October 27, 2008 

Mr. Rick Sprott, Executive Director 

Department of Environmental Quality 

168 North 1950 West 

P.O. Box 144810 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4810 

Dear Mr. Sprott: 

On October 2, 2008, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final 

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

Agreement State Program. The MRB found the Utah Agreement State Program adequate to 

protect public health and safety and compatible with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission=s 

program. 

Section 4.0, page 8, of the enclosed final report contains a summary of the IMPEP review 

team=s findings. Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review of the 

Utah Agreement State Program will take place in approximately 3 years, with a periodic meeting 

tentatively scheduled for January 2010. 

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

wish to acknowledge your continued support for the Agreement State Program. I look forward 

to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the future. 

Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

 

Martin J. Virgilio 

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, 

Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs 

Office of the Executive Director for Operations 

Enclosure: 

Utah Final Followup IMPEP Report 

cc w/encl.: Dane Finerfrock, Director 

 Utah Division of Radiation Control 

 Richard Ratliff, Texas 

 Organization of Agreement States 

 Liaison to the MRB 
October 27, 2008 

Mr. Rick Sprott, Executive Director 

Department of Environmental Quality 

168 North 1950 West 

P.O. Box 144810 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4810 

Dear Mr. Sprott: 

On October 2, 2008, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final 

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

Agreement State Program. The MRB found the Utah Agreement State Program adequate to 

protect public health and safety and compatible with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission=s 

program. 

Section 4.0, page 8, of the enclosed final report contains a summary of the IMPEP review 

team=s findings. Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review of the 

Utah Agreement State Program will take place in approximately 3 years, with a periodic meeting 

tentatively scheduled for January 2010. 

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

wish to acknowledge your continued support for the Agreement State Program. I look forward 

to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the future. 

Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

 

Martin J. Virgilio 

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, 

Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs 

Office of the Executive Director for Operations 

Enclosure: 

Utah Final Followup IMPEP Report 

cc w/encl.: Dane Finerfrock, Director 

 Utah Division of Radiation Control 

 Richard Ratliff, Texas 

 Organization of Agreement States 

 Liaison to the MRB

DISTRIBUTION: 

See next page EDATS: FSME-2008-0049

ADAMS ACCESSION NO.: ML082800031 

OFFICE FSME/DMSSA FSME/DMSSA FSME/DMSSA Tech Editor 

NAME ATMcCraw:knm1 ADWhite RJLewis / TR CPoland (P.Tressler) 

DATE 10/06/08 10/07/08 10/08/08 10/14/08 

OFFICE FSME DEDMRT 

NAME CLMiller (G.Pangburn for) MJVirgilio 

DATE 10/20/08 10/27/08 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Letter to Rick Sprott from Martin J. Virgilio dated: October 27, 2008 

Distribution: 

DMSSA RF DCD (SP01) 

EDO RF Chairman Klein 

RidsEdoMailCenter Commissioner Jaczko 

RidsFsmeOd Commissioner Lyons 

RidsSecyCorrespondenceMailCenter Commissioner Svinicki 

LMcLean, RIV/RSAO SECY 

DMandeville, FSME/DWMEP 

WRautzen, FSME/DMSSA 

DSollenberger, FSME/DMSSA 

SCampbell, OEDO 

GCPangburn, FSME 

KCyr, OGC 

BJones, OGC 

MDapas, RI 

APowell, OCA (2 copies) 
Enclosure 

INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM 

FOLLOWUP REVIEW OF THE UTAH AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM 

July 15-18, 2008 

FINAL REPORT 
Utah Final Followup Report Page 1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This report presents the results of the followup review of the Utah Agreement State Program, 

conducted July 15-18, 2008. A review team comprised of technical staff members from the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) conducted the followup review. Review team members 

are identified in Appendix A. The review team conducted the review in accordance with the 

February 26, 2004 NRC Management Directive 5.6, “Integrated Materials Performance 

Evaluation Program (IMPEP).” Preliminary results of the followup review, which covered the 

period of June 16, 2007, to July 18, 2008, were discussed with Utah managers on the last day 

of the review. 

A draft of this report was issued to Utah for factual comment on August 12, 2008. The State 

responded by letter on September 4, 2008, from Dane Finerfrock, Director, Division of Radiation 

Control (the Division). A copy of the State’s response is included as the Attachment to this 

report. The Management Review Board (MRB) met on October 2, 2008, to consider the 

proposed final report. The MRB found the Utah Agreement State Program to be adequate to 

protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC’s program. 

The Agreement State program is administered by the Division. The Division is located within 

the Department of Environmental Quality (the Department). An organization chart for the 

Division is included as Appendix B. 

At the time of the review, the Utah Agreement State Program regulated approximately 200 

specific licenses, including naturally occurring or accelerator-produced radioactive material 

(NARM). The Division’s responsibilities include regulatory authority for 11e.(2) byproduct 

material (uranium recovery activities). The Division currently regulates three uranium mill sites 

and a commercial 11e.(2) disposal facility. The Division also has regulatory responsibility for a 

low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal site. The review focused on the radioactive 

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. The Agreement was 

amended in 1990 to add the LLRW disposal program and in 2004 to include the uranium 

recovery program. 

The followup review focused on the State’s performance in regard to the common performance 

indicator, Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, and the non-common 

performance indicator, Uranium Recovery Program. The followup review included an evaluation 

of the State’s actions to address the recommendations made during the 2007 IMPEP review. 

Aspects of the program not evaluated as part of the followup review were discussed at a 

periodic meeting held in conjunction with the review. The periodic meeting summary is included 

as Appendix C. 

In preparation for the followup review, a questionnaire addressing the applicable common and 

non-common performance indicators was sent to the Division on April 7, 2008. The Division 

provided its response to the questionnaire on June 12, 2008. A copy of the questionnaire 

response can be found in the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

(ADAMS) using the Accession Number ML082120500. 
Utah Final Followup Report Page 2 

The review team's general approach for conduct of this followup review consisted of: 

(1) examination of Utah’s response to the questionnaire; (2) technical evaluation of selected 

regulatory actions; (3) field accompaniments of three uranium mill inspectors; and (4) interviews 

with staff and managers to answer questions or clarify issues. The review team evaluated the 

information gathered against the established performance criteria for the applicable common 

and non-common performance indicators and made a preliminary assessment of the Utah 

Agreement State Program’s performance. 

Results of the review of the common performance indicator are presented in Section 2.0. 

Section 3.0 details the results of the review of the non-common performance indicator. 

Section 4.0 summarizes the followup review team's findings. 

2.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 

The followup review addressed one of the five common performance indicators used in 

reviewing both NRC Regional and Agreement State radioactive materials programs. The 

indicator reviewed was Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities. 

2.1 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities

In evaluating the effectiveness of the Division’s actions in responding to incidents and 

allegations, the review team examined the Division’s response to the questionnaire relative to 

this indicator, evaluated the casework and supporting documentation for two incidents, and 

interviewed staff and managers. A listing of incident casework examined can be found in 

Appendix F. 

The review team also evaluated the Division’s response to three allegations involving 

radioactive materials. The review team determined that the Division took prompt and 

appropriate action in response to all concerns raised. The allegations reviewed were 

appropriately closed, and affected individuals were notified of the actions taken. 

The review team’s evaluation of the Division’s response to Recommendation 1 of the 2007 

IMPEP report is presented below: 

Recommendation 1: 

The review team recommends that the State conduct on-site investigations of complex incidents 

to determine potential health and safety impacts and to evaluate licensees’ actions to prevent 

recurrences. (Section 3.5 of the 2007 IMPEP Report) 

Current Status: 

Following the 2007 review, the Division revised its Administrative Policies Document to 

incorporate a form that clearly documents the decision for on-site investigations into the 

Division’s incident review process. The revision also incorporated a new policy for conducting 

reactive inspections within 2 weeks of a therapy-related medical event. The policy changes 

were communicated to the inspection staff via e-mail and discussed at a subsequent staff 

meeting. 
Utah Final Followup Report Page 3 

To assess the effectiveness of the Division’s policy revisions, the review team evaluated the 

casework for two radioactive materials incidents, one of which was a followup to a 2006 

incident. In both cases, the Division employed the use of the new form to document its 

justification for or against an on-site investigation. The review team observed the 

documentation of the justification for an on-site investigation in one case and against an on-site 

investigation for the other case. The review team determined that the Division’s decisions were 

appropriate based on the health and safety significance of the incidents. 

For the followup to the 2006 incident, the Division appropriately notified the NRC Headquarters 

Operations Center of the recovery of the gauge. The Division updated the 2006 Nuclear 

Material Events Database (NMED) entry, as well. 

Since the 2007 review, the Division has not received any reports of therapy-related medical 

events; therefore, the review team could not assess the effectiveness of the Division’s policy 

revision in this area. Although there have not been any therapy-related medical events in Utah 

since the implementation of this policy change, Division management has committed to 

ensuring that the new policy is followed for any future therapy-related medical events. 

The review team examined the inspection casework for one routine inspection involving 

followup to an incident. The Division’s initial response to this incident was evaluated during the 

2007 IMPEP review. The inspection casework clearly documented the scope of the inspector’s 

review of the licensee’s resolution of the incident, including any corrective actions. The 

inspector determined the appropriateness of the licensee’s corrective actions and their 

effectiveness. 

During the review period, the small number of events limited the Division’s application of its 

policy changes. Although the review team was only able to review casework for two incidents, 

in both cases, the Division adhered to its revised policy. The review team believes that the 

Division’s policy revisions meet the intent of the recommendation. The review team also 

determined that the Division is adequately following up on incidents at subsequent inspections. 

This recommendation is closed. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, 

that Utah’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Incident and 

Allegation Activities, was satisfactory. 

3.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 

The followup review addressed one of the four non-common performance indicators used in 

reviewing Agreement State radioactive materials programs. The indicator reviewed was 

Uranium Recovery Program. 

3.1 Uranium Recovery Program

In evaluating the State’s performance with respect to this indicator, the review team examined 

the Division’s response to the questionnaire, evaluated casework for 10 inspections/site visits 

and 2 licensing actions, and interviewed staff and managers. 
Utah Final Followup Report Page 4 

At the time of the followup review, the Division regulated three mill sites: the White Mesa Mill, 

the Shootaring Canyon Mill, and the Lisbon Valley Mill. The White Mesa Mill is the only site that 

is in "operational status," processing ore for its uranium content. The White Mesa Mill also has 

an alternate feed processing circuit; however, no alternate feed is being processed. The 

Shootaring Canyon Mill remains in standby status, but the Division is currently reviewing the 

owner’s request for a license amendment to return the facility to operational status. The Lisbon 

Valley Mill has been in decommissioning status since November 1995. 

The 2007 review team made one recommendation regarding Utah’s performance with respect 

to this indicator. The current review team’s evaluation of the Division’s response to 

Recommendation 2 of the 2007 IMPEP report is presented below: 

Recommendation 2: 

The review team recommended that the State institute a more comprehensive inspection 

program that ensures radiation safety and protection at uranium recovery facilities, including 

compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and license conditions. (Section 4.4.3 of 

the 2007 IMPEP Report) 

Current Status: 

Since the 2007 review, the Division took several actions to address this recommendation. The 

Division’s actions were focused on technical staffing and training and the development and 

implementation of health physics inspection modules. 

At the time of the followup review, the Division had two radiation safety inspectors for the 

uranium recovery program; one new inspector was hired since the previous review. The review 

team determined that both inspectors have relevant radiation protection experience and are 

qualified for the position. The inspectors have attended several NRC training courses and are 

familiar with NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2801, “Uranium Mill and 11e.(2) Byproduct 

Material Disposal Site and Facility Inspection Program.” 

Since the previous review, the Division developed and implemented 12 health physics 

inspection modules, which include the licensees’ ALARA (acronym for “as low as is reasonably 

achievable”) and Radiation Work Permit programs; posting, exit monitoring, and surveys; 

staffing and training; internal and external monitoring; effluent monitoring; and personal 

protective equipment and respirator issuance. The review team determined that all essential 

radiological health and safety aspects of a uranium recovery program are covered by the health 

physics inspection modules. 

The inspection modules are specific for each facility and address the relevant topics based on 

the licensee’s operational status. The program was designed so that the different modules 

would be covered over the course of a calendar year. Using this approach, the Division has 

developed an inspection program that is consistent with IMC 2801. 

From July 2007 through June 2008, the Division conducted a total of seven radiation safety 

inspections. The Division performed two radiation safety inspections of the Shootaring Canyon 

Mill, two radiation safety inspections for the Lisbon Valley Mill, and three radiation safety 
Utah Final Followup Report Page 5 

inspections for the White Mesa Mill. As the Shootaring Canyon Mill gets closer to operational 

status, the frequency of inspections at that site will increase. The review team determined that 

the radiation safety inspection frequency was consistent with the frequency prescribed by IMC 

2801. In addition to the radiation safety inspections, the Division conducted several site visits to 

observe and document activities at the White Mesa Mill associated with the construction of a 

new tailings impoundment, called Cell 4A. 

The review team evaluated the casework for 10 inspections/site visits. Appendix D lists the 

inspection files reviewed. The review team found that the inspection reports were generally 

thorough, complete, consistent, and of good quality, with sufficient documentation to ensure that 

the licensees’ performances with respect to health and safety were acceptable. The review 

team noted that the inspection reports were completed in a timely manner. 

The review team noted that, during the review period, the Division enhanced its uranium mill 

inspection program, creating a comprehensive and robust program that adequately assesses 

radiation safety at uranium mills. The Division developed and implemented health physics 

inspection modules that are comprehensive and include all aspects of the licensees’ radiation 

safety programs. This recommendation is closed. 

In addition to reviewing the Division’s response to the recommendation from the 2007 IMPEP 

report, the review team evaluated the following five subelements of the Uranium Recovery 

Program: (1) Technical Staffing and Training; (2) Status of the Uranium Recovery Program; 

(3) Technical Quality of Inspections; (4) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; and 

(5) Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities. 

3.1.1 Technical Staffing and Training

In reviewing this subelement, the review team evaluated the staffing level, the technical 

qualifications of the staff, staff training, and staff turnover. 

The Geotechnical Services Section and the Health Physics Support Section share responsibility 

for the administration of the Uranium Recovery Program. Various members of the Uranium 

Recovery Program staff participated in inspections and licensing activities at the three uranium 

mill facilities regulated by the Division. The amount of participation varied, depending on the 

individuals’ qualifications and workloads. The review team determined that the Division’s 

staffing level in the Uranium Recovery Program was adequate for the workload at the time of 

the review. The Division recognized that, with the renewed interest in uranium mining and 

exploration, it may need additional staff to handle a potential increase in workload. 

The review team conducted interviews and evaluated the inspectors’ qualifications. As 

discussed above, the inspectors are well qualified for the position, have attended NRC 

sponsored training classes, and are familiar with IMC 2801. The review team determined that 

the Division has an appropriate training and qualification program in place for its Uranium 

Recovery Program. The review team noted that the Division continues to have a very low 

turnover rate, with no staff leaving in the last year. 
Utah Final Followup Report Page 6 

The review team found that the Uranium Recovery Program staff has expertise in geology; 

hydrogeology; construction management; drainage and run-off systems; storm water and 

wastewater design, permitting, and compliance; health physics; and radiation control. For topics 

where in-house expertise was not available or when workloads did not permit timely reviews of 

submittals, the Division outsourced technical review work. The Division uses an environmental 

and engineering design firm to assist in major license amendment reviews. The review team 

verified that the State performs technical reviews of the firm’s products. The review team found 

the firm’s work to be of high quality. The review team found the Division’s continuing practice of 

outsourcing of technical reviews to be an effective tool in conducting sound technical 

evaluations while providing the licensees with timely responses to their submittals. This practice 

allows the Division staff to focus on compliance issues. 

3.1.2 Status of the Uranium Recovery Program

The review team focused on several factors in evaluating this subelement, including radiation 

safety inspection frequency and timely issuance of inspection reports and findings to licensees. 

The review team’s evaluation is based on an evaluation of the Division’s response to the 

questionnaire relative to this indicator, the uranium recovery inspection schedule, inspection 

casework files, and interviews with inspection staff and managers. 

As noted under the current status of Recommendation 2, the Division conducted seven radiation 

safety inspections during the review period. The review team determined that the radiation 

safety inspection frequency was consistent with IMC 2801 requirements. 

With respect to the communication of inspection findings to licensees, the review team found 

that inspection findings are communicated to the licensees via timely and well written inspection 

reports. 

3.1.3 Technical Quality of Inspections

In reviewing this subelement, the review team examined inspection modules, inspection files, 

inspection reports, and enforcement documentation. The review of records covered inspections 

conducted July 2007 through May 2008. 

The Division uses a site-specific, modular approach to their inspections of the mill sites. The 

review team found that the inspection modules are consistent with IMC 2801. The review team 

noted that not all of the inspection modules had been performed at the time of the followup 

review; however, they were planned for implementation during the next quarterly inspection 

cycle. 

The review team discussed with Division managers and staff the modular approach to 

conducting uranium recovery inspections. The Division managers committed to ensuring that, 

at a minimum, all elements of a uranium recovery facility are inspected and documented on an 

annual basis. The review team stressed that inspectors should not feel confined to the 

inspection modules if an issue covered under another is identified during an inspection. 
Utah Final Followup Report Page 7 

The review team found that the inspection reports and files provided an appropriate depth of 

coverage. Inspectors addressed compliance conditions for the licensees, and the inspection 

reports demonstrated that the inspectors pursued root causes where problems or violations 

were identified. The inspection files documented the current conditions and site features with 

photographs. The photographs were also used to document items of interest or concern. 

The Division’s records indicated that supervisor accompaniments of radiation safety and 

groundwater inspectors occurred during the review period. The accompaniment documentation 

contained sufficient evaluation of the inspectors. 

The review team noted that the Division maintains an adequate supply of portable instruments 

for routine confirmatory surveys and incident response. The instruments are calibrated 

annually, or as needed, by the Division using an in-house calibration source. 

On May 28 and 29, 2008, two members of the review team accompanied two of the Division’s 

uranium recovery radiation safety inspectors and their immediate supervisor during an 

inspection of the White Mesa Mill. The inspection covered two radiation protection modules 

designed for the facility. During the accompaniments, the inspectors demonstrated appropriate 

inspection techniques, knowledge of the regulations, and conducted performance-based 

inspections. The inspectors were well prepared for the inspection and thorough in their audit of 

the licensee’s radiation safety and environmental programs. The inspectors conducted 

interviews with appropriate licensee personnel, observed licensed operations, conducted 

confirmatory measurements, and utilized good health physics practices. The inspectors 

appropriately identified a safety concern. 

3.1.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The review team evaluated licensing actions related to the new tailings impoundment, Cell 4A, 

design and construction at the White Mesa Mill. During the review period, the Division 

completed a design certification and a groundwater quality discharge permit. The review team 

evaluated both of these actions. Appendix E lists the licensing files reviewed. These actions 

properly addressed health, safety, and environmental issues. The review team found the 

license thorough and the license conditions clear and well written. The review team concluded 

that these licensing actions were appropriate and that the Division’s evaluation was of adequate 

technical quality. 

At the time of the followup review, the Division has one pending license renewal for the White 

Mesa Mill. The Division had also received a design for another new tailings impoundment at the 

White Mesa Mill; review of this document was in the process of being initiated. One proposed 

license modification was pending for the Shootaring Canyon Mill. 

3.1.5 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities

During the review period, the Division did not receive reports of any incidents or allegations in 

regard to the Uranium Recovery Program. The review team examined the Division’s policies 

and procedures for responding to incidents and allegations, as described in Section 2.1. 
Utah Final Followup Report Page 8 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, 

that Utah’s performance with respect to the indicator, Uranium Recovery Program, was 

satisfactory. 

4.0 SUMMARY 

As noted in Sections 2.0 and 3.0, Utah’s performance was found satisfactory for the indicators, 

Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities and Uranium Recovery Program. The 

review team noted that State resolved the two open recommendations from the previous IMPEP 

review. Accordingly, the review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, that the Utah 

Agreement State Program was adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with 

NRC’s program. Based on the results of the review, the review team recommended, and the 

MRB agreed, that the next full IMPEP review take place in approximately 3 years. 
LIST OF APPENDIXES AND ATTACHMENT 

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members 

Appendix B Utah Organization Chart 

Appendix C Periodic Meeting Summary 

Appendix D Inspection Casework Reviews 

Appendix E License Casework Reviews 

Appendix F Incident Casework Reviews 

Attachment September 4, 2008, Letter from Dane Finerfrock 

 Utah’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report 
APPENDIX A 

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS 

Name Area of Responsibility

Aaron McCraw, FSME Team Leader 

Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation 

 Activities 

 Periodic Meeting 

Linda McLean, Region IV Uranium Recovery Program 

 Inspector Accompaniments 

 Periodic Meeting 

Doug Mandeville, FSME Uranium Recovery Program 

 Inspector Accompaniments 
APPENDIX B 

UTAH ORGANIZATION CHART 

ADAMS ACCESSION NO.: ML082120490 
APPENDIX C 

PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY 

A periodic meeting was held with the Division Director and Section Managers by Aaron 

McCraw, Team Leader, and Linda McLean, during the followup review pursuant to the Office of 

Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs (FSME) Procedure 

SA-116, “Periodic Meetings with Agreement States Between IMPEP Reviews.” Topics normally 

documented during periodic meetings that were reviewed and documented as part of the 

followup review will not be discussed in this Appendix. The following topics were discussed: 

1. Status of Recommendations from Previous IMPEP Reviews

See Sections 2.0 and 3.0 for details on the status of recommendations identified during 

previous IMPEP reviews. 

2. Strengths and/or weaknesses of the State program as identified by the State or NRC 

including identification of actions that could diminish weaknesses

A major strength of the program is the stability and experience of the health physics 

staff. The level of experience of health physics staff ranges from 1-20 years with the 

Division. Another strength is that the new uranium recovery radiation safety inspectors 

are very qualified and experienced. 

The Division identified the loss of their computer programmer as a weakness. The 

database is not complete, and with the loss of the programmer, the database will need 

additional time before it is fully operational. The Division also identified their staffing 

level as a potential weakness. Although the Division was fully staffed at the time of the 

followup review, the loss of one staff member could potentially cause the program to get 

behind in inspections or licensing actions. 

3. Feedback on NRC’s program, as identified by the State and including identification of 

any action that should be considered by NRC

The Division expressed appreciation for the NRC’s funding of Agreement State training 

again. The Division suggested that the NRC consider adding the 5-week Health Physics 

course to the list of funded courses. 

NRC staff and the Division managers discussed the NRC’s recent initiatives related to 

radioactive materials security. The Division recommended that the NRC use rulemaking 

in place of orders to impose additional security requirements. The Division also 

recommended that the NRC perform a full cost versus benefit comparison for future 

security initiatives. 

The Division suggested that NRC develop another security training course or revise the 

existing course to incorporate “lessons learned” from the first round of security 

inspections. 
Utah Final Followup Report Page C.2 

Periodic Meeting Summary 

4. Status of State Program

a. Staffing: 

At the time of the followup review, the Division was fully staffed. The Radioactive 

Materials Section has one manager and four technical staff. The Uranium 

Recovery and Low-Level Waste Section has one manager and five health 

physicists. In addition, the Division was fully staffed in the Geotechnical Services 

Section. NRC staff noted that the Division’s staffing level appeared sufficient for 

the Division’s current activities. Additional security initiatives may cause a need 

for the Division to re-evaluate its staffing level. 

b. Materials Inspection Program: 

The Division’s inspection priorities are generally the same as the NRC’s 

priorities. The Radioactive Materials Section tracks inspection activities in a 

computer database. Since the last review, some inspections have been 

completed overdue due to a change in the NRC’s inspection program. The NRC 

eliminated the practice of extending inspection frequencies for good 

performance; whereas, the Section continued the practice. Once identified and 

corrected in the database, some inspections were technically conducted 

overdue. Supervisory accompaniments are being conducted annually for all 

inspectors. 

c. Regulations and Legislative changes: 

At the time of the followup review, the Division was up to date on all regulations 

due for compatibility with the NRC. NRC staff and the Division discussed the five 

NRC amendments that will be due for Agreement State implementation. The 

Division has a plan in place to address them. No legislative changes affecting 

the Division are expected. 

d. Program reorganizations: 

There were no reorganizations during the review period, and no reorganizations 

are anticipated in the future. 

e. Changes in Program budget/funding: 

There were no changes in funding during the review period. No changes are 

anticipated in the future. 

f. Event Reporting, including follow-up and closure information in NMED: 

See Section 2.0 for details. 
Utah Final Followup Report Page C.3 

Periodic Meeting Summary 

g. Response to Incidents and Allegations: 

See Section 2.0 for details. 

5. Information exchange and discussion and NRC current initiatives

NRC staff and the Division discussed the uranium recovery renaissance. The Division 

recognized that they need to increase their staff size to handle the increased workload 

when new license applications are submitted. The NRC and the Division discussed the 

possibility of the NRC developing a uranium recovery workshop or training program. 

NRC staff agreed to explore this idea further, given the increased interest in uranium 

recovery. 

The Division mentioned that a company is conducting exploratory drilling close to the 

tailings impoundment of the Rio-Algom Lisbon Valley Site (Rio-Algom is 

decommissioning the site). The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) owns the 

deep mineral rights and apparently has given the company approval to drill. The 

Division was concerned that the drilling might allow the contamination plume to spread. 

The Division has been in close contact with BLM and another State agency to ensure 

that appropriate measures are taken to avoid creating a new pathway for the 

contamination plume. The Division communicated this information to the NRC for 

awareness and requested no specific action on the part of the NRC. 

Energy Solutions’ license renewal is under appeal by local activist groups. 

The Division expressed appreciation for the NRC keeping them involved in the 

discussions and activities regarding disposal of depleted uranium from the deconversion 

of uranium hexafluoride. 
APPENDIX D 

INSPECTION CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS 

ONLY. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Denison Mines – White Mesa License No.: UT1900479 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 5/28-29/07 Inspectors: KC, RJ, JH 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: Denison Mines – White Mesa License No.: UT1900479 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 10/16-17/07 Inspectors: KC, JH 

File No.: 3 

Licensee: Denison Mines – White Mesa License No.: UT1900479 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 3/26/08 Inspectors: KC, RJ 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: SXR Uranium One License No.: UT0900480 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 9/24-25/07 Inspector: KC 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: SXR Uranium One License No.: UT0900480 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 3/25/08 Inspectors: KC, RJ 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: SXR Uranium One License No.: UT0900480 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 6/16/08 Inspector: RJ 

File No.: 7 

Licensee: Rio Algom – Lisbon Valley License No.: UT1900481 

Inspection Type: Site Visit, Announced Priority: N/A 

Inspection Date: 3/27/08 Inspectors: RJ, KC 

File No.: 8 

Licensee: Denison Mines – White Mesa License No.: UT1900479 

Inspection Type: Site Visit, Announced Priority: N/A 

Inspection Date: 11/28/07 Inspector: DR 
Utah Final Followup Report Page D.2 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 9 

Licensee: Denison Mines – White Mesa License No.: UT1900479 

Inspection Type: Site Visit, Announced Priority: N/A 

Inspection Date: 10/11/07 Inspector: DR 

File No.: 10 

Licensee: Denison Mines – White Mesa License No.: UT1900479 

Inspection Type: Site Visit, Announced Priority: N/A 

Inspection Date: 8/11/07 Inspector: DR 

INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENT 

The following inspector accompaniment was performed prior to the on-site IMPEP review: 

Accompaniment No.: 1 

Licensee: Denison Mines – White Mesa License No.: UT1900479 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 5/28-29/08 Inspectors: KC, RJ, JH 
APPENDIX E 

LICENSING CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS 

ONLY. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Denison Mines – White Mesa License No.: UT1900479 

License Type: Amendment Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 3/14/08 Reviewers: LM, DR, contractor 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: Denison Mines – White Mesa License No.: UGW37004 

License Type: Amendment Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 3/14/08 Reviewers: LM, DR, contractor 
APPENDIX F 

INCIDENT CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS 

ONLY. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Brush Resources License No.: UT1400018 

Date of Incident: 7/6/07 Incident Log No.: UT-07-0007 

Investigation Date: 7/19/07 Type of Incident: Transportation 

 Type of Investigation: Site 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: Superior Well Services, Inc. License No.: UT2400489 

Date of Incident: 10/29/07 Incident Log No.: UT-07-0008 

Investigation Date: N/A Type of Incident: Recovered RAM 

 Type of Investigation: N/A 
ATTACHMENT 

September 4, 2008, Letter from Dane Finerfrock 

Utah’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report 

ADAMS Accession Number: ML082610633