October 26, 2011 

Ms. Amanda Smith, Executive Director 

Department of Environmental Quality 

168 North 1950 West 

P.O. Box 144850 

Salt Lake City, UT 84116 

Dear Ms. Smith: 

On October 4, 2011, 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 Agreement State Program adequate to protect public 

health and safety and compatible with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) 

program. 

Section 5.0, page 23, of the enclosed final report contains a summary of the IMPEP review 

team=s findings. We appreciate the positive actions that your staff have taken and are 

continuing to implement with regard to our recommendations. No written response to this letter 

is necessary. Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review of the Utah 

Agreement State Program will take place in approximately 4 years, with a periodic meeting in 18 

months. 

During the periodic meeting and at the next IMPEP review, NRC will evaluate the effectiveness 

of the Utah’s response to the review team’s recommendations, and the overall implementation 

of your Agreement State program. 

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

I also 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/ 

Michael F. Weber 

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, 

Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs 

Office of the Executive Director for Operations 

Enclosure: 

Draft Utah IMPEP Report 

cc w/encl: Rusty Lundberg, Director 

 Utah Division of Radiation Control
October 26, 2011 

Ms. Amanda Smith, Executive Director 

Department of Environmental Quality 

168 North 1950 West 

P.O. Box 144850 

Salt Lake City, UT 84116 

Dear Ms. Smith: 

On October 4, 2011, 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 Agreement State Program adequate to protect public 

health and safety and compatible with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) 

program. 

Section 5.0, page 23, of the enclosed final report contains a summary of the IMPEP review 

team=s findings. We appreciate the positive actions that your staff have taken and are 

continuing to implement with regard to our recommendations. No response to this letter is 

necessary. Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review of the Utah 

Agreement State Program will take place in approximately 4 years, with a periodic meeting in 18 

months. 

During the periodic meeting and at the next IMPEP review, NRC will evaluate the effectiveness 

of the Utah’s response to the review team’s recommendations, and the overall implementation 

of your Agreement State program. 

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

I also 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/ 

Michael F. Weber 

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, 

Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs 

Office of the Executive Director for Operations 

Enclosure: 

Draft Utah IMPEP Report 

cc w/encl: Rusty Lundberg, Director 

 Utah Division of Radiation Control 

DISTRIBUTION: EDATS: FSME-2011-0093 

See next page 

ADAMS Accession Number: ML112850129 

OFFICE FSME/MSSA FSME/MSSA FSME/MSSA FSME/MSSA 

NAME LDimmick DWhite JLuehman BMcDermott 

DATE 10/14/11 10/14/11 10/19/11 10/25/11 

OFFICE Tech Editor FSME DEDMRT 

NAME CPoland CCarpenter MWeber 

DATE 10/25/11 10/25/11 10/26/11 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 
Letter to Amanda Smith from Michael F. Weber dated: October 26, 2011 

SUBJECT: UTAH 2011 FINAL IMPEP REPORT 

DISTRIBUTION: EDATS: FSME-2011-0093 

MSSA_Technical_Asst_Resource DCD (SP01) 

RidsEdoMailCenter 

RidsFsmeOd 

RidsOgcMailCenter 

RidsSecyCorrespondenceMailCenter Chairman Jaczko 

KSchneider, FSME Commissioner Svinicki 

RBrowder, RIV/RSAO Commissioner Apostolakis 

LCuadrado, FSME Commissioner Magwood 

BParker, RI Commissioner Ostendorff 

RGattone, RIII SECY 

CGrossman, FSME 

KSchwab, WA 

MAbbaszadeh, TX 

JOpila, CO 

TMcGinty, RI 

RLorson, RI 

MBeardsley, FSME 

RErickson, RIV 

JKatanic, FSME 

SPoy, FSME 

DMerzke, OEDO 

BJones 

TRothschild, OGC 

JBiggins, OGC 

JWeil, OCA (2 copies) 
Enclosure 

INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM 

REVIEW OF THE UTAH AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM 

JULY 11-14, 2011 

Final Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report presents the results of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program 

(IMPEP) review of the Utah Agreement State Program. The review was conducted during the 

period of July 11-14, 2011, by a review team composed of technical staff members from the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the States of Texas and Washington.

Based on the results of this review, the review team recommended, and the Management 

Review Board (MRB) agreed, that Utah’s performance be found satisfactory, but needs 

improvement in two non-common performance indicators reviewed and satisfactory for the 

remaining six performance indicators reviewed. Overall, the review team recommended, and 

the MRB agreed, that the Utah Agreement State Program be found adequate to protect public 

health and safety and compatible with NRC's program. 

 

The review team made three recommendations regarding the performance of the Utah 

Agreement State Program. These recommendations, which are briefly described below, include 

areas for improvement to correct identified performance deficiencies in the Utah Agreement 

State Program. The review team recommended that (1) the Division institute appropriate 

training in all aspects of the allegation response program to ensure that Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste (LLRW) and the Uranium Mills program staff have the same competency and 

consistency in handling allegations as demonstrated by the radioactive materials program staff, 

(2) that independent and confirmatory radiation measurements are performed with the 

appropriate calibrated instruments for inspections conducted by the LLRW and the Uranium 

Mills program staff, and (3) the Division ensures that sufficient numbers and types of calibrated 

instruments, appropriate to the activities conducted by the licensee, are available to the LLRW 

and the Uranium Mills program staff and that the staff is trained in the proper use of the 

instrumentation. 

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, and in accordance with the criteria in NRC 

Management Directive 5.6, the review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, that the next 

Periodic Meeting be held in approximately 18 months, to assess the State’s progress in 

addressing the open recommendations. The MRB determined the next IMPEP review should 

be performed in four years. 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This report presents the results of the review of the Utah Agreement State Program. The review 

was conducted during the period of July 11-14, 2011, by a review team composed of technical 

staff members from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the States of Texas 

and Washington. 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 Final General Statement of Policy,” published in the Federal 

Register on October 16, 1997, and NRC Management Directive 5.6, “Integrated Materials 

Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP),” dated February 26, 2004. Preliminary results of the 

review, which covered the period of June 16, 2007, to July 14, 2011, 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 10, 2011. The State 

responded by letter dated September 12, 2011, from Rusty Lundberg, Director, Division of 

Radiation Control, Utah Department of Environmental Quality. A Copy of the State’s response 

included as an Attachment to this report. The Management Review Board (MRB) met on 

October 4, 2011, to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the Utah Agreement 

State Program adequate to protect public health and safety, and compatible with NRC’s 

program. 

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

Division). The Division is located within the Department of Environmental Quality (the 

Department). Organization charts for the Department and the Division, including the previous 

Division organization and the new organization, are included as Appendix B. The Utah 

Radiation Control Board (Board) is appointed by the Utah Governor with the consent of the Utah 

Senate under the Utah statute (Utah Code Annotated §19-3-103). Under Utah law, the Board 

has the authority to establish rules and policies in order for the Division to implement the 

radiation control program in the state. 

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

200 specific licenses authorizing possession and use of radioactive materials. 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 commercial 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 amended again in 2004 to include the Uranium 

Recovery program. 

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

performance indicators was sent to the Division on February 8, 2011. The Division provided its 

response to the questionnaire on June 30, 2011. A copy of the questionnaire response may be 

found in the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) using 

Accession Number ML111810880. An update to the questionnaire response from Utah was 

also used during the onsite review. The update to the questionnaire was received by email on 

September 19, 2011 and can be found under (ML112630038). 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 2 

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

the Division’s response to the questionnaire; (2) review of applicable Utah statutes and 

regulations; (3) analysis of quantitative information from the Division’s licensing and inspection 

database; (4) technical evaluation of selected regulatory actions; (5) field accompaniments of 

six of the Division’s inspectors; and (6) interviews with staff and management to answer 

questions or clarify issues. The review team evaluated the information gathered against the 

established criteria for each common and applicable non-common performance indicators and 

made a preliminary assessment of the Agreement State program’s performance. 

Section 2.0 of this report covers the State’s actions in response to recommendations made 

following the previous 2007 IMPEP and 2008 Follow-up IMPEP reviews. Results of the current 

review of the common performance indicators are presented in Section 3.0. Section 4.0 details 

results of the review of the applicable non-common performance indicators, and Section 5.0 

summarizes the review team's findings and recommendations. The recommendations made by 

the review team are comments that relate directly to program performance by the State. 

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS 

During the 2008 Follow-up IMPEP review, which concluded on July 18, 2008, the review team 

closed the two recommendations from the 2007 IMPEP and made no additional 

recommendations regarding the Utah Agreement State Program’s performance. 

3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 

Five common performance indicators are used to review NRC Regional and Agreement State 

radioactive materials programs. These indicators are: (1) Technical Staffing and Training, 

(2) Status of Materials Inspection Program, (3) Technical Quality of Inspections, (4) Technical 

Quality of Licensing Actions, and (5) Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities. 

3.1 Technical Staffing and Training

Issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the Division’s 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 Division’s questionnaire response relative to this 

indicator, interviewed managers and staff, reviewed job descriptions and training records, and 

considered workload backlogs. 

The Division consists of the Division Director and three technical Sections, which includes the 

Radioactive Materials & X-Ray Section, the Low Level Waste/Uranium Mills and Radon Section, 

and the Geotechnical Services Section. The Radioactive Materials & X-Ray Section includes a 

Section Manager and eight full-time Health Physicist positions, four in the Radioactive Materials 

Program and four in the X-Ray Program. The Radioactive Materials & X-Ray Section also 

includes the Support Services Program, which has five staff members. Details of technical 

staffing and training for the Low Level Waste/Uranium Mills and Radon Section and the 

Geotechnical Services Section are discussed in Sections 4.3.1 and 4.4.1, respectively. 

During this IMPEP review period, the Division utilized Lean Six Sigma to analyze and evaluate 

opportunities for business process improvement. The initial activity performed by the Division 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 3 

identified key fundamentals necessary for the Engineering Discipline, Geosciences Discipline, 

and the Health Physics Discipline. Subsequently, each staff member ranked themselves 

against each of the identified key fundamentals for their respective discipline, with supervisory 

input and oversight. The Division indicated that the results provided a tool to identify areas of 

training and development of employees, apply knowledge transfer management, and promote 

efficiency in the respective Sections. Second, the Division re-evaluated the essential 

requirements and responsibilities of each Section, utilizing the Lean Six Sigma process 

improvement plan. As a result, the Division reorganized the Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

(LLRW) and Uranium Mill responsibilities. Under the reorganization, the Division split the 

licensing and compliance sections into two separate sections. As a result, a new Compliance 

Section Manager was named. The current Low Level Waste/Uranium Mills and Radon Section 

Manager will manage the new licensing section. 

The Division Director indicated that the reorganization was intended to enhance the efficiency of 

the Division by allowing each Section to focus on its primary requirements, as well as improve 

planning and response to emergent issues. In addition, the reorganization should provide 

opportunities for staff members to obtain training and development in new areas as a means of 

knowledge transfer management. The new organization chart should be effective September 

2011 and is provided in Appendix B, along with the existing organization chart. 

During this review period, the Radioactive Materials Section experienced two vacancies as a 

result of one resignation and one reduction in force. The reduction in force brought the total 

number of positions in the Section to three. During most of the review period, there were three 

Health Physicists in the Section. Based on the work load, interviews with management and 

staff, the review team acknowledged that three positions appeared to be acceptable for the 

activities supported by the Section. The review team recognized management support in 

responding to and filling the vacancies as necessary. The pending reorganization will move one 

Health Physicist position to LLW/Uranium Mills Licensing; however, the individual will continue 

to support the Radioactive Materials Section during the transition period. In addition, 

management has hired one new Health Physicist. Therefore, there are currently two positions 

filled and one vacancy, which management indicated should be filled in the near future. 

The Division has a comprehensive and effective training plan for staff and new employees. The 

Division updated its “Training Policy Statement” on July 5, 2011. The Policy described the 

expectations for training and competency and provided the basic, specialized and advanced 

training courses for the Section. The policy statement and training plan was comparable to the 

NRC/OAS Training Working Group recommendations for Agreement State Training Programs, 

dated October 1997. Proficiency of new staff members was documented by formal 

correspondence based on the candidate successfully completing formal training courses and 

demonstrating an appropriate level of expertise by program area, such as portable gauge, 

medical, broad scope, or radiography. The documented training records demonstrated that 

Division management was committed to providing applicable training for the staff. The review 

team concluded that the Division had a well-balanced staff and a sufficient number of trained 

personnel to carry out its regulatory duties. 

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

that Utah’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found 

satisfactory. 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 4 

3.2 Status of Materials Inspection Program

The review team focused on five factors while reviewing this indicator. These include inspection 

frequency, overdue inspections, initial inspections of new licenses, timely dispatch of inspection 

findings to licensees, and performance of reciprocity inspections. The review team’s evaluation 

was based on the Division’s questionnaire response relative to this indicator, data gathered from 

the Division’s database, examination of completed inspection casework, and interviews with 

management and staff. 

The Division tracks all inspection activities in a computer database. The review team observed 

that the database could easily be queried by managers and staff to determine the inspection 

status for any licensed facility. In addition, the notification of licensees working under reciprocity 

in the State was also easily accessible from the database. 

The review team concluded that the Division’s inspection priorities for most types of licenses 

were more frequent than the priorities prescribed in IMC 2800, “Materials Inspection Program.” 

The Division may inspect a licensee more frequently than its prescribed priority based on 

previous performance. However, the Division does not extend the inspection frequency based 

on good performance beyond the priorities prescribed in IMC 2800. The review team confirmed 

the Division is conducting Increased Controls inspections in conjunction with the routine health 

and safety inspections. 

The Division completed 125 routine Priority 1, 2, and 3 inspections during the review period. 

The review team determined that six of those inspections were conducted overdue by more 

than 25 percent of the inspection frequency listed in IMC 2800. The review team noted that no 

routine Priority 1, 2, and 3 inspections were overdue at the time of the review. 

The Division conducted 31 initial inspections during the review period. The review team 

confirmed that none of those inspections were conducted overdue by IMC 2800 standards. 

IMC 2800 prescribes initial inspections to be completed within 12 months of license issuance. 

The Division’s procedure prescribes that initial inspections must be conducted within six months 

of license issuance. 

Overall, the review team calculated that four percent of the Priority 1, 2, and 3 and initial 

inspections conducted by the Division during the review period were conducted overdue. The 

review team noted that for those instances where a license was inspected late, documentation 

indicated that inspections had been attempted or other explanatory circumstances prevented a 

timely inspection. 

The timeliness of the issuance of inspection findings was determined by the review team’s 

evaluation of inspection casework. The Division’s policy is to issue inspection findings to 

licensees within 30 days from the date of the inspection. Based on an evaluation of 

42 inspection cases, the review team identified 13 inspection reports issued after 30 days from 

the date of the inspection. The amount of days overdue for these reports ranged from 5 to 

99 days. Based on interviews with the Section Managers and staff, the review team became 

aware that some of the underlying causes for the late issuance of the inspection reports 

included a reduction in staff due to temporary medical leave for one staff member and 

prioritization of work activities as a result of investigating incidents and events by other staff 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 5 

members. More recent performance demonstrated improvement. In addition, the Section 

Manager identified a performance issue, which had since been addressed. The review team 

examined 25 inspection files, which represented licensees that were found to be in noncompliance with the regulations. The review found that four of the 25 notice of violations were 

issued over 30 days from the date of the inspection. 

The Division’s reciprocity inspection goals are equivalent to the requirements in IMC 1220, 

“Processing of NRC Form 241 and Inspection of Agreement State Licensees Operating under 

10CFR150.20,” which is 20 percent of candidate licensees. Reciprocity was granted to 

approximately 16 to 20 licensees each year and the Division met or exceeded the 20 percent 

inspection requirement for those licensees. 

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

that Utah’s performance with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program, 

be found satisfactory. 

3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections

The review team evaluated the inspection reports, enforcement documentation, inspection field 

notes, and interviewed inspectors for 21 radioactive materials inspections conducted during the 

review period. The casework reviewed included inspections conducted by four Division 

inspectors and covered inspections of various license types, including: academic and medical 

broad scope, medical institutions, medical private practice, portable gauges, industrial 

radiography, panoramic and self-shielded irradiators, gamma knife, nuclear pharmacy, waste 

processing, decommissioning and Increased Controls. Appendix C lists the inspection 

casework files reviewed, with case-specific comments, as well as the results of the inspector 

accompaniments. 

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

aspects of licensed radiation programs. The review team found that inspection reports were 

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

a licensee’s performance with respect to health and safety was acceptable. The documentation 

adequately supported violations when applicable, included recommendations made to 

licensees, appropriately addressed health and safety issues, described performance-based 

observations and activities, and noted discussions held with licensees during interviews and exit 

meetings. 

The inspection procedures utilized by the Division are captured in the Administrative Policy 

Document, “Inspection, Investigation, and Allegation Guidance” and are generally consistent 

with the inspection guidance outlined in IMC 2800. All completed inspection reports were 

reviewed by a peer and signed by the Radioactive Materials & X-Ray Section Manager. Letters 

transmitting the inspection results were signed by the Executive Secretary of the Board. 

Supervisory accompaniments were being conducted annually for all Radioactive Materials 

Program inspectors. 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 6 

The review team determined that the inspection findings were appropriate and that prompt 

regulatory actions were taken, as necessary. All inspection findings were clearly stated and 

documented in the report. The Division used formal correspondence to notify licensees of 

inspection result details. If violations were identified, then the Division also issued a Notice of 

Violation (NOV) to the licensee. When the Division issued an NOV, the licensee was required 

to provide a written plan of correction for the violations within 30 days. Inspection closure letters 

were normally signed by the Executive Secretary of the Board. 

The review team noted that sensitive, unclassified, non-safeguards information (SUNSI) related 

to security and Increased Controls, was properly controlled and protected to prevent 

unauthorized access. In addition to the controls being implemented, the Division is developing 

a procedure based on NRC guidance regarding SUNSI to further enhance and provide a 

consistent methodology for marking, handling and protecting SUNSI material. The review team 

discussed with the Section Manager the benefit of reviewing the historical records to ensure the 

historical documents also meet the new guidance. 

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

for routine confirmatory surveys and incident/emergency response for the materials program. 

The instruments are calibrated annually, or as needed, by the Division using an in-house 

calibration source. An electronic pulser is used to check electronic counting circuits. 

Instruments used for contamination surveys are calibrated with a variety of alpha- and betaparticle calibration sources. 

The materials inspectors used instrumentation which was assigned to each of them. As part of 

the inspection process, the inspectors performed independent measurements, as appropriate, 

and documented the results to support inspection findings as required by the Division’s 

inspection procedures. The inspectors’ instruments were found to be in current calibration. 

Through discussions with the materials staff, the review team determined that the instruments 

were source checked prior to use. Some of the materials inspectors recorded the model 

number and serial number of the instrument in the inspection record. The review team 

discussed with the staff the importance of recording the instrument information (e.g., instrument 

model number, serial number, and calibration date) in the inspection record for availability and 

future reference. Materials inspectors had assigned instrumentation which allowed instruments 

to be easily cross-referenced to the inspection activity. 

Accompaniments of two Radioactive Materials Program inspectors were conducted by a review 

team member during the week of April 19, 2011. The accompaniments included a health and 

safety inspection and a security inspection of an industrial radiography licensee and a health 

and safety inspection of a panoramic irradiator. The accompaniments are identified in Appendix 

C. During the accompaniments, the inspectors demonstrated appropriate inspection 

techniques, knowledge of the regulations, and conducted performance-based inspections. The 

inspectors were trained, well-prepared for the inspection, and thorough in the audits of the 

licensee’s radiation safety and Increased Controls programs. The inspectors conducted 

interviews with appropriate licensee personnel, observed licensed operations, performed 

confirmatory measurements, and utilized good health physics practices. The inspections were 

adequate to assess radiological health and safety and Increased Controls at the licensed 

facilities. 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 7 

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 Inspections, be found 

satisfactory. 

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The review team examined completed licensing casework and interviewed license reviewers for 

17 specific licensing actions. Licensing actions were reviewed for completeness, consistency, 

proper radioisotopes and quantities, qualifications of authorized users, adequacy of facilities and 

equipment, adherence to good health physics practices, operating and emergency procedures, 

appropriateness of license conditions, and overall technical quality. The casework was also 

reviewed for timeliness, use of appropriate deficiency letters and cover letters, supporting 

documentation, consideration of enforcement history, pre-licensing visits, peer/supervisory 

review, and proper signatures. 

The licensing casework was selected to provide a representative sample of licensing actions 

completed during the review period. Licensing actions selected for evaluation included two new 

licenses, four renewals, one termination, one denial, and nine amendments. Files reviewed 

included a cross-section of license types, including: well logging, medical diagnostic and 

therapy (including high dose rate remote afterloader), broad scope, gauges, industrial 

radiography, research and development, radiopharmacy, and manufacturer/distributor. The 

casework sample represented work from five license reviewers. A listing of the licensing 

casework evaluated is provided in Appendix D. 

The review team found that licensing action requests are opened by the Administrative 

Secretary and logged into a computerized tracking system. The database assigns the license 

actions to the reviewers who are qualified to review them. 

The review team noted that licensing actions are reviewed using either a two-phase or threephase process. Most licensing actions were reviewed using a two-phase process involving the 

Phase 1 reviewer who completed the major technical review, followed by the Phase 2 reviewer 

who performed a peer review for quality assurance. Approximately every tenth licensing action 

was sent to the Section Manager after the Phase 2 review, in order to conduct a Phase 3 quality 

assurance review. The license reviewers used checklists to assist in the reviews. The 

checklists generally followed the NUREG-1556, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials 

Licenses,” series. All licensing actions were sent to the Executive Secretary of the Board for 

signature. 

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

of high quality, with health, safety, and security issues properly addressed. License tie-down 

conditions were stated clearly and were supported by information contained in the file. 

Deficiency letters clearly stated regulatory positions, were used at the appropriate time, and 

identified substantive deficiencies in the licensees’ documents. The Section Manager 

completed the technical review of all licensing termination requests during the review period. 

Terminated licensing actions were well-documented and supported by appropriate transfer and 

survey records. 

 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 8 

The Division’s Administrative Policy Document, “Inspection, Investigation, and Allegation 

Guidance,” Section 16.05, states in part, that prior to renewing a license in categories I, II, or III, 

the compliance inspection history should be reviewed, with reference to onsite inspections. The 

review team identified three renewal files which met these categories; however, the 

documentation did not contain a review of the licensee’s enforcement history. The review team 

determined that the implementation was different between license reviewers. Some reviewers 

performed the assessment during the renewal process and some reviewed the compliance 

history during the inspection process. The Section Manager indicated that he would revise the 

guidance document to clarify that information obtained from a review of a licensee’s compliance 

history must be considered during the license renewal process. In addition, the Section 

Manager indicated that the staff would be trained on the revised guidance. 

For medical licensees, the review team noted that the Division maintained information in a file 

regarding each authorized user’s, (AU), authorized medical physicist’s (AMP), and authorized 

nuclear pharmacist’s (ANP) qualifications. The qualification files were updated as licensing 

actions were processed for the respective AU, AMP, or ANP. 

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 Licensing Actions, be 

found satisfactory. 

3.5 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities

In evaluating the effectiveness of the Division’s actions in responding to radioactive material 

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

indicator, evaluated selected incidents reported for Utah in the Nuclear Material Events 

Database (NMED) against those contained in the State’s database and files, and evaluated the 

casework and supporting documentation for selected incidents. The Division’s incident and 

allegation policies, NMED, and notification of incidents to the NRC Headquarters Operations 

Center were discussed with Division managers and staff. During the review period, the 

Radioactive Materials & X-Ray Section received reports of 18 radioactive material incidents. 

The review team evaluated 13 of the incidents that required reporting to the NRC Headquarters 

Operations Center under NRC reporting criteria. The incidents selected for review included the 

following categories: equipment failure, lost/stolen radioactive material, radiography, and well 

logging source abandonment. A list of the incident casework examined, with case-specific 

comments, can be found in Appendix E. 

Written procedures exist for handling radioactive materials incidents and allegations in the 

Division’s Administrative Policy Document, “Inspection, Investigation, and Allegation Guidance.” 

The procedure states in part that when an incident or event occurs, the appropriate Section 

Manager will determine if the incident warrants an onsite physical inspection/investigation. The 

manager’s review of the response decision is subsequently captured on the “Management 

Review Form for Incidents/Investigations.” The section of the procedure was strengthened after 

the 2007 IMPEP review. The 2008 follow-up IMPEP review recognized that the Section had 

begun implementation of the enhanced program. 

The review team confirmed that the Section Manager and staff were evaluating each incident 

and documenting the decision process as required by procedure. The review team determined 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 9 

that the basis for performing an onsite inspection/investigation was commensurate with potential 

health and safety impacts of the incident. The staff was knowledgeable of the procedure and 

recognized when an incident may potentially involve a safety or security issue and responded 

appropriately, which was demonstrated during the review period. When no immediate threat to 

public health and safety or the environment was present, the Division first determined that the 

licensee had qualified, competent individuals investigating the incident. The Division then 

generally responded telephonically with a subsequent review of the licensee’s written report or 

an on-site follow-up at a later date. 

The review team determined that the Division’s responses to incidents were thorough, 

complete, and comprehensive. Due to the significance of some of the events during the review 

period, the Division had placed a considerable amount of resources into the investigations. The 

review team noted that at the conclusion of investigations, inspectors generated narrative 

reports, which thoroughly documented the investigations and the enforcement actions, as 

applicable. The review team determined that the Division had implemented effective changes to 

the program since the 2007 and 2008 IMPEP reviews. The changes involved appropriate 

decision making and response to incidents that were formally documented. The Materials 

Section had demonstrated sustained performance throughout this review period. 

The Administrative Policy document also addressed allegations and provided guidance 

regarding initial information from the alleger, responding to allegations, and maintaining 

confidentiality unless under certain circumstances as described in the procedure. The 

procedure also stated in part, that the alleger must make a submission of the concern in writing. 

The Division accepted various methods for the concerned individual to submit an allegation, 

including anonymously. The review team further discussed the written allegation policy with 

management and staff, because the utmost concern was responding to, and investigating any 

potential health and safety or security issue. The review team understood that while the policy 

stated that only written allegations were acceptable, the Radioactive Materials Section indicated 

that they would respond to any potential health and safety or security concern involving 

radioactive materials. During this review period, the review team confirmed that the staff 

responded to allegations which were not initially submitted in writing. 

In evaluating the effectiveness of the Radioactive Materials Section’s response to allegations, 

the review team evaluated the completed casework for nine allegations. The review team 

concluded that the Section consistently took prompt and appropriate action in response to 

concerns raised. The review team noted that the Division thoroughly documented the 

investigations and retained all necessary documentation to appropriately close the allegations. 

The Division notified the allegers of the conclusion of the investigation by either formal 

correspondence or telephonically. The review team recognized that the experience of the staff 

and management provided a level of discernment to the allegation program, such that the staff 

recognized when an unwritten concern should be addressed. The review team found that there 

was an inconsistency in the overall implementation of the allegation program within the Division, 

as further discussed in Section 4.3 and 4.4. The review team determined that the Division 

adequately protected the identity of allegers. 

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, be found satisfactory. 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 10 

4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 

Four non-common performance indicators are used to review Agreement State programs: 

(1) Compatibility Requirements, (2) Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program, (3) LowLevel Radioactive Waste Disposal Program, and (4) Uranium Recovery Program. Utah’s 

Agreement does not include a sealed source and device evaluation program, so only the other 

three non-common performance indicators were applicable to this review. 

4.1 Compatibility Requirements

4.1.1 Legislation

Utah became an Agreement State on April 1, 1984. In addition to their response to the 

questionnaire, the Division provided the review team with the opportunity to review copies of 

legislation that affects the Radiation Control Program. The current effective statutory authority 

is contained in the Utah Code Annotated, Title 19, Chapter 3, Radiation Control Act. The 

Division implements the Radiation Control Program. 

The review team noted that none of the legislations amended during the review period affected 

the Radiation Control Program. However, the State informed the review team that under the 

provisions of the Utah Legislative Oversight and Sunset Act, Utah Code Annotated (UCA) 

Chapter 63I-1, various state statutes are repealed unless the Legislature acts to reauthorize 

them by changing the respective repeal dates. The Radiation Control Act (UCA 19-3) sunsets 

on July 1, 2012, unless the Legislature acts to reauthorize it for a determined period of no more 

than 10 years. The Division management is scheduled to meet in September 2011, with the 

Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Interim Committee of the Utah State 

Legislature to present evidence on why the Radiation Control Act should be reauthorized, and to 

request that it be reauthorized for a period of ten years. The Committee then determines if they 

are going to provide a favorable authorization, and if so, they will recommend a repeal date for 

this statute. Reauthorization of the Radiation Control Act will then be considered by the 

Legislature during the General Session that starts in January 2012. The Legislature will 

determine whether the Radiation Control Act will be reauthorized and subsequently assign a 

repeal date for this statute. 

4.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility 

The State’s regulations for control of radiation are located in Title R313 of the Utah 

Administrative Code and apply to all ionizing radiation, whether emitted from a radionuclide or 

machine. Utah requires a license for possession and use of all radioactive materials, including 

naturally occurring materials, such as radium and accelerator-produced radionuclides. 

The review team examined the State’s administrative rulemaking process. When NRC amends 

its regulations and establishes a due date for State adoption, the appropriate Section Manager 

reviews the Review Summary Sheet for Regulation Amendments and depending on its content 

assigns it to the appropriate staff in the Division. The State is required to adopt federal rules by 

reference whenever possible. The Division staff prepares a draft rule package that is reviewed 

by managers and other staff. After this review, the Division presents the draft rule package in 

front of the Board to seek authorization to file the package for public comment. After Board 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 11 

authorization, the Division files the draft rule package with the Division of Administrative Rules 

(DAR), who publishes the draft rule in the State Bulletin for public comment. The public 

comment period usually lasts 30 days once the public comment period ends, the Division 

addresses comments and presents the final rule package to the Board for final approval. Upon 

Board approval, the Division submits the final rule package to DAR, which publishes a notice of 

effective date of the final rule in the State Bulletin. 

The review team found that the state’s rulemaking process allows for a period of 120 days from 

filing a draft administrative rule with DAR to codifying a final rule. The State has the authority to 

issue legally binding requirements (e.g., license conditions) in lieu of regulations until compatible 

regulations become effective. Many of Utah’s compatibility-required regulations are 

incorporated by reference to NRC regulations. 

The review team evaluated the Division’s response to the questionnaire relative to this indicator, 

reviewed the status of regulations required to be adopted by the State under the Commission’s 

adequacy and compatibility policy, and verified the adoption of regulations with data obtained 

from the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs 

(FSME) State Regulation Status Sheet. 

Current NRC policy requires that Agreement States adopt certain equivalent regulations or 

legally binding requirements no later than three years after they become effective. There were 

no amendments overdue at the time of the review. 

The State will need to address the following amendment in upcoming rulemakings or by 

adopting alternate legally binding requirements: 

• “Decommissioning Planning,” Parts 20, 30, 40, and 70 (76 FR 35512) that became 

effective on December 17, 2011, and is due for Agreement State adoption by December 

17, 2015. 

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

that Utah’s performance with respect to the indicator, Compatibility Requirements, 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. 

Accordingly, the review team did not evaluate this indicator. 

4.3 Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program 

 

Authority to regulate LLRW disposal facilities was added to Utah’s NRC Agreement State 

Program in May 1990. The State of Utah’s LLRW Disposal Program is administered by the 

Division. Regulatory authority is derived from the Radiation Control Act of Utah Code Title 19, 

Chapter 3, and the Radiation Control Rules promulgated in Utah Administrative Code, R313. 

At the time of the review, the Division regulated one LLRW disposal facility, EnergySolutions 

(formerly Envirocare), and had received a siting application for a second LLRW disposal facility, 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 12 

Cedar Mountain Environmental. EnergySolutions is a commercial LLRW disposal facility 

located 80 miles west of Salt Lake City in Tooele County. Cedar Mountain Environmental is 

proposing a LLRW disposal facility to be located west of Salt Lake City in Tooele County and 

north of the EnergySolutions disposal facility. 

 

EnergySolutions is licensed by the Division under a license which was renewed on 

January 25, 2008. The license authorizes EnergySolutions to receive, store, possess, and 

dispose of naturally occurring radioactive materials and Class A LLRW. In accordance with 

Utah statutes, EnergySolutions may not receive Class B or Class C waste without first receiving 

approval from the Executive Secretary of the Board, the Governor, and the Legislature. Utah 

assumed regulatory authority for uranium recovery activities in 2004. As a result, an additional 

license was issued to EnergySolutions in 2004 for the handling of 11e.(2) materials at the 

facility. Since the licenses are co-located, the licensing and inspection of 11e.(2) materials is 

performed as part of the LLRW facility review. Additionally, EnergySolutions is required to 

maintain compliance with all conditions and schedules stipulated in their Utah Groundwater 

Discharge Permit, issued by the Utah Water Quality Board. 

 

The review team used five sub-elements to evaluate the performance of the LLRW Disposal 

Program. The sub-elements are as follows: (1) Technical Staffing and Training; (2) Status of 

LLRW Disposal Inspection Program; (3) Technical Quality of Inspections; (4) Technical Quality 

of Licensing Actions; and (5) Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities. To evaluate 

the above sub-elements, the team reviewed background materials on the site, performed 

inspector accompaniments, reviewed the Utah response to the questionnaire, interviewed 

managers and staff, and examined records, as appropriate. 

4.3.1 Technical Staffing and Training 

The evaluation of this sub-element focused on the qualifications of the technical staff and the 

expertise necessary to regulate a LLRW disposal facility, the development and implementation 

of a training program for the staff; and any staffing trends that could have an adverse impact on 

performance. 

At the time of the review, the Division split its LLRW Disposal Program responsibilities between 

the Geotechnical Services Section and the Low Level Waste/Uranium Mills Section. The 

Geotechnical Services Section provided the technical, engineering oversight, including 

groundwater monitoring; while the Low Level Waste/Uranium Mills Section provided the health 

physics, transportation, and radiation protection oversight. The Geotechnical Services Section 

consists of a Section Manager and six full-time positions. The six staff members include two 

Environmental Engineers and four Environmental Scientists. The Low Level Waste/Uranium 

Mills Section consists of a Section Manager, an Environmental Program Coordinator, and five 

full-time Environmental Scientist positions dedicated to LLRW and Uranium Mills program 

areas, in which three were designated as radiation safety inspectors. The Low Level 

Waste/Uranium Mills Section performed both the inspection and licensing activities, while the 

Geotechnical Services Section performed the engineering calculations and evaluation 

assessments. As mentioned earlier, the Division indicated that a reorganization affecting the 

LLRW disposal program and Uranium Mills program would occur following the on-site IMPEP 

review (See Section 3.1). Under the reorganization, there will be separate licensing and 

compliance sections. Based on the review, the IMPEP team agrees that the proposed 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 13 

reorganization should address efficiencies within the Division by allowing the licensing staff to 

focus primarily on the LLRW facility and Uranium Mill licensing actions and the compliance staff 

to focus primarily on the inspection/enforcement component of the LLRW and Uranium Mill 

facilities. 

The LLRW program is currently fully staffed. Interviews with Division staff indicated that the loss 

of two positions during the review period had contributed, in part, to some delays in licensing 

work. As part of the reorganization, the Division has added three new positions in the Low 

Level Waste/Uranium Mills Section, which includes two engineers and one groundwater 

geologist. The review team determined that there was a good balance of technical expertise in 

the program, and that staff turnover had no significant adverse impact on the program, though 

maintaining full staffing could enhance timeliness in the LLRW program. 

The review team examined staff training documentation and conducted interviews with selected 

staff to assess qualification and training needs. The Division updated their “Training Policy 

Statement” on July 5, 2011. The Training Policy provided the generic training plan that 

specified the required and recommended training for each technical position. In addition, the 

engineering positions are required to hold a professional engineer license certification issued by 

the State. The Division generated individual training qualification forms for each individual; 

however, the system for tracking and documenting the qualifications was not consistently 

maintained across the various Sections. Based on interviews with the technical staff and 

management, and review of staff qualifications, duties, and functions, the review team 

concluded that the Division was staffed with qualified individuals to carry out their regulatory 

duty. 

The Division’s policy, as noted in Section 3.5, is to document and follow up on allegations which 

are submitted in writing to the Division. As discussed in the previous periodic meeting, the 

Division stated in part, that this policy was developed as a result of receiving numerous 

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

in writing to the Division. However, as noted in Section 3.5, both management and staff 

responded to oral allegations when it appeared there may be a health or safety concern related 

to a telephonic allegation. Based on interviews with Division staff and management, reviews of 

Division administrative policy and training plans, the review team found that the handling of 

allegations was not treated consistently across the Division. Specific information is provided in 

Sections 4.3.5 and 4.4.5. The inconsistency was more apparent in the LLRW and the Uranium 

Mills programs, where there was not a determination to respond to oral allegations that may 

have a health or safety concern, or raise the potential concern to management, as was 

recognized in the Radioactive Materials Section. The review team discussed the need to 

reexamine the Division’s policy to accept only written concerns, since an inconsistency between 

the sections was identified in handling oral allegations. The review team recommends that the 

Division institute appropriate training in all aspects of the allegation response program to ensure 

that LLRW and the Uranium Mills program staff have the same competency and consistency in 

handling allegations as demonstrated by the Radioactive Materials program staff. 

4.3.2 Status of LLRW Disposal Inspection Program

The review team focused on three factors while reviewing this indicator. These include the 

inspection frequency, overdue inspections or any deviations from the schedule and timely 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 14 

dispatch of inspection findings to the licensee. The review team’s evaluation was based on the 

Division’s questionnaire response relative to this indicator, examination of inspection casework, 

and interviews with management and staff. 

The Division divided the annual inspection of LLRW into multiple modules due to the complexity 

and timeliness of the LLRW inspection program. Modular inspections are performed throughout 

the year and the schedule may be adjusted to accommodate emergent issues, such as specific 

licensing actions. If a module inspection was not completed during the year, then it was 

typically conducted during the first or second quarter of the following year. As a result of the 

reorganization, there should be more efficiency and less schedule conflicts and adjustments in 

the LLRW inspection program (See Section 3.1). 

Inspection modules cover areas such as license condition compliance, radiation safety, 

environmental monitoring, site security, and emergency planning. An inspection module may be 

implemented more than once during the year. For example, the radiation safety inspection 

module is implemented for incoming waste shipments at the EnergySolutions disposal facility 

either daily or as needed. The review team concluded that the combined inspection modules 

encompass an annual inspection for the LLRW disposal facility. In 2007, 14 of 17 modules 

were completed; in 2008, all modules were completed, although the documentation was missing 

for one module; in 2009, 17 of 19 modules were completed; in 2010, 18 of 19 modules were 

completed; and in 2011 at the time of the on-site review, a total of 7 modules had been 

completed. Given that some of the inspection modules were performed multiple times, there 

were over 200 modular inspections conducted during the review period. 

The review team evaluated the number of inspection modules completed during the review 

period. The inspection modules completed annually ranged from 82 to 100 percent. The review 

team evaluated the completed modules and determined that critical modules, which involved 

health, safety and security, such as radiation safety, dosimetry, security, and site 

access/postings, were completed annually. Though not all modules were completed on an 

annual basis the review team considered the Division’s practice of having health physics 

inspectors at the EnergySolutions disposal facility nearly weekly and concluded that adequate 

oversight of facility operations and the Radiation Safety Program was occurring. 

The review team determined that the inspection findings for the LLRW disposal program were 

typically communicated by formal correspondence to the licensee within 30 days following the 

inspection. In 2008, on two occasions the communication exceeded the 30 day period. This 

was found with only one inspector who is no longer employed in the Division. The review noted 

that the Section did not exceed the 30 day criteria for any other reports during 2009, 2010, or 

2011. Typically, the Section’s inspection findings were issued in the second to third week after 

the inspection was completed. 

The Geotechnical Services Section inspection program for groundwater consisted of 

11 modules in 2007 and 2008, 12 modules in 2010, and 13 modules in 2011. In addition, the 

Geotechnical Services Section also performed the engineering inspections which consisted of 

15 modules in 2007, 2008 and 2009, and 11 modules in 2010 and 2011. The Geotechnical 

Services Section completed all of their inspection modules annually during the review period. 

Inspectors reviewed and revised the inspection modules annually and the lead inspectors were 

rotated annually. 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 15 

The groundwater and engineering modules are extensive and incorporate elements of field work 

in conjunction with safety and compliance review of records. Due to the complexity and length 

of these modules, the inspection findings are not regularly reported to the licensee within 

30 days as required by the Division’s Administrative Policies, Section 14.07. The review team 

discussed with management that the Section should strive for better consistency between policy 

and practice. 

4.3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections

The review team assessed the quality of LLRW disposal program inspections by evaluating 

inspector performance during the accompaniments and reviewing inspection field notes, 

completed reports, inspection procedures and the staff’s follow-up to previous inspection 

findings, as well as regulatory actions taken and annual supervisory accompaniments. 

On June 9, 2011, members of the review team accompanied three inspectors from the Low 

Level Waste/Uranium Mills Section to the EnergySolutions disposal facility. Two of the 

inspectors performed Radiation Safety inspections and the third inspector performed Generator 

Site Access inspections at the facility. The review team observed the Radiation Safety 

inspectors implementing Module 1, Operations – Waste Handling/DAW, and Module 18, 

Materials, Equipment and Package Surveys. The Generator Site Access inspector performed 

Department of Transportation (DOT) inspections on incoming waste shipments at the same 

facility. The inspectors were knowledgeable of the facility, the inspection module requirements 

and the regulations. 

The review team noted that one of the survey instruments used for performing the 

contamination surveys was out of calibration. In general, the inspection reports did not 

document the survey instrument used or the calibration due date. The review team observed 

that a couple of inspection reports contained the model number and serial number of the survey 

instrument used during the inspection. During the accompaniments, the review team also 

observed several instances, as noted in Appendix C, of improper health physics practices. 

concerning instrumentation use. In the situations where these practices were observed, they 

did not pose adverse consequence to health and safety. These issues were discussed with the 

inspectors at the conclusion of the accompaniments. During interviews of the inspection staff 

responsible for both the LLRW and uranium mills program, as discussed in Section 4.4.3, the 

inspection staff asserted that survey instruments were used to determine whether there was an 

elevated reading. If an elevated reading was found, then the inspector would request the 

licensee to confirm the reading, using the licensee’s instrument. The licensee’s measurements 

would be used for any potential enforcement action. The Division indicated that historically, the 

licensee had raised concerns that the State did not have the appropriate instrumentation when 

conducting independent surveys, which ultimately led to this practice. 

Calibrated instruments for independent and confirmatory radiation survey measurements are 

required by the Division’s Administrative Policy, Sections 14.03 and 14.04. Independent 

verification of the licensee’s measurements is one of the basic foundations for conducting 

performance-based inspections. The guidance provided in IMC 2800, states in part that 

independent measurements should be performed on all inspections, unless exceptional 

circumstances make it impossible to perform the measurements. The review team 

recommends that independent and confirmatory radiation measurements be consistently 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 16 

performed with the appropriate calibrated instrumentation for inspections conducted by the LowLevel Waste Section. 

As noted in Section 3.3, the radioactive materials program has sufficient numbers and types of 

calibrated instrumentation assigned to the inspector, for the types of license activities inspected. 

It was unclear whether appropriate instrumentation was available to the Low-Level 

Waste/Uranium Mills Section inspection staff and whether they had appropriate training in its 

use. The review team recommends that the Division ensure that sufficient numbers and types 

of calibrated instruments, appropriate to the activities conducted by the licensee, are available 

to the Low-Level Waste Section and that the staff is trained in the proper use of the 

instrumentation. 

Based on an evaluation of 14 inspection files, the review team determined that the inspection 

reports were thorough, complete, consistent, and had sufficient documentation to ensure that 

licensee’s performances with respect to health, safety and security were acceptable. The 

findings were well-founded, supported by regulations and were appropriately documented. 

Based on interviews and review of documentation, the review team concluded that the 

inspectors reviewed the previous inspection report and discussed past inspection findings with 

other inspectors and the Low Level Waste/Uranium Mills Section Manager, in preparation for an 

inspection. Inspectors either followed-up on previous inspection findings during the subsequent 

inspection or dispositioned the findings as escalated enforcement actions. The Section did not 

maintain a formal system that tracked the closure of follow-up inspection findings, although it 

appeared that the staff adequately addressed previous inspection findings in a timely manner. 

The Low Level Waste/Uranium Mills Section Manager reviewed the documents and the 

inspection closure letters as part of the concurrence review, which was typically performed 

electronically. The Executive Secretary of the Board signed and issued final inspection reports, 

enforcement letters, notices of violations, and/or civil penalties, as necessary. 

The Division has a policy to accompany all staff performing inspections on an annual basis. 

The review team reviewed the supervisory accompaniment documentation and determined that 

not all of the inspectors were accompanied on an annual basis. In 2007, three of five inspectors 

received accompaniments. In 2008, four of five inspectors received accompaniments, although 

one accompaniment was not documented though it was confirmed by the staff member and 

manager. In 2009, all five inspectors were accompanied, and in 2010, three of four inspectors 

were accompanied by a supervisor. During one accompaniment, the inspector used an out-ofcalibration instrument even though the Section Manager identified the instrumentation as being 

in calibration. The review team discussed with management the importance of the supervisory 

accompaniments. 

4.3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The Division renewed the EnergySolutions license in 2008, which had been pending since 

2003. Division staff and management indicated that the delay in reviewing the license renewal 

was due, in part, to limited staff resources. The review team did not identify any health and 

safety concerns related to the timeliness of the license renewal. Since the renewal, the Division 

had completed 11 amendments to the EnergySolutions license, including a major amendment 

specifying requirements for the disposal of large quantities of depleted uranium. The review 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 17 

team reviewed a selection of licensing actions that had been completed during the review 

period. A listing of the licensing casework reviewed can be found in Appendix D. 

The review team determined that the examined licensing actions were thorough, complete, 

consistent, and of acceptable technical quality. The license conditions, including the tie-down 

conditions, were stated clearly and backed by information contained in the file and enforceable. 

The review team found that health and safety issues were generally properly addressed as part 

of the licensing action. 

The review team noted that the Division required a time of compliance of 500 years, in 

accordance with the site Groundwater Discharge Permit, for the technical analyses as specified 

in Utah Administrative Code (UAC R313-25-8) to demonstrate compliance with the performance 

objectives specified in UAC R313-25-19. Division staff was not able to produce documentation 

to support the guidance in NUREG-1573 (October 2000) regarding appropriate compliance 

periods or show that the technical analyses was considered to assess the continued 

reasonableness of the 500-year compliance period, as part of the review of the license renewal 

in 2008. Since the renewal, the Division has amended the license to require consideration of a 

compliance period for the disposal of large quantities of depleted uranium that is more 

consistent with the guidance in NUREG-1573. 

The Division used independent analyses and actively solicited public comments during the 

licensing process through public hearings. The Division hired a technical consultant to address 

certain complex technical issues to verify the licensee’s analysis for license renewal. The Board 

approved a new rule on April 14, 2010, that required EnergySolutions to conduct a performance 

assessment before disposing of concentrated depleted uranium. The review team noted that 

the Division engaged in extensive public outreach on November 9-10, 2010, and on February 1, 

2011, regarding the performance assessment for the disposal of large quantities of 

concentrated depleted uranium. The Division indicated that information from these discussions 

was taken into consideration as the final performance assessment was developed. The 

licensee’s performance assessment was delivered to the Division on June 1, 2011, and is 

currently under review by the Division. 

The review team evaluated the Division’s process for obtaining adequate financial assurance for 

the EnergySolutions facility. The review team determined that the Division had obtained 

financial assurance for the site. 

4.3.5 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities

The review team found that the Division had procedures in place for handling incidents and 

allegations. The procedures for handling incidents included information on what constitutes an 

incident, appropriate documentation of the incident, reference to NRC abnormal occurrence 

criteria, incident tracking and close-out requirements. During the review period, the State 

addressed one reportable incident involving LLRW disposal program activities. The review 

team determined that the Division took prompt and appropriate action. The review team noted 

that all documentation related to the investigation of the incident was complete and 

appropriately maintained in a separate file. The Division explained that licensee “Self-Identified 

Noncompliances” which are reported to the Division are filed by calendar year and that Self- 

 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 18 

Identified Noncompliances, which are more significant in nature, are filed separately and termed 

“Special Inspections.” 

Based on interviews with Division staff and management and reviews of Division administrative 

policy and training plans, the review team noted that handling of allegations was not treated 

consistently across the Division, particularly in the LLRW and uranium mill programs. The 

Division policy states in part that the Division would not act upon an allegation unless the 

concerned individual made a submission in writing, and that those oral claims shall be 

considered as “off-the-record” until they were submitted to the Division in writing. The 

Radioactive Materials staff indicated and provided examples where they responded to oral 

allegations that involved health and safety concern(s); however, it was not apparent based on 

interviews in the LLRW and Uranium Mills program, that the staff would raise the oral concerns 

to management’s attention. 

Under the sub-elements of Technical Staffing and Training and Technical Quality of Inspection 

for the LLRW non-common performance indicator, the review team made three 

recommendations, as noted in Section 4.3.1 and 4.3.3, to improve performance. 

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

Utah’s performance with respect to the indicator, LLRW disposal program, be found satisfactory, 

but needs improvement. 

4.4 Uranium Recovery Program

The Division’s authority to regulate uranium recovery activities was added to Utah’s NRC 

Agreement State Program in August 2004. The applicable regulations for the uranium recovery 

program include Utah Administrative Code R313-24 “Uranium Mills and Source Material Mill 

Tailings Disposal Facility Requirements.” 

In February 2005, the Division issued licenses to the following four facilities: EnergySolutions, 

LLC, for the receipt, storage, and disposal of 11e.(2) byproduct material; Denison Mines (USA) 

Corporation, White Mesa Uranium Mill; Rio Algom Mining, LLC, Lisbon Valley Uranium Mill; and 

SXR Uranium One (now Uranium One Americas, Inc “Uranium One”), Shootaring Canyon Mill. 

The Division’s Uranium Recovery Program was previously assessed by the IMPEP process in 

June 2007, with a follow up review in July 2008. The EnergySolutions 11e.(2) byproduct 

material program was not reviewed during the previous IMPEP reviews. 

In conducting this review, five sub-elements were used to evaluate the performance of the 

Uranium Recovery (UR) Program. These sub-elements include: (1) Technical Staffing and 

Training; (2) Status of Uranium Recovery Inspection Program; (3) Technical Quality of 

Inspections; (4) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; and (5) Technical Quality of Incident and 

Allegation Activities. 

4.4.1 Technical Staffing and Training

In reviewing this sub-element, the review team evaluated the Uranium Mills program staffing 

level, the technical qualifications of the staff, staff training, and staff turnover. This evaluation 

 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 19 

included general examination of the qualifications of the inspectors and licensing personnel and 

interviews with Uranium Mills program staff and management. 

As described in Section 4.3.1, oversight of the Uranium Mills program is provided by both the 

Geotechnical Services Section and the Low Level Waste/Uranium Mills Section. At the time of 

the review, the Division had three radiation safety inspectors performing inspections and 

licensing activities for the three uranium mill facilities, the EnergySolutions 11e.(2) byproduct 

material facility, and the EnergySolutions LLRW facility. Various members of the Uranium Mills 

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 

individual’s qualifications and workload. Since 2005, the Uranium Mills program had developed 

and matured, resulting in an effective interdisciplinary team of expertise, with an appropriate 

training program in place. 

The review team found that the Uranium Mills program contains 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 contracted technical review work. The Division utilized an 

environmental and engineering design firm to assist in a major license amendment review for a 

new tailing impoundment, disposal Cell No. 4B, at the White Mesa facility and other smaller 

licensing related activities. The technical qualifications of consultant personnel available to the 

Uranium Mills program for technical reviews include chemical and fuels, civil, environmental, 

mechanical, nuclear engineers, geochemists and hydrogeologists. 

As mentioned earlier, the Division indicated that a reorganization affecting the LLRW disposal 

program and Uranium Mills program would occur following the on-site IMPEP review (See 

Section 3.1). The reorganization was the result of the Lean Six Sigma process improvement 

plan. As part of the reorganization, the Division added three new positions which include two 

engineers and one groundwater geologist for the LLRW and Uranium Mills programs. The 

review team determined that the Division’s staffing level in the Uranium Mills program was 

adequate at the time of the review. 

4.4.2 Status of Uranium Recovery Inspection Program

The review team focused on several factors in evaluating this sub-element, including inspection 

frequency, overdue inspections, and timely issuance of inspection reports and findings to 

licensees. The review team’s evaluation is based on the Division’s response to the 

questionnaire relative to this indicator, the Uranium Mills program inspection schedule, 

inspection casework files, and interviews with inspection staff and management. 

The Division performed 24 radiation safety inspections at the licensed uranium mill sites 

between May 2008 and June 2011. This included 17 inspections at the White Mesa Mill, 

six inspections at the Lisbon Valley Mill and one inspection at the Shootaring Canyon Mill. The 

Division performed eight radiation safety inspections at the EnergySolutions 11e.(2) byproduct 

material facility. In addition, there were 22 groundwater inspections and 12 engineering 

inspections conducted by the Division at these facilities. 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 20 

With respect to radiation safety inspections at the White Mesa Mill, the review team identified 

that a complete inspection of all modules was not performed on an annual basis during the 

period of review. The survey, shipping paper, and sources module was not inspected in 2009. 

The posting and exit monitoring module was overdue by six months and seventeen days in 

2009, and was not inspected in 2010. Transportation activity inspections were only performed 

during 2009 and 2010. The review team discussed the Division’s approach to conducting 

Uranium Mills program inspections at the facilities, and management agreed that the process 

should ensure, at a minimum, that all elements of an uranium mills program are inspected and 

documented on an annual basis. Although not all modules were completed on an annual basis, 

the review team determined that adequate, performance-based inspections of the licensees 

program were completed on an annual basis. In addition, the Division completed the 

groundwater and engineering modules on an annual basis. The radiation safety inspections 

regarding the EnergySolutions 11e.(2) disposal license were performed in conjunction with the 

low-level waste inspection modules. The review team concluded that there were no overdue 

inspections in the Uranium Mills program. A listing of the inspection casework reviewed can be 

found in Appendix C. 

The review team determined that all inspection reports and inspection findings reports were 

issued within 30 days of the inspections. The supervisor reviewed all inspection reports. 

Appropriate follow-up actions were conducted when items of noncompliance were identified. 

Inspection files were easily retrieved and accessible. The Executive Secretary of the Board 

signed and issued final inspection reports, enforcement letters, notices of violations, and/or civil 

penalties, as necessary. 

4.4.3 Technical Quality of Inspections

In reviewing this sub-element, the review team examined inspection files, inspection reports, 

and enforcement documentation. The Division regulates three uranium mill sites. The White 

Mesa Mill is the only operating facility. The facility processes ore for its uranium and vanadium 

content. The facility also processes alternate feed. The Shootaring Canyon Mill operated for 

only three months in 1982, at which time the facility generated a small amount of mill tailings. 

The mill tailings are the byproduct material wastes produced by extraction of uranium from 

natural ore. The Shootaring Canyon Mill remains in standby status, pending a license 

amendment to return the facility to operational status. The licensee is only performing 

maintenance and environmental sampling at the site. The Division also conducts groundwater 

sampling at the site. In a letter dated June 1, 2011, the Division requested the licensee, 

Uranium One (Shootaring Canyon Mill), to provide justification for continuing to maintain their 

radioactive material license or submit a decommissioning plan. A response from Uranium One 

had not been received at the time of the review. The third uranium mill site is the Lisbon Valley 

Mill, which has been in decommissioning status since November 1995. The final cover of the 

tailings impoundment was completed in December 2006. The licensee is continuing the site 

reclamation with natural vegetation on the impoundment, so that the site can be used for wildlife 

habitat and grazing. Groundwater sampling is being conducted by the licensee and the 

Division. The licensee plans to submit a final closure plan in May 2013. Semi-annual 

groundwater reports for all three Uranium Mill sites are submitted to the Division for their review. 

The review team reviewed a representative sample of radiation safety inspections performed 

between May 2008 and June 2011. In addition to the radiation safety inspections, the Division 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 21 

also conducted several site visits associated with the groundwater discharge permit 

amendment. The review team determined that the Division observed and documented activities 

at the White Mesa Mill associated with the construction of a new tailings impoundment, 

designated as Cell 4B. There was no enforcement action for the period of review. A listing of 

the inspection casework reviewed can be found in Appendix C. 

The Division followed the applicable sections of the Administrative Policy Document, 

“Inspection, Investigation, and Allegation Guidance” for conducting inspections. The inspection 

modules for each of the three facilities were developed, modified, or combined into other 

modules to address the relevant functional areas and operational status at each of the uranium 

facilities. Inspection modules were planned at the beginning of each year by management and 

appropriate staff members. The review team found that the inspections were generally 

conducted unannounced, were comprehensive, covered all appropriate functional areas and 

addressed compliance conditions of the licensees. 

The review team found that the inspection reports provided appropriate depth of coverage, 

addressed license conditions and the regulations, and demonstrated that the inspector pursued 

corrective actions for items of noncompliance that were identified. Inspection files contained 

photographs documenting both general facility features and items of interest or concerns. The 

reports were reviewed by the Section Manager, typically electronically, prior to final issuance by 

the Executive Secretary of the Board. 

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

were performed during the review period. The accompaniment documentation contained 

comments on inspector performance and appeared to provide a sufficient evaluation for each 

inspector. The review team noted that during the June 6-8, 2010 accompaniment, the inspector 

did not have an instrument during the facility tour. In addition, during the July 1, 2009 

accompaniment, one of the two instruments identified on the accompaniment record was out of 

calibration. 

With respect to the radiation safety inspections at the EnergySolutions 11e.(2) byproduct 

material facility, the review team determined from evaluation of eight inspection modules, that 

findings were poorly documented. Only two out of the eight inspection modules clearly 

documented the findings. The review team discussed with management the importance of 

documenting the inspection activities and findings. 

On June 6-8, 2011, members of the review team accompanied an Uranium Mills program 

inspector during an inspection of the Shootaring Canyon Mill, White Mesa Mill, and Lisbon 

Valley Mill facilities. The inspector did not carry a radiation survey instrument during the 

Shootaring Canyon Mill facility inspection. During the accompaniment at Shootaring Canyon 

Mill, the review team observed several instances of improper health physics practice by the 

licensee, which were not identified by the inspector. These items are noted in Appendix C; and 

were discussed with the inspectors at the conclusion of the accompaniments. During the 

accompaniment at the White Mesa Mill, the inspector carried a radiation survey instrument 

during the inspection. The inspector demonstrated appropriate surveying skills and focused on 

specific aspects of the licensee’s radiation protection and environmental programs, and followed 

up on items from the previous inspection. The review team accompanied the inspector during 

an inspection of the Lisbon Valley Mill facility. The inspector carried a radiation survey 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 22 

instrument during the inspection. The inspector checked for proper postings and the integrity of 

the fence. The review team found the inspection modules to be comprehensive and 

appropriately reflected the requirements in the radioactive material license, and/or relevant NRC 

Regulatory Guides. 

Based on the accompaniments and discussion with staff, the review team found that the 

Uranium Mills program staff did not consistently use instrumentation to perform independent 

and confirmatory survey measurements. The Division initially licensed the Uranium Mills in 

2005 and utilized the staff from the LLRW program to implement the inspection modules. 

Therefore, the inspection program implementation is similar between the two programs. 

Calibrated instruments for independent and confirmatory measurements are required by the 

Division’s Administrative Policy, Section 14.03 and 14.04. As previously discussed in Section 

4.3.3, the review team recommends that independent and confirmatory measurements be 

consistently performed with the appropriate calibrated instrumentation for inspections conducted 

by the Uranium Mills Section. The review team also recommends, as discussed in Section 

4.3.3, that the Division ensure that sufficient numbers and types of calibrated instruments, 

appropriate to the activities conducted by the licensee, are available to the Uranium Mills 

Section. 

4.4.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The Division utilized applicable portions of NUREG-1556, “Consolidated Guidance About 

Materials Licenses” in performing licensing actions for the Uranium Mills program. A draft 

licensing procedure that implemented the peer review process used by the Radioactive 

Materials Section, was nearing completion at the time of the IMPEP review. This procedure 

was developed as part of the Lean Six Sigma process the Division initiated in 2010. 

Licensing casework for the White Mesa Mill, Shootaring Canyon Mill, Lisbon Valley Mill, and 

EnergySolutions 11e.(2) byproduct material facility were evaluated. Licensing actions for the 

review period included two amendments for the White Mesa Mill, two amendments for the 

Shootaring Canyon Mill, one amendment for Lisbon Valley Mill, and two amendments for 

EnergySolutions 11e.(2) byproduct material facility. 

The Division completed a licensing action related to the construction of a new tailings 

impoundment designated as Cell 4B and a groundwater quality discharge permit at the White 

Mesa Mill. The review team evaluated the licensing actions related to the construction of 

Cell 4B. The actions properly addressed health, safety, and environmental issues. The review 

team found that the licensing actions reviewed were thorough and the license conditions were 

clear and well written and supported by documentation in the file. 

The review team concluded that these licensing actions were appropriate and that the Division’s 

evaluation was of acceptable technical quality. Appendix D lists the licensing files reviewed for 

completeness and accuracy. 

4.4.5 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities

For the review period, the Division did not receive reports of any incidents related to the 

Uranium Mills Program. With respect to the allegation program, the Division’s response to the 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 23 

questionnaire indicated that no allegations were identified for the Uranium Mills Program. 

However, in reviewing the list of incidents and concerns, the review team identified two items 

that should have been identified as allegations, since the concerns were a statement or 

assertion of impropriety or inadequacy associated with regulated or potentially-regulated 

activities, in which the validity had not been established. The benefit for ensuring the item of 

concern is placed in the allegation process is that it brings resources to bear in resolving the 

concern, provides a tracking mechanism, and formally closes the concern with the individual 

who raised the issue. Based on interviews with the staff, the review team concluded that the 

staff did not consider these two items as allegations, because the concerns were not provided in 

writing and were not submitted by a licensee employee or ex-licensee employee. 

As previously discussed in Section 4.3.1, the Division’s policy is to document and follow up on 

allegations which are submitted in writing to the Division. In addition, the review team found that 

while the Radioactive Materials Section responded to both written and oral allegations when it 

appeared there may be a health or safety concern, it was not apparent that the LLRW/Uranium 

Mills Section would respond in the same manner. The review team discussed the need to 

reexamine the Division’s policy to accept only written concerns or allegations, since an 

inconsistency between Sections was identified in handling oral allegations and there is 

indication that some concerns are not being captured as allegations and closed in an 

expeditious manner. The review team recommends that the Division institute appropriate 

training in all aspects of the allegation response program to ensure that LLRW and the Uranium 

Mills program staff have the same competency and consistency in handling allegations as 

demonstrated by the radioactive materials program staff. 

Under the sub-elements of Technical Quality of Inspection and Technical Quality of Incident and 

Allegation Activities for the UR non-common performance indicator, the review team made three 

recommendations, as noted in Section 4.4.3 and 4.4.5, to improve performance. 

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

that Utah’s performance with respect to the indicator, Uranium Mills program, be found 

satisfactory, but needs improvement. 

5.0 SUMMARY 

Overall, the review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, that the Utah Agreement State 

Program be found adequate to protect public health and safety, and compatible with NRC's 

program. As noted in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 above, the review team recommended, and the 

MRB agreed, that Utah’s performance be found satisfactory, but needs improvement for the 

performance indicators, LLRW Disposal Program and Uranium Recovery Program. The review 

team found, and the MRB agreed, that Utah’s performance to be satisfactory for the other 

indicators reviewed. The review team made three recommendations regarding the performance 

of the State. 

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, and in accordance with the criteria in NRC 

Management Directive 5.6, the review team recommended, and the MRB agreed that the next 

Periodic Meeting be held in approximately 18 months, to assess the State’s progress in 

addressing the open recommendations and implementation of the new organization within the 

program. The MRB determined the next IMPEP should be in four years. 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page 24 

Below are the review team’s recommendations, as mentioned in the report, for evaluation and 

implementation by the State: 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. The review team recommends that the Division institute appropriate training in all 

aspects of the allegation response program to ensure that LLRW and the Uranium Mills

program staff have the same competency and consistency in handling allegations as 

demonstrated by the Radioactive Materials program staff. (Section 4.3.1) 

2. The review team recommends that independent and confirmatory radiation 

measurements are consistently performed with the appropriate calibrated instruments for 

inspections conducted by the LLRW and the Uranium Mills program staff. (Sections 

4.3.3 and 4.4.3) 

3. The review team recommends that the Division ensures sufficient numbers and types of 

calibrated instruments, appropriate to the activities conducted by the licensee, are 

available to the LLRW and the Uranium Mills program staff and that the staff is trained in 

the proper use of the instrumentation. (Sections 4.3.3 and 4.4.3) 
LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENT 

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 September 12, 2011, Letter from Rusty Lundberg, Utah’s Response to 

the Draft Report, ADAMS Accession No.: ML112560021 
APPENDIX A 

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS 

Name Area of Responsibility 

Kathleen Schneider, FSME Team Leader 

 Technical Staffing and Training 

 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation 

Activities 

Rachel Browder, Region IV Team Leader in Training 

 Technical Staffing and Training 

 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation 

Activities 

Leira Cuadrado, FSME Status of Materials Inspection Program 

 Compatibility Requirements 

Bryan Parker, Region I Technical Quality of Inspections 

 Materials Inspection Accompaniments 

Robert Gattone, Region III Technical Quality of Licensing Actions 

Christopher Grossman, FSME Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 

Program 

Kristen Schwab, Washington Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 

Program 

 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Inspection 

Accompaniments 

Muhammadali Abbaszadeh, Texas Uranium Recovery Program 

 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Inspection 

Accompaniments 

 Uranium Recovery Inspection 

Accompaniments 
APPENDIX B 

UTAH ORGANIZATION CHARTS 

ADAMS ACCESSION NO.: ML112560015 
 APPENDIX C 

INSPECTION CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Northern Utah Healthcare Corp (dba St. Mark’s Hospital) License No.: UT1800253 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 12/13/10 Inspector: MB 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: Cavanagh Services Group, Inc. License No.: UT1800510 

Inspection Type: Initial Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 12/01/08 Inspector: PG 

File No.: 3 

Licensee: Cavanagh Services Group, Inc. License No.: UT1800510 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 11/16/10 Inspector: GG 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: GammaWest Brachytherapy License No.: UT2900449 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 10/01/08 Inspector: GG 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: GammaWest Brachytherapy License No.: UT2900449 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 09/30/09 Inspector: MB 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: GammaWest Brachytherapy License No.: UT2900449 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 09/28/10 Inspector: PG 

File No.: 7 

Licensee: IHC Health Services d/b/a LDS Hospital License No.: UT1800102 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 10/06/07 Inspector: GG 

File No.: 8 

Licensee: IHC Health Services d/b/a LDS Hospital License No.: UT1800102 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 07/07/09 Inspector: PG 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page C.2 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 9 

Licensee: Met-Chem Testing Lab of Utah, Inc. License No.: UT1800146 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 03/01/11 Inspector: MB 

File No.: 10 

Licensee: Utah State University License No.: UT0300159 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 10/26/09 Inspector: GG 

File No.: 11 

Licensee: Staker & Parson Co. License No.: UT060044 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 04/08/10 Inspector: RN 

File No.: 12 

Licensee: Park City Medical Center License No.: UT2200524 

Inspection Type: Initial Priority: 3 

Inspection Dates: 10/27/09 Inspector: GG 

File No.: 13 

Licensee: Isomedix/STERIS License No.: UT1800074 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 02/16/10 Inspectors: MB 

File No.: 14 

Licensee: Isomedix/STERIS License No.: UT1800074 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 04/19/11 Inspectors: PG 

File No.: 15 

Licensee: University of Utah – Radiological Health Dept License No.: UT1800458 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 01/12/09 Inspector: DH 

File No.: 16 

Licensee: University of Utah – Radiological Health Dept License No.: UT1800458 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 02/15/11 Inspector: PG 

File No.: 17 

Licensee: Westinghouse Electric Co. – Western Zirconium License No.: UT2900016 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 04/20/11 Inspector: GG 

 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page C.3 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 18 

Licensee: American Red Cross License No.: UT1800408 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 5 

Inspection Dates: 11/05/08 Inspector: PG 

File No.: 19 

Licensee: Elekta, Inc. License No.: GA 1153-1 

Inspection Type: Reciprocity, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 07/27/09 Inspector: PG 

File No.: 20 

Licensee: Dade Moeller & Assoc. License No.: MD-31-244-01 

Inspection Type: Reciprocity, Announced Priority: 3 

Inspection Dates: 10/22/08 Inspector: DH 

File No.: 21 

Licensee: National Inspection Services License No.: LA-11160-L01 

Inspection Type: Reciprocity, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 01/13/11 Inspector: PG 

File No.: 22 

Licensee: EnergySolutions License No.: UT2300249 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 08/06/2007 Inspector: BI 

Inspection Module: 9, Site Security 

File No.: 23 

Licensee: EnergySolutions License No.: UT2300249 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 04/18/2008 Inspector: BC 

Inspection Module: 4, Environmental Monitoring Report 4th Quarter 2007 

File No.: 24 

Licensee: EnergySolutions License No.: UT2300249 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: Weekly 2008 Inspectors: JF, RN, RJ, BI, and KC 

Inspection Module: 18, Equipment Release/Conveyance Survey 

File No.: 25 

Licensee: EnergySolutions License No.: UT2300249 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 08/07/2008 – 08/12/2008 Inspector: BI 

Inspection Module: 16, Mixed Waste Health Physics/Radiation Safety 

 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page C.4 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 26 

Licensee: EnergySolutions License No.: UT2300249 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 10/13/2008 – 10/16/2008 Inspector: KC 

Inspection Module: 5, Radiation Safety 

File No.: 27 

Licensee: EnergySolutions License No.: UT2300249 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 10/05/2009 – 10/13/2009 Inspector: RJ 

Inspection Module: 8, Site Access/Radiological Posting 

File No.: 28 

Licensee: EnergySolutions License No.: UT2300249 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 11/04/2009 – 11/30/2009 Inspector: JF 

Inspection Module: 13, Liquids Management Plan 

File No.: 29 

Licensee: EnergySolutions License No.: UT2300249 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: Weekly 2009 Inspectors: JF, RN, RJ, BI, and KC 

Inspection Module: 18, Equipment Release/Conveyance Survey 

File No.: 30 

Licensee: EnergySolutions License No.: UT2300249 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 07/29/2010 – 08/09/2010 Inspector: BI 

Inspection Module: 20, Increased Controls 

File No.: 31 

Licensee: EnergySolutions License No.: UT2300249 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 12/20/2010 Inspector: KC 

Inspection Module: 3, Decontamination 

File No.: 32 

Licensee: EnergySolutions License No.: UT2300249 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 10/13/2010 – 10/21/2010 Inspector: RJ 

Inspection Module: 13, Liquids Management Plan 

File No.: 33 

Licensee: EnergySolutions License No.: UT2300249 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 12/09/2010 – 12/14/2010 Inspector: BI 

Inspection Module: 8, Site Access/Radiological Posting 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page C.5 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 34 

Licensee: EnergySolutions License No.: UT2300249 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 06/09/2011 – 07/06/2011 Inspector: BI 

Inspection Module: 1, Operations - Waste Handling/DAW 

File No.: 35 

Licensee: EnergySolutions License No.: UT2300249 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 06/09/2011 Inspector: KC 

Inspection Module: 18, Materials Equipment and Package Surveys 

File No.: 36 

Licensee: Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (White Mesa Mill) License No.: UT1900479 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 5/28-29/2008 Inspectors: RJ, KC 

File No.: 37 

Licensee: Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (White Mesa Mill) License No.: UT1900479 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 8/11-12/2008 Inspectors: KC, RJ 

File No.: 38 

Licensee: Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (White Mesa Mill) License No.: UT1900479 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 11/18-19/2008 Inspectors: RJ, KC 

File No.: 39 

Licensee: Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (White Mesa Mill) License No.: UT1900479 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 2/24-25/2009 Inspector: KC 

File No.: 40 

Licensee: Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (White Mesa Mill) License No.: UT1900479 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 6/9/2009 Inspectors: RJ, KC 

File No.: 41 

Licensee: Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (White Mesa Mill) License No.: UT1900479 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 9/1-2/2009 Inspectors: KC, RJ 

File No.: 42 

Licensee: Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (White Mesa Mill) License No.: UT1900479 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 12/2/2009 Inspector: RJ 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page C.6 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 43 

Licensee: Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (White Mesa Mill) License No.: UT1900479 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 3/9/2010 Inspector: RJ 

File No.: 44 

Licensee: Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (White Mesa Mill) License No.: UT1900479 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 6/8-9/2010 Inspectors: KC, RJ 

File No.: 45 

Licensee: Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (White Mesa Mill) License No.: UT1900479 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 9/21/2010 Inspector: RJ 

File No.: 46 

Licensee: Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (White Mesa Mill) License No.: UT1900479 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 11/30/2010 Inspector: RJ 

File No.: 47 

Licensee: Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (White Mesa Mill) License No.: UT1900479 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 2/23/2011 Inspectors: RJ, KC 

File No.: 48 

Licensee: Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (White Mesa Mill) License No.: UT1900479 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 4/19/2011 Inspector: RJ 

File No.: 49 

Licensee: Rio Algom Mining, LLC (Lisbon Valley Mill) License No.: UT1900481 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 5/3/2008 Inspectors: KC, RJ, JH 

File No.: 50 

Licensee: Rio Algom Mining, LLC (Lisbon Valley Mill) License No.: UT1900481 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 11/17/2008 Inspector: KC 

File No.: 51 

Licensee: Rio Algom Mining, LLC (Lisbon Valley Mill) License No.: UT1900481 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 2/25/2009 Inspectors: RJ, KC 

 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page C.7 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No: 52 

Licensee: Rio Algom Mining, LLC (Lisbon Valley Mill) License No.: UT1900481 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 6/10/2009 Inspectors: KC, RJ 

File No.: 53 

Licensee: Rio Algom Mining, LLC (Lisbon Valley Mill) License No.: UT1900481 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 2/24/2011 Inspectors: KC, RJ 

File No.: 54 

Licensee: Rio Algom Mining, LLC (Lisbon Valley Mill) License No.: UT1900481 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 6/8/2011 Inspector: RJ 

File No.: 55 

Licensee: Uranium One Americas, Inc. (Shootaring Canyon Mill) License No.: UT1900480 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 4/18/2011 Inspector: KC 

File No.: 56 

Licensee: EnergySolutions (11e.(2) byproduct material facility) License No.: UT2300478 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 3/31/2009-4/2/2009 Inspector: BI 

File No.: 57 

Licensee: EnergySolutions (11e.(2) byproduct material facility) License No.: UT2300478 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 6/17-29/2009 Inspector: BI 

File No.: 58 

Licensee: EnergySolutions (11e.(2) byproduct material facility) License No.: UT2300478 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 9/14-15/2009 Inspector: RJ 

Comment: 

The License No. entered on the inspection report was incorrect. 

File No.: 59 

Licensee: EnergySolutions (11e.(2) byproduct material facility) License No.: UT2300478 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 11/3/2009 Inspector: RJ 

Comment: 

The License No. entered on the inspection report was incorrect. 

 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page C.8 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 60 

Licensee: EnergySolutions (11e.(2) byproduct material facility) License No.: UT2300478 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 11/4-30/2009 Inspector: JF 

Comment: 

The inspection report did not contain any information on the 11e.(2) byproduct material 

facility. 

File No.: 61 

Licensee: EnergySolutions (11e.(2) byproduct material facility) License No.: UT2300478 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 12/17-29/2009 Inspector: BI 

Comment: 

The inspection report did not contain any information on the 11e.(2) byproduct material 

facility. 

File No.: 62 

Licensee: EnergySolutions (11e.(2) byproduct material facility) License No.: UT2300478 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 9/14-30/2010 Inspector: BI 

File No.: 63 

Licensee: EnergySolutions (11e.(2) byproduct material facility) License No.: UT2300478 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 10/13-21/2010 Inspector: RJ 

INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS 

The following inspector accompaniments were performed prior to the on-site IMPEP review: 

Accompaniment No.: 1 

Licensee: Isomedix/STERIS License No.: UT1800074 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 04/19/11 Inspector: PG 

Accompaniment No.: 2 

Licensee: Westinghouse Electric Co. – Western Zirconium License No.: UT2900016 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 04/20/11 Inspector: GG 

Accompaniment No.: 3 

Licensee: Westinghouse Electric Co. – Western Zirconium License No.: UT2900016 

Inspection Type: Special, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 04/20/11 Inspector: GG 

 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page C.9 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

Accompaniment No.: 4 

Licensee: EnergySolutions License No.: UT2300249 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 06/09/2011 Inspector: BI 

Inspection Module: 1, Operations - Waste Handling/DAW 

Comment: 

During an exposure rate survey, the inspector’s survey speed appeared to be much 

faster than the response time of the instrument. 

Accompaniment No.: 5 

Licensee: EnergySolutions License No.: UT2300249 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 06/09/2011 Inspector: KC 

Inspection Module: 18, Materials, Equipment and Package Surveys 

Comment: 

An inspector placed a smear wipe directly on the surface of the probe during a 

contamination survey. 

Accompaniment No.: 6 

Licensee: EnergySolutions License No.: UT2300249 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 06/09/2011 Inspector: JF 

Inspection Module: Generator Site Access, Department of Transportation Inspection 

Comment: 

An inspector placed a pen directly into a tear in the waste package covering during an 

incoming package survey, without adequate survey indication that the package was not 

contaminated. 

Accompaniment No.: 7 

Licensee: Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (White Mesa Mill) License No.: UT1900479 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 6/7-8/2011 Inspector: RJ 

Comment: 

The review team noted that good health physics practices (i.e., proper use of licensee 

personal protective equipment and personal dosimetry) were not followed by a few of the 

employees at the site while performing work. The inspector did not bring up these 

observations to the employees attention. 

Accompaniment No.: 8 

Licensee: Rio Algom Mining, LLC (Lisbon Valley Mill) License No.: UT1900481 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 6/8/2011 Inspector: RJ 

 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page C.10 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

Accompaniment No.: 9 

Licensee: Uranium One Americas, Inc. (Shootaring Canyon Mill) License No.: UT1900480 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 6/6/2011 Inspector: RJ 

Comments: 

1. The inspector did not carry a radiation survey instrument during the facility inspection. 

During the exit survey, the review team noted that the instrument range selector 

switch was not properly set. 

2. That the two employees did not survey themselves properly for presence of 

contamination. 

3. No records were reviewed by the inspector during the inspection 
APPENDIX D 

LICENSE CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Production Logging Services, Inc. License No.: UT2400260 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 9 

Date Issued: 6/1/09 License Reviewer: GG 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: McKay-Dee Hospital Center License No.: UT2900147 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 44 

Date Issued: Pending as of 7/11/11 License Reviewer: GG 

File No.: 3 

Licensee: Weber State University License No.: UT2900149 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 13 

Date Issued: 3/9/10 License Reviewer: PG 

Comment: 

The renewal action exceeded one year, which the Division investigated. There were no 

impacts to health, safety or security issues. 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: GEM Engineering, Inc. License No.: UT1100484 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 02 

Date Issued: 1/5/10 License Reviewer: PG 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. d/b/a Baker Atlas License No.: UT2400518 

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 6/8/09 License Reviewer: PG 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: Quality Testing, LLC License No.: UT18000528 

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 7/7/10 License Reviewer: GG 

File No.: 7 

Licensee: Tech Corr USA, LLC License No.: UT1800523 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 2/11/09 License Reviewer: CJ 

File No.: 8 

Licensee: Logan Regional Hospital License No.: UT0300150 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 20 

Date Issued: 10/23/08 License Reviewer: PG 

 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page D. 2 

License Casework Reviews 

File No.: 9 

Licensee: Cardinal Health Pharmacy Services License No.: UT1600225 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 26 

Date Issued: 4/13/11 License Reviewer: GG 

File No.: 10 

Licensee: IHC Health Services, Inc. d/b/a Intermountain Med. Ctr. License No.: UT1800494 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 06 

Date Issued: 2/3/11 License Reviewer: PG 

Comment: 

One entity maintains four separate Utah licenses with duplicate authorizations at the 

same hospital location. Duplicate authorizations can cause confusion about 

responsibility, even though the entity is identical on all licenses. 

File No.: 11 

Licensee: Heart of Utah License No.: UT2900495 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 02 

Date Issued: 6/4/10 License Reviewer: DH 

File No.: 12 

Licensee: AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. License No.: UT1800164 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 19 

Date Issued: 6/10/10 License Reviewer: MB 

File No.: 13 

Licensee: Met-Chem Testing Laboratories License No.: UT1800146 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 18 

Date Issued: Pending as of 7/12/11 License Reviewer: GG 

File No.: 14 

Licensee: Brigham Young University License No.: UT2500081 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 13 

Date Issued: 7/7/10 License Reviewer: GG 

Comment: 

The licensee requested to add approval of polonium-209, however, the item was not 

included in the license condition for training as requested. 

File No.: 15 

Licensee: University of Utah License No.: UT1800458 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 09 

Date Issued: 4/12/11 License Reviewer: PG 

File No.: 16 

Licensee: Dixie Regional Medical Center License No.: UT2700007 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 33 

Date Issued: 3/15/11 License Reviewer: MB 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page D. 3 

License Casework Reviews 

File No.: 17 

Licensee: Nova Drill License No.: N/A 

Type of Action: Denial Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 6/1/09 License Reviewer: GG 

File No.: 18 

Licensee: EnergySolutions License No.: UT2300249 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 0 

Date Issued: 01/25/2008 License Reviewer: LM, Contractor 

File No.: 19 

Licensee: EnergySolutions License No.: UT2300249 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 8 

Date Issued: 11/22/2010 License Reviewer: BI 

File No.: 20 

Licensee: EnergySolutions License No.: UT2300249 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 11 

Date Issued: 05/10/2011 License Reviewers: JH, BC, RJ 

File No.: 21 

Licensee: Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (White Mesa Mill) License No.: UT1900479 

License Type: Renewal Amendment No.: Pending 

Date issued: Pending Reviewers: Multiple 

Comment: 

At the time of the review, the draft license renewal was submitted to the Division’s 

Director for his signature. 

File No.: 22 

Licensee: Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (White Mesa Mill) License No.: UT1900479 

License Type: Amendment Amendment No.: 4 

Date issued: 6/17/2010 Reviewers: Multiple, Contractor 

File No.: 23 

Licensee: Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (White Mesa Mill) Permit No.: UGW370004 

License Type: Amendment Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 6/17/2010 Reviewers: Multiple, Contractor 

File No.: 24 

Licensee: Rio Algom Mining, LLC (Lisbon Valley Mill) License No.: UT1900481 

License Type: Amendment Amendment No.: 3 

Date issued: 1/2/2010 Reviewer: Multiple 

File No.: 25 

Licensee: Uranium One Americas, Inc. (Shootaring Canyon Mill) License No.: UT1900480 

License Type: Amendment Amendment No.: 4 

Date issued: 7/12/2010 Reviewer: Multiple 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page D. 4 

License Casework Reviews 

File No.: 26 

Licensee: Uranium One Americas, Inc. (Shootaring Canyon Mill) License No.: UT1900480 

License Type: Amendment Amendment No.: 5 

Date issued: 3/23/2011 Reviewer: Multiple 

File No.: 27 

Licensee: Uranium One Americas, Inc. (Shootaring Canyon Mill) License No.: UT1900480 

License Type: Amendment Amendment No.: Pending 

Date issued: 3/23/2011 Reviewer: Multiple 

File No.: 28 

Licensee: EnergySolutions (11e.(2) byproduct material facility) License No.: UT2300478 

License Type: Amendment Amendment No.: 6 

Date issued: 2/23/2009 Reviewer: Multiple 

File No.: 29 

Licensee: EnergySolutions (11e.(2) byproduct material facility) License No.: UT2300478 

License Type: Amendment Amendment No.: Denied 

Date issued: Denied Reviewer: Multiple 
APPENDIX E 

INCIDENT CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation License No.: UT1800289 

Date of Incident: 7/28/08 Event No.: UT080001 

Investigation Date: 7/29/08 Type of Incident: Equipment failure 

 Type of Investigation: On-site 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation License No.: UT1800289 

Date of Incident: 8/6/08 Event No.: UT080002 

Investigation Date: 8/7/08 Type of Incident: Equipment failure 

 Type of Investigation: On-site 

File No.: 3 

Licensee: Holly Refining and Marketing Company License No.: UT0600109 

Date of Incident: 8/11/08 Event No.: UT080003 

Investigation Date: 8/11/08 Type of Incident: Equipment failure 

 Type of Investigation: On-site 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: Halliburton Energy Services License No.: UT2400026 

Date of Incident: 9/21/08 Event No.: UT080004 

Investigation Date: N/A Type of Incident: Source abandonment 

 Type of Investigation: 30-day report 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: Chevron USA, Inc. License No.: UT1800057 

Date of Incident: 12/22/08 Event No.: UT080006 

Investigation Date: 1/13/09 Type of Incident: Equipment failure 

 Type of Investigation: On-site 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: AMEC Earth & Environmental License No.: UT1800164 

Date of Incident: 2/23/10 Event No.: UT100001 

Investigation Date: 3/3/10 Type of Incident: Damaged Equipment 

 Type of Investigation: On-site 

Comment: 

The licensee did not make a report to the State until March 3, 2010, at which time the 

Division performed a special inspection/investigation. 

 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page E. 2 

Incident Casework Reviews 

File No.: 7 

Licensee: Utah Inspection License No.: UT2400357 

Date of Incident: 9/19/10 Event No.: UT100004 

Investigation Date: 6/27/11 Type of Incident: Equipment failure 

 Type of Investigation: Routine inspection 

Comment: 

 Followup during the next inspection is appropriate for the type of incident reported. 

File No.: 8 

Licensee: Quality Inspection & Testing, Inc. License No.: LA-11238-L01 (reciprocity) 

Date of Incident: 10/24/10 Event No.: UT100005 

Investigation Date: 10/24/10 Type of Incident: Transportation accident 

 Type of Investigation: On-site 

File No.: 9 

Licensee: Quality Inspection & Testing, Inc. License No.: LA-11238-L01 (reciprocity) 

Date of Incident: 10/30/10 Event No.: UT100006 

Investigation Date: 10/30/10 Type of Incident: Transportation accident 

 Type of Investigation: On-site 

File No.: 10 

Licensee: Applied Geotechnical Engineering License No.: UT1800298 

Date of Incident: 3/22/11 Event No.: UT110001 

Investigation Date: 3/23/11 Type of Incident: Lost/stolen source 

 Type of Investigation: On-site 

File No.: 11 

Licensee: Team Industrial Services License No.: UT0600519 

Date of Incident: 5/24/11 Event No.: UT110004 

Investigation Date: 5/24/11 Type of Incident: Equipment failure 

 Type of Investigation: On-site 

File No.: 12 

Licensee: Mistras Group License No.: UT0600485 

Date of Incident: 4/20/11 Event No.: UT110002 

Investigation Date: 4/25/11 Type of Incident: Equipment failure 

 Type of Investigation: On-site 

 
Utah Final IMPEP Report Page E. 3 

Incident Casework Reviews 

File No.: 13 

Licensee: Great Salt Lake Minerals Corp. License No.: UT2900154 

Date of Incident: 10/29/10 (reported 4/28/11) Event No.: UT110003 

Investigation Date: 5/26/11 Type of Incident: Lost/stolen source 

 Type of Investigation: On-site 

File No.: 14 

Licensee: EnergySolutions License No.: UT2300249 

Date of Incident: 3/31/09 Event No.: UT090003 

Investigation Date: 4/14/09 Type of Incident: Transportation 

 Type of Investigation: On-site 
ATTACHMENT 

September 12, 2011 Letter from Rusty Lundberg 

Utah’s Response to the Draft Report 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML112560021 
ENCLOSURE 2 

NRC Comment Resolution to September 12, 2011 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML112630126