U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory 

Commission

Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety

and Safeguards

NUREG/BR-0117

No. 02-2

June 2002

PUBLICATION OF 10 CFR PART 35, 

“MEDICAL USE OF BYPRODUCT 

MATERIAL”

On April 24, 2002, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) published, in the Federal 

Register, the revised final rule of 10 CFR Part 35, 

“Medical Use of Byproduct Material.” This final 

rule, designed to be both risk-informed and more 

performance-based, focuses the regulations on the 

medical procedures that pose higher risks to workers, 

patients, and the public, from a radiation-safety 

perspective. The regulations also eliminate some 

of the previous detailed requirements for those who 

perform lower-risk diagnostic medical procedures, 

such as bone or thyroid scans. This regulation 

becomes effective 6 months after the publication 

date in the Federal Register (i.e., by October 24, 

2002). The Agreement States will have 3 years to 

implement the final rule after the publication date in 

the Federal Register.

Highlights of the revised rule are:

(1) Patient notification/reportable events—

Under the revised regulations, the term “medical 

event,” referring to the administration of radioactive 

materials in a manner that differs substantially 

from the physician’s direction, replaces the previous 

term “misadministration.” The regulations continue 

to require that, when a medical event occurs, the 

licensee must notify NRC, the referring physician, 

and the affected patient, unless the referring 

physician personally informs the licensee either that 

he will inform the individual or that, based on 

medical judgment, telling the individual would be 

harmful. Previously, the licensee was required to 

provide a written description of the medical event 

regardless of whether it was requested. Under the 

revision, the patient must be informed that such 

a description can be obtained from the licensee. 

Also, under the revision, if the physician is not the 

licensee, the licensee must provide a copy of the 

medical event record to the referring physician.

NMSS Licensee Newsletter

(June 2002)

Contents Page

1. Publication of 10 CFR Part 35, “Medical 

Use of Byproduct Material” . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Status of Gas Centrifuge Enrichment 

Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3. Dosimetry Processing Laboratories—

Revision of ANSI Standard for 

Proficiency Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4. Use of NUREG-1556, “Consolidated 

Guidance About Materials Licenses,” by

Licensees, Applicants, and Agreement 

State Regulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

5. Significant Enforcement Actions . . . . . . . . 6

6. Significant Events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

7. Generic Communications Issued 

(February 1, 2002–April 30, 2002) . . . . . . 7

8. Selected Federal Register Notices 

(March 1, 2002–March 31, 2002) . . . . . . . 7

NMSS Licensee Newsletter
2 

(2) Radiation Safety Committee—

Under the revised regulations, the Radiation Safety 

Committee is responsible for broad oversight of 

the uses of certain radioactive materials. However, 

the current specific responsibilities of the Radiation 

Safety Committee have been transferred from the 

Committee to licensee management. A Committee 

is still required for certain medical licensees 

performing two or more higher-risk activities, 

such as those used in the treatment of cancer. 

The regulations specify radiation safety goals or 

objectives for the Committee, but allow licensee 

management flexibility in implementing those goals.

(3) Physician’s written directions—

Detailed requirements for a medical licensee to have 

a quality management program have been deleted. 

Instead, the revised regulations require that licensees 

have written procedures for those activities involving 

higher risk. Licensees must develop and maintain 

procedures to provide high confidence that the right 

patient receives the correct dose at the correct 

treatment site, consistent with the physician’s written 

instructions.

(4) Training and experience—

Some of the training requirements for individuals 

performing diagnostic procedures using radioactive 

materials in unsealed form have been reduced, 

consistent with the lower risk associated with these 

procedures. However, the revised regulations retain 

the current training requirements for individuals 

using sealed sources of radioactive material for 

therapeutic administrations because of the higher 

risk associated with using these types of material. 

The training and experience requirements contained 

in Subpart J of the current regulation are also being 

retained for a 2-year transition period from the 

effective date of the revised rule. For Agreement 

States, this 2-year transition period begins on 

the effective date of the revised rule and runs 

concurrently with the 3-year timeframe for adopting 

a compatible medical rule.

The revised rule also addresses a petition for 

rulemaking filed by the University of Cincinnati. 

The petition requested a 5-millisievert (mSv) 

(500-millirem) radiation dose limit for certain 

individuals (whom the physicians have determined 

are necessary for the patients’ physical or emotional 

support) visiting patients who are required to be 

confined to the hospital while receiving radiation 

treatment. The response to the petition, incorporated 

into the rule, allows physicians the discretion to 

permit visitors to receive up to 5 mSv (500 millirem) 

from exposure to a hospitalized patient. The current 

limit of 1 mSv (100 millirems) per year for visitors 

is the same as for members of the public under other 

circumstances. The Agency believes the emotional 

benefits to the patients and the visitors outweigh 

any small increases in radiation risk to the 

visitors, and, accordingly, physicians should be 

provided the flexibility to make decisions regarding 

patients’ visitors. In addition, the revised rule 

adds a requirement for reporting unintended 

medical radiation exposure of an embryo, fetus, or 

nursing child.

Revised Part 35 can be viewed at:

http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/

library?source=*&library=final_lib&file=*

(Contact: Roger W. Broseus, 301-415-7608; e-mail: 

rwb@nrc.gov)

STATUS OF GAS CENTRIFUGE 

ENRICHMENT ACTIVITIES

Background

Enrichment of uranium in the United States has 

been performed since the 1950s at three gaseous 

diffusion plants in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Piketon, 

Ohio; and Paducah, Kentucky. Currently, only 

the Paducah plant, operated by U.S. Enrichment 

Corporation (USEC), is still enriching uranium in 

the U.S. Gaseous diffusion technology has been 

effectively used over the last 50 years, but is energyintensive and more expensive than the gas centrifuge 

enrichment currently being used by Urenco in the 

United Kingdom, Germany, and The Netherlands. 

Over the last 15 years, uranium enrichment has 

become a very competitive industry. Until 1998, 

the Federal government operated the enrichment 

plants in the U.S. under the auspices of the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE), and its predecessors, 

and USEC, as a Federal corporation. In 1998, the 

Federal government privatized USEC through an 

Initial Public Offering process.
3

In the 1980s, DOE developed a gas centrifuge 

program, including construction of a test cascade at 

the Piketon enrichment plant. However, in 1986, 

DOE decided to drop gas centrifuge in favor of the 

Advanced Vapor Laser Isotope Separation (AVLIS) 

process. Research on the AVLIS process continued 

until 2000, when USEC, which had acquired the 

rights to the process in its privatization, decided to 

terminate the program because it did not believe 

a full-scale plant would provide an adequate rate 

of return on its investment. Instead, USEC began 

to reconsider gas centrifuge technology as a more 

practical advanced enrichment technology to replace 

the gaseous diffusion process.

In the early 1990s, Urenco teamed up with 

several U.S. utilities to form the Louisiana Energy 

Services (LES) partnership. LES submitted a license 

application for a 1.5 million Separative Work Unit 

(SWU) plant to be sited in Homer, Louisiana. As 

a result of an extended licensing hearing process, in 

1998, LES decided to terminate the licensing action.

The LES Program

In December 2001, LES informed the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) that it intended 

to submit, in 2002, a license application for a 

gas centrifuge plant, using the technology it had 

developed in Europe.

LES considers that there was a market need for lowcost, reliable enrichment capacity within the U.S. 

Based on LES experience in using gas centrifuge 

enrichment in Europe, it wants to license and 

construct at least a 3-million SWU plant and begin 

production in 2007. The plant would consist of six 

500,000-SWU cascades.

The LES partnership is made up of limited and 

general partners currently consisting of Urenco, 

Exelon, Duke Power, Louisiana Power and Light, 

and Fluor Daniel. The partnership intends to use 

sixth-generation Urenco gas centrifuge technology 

that is currently operating in Europe. Presently, 

Urenco has a capacity of about 5 million SWU 

(about 15 percent of the world enrichment market) 

and provides enrichment services in Western Europe, 

the U.S., and Asia. 

LES plans to submit, to NRC, a license application 

and an environmental report in 2002. LES projects 

license approval in the second or third quarter 

of Calendar Year (CY) 2004, with construction 

beginning in third or fourth quarter CY 2004. The 

first 500,000-SWU cascade is planned to be on-line 

by the end of CY 2006. Full capacity is projected 

to be in 2010 or 2011, depending on market demand. 

LES has not yet selected a site for its enrichment 

facility, but indicated it would be co-located with an 

existing nuclear facility.

The USEC Program

In January 2002, USEC informed NRC, that it would 

submit a license application for a lead cascade plant 

in late 2002. The lead cascade will be based on 

DOE Advanced Gas Centrifuge technology. In the 

1980s, more than 1300 gas centrifuges were installed 

and 700 operated with uranium hexafluoride at 

the Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant in Piketon, 

Ohio. About 100 machines operated for 9 months. 

The USEC objective is to replicate the existing 

technology and reduce costs using advances in 

carbon fiber and other material and manufacturing 

technologies. It is not to develop a new technology.

The USEC program would be performed in three 

phases: (1) a demonstration program under DOE 

auspices and regulatory control; (2) the lead cascade 

phase; and a (3) commercial deployment phase. The 

demonstration phase is intended to obtain detailed 

test data for the gas centrifuge machines. The lead 

cascade program is intended to provide reliability 

information on the machines and auxiliary systems 

as it would be used in commercial operations. 

The plant would recycle tails and product with no 

production withdrawals except for sampling. Up to 

240 gas centrifuge machines would be used in the 

lead cascade and have a possession limit of 250 kg 

(500 lbs) uranium hexafluoride at an enrichment 

level consistent with the current gaseous diffusion 

plants. The commercial plant would have a capacity 

of 3.5 million SWU per year, with up to 10 percent 

enrichment. USEC plans to submit a license 

application for the commercial-scale license in 2004. 

At this time, USEC has not decided on sites for the 

two facilities. A siting decision would be made as 

part of preparing the license application.
4 

(Contact: Timothy Johnson, 301-415-7299; e-mail: 

tcj@nrc.gov)

DOSIMETRY PROCESSING 

LABORATORIES—REVISION OF ANSI 

STANDARD FOR PROFICIENCY 

TESTING 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

and the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, through an Interagency Agreement, 

provide an accreditation program for processors of 

personnel dosimeters. That accreditation program 

is known as the National Voluntary Laboratory 

Accreditation Program (NVLAP) for Ionizing 

Radiation Dosimetry. NRC’s regulations (10 CFR 

20.1501) require that personnel dosimeters that 

need to be processed to determine dose must be 

processed and evaluated by a dosimetry processor 

that holds current personnel dosimetry accreditation 

from NVLAP. 

The standard used by NVLAP for testing and 

accrediting personnel dosimetry processors has 

been revised. The revised standard, ANSI/HPS 

N13.11-2001, “Personnel Dosimetry Performance—

Criteria for Testing,” has been adopted by NVLAP 

in the accreditation process. The phase-in period 

will begin July 1, 2002, and conclude June 30, 

2004. During the phase-in period, dosimetryprocessing laboratories will be tested against the 

revised standard when their normal accreditation 

dates come due. Any laboratory that fails the 

proficiency test because of changes made in the 

revised standard will not have its accreditation 

suspended, but will be given the opportunity to retest 

and pass those failed categories before June 30, 

2004, to maintain accredited status. However, any 

failure of proficiency testing during this phase-in 

period not attributable to changes in the test standard 

could affect the laboratory’s accreditation status, as 

is the current practice. 

A copy of the revised standard, ANSI/HPS 

N13.11-2001, is available for a fee from the 

Health Physics Society at the following internet 

address: http://www.hps.org. For further 

information on the implementation of the revised 

standard, contact Carroll S. Brickenkamp, National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, Department 

of Commerce, NVLAP, Building 820, Room 286, 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899, telephone 301- 975-4291, 

e-mail: cbrickenkamp@nist.gov. 

(Contact: Betty Ann Torres, 301-415-0191; e-mail: 

bat@nrc.gov)

USE OF NUREG-1556, “CONSOLIDATED 

GUIDANCE ABOUT MATERIALS 

LICENSES,” BY LICENSEES, 

APPLICANTS AND AGREEMENT STATE 

REGULATORS

Note: This is a reprint of an article from the 

December 2001-January 2002 issue.

The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) has produced a series of technical reports 

(NUREG-1556 series, “Consolidated Guidance 

about Materials Licenses”) providing programspecific guidance. The series contains 20 volumes 

intended to facilitate the processes of license 

application, NRC review of applications, renewal of 

licenses, and NRC inspection of licensees. This 

series of NUREGs also provides a comprehensive 

source of reference information about materials 

regulations for those involved in various aspects of 

licensed materials use. The NUREGs are reviewed 

and, if necessary, revised every 3 years.

All 20 NUREGs, with the exception of Volume 

9, “Program-Specific Guidance About Medical Use 

Licenses,” have been published in final form. 

Volume 9 will be issued for a 60-day public 

comment period and finalized after comments have 

been considered. Development of the NUREG-1556 

series supports NRC’s performance goals of 

maintaining safety, improving public confidence, and 

increasing efficiency, effectiveness, and realism, as 

well as reducing unnecessary regulatory burden.

NRC strongly encourages current licensees, 

applicants for licenses, and Agreement State 

regulators to use the NUREG-1556 guidance 

documents in preparing new and renewal 

applications. We believe that use of these documents 

will make the NRC staff’s review of these 

applications and inspections more effective and 

efficient. It is particularly important that licensees 

and applicants use these documents, because they 
5

supersede much of the guidance previously used 

for licensing. NRC’s report, “Phase II—Byproduct 

Materials Review,” August 2001, specifically 

recommended that NRC take a pro-active posture 

by encouraging licensees to use the NUREG-1556 

documents as a means of improving the process 

for materials licensing. Future license renewal 

letters will strongly request that licensees use the 

NUREG-1556 documents in preparing applications.

The NUREGs are available electronically by visiting 

NRC’s Home Page (http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1556/). For your 

convenience, a list of these NUREGs follows:

Vol. No. Volume Title Final Published

1, Rev. 1 “Program-Specific Guidance about Portable Gauge Licenses” 11/01

2 “Program-Specific Guidance about Radiography Licenses” 08/98

3 “Applications for Sealed Source and Device Evaluation and Registration” 07/98

4 “Program-Specific Guidance about Fixed Gauge Licenses” 10/98

5 “Program-Specific Guidance about Self-Shielded Irradiators” 10/98

6 “Program-Specific Guidance about 10 CFR Part 36 Irradiators” 01/99

7 “Program-Specific Guidance about Academic, Research and Development, and 

Other Licenses of Limited Scope” 12/99

8 “Program-Specific Guidance about Exempt Distribution Licenses” 09/98

9 “Program-Specific Guidance about Medical Use Licenses” Draft

10 “Program-Specific Guidance about Master Material Licenses” 12/00

11 “Program-Specific Guidance about Licenses of Broad Scope” 04/99

12 “Program-Specific Guidance about Possession Licenses for Manufacturing and 

Distribution” 12/00

13 “Program-Specific Guidance about Commercial Radiopharmacy Licenses” 09/99

14 “Program-Specific Guidance about Well Logging, Tracer, and Field Flood Study 

Licenses” 06/00

15 “Guidance about Changes of Control and about Bankruptcy Involving Byproduct, 

Source, or Special Nuclear Materials Licenses” 11/00

16 “Program-Specific Guidance about Licenses Authorizing Distribution to General 

Licensees” 12/00

17 “Program-Specific Guidance about Licenses for Special Nuclear Material of Less 

Than Critical Mass” 11/00

18 “Program-Specific Guidance about Service Provider Licenses” 11/00

19 “Guidance for Agreement State Licensees Proposing to Work in NRC Jurisdiction 

(Non-Agreement States, Areas of Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, or Offshore Waters) 

and Guidance for NRC Licensees Proposing to Work in Agreement State Jurisdiction 

(Reciprocity)” 12/00

20 “Guidance about Administrative Licensing Procedures” 12/00

(Contact: Carrie Brown, 301-415-8092; e-mail: cxb@nrc.gov)
6 

limit access to, licensed material [approximately 1.3 

gigabecquerels (34 millicuries) of cobalt-60] and the 

failure to control and maintain constant surveillance 

of this licensed material.

Individual Actions 

Gerald Williams (IA 01-049)

On December 3, 2001, a Notice of Violation was 

issued for a Severity Level III violation involving an 

individual’s activities while employed at Centennial 

Engineering & Research, Inc. The individual 

deliberately caused his employer to be in violation 

of NRC requirements when he failed to: (1) submit 

an amendment request to reflect the designation 

of a new radiation safety officer; and (2) confine 

possession of byproduct material to the location 

authorized by the license.

(Contact: Sally Merchant, 301-415-2747; e-mail: 

slm2@nrc.gov)

SIGNIFICANT EVENTS

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

is providing summaries of these events to inform 

licensees of conditions they may encounter and of 

actions that may be taken to deal with them.

Event 1: Gamma Stereotactic Radiosurgery 

(Gamma Knife) Medical Event at Saint Luke’s 

Medical Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Date and Place: July 10, 2001; Saint Luke’s 

Medical Center; Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Nature and Probable Consequences: The licensee 

reported a medical event involving a patient who 

received a Cobalt-60 gamma knife treatment to the 

wrong treatment site. Two patients were prepared 

for treatment, but the wrong treatment plan was 

used for the first patient. Approximately 3.5 

treatment fractions (of a total of eight fractions) 

were administered to the wrong site before it was 

discovered that the wrong treatment plan was being 

used. The patient received approximately 1280 

centigray (rad) to the 50% isodose line, over a short 

period of time, to a small area of the brain. The 

patient subsequently received the correct treatment. 

SIGNIFICANT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) 

enforcement program can be accessed via the 

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) 

homepage [http://www.nrc.gov/] under “What We 

Do.” Cases are listed under “Enforcement 

Documents,” which can be accessed at http:/

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

enforcement/. Additionally, 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, telephones: 301-415-4737, or 

1-800-397-4209. 

Medical

Providence Hospital (EA 01-157)

On March 22, 2002, a Notice of Violation was 

issued for a Severity Level III problem based on 

multiple failures involving the licensee’s quality 

management program for the strontium-90 eye 

applicator program, which had resulted in 14 

misadministrations.

González Martínez Oncologic Hospital

EA-02-001 and EA-02-002

On March 12, 2002, a Notice of Violation and 

Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount 

of $7500 was issued for a Severity Level III problem 

involving multiple violations associated with the 

failure to secure (loss of) licensed material [a 

radioactive implant containing approximately 3.6 

gigabecquerels (97 millicuries) of cesium-137], for 

approximately 19 hours. A Notice of Violation was 

also issued for a Severity Level III violation, for 

failure to notify NRC of the missing material within 

the required time limit.

Other

Department of the Army (EA 02-017)

On March 28, 2002, a Notice of Violation was 

issued for a Severity Level III violation involving 

the failure to secure from unauthorized removal, or 
7

The attending physician and the patient were notified 

on July 11, 2001. The root cause of this event was 

the failure to verify that the treatment plan used 

was for the patient being treated. NRC contracted 

a medical consultant to review this event. The 

consultant concluded that the dose to the 50% 

isodose line may be at the threshold of late central 

nervous system injury and the dose of approximately 

2500 cGy (rad) to the 100% isodose line may 

produce symptoms. The consultant also concluded 

that long-term follow-up was indicated and that the 

patient is eligible for the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Epidemiology and Health Surveillance, 

Long-term Medical Study Program.

Actions Taken to Prevent Recurrence

Licensee: Corrective actions include a more 

prominent display of the patient’s name on the 

treatment forms, triple verification of each treatment 

coordinate, and physician sign-off that the treatment 

plan matches the patient being treated. 

NRC: NRC conducted a special inspection on July 

12 through July 27, 2001, with continuing review 

through November 9, 2001. NRC identified two 

Severity Level IV violations for failure to verify 

that the treatment parameters implemented were 

for the patient being treated. The inspectors also 

determined that this medical event constituted an 

isolated failure to properly implement the Quality 

Management Program written procedures.

(Contact: Roberto Torres, NMSS, 301-415-8112; 

e-mail: rjt@nrc.gov)

GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS ISSUED

(February 1, 2002 - April 30, 2002)

Note that these are only summaries of U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) generic 

communications. 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—www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/gen-comm/.

Please note that this address is case-sensitive and 

must be entered exactly as shown.

Information Notice (IN)

IN 1999-28, Supplement 1, “Recall of Star Brand 

Fire Protection Sprinkler Heads,” was issued on 

March 22, 2002. This notice was issued to all 

holders of licenses for nuclear power, research and 

test reactors, and fuel cycle facilities, to notify them 

that the Consumers Product Safety Commission 

is seeking to expand the original recall of the 

Star brand fire protection sprinkler heads. This 

supplement provides information that came to light 

after the issuance of the original IN.

(Contacts: Paul Lain, NRR, 301-415-2346, e-mail: 

pwl@nrc.gov; 

Peter Lee, NMSS, 301-415-8111, e-mail: 

psl1@nrc.gov)

Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS)

RIS 2002-06, “Evaluating Occupational Dose for 

Individuals Exposed to NRC-Licensed Material and 

Medical X-Rays,” was issued on April 16, 2002. 

This summary was issued to all medical licensees 

to inform them of a personnel radiation monitoring 

compliance issue identified during recent inspections 

of medical licensees. In addition, this RIS 

provides specific guidance for determining doses 

to individuals who receive exposures from medical 

x-ray radiation, while wearing protective apparel 

(i.e., protective apron, or protective apron and 

thyroid shield).

(Contact: Joseph E. DeCicco, NMSS, 

301-415-7833, e-mail: jdx1@nrc.gov)

(General Contact: Kevin M. Ramsey, NMSS, 

301-415-7887, e-mail: kmr@nrc.gov)

SELECTED FEDERAL REGISTER

NOTICES

(March 1, 2002 - March 31, 2002)

NOTE: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) contacts may be reached by mail at the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555-0001. Federal Register Notices may 

be found at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/

aces140.html.
8

FINAL RULES

“List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: 

NAC-MPC Revision,” 67 FR 11566, March 15, 

2002. (Contact: Roger W. Broseus, NMSS, 

301-415-7608; e-mail: rwb@nrc.gov)

“List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: 

HI-STORM 100 Revision,” 67 FR 14627, March 27, 

2002. (Contact: Jayne M. McCausland, NMSS, 

301-415-6219; e-mail: jmm2@nrc.gov)

“Correction: Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee 

Recovery for FY 2002,” 67 FR 14818, March 27, 

2002.

PROPOSED RULES

“List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: 

NAC-MPC Revision,” 67 FR 11629, March 15, 

2002. (Contact: Roger W. Broseus, NMSS, 

301-415-7608; e-mail: rwb@nrc.gov)

“List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: 

HI-STORM 100 Revision,” 67 FR 14662, March 27, 

2002. (Contact: Jayne M. McCausland, NMSS, 

301-415-6219; e-mail: jmm2@nrc.gov)

OTHER NOTICES

The States of Nevada and Minnesota; Denial of 

Petition for Rulemaking, 67 FR 10853, March 11, 

2002. (Contacts: Mark Haisfield, NMSS, 

301-415-6196; e-mail: mfh@nrc.gov;

Timothy McCartin, NMSS, 301-415-7285; e-mail: 

tjm3@nrc.gov)

“ ‘Yucca Mountain Review Plan, NUREG-1804, 

Revision 2;’ Draft Report for Comment,” 

67 FR 15257, March, 29, 2002. (Contact: 

Jeffrey A. Ciocco, NMSS, 301-415-6391; e-mail: 

jac3@nrc.gov)

(General Contact: Paul Goldberg, NMSS, 

301-415-7842; e-mail: pfg@nrc.gov)

Comments, and suggestions you may have for 

information not currently included, that might 

be helpful to licensees, should be sent to:

E. Kraus

NMSS Licensee Newsletter Editor

Two White Flint North, Mail Stop T-8A23

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001