UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

July 15, 2015 

MEMORANDUM TO: Daniel H. Dorman, Regional Administrator 

 NRC Region I 

FROM: Michael F. Weber /RA/

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, 

 Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs 

Office of the Executive Director for Operations 

SUBJECT: INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 

PROGRAM (IMPEP) REVIEW OF THE REGION I RADIOACTIVE 

MATERIALS PROGRAM FINAL REPORT 

On June 15, 2015, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final 

IMPEP report of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Region I radioactive materials 

program. The MRB found the Region I materials program adequate to protect public health and 

safety.

Section 5.0, page 9, of the enclosed final report summarizes the results of the review. Based on 

the results of the current and previous reviews, the next IMPEP review will take place in 

approximately 5 years. 

We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the IMPEP team during the review, 

and we applaud your staff’s efforts during the IMPEP review period. 

Enclosure: 

Final NRC Region I IMPEP Report 

cc: Earl Fordham, WA 

Organization of Agreement States 

 Liaison to the MRB 

David C. Lew, Deputy Regional Administrator 

NRC Region I 

CONTACT: Chris Einberg, NMSS/MSTR 

 301-415-5422 
July 15, 2015 

MEMORANDUM TO: Daniel H. Dorman, Regional Administrator 

 NRC Region I 

FROM: Michael F. Weber /RA/

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research, 

State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs 

Office of the Executive Director for Operations 

SUBJECT: INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 

PROGRAM (IMPEP) REVIEW OF THE REGION I RADIOACTIVE 

MATERIALS PROGRAM FINAL REPORT 

On June 15, 2015, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final 

IMPEP report of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Region I radioactive materials 

program. The MRB found the Region I materials program adequate to protect public health and 

safety.

Section 5.0, page 9, of the enclosed final report summarizes the results of the review. Based on 

the results of the current and previous reviews, the next IMPEP review will take place in 

approximately 5 years. 

We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the IMPEP team during the review, 

and we applaud your staff’s efforts during the IMPEP review period. 

Enclosure: 

Final NRC Region I IMPEP Report 

cc: Earl Fordham, WA 

Organization of Agreement States 

 Liaison to the MRB 

David C. Lew, Deputy Regional Administrator 

 NRC Region I 

CONTACT: Chris Einberg, NMSS/MSTR 

 301-415-5422 

DISTRIBUTION: see next page 

ML15174A051 

OFC RIV/TL MSTR/ASPB MSTR/ASPB NMSS/MSTR Tech Ed NMSS DEDO 

NAME BTharakan 

via email 

w/edits 

LDimmick CEinberg / 

LCD for 

JPiconne CPoland CHaney MWeber 

DATE 06/26/15 06/23/15 06/23/15 07/02/15 07/06/15 07/10/15 07/15/15 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Memo to D. Dorman from M. Weber dated: July 15, 2015 

SUBJECT: NRC REGION I MATERIALS PROGRAM FY2015 FINAL IMPEP REPORT 

DISTRIBUTION: (SP01) 

RidsEdoMailCenter 

JFoster, OEDO 

RidsOgcMailCenter 

RidsRgn1MailCenter 

DCollins, RI 

JNick, RI 

MFord, RI/RSAO 

DJanda, RI/RSAO 

RidsSecyCorrespondenceMailCenter Chairman Burns 

JPiccone, MSTR Commissioner Svinicki 

PHenderson, MSTR Commissioner Ostendorff 

LRoldan-Otero, MSTR Commissioner Baran 

DSpackman, MSTR SECY 

BParker, RIII 

MWelling, VA 

FPeffer, PA 

OAS Board 

JWeil, OCA (2 copies) 
Enclosure 

INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM 

REVIEW OF THE NRC REGION I RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS PROGRAM 

MARCH 30 – APRIL 3, 2015 

FINAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

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

(IMPEP) review of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Region I radioactive 

materials program. The review was conducted during the period of March 30 – April 3, 2015, by 

a review team composed of technical staff members from the NRC and the Commonwealths of 

Pennsylvania and Virginia. 

Based on the results of this review, Region I’s performance was found satisfactory for all 

performance indicators reviewed. The review team did not make any recommendations. 

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

agreed, that the NRC Region I radioactive materials program is adequate to protect public 

health and safety. The review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, that the next IMPEP 

review take place in approximately 5 years. 
NRC Region I Final IMPEP Report Page 1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This report presents the results of the review of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) Region I radioactive materials program. The review was conducted 

during the period of March 30 – April 3, 2015, by a review team composed of technical 

staff members from the NRC and the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia. 

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 (MD 5.6), “Integrated 

Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP),” dated February 26, 2004. 

Preliminary results of the review, which covered the period of May 1, 2010, to 

April 3, 2015, were discussed with the NRC Region I managers on the last day of the 

review. 

In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the performance indicators was 

sent to Region I on January 8, 2015. Region I provided its response to the questionnaire 

on March 16, 2015. A copy of the questionnaire response can be found in the NRC’s 

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) using ADAMS 

Accession Number ML15075A282. 

A draft of this report was issued to Region I on April 27, 2015, for factual comment. 

Region I responded to the findings and conclusions of the review by memorandum dated 

May 19, 2015. A copy of Region I’s response can be found in ADAMS using the 

Accession Number ML15139A598. The Management Review Board (MRB) met on 

June 15, 2015, to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the Region I 

materials program adequate to protect public health and safety. 

The NRC Region I radioactive materials program is administered by the Division of 

Nuclear Materials Safety (the Division). The Division is also responsible for the 

oversight of decommissioning materials and reactor licensees, as well as, performing 

safety inspections at independent spent fuel storage installations. Organization charts 

for Region I can be found using the ADAMS Accession Number ML15075A410. 

At the time of the review, the Division regulated 915 specific licenses authorizing 

possession and use of radioactive materials. 

The review team evaluated the information gathered against the established criteria for 

each common performance indicator and made a preliminary assessment of Region I’s 

performance. The results of this review are summarized in Section 5.0. 

2.0 PREVIOUS IMPEP REVIEW AND STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

The previous IMPEP review concluded on April 30, 2010. The final report is available in 

ADAMS using the ADAMS Accession Number ML101950072. The results of the 

previous review were: 

Technical Staffing and Training: Satisfactory 
NRC Region I Final IMPEP Report Page 2 

Recommendation: None 

Status of Materials Inspection Program: Satisfactory 

Recommendation: None 

Technical Quality of Inspections: Satisfactory 

Recommendation: None 

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions: Satisfactory 

Recommendation: None 

Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities: Satisfactory 

Recommendation: None 

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

The ability to conduct effective licensing and inspection programs is largely dependent 

on having a sufficient number of experienced, knowledgeable, and well-trained technical 

personnel. Under certain conditions, staff turnover could have an adverse effect on the 

implementation of these programs, and thus could affect public health and safety. 

Apparent trends in staffing must be explored. Review of staffing also requires a 

consideration and evaluation of the levels of training and qualification. The evaluation 

standard measures the overall quality of training available to, and taken by, materials 

program personnel. 

a. Scope

The review team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure SA-103, “Reviewing 

the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Staffing and Training,” and evaluated 

Region I’s performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives: 

• A well-conceived and balanced staffing strategy has been implemented throughout 

the review period. 

• The training and qualification program is equivalent to NRC Inspection Manual 

Chapter (IMC) 1248, “Formal Qualification Program for Federal and State Material 

and Environmental Management Program.” 

• Qualification criteria for new technical staff are established and are being followed or 

that qualification criteria will be established if new staff members are hired. 

• Any vacancies, especially senior-level positions, are filled in a timely manner. 

• There is a balance in staffing the licensing and inspection programs. 
NRC Region I Final IMPEP Report Page 3 

• Management is committed to training and staff qualification. 

• Individuals performing materials licensing and inspection activities are adequately 

qualified and trained to perform their duties. 

• License reviewers and inspectors are trained and qualified in a reasonable period of 

time. 

b. Discussion

The Division is composed of 41 staff members, of which provides 29.4 full time 

equivalent staff for the radioactive materials program. The Division staff includes 30 

technical staff members, 6 administrative staff and 5 supervisors/managers. Four of the 

technical staff and one supervisor are primarily responsible for performing reactor 

decommissioning and independent spent fuel storage installation inspections, which is 

beyond the scope of the materials program evaluated by the IMPEP review. During the 

review period, seven staff members left the Division, six staff members were hired, and 

one transferred from a different division within Region I. The period of time for each 

vacancy ranged from one to six months. At the time of the IMPEP review, there was one 

vacancy in the radioactive materials program for the Division’s Technical Assistant 

position. The Division is planning to hire two additional staff to account for retirements 

and attrition. The Division implements the NRC’s IMC 1248 for training and 

qualifications of the radioactive materials program staff. 

 

c. Evaluation

The team determined that during the review period Region I met the performance 

indicator objectives listed in Section 3.1.a. 

d. Results

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the review team recommended, and 

the MRB agreed, that Region I’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical 

Staffing and Training, be found satisfactory. 

3.2 Status of the Materials Inspection Program

Periodic inspections of licensed operations are essential to ensure that activities are 

being conducted in compliance with regulatory requirements and consistent with good 

safety practices. The frequency of inspections is specified in NRC IMC 2800, “Materials 

Inspection Program,” and is dependent on the amount and kind of material, the type of 

operation licensed, and the results of previous inspections. There must be a capability 

for maintaining and retrieving statistical data on the status of the inspection program. 

a. Scope

The review team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure SA-101, “Reviewing 

the Common Performance Indicator: Status of the Materials Inspection Program,” and 

evaluated Region I’s performance with respect to the following performance indicator 
NRC Region I Final IMPEP Report Page 4 

objectives: 

• Initial inspections and inspections of Priority 1, 2, and 3, licensees are performed at 

the frequency prescribed in NRC IMC 2800. 

• Candidate licensees working under reciprocity are inspected in accordance with the 

criteria prescribed in IMC 1220, “Processing of NRC Form 241, Report of Proposed 

Activities in Non-Agreement States, Areas of Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, and 

Offshore Waters, and Inspection of Agreement State Licensees Operating under 10 

CFR 150.20.” 

• Deviations from inspection schedules are normally coordinated between technical 

staff and management. 

• There is a plan to perform any overdue inspections and reschedule any missed or 

deferred inspections; or a basis has been established for not performing any overdue 

inspections or rescheduling any missed or deferred inspections. 

• Inspection findings are communicated to licensees in a timely manner (30 calendar 

days, or 45 days for a team inspection, as specified in IMC 0610, “Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards Inspection Reports”). 

b. Discussion

The Division performed 1,003 Priority 1, 2, 3, and initial inspections during the review 

period, of which, 7 of 864 Priority 1, 2, or 3 inspections, and 1 of 139 initial inspections 

were conducted overdue for a total of less than one percent conducted overdue by more 

than 25 percent of the inspection frequency prescribed in IMC 2800. The threshold for 

satisfactory performance is less than 10 percent of inspections are conduced overdue. 

The review team evaluated comprehensive reports generated from the Web-Based 

Licensing database and reviewed 15 inspection reports in ADAMS. The review team 

determined that none of the inspection reports reviewed were communicated to the 

licensees beyond the Division’s goal of 30 days following the inspection exit. The 

Division performed greater than 20 percent of candidate reciprocity inspections during 

each year of the review period. 

c. Evaluation

The team determined that during the review period Region I met the performance 

indicator objectives listed in Section 3.2.a. 

d. Results

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the review team recommended, and 

the MRB agreed, that Region I’s performance with respect to the indicator, Status of the 

Materials Inspection Program, be found satisfactory. 

3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections

Inspections, both routine and reactive, provide assurance that licensee activities are 

carried out in a safe and secure manner. Accompaniments of inspectors performing 
NRC Region I Final IMPEP Report Page 5 

inspections, and the critical evaluation of inspection records are used to assess the 

technical quality of a program’s inspection capability. 

a. Scope

The review team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure SA-102, “Reviewing 

the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Quality of Inspections,” and evaluated 

Region I’s performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives: 

• Inspections of licensed activities focus on health, safety, and security. 

• Inspection findings are well-founded and properly documented in reports. 

• Management promptly reviews inspection results. 

• Procedures are in place and used to help identify root causes and poor licensee 

performance. 

• Inspections address previously identified open items and violations. 

• Inspection findings lead to appropriate and prompt regulatory action. 

• Supervisors conduct annual accompaniments of each inspector to assess 

performance and assure consistent application of inspection policies. 

• An adequate supply of calibrated survey instruments is available to support the 

inspection program. 

b. Discussion

The Division performed 1,003 inspections during the review period. The review team 

evaluated casework for 10 initial inspections, 15 routine inspections, 2 reactive 

inspections, 3 incident follow-up inspections, and 5 reciprocity inspections performed by 

22 inspectors. These inspections covered medical, industrial, commercial, academic, 

research, and service provider licenses. The review team interviewed 11 inspectors with 

regard to the inspection process, completing reports and supervisory accompaniments. 

Inspectors were found to be knowledgeable about the inspection process and the 

documentation of results was found to be appropriate and timely. 

Accompaniments of 10 inspectors were conducted by 3 review team members in 

February and March 2015. The inspectors were found to be well-prepared, thorough, 

and conducted performance-based inspections. The inspections were adequate to 

assess the impact of licensed activities on health, safety and security. 

The review team confirmed that Division supervisors were performing inspection 

accompaniments of each inspector. The review team interviewed the supervisors and 

found that supervisors verbally express their observations to the inspectors and 

document the accompaniments in the inspectors’ annual performance appraisals. The 

Division’s administrative staff tracks the supervisory accompaniments and provides 

status reports to Division management. 

The review team interviewed Division inspection staff regarding the survey instrument 

program. The Division possesses an adequate supply of appropriate survey instruments 

and utilizes a process for checking out a survey instrument and ensuring they are 

properly calibrated. 
NRC Region I Final IMPEP Report Page 6 

c. Evaluation

The team determined that during the review period Region I met the performance 

indicator objectives listed in Section 3.3.a. 

d. Results

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the review team recommended, and 

the MRB agreed, that Region I’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical 

Quality of Inspections, be found satisfactory. 

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of licensing actions can have a direct bearing 

on public health and safety, and security. An assessment of licensing procedures, 

actual implementation of these procedures, and documentation of communications and 

associated actions between the licensing staff and regulated community will be a 

significant indicator of the overall quality of the program. 

a. Scope

The review team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure SA-104, “Reviewing 

the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Quality of Licensing Actions,” and 

evaluated Region I’s performance with respect to the following performance indicator 

objectives: 

• Licensing action reviews are thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable 

technical quality with health, safety, and security issues properly addressed. 

• Essential elements of license applications have been submitted and elements meet 

current regulatory guidance (e.g. financial assurance, increased controls, 

pre-licensing guidance). 

• License reviewers, if applicable, have the proper signature authority for the cases 

they review independently. 

• License conditions are stated clearly and are inspectable. 

• Deficiency letters clearly state regulatory positions and are used at the proper time. 

• Reviews of renewal applications demonstrate a thorough analysis of a licensee’s 

inspection and enforcement history. 

• Applicable guidance documents are available to reviewers and are followed (e.g., 

NUREG-1556 series, pre-licensing guidance, regulatory guides, etc.). 

• Licensing practices for risk significant radioactive materials are appropriately 

implemented including increased controls and fingerprinting orders (Part 37 

equivalent). 

• Documents containing sensitive security information are properly marked, handled, 

controlled and secured. 

 
NRC Region I Final IMPEP Report Page 7 

b. Discussion

During the review period, the Division performed 3,453 radioactive materials licensing 

actions. The review team evaluated 32 radioactive materials licensing actions. The 

licensing actions selected for review included 7 new applications, 10 amendments, 7 

renewals, 4 terminations, 2 financial assurance, and 2 medical exemption requests. The 

review team evaluated casework which included the following license types and actions: 

broad scope, medical diagnostic and therapy, accelerator, commercial manufacturing 

and distribution, industrial radiography, research and development, academic, nuclear 

pharmacy, gauges, self-shielded irradiators, service providers, waste brokers, 

decommissioning actions, and financial assurance. The casework represented work 

from 21 license reviewers. 

The review team identified that portable gauge licenses, specifically new and renewal 

actions, issued by the Division did not include a commitment from the licensee to the 

most updated version of Appendix H of NUREG-1556, Volume 1, Revision 1, “Program 

Specific Guidance about Portable Gauge Licenses.” In 2005, an errata was issued that 

updated Appendix H from “Operating and Emergency Procedures” to “Operating, 

Emergency, and Security Procedures.” The absence of the most updated Appendix H 

guidance on the license did not represent a safety or security concern because the 

security of portable gauges is a regulatory requirement. The Division has committed to 

ensuring that the licensee provides a commitment on the updated version of Appendix H 

for all future portable gauge licenses. 

c. Evaluation

The team determined that during the review period Region I met the performance 

indicator objectives listed in Section 3.4.a. 

d. Results

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the review team recommended, and 

the MRB agreed, that Region I’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical 

Quality of Licensing Actions, be found satisfactory. 

3.5 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities

The quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of response to incidents and allegations of 

safety concerns can have a direct bearing on public health and safety. An assessment 

of incident response and allegation investigation procedures, actual implementation of 

these procedures, internal and external coordination, and investigative and follow-up 

procedures and actions will be a significant indicator of the overall quality of the 

program. 

a. Scope

The review team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure SA-105, “Reviewing 

the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation 
NRC Region I Final IMPEP Report Page 8 

Activities,” and evaluated Region I’s performance with respect to the following 

performance indicator objectives: 

• Incident response, investigation, and allegation procedures are in place and 

followed. 

• Response actions are appropriate, well-coordinated, and timely. 

• On-site responses are performed when incidents have potential health, safety or 

security significance. 

• Appropriate follow-up actions are taken to ensure prompt compliance by licensees. 

• Follow-up inspections are scheduled and completed, as necessary. 

• Notifications are made to the NRC Headquarters Operations Center for incidents 

requiring a 24-hour or immediate notification to the Agreement State or NRC. 

• Incidents are reported to the Nuclear Material Events Database. 

• Allegations are investigated in a prompt, appropriate manner. 

• Concerned individuals are notified of investigation conclusions. 

• Concerned individuals’ identities are protected, as allowed by law. 

b. Discussion

During the review period, 106 incidents were reported to the Division. The review team 

evaluated 18 radioactive materials incidents which included 6 cases of lost, stolen, or 

abandoned radioactive materials, 5 medical events, 5 incidents of damaged equipment, 

1 leaking source incident, and 1 notification of a dose to an embryo/fetus. The Division 

dispatched inspectors for onsite follow-up for nine of the cases reviewed. The other nine 

events were followed up by telephone and a follow-up inspection at a later date. 

During the review period, the Division received 85 allegations. The review team 

evaluated 12 allegations. 

c. Evaluation

The team determined that during the review period Region I met the performance 

indicator objectives listed in Section 3.5.a. 

d. Results

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the review team recommended, and 

the MRB agreed, that Region I’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical 

Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, be found satisfactory. 

 
NRC Region I Final IMPEP Report Page 9 

5.0 SUMMARY 

As noted in Section 3.0 above, Region I’s performance was found satisfactory for all 

performance indicators reviewed. The review team did not make any recommendations. 

Accordingly, the review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, that the NRC Region 

I radioactive materials program be found adequate to protect public health and safety. 

Based on the results of the previous and current IMPEP reviews, the review team 

recommended, and the MRB agreed, that the next full IMPEP review take place in 

approximately 5 years.
LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members 

Appendix B Inspection Accompaniments 
APPENDIX A 

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS 

Name Area of Responsibility

Binesh Tharakan, CHP Team Leader 

Region IV Technical Staffing and Training 

Technical Quality of Incidents and Allegation 

Activities 

David Spackman Status of Materials Inspection Program 

NMSS 

Mike Welling Technical Quality of Inspections 

Commonwealth of Virginia Inspection Accompaniments 

Lizette Roldan-Otero, PhD Technical Quality of Licensing Actions 

Region IV Inspection Accompaniments 

Frank Peffer Technical Quality of Incidents and Allegation 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Activities 

Bryan Parker Inspection Accompaniments 

Region III 
APPENDIX B 

INSPECTION ACCOMPANIMENTS 

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

Accompaniment No.: 1 License No.: 52-25430-03

License Type: Medical Institution, WD Required Priority: 3

Inspection Date: 2/24/15 Inspector: RE

Accompaniment No.: 2 License No.: 52-11897-01

License Type: Eye Applicator Strontium-90 Priority: 3

Inspection Date: 2/25/15 Inspector: LT

Accompaniment No.: 3 License No.: 52-23044-01

License Type: Medical Institution, WD Required Priority: 3

Inspection Date: 2/25/15 Inspector: LT

Accompaniment No.: 4 License No.: 52-24937-01

License Type: Medical Private Practice, WD Required Priority: 3

Inspection Date: 2/26/15 Inspector: FG

Accompaniment No.: 5 License No.: 08-02075-03

License Type: Academic Type A Broad Scope Priority: 3

Inspection Date: 3/3/15 Inspector: TJ

Accompaniment No.: 6 License No.: 10-12044-03

License Type: Medical Broad Scope Priority: 2

Inspection Date: 3/4/15 Inspector: H

Accompaniment No.: 7 License No.: 10-06493-02

License Type: Medical Institution, WD required Priority: 3

Inspection Date: 3/5/15 Inspector: HB

Accompaniment No.: 8 License No.: 07-12153-02

License Type: High-Dose Rate Remote Afterloader Priority: 2

Inspection Date: 3/16-17/15 Inspector: PL

Accompaniment No.: 9 License No.: 07-30791-01

License Type: Radiography Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 3/18/15 Inspector: SW

Accompaniment No.: 10 License No.: 47-19142-01

License Type: Medical Institution, WD required 

w/therapy modalities 

Priority: 3

Inspection Date: 2/18/15 Inspector: SS

 
NRC Region I Final IMPEP Report Page 2 

Inspection Accompaniments 

Accompaniment No.: 11 License No.: 47-31304-02

License Type: High-Dose Rate Remote Afterloader Priority: 2

Inspection Date: 2/18/15 Inspector: SS

Accompaniment No.: 12 License No.: 47-23035-03

License Type: Academic Type A Broad Scope Priority: 3

Inspection Date: 3/24-25/15 Inspector: BU

Accompaniment No.: 13 License No.: 06-06941-01

License Type: Medical Institution, WD Required Priority: 3

Inspection Date: 3/19/15 Inspector: BG