ML20248C682
| ML20248C682 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/25/1985 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248C571 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-89-242 NUDOCS 8908100119 | |
| Download: ML20248C682 (132) | |
Text
._ _ _ _ _ _ - _
l I
REPORT AND STAFF EVALUATION OF COLORADO RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 8, 1984 THROUGH OCTOBER 25, 1985 VOLUME I.
17th Reculatory Program Review 4
B900100119 090001 PDR FOIA BOLOTIN89-242 PDR
- - _ _ - - - -- - i
s REPORT AND STAFF EVALUATION OF THE COLORADO RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM 3 l FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 8, 1984 - OCTOBER 25, 1985 l The 17th Regulatory Program Review meeting with Colorado representatives was ,
held during the period of October 15-25, 1985, in Denver, Colorado. The first
- eek covered primarily the radiation control program for agreement materials l other than uranium mills and tailings, while the second week focused more on the uranium mill program. An accompaniment of State uranium mill inspectors was conducted during the week of September 9-13, 1985.
l A review of legislation and regulations, organization, management and l administration, and personnel was conducted during October 15-16, 1985. A i review of selected materials. license and compliance files was conducted during l the period October 17-18, 1985. Mr. R. S. Heyer held two separate meetings i t:ith Mr. A. J. Hazie on October 18 and 24,1985, to provide preliminary review information to management on the materials and mill programs respectively. A rcview of selected conventional mill license and compliance files, environmental assessments, and safety evaluation reports (SERs) vas conducted during the week of October 21-24, 1985. Dr. D. M. Sollenberger and Mr. R. S.
Heyer reviewed mill license amendments for completeness and adequacy. Details l of the overall review of the mill program are given in Volume II of this report. Mr. Hazie was again apprised of the results of the materials and uranium mill review on October 25, 1985.
The State was represented by Mr. 5. Hazle, Division Director for'the Radiation Control Division; Mr. W. Jacobi, Supervisor of the Radiation Control Section; and Mr. K. Weaver, Supervisor of the Uranium Recovery Licensing and Compliance 5:ction. The NRC representatives during the review were Mr. Ralph S. Heyer, Region IV, lead reviewer (October 15-18 and 21-25, 1985); Mr. Roland Lickus, Region III, observer (Octcher 15-18,1985); Dr. Dennis sollenberger, NMSS, I uranium mill assistant (October 22-24,1985); and Mr. Donald Nussbaumer,
! Assistant Director for State Agreements Program (October 25,1985).
l A summary meeting regarding the results of 'the regulatory program review was held witn Dr. Robert Arnott, Assistant Director for the Office of Health l
Protection, and Mr. A. J. Hazle, on October 25, 1985. The significant results of the overall program review were presented to Dr. Robert Arnott. .
. I Conclusions I The staff was' unable to offer a finding at the time of the review concerning ;
the adequacy and compatibility of the Colorado radiation control program. The l l following specific comments and recommendations for both the radioactive l materials and uranium mill program were provided to the State. J
2 I. Radioactive Materials Program A. Responses to Actual and Alleged Incidents (Minor Category I)
Coments:
The review of selected incident files and reports identified that not all cases included the following: in-depth reviews of circumstances surrounding the respective incidents, reenactments and time-study measurements and investigation results documenting the complete incident, and subsequent enforcement action and closeout information.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that when incidents occur or allegations are received the Radiation Control Division (RCD) maintain a written format and a formal tracking mechanism which clearly outlines the course of action taken to resolve the issues, and to obtain as
. complete and accurate information as possible for the files. In l addition, when the incidents or allegations are documented and completed, all pertinent information should be incorporated in the respective incident file.
It is further recommended that a formal tracking system be established to ensure.that RCD management can identify timely resolution to the respective cases.
.B. 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 in some cases the report did not include the following: a discussion of the current status of previous items of noncompliance, detailed results of the inspector's independent physical measurements, and under the " scope of the licensees program," did not detail the inspector's observations and document licensed activities which have not been implemented by the licensee (per RCD internal policy). .
Recommendations:
It is recomended that all inspection reports, whether partial, special, or complete, document the information inspected to clearly substantiate all findings identified. All previous items of noncompliance should be specifically addressed to determine
h appropriate resolution or whether further action ray be required. In addition, any changes. additions, revisions 'or updates to final inspection reports (as was identified in inspection reports reviewed) should be done through a formal mechanism, i.e., per memorandum or
- l management approved policy. It was noted that in some inspection l- reports handwritten notations were apparently made after supervisory I review. The RCD management should be aware of any changes to final inspection reports and should ensure that they are appropriately substantiated through formal documentation.
1 II. Uranium Mill-Program l A. Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (Category I)
- 1. Comment:
The review of the " Preliminary Executive Licensing Review Sumary" (PELRS) for Uravan dated May 22, 1984, identified that no updated information was incorporated into the PELRS either by formal written memorandum or amendment. The reviewers recognize the the RCD's actions are limited by the current hearing process.
Recommendation:
It is recomended, pending hearing results, that the RCD maintain an updated and current copy of the Uravan PELRS. The NRC reviewers' concerns are for the timeliness of the PELRS and whether the PELRS is current to support any future licensing actions.
- 2. Coment:
The review of the Uravan license amendments numbers 21, 22, and 23, identified limited review documentation supporting or substantiating the RCD's findings for each amendment. It was
. also identified that of the more than 10 license amendments issued by the RCD for the entire uranium mill program, since the last review, selected major license amendments were not supported with documentation substantiating RCD findings. (It should be noted that the Cotter Amendment No. 19, denying licensee's re documented.) quest, was completely and appropriately i
I
__ -- - - _ i
4 Recommendation:
It is recomended that each license amendment be substantiated-with supporting written documentation which specifies the licensee's request and the basis for the RCD decision.
- 3. Comment:
At the time of this review, the RCD had developed a written memorandum entitled " Policy for an Annual Review of Compliance with Off-Site Dose Standards at Existing Facilities," which was effective on October 11, 1985. (This was recommended during the previous program review.) However, based upon the review of Cotter Corporation and Uraven's license and compliance files, the reviewer could not identify if the RCD specifically -
identified and outlined a conclusion on whether the respective licensees meet the 40 CFR 190 compliance standards. (A copy of an NRC memorandum for the review of 40 CFR 190 compliance deter-mination of an NRC uranium mill was provided to the RCD staff as guidance.)
Recommendation:
The RCD should prepare written documentation which clearly identifies whether or not the mill licensees meet the 40 CFR 190 standards. (This is a repeat comment from the previous program review.)
- 4. Coment:
At the time of this review, the only action taken by the RCD to implement 40 CFR 192 was a letter to affected licensees stating that the RCD will use these standards in evaluating all current and future licensing actions. The RCD has not taken action to set groundwater monitoring programs under 40 CFR 192 or correc-tive actions. It was identified that the current mitigative action of the licensees are not designed to clean up the ground-water but are only to prevent further spread of contamination.
Recommendation:
1 The RCD should request the licensee to propose specific groundwater background values for their respective mills. If acceptable background values are known then this should be done within 60 days of the letter to the licensee. If acceptable background values are not known, then the licensee should be i
w -
required to establish appropriate background values within a reasonable time period. (These actions could be accomplished in conjunction with the CERCLA proceedings which Colorado has .
underway.)
B. Inspection Procedures (Category II)
Coment':
The most recent inspection reports for the Cotter and Uravan mills did not document inspection findings regarding compliance with 40 CFR 390 and 40 CFR 192 standards.
Recommendation:
To ensure licensee's conformance to the respective standards and in' order to identify whether the licensee maintains appropriate documentation, as committed by the licensee to the RCD, the RCD inspector should document findings in the inspection report with respect to compliance with 40 CFR 190 and 40 CFR 192. This will ensure complete documentation from the initial licensing action through to the final compliance determination.
C.. Staffing Level (Category II) ;
Comment:
During the review of the RCD uranium mill program it was identified that personnel utilized to process major license renewals, which includes administrative, technical, and legal staff, has decreased from the previous program.
It should be noted that although this is a Category II indicator, it has affected two other indicators, as identified above. (This is a repeat comment from the previous program review.)
NRC guidelines indicate that 2.0 to 2.75 total professional (technical and consultant) person years of effort are needed to process a new i conventional mill license, in situ license or major renewal to meet i 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 conven- 3 tional mills have 1.95 staff years dedicated. This is approximately i
.97 staff years'per uranium mill. Tnis has decreased from I.7 staff J years from the previous program review.
A, In addition, it was noted that the secretarial and legal support was below the recommended NRC staffing level and may have adversely affected the license and compliance program. .
Recommendation:
It is strongly recommended that program management take the steps necesr5ry to augment the staff so that thc program meets NRC guidelines.
These conclusions are based on the review of the technical and administrative aspects of the State's regulatory program for agreement materials. Included in the review were examinations of: (1) selected license and compliance files; (2) information related to the program indicators specified in NRC's polic statement, " Evaluation of Agreen,ent State Radiation Control Programs"; (3)ythe review of all licenses issued by Colorado sinCE June 8,1984; and (4) the State's and NRC's continuing exchange of information program. The details of the uranium mill program review are contained in Volume II of this report.
Summary Discussions with State Representatives A summary meeting to present the results of the regulatory program review was held by Mr. Ralph S. Heyer with Dr. Robert Arnott, Assistant Director for the Office of Health Protection, on October 25, 1985. Mr. A. J. Hazle, Director, Radiation Control Division, and Mr. Donald A. Nussbaumer, Assistant Director for State Agreements Program, were also present at the meeting.
A staff finding of adequacy and compatibility was not offered to Dr. Arnott, pending the State's response to the two Category I and three Category II indicators discussed under the conclusion section of this report. It should be noted that the reviewer did emphasize the decrease in the " Staffing Level,"
Category II indicator for the uranium mill program and strongly encouraged management to monitor the program's activities. ~
Program Changes Related to Previous NRC Comments and Recommendations A. Comment Letter to Dr. Thomas M. Vernon dated July 11, 1984, .-
Related to Category I Indicators
- 1. Comment and Recommendation:
" Inspection Frequency" is a Category I Indicator. The program's inspection priority system is based upon the inspection frequencies contained in Part XII, " Fees for Materials Licenses and Other Regulatory Services" of the Colorado Regulations Pertaining to Radiation Control. These inspection priorities do not provide for initial inspections and do not always provide minimum intervals for ,
j l
l l
I l
1
p R
}
1e 1O reinspection that are consistent with those of NRC. The NRC inspection priority system is contained in IE Manual Chapter 2800, copies of which were furnished to the program on August 16, 1983 and May 7, 1984. . The program should modify its inspection priority.
L system so that categories of licensees receive initial and routine inspections at. intervals at.least as frequently as under the NRC system.
l l ^ State Response:'
Colorado's inspection frequency, specified in Part XII of our
. regulations, is modeled after the NRC's regulations, 10 CFR 170.
l --
The inspection frequencies in both regulations are the same. We
- j. Will, however, further establish . inspection frequencies, in accordance with IE Manual Chapter 2800. In order to understand the I magnitude of this change, we estimate.the revised schedule will change the inspection frequency af approximately three licensees.
Present Status:-
During this review it was identified that the RCD.did incorporate a new Part XII.to the Colorado Radiation Control Regulations. It was confimed that Part XII to the' state's regulations does contain i the inspection frequency which is modeled after NRC Inspection and i Enforcement Manual Chapter 2800.
- 2. Comment and Recommendation:
The second Category I indicator is " Enforcement Procedures." During the compliance file review, three cases were noted where there was a lack of State followup action after issuance of enforcercent letters to the following licensees: (1) Consolidated Coal Company, License No. 454-01; (2) Colorado Springs Medical Center, License No. 364-04; and (3) St. Mary-Corwin . Hospital, License No. 235(03734)-02. The l . State's enforcement letter clearly required a response by the licensee (within 20 days in each case). We recommend that the State monitor responses from licensees to State enforcement letters and take followup actions when responses are not received within the time period given in the enforcement letter.
l State Response: ,
Two of the three licensees cited did in fact respond to our compliance letters and we acknowledged those responses. They were l not available for review by NRC because of a filing error. Only one of the three' licensees did not respond. To ensure that all e
..a._._._.--__._._.____._____ _ _ , , _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_g.
compliance' actions are carried _to completion a tracking procedure, which will be used for both routine enforcement actions and for civil penalties, has already been instituted. 'These tracking procedures will be routinely monitored by senior staff.
- Present Status:
During this review it appeared that Mr. Chuck Mattson does maintain a written tracking system to ensure all compliance actions are carried to completion. Only one case during this review, . identified that the '
licensee did not respond to the State's enforcement letter in a timely fashion (greater than 20 days). However, this was due to a delay in the mailing system and was identified and corrected by the RCD staff.
B. ' Comment Letter to Dr. Thomas M. Vernon dated July 11, 1984, Related to Category II Indicators I. Materials Program A. Inspection Reports is a Category II indicator. The following coment and recommendation is made.
Comment:
During our review of selected State compliance files, we noted three inspection reports that had no indication of supervisory.
review. These were discussed with Division staff merbers.
Under the Division's current procedures for review of inspection reports, it appears unlikely that these reports were not reviewed by a supervisor (even though this was not documented in the block on the inspection report for that specific purpose).
Nevertheless, we believe it'is important, for adequate management control, to indicate on inspection reports any supervisory review and the date it is performed.
Recommendation: -
i We recommend that all inspection reports be reviewed by a supervisor for adequacy of content and that this supervisory review be documented and dated on the inspection report.
1 State Response:
All inspection reports are reviewed by at least one supervisor prior to the compliance letter being sent. I have reminded the senior staff to sign off on the report when it has been reviewed.
l
j i
j
_g.
L' '
Present Status:
During this review it was identified that supervisors did sign, and date reports prior to the compliance letter being transmit'ted (exceptinonecase).
Concerns during this review related to the lack of completeness L to certain sections of inspection reports. The " Inspection Report". indicator was identified as a repeat coment and was '
addressed in the letter to the State.
II. Uranium Mill Program A. Inspection Procedures is a Category II indicator. !
Coment:
In reviewing the Division's mill licensing files, it was obvious that the Division staff is concerned and aware of the 40 CFR 190 compliance status of the operating mills. This was noted in letters to the licensees requesting information needed by the staff to perform MILDOS-type predictive assessments for uranium mill license renewals. However, the Division does not have a written policy or procedure for evaluating and documenting, on an annual basis, the 40 CFR 190 compliance status for each of the mill facilities.
Recommendation:
We recommend that the Division develop and implement a procedure (similar to the Division's surety review procedure) for annual evaluations of the actual environmental data submitted by the licensee for the nearest resident at each of the operating mill facilities, for determination of compliance with 40 CFR 190.
State Response:
The Division will develop a procedure for annual evaluations .to determine compliance with 40 CFR 190. To assist us in this development, please provide copies of NRC's internal procedures used in conjunction with your formal policy guidance.
It must be noted that while we have not had a written policy regarding 40 CFR 190 evaluations, our actions in these evaluations have been appropriate.
Present Status:
During this review it was identified that a procedure was .
developed, however, review of selected license and compliance files identified that the policy had not been implemented.
A copy of an NRC evaluation for 40 CFR 190 compliance determination was provided to the State as guidance during this program review.
This is a repeat comment and was addressed in the letter to the State.
B. Staffing Level is a Category II indicator. The following comment and recommendation is made.
Comment:
We made a determination of the number of technical staff used by the Division in current uranium mill regulatory activities, and we also included consultants being used or being projected for use for pending uranium mill licensing projects NRC guidelines are that 2 to 2.75 tot > professional staff years of effort are needed to process a new conventiore mill license, in situ license, or major renewal to meet the requirements of UMTRCA. This number includes the effort for the environmental assessment hnd the inplant safety review.
It also includes the use of consultants. The RCD uses third-party ,
consultants in accordance with Section 3.9.10.3 of the Colorado Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Radiation Control. Three consultants are on hand at the present time, with one more to be added at an early date.
From discussions with the Division staff, it was determined that during the period of interest for this review there were three major uranium mill licensing actions. The technical staff years of effort, including consultants, and adjusted for the time frames for completion of the licensing actions, was calculated to be approximately 1.7 staff years of effort per major licensing action. This is below the NRC guideline range of 2.0 to 2.75.
Also, the State's efforts for miscellaneous post-licensing and ongoing activities, such as mill inspections and environmental surveillance, is well below NRC's recommended range of 0.5 to 1.0 staff years of effort per mill facility.
Another indication that mill staffing needs are not being met is shown by the fact that one of the third-party consultants being added soon is needed for work in the health physics aspects of uranium mill regulation.
While this may represent a short-term solution to the State's staffing needs, we believe it is better for the-leng term to retain expertise in this area within the Division on a permanent basis.
Ls-Recommendation:
After consideration of the current and near future' staff workload for uranium mill projects, we believe that an immediate need exists for -
additional uranium mill regulatory staff. Therefore, we recommend that the State evaluate all possible means of increasing the size of the permanent uranium mill regulatory staff in the RCD.
State Response:
We'are requesting two (2) additional FTEs for the uranium mill unit in the State's FY 1986 budget.
Present Status:
The staffing level for conventional uranium mills has decreased from
.1.7 staff years to .97 staff years per major licensing action.
E This indicator was discussed in detail with Dr. Arnott and the reviewer l encouraged State management su tontinue to be aware of the decrease in l the staff level fer the uran.um mill program. In addition, the decrease in the staff level has affected two other indicators identified during this review', " Technical Quality of Licensing Actions," a Category I indicator, and " Inspection Reports," a Category II indicator.
This is a repeat comment from the last review and was addressed in the letter to the State.
i
o p
4 I
s -
EVALUATION OF AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM STATE REVIEW GUIDELINES A UESTIONS AND ASSESSMENTS Name of State Prograd - Colorado Date of NRC Review - October 15-25, 1985
- 1. LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS
- A. Legal Authority '(Category I)
NRC Guidelines: Clear statutory authority should exist, designating i a state radiation control agency and providing for promulgation of l
regulations, licensing, inspection and enforcement. States
, regulating uranium or thorium recovery and associated wastes pursuant to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) must have statutes enacted to establish clear authority for the State I
to carry out the requirements of UMTRCA. Where regulstory responsibilities are divided between State agencies, clear understandings should exist as to division of responsibilities and requirements for coordination.
Questions:
- 1. Please list all currently effective legislation that affects the radiation control program (RCP).
The State Radiation Control Act, Title 25, Article 11.
Section 103, on radiation control establishes clear statutory authority designating the Colorado Department of Health (CDH) as the State radiation control agency and provides for the promulgation of regulations and gives the Department the author-ity to issue licenses and establish inspection and enforcement programs. Section 25-11-102 of the Act provides for agreements for transfer of functions from the Federal government to the State government. Section 25-11-104 of the Act provides that fees collected for the radioactive materials control program be credited to a fund specifically earmarked for radiation control services. Part 2 of the Act pertains to radioactive waste disposal. Section 25-11-202 prohibits the disposal of any radioactive waste that did not originate or was not used within the State of Colorado unless the site or facility is approved by the Governor and the General Assembly. Part 3 of the Act relates to the disposal of uranium mill tailings and grants the Department authority to participate in the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program (UMTRAP) under Title I, Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, PL 95-604. (See Volume 11 for specific uranium mill information.)
l: .
- 2. What changes jiave been made to the statutory authority of the State to license, inspect, and otherwise regulate agreement materials since the last review? ,
l No changes have been made to the statutory authority of the State.
o 3. If your State regulates uranium or thorium recovery operations l' and associated wastes pursuant to an amended agreement and UMTRCA, explain any changes to the statutory authority for these functions.
No changes.ha've been made to the statutory authority of the UMTRCA.
- 4. Are copies of tha current Enabling Act and other statutes (e.g.,
Administrative Procedures Act, Sunshine Act, etc.) which govern
'the conduct of the agreement materials program on file in the RCP office and with the NRC?- If revisions have occurred since the last review, the changes should be included.
All current copies of the. enabling act and other statutes are available in the NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
- 5. If the State's regulatory authorities are divided between agencies, what procedures and memoranda are in effect to provide clear understanding of the divisions or responsibilities and requirements,for coordination?
The only division of regulatory authority regarding radioactive materials is through the Bureau of Mines (associated uranium mines).- See Volume 11 for details. .The CDH/ RCD has' Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) developed for respective intra and inter departmental activities. Copies of respective MOUs are available in the NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
- 6. Does the. State have authority to: -
- a. apply civil penalties? If so, cite legislation.
Yes, Title. 25-11-107(5).
- b. collect fees? If so, cite legislation.
Yes, Title 25-11-104(6).
)
i
s 1 -14
- c. require surety or long-term care funds? If so, cite legislation.
~
Yes, Title 25-11-104(2).
- d. require performance bonds or sureties for decommissioning licensed facilities? If so. . cite legislation.
Yes, Title 25-11-104(2).
- e. require performance bonds or sureties for cleanup of licensed-facilities after a contamination accident? If so, cite legislation.
Yes, Title 25-11-104(2).
- f. . require long term care funds for uranium mill or low-level waste (LLW) facilities? If so, cite legislation.
Yes Title 25-11-104(2).
- g. enter'into LLW compacts? If so, cite legislation.
-Y'es, Title 24-60-2202.
- h. establish, license and/or operate a LLW site? If so, cite legislation.
Yes, Title 24-60-2205.
- 7. If any response to the above questions are negative, explain any plans the State may have regarding those issues.
Not applicable.
IoA Reviewer Assessment:
- The Colorado Department of Health, Radiation Control Division (CDH/ RCD) has clearly established guidelines for statutory authority. Copies of the most recent Title 25, Article II entitled " Radiation Control Act," dated January 1984, and the Colorado Low Level Radioactive Waste House Bill No.1246, are available in NRC, Region IV Colorado State Agreement file.
It should be noted that the authorities referenced under Title 25-11-104(2) are a general authority requiring the adoption of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD), Suggested State Regulations (SSR), and not through specffic legislative language.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Legal Authority" indicator.
r
-m--_-_._______._________.__-______-.___m_________._______.____.___.________.___.____________._____._______-__.__._____.__.____________._____.._.-__.____.___...____-.-_._..___.__-._____m.___________m
I B. Status of Regulations (Category I)
NRC Guidelines: The State should have regulations essentially .
identical to 10 CFR Part 19, Part 20.(radiation dose standards and effluent limits), and those required by UMTRCA, as implemented by Part 40. The State should adopt regulations to maintain a high degree of uniformity with NRC regulations.
Questions:
- 1. When did the State last amend its regulations in order to maintain compatibility and when did the revisions become effective?
The NRC, Region IV. State and Governmental Affairs Staff reviewed the CDH/ RCD draft Radiation Control Regulations on L August 30, 1985, and provided written comments. The CDH/ RCD
, anticipates final approval and adoption of regulations in late November 1985.
- 2. Referring to the enclosed NRC chronology of amendments (Appendix A) note the effective date of the NRC changes last l adopted by the State.
1 l' The respective NRC amendments have been incorporated in the draft State regulations currently under consideration by the State Board of Health.
3.a. Were there any compatibility items that were not adopted by the State?
Yes, however, as discussed, the appropriate compatibility items have been incorporated into the regulations but are awaiting final approval for adoption.
I
- b. If so, please identify and explain why they were not adopted.
The elimination of the exemption for glass enamel and frit provided by NRC has not been incorporated into the CRCPD,
. Suggested State Regulations to date. Rather than have special detailed findings, Colorado will adopt the changes when included in SSR.
The requirements of 40 CFR 190 are Federal requirements according to Colorado. Rather than incorporation of these requirements into State regulations, Colorado requires by license conditions that the requirements of 40 CFR 190 be met.
See Volume II for additional information. __
1.B. Reviewer Assessment The State does have regulations ready for adoption that are essentially .
identical to 10 CFR Parts 19. 20, and those required by UMTRCA. The State cannot administratively adopt NRC changes prior to their becoming formally adopted. It is understood that, in cases where the NRC recommends a specific change to the regulations (10 CFR 19 and 20), the State can util-ize that specific re control regulations)gulation (if it affects through license compatibility condition until formalofadoption the radiation through the State's administrative procedures is completed. State legisla-tion dictates that the Colorado radiation control regulation; must be based on the Suggested State Regulations of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors.
As stated above, NRC, Region IV, State and Governmental Affairs Staff (SGAS) has reviewed and commented on the CDH/ RCD draft Radiation Control Regulations by letter dated August 30, 1985. The respective comments and recommendations were incorporated.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Status of Regulations" indicator. However, during the next review it should be determined whether the CDH/ RCD has approved the radiation control regula-tions for final adoption.
C. Updating of Regulations (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: The Radiation Control Program (RCP) should establish procedures for effecting appropriate amendments to State regulations in a timely manner, normally within 3 years of adoption by NRC. For those regulations deemed a matter of compatibility by NRC, State l regulations should be amended as soon as practicable but no later than
! 3 years. Opportunity should be provided for the public to comment on proposed regulation changes. (Required by UMTRCA for uranium mill regulation.) Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, opportunity should be provided for the NRC to comment on draft changes in State regulations.
1 Questions:
- 1. Does your state have a schedule or program for revising and adopting changes to regulations within 3 years of adoption by the NRC?
l Yes, the CDH/ RCD has a schedule for revising or adopting changes to regulations within 3 years of adoption by the NRC.
- 2. Has your state adopted all regulations deemed a matter of compatibility by NRC within 3 years? (Refer to NRC chronology.)
l L___________________ _ l
f L
Yes, the CDH/ RCD has adopted all regulations deemed a matter of; compatibility to date of this-review. ,
K %
- 3. What are your State's procedures for adopting new regulations?
Briefly describe each step in the procedure.
The Colorado regulations are amended in accordance with State administrative procedures. The staff prepares a draft which is made available to interested parties within the State. NRC is given the opportunity to comment on this draft. It is forwarded to the Radiation Advisory Committee for review and the State Board of Health conducts a hearing and prepares any proposed amendments. !
NRC may then again comment on the proposed regulations.
Subsequent to this, the State attorney general's office reviews the regulations and, upon approval, they e.re published by the Board of Health in the Colorado Register and become effective 20 days after publication, unless specifically itientified. The Board must also adopt a rationale statement for changes to the regulations, which contains a financial impact appraisal.
- 4. How is the public involved in the process?
Public meetings are conducted by the Radiation Control Division (RCD) with interested parties. The Board of Health conducts hearings during the adoption process. Public participation is allowed and encouraged. All licensees are notified of the proposed changes.
5a. Does the NRC have the opportunity to comment on draft changes to State regulations and if 50.. does your State respond to the comments?
Yes, copies are submitted to NRC when they are drafted.
- b. If so, does your State respond to the comments?
Yes.
I.C. Reviewer Assessment:
During this review period the State regulations were reviewed and comments provided by NRC, Region IV. State and Governmental Affairs Staff. l The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Updating of Regulations" indicator. As noted under the " Status of Regulations" indicator, the next review should identify whether the regulations have been' approved for final adoption.
I j
l II. ORGANIZATION l
A. Location of the Radiation Control Program (RCP) Within the State ,
, Organization (Category II)
[ NRC. Guidelines: The RCP should be located in a State organization parallel with comparable health and safety programs. The Program Director should have access to appropriate levels of State management.
- 1. Attach an organization chart (s) showing the RCP and its location ,
within the department and State organization. l l
See Appendix A.
- 2. Is the RCP on a comparable level within the State organization with other health and safety programs so as to compete i effectively for funds and staff?
Yes.
- 3. Does the program director have access to appropriate levels of State management?
Yes.
II.A Reviewer Assessment:
The Denver Radiation Control Section is one of two sections in Ehe RCD.
The Office of Health Protection is one of three offices within the Department of Health. An organizational chart for the CDH is attached as Appencix A. Mr. A. J. Hazle, Director.of the RCD has access to appropriate levels of State management. It was evident from examination of the organizational charts and discussions with various radiation control. staff that the RCD is located comparably with other health and safety programs and competes effectively for funds and staff within the State organization.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Location of the Radiation Control Program Within the State Organization" indicator.
B.. Internal Organization of the Radiation Control Program (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: The RCP should be organized with the view toward achieving an acceptable degree of staff efficiency, place appropriate emphasis on major program functions, and provide specific lines of supervision from program management for the execution of program policy. Where regional offices are utilized, the lines of 1
l 1
L _.
p s H 3 L . .
communication and administrative control between the regions and the l central.off#ce (Program Director) should be clearly drawn to. provide uniformity 1., inspection policy, procedures and supervision. ,
. Questions:
- 1. - Attach dated copies of your internal RCP organization charts.
See Appendix B.
- 2. How is the RCP organized so as to provide specific lines of supervision f. rom program management for executing program policy?
All groups of the RCD work under and report to the Supervisory Health Physicist (SHP). The SHP ensures that all policies are consistent within the groups and sections.
- 3. If regional offices are used:
- a. To whom do regional personnel report administrative 1y?
The Grand Junction office does not conduct licensing or
. compliance activities associated with regulating radioactive materials. The Grand Junction office only works on assigned remedial action programs or incident investigations.
- b. To whom do regional personnel report technically?
The Division Director and the SHP.
- 4. If the RCP contracts with other agencies to administer the program:
- a. Identify the contracting agencies and indicate their respons'ibilities.
Contracts are made with the Colorado Geological Survey and are primarily for the uranium mill program associated activities. See Volume II for details,
- b. To whom do contract personnel report admir.istratively?
Directly to the CDH/MD uranium unit leader.
- c. To whom do contract personnel report techriically? <
To the CDH/ RCD uranium unit leader.
__.m_-______ _ _ _-_____.__m_______.-_m._ _ _ _ . _ _
' j
-12.B Reviewer Assessment:
An organizational chart for the. RCD is attached as Appendix B. The Denver Radiation Control Section and the Grand Junction Radiation Control Secti'on are. included in the Division. The Denver section is divided into four program areas. The-first. Materials and Machines, handles all radioactive materials licensing and inspection, as well as x-ray registration and inspection. . The second, Remedial Programs, is responsible for DOE and EPA associated program activities, i.e.. Title I and Superfund, respectively.
The third, Technical Services, is responsible for all environmental i
sampling and analysis. The fourth section is Uranium Recovery Licensing and Compliance, which is responsible for regulatory activities involving uranium mills and the associated mill tailings.
The CDH/ RCD meets the.NRC guidelines outlined under the " Internal
, Organization of the Radiation Control Program" indicator.
L.
C. ' Legal Assistance (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: Legal staff should be assigned to assist the RCP, or
[ procedures should exist to obtain legal assistance expeditiously.
Legal staff should be knowledgeable regarding the radiation control program, statutes, and regulations.
Questions:
- 1. Are legal staff members assigned to assist the RCP or do procedures exist to obtain legal assistance expeditiously?
An Assistant Attorney General (AG) is assigned to provide legal assistance to the RCD. In addition, the Assistant AG has two other attorneys that have been involved with the RCD over past years. The Natural Resources Section supervisor of the AG's office is knowledgeable on radiation matters.
- 2. Is the legal staff knowledgeable regarding the RCP, statutes, regulations, and needs?
Yes.
- 3. If legal assistance was utilized since last review, provide a sumary of the circumstances.
(a) Current assigned Assistant AG is involved with legal action against Sauter Construction for failure to pay fees. Case is pending.
l
l (b) During amendment of the RAMP Industries license for the possession and processing of waste materials, the assistant AG provided sound legal support to the RCP in dealing with the licensee's attorneys and their parent companies. -
(c) The assigned Assistant AG did provide timely input to the regulation revisions currently under revision.
II.C Review r Assessment:
It should be noted that there has been increased legal assistance to the materials program provided to the RCD during the past year.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Legal Assistance" indicator.
D. Technical Advisory Comittees_ (Category II)
NRC Guidelines:' Technical Comittees, Federal Agencies, and other resource organizations should be used to extend staff capabilities for unique or technically complex problems. A Stat,e Medical Advisory Comittee should be used to provide broad guidance on the uses of radioactive drugs in or on humans. The Comittee should represent a wide spectrum of medical disciplines. The Comittee shoul; advise the RCP on policy matters and regulations regulated to use of radioisotopes in or on humans. Procedures should be developed to avoid conflict of interest, even though Comittees are advisory.
This does not mean that representatives of the regulated comunity should not serve on advisory comittees or not be used as consultants.
Questions: j
- 1. Discuss practices followed for obtaining technical assistance when needed (e.g., consultants, technical and medical advisory committees, licensees, the NRC and other State and Federal
. Agencies).
The nine member Radiation Advisory Comittee, under statutory authority, Title 25-11-105, provides advice and technical assistance to the RCD. This comittee is the only formal advisory comittee to the RCD. If additional expertise is required, it is requested from, but not limited to. State universities, the NRC, DOE, and EPA.
There are two other comittees established by the RCD for the conduct of the Grand Junction Remedial Action Program (GJRAP).
There are also comittees estatiished by the Department in each
locale (7) for input in.the Uranium' Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program (VMTRAP). These advisory groups for the remedial L
programs have no legislative basis.
- 2. What steps are taken to avoid conflicts of interest?
The committee has no formalized procedures to avoid cases of conflict of interest. However, individual members will abstain from voting on issues concerning. facilities with which they are associated. .
- 3. Are any committees involved in setting policies? If so, explain.
The medi. cal members of the advisory committee are requested to.
evaluate new procedures submitted by licensees. The committee's ~
function remains strictly advisory and is not a policy setting organization.
'4. Attach a list showing the membership, specialties and affiliations of the Medical and/or Technical Advisory Committees.
The following are eight members (one vacancy) of the Radiation Advisory Committee:
Industry: George Campbell for Bob Yoder Jack Rothfleisch Michael Raudenbush Higher Education: Arthur Robinson Ward Whicker Vacancy Healing Arts: Frank Judson, M.D.
Duncan Burdick, M.D.
Donald Fink, M.D.
- 5. Indicate whether the advisory committees are established by statute, by appointment of the Governor, by appointment of the State Board of Health, by appointment of the Agency, or by other means.
The advisory committee is created by appointment from Governor through statute in 1965 by Title 25-11-105, CRS 1973.
- 6. What is the formal meeting frequency of each committee, and are I minutes of committee meetings prepared?
l 1
4 The committee meetings are held quarterly and respective minutes are maintained.
- 7. What was the date of the last formal meeting of each committee 7 July 18, 1985.
- 8. Are individual committee members contacted for' consultation?
Yes, usually two or more are asked for independent evaluations.
- 9. Discuss how each committee is used, the average workload placed on the committee, and the remuneration, if any.
The topics addressed in the past have been Uranium Mining and Milling Impacts, Radiation Regulation Changes, Rocky Flats, Fort
'St. Vrain, Plutonium in Soil Standard, X-ray user training, Federal X-ray performance standard, Nonroutine Use of Radiation on Humans, Plow Share Projects, and Emergency Response.
Remuneration is only for actual incurred expenses.
II.D Reviewer Assessment: .
Three members of the Radiation Advisory Committee constitute a Medical Advisory Committee. The Medical Advisory Committee provides consultation to the staff on such matters as nonroutine protocols, major changes in medical licensing policies, and physician qualifications. The St;ee Medical Advisory Conmittee is used to provide broad guidance on th. uses of radioactive drugs in humans. The members of the Committee alsi advise the RCD on certain policy matters and regulations related to use of radioisotopes ir humans. The staff indicated that the Committee had extended discussion regarding the use of radiation (x-ray) on research controls (normals).
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Technical Advisory Committees" indicator.
III. MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION A. Quality of Emergency Planning (Category I)
NRC Guidelines: The State RCP should have a written plan for response to such incidents as spills, overexposure, transportation accidents, fire or explosion, tbEft, etc.
The Plan should define the responsibilities and actions to be taken by State agencies. The Plan should be specific as to persons responsible for initiating response actions, conducting operations
~-
.-___m___- - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
l'< ,
_ :l t r 1
.g
~24-l and cleanup.. Emergency communication procedures should be adequately
, established with appropriate local, county and State agencies. Plans
.should be distributed to appropriate persons and agencies. . NRC L
should be provided the opportunity to comment on'the Plan while in '
draft form.
The plan should be reviewed annually by Program staff for adequacy and to determine whether the content is current. Periodic drills
. should_be performed to test the plan.
Questions:
- 1. Is the RCP responsible for its own emergency plan or are accidents involving radioactive materials incorporated into a comprehensive State plan developed and administered by another State agency?' Please~ provide copies of all applicable plans for
' review.
Yes, the RCD has its procedures plus'the inclusions into the Rocky Flats Plant and the Fort St. Vrain plan appendices to the State Emergency Response Plan. This State plan is maintained by the Division of Disaster Emergency Services (DDES), Colorado Department of Public Safety, with input from.the RCD.
- 2.. What written procedures or plans does the= RCP use for responding to incidents involving radioactive materials?
There is also a Colorado Department of Health Emergency Response
. Manual for all. environmental situations. A copy of the RCD's emergency plan call list is in the NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
- 3. .If the plan covers major accidents at-nuclear facilities, how does it cover noncatastrophic incidents such as those involving transportation or materials?
The State plan addresses the full scope of incident response as does the Department manual.
- 4. How does the plan define responsibilities and actions to be taken by all State Agencies (initiating response actions, operations, cleanup,etc.)?
The State plan assigns responsibility for all agencies plus general authorities in areas where D0 DES and CDH can handle any contingency. )
i 4
r
'f L p
.y V 5. How does the plan provide for notification of and communications with appropriate government agencies?
The State. plan identifies agency number and 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> contact services as does the CDH Emergency Response Manual. A copy of the plan and call list are in NRC, Region IV, Colorado State g
Agreem&nt files.
- 6. . How is'the response program organized so that qualified individuals are readily available through identifiable channels of communication?
At least one " staff member is on a pager for a week at a time to respond to after normal hours emergencies. Each member has a set of civil defense survey instruments and the office equipment is available.
- 7. Has the plan been distributed to all participating agencies?
Yes.
- 8. Has the NRC had opportunity to comment on the plan in draft form?
Yes the plan has been reviewed by'the NRC, Region IV, State and Governmental Affairs Staff during past reviews.
- 9. Is the plan reviewed annually by the RCF for adequacy and to assure the content is current?
Yes, it was just recently reviewed and updated.
- 10. Are drills performed periodically to test the plan for.
radioactive materials emergencies? Explain, for example, how nonroutine office hours communications are checked.
Yes, each staff member has at home a listing of staff telephone numbers and pager numbers. After hours " emergencies" occur frequently enough to check adequacy and accuracy of telephone system and numbers.
III. Reviewer Assessment:
The Colorado General Radiological Response Plan provides the basis for State actions regarding emergencies involving radioactive materials. The plan detsils the responsibilities of various State agencies, including the Health Department, the State Patrol, County and City Police Departments, Municipal and County Health Departments, and the State Department of x__
Agriculture. Included are step-by-step procedures to follow in the event of radiological accidents. It is the reviewer's understanding that the Colorado RCD staff does communicate with other departments within the ,
State in order to maintain czerent telephone and address listings. A list of current telephone numbers on an emergency call list has been distributed to all necessary organizations. The plan has been reviewed for adequacy and the content is current as of this review. A copy is available in the NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
The CDH/ RCD appears to meet the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Quality of Emergency Planning" indicator.
B. Budget (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: Operating funds should be sufficient to support program needs such as: staff travel necessary to conduct an effective compliance program, including routine inspections, followup or special inspections (including relicensing visits) and responses to incidents and other emergencies; instrumentation and other equipment to support the RCP; administrative costs in operating the program including rental charges, printing costs, laboratory services, computer and/or word processing support, preparation of l
correspondence, office equipment, hearing costs, etc. as appropriate.
Principal operating funds should be from sources which provide continuity and reliability, i.e., general tax, license fees, etc.
Supplemental funds may be obtained through contracts, cash grants, etc.
Questions:
- 1. What fiscal year is used by your State?
July 1 through June 30.
- 2. Indicate the amount for funds obtained from each source (fees, State General funds, HHS,,NRC environmental monitoring or l transportation surveillance contracts, EPA, FDA and others).
FY 85 l
- 1. $582,494 (general fund) + 110,586 (cash fees) + 38,844 (LLW) + 9,663 (Ft. St. Vrain contract - NRC) + 22,575 (Rocky Flats-D0E) + 101,838 (preventive health block) +
13.575 (FDA - diagnostic x-ray) = $879,575.
- 2. Grand Junction Remedial Action Plan = $1,600,000 (State and Federal)~
- 3. UMTRAP = $3.626,170 (State and Federal)
- 3. Show the total amounts assigned to:
- a. The total RCP:.
FY 85 - Operating budget .$ 879,575.
Capital. construction 1,600,000 (GJRAP) 3,626,170 (UMTRAP)
$5.226,170
- b. The radioactive materials program:
Materials and Machines $223,651 Uranium 136,888
$360,539
- 4. What is the change in budget from the previous year and what is the. reason for the change (new programs, changes in emphasis, statewide reduction, etc.)?
Increased salaries without an increase in budget which resulted in the loss of one FTE.
- 5. Describe your fee system, if you have one, and give the percentage of cost recovery. Enclose a copy of the fee schedule.
Base fee schedule is included in Part XII of the Colorado Radiation Control Regulation's. A copy of the fee schedule is L
available in NRC, Region IV, Colorado-State Agreement files.
- 6. Does the RCP administer the fee system?
Yes.
- 7. What recourse does the RCP have in the event of nonpayment?
Modification or revocation of license and/or institution of a civil penalty is defined in regulations. (As currently exists in the legal action pending against Sauter Construction with regard to nonpayment of fees.)
I ..
L-__-___-_-----_____--_____-__-_--_... -- _. _ . _ - - -- _ - _ - _ _ - . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _
\
I l
i l , 8. Overall. is the funding sufficient to support all of the program I needs? If not, specify the problem areas.
No. Reduction of one FTE due to loss of funding (Technical
- l Services to both materials and uranium) and two FTEs needed to properly address uranium issues. Current staff also involved with CERCLA-NRDC lawsuits. Appropriation of cash funds not consistent with fund generation.
l HI.B Reviewer Assessment:
l It should be noted that overall funding to support the programs needs is not sufficient according to the CDH response due to staff involvement in CERCLA. However, at the time of this review no adverse impacts were identified which may have effected the current radiation control program functions.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guideline outlined under the " Budget" indicator. i l As noted under the "5taffing Level" indicator, the CDH/ RCD does not meet i the criteria for person years effort for the uranium mill program.
(Details are addressed in Volume II.)
C. Laboratory Support (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: The RCP should have the laboratory support capability in-house, or readily available through established procedures, to conduct bioassays, analyze environmental samples, analyze samples collected by inspectors, etc., on a priority established by the RCP.
Questions:
- 1. Are laboratory services readily available in-house or through other departments within the State organization?
Yes, the Chemistry Laboratory and Radiation Counting Facility.
Sample preparation is performed by the Laboratory Division within the CDH.
I If services are provided by other departments, discuss the 2.
arrangements, supervision, charges and interdepartmental communications.
Services provided by the Laboratory Division are perfonned under a formal intradepartmental agreement detailing the uses of funds and anticipated workload. This agreement is updated annually.
--__a--.--- .-. - _ _ - - - , , - - - - _ - - - - - - - ----------------_-----xa--- - - , - - . , - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - _ _ - - - . - - - _ _ _ - - - , - - - _ - - - - _ - - - - - -
~
- 3. If laboratory services must be provided by a non-State agency:
a .' Piscuss the contractual arrangements.. ,
Not applicable.
Is the party providing the service a State licensee?
b.
Not applicable.
- c. If a State licensee provides the service or equipment, what are the costs?
Not applicable.
- 4. Discuss the capability of the laboratory as follows:
1
- a. Can it qualitatively and quantitatively analyze. low-energy beta emitters?
Yes, by liquid scintillation counting.
'b. Can it qualitatively and quantitatively analyze alpha emitters? q
, Yes, by zine sulfide detector, proportional counter, and alpha spectrometry.
- c. Can it selectively determine the presence and quantity of gamma emitters?
l Yes, by gamma spectrometry.
l l .d. Can it handle samples in any physical form -- wipes, liquids, solids, gaseous?
Yes, including whole body measurements. I
- e. Does the laboratory participate in a periodic quality l
control program?
Yes, external quality control (QC) program with EPA.
External QC for bioassay through BRNL. Routine in-house ,
QC is also performed. 1
- 5. How much time does it take to obtain the results from sample analyses on both a routine basis and on an emergency basis?
4 i
s
. s l Routine analysis requires 15 to 45 days. Emergency analysis is limited only by samp preparation and counting time.
- 6. List the number and types o laboratory instrumentation and services available.
2 - Proportional counters for 2" planchets (automated) 1 - ZnS counter for 8x10 filters 1 - Proportional counter for 8x10 filters 8 - Alpha spectrometry counters for 1" planchets 1 - Liquid scintillation counter for 20 ml. vials (automated) 1 - HPGE detector L 1 - NaI detector (multiple crystals in various shielded l configurations) 1 - Whole body (Nal) detectors III.C Reviewer Assessment:
Laboratory services are provided to the RCD by the Laboratory Division of the Department;of Health. Personnel assigned to the Technical Services section perform radiochemical and radiation counting procedures, and report to the supervisor of the Radiation Control Section. See L organizational chart in Appendix B. The CDH/ RCD meets NRC guidelines l cutlined under the " Laboratory Support" indicator.
l l D. Administrative Procedures (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: The RCP should establish written internal procedures to assure that the staff performs its duties as required and to provide a high degree of uniformity and continuity in regulatory practices. These procedures should address internal processing of license applications, inspection policies and procedures, decommissioning, and other functions required of the program.
Questions:
- 1. What procedures are established to assure adequate and uniform regulatory practices (e.g., administrative procedures, policy memos, licensing and inspection guides, escalated enforcement procedures, decommissioning procedures, etc.)?
Copies of guides and policies are available in bound notebooks in the Materials and Machines section, in the RCP office.
- 2. To what extent are the procedures documented?
Procedures are in wr.itten form.
h I
j .
l
- 3. If your State has separate licensing and inspection staffs, what are the procedures.used to communicate oetween the two staffs?
Licensing and inspection staff are under one supervisor and ar'e in close proximity to assure communication.
- 4. How aro personnel kept informed of current regulatory policies l and practices?
All pertinent documents are circulated through the appropriate staff. Division staff meetings are-held or supervisor / staff I
meetings are held to assure new policies and practices are understood and implemented.
- 5. If your State collects fees, are fee collection duties assigned to non-technical staff?
Fee collection is accomplished by the section secretary but is coordinated and reviewed by the supervisor or section chief and division staff assistant through monthly reports.
- 6. How are contacts with communication media handled?
1 l By appropriate senior staff under guidance from the Public Relations Office. All contracts are coordinated through public relations and the Section Chief and Division Director, as necessary.
! 7. What proce'dures exist to ensure timely release of factual I information on matters of interest to the public, the NRC, and Agreement States?
The senior staff directs the' release of information of all NRC/ Agreement States notices. A file of notices sent to i licensees is maintained in the materials and machines SHP l office.
l .
- 8. If your RCP has regional offices:
- a. what procedures are in effect to assure the regions have complete. copies of the procedures and files?
Not applicable.
l b. how often are periodic staff meetings held with headquarters staff?
i l
1
Q; b
s s Periodically. Usually by means of tape recording of the staff meeting held in Denver office. The Division Director-and group leader periodically provide personal updates when at that office. -
- c. how often are periodic visits / audits made by headquarters staff to regional offices?
Not applicable to regulatory program. The Divisian Director visits the office 6 to 10 times a year.
- d. how is uniformity assured?
Not applicable to regulatory program. There is daily communication between Denver and Grand Junction.
- e. how is supervision handled?
A SHP is in charge of the Grand Janction office. He reports directly to Division Director in the Denver office.
III.D Reviewer Assessment:
The RCD has written internal procedures that assure staff performance of duties are uniform in regulatory practice. The RCD utilizes NRC licensing guides. The staff uses checklists to provide assistance in the review of license applications and inspection checkoff sheets to assist the inspector in conducting organized and thorough inspections.
The communication between the RCD's licensing and compliance staffs appears to be adequate. Information logs are kept on licenses issued and inspections performed and due. These logs are reviewed monthly by staff and management to plan for future workload. Licensing statistics are maintained on NRC semiannual report forms which are utilized by the RCD.
These are submitted to the NRC on a timely basis. Inspection statistics are maintained by each inspector, as well as by management, to continually monitor the case workload.
A copy of Title 24, " Administrative Procedures" is available in the NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Administrative Procedures" indicator.
E. Management (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: Program management should receive periodic reports from the staff on the status of regulatory actions (backlogs, problem cases, inquiries, regulation revisions). RCP management should
- periodically assess workload trends, resources and changes in legislative and regulatory responsibilities to forecast needs for increased staff, equipment, services and fundings. .
Program management should perfont periodic reviews of selected license cases handled by each reviewer and document the results.
L Complex licenses (major manufacturers, large scope - Type A Broad, or potential for significant releases to environment) should receive second party review (supervisory, committee, or consultant).
Supervisory review of inspections, reports and enforcement actions should a' Iso be performed.
L Questions:
- 1. progra;n management abreast of the status of regulatory How does actions the staff keep ?(such as backlo;), problem inquiries, and revision of regulations l ,
Written inspection reports are all signed by management. Weekly and monthly reports include major compliance problems.
Management has involved staff in review of new regulations and comments received.
l- 2.a. Is a periodic statistical tabulation of licenses, licensees, inspections and backlogs prepared by category?
Yes.
- b. If so, specify how frequently the tabulation is prepared.
Statistical information is maintained on the NRC semiannual report forms.
- 3. How does RCP management assess workload trends and resources in order to determine future needs or the need for program changes?
An annual work plan is prepared by the Division staff and management for program operations. This work plan includes all aspects of the RCD effort, including litigation, licensing, compliance, tnd enforcement.
- 4. How does the RCP management keep abreast of changes in legislative and regulatory responsibility?
Management is intimately involved in legislative hearings, writing of legislation, and implementing changes in responsibility. Regulations are drafted and approved through 1 management.
-h -a - --- . _ _ _ - _ - - - _ __
._--______,m_ ,_.___ __._ __.__m__..___
1
- 5. Discuss the procedures followed by licensing supervision or RCP
. management to monitor licensing quality.
~
Licenses are written by a Health Physicist Level B (HPB) then j
- reviewed by a Senior Health Physicist for adequacy and correc - '
- tions, then is reviewed and signed by the SHP or Division Director. '
j
- 6. . Discuss the procedures used for supervisory review of inspection reports.
- All inspection reports are prepared by the inspector, reviewed by a Senior Health Physicist, then reviewed and signed by the
. SHP or Division' Director.
- 7. What license. review practices are followed for unusual or complex license applications?
- A complete review of additional documents; relicensing inspections may be accompanied by senior staff. Review by Division Director in addition to review by SHP. (Anexampleis Iotech.)- .
1 8. If applicable, discuss the procedures used for supervisory review of work performed by contract agencies or' regional offices.
Not applicable to' materials program. See Volume II in the uranium' mill program.
Ill.E Reviewer Assessment:
The Division Director and Section Chie'fs have responsibility for assessing changes and needs in the Division on a continuing basis. The Division's management and staff periodically discuss workload trends, resources, and changes in legislative and regulatory responsibility to forecast needs for increased staff, equipment, services, and funding. Internal reviews of this nature are not conducted under a prescribed schedule except for the annual budget review.
The Section Chief or Division Director reviews and signs all licenses and licensing actions after a senior staff member has reviewed and concurred on them. The Section Chief randomly selects particular licenses on a i periodic basis for an indepth evaluation of the license review.
l The CDH/ RCD meet the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Management" indicator.
l
-_ m- .-___mm___-________--.m.-
(
-3s- .s l
F. Office Equipment and Support Services (Category II) ,
NRC Guidelines: The RCP should have adequate secretarial hnd
\
l clerical support. Automatic typing and Automatic Data Processing a,nd
! retrieval capability should be available to larger (300-400 licenses) programs. Similar services should be available to regional offices, if utilized.
a Questions: l 1.a. In terms of the person-year /100 licenses figure, what level of secretarial / clerical support is provided?
.4 FTE. l
. i
- b. If your program has regional office, provide the figures for the j support for those offices.
Not applicable to any regulatory effort. *
- 2. Describe the ADP services and word processing capabilities available to the RCP. j A Wang word processing unit end an IBM personal computer are immediately available. The Wang system with other consoles is available in other areas of the Department along with other IBM PCs. The Wang unit has a current list of' licensees and licenses, mailing lists, form licenses for certain types of licenses (gauges, industrial radiography), and standard license conditions. The IBM PC is used for fiscal management. Drafting of legislation and regulations are done on these units. A current revision of the regulations is also in these units.
III.F Reviewer Assessment:
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Office Equipment and Support Services" indicator.
G. Public Information (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: Inspection and licensing files should be available to the public consistent with State administrative procedures.
Opportunity for public hearings should be provided in accordance with UMTRCA and applicable State administrative procedure laws.
j p
l Questions:
, 1. he licensing and inspection files availa'le u for inspection by the public? *
.Yes, in sccordance with the "Open Records Act."-
' 2. Can medical v c proprietary data be withheld?
Yes, medical rc ards are confidential and companies proprietary
'information can be withheld.
- 3. What other parts, if any, are not available?
All files under litigation.
- 4. What written procedures and laws govern this? Please provide reference citations.
Instructions and procedures are provided through the AG's
. office. A copy of the Colorado Administrative Procedures Act (APA) is available in NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
5.- For mill States, are opportunities provided for public hearings in accordance with UMTRCA and applicable State administrative procedures and statutes?
Yes, as provided for in the Radiation Regulations Section, RH 3.9.9 end the APA.
III.G Reviewer Assessment:
License, compliance, and incident files are available to the public.
However,' proprietary, confidential, or medical information can be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with State's Open Records Act.
Opportunity for public meetings and hearings are provided in accordance with State administrative procedures and the radiation regulations. The Department of Health's Public Information Office is used by the Division to coordinate press relear.4s and the handling of other public relations issues.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the "Public Information" indicator.
.IV. PERSONNEL A. Qualifications of Technical Staff (Category II)
N 3
NRC Guidelines: . Professional staff should have a bachelor's degree or equivalent training in the physical and/or life sciences.
Additional training and experience in radiation protection for senior personnel should be commensurate with the type of licenses issued and inspected by the State.
Written job descriptions should be prepared so that professional qualifications needed to fill vacancies can be readily identified.
Questions:
- 1. Do all professional personnel hold a bachelor's degree or have equivalent tr'aining in the physical or life sciences?
Tim Bonzer was accepted into the state system by experience when the Unieersity of Colorado Health Sciences Center was conbined under state personnel rules. All other professionals have a degree.
- 2. What additional training and experience do the senior personnel have in radiation protection?
A position is assigned a job classification. When the level of supervision decreases and tenure is met, promotion can take place. Senior staff must have 3 to 8 years of experience depending on the classification. Some classifications require tenure in a supervisory level.
- 3. What written position descriptions describe the duties, responsibilities and function of each professional position?
Each position has PC-8 form which describes that position's responsibilities and functions.
IV.A Reviewer Assessment:
Job descriptions exist for all professional level positions within the Division. There has been one addition to the job description since the previous review. A new classification has been adopted for a Principal Health Physicist. The classifications are now Division Director, SHP, Principal Health Physicist, Senior Health Physicist Health Physicist 1.evels C, B, and A. Educational requirements for the entrance level positions are that an applicant must have a bachelor's degree with major work in physics, chemistry, or any technical field appropriate to the assignment. A master's degree in health physics or radiological health may substitute for the necessary experience at the Health Physicist B and C levels. The Principal, Senior, and SHP cetegories require 5 to 7 years .
of professional radiological physics. experience. Again, a master's degree
in an appropriate field may substitute for 1 year of experience. When vacancies occur, announcements are included in a list of State vacancies which is posted throughout the State. The applicant must pass a written health physics examination and must be interviewed. Interviews are -
conducted by a panel consisting of members of the RCD and persons from outside the Division. Applicants are graded and ranked, and a written 5
~ report is prepared. The program director can then interview the tcp applicants and make a selection from the top 3 for 1 opening, top 5 for 2 openings, etc. Colorado residents are given preference in hiring.
A copy of the Principal Health Physicist job descriptions is available in NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Qualifications of Technical Staff" indicator.
B. Staffing Level (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: Staffing level should be approximately 1-1.5 person-year per 100 licenses in effect. RCP must not have less than two professionals available with training and experience to operate RCP in a way which provides continuous coverage and continuity.
For States regulating uranium mills and mill tailings, current indications are that 2-2.75 professional peison-years' of effort, including consultants, are needed to process new mill license (including in-situ mills) or major renewal, to meet requirements of UMTRCA. This effort must include expertise in radiological matters, hydrology, geology, and structural engineering.
Questions:
- 1. Complete a table _ listing the person-years of effort applied to the agreercent or radioactive material program by individual.
Include the name, position, fraction of time spent and the duty (licensing, inspection, administration,etc.).
Name Position FTE% Arets of Effort A. Hazle Director '
.25 Administration W. Jacobi Supervisory HP .75 Supervision C. Mattson Senior HP 1.00 Inspection T. Bonzer Health Physicist 1.00 Inspection F. Phelps Health Physicist 1.00 Inspection L. Doerr Health Physicist 1.00 Licensing TOTAL 4.95
l l
i
- 2. Compute the person-year per 100 licenses (excluding mills and burial sites). Show calculation.
446 active licenses divided by 100 - 4.46 4.95 person years divided by 4.46 = 1.1 person years
- 3. Is the staffing level adequate to meet normal and special needs and backup?
Currently, the staffing level is adequate to meet program needs.
IV.B Reviewer Assessment:
As noted above. the RCD's person-year effort is 1.1 FTE per 100 licenses.
It should be noted that although this FTE is within the recommended NRC guidelines the RCD technical staff have spent an increased amount of time on litigation cases as identified under the " Legal Assistance" indicator.
This indicator was discussed with the RCD and it was recommended that management monitor the staffing level to assure that extensive staff effort on litigation cases does not deter from the lice ~nse and compliance aspects of the program.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Staffing Level" indicator.
C. Staff Supervision (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: Supervisory personnel should be adequate to provide guidance and review the work of senior and junior personnel. Senior personnel should review applications and inspect licenses independently, monitor work of junior personnel, and participate ir.
the establishment of policy. Junior personnel should be initia31y limited to reviewing license applications and inspecting small programs under close supervision.
Questions:
- 1. Identify the junior and senior personnel. ,
Bealth Physicist A through C level are considered " junior" personnel. The C Level is the journeyman level. Senior and Principal Health Physicists and supervisory staff are senior staff.
2.a. What duties are assigned to junior personnel?
Inspections and licensing are perforred by junior personnel.
s m.
J
- b. Do they review applications and perform inspections independently?
Yes, however, all work is reviewed by two levels of senior personnel.
I 3.a. What duties are assigned to senior personnel? j Review of all work performed by junior personnel. Some work and some duties are assigned to senior personnel. Development effort are assigned to senior staff. Also, difficult actions such as complex inspections, problem licenses, etc.
- b. Do.they independently review and monitor the work of Junior personnel?
All inspections and reports and licensing actions are reviewed by Principal Health Physicists and SHP. Any difficult or complex actions are also reviewed by the Division Director. All actions are taken by either the SHP or the Division Director.
- 4. Is there adequate supervisory or senior guidance and direction for junior personnel?
Yes, there is practically constant contact by the upper management on a daily basis.
- 5. Discuss procedures established to ensure supervisory review of the licensing, inspection and enforcement functions.
The procedures are established in the respective job description and are included in the yearly evaluation of the senior health physicist. Draft documents are prepared by staff, reviewed by peers and supervisor, and SHP. Action is only taken under signature of SHP or Division Director. i 6.a. Are RCP staff members allowed to consult or work part time for State licensees?
No, it is considered a conflict of interest and not allowed under the personnel rules.
l h. If so, how are conflicts of interest avoided?
l l Not applicable.
)
l l
l i
- IV.C Reviewer Assessment:
' The'overall administrative. supervision for.the RCP is provided by Al Hazie and the supervision of the Denver Radiation Control Section is provided by Warren Jacobi. Four groups report to Mr. Jacobi: (1) Materials and Machines, (2) Remedial Programs, (3) Technical Services (Laboratory Division), and (4) Uranium Recovery Licensing and Compliance. The Materials and Machines supervisor is Mr. C. Mattson, the. Remedial Programs supervisor is Mr. R. Gamewell, the Technical Services supervisor is Mr. M. Hanrahan, and the Uranium Recovery Lic'ensing and Compliance-supervisor is Mr. K. Weaver.-
Junior personnel are initially assigned routine and strai # tforward responsibilities under close supervision. As they progress, they are given more detailed work'with less supervision. The following list
. provides a breakdown by work assignment for the RCD staff:
- a. Review-licenses -' Larry Doerr and Chuck Mattson;
- b. Sign licenses - Jake Jacobi and Al Hazle;
- c. Perform inspections - Tim Bonzer, Frank Phelps, and Chuck Mattson;
- d. . . Evaluate-inspectors - Chuck Mattson and Jake Jacobi;
- e. Review inspection reports - Chuck Mattson, Jake Jacobi, and Al Hazle;
- f. Sign enforcement letters - Jake Jacobi and Al Hazle; g.. Emergency Surveillance - Marty Hanrahan, Tom Toledo, Que Nguyen, and -
Rob Terry;.
- h. Supervises licensing and compliance - Chuck Mattson and Jake Jocobi;
- i. Sets license review and inspection priorities - Chuck Mattson.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Staff Supervision" indicator.
D. Training (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: Senior personnel should have attended NRC core courses in licensing orientation, inspection procedures, medical practices and industrial radiography practices. (For mill States, mill training should also be included.) The RCP should have a program to utilize specific short courses and workshops to maintain appropriate level of staff technical competence in areas of changing technology.
Questions:
.1. List materials personnel and their attendance at training courses they have attended.
__m_2___._---m_- _ - - - 2 _ -
4 Namr of Student Course Sponsor Dates D. Brown Health Physics and Rtdiation Protection NRC 7/6-8/13/85*
W. Jacobi FEMA Pilot Course CDH/ FEMA 7/9-13/85
' A. Hazle NCRP Scientific Task e Force No. 2 NCRP 10/2-3/84 W. Jacobi Advanced Imaging Technology CRCPD 9/18-20/84 E. Kray Licensing Course NRC 9/24-28/85 C. Mattson Radiation Protection Engineering NRC 11/26-30/84 T. Bonzer Medical Isotopes NRC 3/11-15/85
- 2. How does the RCP utilize short courses and workshops to maintain staff proficiency?
9 Staff do attend self improvement courses offered by the State .
Personnel System. Opportunity is limited due to availability of funds for travel and training.
8V.D Reviewer Assessment:
Senior personnel in the RCD have attended the NRC core courses, including the most recent courses in mill licensing. Initial training of new employees usually involves informal, on-the-job training, including working under the close supervision of' senior personnel in conducting materials inspections and reviewing simple licensing actions. New personnel also review the Public Health Service training manual, which addresses specific in-house training, continuing education, and university courses that may be available, in addition to the NRC-sponsored short courses. As noted above, the Colorado staff has attended four' NRC-sponsored courses and over five other Federal and State sponsored training courses. .
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Training" indicator.
E. Staff Continuity (Category II)
NRC Guidelines:
i
t _,
p ,
g
[ , 1. ' -43 .
- e Staff turnover should be minimized by combinations of opportunities
', for training, promotions and competitive. salaries. Salary-levels-
- should be. adequate to recruit and retain persons of appropriate professional qualifications.. Salaries should be comparable to -
- similar employment in the geographical area. The RCP organization structure should be such that staff turnover is minimized and program continuity maintained through opportunities for promotion.= Promotion opportunities should exist from junior level .to senior level or
-supervisory positions. There also shou H be opportunity for. periodic'
- salary increases compatible with experience and responsibility. .
' Questions:. ,
- 1. Identify the RCP employees who have left the program since the last review and give.the reasons for t.he turnovers. Also state whether the positions are presently vacant, filled (name replacement),abolishedorotherstatus.
No' employees have left the RCD.
- 2. List the RCP salary schedule:
~
Position Title Monthly Salary Rar.ge Director .
$3636 - 4872 Supervisory H!alth Physicist ~3557 - 4767 Principal Hea?th Physicist 3227 - 4324
' Senior Health Physicist 2713 - 3636 Health Physicist C 2294 .3073 Health Physicist B 2081 - 2788 Health Physicist A 1929 - 2584
'3. Compare your salary schedule'with similar employment alternatives-in the same geographical area, such as industrial, medical, academic or other departments within your State.
This comparison is done in determining state employees salaries, making sure they are comparable to private sector.
- 4. What opportunities are there for promotion within the RCP organizational structure without a staff- vacancy occurring? ,
Staff is routinely moved from A level through B, to C level health physicist, as their training, expertise, and position description warrants. Seniors are limited in the number of positions available and in ability to move up.
_= _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -
. IV.E 'eviewer R Assessment These salary levels appear to be adequate to recruit persons of ,
appropriate qualifications and are comparable to similar employment opportunities in the area. The salary ranges indicated above provide for six automatic steps and one longevity step after 5 years. Promotion from Health Physicist A to Health Physicist B and C positions is generally done after experience requirements have '>een met if the position description allows. Advancement to the Senior and Principal Health Physicist positions are contingent upon a vacancy at that level and the passing of an examination. In addition to salary increases for promotions, there are merit raises and annual cost-of-living adjustments.
'The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Staff Continuity" indicator.
V. LICENSING
- A. Technical Quality of Licensino Actions (Category I)
NRC Guidelines: The RCP should assure that essential elements of applications have been submitted to the agency, and which meet current regulatory guidance for describing the isotopes and quantities to be used, qualifications of persons who will use material, facilities and equipment, and operating and emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing actions.
Relicensing visits should be made for complex- and major licensing actions. Licenses should be clear, complete, and accurate as to isotopes, forms, quantities, authorized uses, and permissive or restrictive conditions. The RCP should have procedures for reviewing licenses prior to renewal to assure that supporting information in the file reflects the' current scope of the licensed program.
Questions:
- 1. How many specific licenses are currently in effect?
446.
2.a. How many new licenses (not amendments in entirety) have been issued since the last review?
4 56.
- b. How many were major licenses't 5.
- 3. - How many specific licenses were terminated since last review?
- 35. ,
- 4. How many amendments were issued during the review period?
204.
- 5. Identify unusual or complex licenses issued since the last review, including name and license number.
- 1. Iotech Irradiator
- 2. CARL 0ERBA
- 3. Pylon Radon Cas Generator
- 6. Note any variance in licensing policies and procedures granted l' since the last review.
l l Changed fee category for bone mineral analyzer from 8C to 3P.
7.- Do you require license applicants to submit details on their i
radwaste packaging and shipping procedures?
l Yes, always.
8.a. When do you require licensees to submit contingency plans?
Each license applicant is required to submit emergency procedures which are evaluated prior to licensing.
- b. List the licensees who have been required to submit contingency plans.
All licensees are required to provide appropriate contingency plans.
- 9. How many relicensing visits were made during this review period?
Two, Iotech and Ramp Industries.
- 10. What criterion does the State use to determine the need for a relicensing visit?
The complexity of the operation and when there are large quantities of radioactive material in possession.
i i
8
- 11. How do you ensure up-to-date information has been submitted prior to a license renewal?
A new license application is required.
- 12. Do license files contain all necessary data required to evaluate an application prior to issuing a license?
Yes, all information must be documented before a licensing acticin.
- 13. Has the State taken any unusual licensing action with respect to radiographer operating under multiple jurisdiction?
No.
- 14. Prepare a table as below showing the State's major licensees with name, number and type.
INCLUDE:
Broad (Type A)' Licensees LLW Disposal Licenses LLW Brokers Major Manufacturers and Distributors Uranium Mills Large Irradiators (Pool Type or Other)
Other Licenses With a Potential Significant Environmental Impact Other Licensees You consider to be " Major" Licensees -
Name Li_ cense Number M Denver Gen. Hosp. 97-02 Broad Colorado Gen. Hosp. 601-01 Broad Co. State University 02-19 Broad University of Co/ Boulder 377-05 Broad l Ramp Industries 523-01 ILW Broker Pathology Consultants 377-01 LLW Broker Kaman Sciences 90-01 Manufacturer !
Martin Marietta 12-12SF Manufacturer !'
Cobe Industries 492-01 Irradiator Iotech, Inc. 613-01 Irradiator i
For the list of uranium mills licensees see Volume II.
w ___ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ -
V.A. Reviewer Assessment:
Selected licenses were reviewed for completeness against the " Technical .
Quality of Licensing Action" indicator. Minor comments and recommendations were made to the program staff regarding lack of organization on license files and dated information (See Appendix C).
It should be noted that on December 24, 1984, technical assistance was provided by NRC to tne Division for review of the Iotech, Inc. megacurie irradiator application.
In reference to Question 8, above, it should be noted that the Colorado Radiation Control Division (RCD) requires their licensees' to submit a contingency plan for handling radioactive material. The reviewer discussed extensively with Mr. Charles E. Mattson that the NRC believes that " appropriate contingency plans need be developed for upgrading of radiological contingency planning of those licensed fuel cycle and major materials facilities. Specifically, those major materials facilities which exhibit the potential for accidents which could result in 1) offsite doses exceeding I rem to the whole body, 5 rems to the thyroid or 3 rems to other critical organs, or 2) potentially serious radiation over expo-sures of workers from a nuclear criticality incident or from release of radioactive materials, or 3) chemical exposures which could impact radio-logical safety. (A copy of the Policy and Guidance Directive 84-14; Radiological Contingency Planning Requirements and License Application Reviews dated October 2, 1984, was provided to the RCD).
The RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Technical Quality of Licensing Actions indicator.
B. Adequacy of Product Evaluations (Category I)
NRC Guidelines: RCP evaluations of manufacturer's or distributor's
> data on sealed sources and devices outlined in NRC, State, or app'ropriate ANSI Guides, should be sufficient to assure integrity and safety for users.
The RCP should review manufacturer's information in labels and brochures relating to radiation health and safety, assay, and calibration procedures for adequacy. Approval documents for sealed source or device designs should be clear, complete and accurate as to isotopes, forms, quantities, uses, drawing identifications, and permissive or restrictive conditions.
Questions:
i
- 1. How many evaluations were made of sealed sources and devices l during the review period? i
. Cobe Laboratories - 494-01 (new)
Bondar-Clegg - 496'-Q (new)
Kaman Sciences 3 device evaluation amendments) .
- 2. How many SS&D evaluations have been made for which approval documents have not yet been prepared?
Boulder Scientific Co. 01 (new)
, 3. How does the RCP evaluate manufacturer's data on SS6D's to ensure integrity and safety for users?
Date must meet ANSI and NRC requirements for safety, quality control, and customer education.
- 4. Do you determine whether the manufacturer's information on labels and brochures relating to health, safety, assay, and calibration procedures is adequate on all products?
Copies of labels are reviewed for adequacy during the device review. The use of these labels and the providing of users with appropriate procedures is verified in an initial and subsequent inspection.
V.B. Reviewer Assessment:
The Cobe Laboratories, Inc., Gamma Irradiator; Kaman Sciences, Neutron Generator Head; and Kaman Sciences, Neutron Generator Tube; sealed sourec and devices safety evaluation sheets were briefly reviewed and found to be complete.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Adequacy of Product Evaluations" indicator. I t
C. Licensing Procedures (Category II) l NRC Guidelines: The RCP should have internal licensing guides, ,
checklists, and policy memoranda consistent with current NRC {
practice. License applicants (including applicants for renewals) i should be furnished copies of applicable guides and regulatory !
positions. The present compliance status of licensees should be j considered in licensing actions. Under the NRC l Exchange-of-Information program, evaluation sheets, service licenses, and licenses authorizing distribution to general licensees end J persons exempt from licensing should be submitted to NRC on a timely i basis. Standard license conditions comparable with current NRC !
standard license conditions should be used to expedite and provide j uniformity in the licens'ing process. Files should be maintained in an orderly fashion to allow fast, accurate retrieval of information and documentation of discussions and visits. l l
I i
l I
l l
l Questions:
i
- 1. Has the RCP developed its own licens!".g procedures or does it .
use NRC guides? Please provide for review.
The RCD uses NRC guides.
- 2. What licensing guides, checklists and policy memoranda are made available to the staff?
NRC licensing guides and policy statements are available. ANSI, NCRP, and ICRP documents are available to RCD staff.
- 3. What guides and/or regulatory position statements are furnished to license and renewal applicants?
NRC licensing guides are furnished with a letter of explanation outlining the format (not content) of NRC licenses and how they differ from CDH/ RCD licenses.
- 4. Describe the system for advising classes of licensees of new
, licensing procedures and regulations.
All notifications are mailed out to licensees. The mailing list is updated immediately upon demand.
5.a. How are licensing actions coordinated with the complian:e staff?
Recommendations are taken from compliance staff and utilized.
Inspectors will investigate suspected problems upon request from the licensing staff.
- b. Are licensing actions taken while enforcement action is pending?
No.
- 6. For what length of time are various categories of licenses issued?
All licenses are issued for a 5 year period, except for specific cases (shorter periods).
7.a. Does the RCP use standard licensing conditions? If so, how does the RCP assure they are comparable with those used by NRC?
Yes.
s 5 b. If so, how does_the RCP tasure they are comparsble with those used by NRC?
l
' CDH/ RCD standard license conditions are based upon current NRC standard license conditions.
- 8. Are the licensing conditions on file-in the RCP office and with NRC7 Yes, CDH/ RCD standard license conditions are on file with the Division and copies are available to NRC.
- 9. What SS&D sheets, service, distribution and "E" licenses are available for RCP staff use?
Hard copy SS&D sheets are maintained and are available.
Agreement State and NRC licenses are on microfilm or hard copy.
- 10. Describe your practices for distributing SS&D sheets, as well as GL distribution and service licenses, to the NRC.
One final copy is approved, duplicate copies are distributed to j NRC, Division files, and the original mailed.to licensee.
- 11. Describe your procedures for maintaining the license files (Mow are files and folders arranged? Are telephone contacts e:.o visits; documented? Who is responsible for filing materials in folders?).
Licensee correspondence, program correspondence, licensee compliance reports, memorandum to the file, documented telephone contacts, visits, investigation, etc. The secretary assigned is responsible for the maintenance of the file.
- 12. Are there opportunities for license reviewers to accompany inspectors?
Staff reviewing license applications can and have accompanied inspectors. They have also done their own preliminary inspections. There is close communication between staff.
V.C. Reviewer Assessment:
i The Division utilizes licensing conditions that are similar to NRC's standard licensing conditions. These are on file in the NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files. The licensing staff has opportunities to visit licensees to observe applications an8 actual operations involving radioactive materials. The NRC reviewer compared the State's standard license conditions to the NRC standard license conditions and found them similar to NRC's and acceptable. !
i 1
1
~ = - - - - _ - _ _ _ - _ - -- - ]
i 1
Section supervisors in the radioactive materials program review all licensing actions taken by junior personnel. W. Jacobi or A. Hazie I signs all licenses. As junior personnel become proficient in licensing.
supervisors will periodically select licenses for indepth review.
J Normally, if questions arise during the review of a particular license 1
. application, the reviewer discusses the subject with his supervisor.
Mr. Larry Doerr is primarily responsible for licensing activities;
]
however, has conducted several inspections during the past year.
Messrs. Phelps and Mattson, who have performed license reviews in g the past, are also compliance inspectors. 1 3
The procedures that the State uses for licensing and inspection activities are acceptable and provide for continuing interaction and for exchange of information between licensing and compliance staff members.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Licensing Procedures" indicator.
l VI. COMPLIANCE A. Status of Inspection Program (Category I)
NRC Guidelines: The State RCP should maintain an inspection program adequate to assess licensee compliance with State regulations and license conditions.
The RCP should maintain statistics which are adequate to permit Program Management to assess the status of the inspection program on a periodic basis. Information showing the number of inspections conducted, the number overdue, the length of time overdue and the priority categories should be readily available.
There should be at least semiannual inspection planning for the number of inspections to be performed, assignments to senior vs.
junior staff, assignments to regions, identification of special needs and periodic status reports.
Questions:
- 1. How is statistical information maintained about the inepection program te permit periodic assessment of its status by RCP management?
Each inspector maintains a " current status" sheet for ;
inspections completed. These sheets are used to complete the I 6 month NRC reports. {
l
- 2. Prepare a table as below, indicating the number of inspections made in the review period, by category and priority. - - - -
i o__ J
License Scheduled inspection Number of Category Frequency Priority Inspections 2.C 3 3 2 3.C 3- 3 5 3.D 3 3 3 3.E 1 1 8 3.G 3 3 1 3.N 3 3 73 3.P 5 5 16 4.D 5 5 5 6.A 3 3 12 8.C 5 5 16 141
- 3. Prepare a table which identifies the Priority 1, 2, and 3 licensees with overdue inspections.
Due Months Licensee Category Priority Date Overdue AMAX 2.C 3 6/82 40
- Mt. Sorris 3.B 3 1/81 50 -
Western Chemical 3.C 3 4/83 30 Public Service Co. 3.E ,
1 1/85 8 Nelco Manufacturing 3.E 1 3/85 6-Teldyne. 3.I 3 5/83 28 Univ of Co. 3.M 2 6/84 15 Cortec 3.N 3 4/84 16 Marathon Oil 3.N 3 1/82 46
' Univ. of N. Co. 3.N 3 6/84 15
- Umetco 3.N 3 8/84 13 BPB Inst. 6.A 3 6/84 15
- Acculog 6.A 3 5/82 40 Production Logging 6.A 3 6/82 39 l- Century Geophysical 6.A 3 8/83 25 l Superior Explo. 6.A 3 8/83 25
- Terradata 6.A 3 8/83 25
- Dickinson Explo. 6.A 3 7/84 14 Prof. Logging 6.A 3 7/84 14
- to be done within the month of November
- 4. Prepare a table as below indicating the number of overdue license inspections for Priorities 4 through 7.
l License Number Category Priority Overdue 1.B 5 1 3.P 5 58-4.D 5 14 L 8.C 5 6 8.D 5 1
J i-J s l
- 5. . How are inspection schedules planned and how are the dates and~
personnel assignments made?
. )
Schedule is planned by the Principal Health Physicist. The )
inspections are set by the inspectors with assistance from the Principal Hehlth Physicist.
i
_VI.A Reviewer Assessment:
It should be noted that the 58 overdue inspections outlined under question 4 are primarily initial inspections of licensees that are overdue. -
According to the states inspection. frequency the licensees are not past due 50% of'the inspection frequency. In addition, the state has appropriate inspection action plans in place.
The following outlines the total number of licensees by priority and the respective number overdue: .
Priority No. of Licenses No. Overdue I 21 2
-II 11 1
'III 89 16 IV O O V 325 446 19 The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines cutlined under the " Status of Inspection Program" indicator.
B. Inspection Frequency (Category I)
NRC Guidelines: The RCP should establish an inspection priority system. The specific frequency of inspections should be based upon the potential hazards of licensed operations, e.g., major processors, broad licensees, and industrial radiographer should be inspected approximately annually -- smaller or less hazardous operations may be inspected less frequently. The minimum inspection frequency should be consistent with the NRC system.
Questions:
- 1. Enclose a copy of the State's priority system.
Priority system is defined in Part XII of regulations with regard to fees collection for services. Inspections can be more frequent if indicated; however, but no fee can be collected.
- 2. Who assigns licenses to the priority categories?
Principal health physicist. ,
- 3. Discuss any significant variances in the State.'s priorities from the NRC priority system.
The priority system is similar to NRC. inspection priorities.
- 4. Is the inspection priority system designed to assure that the more hazardous and/or complex operations are inspected at an appropriate frequency?
Yes, the priority system was assigned in the regulation, on the basis of NRC system, as required by State law.
~
- 5. Describe the State's policy for unannounced inspections and exceptions to the policy.
All inspections are to be done unannounced unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as attempts at reaching licensee unsuccessful.
- 6. Describe the State's policy for conducting followup inspections.
Followup as needed based upon items of noncompliance. There is no set policy. Following discussion with the inspector, senior staff determine whether followup is appropriate. ,,
7.a. Does the RCP inspect out-of-state firms working in the State under reciprocity or under State licensure?
Yes, however none were inspected since the last review.
- b. How many reciprocity notices were received?
90.
- c. How many were inspected since the last review?
None.
VI.B Reviewer Assessment:
The inspection frequency for radioactive materials licenses was sef up to be dictated by the license fee system (Part XII). The fee system provides for inspection fees and details the frequency of such inspections, similar to the NRC's fee schedule. The Divisfon is using NRC's primary system for establishing the frequency of inspections, namely IE Manual Chapter 2800.
l I
4 s
3 The most recent copy of NRC IE Manual Chapter 2800, date March 13, 1985, was provided to the RCD staff.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Inspection Frequency" indicator.
C. Inspector's Performance and Capability (Category I)
NRC Guidelines: Inspectors should be competent to evaluate health and safety problems and to determine compliance with State regulations. Inspectors must demonstrate to supervision an understanding of regulations, inspection guides, and policies prior to independently conducting inspections.
The compliance supervisor (may be RCP manager) should conduct annual field evaluations of each inspector to assess performance and assure application of appropriate and consistent policies and guides.
Questions:
1.a. Does the senior inspector or supervisor periodically accompany the inspectors?
Yes.
- b. Are these accompaniments documented?
Yes, in the respective inspection reports or memos to file.
- 2. List the number of supervisory accompaniments of inspectors since the last review meeting and identify the persons accompanied and the supervisors.
Inspector Supervisor Tim Bonzer Chuck Mattson (1)
Frank Phelps Chuck Mattson (1)
Larry Doerr Chuck Mattson (2)
Chuck Mattson Al Hazie (1)
VI.C Reviewer Assessment:
An accompaniment of Larry Doerr was conducted on October 23, 1985, to the University of Colorado Radiopharmacy (license number 601-01). Mr. Doerr appears to be capable to evaluate health and safety problems and to deter-mine compliance with State regulations.
. i It should be noted that Mr. Doerr's primary job responsibilities are related to incident response, licensing activities, and relicensing investigations. According to RCD management Mr. Doerr is not utilized routinely as a materials inspector.
l l
1 The RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Inspector's Performance and Capability" indicator.
D. Responses to Incidents and Alleged Incidents (Category I)
NRC Guidelir.es: Inquiries should be promptly made to evaluate the need for onsite investigations. Onsite investigations should be promptly made of incidents requiring reporting to the Agency in less than 30 days (10 CFR 20.403 types). For those incidents not requiring reporting to the Agency in less than 30 days, investigations should be made during the next scheduled inspection.
Onsite investigations should be promptly made of nonreportable incidents which may be of significant public interest and concern, e.g., transportation accidents. Investigations should include in-depth reviews of circumstances and should be completed on a high priority basis. When appropriate, investi reenactments and time-study measurements (gations normally within should a few include days). Investigation (or inspection) results should be documented and enforcement actica taken when appropriate. State licensees and the NRCwhich incident should be notified could of pertinent be relevant infomation to other licensed about any (e.g.,
operations equipment failure, improper operating procedures). Information on incidents involving failure of equipment should be provided to the agency responsible for evaluation of the device for an ass'asment of possible generic design deficiency. The RCP should have access to medical consultants when needed to diagnose or treat radiation injuries. The RCP should use other technical consultants for special problems when needed.
Questions:
- 1. How does the RCP respond to. incidents and alleged incidents?
All incidents or alleged incidents are investigated or responded to promptly. A sumary of the incident is written, circulated through the Division for information, and a copy sent to NRC Region IV, D0 DES, and DOE /RPT. The CDH emergency response manual, for all environmental programs, identifies policy and procedures of the Departments.
- 2. Are major incidents (10 CFR 20.403 types requiring reporting in less than 30 days) investigated on a priority basis?
Yes.
- 3. Are other incidents followed up in the next scheduled inspection?
Yes, copies are maintained in respective license files.
Are nonreportable incidents that may be of significant public 4.
interest a ;d concern promptly investigated?
Yes, as the RCD is made aware of occurrence. -
- 5. How many incident investigations were conducted during the review period?
13 responses to date in 1985.
- 6. Attach as an appendix a sumary of each incident investigated.
Include documentation of investigation results, enforcement action when appropriate, any reenactment and time motion L studies, as well as notification of the NRC and state licensees of incident information that may have been relevant to other licensed operations.
Copy of summary of incidents are available in the NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
- 7. Were any incidents attributed to generic-type equipment failure?
l None.
- 8. What action was or would be taken by the RCP pertaining to l incidents attributable to generic equipment failures in regard -
to notification of the NRC, other licensees and the regulatory l
agency which approved the device?
The NRC would be notified of CDH/ RCD findings and recommendations. All other licensees and agencies' involved would also be notified.
- 9. If a failure should occur in equipment manufactured by a State licensee, what action would be taken to:
j, a. stop the manufacture or force changes in design?
Action would be taken "as necessary" to stop or make changes in design product. This includes license amendments, orders, etc. -
- b. assure retrofit of existing devices?
Action would be taken with assistance from the AG's office to assure public protection by legal procedural means, if l
necessary.
A
- 10. When.are other.. State licensees and the NRC notified of pertinent information about an incident?
NRC is notified of all important incidents. Other licensees o'f similar' type would be notified of the circumstances which caused the incident and precautions would be initiated to prevent recurrence.
11.a. Are ~ medical consultar.ts available and used when necessary?'
Yes, we have used NRC consultants exclusively in the past. -
b.Is the State aware of the availability'of medical consultants from NRC?
Yes. ,
- 12. Explain any use of other technical consultants for special problems encountered in incident investigations.
None.
- 13. Were there any incidents since the last review meeting that met AOR criteria?
None.
VI.D Reviewer Assessmen_ti t It-is the State's policy to respond promptly to all reports of radiation incidents. The State has instituted a duty officer procedure to facilitate responding to such incidents. During the past year, the State has' responded to a number of reported incidents and has prepared reports which are kept in an incident file. A number of reports of incidents were reviewed and commented on during the review.
It was recommended that when incidents occur or allegations are received the RCD maintain a written format and a formal tracking mechanism which clearly outlines the course of action taken to resolve the issues, and to obtain as complete and accurate information as possible for the files. In addition, when the incidents or allegations are documented and completed, all pertinent information should be incorporated in the respective incident file.
It was further recommended that a formal tracking system be established to ensure that RCD management can identify tiniely resolution to the respective cases. The review of selected incident files and reports identified that not all cases included the following: indepth reviews of
i circumstances surrounding the respective incidents, reenactments and time-study measurements and investigation results documenting the complete incident, and subsequent enforcement action and closecut information ,
This was discussed with the RCD management and addressed in the letter to Dr. Vernon.
l The CDH/ RCD does not meet the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Response to Actual and Alleged Incidents" indicator.
E. Enforcement Procedures (Category I)
NRC Guidelines: Enforcement Procedures should be sufficient to provide a substantial deterrent to licensee noncompliance with regulatory requirements. Provisions for the levying of monetary penalties are recommended. Enforcement letters should be issued within 30 days following inspections and should employ appropriate regulatory language clearly specifying all items of noncompliance and health and safety matters identified during the inspection and referencing the appropriate regulation or license condition being violated. Enforcement letters should specify the time period for the licensee to respond indicating corrective actions and actions taken to prevent reoccurrence (normally 20-30 days). The inspector and compliance supervisor should review licensee responses. Licensee responses to enforcement letters should be promptly acknowledged as to adequacy and resolution of previously unresolved items. Written procedures should exist for handling escalated enforcement cases of varying degrees. Impounding of material should be in accordance with State administrative procedures. Opportunity for hearings should be provided to assure impartial administration of the RCP.
Questions:
- 1. Describe the State's enforcement procedures.
Procedures are the same as used by NRC civil penalties and procedures are detailed in 25-11-107(5) and Part XIII of the regulations.
- 2. If the RCP can apply civil penalties, explain the procedures for keying monetary penalties to violations.
Examples for severity levels are included in Part XIII.
Appendix A. As non-included examples occur they are compared with those listed for comparable severity. A permanent list is maintained of these additional examples for equal treatment of ,
all licensees.
r
- 3. Describe the State's provisions for criminal penalties.
Criminal penalties are provided in 25-11-107(3) of the state ,
statute.
- 4. Describe the policies in effect for issuing field forms equivalent to NRC form 591 or letters for enforcement action.
A review of the inspection with management is a part of each inspection. The items of noncompliance identified during the visit to the company are reviewed at that time. Every inspection includes a written summary sent to the licensee after the inspection report is written and has been reviewed by Division management.
- 5. Are there written procedures for handling escalated enforcement cases?
The details of notification and imposition of civil penalties is included in Part XIII of the regulations. A flow sheet is used to assure time schedules are observed by the Division and that responses are received as required.
- 6. Can the State issue orders, including Emergency Orders?
Yes, copies of orders are available in the NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
- 7. Can the RCP impound radioactive material?
Yes, Title 25-11-103(5), CRS 1973, as amended.
- 8. Do State administrative procedures permit the opportunity for hearings in major enforcement cases?
Yes.
1
- 9. If during the review period the State has issued' orders, applied ,
civil penalties, sought criminal penalties, impounded sources, or held a formal enforcement hear.ing, identify these cases and enclose copies of the pertinent State enforcement correspondence or orders.
i
(
'h Name of License Type of Date of
% Licensee Number Enforcement Action J tion Sauter Const. Co. 462-01 Escalated / civil penalty 03/14/85 1- Cobe Laboratories 494-01 Escalated / order / amend- 09/19/84 l- ment of license l' 10. Are enforcement letters issued within 30 days of the inspection?
.Yes, as a general rule; however, there have been scue issued I after 30' days. All significant inspection reports (with priorities) are given priority.
l
- 11. Are enforcement letters written in regulatory language and reference regulations and license conditions?
Yes.
l' 12. Do the. enforcement letters clearly differentiate between noncompliance items and health and safety recommendations?
Yes, there is no formal written policy but all efforts are made to that effect. Subsequent to that effort,.the steps are prescribed by state statute (25-11-107(5)).
- 13. If applicable, do the letters separate actions subject to the State radiation control act and State OSHA regulations?
Not applicable.
l 14.a.Are enforcement letters issued by inspectors or supervisors?
The writing is done by the inspector, reports reviewed by senior health physicist. Enforcement letters signed by SHP or Division Director.
! b.If issued by inspectors, do they undergo supervisory review prior to dispatch?
Not applicable. -
- 15. Do enforcement letters require the licensee to respond within a stated time period? Note the period.
Yes, within 20 days.
. 16.a.Are licensee's responses to enforcement letters reviewed by the inspector and the supervisor?
Yes.
1
7 ,
h i
)
b.Are they acknowledged properly? j Yes. ,
- 17. Has the state taken escalated enforcement actions against licenseet who operate in multiple jurisdictions?
I No.
VI.E Reviewer Assessment:
Enforcement letters are prepared following all materials inspections.
Letters are . issued within 30 days of the inspection. Enforcement letters reviewed during this meeting were checked for appropriate regulatory
, language that clearly specified all items of noncompliance and health and safety. matters _ identified during the inspection. Enforcement letters are generally: signed by W. Jacobi; however, those involving significant findings are signed by A.'Hazle. Enforcement letters require licensees to respond within 20 days. Licensee responses to enforcement letters are acknowledged by the State. With respect to escalated enforcement action, it was noted that the staff may consult with the AG's office regarding any necessary orders. Written procedures regarding the handling of escalated-enforcement actions are available to the staff. These were developed on July 31, 1981. The State's escalated enforcement procedures are the same as those.in the 1983 regulatory program review report. The State has the authority to impound radioactive materials when necessary and opportunities for hearings in enforcement cases are provided for under State administrative procedures.
The CDH/ RCD meets NRC guidelines outlined under the " Enforcement Procedures" indicator.
F. Inspection Procedures (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: Inspection guides, consistent with current NRC guidance, should be used by inspectors to assure uniform and complete inspection practices and provide technical guidance in the inspection of licensed programs. The NRC Agreement States Guides may be used if properly supplemented by policy memoranda, agency interpretations, etc. Written inspection policies should be issued to establish a policy for conducting unannounced inspections, obtaining corrective action, following up and riosing out previous violations, assuring exit interviews with management, and issuing appropriate notification of violations of health and safety problems. Procedures should be established for maintaining licensees' compliance histories. Oral
- briefing of supervision or the senior inspector should be performed upon return from nonroutine inspections. For States with separate liceasing and inspection staffs, procedures should be establis M for 1 feedback of information to license reviewers. j
i
-63 .
Questions:
- 1. Has the RCP developed its own inspection guides or does it use, NRC guides?
All inspectors have attended the NRC Inspection Procedures !
Course and use NRC guides.
- 2. Are current copies of the internal inspection forms and guides on file in the RCP office and with NRC7 Attach any changes or guides developed since the last review.
Yes.
- 3. Are inspectors furnished copies of inspection guides?
Yes, and copies are available in the Licensing and Inspection Procedure notebooks.
- 4. Discuss the use or nonuse of inspection policy memoranda, interpretations, etc., to suppiement inspection guides.
Policy standards are written if necessary, distributed to inspectors', and a copy placed in the procedures notebook.
- 5. Are there written procedures establishing policy for:
- a. unannounced inspections?
Inspections are unannounced except when specific circumstances require otherwise.
- b. obtaining corrective ac' tion?
Compliance report responses are due within 20 days of receipt by the license and details actions completed or proposed. If not received, escalated enforcement action is initiated.
- c. following-up and closing out previous citations of violations?
l l_ Yes, a specific section of the inspection report addresses !
l followup and previous citations.
- d. exit interviews with management?
Are conducted except when management is not available.
Enforcement letters are forwarded to licensee management. i I
t
'e. issuing notices of violations and findings of-health and safety problems? !
Yes.
- f. categorizing the seriousness of violations?
Yes, however, only if escalated enforcement action is anticipated to occur within the near future. 'If the licensee's reaction to the exit interview.is positive, the classification with regard to the seriousness of the viola-tion is not formally included in the compliance letter. If escalated enforcement is anticipated or is warranted, the procedures established by law make it necessary that noti-fication to the licensee be made describing the magnitude of the offense. 25-11-107(5),24-4(APA),RCPpolicy.
Please provide copies of these procedures for review.
- 6. What procedures have been established for maintaining licensee's compliance histories?
A portion of the l'. cense file includes all past inspection reports. The inspection report summarizes the inspection history and details the most recent previous inspection and verification of previous items of noncompliance.
- 7. Does the senior inspector or supervisor orally debrief the inspector upon return from inspections?
Every inspection is reviewed and discussed with.the SHP. A-formal debriefing is only conducted for complex or unusual inspections.
l 8. What procedures are there for providing feedback from inspectors I to licensing?
The licensing personnel are instructed to review the compliance file and respective compliance history prior to issuance of a
! license.
I VI.F Reviewer Assessment:
The State has available for the compliance staff several notebooks
! containing NRC inspection guides and various Colorado policy memoranda l regarding inspections. The memoranda discuss policies regarding announced l vs. unannounced inspections, conducting entrance and exit interviews with management, and enforcement procedures. Most inspections are being
65-conducted on an unannounced basis at the present time. The State has a policy requiring exit interviews with management following completion of all-inspections. The State has also established procedures for .
maintaining licensee compliance histories. Compliance histories are
, . detailed at the beginning of inspection reports.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Inspection Procedures" indicator.
G. Inspection Reports (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: Findings of inspections should be documented in a report describing the scope of inspections, substantiating all items of noncompliance and health and safety matters, describing the scope of licensees' programs, and indicating the substance of discussions with licensee management and licensee's response. Reports should uniformly and adequately document the results of inspections and identify areas of the licensee's program which should receive special attention at the next inspection. Reports should show the measurements made by the inspector.
Questions:
- 1. How do inspection reports document the inspection that was
. conducted and the inspection findings? Explain how the reports substantiate noncompliance and health and safety matters and describe the scope of the licensee's program.
Inspection reports are written in narrative style with headings for each major topic included in the inspection. Each item of noncompliance is listed with enough detail to identify the material, dates, or persons . involved so that the company is aware of the problem and any reviewers of the report can readily detemine the problem as seen by the inspector. One topic covered in the report is the " scope of the licensee's program" in which the inspector details his observations and lists any license activities which have not been implemented by the company.
- 2. Do the reports .
- a. relate the discussions held with license management and interviews with workers?
Yes.
_.__m________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
X,.
j s .
- b. include independent measurements conducted by the inspector?
Yes.,.
- c. -document follow-up of. previous citations of violations made
, by the inspector?
Yes.
- d. identify. areas of the licensee's program needing special attention at the next inspection?
Yes, as necessary.
- 3. Are inspectors routinely inspecting radwaste package preparation i anc shipping practices and do the reports document the results?
'Yes.
-VI.G Reviewer Assessment:
During the review of selected compliance files and associated inspection reports, it was identified that not all reports a6quately and completely idocumented the'results of the inspection. It was acted that in some cases the report did not include the following: a discussion of the current status of previous items of nonco;apliance, detailed results of the inspector's independent physical measurements, and under the " scope of the licensees program," did not detail the inspector's observations and '
document licensed activities which have not been implemented by the
-licensee (per RCD internal policy).
It was recommended that all inspection reports, whether partial, special, or complete, document the information inspected to clearly substantiate all findings identified. All previous items of noncompliance should be specifically addressed to detemine appropriate. resolution or whether further action may be required. In addition, any changes, additions, revisions, or updates to final inspection reports (as was identified in inspection reports reviewed) should be done through a formal mechanism, i.e., per memorandum or management approved policy. It was noted that in some inspection reports handwritten notations were apparently made after the supervisory review. The RCD management should be aware of any changes to final inspection reports and should ensure that they are appropriately substantiated through formal documentation.
The RCD does not meet the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Inspection Reports" indicator.
l
H. Independent' Measurements.(Category II)
NRC Guidelines: Independent measurements should be sufficient in ,
number and' type to ensure the licensee's control of materials and to validate the licensee's measurements. RCP instrumentation should be adequate for surveying license operations (e.g., survey meters, air samplers, lab counting equipment for smears, identification of
.. isotopes,etc.).
GM Survey Meter: 0-20 mr/hr Ion Chamber Survey Meter: several r/hr Neutron Survey Meter: Fast & Thermal Alpha Survey Meter: 0-100,000 c/m Air Samplers: Hi and Lo Volume Lab Counters: Detect 0.001 uc/ wipe Velometers Smoke tubes Lapel Air Samplers Instrument calibration services or facilities should be readily available and appropriate for instrumentation used. Licensee equipment and facilities should not be used unless under a service contract. Exceptions for other State Agencies, e.g., a State University, may be made. Agency instruments should be calibrated at intervals not greater than that required to lic.ensees being inspected.
Questions: ..
- 1. Discuss the State's policy for conducting independent measurements as a part of each inspection (e.g., air samples, wipe samples, air flows, dose rates). Are these measurements documented in the inspection report?
Yes, surveys including wipes are to be done at each inspection, as necessary, to verify adequacy of licensees program.
- 2. List the instrumentation that is readily available to the RCP -l for surveying licensed operations and conducting appropriate independent measurements.
l An appropriate survey meter is always taken on an inspection.
This is supplemented by wipes, air flow meters, etc., appropriate i for the type of licensee being inspected. A current list of all j available instrumentation is attached as Appendix E. ;
i i
i
..6,
\
1 l
- 3. Describe the method used for calibrating survey instruments and the frequency of calibration.
Survey _ instruments are calibrated quarterly and are traceable "to NBS.
VI.H Reviewer Assessment:
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines under the " Independent Measureraents" indicator.
VII. OTHER ASPECTS OF THE STATE'S RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM L
A. Non-Agreement Sources of Radiation
-Questions:
1.- Are the licensing and inspection procedures for.NARM the same as for agreement materials?
Yes.
- 2. Give the number of X-ray machine (or tube) and accelerator
' registrants by category, e.g., dental, medical, industrial, etc.
Category Machines Tubes M.D. 580 656 D.O. 76 83 D.D.S. 2335 2711 D.C. 128 127 Podiatrist . 38 38 D.V.M. 142 143 Industrial X-Ray 17 18 Unknown -- --
Other -- --
Hospital or Nursing Home 572 658 Total T6BE TUT Accelerator 5
- 3. How many machine and accelerator inspections were made in the lastyear(orotherappropriateinterval)?
Approximately 400 inspections of X-ray machines were conducted.
- 4. Does the State license X-ray er nuclear medical technologists?
No.
m _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
i VII.A Reviewer Comment:
There appears to be no additional information necessary. The CDH/ RCD ,
responae is adequate.
B. Environmental Monitoring Program Questions:
- 1. To indicate the scope of the environmental monitoring program, describe:
- a. types of media sampled; Air, watet, soils, vegetation, and milk.
- b. the number and location of stations sampled; Over 4500 samples and locations. Details are available in NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
- c. frequency of sample collection; Information is available in NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
- d. analyses run on each type of sample.
Information is available in NEC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
- 2. Is a copy of the latest environmental surveillance report available for review?
Yes.
VII.B Reviewer Assessment:
The State's Envirer. mental Monitoring Program consists of a routine, statewide air and water sampling program, in addition to samples from the environs of Rocky Flats, the Cotter Mill, Uravan, and Fort St. Vrain.
Alphn-beta analyses, gamma spectrometry, tritium analyses, and uranium analyses are performed on air and water samples from Rocky Flats. In addition, alpha-beta, radium, and uranium analyses are performed on water samples from several of the State's uranium mills. Alpha-beta analyses, uranium analyses, and gamma specs are performed at approximately weekly inte rvals . Radium analyses are run at monthly intervals. See Volume II for further details.
m_ m__m
i; Any additional detailed information for the 1+ test environmental surveil-lance information, is available in the NRC, Regica IT, Colorado State Agreement files. ,
C. Other Areas This section of the review is for the use of either the rc~iewer or the RCP to address issues pertaining only to the individual State, to new areas of concern, or to generic or State-specific issues raised by NRC staff.
- 1. Other Generic Issues
- a. For radiography inspections, to what extent do you make inspections at temporary job sites?
Each radiography inspection includes an office inspection and a field inspection. Inspectors have been instructed to complete both.
The RCD appears not to have had any major problems with multi-office industrial firms. ,
- b. Are you finding Ir-192 contamination on radiographic equipment?
No. It should be noted that the State inspectors are taking vipes per NRC recommendation.
- c. What are the state's plans to adopt the LLW manifest rule (if not already adopted)?
The language for the LLW manifest rule has been incorporated in November 1985 regulation update,
- d. For states with LLW disposal sites, what are the state's plans to implement 10 CFR 617 10 CFR 61 has been incorporated into the November 1985 revision to State's regulations.
- e. Will your state have access to a LLW disposal site after January 19867 If not, what contingency plans are there for after January 1986?
Compact does have a site (Beatty, Nevada.). Contingency plans were requested from licensees.
j s
- f. Have copies of 10 CFR 61 and NRC Technical positions.on waste form ar.d classification been distributed to state licensees? IftherehasbeenfeeAack,pleaseprovide\
documentation. %
Yes. All licensees were notified, originally provided a copy of 10 CFR 61, and now notified of both the proposed adoption of equivalent requirements and the necessity to have plans in case the Beatty site is not available to +he RMLLRW Ccmpact. states. To date of this review, there has been no feed back from the licesnees.
- g. Have there been any applications or approvals for incineration, compacting, or disposal?
Currently, there are no applications pending on disposal or incineration. The UCHSC has the RCP authority for incin-eration but has not received authority from EPA.
- h. What use is being made of IE information notices?
- 1. Reviewed by inspectors so they are familiar with problems.
- 2. Distributed to appropriate licensees for information or action, as necessary.
- i. Identify any group of materials licensees for which the state has increased the frequency of inspection due to problems with that general category. Please discuss the nature of those problems.
None.
- j. With respect to medical licensees, is the state making any effort during inspections of nuclear pharmacies to determine whether the licensee is ac'aally conducting the required molybdenum breakthrough testa, i.e., what is the state doing in addition to record reviews to establish compliance or noncompliance with the requirements?
Inspections have been conducted where the inspector has observed the early morning preparation of pharmaceuticals and the performing of quality assurance tests. Special attention was given to the Molybdenum breakthrough test.
There were no items of noncompliance observed during this portion of the program; however, clarifications of procedures were requested and recommendations for more timely performing and recording of results were made.-
i i
1 1 I
k.- Is the state mounting any special effort to.look at the possibility of reconcentration of radionuclides in sanitary I
sewers and sewage treatment plants as part of the regular. l l inspection program? If so, please describe. i I
Yes, a survey of files shows no major processors of Co-60 or Am-241. A survey program is under consideration. :
1 l
VII.C. Review Comment: 1 There appears to be no additional information necessary. The CDH/ RCD response is adequate.
General Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Activities l' Colorado'has incorporated the changes to Part D of the Suggested State R:gulations with respect to a waste manifest and waste classification system into the draft Colorado regulations. These regulations are matters of i compatibility for Agreement States.
l Colorado is a member of the Rocky Mountain Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact.
Other member states are Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming. According to the terms of the compact, Colorado is the state that is currently looked to to develop a si.te to succeed the Beatty, Nevada site as the region's disposal site. Accordingly, the state is in the process of adopting regulations comparable to 10 CFR Part 61, and is conducting a statewide survey of suitable disposal sites. The state's strategy is to find a low-level waste disposal site that is also suitable for the disposal M uranium mill tai,]ings. A few counties within the state have expressed supp?rt for hosting such a site. The executive offices of the Rocky Mountain compact board are in Denver.
_0ther Topics
. a. The Division utilizes the NMSS, Fuel Cycle and Materisi Guidance Directives as reference in certain policy and procedural d';cisions.
- b. With respect to termination of licenses, the .CD r utilizes the same decommissioning / decontamination criteria for surface contamination levels as the NRC (MC 83890, Table 1).
____------___x- _ _ _ - . - _ _ - _ _ _ . -
g %;.
, g
[s , -
cr.
]
a l' ,
i
- J 73.t x i g
~'
APPENDIX' TITLE ~
j r:-
.A: . Crgar'tational Chart - Colorado. Department of Health-
, ;B' Organizational Chart - Radiation Control. Division f.
C' ' Selected License File Review-c D. Selected Compliance Filo Review -
E Instrumentation List 4
A 4
, e i'
e
! . - . . .-_.___--..-._.---__.__.__-___m
e o .. .
I W
1 1 I ea z .-
w C: r 39
' I',: illk 1: 'h ' ,1f
'>I e
t -e ! ' -.
- s 4 . .. : u , , ,'-. s!g ,
p
=~u I ;
. . '.4 ,r i i
< c ,- i- I
- c. a l :
W<9 owr r, 5 :.
E O I# I~ --- ~~~~
gg N ts
~ . - , y.
<0 i:!s1 -j g tI:5 . . - -f' 4
o, zo Ii !Ijij ' il !' l!!{e 3
0 O .u-U ~
I~7I~i{jg3I"" ['~'.
, .7 u i li:l $4' ]n;.r,!
Igryg i). ;{: ; I
-l. l. ;, ,ji.i,1,I s
' i) 'I i l4- . ;
%- 4 ,
.g l I
"".*l T, f C
t.I 1 ej;7 .It,.s.it i !!g ,t, 3 l
.);, 2' l --- :-
3,'! '.! LJ _1, J ;
e ,-- y
- 5 __
y ',i: t;D,11.s 3E 4 .
?
l' 5 j i q .I i
6!r .
%) I
. fl ,. ", :' * , j '- ! " IE
-.lj }f t , 80.2**.
it.
fr a,a . k p, _ _
n '~ - '
P5 !h H:
d 'il!i lI i O O-!!
t
!!J t ir, I,r -
Hl -.a
- c. I!e!:
-6 - !. &
ll!ii'I N;
!}h,llitdg'i e
-i:
J J ,i .f. f . , e J. m . - La_ J t !
I i n -
- 5e
-ss k
n ; . ' ,"< . ..
se su -v4 le its G: >
y
!.5 :}.5 I
I'e~.~.'~l.
.f'
. i.','f
,_., 2 l r '. .?>.
,i _ .. .
',i :
I l i
\
gs -Q
_. -. . .i
- . '. Ili e i.y, l gi f I f 2 '
- : l (.-*. -
'l>
I 5f'i II'-
,b'.
L, !
t-f s.t i .: '
I - . . , - .
.i g ,. } i~.,
a
) . ,' i [
! - h II li: l N l! !h dji i
n p +; :'i .
nlli i iPll
- li li!'Ii Aj b
}j;4i . . . . . . .
_J L <
s.-=== q . . -- _r mp
- s!! , 3e r . )- 7' ts,i ' 4 , ,1 ,I
! ! 3:s l 56 -'!..- *
.1 I
! l 'i,5 < lh IU?'
f3 t! .'l'L*,:..;;it t,Ifa r ' -
f.it.' l -
- 3. e sO LJ r! di i 1
_' ' t - L_ ,._
1 1
. 1 1
APPEND 1X A 1 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ = _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _
- . . :R _,r, . .s a ,h, e. . n.
y g.
. .r ,, .. ,.
. e, .;. .O.n .
v.s .. ..
E c- . nn _6 e...r.. . r r- w. i m. <
.snn v 0,.e.- D c .,.; c. ,. . R.n .. .mi
. I ,., .. . ,..,....,
.r- DI.,I:.,0..
< ,. r h
. T,- ..: .-
ars .- :..
, - : . r- .::. v.. s.-.r . . e n. p n. . . ..._
. . e
- m. ,s 9. ,e,
. , m. ~. 4 -. -. n. .. _e.
c e. _
-s. y- g ... c. . t. t. ,. r. ...-.rr -
. ., D MM t .: ,ic - .
,_.e, n, . ...> ....,,.,n..,
v: w i . E .c_th.c.-r..
- n. . ., ,. ., , A . ..
n C ,.v.s , ; nu .n .
ss 44,0.,. e,. A. D.ni . I .a . CC. TR.D .. _ su..-..
e....
s F.,e. n ) n 1 i<, .
a I c,... N4 o,,
,. hr. (w,a _. . .
- - , M.= . .. .
ACM STAFF St ed f Ass: 11 (Wil li ams )
e.c I. cs ,c. 1 i
.e - - O I",y s o ..a. %. s 4 e e .
4%*.-f.
.p t. e n s . r., V. L/ . . g1Ir, M f*
- b. *6 *w.a.. r= e * . =e
- i . ...
- . * .c 7 7. <- T. .T .p..,".) e,i.4*
.. .2r Fe v A.' O ' m y
'*. e
. r.4r.
~ ' .ri
- 1.f. .r O. .
.L.a F _ v.-
. .. ..et.rs. . . . . . . =.t.* . C . ...
.... 4 a *. H.C >.M..- i s . +. ...
HP-B h a:5r.t) FP-C (Phel c) wr
.. e (. c a. %. ,., , c,. e. .t .s
.. v. = " '. E . . . ..- e r )
H'- A - (Per s: .' HP-E (Lcarr)
.'-A (Ham: F IH-C (E trdin:
H:-A (Nacar: -J Ad., Clerk Typist ' : c:.t : .
t-P. .4 l~4 . m_ &. e
. ., , c. C r. I hv.- ,. -n t. . ..., s w; .
Q..
w e . T L-4
% . . s .e. .p . see.,a,3 w y.a .i. g.' Q.C.*a **.:.%.e* .m% r t*
- w D. .C.a.r." Q . . -1. . .r.
.. .... e. .
y,. 4. n. (L..- =s. F . ..n,.1,.
,..F- . , c..r<.a,.,
G '. c ;;; a.1 T a:n 'C:ntract) H -C (Lual l s.m )
e
. - . . . ,r...y,:
, ac
.-.o s =e
==n,. -
Frincipal HF (hanrsha '
!0-C'(Terry) j Er Act C1 k Typ (Chi ! !i ps !.
e
_r -e. l e_ ._ _r e , =. _ (N....- ,- e c..
C
_. E.5 s_ .. &. C = ( *i - I c ._.a ,3. .
L..-r ., nnJ .4 .- ..n. ;:- n. .y n=
Frinci al HP (.4s sver ) C <'
'F-C ( Rr s.y )
H:-D (Becan: AGO 4 HF-A (vs.: en t : + ;
c.~rn.+s az- . .. y
.. .,i...~.y s.u a ..
C C: !. r 6 C t C F ( .* CD E E 1 1
l l
l 1
.en:e.
s.
I l l
- . - u s o +- r .g-..* t.~. .t . "o',s.,. s.. = r-* - 14 =. W , 4;E
\
- - t w <. , .g, . . r. E :
,u . k. . a. =. .i
-s S
- r. . * . .
.y ,i ..
.. .4 g,gf
- m. . ,
A
. a r. r. ---* . : C.
.. . . . t- 1 .r .< .r. ,.1.'. +. 5 l
+ r-
- r. -
a g1 [g.e - } e. n z.
? - . . r-.e
.. *. ,.,. J
- 4. ., i.,, r. . . ..
w a,_- 4 .3 i *C s ..
i4 r 4
e e. i.r.
.w ...,ec .
- r. era.L _ N C.v- - *.w 4.
44 .
.m I
- = - . E .,. *, b r i t y tO #i21 v a C G ". C 'y ( f '. n d E )
APPENDIX B l
' - m- _ - - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _
o Appendix C Review of Selected License Files .
Summary and Conclusions ,
1 The review of selected I'c w files indicated, in general, that the licenses appeared to be well support gj :he applications for radioactive material licenses and by other backup information. The condition of some of the files lacked chronological order of the material in the license files. There were some cases o' missing or misfiled letters or other documentation. Telephone conversations and written deficiency letters were found in the files where the licensee was asked for additional or corrective information in selected cases.
In general, the licenses contained appropriate licensing conditions for the type of license being issued. '
Licenses were reviewed to determine whether the application has been properly completed and signed by a licensee officer authorized to sign such a document.
The reviewers brought to the attention of the licensing staff, where appropriate, significant errors, omissions, and deficiencies in licensing actions. License files were reviewed for adequate information and unusual time lapse between receipt of applications and issuance of licenses. The RCD's response time for review of recent amendments and simple licenses for this review period was, on average, 45 days. Missing information, i.e., letters, documents, file notes, and telephone conversations were noted where '
appropriate. The files were also reviewed for illegal or improper license authorizations and the lack of appropriate cover letters.
The Iotech, Inc.,15 megacurie, Dry Storage, Cs-137, irradiator license was briefly reviewed. It was identified that the sources were shipped dry. The RCD determined that water in the DOE shipping cask was contaminated with U-235, Sr-85, Th-232, and Co-60. There were no Cs-137 daughter products identified in the water sample (which were several grab samples taken from the steam within the cask). The first samples were contaminated with above mentioned radio-nuclides, the repeat subsequent samples were not contaminated. The four DOE casks (2 large and 2 small) have been properly decontaminated and returned to the Hanford site. Prior to the shipment the casks were flushed through to clean as much as pmsible.
The sources are stored in a below ground storage (outdoor temporary storage tank) until all are received. The " basket" containing the sources transferred into storage is a " dry" storage during normal operation. The water is sampled for appropriate leak testing. The water is circulated and the sources are on a
" barge" afloat on top of the water. The barge with the sources is lowered or raised according to the appropriate needs of the irradiation.
The current concern appewrs to be what to do with the contaminated water from the DOE casks. The state's environmental laws disallow any discharge of l treated or contaminated water into storm drains (even in minimal amounts).
ywm,' '
@ J%
1.
v,g c 1' '
1.: I.icensee: University lof: Colorado Address: . Boulder Coloradoi 80302
' License Number: '82-8 SF-
- Date'of Issuance: E4/13/84.'
~ Expiration,Date: f11/30/88 4
' License Type: Broad License
'2.- Licensee: ;Certificd Technical Testing Services,.Inc.:
Address: !6900 East 53rd Place,' Connerce City, CO 80022 License Number: 576-01--
Date of Issuance:; 2/7/84 Expiration Date:-L2/28/S9 . ,.
License Type: - Industrial. Radiography 1 3.- Licensee: . Nuclear Pharmacy. Inc,
- . Address: -1201TEastL17th Ave., Denver, CO 80218 License Number:: 392-01 Date of. Issuance:: 4/26/84 l Expiration Date:: 1/31/89 License Type: Manufacturer.and Distributor
~
- 4. : Licensee:L CobbLaboratories,Inc.
. Address:: -1185.0ak Street, Lakewood, CO 80215 -
License . Number: 494-02 Date of-Issuance: -5/4/84
' Expiration Date: 3/31/89 License Type:- R&D - RIA 5.: Licensee: Cobe Laboratories, Inc.
Address: '1201. Oak Street, Lakewood, CO 80215 l ' License Number: 494 .
Date of Issuance: 4/9/82.
Expiration Date: 3/31/87 y
License-Type: Irradiator .
l
- 6. . Licensee: Radiography Inspection, Inc.
Address:---202 South Virginia Street, Liberal, KS 67901 License Number: .597-01 L Date of Issuance:- 7/30/84' .)
l~ Expiration Date: 7/31/89 -
l License Type: Industrial Radiography 1'.
1 1 :-
.i L1_n____.______1._______...___._ _1_____________...________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i l
- 7.. Licensee:: Colorado State University
, Address:' Dept. of Radiology and Radiation Biology, Ft. Collins, C0.80523 License Number:. 02 '
Date of' Issuance: 1/25/85 Expiration Date: 10/31/89-LLicense Type: Industrial Radiography
, 8. Licensee: Natural Resources Laboratory. Inc.
Address: 1100 Simons Street, Golden, CO 80401 License Number: .602-015
.Date of. Issuance: 9/4/84 Expiration Date: . B/31/89 License Type: R&D cre material
- 9. . . Licensee:'. University of Colorado, Radiology.and Nuclear Pharmacy Address: '4200 East Pth Ave., Denver, CO 80262
- License Number: 601-01 Date of-Issuance: 11/2/84 Expiration Date: 8/31/89
-License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy
- 10. Licensee:.-La Plata Community Hospital
. Address: 3801 North Main Ave., Durango, CO 81301 License Number: 571-01
.Date of Issuance:. 1/11/84 Expiration Date: 1/31/89 License Type: Nuclear Mcdicine
- 11. Licensee: Ramp Industries Address: 476 Kenton Street, Aurora, CO 80010 License Number: 523-01 Date.of Issuance: .10/28/83 Expiration Date: 11/30/87
' License Type: Waste broker
- 12. Licensee: Iotech, Inc.
Address: 5995 South Syracuse St., Englewood, CO 80111 License Number: 613-01 -
Date of Issuance: 6/29/83 Expiration Date:. 12/31/89 License Type: Irradiator - Dry Storage "
- 13. Licensee: Peak Geophysical
. Address: 4810 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303 License Number: 547-01 Date of Issuance: 6/9/83 Expiration Date: 5/31/88 License Type: Well logging l
1
h- l
(*- , .;
pf)
- 77 l14. Licensee:' Colorado School of Mines Research In'stitute Addreis: ' 5920 McIntyre Street, Golden, CO 80403 License Number:' 671-01S -
P .Date of. Issuance: 4/10/85 Expiration Date:: 2/28/90
' License Type: . Industrial
- 15. Licensee: Prouders Medical Center-E Address: 2101 South Memorial Dr.. Lamer, CO 81052-
' License Number: 412-01
.Date of 1ssuance: 11/2/84 L Expiration Date: 7/31/89 p , License Type:~ Nuclear Medicine l l
In addition to.the above.. listed priority license reviews the following selected gauge licenses were~ reviewed for comp 1_eteness and content:
1.. City of Lakewood Colorado 139-01 2.. ' Dei-Mont Consultants Colorado 608-01
- 3. In-Situ, Inc. Colorado 609-01 -
- 4. Soil Testing. and Engineering Colorado 612-01
'5. Western Engineers Inc. . Colorado 249-01
~6. . Farming Technology-Corp. Colorado 622-01
-7. ; Smith Energy Services Colorado 473-01
- 8. - Mountain Gravel and: Construction Co. Colorado 626-01
- 9. Resource Management Co. Colorado 618-01
- 10. A and S' Construction Colorado 623-01
- 11. Hamacher Geotechr.ical Engineering, Inc. Colorado 625-01
- 12. Rockwool Industries, Inc. Colorado 415-01
- 13. Drexel, Barrell and Co. Colorado 261-01 The following licenses were discussed with licensing staff and general comments
~
were provided.
- 1. - . The SW Shattuck Chemical Co., Inc. Colorado SMB-479, Source Material 2J Denver Obstetrics and Gynecology Assoc. Colorado 621-01, Gauge
- 3. Denver ArthritO .linic Colorado 624-01, Bone Mineral Ar.alyzer 4.. Pikes Peak Imaging Center- Colorado.558-0 Nuclear Medicine
- 5. Dr. Allen and Associates- Colorado'569-01, Nuclear Medicine
.6. Colorado School of Mines Colorado 627-01, Gauge
. 8. CH M Hill, Inc.
i
_- - - - _ - - - - . _ - - _ __ .-__--________________a
l' LICENSE FILES
' COMMENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 )
w- Chronology of letters not in order x x x x x Radiation Safety Manual not dated /
4":
J revised / updated / timely. x x x x x p'- Emergency Operations Procedures l Manual'not dated x x b,_:24 hour Physical Presence l 'L.C.- Missing x x x S1 . Training Program and Refresher Courses not outlined for RSO & Techs x x x x x
- e. Draft letters and marked up final letters in files (should not be)- x x x o; Financial Surety collars in L.C.
not current (- in 1982 dollars) x i
1
---_____2_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _
6^
'4' Appendix D Review of Selected Compliance Files ,
Summary and Conclusions-The compliance files were reviewed for accuracy and completeness with respect
.to documentation of inspection and compliance actions, inspection reports, reviews of inspection reports, independent measurements, previous items of noncompliance, current items of noncompliance, and exit interviews with management. These files are contained in combination license and compliance files for each licensee. The review of these files also covered the scope of the inspections and the adequacy of independent measurements taken duririg inspections. Reviews of these inspection reports by the Division's management were also noted. The' reviewer determined the timeliness of enforcement letters and responses from the licensee and the adequacy of these responses. The adequacy of inspection oversight by Division management and final actions taken by the Division's compliance personnel were consistent with good reculatory practice. There was only one case identified where the licensee did not rsspond to the State's enforcement letter in a timely fashion (within 20 days).
- 1. LICENSEE: ATEC Associates ADDRESS: 4860 Ironton, Suite 9D, Denver, CO 80239 LIC. NO. Colo. 521-01 LICENSE TYPE: Gauge PRIORITY INSP. DATE: May 29, 1984 INSPECTORS: Tim G. Bonzer ANN 0UNCED - UNANNOUNCED, INITIAL - REINSPECTION TYPE OF INSPECTION: COMPLETE - PARTIAL - INVESTIGATION - FOLLOWUP TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE: June 21, 1984 REPORT REVIEWED BY: Lawrence Doerr DATE REVIEWED: July 9, 198?
"591" TYPE FORM USED? No ENF. LETTER DATE: July 9, 1984 SIGNED BY: Al Hazle DATE OF LICENSEE RESPONSE: July 30, 1984 DATE OF STATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: August 6, 1984
- 2. LICENSEE: CH2M Hill, Inc.
ADDRESS: 5995 South Syracuse, Englewood, CO 80111 LIC. NO. Colo. 121-01 LICENSE TYPE: Gauge PRIORITY INSP. DATE: Feb. 23, 1984 INSPECTORS: Tim G. Bonzer ANNOUNCED - UNANNOUNCED, INITIAL - REINSPECTION TYPE OF INSPECTION: COMPLETE - PARTIAL - INVESTIGATION - FOLLOWUP TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE: March 11, 1984 REPORT REVIEWED BY: C. E. Mattson DATE REVIEWED: March 21, 1984 "591" TYPE FORM USED?
ENF. LETTER DATE: March 10, 1984 SIGNED BY: Al Hazie DATE OF LICENSEE RESPONSE: April 6,1984 DATE OF STATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: May 2, 1984 1
I l
l 1
i..
i
- 3. LICENSEE: Smith Energy Services ADDRESS: Junction Highways 58 and 93, Golden, CO 80403 LIC. NO. Colo. 473 LICENSE TYPE: Gauge / tracer PRIORITY ,
INSP. DATE: Sept. 27 & Oct. 15, 1984 INSPECTORS: T. Bonzer, L. Doerr ANNOUNCED - UNANNOUNCED, INITIAL - REINSPECTION TYPE 0F INSPECTION: COMPLETE - PARTIAL - INVESTIGATION - FOLLOWUP TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE:
REPORT REVIEWED BY: Al Haz?e DATE REVIEWED: November 30, 1984
'"591" TYPE FORM USED?
ENF. LETTER DATE:- November 19, 1984 SIGNED BY: Al Hazle DATE OF LICENSEE RESPONSE: December 6, 1984 DATE OF STATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: December 12, 1984 ;
- 4. LICENSEE.: Ramp Industries, Inc.
ADDRESS: 476 Kenton Street, Aurora, CO 80010 LIC. NO. 523-01 LICENSE TYPE. Waste broker PRIORITY INSP. DATE: July 18 & 20, 1984 INSPECTORS: Frank Phelps
-ANNOUNCED - UNNANN0UNCED, INITIAL - REINSPECTION TYPE OF INSPECTION: COMPLETE . PARTIAL - INVESTIGATION - FOLLOWUP 1 TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE: August 9. 1984 REPORT REVIEWED BY: C. Mattson DATE REVIEWED: August 29, 1984 "591" TYPE FORM USED? No-ENF. LETTER DATE: September 4, 1984 SIGNED BY: A. Hazie DATE OF LICENSEE RESPONSE: None in file DATE OF STATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Not applicable
- 5. LICENSEE: Frontier Logging Corp.
ADDRESS: 2700 Youngfield #114 Lakewood, CO 80215 LIC. NO. 194-0 LICENSE TYPE: Well Logging PRIORITY INSP. DATE: March 25 & April 3, 1985 INSPECTORS: Frank Phelps ANNOUNCED - UNNANN0UNCED, INITIAL - REINSPECTION TYPE OF INSPECTION: COMPLETE - PARTIAL - INVESTIGATION - FOLLOWUP TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE: May 30, 1985 REPORT REVIEWED BY: C. Mattson 'DATE REVIEWED: May 15, 1986 "591" TYPE FORM USED? No ENF. LETTER DATE: May 1, 1985 SIGNED BY: A. Hazie DATE OF LICENSEE RESPONSE: June 6, 1985 DATE OF STATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: July 11, 1985
- 6. LICENSEE: Colorado Well Logging, Inc.
ADDRESS: 1019 8th Street, Suite 300, Golden, CO 80401 LIC. NO. 378-01 LICENSE TYPE: Well Logging PRIORITY INSP. DATE: April 30, 1985 INSPECTORS: Frank Phelps ANNOUNCED - UNNANN0UNCED, INITIAL - REINSPECTION TYPE OF INSPECTION: COMPLETE - PARTIAL - INVESTIGATION - FOLLOWUP
- TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE: May 3, 1985 REPORT REVIEWED BY: C. E ttson DATE REVIEWED: May 10, 1985 "591" TYPE FORM USED? No ENF. LETTER DATE: May 3, 1985 SIGNED BY: A. Hazie DATE OF LICENSEE RESPONSEi' JuRF 3, 1985 DATE OF STATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: July 12, 1985
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . l
l
- 7. LICENSEE: Geoscience Associates, Inc.
ADDRESS: 4919 North Broadway, Suite 50, Boulder, CO 80302 LIC. NO. 93-03 LICENSE TYPE: Well Logging PRIORITY '
INSP. DATE: August 30, 1984 INSPECTORS: Tim Bonzer ANNOUNCED - UNANNOUNCED, INITIAL - REINSPECTION TYPE OF INSPECTION: COMPLETE - PARTIAL - INVESTIGATION - FOLLOWUP TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE: September 24, 1984 REPORT REVIEWED BY: C. Mattson, A. Hazie DATE REVIEWED: 9/24 & 25 "591" TYPE FORM USED? No ENF. LETTER DATE: September 27, 1984 SIGNED BY: A. Hazle DATE OF LICENSEE RESPONSE: October 9, 1984 DATE OF STATE ACKNOWLED.GEMENT: December 5, 1984
- 8. LICENSEE: Chen and Associates ADDRESS: 96 South Zuni Street, Denver, CO 80223 LIC. NO. 96-01 LICENSE TYPE: Manufacturer PRIORITY INSP. DATE: May 6, 1984 INSPECTORS: Tim Bonzer ANNOUNCED - UNANNOUNCED, INITIAL - REINSPECTION TYPE OF INSPECTION: COMPLETE - PARTIAL - INVESTIGATION - FOLLOWUP TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE:
REPORT REVIEWED BY: C. Mattson DATE REVIEWED: July 12, 1984 "591" TYPE FORM USED? No ENF. LETTER DATE: July 12, 1984 SIGNED BY: A. Hazle DATE OF LICENSEE RESPONSE: July 29, 1984 DATE OF STATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: September 24, 1984
- 9. LICENSEE: Swedish Medical Center ADDRESS: 501 East Hampden Ave., Englewood, CO 80110 LIC. NO. 251-01 LICENSE TYPE: Nuclear Medicine PRIORITY INSP. DATE: January 15, 1985 INSPECTORS: Frank Phelps ANNOUNCED - UNANNOUNCED, INITIAL - REINSPECTION TYPE OF INSPECTION: COMPLETE - PARTIAL - INVESTIGATION - FOLLOWUP TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE: February 5, 1985 REPORT REVIEWED BY: C. Mattson DATE REVIEWED: April 1, 1985 "591" TYPE FORM USED? No ENF. LETTER DATE: February 8,1985 SIGNED BY: A. Hazie DATE OF LICENSEE RESPONSE: April 12, 1985 DATE OF STATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: May 1, 1985
- 10. LICENSEE: Magnaflux Quality Services .
ADDRESS: 3390 Peoria Street, Aurora, CO 80010 LIC. NO. 388-01 LICENSE TYPE: Industrial Radiation PRIORITY INSP. DATE: June 27, 1985 INSPECTORS: Tim Bonzer ANNOUNCED - UNANNOUNCED, INITIAL - REINSPECTION TYPE OF INSPECTION: COMPLETE - PARTIAL - INVESTIGATION - FOLLOWUP TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE: July 22, 1985 REPORT REVIEWED BY: C. Mattson DATE REVIEWED: July 27, 1985 "591" TYPE FORM USED? No ENF. LETTER DATE: August 2, 1985 SIGNED BY: A. Hazie DATE OF LICENSEE RESPONSE: August 28, 1985 DATE OF STATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: September 4, 1985
s b2-
- 11. LICENSEE: Hazen Research, Inc.
' ADDRESS: 4601 Indiana S reet, Golde i, CO 80403 LIC. NO. 77-02EF LICEN TYPE: R&D PRIORITY INSP. DATE: March 14, 1985-INSPECTORS: F. Phelps ANNOUNCED - UNANNOUNCED, INITIAL - REINSPECTION TYPE OF INSPECTION: COMPLETE - PARTIAL - INVESTIGATION - FOLLOWUP {
TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE: April 23, 1985 !
REPORT-REVIEWED BY: C. Mattson DATE REVIEWED: April 27, 1985 !
"591" TYPE FORM USED? No ENF. LETTER DATE: April 22, 1985 SIGNED BY: A. Hazie DATE OF LICENSEE RESPONSE: May 24, 1985 DATE OF STATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: July 17, 1985 E
i 9
l
COMPLIANCE FILES Comments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
- 1. Not clear if announces or unannounced inspection x x x
- 2. Previous items of noncompliance not discussed. x x x x
- 3. Inspector signature missing on report. x
- 4. Inspection history section did not clearly identify history of licensee with respect to noncompliance items. x
- 5. Not all files reviewed documented specific dated, module numbers, names, etc.
(especially if noncompliance item cited). x
- 6. Written changes to final typed report. x x x ,x
- 7. Independent measurements not' conducted. x x x
- 8. Incorrect date on inspection repert. x
- 9. Enforcernent letter cut to licensee before supervisory review and approval of inspection report. x
- 10. Licensee response to the enforcement letter was greater than 20 days. x
- 11. Incomplete inspection report. x
- 12. The previous items of noncompliance which were reviewed had written comments placed on the final inspection report. x x x x
- 13. Scope of licen. sees program not detailed x x x i
l
Procedure No. Titl3 S2ction IV - ATTACHMEh71
, RERP (Suppicm:nt) EMERGENCY RESPONSE EQUIPMENT LIST
\
's EMERGENCY RESPONSE EQUIPMENT LIST Item Quantity A. Emergency response vehicle, 1973 Dodge Van, 1 ea.
State License 05-0014, with the'following equipment and supplies: -
- 1. Motorola 'Maxar 80" radio . 1 ea.
(15 4. 905 MH z , 154. 475 MH z , 154. 280 MH z , and 155.340 MHg )
- 2. Motorola Converta-Com Console radio 1 ea.
amplifier for use with Motorola Handi Talkie radio, Model MT 500 (45.280 MHz , 45.240 MHz , and 45.200 MHz)
- 3. Radio, Citizen's Band, 23 channel Optional
- 4 Scanner, UBT-VHT, Programmable 1 ea.*
- 5. Siren 1 ea.
- 6. Light, Flashing, Red I ea.
- 7. Light Set, 2 lights, ten foot stand 1 ea.
- 8. Generator,1000 watt, 110 volt, gasoline povered I ea.
- 9. Belt, Safety 2 es.
- 10. 2reathing Apparatus, "Self Rescuer" 2 ea.
- 11. Sampling Containers, miscellaneous 2 ea.
- 12. Radiation Detection Instruments
- a. CDV - 715 2 ea.
- b. CDV - 700 2 ea.
g,- c. Desimeter charger 2 es.
- d. Dosimeters 4 ea.
- 13. Halogen Light, 12 voit 1 ea.
14 Tool Box 1 ea.
- 15. Hat s , Safety, "Hard Ha ts" 2 ca.
These items are stored in the Radiation Counting Facility for security, and must be placed in the ER vehicle prior to departure.
B. State vehicle, 1982 Isuzu, 4 wheel drive pickup I ca.
State License 6500.
4 C. Repositioned supplies at the Toreward Command Post at Fort Lupton, Colorado *
- 1. Stationary Supply Kit 1 ea.
- 2. Field Sampling Supply Kit (TSV) 2 ea.
The'e r are no pre positioned supplies for Rt. .'k y Flats as there is no fixed Toreward Command Post.
D. Equipment and Supplies to be transported to the Forward Command Post or the emergency response site. As not all of these itens are dedicated to emergency response, and may be used in routine
,j'; operations, the inventory of items . listed may not always be available for us.
~
APPPENDIX E Approve.1 RevirJor.s Pace No.
June 29,1984 8@ i
Proe dure Na. Titl3 S;ction IV - ATTACHMENT 1 RERP (Supplement) EMERGENCY RESPONSE EQUIPMENT LIST D., Continued P
It is recommended that the items be transported as indicated below, depending upon the availability of other vehicles. All items l
available should be taken.
~
Item Quantity
, Other Total ER Van Vehicles
- 1. Motorola "Maxar 80" 1 1 0
- 2. Tel-Con Radio Telephone, Model 150A ,
2 1 1
- 3. Motorola Eandi-Talkee, Model HT-500 4 1 3 4 Emergency Response Instrument Case 1 1 0
- 5. - Emergency Response Supply Case 1 1 0
- 6. Iberline Portable Beta-Gamma Geiger Counter, 6 2 4 Models I-510, 520, or $30, with hand probe
- 7. Iberline Portable Neutron Counter, Model PNC-1 1 1 0 B. Eberline Micro R/hr Meter, Model PRM-7C 2 1 0
- 9. Eberline Portable Rate Meter-Scaler, Model PRS-1 2 1 1
- 10. Ludium Count Rate Meter, Model .12, 1 1 0
, with alpha probe
- 11. Ludium. Count Rate Meter, Model 12, with alpha 1 0 1 and beta gamma probes
- 12. Ludlum Count Rate Meter, Model 20, 1 1 0 with alpha probe p 13. Ludlum Count Rate Meter, Model 12, 10* 4 6 with alpha scintillation probe 14 Norland, Multi channel Analyzer, Model 5300, 1 1 0 with Bicion Cam =a Detector
- 15. Dosimeter, Pocket 12 6 6
- 16. Charger, Desimeter 4 2 2
- 17 Air Sampler, Bendix, Lo Vol.102mm filter 2 1 1
- 18. Air Particulate Sampler, Bendix, Hi Voi, 3 1 2 Portable, 102mm filter
- 19. Air Particulate Sampler, 47mm filter 2 0 2
- 20. Binoculars 1 3 0
- 21. Cameras 2 1 1 22 Flashlights 1 1 0
- 23. Ge ne rator, 1000 wa t t , 110 volt, _ 1 0 1 gasoline powered 24 Hats, Safety, "Hard Hats" 4 0 4
- 25. Lanterns, fluorescent 2 1 1
- 26. Recorder, Cassett Tape 4 1 '4
- 27. Respirators, Half Mask (in one transport case) 1 1 0
- 28. Protective clothing (in transport case), 2 2 0 with coveralls, booties, and gloves
- 29. Field Sampling Supply Ki t -
2 0 2 30 Decontamination Kit 1 0 O
- 31. Reflective Vests 6 6 0 h *These instruments are provided to the Department f or use in case of an incident at Rocky Flats Approval -
Revisions Page No.
June 29,1984 ,
87
B I
i REPORT AND STAFF EVALUATION OF THE COLORADO URANIUM RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 8, 1984 THROUGH OCTOBER 25, 1985 VOLUME II
,1-4 REPORT AND STAFF EVALUATION OF THE i $
COLORADO URANIUM MILL RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM A FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 8, 1984 THROUGH OCTOBER 25, 1985_ .
Introduction The regulatory program review meeting for the Colorado radiation control program with Colorado representatives was conducted during the period of October 15-25, 1985, in Denver, Colorado. The first week covered the radiation I
control program for materials, ahd the second week focused on the uranium mill l program.
l Tha State was represented by Messrs. A. Hazle, Division Director for the Radia-tion Control Division; W. Jacobi, Supervisor of the Radiation Control Section, (it should be noted that Mr. Jacobi was not present during the mill review); and
- K. Weaver, Uranium Recovery Licensing and Compliance Section. The NRC represen-tatives during the uranium mill review were Messrs. D. M. Sollenberger, NMSS, and R. S. Heyer, Health Physicist Region IV. ,
Reviews of selected conventional mill license and compliance files; the Uravan
" Preliminary Executive Licensing Review Summary (PELRS);" 40 CFR 192, groundwater monitoring status; 40 CFR 190, environmental dose compliance determination activities; financial surety mechanisms; decommissioning and reclamation criteria and_ inspection report contents were conducted by Messrs.
Sollenberger and Heyer for the purpose of determining adequacy of the State's policies and procedures in these program areas.
During the week of September 9-13, 1985, an accompaniment of two State uranium mill inspectors was conducted during a State's inspection of the Cotter Corpor-ation conventional mill located at Canon City, Colorado.
A summary meeting was held with Dr. Robert Arnott, Assistant Director of the Office-of Health Protection on October 25, 1985. Representatives for the NRC ware Messrs. D. A. Nussbaumer, Assistant Director for State Agreements Program and R. S. Heyer, Region IV.
Conclusions S:e Volume I of this report for the overall conclusions and findings of the Uranium Mill Radiation Control Program Review. The conclusions were based on a review of the technical and administrative aspects of the Department's uranium mill regulatory program. In addition, the review consisted of a verification of the State's current program as compared to the Colorado request for amended agreement as published in the Federal Register, Volume 47, No. 90, Monday, May 10, 1982. The following documents were used extensively during this review.
I l
l l
l l
+
i t 2-fa'. : Guidelines;.for NRC review of Agreement State Radiation. Control Programs,
- 46' FR 59341, published December 4.1981.
b.. Criteria contained in 46 FR 7540. 46 FR 36969, and 48 FR 33376 published'
. January 23 and July 16, 1981,'.and. July 21, 1983, respectively.
c.; SA internal procedure D.2-1,' dated. January 25, 1982, which had been' distributed to all. uranium mill Agreement States.
1?
1 L
1
.8 l-iL_.m__.____.___1__ ___c.___.,___.
f h
[
- 1. Legal Authority (Criterion 29)
- a. Guidelines Clear statutory authority should exist designating a State Radiation Control Agency to carry out the requirements of Uranium Mill Tailings i Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978, as amended, i.e., regulate tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from any ore produced primarily for its source material content.
Reviewer Assessment In the assessment of Colorado's request for an amended agreement, 46 FR 50628-50632, dated October 14, 1981, FRC staff determined that the State's statutes and regulations provided sufficient authority for the Colorado Radiation Control Division (RCD) te carry out the requirements of UMTRCA of 1978, as amended.
Section RH 1.4 of the State's regulations provides the basis and purposes of the regulations as they relate to uranium mills and tailings. State authority for regulating urandum mills lies in Section 103 of Title 25 Article II, of the Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, as amended (Suppl. 1982).
- b. Guidelines An adequate surety (under terms established by regulation) will be provided by the licensees to assure the completion of all requirements established by the State for the decontamination, decommissioning, and reclamation of sites, structures, and equipment used in conjunction with the generation or disposal of such byproduct material.
Reviewer Assessment Section RH 3.9.4 of the State's regulations appears to contain an adequate' surety requirement to assure the completion of all require-ments established by the State for the decontamination; decommission-
, ing; and reclamation of sites, structures, and equipment used in conjunction with the generation or disposal of such byproduct material. Section RH 3.9.5.4 addresses long-term care requirements for source material milling licensees. See Appendix A. Volume II, for current Financial Assurance Arrangements. Additional review on specific surety mechanisms should be conducted during the next scheduled program review.
5 1
1
- c. Guidelines If in-the State's licensing and regulation of byproduct material or of any activity which produces byproduct material, the State collects funds from the licensee or its surety for long-tem surveillance and maintenance of such material, the total amount of the funds collected by the State shall be transferred to the U.S. if custody of the byproduct material and its disposal site is transferred to the Federal Government upon termination of the State license. (See 10 CFR 150.32.)
If no default has occurred and the reclamation or other bonded activity has been performed, funds for this purpose are not to be transferred to the Federal Government. The funds collected by the State shall be sufficient to ensure compliance with the regulations the Commission establishes pursuant _to Section 161x of the Atomic Energy Act.
l Reviewer Assessment i For the State's licensing and regulation of byproduct material, or of l any activity which produces byproduct material, the State has l requirements to collect funds from the licensee and to provide surety for long-term surveillance and maintenance of such material.
Section RH 3.9.S.4.3 of the State's regulations provides that the total amount of the funds collected by the Stata shall be transferred to the U.S. if custody of the byproduct material and its disposal site is transferred to the Federal Government upon termination of the State license.
- d. Guidelines In the issuances of licenses, an opportunity for written coments, public hearing (with transcript) and cross examination is required.
Reviewer Assessment Section RH 3.9.9, of the State's radiation protection regulations, provides for a 30-day comment period for a uranium mill licensing act.on and public hearing with cross-examination of witnesses. The most recent public hearing for,a uranium mill license was for Union Carbide Corporation (UNETCO) Minerals Corporation, held August 21-22 and November 19-20, 1984. In addition, scoping meetings were held in Canon City on February 25 and June 10, 1985. (Both documents were ,
reviewed briefly for content and appeared adequate.) l A copy of the Administrative Procedures Act are available in the NRC, ,
Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
w__-_- - _ . .
- e. Guidelines During the issuance of licenses, a written determination of action to' be taken, based upon evidence presented during the public comment period snd subject to judicial review, is required.
Reviewer Assessment For the 1.suance vf a uranium mill license, the State analyzes any coments received and makes a written determination subject to judicial review. Public comments relating to any proposed uranium mill license actio.ns are addrecsed by the State.
The Pioneer Nuclear, Incorporated FELRS and the Union Carbide Uravan, PELRS, dated May 22, 1984, did incorporate appropriate public comments.
- f. Guidelines There should be a requirement which places a ban on major construction prior to completion of the written environmental analysis. (As per guidelines addressed und.er Section 3).
Reviewer Assessment Under Section RH 3.8.7 of the regulations, the State has the authority to pisce a ban on major uranium mill construction activities prior to completion of tne licensing action. There has been no change to this provision since the last program review. (The Cotter Canon City correspondence in 1978, identified a halt in clearing the site for impoundment construction. A copy of this order is available in NRC, Region IV Colorado State Agreement files.)
9 Guidelines An opportunity shall be prcvided for public participation through written comments, public hearings and judicial review of rules.
Reviewer Assessment Based upon discussions with program management opportunities for public comment and participation are provided.
- 2. Reservation of Authority (Criterion 30)
The Agreement States Statutes should take into account the reservations of authority to the United States as outlined under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended,,as stated under Title 10 CFR 150.15a, as follows:
i l '
l
- i i
a.- Guidelines Establishment of minimum standards governing reclamation, long-term i surveillance or maintenance, and ownershi;: of the byproduct materiai.
-l
]
Reviewer-Assessment o During the process of obtaining an amended agreement for licensing uranium concentrators, the NRC staff determined that the State agreed i to the reservations of authority under'UMTRCA and 10 CFR 150.15a. '
- b. Guidelines Determination that prior to termination of a license, the licensee has complied with decontamination, decommissioning and reclamation standards, and ownership requirements for sites at which byproduct material is present.
Reviewer Assessment l
l The State conforms to the provisions outlined under UMTRCA of 1978, l as amended and does make appropriate determination p.'ior to a license
-termination. (As of this review no licenses have been terminated.)
c.- Guidelines The requirement that prior to termination of any licensee for by-product material, as defined in Section 11e.'(2), of the Atomic Energy Act or for any activity that results in the production of such mater-ial, title to such byproduct mat-rial'end the disposal site shall be transferred to the Federal Government or State at the option of the State, provided such option is exercised prior to termination of the license.
Reviewer Assessment It wa:. confirmed that prior to termination of any licensee for by-product material, as defined in Section 11e.(2), of the Atomic Energy Act the title to such byproduct material is transferred to State.
- d. Guidelines l
The authority to require monitoring, maintenance, and emergency measures after the license is terminated as necessary to protect the public health and safety for those materials and property for which the State has assumed custody pursuant to Public Law 95-604.
p Reviewer Assessment
-The State has provisions available as outlined under the amended agreement for licensing of uranium concentrators. -
'e. Guidelines da authority to permit v e of the surface or subsurface estate, or both of the land transferred to the United States or State pursuant under provision of the Uranium Mill Radiation Tailings Control Act of 1978, as asnended.
Reviewer Assessment The State conforms to the provisions outlined under GTRCA of 1978, as amended. (As defined under the States statutes.)
- f. Guidelines The authority to exempt land ownership transfer requirements of Section.83(b)(1)(A).
Reviewer Assessment The State-conforms to the provisioas outlined under UMTRCA of 1978, as amended. (As defined under the State's statutes.)
- 3. Written Analysis of the Impact on the Environment Caused by Licensino the Activity (Criterion 31)
-It is. preferable that State statutes contain the provisions of Section 6 of the Model Act, but the following guidelines may be accomplished by adoption of procedures, regulation or technical criteria. In any case.
I authority for their implementation should be adequately supported by statute, regulation or case law as determined by the State Attorney General.
Guideline In the licensing and regulation of ores processed primarily for their l~
source material content and for the disposal of byproduct material, procedures shall be established which provide a written analysis of the impact on the environment of the licensing activity. This analysis shall be available to the public before commencement of hearings and shall include: an assessment of the radiological and nonradiological public health impacts; an assessment of any impact on any body of water or groundwater; consideration of alternatives to the licensed activities; and consideration of long-term impacts of licensed activities. (As per guidelines addressed under Section 14.)
H-l i
l 1
Reviewer Assessment Procedures have been established by Colorado which provide a written analysis of the impact on the environment by the licensed activity. The' analyses covered an assessment of the radiological and nonradiological public health impacts; an assessment of any impact on any body of water or groundwater; consideration of alternatives to the licensed activities; and consideration of long-term impacts of licensed activities. ]
The State's most recent environmental assessment is contained in the
Preliminary Executive Licensing Review Summary for the Uravan Uranium Mill," dated May 22, 1984. There have been no changes or updates made by the State for requirements relative to this PELRS since the NRC staff evaluated the program during the last review. This was discussed with program management and addressed in the letter to Dr. Vernon.
During the process of obtaining an amended agreement, the NRC staff determined that the State's statutes and regulations satisfactorily addressed the issue of the preparation of a written analysis of the impact on the environment caused by the licensing of a uranium facility. The Pioneer Nuclear FELRS, Section 5 and Uravan PELRS Section 5 and 9 were reviewcd and appeared to be adequate.
- 4. Regulations (Criterion 32*,
- a. fuidelines State regulations should incorporate regulatory language which is equivalent to the extent practicable or more stringent than regulations and standards adopted and enforced by the Commission and implemented by Part 40 & Part 150.31(b).
Reviewer Assessment State regulations for uranium milling and tailings are equivalent to the extent practicable or more stringent than regulations and standards adopted and enforced by the NRC. Section RH 3.8.7 of the State's regulations places a ban on uranium mill construction activities prior to completion of the licensing action. Any alternatives to the Federal requirements adopted by the State have sufficient suppsrting documentation and substantial evidence in the record and adequately protect the public health, safety, and the environment.
There have been a few changes to Colorado's mill orogram since the amended agreement. The following changes were made effective since the last review oneIng June 4, 1984. The State Board of Health approved rule changes implementing civil penalty authority
~
March 16, 1984, effectite June 30, 1984, as well as modifications 'l
-i in the fee structure, including increasing the fee ceilings for category 2A to $452,000 for a new license, $383,000 for a renewal, and $128,000 for a-(major) amendment. -
- b. Guidelines The NRC operational criteria and objectives for Uranium mill siting, designs, and operation performance are:
- 1. Locate the tailings so that they are isolated and remote from people to reduce population exposures to the maximum extent reasonably achievable.
- 2. Locate' the tailings isolation area so that disruption and dispersion by natural forces are eliminated or reduced to the maximum extent reasonable achievable.
- 3. Design the tailings isolation area so that seepage of toxic materials into the groundwater system would be eliminated or reduced to the maximum extent reasonably achievable.
- 4. Eliminate the blowing of tailings to unrestricted areas during normal operating conditions and prior to final reclamation.
- 5. Plans for reclaiming and restoring land disturbed by uranium milling activities should be provided which provides sufficient details for assessing the suitability of these plans when compared to other alternatives e.g., horizontal-vertical slope, type of cover, sources and thicknesses of cover materials, revegetation species and schedule of events from shutdown through final reclamation. -
- 6. Present a technical and financial feasibility assessment on methods and costs of mill decommissioning and site reclamation, including tailings area.
- 7. Present the financial arrangements to be made (such as bonding arrangements) to ensure that adequate funds will be available for mill decommissioning, site reclamation, and restoration tvhen operations are concluded.
peviewer Assessment The operational criteria and objectives set out by the NRC regulations and the general environmental standards set out by the EPA have not all been met by the Colorado regulatory program. Note the comments made later in this report in Section 10, Technical
Quality of Licensing Actions," regarding the annual determination of compliance with 40 CFR 190 by each mill facility and current status of.40 CFR 192 groundwater monitoring program.
There have been no major revisions to the State's uranium mill regulations since the last program review.
The Division continues to use documents similar to NRC's " Standard Review Plan for Uranium Recovery Facilities," for the preparation of environmental reports and safety evaluation reports for uranium recovery facilities. This document provides specific guidance on meeting the requirements of the Colorado regulations.
- 5. Organizational Relationship for Regulating Ur}31um Mill and Mill Tailings (Criterion 33)
- a. Guidelines Management organization and lines of authority and supervision should be clearly established within the radiation control group and any other department within the State responsible for contributing to the
-regulation of uranium processing and disposal of tailings.
Reviewer Assessment Management organization and lines of authority and supervision have been clearly established within the Colorado Radiation Control Division and other departments within the State responsible for contributing to the regulation of uranium milling.
- b. -Guidelines When other State agencies or regional offices are utilized, the lines of communication and administrative control between the agencies and/or. regions and the program Director should be clearly drawn.
Reviewer Assessment When other State agencies or personnel from other State departments are utilized in preparing an environmental assessment, it was determined that the lead agency is the RCD and that the lead agency does prepare the environmental assessment. Other factors entering into such a working relationship are applicable statutory authority and relevant expertise available from other State agencies.
_ - _ _ - - - - - - - _ _ . . _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ )
c.4 Guidelines If personnel from other State Departments or Federal Agencies are required for preparing the environmental assessment, a lead agency -
shall be designated for supervising and coordinating' preparation of the environmental assessment. It is normally expected that the radiation control agency will be the lead agency. .The lead agency is required to prepare the environmental assessment based upon inputs from the other State agencies and the lead-agency.
Reviewer Assessment It is the NRC reviewer's understanding that the authority of the Colorado RCD, with respect to other divisions under the Department'of Health, exist through MOUs between the RCD and the other offices.
. The Departments of Agriculture, Highways, Local Affairs, and Natural Resources have MOUs and the RCD remains the responsible' lead agency.
(See' Appendices A and B of Volume I for organizational charts.) The Air Pollution Control Divisica and the Water Quality Division each issue permits with respect to uranium mill licensing. (Thesearein addition to the licensing document.)
The MOU between the RCD and the Department of Natural Resources - State Engineers Office did identify during past reviews that NRC Regulatory Guides 3.11. " Design, Construction, and Inspection of Embankment Retention Systems for Uranium Mills," and 3.11.1, " Operational Inspection and Surveillance of Embankment Retention Systems for Uranium Mill Tailings," were being utilized.
The current file reviews did reconfirm that a check sheet is being used by the State Engineer during the review of embankment retention systems.
- d. Guidelines Utilization of an applicant's environmental report in lieu of the lead agency assessment of the proposed project is not adequate or appropriate. However, the lead agency may prepare an environmental
' assessment based upon an applicant's environmental report provided such information is assessed and found adequate by the appropriate State staff. Other credible information may be utilized by the State as long as such information is verified and documented by the State.
Reviewer Assessment The Colorado RCD prepares environmental assessments based upon an applicant's environmental report and other verified infonnation.
o
q p C .
i
)
- e. Guidelines In order to bring an environmental assessment to a satisfactory )
conclusion, it is highly recommended that an initial scoping document be developed which clearly delineates the area and scope of work to be perfomed by each agency within a given time constraint.
Reviewer Assessment The State does not have statutes or regulations which require an initial scoping document which clearly delineates the area and scope of work to be performed by other agencies assisting in the preparation of the environmental assessment. However, the following ager.cies review the applicant's Environmental Report and the Environmental Assessment prepared by the Colorado RCD; Air Quality, l Water Quality, Mine Land Reclamation Board, Department of Local Affairs, State Board of Land Commissioners, Water Conservation Board, and Historical Society.
It should be noted that scoping documents are addressed under interagency agreements as well as under a Directive within the Department. A scoping document is explicitly anticipated in review of the Cotter Corporation Canon City application for renewal.
Since the environmental assessments for Union Carbide Uravan and the Cotter Corporation renewal are prepared by the RCD and the !
geotechnical and hydrogeological third-party contractors are !
supervised directly by the RCD, the need for more strict constraints on other agencies has not yet arisen.
- f. Guidelines ,
For those areas in the environmental assessment where the State cannot identify a State agency having sufficient expertise to adequately evaluate the proposal or prepare an assessment, the State should have provisions for obtaining outside consulting services. In those instances where non-governmental consultants are utilized, procedures should be established to avoid conflict of interest consistent with State law and administrative procedures.
Reviewer Assessment The State has provisions for obtaining outside consulting services to assist the licensing authority for those areas in the environmental tssessment where the State cannot identify a State agency having available resources to adequately evaluate and prepare an environmental assessment.
- ,-+
, 7.
O< !
^
i
-1 i
Examples of consultant use follow: In 1982, the Department hired contractors.to have MILDOS incorporated and operational'on. Colorado State University's computer and to conduct an independent offsite
~ dose evaluation of the Uravan facility (J. Smith report dated- -
December _ 30. 1982). For the Uravan renewal, an independent !
third-party contract geohydrologist (Mike Galloway of Terra-Therma d Inc.) was retained, voluntarily paid directly by the company..
l' Another third-party. contractor at the present time is Matt Jones, M. K. Jones and Associates, who is working on. administrative and socioeconomic matters relating to the UMETCO and the Cotter license renewals._ There appears to be no conflict of interest since Mr. Galloway does work directly under Mr. Weaver with respect to the
- Uravan SER but paid.by the licensee.
- g. Guidelines-Medical consultants recognized for their expertise in emergency medical matters relating to the intake of uranium and its diagnosis
. thereof associated with uranium mining and milling should t,r
, , -identified and available to the State for. advice and direct assistance.
Reviewers Assessment ,
The State.has access to medical consultants recognized for their expertise in emergency medical matters relating to intake of uranium, -
and its diagnosis, associated with uranium milling. Dr. Stan Ferguson, Epidemiologist and Dr.' Dan Titelbaum, Occupational Medicine Specialist are available to the RCD.
- 6. Staffing Level (Criterion 34)
Personnel needed in the processing of the license application for uranium mills can be identified or grouped accord 1ng to the following skills:
tschnical, administrative, and support.
- a. Guidelines Technical personnel are those individuals who have the training and
- experience in radiation protection necessary to evaluate the ~
environmental, engineering, and radiological safety aspects of uranium concentrator activities.
The total professional technical and consultant staff years effort recommended to process a new conventional mill license, insitu license, or major renewal to meet the requirements of UMTRCA is 2 to 2.75 total professional staff years effort. This number includes the 1 effort for the environmental assessment and the in-plant safety review. It also includes the use of consultants.
4 I .
Heap leach, ore buying stations and R&D applications may take less time and is expected to take 1.0 to 1.5 professional staff years effort depending oibthe complexity of the proposed facility and circumstances encountIWd. -
Reviewer Assesment During this review, it was identified that the staffing level is estimated to be 1.95 staff years for two major conventional mills, which is equivalent to .97 staff years per uranium mill. This has decreased from 1.7 staff years from the previous program review.
This falls well below the recomended number of staff years; therefore, the current staffing level is believed to be unacceptable for handling the current work load, even after consideration is given to the generally redaced uranium mill activity within the industry at the present time. A cen ant regarding the need for additional members of the uranium mill staff was addressed to the staff at the conclusion of this review.
This is a repeat comment from the previous review and was addressed in the letter to Dr. Vernon. It was noted that although this is a category II indicator, it has affected two other indicators (Technical 3 Quality of Licensing Actions and Inspection Reports). See Appendix B, Volume II, for a detailed breakdown for staffing level. ,
- b. Guidelines Administrative personnel are those persons who will provide internal guides, policy memoranda, reviews and managerial services necessary .
to assure completion of the licensing action. l Reviewer Assessment All work related to licensing and compliance activities primarily (
involve Messrs. Weaver and Kray. In addition to the license and i compliance activities, special tasks (such as preparation of EIAs and SERs) and routine quality assurance relating to uranium mill environmental samples are conducted. The State utilizes third-party contractors in accordance with Section 3.9.10.3 of the Colorado Rules and Regulations pertaining to Radiation Control. As was addressed during the previous years review, we believe the use of significant number of third-party consultants continues to indicate a real need {
for additional mill staff. '
- c. Guidelines Support personnel are those persons who provide secretarial, clerical support, legal and laboratory services, i
1 g
+ .
o
, Wr
-1. ' Guidelines 1
Current indications are that the person years' effort for- 1 secretarial support for the UMTRCA program is approximately one .
secretary for two conventional mills. .
I Reviewer Assessment {
1he clerical and the secretarial support is furnished from within the RCD. Word processing units are available and '
utilized by all sections.
The' RCD ha; 0.25 staff years committed to the mill program. This i does not appear to be adequate and may present a backlog in the future _and may affect completion of assigned mill related activi-ties. (This was discussed with staff and addressed in the letter to Dr..Vernon.) _
- 2. Guidelines Legal services for each noncontested mill case is 0.5 staff years.
Reyiewer Assessment ]
The legal support for the Radiation Contral Division is provided by the State Attorney General's Office. The Department of Health has received the commitment of the services of one .
authorized attorney and support staff on a priority basis when 1
.needed.
The number of legal personnel supporting active cases was reported to be 0.25 staff years. This level is below the NRC recommendation of 0.5. It was noted that this may affect the completion of assigned mill related activities in the future. {
. (This was discussed with staff and addressed in the letter to 1 Dr.Vernon.) , {
1
- 3. Guidelines j i
The impact on environmental monitoring laboratory support .
I services is difficult to estimate but should be assessed and added into the personnel requirements. For planning purposes, one should review NRC Regulatory Guide 4.14 and 3.8 to establish-an insight on the scope of such an effort. I l
l 1
i J
i
\ .
s Reviewer Assessment The laboratory services to the RCD are provided by the Department of Health's laboratory. Personnel assigned to the
- Technical Services section perform radiochemical and radiation counting procedures and report to the supervisor of the Radiation Control Division. This laboratory supports the RCD in all areas of environmental and compliance monitoring. The l laboratory participates regularly in the EPA's interlaboratory QA program. If it becomes necessary to obtain additional support, it is the reviewer's understanding that the State could contract for the services outside the laboratory.
The environmental monitoring laboratory staff support services were reported as 0.2 staff years. !
The Department of Health's laboratory provides analytical results to the RCD. In the reviewer's opinion, the effort provided to the RCD appears to be sufficient. (See the instrumentation and laboratory facilities section of Volume I.) l
- 4. Guidelines Consideration should be given to various miscellaneous post licensing ongoing activities including the issuance of minor amendments, inspections, and environmental surveillance. It is estimated that these activities may require on the order of 0.5 to 1.0 person years effort, the latter being the case for a major facility.
Reviewer Assessment The NRC estimated 0.5 to 1.0 staff years effort may be representative for ongoing support associated with uranium mill activities not specified. These efforts for the RCD are well j below the 0.5 to 1.0 staff years effort reconnended by NRC ]
for post licensing and ongoing activities including the issuance i of minor amendments, inspections, and environmental surveillance. l The RCD has eight licensed uranium mill projects: (1) Cotter Canon City, mill; (2) Cotter Schwartzwalder, ore-sorter; (3) Cotter Whitewater, OBS; (4) Ranchers Naturity, heap leach; .
(5)SweenyBoulder, sorter;(6)UMETCOMaybell,heapleach; l (7) UMETC0 Rifle, ion exchange; and (8) UMETCO Uravan, mill. 1 There are two major renewals pending and two assessments in !
progress for Cotter, Canon City and UCC/UMETCO Uravan. There j are four major amendments and four assessments pending for Canon i City (groundwat;".- barrier"and groundwater upgrade) and Uravan
--_w_.-__.. _ . _ _ _ _ - _
)
j i
Spring Creek Mesa and Uravan (monitoring upgrades). There is one application for a new facility other than a conventional mill and in-situ not actively being processed (Union 76 Molycorp). s
. J There are five majov renewals for facilities other than conventional and insitu operations being actively processed (Cotter, Whitewater; HECLA Naturita, Sweeney Boulder; UMETC0f j Maybell, and UMETCO, Rifle),. There are 12 minor administrative -
amendments pending action. It appears these will be addressed by license staff but may take time due to staffs involvement in CERCLA activities.
- 5. Guidelines -
In evaluating license applications, the State shall have access to necessary specialties, e.g., radiological safety, meteorology, hydrology, geology, and dam construction and operation.
Reviewer Assessment i In evaluating license applications and the respective assessments -it appears that State has incorporated as part of !
the assessment the proper radiological safety, meteorological, l hydrological, geological, and dam construction and operation evaluations. The review of State licensing actions appears to indicate that other specialties are used and available when needed by the RCD.
- 7. Training Guideline In addition to the personnel "NRC review of Agreement qualifications listed in the State Radiation Control Programs," December 4, 1981, the regulatory staff involved in the UMTRCA regulatory process should have additional training in Uranium Mill Health Physics and Environmental j Assessments.
Reviewer Assessment ,
The NRC guidance for training indicates that the program should utilize specific short courses and workshops to maintain an appropriate level of 1 staff technical competence regarding training in subjects relating to l uranium mill health physics. The Colorado Department of Health does j recognize that staff in mill regulation should have additional training in ;
uranium mill health physics and environmental assessments pertaining to i those activities. !
l
\
l l
i
_ _ - _ _ _ b
1 l
l Since the last review, Mr. Kroy has attended the Oak Ridge 5-week health physics course and Mr. Weaver has attended a course on environmental law for public health professionals as well as attending general management -
courses.
Based upon the limited number of training courses available in this area and the two staff participation in uranium mill related courses, it appears the RCD has availed itself of sponsored courses appropriate to uranium milling operations.
- 8. Budget (Criterion 34c) i Guideline In addition to the budgetary considerations contained in the "NRC review of Agreement Radiation Control Programs, December 4, 1981," the budgetary process should address the aspect of utilization of personnel from other State agencies.
When personnel from other agencies or consultants are utilized in evaluating license applications or preparing input into environmental assessmeni.s and are counted in the person years staffing level, it shall be demonstrated that these personnel will be available on a routine and continuing basis to a degree claimed as necessary to successfully comply with the requirements of UMTRCA and these criteria.
The arrangements for making such resources shall be documented, such as an interagency memorandum of understanding or contract and confirmed by budgetary cost centers.
Reviewer Assessment The criteria for obtaining an amended agreement states that the agreements for utilizing other State agencies or consultants in the uranium mill regulatory program shall be documented, such as through a memorandum of understanding, and confirmed by budgeting cost centers. According to State management expenditures that were charged to the Colorado uranium mill program for the fiscal year July 1983 through June 1984 totaled I
$144,325 (State: $125,000; Federal $19,325) not including costs of Department,'s laboratory, legal counsel, and data services.
The uranium mill regulatory program is, for the most part, funded through general revenues and license and inspection fees (cash fund). It appears l based on discussions with management that current budget may be sufficient.
i 1
I I
i ;
f s
- 9. Licensing Procedures (Criterion 35)
Guideline ,
The RCP should have internal licensing guides, checklists, and policy ~
memoranda consistent with current NRC practices. License applicants (including applicants for renewals) should be furnished copies of applicant's guides and regulatory positions. The present compliance status of licensees should be considered in licensing actions. Standard license conditions comparable with current NRC standard license conditions should be used to expedite and provide uniformity in the licensing process. Files should be maintained in an orderly fashion to allow fast, accurate retrieval of information, and documentation of discussions and visits.
Reviewer Assessment .
The State's guidelines for review of uranium mill projects are contained in the NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files. These were reviewed and were checked for changes during this review. They were found to be adequate.
The uranium mill program has available internal licensing guides, checklists, and policy memoranda consistent with current NRC practices.
The license applicants (including ~ applicants for renewal) are furnished copies of licensing guides and regulatory positions. The compliance history of all licensees is considered in licensing renewal actions.
A review of Cotter and Uravan uranium mill licenses identified that standard license. conditions were used and are comparable with current NRC license conditions, in most cases. The RCD has used special licensing conditions, during past reviews, which the staff believes are appropriate for situations existing in the State. .One example of this is the special condition for UMETCO's Uravan mill. This license condition prohibits reoccupancy of vacant buildings on licensee-controlled property in Uravan unless certain criteria are met.
- 10. Technical Quality of Licensing Action The States should develop procedures for evaluating license applications and preparation of environmental assessments. The following guidelines should be covered in the States evaluation of the license application.
- a. Guidelines Licensing evaluations or assessments should include in-plant radiological safety aspects in occupational or restricted areas and environmental impacts to populations in unrestricted areas.from the plant.
{
1 I
i Reviewer Assessment Licensing evaluations and assessments include in-plant radiological safety aspects in occupational or restricted areas and environment 1 impacts to populations in unrestricted areas near the plant. The Department performs in-plant safety reviews,' environmental assessments and prepares a SER. These reports are compiled into one document, the Final Executive Licensing Review Summary (FELRS). This document provides a description of the Department's review process and summarizes the er.vironmental and health-related issues.
During the past years review, the SER for UMETCO's Uravan mill was reviewed. Several items were noted by the reviewer and discussed with Division Staff regarding random monitoring and the in-plant radiation monitoring program, there were r,o new SER's written since the last review.
- b. Guidelines It is expected that the State will develop and prepare an environmental evaluation and provide orderly documentation in the form of an Environmental Statement.
Reviewer Assessment A review of the RCD procedures for conducting an environmental evaluation showed complete details and supporting documentation for the respective license, in most cases. Since the environmental impact appraisal is not only a document utilized as technical support ;
for the granting of a license but can also provide additional {
clarification to any concerned parties, it was suggested that all details of the appraisal should be addressed. As a minimum, supporting data and calculations should be clearly outlined in the assessment or in the appendices to the astessment.
The Department develops a final environmental statement (FES) which j details all the environmental aspects of any uranium mill facility.
The review of the " Preliminary Executive Licensing Review Summary" (PELRS) for Uravan dated May 22, 1984, identified that no updated information was incorporated into the PELRS either by formal written memorandum or amendment. The reviewers recognize the RCD's actions are limited by the current hearing process. It was recommended, pending hearing results, that the RCD maintain an updated and current copy of the Uravan PELRS. The NRC reviewer's concerns are for the i timeliness of the PELRS and whether the PELRS is current to support I any future licensing actions. Therefore, any efforts by the RCD to l update the PELRS would be appropriate. ]
1
i F
\
3 The review of the Uravan license amendments numbers 21, 22, and 23 identified limited documentation supporting or substantiating the RCD's findings for each amendment. It was also identified that of the more than 10 license amendments issued by the RCD for the '
entire uranium mill program, since the last review, selected major amendments did not outline complete supporting documentation for the respective amendments. (It should be noted that the Cotter Amendment No. 19, denying licensee's request, was completely and appropriately documented.)
It was recommended that each license amendment be substantiated with supporting written documentation which specifies the licensee's request and the basis for the RCD's decision.
During the last review, a category II comment " Inspection Procedures" was made to the State. It was recommended that the Division develop and implement a procedure (similar to the Division's surety review procedure) for annual evaluations of the actual environmental data submitted by the licensee for the nearest resident at each of the operating mill facilities, for determination of compliance with 40 CFR 190. (See Appendix C, Volume II.)
At the time of the review, the RCD developed a written memorandcm entitled " Policy for an Annual Review of Compliance with Off-Site Dose Standards at Existing Facilities," which was effective on q
October 11, 1985. (This was recommended during the previous program ;
reviev.) However, based upon the review of Cotter Corporation and j Uravan's license and compliance files, the reviewer could not identify j if the RCD specifically identified and outlined a conclusion on I whether the respective licensees meet the 40 CFR 190 standards.
(A copy of an NRC memorandum for review of 40 CFR 190 compliance determination of an NRC uranium mill was provided to the RCD staff as guidance.)
The RCD should prepare written documentation which clearly identifies whether or not the mill licensees meet the 40 CFR 190 standards. The NRC evaluation provided to the RCD staff may provide appropriate guidance' as to content and completeness of a 40 CFR 190 evaluation. ,
, This was discussed with RCD staff and management and addressed as a category I indicator under this section. It should also be noted that the " Inspection Procedures," category II indicator was also addressed with regard to the specific 40 CFR 190 and 40 CFR 192 information not being contained in the inspection reports. (See ;
Section 12, " Coverage and Quality of Inspection.") This is a repeat comment and it was discussed with the RCD staff and addressed in the letter to Dr. Vernon. ,
i l
l
- - .l q
l
-c j i
At the time of this review, the only action taken by the RCD to )
implement 40 CFR 192 was a letter to affected licensees stating that l the RCD will use the standards in evaluating all current and future licensing actions. The RCD had not taken action to set groundwater-monitoring programs under 40 CFR 192 or corrective actions. It was identified that'the current mitigative actions of the licensees are not designed to clean up the groundwater, but are only to prevent further spread of contamination. It was recommended that the RCD request licenseas to propose specific groundwater background velues for their respective mills. If acceptable background values are known, then this should be done within 60 days from the day the letter was sent to the licensee. If acceptable background values are not known, then the licensee should be required to establish appropriate background values within a reasonable time period. These L actions could be accomplished in conjunction with the CERCLA proceed-ings which Colorado has. underway. This was discussed with RCD staff and management and was addressed in the letter to Dr. Vernon.
- c. Guidelines .
Financial surety arrangements should include the amount of surety for decommissioning the mill site, stabilizing and reclaiming tailings and maintenance and monitoring after site closure.
Reviewer Assessment The State has requirements for surety arrangements for all uranium mills and tailings activities within the State. The State's policy on annual review of financial assurance agreements is contained in the NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files. The surety arrangements for UMETCO's Uravan mill were evaluated during this review and appeared to be appropriate.
The possibility of the encumbrance of sureties for uranium mills in Colorado was discussed during the review meeting. The management staff in the Department of Health believes the existing surety arrangements are adequate, in all likelihood, based on opinions from the legal staff in the Attorney General's office.
- 11. Status of Inspection Program
- a. Guidelines Periodic inspections of licensed uranium concentrator operations are essential to assure that activities are being conducted in compliance with regulatory requirements and consistent with good safety '
practices.
1 L__.____.______________________._ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ .
Reviewer Assessment Periodic inspections of licensed uranium concentrator operations are' being conducted in accordance with state priority system and procedures are acceptable and appear consistent with good safety practices.
- b. Guidelines !
A complete inspection should be performed at least once per year.
Reviewer Assessment Complete . inspections of uranium facilities are performed at least once per year. Since June 4, 1984, the RCD performed inspections on eight uranium concentrators (two are inactive sites), five inactive sites, four miscellaneous. It was noted that the Uravan mill is in the middle of a six month grace period. The last inspection was conducted in July 1984.
- c. Guidelines State RCP should maintain an inspection program a#quate to assess licensee compliance with State regulations and license conditions.
Reviewer Assessment The RCD has an inspection program adequate to assess licensee compliance with Colorado regulations and respective license conditions. The State's licensing man:gement staff places specific and detailed conditions in the license rather than to leave them in general tie-down conditions. This assures that specific items are covered during any inspections,
- d. Guidelines The RCP should maintain statistics which are adequate to permit Program Management to assess the status of the inspection program on a periodic basis. Information showing the number of inspections conducted, the number overdue, the length of time overdue and the priority categories should be readily available.
Reviewer Assessment The RCD staff maintains statistics on all the licensed uranium j facilities and provides this information to program management. The information lists each uranium facility, the date the inspection was last conducted, the date for the next inspection, and fee category.
I
f 1
(Copies are'available in the NRC Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.)
- 12. Coverage and Quality of Inspection -
Guideline As a minimum, items which should be inspected or included during the inspection of'a uranium mill should adhere to the items evaluated in the j in-plant safety review. ,
Reviewer Assessment The State has developed adequate inspection procedures for uranium facilities. A new pre-inspection guide in the form of a checklist contairing the 11censee's complete compliance history and significant correspondence subjects was developed by Mr. Kray and utilized during the Cotter Corporation inspection. This format or cuide provides an excellent.
method for conducting a conventional uranium miT1 inspection, and can be utilized during future inspections.
During the week of September 9-13, 1985, an accompaniment of Messrs. K. Weaver and E. Kray was conducted to Cotter Corporation, Canon City. convention uranium mill. Details were addressed in memorandum from Mr. R. S. Heyer to Colorado files dated September 20, 1985. (See Appendix E, Volume II.) As described in the discussion section of the memorandum, a policy issue with regard to the use of the licensee's inspection and irdernal audit reports and the State inspector citing those items that were subsequently corrected was discussed. As of this review, the RCD has drafted a preliminary policy guide referencing appropriate 10 CFR 2, Appendix B, Part IV A sections. (Copies of NRC enforcement policy and guidance was provided to the RCD staff.) This should be looked 1 at during the next scheduled program review. This issue was discussed with program management, and the reviewer encouraged the development of ;
the internal policy in order that inspection enforcement and escalated enforcement policy and procedures are clearly addressed.
An inspection file was reviewed for UMETCO Minerals Corporation (Uravan) located in Montrose County, inspection ns dated July 9-13, 1984, to determine the scope and adequacy of the 1. oection program for uranium concentrators. Only a few minor comments were made and discussed with the RCD staff. The report was dated January 10, 1985, and contained 18 items of noncompliance and 22 items of concern. These were sent to the licensee in an enforcement letter dated January 10, 1985. The overall inspection was well detailed and complete.
An examination of the State's inspection files revealed that inspections committed to by the licensee appear to follow the provisions of Regulatory Guide 3.11.1.
T Two incidents were evaluated during this review; the final response and licensee action to the Cotter mixed waste incident and a CCD thickener rupture discharging 225,000 gallons of slurry into the catchment system.
Both incidents appeared to have been followed up appropriately anc -
resolved (with corrective actions) in a timely fashion. (See Appendix D.
Volume.II.)
The most recent inspection reports for Cotter and Uravan mills did not document inspection findings regarding compliance with 40 CFR 190 and 40 CFR 192 standards.
It was recommended in order to ensure licensee's conformance to the respective standards and in order to identify whether the licensee maintains appropriate documentation, as committed by the licensee to the RCD, the RCD inspector should document findings in the inspection report with respect to 40 CFR 190 and 40 CFR 192. This will ensure complete documentation from the initial licensing action through to the final compliance detennination.
- 13. Operational Data Review (Criteria 35d)
Guidelines In addition to the reporting requirements required by the regulations er
. license conditions,.the licensee will submit in writing to the regulatory agency within 60 days after January 1 and July 1 of each year, reports specifying the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and in gaseous effluents during the previous 6 months of operation. This data shall be reported in a manner that will permit the regulatory agency to confirm the potential annual radiation doses to the public. '
All data from the radiological and non-radiological environmental monitoring program will also be submitted for the same time periods and frequency. The data will be reported in a manner that will allow the regulatory agency to conform the dose to receptors.
Reviewer Assessment A policy for the EPA's 40 CFR 190 monitoring requirements was developed by the State and is apparently conducted by State licensees. The RCD appears to utilize predictive modeling based on the UDAu and MILDOS computer codes. In addition, the RCD conducts environmental monitoring at the licensee's facilities. The RCD has developed an environmental monitoring program for all major uranium facilities within the State. The State's soil contamination guidance policy is available in NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
I _%
It was noted by the reviewer that a licensee only has to report to the NFC when the 40 CFR 190 standards have been exceeded (10 CFR 20.403(c)).
Therefore, it is necessary that all facilities need to demonstrate ,
compliance with 10 CFR 190 in the' positive sense to a:sure that the respective facilities are indeed meeting EPA standards.
During the previous review and comment to the State recommended that the Division develop and implement a procedure (similar to the Division's surety review precedure) for annual evaluations of the actual environmental data submitted by the licensee for the nearest resident at each of the operating mill facilities, for determination of compliance with 40 CFR 190.
During this review, it was identified that an internal policy (Appendix C) has been developed for determining that 40 CFR 190 monitoring is being conducted by State licensee. However, it remains unclear that the RCD has addressed whether the licensee is in compliance with the inspection EPA standards.. (This was discussed with RCD staff and addressed in the letter to Dr. Vernon.)
The RCD requires, per license condition, that the licensee submit, at least annually but sometimes quarterly, reports specifying the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released.to unrestricted areas in liquid and in gaseous effluents during the previous period of operation.
As addressed under the " Technical Quality of Licensing Actions" section, it was not clear if the RCD has established any groundwater monitoring background values. This concern was discussed with RCD staff and management and addressed in the letter to Dr. Vernon.
- 24. Instrumentation and Laboratory Facilities (Criterion 36)
Guideline The State should have available both field and laboratory instrumentation sufficient to ensure the licensee's control of materials and to validate the licensee's measurements. .-
Arrangements should be made for calibrating such equipment.
Laboratory-type instrumentation should be available in a State agency or through a commercial service which has the capability for quantitative and qualitative analysis of radionuclides associated with natural uranium and its decay chain, primarily. U-238. Ra-226. Th-230, Pb-210, and Rn-222, in ;
a variety of sample media such as will be encountered from n i environmental sampling program.
I
.i Analysis and data reduction from laboratory analytical facilities should be available to the ifcensing and inspection authorities in a timely manner. Normally, the data should be available within 30 days of submittal. State acceptability of quality assurance (QA) programs shoulti also be established for the analytical laboratories.
Arrangements should also be completed so that a large number of samples in a variety of sample media resulting from a major accident can be analyzed in a time frame that will allow timely decisions to be made regarding public health and safety.
Arrangements should be made to participate in the Environmental Protection Agency quality assurance program for laboratory performance.
Reviewer Assessment The RCD has available both field and laboratory equipment and instruments for validating the licensee's measurements. (See Appendix E of Volume I.)
In addition, the RCD has developed specific guidelines for obtaining laboratory analyses of samples which are necessary for the completion of inspections.
The RCD inspectors perform independent measurements during each inspection using specific instrumentation to determine or confirm the validity of the licensee's measurements. The survey instruments are calibrated by RCD staff members every 3 months on a calibration range using a Co-60 source.
The range is calibrated using an air ionization chamber where calibration is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards.
The Department of Health's laboratory contains adequate equipment as committed to in the State's amended agreement request. The laboratory performs analyses of gross alpha, gross beta, gamma scan, Ra-226 and total uranium in water, and dissolved Rn-222.
The turnaround time for samples can be as low as 24-48 hours once priority has been established. Wipe cample results can be obtained as soon as necessary. The soil and water samples have a turnaround time of approximately 30 days. In cases where an emergency response incident has occurred, the results can be obtained immediately.
In general, the data from the samples submitted by the inspectors are ,
available no later than the issuance of the final inspection report.
The laboratory participates in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) quality assurance program for laboratory performance.
I
- 15. General Comments On October 24, 1985, an introductory meeting was held between Mr. K. Ward, Assistant Attorney General (and prosecutor assigned to the Cotter -
Corporation litigation), Messrs. A. Hazie, D. Brown, and E. Kray and NRC representatives Messrs. D. Sollenberger, D. Nussbaumer and R. Heyer.
The meeting focused primarily on the extensive involvement by the State's Attorney General and RCD staff in the Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) cases.
Mr. Ward discussed the history of the suit (originally filed in December 1983 along with seven other suits including UMETC0) and addressed issues specific to Cotter Corporation. It is the NRC reviewer's understanding that a trial date has been tentatively set for May 1986.
The meeting provided the reviewer with a better overall view of the extensivetechnical(aswellaslegal)stafftimeandeffortinvolvedwith CERCLA associated activities. It appears that the staff effort will continue to be utilized at least until the trial date.
l
l 1
l l )
' APPENDIX TITLE A Financial Assurance Arrangements <
B Staffing Level Information I l C 40 CFR 190 Policy Memorandum i l
1 D Incident Files E Uranium Mill Accompaniment O
F o
COLORADO URANIUM MILL FINANCIAL ASSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS AS OF OCTOBER 1985 -
~ FACILITY PURPOSE ' TYPE COMPANY. AMOUNT
- 1., Cotter TO Surety Bond .Aetna Ins. 510,000,000*** 1979 Dollars Canon City, CO- '($10,900,000 unofficial) 1984 Dollars
DDR Security Aetna ins, $ 68,000. 1979 Dollars
-/greement LTC** Cash Fund at $ 210,000 1979 Dollars State Treasurer as of 6/30/83
$ 329,383.49 1983 Dollars
- 2. . Cotter Schwartz DDR Surety Bond Aetna Ins. $ 663,879*** 1982 Dollars Golden, C0
$ 419,646 1984 Dollars as of 10/85 Cotter DDR Surety Bond Aetna Ins. $ 250,000 1979 Dollars Whitewater, CO as of 10/85
$ 373,426 1984 Dollars 4.. HECLA DDR Surety Bond U.S. Fidelity $ 60,227 1977 Dollars Naturita, CO & Guaranty Co.
LTC Securities at Duquesne Power. Inforncion State Treasurer & Light Co. Pending El' Paso Elec.
- 5. UCC/UMETCO DDR Letter of Manufacturers $ 1,360,000 1981 Dollars Me,ybell, C0 Credit Hanover Trust Co.
LTC Letter of Manufacturers $ 459,200 1981 Dollars Credit Hanover Trust Co.
.6. . UCC/UMETCO DDR Financial $24,87t.,500 1979 Dollars Uravan, CO Assurance (now 1
Tests & $31,686,000) 1984 Dollars Agreement LTC None None
- Decommissioning, Decontamination ar;d Reclamation
+*. Long term care
- Some work performed since instatement APPENDIX A )
1
.NRC R;vi~J 1985 ^
f Docusent 29935 Dick 0135A -
t
' DATA TO DETERMINE STAFF YEARS IFFORT FOR URANIUM MILL PROGRAM' N -w _ - - .
'.1. - 8 specif'ieany-licensed uranium mills / concentrators.
1 Cotter Canon City Mill Cotter Schwartzwalder Sorter Cotter Whitewater OBS
/ Hecla Naturita Leach Heaps -
Sweeney Soulder Sorter dUmeteo Maybe11 Imach Heaps o / Umatco Rifle IX ,
Umateo Uravan Mill 3 fuactive' sites on the same specific license as above.
Umetco Rifle inactive site new pile Umeteo Maybe11 inactive site Hecla Naturita inactive site Also 1 inactive site seneran rlicensed & included above.
Umeteo Rifle inactive site old. pile 4 separate specifically-licensed inactive sites (5 licenses).
Foote Naturita inactive mill site l
Hecla Durango inactive mill site Shumway Grand Junction inactive mill site UCC/Useteo Slick Rock inactive mill sites (2)
Also 1 additional menerally-licensed inactive site Gunnison inactive mill site 2 specifically-licensed uranium decay series " NORM" sites.
Allied Boulder. Radium inactive site Homestake Pitch Radium treatment plant 4 generally-licensed or specific license application uranium decay series " NORM" sites.
Cyprus Minerals Radium sludges i Foote Newmire former Vanadium mill site ,
Gateway former Vanadium mill aite
'Molycorp sorter
-)
i APDENDIX B I
- NRC R;vicw 1985 Document 29933 Disk 0135A l
l
- 2. New conventional mills and new in situ operations.
No pending applications, no assessments, no FIE.
- 3. N Number of major renewals for conventional mills and . --
in-situ operations.
2 pending, 2 assessments in progress, 0.5 FIE (0.1 Weaver, 0.1 Kray, 0.1 Junge/ CGS, 0.05 Stephens, 0.05 Jones, other agencies 0.1).
Cotter Canon City UCC/Umeteo Uravan
. 4. Number of major amendments for conventional mills and in-situ operations.
4 pending, 4 assessments, 0.3 FIE (0.1 Weaver, 0.05 Kray, 0.05 Junge/ CGS, 0.05 Stephens, 0.05 Jones)
Canon City ground water barrier Canon City monitoring upgrade Uravan Spring Creek Mesa Uravan acnitoring upgrade
- 5. Applications for new facilities other than conventional mills and
(
in situ operations. (e.g. , heap leach, pilot projects, etc.).
1 not being actively process, 0.0 FTE.
Union 76 Molycorp
- 6. Major reuevals for facilities other than conventional mills and in-situ operations (e.g. , beap leach, pilot projects, etc.).
5 renewals, all active to sL2e degree, 0.2 FTE (0.05 Weaver, 0.1 Kray, 0.05 Junge/ CGS).
Cotter Whitewater Hecla Naturita Sweeney Boulder Umeteo Maybe11 Umeteo Rifle j j
- 7. Major amendments for facilities other than conventional mills and i in-situ operations (e.g. , heap leach, pilot projects, etc.). I N3ne.
I
P
!NRC Review 19857
-Decument 29938.
EDick 0135A
- 8. Minor. administrative _ amendments being worked on for uranium mills. .
- 12. pending,' O.1 FIE
' (0.05 Weaver, 0.05 Kray).
~
Cotter Canon City financial assurance arrangements..
N . Cotter Schwartzwalder financial assurance arrangement -
Cotter. Whitewater financial assurance arrangements.
Foote Naturita financial assurance arrangements.
Hecla.Durango conversion.
Becle'Naturita conversion.
Heela Naturita ofinancial assurance arrangements.
Hecla Naturita monitoring.
U0C/Umetco Maybe11 financial assurance arrangements.
UCC/Usetco Maybell monitoring.
UCC/Useteo Uravan A22' appeal.
UCC/Usetco Uravan A24 town radiological.
- 9. Technical and professional FTE working on environmental monitoring and I review of environmental' data.
0.2 FTE (0.1 Kray, 0.1 laboratory)
- 10. FTE inspecting uranium mills and concentrators.
0.65 FTE
-(0.1 Weaver, 0.5 Kray, 0.05 Junge/CG'S). .
0.25 FIE *
(A. Nebiett) l
-12. Clerical FIE supporting the uranium mill program.
0.25 FTE (M. Shull)
- 13. Managerial FTE supporting the 9.ranium mill program.
0.2 FTE (0.1 Weaver, 0.05 Jacobi,. 0.05 Hazle) i 1
Ik . ' 3RC 1eview' 1985 '-
l4 '!Dorume nt"29933 e 1 Dick 0135A y ,
FUNCTIONALhUMMARY F FTE Staff FTE Outside FTE Totals Licensing 0,6 0.5 1.1 .
i ..
. 9 Compliance; 0. 8 0.05 -
~N5 Mgt/ Legal /' O.45 0.25 0.7 Clarical
-- TOTAL 1.85 - 0.8 2.65
- r.
D 9
6-m_ _i__ m. E __ - . - - - -
H COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH RADIATION CONTROL DIVISION Page 1 of 2 Revision 0 r Approved by: M [ Date: I,[ ineffective: OeM// /f/f m i- y, ,
c/
POLICY ON ANNUAL REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE
- WIIrt UrP-51lL-UU5L 51 ANUARD5 AT EXISTING FACIL11It5 .
~ .
-1.0
Purpose:
To establish procedures- for annual determination of l compliance with off-site dose license requirements (EPA's 40 CFR 190). -
2.0 Schedule
March 31, September 30 Deadline for submission by licensee of semi-annual environmental monitoring reports.
June 30 Deadline for completion of initial RCD review of previous years data and issuance of compliance assessment memorandum.
September 30 Deadline for licensee to detemine corrective action responsive to Department memorandum.
November 30 Deadline for issuance, if needed, cf license amendment specifying corrective action program, December 31 Deadline for licensee to implement necessary changes in procedures.
3.0 Review Policy:
3.1 The licensee's environmental monitoring and analysis program (EMAP) will be reviewed annually by the Division for adequacy. .
1 3.2 Dose calculations shall be based on the annual cverages of the site specific data as reported in the two most recent j semi-annual EMAP reports or an annual summary.
3.3 Compliance wil' be detemined by calculation of the dose commitment to ,he nearest off-site resident and/or the ,
resident determined to receive the maximal effect from the mill's octivi:1es.
3.4 Calculations will be done using the assumptions and !
factors in Attachment A of NUREG-0859, " Compliance -
i Determination Procedures for Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Uranium Recovery Facilities, ~~
40 CFR 190" and RG 3.5.1, " Calculational Models for' Estimating Radiation Doses to Man from Airborne Radioactive Materials Resulting from Uranium Milling Operations. " Any deviations by the licensee from the above methods will require documentation and verification.
APPENDIX C i
L COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH RADIATION CONTROL DIVISION Pace 2 of 2 , _
Revision 0 Approved by:[ h k h Date:[de[f /N8 Effective:bd'M Mh' lw i y
l and its progeny,and all possible pathways wilW . -
j considered. Pcsitive sampling and analytical l
documentation will be required from any licensee claiming l absence of a pathway (vegetable ingestion, for example). i l
l 3.6 Compliance will be detemined from representative calculations based on recent EMAP data. Computer projections will be accepted only in support of these tigures, when additions for which no monitoring date is available, or in support of corrective action proposals.
4.0 Non-Compliance
4.1 If a determination of non-compliance is made, the licensee shall be afforded a period not greater than three months to detemine the appropriate corrective action.
4.2 The corrective action program shall be incorporated into the license by amendment.
5.0 Summary Report:
E.1 Copies of correspondence will routinely be provided to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission and other interested agencies upon request.
5.2 A brief report sumarizing the results of the annual review will be prepared by the Division and made available to interested parties.
- 6. 0 Fees:
6.1 The licensee will be assessed fees for the review based on the Departmer.t's current hourly rates. Such fees for staff review time, and for any consultation and computation time, will be charged to the annual inspection account.
EK/KLKW/AJH .
m._..___ ._
i b COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Radiation Contrni Division I!CER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION TO: Ken Weaver DATE: October 3, 1984 FROM: Edd Kray
SUBJECT:
Cotter Mixed Waste Response
, 'w<.
. 'ka -
The Cotter Corporation letter of May 24, 1984 outlines the corrae+4ve actions the company plans to take in response to the Department's citations of noncompliance in our lettet of April 19, 1984. My initial opinions regarding the acceptability of their response are outlined below.
- 1. Item 1 was a general citation of the overexposure. Cotter's response was also genersi indicating that they were not expected and protective
_ equipment was used. Although I do not understand the relevance of the caragraph discussing an " adjustment for-Kic", rhe responsa is acceptable when combined with the details given subsequently.
- 2. The corrective action's proposed in order to eli=inate tardiness in the filing of overexposure notifications are acceptable. It should be noted that Cotter notified the Department of an overexposure on April 5, 1984, approximately 20 days subsequent to the overexposure of March 15th. The inclusion of the Corporate Health and Safety director in the process seems wise.
- 3. Cotter's response regarding employee notification is acceptable.
4 Cetter's response to Item 4 is acceptable. Not much can be said over and above what they have committed to here.
- 5. Although Cotter's response to citation #5 addresses procedures they will use to avoid overerposures in the future, they do not address the major point here which is the problem of management not taking action to prevent the continuation of overerposures once they are identified.
- 6. Cotter's co=mitment to written RSO reports to mill management regarding any items of non-compliance noted in weekly inspections is responsive to the problem noted in citation #6. As per LC 23.2, the RSO has the authority to delegate weekly inspections to other members of his staff.
In this particular incident and contrary to the statements within this submittal, little, if any, mention of . radiation safety inspections were included in the various log books. This is a recurrance of an item of concern noted in the Department's December 1983 annual inspection. Item 4 of the RSO's draf t evaluation addresses this problem adequately.
APPENDIX D
__m____m _ _ _ _ _
.s F LIOC K. W2cvar '
LJuno 6 1984' Page 2
- 7. Cotter management appears to. be hesitant to confer upon the RSO the full
' authority to halt mill operations when situations comprising radiation
' safety hazards become apparent. The continual use of wordings such as "RSO will immediately advise mill management. . . . ." indicates this.
~.. LC 11.33 explicitly includes management in the decision-gpking process.
RC 8.31 states "The RSO should have both t,he responsibility and authority, through appropriate line management, to suspend, postpone or modify any work activity that is unsafe or potentially a violation of the Commission's regulations or li:ense conditions, including the ALARA program".- --
Based on the above, NRC also includes..managemant in the decision and therefore, Cotter's statement is acceptable. The Departmental position, !
in this specific case, may differ and should be discussed.
The new. March'30,1984 license application states: "the RSO is responsible for stopping new work upon the discovery of a condition that 1
may be deleterious to the continued haalth and safety of employees or the general public." Herein, no mention of other management is made.
Nevertheless, the May 24th response indicates that in this case, the I decision to continue th.e operation originated in "the corporate office." /. gain, we see that the problem was primarily with management and not so much with mill personnel and/or the radiation safety staff.
8.- - No procedures or commitments have been stated indicating Cotter will abide by LC 11.33.2-14 in filling out all RWPs with post-task evaluations. (A separate document is not called 'for-only completion of l the original RWP.)
- 9. Cotter's justification for the use of the gross alpha data in place of TH-230 was unnecessary --the substitution was conservative ~and acceptable. Cotter's implementation of the quality assurance program as included in the 3/30/84 license application will be sufficient to correct the violation cited in Item 9.
- 10. Cotter's response to Item 10 appears acceptable. It is again necessary .
for us to stress the Department's very strict interpretation of LC 15.1: "Any additions or changes to the facilities as presently licensed that would have a significant human health or environmental impact" must be submitted for review and approval. ,
Items of Concern
- 1. Procedures documented within the license application of 3/30/84 plus commitments included in the May 24th response indicate that the Cotter RWP procedures will be adequate to meet Departmental requirements and eliminate incidents of thic type in the future. The expanded RWP procedures contain guidelines requiring considerable forethought prior to issuance.
.IOC - K. W rv2r g"
.Junt 6, 1984: .
I Psge 3 g
- 2. . The additional urinalysis and-in-vivo assays committed to by Cottet will be-sufficient in satisfying Departmental requirements in relation to item-of concern #2.
^
- 3. ' Item' 3 ' deals with the actions of Cotter management during this .
s incident. ~Here the same rationale as expressed in previous
' communications is. restated in order to justify their actions. . At this point (after the fact) discussion of the suitability *of ' Cotter's,-
arguments is perhaps fruitless. The important thing is to determine whether suitable procedures exist to preclude the recurrence of a similar situation.
Cotter is correct in stating that a similar situation is highly unlikely. Additionally, commitments made within thfe euk d**-' =ad *h-3/30/84 license application provide further safeguards preventing a
~
- repeat incident.
Summary ,,
- 1. The majority of Cotter's remedial actions are adequate in meeting Departmental requirements and providing means to reduce the. probability' of overexposure lin future operations.
- 2. The radiation safety staff evaluation of the incident is particularly
'well done. The recommendations should be instituted by Cotter maragement without further delay.
3.- If any concern remains, it. relates to Cotter management and their commitment to principles'of radiation safety. Although in several portions of the submittal they indicated that it might have been better to: " consult with the Department", " notify. the Department"., " apply for RH 4.4.3 exemption", " apply for judicial relief", " undertake a more extensive evaluation" etc., they evade the making of commitments putting radiation safety in its' place of primary importance.
The management submission still retains its position of management control over RSO authority for operations shutdown. As noted above, the new plant procedures manual does rtipulate an RSO authority consonant with the' Division's position. Further discussion within the Department
may be necescary on this key issue. -
l EK/ms Signaturp l
l l
k
' '~
~v r~; q z- m .g ; - - -
"",;~
, gg f, . % -
k =
'( c . ,e , e< -
- e D 4 4 6 3 0 3 e 2.3 3 4 3 i e
.g=., . sh h] 'h] )()]
, [h{} ' 0309 wtST aLabetDa Paanwat $ U f f t 2 01 kanEw000, COLOmaDO 30326 a
l ' , .'- p[f L
.* '. Genern!"(Iffice May 24, 1984 l
.MN Albert J. Hazle, Director- ~"-
- Radiation Control Division -
Colorado Department of' Health 4210 East lith Avenue Denver . Colorado 80220
Dear Mr. Hazle:
=
This-transmittal is being submitted in response to your letter dated April ~19. 1984. We have attempted to address, as completely as possible, each of the items you delineated. In addition, we have implemented measures to assure that a'similar situation will not occur in the future.
' The operation 'which led to the overexposure was a unique process devel-oped .for the peculiar- type of' cross-contaminated waste found at the mill.
It was the unique nature of the process which resulted in several. decisions which in retrospect could have been different. Based on U formation developed during extensive research tests conducted to provide full-scale design parameters, Cetter did not predict that overexposure would result.
We therefore believed that the precautions taken were conservative. When we realized that.the operation would cause overexposure, we concluded that it would be worse to stop the operation than to continue it because the PCB. rules would have required the material to be rebarrelled and put
.back in the PCB permanent storage facility. This activity could have caused even greater overexposure.
In hindsight, it would have been more prudent to have consulted w'th *,he Department before starting the operation and to have notified the nerart-ment once the overexposure were discovered. While all of the license conditions and regulations cited in your letter were considered, Cotter could have been even more deliberate in the measures taken.
- Since the operation has been completed, we cannot take any additional H correc+,1ve measures regarding the operation itself. The corrective
.m asures.which have been taken, or will be taken, and which are described fully .in the ::ttachment. 'are oriented towards those individuals who experienced the overexposure and tqwards procedures which will be adopted by. Cotter to assure tnt. should any similar situation occur in the future, decisions will be e.ade whiv.1 the Department will accept as -
being in full compliance with license conditions and the regulations.
In considering arsy further actions, we urge the Department to bear in mind that.the decisions made during the operation were in part due to a good faith attempt to comply with the compulsions of the PCB regulatory scheme. Rather than ignore the problem of the mixed waste, Cotter j
i i
Cotter Corporation !
)
~
Mr. Albert J. Hazie May 24,1984 j
.Page Two e
daveloped a.prr.;ess which allowed proper disposal. Cotter has spent a y substantial ariount af money to dispose of the mixed waste safely and 1g properly. Ott er companies have simply ignored similar wastes by advising ,W o. {
EPA that there is nething that can be done with the wastes. Please Q l 1
appreciate that'an ei.Ormous effort in time ar.d resources was undertaken to separate the radionu:lides from PCBs.successfully. "
WD trust that this suomittal addresses fully all of the items in your d
, letter. It should be noted that nothing contained in this transmittal @ "'D g
". /
should be construed as an admission of any alleged item of noncompliance.
If you wish any additional information or further explanation, p ease contact us.
Sincerely.
s GU(TCON A. O. Courtney Director of Environmental Affairs AOC/th l
l l
S
- TLV's For Non-Standard ~
l, Work Schecu'es l
l L h4 LOWE arid D 3 CHAMBER $
1 As attack by R. lutiecei (pE Nov *g2)' dancuaned the is of this type, with as additional factor related,to the ratio g problems of aansuing me hasards of worten esposed to sir- of the recovery periods for the poo-standard sad standard borne cossammaats dutsag non-senadard wort schedules. In 8-hr wort days.. .s - ~~-
some industries. 6e traditional 8-kr wort day is bemg re- The province of Omario'has suggested that a correction placed by 10 or 12-br days and shortened wort weats, in besor to normal espneus tmum enn be eskvland by divalang $
ether industri $ workers spend 10 to 12 hrIday. 7 day s/wk she cumulative weedy capomuk by 40 where the cumulative .
se 6e job wiei aherness weeks away from weet. While such weekly espears - C Te + C To + - + Cm Tm and i
wort schatiles masally resuh in appresimmaely he same mem- T., T., ~.. Tmare the times in hours during which a worker har of hours of esposure per year, k is eppanni that these is esponed a conmemrocons Ci Co. ~. Cmrespectvely dur- ,
schedules affect the opportunity for wo hers as absorb con- ing a work week.nis factor is an slesman form of the week-namaanes at wert and to elsmaaese it.em deneg thne away ly =Jjv.u..d4 f ;;& r.;;;;;: Luna. ,
The National Ins,sute for Occupational Safety and Hestth (
frors work. '
The Dreshold IJak Values (TLY's) reenswasaded by the (NIOSH)',-_-m ./ adjusement of the TLV in siametsom American Conferemos of Governmensat and laduesrial Hy- where the tisme weigheed esposure eaceeds I hriday or 40 giesists (AC01H)8 are oAem used la asesieg ooropotionni hr/wk. For an 84.hr week, such as that proposed for ceruin esposure limia. De TLY's sehr specifestly a time. ,erwm mining communities (7 doya/wk.12 hr/dayl the NIOSH adjusenes of the TLY's would reauk in their lower- j weighted everage air sonnestrassoas for sa 8.hr day. 40-hr week. The TLV's ase est at levels to whkh asarty at merkers ing by a factor of 40/54 or to less than half of the TLV for i may be repeessupy esposed wahois adverse effect. Implick . a normal work week.
in this mhnanna is the esaumpasos of a balamos ibat saiss None of the above makes specific recommendations for beween abs aonnestados of annamnenssion in the body while adjustag the TLV's is the case of a longer than norma!
a vors and she eJimianuos c,f essesmaation frr.m the body work ureek fogowed by a koger than sormal time away frors wiuk away from work (assurned to be a period of no espo- esposure.
are). Because of shame asaampurma, it is appropriate to con- Brief arrj Scale 8nrat introduced a model which takes ac.
sider whs6er and no what catant the TLV's regaire modifca- coum oflonger sapeure pereds and shorter recovery pern4 taon due m te introduction of non-siandard work schedules. than occur in the normal work day and wort week. i.e. the luliucci provided a formula n) convert the I-hr YLV's to normal 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> c. a wort.16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> off work per day and 40 TLV*# _pproprians for a 12.hr daily expceure.The formula. dsys at wort,12* hours off work per week. Again, their based os en: sed. akas encount of the surr6er of acekmg hours model does not tah escific accours of the sintetion where par def es daily recovery hours (tame away from worki employees will be cut of esperure every other *cek. Es.
and the msmber of woridays per week. Only a 12 hr/dey, sension of their model to compu.s the adjustmens factors on 4 days /w) achedule was considered in detail. Ho ever, as the basis of the aversge dah and weekly esposare cabitated noted previously. sher tw* standard work schedules e.rr be- over a two week work cycle, which would result in less re.
ing mtroduced to varicus industries. Din artsele prewnis a strictive adjustment factors. might be open to critietsm.
bnef review of some approuhes thes have been suggested to modify 8-hr TLV's to an) work schedule.
Get tral fnOdelt Other models have been proposed by Roach ** and by
- Sltftple FBtle ffbOdele Hackey and Reist". Both of these models are based on The assurnpuon that the pr'oduct of the concentration of similar assumptions conceming the tniildup of a forergn s.ab-a contaminant (C) and the duration of esposure (T) (i.e. the mance in the body at various rates ofinske, and on its rate
.ru a consinnt effect on the body is the besis of elimination from the body. Not unexpectedly. the formu-done C a T.
I of the aumples modsk for adjuning the TLV.These snodels las, developed by Roach and by Hickey and Reist are alge attenpt to provide she name degree of prometion no a worker breice!!y samner. hough not identical. However, they do pro-during e special saponste scheduk as that primded by she duce the same reauks when applied to a peruentar situation.
TLV for a norma! 8-kr day 5 day work week. On terreral of a persos frees a cosaaminand environment.
la these models, there,is a daily adjustment beter that is the concesersdom of tie contaminant la the body falls espo-eascatial}y the ratio of the time workad .in sa S-br day to the nonta!!y with a biologhal half life of Tg the time required time worked la a day in the speelal schedule. Similarty, a for she body no ehmmes ariehalf of a dosage of any m>bsinace weedy adjustrnest factor is baand on'the ratio of the tirne by r* gular processes of elirainatios. .
worked in a 40 br week to the tiene worted during a week Ur der conditicms of pruant intaka, the body burden will in abe non-saandard schachtle, he daily and weeUy adjust- incresee until a level is reached where iotake equals enero-ment fscers can be e,ebined to estimate as over 2! adjvoo don l.c. the body burden reaches a smie of equilibrium. To mass factor. For saample, for a work work consiaang of three protect henhh, this level must be kept below that which casses _
12.hr days, she adpaamana fasser la 8/12 a #M6 = 0.74 injury se the body or to the urget organ. Esposure to a sub-er a feduction of he TLY by about 26 pereent. .
(# etance in air at its TLV for five 8-br days /wk (** norma!"
u . e u.. .. .... a . ,,,, ,,,,,,, % ,the T!.V's \ esomre) seauhe in some body knardan which by capgnmenm!
~
M 1!
@. M.l y > m. . ,e. s-@ .- . k[n. I M*
s .
N D.
I
. I. - .
,i -
- - -- ~ - :-.- ,4 c- y ,.. A &p*ey '.g me .n A.
$W 6- R.u.e.4 b e : Ay. a.,
em; r 17 M.,, 1 r- -
uo y,
h .
x i.
Wa,,.
A.o *M'M n.tr ;b su e= F" a ;*; ;--a--"'
, *'.. t y.
uwegen Denn .ea ,ae +A .
ps- t g an .
e, sr pl
,a*hp , .J , . h W. t " '
~ y
- E4: r>sd j wuro===
s n.,ni. u, ,.i. W.g .way&cr.
.w . .~su *- - 8--
_4 ,
8nushabas ii. -0 3. w
. M .ie , get e.m.d.
t g..
1
- d. .,
- u. .
4 jl
]
. ;, - -f Jeheeubs A: Seen 13Jir doye tutowef Dr ? seye et d.
3 sessute C: grou,10.h esye tutowed Dr 3 core e4
'fT C.uc slamkl N taicn us wksamg an appvorrute half his su %-
. phwrsatum or by esperserwe has hcen found so prentuce two
.ms parta cla nuati..n ~6-
.miserv heahh elfesn. The n==lch of Rnach arkt os Hn key and kcas, mhnh are h.; sed am the espmential ebnunatum t he sh. ape of the s urses m the 1 igute n quahtativei) easy $ ,
of the sotuanusuist tran the Nidy de e its biol.ephal full to ssi. lam 1.= ishst.ui60s mists s(rg si .es luti hve=, the im ely @ {
Norden re.m hcs olmhbtnun a uh anherne sewgyner.alems ser) *d l itse sterove J pe6 ul espnure lmut, esprewed as a des mul
.n.liuquacnt t.ictor ir ratna, whmch when unihiphed by the ll.V sapally aesi e (s.cntully erahIventeen of theifur.itena ul esp. d I y n l.h .m .urtmime vorsyner.num th.d pmv ales the sanic iterriv
.urc No lausimcus ol de 'lI.V es nescwat y i;or cont.eam (4
..a pioecetum m the specut m.ork sdu; nam as that pr.o sted sunt. m.tli wmiculut laniger half locs the Nsly burJen m. y s waws u nh c.n h esp.aute a'al n ewies wupletely chminated g
8 3 shc TI.V for normal carmnure, "
'I he perietal formula for Roash's nmglei f usmg ha nennen. Juring the ..st esp.nure hour Rstaine to the standard M br 3 shdt. shsh lus kmper oil cspnuts perieml% the TI,V .Jwauk!
staturel n.
he him er l'or s ces b.nr half. lites, the substatice es nl.a eh. 3 g, (1 e'IJar l.c'INaH lme* f a) t l .e Ibkag 1.c@au 1.e eaui [ e n.s tuinJted fri.m . lee Nadt ist all ash) the result. ant h.%h hurden
,4,,g,,,,p,,g,,,,,,',,,,g,ygo,,,,,,,,,,,,p,,,, _ gn, c y 7-
"'C '"'d' """""' C ' I * ""'# " "" d'# d " d EV "PP'"' ""d l'
% here M = .ni tustment factor u.
the sanic toi all m.n k =s inilulc% shc ll V reiluires lutte ..t a
- I.m 2l. = O toO in .nl nessiis i sis T u, T.4 Thn Immol.: n pcucial. It the he.L gsal tull. hse of the .
T . = hmlogical, half lit.e, hr anNune c.unannnant n Linem n. the sormula ian he uwil so ,
1 = Juratum of mort eple, hr adtua M hr T1 VN t.' any murk whedule Wh.nerb nuny .)
a dus.dum inf shift m questam, hr iluetaan n nuin to be ansmesul, ths gi em-r.d .ippi.u.ho se in l na n - duratum of rumi.espnare perned hr. faimi
' # *' E" d"' '" "' 'PlWd' '" Pf"'
- k d" dPP'"I"'dW " Clh' f
'"' "" d '
- F l l #' 8"' '"'" da"d ""' t ss lwJules. P E AJ the end of the t.nt shift in a work cole to the etkl of the previous shift arsi the siun-3 matunt is over all stufts in a work cycle Id *E ##*' I#' O " *"' C""'"nsarsoul gun nt 4os.1 JM Ihnes:Isn 11 t'iuomb rs. l'h H n res,wnr vr rprrshlent uch i
4 e = 2.'llH...huse of. r.atural log syvem. .%rnes Crunnhann 12.1. It'ellenni. air. 4)nkeren. CN. _m Thn tormula n quite yeneral arnJ nwy be apphed to any work 9
wheduk. l' int esample, for a mi rk schedule of severs 12 hr d
stays foll.imed by one week away f rom work, the formula ,,,,,,,
Y s ks . . . sr # . s ? se.., rr r.". r.as,,,.. s ., p fi s ..aw ug avsonmv E 4t tilli. ilV s th,r.n.d.I Lu a.n t' user. '*,a t hnm..at Juh. es en
[cfuei e ( .3 d,
- t. J Ea e g.72a
- t'N'8 + t N
- t' 'Jd so ,es ..um, e., ug h emfy p n,g. -
1 (7%e . M. anni ,( f,awaer. "# spe, .r ( nn ,# f,e P.e.e ale sk l,1
.4c e t %,hu.,. . . u .,tp& c ." W, Nat I e k I #. . d. 0 1 - g Na a Nit o\ol. En..r.n.e eg t h. .ps.a..od IL atah $Ln:n l. " (*e.n,er Man '
t'd I. is II IM. Una.mann. tw?!. I 3,,p n g , ,,, g, ,,, p 4 , ogg,,,,,,,,,f g,,,, p g ,,, ,,,g _
.md S so.h,I, e ". sime ,, na 1.s..o .no oe,,.m s. n. / . Jseta se1 aav. Q \
- a. H c h d l c * 'd t %) es 't ,
- ba
- i4 4 C u 8r *a AaaA*
- W ar N C .A.
- II.e It% :.e 24 awl.e 12ai g, e na ^
lhe adjustment factors foe Nith ihn work schedule ars!
auch
? a. eq a s.
dH .%I. 44 At swit is.. .sts"u "un u.t. n!s s, . . 9, ,,,6. w.,e %w- y l
'""'" ""' " ' ' ' *- ' ' ' ' J sor a 181 hr/da) . 4 dap/m L whedule are shown m the Figure A He 4,"s """'.d
/f A #"
- m", n~e ,P(
"'"*"""#",','""'" of9 6, . . . ,,.a g e pL .g..p,
, ,','p y her a range of buslopaeal hall.lises. The kljustment factors t . v ,s n..,e s n..t.a,. ,n, ,,,S,a.. ,,,n.,.. 4... _i 3
"'*h"'*d'''*?'""
sus wlettest murLplace comtanunaan are gnen m the Table. * **
- s ..* . " . ."' "e, '",.".."~. 2 "* ~ .. A N h sh..u1J he noted that the bookiFscal half.hfe depena im 4, As. .".,4 6,... ""...."#si a . 3 i a.< # sa c. . e . . . . s.~, a as.as P:? res. rse t l che (hemaeal and physical charseterrolmes of the cimiammant J
u
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .