DRC-2003-001381 - 0901a06880ef6a0f

Where ideas connect
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Radiation Control
Michael 0. Leavitt 168 North 1950 West
Governor P.O. Box 144850
Dianne R Nielson, Ph.D. Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850
Executive Director (801) 5364250
William J. Sinclair (801) 5334097 Fax C.
Executive Scrtar [phone] T.D.D.
Radiation Control Board www.deq.utah.gov
July 18, 2003
Paul Lohaus, Director Via Federal Express
Office of State and Tribal Programs r
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Dear Mr. Lohaus:
The following is a list of changes to the final application as a result of comments received from
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in a letter dated June 27, 2003. The NRC identified
comments using the final application submitted in January 2003. As a result of response to the
comments, corrections were made to the final application that resulted in a different pagination.
In order to facilitate review of the revised final application, changes will be identified in the
"clean copy" of the revised application by page number that may differ from the January 2003
version. In addition, an underline/strikeout version has also been provided to facilitate the
review. Following reference to the changes by page number on the clean copy,
underline/strikeout changes page numbers will follow in brackets.
NRC comment #1: Page 3, Policy Statement, line 13 of full paragraph. The amendment to the
agreement does not include authority for the pre-1978 mill tailings and Utah should not imply
that this will be included in the new regulatory program. Pre-1978 mill tailings (less than 0.05
weight would be NORM) are not under NRC authority under the AEA, therefore, they cannot be
included in an agreement between NRC and Utah.
Response to comment #1: A clarifying paragraph regarding pre-1978 material has been added to
page 4 [4] of the revised final application. This paragraph also includes a commitment to follow
the alternate feed guidance (Regulatory Issues Summary [RIS] 2000-23) and indicates that
alternate feed amendment requests will be considered to be major amendments subject to
applicable licensing provisions. RIS 2000-23 is included in Tab 8 of the addendum.
NRC comment #2: Page 11, Staffing, line 6 of full paragraph. In the list of courses, please note
that NRC does not offer the Radiation Protection Engineering course any more. Therefore, this
course should be deleted or it would appear that Utah would not be able to meet their training
commitment in the application.
Response to comment #2: The subject course was deleted from page 12 [12] of the revised final
application.
StP-bS AsOV
NRC comment #3: Page 12& 13, Staffing. The numbers in the table at the top of page 13 do not
appear to be correct. The total for the table appears to be 380 days not 480 days. The 15 percent
contingency for non-direct work seems reasonable. However, there was no contingency for
direct work not included in the two tables. The discussion does not include reactive inspection
time as well as construction inspections which will be needed for Rio Algom and Plateau
Resources as they decommission and close their facilities. Resources for public questions not
related to specific major licensing actions, guidance development/changes, minor amendments,
and questions from licensees need to be included. Although we believe the staffing level is
appropriate, the.justification does not fully support as drafted.
Response to comment #3: On page 11 [11], additional response has been provided regarding the
impact of the mentoring process on the normal workload. Pages 13 and 14 [14] of the revised
final application have been modified to clarify the number of licensing staff days and the staffing
conclusion relating to adequacy. In addition, the contingency factor was increased to 20% to
address those "direct work" items identified in the comment.
NRC comment #4: Page 17, first line of first paragraph. This section is worded as though there
are actions to be taken and does not acknowledge the rulemaking completed. Page 22 first line
of third paragraph has similar wording of actions to be taken when we believe you have
completed them.
Response to comment #4: The appropriate sections were modified on page 17 [18], first
sentence under the heading "Reservation of Authority to the United States" to indicate the
completion of the items. Wording was modified on page 23 [24] to indicate that a change to
R313-24-1 was accepted as a non-substantive rule change effective January 1, 2003. In addition,
Table A on page 22 [23] was modified to include R313-15-301 as part of the rulemakings.
NRC comment #5: Page 23, end of first partial paragraph. There should be some discussion of
the judicial review that is available after the Utah Radiation Control Board has reviewed the
decision of the Executive Secretary.
Response to comment 5: The paragraph was modified on page 24 [25] of the final revised
application to indicate the next appeals step (to Utah Court of Appeals) and time frame involved
(30 days). The statutory citations were provided.
NRC Comment #6: Page 23, Licensing Program, first paragraph, line 5. This section does not
acknowledge the rulemaking that have been completed.
Response to comment #6: The section, "Licensing Program" was modified on page 24 [25] to
acknowledge that rulemakings have been completed. A minor grammatical change, not
suggested by NRC, was also made to the next sentence by substituting "will" for "would."
NRC comment #7: Page 23, Last paragraph, line 5. The last word in the line should be
"unrestricted" not "restricted"
Response to comment #7: This change was accomplished on page 25 [27], last paragraph.
NRC comment #8: Page 26, line 4. The Regulatory Guide number "3.11 1" should be "3.11.1 to
be correct. In addition, the NRC has standard review plans for reclamation plans (NUREG-
* 1620) that should be included in the list of guidance documents.
Response to comment #8: The Regulatory Guide number was corrected on page 27 [28].
NUREG-1620 was added to the list of guidance documents. Regulatory Issues Summary [RIS]
2000-23 relating to alternate feeds was also added to the list of guidance documents. A
typographical error -"utake" was corrected to "uptake"
NRC comment #9: Page 29, Rules Equivalent to NRC Regulations, line 1. The reference to
"future adoption" does not acknowledge the rulemakings that have been completed. The last
paragraph in this section also implies the rulemakings have not been completed. The reference
to 50.31(b) on page 31 [32] should be 150.31(b).
Response: All areas relating to "future adoption" on pages 30 and 31[31 and 32] have been
corrected to indicate that necessary rules have been adopted. The reference 150.31(b) was
corrected on page 32.
NRC comment #10: Page 31, line 4. Editorial nits. Ra-266 should be Ra-226. Th-320 should
be Th-230.
Response to comment #10: These editorial nits have been corrected on page 31[33] of the
revised final application.
NRC comment #11: Page 34, line 2. The word "it is obtaining" should be changed to "Utah has
obtained the".
Response to comment #11: The final application has been revised to reflect the above change
on page 34 [36].
NRC comment #12: The Reporting Material Events (STP Procedure SA-300) referenced in
Appendix D as Attachment 7 is the 1998 version. Utah needs to use current SA-300 version
dated May 23, 2001 and properly reference it.
Response to comment #12:
The final application has been revised to reference the 2001 version of STP Procedure SA-300
and the 1998 version has been replaced with the 2001 version in Appendix D. The replacement
procedure is located in Tab 4 of the addendum.
NRC comment #13: Inspection Manual Chapter 2801 referenced in Appendix D is dated 1998.
The revised version (2000) should be referenced and used.
Response to comment #13:
The final application has been revised to reference the 2000 version of IMC 2801 and the 1998
version has been replaced with the 2000 version in Appendix D. The replacement version is
located in Tab 5 of the addendum.
NRC comment #14: In section G in the side-by-side regulation comparisons, for Criterion
5B(4), Utah states that their groundwater Class III is "roughly equivalent to an 'exempted aquifer'
under the EPA Safe Drinking Water Act/Underground Injection Control Regulations found in 40
CFR 146.4".
Staff does not agree with the above statement and believes that Utah's class HI groundwater
differs from EPA's definition of an "exempted aquifer." This needs further discussion or the
statement should be deleted. [The NRC staff reviewer suggests that Utah delete the statement
from the Utah table, since all four classes in Utah require continued protection, whereas the EPA
exempt aquifer does not require protection. Therefore, none of the Utah classes are similar to the
EPA exempt aquifer.]
Response to comment #14: We concur and the statement will be removed from the side-by-side
regulation comparisons. A replacement page is provided in Tab 6 of the addendum.
NRC comment #15: The proposed draft Amendment to the Agreement in Appendix K did not
address everything necessary for an 1 le.(2) agreement. The NRC drafted a revised amendment
to the Utah Agreement for your consideration. Please see attached.
Response to comment #15: We concur with the revised agreement and will replace the draft
Agreement in Appendix K with the NRC draft Agreement. The replacement draft agreement is
located in Tab 7.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter in quickly identifying and resolving issues with the
application.
Sincerely,
William J. Sinclair, Executive Secretary
Utah Radiation Control Board
Revisions to final application
Replace Final Application page with Final Revised Application page in Tab 1 of the
addendum.
Replace Attached Appendices with updated version in Tab 1 of the addendum.
Replace changes in the final application with NRC Comments and Response to
Comments in Tab of the addendum.
Replace Utah Final Application for Uranium Mills and Mill Tailings with the Utah Final
Application "clean copy" in Tab 2.
Replace Attachment 7, Appendix D, SA-300 (February 20, 1998) with SA-300 (May 23,
2001) in Tab 4 of the addendum.
Replace NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2801 (November 11, 1998) in Appendix D.
with NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2901 (August 25,2000) in Tab 5 of the addendum.
Replace page 8 of 20 in Enclosure 3 (Comparison of Several NRC Groundwater
Protection Criteria .. .) in Appendix G with page 8 of 20 in Tab 6 of the addendum.
Replace (Amendment to Agreement.. .), third document of Appendix K with
Amendment to Agreement .. .in Tab 6 of the addendum.
Add Appendix L, Regulatory Issues Summary 2000-23 from Tab 8 of the addendum.
FINAL APPLICATION
Addendum
AMENDED AGREEMENT FOR:
URANIUM RECO VER Y REG ULA TION
STATE OF UTAH
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF :
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
JULY 2003
It-
QtJs REso, UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 o k(¢4. June 27, 2003 .4
Mr. William Sinclair, Director
Division of Radiation Control i.
Department of Environmental Quality c Ci/o
168 North 1950 West <
P.O. Box 144850 $
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850
Dear Mr. Sinclair:
We have conducted a review of the State of Utah application for an amendment to Its
Agreement for uranium milling and 11 e.(2) byproduct material dated January 2, 2003. The
review was conducted by an inter-office staff team. The review was based on the Commission
Policy Statement that provides the criteria for new agreements and Office of State and Tribal
Programs (STP) Procedure SA-700, "Processing New Agreements."
The review was conducted to determine whether the application contained the information
necessary to enable staff to prepare an assessment of the amendment application. The team
found that the amendment application provided information on the appropriate major program
elements for a uranium milling program and reflected significant effort on the part of your staff.
The team also identified several areas where additional clarifying nformation or documentation
is needed. Our comments are contained in Enclosure 1. For your reference, the comments
are correlated to the pertinent sections of your draft amendment application. We would also
appreciate any comments you might have on the usefulness of the procedure and handbook.
The Commission Policy Statement, "Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in
Discontinuance of NRC Regulatory Authority and Assumption thereof by States through
Agreements," [Effective January 23, 1981 (46 FR 7540), and amended by Policy Statements
published July 16,1981 (46 FR 36969) and July 21, 1983 (48 FR 33376)], specifies the criteria
the Commission will apply in making its finding that a proposed Agreement State program is
adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC's regulatory program,
as required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Under this process, the staff
prepares a written assessment of the State's program, based on a review of the State's
application against the criteria, to support the Commission's finding.
We have shared the enclosed comments with you as they were being developed but we would
welcome an opportunity to meet with you to discuss the comments, if needed, and answer any
questions concerning the review, the information needed, or steps involved in processing the
amended Agreement. Please contact me at 301-415-3340, or Dennis Sollenberger at
301-415-2819 to arrange a meeting or conference call.
Si rely,
Paul H. Lohaus, Director
Office of State and Tribal Programs
Enclosure:
As stated
Comments on the Utah Application for an Amended Agreement
for Uranium Mills and Mill Tailings
1. Page 3, Policy Statement, line 13 of full paragraph. The amendment to the agreement
does not Include authority for pre-1978 mill tailings and Utah should not imply that this
will be included in the new regulatory program. Pre-1978 mill tailings (<0.05 weight
percent would be NORM) are not under NRC authority under the AEA, therefore, they
cannot be included in an agreement between the NRC and Utah.
2. Page 11, Staffing, line 6 of full paragraph. In the list of courses, please note that NRC
does not offer the Radiation Protection Engineering course any more. Therefore, this
course should be deleted or It would appear that Utah would not be able to meet Its
training commitment in the application.
3. Page 12 and 13, Staffing. The numbers in the table at the top of page 13 do not
appear to be correct. The total for the table appears to be 380 days not 480 days. The
15 percent contingency for non-direct work seems reasonable. However, there was no
contingency for direct work not included in the two tables. The discussion does not
include reactive inspection time as well as construction inspections which will be
needed for Rio Algom and Plateau Resources as they decommission and close their
facilities. Resources for public questions not related to specific major licensing actions,
guidance development/changes, minor amendments, and questions from licensees
need to be included. Although we believe the staffing level is appropriate, the
justification does not fully support the staffing level as drafted.
4. Page 17, first line of first paragraph. This section is worded as though there are actions
to be taken and does not acknowledge the rulemakings completed. Page 22 first line
of third paragraph has similar wording of actions to be taken when we believe you have
completed them.
5. Page 23, end of first partial paragraph. There should be some discussion of the judicial
review that is available after the Utah Radiation Control Board has reviewed the
decision of the Executive Secretary.
6. Page 23, Licensing Program, first paragraph, line 5. This section does not
acknowledge the rulemakings that have been completed.
7. Page 24, Last paragraph, line 5. The last word in the line should be "unrestricted" not
t restricted".
8. Page 26, line 4. The Regulatory Guide number "3.11 U should be "3.11.1" to be
correct. In addition, the NRC has standard review plans for reclamation plans
(NUREG-1 620) that should be included in the list of guidance documents.
9. Page 29, Rules Equivalent to NRC Regulations, line 1. The reference to future
adoption" does not acknowledge the rulemakings that have been completed. The last
paragraph in this section also implies the rulemakings have not been completed. The
reference to "50.31 (b)" on page 30 should be to 150.31 (b)".
10. Page 31, line 4. Editorial nits. Ra-266 should be Ra-226. Th-320 should be Th-230.
11. Page 34, line 2. The word "It is obtaining" should be changed to "Utah has obtained
the".
12. The Reporting Material Events (STP Procedure SA -300) referenced in Appendix D as
Attachment 7 is the 1998 version. Utah needs to use the current SA-300 version dated
May 23, 2001 and properly reference it.
13. Inspection Manual Chapter 2801 referenced in Appendix D is dated 1998. The revised
version (2000) should be referenced and used.
14. In section G in the side-by-side regulation comparisons, for Criterion 58(4), Utah states
that their groundwater Class liI is "roughly equivalent to an 'exempted aquifer' under
the EPA Safe Drinking Water Act/Underground Injection Control Regulations found in
40 CFR 146.4N.
Staff does not agree with the above statement and believes that Utah's class IlIl
groundwater differs from EPA's definition of an "exempted aquifer". This needs further
discussion or the statement should be deleted. The NRC staff reviewer suggests that
Utah delete the statement from the Utah table, since all four groundwater classes in
Utah require continued protection, whereas the EPA exempt aquifer does not require
protection. Therefore, none of the Utah groundwater classes are similar to the EPA
exempt aquifer.]
15. The proposed draft Amendment to the Agreement in Appendix K did not address
everything necessary for an 11 e.(2) agreement. The NRC drafted a revised
amendment to the Utah Agreement for your consideration. Please see attached.
Attachment:
As stated
Where ideas connect
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Radiation Control
Michael 0. Leavitt 168 North 1950 West
Governor P.O. Box 144850
Dianne R Nielson, Ph.D. Salt Lake City, Utah 841144850
Executive Director (801) 5364250W i .Sinclair [phone] Fax
ExecuWive Sertay [phone] T.D.D.
Radiation Control Board www.deq.utah.gov
July 18, 2003
Paul Lohaus, Director Via Federal Express
Office of State and Tribal Programs
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Dear Mr. Lohaus:
The following is a list of changes to the final application as a result of comments received from
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in a letter dated June 27, 2003. The NRC identified
comments using the final application submitted in January 2003. As a result of response to the
comments, corrections were made to the final application that resulted in a different pagination.
In order to facilitate review of the revised final application, changes will be identified in the
"clean copy" of the revised application by page number that may differ from the January 2003
version. In addition, an underline/strikeout version has also been provided to facilitate the
review. Following reference to the changes by page number on the clean copy,
underline/strikeout changes page numbers will follow in brackets.
NRC comment #1: Page 3, Policy Statement, line 13 of full paragraph. The amendment to the
agreement does not include authority for the pre-1978 mill tailings and Utah should not imply
that this will be included in the new regulatory program. Pre-1978 mill tailings (less than 0.05
weight would be NORM) are not under NRC authority under the AEA, therefore, they cannot be
included in an agreement between NRC and Utah.
Response to comment #1: A clarifying paragraph regarding pre-1978 material has been added to
page 4 [4] of the revised final application. This paragraph also includes a commitment to follow
the alternate feed guidance (Regulatory Issues Summary [RIS] 2000-23) and indicates that
alternate feed amendment requests will be considered to be major amendments subject to
applicable licensing provisions. RIS 2000-23 is included in Tab 8 of the addendum.
NRC comment #2: Page 11, Staffing, line 6 of full paragraph. In the list of courses, please note
that NRC does not offer the Radiation Protection Engineering course any more. Therefore, this
course should be deleted or it would appear that Utah would not be able to meet their training
commitment in the application.
Response to comment #2: The subject course was deleted from page 12 [12] of the revised final
application.
NRC comment #3: Page 12&13, Staffing. The numbers in the table at the top of page 13 do not
appear to be correct. The total for the table appears to be 380 days not 480 days. The 15 percent
contingency for non-direct work seems reasonable. However, there was no contingency for
direct work not included in the two tables. The discussion does not include reactive inspection
time as well as construction inspections which will be needed for Rio Algom and Plateau
Resources as they decommission and close their facilities. Resources for public questions not
related to specific major licensing actions, guidance development/changes, minor amendments,
and questions from licensees need to be included. Although we believe the staffing level is
appropriate, the.justification does not fully support as drafted.
Response to comment #3: On page 11 [11], additional response has been provided regarding the
impact of the mentoring process on the normal workload. Pages 13 and 14 [14] of the revised
final application have been modified to clarify the number of licensing staff days and the staffing
conclusion relating to adequacy. In addition, the contingency factor was increased to 20% to
address those "direct work" items identified in the comment.
NRC comment #4: Page 17, first line of first paragraph. This section is worded as though there
are actions to be taken and does not acknowledge the rulemaking completed. Page 22 first line
of third paragraph has similar wording of actions to be taken when we believe you have
completed them.
Response to comment #4: The appropriate sections were modified on page 17 [18], first
sentence under the heading "Reservation of Authority to the United States" to indicate the
completion of the items. Wording was modified on page 23 [24] to indicate that a change to
R313-24-1 was accepted as a non-substantive rule change effective January 1, 2003. In addition,
Table A on page 22 [23] was modified to include R313-15-301 as part of the rulemakings.
NRC comment #5: Page 23, end of first partial paragraph. There should be some discussion of
the judicial review that is available after the Utah Radiation Control Board has reviewed the
decision of the Executive Secretary.
Response to comment 5: The paragraph was modified on page 24 [25] of the final revised
application to indicate the next appeals step (to Utah Court of Appeals) and time frame involved
(30 days). The statutory citations were provided.
NRC Comment #6: Page 23, Licensing Program, first paragraph, line 5. This section does not
acknowledge the rulemaking that have been completed.
Response to comment #6: The section, "Licensing Program" was modified on page 24 [25] to
acknowledge that rulemakings have been completed. A minor grammatical change, not
suggested by NRC, was also made to the next sentence by substituting "will" for "would."
NRC comment #7: Page 23, Last paragraph, line 5. The last word in the line should be
"unrestricted" not "restricted"
Response to comment #7: This change was accomplished on page 25 [27], last paragraph.
NRC comment #8: Page 26, line 4. The Regulatory Guide number "3.111" should be "3.1 1.1 to
be correct. In addition, the NRC has standard review plans for reclamation plans (NUREG-
1620) that should be included in the list of guidance documents.
Response to comment #8: The Regulatory Guide number was corrected on page 27 [28].
NUREG-1620 was added to the list of guidance documents. Regulatory Issues Summary [RIS]
2000-23 relating to alternate feeds was also added to the list of guidance documents. A
typographical error -"utake" was corrected to "uptake"
NRC comment #9: Page 29, Rules Equivalent to NRC Regulations, line 1. The reference to
"future adoption" does not acknowledge the rulemakings that have been completed. The last
paragraph in this section also implies the rulemakings have not been completed. The reference
to 50.31(b) on page 31 [32] should be 150.31(b).
Response: All areas relating to "future adoption" on pages 30 and 31[31 and 32] have been
corrected to indicate that necessary rules have been adopted. The reference 150.31(b) was
corrected on page 32.
NRCcomment#10: Page31,line4. Editorial nits. Ra-266shouldbeRa-226. Th-320should
be Th-230.
Response to comment #10: These editorial nits have been corrected on page 31[33] of the
revised final application.
NRC comment #11: Page 34, line 2. The word "it is obtaining" should be changed to "Utah has
obtained the".
Response to comment #11: The final application has been revised to reflect the above change
on page 34 [36].
NRC comment #12: The Reporting Material Events (STP Procedure SA-300) referenced in
Appendix D as Attachment 7 is the 1998 version. Utah needs to use current SA-300 version
dated May 23, 2001 and properly reference it.
Response to comment #12:
The final application has been revised to reference the 2001 version of STP Procedure SA-300
and the 1998 version has been replaced with the 2001 version in Appendix D. The replacement
procedure is located in Tab 4 of the addendum.
NRC comment #13: Inspection Manual Chapter 2801 referenced in Appendix D is dated 1998.
The revised version (2000) should be referenced and used.
Response to comment #13:
The final application has been revised to reference the 2000 version of IMC 2801 and the 1998
version has been replaced with the 2000 version in Appendix D. The replacement version is
located in Tab 5 of the addendum.
NRC comment #14: In section G in the side-by-side regulation comparisons, for Criterion
5B(4), Utah states that their groundwater Class III is "roughly equivalent to an 'exempted aquifer'
under the EPA Safe Drinking Water Act/Underground Injection Control Regulations found in 40
CFR 146.4".
Staff does not agree with the above statement and believes that Utah's class III groundwater
differs from EPA's definition of an "exempted aquifer." This needs further discussion or the
statement should be deleted. [The NRC staff reviewer suggests that Utah delete the statement
from the Utah table, since all four classes in Utah require continued protection, whereas the EPA
exempt aquifer does not require protection. Therefore, none of the Utah classes are similar to the
EPA exempt aquifer.]
Response to comment #14: We concur and the statement will be removed from the side-by-side
regulation comparisons. A replacement page is provided in Tab 6 of the addendum.
NRC comment #15: The proposed draft Amendment to the Agreement in Appendix K did not
address everything necessary for an 1 le.(2) agreement. The NRC drafted a revised amendment
to the Utah Agreement for your consideration. Please see attached.
Response to comment #15: We concur with the revised agreement and will replace the draft
Agreement in Appendix K with the NRC draft Agreement. The replacement draft agreement is
located in Tab 7.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter in quickly identifying and resolving issues with the
application.
Sincerely,
William J. Sinc1air, Executive Secretary
Utah Radiation Control Board
FINAL REVISED APPLICATION
AMENDED AGREEMENT FOR
URANIUM RECOVERY REGULATION
STATE OF UTAH
Il
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
JULY 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
UTAH RADIATION REGULATORY PROGRAM
I. INTRODUCTION
II. POLICY STATEMENT
III. DESCRIPTION OF ORGANIZATION
IV. GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY
V. STAFFING
VI. FUNDING
VII. STATUTORY CHANGES
VIII. RESERVATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE UNITED STATES
IX. RULEMAKING
X. SUGGESTED STATE LEGISLATION -MODEL STATE ACT
XI. LICENSING PROGRAM
XII. INSPECTION PROGRAM
XIII. RULES EQUIVALENT TO NRC REGULATIONS
XIV. INSTRUMENTATION AND LABORATORY SUPPORT
XV. ARRANGEMENTS FOR DISCONTINUING NRC JURISDICTION
XVI. SUMMARY
ATTACHED APPENDICES
VOLUME 1
APPENDIX A: ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS
Utah State Government
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Utah Department of Environmental Quality Mission, Vision, Values, Operating
Principles, Executive Director's Office information, How We Do Business
Utah Division of Radiation Control
Utah Radiation Control Board membership, general information, Ethics Act and
Conflict of Interest
Utah Department of Environmental Quality Emergency Response Phone List
Memorandum: Designation of Bill Sinclair as Co-Executive Secretary of the Utah Water
Quality Board for Designated Radioactive Material Management Facilities
Notice of Intent Letter from Governor Leavitt to Chairman Meserve
"Elements of a Utah Agreement State Program for Uranium Mills Regulation"
APPENDIX B: STAFFING
Division staff resumes (in alphabetical order)
Job Descriptions and Job Analysis Questionnaires for New Staff
Utah Division of Radiation Control Training Policy
NRC Training Guidance Documents
NRC Inspection Manual 1246 A-12 and A-13
Section XII: Uranium Recovery Inspector: NRC Inspector
Qualifications Journal
Section XIII: Training Requirements for Uranium Recovery
Project Manager/Technical Reviewer
APPENDIX C: STATUTES/RULES
Utah Radiation Control Rules (uranium rules in Appendix J)
Utah Code Annotated 19-1, Environmental Quality Code
Utah Code Annotated 19-3, Radiation Control Act
Utah Code Annotated 19-5, Water Quality Act
Utah Code Annotated 63-46a-4, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act
Utah Water Quality Rule R317-6, Ground Water Protection
NRC STP Procedure Approval, SA-700, Utah Applicable Statutes and Rules
NRC State Regulation Status: Utah (as of 11/22/2002)
UDEQ Fee Schedule -Current FY2003 and proposed FY2004
APPENDIX D: INSPECTION PROCEDURES
Routine Procedures
Allegations/Investigations
Closeout Inspections and Closeout Surveys
Follow-up Inspections
VOLUME 2
APPENDIX E: LICENSING PROCEDURES
Technical Procedures for License Review
Expired License Policy Procedure
NRC Regulatory Guides 3.11, 3.11.1, 3.51, 3.56,4.14, 8.22. 8.25. 8.30, and 8.31
APPENDIX F: INSTRUMENTATION AND CALIBRATION PROCEDURES
Equipment Inventory
Instrument Calibration Procedures
Procedures for Sample Analysis
APPENDIX G: GROUNDWATER PROGRAM EQUIVALENCY
Cover letter transmitting groundwater program information
Enclosure 1 -Summary of the process used to determine how to best regulate
groundwater at Utah uranium mill facilities
Enclosure 2 -Executive Summary -Comparison of NRC Groundwater Protection
Criteria in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A with Utah Ground Water Quality Protection
Rules, R317-6
Enclosure 3 -Detailed Comparison of NRC Groundwater Protection Criteria in 10
CFR Part 40, Appendix A with Utah Ground Water Quality Protection Rules, R317-6
APPENDIX H: FEE SCHEDULE
Updated final approved FY2004 DEQ fee schedule (containing Uranium mills/tailings
annual and review fees)
APPENDIX I: 2002 LEGISLATION
Enrolled copy of Senate Bill 96, Uranium Mill Tailings Oversight, 2002 General
Session, State of Utah
APPENDIX J: 2002 URANIUM RECOVERY RULEMAKINGS
Cover letter transmitting rulemaking information of October 9, 2002
Copies of all uranium rulemakings filed with Utah Division of Administrative Rules
Response to comments -June 4, 2002
Response to comments -July 2002
Response to comments -September 2002
Utah Administrative Rulemaking rules R15-1-5
NRC letter of November 22, 2002 (rules are compatible)
Nonsubstantive rulemaking request as result of November 22. 2002 letter
APPENDIX K: AGREEMENT/AMENDED AGREEMENT/DRAFT AMENDED
AGREEMENT
Oiginal agreement between NRC and State of Utah, effective April 1, 1984
Amended agreement between NRC and State of Utah (low-level waste), effective May 8,
1990
Suggested language for amendment agreement between NRC and State of Utah
(uranium mills and tailings)
APPENDIX L: REGULATORY ISSUES SUMMARY (RIS) 2000-23
I
UTAH FINAL APPLICATION
FOR
URANIUM MILLS AND MILL TAILINGS
Introduction (Criterion 29*)
Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, authorizes the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) to enter into agreements, whereby states assume certain
regulatory functions that would otherwise be the responsibility of the NRC. Utah Code
Annotated (UCA) 19-3-113 authorizes the Governor of Utah to enter into such an agreement.
On April 1, 1984, Utah became an Agreement State with regulatory authority over 1 e.(1)
byproduct material, source material, and special nuclear material in quantities not sufficient to
form a critical mass. On May 9, 1990, the agreement was amended to include the regulatory
authority for land disposal within the State of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material
received from other persons. At this time, the State of Utah wishes to amend its agreement to
assume regulatory authority over byproduct material as defined in Section 11 .e.(2) of the Atomic
Energy Act for uranium mills and mill tailings.
The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Division of Radiation Control (DRC),
will be the designated agency for carrying out these responsibilities. William J. Sinclair,
Director of the Division of Radiation Control, will be the contact.
* 1981/1983 Policy Statement: 'Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in Discontinuance of NRC Regulatory Authority and Assumption
Thereof by States Through Agreement'
I
Policy Statement (Criteria 29 and 35)
The following policy statement for assuming regulatory authority over byproduct material as
defined in Section L.e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act for uranium mills and mill tailings has
evolved through a discussion process involving scoping and task force meetings. During
October and November 1999, the Division of Radiation Control conducted a series of
stakeholder meetings with potential licensees and a series of public scoping meetings that were
held in Salt Lake City, Tooele, Ticaboo, Blanding, and Moab, Utah. At the public scoping
meetings, the Division requested comments on the following proposal: "The State of Utah will
amend its current agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to regulate uranium mills
and tailings." Thirty-nine persons offered oral comments during the public scoping meetings and
approximately 150 persons attended the five scoping meetings. In addition, 8 written comments
were received during a public comment period that ran from October 28, 1999 through
December 6, 1999.
During the 2000 Utah legislative session, it was determined that it would be beneficial to form an
Agreement State/Groundwater Authority task force to examine several issues relating to
Agreement State status. The task force was initiated by the Utah Department of Environmental
Quality in April 2000. Interested stakeholders that were invited to participate on the task force
included licensee representatives, local community representatives, representatives of the Utah
Radiation and Water Quality Boards, and a representative of the Utah Mining Association. The
task force was jointly sponsored by the Department of Environmental Quality, Divisions of
Water Quality and Radiation Control. After several meetings, the task force formulated a paper
entitled: "Elements of a Utah Agreement State Program for Uranium Mill Regulation." In July
2
2000, the task force unanimously supported the Division of Radiation Control in pursuing
Agreement State status as established in the "Elements" paper. The Elements" paper described
several aspects of a Utah Agreement State program including the following policy statement:
"The State of Utah recognizes the importance of and supports the uranium mining and milling
industry. The State recognizes that to remain viable at this time, uranium mills must be able to
engage in activities other than milling conventional mined uranium ores such as processing
alternate feed materials for the recovery of uranium alone or together with other minerals. The
State also recognizes its responsibility to ensure that all such activities are accomplished in a
manner that is protective of human health and the environment. It has been a long-standing
policy for the State to seek primacy for environmental programs. In this regard, the State
believes that a cooperative uranium mills and tailings regulatory program will be of benefit to
both the regulated community and Utah citizens. The advantages that the State can offer over
the current Nuclear Regulatory Commission program include better communication with and
participation of the public in uranium recovery issues, elimination of duplicative regulatory
responsibilities, providing a more cost effective program for the regulated community, and
establishing control of materials not currently being regulated (e.g. pre-1978 uranium mill
tailings) while maintaining a regulatory program that is adequate and compatible with existing
and future NRC regulations and policy. The elements within this application provide the
framework for how the State of Utah would regulate uranium mills and tailings as an Agreement
State."
3
i
Information on the task force, including minutes of each meeting can be found on the Division of
Radiation Control website at http://www.deq.state.ut.us/EQRAD/MILLS/ATLAS/Deqtask.htm.
Announcement of formation of the task force as well as periodic updates of the task force work
were provided to the Utah Radiation Control Board.
Following the formulation of the policy in conjunction with discussions with the NRC, it was
realized that the current Commission policy related to pre-1978 uranium mill tailings would have
to be followed. This does not prevent the State from exercising regulatory authority under its
existing rules of such material as naturally occurring radioactive material. It is also the intent of
the State to follow the guidance affirmed by the Commission for review and decision of receipt
of alternate feed materials by uranium mills. Each alternate feed amendment will be considered
a major amendment for the purposes of licensing and will follow procedures as described in this
final application. The alternate feed guidance as described in NRC Regulatory Issues Summary
2000-23 is included in Appendix L of the application.
The State of Utah also wishes to emphasize that this application does not include the former
Atlas site in Moab, Utah, now known as the Moab Millsite. In accordance with the Defense
Reauthorization Act, this property was transferred to the Department of Energy. The Moab
Millsite has converted back to a Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) Title
I site with cleanup responsibility delegated to the Department of Energy.
Description of Organization (Criteria: 29, 33, and 35)
[See Appendix A for Organizational Charts]
4
The Department of Environmental Quality was created within state government on July 1, 1991
with the mission of safeguarding human health and quality of life through the protection and
enhancement of the environment. The Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate
appoints an Executive Director to administer the Department. The Department is made of six
divisions: Division of Air Quality, Division of Drinking Water, Division of Environmental
Response and Remediation (Superfund, Underground Storage Tanks, and Emergency Response),
Division of Radiation Control, Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste, and the Division of
Water Quality. Each Division is under immediate direction and control of a Division Director
appointed by the Executive Director. There are five policymaking boards created within the
department: the Air Quality Board, Radiation Control Board, the Drinking Water Board, the
Water Quality Board, and the Solid and Hazardous Waste Control Board. Division Directors are
also appointed as an Executive Secretary to the appropriate Board.
The Utah Division of Radiation Control promotes a mission that protects Utah citizens and the
environment from sources of radiation that constitute a significant health hazard. The Division is
divided into two sections, Radioactive Materials and X-ray Section and Low-Level Waste and
Environmental Monitoring Section. The Sections are supervised by two managers who are under
the direction of the Division Director. Upon assumption of the program, the Low-Level Waste
and Environmental Monitoring Section will be renamed the Environmental Monitoring, Uranium
Recovery, and Waste Management Section. The staff is divided among the following:
Radioactive Materials, X-ray, Indoor Radon, Envirocare, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Transportation Project, and the Generator Site Access permit program. A seventh program,
5
Uranium Mills, will be added. Division staff carry out the Division's mission and assist
customers in complying with the rules.
The Radioactive Material and X-ray Section is responsible for coordinating and managing the
use of radiation sources in hospital, clinical, medical, research, academic, and industrial
facilities. This section performs the regulatory functions of licensing and inspecting facilities
using radioactive material; registering and inspecting medical, academic, research, and industrial
radiation producing equipment; and responding to radiation incidents.
The Low-Level Waste and Environmental Monitoring Section is responsible for licensing and
inspecting the Envirocare low level waste facility; studying indoor radon concentrations and
disseminating information to the public relevant to health risks; directing and overseeing on-site
stabilization or relocation of abandonment of uranium mill tailings; and maintaining the integrity
and usefulness of radiation survey instruments.
The Radiation Control Board is appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Utah Senate
and guides development of state radiation control policy and rules in the state. The board is made
up of 13 members, one of whom is the Department of Environmental Quality Executive Director
or designee, and are appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. The
Department and Division staff submit recommendations for Board members to the Governor for
consideration. The appointed members are to be knowledgeable about radiation protection and
represent the following interests in the community: a physician; a dentist; a health physicist or
other professional employed in the field of radiation safety; three representatives of the regulated
6
community, at least one whom represents the radioactive waste management industry and one
who represents the uranium milling industry; a registrant or licensee representative from
academia; one representative of a local health department; one elected county official; and three
members of the general public, at least one of whom represents organized environmental
interests. The board is required to meet at least quarterly to carry out the duties described in
section 19-3-103.5 of the Utah Code Annotated. The Board typically meets on a monthly basis
except February and July. The Board also travels, as resources allow, to southeastern Utah and
Tooele County for one of the monthly meetings during the year. It may be necessary to consider
an increase in the number of times that the Board meets in southeastern Utah as a result of
uranium recovery regulation. Board members are subject to the Utah Public Officers' and
Employees' Ethics Act. Information regarding disclosure and conflict of interest for Board
members are found in Appendix A.
The State of Utah rules were amended to include an environmental report prepared by the
licensee that will be reviewed by the Division of Radiation Control.
Outside consultants will not be used but the Division has the ability to contract with outside
consultants through its fee schedule with mutual consent of the licensee.
The medical consultant with expertise in emergency medicine that would be used by the Division
is the Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The
Department of Energy Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory would also be
used as a resource.
7
Legal support is through the Attorney General's Office. The Utah Attorney General's Office
provides legal consultation services on all environmental issues that the Division may need to
address. The Attorney General's office can provide criminal investigative assistance and
prosecution.
Groundwater Authority (Criteria 29, 33, and 35)
The Division of Radiation Control administers both groundwater permitting and radioactive
material licensing for disposal facilities and uranium mills. This process has been made more
effective by utilizing existing provisions of the Utah Water Quality Act which allows the Water
Quality Board and Executive Director to designate the Director of the Division of Radiation
Control as a Co-Executive Secretary to administer provisions of the Water Quality Act for the
identified facilities [see Utah Code Annotated (UCA) 19-5-106 and 19-5-104 (l),(k)]. The DRC
Director has been designated as a Co-Executive Secretary of the Water Quality Board and given
legal authority to issue, administer, and enforce specific groundwater permits under the Utah
Water Quality Rule UCA R3 17-6 as applied to the following facilities: Envirocare, Rio Algom,
International Uranium Corporation, and Plateau Resources Limited, and as allowed under the
provisions of UCA 19-5-104(l)(k). No separate involvement of the Division of Water Quality
staff is required although they are available to consult with the DRC Director regarding
interpretation of rules and other technical or procedural matters relating to groundwater
protection. Appeals of enforcement proceedings and permit issues relating to groundwater
would be through the Utah Water Quality Board. The Division has substituted the
Administrative Rules for Ground Water Quality Protection, R317-6 for groundwater standards
8
provided in Appendix A, 10 CFR Part 40 (EPA Rules 40 CFR Part 192). Enclosed in Appendix
G is a packet of information previously submitted including.
(1) A cover letter of October 23, 2002 requesting review of information to justify an
"alternate standard" under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA);
(2) Summary of the process used to determine how to best regulate groundwater at Utah
uranium mill facilities;
(3) Executive Summary -Comparison of NRC Groundwater Protection Criteria in 10
CFR Part 40, Appendix A with Utah Ground Water Quality Protection Rules (UAC
R3 13-6)
(4) Detailed Comparison of NRC Groundwater Protection Criteria in 10 CFR Part 40,
Appendix A with Utah Ground Water Quality Protection Rules (UAC R3 13-6)
Staffing (Criteria 29, 34, and 35)
(See also Appendix B)
Up to three new positions will be created within the Division for the Uranium Mill Program that
will be combined with an existing groundwater hydrologist position within the Division that
already coordinates the uranium mill issues. Eventually, this groundwater hydrogeologist will be
responsible for the inspection and licensing of groundwater monitoring for the Uranium Mill
Program. A health physicist will be responsible for radiation safety license reviews and
inspections of mills as well as inspection of all radioactive material licensees in southern Utah
(some 28 licensees). An engineer will be responsible for the inspection and licensing of new
facilities, upgrading existing facilities, and closing facilities. An Office Technician II will be
9
responsible for administrative support for the program. Staff currently utilized for licensing and
oversight of Envirocare will also assist with the regulation of the Uranium Mill Program.
Management of the Uranium Mill Program will be under the direction of the Low-Level Waste
and Environmental Monitoring Section Manager. The 28 radioactive material licensees that the
health physicist inspects will be under the direction of the Radioactive Material and X-ray
Section Manager.
The Division will staff the program by submitting a request, once it is known when the amended
Agreement is to be signed, to the Department of Environmental Quality Human Resource
Management Office to recruit the three positions. The positions have already been authorized
and established in the Department FY 2003/2004 budgets. It is anticipated that recruitment may
commence as early as July 1, 2003 depending on the status of the amended Agreement. This
would be in anticipation of an amended Agreement being signed on or before October 1, 2003.
Three months of fees collected during January -March 2002 will fund new staff and have them
in place prior to signing of the amended Agreement. The new staff will be mentored by existing
staff that have been qualified in key areas prior to the new staff being hired. By July 1, 2003,
the following existing Division of Radiation Control staff will be qualified in the uranium mill
program area:
Speciality Area Staff Members to be Qualified
Health physics Gwyn Galloway, John Hultquist, Boyd Imai
Engineering Steve Palmer, Woody Campbell
Groundwater Loren Morton, Rob Herbert, brian Hamos
10
The qualification process will consist of completion of NRC core' courses (many of the above
staff have accomplished this) in each specialty areas. Training will also be provided through
accompaniment of NRC inspectors from NRC Region IV during routine mill inspections of the
International Uranium White Mesa Mill, the Rio Algom facility, and the Plateau Resources
Shootaring Canyon Mill. Opportunity will also be taken for inspection training during Region
IV inspection of the Envirocare facility 11 e.(2) operations. In addition, arrangements have been
made with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Radiation Services
Division to accompany state of Colorado inspectors on a training/tour/routine inspection of the
Cotter Corporation Mill in Canon City, Colorado. As the above staff members are qualified as
mentors, they will be available to work with newly hired staff prior to the signed amended
Agreement to the point in which newly hired staff achieve uranium mill competency. Once
newly hired staff are competent to work independently, the mentors provide adequate backup in
this specialty area as needed. As new staff go through the mentoring process, it may have some
short-term impact on certain inspection and licensing work, mostly in the low-level waste area.
All mentoring will be focused around ongoing activities such that any impact to DRC programs
will be minimal. As a result, the expectation will be there will be no impact to the Integrated
Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) indicators during this short transition
phase.
The new staff will also go through program orientation and receive the opportunity to participate
in Nuclear Regulatory Commission or equivalent, State, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Energy, and other job related courses. The engineer, health physicist, and
hydrogeologist will have the opportunity to take the following NRC or equivalent courses as
11
needed: Inspection Procedures, Introduction to Licensing Practices and Procedures, Introduction
to Health Physics, Nuclear Transportation Course, Radiological Emergency Response
Operations Training, and available courses related to uranium mill and mill tailings. They will
also review the Radiation Control Rules and become familiar with Regulatory Guides and
reference materials. The NRC Training guidance documents (NRC Inspection Manual Reports
1246A-12 and A-13, Section XIII: Training Requirements for Uranium Recovery Project
Manager! Technical Reviewer" and Section XII "Uranium Recovery Inspector NRC Inspector
Qualification Journal") will be utilized by the Division as references for training inspectors and
license reviewers for uranium mills. The office technician will be given the opportunity to take
State training programs as they become available.
In order to ensure that an adequate number of staff were to be hired to fulfill the requirements of
the uranium mill and tailings regulatory program, an evaluation was conducted. As mentioned
previously, the staff to be hired are 1 health physicist, 1 engineer, and 1 office technician. The
groundwater hydrologist position that was anticipated will be filled by an existing position who
has been coordinating uranium mill issues for the Division. It was determined that the
professional staff (engineer, health physicist, groundwater hydrologist) would be available for
260 work days (52 weeks/year X 5 days/week). Factors of vacation (10 days assumed), paid
holidays (11 days), and sick leave used (5 days) reduced the availability 6f 1 staff person to 243
days per year. Professional staff consisting of three persons would provide the Division with the
availability of 702 staff days. Office technician administrative functions were not factored into
the available staff days. This includes such administrative functions as filing, correspondence,
GRAMA (similar to FOIA) requests, equipment and supplies, and travel arrangements.
12
To evaluate the staff availability, inspection and licensing activities were estimated on a yearly
basis.
INSPECTION WORKLOAD/YEAR
Average # of staff Staff days per Enforcement Inspection days
Inspections per involved inspection factor per year 2
year _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Envirocare -2 3 5 10 50
Rio Algom -2 2 3 0 12
IUC -2 3 5 5 40
Plateau -2 2 3 0 12
Totals 114 days
Enforcement factor may include Notice of Violation/Order preparation, evaluation of responses
regarding corrective actions, final settlement or administrative hearing.
2 Does not include travel time to and from Southeastern Utah estimated to be 6 hours/each way.
Rio Algom and White Mesa trips to be combined, Plateau trips will be single trip.
LICENSING WORKLOAD/YEAR
Licensee Significant Public # of staff Staff days Licensing
licensing participation involved per action staff days
actions/year factor
Envirocare 4 48 3 10 168
Rio Algom 1 12 2 5 22
IUC 4 48 3 10 168
Plateau 1 12 2 5 22
Totals 380 days
n% I I _:..: -. -........ ........ ..- I1 FA -SI- -.......... 1 &-. .... o- ]e, 1 -2rublic participation racIor: pUDlC nearing i uay), evaluate comments (D lays),
(2 days), administrative hearings (4 days) = 12 days
fnal ecision
To determine staff availability for a year, the inspection days workload (114 days) was added to
the licensing days workload (380 days) for a total of 494 days. A 20% contingency factor (99
days) was also used that would include training, reactive inspection time, construction
13
inspections, minor amendment processing, response to questions from the public and licensees,
guidance/rulemaking development and changes, and other non-direct activities.
In conclusion, staffing appears adequate:
494 days (inspection/licensing workload) + 99 days (20 % contingency) = 593 days
702 staff availability days estimated = + 109 staff availability days (not including the
administrative services provided by the office technician)
Funding (Criteria 29 and 35)
The DRC will use a combination of annual operating fees and hourly review fees. The operating
fees were initially established in the Radiation Control Act as a result of the passage of 1
substitute SB96 during the 2002 General Session of the Utah Legislature. The fees, beginning in
FY2004 will be established and transferred to the DEQ annual fees document. A copy of the
FY2004 proposed fee schedule is included in Appendix H. This fee schedule will be offered for
approval during the 2003 General Session of the Utah Legislature. An hourly review fee was
established in the DEQ annual fees document during the 2002 legislative session that will be
effective upon program transfer. Annual operating fees will differentiate between closed,
standby, and operating facilities. Review of NRC generated data regarding review fees and
operating fees suggested that there will be sufficient revenue generated to fully fund the state
program.
Statutory Changes (Criteria 29 and 35)
(See also Appendix C)
The Radiation Control Act was amended during the 2002 General Session of the Utah
Legislature by 1 substitute Senate Bill 96 (enrolled copy provided in Appendix I) to allow the
Radiation Control Board to establish rules for licensing, operation, decontamination,
decommissioning, including financial assurance, and reclamation of sites, structures, and
14
equipment used in conjunction with possession, use, transfer, or delivery of source and
byproduct material and the disposal of byproduct material (uranium or thorium mill tailings and
related wastes). The Radiation Control Act was also amended to add a representative of the
uranium milling industry and another member of the public to the Radiation Control Board.
Governor Leavitt signed the bill on March 26, 2002. On November 22, 2002, following
confirmation by the Utah Senate, Royal I. Hansen (general public) and Robert Pattison (uranium
milling industry) were appointed by Governor Leavitt to the two new Board positions established
by changes to the Act.
The following statutory changes to the Utah Radiation Control Act to implement an amended
Agreement for uranium recovery regulation were accomplished during the 2002 General Session
of the Utah Legislature:
19-3-103(3)(d) was modified to include three representatives of the regulated industry, at least
one representing the radioactive waste management industry and at least one representing the
uranium mill industry; and to modify (h) to include three members of the general public, at least
one whom represents organized environmental interests. This change will expand the Board to
13 members. This is to ensure that the Board remains an odd-numbered membership as required
by state policy.
19-3-104(d)(i) (ii) was added to give the Radiation Control Board the authority to make rules as
necessary regarding the possession, use, transfer, or delivery of source and byproduct material
and the disposal of byproduct material to establish requirements, for the licensing, operation,
15
decontamination, decommissioning, including financial assurance and the reclamation of sites,
structures, and equipment used in conjunction with such activities.
19-3-105(a) was added to establish fees under 19-3-105(b)(i)(ii),(c),(d)(i)(ii),(e),(f), and (6)(a)(b)
for the regulation of source and byproduct material at uranium mills or commercial waste
facilities. From January 1, 2003 through March 30, 2002, fees for uranium mills or commercial
sites disposing of or reprocessing byproduct material were established at $6,667 per month and
$4,167 per month for uranium mills determined to be on standby status. On or after March 31,
2003, the same fees apply, but only if the NRC has granted an amended Agreement to Utah on or
before March 31, 2003. After March 31, 2003, fees are to be paid (same schedule) either
beginning October 1, 2003 (if amended Agreement has been achieved), or the beginning the date
in which NRC grants the amended Agreement. For payment periods after July 1, 2003, the fees
are established under the authority of the Department of Environmental Quality fee schedule
approved by the Utah Legislature. Annual fees are deposited in the Environmental Quality
Restricted Account.
In addition to the changes described above, administrative changes were made to:
19-1-108(2)(a) which adds the fees collected as described above to the Department of
Environmental Quality Restricted Account
16
19-3-104(l)(a)(b) was added to indicate decommissioning includes financial assurance
and source and byproduct material have the same definition as described in the Atomic
Energy Act. This resulted in renumbering of subsequent paragraphs -(2)(3)(4).
19-3-104(1 )(b) was added to clarify that only commercial low-level waste facilities are
subject to siting criteria rules (already established under Utah Radiation Control Rules
R313-25-3).
There were other administrative changes that resulted in some renumbering of portions of
19-3. These are best detailed in the enrolled copy of I substitute SB96 found in
Appendix I in which the changes to the Radiation Control Act, 19-3 are underlined and
stricken as appropriate.
Reservation of Authority to the United States
(Criterion 30)
State rules have been modified to reserve the authority to the United States in UMTRCA as
stated in 10 CFR 150.15a as follows: establishment of minimum standards for reclamation, long-
term surveillance or maintenance, and ownership of byproduct material; prior to license
termination, determine that licensee has complied with decontamination, decommissioning,
reclamation standards, and ownership standards; prior to license termination, the take title
provision will be invoked at option of the State; authority to require monitoring, maintenance
and emergency measures after license termination; authority to permit use of surface or
17
subsurface estate, or both of the land transferred per UMTRCA; and authority to exempt land
ownership transfer requirement of Section 83(b)(1)(A).
Rulemaking (Criteria 29 and 35)
(See also Appendix J)
The Division of Radiation Control has adopted applicable. parts of 10 CFR 40 by reference
(disclaiming any intent to regulate materials or activities over which the NRC retains
jurisdiction) with necessary changes to reflect primacy of the Utah program (e.g., recognition of
the Executive Secretary, etc.). With the adoption by reference of the NRC regulatory program, it
is recognized that guidance has been published that is intended to provide clarification to the
various regulatory elements. The Division will follow the published NRC guidance documents
unless doing so will compromise protection of human health and the environment.
The DRC recognizes that it cannot make a fundamental change to an Atomic Energy Act
provision (e.g., the definition of byproduct material). The DRC further recognizes that pursuant
to provisions of the Radiation Control Act [19-3-104 (6) and (7)], it can adopt rules more
stringent than federal law only after a public hearing and a written finding based on evidence in
the record that the federal regulations are not adequate to protect public health and the
environment.
Statutory authority to make rules was granted to the Board during the 2002 Utah legislative
session per 19-3-104(4)(d) of the Radiation Control Act. A determination was made that the
18
following rules would need to be modified or proposed to ensure compatibility with the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 40:
R313-22-33(1)(e), General Requirements for the Issuance of Specific Licenses"
[modified]
R313-70-7(2)(b)(c)(d), License Categories and Types of Fees for Radioactive Material
Licensees" [modified]
R313-17-2(1)(a), Administrative Procedures" [modified]
R313-15-1001, "Waste Disposal -General Requirements"
R313-19-2, Requirements of General Applicability to Licensing of Radioactive
Material" [modified]
R313-22-39, Executive Secretary Action on Applications to Renew or Amend"
[modified]
R313-24, Uranium Mills and Source Material Mill Tailings Disposal Facility
Requirements" [new section incorporating 10 CFR Part 40 by reference with exception of
groundwater requirements]
The rulemaking process involves approval by the Radiation Control Board of each proposed rule
for filing with the State Division of Administrative Rules. All State Agencies use the rulemaking
procedures of the State Division of Administrative Rules and are bound by such procedures.
Proposed rules or changes to proposed rules are published in the Utah Bulletin for public
comment on the first or fifteenth of each month. The rulemaking process requires a 30-day
public comment period. Announcement of the public comment period is made in the two major
daily Salt Lake newspapers as well as newspapers in the impacted communities such as Moab
19
and Blanding. Following the comment period, an assessment of needed changes is made. If no
comments are received or the changes are non-substantive, the rules are submitted to the
Radiation Control Board for final approval at the next Board meeting, and an effective date is
established. The effective date is usually set for one week after the approval date to allow for the
filing of the paperwork with the Division of Administrative Rules. Rulemaking has to be
completed within 120 days of the initial filing date or the process must commence again.
During this rulemaking process, comments were received from stakeholders regarding several of
the rules (see Table A). As a result, it was determined that the comments required substantive
changes to the initial proposed rule. For those rules, the comments were evaluated and a
determination made if changes were needed (summarized in a response document). The rules
requiring substantive changes then were re-drafted with the needed changes as a "change to a
proposed rule". These modified rules were approved for filing by the Radiation Control Board
and submitted to the Division of Administration Rules. The rules were subject to another 30-day
public comment period. Table A provides a summary of the rulemaking steps followed for each
of the seven rules including when the rules were made effective.
20
Table A
Summary of Uranium Mills/Tailings Rulemakings
Division of Radiation Control- 2002
Rule Approved by Commence Public Written Final approval
RCB for pc Public Comment comment comments/ by RCB
Period period Response
Published in extension to Effective
State comments Date
Bulletin
R313-22- 4/5/2002 5/1/2002 6/5/2002 No 6/7/2002
33(1)(e) 5/1/2002 6/14/2002
R313-70- 4/5/2002 5/1/2002 6/5/2002 Yes
7(2)(b)(c)(d) 5/1/2002 6/4/2002
R313-17- 4/5/2002 511/2002 6/5/2002 Yes
2(1)(a) 5/1/2002 6/4/2002
R313-15-1001 4/23/2002 5/15/2002 6/28/2002 No 7/22/2002
5/15/2002 7/22/2002
R313-19-2 4/23/2002 5/15/2002 6/28/2002 Yes
5/15/2002 7/12/2002
R313-22-39 4/5/2002 5/15/2002 6/28/2002 No 7/22/2002
5/15/2002 7/22/2002
R313-24 4/5/2002 5/1/2002 6/28/2002 Yes
5/1/2002 7/12/2002
21
Table A (Continued)
Summary of Uranium Mills/Tailings Rulemakings
Division of Radiation Control -2002
Rule Approval by Commence Public Written Final approval
RCB Public Comment comment comments/ by RCB
Period period ends Response
Re-published to Effective
in State comments Date
Bulletin
R313-22- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
33(1)(e)
R313-70- 6/7/2002 7/1/2002 7/31/2002 No 9/6/2002
7(2)(b)(c)(d) 7/1/2002 9/10/2002
R313-17- 6/7/2002 7/1/2002 7/31/2002 No 9/6/2002
2(1)(a) 7/1/2002 9/10/2002
R313-1s- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1001
R313-19-2 7/22/2002 8/15/2002 9/16/2002 No 10/42002
8/15/2002 1o/2002
R313-22-39 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
R313-24 7/22/2002 8/15/2002 9/16/2002 Yes 10/4/2002
8/15/2002 9/20/2002 10/7n2002
R313-15-301 6/6/2003 7/1/2003 7/30/2003 No 8/1/2003
7/1/2003 8/7/2003
Appendix J provides a copy of the rulemaking packet submitted to the NRC on October 9, 2002
which included each of the approved rules in final" form as filed with the Division of
Administrative Rules. Administrative rules adjudicative proceedings are found in R15-5, the
entire text of Administrative Rules Procedures (R15) is provided in Appendix J as well. Also
provided in Appendix J are copies of the Division response documents to stakeholder comments.
22
In addition, the NRC suggested in the letter confirming compatibility of the Utah rules of
November 22, 2002 (see Appendix J) that a change be made to R313-24-1 by inserting "source
material in" following the words "possession and use of' in the first line. This change was
accomplished by filing a non-substantive rule change with the Division of Administrative Rules
on December 19, 2002. The change to the rule was accepted as a non-substantive change and
was made effective January 1, 2003 (See Appendix J).
The Utah Radiation Control rules were modified to include consideration of environmental
impacts (see discussion below under Suggested State Legislation-Model State Act) (Criterion
31). This was accomplished in R313-24-3.
Suggested State Legislation-Model State Act (Criterion 31)
The Utah Radiation Control Rules will be modified to include consideration of environmental
impacts (including radiological or non-radiological impacts, surface and groundwater impacts,
consideration of alternatives to the licensed activities, and long-term impacts of licensed
activities) for new licenses and major license amendments. The analysis will be included in the
safety evaluation report for new licenses and in a statement of basis for major license
amendments. New licenses and major license amendments will be available for public comment
at least 30 days following the publication of notice. R313-17-2, 3, and 4 of the Utah Radiation
Control Rules provides an opportunity for written comment, as well as a public hearing prior to
the issuance, or amendment of a license. Once the Executive Secretary of the Utah Radiation
Control Board reaches a final decision on a new license or amendment to a license, parties or
23
individuals may appeal such decisions to the Utah Radiation Control Board. The Board acts as a
judge in such matters in accordance with Utah administrative procedures such as determining
standing, taking testimony, and rendering a decision to either modify, set aside, or support the
final decision of the Executive Secretary. Upon a final agency action determination by the
Board, parties under Utah Code Annotated (UCA) 63-46b-14 have 30 days to file an appeal with
the Utah Court of Appeals (See UCA 63-46b-60).
Licensing Program (Criteria 29 and 35)
The licensing process will follow the elements of the current radioactive materials program
which is subject to periodic program review by the NRC. License renewal, amendments,
reclamation plans or revisions to reclamation plans or new licenses may be subject to public
comment and/or public hearing. Criteria of R313-17-1 through 4 of the Utah Radiation Control
Rules would apply. Rule R313-17 has been modified to add the uranium recovery facility
category designation as a category that public comment is applicable. The Division will follow
current policy as to the differentiation between minor and major amendments and the need for
public comment. This policy established in 1993 applies the following criteria:
Minor amendments to a license do not require public comment. These amendments do
not substantially alter the license conditions or reduce the capability of the licensee to
protect human health and the environment.
Major amendments to a license require public notice. These amendments are necessary
to enable the licensee to respond in a timely manner to common variations in the types
24
and quantities of the materials, technological advancements, changes necessary to comply
with new rules, and changes that substantially alter the facility or its operations.
Upon application for a license amendment, a determination of major or minor amendments will
need to be made.
Existing NRC licenses will be transferred to the State upon program relinquishment by the NRC
and will be converted into a "state license" which will include appropriate Utah regulatory
citations in lieu of "Part 40" language and will incorporate the Utah administrative process (e.g.,
Executive Secretary) where necessary. The license conditions will remain unchanged except for
the above until a license amendment request or license renewal. The current expiration date of
the license will remain the same.
The Division of Radiation Control Technical Procedures for License Review will be followed
during the review process (see Appendix E). The NRC Standard Review Plan for Uranium Mills
and Mill Tailings as well as the checksheet will be used as guidance documents during the
license review process. Licensing evaluations or analyses will include radiological safety
aspects in occupational or restricted areas and environmental impacts to population or
unrestricted areas surrounding facilities. As necessary, evaluations will include pre-licensing
visits to obtain relevant information. Items which will be evaluated include, but are not limited
to, the following: general statement of proposed activities; scope of proposed action; specific
activities to be conducted; administrative procedures; facility organization and radiological
safety responsibilities, authorities, and personnel qualifications; licensee audits and inspections;
25
radiation safety program, control and monitoring; radiation safety training programs for workers;
restricted area markings and access controls; review of monitoring data, exposure records,
license audit and inspection records as well as other records for existing mills; environmental
monitoring; radiological emergency procedures; product transportation; tailing management
facilities and procedures; site and physical plant decommissioning procedures, other than
tailings; and employee exposure data and bioassay programs.
The environmental analysis will be part of the license review process and will consist of a
detailed and documented evaluation of the following items: topography; geology and
seismology; hydrology and water quality; meteorology; background radiation, tailings retention
systems; interim stabilization, reclamation, and site decommissioning programs; radiological
dose assessments (source terms; exposures pathways; dose commitment to individuals; dose
commitment to populations; evaluation of radiological impacts to the public to include
determination of compliance with State rules and Federal regulations and comparison with
background values; occupational dose; radiological impact to biota other than man; and
radiological monitoring programs, pre-operational and operational); impacts to quality and
quantity of surface and groundwater; environmental effects of accidents; and evaluation of
tailings management alternatives in terms of regulations. The staff will also review the
following during preparation of the environmental analyses for a new uranium recovery facility:
ecology; environmental effects of site preparation and facility construction on environment and
biota; environmental effects of use and discharge of chemicals and fuels; and economic and
social effects.
26
The Division will use the following NRC publications as guidance documents (when
applicable) during the license review process: Regulatorv Guide 3.11, "Design,
Construction, and Inspection of Embankment Retention Systems for Uranium Mills";
3.1 1.1, Operational Inspection and Surveillance of Embankment Retention Systems for
Uranium Mill Tailings"; 3.51, Calculational Models for Estimating Radiation Doses to
Man from Airborne Radioactive Materials Resulting from Uranium Milling Operations";
3.56, "General Guidance for Designing, Testing, Operating, and Maintaining, Emission
Control Devices at Uranium Mills"; 4.14, Radiological Effluent and Environmental
Monitoring at Uranium Mills"; 8.22, Bioassays at Uranium Mills"; 8.25 Air Sampling
in the Workplace"; 8.30, Health Physics Surveys in Uranium Mills"; 8.31, Information
Relevant to Ensuring that Occupational Radiation Exposures at Uranium Mills will be As
Low As is Reasonably Achievable". Other guidance documents that may also be use as
resources are I.C.R.P. Report 29: "Radionuclide Release into the Environment:
Assessment of Doses to Man" as well as N.C.R.P. Report 76, "Radiological Assessment:
Predicting the Transport, Bioaccumulation, and Uptake by Man of Radionuclides
Released to the Environment", NUREG 1620, Standard Review Plan for reclamation
plans, RIS 2300-23 relating to alternate feed amendment requests.
The Division's health physicist and hydrogeologist will perform operation data reviews
and required the licensee to submit semi-annual radioactive material effluent release
reports as well as semi-annual environmental monitoring reports. The written reports will
be required to be submitted within 60 days after January and July 1 of each year. The
licensee will be required to specify the quantity of each of the principle radionuclides
27
released to unrestricted areas in liquid and gaseous effluents during the pervious six
months of operation. The data for the effluent release will be required in a manner that
will permit the physicist and hydrogeologist to confirm the potential annual radiation
doses to the public and confirm the dose to receptors.
The State will recognize already established performance-based license conditions for
uranium mills and tailings. The State is willing to consider future performance-based
license conditions on a case by case basis with each licensee. An issue that will need to
be addressed is the appropriate method for substantive involvement of the public while
still achieving the operational objectives of performance based licensing.
Inspection Program (Criteria 29 and 35)
There will be at least four facilities that will require inspection: Lisbon (Rio Algom),
White Mesa (International Uranium), Shootaring Canyon (Plateau Resources), and Clive
(Envirocare of Utah). Currently, Envirocare of Utah in Tooele County is subject to
quarterly inspections by the NRC using staff from offices in Arlington, Texas sometimes
supplemented by NRC headquarters staff from Rockville, Maryland. Envirocare
inspections would be assigned to the "Envirocare team" and incorporated into the overall
oversight and inspection schedule now in use for low-level radioactive waste.
A health physicist will be hired to inspect each of the mills at least on a quarterly basis.
The mill inspection frequency schedule will be reviewed regularly and adjusted as needed
for different circumstances (e.g., good compliance, standby not operating, etc.). The
28
health physicist will be housed in the DRC office in Salt Lake City but will travel to
southern Utah at least one week per month to accomplish both regular (quarterly) and
oversight inspections. This health physicist will also be responsible for the inspection of
28 other radioactive material licensees in southeast and southwest Utah. The engineer
and groundwater hydrogeologist will provide inspection support as needed to the health
physicist in such areas as groundwater sampling evaluations, split groundwater sampling,
oversight of new engineering construction or oversight of closing facilities.
he State inspection program will incorporate all the elements of the current radioactive
materials inspection program (see Appendix D for Inspection and Enforcement
procedures) relevant to Part 40 uranium recovery facilities which is subject to periodic
program review by the NRC. Items that will be examined during inspections will be
consistent with items evaluated during licensing. The Division inspectors will perform
independent surveys and sampling in addition to examining aspects of license
performance as follows: administration; milling processes, including any additions,
deletions or operational changes; accident and incidents; notices, instructions, and reports
to workers in accordance with R313-18 rules; action taken on previous findings; physical
plant facilities of the mill tour to determine compliance with regulations and license
conditions; tailings waste management to determine compliance with rules and license
conditions (NRC Regulatory Guide 3.11.1 see Appendix E); records; respiratory
protection and bioassays to determine compliance with license conditions and R313-15
rule; effluent and environmental monitoring; training programs; and transportation and
shipping.
29
A complete inspection will be performed at least annually and will include independent
surveys and sampling. The NRC inspection form for Uranium Mills as well as the NRC
Inspection Manual, Chapter 2801, Uranium Mill and le.(2) Byproduct Material
Disposal Site and Facility Inspection Program" will be utilized as guidance documents by
the State inspectors during an inspection. Enforcement actions will be in accordance with
the Utah Radiation Control Rules and existing enforcement guidance (used for the
radioactive materials and low-level waste program, see Appendix D for Inspection
Procedures). All enforcement actions can be appealed through the Utah Radiation
Control Board and thereafter, to the appropriate court. The DRC will also conduct
periodic split sampling with facilities regarding waste materials or groundwater samples.
Rules Equivalent to NRC Regulations (Criterion 32)
In addition to adoption of applicable parts of 10 CFR 40 by reference (disclaiming any
intent to regulate materials or activities over which NRC retains jurisdiction), pending the
legislative process, the DRC has the following Utah Administrative Code (UAC) rules
equivalent to NRC Regulations:
R313-15, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation"
R313-18, Notices, Instructions and Reports to Workers by Licensees or
Registrants-- Inspections;
R313-19, "Requirements of General Applicability of Licensing of Radioactive
Material (Packing and Transportation of Radioactive Material is in this section.)
30
Part of the regulation for certain portions of 10 CFR 150, Exemptions and Continued
Regulatory Authority in Agreement States and in Offshore Waters under 10 CFR
150.3 1(b)" is met through the Radiation Control Act, Utah Annotated Code 19-3, and will
be met through the adoption of applicable parts of 10 CFR 40 by reference (disclaiming
any intent to regulate materials or activities over which the NRC retains jurisdiction).
The Utah Radiation Control rules have been modified to include a written environmental
impact analysis process.
With the completed adoption of applicable parts of 10 CFR 40 by reference in R3 13-24
and other necessary modifications to the rules, the DRC has rules that are up-to-date and
compatible with the NRC rules (see Appendix C, State Regulation Status form).
Instrumentation (Criterion 36) and Laboratory Support (Criterion 34)
The State has sufficient field and laboratory instruments to ensure licensee's control on
materials and validate licensee's measurements. Appendix F has a list of the State's
instruments and Instrument Calibration Procedures. Instruments are calibrated as
necessary but not less than annually except for those used by the Radioactive Material
Section which are calibrated semi-annually.
Laboratory instruments are available through the Division of Radiation Control as well as
through the State Health Laboratory which have the capabilities for quantitative and
qualitative analysis of radionuclides associated with natural uranium and its decay chain,
primarily, U-238, Ra-226, Th-230, Pb-210, and Rn-222 in a variety of sample media. If
31
the State Health Laboratory does not have the analytical capabilities needed, the Division
may contract with a commercial laboratory to perform quantitative or qualitative analysis.
The State Health Laboratory has established acceptable criteria for quality assurance and
participates in the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program. The
Environmental Protection Agency's program for laboratory performance is no longer
available. The State Health Laboratory can provide the Division staff analytical reports
within approximately 30 days. Arrangements can be made for the State Health
Laboratory to handle a large number of samples from a major accident in a timely
manner. However, the State Laboratory is limited to the number of samples it is capable
of running and may have to contract a commercial laboratory for a timely turn around.
The Division has gamma spectroscopy capabilities in-house and a portable spectroscopy
unit for field measurements, both qualitative and quantitative. In-house gamma
spectroscopy capabilities include the following media: soil, water, and air (filters). The
EG&G Ortec gamma spectroscopy unit is a germanium detector connected to a desk top
computer with EG&G gamma vision software. The portable unit is a Berkley Nucleonics
Corporation Smart Area Monitor. Employees in the environmental section have extensive
experience in dealing with the collection and analysis of naturally occurring radioactive
material contaminants in soil, water, and air samples.
32
Arrangements for Discontinuing NRC Jurisdiction
As stated in the licensing program section of this application, existing NRC licenses will
be transferred to the State upon program relinquishment by the NRC and will be
converted into a "state license" which will include appropriate Utah regulatory citations
in lieu of "Part 40" language and will incorporate the Utah administrative process where
necessary. The license conditions will remain unchanged except for the above until a
license amendment request or license renewal. The current expiration date of the license
will remain the same. The license transfer will not give rise to a requirement to make any
changes to existing facilities.
There will be a transition phase for staffing as described in the "staffing' section. Three
months prior to signature of the Governor and Chairman of the amendment to the
Agreement, recruitment will begin for staff as previously discussed in the staffing
section. While staff are being recruited and hired' existing staff as described in the
'staffing section" will conduct necessary activities relating to the uranium mill program.
Existing Envirocare staff will assume the duties relating to the licensing and inspection of
the Envirocare 1 e.(2) facility immediately
It is anticipated that the majority of the workload will involve Envirocare and
International Uranium White Mesa Mill of which existing staff have good familiarity.
On the job training (mentoring) will be provided by existing staff to new staff and it is
anticipated that the new staff will be fully functional and independent within the shortest
time possible. Core training will be provided as previously discussed to the new staff.
33
The NRC will transfer the inspection and licensing files of the four facilities to the DRC
during the transition period. Any licensing or inspection actions underway or in
transition at the time of program transfer will be provided to the DRC. The DRC
recommends that the NRC Headquarters and Region IV representatives schedule (as an
amendment Agreement appears imminent) a meeting to discuss the transition tasks that
will be needed. The NRC is encouraged to complete Utah work prior to the transfer.
Discussion of tasks to be deferred to the DRC should be discussed as part of the transition
meeting and scheduling process. The DRC recommends that the NRC archive the license
and inspection documents in accordance with federal record management prior to the
transfer of site files.
DRC has provided in Appendix K copies of the original Agreement of 1984, the amended
Agreement for low-level waste authority in 1990, and a draft amended Agreement for
uranium mills and tailings authority for 2003.
Summary
The State of Utah is committed to administering a high quality Agreement State Program
that will protect public health, public safety, and the environment. The Division has been
granted statutory authority and has undertaken activities in preparation for regulating
uranium mills and mill tailings. The Division has trained professional staff and will be
hiring new personnel in areas of administration, technology, and operational support.
Utah has obtained the necessary statutory authority to assume Agreement State
responsibilities regarding the regulation of uranium mills and mill tailings and has
34
proposed adoption of regulation compatible, pending the State legislative process, with
those developed and adopted by the NRC. Sufficient instrumentation to detect and
measure radiation is available within the Division as well as other State agencies.
Emergency response capabilities have been demonstrated and exercised. The Division
has obtained necessary fiscal support to fund the Agreement State Program, including the
regulation of uranium mills and mill tailings. The State is committed to full
administrative support to the Agreement State program and has demonstrated its
competency in control of radiation as evidenced by the adequate and compatible rating
achieved during the last Integrated Material Performance Evaluation Program review.
The Department of Environmental Quality remains committed to its mission of
safeguarding human health and quality of life through the protection and enhancement of
the environment. The Utah Division of Radiation Control will continue to protect Utah
citizens and the environment from sources of radiation that constitute a significant health
hazard through its radiation control programs. The State of Utah is prepared and qualifies
to assume the responsibilities that would be transferred to the State upon amendment of
Section 274 Agreement to include regulation of byproduct material as defined in Section
1 le(2) of the Atomic Act.
35
IL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
UTAH FINAL APPLICATION FOR URANIUM MILLS AND TAILINGS
[REPLACED IN ITS ENTIRITY]
Underline/Strikeout Version
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
V11.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
INTRODUCTION
POLICY STATEMENT
DESCRIPTION OF ORGANIZATION
GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY
STAFFING
FUNDING
STATUTORY CHANGES
RESERVATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE UNITED STATES
RULEMAKING
SUGGESTED STATE LEGISLATION -MODEL STATE ACT
LICENSING PROGRAM
INSPECTION PROGRAM
RULES EQUIVALENT TO NRC REGULATIONS
INSTRUMENTATION AND LABORATORY SUPPORT
ARRANGEMENTS FOR DISCONTINUING NRC JURISDICTION
SUMMARY
UTAH FINAL APPLICATION
FOR
URANIUM MILLS AND MILL TAILINGS
Introduction (Criterion 29*)
Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, authorizes the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) to enter into agreements, whereby states assume certain
regulatory functions that would otherwise be the responsibility of the NRC. Utah Code
Annotated (UCA) 19-3-113 authorizes the Governor of Utah to enter into such an agreement.
On April 1, 1984, Utah became an Agreement State with regulatory authority over lIe.(l)
byproduct material, source material, and special nuclear material in quantities not sufficient to
form a critical mass. On May 9, 1990, the agreement was amended to include the regulatory
authority for land disposal within the State of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material
received from other persons. At this time, the State of Utah wishes to amend its agreement to
assume regulatory authority over byproduct material as defined in Section 1 .e.(2) of the Atomic
Energy Act for uranium mills and mill tailings.
The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Division of Radiation Control (DRC),
will be the designated agency for carrying out these responsibilities. William J. Sinclair,
Director of the Division of Radiation Control, will be the contact.
*1981/1983 Policy Statement: Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in Discontinuance of NRC Regulatory Authority and Assumption
Thereof by States Through Agreements
1
Policy Statement (Criteria 29 and 35)
The following policy statement for assuming regulatory authority over byproduct material as
defined in Section I .e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act for uranium mills and mill tailings has
evolved through a discussion process involving scoping and task force meetings. During
October and November 1999, the Division of Radiation Control conducted a series of
stakeholder meetings with potential licensees and a series of public scoping meetings that were
held in Salt Lake City, Tooele, Ticaboo, Blanding, and Moab, Utah. At the public scoping
meetings, the Division requested comments on the following proposal: "The State of Utah will
amend its current agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to regulate uranium mills
and tailings." Thirty-nine persons offered oral comments during the public scoping meetings and
approximately 150 persons attended the five scoping meetings. In addition, 8 written comments
were received during a public comment period that ran from October 28, 1999 through
December 6, 1999.
During the 2000 Utah legislative session, it was determined that it would be beneficial to form an
Agreement State/Groundwater Authority task force to examine several issues relating to
Agreement State status. The task force was initiated by the Utah Department of Environmental
Quality in April 2000. Interested stakeholders that were invited to participate on the task force
included licensee representatives, local community representatives, representatives of the Utah
Radiation and Water Quality Boards, and a representative of the Utah Mining Association. The
task force was jointly sponsored by the Department of Environmental Quality, Divisions of
Water Quality and Radiation Control. After several meetings, the task force formulated a paper
entitled: "Elements of a Utah Agreement State Program for Uranium Mill Regulation." In July
2
2000, the task force unanimously supported the Division of Radiation Control in pursuing
Agreement State status as established in the "Elements" paper. The "Elements" paper described
several aspects of a Utah Agreement State program including the following policy statement:
"The State of Utah recognizes the importance of and supports the uranium mining and milling
industry. The State recognizes that to remain viable at this time, uranium mills must be able to
engage in activities other than milling conventional mined uranium ores such as processing
alternate feed materials for the recovery of uranium alone or together with other minerals. The
State also recognizes its responsibility to ensure that all such activities are accomplished in a
manner that is protective of human health and the environment. It has been a long-standing
policy for the State to seek primacy for environmental programs. In this regard, the State
believes that a cooperative uranium mills and tailings regulatory program will be of benefit to
both the regulated community and Utah citizens. The advantages that the State can offer over
the current Nuclear Regulatory Commission program include better communication with and
participation of the public in uranium recovery issues, elimination of duplicative regulatory
responsibilities, providing a more cost effective program for the regulated community, and
establishing control of materials not currently being regulated (e.g. pre-1978 uranium mill
tailings) while maintaining a regulatory program that is adequate and compatible with existing
and future NRC regulations and policy. The elements within this application provide the
framework for how the State of Utah would regulate uranium mills and tailings as an Agreement
State."
3
Information on the task force, including minutes of each meeting can be found on the Division of
Radiation Control website at http://www.deq.state.ut.us/EQRAD/MILLS/ATLAS/Deqtask.htm.
Announcement of formation of the task force as well as periodic updates of the task force work
were provided to the Utah Radiation Control Board.
Following the formulation of the policy in conjunction with discussions with the NRC. it was
realized that the current Commission policy related to pre-1978 uranium mill tailings would have
to be followed. This does not prevent the State from exercising regulatory authority under its
existing rules of such material as naturally occurring radioactive material. It is also the intent of
the State to follow the guidance affirmed by the Commission for review and decision of receipt
of alternate feed materials by uranium mills. Each alternate feed amendment will be considered
a major amendment for the purposes of licensing and will follow procedures as described in this
final application. The alternate feed guidance as described in NRC Regulatory Issues Summary
2000-23 is included in Appendix L of the application.
The State of Utah also wishes to emphasize that this application does not include the former
Atlas site in Moab, Utah, now known as the Moab Millsite. In accordance with the Defense
Reauthorization Act, this property was transferred to the Department of Energy. The Moab
Millsite has converted back to a Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) Title
I site with cleanup responsibility delegated to the Department of Energy.
4
Description of Organization (Criteria: 29, 33, and 35)
[See Appendix A for Organizational Charts]
The Department of Environmental Quality was created within state government on July 1, 1991
with the mission of safeguarding human health and quality of life through the protection and
enhancement of the environment. The Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate
appoints an Executive Director to administer the Department. The Department is made of six
divisions: Division of Air Quality, Division of Drinking Water, Division of Environmental
Response and Remediation (Superfund, Underground Storage Tanks, and Emergency Response),
Division of Radiation Control, Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste, and the Division of
Water Quality. Each Division is under immediate direction and control of a Division Director
appointed by the Executive Director. There are five policymaking boards created within the
department: the Air Quality Board, Radiation Control Board, the Drinking Water Board, the
Water Quality Board, and the Solid and Hazardous Waste Control Board. Division Directors are
also appointed as an Executive Secretary to the appropriate Board.
The Utah Division of Radiation Control promotes a mission that protects Utah citizens and the
environment from sources of radiation that constitute a significant health hazard. The Division is
divided into two sections, Radioactive Materials and X-ray Section and Low-Level Waste and
Environmental Monitoring Section. The Sections are supervised by two managers who are under
the direction of the Division Director. Upon assumption of the program, the Low-Level Waste
and Environmental Monitoring Section will be renamed the Environmental Monitoring, Uranium
Recovery, and Waste Management Section. The staff is divided among the following:
Radioactive Materials, X-ray, Indoor Radon, Envirocare, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
5
Transportation Project, and the Generator Site Access permit program. A seventh program,
Uranium Mills, will be added. Division staff carry out the Division's mission and assist
customers in complying with the rules.
The Radioactive Material and X-ray Section is responsible for coordinating and managing the
use of radiation sources in hospital, clinical, medical, research, academic, and industrial
facilities. This section performs the regulatory functions of licensing and inspecting facilities
using radioactive material; registering and inspecting medical, academic, research, and industrial
radiation producing equipment; and responding to radiation incidents.
The Low-Level Waste and Environmental Monitoring Section is responsible for licensing and
inspecting the Envirocare low level waste facility; studying indoor radon concentrations and
disseminating information to the public relevant to health risks; directing and overseeing on-site
stabilization or relocation of abandonment of uranium mill tailings; and maintaining the integrity
and usefulness of radiation survey instruments.
The Radiation Control Board is appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Utah Senate
and guides development of state radiation control policy and rules in the state. The board is made
up of 13 members, one of whom is the Department of Environmental Quality Executive Director
or designee, and are appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. The
Department and Division staff submit recommendations for Board members to the Governor for
consideration. The appointed members are to be knowledgeable about radiation protection and
represent the following interests in the community: a physician; a dentist; a health physicist or
6
other professional employed in the field of radiation safety; three representatives of the regulated
community, at least one whom represents the radioactive waste management industry and one
who represents the uranium milling industry; a registrant or licensee representative from
academia; one representative of a local health department; one elected county official; and three
members of the general public, at least one of whom represents organized environmental
interests. The board is required to meet at least quarterly to carry out the duties described in
section 19-3-103.5 of the Utah Code Annotated. The Board typically meets on a monthly basis
except February and July. The Board also travels, as resources allow, to southeastern Utah and
Tooele County for one of the monthly meetings during the year. It may be necessary to consider
an increase in the number of times that the Board meets in southeastern Utah as a result of
uranium recovery regulation. Board members are subject to the Utah Public Officers' and
Employees' Ethics Act. Information regarding disclosure and conflict of interest for Board
members are found in Appendix A.
The State of Utah rules were amended to include an environmental report prepared by the
licensee that will be reviewed by the Division of Radiation Control.
Outside consultants will not be used but the Division has the ability to contract with outside
consultants through its fee schedule with mutual consent of the licensee.
The medical consultant with expertise in emergency medicine that would be used by the Division
is the Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The
7
Department of Energy Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory would also be
used as a resource.
Legal support is through the Attorney General's Office. The Utah Attorney General's Office
provides legal consultation services on all environmental issues that the Division may need to
address. The Attorney General's office can provide criminal investigative assistance and
prosecution.
Groundwater Authority (Criteria 29, 33, and 35)
The Division of Radiation Control administers both groundwater permitting and radioactive
material licensing for disposal facilities and uranium mills. This process has been made more
effective by utilizing existing provisions of the Utah Water Quality Act which allows the Water
Quality Board and Executive Director to designate the Director of the Division of Radiation
Control as a Co-Executive Secretary to administer provisions of the Water Quality Act for the
identified facilities [see Utah Code Annotated (UCA) 19-5-106 and 19-5-104 (1),(k)]. The DRC
Director has been designated as a Co-Executive Secretary of the Water Quality Board and given
legal authority to issue, administer, and enforce specific groundwater permits under the Utah
Water Quality Rule UCA R3 17-6 as applied to the following facilities: Envirocare, Rio Algom,
International Uranium Corporation, and Plateau Resources Limited, and as allowed under the
provisions of UCA 19-5-104(l)(k). No separate involvement of the Division of Water Quality
staff is required although they are available to consult with the DRC Director regarding
interpretation of rules and other technical or procedural matters relating to groundwater
protection. Appeals of enforcement proceedings and permit issues relating to groundwater
8
would be through the Utah Water Quality Board. The Division has substituted the
Administrative Rules for Ground Water Quality Protection, R317-6 for groundwater standards
provided in Appendix A, 10 CFR Part 40 (EPA Rules 40 CFR Part 192). Enclosed in Appendix
G is a packet of information previously submitted including-
(1) A cover letter of October 23, 2002 requesting review of information to justify an
"alternate standard" under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA);
(2) Summary of the process used to determine how to best regulate groundwater at Utah
uranium mill facilities;
(3) Executive Summary -Comparison of NRC Groundwater Protection Criteria in 10
CFR Part 40, Appendix A with Utah Ground Water Quality Protection Rules (UAC
R313-6)
(4) Detailed Comparison of NRC Groundwater Protection Criteria in 10 CFR Part 40,
Appendix A with Utah Ground Water Quality Protection Rules (UAC R313-6)
Staffing (Criteria 29, 34, and 35)
(See also Appendix B)
Up to three new positions will be created within the Division for the Uranium Mill Program that
will be combined with an existing groundwater hydrologist position within the Division that
already coordinates the uranium mill issues. Eventually, this groundwater hydrogeologist will be
responsible for the inspection and licensing of groundwater monitoring for the Uranium Mill
Program. A health physicist will be responsible for radiation safety license reviews and
inspections of mills as well as inspection of all radioactive material licensees in southern Utah
9
(some 28 licensees). An engineer will be responsible for the inspection and licensing of new
facilities, upgrading existing facilities, and closing facilities. An Office Technician II will be
responsible for administrative support for the program. Staff currently utilized for licensing and
oversight of Envirocare will also assist with the regulation of the Uranium Mill Program.
Management of the Uranium Mill Program will be under the direction of the Low-Level Waste
and Environmental Monitoring Section Manager. The 28 radioactive material licensees that the
health physicist inspects will be under the direction of the Radioactive Material and X-ray
Section Manager.
The Division will staff the program by submitting a request, once it is known when the amended
Agreement is to be signed, to the Department of Environmental Quality Human Resource
Management Office to recruit the three positions. The positions have already been authorized
and established in the Department FY 2003/2004 budgets. It is anticipated that recruitment may
commence as early as July 1, 2003 depending on the status of the amended Agreement. This
would be in anticipation of an amended Agreement being signed on or before October 1, 2003.
Three months of fees collected during January -March 2002 will fund new staff and have them
in place prior to signing of the amended Agreement. The new staff will be mentored by existing
staff that have been qualified in key areas prior to the new staff being hired. By July 1, 2003,
the following existing Division of Radiation Control staff will be qualified in the uranium mill
program area:
10
Speciality Area Staff Members to be Oualified
Health physics Gwyn Galloway, John Hultquist, Boyd Imai
Engineering Steve Palmer, Woody Campbell
Groundwater Loren Morton, Rob Herbert, Brian Hamos
The qualification process will consist of completion of NRC core" courses (many of the above
staff have accomplished this) in each specialty areas. Training will also be provided through
accompaniment of NRC inspectors from NRC Region IV during routine mill inspections of the
International Uranium White Mesa Mill, the Rio Algom facility, and the Plateau Resources
Shootaring Canyon Mill. Opportunity will also be taken for inspection training during Region
IV inspection of the Envirocare facility I le.(2) operations. In addition, arrangements have been
made with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Radiation Services
Division to accompany state of Colorado inspectors on a training/tour/routine inspection of the
Cotter Corporation Mill in Canon City, Colorado. As the above staff members are qualified as
mentors, they will be available to work with newly hired staff prior to the signed amended
Agreement to the point in which newly hired staff achieve uranium mill competency. Once
newly hired staff are competent to work independently, the mentors provide adequate backup in
this specialty area as needed. As the above staff members are qualified as mentors, they will be
available to work with newly hired staff prior to the signed amended Agreement to the point in
which newly hired staff achieve uranium mill competency. Once newly hired staff are
competent to work independently, the mentors provide adequate backup in this specialty area as
needed. As new staff go through the mentoring process. it may have some short-term impact on
certain inspection and licensing work, mostly in the low-level waste area. All mentoring will be
focused around ongoing activities such that any impact to DRC programs will be minimal. As a
11
result, the expectation will be there will be no impact to the Integrated Materials Performance
Evaluation Program (IMPEP) indicators during this short transition phase.
The new staff will also go through program orientation and receive the opportunity to participate
in Nuclear Regulatory Commission or equivalent, State, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Energy, and other job related courses. The engineer, health physicist, and
hydrogeologist will have the opportunity to take the following NRC or equivalent courses as
needed: Inspection Procedures, Introduction to Licensing Practices and Procedures, Introduction
to Health Physics, Nuclear Transportation Course, Radiation Protection Engincering,
Radiological Emergency Response Operations Training, and available courses related to uranium
mill and mill tailings. They will also review the Radiation Control Rules and become familiar
with Regulatory Guides and reference materials. The NRC Training guidance documents (NRC
Inspection Manual Reports 1246A-12 and A-13, Section XIII: Training Requirements for
Uranium Recovery Project Manager/ Technical Reviewer" and Section XII Uranium Recovery
Inspector NRC Inspector Qualification Journal") will be utilized by the Division as references for
training inspectors and license reviewers for uranium mills. The office technician will be given
the opportunity to take State training programs as they become available.
In order to ensure that an adequate number of staff were to be hired to fulfill the requirements of
the uranium mill and tailings regulatory program, an evaluation was conducted. As mentioned
previously, the staff to be hired are I health physicist, I engineer, and I office technician. The
groundwater hydrologist position that was anticipated will be filled by an existing position who
has been coordinating uranium mill issues for the Division. It was determined that the
12
professional staff (engineer, health physicist, groundwater hydrologist) would be available for
260 work days (52 weeks/year X 5 days/week). Factors of vacation (10 days assumed), paid
holidays (11 days), and sick leave used (5 days) reduced the availability of I staff person to 243
days per year. Professional staff consisting of three persons would provide the Division with the
availability of 702 staff days. Office technician administrative functions were not factored into
the available staff days. This includes such administrative functions as filing, correspondence,
GRAMA (similar to FOIA) requests, equipment and supplies, and travel arrangements.
To evaluate the staff availability, inspection and licensing activities were estimated on a yearly
basis.
INSPECTION WORKLOAD/YEAR
Average # of staff Staff days per Enforcement Inspection days
Inspections per involved inspection factor 1 per year 2
y e a r_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Envirocare -2 3 5 10 50
Rio Algom -2 2 3 0 12
IUC -2 3 5 5 40
Plateau -2 2 3 0 12
Totals 114 days
Enforcement factor may include Notice of Violation/Order preparation, evaluation of responses
regarding corrective actions, final settlement or administrative hearing.
2 Does not include travel time to and from Southeastern Utah estimated to be 6 hours/each way.
Rio Algom and White Mesa trips to be combined, Plateau trips will be single trip.
13
LICENSING WORKLOAD/YEAR
Licensee Significant Public # of staff Staff days Licensing
licensing participation involved per action staff days
actions/year factor
Envirocare 4 48 3 10 168
Rio Algom 1 12 2 5 7-22
IUC 4 48 3 10 168
Plateau I 12 2 5 72-22
Totals 48 380days
Public participation factor: public hearing (1 day), evaluate comments (5 days), final decision
(2 days), administrative hearings (4 days) = 12 days
To determine staff availability for a year, the inspection days workload (114 days) was added to
the licensing days workload (4 380 days) for a total of 594 494 days. A 4O 20%
contingency factor (9 99 days) was also included which used that would include training,
reactive inspection time, construction inspections, minor amendment processing. response to
questions from the public and licensees. guidance/rulemaking development and changes, and
other non-direct activities.
In conclusion, staffing appears adequate:
594 494 days (inspection/licensing workload) + 9 99 days (4 20% contingency) = 683
593 days
702 staff availability days estimated = + 4-9 109 staff availability days (not including the
administrative services provided by the office technician)
Funding (Criteria 29 and 35)
The DRC will use a combination of annual operating fees and hourly review fees. The operating
fees were initially established in the Radiation Control Act as a result of the passage of 1
substitute SB96 during the 2002 General Session of the Utah Legislature. The fees, beginning in
FY2004 will be established and transferred to the DEQ annual fees document. A copy of the
FY2004 proposed fee schedule is included in Appendix H. This fee schedule will be offered for
14
approval during the 2003 General Session of the Utah Legislature. An hourly review fee was
established in the DEQ annual fees document during the 2002 legislative session that will be
effective upon program transfer. Annual operating fees will differentiate between closed,
standby, and operating facilities. Review of NRC generated data regarding review fees and
operating fees suggested that there will be sufficient revenue generated to fully fund the state
program.
Statutory Changes (Criteria 29 and 35)
(See also Appendix C)
The Radiation Control Act was amended during the 2002 General Session of the Utah
Legislature by 1 substitute Senate Bill 96 (enrolled copy provided in Appendix I) to allow the
Radiation Control Board to establish rules for licensing, operation, decontamination,
decommissioning, including financial assurance, and reclamation of sites, structures, and
equipment used in conjunction with possession, use, transfer, or delivery of source and
byproduct material and the disposal of byproduct material (uranium or thorium mill tailings and
related wastes). The Radiation Control Act was also amended to add a representative of the
uranium milling industry and another member of the public to the Radiation Control Board.
Governor Leavitt signed the bill on March 26, 2002. On November 22, 2002, following
confirmation by the Utah Senate, Royal I. Hansen (general public) and Robert Pattison (uranium
milling industry) were appointed by Governor Leavitt to the two new Board positions established
by changes to the Act.
15
The following statutory changes to the Utah Radiation Control Act to implement an amended
Agreement for uranium recovery regulation were accomplished during the 2002 General Session
of the Utah Legislature:
19-3-103(3)(d) was modified to include three representatives of the regulated industry, at least
one representing the radioactive waste management industry and at least one representing the
uranium mill industry; and to modify (h) to include three members of the general public, at least
one whom represents organized environmental interests. This change will expand the Board to
13 members. This is to ensure that the Board remains an odd-numbered membership as required
by state policy.
19-3-104(d)(i) (ii) was added to give the Radiation Control Board the authority to make rules as
necessary regarding the possession, use, transfer, or delivery of source and byproduct material
and the disposal of byproduct material to establish requirements, for the licensing, operation,
decontamination, decommissioning, including financial assurance and the reclamation of sites,
structures, and equipment used in conjunction with such activities.
19-3-105(a) was added to establish fees under 19-3-105(b)(i)(ii),(c),(d)(i)(ii),(e),(f), and (6)(a)(b)
for the regulation of source and byproduct material at uranium mills or commercial waste
facilities. From January 1, 2003 through March 30, 2002, fees for uranium mills or commercial
sites disposing of or reprocessing byproduct material were established at $6,667 per month and
$4,167 per month for uranium mills determined to be on standby status. On or after March 31,
2003, the same fees apply, but only if the NRC has granted an amended Agreement to Utah on or
16
before March 31, 2003. After March 31, 2003, fees are to be paid (same schedule) either
beginning October 1, 2003 (if amended Agreement has been achieved), or the beginning the date
in which NRC grants the amended Agreement. For payment periods after July 1, 2003, the fees
are established under the authority of the Department of Environmental Quality fee schedule
approved by the Utah Legislature. Annual fees are deposited in the Environmental Quality
Restricted Account.
In addition to the changes described above, administrative changes were made to:
19-1-108(2)(a) which adds the fees collected as described above to the Department of
Environmental Quality Restricted Account
19-3-104(1)(a)(b) was added to indicate decommissioning includes financial assurance
and source and byproduct material have the same definition as described in the Atomic
Energy Act. This resulted in renumbering of subsequent paragraphs -(2)(3)(4).
19-3-104(11)(b) was added to clarify that only commercial low-level waste facilities are
subject to siting criteria rules (already established under Utah Radiation Control Rules
R313-25-3).
There were other administrative changes that resulted in some renumbering of portions of
19-3. These are best detailed in the enrolled copy of I substitute SB96 found in
17
Appendix I in which the changes to the Radiation Control Act, 19-3 are underlined and
stricken as appropriate.
Reservation of Authority to the United States
(Criterion 30)
State rules will be have been modified to reserve the authority to the United States in UMTRCA
as stated in 10 CFR 150.15a as follows: establishment of minimum standards for reclamation,
long-term surveillance or maintenance, and ownership of byproduct material; prior to license
termination, determine that licensee has complied with decontamination, decommissioning,
reclamation standards, and ownership standards; prior to license termination, the take title
provision will be invoked at option of the State; authority to require monitoring, maintenance
and emergency measures after license termination; authority to permit use of surface or
subsurface estate, or both of the land transferred per UMTRCA; and authority to exempt land
ownership transfer requirement of Section 83(b)(1)(A).
Rulemaking (Criteria 29 and 35)
(See also Appendix J)
The Division of Radiation Control has adopted applicable parts of 10 CFR 40 by reference
(disclaiming any intent to regulate materials or activities over which the NRC retains
jurisdiction) with necessary changes to reflect primacy of the Utah program (e.g., recognition of
the Executive Secretary, etc.). With the adoption by reference of the NRC regulatory program, it
is recognized that guidance has been published that is intended to provide clarification to the
18
various regulatory elements. The Division will follow the published NRC guidance documents
unless doing so will compromise protection of human health and the environment.
The DRC recognizes that it cannot make a fundamental change to an Atomic Energy Act
provision (e.g., the definition of byproduct material). The DRC further recognizes that pursuant
to provisions of the Radiation Control Act [19-3-104 (6) and (7)], it can adopt rules more
stringent than federal law only after a public hearing and a written finding based on evidence in
the record that the federal regulations are not adequate to protect public health and the
environment.
Statutory authority to make rules was granted to the Board during the 2002 Utah legislative
session per 19-3-104(4)(d) of the Radiation Control Act. A determination was made that the
following rules would need to be modified or proposed to ensure compatibility with the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 40:
R313-22-33(1)(e), "General Requirements for the Issuance of Specific Licenses'
[modified]
R313-70-7(2)(b)(c)(d), "License Categories and Types of Fees for Radioactive Material
Licensees" [modified]
R313-17-2(1)(a), Administrative Procedures" [modified]
R313-15-1001, Waste Disposal -General Requirements"
R313-19-2, Requirements of General Applicability to Licensing of Radioactive
Material" [modified]
19
R3 13-22-39, Executive Secretary Action on Applications to Renew or Amend"
[modified]
R3 13-24, Uranium Mills and Source Material Mill Tailings Disposal Facility
Requirements' [new section incorporating 10 CFR Part 40 by reference with exception of
groundwater requirements]
20
The rulemaking process involves approval by the Radiation Control Board of each
proposed rule for filing with the State Division of Administrative Rules. All State
Agencies use the rulemaking procedures of the State Division of Administrative Rules
and are bound by such procedures. Proposed rules or changes to proposed rules are
published in the Utah Bulletin for public comment on the first or fifteenth of each month.
The rulemaking process requires a 30-day public comment period. Announcement of the
public comment period is made in the two major daily Salt Lake newspapers as well as
newspapers in the impacted communities such as Moab and Blanding. Following the
comment period, an assessment of needed changes is made. If no comments are received
or the changes are non-substantive, the rules are submitted to the Radiation Control
Board for final approval at the next Board meeting, and an effective date is established.
The effective date is usually set for one week after the approval date to allow for the
filing of the paperwork with the Division of Administrative Rules. Rulemaking has to be
completed within 120 days of the initial filing date or the process must commence again.
During this rulemaking process, comments were received from stakeholders regarding
several of the rules (see Table A). As a result, it was determined that the comments
required substantive changes to the initial proposed rule. For those rules, the comments
were evaluated and a determination made if changes were needed (summarized in a
response document). The rules requiring substantive changes then were re-drafted with
the needed changes as a change to a proposed rule". These modified rules were
approved for filing by the Radiation Control Board and submitted to the Division of
Administration Rules. The rules were subject to another 30-day public comment period.
21
Table A provides a summary of the rulemaking steps followed for each of the seven rules
including when the rules were made effective.
Table A
Summary of Uranium Mills/Tailings Rulemakings
Division of Radiation Control -2002
Rule Approved by Commence Public Written Final approval
RCB for pc Public Comment comment comments/ by RCB
Period period Response
Published in extension to Effective
State comments Date
Bulletin
R313-22- 4/5/2002 5/1/2002 6/5/2002 No 6/7/2002
33(1)(e) 5/1/2002 6/14/2002
R313-70- 4/5/2002 5/12002 6/5/2002 Yes
7(2)(b)(c)(d) 5/1/2002 6/4/2002
R313-17- 4/5/2002 5/1/2002 6/5/2002 Yes
2(1)(a) 5/1/2002 6/4/2002
R313-15-1001 4/23/2002 5/15/2002 6/28/2002 No 7/22/2002
5/15/2002 7/22/2002
R313-19-2 4/23/2002 5/15/2002 6/28/2002 Yes
5/15/2002 7/12/2002
R313-22-39 4/5/2002 5/15/2002 6/28/2002 No 7/22/2002
5/15/2002 7/22/2002
R313-24 4/5/2002 5/l/2002 6/28/2002 Yes
5/1/2002 7/12/2002
22
Table A (Continued)
Summary of Uranium Mills/Tailings Rulemakings
Division of Radiation Control- 2002
Rule Approval by Commence Public Written Final approval
RCB Public Comment comment comments/ by RCB
Period period ends Response
Re-published to Effective
in State comments Date
Bulletin
R313-22- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
33(1)(e)
R313-70- 6/7/2002 7/1/2002 7/31/2002 No 9/6/2002
7(2)(b)(c)(d) 7/1/2002 9/10/2002
R313-17- 6/7/2002 7/1/2002 7/31/2002 No 9/6/2002
2(1)(a) 7/1/2002 9/10/2002
R313-15- NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A
1001
R313-19-2 7/22/2002 8/15/2002 9/16/2002 No 10/4/2002
8/15/2002 10/7/2002
R313-22-39 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
R313-24 7/22/2002 8/15/2002 9/16/2002 Yes 10/4/2002
8/15/2002 9/20/2002 10/7/2002
R313-15-301 6/6/2003 7/1/2003 7/30/2003 No 8/1/2003
7/1/2003 8/7/2003
Appendix J provides a copy of the rulemaking packet submitted to the NRC on October
9, 2002 which included each of the approved rules in final" form as filed with the
Division of Administrative Rules. Administrative rules adjudicative proceedings are
found in R15-5, the entire text of Administrative Rules Procedures (R15) is provided in
Appendix J as well. Also provided in Appendix J are copies of the Division response
documents to stakeholder comments.
23
In addition, the NRC suggested in the letter confirming compatibility of the Utah rules of
November 22, 2002 (see Appendix J) that a change be made to R313-24-1 by inserting
"source material in" following the words "possession and use of' in the first line. This
change has been was accomplished by filing a non-substantive rule change (see Appendi*
J) with the Division of Administrative Rules on December 19, 2002. If aeeepted as-a
non substantive hange, it may be effective as early a January 1, 2003. 1
Adminisratihn Rules reets the nn substantive hange eplanaio, the Division il
proeedn %ithnefaFleakn at e~ser the Jn A uas or-. Ma_ -eh 2mu diain Ce+: Pe
Board meeting The change to the rule was accepted as a non-substantive change and
was made effective January 1. 2003 (See Appendix J).
The Utah Radiation Control rules were modified to include consideration of
environmental impacts (see discussion below under Suggested State Legislation-Model
State Act) (Criterion 31). This was accomplished in R313-24-3.
Suggested State Legislation-Model State Act (Criterion 31)
The Utah Radiation Control Rules will be modified to include consideration of
environmental impacts (including radiological or non-radiological impacts, surface and
groundwater impacts, consideration of alternatives to the licensed activities, and long-
term impacts of licensed activities) for new licenses and major license amendments. The
analysis will be included in the safety evaluation report for new licenses and in a
24
statement of basis for major license amendments. New licenses and major license
amendments will be available for public comment at least 30 days following the
publication of notice. R313-17-2, 3, and 4 of the Utah Radiation Control Rules provides
an opportunity for written comment, as well as a public hearing prior to the issuance, or
amendment of a license. Once the Executive Secretary of the Utah Radiation Control
Board reaches a final decision on a new license or amendment to a license, parties or
individuals may appeal such decisions to the Utah Radiation Control Board. The Board
acts as a judge in such matters in accordance with Utah administrative procedures such as
determining standing, taking testimony, and rendering a decision to either modify, set
aside, or support the final decision of the Executive Secretary. Upon a final agencv
action determination by the Board, parties under Utah Code Annotated (UCA) 63-46b-14
have 30 days to file an appeal with the Utah Court of Appeals (See UCA 63-46b-60).
Licensing Program (Criteria 29 and 35)
The licensing process will follow the elements of the current radioactive materials
program which is subject to periodic program review by the NRC. License renewal,
amendments, reclamation plans or revisions to reclamation plans or new licenses may be
subject to public comment and/or public hearing. Criteria of R313-17-1 through 4 of the
Utah Radiation Control Rules would apply. Rule R313-17 will be has been modified to
add the uranium recovery facility category designation as a category that public comment
is applicable. The Division weuld will follow current policy as to the differentiation
between minor and major amendments and the need for public comment. This policy
established in 1993 applies the following criteria:
25
Minor amendments to a license do not require public comment. These
amendments do not substantially alter the license conditions or reduce the
capability of the licensee to protect human health and the environment.
Major amendments to a license require public notice. These amendments are
necessary to enable the licensee to respond in a timely manner to common
variations in the types and quantities of the materials, technological
advancements, changes necessary to comply with new rules, and changes that
substantially alter the facility or its operations.
Upon application for a license amendment, a determination of major or minor
amendments will need to be made. Existing NRC licenses will be transferred to the State
upon program relinquishment by the NRC and will be converted into a "state license"
which will include appropriate Utah regulatory citations in lieu of "Part 40" language and
will incorporate the Utah administrative process (e.g., Executive Secretary) where
necessary. The license conditions will remain unchanged except for the above until a
license amendment request or license renewal. The current expiration date of the license
will remain the same.
The Division of Radiation Control Technical Procedures for License Review will be
followed during the review process (see Appendix E). The NRC Standard Review Plan
for Uranium Mills and Mill Tailings as well as the checksheet will be used as guidance
documents during the license review process. Licensing evaluations or analyses will
26
i
include radiological safety aspects in occupational or restricted areas and environmental
impacts to population or restricted unrestricted areas surrounding facilities. As
necessary, evaluations will include pre-licensing visits to obtain relevant information.
Items which will be evaluated include, but are not limited to, the following: general
statement of proposed activities; scope of proposed action; specific activities to be
conducted; administrative procedures; facility organization and radiological safety
responsibilities, authorities, and personnel qualifications; licensee audits and inspections;
radiation safety program, control and monitoring; radiation safety training programs for
workers; restricted area markings and access controls; review of monitoring data,
exposure records, license audit and inspection records as well as other records for
existing mills; environmental monitoring; radiological emergency procedures; product
transportation; tailing management facilities and procedures; site and physical plant
decommissioning procedures, other than tailings; and employee exposure data and
bioassay programs.
The environmental analysis will be part of the license review process and will consist of a
detailed and documented evaluation of the following items: topography; geology and
seismology; hydrology and water quality; meteorology; background radiation, tailings
retention systems; interim stabilization, reclamation, and site decommissioning programs;
radiological dose assessments (source terms; exposures pathways; dose commitment to
individuals; dose commitment to populations; evaluation of radiological impacts to the
public to include determination of compliance with State rules and Federal regulations
and comparison with background values; occupational dose; radiological impact to biota
27
other than man; and radiological monitoring programs, pre-operational and operational);
impacts to quality and quantity of surface and groundwater; environmental effects of
accidents; and evaluation of tailings management alternatives in terms of regulations.
The staff will also review the following during preparation of the environmental analyses
for a new uranium recovery facility: ecology; environmental effects of site preparation
and facility construction on environment and biota; environmental effects of use and
discharge of chemicals and fuels; and economic and social effects.
The Division will use the following NRC publications as guidance documents (when
applicable) during the license review process: Regulatory Guide 3.11, Design,
Construction, and Inspection of Embankment Retention Systems for Uranium Mills";
3.111 3.11.1, "Operational Inspection and Surveillance of Embankment Retention
Systems for Uranium Mill Tailings"; 3.51, Calculational Models for Estimating
Radiation Doses to Man from Airborne Radioactive Materials Resulting from Uranium
Milling Operations"; 3.56, "General Guidance for Designing, Testing, Operating, and
Maintaining, Emission Control Devices at Uranium Mills"; 4.14, Radiological Effluent
and Environmental Monitoring at Uranium Mills"; 8.22, Bioassays at Uranium Mills";
8.25 Air Sampling in the Workplace"; 8.30, "Health Physics Surveys in Uranium Mills";
8.31, "Information Relevant to Ensuring that Occupational Radiation Exposures at
Uranium Mills will be As Low As is Reasonably Achievable". Other guidance
documents that may also be use as resources are I.C.R.P. Report 29: Radionuclide
Release into the Environment: Assessment of Doses to Man" as well as N.C.R.P. Report
76, Radiological Assessment: Predicting the Transport, Bioaccumulation, etak Uptake
28
by Man of Radionuclides Released to the Environment', NUREG 1620. Standard Review
Plan for reclamation plans RIS 2000-23 relating to alternate feed amendment requests,
and The Division's health physicist and hydrogeologist will perform operation data
reviews and required the licensee to submit semi-annual radioactive material effluent
release reports as well as semi-annual environmental monitoring reports. The written
reports will be required to be submitted within 60 days after January and July 1 of each
year. The licensee will be required to specify the quantity of each of the principle
radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and gaseous effluents during the
pervious six months of operation. The data for the effluent release will be required in a
manner that will permit the physicist and hydrogeologist to confirm the potential annual
radiation doses to the public and confirm the dose to receptors.
The State will recognize already established performance-based license conditions for
uranium mills and tailings. The State is willing to consider future performance-based
license conditions on a case by case basis with each licensee. An issue that will need to
be addressed is the appropriate method for substantive involvement of the public while
still achieving the operational objectives of performance based licensing.
Inspection Program (Criteria 29 and 35)
There will be at least four facilities that will require inspection: Lisbon (Rio Algom),
White Mesa (International Uranium), Shootaring Canyon (Plateau Resources), and Clive
(Envirocare of Utah). Currently, Envirocare of Utah in Tooele County is subject to
quarterly inspections by the NRC using staff from offices in Arlington, Texas sometimes
29
supplemented by NRC headquarters staff from Rockville, Maryland. Envirocare
inspections would be assigned to the "Envirocare team" and incorporated into the overall
oversight and inspection schedule now in use for low-level radioactive waste.
A health physicist will be hired to inspect each of the mills at least on a quarterly basis.
The mill inspection frequency schedule will be reviewed regularly and adjusted as needed
for different circumstances (e.g., good compliance, standby not operating, etc.). The
health physicist will be housed in the DRC office in Salt Lake City but will travel to
southern Utah at least one week per month to accomplish both regular (quarterly) and
oversight inspections. This health physicist will also be responsible for the inspection of
28 other radioactive material licensees in southeast and southwest Utah. The engineer
and groundwater hydrogeologist will provide inspection support as needed to the health
physicist in such areas as groundwater sampling evaluations, split groundwater sampling,
oversight of new engineering construction or oversight of closing facilities.
he State inspection program will incorporate all the elements of the current radioactive
materials inspection program (see Appendix D for Inspection and Enforcement
procedures) relevant to Part 40 uranium recovery facilities which is subject to periodic
program review by the NRC. Items that will be examined during inspections will be
consistent with items evaluated during licensing. The Division inspectors will perform
independent surveys and sampling in addition to examining aspects of license
performance as follows: administration; milling processes, including any additions,
deletions or operational changes; accident and incidents; notices, instructions, and reports
to workers in accordance with R313-18 rules; action taken on previous findings; physical
30
plant facilities of the mill tour to determine compliance with regulations and license
conditions; tailings waste management to determine compliance with rules and license
conditions (NRC Regulatory Guide 3.11.1 see Appendix E); records; respiratory
protection and bioassays to determine compliance with license conditions and R313-15
rule; effluent and environmental monitoring; training programs; and transportation and
shipping.
A complete inspection will be performed at least annually and will include independent
surveys and sampling. The NRC inspection form for Uranium Mills as well as the NRC
Inspection Manual, Chapter 2801, Uranium Mill and 1 le.(2) Byproduct Material
Disposal Site and Facility Inspection Program" will be utilized as guidance documents by
the State inspectors during an inspection. Enforcement actions will be in accordance with
the Utah Radiation Control Rules and existing enforcement guidance (used for the
radioactive materials and low-level waste program, see Appendix D for Inspection
Procedures). All enforcement actions can be appealed through the Utah Radiation
Control Board and thereafter, to the appropriate court. The DRC will also conduct
periodic split sampling with facilities regarding waste materials or groundwater samples.
Rules Equivalent to NRC Regulations (Criterion 32)
In addition to future adoption of applicable parts of 10 CFR 40 by reference (disclaiming
any intent to regulate materials or activities over which NRC retains jurisdiction),
pending the legislative process, the DRC has the following Utah Administrative Code
(UAC) rules equivalent to NRC Regulations:
31
R313-15, Standards for Protection Against Radiation"
R313-18, Notices, Instructions and Reports to Workers by Licensees or
Registrants-- Inspections;
R313-19, Requirements of General Applicability of Licensing of Radioactive
Material(Packing and Transportation of Radioactive Material is in this section.)
Part of the regulation for certain portions of 10 CFR 150, "Exemptions and Continued
Regulatory Authority in Agreement States and in Offshore Waters under 10 CFR
50.31 (b) 150.31(b)" is met through the Radiation Control Act, Utah Annotated Code 19-
3, and will be met through the adoption of applicable parts of 10 CFR 40 by reference
(disclaiming any intent to regulate materials or activities over which the NRC retains
jurisdiction). The Utah Radiation Control rules will be have been modified to include a
written environmental impact analysis process.
Peading With the completed adoption of applicable parts of 10 CFR Part 40 by reference
in R313-24 and other necessary modifications to of the rules, the DRC has rules that are
up-to-date and compatible with the NRC rules (see Appendix C, State Regulation Status
form).
Instrumentation (Criterion 36) and Laboratory Support (Criterion 34)
32
The State has sufficient field and laboratory instruments to ensure licensee's control on
materials and validate licensee's measurements. Appendix F has a list of the State's
instruments and Instrument Calibration Procedures. Instruments are calibrated as
necessary but not less than annually except for those used by the Radioactive Material
Section which are calibrated semi-annually.
Laboratory instruments are available through the Division of Radiation Control as well as
through the State Health Laboratory which have the capabilities for quantitative and
qualitative analysis of radionuclides associated with natural uranium and its decay chain,
primarily, U-238, Ra 66 Ra-226, Th 320 Th-230, Pb-210, and Rn-222 in a variety of
sample media. If the State Health Laboratory does not have the analytical capabilities
needed, the Division may contract with a commercial laboratory to perform quantitative
or qualitative analysis.
The State Health Laboratory has established acceptable criteria for quality assurance and
participates in the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program. The
Environmental Protection Agency's program for laboratory performance is no longer
available. The State Health Laboratory can provide the Division staff analytical reports
within approximately 30 days. Arrangements can be made for the State Health
Laboratory to handle a large number of samples from a major accident in a timely
manner. However, the State Laboratory is limited to the number of samples it is capable
of running and may have to contract a commercial laboratory for a timely turn around.
33
The Division has gamma spectroscopy capabilities in-house and a portable spectroscopy
unit for field measurements, both qualitative and quantitative. In-house gamma
spectroscopy capabilities include the following media: soil, water, and air (filters). The
EG&G Ortec gamma spectroscopy unit is a germanium detector connected to a desk top
computer with EG&G gamma vision software. The portable unit is a Berkley Nucleonics
Corporation Smart Area Monitor. Employees in the environmental section have extensive
experience in dealing with the collection and analysis of naturally occurring radioactive
material contaminants in soil, water, and air samples.
Arrangements for Discontinuing NRC Jurisdiction
As stated in the licensing program section of this application, existing NRC licenses will
be transferred to the State upon program relinquishment by the NRC and will be
converted into a "state license" which will include appropriate Utah regulatory citations
in lieu of "Part 40" language and will incorporate the Utah administrative process where
necessary. The license conditions will remain unchanged except for the above until a
license amendment request or license renewal. The current expiration date of the license
will remain the same. The license transfer will not give rise to a requirement to make any
changes to existing facilities.
There will be a transition phase for staffing as described in the 'staffing" section. Three
months prior to signature of the Governor and Chairman of the amendment to the
Agreement, recruitment will begin for staff as previously discussed in the staffing
section. While staff are being recruited and hired, existing staff as described in the
34
"staffing section" will conduct necessary activities relating to the uranium mill program.
Existing Envirocare staff will assume the duties relating to the licensing and inspection of
the Envirocare 1 e.(2) facility immediately
It is anticipated that the majority of the workload will involve Envirocare and
International Uranium White Mesa Mill of which existing staff have good familiarity.
On the job training (mentoring) will be provided by existing staff to new staff and it is
anticipated that the new staff will be fully functional and independent within the shortest
.time possible. Core training will be provided as previously discussed to the new staff.
The NRC will transfer the inspection and licensing files of the four facilities to the DRC
during the transition period. Any licensing or inspection actions underway or in
transition at the time of program transfer will be provided to the DRC. The DRC
recommends that the NRC Headquarters and Region IV representatives schedule (as an
amendment Agreement appears imminent) a meeting to discuss the transition tasks that
will be needed. The NRC is encouraged to complete Utah work prior to the transfer.
Discussion of tasks to be deferred to the DRC should be discussed as part of the transition
meeting and scheduling process. The DRC recommends that the NRC archive the license
and inspection documents in accordance with federal record management prior to the
transfer of site files.
35
DRC has provided in Appendix K copies of the original Agreement of 1984, the amended
Agreement for low-level waste authority in 1990, and a draft amended Agreement for
uranium mills and tailings authority for 2003.
Summary
The State of Utah is committed to administering a high quality Agreement State Program
that will protect public health, public safety, and the environment. The Division has been
granted statutory authority and has undertaken activities in preparation for regulating
uranium mills and mill tailings. The Division has trained professional staff and will be
hiring new personnel in areas of administration, technology, and operational support. a
is obtaining Utah has obtained the necessary statutory authority to assume Agreement
State responsibilities regarding the regulation of uranium mills and mill tailings and has
proposed adoption of regulation compatible, pending the State legislative process, with
those developed and adopted by the NRC. Sufficient instrumentation to detect and
measure radiation is available within the Division as well as other State agencies.
Emergency response capabilities have been demonstrated and exercised. The Division
has obtained necessary fiscal support to fund the Agreement State Program, including the
regulation of uranium mills and mill tailings. The State is committed to full
administrative support to the Agreement State program and has demonstrated its
competency in control of radiation as evidenced by the adequate and compatible rating
achieved during the last Integrated Material Performance Evaluation Program review.
36
The Department of Environmental Quality remains committed to its mission of
safeguarding human health and quality of life through the protection and enhancement of
the environment. The Utah Division of Radiation Control will continue to protect Utah
citizens and the environment from sources of radiation that constitute a significant health
hazard through its radiation control programs. The State of Utah is prepared and qualifies
to assume the responsibilities that would be transferred to the State upon amendment of
Section 274 Agreement to include regulation of byproduct material as defined in Section
1 le(2) of the Atomic Act.
37
: +~~~~E
STP Procedure Approval
Reporting Material Events -SA-300
Issue Date: May 23, 2001
Review Date: May 23, 2003
Paul H. Lohaus Original signed by.
Director, STP Paul H. Lohaus Date: 05/23/01
Kathleen Schneider Original signed by:
Acting Deputy Director, STP Kathleen Schneider Date: 05/23/01
Patricia M. Laricins Original signed by:
Procedure Contact, STP Patricia M. Larkins Date: 04/19/01
NOTE
The STP Director's Secretary is responsiblefor the maintenance of this master copy
document as part of the STP Procedure manuaL Any changes to the procedure villbe the.
responsibility of the STP Procedure Contacit Copies of STP procedures will be distributed
for information.
1. INTRODUCTION
This procedure establishes a process for the collection, control, and preliminary review of
material events that have been reported to NRC by the Agreement States.
II. OBJECTIVES
A. To provide guidance for use by the Agreement States on reporting material events
to NRC.
B. To provide guidance to NRC staff in the collection, coordination, and preliminary
review of material events reported by the Agreement States.
JU. BACKGROUND
A. The Atomic Energy Act (AEA) allows the Commission to enter an Agreement with
a State to transfer regulatory authority over certain nuclear materials. In
accordance with provisions contained in the AEA and the Energy Reorganization
Act, and compatible Agreement State regulations, NRC and Agreement State
licensees are required to report the occurrence of incidents and events involving
the use of nuclear materials to the appropriate regulatory agency. For purposes of
compatibility, the Agreement States report incidents and events involving the use of
nuclear materials that have been reported by Agreement State licensees, to NRC.
B. The information collected on exposures, medical events, lost material, equipment
failures, etc., that have occurred involving the licensed and unlicensed use of
nuclear materials is invaluable in assessing trends or patterns, identifying generic
issues, and recognizing any inadequacies or unreliability of specific equipment or
procedures. The reported information will significantly aid in understanding why
the event occurred and identifying any actions necessary to improve the
effectiveness of NRC and Agreement State regulatory programs. The information is
also used in preparation of NRC's annual performance report to Congress.
C. Nuclear Materials Events Database (NMED)
NMED contains the official agency historical collection of information on the
occurrence, description, and resolution of events involving the use of radioactive
material in the United States (source, byproduct, special nuclear material, naturally
occurring, and accelerator-produced radioactive material). NMED accommodates
the sharing of material event data submitted by Agreement States, non-Agreement
States, and NRC licensees. NMED is maintained by the NRC's Office of Nuclear
|SA-300 Reporting Material Events -Page: 2of6t.
Issue Date: 5/23/01
Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS). The NMSS contractor, Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), is responsible for coding and
quality control of information.
IV. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
A. The Director, Office of State and Tribal Programs (STP), is responsible for the
collection, coordination and, in cooperation with NMSS and the Office of Research
(RES), the review of reports of incidents and events that have occurred involving
the use of nuclear materials received from the Agreement States. NMSS is the
designated agency lead office for review and evaluation of material events.
B. The Director, STP, participates in NRC management review and evaluation of
Agreement State response to material events that have been identified by NRC as
significant in relation to public health and safety.
C. The Deputy Director, STP, is responsible for assigning a staff member to serve as
lead material events project manager.
D. The STP-designated Project Manager is responsible for coordination with the
Agreement States and, in collaboration with NMSS and RES, review of material
event reports submitted to STP.
E. The STP Director's Secretary is responsible for controlling STP distribution of
Agreement State material event reports.
F. The Regional State Agreements Officer (RSAO) is a designated staff member, in an
NRC regional office, who serves as the point of contact for the region and ST?
regarding Agreement State radiation control programs. ST? staff should coordinate
with the appropriate Regional State Agreement Officer (RSAO), regarding the
receipt of a significant event report.
G. ST? staff should coordinate with the appropriate STP Agreement State Project
Officer (ASPO), responsible for providing back-up staff support to the RSAO (see
STP Procedure SA-1 17), regarding the receipt of a significant event report.
SA-300 Reporting Material Events I Page: 3 of 6
Issue Date: 5/23101
V. GUIDANCE
A. Guidance for Agreement States
Agreement States should follow the guidance presented in the Appendix to this
procedure entitled, Handbook on Nuclear Material Event Reporting in the
Agreement States.
B. Guidance for ST? Staff and Regional State Agreements Officers (RSAOs)
.Reports of Significant Events Received from Agreement States by Phone.
a. The following actions should be taken upon receipt of a report of a
significant event from an Agreement State (i.e., events requiring
24-hour notification to the Operations Center by Agreement States).
Receipt of such reports should occur infrequently since guidance to
the Agreement States stipulates that reports of significant events
should be provided directly to the NRC Operations Center.
b. If the State has contacted you by phone, dial in the NRC Operations
Center Headquarters Operations Officer (HOO) and have the State
representative calling in -- provide the event notification
information directly to the HOO.
c. Inform the Project Manager, or the Project Manager backup, the STP
Director and Deputy Director. STP staff should inform the RSAO.
2. E-mail, FAX, or Written (Hard Copy) Event Reports
a. A copy of the event report should be provided to the Director and
Deputy Director, STP, the appropriate Agreement State Project
Officer (ASPO), and the Project Manager. A copy should also be
sent to the NMED contractor, INEEL, through the STP Directors
Secretary.
b. Agreement State event reports shall be reviewed by the Project
Manager, to identify any events that may be significant from the
standpoint of health and safety (i.e., reportable by the licensee
within 24 hours). If the event is identified as significant and it was
not previously reported to the NRC by the Agreement State under
the 24-hour reporting requirement, the Project Manager should
notify the NRC Operations Center (HOO), and the appropriate
regional RSAO. If an event indicates the possibility of a generic
SA-300 Reporting Material Events Page: 4 of 6
Issue Date: 5/23/01
issue, the Project Manager will provide notification to the Deputy
Director, Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety,
NMSS. NOTE: Hard copy event reports received by the RSAO
shall be reviewed by the RSAO in accordance with regional
procedures. The RSAO should provide a copy of the event report to
the STP Project Manager. The RSAO will keep the STP Project
Manager informed of the status of events that have been identified as
significant.
3. Electronic Event Reports (E-mail or PC diskette)
The Agreement States send electronic copies of event reports (via Internet
e-mail or PC diskette) directly to the NMED contractor, INEEL, for entry
into NMED. NEEL, in coordination with NMSS, conducts reviews of
Agreement State material event reports that have been electronically
provided to INEEL for safety significance. Information on any events
identified as significant that were not previously identified by the
Agreement State under the 24-hour reporting requirement or events that
could pose possible generic issues are provided to STP and NMSS by
MEEL.
4. NMSS Generic Assessment Panel (GAP)
a. The NMSS materials staff conduct a weekly GAP review of all
material events received and entered into NMED from both
Agreement States and NRC licensees. Events are reviewed for
safety significance and generic implications, against the abnormal
occurrence criteria, and as candidates for the quarterly Operational
Events Briefing. Information on any possible generic issues
identified in Agreement State events will be shared with the ST?
Project Manager. Any safety significant concerns and possible
generic issues will also be shared with the Agreement States.
b. Based on the results of the review, it may be necessary to request
additional clarifying information. Agreement State staff may be
contacted by the RSAO, or a designee, when the event has been
identified as safety significant.
3. For events that have not been identified as safety significant, when
necessary, the RSAO, or a designee, may contact Agreement States
for additional information within 30 days for a 15 day LERI, and
within 60 days for a 30 day LER after NRC receipt of the initial
tLicensee Event Report (LER)
SA-300 Reporting Material Events | Page: 5 of 6
Issue Date: 523/01
notification of the occurrence of the event from the State. This
schedule provides reasonable time for State review and evaluation,
and voluntary submission of the follow-up information by the State.
A request for follow-up information may also be sent routinely via
email by the NMED contractor, (e.g., when the NMED record is
incomplete after 60 days from receipt of the initial record).
5. NMSS Operational Events Briefing
a. The Deputy Director, STP, and the Project Manager, or a designee,
serve as the designated STP representatives for reporting on
Agreement State events at the interoffice quarterly NMSS
Operational Events Briefing. In some cases, Agreement State staff
also participate and report on events that have occurred in their
State. Staff of NMSS, STP, RES, the Regions, and the Office of the
General Counsel, meet quarterly to discuss any NRC or Agreement
State licensee material events that have occurred during the period
covered that NRC has identified for review based on the
"significance of the event and/or possible generic implications."
The quarterly briefings track significant events, that have been
identified for review, through closure and entry of the final complete
record into NMED.
b. The Project Manager is responsible for coordinating telephone
(bridge) participation of an Agreement State in the briefing, when
necessary, for discussion of significant events that have occurred in
their respective State, and coordinates with the States on requests
for additional information.
6. The designated Project Manager coordinates with the Agreement States, and
participates, in cooperation with NMSS and RES, in the identification and
review of Agreement State abnornal occurrence reports.
7. Periodically, the Project Manager may be requested by management to
provide statistical information regarding the status of event reporting by the
Agreement States. Information provided by the Agreement State and
collected and maintained in NMED, should be used by the Project Manager,
the ASPO, the RSAO, and the designated IMPEP2 reviewer, to evaluate the
effectiveness and completeness of Agreement State event information
provided for entry into the NMED database.
2See STP Procedure SA-I00, Implementation of the Integrated Materials Evaluation Program (IMPEP) and SA-105,
Reviewing Common Performance Indicator #5 Response to Incidents and Allegations
SA-300 Reporting Material Events Page: 6 of 6
Issue Date: 5123101
VI. APPENDIX
Handbook on Nuclear Material Event Reporting in the Agreement States.
VIL REFERENCES
NRC Management Directive 8.1, Abnormal Occurrence Reporting Procedure,
August 21, 1997.
Policy Statement on Adequacy of and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs,
published in the Federal Register, 62 FR 46517 (September 3, 1997).
NRC Management Directive 5.6 Integrated Material Performance Evaluation Program
aIMPEP).
STP Procedure SA- I 00, Implementation of the Integrated Performance Evaluation
Program (IMPEP)
STP Procedure SA-l05, Reviewing Common Performance Indicator #5 Response to
Incidents and Allegations
STP Procedure SA-1 17, Agreement State Project Officers (ASPO)
-
300 Re ' porting Ven 1
--- -00001
Handbook on Nuclear Material
Event Reporting in
the Agreement States
Final Report
April 24, 2001
Office of State and Tribal Programs
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Contact: Patricia M. Larkins
AVAILABIUITY OF REFERENCE MATERIAL
NRC documents: Event Notifications, Preliminary Notifications, Inspection Manuals and
Procedures, NUREG Series technical reports, Regulatory Guides, etc. are available at the NRC
external Website under References at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/reference.htmJ. The Office of
State and Tribal Programs (STP) documents are available at the STP external Website at:
http://www.hsrd.ornl.gov/nrc/.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
The information collections contained in this report are covered by the requirements of NRC
regulations contained in Title 10 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. The Agreement States
collect this information under compatible Agreement State regulations.
The collection of event information has been approved by the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget, as follows.
'This information request has been approved kMB 3 1 50-01 78expiration date 08/31/2003. The
estimated burden per response to comply with this collection request is 1.25 hours. Forward any
comments regarding the burden estimate to the Information and Records Management Branch (T-6 F33),
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to the Paperwork Reductior
Project (3150-0052), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.'
Public Protection Notification
If a document does not display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information collection.
Event Reporting Handbook
Abstract
The review and analysis of operational event information increases the effectiveness of the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Agreement State regulatory programs by
identifying safety-significant events and concerns, and their causes. The information from reports
of medical misadministrations, overexposures, equipment failures, and other events that have
occurred involving the use of nuclear materials licensed by either the NRC or the Agreement
States is invaluable in assessing trends or patterns and identifying possible inadequacies or
unreliability of specific equipment or procedures. The reported information will significantly aid
in understanding why the events occurred and identifying any actions necessary to improve the
effectiveness of NRC and Agreement States regulatory programs. The information is also used in
preparation of NRC's performance report to Congress. This handbook, which supercedes the
previous February 20, 1998-version, has been developed to provide information to the staff of the
Agreement and non-Agreement States that are responsible for the preparation of event reports for
incidents and events involving the use of nuclear materials that have occurred in their State.
Reporting of Agreement State material events to NRC is mandatory for purposes of compatibility.
The handbook describes the procedure to be followed in reporting material events to NRC.
Guidance is provided on what information should be reported, the level of detail, and where to
report. Information is also provided on obtaining Federal assistance for radiological emergencies.
Procedures for identifying and reporting Abnormal Occurrences (AOs) are also included. The
objective of the handbook is to:
* Improve technical information
* Standardize format
* Ensure consistency
* Facilitate information retrieval
4/24/01 iii
Table of Contents
Page
Abstract.................................................................. iii
1. Introduction .I
1.5 Why do we collect event information? .
1.6 What is the governing regulatory authority? .2
1.7 How do you determine if an event is reportable? .3
1.8 What is the Nuclear Materials Events Database? .3
1.9 Reporting Lost, Stolen and Abandoned Sources .4
2. Reporting Material Events .4
2.1 Reporting Significant Events (24 hr. licensee notification) .4
2.2 Initial NMED Record for Significant Events .5
2.3 Radiological Emergency Response Assistance Available to the States
for Significant Material Events .
2.4 30 -60 Day Event Notification .7
2.5 Reporting Follow-up Event Information .8
3. Minimum Basic Event Information for a Complete Report ..9
4. Regulatory Reporting Requirements ..I
5. NRC Publication and Distribution of Event Notifications ..16
5.1 Event Notifications (ENs) are Available on Internet .16
5.2 Preliminary Notifications (PNs) are Used to Distribute Event Information .16
6. NRC Safety Reviews of Material Event Reports ..16
6.1 NRC Review of Material Events for Safety Significance and Generic Issues ... 16
6.2 Quarterly Operational Events Briefing Review of "Significant" Events .17
7. Abnormal Occurrence Guidelines and Criteria ..18
7.1 Introduction .18
7.2 AO Policy Information .18
7.3 AO Criteria .19
7.4 Guidelines for AO Write Ups .24
x
Event Reporting Handbook
Appendix:
Glossary ..... 31
References ..... 33
List of Tables
Table 1. Sample FAX to NRC Operations Center .6
Table 2. Event Report Cover Page .10
Table 3. Examples of Reportable Events .14
Table 4. Sample Industrial Radiography AO Report .26
Table 5. Sample Medical AO Report .28
4/24/01 vi
Event Reporting Handbook
-~ tro ~tioi 7 -Am1
This handbook contains guidance for Agreement States on reporting material event
information to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for events that have occurred in
their State. It also provides guidance for use by non-Agreement States when reporting
events involving lost, stolen or found sources of naturally occurring and accelerator-
produced radioactive materials. The reported information aids in understanding why the
events occurred and in identifying actions to help ensure safety and improve the overall
effectiveness of the NRC and Agreement State regulatory programs. Guidance is provided
on (I) reporting significant events to the NRC Operations Center; (2) providing 30-60 day
notification and follow-up event information; (3) schedule for event reporting; (4)
reporting formats (i.e., electronic reporting to the Nuclear Materials Events Database
(NMED) or written reports (mail, Fax, or email) to the Director, Office of State and Tribal
Programs (STP); and (5) reporting event information for events meeting the abnonnal
occurrence (AO) criteria. An appendix to the Handbook contains (1) a glossary of terms,
and (2) a listing of reference materials. NOTE: This procedure does not contain guidance
on NMED data entry (coding). For guidance on data entry, an electronic copy of the
NMED users guide has been included under the Help support icon in the upgraded
Microsoft Access 97/2000 version of the NMED software program.
Operating experience is an essential element in the regulatory process for insuring that
licensed activities are conducted safely. Reporting operating incidents and events helps to
identify deficiencies in the safe use of AEA radioactive material and to ensure that
corrective actions are taken to prevent recurrence. The Government Performance Results
Act of 1994 (GPRA), required the Agency to establish measurable outcome oriented
performance goals linked to Agency programs and activities in a strategic plan. An annual
performance report to Congress is prepared that evaluates the materials program against
the metric performance goals. The metric goals are based on current and historical event
reporting data. A 1993 General Accounting Office (GAO) report identified the
compilation and presentation of national materials data as an area for improvement and
recommended that NRC take appropriate action to ensure that the information on radiation
events is reported completely and accurately. Further, reliable information should be
available to NRC, the Congress, and the States to identify patterns and trends and
determine appropriate changes for the programs.3 NRC conducts reviews of all operating
experience reports, from both NRC licensees and Agreement States, to identify safety
concerns early, and to further evaluate individual safety concerns for any generic safety
issues (GSIs) that could apply to a broader class of licensees. Prompt reporting of event
information, including 30 day report information, helps the staff identify or detect possible
safety concerns as early as possible. An event or condition could, by itself appear
3 Nuclear Regulation: Better Criteria and Data Would Help Ensure Safety of Nuclear Materials, GAO/RCED-93-90.
4/24/01 l
Event Reporting Handbook
insignificant, but when compared with national information, could become a generic
concern. In-depth analysis of event report data may result in the identification of actions
that could lead to improvements in the effectiveness of NRC and Agreement State
regulatory programs. Event analysis may also result in the issuance of information notices
warning of possible safety concerns and assessment of the need for regulatory changes or
revisions. Feedback is provided to Agreement State regulators, the industry, and the
public.
NRC publishes a quarterly report that presents information on the results of statistical
analysis of event data and any significant or generic issues or concerns. The Nuclear
Materials Events (NMED) Database Quarterly Report is available in electronic form at
the NMED Internet Website: http://nrned.inel.gov. A nuclear material newsletter is also
published quarterly by NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS)
that includes information on safety concerns identified during that quarter.
-- Under Section 274 of the AEA, Agreement States have assumed regulatory authority
over byproduct source and certain quantities of special nuclear materials. The AEA
directs NRC to cooperate with the States in the formulation of standards to protect
employees or the general public against hazards of radiation and to assure that State
and Commission programs will be coordinated and compatible. Article VI of the
Agreement Between the State and the USNRC states that "the State and the Commission
agree to keep each other informed of events, accidents, and licensee performance that
may have generic implications or otherwise be of regulatory interest."
-- Under the AEA and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA), as amended, the
NRC evaluates material event reports for both NRC and Agreement State licensees,
and AOs that have occurred in licensed facilities. In addition, the ERA requires NRC
to provide to Congress on an annual basis, information on significant events that meet
the AO criteria.
-- Due to the importance of operating experience as an essential element in the regulatory
process for ensuring that licensed activities are conducted safely, the Commission
directed the staff to make Agreement State reporting of events to NRC's NMED
database an item of compatibility (See Reference section, June 30, 1997, SECY-97-
054). The implementing procedures are contained in STP Procedure SA-200 (See
Reference section).
-- The guidance contained in this handbook is to assist NRC and Agreement State staff
in the joint sharing and analysis of event information. It does not address evaluation
of Agreement State programs. The AEA directs the Commission to periodically
review actions taken by the States under the Agreements'to insure adequacy and
compatibility with the provisions of the Act. NRC conducts periodic evaluations of
Agreement State programs under the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation
4/24/01 2
Event Reporting Handbook
Program (IMPEP), which includes an evaluation of event response, reporting, follow-
up, and close-out. (See Reference for STP Procedure SA-l00 (IMPEP))
11.3 How do you determine f an event is reportable?
Agreement States should report to NRC all events reported to their State by State licensees
under State regulations equivalent to NRC's reporting requirements. Section 4 of this
guide contains a listing of the US. Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) regulatory
reporting requirements for material event information. The 10 CFR reporting requirements
form the basis for equivalent reporting requirements in Agreement State regulations. The
listing references the specific 10 CFR reporting requirements, followed by a brief
description of the types of events that fall under the reporting requirement, and the
periodicity for reporting. This list begins on page II of the "Handbook."
New Please note the new reference in All Agreement State Letter SP-98-038, dated May 5,
1998, regarding expansion of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal
investigative jurisdiction to include byproduct material. A revision to the U.S. Code
assigns lead responsibility for material events involving theft or terrorist activities to the
FBI.
The States are encouraged to voluntarily report an occurrence that actually happened
(event) or something that may happen (condition) that does not meet the regulatory
reporting criteria that the State believes might be of safety significance or of generic
interest or concern, or involves media interest.
4 J'~iq s e. Nucear ati4 I,4~~DFl
The NMED database contains a historical collection of information on the occurrence,
description, and resolution of events involving the use of radioactive material in the United
States (source, byproduct, special nuclear material, naturally occurring, and accelerator-
produced radioactive material). NMED accommodates the sharing of material event data
submitted by Agreement and non-Agreement States and the NRC. The data includes
information on material events from January 1990 through the present. The database is
maintained by NMSS through a contractor, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory (INEEL).
Aew The NMED database has been expanded to include additional information on lost, stolen,
and abandoned sources in coordination with a national effort led by the Conference of
Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc., (CRCPD) to track lost and found radioactive
4/24/01 3
-I
Event Reporting Handbook
material (including non-AEA and unlicensed material) found in both Agreement and non-
Agreement States. The data will be collected from all States, and in some cases non-
licensee organizations and members of the public. Non-Agreement States should follow
the guidance provided in Section 2 ."Reporting Material Events," to report any lost, stolen
and abandoned non-AEA and unlicensed material. (See All Agreement State Letter SP-98-
018, March 17, 1998).
NOTE: FBI notification should be considered if the event involves the possibility of theft
or terrorist activities. Based on health and safety significance the issuance of a press
release should also be considered.
In accordance with the provisions of compatible Agreement State regulations, Agreement
State licensees are required to report the occurrence of material incidents and events to the
Agreement State regulatory agency. As an item of compatibility, the Agreement States
provide reports of incidents and events involving the use of nuclear materials by Agreement
State licensees to NRC. Non-Agreement States have been requested by CRCPD to
voluntarily report any lost, stolen and abandoned non-AEA and unlicensed material. This
section presents information on reporting (I) significant events to the NRC Operations
Center, (2) 30-60 day reportable events, and (3) follow-up event information.
Agreement States should report significant events to the NRC Operations Center within 24
hours of notification by an Agreement State licensee. Significant events are those requiring
prompt notification as determined under applicable Agreement State regulations.
Information should be reported to the NRC Operations Center via voice at [phone]
or [phone] or by FAX at [phone]. A Sample FAX page has been included
at the end of Section 2, see Table 1. (For reference, NRC reporting requirements for
significant events are presented in Section 4.)
I212 'Jniti NMEDRecord f fll 4EJo t$: :I
A copy of the initial event notification information received from an Agreement State
on significant events is used by INEEL to establish an initial record in the national NMED
database. INEEL will use the Event Report Identification No., consisting of the State ID,
year, and a sequential ID No., e.g., (TN-00-001) when entering the initial event record into
NMED. The State should use that Event Report Identification number when providing
updates to the initial NMED event record using the State's local Microsoft Access, NMED
4/24/01 4
Event Reporting Handbook
database. (See Section 2.5, of this Handbook for guidance on reporting follow-up event
infonnation to NMED.)
States may request Federal assistance through the NRC Operations Center staff. The
Federal government, upon request, has the capability to provide assistance to States in
responding to radiological emergencies. Under the Federal Radiological Emergency
Response Plan (FRERP), NRC is the lead Federal agency (LFA) for radiological
-emergencies involving AEA material where the material can be traced back to an individual
NRC or Agreement State licensee. As the LFA, NRC is responsible for coordination of the
Federal response, including providing assistance from NRC and arranging for assistance
from other agencies, e.g., FEMA, DOE, etc., as requested by the States. Federal assistance
is available to provide ground and aerial radiological monitoring (e.g., missing source),
medical advice on radiation effects and treatment, consequence projection, and protective
action assessment.
4/24/01 5
Event Reporting Handbook
Agreement State Agency: [State] Dept. of Health, Division of Radiation Protection
Event Report ID No.:State ID, YR, No., e.g. WA-00-002
License No.:
Licensee:
CL-ZOOX-1
County Inspection Inc.
Event date and time:
Event location:
Event type:
Notifications:
Event description:
April 6, 2001, between 4:00 and 5:00 am
City, State
Stolen Radiography Device
[State] Dept. of Health has notified local police, and the FBI
due to possibility of unlawful criminal activity. Press release
has not been issued at this time.
[State] Dept. of Health was notified on [date], by a
representative from [licensee], of the theft of a radiography
camera from a locked equipment trailer on Thursday
morning, April 6, 2001. The locked camera and the keys to
the camera were stolen. The radiography camera is
identified as XYZ Company, Model 1 60B. serial No. B-3333,
containing [isotope] [activity, when known] 88.3 curies of
Iridium-1 92. The device cables were not stolen.
.i
The State has an inspector on site and will continue to keep
NRC informed of the status of our investigation.
Transport vehicle description: N/A
Media attention:
Point of contact:
[State] Dept. of Health has received inquiries from the
media
Bob Brown, 301-415-0001
Table 1. Sample FAX Sheet to NRC Operations Center
4/24/01 6
Event Reporting Handbook
Agreement States should report events requiring greater than 24 hours notification by
Agreement States licensees, as determined under applicable Agreement State regulations, to
NRC on a monthly basis. (For reference, NRC reporting requirements for events are
presented in Section 4.) Reports may be made either electronically or in written form.
NRC staff encourages Agreement States to electronically report all events using the NMED
database software and entry screens.
The following paragraphs provide additional information on reporting events and NMED.
For guidance on data entry (coding), an electronic copy of the NMED users guide has been
included under the Help support icon in the upgraded Microsoft Access 97/2000 version of
the NMED software program. The upgrade NMED software program also contains
downloadable sample NMED data entry screen (previously included in this Handbook).
a. Assign Event Report Identification No.
This number should appear on all reports, including preliminary, initial notification reports,
and any follow-up reports. The Event Report Notification No. should consist of the State or
State agency ID, year, and a sequentially assigned ID number, e.g., (NYDOL99-001),
(NYC-99-001), (TX-00-OO1), (GA-00-OI), (NE-00-OI), (CA-00-001) for each agency
in your State. NOTE: The Agreement State ID number field in NMED can accommodate up
to four characters for the State or agency identifier. The "Agreement State ED No." should
be specified by the State for all telephone, electronic or written notification involving each
specific event.
b. Basic Event Information
Section 3 provides a listing of the minimum event information that should be provided.
When submitting an initial event report, please provide as much information as is known at
the time the report is prepared regarding the items indicated in Section 3. Updated
information should be subsequently provided in follow-up reports (see Section 2.5).
c. Electronic Reporting to NMED
Provide an electronic NMED report via E-mail or PC diskette to the NMED contractor,
based on the information provided by the Agreement State licensee in the 5, 15, 30 or 60
day report. If you need additional help, you may contact the INEEL NMED Project
Manager, Dante Huntsman, electronically via Internet email at: dhuninel.gov, or by
telephone at 208-526-2741, or the NRC NMED Project Manager, Sam Pettijohn, via e-mail
SLP(nrc.gov or telephone: [phone].
4/24/01 7
Event Reporting Handbook
d. Internet Access to NMED
An Internet (query only) version of NMED with several drop-down point-and-click menus
is available. The Internet version of the NMED program eliminates the need for INEEL
to provide users with periodic diskette updates of the national NMED data. Users may
download the latest NMED national database information via Internet file transfer.
Internet access to the NMED is currently controlled either by a user -ID and password, or a
user -ID and Internet Protocol (I') Addresses. If passwords are required contact Dante
Huntsman, INEEL by e-mail message at: dhunginel.gov or by telephone at 208-526-2741.
Future plans include upgrading the Internet version of NMED to provide open public access
to material event information. NOTE: Agreement States should continue to use the
Microsoft Access data entry program for maintaining a local events database andfor
submitting NMED event reports to INEEL.
e. Written Event Reports
Written event reports, including e-mail or fax, should be sent to the Director, ST?. Written
report information should be comparable to the minimum basic information identified in
Section 3. Reports should be provided in an optical character recognition (OCR) scannable
format. Please include an Event Report Cover Page for all written form event information
provided to NRC. Use of the Event Report Cover Page helps ensure our Document Control
staff can readily identify, classify and appropriately record the document. A sample cover
page is provided on page 10 of this Handbook.
Follow-up material event reports--providing the results of investigations into what, where,
when and how the event or conditions occurred--through resolution and close out, should be
provided for all events, both significant (24 hr. reportable) and 30-60 day reportable
events.
a. Follow-up reports through a closeout of the event should be provided electronically
or in writing to NRC on a monthly basis. Enter any new or supplemental
information to the initial NMED record. A complete event report should include all
investigative and medical information through closeout. (See minimum basic event
information in Section 3.)
b. The initial event report identification number (State\Yr.\No.) should be included
whenever additional follow-up event information is provided. Indicate that it is a
follow-up report.
c. Additionally, when providing follow-up NMED event information, provide clear
reference to documents on file that the State used to generate the NMED event
report, e.g., a licensee inspection report dated mn/dd/yr., if applicable and
appropriate.
4/24/01 8
Event Reporting Handbook
d. Any follow-up infornation that revises earlier information or provides additional
information on a given event should be provided to ensure a complete historical
NMED record.
lik 1~I~4
The following listing identifies the minimum basic information that should be provided for all events.
a. What happened, and when? I
1. Agreement State, Event Report ID No. 7. Sealed source, device, etc, (make, model #,
serial#)
2. Licensee (Name, address), License No. 8. Leak test information, when applicable
3. Event date and time of occurrence 9. Equipment (make, model #, serial #), and clear
description of any equipment problems.
4. Date notified of event by licensee or non- 10. Persons involved, consequences
licensee
5. Radionuclide, activity 11. Transportation, identify shipper, package type
and
ID No.
6. Any exposures (indicate short and long-term 12. Abnormal occurrence (Y/N)
effects.)
b. Why did it happen?
13. Cause, and contributing factors
c. What actions did the licensee take to prevent recurrence?
14. Notifications: patient, physician 1 15. Licensee corrective actions
d. Events involving lost, stolen or abandoned material
16. Provide status through resolution (update record when found)
e. What actions did the State take?
17. Notifications: local police, FBI, and other 18. Enforcement actions
States; as needed
f. Describe any generic implications
19. Identify any possible generic safety concerns 20. Potential for others to experience the same
I event
4/24/01 9
Event Reporting Handbook
EVENT REPORT COVER PAGE
AGREEMENT STATE
EVENT REPORT ID NO. --___
(StateMA.\o.
DATE:
TO:
Director
Office of State and Tribal Programs
SUBJECT:
STATE:
Signature and Title:
Public Avalability of Event Information: Any event information that is considered preliminary predecisional
information by the State should be clearly identified on the cover page as follows: 'Preliminary. Not for Public
Disclosure." For event information in NRC's possession the final determination on whether to withhold from public
disclosure will be made by NRC on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 9.
Table 2. Event Report Cover Page
4/24/01 10
(( vent Reporting Handbook (
10 CFR Part Reporting Category
Significant 30-60 Day Reporting Requirement Notification
20, Standards for Protection 20.1906(d)(1) reports of removable contamination on package Limits in 10 CFR 71.87. Immediate
Against Radiation
20.1906(d)(2) radiation levels on package > limits in 10 CFR 71.47 Immediate
20.2201(a)(1)(i) reports of theft or loss of licensed material > 1000 X App C value Immediate
20.2201(a)(1)(ii) reports of theft or loss of licensed material > 10 X App. C value 30 days
20.2202(a)(1) exposure (real or threatened) 2 TEDE of 25 rem (.25 Sv), or eye or lens dose Immediate
equiv. of 75 rem (.75 Sv) or shallow dose equiv. (skin\extremities) of 250
rads (2.5 Gy).
20.2202(b)(1) -exposure (real or threatened) 2 TEDE of 5 rem (.05 Sv), or eye or lens dose 24 hours
equiv. of 15 rem (.15 Sv), or shallow dose equiv. (skin\extremities) of 50 rads
(.5 Gy).
20.2202(a)(2) release where individual could have intake > 5 X ALI over 24 hours. Immediate
20.2202(b)(2) release where individual could have intake > 1 X ALI over 24 hours 24 hours
20.2203(a), (b) radiation exposures, releases or concentrations of radioactive material that 30 days
exceed the limits.
21, Reporting of Defects & 21.21(a)(1-2) reporting of defect in basic component, structure or system.4 60 daysNoncompliance
.
4 Not a compatibility equirmnent for Agreement States, but States voluntarily provide information on equipment failure and defects.
4/24/01 1 1
Event Reporting Handbook
10 CFR Part Reporting Category
______________________ Significant 30-60 Day Reporting Requirement Notification
30, Rules of General 30.50(a) events involving prevention of immediate protective action, involvingApplicability to Domestic exposures or releases that could exceed regulatory limits 4 hoursLicensing of Byproduct
Material
30.50(b)(1) event involving unplanned contamination restricting access >24 hours (no 24 hours
l________ isotopes with half-lives <24 hrs)
30.50(b)(2) event involving equipment failure or disability to function as designed when 24 hours
equipment is required to be available and operable and no redundant
equipment is available and operable _
30.50(b)(3) event involving unplanned medical treatment of contaminated person 24 hours
30.50(b)(4) event involving fire, explosion affecting integrity of material, device or 24 hoursl________________ ._________ container, and material exceeds 5Xs ALI
31, General Domestic 31.5(c)(5) failure or damage to shielding, on-off mechanism or indicator, or 2 0.005 30 daysLicenses for Byproduct microcuries (185 Bq) removable radioactive material for generally licensedMaterial device
34, Licenses for 34.27(d) reporting of leaking sources, leak test results 2 0.005 microcurie (185 Bq) 5 daysRadiography & Radiation
Safety Requirements for
Radiographic Operations
34.101(a) radiography source disconnect, inability to retract source, or component 30 days
failure (critical to safe operation of device)
4/* 'II
(ivent Reporting Handbook (,
10 CFR Part Reporting Category
Significant 30-60 Day Reporting Requirement Notification
35, Medical Use of 35.33(a) notifications and reports of misadministrations' Next dayByproduct Material (24 hours)
35.59(e)(2) leak testing sealed sources and brachytherapy sources 5 days
36, Licenses & Radiation irradiator events, release of material, defective components, systems or 24 hoursSafety Requirements for 36.83 structures; (if not reported under other 10 CFR reporting requirements)Irradiators
39, Licenses & Radiation 39.35 leaking sealed sources found during periodic leak testing requirement 5 daysSafety Requirements for
Well-Logging
39.77 (a) well logging source rupture Immediate
39.77(b) theft or loss, exposures, excessive concentration of rad material 30 days
39.77(c) and (d) when apparent recovery impossible, irretrievable source, abandonment 60 days
40, Domestic Licensing of 40.26(c)(2) tailings or waste retention system failure that results in a release of material ImmediateSource Material into unrestricted areas, or unusual conditions
40.60(a) requirements for domestic licensing of source material to receive, possess,
(b)(I)-(b)(4) use, transfer, or deliver source and byproduct material (NOTE: Same as
(c)(l)-(c)(2) 30.50 above)
70, Domestic Licensing of 70.50(a) events involving special nuclear material (SNW (a) 24 hoursSpecial Nuclear Material 70.50 (b) (b) 30 days(c) _ (c) 60 days
..
5 Misdninistration events require IS day licensee event rport and 24 hour notification to refrring physician and pafient
4/2410]~l 13
Event Reporting Handbook
10 CFR Part Reporting Category l
.___________ infcn 06 a Reporting Requirement NotificationlSignificant 30-60 Dayl
I~. II
4/"d/01
(,
Event Reporting Handbook
TaI.3. _XA~iLES OIN
This Table provides examples of reportable material events or occurrences that are required to be reported by both NRC and
Agreement State material licensees. The Table addresses specific reporting requirements for either immediate notification
(within 24 hours or less) or 30 day written reports.
Immediately reportable Stolen Portable Moisture Density Gauge
under IO CFR 20.2201
Licensee reported that a [Manufacturer] [Model #] [serial #] portable gauge containing 10
millicuries of Cesium-1 37 and 50 millicuries of Americium-241 :Beryllium was stolen from
the licensee's vehicle parked at the licensee's facility. The gauge was padlocked in its original
carrying case. The State is following the incident and working with local authorities to develop a
press release. Local law enforcement and the FBI have been notified. Follow-up information
will be provided to NRC on the recovery of the stolen gauge and entered into NMED.
Reportable within 24 hours Possible Loss of Control and Damage to Portable Gauge
under 10 CFR 30.50(b) (2)
and 20.2201 Licensee reported that a [Manufacturer] [Model #] [serial #] moisture density gauge had been
damaged on March 28,2001. The gauge contained 7.9 millicuries of Cesium-137 and 40
millicuries of Americium-24 1. A technician left the gauge unattended for a brief time and upon
returning found that a construction vehicle had run over the gauge. The source rod was broken
but the source was undamaged and remained in the shielded position. Wipe tests and instrument
survey verified no leakage. The gauge was returned to the manufacturer for repair. The licensee
was cited for not keeping licensed material under constant surveillance in an unrestricted area.
Report has been entered in NMED.
Reportable within 30 days Shipment of Brachytherapy Sources Received with Radiation Levels Exceeding
under 20.1906 Regulatory Limits
A medical licensee reported receiving a shipment of two packages containing cesium-137
brachytherapy sources. Radiation surveys of the packages with an ion chamber detector found
radiation levels of 250 millirem per hour on one package, which exceeds the State and Federal
limit at the external surface of a package of 200 millirem per hour. The third and final package
was received two days later with radiation levels of 400 millirem per hour at the surface of the
package. The shipper has retained a consultant to determine the cause of the elevated radiation
levels. The State will keep NRC informed of the results of the consultants review of the event,
and the information will be entered into NMED.
Reportable within 24 hours Exposure to Nonradiation Worker at a Licensed Facility
under 10 CFR 20.1301,
20.2203 A licensee reported to the State that a nonradiation worker had received an exposure as a result
of picking up a 5 curie Americium-241:Beryllium neutron source used for well logging and
placing it in his pocket. The worker, a temporary contractor employee, was cleaning a well
logging tool at the licensee facility. (The licensee was under the assumption that all of the
source material had been removed from the equipment.) While cleaning the tool, the source fell
out, and the worker picked it up and placed it his pocket. The worker was not a radiation worker
and had no knowledge of what the object was. Preliminary calculations performed by [identify
Consultant/Contractor] indicate that the individual may have received a dose of 4-6 Rem. The
licensee's RSO is investigating the incident. The State plans to keep NRC informed of the
ongoing results of the investigation, and the information will be entered into NMED.
4/24/01 15
Event Reporting Handbook
Reportable within 24 hours
under 10 CFR Part 35 and
30.50(b)(2)
IPossible Misadministration Involving a Teletherapy Unit Malfunction
A patient undergoing a Cobalt-60 Teletherapy treatment with a [Manufacturer][Model #1
received an unintended exposure. The RSO estimated that the patient received an exposure of
138 centiGray (Rads) to a depth of 0.5 centimeters to the wrong treatment site, based on a
possible total treatment time of 1.5 minutes. The exposure occurred as a result of two power
disruptions during a thunderstorm. The loss of electrical power caused the unit table to move
which resulted in treatment to the wrong site. The patient received 0.35 minutes of the intended
fractionated treatment time of 1.5 minutes. The patient was prescribed a total dose of 5O4OcGy
to be given in 28 fractions of 180 cGy per day at the rate of 5 fractions per week. The
prescribing physician elected not to make up the missed dose. The prescribing physician
indicated that the patient is not expected to have any adverse effects from the misadministration.
The patient and referring physician were notified of the event. The licensee was able to recreate
the event to demonstrate how the event occurred. The licensee has contacted the manufacturer.
The State will keep NRC informed of the results of the review for any generic implications.
1.
Reportable within 24 hours
under 10 CFR 36.83(a)(9)
Possible Loss of Water or Leakage from Source Water Pool at Irradiator Facility
Licensee notified the State that the controls at a Co-60 irradiator facility were indicating that
the water level was low, circulating pump off, and fill valves were open. The pool water level
gauge indicated a pool water level of 93 inches, well below the normal level of 137 inches.
Previous incidents indicated that a loss of compressed air pressure to the water level gauge
could result in an erroneously low water level gauge reading, causing the automatic pool fill
valves to open, and the pool water circulating pump to turn off. The compressed air system
pressure was found to be in the normal range, but the operator found water and congealed oil in
the air line supplying the pool water level gauge, and the air line supplying the elevator control
valve. Further investigation found that the compressed air line water traps were full of water. A
past similar incident resulted in a failure to raise the elevator. The operator then verified that
the pool water level was in fact normal. The licensee requested the building maintenance
personnel to diagnose and repair the compressed air supply immediately, to prevent the
conductivity in the pool water from reaching abnormal levels as a result of the resin filter
circulating pump being automatically turned off by the false low pool water level meter reading.
Maintenance personnel responded and replaced a failed compressed air dryer, and monitored the
open air lines to clear the lines of water. A float activated automatic water drain was installed in
the air line to prevent a possible recurrence by allowing any water to automatically drain from
the air line.
4/24/01 16
Event Reporting Handbook
~~~~~ $~~~~~St
All events reported to the NRC Operations Center are currently entered into the NRC Event
Notification (EN) database. ENs are publicly available through Internet on NRC's external
home page at (http://wwwnrc.gov/opa) under Event Reports, within one work day of
notification. As a result of public access to this information, Agreement and non-Agreement
States may receive contacts from the public or media regarding events and requesting
additional information.
Preliminary Notifications (PNs) are brief summary reports of significant events issued by
the NRC staff to notify the Commission of the occurrence of a significant event. PNs are
based on information provided by State radiation control program staff. PNs are usually
issued within approximately two hours of notification of the occurrence of a significant
event. The PN will be publicly available through Internet on NRC's external home page
under PN Reports at (http//www.nrc.gov/OPA/pn). Updates to PNs occur when significant
additional information about an event is provided to NRC. When preparing PNs, NRC staff
may contact the State for additional information on the event.
A. A Generic Assessment Panel (GAP) has been established within NRC to review all
material event information. A weekly review of all new NRC or Agreement State licensee
event information that has been entered into NMED is conducted by NRC staff. The
objective of the review is to identify any events that may be safety significant or may
involve GSIs, i.e.,.equipment malfunction or failure, significant exposures, etc. GSI's are
defined as a safety concern that may affect the design, construction, operation, or
decommissioning of all, several, or a class of regulated operations, and may have the
potential to require licensees or certificate holders to make safety improvements and/or
require new or revised requirements or guidance.
4/24/01 17
Event Reporting Handbook
B. Requestsfor additional information: Based on the results of the GAP review,
Agreement State staff may be contacted by the Regional State Agreements Officer (RSAO)
by voice or email to discuss the event. Additional information may be requested to help
determine the safety significance and any possible generic implications (e.g., equipment
malfunction or failure, significant exposures). Specific issues identified as a result of the
review are tracked through close-out of the event. To provide the States reasonable time
for review and investigation of reported events, any requests for additional information to
States will be conducted within the following schedule.
1. Schedule for requesting additional information:
If necessary, NRC staff may contact Agreement States for additional information on
significant events that pose or could pose public health and safety risks. Such
requests would occur on an as needed basis, possibly within hours to a few days of
notification of the occurrence of the event, based on the safety significance.
For events that have not been identified as safety significant, when necessary, the
RSAO, or a designee, may contact Agreement States for additional information
within 30 days for a (15 day event notification)) and within 60 days for a (30 day
event notification) after NRC's receipt of the initial notification from the State. A
request for follow-up information may also be sent routinely via email by the
NMED contractor, (e.g., when the NMED record is incomplete after 60 days from
receipt of the initial record).
A. Events identified as having a "significant" potential risk to public health and safety may
receive additional NRC management review at the quarterly NRC Operational
Events Briefing. The quarterly briefing, attended by managers and staff from the offices
of NMSS, STP, Incident Response Operations (IRO), Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES),
and the Regions is convened to review and assess health and safety-related issues, e.g.,
cause, effects, generic implications, mitigating actions, etc. NRC headquarters and region
staff continue to follow-up and review material events discussed at the operational events
briefing through closure of the event, which includes checking to see that the final report
information has been entered into NMED. Based on potential safety risks identified as a
result of event review and analyses, NRC may take actions to reduce potential health and
safety risks to the public by issuing safety-related notifications to licensees, concerning
software problems, equipment modifications, etc. Further research and analysis may result in
regulatory or programmatic changes.
4/24/01 18
Event Reporting Handbook
B. Agreement State staff may be requested to participate in the briefings by telephone to discuss
specific events, the status, results of licensee or State investigation activities and licensee
corrective actions, and the potential generic significance of the event. Agreement State
participation helps in the exchange of event information and in follow-up actions if generic
implications are identified.
9 iirrnicurec 0W:'-I fi
This section presents the guidelines and criteria to be followed when assessing the
significance of an event or occurrence to see if it meets the criteria established to identify an
abnormal occurrence (AO). Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA)
(Public Law 93-438,42 USC 5848) identifies an abnormal occurrence as an unscheduled
incident or event that the Commission determines to be significant from the standpoint of
public health or safety. Section 208 of the Act also requires that the Commission inform
Congress of any abnormal occurrences. The Agreement States support the NRC in their
effort to keep Congress apprised of any significant events that may directly affect public
health or safety by providing information on proposed AOs that have occurred in their State.
The Commission submits a report to Congress identifying any AOs. The Federal Reports
Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 requires that AOs be reported to Congress on an annual
basis (see "Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences, Fiscal Year 1996," NUREG-
0090, Vol. 19). Section 208 of the ERA indicates that each report shall contain:
(1) The date and place of each occurrence;
(2) The nature and probable consequence of each occurrence;
(3) The cause or causes of each; and
(4) Any action taken to prevent recurrence.
As specified in Section 208, within 15 days of receiving information of each AO, the
Commission shall provide as wide dissemination to the public as reasonably possible as
soon as such information becomes available.
4/24/01 19
Event Reporting Handbook
A final AO policy statement containing criteria for determining an AO was published in the
Federal Register on December 19, 1996, (61 FR 67072). Revised AO criteria were
published in the Federal Register on April 17, 1997 (62 FR 18820) to incorporate minor
changes and to revise criterion Im covering Fuel Cycle Licensees.
An incident or event will be considered an AO if it involves a major reduction in the degree
of protection of the public health or safety. This type of incident or event would have a
moderate or severe impact on the public health or safety and could include, but need not be
limited to the following:
(1) Moderate exposure to, or release of, radioactive material licensed by
or otherwise regulated by the Commission;
(2) Major degradation of essential safety-related equipment; or
(3) Major deficiencies in design, construction, use of, or management
controls for facilities or radioactive material licensed by or
otherwise regulated by the Commission.
Agreement State staff should routinely screen events against the AO criteria as part of their routine
program. Any events identified as potential AOs should be reported to NRC. Additionally,
Agreement States are requested to prepare a special written report for potential AOs. Agreement
State staff should follow the guidelines for preparing AO write-ups contained in Section 7.4 of this
Handbook. When questions arise on a given event, it may sometimes be necessary for NRC to
directly contact an Agreement State representative and request additional information.
The criteria for determining an AO and the guidelines for "Other Events of Interest" were stated in
an NRC Policy Statement. The following AO criteria was published in the Federal Register on
December 19, 1996, (61 FR 76072). The policy statement was revised to include criteria for
gaseous diffusion plants and published in the Federal Register on April 17, 1997, (62 FR 18820).
The guidelines were revised for Appendix C "Other Events of Interest" by the Commission in a
Staff Requirements Memorandum, SECY-98-175, dated September 4, 1998.
4/24/01 20
Event Reporting Handbook
Criteria by types of events used to determine which incidents or events will be considered for
reporting as AOs are as follows:
I. For All Licensees
A. Human Exposure to Radiation from Licensed Material.
1. Any unintended radiation exposure' to an adult (any individual 18 years
of age or older) resulting in an annual total effective dose equivalent
CEDE) of 250 millisievert (mSv) (25 rem) or more; or an annual sum
of the deep dose equivalent (external dose) and committed dose
equivalent (intake of radioactive material) to any individual organ or
tissue other than the lens of the eye, bone marrow and the gonads, of
2500 mSv (250 rem) or more; or an annual dose equivalent to the lens
of the eye, of 1 Sv (100 rem) or more; or an annual sum of the deep
dose equivalent and committed dose equivalent to the bone marrow,
and the gonads, of 1 Sv (100 rem) or more: or an annual shallow-dose
equivalent to the skin or extremities of 2500 mSv (250 rem) or more.
2. Any unintended radiation exposure to any minor (an individual less
than 18 years of age) resulting in an annual TEDE of 50 mSv (5 rem)
or more, or to an embryo/fetus resulting in a dose equivalent of 50 mSv
(5 rem) or more.
3. Any radiation exposure that has resulted in unintended permanent
functional damage to an organ or a physiological system as determined
by a physician.
B. Discharge or Dispersal of Radioactive Material from its Intended Place of
Confinement.
6 An unintended radiation exposure" includes any occupational exposure, exposure to the general public, or exposure as a
result of a medical misadministration (as defined in §35.2) involving the wrng individual that exceeds the reporting values established
in the regulations.
All other reported medical misadministrations will be considered for reporting as an AO under the criteria for medical
licensees. In addition, unintended radiation exposures include any exposure to a nursing child, fetus, or embryo as a result of an
\- exposure (other than an occupational exposure to an undeclared pregnant woman) to a nursing mother or pregnant woman above
specified values.
4/24/01 21
Event Reporting Handbook
1. The release of radioactive material to an unrestricted area in concentra-
tions which, if averaged over a period of 24 hours, exceed 5000 times
the values specified In Table 2 of Appendix B to O CFR Part 20,
unless the licensee has demonstrated compliance with §20.1301 using
§§20.1302(b) (1) or 20.1302(b) (2) (ii).
2 Radiation levels in excess of the design values for a package, or the loss
of confinement of radioactive material resulting in one or more of the
following: (a) a radiation dose rate of O mSv (1 rem) per hour or
more at 1 meter (3.28 feet) from the accessible external surface of a
package containing radioactive material; (b) a radiation dose rate of 50
mSv (5 rem) per hour or more on the accessible external surface of a
package containing radioactive material and that meet the requirements
for exclusive use' as defined in 10 CFR 71.47; or (c) release of
radioactive material from a package in amounts greater than the
regulatory limits In 10 CFR 71.51 (a) (2).
C. Theft, Diversion, or Loss of Licensed Material, or Sabotage or Security Breach.7
1. Any lost, stolen, or abandoned sources that exceed 0.01 times the Al
values, as listed In 10 CFR Part 71, Appendix A, Table A-I, for special
form (sealed/nondispersible) sources, or the smaller of the A2 or 0.01
times the Al values, as listed in Table A-1, for normal form
(unsealed/dispersible) sources or for sources for which the form is not
known. Excluded from reporting under this criterion are those events
involving sources that are lost, stolen, or abandoned under the
following conditions: sources abandoned in accordance with the
requirements of 1O CFR 39.77(c); sealed sources contained in labeled,
rugged source housings; recovered sources with sufficient indication
that doses in excess of the reporting thresholds specified in AO criteria
I.A. and I.A.2 did not occur during the time the source was missing;
and unrecoverable sources lost under such conditions that doses in
excess of the reporting thresholds specified in AO criteria I.A. and
I.A.2 were not known to have occurred.
2. A substantiated case of actual or attempted theft or diversion of
licensed material or sabotage of a facility.
7 Information pertaining to certain incidents may be either classified or under consideration for classification because of
national security implications. Classified information will be withheld when formally reporting these incidents in accordance with
Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. Any classified details regarding these incidents would be
available to the Congress, upon request, under appropriate security arrangements.
4/24/01 22
Event Reporting Handbook
3. Any substantiated loss of special nuclear material or any substantiated
inventory discrepancy that is judged to be significant relative to
normally expected performance, and that is judged to be caused by theft
or diversion or by substantial breakdown of the accountability system.
4. Any substantial breakdown of physical security or material control (i.e.,
access control containment or accountability systems) that significantly
weakened the protection against theft, diversion, or sabotage.
D. Other Events (i.e., those concerning design, analysis, construction, testing, operation,
use, or disposal of licensed facilities or regulated materials).
1. An accidental criticality 110 CFR 70.52(a)].
2. A major deficiency in design, construction, control, or operation
having significant safety implications requiring immediate remedial
action.
3. A serious deficiency in management or procedural controls in major
areas.
4. Series of events (where individual events are not of major importance),
recurring incidents, and incidents with implications for similar facilities
(generic incidents) that create a major safety concern.
II. For Commercial Nudear Power Plant Licensees.
A. Malfunction of Facility, Structures, or Equipment.
1. Exceeding a safety limit of license technical specification (TS)
[§50.36(c)].
2. Serious degradation of fuel integrity, primary coolant pressure
boundary, or primary containment boundary.
3. Loss of plant capability to perform essential safety functions so that a.
release of radioactive materials, which could result in exceeding the
dose limits of 10 CFR Part 100 or 5 times the dose limits of 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix A. General Design Criterion (GDC) 19, could occur
from a postulated transient or accident (e.g., loss of emergency core
cooling system, loss of control rod system).
4/24/01 23
Event Reporting Handbook
B. Design or Safety Analysis Deficiency, Personnel Error, or Procedural or
Administrative Inadequacy.
1. Discovery of a major condition not specifically considered in the safety
analysis report (SAR) or TS that requires immediate remedial action.
2. Personnel error or procedural deficiencies that result in loss of plant
capability to perform essential safety functions so that a release of
radioactive materials, which could result in exceeding the dose limits of
10 CFR Part 100 or 5 times the dose limits of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix A, GDC 19, could occur from a postulated transient or
accident (e.g., loss of emergency core cooling system, loss of control
rod system).
III. For Fuel Cycle Facilities.
1. A shutdown of the plant or portion of the plant resulting from a significant
event and/or violation of a law, regulation, or a license/certificate condition.
2. A major condition or significant event not considered in the license/certificate
that requires immediate remedial action.
3. A major condition or significant event that seriously compromises the ability of
a safety system to perform its designated function that requires immediate
remedial action to prevent a criticality, radiological or chemical process hazard.
IV. For Medical Licensee
A medical misadministration that:
(a) Results in a dose that is (1) equal to or greater than 1 gray (Gy) (100 rad) to a
major portion of the bone marrow, to the lens of the eye, or to the gonads, or
(2) equal to or greater than 10 Gy (1000 rad) to any other organ; and
(b) Represents either (1) a dose or dosage that is at least 50 percent greater than
that prescribed in a written directive or (2) a prescribed dose or dosage that ()
is the wrong radiopharmaceutical,8 or () is delivered by the wrong route of
administration, or (iii) is delivered to the wrong treatment site, or (iv) is
delivered by the wrong treatment mode, or (v) is from a leaking source(s).
8 The wrong radiophannaceutical as used in the AO criterion for medical misadministrations refers to any
radiopharmaceutical other than the one listed in the written directive or in the clinical procedures manual.
4/24/01 24
Event Reporting Handbook
New, revised:
V. Guidelines for Other Events of Interest'
The Commission may determine that events other than AOs may be of Interest to Congress
and the public and should be Included in an Appendix to the AO report as Other Events of
Interest. Guidelines for events to be included in the AO report for this purpose may include,
but not necessarily be limited to, events that do not meet the AO criteria but that have been
perceived by Congress or the public to be of high health and safety significance, have received
significant media coverage, or have caused the NRC to increase its attention to or oversight of
a program area, or a group of similar events that have resulted in licensed materials entering
the public domain in an uncontrolled manner.9
All AO write-ups should be complete, up-to-date, and written using text that is understandable to non-
technical readers. Please do not use bold or italics in writeups; use underline instead. Any special
fonts will be added during the publishing stage by the NRC Technical Publications Specialist using the
Kodak Ektaprint Electronic Publishing System.
NOTE: Agreement States may use INTERNET E-Mail capability to electronically
send their AO information to STP via Internet using WordPerfect or an ASCII
text file. NRC is currently using WordPerfect 8. The file may be attached to an
e-mall transmission. The STP AO coordinator, Patricia Larkins, may be reached
at ([e-mail]).
Margin notation -Include at the beginning of the report the Original Event Report Identification No., State
ID-YR., -ITEM NO. (XX-00-1).
First para raph -State the AO criteria for the event by citing the appropriate section of the AO criteria.
Date and Place -Provide the date the event occurred, the licensees name, and the city and State address of
the licensee.
Nature and Probable Conseguences -Briefly explain what happened and what were the circumstances.
Provide the specific details of the event, i.e., exposure (where applicable), source, indicate the specific
isotope(s), quantity, dose (where applicable), treatment plan (where applicable), equipment, manufacturer
and Model No. Describe any immediate actions taken by the licensee or the State (confirmatory action
9StaffRequireents Memorandum, SECY-98-175, dated September 4, 1998.
4/24/01 25
Event Reporting Handbook
letter, special inspection, enforcement conference, enforcement action(s), etc.). The write-up should answer
where, when, how, why, and efforts to prevent recurrence.
For occupational, medical, or public overexposures identify whether the person was notified. For medical
misadministrations, include the intended and actual treatment plan, identify any health effects. Mention if a
medical consultant has been contracted to review the event. Include the consultant's conclusions and identify
the effects on the patient. Never mention any health effects on a patient without attributing the statement to
the licensee or medical consultant. Indicate whether the primary physician was notified.
NRC policy states that all documents must be published in dual units (Metric and English).
Cause or Causes -Self explanatory
Action(s) taken to prevent recurrence -Briefly explain what actions were taken to prevent recurrence by the
licensee, and indicate whether or not the State was satisfied with the licensee's corrective actions. Were
there any enforcement actions, penalties, etc.?
Last Paragraph -Indicate the status by stating whether the AO is closed or remains open waiting for
additional significant information from the Agreement State licensee. An item should only be identified as
open if the State expects additional significant action may take place that will be covered in a follow-up
report. The new information contained in the follow-up report should be provided to NRC for inclusion in
the AO report under the section entitled "Update to Previously Reported AOs."
The following pages contain two sample AO write-ups.
4/24/01 26
Event Reporting Handbook
11- Nelxz. I , '-q' r- -- MC U X 'a4"q -- 'I'll -i I Ml U-M-Mr!- 0,61
State ID-Yr.-No
(xX-oO-oo1)
Industrial radiography exposure at (Name of facility, City, State).
In accordance with the AO criteria an annual shallow-dose equivalent to the
skin or extremities greater than 2500 mSv (250 rem) is considered an AO.
Date and Place: [Date]; Facility/Licensee]; location] City, State.
Nature and Probable Consequences: A radiography trainer (#2) received an
extremity exposure of at least 500 rem to the left-hand thumb and index
finger during a source disconnect involving a 96 curie iridium-192
radiography source, contained in the licensee's Gamma Century radiography
camera. While radiographing welds on a 12 inch pipe line in a five foot
deep ditch, the trainer began experiencing difficulty with the source exiting
from and retracting into the camera. Survey meter readings indicated a
source disconnect. Radiographer (#1 ) shielded the source
Exposure in the guide tube with a one inch thick lead sheet while the radiographer
Source/Quantity helper (#2) roped off a larger area and stayed a distance from the source.
Equipment/Device The radiographer trainee (#2) (employee of the radiography manufacturer)
(Manuf.Model #) asked the (Licensee) radiographer to notify the radiography company RSO,
and indicate everything was under control. As the trainer disconnected the
guide tube, the source assembly fell into the mud at the bottom of a ditch.
While picking up the source assembly from the mud with channel lock pliers,
the source slipped. He instinctively reached for and straightened the source
assembly (pigtail) with his hand, apparently touching the source in the
process. He placed the pigtail into the camera, intending to place the source
capsule in first. He noticed the survey meter reading high, indicating the
source was outside of the camera. Radiographer (#2) then removed the
source from the camera and placed it under the lead sheet. He then secured
the source in the shielded position. The company did not notify the Agency of
the disconnect.
About 10 days later, the radiographer started experiencing discomfort in his
left thumb and index finger and made several visits to a doctor for treatment.
Approximately 30 days later the RSO and the radiographer reported the
incident to the State. An Agency investigation found the radiographers film
badge read 1.06 rem whole body. An inspection of the camera was
performed by the company RSO the day after the incident. The Licensee and
the State Agency determined that the company had ordered
4/24/01 27
Event Reporting Handbook
two model #22 pigtails and sources from (Manufacturer, City, State), for the
Century radiography cameras, and the (Manufacturer) inadvertently sent an
incorrect Model #23 pigtail instead of the two model #22's ordered. The
two models appear similar, but the model #22 is manufactured with 1/8 inch
aircraft cable and a 3/4 inch connector, and the model #23 is manufactured
with teleflex cable, the same as the drive cable material, and a one inch
connector. The radiography company assumed the two pigtails sent to them
were model #22's. The #23 was mistakenly placed in the Garmna century
camera and is apparently the cause of the disconnect. The Agency
investigation determined that the trainer had received at least a 1500 rem
exposure to the thumb and index finger of the left hand. The (State)
Radiation Control Program, in which the manufacturer was licensed, was
informed of the incident and investigated the manufacturer's (Licensee) error
in sending the two different pigtails to the radiography company.
Cause or Causes -The manufacturer's mistaken delivery of a pigtail model
number different than the one ordered and the radiography company's
assumption that the pigtails they received were the models they ordered,
resulted in a pigtail being used in a camera for which it was not
manufactured. The disconnect resulted from the difference in the length of
the connectors between the two models. Also, the radiographer attempted an
unauthorized recovery of the disconnected source. The radiographer was not
trained in source recovery and had no previous experience with source
disconnects.
Actions Taken to Prevent Recurrence
Licensee -Actions will be given at the enforcement conference.
State Agency -The Licensee and radiographer were cited for violations of
the (State) Regulations for Control of Radiation. The Licensee was cited
for the extremity exposure, unauthorized retrieval of a disconnected source,
failure to immediately notify the Agency of the incident, and failure to notify
the Agency in writing within thirty days of the incident. The radiographer
was cited for unauthorized retrieval of a disconnected source. The incident
has been referred for escalated enforcement.
Status This file is (open\closed) in (State). The event will remain open for
additional information from the State of (State).
NOTE: Emphasis added [bold] to clarify specific information that should be included in the report
4/24/01 28
Event Reporting Handbook
Ip 1, JI:
State ID-YR-NO.
(X-00-002)
Radiopharmacy Medical Misadministration at (Name of Facility, City,
State) location.
Criteria In accordance with the AO criteria, administering a dose equal to or greater than 10
gray (Gy) (1000 rad) to any organ (other than a major portion of the bone marrow,
the lens of the eye, or to the gonads) and, the administered dose or dosage is at least
50 percent greater than that prescribed in a written directive is considered an
abnormal occurrence.
Date and Place -Datel; Facility/Licenseel, City, State]
Procedure/dose
(actual vs. intended
Health effect
to patient
Nature and Probable Consequences -a patient was prescribed a dose
of 3.7 megabecquerel (MBq) (0.1 millicurie [mCi]) of Iodine-131 (1-131) for a
thyroid scan and uptake procedure. However, the patient was administered a
dosage of 262.7 MBq (7.1 mCi) of I-131. As a result the patients thyroid received
a dose of about 9100 centiGray (cGy) (9100 rad) instead of the prescribe dose of
13OGy (130 rad).
Licensee stated that the administered dose of 1-131 may induce a
hypothyroid state requiring the patient to take thyroid hormone.
Cause or causes -the wrong dosage was administered on the assumption that the
patient was prescribed a whole body thyroid scan for a cancer metastatic disease
evaluation.
Actions taken To Prevent Recurrence
Licensee -Procedures for scheduling a whole body scan for thyroid cancer and
metastasis were revised to include a detailed patient preparation and history. The
revised procedures required that the approving radiologist sign the Iodine-131
administration policy before ordering a radiopharmaceutical. The nuclear medicine
technologist attended a continuing education program at a local hospital, which
included a session on the effects of studies involving therapy dosages.
State Agenc -The State agency conducted numerous follow-up inspections to
ensure that the licensee's actions taken to prevent recurrence had been
implemented.
This event is closed for the purpose of this report.
4/24/01 29
Appendix
Glossary
DPC The Document Processing Center (DPC) is an internal NRC automated document
search and retrieval system, indexed by a unique identification (Accession) No. for
use by the staff of the NRC.
EN The Event Notification (EN) system is an internal NRC automated event tracking
system used by the NRC Operations Center to track information on incoming
notifications of the occurrence of significant material events that have or may affect
public health and safety. Significant material events are reported to the NRC
Operations Center by NRC licensees, staff of the Agreement States, other Federal
agencies, and the public. The EN's are published each work day through the
Internet.
Gray Gray (Gy) is the SI unit of absorbed dose. One gray is equal to an absorbed dose
of I joule/kilogram (100 rads).
Metric The metric system is now included in all Federal documents. All event reports
System should include the dual system of Units (SI) in the following order. First use the
International System of Units (SI) with the English System unit equivalent following
in parentheses. Spell out the first time it appears, continue with an abbreviation,
(see examples below). 1000 centiGray (cGy) (1000 rad) the first time, and continue
with 1000 cGy (1000 rad). 50 millisieverts (mSv) (5 rem) 730 megabecquerel
(MBQ) (20.4 mCi)
NMED The Nuclear Materials Events Database (NMED), maintained by NRC, is a
historical collection of incidents and events that have occurred throughout the United
States involving the use of radioactive material covered under the Atomic Energy
Act. This excludes events occurrng at nuclear power plants.
NRC Ops The NRC Operations Center in Rockville, Maryland, serves as the focal
Center coordination point for communicating with NRC licensees, State agencies, and other
Federal agencies about operating events in both the nuclear reactor and nuclear
material industry. The Operations Center is staffed 24 hours a day by an NRC
Headquarters Operations Officer (HOO), who is trained to receive, evaluate, and
respond to events reported to the Operations Center.
PN Preliminary Notifications (PN) are brief summary reports of significant events
issued by the NRC staff to notify the Commission of the occurrence of a significant
event that appears to have health and safety significance or major public or media
interest. PNs are based on information provided by State radiation control program
staff. These reports are publicly available through Internet on NRC's external home
page under PN Reports at (http//www.nrc.gov/OPA/pn).
Glossary of Terms Event Reporting Handbook
RSAO The Regional State Agreements Officer (RSAO) is a designated staff member, in an
NRC regional office, who serves as the point of contact for the region and the Office
of State and Tribal Programs regarding Agreement State radiation control programs,
and who participates in technical reviews of Agreement State radiation control
programs.
Rad Rad is the special unit of absorbed dose. One rad is equal to an absorbed dose of
100 ergs/grams or 0.01 joule/kilogram (0.01 gray)
Rem Rem is the special unit of any of the quantities expressed as dose equivalent. The
dose equivalent in rem. is equal to the absorbed dose in rads multiplied by the
quality factor (I rem = 0.01 sievert).
Sievert Sievert is the SI unit of any of the quantities expressed as dose equivalent. The dose
equivalent in sieverts is equal to the absorbed dose in grays multiplied by the
quality factor (I Sv = 100 rem.).
4/24/01 32
References Event Reporting HandbookReferences Event ReDortin2 Handbook
References
The following is a list of NRC manuals and procedures that contain additional information on event
response and AOs. Additionally information is provided on the NRC Region contact for
Agreement State issues, the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRERP), the Federal
Bureau of Investigations (FBI) expansion into byproduct material, and the Radiation Emergency
Assistance Center/Training Site (REACTS) along with a telephone number.
NRCPolicy
June 30, 1997 Staff Requirements Memorandum, Procedures for Statement ofPrinciples and
Policy for the Agreement State Program and Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of
Agreement State Programs.
NRC Management Direcdves
8.1 Abnormal Occurrence Reporting Procedures
8.10 NRC Medical Event Assessment Program
ARCInspection Manual (Series 1300, Incident Response)
1300 Incident Response Actions -Responsibility and Authority (84-080)
1301 Response to Non-Emergency Incidents Involving Radioactive Material (96-022)
1302 Action Levels for Radiation Exposures and Contamination Associated with Material
Events Involving Members of the Public (94-004)
1303 Requesting Emergency Acceptance of Radioactive Material by the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE) (95-009)
1330 Response to Transportation Accidents Involving Radioactive Materials (84-22)
1360 Use of Physician and Scientific Consultants in the Medical Consultant Program
(94-013)
4/24/01 33
References Event Reportin HandbookReferences Event Reporting Handbook
NRC Inspection Procedures Manual (Series 8700, Material Safety Inspection)
87103 Inspection of Materials Licensees Involved in an Incident Bankruptcy Filing
(97-008)
NRC Emergency Response Manuals
NUREG/BR-0230 Response Coordination Manual -Contains procedures for requesting
Federal assistance during an emergency.
NUREG/BR-0150 Contains procedures for assessing the consequences of an emergency.
STP Procedures
SA-100 Implementation of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program
SA-200 Compatibility Categories and Health and Safety Identification for NRC
Regulations and Other Program Elements
Event Notifcation and Response
FBI A recent revision to Section 831 of Chapter 39 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code
regarding criminal activity, includes a significant expansion of Federal Bureau of
Investigation jurisdiction to initiate criminal investigations and pursue prosecutions
when radioactive materials are involved. In instances involving the suspected
criminal misuse of nuclear material and byproduct material, your notification of the
FBI is warranted. However, the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI will determine
whether or not a criminal investigation is to be conducted by the FBI or deferred to
State or local authorities for investigation and prosecution. The Commission also
requests that Agreement States inform NRC of reports of events involving theft or
terrorist activities warranting FBI notification.
FRERP The Commission is the lead Federal agency (LFA) for response to any event
involving NRC and Agreement State-licensed Atomic Energy Act material under the
Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRERP), which includes other
Federal agencies, i.e., Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Federal Emergency Response Administration (FEMA). FRERP
covers any peacetime radiological emergency that has actual, potential or perceived
radiological consequences within the United States. The FRERP is reproduced in
Section V of NUREG/BR-0230.
4/24/01 34
References Event Reporting HandbookReferences Event Renortin2 Handbook
DOT/NRC The National Response Center is a Department of Transportation, Coast Guard
service that serves as a national point of contact for reporting all oil, chemical,
non-AEA radiological, biological, and etiological discharges into the environment
anywhere in the United States and its territories. In addition to gathering and
distributing spill data for Federal On-Scene Coordinators and serving as the
communications and operations center for the National Response Team, the Center
maintains agreements with a variety of federal entities to make additional
notifications regarding incidents meeting established trigger criteria. The Center
maintains a 24 hour call line at 1-800-424-8802. The Center's Website address is:
www.nrc.uscg.mil/.
REACTS The Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site (REACTS), is a
Department of Energy (DOE) resource headquartered in Oak Ridge, Tennessee,
telephone [phone]. REACTS is available 24 hours a day to provide
medical and radiological assistance either from the REACTS facility or the accident
site. Additionally, REACTS maintains a listing of other professionals throughout
the country who are recognized as having highly specialized expertise and
equipment to manage a particular area of concern.
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIAL
NRC documents: Event Notifications, Prelininary Notifications, Inspection Manuals and
Procedures, NUREG Series technical reports, Regulatory Guides, etc., are available at the
NRC external Website under References at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/reference.html. The
Office of State and Tribal Programs (STP) documents are available at the STP external
Website at: http://wwwhsrd.ornl.gov/nrc/.
4/24/01 35
(Cut out page for handy reference)
Event Reporting Schedule Reference Sheet
Events requiring 24 hours or Agreement State should report Initial in aon should be
less notification by Agreement to NRC within 24 hours of reported to NRC Operations
State licensees (significant notification by an Agreement Center* Telephone (voice):
reportable event). State licensee. [phone] or
[phone]
(See Hndbk. Table 1, Sample
FAX to Ops. Center) for NRC Operations Center FAX #
sample initial information to be [phone]
reported.
Events requiring greater than Agreement State should n
24 hour notification by provided 30-60 day notification
Agreement State licensees and any follow-up reports to
(e.g., 30-60 days) and follow- NRC-NMED on a monthly
up reports. basis. Email: [e-mail]
NOTE: Licensee reports Tel. [phone]
received within less than 30
days of the date of the monthly
report may be included in the Disk: INEEL
next month's report. Attn: Dante Huntsman
P.O. Box 1625
See Section 3. "Minimum Basic Idaho Falls, ID 83415
Event Information for a
Complete NMED Report" for Written: Director of STP
sample information needed. US NRC
Washington, DC 20555
Personal or sensitive lnfonnatiou, eg, names, personal address, social security #, should not be Included In
event descriptions.
*The NRC Operations Center staff will promptly notify the appropriate Region Duty O1'esr (RDO) and
Headquarters staff of Agreement State events. Therefore no separate notification to otberNRC staff by an
Agreement State Is necessary.
4/24/01
AP5e /SIPTeg VWIMM( NMSS/FCLB
Manual Chapter 2801
URANIUM MILL AND le.(2) BYPRODUCT MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
AND FACILITY INSPECTION PROGRAM
2801-01 PURPOSE
This chapter establishes the safety inspection program for uranium
mills and lie. (2) byproduct material disposal sites and facilities
(11e.(2) sites) licensed and regulated under 10 CR Part 40
including mills authorized to take le. (2) byproduct material. The
disposal sites include both commercial disposal facilities and
sites associated with licensed uranium mills. Included in the
program are inspection procedures related to all phases of
activities: construction and pre-operations, operations, and
reclamation/closure. Procedures presented cover those facilities
licensed and regulated in their entirety by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC). The primary purpose of the inspection program is
to obtain sufficient information through observations, personnel
interviews, independent measurements, and review of facility
records and procedures, to ascertain, in a timely manner, whether
facility operations, and radiological and non-radiological programs
regulated by NRC conform with regulatory requirements and the
conditions of the applicable license. As a result, the inspection
program determines that uranium mills and lie. (2) sites are managed
throughout their entire life cycle in a manner that provides
protection from radioactivity to employees, members of the public,
and the environment.
2801-02 OBJECTIVES
02.01 To establish general policy and priorities for inspection
of uranium mills and lle.(2) byproduct material disposal sites.
02.02 To establish a uniform process for inspection of uranium
mills and le.(2) byproduct material disposal sites.
02.03 To define specific requirements for inspection of uranium
mills and lle.(2) byproduct material disposal sites.
2801-03 DEFINITIONS
03.01 lie. (2) BvDroduct Material. As defined in Section 11 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, byproduct material means
tailings or waste produced by the extraction or concentration of
Issue Date: 08/25/00 -1 -2801
___ I
uranium or thorium from any ore processed primarily for its source
material content.
03.02 Closure. As defined in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40,
closure means the activities, after operations, to decontaminate
and decommission the buildings and site used to produce byproduct
materials and reclaim the tailings and/or waste disposal area(s).
Also, commonly referred to as decommissioning or reclamation.
03.03 Decommission. As defined in 10 CFR 40.4, decommission
means to remove a facility or site safely from service and reduce
residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the
property for unrestricted use and termination of the license; or
release of the property under restricted conditions and termination
of license. A Decommissioning Plan usually details the demolition
and/or cleanup of the mill buildings and large equipment, tanks,
etc.
03.04 Reclamation Plan. As defined in Appendix A to Part 40,
for the purposes of Criterion 6A, reclamation plan means the plan
detailing activities to accomplish reclamation of the tailings or
waste disposal area in accordance with the technical criteria of
Appendix A.
03.05 Operation. Operation for a mill is the process of
extracting uranium from ore. For an lle.(2) disposal facility,
operation means that a uranium or thorium mill tailings pile or
impoundment is being used for the continued placement of byproduct
material or is in standby status for such placement.
03.06 Performance-Based License. A performance based license
(PBL) allows the licensee to make changes to the facility without
prior NRC approval if the conditions specified in the PBL are met.
2801-04 PROGRAM APPLICABILITY
This program has been developed to respond to needs for inspection
procedures related to construction, pre-operation, operations, and
reclamation/closure for sites licensed by NRC. Where lle. (2)
byproduct material disposal sites are operating under Agreement
State regulation, it is expected that responsibility for regulation
and inspection activities at those sites will continue to reside
with the Agreement States. It is noted that existing inspection
procedures from other NRC programs can be applied, in full or in
part, to many aspects of uranium mill and lle. (2) byproduct
material disposal site inspections, and that additional inspection
procedures specific to disposal technology, and on-site activity
can be developed and employed incrementally, as needed. Tables 1
and 2 provide a listing of procedures that are currently available
and include comments concerning their applicability. Minimum and
normal frequencies of inspection are listed; adoption of the
minimum frequency of inspection should be tailored to both the
level of site activity and to the performance of the licensee.
2801-05 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
2801 -2 -Issue Date: 08/25/00
05.01 General. The inspection program for sites specifically
licensed for le. (2) byproduct material disposal, and for uranium
mills has been divided into three parts. The parts are designed to
be responsive to the various inspection needs during the different
phases of facility life: construction/pre-operations, operations,
and reclamation/closure. Each phase of the inspection program
varies with respect to applicable inspection procedures, inspection
frequency, and degree to which a given procedure may be applied.
The inspection programs for each phase are discussed in narrative
form in Section 2801-08. Tables 1 and 2 present information for the
pre-operations, operations, and closure phases.
This chapter identifies requirements for the inspection of the
health, safety, and environmental aspects of licensee activities.
The inspector should be completely familiar with the current
regulatory requirements and commitments associated with the
license. These include the comparable parts of title 10, U.S. Code
of Federal Regulations, the license application, applicable guides,
and other codes to which licensees may commit by reference. In the
case that NRC guidance documents are updated after a license or
amendment is issued, the licensee is generally only committed to
follow the original guidance. Thus, the particular revision of the
guidance to which the licensee has been committed is of importance.
The scope of inspection procedures (IPs), taken as a whole, is not
intended to be limited to only those elements discussed in the
procedures. The descriptions and examples contained in the
procedures are provided primarily for illustrative purposes, as
examples of things that should be examined. Examination of other
safety-significant activities not expressed or implied in a
procedure is left to the inspector's judgment, in consideration of
the relative degree of safety risk posed by the subject activity.
As a result of reviews conducted under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act, the NRC placed license
conditions on facility operations involving environmental issues.
Environmental inspections would be conducted at the same time as
health and safety inspections.
05.02 Proaram Adlustments. This program provides the
responsible regional office and the Headquarters flexibility to
adjust the frequencies, and scope of inspections for different
functional areas at a facility, as well as the periodicity of
specific areas of inspections. (Suggested frequencies for various
procedures are specified in Tables 1 and 2. There is no maximum
frequency expressed in Tables 1 and 2. It is expected that any
level of effort above that specified as the normal frequency would
be established at a level commensurate with whatever is needed to
resolve identified problems and their importance to safety.)
Periodic inspection interval adjustments should be based on
inspection history, licensee performance and safety significance of
findings, as delineated in sections 05.03-05.04. Occasional
adjustments may also occur in response to other events or
activities, as determined by the responsible regional office or the
Headquarters. A reasonable allowance for responding to these
events or activities should be incorporated in the inspection plan
for the facility. Necessary adjustments may be difficult to
Issue Date: 08/25/00 -3 -2801
implement within the constraints imposed by limited inspection
resources within the regional office and the Headquarters. In such
cases, implementation may involve a shift in the focus of already
scheduled inspection resources for the subject facility, or a shift
in allocated inspection resources from other facilities in the
region that have exhibited superior performance. Resources may
also be utilized from other regions or the Headquarters in a
coordinated response to address significant safety or environmental
issues that cannot otherwise be deferred.
Inspections during the construction and pre-operational phase of a
facility will be conducted on a case-by-case basis.
Pre-operational inspections will be conducted at least once before
startup of facility operations. The inspection procedures for the
construction/pre-operational phase are indicated in the appendix,
as applicable.
Substantial adjustments in the planned inspection schedule for a
facility (i.e., those that involve shifts in resources which may
affect other facilities or result in exceeding a "normal"
inspection frequency) should be coordinated between the responsible
regional office and the Headquarters.
05.03 Extension of Inspection Interval
a. The interval between inspections may be extended (lengthened)
on. the basis of good licensee performance. The main
consideration in extending the inspection interval should be
evidence of well-managed and effective radiation safety and
environmental protection programs which shows a history of
compliance. Specifically, the inspection interval may be
extended, for licensees meeting the following conditions:
1. The violations identified during the licensee's current
and preceding inspections were of a low safety
significance and no more than two violations per
inspection are Severity Level IV; and
2. The licensee has not had a significant program change
since the preceding inspection. Significant program
changes should relate to changes in the scope or type of
operations, changes in the authorized materials or
possession limits, changes in key personnel, or changes
in locations of use. (NOTE: Extension should not be
considered for licensees who have undergone significant
program changes to ensure the licensee can maintain
adequate performance over the next inspection period.)
b. To document the extension in the interval between
inspections, a note (e.g., a memorandum or section within the
inspection report) should be written by the inspector,
approved and signed by the inspector's immediate supervisor,
and placed in the licensing file.
c. The decision to extend the inspection should be made after
each routine inspection. The project manager for the site
should be informed and the master inspection plan updated.
2801 -4 -Issue Date: 08/25/00
I05.04 Reduction of Inspection Interval
a. The interval between inspections may be reduced (shortened)
and inspections conducted more frequently than specified in
the priority system on the basis of poor licensee
performance. The main consideration in reducing the
inspection interval should be evidence of moderate to severe
problems in the licensee's radiation safety or environmental
protection programs. Poor compliance history is one
indicator of such problems, while lack of management
involvement or control over the radiation safety program is
another indicator. Specifically, licensees that meet the
following conditions shall be considered for reduction in
inspection interval:
1. A Severity Level I, II, or III violation on the most
recent inspection; or
2. Issuance of an Order or escalated enforcement on the most
recent inspection; or
3. If a "management paragraph" appears in the cover letter
transmitting the notice of violation on the most recent
inspection (i.e., a paragraph that requires the licensee
to address adequate management control over the licensed
program); or
4. An event requiring a reactive inspection; or
5. Repetitive violations.
The above list is not exhaustive. The inspection interval may be
reduced for any other reason deemed pertinent by the regional or
the Headquarters management. An example would be an enforcement
conference where the outcome did not include escalated enforcement
action, but did indicate a need for the licensee to improve certain
aspect(s) of its compliance program.
Licensees which meet the above criteria may have their inspection
interval reduced by any length. For instance, licensee with a
nominal annual inspection frequency and a poor performance record
could be rescheduled for its next inspection in 6 months. The
reduction may be valid only until the next inspection or another
duration specified, but the regional or the Headquarters management
shall consider the results of the next inspection when determining
whether the reduced frequency should be continued, changed, or
returned to normal.
b. To document the reduction in the interval between
inspections, a note (e.g., a memorandum or section within the
inspection report) should be written by the inspector,
approved and signed by the inspector's immediate supervisor,
and placed in the licensing file.
c. The decision to reduce the inspection interval may be made at
any time, but consideration should be given immediately after
Issue Date: 08/25/00 -5 -2801
each routine inspection. The project manager for the site,I and the licensee should be informed and the master inspectionIo plan updated.
i 05.05 Inspections After Escalated Enforcement. If escalated
enforcement action has taken place for a particular licensee, a
follow-up inspection should be scheduled and conducted within 6
months of the last inspection or sooner, in accordance with the
guidance in this IP regarding reduction of inspection frequency
(Section 05.04), after completion of the escalated enforcement
action, to assess the licensee's follow-up actions in response to
the previous violations. Regions may perform this followupI inspection as a part of a routine inspection.
05.06 Performance-Based License. At sites operating under a
PBL, the inspector should ensure that changes authorized under the
PBL do not erode the basis for NRC's licensing decision. In
evaluating the changes made to the facility, inspectors should
recognize that the reviews conducted by the licensee's evaluation
panel are reviews of neither safety nor environmental
acceptability; rather, the evaluation panel reviews under the PBL
are a determination of whether the proposed changes require prior
| NRC review. Licensees are obligated to ensure that any change
considered to the facility should be safe and environmentally
acceptable. Then the evaluation panel is responsible for
determining if the proposed changes need to be submitted to NRC.
| There will be circumstances where the licensee finds that the
| proposed changes are acceptable; however, the change may still
require an NRC review.
As a general set of guidelines, NRC review will be required for
changes to:
1. The items described in the application or subsequent
submittals that would reduce the safety basis of the
facility;
2. The procedures conditioned in the license or outlined,I summarized, or included in the application; and
| 3. Any of the license conditions.
2801-06 REVIEW OF EVENTS
All inspections should include, as appropriate, a review of
licensee reportable and non-reportable events that involve
contamination, releases, equipment malfunctions, or other similar
events that have generic significance. The review should cover
corrective actions taken by the licensee and follow-up actions
taken to prevent recurrence. In the case of reports received by
NRC involving radiological health and safety, the region is
responsible for determining the seriousness of the reported
incident and whether an immediate reactive inspection is necessary.
When such reports involve programmatic or technical areas normally
addressed by Headquarters programs, the region shall confer with
2801 -6 -Issue Date: 08/25/00
Headquarters, to jointly determine what response, if any, is
required.
Non-reportable events are those determined by the licensee to fall
outside criteria requiring them to be reported to NRC. Although,
these events are not reported formally to NRC, licensees
occasionally may contact regional staff informally to describe the
event and explain the basis why it is considered a non-reportable
event. Often, licensees are required, by the license conditions,
to maintain records of non-reportable events onsite. Non-reportable
events should be examined during inspections, to determine
appropriate corrective actions or follow-up to preclude recurrence.
Such events may relate to safety issues requiring follow-up actions
by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or the Mine
Safety and Health Administration. These events may also relate to
existing or potential operational concerns, not otherwise
reportable, such as biointrusion in disposal units, erosion or
sloughing of trench walls, or uncontrolled wind erosion.
Additional guidance on non-reportable events is contained in
individual inspection procedures.
2801-07 INDEPENDENT INSPECTION EFFORT
Each inspector should spend some onsite inspection time performing
independent inspection effort. The amount of time spent should be
commensurate with the level of risk, the complexity of the
facility, and the degree to which inspection resources have already
been committed to significant safety and environmental issues that
have already been identified in the facility. This effort may
include more in-depth inspection in selected technical areas than
that normally called for by the formal procedures. The major
objective of this effort should be to gain increased understanding
of potential safety and environmental hazards of particular
activities of interest, such as those that may have been involved
in a series of recent non-reportable events.
Comparison of the findings from this type of effort with the
licensee' s findings may uncover unresolved safety and environmental
concerns, improper maintenance practices, and other problems that
may not be discovered through other means. Discovered hazards
outside the scope of NRC's regulatory authority should be conveyed
to the licensee at the exit interview (as set forth in IP 88002),
described to regional management during debriefing, and included in
the formal inspection report. In cases where regulatory
jurisdiction for the observed potential hazard is clear, the
finding shall be reported to the responsible agency for action
(i.e., State, Mine Safety and Health Administration, Environmental
Protection Agency, etc.). In all cases where the finding involves
a potential effect on radiological health and safety, the finding
shall be followed up during subsequent inspections until the
licensee has resolved the concern. However, special follow-up
inspections solely on the basis of Mine Safety and Health
Administration issues are not required unless the potential hazard
poses a radiological health or safety concern.
Issue Date: 08/25/00 -7 -2801
2801-08 RANDOM SELECTION AND EXAMINATION OF RECORDS
Many of the inspection procedures normally require the inspector to
select certain types of records at random for closer examination.
However, random selection is not always required. The inspector may
seek out certain records of interest when so inclined.
Random selection is a technique that recognizes the fact that NRC
does not have the resources to inspect every detail of plant. The
NRC inspection program is predicated on the fact that the licensee
is ultimately responsible for the safety of the licensed facility.
Random selection, where specified in a procedure, allows the
inspector to sample specific aspects of the licensee's safety and
environmental program to be studied at a level of detail that would
be impractical if exercised uniformly across the entire safety
program. When random selection is specified in a procedure, the
inspector should select records corresponding to activities that
relate to the NRC's regulatory role, such as effluent monitoring
records or ground-water restoration records. Also included should
be records required to be retained for later decommissioning.
To reasonably verify that activities are conducted safely and in an
environmentally acceptable manner, the inspector also should
randomly select personnel for interviews. The extent and depth to
which random selections or examinations are needed are left to the
inspector's judgment, depending on how satisfactorily the
licensee's operational, and safety and safeguards procedures are
being followed.
2801-09 REGIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR LICENSEES
The responsibility for inspection resides'with the regional office
in which the licensee operation is located. For efficiency in
resource use, the regional office may request another regional
office or Headquarters to assist in the conduct of inspections when
specialized technical expertise is needed and is not available
within the responsible region. In some cases, a region may wish to
transfer all or part of the inspection responsibility to another
region or to Headquarters. These arrangements may be made with
mutual agreement between the offices involved. If a permanent
transfer of total inspection responsibility is involved, the
affected regional offices should ensure that the appropriate
changes are made to the computerized license data file by informing
the Headquarters of the change in inspection responsibility for the
license and requesting a change in the file. The regional office
assuming inspection responsibility will be credited with the
caseload in budgeting and allocating resources.
2801-10 INSPECTION DURING VARIOUS PHASES OF FACILITY LIFE
10.01 Part I -Inspection During the Construction and
Pre-Operational Phase.
a. Purpose. The purpose of this instruction is to provide
guidance for planning and conducting inspections during the
2801 -8 -Issue Date: 08/25/00
construction/pre-operations phase of facility life.
Activities encompassed during the construction/pre-operations
phase of a uranium mill or disposal site include disposal
trench construction: liner placement: observation and
verification of placement and compaction of cover materials:
equipment use: fire protection program (equipment and
training procedures):, and compliance with applicable
construction specifications requirements in accordance with
applicable management controls and quality assurance
procedures. Activities encompassed during start-up of a mill
that has been on stand-by, would include equipment
operation/function and safety.
b. Implementation. This inspection program begins on issuance
of the license, or license amendment to restart the mill, and
continues until the site begins active receipt and disposal
of waste, or processing of ore at a mill. Situations may
arise in which inspection requirements specified for other
phases may apply concurrently with those specified here for
the pre-operational phase. For example, certain requirements
contained under Parts I and II may apply in the construction,
pre-operational checks, and start-up of a major modification
to the site.
The uranium mill or le. (2) byproduct material disposal site
pre-operational inspection program is defined by selection from
among the list of procedures in Table 1. The areas covered during
an inspection need not be limited only to those elements discussed
in the procedures, but may need to include examination of other
activities not expressly delineated or covered in existing
procedures. In such cases, the inspector must exercise good
professional judgment in modifying the inspection and in
identifying to the Headquarters the possible need for development
of supplemental guidance. Conformance with the principles of
reducing radiation exposure to as low as is reasonably achievable
(ALARA) should be a principal concern at all times.
For the normal inspection frequency, each procedure should be
executed for each specific frequency. In practice, part or all of
the procedure element may need to be examined during each
inspection visit.
During inspections, emphasis should be placed on physical
examinations, observation of conduct of operations, independent
measurements, and personnel interviews. Attention should be
directed toward the availability of written procedures, the degree
to which they are being followed, and the state of training of
on-site personnel. Effort should be concentrated on areas of
perceived concern (highest safety risk) and site activities
performed since the last inspection.
Review of records should involve only a sampling of those records
important to safety of personnel and the general public. For
example, if the organizational structure has not changed with
respect to personnel and assigned functions and responsibilities,
the inspector should not pursue the subject of organization in any
detail, unless there is reason to believe that such is not the
Issue Date: 08/25/00 _ 9 _2801
A_ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I
case. Discretion in such areas is left to the inspector's
judgement.
c. Reculatorv Considerations. The inspector should be familiar
with current license requirements; previous inspection
reports; applicable codes, standards and guides; and the
following regulations:
10 CFR Part 19, "Notices, Instructions, and Reports to
Workers: Inspection and Investigations."
10 CFR Part 20, "Standards for Protection against Radiation.
10 CFR Part 21, "Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance."
10 CFR Part 40, "Domestic Licensing of Source Material."
10 CFR Part 50.59, Changes, tests, and experiments."
10 CFR Part 61.82, Commission Inspection of Land Disposal
Facilities (Commercial Disposal Only)."
d. Guidance for Use of Inspection Procedures during the
Pre-Operational Phase. The inspection procedures indicated
in Table 1 for the construction/pre-operations phase are
applicable to inspections conducted at uranium mills and
lle.(2) byproduct material disposal sites- during
construction/pre-operations. The inspection staff can
determine the applicable elements of each procedure by
reviewing the procedure, the facility license, and reports of
previous inspections.
10.02 Part II -Insnection during the Operations Phase
a. PurPose. The purpose of this instruction is to provide
guidance for planning and conducting inspections during the
operations phase of the facility. Activities encompassed
during the operations phase include receipt and handling of
incoming lle. (2) byproduct material, or the processing of ore
and packaging of yellowcake; emplacement of the lle. (2)
byproduct material for disposal; radiation safety and
environmental monitoring activities; and records management.
b. Implementation. This inspection program begins on issuance
of the facility license, or a license amendment to allow a
uranium mill on stand-by to restart, and continues until the
facility ceases active receipt of materials and/or disposal
of waste. Situations may arise in which inspection
requirements specified for other phases may apply
concurrently with those specified here for the operations
phase. For example, certain requirements contained under
Parts I and III may apply in the operations, or start-up of
a facility.
The uranium mill or le. (2) byproduct material disposal site
operations inspection program is defined by selection from
among the list of procedures in Table 2. The areas covered
2801 -10 -Issue Date: 08/25/00
during an inspection need not be limited only to those
elements discussed in the procedures, but may need to include
examination of other activities not expressly delineated or
covered in existing procedures. In such cases, the inspector
must exercise good professional judgment in modifying the
inspection and in identifying to the Headquarters the
possible need for development of supplemental guidance.
Conformance with the principles of ALARA should be a
principal concern at all times.
For the normal inspection frequency, each procedure should be
executed for each specific frequency. In practice, part or
all of the procedure element may need to be examined during
each inspection visit. Emphasis should be placed on physical
examinations, observation of conduct of operations,
independent measurements, and personnel interviews.
Attention should be directed toward the availability of
written procedures, the degree to which they are being
followed, and the state of training of on-site personnel.
Effort should be concentrated on areas of perceived concern
(highest safety risk) and licensee activities conducted since
the last inspection.
Review of records should otherwise involve only a sampling of
those records important to safety of personnel and the
general public. For example, if the organizational structure
has not changed with respect to personnel and assigned
functions and responsibilities, the inspector should not
pursue the subject of organization in any detail, unless
there is reason to believe that such is not the case.
Discretion in such areas is left to the inspector's judgment.
c. Reculatorv Considerations. The inspector should be familiar
with current license requirements; previous inspection
reports; applicable codes, standards and guides; and the
following regulations:
10 CFR Part 19, "Notices, Instructions, and Reports to
Workers: Inspection and Investigations."
10 CFR Part 20, "Standards for Protection against Radiation."
10 CFR Part 21, Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance."
10 CFR Part 40, Domestic Licensing of Source Material."
10 CFR Part 50.59, "Changes, tests, and experiments."
10 CFR Part 61.80, Maintenance of Records, Reports, and
Transfers."
10 CFR Part 61.82, "Commission Inspection of Land Disposal
Facilities (Commercial Disposal Only)
d. Guidance for Use of Inspection Procedures During Operations.
The inspection procedures indicated in Table 2 for the
Operations Phase are applicable to inspections conducted at
Issue Date: 08/25/00 -11 -2801
I
uranium mills and lle. (2) byproduct material disposal sites,
including mills authorized for disposal of in-situ leach
facility waste and other lle.(2) byproduct material. The
inspection staff can determine the applicable elements of
each procedure by reviewing the procedure, the facility
license, and reports of previous inspections. Inspectors
should also refer to applicable portions of Regulatory Guides
4.14, 8.22, and 8.30, for details.
10.03 Part III -Insvection During the Reclamation/Closure
Phase
a. Puripose. The purpose of this instruction is to provide
guidance for planning and conducting inspections during the
period of reclamation/closure of a uranium mill site or
lle.(2) byproduct material disposal site. In some cases, as
specifically allowed or required by license condition, some
closure activities may occur for some parts of a facility
during the operations phase. The purpose of the inspection is
to verify, by field observations and review of licensee
records, that decontamination of soil, sediment, surface
waters, and ground-water, as well as reclamation of the
disposal cell, are being performed in accordance with
NRC-approved plans.
b. Imolementation. This program is initiated when the licensee
begins implementation of any portion of the approved
reclamation/decommissioning plan. The foundation for planning
and scheduling inspections will thus be the licensee's
progress in implementing the reclamation plan (construction
schedule). The criteria for inspections will be license
conditions and applicable regulations, some of which will
directly address reclamation activities. In many cases,
portions of the reclamation plan may be implemented for part
of a site while active operations continue elsewhere on site.
In these cases, the appropriate portions of this program
should be implemented in conjunction with the operations
inspection program. The reclamation plan itself, as amended
during site operation and approved by NRC, should be reviewed
by the regional office to determine if procedural or
scheduling modifications are necessary to enable planning of
an efficient inspection program. The inspection program
continues in effect until the licensee has implemented all
elements of the reclamation plan, the license is terminated,
and the title to the land is transferred to the State or the
U.S. Department of Energy for long-term surveillance and
maintenance.
The lle. (2) byproduct material disposal site, or uranium mill
reclamation and decommissioning inspection program is also
defined by selection from among the list of procedures in
Table 2. The areas covered during an inspection need not be
limited only to those elements discussed in the procedures,
but may need to include examination of other activities not
expressly delineated or covered in existing procedures. In
such cases, the inspector must exercise good professional
judgment in modifying the inspection and in identifying to
2801 -12 -Issue Date: 08/25/00
the Headquarters the possible need for development of
supplemental guidance. Conformance with the principles of
ALARA should be a principal concern at all times.
For inspections during site remediation/closure (includes
licensee performing cleanup verification measurements), each
procedure should be executed for each specific frequency. In
practice, part or all of the procedure element may need to be
examined during each inspection visit. Emphasis should be
placed on physical examinations, observation of conduct of
operations, limited independent measurements (e.g., split
samples), and personnel interviews. Attention should be
directed toward the availability of the licensee's written
procedures, the degree to which they are being followed, and
the state of training of on-site personnel. Effort should be
concentrated on areas of perceived concern. Discretion in
such areas is left to the inspector's judgment in
consultation with Headquarters staff (project manager,
technical reviewers).
A confirmatory survey may be performed as an audit of the
licensee's final survey results to independently confirm that
the report is accurate and representative of site conditions,
but is only necessary if there is significant doubt regarding
the licensee's final survey results. A confirmatory survey
will be performed if any of the following applies to
decommissioning of the site:
1. Repeated violations, with the inclusion of a "management
paragraph;"
2. Issuance of an order;
3. Failure to take short-term corrective measures;
4. An event requiring a reactive inspection;
5. Limited financial and technical viability of the
licensee; and
6. Significant problems identified with the reclamation plan
or final survey data.
c. Recrulatorv Considerations. The inspector should be
especially familiar with current license requirements;
previous inspection reports; applicable codes, standards and
guides; and the following regulations:
10 CFR Part 20, "Standards for Protection against Radiation.
10 CFR Part 40, "Domestic Licensing of Source Material."
10 CFR Part 61.82, "Commission Inspection of Land Disposal
Facilities (Commercial Disposal Only)."
d. Guidance for Use of Insvection Procedures During Closure.
The inspection procedures indicated in Table 2 are applicable
Issue Date: 08/25/00 -13 -2801
_L_
to inspections conducted at le.(2) byproduct material
disposal sites, or uranium mills during closure. The most
applicable procedure is under development and will be
entitled, "Decommissioning Inspection Procedure for Uranium
Mill Sites." The inspection staff can determine the
applicable elements of each procedure by reviewing the
procedure, the facility license, and the licensee's closure
(reclamation) plan.
END
Attachments:
Table 1
Table 2
Inspection Procedures Applicable to Pre-Operational
Inspection of a Uranium Mill or le. (2) Byproduct
Material Disposal Site
Inspection Procedures Applicable to Inspection of a
Uranium Mill or le. (2) Byproduct Material Disposal Site
during Operations and Closure -
2801 -14 -Issue Date: 08/25/00
TABLE 1
INSPECTION PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO PRE-OPERATIONAL INSPECTION OF A URANIUM
LL OR le.(2) BYPRODUCT MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
--rocedur
e Number
Procedure Title Inspection Frequency
1*~~~~~~~~
Applicability of
Procedure to the
InspectionMinimumNormal
36100 10 CFR Part 21 As As Inspectors should be
Inspection at Necessary Necessary sensitive to the
Nuclear Power underlying principle
Reactors driving this procedure.
88001 On-site Annual Key Applicable to the
Construction constr. inspection of
milestone engineering and
s construction.
88005 Management Annual Annual Generic Procedure
Organization applicable.
and Controls
88045 Environmental Annual Semiannua License will specify
Protection 1 offsite monitoring and
sample locations,
frequencies and
applicable limits on
levels and
concentrations of
radioactivity.
18901 In-situ Leach
(ISL)
facilities
Annual Semiannua
1
Generic procedure
applicable to uranium
mills and in-situ leach
facilities.
92701 Followup As As Generic procedure
Necessary Necessary applicable.
92703 Followup of As As Generic procedure
Confirmatory Necessary Necessary applicable.
Action Letters
Issue Date: 08/25/00 -15 -2801
TABLE 2
INSPECTION PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO INSPECTION OF A URANIUM MILL SITE OR
lle.(2) BYPRODUCT MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE DURING OPERATIONS
T 1IProcedu
re
Number
Procedure
Title
Inspection Frequency Applicability of the
Procedure
Minimum Normal
83822 Radiation Annual Semiannual This procedure is applicable
Protection in its entirety.
86740 Inspection of Annual Semiannual This procedure should be used
Transportation to confirm compliance for
Activities yellowcake or lie.(2)
shipments.
88001 On-site Annual Semiannual This procedure is for the
Construction engineering and construction
aspects of a disposal cell
and implementation requires
the assistance of
Headquarters staff.
88005 Management Annual Annual This procedure is generally
Organization applicable.
and Controls
88010 Operator Annual Biennial This procedure is applicable
Training/Retra to mill and disposal sites.
ining
88025 Maintenance Annual Semiannual Generally applicable.
and
Surveillance
Testing X
88035 Radioactive Annual Semiannual Sections 02.01 -02.06 are
Waste generally applicable.
Management
88045 Environmental Annual Semiannual This procedure is applicable
Protection in its entirety.
88050 Emergency Biennial Biennial This procedure is generally
Preparedness applicable. Discretion is
required regarding the degree
to which all requirements are
inspected against.
89001 In-situ Leach Annual Semiannual Applicable to the operating
Facilities aspects generic to uranium
mills and ISL facilities.
92701 Followup As As Generally Applicable.
Necessary Necessary
90703 Followup of As As Generally Applicable.
Confirmatory Necessary Necessary
Action Letters
93001 OSHA Interface As As Generally Applicable.
Activities Necessary Necessary
2801 -16 -Issue Date: 08/25/00
10/22/02
NRC NRC Regulatory Language Discussion of Equivalent Utah Statutory Authority and/or RulesCitation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
period I
Rule Comparability: minor differences exist in the State wording. However, the objectives of the Permit application
needs and the CIR and CAP requirements for groundwater cleanup; plus the capability of the Executive Secretary to
require the additional actions and data gathering all combine to provide an equivalent degree of protection of
groundwater resources.
Criterion in making any determinations under A similar process of identifying groundwater suitable for human consumption, and therefore enhanced protection, is
5B(4) paragraphs 5B(3) and 5B(6) of this made by the Executive Secretary thru the State groundwater classification process. Under this process, groundwater is
criterion about the use of classified by its Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) content, among other parameters, as follows
groud water in the area around the a:
facility, the Commission will consider any
identification of underground sources of
drinking water and exempted aquifers Class IA = Pristine Groundwater, where TDS < 500 mg1 (GWPLs here are determined on a 10% basis of GWQS),
made by the Environmental Protection
Agency. Class IB = Irreplaceable Groundwater for a public drinking water system (GWPLs here are also determined on 10%
basis of the GWQS),
Class C = Ecologically Important Groundwater, necessary for the existence of wildlife (GWPLs here are based on pre-
requisite surface water quality standards needed to support the wildlife).
Class I = Drinking Water quality groundwater where 500 mg/l < TDS < 3,000 mg/l, and no groundwater contaminant
exceeds its GWQS (GWPLs here are determined on a 25% basis of the GWQS)
Class m = Limited Use Groundwater, where 3,000 mg/l < TDS < 10,000 mg/l or one or more contaminants exceed their
respective GWQS (GWPLs here are determined on a 50% basis of the GWQS.) .
Class IV = Saline Groundwater, where TDS > 10,000 mg/l (GWPLs here are determined on a case-by-case basis by the
Executive Secretary. In practice, the Executive Secretary has assigned GWPLs at facilities overlying Class IV
groundwater in order to ensure that sufficient engineering controls are provided to adequately contain and sequester
I le.(2) waste contaminants).
Under State rule, the Board may initiate the groundwater classification process during the Permit issuance process.
Either a community or an individual person may petition the Board to classify nearby aquifers or parts of aquifers with
the intent of protecting local groundwater quality (" ).
Rule Comparability: the State rules provide steps to identify underground sources of drinking water thru the
groundwater classification process. This process is a major underpinning to the State Permit issuance and groundwater
corrective action programs. The State groundwater classification system provides protection for some limited
groundwater resources that could be considered "exempted" from protection under EPA rules.
Criterion At the point of conpliance, the The State process for determining compliance at the compliance monitoring point has several points in common.
5B(5) concentration of a hazardous constituent Compliance exists when groundwater quality meets one of the following Permit limits [l 3.()]:
must not exceed --
)Pe )of2O )
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
AND THE STATE OF UTAH
FOR
DISCONTINUANCE OF CERTAIN COMMISSION REGULATORY
AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY WITHIN THE STATE PURSUANT TO
SECTION 274 OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT, AS AMENDED
WHEREAS, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred
to as the Commission) entered Into an Agreement on March 29, 1984 (hereinafter referred
to the Agreement of March 29, 1984) with the State of Utah under Section 274 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (hereafter referred to the Act) which became
effective on April 1, 1984, providing for discontinuance of the regulatory authority of the
Commission within the State under Chapters 6, 7, and 8 and Section 161 of the Act with
respect to byproduct materials as defined in Section 11 e.(1) of the Act, source materials,
and special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass; and
WHEREAS, the Commission entered into an amendment to the Agreement of
March 29, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement of March 29, 1984, as amended)
pursuant to the Act providing for discontinuance of regulatory authority of the CommissIon
with respect to the land disposal of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material received
from other persons which became effective on May 9, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Governor requested that and the Commission agreed to reassert
Commission authority for the evaluation of radiation safety Information on sealed sources or
devices containing byproduct, source or special nuclear materials and the registration of the
sealed sources or devices for distribution, as provided for In regulations or orders of the
Commission.
WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of Utah Is authorized under Utah Code
Annotated 19-3-113 to enter into this amendment to the Agreement of March 29, 1984, as
amended, between the Commission and the State of Utah; and
WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of Utah has requested this amendment In
accordance with Section 274 of the Act by certifying on January 2, 2003 that the State of
Utah has a program for the control of radiological and non-radiological hazards adequate to
protect the public health and safety and the environment with respect to byproduct material
as defined in Section 11 e.(2) of the Act and facilities that generate these materials and that
the State desires to assume regulatory responsibility for such materials; and
WHEREAS, the Commission found on insert date] that the program of the State for
the regulation of materials covered by this amendment Is In accordance with the
requirements of the Act and in all other respects compatible with the Commission's program
for the regulation of such materials and is adequate to protect public health and safety; and
WHEREAS, the State and the Commission recognize the desirability and importance
of cooperation between the Commission and the State in the formulation of standards for
protection against hazards of radiation and in assuring that the State and the Commission
programs for protection against hazards of radiation will be coordinated and compatible;
and
WHEREAS, this amendment to the Agreement of March 29, 1984, as amended, Is
entered into pursuant to the provisions of the Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed between the Commission and the Governor
of the State, acting on behalf of the State, as follows:
Section 1. Article I of the Agreement of March 29, 1984, as amended, is amended
by adding a new paragraph B. and renumber paragraphs B through D as C through E.
Paragraph B will read as follows:
'B. Byproduct materials as defined in Section 11 e.(2) of the Act;"
Section 2. Article II of the Agreement of March 29, 1984, as amended, is amended
by deleting paragraph E and inserting a new paragraph E to implement the reassertion of
Commission authority over sealed sources and devices to read:
NE. The evaluation of radiation safety information on sealed sources or devices
containing byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials and the registration of the
sealed sources or devices for distribution, as provided for in regulations or orders of
the Commission."
Section 3. Article II of the Agreement of March 29, 1984, as amended, Is amended
by numbering the current Article as AN by placing an A." In front of the first paragraph and
renumbering the subsequent paragraphs A through E as I through 5 and by adding the
following new section after the current amended language to read:
B. Notwithstanding this Agreement, the Commission retains the following authorities
pertaining to byproduct material as defined In Section 11 e.(2) of the Act:
1. Prior to the termination of a State license for such byproduct material, or for
any activity that resulted In the production of such material, the Commission
shall have made a determination that all applicable standards and
requirements pertaining to such material have been met;
2. The Commission reserves the authority to establish minimum standards
governing reclamation, long-term surveillance or maintenance, and
ownership of such byproduct material and of land used as a disposal site for
such material. Such reserved authority includes:
a. The authority to establish terms and conditions as the Commission
determines necessary to assure that, prior to termination of any
license for such byproduct material, or for any activity that results In
the production of such material, the licensee shall comply with
decontamination, decommissioning, and reclamation standards
prescribed by the Commission; and with ownership requirements for
such materials and its disposal site;
b. The authority to require that prior to termination of any license for
such byproduct material or for any activity that results in the
L_
production of such material, title to such byproduct material and its
disposal site be transferred to the United States or the State of Utah
at the option of the State (provided such option is exercised prior to
termination of the license);
c. The authority to permit use of the surface or subsurface estates, or
both, of the land transferred to the United States or the State
pursuant to 2.b. in this section in a manner consistent with the
provisions of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978,
as amended, provided that the Commission determines that such use
would not endanger public health, safety, welfare, or the environment.
d. The authority to require, in the case of a license for any activity that
produces such byproduct material (which license was in effect on
November 8, 1981), transfer of land and material pursuant to
paragraph 2.b. in this section taking into consideration the status of
such material and land and nterests therein, and the ability of the
licensee to transfer title and custody thereof to the United States or
the State;
e. The authority to require the Secretary of the Department of Energy,
other Federal agency, or State, whichever has custody of such
byproduct material and its disposal site, to undertake such monitoring,
maintenance, and emergency measures as are necessary to protect
public health and safety, and other actions as the Commission deems
necessary; and
f. The authority to enter Into arrangements as may be appropriate to
assure Federal long-term surveillance or maintenance of such
byproduct material and its disposal site on land held in trust by the
United States for any Indian Tribe or land owned by an Indian Tribe
and subject to a restriction against alienation Imposed by the United
States."
Section 4. Article IX of the 1984 Agreement, as amended, is renumbered as Article X and a
new Article IX Is inserted to read:
PARTICLE IX
In the licensing and regulation of byproduct material as defined in Section 11 e.(2) of
the Act, or of any activity which result in the production of such byproduct material, the State
shall comply with the provisions of Section 2740 of the Act. If in such licensing and
regulation, the State requires financial surety arrangements for reclamation and or long-term
surveillance and maintenance of such byproduct material:
A. The total amount of funds the State collects for such purposes shall be
transferred to the United States if custody of such byproduct material and ts
disposal site Is transferred to the United States upon termination of the State
license for such byproduct material or any activity that results In the
production of such byproduct material. Such funds include, but are not
limited to, sums collected for long-term surveillance or maintenance. Such
funds do not, however, include monies held as surety where no default has
occurred and the reclamation or other bonded activity has been performed;
and
B. Such surety or other financial requirements must be sufficient to ensure
compliance with those standards established by the Commission pertaining
to bonds, sureties, and financial arrangements to ensure adequate
reclamation and long-term management of such byproduct material and Its
disposal site."
I 0
-
This amendment shall become effective on insert date] and shall remain in effect
unless and until such time as it is terminated pursuant to Article Vill of the Agreement of
March 29, 1984, as amended.
Done at Rockville, Maryland, in triplicate, this [day] day of [month, year]
FOR THE UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[insert Chairman's name], Chairman
Done at Salt Lake City, Utah, in triplicate, this [day] day of [month, year]
FOR THE STATE OF UTAH
Michael 0. Leavitt, Governor
NRC: Regulatory Issue Summary 00-023 -Recent Changes to Uranium Recovery 'olicy rage 01 o
I Am Index | Site Map i FAQ I Help | Glossarv I Contact Us | _ _ tilCJI Advanced Searci
_____ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Home WhoWe Nuclear Nuclear Radioactive Facility Into Public ElectronicReactors Materials Waste Finder Involvement Reading Room
Hom > Electronic Reading Room > Document Collections > Generic Communications > Regulatory Issue Summaries > 2000 > 00-023 -
Recent Changes to Uranium Recovery Policy
Recent Changes to Uranium Recovery Policy
November 30, 2000
* ADDRESSEES
* INTENT
* BACKGROUND
* PART 41 RULEMAKING (SECY-99-011)
* DISPOSAL OF NON-lle.(2) BYPRODUCT MATERIAL IN TAILINGS IMPOUNDMENTS (SECY-99-012)
* PROCESSING OF MATERIAL OTHER THAN NATURAL URANIUM ORES (SECY-99-012)
* CLASSIFICATION OF LIQUID WASTES AT ISL FACILITIES (SECY-99-013)
* GROUND-WATER ISSUES AT ISL FACILITIES (SECY-99-013)
* CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF NON-RADIOLOGICAL HAZARDS OF URANIUM MILL TAILINGS (SECY-99-277)
* SUMMARY OF ISSUES
ADDRESSEES
II holders of materials licenses for uranium and thorium recovery facilities.
k TOP
INTENT
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this regulatory issue summary (RIS) to inform materials licensees
of the Commission's decisions on four Commission Papers prepared by the Uranium Recovery staff and the Office of the
General Counsel (OGC). All the policy decisions will be codified In the 10 CFR Part 41 rulemaking that has been initiated. No
specific action nor written response Is required.
-to.TOP
BACKGROUND
NRC staff prepared four Commission Papers In 1999 to address various uranium recovery issues. One Commission Paper
( SECY- 9-011 A, Draft Rulemaking Plan; Domestic Licensing of Uranium and Thorium Recovery facilities -Proposed New
10 CFR Part 41") addressed the need to revise and update uranium recovery regulations, particularly with respect to in situ
leach (ISL) facilities and recommended the Initiation of rulemaking to create a new Part 41 specific to uranium recovery.
The other three Commission Papers addressed Issues raised by the National Mining Association i (NMA) In Its April 1998
paper, "Recommendations for a Coordinated Approach to Regulating the Uranium Recovery Industry." The first of those
papers ( SECY-99-012 "Use of Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments for the Disposal of Other Than 1 le(2) Byproduct
Materials, and Reviews of Applications to Process Material Other Than Natural Ore') discussed the disposal of radioactive
waste, other than byproduct material, defined in section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, In
mill tailings impoundments, and the processing of material, other than natural ore, for source material at licensed uranium
ilils. The second of those papers ( SECY-99-013, "Recommendations on ways to Improve the Efficiency of NRC Regulation
\.t In Situ Leach Uranium Recovery Facilities") discussed the regulation of ground water at ISL sites and the Issue of which
waste streams at ISL facilities come under NRC regulatory jurisdiction as 11e.(2) byproduct material. The last paper
(SECY-99-277 "Concurrent Jurisdiction of Non-Radiological Hazards of Uranium Mill Tailings") addressed the Issue of
A.&-. _esu -- a9 _.s-- vat A --ho -- -,_ o. 4- -
concurrent jurisdiction (with States that do not have Agreement State regulatory authority for 11e.(2) material under
section 274 of the AEA) over the non-radiological hazards of uranium mill tailings.
On July 13, 2000, the Commission issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum ( SRM) on SECY-99-011. On July 26, 2
the Commission issued SRMs on SECY-99-012 and SECY-99-013, and on August 11, 2000, the "SRM on SECY-99-277 a
Issued.
The decisions and directions in these SRMs and the staff actions in response are discussed in sections that follow.
X TOP
PART 41 RULEMAKING (SECY-99-011)
SECY-99-011 approved the staff's recommendation to provide a draft Rulemaking Plan (RP) for comment to the
Agreement States, with the preferred option being the creation of a new Part 41 dedicated to uranium recovery regulation.
The Commission directed the staff to revise the draft RP to reflect the Commission's guidance in the other uranium recovery
SRMs.
On September 11, 2000, the staff transmitted the draft RP to all States for comment. The staff sent the draft RP to all
States rather than just Agreement States because the issue of concurrent jurisdiction regarding non-radiological hazards
primarily affects non-Agreement States, and the staff wanted to give those States an opportunity to comment on the draft
RP. Comments have been received from several States. In addition, the NMA and two licensees provided comments on the
draft RP. The staff will consider all the comments received in preparing its final RP, which it expects to Issue In early 2001.
A TOP
DISPOSAL OF NON-lle.(2) BYPRODUCT MATERIAL IN TAILINGS IMPOUNDMENTS (SECY-
99-012)'L
In 1995, the staff published guidance, in the Federal Regiter EX T (60 FR 49296), for the disposal, in uranium mill tailings
impoundments, of radioactive material that Is not byproduct material, as defined In section 11e.(2) of the AEA. The
guidance consisted of 10 criteria to determine whether to approve a proposed disposal of non-lle.(2) byproduct material in
a uranium mill tailings impoundment. In its 1998 white paper, the NMA emphasized that the criteria were too restrictive,
pointing out that no requests for such disposals have been made since the guidance was issued. The Commission, In the
SRM for SECY-99-012, approved an option that would allow more flexibility In permitting non-lle.(2) material to be
disposed of in tailings impoundments. The NRC intends to incorporate the criteria into the new Part 41. In the interim, the
Commission directed the staff to implement the SRM.
To comply with the direction in the SRM, the staff is revising the 1995 guidance in the following manner:
* The staff will remove the prohibitions, found In items 2, 4, and 5, regarding non-AEA radioactive material and
material subject to regulation under other legislative authorities, such as the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) or
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
* The staff will add a criterion regarding approval from the appropriate regulators of TSCA, RCRA, and non-AEA
radioactive material for disposal of such material in the tailings impoundment.
* The staff will revise the criterion, In item 8, regarding approval by Low-Level Waste Compacts, to allow for the
situation in which material proposed for disposal does not fall under the jurisdiction of Low-Level Waste Compacts
(e.g., radioactive material not regulated under the AEA).
* The Commission directed the staff to pursue a generic exemption to NRC's disposal requirements for low-level
radioactive waste in 10 CFR Part 61, rather than having to grant an exemption, under 10 CFR 61.6, as Identified In
item 10. A generic exemption to regulations must be issued through a rulemaking process. Therefore, the staff
pursue incorporating the generic exemption In the new Part 41. In the interim, the requirement for a specific 'V
exemption will remain In the guidance, with addition of a caveat for material not regulated under Part 61.
httn-//www nrrt Qnv/radsidin,-rm/do-cnlections/gen-com nre-issues/2OO/riOOO23.ht727/2/2003
NRC: Regulatory Issue Summary 00-023 -Recent Changes to Uranium Recovery kooicy rage a Ul o
The staff therefore is revising its 1995 guidance. The complete revised guidance, Is in Attachmentj.
PROCESSING OF MATERIAL OTHER THAN NATURAL URANIUM ORES (SECY-99-012)
In 1995, the staff published Its position and guidance, In the Federal ReTter= (60 FR 49296), on the use of uranium
feed material other than natural ores (alternate feed material), in uranium mills. The guidance Identified three
determinations that the staff had to make in order to approve an alternate feed request. The third determination -- whether
the ore Is being processed primarily for Its source material content -- generated considerable controversy. This
determination was required to address the concern that wastes that would otherwise have to be disposed of as radioactive
or mixed waste would be proposed for processing at a uranium mill primarily to be able to dispose of them In the tailings
pile as 11e.(2) byproduct material. This determination was essentially a determination of the motives of the mill operator In
requesting approval of a specific stream of alternate feed material. In many cases it involved questioning the financial
aspects of acquiring and processing the alternate feed material, and selling the resultant uranium product.
In Its 1998 white paper, the NMA emphasized that NRC should not be looking to a licensee's motives in processing alternate
feed material. After careful consideration of stakeholder comments and the staffs analysis, the Commission, in the SRM for
SECY-99-012, directed the staff to allow processing of alternate feed material without Inquiry Into a lcencee's economic
motives, and referred to a Commission decision ( CLI-00-01 51 NRC 9) on a specific Instance of proposed processing of
alternate feed, that was brought before the Atomic Safety Ucenslng Board and then appealed to the Commission. The
Commission also addressed the second determination in the 1995 guidance ( i.e., whether the feed material contains
hazardous waste). It directed the staff to allow more flexibility with regard to this Issue consistent with its direction to the
staff on the disposal of non-lle.(2) byproduct material In tailings piles.
The Commission directed the staff to revise, Issue, and Implement final guidance on the processing of alternate feed as
soon as possible and to codify the guidance In the new Part 41.
\-6 comply with the SRM, the staff Is revising the 1995 position and guidance In the following manner:
The staff will modify the prohibition In Item 2 on feed material containing hazardous waste to allow such feed material
provided that the licensee obtains approval of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lEi (EPA) or the State, and a
commitment from the long-term custodian to accept the tailings after site closure.
The staff will revise the manner In which it determines whether the ore is being processed primarily for Its source material
content, to focus on the product of the processing, and eliminate any Inquiry Into the licensee's economic motives for the
processing.
The staff therefore Is revising Its 1995 guidance. The complete revised guidance, Is In Attachment 2.
L TOP
CLASSIFICATION OF LIQUID WASTES AT ISL FACILITIES (SECY-99-013)
Before 1995, the staff practice for addressing the disposal of evaporation pond sludges at ISL facilities relied on a broad
reading of the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material. This broad reading only addressed discrete surface wastes capable
of controlled disposal and did not distinguish between wastes generated at various phases of an ISL operation. All waste
materials generated during ISL operations and ground-water restoration activities were designated 11e.(2) byproduct
material and disposed of at licensed uranium mill tailings Impoundments, In accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A,
Criterion 2.
The staff Issued two guidance documents In 1995 to address issues raised by the Industry In the uranium recovery
rogram. The first, "Staff Technical Position on Effluent Disposal at Ucensed Uranium Recovery Facilities" (hereinafter, the
Kffuent guidance), was Intended to ensure protection of the environment and public, while providing uranium recovery
licensees with flexibility regarding the disposal of various types of liquid effluents generated during the operation of their
facilities. In Issuing this guidance, the staff took a more narrow view of the definition of lle.(2) byproduct material. It
...tonnt_*S98tt54L1~_ 7MnnA
NuXL: Keguiatory issue summnnary vv-u.: -t;CII ia2Vra LU v14a1IuuIS A Mvw %JAI v "rL ..
differentiated between the various waste waters generated during ISL operations on the basis of their origin and whether
uranium was extracted for its source material content during that phase of the operation. Waste waters and the associated
solids produced during the uranium extraction phase of site operations, called "production bleed," were classified as AEA
Section 11e.(2) byproduct material and therefore subject to regulation by NRC. Conversely, waste waters and the reslj
solids produced after uranium extraction (i.e., during ground-water restoration activities) were classified as "mine wast
waters," and therefore were subject to regulation by individual States under their applicable mining programs. These
wastes were considered naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). However, because licensees often dispose of
waste waters from uranium extraction and post-extraction activities in the same evaporation ponds, the resulting solids are
a commingled waste consisting of 11e.(2) byproduct material and sludges derived from mine waste water.
In the second guidance document, Final Revised Guidance on Disposal of Non-Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Section 11e.(2)
Byproduct Material In Tailings Impoundments" (hereinafter, the disposal guidance), the staff identified 10 criteria that
licensees should meet before NRC could authorize the disposal of AEA material other than 11e.(2) byproduct material in
tailings Impoundments. One of these criteria prohibited the disposal of radioactive material not covered by the AEA,
including NORM (see earlier discussion for policy revisions). This criterion was intended to avoid the possibility of dual
regulation of the radioactive constituents in the Impoundments, since Individual States are responsible for radioactive
materials not covered by the AEA.
The industry expressed concerns, in NMA's white paper, that, taken together, these two guidance documents leave no
option for the disposal of radioactively contaminated sludges from ISL evaporation ponds. The reason for this concern is
that the 11e.(2) byproduct material was commingled with a NORM waste, which the disposal guidance prohibits from
disposal in a tailings impoundment. The industry emphasized that the staffs waste classification, based on the origin of the
waste water (i.e., from the extraction or restoration phase) at an ISL facility, makes the disposal of such sludges in a mill
tailings Impoundment, as required under Criterion 2 of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, impossible -- even though the sludges
derived from waste waters produced throughout a facility's life cycle are physically, chemically, and radiologically identical.
The staff analyzed several options in SECY-99-013 for addressing the industry's concerns. In the SRM for SECY-99-013, the
Commission determined that all liquid effluents at ISL uranium recovery facilities are 11e.(2) byproduct material. NRC takes
the position that any waste water generated during or after the uranium extraction phase of site operations, and all
evaporation pond sludges derived from such waste waters, are classified as 11e.(2) byproduct material. The staff will m-'e
no legal distinction among the waste waters produced at different stages In a facility's life cycle.
This revised policy is effective immediately. The staff intends to codify this policy in the new rulemaking for Part 41 and
associated regulatory guidance.
A TOP
GROUND-WATER ISSUES AT ISL FACILITIES (SECY-99-013)
Over the past several years, the industry has expressed concern that NRC's regulation of ground water at ISLs is duplicative
of the ground-water protection programs required by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as administered by EPA or EPA-
authorized States. EPA and the States protect ground-water quality through the Underground Injection Control (UIC)
program, under the SDWA. The States often require additional measures in the UIC program that are more stringent than
the Federal program. As presented in NMA's white paper, the industry contended that NRC's review and licensing activities
are a duplicative form of regulation covering the same issues. Additionally, NMA also expressed the view that NRC did not
have authority to regulate ground water at ISis.
Historically, NRC has imposed conditions on ISL operations to ensure that ground-water quality Is maintained during
licensed activities and that actions are taken to ensure the restoration of ground-water quality before the license Is
terminated. The specific conditions Imposed In an ISL license have typically been the result of NRC's Independent review, as
documented In safety evaluation reports and appropriate environmental evaluations.
In addition to NRC's review, licensees must also obtain a UIC permit from EPA or the EPA-authorized State before uranium
recovery operations can begin. EPA or the authorized State conducts many of the same types of reviews as NRC. This is
evidenced by NRC Incorporating ground-water protection limits from a State's permitting program Into specific license
requirements, after conducting its own review of the licensee's groundwater protection program, Including the use of S
Imposed standards -- and staff routinely accepting specific methodologies and guidance developed by EPA or States fogJ
ground-water monitoring programs and well construction.
kttn-% /Amuur nr 7/v/21200ina-3tlA nle-tinn3.oen-rnmm/reQ-ssue320liOO023.htmI 7/2/2003
NRC: Regulatory Issue Summary UU-U2- -Kecent unanges to uranium recovery rujicy rage ? V 0
In the SRM for SECY-99-013, the Commission approved the staff continuing discussions with EPA and appropriate States to
determine the extent to which NRC can rely on the EPA UIC program for ground-water protection Issues, thereby potentially
nimizing duplicative review of ground-water protection at ISL facilities. Part of the discussions with EPA and appropriate
H-%ates should include appropriate methods to implement any agreements, including Memoranda of Understanding (if
necessary) and potential requirements that could be incorporated in the new Part 41. In the interim, it Is recognized that
some NRC/EPA dual regulation of the ground-water at ISL facilities will continue until such time that NRC can defer to EPA's
UIC program.
NRC has Initiated a new round of discussions with the EPA since the Commission decision In July 2000, and discussions with
the appropriate States should begin In early to mid 2001.
In February 1998, staff documented Its review process for ISis, Including a detailed evaluation of ground-water activities,
In a draft Standard Review Plan (draft SRP) for ISL facility license applications (NUREG-1569), that was published for public
comment. Following the comment period, staff held a public workshop on the SRP to discuss the Issues raised. The staff
intends to use the draft SRP In licensing reviews until the rulemaking for new Part 41 (SECY 99-011) has been completed
and NUREG-1569 Is finalized.
A TOP
CONCURRENT 3URISDICTION OF NON-RADIOLOGICAL HAZARDS OF URANIUM MILL
TAILINGS (SECY-99-277)
In 1980, the staff considered the Issue of whether the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) preempts a
non-Agreement State's authority to regulate the non-radiological hazards associated with 11e.(2) byproduct material and
concluded that It did not. The NRC concluded that NRC and the State both exercised this authority. As a result, the staff has
followed the practice of sharing jurisdiction of the non-radiological hazards with States. In its 1998 white paper, the NMA
questioned the 1980 staff interpretation of UMTRCA. The Commission, In the SRM for SECY-99-0277 determined that NRC
as exclusive jurisdiction over both the radiological and non-radlological hazards of 11e.(2) byproduct material.
As a result of this decision, the staff will Implement its exclusive authority over the non-radiological hazards of 11e.(2)
byproduct material and not recognize State authority in this area.
ToP
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
The Commission has evaluated a range of uranium recovery Issues and the staff evaluation and has directed, through
SRMs, the staff to take various actions that will ultimately be incorporated Into the new Part 41 rulemaking and existing
uranium recovery SRPs.
In the interim, this RIS Informs the licensees of the Commission's decisions. These are: 1) to allow more flexibility In the
disposal of non-lle.(2) material in tailings Impoundments, subject to certain considerations; 2) to allow alternate feed
material to be processed for uranium (or thorium) without any Inquiry Into a licensee's economic motives; 3) to classify all
waste water and sludges generated during or after the uranium (or thorium) extraction phase of In situ leach operations as
11e.(2) byproduct material; 4) to continue discussions with EPA and appropriate States to determine the extent that NRC
can rely on the EPA UIC program for ground-water protection at ISL facilities; and 5) to note that NRC has exclusive
jurisdiction over both the radiological and non-radiological hazards of 11e.(2) byproduct material.
This regulatory issue summary requires no specific action nor written response. If you have any questions about this
summary, please contact the technical contact listed below.
A TOP
/RA/
.if#, -s --a:- -_- #.j- -& f ;eeazann nnn,7, Halm 7ni/-nn
iNK(: xeguiatory Issue junizuiaiy vu-u -Zarbiit ssAro tv %_iu... zj2"2_La ._ it,_ _ _
Michael F. Weber, Director
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety & Safeguards
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Technical Contact: Kenneth R. Hooks, NMSS
301-415-7777
E-mail: krh1Anrc.goy
Attachments: 1. Interim Guidance Non-lle.(2)
2. Interim Position Alternate Feed
3. List of Recently Issued NRC Regulatory Issue Summaries
(ADAMS Accession Number ML003773008)
ATTACHMENT 1
Interim Guidance on Disposal of Non-Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Section 1e.(2)
Byproduct Material in Tailings Impoundments
1. In reviewing licensee requests for the disposal of wastes that have radiological characteristics comparable to those of
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Section 11e.(2) byproduct material [hereafter designated as "Ile.(2) byproduct
material"] in tailings Impoundments, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will follow the guidance set forth
below. Since mill tailings impoundments are already regulated under 10 CFR Part 4 licensing of the receipt and
disposal of such material [hereafter designated as non-lle.(2) byproduct material"] should also be done under -
CFR Part 40.
2. Special nuclear material and Section 11e.(1) byproduct material waste should not be considered as candidates for
disposal in a tailings impoundment, without compelling reasons to the contrary. If staff believes that such material
should be disposed of In a tailings impoundment In a specific instance, a request for Commission approval should be
prepared.
3. The le.(2) licensee must provide documentation showing necessary approvals of other affected regulators (e.g., the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or State) for material containing listed hazardous wastes or any other material
regulated by another Federal agency or State because of environmental or safety considerations.
4. The le.(2) licensee must demonstrate that there will be no significant environmental impact from disposing of this
material.
5. The 11e.(2) licensee must demonstrate that the proposed disposal will not compromise the reclamation of the
tailings impoundment by demonstrating compliance with the reclamation and closure criteria of Appendix A of 10 CR
Part 40.
6. The 11e.(2) licensee must provide documentation showing approval by the Regional Low-Level Waste Compact In
whose jurisdiction the waste originates as well as approval by the Compact In whose jurisdiction the disposal site Is
located, for material which otherwise would fall under Compact jurisdiction.
7. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the State in which the tailings impoundment is located, should be
informed of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission findings and proposed action, with a request to concur within
120 days. A concurrence and commitment from either DOE or the State to take title to the tailings impoundment
after closure must be received before granting the license amendment to the lle.(2) licensee.
8. The mechanism to authorize the disposal of non-11e.(2) byproduct material In a tailings impoundment is an
h,... IIirns, 'i n7l2//2003in-/nllPtinnl/oln-romm/ .-2000/i23.hI 7/2/2003
NRC: Regulatory Issue Summary 00-023 -Recent Changes to Uranium Kecovery roncy rage: / JIe 0
amendment to the mill license under 10 CFR Part 40, authorizing the receipt of the material and its disposal.
Additionally, an exemption to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 61, under the authority of 10 CFR 61.6, must be
granted, if the material would otherwise be regulated under Part 61. (If the tailings impoundment Is located in an
Agreement State with low-level waste licensing authority, the State must take appropriate action to exempt the non-
11e.(2) byproduct material from regulation as low-level waste.) The license amendment and the 10 CFR 61.6
exemption should be supported with a staff analysis addressing the issues discussed in this guidance.
ATTACHMENT 2
Interim Position and Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material Other Than
Natural Ores
In reviewing licensee requests to process alternate feed material (material other than natural ore) In uranium mills, the
Nuclear Reguatory Commission staff will follow the guidance presented below. Besides reviewing to determine compliance
with appropriate aspects of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40 the staff should also address the following Issues:
1. Determination of whether the feed material Is ore.
For the tailings and wastes from the proposed processing to qualify as 11e.(2) byproduct material, the feed material must
qualify as ore." In determining whether the feed material Is ore, the following definition of ore will be used:
Ore is a natural or native matter that may be mined and treated for the extraction of any of its constituents or any other
.matter from which source material Is extracted In a licensed uranium or thorium mill.
Determination of whether the feed material contains hazardous waste.
If the proposed feed material contains hazardous waste, listed under subpart D Sections 261.30-33 of 40 CFR (or
comparable Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authorized State regulations), It would be subject to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or State regulation under RCRA. If the licensee can show that the proposed feed
material does not contain a listed hazardous waste, this issue is resolved.
Feed material exhibiting only a characteristic of hazardous waste (ignitable, corrosive, reactive, toxic) would not be
regulated as hazardous waste and could therefore be approved for recycling and extraction of source material. However,
this does not apply to residues from water treatment, so determination that such residues are not subject to regulation
under RCRA will depend on their not containing any characteristic hazardous waste. Staff may consult with EPA (or the
State) before making a determination of whether the feed material contains hazardous waste.
If the feed material contains hazardous waste, the licensee can process It only If It obtains EPA (or State) approval and
provides the necessary documentation to that effect. Additionally, for feed material containing hazardous waste, the staff
will review documentation from the licensee that provides a commitment from the U.S. Department of Energy or the State
to take title to the tailings Impoundment after closure.
3. Determination of whether the ore is being processed primarily for Its source-material content.
For the tailings and waste from the proposed processing to qualify as 11e.(2) byproduct material, the ore must be
processed primarily for its source-material content. If the only product produced In the processing of the alternate feed Is
uranium product, this determination Is satisfied. If, in addition to uranium product, another material s also produced In the
processing of the ore, the licensee must provide documentation showing that the uranium product is the primary product
produced.
it can be determined, using the aforementioned guidance, that the proposed feed material meets the definition of ore,
\.iat It will not Introduce a hazardous waste not otherwise exempted, or If It has been approved by the EPA (or State) and
the long-term custodian, and that the primary purpose of Its processing is for Its source-material content, the request can
be approved.
..S
we I 1.* .. ,__ __..__ ........ _. .. eXtmi~o 71/9l).mf
NRC: Regulatory Issue Summary 00-023 -Recent changes to uranium xecovery riicy v 4rC .VI IL
Privacy Pliy I Ste Disclaimer
Last revised Monday, June 23, 2003
subs
... -, _ _ 1-__ .. s 1 w1__w:Iace 4uGeIefleflriAmflT htinl 717./1W), .. A.