whether the inspection was announced or unannounced, detail the results independent physical measurements made by the inspector, detail the inspector's observations, or document licensed activities to clearly identify the entire scope of the inspection conducted.
'This is a repeat comment and our comments and recommendations from the previous review of selected compliance files have not been completely addressed. As stated above, the primary emphasis was that the inspection reports were not completely
~documenting the inspection results.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that administrative and procedural changes be made, as appropriate, to assure that all inspection reports, whether partial, special, or routine, provide complete documentation of inspection findings.
I i
i
}
n l
j
[-
4 ENCLOSURE 2 TECHNICAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE COLORADO RADIATIDH CONTROL PROGRAM FOR URANIUM MILLS I.
Personnel Staffing Level (Category II)
During the review of the uranium mill program it was identified that the level of personnel utilized to process major license renewals, which includes administrative, technical, and legal staff, has decreased from the past several program reviews.
(This is a repeat comment.)
Comment:
NRC guidelines indicate that 2.0.to 2.75 total professional (technical and consultant) person years of effort are needed to process a new conventional mill license, in situ license or ma.1or-renewal-to meet requirements of UMTRCA. This number includes the effort for the environmental assessment and in-plant safety review.
During this review, it was identified that the two licensed conventional mills have 1.20 staff years dedicated. This is approximately A0 staff years per uranium mill. This has decreased from.97 staff years from the previous program review.
In addition, it was noted that the level of secretarial support is not commensurate with the workload and as a result other staff may be diverted to provide the necessary support.
Recommendation:
We continue to recommend that program management take the appropriate steps necessary to augment the uranium mill staff so that the program meets NRC guidelines and does not adversely affect the program in its entirety.
(The effects of this shortfall in staff may be evidenced in the following two comments.)
II. Enforcement Procedures (Category I)
Coment:
Based upon review of eight inspection reports, it was identified that three reports were past due by 2-3 months from the time the inspection was conducted.
It was also noted that in three cases the enforcement letter was delayed by 3-9 months.
In one case, the licensee responded; however, the state had not acknowledged receipt of licensee response (approximately 5 months).
i
r r
-. Recommendation:
It is recommended that management closely monitor the timeliness of preparation of the inspection reports and the issuance of enforcement and acknowledgement letters.
III. Licensing Procedures (Category II)
Comment:
During the review it was identified that action on applications for seven minor amendments to uranium mill licenses have not been completed. Of these actions, five require appropriate annual financial assurance determinations.
Recommendation:'
It is recommended that the State initiate the review of these license amendments with emphasis on completing the required annual financial assurance determinations.
i
N, m
- p Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" The " Guidelines'for NRC Review of' Agreement State Radiation Control Programs," were published in the Federal Register on June"4, 1987 as an NRC Policy Statement. The' Guide provides 29 Indicators for evaluating
' Agreement State' program areas Guidance as to their relative 'importance to an Agreement State program is provided by categorizing the Indicators =
into 2' categories.
- ' Category I indicators address program functions which directly relate to the State's ability to protect the'public health and safety.. If significant problems exist in one or more Category I indicator areas, then the need for, improvements may be critical.
Category II indicators address program functions which provide essential technical and. administrative support; for the primary program functions.
Good perfonnance. in meeting the guidelines for these indicators is essential in order to avoid the development of problems in one or more of the principal program areas, i.e. those that fall under Category I indicators. Category II indicators frequently can be used to identify underlying problems that are causing,;or contributing to, difficulties in Category I indicators.
It is the NRC's intention to use these categories in the following manner.
In reporting findings to State. management, the NRC will indicate the category of each comment made.
If no significant Category I coments are provided, this will_ indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC's program.
If one or more significant Category I coments are provided, the State will be notified that the program deficiencies may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and that the need of improvement in particular program areas is critical.
If, following receipt and evaluation, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I comments, the staff may offer findings of adequacy and compatibility as appropriate or defer such offering until the State's actions are examined and their effectiveness confirmed in a subsequent review.
If additional information is needed to evaluate the State's actions, the staff may request the information through follow-up correspondence or perform a follow-up or special, limited review. NRC staff may hold a special meeting with appropriate State representatives.
No significant items will be left unresolved over a prolonged period. The Comission will be informed of the results of the reviews of the individual Agreement State programs and copies of the review correspondence to the States will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
If the State program does not improve or if additional significant Category I deficiencies have developed, a staff finding that the program is not adequate will be considered and the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement in accordance with section 274j or the Act.
l._...,.....o.,-
.m.-.
...... - -.... -. -..... - _ - - -.... ~... - - -..... - -.. -... -.. - -..... -. - - -.. -
J
.