DRC-2012-002922 - 0901a0688035c92d

State of Utah
GARY R. HERBERT
Governor
GREG BELL
Lieutenant Governor
9
Department of
Environmental Quality
Amanda Smith
Executive Director
DIVISION OF RADL\TION CONTROL
Rusty Lundberg
Director
DRC-2012-002922
November 29, 2012
Jo Ann Tischler
Director, Compliance
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Blvd. Suite 600
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
RE: DRC Inspection Module RPP-02, November 15 through 16, 2012; RML UT1900479
Dear Ms. Tischler,
Inspection Module RPP-02 was conducted November 15 through 16, 2012, by the Division of
Radiation Control (DRC) at the White Mesa Mill. The inspection focused on the Mill's
Respiratory Protection Program. All items inspected met applicable regulatory requirements and
site procedures. However, the issue of facial hair of respirator users needs to be addressed. This
issue was previously raised by the DRC in a letter to Mr. David Frydenlund dated September 4,
2008 and no response from the licensee was received.
The issue concerns facial hair potentially interfering with the face-to-facepiece seal of negative
pressure respirators. Specifically, allowing respirator users at the Mill to use negative pressure
respirators while wearing a goatee is a concern.
29CFR1910.134, 10CFR20.1703 and R313-15-703 all clearly state that nothing shall interfere
with the face-to-facepiece seal of a tight fitting respirator. The debate lies in the definition of what
constitutes the *seal area' of the respirator since none of the regulatory agencies have specifically
defined this term. The Mill's RSO contends that the seal area is the outer edge of the respirator
sealing surface and that as long as nothing - including facial hair - protrudes from this edge, the
regulatory requirements are satisfied.
The DRC contends that the sealing surface of the respirator includes the entire seal area anywhere
the facepiece contacts the skin. This position is corroborated by Mine Safety Appliances Company
(MSA) who is the primary supplier of air purifying respirators at the White Mesa Mill. In a letter
forwarded to the DRC from MSA dated August 28, 2008, MSA confirms that, "The sealing
surface of the respirator would be any area on the periphery of the respirator that contacts the face
of the individual."
195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Maihng Address. P O. Box 144850 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • T D.D [phone]
www deq Utah gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
Page 2
It is the DRC's position that facial hair shall not be present where any part of the sealing surface
of a tight-fitting, full face respirator contacts the skin of the respirator wearer. The DRC requests a
written response addressing this issue within 30 days from the receipt of this letter. A copy of
MSA's 2008 letter is attached.
Please continue to remember that radiation safety is the responsibility of the licensee. Thank you
for your cooperation in this matter.
If you have any questions or concems regarding this letter, please contact Kevin Carney at (801)
536-4250.
Sincerely,
Craig W Jones, Acting Director
CWJ/KJC:kc
Enclosure
cc: Ronnie Nieves, Mill RSO
llml ENERGY FUELS
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Blvd Suite 600
Lakewood, CO, US. 80228
303 974 2140
www energyfuels.com
December 14,2012
VIA EMAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Mr. Rusty Lundberg
Director of the Utah Division of Radiation Control
State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144850
Salt Lake City, UT 84116-4850
Re: White Mesa Mill State of Utah Radioactive Material License No. UT 1900479
Response to Letter of November 29,2012
DRCInspection Module RPP-02
Dear Mr. Lundberg:
This letter responds to the Division of Radiation Control's ("DRC's) letter of November 29, 2012
regarding DRC's Inspection Module RPP-02 at White Mesa Mill (the "Mill") on November 15 and 16,
2012. DRC's letter requested a response from Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. ("EFRI") regarding
the issue of facial hair potentially interfering with the face-to-facepiece seal on negative pressure
respirators. DRC's specific concems, while not itemized as numbered comments in the letter, are
reproduced here verbatim, followed by EFRI's response:
DRC Comment:
The issue concerns facial hair potentially interfering with the face-to-facepiece seal of negative pressure
respirators. Specifically, allowing respirator users at the Mill to use negative pressure respirators while
wearing a goatee is a concern.
EFRI Response:
EFRI agrees with DRC regarding facial hair potentially interfering with the face-to-facepiece seal, and
regarding the issue of respirator users wearing goatees. EFRI has evaluated how Mill SOP Book 14
Section 1.3 "Policy Regarding Facial Hair (Face to Facepiece Seal Integrity") is being interpreted and
implemented at the Mill in comparison to the language and intent of NRC regulations in 10 CFR
20,1703 and DRC regulations in R313-15-703. As a result of this evaluation, EFRI has chosen to
modify the language in our Respiratory Protection Program in Mill SOP Book 14, RPP-1, Section 1.3 to
clarify that no facial hair v^U be permitted that could potentially interfere wdth the face to facepiece seal,
including goatees. The language changes for clarification of the policy are indicated in redline, as
follows:
Letter to R. Lundberg
December 14,2012
Page 2
"Anything in the face-to-facepiece seal area of a tight fitting respirator that is under the control
of the respirator user is prohibited. Materials in this area might interfere wdth the seal of the
respirator, might prevent proper exhalation valve fimction, or might impair the operation of a
facepiece-mounted air regulator. Leakage of air into the mask will nullify the purpose of the
respiratory device. The list of prohibited materials includes (but is not necessarily limited to)
facial hair of any kind (e.g. beards, muotacheo goatee, and long sideburns) in the seal area,
cosmetics, spectacle temple bars, protective clothing, and equipment. A respirator wearer is not
required to shave more than once during each 12-hour period. The only facial hair that will be
authorized while wearing a full face respirator is a small maintained moustache that does not
extend below the comers of the mouth. For use of a half-mask respirator, the wearer must be
clean shaven. For the half-mask wearer this means no beards, goatee and mustaches.
The policy of the Mill conceming facial hair is:
As a condition of employment, those workers who may at any time be required to wear a
respirator as part of their employment, will not have any facial hair or other features that will
restrict the proper fitting of a respiratory device."
DRC Comment:
The debate lies in the definition of what constitutes the 'seal area' of the respirator since none ofthe
regulatory agencies have specifically defined this term. The Mill's RSO contends that the seal area
is the outer edge of the respirator sealing surface and that as long as nothing - including facial hair
-protrudes from this edge, the regulatory requirements are met.
EFRI Response:
EFRI wishes to clarify a few points with regard to this statement. First, the individual who discussed the
Mill's position during the inspection closeout meeting was not the Mill's RSO. The discussion during
the closeout meeting involved the Manager of Safety and Environment, Mr. David Turk, not the Mill
RSO, Mr. Ronnie Nieves. Second, as evidenced by our agreement with DRC's position, discussed
below, Mr. Turk's statement was apparently misunderstood or misquoted. The Mill's policy is that no
facial hair may intmde into the respirator seal area.
DRC Comment:
The DRC contends that the sealing surface of the respirator includes the entire seal area anywhere
the facepiece contacts the skin. This position is corroborated by Mine Safety Appliances Company
(MSA) who is the primary supplier of air purifying respirators at the White Mesa Mill. In a letter
forwarded to the DRC from MSA dated August 28, 2008, MSA confirms that the sealing surface of
the respirator would be any area on the periphery of the respirator that contacts the face of the
individual.
Letter to R. Lundberg
December 14,2012
Page 3
EFRI Response:
EFRI agrees with DRC that the sealing surface of the respirator incudes the entire area anywhere the
facepiece contacts the skin.
EFRI wishes to clarify that the comment was specific to the Millennium Gas Mask respirator, which
EFRI does not and has never employed at the Mill. Nonetheless, we do agree with the manufacturer's
definition of the sealing surface and are requiring that respirator users be clean of facial hair along the
entire sealing surface. Specifically, as discussed above, no beard or goatee of any type is permitted.
For full face respirator wearers, facial hair is limited to a moustache if trimmed as described above,
provided that the wearer passes the respirator fit tests described in the remainder of Respiratory
Protection SOP.
DRC Comment:
It is the DRC's position that facial hair shall not be present where any part of the sealing surface of a
tight-fitting full face respirator contacts the skin of the wearer. The DRC requests a response
addressing this issue within 30 days from the receipt of this letter.
EFRI Response:
As discussed above, EFRI agrees with DRC's position and has revised the language in our Respiratory
Protection Policy accordingly.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone].
Yours very tmly,
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC.
Jo Ann Tischler
Director, Compliance
cc Philip Buck
David C. Frydenlund
Dan Hillsten
Harold R. Roberts
David E. Turk
Kathy Weinel
INSPECTION REPORT
Inspection Module RADMOD RPP-02 Rev 1
Inspection Location White Mesa Mill, Blanding Utah
RM License UT1900479
Inspection Items Respiratory Protection Program
Inspection Dates November 15-16, 2012
Inspectors Kevin Camey, Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC)
Personnel Contacted David Turk, Ron Nieves and Terry Slade
Governing Documents
• Radioactive Matenal License UTl900479, Amendment 5
• NRC Regulatory Guide 8 31
• NRC Regulatory Guide 8 15
• License Renewal Application Appendix L
• Utah Administrative Code R313-15
• 10CFR20
Inspection Summary
The inspection was a venfication of compliance with Utah Rules, 10CFR20, NRC Regulatory
Guides S 3l and 8 15 and White Mesa Mill (the Mill) procedures as they pertain to the Respiratory
Protection Program at the Mill The inspection consisted of a review of records, direct observations
and interviews with the Radiation Protection Staff as well as other personnel on site
Discrepancies
No discrepancies were noted dunng the inspection However, there was an ongoing issue identified
with respect to the facial hair of respirator users at the Mill At this time, this issue will not be
considered a discrepancy because there is still some debate over what constitutes the sealing area of a
full face air punfying respirator Details are discussed below.
Inspection Items
The inspection was divided into three main sections
• Respiratory Protection Program
• Respirator Issue ^
• Respirator Maintenance
The inspection outlines are noted below according to section
1 of Page 3
C \Documents and Settings\kcamey\My DocumentsM le2 RMLs\Energy Fuels Resources - White Mesa\Inspections\2012 hispections\RPP-02\RPP-
02 Inspection Report 11-26-2012 doc
Respiratory Protection Program
The inspection consisted of a review of records and procedures relating to the Mill's Respiratory
Protection Program The Mill's Respiratory Protection Program was found to be properly managed
with records and procedures properly maintained.
Respirator Issue
The inspection looked at the Mill's issuance of respirators to personnel at the site With the Mill's
RSO in accompaniment, a visit to the Respirator Room was made and the Respirator Technician
interviewed The inspector retneved the names of individuals who were issued respirators on the day
of the inspection and were compared with those individuals' qualifications including training,
medical surveillance and fit testing records All reviewed records were found to be in compliance
While visiting the Respirator Room, the inspector had an opportunity to observe the issuance of a
respirator to a site worker Proper inspection of the respirator was performed along with adequately
administered negative/positive pressure and smoke tests to assure proper respirator function and fit.
However, it was noted by the inspector that the worker had a slight goatee that, m the inspector's
opinion, could potentially interfere with the respirator's seal area The RSO disagreed with the
inspector's definition of the seal area of the facepiece and the inspector agreed to discuss the issue
further in the inspection's close-out meeting. Details are discussed below
Respirator Maintenance
The inspection considered the maintenance aspects of the Mill's Respiratory Protection Program A
document review showed the Respirator Technician had received training in respirator maintenance
and repair. Training records are maintained in the 'Procedure Training Certificates' Log Book in the
RSO's office Contamination surveys are performed on each respirator after cleaning Swipes are
counted on the Mill's scalers and the results are documented m the 'Respirator Survey Log'm the
Radiation Safety Office Visual inspection of the Respirator Room found the facility to be clean and
orderly with respirators properly stored Respirator cleaning solutions and methods were found to be
within manufacturer's specifications No discrepancies were noted
Findings
The Respiratory Protection Program was found to be properly administered The only issue identified
was the debate conceming facial hair potentially interfenng with the face-to-facepiece seal of
negative pressure respirators as identified m the Respirator Issue section above. This debate was
raised previously m an unrelated 2008 inspection where the inspector, after witnessing a goateed
respirator user, brought the issue to the RSO's attention The debate, however, was not immediately
resolved
2 of Page 3
C \Documents and Settings\kcamey\My DocumentsM le2 RMLsVEnergy Fuels Resources - White Mesa\tospections\2012 Inspections\RPP-02\RPP-
02 Inspection Report 11-26-2012 doc
29CFR1910 134,10CFR20 1703 and R313-15-703 all clearly state that nothing shall interfere with
the face-to-facepiece seal of a tight fitting respirator. The debate lies in the definition of what
constitutes the 'seal area' of the respirator since none of the regulatory agencies have specifically
defined this term The Licensee contends that the seal area is the outer edge of the respirator sealing
surface and that as long as nothing - including facial hair - protmdes from this edge, the regulatory
requirements are satisfied
The inspector contends that the sealing surface of the respirator includes the entire seal area
anywhere the facepiece meets the skin This position is corroborated by Mine Safety Appliances
Company (MSA) who is the pnmary supplier of air punfying respirators at the White Mesa Mill In a
letter forwarded to the DRC from MSA, dated August 28, 2008, MSA confirms that, "The sealing
surface of the respirator would be any area on the penphery of the respirator that contacts the face of
the individual " A letter from the DRC to Mr David Frydenlund dated September 4,2008 addressed
this issue However, the licensee did not respond and the DRC did not follow up m the matter
Conclusion and Recommendations
No violations are recommended for this inspection The findings noted should be re-addressed m the
Inspection Letter for this inspection and the DRC should require a response within 30 days
Recommendation for Next Inspection
The facial hair issue should be included m the next inspection dependent upon the outcome of the
debate on the issue.
Prepared By Kevin Camey
Reviewed By Phillip Goble
3 of Page 3
C \Documents and Settings\kcamey\My DocumentsM le2 RMLs\Energy Fuels Resources - White Mesa\Inspections\2012 Inspections\RPP-02\RPP-
02 InspecUon Report 11-26-2012 doc
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIATION PROTECTION INSPECTION MODULE
RADMOD.RPP-02 Rev 1
RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGAM
DENISON MINES - WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL LICENSE UT1900479
Inspectors Kevin Camev
Inspection Dates- Start November 15. 2012 End: November 16. 2012
Requirements, Procedures, Policies, Standards:
o Radioactive Matenals License UT1900479
o NRC Regulatory Guide 8 31
o NRC Regulatory Guide 8.15
o License Renewal Application Appendix L
o Utah Administrative Code R313-15
R313-15-703. Use of Individual Respiratory Protection Equipment
If the licensee or registrant uses respiratory protection equipment to linut the intake of radioactive
matenal
(1) Except as provided in Subsection R313-15-703(2), the licensee or registrant shall use only
respiratory protection equipment that is tested and certified by the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health
(2) The licensee or registrant may use equipment that has not been tested or certified by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health or for which there is no schedule for testing or certification,
provided the licensee or registrant has submitted to the Executive Secretary and the Executive Secretary
has approved an application for authonzed use of that equipment The application must include a
demonstration by testing, or a demonstration on the basis of reliable test information, that the matenal
and performance charactenstics of the equipment are capable of providing the proposed degree of
protection under anticipated conditions of use
(3) The licensee or registrant shall implement and maintain a respiratory protection program that
includes
(a) Air samplmg sufficient to identify the potential hazard, pemut proper equipment selection, and
estimate doses; and
(b) Surveys and bioassays, as necessary, to evaluate actual intakes; and
(c) Testing of respirators for operability, user seal check for face sealing devices and functional check
for others, immediately pnor to each use; and
(d) Wntten procedures regarding
(i) Monitonng, including air sampling and bioassays;
(ll) Supervision and training of respirator users,
(ill) Fit testing,
(iv) Respirator selection,
(v) Breathing air quality;
Page 1 of 5
(vi) Inventory and control;
(vu) Storage, issuance, maintenance, repair, testing, and quality assurance of respiratory protection
equipment,
(viii) Recordkeeping; and
(ix) Limitations on penods of respirator use and relief from respirator use; and
(e) Determination by a physician pnor to initial fitting of respirators, before the first field use of non-
face sealing respirators, and either every 12 months thereafter or penodically at a frequency detemuned
by a physician, that the individual user is medically fit to use the respiratory protection equipment; and
(f) Fit testing, with fit factor greater than or equal to ten times the APF for negative pressure devices,
and a fit factor greater than or equal to 500 for positive pressure, continuous flow, and pressure-demand
devices, before the first field use of tight fitting, face-sealing respirators and penodically thereafter at a
frequency not to exceed one year. Fit testing must be performed with the facepiece operating m the
negative pressure mode.
(4) The licensee or registrant shall advise each respirator user that the user may leave the area at any
time for relief from respirator use in the event of equipment malfunction, physical or psychological
distress, procedural or communication failure, significant detenoration of operating conditions, or any
other conditions that nught require such relief
(5) The licensee or registrant shall also consider limitations appropnate to the type and mode of use
When selecting respiratory devices the licensee shall provide for vision correction, adequate
communication, low temperature work environments, and the concurrent use of other safety or
radiological protection equipment. The licensee or registrant shall use equipment m such a way as not to
interfere with the proper operation of the respirator
(8) The licensee shall ensure that no objects, matenals or substances, such as facial hair, or any
conditions that interfere with the face and facepiece seal or valve function, and that are under the control
of the respirator wearer, are present between the skin of the wearer's face and the sealing surface of a
tight-fitting respirator facepiece.
(9) In estimating the dose to individuals from intake of airborne radioactive matenals, the concentration
of radioactive matenal in the air that is inhaled when respirators are worn is initially assumed to be the
ambient concentration in air without respiratory protection, divided by the assigned protection factor If
the dose is later found to be greater than the estimated dose, the corrected value must be used If the dose
is later found to be less than the estimated dose, the conected value may be used.
Respiratory Protection Program
1) Have the respirators that the licensee uses for respiratory protection been tested and certified by the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health'? (R313-15-703)
Yes 13 No • N/A •
Comments The Mill uses MSA respirators which have been certified.
Page 2 of 5
2) Upon review of the Respirator Protection Program and Mill procedures, are wntten procedures in the
following areas implemented and maintained'? (R313-15-703(3)(d))
Written procedures Yes No
Monitonng, including air sampling and bioassays. •
Supervision and training of respirator users. •
Fit testing, •
Respirator selection. •
Breathing air quality. •
Inventory and control. •
Storage, issuance, maintenance, repair, testing, and quality assurance of respiratory protection
equipment. •
Recordkeepmg, •
Limitations on penods of respirator use and relief from respirator use. •
Comments: All reviewed documents were found to be compliant
Respirator Issuance
3) Have the licensee provide a list of 10 respirator users. Do the following users meet the requirements of
R313-15-703 for respirator traimng?
Name Exams Initial/ Refresher
Training Records Medical Clearance Fit Tests
1 Salvador Cerros Yes Yes IS No • Yes 13 No • Yes 13 No •
2 Nate Clah Yes Yes 13 No • Yes 13 No • Yes 13 No •
3 Zack Jensen Yes Yes 13 No • Yes 13 No • Yes 13 No •
4. Jordan Cowboy Yes Yes S No • Yes 13 No • Yes 13 No •
5. Noah Imel Yes Yes 13 No • Yes 13 No • Yes 13 No •
Page 3 of 5
6 Yes • No • Yes • No • Yes^n^Jic^-
7. Yes • No • Yes n^^Iern" Yes • No •
8. Y N No^ Yes • No • Yes • No •
9 Yes n iNo |_] Yes • No • Yes • No •
^^^^^ Yes • No • Yes • No • Yes • No •
Comments: The inspector <;hose only 5 workers which were issued respirators on the day nf the
inspection.
Respirator Maintenance
4) Has the licensee provided documentation for training of personnel responsible for respirator
maintenance and repair*?
Yes 13 No • N/A •
Comments- All Radiation Safety Techs receive this training. The current Respirator Tech. Tnstin
Perkins, has received the required training.
5) Are used respirators being surveyed after each use?
Yes 13 No • N/A •
Comments: However, the respirators are surveyed after cleaning and pnor to re-issne
Page 4 of 5
6) Are respirators surveyed for removable contamination?
Yes 13 No • N/A •
Comments Respirators are swiped and counted with the Mill's scalers.
7) Do respirator surveys properly document the survey performed?
Yes 13 No • N/A •
Comments The surveys are documented in the Respirator Survey T^g which is maintained in the
Radiation Safety Office.
8) Are respirators decontaminated as per Manufacturers Instmctions?
Yes 13 No • N/A •
Comments Cleaning solutions and methods are within manufacturer's recommendations.
9) Are respirators inspected in accordance with the licensee's Respiratory Protection Program?
Yes 13 No • N/A •
Comments Respirators are inspected pnor to issue and penodically while in storage.
Page 5 of 5
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Inspection Module RPP-02
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES
White Mesa Mill
Radioactive Matenals License UT1900479
OPENING MEETING
Inspector(s) Kevin Camey
Date(s) November IS, 7017
MEETING MEMBERS
NAME COMPANY CONTACT
INFORMATION
Ron Nieves Energy Fuels 435-678-2221
Terry Slade ^ Energy Fuels 435-678-2221
Kevin Camey UDRC 801-536-4250
{
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Inspection Module RPP-02
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES
White Mesa Mill
Radioactive Matenals License UT1900479
OPENING MEETING
DISCUSSION
The Inspector informed the Mill Staff of the scope of the inspection. The Inspector reqnested access into the
Restncted Area of the site and requested documentation to review for the purposes of completing the
inspection
SITE STAFF COMMENTS
The Mill Staff communicated that the Inspector would have access to any records requested and offered a tour
inside the Mill's Restncted Area. Mr. Nieves stated that several ofthe documents requested would not be
available until David Turk returns tomorrow on 11/16/2012. .
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Inspection Module PEM-01
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES
White Mesa Mill
Radioactive Matenals License UTl900479
CLOSEOUT MEETING
Inspector(s) Kevin Carney
Date(s). November 16, 7019
MEETING MEMBERS
NAME COMPANY CONTACT
INFORMATION
Dave Turk Energy Fuels 435-678-2221
Ron Nieves Energy Fuels 435-678-2221
Terry Slade Energy Fuels 435-678-2221
Kevin Camey UDRC 801-536-4250
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
Inspection Module PEM-01
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES
White Mesa Mill
Radioactive Matenals License UT1900479
CLOSEOUT MEETING
DISCUSSION of FINDINGS
One discrepancy was identtfied diinng the inspection. An inappropnate Airborne Radioactivity Area posting
was found at the entrance to the SAG Mill area on the lower elevation of the facility The NRC requirement is
that the posting he yellow and magenta, display a radiation trefoil and include the words "Caution for Danger^
Airborne Radioactivity Area." The posting was of a general safety type, bine on white, saying that respirators
and heanng protection are required in this area.
SITE STAFF COMMENTS
The Manager of Environmental Health and Safety argued, as m 2008. that only the outer edge of the chin cup
of the respirator constitutes the seal area
*Note This issue is not unique to the White Mesa Mill and has been argued throughout industry for decades
The inspector will follow up on this issue to its conclusion with the Mill. No violation will be issued at this
time