UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

July 28, 2014 

Larry Wolk, M.D. 

Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer 

Department of Public Health & Environment 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South 

Denver, CO 80246-1530 

Dear Dr. Wolk: 

On June 30, 2014, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final 

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Colorado 

Agreement State Program. The MRB found the Colorado program adequate to protect public 

health and safety, but not compatible with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) 

program. 

Section 4.1, of the enclosed final report addresses compatibility requirements. The cause of the 

unsatisfactory finding in the compatibility indicator was due to a number of modifications to 

Colorado statutes which are not compatible with the NRC requirements. The modifications 

were made by the State Legislature without concurrence by Colorado’s Radiation Control 

Program. To resolve the issue, Colorado management obtained permission from the 

Governor’s Office to conduct a stakeholder process in the summer of 2014 to address 

incompatible sections of the Radiation Control Act. Further, Colorado management indicated 

that this process would lead to the submission of statutory language changes in the legislative 

session starting in January 2015 that would bring the statute into compatibility with NRC 

requirements. The MRB concluded that Colorado’s path forward to resolve the statutory 

compatibility issues was reasonable.

Section 5.0, contains a summary of the IMPEP team’s findings. The review team made no 

recommendations in regard to program performance by the Colorado Agreement State Program 

during this review. Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review of the 

Colorado Agreement State Program will take place in approximately 4 years, with an information 

meeting to be held in 1 year with the Regional State Agreements Officer to discuss the status of 

Colorado’s regulations. A periodic meeting is tentatively scheduled for July 2016. 

 
2 

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/ 

 Roy P. Zimmerman 

 Acting Deputy Executive Director for 

 Materials, Waste, Research, State, Tribal and 

 Compliance Programs 

 Office of the Executive Director for Operations 

Enclosure: 

Colorado Final IMPEP Report 

cc: David Walter, AL 

 Organization of Agreement States 

 Liaison to the MRB 
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/ 

 Roy P. Zimmerman 

 Acting Deputy Executive Director for 

 Materials, Waste, Research, State, Tribal and 

 Compliance Programs 

 Office of the Executive Director for Operations 

Enclosure: 

Colorado Final IMPEP Report 

cc: David Walter, AL 

 Organization of Agreement States 

 Liaison to the MRB 

DISTRIBUTION: (SP08) 

See next page 

ML14192A007 

OFC RIII: TL ASPB/MSSA ASPB:BC MSSA: D TechEd FSME:D EDO/DEDMRT 

NAME JLynch via 

email 

MBeardsley 

via email 

DWhite LDudes CPoland BHolian RZimmerman 

DATE 07/10/14 07/11/14 07/16/14 07/16/14 07/17/14 07/21/14 07/28/14

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 
Letter to Dr. Wolk from Roy P. Zimmerman dated: July 28, 2014 

SUBJECT: COLORADO FY2014 FINAL IMPEP REPORT 

DISTRIBUTION: (SP08) 

RidsEdoMailCenter 

JFoster, OEDO 

MSampson, OEDO 

RidsFsmeOd 

RidsOgcMailCenter Chairman Macfarlane 

JOlmstead, OGC Commissioner Svinicki 

RidsRgn1MailCenter Commissioner Magwood 

DLew, RI Commissioner Ostendorff 

RidsRgn4MailCenter SECY 

MShaffer, RIV 

LHowell, RIV 

RidsSecyCorrespondenceMailCenter 

RidsFsmeMssa 

LDudes, MSSA 

SAbraham, MSSA 

RErickson, RIV/RSAO 

CFrazier, RII 

SPoy, MSSA 

RLinton, DWMEP 

DShearer, PA 

MAbbaszadeh, TX 

LDimmick, MSSA 

GBaughman, CO 

STarlton, CO 

JOpila, CO 

JWeil, OCA (2 copies) 
 Enclosure 

INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM 

REVIEW OF THE COLORADO AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM 

April 7 - 11, 2014 

FINAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

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

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

the period of April 7 - 11, 2014, by a review team composed of technical staff members from the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the State of Texas, and the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania.

Based on the results of this review, Colorado's performance was found satisfactory for seven of 

the eight performance indicators reviewed: Technical Staffing and Training, Status of Materials 

Inspection Program, Technical Quality of Inspections, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, 

Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, Sealed Source and Device Evaluation 

Program, and Uranium Recovery Program were satisfactory. Compatibility Requirements was 

determined to be unsatisfactory. 

The cause of the unsatisfactory finding in the compatibility indicator was due to a number of 

modifications to Colorado statutes which are not compatible with the NRC requirements. The 

modifications were made by the State Legislature without concurrence by the Radiation Control 

Program. Efforts by the Program have thus far been unsuccessful in changing the statutes back 

to a compatible condition. The Program provided the review team with a proposed plan to make 

those corrections, as discussed in Section 4.1 of this report. 

The review team did not make any recommendations and determined that the five 

recommendations from the 2010 IMPEP review should be closed. The review team also 

identified a Good Practice during the review, regarding the State’s implementation of the NRC’s 

Web Based Licensing program. 

Accordingly, the review team recommended, and the Management Review Board (MRB) 

agreed, that the Colorado Agreement State Program be found adequate to protect public health 

and safety but not compatible with the NRC's program. The review team recommended that an 

early Periodic Meeting be scheduled in approximately 1 year to review progress on the statute 

revision, however the MRB directed that an information meeting be held instead between the 

Regional State Agreements Officer and the State in 1 year to focus on this area, and that a 

periodic meeting be held at the routine frequency (2 years). The MRB agreed that the next 

IMPEP review take place in approximately 4 years.
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page 1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

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

review was conducted during the period of April 7 - 11, 2014, by a review team composed of 

technical staff members from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the State of 

Texas, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 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 April 17, 2010, to April 11, 2014, 

were discussed with Colorado managers on the last day of the review. 

The Colorado Agreement State Program is administered by the Radiation Control Program (the 

Program). The Program is part of the Hazardous Materials & Waste Management Division, 

within the Department of Public Health and Environment (the Department). Organization charts 

for the Department and the Program are included in Appendix B. 

At the time of the review, the Colorado Agreement State Program regulated approximately 332 

specific licenses authorizing byproduct, source, and certain special nuclear materials 

(radioactive materials). 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 Colorado. 

A draft of this report was issued to Colorado for factual comment on May 16, 2014. The State 

responded by letter dated June 4, 2014. Copies of the State’s responses are included as an 

Attachment to this report. The Management Review Board (MRB) met on June 30, 2014, to 

consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the Colorado Agreement State Program 

adequate to protect public health and safety, but not compatible with the NRC’s program. 

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

the Program’s response to the questionnaire, (2) review of applicable Colorado statutes and 

regulations, (3) analysis of quantitative information from the Program’s database, (4) technical 

review of selected regulatory actions, (5) field accompaniments of seven inspectors, and (6) 

interviews with staff and managers. The review team evaluated the information gathered 

against the established criteria for each common and applicable non-common performance 

indicator and made a preliminary assessment of the Colorado Agreement State Program’s 

performance. 

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

during previous reviews. Results of the current review of the common performance indicators 

are presented in Section 3.0. Section 4.0 details the results of the review of the applicable 

non-common performance indicators, and Section 5.0 summarizes the review team’s findings 

and recommendations. The review team’s recommendations are comments that relate directly 

to program performance by the State. 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page 2 

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS 

During the previous IMPEP review, which concluded on April 16, 2010, the review team made 

five recommendations in regard to program performance. The status of each recommendation 

is as follows: 

1. “The review team recommends that the State develop and implement a policy and 

procedure for the handling, marking, transmitting, and storing of documents containing 

sensitive information. (Section 3.3) (Recommendation also applies to Sections 3.4 

and 3.5)” 

Status: Shortly after the 2010 IMPEP review, the Program developed and implemented 

a policy and procedure to address this recommendation. The review team determined 

that files with sensitive information are being segregated, securely stored, handled and 

transmitted. The contents of these files are also being marked appropriately. This 

recommendation is closed. 

2. “The review team recommends that the State evaluate its license termination and 

decommissioning processes to ensure that reviews are appropriate, thorough, and 

consistent. (Section 3.4 of the 2006 IMPEP Review) (Modified in 2010)” 

Status: The Program developed a procedure, “Procedure for Specific Radioactive 

Materials License Termination,” for license termination and decommissioning processes. 

The Program fully implemented the procedure and conducted staff training in April 2012. 

The Program also made modifications to the termination application to ensure that 

licensees submit pertinent records required by State regulations. Additionally, the 

Program developed a new checklist, “Termination Checklist for Specific Radioactive 

Material Licenses.” The review team evaluated termination licensing actions and verified 

that all the license reviewers were appropriately utilizing the termination and 

decommissioning procedure and new checklist. The licensing reviews were complete 

and adequately documented termination activities. The review team concluded that 

termination licensing actions were appropriate, thorough and consistent. This 

recommendation is closed. 

3. “The review team recommends that the State develop and implement guidance that 

outlines the roles and responsibilities for staff and the expectations regarding record 

retention to ensure that the Program’s files are complete and comprehensive. 

(Section 3.4) (Recommendation also applies to Sections 3.5 and 4.4.2)” 

Status: The Program transitioned to an electronic filing system and to the NRC 

Web-Based Licensing system in March 2014. The Program implementation of these 

systems will eliminate license files and improve record keeping capabilities. The 

Program conducted discussions with staff to increase emphasis on record retention. 

The review team identified that all licensing files evaluated were complete and 

comprehensive. This recommendation is closed. 

 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page 3 

4. "The review team recommends that the State review its implementation of the 

pre-licensing guidance to ensure that all of the essential elements of the guidance are 

consistently met. (Section 3.4)” 

Status: The Program revised its pre-licensing procedure and implemented the revisions 

and conducted staff training on the revisions in September 2010. A revision to the 

procedure included the development of a checklist to document the pre-licensing 

reviews. The Program’s pre-licensing procedure parallels NRC’s pre-licensing guidance 

and appropriately incorporates the essential elements to verify that the applicant will use 

requested radioactive materials as intended. The procedure requires license reviewers 

to conduct a pre-licensing site visit if it is determined that the applicant is an unknown 

entity. The review team determined that the license reviewers effectively use the 

checklist and pre-licensing procedure. Pre-license site-visits were conducted as 

required for unknown entities. This recommendation is closed. 

5. “The review team recommends that the State establish a means to ensure that SS&D 

evaluations are appropriately documented and conducted with thoroughness; 

consistency with the current version of NUREG-1556, Volume 3; and adherence to 

existing guidance in product evaluations. (Section 4.2.2)” 

 Status: The Program developed a procedure for Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) 

safety evaluations. The review team determined that the Program has effectively 

implemented the procedure into the State’s SS&D evaluation process and determined 

that the procedure adequately addresses the issues related to the recommendation. All 

of the issues raised during the last IMPEP review have been adequately resolved. This 

recommendation is closed. 

3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 

Five common performance indicators are used to review the 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 Program’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 Program’s questionnaire response relative to this 

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

records, and considered any possible workload backlogs. 

The review team evaluated the Program’s staffing and training as three individual components: 

the radioactive materials program, the sealed source and device evaluation program, and the 

uranium recovery program. This section of the report focuses on the radioactive materials 

program. Staffing and training for the SS&D evaluation program and uranium recovery program 

are discussed in Section 4.2.1 and Section 4.4.1, respectively. The Program Manager oversees 

 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page 4 

all of the components that comprise the Colorado Agreement State Program. The Program 

expends approximately 13 full-time equivalents to administer the Agreement State program. 

The Radioactive Materials Unit (the Unit) is responsible for radioactive materials licensing, 

inspection, and emergency response activities. The Unit is composed of the Unit Leader, eight 

health physicists and one program assistant. The health physicists perform licensing and 

inspection activities, as well as respond to incidents and allegations. Additional oversight of the 

Unit is provided by two of the health physicists, one who functions as the compliance lead and 

another as the licensing lead. 

At the time of the review, the Unit was fully staffed; however, one technical staff member 

resigned and left the Unit on the last day of the review. Program management filled the position 

in June 2014. During the review period, five individuals left the Program and five individuals 

were hired into the Program. The Program was able to manage the turnover during the review 

period by recruiting and retaining highly qualified and capable staff. The Program requires new 

hires to have a Master’s degree or equivalent experience in a physical or biological science or 

engineering. 

The Unit has a training and qualification program that is consistent in most respects with NRC 

Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 1248, “Qualification Programs for Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Programs.” Qualification for both inspection and licensing is achieved 

through a comprehensive combination of education and experience, formal classroom training, 

and on-the-job training. The inspection program has a documented qualification process which 

includes in part, the Unit Leader’s signature when full qualification is achieved. The team noted 

that the licensing program does not have the same type of documented qualification process. 

Licensing qualification is achieved through a systematic assignment of work that increases in 

complexity with reviewer knowledge and experience, and involves close working interactions 

between the individual reviewer and the Licensing Lead. As noted in later sections of this 

report, the review team did not identify any performance issues that could be attributed to the 

Unit’s lack of a formalized qualification process for licensing. The review team determined that 

the Unit has an adequate number of qualified inspectors and license reviewers for all active 

license types. The review team concluded that the Unit’s staffing and training is adequate to 

carry out its regulatory duties. 

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

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

found satisfactory. 

3.2 Status of Materials Inspection Program

The review team focused on five factors while reviewing this indicator: 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 Program’s questionnaire response relative to this indicator, data gathered from the 

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

Program managers and staff. 

 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page 5 

The review team’s evaluation of the Program’s inspection priorities verified that inspection 

frequencies for all types of Colorado material licenses are at the same frequency as those listed 

in NRC’s IMC 2800, “Materials Inspection Program.” 

The Program conducted a total of 274 Priority 1, 2 and 3 inspections over the review period. 

The review team determined that none of these inspections were conducted overdue by more 

than 25 percent of the inspection frequency prescribed by IMC 2800. The review team did not 

identify any inspections that were overdue at the time of the review. 

The review team also evaluated the Program’s timeliness for conducting initial inspections. The 

review team noted that the Program conducted 48 initial inspections during the review period, of 

which none were conducted greater than 12 months after license issuance as prescribed by 

IMC 2800. The review team verified that there were no overdue initial inspections at the time of 

the review. Overall, the review team found that the Program did not complete any inspections 

overdue during the review period. 

The review team evaluated the Program’s timeliness in issuing inspection findings. The 

Program has a goal of communicating inspection findings to licensees within 30 days following 

completion of an inspection. The majority of inspection findings are communicated to the 

licensee using Colorado Form RCD-59, “Compliance Inspection Report,” a form similar to 

NRC’s Form 591, “Safety Inspection Report and Compliance Inspection.” A completed form is 

typically issued on-site upon the completion of an inspection. The review team determined that, 

if a Colorado Form RCD-59 was not issued at the conclusion of the on-site inspection, a “Notice 

of Violation” was issued from the office within 30 days of the inspection. Of the 35 inspection 

files reviewed by the review team, all inspection findings were communicated within the 30-day 

goal. 

The Program considers all companies that request to work in Colorado under reciprocity each 

calendar year to be candidates for inspection, which is more conservative than the guidance for 

identifying candidate reciprocity licensees in IMC 1220. The review team determined that the 

Program received requests for reciprocity from approximately 91 candidate reciprocity 

licensees, as defined in IMC 1220, over the review period. The review team determined that the 

Program exceeded the NRC’s criteria of inspecting 20 percent of candidate licensees operating 

under reciprocity in each of the years covered by the review period. 

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

that Colorado’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 inspection reports, enforcement documentation, inspection field 

notes, and interviewed inspectors for 35 radioactive materials inspections conducted by the 

Program over the review period. The casework reviewed included inspections conducted by 

seven current and three former inspectors and covered various inspection types. These 

included academic broad scope, medical broad scope, high dose rate remote after-loader, 

permanent implant brachytherapy, industrial radiography, panoramic and self-shielded 

irradiators, gamma knife, nuclear pharmacy and reciprocity. Appendix C lists the inspection 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page 6 

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

accompaniments. 

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

aspects of the licensee’s radiation safety 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, safety and security was 

acceptable. The documentation supported violations, recommendations made to licensees, 

unresolved safety issues, and discussions held with licensees during exit interviews. 

The inspection procedures utilized by the Program are equivalent to the inspection guidance 

outlined in IMC 2800. The majority of inspections findings are documented on a RCD 59 Form, 

which a copy is then left with the licensee at the conclusion of the inspection. Other inspection 

findings are routinely dispatched within 30 days of completing an inspection. The review team 

determined that the Program’s inspection findings were prompt and appropriate, and regulatory 

actions were taken when necessary. Inspection findings were found to be clearly stated and 

documented in the reports. 

The Program has a policy to accompany all staff performing radioactive materials inspections on 

an annual basis. All inspector accompaniments were performed annually during the review 

period except for two missed accompaniments in 2010 and one in 2011 due to a managerial 

transition. The accompaniment reports contained sufficient details to document the areas 

covered during the accompaniments. 

The review team noted that the Program has an adequate supply of survey instruments to 

support the inspection program, as well as responding to incidents. Appropriate, calibrated 

survey instrumentation, such as Geiger-Mueller (GM) meters, scintillation detectors, ion 

chambers, micro-R meters, multi-channel analyzers and neutron detectors, were available. 

Instruments are calibrated at least annually, or as needed, by the manufacturer with National 

Institute of Standards and Technology traceable sources. The program tracks each instrument, 

its current location, and next calibration date. 

Accompaniments of seven Program inspectors were conducted on February 4 - 6, 2014, March 

10 - 11, 2014, and April 1, 2014. The Program inspectors were accompanied at a uranium 

recovery mill, an industrial radiography facility, a well logging site, an industrial gauge user, and 

a medical center that utilizes a high dose-rate remote afterloader. The inspector 

accompaniments are identified in Appendix C. During each of 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 their audits of the licensees’ radiation safety programs. The 

inspectors conducted interviews with appropriate personnel, observed licensed operations, 

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

inspections were adequate to assess radiological health, safety and security at each of the 

licensed facilities. 

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

that Colorado’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, be 

found satisfactory. 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page 7 

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

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

23 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, financial assurance, operating and 

emergency procedures, appropriateness of license conditions, Increased Controls and overall 

technical quality. The casework was also reviewed for timeliness, use of appropriate deficiency 

letters and cover letters, reference to appropriate regulations, product certifications, supporting 

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

review, and proper signatures. 

The review team noted that the State of Colorado manages a comprehensive registry program 

for its generally licensed devices. The State provides each general licensee with an inventory 

and self-certification of compliance documents. The general licensees are required to return the 

documentation with a fee. All general licensees are required to register their devices annually 

with the State. 

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

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

new licenses, three renewals, four decommissioning or termination actions and nine 

amendments. Files reviewed included a cross-section of license types, including broadscope 

medical, medical diagnostic and therapy, gamma knife, industrial radiography, nuclear 

pharmacy, research and development, accelerator production, gauges, well logging, and a 

manufacturer. The casework sample represented work from each of the Program's license 

reviewers. A listing of the licensing casework reviewed, with case-specific comments, is 

provided in Appendix D. 

The Program instituted the use of the NRC’s Web Based Licensing (WBL) system and 

converted to a paperless system for document management in March 2014. The WBL system 

is an electronic system used to track assignment progress and completion of all licensing 

actions and inspections. The review team noted that Colorado is the first state to fully embrace 

the live WBL system. The review team identified this as a Good Practice by the State. 

License actions are sent to the State e-mail box for processing. The License Lead is 

responsible for checking the e-mail box and initiating licensing actions into the WBL system. 

The License Lead assigns the license actions in WBL to individual license reviewers. If needed, 

a license reviewer can generate deficiency correspondence via email. The reviewer is 

responsible for uploading deficiency correspondence into the WBL system. Once deficiency 

items are resolved, the reviewer produces a draft licensing action. The draft licensing action 

and all backup correspondence is forwarded through WBL to the License lead for a second 

technical review and final approval and processing. All completed licensing actions are 

forwarded through WBL to the Unit Leader for a review, digital signature and issuance. 

Licenses are issued for a five year period under a timely renewal system. 

The review team concluded that the licensing actions were of high technical quality, thorough, 

complete and consistent with the NRC's NUREG-1556 series guidance documents, the State's 

regulations and licensing procedures, and good health physics practices. License tie-down 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page 8 

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 licensee’s documents. The licensee’s compliance 

history was taken into account during the review process. Health and safety issues were 

properly addressed and tie-down conditions were complete and enforceable. The review team 

evaluated the termination process and determined that the reviews were appropriate, thorough, 

and consistent. The termination actions were well documented showing appropriate transfer 

and survey records. The review team attributed the consistent use of templates and a 

secondary technical review to the overall quality noted in the casework reviews. 

The review team assessed the Program's implementation of the pre-licensing guidance. The 

Program performs pre-licensing site visits of all new applicants. The Program’s methods 

incorporate the essential elements of NRC’s pre-licensing guidance to verify that the applicant 

will use requested radioactive materials as intended. The Program checks to ensure that 

applicants are registered with the Secretary of State’s Office and in good standing prior to 

granting approval of any license. In addition, the Program uses various on-line search 

mechanisms and interagency communications to verify the identity of individuals. If a 

pre-licensing site visit is necessary, each applicant is subject to an on-site evaluation of its 

radiation safety and security program prior to receipt of the initial license. Program reviewers 

effectively use the checklist to provide a basis for confidence that radioactive material will be 

used as specified on a license and the checklist for risk-significant radioactive materials. 

The review team examined the Program's licensing practices in regards to the Increased 

Controls, Fingerprinting, and National Source Tracking System (NSTS) requirements. The 

review team noted that the Unit added legally binding license conditions to the licenses that met 

the criteria for implementing the Increased Controls, Fingerprinting, and NSTS requirements, as 

appropriate. The review team analyzed the Program’s methodology for identifying those 

licenses and found the rationale was thorough and accurate. The review team confirmed that 

the Program has a process in place for identifying new and amended licenses that meet the 

criteria to implement the Increased Controls. 

The review team examined the Program’s procedure for the control of sensitive information. 

The procedure addressed the identification, marking, control, handling, and preparation of 

documents that contained sensitive information related to the Increased Controls. The review 

team concluded that files that contained sensitive information were appropriately identified and 

secured. 

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

that Colorado’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 Program’s actions in responding to incidents and 

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

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

Database (NMED) against those contained in the Program’s files, and evaluated the casework 

for 20 radioactive materials incidents. A listing of the casework examined, with case-specific 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page 9 

comments, can be found in Appendix E. The review team also evaluated the Program’s 

response to 16 allegations involving radioactive materials, including 3 that the NRC referred to 

the State during the review period. 

The review team identified 41 radioactive material incidents in NMED for Colorado during the 

review period. Twelve non-reportable incidents in NMED were also reviewed for reporting and 

found to be correctly categorized as non-reportable by the Program. The review team selected 

20 reportable radioactive material incidents for evaluation. These incidents included the 

following types of events: lost and stolen radioactive material, overexposures, medical events, 

equipment failure, damaged equipment, leaking sources, and contamination. The Program’s 

responses to the incidents were found to be complete and comprehensive, and the level of 

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

Inspectors were dispatched for onsite investigations when appropriate. Colorado places a high 

priority on on-site responses as evidenced by an on-site response in 13 of the 20 incidents 

evaluated during this review. Enforcement and other regulatory actions were taken as 

appropriate, including the issuance of large civil penalties (i.e. $10,000-$100,000). If the 

incident met the reporting thresholds, as established in the Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs (FSME) Procedure SA-300 “Reporting Material 

Events,” the State notified the NRC Headquarters Operations Center and entered the 

information into NMED, in a prompt manner. 

During the review period, the Program updated incident response guidance to specifically 

address different types of potential incidents. Implicit in the guidance is the Program 

management’s message that on-site investigations should be the default response unless there 

is a compelling reason to not do so. 

In evaluating the effectiveness of the Program's response to allegations, the review team 

evaluated the completed casework for 16 allegations, including 3 that the NRC referred to the 

State during the review period. The review team concluded that the Program took prompt and 

appropriate actions in response to concerns raised. The review team noted that the Program 

documented the investigations of concerns and retained all necessary documentation to 

appropriately close the allegations. The Program notified the concerned individuals of the 

conclusion of their investigations. The review team determined that the Program adequately 

protected the identity of concerned individuals. 

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

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

Allegation Activities, be found satisfactory. 

4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 

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

(1) Compatibility Requirements, (2) SS&D Evaluation Program, (3) Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste Disposal Program, and (4) Uranium Recovery Program. All 4 non-common performance 

indicators applied to this review. 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page 10 

4.1 Compatibility Requirements

4.1.1 Legislation

The Department is authorized as the State’s radiation control agency under the Colorado 

Revised Statutes Title 25, Article 11 (the Radiation Control Act). The Radiation Control Act 

provides the authority for the Program, consistent with the State Agreement. The Radiation 

Control Act also gives the Department specific powers and duties among which are authorities 

to promulgate regulations, issue licenses, perform inspections, collect fees, and issue civil 

penalties. Changes made to Colorado statutes in recent years have resulted in significant 

differences with the NRC requirements. Those issues are discussed in the next section. 

4.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility

The review team examined the procedures used in the Program’s regulation promulgation 

process. The Program drafts all proposed rules and submits the proposed rules to the 

Radiation Advisory Committee (the Committee) and the affected community for preliminary 

review and comments. During this time, the Program provides the NRC a draft of the rules for a 

compatibility review. Once the preliminary comments from the Committee, the NRC, and the 

affected community are received, the Program presents the rule to the State’s Board of Health 

(the Board) and requests a public rulemaking hearing. The rulemaking hearing will typically be 

held within 60 days following the request. Once a hearing date is established, the Board issues 

a notice requesting public comments on the proposed rules. The public notice comment period 

lasts between 21 - 41 days depending upon the date of filing with the Colorado Secretary of 

State’s office, at the end of which, the hearing is held. The Program and the Committee will 

meet, if necessary, before the hearing to address any changes considered necessary as a 

result of comments received during the comment period. Once the Board approves the new 

rule, it goes into effect two months after the hearing. On average, the State can promulgate 

final effective regulations in six to twelve months, depending on the resolution of comments 

received during the various comment periods. As with all State laws, the Program’s rules and 

regulations are not exempt from the State’s “sunset” law. However, the Colorado legislature 

reinstates the laws impacting health and safety as a matter of routine. 

During the review period, Colorado completed 13 regulation packages, 6 of which were 

overdue at the time of their completion. NRC policy requires that Agreement States adopt 

certain equivalent regulations or legally binding requirements no later than 3 years after the 

effective date of NRC’s regulations. The review team identified two currently overdue 

regulation amendments that the State will need to address in future rulemakings or by the 

adoption of alternate legally binding requirements: 

• “Compatibility With IAEA Transportation Safety Standards and Other Transportation 

Safety Amendments,” 10 CFR Part 71 amendment (69 FR 3697), that was due for 

Agreement State adoption by October 1, 2007. 

• “Medical Use of Byproduct Material – Authorized User Clarification,” 10 CFR Part 35 

amendment (74 FR 33901), that was due for Agreement State adoption by September 

28, 2012. 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page 11 

At the time of the review, the Program was in the process of addressing all overdue and 

upcoming regulation amendments. The Program had several rulemaking packages at various 

stages in its rule promulgation process that will address these regulation amendments. 

A complete list of regulation amendments can be found on the NRC website at the following 

address: http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/rss_regamendents.html. 

In 2010 and 2011, individuals raised concerns regarding Colorado’s process for public 

participation during licensing decisions relating to uranium recovery operations. In particular, 

the concerns were that Colorado did not provide for a notice and opportunity for public comment 

on proposed 11e.(2) byproduct material licenses or license amendments, provide for a public 

hearing, and make the Agreement State’s environmental analysis of the proposed licensing 

action available to the public prior to such notice and public comment opportunities. As a result 

of discussions with State officials on the requirements of the relevant Colorado statutes and 

regulations, NRC staff determined, and the Program agreed, that the State, in its promulgation 

and implementation of its regulations needed to clearly provide public notice of an opportunity 

for the public to submit comments and participate in a public hearing regarding uranium 

licensing actions potentially impacting the environment. For the one site licensed for uranium 

recovery during the review period, Colorado provided the opportunity for a public hearing 

regarding the issuance of the new license and Environmental Impact Analysis for the Piñon 

Ridge Uranium Mill. Public hearings were held in late 2012. 

In January 2014, external stakeholders indicated their intent to propose changes to the 

Radiation Control Act and changes to those areas impacting uranium and thorium processing 

facilities. As a result, the Program has been limited in its ability to address prior NRC comments 

on legislative changes and proposed revisions to the Radiation Control Act. The staff is 

continuing to work with department management and legislative liaison personnel with the intent 

of addressing prior NRC comments. 

On October 24, 2011, the NRC provided comments on the Radiation Control Act legislative 

changes contained in statutes 25-11-101 through 25-11-305 sent to the NRC in April 2011. The 

NRC’s comments were related to authority provided to the Department under the 274b. 

agreement with the NRC. These comments remain, as the Program has been stymied in its 

attempt to get legislation passed that would resolve the issues raised by the NRC. 

On January 14, 2014, the NRC provided comments to the proposed revisions to the final 

Colorado Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Radiation Control, 6 CCR 1007-1, Part 18, 

“Licensing Requirements for Uranium and Thorium Processing,” received by the NRC on 

November 8, 2013. These comments addressed issues including those relating to Colorado’s 

hearing requirements and the need for Colorado to be able to provide a notice of opportunity for 

a public hearing with cross examination after the State’s environmental assessment has been 

made available to the public. 

The following seven issues, involving Colorado statutes, need to be resolved in order for 

Colorado to be compatible with the NRC’s program: 

 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page 12 

1. “Radioactive waste” definition 

In 25-11-201-(3), Colorado Revised Statutes, Colorado defines the term “Radioactive 

waste” which appears to encompass both high level and low-level radioactive waste. By 

defining this term in this manner, there appears to be duplication of regulatory authority 

with the inclusion of material not covered by the 274b. agreement with Colorado and 

reserved to the NRC. Colorado does not have a specific definition for low-level 

radioactive waste, but does have a definition for waste found in Colorado regulations, 

which does meet the Compatibility Category B designation associated with the definition 

of “waste” in 10 CFR 61.2. 

The definition of “Radioactive Waste” in 25-11-201-(3) needs to be revised to meet the 

Compatibility Category B designation assigned to the definition of “waste” in 10 CFR 

61.2. 

2. “Classified material” definition 

In 25-11-201-(1), Colorado defines a term “classified material” which is not used in the 

NRC regulation scheme. This definition appears to cause conflicts as it groups 11e.(2) 

material with the other materials that do not need to meet the additional requirements for 

11e.(2) byproduct material under Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act and Part 

40. Although Part 2, “Radioactive Waste”, 25-11-201 to 25-11-203, appears to apply to 

radioactive material, the rest of Part 2 appears to mix the terms radioactive waste with 

classified material as it lays out requirements for both low-level radioactive waste and 

uranium recovery facilities. 

The definition of “classified material” in 25-11-201-(1) must be removed and the 

legislation must be revised and restructured to clearly incorporate the appropriate 

definitions and requirements that Colorado is responsible for under the Section 274b. 

Agreement. 

3. “Radioactive” definitions 

Colorado has two definitions for the term “radioactive.” In 25-11-101(5), the definition 

means “emitting radiation.” In 25-11-201(2), the definition means “emitting alpha rays, 

beta rays, gamma rays, high-energy neutrons or protons, or other high-level radioactive 

particles. The term “radioactive” does not include material in which the estimated 

specific activity is not greater than .002 microcurie per gram of material, and in which the 

radioactivity is essentially uniformly distributed.” 

The last sentence of the second definition is inconsistent with the responsibilities and 

authority assumed by the State of Colorado under the 274b Agreement and appears to 

create a gap in the orderly pattern of regulations on a nationwide basis. The second 

definition needs to be either revised or removed. 

 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page 13 

4. Terms are not defined in legislation 

In 25-11-101 and 25-11-201, Colorado does not define byproduct, source or special 

nuclear material, although these terms are defined in Colorado regulations and meet the 

compatibility category designations assigned to them. 

Colorado needs to add these definitions to the legislation to clarify the materials covered 

by the Agreement. 

5. Provisional licenses 

In 25-11-109, Colorado’s legislation permits the issuance of a provisional license by the 

Department. The provisional license is issued if the Department has failed to issue or 

has denied a request for a license, or an amendment thereto, as authorized by 

25-11-109, within 30 days of the date of receipt by the Department of a completed 

application made on the appropriate forms designated by the Department to a hospital 

as licensed or certified pursuant to section 25-1.5(1)(a)(I) and (1)(a)(II). These 

provisional licenses can be in effect for up to 180 days and apply only to licensed or 

certified hospitals when the purpose is to acquire, possess, and use radioactive material 

for diagnostic or therapeutic human use. 

This is contrary to the requirement to issue licenses that have addressed health and 

safety requirements in the regulations and affects the adequacy of the State’s program 

under 274b. This provision needs to be removed from the legislation. 

6. Financial surety calculations 

In 25-11-110(4)(d), Colorado requires that the amount of a long-term care warranty shall 

be enough that, with the assumed six percent annual real interest rate, the annual 

interest earning will be sufficient to cover the annual costs of site surveillance by the 

Department, including reasonable administrative costs incurred by the Department, in 

perpetuity, subsequent to the termination of the radioactive materials license for that site. 

This is less restrictive than the provision in Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 10, which 

assumes a one percent annual real interest. The six percent annual real interest rate 

will greatly underestimate the amount of funding necessary for the long term surveillance 

necessary to meet the Compatibility Category C designation assigned to Part 40, 

Appendix A, Criterion 10. The annual real interest rate needs to be changed to one 

percent. 

7. Hearing Requirements 

Colorado must adopt a public hearing process in its statutes and regulations that is 

comparable to the NRC requirements. This process must avoid conflicts, duplications or 

gaps in the oversight of uranium recovery facilities throughout the country. 

During the review, the review team asked Colorado management for “a path forward” to resolve 

the statutory compatibility issues. In response, on April 17, 2014, Colorado sent a letter to the 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page 14 

NRC indicating that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has obtained 

permission from the Governor’s Office to conduct a stakeholder process in the summer of 2014 

to address incompatible sections of the Radiation Control Act. Further, the letter indicated that 

this process would lead to the submission of statutory language changes in the legislative 

session starting in January 2015 that would bring the statute into compatibility with NRC 

requirements. 

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

that Colorado’s performance with respect to the indicator, Compatibility Requirements, be found 

unsatisfactory. 

4.2 Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program

In reviewing this indicator, the review team used three subelements to evaluate the Program’s 

performance regarding the Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) evaluation program. These 

subelements were (1) Technical Staffing and Training, (2) Technical Quality of the Product 

Evaluation Program, and (3) Evaluation of Defects and Incidents Regarding SS&Ds. 

In assessing the State SS&D evaluation activities, the review team examined the information 

provided in response to the IMPEP questionnaire and evaluated the SS&D registry sheets and 

supporting documents processed during the review period. The team also interviewed the staff 

currently conducting SS&D evaluations. 

4.2.1. Technical Staffing and Training

The SS&D evaluation responsibilities are distributed between license evaluators who are fully 

qualified to perform SS&D evaluations. Since the last review, three individuals have been 

trained to perform SS&D evaluations and have attended the NRC’s SS&D Workshop. During 

the review period, one of the fully qualified SS&D evaluators left the program. 

At the time of the review, the Program had eight reviewers who are qualified to perform safety 

evaluations of SS&D applications. The review team interviewed staff members involved in the 

reviews and determined that they were familiar with the procedures used in the evaluation of a 

source/device and had access to applicable reference documents. The review team determined 

that the Program’s staffing and training with respect to SS&D evaluations is adequate, based on 

the Program’s SS&D workload. 

4.2.2 Technical Quality of the Product Evaluation Program

During the review period, the Program conducted no new evaluations, issued 5 amendments to 

existing registrations, and inactivated a large number of registrations (i.e. 54 inactivations). The 

review team evaluated 17 of the 59 SS&D actions. The selected casework represented the 

work of four of the individuals involved with SS&D evaluations during the review period. During 

the review, the Program compiled an updated list of registrations and determined that there are 

currently four active SS&D registrations in the State of Colorado. A list of SS&D casework 

examined can be found in Appendix F. 

 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page 15 

In assessing the Program’s SS&D evaluation activities, the review team examined information 

contained in the Program’s response to the IMPEP questionnaire for this indicator, evaluated 

casework, and interviewed program staff and managers. The review team verified that the 

Program’s SS&D reviewers follow the recommended guidance from the NRC SS&D Workshop, 

NUREG-1556, Volume 3, Revision 1, and applicable and pertinent American National 

Standards Institute standards when conducting SS&D evaluations. The review team found that 

these documents were available and generally used during SS&D reviews. 

4.2.3 Evaluation of Defects and Incidents Regarding SS&Ds

No incidents related to SS&D defects involving sources or devices registered by the State 

of Colorado were reported during the review period. Utilizing NMED, the review team 

determined that there were no incidents involving SS&D registered products reported 

during the review period. Incident procedures are in place should an SS&D-related 

incident occur. The Program is aware of the need to review such incidents as potentially 

generic in nature with possible wide-ranging effects. 

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

that Colorado’s performance with respect to the indicator, Sealed Source and Device Evaluation 

Program, be found satisfactory. 

4.3 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program

In 1981, the NRC amended its Policy Statement, “Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in 

Discontinuance of NRC Authority and Assumption Thereof by states Through Agreement,” to 

allow a State to seek an amendment for the regulation of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) as 

a separate category. Those States with existing Agreements prior to 1981 were determined to 

have continued LLRW disposal authority without the need of an amendment. Although the 

Colorado Agreement State Program has authority to regulate a LLRW disposal facility, the NRC 

has not required States to have a program for licensing a disposal facility until such time as the 

State has been designated as a host State for a LLRW disposal facility. When an Agreement 

State has been notified or becomes aware of the need to regulate a LLRW disposal facility, it is 

expected to put in place a regulatory program that will meet the criteria for an adequate and 

compatible LLRW program. There are no plans for a commercial LLRW disposal facility in 

Colorado. Accordingly, the review team did not review this indicator. 

4.4 Uranium Recovery Program

In reviewing this indicator, the review team used five subelements 

 to evaluate the Program’s performance regarding the uranium recovery program. These 

subelements were (1) Technical Staffing and Training, (2) Status of the Uranium Recovery 

Inspection Program, (3) Technical Quality of Inspections, (4) Technical Quality of Licensing 

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

During the review period, Colorado’s uranium recovery program regulated eight licensees under 

State regulations in Part 18, “Milling of Uranium, Thorium and Related Radioactive Materials” 

and under Part 3, “Licensing of Radioactive Material.” The uranium recovery program manages 

one additional site, the George E. Davis Mill, for decommissioning activities that were formerly 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page 16 

licensed by the NRC’s Grant Program. 

The uranium recovery program manages the following uranium recovery sites: 

1. Energy Fuels Resources Piñon Ridge Mill 

2. Cotter Corporation Cañon City Mill 

3. Umetco Uravan Mill 

4. Hecla Durita Mill 

5. Sweeney Mill 

6. George E. Davis Mill 

The uranium recovery program manages the following uranium decay chain contamination 

sites: 

7. Cotter Corporation Schwartzwalder Mine 

8. Colorado School of Mines Creekside 

9. Colorado School of Mines Research Institute Table Mountain Research Center 

There were no operational facilities in the State at the time of the review. All of the facilities 

listed above were in standby, storage-only or decommissioning status. During the review 

period, the uranium recovery program issued a license for the Energy Fuels Resources Piñon 

Ridge conventional uranium mill. The Cotter Corporation Cañon City Mill is in closure status. 

The Program has been instructed by the Colorado Governor’s office not to address additional 

decommissioning activities outside of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) process. Decommissioning at the Umetco Uravan 

Mill has been completed and is awaiting finalization of the Completion Report Review by the 

NRC and the Department of Energy, and the NRC decisions on transfer boundaries for license 

termination. The Hecla Durita Mill has been decommissioned and is awaiting the NRC review 

and decision. The Sweeney Mill is closed and stable with no funding available. The Cotter 

Corporation Schwartzwalder Mine is a former uranium mine site and is being remediated by 

removing uranium from groundwater. The license for the Colorado School of Mines Research 

Institute Creekside and a second Cotter Corporation Schwartzwalder Mine license were 

terminated. The Colorado School of Mines Research Institute Table Mountain Research Center 

is in decommissioning status and stable with no funding available. 

4.4.1 Technical Staffing and Training

In reviewing this subelement, the review team considered staffing level, technical qualifications 

of the staff, staff training, and staff turnover. 

At the time of the review, the uranium recovery program had two technical staff members 

(approximately 1.5 FTE total) who perform the vast majority of the project management, 

inspections, and licensing action reviews for Colorado’s uranium recovery program. The 

uranium recovery program staff has training in physics, health physics, geology/geophysics, and 

inspection procedures. They also receive annual facility safety refresher training and attend 

NRC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Energy technical training 

courses and webinars. 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page 17 

The uranium recovery program also has access to individuals from within the Program and 

others in the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, and the Department, for 

technical support. The uranium recovery program staff indicated that Divisional geotechnical 

and process engineers assisted with the Energy Fuels Resources Piñon Ridge review. The 

uranium recovery program has contracts with consulting firms to assist with construction 

inspections, site characterization reviews, and remedial proposals, as needed. 

One individual resigned from the uranium recovery program during the review period. That 

individual was replaced and there are no vacancies in the uranium recovery program. The other 

uranium recovery program staff member was assigned to mentor, assist in training and transfer 

knowledge of the uranium recovery program to the new staff member. 

The two uranium recovery program technical staff members demonstrated thorough 

understanding of State regulations and the NRC guidance related to uranium recovery. 

Uranium recovery program technical staff developed a Training Packet for Uranium Mill 

Licensing. The packet contains a table containing the name of the guidance documents and 

their applicability to uranium mill licensing. The NRC NUREGs, standard review plans, 

regulatory guides, and interim staff guidance were listed in the table. The training packet also 

contained an outline of the content summary for a conventional mill application and an outline of 

the applicable regulations and guidance used for each area of review. 

The uranium recovery program has a training matrix titled, “Suggested Background and 

Experience for Certified Uranium Mill Inspectors for Radiation Safety” that is contained within 

the “Inspection Procedure for Uranium Recovery Facilities.” The training matrix and certification 

program in the Inspection Procedure contained subheadings for Training, Knowledge, 

Experience, and Inspection Accompaniment. The inspector certification process was similar, 

but not as detailed, as the NRC’s formal qualification program found in IMC 1248. 

The review team determined that the Program’s staffing levels and qualifications for the uranium 

recovery program were adequate for the Program’s workload at the time of the review. Staff 

was well balanced between inspectors, reviewers, and management. 

4.4.2 Status of the Uranium Recovery Inspection Program 

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

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

licensees. The review team’s evaluation is based on the Program’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 review team determined that the uranium inspection frequencies were consistent with IMC 

2801, “Uranium Mill and 11e.(2) Byproduct Material Disposal Site and Facility Inspection 

Program.” 

The Program performed 21 inspections (including one initial inspection) during the review period 

at licensed uranium mill/mine sites representing a range of activities in various stages of license 

operations. In addition, the Program conducted groundwater sampling and reviewed 

groundwater and progress reports submitted by licensees. 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page 18 

The review team identified that two uranium recovery inspections were conducted overdue, by 

five and six months, respectively. Three instances of late reports to licensees were also noted, 

sent from 56 to 129 days after the inspection. Although not all inspections were completed in a 

timely manner or had inspection results conveyed to the licensee in a timely manner, the review 

team determined that the Program’s inspection program is performance based and adequate 

with no health and safety implications noted by the team. A listing of the inspection casework 

reviewed can be found in Appendix C. 

4.4.3 Technical Quality of Inspections

In reviewing this subelement, the review team examined inspection reports for 21 inspections 

conducted by the Program during the review period and accompanied two inspectors at a 

licensed uranium mill site. The review of records represented a range of uranium recovery 

inspection activities in different stages of license operations. There was no enforcement action 

for the period of review. A listing of the inspection files reviewed and the inspectors’ 

accompaniments can be found in Appendix C. 

The uranium recovery inspectors followed the Program’s inspection manual (revised December 

26, 2013) for conducting inspections. The Program has inspection procedures specific to the 

uranium recovery program. Inspectors use checklists and/or memoranda to document 

inspections. The review team found that the inspection reports provided appropriate depth of 

coverage, addressed license conditions and the regulations, and demonstrated that the 

inspectors 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 inspectors focused on health physics and radiation safety issues. 

They also addressed environmental monitoring, groundwater observation and sampling, 

laboratory inspections and procedures, licensee management structure, and organizational 

issues. 

The Program’s records indicated that supervisor accompaniments of the 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 accompaniments were not performed in 2010 or 2011, and that 

Program managers identified this failure and have conducted staff accompaniments since. 

On February 4, 2014, three members of the review team accompanied two uranium recovery 

program inspectors during an inspection of the Cotter Mill facility. The review team noted that 

the inspectors did not carry a radiation survey instrument during the inspection. The inspectors 

stated that this was an oversight, and that the usual inspection practice at a uranium mill facility 

included independent and confirmatory surveys. The review team’s analysis of other inspection 

reports identified the consistent use of survey instruments during uranium recovery inspections. 

4.4.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

For this subelement, the review team examined files and associated documentation related to 

licensing conventional uranium recovery mill facilities and other facilities licensed and regulated 

by the uranium recovery program. Appendix D lists the 17 licensing files reviewed. The 

licensing actions during the review period consisted of the licensing of a new conventional 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page 19 

uranium mill application, license renewals, various amendments, decommissioning plans, 

annual financial assurance updates, compliance monitoring, and post-decommissioning 

monitoring for groundwater compliance. The uranium recovery program reported over 250 

licensing actions completed during the review period. The review team interviewed 

management and staff members about the status of each regulated uranium recovery program 

site. Management and staff were knowledgeable and understood the technical details and 

conditions existing at each site. 

The uranium recovery program staff has a review procedure and checklist for licensing reviews. 

The review team found that each incoming request, report, or other action was assigned a 

docket number. Each action docketed and reviewed was accompanied by a letter responding to 

the licensee. Each licensee response letter was tracked using the docket number in an 

electronic database and all response letters reviewed by the review team contained secondary 

technical or management review and approval. The uranium recovery program also uses a 

licensing template for new licenses. 

A large portion of the licensing actions consisted of document reviews for one licensee, the 

Cotter Corporation Cañon City Mill. The review team evaluated several actions related to this 

site. During the review period, the uranium recovery program has denied several requests by 

the licensee to perform decommissioning-type activities and reviews related to evaporation 

pond design, tailings impoundment design, and ore pad removal. The Program indicated in its 

denial letters that future site characterization, remediation, decommissioning and reclamation of 

this site will occur as part of the road map process established in May 2013. The review team 

was informed that the Colorado Governor’s office had placed a work pause on Cañon City Mill 

work-related activities in March 2012. Since the Cañon City Mill is also a Superfund site, the 

State, EPA, and licensee continue to negotiate an agreement on cleanup at the site using the 

CERCLA decision-making process. All required monitoring and reporting continue for the 

Cañon City Mill. The review team asked the uranium recovery program staff if the pause in 

work-related activities due to direction from the Governor’s office or the CERCLA decision 

making process has led to any health, safety or environmental issues at the site. Staff indicated 

that the work pause and on-going negotiations had not caused any health, safety or 

environmental issues at the site at this time. 

The review team evaluated the Decision Analysis and the license for the Energy Fuels 

Resources Piñon Ridge conventional mill. The Piñon Ridge Decision Analysis document 

contained a thorough evaluation of the application and contained regulatory and guidance 

citations and a basis for the staff’s licensing decision. The basis and regulatory citations were 

outlined in the Decision Analysis for each subelement in the review, including Proposed Milling 

Facility, Environmental Baseline, Effluent and Environmental Measurements and Monitoring 

Program, Ground Water and Surface Water Monitoring Program, and Decommissioning (slope 

stability, impoundment design, settlement, liquefaction potential, long-term stability, disposal cell 

cover design, cell engineering parameters, final cover water balance, flood potential, disposal 

cell material selection). The uranium recovery program utilized a geologist/hydrogeologist, 

health physicist, process engineer, geotechnical engineer, and environmental protection 

specialist (meteorology) to complete the technical review. The uranium recovery program 

utilized the Department of Natural Resources and the State Historic Preservation Office to 

complete the environmental review. The review team evaluated the Piñon Ridge license and 

found that license conditions were clearly stated and inspectable. 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page 20 

The files evaluated by the review team were complete, consistent, and of acceptable quality. 

Based on the casework evaluated, the review team concluded that the licensing actions were of 

high technical quality and were consistent with Program procedures and State regulations and 

were protective of public health, safety, and the environment. 

4.4.5 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities

The uranium recovery program did not report any incidents; nor did the review team identify any 

during casework reviews or inspector accompaniments. The NRC referred two allegations to 

the State during the review period. Based on Colorado’s interactions with the NRC regarding 

the allegations, the review team concluded that the Program took prompt and appropriate 

actions in response to the concerns raised. The review team found that the Program has 

appropriate procedures in place for handling incidents and allegations. 

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

that Colorado’s performance with respect to the indicator, Uranium Recovery Program, be found 

satisfactory. 

5.0 SUMMARY 

As noted in Sections 3.0 and 4.0, Colorado’s performance was found satisfactory for seven of 

the eight performance indicators. The Compatibility Requirements indicator was found to be 

unsatisfactory, based on legislative changes made to Colorado statutes. The review team did 

not make any recommendations regarding program performance by the State. A Good Practice 

was noted regarding Colorado’s implementation of the NRC’s Web Based Licensing program. 

Overall, the review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, that the Colorado Agreement 

State Program is adequate to protect public health and safety. The review team also 

recommended, and the MRB agreed, that Colorado be found not compatible with the NRC’s 

program, due to significant changes made to State statutes. Based on the results of the current 

IMPEP review, the review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, that the next full IMPEP 

review take place in approximately 4 years. The review team also recommended that an early 

Periodic Meeting be scheduled 1 year from this review to monitor the State’s progress in 

resolving the statutory differences; however, the MRB directed that an information meeting be 

held between the Regional State Agreements Officer and the State in 1 year to focus on this 

area, and that a periodic meeting be held at the routine frequency (2 years). 
LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members 

Appendix B Colorado Organization Charts 

Appendix C Inspection Casework Reviews 

Appendix D License Casework Reviews 

Appendix E Incident Casework Reviews 

Appendix F Sealed Source & Device Casework Reviews 
APPENDIX A 

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS 

Name Area of Responsibility

Jim Lynch, Region III Team Leader 

 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation 

 Activities 

 Inspector Accompaniments 

Randy Erickson, Region IV Technical Staffing and Training 

Status of Materials Inspection Program 

 Inspector Accompaniments 

Dwight Shearer, Pennsylvania Technical Quality of Inspections 

Cassandra Frazier, Region III Technical Quality of Licensing Actions 

Stephen Poy, FSME Compatibility Requirements 

 Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program 

Ron Linton, FSME Uranium Recovery Program 

 Inspector Accompaniments 

Muhammadali Abbaszadeh, Texas Uranium Recovery Program 

 Inspector Accompaniments 
APPENDIX B 

COLORADO ORGANIZATION CHARTS 

ADAMS ACCESSION NO.: ML14083A641 
APPENDIX C 

INSPECTION CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS 

ONLY. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Exempla Healthcare / Lutheran Medical Center License No.: 227-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 4/1/14 Inspector: JJ 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: KRW Consulting, Inc. License No.: 976-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 4/25/13 Inspector: SW 

File No.: 3 

Licensee: Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. License No.: 120-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 4/17/13 Inspectors: ES, PP 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: High Mountain Inspection Services License No.: 1042-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 4/8/13 Inspectors: CR, CE 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: Cardinal Health License No.: 392-03 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 9/19/13 Inspector: MB 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: Bowie Resources License No.: 1017-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 3/21/13 Inspector: JJ 

File No.: 7 

Licensee: Environmental Resource Associates License No.: 1046-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 6/27/13 Inspector: CR 

File No.: 8 

Licensee: Red Rocks Imaging Center License No.: 1181-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 11/25/13 Inspector: CH 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page C.2 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 9 

Licensee: Pasha Environmental Services, LLC License No.: 1220-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Initial Priority: D 

Inspection Date: 6/27/13 Inspectors: EE, SW 

File No.: 10 

Licensee: Boulder Community Hospital License No.: 262-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 4/3/13 Inspectors: PP, MB 

File No.: 11 

Licensee: Lambert and Associates License No.: 556-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 4/22/13 Inspectors: PE, MD 

File No.: 12 

Licensee: Shannon & Wilson, Inc. License No.: 1119-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 5/10/11 Inspector: PC 

File No.: 13 

Licensee: NuQuest, Inc. License No.: 1022-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 4/25/13 Inspectors: PP, MD 

File No.: 14 

Licensee: Rocky Mountain Biosystems, Inc. License No.: 1037-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 5/16/12 Inspector: JG 

File No.: 15 

Licensee: MISTRAS Group, Inc. License No.: 963-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 8/8/13 Inspector: CR 

File No.: 16 

Licensee: Cesare, Inc. License No.: 1017-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 11/9/12 Inspectors: ES, CH 

File No.: 17 

Licensee: Montrose Memorial Hospital License No.: 228-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 8/13/13 Inspector: CE 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page C.3 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 18 

Licensee: ThruBit, LLC License No.: 1179-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 2/5/14 Inspector: PP 

File No.: 19 

Licensee: Yeh and Associates, Inc. License No.: 984-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 2/6/14 Inspector: CH 

File No.: 20 

Licensee: Bonfils Blood Center License No.: 209-01 

Inspection Type: Routine/Special, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 3/10/14 Inspector: ES 

File No.: 21 

Licensee: Team Industrial Services, Inc. License No.: 388-01 

Inspection Type: Routine/Special, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 3/11/14 Inspector: CR 

File No.: 22 

Licensee: Rocky Mountain Gamma Knife License No.: 857-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 3/2/12 Inspector: JD 

File No.: 23 

Licensee: Colorado School of Mines Research Institute License No.: 617-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 9/28/12 Inspector: EE 

File No.: 24 

Licensee: North Colorado Medical Center License No.: 857-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 1/30/13 Inspector: MB 

File No.: 25 

Licensee: Colorado Heart & Vascular, P.C. License No.: 726-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 3/2/12 Inspector: MD 

File No.: 26 

Licensee: Inspection Specialties, Inc. License No.: 1187-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 10/22/13 Inspector: ES 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page C.4 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 27 

Licensee: A.G. Wassenaar, Inc. License No.: 212-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 4/25/13 Inspector: CH 

File No.: 28 

Licensee: Colorado State University License No.: 002-27 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 7/20/12 Inspectors: CE, MB, CR 

File No.: 29 

Licensee: University of Colorado Hospital License No.: 828-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Dates: 2/20-22/13 Inspectors: MB, PP 

File No.: 30 

Licensee: Cardinal Health 414, LLC License No.: 1219-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Initial Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 10/22/13 Inspectors: PP, CR 

File No.: 31 

Licensee: Instro Tek, Inc. License No.: 122-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Initial Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 3/26/14 Inspectors: ES, DB 

File No.: 32 

Licensee: Acuren Inspection, Inc. License No.: 997-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 7/30/13 Inspector: ES 

File No.: 33 

Licensee: JANX Integrity Group License No.: NRC 21-16560-01 

Inspection Type: Reciprocity, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 1/15/13 Inspectors: CR, PP 

File No.: 34 

Licensee: DBI, Inc. License No.: NE 02-46-01 

Inspection Type: Reciprocity, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 6/11/13 Inspectors: PP, MB 

File No.: 35 

Licensee: Energy Solutions License No.: NRC 06-20775-01 

Inspection Type: Reciprocity, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 7/10/13 Inspector: MB 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page C.5 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 36 

Licensee: Cotter Corporation, Cañon City License No.: 369-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 3/29-31/10 Inspectors: PVE, EE, JG, CE 

Comment: The inspection findings were sent to the licensee 129 days after the inspection. 

File No.: 37 

Licensee: Cotter Corporation, Cañon City License No.: 369-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 6/15-16/11 Inspectors: PVE, EE 

Comment: The inspection findings were sent to the licensee 56 days after the inspection. 

File No.: 38 

Licensee: Cotter Corporation, Cañon City License No.: 369-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 8/15-16/12 Inspectors: EE, ED, SW 

File No.: 39 

Licensee: Cotter Corporation, Cañon City License No.: 369-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 9/24-25/13 Inspectors: EE, SW 

File No.: 40 

Licensee: Cotter Corporation, Cañon City License No.: 369-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 2/4/14 Inspectors: EE, SW 

File No.: 41 

Licensee: CSMRI, Table Mountain Research Facility License No.: 617-02 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 10/18/10 Inspector: EE 

File No.: 42 

Licensee: CSMRI, Table Mountain Research Facility License No.: 617-02 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 7/14/11 Inspector: EE 

File No.: 43 

Licensee: CSMRI, Table Mountain Research Facility License No.: 617-02 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 9/28/12 Inspector: EE 

 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page C.6 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 44 

Licensee: Cotter Corporation Schwartzwalder Mine License No.: 396-06 

Inspection Type: Initial, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 4/20/11 Inspector: JG 

Comment: The inspection findings were sent to the licensee 107 days after the inspection. 

File No.: 45 

Licensee: Cotter Corporation Schwartzwalder Mine License No.: 369-03 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 10/20/10 Inspector: EE 

Comment: The inspection was performed six months late. 

File No.: 46 

Licensee: UMETCO Minerals Corporation, Uravan License No.: 660-02 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 5/4-8/3/11 Inspector: PVE 

File No.: 47 

Licensee: UMETCO Minerals Corporation, Uravan License No.: 660-02 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 11/15/12 Inspectors: EE, SW 

File No.: 48 

Licensee: UMETCO Minerals Corporation, Uravan License No.: 660-02 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 7/25/13 Inspector: EE 

File No.: 49 

Licensee: Hecla Mining, Durita License No.: 317-02 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 5/19/10 Inspector: EE 

File No.: 50 

Licensee: Hecla Mining, Durita License No.: 317-02 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 5/18/11 Inspector: EE 

File No.: 51 

Licensee: Hecla Mining, Durita License No.: 317-02 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 5/24/12 Inspector: EE 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page C.7 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 52 

Licensee: Hecla Mining, Durita License No.: 317-02 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 5/24/13 Inspectors: EE, SW 

File No.: 53 

Licensee: CSMRI, Creekside License No.: 617-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 10/18/10 Inspector: EE 

Comment: The inspection was performed five months late. 

File No.: 54 

Licensee: CSMRI, Creekside License No.: 617-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 10/29/10 Inspector: EE 

File No.: 55 

Licensee: CSMRI, Creekside License No.: 617-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 7/14/11 Inspector: EE 

File No.: 56 

Licensee: CSMRI, Creekside License No.: 617-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 9/28/12 Inspector: EE 

INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS 

The following inspector accompaniments were performed prior to the on-site IMPEP review: 

Accompaniment No.: 1 

Licensee: Cotter Corporation License No.: 369-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 2/4/14 Inspectors: SW, EE 

Comment: Inspectors did not perform radiation surveys of licensee operations. 

Accompaniment No.: 2 

Licensee: ThruBit, LLC License No.: 1179-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 2/5/14 Inspector: PP 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page C.8 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

Accompaniment No.: 3 

Licensee: Yeh and Associates, Inc. License No.: 984-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 2/6/14 Inspector: CH 

Accompaniment No.: 4 

Licensee: Bonfils Blood Center License No.: 209-01 

Inspection Type: Routine/Special, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 3/10/14 Inspector: ES 

Accompaniment No.: 5 

Licensee: Team Industrial Services, Inc. License No.: 388-01 

Inspection Type: Routine/Special, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 3/11/14 Inspector: CR 

Accompaniment No.: 6 

Licensee: Exempla Healthcare / Lutheran Medical Center License No.: 227-02 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 4/1/14 Inspector: JJ 
APPENDIX D 

LICENSE CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS 

ONLY. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: VCA Alameda East Veterinary Hospital License No.: 1214-01 

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: 00 

Date Issued: 8/2/13 License Reviewer: PP 

Comment: The tie-down license condition referenced the wrong letter date (March 7, 2013, 

vs. March 17, 2013). 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: Castle Rock Adventist Hospital License No.: 1218-01 

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: 00 

Date Issued: 5/1/13 License Reviewer: CR 

File No.: 3 

Licensee: Exempla St. Joseph Hospital License No.: 038-02 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 09 

Date Issued: 1/10/13 License Reviewer: MD 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: Rocky Mountain Gamma Knife, LLC License No.: 857-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 23 

Date Issued: 2/9/11 License Reviewer: CE 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: Heart Center of Colorado, LLP License No.: 844-01 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 07 

Date Issued: 1/9/14 License Reviewer: CH 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: Cardinal Health 414, LLC License No.: 1219-01 

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: 00 

Date Issued: 5/8/13 License Reviewer: CE 

File No.: 7 

Licensee: Front Range Nuclear Services License No.: 1096-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 27 

Date Issued: 10/31/13 License Reviewer: CH 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page D.2 

License Casework Reviews 

File No.: 8 

Licensee: Cardinal Health 418, Inc. License No.: 162-06 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 13 

Date Issued: 8/20/13 License Reviewer: PP 

File No.: 9 

Licensee: Colorado Heart and Vascular, PC License No.: 1205-01 

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: 00 

Date Issued: 9/28/12 License Reviewer: MD 

Comments: 

a) Licensee correspondence contained personal private information and was not properly 

marked with “sensitive confidential.” 

b) The pre-licensing checklist did not contain documentation to support the basis for not 

conducting a pre-licensing site visit. 

File No.: 10 

Licensee: Luca Technologies, LLC License No.: 1061-01 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 08 

Date Issued: 10/10/13 License Reviewer: CR 

File No.: 11 

Licensee: ACZ Laboratories, Inc. License No.: 799-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 20 

Date Issued: 3/21/13 License Reviewer: PP 

File No.: 12 

Licensee: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. License No.: 1215-01 

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: 00 

Date Issued: 2/1/13 License Reviewer: CH 

File No.: 13 

Licensee: University of Colorado Denver License No.: 835-01 

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: 40 

Date Issued: 8/23/12 License Reviewer: CE 

File No.: 14 

Licensee: Allied Wireline Services, LLC License No.: 1210-01 

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: 00 

Date Issued: 12/10/12 License Reviewer: PP 

File No.: 15 

Licensee: Centura Health-Littleton Adventist Hospital License No.: 765-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 20 

Date Issued: 10/27/10 License Reviewer: JD 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page D.3 

License Casework Reviews 

File No.: 16 

Licensee: Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. License No.: 1072-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 12 

Date Issued: 5/3/11 License Reviewer: MB 

File No.: 17 

Licensee: Colorado School of Mines License No.: 627-01 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 66 

Date Issued: 4/10/14 License Reviewer: CR 

File No.: 18 

Licensee: Southway Construction, Co., Inc. License No.: 692-01 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 07 

Date Issued: 4/4/13 License Reviewer: MD 

File No.: 19 

Licensee: Analytical Instrument Recycle, Inc. License No.: 974-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 08 

Date Issued: 1/3/14 License Reviewer: CR 

File No.: 20 

Licensee: OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. License No.: 841-04 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 05 

Date Issued: 10/2/12 License Reviewer: CE 

File No.: 21 

Licensee: Centura Health Penrose-St. Francis Health Services License No.: 197-02 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 124 

Date Issued: 11/20/13 License Reviewer: MD 

File No.: 22 

Licensee: GCC Rio Grande License No.: 1136-01 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 05 

Date Issued: 2/12/13 License Reviewer: CH 

File No.: 23 

Licensee: GlobeImmune, Inc. License No.: 1079-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 09 

Date Issued: 8/20/13 License Reviewer: MD 

File No.: 24 

Licensee: Cotter Corporation, Cañon City License No.: 369-01 

Type of Action: Document Review Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 8/16/13 License Reviewer: EE 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page D.4 

License Casework Reviews 

File No.: 25 

Licensee: Cotter Corporation, Cañon City License No.: 369-01 

Type of Action: Document Review Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 8/16/13 License Reviewer: EE 

File No.: 26 

Licensee: Cotter Corporation, Cañon City License No.: 369-01 

Type of Action: Document Review Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 10/2/13 License Reviewer: SW 

File No.: 27 

Licensee: Cotter Corporation, Cañon City License No.: 369-01 

Type of Action: Document Review Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 10/10/13 License Reviewer: SW 

File No.: 28 

Licensee: Cotter Corporation, Cañon City License No.: 369-01 

Type of Action: Document Review Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 10/10/13 License Reviewer: JO 

File No.: 29 

Licensee: Cotter Corporation, Schwartzwalder Mine License No.: 369-06 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 2 

Date Issued: 8/21/12 License Reviewer: EE 

File No.: 30 

Licensee: Cotter Corporation, Schwartzwalder Mine License No.: 369-06 

Type of Action: Document Review Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 9/5/12 License Reviewer: EE 

File No.: 31 

Licensee: CSMRI Creekside License No.: 617-01 

Type of Action: Document Review Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 5/25/12 License Reviewer: EE 

File No.: 32 

Licensee: CSMRI Table Mountain License No.: 617-02 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 11 

Date Issued: 3/1/11 License Reviewer: EE 

File No.: 33 

Licensee: Energy Fuels Resources Corporation, Piñon Ridge License No.: 1170-01 

Type of Action: Document Review Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 3/22/11 License Reviewer: ST 

Comment: The file did not contain a basis why the Decommissioning Funding Plan was 

adequate. 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page D.5 

License Casework Reviews 

File No.: 34 

Licensee: Energy Fuels Resources Corporation, Piñon Ridge License No.: 1170-01 

Type of Action: Document Review Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 9/30/13 License Reviewer: ST 

File No.: 35 

Licensee: Energy Fuels Resources Corporation, Piñon Ridge License No.: 1170-01 

Type of Action: Document Review Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 7/22/13 License Reviewer: CR 

File No.: 36 

Licensee: Energy Fuels Resources Corporation, Piñon Ridge License No.: 1170-01 

Type of Action: Licensing Decision Analysis Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 4/25/13 License Reviewers: Various 

File No.: 37 

Licensee: Energy Fuels Resources Corporation, Piñon Ridge License No.: 1170-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 2 

Date Issued: 4/25/13 License Reviewer: ST 

File No.: 38 

Licensee: UMETCO Minerals Corporation, Uravan License No.: 660-02 

Type of Action: Document Review Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 3/8/11 License Reviewer: PE 

File No.: 39 

Licensee: UMETCO Minerals Corporation, Uravan License No.: 660-02 

Type of Action: Document Review Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 8/19/13 License Reviewer: SW 

File No.: 40 

Licensee: UMETCO Minerals Corporation, Uravan License No.: 660-02 

Type of Action: Document Review Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 9/25/12 License Reviewer: CE 
APPENDIX E 

INCIDENT CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS 

ONLY. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Midwest Inspection Services License No.: 902-01 

Date of Incident: 6/11/10 NMED No.: 100324 

Investigation Date: 6/30/10 Type of Incident: Damaged Equipment 

 Type of Investigation: Site 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: Prostate Seed Center, LLC License No.: 972-01 

Date of Incident: 12/2/10 NMED No.: 100591 

Investigation Date: 12/21/10 Type of Incident: Medical Event 

 Type of Investigation: Site 

File No.: 3 

Licensee: St. Mary-Corwin Hospital License No.: 235-02 

Date of Incident: 12/8/10 NMED No.: 110083 

Investigation Date: 12/10/10 Type of Incident: Lost RAM 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: Nuquest Pharmacy License No.: 1022-01 

Date of Incident: 2/21/11 NMED No.: 110119 

Investigation Date: 2/21/11 Type of Incident: Contamination 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: University of Colorado Hospital License No.: 828-01 

Date of Incident: 7/8/11 NMED No.: 110351 

Investigation Date: 7/13/11 Type of Incident: Medical Event 

 Type of Investigation: Site 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: University of Colorado License No.: 082-08 

Date of Incident: 8/12/11 NMED No.: 110452 

Investigation Date: 8/29/11 Type of Incident: Lost RAM 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 

File No.: 7 

Licensee: Test America License No.: 486-03 

Date of Incident: 2/1/12 NMED No.: 120127 

Investigation Date: 2/16/12 Type of Incident: Leaking Source 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page E.2 

Incident Casework Reviews 

File No.: 8 

Licensee: High Mountain Inspection Services License No.: 1042-01 

Date of Incident: 3/13/12 NMED No.: 120176 

Investigation Date: 3/16/12 Type of Incident: Lost RAM 

 Type of Investigation: Site 

File No.: 9 

Licensee: Public Service Company of Colorado License No.: 032-01 

Date of Incident: 3/23/12 NMED No.: 120315 

Investigation Date: 5/30/12 Type of Incident: Overexposure 

 Type of Investigation: Site 

File No.: 10 

Licensee: Kumar and Associates, Inc. License No.: 778-01 

Date of Incident: 6/15/12 NMED No.: 120370 

Investigation Date: 7/17/12 Type of Incident: Damaged Equipment 

 Type of Investigation: Site 

File No.: 11 

Licensee: A. G. Wassenaar License No.: 212-01 

Date of Incident: 7/30/12 NMED No.: 120453 

Investigation Date: 9/5/12 Type of Incident: Stolen RAM 

 Type of Investigation: Site 

File No.: 12 

Licensee: Schlumberger Technologies Corp. License No.: 039-01 

Date of Incident: 8/28/12 NMED No.: 120609 

Investigation Date: 9/6/12 Type of Incident: Lost RAM 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 

File No.: 13 

Licensee: Terracon, Inc. License No.: 664-02 

Date of Incident: 3/29/13 NMED No.: 130155 

Investigation Date: 3/29/13 Type of Incident: Damaged Equipment 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 

File No.: 14 

Licensee: Libertytown USA 2 License No.: 1191-01 

Date of Incident: 6/18/13 NMED No.: 130286 

Investigation Date: 7/22/13 Type of Incident: Equipment Failure 

 Type of Investigation: Site 

File No.: 15 

Licensee: Thrubit, LLC License No.: 1179-01 

Date of Incident: 7/28/13 NMED No.: 130339 

Investigation Date: 7/30/13 Type of Incident: Lost RAM 

 Type of Investigation: Site 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page E.3 

Incident Casework Reviews 

File No.: 16 

Licensee: St. Mary’s Hospital and Medical Center License No.: 228-01 

Date of Incident: 10/9/13 NMED No.: 130480 

Investigation Date: 10/11/13 Type of Incident: Contamination 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 

File No.: 17 

Licensee: Martinez Associates, LLC License No.: 1076-01 

Date of Incident: 10/13/13 NMED No.: 130492 

Investigation Date: 10/15/13 Type of Incident: Stolen RAM 

 Type of Investigation: Site 

File No.: 18 

Licensee: Midwest Inspection Services License No.: 902-01 

Date of Incident: 11/7/13 NMED No.: 130542 

Investigation Date: 11/14/13 Type of Incident: Equipment Failure 

 Type of Investigation: Site 

File No.: 19 

Licensee: Porter Adventist Hospital License No.: 210-01 

Date of Incident: 11/22/13 NMED No.: 130583 

Investigation Date: 12/11/13 Type of Incident: Medical Event 

 Type of Investigation: Site 

File No.: 20 

Licensee: De-Ray Engineering, Inc. License No.: 1097-01 

Date of Incident: 3/10/14 NMED No.: 140135 

Investigation Date: 4/15/14 Type of Incident: Stolen RAM 

 Type of Investigation: Site 
APPENDIX F 

SEALED SOURCE & DEVICE CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS 

ONLY. 

File No.: 1 

Registry No.: CO-1012-D-101-S SS&D Type: (T) Other: Neutron Generator 

Applicant Name: Thermo MF Physics Type of Action: Amendment 

Date issued: 2/2/12 SS&D Reviewers: PP, JG 

File No.: 2 

Registry No.: CO-1012-D-103-S SS&D Type: (T) Other: Neutron Generator 

Applicant Name: Thermo MF Physics Type of Action: Amendment 

Date issued: 2/2/12 SS&D Reviewers: PP, JG 

File No.: 3 

Registry No.: CO-1012-D-101-S SS&D Type: (T) Other: Neutron Generator 

Applicant Name: Thermo MF Physics Type of Action: Amendment 

Date issued: 4/18/13 SS&D Reviewers: PP, JG 

File No.: 4 

Registry No.: CO-1012-D-103-S SS&D Type: (T) Other: Neutron Generator 

Applicant Name: Thermo MF Physics Type of Action: Amendment 

Date issued: 4/18/13 SS&D Reviewers: PP, JG 

File No.: 5 

Registry No.: CO-1012-D-102-G SS&D Type: (N) Ion Generator 

Applicant Name: Particle Measuring Systems Type of Action: Amendment 

Date issued: 12/31/13 SS&D Reviewers: PP, JG 

File No.: 6 

Registry No.: CO-1217-D-801-G SS&D Type: (N) Ion Generator 

Applicant Name: Particle Measuring Systems Type of Action: Inactivation 

Date issued: 4/12/12 SS&D Reviewers: JO, JJ 

File No.: 7 

Registry No.: CO-0136-S-801-S SS&D Type: (T) Other: Air Monitoring 

Applicant Name: Amersham Corporation Type of Action: Inactivation 

Date issued: 1/9/13 SS&D Reviewers: MB, JO 

File No.: 8 

Registry No.: CO-0476-S-801-S SS&D Type: (T) Other: Air Monitoring 

Applicant Name: E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. Type of Action: Inactivation 

Date issued: 1/9/13 SS&D Reviewers: MB, JO 
Colorado Final IMPEP Report Page F.2 

Sealed Source & Device Casework Reviews 

File No.: 9 

Registry No.: CO-0837-D-801-S SS&D Type: (D) Gamma Gauge 

Applicant Name: Boulder Scientific Company Type of Action: Inactivation 

Date issued: 1/9/13 SS&D Reviewers: MB, JO 

File No.: 10 

Registry No.: CO-8181-D-802-U SS&D Type: (P) Ion Generators 

Applicant Name: Fire Alert Company Type of Action: Inactivation 

Date issued: 1/9/13 SS&D Reviewers: MB, JO 

File No.: 11 

Registry No.: CO-8182-D-801-S SS&D Type: (P) Ion Generators 

Applicant Name: Statitrol Corporation Type of Action: Inactivation 

Date issued: 1/9/13 SS&D Reviewers: MB, JO 

File No.: 12 

Registry No.: CO-8220-D-801-S SS&D Type: (U) X-ray Fluorescence 

Applicant Name: Bondar-Clegg & Co Type of Action: Inactivation 

Date issued: 1/9/13 SS&D Reviewers: MB, JO 

File No.: 13 

Registry No.: CO-8221-D-804-S SS&D Type: (H) General Neutron Source 

Applicant Name: Kamen Sciences Type of Action: Inactivation 

Date issued: 1/9/13 SS&D Reviewers: MB, JO 

File No.: 14 

Registry No.: CO-8223-D-801-U SS&D Type: (P) Ion Generators 

Applicant Name: Val-tron, Inc. Type of Action: Inactivation 

Date issued: 1/9/13 SS&D Reviewers: MB, JO 

File No.: 15 

Registry No.: CO-8224-D-801-U SS&D Type: (P) Ion Generators 

Applicant Name: Vicon Instrument Company Type of Action: Inactivation 

Date issued: 1/9/13 SS&D Reviewers: MB, JO 

File No.: 16 

Registry No.: CO-8251-D-806-G SS&D Type: (E) Beta Gauge 

Applicant Name: BK Sweeny Manufacturing Type of Action: Inactivation 

Date issued: 1/9/13 SS&D Reviewers: MB, JO 

File No.: 17 

Registry No.: CO-8265-S-801-S SS&D Type: (V) General Medical Use 

Applicant Name: Syncor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Type of Action: Inactivation 

Date issued: 1/9/13 SS&D Reviewers: MB, JO 
ATTACHMENT 

June 4, 2014 Letter from Gary Baughman 

Colorado Response to the Draft Report 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML14157A174