OCTOBER 2014

NUREG/BR-0117

NO. 14-04

ANNUAL MEETING OF 

THE ORGANIZATION OF 

AGREEMENT STATES

 PAGE1

TRAINING ON THE 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

POLICY ACT 

 PAGE2

FROM THE DESK OF 

THE DIRECTOR

 PAGE3

COMMENTS WANTED ON AN 

ADVANCE NOTICE

 PAGE4

COMMENTS WANTED ON 

A PROPOSED RULE

 PAGE5

DRAFT REGULATORY 

BASIS NOTICE

 PAGE6

DECOMMISSIONING 

FINANCIAL ASSURANCE 

PROGRAM

 PAGE6

INTERAGENCY TASK 

FORCE REPORT

 PAGE9

SIGNIFICANT ENFORCEMENT 

ACTIONS

 PAGE10

GENERIC COMMUNICATION 

ISSUED

 PAGE11

SELECTED FEDERAL REGISTER 

NOTICES

 PAGE12

ONGOING 

RULEMAKINGS

 PAGE15

TO OUR READERS

 PAGE17

ANNUAL MEETING OF 

THE ORGANIZATION 

OF AGREEMENT STATES

On August 25–28, 2014, the 

Organization of Agreement 

States (OAS) held its annual 

meeting at the Omni Chicago 

Hotel in Chicago, IL. The United 

States Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s (NRC’s) Region III 

office hosted the meeting. The 

annual meeting brought together 

more than 130 participants 

including State radiation control 

directors and staff from 36 of the 

37 Agreement States and NRC 

staff to discuss a wide range of 

issues affecting radioactive materials licensees. The theme of the OAS meeting was 

“Partnership and Communication.” The presentations and discussions on the role of 

the National Materials Program through partnerships and communications led to a 

very successful meeting.

Cindy Pederson, Regional Administrator, Region III, provided the welcome at the 

opening session along with Joe Klinger, Illinois Radiation Control Program Director. 

Mr. Klinger read a letter from Governor Pat Quinn welcoming the participants to 

the meeting. Lieutenant Governor Sheila Simon provided a video welcome. Both 

the Governor and Lieutenant Governor commended the meeting participants in 

their role in radiation control and encouraged the opportunities for partnership and 

communications during the meeting. Commissioner William D. Magwood provided 

the keynote address and discussed NRC’s role as a partner in the National Materials 

Program. Commissioner Magwood discussed NRC’s role to proactively address State 

performance issues through the NRC evaluation program and his views on both the 

proposed medical rule and drafted legislation addressing additional security measures.

A highlight of the meeting was the address from Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane on 

August 27, 2014, which covered several issues of common interest highlighting the 

National Materials Program and the partnership between NRC and the Agreement 

States. The Chairman announced that the State of Georgia’s Agreement State 

program was taken off probation after a review earlier this year found that the 

State had made significant progress in addressing several areas of unsatisfactory 

Left to right: Jared Thompson, Radioactive Materials Program 

Manager, Arkansas; Richard Ratliff, Radiation Program Director, 

Texas; NRC Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane; Mike Stephens, 

Bureau of Radiation Control, Florida; and Lee Cox, Radiation 

Protection Section Chief, North Carolina

Continued on page 2

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL 

SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS
OCTOBER 2014

2

NMSS

performance found in an earlier review. Chairman Macfarlane also presented certificates 

to the States of Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, and Texas commemorating 50 years of 

radiation protection as an Agreement State and partner in public health and safety. On 

August 28, 2014, the director of the Georgia program discussed the probation process 

from the Georgia viewpoint.

The topics for the meeting’s sessions included 10 CFR Part 37, “Physical Protection of 

Category 1 and Category 2 Quantities of Special Nuclear Material,” and its security issues; 

consumer products; emerging training approaches; Web-based licensing; updates to the licensing 

verification system; revisions to the medical rule; the Advisory Committee on Medical Uses of 

Isotopes (ACMUI); molybdenum-99 production; cumulative effects of regulations; and Integrated 

Material Performance reviews and recommendations to enhance the program. NRC senior 

managers from the Office of the Executive Director for Operations, the Office of Federal and 

State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, and the Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards gave presentations on agency organizational issues and initiatives.

The next OAS annual meeting will be held August 22–27, 2015, at the Omni Boston Hotel in 

Boston, MA.

(Contact: Duncan White, NMSS, 301–415–2598 or Duncan.White@nrc.gov).

TRAINING ON THE NATIONAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 

The NRC performs environmental reviews under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for reactors 

and materials licensees, as well as for sites undergoing 

decommissioning, including fuel cycle facilities. With the 

legal assistance of the Office of the General Counsel 

(OGC), the major NRC offices that conduct NEPA reviews are the Office of New Reactors 

(NRO), the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), and the Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR).

From 2007 through 2014, NRC employees had the opportunity to attend and complete 

courses in NEPA offered by Duke University and co-sponsored by the White House Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Although NMSS had the NRC lead for these contracts, all 

of the major program offices and three of the NRC regions benefited from having the NEPA 

courses taught at NRC headquarters. All participating program offices achieved success in 

training a large number of staff in NEPA in a timely and cost effective manner. In addition, the 

training positioned many NRC staff to complete the Duke University graduate level professional 

certificate in “Implementation of NEPA.”

In prior years, NRC staff attended those courses at Duke University in Durham, NC. By having 

the courses taught at NRC headquarters, the NRC saved training dollars because of discounts 

on tuition and minimization of travel costs.

The Duke NEPA certificate program was designed for professionals seeking essential skills in 

the understanding and implementation of NEPA. To complete the certificate, a student must 

complete 100 hours of didactic core work, including the cornerstone course “Implementation 

of the National Environmental Policy Act,” and prepare a capstone paper approved by the 

Academic Review Committee. 

2
OCTOBER 2014

3

FROM THE DESK OF 

THE DIRECTOR

On October 5, 2014, the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards (NMSS) and Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs (FSME) merged. I 

have the good fortune to become the Office Director of the 

new NMSS Office. In my few days in this position, I have already 

enjoyed warm welcomes, good wishes, and great support from 

many of you. Thank you. I also want to express my thanks and 

appreciation to Brian Holian for his service to FSME, and for 

setting an example of leadership and integrity.

Now, I would like to use this column to discuss further the 

merging of NMSS and FSME. First, I would like to give you 

some background. When Congress created the NRC in 1974, 

it established three specific offices within the agency. One of 

them was the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 

or “NMSS” in NRC shorthand. This office was charged with 

regulating nuclear materials and the facilities associated with 

processing, transporting and handling them.

This charge was, and is, broad. The NRC’s materials and waste 

management programs cover facilities that use radioisotopes to 

diagnose and treat illnesses, devices such as radiography cameras 

and nuclear gauges, and decommissioning and environmental 

remediation. It also includes nuclear waste disposal and all phases 

of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium recovery to enrichment 

to fuel manufacturing to spent fuel storage and transportation. 

The program also does environmental reviews; oversees 37 

Agreement States, which have assumed regulatory authority 

over nuclear materials; and maintains relationships with states, 

local governments, Federal agencies and Native American Tribal 

organizations.

As with all organizations, the NRC’s workload has ebbed and 

flowed in response to a multitude of factors. Over the years, 

NMSS went through several structural changes to address its 

workload changes. For example, in 2006, the NRC restructured 

NMSS, moving some of its programs, including the state and 

tribal programs, into a new office (FSME). NMSS retained fuel 

cycle facilities, high-level waste disposal, spent fuel storage, and 

radioactive material transportation. FSME was responsible for 

regulating industrial, commercial, and medical uses of radioactive 

materials and uranium recovery activities. Also, FSME handled 

the decommissioning of previously operating nuclear facilities and 

power plants.

The NRC’s materials and waste management workload has now 

shifted again. Therefore, NRC staff launched a working group last 

fall to review the organizational structure of the NRC’s materials 

and waste management programs. With the focus shifting to 

long-term waste storage and disposal strategies, and an increasing 

number of nuclear plants moving to decommissioning, the group 

recommended merging FSME’s programs back into NMSS. The 

NRC’s Commissioners approved that proposal in July 2014, and 

the merger of the two offices was effective October 5, 2014.

Current work, functions, and responsibilities at the staff level will 

be largely unchanged. The management structure will be realigned 

into fewer divisions with fewer managers.

What does this change mean for you? For the most part, you 

should see very little impact of this merger in your day-to-day 

work and interactions with the NRC. As you probably noticed, 

the title of this newsletter has changed to reflect the new 

organization. Similarly, in other communications and documents 

you will see the NMSS title. Most of your contacts for interacting 

with the NRC will remain the same. If, in specific cases, a contact 

is changing, you will be individually notified.

We believe that this new structure will better enable us to focus 

on integrating the front and back ends of the fuel cycle and to 

meet future challenges. It will improve internal coordination, 

balance our workload, and provide greater flexibility to respond 

to a dynamic environment. We fully expect these changes to 

improve our communications, both inside and outside the agency, 

and to provide greater efficiency and flexibility going forward.

While we anticipate improvements in many ways, we also expect 

that there will likely be some hiccups as we shift to the new 

organizational structure and as staff and managers get acclimated. 

We appreciate your patience during the transition period and 

encourage you to contact me or a member of the NMSS team 

with any feedback as we move forward to standup the new 

organization.

Sincerely,

Catherine Haney, Director
OCTOBER 2014

4

NMSS

The elective courses for the certificate fall into two required groups. From the first group, a 

student was required to take two of the following four courses: (1) “Socioeconomic Impact 

Analysis under NEPA,” (2) “Accounting for Cumulative Effects in the NEPA Process,” (3) “Tribal 

Consultation,” and (4) “Preparing and Documenting Environmental Impact Analyses.” From the 

second group, a student was required to take one of the following three courses: (1) “Scoping, 

Public Involvement and Environmental Justice,” (2) “Current and Emerging Issues in National 

Environmental Policy,” (3) “The Law of NEPA,” and (4) “Considering Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

and Climate Change under NEPA.”

The courses were specifically designed for mid-level and senior project managers who work to 

(a) streamline the environmental permitting process for Federal facilities and Federal regulatory 

activities and (b) prepare and review environmental assessments, environmental impact 

statements, and other NEPA analyses. The courses taught at NRC headquarters were attended 

by technical staff, attorneys and management, resulting in a cross section of participation. The 

courses provided the necessary tools to address the environmental effects of agency actions 

and to ensure that environmental impact analyses are substantively and procedurally accurate. 

The course instructors aided students in determining the proper level of documentation to 

fully record and disclose to the public the results of environmental analysis.

As of April 2014, the NRC reported that over 600 NRC staff had taken the NEPA courses 

offered through this effort. Seven NEPA certificates have been awarded and 24 additional 

NEPA certificates could possibly be attained. The Duke University library will preserve the 

students’ capstone papers for future use as references and as an integral tool for knowledge 

management. Those capstone papers are also accessible to other Federal employees.

In February 2014, Duke University taught the last NEPA course at NRC headquarters. 

The training program has been very successful in providing NRC staff with current NEPA 

implementation information, in saving the NRC considerable training funds, and (most 

importantly) in maintaining and enhancing the NRC’s NEPA implementation activities.

(Contact: Zahira Cruz, NMSS, 301–415–3808 or Zahira.Cruz@nrc.gov)

COMMENTS WANTED ON AN 

ADVANCE NOTICE 

The NRC is considering amending its basic radiation protection regulations 

to achieve greater alignment between the NRC’s regulations and the 

recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection 

(ICRP) contained in ICRP Publication 103 (2007). On July 25, 2014, the 

NRC published in the Federal Register (79 FR 43284) an Advance Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to consider revisions to Title 10, “Energy,” 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 20, “Standards For 

Protection Against Radiation.” The NRC issued the ANPR to obtain input 

from stakeholders on the development of a draft regulatory basis to support potential changes 

to 10 CFR Part 20. The website to access the ANPR and to submit comments is http://www.

regulations.gov (Docket ID NRC-2009-0279). To provide comments by e–mail, please send 

them to rulemaking.comments@nrc.gov. Comments on the ANPR should be submitted by 

November 24, 2014.
OCTOBER 2014

5

The NRC staff held four public meetings/webinars on the ANPR, from September 24, 2014 

through October 16, 2014. All of the meetings were transcribed to enhance participation 

and the gathering of feedback from the public, stakeholders and regulatory partners. On 

September 24, 2014, the NRC held the first meeting to provide a general background of the 

potential rulemaking and associated issues. This meeting can be viewed at: http://video.nrc.gov/ by 

clicking on “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) -- Potential Changes to the NRC’s 

Radiation Protection Regulations, 9/24/14.” In addition, the slides presented at all four meetings are 

available at: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking/potential-rulemaking/opt-revise.

html under “Public Involvement.” 

(Contact: Cardelia Maupin, NMSS, 301–415–2312 or Cardelia.Maupin@nrc.gov)

COMMENTS WANTED ON A 

PROPOSED RULE

The NRC is proposing to amend its regulations related to the medical use of byproduct material. On 

July 21, 2014, the NRC published in the Federal Register (at 79 FR 42410) a proposed rule to revise 

certain sections in Title 10, “Energy,” of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 30, “Rules 

of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material”; Part 32, “Specific Domestic 

Licenses to Manufacture or Transfer Certain Items Containing Byproduct Material”; and Part 35, 

“Medical Use of Byproduct Material,” as well as a notice of availability of the draft guidance to go with 

these proposed changes. The proposed 10 CFR Part 35 rule is currently open for public comment. 

The Web site to access the proposed rule and to submit comments is http://www.regulations.gov 

(Docket ID NRC-2008-0175). To provide comments by e–mail, please send them to rulemaking.

comments@nrc.gov. Comments for both the proposed 10 CFR Part 35 rule and its guidance should 

be submitted by November 18, 2014.

On July 20, 2014, the NRC staff attended the four day 2014 annual meeting of the American 

Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) held in Austin, TX, to encourage the public and key 

stakeholders to comment on the proposed rule.

NRC staff highlighted major proposed 10 CFR Part 35 rule changes associated with: (1) reporting 

and notification requirements for a medical event for permanent implant brachytherapy; (2) training 

and experience requirements for authorized users, medical physicists, radiation safety officers (RSOs), 

and nuclear pharmacists; (3) the requirements for measuring molybdenum contamination and 

reporting of failed technetium and rubidium generators; and (4) allowing associate radiation safety 

officers (ARSOs) to be named on a medical license. Please review the proposed rule and comment!

(Contact: Said Daibes, NMSS, 301–415–6863 or Said.Daibes@nrc.gov)

 
OCTOBER 2014

6

NMSS

DRAFT REGULATORY BASIS NOTICE

The NRC intends to release Revision 1 of the draft regulatory basis for a proposed 

rulemaking to clarify 10 CFR Part 21, “Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance.” The 

release of the draft regulatory basis is scheduled for fall 2014, and will be followed by 

public meetings to discuss the draft regulatory basis. The draft regulatory basis includes 

discussions on potential clarifications to the rule as it applies to nuclear power plants 

and fuel cycle facilities as well as clarifications that are applicable to all stakeholders. 

For more information and to remain informed on the status of the draft regulatory 

basis and rulemaking activities, please visit 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/oversight/quality-assurance/vendor-insp.html.

In order to receive notifications, you can also visit the 10 CFR Part 21 Web site at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part021/. You can receive 

notifications by clicking “subscribe to page updates.”

For the public meeting schedule, please visit http://meetings.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg.

(Contact: Tomas Herrera, NMSS, 301–415–7138 or Tomas.Herrera@nrc.gov)

DECOMMISSIONING FINANCIAL 

ASSURANCE PROGRAM

NRC Region I staff performs an annual self–assessment of the region’s Decommissioning 

Financial Assurance Program. This year, the self–assessment included 87 financial 

assurance instruments for 135 licenses. Financial assurance (FA) instruments are legal 

documents that commit funding for decommissioning that the NRC can acquire in the 

event that a licensee goes out of business and still possesses licensed materials and/

or owns contaminated facilities. On occasions, the staff has found errors in the FA 

instruments and has had to get them corrected so that the legal documents are valid. 

The errors may occur because of changes to a previously issued license which the 

reviewer or licensee did not realize affected the FA instrument. The resolution of errors 

related to financial assurance requires a lot of time and effort on the part of licensee 

and NRC staff. The NRC hopes that, by describing our most common self–assessment 

findings, we can minimize their recurrence.

This self–assessment ensures that financial assurance instruments maintained by 

the region are appropriately stored in a secure location (e.g., a safe), are correctly 

identified in the inventory list, and are completed for all licensees requiring financial 

assurance in accordance with the requirements of Management Directive (MD) 8.12, 

“Decommissioning Financial Assurance Instrument Security Program,” revised 

November 22, 2013. In addition, the self–assessment evaluates the adequacy of all Region 

I financial assurance instruments for all licenses requiring financial assurance using the 

guidance in Revision 1 of Volume 3, “Financial Assurance, Recordkeeping, and Timeliness,” 

of NUREG–1757, “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance.” 

The self–assessment team examines the type of financial-assurance instrument used; 

verifies that the amount of the financial instrument is consistent with the radionuclides 

and quantities authorized on the license(s); assures that a certificate of financial assurance 

has been established; and verifies that the Decommissioning Funding Plan (DFP), if one is 

established, has been updated and submitted to the NRC within the last 3 years.
OCTOBER 2014

7

In addition, during calendar years 2011 and 2012, all active licenses in Region I that did not have 

financial assurance provided were reviewed to determine whether any of these licenses required 

financial assurance. Of the approximately 800 active licenses in Region I, the reviewers identified 5 

licenses that required financial assurance to be provided but did not have financial assurance.

Trends over the period from 2009 to 2014: In general, the self–assessment identified fewer 

findings each year. An increase in the number of findings was noted in 2012 because of licensees and 

NRC license reviewers not being fully aware of the changes to the decommissioning rule made in 2011.

A common problem: Most errors in determining the correct amount of financial assurance 

were found to be caused by a lack of understanding that financial assurance is required separately 

for four categories of material: (1) unsealed byproduct material with half–lives greater than 120 

days; (2) sealed byproduct material with half–lives greater than 120 days; (3) dispersible source 

material; and (4) unsealed special nuclear material (SNM). As a result, a frequent source of error is 

the incorrect use of one of the standard limiting conditions on the license to eliminate or reduce 

the amount of financial assurance to be provided. 

Specific errors: It is unusual for two or more financial assurance instruments to have exactly 

the same finding. However, the findings from the self assessments performed over the past 

5 years can be sorted into four general “types”: errors in determining the correct amount of 

financial assurance required, errors in the certification of financial assurance, errors in certification 

of financial assurance, and administrative errors.

Errors in determining the correct amount of financial assurance:

• Krypton 85 was added to a license in an amount which increased the required amount of FA;

• Two licensees added a new radionuclide in amounts for which a DFP was required;

• An unsealed material produced with an accelerator, now regulated under 10 CFR Part 30, was 

added to a license in amounts that required a DFP;

• An amendment increased the possession limit of americium 241 sealed sources in such a way 

that the aggregate amount of all sealed sources authorized on the license exceeded the unity 

rule for requiring FA;

• A materials license under 10 CFR Part 40, “Domestic Licensing of Source Material,” did not list 

a maximum possession limit for 10 CFR Part 40 dispersible material and the license did not 

include the limiting condition;

• Two licenses listed unsealed materials regulated under 10 CFR Part 70, “Domestic Licensing of 

Special Nuclear Materials,” in quantities that required FA and the licenses did not include the 

10 CFR Part 70 material in the limiting condition; and

• A license did not list the maximum possession limit for 10 CFR Part 70 unsealed material and 

the license did not include the limiting condition.

Other errors occurred when a Master Materials licensee considered only unsealed byproduct 

material but had some authorized users in possession of unsealed SNM. Also, during an inspection, 

a licensee discovered that they possessed a greater amount of authorized radionuclides and a DFP 

was required instead of the original $225,000 funding.

 Errors in the FA documents were caused by errors in the Certification of Financial Assurance 

(CFA) or errors in the FA instrument.

Errors in the certification of financial assurance:

• no CFA;

• four cases of licensed material not added to the CFA when the license was amended;

• a CFA cited a superseded FA instrument;
OCTOBER 2014

8

NMSS

• the amount of FA listed on a CFA did not match the amount required by the instrument;

• a CFA cited the wrong Letter of Credit and the wrong amount of financial assurance;

• a CFA contained legal language not acceptable to NRC; and

• two cases of changes in locations of use and of changes in authorized materials required 

changes in the CFA but the CFA was not revised

Errors in the financial instruments:

• a Statement of Intent (SI) contained legal language not acceptable to NRC;

• two cases in which the SI did not include all of the locations of use of licensed material 

requiring FA;

• two cases in which Schedule A of the Standby Trust Agreement (STA) did not include all 

locations of use of licensed material;

• an STA was amended but the attached schedules were not;

• an STA cited an NRC license and an Agreement State license of the same organization as 

beneficiaries;

• two cases of an STA not having the certificate of resolution, certificate of events, or the 

letter of acknowledgement;

• an STA was submitted with a blank letter of acknowledgement;

• a letter of credit did not contain the clause automatically renewing it from year to year;

• a self-guarantee agreement that did not have an STA in accordance with the revised 

10 CFR 30.35, “Financial Assurance and Recordkeeping for Decommissioning”;

• three cases of licensees that did not change from an escrow account to another FA 

instrument because of the revisions in 10 CFR 30.35; and

• three cases of an incorrect NRC license number listed on the FA instrument

Administrative errors:

• a licensee amended the license to change the name, but did not amend the FA documents 

for the new name;

• an SI and its CFA covering multiple licenses were not updated when one of the licenses 

listed on both was terminated;

• a licensee required by license condition to update the FA instrument, or to provide 

scoping surveys to show that no FA was required, that did not submit either by the 

designated date;

• eight cases of a DFP not resubmitted as required by the 2012 revision of 10 CFR 30.35 

(seven in 2012 and one in 2013); and

• three cases of the FA instrument being placed in the docket files rather than the safe

Overall, NRC Region I staff finds the annual self–assessment of the financial assurance 

program to be useful. The requirements for financial assurance can change because of a 

license amendment, because the licensee changes the type of financial assurance instrument, 

or because regulations are changed. This annual review of documents identifies issues with 

financial assurance documents since the last self assessment, and initiates actions to get them 

corrected.

(Contact: Steven Courtemanche, NRC Region I, 610–337–5075 or StevenCourtemanche@nrc.gov)
OCTOBER 2014

9

INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE REPORT

On August 14, 2014, the NRC submitted the third report of the Radiation Source Protection and 

Security Task Force (Task Force) to President Barack Obama and Congress, which outlined the 

Federal Government’s efforts over the past 4 years to enhance the security of radioactive sources.

The Task Force was established under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, with the NRC as the lead 

agency, to evaluate and provide recommendations on the security of radiation sources in the 

United States from potential criminal or terrorist threats, including acts of sabotage, theft, or use 

in a radiological dispersal device. Moreover, the Task Force consists of representatives from 14 

Federal Government agencies and one State organization.

The legislation also mandated that within 1 year of enactment and every 4 years thereafter, 

a report be provided. The first report, in 2006, described efforts established or planned to 

strengthen regulatory controls and made several recommendations to enhance the overall 

security of risk significant radioactive materials. The second report, in 2010, provided an update 

on the progress made since the first report and proposed additional recommendations for 

improving the security of risk significant sources in the United States.

In the four years since the second report, the Task Force has met routinely to discuss progress 

and evaluate the protection and security of risk significant radioactive materials. The 2014 

report identifies the important progress that continues to be made in fostering and tracking the 

completion and closeout of the remaining recommendations from previous Task Force reports. 

Eleven of the 2006 Task Force recommendations and actions and six of the 2010 Task Force 

recommendations have been completed and closed out over the last four years. This report 

describes the activities, accomplishments, and challenges related to securing Category 1 and 2 

quantities of radioactive sources, the most risk significant sources listed in the 2004 International 

Atomic Energy Agency’s Code of Conduct. Three new recommendations with regard to these 

risk significant sources are introduced in the 2014 report, including topics covering cyber security; 

disposition/disposal financial planning or other mechanisms; and the transition to effective 

alternative technologies.

The Task Force will continue to meet to implement and monitor the progress of efforts to 

improve the security of radioactive sources and identify any gaps that may arise. Specifically, in 

the next 4 years, in an effort to better streamline its process, the Task Force plans to outline its 

strategic plan to more effectively and efficiently track open recommendations and actions through 

other mechanisms. These other mechanisms, such as other routine interagency coordination 

groups or developments of agreements with applicable agencies that have the responsibility and 

authority to carry out the recommended initiatives, may better foster timely completion of some 

of the initiatives.

Additional information on the Task Force, including the 2014, 2010, and 2006 reports, is available 

on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/security/byproduct/task force.html.

(Contact: Kim Lukes, NMSS, 301–415–6701 or Kim.Lukes@nrc.gov)
OCTOBER 2014

10

NMSS

SIGNIFICANT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

The NRC issued significant actions for failure to comply with a regulation.

ECS Carolinas, LLP, Wilmington, NC (EA–14–029)

On April 23, 2014, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation to ECS Carolinas, LLP (ECS), 

for a Severity Level III problem for two related violations. The violations involved ECS’s 

failure to: (1) control and maintain constant surveillance of the gauge that is in an 

unrestricted area as required by Title 10, “Energy,” of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(10 CFR) 20.1802, “Control of Material Not in Storage,” and (2) use two independent 

physical controls that form tangible barriers to secure the gauge from unauthorized 

removal in accordance with 10 CFR 30.34(i), “Terms and Conditions of Licenses.” 

Specifically, on May 24, 2011, an unsecured portable gauge was inadvertently left 

unattended and uncontrolled at a jobsite at the Marine Corps Base at Camp Lejeune. 

The unattended gauge was recognized and recovered by a Camp Lejeune contractor, 

who secured the gauge and subsequently returned to ECS approximately 3 hours later.

Dominion NDT Services, Inc., Richmond, VA (EA–14–026)

On April 2, 2014, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation to Dominion NDT Services, Inc. 

(“Dominion”), for a Severity Level III violation. The violation involved Dominion’s failure 

to file NRC Form 241, “Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States,” at 

least 3 days before engaging in licensed activities within NRC jurisdiction, as required 

by 10 CFR 150.20(b), “Recognition of Agreement State Licenses.” Specifically, on 

January 11, 2013, September 28, 2013, and November 2, 2013, Dominion, a licensee 

of the Commonwealth of Virginia, performed industrial radiography activities at the 

Craney Island Naval Fuel Depot in Norfolk, VA, an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, 

without filing the required documentation with the NRC.

Kuehne Company, Delaware City, DE (EA–13–244)

On March 20, 2014, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation to Kuehne Company (Kuehne) 

for a Severity Level III violation. The violation involved Kuehne’s failure to transfer or 

dispose of a device containing byproduct material to persons holding a specific license 

pursuant to under 10 CFR Part 30, “Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing 

of Byproduct Material,” and 10 CFR Part 32, “Specific Domestic Licenses to Manufacture 

or Transfer Certain Items Containing Byproduct Material,” or to an Agreement State, as 

required by 10 CFR 31.5(c)(8), “Certain Detecting, Measuring, Gauging, or Controlling 

Devices and Certain Devices for Producing Light or an Ionized Atmosphere.” Specifically, 

on October 31, 2013, a sealed source with serial number 959-4-88, formerly possessed 

by Kuehne, was found in a Coatesville, PA, scrap yard, a facility not authorized to receive 

the sealed source. Kuehne did not properly transfer or dispose of the device containing 

the source to a facility authorized to receive it.

City of Kirksville, Kirksville, MO (EA–14–001)

On March 17, 2014, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation to the City of Kirksville for a 

Severity Level III violation. The violation involved the City of Kirksville’s failure to transfer 

byproduct material only to persons authorized to receive such byproduct material in 

accordance with 10 CFR 30.41, “Transfer of Byproduct Material.” Specifically, on or about 

December 2, 2013, the licensee transferred a specifically licensed portable moisture/

density gauge to a company not authorized to receive such byproduct material under the 

terms of a specific or general license issued by the Commission or an Agreement State.
OCTOBER 2014

11

MEDICAL

Centro de Medicina Nuclear, Santurce, PR (EA–13–059)

On April 8, 2014, the NRC issued an Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty to Centro de 

Medicina Nuclear (CDM). On November 5, 2013, the NRC issued CDM a Notice of Violation 

and Proposed Civil Penalty Notice. The violation involved CDM’s failure to: (1) respond to an 

August 7, 2012, NRC order revoking its license for nonpayment of its annual fee; and (2) take the 

actions required by the order (initiating site decommissioning and submitting a written report of 

the status of CDM’s licensed materials and the status of actions taken to dispose of or transfer 

the materials). Following the NRC’s November 5, 2013, Notice of Violation and Proposed 

Imposition of a Civil Penalty in the amount of $7,000, the licensee has failed to respond to the 

notice and the proposed civil penalties. The NRC issued the Notice of Violation and proposed 

civil penalty to the licensee for a failure to comply with the actions required by an order issued 

on August 7, 2012, after CDM failed to pay the NRC licensing fee. Accordingly, the NRC 

concluded that the violation remains valid and issued an order imposing civil monetary penalty in 

the amount of $7,000.

Information about the NRC’s enforcement program can be accessed at http://www.nrc.gov/

about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/current.html. Documents related to cases can be accessed 

through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at http://www.

nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in using ADAMS is available by contacting the NRC Public 

Document Room staff at 301–415–4737 or 1–800–397–4209 or by sending an e–mail to PDR.

Resource@nrc.gov.

(Contact: Michele Burgess, NMSS, 301–415–5868 or Michele.Burgess@nrc.gov).

GENERIC COMMUNICATION ISSUED

The following summarizes an NRC generic communication issued by NMSS. If this document 

appears relevant to your needs and you have not received a copy, please call one of the technical 

contacts listed below. The Web address for the NRC library of generic communications is http://

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm.

Regulatory Issue Summary

The NRC provides a regulatory issue summary (RIS) as an informational document used to 

communicate with the nuclear industry on a broad spectrum of matters.

On May 27, 2014, the NRC issued RIS 2014–08, “Regulatory Requirements for Transfer of Control 

(Change of Ownership) of Specific Materials Licenses.” This RIS was issued to addressees to clarify 

which information is required to be submitted to the NRC before a change of ownership or 

control for specific materials licenses issued under 10 CFR Part 30, “Rules of General Applicability 

to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material,” or 10 CFR Part 40, “Domestic Licensing of Source 

Material.” This RIS also provides clarification on reporting requirements under 10 CFR 2.1301, 

“Public Notice of Receipt of a License Transfer Application,” and 10 CFR 2.1305, “Written 

Comments.”
OCTOBER 2014

12

NMSS

SELECTED FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

June 11, 2014 

79 FR 33600, Well Logging, Tracer, and Field Flood Study Licenses

(Draft Program Specific Guidance; Request for Comment)

Summary: The NRC is revising its licensing guidance for well logging, tracer, and field flood 

study licenses. The NRC is requesting public comment on draft Revision 1 of Volume 14, 

“Program–Specific Guidance about Well Logging, Tracer, and Field Flood Study Licenses,” of 

NUREG–1556, “Consolidated Guidance about Materials Licenses.” The document has been 

updated from the previous revision to include information on safety culture, security of 

radioactive materials, protection of sensitive information, and changes in regulatory policies 

and practices. This document is intended for use by applicants, licensees, and the NRC staff.

(Contact: Tomas Herrera, NMSS, 301–415–7138 or Tomas.Herrera@nrc.gov)

July 10, 2014 

79 FR 39289, Export Controls and Physical Security Standards (Final Rule)

Summary: The NRC is amending its regulations pertaining to the export and import of 

nuclear materials and equipment. This rulemaking is necessary to conform the export 

controls of the United States to the international export control guidelines of the Nuclear 

Suppliers Group, of which the United States is a member, and to incorporate by reference 

the current version of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) document, ‘‘Nuclear 

Security Recommendations on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Facilities 

(INFCIRC/225/ Revision 5), January 2011.’’ Also, this final rule makes certain editorial revisions, 

and corrects typographical errors.

(Contact: Brooke G. Smith, OIP, 301–415–2347 or Brooke.Smith@nrc.gov)

July 21, 2014 

79 FR 42410, Medical Use of Byproduct Material–Medical Event Definitions, Training and 

Experience, and Clarifying Amendments (Proposed Rule; Request for Comment) 

Summary: The NRC is proposing to amend its regulations related to the medical use of 

byproduct material. In this action the NRC addresses three ongoing rulemaking projects 

and several other related topics. First, this rule proposes amendments to the reporting and 

notification requirements for a medical event for permanent implant brachytherapy. Second, 

the rule proposes changes to the training and experience (T&E) requirements for authorized 

users, medical physicists, Radiation Safety Officers, and nuclear pharmacists; proposes changes 

to the requirements for measuring molybdenum contamination and reporting of failed 

technetium and rubidium generators; and proposes to allow Associate Radiation Safety 

Officers to be named on a medical license. Third, the rule proposes changes to address a 

request filed in PRM–35–20 to exempt certain board certified individuals from certain T&E 

requirements (i.e., to ‘‘grandfather’’ these individuals) so they may be identified on a license 

or permit for materials and uses that they performed on or before October 24, 2005, the 

expiration date of the prior T&E requirements.

(Contact: Neelam Bhalla, NMSS, 301–415–0978 or Neelam.Bhalla@nrc.gov)
OCTOBER 2014

13

July 21, 2014 

79 FR 42224, Medical Use of Byproduct Material—Medical Event Definitions and Training and 

Experience (Draft Guidance; Request for Comment) 

Summary: The NRC is issuing for public comment a draft guidance document entitled “Draft 

Guidance for the Proposed Rule ‘Medical Use of Byproduct Material–Medical Events Definitions, 

Training and Experience, and Clarifying Amendments.” This draft guidance document addresses 

implementation of the NRC’s proposed rule amending its medical use of byproduct material 

regulations.

(Contact: Donna-Beth Howe, NMSS, 301–415–7848 or Donna-Beth.Howe@nrc.gov)

July 25, 2014 

79 FR 43284, Radiation Protection

(Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for Comments)

Summary: The NRC is issuing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to obtain 

input from stakeholders on the development of a draft regulatory basis. The draft regulatory 

basis would support potential changes to the NRC’s current radiation protection regulations. 

The goal of this effort is to achieve greater alignment between the NRC’s radiation protection 

regulations and the 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological 

Protection (ICRP) contained in ICRP Publication 103 (2007). Through this ANPR, the NRC has 

identified specific questions and issues with respect to a possible revision of the NRC’s radiation 

protection requirements. Stakeholder comments, including responses to the specific questions, 

will be considered by the NRC staff when it develops the draft regulatory basis. 

(Contact: Cardelia Maupin, NMSS, 301–415–2312 or Cardelia.Maupin@nrc.gov)

September 22, 2014 

79 FR 56524, Medical Use of Byproduct Material—Medical Event Definitions, Training and 

Experience, and Clarifying Amendments; Correction (Proposed Rule; Correction) 

Summary: The NRC published a proposed rule appearing in the Federal Register (FR) on 

July 21, 2014, to amend the NRC’s regulations related to the medical use of byproduct material. 

The public comment period for the information collection aspects of the proposed rule was to 

have ended on August 20, 2014. However, the proposed rule inadvertently omitted the onetime implementation costs from the information collection burden estimate. This action sets 

out the corrected information collection burden estimate in its entirety and allows the public 

30 days to comment from the date of publication of this action. 

(Contact: Neelam Bhalla, NMSS, 301–415–0978 or Neelam.Bhalla@nrc.gov)
OCTOBER 2014

14

NMSS

September 26, 2014 

79 FR 57721, Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material—Written Reports and Clarifying 

Amendments (Direct Final Rule)

79 FR 57840, Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material—Written Reports and Clarifying 

Amendments (Proposed Rule)

Summary: The NRC is amending its regulations related to reportable safety events involving 

special nuclear material. This rule increases the time licensees are allowed to submit a written 

follow-up report from within 30 days to within 60 days after the initial report of an event, 

updates the reporting framework for certain situations, and removes redundant reporting 

requirements. These amendments affect a licensee or an applicant that is, or plans to be, 

authorized to possess greater than a critical mass of special nuclear material. This action 

resulted from a petition for rulemaking (PRM) received by the NRC (PRM–70–8). As a result 

of this direct final rule, the NRC’s ‘‘FCSS [Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards] Interim Staff 

Guidance-12, Revision 1, 10 CFR [Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations] Part 70—

Reportable Safety Events,’’ contains minor editorial updates that reflect the amendments.

(Contact: Keith McDaniel, NMSS, 301–415–5252 or Keith.McDaniel@nrc.gov)

September 30, 2014 

79 FR 58664, Safeguards Information—Modified Handling Categorization; Change for Materials 

Facilities (Direct Final Rule)

79 FR 58701, Safeguards Information—Modified Handling Categorization; Change for Materials 

Facilities (Proposed Rule) 

Summary: The NRC is amending its regulations to remove the Safeguards Information—

Modified Handling (SGI–M) designation of the security–related information for large irradiators, 

manufacturers and distributors, and for transport of category 1 quantities of radioactive 

material. The rulemaking also removes the SGI–M designation of the security–related 

information for the transportation of irradiated reactor fuel that weighs 100 grams or less 

in net weight of irradiated fuel. The security–related information for these facilities and the 

transportation of certain materials will no longer be designated as SGI–M and will be protected 

under the information protection requirements that apply to other materials licensees that 

possess category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive material.

(Contact: Vanessa Cox, NMSS, 301–415–8342 or Vanessa.Cox@nrc.gov)
OCTOBER 2014

15

ONGOING RULEMAKINGS

RULEMAKING DESCRIPTION STATUS

PROPOSED RULES

10 CFR Part 61, 

“Low–Level Radioactive 

Waste (LLRW) Disposal”

The proposed rule would revise 

10 CFR Part 61 to require LLRW 

disposal licensees and license applicants to conduct updated and 

new site-specific analyses and to 

permit the development of criteria 

for future LLRW acceptance based 

on the results of these analyses

The rulemaking package 

(SECY–13–0075 dated 

July 18, 2013; ADAMS No. 

ML13129A268) was sent 

to the NRC Commission 

for review. The staff 

requirements memorandum 

(SRM) was issued on 

February 12, 2014 (ADAMS 

No. ML14043A371). A 

revised proposed rule is due 

to the Office of the Secretary 

(SECY) in 12 months 

(February 2015).

10 CFR Part 35, 

“Medical Use of Byproduct 

Material—Medical Event 

Definitions, Training and 

Experience, and Clarifying 

Amendments”

The proposed rule would amend 

the reporting and notification 

requirements for a medical event, 

would amend training and experience requirements, and would 

make changes to address a request 

filed in a petition for rulemaking.

The proposed rule and draft 

guidance were published in 

the Federal Register (at 

79 FR 42224) for public 

comment on July 21, 2014. 

The comment period closes 

on November 18, 2014

FINAL RULE

10 CFR Part 71, 

“Compatibility with 

Transportation Standards”

The rule would amend the transportation safety requirements in 

10 CFR Part 71 to make changes 

to the NRC regulations for the 

packaging and transportation of 

radioactive material.

The NRC published the 

proposed rule in the Federal 

Register (at 78 FR 28988) 

for public comment on May 

16, 2013. The final rule is 

currently under review by the 

Commission.

DIRECT FINAL RULE

Appendix A, “Reportable 

Safety Events,” to 

10 CFR Part 70, “Domestic Licensing of Special 

Nuclear Material”

The direct rule and companion 

proposed rule would modify the 

event reporting requirements in 

Appendix A to Part 70.

The direct final rule and 

companion proposed rule 

were published in the Federal 

Register (at 79 FR 57721) on 

September 26, 2014
OCTOBER 2014

16

NMSS

DIRECT FINAL RULE (cont.)

10 CFR Part 73, “Physical 

Protection of Plants and 

Materials”

The direct final rule and 

companion proposed rule would 

amend 10 CFR Part 73 to remove 

the “SGI-M” designation of the 

security-related information for 

large irradiators, M&D licensees, 

and any licensee that transports 

Category 1 quantities of 

radioactive material or transports 

small quantities of irradiated 

reactor fuel with a net weight of 

100 grams or less. The security– 

related information for these 

facilities and the transportation 

will be protected under the 

requirements of the new 

10 CFR Part 37, “Physical 

Protection of Category 1 

and Category 2 Quantities of 

Radioactive Material.”

The direct final rule and 

companion proposed rule 

were published in the Federal 

Register (at 79 FR 58701) 

were published on 

September 30, 2014. The 

public comment period ends 

on October 30, 2014.

PETITIONS

PRM–32–8, CampCo 

Petition

CampCo submitted a petition 

for rulemaking asking the NRC 

to amend regulations to allow 

commercial distribution of tritium 

markers.

The receipt and request 

of the petition was published 

in Federal Register (at 

78 FR 41720) on 

July 11, 2013, for a 75-day 

public comment period. 

The petition is currently 

under NRC review.

POLICY STATEMENT

Tribal Policy Statement The Tribal Policy Statement being 

developed will describe the 

Commission’s policy for consulting and coordination with Native 

American tribes.

The staff sent the 

Commission a Tribal Policy 

Statement in January 10, 2014 

(SECY–14–0006; ADAMS 

No. ML13317B141). The 

policy statement will likely be 

published for public comment 

in late 2014.

PRE-RULEMAKING

10 CFR Part 20, “Standards 

for Protection Against 

Radiation”

The rulemaking would incorporate 

recommendations from the 

International Commission on 

Radiological Protection to revise 

10 CFR Part 20.

The NRC published an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in the Federal 

Register (at 79 FR 43284) 

on July 25, 2014. The public 

comment period ends on 

November 24, 2014.



OCTOBER 2014

17

TO OUR READERS 

Thank you for your interest in our newsletter. In our attempt to keep the NMSS Licensee 

Newsletter—The NMSS News Link relevant, we welcome feedback on its contents. 

If you would like to suggest topics for the newsletter, please contact Vanessa Cox of the NMSS 

Rulemaking and Project Management Branch by telephone at 301–415–8342 or by 

e–mail to Vanessa.Cox@nrc.gov. In addition, to ensure proper delivery of the NMSS Licensee 

Newsletter—The NMSS News Link and to prevent any interruption of service, please report 

any e–mail address changes to Ms. Cox at NMSS_Newsletter@nrc.gov.

Please send written correspondence to the following address:

Vanessa Cox, Editor, NMSS Licensee Newsletter

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Two White Flint North, Mail Stop: T-8-F42

Washington, DC 20555–0001