ML26044A240
| ML26044A240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/03/2026 |
| From: | Adelaide Giantelli NRC/NMSS/DMSST/ASPB |
| To: | Hildebrant R State of VT, Dept of Health |
| References | |
| Download: ML26044A240 (0) | |
Text
Rick Hildebrant, MD Commissioner of Health Vermont Department of Health 280 State Drive Waterbury, VT 05671
SUBJECT:
VERMONT DRAFT IMPEP REPORT
Dear Mr. Irwin:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) uses the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) to review radiation control programs. The enclosed draft report documents the results of the Vermont Agreement State Program (Vermont) review conducted on January 12 -15, 2026. The teams preliminary findings were discussed with Vermont staff and management on the last day of the review. The team found Vermonts performance satisfactory for all six performance indicators reviewed and proposed that Vermont be found adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the NRCs program.
Following the review, changes to improve IMPEP efficiencies were implemented which affected the findings the team discussed with Vermont on the last day of the review. These changes include the elimination of the Management Review Board (MRB) since all performance indicators were found to be satisfactory and extending the recommended time of the next periodic meeting and IMPEP review. This has been discussed with Vermont, who was pleased and very receptive to the changes.
The NRC conducts periodic reviews of radiation control programs to verify that public health and safety are adequately protected from the potential hazards associated with the use of radioactive materials and to ensure that Agreement State programs remain compatible with the NRCs regulatory program. IMPEP reviews are performed by teams of Agreement State and NRC staff using common criteria with an emphasis on performance. The MRB Chair will make the final determination of adequacy and compatibility based on the teams report.
In accordance with IMPEP implementation procedures, the NRC is providing this draft report for your review and comment. Comments are requested within 28 days to support timely issuance of the final report.
Because the team found all performance indicators satisfactory, the draft IMPEP report is being forwarded to the MRB Chair to determine whether an MRB meeting is required. The team will incorporate any comments from Vermont or the MRB Chair before issuing the final IMPEP report.
March 3, 2026
R. Hildebrant If you have any questions regarding the enclosed report, please contact R. Lee Smith, IMPEP Project Manager, at (301) 415-5139 or Randy Erickson IMPEP Team Leader, at (817) 200-1143.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely, Adelaide S. Giantelli, Chief State Agreement and Liaison Programs Branch Division of Materials Safety, Security, State, and Tribal Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
Vermont Draft IMPEP Report cc: William Irwin, Sc.D., CHP Chief, Radiological Health Signed by Giantelli, Adelaide on 03/03/26
Enclosure INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM REVIEW OF THE VERMONT AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM JANUARY 12-15, 2026 DRAFT REPORT
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The results of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review of the Vermont Agreement State Program are discussed in this report. The review was conducted by the IMPEP team during the week of January 12-15, 2026. Inspector accompaniments were conducted on July 7-8, 2025.
The team found Vermonts performance satisfactory for all six 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; and Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements.
There were no recommendations from the 2021 IMPEP review for the team to consider, and the team did not make any new recommendations.
Accordingly, the team recommends that the Vermont radiation control program be found adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the NRC's program. Because Vermont has had at least two consecutive IMPEP reviews with all performance indicators found satisfactory, the team recommends that a periodic meeting be conducted in approximately 3 years with the next IMPEP review taking place in approximately 6 years.
Vermont Draft IMPEP Report Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Vermont Agreement State Program review was conducted on January 12-15, 2026, by a team of technical staff members from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Team members are identified in Appendix A. Inspector accompaniments were conducted on July 7-8, 2025, and are identified in Appendix B. The review was conducted in accordance with the Agreement State Program Policy Statement, published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48535), and NRC Management Directive (MD) 5.6, Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP), dated July 24, 2019. Preliminary results of the review, which covered the period of October 7, 2021, through January 15, 2026, were discussed with Vermont managers and staff on the last day of the review.
In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common performance indicators and applicable non-common performance indicators was sent to Vermont electronically on September 8, 2025. Vermont provided its response to the questionnaire on January 12, 2026. A copy of the questionnaire response is available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML26012A344.
The Vermont Agreement State Program is administered by the Radiological Health Program which is located within the Division of Environmental Health. The Division of Environmental Health is located within the Vermont Department of Health. Organization charts for Vermont are available in ML26013A203.
At the time of the review, Vermont regulated 29 specific licenses authorizing possession and use of radioactive materials. The review focused on the radiation control program as it is carried out under Section 274b. (of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) Agreement between the NRC and the Vermont Agreement State Program.
The team evaluated the information gathered against the established criteria for each common and applicable non-common performance indicators and made a preliminary assessment of the Vermont Agreement State Programs performance.
2.0 PREVIOUS IMPEP REVIEW AND STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS The previous IMPEP review concluded on October 6, 2021. The final report is available in ML22020A112. The results of the review are as follows:
Technical Staffing and Training: Satisfactory 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
Vermont Draft IMPEP Report Page 2 Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements: Satisfactory Recommendation: None Overall finding: Based on the results of the 2021 IMPEP review, the Management Review Board (MRB) Chair found Vermont adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the NRC's program.
3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Five common performance indicators are used to review the NRC and Agreement State radiation control 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 experienced, knowledgeable, well-trained technical personnel. Under certain conditions, staff turnover could have an adverse effect on the implementation of these programs and could affect public health and safety. Apparent trends in staffing must be assessed. Review of staffing also requires 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 team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure (SA) SA-103, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Staffing and Training, and evaluated Vermonts performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
A well-conceived and balanced staffing strategy has been implemented throughout the review period.
Any vacancies, especially senior-level positions, are filled in a timely manner.
There is a balance in staffing of the licensing and inspection programs.
Management is committed to training and staff qualification.
Agreement State training and qualification program is equivalent to the NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) IMC 1248, Formal Qualifications Program for Federal and State Material and Environmental Management Programs.
Qualification criteria for new technical staff are established and are followed, or qualification criteria will be established if new staff members are hired.
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.
b.
Discussion Vermonts program is comprised of one manager and two technical staff equaling 1.75 full-time equivalents for the radiation control program when fully staffed. During the review period, two staff members left the program, and one new staff member was hired; and at the time of the review there were no vacancies. The manager and one of the technical staff are qualified to perform both licensing reviews and inspections. The newest staff member is currently in training. The team found that during the review period there was a balance in staffing of both the licensing and inspection programs.
Vermont Draft IMPEP Report Page 3 The team found that Vermonts training and qualification program was compatible with the NRCs IMC 1248. The Vermont qualification process uses a combination of NRC sponsored training courses, on-the-job training, and self-study activities. The team also found that management tracks continuing education requirements of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> every 2 years for all fully qualified individuals and provides ample opportunities for staff to fulfill this requirement.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Vermont met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.1.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommended that Vermonts performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found satisfactory.
d.
Management Review Board (MRB) Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.
3.2 Status of Materials Inspection Program Inspections of licensed operations are essential to ensure that activities are being conducted in compliance with regulatory requirements and consistent with good safety and security practices.
The frequency of inspections is specified in IMC 2800, Materials Inspection Program, and is dependent on the amount and type of radioactive 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 team used the guidance in SA-101, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:
Status of the Materials Inspection Program, and evaluated Vermonts performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
Initial inspections and inspections of Priority 1, 2, and 3 licensees are performed at the prescribed frequencies (https://www.nrc.gov/materials/miau/mat-toolkits.html).
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.
Candidate licensees working under reciprocity are inspected in accordance with the criteria prescribed in IMC 2800 and other applicable guidance or compatible Agreement State Procedure.
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 team found that Vermonts inspection frequencies are the same or more restrictive than NRCs inspection frequencies that are listed in IMC 2800, Materials Inspection Program.
Vermont performed nine routine Priority 1, 2, and 3 inspections, and one initial inspection during the review period. There were no overdue inspections at the time of the review.
Vermont Draft IMPEP Report Page 4 All Priority 1, 2, 3, and initial inspection findings were communicated to the licensees within 30 days after the inspection exit or 45 days after a team inspection exit.
Vermont inspected all 19 of the reciprocity licensees entering the state over the review period. The team noted that several of the radiography reciprocity licensees had been inspected more than once each in 2023, 2024, and 2025, resulting in a total of 24 reciprocity inspections having been conducted over the entire review period. Reciprocity inspections were performed using the States procedure, which is consistent with the guidance found in NRCs IMC 2800. The team found that the reciprocity inspections reviewed had been performed in accordance with their procedure. The team further noted that Vermont is in the process of reviewing and updating their reciprocity procedure to reflect a more risk-informed approach to better manage resources within the program.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Vermont met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.2.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommended that Vermonts performance with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program, be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.
3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections Inspections, both routine and reactive, provide reasonable assurance that licensee activities are carried out in a safe and secure manner. Accompaniments of inspectors performing inspections and the critical evaluation of inspection records are used to assess the technical quality of an inspection program.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-102, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:
Technical Quality of Inspections, and evaluated Vermonts 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, or senior staff as appropriate, conduct annual accompaniments of each inspector to assess performance and assure consistent application of inspection policies.
For Programs with separate licensing and inspection staffs, procedures are established and followed to provide feedback information to license reviewers.
Inspection guides are compatible with the NRC guidance.
An adequate supply of calibrated survey instruments is available to support the inspection program.
Vermont Draft IMPEP Report Page 5 b.
Discussion The team evaluated 14 inspection reports and interviewed the inspectors involved in materials inspections conducted during the review period. The team reviewed casework for all inspectors who performed inspections over the entire review period. The casework included medical, industrial, academic, research, nuclear pharmacy, and service provider licenses. Based on the review of inspection documentation, the team found that all inspections were well-documented, and inspection findings were consistent with inspection procedures and regulatory requirements.
A team member conducted in-person inspector accompaniments with the two inspectors at two different Vermont licensee locations on July 7 and 8, 2025. No performance issues were noted during the accompaniments. The team found that the inspectors were wellprepared and thorough, and assessed the impact of licensed activities on health, safety, and security. The inspectors observed the use of radioactive materials and interviewed licensee staff. The inspectors used open ended questions and determined that radioactive materials were being used safely and securely. Any findings observed were brought to the users attention at the time of the inspection and again to the licensees management during the inspection exit meeting. The inspector accompaniments are identified in Appendix B.
The team found that supervisory accompaniments had been performed at least annually for all inspectors.
The team verified that Vermont has an adequate supply of properly calibrated radiation detection equipment to support the inspection program and respond to radioactive materials incidents and emergency situations. Calibrations are performed appropriately, and records are maintained on file. Vermont also has laboratory services available for sample analysis, as needed.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Vermont met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.3.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommended that Vermonts performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.
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, as well as security. An assessment of licensing procedures, implementation of those procedures, and documentation of communications and associated actions between Vermont licensing staff and regulated community is a significant indicator of the overall quality of the licensing program.
Vermont Draft IMPEP Report Page 6 a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-104, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, and evaluated Vermonts 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 are consistent with current regulatory guidance (e.g., pre-licensing guidance, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 37, financial assurance, etc.).
License reviewers, if applicable, have the proper signature authority for the cases they review independently.
License conditions are stated clearly and can be inspected.
Deficiency letters clearly state regulatory positions and are used at the proper time.
Reviews of renewal applications demonstrate a thorough analysis of a licensees 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 (RSRM) are appropriately implemented including the physical protection of Category 1 and Category 2 quantities of radioactive material (10 CFR Part 37 equivalent).
Documents containing sensitive security information are properly marked, handled, controlled, and secured.
b.
Discussion Vermont completed 88 licensing actions over the review period. The team reviewed 15 of those actions which included 1 new application, 11 amendments, 2 terminations, and 1 renewal; and included the work of each of the license reviewers over the review period.
At the time of the IMPEP review, the program had two fully qualified license reviewers.
All license actions are peer reviewed. The casework sample represented work from three license reviewers and included service providers, portable gauges, possession only, permanent shutdown, nuclear pharmacy, nuclear medicine, high dose rate remote after-loader; and mobile nuclear medicine services. The team interviewed the license reviewers. The license reviewers were knowledgeable and used the most current prelicensing guidance checklist and RSRM checklist.
Vermonts licenses containing security related information were properly marked and appropriately stored. Both new and renewal licenses are issued for 10 years. The team noted that appropriate financial assurance instruments were properly submitted when required.
No renewal applications have been pending for one year or more. In all licensing actions reviewed, the team found licensing actions to be thorough, complete, consistent, and of high quality with health, safety, and security issues properly addressed.
The team evaluated the implementation of the Pre-Licensing Guidance and RSRM checklists. The Program conducted pre-licensing visits for unknown entities in accordance with the checklist and properly implemented the Pre-Licensing Guidance.
Vermont Draft IMPEP Report Page 7 For applications with RSRM, the Program completed the RSRM checklist and performed on-site security reviews, as necessary.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Vermont met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.4.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommended that Vermonts performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.
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, safety and security. An assessment of incident response and allegation investigation procedures, actual implementation of these procedures internal and external coordination, timely incident reporting, and investigative and follow-up actions, are a significant indicator of the overall quality of the incident response and allegation programs.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-105, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:
Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, and evaluated Vermonts performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
Incident response 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 and closed when all required information has been obtained.
Allegations are investigated in a prompt, appropriate manner.
Concerned individuals are notified within 30 days of investigation conclusions.
Concerned individuals identities are protected, as allowed by law.
b.
Discussion During the review period, nine radioactive materials incidents were reported to Vermont.
Five were related to landfill trips from non-licensees, one involved a Y-90 underdose to a patient, one was an accidental disposal of a single gunsight with a millicurie quantity of tritium in it, one involved a leaking electron capture device (ECD) with 15 mCi of nickel-63, and the last involved a shipment of I-123 seeds temporarily lost in transport from the Illinois manufacturer to a Vermont licensee. The team reviewed all nine of those events and found that Vermonts response to the incidents was thorough, complete and comprehensive.
Vermont Draft IMPEP Report Page 8 The team also evaluated Vermonts reporting of incidents to the NRCs Headquarters Operations Center (HOC). The team found that in the case of the leaking ECD, Vermont had missed reporting it to the HOC. Once identified, Vermont immediately reported it while the team was on-site. The review team determined that the timeliness of reporting the event did not affect public health and safety.
Vermont did not receive any allegations directly or receive any referred by NRC during the review period.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Vermont met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.5.a, except for:
One notification was not made to the NRC HOC for incidents requiring a 24-hour or immediate notification to the Agreement State or NRC.
After discussing the incident with the team and determining that the event did meet the threshold for a reportable event but had been missed, Vermont immediately reported the event to the NRCs HOC. No additional incidents were reported late for the review period.
Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Vermonts performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.
4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Four non-common performance indicators are used to review Agreement State programs:
(1) Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements; (2) Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Program; (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program; and (4) Uranium Recovery (UR) Program. The NRC retains regulatory authority for SS&D Evaluation, LLRW Disposal, and UR Programs; therefore, only the first non-common performance indicator applied to this review.
4.1 Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements State statutes should authorize the State to establish a program for the regulation of agreement material and provide authority for the assumption of regulatory responsibility under the States agreement with the NRC. The statutes must authorize the State to promulgate regulatory requirements necessary to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health, safety, and security. The State must be authorized through its legal authority to license, inspect, and enforce legally binding requirements, such as regulations and licenses. The NRC regulations that should be adopted by an Agreement State for purposes of compatibility or health and safety should be adopted in a time frame so that the effective date of the State requirement is not later than 3 years after the effective date of the NRC's final rule. Other program elements that have been designated as necessary for maintenance of an adequate and compatible program should be adopted and implemented by an Agreement State within 6 months following the NRC designation. A Program Element Table indicating the Compatibility
Vermont Draft IMPEP Report Page 9 Categories for those program elements other than regulations can be found on the NRC website at the following address: https://scp.nrc.gov/regtoolbox.html.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-107, Reviewing the Non-Common Performance Indicator: Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements, and evaluated Vermonts performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives. A complete list of regulation amendments can be found on the NRC website at the following address:
https://scp.nrc.gov/regtoolbox.html.
The Agreement State program does not create conflicts, duplications, gaps, or other conditions that jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation of radioactive materials under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Regulations adopted by the Agreement State for purposes of compatibility or health and safety were adopted no later than 3 years after the effective date of the NRC regulation.
Other program elements, as defined in SA-200 that have been designated as necessary for maintenance of an adequate and compatible program, have been adopted and implemented within 6 months of NRC designation.
The State statutes authorize the State to establish a program for the regulation of agreement material and provide authority for the assumption of regulatory responsibility under the agreement.
The State is authorized through its legal authority to license, inspect, and enforce legally binding requirements such as regulations and licenses.
Sunset requirements, if any, do not negatively impact the effectiveness of the States regulations.
b.
Discussion Vermont became an Agreement State on September 30, 2019. The current effective statutory authority is contained in the Ionizing and Nonionizing Radiation Control Act contained in the Vermont Statute Title 18 Chapter 32. The Department of Health is designated as the States radiation control agency. Vermont reported that no legislation affecting the radiation control program was passed during the review period.
Vermont has an administrative rulemaking process that is applied when NRC publishes a new part to the regulations, and that rulemaking process takes approximately 5-9 months from drafting to finalizing a rule and includes submitting those regulations to NRC for review and comment. The public, the NRC, other agencies, and potentially impacted licensees and registrants are offered an opportunity to comment during the process. Comments are considered and incorporated, as appropriate, before the regulations are finalized and approved. The team noted that Vermonts rules and regulations are not subject to sunset laws.
When the NRC amends existing regulations, Vermont adopts the NRC regulations required for compatibility by reference. Since the regulations are not tied to any specific date, whenever the NRC promulgates a rule change it becomes effective the same day in Vermont. As NRC published regulations over this review period, Vermonts regulations were concurrently updated, effective, and enforceable, therefore Vermont did not need to submit any proposed or final regulations or legally binding requirements to the NRC for a compatibility review and as a result, over the review period there were no amendments overdue for adoption. A total of 13 amendments were published by the NRC over this review period, of which 11 were required for compatibility by Vermont.
Vermont Draft IMPEP Report Page 10 The 2021 IMPEP review team determined that prior to the issuance of Vermonts agreement, NRC staff had noted five outstanding regulatory comments on the final regulations that were either not fully compatible and/or needed additional editorial changes. Vermont committed within 60 days to making these changes as soon as practical.
During a periodic meeting on November 8, 2023, it was again noted that the five comments had not yet been addressed. Vermont stated that initially they had not been addressed due to restrictions on rulemaking that had been put in place during the pandemic, but again committed to addressing the remaining open comments as soon as possible.
The 2026 IMPEP review team found that Vermont had addressed the remaining comments but had overlooked sending them to NRC for a compatibility review. Following the IMPEP review, Vermont sent the resolved comments to the NRC for review via electronic mail on February 12, 2026.
The team also reviewed guidance documents that Vermont uses to meet the requirements of other program elements (e.g., Pre-Licensing Guidance, Inspection Procedures, etc.) that the NRC has designated as necessary for the maintenance of an adequate and compatible program. The team found that all documents reviewed were compatible and adopted within the applicable time frame.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Vermont met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 4.1.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Vermonts performance with respect to the indicator, Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements, be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.
5.0
SUMMARY
The team found Vermonts performance to be satisfactory for all six 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; and Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements.
There were no recommendations from the 2021 IMPEP review for the team to consider, and the team did not make any new recommendations.
Accordingly, the team recommends that the Vermont radiation control program be found adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the NRC's program. Because Vermont has had at least two consecutive IMPEP reviews with all performance indicators found satisfactory, the team recommends that a periodic meeting be conducted in approximately 3 years with the next IMPEP review taking place in approximately 6 years.
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members Appendix B Inspector Accompaniments
APPENDIX A IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS Name Areas of Responsibility Randy Erickson, RIV Team Leader Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements Shawn Seeley, RI Technical Staffing and Training Status of the Materials Inspection Program Technical Quality of Inspections Inspector Accompaniments Russell Hestand Technical Quality of Licensing Actions Commonwealth of Kentucky
APPENDIX B INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS The following inspector accompaniments were performed prior to the IMPEP review:
Accompaniment No.: 1 License No.: 44-00728-13 License Type: Academic Broad Scope Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 7/7/2025 Inspectors initials: FO Accompaniment No.: 2 License No.: 44-14149-02 License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 5 Inspection Date: 7/8/2025 Inspectors initials: AK
APPENDIX C INSPECTION CASEWORK The following inspections were reviewed during the IMPEP review:
No.: 1 License No.: 44-00728-13 License Type: Academic Broad B Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 7/7/2025 Inspectors initials: FO No.: 2 License No.: 44-14149-02 License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 5 Inspection Date: 7/8/2025 - 8/29/2025 Inspectors initials: AK No.: 3 License No.: 44-35612-01 License Type: Veterinary Priority: 5 Inspection Date: 8/11/2022 Inspectors initials: FO No.: 4 License No.: ME 01221 License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 3/26/2025 - 5/1/2025 Inspectors initials: FO No.: 5 License No.: NRC 22-29403-01 License Type: Mobile Nuclear Medicine Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 11/15/2025 Inspectors initials: AK No.: 6 License No.: NH 491R License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 6/12/2023 Inspectors initials: FO No.: 7 License No.: 44-35614-01 License Type: Veterinary Priority: 5 Inspection Date: 9/17/2025 Inspectors initials: AK No.: 8 License No.: 44-10187-03 License Type: Medical - WD required - HDR Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 6/17/2024 Inspectors initials: FO No.: 9 License No.: 44-30124-01MD License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 8/23/2024 Inspectors initials: FO No.: 10 License No.: 44-30124-01MD License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 4/13/2022 Inspectors initials: FO
No.: 11 License No.: 44-35405-01 License Type: Mobile Nuclear Medicine - No WD Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 7/26/2023 Inspectors initials: FO No.: 12 License No.: 44-14121-01 License Type: Medical - WD required Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 5/24/2023 Inspectors initials: FO No.: 13 License No.: 44-00728-13 License Type: Academic Broadscope B Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 11/29/2022 - 2/23/2023 Inspectors initials: FO No.: 14 License No.: MA 19-0672 License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 12/4/2023 Inspectors initials: FO
APPENDIX D LICENSING CASEWORK The following licensing actions were reviewed during the IMPEP review:
No.: 1 Onion River Operating LLC License No.: 44-356-01 License Type: Veterinary Sn-117 Action: Indirect Transfer of Control Action Date: 5/9/2025 Reviewer's initials: FO, BI No.: 2 Gifford Medical Center License No.: 44-13976-01 License Type: Medical -W/O WD Action: Add AU & RSO and Delete two AUs and RSO.
Action Date: 6/17/2025 Reviewer's initials: FO, BI No.: 3 PharmaLogic Ltd License No.: 44-30124-01MD License Type: Radiopharmacy Action: Add ANP Action Date: 8/29/2025 Reviewer's initials: AK, BI No.: 4 University of Vermont Medical Center License No.: 44-10187-03 License Type: Medical - Written Directive Required Action: Remove AMP & add AMP Action Date: 6/27/2025 Reviewer's initials: FO, BI No.: 5 Century Arms License No.: 44-35616-01 License Type: Possession Only. Tritium Gunsights Action: New License Action Date: 4/10/2024 Reviewer's initials: AK, FO, BI No.: 6 Century Arms License No.: 44-3516-01 License Type: Possession Only. Tritium Gunsights Action: Termination Action Date: 9/25/2025 Reviewer's initials: AK, BI No.: 7 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC License No.: 44-30912-01 License Type: Service Provider Action: Change RSO, add ARSO, remove AUs Action Date: 8/12/2022 Reviewer's initials: FO, BI No.: 8 Porter Medical License No.: 44-19050-01 License Type: Medical - Written Directive Required Action: Renewal Action Date: 5/2/2025 Reviewer's initials: FO, BI No.: 9 RB BEVS LLC License No.: 44-35614-01 License Type: Vet Clinic Action: New Action Date: 3/22/2023 Reviewer's initials: FO, BI No.:10 Cardiac Imaging Solutions Inc LLC License No.: 44-35614-01 License Type: Medical Cardiac Center Action: Termination Action Date: 12/2/2024 Reviewer's initials: FO, BI
No.:11 Infra-Red Analyzers Inc License No.: 44-28404-02 License Type: Portable Gauge Action: Add gauge Action Date: 11/9/2023 Reviewer's initials: FO, BI No.: 12 Akumin dba Alliance Healthcare Services Inc License No.: 44-35614-01 License Type: Mobile Medical Action: Change RSO Action Date: 10/13/2025 Reviewer's initials: AK, BI No.: 13 Brattleboro Memorial Hospital License No.: 44-13760-01 License Type: Medical Action: Remove AU, remove I-131 Action Date: 3/22/2023 Reviewer's initials: FO, BI No.: 14 Vermont Department of Health Laboratory License No.: 44-11382-01 License Type: Research and Development Action: Change RSO, update 2 AUs Action Date: 11/18/2022 Reviewer's initials: FO,BI No.: 15 John Turner Consulting Inc License No.: 28-31397-03 License Type: Portable Gauge Action: Add Gauge Action Date: 7/15/2025 Reviewer's initials: FO,BI
ML26044A240 OFFICE R-IV/DNMS/MIB NMSS/MSST/SLPB NMSS/MSST NMSS/MSST/SMPB NAME RErickson RJohnson LSmith AGiantelli DATE Feb 17, 2026 Feb 18, 2026 Feb 17, 2026 Feb 20, 2026 OFFICE NMSS NMSS/MSST/SMPB NAME DSilberfeld CValentin-Rodriguez for AGiantelli DATE Feb 20, 2026 Mar 3, 2026