ML20248C714
| ML20248C714 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/01/1987 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248C571 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-89-242 NUDOCS 8908100126 | |
| Download: ML20248C714 (133) | |
Text
m -
g p . :,
(+_7 ps A
t jhi f $ : o L >
- 1. ,
s p;.:
REPORT AND STAFF EVALUATION 0F COLORADO RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 25, 1985 THROUGH MAY'1, 1987 VOLUME I p:
. . i 18th Regulatory Program Review
_d i
1 a
or i
1T 8908100126 Po'JG01
'PDR ':FOIA- -
%g,
'BOLOTINB9-242 PDR
REPORT AND STAFF EVALUATION OF THE COLORADO RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 25, 1985 THROUGH MAY 1, 1987 The 18th Regulatory Program Review meeting with Colorado representatives was held during the period of April 20 through May 1,1987, in Denver, Colorado.
The first week covered the uranium mill program and the second week covered the radiation control program for agreement materials.
A review of legislation and regulations, organization, management and administration, and personnel was conducted during April 27, 1987. A review of selected materials license and compliance files was conducted during the period April 28-29, 1987. Mr. R. S. Heyer held two separate meetings with i Mr. A. J. Hazle on April 23 and 29, 1987, to provide preliminary review l information to management on the mill and materials programs respectively. A '
review of. selected conventional mill license and compliance files was conducted during the week of April 20-24, 1987. Dr. D. M. Sollenberger and
)
Mr. R. S. Heyer reviewed mill license amendments for completeness and adequacy. i Details of the overall review of the mill program are given in Volume II of ;
this report.
The State was represented by Mr. A. Hazle, Division Director, Radiation Control Division; Mr. W. Jacobi, Supervisor, Radiation Centrol Section; and
, Mr. K. Weaver, Supervisor, Uranium Recovery Licensing and Compliance Section. j The NRC representatives during the review were Mr. Ralph S. Heyer, Region IV, and Dr. Dennis Sollenberger, NMSS 1987).
A summary meeting regarding the results of the regulatory program review was I held with Dr. Thomas Vernon, Executive Director, Department of Health; Mr. Tom Looby, Director for the Office of Health and Environmental Protection, and Mr. A. J. Hazle, on April 30, 1987.
Conclusions I. Materials Program A. Compliance
- 1. Status of It:spection Program (Category I)
Our review disclosed that 14 priority 1, 2, and 3 licenses were {
overdue for inspection by more than 50% of the inspection '
frequency.
We recommend that management establish a short-term action plan i for the next 3 to 5 months to deal with this minor backlog. !
Such a plan should include goals and set benchmarks, establish priorities, and provide progress reports to management. ;
1
_a
O i
p
\
2 3
- 2. Enforcement Procedures (Category I)
Our review disclosed that enforcement letters were not issued within the recommended 30 days following the inspection (in some cases the enforcement letters were sent 3 months to 8 months after the time of inspection). It was also noted that the licensee responses to enforcement letters were not received within tha recommended 20 days (in some cases the response time as long was as 3 months). There were also cases where there was no documehation of e letter of acknowledgement from the state.
, We recommend development of a tracking system to maintain o up-to-date information on the status of compliance and enforcement activities. The system should cover key milestones such as the date the enforcement letter was sent to the licensee, the date the licensee is requested to respond (usually 20-30 days),
the date of the response, and whether each case is resolved or needs further attention. This would provide a means to monitor individual enforcement actions and provide statistical information about the program.
- 3. Insoection Reports (Category II)
During the review of wiected ompliance files and associated inspection reports, it was identified that not all reports adequately and completely documented the results of the inspection. It was noted that some of the reports did not identify whether the inspection w&s announced or unannounced, detail the results of independent physical measurements made by the inspector, detail the inspector's observations, or document licensed acti,! ties to clearly identify the entire scope of the inspection c. nducted.
This is a repeat comment and our comments and recommendations !
from the previous review of selected compliance files have not all completely addressed. As stated abov~e, the primary emphasis was that the inspection reports were not completely documenting the inspection resultz,.
It is recommended that administrative and procedural changes be made, as appropriate, to assure that e.ll inspection reports, ,
whether partial, speci6l, or routine, provide complete l documentation of inspection findings. j II. Uranium Mill Program A. Staffing Level (Category II)
- During the review of the uranium mill program it was identified that the level of personnel utilized to process major license renewals, which includes administrative, technical, and legal staff, ]
j has decreased from the past several program reviews. (This is a !
repeat et, eant.) ,
1 L_
l 1
3 i
NRC guic'elines indicate that 2.0 of 2.75 total professional j (technical ana onsultant) person years of effort are needed to {
process a new conventional mill license, in situ license or major renewal to meet requirements of UMTRCA. This number includes the effort for the environmental assessment and in plant safety review.
During this review, it was identified that the two licensed conventional mills have 1.20 staff years dedicated. This is f approximately .60 staff years per uranium mill. This has decreased from .97 staff years from the previous program review.
In addition, it was noted that the level of secretarial support is not commensurate with the workload and as a result other staff may be diverted to provide the necessary support.
We continue to recommend that program management take the appropriate steps necessary to augment the uranium mill staff so that the program meets the NRC guidelines and does not adversely 1 affect the program in its entirety. (The effects of this shortfall I in staff may be evidenced in the following two comments.)
B. Inspection Reports (Category II)
Based upon review of eight inspection reports, it was identified that three reports were past due by 2-3 months from the time the inspection was conducted. It was also noted that in three cases the enforcement letter was delayed by 3-9 months. In one case, the licensee responded; however, the state had not acknowledged receipt of licensee response (approximately 5 months).
It is recommended that management closely monitor the timeliness of preparation the inspection reports and the issuance of enforcement and acknowledgement letters.
C. Licensing Procedures (Category II) ,
During the review it was identified that action on applications for seven minor amendments to uranium mill licenses have not been completed. Of these actions, five require appropriate annual financial assurance determinations.
It is recommended that the state initiate the review of these amendments with emphasis on completing the required '
annual financial assurance determinations.
These conclusions are based on the review of the technical and administrative aspects of the State's regulatory program for agreement materials. Included in the review were examinations of: (1) selected license and compliance files; (2) information related to the program indicators specified in NRC's policy - -
statement, " Evaluation of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs"; (3) the review of all licenses issued by Colorado since June 8, 1984; and (4) the State's and NRC's continuing exchange of information program.
Program Changes Related to Previous NRC Comments and Recommendations Comment Letter to Dr. Thomas M. Vernon dated December 4, 1985 .
1 I. Materials Program COMPLIANCE A. Responses to Actual and Alleged Incidents (Minor Category ai Comment:
The review of selected incident files and reports identified that not all cases included the following: in-depth review of circumstances surrounding the respective incidents, reenactments and time-study measurements and investigation results documenting the complete incident, and subsequent enforcement action and closecut information.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that when incidents occur or allegations are received the Radiation Control Division (RCD) maintain a written format and a formal tracking mechanism which clearly outlines the course of action taken to resolve the issues, and to obtain as .
complete and accurate information as possible for the files. In addition, whan the incidents or allegations are documented and '
completed, all pertinent information should be incorporated in the respective incident file.
It is further recommended that a formal tracking system be established to ensure that RCD management can identify timely resolution to the respective cases. '
State Response:
With regard to responses to incidents, we agree that the documentation format used must identify the course of action taken, to have a complete record compiled where the effort is over an extended period of time, and an incident closeout procedure. While we do take some exception with regard to the need to do reenactments and time-study measurements on the majority of incidents that we experience, the report must make an evaluation of the impact of the incident.
Present Status:
A review of selected Incident Files identified that a proper tracking system was maintained and each case was properly closed out or otherwise further issues were recommended by the Division Director.
The Division Director also signs and dates each incident upon completion and closecut.
-m.m-m.mmm..m
~
2 ,
4 B. Inspection Reports (Category II) -
N S
Comment:
- During the review of selected compliance files and associated l inspection reports, it was identified that not all reports adequately and completely documented the results of the inspection. It m noted that in some cases the reports did not include tne followii;g:
a discussion of the current status of previous items of noncompliance, detai1&d results of the inspector's independent physical measurements, and under the " scope of the licensees program," did not detail the inspector's observations and document licensed activities which have not been implemented by the licensee (per RCD internal policy).
Re n 'mendations:
It is recommend that all inspection reports, whether partial, special, or complete, document the information inspected to clearly substantiate all findings identified. All previous items of noncompliance should be specifically addressed to determine appropriate resolution or whether further action may be required. In addition, any changes, additions, revisions, or updates to final inspection reports (as was identified in inspection reports reviewed) ,
should be done through a formal mechanism, i.e., per memorandum or management approved policy.
It was noted that in some inspection reports handwritten notations were apparently made after supervisory review. The RCD management should be aware of any changes to final inspection reports and should ensure that they are appropriately substantiated through formal documentation.
i State Response:
With regard to the content of the inspection r~eports, we concur in the reviewer's recommendations and will act accordingly.
Present Status:
A review of selected compliance files identified that previous items of noncompliance were properly addressed ard followed up by the l inspector. All changes made to reports subsequent to supervisory l review were properly initialed.
During this review, specific comments were made regarding the lack !
of complete documentation in the inspection report.
This is a repeat comment and was discussed with Dr. Vernon during the exit meeting on April 30, 1987.
1
- m
, e: ', :i
- . i 1
3
.)
II. Uranium Mill' Program LICENSING A. Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (Category I) 1
- 1.- Comment:
The review of the " Preliminary Executive Licensing Review 1 Sumary" (PELRS) for Uravan dated May 22, 1984, identified that no updated information was incorporated into the PELRS either by formal written memorandum or amendment. The NRC reviewers recognize that the RCD's actions may be limited by the current.
hearing process.
Recommendation:
It is recommended, pending hearing'results, that the RCD maintain an updated and current copy of the Uravan PELRS. The NRC reviewers' concerns are for the timeliness of the PELRS and whether the PELRS-is current to support any future licensing actions. ,
State. Response:
With regard to the " Technical Quality of Licensing' Actions,"'a Category I indicator, the Department definitely believes that
.the items identified are not worthy of a Category I coment.
Enclosure 2 item IA and Enclosure 3 items IA1, 2, 3, and 4 indicate after the facts are considered that only differences in office policy on style and format, and information processing conventions exist and therefore, have'no health and safety implications whatsoever.
With regard to the Uravan PELRS (Preliminary Executive Licensing Review Sumary), that document was finalized when the Notice of Hearing was issued on May 22, 1984. Any revision of the PELRS is contrary to procedures defined in our regulations. The FLS (Final Licensing Sumary) is issued when the Departmental action is taken. The FLS is the documentation for the action taken and includes any necessary changes to the PELRS. The issuance of the FLS has been delayed pending CERCLA Section 107 lawsuit discussions. There are presently negotiations going on in both the Cotter Canon City and Umetco Uravan CERCLA lawsuits. The respective PELRS' are points of negotiation in both cases. The FLS will be consistent with any CERCLA judgment or decree. l There will be substantial negotiation and discussion involving a 1 number of state personnel in both cases over the next several months. The program is definitely moving forward with regard to
J,if Ls
>t 4 -
y i the Uravan' situation, but because of the hearing status and lawsuit activities the actions are not visible to non parties.to the action.
t Present Status:
L The above commer.ts were incorporated into the Uravan Final Licensing Statement (FLS) dated December. 19, 1986.
- 2. Comment:
The review of the Uravan license amendments numbers 21, 22, and 23, identified limited review documentation supporting or substantiating the RCD's findings for each amendment. It was-also identified that of the more than 10 license amendments issued'by the RCD for the entire uranium mill program, since the last review, selected major license amendments were not-supported with. documentation substantiating RCD findings. (It should be noted that the Cotter Amendment No. 19, denying the licensee's request, was completely and appropriately-documented.) -
Recommen.iation:
It.is recommended e that each license amendment be substantiated -
with supporting written documentation which specifics the licensee's request and the basis for the RCD's decision.
State Response:
With regard to the comment on documentation supporting uranium mill license amendments, the NRC reviewer did identify that the amendments were adequately supported; however, due to the extensive nature of the submissions and evaluations there needed to be a short concise summary in support of the action. We agree with the reviewer's suggestion and Tvill incorporate this documentation concept into our program policy.
Present status:
Based on selected license files, it appears that no new amendments were issued during this review period, except for the Uravan FLS. The Uravan FLS did have acceptable supporting documentation.
- 3. Comment:
At the-time of this review, the RCD had developed a written memorandum entitled " Policy for an Annual Review of Compliance with Offsite Dose Standards at Existing Facilities," which was effective on October 11, 1985. (This was recommended during the
E. 5 i
previous program review.) However, based upon the review of l Cotter Corporation and Uravan's license and compliance files, the reviewer could not identify if the RCD specifically identified and outlined a conclusion on whether the respective licensees meet the 40 CFR 190 standards. (A copy of an NRC i memorandum for the review of 40 CFR 190 compliance determination of an NRC uranium mill was provided to the RCD staff as guidance.)
Recommendation:
The RCD should prepare written documentation which clearly identifies whether or not the mill licensees meet 40 CFR 190 stendards. (This is a repeat comment from the previous program review.)
State Response:
With regard to RCD determinations of compliance with 40 CFR 190, RCD has recently completed two reviews for two (2) conventional i mills and one (1) ore sorter modeled after the information !
provided by the reviewer. The referenced reviews are enclosed for your review, Present Status:
Based upon review of the State's response and selected license files, it appears that proper compliance determinations were documented.
- 4. Comment:
At the time of this review, the only action taken by the RCD to implement 40 CFR 192 was = letter to affected licensees stating !
that the RCD will use these standards in.,pvaluating all current !
and future licensing actions. The RCD has not taken action to i set groundwater monitoring programs under 40 CFR 192 or i corrective actions. It was identified that the current ]
mitigative action of the licensees are not designed to cleanup l the groundwater, but are only to prevent further spread of j contamination. -
l Recoinmendation: !
l The RCD should request the licensees to propose specific l groundwater background values for their respective mills. If i acceptable background values are known then this should be done within 60 days of the letter to the licensee. If acceptable background values are not known, then the licensee should be required to establish appropriate background values within a 1
l
7 _.
7 *
)
i 6 4 x l i
reasonable time period. (These actions could be accomplished in conjunction'with the CERCLA proceedings which Colorado has !
underway.)' )
l State Response:
j With regard to implementation of.40 CFR 192, we disagree with o
j L
the reviewer's comment. This matter ~is of prime concern in the i lawsuits taken'under CERCLA. As' stated in Al Hazle's letter to EPA (Doda of NRC Region IV copied) on the implementation of 40 CFR 192, setting standards for such wells would unnecessarily complicate the lawsuit situation. The resolution of the- l lawsuits may result in concentrations below the levels specified '
in NRC regulations and to a greater degree than anticipated by the EPA standard. Amendment #20 to the Uravan license, issued March 29, 1984, required cessation of tailings discharge to the unlined impoundments by July 1, 1985. No tailings deposition in
'the ponds from active milling is occurring at the Uravan site.
Both CERCLA lawsuits will address removal of sources of contamination. Source control has been and will continue to be an important component of contemplated remediation at the CERCLA-sites. In conjunction with the foregoing, the state will strongly advocate restoration of groundwater quality in its lawsuits. Colorado is in a corrective action phase rather than. .,
just detection of compliance monitoring.
Present Status:
The 40 CFR 192 implementation was. addressed satisfactorily in the Uravan FLS. The standard remains a point of contention in the Cotter CERCLA litigation.
COMPLIANCE Inspection Procedures (Category II) ,
Comment:
The most recent inspection reports for the Cotter and Uravan mills did not document inspection findings "regarding compliance with 40 CFR 190 and 40 CFR 192 standards.
Recommendation:
To ensure licensee's conformance to the respective standards and in order to identify whether the licensee maintains appropriate documentation, as committed by the licensee to the RCD, the RCD inspector should document findings in the inspection report with respect to compliance with 40 CFR 190 and 40 CFR 192. This will ensure complete documentation from the initial licensing action through to the final compliance determination.
.t H
u 7
L ,
State Response:
With regard to RCD. compliance inspection efforts on' license-conformance with 40 CFR 190 and 192, our files indicate the following:- The RCD cited Union Carbide /Umetco in July 1984 inspection for.non-compliance with 40-CFR 190 (Item 12). The December 1983 Cotter Canon City inspection noted offsite dose compliance as an Item of. Concern (Item 5). Corrective actions were proposed and taken by the licensees in each case. With regard to 40 CFR 192, recognize that the December 12-16, 1983, Cotter Canon City inspection compliance letter (Item 12) was probably the first citation to the generally-applicable requirements nationwide. .As a result of non-compliance Item 14 of the July 9-13, 1984, inspection of Umetco's Uravan mill, a new well was installed as a compliance monitoring point and on January 9,1986, Union Carbide /Umetco began a 75-100 day drilling program at Uravan under State supervision. It should be also noted that at the time the Department conducted these inspections and took the above' actions NRC had not defined nor implemented their. policy on 40 CFR 192. RCD will continue to incorporate examination of these standards into the annual-inspections using updated guidance when provided by NRC. The system of documentation will be improved'so that State evaluations and actions are clearly demarcated within the NRC
- inspection reports and compliance letters.
Present Status:
Based upon the review of selected compliance files propc.*
discussion of 40 CFR 190 and 40 CFR 192 issues were incorporated in the' inspection reports.
PERSONNEL Staffina Level (Category II) ,
During the review of the RCD uranium mill program, it was identified that personnel utilized to process major license renewals, which includes administrative, technical, and legal staff, has decreased from the previous program.
It should be noted that although this is a Category II indicator, it has affected two other indicators, as identified above. (This is a repeat comment from the previous program review.)
Comment:
NRC guidelines indicate that 2.0 to 2.75 total professional (technical and consultant) person years of effort are needed to process a new conventional mill license, in situ license or
, jo . l 8 )
l I
major renewe.1 to meet requirements of UMTRCA. This number {
includes the effort for the environmental assessment and (
in plant safety review. -
During this review, it was identified that the'two licensed conventional mills have 1.95 staff years dedicated. This.is a approximately .97 staff years per uranium mill. This has- "
decreased from 1.7 staff years from the previous program review.
In addition, it was noted that the secretarial and legal support was below the recommended NRC staffin g level and may be adversely affected the license and compliance program.
Recommendation:
It is strongly recommended that program management take the steps necessary to augment the staff so that the program meets NRC guidelines.
State Response:
With regard to staffing level in the uranium group, over the past 5 years various efforts to raise the staff level have failed, primarily due to the decline.of the uranium industry.
However,.the levels of NRC and EPA requirements have increased, along with our own efforts regarding ultimate site closures and CERCLA Section 107 lawsuits. It should also~be pointed out that the NRC's guidelines fail to take sufficient cognizance that our numerous small site actions demand disproportionate staff time.
In addition, it needs to be recognized that the CERCLA cases have added staff, personnel and resources to address the issues involved with the Canon City and Uravan sites. The state has hired numerous consultants to address the myriad issues at the two sites and they are presently working together with our regulatory staff to determine proper remediations for the sites.
The RCD is using the CERCLA suits in an f~ntegrated enforcement approach to the Canon City and Uravan sites. We generally concur with the reviewer's comment, but need make no apologies for the effort sut forward by the Department's regulatory staff, the quality of work done by them, or any delay caused by the CERCLA lawsuits.
Present Status: l This is a repeat comment during this review. The decrease in the staffing level for the uranium mill program remains a concern. The person year effort was decreased from .97 to .60 during this review period.
. . ?
~
g The CERCLA litigation continues to utilize uranium mill program staff resources.
This was discussed with Dr. Vernon during the exit meeting on-
' April 30, 1987.
4 W e
O
~
EVALUATION OF AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM STATE REVIEW GUIDELINES, QUESTIONS AND ASSESSMENTS Name of State Program - Colorado Date of NRC Review - April 20 - May 1, 1987 9
I. LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS A. Legal Authority (Category I)
HRC Guidelines: Clear statutory authority should exist, designating a state radiation control agency and providing for promulgation of regulations, licensing, inspection and enforcement. States regulating uranium or thorium recovery and associated wastes pursuant ;
to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) i must have statutes enacted to establish clear authority for the State to carry out the requirements of UMTRCA. Where regulatory responsibilities are divided between State agencies, clear understandings should exist as to division of responsibilities and requirements for coordination.
l Questions:
- 1. Please list all currently effective legislation that affects the radiation control program (RCP).
The State Radiation Control Act, Title 25 Article 11, Section 103, on radiation control establishes clear statutory authority designating the Colorado Department of Health (CDH) as ;
the State radiation control agency and provides for the l promulgation of regulations and gives the Department the authority to issue licenses and establish inspection and enforcement programs. Section 25- u-102 of the Act provides for agreements for transfer of functirns from the Federal government to the State government. Sect 1on 25-11-104 of the Act provides that fees collected for the radioactive materials control program be credited to a fund specifically earmarked for radiation control services. Part 2 of the Act pertains to radioactive waste disposal. Section 25- H-202 prohibits the disposal of any radioactive waste that did not originate or was I not used within the State of Colorado unless the site or i facility is approved by the Governor and the General Assembly. !
Part 3 of the Act relates to the disposal of uranium mill j tailings and grants the Department authority to participate in
- the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program (UMTRAP) under ]
Title I, Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, PL 95-604.
(See Volume II for specific uranium mill information.) ]
j
- 2. What changes have been made to the statutory authority of the State to license, inspect, and otherwise regulate agreement materials since the last review?
No changes have been made to the statutory authority of the l State.
I
g 2
- 3. If your State regulates uranium or thorium recovery operations and associated wastes pursuant to an amended agreement and UMTRCA, explain any changes to the statutory authority for these functions.
No changes have been made to the statutory authority of UMTRCA.
- 4. Are copies of the current Enabling Act and other statutes (u.g.,
Administrative Procedures Act, Sunshine Act, etc.).which govern i the conduct of the agreement materials program on file in the RCP office and with the NRC? If revisions have occurred since the last review, the changes should be included.
All current copies of the enabling act and other stctutes are available in the NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
- 5. If the State's regulatory authorities are divided between agencies, what procedures and memoranda are in effect to provide clear understanding of the divisions or responsibilities and requirements for coordination?
The only division of negulatory authority regarding radioactive materials is through the Bureau of Mines (associated uranium mines). See Volume II for details. The CDH/ RCD has Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) developed for respective intra and inter departmental. activities. Copies of respective MOUs are.
available in the NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
- 6. Does the State have authority to:
- a. apply civil penalties? If so, cite legislation.
Yes, Title 25-11-107(5).
b ., collect fees? If so, cite legislation.
Yes, Title 25-11-104(6),
- c. require surety or long-term care funds? If so, cite legislation.
Yes, Title 25-11-104(2).
- d. require performance bonds or sureties for decommissioning licensed facilities? If so, cite legislation.
Yes, Tit 1e 25-11-104(2).
1 1
b;
- l 3
)
-e. require performance bonds or' sureties for cleanup of licensed facilities after a contamination accident? If so, cite legislation.
Yes, Title 25-11-104(2).
- f. require long term' care funds for uranium mill or low-level waste (LLW) facilities? If so, cite legislation.
Yes, Title 25-11-104(2).
- g. enter into low-level waste compacts? If so, cite legislation.
Yes, Title 24-60-2202.
- h. establish, license and/or operate a low-level. waste site?
If so, cite legislation.
Yes, Title 24-60-2205.
- 7. If any response to the above questions are negative, explain.any plans the State may have regarding those issues.
Not applicable.
I.A Reviewer Assessment:
The Colorado Department of Health, Radiation Control Division (CDH/ RCD) has clearly established guidelines for statutory authority. Copies of the most recent Title 25, Article II entitled " Radiation Control Act," dated January 1984, and the Colorado Low Level Radioactive Waste House Bill No. 1246, are available in NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement file.
It should be noted that the authorities referenced under Title 25-11d104(2) are a general authority requiri6g the adoption of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD), Suggested State Regulations (SSR), and not through specific legislative language.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined ander the " Legal Authority" indicator.
B. ~ Status of Regulations (Category I)
NRC Guidelines: The State should have regulations essentially identical to 10 CFR Part 19, Part 20 (radiation dose standards and effluent limit:), those required by UMTRCA, as implemented by Part 40. The State should adopt regulations to maintain a high degree of uniformity with NRC regulations.
1
r-3<- -
l i;
]
~4 i
Questions:
- 1. When did the State last amend its regulations in order to I maintain compatibility and when did the revisions become effective? '
The NRC, Region IV, State and Governmental Affairs Staff reviewed the CDH/ RCD draft Radiation Control Regulations on September 17, 1985, and provided written comments. The CDH/ RCD regulations were adopted by the Board of health November 20, 1985, with effective date of December 30,J1985.
- 2. Referring to the enclosed NRC chronology of amendments (Appendix A) note the effective date of the NRC changes last adopted by the State.
The respective NRC amendments have been incorporated in the
-draft State regulations currently under consideration by the State Board of Health.
3.a. Were there any compatibility items that were not adopted by the State?
1 No.
- b. If so, please identify and explain why they were not adopted.
N/A I.B. Reviewer Assessment: '
The State does have regulations essentially identical to 10 CFR Parts 19,
'20, and those required by UMTRCA. The State can not administrative 1y adopt NRC changes prior to their becoming formally adopted. It is understood that, in cases where the NRC recommends a specific change to the regulations (10 CFR 19 a'nd 20), the State can utilize that speelfic regulation (if it affects compatibility of the radiation control regulations) through license condition until formal adoption through the State's administrative procedures is completed. State legislation dictates that the Colorado radiation control regulations must be based on the Suggested State Regulations of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors.
The CDH/RCH meets the NRC guidelines outlined in the " Status of Regulations" indicator. However, during the next review it should be determined whether the CDH/ RCD has approved the radiation control regulations for final adoption.
C. Updating of Regulations (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: The Radiation Control Program (RCP) should establish procedures for effecting appropriate amendments to State regulations
--n__._________.ia--------z--_ - - - - --- -
F 5 in a timely manner, normally within 3 years of adoption by NRC. For those regulations deemed a matter of compatibility by NRC, State regulations should be amended as soon as practicable, but no later than 3 years. Opportunity should be provided for the public to comment on proposed regulation changes. (Required by UMTRCA for ;
uranium mill regulation.) Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, l opportunity should be provided for the NRC to comment on draft changes in State regulations.
m Questions:
- 1. Does your state have a schedule or program for revising and adopting changes to regulations within 3 years of adoption by the NRC7 Yes, the CDH/ RCD has a schedule for revising or adopting changes to regulations within 3 years of adoption by the NRC.
- 2. Has your state adopted all regulations deemed a matter of compatibility by NRC within 3 years? (Refer to NRC chronology.)
Yes, the CDH/ RCD has adopted,all regulations deemed a matter of compatibility to date of this review.
- 3. What are your State's procedures for adopting new regulations? .
Briefly describe each step in the procedure.
The Colorado regulations are amended in accordance with State administrative procedures. The staff prepares a draft which is made available to interested parties within the State. NRC is given the opportunity to comment on this draft. It is forwarded to the Radiation Advisory Committee for review and the State Board of Health conducts a hearing and prepares any proposed amendments.
NRC may then again comment on the propose"d regulations.
Subsequent to this, the State attorney general's office reviews the regulations and, upon approval, they are published by the Board of Health in the Colorado Register and become effective 20 days after publication, unless specifically identified. The -
Board must also adopt a rationale statement for changes to the regulations, which contains a financial impact appraisal.
- 4. How is the public involved in the process?
Public meetings are conducted by the Radiation Control Division (RCD) with interested parties. The Board of Health conducts hearings during the adoption process. Public participation is allowed and encouraged. All licensees are notified of the proposed changes.
L f 6 L
l h Sa. - Does the NR have the opportunity to comment on draft changes to State regulat s?
Yes, copies are submitted to NRC when they are drafted.
- b. If'so, does your State respond.to the comments?.
L l
Yes.
I.C. Reviewer Assessment:
-The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined in the " Updating of L Regulations" indicator.
II. ORGANIZATION A. Location of the Radiation Control Program (RCP) Within the State Organization (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: The RCP should be located in a State organization parallel ~with comparable health and safety programs. The Program Director should have access to appropriate levels of State management.
[ 1. ' Attach an organization chart (s). showing the RCP and its location within the department and State organization.
See Appendix A.
- 2. Is the RCP on a comparable level within the State organization L. with other health and safety programs so as to compete effectively for funds and staff?
Yes. ;
~
- 3. Does the program director have access to appropriate levels of State management?
Yes.
II. A' Reviewer Assessment:
The Denver Radiation Control section is one of two sections in the RCD.
The Office of Health Protection is one of three offices within the i Department of Health. An organizational chart for the CDH is attached as Appendix A. Mr. A. J. Hazle, Director of the RCD has access to ,
appropriate levels of . State management. It was evident from examination I of the organizational charts and discussions with various radiation control staff that the RCD is located comparably with other health and safety programs and competes effectively for funds and staff within the l
1
. 4 7 -
7 State organization. It should be noted that the RCD is currently being reorganized. The proposed reorganization chart is attached to Appendix B.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined in the " Location of the Radiation Control Program Within the State Organization" indicator.
B. Internal Organization of the RCP (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: The RCP should be organized with the view toward achieving an acceptable degree of staff efficiency, place appropriate emphasis on major progr'am functions, and provide specific lines of supervision from program management for the execution of program policy. Where regional offices are utilized, the lines of communication and administrative control between the regions and the central office (Program Director) should be clearly drawn to provide uniformity in. inspection policy, procedures and supervision.
Questions:
- 1. Attach dated copies of your internal RCP organization charts.
See Appendix B.
I
- 2. How is the RCP organized so as to provide specific lines of supervision from program management for executing program policy?
A!! g%ups of the RCD work under and report to the Supervisory i
He'<h Physicist (SHP). The SHP ensures that all policies are consistent within the groups and sections.
- 3. If regional offices are used:
- a. To whom do regional personnel report administrative 1y?
The Grand Junction office does not cbnduct licensing or compliance activities associated.with regulating -
radioactive materials. The grand junction office only i works on assigned remedial action programs or incident investigations. '
- b. To whom do regional personnel report technically?
The Division Director and the SHP. 1
- 4. i If the RCP contracts with other agencies to administer the '
program:
- a. Identify the contracting agencies and indicate their ,
j responsibilities.
)
l
_ _ , _ _ , , , , _ . , _ _ _ _ - . - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - ' " " ~ ' "
l 4 5' iL 8
3 p
Contracts are made with the Colorado Geological Survey'and
' are primarily for the uranium mill program associated activities.
.b. To whom do contract personnel report administrative 1y?
DirectlyLto the CDH/ RCD uranium unit leader. ,
- c. To whom do contract personnel report technically?
To the CDH/ RCD uranium unit leader..
II.B' Reviewer Assessment:
'An organization chart (and proposed reorganization chart) for the RCD is attached as Appendix B. The Denver Radiation Control Section and the Grand Junction Radiation Control Section are included in the Division. The Denver section is divided into four program areas. The first, Materials and Machines, handles all radioactive materials licensing and inspection, as'well as x-ray registration and inspection. The second, Remedial Programs is responsible' for DOE and EPA associated program activities, L :1.e., Title I and Superfund, respectively. The third, Technical Services, is responsible for all environmental sampling and analysis. The fourth section is Uranium Recovery Licensing and Com",11ance .which'is responsible for regulatory activities-involving uranium mills and the associated mill tailings.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Internal Organization of the Radiation Control Program" indicator.
C.. Leoal: Assistance (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: Legal staff should be assigned to assist the RCP, or procedures should exist to obtain legal assistance expeditiously.
l Legal staff should be knowledgeable regarding the radiation control ll program, statutes, and regulations. ~
Questions:
- 1. Are legal staff members assigned to assist the RCP or do procedures exist to obtain legal assistance expeditiously?
I An Assistant Attorney General (AG) is assigned to provide legal assistance to the RCD. In. addition, the Assistant AG has two other attorneys that have been involved with the RCD over past years. The Natural Resources Section supervisor of the AG's office is knowledgeable on* radiation matters. i
- 2. Is the legal staff knowledgeable regarding the RCP, statutes, regulations, and needs?
Yes.
- _ . - - _ _ - _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ . _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - . _ . _ - - _ - _ . - - . - - . _ - . - _ _ . . _ - . - . _ _ . - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . - _ _ - . - . - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ ___._-.--_J
9
~
- 3. If legal assistance was utilized since last review, provide a summary of the circumstances.
Current assigned Assistant AG is reviewing surety bonds for ,
adequacy and language. Escalatal enforcement action is copied I to the Ap's office. I II.C Reviewer Assessment:
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Legal Assistance" indicator.
D. Technical Advisory Committees (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: Technical Committees, Federal Agencies, and other resource organizations 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 represent a wide spectrum of medical disciplines. The Ccmmittee shrwid advise the RCP on policy matters and regulations regulated to use of radioisotopes in or on humans. Procedures shoul/.be developed to avoid conflict of interest, even though Committees are advirory.
This does not .nean that representati'.es of the regulated community should not serve on advisory connittees or not be used as consultants.
Questions:
- 1. Discuss practices followed for obtaining technical assistance when needed (e.g. , consultants, technical and mealcal advisory committees, licensees, the NRC and other State and Federal Agenciesh The nine member Radiation Advisory Committee, under stat" tory authority, Title 25-11-105, prctides advfte and technical assistance to the RCD. This committee is the only formal advisory committee to the RCD. If addir.caal expertise is required, it is requested from, but not 11mited to, State universities, the NRC, DOE, and EPA.
Tnere are two other committees established by the RCD for the conduct of the Grand Junction Remedial Action Program (GJRAP).
There are also committees established by the Department in each locale (7) for input in the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program (UMTRAP). These advisory groups for the remedial programs have no legislative basis.
_ ._______m__.___.___.m__m.-----u----- - - - - - - - - ---s-------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - -
_7__
4, 10 f
- 2. - -What steps are taken to avoid conflicts of interest?
The committee has no formalized procedures to avoid cases of conflict of interest. However, individual members will absta'n from voting on issues concerning f acilities with which they are i atsociated.
- 3. Are any committees involved in setting policies? If so, explain.
The medical members of the advisory committee are requested to evaluate new procedures submitted by licenstes. The committee's function remains strictly advisory and is not a policy setting i organization.
- 4. Attach a list showing the membership, specialties and
' affiliations of the Medical and/or Technical Advisory Committees.
The following are seven members (two vacancies) of the Radiation Advisory Committee: ,
Industry: George Campbell Jack Rothfleisch Michael Raudenbush Higher Education: Arthur Robinson Vacancy Vacancy j Healing Arts: Frank Judson, M.D. 4 I
Duncan Burdick, M.D.
Donald Fink, M.D.
- 5. Indicate whether the advisory committees are established by l statute, by appointment of the Governor, 3y appointment of the l State Board of Health, by appointment of the Agency, or by other means. . ]2
- The advisory committee is created by appointment from Governor through statute in 1965 by Title 25-11-105, CRS 1973.
- 6. What is the formal meeting frequency of each committee, and are !
minutes of committee meetings prepared?
{
The committee meetings are held quarterly and respective minutes )
are maintained. j
- 7. What was the date of the last formal meeting of each committee?
January 29, 1987.
i l
i 11 I
- 8. Are individual committee members contacted for consultation?
, ws Yes, usually two or more are asked for independent evalua%4cas.
- 9. Discuss how each committee is used, the average workload placed on the committee, and the remuneration, if any.
The topics addressed in the past have been Uranium Mining and Milling Impacts, Radiction Regulation Changes, Rocky Flats, Fort St. Vrain, Plutonium in Soil Standard, X-ray, user training, Federal X-ray performance standard, Nonroutine Use of Radiation on Humans, Plow Share Projects, Emergency Pesponse, Radon and Low-Level Waste. Remuneration is only for actus1 incurred expenses.
II.D Reviewer Assessment 1 Three members of the Radiation Advisory Committee constitute a Medical Advisory Committee. The Medical Advisory Committee provides consultation to the staff on such mattars as nonroutine protocols, major changes in medical licensing policies, and physician qualifications. The State '
Medical Advisory Committee is used to provide broad guidance on the uses of radioactive drugs in humans. The members of the Committee also advise the RCD on certain policy matters and regulations related to use of radioisotopes in humans. The staff indicated that the Committee had extended discussion regarding the use of radiation (X-ray) on research controls.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Technical Advisory Committeer," indicator.
III. MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION A. Quality of Emergency Planning (Category I)
NRC Guidelines: The State RCP should have a Written plan for response to such incidents as spills, overexposure, transportation accidents, fire or explosion, 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 abould be adequately established with appropriate local, county and State agencies. Plans should be distributed to appropriate persons and agencies. NRC should 's provided the opportunity to comment on the Plan while ir draft form.
The plan should be reviewed annually by Program staff for adequacy and to determine whether the content is current. Periodic crills should be performed to test the plan.
y g - i.;
n 12 Li. ' Questions:
- 1. Is the RCP responsible for its own emergency plan or are accidents involving radioactive materials incorporated into a comprehensive State plan developed and' administered by another-State agency? Please provide copies of all applicable plans for review..
i.
Yhs, the RCD has its procedures plus the inclusions into the Rocky Flats Plant and the. Fort St. Vrain' plan appendices to $ne State Emergency Response Plan. This State plan is maintained by the Division of Disaster Emergency Services (DDES), Colorado Department of Public Safety., with input from the RCD.
- 2. What written proceduras or plans does the RCP use for responding to incidents involving radioactive materials?
There is also a Colorado Department of Heelth Emergency Response Manual for all environmental situations. A copy of the RCD's emergency plan call list is in the NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
- 7. If the plan covers major accidents at nuclear facilities, how does it cover noncatastrophic incidents such as those involving transportation or materials?
The State plan addresses the full scope of incident response, as does the Department manual. ..
- 4. How does the plan defiue responsibilities and actions to be ,
taken by all State Agencies (initiating responte actions, operations, cleanup, etc.)?
The State plan assigns responsibility for all agencies plus general authorities in areas where CDH can ~
handle any contingency.
- 5. How does the plan provide for notification of and communications with r;ppropriate government agencies?
The State plan identifies agency number and 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> contact services as does the CDH Emergency Response Manual. A copy of ,
the plan and call list are in NRC, Region IV, Colorado State !
Agreement files. j i
- 6. Hoy is the response program organized so that qualified l individuals are readily available through identifiable channels !
of communication?
i
= . . .
^ *3 7
s-i 13 l g , j
'l At least one staff member is on a pager for a week at a time to l respond to after normal hours emergencies. Each member has a j set of civil defense turvey instruments and the office equipment <
is available.
- 7. Has the plan been dis',ributed to all participating agencies?
Yes.
]
- 8. Has the NRC had opportunity to comment on the plan in draft form?
Yes, the plan has been reviewed W the NRC, Region IV . office.
- 9. Is the plan reviewed annually by the RCP for adequacy and to assure the content is current?
Yes, it was just recently reviewed and updated.
- 10. Are drills performed periodically to test the plan for
- adioactive materials emergencies? Explain, for example, how, nonroutine office. hours communications are checked.
Yes, each staff member has, at home, a listing of staff telephone numbers and pager numbers. After hours " emergencies" occur frequently enough to check adequacy and accuracy of telephone system and numbers.
III. Reviewer Assessment:
The Colorado General Radiological Response Plan provides the basis for State actions regarding emergencies involving radioactive materials. The plan details the responsibilities of various State agencies, including the Health Department, the State Patrol, County and City Polices Departments, Municipal and County Health Departments, and the State Department of Agriculture Included are step-by-step procedures To follow in the event of radiological accidents. It is the reviewer's understanding that the Colorado RCD staff does communicate with other departments within the State in order to maintain current telephone and address listings. A list of current telephone numbers on an emergency call list has been distributed to all necessary organizations. A copy is available in the NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
The CDH/ RCD appears to meet the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Quality of Emergency Planning" indicator.
e
___.-____m
.1 .
'I r o
3
=p 14 B. Budget (Category II) i NRC Guidelines: Operating' funds should be sufficient to. support R program needs such as: staff travel necessary to conduct an ,
effective compliance program, including routine inspections, followup or special inspections (including relicensing visits) and responses to incidents and other emergencies; instrumentation and other
~
v b- 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 tax, license fees, etc.
Supplemental funds may be obtained through contracts, cash grants,
, etc.
Questions:-
- 1. What fiscal year.is used by your State?
July 1 through June 30.
2.. Indicate the amount for funds obtained from each sourc'e.(fees,
-State General funds, HHS, NRC environmental monitoring or transportation surveillance contracts, EPA, FDA and others).
FY87 (a) General Fund $619,304 Cash . 190,875 Federal
, Prev Hith B1k 124,251 Rocky Flats 50,000 Fort St. Vrain 11,786 FDA Diag X-ray 13,169 Mine Safety ~ 7,614 IVRDS 37,728
$1,054,727 (b) Grand Junction Remedial Action Plan = $1,904,761 (State and Federal) .
(c) UMTRAP = $35,000,000 (State and Federal)
=-______-_____:
I i 1
15
- )
- 3. Show the total amounts assigned to:
.a. the total radiation control program: ,
FY87 - Operating budget $ 1,054,727 Capital construction 1,904,761 (GJRAP) 35,000,000 (UMTRAP)
$37,959,488 i
'S b. the radioactive materials program:
Materials and Machines $250,718 Uranium 189,723 ,
$440,441 1
- 4. What is the_ change in budget from the previous year and what is the reason for the change (new programs, changes in emphasis, statewide reduction, etc.)?
Dennis Brown was transferred to the CERCLA program, otherwise, there has been no increase or decrease in staff.
- 5. Describe your fee system, if you have one, and give the percentage of cost recovery. Enclose a copy of the fee schedule.
Base fee schedule is included in Part XII of the Colorado Radiation Control Regulations. A copy of the adjusted fee schedule is available in NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
- 6. Does the RCP administer the fee system?
Yes. -
- 7. What recourse does the RCP have in the event of non payment?
Modification or revocation of license and/or institution of a civil penalty is defined in regulations.
- 8. Overall, is'the funding sufficient to support all of the program needs? If not, specify the problem areas.
No. Environn. ental Monitoring, Radon, Emergency Response, and LLRW facility siting.
.III.B Reviewer Assessment:
It should be noted that overall funding to support the programs needs is not sufficient according to the CDH response due to the staff involvement
c .,
< erg =_ 1 l
e-1 in CERCLA. However, at the time of this. review no adverse impacts were t
'~
13_ identified which may have effected the current radiation control program functions.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guideline outlined under the " Budget" indicator.
p a As noted under the " Staffing Level" indicator, the CDH/BCD does not meet the. criteria for person years effort for the uranium mill program.-
(Details are addressed in Volume II.)
C.- Laboratory Support (Categon;. II)
NRC Guidelines: The RCP should have the laboratory support capability in-house, or readily,available through establi.shed procedures, to conduct' bioassays, analyze environmental samples, analyze samples collected by inspectors, etc., on a priority established by the RCP.
Questions:
- 1. _Are laboratory services readily available in-house or through other departments within the State organization?
Yes, the Chemistry Laboratory and Radiation Counting Facility.
Sample preparation is performed by the Laboratory Division within the CDH.
- 2. If. services are provided by other departments, discuss the arrangements, supervision, charges and interdepartmental communications.-
Services provided by the Laboratory Division are performed under a formal intradepartmental_ agreement' detailing the uses of funds and anticipated workload. This agreement is updated annually.
- 3. If laboratory services must be provided by a non-State agency: ,
- a. Discuss the contractual arrar.gements.
Not applicable,
- b. Is the party providing the service a State licensee?
Not applicable,
- c. If a State licensee provides the service or equipment, what are the costs?
Not applicable.
! 17
- 4. Discuss the capability of the laboratory as follows:
- a. Can it qualitatively and quantitatively analyze low-energy beta emitters?
Yes, by liquid scintillation counting.
- b. Can it qualitatively and quantitatively analyze alpha emitters?
Yes, by zine sulfide detector, proportional counter, and alpna spectrometry.
- c. Can it selectively determine the presence and quantity of gamma emitters?
Yes, by gamma spectrometry.
- d. Can it handle samples in any physical form -- wipes, liquids, solids, gaseous?
Yes, including whole body measurements.
- e. Does the laboratory participate in a periodic quality control program?
Yes, external quality control (QC) program with EPA.
External QC for bioassay through ORNL Routine in-house QC is also performed.
- 5. How much time does it take to obtain the results from sample analyses on both a routine basis and on an emergency basis?
Routine analysis requires 15 to 45 days. Emergency analysis is limited only by sample preparation and counting time.
- 6. List the number and types of laboratory instrumentation and I services available. I 2 - Proportional counters for 2 inch planchets (automated) 1 - ZnS counter for 8X10 filters i 1 - Proportional counter for 8X10 filters 8 - Alpha spectrometry counters for 1 inch planchets 1 Liquid scintillation counter for 20 ml. vials (automated) 1 - HPGe detector j 1 - NaI detector (multiple crystals in various shielded I configurations) 1 - Whole body (Nal) detectors ;
I
m 18 III.C Reviewer Assessment:
Laboratory services are provided to the RCD by the Laboratory Division of the Department of Health. Personnel assigned to the Technical Services section perform radiochemical.and radiation counting procedures, and report to the supervisor of the Radiation Control Section. See organizational chart in Appendix B. The CDH/ RCD meets NRC guidelines outlined under the " Laboratory . Support" indicator.
D. Administrative Procedures (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: - The RCP should establish written internal procedures to assure that the staff-performs its duties as required and to provide a high degree of uniformity and continuity in regulatory practices. These procedures should address internal processing of license applications, inspection policies and procedures, decommissioning, and other functions required of the program.
Questions:
- 1. What procedures are established to assure adequate and uniform regulatory practices (e.g., administrative procedures, policy memos, licensing and inspection guides, escalated enforcement procedures, decommissioning procedures, etc.)?
Copies of guides and policies are available in bound notebooks in the Materials and Machines secticq, in the.RCP office.
- 2. To wnat extent are the procedures documented?
Procedures are in written form.
- 3. If your State has separate licensing and inspection staffs, what i'
are the procedurec used to assure adequate communication between the two staffs?
l Licensing and inspection staff are under one supervisor and are in close proximity to assure communication.
- 4. How are personnel kept informed of current regulatory policies and practices?
All pertinent documents are circulated through the appropriate L staff. Division staff meetings are held or supervisor / staff meetings are held to assure new policies and practices are understood and implemented.
- 5. If your State collects fees, are fee collection duties assigned to non-technical staff?
i 19 Fee collection is accomplished by the section secretary but is coordinated and reviewed by the supervisor or section chief and division staff assistant through monthly reports.
- 6. How are contacts with communication media handled?
By appropriate senior staff under guidance from the Public Relations Office. All contracts are coordinated through public relations and the Section Chief and Division Director, as necersary.
- 7. What procedures exist to ensure timely release of factual information on matters of interest to the public, the NRC and Agreement States?
The senior staff directs the release of information of all NRC/ Agreement States notices. A file of notices sent to licensees is maintained in the materials and machines SHP office.
- 8. If your RCP has regional offices:
- a. what procadures are in effect to assure the regions have complete copies of the precedures and files?
Not applicable
- b. how often are periodic staff meetings held with headquarters staff?
Periodically. Usually by means of tape recording of the staff meeting held in Denver office. The Division Director and group leader periodically provide personal updates when at that office.
c; how often are periodic visits /auditreade by headquarters staff to regional offices?
Not applicable to regulatory program. The Division Director visits the office 6 to 10 times a year.
- d. how is uniformity assured?
Not applicable to regulatory program. There is daily communication between Senver and Grand Junction.
- e. how is supervision handled?
A SHP is in charge of the Grand Junction office. He j reports directly to Division Director in the Denver office.
J
l' 20 1
i
)
l
- III.D Reviewer Assessment:
The RCD has written internal procedures to assure that staff performance of duties are uniform in regulatory practice. The RCD utilizes NRC licensing guides. The staff occasionally uses checklists during the review of 4 license applications and inspection checkoff sheets to assist the l inspector in conducting organized and thorough inspections. j l
The communication between the RCD's licensing and compliance staffs appears to be adequate. Information logs are kept on licenses issued and inspections performed and due. These logs are reviewed monthly by staff and management to plan for future workload. Licensing statistics are maintained by management. These are submitted to the NRC on a timely basis. Inspection statistics are maintained by each inspector, as well as by management, to continually monitor the case workload.
A copy of Title 24, " Administrative Procedures" is available in the NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Administrative Procedures" indicator.
E. Management (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: Program management should receive periodic reports from the staff on the status of regulatory actions (backlogs, problem cases, inquiries, regulation revisions). RCP management should periodically assess workload trends, resources and changes in legislative and regulatory responsibilities to forecast needs for increased staff, equipment, services and fundings.
Program management should perform periodic reviews of selected license cases handled by each reviewer and docua.ent the results.
Complex licenses (major manufacturers, large scope - Type A Broad, or potential for significant releases to environment) should receive second* party review (supervisory, committee, or consultant).
Supervisory review crf inspections, reports and enforcement actions should also be performed.
Questions:
- 1. How does the staff keep program management abreast of the status !
of regulatory actions (such as backlog, problem cases, inquiries, and revision of regulations)?
Written inspection reports are all signed by management, Weekly and monthly reports include major compliance problems.
Management has involved staff in review of new regulations and comments received.
4
- _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ - . _ _ _ _ - b
,~
r 21 2.a. Is a periodic statistical tabulation of licenses, licensees, p inspections and backlogs prepared by category?
Yes.
L b. If so, specify how frequently the tabulation is prepared.
1 Statistical information is maintained on the NRC semiannual report forms.
- 3. How do'es RCP management assess workload trends and resources in order to determine. future needs or the need for program-changes?
An annual work plan is prepared by the Division staff and management for program operations. This work plan includes all aspects of the RCD effort, including' litigation, licensing, compliance, and enforcement.
- 4. How does the RCP management keep abreast of changes in legislative and regulatory responsibility?
Management is intimately involved in legislative hearings, writing of legislation, and implementing changes in responsibility. Regulations are drafted and approved through management.
- 5. Discuss the procedures followed by licensing supervision or RCP-management to monitor licensing quality.
Licenses are written by a Health Physicist Level B (HPB) then reviewed by a Senior Health Physicist for adequacy and corrections, then is reviewed and signed by the SHP or Division
. Director.
- 6. Discuss the procedures used for supervisory review of inspection reports.
All inspection reports are prepared by the inspector, reviewed by a Senior Health Physicist, then reviewed and signed by the SHP or Division Director.
- 7. What license review practices are followed for unusual or complex license applications?
A complete review of additional documents; relicensing inspections may be accompanied by senior staff. Review by {
Division Director in addition to review by SHP.
- 8. If applicable, discuss the procedures used for supervisory review of work performer! by contract agencies or regional offices.
WW' . . ~ '
i *
)
22 Not applicable to materials program. See Volume II in the uranium mill program.
III.E Reviewer Assessment:
The Division Director and Section Chiefs have responsibility for assessing changes and needs in the Division on a continuing basis. The Division's ;
management and staff periodically disauss workload trends, resources, and {
changes in legislative and regulatory responsibility to forecast needs for !
increased staff, equipment, services, and funding. Internal reviews of l this nature are net conductfd under a prescribed schedule except for the annual budget review.
I The Section Chief or Division Director reviews and signs all licenses and licensing actions after a senior staff member has reviewed and concurred on them. The Section Chief randomly selects particular licenses on a periodic basis for an indepth evaluation of the license review.
The CDH/ RCD meet the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Management" indicator.
F. Office Ecuipment and Support Services (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: 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 utilized.
Questions:
1.a. In terms of the person year /100 licenses figure, what level of secretarial / clerical support is provided?
460 licenses divided by 100 equals 4.6 ~
3'F.T.E. divided by 4.6 equals 0.65 F.T.E. per 100 licenses.
- b. If your program has regional office (s), provide the figures for the support for those office (s).
Not applicable to any regulatory effort.
A Wang word processing unit and an IBM personal computer are available. The Wang unit has a current list of licensees and 4' licenses, mailing lists, form licenses for certain types of licenses (gauges rindustrial radiography), and standard license conditions. The IBM PC is used for fiscal management. Drafting j
23 of legislation and regulations are done on these units. A current revision of the regulations is also in these units.
III.F Reviewer Assessment:
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Office Equipment and Support Services" indicator.
G. Public Information (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: Inspection and licensing files should be available to the public consistent with State administrative procedures.
Opportunity for public hearings should be provided in accordance with UMTRCA and applicable State administrative procedure laws.
Questions:
- 1. Are licensing and inspection files available for inspection by the public?
Yes, in accordance with the "Open Records Act."
- 2. Can medical and proprietary data be withheld?
Yes, medical records are confidential and companies' proprietary information can be withheld.
- 3. What other parts, if any, are not available?
All files under litigation.
- 4. What written procedures and laws govern this? Please provide reference citations.
l Instructions and procedures are provided_through the AG's office. A copy of the Colorado Administrative Procedures Act (APA) is available in NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
- 5. For mill States, are opportunities provided for public hearings -
in accordance with UMTRCA and applicable State administrative procedures and statutes?
Yes, as provided for in the Radiation Regulations Section, '
RH 3.9.9 and the Colorado APA.
III.G Reviewer Assessment:
License, compliance, and incident files are available to the public. .
However, proprietary, confidential, or medical information can be withheld !
from public disclosure in accordance with State's Open Records Act.
1
L I 24 s
1, '
Opportunity for pub'ic meetings and hearings are provided in accordance with State admin,istrative ocedures and the radiation regulations. The Depart-ment of healtP s Public W ormation Office is used by the Division to coordinati press releases and the handling of other public relations issues.
-The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the "Public Information" indicator.
IV. PERSONNEL A. Qualifications of Technical Staff (Category II)
L-NRC Guidelines: Professional staff should have a bachelor's degree or equivalent training in the physical and/or life sciences. Additional training and experience in radiation protection for senior personnel should be commensurate with the type of licenses issued and inspected by the State.
- Written job descriptions should be prepared so that professional qualifications needed to fill vacancies can be readily identified.
Questions:
- 1. Do all professional personnel hold a bachelor's degree or have equivalent training in the physical or life sciences?
One technical staff member was accepted into the state system by experience when the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center was combined under state personnel rules. All other technical staff have a degree.
- 2. What additional training and experience do the senior personnel have in radiation protection?
A position is assigned a job classification. When the level of supervision decreases and tenure is met, promotion can take place.
Senior staff must have 3 to 8 years of experience depending on the classification. Some classifications require tenure in a supervisory level.
- 3. What written position descriptions describe the duties, responsibilities and function of each professional position?
Each position has PC-8 form which describes that position's responsibilities and functions.
IV.A Reviewer Assessment:
Job descriptions exist for all professional level positions within the Division. The classifications are now Division Director, Supervisory Health Physicist, Principal Health Physicist, Senior Health Physicist, Health Physicist Levels C, B, and A. Educational requirements for the
i 25 entrance level positions are that an applicant must have a bachelor's degree with major work in physics, chemistry, or any technical field appropriate to the assignment. A master's degree in health physics or radiological health may substitute for the necessary experience at the Health Physicist B and C levels. The Principal, Senior, and SHP categories require 5 to 7 years of professional radiological physics experience.
l Again, a master's degree in an appropriate field may substitute for 1 year of experience. When vacancies occur, announcements are included in a list of State vacancies which is posted throughout the State. The applicant must pass a written health physics examination and must be interviewed.
Interviews are conducted by a panel consisting of members of the RCD and persons from outside the Division. Applicants are graded and ranked, and a written report is prepared. The program director can then interview the top applicants and make a selection from the top 3 for 1 opening, top 5 for 2 openings, etc. Colorado residents are given preference in hiring.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Qualifications of Technical Staff" indicator.
B. Staffino Level (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: Staffing level should be approximately 1-1.5 person year per 100 licenses in effect. RCP must not have less than two professionals available with training and experience to operate RCP in a way which provides continuous coverage and continuity.
For States regulating uranium mills and mill tailings, current indications are that 2-2.75 professional person years' of effort, including consultants, are needed to process a new mill license (including in-situ mills) er major renewal, to meet requirements of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. This effort must include expertise in radiological matters, hydrology, geology, and structural engineering.
Questions: ,
- 1. Complete a table, as below, listing the person years of effort applied to the agreement or radioactive material program by individual. Include the name, position, fraction of time spent and the duty (e.g., licensing, inspection, administration, etc.).
Name Position FTE% Areas of Effort A. Hazie Director .25 Administration W. Jacobi Supervisory HP .75 Supervision !
C. Mattson Senior HP 1.00 Inspection T. Bonzer Health Physicist 1.00 Inspection !
F. Phelps Health Physicist 1.00 Inspection L. Doerr Health Physicist 1.00 Licensing Total 5.00
x s 26
- 2. Compute.the person year effort of person years per 100 licenses (excluding mills and burial sites). Show calculation.
460 active licenses divided by 100 = 4.60 5.0 person years divided by 4.60 = 1.08 person years
- 3. Is the staffing level adequate to meet normal and special needs and backup?
Currently, the staffing level is adequate to meet program needs.
IV.B Reviewer Assessment:
As noted above, the RCD's person year effort is 1.08 FTE per 100 licenses.
The COH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Staffing Level" indicator.
C.- Staff Supervision (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: Supervisory personnel should be adequate to provide guidance and review the work of senior and junior personnel. Senior
, personnel should review applications and inspect licenses independently, monitor work of junior personnel, and participate in the establishment of policy. Junior personnel should be initially limited to reviewing license applications and inspecting small programs under close supervision.
Questions:
- 1. Identify the junior and senior personnel.
Health Physicist A through C level are considered " junior" personnel. The C Level is the journeyman level. Senior and Principal Health Physicists and superviso,ry staff are senior staff.
2.a. What duties are assigned to junior personnel?
Inspections and licensing are performed by junior personnel. l
- b. Do they review applications and perform inspections independently?
Yes, however, all work is reviewed by two levels of senior personnel.
e
27 3.a. What duties are assigned to senior personnel?
Review of all work performed by junior personnel. Some specific duties are assigned to senior personnel. Development efforts are assigned to senior staff. In addition, assistance with difficult actions such as complex inspections and problem licenses are assigned accordingly.
- b. Do they independently review and monitor the work of junior personnel?
All inspections, reports, and licensing actions are reviewed.by Principal Health Physicists and Supervisory Health Physicists.
Any difficult or complex actions are also reviewed by the Division Director. All actions are taken.by either the 5HP or the Division Director.
- 4. Is there adequate supervisory or senior guidance and direction
, for junior personnel?
Yes, there is practically constant contact by the upper management on a daily. basis.
- 5. Discuss procedures established to ensure supervisory review of the licensing, inspection and enforcement functions.
The procedures are established in the respective job description and are included in the yearly evaluation of the senior health physicist. Draft documents are prepared by staff, reviewed by peers and supervisor, and SHP. Action is only taken under signature of SHP or Division Director 6.a. Are RCP staff members allowed to consult or work part time for State licensees?
No, it is considered a conflict of interest and not allowed under the personnel rules.
' b. If so, how are conflicts of interest avoided?
Not applicable.
IV.C Reviewer Assessment: j The overall administrative supervision for the RCP is provided by Al Hazie .
and the supervision of the Denver Radiation Control Section is provided by i Warren Jacobi. See Appendix A and B for the organizational and proposed reorganizational charts.
L____ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -- l
I l
28 1
I Junior personnel art initially assigned routine and straightforward responsibilities under close supervision. As they progress, they are given 1 more detailed work with less supervision. The following list provides a !
breakdown by work assignment for the RDC staff:
- a. Review licenses - Larry Doerr and Chuck Mattson; j
- b. Sign licenses - Jake Jacobi and Al Hazle; '
- c. Perform inspections - Tim Bonzer, Frank Phelps, and Chuck Mattson;
- d. Evaluation inspectors - Chuck Mattson and Jake Jacobi;
- e. Review inspection reports - Chuck Mattson, Jake Jacobi, and Al Hazle;
- f. Sign enforcement letters - Jake Jacobi and Al Hazle;
- g. Emergency Surveillance - Marty Hanrahan, Tom Toledo, Que Nguyen, and Rob Terry;
- h. Supervises licensing and compliance - Chuck Mattson and Jake Jacobi;
- i. Sets license review and inspection priorities - Chuck Mattson. ,
It should be noted that the above assignments may change with the proposed internal reorganization of the program.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Staff Supervision" iridicator.
D. Trainina (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: Senior pers'annel 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:
L List materials personnel and their attendance at training courses they have attended.
Name of Student Course Sponsor Dates R. Gamewell State-Lead Mine Safety 1/?9-30/86 Super-fund SLC, Utah Community Re-lations Training C. Mattson 0.0.T. Reg- NRC 4/20-25/86 lations Columbia, SC M. Hanrahan Emergency Re- NRC 5/6-7/86 sponse Workshop Arlington, TX M. Hanrahan Medical Uses of NRC 3/16-20/87 Isotopes Oak Ridge, TN l
L__ _ ___
29 s
- 2. How does the RCP utilize short courses and workshop's to maintain staff proficiency? N N
Staff do attend self improvement courses offered by the State Personnel System. Opportunity is limited due to availability of
-funds for travel and training.
IV.DReviewerAssessmenh.:
Senior personnel in the RCD have attended the NRC core courses. Initial training of new employees usually involves informal, on-the-job training, including working under the close supervision of senior personnel in conducting materials inspections and reviewing simple licensing actions.
Any newly hired personnel also review the Public Health Service training manual, which addresses specific in-house training, continuing education, and university courses that may be available, in addition to the NRC-sponsored short courses.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined *under the " Training" indicator.
E. Staff Continuity (Category II)
NRC Guidelines; Staff turnover should be minimized by combinations of opportunities for training, promotions, and competitive salaries. Salary levels should be adequate to recruit and retain persons of appropriate professional qualifications. Salaries should be comparable to similar employment in the geographical area. The RCP organization structure should be such that staff turnover is minimized and program continuity maintained through opportunities for promotion. Promotion opportunities should exist from junior level to senior. level or supervisory positions.
There also should be opportunity for periodic salary increases compatible with experience and responsibility. ,
Questions:
- 1. Identify the RCP employees who have left the program since the last vsview and give the reas6ns for the turnovers. Also state whether the positions are presently vacant, filled (name replacement), abolished or other status.
No employees have left the RCD.
[> e 4 30
- 2. List the RCP salary schedule:
Position Title Annual Salary Rance Director $3,636 - 4,872 Supervisory Health Physicist 3,636 - 4,872 Principal Health Physicist 3,463 - 4,640 Senior Health Physicist 2,927 - 3,298 Health Physicist C 2,232 - 2,991 Health Physicist A 2,081 - 2,788
, 3. Coenare your salary schedule with similar employment alternatives in the same geographical area, such as industrial, medical, academic or other departments within your State.
This comparison is done in determining state employees salaries, making sure they are comparable to private sector.
- 4. What opportunities are there for promotion within the RCP organizational structure without a staff vacancy occurring?
Staff is routir)ely moved from A level through B, to C level health physicist, as their training, expertise, and position description warrants. Seniors are limited in the number of positions available and in ability to move up.
IV.E gv_iewer Assessment:
These salary levels appear to be adequate to recruit persons of appropriate qualifications and are comparable to similar employment opportunities in the area. The salary ranges indicated above provide for six automatic steps and one longevity step after 5 years. Promotion from Health Physicist A to Health Physicist S and C positions is generally done after experience requirements have been met if the' position description allows. Advancement to the Senior and Principal Health Physicist positions are contingent upon a vacancy at that level and the passing of an examination. In addition to salary increases for promotions, there are merit raises and annual cost-of-living adjustments.
The CDH/ RCD 9eets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Staff Continuity" indicator.
V. LICENSING A. Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (Category I)
NRC Guidelines: The RCP should assure that essential elements of applications have been submitted to the agency, and which meet current regulatory guidance for describing the isotopes and quantities to be used, qualifications of persons who will use
a
- L s 31 material, facilities and equipment, and operating and emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing actions.
Relicensing visits should be made for complex and major licensing actions. Licenses should be clear, complete, and accurate as to isotopes, . forms, quantities, authorized uses, and permissive or restrictive conditions. The RCP should have procedures for reviewing licenses prior to renewal to assure that supporting information in
- the file reflects the current scope of the licensed program.
Questions:
- 1. How many specific licenses are currently in effect?
460
- 2. a. How many new licenses (not amendments in entirety) have been issued since the last review?
64
- b. How many were major licenses?
O
- 3. How many specific licenses were terminated since last review?
57
- 4. How many amendments were issued during the review period?
302 u
- 5. Identify unusual or complex licenses issued since the last review, including name and license number
- a. 10 TECH, Inc. - Irradiator
'b. Presbyterian /St. Luke's Hospitals
- c. Princeton Gamma Tech /Outokumpu .
~
L
- 6. Note any variance in licensing policies and procedures granted since the last review. "
1 None.
- 7. Do you require license applicants to submit details on their radwaste packaging and shipping procedures? ,
Yes, always.
e
__.-.---_.--n.---------- - - - - - - - - - - -
. .. . . .o .
- {
(
32 i
-8.a. When do you require licensees to submit contingency plans?
Each license applicant is required to submit emergency procedures which are evaluated prior to' licensing.
- b. List the licensees who have been required to submit contingency plans.
.All licensees are required to provide appropriate contingency plans.
- 9. How many relicensing visits were made during this review period?
One - Humana Hospital. Mountain View
- 10. What criterion does the State use to determine the need for a relicensing visit?
The' complexity of the operation and when there are large quantities of radioactive material in possession. '
- 11. How do you ensure up-to-date information has been submitted prior to a license renewal?
A new license application is required.
{
- 12. Do license files contain all necessary data required to evaluate an application prior to issuing a license?
Yes, all information mast be documented before a licensing action.
- l. 13. Has the State taken any unusual licensing action with respect to ;
- l. radiographer operating under multiple jurisdiction? j No.
- 14. Prepare a table as below showing the State's major licensees with name, number and type. .
l INCLUDE:
Broad (Type A) Licensees LLW Disposal Licenses LLW Brokers Major Manufacturers and Distributors Uranium Mills o Large Irradiators (Pool Type or Other) 4
\
1 l
33 {
l
- l Other Licenses With a Potential Significant j Environmental Impact Other Licensees You consider to be " Major" Licensees Name License Number Type i
Denver General Hospital Colo. 97-02 Broad Univ. Colo. Health Science Colo. 601-01 Broad Colo. State University Colo. 02-19 Broad Univ. Colo./ Boulder
- Colo. 377-05 Broad Ramp Industries Colo. 523-01 LLW Broker Nedical Support Services Colo. 377-01 LLW Broker Kaman Sciences Colo. 90-01 Manufacturer J Martin Marietta Colo. 12-12SF Manufacturer Cobe Laboratories Colo. 492-01 Irradiator 10 TECH, Inc. Colo. 613-01 Irradiator For the list of uranium mills licensees see Volume II. -
V.A. Reviewer Assessment:
Selected licenses were reviewed for completeness against the " Technical Quality of Licensing Action" indicator. Minor comments and recommendations were made to the program staff regarding the use of certain standard license conditions and license applicat' ion review .
procedures. (See Appendix C)
As noted in resp ~onse to Question Bb, the state does not have any " major" licensee that would require a contingency plan per NRC criteria.
The RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Technical Quality of Licensing Actions indicator.
B. Adequacy of Product Evaluations (Category I)
NRC Guidelines: RCP evaluations of manufacturer's or distributor's data on sealed sources and devices outlined in NRC, State, or appropriate ANSI Cuides, should be sufficient to assure integrity and safety for users.
The RCP should review manufacturer's informat. ion in labels and brochures relating to radiation health and safety, assay, and calibration procedures for adequacy. Approval documents for sealed source or device designs should be clear, complete and accurate as to L isotopes, forms, quantities, uses, drawing identifications, and permissive or restrictive conditions.
Questions:
- 1. How many evaluations were made of sealed sources and devices during the review period?
i I
34
(
Wedding and Associates - Beta Gauge Wedding and Associates - Source 1186 Pylon Devices (Radium / Radon Generators)
- 2. How many SS&D evaluations have been made for which approval documents have not yet been prepared? .
Boulder Scientific - one custom device
- 3. How does the RCP evaluate manufacturer's data on SS&D's to i ensure . integrity and safety for users? <
Data must meet ANSI and NRC requirements for safety, quality control, and customer education.
- 4. Do you determine whether the manufacturer's information on labels and brochures relating to health, safety, assay, and calibration procedures is adequate on all products?
Copies of labels are reviewed for adequacy during the device review. The use of these labels and the providing of users with appropriate procedures is verified in an initial and subsequent inspection.
V.B. Reviewer Assessment:
The Wedding and Associates SS&D evaluations have been forwarded to the NRC, These were briefly reviewed and appeared appropriate and complete.
The CDH/RCH meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Adequacy of Product Evaluations" indicator.
C. Licensino Procedures (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: The RCP should have internal licensing guides, checklists, and policy memoranda consistent with current NRC 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-Information program, evaluation sheets, service licenses, j and ifcenses authorizing distribution to general licensees and 1 persons exempt from licensing should be submitted to NRC on a timely basis. Standard license conditions comparable with current NRC standard license conditions should be used to expedite and provide uniformity in the licensing process. Files should be maintained in an orderly fashion to allow fast, accurate retrieval of information and documentation of discussions and visits.
1 l
4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J
l 35 Questions:
- 1. Has the RCP developed its own licensing procedures or does it use NRC guides? Please provide copies for review.
- The RCD uses NRC guides.
- 2. What licensing guides, checklists and policy memoranda are made available to the staff?
NRC licensing guides and policy statements are available. ANSI, NCRP, and ICRP documents are available to RCD staff.
- 3. What guides and/or regulatory position statements are furnished
( to license and renewal applicants?
l L NRC licensing guides are furnished with a letter of explanation l
outlining the format (not content) of NRC licenses and how they differ from CDH/ RCD licenses.
- 4. Describe the system for advising classes of licensees of new licensing procedures and regulations.
All notifications are mailed out to licensees. The mailing list is updated immediately upon demand.
5.a. How are licensing a:tions coordinated with the compliance staff?
Recommendations are taken from compliance staff and utilized.
Inspectors will investigate suspected problems upon request from the licensing staff.
- b. Are licensing actions taken while enforcement action is pending?
No.
- 6. For what length of time are various categories of licenses issued?
All licenses are issued for a 5 year period, except for specific cases (shorter periods).
7.a. Does the RCP use standard licensing conditions?
Yes,
- b. If so, how does the RCP assure they are comparable with those used by NRC?
1 CDH/ RCD standard license conditions are based upon current NRC standard license conditions. j
l l
Am 36 i l
- 8. Are the licensing conditions on file in the RCP office and with NRC? I Yes, CDH/ RCD standard license conditions are on file with the Division and copies are available to NRC. {
j l
- 9. What SS&D sheets, service, distribution and "E" licenses are available for RCP staff use?
t Hard copy SS&D sheets are maintained and are available.
Agreement State and NRC licenses are on microfilm or hard copy.
- 10. Describe your practices for distributing SS&D sheets, as well as GL distribution and service licenses, to the NRC.
Once final copy is approved, duplicate copies are distributed to NRC, Division files, and the original mailed to licensee.
- 11. Describe your procedures for maintaining the license files (How are files and folders arranged? Are telephone contacts and visits documented? Who is responsible for filing materials in folders?).
Licenses for radioactive materials are kept in a central file in alphabetical order. Each file is separated in four parts:
(1) license and amendments, (2) application and correspondence, (3) compliance reports and related correspondence, and (4) fees.
Memos are included in the file for telephone contacts, attempted contacts, incidents, etc. Files are constructed and filed by the licensing secretary.
- 12. Are there opportunities for license reviewers to accompany inspectors?
Staff reviewing license applications can.pnd have accompanied inspectors. They have also done their own preliminary inspections. There is close communication between staff.
V.C. Reviewer Assessment: ,
The Division utilizes licensing conditions that are similar to NRC's standard licensing conditions. The licensing staff has opportunities to visit licensees to observe applications and actual operations involving radioactive materials.
Section supervisors in the radioactive materials program review all licensing actions taken by junior personnel. Messrs. A. Hazle or J. Jacobi sign all licenses. As junior personnel become proficient in licensing, supervisors will periodically select licenses for indepth review. Normally, if questions arise during the review of a particular license application, the reviewer discusses the subject with the
37 supervisor. Discussion with staff regarding the new Parts 35 and 39 (effective dates \pril 30 and July 1, 1987) respectively aere addressed.
The review encour aged the 'icensee management and staff to i nview for any possible future license changes.
The procedures that the State uses for licensing and inspection activities appear accept 3ble and provide for continuing interaction and for exchange of information between licensing and compliance staff members.
The CDH/ RCD meets the Nr:C guidelines oudined under the " Licensing Procedoras" indicator.
VI. COMPLIANCE A. Status of Inspec,?. ion Proqram (Category I)
S NRC Guidelines: The State RCP should maintain an inspection program adequate to assess licensee compliance with State regulations and
. license conditions.
The RCP should maintain statistics which are adequate to permit Program Management to assess the status of the inspection program on a periodic ezsis. Information showing the number of inspections conducted, th, rumber overdue, the length of time overdue and the priority catet.ories should be readily available.
There should be at least semiannual inspection planning for the number of inspections to be performed, assignments to senior vs.
junior staf f, assignments to regions, identification of special needs and periodic status reports.
Questions:
- 1. How is statistical information maintained about the inspection program to permit periodic assessment of~its status by RCP management?
Each inspector maintains a " current status" sheet for inspections completed. These sheets are used to completa the 6 month NRC reports.
- 2. Prepare a table as below, indicating the number of inspections made in the review period, by category and priority.
License Scheduled Inspection Number of Category Frecuency Priority Inspections 3E yearly 1 12 5B yearly 1 1
m 'E qlgy ~ - .
.r- . . .: -
.c .
J
~
' lp: ,.
Es
! f 4
ll 38.
- . 3N - '3 .
3 15' L . 6A- -3 3 7J 3G' 3 -
3 2 .'
? 3B. 3 3 3
.2C 3 3 3 3D -3 3 1 3I- 3 3 2 3C- 3 3. 1 9A 3 3 2' 1A' 1 1 2 .
3H 1 1 2 18 1 1 4 J 3M 2 2 1 u CSU 2 2 8 88 2 2 2 8C- 5 5 25
- 80 5 5- 2 8A 3 3 2 3P. 5 5 .37 40 5 5 3
- 3. Prepare a table (or tables) as below which identify the. Priority 1, 2, and 3 ' licensees with overdue inspections. Include the'-
license category -the due date, and the. number of. months the.
inspection;is' overdue. (If, list is extensive, a comparable.
computer printout-is acceptable.).
Due Months" Licensee- Priority' ' Category Date Overdue Amax 3 2C 6/82 currently shutdown Boulder Scientific 3 3B 11/85 L Eagle Construction 1 3E ~
1/87 1 Univ. df Colo. 3 3G 12/86 3 10 TECH 1 3H 2/87 1 Cortec 3 3N Initial Eli Lilly 3 3N Initial Univ.~cf Denver 3 3N 4/86 New license-i s st.Ed Medical Support 1 58 3/83 48 Ramp Industrie:- 1 SB 1/87 2 N/L McCullough' 3 6A '8/81 67 Production Logging 3 6A 6/82 51 Geoscience Assoc. 3 6A 5/83 46 -)
Century Geophysical 3 6A 8/83 43 -
tSuperior Explor. 3 6A 8/83 43 Gearhart Indus. 3 6A 6/84 33 l
d
y 2.q y - - .
o ... 1 jd
,, 39 Dickerson 3 6A- 7/84 .32
'; Profess. Logging 3 6A: 7/84 32 PengolWireline'_ -3 6A 9/85 -18' Nuclear Logging 3 6A 4/86 11-
- No grace period is included.
.4.1 Prepare a table as below indicating the number of overdue.
. license. inspections for Priorities -4 through 7. '
License Number Category Priority Overdue 3P (Initial-issued 5 years 54-through 3/86) 4D (Initial-issued 5 years 6 through 3/86)
-80 5 years 3-80 5 years. 1
- 5. How are inspection schedules planned and how are the dates and
' personnel assignments made?
Schedule..is planned by the Principal Health Physicist. The inspections are set by the inspectors with assistance from the Principal Health Physicist.
VI.A Reviewer Assessment:
According to the states inspection requency 14 of Priority 1,'2, and 3 licensees are past'due 50 percent o" the inspection frequency. The staff had developed a short term action plan to reduce mGor backlog.
The CDH/ RCD does not meet the NRC raidelines outlined under the " Status of Inspection Program" indicator.
B. Inspection Frequency (Category I)
NRC Guidelines: The RCP should establish an inspection priority
.syrtem. The specific frequency of inspections should be based upon the potential hazards of licensed operations, e.g., major processors, broad licensees, and industrial radiographer should be inspected
. approximately annually -- smaller or less hazaMous operations may be inspected less frequently. The minimum ingsction frequency should be consistent with the NRC syr, tem.
- n. . .
j i' 1 a
40 i
t i
Questions:
- 1. Enclose a copy of the State's priority system.
The priority system is similar to NRC inspection priorities.
- 2. Who assigns licenses to the priority categories?
Principal Health Physicist
- 3. Discuss any significant variances in the State's priorities from the NRC priority system.
The priority system is similar to NRC inspection priorities.
- 4. Is the inspection priority system aesigned to assure that the more hazardous and/or complex operations are inspected at an appropriate frequency?
Yes, the priority system was assigned in the regulation, on the basis of NRC system, as required by State law.
- 5. Describe the State's policy for unannounced inspections and exceptions to the policy.
All inspections are to be done unannounced unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as attempts at reaching licensee unsuccessful.
- 6. Describe the State's policy for conducting follovar inspections.
Followup as needed based upon items of noncompliance. There is no set policy. Following discussion with the inspector, senior staff determine whether followup is appropriate.
7.a. Ddes the RCP inspect out-of-state firms working in the State under reciprocity or under State licensure?
Yes.
- b. How many reciprocity notices were received?
51
- c. How many were inspected since the last review?
Two mm__.-_.__._ __M.-
r_ __
4 41 i
VI.B Reviewer Assessment:
The inspection frequency for radioactive materials licenses are set up on the basis of NRC system. The state's fee system provides for inspection fees and details the frequency of such inspections, similar to the NRC's fee schedule. The Division is using NRC's primary system for establishing the frequency of inspections, namely IE Manual Chapter 2800.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines outlined under the " Inspection Frequency" indicator.
C. Inspector's Performance and Capability (Category I)
NRC Guidelines: Inspectors should be compotent 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 po?icies prior to independently conducting inspections.
The compliance supervisor (may be RCp manager) should conduct annual field evaluations of each inspector to assess performance and assure application of appropriate and consistent policies and guides.
Questions:
1.a. Does th' e senior inspector or supervisor periodically accompany the inspectors?
Yes.
- b. Are these accompaniments documented?
Yes, in the respective inspection reports or memos to file.
- 2. List the number of supervisory accompaniments of inspectors since the last review meeting and identify the' persons accompanied and the supervisors.
IDTECH, Inc. Larry Doerr-inspector Tim Bonzer-inspector ~
Chuck Mattson-supervisor Cobe Laboratories Larry Doerr-inspector Marty Hanrahan-supervisor VI.C Reviewer Assessment:
No accompaniment of State inspectors was conducted during this review.
However, a visit to IOTECf:, Inc. was conducted with Mr. Mattson. A tour l
of the facility included observations of the operator functions, loading l and unloading of medical supplies and a brief discussion on the use of l Cs-137 as irradiation material. The irradiator was estimated to be under L a continuous workload for several months.
C -- -
'42 D. Responses to Incidents and Alleaed Incidents (Category I)
~
NRC Guidelines: uiries 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 reperting to the Agency in less than 30 days, investigaticas should be made during the next scheduled inspection. Onsite investigations should be promptly made of nonreportable incidents which may be of significant public interest and concern, e.g., transportation accidents.
Investigations should include in-cepth reviews of circumstances and should be completed on a high priority basis. When appropriate, investigations should include reenactments and time-study measurements (normally within a few days). Investigation (or inspection) results should ba documented and enforcement action taken when appropriate.
State licensees and the NRC should be notified of pertinent information about any incident which could be relevant to other licensed 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 shou'id have access to medical consultants when needed to diagnose or treat radiation injuries. The RCP should use other technical consultants for special problems when needed.
Questions: $
- 1. How does the RCP respond to incidents and alleged incidents?
All incidents or alleged incidents are investigated or responded to promptly. A summary of the incident is written, circulated through the Division for information, and a copy sent to NRC Region IV, and DOE /RPT. The CDH emergency response manual, '
for all environmental programs, identifies policy and procedures of the Departments.
j
- 2. Are mejor incidents (10 CFR 20.403 types requiring reporting in less than 30 deys) investigated on a priority basis? l 1
Yes. !
- 3. Are other incidents followed up in the next scheduled inspection?
Yes, copies are maintained in respective license files.
- 4. Are nonreportable incidents that may be of significant public interest.and concern promptly investigated? ,
Yes, as the RCD is made aware of occurrence. l l
l
~ -
~ --
s, ,
{.1l
.43 1 _ . . .
L
- 5. How'many incident investigations were_ conducted during the review period?
56
- 6. Attach as an Appendix a summary of each incident investigated.;
Include' documentation.of investigation results, enforcement
-action when appropriate,-any reenactment-and time motion studies, as well as notification of. the NRC and State licensees of incident-information that may have been relevant to'other. licensed operations.
Copy of summary of incidents are available in the NRC, Region IV, Colorado ~ State Agreement files.
- 7. ' Were any incidents attributed to generic-type equipment failure?
No.
- 8. What action was or would be taken by the RCP pertaining to incidents attributable to-generic equipment failures in regard to notification of the NRC, other licensees and the regulatory.
agency _which approved the device?
The NRC would be notified of CDH/ RCD findings and recommendations.
All other licensees and_ agencies involved would also be notified.
9... If a failure should occur in equipment manufactured by a State licensee, what action would be taken to:
- a. stop the manufacture or force changes in design?
Action would be taken "as necessary" to stop or make changes in design product. This includes license amendments, orders, etc. ,
- b. assure retrofit of existing devices? -
Action would be taken with assistance from the AG's office to assure public protection by legal procedural means, if recessary.
- 10. When are other State licensees and the NRC notified of pertinent information about an incident?
NRC is notified of all important incidents. Other licensees of similar type would be notified of the circumstances which caused the incident and precautions would be initiated to prevent recurrence.
3
t
.[ g 44 e
11.a.Are medical consultants available ano used when necessary?
Yes, we have used NRC consultants in the past.
-b.Is the State aware of the availability of medical consultants from NRC7 c Yes.
- 12. Explain any use of other technical consultants for special problems encountered in incident investigations.
None.
- 13. Were there any incidents since the last review meeting that met Abnormal Occurrence Report (AOR) criteria?
None.
VI.D Reviewer Assessment:
It is the State's policy to respond promptly to all reports of radiation incidents. The State has instituted a duty. officer procedure to facilitata responding to such incidents. During the past year, the State has responded to a number of reported incidents and has prepared reports which are kept in an incident file. It was identified that the files were not in proper chronological order and the reviewer encouraged staff and management to maintain a proper sequence for the incident reports.
During the review of selected incident reporte, it was also identified that the investigator made recommendations or comments which would require followup. However, there d'. 'ot appear that a mechanism was on place to assure that these comments were properly. addressed and subsequently closed out. (i'.e., on July 24, 1986, a small tritium spill occurre> into fume hood at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center (UCHSC) and the investigator recommended certain housekeeping proce~dures be checked during the next scheduled inspection. This was not followed up based on the review of the most recent inspection report). Copies of incident summary reports were sent to AE00 and State Agreements.
Overall, however, the CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines ouclined under the
" Response to Actual and Alleged Incidents" indicator. !
E. Enforcement Procedures (Category I)
{
NRC Guidelines: Enforcement Procedures should be sufficient to provide a substantial deterrent to*1icensee noncompliance with regulatory ,
requirements. Provisions for the levying of monetary penalties are recommended. Enforcement letters should be issued within 30 days following inspections and should employ appropriate regulatory language clearly specifyir.g all items of noncompliance and health and safety matters identified during the inspection and referencing the appropriate regulation or license condition being violated. Enforcement letters
.__l-_-- - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - . - -
45 should specify the time period for the licensee to respond indicating corrective actions and actions taken to prevent reoccurrence (normally 20-30 days). The inspector and compliance supervisor should review licensee responses. Licensee responses to enforcement letters should be promptly acknowledged as to adequacy and resolution of previously unresolved items. Written procedures should exist for handling escalated enforcement cases of varying degrees. Impounding of material should be in accordance with State administrative procedures.
Opportunity for hearings should be provided to assure impartial administration of the RCP.
Qecstions:
- 1. Describe the State's enforcement procedures.
Procedures are the same as used by NRC civil penalties md procedures are detailed in 25-11-107(5) and Part XIII of the regulations.
- 2. If the RCP can apply civil penalties, explain the procedures for keying monetary penalties to violations.
Examples for severity levels are included in Part XIII, Appendix A.
As non-included examples occur they are compared with those listed for comparable severity. A permanent list is maintained of these additional examples for equal treatment of all licensees.
- 3. Describe the State's provisions for criminal penalties.
Criminal penalties are provided in 25-11-107(3) of the state statute.
- 4. Describe the policies in effect for issuing field forms equivalent to NRC form 591 or letters for enforcement action.
A* review of the inspection with management is a part of each inspection. The items of noncompliance identified during the visit to the company are reviewed at that time. Every inspection includes a written summary sent to the licensee after the inspection report is written and has been reviewed by the '
Division management.
- 5. Arc there written procedures for handling escalated enforcement cases?
The details of notification and imposition of civil penalties is included in Part XIII of the regulations. A flow sheet is used to assure time schedules are observed by the Division and that responses are received as required. - - - -
p , 4..
mg g , 1_ 4-46 p.
g 6. Can the State issue Orders including Emergency Orders?
I
'Yes, copies of orders are available in the NRC, RegionfIV, Colorado State Agreement' files.
- 7. Can the RCP impound radioactive material?-
Yes Title-25-11-103(5), CRS'1973, as amended.
1 8. Do State administrative procedures permit the opportunity for-hearings in major enforcement cases?
Yes.
- 9. If during the review period the: State has issued orders, applied civil. penalties, sought criminal penalties, impounded sources, or held a-formal enforcement hearing, identify these cases and enclose copies of the pertinent State. enforcement correspondence
-or orders.
Name of License Type of. .
Date of -
Licensee Number Enforcement Action Action IOTECH, Inc. Shutdown order -
2/14/86 Cert. Tech.' Testing Suspended 2/21/86-
-10. -Are enforcement letters issued within 30 days of the inspection?
Yes, as a general rule; however, there have been some issued after 30 days. All significant inspection reports (with serious violations or urgency) are given priority.
- 11. .Are enforcement letters writt'en in regulatory language and reference regulations and license conditions?
Yes.
12.
Do the enforcement letters clearly differentiate between noncompliance items and health and safety recommendations?
Yes, there is no formal written policy but all efforts are made to that effect. Subsequent to that effort, the steps are prescribed by state statute (25-11-107(5)).
- 13. If applicable, do the letters separate actions subject to the State radiation control act and State OSHA regulations?
Not applicable.
i
j 47
, s ervisors?
! 14.a.Areenforcementlettersissuedbyinspectorsorsup\ l The writing is done by the inspector, repo'rts reviewed % senior !
health physicist. Enforcement letters signed by SHP or Division Director.
i b.If issued by inspectors, do they undergo supervisory review prior to dispatch?
Not applicable.
- 15. Do enforcement letters require the licensee to respond within a stated time period? Note the period.
Yes, within 20 days.
16.a.Are licensee's responses to enforcement letters reviewed by the inspector and the supervisor?
Yes. I b.Are they acknowledged properly? ;
Yes.
- 17. ..as the state taken escalated enforcement actions against licensees who operate its multiple jurisdictions?
No.
VI.E Reviewer Assessment:
Enforcement letters are prepared following all materials 'nspections.
Letters have not been issued within 30 days of the inspection. Enforcement letters reviewed during this meeting were checked for appropriate regulatory language that' clearly specified all items of noncom ~pliance and health and safety matters identified during the inspection. Enforcement letters are generally signad by A. Hazle. Enforcemer.t letters eequire licensees to respond within 20 days. Selected cases were identified where this time frate was not achieved. Licensee responses to enforcement letters are actriowledged by the State. With respect to escalated enforecar.t action, it was rated that the staff may consult with the AG's office regarding any necessary orders. Written procedures regarding the handling of escalated enforcement actions are available to the staff. These were developed on July 31, 1981. The State's escalated enforcement procedures remain unchanged from previous program reviews. The State has the authority to impound radioactive materials when necessary and opportunities.s for hearings in enforcement cases are provided for under State administrative procedures. l (See Appendix D) )
)
The CDH/ RCD does not meet NRC guidelines outlined under the " Enforcement l Procedures" indicator.
, 4 P
48 F. Inspection Procedures (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: Inspection guides, consistent with current NRC guidance, should be used by inspectors to assure uniform and complete inspection practices and provide technical guidance in the inspection of licensed programs. The NRC Agreement States Guides may be used if propt:rly supplemented by policy memoranda, agency interpretations, etc. Written inspection policies should be issued to establish a policy for conducting unannounced inspections, obtaining corrective action, following up and closing out previou, violations, assuring ,
exit interviews with management, and issuing appropriate notification of violations of health and safety problems. Procedures should be established for maintaining licensees' compliance histories. Oral briefing of supervision or the senior inspector should be performed upon return from nonroutine inspections. For States with separate licensing and inspection staffs, procedures should be established for feedback of information to license reviewers.
Questions:
- 1. Has the RCP developed its own inspection guides or doer, it use NRC guides?
All inspectors nave attended the NRC Inspection Procedures Course and use NRC guides.
- 2. Are current copies of the internal inspection forms and guides on file in the RCP office and with NRC? " Attach any changes or guides developed since the last review.
Yes.
1
- 3. Are inspectors furnished copies of inspection guides?
Yes, and copies are available in the Lice,nsing and Inspection l Procedure notebooks.
- 4. Discuss the use or non-use of inspection policy memoranda, interpretations, etc. , to supplement inspection guides.
Policy standards are written if necessary, distributed to inspectors, and a copy placed in the procedures notebook.
- 5. Are there written procedures establishing policy for-i
- a. unannounced inspections?
Inspections are unannounced except when specific circumstances require otherwise.
l
. - . = - - - _
- , v. :
n . .
[.
2
\
49 ..
3 b' . obtaining' corrective action?
. Compliance report responses are due within.20 days'of receipt by the license and details actions completed.or
- proposed. If.not received, escalated enforcement action is initiated.
I .c. following-up and closing out previous t tations of violations?
'Yes, a specific section of the inspection report addresses followup and previous citations.
- d. exit interviews with management?
Are conducted except when management is not available.
c Enforcemertt letters are forwarded to licensee management.
- e. issuing notices of violations and findings of health and safety problems?
Yes.'
- f. categorizing the seriousness'of violations?
9 Yes, however, only if escalated enforcement action is anticipated to occur within the'near future. If the
. licensee's reaction to the' exit interview is por,itive,.the classification with regard to the seriousness of the violation is not formally included in the compliance letter. If escalated enforcement is anticipated or is warranted, the procedures established by law make it necessary that notification to the licensee be made describing the. magnitude of the offense. 25-11-107(5),
.- Please provide copies of these procedures for review.
- 6. Whatprocedureshavebeenestiablishedformaintaininglicensee's compliance histo-ies?
A section in the license file (identified as File #3) includes all materials having to do with compliance, including inspection
, reports, correspondence, notices of overexposure, required reports,etc.).
- 7. Does the senior inspector.or supervisor orally debrief the -
inspector upon return from inspections?
l
_7 , , ,
\r t^ ;
50 Every inspection is reviewed and discussed with the SHP. A L formal debriefing is only conducted for ccmplex or unusual L
inspections.
- 8. What procedures are there for providing feedback from inspectors to licensing?
The licensing personnel are instructed to review the compliance
' file and respective compliance history prior to issuance of the license.
VI.F Reviewer Assessment:
l The State.has available for the compliance staff several notebooks containing NRC inspection guides and various Colorado policy memoranda regarding inspections.- The memoranda discuss policies regarding announced vs. unannounced inspections, conciucting entrance and exit interviews with management, and enforcement procedures. Most inspections are being conducted on an unannounced basis at the present time. The State has a policy requiring exit interviews with management following completion of, all inspections. The State has also established procedures for maintaining _ licensee compliance histories. Comp?iance histories are detailed at the beginning of inspection reports.
The CDH/ RCD meets the NXC guidelines outlined under the " Inspection proceduros" indicator.
G. Inspection Reports (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: Findings of inspections should be documented in a report describing the scope of inspections, substantiating all items of noncompliance and health and safety matters, describing the scope of licenseas' programs, and indicating the substance of discussions with licensee management and licensee's response. Reports should uniforn!1 y and adequately document the results .of inspections and l identify arns of the licensee's program which should receive special l attention at the next inspection. Reports should show the independent physical measurements made by the inspector.
. Questions: .
- 1. How do inspection reports document the inspection that was cotiducted and the inspection findings? Explain how the reports substantiate noncompliance and health and safety matters and '
describe the scope of the licensee's program.
Inspection reports are written in narrative style with headings for each major topic included in the inspection. Each item of !
noncompliance is listed with enough detail to identify the I material, dates, or persons involved so that the company is aware of the problem and any reviewers of the report can readily l1
h h
51 l
' determine the problem as seen by the inspector. O, topic covered in the report is the " scope of the licenset ' program"
.in which the inspector details his observations ano lists any.
L license activities which have not been implemented by the company.
- 2. Do the aports
- a. relate the discussions held with license management and interviews with workers?
Yes.
i
- b. include independent measurements conducted by the inspector?
Yes.
- c. document follow-up cf previous citations of violations made by the inspector?
Yes.
- d. identify areas of the licensee's program needing special attention at the next inspection? '
Yes, as necessary.
- 3. Are inspectors routinely inspecting radwaste package preparation and shipping practices and do the reports document the results?
Yes.
VI.G Reviewer Assessment: -
~
During the ieview of selected compliance files and associated inspection reports, it was identified that not all reports adequately and completely documented the results of the inspection. It was noted that in some cases the report did not include detailed results of the inspector's independent physical measurements and complete overall documentation.
The CDH/ RCD does not meet the NRC guidelines outlined center the
" Inspection Reports" indicator.
H. Independent Measurements (Category II)
NRC Guidelines: Independent measurements should be sufficient in number and type to ensure the licensee's control of materials and to validate the licensee's measurements. RCP instrumentation should be adequate for surveying license operations (e.g. , survey meters, air j samplers, lab counting equipment for smears, identification of J isotopes,etc.).
.s r
52 GM Survey' Meter: 0-20 mr/hr Ion Chamber ' Survey Meter: several r/hr Neutron Survey Meter: Fast & Thermal.
Micro R Meter: ' 1-100 uR/hr Alpha Survey Meter: . 0-100,000 c/m Air Samplers: Hi and to Volume
. Lab Counters: . Detect 0.001 uc/ wipe -
Velometers Smoke tubes Lapel Air Samplers Instrument calibration services or facilities should be readily available and appropriate for instrumentation used. Licensee equipment and facilities should not be used unless under a service contract. Exceptions for other State Agencies, e.g., a State University, may be made. Agency instruments should be calibrated at intervals not greater than that required to licensees being
-inspected.
e Questions:
- 1. Discuss the State's policy for conducting independent; measurements'as a part of each inspection (e.g., air samples,.
wipe samples, air flows, dose rates). Are these measurements documented in the inspection report?
Yes, surveys including wipes are to be done at each inspection, as necessary, to verify adequacy of licensees- program.
- 2. List ~the instrumentation that is readily available to the RCP for surveying licensed' operations and conducting appropriate independent measurements.
An appropriate survey meter is always taken on an inspection.
This is supplemented by wipes, air flow meters, etc.,
ap'propriate for the type of licensee being inspected. A current list of all available instrumentation is attached as Appendix E.
- 3. Describe the method used for calibrating survey instruments and the frequency of calibration.
Survey instruments are calibrated quarterly and are traceable to j NBS. '
VI.H R,eviewer Assessment:
The CDH/ RCD meets the NRC guidelines under the " Independent Measurements" indicator, i
i
.. r. .. . .a : . , , , , - - -
, 53
~
^ VII. OTHER ASPECTS OF THE STATE'S RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM A. Non-Agreement Sources of Radiation Questions:
- 1. Are the licensing and inspection procedures for NARM the same as for agreement materials?.
Yes.-
- 2. Give the number of X-ray machine (or tube) and accelerator registrants by category, e.g., dental, medical, industrial, etc.
X-ray Inspection Data 1985 1986 1987 M.D. 10-7-3 21 5 D.0. 1-6 0 0 D.D.S. 32-55 145 64 0.C. 24-14 21 5 DPM 6-3 8 1 DVM 0 1 2 INO O 6 0 Hosp. 8-55 119 4 Sch6ols, etc. 9 224 tubes 330 tubes 81 tubes
. 111 fac. 130 fac. 42 facilities X-ray Registration Data 1985 153 new registrants
~
1986 305 new registrants 1987 The Department has 2,896 facilities registered
- 3. How many machine and accelerator inspections were made in the last year (or other appropriate interval)?
Approximately 400 inspections of X-ray machines were conducted.
(
- 4. Does the State license X-ray or nuclear medical technologists? l l
No.
_ _ - - - - _ - - - _ _ _ _ - - - - . - - - - - _ . _ - - -- - -- - J
.m ,, , , .. .
1 54 VIIlAReviewerComment:
There appears to be no additional information necessary. The CDH/ RCD response is adequate.
- B. Environmental Monitoring Program Questions:
- 1. - To indicate the scope of the environmental monitoring program, describe:
- a. types of media sampled; Air, water, soils, vegetation, and milk.
- b. the number and location of stations sampled; 0ver 4,500 samples and locations.
- c. frequency of sample collection; Information is available in NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files. '
- d. analyses run on each type of sample.
Information is available in NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
- 2. Is a copy of the latest environmental surveillance report available for review?
.i' Yes.
s
~
VII.B Reviewer C6mment:
The State's Environmental Monitoring Program consists of a routine, statewide air and water sampling program, in addition to samples from the environs of Rocky Flats, the Cotter Mill, Uravan, and Fort St. Vrain. ,
Alpha-beta analyses, gamma spectrometry, tritium analyses, and uranium l analyses are performed on air and water samples from Rocky Flats. In i addition, alpha-beta, radium, and uranium analyses are performed on water !
samples from several of the State's uranium mills. Alpha-beta analyses, uranium analyses, and gamma specs are performed at approximately weekly intervals. Radium analyses are run at monthly intervals.
Any additional detail information for the latest environmental surveillance information, is available in the NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
q a
55 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.
- 1. Other Generic Issues-Questions:
- a. For radiography inspections, to what extent do you make inspections at temporary job sites?
Each radiography inspection includes an office inspection and a field inspection. Inspectors have been instructed to' complete both.
The RCD has not had any major problems with multi-office industrial firms.
- b. Are you finding Ir-192 contamination on radiographic equipment?
'l No. It should be noted that the State inspectors are taking wipes per NRC recommendation.
- c. What are the state's plans to adopt the low-level waste (LLW) manifest rule (if not already adopted)?
The language for the LLW manifest rule has been incorporated in November 1985 regulation update.
- d. For states with LLW disposal sites, what are the state's '
plans to implement 10 CFR 617 ,
10 CFR 61 has been incorporated into the November 1985 revision to State's regulations.
- e. Will your state have access to a LLW disposal site after January 19867 If not, what contingency plans are there for after Jar.uary 1986?
Compact does have a site (Beatty, Nevada). Contingency plans were requested from licensees. ]
- f. Have copies of 10 CFR 61 and NRC technical positions on I waste form and classification been distributed to state
- ~ licensees? If there has been feedback, please provide documentation.
I L__ _ - _ _ __ - . _ _ _
l l
56 i
l Yes. All licensees were notified, originally provided a copy of 10 CFR 61, and now notified of both the proposed adoption of equivalent requirements and the necessity to !
have plans in case the Beatty site is not available to the LLW Compact states. To date of this review, there has been i no feed back from the licensees. j i
- g. Have there been any applications or approvals for incineration, compacting, or disposal?
The application for renewal of Medical Support Services is in process and aweiting approval of a performance bond (
before completion. The other waste handling licensee i-RAMP, Industries and University of Colorado Health Sciences Center is approved for incineration, t
- h. What use is being made of IE information notices? ;
- 1. Reviewed by insepctors so they are familiar with problems.
- 2. Distributed to appropriate licensees for information or action, as necessary.
- 1. Identify any group of materials licensees for which the state has increased the frequency of inspection due to problems with that general category. Please discuss the nature of those problems.
None,
- j. With respect to medical licensees, is the state making any effort during inspections of nuclear pharmacies to determine whether the licensee is actually conducting the required molybdenum breakthrough tetts, i.e. , what is the state doing in addition to record reviews to establish compliance or noncompliance with the requirements?
An inspection was conducted at the time of preparation of the radiopharmaceuticals so that the procedures, including molybdenum breakthrough were observed being done.
- k. Is the state mounting any special effort to look at the possibility of reconcentration of radionuclides in sanitary sewers and sewage treatment plants as part of the regular inspection program? If so, please describe.
Yes, a survey of files shows no major processors of Co-60 or Am-241. A survey program is under consideration.
1
y
- q. y.
. . c. ~ .
>c
~
e '
- g ,.
.p ..
o
'4 4c l
57 A';w '
- l->
1.1. .Has the! State received app 1ications from NRC licensed
reactors requesting. approvals for disposal by burial of, low-level radioactive waste?-
n
- No, i
.2. Is so, please identify the reactor operator and date of y application.
Not applicable.
- 3. What action has been taken t.y the State?
% Not' applicable.
- m. -Have you received any applications from utilities for disposal of very low-level waste pursuant to 10'CFR 20.302?
No.
VII.C. Review Comment:
.There appears to be no additional information necessary.'The'CDH/ RCD'
, response is adequate.
Colorado is a member of the Rocky Mountain Low-Level. Radioactive' Waste Compact.- Other member states are Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming..
According.to the' terms of the compact, Colorado is the state that is currently. looked toward developing a site to succeed the Beatty, Nevada
. site as the. region's disposal site. The state's strategy'is to find a low-level waste disposal site that is also suitable ~for the disposal of uranium mill tailings. A few counties within the state have expressed support for hosting such'a site. The executive offices of the Rocky Mountain compact board are in' Denver.
Other Topics ~
- a. The Division utilizes the NMSS, Fuel Cycle and material Guidance Directives as reference in certain policy and procedural decisions.
- b. . With respect to termination of licenses, the RCD utilizes the same a, decommissioning / decontamination criteria for surface contamination levels as the NRC (NC 83890, Table 1).
t e
i
_. .,__m____ _ _ _ . - - - - - - - - - =
% fi ~
l
.,7 ;
.I..
$ l i .i -? - APPENDIX' TITLE
'A= - Organizational. Chart - Colorado. Department of Health.
B: Organizational Chart : Rad'iation Control Division C' Selected License File Review'~
-q-D Selected Compliance File Review f E' Instrumentation List
,f.
}-
e f
O f
1 mm_m______.2_ _ _ ._._. . _ . - - _ . _ _ - . - - - - - - -
r y
b S e
n a
t e
F^C y
p_
ha w
r a
- " '" l c~ N W"E t
3
.~
ool]
H fu s e
hd_ '
(T r
s M
L e5 at 3 E R G
%vI)r )
s al ut I
- r e
e AS H NL CTA e
tla a
\ _
c HIV E
~
oD f
Hp e
-iv '
gia,
~ hs wm_
u a e
~ y n s s
- (
C E
(
cAt F,\ I Cil o e v u ee r
t 'i; O
V E
BX RE AC NU E L E
C T
L ad <
t o n na R O m t
" o r tn .
N CT I R J* i O HVE A T
~ ) R E
)
~ =t' A
- t t D i
( o r
s M
- n t
e l
d o e y t c
hn_
s 8
a.
~
n A m ~~
r s, 1 B
J hn on_m U o
R
" e t
n a AD NC I
CI A
~
P u .
v ~
H L
~ W l' '
~ ~
Wa l
~ w= P oi
.t I- M
[~ *%l a *
" m *
- ]
Wd_ S _
cu S
em- _ E C
- Ea op r u.r r
v ea s
'_L O a d s
ue n
t m
e l
.q{l
T I I I N -
-s E
M -
g m=~~_;
g T
R A H N
O I
1 i1 z
P TT T E LA =
D EI AZAR -
OHNH AC b '
O l F.=mC._m
{ 4 -
O .
l , : I l C ,,.==
= ,..*~ ..~,.
- m. _.
g
= E'- ,
=
=
E-
. 3 , 4 1
=.
' j i g
cC. [~
_ k S.
h E l
= l n
o i -
l
- y. .
l
~~ 6, -.-
2 S
r
=
I i e",2 =
=
m "T-
. i 1
. . . * . I l i I
. I
- . .. l...I g - ~-
l
- .'T i
I 5
-- f i
I l l a
s =. e= ~.
I i
g 1
=. -
i r .
i
=
g E ,
1 l
Cv.il I
_. y
- ij l
l
_ - 1
=_.
rtnim F 4a l n l I l
1 i ;l
- - v , ~
= r-
= -
8 = --
=
sT I
~ i= '
- I 1 t+4 -
I
]
~T~
~ I i
l i I l l I I.
0l a
i
= *.. -- _ h.
- * := -
g W o: n..
I i=-
- - 1 -
I
~ 4 4 -
l
- Ii l Dm
y y u- : .
.v , ., , .
pg, .. ,
I y ,
- w. . ,
y .q. ; t y+! _^^
u MA , RADIATION CO*4 TROL DI'/ISI"N s
.~n,- Cn' Au" O .' r.o ^-. *.~. .'*. 1'. C F W.c~ A.' _ ~. H
- h
(.h 4;\
, 4 . .) C / ."
'S
".."O ^. H., , '..M" .e.vt ?.?. C. r*n* Y Ci*n an -. c'. , .n. .T *s7 I .=..T_f'*. mJ. u" T. .C.e a- f".e.n nma m A ". .? ia. ** f.. .*.t 8
a' s
/*.O.
. . %.v.
J t
....n... . . . . 4, 4 .
,j J , : ,p.M A . ..Mi.
w oeh 6 ^ J" Law
- 4 0n.":
- t. a ' '.'
.,:,.%.U..
'. d4 ELL' s< N
- 1 -
, , s _., re e -. v
.., .L ..co1 ...=.i*.*
.4 at * - *se *V . O n*h.T. r
.J-c..re em.aMY u .T , ?.t ,. -
i o. ,
yf_ Y e n- ,e%. .w... . .ucT.r.
a J.
nE mn
- c .c , -
6 -w t A. ...J r . .. '4. nu.
- - - .,.---*n Lu 4 ,,4 -
nAD I A' v.n,N .r.~m. .e . nn.L -==u- s C .v*
( Eupv. HP (irran:) OIVI3ICN Supv. HP (Jaccbi)2 m AOM STAi:F i Staff Asst II (Williams)
Sr. Escratary (Shull)
.,. n. . o 4.5 .ew. . .r..ae s.:
- m. -
- %;..e c . s
- A s < ;, , fsr 1.
. ..r. . y ;,:.:
w a .rn- . .,yn . r ~ ,= u;..~.~....=: ,.,..... .
. ;: g. . =..: t..s. . . ,,, . .. . *< -
. ... i e :.. a.
, ,. 4..y=
.. . - . . up ...,...
1-:*-3."Ja: ant)- -fF -O lFMel s)
M*-2 (Cam b21 )- MF-C ihn:2r)
' R:--A - (F ar e:) MP-3 ;Dcarr:
e:P--A : lMams) In-C (Gcurdi r. e 4 , M-A Tsmarich: Mm Clerk Tycist 'Rc: C P a .:rin- El ect Epec (Thcenberg) 3r.-Sacratary !Popovich) REMEDIAL PRCGr.AMS M a Clark Ty;;ist (Kita) Frincipal'HP (Garr.swl: : 3 Gaological'. Tech (Contract) HP-C'(Lus11sn)
TECHNICAL SERVICEE Princ pal HP (Hn:r anan )
, HP-C Tsery) wo-A
'va:snt)s cc .-,dm m.3 k e.yp trh1,4 1:s ;
Er Elac Sps: (M;; ysn)
, ,,, Er Elect Spa: (T:l ec o)
URANIUM F:Ef':OVERY Principal MP (Weavar)O M*-C 'Krmy)
EP-B fBrcun) AGO 4 HP-A (vacant)*
Teceetary (vacant)+
Ccatracter (Jcnes)
, a .?** .. *"*" e 1 * --
l- - * -.:, e,.e c7. ti.ne de-cted t: SDC Insuits
+* a . ce
+ e. T 5 . 3 F.
......s ts e < w a.s5 w
,e. nn ,
. 4 i,., A g.W E ,d a ,3
. .= as a..:
. ** ma a .s sa. d Ci.. cs, 4 w
~
. . se c e"v. s L* o * .en.
e 4 5.,s.
.. 4 . .e e a e .. .
- - ov f . . . ,,,.,1 LGvc5w46
. 4 s m
.m n, 2 .e* . e, 1 s. W EU
. &. E i " '. ! A 'th r " t y '. - -i21 V&C&n y (f und5) 1 '.
.4 O
, I O. T. . # ....
t A E. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ - ^ - - - ^ - ^ - - " - - - - ^ ' - - -- - - - - ' ' - - - - ~ - ' '-^-
y v s
L .. BADIATION GQUIBA DIVIg1DN SggBgANIZATIgS gueBI 4 .-
- 3 DIVISIQ_N _DlBECTOR > .. l g$ 4, Albert J. Hazi e - ----
.' -- \
. h ;l
- Brenda J. Williams e,l
) . .
q.
L . '-)
ii L. i r
D E _g_ y E _9 h-cC T I O N_ - -n~ ~ ~ ~ _ . ~ ~
- gg gEg~ TION -.,
1 Warren Jacobi G . A . "F r a n z"'
~~~ '
(Denver OHice) (Regional OHice)
(Cotter / CERCLA)
(LLRW)
CLERICAL ,
CLERICAL
.Marion Shull (Adm, U mills, LLRW) Zelda Popovich Kathy Phillips (Mata ri al s, Technical Serv)
' Sigrid Kite Edith Root (X-ray, Denver Radium, Telephone)
...,s.. .. . .
...c ,: .-
~...,- ,.. -
i.
.c REQQLATORY UNIT
'Marty Hanrahan ", .,.'. .
~( Adminstration) ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-.t---*C~-.
Chuck.Thornberg w-l-RADIOACTIVE ~ .9 ' X-RAY," URANIUM' MILLS - *
-. Elaine Brummett' MATERIALS. ; - 7INANCIAL ASSURANCEF #- -
~
"----c !
n, ..
Chuck . Mattson . g;- t.- -'Marty Hancahan.4 .--'_' 5W-'"if '"C'ol'aen Ji m Hams' C'ampbel 1" . ~~ ~~l '-"[T ~
" " ' --: . -- f.. ? '~. .r.~ . >... - .- ..n -
' --~
Fr.an k--Nemeni ch-.y Tim Bonzer. .- .. r * . '7,. -..- Paul Cliver
- ..;L'.
.- c . Frank Phel ps " g.i, Daye. Go'.trdin . . w!*- ** "---
- ~~ '
'O Ed d.
- Kr'a Y' 'v= .... ': ,---o.e- .'-- Donna Pereznx.:-~ . . . ..
!..' 7.,a. harry Doerr-c . :-w;. 7_3'---. Denrif's'~; Br,ow6 T : t=--.90 . . r '.:5; x-c.J.f.~'. y '.
'\ c.sf : ::.,t +L. we ?y:.. ::: ::: (Q*aciE.nt ) }.:.&. '...'.' .' ' a . **u . _. C. t. : ' ' '
a- . - . ' '. 7., -l ~;
_._._... .. a. w,._., . . ..,..~:.y~,,'.,..... . -
~1'.'..*:*.."~.^...-...,,,...-..L.,..'..
. - ..i.. - - , .u .m - - . m_ .s s .
.: .s.an,n :.v_,. :% .',.yEhx ~ +; ; . t.? ~ :: ,. . v a .- + >? ~q<.:;.;;.c.,.. .,i.L .m;.> . u.e,.e v... . r< , ..
.m .. .
.n.a :. - ,. u..%-- . .. . c .
~ .- ;r- . - :.
. ;w ...a>. r~v-T.:W*ii-x? *-:=Wii.*2.YCT ~~'.kO.u:
"'e:LdWd.-N .n 4 " vacant
'. ~ *. '*:- .~1.).~; ::h: % ' ; '.. ..:. i '
-W
- 5 ?i.'.'.n *" - - -
U
'n:'. D6V-JJ -yi-7 n 3. J.O MAN. L+ Mri .- - O*Y:- r ~~ /~ n . '
- t:*
}'.j] TECHNICAL * :::,cm/ ICES E
. .. m... . Dick.Gamewe12.-
-t(Adminstration)
. * * ;a,. *
.. n..
~ ' ROCKY' FLATS,"RAPON , . FT ST VrtAIN y '7, DENVER RADIUM' , .' CERCLA 3DLLOWUP i
~
Dick Gamenelf. .. .
Ken Weaver
.. _o_. _-. Rob.. Terry. . . - .
- Don Simpson-
- Tom Tcledo (Cotter OSC)
... . Que Nguyen .. . .----
(Contractors) -- - - ' - -* ' - - --
2'" (MSCA)~ (Coordination) *
..., . (MSCA) . .
6 u.
g6 m 'd. . ee . -
g *.
i I
APPENDIX C Review of Selected License Files Summary and Conclusions, The review of selected license files indicated, in general, that the licenses appeared to be well supported by the applications for radioactive material licenses and by other backup information. Telephone conversations and written deficiency letters were found in the files where the licensee was asked for additional or corrective information in selected cases. In general, the licenses contained appropriate licensing conditions for the type of liceitse being issued.
Licenses were reviewed to determine whether the application has been properly completed and signed by a licensee officer authorized to sign such a document.
The reviewers brought to the attention of the licensing staff, where appropriate, significant errors, omissions, and deficiencies in licensing actions. License files were reviewed for adequate information and unusual time lapse between receipt of applications and issuance of licenses. The RCD's response time for review of recent amendments and simple licenses for this review period was, on the average more than 30 days.
-A meeting with licensing staff was conducted to discuss specific iters identified during the review. It was noted the staff should assure that all supporting. documentation for physicians should be in the proper license files.
A selected number of license terminations were briefly reviewed and no major comments developed. However, the next reviewer snould review license termination procedures to ensure that proper close out surveys are conducted.
+ -~~.
I i
1
[.
REVIEW OF SELECTED MATERIAL LICENSE FILES
- 1. Licensee: .TOSCO Corporation Address: Research Center, 18200 West Highway 72, Golden, CO 80401 License Number: Colo. 286-01 (throuan Amendment No. 25)
Date of Issuance: August 15, 1986 Expiration Date: July 31, 1991 License Type: Industrial Gauge
- 2. Licensee: Colorado-Ute Electric Assoc., Inc.
Address: 1845 South Townsend, Montrose, CO 81401 o L' cense Number: Colo. 343-01 (through Amendment No. 10)
Date of Issuance: March 4, 1986 Expiration Date: July 31, 1990 License Type: Industrial Gauge
- 3. Licensee: R. V. Lord and Associates, Inc.
Address: 1871 Folsom, 8oulder, CO 80302 License Number: Colo. 137-01 (through Amendment No. 07)
Date of Issuance: February 2, 1987 Expiration Date: April 30,1990 License Type: Industrial Gauge
- 4. Licensee: Salida Hospital Address: Nuclear Medicine Dept., First and B Streets, Salida, CO 8120 License Nuinber: Colo. 667-01 Date of Issuance: July 23, 1986 Expiration Date: July 31, 1991 License Type: Medical
- 5. Licensee: Beth Israel Hospital Address: Radiology and Pathology Depts, 1601 N. Lowell Blvd.
Denver, CO 80204 License Number: Colo. 203-02 (through Amendment No. 35)
Date of Issuance: July 23, 1986 Expiration Date: July 31, 1991 License Type:,
Medical .
- 6. Licensee: Eleanor Roosevelt Institute for Cancer Research Address: 1899 Gaylord Street, Denver, CO 80206 License Number: Colo. 662-01 Date of Issuance: May 30, 1986 Expiration Date: May 31, 1991 License Type: Medical Research - Invitro
- 7. Licensee: University of Colorado - Health Sciences Center Address: 4200 East Ninth Avenue, Denver, CO 80262 License Number: Colo. 163-05 (throuan Amendment No. 86)
Date of Issuance: April 15,1986 Expiration Date: April 30, 1990 License Type: M,edical e
7 l . .
4 2
- 8. Licensee: Locan County Hospital
~
Address: 615 Fairnurst Street, Sterlina, CO 80751 License Number: Colo. 196-01 (through Amendment No. 15) sN'N Ls Date of Issuance: No date Expiration Date: October 31, 1990 License Type: Teletherapy
- 9. Licensee: Boulder Medical Center, P.C.
Address: 2750 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302 License Number: Colo. 487-01 (through Amendment No. 06)
Date of Issuance: February 2, 1987 Expiration Date: January 31, 1992 License Type: Medical i
- 10. Licen;ee: Amax, Inc. - Climax Molybdenum Comoany Address: Climax, CO 80427 License Number: Colo. SMA-733 (through Amendment No. 11)
! Date of Issuance: October 30, 1986 l Expiration Date: April 30, 1991 License Type: Ore processor
- 11. Licensee: Smith Energy Services Address: Junction Hwys 58 & 93, Golden, CO 80403 License Number: Colo. 473-01 (through Amendment No. 8)
Date of Issuance: October 21, 1986 Expiration Date: September 30, 1991 License Type: Well logging-tracer studies
- 12. Licensee: Rose Medical Center - Dept. of Nuclear Medicine Address: 4567 East Ninth Avenue, Denver, CO 80220 License Number: Colo. 229-02 (through Amendment No. 57)
Date of Issuance: April 4, 1986 Expiration Date: September 30, 1990 License Type: Medical 1
~
- 13. Licensee: St. Luke's Hospital Address: 601 East 19th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203 License Number: Colo. 632-04 (through Amenament No. 1)
Date of Issuance: July 16, 1986 Expiration Date: March 31, 1991 License Type: Teletherapy
- 14. Licensee: Adolph Coors Comoany Address: 16401 West 32nd Avenue, Golden, CO 80401 License Number: Colo. 476-01 (through Amendment No. 2)
Date of Issuance: November 7, 1986 Expiration Date: October 31, 1991 License Type: Industrial Radiography 1
I
B 3
- 15. Licensee: Humana Hospital Mountain View Address: 9191 Grant Street, Thornton, CO 80229 License Numner: Colo. 657-01 Date of Issuance: May 9, 1986 Expiration Date: Aoril 30, 1986 License Type: Medical
- 16. Licensee: United Technologies Address: 1575 Garden of the Gods Rd, Co Springs, CO 80907 License Number: Colo. 468-01 '
Date of Issuance: July 1, 1986 Expiration Date: August 31, 1991 License Type: Irradiator
- 17. Licensee: Denver General Hospital Address: 777 Bannock Street, Denver, CO 80204-4507 License Number: Colo. 97-02 (through Amendment No. 86)
Date of Issuance: October 8, 1985 Expiration Date: September 30, 1990 License Type: Medical
. ==
l l
4
- 3 Comments License Files 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
- 1. License Condition missing X X
- 2. Preceptor statement not in file X
- 3. Procedures not in safety manual X X
- 4. Physician not qualified for certain groups X
- 5. H3 Bioassay Missing (>100 mci) X
- 6. I-125 & 1-131 Thyroid Check procedures missing X 7I No date on license issued X
- 8. Previous location closeout survey not submitted prior to move to new job site
- 9. Ir-192 tagged sand cleanup procedures not in file
- 10. List of Radiation Advisory Committee members and respective responsibilities not in license aoolication
- 11. Training not adcressed in application / manual
i 1
5 Comments License Files 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
- 1. License Condition missino
- 2. Preceptor statement not in file X
- 3. Procedures not in safety manual
- 4. Physician not qualified for certain groups X
- 5. H" Bioassay Missing (>100 mci) X X
- 7. No date on license issued
- 8. Previous location closecut survey not submitted prior to move to new job site X
- 9. Ar-192 tagged sand cleanup procedures not in file X
- 10. List of Radiation Advisory Committee members and respective responsibilities not in license application X
- 11. Training not addressed in acolication/ manual X O
APPENDIX D Review of Selected Compliance Files Summary and Conclusions The compliance files were reviewed for accuracy and completeness with respect to documentation of inspection and compliance actions, inspection reports, independent measurements, previous items of noncompliance, current items of noncompliance, and exit interviews with management. These files are contained in combination license and compliance files for each licensee. The review of these files also covered the scope of the. inspections and the adequacy of independent measurements taken during inspections. Reviews of these inspection reports by the Division's management were also noted. The reviewer determined the timeliness of enforcement letters and responses from the licensee and the adequacy of these responses. There were seven cases identified where the licensee did not respond to the State's enforcement letter in a timely fashion (within 20 days). In addition, inspection reports were not finalized within a reasonable time period. Some cases were identified where reports took as long as 6-8 months to complete.
e
,m -
m-- . .
1 REVIEW OF SELECTED MATERIAL COMPLIANCE FILES
- 1. LICENSEE: Nelco Manufacturing, Inc.
ADDRESS: Drawer 1707, Sterling, Colorado 80741 LIC. NO. Colo. 513-01 LICENSE TYPE: Radiography PRIORITY 1
, INSP. DATE: September 24, 1986 INSPEETORS: F. Phelps ANNOUNCED - UNNANNOUNCEO, INITIAL - REINSPECTION TYPE OF INSPECTION: COMPLETE - PARTIAL - INVESTIGATION - FOLLOLUP TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE: November 12, 1986 REPORT REVIEWED BY: C. E. Mattson DATE REVIEWED: November 17, 1986 "591" TYPE FORM USED? No ENF. LETTER DATE: DecemEer 11, 1986 SIGNED BY: A. Hazie DATE OF LICENSEE RESPONSE: None necessary DATE OF STATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: None necessary
- 2. LICENSEE: Magnaflux Quality Services ADDRESS: 2301 Arthur Avenue, Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007 LIC. NO. Colo 388-01 LICENSE TYPE: Padiograohy PRIORITY l INSP. DATE: September 15, 1986 INSPECTORS: F. Phelps ANNOUNCED - UNNANNOUNCEO, INITIAL - REINSPECTION ,
TYPE OF INSPECTION: COMPLETE - PARTIAL - INVESTIGATION - FOLLOWUP TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE: November 12, 1986 REPORT REVIEWED BY: C. E. Mattson~~ DATE REVIEWED: NovemDer 17, 1986 "591" TYPE F004 USED? No ENF. LETTER DATE: Decem6er 11, 1986 SIGNED BY: A. Hazie DATE OF LICENSEE RESPONSE: None necessary DATE OF STATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: None necessary
- 3. LICENSEE: DIGILOG - A Division of Eldorado Exploration, Inc.
ADDRESS: 7070 West 117th Avenue, No. O., Broomfields CO 80220 LIC. NO. Colo. 353-01 LICENSE TYPE: Well logging PRIORITY 1 ~
INSP. DATE: September 23-24, 1986 INSPECTORS: T. Bonzer ANNOUNCED - UNANNOUNCED, INITIAL - REINSPECTION TYPE OF INSPECTION: COMPLETE - PARTIAL - INVESTIGATION - FOLLOWUP TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE: February 3, 1987 REPORT REVIEWED BY: C. E. Mattson DATE REVIEWED: February 19, 1987 "591" TYPE FORM USED? No - ~
ENF. LETTER'DATE: March 4, 1987 SIGNED BY: A. Hazie DATE'0F LICENSEE RESPONSE: not in file DATE OF STATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: not in file
- 4. LICENSEE: Elars Bioresearch Laboratories, Syngene Products and Research j ADDRESS: 225 Commerce Blvd, Ft. Collins, CO 80524 1 LIC. NO. Colo. 260-01 LICENSE TYPE: Gas Chromatograph PRIORITY 5 ~
l INSP. DATE: November 7, 1986 INSPECTORS: T. Bonzer ANNOUNCED - UNNANN0dNCED, INITIAL - REINSPECTION TYPE OF INSPECTION: COMPLETE - PARTIAL - INVESTIGATION - FOLLOWUP TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE: January 22, 1987 REPORT REVIEWED BY: C. E. Mattson DATE REVIEWED: January 22, 1987 .
"591" TYPE FORM USED? No ENF. LETTER CATE: January 23, 1987 SIGNED BY: A. Hazle DATE OF LICENSEE RESPONSE: not in file DATE OF STATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: not in file l
l
)
2
- 5. LICENSEE: Pikes Peak Imaoing Center ADDRESS: 2125 East LaSalle, Colorado Springs, CO 80909 LIC. NO. Colo. 558-01 LICENSE TYPE: Medical PRIORITY ~ 5 INSP. DATE: July 1, 1986 INSPECTORS: T. Bonzer l ANNOUNCED - UNNANNGUNCED, INITIAL - REINSPECTION l TYPE OF INSPECTION: COMPLETE - PARTIAL ~ INVESTIGATION - FOLLOWUP TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE: October 9, 1986 REPORT REVIEWED BY: C. E. Mattson DATE REVIEWED: October 16, 1986 "591" TYPE FORM USED? No ENF. LETTER DATE: October 21, 1986 SIGNED BY: A. Hazle DATE OF LICENSEE RESPONSE: November 29, 1986 !
DATE OF STATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: December 16, 1986
- 6. LICENSEE: Kaiser Medical Clinic-Nuclear Medicine Dept.
ADDRESS: 2045 Franklin Street, Denver, CO 80205 ,l LIC. NO. Colo. 668-01 LICENSE TYPE: Medical PRIORITY 3 ~
INSP, DATE: February 19, 1987 INSPECTORS: F. Phelps ANNOUNCED - UNANNOUNCED, INITIAL - REINSPECTION TYPE OF INSPECTION: COMPLETE - PARTIAL - INVESTIGATION - FOLLOWUP TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE: March 26, 1987 REPORT REVIEWED BY: C. E. Mattson DATE REVIEWED: March 31, 1987 "591" TYPE FORM USED? No ENF. LETTER DATE: ApriT 7, 1987 SIGNED BY: A. Hazle DATE OF LICENSEE RESPONSE: response pending DATE OF STATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: -
- 7. LICENSEE: Community Hospital-Dept. of Nuclear Medicine ADDRESS: 1065 balnut Ave., Grand Junction, CO 81501 LIC. NO. Colo. 43-01 LICENSE TYPE: Medical PRIORITY 5 -
INSP. DATE: July 30,1986 INSPECTORS: T. Bonzer ANNOUNCED - UNANNOUNCED, INITIAL - REINSPECTION TYPE OF INSPECTION: COMPLETE - PARTIAL - INVESTIGATION - FOLLOWUP TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE: February 25, 1987 REPORT REVIEWED BY: C. E. Mattson DATE REVIEWED: April 20, 1987 "591" TYPE FORM USED? No ENF. LETTER DATE: ApriT 21, 1987 SIGNED BY: ~A. Hazle DATE OF LICENSEE RESPONSE: Response pending DATE OF STATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
- 8. LICENSEE: Eleanor Roosevelt Institute for Cancer Research ADDRESS: 1899 Gaylord Street, Denver CO. 80206 LIC. NO. Colo. 662-01 LICENSE TYPE: Med.-Invitro PRIORITY 3 INSP. DATE: November 14, 1986 INSPECTORS: F. Phelps ANNOUNCED - UNANNOUNCED, INITIAL - REINSPECTION TYPE OF INSPECTION: COMPLETE - PARTIAL - INVESTIGATION - FOLLOWUP TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE: March 19, 1987 REPORT REVIEWED BY: C. E. Mattson DATE REVIEWED: March 19, 1987 "591" TYPE FORM USED? No -
ENF. LETTER DATE: March 20, 1987 SIGNED BY: A. Hazie ;
DATE OF LICENSEE RESPONSE: None in file i DATE OF STATE ACF.NOWLEDGEMENT: -
__ ________ _ _ D
e 1
I 3
- 9. LICENSEE: Adolph Coors Comoany I ADDRESS: 16401 West 32nd Avenue, Golden, CO 80401 .
LIC. NO. Colo. 476-01 LICENSE TYPE: Inoustrial Rad. PRIORITY ~1 INSP. DATE: March 24, 1986 INSPECTORS: T. Bonzer !
ANNOUNCED - UNANNOUNCED, INITIAL - REINSPECTION I TYPE OF INSPECTION: COMPLETE - PARTIAL - INVESTIGATION - FOLLOWUP i TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE: April 17, 1986 l REPORT REVIEWED BY: not reviewed DATE REVIEWED: no date J "591" TYPE FORM USED? No ENF. LETTER DATE: AariT 21, 1986 SIGNED BY: A. Hazle DATE OF LICENSEE RES?0NSE: May 5, 1986 DATE OF STATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: May 13, 1986
- 10. LICENSEE: The Gynecology and Infertility Center ADDRESS: 1080 East Elizabetn, Ft. Collins, CO 80524 LIC. NO. Colo. 636-01 LICENSE TYPE: Bone Mineral Analyzer PRIORITY 1 ~
INSP. DATE: November 5, 1984 INSPECTORS: T. Bonzer ANNOUNCED - UNANNOUNCED, INITIAL - REINSPECTION TYPE OF INSPECTION: COMPLETE - PARTIAL - INVESTIGATION - FOLLOWUP TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE: February 4,1987 REPORT REVIEWED BY: C. E. Mattson DATE REVIEWED: February 17, 1987
' "591" TYPE FORM USED? No ENF. LETTER DATE: February 23, 1987 SIGNED BY: A. Hazle DATE OF LICENSEE RESPONSE: none on file DATE OF STATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: none on file
- 11. LICENSEE: Duval E. Harvey, M.D.
ADDRESS: 1929 E. 18th Ave., Denver, CO 80206 LIC. NO. Colo. 634-01 LICENSE TYPE: Bone Mineral Analyzer PRIORITY 5-INSP. DATE: July 14, 1986 INSPECTORS: F. Phelps ANNOUNCED - UNNANN0UNCED, INITIAL - REINSPECTION TYPE OF INSPECTION: COMPLETE - PARTIAL - INVESTIGATION - FOLLOWUP TYPE OF REPORT: NARRATIVE - FORM, REPORT DATE: December 23, 1986 REPORT REVIEWED BY: C. E. Mattson DATE REVIEWED: December 26. 1986 "591" TYPE FORM USED? No ENF. LETTER'DATE: January 8, 1987 SIGNED BY: A. Hazie .
DATE OF LICENSEE RESPONSE: None necessary - 1 DATE OF STATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: None necessary l
1 I
l l
l 4 I l
' Comments Compliance Files 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 l
- 1. Time between inspection completed and enforcement j letter sent to license was
- n. ore than 30 days (as long as 8 months) X X X X X X X X X ;
- 2. Inspector's independent !
measurements not properly documented X
- 3. Inspection of radiography truck not conducted or {
results dacumented X
- 4. Not clear if announced or unannounced insoection X X X X X X X X
- 5. Licensee did not respond to notice of violation within reouired 20 days X X X X X X ;
- 6. States acknowledgement of licensee response not documented X X X X
- 7. Worker interview not documented or conducted X X X
- 8. Xenon calculation not l conducted by inspector j to determine negative 1 air flow X
- 9. Recommendation made by inspector regarding license not followed up by licensino staff X
- 10. Disposal records not reviewed X
- 11. Survey meter cali-bration date not ~
checked / documented
,by inspector X i
E fr..
5 Comments Compliance Files 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
- 12. . Survey.of locked /
stored camera, posting, pocket dosimeter procedure independent measurements, 2mR/hr perimeter not checked or documented X X .
- 13. No supervisory signature on report X
' 14. Exit / entrance results not documented X Y
. W G
b
3: ; . . . . . , . .
LRERP (Supplement) _ E!ERGENCY RESPONSE EQUIPMENT LIST J,h/[fa]/A[ *N /Mc/
EfERGENCY RESPONSE EQUIPMENT. LIST i A M i/*e ITEM QUANTITY A.~ Emergency response vehicle,1973 Dodge van, 1 ea.
State. License 05-0014, with the following equipment and. supplies:
- 1. Motorola' "Maxar 80" radio 1 ea.*
(154.905 MHz,154.475 MH ,
154.280 MHz, and 155.345 MHz )
- 2. Motorola Converta-Com Console radio 1 ea.
amplifier for use with Motorola Handi Talkie radio, Model MT 500 -
l (45.280 MHz, 45.240 MHz and 45.200 MHz antena)
- 3. Scanner, UHF - YHF, Programable 1 ea.*
- 4. Siren 1 ea.
- 5. Light Flashing, Red 1 ea.
- 6. Light Set, 2 lights, ten foot stand 1 ea.
- 7. Generator,1000 watt, .110 volt, gasoline powered 1 ea.
- 8. Belt, Safety 2 ea. ,
- 9. - Breathing Apparatus, "Self Rescuer" 2 ea. l
- 10. Sampling Containers, miscellaneous 2 ea.
- 11. Radiation Detection Set
- a. CDV - 700 Radiation Detector 1 ea,
- b. COV - 715 Radiation Detector 1 ea.
-c. CLV - 720 Radiation Detector 1 ea.
- d. CDY .750 Dosimeter Charger 1 ea.
- e. CDV-742 Dosimeter 2 ea.
- f. CDV-130 Dosimeter 2 ea.
- 12. Halogen Light,12 volt 1 ea.
- 13. Tool Box 1 ea. 1
- 14. ' First Aid Kit 1 ea.
- 15. Office Supplies
- 16. Misc. Sampling Supplies ;
- 17. Disposable Protective Clothing
- 18. Decontamination Supplies Items marked
- are stored in the Radiation Counting Facility for security, and must be placed in the ER vehicle prior to departure.
~
B. State vehicle,1982 Isuzu, 4 wheel drive pickup 1 ea.
State License 05-0401 j
C. State vehicle,1986 Dodge Aries 1 ea.
State License 01-3708 D. Repositioned supplies at the Forward Command Post at Fort Lupton, Colorado **
- 1. Stationary Supply Kit 1 ea.
- 2. Field Sampling Supply Kit (FSV) 2 ea.
l l
- There are no pre-positioned supplies for Rocky Flats as there is no )
pre-designated Forward Command Post 1986 1 L_________-_--_----. -- - - - - _ - #N" E
RERP (Supplement) EMERGENCY RESPONSE EQU1PMENT LIST EMERGENCY RESPONSE EQUIPMENT LIST E. Equipment and Supplies to be transported to the Forward Coramand Post or
, the emergency response site. As not all of these items are dedicated to emergency response, and may be used in routine operations, the inventory of these items listed may not always be available for use. It is reconnended that the items be transported as indicated below, depending upon the availability'of other vehicles. All items available should be taken. TRANSPORT ITEM QUANTITY RECOMMENDATIONS Other Total ER Van vehicles
- 1. Motorola "Maxar 80" 1 1 0
- 2. Tel-Con Radio Telephone, Model 150A 2 1 1
- 3. Emergency Response Iristrument Case 1 1 0
- 4. Emergency Response Supply Case 1 1 0
- 5. Eberline Portable Beta-Gamma Geiger 6 . 2 4 Counter, Models E-510, 520 or 530, with hand probe
- 6. Eberline Portable Neutron Counter, 1 1 0 Model PNC-1
- 7. Eberline Micro R/hr Meter, Model PRM-7C 2 1 1
- 8. rtarline Portable Rate Meter-Scaler, 2 1 1 Model PRS-1
- 9. Ludlum Count Rate Meter, Model 12, 1 1 0 with alpha probe
- 10. Ludlum Count Rate Meter, Model 12, 1 0 1 with alpha and beta-gamma probes
- 11. Ludlum Count Rate Meter, Model 20, 1 1 0 with alpha probe
. 12. Ludlum Count Rate Meter, Model 12, 10* 4 6 with alpha probe
- 13. Norland, Multi-channel Analyzer, 1 1 0 Model 5300, with Bicion Gamma Detector 14 Dosimeter, Pc;ket 12 6 6
- 15. Charger, Dosimeter 4 2 2
- 16. Air Sampler, Bendix, Lo Vol,102mm filter 2 1 1
- 17. Air Particulate Sampler, Bendix, Hi Vol, 3 1 2 Portable,102mm filter
- 18. Air ParticuJ ate Sampler, 47mm filter 2 _ 0 2
- 19. Binoculars 1 1 0
- 20. Cameras 2 1 1
- 21. Flashlights 2 1 1
- 22. Generator,1000 watt,110 volt, 1 0 1 gasoline powered
- 23. Hats, safety, "Hard Hats" 4 0 4
- 24. Lantern, fluorescent 2 1 1
- 25. Recorder, Cassett Tape 4 1 3
- 26. Respirators, Half Mask (in one transport 1 1 0 case)
- 27. Protective clothing (in transport case), 2 2 0 with coveralls, booties, and gloves
- 29. Emergency Response Supply Kit 2 0 2
- 30. Decon taminati on~ Kit ~ -- 1 0 0
- 31. Reflective Vests 6 6 0
- These instruments are provided to the Department for use in case of an incident at Rocky Flats 1986 2
,7_ -
- . r.
- ,
x .;- , 1 * --
s
]
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Radiation Control Division
- INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION' TO
- NRC files DATE: April 24,1987 6
FROM: Radiation Counting Facility
SUBJECT:
Inspection Instrumentation.
- 1. The following portable instruments are availalbe for use in mill and mill tailings -inspections:
Eberline E-510 Geiger Counter
- a. 3~ea
- b. Eber11ne E-520 Geiger Counter 1 ea
- c. Eberline E-530 Geiger Counter 2'ea
- d. Eberline PMR-7 Micro R/hr meter 2 ea
- e. Ludlum Model 12 Count rate meter 2 en
- f. Ludlum Model 20-A Scaler with Ludlum Alpha Probe, Model 43-01 i en
- g. ~Eberline Mini Scaler, MS-3 with Eberline SAC-R-5, detector 2 ea I with 4e scintillation cells
~
- h. Ludlum Model 125 Mirco R Meter 1 ea
- 2. The following sampling equipment is also available:
- a. Portable pressure water filtering apparatis for use with 1 ea metrical filters
-b. Mine Safety Appliance Co., Pennissible Portable Pump, 4 ea Model G (part #456058)
- c. Bendix Air Sampler for use with 4" glass fiber filter 3 ea
.r__ A
. fb '
7fcf?
/ Signature /
MLH/kp 4
M' _ - _ _ ._m _._-__m__
l ..
I s
b s
REPORT AND STAF. EVALUATION OF THE COLORADO URANIUM RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 25, 1985 THROUGH MAY 1, 1987 VOLUME II e
4
)
4 l
)
I 1
I j
REPORT AND STAFF EVALUATION OF THE COLORADO URANIUM MILL RADIATION . CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THF PERIOD OCTOBER 25, 1985 THROUCH MAY 1, 1987 Introduction The regulatory program review meeting for the Colorado radiation control program with Colorado representatives was conducted during the period of April 20 through May 1,1987, in Denver, Colorado. The first week covered the uranium mill program, and the second week focused on the radiation control program for materials.
The State was represented by Messrs. A. Hazle, Division Director, Radiction Control Division; W. Jacobi, Supervisor, Radiation Control Section; and K.
Weaver, Uranium Recovery Licensing and Compliance Section. The NRC represen- i tatives during the uranium mill review were Dr. D. M. So11enberger, NMSS, and Mr. R. S. Heyer, Health Physicist, Region IV.
Review of the Uravan Final Licensing Statement (FLS), the implementation of the recent Consent Decree for Umetco Minerals Corporation, and development of the current financial assurance program for uranium recovery facilities, and inspection report contents were conducted. Subsequent to the review copies of various surety information was provided to Ms. Mary Jo Seeman, WMPC, for review. Results are attached in Appendix C.
In addition, items identified during the previous review regarding 40 CFR 190, environmental dose compliance determination activities and 40 CFR 192 ground water monitoring status were reviewed. l A summary meeting was held with Dr. Thomas Vernon, Mr. Tom Looby, and Mr. Al Hazle, on April 30, 1987. Representative for the NRC was Mr. R. S. Heyer, Region IV.
~ ~
Conclusions See Volume I of this report for the overall conclusions and findings of the Uranium Mill Radiation Control Program Review. The conclusions were based on a review of the technical and administrative aspects of the Department's uranium mill regulatory program. In addition, the review consisted of a verification of the State's current program as compared to the Colorado request for amended agreement as published in the Federal Register, Volume 47, No. 90, Monday, May 10, 1982. The following documents were used extensively during this review.
- a. Guidelines for NRC review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs, 46 FR 59341, published December 4, 1981. l l
- b. Criteria contained in 46 FR 7540, 46 FR 36969, atd 48 FR 33376 published !
January 23 and July 16, 1981, and July 21, 1983, respectively.
l l l
g ,
>e I, y ~-
21
-N
" 2 ci SA internal procedure 0.2-3, dated January 25, 1982, which had been distributed to all uranium mill Agreement States.
- 1. - Legal Authority (Criterion 29)-
- a. Guidelines Clear statutory authority should exist designating.a State Radiation.
Control Agency to' carry out'the requirements of Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978, as. amended, i.e. , regulate tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from any ore produced primarily'for its source material content.
Reviewer Assessment In the assessment of Colorado's request for an amended agreement, 46 FR 50628-50632, dated October 14, 1981, NRC staff determined that the State's statutes and regulations provided sufficient authority for the Colorado Radiation Control Division (RCD) to carry out the requirements:of UMTRCA of 1978, as amended.
Section RH 1.4 of the State _'s regulations provides the basis and purposes of the regulations as they relate to uranium mills and tailings. State authority for regulating uranium mills lies in !
Section 103 of Title 25, Article 11,'of the Colorado Revised J Statutes 1983, as amended (Suppl. 1982).
- b. Guidelines'-
An adequate surety (under terms established by regulation) will be provided by the licensees to assure the completion of all requirements established by the State for the decontamination, decommissioning, and <
reclamation of sites, structures, and equipment used in conjunction with'the generation or disposal of such byproduct material.
Reviewer Assessment Section RH 3.9.4.2.1 of the State's regulations contain surety requirements for the decontamine. tion; decommissioning; and reclamation of sites, structures, and equipment used in conjunction with the generation or disposal of such byproduct material. Section RH 3.9.5.4 addresses long-term care requirements for source material milling i licensees. (See Appendix A and C, Volume II). '
The Consent Decree for the Uruan facility requires Umetco or Union Carbide to deposit moni'es into a designated account on an annual basis until there is sufficient money to complete the remaining reclamation and decommissioning work. The difference between the fund and the !
remaining full surety amount must be satisifed by State approved surety. '
l l
g_ .-
x - - --
q j,
3 r ;
' c. Guidelines If in the State's licensing and regulation of_ byproduct material or of any activity which produces byproduct material, the State collects funds from the licensee or its surety for long-term surveillance'and maintenance of such material, the total amount of the funds collected by the State shall be transferred to the U.S. if custody of the byproduct' material and its disposal site is transferred to the Federal Government upon termination of the State license. (See Title 10 CFR Part 150.32.)
If no default has occurred and the reclamation or other bonded activity has been performed, funds for this purpose are not to be ,
transferred to the Federal Government. The funds collected by the !
State shall be sufficient to ensure compliance with the regulations the Commission establishes pursuant to Section 161x of the Atomic Energy Act.
Reviewer Assessment For the State's licensing and regulation of byproduct material, or of any activ.ity which produces byproduct material, the State has requirements to collect funds from the licensee and to provide surety for long-term surveillance and maintenance of such material.
Section RH 3.9.5.4.3 of.the State's regulations provides that the total amour,t of the funds collected by the State shall be transferred to the U.S. if custody of the byproduct material and its disposal site is transferred to the Federal Government upon termination of the State license.
- d. Guidelines In the issuances of licenses, an opportunity for written comments, public hearing (with transcript) and cross examination is required.
~
Reviewdr Assessment Section RH S.9.9, of the State's radiation protection regulations, provides for a 30-day comment period for a uranium mill licensing action and public hearing with cross-examination of witnesses. The most recent public hearing for a uranium mill license was for Union Carbide Corporation (Umetco) Minerals Corporation, held August 21-22 and November 19-20, 1984. In addition, scoping meetings were held in Canon City on February 25 and June 10, 1985.
A copy of the Colorado Administrative Procedures Act are available in the NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
The above documents had no changes since the previous. review and based on this review appeared acceptable. I
7 _, m ,
4; h
h.
4
- e. Guidelines.
During the. issuance of licenses, a written determination of action. to be;taken, based upon evidence presented during the public comment-period and: subject to judicial review, is required.
Reviewer Assessment For the issuance of a uranium mill. license, the State analyzes any
, _ comments received.and makes a written determination subject to judicial review. Public comments relating to any proposed uranium mill license. actions are addressed by the State.
The Umeteo Minerals Uravan, FLS, dated December 19, 1986, dia incorporate appropriate public comments.
- f. Guidelines-There should be a requirement which places a ban on major construction prior to completion of the. written environmental analysis. (As per guidelines addressed under Section 3).
Reviewer Assessment Under Section RH 3.8.7 of the regulations, the State has the, authority to place a ban.on major uranium mill construction activities prior to completion of the licensing action. In addition, Section RH. 3.9.7 of the regulations states that commencement of construction prior to issuance of a license, may be grounds for denial of such license.
'There has been no change to this provision since the last program review.
- g. Guidelines An opportunity shall be provided for public participation through written comments, public hearings and judiciaf~ review of rules.
Reviewer Assessment Section RH.3.9.9 of the Colorado radiation control regulations, requires that there be an opportunity for public hearings.
Based upon discussions with program management and as evidenced in the UMETCO hearings opportunities for public comment and participation are provided.
- 2. Reservation of Authority (Criterion 30)
The Agreement States Statutes should take into account the reservations of authority to the United States as outlined under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended, as stated under Title 10 CFR 150.15a, as follows:
l 5 ,,
, a. Guidelines
]
Establishmentofminimumstandardsgoverningreclamatichlong-term surveillance or maintenance, and ownership of the byproduct material.
Reviewer Assessment I l
During the process of obtaining an amended agreement for licensing i
. uranium concentrators, the NRC staff determined that the State incorporated the minimum standards promulgated by NRC and agreed to the reservations of authority under UMTRCA and 10 CFR 150.15a.
- b. Guidelines Determination that prior to termination of a license, the licensee has complied with decontamination, decommissioning and reclamation stanoards, and ownership requirements for sites at which byproduct material is present. ,
Reviewer Assessment The State conforms to the provisions outlined under UMTRCA of 1978, as amended and does request t'te appropriate determination prior to a license termination. The State by letter dated. December 22, 1985, requested NRC to make a determination under 10 CFR Part 150.15(a) for three license terminations (Homestake, Pioneer, and Grover). NRC responded to the State request by letter dated March 3, 1987, finding acceptable, the termination of the Pioneer and Homestake licenses and requiring additional information for the Grover site cleanup (specifically requesting additional soil sampling data).
- c. Guidelines The requirement that prior to termination of any licensee for by product material, as defined in Section lit (2), of the Atomic Energy Act or for any activity that results in the production of such material, title to such byproduct material and the disposal site shall be transferred to the Federal Government or State at the option of the State, provided such option is exercised prior to termination of the license.
Reviewer Assessment It was confirmed that prior to termination of any licensee for by product material, as defined in Section 11e.(2), of the Atomic Energy Act the title to such byproduct material will be transferred to the State or Federal Government. No licenses have been terminated which required the transfer of title to any byproduct materials.
u______
. = - -_ ,
m 1 L
6
- a L' d. Guidelines-L The authority to require monitoring, maintenance, and emergency measures after the license is terminated as necessary to protect the public health and' safety for those materials and property for which the State has assumed custody pursuant to Public Law 95-604.
l Reviewer Assessment The State has provisions in Section RH 3.9.5.4 which provide the authority to require long-term monitoring, maintenance, and emergency measures if the State takes custody of the byproduct material. If DOE takes custody of the byproduct material, the site will be subject to an NRC license.
- e. Guidelines The authority to permit use of the surface or subsurface estate, or both of the land transferred to the United States or the State under provision of the Uranium Mill Radiation Tailings Control Act of 1978, at amendec.
Reviewer Assessment As defined under the States statutes, the State conforms to the provisions outlined under UMTRCA of 1978, as amended.
It should be noted that these are powers. reserved to the NRC.
- f. Guidelines The authority to exempt land ownership transfer requirements of Section 83(b)(1)(A).
Reviewer Assessment ,
As defined under the State's statutes, the State conforms to the provisions outlined under UMTRCA of 1978, as amended.
It should be noted that these are powers reserved to the NRC.
- 3. Written Analysis of the Impact on the Environment Caused by Licensino the Activity (Criterion 31)
It is preferable that State statutes contain the provisions of Section 6 of the Model Act, but the following guidelines may be accomplished by adoption of procedures, regulation or technical criteria. In any case, authority for their implementation should be adequately supported by statute, regulation or case law as determined by the State Attorney General.
v: .
s s
7 -
3 Guideline In.the licensing and regulation of ores processed primarily for their source material content and for the disposal of byproduct material, procedures shall be established which provide a written analysis of the impact on the environment of the licensing activity. This analysis shall be available to the public before commencement of hearings and shall include: an assessment of the radiological and nonradiological public health impacts; an assessment of any impact on any body of water or groundwater; consideration of alternatives to the licensed activities; and consideration of long-term impacts of licensed activities. (As per guidelines addressed under Section 14.)
Reviewer Assessment Procedures have been established by CDH under RH. 3.9.10.1 which provide a written analysis of the impact on the environment by the licensed activity.
The analyses covered an assessment of the radiological and nonradiological public health impacts; an assessment of any impact on any body of water or groundwater; consideration of alternatives to the licensed activities; and consideration of long-term impacts of licensed activities.
The State's most recent environmental assessment is contained in tne Final Licensing Statement (FLS) for the Uravan Uranium Mill, dated December 19, 1986.
During the process of obtaining an amended agreement, the NRC staff determined that the State's statutes and regulations satisfactorily addressed the issue of the preparation of a written analysis of the impact on the environment caused by the licensing of a uranium facility. The Uravan FLS Section 5 and 9, as supplemented by the Consent Decree dated December 19, 1986, were reviewed and appeared to be adequate.
- 4. Regulations (Criterion 32)
~
a, Guidelines State regulations should incorporate regulatory language which is
~
equivalent to the extent practicable or more stringent than regulations and standards adopted and enforced by the Commission and implemented by Title 10 CFR Parts 40 and 150.31(b).
Reviewer Assessment State regulations for uranium milling and tailings are equivalent to the extent practicable or more stringent than regulations and sta,ndards adopted and enforced by the NRC. Section RH 3.8.7 of the State's regulations places a ban on uranium mill construction activities prior to completion of the licensing action. Any alternatives to the Federal requirements adopted by the State have sufficient supporting documentation and substantial evidence in the record and adequately protect the public health, safety, and the environment.
M i o S There have been no changes to the Colora'o d Mill program .ince the last review. However, proposed revision to Section RH. 3.9.9 of the State's regulations regarding their hearing process is in draf: form.
The Draft Part U to the CRCPD SSR have been developed and are currently under program management review for possible incorporation into' State regulations.
- b. Guidelines The NRC operational criteria and objectives for Uranium mill siting, designs, and operation performance are:
- 1. Locate the' tailings so that they are-isolated and remote from people to reduce population expcsures to the maximum extent reasonably' achievable.
- 2. Locate the tailings isolation area so that disruption and dispersion by natural forces are eliminated or reduced to the maximum extent reasonable achievable. .
- 3. Design the tailings isolation area so that seepage of toxic-materials into the groundwater system would be eliminated or reduced-to the maximum extent reasonably achievable.
- 4. Elirainate the blowing of tailings to unrestricted areas during normal operating conditions ar.d prior to final reclamation.
5._ Plans for reclaiming and restoring land disturbed by uranium L milling activities should be provided which provides sufficient details for assessing the suitability of these plans when compared to other alternatives e.g. , horizontal-vertical slope, type of cover, sources and thicknesses of cover materials, revegetation species and schedbie of events from shutdown through ftnal reclamation.
l 6. Present a technical and financial feasibility assessment.on methods and costs of mill decommissioning and site reclamation, including tailings area.
- 7. Present the financial arrangements to be made (such as bonding arrangements) to ensure that adequate funds will be available for mill decommissioning, site reclamation, and restoration when operations are concluded.
Reviewer Assessment The operational criteria and objectives set out by the NRC regulations and the general environmental standards set out by the EPA are being met by the Colorado regulatory program. There have been no major 1
L_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ . ________. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ . _ _ _ _ - - _ _ -
4 9
revisions to the State's uranium mill regulations since the last progrem review. (Except as addressed under Section 4(a) to this report).
- 5. Organizational Relationship for Reoulating Uranium Mill and Mill Tailines (Criterion 33)
- a. Guidelines Management organization and lines of authority and supervision should be clearly established within the radiation control group and any other department within the State responsible for contributing to the regulation of uranium processing and disposal of tailings.
Reviewer Assessment Management organization and lines of authority and supervision have been clearly established within the Colorado Radiation Tontrol Division and other departments within the State responsible for l
contributing to the regulation of uranium milling.
- b. Guidelines l
When other State agencies or regional offices are utilized, the ifnes of communication and administrative control between the agencies,and/or regions and the program Director should be clearly drawn.
Reviewer Assessment l When other State agencies or personnel from other State departments l are utilized in preparing an environmental assessment, it was I determined that the lead agency is the RCD and that the lead agency does prepare the environmental assessment. Other factors entering into such a working relationship are applicable statutory authority and relevant expertise available from other State agencies,
~
- c. Guidelines If personnel from other State Departments or Federal Agencies are required for preparing the environmental assessment, a lead agency shall be designated for supervising and coordinating preparation of the environmental assessment. It is norn. ally expected that the radiation control agency will be the lead agency. The lead agency is required to prepare the environmental assessment based upon inputs l from the other State agencies and the lead agency.
Reviewer Assessment The authcrity of the Colorado RCD, with respect to other divisions under the Department of Health, exist through MOUs between the RCD and the other offices. The Departments of Agriculture. Hionways, Local Affairs, and Natural Resources have MOUs and the F.CD remains the responsible lead agency. (See Appendices A and B of Volume I for !
l l
l L_ __ __ _ _._ __ __._ _ - - - - - - - - -- --__------_----------_-----_------------------_D
, , ~ , ,
3 i
10 I organizational charts.) The Air Pollution Control Division and the Water Quality Division each issue permits with respect to uranium mill licensing. (These are in addition to the licensing document.)
The State Engineers Office does utiliza equivalent checklist to the NRC Regulatory Guices 3.11. " Design, Construction, and Inspection of Embankmont Retenu on Systems for Uranium Mills," anc 3.11.1,
" Operational Inspection and Surveillance of Embankment Retention Systems for Uranium Mill Tailings." The current file reviews of Cotter Canon City inspection dated September 9-13, 1985, did re:onf;rm that a check sheet was being useo as gridance by the State Engineer, during the review of embankment retent'on systems.
- d. Guidelines Utilization of an applicant's environmental report in lieu of the lead agency assessmett nf the proposed project is not adequate or appropriate. Howc+3r, the lead agency may prepare an environmental i
assessment based won an applicant's environmental report providec '
such information is assessed and found adrquate t.y the appropriate State staff. Other credible information mTy te utilized by the State as long as such ir. formation is verified and documented by the Stata.
Reviewer Assessment The Colorado RCD prepares 2 environmental assessments based upon an
, applicant's environmental report and other verified information.
- e. Guidelines In order to bring an environmental assessment to a satisfactory l cenclusion, it is highly recommenc.:d t. hat an initial scoping document I be developed which clearly delineates the area and scope of work te be l performed by each agency within a given time constraint.
~
Reviewer Assessment The State does not have statutes or regulations which require an initial scoping document which clearly delineates the area and scope of wcrk to be performeri by other agencies assisting in the preparation
- of the environmental assessment. However, the following agencies review the applicant's Environmental Report and the Environmental Assessment prepared by the Colorado RCD; Air Quality, Water Quality, Mine Land Reclamation Board, Department of Local Affairs, State Board of Land Commissioners, Water Conc.rvation Board, and Historical Society.
l It should be noted that scoping documents are addressed under interagency agreements as well as under a Directive within the Department.
l Since the ewironmental assessments for Umetto Uravan and the Cotter Corporation renewals are prepared by the RCD and the geotechnical and a________ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ - - _ _ - . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . __-___ _ - _ _ - . _ - - - _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ -_ __
j ;
11 hydrogeological third party contractors are supervised directly by the RCD, the need for more strict constraints on other agencies has not 4 yet arisen.
- f. Guidelines For those areas in the environmental assessment where the State cannot identify a State agency having sufficient expertise to adequately '
evaluate the proposal or prepare an assessment, the State should have provisions for obtaining outside consulting services. In those instances where non governmental consultants are utilized, procedures should be established to avoid conflict of~ interest consistent with State law and administrative procedures.
Reviewer Assessment The State has provisions for. obtaining outside consulting services to assist the licensing authority for those areas in the environmental assessment where the State does not have available resources to evaluate and prepare an environmental assessment.
- g. Guidelines Medical consultants recognized for their expertise in emergency medical matters relating to the intake of uranium and its diagnosis thereof associated with uranium mining and milling should be identified and available to the State for advice and direct assittance.
Reviewers Assessment The State has access to medical consultants recognized for their expertise in emargency medical matters relating to intake of uranium, and its diagnosis, associated with uranium milling. Dr. Stan Ferguson, Epidemiologist and Dr. Dan Titelbaum, Occupational Medicine Specialist are available to the RCD. ,,
- 6. Staffino Level (Criterion 34)
Personnel needed in the processing of the license application for uranium mills can be identified or grouped according to the following skills:
technical, administrative, and support.
- a. Guidelines Technical personnel are those individuals who have the training and experience in radiation protection necessary to evaluate the environmental, engineering, and radiological safety aspects of uranium concentrator activitiet>.
The total professional technical and consultant staff years effort recommended to process a new conventional mill license, insitu license, or major renewal to meet the requirements of UMTRCA is 2 te 2.75 total t
- - _ - _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . ~ _ - - . - _ __ .
1 s, i 1 ,
l 4 1
% 12 l
-)
I 1
professional staff years effort. This number includes the effort for )
-the environmental assessment and the in plar,t safety review. It also ]
includes the use of consultants. j Heap leach, ore buying stations and R&D applications may take less time:and is expected to take 1.0 to 1.5 professional staff years effort depending on the complexity of the proposed facility and circumstances encountered.
Reviewer Assesment During this review, it was identified that the staffing 1rvel is 1 reported to be'1.20 staff years for two major conventional mills, which is equivalent to .60 staff years per uranium mill. This has decreased-from .97 staff years from the previous program review. This )
falls well below the recommended number of staff years. !
I A comment regarding the need for additional members of the uranium "
mill staff was discussed .1uring the previous reviews. As of this review, two FTE's were authorized for FY 86-87; however, the positions were not filled because (1) a directive was issued by the Executive Director to hold positions pending completion of reorganization, (2) additional guidelines from the Executive Director denoting that the Department needs to maintain flexibility for possible future changes within the RCD (such as possible reduction of staff at the Grand Junction office) and (3) the two FTE's will remain in the budget for the next fiscal year. See Appendix B for staffing level breakdown.
This is a repeat comment from previous reviews and was again addressed in the letter to Dr. Vernon.
- b. Guidelines Administrative personnel are those persons who will provide internal guides, policy memoranda, reviews and managerial services necessary to I assure completion of the licensing action. ~
Reviewer Assecsment All work related to licensing and compliance activities primarily involve Messrs. Weaver and Kray. The State utilizes third party contractors in accordance with Section 3.9.10.3 of the Colorado Rules and Regulations pertaining to Ret stion Control. As was addressed during the previous years review, we believe the use of significant number of third party consultants contirues to indictte a real need for additional mill staff.
- c. Guidelines Support ;4rsonnel are those persons who provide secretarial, clerical support, legal and laboratory services.
1
13
- 1. Guidelines Current indications are that the person years effort for secretarial support for the UMTRCA program is approximately one secretary for two conventional mills.
Reviewer Assessment The clerical and the secretarial support is furnished from within the RCD. Word processing units are available and utilized by all sections. The RCD reported 0.25 staff years committed to the mill program.
- 2. Guidelines Legal services for each noncenter,ted mill case is 0.5 staff years.
Reviewer Assessment The legal support for the Radiation Control Division is provided by the State Attorney General's Office. The Department of Health has received the commitment of the services of one authorized attorney and support staff on a priority basis when needed.
The number of legal personnel supporting active cases was reported to be 0.25 staff years. This level is below the NRC recommendation of 0.5.
- 3. Guidelines The impact on environmental monitoring laboratory support services is difficult to estimate but should be assessed and added into the personnel requirements. For planning purposes, one should review NRC Regulatory Guide 4.14 and 3.8 to establish an insight on the scope of such an effort.
Reviewer Assessment The laboratory services to the RCD are provided by the Department of Health's laboratory. Personnel assigned to the Technical Services section perform radiochemical and radiation count ~ing procedures and report to the supervisor of the Radiation Control Division. This laboratory supports the RCD in all areas of environmental and compliance monitoring. The laboratory j participates regularly in the EPA's interlaboratory QA program.
If it becomes necessary to obtain additional support, it is the reviewer's understanding that the State could contract for the i*
services outside the laboratory.
The environmental monitoring laboratory staff support services were reported as 0.1 staff years. According to discussions with I
i
1 i
I 14 management, this remains sufficient for current program needs. !
(See the instrumentation and laboratory facilities section of '
Volume I.)
- 4. Guidelines !
J Consideration should be given to various miscellaneous post licensing ongoing activities including the issuance of minor amendments, inspections, and environmental surveillance. It is estimated that these activities may require on the order of 0.5 ,
to 1.0 person years effort, the latter being the case for a major facility.
Reviewer Assessment The NRC estimated 0.5 to 1.0 staff years effort may be representative for ongoing support associated with uranium mill activities not specified. These efforts for the RCD are well below the 0.5 to 1.0 staff years effort recommended by NRC for post licensing and ongoing activities including the issuance of minor amendments, inspections, and environmental surveillance.
The RCD has seven licensed uranium mill projects: (1) Cotter Canon City, mill; (2) Cotter Schwartzwalder, ore-sorter; (3) Cotter Whitewater, OBS; (4) Hecla Naturita, heap leach; (5) Sweeny Boulder, sorter; (6) Umetco Maybe11, heap leach; and (7) Umeteo Uravan, mill. There is one maj.or renewal pending and one assessment in progress for Cotter, Canon City. There are two major amendments and two assessments pending for Canon City (groundwater barrier and monitoring upgrade). There are four major renewals for facilities other than conventional and insitu operations being actively processed (HECLA, Naturita; Sweeney Boulder; UMETCO, Maybe11; and UMETCO, Rifle). There are no major amendments for facilities other than conventional mills and insitu operations pending. There are 7 minor administrative amendments pending action primarily relat1ng to financial assurance issues. It appears these will be addressed by license staff but may take time due to staffs continued involvement in CERCLA related activities.
- 5. Gid delines In evaluating license applications, the State shall have access to necessary specialties, e.g., radiological safety, meteorology, hydrology, geology, and dam construction and operation.
Reviewer Assessment In evaluating license applications and the respective assessments, it appears that State has incorporated as part of the assessment l the proper radiological safety, meteorological, hydrological, f
E _ - - - - - _ - - - - -
15 geological, and dam construction and operation evaluations. The review of State licensing actions appears to indicate that other specialties are used and available when needed by the RCD.
- 7. Training Guideline In addition to the personnel "NRC review of Agreement qualifications listed .
in the State Radiation Control Programs," December 4, 1981, the regulatory staff involved in the UMTRCA regulatory process should have additional training in Uranium Mill Health Physic: and Environmental Assessments.
Reviewer Assessment The NRC guidance for training indicates that the program should utilize specific short courses and workshops to maintain an appropriate level of staff technical competence regarding training in subjects relating to uranium mill health physics. The Colorado Department of Health does recognize that staff in mill regulation should have additional training in uranium mill health physics and environmental assessments pertaining to those activities.
The RCD uranium mill staff have not attended any courses since the previous review. This is primarily due to the lack of available courses pertaining to the specific subject matters.
- 8. Budget (Criterion 34c)
Guideline In addition to the budgetary considerations contained in the "NRC review of Agreement. Radiation Control Programs, December 4,1981," the budgetary process should address the aspect of utilization of personnel from other State apencies. ,
When personnel from other agencies or consultants are utilized in evaluating I license applications or preparing input into environmental assessments and are counted in the person years staffing level, it shall be demonstrated that these personnel will De available on a routine and continuing basis to a degree claimed as necessary to successfully comply with the requirements of UMTRCA and these criteria.
The arrangements for making such resources shall be documented, such as an interagency memorandum of understanding or contract and confirmed by {
budgetary cost centers.
Reviewer Assessment The criteria for obtaining an amended agreement states that the agreements-for utilizing other State agencies or consultants in the uranium mill regulatory program shall be documented, such as through a memorandum of
~
-i
)
i 16 understanding, and confirmed by budgeting cost centers. According to State management, the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program (UMTRAP) expenditures for state fiscal years 1986 and 1987 (which includes the period October 1985 through April 1987) are as follows by fiscal year:
State Federal Total FY86 1,539,056 13,851,504 15,390,560 I FY87 (YTD) 777,052 6,993,470 7,770,522 The funds were used for allowable remedial action costs for vidnity property and mill site cleanup activities, which included program apenses l for architect / engineering, construction, personnel, travel, and mill site '
acquisition.
The uranium mill regulatory program is, for the most part, funded through general revenues and license and inspection fees (cash fund).
- 9. Licensina Procedures (Criterion 35)
Guideline 1 l
i The'RCP should have internal licensing guides, checklists, and policy meme mda consistent with current NRC practices. License applicants ;
(including applicants for renewals) should be furnished copies of applicant's guides and regulatory positions. The present compliance status l of licensees should be considered in licensing actions. Standard licenta l conditions comparable with current NRC standard license conditions should I be used to expedite and provide uniformity in the licensing process. Files should be maintained in an orderly fashion to allow fas.t, accurate retrieval ,
i of information, and documentation of discussions and visits.
Reviewer Assessment The State's guidelines for review of uranium mill facilities are contained l
I in the NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement fit &s. These were reviewed and were checked for changes during this review. They were found to be adequete.
l The uranium mill program has available internal licensing guides, checklists, and policy memoranda consistent with current NRC practices. The license applicants (including applicants for renewal) are furnished copies of licensing guides and regulatory positions. The compliance history of all licensees is considered in licensing renewal actions.
A review of Cotter and Uravan uranium mill licenses identified that standard license conditions were used and are comparable with current NRC license conditions, in most cases. The RCD has used special licensing conditions, during past reviews,_which the staff believes are appropriate for situations existing in the State. One example of this is the special condition for l
l l
O
~.
3, UMETCO's Uravan mill. This license condition prohibits reoccupancy of vacant buildings on licensee-controlled property in Uravan unless certain criteria are met.
- 10. Technical Quality of Licensino Action The States should develop procedures for evaluating license applications and preparation of environmental assessments. The following guidelines should be covered in the States evaluatien of the licerise application.
- a. Guidelines Licensing evaluations or assessments should include in plant radiological safety aspects in occupational or restricted areas and environmental impacts to populations in unrestricted areas from the plant.
Reviewer Assessment Licensing evaluations and assessments include in plant radiological safety aspects in occupational or restricted areas and environmental impacts to populations in unrestricted areas near the plant. The Department performs in plant safetu reviews, environmental assessments and prepares a SER. These reports are compiled into one document, the Final Licensing statement (FLS). This document provides a description of the Dppartment's review process and summarizes the environmental and health-related issues.
During this review, the FLS including the SER statement (in the FLS) for Umetco Uravan mill was reviewed. No significant items were identified.
- b. Guidelines It is expected that the State will develop and prepare an environmental evaluation and provide orderly documentation in the form of an Environmental Statement.
Reviewer Assessment A review of the RCD procedures for conducting an environmental evaluations showed appropriate details and supporting documentation !
for the respective licenses. The environmental impact appraisal is not the only document utilized as technical support. The granting of a license also provides additional clarification to concerned parties. It was suggested that details discussed in the environmental impact appraisal should be referenced in the license if not already.
As a minimum, supporting data and calculations should be clearly ;
outlined in the assessment or in the appendices to the assessment. -
The Department develops a final environmental statement (FES) which details all the environmental aspects of any uranium mill facility.
I i
. L 18
{
The reiiew of the Final Licensing Statement (FLS) for Uravan dated
. DecemberN S. 1986, identified that the State has proposed an updated
)
l environmentWassessment in the FLS and Consent Decree. j At the time of this review, the RCD had developed a written memorandum entitled " Policy for an Annual Review of Compliance with Off-Site Dose Standards at Existing Facilities," which was effective on October 11, i 1985. Based upon the review of Cotter Corporation and Uravan's license and compliance files, the reviewer did identify if the RCD specifically identified and outlined a conclusion on whether the .
respective licensees meet the 40 CFR 190 standards. In addition to the aforemention licensees, a review of the Cotter Corporation, Schwartzwalter Facility was conducted and appropriate evaluations and ;
offsite- dose limit compliance summary review was conducted and appeared i acceptable.
The RCD does prepare written documentation which clearly identifies whether or not the mill licensees meet the 40 CFR 190 standards. The NRC evaluation provided to the RCD staff during the previous review was utilized as guidance as to content and completeness of the inspector's evaluations of 40 CFR 190.
The reviewer noted that the State used 40 CFR 192 as an applicable standard in the Uravan FLS and Consent Decree for the evaluation of the proposed new tailings management system and the setting of groundwater standards for the existing tailings area.
- c. Guidelines Financial surety arrangements should include the amount of surety for decommissioning the mill site, stabilizing and reclaiming tailings and maintenance and monitoring after site closure.
Reviewer Assessment
~
The State has requirements for surety arrangements for all uranium mills and tailings activities within the State. The State's policy on annual review of financial assurance agreements is contained in the NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files. Appendix A lists the surety amounts for all the Colorado 4e uranium facilitier. These amounts listed appear to be adequate compared to other uranium recovery facilities. Two surety aggrangements provided by Colorado were reviewed by NRC Headquarter's Staff (Cotter, Whitewater facility and Cotter Canon City Mill). Both surety arrangements appeared to meet the state requirements.
- 11. Status of Inspection Program
- a. Guidelines Periodic inspections of licensed uranium concentrator operations are essential to assure that activities are being conducted in compliance with regulatory requirements and consistent with good safety cractices.
1
i 19 Reviewer Assessment Periodic inspections'of licensed uranium concentrator operations are being conducted in accordance with state priority system and procedures are acceptable and appear consistent with good safety practices.
- b. Guidelines A complete inspection should be performed at least once per year.
Reviewer Assessment Complete inspections of uranium facilities are performed at least once per year.. Since September 1985, the RCD performed inspections on fifteen uranium concentrators (most are inactive sites):
Licenste Date Insoected
- 1. Umetco - North Continent 7-86
- 2. 'Umetco - Slick Rock 7-86*
- 3. Umetco - Maybe11 5-86*
- 4. Umetco - Rifle 5-86*
- 5. Umetco - Rifle (Title I) 5-86
- 6. Umetco - Maybe11 (Title I) 5-86
- 7. Foote - Naturita 7-86*
- 8. Hecla - Naturita (Title I) 7-86
- 9. Foote - Vanadium 7-86
- 10. Gateway 7-86*
- 11. Sweeney (Followup) 3-86
- 12. Cotter - Whitewater 7-86* -
I
- 13. Shumway - Grand Junction 7-86*
- 14. Cotter - Schwartzwalter 4-87
- 15. Hecla - Durits (Title II) 7-86 i
- were reviewed during this program review _ q l \
i The Uravan and Canon City Mills are overdue for inspection. The {'
L Uravan inspection was begun in July 1986. However, it was not completed due to CERCLA litigation complications. The last Canon City inspection was conducted in September 1985.
- c. Guidelines State RCP should maintain an inspection program adequate to assess ifr.ensee compliance with State regulations and license conditions.
Reviewer Assessment ;
The RCD has an inspection program adequate to assess licensee j compliance with Colorado regulations and respective license conditions. j The State's licensing management staff places specific and detailed !
l 1
l l
.? 20 conditions in the license rather than to leave them in general tie-down conditions. This assures that specific items are covered during any inspections.
- d. Guidelines The RCP should maintain statistics which are adequate to permit Program Management to assess the states of the inspection program on a periodic basis. Information showing the number of inspections conducted, the number overdue, the length of time overdue and the prinrity categories should be readily available.
Reviewer Assessment The RCD staff maintains statistics on all the licensed uranium facilities and provides this information to program management. The information lists each uranium facility, the date the inspection was last conducted, the date for the next inspecticn, and fee category.
- 12. Coveraoe and Ouality of Inspection Guidelit As a minimum, items which should be inspected or included during the inspection of a uranium mill should adhere to the items evaluated in the in plant safety review.
Reviewer Assessment The State has adequate inspection procedures for uranium facilities. A pre-inspection guide in the form of a checklist containing the licensee's J complete compliance history and significant correspondence subjects is utilized during the inspections. This format or guide provides an excellent method for conducting a conventional uranium mill inspection.
As described in the discussion section of memorandum from Mr. R. S. Heyer to Colorado files dated September 25, 1985, a policy issue with regard to the use of the licensee's inspection and internal audit reports and the State inspecter citing those items that were subsequently corrected was discussed. As of this review, the RCD issued a final policy guide referencing appropriate 10 CFR 2, Appendix B, Part IV A sections.
Inspection files were reviewed tc determine the scope and adequacy of the inspection program for uranium concentrators. Only a few minor comments were made and discussed with the RCD staff.
An examination of the State's inspection files revealed that inspections committed to by the licensee appear to follow the provisions of Regulatory Guide 3.11.1.
1
v _ _ _ _
o ;
i l
21
- 13. Operational Data Review (Criteria 35d) 1 Guidelines In addition to the reporting requirements required by the regulations or license conditions, the licensee will submit in writing to the regulatory agency within 60 days after January 1 and July 1 of each year, reports specifying the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and in gaseous effluents during the previous 6 months of operatior.. This data shall be reported in a manner that will permit the regulatory agency to confirm the potential annual radiation doses to the public.
All data from the radiological and non-radiological environmental monitoring program will also be submitted for the same time periods and frequency.
The data will be reported in a manner that will allow the regulatcry agency to conform the dose to receptors.
Reviewer Assessment A policy for the EPA's 40 CFR 190 monitoring requirements was developed by the State and is apparently conducted by State licensees. The RCD appears to utilize predictive modeling based on the UDAD and MIL 905 computer codes.
In addition, the RCD conducts environmental monitoring at the licensee's facilities. The RCD has developed an environmental monitoring program for all major uranium facilities within the State. The State's soil contamina-tion guidance policy is available in NRC, Region IV, Colorado State Agreement files.
It was noted by the reviewer to the Colorado RCD staff that a licensee only has to report to the NRC when the 40 CFR 190 standards have been exceeded (10 CFR 20.403(c)). Therefore, it is necessary that all facilities need to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 190 in the positive sense to assure thet the respective facilities are indeed meeting EPA standards.
During this ~ review, it was identified that an internal policy has been developed for determining that 40 CFR 190 monitoring is being conducted by State licensee. The RCD has addressed whether the licensee is in compliance with the inspection EPA standards.
The RCD requires, per license condition, that the licensee submit, at least annually but sometimes quarterly, reports specifying the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and in gaseous effluents during the previous period of operation.
- 14. Instrumentation and Laboratory Facilities (Criterion 36)
Guideline The State should have available both field and laboratory instrumentation sufficient to ensure the licensee's control of materials and to validate the licensee's measurements.
22 '
Arrangements should 50 made for calibrati.,q such equipment.
Laboratory-type instrumentation should be available in a State agency or through a commercial service which has the capability for quantitative and qualitative analysis of radionuclides associated with natural uranium and its decay chain, primarily, U-238, Ra-226, Th-230, Pb-210, and Rn-222, in a variety of sample media such as will be encountered from an environmental sampling program.
Analysis and data reduction from laboratory analytical facilities should be available to the licensing and inspection authorities in a timely manner.
Normally, the data should be available within 30 days of submittal. State acceptability of quality assurance (QA) programs should also be established for the analytical laboratories.
Arrangements should also be completed so that a large number of samples in a variety of sample media resulting from a major accident can be analyzed in a time frame that will allow timely decisions to be made regarding public health and safety.
Reviewer Assessment The RCD has available both field ~and laboratory equipment and instruments for validating the licensee's measurements. (See Appendix E of Volume I.)
In addition, the RCD has developed specific guidelines for obtaining laboratory analyses of samples which are necessary for the completion of inspections.
The RCD inspectors continue to perform independent measurements as appropriate during each inspection (although many facilities are inactive) using proper instrumentation to determine er confirm the validity of the licensee's measurements. The survey instruments are calibrated by RCD staff members every 3 months on a calibration range using a Co-60 source.
The range is calibrated using an . air ionization chamber where calibration is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards.
The Department of Health's laboratory was visited during previous reviews and determined to contain adequate equipment as committed to in the State's amended agreement request.
It is the reviewers understanding that the turnaround time for certain samples can be as low as 24-48 hours once priority has been established.
Wipe sample results car. be obtained as soon as necessary. The soil and water samples have a turnaround time of approximately 30 days. In cases 3 where an emergency response incident has occurred, the results can be !
obtained immediately. In general, the data from the samples submitted by the inspectors are available no later than the issuance of the final inspection report.
The laboratory participates in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) quality assurance program for laboratory performance. l Y _-
- . 9 L
s APPENDIX TITLE -s F A Financial Assurance Ar'rangemen %
B Staffing Level Information e
0 l
f
- sus a
l i
m..y , , . ,
- - , - ---~
3..
-NAME -
. L!C TYPE SURETY YEAR SURETY B FOR IFOR'8FOR DATE LAST 121-Apr-87 AMOUNT- .$ NOLDER. DECCHN RECLAM LTC REVIENED
, FINANCIAL ASSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS IN EFFECT
, ter CC 3691'DDR ' $18.5H,Ms 1983 ' Aetna Insurance to 431 571 81 14-Jan-87 atter CC 3691 LTC 1338. Hf 1983 Aetna insurance to f1 fl 1H1 31-Dec-B6 Cotter CC . '3691 SEC 168.988 1979 Cotter Corp: 91 fl - 81 31-Dec-86
/CotterSchmar2 36931DDR' 1759 148 1984 Aetna insurance to 381 7f1 81 31-Dec-86 Cotter W . 3692'DDR 1358,756 1984 Aetna insurance Co 381 781 fl-28-Jul-86 Hecla Naturita 3172 DDR 568,227 1977 US Fine 11ty & Bear Co til 9ft il 23-Mar-87 Hecla Naturita 3172 LTC -
$185,0ff 1977 Duquesne i El Paso 81 81 1H I 23-Mar-97 Usetto Maybe11 6681'DDR 998 19861986 Mf Hanover Trust 381 781 31 38-Nov-86 Usetto Mavbell 66f1 LTC $1I459 368,,288 Mi Hanover frust 81 fl 1981 30-Nov-86 Unetto Ur;wan 6682 DDR $42,000,,892 1987. Un on Carnice Corp 181 961 81 12-Feb-87
- Usetto Uravan 6682 LTC le 1987; Union Carbide Corp fl ~ f1 lift 12-Feb-87 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE ARRAN6EMENT REVISIONS PENDING ADJUSTED FDR SUBSTANTIVE PRICE DEFLATOR PROPOSED REVISIONS.
Cotter CC 3691 DDR 111,258,667 1985 $11.256 944 1985 See 98-B68627 Cotter
$28,636;H8 1985 See 10-861283 MKJ-162,373,718' 1995 See 18-87C114 DNB Cotter CC 3691 LTC $35' e4 !v85 54,434,9ff 1966 See 19-86f71B MKJ Cotter CC 3691 SEC .,382 1985 -
Cotter Schaan 3693 DDR 1784,286 1985 5433,496 1985 See ff-868627 totter M 3692 DDR $37f,595 1985 $468,173 1986 See 10-868728 Hecla Naturita 3172 DDR $92,962 1985 Hecla Naturita 3172 LTC 1162,f71 1985 setto Maybe11 6681 DDR 888 1986 atto Maybe11 6681 LTC $1,368,200 5459, 1986 doetto Uravan 6682 DDR 842,888,H f 1987 Usetss Uravan 6682 LTC- $8 1987 FRICE DEFLATOR MULTIPLY LAST YEAR BY DDR = Decossissioning, Decontamination & Feclasation LTC Long Ters Care / Long Ters Monitoring & Maintenance 1978 SEC = Security Agreement for Interia Catastrophic Event 1979 1.889 1988 1.998 1981 1.f97 1982 1. 86#,
19ii3 1 359 1984 1.f38 1985 1.833 .
l l-l-
l l
VDs.LM E Ej MM N
c 3 -.
, . p p
N 3
DATA TO DETFl*iINE STAFF YEARS EFFORT FOR URANIUM HILL PROGRAM
- 1. - 7 specifically-licensed uranium min s/ concentrators.
. Cotter Canon City Min Cotter Schwartzwalder Sorter ,
Cotter Whitewater OBS Hecla Naturita Leach Heaps Sweeney Boulder Sorter Umeteo Maybe11 Leach Heaps Umeteo Uravan Mill 2 inactive sites on the same specific license as above.
Umeteo Mayben inactive site Hecla Naturita inactive site 5 separate specifically-licensed inactive sites (7 licenses).
Foote Naturita inactive mill site Hecia Durango inactive mill site Shumway Grand Junction inactive min site UCC/Umeteo Slick Rock inactive mill sites (2)
UCC/Umeteo Rifle inactive mill site (s) (2)
Also 1 additional generally-licensed inactive site Gunnison inactive mill site
' ~
2 specifically-licensed uranium decay serits " NORM" sites.
Tusco Boulder Radium inactive site Homestake Pitch Radium treatment plant 4 generally-licensed or specific 11 ense 3 application uranium decay series " NORM" sites.
- Cyprus Minerals Radium sludges Foote Newmire former Vanadium mill site Gateway former Vanadium min site
- Holycorp sorter
.-___..______m__._________ _m.___ . _ _- _ _ . _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ m_ _ . _ - _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . _ _ . - . . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- 2. New conventional mills and new in situ operations.
No pending applications, no assessments, no FTE.
- 3. Number of major renewals for conventional mills and in-situ operations.
I'pending, 1 assessment in progress, 0.1 FTE (0.05 Weaver, 0.05 Jones). i l- Cotter Canc-s City
- 4. Number of major ame.idsents for conventional mills and in-situ operations.
2 pending, 2 assessments, 0.2 FTE (0.1 Weaver, 0.05 Kray, 0.05 Jones)
Canon City ground water barrier Canon City monitoring upgrade l
l 5. Applications for new facilities other than conventional mills and in-situ operations. (e.g., heap leach, pilot projects, etc.).
1 not being actively processed, 0.0 FTE.
Union 76 Molycorp
- 6. Major renewals for facilities other than conventional mills and in-situ !
- 1. operations (e.g. , heap leach, pilot projects, etc. ).
1' l 4 renewals, all active to some degree, 0.2 FIE ~
l (0.05 Weaver, 0.15 Kray).
l Hecla Naturita !
Sweeney Boulder Umeteo Mayball .
Umeteo Rifle ,
- 7. Major amendments for facilities other than conventional mills and in-situ operations (e.g. , heap leach, pilot projects, etc. ).
.Non e . j l
1 l
I l
4
v.
8.
Minor administrative amendments being worked on for uranium mills.
7 pending, 0.1 FIE (0.05 Weaver 0.05 Kray).
Cotter Canon City financial assurance arrangements.
Cotter Schwartzwalder financial assurance arrangements.
Cotter Whitewater financial assurance arrangements.
Foote Naturita financial as,surance arrangements.
Hecla Naturita financial assurance arrangements.
Hecia Naturita monitoring.
UCC/Umeteo Maybe11 monitoring.
9.
Technical and professional FTE working on environmental monitoring and review of environmental data.
0.2 FTE (0.1 Kray, 0.1 laboratory)
- 10. FTE inspecting uranium mills and concentrators.
0.5 FIE (0.1 Weaver, 0.4 Kray).
0.25 FTE (A. Nebiett)
0.25 FTE * ~
(M. Shull) 13.
Manacerial FTE supporting the uranium mill program.
0.25 FIE (0.15 Weaver, 0.05 Jacobi, 0.05 Hazle) ,
m . < www. , ,.. .. . , <------
Lgl % *.
FUNCTIONAL SUM:4ARY OF FTE*
~
Licensing 0.5 0.1 ,
0.6 Compliance 0.7' O.0 0.7
~
Mat / Legal / 0.5 0.25 0.75-Clerical
4OTAL 1.7 0.35 2.05
- 2 new FTE were authorized for FY 86-67 but the positions were not filled.
a l8 1
- = ,
l i-.
O L '.
i' ll l
b e
4
{
l
.w - , - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -ar;-
, --7 Lp.g4 a ... ,- . 4 in w -- +
v "
T > wsta ur - -
UNITED STATES .
~
j' ,
' j g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
.$ t t WASHINGTON, D. C. 20556 y k ,i.. 4 June 26, 1989 Thomas A. Vernon, M.D.
Executive Director- i
' Department of' Health 4 4210 E m Ilth Avenue. 1
_ Denver, Coloradoi 80220 1
Dear Dr..Vernon:
~
This confirms the exit briefing Mr. R. J. Doda held with' Mr. R. M. Quillin,
-Director, Radiation Control Division, on April 7,-1989 following our review of the Colorado Radiation Control program. One other NRC staff member, D. M. Sollenberger, was present at this meeting. Our normal practice'is to' hold our- sumary meeting with you but we understand
. that previous comitments prevented this. ,
l As a result of our review, coments and recommendations were developed, l which' included three significant coments concerning Category I .d
' Indicators. ;They are Status of Regulations Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, and Enforcement Procedures. The State radiation !
protection regulations need to be updated to maintain compatibility. In the licensing area we found that the State has cuthorized physicians to conduct nuclear medicine procedures which they may not be qualified to. conduct. With~ respect to Enforcement Procedures, the State is not dispatching enforcement letters in a timely manner following inspections.
In view of these findings, we cannot offer a finding of adequacy and l compatibi.11ty of the program until after we have reviewed and evaluated the State's response to our specific technical coments and recommenda tions. Therefore, I would appreciate your review of our recommendations and receiving your plans to address these program areas.
Enclosure 1 contains other. comments regarding the program and you j L may wish to have Mr. Quillin respond directly to these coments. An y explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs is attached as Enclosure 2.
Our review disclosed that other program indicators were withir ARC guidelines. Also, a number of. other technical matters were discussed with the radiation control staff and resolved during the course of the review.- This year's review used a team approach, which involved eight NRC staff members and the State of Texas Agreement State Program Director at various times during the review. This allowed more time for individual L discussions with members of the division's staff, an in-depth examination I of the various program areas, and it provided a team of experts. During the course of the review, we were able to hold meetings with your staff in six different subject areas, which were of current interest to both the State and the NRC.
l NN$h7hg E____ _ _ -- - -- --
June 26, 1989 Thomas A. Vernon, M.D. 2 We reviewed the consent agreements for both the Cotter and the Uravan uranium mills. We comend the State for the extensive efforts in achieving these agreements and, in particular, for the assignment of a -
senior geologist to monitor the progress at each site with respect to the requirements of each separate agreement.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation you and your staff extended to Mr. Doda and the cther 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. I am,looking forward to your responses regarding the State's regulations, liconsing and enforcement, and Mr. Quillin's responses to the technical coments.
Sincerely, original siped by Carlton Kammerer Carlton Kamerer, Director
- State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
As stated 1
cc: V. Stello, Jr., Executive Director for Operations R. D. Martin, Regional. Administrator, RIV l R. M. Quillin, Directo", Radiation Control r' vision A. J. Hazle, State Licison Officer NRC Public Document Room State Public Document Room 1
bec: Chairman Zech Distribution:
Commissioner Roberts fA RF HDenton Commissioner Carr Dir RF CKamerer Commissioner Rogers RMartin SSchwartz Commissioner Curtiss ABeach VMiller WBrown .Rubenau WFisher DCD(SP01)
CHackney EDO RF JGilliland Colorado File i RDoda
- See previor concurrence A //
[C :RIV:5A0 :5LITi :lAD :5LITP:DD :5LI -
RV:RA :GPA
).... :
E :RJDoda :VMiller :SSchwartz :C am f(r :RDMcrtin :HR n . 1 1
. . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . : . .L4. . . . .. . : . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . ........:... ......
LTE :5/19/89* :5/30/89* :6/1/89* :6/ @ /89 :5/19/89* :6/6 /89 :6/1 /8'9 g '
Thomas A. Vernon, M.D. 2 We included a review of the consent agreements for both the Cotter and the Uravan uranium mills. We comend the State for the extensive efforts in achieving these agreements and, in particular, for the assignment of a senior geologist to monitor the progress at each site with respect to the requirements of ecch separate agreement.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation you and your staff extended to Mr. Doda 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. I am looking forward to your responses regarding the State's regulations, licensing and enforcement, and Mr. Quillin's responses to the technical coments.
Sincercly, Carlton Kammerer, Director State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
As stated ,
cc: V. Stello, Jr., Executive Director for Operations R. D. Martin, Regional Administrator, RIV R. M. Quillin, Director, Radiation Control Division A. J. Hazle, State Liaison Officer NRC Public Document Room ..
State Public Document Room bec: Chairm n Zech Distribution:
Commissioner Roberts SA RF HDenton Commissioner Carr Dir RF CKamerer Commissioner Rogers RMartin SSchwartz Commissioner Curtiss ABeach VMiller WBrown JLubenau WFisher DCD (SP01) s CHackney EDO RF JGilliland Colorado File '
RDoda
- See previous concurrence 1 n /
[0 :RIV:5A0 :5LITP:AD :5 Pg :5LITP:D :RY:RA :6PA :EDO p...:............:............:. . ...:............:............:............:...........
KE:RJDoda :VMiller : ch artz :CKamerer :RDMartin :HRDer: ton :VSTello h...:.......................:............:............:............:............:...........
STE :5/19/?? :5/30/89* :6/ l /89 :6/ /89 :5/19/89* :6/ /89 :6/ /89 l
1
n--,--------------7--
s
)
-TNmas'A.Vernon,M.D. 2
~
We included a review of the consent agreements for both the Cotter and the Uravan uranium mills. We comend the State for the extensive efforts in achieving these agreements and, in particular, for the assignment of a senior geologist to monitor the progress at each site with respect to the requirements of each separate agreement. ,
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation you and your staff exter.ded to Mr. Doda and the other NRC reviewers during the review meeting. 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. I am looking forward 1 to your responses regarding the State's regulations, licensing and enforcement, and Mr. Quillin's responses to the technical coments.
l Sincerely, l
l- Carlton Kamerer, Director l State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs l Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
! As stated l
l- cc: Y. Stello, Jr., Executive Director for Operations R. D. Martin, Regional Administrator, RIY R. M. Quillin, Director, Radiation Control Division A. J. Hazle, State Liaison Officer NRC Public Document Room State Public Document Room bec: Chairman Zech Distribution:
Commissioner koberts SA RF HDenton Commissioner Carr Dir RF CKamerer Commissioner Rogers RMartin SSchwartz Commissioner Curtiss ABeach YMiller WBrown JLubenau WFisher DCD(SP01)
CHackney ED0 RF
~
JGilliland Colorado File RDode O' 17 (L sc :RI SA :S IF :5LITP:DD :5LITP:D :RV :GPA :FD0
>. . : . .... : .LsH < ....:............:............:y .:............:...........
KE : JDoda :V) il er :SSchwartz :CKammerer :RDMart n k :HRDenton :VSTello
>...:............:.t..........:............:............:............:............:..........
STE :f/ F1 /89 :5/ W /89 :5/ /89 :5/ /89 :5/ d /89 :5/ /89 :5/ /89
- i. _ s .. _. .. .-
ENCLOSURE 1 TECHNICAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COLORADO RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM This program review was conducted during the periods of March 20-24, 1989, and April 3-7, 1989, in Denver. Colorado. This review used a team approach which allowed the NRC'to have individual ex.pertise in all areas of an Agreement State Program.
I Periodic reviews of State regulatory programs for control of agreement materials cover the principal administrative and technical aspects of L radiation control programs. An in-depth examination is made of the program's funding and personnel resources; the program's licensing, inspection and enforcement activities; the program's emergency response capabilities for agreement materials; and the status of the State's radiation control regulations. These reviews use the " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" which were published in the Federal Register on June 4, 1987, as an NRC Policy Statement. .
I. Radiation Control Program Other than Uranium Mills A. The following coments with our recommendations concern Category I Indicators and are of major significance.
- 1. Status of Regulations Coment The review of the State's radiation control regulations '
disclosed that three regulatory amendments, which are matters of compatibility, have not been adopted by the State within a three-year period after adoption by the NRC. These amendments are: (I) elimination of glass .'
enamel frit; (2) radiation protection survey requirements; and(3)clarificationofexemptionforuraniumshielding in shipping containers. Copies of the necessary amendments were provided to the division staff during the review meeting.
Also, NRC inas supplied a diskette to the division which contains all the updated Suggested State Regulations. This should significantly aid the State's efforts to update its regulations. .
I Recommendation I i
We recomend these three amendments, and any others approaching !
the three-year period allowed after NRC adoption, be promulgated as effective State radiation control regulations in the near ,
future.
i
mn ,- . . .
2 1.
- 2. Technical Quality of Licensing Actions Comment The division is granting broad authorizations on licenses for physicians.who submitted qualification records that were appropriate for limited applications only.
Physicians, if certified by the American Board of Radiology (ABR) in diagnostic radiology, have been routinely granted
, authorization for diagnostic groups I (uptake, dilution l' and excretion studies), groups 11 and III (imaging and l localization studies), and therapeutic groups IV and V.
l Physicians certified by the ABR for diagnostic radiology should only be authorized for the diagnostic uses in groups
! I, II, and III. This could be a serious problem for NRC and Agreement States using this licensing acknowledgement to add physicians to licensts. Additionally, individuals possessing certification by the ABR in therapeutic radiology were granted diagnostic groups I, II, and III.
This certification is only good for authorizing therapeutic groups IV and V.
Recommendation We recommend the division issue authorizations to physicians
- for medical applict.tions of radioactive materials only for those procedures for which they have provided documentation of their qualifications. To correct past improper authorizations, we recommend the State develop a plan to identify such cases and as necessary amend the licenses.
- 3. Enforcement Procedures Comment ,
Our review disclosed that enforcement letters were not issued within the recommended 30 days following the inspection. In some cases the enforcement letters were sent three to six months after the time of inspection. It was also noted that the licensees' responses to enforcement i letters were not always received within the recommended 20 .
days. This problem was found for uranium mill inspections ,
also. ,
Recommendation It is recommended that management closely monitor the timeliress of preparation of the inspection reports and the issuance of enforcement and acknowledgement letters.
We noted the division's development of a tracking system to maintain up-to-date information on the status of 1
l J
q 4
3 A
compliance and enforcement activities. The system should cover key milestones such as the date the enforcement letter was sent to the licensee, the c: ate the licensee is requested to respond (usually 20-30 days), the date of the~ response, and whether each case is resolved or needs further attention. This tracking system should provide a means to meritor individual enforcement actions and cruide statistical information about the program.
B. The following coments with our recommendations concern Category I Indicators and are of minor significance.
- 3. Adequacy of Product Evaluations Coment One Sealed Source and Device (SSD) registration had been issued during this review period..a custom source for Wedding & Associates that is manufactured by NEN. The source was listed as being authorized to be distributed to general licensees. After some discussion with the RCP staff, it was agreed that in the future that sources not be listed as generally licensed, rather that the device that the source is incorporated into be authorized to be distributed to general licensees. The basis of registrations includes a safety analysis. During the review of past registry documents, it was noted that not ali registry sheets contained a safety analysis summary. A safety analysis sumary should be included in all sheets, even if brief, and if epplicable should include the accident dose analysis for devices that will be distributed to general licensees.
Recommendation The registration for Wedding & Associates indicates tFet the source may be distributed to general licensees. It is recomenced that the registration be amended to indicate that the source be distributed to specific licensees and the device that the source is put into be authorized for distribution to general licensees. Also, we recommend that all future SSD registrations contain a safety analysis summary.
- 2. Status of Inspection Program l Coment Our review disclosed that 11 priority 1, 2, or 3 licenses ,
were overdue for inspection by more than SGI of the inspection !
frequency. We believe this is a comment of minor significance i 1
4 4
since the division has a plan to eliminate these overdue inspections. The reasons for the backlog include: (1) heavy resource commitments to special projects during the review period, and (2) inspection efforts were redirected early in 1988 to contamination surveys for the 3M static elimirator problem. During this review, we have noted improved maragement control and data processing capability with respect to inspection status and planning.
Recommendation We recommend that the division complete its effort to bring all inspections, particularly priorities 1, 2, and 3 up to date.
C. The following comments with our rec 3 emendations concern Categcry II Indicators.
- 1. Administrative Procedures
- a. Comment The indicator, " Administrative Procedures," includes a guideline which recomnends that the radiation control program establish written internal procedures in order to assure that the staff performs its duties as required and provides a high degree of uniformity and continuity in regulatory practices. We found that many of these types of written procedures exv,t as policy memoranda or other documents in various locations or rar.uals used by the division, however, certain procedures were not aveilable or not easily located by all staff members.
Recommendation ,
We recommend that the division's internal procedures be reviewed and compiled in a manual (or manuals) that are easily referred to by all staff members in i order to maintain consistency in staff licensing and compliance activities. The procedures should cover internal processing of license applications, scheduling and documenting inspections and enforcement activities, escalated enforcement action, and other functions required under the program. (We provided a suggested outline for centent of a procedures i manual during the review neeting.)
1
.a . . . .
l 1; e
- b. Comment
~
The State's license termination procedure has limited applicability to license termination requests end is in need of upgrading.
Recommendation We recommend the division revise and upgrade their procedure for handling license termination requests. We also encourage the use of. license termination checklists'and certificates of dispost.1 for radioactive material when a license is terminated.
- 2. Office Equipment and Support Service
- a. Comment l
Our review disclosed that insufficient clerical support may have contributed to delays in getting out enforcement correspondence. The last two reviews have found that.
enforcement letters have frequently not been dispatched
~
within 30 days.
Recommendation We recomend the Department monitor the clerical support for the division. In particular, timeliness of correspondence-including enforcement letters should be reviewed to assure that deadlines are met.
l- b. . Coment -
1 Our review cisclosed that the division staff has encountered some difficulty in the use of data processing equipment for regulatory purposes. There is a lack of interchangeability of-certain'sof tware partly because some of the equipmeht is the staff's personal equipment that is used to supplement that provided by the State. The Wang printer has caused I some inefficiency in licensee correspondence. ,
~
l Recommendation
~
We recomend the Department review the division's ADP capability. Additional State equipment should be obtained as needed.
I
)
h E
.3. Inspection Procedures
- a. Commeg It ted during the compliance file review that the division does not always address enforcLt.ent correspondence to licensee management. In one case, the enforcement letter which warned of a possible license suspension action was not addressed to the University Administration but to a University radiation safety officer (RS0).
Recommendation Enforcement letters should be addressed to licensee management.
If the division wishes, copies of enforcement letters may be sent to the licensee RSO.
- b. Comment Our review disclosed tnat certain inspection policies were not a
documented.
Recorrendation We recommend that written inspection policier be documented for:
(1) conducting unannounced inspections; (2) obtaining corrective actier; (3) following up and closing out previous violations; (4) assuring exit interviews with management; and (5) issuing appropriate notification of violations of health and safety prob 1 cms.
II. Radiation Control Procram for Uranium Mills A. Technical Quality of Licensing Actions is a Category 1 Indicator.
The following comment with our recommendations is made and is of ,
minor significance. ~ '
Comment Our review of the State's implementation of groundwater standards, i.e., 40 CFR 192 as outlined in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, indicated improvement can be made'in their application by the staff to uranium mill licensees.
Recommendations The Colorado Department of Health mura b certain that appropriate hazardous constituents are monP.ored. The State should assure:
- The constituent is reasonably expected to be in er Gerived from the by-product material. l l
1
. w -. ;c , .
m,. .. . - , -
7 The constituent is detected in the uppermost aquifer.
The constituent is in the Criterion 13 list of L hazardous constituents.
For demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR 192 or 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, or the Colorado Department of Health groundwater regulations, to be appropriate, compliance points need to be established by the licensee in the uppermost aquifer at the downgradient edge of the disposal area.
For the NRC to concur on a closure plan, from a groundwater viewpoint, compliance with appropriate groundwater protection standards must be shown. These standards are one of the foliowing: background, the drinking water standard as published in Appendix VIII, 40 CFR 264, (EPA) er an alternate concentration limit.
Remediating the groundwater for a predetermined number of years cannot be considered as a closure standard, regardless of comitments made in the consent decrees.
The agricultural standards that have been agreed to as concentration limits which will allow termination of groundwater remediation may indeed represent appropriate limits; however, an alternate concentration limit proposal needs to be submitted by the licensee and reviewed by the Department as outlined in the draft NRC guidance dated June 1988.
At sites where leakage is suspected or known to exist, but indicator parameters are not elevated, the Department should establish groundwater protection standards for those hazardous constituents reasonably expected to be derived from the by-product material and related processing. 2 {
B. Administrative Procedures is a Category II Indicator. The following comments with our recommendations are made. i All of the coments (4) in this section were developed on Colorado's surety program for uranium mills. The NRC's " Technical Position on Financial Assurances for Reclamation, Decommissioning, and )
i Long-term Surveillance and Control of Uranium Recovery Facilities,"
dated October 1988 was used as a reference. ,
l
f' . l 1
j m ;
N. g y
- 1. - Comment We determined during the review of the State files that'the-surety instruments are held ~1n the State Treasurer's Office
! for. safekeeping. During our review, the surety documents - .;
'for the Uravan uranium mill could not be found by the
. division staff and the Maybe11 surety instrument was
. missing from the State Treasurer's Office. -
Recommendation We recommend these' two surety instruments be. located or reproduced from the licensee's file and filed in the State Treasurer's.0ffice and such other locations as the L
. division finds necessary.
- 2. Coment The State's surety procedures do not call for a single management position within the division to be responsible for assuring that surety amounts specified in the instruments are updated annually- and filed.
Recommenda tion We recomend that the State's surety procedures assign
- a. management position within the division for assuring that surety instruments be updated annually and filed.
- 3. Coment Colorado's regulations (similar to NRC's) require that uranium mill sureties provide for long-term care-(LTC) fundsof$250,000(in1978 dollars)inadditionto reclamation and decommissioning costs. Not all of ",
Colorado's surety instruments have taken this fact into account.
Recommendation
.We recommend the State take into account the requirement for LTC funds in the amount of $250,000 (in 1978 dollars) in addition to reclamation and decommissioning costs for each facility. ,
- 4. Comment The sureties accepted by the State do not contain language in all cases co,nsidered acceptable by NRC.
(
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
. . o ,
. #. . . ~ T J .T T 9
Recommendation The NRC's " Technical Position on Financial Assurances for Reclamation, Decommissioning, and Long-term Surveillance and Control of Uranium Recovery Facilities," dated October 1988, was developed using precise legal language for surety requirements. The State staff should be aware of this model language since it is acceptable to most legal authorities and utilize it to the maximum extent possible.
III. General Observations - Colorado Procram Review of April 7. 1989 A. Due to heavy workload, the Colorado radiation control staff often takes work home. At times this may include licensees' files from the office. The division management should be aware of this practice and of the potential for the loss of a licensee file.
B. The division, in answering questions for this program review, used a newly- generated tracking system for inspection reports and compliance actions. This system, when fully implemenud, should provide the division director with an ideal management tool for all compliarce actions.
C. The division uses typed narrative inspection reports, except for gauge inspections. This practice requires increased report preparation time and review time compared to the use of. field forms. The need for typing has also contributed to a delay in dispatching enforcement correspondence in a timely manner. Nearly all Agreement States and the NRC use field forms for documenting most routine materials inspections, and Colorado may wish to consider this practice for the purpose of efficiency.
D. NRC Form 591 is used for informing licensees in writing of inspection results when the inspections involve no violations or minor violations. A number of Agreement States use a sirgilar form. A copy was provided to the division staff. Colorado may wish to consider adopting the use of a similar form to ease the clerical staff workload.
__.a-u____ _a_._u.a__._ - - _ _
4
. ENCLOSURE 2
-Application of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Aoreement 5 tate Raciation control Frocrams" The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs,"
were published in the Federal Register on June 4,1987, as an NRC Policy Statement. The Guidelines provide 29 indicators for evaluating Agreement State program areas. Guidance as to their relative importance to an Agreement State program is provided by categorizing the indicators into two categories.
Category I indicators address program functions which directly relate to the State's ability to protect the public health and safety. If significant problems exist in several Category I indicator areas, then the need for improvements may be critical.
- Category II indicaters address program functions which provide essential technical and administrative support for the primary program functions. Good performance in meeting the guidelines for these indicators is essential in order to avoid the development of problems in one or more of the principal program areas, i.e., those that fall under Category I indicators.
Category II indicators frequently can be used to identify underlying problems that are causing, or contributing to, difficulties in Category I indicators.
It is the NRC's intention to use these categories in the following manner. In reporting findings to State management, the NRC will . indicate the category of each coment made. If no significant Category I coments are provided, this will indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC's program. If one or more significant Category I coments are provided, the State will be notified that the program deficiencies may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and that the need for improvement in particular program areas is critical. If, following receipt and evaluation, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I comenti, the staff may offer findings of adequacy and compatibility as appropriate or defer such offering until the State's actions are examined and their effectiveness confirmed in a subsequent review. If additional information is needed to evaluate the State's actions, the staff may request the information through 4 follow-up correspondence or perform a follow-up or special, limited review.
NRC staff may hold a special meeting with appropriate State representatives.
No significant items will be left unresolved over a prolonged seriod. The Comission will be informed of the results of the reviews of t1e 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.
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _