October 19, 2006

MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Travers, Regional Administrator

Region II 

FROM: Martin J. Virgilio /RA/

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Research, 

 State and Compliance Programs

Office of the Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT: FINAL REPORT FOR THE INTEGRATED MATERIALS

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM (IMPEP) REVIEW

OF THE REGION II FUEL CYCLE INSPECTION PROGRAM

On September 8, 2006, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed

final Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report of the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission’s Region II Fuel Cycle Inspection Program. The MRB found the

program to be adequate to protect public health and safety.

Section 4.0, page 6, of the enclosed final report summarizes the results of the review. The

review team made no recommendations in regard to program performance by the Region.

If you have any questions, please contact Tim Harris at (301) 415-7218.

We appreciate your staff’s efforts during the IMPEP review period, especially during the time of

the team’s visit.

Enclosure: 

As stated

cc w/ encl: Douglas Collins, Director

Division of Fuel Facility Inspection
October 19, 2006

MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Travers, Regional Administrator

Region II 

FROM: Martin J. Virgilio /RA/

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Research, 

 State and Compliance Programs

Office of the Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT: FINAL REPORT FOR THE INTEGRATED MATERIALS

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM (IMPEP) REVIEW

OF THE REGION II FUEL CYCLE INSPECTION PROGRAM

On September 8, 2006, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed

final Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report of the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission’s Region II Fuel Cycle Inspection Program. The MRB found the

program to be adequate to protect public health and safety.

Section 4.0, page 6, of the enclosed final report summarizes the results of the review. The

review team made no recommendations in regard to program performance by the Region.

If you have any questions, please contact Tim Harris at (301) 415-7218.

We appreciate your staff’s efforts during the IMPEP review period, especially during the time of

the team’s visit.

Enclosure: 

As stated

cc w/ encl: Douglas Collins, Director

Division of Fuel Facility Inspection

Distribution Chairman Klein

DIR RF Commissioner McGaffigan 

CHrabal, NMSS/FCSS Commissioner Merrifield

RStruckmeyer, NMSS/IMNS Commissioner Jaczko

CMiller, NMSS/IMNS Commissioner Lyons

FCamerson, OGC

AKock, OEDO

TDecker, RII

KCyr, OGC

JSchlueter, STP

JStrosnider, NMSS

RPierson, NMSS/FCSS DCD (SP01) SUNSI Review Complete

TCombs, OCA (2 copies) : Publicly Available G Non-Publicly Available 

 : Non-Sensitive G Sensitive

DOCUMENT NAME: C:\FileNet\ML062780415.wpd

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy

OFFICE STP NMSS NMSS DEDMRS

NAME ATMcCraw:gd TEHarris CLMiller

(PKHolahan for)

MJVirgilio

DATE 09/15/06 09/18/06 09/25/06 10/19/06

Pkg: ML062780499 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

REVIEW OF NRC REGION II FUEL CYCLE INSPECTION PROGRAM

May 23 - 25, 2006

FINAL REPORT

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Region II Final Report Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the review of the Region II Fuel Cycle Inspection Program. 

The review was conducted during the period of May 23-25, 2006, by a review team comprised

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

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

"Implementation of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program and Rescission of

a Final General Statement of Policy," published in the Federal Register on October 16, 1997,

and the February 26, 2004, revision to NRC Management Directive (MD) 5.6, "Integrated

Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)." Preliminary results of the review, which

covered the period of March 2002 to May 25, 2006, were discussed with Region II management

on the last day of the review.

A draft of this report was issued to NRC’s Region II Office for factual comment on June 26,

2006. Thomas Decker, Senior Materials Analyst, Division of Fuel Facility Inspection (the

Division) responded by e-mail dated July 18, 2006. The Management Review Board (MRB) met

on September 8, 2006, to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the Region II fuel

cycle inspection program to be adequate to protect public health and safety.

The Region II Fuel Cycle Inspection Program is administered by the Director of the Division,

who reports directly to the Regional Administrator. The Division organization chart is included

as Appendix B.

In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the fuel cycle inspection non-common

indicator was sent to Region II on February 16, 2006. Region II provided a response to the

questionnaire on April 27, 2006. A copy of the completed questionnaire response can be found

on the NRC’s Agency-wide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) using

Accession Number ML61660538.

In October 2003, the radioactive materials program in Region II was transferred to Region I as

part of a restructuring of Regional roles and responsibilities. At that time, all fuel cycle

inspection functions were consolidated at Region II, and materials licensing and inspection

functions were transferred from Region II to Region I. Therefore, this review is limited to the

fuel cycle inspection program. The review team's general approach for conduct of this review

consisted of: (1) examination of Region II’s response to the questionnaire; (2) analysis of

quantitative information from the inspection, resource utilization, and allegation databases; (3)

technical review of selected inspection, incident response, and allegation casework; (4) field

accompaniments of three Region II inspectors; and (5) interviews with staff and management to

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

IMPEP performance criteria for the non-common performance indicator, Regional Fuel Cycle

Inspection Program, and made a preliminary assessment of Region II’s performance.

Section 2 below discusses the current status of recommendations made following the previous

review. Results of the current review for the IMPEP non-common performance indicator,

Regional Fuel Cycle Inspection Program, are presented in Section 3. Section 4 summarizes

the review team's findings.
Region II Final Report Page 2

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS

During the previous routine IMPEP review, two recommendations were made in the final IMPEP

report on July 10, 2002. The team’s review of the current status of these recommendations is

as follows:

1. The review team recommends that The Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards (NMSS) revise the guidance in IMC 2800 and IMC 2600 to clarify regional

responsibility for The Nuclear Materials Events Database (NMED) item updates (Section

3.5 of the 2002 IMPEP Report).

Current Status: NMSS is currently planning to update guidance associated with NRC

Inspection Manual Chapter (MC) 2800 and MC 2600 within the next year. Revisions to

MC 2800 have been incorporated into the Operating Plan and revisions are expected to

be completed by April 2007. The revision will include clarifying guidance on the roles

and responsibilities associated with NMED. This recommendation remains open.

2. The review team recommends that the HQ FAIC provide refresher training and update

Regional and HQ staff on changes made to financial assurance guidance (Section 4.3).

Current Status: Training was provided by NMSS’ Division of Waste Management and

Environmental Protection staff in 2003. This recommendation is closed.

3.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATOR - FUEL CYCLE INSPECTION

PROGRAM

In conducting this review, four sub-indicators were reviewed to evaluate Region II’s

performance regarding their Fuel Cycle Inspection Program. These sub-indicators include:

(1) Technical Staffing and Training; (2) Status of Fuel Cycle Inspection Program; (3) Technical

Quality of Inspections; and (4) Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities.

3.1 Technical Staffing and Training

Issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the fuel cycle inspection program

staffing level, technical qualifications of the staff, training, and staff turnover. To evaluate these

issues, the review team examined Region II’s questionnaire responses relative to this indicator,

interviewed the Division management and staff, and considered any possible workload

backlogs.

The Division has seen a large influx of experienced staff as a result of reorganization of the fuel

cycle inspection activities. This included the hiring or reassignment of approximately 12 staff. 

Four staff departed the program during the review period. The Division is divided into two

Branches, and each Branch currently has two vacancies. Another vacancy has been

proactively posted to backfill for an individual that is planning to retire. These vacancies have

not affected the ability to complete inspections in a timely manner. As discussed in the status

of inspection section below, the Division very effectively uses the Plant Issues Matrix System

(PIMS) to track inspections, utilize its current staff, and adjust staff assignments due to
Region II Final Report Page 3

emergent work. The review team concludes that the Division’s staffing level is adequate to

properly implement its program.

The Division uses their Training Matrix to coordinate training activities. Five staff members

were qualified as Fuel Cycle Safety Inspectors during the review period. One individual is

currently working on becoming qualified and another is currently working on becoming fully

qualified. The three Senior Resident Inspectors are dual qualified as reactor Resident

Inspectors and fuel facility inspectors. An additional Senior Resident Inspector is planned to be

hired to support the MOX facility. The Senior Resident Inspectors have completed the Fuel

Facility Inspector qualifications. New hires in the Division participate in a mentoring program. In

addition to formal training classes, senior branch staff provide instruction to new hires about

fuel cycle inspection duties, such as conducting an inspection, completing forms, and writing

reports to advise them on completing their qualifications for Fuel Cycle Safety Inspector.

The Fuel Facility Inspector qualifications are set forth in MC 1246, Section 3. All four staff

members interviewed believed that the training requirements adequately prepared them to

perform their duties. However, it was noted that some of the courses were no longer offered

and that some reading materials were out of date. The Division also recognized in its self

assessments that additional training in risk significance of violations and in human performance

would be beneficial. Management recognized the benefits of updating the Fuel Facility

Inspector qualifications and in updating MC 1246 in general to be more consistent with MC

1245. Management was also cognizant of the need for effective knowledge management to

maintain and improve staff qualifications and performance.

The Division management appropriately monitors the qualifications of their staff via the Division

Training Matrix. The Training Matrix tracks all the courses taken, courses needed, and dates

that certain courses are needed for the Division staff. The team did not observe any

performance deficiency during the IMPEP review period.

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

that Region II’s performance with respect to the sub-indicator, Technical Staffing and Training,

be found satisfactory.

3.2 Status of Fuel Cycle Inspection Program

The team focused on three factors in reviewing this sub-indicator: inspection frequency,

overdue inspections, and timely dispatch of inspection findings to licensees.

Inspections at fuel facilities are coordinated with NMSS through an integrated Fuel Cycle

Master Inspection Plan, based on considerations of risks, licensee performance, and recent

occurrences. In meeting the general guidelines for frequency of inspections in MC 2600,

Region II has prepared detailed written guidance targeting specific plant operations and

functional areas for emphasis during inspections. This provides specific guidance based on

lessons learned from previous inspections, Licensee Performance Reviews (LPRs), licensing

actions, and recent occurrences. Changes to the guidance were well documented and

communicated with NMSS and the inspection staff.

Region II uses PIMS to effectively track inspection findings and event information. ADAMS,

which provides on-line access to inspection reports, is used to improve the coordination of

inspections and track licensee performance between Region II and Headquarters. Region II

inspectors use PIMS information to identify areas of emphasis and prepare inspection plans.

Region II has improved inspection resource management from the last IMPEP reporting period. 

Region II had no overdue inspections for the last two fiscal years, even though the number of

inspections increased from prior fiscal years in the IMPEP reporting period. Region II had only

six overdue inspections for FY 2002 to FY 2004. In addition, of the 10 inspection reports
Region II Final Report Page 4

selected for review by the IMPEP review team, all inspection findings were issued to licensees

within 30 days.

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

that Region II’s performance with respect to the sub-indicator, Status of Fuel Cycle Inspection

Program, be found satisfactory.

3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections

The team evaluated the inspection reports and enforcement documentation for inspections at

seven fuel cycle facilities, two gaseous diffusion plants and one conversion facility. In general,

inspection findings were well founded, well documented, and in accordance with MC 610,

“Inspection Reports.” These reports received proper peer and management review. The

review team discussed the benefit of listing the inspection report paragraph reference in the “list

of items opened, closed and discussed” section of the inspection report and of listing these

items in the order that they appear. The review team also discussed the benefit of not including

inspection follow-up items and unresolved items in the executive summary of the inspection

report. Appendix C lists the inspection casework files reviewed for completeness and

adequacy.

Region II is currently conducting a pilot program to use NRC Form 591 to document the results

of certain inspections at fuel cycle facilities as specified in Temporary Instruction 0610/001,

“Guidance for Certain Fuel Cycle Inspection Reports to Pilot Use of NRC Form 591.” It is

anticipated that use of Form 591 will allow inspectors to reduce the time spent documenting

inspection areas where there have been no significant safety or safeguards findings so that

resources can be applied to inspection preparation and conduct of inspections. The review

team discussed the benefit of adding more detail to Form 591 for inspections with violations,

because this detail could be important in later enforcement activity. The Division committed to

taking the review team’s suggestion into consideration during the revision of applicable fuel

cycle inspection guidance.

In general, the inspection program focused on the high-risk functional areas. Based on

interviews with inspectors, they have a good understanding of risk-informed performance-based

inspection philosophy and try to apply it during inspections and in documentation. Region II

uses PIMS to track past issues at each facility, which include past inspection findings, events,

and routine activities at each site. This information is kept current by project inspectors and is

used by the inspectors in the planning phase of the inspection to focus on areas that may need

more attention. The inspection effort addresses past inspection findings and event follow-up.

During the review period, supervisors performed accompaniments of all inspectors annually. In

some cases, some inspectors were accompanied more than once per year. During the review

period, the Division hired three new inspectors and acquired six inspectors external to the

Division. Region II management has performed appropriate inspection observations and

accompaniments, focusing on these new inspectors.

One inspector, who was soon to be qualified, was accompanied during an inspection by a

review team member on March 20-24, 2006. Another inspector, new to the Division, was

accompanied on April 17-21, 2006. A qualified resident inspector was accompanied on June

6-8, 2006. These accompaniments are identified in Appendix C. All inspectors performed indepth examinations of the licensees’ facilities; interacted with licensee personnel; observed

licensees’ activities; and reviewed pertinent records. During these accompaniments, the

inspectors demonstrated a performance-based inspection approach with appropriate technical

skills and professional inspection techniques. The inspectors’ performance was adequate to

assess the radiological health and safety of the licensee’s program.
Region II Final Report Page 5

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

that Region II’s performance with respect to the sub-indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections,

be found satisfactory.

3.4 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities

In evaluating the effectiveness of Region II’s actions in responding to fuel cycle incidents, the

team examined Region II’s response to the questionnaire, evaluated selected incidents

reported for Region II in the Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED), and evaluated the

casework and supporting documentation for ten fuel cycle incidents. A list of the incident

casework examined with case-specific comments is included in Appendix D. The review team

also evaluated Region II’s response to ten allegations involving fuel cycle facilities.

In regard to event response, Region II has an event evaluation procedure in place that

describes the process to be used by staff in the evaluation of events for appropriate response. 

Responses to events in the incident casework reviewed appeared to be appropriate in all cases. 

In accordance with the procedure, the inspectors receive and evaluate the event information,

coordinate with NMSS, and determine the appropriate action based on the safety significance

of the event. The procedure clearly defines which events warrant communication to other

potentially affected facilities, which events should be considered for special inspections, and

which events warrant follow-up at the next routine inspection. All events are communicated to

the resident inspectors in case immediate follow-up on issues is necessary.

Responsibility for initial response and assignment of follow-up actions to fuel cycle allegations

rests with the Regional Allegations Coordinators. Fuel cycle allegations are referred to the

Division for action, as appropriate. The review team’s evaluation of casework, associated

documents, and interviews with staff revealed that Region lI has an effective and efficient

program for managing fuel cycle facility allegations. The resolution of allegations was typically

within 180 days except in cases with Office of Investigations involvement, as prescribed by MD

8.8, “Management of Allegations.” The casework reviews demonstrated that the Division

routinely referred cases involving potential wrongdoing to the Office of Investigations for

resolution. Acknowledgment letters responding to allegers, were issued within the performance

goal of 30 days. In cases where the alleger’s identity was known, results of the findings were

properly communicated to the alleger.

The review team evaluated the scope of Region II's training for accepting and handling

allegations. The review found that Region II staff were well-trained and knowledgeable in the

accepting and handling of allegations. In evaluating the training, the review team noted that in

addition to the Agency-mandated web-based training, new hires to Region II are also required

to attend a PowerPoint presentation regarding allegation management as well as listen to

sound clips of actual allegations. While listening to the sound clips, new hires fill out forms to

document the "allegations." Once all of the training modules are completed successfully, the

individuals are certified to accept allegations. The review team found this additional training

particularly beneficial to inspectors, who have direct interface with potential allegers. The

review team discussed with Regional management the benefits of sharing their practice of

additional training with other NRC Regions and Offices. The review team recommended and

the MRB agreed that the Region's practice of performing additional allegation training above

and beyond the Agency-mandated training was a good practice.

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

that Region II’s performance with respect to the sub-indicator, Technical Quality of Incident and

Allegation Activities, be found satisfactory.

4.0 SUMMARY

As noted in Section 3 above, the review team found Region II’s performance with respect to

each of the sub-indicators to be satisfactory. The review team made no recommendations with
Region II Final Report Page 6

regard to program performance by the Region. Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the

review team recommended and the MRB agreed that Region II’s performance with respect to

the indicator, Regional Fuel Cycle Inspection Program, was satisfactory. Accordingly, the

review team recommended and the MRB agreed that Region II’s overall performance for the

fuel cycle inspection program was adequate to protect public health and safety.
LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENT

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members

Appendix B Region II Organization Charts

Appendix C Inspection Casework Reviews

Appendix D Incident Casework Reviews

Attachment July 18, 2006, E-mail from Thomas Decker

Region II’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report
APPENDIX A

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

Name Area of Responsibility

Timothy Harris, NMSS/IMNS Team Leader

Technical Staffing and Training

Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation 

Activities

Craig Hrabal, NMSS/FCSS Status of Materials Inspection Program

Technical Quality of Inspections

Aaron McCraw, STP Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation 

Activities
APPENDIX B

REGION II

DIVISION OF FUEL FACILITY INSPECTION

ORGANIZATION CHART

ADAMS: ML61660538

PAGE 12
APPENDIX C

INSPECTION CASEWORK REVIEWS

NOTE: ALL INSPECTIONS LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT ARE INCLUDED FOR

COMPLETENESS ONLY; NO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE

REVIEW TEAM.

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Nuclear Fuel Services License No.: SNM-0124

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 1

Inspection Dates: 8/21-10/1/05 Inspectors: DR, SB, DH, MC, OL, JJ

File No.: 2

Licensee: Honeywell License No.: SUB-526

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 1

Inspection Dates: 12/5 – 9/05 Inspectors: MC, OL, JP, SS

File No.: 3

Licensee: Portsmouth GDP Certificate No.: GDP-2

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 1

Inspection Dates: 3/20-24/06 Inspector: RG

File No.: 4

Licensee: Paducah GDP Certificate No.: GDP-1

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 1

Inspection Dates: 12/18/05-2/22/06 Inspector: MT

File No.: 5

Licensee: Paducah GDP Certificate No.: GDP-1

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 1

Inspection Dates: 8/8/05-10/22/05 Inspectors: BB, MT

File No.: 6

Licensee: Global Nuclear Fuel – Americas, LLC License No.: SNM-1097

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 6/27/05-7/1/05 Inspectors: DH, SS

File No.: 7

Licensee: Westinghouse License No.: SNM-1107

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 1

Inspection Dates: 9/12-16/05 Inspector: RG

File No.: 8

Licensee: AREVA-Richland License No.: SNM-1227

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 1

Inspection Dates: 1/23-26/06 Inspector: AG

File No.: 9

Licensee: AREVA-Lynchburg License No.: SNM-1168

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 1

Inspection Dates: 9/19-22/05 Inspector: CT

File No.: 10 

Licensee: BWX Technologies, Inc. License No.: SNM-0042

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 1

Inspection Dates: 3/5/05-4/15/05 Inspectors: GW, OL, CT
Region II Proposed Final Report Page C.2

Inspection Casework Reviews

INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS

Accompaniment No.: 1

Licensee: Global Nuclear Fuel - Americas, LLC License No.: SNM-1097

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 3/17-21/06 Inspectors: OL, SS

Accompaniment No.: 2

Licensee: Westinghouse License No.: SNM-1107

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 1

Inspection Dates: 4/20-24/06 Inspectors: MC, SS, JP

Accompaniment No.: 3

Licensee: BWXT License No.: SNM-42 

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 1

Inspection Dates: 6/6-8/06 Inspector: GW
 APPENDIX D

INCIDENT CASEWORK REVIEWS

NOTE: ALL INCIDENTS LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR

COMPLETENESS ONLY.

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Global Nuclear Fuel - Americas, LLC License No.: SNM-1097

Date of Incident: 9/27/02 NMED No: 020907

Investigation Date: 10/24/02 Type of Incident: Equipment Failure

Type of Investigation: Licensee Letter

File No.: 2

Licensee: Westinghouse Electric Corp. License No.: SNM-1107 

Date of Incident: 9/12/03 NMED No: 030733 

Investigation Date: 1/31-2/4/05 Type of Incident: Fuel Cycle 

Type of Investigation: Inspection

File No.: 3

Licensee: U.S. Enrichment Corp. License No.: USEC-K

Date of Incident: 1/30/04 NMED No: 040074

Investigation Date: 3/12/04 Type of Incident: Equipment, Fuel Cycle

Type of Investigation: Licensee Letter

File No.: 4

Licensee: Westinghouse Electric Corp. License No.: SNM-1107 

Date of Incident: 3/5/04 NMED No: 030733 

Investigation Date: 4/12-16/04 Type of Incident: Fuel Cycle (Abnormal Occurrence)

Type of Investigation: Inspection

File No.: 5

Licensee: U.S. Enrichment Corp. License No.: USEC-O

Date of Incident: 4/21/05 NMED No: 050285

Investigation Date: TBD Type of Incident: Fuel Cycle

Type of Investigation: Next Routine Inspection
Region II Final Report Page D.2

Incident Casework Reviews

File No.: 6

Licensee: Honeywell International, Inc. License No.: SUB-0526 

Date of Incident: 7/25/05 NMED No: 050499

Investigation Date: 7/25-29/05 Type of Incident: Equipment, RAM Release 

Type of Investigation: Inspection

File No.: 7

Licensee: Framatome ANP, Inc. License No.: SNM-1227

Date of Incident: 9/17/05 NMED No: 050618

Investigation Date: 9/19/05 Type of Incident: Fuel Cycle, RAM Release

Type of Investigation: Telephone

File No.: 8

Licensee: Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. License No.: SNM-0124

Date of Incident: 12/22/05 NMED No: 060110

Investigation Date: N/A Type of Incident: Equipment, Fuel Cycle

Type of Investigation: N/A

File No.: 9

Licensee: Framatome ANP, Inc. License No.: SNM-1227

Date of Incident: 9/26/05 NMED No: 050631

Investigation Date: 11/28-12/2/05 Type of Incident: Transportation

Type of Investigation: Inspection

File No.: 10

Licensee: U.S. Enrichment Corp. License No.: SNM-1107

Date of Incident: 11/22/05 NMED No: 020285

Investigation Date: 10/23-12/27/05 Type of Incident: Fuel Cycle

Type of Investigation: Inspection
ATTACHMENT

July 18, 2006, E-mail from Thomas Decker

Region II’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report

ADAMS: ML062070589