DATED: FEBRUARY 9, 1999 SIGNED BY: FRANK J. MIRAGLIA, JR.

Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D.

Executive Director

Department of Environmental Quality

168 North 1950 West

Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Dear Dr. Nielson:

On February 1, 1999, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Utah Agreement

State Program. The MRB found the Utah program adequate to assure public health and safety

and compatible with NRC’s program. 

Section 5.0, page 13, of the enclosed final report presents the IMPEP team’s recommendation 

and suggestion. We received Mr. Sinclair’s January 12, 1999 letter which described the actions

taken in response to the recommendations in the draft report. We request no additional

information.

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review will be in approximately 4

years.

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the IMPEP team during the review and

your support of the Radiation Control Program. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work

cooperatively in the future.

Sincerely, /RA/

Frank J. Miraglia, Jr.

Deputy Executive Director

 for Regulatory Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: William J. Sinclair, Director

Division of Radiation Control 

Department of Environmental Quality
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

REVIEW OF UTAH AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

November 16-20, 1998

FINAL REPORT

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 
Utah Final Report Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the review of the Utah radiation control program. The review

was conducted during the period November 16-20, 1998 by a review team comprised of technical

staff members from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Agreement State of

Tennessee. Review team members are identified in Appendix A. The review was conducted in

accordance with the "Implementation of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation

Program and Rescission of a Final General Statement of Policy," published in the Federal

Register on October 16, 1997, and the November 25, 1997, revised NRC Management Directive

5.6, "Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)." Preliminary results of the

review, which covered the period June 18, 1994 to November 20, 1998, were discussed with

Utah management on November 20, 1998.

A draft of this report was issued to Utah for factual comment on December 16, 1998. The State

responded in a letter dated January 12, 1999. The Management Review Board (MRB) met on

February 1, 1999, to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the Utah radiation

control program was adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC’s

program.

The Utah Agreement State program is administered by the Division of Radiation Control (DRC)

located in the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Organization charts for the DRC and

DEQ are included as Appendix B. The Utah program regulates approximately 214 specific

licenses authorizing agreement materials. The review focused on the materials program as it is

carried out under the Section 274b. (of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) Agreement

between the NRC and the State of Utah.

In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common and non-common

performance indicators was sent to the State on September 3, 1998. The State provided a

response to the questionnaire on October 19, 1998. A copy of the questionnaire is included in

Appendix F to the draft report.

The review team's general approach for conduct of this review consisted of: (1) examination of

Utah's response to the questionnaire; (2) review of applicable Utah statutes and regulations; 

(3) analysis of quantitative information from the DRC licensing and inspection database; 

(4) technical review of selected licensing and inspection actions; (5) field accompaniments of two

Utah inspectors; and (6) interviews with staff and management to answer questions or clarify

issues. The review team evaluated the information that it gathered against the IMPEP criteria for

each common and applicable non-common performance indicator and made a preliminary

assessment of the DRC’s performance. 

Section 2 below discusses the State's actions in response to recommendations made following

the previous review. Results of the current review for the IMPEP common performance

indicators are presented in Section 3. Section 4 discusses results of the applicable non-common

performance indicators, and Section 5 summarizes the review team's findings and 

recommendations. Recommendations made by the review team are comments that relate

directly to program performance by the State. A response is requested from the State to all

recommendations in the final report. Suggestions are comments the review team believes could

enhance the State’s program. The State is requested to consider suggestions, but no response

is requested.
Utah Final Report Page 2

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS

The previous review of the Utah radiation control program concluded on June 17, 1994. The

review consisted of an evaluation of 30 program indicators per the 1992 Policy Statement. In

conjunction with the review, a pilot IMPEP review using common performance indicators was

also performed. The review conducted under the 1992 Policy Statement was the review of

record.

The following is an open recommendation from the April 1992 Review and August 1993 Review

Visit as well as the current status:

We recommend that the State provide documentation in their Safety Evaluation Report,

Ground Water Discharge Permit Statement of Basis or other such document, how the site

meets regulatory standards for the off-site release of radioactivity.

1994 Status: The Utah State Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is in the process of

revising the Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit for the Envirocare Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility. As part of the Statement of Basis for the revised

ground water quality discharge permit, the DWQ plans to provide documentation on the

conclusion reached that the site meets regulatory standards. The basis will conclude that

because of the high total dissolved solids content of the shallow ground water at the

Envirocare facility, the ground water pathway would not be considered as a realistic

pathway in a pathway dose assessment required by 10 CFR Part 61. The ground water

quality at the facility is being protected under Utah ground water quality protection

regulations in that for a five hundred year period the ground water pathway will contribute

less than four millirem per year at any ground water monitoring well. The revised draft

permit is expected to be issued for public comment within the next 3 months. NRC

requested that Utah transmit a copy of the draft permit for comment to NRC at the

beginning of the public comment period.

Current Status: Envirocare has a Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit in accordance

with the Utah Water Quality Act. The permit is renewed on a five-year frequency. The

current permit, with an expiration date of September 10, 1998, is under timely renewal. 

This recommendation is closed.

During the last review, 13 recommendations were made in the December 6, 1994 letter to

Dianne Nielson, Executive Director, DEQ. Nine items were closed in the May 5, 1995 letter to

Utah based on the State’s September 21, 1994 and March 17, 1995 response letters. Two

additional items were closed in NRC’s November 8, 1997 letter which responded to Utah’s

September 17, 1997 letter. The team’s review of the current status of the remaining open

recommendations is as follows:

1. We recommend that the State of Utah review the problems that caused the State to

adopt a delayed implementation approach and to take actions for future rulemaking so

that the State of Utah can implement promulgated regulations without delay.

Current Status: The State no longer uses a delayed implementation approach to

rulemaking. Promulgation of regulations is up-to-date, with no regulations overdue for

adoption. This recommendation is closed.
Utah Final Report Page 3

2. To assure continuity and uniformity in regulatory practice, we recommend that the DRC

take the necessary steps to complete its revision of these procedures and provide them

to all employees.

Current Status: The Administrative Policy Document, which includes inspection,

licensing, enforcement and administrative procedures, has been finalized and is available

to all employees. This recommendation is closed.

3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

IMPEP identifies five common performance indicators to be used in reviewing both NRC

Regional and Agreement State programs. These indicators are: (1) Status of Materials

Inspection Program; (2) Technical Quality of Inspections; (3) Technical Staffing and Training; 

(4) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; and (5) Response to Incidents and Allegations.

3.1 Status of Materials Inspection Program

The team focused on four factors in reviewing this indicator: inspection frequency, overdue

inspections, initial inspection of new licensees, and timely dispatch of inspection findings to

licensees. The review team’s evaluation is based on Utah’s questionnaire responses relative to

this indicator, data gathered independently from the State’s licensing and inspection computer

printouts, the examination of completed inspection casework, and interviews with the staff.

The team’s evaluation of the State’s inspection priorities showed that the State’s inspection

frequencies for the various types or groups of licenses are the same or more frequent than

similar license types or groups listed in the NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2800. Two

categories, Research and Developmental - Broad, multisite-multiregional and Strontium-90 Eye

Applicator, had inspection frequencies greater than the interval outlined in IMC 2800; however,

the State has no licensees in these categories and the inspection frequencies were changed,

during the review, to match the inspection frequencies in IMC 2800. It was noted that the State

has utilized their procedures to increase or decrease the next inspection frequency, based on the

licensee’s inspection history.

The staff uses a database for their tracking system in which information is exported to Excel

software to generate reports. The data is maintained on a network and is available to all staff. 

This allows them to project the next inspection due date and to sort the inspection data as

needed. The staff updates the information on this system continuously to keep it up-to-date.

In their response to the questionnaire, the State indicated that they had no inspections overdue

by more than 25% of the NRC frequency. During the week of the review, the team verified that

there were no inspections that were overdue by this frequency. 

With respect to initial inspections of new licensees, a list of licenses issued since the last review

was requested and the licensees’ respective inspection files were reviewed to determine their

initial inspection date. There were 50 licenses issued since the last review, of these 4 are still

within the six month inspection frequency; 5 have been terminated so they were not reviewed; 37

were inspected within six months; 2 others were inspected within seven months; and the

remaining 2 were inspected at around one year (both of these licenses were issued in 1994).
Utah Final Report Page 4

The timeliness of the issuance of inspection findings was evaluated during the inspection

casework review. With two exceptions, inspection correspondence was sent within 30 days after

the inspection. One of those exceptions was due to the request of the licensee’s corporate

radiation safety officer (RSO) for a face-to-face close out meeting and the other was sent at 41

days after the inspection. Licensee responses were received and responded to in a timely

manner.

In their response to the questionnaire, Utah reported that as of fiscal year 1999 (starting 

July 1,1998) they have adopted the inspection frequencies for reciprocity outlined in NRC IMC

1220. Thus far in the fiscal year, the State has met the objectives for priority 1 reciprocity

inspections, but none of the other priorities. The previous year reciprocity inspections also

showed that prior to the adoption of IMC 1220, the State would have only met the priority 1

inspection goal. The review team recommends that the State continue in their ongoing efforts to

meet the reciprocity inspection frequencies outlined in IMC 1220.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Utah’s performance

with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program, be found satisfactory.

3.2 Technical Quality of Inspections

The team evaluated the inspection reports, enforcement documentation, and interviewed

inspectors for 20 radioactive material inspections conducted during the review period. Currently

there are two Environmental Scientist (ES) III inspectors who conduct radioactive material

inspections. A cross training effort has been initiated with other inspectors in the x-ray program. 

The casework included both inspectors and covered inspections of various types including,

medical institutions, industrial radiography, well logging, nuclear pharmacy, irradiator, academic

broad scope, academic/medical broad scope, decontamination services, and reciprocity. 

Appendix C lists the inspection casework reviewed for completeness and adequacy with casespecific comments.

Utah’s inspection procedures are consistent with NRC procedures. Inspections are routinely

unannounced. The review team noted that, of the 20 inspections evaluated, only one was

announced, this was due to the inability to perform an inspection after an unannounced attempt.

Based on casework, the review team noted that the routine inspections covered all aspects of

the licensees’ radiation programs. The team noted that the inspections are performance-based. 

Team inspections were performed when appropriate and for training purposes.

The inspection findings are issued under the signature of the DRC Director, after a review of the

inspection report by a peer and the approval of the Radioactive Materials & X-ray (RM&X)

Section Manager. Inspection findings are routinely sent to the licensee within 30 days with

licensee responses returned in a timely manner. Those responses are reviewed and replied to in

a timely manner. The inspection files were found to be complete and in good order. Field notes

have been developed to cover all types of inspections that are conducted by the DRC. These

field notes provide documentation for the scope of the licensees’ program and cover all areas

that need to be reviewed. The information contained in the field notes is comparable with NRC’s

Inspection Procedure 87100.
Utah Final Report Page 5

As noted in the questionnaire, the State has available a variety of portable instruments for routine

confirmatory surveys and use in incidents and emergency conditions. The instruments are

calibrated on an annual, or as needed, basis. The calibrations are done by an ES III on staff

using a one curie cesium-137 source in a J. L. Shepherd calibrator and an electronic pulser for

exposure rate instruments. Instruments used for contamination surveys are calibrated with a

variety of alpha and beta sources.

The RM&X Section Manager has accompanied both ES III inspectors, who conduct inspections

of radioactive material licensees, on an annual basis since the last review.

During the week of November 2, 1998, a review team member performed accompaniments of

the two State inspectors on separate inspections of licensed facilities (see Appendix C). The

inspections were of two industrial radiography licensees. During the accompaniments,

inspectors demonstrated appropriate inspection skills and knowledge of the regulations. The

inspectors were well prepared and thorough in the review of licensee programs. Inspection

techniques were observed to be performance-oriented and the technical performance of both

inspectors was excellent. The inspections were adequate to assess radiological health and

safety at the licensed facilities. 

The use of an inspection compliance history form both for the materials program and the lowlevel radioactive waste disposal program was noted as a good practice during the review. The

compliance history form includes all of the past inspection findings for the facility and is used not

only to help the inspector prepare for the inspection, but also as a teaching tool during the

inspection to help the licensee better understand the issues and past history of the licensee’s

performance.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Utah’s performance

with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, be found satisfactory.

3.3 Technical Staffing and Training

Issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the radioactive materials program staffing

level and staff turnover, as well as the technical qualifications and training histories of the staff. 

To evaluate these issues, the review team examined the State's questionnaire responses relative

to this indicator, interviewed DRC management and staff, and considered any possible workload

backlogs.

At the time of the review, Utah’s radioactive materials program was staffed by the DRC Director,

two Section Managers, 13 full-time ES IIIs, one Environmental Engineer III, and one ES IV. The

DRC organization consists of the RM&X Section, Waste and Environmental (W&E) Section and

Administration. The work assignments were divided as follows: 4.7 FTE assigned to radioactive

materials inspection/licensing activities, 4.0 FTE to the low-level waste program, 4.9 FTE to the

X-ray/mammography program, 0.2 FTE to the uranium mills program, and 0.2 FTE to the radon

program. No technical staff members have left the RM&X Section since the last review. There

are no vacancies in either the RM&X Section or the W&E Section. A vacant ES III position

identified during the last review was filled in February 1995. In March 1997, one new staff

member (ES III geologist) was hired into the low-level waste program. 

The qualifications of the staff were determined from the questionnaire, training records, and

interviews of personnel. The DRC has a training program in place for the staff which is taken
Utah Final Report Page 6

from the “NRC/OAS Working Group Recommendations for Agreement State Training Programs.” 

The staff are well qualified from an education and experience standpoint. All have Bachelor’s

degrees in the sciences. The primary license reviewers/inspectors have attended most of the

training courses prescribed by IMC 1246 and are very familiar with Utah regulations, policies, and

procedures. However, the team noted that no one has attended the core course, Teletherapy

and Brachytherapy. The team believes all technical staff performing brachytherapy licensing or

inspections would benefit from the course or equivalent training. Also, it was noted that no staff

member has completed the NRC-sponsored Irradiator Technology course or equivalent training,

and the State licenses one pool irradiator. Although the irradiator course is a supplementary or

specialized course, the team believes that training in this area is needed and that staff

performing licensing actions or inspection activities on pool irradiators should have the irradiator

course or equivalent training. The team’s evaluation of inspection and licensing actions involving

medical brachytherapy and irradiator programs did not identify deficiencies related to lack of

training in these areas. The State’s team approach, including assistance from NRC’s Region IV

office, produced quality inspection and licensing products. The team believes that increased

training in these areas, however, will enhance the program. The review team suggests that the

State provide training to technical personnel, either by formal coursework or equivalent, in the

areas of medical brachytherapy and irradiator technology.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Utah's performance

with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found satisfactory. 

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The review team examined completed licenses and casework for 21 licensing actions,

representing the work of five license reviewers and RM&X Section Manager. The license

reviewers and supervisor were interviewed to supply additional information regarding licensing

decisions or file contents.

Licensing actions were evaluated for completeness, consistency, proper isotopes and quantities

used, qualifications of authorized users, adequate facilities and equipment, and operating and

emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing actions. Licenses were

reviewed for accuracy, appropriateness of the license and of its conditions and tie-down

conditions, and overall technical quality. Casework was evaluated for adherence to good health

physics practices, reference to appropriate regulations, supporting documents, peer or

supervisory review, and proper signature authorities. The files were checked for retention of

necessary documents and supporting data.

The licensing actions reviewed included the following types of licenses: academic/medical broad

scope; academic broad scope; pool irradiator; self-shielded irradiator; industrial radiography; well

logging; large medical; small medical; research and development; portable gauge; and fixed

gauge. Licensing actions included four new licenses, nine amendments, five renewals, and

three terminations. A list of these licenses with case-specific comments may be found in

Appendix D.

The review team noted that each licensing action is thoroughly reviewed by a second, qualified

reviewer. In addition, complex cases are completed using a team of reviewers, including the

RM&X Section Manager, and often include frequent interactions with senior NRC reviewers. 

Moreover, every tenth action, and most complex actions, are reviewed by the RM&X Section
Utah Final Report Page 7

Manager. The RM&X Section Manager’s review includes the use of a checklist. Each license is

signed by the DRC Director or designee.

The review team found that the licensing actions were thorough, complete, consistent, and of

high quality, with health and safety issues properly addressed. Tie-down conditions are backed

by information contained in the file, and are inspectable. Deficiency letters clearly state

regulatory positions, are used at the proper time, and identify deficiencies in the licensees'

documents. Terminated licensing actions are well-documented, showing appropriate transfer

and survey records. License files are complete and well organized. Finally, applicable guidance

documents are complete, well organized, available to reviewers, and appear to be followed.

The review team noted that the reviewers also work as inspectors. The review team identified

three occasions when the results of an inspection were used in an effective manner to improve a

license through either a licensing amendment or renewal.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that the State of Utah’s

performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be found

satisfactory.

3.5 Response to Incidents and Allegations

In evaluating the effectiveness of the State’s actions in responding to incidents, the review team

examined the State’s response to the questionnaire regarding this indicator, evaluated selected

incidents reported for Utah in the “Nuclear Material Events Database” (NMED) against those

contained in the Utah files, and evaluated the casework and supporting documentation for 11

material incidents. The team also evaluated the State’s response to 11 materials allegations and

three low-level waste allegations. One materials allegation and three low-level waste allegations

were referred to the State by NRC during the review period. A list of incident casework examined

along with case specific comments is contained in Appendix E.

The review team interviewed DRC management and staff to discuss the State's incident and

allegation process, file documentation, the State’s equivalent to the Freedom of Information Act,

NMED, and notification of incidents to the NRC Operations Center. 

When notification of an incident or an allegation is received, the RM&X Section Manager and

staff normally meet to discuss the initial response and the need for an on-site investigation. The

safety significance of the incident/allegation is evaluated to determine the type of response that

Utah will take. The DRC has written guidance for handling incidents and allegations in their

“Inspection Guidance Procedures” manual.

The 11 incidents selected for review, out of the 46 total reported, included radiation alarm events

at landfills and steel manufacturers, damaged portable gauge equipment, and a radiographer

overexposure. The review team found that the State’s responses to incidents and allegations

were complete and comprehensive. Initial responses were prompt and well-coordinated. In fact,

in all cases, the DRC responded either the first day or within 2-3 working days after notification of

the event. The level of effort was commensurate with the health and safety significance. 

Inspectors were dispatched for on-site investigations when appropriate and the State took

suitable enforcement action. The review team found the documentation of the incidents to be

consistent and that incidents were followed up at the next inspection or in a timely fashion.
Utah Final Report Page 8

The staff was familiar with the guidance contained in the “Handbook on Nuclear Event Reporting

in the Agreement States,” although there was some confusion of the reporting requirements. 

After a review of the incidents and discussions with staff, the review team found that one of the

incidents, an overexposure, had not been previously voluntarily reported to the NMED system. 

The incident involved an overexposure of a radiographer in January 1998, as discussed in

Appendix E. The DRC reported the overexposure to the NMED system prior to the end of this

review.

During the review period, there was one materials allegation referred to the State by the NRC

and 10 allegations reported directly to the program. The review of the State’s allegation file

indicates that the State took prompt and appropriate action in response to the concerns raised. 

The review team noted that all documentation related to the investigation of allegations was

appropriately maintained in a separate file.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Utah’s performance

with respect to the indicator, Response to Incidents and Allegations, be found satisfactory.

4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

IMPEP identifies four non-common performance indicators to be used in reviewing Agreement

State programs: (1) Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility; (2) Sealed

Source and Device Evaluation Program; (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program;

and (4) Uranium Recovery Program. Utah’s Agreement does not include a uranium recovery

program, so only the first three non-common performance indicators were applicable to this

review.

4.1 Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility

4.1.1 Legislation 

Utah became an Agreement State in 1984. Title 19, Chapter 3 of the Utah Code contains the

Radiation Control Act. The Act was amended in 1992 to establish a Radiation Control Board

comparable to boards established for the other divisions within the DEQ. In 1994, an

amendment to the law further delineated the duties and responsibilities of the Radiation Control

Board. The Board is vested with overall responsibility for the program, with the Board’s

Executive Secretary, the DRC Director, carrying out day-to-day responsibilities.

The Board has 11 members, appointed by the Governor: the DEQ Executive Director, two

members of the public, a dentist, a physician, a health physicist, a representative from the

radioactive waste management industry, an academic representative, an industry representative,

and representatives from a local health department and a county government. Board members

are provided a copy of the Radiation Control Board Conflict of Interest policy and are required to

complete conflict of interest forms.

The review team examined Board meeting minutes and completed conflict of interest forms. It

was noted that the meeting minutes occasionally identified instances in which Board members

would recuse themselves from matters in which they had a conflict of interest.
Utah Final Report Page 9

4.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility 

The Utah regulations for radiation control, found in Utah Administrative Rules R313, apply to all

ionizing radiation, whether emitted from radionuclides or devices. Utah requires a license for

possession and use of all radioactive material including naturally occurring materials, such as

radium, and accelerator-produced radionuclides.

The review team examined the State’s administrative rulemaking process and found that the

process takes approximately three months after filing a draft administrative rule. Draft

administrative rules are sent to the Radiation Control Board for permission to get public

comments and to file the proposed rule. The draft rules are published in the State Bulletin. After

a public comment period, the rule is returned to the Radiation Control Board for final approval. 

The State has the authority to issue legally binding requirements (e.g., license conditions) in lieu

of regulations until compatible regulations become effective.

Each state agency must review each of its administrative rules every five years to be retained in

the Utah Administrative Code. The purpose of the review is to remind agencies to amend or

repeal rules that are no longer necessary. The review team examined a status summary for the

five-year review of radiation control rules.

The team evaluated Utah’s responses to the questionnaire and reviewed the status of 

regulations required to be adopted by the State during the review period. All regulations required

to be adopted are currently in effect. Discussions with program staff indicated a good awareness

of recently adopted rules. Some NRC regulations are adopted by reference, including 10 CFR

Part 34 industrial radiography rules.

The following regulations will become due in the future and are included here to remind the State

of the need to address them in rulemakings or by adopting alternate generic legally binding

requirements:

! "Compatibility with the International Atomic Energy Agency," 10 CFR Part 71 amendment

(60 FR 50248) that became effective April 1, 1996. DRC currently has this rule in

process and expects it to be adopted by March 1999.

! “Recognition of Agreement State Licenses in Areas Under Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction

Within an Agreement State,” 10 CFR Part 150 amendment (62 FR 1662) that became

effective February 27, 1997.

! “Radiological Criteria for License Termination,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, and 70

amendments (62 FR 39057) that became effective August 20, 1997.

! “Exempt Distribution of a Radioactive Drug Containing One Microcurie of Carbon-14

Urea,” 10 CFR Part 30 amendment (62 FR 63634) that became effective January 2,

1998. DRC currently has this rule in process and expects it to be adopted by March

1999.

! “Deliberate Misconduct by Unlicensed Persons,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 61, 70, and 150

amendments (63 FR 1890 and 13773) that became effective February 12, 1998.
Utah Final Report Page 10

It is noted that Management Directive 5.9, Handbook, Part V, (1)(c)(iii), provides that regulations

required for compatibility issued prior to September 3, 1997, should be adopted by the State as

expeditiously as possible, but not later than 3 years after the September 3, 1997 effective date of

the Commission Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility, i.e. September 3, 2000. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Utah’s performance

with respect to the indicator, Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility, be

found satisfactory.

4.2 Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Program

Effective June 1, 1996, NRC reassumed regulatory authority for sealed source and device

evaluations in Utah, in response to a request from the State to relinquish that authority. No

sealed source or device evaluations were performed in Utah in the early part of the review

period, prior to relinquishment. Accordingly, the review team did not evaluate this indicator.

4.3 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program

This non-common performance indicator was used by the review team to evaluate the low-level

radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal regulatory program in the State of Utah and included

assessment of the following sub-indicators: (1) Status of LLRW Disposal Inspection Program; (2)

Technical Quality of Inspections; (3) Technical Staffing and Training; (4) Technical Quality of

Licensing Actions; and (5) Response to Incidents and Allegations. Because Envirocare of Utah

(hereafter referred to as Envirocare) is the only operating LLRW disposal site in the State of

Utah, the major portion of this evaluation involves an assessment of the State’s regulation of the

Envirocare facility. Envirocare holds Utah License No. UT 2300249.

4.3.1 Status of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Inspection Program

Since the State of Utah has adopted NRC inspection guidance and procedures, the review team

examined inspection files and conducted interviews with inspectors to determine: (1) if the

LLRW disposal licensee is inspected at least as frequently as the intervals prescribed in IMC

2800; (2) whether deviations from the prescribed frequencies in IMC 2800 are normally

coordinated between working staff and management; and (3) whether inspection findings are

communicated to licensees in a timely manner, as specified in IMC 0610-10.

The review team determined that, through an examination of the State’s inspection files and

interviews with State inspectors, the State conducts an annual inspection at Envirocare, in

accordance with the frequency required by IMC 2800, for a priority one facility. In addition, the

State has also conducted what are called “daily inspections” at the Envirocare facility. These

daily inspections resulted in an inspection frequency that is over and above the prescribed

frequency and normally occurred three out of five business days a week in support of the State’s

announced goal of sixty percent full time inspection coverage. There has been no reduction from

the prescribed IMC 2800 frequency, in fact, the State has exceeded the prescribed frequency

contained in IMC 2800.

The review team finds that, for the period evaluated during this review, the State has also met

the recommendation of IMC 2800 to communicate inspection findings to the licensee within a 30-

day period. 
Utah Final Report Page 11

4.3.2 Technical Quality of Inspections

The review team assessed the quality of LLRW disposal inspections by determining whether: (1)

accompaniments and on-site review of inspection files indicate well founded and well

documented inspections findings; (2) inspection field notes and completed reports indicate that

most inspections are complete and promptly reviewed by management; (3) procedures are in

place for identifying root causes and poor licensee performance; (4) following inspections,

inspectors address previously identified open items or past violations; (5) inspection findings lead

to appropriate and prompt regulatory action; and (6) supervisors accompany inspectors on an

annual basis. 

Supervisory accompaniments have been conducted for each LLRW inspector during the past two

years and in many cases supervisory accompaniments exceed the recommended frequency of

one per year, as inspections have often been conducted with teams of two or three inspectors. 

The findings in the two annual inspections reviewed for this assessment are well documented in

annual inspection reports. Daily inspection findings and observations are maintained in an

inspection log with detailed observations and descriptions, and field notes reflecting findings

during ongoing operations. Daily findings are noticed in the daily documented working log and

followed up on the next inspector visit. The W&E Section Manager reviews the inspection

findings and periodically issues enforcement letters to the licensee. Each annual inspection

report has been reviewed and signed by management and inspection findings and observations

are tracked to completion. All open items from the previous year’s inspection files were either

closed out or scheduled for follow-up action during the 1997 annual inspection.

The State has generated a database showing a “Breakdown of Violations” versus severity level

for various categories of violations. This is a good State practice and this system is valuable in

assessing which Envirocare LLRW disposal operations are most prone to violations. This

database also assists in establishing the root cause for violations. This is identified as a “good

practice” as identified in Section 3.2. 

 

4.3.3 Technical Staffing And Training

Issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include: (1) whether qualification of the technical

staff are commensurate with expertise necessary to regulate a LLRW disposal facility; (2)

whether management has developed and implemented a training program for the staff; and (3) if

staffing trends that could have an adverse impact on the quality of the program are tracked,

analyzed, and addressed.

The W&E Section staffing has essentially remained unchanged since the beginning of the

program. There are seven staff members in the section and the W&E Section Manager who

supervises both licensing reviews and inspections. An assessment was performed of the staff’s

education and experience against the “NRC/OAS Training Working Group Recommendations for

Agreement State Training” and “Suggested State Requirements and Criteria for a Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Disposal Site Regulatory Program.” The assessment indicates that the staff

is qualified in the technical and administrative areas addressed in these documents. Individual

W&E Section staff training documentation indicates that the State has identified some of the core

courses, that NRC requires for inspection and licensing qualification for its staff, as necessary for

State staff training. The review team noted that the State has not developed individual training

plans for the technical staff which could be utilized for projecting training needs and as a career

enhancement tool. 
Utah Final Report Page 12

4.3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

Evaluation of this indicator requires an assessment to determine that: (1) pre-licensing

interaction with the applicant is occurring on a regular basis; (2) special license tie-down

conditions are usually stated clearly and are able to be inspected; (3) deficiency letters clearly

state regulatory positions and are used at the proper time; (4) reviews of amendments and

renewal applications demonstrate a thorough analysis of a licensee’s inspection and enforcement

history; (5) applicable guidance documents are available to reviewers and are generally followed;

(6) public hearings, in accordance with State administrative laws, have occurred; (7) review of

certain technical aspects of the LLRW licensing files indicate that reviews are generally thorough,

complete, consistent, and of acceptable technical quality; 

(8) health and safety issues are properly addressed; and (9) evaluation of the license review

process indicates that the process is thorough and consistent.

In June 1997, the State received a siting application from Laidlaw Environmental Services (now

Safety Kleen) for the construction and operation of a low-level waste disposal facility in Tooele

County, Utah. The proposed facility would be known as the Grassy Mountain Facility. The State

has met on several occasions with the potential licensee and provided guidance in such areas as

siting, pre-operational monitoring, construction and operational phases of a low-level waste

disposal facility. The State reviewed and approved the siting criteria in the Laidlaw’s siting

application. This is the first step in the State’s licensing process for a new LLRW facility.

In October 1998, the State completed a review of the Envirocare license renewal application for

the Envirocare low-level waste disposal site. In order to determine if the State makes use of

inspection and enforcement history during the renewal process, the review team tracked two

significant inspection findings regarding: (1) the requirement for the licensee to develop a “test

pad” (to assure the use of clay with the correct properties, equipment with the correct

specifications, and to assure that the correct test procedures were used); and (2) the

requirement that the licensee meet the possession limit (350 gram mass limit) and individual

shipment limits for special nuclear material (SNM). 

In the first instance, an inspection finding, in October 1996, revealed that Envirocare failed to

follow approved procedures regarding installation of a disposal liner and development of a test

pad. Follow-up documentation shows that the State required the applicant to revise the renewal

application and incorporate additional procedures for developing a plan, to be submitted to the

Executive Secretary of the Utah Radiation Control Board, in advance, when a test pad would be

developed. The newly amended license contains Condition No. 35 which clearly supports this

requirement.

In May 1997, the second finding (regarding possession of SNM over the 350 gram limit) was

made, apparently because the licensee was receiving material that exceeded stated license

concentration limits but then engaged in down-blending once the material reached the Envirocare

site. Condition No. 13 of the license is now written to consider any waste containing SNM, not

disposed on the day delivered, as in possession of the license. Thus, this material is now

counted against the 350 gram possession limit. 

The review team evaluated documentation of State meetings with the licensee to discuss the

compliance history. The DRC Director met personally with the President of Envirocare in this

regard. Weekly meetings attended by Envirocare and DEQ staff are held in the State offices. 

The State’s procedures require that before reviewing a license in category 1, 2, or 3, that the
Utah Final Report Page 13

compliance history of the license should be checked to determine whether additional

requirements should be part of the license.

4.3.5 Response to Incidents and Allegations

During the review period, there were three allegations involving LLRW referred to the State by

the NRC. In 1997, an allegation that Envirocare was accepting shipments containing quantities

of uranium-235 that exceeded their possession limit was referred to Utah. The State performed

an inspection, which resulted in a Notice of Violation and civil penalties. Also in 1997, an

allegation was referred to Utah that Envirocare failed to include ground water modeling in the site

safety analysis. The State sent information to the NRC in April 1998 which indicated that ground

water monitoring studies had been provided and were very conservative. The third allegation is

currently under review by the Utah State Attorney General’s office.

The review of the State’s allegation file indicates that the State took prompt and appropriate

action in response to the concerns raised. The review team noted that all documentation related

to the investigation of allegations was appropriately maintained in a separate file. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Utah’s performance

with respect to the indicator, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program, be found

satisfactory.

5.0 SUMMARY

As noted in Sections 3 and 4 above, the review team found Utah’s performance to be

satisfactory for all of the indicators. Accordingly, the review team recommended and the MRB

concurred in finding the Utah Agreement State Program to be adequate to protect public health

and safety and compatible with NRC's program. 

Below is a summary list of recommendations and suggestions, as mentioned in earlier sections

of the report, for implementation and evaluation, as appropriate, by the State. Also, the “good

practice” noted in the report is identified.

RECOMMENDATION:

The review team recommends that the State continue in their ongoing efforts to meet the

reciprocity inspection frequencies outlined in IMC 1220. (Section 3.1).

SUGGESTION:

The review team suggests that the State provide training to technical personnel, either by formal

coursework or equivalent, in the areas of medical brachytherapy and irradiator technology. 

(Section 3.3).
Utah Final Report Page 14

GOOD PRACTICE:

The use of an inspection compliance history form both for the materials program and the lowlevel radioactive waste disposal program was noted as a good practice during the review. The

compliance history form includes all of the past inspection findings for the facility and is used not

only to help the inspector prepare for the inspection, but also as a teaching tool during the

inspection to help the licensee better understand the issues and past history of the license. 

(Sections 3.2 and 4.3.2).
LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members

Appendix B Utah Organization Charts

Appendix C Inspection Casework Reviews

Appendix D License Casework Reviews

Appendix E Incident Casework Reviews

Attachment 1 Utah’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report 

Dated January 12, 1999
APPENDIX A

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

Name Area of Responsibility

James Lynch, Region III Team Leader

Legislation and Program Elements Required

 for Compatibility

Allen Grewe, Tennessee Status of Materials Inspection Program

Technical Quality of Inspections

Linda McLean, Region IV Technical Staffing and Training

Response to Incidents and Allegations

Michael Weber, Region III Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

LeRoy Person, NMSS Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program
APPENDIX B

STATE OF UTAH

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

and

DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL

ORGANIZATION CHARTS