ML20126A086

Provides Rept & Staff Evaluation of State of Co Radiation Control Program for Period 890407 to 910419

ML20126A086
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/16/1991
From:	Doda R NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA)
To:	Miller V NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA)
Shared Package
ML20126A074	List: IA-92-233, Forwards June 1991 Rev to Background Statement on NRC Agreement State Program ML20126A070 ML20126A086 ML20126A089 ML20126A096
References
FOIA-92-233 NUDOCS 9212170225
Download: ML20126A086 (95)

Text

~

%, UNITED STATES e*C'

• • NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f?

REOloN IV

$ e til RYAN PLAZA DR!YE. SUITE 1000 AP.ltNOTON. TEXAS N11

, g M4r 161998 MEMORANDUM FOR: Vandy L. Miller, Assistant Director

• E/2t/9/

StateAggementsProgram,SP. i FROM: Robert J. Doda, State Agreements Officer N#

SUBJECT:

REPORT AND STAFF EVALUATION OF THE COLORADO RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 7, 1989 TO APRIL 19, 1991 As noted in the report, the staff believes the Colorado radiation control program is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the Comission's program, The one ws@VA924t?NHWsMR&$4MMWe area where some continuing evaluation with M Mam3%WM  %@ke Colorado is needed is the % v implementation of our recomendations concerning groundwater requirements under the State's regulations versus the required actions under the Consent Decrees for the State's two major uranium recovery facilities. If Colorado experiences any difficulties in this regard, they plan to seek further guic6pce from the Uranium Recovery Field Office in Denver, Colorado.

Based en the results of this review meeting, the staff recomends that the next reutine review reeting be conducted i 20-24 months.

t Ro ert J. Do a State Agreements Officer

Enclosure:

As stated ,

cc w/o encl:

C. C. Kamerer, SP Su e

PDR FOIA DAVIS92-233 PDR

o

! (

i l

Coel Kohn, Interim Executive Director '

Department of Health 4210 East lith Avenue j Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 i

Dear Mr. Kohn:

This confirms the exit briefing Mr. R[ddDoda held widyou'enhh$M 1991 w

followingourrevIowoftheColoradoRadiationControlprogram. One other NRC-

! staff member, Lloyd Bolling. State Progress, was present at this meeting.

l l As a result of our review of the State's-program and the routine exchange of information between the NRC and the State of Colorado, the staff believes that the Colorado program for the regulation of agreement materials is-adequate to l

protect public health and safety and is compatible with NRC's program for. l

! regulation of similar materials. l l

• Overa11Ftheim tas beenlignificant;ingEnementtiCthe5ColoradMidiatteiWesGFM94c l control program. In particular, the Division has. achieved State regulations that are fully compatible with the NRC's regulations. The State regulations also include effective regulations for decommissioning and sureties and the Division is already implementing these requirements.

Encicsure 1 contains our summary of assessments regarding the program. In addition to the three Category I connents and reconnendations of minor sicnificance regarding groundwater requirements uranium mill regulations, and the inspection frequency for uranium recovery facilities, four other Category 11 connents and recommendations are included regarding other aspects of the program. These were all discussed with Mr. Quillin and his staff during the weeks of the review. We would like to receive your responses to our recomendations for program improvement.

The NRC recogni.:es that Colorado brought suit against Cotter and Umetco in 1983 under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of1980,as; amended (CERCLA). As-a result of these suits, Consent-Decrees were issuea that put in-place remedial action plans lfor corrective actions at the two mill sites. These court-mandated actions are currently-in progress at each facility and are being monitored by the Division's staff. We recognize that the reconnendations from our review concerning groundwater issues encompass:

areas where the Consent Decrees are not entirely consistent with the current--

RIV:SA0 AD:SP - RA:RIV .D:SP GPA ED0 RJDoda:ap VLM111er RDMartin CKaemeter -HDenton JTaylor-

/ /91 / /91' / /91 / /91 / /91 / /91

Joel Kohn requirements of the Colorado and HRC regulations. We reconsnend that the remedial action plans for Cotter and llmetco be the subject of a separate meeting between NRC and Colorado staff to assess the long-term implications of regulatory changes on these remedial programs. We will pursue this matter further in the near future.

Our review disclosed that other program indicators were within NRC guidelines. , .

Also, a nuder of other technical matters were discussed withithe radiationA gr r control staff and resolved during the course of the reviewL .This year's' review c used a team approach, which involved six NRC staff mes6ers at various times-during the review. This allowed more time for individual discussions with meubers of the Division's staff, an in-depth examination of the various program areas, ano a visit to the Department's radiation counting laboratory. During the course of the review, we were able to hold meetings with your staff in five different subject areas, which were of current interest to both the state and the NRC.

We wish to ccreend the Division of Radiation Centrol for their efforts in

.a completing 42174inspectionstduringithe n current review: period;withLthe;resultef&$#un that the Division has, according to NRC criteria, r.o overdue inspections cf the more significant State licenses at the present time. The Division has also availed itself of many training courses for its staff during the review period, with the result that the radiation control staff is well trained in the general requirements of an agreement materials program at the present time.

An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs is attached as Enclosure 2.

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation you and your staff extended to Mr. Doca and the other NRC reviewers during the review. Also, I am enclosing a copy of this letter for placement in the State Public Document Room or to otherwise be made available for review.

Sincerely, Carlton Kansnerer, Director State Programs

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ enclosures: -

J. M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, NRC R. D. Martin, Regional Administrator, RIV, NRC R. M. Quillin, Director, Colorado Radiation Control Division State Liaison Officer NRC Public Document Room State Public Document Room j

I 1

i i t Enclosure 1 1

i l

SUMMARY

OF ASSESSNKNTS AND C0t9 TENTS l FOR nit. co;.ORADO.KAD; AM WN GONERU, NUER$M AFR . 7. ; 959 O APRI . l' I. r991 ',

scope of. Review "' " I f N [,

This program review was conducted in accordance with the Coseission's Policy?

! Statement for reviewing Agreement State Programs published in the Federalf 1 i Register on June 4, 1987 and the interna 1' procedures established b the~ Office ,4 ofGovernmentalandPub1IcAffairs,AgreementStatesProgram. Theftate's i

l program was reviewed against the 29 program indicators provided in the

guicelines. The review incluced inspector accompaniments, discussions irith

{ program management and staff, technical evaluation of selected license and i compliance files, and the evaluation of the State's responses to an NRC

! adc.N Nh:hMdNbMMMk N [If Z d M Ol$ M W The 20th Regulatory Program Review meeting with Colorado representatives was

, held during the periods of April 1-5 and April 15-19,1991, in Denver,

Colorado. The State was represented by Robert M. Quillin, Director, Radiation -

l Control Division; W. E. Jacobi, Supervising health Physicist; and K. Weaver, l Senior Health Physicist.

The NRC was represented by Robert J. Doda, RIV; and Lloyd Bolling and i Dennis Sollenberger, State Programs. Assistance during the review was provided

[ by the following NRC personnel: J. E. Whitten, RIV; and P. W. Michaud and G. R. Konwinski, URFO.

t i D. Sollenberger, G. Konwinski, R. Doda, and P. Michaud held' meetings with management and staff on April 5,1991, to ciscuss findings related to the administrative and technical aspects of the uranium mill portion of the

Colorado review. The specific results and conclusions of the materials program

!- review were discussed on April 19, 1991. Reviews of selected materials license-l and incident files were conducted by J. Whitten and L. Bolling. A review of-t the administrative and manages.ent portions of the materials and mill program

{ was conducted by D. Sollenberger and R. Doda. - A review of selected technical l aspects of the uranium mill program was conducted by P. Michaud, G. Konwinski, and D. Sollenberger during April 16-18, 1991. An accompaniment of a materials j inspector was conducted by L. Bolling on April 17, 1991. Accompaniments of-

uranium mill inspectors were not necessary for this review period; however, a

' visit to the Cotter uranium mill facility was made by D. Sollenberger with a State uranium mill inspector, and one other NRC staff member, G. Konwinski.

Also, a visit to the Uravan uranium mill facility was made by G. Konwinski and a State uranium mill inspector.

l a

l l Enclosure 1  ! , t, ,

Conclusions

As a result of.our review of the State's program and the routine exchange of l information between the NRC and the State of Colorado, the staff determined i that the Colorado program for the regulation of agreement asterials-is adequate to protect public hea th and safety and is compatible with the-NRC's program *

for the regulation of similar materials. v %.

4yaf$4pjn M W xR&..

! cossents and recommendettons _ lope;di tMM@%:&QQ a

' As incluced a result three' of comments our reviewh*ainer c significance concerning' ry I IndicatoessW,93 i Inspection Frequency for Uranium Mills. Technical Quality of t.icensing' Actions,u ,

and Status and Compatibility of Regulations. In addition to the three; 9 Category I cossents. minor problems in four Category !! indicators necessitated

! coments and recomendations to the State. All of the comments concerning

! these indicators were discussed in detail with the staff; and the reviewers -

! offered several alternate methods regarding the steps the State can utilize to j sprove these program areas.

i ^ ~

womww%g gi w %a w ge ndy Ss

~

1. s. This year's ma Mthp? 1 Mkhi#;sh review used a team approach, which@involvsx !C sta< 9mem bers

.s l '

' at various times during the review meeting. This allowed more time for individual discussions with members of the Division's staff. During the course i of the review meeting, we were able to hold meetings with' members of the i Division's staff in five different subject areas, which were of current i interest to both the State and the NRC. ,

l

! We included a review of the Consent Decrees for both the Cotter ano the Uravan l uranium mills. We cossended the State for the extensive follow-on efforts in j monitoring these agreements and, in particular, for the assignsent of a senior

geologist to monitor the progress at each site with respect to the recuirements of each separate agreement.

! Status of Program Related to Previous NRC Findings l The previous NRC program review was concluded on April 7.-1989, and consents

! 1989. At and that time, recossencations the programwere couldsent to the not be State found in a letter adequate dated June to' protect the pub26,lic health

and safety and compatible with the NRC's program for the_ regulation of similar

! materials. The State responded with acceptable refinements of the program on l

September 18, 1989.

i The consents and recossendations from the previous program review were followed i up and the State's responses were evaluated for adequacy. All previous comments and recommendations have been closed out, except for the groundwater l requirements for uranium mills.-

t l

l

!( Enclosure 1 .

j Current Review Cossnents and Recommendations i

i- The Colorado raciation centrol program (RCP) satisfies the Guidelines in 22 of the 29 -indicators. The State did not :neet the Guidelines in three Category I indicators. Our cosaments and recommendations concerning grcundwater requirements, uranium oill regulations and the-inspection frequency for uranica w .

recovery facilities are of minor sigalfinace however, they!need to be < . m >

addressed by the State. Four other Cate II K commentsTanQeceasesdaf,$siiisj,[ -g were made, The 5 tate has alrea%;takenl soas gay;" actions on1these( i, fees.gdE' l , ,,

A. Radiation Control Program Other Than Uranium Mills . j)- g -

1. Inspection Procedures (Category II) 4 Comunent -

she program review disclosed that most recent inspections by the

! Division for licensecs, other than uranium mill licenses, have been j 4 - e conductee;en;se apoounced $ sist M t andetstand yttgth epecticas A nys g yr e .

been announced recently to completely ^ eliminate any overdue

inspections and to better accorscdate a Department directive

regarding its fee recovery program for licensing and inspectirg l activities. We also noted that Sections 4.48 and 4.5 of the l Division's Inspection and Enforcement Manual regarding unannounced l inspections reed amending because of inconsistencies in the two sections.

Recomunendation We recossnend that the Division include a consistent procedure in the l

Inspection and Enforcement Manual for concucting unannounced inspections, except in cases where an announced inspection is necessary for purposes of efficiency with respect to location or for special requirements for specific licen:;ees.

E. Radiation Control. program for t,ranium Mills j _

1. Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (Category I Indicator of Minor.5ignificance) l The recossnendations below are made in light of HRC's retained

! authority in Section 274c(4) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amendee, wherein NRC must make a determination that all applicable

! standards and requirements have been met prior to termination of a l

license for uranium recovery. If necessary, we plan to meet with Colorado staff on the-isplications of regulatory changes on the remedial action plans at the Cotter and Uravan sites under the Consent Decrees for these sites.

I

\

l Enclosur- 1 l

' The CDH/ RCD issued the Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Radiation Control as of Decenter 30, 1950. Thest regulations, specifically Part 18, clearly give the State the authortty to establish points of compliance, require corrective action programs, and implement various monitoring programs. In consideration of this, the following

recommendations apply to the Colorado program

a" L

Yh;&x x S

, %;. sy

~

Nwng 'y f(&n$fkh.&ANih% WG . m:+ ;

As was;noted in previous reviews; the' Consent Decrees that'are?'

i i in affact at the Cotter and Umetcc facilities'co'not meet the -

i requirements of IIRC corrective action:prograse..;Both of these

! sites have documented groundwater contamination ~ that wil)

require the implementation of a corrective action program.

! The State has prepared four draft letters informing Cotter ano i Umetco and two etter licensees of applicable groundwater j monitoring requirements. These letters are tailored to each

.-. c w ite.b.Withis s #athiletterg.thereds:a elsgu.agd3p x leidetect10R M es w i or compliance monitoring program that~is nee 6ed a w site; ' -

however, the need for corrective actions is not discussed.

l P.econmendations j

l Issue the currently prepared draft letters, in final form,

! to the two conventional mills cnd two heap leaches

requiring implementation of a detection and/or compliance monitoring programs.

Inform Cotter Corporation and Umetco Minerals that a j fully-operational corrective action program is required

within 18 months of either December 30, 1990, the date of i the regulations or the date of the final letter.

It should be clearly stated that the court-ordered remedial

, action may or may not be acceptable as a Part 18 corrective j action program.

j Inform each licensee that data collection on the mass of

. removed and isolated hazardous constituents is essential to l defenc an ALARA determination.

Inform Umeteo Minerals Corporation that byproduct material areas must be cleaned up to the Part 18 radium standard if

they are to be released for unrestricted use.

'I i

i

.. _ _ _ _ .~ ,.

Enclosure 1 b. gggnj -

Other CDH/ RCD guidance in the form of " Policy and Detection Monitoring Programs at Uranium, Thorium, and Related E111 Sites" and " Guidance for Construction of Groune-Water Monitoring W611s" indicate the State's efforts;to explain the program;te the licensee as well as guide its implementation. There are several

~ recommendations vy y- 7 relative to-this. sed related pulesa w4P % w, , e Reconsnendations "

msg *' g",:m ma """i *y '

~

,. #ss a<,

.LowerlimitsofdetectiMoer all hazardows: constituents-likely to be found in tallings solutions should be jacluded in the policy.

A data collection technique discussing the mass and vo1 Joe of recovered hazarcous constituents should be stressed.

. This will aid future closure plans related to the ALARA

.a - - n avww&M'-o,4p%egLy;:::3ggmyguayyse A similar document to those above should be pajared that discutises corrective action program objectives.

2. Inspection Frey1ncy.(Category i Indicator of Minor Significance)

Coment The prograni review disclosed that uranium mill inspections were being i extencad to approximately 18 months in between inspections, even though the State's priority system does have a 1-year inspection frecuency for uranium mills. It was called to the Division staff's attention that NRC's Manual Chapter 2800 allows an extension of 6 months on to the 1-year inspection frequency for uranium mill s inspections only in cases of exeglary performance on the part of the licensee, and not for routine 59.uations. Also, the comment is of minor significance, since the NRC recognizes that Colorado has assigned one geologist f ull time to each of the two major mill facilities (Cotter ano Uravan), wherein enh geologist confirms licensee actior under the Consent Decrees for these two facilities onsite on a wo h ly basis.

e 4

(. .. . . . . . ..

i i

j Enclosure 1 -6 L

Recommendation We recossend that the Division conduct vranium mill inspections en a frequency of 1 year +3 months as indicated in the State's priority system. Extensions If the period between inspectioes up to 18 months should occur only for exemplary performance on the part of the ,

licensee.s , 2 . ,gy m

<.a ,

y

3. 5taffins Level.(Catenory 11) -

mz uw

. m The Division has one unf111ec vacancy in the uranium all) program, at present, due to a recent resignation; and the Division is actively recruiting for this position. During the program review an evaluation of staffing requirements for uranium mill activities was -

conoucted. The staffing requirements necessary for these regrams

~

$ e s o Na e y at present, ano due to the fact that most mills are either in or ,

entering the reclamation phase. However, according to NRC criteria, the Colorado uranium mill program should have at a minimum another 1.0 to 2.0 person-years working in the uranium mill program.

Reconnendation uw recossend that the Division fill the current vacancy in the uranium mill program at the earliest time ano, additionally, seek another person-year of continuing support through contract assistance or through the hiring of an additional staff member. .

4 Inspection Reports (Category 11)

Cossent During the review of inspection reports for uranium mill inspections, we found that the inspection report for the_1ast inspection 1May 16, 1990), at the Uravan uranium mill was not available. After a search of the files was made, we found that.the inspection was completed, the inspection Form RCD-59 and itcensee response were found; however, the report itself was only partially completed and stored in the memory of the Division's word processor. The resignation of the inspector, just prior to completion of the report, apparently was the reason for this oversight.

Recoseendation l

We recossend this report be completed and filed appropriately so that Uravan's compliance history is completely documented.

Enclosure 1 -

5. Status and Compatibility of Reevlations (Category ! Indicator of Minor 51entf1cance)  :

Cossens The review of the State's reJulations for 11.e(!) byproduct material disclosed that sections of t% regulations inadvertently-retainee-statements'that-the $ tate'has regulatory, authority,fgricertate;rW .4  : .

l actions reserved to theLCosmission. , These sect 19as wowta the#areat ' '

lof lane transfer, ownership. exemptions for 11.ett) disposal sites, ans longters care. ($ections 3.9.6.4.1,and Criterion 19)a'M lp r 4

Recossendation v"e re #

- @hs WW '

We recossend that the references to State authority in those areas reserved to the Cosmission be removed from the State's regulations in the near future.

- r

- ,

• 6. WAdelmistrativei Procedures 4e 14stenery 4Medianter "C7lCG76#amee r-The following comments with our recoemendations are mace.

Allofthecoements(5)inthissectionweredevelopedonColorado's surety program for uranium mills. The NRC's " Technical Position on Financial Assurances for Reclamation, Decossissioning, and Long-term Surveillance and Control of Uranium Recovery Facilities," dated October 1988 was useo as a reference, i

a. Cosment Inconsistencies exist among the seven source material licensees with respect to the wording of surety license conditions and the ascunts of Long Term Care (LTC) funos.

Recoseendation Utilize the annual review process to make the wording of license conditions and surety instruments rore concistent. LTC arounts should be updated to the currently required $500,000 regardless of the status of sureties for Decontamination, Decosmissioning, and Reclamation (DDR).

b. Coseent

. Surety instrusents are held by the State Treasury. Current Treasury inventory records do not reflect the actual surety

-instruments or amounts in some cases, f

e

,-vv ,,y, , .- - - -iy--,-,cy ,- ,,.w,-+-y,,ee.-,---.r.- ,.- p i--i ,,rer,,- , -,v,,-, r--. <r +,,s-.-*p. ,-,,,,-y.e--,.,ripvye em y.- - - - .- ,- , .

i j

i I

, Enclosure 1 .

i Recossnendation 4

Treasury inventory records should be updated to reflect the current surety instruments and amounts, including the correct

)

amounts for interest-bearing accounts, f

C*- S92251.* ?!j.

4'

. n , s. .

5 l ThreeItcensees(CotterCanonCity,UmetcoMaybe11,'and'Hecla).

currently have inadequate surety amounts. Revised reclamation l

plans and cost estimates are either under review or;will be submitted in the near future for each of these licensees.

j Recomendation , ,

i The State should contin 6e to devote appropriate resources to the review and approval of these reclamation plans and cost n) ~

/ ww{t h ,$.g h

• t ggtigcp gqg ,pg

d. Cement The Umetco-Uravan surety arrangement is somewhat unique as a result of a Consent Decree entered into in 1987. A cos61 nation of a $12.5 million bond and a $17.3 million investment fund (cash) are utilized to provide a surety. However, the investment fund is under the control of the licensee and would be censidered as as;ets of the licensee in any bankruptcy proceedings. The State has the ability to audit the fund and is I supposed to receive written notice from the licensee of an I intent to withdraw any amounts from the fund, but the licensee l retains control ano access to the fund. This arrangement does I not meet the requirements of a surety. In addition, the terms of the consent decree and the surety bond make access to either

! of these amounts depencent upon establishing that a condition I presents "an iminent and substantial endangerment to the public l health, welfare, or environment."

Reconsnandation l

The investment fund should not be under the control of the licensee if it is intended as a surety. The fund should be additional

' under controlstheshould control beofimplemented the State or to at preclude a minimum, the licensee from accessing any amounts in the fund without prior approval by the State.

l

4 1

f ,

l I Enclosure 1  !

i

. Nonperformance by the licensee and a failure to pay a sue

! demanded by the State should be the only conedtions reoutred for '

i the State to obtain monies from the sureties. The inclusion of l a requirement to show an "isminent and substantial endangerment" ]

i is overly restrictive and could subject egy attempt to collect .  ;

l the surety amounts to a dispute. h sa terms should bei de m ed i so as to minimize any potentiel dispute over.their smaalM E.' ~

i over whether such a condition exists. Vin the'elternettv6.jthesef

' terms should be rear.ved from the Consent Decree'end;thefsseety + -

' bond. Such ters: snould not be incluesd in any future suaety l

arrangement. _~

',L, 5 "" #'

CM

! Sweeney Mining and Milling Company is'a licensee with -

i essentially no assets to either perform reclamation ner provide

, a surety. The 1988 agreement between the Itcensee and the $ tate wa te,N%%kg%situation. However, it appears unlikely at this time that any v

i i appreciable amounts will be collected in this manner. With the licensee's continued financial status, the State could likely become solely responsible for this site.

l t Recerwendation i With this potential liability, it may be prudent for the State

to examine and pursue any potential third-party contribution or assistance for this site.

C. General Observations.. Colorado Procram Review of. April 19. 1991 The following list includes general observations made by NRC staff during l

the Coloraco Program Review. These observations may be considered by the State for areas where improvements in the program can be made; however, no l

formal response to NRC regarding these observations is expected.

1

1. Since most uranium recovery facilities are nonoperational, at present, the NRC believes that some reduction in the nus6er of areas ,

, looked at during uranium stil inspections is appropriate, while no extension of the period of time between inspections is considered to be acceptable. Colorado may wish to consider a corresponding

- reduction in effort for each inspection while, at the same time, maintaining the frequency of inspections at one per year.

i f

,,.,,,,_m. , , , , _ , . . , _ , ,,

l i t

' Sclosure 1 - 10-l .

2. During the site visit to the Cotter mill in fanon City, Colorado, the  ;

reviewer observed that the old mill, which has not been used for 1

approximately 10 years, was not in a safe condition. The alli appears not to have av salvage value or av future application.

Therefore, the reviewer stated that it does not appear.to her . i appropriate to leave the old mill in its curreet state"ead recessends -

4 i

that consideration be given to the dismantitag of tho' et p.

ensuring thas the-sosts ofidissentlingland d1 t m117

be explicitly? costed est in accordance trith; e requirements in'the' State'regv14tions (in ts

~

for doing the work)b This recommendation had a1ree t been made by: .

the State inspector in the last; inspection report for;this: facility, ex sg + ;;c . . -

n mwwww

3. The NRC's groundwater specialist from the Uranium Recovery Fleid Office, Denver, Colorado is available to the State for technical l

assistanceandwouldassIsttheStateintheareaof. groundwater compliance, if requested.- - > ' ~ " " " '

ew$it&

A sumary meeting to present the results of the regulatory program. review was Colorado Department of held with Health, Mr. Joel on April Koin.

19,1991. The Interim scope Executive and findingsDirector,f o the review were "

discussed. He was informed of the three Category I findings regarding the scheoule for conducting uranium mill inspections, the uranuum mill regulations, and the uranium mill groundwater requirements. Mr. Kohn said the State would probably proceed directly with plans for addressing these three recomencations. Mr. Quillin said the uranium mill inspection schedule had t already been modified to accossiodate our recommendation.

Mr. Kohn stated the Department was aware of the workload in radiation control and had made the aedition of some resources for uranium mill activities a high priority within the Department. He also expressed the State's appreciation for past NRC assistance and training for the Division. staff. He said the Department will continue to support the radiation control program, any NRC-sponsored training courses, and cooperative efforts with the NRC and other i .. ....~nt State Programs.

Mr. Kohn believes the groundwater issues can present problems because of the Consent Decrees, which are in place and are being implemented. The NRC l reviewer suggested that, after andressing the recommendations from the current l review, the Department s:ay wish to meet informally with the staff of MRC's

Uranium Recovery Field Office to determine an acceptable course of action.

Mr. Kohn agreed with this s1ggestion. He was told Colorado may always request technical assistance from the NRC and that this assistance could include legal input regarding the effect of the Consent Decrees. .

e a nn,. , . . .,.w.g..e,,.~ ,.,.x..- , . _ , . . . , , . _ , _ , . ,_,_,_,g,,,, , _ , , , , , , , , ,.r,,,,.,w,,,, a,,,.,_,,_,,n ,,v,w,-n, , , , , . ,

1

) i Inclosure 1 i I Closeout discussions with the RCP technical staff were conducted on April 4 and on April 18,1991. The State was represented by Mr. Cuillin and his radiatien I control staff. Several general and specific ovesticas were raised by the State representatives. The review guioellne questions and the State's responses were discussed in detail. In addition, the results of the license and compliance casework reviews were provided to the staff for, discussion...As. instructional, ,. _

j phase was included to reinforce the proper methods to be used by State ': ,

personnel when notifying NRC of incidents ;when writtag licenses.for. aucletr&

j pharmacies, when using the Sealed Source and Device &4 Registry+2and wh

- e enforcement actions to NRC. '

? .

. c4; .w c,; ,

1 1

i sw -

a. ,wau,m>;mywanwwwwsywwpmmmus f

)

l l

t i

4 I d i

l i

l

l 4

Enclosure 2 l

l Application of

• Guidelines for.NRC Review l

of Acreement 5 tate.Raciation control Frearams" l

l The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs,"

were published in the Federal Pegister on June 4 -1987, as an NRC Policy 1

Statement. The Guidelines. provide 29 indicators for evaluating' Agretsent State

! program areas. . Guidance as to'their.reistive toportance c .te an'Agriemenf state ~ '

program is provided by(categorizing,the 1pdicators inte'tue categoriesh >

X t? . L '% MW .

. : ry v. .

Category 1 indicators address program' functions which directly relate tolthe ,

, State's ability to protest the public health and safety. .If significant;

! problems exist in severa1' Category I inoicator areas, then the need'for' ~

l l

improvements a:ay be critical. , .

Category 11 indicators address program functions which provide essential.

technical and acministrative support for the primary program functions. Good g d'py h h h program areas, i.e., those that fall ur. der Category I indicators. Category !!

grwm l indicators frequently can be used to identify underlying problems that are causing, or contributing to, difficulties in Category I indicators.

It is the NRC's intention to use-these categories in the following manner. In reporting findings to State management, the NRC will indicate the category of each coreent made. 'If no significant Category I connents 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 proviced, the State will be notified that the prograni deficiencies may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and that the need of improvement in particular program areas is critical. If, following receipt and evaluation, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressing the signficanct Category I coements, the staff may offer findings of adequacy and compatibility as appropriate or defer such offering until the State's actions are examined and their effectiveness

! ccnfirmed in a sutisequent review. If additional information is need to evaluate the State's actions, the staff may request the infomation through

follow-up correspondence or perform a follow-up or special, limited review.

l NRC staff may hold a 1,pecial meeting with appropriate State representatives.

No significant items will be lett unresolved over a prolonged period. The Consission 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 of the Act, as amended.

e i-s yr-wrier r 3 w e-,v r4' me gi e s.rf+-- a+ - ,+n,, --,v---y p,v1-yet.-e. e, = er.e-p-,v- y-ee~y*,-se.-m.=w.-e--

e List OF APPENDICES A. Evaluation of Agreement State Radiation Control Program, Station Response to Questionnaire p. . t B. Organizational. Charts ,,-

. w.

.; * ' ~.

C.

., Sp a;j ;i f;% ' ';

Review.of Selected License Files

.' f " i' t

- n -

' ' ^

D. Review of Selected Compliance Files E. Review of Colorado Program per 40 CFR 192' Requirements for Groundwater F. Sumary of Coloraec Surety Program for Uranium Mills get; + . .aA n4%>nkmW&W727$%i%#WWQ9My@W9?MMMMi:tuneQawhM4tNW# A br l

1 0

0

_ , . - _ _ _ - . _ . _ _r.. , -._--. . .. . ,- ., > < - , . -

9

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

1 +

f, I

, I a

i ,

i

! i i

l, 1

1 >

t

i f  ; .- I j ,,

i j

j,; n 4 ',.s' WJf .e E .

4.L ,

4g" .L 2$ -

h ,,,. ' ;. si

__ ' ' {*-#. 'if--iih me.'

. <. , .. . . 4 1- i- a , e J. * - *

. 'I 3 .

s '[%;[; . .9 ' w [' - '4 4 ' , , , ,-y2y/ 1 *

' .b!, i .'-

,-. y 4 4 -

t y = s

3 g. { '!

.s 4 --a-4 ,, ,,

j , .y. .#, ,, n : .- -

c N i. - , ,' 3 1

- 4(! . ,1:%,,,t,p '8'g;J4g[

4

'~ v

m h.h. c a,

,j. ~ a -o< .f -,

,. "[,.

6 o.

v,fg[,-_eU j,.&a, q'I A- *

. r k t' ;5-l q OM- .' ,

x ., , o.9flkk%'*} s. {

i a

- - 1 f ,,' e ., x -e j ,

, is

" -. ;, b*

4 9 -. _? ??

$ 9 -

pr; . r

] ,

.{:  ? ?5T.htk (A-Q g , '

1 i

APPENDIX A  !

j m: , - r STATE REVIEW GUIDELINES AND i ,

ipg n. gg%gygfynfhjsfgf* gy 4

1 t

i i

9-i

'i A

1 2

3 4

4 4

k b.

i i

5 I

J Ver. 2/1/90 -

a

't 4

1 .

i

'i i

]~

t 4

4

--we-+3 -

• w-*

• zy e-.-7*vz-+nt.PP--P.w1-y we g p- -*p4r as-he-y a er w-- yw -,9< ww -s. y,g....---g' g-p.g y y1miy wwrtwr- T '-'

T *uy^-- 7" p -h pg cf v-t w' y wvev

- - = _ - - . _ . - - - _ .. . . .-

i I

1 APPENDIE A EVALUATION OF AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM l STATI REVIEW CUIDELINES AND QUESTIONNAIRE Name of State Program __ colorado Date of NRC Review (Month, Year) Aeril 15-26, 1961

1. LEGISLAT10H AMD REGULATIONS ,e< @ 1? a =i k p.

I A. Leaal Auth 9 ritw (Categery I) y  ;. ~g,;g;{s

.g - i.j 373 ,,7 a, c ..w p ,

,, .mm +t . . . + + - ,, m, NRC Ouideliness clear statutory authority sh,u o j tai,s t,p&WQfq t .""

designating a State radiation control agency'and'providing for '

1 promulgation of regulations, licensing, inspction and ,

! enforcement. States regulating uranium or thorium recovehy and

associated wastes prsuant to the Scanium N111 Tailings Radiation control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) must have statutes enacted to establish clear authority for the State to carry out the requirements of UMTRCA.

Questions:

1. Please list all currently effective legislation that affects A. , he d,ggthe gradiaties l eentrols progspejf80P 8%Wpp 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 authority 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 Covernment.

Section 25-11-104 of the Act provides that 4 fees collected for the radioactive materials control program be credited to a i

fund specifically earmarked for radiation control services. Part 2 of the Act pertains to radioactive waste disposal.

Section 25-11-202 prohibits the disposal 1 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 covernor 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 1, Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, FL 95-604. (see Volume II for specific uranium alli information.)

r k

2. What chang 30 havo be

n maC0 to th3 stato's stctutcry cuth2rity to regulato tgreement mat 0ric1s, including LLW oprations, since the last review? Please attach copies of a the changes.

. No changes have been made to the statutory I

authority of the state.

3. Please cite legislation if the State has the authority tot 4

a. apply civil penalties, s

i Title 25-11-107(5). 1 1 collect fees, f yy" ;& ', %* 'gf b.

- (x

. Title 25-11-104(Shf<_; '#

~

, [h ;;['k hf .D ' '

c. require ~pe fcirmancIbonds or suretbs fod decommissioning licensed facilities, 4

wg ,s. s Title 25-11-104(2). . ,e;+,_ ,,c

d. require performance bonds or sureties for clean-up of licensed facilities after a contamination accident, Title 25-11-104(2). L

e. require long term care funds for ura eQ :se g);g{,Culgngss111(ergiglevegjgtejfas1114bes.l%nium$5,RgiA&Q/g Title 25-11-104(2).

e 4. If any responses to the above question are negative, explain

! any plans the state may have regarding those issues.

Not applicable.

B. Status and Coccatibility of Reculations (Category I)

NRC Cuideliness The State must have regulations essentially identical to 10 CFR Part 19, Part 20 (radiation dose standards, effluent limits, waste manifest rule and certain other parts),

Part 61 (technical definitions and requirements, performance i objectives, financial assurances) and those required by UMTRCA, as

! implemented by Part 40. The state should adopt other regulations i to maintain a high degree of uniformity with NRC regulations. For

! those regulations deemed a matter of compatibility by NRC, State

regulations should be amended as soon as practicable but no later E

than 3 years. The RCP has established procedures for effecting appropriate amendments to state regulations in a timely manner, normally within 3 ycars of adoption by NRC. Opportunity should be provided for the public to comment on proposed regulation changes.

l (Required by UMTRCA for uranium mill regulation.) Pursuant to the l terms of the Agreement, opportunity should be provided for the NRC to comment on draft changes in State regulations.

Questions:

1. What is the effective date of the last amendment of the state's regulations that was made to maintain compatibility?

March 2, 1991.

I i

i j

l A.3

) '

i l

1

2. Referring to the NRC chronology of amendments attached to this questionnaire identify those

! that have not been adopted by the state and i explain the reason why they were not adopted j and/or actions being taken to adopt them.

l None.

4

3. Briefly describe your state's procedures for

! revising and adopting changes to regulattees.

w >

% ; q y wy 3 ".

1 .. c s.

The colorado regulations are.p

} amended.La acoordance,with. State edalaistrative s.

W< 3 The staff prepares a draft;t4&eb s - ' ' ' '

v availabletoLaterestedpartiseM . it h e M ., n i' , J.

state.,NRCisgiventheopportuajty;tocodbet * *' Y on this draft.. It is forwarded to the Radiaties.

~

-y' 1 " '. '.

i ' Advisory Committee for review and the-state u >

soard of Realth conducts a hearing and prepares' l any proposed' amendments.'~" + +-' ' ' '

1 NRC may then again comment on the proposed 4 regulations. Subsequent to this,-the state I,egislative Council reviews the ap -

regulations and, upon approval, they are published by the soard of Realth in the.

.:fr r , e e nee !MR 1 g M M W 4We@fd@itj$ p Q i specifically identified. The soard must

also adopt a rationale statement for changes to the regulations, which contains i a financial impact appraisal.

i

4. Nou is the public involved in the process?

l Heetings are conducted by the Radiation i Control Division (RCD) with interested partias. The Board of Health conducts l- hearings during the adoption process.

Public participation is allowed and encouraged. All licensees are notified of the proposed changes.

5. At what stage does the NRC have the opportunity to comment on draft changes to state regulations?

Copies are submitted to NRC when they are drafted.

II. OFGANI2ATION A. Location of the Radiation Control Prmrram Within the state oroanization (category 11)

NRC Guidelines The RCP should be located in a state organisation parallel with comparable health and safety programs. The Program Director should have access to appropriate levels of state management. Where regulatory responsibilities are divided between state agencies, clear understandings shc,uld exist as to division of responsibilities and requirements for coordination.

l I

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

Ao4 i

1. Please attach a current dated organisation chart (s) showing the position of the RCP within the state organisation and its relationship to the Governor.

See Attachment 1.

2. Is the RCP on a comparable level within the State organisation with other health and safety programe so as to compete effectively for funds and stafft

. Yee.

• y K! Q < W (, ,

w ,;

3. ' Mas the RCP program director esperienced difficulty La .-

obtalaing acces. to. appropriate levele ef state.managementt,

If es,(expleLa;' o ; y

. , . f. -

1 i

1 No. .e

~. ,;, :L 3 ,

3. M rhal ora'almadian m of the me* "(Category II)

NRC Cuidelines: The RCP should be organized with the view toward place achieving an appropriate acceptable emphasis degree on major of staff program efficiency,d functions, an provide npecific lines of supervision from program management-for the exeettion of program policy. Where regional offices or other government agencies are utilised, the lines of comeunication and o , g4p g adeinistrat&gst -app g g y office (Program -

uniformity in licensing and inspection pol cies, procedures and supervision.

Questions:

1. Please attach current, dated copies of the RCP organisation charts. Include titles for all positions and names for incumbents. If applicable, include regional offices and contract agencies.

See Attachment 2

2. If regional offices or contract agencies are used:

a. To whom do regional or contract agencies personnel report administrative 1y?

Not applicable.

b. To whom do regional or contract agencies personnel report technically?

Not applicable.

3. If the RCP shares the program with or contracts with other agencies to administer the programs.

a. Identify the agencies and indicate their responsibilities. .

Not applicable.

I

l A.$

l 1

b. Now are their responsibilities set out (e.g. statutes, f

NOU, contract)?

1 Not applicable.

j c. To whom do their personnel report to administrative 1y?

Not applicable.

d. TowhabdetheirpersonneYroporttotechnica11yt;

't "

1 d,c Q A.(Not

,, m q /app 1&oable, Muut  ?- s . 6 gigJe+ y g .v4.- w *g,m9- -

t J C. - Leaal Assistanas (Category II) -@ W ,,

+

7 l NRC ouldelines: / Legal staff should be assigned to assist the RCP '

or procedures should exist to obtain legal assistanee >

+ expeditiously. Legal staff should be knowledgeable,regarding;the l RCP program, statutes, and regulations.

i

guestiones a - W

? rem - y :ry,m

1. Are legal staff members assigned to assist 'thE RCP'or 'do

, procedures exist to obtain legal assistance expeditiously?

I j # '%

• Ws&MPCM @@#VMw

] legal assistance to the RCD. n addition, the Ass.stant AG

. has two other attorneys that have been involved with the RCD over past years. The Natural Resources Shetion supervisor j of the AG's office is knowledgeable on radiation matters.

2. Is t he legal staff knowledgeable regarding radioactive matirials, the RCP, statutes, and regulations?

i Yes.

l l 3. If legal assistance was utilised since last review, provide a brief summary of the circumstances.

Current assigned Assistant AG is reviewing 1) surety bonde for adequacy and languages 2) escalated enforcement action is copied to the AC's office; and 3) Regulatory Review.

D. Technical Advisory Committees (Category II)

NRC Guidelinest Technical Committees, Federal Agencies, and other resource organisations should be used to extend staff capabilities for unique or technically complex problems. A State Medical Advisory Committee should be used to provide broad guidance on the uses of radioactive drugs in or on humans. The Committee should I represent a wide spectrum of medical disciplines. The Committee I should advise the RCP on policy matters and regulations related to use of radioisotopes in or on humans. Procedures should be developed to avoid conflict of interest, even though Committees are advisory. This does not mean tha*: representatives of the regulated community should not serve on advisory cossaittees or not be used as consultants.

I

A.6 i

I Questions:

1. What technical advisory committees have been established to l assist the RCP7 The Radiation Advisory Cossnittee and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Advisory Commaittee.

l 2. Are regular meetings scheduled? If so, what is the frequency 1 l .. . .

Annually for the Low-Level Radioactive Waste coeusittee and quarterly for the Radiation Advisory committee.L L .m

,. .. , - it . . &m

3. Please provide a list of the names and affilletions~of.the technical comunittee(s) members.

, a; .- y, see Attachment 3.

.s , .e,.o.. >

4. What procedures exist to avoid areas'of conflict of interest by members of the committees?

The committee has no formalised procedures to avoid cases of conflict of interest. Mowever, individual members will abstain from voting on issues concerning facilities with 42,.9%9ttligqWH!$MWt@MWS+

A  ;;W.

3p 4 44 Q5. p %If any %Q advisory 4 W comn N $ 4 g ; 7 ;ittee was utillzed during the rev period, please provide a brief sumanary of the circumstances.

The Radiation Advisory Committee reviewed proposed changes to the regulations prior to the regulations being submitted to the colorado. Board of Health.

III. MANAcrMINT AND ADMINISTRATIO_N A. Quality of Emereenev Plannina (Category I) i NRC Cuideliness The state RCP should have a written plan for response to such incidents as spills, overexposures, transportation accidents, fire or explosion, theft, 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 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 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 that content is current. Periodic ttrills should be performed to test the plan.

4

(

{

1

A.7

/

Questions:

1. What written plan does the RCP use for response to incidents

• involving radioactive materials (other than plans for fised nuclear facilities)?

Colorado state Emergency operations Plan,1988 The Colorado Nasardous Materials spills and Releases  :

Response Plan, Annea 21 of the Colorado,Disaster Busorgency, ,

operations Plan

~

Colorado Department of Realth, draener Ramanisa 71pmQ C (Draft) December 1990 .4<f; f fi 7 .y 7;;. y_ >

colorado Department of Health, Radiation Control Division Radiological Emergency Response Plan. 5This plan'is beingl written at this t h .

's ; + ,

4

2. According to the Plan, which State agency is responsible fort

a. initiating response actions? .

The agency receiving notification of an incident is ng . m ,nypzy,.qwme;& Q & ggyn level agencies depending upon which agency receives the initial notification. Each agency is responsible for maintaining notification rosters.

b. conducting operations?

Initiating response actions and conducting operations will depend upon the extent of the incident and the responsibilities of each agency in the response system. However, the State's Division of Disaster Emergency services (DoDES) is the state's primary agency for managing Emergency Response Activities.

Resources to manage and respond to an incident are

• allocated based upon the magnitude of the incident.

Incidents in public areas are covered by the Incident Command System in Colorado for command and control with each agency being responsible for conducting its operatioins under this system.

c. supervising cleanup?

The Radiation Control Division, Colorado Department of Health is responsible for insuring that clean up operations are conducted.

3. Describe your emergency communications procedures.

The Radiation Control Division's emergency notification system is described in 3.0 NOTIFICATION of the Division's Emergency Response Plan. See Attachment 4. .

e e s r-ev- y s-

i i

A.8 s i i

J l

4. Who is reJponsible for distributing the plan to the I appropriate persons Snd agencies?

l Each agency is responsible for the distribution of their plan. The Division's emergency response coordinator is

responsible for the distribution of emergency response-information to individuals in the Division.

5. When was the emergency coussanication list last reviewed and/or revised? (Please attack a sepy of the curroot.., list.)

we %

i -

..a ,

• , . ~

The Division Emergency Response Sotification List *(sell down 4

jfyt;g a.

rh list).was.reyised een March v.- 1(c1991.lv an g 34 w ; e, 4 g p e 1, gp >

aw 44 p-

< W 6. , Otdierthan;thecommunicationlistywhos;waethe y'

sti4 ,

. t Mi J y y gq,P y .;',,

l T , updated? y' = -

. + s 3 , s ,

, .s .

The Radiation control Division's Radiological amorgency l Reponse Plan is presently being revised. < y,q.A g G i w .

1 S

7. At what stage is the NRC provided the opportunity to comment l on the plan or the revision while it was,in draft. form?

The Radiation Control Division's Radiological Smergency 4

i j Response Plan is constantly being revised and updated and is j Mf4 aa%.- gg@ p review.

When was the plan last reviewed to assure its content is up-

~

8. v i to-datet

}

The Radiation Control Division's Radiological Emergency

Response Plan is presently belug revised.

9. When was e drill last performed to test the plan?

I l

A specific drill for the plan has not been tested, however, equivalut elements of the plan have been revised and tested j in preparation and participation in a full scale field axercise pertaining to Waste Isolation Pilot Plant transportation shipments. Equivalent elements of the plan were to be tested in a Rocky Flats Plant exercise in January i

1991, however, this exercise was cancelled. A notification drill was conducted on March 12, 1991.

j!

B. Budast (Category II) t NRC Guidelines Operating funds should be suff1cient to support l program needs such as staff travel necessary to conduct an 4

d effective compliance program, including routine inspections,-

follow-up or special inspections (including pre-licensing visite) and responses to incidents and other emergencies, instrumentation i'

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 correspondence, office equipment, hearing costs, etc. as appropriate. Principal operating funds should be from sources which provide continuity and reliability, i.e., general i

tax, license fees, etc. Supplemental funds may be obtained through contracts, cash grants, etc.

-.. - , , , -. , , _ _ - . . , ..m.. _ . . , , . . . , , , , . , . - _ - -

.yy... . , . . . _ . _ _- - . . _ _ , . . , , _ . _ . . , , ,

.,-.,m.,,.,,,, , , , _ . . , ,, .,

A.9 I

Questions:

1. show the amount for funds for the McP for the current fiscal year obtained frons

a. state general fund 8 509,201

b. Fees 496,749 '

c. Fedetal grants and oortrets (identify)

-Freventive Nesith Stock 48,328- '

-Uspos/mocky Flats 290,000

, 'e ,,

~

-UsWRrj/ Fort St. Vrain 17,750 ' ^O g* , 3'

,. ~

-Dants/Fus/FDA/3-Ray 15,700' M, 5

~

-UstPA/Radoa 11R.231 403,075 i d. Other 'l ,. e. Totals , , , ,.$1,484,025

2. Show the total amounts in the current RCP budget allocated fort , . . . . ,

, a. Administration -176,173 (11.9%)

b. Radioactive materials 491 178 .0%

.HW :.nqMpQ:gt%tnyMqq,pM% &

c. X-ray  %)

d. Environmental surveillance 3s0,927 (25,64) '

e. Emergency planning 47,742 ( 3.2%)

f. LLW regulation 39,313 ( 2.6%)

g. Other (radon, non-lonizing operator credentialing, etc. Please identify).

-Radon 149,044 (10.0%)

h. Total: $1,488,025 ,

3. What is the change in budget from the previous year and what is the reason for the change (new programs, change in emphasis, statewide reduction, etc.)?

FY 1990 = $1,421,900. Radon grant is larger this fiscal year.

4. Describe your fee system, if you have one, and give the percentage of cost recovery for the radioactive materials program. Please attach a copy of the fee schedule.

The fee system is based on an hourly rate. Recovery is approximately 55%.

5. Overall, is the funding' sufficient to su p rt all of the program needs? If not, specify the problem areas.

No. There is nct sufficient flexibi13ty to meet' changing needs.

I A.20 i C. Laboratory suonoIt (Category, !!)

l WRC Guideliness: The RCP should have the laboratory support

! capability in-house, or readily available through established

! precedures, to conduct bioassays, analyse environmental samples, analyse samplee ecliected by inspectors, etc., on a priority ,

l

' established by the RCP.

g i Ouestions: ,

1. Are laboratory services readily available La-house or.. -

through other departments within the State organisetient ' _

i .ifeeg the Chemistry Laboratory sad.Badiaties comet F' WK- -

Facility. Sample preparatica Le perfosised-by the ,

Division within the cpN.'- Radiataan Oeunting Feettity toAr -

staffed with two health physicists who have esperienee with a broad range of health physics tesoes.?- . 3 ' + ar

2. If services are provided by w her departments, discuse'the$ t arrangernente, supervision, charges and interdepartmental consnunif a tions.

4 services provided by the Laboratory Division are performed  :

under a formal intradepartmental agreement detailing the uses of funds and anticipated workload. This agreement is l mmv ,a%reW % % %Q0N W 4

3. Have there been any changes in the statue of the laboratory support since the last review? If so, please explain.

Not applicable.

4. If laboratory services are provided by a non-state agency:

a. Discuss the contractual arrangements.

Not applicable,

b. Is the party providing the service a state licensee 7 Not applicable.

c. If a state licensee provides the service or equipment, what are the costs?

Not applicable.

5. Describe the capability of the laboratory as follows:

a. Can it qualitatively and quantitatively analyze low-energy beta emitters?

Yes, by liquid scintillation spectrometry.

b. Can it qualitatively and quantitatively analyse alpha emitters?

Yes, by proportional counter, alpha spectrometry, and liquid scintillation spectrometry,

c. Can it selectively determine t.he presence and quantity l

of gansea emitters? .

Yes, by gansna spectrometry.

,9 ,,.=r--- F *f- ** ' - ~ = ' * - ' " - - ' - - - ' " ' ' - " ' rw * ~-*nt-*'-r'" - - - 'e ~*-~--M-"-+m

• C w~-'N'v'*tre-r--~> w * **e er

i i A.11

, I

d. Can it handle samples in any physical form - wipes, liquids, solids, gaseous?

j Yes, including whole body measurements.

e. Does the lab participate in a periodic quality control program? If so, please identify the program.

Yes, external quality control (9C) program with EPA.

j Routine in-house Oc is also performed.

6. Now much time does it take to obtain the results from' sample analyers on both a routine basis and on,an emergency basist.

i n L g,? cC 7 Routine analysis requires 15 to 45 days.: Smergeney anal is limited only by sample preparation and counting time.ysis

7. Please list the types and numbers of laboratory instrumentation and services available.

1 - Proportional counter for 2* planchets (automated) 8 - Alpha spectrometry counters for 1" platschets 1 - Liquid scintillation counter for 20 ml. vials (automated) 1 - HPGe detector 1 - Na! detector (multiple crystals in various shielded up a w w w h uabo gip gggeg ((g 8 I#@>WNATM<4f68NW9w '

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, decommissioning and license termination, fee collection, contacts with communication media, conflict of interest policies for employees, exchange of information and other functions required of the program. Administrative procedures are in addition to the technical procedures utilized in licensing, and inspection and enforcement.

Questions:

1. Have administrative procedures and polices been established, documented and made available to RCP staff regarding:

a. office administration, Yes.

b. Receipt, assignment and tracking of license applications, Yes.

c. Inspections (e.g., assignments, announcement's of inspections),

Yes.

A.12 8

d. Yersinating licenses and decommissioning licensed facilities, Yes,

e. Collecting fees, Yes.

f. Responding to press inquiries, Yes. Have press policy.

g. Conflict of interest for RcF.eeployees, Yes. This is covered in the Department's Employee handbook.

h. Exchange-of-Information with NRC and Agreement States.

No, but guidance information from the NRC is maintained.

i. Distribution (as appropriate) to staff and licensees of All Agreement state Letters and Information Notices?

A copy,is placed in the file or.in the library and a.

second copy is routed to individuals.

(Please have copies of these procedures available for review).

2. What other written administrative procedures have been I

developed?

None.

1

( 3. Have copies of these procedures been distributed to regional l of fices and to other appropriate agencies?

Not applicable.

4. How are personnel and regional offices (if applicable) kept informed of changes in regulatory policies and practices?

Not applicable.

S

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

y r 7wv.

A.23 l

E. Mantasettai (category !!)

NRC Ouldeliness Prgram management should receive periodic reports from the staff on the status of regulatory actions (backlogs, problem cases, inquiries, regulation revisions). RCP l

management should periodically assess workload trends, resources and changes in legislative and replatory responsibilities to -

i forecast needs for increased staff, equipment, services and i fundings. Program management should priore periodic reviews of selected license cases handled by each reviewer and document the i

results. Complex licenses (major manufacturers, large scope - Type A Broad, or ones with the potential for significant releases to

, environment) should receive second party review (eupervisory, l committee, or consultant). supervisory review of inepections, reporte and enforcement actions should ales be' performed. When regional offices or other government agencies are utilised,

prgran management should conduct periodic audits of these offices.

l l Questions:

1. How does management track the status of the licensing and inspection programs -- workloads, backlogs, problem cases, etc.?

License Audit Worksheets, Inspection Audit Worksheets, spreadsheets, data bases and docket registers are utilised.

u .x. '

>+ : o qu a s,wsM yuta m - , i a.rymann , a

2. How often are meetings held between program management and statf7 Division staff meetings are held monthly and unit meetings l are held quarterly.

3. How often-is a statistical tabulation of licenses, l

licensees, licensing actions, inspections due, performed and overdue, etc., prepared?

Quarterly.

4. How does program management keep abreast of changes in legislative and regulatory racponsibility?

Hanagement is intimately involved in legislation hearings,

! writing of legislation, and implementing changes in l responsibility. Regulations are drafted and approved j through management.

5. What license review practices are followed for unusual or complex license applications?

The same practice as for regular licenses plus additional supervisory review, pre-inspection visits, other agency review, and NRC review.

. 6. How many management reviews of license cases were performed since the last review? ,

Approximately two per license case..

7. Were all license reviewers included in the cases selected for management review?

Yes.

wewr, ,. c. -

-yr, ~m- .,,m~,n-, , ~ -%, = -.,#-., ---...ry -,. , ,,r-ah---r,-y-. , + , . . , - - -

. = _ . _ . . _ - -. =. - . _. - - - .____ - - - .

A.14 I

8. How many field accompantments of inspectors were conducted by program management?

Five.

9. Were all inspectors (including supervisors acting as inspectors or LLW inspectors, if applicable) accompanied by management during the review period?

Yes.

10. Do all inspection reports receive supervisory reviewt Yes.

11. Does all enforcement correspondence receive supervisory review prior to dispatcht Yes.

12. If applicable, how many management audits were made of regional offices or other government agencies involved in the regulation of agreement materials?

Not applicable.

(Please have reports of audits priormed on regional offices or contract agencies available for review.P4+"PN D- -

r, office reuloment and sunoort services (Category II)

NRC Guidelinest The RCP should have adequate secretarial and clerical support. Automatic typing and Automatic Data Processing and retrieval capability should be available to larger (300-400 licenses) programs. Similar services should be available to regional offices, if utilised. Professional staff should not be used for fee collection and other clerical duties.

la. Describe the secretarial and clerical support for the radioactive materials program, including if appropriate, any problem areas. -

office support for the materials program consists of a senior secretary, senior word processing operator and an administrative clerk. The personnel in these positionn have i

responsibilities to support other activities in the Division.

b. If your program has regional offices, discuss the clerical support for those offices.

I Not applicable.

c. In cases of unusual workloads or vacancies, can supplementary secretarial / clerical support be obtained?

l Yes. -

l l

i A.35 2

2. Describe the computer equipment available to the RCP.

} Materiale Programs l Wang Work Processor, VS-100, with two work stations compuAdd 286 (286) Pc with 40 megabite hard disk drive

, and emulation for Wang workstation and Wang systen log on/ott.

tenith Laptop (386SX) with a 40 megabite hard disk drive

) other Programs:

compac Portable (386) with a 100 megabite hard disk

drive j compac Portable (286) with a 40 megabite hard disk.. '

i drive -

.t . :

1 compuAdd 325 PC (386) with a 60 megabite hard disk drive compuAdd 216 PC (286) with a 40 megabite hard disk drive Data General Laptop PC IEN Pc with a 20 megabite hard disk drive signature (AT) with a 65 megabite hard drive disk Wang Laptop with a 20 megabite hard disk drive Work station for the Wang Word Processor-Radiation Counting Pacilityth* W M W)U@ W h @ W 9'"

2BM PC dual disk drive with 20 megabite hard drive (external) '

compac PC (286) with a 40 megabite hard disk drive zenith PC (386) with a 40 megabite hard disk drive Work station for the Wang Word Processor

3. What operating system do you use (i.e., MSDos, UNIX,-APPLE, etc.)?

Wang and MS-DOS.

4. What data base or spreadsheet programs do you use?

I Pox Plus and Lotus 1-2-3.

5. What word processing program (s) do you use?

Wang and Wordperfect.

l

6. Does your word processing program have the capability to process documents that may be transferred to and from and from the IBM 5520 system? (With the exception of Wordstar, most popular programs have this capability. This information can be found in your user manual index under 'DCA" or

" revisable formata files.)

Yes.

7. What licensing functions are on your computer systeet Licenses, standard licensing statements, standard letters, Licensing Audit worksheets, Regulatione, fee = schedules, license data base, expired licenses and fiscal management.

o , , - e_, . . , . _ . _ ..,..,_..e,. e . - - - . . . _ . - . - . , _ . , . , . ~ . _ - - . _

-y_, , , . . . , _ _, , . - .mi.,-_ y-.m-_.m-

A.16 I l

8. What compliance functions are on your system?

Inspection reports, compliance 16tters, license data, Inspection Audit worksheet, Inspection assignments and

fiscal management.

i 9. Do you have a modem? If so, please describe how a j connection can be made.

Contact Mr. Jake Jacobi of this RCP. The modem number is

331-8483.

l 10. Are computers or terminals available to the professional staff, and if so, what use is made of them?

Yes. Draf ting letters, preparig reports on spreadshbete, j and prepared management information and tracking reports.

11. Do you have access to a f acsimile transmission unit? If so, please identify it by name and t p and provide the receive and verification (information) telephone numbers.

4 Yes. A sharp FO-700. The telephone number is (303) 320-1529.

12. Describe the fee collection system and identify the staff s resources assigned to it.

. .2s+ ,w .. >u r--c . w a , ,,n, Fees are collected ~ based upon the time expended by the

technical staff on licensing and inspection / compliance activities at a rate of $70.00 an hour.

j The regulations regarding fees are in the process of being revised to be similar to the NRC fee schedule.

The staff resources are a Health Physicist for oversight and i a senior Administrative clerk.

C. Public Information (Category II) 4 NRC Guidelines Inspection and licensing files should be available to the public consistent with state administrative procedures. It is desirable, however, that there be provisions for protecting from public disclosure proprietary information and i information of a clearly personal nature. Opportunity for public hearings should be provided in accordance with UMTRCA and applicable state administrative procedure laws.

Questions:

1. Are licensing and inspection files available for inspection by the public?

Yes.

2. .If so, what information may be withheld?

confidential medical and proprietory information. '

3. What written procedures and laws govern this? Please provide reference citations.

The "Open Records Act", title 24-72-201 through 206.

4

A.17 s

) IV. PEPsoNNEL A. Qualifications of Technical Staff (Category !!)

i i NRC Cuideliness 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 including the director of the radiation protection program should be commensurate with the type

, of licenses issued and inspected by the State. Written job

descriptions should be propred so thsh professional

. qualifications needed to fill vacancies can be readily identified.

, yn t Questions: ,it - - ' -

l 1. Do all professional personnel hold a bachelor's degree or have equivalent training in the physical or ILfe sciences?

Yes.

4

2. What additional training and experience does the RCP director have in radiation protection?

Haster's Degree in Radiolg ical Health and certified in j health physics by the American Board of Health physics.

3. .What addLtional training and experience are; required,of>the e ,._

senior personnel? ' ~ " ' - ~

• A position is assigned a job classification. When the level of supervision increases and tenure is met, promotion can J

take place. staff must have 3 to 8 years of experience depending on the classification. Some classifications require tenure in a supervisory level. The Division utilizes all coursew offered by the NRC to enhance all staff positions.

l 4. Do written position descriptions describe the duties, i responsibilities and functions of each professional position in the RCP and the qualifications needed by applicants for ,

them? Please provide copies for review. '

. Yes. See Attachment 6.

B. Staffine Level (Category II)

NRC Guidellt.est Professional staffing level should be approximately 1-1.5 person-year per 100 licenses in ef fect. 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 person-years' of effort, including consultants, are needed to process a new mill license (including in situ mills) or major ranewal, to meet requiremente of Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. This effort must include expertise in radiological matters, hydrology, geology, and structural engineering.

l l

l A.18 1

E I

Questions:

l 1. complete a table listing the professional (technical) person-years of effort applied to the agreement or 4 radioactivo material program by individual. Include the name, psition, fraction of time spent and include the following areers administrative / supervisor, inspection,,

j laboratory, regulation development, other). The table heading should be:

MAME POSITIOff AREA OF EFFORT FTEt J

R. Quilita Director Administration .25

w. Jacobi suprvising NP . Supervision- .50 N. Manrahan Principal EP Administration .75

c. Mattson senior NP Inspection .90 i T. sonner sealth Physicist Inspection .90 P. Phelps Nealth Physicist Inspection .45

' T. Pentecost Nealth Physicist Licensing .98 Total 5.13

2. Compute the professional / technical person-year of fort of person-years per 100 licenses (excluding mills ar,d burial site licenses). show calculation.

r m + . > , awn ngapga ging;chs < .m, 4r,.rp .

S l3 y, x 100= 1.18 per 100 j 3. Is the staf fing level adequate to meet normal and special needs and backup? If not, explain.

j The staf fing level is adequate to meet normal needs only.

i C. Staff Supervision (Category II)

NRC Guidelines Supervisory personnel should be adequate to i provide guidance and review the work of senior and junior i personnel. senior personnel should review applications and inspect licenses independently, monitor work of junior personnel, 4

and participate in the establishment of policy. Junior personnel should be initially limited to reviewing license applications and inspecting small programs under close supervision.

Questions:

Identify the junior personnel and senior personnel.

] 1.

Health Physicist A through C levels are considered " junior" personnel. The C Level is the journeyman level. senior and Principal Health Physicists are supervisory staf f and are senior staff.

! 2a. What duties are assigned to junior personnel? .

Inspections and licensing are performed by junior personnel,

b. How is their work monitored?

4 Their work is monitored by two levels of senior personnel.

t

A.19 l

{

. 3. 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.

4. How do senior personnel participate in the development of program policy?

By review of documents, identifying policy needs, recommending policy and drafting and review of policy changes.

D. Trainina (Category II);.

NRC Guidelines Sat 3r 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. . Prepare a table.-listing all of,the training courses,i u es , y ,

workshope, seminars / syansiai ete;s ~ that' your materials personnel have attended since the last review, and the source of the funding for the training (1,e., travel, per diem, tuition, etc.). The table heading should be:

Course source of Student Course soonsor Dates Fundino See Attachment 7.

2. Oxplain how new employees are trained.

Tne one new employee has been trained-under the direct supervision of a senior health physicist.

3. If any of your RCP staff currently need NRC training, please identify the employees and the courses needed.

Not applicable.

E. Staff continuity (Category II)

NRC Guidelines: Staff turnover should be minimized by combinations of opportunities for training, premotions, and competitive salaries. Salary levels should be adequate to recruit and retain persons of appropriate professional qualifications. Salaries should be comparable to almilar 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 should be opportunity for periodic salary increases compatible with experience and responsibility.

4

1 A.20 4

i Questions: 1

^

1. Identify the RCP employees who have left the Agreement materials program since the last review and give the reasono ,

for the turnovers. Also state whether the positions are 1 presently vacant, filled (name replacement), abolished or other status.

Reason Reolaced by 3 Mama Dennis Brown resigned Vacant Larry Doerr resigned Tom Pentecost Richard Gamewell retired vacant 4

Al Hasle transferred Robert Quillin

2. List the RCP salary schedule as follows:

Position Title Annual Salary Ranoe

Director 3636 - 4872 Supervising Health Physicist 3557 - 4767 Principal Health Physicist 3227 - 4324 4 Senior Geologist 3227 - 4324 Senior Health Physicist 3073 - 4118 Health Physicist C 2461 - 3298 Health Physicist 5. .2232 -.2991

'2081'- 2788"#" * " *

• Health Physicist *A *

3. Compare your salary schedule with similar employment alternatives in the same geographical area, such as

! industrial, medical, academic employers or other State i agencies.

i Salary schedules are set by the State Personnel Department based upon annual salary surveys of similar schedules in the private sector.

! 4. Is your salary schedule is adequate to recruit and retain staff?

l l Yes.

5. What opportunities are there for promotion within the RCP organizational structure without a staff vacancy occurring?

l l

None.

V. LICENSING

[ A. Technical Quality of Licensine Actions (Category I)

[ NRC Guidelines The RCP should assure that essential elements of j 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. Prelicensing visite should be made for complex and major licensing actions. Licenses should be clear, complete, I and accurate as to isotopes, forms, quantities, authorized uses, l 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.

3 A.21 4

Y I

Questions:

la. How many specific licenses are currently in effect?

436 9

b. Please give the numerical totals of the licenses in each category.

Total Number of Licenses in Each Category Category Number Category Number i

1.A 1 3.P 238.

1.3 1 4.D 33 2.A 15 5.A 1 2.C 5 5.3 2 3.3 3 5.C 1 3.C 4 6.A 13

, 3.E 9 6.5 1 3.F 1 8.A 2 3.0 1 8.B 5 3.H 2 8.C 57

, 3.K 1 8.D 3 3.M 2 9.A 2 3.N . m.y, m33 ,7 , , ~. m j p.g. ,ggg 3.,

2a. How many new licenses (not amendments in entirety) have been issued since the last review?

I 62

b. How many were major licenses? (See question 11 for criteria.)

i

! None.

3. List the specific licenses (name and license number) that were terminated since the last review.

4 see Attachment 8.

(

I 4. How many amendments were issued during the review period?

449

5. Identify unusual or complex licenses issued since the last i

review, including name and license number.

l Martin Marietta - Colo. 012-12, DOE use of materials l

American shippers - Colo. 804-01 i

6. Note any variances in licensing policies and procedures or exemptions from the regulations granted since the last f review.

i-None.

l 7a. Do you require licensees to submit contingency plans?

(Reference All Agreement and Non-Agreement State letter dated May 21, 1987, or NUREG 0767).

Yes.

1

A.22 i

i 'a

b. List the licensees (name and license number) who are subject to contingency plans requirements and the status of their plans (approved, under review, etc.).

i.

Ramp Industries, Inc. - Colo. 523-01

Sa. What criterion does the State use to determine the need for a prelicensing visit?

4 l The complexity of the operation and when there are large

! quantities of radioactive material la possession or concern

over the license applicant based os past experience..

How many prelicensing visite were made during this review 4

b.

periodt i 3.

i, j 9. How do you ensure up-to-date information has been submitted

prior to a license renewal?

A new license application is required.

l

10. Has the State taken any special licensing action with i . , . respect to licensees operating n under. multiple we-wn~ . - m m jurisdiction?

p v m p p e - ,.,+.

I No.

l 11. Prepare a table as below showing the State's major licensees l

with name, number and type.

i j INCLUDE:

o Broad (Type A) Licenses o LLW Dieposal Licenses l o LLW Processing and Brokers I o Major Manufacturers and Distributors I o Uranium Mills o Large Irradiators (Pool Type or other) o Radiopharmacies j o other Licenses With a Potential Significance for Environmental Impact l o other Licensees You Consider to be " Major" Licensees i

l

.The table heading should be:

l I

I Emma License Number Iyga l

Univ. Colo. Health sciences Colo. 163-05 Broad Colo, state University Colo. 02-19 Broad Univ. Colo./ Boulder Colo. 377-05 Broad Ramp Industries Colo. 523-01 LLW Broker

Wedding & Associates Colo.'659-01 ' Manufacturer

, MF Physics Colo. 803-01 Manufactuer Martin Marietta Colo. 12-128F Manufacturer-Cobe Laboratories -Colo. 492-01 Irradiator i IOTECH, Inc. Colo.-613-01 Irradiator Uranium allis not included.

1.

r l

c

A.33 i i

I Adecuacy of Product Evaluations (Category I)

B.

NRC Guidelines

RCP evaluations of manufacturer's or i distributor's data on sealed sources and devices outlined in N3C, State, or appropriate ANSI Guides, should be sufficient to assure

, integrity and safety for users. The RCP should review manuf acturer's information on 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 4

restrictive conditions. 1 i l Questions: - ,

.c p ,, , , +

1. Prepara a table listing new and revised SS&D registrations of sealed sources and devices issued during the review:

period. The table heading should ben 3 1 m .

a .c .

SS&D Name of Manufacturer, Registry Distributor or Type of Device User (Custom Evaluation)

Number or Source 3

Co-175-D-1015 Boulder Scientific Berylium Analyzer .

Company 1 2. How many SS&D evaluations have been made' for which registry documents have not;yet been issuedfoyRggt g e gy p.ig g gp p

• m None.

, 3. What guides and procedures are used to evaluate registry l applications?

NRC guides and ANSI standards.

1

4. Please describe the procedures for supervisory review of SS&D registrations.

A Senior Health Physicist review the application and a Supervising Health Physicist concurs.

l Sa. Do you have any pressing concerns about any sources, devices or products currently authorized for distribution to persons either generally licensed or exempt from licensing?

j Yes.

b. If so, identify the items by manufacturer's name and modri number and describe your concerns.

l The Division is concerned about the accountability of generally licensed devices.

s e

1 l A.34 i4 C. Licensina Procedures (Category II) 1 '

NRC cuidelines The RCP should have internal licensing guides, a checklists, and policy memoranda consistent with current NRC 4 practice. License applicants (including applicants for renewals).

] should be furnished-copies of applicable guides and regulatory

~

positions. The present compliance status of licensees should be considered in-licensing actions. Under the NRC Exchange-of-4 Information program, evaluation sheets, service licenses, and I

licenses authorising distribution to general licensees and persons'

. exempt from licensing should be submitted to NRC on a timely

{ basis. Standard license conditions' comparable with cerrent NRC

standard license conditions should be used to ex W ite and provide

, uniformity in the licensing process.- Files.should be maintained-

) in an orderly fashion to allow fast, accurate retrieval of l information and documentation of discussions and visits.

! Questions:

f l

j 1. Are current NRC Regulatory Guides furnished to reviewers? l Yes.

2. Do your reviewers use the standard review pland, model licenses, etc., that are furnished in the NRC Fuel Cycle j Policy and Guidance Directives FC xx-xx7 ,

.. 4; r YesiM89

• WWM4DM 9Pddi& Witi O #4#'M+D*YDADWb**

l l 3. Are checklists used by the reviewers maintained in the

files?

No.

4. What internal licensing guides and procedures has the State

developed?

l The State has developed procedures in Docketing, Fees,

! Mailing Filing and Terminations.

l 5. What licensing guides and regulatory positions are furnished l to new and renewal license applicants?

Applicable NRC Reg Guides.

6. How do reviewers determine the present compliance status of

~ licensees when considering licensing actions?

By reviewing the compliance section of the license when conducting the application review.

7. For what-length of time are licenses issued?

Five years.

l 8.' Explain how soon-to-expire licenses are tracked to assure

} either-timely applications are received or procedures j initiated to terminate the license.

The radioactive materiale data base includes a field in the date that licenses expire. Each month a list is prepared of the licenses that are to expire in the month 90 days plus.

Letters notifying the licensees that their licenses are about to expire are then sent to these licensees.

t A.25

l j 9. What mechanism exists to assure that SS&D registrations and

service licenses issued by the state are distributed to the l NRC7 I

Copies are sent to NRC Region IV and NRC Headquarters.

' 10. Have you developed your own standard license conditions, and 4 if so, when were they reviewed and updated? Please provide

copies for review.

s Yes, they are reviewed continual. see Attachment 9.

11. How do you verify that your standard conditions are 4

comparable to the current NRC conditions?- ,

The staff reviews NRC licenses provided to RCP and reviewe and compares the NRC standard conditions with those of the RCP.

{ 12. How is your 85&D registry kept currentf i- Copies of the source & Device Registration Sheets are placed in the Device sheet Catalogues after they have been reviewed l by the staff.

i

13. Describe the system used to advise licensees of pertinent changes

.u-in regulations and regulatory procedures. m.w em*w '

. s 1. r m e.w uv w ~ #~ 3 wwgre By general mailing to all licensees of pertinent changes and/or along with the letters regarding licen:ing and emphasis actions. official notice and public hearing are conducted for regulation changee.

1

14. Describe your procedures for maintaining the license flies (How are files and folders arranged? Are telephone contacts i and visite documented? Who is responsible for filing materials in folders?).

t

, The Division has two systems for filing material in the 4

Specific-Radioactive Materials License Files. The older system consisted of a four part file, with the new system

consisting of a six part file. The four part file has the following sections

(1) The License, (2) Compliance, (3) Correspondence and (4) Fees. The six part file has the following sections (1) The License, (2) Fees, (3) Licensing Correspondence-CDH, (4) Licensing Correspondence-Licensee,

! (5) Compliance correspondence and Reporta-RCD, and (6) Compliance correspondence-Licensee. As appropriate, telephone contacts and visits are recorded. This can be on a License' Cover Sheet or if a memorandum of the contact i needs to be recorded, a "Pa== ant Sheet" can be prepared, i The flies are maintained by the office support staff person assigned to filing.

4

15. Are there opportunities for license reviewers to accompany inspectors?

res.

4 T

I i .

i

. A.26 t

I VI. COMPLIANCE A. Status of Inspection Procram (Category I) l NRC Guideliness The State RCP should maintain an inspection

' program adequate to assess liconsee cempliance 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 t1 Joe overdue and the priority categories should be readily available. There should be at least l

semiannual inspction plannig for the number of inspections to be performed, assignments to senior versus. junior staff, assignments to regione, identification of special needs and periodic status reports. When backlogs occur the program should develop and Lmplement a plan to reduce the backlg. The plan should identify priorities for inspections and establish target dates and milestones for assessing progress.

Questions:

1. How is statistical information maintained about the inspection program to permit periodic assessment of its status by RCP management?

Inspection audit work sheets are snaintained on inspections .

J activities in the RCP and data from these worksheets are i consolidated into quarterly reports.

! 2. Prepare a table indicating the Inspection Priority, the j

total number of licenses in each priority, the scheduled reinspection frequency, and the number of inspections made in each priority for the review period.

' See Attachment 10.

3. Prepare a table identifying the State Inspection Priority 1, 2, and 3 licenses with overdue inspections. Include the j inspection priority, the due date, and the number of monthe j the inspection is overdue. (If list is extensive, a comparable computer printout is acceptable.) The list should include initial inspections that are overdue.

None are overdue.

4. Frepare a table indicating the total number of overdue license inspections for all lower-priorities.

None are overdue.

j S. If there are overdue inspections, describe or attach a copy of your plan for eliminating it. ' Identify prierities, target dates and procedures for measuring progress. Include, as appropriate, copies of memoranda to the RCP staf f regarding the plan.

Not applicable.

i A.37 k

I

6. Project the number of inspections needed to be done annually 4 to meet your inspection priorities and to eliminate your overdues, if any.

This varies from year to year depending upon the inspections due and the frequency of inspections for the remaining licensees. The present staff should be able to keep up with the present workload.

7. How are inspection schedules planned and how are the dates and personnel assignments saade?

Inspection schedules are planned utilising inspection due lists generated from the radioactive materiale data base.

The Principal Health Physicist makes assignments per pro:odures.

8. How are initial inspections identified when they become 4

overdue?

Initial inspections are identified utilizing the radioactive

materials data base, t

9a. Describe your inspection priorities for inspecting j terminated licenses.

4

.The priority is to inspct the licensee as soon as possible, ,

upon termination notification and before a facility is

released for unrestricted use if an inspection is deemed necessary.

b. How many of these inspections are pending at this time?

i None.

c. How many were inspected since the last review?

l Three, l

r 10a. How many reciprocity notices were received in the review period? '

197

b. How many reciprocity inspections were conducted in the ,,e review period? e*'-

one' W~

1 l 11. How many field inspections of radiographers were performed in the review period?

4 B. Insoection Frecuenev (Category I) i j NRC Guideliness The RCP should establish an inspection priority

system. The specific frequency of inspections should be based l upon the potential hazards of licensed operations, e.g., major l processors, broad licensees, and industrial radiographers should be inspected approximately annually -- smaller or less hazardous operations may be inspected less frequently. The minimum inspection frequency including for initial inspections should be no less than the NRC system.

l l

I i

A.28 I

j Questions:

1. Please attach a copy of the State's priority system.

i i

Bee Attachment 11.

2. How are inspection priorities assigned to licenses?

They are assigned in a manner that is similar to the NRC inspection priority.

1 3. Is the priority noted in the license file?

No, but it is maintained in the data base.

4. Discuss any variances in the state's priorities from the NRC

priority system and the' reasons for the variances.

The system is similar to the NRC inspection pricrities.

5. Describe the State's policy for unannounced inspections and exceptions to the policy.

,t*

At this time, all routine inspections are announced, however 3 , , g1 .'

unannounced inspections can be conducted at any time.

6==C Describe the state's policy for conducting' follow-up* "D

~

I inspections.

Followup as needed based upon items of noncompliance and discussion with the inspector. Senior staff recommends if l followup is appropriate.

l 7. Identify any individual licensees or groups of licenses for which the State is inspecting more frequently due to compliance problems. Please discuss the-nature of those problems.

None.

C. Inspector's Performance and Cacability (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. How do new inspectors become qualified to conduct-independent inspections?

There have been no new inspectors since the last evaluation, the present inspectors each have ten years experience.

1

A.39 l l

2. Prepare a table showing the number and types of supervisory accompaniments made during the review period. Includes suoervisor Insoector License cateoorv Date Robert Quillin Tim Bonsor 2C Layton Bros. Drum 6/26/89 Robert Quillin Tim Bonzer 3P western slope 5/18/90 Refining Robert Quillin Tim Bonzer 3C Syncor 8/27/90 ;'.

Jake Jacobi Frank Phelps 55 RAMP 2/1/91

, Robert Quillin Frank Phelps 3H COBE 3/5/91

! 3. Did all inspectors receive at least one accompaniment by the compliance supervisor during the review period? If not, explain.

i Yes.

7 D. Responses to Incidents and A11eoed Lleidents

(Category I) 4 NRC Cuidelines 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..snade of anon w reportable 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 i on a high priority baris. When appropriate, it.vletigations should include reenactments and time-study measurements (normally within j a few days). Investigation (or inspection) results should be documented and enforcement action taken when appropriate. State

licensees and the NRC should be notified of pertinent information l about any incident which could be relevant to other licensed I

operations (e.g. , 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 assessment 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.

l l

A.30 Soeelal Note: The criteria for reporting radioactive materials events are set out in All Agreement states letter from D.

j Nussbaumer dated July 22, 1986:

4 o Abnormal Occurrences: These are the most significant events. In addition to an early telephone notification to the regional office, a written report from the State is l

needed for inclusion in the Quarterly Report submitted by NRC to Congress (AOR). Criteria for reporting and guidance

.on content of reports can be found in any AOR.

o Telephone Reports

These are events for which NRC wcald like to receive early telephone notification. Typically, these include incidente requiring prompt or 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

notification by licensees to states or events that receive significant media attention.

i o Other Reportable Incidents: These are events for which l reports are required of the licensees to the State.

i Questions I

1. What criteria is used to determine the need . nd response time for onsite inspections of reported inetcents?

All incidents are evaluated and investigated immediately, as

soon as rcported. Consultation with the Division management _ l assures that proper response is completed;!whether'it be"a " '

telephone call or a response to the site.

l 2. How many reports of incidents and alleged incidents were received during the review period?

23 b 5 l#f

3. How many onsite inspections of incidents were conducted during the period?

4 l 4. How many inspections of incidents revealed an incident l occurred which required NRC notification, either by I

telephone or by written report? (Refer to July 21, 1986 All Agreement State Letter for definition.)

None.

5. Please have summaries available of the events identified in questions 2 and 4 above. -f t The incident summary forms /

provided with this document may be used for this purpose. *

6. If not included in the response to question 5 above please attach a summary of reports of leaking sealed sources.

Please identify the source by manufacturer, model number,

l. age of source (if available), date of leak testLand leak test result.

Not applicable.

e i

1 i

1:

l I

i .

I A.31 l

}

l 4 7. Did any incidents involve equipment or source failure or operating procedures that we m deficient but were approved?

l If so, how and when were stase licentees and the NRC notified of pertinent information relevant to other licensed operations?

l

} No.

j

8. Was information on incidente involving failure of equipment or sources provided to the agency responsible for evaluation of the device for an assessment of possible generic design j deficiency? Please provide detaile.

l Not applicable.

9. If the RCP utilised medical or technical consultante for an

emergency during the review period, please describe the j circumstances.

! Not applicable.

10. Describe the procedures for looking into allegations or i other reports of possible wrong doing by licensees, for l example,

a. Protecting the identity of allegers or persons requesting that their identities not be made available

, for public disclosure.+ <<% -

w mi w dev' mie'e m :

l' The identity of allegers is kept confidential in accordance with.the colorado open Records Law.

[ . b. obtaining documentation (e.g., signed statements, copies of reco.-ds).

copies of records can be requested, or demanded with the assistance of the Attorney General.

! c.- Obtaining the services of persons with specialized l training and experience such as conducting and documenting formal interviews.

Other State agencies-(i.e. C.B.I., Attorney General,

! etc.) may be used if necessary to obtain information.

d. Obtaining necessary legal counsel for inquires into wrong doing.

An Assistant Attorney General (Jerry Goed) is assigned j to this Division and is readily available if needed.

, e. Guidance for staff when allegations or inspections

' disclose the possibility of willful violations of regulatory requirements or other evidence of criminal wrong doing.

Please provide copies of these procedures. .

The Division has written procedures which will be available in the Radiation Control Program offices.

i l

l l

A.33

(

11. In the review period, are there any cases involving possible criminal wrong doing that were looked into or are presently undergoing review?

Yes. Colo. 325-01. An order was issued restricting the use of radioactive materials to STORAGE ONLY due to improper transportation of the radioactive materials.

E. Enforcement Procedures (Category I) . ,

NRC Guideliness Enforcement Procedures should be sufficient to provide a substantial deterrent to licensee noncomplianos with regulatory requirements.' Provisions for the' levying ist monetary penalties are recommended. Enforcement letters should be issued within 30 days-following inspections and'should employ. appropriate regulatory language clearly specifying a11~ items of monoaspliance and health and safety matters identified & trig the inspection and referencing the appropriate regulation or~1icense condition being violated. Enforcement letters should specify the time period for the licensee to respond indicating corrective actions and actions taken to prevent recurrence (normally 20-30 days).

The inspector and compliance supervisor should review licensee responses.

Licenseeresponses,toenforcement1ettersshouldbepromptpy-Mg",

acknowledged as to adequacy and resolutiostof previously "

r 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 radiation control program.

Questions:

1. What enforcement measures are available to the State to provide a deterrent to licensee noncompliance with regulations or license provisions?

There are civil penalties and there are criminal penalties both provided as state statutes.

2. Are there written procedures establishing severity levels for violators? Please provide a copy.

Yes. Included in Part XIII, Appendix A of the State Regulations.

3. Are there written procedures for escalated enforcement?

Please provide a copy.

These are being revised at-this time.

.4. If the RCP can apply civil penalties, have procedures been established to determine when they apply and the amounts 7 Please provide a copy. .

Yes. Included :in Part XIII, Appendix A of the State Regulations.

5. Describe tne State's provisions for criminal penalties.

Title 25-11-107(3) C.R.S., 1988.

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

A.33

\ b

6. Are enforcenent letters issued within 30 days following l inspections?

It is a Radiation Control Division goal to have enforcement letters issued within 30 days.

l 7. Do you have a standard format for enforcement letters?

Yes.

l 8. How are recommendations differentiated from items of non-l compliance in the letters?

l I

l They are listed as recommendations. ,

J

1. . e _, 4 ,e .

~7.-

9. Do the letters referencelthe~ appropriate regulation or=

license condition being' violated? <

j l

I

~ Ye s'.

10. What time period is specified in the enforcement letters for the licensee to respond with corrective actions taken?

Thirty days.

t

11. Do inspectors write enforcement letters? If so, do the letters undergo supervisory review before they are sent to

-  ; a w d he;iicensee?pg g 7 ggg . g,9;p,pj, 3.g..qqsggggggg-j Yes and Yes.

12. Who reviews licensee responses?

The inspector, with supervisory review prior to the acknowledgement letter being sent.

13. What is the time limit for the State's acknowledgement of licensee responses and what tracking system exists for assuring resolution of the items of non-compliance and unresolved items?

No tLme limit however the goal is to respond within 30 days.

14. Does the State have the authority to impound radioactive material?

Yes.

15. Can the State issue orders, including Emergency orders?

Yes.

16. Do State administrative procedures permit the opportunity for~ hearings in major enforcement cases?

Yes.

17. Describe the State's policy for conducting follow-up inspections.

Follow up inspections are conducted on licensees whose regular inspection indicates that the radiation protection program has major deficiencies.

Ao34 I

i i 18. If during the review period the State has issued orders, applied civil penalties, sought criminal penalties, impounded sources, or held formal enforcement hearings, identify these esses and attach a summary of the circumstances and results.

19. Have any compliance problems occurred involving licensees operating under multiple jurisdiction or under reciprocity?

If so, please identify the licenses and explain if other Agreement states and NRC were advised.

The state has issued orders to the following licensees i

Lewallen, William M. Jr., M.D. - Colo.1325-02 shattuck, s.W., chemical Co. - Colo. SMS-47 s

The state has had enforcement hearings with the following licensees:

i Denver General Hospital - Colo. 097-02 Rose Medical Center - Colo. 229-02 Valley View Hospital - Colo. 125-01 Information on these issues is available in the license files.

F. Inspection Proceduras,(Category,II) ggggg, y ,,

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 j the inspection of licensed programs. NRC Guides may be used if properly supplemented by policy memoranda, agency interpretations, i etc. Written inspection policies should be issued to establish a

~

policy for conducting unannounced inspections, obtaining corrective action, following up and closing out previous violations, interviewing workers and observing operations,

assuring exit interviews with management, and issuing appropriate

' notification of violations of health and safety problems.

Procedures should be established for maintaining licensees 3

compliance histories. Oral briefing of supervision or the senior inspector should be performed upon return from nouroutine inspections. For States with separate licensing and inspection i

staffs, procedures should be established for feedback of information to license reviewers.

Questions:

i 1. Do you use inspection guides that are specific to categories of licensees?

i Yes.

2. Has the RCP developed its own inspection guides or does it use NRC guides?

It uses NRC guides. .

3. Discuss the use of inspection policy memoranda, interpretations, etc. , to supplement inrpection guides.

1 These are not presently used by the Di<ision.

4 d

4

A.35 l 1,

1 4. Are there written policies and procedures fors

a. unannounced inspections?

Yes.

b. obtaining corrective action?

I Yes.

4

. c. following-up and closing out previous citations of I

violations?

4 Yes.

f d.' kntrviewingworkers?

Yes.

2

, e. observing operations?

l d

Yes.

l f. exit interviews with management?  ;

1 Yes.

. ,3g. .

issuing notices of yiolations andafindings.of. health;and;e gn .

~

safety problems?

Yes.

Please have copies of these procedures available for the reviewer.

5. Describe the procedures for maintaining licensee's

, compliance histories.

The licensees compliance history is maintained in the Specific Radioactive Material License file.

6. Explain your policy for supervisoro debriefing inspectors

upon return from inspections.

I l The inspection reports any unusual circumstances found

! during the inspection.

l 7. What procedures are there for providing feedback of l compliance information to licensing?

t Inspection notifying the license reviewer of any circumstances regarding license issues.

l e

5 I

r

A.36 s'

G. Inspection Reports (Category II)

NRC Cuideliness 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 status of previous noncompliance and the I independent physical measurements made by the inspector.

j Questions

1. Describe the format (s) used by the RCP for documenting inspections.

An example of an inspection report is enclosed.

i Attachment 12.

2. Do the reports documents

a. the entrance and exit discussions held with license

management?

Yes,

>i ,,, 5 ,p ' c. , ' in ap py @:t4y %lWi) w .

b. follow-up of previous citations of violations?

Yes.

c. results of interviews of workers?

i Yes.

d. results of observations of operations?

4 Yes.

e. confirmatory measurements conducted by the inspector?

4 Yes,

f. areas of the licensee's program needing special attention at the next inspection?

Yes.

g. the items of non-compliance found in the inspection?

l Yes.

i

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

N j A037 I

H. Confirmatory Measurements (Category II) i

' NRC Cuideliness Confirmatory measurements should be sufficient in 4

number and type to ensure the licensee's control of materials and to validate the licensees measurements. RCP instrumentation

should be adequate for surveying license opetations (e.g., survey meters, air samplers, lab counting equipment for smears,

identification of isotopes, etc.). RCP instrumentation should i include the following types t GM Survey Meter 0-50 mr/hr Ion Chamber survey Meters up to several Rfhe Neutron Survey Meters Alpha Survey Noter Fast 6 yhermal g 0-100,000 c/m Air Samplers

Mi and Low Volume 7( -

Lab Counters: Detect 0.001 pc/ wipe Velometa're Snake tubes

! Lapwl Air Samplers 1

Instrument calibration services or facilities sheute 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 -

licensees being inspected.* W W *'

• 4 - W M BW W M VfN M N M

, Questions:

) 1. Discuss the state's policy for conducting confirmatory measurer *.ts as a part of each inspection (e.g., air j samples, wipe sampics, air flows, dose rates).

j Surveys including wipes are to be done at each inspection, as necessary , to verify adequacy of licensees program.

j 2. List the equipment that is readily available to the RCP for

, surveying licensed operations ard conducting appropriate confirmatory measurements.

• I i

5 Victoreen Model 290 (Thyac IV) survey meters with Model 489-1000 " Pancake

• G-M probes

' 5 Victoreen Model 450 digital integrating lon chambers (with) beta window i

l 1 Victoreen Model 450P digital integrating ion chamber l (pressurized) i 1 Ludlum Model 12/4-65 Ens (Aq) alpha survey meter l 15 Los Alamos chirpers (F&J Model RA 180, gamma -

120 chirps /mR) 1 Eberline Model PHC-1 neutron survey meter (thermal neutrons 213 unmoderated BF3 probe) 2 Eberline Model PRM-7 NaI(TP) microR scintillometer j survey meters I

2 Ludlum Model 10 NaI(TP) microR scintillometer survey

, meters l

A.38 i

3. Describe the method used for calibrating survey instruments and the frequency of calibration.

survey instruments are calibrated quarterly and are traceable to NBS. The calibration uses & point isotropic source in a free-air, shadow-shie2d technique.

VII. OTHER ASPECTS OF THE STATE'S RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM 4

T A. HED-Aareemenf. sources of Radiation Questianst ^ '

.. ,.c.

L a  : --\L ;r t 1. Are the licensing and inspection procedures for NARN the~

same as for agreement materials? a l

Yes.

B. Environmental Monitorino Procram

Questions

1. To indicate the scope of the environmental monitoring programs undertaken specifically to svaluate the environmental radiological impacts of state licensed

;,, facilities describes. .g ,, g ..

j ,

a. the licensee (name, license number and type of operation)

Ramp Industries, Inc. - Colo. 523-01 CSMRI - Colo. 617-01

b. types of media sampled i

air, water and soil, TLD's

c. the number and locations of stations sampled l This information is available in license files and/or

reports.

d. the frequency of sample collection The frequency varies.

e. the analyses run on each type of sample The analyses varies.

l 2. How is such data used in your licensing and inspection I programs for these State licenses?

l Copias are available in the RCP office.

i Please attach copies of any summaries or periodic reports

relating to this aspect of your environmental surveillance program.

Not applicable.

I l

i

A.39 4

C. Other Areas This section of the review is for the use of either the reviewer 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.

Questions:

1. Nave there been any applications or approvals for incineration, competing or for methods of LLW disposal not provided for in the regulations (i.e.,10 CFR 20.302

requests)? If so, please list the applicant and nature of

application and status.

.' +n e -

No. y

2. Isthestatemakinganyeffortduringinhpections'ofnuclea'r pharmacies to observe the Aicensee conducting the required molybdenum breakthrough tests, i.e., what is the stato doing in addition to record reviews to establish compliance or noncompliance with the requirement?

Yes.

3a. Is the State mounting any special effort to look at the possibility of reconcentration of radionuclides in sanitary-sewers and sewerage treatment plants as a rt of the regular

- ' J inspection program?

• If soF ylease fdescrlbeWNWW,69#MW@sMW Yes. A survey is conducted at RAMP, Inc., Colo. 523-01, when requested by the RCP.

b. If reconcentration of radionuclides in sanitary sewers or sewerage treatment plants has been found, please identify the site and licensee.

No reconcentration has been found at RAMP, Inc.,

Colo. 523-01.

4. How does the RCP handle inspection findings concerning industrial safety hazards? (Reference A/S letter dated January 18, 1989.)

If industrial safety hazards may affect RAM they will be noted in the inspection report. Other serious hazards may be identified to appropriate H.D. or other agencies.

Sa. 3M has reported not all of their customers returned-static eliminators that were subject to recall. Are you aware of this?

Yes.

O

A.40 1

I

b. If such customers were located in your state, please provide a summary of any actions taken by the RCP to locate the users, etc. (Note: We recognize that by this date the Po-210 has significantly decayed and reduced the potential hazard. The information is requested because of its relevance to the question of maintaining a system to adequately account for CL devices.)

4 l The RCP contacted those facilities found on lists provided

! by the NRC and the 3M company and informed these facilities

! of the problem and provided lists of qualified Health j Physicists to survey their facilities if this was necessary.

4 i

e A

g, ' ',4 4 ' I' ~c .p. # , [, sk p I4 I [_ fj - L -" t- . . , ----h (' "2< - - k e A I, & -

i i

i l

l l

i l

4 t

t

colorado Uranium Questions April 3, 1991 Page 1 of 18 g

OUISTIONS FOR PERIODIC REVIEW OF URANIUM MILL PROGRAMS

1. Identify the paragraph or section in the State statutes or regulations that provides authority for the State to carry out the requirements of Public Law 95-604, " Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act."

RH 25-11-102. ,

2. Provide a list o2 all uranium mills for which ourettes have been established for reclamation and long-term moottoring and maintenance.

Provide the dollar amount collected and/or bonded thus far for each facility showing the amount-for site reclamation, tailings reclamation, and long-term maintenance and monitoring. What type of ourety mechanisms are being used for each facility? Identify those with inadequate sureties.

See Attachment s.

3. In the issuance of uranium mill licenses, does the state provide opportunity for written consnents, public hearings (with transcripts) and cross-examination?

, s. -

Yes, RN 18.9 6.  % w 43 a + , & ~ 4 apm4wgp myg'ypw m . '

4. In the issuance of a uranium mill licenses, does the State prepare a written determination of the action to be taken based upon evidence presented during the public comment period and is such written determination subject to judicial review?

Yes.

5. Does the state place a ban on uranium mill major construction activities prior to completion of the licensing action?

- Yes, RH 3.8.7.

6. Does the state provide an opportunity for public participation through written consents, public hearings, and judicial review of regulations?

Yes. Through public notices and hearings before the colorado Board of Health.

7. Do state procedures require that the state provide a written analysis of

. the impact on the environment of the uranium mill licensing activity?

Yes, RH 18.4.

8. Have there been any changes to the' uranium mill statutes or regulations -

from those which were submitted to-the NRC for obtaining an amended agreement? If yes, state which parts were changed and how they differ from those submitted for amended agreement. ,

Yes. See Attachment C.

I e i Colorado Uranium Questions April 3, 1991 Page 2 of 18 I i

1

9. For a uranium mill licensing action, do the State statutes or regulations require the State to prepare an initial scoping document which clearly delineates the scope of work to be performed by other agencies assistfag in the preparation of the environmental assesseent, within a given time constraint?

No initial scoping document is required by law. The Division has in the past conducted " scoping" meetings. By Memorandum of Understanding the Division has delineated the area and scope of work to be performed by other agencies.

30. Does the State have provisions for obtaining outside consulting services to assist the licensing authority for those areas in the environmental assessment where the state.cannot identify a state agency having sufficient expertise to adequately evaluate and prepare an environmental assessment?

Yes. Both direct (RH 3.1.3) and Third Party Contracts (RH 18.5) are available. A budget item for July 1, 1991 - June 30, 1992 seeks

$165,000 in direct c9ntract capability.

! 11. Does the State have recess to medical consultants recognized for their .

expertise <in emergency medical matters relating to the intake"and % r F W j exposure to uranium associated with uranium milling? Please supply l

r names of consultants and a brief statement of their areas of expertise.

, The State would rely on Rocky Flats physicians, NRC, and the Division's l Nedical Advisory Committee.

l 12. Do state agencies, other than the radiation control section, have permitting or licensing authority for uranium milling operations? If yes, state the organizations and have available for review the interagency documents which show how these separate responsibilities are coordinated and incorporated in the licensing action or in the preparation of environmental assessments.

The Mined Land Reclamation Division of the Department of Natural Resources and the Air and Water Quality control Divisions of the Health Department issue permits. A standard license condition of uranium mill licenses requires the licensee to obtain all required permits. The Radiation Control Division establishes a technical work group with these other agencies to review applications.

13. What training courses related to uranium allis and tailings have been attended by staff members since the last review?

non Simpson attended a University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee "EELP Modeling Workshop". Phil Stoffey attended NWWA's " IBM PC Applications in Ground Water Pollution & Hydrology".- Edd Kray attended the U.S. EPA " Mixed r Waste Training Course", EPA community relations course, 7 U.S. DOE courses, and Ken Weaver and Bob Quillin attended NRC's annual uranium regulatory workshop.

14. Does the State budget include funding costs for the use of consultants?

l Please have available for reviewer any documentation showing such i funding.

l Technical assistanos from the Colorado Geological Survey is funded from operating expenses after billing to and payment by the licensee. See

10. above.

I'

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

i s

l ( Colorado Uranium Questions April 3, 1991 page 3 of 18

{

l

15. How sany uranium mill inspections have been performed since the last j review? Now many are overdue for inspection at present time?

t l 17 uranium unit inspections have been completed since April 1989. This

includes inspection of each major conventional alli twice and j inspections of 13 other inspections including two inactive heap leaches,

two ore sorters, four inactive tailings sites (UNYRAP), and four l miscellaneous sites.

! No active commercial mill inspections are overdue at this time. The l Rifle UNTRAF inactive site was most recently inspected La August 1989.

4

16. Does the state require uranium mill licensees to submit reports specifying the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted' areas in liquid and gaseous effluents during a specific j time period? Eow often?

! Yes, within 60 days af ter January 1 and July 1 of each year.

i 17. Does the state radiological health laboratory support facility for i uranLum mille participate in the EPA quality assurance . program for laboratory performance?

Yes., , wn, m . ,t .  ; M p 1;; h .a i 18. Is the list of instrumentation, field and laboratory, which was l submitted to the NRC for review for amended agreemen*;, still current?

l If not, show changes.

a l

Numerous improvements have been achieved. See Radioactive Materials Licensing & Inspection Unit response to Program Evaluation Questionnaire Appendix A, Item III.C. (especially III.C.7 for laboratory capability) and VI.H.

19. Laboratory capabilities.

a. Can the lab quantitatively analyse low energy beta emitters?

b. Can they quantitatively analyse alpha emitters?

c. Can they selectively determine the presence and quantity of gamma emitters?

( d. Can the lab handle samples in any physical form?

l Yes. See response to audit of Radioactive Materials Licensing &

j Inspection Unit.

( 20. What steps has the state taken to ensure acceptable groundwater detection monitoring programs for surface impoundments by its_ licensees?.

l i

Appendix'A to Part 18, effective December 30, 1990, directly incorporates 10 CFR 40 ground water protection requirements.

i Letters incorporating the Division's ground water monitoring policy were sent in March 1991 to all licensees required to implement Part 18 ground water requirements.

I t _

l w

i e.- ,.p i - ' . -

I Colorado Uranium Questions April 3, 1991 Page 4 of 18

! Groundwater contamination has been clearly identified at the two major

! allis in the state (Cotter Corporation Canon City and Umeteo Minerals l Corporation Urasn) and corrective action programs consistent with

10 CFR 40, Crit ~erion 3D have been established by court-ordered Coneent

' Decrees and Remedial Action Programs (RAP's). Both RAP's addrese groundwater. cleanup. At canon City elaborate well and flushing programs combined with a groundwater barrier are operating. At Uravan a water management program including two new lined evaporation ponds, the draining of both the tailings areas and Club Ranch ponds and.a hillside seepage control system is in progress. Groundwater monitoring is6 associated with both of these programs. Divisies on-site ocordinators.

l responsible for site RAP activities can supply further details of the 4 monitoring systems.

Croundwater monitoring at other sites is required by license condition

! (LC). The Hecla Mining Company Durita and Umeteo Maybe11 sites are l currently upgrading their detection monitoring systems.

t i 21. Has the State developed or started developing an emergency das safety

{

plan for tailing impoundments?

' The State has an integrated emergency response plan for potential disasters. The ' State Engineer; inspects tailings dansb ^ Sy <11ceneeWE6M'dN -

• l condition, conventional uranium mills are also required to have a response plan which is coordinated with the Department of Public Safety.

22. See Attachment A for required data for determination of staff effort for

! the uranium mill program.

i I

l 1

l 1

l l

4 j

9 4

a a

}

i

4 j colorado Oraniur, Questions April 3, 1991 Page 5 of 18 4

x Attachment A i

• see Appendix C for all PTE estimates.

2. Licensed Facilition Active uranium related sites Inactive uranium mill sites i

~

ggg CDN GJ site 77 CDR GJ repository 4 CDH Ounnison site CDH Rifle site Cotter Canon City Mill schwart walder ore sorter -

Whitewater Ore Suying Station t waigg!pwnyppiagg %3r gt, _ g ,

everus old Naturita site

Hecla Durita Heap Leach Durango site i

old Naturita site Umeteo Uravan Mill Slick Rock site Maybell Heap Leach old Maybell site l Other Uranium Unit--licensed sites i

Chem-Nuclear Radium Transfer Station everus Radium Evaporite Disposal l

Hotre st ake Radium Removal Plant i

i Molveero Rare Earth Plant sweenev Thorium Tailings

, l Umeteo East Bench Radium license i

S l

i

~

1 i

i l i colorado Uranium Questions April 3, 1991 Page 6 of 18 l

i j Attachment A Page 2 i

.'. 2. New Acelicatione ,

i None.

l 3. Maior Mill Ranawals

^

l Cotter Canon City.,

4 i Uravan renewal due November 33, 1991.

4. Maior Amendments Transfer of old Naturita site tailings to Uravan.

l l 5. New Acelications inen-conventional) i q

Cyprus Newmine Inactive site (Vanadium site - Division to initiate).

i Tusco Boulder Inactive site (Radium fluorspar site - Division to

%s.4e 90,44 e r initiate) .9F n*@ritus - = uym e su#3in :t@wuc 1.

f 6. Maier Renewals tnen-conventienal) 4 Umetco Maybe11 Leach Heaps.

Cotter Schwartswalder ore Sorter.

j Heela Durita Leach Heaps.

! 7. Maier Non-conventional Amendments None at this time.

j 8. Miner Administrative Amendments 4

Approximately 18 minor amendments to revise LC's to conform to new Part 18.

9. Review of Environmental Data Estimated 0.8 FTE.

1

! 10. Insometion i

Estimated 1.0 FTE.

i-l 11. Legal i

Estimated 1.0 FTE.

12. Clerical em . ,

Estimated 0.8 FTE.

i 1

I~

i

_ . - . . - . _ _ . -. - - - - .. =- . . .. . - . . - ._

I colorado Uranium Questions April 3, 1991 Page 7 of 18 Attachment A Page 3 Uranium-related PTR Total for U-nat 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.9 11 Een 5dd Don Phil Admin.

Jaar.at Etar Alaases atoffsv &.Other New Hill Apps.

Mill Penewals 0.2 0.1 0.1 (005 21 A1.I Msjor Mill 0.1 Amendments New Mon-Mill Applications Non-Mill ' '

. e e, 011, , y i + L.0. 3+ . - + rk. :a + M % '-* t d i .- * <

0.1 Renewals Major Non-Hill Amendments Minor 0.1 0.1 Amendments Environmental 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 Review Inspections 0.1 0.4 0.5 l Legal 0.1 1

clerical 0.8 l supervisory l

R l Total 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.1 i

I 4

l

\

l t

j .'

Colcrado Uranium Qu:sticns April 3, 1991 P393 8 er 18 4

I Attachment 5 - FAA DATA str u

03-31-91 License Licensees doetcoMineralscorporation site Uravan Uranium Mill l License No 660-02

Expiration

12/31/91 status In cleanup and reclamation DDR 3 Current 8 Amount $12,488,900(Bond) +$17,323,541.61 (Construction rund) =

$29,812,441.61 Types letter of credit, #50018743; Texas commerce Bank + Court

, (RAP) ordered construction fund i Established: April 6, 1989

$23,692,000 original 5 Amount:

Renewal Date

April 10, 1990, revised annually for next year's work Expiration Dates Automatic renewal Locations state Treasurer's office RCD Review OSC & AG via RAP, RCD staff LTc Current $ Amount $494,000 Original 5 Amount --

i Fund Types cash in construction fund Established: July 30, 1991 i Current Renewal: --

Expiration Dates --

Location --

RCD Reviews --

4 i

4 9

l r

( colcredo Orcnium questions April 3, 1991 Pags 9 cr 18 l Attachment B - FAA DATA SEEET 03-31-91 Licensa Licensees Union 16 - Molycorp sites Louviere, rare-earth Plant License No: 500-03 Expiration February 28, 1993 Status Operational DDR current $ Amount: $628,00n Type: Performance Rond, #U629405, with standby trust agreement Established: July 10, 1989 Original $ Amount $628,000 Renewal Dates automatic l Expiration Dates None Locations f' State Treasurer's office &

RCD Reviews Molycorp 2/31/91 letter commits to revised cost estimate by 03-31-91

+

LTc Current 8 Amount None required original $ Amount Fund Type:

Established:

Current Renewal:

Expiration Dates Location RCD Reviews 4

4 em

__.-____.__.m_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ -

6 colorado Uranium Qu:stiens April 3, 1991 P3gs 10 cr 18

, e' Attachment 3 - FAA DATA SIDEET 1

03-31-91 i

Licanae ,,

Licensees Cotter Corporation

, sites Canon City, Uranium Mill License No: 369-01 Empiration August, 1984 - under timely renewal status: Uranium-bearing water recycle operating only 1

DDR 4

Current $ Amount: $10,500,000 Type: Performance Sond, 088 100052743 BCA; Aetna Casualty & Surety Established: October 2, 1984 original s Amount: $10,000,000 Renewal Dates automatic Expiration Dates -~

Locations state Treasurer's office

? RCD Reviews Letter of February 15, 1991, suggests increase to;,p 44,r ,.

+

$16,843,855, until renewal agreement Note additional security of court and enforced RAF and independent surety for various cleanup activities LTC Current S Amount: 5220,000 original $ Amount: $278,000 Fund Type: Cash (5210,000); yellowcake (value estimated at $10,000 Established: August 21, 1979 Current Renewal --

Expiration Dates --

Location: State Treasurer's office (cash); Canon City mill (YC)

RCD Reviews to be revised in renewal i

I i

Co1Crtdo Urcaium Questicns April 3, 1991 Pag 3 11 er 18 T

\

Attachment 3 - FAA DATA SCET 03-31-91 License Licensees Cotter Corporation sites schwart walder, ore sorter and Water Treatment Plant License No: 369-03 Expiration: December 31, 1987; under renewal status: Not-operating DDR ,_

current 8 Amount $1,384,199 Type Performance Bond Established increased October 22, 1990; original in place December 7, 1982 original $ Amount: $663,879 Renewal Dates --

e Expiration Dates --

Locations state Treasury

[

RCD Reviews 8/90 review request increase to $1,384,199; red~^'

j)

'10/22/90 t r

LTC current $ Amount: None needed original $ Amount Fund Type:

Established:

Current Renewal '

Expiration Date:

Locations RCD Reviews a

6 9

Co1Crado Uranium Quosticne April 3, 1991 Pag 3 12 cr 18 1

i Attachment 5 - FAA DATA SIEET 03-31-91 1

! License i

Licensee Cotter Corporation Site Whitewater, ore Sorter & Ore Buyini, Station License No 369-02 i

Expiration: June 30, 1991 Status: Not-operating DDR l Current $ Amount $771,266.00 i Type Bond, 085100014505 BCA, Aetna casualty & sugety Company

, Established september 8, 1978 Original $ Amount $250,000 Renewal Date: Increased November 12, 1990 4

Expiration Dates automatic renewal 14 cation State Treasurer's office "

RCD Reviews 8/90 review requested increase to 771,266;' red 11/12/90 "

LTC current S Amount None required original $ Amounts

Established current Renewal

Expiration Dates Locations RCD Reviews t

i i

i l

i r

i l

l t

colcredo Urenium Ou:sticne April 3, 1991 Pag 3 13 er 18 l

I Attachment B = PAA DATA SEEET

, 03-31-91 1

Licanae Licensee Necla Mining Company sites Durita, Uranium heap leach License No 317-02 l Expiration: 1980, under renewal statues shutdown-awaiting reclamation I DDR

! Current 8 Amount $120,454 Types 2 Performance Bonds, 815100465141 and 2 SCA; Aetna casualty

& surety

Established

March 10, 1988

- Original $ Amount $120,454

, Renewal Dates --

Expiration Dates --

Location State Treasurer's office RCD Reviews sond currently inadequate, awaiting revision via renewal LTC Current 8 Amount: $105,000

. Original $ Amount $105,000 Fund Types 2 bonds: Duquesne Power and Light Company and El Paso Electric Company Est ablished: 8/78 Current Renewal: --

i Expiration Dates --

Location: State Treasurer's Office RCD Reviews Revision pending renewal; currently inadequate "

4 0

1

J J

Colcr0do Uranium Qu stione April 3, 1991 Pag 3 14 or 18 i

i I Attachment 5 - FAA DATA SEEET I

03-31-91 I

i, 4

Licensee Nomestake Mining Company l Site Sargents, Pitch Mine Radium Tref.tment Plant

! License No 150-01 j Expiration June 30, 1994 j statues operating (Kine shut down) i DDR Current 8 Amount: $249,809 (current reclamation estimate at $155,000)

Types $2,263,000 letter of credit held by MLRD and USFS, #122375 4

Bank of America

! Established: April 27, 1989 (revision) original $ Amount $249,809 l Renewal Date: Automatic renewal j Expiration Dates. none .

., g , ,, , y, j j Location State Treasurer's office RCD Review August 22, 1990s acceptable, no change needed i LTc current 5 Amount None needed i original $ Amount Fund Established Current penewals j Expiration Dates

Locations RCD Reviews i

i 1

1 i

• i I

i 1

l 9

(

colcredo Uranium Qu stions April 3, 1991 Pag 3 15 cr 18 I Attachment 5 - FAA DATA SEEET i 03-31-91 Licensa Licensee: sweeney Mining and Milling Company

site Marion millaite (thorium-bearing tailings)

License No 149-01 j Rapiration: December 31, 1992 status Interim stabilisation DDR 1

Current $ Amount $75

) Type: Cash Account Established: March 24, 1988 Original $ Amount: $ to accrue to $58,790 l

l Renewal Dates None l Expiration D,q;e None y Locations state Treasurer's office s RCD Reviews 1990

! LTc Current $ Amounts 0 Original $ Amount To accrue to 19,000 Types cash Established: March 28, 1988 Current Renewal: --

Expiration Dates --

Location State Treasurer'n RCD Reviews 1990 l

E0TES: cash account to accumulate with precious metals processing 4

9 i

4 W

.,m-- , , - -- - , -r

Colcrado Uranius go:sticns April 3, 1991 Pcg3 16 cr 18 4

1 i I

Attachment 3 - FAA DATA SKEET 03-31-91 l

Licanas }

Licensees Umeteo Minerals Corporation j site Maybe11, Uranius Leach Neap site i License No: 660-01 Expiration: 6/30/81, under timely restewal status: Permanently shut down; reclamation begun DDR Current $ Amount $2,184,407 Types Letter of Credit, #1-006298, Texas comerce Bank

! Established: 1975 original $ Amount: $1,360,000 Renewal Date May 31, 1992 Expiration Date Automatic renewal Locations state Treasurer's office RCD Reviews currently ongoing via license renewal, inflationary upgrade' to $2,184,407 red 11-5-90 LTc l

current 5 Amount $459,200 Original $ Amount: $459,200

' l Types Letter of Credit, #1-006299; Texas Commerce Bank Established: Undated i current Renewal May 31, 1992 i

Expiration Date: May 31, 1992 Locations state Treasurer's office RCD Reviews In progress I

l l

l

.-4. --...- . ,- , , - -. --__,. .

,g colorado Uranium Questions April 3, 1991 Page 17 of 18 Attachment C PART ISt Mf111NG OF IFRAMfUM. THORIUM AND REf_ATED RADIOACTIVE MATERfit a Part 18, which became ef fective December 30, 1991, incomrates and updates the Colorado Board of Nealth's 1981 uranium mill regulations formerly in Part

3. Part 18 implements the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA), which required that states must have radiation protection standards equivalent to NRC's in order to maintain authority over uranium mill operations and wastes. .

corresponding replations have not been issued in the 88ACR. Nowever, the incorporated 1981 regulations, with additions, are necessary and sufficient to maintain state authority.

The Board's 1981 adoption of the existing regulations was based on NRC's regulations and the technical findings in NRC's Eiral canarie Invironmental Ireaet statement en Uranium Millina. Since 1981, liRC has incorporated the appropriate generally-applicable regulations of the U.S. Snvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) into 10 CFR 40. The Board based adoption of Part it on the applicable federal regulations and upon the scientific and regulatory analyses relied upon by NRC and SPA-in support of those federal < rules.unnnh RH 18.1 states the purpose and scope of Part 18. RM 18.2 provides definitions necessary for Part 18. RH 18.3 reformats the special licensing requirements adopted by the Board in 1981.

RM 18.4 requires .the Department to independently prepare a written impact analysis supporting a proposed license, based on the applicant's environmental report. RH 18.5 sets forth the third-party method as an alternative means, available to the applicant, of obtaining the analysis required by RH 18.4.

Further, the third-party method set forth in RH 18.5 may be used to obtain expert opinions regarding any aspect of the license application requiring such an opinion (the third-party method is an alternative means to obtain the independent expert opinion otherwise provided by the Department's own staff or a Department contractor). The required impact analysis and the third-party method set forth in proposed RH 18.4 and 18.5 respectively were formerly integrated in RH 3.9.10.

The hearing procedures in RH 18.6 are as adopted by the Board in 1981 with minor editing. RH 18.7 clarifies that procedures submitted pursuant to 18.3 are to be complied with during actual operations. RH 18.8 incorporates decommissioning requirements of MRC's 10 CFR 40.

Appendix A provide's criteria to reasonably assure that all operations are conducted safely and that at the end of operations the waste disposal area is closed in accordance with a design that is protective for the long term without ongoing maintenance. Appendix A is the former schedule E to Part 3 adopted in 1981.

' criteria 4 (site and design), 5 (liners and ground water standards),

6 (closure and radon control), 7 (ground water monitoring), and 10 (h,asardous constituents to monitor) contain substantial revisions.

Criterion 4, consistent with NRC's 10 CFR 40, requires a self-sustaining vegetative cover or rock cover to reduce wind and water erosion to negligible levels.

i Colorado Uranium Questions April 3, 1991 Page 18 of 18 Attachment c Page 2 i critorion 5 (with 7 and 10) incorporates regulations precisely equivalent to i NRC's liner design and ground water protection requirements. Adopting this language was necessary for Colorado to maintain authority from NRC to regulate uranium mill operations and site closure.

criterion 6, consistent with WRC's 10 CFR 40, requires a 1000-year closure design to assure control for at least 200 years in any case.

Criteria 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9 contain editorial revisions.

1. - -r m-

A _. -_-. . . _ _ _ _ _ . m. _-w a_a _-AmM_m -#wto - a a.._-wi .a m.a___m _.abt. L _ .h4 .

e d

[

f i

a b

i i

4 4 4 4 .e d ( 4.4,*4 -

i 1

5 APPENDIX B

.+

, 7 2( " .' - p

<+.,: ,. ',

W l - t 5 , , +:.. . r 4 ',t. - O' f.

Y ~~

4 i

e

.h l

1 l

l I

4 4

a 1

1 I

4 4

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

I

[ me.. ..

.. l 1 - .....

-. - e COLORADO DEPARTMENT . . . - -

. o

~.

OF HEALTH .

a .. tm.a o.._~ .

ORGANIZATION l .

. ._e _ ..

~~~==-r,=

CHART ..x -c.- - ==:l- t , .I = :,;

-- --. .- - - - = = ..

198F4844 Mg W.a.ms.4 staguanc uwg .uagg .041'Gof89 O'taOO"Uil,9CFTate.oEW CEur,FC.,qous 3 ego gpeg G,Go**O n 6 99

-ans.TtW 94.,105Onesenbuigote 3gunsTE. e. WW C e. W .WW .

~

tansgous 1980813I10tpe3*Ultass ssa.ousgopwcomes,TTT st o

.se.

.- __ - _ ! f**'"'",',WE PtsuO 3 3e ee.

toc.a egat.e M894tcES I

I

-m-

-w,- "a' r

• _","". - - - = = = = =

. = =

1 I I I I I

.m pm.141,pg MW8MSt WilWWE8 M'OST WWWEBE g __ - --~ww""

wmg B"998388 LAcca.,UI.TSpeaume  ;,,,,,,,,,_ ,-m sp R 6

~ ~ - ~

est tTuggesqtg3 8" WEE 8"'EC

I

= -

g,,, ,,-Q -

art. .smicie -

• ,,'"o,

• f., -

nac=o=otos- -

.6,'"' -

ee='*4e.=es - **"'**""'

m -

h""',

. ,c., , _.= w-= = =

o...c

=,=.=.

.o .- _

,,. o==~==

,,,'::",l:::'.,

= = , .c. , - _

- ,,, , 3 t %==;-= ===

f

,o.c -

q *'?"" 0"" !

.. c.. -

':l=;;;'

supeos., m.insame c.s.

SE stwic49

~

Scss temmug " trase,esu,at seDepe "'

er=,=

og . time

- 8 1,uc.8 -

- ---= -, ' -- -.,..m amnet sammam

• " A ""'" ov-m

} ==aen.emso= -

s swSeessiat ammmememon .

g

=g;_.-.l

~

_ m. .-.- - 6.,,,, ,,M,,,Tg c , -

64 M. W rb

.-=.c pgnes,g g 301OMSTE .

tseopctuGWT -

sucupp m,. amm, tstas ,3 c M 4.,es, art coristsan.svg SEC .las _ ,e,tes,a9P,T, Cast _

s geesuscas = aoss g eg es,

- puntansswcaug

_ -. . _ ,~,,; ,::::, _ -=

, , , , , , -. ,,m.,,,,,,, .

_ .a:::::l'.~..m T

, Summm. _ 84a,ppeac*ewt

,, ,t sau s ~?

(Cfs ysegg , '

i i

CS14RADO DEPARip(ENT OF MEALTE i

RADIATION CONTROL DIVISION

{

1 i

Robert Quillin j Division Director i

4 I

j Hichelle Sime-Moore Lillian Eggers sr. sacratary Admin. c.'ficar II i

, s 4

Rachel Smith Linda Gyuriska Admin. Clark Er. W in. Clark i

I I Ken Weaver j Sr. Health Physicist i

j ,

1- 4 m a t.c x, e r p .;3.e,; s# g;. c . c, s % .

j Don Simpson Edd Kray Sr. Geologist Health Physicist C l

1 j Phil Stoffey- Vacant j Sr. Geolooist i

9 -

l, Jake Jacobi

.Supervisino He alth PhvaleirL ,

Dave Courdin Robert Terry Martin Hanrahan 4 Sr. Hetitt Physleist Sr. Health Physicist Prin. Healtri Physicist

Jeff Johnson Tony Harrison .Resa Cooper-Morning Health Physicist B Health Physicist B Word Process. Oper. B l

Coleen German Que Nguyen Charles Mattson l Sr. Admin. Clerk Sr. Electronic Tech. Sr. Health Physicist i

Rick Kcplitt Tom Pentecost i Eng./Phy. Sci. Aide C Health Physicist B

{ constance Roberts. Tim Bonzer Admin. Clerk Health Physicist C 4

Frank Phelps Health Physielst C 3/13/91 i

_Aad.a,J.* m*+4de- J - mai M_--E a.- m 6-em_ - - J --.e_e.at- a 4Am- _w,-,.u--__42amh__ .4%a h.-_4 w._mm u emaa*e.-a.-Ah. *Ce- - - -- - - - -- 4 .%.,

.i j

i i

4t 1 d 1

4 I

t t

1 1

3 1

d a

4 2

APPENDIX C a

f

- e . -; , 3;q._; r <

,  ;'jjg s*

4 4

1

(

(

4 N

4 4

4 i

f l

d I

Nuclear Paterial l Licensing Section

SUBJECT:

REVIEW OF OLOR 0 MATERIALS LICENSING PROGRAM Approximately 20 to 25 licenses composed of source, :pecial nuclear material

and byproduct licenses were examined. Most licenses contained little or no

' format errors or omissions and were written in a manner similar to NRC licenses. Each of the licenses were reviewed to ensure that they satisfied -

NRC concerns in the areas of required NRC and Agreement State compatibility..

Colorado Department of Health, Radiation Control Division (CDH), was briefed

on Region IV's (RIV) experience with decommissioning. CDH was concerned, now that they had the regulation supporting decommissioning requirements, just 1 where they were going to direct their licensees to secure financial assurance

! documents and what specific financial assurance arrangements would be acceptable to CDH. I indicated that RIV sends our more complex financial assurance documtats to a contractor for review.

CDH has medical regulations in place that =are similar. to NRC's new-Part'35.- -

CDH representatives were interested in discussing some of the problems generated by the new regulation and addressing how NRC would handle certain problems specific to approving authorized users, especially nuclear 1 cardiologist and radiologist that were certified by the American Board of l Radiology in General Radiology. The acceptability of Mr. Charles Rose's

nuclear medicine training program to NRC and CDH was discussed in great detail.

I Each of the license submitted to me for review have attached a comment sheet particular to the individual licensing case. Comments made on these sheets i were reviewed and resolved with the licensing staff. Attached is the items that were addressed in my exit with CDH management.

a s

1 E.

CD2aRAD3 IJCDiSDC IKX RAM RIND ITDE OF CD4CERN ADERESSED '!D '1HE LICINSDC STAIT

1. Tacility drawings in medical applications  !

Envirens Ventilation Shielding

2. Radiographer gaalifloaticos Mars radiogra#wr or assistant radiographer is named on license, oppies of exams (practical & writtan)

3. CD School of Minas Item 6.R. should be corrected to reflect cardition 9.E.

4. University of Denver Authorization for decay-in-storage of S 87.9 dsy half-life.

5. Synoor <.

y ., m 1, . . nn;wa y n  :

w,w;e; - mneqw.-a , . . .n-Disposal of calibration therapy sealed wurces Disposal of bcne mineral analyzer sealed sources Disposal of therapy sealed sources, including Cs-137 needles Restrictions to follow package inserts Address compourriing of therapy capsules

6. Closecut survey in CIN no DIN

7. CSU J.L. Shepard Mark I irradiators

! 8. Time frame for action!

Review of actions taking 30 plus days seems excessive.

l 9. Tracking of for-strarage-only licenses.

E

! 10. In-house docket file tracking systam.

?

4 l

e

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

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

. . . , . .e - ,ew. . ., ,,,,,..cm-.,,-, . . - . =

- . . _- . - . - _ _ - _ = - -

I C012 Abo LICDISDG N1 RL% .

I 'Itra Pentecost is assigned to licensing 100%.

1 Chuck Mattson does a 100% review of Tcrn Pentecost's reviews.

Licensing riow Diagramt

$ Licensing actions are ruceived in the Colorado Departmant of Health Radiation centrol Division.

Licenses are assigned to the reviewer.

De.*iciency letters are drafted by the reviewer (Mattacm, Pentecost)

If deficiency letter is reg. tired after the revlw W wa, it is drafted

by Pentecost, it is then reviewed by Mattson before being y==~i cn to Hanrahan.

If a license is drafted by Pentecost, it is then reviewed by Mattson before being g w l on to Hanrahan.

Hanrahan reviews deficiency letters, signs then, and makes the appropriate entry into the ccrputer tracking system.

l me licese is passed from Hanrahan to Jaochi for cursory revlw anA%A 9:

J signature.

Se license and transmittal letter after review by Jacobi is passed frta to Quillin for his signature.

S e Lionase and tran mittal letter is then returned to Hanrahan for co puter data base urdate.

4 he license and transmittal letter is then tumai over for fees

processirg and preparing duplicate copies for the decket file.

4

Dccket files can be rer.ove frorn the Radiation Control Division. No backup copy exist. If docket file should be Icet, all ccrpliance and inspection data would be lost.

i CEH does not have a generic licenses. Suggest that it would be easy to assemble generic licenses, thereby redteing and streamlining the typing and assenbling of the final licensing actions, cm representatives requested that we provide them with ocpies of our generic licenses.

1 Generic letters are available to the reviemr to r** and streamline licensing activities. (See attached exanples) -

Hanrahan maintains a Iotus data base for tracking licensing actions. He is capable of producing a list of licensing backlog. (See attached listirg)

Licensirg cover sheet provides a tracking mechanism that travels with the docket file. 'Ihis sheet is also used to recx:rver time spent en individual licensing actions for billing parposes.,

I Reviewer raintains a hartt.Titten paper in files to ID degree of ccrpletion of all outstarriirg actions. (See attached exa.ple) i 1

' ka' . . A . C. q'3' s 4.-, Fj cs s' + i 4

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

I

) Co1ORADO LICDGDG PROGFAM PIL4 i

5 I i Part 35 Diamanion 1

4

1. Problens encounter in the oorwersica of licenses frun old to new format i

j 2. Can Charles Rose be the R90 on a nuclear cardiol license? l j Can Omrles Rose prwide training to nuclear ology licensees? '

I 1

! We told cut that if Rose satisfied the requirements of RDO he could i

in fact fill that positicm. He also con do clinical training as long as his operations were under the supervisicm of an authorized .

user. > 1 y y". .

c 1 4 We suggest, based on the way CDI rules and regulations are written,

, CH alpit want to consider issuing the license in the doctors namad

! dba as the company. '! hat would preclude allwing Rose's cparation

! to preceptor physicians. .

Section 35.99 of NRC regulations. Nothing in CDI regulations similar to NRC

regulations addressing intarim transition policy. ,

1 Supervisient Beta Diagnostics / Authorized user in TX i Dctr requirements -

. . . _ w w;w nc . . ..

. m ;; y: ,w j CD HSC issues License split Private Hospital HSC (Stata

Institution 3

4 i

I, 4

4 J

5

=

J 1

4

?

i l

COLORADO UCDGD)3 FRCGWM RDfl I l

t MONSEE! M O N E No.

1. Littletm Hospital 765-01 4 2. St. 'Ibemas More Hospital and 397-01

F w p ossive Care Center I

3. Medical Imaging Centar 759-01

4. NCR Microelectrtxtics 590-01 Termination

, 5. Rocky Mountain Hospital 233-01 'I4rmination

.l 6. University of Denver 108-05F i

7. Climax Holybderum Canpany 746-01 I 8. Geoscience Associates, Inc. 93-03 Termination

9. G. R. Michaels and Associates 675-01 '14rmination

! 10. Continental Airlines, Inc. 83-03

,, 11. Boulder Ocamunity Hospital, we 262-01e :m ao. -#

12. !E Services, Inc. 406-01 i

13. Martin Marietta Corporation 12-12

14. Colorado School of Mines 627-01

15. Colorado State University 02-19 02-27

16. Halliburton Services 452-01

17. J. A. Walker ccrpany 517-01 'Itrmination

18. Syncor Intamational Cbrporaticn 392-01 i 19. Presbytarian Aurora Hospital 632-02

20. Starling Regional Medical Center 196-02

21. Industrial 7esting, Inc. 761-01

22. Scha m r & Associates 603-01 'Ihnnination

CD1mADO LIC22GDG IN2AM RLVIDf ,i 8

9

23. Copies of the follcuing CD working documents:

4 4

Copy of CD Rules ard Regulations Noclear Medicine Guide

[ Nuclear Pharmacy Guide j _ Industrial Radiuva.i trf Guide Fixed le Portable Geupes l _

Well logging Gaide

arond s a pe Licensing oulde clomeout pah prior to tarninating licenses.

Deccanissioning Guidance prwided to licensee's

],

24. Licenses in which licensing actions were taken concurrently with

,' enfcaw at actions.

)

l 24. Licenses that were modified by order during the last year.

I 25. Licenses that were revoked during the last year.

1 l

. e,, p. ,-

v - . , . y t. p i

i 1

a 1

4 5

4 1

1

}

i I

. _ - . . = - - . - - _ . . - . - - - . . - . - - . - . _ _ - - - _ - - . . - . -

l t

1 i

j .

I ,

i j DEYlCE EVALUAT10l! REVIEW During the review of selected license files, the staff examined the file data submitted in support of Boulder Scientific Company device. The l device is listed as model no. 310 a portable beryllium detector. The staff used the latest Amerhan National Standard Institute (ANST) 1

W43.8-1988 9uide to review the sealed source for the proposed use. The device was reviewed using ANS! 11542-1977 for appropriateness of use. The

[

j labelling we.s acceptable as were references to the Department of i Transportation shipping requirements and radiation levels around the

. - . x . . . + . .,a .

w y> - ma n: m m.

j device with the proper instrument. The' device evaluation was concurred on and issued on March 3,1991. A device code C0-175-D-101-5 was assigned and the ev61uation was distributed to the hRC and the Agreement 4

i States, t- t 1

I 1

i 4

I t

I~

d 1

I e

t d

,,.,w , , ,w , -e-,nm- -, --,,,-.,-m,w,

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

J0 TECH The lotech facility is a Megacurie Cesium-137 irradiator operated by 2

CH M in , Colorado. The primary purpose of this facility is to sterilize medical products. This facility utilizes the Departenent of Energy (DOE) owned Waste Encapsulation and Storage facility (WESF) sources. Due to the leak discovered at Radiation Sterilizers, Inc.

(RSI) in Georgia and microcracks in some of their other sources, a decision was made to remove WESF sources from corrnercial use. It should be noted that wet-dry-wet thermocycling is suspected as a contributing factor in WESF suurce microcracks and outer capsule bulging. The lotech ,

facility irradiates and stores its sources in the dry mode and utilizes the pool water as shielding for source changes, maintenance and emergency operations. Curing this review meeting the staff discovered that althcugh there is a firm commitment on th( part of DOE to retrieve all commercially leased WESF sources, DOE may have exhausted their funds for source removal for this fiscal year. Assuming that this information is correct and that no alternate source money can be found, shipments of WESF capsules to Hanford from this facility will not begin until af ter October 1,1991.

The workers are reported to be anxious about their jobs, especially in light of a scheduled shutdown on June 1, 1991. The State would like the sources to be removed as soon as possible, however, they favor keeping the facility operating versus onsite storage for safety reasons.

APPENDIX 0 4

Compliance File Review

1. Licenses Littleton Hospital Location Littleton, Colorado License No: 765-01 Inspection: Nuclear Medicine Inspection Date: 12/14/89 Inspection type Initial Inspector F. Phelps

2. Licenses Continental Airlines Location: Denver, Colorado License No.: 83-03 License Type Industrial Radiography inspection Date: 4/11/90 Inspection Type Routine / announced Inspector: T. Bonzer

3. Licensee: Halliburton Services Location: Brighton, Colorado- "

~O

1. ~~' '~"

License No 452-01 License Type Well Logging Inspection Date: 2/21/90 Inspection Type Routine / announced

, inspector T. Bonzer 4 Licensees Sterling Regional Medical Center Location: Sterling, Colorado License No 196-02 License Type Medical Inspec tiot. Date: 2/6/90 Inspection Type: Routine / announced Inspector: F. Phelps

5. Licensee Industrial Testing, Inc.

Locations Lakewood, Colorado License No 761-01 License Type: Industrial Radiography inspection Date: 3/5/90 Inspection Type Initial / announced Inspector F. Phelps

• 6. Licensees Boulder Community Hospital Loca tion : Boulder, Colorado License No 262-01 License Type: Nuclear Medicine, 1-131 & Brachytherapy Inspection Date 7/24/89 Inspection Type Routine / announced Inspector: T. Bonzer

__..m, ., . '

1 I

i j

j 7. Licensees Medical Imaging Center j Location: Broomfield, Colorado l Lfeense No 759-1 j License Type Nuclear medicine-diagnostic

! Inspection Dates 6/15/90 l Inspection type Initial / announced Inspector F. Phelps f

l 8. Licensee: National Jewish Hospital

' Location: Denver, Colorado License No: 222-03

, License Type Nuclear Medicine & R&D i Inspection Dates 8/22/90 j Inspection Typot-Routine / announced j Inspector T. Bonzer

! 9. Licenses St. Thomas More Hospital j Locations Canon City, Colorado j License Non 397~O1

' License Types Medical Imaging

! Inspection Dates 4/7/91 Inspection Types Routine / announced

. InspectorseF..Phelps , WW h P> '" ** +"-*-+ 9%N ' s j 10. Licenses Colorado State University

] Locations Ft. Collins, Colorado

, License No: 02(1528)-19

{ License Type University / Broad License j inspection Dates 6/25/90 j Inspection Type Routine / Announced Inspectors T. Bonzer

11. Licensees Syncor Int'l Corporation Location: Denver, Colorado ,

3 License No; 392-01 i License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy l Inspection Dates.10/4/90

j. Incpection Type Routine / Announced

]

Inspector: F. Bonzer ,

i

12. Licensee Rose-Medical Center Location Denver, Colorado License No 229 '

License Types-Nuclear Medicine Inspection Date 5/22/89 Inspection type Routine / Announced

! Inspectors T. Bonzer

13. Licensee Schlumberger Well Services 1 Location: Houston,: Texas License No 39-01 License Types-Well Tracer Studies Inspection Date 2/21/90 Inspection: Type Routine / Announced ,

l

-,..- , - ..a,, . . - - - . ..-,- , . - -- . . - , - .

l Inspector: F. Phelps a 14. Licensees Boulder Scientific Corporation Location: Mead, Colorado License No 11-01

] ,

License Type Device Manufacturer Inspection Dates 8/31/89 l Inspection Type Routine / Announced i

Inspector F. Phelps

, The review of sekeeted compliance files revealed that during the review period most of the inspections performed were announced to the i licensee in advance. The State staff. recognized this was a departure

from our guideline, but offered that due to too large numbers of overdue inspections noted during the last review and considering the State's geography and weather, the staff agreed to pursue more

, inspections on an unannounced basis now that they have caught-up

on their overdue inspections. This guideline indicator should be specifically reviewed during the next scheduled review visit.

3 .. . c g; 4 pc > - wh ww.e >o .: w % & N4: '

In addition to the to the inspection reports noted above, the staff reviewed 14, 10 and 2 incident reports covering the years 1989, 1990 3

and 1991 respectively. Each incident received adequate attention.

Each report was well documented and included independent measurements or radiation surveys as appropriuto. There were at least two cases of miscommunication during the early notification stages of two incidents. In both cases however, the radiation control program staff recognized and took specific measures to overcome the j miscommunications as nLted in the incident files.

3 f

d f

f 1

, COMPLIANCE FILES COMMENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Licensee's emergency procedures I not covered

2. No clear coverage of previous -

items of noncompliance

3. Lab results of samples collected

, by inspector not in report

4. Inspection exit meeting not specified in report

5. Incomplete coverage of radwaste __

lackage and shippinc procedures

6. Effluents not consicered during the inspection

7. In6dequate documentation of leak test records

8. Lack of, or inadequate, interviews of workers

9. License was overdue for r inspection pf gjr

10. No indication of review of inspection report / < -r -

11. Documents filed out of order in folder or some documents missing Repeat violations not emphasized in enforcement letter

13. Nothing on Q.A. program for manufactured sources or devices

34. Unclear documentation of scope ti inspection 10 evaluPlion of Mo-99 wreakthrough procedures l YJ~'~ a desc' tion, or incomplete

_ escrip.<on, of facility

. ]ntamination wipes not cerformed by inspector 4% Review or citation of Part 19 posting missing

19. Inadequate description of personnel monitoring system

20. h training program or inadequate evaluation of training

21. R50 function not readily available at the facility

22. Noncompliance item cited as a recommendation

23. No information regarding the radioisotope committee

24. No information regarding dose calibration procedures State acknowledgement letter to '

licensee response was not timely

26. State enforcement letter not ^~^

timely

, COMPLIANCE FILES COMMENTS 11 12 13 J4

1. Licensee's emergency procedures j not covered

2. No clear coverage of previous items of noncompliance

3. Lab results of samples collected by inspector not in report Inspection exit meeting not

~

4.

specified in report

5. Incomplete coverage of radwasta package and shipping'proceduras

6. Ef fluents not considered during the inspection .

7. Inadequate documentstion of leak test records

8. Lack of, or inadequate, interviews of workers

9. License was overdue for inspection

10. No indication of review of inspection report '

- "" i

11. Documents filed out of order in folder or some documents missing Repeat violations not emphasized in enforcement letter

13. Nothing on Q.A. program for manufactured sources or devices

14. Unclear documenta*. ion of scope of inspection

15. No evaluation of Mo-99 breakthroug_h procedures

16. No description, or incomplete descriotion, of facility

17. Contamination wipes not cerformed by inspector

18. leview or citation of Part 19 posting missing

19. Inadequate description of personnel monitoring system

20. No training program or inadequate evaluation of trainino

21. RSO function not readily available at the facility

22. Noncompliance item cited as a recommendation

23. No information regarding the radioisotope committee

24. No information regarding dose calibration procedures State acknowledgement letter to licensee response was not timely

26. Stato enforcement letter not timely yr l

l

b

.d d

4 k 9 f

I I

a I

J f

i i

t 4

1 e

i J

i i

4 APPENDIX E 4

1

, p. 4 y ,,

-g f.- + '4 6t'fsa < s * '*

s t

E i

e 1

4 9

I i

i e

i i s t

s b

i 1

5 N

I t

d t

4 4

d I

4

)

i d

i

!