1

LICENSEE NEWSLETTER

NUREG/BR-0117, No. 09-02 Summer 2009

Oce of Federal & State Materials &

Environmental Management Programs

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

New Chairman for the NRC.....................1

Generally Licenced Device 

Restrictions Proposed Rule 

Published for Public Comment .............2

Why Do States Become 

An “Agreement State?”.............................2

From the Desk of the 

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

NSTS Expansion Disapproved................4

In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling...............5

Reporting Requirements.........................5

Third Review Meeting...............................6

The Last Phase of 

Waiver Terminations..................................7

Employee Recognition.............................7

Paper Reduction .........................................8

Significant Enforcement Actions..........8

Generic Communications Issued....... 11

Significant Event...................................... 11

Selected Federal Register Notices....... 12

Designated E-Mail Address for 

Identified Errors in NUREG-1556 

Documents................................................ 13

On May 13, 2009, President 

Barack Obama designated 

Dr. Gregory Jaczko as Chairman 

of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). As Chairman, 

Dr. Jaczko is the principal 

executive officer and the official 

spokesperson for the NRC. 

The NRC is headed by five 

Commissioners appointed by the 

President and confirmed by the 

Senate for 5 year terms. The NRC 

Chairman serves at the pleasure 

of the President and does 

not require additional Senate 

confirmation. 

In commenting on his 

nomination to the NRC staff, 

Chairman Jaczko 

stated that he 

had first-hand 

knowledge of the 

staff’s dedication 

and expertise. 

He said that he 

looks forward to 

working with staff 

to successfully 

address the 

challenges and 

opportunities 

ahead. In an 

effort to meet 

staff, Chairman 

Jaczko hosted 

an open house 

on June 18, 2009 

for all NRC 

Headquarters 

staff members to visit his new 

suite of offices. Chairman 

Jaczko took the opportunity 

to personally express his 

appreciation for the staff’s hard 

work to protect public health and 

safety. 

Chairman Jaczko’s professional 

career has been devoted to 

the use and impact of science 

in the public policy arena. 

Before assuming the post of 

Commissioner, Dr. Jaczko served 

as appropriations director for U.S. 

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada 

and also served as the Senator’s 

science policy advisor. 

Chairman Jaczko was born 

in Pennsylvania and raised in 

upstate New York. He earned 

a bachelor’s degree in physics and 

philosophy from Cornell University 

and a doctorate in physics from the 

University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

Chairman Jaczko is married and 

resides in the District of Columbia, 

where he has been an adjunct 

professor at Georgetown University, 

teaching science and policy. 

(Contact: Vanessa Cox, FSME, 

301-415-8342, e-mail: 

Vanessa.Cox@nrc.gov)

Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko

NEW CHAIRMAN FOR THE NRC
2

Generally Licensed

Device Restrictions

Proposed Rule

Published for Public

Comment

On August 3, 2009 (74 FR 38372), 

the NRC published in the Federal 

Register a notice of the Generally 

Licensed (GL) Device Restrictions 

proposed rule. This proposed rule 

would amend 10 CFR 31.5 to limit 

the quantity of byproduct material 

contained in a GL device to below 

one-tenth of the International 

Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 

Category 3 thresholds. As a result 

of this amendment, individuals 

possessing devices with byproduct 

material meeting or exceeding 

these thresholds would be 

required to apply for and obtain 

a specific license. In a Staff 

Requirement Memorandum dated 

May 1, 2009, the Commission also 

directed the staff to propose to 

further clarify the requirements 

that apply when a device 

authorized to be used under the 

general license is instead held 

under a specific license. 

In a petition dated June 27, 2005, 

the Organization of Agreement 

States (OAS) requested that the 

NRC revise 10 CFR 31.5 and 

change the compatibility category 

of 10 CFR 31.6 from “B” to “C.” Also, 

in its letter of June 3, 2005, the 

State of Florida asked to change 

the compatibility category of 

10 CFR 31.5(c)(13)(i) from “B” to “C.” 

The GL rulemaking considers these 

issues. 

The NRC has also sent out hard 

copies of the Federal Register

notice to general licensees and 

manufacturers and/or distributors 

of GL devices who could be 

impacted by the rule to inform 

them of the opportunity to 

comment on the proposed rule.

(Contact: Solomon Sahle, FSME, 

301-415-3781, e-mail: 

Solomon.Sahle@nrc.gov)

WHY do STATES BECOME 

AN “AGREEMENT STATE?”

With the recent additions of the 

States of Pennsylvania and Virginia 

as “Agreement States,” one may 

question why any State would 

want to become an Agreement 

State, especially during these 

difficult economic times. Here is 

some background information on 

the Agreement State program and 

a few reasons that have prompted 

States to enter into Agreements 

with the NRC.

The Agreement State program 

came into existence in 1959 with 

the adoption of Section 274 of 

the Atomic Energy Act. Under 

this program, the NRC will 

relinquish authority to regulate 

certain radioactive materials 

(i.e., byproduct, source, and certain 

special nuclear materials) and 

give this responsibility to any 

State government that meets the 

established criteria for protecting 

public health and safety. The 

Chairman of the NRC and the 

Governor of the State formalize the 

discontinuance of NRC authority 

by signing an Agreement. To 

date, 36 States have entered 

into such an agreement with 

the NRC: 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, Virginia, Washington, 

and Wisconsin). The number 

will rise to 37 if the the NRC 

approves the State of New Jersey’s 

application, currently under 

review.

Besides the obvious advantage 

of having control over all things 

radioactive in their jurisdiction, 

most States opt to become an 

Agreement State because they 

feel that they can provide a closer 

continued on page 4

Figure 34. Agreement States

PA

NY

ME

IN

WA**

OR

CA

NV

MT

ID

UT**

AZ**

NM** 

CO**

WY

TX**

OK

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

IA

MO

AR

LA

MS AL GA

FL

SC

NC

VA

TN

KY

IL** OH**

WI MI

WV

MD

DC*

MA

DE

NJ

CT

RI

NH

VT

* Other Non-Agreement States include major U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Guam.

** The NRC has maintained authority to license uranium milling.

Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Agreement States

Non-Agreement States

Letter of Intent

AK

HI
3

In FSME Newsletter 08-03, 

an article about the National 

Source Tracking System (NSTS) 

announced that the development 

of the NSTS was complete 

and that licensees must begin 

reporting to the system in 

January 2009 via (1) the internet; 

(2) batch load using electronic file 

submission; (3) mail; (4) facsimile; 

or (5) telephone, with followup by 

fax or mail.

As many of you already know, the system experienced early glitches, particularly related to user credentialing. 

Because the NSTS was a first-of-its kind system with a number of unique security features, some startup issues 

were reasonably expected, but that did not lessen the level of frustration for those who were unable to access 

the system. If you were one of those who experienced early problems, we hope that we resolved them and that 

you will give the system a second chance now. We think that online reporting to the NSTS can be a great tool to 

provide more real-time tracking of sources, and thus it will greatly enhance the security of radioactive sources 

nationally.

As of early July 2009, the NRC invited approximately 3,100 individuals to enroll for smart cards, and about 1,600 

had begun the enrollment process. About 1,000 individuals were approved to receive their smart cards. Among 

those approved, about 500 individuals have downloaded their digital certificates and all have access to the 

NSTS. Of those who have been approved, 30 agencies (Agreement States and the NRC) and approximately 200 

companies were represented. The NRC’s Office of Information Services is contacting those that have been sent 

smart cards but have not yet downloaded their certificates.

My staff is continuing to have monthly calls with the States to discuss NSTS status and to address any concerns 

that they may have. During the recent batch upload pilot testing, FSME received significant suggestions from 

two participating licensees. We are currently negotiating the technical approach with our contractor in an effort 

to integrate these suggestions. 

We pledge to do whatever is necessary to make the NSTS work in a manner that minimizes the impact to users 

while providing a life history of each tracked source possessed by NRC and Agreement State licensees.

Charles L. Miller, Director

from the desk 

of the fsme

director
4

relationship with their licensees 

than a Federal Agency, and that 

states provide these services at a 

reduced cost in most situations 

(a plus for the licensee). This 

thought is echoed by Julia 

Schmitt, Chairperson of the 

OAS. Ms. Schmitt believes that 

with the State regulation of x-ray 

machines in the 1960s and 1970s, 

the States saw the regulation of 

byproduct materials as a natural 

extension of this health and safety 

function. In addition, States feel 

that emergency response to 

radiation incidents is made more 

expeditious and comprehensive 

by having State responders who 

are more familiar than a Federal 

Agency with the location and 

scope of their licensees’ programs. 

Furthermore, a reason not to 

be overlooked in these times, 

becoming an Agreement State can 

result in the creation of additional 

jobs within the State.

Although the operational costs of 

maintaining an Agreement State 

program are the responsibility of 

each State, another advantage to 

becoming an Agreement State is 

that the NRC pays a portion of the 

cost of training State personnel. 

The cost of training a single 

inspector can be expensive, often 

exceeding $25,000. With the 

NRC often paying for the training 

and associated travel costs, the 

State’s costs for their Agreement 

State program are reduced. Both 

the NRC and Agreement State 

personnel receive the same 

technical training and are required 

to pass the same examinations. 

More recently, the passage of 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(EPAct) influenced some States 

to seek Agreements with the 

NRC. The EPAct expanded the 

definition of byproduct materials 

to include radium 226 and certain 

naturally occurring and accelerator 

produced materials (NARM) that 

were already regulated by States. 

While this expansion of the NRC 

regulatory authority did not 

impact the existing Agreement 

States, which maintain their 

authority, non-Agreement States 

that did license radium and NARM 

would have to turn over their 

licensees to the NRC by August 

2009. The EPAct prompted the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to 

complete its Agreement and the 

Commonwealth of Virginia and the 

State of New Jersey to initiate the 

process to become an Agreement 

State. All three of these States 

have active and well-established 

licensing programs for NARM and 

radium.

Agreement State personnel 

participate in the NRC’s Integrated 

Materials Performance Evaluation 

Program (IMPEP) program. IMPEP 

is the NRC’s program to provide 

oversight by periodically reviewing 

both NRC and Agreement State 

radiation control programs for 

adequacy and compatibility. 

Being a member of an IMPEP team 

offers a unique conduit for the 

exchange of information, ideas, 

and initiatives between Agreement 

States and NRC personnel. As 

IMPEP team members, State 

personnel can observe practices 

and policies in their fellow 

regulatory programs and often 

get ideas to enhance their own 

programs. With the increase in 

both the number of Agreement 

States and expertise among their 

personnel, States envision that 

they will provide greater input in 

shaping regulations in the future.

As State budgets continue 

to tighten with the current 

economic crisis, the NRC will 

place more importance than 

ever on maintaining close and 

careful oversight of Agreement 

State programs to ensure that 

they remain compatible with NRC 

requirements and adequate to 

protect public health and safety 

and the environment.

(Contact: Michelle Beardsley, 

FSME, 610-337-6942, e-mail: 

Michelle.Beardsley@nrc.gov)

NSTS Expansion

DISSAPROVed

In a Staff Requirements 

Memorandum dated June 30, 2009, 

the Commission stated that it 

was unable to reach a decision 

on the staff’s recommendation 

to publish the final rule on the 

National Source Tracking System 

(NSTS) Expansion. The rule would 

have required additional specific 

licensees to report information 

concerning the location of 

sealed sources containing 

radioactive materials in quantities 

reaching the International 

Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 

Category 3 threshold. Because 

the Commission did not 

reach a decision, the staff’s 

recommendation to publish the 

final rule was not approved.

Currently, about 1,350 Agreement 

State and NRC licensees possess a 

nationally tracked source, defined 

in 10 CFR Part 20 as a sealed source 

containing IAEA Category 1 and 

Category 2 threshold quantities 

of radioactive material. Licensees 

who possess a nationally tracked 

source are required to report to the 

NRC details of source transactions, 

from manufacture of the source 

continued from page 2
5

through disposal, as specified 

in the final rule establishing 

these reporting requirements 

(71 FR 65686, November 8, 2006). 

The licensees must also have 

reported their initial inventories 

of sealed radioactive sources by 

January 31, 2009 (72 FR 59162, 

October 19, 2007), with annual 

inventory reconciliation by 

January 31 in each year thereafter 

comparing licensee possession 

against the data reported in the 

NSTS.

The NSTS Expansion final rule 

would have broadened the 

definition of a nationally tracked 

source to include Category 3 

sources, requiring an additional 

1,000 Agreement State and NRC 

licensees to report to the NRC 

details of source transactions. 

The NRC published the NSTS 

Expansion proposed rule on 

April 11, 2008 (73 FR 19749) and 

received 19 comment letters. 

Most of the commenters opposed 

the rule because they believed 

more operating experience was 

needed in tracking Category 1 

and 2 sources before expanding 

to Category 3 threshold values. 

Members of the working group for 

the final rule evaluated the public 

comments, prepared responses 

to each of the topical areas of 

concern, and submitted the draft 

final rule to the Commission in 

SECY-09-0086 dated June 10, 2009. 

In that Commission paper, the NRC 

staff noted that the Agreement 

States had received a draft of 

the Commission paper for their 

review and that the NRC received 

comment letters on the draft 

paper from the Executive Board 

of the Organization of Agreement 

States, the Executive Board of the 

Conference of Radiation Control 

Program Directors (CRCPD), and 26 

individual States. Many of these 

letters also expressed opposition 

to the final rule.

Details on the Commission vote 

regarding the final rule for NSTS 

expansion are available on the 

NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.

gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/

commission/combined/2009/.

(Contact: Kevin O’Sullivan, FSME, 

301-415-8112, e-mail: 

Kevin.OSullivan@nrc.gov)

In-Situ Leach

Uranium Milling

On June 5, 2009, the NRC placed 

a notice in the Federal Register 

concerning the availability 

of NUREG-1910, “Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement 

for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling 

Facilities–Final Report” (GEIS). The 

NRC staff prepared the GEIS with 

the assistance of a contractor, 

the Center for Nuclear Waste 

Regulatory Analyses, and the 

State of Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality. The NRC 

also issued a press release on 

June 4, 2009, regarding this matter.

In the GEIS, the NRC staff assessed 

the potential environmental 

impacts from the construction, 

operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning of in-situ leach 

(ISL) uranium milling facilities 

located in four specific regions of 

the western United States. The 

GEIS addressed environmental 

issues common to ISL milling 

facilities to aid in making more 

efficient environmental reviews of 

individual site-specific ISL license 

applications. The NRC staff will use 

the GEIS in environmental reviews 

of license applications for new ISL 

uranium milling facilities, as well 

as for applications for the renewals 

or amendments of current licenses 

for ISL facilities. Based on letters 

of intent from uranium recovery 

companies, industry may submit 

approximately 25 ISL-related 

applications for NRC review 

before October 2011. To date, 

the NRC has received five license 

applications for new ISL facilities, 

two applications for the expansion 

of currently licensed ISL facilities, 

and one application for the restart 

of an ISL facility on standby.

The final GEIS is available at 

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

doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1910/.

(Contact: James Park, FSME, 

301-415-6935, e-mail: 

James.Park@nrc.gov)

Reporting

Requirements

In recent months, the NRC 

staff has recognized that some 

confusion exists as to when 

industrial radiography licensees 

are required to make reports under 

10 CFR 30.50(b)(2). Specifically, 

some licensees are not making 

the required 24-hour notification 

for incidents in which the sealed 

source assembly does not return to 

the fully shielded position within 

the exposure device.

For example, one licensee could 

not retract the sealed source 

assembly within the exposure 

device because the safety latch 

mechanism tripped prematurely, 

locking the source assembly 

outside of the exposure device. 

The licensee determined that 

the cause of the safety latch 

malfunction resulted from 

sand deposits within the latch 
6

mechanism and decided not to 

make a 24-hour notification of 

the event because the device 

worked appropriately once the 

sand was blown out. However, 

10 CFR 30.50(b)(2) states, in part, 

that a 24-hour report is required 

when equipment is disabled or 

fails to function as designed when 

the equipment is required by 

regulations to prevent unnecessary 

exposures to radiation. The 

equipment is required to be 

operable when it is disabled or 

fails to function and no redundant 

equipment is available to perform 

the required safety function.

In the above example, the safety 

latch mechanism failed to function 

as designed, because the source 

assembly was locked outside of 

the exposure device instead 

of inside the device in the fully 

shielded position. This safety 

latch is required by regulations, 

as described in 10 CFR 34.20. 

Specifically, 10 CFR 34.20(c)(2) 

states that the radiography 

exposure device must automatically secure the source 

assembly when cranked back 

into the fully shielded position 

within the device; the safety latch 

is intended to fulfill this requirement. In addition, no redundant 

equipment was available to 

perform the function of the safety 

latch mechanism. Therefore, 

this event would require both 

a 24-hour notification under 

10 CFR 30.50(b)(2), as well as a 

30-day written report, described 

in 10 CFR 34.101 and in 

10 CFR 30.50(c)(2).

Another example of a radiography 

incident that is reportable under 

both 10 CFR 30.50(b)(2) and 

10 CFR 34.101 occurred in March 

2009 and involved a malfunction 

of the key-lock mechanism of the 

exposure device. In this event, the 

radiographer locked the device 

and removed the key before 

realizing that the source assembly 

was still outside of the exposure 

device in the unshielded position. 

Once locked, however, the 

radiographer was unable to unlock 

the device so that the source 

assembly could be returned to the 

shielded position. Encountering 

this scenario, the radiographer 

contacted the radiation safety 

officer, who in turn contacted 

the device manufacturer for 

assistance. Over the telephone, 

the device manufacturer 

explained the steps to dismantle 

the locking mechanism, and 

return the source assembly to 

the fully shielded position within 

the exposure device. From 

the manufacture’s comments, 

the licensee believed that the 

malfunction was caused by ice on 

the device and was not reportable 

under 10 CFR 30.52(b)(2). 

However, the NRC wants to point 

out that whether the cause of 

the inability to retract the source 

assembly was caused by sand, 

ice, or any other contaminant, the 

malfunction is still considered 

an inability to retract the source 

assembly and represents a failure 

of a safety mechanism on the 

exposure device to function as 

designed. Therefore, the licensee 

is required to report the incident 

to the NRC or Agreement States 

within 24 hours of the occurrence. 

(Contact: James L. Thompson, 

NRC, 817-276-6538, e-mail: 

James.Thompson@nrc.gov)

Third Review Meeting

During the week of May 11, 2009, 

FSME staff members participated 

in the Third Review Meeting of 

the Contracting Parties1

 on the 

Joint Convention for the Safety 

of Spent Fuel Management and 

on the Safety of Radioactive 

Waste Management (Joint 

Convention) at the International 

Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 

Vienna, Austria. The FSME staff 

performed technical reviews, 

provided technical support and 

presented the interests of the 

United States. 

As a Contracting Party member, 

the United States has benefited 

in many ways, such as by working 

with other Contracting Parties 

to harmonize international 

approaches to achieve strong 

and effective nuclear safety 

programs on a global scale. Also, 

U.S. participation has stimulated 

initiatives to improve safety 

systems within it’s own domestic 

programs while learning about 

technical innovations by other 

Contracting Parties that could be 

useful in managing safety and 

associated costs in U.S. spent 

fuel and waste management 

activities. U.S. participation 

in the Joint Convention has 

The Third Review Meeting Opening Session

1

A contracting party to the Joint Convention is an IAEA Member State that has ratified the Joint Convention before the peer review meetings.
7

also provided opportunities to 

identify future areas of bilateral 

and multilateral technical and 

regulatory cooperation with 

other Contracting Parties. The 

United States participated in the 

meeting to collaborate with other 

Contracting Parties concerning 

elements of successful regulatory 

program. 

A senior executive from the 

U.S. Department of Energy delivered 

the U.S. presentation, supported 

by staff from the NRC, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

and U.S. Department of State. The 

presentation addressed such safetyrelated points as the status of the 

proposed Yucca Mountain high-level 

waste repository, low-level waste 

disposal capacity, and management 

of greater than Class C low-level 

waste. The U.S. representatives 

participated actively and raised 

important questions, leading the 

other Contracting Parties to offer 

their thanks for providing greater 

clarity in understanding the different 

safety programs. The next Review 

Meeting will take place in 2012. 

(Contact: Mathews George, FSME, 

301-415-7065, email: 

Mathews.George@nrc.gov)

The Last Phase of

Waiver Terminations

The Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 

2005 gave the NRC regulatory 

authority over naturally occurring 

and accelerator-produced 

radioactive materials (NARM). 

The NRC’s final rule implementing 

this authority became effective on 

November 30, 2007 (72 FR 55863). 

While developing the regulatory 

framework, the NRC issued a waiver 

to licensees on August 31, 2005, 

which allowed continued use 

and possession of NARM. The 

NRC terminated the waiver in 

phases, with Phase 1 ending 

November 30, 2007, and Phase 2 

ending September 30, 2008. 

The final phase terminated on 

August 7, 2009 (74 FR 5797), and 

included Alaska, Connecticut, 

Hawaii, Michigan, New Jersey, 

and NRC licensees with 

headquarters in Canada. 

For non-Agreement States and 

U.S. territories, NARM users with 

new byproducts materials are 

required to apply for license 

amendments within 6 months 

(February 7, 2010) if they hold 

an NRC-specific byproduct 

materials license, or submit 

a license application within 

12 months (August 7, 2010) 

from the date the waiver is 

terminated. Existing NRC 

licensees should submit a new 

license application to obtain 

authorization for the production 

of radioactive materials using 

an accelerator. New NRC license 

applicants that are seeking 

authorization to produce 

radioactive materials using an 

accelerator should submit a 

license application as well as a 

separate license application for 

any other radioactive materials 

authorizations that they may be 

seeking (e.g., manufacturing of 

radiopharmaceuticals, medical 

use of byproduct material).

As of August 8, 2009, the State 

of New Jersey has approximately 

500 NARM licensees under the 

jurisdiction of the NRC. All 

persons that possess byproduct 

materials must be in compliance 

with NRC regulations, including 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. The NRC and the 

State of New Jersey are working 

toward an effective date in which 

the state would become An 

Agreement State with a target 

date of September 30, 2009. 

During this 7-week period, NRC 

staff will work closely with New 

Jersey regarding NARM activities. 

New Jersey and the NRC have 

agreed that the NARM licensees’ 

files will stay in New Jersey 

and the NRC will have access 

as needed. During this interim 

period, the impact to New Jersey 

NARM licensees will be minimal, 

since the New Jersey regulations 

that will come into force on the 

effective date of the Agreement 

are essentially the same as the 

NRC regulations they will replace. 

For more information on NARMrelated activities, access the 

“NARM Toolbox” at the FSME 

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

gov/narmtoolbox.html. 

(Contact: Shirley Xu, FSME, 

301-415-7640,

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

Employee Recognition

Congratulations to Ms. Patricia Pelke 

of the Region III Division of Nuclear 

Materials Safety for recently 

receiving the Chicago Federal 

Executive Board Outstanding 

Supervisory Award for 2009. The 

Federal Executive Board awards 

are presented in recognition 

of outstanding service by area 

Federal employees.

Currently, Ms. Pelke is the Chief 

of the Materials Licensing Branch 

in the Region III office. She has 

held a number of progressively 

responsible positions throughout 
8

her 28-year career with the NRC. 

Moreover, Ms. Pelke is a proud 

graduate of Purdue University.

Note to our Readers:

Paper Reduction

Do you want 

to reduce your 

environmental 

impact? Are you 

doing all you 

can to conserve 

paper? In these 

tough economic times, what ways 

can you help your organization 

maintain or stretch limited 

resources? 

By reducing the amount of paper 

used, an organization can benefit 

from potential savings and help 

the environment. Paper reduction 

not only saves natural resources, it 

also decreases office costs and the 

volume of office paper that needs 

to be handled.

Since most people read their 

e-mail, distributing information 

such as the FSME Newsletter by 

e-mail is a practical way to reduce 

paper consumption. E-mail 

also gives the advantage of fast 

delivery and the ability to forward 

copies to others. 

We want to do our part to reduce 

our carbon footprint and support 

greener business practices by 

reducing the number of paper 

copies of the FSME Newsletter. 

Please send your name and e-mail 

address, to FSME_Newsletter@

nrc.gov. Thank you for all your 

assistance and efforts. 

(Contact: Vanessa Cox, FSME, 

301-415-8342, e-mail: 

Vanessa.Cox@nrc.gov)

SIGNIFICANT 

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

Information about the NRC’s 

enforcement program can be 

accessed at http://www.nrc.

gov/about-nrc/regulatory/

enforcement/current.html under 

“Recently Issued Significant 

Enforcement Actions.” Documents 

related to cases can be accessed 

at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. ADAMS is the 

Agencywide 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.

Medical

S&M Testing Laboratory

(EA-08-332)

On June 8, 2009, the NRC issued 

an Order Imposing Civil Monetary 

Penalty to S&M Testing Laboratory 

(S&M). Because S&M failed to 

comply with an NRC letter dated 

March 23, 2009, the agency 

issued a Notice of Violation and 

Proposed Imposition of a Civil 

Penalty (Notice) in the amount of 

$16,250. S&M failed to respond 

to the Notice and the proposed 

civil penalties. The NRC issued the 

Notice for the licensee’s deliberate 

failure to confine possession of 

byproduct material to only those 

locations authorized by the NRC 

license; the deliberate failure to 

provide the NRC an opportunity 

to inspect byproduct material 

and the premises where the 

byproduct material was stored, 

as required by 10 CFR 30.52(a); 

and the failure to use a minimum 

of two independent physical 

controls that form tangible barriers 

to secure portable gauges from 

unauthorized removal whenever 

the gauges were not under the 

control and constant surveillance 

of the licensee, as required by 

10 CFR 30.34(i). Accordingly, the 

NRC concluded that the violation 

remains valid and issued an order 

imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in 

the amount of $16,250.

Central Indiana Cancer Centers

(EA-09-067)

On May 27, 2009, the NRC issued 

a Notice of Violation to Central 

Indiana Cancer Centers for a 

Severity Level (SL) III violation 

involving the failure to implement 

10 CFR 20.1802. Specifically, as 

of February 18, 2009, on several 

occasions while transporting a 

high dose-rate afterloader unit, 

the licensee left the unit in an 

unlocked vehicle for several 

minutes while retrieving other 

associated equipment. During 

these periods, the licensee did 

not control or maintain constant 

surveillance over the licensed 

material. 

Department of the Army 

Walter Reed Army Medical 

Center (EA-09-039)

On May 22, 2009, the NRC issued 

a Notice of Violation to Walter 

Reed Medical Center (WRAMC) for 

a Severity Level (SL) III problem 

Ms. Patricia Pelke of the Region III 

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety 
9

involving: (1) the failure to control 

radioactive material not in storage 

as required by 10 CFR 20.1802 and 

(2) a failure to provide adequate 

radiation safety instruction to a 

medical student who provided 

care to a brachytherapy patient; 

and a SL III violation involving a 

failure to provide event notification 

as required in a timely manner. 

Specifically, on November 14, 2008, 

the licensee lost control of 

the brachytherapy sources for 

approximately 5.5 hours when 

a medical student, who had not 

been trained on the safe handling 

and shielding of brachytherapy 

sources, inadvertently removed 

three ribbons containing 

iridium-192 from a patient’s 

bandage and improperly disposed 

of the sources. Consequently, 

the sources were improperly 

transported to the trash 

compactor, an uncontrolled 

area, on WRAMC’s hospital 

loading dock. In addition, WRAMC 

did not notify the NRC until 

November 19, 2008, 5 days 

after this event. 

Memorial Hospital of 

Sweetwater County (EA-09-071)

On May 14, 2009, the NRC issued 

a Notice of Violation to Memorial 

Hospital of Sweetwater County 

for a Severity Level III violation 

involving the failure to implement 

10 CFR 20.1801. Specifically, on 

February 12, 2009, the licensee 

stored radioactive materials in 

a hospital hot lab, a designated 

controlled area, and did not 

secure the materials therein from 

unauthorized removal or access by 

failing to lock the hot lab door. 

KAM Engineering Services, P.C. 

(EA-09-034)

On May 6, 2009, the NRC issued 

a Notice of Violation to KAM 

Engineering Services (KAM-ES) for 

two Severity Level III violations. 

The first violation involved the 

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. 

Specifically, from March 1, 2008, 

until January 21, 2009, KAM-ES, a 

holder of a North Carolina license, 

stored or used portable gauges 

in an area of exclusive Federal 

jurisdiction without a specific 

license issued by the NRC and did 

not file Form 241 with the NRC. 

The second violation involved a 

failure to use a minimum of two 

independent physical controls 

that form tangible barriers to 

secure portable gauges from 

unauthorized removal whenever 

the gauges were not under the 

control and constant surveillance 

of the licensee, as required by 

10 CFR 30.34(i). Specifically, 

KAM-ES periodically stored two 

portable gauges in a trailer-type 

container, and the trailer only 

had a single lock on the door to 

secure gauges from unauthorized 

removal whenever they were not 

under the control and constant 

surveillance of KAM-ES.

S&M Testing Laboratory

(EA-08-332)

On March 23, 2009, the NRC issued 

a Notice of Violation and Proposed 

Imposition of Civil Penalty in 

the amount of $16,250 to S&M 

Testing Laboratory (S&M) for three 

Severity Level III violations. The 

first violation involved a deliberate 

failure to confine possession of 

byproduct material to only 

those locations authorized by 

the NRC license. Specifically, 

from May 1, 2007, through 

September 23, 2008, S&M stored 

portable gauges at a location in 

Gurabo, Puerto Rico which was 

not an authorized storage 

location on the license. The 

second violation involved a 

deliberate failure to provide the 

NRC an opportunity to inspect 

byproduct material and the 

premises where the byproduct 

material was stored, as required 

by 10 CFR 30.52(a). Specifically, 

from May 1, 2007, through 

August 6, 2008, S&M failed to 

respond to NRC letters and 

telephone calls that requested 

information regarding licensed 

activities and storage of licensed 

material. The third violation 

involved a failure to use a 

minimum of two independent 

physical controls that form 

tangible barriers to secure portable 

gauges from unauthorized 

removal whenever the gauges 

were not under the control and 

constant surveillance of the 

licensee, as required by 

10 CFR 30.34(i). Specifically, 

between May 1, 2007, and 

September 23, 2008, the portable 

gauges were stored in locked 

metal boxes located in an 

unrestricted area, but the keys 

to the boxes were left in another 

unrestricted area. During this 

period, the gauges were not 

under the control and constant 

surveillance of S&M. 

Quality Inspection Services, Inc. 

(EA-08-158) 

On March 10, 2009, the NRC 

issued a Confirmatory Order 

(effective immediately) to Quality 

Inspection Services, Inc. to 
10

confirm commitments made as 

a result of an Alternative Dispute 

Resolution (ADR) settlement 

agreement. QISI requested an 

ADR after receiving a Notice of 

Violation and Proposed Civil 

Penalty in the amount of $6,500 from 

the NRC on September 15, 2008. 

The NRC issued the notice 

because the licensee willfully 

violated 10 CFR 34.71, in its failure 

to maintain utilization logs of 

radiographic activities and three 

other related violations. As part 

of the agreement, QISI agreed 

to take a number of actions, 

including revising its existing 

Operations and Emergency 

Manual, adding a radiation 

safety component to its existing 

newsletter, developing a video 

presentation at a national 

industry conference, increasing 

audits of the radiographers’ 

working areas, and conducting 

an inquiry of all radiographers 

during the next two annual 

radiation safety program reviews. 

In recognition of QISI’s proposed 

extensive corrective actions and 

actions already taken, the NRC 

agreed to reduce the civil penalty 

originally proposed to $500. 

Radiography

Advex Corporation (EA-09-030)

On July 2, 2009, the NRC issued 

a Notice of Violation for two 

Severity Level III violations to 

Advex Corporation (Advex). The 

first violation involved the failure 

of an assistant radiographer 

to wear an alarming ratemeter 

while performing radiography, 

as described in Condition 19 of 

Advex’s license. Specifically, on 

January 22, 2008, an assistant 

radiographer worked in a restricted 

area (permanent radiography 

vault) and did not wear an alarm 

ratemeter. The second violation 

involved the deliberate failure of 

the lead radiographer and the 

assistant radiographer to follow 

the Operating & Emergency 

(O&E) Procedure and 10 CFR 

34.47(d) requirements when 

the assistant radiographer had 

an off-scale pocket dosimeter. 

Specifically, on January 22, 2008, 

neither individual notified the 

radiation safety officer after 

the radiographers realized the 

assistant radiographer’s dosimeter 

was off scale. The assistant did not 

remove himself from the restricted 

area, and he was allowed to 

continue working with and around 

radioactive material although the 

radiation safety officer had not 

authorized his return to work, as 

required by the O&E procedure 

and 10 CFR 34.47(d). 

Individual Actions

Jennifer O’Neill-Torres 

(IA-08-072)

On March 23, 2009, the NRC 

issued an Order to Ms. Jennifer 

O’Neil-Torres who is the radiation 

safety officer, president, and owner 

of S&M Testing Laboratory (S&M), 

prohibiting her from involvement 

in NRC-licensed activities for a 

period of 5 years from the date the 

Order was issued. The NRC issued 

the Order based on her 

engagement in deliberate 

misconduct, that 

caused the licensee to be in 

violation of 10 CFR 30.34(c) and 

10 CFR 30.52(a). Specifically, 

Ms. O’Neill-Torres deliberately 

failed to obtain NRC approval via 

an amendment to S&M’s NRC 

license to authorize storage of 

licensed gauges at an alternate 

location before moving all gauges 

from an authorized storage 

location to an unauthorized 

storage location. She failed to 

provide the NRC an opportunity to 

inspect the gauges, failed to 

respond to repeated contact 

attempts by the NRC, and refused 

to provide an NRC inspector 

information regarding the licensed 

gauges, including their location 

and conditions of storage. In this 

case, she not only deliberately 

failed to respond to repeated 

NRC correspondence and 

communication attempts, but 

also failed to address or correct 

the violations. 

Dhiraj Soni (IA-08-022)

On February 10, 2009, the NRC 

issued an Immediately Effective 

Order to Mr. Dhiraj Soni, vice 

president of Eastern Testing and 

Inspection Inc. (ETI), to prohibit 

him from involvement in NRClicensed activities for a period of 1-year 

from the date the Order went into 

effect. The NRC issued the 

Order because Mr. Dhiraj Soni 

violated 10 CFR 30.10, when he 

caused ETI, to be in violation 

of 10 CFR 30.9, in two separate 

communications to the NRC 

regarding its actions toward 

compliance with an NRC Order. 

Mr. Dhiraj Soni also engaged in 

deliberate misconduct in violation 

of 10 CFR 30.10 by deliberately 

providing inaccurate information in 

verbal statements made to an NRC 

inspector on September 20, 2006. 

Himat Soni (IA-08-023)

On February 10, 2009, the NRC 

issued an Effective Order to 

Mr. Himat Soni, president and 

part owner of Eastern Testing and 

Inspection, Inc. (ETI), to prohibit 

him from involvement in 
11

NRC-licensed activities for a period 

of 1-year from the date the Order 

went into effect. The NRC issued 

the Order because Mr. Himat Soni 

violated 10 CFR 30.10, when he 

caused ETI to be in violation of an 

NRC Order.

(Contact: Michele Burgess, FSME, 

301-415-5868, e-mail: 

Michele.Burgess@nrc.gov)

GENERIC 

COMMUNICATIONS 

ISSUED

(March 31, 2009-June 30, 2009)

The following are summaries of 

the NRC generic communications 

issued by FSME. If any 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. 

Bulletins 

None.

Generic Letters 

None.

Information Notices (INs)

The NRC issued IN 2009-07, 

“Withholding of Proprietary 

Information from Public 

Disclosure,” on March 30, 2009, 

to all current holders of and 

potential applicants for licenses, 

certificates of compliance, 

permits, or standard design 

certifications, as well as any other 

persons submitting a request 

that information be withheld 

from public disclosure under the 

provisions of CFR 2.390. 

(Technical Contact: T.D. Naquin, 

NMSS, 301-492-3187, e-mail: 

Tyrone.Naquin@nrc.gov)

Regulatory Issue Summaries (RIS)

The NRC issued RIS 2009-05, 

“Uranium Recovery Policy 

Regarding: (1) The Process for 

Scheduling Licensing Reviews of 

Applications for New Uranium 

Recovery Facilities, and (2) The 

Restoration of Groundwater at 

Licensed Uranium In-Situ Recovery 

Facilities” on April 29, 2009. 

The NRC issued this RIS to all 

holders of operating licenses for 

uranium recovery facilities and all 

companies who have submitted 

applications to construct new 

uranium recovery facilities of all 

types (conventional mills, heap 

leach operations, and in situ 

recovery facilities) or letters of 

intent to submit such applications. 

(Technical Contact: Bill von Till, 

FSME, 301-415-0598, e-mail: 

Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov).

The NRC issued RIS 2009-07, 

“Status Update for the 

Implementation of NRC 

Regulatory Authority for 

Certain Naturally Occurring 

and Accelerator-Produced 

Radioactive Material” on 

May 7, 2009. The NRC issued 

this RIS to all NRC material and 

fuel cycle licensees along with 

all Radiation Control Program 

Directors and State Liaison Officers. 

(Technical Contact: Shirley Xu, 

FSME, 301-415-7640, e-mail: 

Shirley.Xu@nrc.gov)

(General Contact: Angela R. McIntosh, 

FSME, 301-415-5030, email: 

Angela.McIntosh@nrc.gov)

SIGNIFICANT EVENT

Date and Place: February 3, 2009, 

Richland, WA

Nature and Probable Causes: 

On February 12, 2009, the licensee

 sent an employee for a lung 

bioassay because airborne 

contamination levels exceeded 

action levels. The employee’s first 

lung count detected an average of 

approximately 14.8 becquerels 

(Bq) (0.4 nanocuries (nCi) of 

americium-241 (Am-241)). 

Assuming exposure occurred 

10 days earlier (based on 

postexposure investigation 

findings), the intake was 

approximately 70 Bq (1.9 nCi) of 

Am-241. In the United States, the 

annual limit on intake for Am-241 

is 222 Bq (6 nCi) (1 micron activity 

median aerodynamic diameter 

particle size). The estimated dose 

was about one-third of the annual 

limit, or 0.16 sievert (Sv) (16 radiation 

equivilent in man (rem)) committed 

dose equivalent, which exceeded 

the statutory annual limit of 0.5 Sv 

(50 rem). The worker had previous 

whole-body exposure, but this 

added amount did not cause the 

statutory limit to be exceeded.

On March 25, 2009, the licensee 

employer informed the Washington 

State Department of Health that 

further testing necessitated a 

revision to the original calculated 

dose and the new calculated dose 

would exceed the 0.5 Sv (50 rem) 

committed dose equivalent limit. 

The licensee employer assumed 

that the date of exposure was 

February 3, 2009. Fecal bioassay 

results from one other employee 

who was also in the containment 

showed a small amount of activity, 

and a dose was assigned to this 

second worker that did not exceed 
12

regulatory limits. The second 

employee’s lung bioassay was less 

than detection limits.

On June 22, 2009, the licensee 

informed the Washington State 

Department of Health that 

the committed effective dose 

equivalent for the employee was 

68 millisieverts (mSv) (6.8 rem) and 

the committed dose equivalent 

was 1.2 Sv (120 rem) to the bone 

surface. The employee’s deep dose 

equivalent from his dosimetry 

for the first quarter of 2009 was 

0.3 mSv (30 mrem). Intake was 

calculated using the methodology 

of the International Commission 

on Radiological Protection 30, 

modified for clearance function. 

Intake for Am-241 was calculated 

from lung deposition and calculated 

clearance rates. Intake of plutonium 

was inferred from excreta bioassay 

results and assumed ratios of 

Am-241 to plutonium. The dose 

was calculated using the computer 

based internal dosimetry code 

(CINDY) version 1.2. The particle 

size was considered, and a 1-micron 

activity median aerodynamic 

diameter was chosen as the most 

appropriate particle size. 

Although the exact cause of the 

incident is unknown, the assumed 

cause is a failure of the respiratory 

protection system.

The licensee implemented 

several corrective actions. These 

include: testing each worker with 

a challenge gas before high-risk 

work; implementing increased 

engineering controls to mitigate 

airborne contaminants; providing 

training using phosphorescent 

powder and black lights for 

workers; performing more 

frequent bioassay samples, 

including nasal smears for 

immediate detection of intakes; 

using supplied air respirators 

for high-risk work; and training 

workers, managers and health 

physics staff. The licensee resumed 

work in the area, and no further 

exposures have occurred. 

(Contact: Angela R. McIntosh, 

FSME, 301-415-5030, e-mail: 

Angela.McIntosh@nrc.gov)

SELECTED FEDERAL 

REGISTER NOTICES

Notice of Availability of Draft 

NUREG-1536, Revision 1A, 

“Standard Review Plan for Spent 

Fuel Dry Storage Systems at a 

General License Facility,” and 

Opportunity to Provide Comments 

(NRC-2009-0164), 74 FR 17546 and 

74 FR 17696, April 15, 2009.

(Contact: Ron Parkhill, NMSS, 

301-492-3324, fax number: 

301-492–3342, e-mail:

ron.parkhill@nrc.gov)

Physical Protection of Byproduct 

Material (availability of preliminary 

draft rule language) (RIN AI12) 

(NRC-2008-0120), 74 FR 17794, 

April 17, 2009.

(Contact: Merri Horn, FSME, 

301-415-8126, e-mail: 

Merri.Horn@nrc.gov)

Physical Protection of Byproduct 

Material (availability of preliminary 

draft rule language) (RIN AI12) 

(NRC-2008-0120), 74 FR 20235, 

May 1, 2009.

(Contact: Robert MacDougall, 

FSME, 301-415-5175, e-mail: 

robert.macdougall@nrc.gov) 

Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulatory and Deregulatory 

Actions, 74 FR 22070, May 11, 2009.

(Contact: Michael T. Lesar, ADM, 

301-492-3663, e-mail: 

Michael.Lesar@nrc.gov)

Draft Regulatory Guide: Issuance, 

Availability (DG-1237) (NRC-2008-

0122), 74 FR 23220, May 18, 2009, 

Enhancements to Emergency 

Preparedness Regulations (NRC2008-0122), 74 FR 23253, May 18, 2009, 

and

Draft Regulatory Guide: Issuance, 

Availability; Correction (RG 1237) 

(NRC-2008-0122), 74 FR 24884, 

May 26, 2009.

(Contact: Steven F. LaVie, NSIR, 

301-415-1081, e-mail: 

Steven.LaVie@nrc.gov)

List of Approved Spent Fuel 

Storage Casks: HI-STORM 100 

Revision 6 (RIN AI60) (NRC-2009-

0132), 74 FR 26285, June 2, 2009, 

and 

List of Approved Spent Fuel 

Storage Casks: HI-STORM 100, 

Revision 6 (RIN AI60) (NRC-2009-

0132), 74 FR 26310, June 2, 2009.

(Contact: Jayne M. McCausland, 

FSME, 301-415-6219, e-mail: 

Jayne.McCausland@nrc.gov)

Notice of Issuance of Regulatory 

Guide (RG 3.52, Rev. 2) (NRC-2008-

0506), 74 FR 26737, June 3, 2009.

(Contact: Breeda Reilly, NMSS, 

301-492-3110, e-mail: 

Breeda.Reilly@nrc.gov)
13

NRC Enforcement Policy Revision 

(NRC-2008-0497), 74 FR 27191, 

June 8, 2009.

(Contact: Doug Starkey, OE, 

301-415-3456, e-mail: 

Doug.Starkey@nrc.gov)

List of Approved Spent Fuel 

Storage Casks: Transnuclear, 

Inc., Standard NUHOMS System, 

Revision 10 (RIN AI62) (NRC-2009-

0162), 74 FR 27423, June 10, 2009.

(Contact: Jayne M. McCausland, 

FSME, 301-415-6219, e-mail: 

Jayne.McCausland@nrc.gov)

and 

List of Approved Spent Fuel 

Storage Casks: Transnuclear, 

Inc., Standard NUHOMS System, 

Revision 10 (RIN AI62) (NRC-2009-

0162), 74 FR 27469, June 10, 2009.

(Contact: Jayne M. McCausland, 

FSME 301-415-6219, e-mail: 

Jayne.McCausland@nrc.gov)

Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee 

Recovery for FY 2009 (RIN AI52) 

(NRC-2008-0620), 74 FR 27641, 

June 10, 2009. 

(Contact: Rebecca I. Erickson, 

OCF, 301-415-7126, e-mail: 

Rebecca.Erickson@NRC.gov)

Export and Import of Nuclear 

Equipment and Material; Updates 

and Clarifications (RIN AI16) 

(NRC-2008-0567), 74 FR 29614, 

June 23, 2009.

(Contact: Brooke G. Smith, OIP, 

301-415-2347, e-mail: 

brooke.smith@nrc.gov)

Limiting the Quantity of 

Byproduct Material in a Generally 

Licensed Device, (RIN 3150-A133) 

(NRC-2008-0272), 74 FR 38372, 

August 3, 2009.

(Contact: Solomon Sahle, FSME, 

301-415-3781, e-mail: 

solomon.sahle@nrc.gov)

Designated E-mail 

Address for Identified

Errors IN NUREG-1556 

DOCUMENTS

Occasionally, stakeholders have 

identified typographical errors or 

inconsistencies in the NUREG-1556 

“Consolidated Guidance About 

Materials Licenses.” The NRC 

invites stakeholders to submit 

suggested corrections to any 

of the 21 volumes of the 

NUREG-1556 series to a 

designated e-mail address, 

nureg1556.resource@nrc.gov. 

(Contact: Lisa Dimmick, FSME, 

301-415-0694, e-mail: 

lisa.dimmick@nrc.gov)

NOTE TO READERS: In our attempt to keep the FSME Licensee Newsletter interesting and relevant, we welcome 

your useful and informative feedback on the contents of the newsletter. If you would like to suggest topics, 

provide bulletins and/or Web site postings, or even write an article with pictures and/or self-explanatory diagrams, 

please contact Vanessa Cox or Gwendolyn Davis, FSME Rulemaking Branch A. Ms. Cox may be contacted at 

301-415-8342 or Vanessa.Cox@nrc.gov. Ms. Davis may be contacted at 301-415-8165 or Gwendolyn.Davis@nrc.gov. 

In addition, to ensure that you receive your FSME Licensee Newsletter, please report any address or e-mail changes 

to Ms. Cox to prevent any interruption of service at FSME_Newsletter@nrc.gov.

Please send written correspondence to: 

Vanessa Cox, 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