1

LICENSEE NEWSLETTER

NUREG/BR-0117, No. 08-04 Winter 2008

Oce of Federal & State Materials &

Environmental Management Programs

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

Source Collection and Threat

Reduction -- S C A T R ...............................1

Virginia Wants to Become an 

Agreement State.........................................2

NRC Issues Order to

Radiography Group...................................2

From the Desk of the

FSME Director..............................................3

License Suspension and

Transfer of Cleanup of the

Stepan Company Site to the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.................4

Availability of Frequently Asked 

Questions on Radium-226 ......................5

Notification of the Next Phase 

of Waiver Terminations in the 

Implementation of NRC 

Regulatory Authority for 

Certain Naturally Occurring 

and Accelerator-Produced 

Radioactive Material (NARM) .................5

NeoVista, Inc.’s Epi-Rad90TM 

(Strontium-90) Ophthalmic 

System: an Emerging 

Technology Regulated 

Under 10 CFR 35.1000 ..............................6

Uranium Recovery 

Commission Briefing.................................6

Safety Culture at 

Materials Licensees....................................8

Modification of the Varskin 

Computer Code...........................................8

Reporting Inventories 

of Special Nuclear 

Materials (SNM) to the NRC ....................8

Significant Enforcement Actions..........9

Generic Communications Issued

(October 3, 2008 – 

December 8, 2008).................................. 11

Significant Events.................................... 12

Selected Federal Register Notices..... 13

Source Col

and Threat 

SC

The Conference of Radiation 

Control Program Directors Inc. 

(CRCPD) last year implemented 

the Source Collection and Threat 

Reduction (SCATR) Program 

through a five-year cooperative 

agreement with the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE). This 

program is designed to assist in 

the disposition of Atomic Energy 

Act sources, less than 10 curies 

and radium sources less than 

100 milligrams. Some examples 

of the type of sources that can 

be dispositioned through this 

program are cesium or radium 

brachytherapy tubes and unused 

or unwanted gauges.

Through the SCATR Program, 

licensees are asked to register 

unwanted discrete radioactive 

sources at the DOE Off-Site Source 

Recovery Project (OSRP) website 

http://osrp.lanl.gov/crcpdscatr.

shtml. More than 7,000 sources 

have been registered with OSRP 

thus far. 

The CRCPD notifies the licensee 

when an opportunity for 

disposition arises. Disposition may 

be adoption by another person, 

acceptance by a manufacturer, 

disposal as radioactive waste and 

storage, if that becomes necessary. 

The CRCPD may provide at least 

partial funding for disposition, as 

in State-organized projects. 

In the first year of the program, 

a State-organized project for 

collection of unwanted material 

was successfully conducted in 

Florida, with arrangements for 

collection coordinated by the 

Florida Department of Health’s 

Bureau of Radiation Control. 

During this project, more than 

2,700 sources were dispositioned. 

The project focused on old cesium137 brachytherapy devices being 

held in long-term storage. 

Currently, during the second 

year of the SCATR Program, 

radium and cesium-137 are being 

collected from widely separated 

facilities throughout many States. 

Although the outlets for cesium137 recently closed, licensees are 

still encouraged to register so 

that accurate assessments can be 

made of unwanted material. The 

disposal of radium continues. 

CRCPD will continue to promote 

the registration of unwanted 

radioactive material and to 

coordinate licensees, State 

radiation control programs 

and brokers for the disposition 

of material in geographic or 

State groupings. The CRCPD’s 

Committee for Unwanted 

Radioactive Material (E-34) 

continues to promote outlets for 

radioactive material and waste 

and to promote the registration of 

unwanted radioactive material.

Materials eligible for CRCPD/SCATR 

funding of disposition include:

•	 Discrete radioactive material,

whether naturally occurring, or 

accelerator or reactor produced 

that is not already covered 

under the OSRP Program;
2

continued on page 4

•	 Sources licensed by a State

or U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, but not on Federal 

property (specific or general 

license);

•	 Unused sources in long-term

storage with no foreseeable 

future use.

More information on the SCATR 

Program is available at CRCPD’s 

website: http://www.crcpd.org/

SCATR/SCATR.html and 

http://www.crcpd.org/

UnwantedRadMat.asp. 

(Contact: Michele Burgess, FSME/

DMSSA, (301) 415-5868; e-mail: 

Michele.Burgess@nrc.gov)

Virgini

to Becom

Agreem

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering a 

request from the Commonwealth 

of Virginia to become an 

Agreement State. The request 

from Governor Timothy Kaine 

seeks to assume part of the 

NRC’s regulatory authority 

over certain nuclear materials 

in the Commonwealth. If the 

NRC approves the request, 

Virginia would become the 36th 

Agreement State.

Section 274 of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(Act), allows States to assume 

certain NRC regulatory authority. 

Under the Act, NRC relinquishes 

to the States portions of its 

regulatory authority to license 

and regulate byproduct materials 

(radioisotopes), source materials 

(uranium and thorium), and certain 

quantities of special nuclear 

materials. The mechanism for the 

transfer is an agreement signed by 

the Governor of the State and the 

Chairman of the Commission, in 

accordance with Section 274b of 

the Act.

When a State takes on this 

authority and becomes an 

“Agreement State,” NRC continues 

to provide assistance. This 

assistance includes conducting 

training courses and workshops, 

evaluating technical licensing 

and inspection issues, evaluating 

State rule changes, participating 

in activities conducted by the 

Conference of Radiation Control 

Program Directors Inc., and 

allowing early and substantive 

involvement of the States in NRC 

rulemaking and other regulatory 

efforts. The NRC also coordinates 

with Agreement States on the 

reporting of event information and 

allegations involving Agreement 

States.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky 

became the first Agreement 

State on March 26, 1962. If the 

proposed agreement is approved, 

NRC would transfer 386 licenses to 

the Commonwealth’s jurisdiction. 

Virginia would retain regulatory 

authority for approximately 216 

licenses for naturally occurring and 

accelerator-produced radioactive 

materials; of which approximately 

180 of these licenses are dually 

regulated by Virginia and the NRC.

NRC would retain jurisdiction 

over commercial nuclear power 

plants and Federal agencies using 

certain nuclear material in the 

State. In addition, NRC would 

retain authority for the review, 

evaluation, and approval of 

sealed radioactive materials and 

devices containing certain nuclear 

materials within the State.

The current list of Agreement 

States are: Alabama, Arizona, 

Arkansas, California, Colorado, 

Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, 

Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, 

Nevada, New Hampshire, New 

Mexico, New York, North Carolina, 

North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, 

Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode 

Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Texas, Utah, Washington, and 

Wisconsin.

(Contact: Monica L. Orendi, FSME/

DMSSA, (301) 415-3938, 

FAX: (301) 415-5955; e-mail: 

Monica.Orendi@nrc.gov)

NRC Issue

Radiography

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) has issued a 

Confirmatory Order to Mistras 

Holding Group documenting 

the company’s commitments 

to improve safety practices in 

radiography work.

The Order was issued to the firm, 

which operates from multiple 

locations throughout the country 

including Illinois and Pennsylvania. 

It also does business as CONAM 

Inspection and Engineering 

Services Quality Services 

Laboratories, Inc.

The Confirmatory Order makes 

the company’s commitments 

conditions of its license. If these 

conditions are not met, the 

company’s NRC license may be 

terminated; criminal or civil charges 

may be brought against the 

company; and fines may be levied.

In January 2007, CONAM reported 

to the NRC that a radiographer 
3

The FSME management team 

met recently to discuss the 

changing internal and external 

climate in which we and you (our 

licensees) operate. Perhaps it is 

a byproduct of the time, but it 

seems as though the changes 

are accelerating in number and 

in magnitude and that resistance 

to change is not a viable or 

prudent option. 

Of course, adjusting to change is nothing new. Victor Hugo once said, “Change your opinions; keep to your 

principles; change your leaves; keep intact your roots.” Bertrand Russell said, “Change is one thing. Progress is 

another.” I agree with both of these quotes. That said, changes are inevitable and so, we would do well to try to 

anticipate them as best we can and plan accordingly.

Externally, we have a change in the Presidential Administration, and changes in several of the Cabinet level 

agencies (Energy, Homeland Security, Environmental Protection Agency) with whom NRC and FSME interact. 

This will create new leadership in those agencies, which could result in significant policy changes. Although the 

NRC is not a Cabinet level agency, it is an independent regulatory agency, likely to be affected by changes also.

Additionally, we have major economic changes occurring throughout the global economy. Most of the readers 

of this Newsletter are FSME licensees, and I am sure that most of you are feeling the impacts-- some more than 

others. As I write this, NRC is operating under a Continuing Resolution, and FSME is being held to its lower FY 

2008 budget authority. We are receiving our funding only on an incremental basis so we have really had to 

limit our hiring, re-prioritize our work, and re-focus on our most mission critical tasks. I am guessing that many 

of you, our licensees, are in the same position, and are making a number of tough management decisions to 

sustain your competitive positions in your respective industries. From a regulatory standpoint, my focus must 

be on ensuring that safety, security, and environmental considerations are not forgotten as these tough calls are 

made.

Within the nuclear reactor industry, the term “safety culture” is well-understood and has long been in 

application. Because FSME and Agreement State licensees are far more diverse in terms of what you do 

(compared to reactor licensees), the concept may be newer, and less understood, but it is no less important. 

Even as we grapple with its definition within an FSME context, I suspect that most of you strive to have the key 

attributes of a strong safety/security culture in place. It is now our responsibility to share those good practices 

with one another, and ensure that nothing is compromised in these tight economic, changing times. I stand 

ready to work with you to address these changes. Based on your past performance, I am confident that we will 

jointly achieve success.

Charles L. Miller, Director

from th

of he

dire
4

may have been overexposed 

to radiation while performing 

industrial radiography at a 

Sunoco refinery in Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania. An NRC special 

inspection identified five 

apparent violations, including the 

radiographer’s failure to secure 

the sealed source with radioactive 

material in the shielded position, 

his failure to wear a radiation 

alarm at all times, his failure to 

stop radiography when a pocket 

radiation measuring device 

showed off-the-scale radiation 

levels, and a failure to make 

sure that the radiation safety 

officer named in the NRC license 

performed the intended function. 

A subsequent NRC investigation 

showed that most of the 

apparent violations were willful or 

deliberate.

Even though the radiographer 

was exposed to radiation as a 

result of the event, the radiation 

dose received was not in excess 

of regulatory limits and is not 

expected to cause adverse health 

effects. The company took 

corrective actions following the 

event, including removing the 

radiographer from radiography 

work, implementing new 

procedures to verify that the 

radiation source is properly 

retracted into a shielded position, 

and briefing all employees at 

the Pennsylvania facility on the 

circumstances and causes of the 

event.

As part of the agreement 

reached by the NRC and the 

company, CONAM committed to: 

increasing the number of audits 

of its radiographers by 25 percent, 

revising its audit procedures to 

address the conduct of audits 

and documentation of results, 

disseminating lessons learned 

through an online training 

program, creating a safety hotline 

for radiographers to report safety 

concerns, and conducting surveys 

of safety consciousness in the 

company.

(Contact: Susanne Woods, Office 

of Enforcement, (301) 415-2740, 

e-mail: Susanne.Woods@nrc.gov)

License

Transfer of C

of he Stepan 

Siteto the 

Corps of E

On November 5, 2008, the NRC 

published in the Federal Register, 

a Notice of an October 21, 2008, 

Confirmatory Order Modifying 

License (Effective Immediately) 

for the Stepan Company in 

Maywood, New Jersey (73 FR 

65886, November 5, 2008). The 

Order became final on November 

25, as the Order had set forth 

and included an opportunity to 

request a hearing by any person 

adversely affected by the Order 

within 20 days of its publication in 

the Federal Register. Dr. Charles 

Miller, Director of the Office of 

Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Programs issued 

the Order after an extensive 

period of negotiations between 

the licensee and the staff, 

and in coordination with the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE), the State of New Jersey 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, and the State Attorney 

General’s Office. The order was 

prepared consistent with the 

Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) between the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

for Coordination of Cleanup & 

Decommissioning of the Formerly 

Utilized Sites Remedial Action 

Program (FUSRAP) Sites With NRCLicensed Facilities (66 FR 36606, 

July 12, 2001). Again, consistent 

with the MOU, and upon a 

September 25, 2008, USACE 

written request, the NRC formally 

initiated Stepan license suspension 

process in order to facilitate 

USACE’s start of site cleanup in 

early January 2009.

In 1997, USACE received 

congressional authority to manage 

and administer cleanup of FUSRAP 

sites. The Stepan site was added 

to FUSRAP in 1984. The Order 

was culmination of eight years 

of effort by the NRC, USACE, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. 

Department of Justice, the State 

of New Jersey, and the licensee. 

In 2003, USACE published a 

Record of Decision (akin to a 

decommissioning plan), laying 

out its plan for the site cleanup. In 

2004, the Stepan Company and 

the Department of Justice, on 

behalf of the U.S. Government, 

reached a settlement on roles 

and responsibilities for the 

cleanup of the licensed facilities 

for unrestricted use, allowing the 

staff to proceed with the eventual 

suspension of the license to permit 

USACE’s cleanup of the licensed 

facilities.

The Maywood Stepan site 

is located in the borough of 

Maywood, New Jersey. The 

Stepan Company acquired 

the facility from the Maywood 

Chemical Works (MCW) in 1959. 

Since the acquisition of the 

facility, the Stepan Company has 

been manufacturing specialty 

continued from page 2
5

chemicals and other products 

at the Maywood facility. In the 

late 1960s, the Stepan Company 

conducted some site cleanup 

on the original MCW plant site 

property on both east and west 

sides of New Jersey State Route 

17, adjacent to the facility. In 

accordance with the NRC 

regulations at the time (NRC 

subsequently rescinded the 

regulation), the waste materials 

were relocated to three burial 

areas on property currently owned 

by the Stepan Company. The 

principal radioactive contaminants 

at the site are process wastes from 

the thorium extracted from the 

monazite sands using a chemical 

separation process. The residual 

alkaline thorium phosphate 

tailings are stored in three licensed 

underground storage areas.

Until the license is put in abeyance, 

the license remains in timely 

renewal. The NRC and USACE 

interactions during the period 

of license abeyance and site 

cleanup will be guided by the 

MOU. USACE has no objections 

to NRC’s observing USACE and its 

contractor’s activities during the 

period of site remediation. 

(Contact: Yolande Norman, Office 

of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management 

Programs, (301) 415-7741; 

e-mail: Yolande.Norman@nrc.gov)

Availabil

Freque

Que

Radium

TThe Energy Policy Act (EPAct) 

of 2005 gave the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

regulatory authority over 

certain naturally occurring 

and accelerator-produced 

radioactive material (NARM). 

The NRC published its final rule 

implementing this authority in 

the Federal Register on October 

1, 2007 (72 FR 55863). The final 

rule expanded the definition 

of “byproduct material” in NRC 

regulations and established 

requirements for licensing and 

regulating Section 11e.(3) and 11e.

(4) byproduct material, as required 

by Section 651(e) of the EPAct. 

These final regulations became 

effective on November 30, 2007. 

As part of the staff’s effort on this 

rule, the staff developed a set of 

frequently asked questions (FAQs) 

for radium-226. The purpose of 

the FAQs is to provide a set of 

questions and answers for the 

general public and stakeholders 

who might have questions 

regarding NRC’s new authority 

to regulate discrete sources of 

radium-226. The questions are 

intended to be broad and address 

certain aspects of the NARM rule. 

The FAQs are available at: 

http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/

narmtoolbox/radium%20

faq102008.pdf. 

For more information on NARMrelated activities, please go 

to the “NARM Toolbox” at the 

NRC’s Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs (FSME) 

Web site at http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/

narmtoolbox.html.

(Contact: Torre Taylor; Office of 

Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management 

Programs; (301) 415-7900; e-mail: 

Torre.Taylor@nrc.gov)

Notificati

Next Phase o

Termin

Implementati

Regulatory 

for Certain Nat

Occurri

Accelerator

Radioactiv

(NA

The Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 

2005 gave the NRC regulatory 

authority over NARM. NRC’s final 

rule implementing this authority 

was effective November 30, 2007 

(72 FR 55863). 

A waiver was issued on August 

31, 2005, to allow continued use 

and possession of NARM while 

the NRC developed its regulatory 

framework. The NRC has been 

terminating the waiver in phases. 

Phase 1 of terminations occurred 

on November 30, 2007, and Phase 

2 on September 30, 2008. NRC is 

now preparing for Phase 3 which 

will occur on August 8, 2009. This 

final phase will include Alaska, 

Connecticut, Hawaii, Michigan, 

New Jersey, the Commonwealth 

of Virginia, and Canadian licensees 

that are under NRC jurisdiction. 

If one of these States becomes 

an Agreement State before 

August 7, 2009, the Commission 

will terminate the waiver for the 

non-Agreement State that enters 

into an Agreement with the NRC 

coincident with the effective date 

of such Agreement. 

For existing NRC licensees, NARM 

use amendments are required 

within six months from the date 

of waiver termination. For NARM 

users in non-Agreement States 

and US territories without an 

NRC license, the new license 
6

applications are required within 

12 months from the date of waiver 

termination. 

NARM users in Phase 2 States must 

submit license amendments by 

March 31, 2009, or new license 

applications by September 30, 

2009.

More information on NARMrelated activities can be found 

on the “NARM Toolbox” at the 

NRC’s Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs (FSME) 

Web site at http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/

narmtoolbox.html. One of the 

more recent documents posted 

on the NARM Toolbox is a recently 

issued Regulatory Issue Summary 

2008-13, “Status and Plans for 

Implementation of NRC Authority 

for Certain Naturally Occurring and 

Accelerator-Produced Radioactive 

Material,” issued on June 16, 

2008 (http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/

narmtoolbox/ris2008-13.pdf).

(Contacts: Shirley Xu, Office of 

Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management 

Programs, (301) 415-7640; 

e-mail: Shirley.Xu@nrc.gov)

NeoVista, Inc.’s Ep

(Strontium

Ophthalmic 

an Emerging Tec

Regulat

10 FR 35.1

NNeoVista, Inc.’s Epi-Rad90TM 

(strontium-90) Ophthalmic System 

is an intraocular radiation therapy 

device that was added to the 

Sealed Source and Device (SSD) 

Registry in September 2006 and 

its SSD registration certificate 

was last updated in February 

2008. Although the Epi-Rad90TM 

System is used for ophthalmic 

radiation therapy, NRC staff, with 

the assistance of the Advisory 

Committee on the Medical Uses 

of Isotopes, has determined that 

the design and operation of the 

Epi-Rad90TM System is significantly 

different from that of strontium-90 

(Sr-90) superficial eye applicators 

that are currently regulated under 

10 CFR 35.400, “Use of sources 

for manual brachytherapy.” As 

such, the NRC has determined 

that the intraocular use of the 

Epi-Rad90TM System is regulated 

under the provisions of 10 CFR 

35.1000, “Other medical uses of 

byproduct material or radiation 

from byproduct material.” 

The Epi-Rad90TM System is currently 

being used under the provisions 

of an Investigational Device 

Exemption issued by the U.S. 

Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) and therefore can be only 

used at the limited number of 

approved FDA investigational 

sites. Limited specific medical 

use licensees authorized for Sr90 eye applicators, or for other 

materials under 10 CFR 35.400, 

are not automatically authorized 

to possess and use the Epi-Rad90TM 

System and therefore must submit 

a license amendment request 

and obtain authorization for 

possession and use of the device. 

Appropriate licensing guidance for 

the use of the Epi-Rad90TM System 

has been developed by NRC and 

posted on NRC’s public website 

at http://www.nrc.gov/materials/

miau/med-use-toolkit.html#other. 

Licensees interested in applying 

for authorizations for use of the 

Epi-Rad90TM System should submit 

applications to the appropriate 

NRC Regional Office.

An amendment is not required 

for use of the Epi-Rad90TM System 

by NRC broad scope medical 

use licenses with authorization 

under 10 CFR 35.1000, unless the 

possession limit for Sr-90 needs 

to be increased. For broad scope 

licenses, the radiation safety 

committee is required, by 10 CFR 

33.13(c)(3), to review, approve, 

and record the safety evaluation 

of proposed uses of byproduct 

material. This safety evaluation 

must take into consideration 

such matters as the adequacy of 

facilities and equipment, training 

and experience of the user, 

and the operating or handling 

procedures. This review, approval 

and recording of the Epi-Rad90TM 

System safety evaluation must 

be completed prior to use of the 

device.

(Contact: Cindy Flannery, Office 

of Federal and State Material and 

Environmental Management 

Programs, (301) 415-0223: e-mail: 

Cindy.Flannery@nrc.gov.)

Uranium Re

Commissio

On December 11, 2008, the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) held a public Commission 

Briefing on the status of the NRC’s 

Uranium Recovery Licensing 

Program (URLP). The all-day 

briefing included presentations 

by the NRC staff, as well as, Native 

American Tribal representatives, 

Federal and State representatives, 

and stakeholders. The briefing 

was attended by approximately 

50 staff and interested members 

of the public and was broadcast 

via Webcast. The Webcast of the 

meeting is available at: http://

video.nrc.gov/nrcArch.cfm
7

The briefing began with an 

overview of the status of the URLP 

by Larry W. Camper, Director of the 

Division of Waste Management 

and Environmental Protection 

(DWMEP). Mr. Camper discussed 

the scope of the program, the 

current status of the uranium 

recovery industry, the staff’s 

activities to prepare for an 

expected 28 uranium recovery 

applications by 2012 and the 

staff’s outreach activities to Native 

Americans, and stakeholders. Over 

the past few years, the spot price 

of uranium has been extremely 

volatile going from about $45 

per pound to as high as $130 

dollars per pound in mid-2007, 

which was driven in large part by 

the need for fuel for new nuclear 

power reactors. This has increased 

the production of uranium and 

subsequent increase in the interest 

in licensing additional uranium 

recovery sites in the U.S.

Bill von Till, Chief of the Uranium 

Recovery Licensing Branch, then 

discussed the status of the review 

of current uranium recovery 

license applications. Currently, 

four new applications are being 

reviewed by the staff. In addition, 

2 applications for expansions 

of existing facilities are under 

review and a review of 

a restart application 

was completed in 

2008. An additional 

24 new, expansion, or 

restart applications are 

expected by 2012. 

Gregory Suber, Chief 

of the Environmental 

Review Branch in 

DWMEP, then discussed 

the status of the 

development of a 

Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement (GEIS) for the 

review of in-situ recovery (ISR) 

license applications. The GEIS, 

which in part will assist NRC 

fulfilling its obligations under the 

National Environmental Policy 

Act, evaluates the impacts to 

several common environmental 

factors in four geographic areas 

in the Western U.S. The staff will 

use the evaluation in the GEIS in 

the site-specific environmental 

reviews that are necessary to 

support the evaluation of each 

new application. By evaluating 

these common factors in a GEIS for 

ISR, the staff expects to save over 

$4 million and at least 7 Full-Time 

Equivalent personnel. 

Gary Comfort, Sr. Project Manager 

in the Division of Intergovernmental 

Liaison and Rulemaking (DILR), 

then described the status of the 

NRC’s rulemaking on groundwater 

protection at ISR facilities. The 

proposed rule would add a new 

Criterion 14 to Appendix A in 10 CFR 

Part 40, that would be applicable 

only to ISR facilities and consist 

of requirements that NRC has 

determined are necessary to ensure 

groundwater protection at the site.

Richard Turtil, Chief of the 

Intergovernmental Liaison 

Branch in DILR, then described 

the NRC’s outreach efforts with 

Native Americans; specifically, 

the efforts to identify issues of 

concern, information sharing 

initiatives, and government-togovernment meetings with Native 

American Tribes. For example, 

additional scoping meetings 

were held for the GEIS, specifically 

to provide Native Americans 

with an opportunity to provide 

comments. In addition, NRC has 

been working with other Federal 

agencies to develop a 5-year plan 

to address legacy uranium mine 

and mill waste on Navajo lands. In 

2005, the Navajo Nation passed a 

law that prohibits the mining of 

uranium on Navajo lands until all 

adverse effects from past mining 

and milling have been eliminated 

or substantially reduced.

The staff’s presentations were 

followed with presentations 

by representatives of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). These 

presentations centered on the roles 

of EPA and BLM in the regulation of 

uranium mining and milling.

During the afternoon sessions, the 

Commission heard from Native 

American Tribal representatives 

and State officials in Wyoming 

and New Mexico, which have 

substantial uranium deposits. 

The Commission also heard 

from Navajo Allottees, the 

National Mining Association, the 

International Forum on Sustainable 

Options for Uranium Production, 

and the Natural Resources Defense 

Council. 

(Contact: Harry Felsher, FSME/

DWMEP, (301) 415-6559; 

e-mail: Harry.Felsher@nrc.gov)

Members of the public and the Commission discuss the 

status of the Uranium Recovery Licensing Program.
8

Safety Cu

Materi

On February 3, 2009, the NRC held 

a public meeting to solicit the 

views of interested stakeholders 

on topics related to safety 

culture and security culture. 

The meeting was also available 

through teleconferencing and 

as a webinar. The attendees 

included representatives of 

State governments, materials 

licensees, and non-governmental 

organizations. Additional 

background on these topics is 

provided in a Federal Register 

notice (January 23, 2009; 74 FR 

4260).

The Commission has directed 

the NRC staff to complete 

its evaluation, provide a 

recommendation to the 

Commission on how best to 

update the Commission policy, and 

provide draft policy statement(s) 

on safety culture to the 

Commission for its consideration. 

As part of its evaluation, the staff 

should, at a minimum, address the 

following key areas: 

(1) Whether safety culture as 

applied to reactors needs to be 

strengthened. 

(2) How to increase attention to 

safety culture in the materials 

area. 

(3) How stakeholder involvement 

can most effectively be used 

to address safety culture 

for all NRC and Agreement 

State licensees and certificate 

holders, including any unique 

aspects of security. The staff 

should, as part of its public 

stakeholder outreach, reach 

out to all types of licensees and 

certificate holders, including 

power reactors (including 

new reactors), research and 

test reactors, fuel facilities, 

spent fuel shipping and 

storage cask vendors, and 

the materials community, 

including industrial, academic, 

and medical users. The 

assessment should also involve 

outreach activities to Members 

of Congress, the Agreement 

States, and other stakeholders.

(4) Whether publishing NRC’s 

expectations for safety culture 

and for security culture is best 

accomplished in one safety/

security culture statement or in 

two separate statements, one 

each for safety and security, 

while still considering the 

safety and security interfaces.

(For further information contact: 

June Cai, Office of Enforcement, 

(301) 415-5192, e-mail: June.

Cai@nrc.gov; or James Firth, 

Office of Federal State Materials 

and Environmental Management 

Programs, (301) 415-6628, 

e-mail: James.Firth@nrc.gov)

Modificat

VARSKIN Com

The NRC sponsored the 

development of the VARSKIN code 

in the 1980s, to assist licensees 

in demonstrating compliance 

with Paragraph (c) of Title 10, 

Section 20.1201, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 

20.1201), “Occupational Dose 

Limits for Adults.” Specifically, 

10 CFR 20.1201(c) requires 

licensees to have an approved 

radiation protection program that 

includes established protocols for 

calculating and documenting the 

dose attributable to radioactive 

contamination of the skin. Since 

that time, the code has been 

significantly enhanced to simplify 

data entry and increase efficiency. 

VARSKIN 3 is available from the 

Radiation Safety Information 

Computational Center. For 

additional information, see 

NUREG/CR-6918, “VARSKIN 3: A 

Computer Code for Assessing Skin 

Dose from Skin Contamination.”

Since the release of VARSKIN 3 in 

2004, the NRC staff has compared 

its dose calculations for various 

energies and at various skin 

depths, with doses calculated 

by the Monte Carlo N-Particle 

Transport Code System developed 

by Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

That comparison indicated that 

VARSKIN 3 overestimates the 

dose with increasing photon 

energy. For that reason, the NRC is 

sponsoring a further enhancement 

to replace the existing photon 

dose algorithm, enhancing the 

quality assurance program, 

and correcting technical issues 

reported by users. 

To facilitate this enhancement, or if 

you are aware of any problems or 

errors associated with the VARSKIN 

code, we encourage you to contact 

us at: http://www.nrc.gov/aboutnrc/regulatory/research/contactus-varskin.html.

(Contact: Mohammad Saba, Office 

of Research, (301) 415-7608, email: 

Mohammad.Saba@nrc.gov)

REPORTING INVEN

OF SPECI

MATERIALS (

THE N

On June 9, 2008 the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission published 

the final rule concerning 

Regulatory Improvements to the 

Nuclear Materials Management 

and Safeguards System (NMMSS) 

in the Federal Register http://

edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/

pdf/E8-12830.pdf . The effective 

date of this rule is January 1, 

2009. One of the changes in this 
9

rule is an additional requirement 

that any NRC or Agreement State 

licensee, who possesses a gram or 

more of SNM (plutonium, U-235 

contained in enriched uranium, 

or U-233), report their physical 

inventory each year to the NRC. 

The inventory reports are to be 

submitted between January 1 

and March 31 of each year to the 

operator of the NMMSS database. 

NRC and Agreement State 

licensees are already required to 

report shipments and receipts to 

NMMSS. Previously, the inventory 

reporting requirement was for 

only those licensees that were 

authorized to possess 350 grams 

or more of SNM.

The NMMSS compares the 

reported inventory information 

with information that the 

licensee has reported to NMMSS 

concerning receipts, shipments 

and inventory adjustments. The 

rule also requires that if there are 

any inconsistencies between the 

reported inventory and records the 

licensee has submitted previously 

to NMMSS, the licensee has thirty 

calendar days to reconcile their 

records with the NMMSS database. 

This rule change will apply to NRC 

and Agreement State licensees 

who possess, or possessed in the 

previous year, a gram or more of 

SNM. The specific regulations that 

apply to NRC licensees are in 10 

CFR 74.13. The specific regulations 

that apply to Agreement State 

licensees are located at 10 CFR 

150.16 and 10 CFR 150.17 of the 

published rule.

As NRC and Agreement State 

licensees prepare to start reporting 

their inventories, there may be 

cases when a licensee identifies 

that its physical inventory does 

not match up with information 

that they have reported to 

the NMMSS database. Many 

of the inconsistencies may be 

determined to be the result of onsite inventory adjustments such 

as small sample use and disposal. 

The NRC regulations previously did 

not require that on-site inventory 

adjustments be reported to the 

NMMSS database. The licensee 

will need to report these on-site 

inventory adjustments to NMMSS 

as part of their work to reconcile 

their inventory records with the 

NMMSS database. 

(Contact: Brian Horn, Office 

of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards, (301) 492-3122, e-mail: 

Brian.Horn@nrc.gov; or, Neelam 

Bhalla, Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental 

Programs, (301) 415-6843; e-mail: 

Neelam.Bhalla@nrc.gov) 

Signi

Enforceme

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s (NRC’s) enforcement 

program can be accessed via 

NRC’s homepage [http://www.

nrc.gov/] under “What We Do.” 

Documents related to cases can 

be accessed at [http://www.nrc.

gov/], “Electronic Reading Room,” 

“Documents in ADAMS.” ADAMS 

is the Agency-wide Document 

Access and Management System. 

Help in using ADAMS is available 

from the NRC Public Document 

Room, telephone: 301-415-4737 

or 1-800-397-4209. 

Medica

Bon Secours Virginia Health 

Source (EA-08-234) 

On October 10, 2008, a Notice 

of Violation was issued for three 

Severity Level III violations. The 

first violation involved a failure 

to meet 10 CFR 35.41(b)(2) 

requirement. Specifically, the 

licensee did not develop and 

implement written procedures 

to provide high confidence that 

each medical administration is 

in accordance with the written 

directive, in that the procedures 

did not address response to 

high dose rate (HDR) device 

error messages. The second 

violation involved a failure to 

ensure an authorized user (AU) 

was physically present during 

initiation of a patient treatment. 

During continuation of the patient 

treatment, neither the AU, nor a 

physician under the supervision 

of an AU, was physically present. 

Specifically, the AU was working 

with another patient in another 

room and was not involved in 

the investigation and resolution 

of an HDR device error message 

that was received during the 

patient treatment. The third 

violation involved a failure to 

report a medical event as required 

by 10CFR 35.3045(a)(1)(iii)&(3). 

Specifically, for an HDR fractional 

treatment that resulted in a dose 

delivered to a portion of the 

treatment site that differed from 

the prescribed dose by more than 

50 rem, and the fractionated dose 

that differed from the prescribed 

dose, for a single fraction, by more 

than 50 percent, the licensee 

personnel did not provide a verbal 

or written report to the NRC in a 

timely manner.

Bridgeport Hospital (EA-08-269) 

On November 6, 2008, a Notice of 

Violation was issued for a Severity 

Level III violation that involved 

the failure to develop, implement, 

and maintain written procedures 

to provide high confidence that 

each medical administration 
10

will be done in accordance 

with the written directive, for 

administrations requiring a written 

directive. Specifically, changes 

in procedures for inputting 

geometric information into the 

treatment planning system were 

not performed in accordance with 

the current version of the vendor’s 

operator manual. An incorrect 

magnification factor was used in 

treatment dose calculations and 

the licensee’s calculation doublechecks did not include validation 

of geometric accuracy. As a result, 

the patients were administered 

doses that ranged from 45 percent 

to 62 percent less than the 

prescribed dose set forth in the 

written directive.

Radiograph

Cal Testing Services, Inc

(EA-08-286) 

On January 5, 2009, a Notice of 

Violation (NOV) and Proposed 

Imposition of Civil Penalty in the 

amount of $6,500 was issued to Cal 

Testing Services, Inc. This action 

is based on a Severity Level III 

violation of NRC License Condition 

20 involving the failure of the 

licensee to conduct its program in 

accordance with the statements, 

representations, and procedures 

contained in an application (with 

attachments) provided to the NRC. 

Specifically, the licensee failed to 

connect the control cable to the 

source assembly before cranking 

the source out of the radiographic 

exposure device, as required by 

the licensee’s procedures. This 

event resulted in a disconnected 

source event.

Portable Gaug

St. Joseph [MO], City

(EA-08-266) 

On December 11, 2008, a Notice 

of Violation was issued for a 

Severity Level III violation. The 

violation involved the failure to use 

a minimum of two independent 

physical controls that form 

tangible barriers to secure a 

portable gauge whenever the 

gauge was not under the control 

and constant surveillance of the 

licensee as required in 10 CFR 

30.34(i). Specifically, the licensee 

stored the gauge in a storage 

room with the key in the door 

lock rendering the physical barrier 

ineffective. Additionally, a second 

independent physical barrier was 

not provided.

Montana State Universit

(EA-08-279) 

On December 4, 2008, a Notice of 

Violation was issued for a Severity 

Level III violation. The violation 

involved the failure to use a 

minimum of two independent 

physical controls that form 

tangible barriers to secure a 

portable gauge whenever the 

gauge was not under the control 

and constant surveillance of the 

licensee as required in 10 CFR 

30.34(i). Specifically, the licensee 

stored portable gauges at two 

separate locations on campus 

using only one independent 

physical control that formed 

a tangible barrier to prevent 

unauthorized removal of the 

gauges when not under the 

control and constant surveillance 

of the licensee.

Wilcox Associates, Inc

(EA-08-215, EA-08-267) 

On November 7, 2008, a Notice of 

Violation was issued for a Severity 

Level III violation. The violation 

involved two examples of the 

failure to use a minimum of two 

independent physical controls that 

form tangible barriers to secure 

a portable gauge whenever the 

gauge was not under the control 

and constant surveillance of the 

licensee as required in 10 CFR 

30.34(i). Specifically, the first 

example involved using a single 

barrier, only one lock, to secure 

the gauge transport case to an 

unlocked closed-bed pickup truck. 

The second example involved using 

a single barrier, only one lock, to 

secure a gauge in a locked cage.

Kirksville [MO], Cit

(EA-08-205) 

On September 22, 2008, a Notice 

of Violation was issued to the 

City of Kirksville, Missouri, an NRC 

licensee. This action is based on a 

Severity Level III violation of 10 CFR 

30.34(i) involving the licensee’s 

failure to maintain a minimum of 

two independent physical controls 

that formed tangible barriers to 

secure a portable gauge from 

unauthorized removal during a 

period when the portable gauge 

was not under the control and 

constant surveillance of the 

licensee. Specifically, on multiple 

occasions, the licensee stored a 

portable gauge in a laboratory 

using only a single barrier, the 

locked laboratory room door. In 

addition, on multiple occasions, 

the licensee transported a portable 

gauge, in its transport case, in the 

back of a closed-bed pickup truck 

with only a single barrier, the lock 

on the bed cover.
11

Miscellaneou

Crane Army Ammuniti

Activity - Department of the

Army (EA-08-222)

On October 30, 2008, a Notice of 

Violation was issued for a Severity 

Level III problem involving 1) 

the failure to control radioactive 

material not in storage as required 

by 10 CFR 20.1802, and 2) the 

failure to properly describe the 

material on shipping papers 

and properly mark and label the 

packages in accordance with 

the requirements of 10 CFR 71.5 

and 49 CFR 171.2. Specifically, 

on May 22 and 29, the licensee 

shipped depleted uranium in 

three cardboard boxes to a 

facility in Virginia as part of their 

site operation to demilitarize 

munitions. The boxes were not 

controlled when not in storage 

and were not properly marked nor 

labeled. In addition, the material 

was not properly described as 

hazardous on the shipping papers 

that accompanied the shipment.

BWX Technologies, Inc.

(EA-08-204) 

On October 20, 2008, a Notice of 

Violation (NOV) and Proposed 

Imposition of Civil Penalty in the 

amount of $32,500 was issued 

to BWX Technologies, Inc. This 

action is based on a Severity 

Level III violation of 10 CFR 70.61 

involving the failure of the licensee 

to provide adequate engineered 

and administrative controls to 

limit or prevent an acute chemical 

exposure from a hazardous 

chemical produced from licensed 

material. Specifically, the licensee 

failed to properly label a storage 

tank containing liquid hydrogen 

fluoride (HF), and failed to ensure 

that a Process Operator was 

adequately trained. As a result, 

on April 28, 2008, a Process 

Operator received an ocular 

exposure to liquid HF while 

trying to neutralize a spill that 

could have led to irreversible, or 

other serious long-lasting health 

effects. In this case, no permanent 

vision loss was sustained by the 

operator. However, under different 

circumstances, such as a delayed 

response from the emergency 

team, the exposure could 

have resulted in a more severe 

consequence to the operator.

Gen

Communic

(October 3, 2008 – December 8, 2008)

The following are summaries 

of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) generic 

communications issued by 

the Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs. If one of 

these documents appears relevant 

to your needs and you have not 

received it, please call one of the 

technical contacts listed below. 

The Internet address for the NRC 

Library of generic communications 

is http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

doc-collections/gen-comm/index.

html. Please note that this address 

is case-sensitive and must be 

entered exactly as shown.

Bulletins (BLs)

None.

Generic Letters (GLs)

None.

Regulatory Issue Summaries (RIS)

RIS 2008-23, “The Globa

Threat Reduction Initiative

(GTRI) Domestic Threa

Reduction Program & Federal

Funded Voluntary Security

Enhancements For High-Ris

Radiological Material” wa

issued October 3, 2008. This RIS 

was issued to all U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission Materials 

Licensees authorized to possess 

Category 1 or Category 2 

quantities of radioactive materials, 

all Agreement State Radiation 

Control Program Directors 

and State Liaison Officers, 

and Members of the Advisory 

Committee on the Medical Uses of 

Isotopes.

(Contact: Doug Broaddus, FSME, 

(301) 415-8124, e-mail: 

Doug.Broaddus@nrc.gov; 

Maria Arribas-Colon, FSME, 

(301) 415-6026, e-mail: 

Maria.Arribas-Colon@nrc.gov; and 

Regional contacts: Judith Joustra, 

Region I, (610) 337-6942, 

e-mail: Judith.Joustra@nrc.gov; 

Kevin Null, Region III, 

(630) 829-9854, 

e-mail: Kevin.Null@nrc.gov; 

Roberto Torres, Region IV, 

(817) 860-8189, e-mail: 

Robertoj.Torres@nrc.gov)

RIS 2008-24, “Security

Responsibilities of Service

Providers and Client Licensee

was issued October 3, 2008. 

This RIS was issued to all U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

licensees that hire service 

providers to install, service, repair, 

maintain, relocate, exchange, or 

transport radioactive materials 

in quantities of concern, service 

provider licensees, Agreement 

State Radiation Control Program 

Directors, and State Liaison 

Officers.

(Contact: Doug Broaddus, FSME, 

(301) 415-8124, e-mail: 

Doug.Broaddus@nrc.gov)
12

RIS 2008-31, Licensin

Requirements for Sentinel

Lymph Node Biopsy was issued

December 1, 2008. This RIS 

was issued to all U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

medical use licensees and NRC 

master material licensees, and all 

Agreement State Radiation Control 

Program Directors and State 

Liaison Officers.

(Contact: Cindy Flannery, FSME, 

(301) 415-0223, e-mail: Cindy.

Flannery@nrc.gov)

Signifi

Event #1: Medical Event Due to

Programming Erro

Date and Place: September 10, 2008 

Jacksonville, Florida

Nature and Probable Cause: 

The licensee reported that a 

patient received 3,400 cGy 

(rad) to unintended tissue 

during several breast cancer 

therapy treatments from 9/10 

to 9/17/2008. The patient was 

being treated with an Ir-192 

high dose rate (HDR) afterloader 

unit. Symptoms of erythema 

were identified by the patient. 

The medical physicist reviewed 

the records and determined 

that the HDR afterloader was 

wrongly programmed such that 

the source stopped 10 cm short 

of the intended tumor site in the 

right breast. As a result, the entire 

dose intended for the tumor was 

administered to the left breast, 

which was not intended to be 

treated.

Event #2: Medical Event

Involving Unintended Dose

Date and Place: October 15, 2008

Huntington, West Virginia

Nature and Probable Cause: The 

licensee reported that a patient 

received an unintended dose of 

1,786 cGy (rad) to the esophagus. 

The patient was being treated 

for a thyroid condition with a 

capsule containing 5.55 GBq 

(150 mCi) of I-131. The patient 

attempted to swallow the capsule 

on 10/15/2008, but it became 

lodged in the patient’s throat due 

to an esophageal obstruction. 

The licensee’s staff attempted to 

aid the patient in swallowing the 

capsule by having them drink soda 

and eat applesauce. The capsule 

eventually passed the obstruction 

after approximately 2.5 hours. 

The event was discussed with the 

patient during a follow-up visit 

with the physician on 10/22/2008. 

Potential adverse effects include 

esophagitis and radiation fibrosis. 

The NRC retained a medical 

consultant to review this event.

Event #3: Overexposure from

Failed Equipmen

Date and Place: October 28, 2008

Tyler, Texas

Nature and Probable Cause: The 

licensee reported that a 9.62 

GBq (260 mCi) Cs-137 source 

disconnected from their level 

measurement gauge (Thermo 

MeasureTech model 5191). As a 

result of the source disconnect, 

four non-radiation workers 

received annual exposures that 

exceeded the limit. The individuals 

received 2.962, 0.960, 0.280, and 

0.166 cSv (rem). On 10/28/2008, 

the licensee noted that the gauge 

was no longer giving proper 

readings and a maintenance 

crew was sent to perform repairs. 

Radiation surveys revealed 

elevated levels. DRL contacted the 

manufacturer and a technician was 

sent to the facility. The technician 

identified elevated radiation levels 

and determined that the source 

had separated from the operating 

rod. The source was still located 

in the gauge housing, but was 

not shielded. On 10/29/2008, the 

manufacturer removed the gauge 

from the tank it was mounted 

on. The gauge and source were 

packaged for transportation back 

to the manufacturer’s facility for 

inspection and repair.

Event #4: Release of Radioactiv

Materia

Date and Place: November 13, 2008

Sweetwater, Texas

Nature and Probable Cause: The 

licensee reported breaching a 3.33 

GBq (90 mCi) Cs-137 source (AEA 

Technology model CDC.800) while 

modifying a piece of calibration 

equipment. The RSO stated that 

the source was cut in half with 

a thin blade saw. Following the 

incident, the remaining sections 

of the source were assayed and 

the activity was 1.78 GBq (48 mCi). 

A Texas Department of Health 

Services inspector was dispatched 

to the scene to investigate. Initial 

reports stated that 40 or more 

employees were involved and 

that contamination was spread 

by foot traffic through the facility. 

The licensee contracted Energy 

Solutions to perform assessment 

and decontamination activities 

beginning on 11/14/2008. 

The inspector identified that 

contamination levels were fairly 

low with some spots reading 

approximately five times 

background (between 10,000 and 

15,000 counts per minute on a 

scintillation detector). The licensee 

also contacted the DOE Radiation 

Emergency Assistance Center/
13

Training Site for guidance. No 

employees spread contamination 

outside the facility. Four 

employees identified as having 

potential intakes provided urine 

samples and received whole body 

counts at Comanche Peak Nuclear 

Power Station on 11/19/2008. 

Three of those individuals had 

received less than 0.1 mSv (10 

mrem) CEDE from the incident. 

The fourth individual, who cut 

the source, received 0.3 mSv (30 

mrem) CEDE. That individual 

stated that he covered his mouth 

with his jacket during the cutting 

process because it was creating a 

lot of dust. The licensee intends 

to provide whole body counts to 

all of their employees. The whole 

facility was posted and controlled 

as a contaminated area. The 

facility is 60,000 square feet in 

size. It is divided into several areas, 

most having their own air handling 

systems. The contamination 

appears to be mostly on floor 

areas outside the work area. No 

survey information is available in 

the work area where the source 

was breached. The RSO stated that 

approximately 30 percent of the 

facility has been decontaminated.

Event #5: Medical Event Due to

Improper Preparatio

Date and Place: December 2, 2008

Dallas, Texas

Nature and Probable Cause: The 

licensee reported that a patient 

prescribed to receive 8,000 cGy 

(rad) to the 5th intracranial nerve 

during trigeminal neuralgia 

treatment only received 10 to 

20 cGy (rad) on 12/2/2008. The 

7th intracranial nerve, on the 

other hand, received 1,495 cGy 

(rad). The 5th intracranial nerve 

was prescribed 8,000 cGy (rad) 

and the written directive was 

completed and signed by all 

appropriate parties. However, 

the Elekta Instrument AB gamma 

knife unit (Leksell Gamma System 

model 24001), containing 125.8 

TBq (3,400 Ci) of Co-60 (General 

Electric model 43047), was 

improperly prepared and the 

wrong nerve was designated 

for treatment. Fortunately, 

the authorized neurosurgeon 

instructed the licensed medical 

physicist to pause the treatment 

9.17 minutes into the 45 minute 

regime. He then consulted with 

the neuroradiologist and they 

determined that the wrong nerve 

was targeted. The patient was 

notified and correct treatment 

was successfully performed on 

the same day. The clinical staff 

concluded that the root cause was 

misidentification of the anatomical 

target site as listed on the written 

directive. No untoward effects are 

expected as a result of the medical 

event. Corrective actions included 

procedure modifications requiring 

that the neuroradiologist provide 

precise information on the MRI of 

the correct target site. The written 

directive will also be modified to 

ensure the correct site is defined.

(Contact: Duane E. White, FSME, 

(301) 415-6272, e-mail: Duane.

White@nrc.gov)

Selected

Regist

10 CFR Part 35, Medical Use of 

Byproduct Material--Amendments/

Medical Event Definitions; 

Extension of Comment 

Period (AI26), 73 FR 58063, 

October 6, 2008.

(Contact: Edward M. Lohr, Office 

of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management 

Programs, (301) 415-0253, 

e-mail: Edward.Lohr@nrc.gov)

10 CFR Part 51, Categorical 

Exclusions from Environmental 

Review (AI27), 73 FR 59540, 

October 9, 2008.

(Contact: Cardelia H. Maupin, 

Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental

Management Programs, 

(301) 415-2312, e-mail: 

Cardelia.Maupin@nrc.gov)

Protection of Safeguards 

Information (AH57), 73 FR 63545, 

October 24, 2008.

(Contact: Jason Zorn, Attorney, 

Office of the General Counsel, (301) 

415-8350, e-mail: Jason.Zorn@nrc.

gov; or Bernard Stapleton, Office 

of Nuclear Security and Incident 

Response, (301) 415-2432, e-mail: 

Bernard.Stapleton@nrc.gov)

10 CFR Part 72, List of Approved 

Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NACUMS, Revision 5 (AI48), 73 FR 

63621, October 27, 2008. 

(Contact: Jayne M. McCausland, 

Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental

Management Programs, 

(301) 415-6219, e-mail: 

Jayne.McCausland@nrc.gov)

Physical Protection of Byproduct 

Material: Availability of preliminary 

draft rule language (RIN AI12), 

73 FR 69590, November 19, 2008.

(Contact: Merri Horn, Office of 

Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management 

Programs, (301) 415-8126, e-mail: 

Merri.Horn@nrc.gov)
14

List of Approved Spent Fuel 

Storage Casks: MAGNASTOR 

Addition (RIN AI51), 73 FR 70587, 

November 21, 2008.

(Contact: Jayne M. McCausland, 

Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, 

(301) 415-6219, e-mail: 

Jayne.McCausland@nrc.gov)

List of Approved Spent Fuel 

Storage Casks: MAGNASTOR 

Addition (RIN 3150-AI51), 73 FR 

70607, November 21, 2008.

(Contact: Jayne M. McCausland, 

Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, 

(301) 415-6219, e-mail: 

Jayne.McCausland@nrc.gov)

Regulatory Changes to Implement 

the Additional Protocol to the 

US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement 

(AH38), 73 FR 78599, December 23, 

2008.

(Contact: Naiem S. Tanious, Office 

of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management 

Programs, (301) 415-6103, 

e-mail: Naiem.Tanious @nrc.gov)

NOTE TO READERS: In an attempt to keep the FSME Licensee Newsletter relevant, useful and informative, 

feedback on the content of the newsletter is welcome. Readers desiring to contribute articles, self-explanatory 

diagrams, suggestions for future articles, bulletins, web-site postings, and other items of interest to the FSME 

Licensee Newsletter readership, should contact Michael Williamson or Gwendolyn Davis, from the Office of Federal 

and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, Rulemaking Branch A. Mr. Williamson may be 

contacted at (301) 415-6234 or Michael.Williamson@nrc.gov. Ms. Davis may be contacted at (301) 415-8165 or 

Gwendolyn.Davis@nrc.gov. In addition, to ensure proper delivery of the FSME Licensee Newsletter, please report 

any address changes to Mr. Williamson to prevent any interruption of service.

Please send written correspondence and requests to: 

Michael K. Williamson, Editor 

FSME Licensee Newsletter

Office of Federal and State Materials and

Environmental Management Programs

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

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

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
15
16