UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY C 0 M M I SS IO N 

REGION IV 

612 EAST LAMAR BLVD, SUITE 400 

ARLINGTON, TEXAS 7601 1-4125 

December 7, 2010 

Rusty Lundberg, Director 

Utah Division of Radiation Control 

195 North 1950 West 

Salt Lake City, UT 841 16 

SUBJECT: REPLACE THE ENCLOSURE TO LETTER DATED DECEMBER 2,2010 

(MLI 03360492), SUMMARY OF PERIODIC MEETING WITH UTAH 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY HELD ON NOVEMBER 4,2010, 

WITH THE ENCLOSURE TO THIS LETTER 

Dear Mr. Lundberg: 

Please replace the enclosure to the letter dated December 2, 2010, ADAMS Accession Number 

MLI 03360492, with the enclosure to this cover letter regarding the summary of periodic meeting 

with Utah Department of Environmental Quality held on November 4, 2010. The changes to the 

enclosure incorporate your comments to the periodic meeting minutes that were received after 

the letter was issued. Thank you for your review and comments. 

If there are any questions, please contact me at 817-860-81 16. 

Sincerely, 

dchel S. Browder, CUP 

Regional State Agreements Officer 

Enclosure: 

Utah Periodic Meeting Summary with comments 

ENCLOSURE 
Utah Department of Environmental Quality - 2 - 

Internal distribution via e-mail: 

Roy Caniano, D:DNMS 

Charles Cain, DD:DNMS 

Robert Lewis, FSME 

Terry Reis, FSME 

James Luehman, FSME 

Duncan White, FSME 

Rachel Browder 

Randy Erickson 

Janine Katanic, FSME 

Monica Orendi, FSME 

Karen Meyer, FSME 

Michelle Beardsley, RI 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 
UTAH PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY 

Date of Meeting: November 4, 2010 

Loren Morton, Geotechnical Support 

John Hultquist, Low Level Radioactive / Uranium Mills 

Gwyn Galloway, Health Physicist 

Mario Bettolo, Health Physicist 

Phillip Griffin, Health Physicist 

DISCUSSION: 

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

(the Division) located in the Department of Environmental Quality (the Department). The Utah 

program regulates approximately 200 specific licenses authorizing agreement materials. The 

Division also regulates three uranium mill sites and a commercial 1 le.(2) disposal facility and 

has regulatory responsibility for a low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal site. 

The last full IMPEP Review was conducted during the week of June 11-15, 2007. The team 

reviewed the five common performance indicators and three of the four non-common 

performance indicators. The three non-common performance indicators reviewed were 

(1 ) Compatibility Requirements, (2) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program, and 

(3) Uranium Recovery Program. The fourth non-common performance indicator is Sealed 

Source and Device Evaluation, which was returned to NRC on June 1, 1996. 

The IMPEP review team identified two of the performance indicators as satisfactory, but needs 

improvement. These two indicators were Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities 

and Uranium Recovery Program. Utah’s performance for the remaining six performance 

indicators reviewed was found satisfactory. The MRB agreed with the review team’s 

recommendation that the Utah Agreement State Program was adequate to protect public health 

and safety and compatible with NRC’s program. Additionally, the MRB requested that a followup IMPEP review be conducted in one year to focus on the two performance indicators that 

were identified as satisfactory, but needs improvement. 

The follow-up IMPEP Review was conducted the week of July 15-1 8, 2008. The review team 

evaluated the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation 

Activities, and the non-common performance indicator, Uranium Recovery Program. The 

review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, that both indicators be found satisfactory and 

the two recommendations that had been opened during the 2007 IMPEP review were 

subsequently closed. The Utah Agreement State Program was found adequate to protect public 

health and safety and compatible with NRC’s program. Based on the recommendations by the 

review team, the MRB had determined that the next full IMPEP review take place in 

approximately 3 years, with a periodic meeting scheduled for January 201 0. Due to retirements 

for personnel from each of our agencies and conflicting schedules, the periodic meeting was 

delayed until this time. The purpose of this periodic meeting is to fulfill that requirement in order 

ENCLOSURE 
to evaluate the continued implementation of the Agreement State Program. The review team 

initiated the meeting with a summary of the IMPEP review process, including the purpose and 

scope of the review, the list of team members for the next Utah program review, how the 

process of reviewing the draft IMPEP report proceeds, and the final MRB meeting. 

Other topics covered at the meeting included: 

Program Strengths: The Division has a stable workforce with approximately 

60-80 percent of the staff having over 20 years experience in the program. The depth 

and knowledge of the staff is a major strength of the program. The new Division Director 

expressed that he is impressed with the Division’s quality of work products and the 

staffs commitment and dedication. The Division expressed that the staffs skill-sets 

support the requirements of the Division. 

The Division’s development and implementation of inspection modules for the uranium 

recovery program provides a methodology to ensure that all elements of the uranium 

program are inspected every year. The Division indicated that they have been 

successfully implementing the inspection modules and, as a result, there is no backlog in 

the inspection program. 

The Department has several methods to develop employees. These include formalized 

programs such as a certified public management program and internal leadership 

development program, as well as a small group leadership skills program. In addition, 

the Division is implementing knowledge management transition and succession 

planning. For example, implementation of regulation reviews have been performed by 

different members of the staff so each is familiar with the process. 

Program Weaknesses: The Division identified the transition of the technical IT support 

staff from within the Department to the overall state office as being a weakness. The 

transition of IT support to the state office has reduced responsiveness and 

comprehensive support by the IT staff for the Division’s custom databases. The Division 

is unsure how their custom databases would support the anticipated web-based 

licensing that the NRC is developing. 

The Division also identified that the longevity of many of the staff may be a potential 

concern because some of the staffs eligibility for retirement may occur at the same time. 

Feedback on NRC’s Program 

The Division indicated that they appreciated the good support provided by NRC 

Region IV and the communications between the two agencies. 

The Division is unsure how their custom computer databases will be capable of 

supporting the web-based licensing that the NRC is developing. However, the Division 

indicated that, if the NRC could provide the required format and specific data-fields 

necessary to transfer data to a central platform, they may be able to support the request 

to transfer their data. 

-2- ENCLOSURE 
The Division’s licensees have indicated that it is cumbersome to get credentialed for 

NSTS. The Division stated in part that the NRC should not consider tracking lower-tier 

sources until all of the issues associated with the current system are resolved. The 

Division also stated that the NSTS quarterly calls are very helpful. 

Staffing and Training 

At the time of the periodic meeting, the Division staffing was approximately one staff 

position for every 50 licenses (1 :50). The Division indicated there was no backlog on 

core inspections and licensing actions were current. The Radioactive Materials Section 

has one manager and four technical staff. The Low-Level Waste Section and Uranium 

Recovery have one manager and seven technical staff; however, one staff member 

supports the radon program. In addition, the Geotechnical Support Section has one 

manager, four hydrologists, and two environmental engineers. The Division contracts 

technical support for permitting and licensing actions for the low-level radioactive waste 

facility. Compliance actions and enforcement cases are not contracted, but are 

processed by the Division. 

During the review period, there was a reduction in force that eliminated one vacant 

engineering position and a health physics position. In addition, one of the health physics 

staff in the Radioactive Materials Section is on extended medical leave. The Division 

has borrowed engineering services from the Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste to 

support the review and issuance of the mixed waste RCM permits. 

The Division is anticipating the hiring of four additional staff, which would reduce the use 

of consultants for permitting and licensing actions and help to support the Radioactive 

Materials Section. The approval to start the recruitment process is still pending. 

Program Reorganizations 

DEQ named Rusty Lundberg as the new director of the Division, replacing Dane 

Finerfrock who retired at the end of June 2010. Mr. Lundberg began his appointment 

on July 1, 201 0. He has been with DEQ for 25 years, where he has been the branch 

manager overseeing solid waste for the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste and 

most recently serving as the manager of the Energy and Sustainability Group, where he 

represented Utah on The Climate Registry and participation in the Western Climate 

Initiative. There were no other reorganizations within the Division during the review 

period. However, as a result of the recent effort by the Division to analyze and evaluate 

opportunities for business process improvement utilizing a Lean Six Sigma approach, 

the potential for implementing reorganization recommendations is under consideration. 

Additionally, the implementation of similar recommendations regarding staffing may 

influence the level of outside technical consulting services used by the Division. 

Changes in Program BudgetIFunding 

The Division’s funding for the Radioactive Materials section comes from the general fund 

fee-based category. There is no change anticipated in the funding for the Radioactive 

Materials section. 

-3- ENCLOSURE 
The Division’s funding for the Low-Level Waste, Uranium Recovery, and Geotechnical 

Support sections comes from the Environmental Quality Restricted Account (EQRA). 

The EQRA is a statutory account that is funded through disposal fees paid by operators 

of commercial solid, hazardous, and radioactive waste facilities and municipal solid 

waste landfills. There have typically been enough funds to account for fluctuations in the 

waste volumes; however, during FYI 0, the Department worked with stakeholders to 

develop legislation that passed during the 2010 General Session of the Utah Legislature 

(H.B. 331) to address necessary changes in the funding mechanisms that will be 

implemented during the next fiscal year. The fees specifically associated with the 

Division of Radiation Control have been amended by eliminating the current statutory 

disposal fee rate and replacing it with an annual or “flat fee” that would not be reflective 

of, or dependent on, the waste volumes of the commercial disposal facility. 

Materials Inspection Program 

The Division utilizes more restrictive priority inspection criteria than the criteria 

established in NRC Manual Chapter 2800. At the time of this periodic meeting, the 

Division reported there were 12.4% in overdue inspections, based on the Program’s 

more restrictive criteria. However, it is anticipated that the Division will meet the NRC 

inspection criteria during the next IMPEP review. 

Materials Licensing Proaram 

The Division performed prelicensing visits as appropriate and ensured that increased 

controls were in place prior to issuing new licenses for Category 2 and above facilities. 

The Division implemented the increased controls and fingerprinting orders by license 

conditions. 

Regulations and Legislative Changes 

The State is up to date on regulation amendments currently required for compatibility, 

except for the following amendment package listed below (RATS ID 2007-03). The state 

submitted the proposed regulation package to the NRC. The NRC documented their 

review response by letter dated September 28, 201 0, which identified two comments to 

the proposed rule. During this periodic meeting, the state expressed that it cannot 

promulgate regulations that it cannot enforce and therefore cannot incorporate one of 

the comments into their final rule. As a result of the discussion during the periodic 

meeting, the review team will look into the comments and discuss the matter further with 

the state. 

0 “Requirements for Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 

31, 32, 33, 35, 61, and 150 amendment (72 FR 55864) due for Agreement State 

adoption by November 30, 2010 

Event Reportinq, Including Follow-up and Closure Information in NMED 

During this review period, which encompasses July 18, 2008, to the present, the State 

reported I9 events to the NRC Operations Center, which were also updated to NMED. 

For this fiscal year, the Division had six events and two have been closed. 

-4- ENCLOSURE 
Response to Incidents and Alleaations 

During the IMPEP review in 2007, there was i! recommendation associated with 

conducting on-site reviews of incidents. During the follow-up IMPEP review in 2008, the 

Division demonstrated that the policy changes for documenting the decision to conduct 

an on-site investigation as part of their incident response activities was effective; 

therefore, this recommendation was closed. In addition, the performance indicator was 

found satisfactory. 

During this review period, the Division responded to several incidents and conducted 

reactive inspections. Two reactive inspections were conducted within one month prior 

this periodic meeting. The staff members who performed the two reactive inspections 

provided a detailed account of their actions in response to the incidents which involved 

radiography cameras. It was also noted that, as a result of the staffs training of a State 

Trooper, who was the first responder in the first incident, the training was successfully 

used during the second incident, where the same State Trooper was also the first 

responder. As a result of the training, during the second incident the State Trooper 

knew where to find the survey meter in the truck and how to ensure that the radiography 

source was intact and secure inside the radiography camera, which had been thrown 

2-3 feet from the truck. Based on the training he had received, he knew that the area 

was safe, that the highway did not have to be closed, and who to contact immediately. 

The Division was continuing to process these two incidents; however, it was evident that 

they were following their processes for documenting decisions and performing reactive 

inspections. 

The Division indicated that they document and follow up on allegations which are 

submitted in writing to the Division. This process is in accordance with the Division’s 

policy. The Division indicated that this policy was developed as a result of receiving 

numerous telephone calls of alleged violations in which the caller would choose not to 

document the concern and submit it to the Division. During a discussion of this policy, 

the Division noted; however, that on several occasions they responded when it appeared 

there may be a health or safety concern related to the called-in allegation. 

Emerging Technologies 

The Division did not discuss any emerging technologies during the periodic meeting. 

Large, Complicated, or Unusual Authorizations for use of Radioactive Materials 

The Division provided an example of a complicated enforcement case. A licensee was 

no longer using large quantities of radioactive materials; however, the licensee had not 

initiated decommissioning within the required 2-year limit. The licensee had not used 

the large quantity sealed sources for approximately 15 years. The Division had issued a 

DEQ Order to the licensee, requiring the licensee to dispose of the sources. However, 

the licensee was not complying with the DEQ Order. A State District Court Judge issued 

an order the day before this periodic meeting, requiring the licensee to comply with the 

initial DEQ Order within 120 days. The Division noted that some of the sources were 

Pu-238, Am-241, and Ba-I 33. The latter would require disposal at the Hanford facility. 

-5- ENCLOSURE 
Current State Initiatives 

The Division used lean six sigma as a method to identify the depth of knowledge within 

the discipline areas of Low-Level Radioactive Waste and Geotechnical Services. This 

methodology visually displayed the discipline areas that were covered by the staff and 

also displayed the discipline areas that were lacking by the staff. The Division indicated 

that this tool is one method to identify areas of training to ensure development of 

employees and knowledge transfer management and promote efficiency in the sections. 

The tool appeared to be an efficient method for management to identify potential areas 

for licensing action process improvement, training, and development. 

Current NRC Initiatives 

Dr. Janine Katanic discussed ongoing Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs (FSME) initiatives with the State of Utah 

representatives. This included a brief review of the latest FSME letters and RCPD 

letters that requested a review and response from the Agreement States. In addition, 

Dr. Katanic discussed the national source tracking system, web-based licensing, and 

security rulemaking. 

CONCLUSIONS: 

The Utah Agreement State Program remains a strong, stable program with good 

management support. The technical staffing level for the Program is adequate, but 

vulnerable with any potential reductions in force or retirements. The Division is aware of 

this issue and is implementing succession planning and providing justification for four 

additional staff members. 

Schedule for the Next IMPEP Review 

NRC staff recommends that the next IMPEP review be held, as currently scheduled, in 

FY 201 1. 

-6- ENCLOSURE