ML20248C697

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Rept & Staff Evaluation of Colorado Radiation Control Program for 851025-870501. Recommends That Next Review Be Conducted within 12-18 Months
ML20248C697
Person / Time
Issue date: 09/25/1987
From: Heyer R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To: Nussbaumer D
NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA)
Shared Package
ML20248C571 List:
References
FOIA-89-242 NUDOCS 8908100124
Download: ML20248C697 (1)
v • d • e


Text

_-__-- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

, , . ah ,

' C[ jeaeog ,

y} g # ,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION rg t REGION IV

?, V Q as 811 RYAN Q*IA DI IVE, SUITE 1000 q , ARUNGTON. TEXAS 70011 SEP 251987 g ** de

, MEMORANDUM FOR: Donald A. Nussbaumer, Assistant Director for State Agreements Program State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs j FROM: Ralph S. Heyer, Health Physicist Jijt

~

SUBJECT:

REPORT AND STAFF EVALUATION OF THE COLORADO RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 25, 1985 TO MAY 1, 1987 Enclosed is'the subject report and staff evaluation.

The staff was unable to make an initial finding of adequacy and compatibility

. of the Colorado radiation control program due to coments in two Category I and four Category II indicators.

Coments and recommendations were developed during the review regarding the status of the State's inspection program, inspection reports, and enforcement procedures for the materials program, as well as inspection procedures, staffing level, and licensing procedure!L for the uranium mill program.

During the review it was determined that the State adopted their radiation control regulations on November 20, 1985, with an effective date of December 30, 1986.

The State does not have a set policy for conducting follow-up inspections. The next reviewer should follow up on this issue and reference State Agreements Ir.rormation Notice H.5, dated March 20, 1980.

In addition, the next reviewer should address the State's license termination procedures to ensure that proper close-out inspections ami surveys are conducted by State's inspectors.

Based on the results of this review meeting, the staff recomends that the next review be conducted within 12-18 months.

1

~

j w Ralph S. Heyer, 1 f Health Physicist

Enclosure:

j As stated cc w/o enclosure: 4 l j Carlton C. Kammerer, Director, SLITP h [

]

8908100124 890801 N '

L PDR FDIA DOLOTINB9-242 PDR

s 1 2 . .. . .

. o . u ..#..,.,...~t...

. , j

.,y -- -

j at-ar*;.m. , , f;*. ,_ , . ,, _ _

,,,, . ,.,g,,_.. ,  ; m,, ,.,_.y.__ j t * , ;,g ,7 n.~ p ,. ..y- .,a., .,9.h,,.7 a,.:;p; .

u...... .

1

. w. ,.. 3*;-.;.. -g:.::;..,y%..c.

s ~y.'-

y ,, ..< . . e..... . .

. : i.r -s . . i . .

1

~

f . .

.. .(:N.,e,r:

n ...t h. y E d / F E .'a.ffi %. d. f.'.it...R..*.S.]fj l$ M,. f.;.. .-.k UNITED STATES . < .. .. .f. 4. .N.',s.. ;&,.u. -. .. . .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.1

, .. wonumn.a.c.ma -

v.r -: % % .-:.cef wr ( :

j; . . .

\

. ;~ - % y. 3 . . .; 5.c V .%,.y

. 1. ?. .:q.u. y.5. n... . ..

..&,
%. ,9y ., i.ewy.n.t. .

J. . - . .

. :::* . ./;;;y.. l

. v .. .. . .... . . .

J- MAR 2 01980 5..; ' J

b. - .-
  • Ref:,,.'SA/.JOL&c.sh

. u ...p:.a

.,.;.f.... . ,,

y Par ,

1

.. n -u,=.e

. , y p s.; , . e m .- --

-c ., . - g. -.- vs 7. .,pq

. u 7: . :-, .m.. , .-

. .. ... u ..

L, All Agreement States .,d 0 . . - .p ; - , . ' " .,.. j ..; .- ..u. .,_ .s -' ,~:.'.+. , ... 1 e l

. ";, .  : .- : .. e i

SUBJECT:

INFORMATION NOTICE H.5 .

.+. : - M.". - m.,,n.:.7:.

a: ..; :..

' . - c}.r. - ; <.:

~. . w . . 9.... .. .

On January 21,1980. I furnished you copies of the GA0 report entitled .

. " Radiation Control Programs Provide Limited Protectiert." One of GA0's i recommendations was that "the Consission and its Agreement States establish follow-up procedures to verify that serious violations identified during -

inspections of licenses are corrected." Tennessee, on February 21,1980; asked for guidance on determining when violations are serious and require *

~

special follow-up inspections. Our response is enclosed as Information -

Notice H.5. -

fQw&f G. Wayne Karr Assistant Director for State Agreements Program -

Office of State Programs Attachment * -

f. .

As stated . .

? 4. ' . .

1 r - .* .-

1.
  • 6 J=

e 39

. i 1

    • .:3 q.

~W$&&1-0$0f _ ____

~ -

g.

. 1 .,

.m w S

.v.b-Q. .s.r &

&!...?. t s..?$?Ed&~*]W$n;&*

& T .-

[ -k. kh j mn.

<  %. ll..K.&:n$.2%Q 4,rcru..v:%g[2 s[p ; & %.y e hyfjMe TEM,Q:@x $M;s.u;..

2,,77 "

W~l,;.:.n,?:(?t-n w.h.z.hk m W-h h $ w. -h-h v- w- n...;r.

'). 7.y' . U; q,:

M . w 'i W w 4.';;~. N @ t W .R 4 $.9 ';.S.'Wi n h... W,. .; ~:;

(...-).

. . b.?. F 4 '

~

- - l'5 TATE AGREEME!n3 PROGRAM.6).i',WidWWS'f Pp.*

' . ; :_ , . t - '.3.* DIVISION III '. W : v.WS. % c' '4 .

,,a R ' ..> J . N... <,g.y s;[INFOR!% TION

~ r .. . o. m "Ns;':n T's

  • h.dNOTICEj&@4.WE-% Mi'#.. & g# f h;: g.. ~

?..

u . .J. W.. .1r.k,:'.*ih , W..'s. W . W *

' -- -<- . >.5 M .: - Conduct A

~.i ~.-2,* $ N.5 - Guidance on When to 9 Other '

j.. y/W s,

, . . :,..s.,w.: p.

WQ'.#cll< .

we
m. . . Special Follow-Up Insc.ections

. .<..c;, n.,..3. g, ; g;.J . . -._...c.

.and . Serious Violations -

. r , . .

m. .

. . . .. 2 - :.. ... . : ~..g).,;.,

. ,%.. c . . u . . . .y

. . . w, , ,, p ..t _.. ,.;.pc.w.,u ;.;. . u.

. .. . .s ... . y.e; . v._.  :.:.

m.;> - .

, , u, . c ;. ~.., . . . . , pg ..n.,.

.s .. g . .. m. . .

M: NRC <onducts special follow-up inspections of events and incidents which appear' . .

to meet the criteria for an abnormal occurrence or which meet the criteria for incident notification for exposures and releases according to 10 CFR 20.403(a) .

.c

..and {b). ..In addition, NRC conducts special follow-up inspections of lesser > .

.l. . -

.even;s us'ing selection criteria that are somewhat more subjective. Special ~

_ 'j f a inspections are conducted if violations or safety concerns are identified that involve sentinuing operation in violation of significant regulatory requirements

- .or that involve operation in an unsafe manner. Decisio.s on other events are -

based ,pn.an evaluation of .the safety significance, comoluity of technical

=- problems and ~whether there are significant generic &.plications. . -4,..

.. .n .

.. , (

r

. Professio'nal judgment plays a major role in determining when special follow-up

- inspections should.be conducted for the majority of events which are of lesser

.',d- significance.than those identified above. Some of the considerations involve .

the nature of the violation, their number, the adequacy and timeliness of the l.

licensee's response to the citations of the violations, and the licensee's .

compliance history. As a general rule, special follow-up inspections should always be conducted for events involving overexposure ( > 5 rems) of personnel, $C significant releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas and any loss cr theft of licensed material which may result in a significant hazard to persons -

4. , .

L .

~ ... . .- . .

e in an. unrestricted area. .

g.x . ,

&l~,. .

r. - , ,

,. .._ 2 . .;;. ,_

l..

...r

% ' . * * ~' . .

  • 's  :. - . . .

y,- .'.y 4i . y.- ,' ' >-

3l.', . .: ~ . -

~-

~ -

w, , ; .

.q ..3..

..i. - ,, . : 1;,,. , . 7 4. ...

Kf a4 ~fN .?

I.,

b; ... j.

H.

~

i . - '" ' . [*- 8.. .-

, t .

h .

.,~.,,

.g's,.

f.t: , [*

.'*4*

. . ~ , ' O .

p. . , . T *-[ .

. e..,.

- +. . :" .. . ~ ~ ...s. . ,

1 -.

..\. .

,.t e. . . ; ; c s n.. .,.,.

,.3 . e,,

,.,.- . r. .... ,,; , ., . 2 3. . j ., . ,

, j' .r . ,

j

,,Q R

,.'/'...i

  • - .4. ,.. ..[.,

> T

v. . ' - .

. + . . .. . . . .

.: ~

...m  : M,,

f ,  %. ..- c

2.  ; . . , . . y. q. .q.; .\ . :

. .- ,, n .

x

.. .: . 7.

.a.-

O  ? "';. < :.

. - .. .+. . .- . y ... ,. .

- . . ;; . . . L..z

. . M:  : . . .

. . ' A ;'

. l., O

.- = ; ;r. ... . .. . ,

r. . 1
.t
- . l[ Q

. l. . ..=. ).m '. n, F &yj. ;, h.,; . .. ~, " .:. % . .

1 i- T- .

. ., .r . - . .. ~ . . . -. . ,4 ..'. . . .,

,~J. -

.- r v ' n. m ; . . . . f.. .

N ". _. s. . & ,

W

[ ,,

,n .

- - - - - _ _ _. '::t ~e.. _-

_ . .: .'..l i. ' . ,-_ .' ,' ~ >,' -% .i . % ' . ,

.~. ..*u f ; : E. .3f32/s0

.m..  ;

, .a . ._ .n . .. ~ ..,

m.

fy[. ;['.i?. Db 0' f

Cdr 4h

' CT 2 7 1987 .

Thomas A. Vernon, M.D.

Executive Director Department of Health 4210 East lith Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220

Dear Dr. Vernon:

Tnank you for your letter of June 30, 1987, responding to our concents and

,. recommendations following our 1987 review of your Department's radiation control program. Our review of the State's program and the routine exchange of infomation program between the tfuelear Regulatory Coemission (NRC) and the State of Colorado had disclosed problems in three Category I indicators.

Your letter provided specific responses to the three Category I and to the three Category II coments identified during our program review. We continue to recognize the positive effort set forth by the Radiation Control Division.

Based on our overall review, your response to the Category I and Category II

! coments, and the routine exchange of information between the State and the NRC, we believe the Colorado radiation control program is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC's program for the regulation of similar materials.

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation you and your staff extended to Mr. Ralph S. Heyer and other NRC representatives during the progract review meeting. I am enclosing a copy of this letter for placement in the State Public Document Room or to otherwise be made available for public review.

Sincerely. ,

original signed by Carlien Kammerer Carlton C. Kamerer. Director State Local, and Indian Tribe Programs Enclosure- .g7 o3oog3,,,73g,7 .

As stated PDR STPRG ESGCO N, i PDR  !

k See attached list for distribution l, .. f

^ni%EL .e r1 .

... .^  %' rnY

~ ,,,,,S M D ,,,,,, ',' @l h_ ,,,,*,1

...S .h.b.f.b RA h,$h,{' ,DANdssbaumerMM,(, te o, ,, ,,,,,,,

. . .h.D . . . ,,

da M r Asc wai

=> er RDoda RDMart'in R5Helnr:jc--

,,, r0R 5b;;p yy---' 555_p _ii- f 35 g igy---- g..... ..y-".,.5 g >jg---"i6t w . . . . . . . . .

8

y  ;; w ;; e , . a:- ; .p .. , , w;ai;,,. . -- c-- . , ;- - - - x:V - :- ,------ -

; ;,m, -  ;

w p.

, , , ~

n <

H , <

l 3

Y t_

p, -

r l cc w/o enclosure:

T..Looby; Director.

. Office of Health' & Environmental Protect' ion

'.g 'Al'Hazle. Director.

Radiation Control Division O

/1 * .

f

( ,

i i l

k 8

A 49 9

___11__ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ .

y ;7 . ..

C.(c % "R * * -

gusi,n 4,-

~

? s STATE 03 CODMJO '

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4210 East tith Avenue Denver, colorado 80220 -

1 e

  • Pnone 1303) 3204333 ,

a.y ame, c~rnor

%,. a v.,n= no.

(necame Dweetor {

June 30,1987 1

i Carlton C. Krammerer, Director State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

Dear Mr. Krammerer:

The Colorado Department of Health through the Radiation Control l

Division his . instituted the following actions to address the comaznts in your June 18, 1987 letter. (Enclosures 1 and 2)

COMENT:

Priority 1, 2 and 3 licenses were overdue for inspection by more than 50% of the inspection frequency. (Inclosure 1,

. Item IA)

RESPONSE

In order to eliminate the past due inspections, and to .,

prevent future backlov , the Division is instituting several changes.

1. Effective July 2, 1987 the Division will be reorganized. This will result in 2.6 full-time-equivalent inspections for non-uranium inspections.
2. The licenses which are overdue for inspection will be given the highest priority for completion. It is arpected that this backlog vill be eliminated before October, 1987.
3. A tracking system is to be instituted which will allow management to easily identify overdue inspections.

l

\

e mone&T y mu ys - , i

  • 1

m  ;- za- ... . . .. ~,- ... .

Carlton C. Krammerer, Director June 30, 1987 Page 2 .

COMMENT: .

Enforcement letters are not always issued within the recommended 30 days following the inspection. Licencee responses to enforcement letters were not always received within the recommended 20 days. There were cases where there was no documentation of a letter of acknowledgement from the State. (Enclosure 1. Item IB)

RESPONSE: .

As noted above, a department action and document tracking -

system will be instituted. This system win assure that inspection reports and enforcement letters win be sent out within the required schedule, and that action will be taken f if a licensee's response is not received within the required time. The principal health physicist in charge of the reguistory program has 'been assigned the responsibility for auditing and the timeliness of these activities.

COMMENT:

Not an inspection reports adequately and completely document the results of the inspection. (Inclosure 1, Itea j IC) 1

RESPONSE

l I

The Division will conduct an internal training program for its compliance inspectors. Those items noted through the NB C review will be addressed and the need for proper documentation win be emphasised.

Additionally, as a result of the Division reorganization, the inspection reports win be reviewed by a supervisory person new to the regulatory effort. It is expected this review win result in more complete reports.

l 1

1

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

,.._s

_ , . _ , E- T - - 1. .

~l

~

i i

Carlton C. Krammerer, Director l June 30, 1987 l Page 3 ,

l COMMENT: ,

e The staffing level for the uranium min program is

)

inadequate. (Inclosure 2, Item I) '

RESPONSE

The staffing level for the uranium related metivities was

'i diminished Neause of the Division's litigation activities under the (ttrrehensive Environmental Resp;sse, Compensation and 11abili < Act (CERCIA) against the State's two major -

- uranium mihs. As e result of these activities, the .

Division has already hired one new employee as a fun-time remedial action site coordinator for the Uravan sin. It is expected that in the very near future, a second employee vin be hired to oversee the Cotter facility remedial actions. Further, the individuals currently assigned to assisting the Attorney General's Office vin return to the regulatory effort. This should resolve the staffing probles.

COMMMENT:

Inspection reports and compliance letters for uranium mins were not completed in a timely manner. (Inclosure 2, Itaa II)

RESPONSE

Part of the problem with the issuance of inspection reports and comp'11ance letters was due to the staffing ~1evel. This issue is resolved as discussed above. In the case of the State not responding to a licensee's letter for five months, that response van prepared but not sent because of the sensitive ' nature of the settlement discussions surrounding the CERCLA lavsnit.

l l

4

(

1 i Carlton C. Kranserer Director x June 30, 1987 Page 4

)

, \

Action on applications for seven ainer amendments to uranium mill licenses have not been completed. Of these, five require appropriat'e annual financial assurance

d. terminations. (Inclosure 2, Comment Ill) 1

RESPONSE

The problems associated with the issuance of " minor" amendments for uranium licenses should be resolved with the -

. settlement of the two CIRCLA suits and the availability of l regulatory staff.*

Regarding the financial assurance determination, one site is potentially involved with UMTRAP under Title I of PL-96404. -Others are likeli to result in legal challenges to our authority to'rTquire full surety. The Division has already begun review of the fi a cial- assurance arrangements, and has begun to evaluate staff and attorney requirements necessary to fully implement adequate, auracy ,

arrangements. f 1

We look forward to your favorable review and finding of adequacy and compatibility'of the Colorado program.

I

, S rely, j gr f. n _ _ ---

Thomas M. Vernon, M.D.

. Executive Danctor cc: Chairman Zech Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Carr Victor Stallo, Rzeeutive Director for Operations, R C T. Looby, Director Office of Health and Environmental Protection A. Hazle, Director Radiation Control Division R.D. Martin, Regional Administrator, Region IV, NRC State Public Document Room

' R C Public Document Room i

4 7;.

. . _.. ; ' - n-- .

,,q l

I e

DISTRIBUTION Chai', man Zech Consissioner Roberts Lomissioner Bernthal Commissioner Carr l Commissioner Rogers l CKamerer, SLITP .

I Victor Stello EDO L Robert D. Martin, NRC/RIY State Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room RLBangart, DRSS

- JG11111and PA0 WLBrown, RC WLFisher, NMEPB RJDoda, SAO RSHeyer, URF0 -

GFSanborn, RSLO DANussbaumer, SLITP .

DMSo11enberger, NMSS

, N Colorado File

- NDMB (SP01) 3 JOLubenau \

SLITP DIR R/F

. SA R/F -

4 W

_.____m_.__ . . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _

~.-w . ~ .. , .~ - . .

c,g w'

.. %g

. . @@ \

L- STATE O::CO103A30 #

-COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4210 fad 11th Avenue y <gg Denver. Colorado 8022o . ,,,

Phone (303) 32o 8333 *j - j W l Roy Romet .

covemor h

Thomas M. vemort M D.

(secutsve Director June 30,1987 Carlton C. Krammerer, Director State, _ Local and Indian Tribe Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.. 20555 o Deer Mr. Krammerer:' .

The Colorado Department of Health through the Radiation Control Division has instituted the following actions to address the comments in your June 18, 1987 letter. (Enclosures 1 and 2)

COMMENT:' ,

Priority 1, 2 and 3 licenses were overdue for inspection by more than 50% of the inspection frequency. (Enclosure 1 Item IA) 4

RESPONSE

'In order to eliminate the past due inspections, and to prevent future backlogs, the Division is instituting several

g. changes.

~

1. Effective July 2, 1987 the Division will be

-1 reorganized. This will result in 2.6 full-time-equivalent inspections for non-uranium inspections.

2. The ' licenses which are overdue for inspection will be given the highest priority for completion. It is expected that this backlog will be eliminated before October, 1987.
3. A tracking system is to be instituted which will allow management to easily identify overdue inspections.

(7#VA1444y, yg .

7 .; , ,

m v ,, , .

7

.g j .

F- ,

.c 9-t

.Carlton C. Krammerer, Director l June 30, 1987

'l Page 2 COMMENT:

Enforcement letters are not always . issued within ' the recommended ,30 days fonowing the inspection. Licensee r

responses to enforcement letters were not : always ' received within the recommended 20 . days. There were cases where

. there was no documentation of a letter of acknowledgement from the State. (Enclosure 1,'Itas IB)

RESPONSE

As noted above,- a department action and . document tracking system win be instituted. This system will assure that inspection reports and enforcement letters win be sent out within the required schedule, and that. action' will be taken if a licensee's response. is not received within the required time. The principal health physicist in charge of the regulatory program has been assigned the responsibility for. .

auditing and the timeliness of these activities.

COMMENT:

Not all inspection reports adequately and completely document the results of the inspection. (Enclosure 1, Ites IC)

RESPONSE:  ;

The Division will conduct an internal training program for its compliance inspectors. Those items noted through the NRC . review win be addressed and the need for proper documentation will be emphasized.

Additionally, as a result of the Division reorganization, the ' inspection - reports win be

  • reviewed by a supervisory person. new to the regulatory effort. It is expected this review win result in more complete reports.

i

n.. -

p ,

m e l.

L Carlton C. Krammerer, Director June 30, 1987 Page 3 l

l' COMMENT:

The staffits level for the uranium mill program is inadequate. (Inclosure 2, Item 1) i

RESPONSE

The staffing level for the uranium related activities was diminished because of the Division's litigation activities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and liability Act (CERCIA) against the State's two major uranium mills. As a result of these activities, the Division has already hired one new employee as a full-time

, remedial action site coordinator for the Ursvan mill. It is l' espected - that in the very near future, a second employee l- will be hired to oversee the Cotter facility remedial actions. Further, the individuals currently assigned to assisting the Attorney General's Office will return to the regulatory effort. This should resolve the staffing problem.

COMMMENT:

Inspection reports and compliance letters for uranium mills were not completed in a timely manner. (Enclosure 2, Item II)

RESPONSE

Part of the problem with the issuance of inspection reports and compliance letters was due to the staffing level. This l

issue is resolved as discussed above. In . the case of the State not responding to a licensee's letter for five sonths, that response was prepared but not sent because of the sensitive nature of the settlement discussions surrounding i: the CERCLA lawsuit.

l l

l

~ - - - - -

- 4

. , .. . . . , . , ,, ,,, . ^"

A I Q

Carlton C. Krammerer, Director June 30, 1987 Page 4 COMMENT:

Action on applications for seven minor amendments to uranium mill licenses have not been completed. Of these, five require appropriate annual financial assurance determinations. (Enclosure 2, Comment III)

RESPONSE:  !

The problems associated' with the issuance of " minor" amendments for uranium licenses should be resolved with the .

settlement of the two CERCUL suits and the availabi'.ity of regulatory staff.

Regarding the financial assurance determinations, one site i is potentially involved with UMTRAP under Iitle I of PL-95-604. Others are likely to result in legal challenges to our authority to require full surety. The Division has already begun review of the financial assurance arrangements, and has begun to evaluate staff and attorney requirements necessary to fully implement adequate surety arrangements.

We look forward to your favorable review and finding of adequacy and compatibility of the Colorado program.

S rely,

. .n _.- /

?>

Thomas M. Vernon, M.D.

Executive Director ec: Chairman Zech l Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Carr Victor Stello, Executive Director for Operations, NRC T. Looby, Director Office of Health and Environmental Protection A. Hazle, Director l

Radiation Control Division -

R.D. Martin, Regional- Administrator, Region IV, NRC ,

State Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room

_ _ _ _ _ .__ _ )

ig .

+ - - <- - 4 .

UNITED STATES J. * ,, ' - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisFDN .

I.D .j '

WMMINGTON. D. C. 20ES5 s D WA </p/  %.

We s <, i pt g -

b Thomas A. Vernon, M.D.

Executive Direct 6r p Department of Health 4210 East lith Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220

Dear Dr. Vernon:

This confirms the df scussion Mr. Ralph S. Heyer. held with you, Mr. Tom l Looby, and Mr. Al'Ha:1e on April 30, 1987, following our review of the Colorado radiation control program.

As a result of our review, coments and recomendstions wre developed.

. which included two concerning Category I Indicators, Status of

-Inspection Program and Enforcement Procedures (Enclosures 1 and 2). In .

view of these findings we cannot offer a finding of adequacy an,i compatibility of the program unti's after we have- reviewed and evaluated the state's response to the specific technical coments and  !

recommendations. ~ Therefore, I would appreciate your review of our recommendations and receiving.your plans to address these program areas.

You may wish to have Mr. Hazie re: pond directly to the other technical consnents.

An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement l State programs is attached as Enclosure 3. Enclosure 4 is a copy of "

this letter for placement in the State PuMic Document Room or to stherwise be made available for public review. 3 On April 12', 1987, NRC reorganized its staff. The State Ag nement '

Program is now a part of the new 0ffice of Governmental and Public Affairs, which reperts to the Commission. One purpose of this organizational change was to provide an improved focus for NRC relationships with the States. Our regional offices will continue to administer and implement NRC's regulatory programs. We encourage you i and your staff to continue to los to the Regional Administrator and his j staff as the primary contact with NRC.

,S PDR m n osas e7o6:e STPRC gggc0 2$ T\

PDR ,

l ..

n .o.. ,

i L

Thomas A' Vernon, M.D. .

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation. extended to Mr. Heyer during.

the review meeting, i

Sincerely.

A Da wm

'a/11.on C. Kamerer. Director State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ enc 1s:

Chairman Zech Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Carr Victor Stello, Executive Director ,

for Operations, NRC T. Looby, Director

- Office of Health and Environmental Protection Al Haz4, Director Radiation Control Division R. D. Martin, Regional Administrator, Regior IV State Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room m

S 1

[d '

y -

ENC 1.05URE 1 a

% TECHNICAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE COLORADO RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM (NOT INCLUDING THE URANIUM MILL PROGRAM)

I. Compliance A. Status of Inspection Program (Category I)

Commde:

Our review. disclosed that 14 priority 1, 2 and 3 licenses were overdue for inspection by more than 50% of the inspection frequency._

Recommendation:

We recomend that management establish a short-tem Oction .

plan for the next 3 to 6 months to deal with this minor backlog. Such a plan should include goals and set benchmarks, establish priorities, and provide progress reports to management.

B. Enforcement Procedures (Category I)

Coment:

Our review disclosed that enforcement letters were not issued within the recomended 30 days following the inspection (in

. some cases the enforcement letters were sent' 3 months to 8monthsafterthetimeofinspection). It was also noted that the licensee responses to enforcement letters were not received within the recommended 20 days (in some cases the response time was as long as 3 months). There were also cases where there was no documentation of a letter of acknowledgement from the state.

Recommendation:

We recomend development of a tracking system to maintain .

up-to-date infomation on the status of compliance and enforcement activities. The system should cover key milestones such as the date the enforcement letter was sent to the licensee, the date the licensee is requested to respond (usually 20-30 days), the date of the response, and whether each case is resolved or needs further attention. This would provide a means to monitor individual enforcement actions and provide statistical information about the program.

7 ... . .

2 C. Inspection Reports (Category II)  ;

Coment: -

During the review of selected compliance files ar.d associated inspection reports, it was identified that not all reports adequately and completely documented the results of the inspection. It was notea that some of the reports did not identify whether the inspection was announced or unannounced, detail the results independent physical measurements made by the inspector, detail the inspector's observations, or document licensed activities to clearly identify the entire scope of the inspection conducted. -

This is a repeat coment and our comments and recommendations from the previous review of selected compliance files heve not been completely addressed. As stated above, the primag emphasis was that the inspection reports were not completely documenting the inspection results.

Recommendation:

It is rect, mended that administrative and procedural changes

, be made, as appropriate, to assure that all inspection reports, whether partial, special, or routine, provide complete documentation of inspection findings.

. m 9

1 l

l

a -

. w ENCLOSURE 2 TECHNICAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE COLORADO RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR UF.ANIUM MIEE5 I. personnel Staffing Level (Category II)

During the review of the uranium mill program it was identified i

.that the level of personnel utilized co process major.11cer.se renewals, which includes administrative, technical, and legal staff, has decreased from the past several program reviews. (This is a repeat coment.)

Comment::

NRC guidelines indicate that 2.0 to 2.75 total professional (technical and consultant) person years of effort are needed to process a new conventional mill license, in situ license or ma,ior renewal to meet requirements of UMTRCA. This number includes the

, effort for the environmental assessment and in-plant safety review.

During.this review, it was identified that the two licensed conventional mills have 1.20 staff years dedicated. This is approximate 1y' .60 staff years per uranium mill. This, has decreased from .g7 staff pars from the previous program review.

In addition, it was noted that the level of secretarial support is

. not commensurate with the werkload and as n' result other staff may be diverted to provide the necessary support.  !

Recommendation:

We continue to recomend that program management take the appropriate steps necessary to augment the uranium mill staff so that the program meets NRC guidelines and does not adversely affect the' program in its entirety. (The effects of this shortfall in staff may be evidenced in the following two comments.)

II. Enforcementprocedures(CategoryI)

I Coment: {

i

. Based upon review of eight inspection reports, it was identified I that three reports were past due by 2-3 months from the time the inspection was conducted. It was also noted that in three cases the enforcement letter was delayed by 3-9 months. In one case, the licensee responded; however, the state had not acknowledged receipt of licensee response (approximately 5 months).

l

e, 5; j

E 1 1

Recommendation:  ; I It is recommended that management closely monitor the tire 11 ness of <

preparation of the inspection reports and the issuance of enforcement and acknowledgement letters.

III. Licensing Procedures (Category II)

Comment:

During the review it was identified that action on applications for seven minor amendments to uranium mill licenses have not been completed. Of these actions, five require appropriate annual financial assurance determinations.

Recommendation:

It'is recommended that the State initiate the review of these license amendments with emphasis on completing the required annual financial assurance determinations.

4 m

e . ,em...

U 7 ,. , ,"

._ .^

x Encic = re 3 Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review "

l' of Agreement-State Raciation Control Programs" l

The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs," were published in the Federal Register on June 4, 1987 as an

'NRC Policy Statement.. The Guide provides 29 Indicators for evaluating Agreement State program areas. Guidance as to their relative importance l to an Agreement State program is provided by categorizing the Indicators into 2 categories.

l Category I indicators address program functions which directly relate to the State's ability to protect the public health and safety. If significant problems exist in one or more Category I indicator areas,

~

then the need for improvements may be critical.

Category II indicators address program functions which provide essential technical and administrative support for the primary program functions.

Good perfomance in meeting the guidelines for these indicators is-

' essential in order to avoid the development of problems in one or more of. the principal program areas, i.e. those that fall under Category I indicators. Category II indicators frequently can be used to identify underlying problems that are causing, or contributing to, difficulties in Category I indicato.rs.

It is the NRC's intention to use these categories in the following manner. In tvporting findings to State management, the NRC will indicate the category of each comment made. If no significant Category I coments are provided, this will indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC's program. If one or more significant Category I coments are provided, the State will be notified that the program deficiencies may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and that the need of improvement in particular program areas is critical.

If, following receipt and eyeiuation, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressisq the significant Category I coments, the staff may offer findings M adequacy and compatibility as appropriate or dafer such offering until the State's actions are examined and their effectiveness confimed in a subsequent review. If additional .

infomation is needed te evaluate the State's actions, the staff may

. request the information through follow-up correspondence or perfom a follow-up or special, limited review. NRC staff may hold a special meeting with appropriate State representatives. No significant items will be left unresolved over a prolonged period. The Comission will be informed of the results of the reviews of the individual Agreement State programs and copies of the review correspondence to the States will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. If the State program does not improve or if additional significant Category I deficiencies have developed, a staff finding that the program is not adequate will be considered and the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement in accordance with section 274j or the Act.

_ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20248C697&oldid=3272582"