Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRC-1997-001063 - 0901a06880ae70cftAB REG(/t4. 'o r1(i&k no UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM ]SSION REGION IV 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 4OO AR LINGTON, TEXAS 7601 1.8064 Novernber 21, 1997 f**rf A N0'I lgsI Racaired llh'{soot!oInrded{r. Ooatt ol !, l''' Earl E. Hoellen, President lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation lndependence Plaza, Suite 950 1 050 Seventeenth Street Denver, Colorado 80265 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO NRC INSPECTION REPORT 40-8681t97-02 Dear Mr. Hoellen: Thank you for your letters dated September 11 and November 3, 1997, in response to our letter and attached Notice of Violation both dated August 12, 1997. ln your first letter, it appeared that you had denied two of the violations identified during the inspection. After a telephonic discussion with members of your staff on October 1, 1997, it was determined that the this was not the intent of your response, and that you agree that the violations had occurred. Your letter dated November 3, 1997, confirmed this agreement and provided a clarification to your response to the Notice of Violation. We have reviewed your reply and find it responsive to the concerns raised in our Notice of Violation. We will review the implementation of your corrective actions during future inspections or licensing actions to determine whether full compliance has been achieved and will be maintained. We note in your response that for the two violations in question, you plan to file a request for license amendment to achieve relief from the associated requirements. You should note that you are required to comply with these requirements until a license amendment relieving you from them is issued. Should you have any questions, we will be glad to discuss them with you. Sincerely, Q-h,.,l, r, 001 Charles L. Cain, Chief Nuclear Materials Licensing Branch License: SUA-1358 Docket: 40-8681 lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation Mr. William N. Deal, Mill Manager lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation 6425 South Highway 191 P. O. Box 789 Blanding, Utah 84511 Mr. William J. Sinclair, Director State of Utah Department of Environmental Ouality Division of Radiation Control 168 North 195O West Salt Lake City, Utah 841 15-4850 Mr. Pat Mackin, Assistant Director Systems Engineering & lntegration Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses 6220 Culebra Road San Antonio, Texas 78238-5166 INrsnNntloNAL URaNrurr,t (usl; ConponATroN REOEIYED 6425 S. I{ur . P.O. Box809 . Blanding, UT845lI .80i 678 2221 (p?rone) .| 678 2224 (fax) November 3,1997 Ms. M. Linda Mclean U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 6ll Plaza Drive Suite 1000 Arlingtoq TX 76011 Via Facsimile (817) 860-8210 Original Via U. S. Mail - Certified Return Receipt Re: International Uranium (USA) Corporation Source Material License SUA-1358 Docket No. 40-8681 White Mesa Mill Supplemental Information to Response to Notice of Violation, NRC Inspection Report 40-868 l/97 -02 Dear Ms. Mclean: During the week of July L5-17,1997, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S. NRC) conducted an inspection at the International Uranium (USA) Corporation [ruC] White Mesa Mll. During the course of this inspection, three (3) apparent violations of the operating license were identified. IUC filed a Response to Notice of Violation with the NRC dated September ll, 1997, (attached). The wording in the initial Response to Notice of Violation, may have indicated, unintentionally, a challenging position with regard to two of the violations. After discussing the nature and context of the violations and IUC's response and corrective action plan with yourself and Mr. James Park, IUC concurs with the NRC's issuance of the violations. This letter identifies more clearly IUC's corrective action plan and response to the NOVs. The necessary actions will be implemented by IUC to correct the noted deficiencies as follow: Violation 40-868 l/970 t -0 I Failure to take the annual set of air samples for radioisotopic analysis during 1996. IUC intends to forward, for review and approval, a license amendment request which will rescind the existing provision and requirements of air sampling monitoring as delineated in Section 2 of the licensee's Radiation Protection Procedures Manual, and replace them with a more effective alternative. Our request will be filed with the NRC within 30 days of this letter. Violation 40-868 l/970 I -02 Failure to statistically analyze pond water sample results to determine whether significant linear trends existed and to submit this information to the NRC. As discussed in our telephone meeting of October l, ruC realizes that, particularly when compared with the conditions regarding this requirement as stated in the license renewal, our failure to statistically analyze and send analytical results of the Leak Detection System ("LDS") samples to the NRC for review is a violation. We are, however, concerned that the existing license condition may not be based on appropriate technical basis; therefore, we view the current NRC finding as an opportunity to analyze the situation with a view to ensuring that the license conditions and technical submittals are compatible with and reflective of the correct technical approach. It is also timely and appropriate to review the data gathered to date to ensure that the technical approach reflects those data and supports the monitoring objectives. In view of the above, and as per our October I discussion, it is our intent to implement the following corrective actions. l. Compile and analyze the analytical data gathered for samplescollected from the LDS as per the existing license condition. Submit the results of this analysis to the NRC at the next inspectioq together with a letter report summarizing the data analysis. Completion date: Nefi NRC inspection. 2. Review the existing LDS monitoring program in light of present license conditions and overall program intent; ie., the stated purpose of LDS monitoring is to increase sampling frequency of compliance monitoring wells on the downgradient edge of the disposal area. As this intent may not be reflected in the present license conditions, this analysis will result in an application to amend the license to meet the objectives of the groundwater monitoring program. Such an amendment will be a comprehensive means to prevent a repetition of this violation. Completion date (to file amendment application): January 10, 1998. Sincerely, Ur@**@ William N. Deal Manager, White Mesa Mill Certified Number P 077 021 199 Ron E. Berg David C. Frydenlund Michelle R. Rehmann Harold R. Roberts File INrrnNartoNAL Unnruluu (usn) ConronATIoN 615 S. Hw: l9l . P.O. Box 809 . Blandirrg. UT 8{5ll' 80I 678 222I (phone)' 801 678 2224 ([ax) September ll,1997 Via: Certified lv{ail Number P 077 021 193 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: International Uranium (USA) CorporationLiccrnc: SUA-1358 Docket:40-t681 Whitc Mesa Mill NRC Inspcction Report 40-8681197-02 and Notice of Violation Response to Notice of Violation To Whom It l"{ay Concern: Attached is thc lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporatioq (IUSA), response to the Notice of Violation dated Augrst 12, 1997. The Notice of Violation is a result of the NRC inspection conductcd at thc White Mesa Mill on July 15 to 17, 1997. If you have any questioru regarding this matter, pleasc feel frec to contact me at (801) William N. Deal Manageq Whirc Mesa Mill Attachment xc: Central file R. A, Scarono, Regional Administrator, NRC Region tV E. E. Hoellen,IUSA D. C. Frydenlun4 ruSA tL R Roberts, ruSA lvL R Rehmann, ruSA R. E. Berg IUSA W. J. Sinclair, Execttive Secretary, Utah Radiation Control Board 678-2221. Sinccrely, Violation 40-868 l/970 I -0 I Failure to take the annual sa of air samples for radioisotopic analyses during 1996 License Condition No. 29 rcquires, in part, that the licensee CItablish written Standard Opcrating Proccdures (SOPs) for all operational activitics involving radioactive materials tlr,at are handle{ processed, and stored. Section 2 of the licensee's Radiation Protection Procedures Manual, requires, in par! that a set of air samples are to be taken annrully at various mill sites and are to be analped for natural uranium, thorium-230, radium-2 26, lead-210, and polonium-2 I 0. Contrary to the above, the licensee did not take the set of air samples specified in the application for radioisotopic analyses during 1996. Reason for Violation In the White Mesa Mill's License Applicatioq License No. 1358, Docka No. 40-8681, appendix D, thc White Mesa Mill's Radiation Protection Procedures Manual is attached. Specifically Section 2.1 of that manual identifies procedures, equipmen! frequency and locations, etc. for high volume ruea airborne particulate sampling. Subsection 2.1.2 =indicates, in part "Annually a sct of samples, covering eight hours of sampling, each at 40 slprn, will b€ taken at all sites on Table - Airborne Radiation Sampling Locations, and analyzed for: U-rat Th-230, Ra-226,Pb210 and Po-210." License Condition I1.4 of the current Operating License, expiration date 2007 indicates: 'During ertended periods of mill standby, eight-hour annual sampling for U-nef Th-230' R '226, Pb210 and Pb2l0 may be eliminated, if routine airborne sampling shorYr levels below l0oh of 10 CFR Part 2Q limi6' (emphasis added). The mill weni into standby status in March 1996 and returned to operational statrs from June 1996 until Septembcr 1996. From October 1996 throudr t lay 1997 the Mill was once again in standby status. Druing that time, uranium airborne particutate sample concentnations urcre below l}yo of the l0 CFR Part 20 limits (twenty three locations) with the exception of the north and south dr/ing rooms and the yellowcake packagrng room. These areas slightly exceeded l0o/o of thc most restrictivc DAC concentration (14 to 20o/o) with a murimgm concentration of 30% of DAC. These areas were never enterd even on a non-routine basis. There was no maintenance activity in these areas at any time. These areas werc sarnpled only as a matter of routine. [6rral, eight-hour samples werc collected and analfrrd for the above isotopes on December 19, 1995. It is our opinion that because the White Mesa Mill was in abeyant operationsl statu for 8n extenM period of 1996, as well as 1997, and that any area of the Mill cxcep for non-occupid closed, non-operating rooms were below l0o/o of the @ restrictive IQCFR Parts 20 limits, that no violation of the operating license occurred lt was the Licensee's interpretation of this license condition that until the Mill resumed operatiorq no annual eight-hour sampling was required. Additionally, Section 2.1.2 of the License Renewal Application, in part, indicates that the Radiation Safcty Oflicer ESO) will designate those areas that are required to bc involved in area monitoring during non-productive periods. The thrce unoccupied areas which exceeded l0% of the most restrictive l0 CIIR Part 20 limits rvere not designated by the RSO as areas where sampling was requird because they were no-occupied, closed, norrcperating areas. However these areas were sampled inadvertently by staff personnel, again as a matter of routine. Circumstances that led to the violation To review the circumsknces that led to the violation, ruC has conducted interviews with management personnel and those responsible for implementing and conducting the various sampling prognrms required at the mill and reviewed data and other records that relate to the violation. The annural eight-hour air-sampling program was rwiewed to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the program. It was the opinion of the licensee that because of the abeyant operational status of the mill and all areas of the mill werc below l0% of the l0 CFR Part 20 limits for that period except in three non-operational ar@s, that the exemption of License Condition I1.4 of the liccnse was applicable. The appropriateness of this determination was supported by the discretional designation of which areas of the mill are subject to air monitoring requirement during non-operational periods. It was determined by the RSO that because of the non-operational, non- occupied areas of the yellowcake drying network that air sample collection in those closcd rooms was not required. lnadvertent samples were collected in those rooms as a matter of routine. The root causc of the violation can be attributed to the miscommunication to the staff with respect to sampling protocol during non-operational periods. Staffwas not requested to sample the three areas and should not have sampled them. However once the samples had been takeq staffsimply formally documented, recorded and evidenced the fact. Corrective actions taken and results achieved As stated above, a thorough review of the area radiation-monitoring program has begun to ensure a full understanding and compliancc with the program. Additionally, a review and analysis of the environmental and radiological impact of a change in the High Volume Airborne Particulate Sampling procedure will be conducted If the review indicates that the program can be modified without any adverse impacts on the environmen! or the radiological health and safety of the employees and public, a request for amendment will be prepared and submitted to the U. S. NRC. This request to amend the High Volume Airborne Particulate Sampling Procedure will be based on analyses and review of historical data relating to this provision with regard to meanfutlness of data, applicability to radiological exposure assessments to mill personnel and scientific value. Should this review and analysis of environmental impact provide a basis for a change in High Volume Airborne Particulate Sampling under Section 2.1.2, it is suggested in part this section be amended to: Annually a set of samples covering eight hours sampling at a high cofiection flow rate ( Z 40 lpm ) at routinely occupied or frequented areas rvill b€ taken and analpcd for gross alpha An isotopic analysis of operation mill feed or production product will bc arvlyzndfor isotopes U-nat, Th-230, Rr'226, and PB-210 and will be used as fundamental constituent composition of air sample particulates. Stens to Avoid Future Violations: Implementing initiatives for continuous formal communication directives, policies and substantive plans bctween management and staffwill eliminate violations of this nature. Muragemen! to ensure the effectiveness and applicability to the policy will conduct a frequent review of thesc initiatives. The implementation of communications initiatives is currcntly in place and continuously ongoing These provisions have been and will be reviewed by management ALARA audit programs. A rcview and subsequent license amendment request of sanrple collection of area airborne samples described as deficient in this noticc of violation will be completed and submitted to the U. S. NRC within 60 days from this response date. 40-868t -970142 Failure to statisticall), anallze pond water samole results to determine whether sisnificant Iinear trends existed and to submit this information to the NRC. "License Condition 48.A requires, in part, that the licensee implement a groundwater detection monitoring progtrm to ensure compliance to l0 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The detection monitoring program is required to be in accordance with the licensee's Augustl, 1989, submittal. The program is to include the following actions. The leak detection systems for all ponds are to be checked weekly. If liquid is presen! the water is to be analyrcd for chloride, sulfate, selenium, and pH. The samples are to be statistically amlyzed to determine if significant linear trends exist and the results are to be submitted to the NRC for rcview.- "Contrary to the above, the licensee analyzcd seveD pond water samples in 1997 and 28 pond water samples in 1997 from Cell 2 and Cell 4A; however, the samples were not statistically analyzed to determine whether significant linear trends existed and the results were not submitted to the NRC for review." "This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VI)." Reason for the Violation This violation concems a failurc to statistically at:mrlyz*,, and send analytical results of Leak Detection System ('LDS") samples to the NRC for review. We note that l0 CFR Part 2,ice (NUREG- 1600, June 30 I995X"NRC Enforcement Policy'') states that "when a problon requiring corrective action is NRC identifie4 the decision on whether to give the licensee credit foi activities related to idcntification should normally bc based on an additional question: Should the licensee have reasonably identified the problem (and taken action) earlier?" Sec VI B. 2. b. (2.) (iii). Considering the circumstances detailed below under "Circumstances that led to the violation", as part of the Root Cause Analysis, one might question if it was reasonable to have expected International Uranium CUSII 6orporati-on('[UC") to have identified the problem and taken action earlier. In the following Root Cause Analysis, we attribute our failure to identifr this potential violation tro tfuee factors: (A) our understanding of the specific wording used in applicable license conditions and referenced submittals; (B) previous NRC inspection riport conclusions that our progmm was in full compliance with the applicable license conditions; and (C) our long-held understanding of the technical basis and objectives of the groundwater monitoring program. We view the current NRC finding as an opportunity to analyze the situation with a viewto cnsuring that the license conditions and technical submittals arc compatible and reflective of the correct technical approach. We note, for example, that at least three recent NRC inspections concluded that "the monitoring program was being conducted in accordance with license requirements-. However, we also note that the riissued license has eliminated refcrences to technical support documents which had been conditioned in the previous license, thereby eliminating reference to a key technical submittal made on August l, 1989, that described the purpose of leak detection system monitoring. The stated purpose of LDS monitoring was that a statistically significant increase in thc volume of fluid would trigger an increased sampling frequency of compliance monitoring wells on the downgradient edge of the disposal area. Under Corrective Actions Taken and Results Achieve{ we propose working with the NRC to gain concurrence on the objectives and requirements of the present license, with ttte goal of promptly developing modifications to our reporting prograrn and/or license amendments to ensure compatibility between the technical and compliance aspeca of the groundwater monitoring progranl. Under Steps to Avoid Future Violations, we find that a review of the existing program in light of present license conditions and overall program intent is needed This analysis, which is likely to lead to an application to amend the license to meet the objectives of the groundwater monit,oring program, is a comprehensive means to prevent a repeat of this violation. ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS Circumstarrces That Led to the Violation To review the circumstances that led to the violation, IUC has conducted interviews with management personnel and those responsible for training or procedure development/guidance, with emphasis on lines of communication between supervisors and workers; and reviewed audits and other records that relate directly or indirectly to the violation. The groundwater monitoring program was reviewed to assess whether or not its overall objectives and requirements are clearly stated and implemented. As detailed below, IUC identified wealrresses in the understanding of this particular requirement. We also found that rccords which rclate directly or indirectly to the violation further give an impresion that the existing approach to compliancc was appropriate. Finally, we found that the overall prognm, as uflated in the 1994 Point of Compliance rcpor! is no longer conditioned in our liccnse on earlier key submittals. In short, we believe that the root cause of this violation was our failure to resssess the associated pond monitoring requirements in light of the final Point of Compliance ("POC") approactr, which was reviewed and approved by the NRC; and to ensure that the POC approach did not change the originally-stated objective of LDS monitoring. A- Applicable License Conditionr Prior to tk Marc[ 1997 renewal of the NRC License for the Mill, the following license conditions were in effect with regard to (l) environmental monitoring and (2) monitoring of the leak detection systems ("LDS"): l. Eftluent and Environmental Monitoring License Condition 24 in License Amendment No. 40 reads as follows (emphasis added): 24, The licensec shall implement the eflluent and environmental monitoring program specified in Section S.S of the renewal application as revised with the following mod ifications or add itionr: Stack sampling shall include a determination of flow rate. TLD chips used for radon monitoring shall be exchanged and read quarterly. Surface water samples shall also be analyzed semiannually for total and dissolved U-nat, Ra-226, and Th-230 with the exception of the Westwater Creelg which shall be sampled annually for water or sediments and analyzed as above. A sediment sample shall not be taken in place of a water sample unless a water sample was not available- Groutdwater samples from Monitoring wells, 1,2,3,4, 5, ll,12,14, 15, and the culinary water well, shall be analyzed quartcrly for pfl, specific conductance, chlorides, sulfates, TDS, and U-nat Quarterly water level measuremeng shall also be made. Groundwater samples shall be analyzed semiannually for arsenic, seleniurn, sodium, Ra'226, Th.230, and Pb-210. Data for the quarrcrly groundwater parametcrs shall be maintained in graphical form and copies of the graphs included with the environmental monitoring reports submined in accordance with I0 CFR 40.65. The licensee shall utilize lower limits of detection in accordance with Section 5 of Regulatory Guide 4.14, Revision l, dated April 1980, for analysis of effluent and environmental samples. The inspections performed semiannually of the critical orificc assembly committed to in the submittal dated March 15, [9E6, shall be documented. The critical orifice assembly shall bc calibrated at least every 2 years agairut a positive displacement Roots meter to obtain the rcquired calibration curye. [Applicable Amendments: 2, 15,28, and 3t] We have always interpreted the highlighted phrase 'as revised with the following modilications or additions', as meaning that points A through G rcvise, modify and supersede provisions in License Condition 24. A. B. c. D. E. F. G. Leak Detection System Monitoring In addition to the groundwater monitoring described in License Condition 24, License Condition 48 of Amendment No. 40 references the licensee's August l, 1989 submiual (emphasis added): 48. The licensee shall implement a groundwater detection monitoring program to ensure compliance to t0 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The detcction monitoring program she1 b€ in accordance with the licenseets August I' 1989' submittal snd include the following: C. The leak detection system for all ponds will be checked weekly. If liquid is presenq it shatl be analyzed for chloride, sulfate, selenium and ptl The samples will be statistically analyzed to determine if significant linear trends exist and the result will be submitted to the NRC for review. If a signiFrcant trend is indicatd tlre licensee will submit a proposed corrective action for review and approval to the NRC. The corrective action shall include a discussion on delineation of tbe areal extent and concentration of trazardous constituen8. To determine whethcr increases in the Pond 2 leak detection system arc from tailings seepage or from sedimentation pond seepage, tlre licensec shall by April l, 1991, implement the changes proposed in their submittal of April 3, 1990. In addition, the licensee shall collect a minimrtm of six samples characterizing the sedimentation pond material prior to construction and arwlyze for U-nat and Ra-226. A copy of the analyses shall be submitted by February 15, 1991. The licenscc shall sample monitoring wells 5, ll, 12, 14, and 15 for potential hazrrdous constituents and submit this daa b the NRC so that background can be established and groundwater protection standards set. [Applicable Amendments: 6, 8, I0, 22,and3tl We have always interprcted the highlighted phrase, 'thall be in lccordance with the Iicensee's August l, 19E9, submittal and include the following:' as meaning something quite different from the highlighted phrasc in License Condition 24. This is that points A through D do not replace or superscde the August l, 1989 submittal, but that the Augrrst l, 1989 submittal prevails, with the addition of poins A through D. Our interpretation has been that if the NRC had meant for License Condition 48 to be intended to replace the August l, 1989 submittal, the language would have been similar to that us€d in License Condition 24. Indee4 it has long been ou understanding that the NRC expected u to comply with both License Condition 48 and the August l, 1989 submittal. That submittal listed a series of events which must occur prior to statistical analysis of monitoring well data to determine B. D. if significant linear trend exists for the selected, listed parameters. In particular, the following two events must first occur: l. The lrak Detection System is checked weekly to detect the presence of any liquids. Any liquids Present willb€ sampled; and 2. Determination of significant leakage will trigger an increased sampling frequency of the down gradient edge of the disposal area The August l, 1989 submittal defines the level of "significant leakage" that rvould trigger increased sampling of the monitoring wells (not the LDS). Upon review, we find that License Condition 48, in particular, was confirsing as to what is required. Nevertheless we have, to the best of ou abilities, diligently attempted to rorpiy. With regard to point A of license condition 48, we have collected and aro;lyznd samples collected from the LDS and subrnitted those data to the NRC for review at inspcctions. As discussed under @) below, the outcome of such inspections bolstered our belief that our understanding of the rcquirement was correst With regard to point B of License Condition 48, we have assumed that this was consistent with the August l, 1989 submittal, which provides that data from the monitoring wells be statistically analyzed This seems reasonable from the technical perspective, as well, since the data objective would be to use the data from monitoring wells to characterize the naturc and extent of contamination. B. Conclusions from Previous NRC fnspection Repolb In an effort to ensure our @mmon understanding of facts and root causes, and to determine whether or not our interprctation of Licensc Conditions 24 and 48 with the NRC's view during previors years, we have rcviewed four recent reports of NRC inspcctions of the White Mesa Mill. Pleasc note that our summary of these reports (Table l) shows that in three of four inspections, the inspector specifically reviewed the LDS data requirernent and concluded that 'the monitoring prognun was being conducted in accordance with license requirements". C. Grouudwater Monitoring Progrem Objectives Understanding the objectives of the groundwater monitoring program is critical to ensuring that the monitoring and reporting associated with the program, and as reflected within license conditions, are consistent While IUC believes it is vitally important to take promp corrective actions to address the noncompliant condition, we also believe that the corrective action must be broad enough to reasonably prevent reculrence of the sperific violation as well as prevent similar violations. In particular, it appears that the tichnical approach described in the August 1, 1989 submittal, which was referenced in License Condition 48, is no longer taken into consideration. ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS While we acknowledge that the wording of the License Condition 48 may be interpreted to suggest a need to submit aaalytical data for the LDS to the NRC, is has, as statd above, long been our understanding that this was a function of the criteria listed in the August l, 1989 submittal. This approach made technical sense, in that significantly increascd levels of liquid in thc LDS would trigger increased sampling of monitoring nrclls, satistical analysis of monitoring well data" and reporting; and, wc believed that the NRC had the same rur&rstanding, as our inspeclion reports corroborated. In addition, this approach is consistent with that defined in our Point of Compliance Proposal, wtrich designates that the monitoring wells completed in the perched zone of groundwater, are the poina used to erraluate potential leakage from tailings cells. We have always interpreted the phrase, sshall be in accordence with the licensee's August I' 19E9, submittrl and include the following:' in License Condition 48 as meaning something quite differcnt from the highlighted phrase in License Condition 24. This is that points A through D do not replace or supersede the August l, 1989 submittal, but that the August l, l9E9 submittal prevails, with the addition of points A through D. Our interpretation has be€n that if the NRC had meant for License Condition 48 to be intended to replace the August I, 1989 submittal, thc language would have becn similar to that used in Licerse Condition 24. Corrective Actions Taken and Results Achieved: As discussed previously, the August l, 1989 submittal listed a series of events which mrst occur prior to statistical analysis of monitoring well data to determine if significant linear rend exists for the selected, Iisted parameters. In particular, the following hro events mrst first occur: l. The I-eak Detection System is checked weeHy to detect the presence of uty liquids. Any liquids present will be s"mpled; aad 2. Detcrmination of significant leakage will rigger an increased sampling frequency ofthc downgrsdient edgB of the disposal area The August l, 1989 submittal defines the level of "significant leakage" that would trigger increased sampling of thc monitoring wells (not the I-DS). ruC is prepared-to immediarcly compile any LDS data the NRC requires, and to seek NRC's assistance in understanding the cuncnt License Condition I1.3, to ensurc full compliarrce. Based on our discussions with thc NRC during the July 15-17 inspectioq it now appears tbat License Condition I1.3 of our renewal license suggests that the refercnced document (in this case, the report entitled ?oints of Compliance, Whitc Mess Uranium Mill," submitted by letter dated October 5, 1994x'?oint of Compliance Proposal-) is modified by combined conditions for both environmental and leak detection system monitoring with data from the LDS being submitted to the NRC for rwiew and dara from the monitoring wells being submittcd in accordance with 40 CFR 40.65. Although IUC is in the process of compiling LDS quality data for statistical analysis this will not provide a long-term solution. Concurrcncc between the NRC and IUC on the objectives of the grorurdwater monitoring program is critical to ensuring that the monitoring and reporting associated with the prognm, as conditioned by the license, are consistent with those objectives. White IUC desires to take prompt conective actions to address the noncompliant condition, we also seek NRC's assistance in ensuring that the corrective action is broad enough to reasonably prevcnt recurcncc of the specific violation as well as prevent similar violations. In particular, it appears that the technical approach described in the Augrrst l, 1989 submittal, which was refercnced in License Condition 48, b€ reviewed as to technical impact on the POC program. Perhaps that submital should rcmain a technical element of the groundwater monitoring prograrn On the other hand, given that the POC submittal details criteria that would lead to irrcreased sample fr,equency, perhaps the LDS approach should bc rcvised In either went, it would not s€em appropriarc to infer in any way the LDS is treated as a POC. Statistical analysis of LDS quality data was not proposed by the licensec at any time. Such analysis may result in the misconception that the LDS is viewed as a POC. The LDS clearly is not a POC. Steos to Avoid Futurc Violations: Based on our prcviots NRC inspections, we believe that the existing licensc rcquircmert is somewhat different from previous License Condition 48. Our rwiew to date, in facq suggests that a crucial disconnect has occurred bstween the technical basis and objectives of the monitoring prograrn, and the license condition Thercforc, IUC commits to promptly submitting a review of the technical basis of the mouitoring program and to daermining u&ether or not a license amendment is necessary to ensure compatibility bctween the technical objectives and the license conditions. This review and our report of the review will bc completed and submitted to the NRC within 60 days of the darc of this letter. If ruC finds that a license amendment is indicate4 a rcquest to amend will be submitted together with the program review rcport. Enclosurcs (l) TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF RECENT INSPECTIONS WHITE MESA MILL IN SPECTION DATE/COMMENTS LICENSE CONDITION NI.JMBER AMENDMENT NUMBER/DATE March l-2,1995 (report March 31, 1995) Inspection Report Section 3.1 lnspector determined that fire licensee had complied with these liccnsc conditions. L.C. No. 48 37lDecember 14,1994 Augrrst 8-l l, 1995 (report September 15, 1995 Inspector noted rhat nater was in LDS of ccll 4: Concluded that program was in accordance with liccnsc rcquircments. L.C. No.48 40/August l, 1995 Jannary 23-25,1996 (report ldarch 28,1996) Inspcctor noted thar the LDS has solutions in it, and disctssed leakagc ratc. Report conclusions state that the monitoring program was being conducted in accordance with license requirements. L.C. No. 48 4llSeptember 28, 1995 Jannary 14-16,1997 No mention of LDS. 40-868U9701{3 Failure to conduct several weeklv aloha survevs during 1997 License Condition 9.3 of Source Ma&rial License SUA-1358 requires, in part that the licensoe conduct opcrations in accordance with statements, representations, and conditions contained in thc license rcnewal application submitted by later dated August 23,l99l. Section 2.3 ofthe renewal application statcs, in part that fixed and removable alpha surveys will be conductcd weekly at various site locations. Contrary to the above, during 1997 weckly alpha surveys were not conducted as specified. The number of alpha surveys not conducted represented 20 percent of the required total for that duration. Reason for Violation: During the first six months of l997there were five (5) occasions when the weekly alpha surveys were not conducted in accordance with the license rcrrcwal application, due to scheduling ovenights. On one occasion, a holiday fell on the scheduled sample date and on the other occasions, personnel assigned to the sampling were on vacation and an adequate task list was not in place at that time to ensure that all required sanrpling was complaed Corrective Actions Taken and Results Achieved: Effcctive JuIy 21, 1997 dl personnel in the Radiation, Safety, and Environmental Departrnents are being cross-trained in the variou sampling requirements for each departmenr In addition, thc weekly alpha surveys have bcen rescheduled to occur on Monday of each u,eelq rather than Friday. This will allow more flexibility should conflicts arise that prevent the required sampling to take place on a certain day and will ensurc that the samples are taken weekly. AIso, a detailed task list is bcing developed, to ensure that all sampling requirements are met in a timely manner. Steps to Avoid Fuure Violations: As stated above, all Radiation, Ssfety, and Environmental personnel are being cross hained in sampling requircments and protocol for the various departurents. Also in the firture, as pemonnel in these departrnents schedule rracations, they will be required to review any upcoming sampling requirements with the appropriate personnel. This requirernent coupled with the implementation of a detailed task list will eliminate any future occrrreDce ofthis violation. Date When Full Compliance Will Be Achieved As stated above under itcm 2, the liccnsce is again in full compliancc with License Condition No. 9.3 and Section 2.3 of the rerrcwal applicatioq in thar sampling procedures havc been reviscd " -t"^8 REcut\ W UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASH INGTON, D.C. 20555-0@1 Apri'l 17 , 1998 Mr. Earl E. Hoellen, President !nternational Uranium (USA) Corporation lndependence Plaza, Suite 950 1 050 Seventeenth Street Denver, Colorado 80265 SUBJECT: AMENDMENT 5 TO SOURCE MATERTAL LICENSE SUA-1358, WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL - ANNUAL SURETY UPDATE Dear Mr. Hoellen: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has completed its review of an amendment request submitted by lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation (IUSA) by letter dated January 27, 1998. By this submittal, IUSA proposed a revised surety amount of $1 1 ,469,859 to account for inflationary increases from December 19g6 to December 19g7. The NRC staffs review finds that the proposed increase in the surety amount is appropriate, and the revised amount of $11,469,859 is acceptable. The staff also has taken this opportunity to make two editorial changes to Source Material License SUA-1358. The first modification involves including reference to a June 8, 1gg5, submittal by the former licensee for the site, Energy Fuels Nuclear (EFN), by which EFN requested that its environmental radon sampling program be suspended. The NRC staff approved this amendment request on September 28, 1995, but inadvertently failed to include reference to this submittalwhen SUA-1358 was renewed in March 1997. The second change will clarify that, as part of the site environmental monitoring program, IUSA will sample Westwood Creek annually for water or sediments. The word "ot'' was dropped inadvertenily from the condition in the renewal license. Both of these editorial changes will be reflected in License Condition 1 1.2. Therefore, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40, SUA-1358 is hereby amended by revising License Condition Nos. 9.5 and 11.2. All other conditions of this license shall remain the same. The enclosed license is being reissued to incorporate the above modifications. An environmental review was not performed since these administrative actions are categorically excluded under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(101. E. Hoellen These changes to your license were discussed in a telephone conversation on April 16, 1998, between Ms. Michelle Rehmann of IUSA, and Mr. James Park of my staff. lf you have any questions regarding this letter or the enclosure, please contact Mr. Park at (301) 415-6699. Sincerely, -2- u Joseph J. Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Docket No.40-8681 SUA-1358, Amendment No. 5 Case Closed: L51621 Enclosure: As stated cc: W.Sinclair, UT M.Rehmann, IUSA PAGE .I OF R PAGESNRC FOBM 374 (7-94\U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MATERIALS LICENSE Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-438), and Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Parts 30, 3l , 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, and 70, and in reliance on statements and representations heretofore made by the licensee, a license is hereby issued authorizing the licensee to receive, acquire, possess, and transfer byproduct, source, and special nuclear material designated below; to use such material for the purpose(s) and at the place(s) designated below; to deliver or transfer such material to persons authorized to receive it in accordance with the regulations of the applicable Part(s). This license shall be deemed to contain the conditions specified in Section 183 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and is subject to all applicable rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission now or hereafter in effect and to any conditions specified below. Licensee lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation [Applicable Amendments: 2] 6425 S. Highway 191 P.O. Box 809 Blanding, Utah 84511 [Applicable Amendments: 2] 3. License Number SUA-1358, Amendment No. 5 4. Expiration Date March 31,2OO7 5. Docket or Reference No.40-8681 6. Byproduct, Source, and/or Special Nuclear Material SECTION 9.1 9.2 9.3 7. Chemical and/or Physical Form 8. Maximum Amount that Licensee May Possess at Any One Time Under This License UnlimitedNatural Uranium Any e: Administrative Conditions The authorized place of use shall be the licensee's White Mesa uranium milling facility, located in San Juan County, Utah. All written notices and reports to the NRC required under this license, with the exception of incident and event notifications under 10 CFR 20.2202 and 10 CFR 40.60 requiring telephone notification, shall be addressed to the Chief, Uranium Recovery Branch, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. lncident and event notifications that require telephone notification shall be made to the NRC Operations Center at (301) 816-5100. The licensee shall conduct operations in accordance with statements, representations, and conditions contained in the license renewal application submitted by letter dated August 23, 1991, as revised by submittals dated January 13, and April 7, 1992, November 22, 1994, July 27 , 1995, December 13, and December 31 , 1996, and January 30, 1997, which are hereby incorporated by reference, and for the Standby Trust Agreement, dated April 29, 1997, ex3ept where superseded by license c('nditions below. Whenever the word "will" is used in the above referenced documents, it shall denote a requirement. [ApplicableAmendment:2] A. The licensee may, without prior NRC approval, and subject to the conditions specified in Part B of this condition: 9.4 (1) Make changes in the facility or process, as presented in the application. NBC FORM 374A (7-94) U,S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MATERIALS LICENSE SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 8 PAGES License Number Docket or Reference Number (2) Make changes in the procedures presented in the application. (3) Conduct tests or experiments not presented in the application. B. The licensee shall file an application for an amendment to the license, unless the following conditions are satisfied. (1) The change, test, or experiment does not conflict with any requirement specifically stated in this license, or impair the licensee's ability to meet all applicable NRC regulations. (2) There is no degradation in the essential safety or environmental commitments in the license application, or provided by the approved reclamation plan. (3) The change, test, or experiment is consistent with the conclusions of actions analyzed and selected in the EA dated February 1997. C. The licensee's determinations concerning Part B of this condition, shall be made by a "Safety and Environmental Review Panel (SERP)." The SERP shall consist of a minimum of three individuals. One member of the SERP shall have expertise in management and shall be responsible for managerial and financial approval changes; one member shall have expertise in operations and/or construction and shall have responsibility for implementing any operational changes; and, one member shall be the corporate radiation safety officer (CRSO) or equivalent, with the responsibility of assuring changes conform to radiation safety and environmental requirements. Additional members may be included in the SERP as appropriate, to address technical aspects such as health physics, groundwater hydrology, surface-water hydrology, specific earth sciences, and other technical disciplines. Temporary members or permanent members, other than the three above-specified individuals, may be consultants. D. The licensee shall maintain records of any changes made pursuant to this condition until license termination. These records shall include written safety and environmental evaluations, made by the SERP, that provide the basis for determining changes are in compliance with the requirementS refened to in Part B of this condition. The licensee shall furnish, in an annual report to NRC, a description of such changes, tests, or experiments, including a summary of the safety and environmental evaluation of each. ln addition, the licensee shall annually submit to the NRC changed pages to the Operations Plan and Reclamation Plan of the approved license application to reflect changes made under this condition. The licensee's SERP shall function in accordance with the standard operating procedures submitted by letter dated June 10, 1997. [Applicable Amendments: 3] NRC FORM 374A (7-94)U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MATERIALS LICENSE SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET OF License Number Docket or Ref,erence Number 9.5 The licensee shall maintain an NRGapproved financial surety arrangement, consistent with 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, adequate to cover the estimated costs, if accomplished by a third party, for decommissioning and decontamination of the mill and mill site, for reclamation of any tailings or waste disposal areas, ground-water restoration as warranted and for the long-term surveillance fee. Within three months of NRC approval of arevised reclamation/decommissioning plan, the licensee shall submit, for NRC review and approval, a proposed revision to the financial surety arrangement if estimated costs in the newly approved plan exceed the amount covered in the existing financial surety. The revisedsurety shall then be in effect within 3 months of written NRC approval. Annual updates to the surety amount, regulred by 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, shall be submitted to the NRC at least 3 months prior to the anniversary date which is designated as June 4 of each year. lf the NRC has not:approved a proposed revision to thesurety coverage 30 days prior to the expiration date of the existing surety arrangement, thelicensee shall extend the existing surety arrangement for 1 year. Along with eaci proposed revision or annual update, the licLnsee shall sIOmit supporting documlntation showing abreakdown of the costs and the basis for the cost estimates with adjustments for inflatr:on,maintenance of a minimum 15 percent contingency fee, changes in engineering plans; activities performed and any other conditions affecting estimated costifor siteiiosure. Thebasis for the cost estimate is the NRC approved reclalnation/decommissioning plan or NRCapproved revisions to the plan. The previously prouided guidance entitled "Recommended Outline for Site Specific Reclamation and Stabilization Cost Estimates" ouflines the minimumconsiderations used by the NRC in the review of site closure estimates. Reclamation/decommissioning plans and annual updates should follow this oufline. The currently approved surety instrument, a Performance Bond issued by National Union Fire lnsurance Company in favor of the NRC, and the associated Slandby Trust Agreement, dated April 29, 1997, shall be conlinuously maintained in an amount not l-ess than $11,469,859 for the purpose of complying with 1O CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria g and 10, until a replacernent is authorized by the NRC. [Applicable Amendments: 2, 3, 5] Standard operating procedures shall be establishedrand followed for all operational process activities involving radioactive materials that are handled, processed, or siored. SOps for operational activities shall enumerate pertinent radiation safety practices to be followed. Additionally, written procedures shall be established for non-operational activities to include in-plant and environmental monitoring, bioassay analyses, and instrument calibrations. An up-to-date copy of each written procedure shall be kept in the mill area to which it applies. All written procedures for both operational ar.d non-operational activities shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the radiation safety officer (RSO) before implementation andwhenever a change in procedure is proposed to ensure that proper radiation protection principles are being applied. ln addition, the RSO shall perform a documented review of all existing operating procedures at least annually. Before engaging in any activity not previously assessed by the NRC, the licensee shall administer a cultural resource inventory. All disturbances associated with the proposed development will be completed in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (as 9.6 9.7 NRC FORM 374A 17-941 8 PAGES License Number SUA-1358, Amendment No. 5 Docket or Reference Number amended) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (as amended) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 7). ln order to ensure that no unapproved disturbance of cultural resources occurs, any work resulting in the discovery of previously unknown cultural artifacts shall cease. The artifacts shall be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, and no disturbance shall occur until the licensee has received authorization from the NRC to proceed. The licensee shall avoid by project design, where feasible, the archeological sites designated "contributing" in the report submitted by letter dated July 28, 1988. When it is not feasible to avoid a site designated "contributing!'in the report, the licensee shalt institute a data recoveryprogram for that site based on the research design submitted by letter from C. E. Baker of Energy Fuels Nuclear to Mr. Melvin T. Smith, Utah State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), dated April 13, 1981. The licensee shall recover through archeological excavation all "contributing" sites listed inthe report which are located in or within 100 feet of bonow areas, stockpileLreas, construction areas, or the perimeter of the reclaimed tailings impoundment. Data recoveryfieldwork at each site meeting these criteria shall be completed prior to the start of anyproject related disturbance within 100 feet of the site, but analysis and report preparaiion need not be complete. Additionally, the licensee shall conduct such testing as is required to enable the Commissionto determine if those sites designated as "Undetermined" in the report and located within 100 feet of present or known future construction areas are of such significance to warranttheir redesignation as "contributing." ln all cases, such testing shall be completed before anyaspect of the undertaking affects a site. Archeological contractors shall be approved in writing by the Commission. The Commissionwill approve an archeological contractor who meets the minimum standards for a principal investigator set forth in 36 CFR Part 66, Appendix C, and whose qualifications are found acceptable by the SHPO. The licensee is hereby authorized to possess byproduct material in the form of uranium waste tailings and other uranium byproduct waste generated by the licensee's milling operations authorized by this license. Mill tailings shall not be transferred from the site without specific prior approval of the NRC in the form of a license amendment. The licenseeshall maintain a permanent record of all transfers made under the provisions of this condition. The licensee is hereby exempted from the requirements of Section 20.1902 (e) of 10 CFR Paft2r,t for areas within the mill, provided the t all entrances to the mill are conspicuously posted in accordance with Section 20.1902 (e) and with the words, "Any area within this mill may contain radioactive material." Release of equipment or packages from the restricted area shall be in accordance with "Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Material," datedMay 1987, orsuitable alternative procedures approved by the NRC priorto any such release. U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MATERIALS LICENSE SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 4oF 9.8 9.9 9.10 NRC FORM 374A (7-94) U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MATERIALS LICENSE SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET PAGE 5 OF t,car* "rrDat SUA-1 358. Amendment No. Docket or Reference Number 8 PAGES sECTtoN 10: Operational Controls, Limits, and Restrictions 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 The mill production rate shall not exceed 4380 tons of yellowcake per year. All liquid effluents from mill process buildings, with the exception of sanitary wastes, shall be returned to the mill circuit or discharged to the tailings impoundment. Freeboard limits for Cells 1-1, 3, and 44, and tonnage limits for Cell 3, shall be as stated in Section 3.0 to Appendix E of the approved license application. Disposal of material and equipment generated at the mill site shall be conducted as described in the licensee's submittals dated December 12,1994 and May 23, 1995, with the following addition: A. The maximum lift thickness for materials placed over tailings shall be less than 4-feet thick. Subsequent lifts shall be less than 2-feet thick. Each lift shall be compacted by tracking of heavy equipment, such as a Cat D-6, at least 4 times prior to placement of subsequent lifts. ln accordance with the licensee's submittal dated May 20, 1993, the licensee is hereby authorized to dispose of byproduct material generated at licensed in situ leach facilities, subject to the following conditions: A. Disposal of waste is limited to 5000 cubic yards from a single source. B. All contaminated equipment shall be dismantled, crushed, or sectioned to minimize void spaces. Barrels containing waste other than soil or sludges shall be emptied into the disposal area and the barrels crushed. Banels containing soil or sludges shall be verified to be full prior to disposal. Banels not completely full shall be filled with tailings or soil. C. All waste shall be buried in Cell No. 3 unless prior written approval is obtained from the NRC for alternate burial locations. D. All disposal activities shall be documented. The documentation shall include descriptions of the waste and the disposal locations, as well as all actions required by this condition. An annual summary of the amounts of waste disposed of from off-site generators shall be sent to the NRC. The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materials from the Allied Signal Corpor,rtion's Metropolis, lllinois, facility in a:cordance with the amendment request dated June 15, 1993. The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from Allied Signal, lnc. of Metropolis, lllinois, in accordance with the amendment request dated September 20, 1996, and amended by letters dated October 30, and November 11, 1996. The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material, in accordance with the amendment request dated March 5, 1997. [Applicable Amendments: 1] 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 NRC FORM 374A (7-94) U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MATERIALS LICENSE SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET License Number SUA-1358, Amendment No. Docket or Reference Number 8 PAGES 10.9 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom Cabot Performance Materials'facility near Boyertown, Pennsylvania, in accordance with the amendment request dated April 3, 1997, as amended by submittals dated May 19, and August 6, 1997. [Applicable Amendments: 4] sECTtoN 11: Monitoring, Recording, and Bookkeeping Requirements 11.1 The results of sampling, analyses, surveys and monitoring, the results of calibration of equipment, reports on audits and inspections, all meetings and training courses required by this license and any subsequent reviews, investigations, and corrective actions, shall be documented. Unless otherwise specified in the NRC regulations all such documentation shall be maintained for a period of at least five (5) years. The licensee shall implement the effluent and environmental monitoring program specified in Section 5.5 of the renewal application, as amended by the submittal dated June 8, 1995, and as revised with the following modifications or additions: A. Stack sampling shall include a determination of flow rate. B. Surface water samples shall also be analyzed semiannually for total and dissolved U-nat, Ra-226, and Th-230, with the exception of the Westwater Creek, which shall be sampled annually for water or sediments and analyzed as above. A sediment sample shall not be taken in place of a water sample unless a water sample was not available. C. Groundwater sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements in License Condition 1 1.3. D. The licensee shall utilize lower limits of detection in accordance with Section 5 of Regulatory Guide 4.14 (Revision 1), for analysis of effluent and environmental samples. E. The inspections performed semiannually of the critical orifice assembly committed to in the submittal dated March 15, 1986, shall be documented. The critical orifice assembly shall be calibrated at least every 2 years against a positive displacement Roots meter to obtain the required calibration curye. [Applicable Amendment: 5] Ti e licensee shall implement a groundvrater detection monitoring program to ensure compliance to 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The detection monitoring program shall be in accordance with the report entitled, "Points of Compliance, White Mesa Uranium Mill," submitted by letter dated October 5, 1994, as modified by the following: A. The leak detection system for all ponds will be checked weekly. lf liquid is present, it shall be analyzed for chloride, sulfate, selenium, and pH. The samples will be statistically analyzed to determine if significant linear trends exist, and the results will be submitted to NRC for review. 11.2 11.3 NRC FORM 3744 (7-94) 11.4 1 1.s 11.6 12.1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MATERIALS LICENSE SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 7oF License Number SUA-1358, Amendment No. 5 Docket or Reference Number 8 PAGES B. lf a significant linear trend is indicated, the licensee will submit a proposed corrective action for review and approval to NRC. The conective action shall include a discussion on delineation of the areal extent and concentration of hazardous constituents. C. The licensee shall sample monitoring wells WMMW-S, -1 1, -12, -14, -15, and -17, on a quarterly basis. Samples shall be analyzed for chloride, potassium, nickel, and uranium, and the results of such sampling shall be included with the environmental monitoring reports submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 40.65. During extended periods of mill standby, eight-hour annual sampling for U-nat, Ra-226, Th-230 and Pb-210 may be eliminated if routine airbome sampling show levels below 10 percent of the appropriate 10 CFR Part 20 limits. During periods of standby, sampling frequencies for area airborne uranium sampling within the mill may be reduced to quarterly, provided measured levels remain below 10 percent of the derived air concentration (DAC). lf these levels exceed 10 percent of the DAC, the sampling frequenry should follow the recommendations in Regulatory Guide 8.30. Calibration of in-plant air and radiation monitoring equipment shall be performed as specified in the license renewal application, under Section 3.0 of the "Radiation Protection Procedures Manual," with the exception that in-plant air sampling equipment shall be calibrated at least quarterly and air sampling equipment checks shall be documented. The licensee shall perform an annual ALARA audit of the radiation safety program in accordance with Regulatory Guide 8.31. sECTloN 12: Reporting Requirements A. B. c. The licensee shall submit to NRC for review, by June 30, 1997, a detailed reclamation plan for the authorized tailings disposal area which includes the following: A post-operations interim stabilization plan which details methods to prevent wind and water erosion and recharge of the tailings area. A plan to determine the best methodology to dewater and/or consolidate the tailings cells prior to placement of the final reclamation cover. Plan and cross-sectional views of a final reclamation cover which details the location and elevation of tailings. The plan shall include details on cover thickness, physical characteristics of cover materials proposed testing of cover maierials (specifications and quality assurance), the estimated volumes of cover materials and their availability and location. Detailed plans for placement of rock or vegetative cover on the final reclaimed tailings pile and mill site area. A proposed implementation schedule for items A through D above which defines the sequence of events and expected time ranges. D. E. NRC FORM 3744 (7-94) U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MATERIALS LICENSE SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET PAGESOFSPAGES License Number SUA-1358, Amendment No. 5 Docket or Reference Number F. An analysis to show that the proposed type and thickness of soil cover is adequate to provide attenuation of radon and is adequate to assure long-term stability, as well as an analysis and proposal on methodology and time required to restore ground water in conformance to regulatory requirements. G. The licensee shall include a detailed cost analysis of each phase of the reclamation plan to include contractor costs, projected costs of inflation based upon the schedule proposed in item E, a proposed contingency cost, and the costs of long-term maintenance and monitoring. 12.2 The licensee shall submit a detailed decommissioning plan to the NRC at least twelve (12) months prior to planned final shutdown of mill operations. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION on" Qzrr/ ; 't ':zA/,! Joseplf J. Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards frrfrfril .m-r.mxx;m- UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASH|NGTON, D.C 20s5s-o001 February 13, 1998 lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation ATTN: Ms. Michelle Rehmann lndependence Plaza, Suite 950 1050 Seventeenth Street Denver, Colorado 80265 SUBJECT: ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DECEMBER 3, 1997, REQUEST FOR LICENSING ACTlON Dear Ms. Rehmann: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has completed the initial processing, which is an administrative review, of lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation's (IUSA's) application dated December 3, 1997, for an amendment to Source Material License SUA-1358. During its review, the NRC staff identified some omissions or deficiencies, which are discussed in the enclosure. However, IUSA's submittal is considered acceptable for the purpose of conducting a detailed technical review to evaluate further the proposed licensing action. ln order to support a timely review schedule, please provide additional information to address the deficiencies identified in the enclosure within 30 days from the date of this letter. ln accordance with 10 CFR 2.108(a), failure to respond to this request for additional information may be grounds for denial of the applicaiion. While awaiting the submission of the identified information, the NRC staff will proceed with the detailed technical review of IUSA's amendment application. Please note that the staff's review may identify a need for additional information or analyses for completing the requested licensing action. lf a need for further information is identified, the NRC staff will notify IUSA in writing. lf you have any questions concerning this letter or the enclosure, please contact the NRC Project Manager, Mr. James Park, at (301) 415-6699. Sincerely, a-e nlx-@*-J* Joseph J. Holonich', Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Docket No.40-8681 License No. SUA-1358 Enclosure: As stated ce: W. Sinclair, UT J) -". ro)$ss"$,o ',j Enclosure REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ln-Plant Radiological Monitoring at IUSA's White Mesa Uranium Mill lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation (IUSA) should provide the following information to address NRC staff-identified deficiencies in IUSA's amendment request, submitted by letter dated December 3, 1997: 1. Technical justification should be provided to show that the proposed modification in monitoring will be as or more effective than the current program in providing annual in-plant measurements of airborne radioactive particulates. BACKGROUND: ln its approved license application, IUSA has committed to taking and analyzing annual eight-hour samples for natural uranium, radium-226, thorium-230, lead-210, and polonium-210 and comparing the results with the limits in 10 CFR Part 20. Under License Condition 11.4 of SUA-1358, IUSA is authorized to eliminate this annual sampling during periods of extended standby under specified conditions. IUSA is proposing to replace this sampling program with (1) an analysis of annual eight- hour samples taken during operational periods, for gross alpha, and (2) an isotopic analysis of the mill feed or produclion product for U-nat, Th-230, Ra-226, and Pb-210 to assess the fundamental constituent composition of air sample particulates. It is not clear how the proposed sampling program will be as or more effective in providing the isotopic analysis information collected under the cunent program. Therefore, IUSA should describe how the proposed program will help to control or assess worker exposures to airborne radioactive particulates. ln particular, IUSA should describe how the radioisotopic data collected under the current procedure are used and how the data to be obtained under the proposed program will be used. 2. A description should be provided of the methods IUSA currently uses for assessing worker exposures to airborne radioactivity from Th-230, Ra-226, Pb-210, and Po-210. BACKGROUND: From a telephone conversation with the White Mesa facility's Radiation Safety Officer, it appears that the current program for assessing exposures from inhalation of radionuclides other than uranium (Th-230, Ra-226, Pb-210, and Po-210) uses an approach different from that described in the procedures contained in IUSA's January 1991 license application. ln Section 2.1.4 of Appendix D of the license application, IUSA states that "Annually, the resulting concentration of the full spectrum analysis: i.e., U-nat, th-230, Ra-226, Pb-210, and Po-21C will be calculated and compared to 10 CFR 20 limits." Based on the aforementioned telephone conversation, it appears that IUSA is accounting for contributions to exposures from these radionuclides by using specifically-developed derived air concentration (DAC) limits for each distinct area of the plant, based on the airborne radionuclides likely to be present in each plant area. IUSA should clarify the methods being used to assess worker exposures to airborne radioactivity from Th-230, Ra-226, Pb-210, and Po-210. I.IT{ITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGIOT{ IV URAI{IUM RECOVERY FIELD OFFICE BOX 2Ep5 DENVER, COTORADO ATZ!5 Docket: 40-8581 License: SUA-1358 Umetco l,li neral s Corporati on ATTN: tl. U. Brice Mai ntenance Superi ntendent lllhi te l.lesa Urani um ltli I I P.0. Box 669 Blanding, Utah 84511 SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT IAYTUEf 40-8681/94-01 (NoTICE 0F VIoLATIoN) Thjs refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs. D. lrlard, D. B. Spltzberg' and L. Carson of Regioir tV on April ll-13, 1994. The inspection included a review of the activities authorized for your uranium milling facility. -At the conclusion of the inspection, the findings were discussed with the facility personnel identified in the enclosed report. Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report. Hithin thes. areas, the insfiection cbnsisted of selective examination of procedures and representative rbcords, interviews with personnel, and observations of activities in progress. Based on the results of this inspection, certain licensed activities appgared- to be in violation of NRC requirements, as specified in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice). One vioiation involved the failure to perform adequate radiologicil surveys on personnel leaving tlg restricted area. The second violati6n involved-the fiilure to survey-vehicles prior to their release from the restricted area. The third violation involved the failure to utilize proper lower limits of detection for analys_is-of effluent and environmental iamiles. A fourth violation involved the failure to conduct complete. radiological release surveys on all barrels of yellowcake in preparation for transportation to the processor Two non-cited violations were noted during the inspection. The first involved the failure of the licensee to maintain appropriatb verification that Allied Signal Corporation's license authorizes receipt of source materials as re[uired by lO CFR 40.51 (c). During the course of the inspection the Iiiensee pioduced a facsimiie of Allied's license in compliance with l0 CFR 40.51 (.). This violation is not being cited because the criteria specified in Secii6n VII.B.l. of the Enforcement-Policy were satisfied. The second non-cited violation involves a requirement in Umetco's operating procedure for the receipt of byproduct material. The procedure requires .Umetco to maintain a completb set o?'waste disposal records. The inspectors determined that the inforination specified to be'contained in these records was available onsite IAY t3 f}t Umetco Minerals Corporation 2 onsite but that the maintenance of the records was not as required by the- -pro..aui.. itr. I i censee commi tted to consol i dati ng al l. records . i nto one fi I e [V l4iy-f, fgga. Therefore, this vio]ation is also-not beilS-cited because the ci.iteiia specified in Section VII.B.1. of the Enforcement Pol'icy were sati sfied. 0n May 3, 1994, a telephone conference cal1 was conducted concerning the findiirgs'of th6 inspection with Umetco blhite Mesa_personnel 3nd.repieilntatives froin Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. Siecial..emphasis was directed at'the failure of the licensee to insure that proper radiological surveys were conducted for the release of equipment, vehicles, and personnel from the restricted area. Also discussed ilas the violation concerning lower Iimits of detection for environmental sample analyses and two non-cited violations described above. During the cohference-call personnel from Umetco and the iuture Iicensee, Energy-Fuels Nuclear, committed to taking comective actions to resolve the NRC concerns. You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified i'n the enclosbd Notice when plepari!9 your response. In.I9!I rliponr., you inoutd document the specifit-actions taken and any additional .iiionr-iol ptan to prevent recurrehce. After reviewi.ng.your response-to this Notice, inctirUing yoirr proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspeciions, the-tlitC wiit determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necbssary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy oi ttris Ietter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. The responses directed by this Ietter and the enclosed Notice are not subiect to the tlearance proceduies of the Office of Management and Pudgg!'_9:required by the Phperwork Reduction.Act of 1980, Public Law No. 96.511. Should you have any questions regarding this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you. ffi), Di rector UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO REGION IV 5.I 1 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 4OO AR LI NGTON, TE XAS 7601 1.8064 JUN ?AIw, o N a**lt Docket: 40-8681 License: SUA-1358 Umetco Mi neral s Corporati on ATTN: t.l. t.l. Brice Mai ntenance Superi ntendent Wh i te Mesa Uran i um Mi I IP.0. Box 669 B1 andi ng, Utah 8451 I SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTIoN REpoRT 40-8681 /94-0t) Ihank you for your letter dated June 3, 1994'in response to our letter andNotice of Violation dated May 12, 1994. }'le have reviewed your reply and findthat lditional information is needed to complete our review. Specifically,1n your response to /iolatiun B, the correctjve ac: ions and steps to avojdfuture violations you describe appear to be simply a restatement of therequirement wlth a commitment to comply in the future. This response provides no additional assurance that the requirement will be met than wa-s in elistenceat the time the violation occurred. Further, it provides no description ofthe steps that will be taken to ensure future compliance. This matter was discussed during a telephone conversation on June 23, 1994,between Mr. s. Schierman of your staff and Dr. D. B. spitzberg of ourorganization. During thjs d'iscussion, Mr. Schierman described additionalactions which had already been completed in response to Violation B. Pleaserespond to th'is letter by describjng the addit'ional corrective actions which have been, or will be completed to avoid future violations in this area. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, p'lease contactDr. Spitzberg at (817) 860-8191. S i ncerel y, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Umetco Mi neral s Corporat'ion cc: Umetco Minerals Corporation ATTN: R. A. Van Horn t.lhite Mesa Uranium Mill P.0. Box 569 81 andi ng, Utah 8451 I Utah Radiatjon Control Program Director ATTN: t'l. J. Sinclaiq -2- UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGtot{ tV URANIUM RECOVERY FIELD OFFICEBOX 28t25 DET{VER, COLOBADO qlzl6 IAYt?lgtt Docket: 40-8681 Li cense: SUA-1358 Umetco Mj neral s Corporati on ATTN: tl. tr. Brice Mai ntenance Superi ntendent t'lhi te l.lesa Urani um Mi I I P.0. Box 669 Blanding, Utah 84511 SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPQRT 40-8681/94-01 (NOTICE 0F VI0LATI0N) This refers to the inspection conducted by l,lessrs. D. l,lard, D. B. Spltzberg, and L. Carson of Region IV on April 1l-13, 1994. The inspection included a review of the activities authorized for your uranium milling facility. At the conclusion of the inspection, the findings were discussed with the facility personnel identified in the enclosed report. Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report. t{ithin these areas, the inspection cbnsisted of selective examination of procedures and representative rbcords, interviews with personnel, and observations of activities in progress. Based on the results of this inspection, certain licensed activities appeared- to be in violation of NRC requirbments, as specified in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice). One viol'ation involved the failure to perform adequate radiologicdl surveys on personnel leaving the restricted area. The second violation involved-the fiilure to survey-vehicles prior to their release fromthe restricted area. The third violation involved the failure to utilize proper lower limits of detection for analysis of effluent and environmental samilles. A fourth violation involved the failure to conduct complete. radiological release surveys on all barrels of yellowcake in preparation for transportation to the processor. Two non-cited violations were noted during the inspection. The first involved the failure of the Iicensee to maintain appropriate verification that Allied Signal Corporation's license authorizes receipt of source materials as re(uired by l0 CFR 40.51 (c). During the course of the inspection the Iiiensee pioduced a facsimiie of Allied's license in compliance with l0 CFR 40.51 (c). This. vio'lation is not being cited because the criteria specified in Sect,ibn VII.B.l. of the Enforcement-Policy were satisfied. The second non-cjted violation involves a requ'irement in Umetco's operating procedure for the receipt of byproduct material. The procedure requires Umetco to maintajn a completb set ol'waste disposal records. The inspectors determined that the 'informatjon specified to be contained in these records was availab1e onsite i) ir IAY l3 8!t Umetco Mi neral s Corporati on 2 onsite but that the maintenance of the records was not as required by theprocedure. The licensee committed to consolidating a1l records into one file by lvlay l, 1994. Therefore, this v'iolation js also not being cited because thecriteria specified in Section VII.B.l. of the Enforcement Policy were sati sfi ed. 0n May 3, 1994, a telephone conference call was conducted concerning the findings of the inspection with Umetco tlhite Mesa personnel andrepresentatives from Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. Special emphasis tras directedat the failure of the licensee to insure that proper radiological surveys were conducted for the release of equipment, vehicles, and personnel from therestricted area. Also discussed was the violation concerning lower Iimits of detection for environmental sample analyses and two non-cited violations described above. During the conference call personnel from Umetco and thefuture licensee, Energy Fuels Nuc'lear, committed to taking comective actionsto resolve the NRC concerns. You are required to respond to this'letter and should follow the instructionsspecified jn the enclosed Notjce when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additionalactions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to thisNoticei including your proposed corrective actjons and the results of futureinspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copyof this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subjectto the c'learance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget, asrequired by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law No. 96.511. Should you have any questions regarding this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you. Di rector Umetco Minerals Corpqration 3 Encl osures:l. Appendix A - Notiice of Uiolation2. Appendix B - NRC Inspection Report 40-8681/e4-0r w/encl osures xArlLal o Umetco Minerals Corporation t.lhi te Mesa Mi I I BIanding, Utah During an NRC inspection conducted on April ll-13, 1994, four violations of NRC riouirements irere identified. The violations invo'lved the failure of the Iicensee to (l) have mill workers frisk or frisk properly when exiting the restricted area, (2) perform adequate radiological surveys on equ'ipment leaving the resiricted area, (3)'utilize proper lower limjts of detection for analysis of effluent and environmental samples, and (4) properly conduct radiological surveys on all barrels of yeliowcake leaving lhg site for further processing. In aclordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, the violations are I i sted be'low. A. License Condition No. 1l of Source Material License SUA-1358 states, in part, for use in accordance with statements, representations, qnd tonditions contained in Sections 3.6.6,5.1,5.3,5.4,6.2, and 6.3, and Appendix E, Section 5, of the license renewal application-dated January tgbS. Section 5.4, subsection 5.4.3.1 of the renewal applicat'ion, states that all emiloyees are also required to monitor themselves with an a'lpha meter pri or to I eavi ng the mi I I . Contrary to this requirement, on April ll, 1994, thq inspectors observed several-workers extding the iacility who failed to frisk or to frisk properly with an alpha meter. This is a Severity Level Miolation (Supplement VI) (40-8681/9401-01). B. License Condition No. 14 of Source Material License SUA-1358 states that release of equipment or packages from the restricted area shall be in accordance with'the attalhmen[ to SUA-1358 entitled, "Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct or Source Materials," dated September, 1984. The guidelines state that all items leaving the restrictbd area must be surveyed for alpha contamination prior to release. Contrary to this requirement, on April ll, 1994, the inspectors observed that thL licensee di'd not perform the required surveys prior to release of several vehicles exiting from the restricted area. Thi s i s a Severi ty Level Mi ol ati on (Suppl ement VI) (40-8681/9401-02) . C. License Condition No, 29 of Source l,laterial License SUA-1358 states, in part, that standard operating procedures (SOPs) shall be established foritt 6perational procels activittes involving radioactive materials that are hlndled, protessed, or stored. Procedure 2.7 entitled, Product Shipment Suivbys, requires that adequate fixed alpha and beta/gamma surveys be conducted on al I product baruel s. APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Docket No. 40-8681 License No. SUA-1358 2 Contrary to this requ'irement, the inspectors noted that the licensee fajled to conduct the required surveys on all barrels of yellowcake product shipped in 1994. As a specific example, on February 22,.199.4, tne t'icensee' fai I ed to perform pioper beta/gama surveys as requi red by procedure 2.7 on each barrel of yellowcake shipped. Thi s 'i s a Severi ty Level Mi ol ati on (Suppl ement VI) (40-8681/9401-03) . D. License Condition No. 24 F of Source Material License SUA-1358 requires that the l'icensee shall utjlize lower Iimits of detection (LLDs) in accordance with Section 5 of Regulatory Guide 4.14, Revision 1, dated April 1980, for analysis of effluent and environmental samples._-- Regulatory Guide 4.14, Revision 1, Section 5 gives LLDs for Ra-226, Th:230, U:nat, and Pb-210. hlhen actual concentrations exceed the stated LLDs, Section 5 states that the licensee need not meet these LLDs if the standard deviation estjmated for the random error of the analysis is no greater than l0 percent of the measured value. Contrary to this requ'irement, out of a total of 181 environmental sample analyses reviewed dating back to January 1993, the licensee's contractor laboratory did not meet the applicable LLD or standard deviation crjterja given in Regulatory Guide 4.14 for 48 out of 48 ground-water samp'les, 34 out of 56 particulate air samples, 15 out of 30 soil sambles, 16 out of 17 surface water samples, and 12 out of 18 vegetation sampl es. Thi s j s a Severi ty Level Mi ol ati on (Suppl ement VI) (40-8681/9401-04) . Pursuant to the prov'isions of l0 CFR 2.201, Umetco ltlineral Corporation is hereby required to submjt a reply to this office, with copy to the U.S. Nuclear Rdgulatory Comm'ission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, }lashirlgton'_D.C., 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region IV, 6ll Ryan !la7aDrive, Suite 400,-Arlington, Texas 76011, within 30 days of the date of the Ietter transmitting thia Notice of Violation (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a "Rep'ly to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation: (1) thb reason for the violation, if admitted; (?).the corrective steps wtrictr have been taken and the results achieved; (3) tbe. corrective steis which will be taken to avoid further violations; and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. If an adequate reply is not received wjthjn the t'ime specified in the Notice, an Order or a Demand for Information may be jssued to show cause why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response tjme. Dated at Denver, Coloradothjs ,r.th day of May 1994. APPENDIX B U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COI4MISSION URANIUl,l RECOVERY FIELD OFFICE REGION IV Inspection Report: 40-8681/94-01 Li cense: SUA-1358 Licensee: Umetco Minerals Corporation P.0. Box 669 BIanding, Utah 84511 Faci I i ty Name: tlh'i te Mesa Mi I I Inspection At: San Juan County, Utah Inspection Conducted: April 1l-13, 1994 Inspectors: Dana C. hlard, Proiect Manager D. Blair Spitzberg, Ph.D., Senior Inspector Loujs C. Carson, Inspector Approved: Edward Urani um Regi on Recovery Fjeld 0ffice IV Inspecti on Summarv Areas Inspected: Announced inspection of the uranium mill operations and radiation safety program including Management Organization and Controls/0perations Rev'iew, Maintenance/Surveillance Testing, Radiation Protection, Radioactjve Waste Management, Transportation of Radioactive Materials, Environmental Protection, and Emergency Preparedness. Resul ts: ' The licensee had spent considerable time in improving the housekeepingin the mill bu'ilding and support facilities. One significant improvement was made by the installation of a new lighting system within the processing building. The licensee was also in the process of consblidation-of milljng operations control into one centralized control area. Thjs action-should reduce radjological exposures and promote personnel safety (Section l). ' 0rganjzation and management controls were in accordance with license requ'i rements (Sect'i on 2 . 1) . 2 ]'1ill structures had been well maintained.at the time of the inspection is expected (Section 3. l) Maintenance work in progress to improve mill operations ' 0n April 11, 1994, the inspectors observed that several personnel who exitbd the restricted area of the facility failed to frisk or frisk properly with an alpha meter as requirgd by the Iicense. This tltas identified as a violation (Section 4.3). ' 0n April 11, 1994, the inspectors observed that several vehicles were relelsed from the restricted area without a radiological contamination survey. This was identified as a violation (Section 4.3). ' Except for the two survey violations noted, the inspectors concluded that-the Iicensee's radiation safety program was being conducted in accordance with license requirements (SeCtlons 4.1 - 4.3). ' A comprehensive file was not maintained as required by procedure for acceptance and disposal of byproduct material. This was a non-cited violition. 0ther alpects of the licensee's byproduct material d'isposal operation were in atcordance with license requirements (Section 5.2). ' The licensee failed to maintain appropriate documentation confjrming that Allied Signal Corporation rtas certified to accept yellowcake shipments. This was itentified as a non-cited violation (Sect'ion 5). ' A violation was identified for failure to perform complete surveys of product shipments as required by procedurei. The inspectors also noted some procediral probl emi i n the- tiansportati on of radi oact'ive materi al s relatbd to the pioper use of survey instruments. During the conference call to the licbnsbe on May 3, 1994, licensee representatives stated that retraining of technicians on proper survey techniques had been completed (Section 6.3). ' A violation was identified for failure to meet Lower Limits of Detection for certain environmental sample analyses. Other elements of the licensee's environmental monitoring program had been conducted in accordance with license requirements (Section 7.1). ' The licensee had met license requirements for emergency equipment and training and was found to be prepared to respond to potential emergency conditions (Section 8.1). Sunrnary of Inspection Findinqs: ' Violation 40-E681/9401-01 was opened (Section 4). ' Violation 40-868U9401-02 was opened (Section 4). ' Violation 40-8681/9401-03 was opened (Section 6). ' Violation 40-8681/9401-04 was opened (Section 7). 3 ' Uiolation 40-868U9301-01 was closed (Section 4). ' Violation 40-868U9301-02 was closed (Section 4). Attachment: Attachment - Personnel Contacted and Exit l'leeting 4 DETAILSI PLAi{T STATUS The Umetco hlhite Mesa Mill was on standby during the inspect'ion period. The licensee has conducted extensive housekeeping tasks in preparation for future operations at the facil'ity. The licensee hai had extensjve electrical work dbne in preparation for centralization of operations control in one Iocation at the fiont end of the counter current decantation (CCD) circuit on the upper mezzanine. As part of the electrical rework, additional lighting_ha.s b.91,_ placed throughoirt the mill. Sandblasting has continued on much of the mill building interior in preparation for painting. Painting of cleaned surfaces continues throughout the'facility. Additional concrete work since the last inspection had been completed around outdoor storage tanks_to contain any -spiils. Old process tahks were dismantled in preparation for the placement of nbw tanks. Sbme process plumbing was also upgraded. Redesign-work was in progress in prepai^ation fbr the placement of an additional yellowcake dryer. The overall appearance of the mill facility was excellent. The licensee was also engaged in the receipt of ore for future milling operations. The ore was-aitjvely being shipped and stored on the ore pads east of the milling complex. 2 itAl{AGEilEilT 0RGANIZATI0N AND C0ilTR0LS/0PERATI0ilS REYIEI{ (88005) (88020) The inspectors reviewed the licensee's management organization_and staffing., and manigement controls to determine whethei they were in compliance with the I i cense. 2.! Di scussion The licensee described the organizational structure in effect at the site. The t4aintenance Superintenden[ and Production Supervisor are lhe twg highest ranked officials at the facility, and have equal authority. The l'laintenance Superintendent is responsible for the maintenance of the facility and environmental service!, while the Production Supervisor is responsible for purchasing, laboratory, and office functions. Both officials report to the i)irector of 0perations who is located in Grand Junction, Colorado. There were a total of 30 employees on site at the time of the inspection. l,tost employees were involved in routine standby operations and maintenance activities. Three separate contractors with a total of approximately 10 employees were engaged in concrete, electrical, and sandblastingactivities. There were also four security personnel working on site that maintained around the clock, seven days a-wbek coverage of the facility. The regular staff work four 10-hour days with supervisory personnel pryYlding. rotating coverage over the weekendi.*.There iras no union representat,ion at the mill. The Department Head for Health, Safety and Environmental Affairs/Radiation Protection Officer (RP0) r'ras responsible for the day to day operation of the radiation protection program, and reported directly to the Maintenance Superintendent. The ilP0-was assisted by a staff of three technicians. The 5 technicians performed a wjde variety of radiatjon protection tasks. One technician was a new hjre jn training with prev'ious mill experience as a laboratory worker. The other two teihn'icjans were primarily responsible for safety operations, and environmental monitoring duties. The inspectors revjewed records of inspectjons and audit.s pglformed by the radiatibn protection staff. The inspettors noted that the RPO and the radiation irotectjon technicians per?ormed the daily_inspeclio!: of the facility. 'IJeekly 'inspections werb performed primarily by the RPO. The audit program in effeci at the site included the monthly preparation by the RPO of ieports which summarized radiation safety data for the month. These reports wei^e distributed to site and corporate personnel and provided a good summary of data collected during the month. In addition, an annual ALARA audit was conducted by an audit committee. The ALAM audit addressed the topics recorunended in Regulatory Guide 8.31. Standard Operating Procedures (S0Ps) were reviewed by the inspectors. The S0Ps appeaied to 6e in order, and provided the necessary information to completb ttre job tasks without confusion. One exc_eption was noted by the insiectors where the licensee failed to properly follow-the procedure for maihtaining documentation of the receipt'and disposal of ll_e.(2)-lyRroduct material. -This wjll be covered more thoroughly in Section 5.2. All procedures had been reviewed annually by the RP0_as requif9d !y License tondition No.29. S0Ps were available from the RP0, and the Production and Maintenance Supervisors. The inspectors reviewed Radiation hlork Permits (RllPs) issued for nonroutinejobs. there were ten Rt.lPs issued since the last inspection.. Six RUPs had 6een issued for various jobs in, or adjacent to the yellowcake dryer while--- four RttPs had been issued for jobs in various areas of the mill where the RPO had determi ned that a potenti ai exi sted for el evated exposures.. The Rl'lPs were used to describe the wbrk being performed, and precautions to be followed to minimize exposure. The inspeclors found no areas of concern regarding Rl'lP i ssuance. 2.2 Concl usi ons 0rganization and management controls were in accordance with license requi rements. 3 !|AI]|TENAI{CEISURVEILLAilCE TESTIT{G (S8025) The inspectors toured the mill areas and reviewed maintenance and surveillance practices to determine compliance with applicable license requirements. 3.1 Di scussi on AII mill structures were observed to be in excellent condition with maintenance work in progress as described in Section l. All entrances to the mill were posted in hccordance with License Condition No.27. Portions of the restricted-area fence observed by the inspectors were in good order and 6 properly posted. Employee post'ings required by l0 CFR 19.11 were noted jn the mai htenance shop, change room, and admi ni strati on bui I di ng. AI 'l post'i ngs were in good order. The i nspectors al so toured the yel I owcake storage area on the east si de of the restricted area. During the prbvious inspection, inspectors noted some of the yellowcake drums were rust'ing. The licensee stated that many of these drums irad been sent off site for piocessing. Umetco was in the process of preparing a structure for the storage'of yellowcake drums to prevent rusting and weathering of the containers. 3.2 Conclusions Mitt structures had been well maintained. Maintenance work in progress at the time of the inspection is expected to improve mill operations. 4 RADrATroil PR0TECTI0N (83822) The inspectors reviewed the licensee's radiation protectiol program to determjhe comp'liance with the l'icense application and l0 CFR Part 20. 4.1 Interna'l Exposure Determination The 'inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for determination of internal exposurbs. The licensee collected air particulate samples_quarterly from 26'locations within the processing faciiities. These samples rrere collected at a rate of 40 liters per minute (lpm) for 60 minutes. Breathing zone. samples were collected iluring RltP jobs using lapel samplers calibrated to draw froin Z to 4 lpm. The 40 lpm-pumps were calibrated prioy,to use using a Kurz meter, which i.ras itself caiibi^atbd annually using a bubble tube. The two Kurz meteri maintained by the licensee were sent to the manufacturer for calibration. The licensee was using a 5 liter bubble tube for calibration of the 40 'lpm pumps. Lapel air sampleis were calibrated prigl to use using a bubble tube. All air samples were analyzed fluorometrically onsite. Radon daughter samples were collected monthly at approximalely 26 locations. The sampl6s were cbllected for 5 minutes using samplers calibrated to draw 2 1pm.'The licensee anticipates going to 4 lpm to increase sensitivity to meet the more restrictive standards under new Part 20. The samples were analyzed using the Modified Kusnetz method. A review of air sampling data revealed that all area sample results were generally sma'll percentages of the Part 20 limits. However, uranium ioncentritions mbasured during one RtlP job were significantly higher, with. results ranging up to 200 perient of the limits. This RllP iob involved work in the yellowcike'drying ahd packaging areas, and required the use of respiratory protective equipment. In addition, radon daughter concentrationsin the solveirt extraction (SX1 building occasionally exceeded 25 percent of the limjts in Part 20. Fans in the SX-building were activated to lower the concentrations when the 25 percent level was reached. 7 The'l'icensee calculated internal exposures for workers by using the results of area or breathing zone a'ir sampling data to determine the concentratjons of radioactive materials in air to which workers were exposed. Exposure times were determined by usjng time cards or Rl'lPs. The inspectors examined the ljcensee's new exposure tracking and report!19 system whjch had been implemented in January 1994 with the revised l0 CFR Pirt 20. The reports reviewed satisfied the-requirements of l0 CFR 20.2105(a) with one except'ion. The inspectors noted that the values recorded for Total 0rgan Dose EqLivalent (T0DE) in accordance with l0 CFR 20.2106(a)(6) appeared to-have been calculated using the organ dose weighting factor for the lung instead of bone surface. The-Annual Limit of Intake (ALI) for natural uranium listed in 10 CFR Part 20 Appendix B is based on the non-stochastic dose limit for bone surface as the limiting organ dose. Upon further review by the licensee with their consultant, the licensee reported to the inspectors by telephone on April 19, 1994 that this had been an emor in the development of the bxposure cilculation program. The licensee's representative stated that a change'in the program had.been implemented before the telephone call to change the organ dose weighting factor to bone surface. The inspectors reviewed exposures recorded since the revised Part 20 became effective. The highest Cominitted Effective Dose Equivalent (CEDE) noted for the year to date (13 weeks) was 0.81 rem. The highest intake of soluble uranium (c1ass D) in one week was noted to be 0.52 mg. The exposures recorded for 1994 had not inc'luded the Deep Dose Equivalent component in the Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) values because external dosimeter results had not yet been proiessed. These results are to be entered and TEDE recalculatedaftei dosimeter results are reported. Exposures reported were less than the Iimits of l0 CFR 20.1201. During the previous inspection Umetco was cited for a violation of License Condition No. 37 which iequ'ires that occupational exposure calculations be performed and documented within one week of the end of the weekly compliance ieriods specified in l0 CFR 20.103(a)(Z) and 20.103(b)(2). A review of exposure calculation documentation revealed that the calculations were performed within the required time period. 4.2 Resoiratorv Protection and Bioassav The licensee maintajns a respiratory protection program which includes the use of full-face and half-mask respirators. Full-face respirators were requiredfor all RI'IP jobs with a potential for significant exposure to radioactive materials. Respiratory protection credit was taken for the use of full-face resp'irators in calculating employee exposures. Issuance records for required respirator use were maintajned. . Employee trajnjng on respirator use tvas reviewed and found to be adequate.Fit testing was performed and documented annually by the RP0. l4edical certification of the ability of workers to wear respirators had been obtained for al 1 empl oyees. 8 All employees who work within the restricted area were required to provide urine samples on a quarterly basis for uranium bioassay. In addition, workers involved in RllP work provided additional samples as required by the RWP. Samples were provided onsite prior to beginning a shift. Urine samples were analyzed in-house fluorometrically for uranjum. Spikes, b'lanks, and duplicates were analyzed for quality assurance purposes along w'ith each batch of specimen samples. Samples collected under R}JPs were analyzed within two days, while routine samples were analyzed within four days. A review of urinalysis data showed all results to be below the jnitial action level of 15 ug/l uranium. 4.3 External Exoosure and Contamination Control AII site employees were provided with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) which were bxchanged and'analyzed quarterly. A review of data for 1993 showed that the highest quarterly result was 341 mRem. This individual also had the highest yearly total at 771 mRem. Area TLDs were also placed at 35 locations within the mill. These TLDs were also exchanged quarterly. The highest area TLD result was 36 mRem per week at the ore buying station. Most areas monitored ranged from 10 to 20 mRem per week. External radiation surveys were also performed on a quarter'ly basis. The surveys were performed as part of a general walk through of all millfacilities. The average reading was 0.32 mR per hour, while the h'ighest value measured was 7 mR per hour near the settler tanks. The south end of the SX building near the 3ettler tanks and the yellowcake storage area were noted to be appropriately posted as "Radiation Areas" in accordance with 10 cFR 20.t902. Surveys for alpha surface contamination were performed weekly in eating areas, change rooms, and the administration building. Surveys for total and removable contamination were performed. AII survey results were well below action levels specified in the license. Control of personnel contamination was achieved by requiring the use of protective clothing for all iobs with a significant potential for contamination. License Condition No. 11, through reference, requires that all employees monitor themselves with an alpha meter prior to leavjng the mill. The inspectors observed several wbrkers leaving the mi11 area at the end of shift on i\pril ll, 1994, who failed to perform, or perform adequately, the required alpha surveys. The failure to perform adequate surveys of personnel was idbntified is a violation of Litense Condition No. 11 (40-8681/9401-01). Items which were being released for unrestricted use were surveyed for gamma and alpha contamination. A review of survey documentation revealed that al-l results were well below release limits specified jn the license. However, the inspectors observed on April ll, 1994, that the licensee was allowing workers to bring company vehicles into the restricted area for parking. These vehicles were then available for use onsite and could be driven into areas where they could potentially become contaminated. The inspectors also observed, during the same day, that ore trucks were leaving the ore receiving 9 pad which is wjthin the restricted area without a release survey. The failure to perform release surveys was identified as a violation of License Condition No. 14, which requires that radiological surveys be performed prior to the release oi equipmend from the restricted area (40-8581/9401-02). A violat'ion of release criteria was recorded during the previous jnspection when the licensee inadvertently released a backhoe and constructjon trailer from the restricted area prior-to conducting the required alpha surveys._ The inspectors reviewed the Iicensee's documentation for equipment released for unrbstricted use since the last inspection and noted that alpha as well as gamma surveys had been conducted for all items released from site. 4.4 Conclusions 0n April 11, 1994, the inspectors observed that several personnel who exited the iestricted area of the'facility failed to frisk or frisk properly with an alpha meter n violation of license requirements. Also on April ll, 1994, tle inbpectors observed that several vehicles were released from the restricted arei without a radiolog'ical contamination survey in vjolation of license requirements. Except for the two survey violations noted, the inspectors concluded that the'licensee's radiation safety program was being conducted in accordance with license requirements. 5 MDIoACTIUE I{ASTE I'IANAGEilEilT (88035) The inspectors reviewed the licensee's waste management programs to determine compliahce with the Iicense application and applicable portions of l0 CFR Part 40. 5.1 Di scussi on The inspectors toured the tailings disposal area_during the course of the inspection. Cells lI, 3 and 4A iontained water from past operations andpretipitation. The license stated that over an inch of rain had fallen the ilay previous to the inspection. Runoff from the mill area had also conti"ibuted to the watei. volume in the tailings cells. Records indicated that the Iicensee has had no problems meeting freeboard requirements since the last i nspecti on. The licensee conducts daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annual inspections of the dams. Each inspection documents among other things blowing of tailings, exposed beach size, ground moisture, and so'lution elevation. Umetco's inspectors who conduct the daily, weekly and monthly embankment inspections irere qualified by reviewing the tailings dam inspecti.on procedure and'signing off ttiat they understood the procedure. The RPO conducts the quarteily inspection while a Registered Professional Engineer conducts and documents the annual inspection. No concerns were noted by the NRC i nspectors. The Iicensee maintains a battery of automatic cannons around the tajlings impoundment area to scare off water fowl. This operation prevents water fowl frbm landing on the ponds and incuming injury from contacting acid solutions. l0 These cannons fire automatically from dawn to dusk on random schedules. Since the previous inspection, the licensee has constructed a fresh water pond east of cell 4A to attract water fowl away from the tailings cells. The inspectors also noted that the licensee has placed bald eagle replicas around the tailings cells in an attempt to frjghten away birds. The licensee's waste management program was in accordance with Iicense requi rements. 5.2 Waste Disposal This was the first inspection of the Iicensee's byproduct material -disposaloperations. Byproduct'material js as defined in Section lle.(2) of the Atomic Ehergy Act of t'gS+ as amended. The inspectors toured the byproduct material burial Cell# 3 and the byproduct material receipt area. The inspectors reviewed the licensee's records for documenting the receipt of byproduct material and the licensee's byproduct material operations to determine their compliance with standard operating procedures under License Condition Nos. 29 and 55 A-D. From January 17 to April 11, 1994, the licensee had received 20 shipments of byproduct mlterial fbr waste disposal, which was an estimated 677,460 pounds. The inspectors noted that the licensee's SOP for these operations was adequatbly written. However, the records reviewed by the_inspectors.suggested thai the licensee was not complying with all provisions of the procedure. License Condition No.55 D requires, in part, that: "All waste disposal activities shall be documented. The documentation shall include bescriptions of waste and disposal locations, as well as alI actions by this condition." The inspectors and the RPO reviewed the records 9f !!g dis.posal.shipments received on March 2, 1994 and April 11, 1994. The RPO and the inspectors agreed that the two'file recordi reviewed were not complete- in.that the r6cords only contained the transportation company's Bill of Ladilg. The RP0, also agreed, that none of the 20'waste disposal fites specifically contailgd a compleie sei of records as listed in the operations procedulq.. However, the RP0'stated that the records called out in the procedlre could be retrieved and added to each wastes disposal file in a timely manner. The inspectors determined in consultation with Umetco representatives during the exit meeting that the proper documentation could be secured into one file by t'lay l, 1994.- Therefore, the inspectors determined that this would be a n6n-citei violation for failure to iroperly follow the byproduct material disposal operations procedure. 5.3 Concl usi ons A non-cited violation was identified related to the records of byproduct material receipt and disposals 0ther aspects of the licensee's byproduct disposal accordance wi th I i cense requi rements. failure to maintain all as required by procedure. operation was in 11 6 TRANSP0RTATI0il 0F RADIoACTM ilATERIALS (86740) The inspectors reviewed licensee activities related to the transportation of radioactive materjals to determine compliance with the license, licensee procedures, and applicable requ'irements of the Department of Transportation. 6.1 Licensed Material Transfers The Iicensee transferred 34 lots of U308 yellowcake, approximate'ly 1.36 million pounds, to another company for further processing. During. the review of shipping records, the inspectors determined that the licensee had not verifibi UV one of the estabiished methods listed in 10 CFR 40.51 that the company thit they transferred the yellowcake to was an NRC Iicensee. This rras iUeirti?ted as a violation of 10 CFR 40.51(c).0n April 12,1994, the licensee obtained by facsimile a copy of Allied Signal Incorporated's NRC license, which verified authorizatibn to receive the materials transferred by the Iicensee. The inspectors determ'ined that this violation met the criteria specified in 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (VII.B), as a non-cited violation. 6.2 Contents of Shiopinq Papers The inspectors reviewed the licensee's shipping papers for compliance with DOT and othbr appropriate Federal regulations. The inspectors noted that the licensee's shipping papers were complete and thorough. The inspectors concluded that'thia aspect of the licensee's program met regulatory requi rements. 6.3 Radiations Survevs The inspectors reviewed the Iicensee's yellowcake product shi.pment lgrvey.records'which were conducted in 1994. tne ticensee performed 34 yellowcake shipment release surveys during this time period. The inspectors examined the shiiment survey records for compliance with the licensee's Standard.0perating Protedure (SOP) 2.7, "Product Shipment Surveys." Sections 2.7.3 and 2.7.4 require, iri pait, that all barreli will be "fixed alpha and beta/-g3m9a. scanned'-'i and, that the procedure to be followed is to perform a "beta/gamma survey of each barrel ". The inspectors observed that in 1994 not all the barrels ofyellowcake shipped and relbased from the site were beta/ganma surveyed as required by procedure. The licensee's RPO stated that they only performed the Department of Transportation's (DOT) 49 CFR 173.441 (b)(1) gamma surveys for radioactive material shipments. The inspectors concluded that the licensee's failure to perform Ueta/galm1 surveys of each yellowcake barrel in 1994 in accordance with procedure 2.7 was a violation of License Condition No. 29 which requires that the licensee fol I ow thei r operati ng procedures (40-8681/9401-03) . The inspectors examined the quafity of the yellowcake radiation surveys conductbd on shipments'in 1994. Out of the 34 yellowcake surveys documentedin 1994, the inspector noted that five DOT 49 CFR 173.441 (b)(1) gamma survey t2 measured greater that 5 millirem/hour (mr/hr). The inspectors noted that the following, on contact survey results, were inconsistent with the normal values obtained for such surveys: DATE January 13,1994 January 19, 1994 February 22, 1994 February 22, 1994 March l, 1994 Based on the inspectors'review of related survey records, it was noted that the average dose rate of yellowcake surveys performed in accordance with 49 CFR 173.441 was 2 mrlhr. The inspectors noted that the same two radiation detection instruments involved in the above surveys were calibrated, and had been used in the majority of the other surveys. Discussions with the licensee's technicians and RPO revealed that they incorrectly read the detector scale for the examples given above. The RPO admitted that he did not notice the incorrect survey data during his reviews. The inspector concluded that the above surveys were examples of inattention to detail by the licensee. The inspectors further reviewed the licensee's application of the survey meters used for yellowcake shipments as specified in SOP 2.4. The inspectors determined, based on review of survey meter manuals, that the predominant survey meter being used will over-respond to lorenergy gamra rays such as are found'in yellowcake (U308). Discussions with the RPO revealed that he was aware of the trade off associated with using a non-energy compensated survey meter for these surveys. The inspectors, also noted that SOP 2.4 "Beta-GammaSurveys," listed survey instruments and detector that rere no longer being used by the technicians, and were not applicable to yellowcake surveys. The RSO concurred with the inspectors' observations and stated that the S0Ps would be revised. The inspectors had no further concerns in this area. 6.4 Conclusions A violation was ident'ified for failure to perform complete surveys of product shipments as required by procedures. The inspectors also noted some procedura'l problems in the transportation of radioactive materials related to the proper use of survey instruments. During the conference call to the Iicensee on l,lay 3, 1994, licensee representatives stated that retraining of technicians on proper survey techniques had been completed. 7 EilYIR0iil,rEilTAL PR0TECTI0}| (88045) The inspectors reviewed the licensee's environmental monitoring program to determjne compliance with the license. 7 .l Di scussion The Iicensee's environmental monitoring program includes air particulate sampling, radon sampling, soil and vegetation sampling, surface water LOT# 461 505 459 353 503 Dose Rate (mr/hr) l5 18 20 50 9 13 sampling, and ground-water sampling. The program formerly included stack sambling; however, the stacks ire on'ly used during p'lant operation, and thefaciljty has not operated since 1990. Technicians collected airborne particulate samples, radon samples, and soil samples at five locations. One of these locations measured the concentrations of iadioactive materials at the nearest residence, another measured background concentrations, and the others measured concentrations near the property line. Collection frequencies varied by sample type; technicians collected air samples weekly, radon samples quarterly, and soil samples annually. Vegetation samples were col:lected at three locations on site. One collection si[e was from the northeast section of the facility near the meteorological tower. The other collection site was from a southwest section near the "spoils" pi'le. The last collection site was in the northwest corner of thefat'itity.' Vegetation samples were collected three times a year in the early spring, the late spring, and the late fall. Technicians collected ground-water samples from 13 monitor wells and surface water samples from both Cottonwood and t'lestwater creeks. Collection frequencies were annual for Westwater samples and quarterly for all other samples. The ljcensee analyzed samples for Ra-226, Th-230, and Pb-210 on a semiannual basis. The sampling equipment used appeared to be in good working order. Technicians conductbd cittdrations as appibpriate and replaced parts as necessary. lilotors for the high volume air sampieri were exchanged monthly to reduce down time caused by excessive wear. The inspectors reviewed pumping data for the ground-water monitor wells, which 3eemed to indicate the wells were still in good condi tion. The licensee sends all of their environmental samples which require radiometric analyses to a contract laboratory. As of the time of thjs inspection, the licensee had only sent a few quality control samples to this labbratory! Ulank filters and one National Bureau of Standards fly ash sample. In reviewing the environmental air sample data, the inspectors noted concerns. Specificalli, the reported values for blank filters had risen to a level where they were bLginning to exceed the reported values for sample stations, and when the laboratori analyzed the fly ash sample, their report indicated a va'lue which differed from the expected value by a factor of 627. The inspectors reviewed the contract laboratory's findings more closely. It was noted that the reported values for "blank" samples had been increasing_ over the past few years along with the size of the error ranges. It was also noted that for many instancei, calculated error ranges exceeded the values measured. The inipectors also reviewed the values used as the analytical detection limits. License condjtion 24 F requires that the licensee, or their contractor, shallutilize ana'lytical proceddres sensitive enough to meet the lower limjts of detectjon (LLDs) given in Section 5 of Regulatory Guide 4.14, "RadiologicalEffluent and Enviionmental Monitoring at Uranium Mj'11s," Revision 1, dated l4 April 1980. Section 5 gives LLDs for Ra-226, Th-230, U-nat, and Pb-210. }lhen actua'l concentrations exceed the given LLDs, Section 5 states that the Iicensee need not meet these LLDs if the standard deviation estimated for the random error of the analys'is js no greater than l0% of the measured value. The'inspectors found that the laboratory was using LLDs and standard deviation criteria for Ra-226, Th-230, and Pb-210 which differed with those g'iven in Regulatory Guide 4.14. This resulted in a reduced analytical sensitivity. Therefore, even though many of the reported values were above the LLDs given in Regulatory Guide 4.14, the laboratory had assigned error ranges which exceeded the reported values. This is equivalent to reporting that they could not distinguish'the measured value from zero (i.e. beloir detectable levels) at a 95 percent confi dence I evel . Sensitive analytical procedures are necessary to track and trend the low levels of radioactive material released into the environment from milling operations. The LLD and standard deviation criteria given in Regulatory. Guide 4.14 and'incorporated'into License Condition No. 24 ensures that the required analytical sensitivity exists. Not ensuring that analytical procedures meet the criteria given in Section 5 of Regulatory Guide 4.74, Revisjon 1, was identified as a violation of License Condition No. 24 (40-8681/e40r-04) . 7 .2 Concl usi ons A violation was identified for failure to meet Lower Limits of Detection for certain environmental sample analyses. Other elements of the licensee's environmental monitoring program had been conducted in accordance with license requi rements. 8 EilERGENCY PREPAREDNESS (88050) The inspectors reviewed emergency procedures, equipment, and training to determine whether the Iicensee t'tas prepared to respond to emergency condi ti ons. 8. I Di scussi on The license application contained some emergency response measures and procedures to be implemented in an emergency but did not contain standard blements of an emergency response plan.-A detailed emergency response plan had been developed by the llcensee however, but no reference or cormitment to the plan was folnd in the license. Licensee representatives stated that the_plan had been developed as required by community right-to-know regulations. The referenced plan was Iast reviewed in January 1994. Equipment majntained for emergency response purposes was inspected to determjne that it had been maintained in an operational status. Fire fighting equipment had been inspected routinely and was in good condition. A dedicated ambulance with emergency med'ical supplies was in a state of readiness. The 'inspectors reviewed-records that showed that the evacuation siren had been tested semiannually. Emergency radios had been checked regularly by security l5 during off-hours. According to a licensee representative, the facility public addreis system referenced in Section 2.1.5.A of the emergency response plan had been out of service for approximately one year. The inspectors reviewed documentation of emergency training and drills to determihe whether designated emergency response personnel had been adequate'ly trained to respond to emergencies. Training records showed that various fire fighting and einergency firit aid training had been conducted. Semiannualdrills had been conducted as stated in the response planS however documentation of the drills was poor. Further, the drills consisted essentially of nothjng more than a site evacuation drill and did not exercise the response capabilities of personnel. The inspectors noted that Sect'ion l1 of the response plan states that "each drill will be enacted upon one or more of the potential scenarios in the plan". Although no license lequirement committbd the Iicensee to their emergency response plan, the licensee had not met this provision of the plan. 8.2 Concl usi ons The licensee had met'license requirements for emergency equipment and training and was found to be prepared to respond to potential emergency conditions. 9 F0LL0I{UP 0}t CoRRECTTUE ACTI0ilS FoR YI0LATI0i{S (92702) The one inspectors determined that exposure calculations had been performed within week of the regulatory compliance period. 40-8581 to re'lea The inspectors determined part of the procedure forrestricted area. that the licensee had performed alpha surveys as release of equipment and materials out of the ATTACHI'IENT 1 PERSOilS COT{TACTED 1.1 Licensee Personnel *Richard A. Van Horn, Director of Operations*l'lalIace tl. Brice, Maintenance Superintendent*Gerald G. Ray, Production Supervisor*Scott Schierman, Radiation Protection 0fficer*Gerald F. Richards, Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. Representative*l,rilliam J. Almas, Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., Environmental Manager Shannon Clark, Environmental Technician John llilson, Safety Technician 1.2 Accompanvinq Personnel *llilliam Radcliffe, Headquarters *Identifies those present at the exit meeting. 2 EXIT I{EETIilG An exit meeting was conducted on April 13, 1994. During this meeting, the inspectors reviewed the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee did'not identify as proprietary any infoimation provided to or reviewed by the i nspectors.