ML20248C667
| ML20248C667 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/12/1986 |
| From: | Heyer R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Nussbaumer D NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248C571 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-89-242 NUDOCS 8908100115 | |
| Download: ML20248C667 (3) | |
Text
.
c# k UNITED STATES .
'I
)g ' NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION
.i*(# ; p. REGION IV E
So,' .h S
[ , 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. 60tTE 1000 ARLINGTON, TEXAS 79011 AUG 12 $6i M ORANDUM FOR: Donald A. Fussbaumer, Assistant Director State Agreements Program, Office of State Programs THRU SA Project Manager, Office of State Program
'FROM: Ralph S, Heyer, Health Physicist, State and Governmental Affairs Staff, Region IV
SUBJECT:
REPORT AND STAFF EVALUATION FOR THE COLORADO RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM - JUNE 8, 1984 TO OCTOBER 25, 1985 Enclosed is ?.he subject report and staff evaluation.
The secff was unable ta mab en initial finding of adequacy and compatibility of the Colorads radiation control program due to comments in two Category I and three Category II indicators. The state needed complete documentation for the incident reports (materials) and current and complete information for the
. technical quality of licensing actions (uranium mill).
Other. comments and recommendations were developed during the review regarding the State's inspection reports for the materials program as well as inspection procedures and staffing level for the uranium mill program.
During the next routine review it is recommended that the State's policy for escalated enforcement for the uranium mill program be reviewed. This policy was in draft and is anticipated to be completed by the next program review.
While the State has regulations in place for sureties, the reviewer did not determine whether surety financial tests and specific surety procedures were acceptable. It is therefore recommended that a more specific analysis be conducted during the next scheduled program review.
Subsequent to the review it was determined that the State does not have any
" major" licensees which would meet the criteria for establishing a radiological contingency plan (see comments in Volume I, Pages 45 and 47).
It has also been determined that the State has adopted the most recent revision to their radiation control regulations on November 20, 1985, w1;h an effective date of December 30, 1986.
i 8908100115 890B01 PDR BOLDTINB9-242 PDR FOIA W
g h)j
n ..
, +,
03 ' , ]
,Basedontheresults'of'thisreviewmeeting;thestaffrecommendsthbt,'the L~ .:next' review be; conducted within 12-18 months. Region:IV will continue to-
[
2 monitor the State's progress regarding.40 CFR 190.and 40 CFR 192 information
~ : received from the-uranium' mill licensees, the RCD's staffing level, andthe continuous activity: involved in Comprehensive Environmental' Responsibility L: ' Compensation ~.and' Liability Act of'1980-(CERCLA) litigation associated with'the Luranium mill.progras.
h.h Ralpn S..Eeydt, Health Physicist)
State and Governmental Affairs Staff
Enclosure:
'As stated cc w/o enclosure:
G.W. Kerr, OSP t
0 b
i ,
h
, H-8 ^
(ControlSheet)
- 1. Radiation Control Program ColekfDo ' h N
- 2. Type of Review brior 3 Dates of Review
- a. Field Evaluations SEPT i-G, ABS wJ CE W Moe5
- b. Regional or Contract Agency Office Visits %
- c. Visits to Licensed Facilities M Cd% /. h w e t s )-
- d. Office Review CE/edwr 15-15. stes ~ '
- e. Exit Meeting ckde w p5, mas
- 4. Period of Revi2w Sver e , l%V TO octoGER 3.5,198 5
- 5. Regional NRC Representati'ves Rsunr4 Staff-Days.in State 9 &vc;
- SA Represent.atives (LA,pos,gAonse Staff-Days in State -h N Other NRC Regesentatives DA.ScumasamEtaff-Days in State 3 Avs '
f.4uus (cosE4WR) 34fs
.