IR 015000045/2026001
| ML26048A154 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 15000045, 015000045 (VA-810-463-1) |
| Issue date: | 02/25/2026 |
| From: | Marc Ferdas Decommissioning, ISFSI, and Reactor Health Physics Branch |
| To: | Nabhan C Engineering & Testing Services |
| Shared Package | |
| IR 2026001 | List: |
| References | |
| EAO-RI-2026-0010 IR 2026001 | |
| Download: ML26048A154 (0) | |
Text
February 25, 2026
SUBJECT:
ENGINEERING AND TESTING SERVICES, INC. - APPARENT VIOLATION OF NRC REQUIREMENTS - INSPECTION REPORT 150-00045/2026001
Dear Charbel Nabhan,
This letter refers to the remote non-routine inspection performed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) conducted between January 8-13, 2026, related to activities conducted under your Commonwealth of Virginia license at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. The inspection evaluated your performance of licensed activities in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction within an Agreement State. The enclosed report presents the results of the review. A final exit briefing was conducted telephonically with you on February 24, 2026.
Based on the results of this review, the NRC identified one apparent violation which is being considered for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the NRCs Enforcement Policy.
The current Enforcement Policy is included on the NRCs website at https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/enforce-pol.html. The apparent violation, as described in the enclosure, involved Engineering and Testing Services, Inc.s, (ETS) apparent failure to file for reciprocity or to apply for and receive a specific license from the NRC prior to performing work in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
Part 150.20(b)(1) requires that any person who holds a specific license from an Agreement State, shall, at least 3 days before engaging in each activity for the first time in a calendar year, file a submittal containing an NRC Form 241, Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States, a copy of its Agreement State specific license, and the appropriate fee as prescribed in 10 CFR 170.31 with the Regional Administrator of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Office listed on the NRC Form 241 and in Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 20 for the Region in which the Agreement State that issued the license is located.
Since the NRC has not made a final determination in this matter, a Notice of Violation is not being issued at this time. Before the NRC makes its final enforcement decision, we are providing you with an opportunity to (1) respond to the apparent violation addressed in this letter within 30 days of the date of this letter, or (2) request a Pre-decisional Enforcement Conference (PEC). If a PEC is held, it will be open for public observation, and the NRC will issue a press release to announce the time and date of the conference.
If you decide to participate in a PEC, please contact Monica Ford at (610) 337-5214 or via email at Monica.Ford@nrc.gov within 10 days of the date of this letter. A PEC should be held within 30 days of the date of this letter. If you choose to provide a written response, it should be clearly marked as Response to An Apparent Violation in NRC Inspection Report 150-00045/2026001; EAO-RI-2026-0010 and should include: (1) the reason for the apparent violation or, if contested, the basis for disputing the apparent violation; (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved; (3)
the corrective steps that will be taken; and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Your response may reference or include previously docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required response. Your response should be mailed to the Document Control Desk, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, with a copy mailed to Marc S. Ferdas, Acting Director, Division of Radiological Safety &
Security, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I, 475 Allendale Road, Suite 102, King of Prussia, PA, 19406-1415, and emailed to R1Enforcement@nrc.gov within 30 days of the date of this letter. If an adequate response is not received within the time specified or an extension of time has not been granted by the NRC, the NRC will proceed with its enforcement decision.
If you choose to request a PEC, the conference will afford you the opportunity to provide your perspective on these matters and any other information that you believe the NRC should take into consideration before making an enforcement decision. The decision to hold a PEC does not mean that the NRC has determined that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. This conference would be conducted to obtain information to assist the NRC in making an enforcement decision. The topics discussed during the conference may include information to determine whether a violation occurred, information to determine the significance of a violation, information related to the identification of a violation, and information related to any corrective actions taken or planned. In presenting your corrective actions, you should be aware that the promptness and comprehensiveness of your actions will be considered in assessing any civil penalty for the apparent violation. The guidance in the enclosed excerpt from NRC Information Notice 96-28, Suggested Guidance Relating to Development and Implementation of Corrective Action, may be helpful.
Please be advised that the characterization of the apparent violation, as well as the number of identified violations described herein may change as a result of further NRC review. You will be advised by separate correspondence of the results of our deliberations on this matter.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure, a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response, if you choose to provide one, will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room and from the NRCs Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To the extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy or proprietary information so that it can be made available to the public without redaction. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Monica Ford of my staff at (610)
337-5214, or via electronic mail at Monica.Ford@nrc.gov.
Sincerely, Marc S. Ferdas, Acting Director Division of Radiological Safety and Security Region I
Docket No. 150-00045 License No. VA-810-463-1
Enclosures:
1. NRC Inspection Report 150-00045/2026001 2. NRC Information Notice 96-28
REGION I==
INSPECTION REPORT Docket:
150-00045 License:
VA-810-463-1 Report:
2026001 EA No.:
EAO-RI-2026-0010 Licensee:
Engineering and Testing Services, Inc.
Locations Inspected:
5266 Indian River Road, Suite 103 Virginia Beach, VA 23464 Norfolk Naval Shipyard DD#4 Fueling Complex DD#4 Hitchcock St Portsmouth, VA 23704 Inspection Dates:
January 8, 2026, through January 13, 2026 Inspector:
Michael Wutkowski, Senior Health Physicist Commercial, Industrial, R&D and Academic Branch Division of Radiological Safety and Security Approved By:
Monica Ford, Chief Commercial, Industrial, R&D and Academic Branch Division of Radiological Safety and Security Attachment:
Supplemental Inspection Information Enclosure 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Engineering and Testing Services, Inc.
NRC Inspection Report 150-00045/2026001 Program Overview At the time of occurrence, Engineering and Testing Services, Inc. (ETS), was a consultant geotechnical and construction materials testing company that used portable gauging devices to measure physical properties of materials. ETS previously held an NRC license. ETS most recent NRC license No. 45-25600-01, which authorized the use of portable gauges in NRC and exclusive federal jurisdiction, was terminated on March 31, 2009, upon transfer of the license to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Any work in a non-Agreement State or area of exclusive federal jurisdiction would occur under the NRCs reciprocity program and the provisions in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 150.20, Recognition of Agreement State Licenses. (Section 1 of this Report). After termination of its NRC license, the licensee has not filed for reciprocity.
Inspection Findings One apparent violation was identified through a notification from the Department of the Navys Master Material License (MML) to NRC Region I. This review was initiated when the MML notified Region I staff of ETS conducting licensed activities within Norfolk Naval Shipyard.
Specifically, from May 13, 2024 through September 23, 2025, ETS performed licensed activities within an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction without having filed an initial application for reciprocity with the NRC for calendar years 2024 through 2025 (Section 2 of this report).
Corrective Actions Following initial identification of the apparent violation, ETS promptly filed an initial application for reciprocity with the NRC for calendar year 2026 on January 2, 2026. ETS Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) received a briefing on the NRC reciprocity process and how it applies to all licensed activities in NRC jurisdiction nationwide and committed to ensuring all licensed locations will comply with NRC reciprocity requirements. This was confirmed through the inspection activities (Section 3 of this report).
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Program Overview 1.1 Program Scope At the time of occurrence, ETS was a consultant geotechnical and construction materials testing company with use of portable gauging devices to measure physical properties of materials. ETS previously held an NRC license. ETS most recent NRC license No. 45-25600-01, which authorized the use of portable gauges in NRC and exclusive federal jurisdiction, was terminated on March 31, 2009, upon transfer of the license to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Any work in a non-Agreement State or area of exclusive federal jurisdiction would need to occur under the NRCs reciprocity program and the provisions in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 150.20, Recognition of Agreement State Licenses. After termination of its NRC license, the licensee has not filed for reciprocity.
2.
Inspection Findings 2.1 Inspection Scope The inspection was an examination of activities conducted within the jurisdiction of the NRC, as they related to NRC-licensed byproduct material. Within this area, the inspection consisted of a selected examination of representative records and interviews with personnel.
2.2 Observations and Findings On December 11, 2025, the Department of the Navy, per its Master Material License (MML), notified the NRCs Region I Office that ETS may have conducted licensed activity in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction without having filed for reciprocity. The MML was conducting an inspection of Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Atlantic within the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, and when reviewing the Commands certification of a contractor, the MML identified that ETS was operating within an area of federal jurisdiction without an NRC 241 form or an NRC license. The specific project ETS was involved in was the Dry Dock 4 Nuclear Refueling Complex construction project.
The NRC inspector conducted a remote, reactive inspection on January 8, 2026. During interviews with ETS Radiation Safety Officer, the licensee confirmed that ETS conducted work within NRC jurisdiction on multiple occasions without having filed for reciprocity. This was further confirmed through documentation submitted by ETS dated January 13, 2026. The interviews indicated that between May 13, 2024, and September 23, 2025, ETS used portable nuclear density gauges in Norfolk Naval Shipyard, which is within NRC jurisdiction. Upon learning of the NRCs requirement for reciprocity, the RSO promptly filed an NRC 241 form for work to be performed in calendar year 2026.
It should be noted that the representative of the Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Atlantic within the Norfolk Naval Shipyard was not aware of the need to request a copy of an approved NRC form 241 or an NRC license from an entity engaging in licensed activities within their facility. The Department of the Navys MML corrected this error, and staff are now aware of the need to request an approved
NRC form 241 or NRC license prior to authorizing an entity to perform licensed activities at their facility.
2.3 Apparent Violation One apparent violation of NRC requirements was identified. The apparent violation involved the failure to file an initial reciprocity application with the NRC prior to the performance of licensed activities within NRC jurisdiction for the first time in calendar years 2024 through 2025, or, alternatively, to possess a specific license with the NRC authorizing the same activity. The apparent violation (150-00045/2026001) is described below:
10 CFR 30.3(a) requires, in part, that except for persons exempt as provided in 10 CFR Parts 30 and 150, no person shall manufacture, produce, transfer, receive, acquire, own, possess, or use byproduct material except as authorized in a specific or general license issued pursuant to the regulations in 10 CFR Part 30.
10 CFR 150.20(a) states, in part, that any person who holds a specific license from an Agreement State is granted an NRC general license to conduct the same activity in non-Agreement States subject to the provisions of 10 CFR 150.20(b).
10 CFR 150.20(b)(1) requires, in part, that any person engaging in activities in non-Agreement States, or in areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction within an Agreement State, shall, at least 3 days before engaging in each activity for the first time in a calendar year, file a submittal containing an NRC Form 241, Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States, a copy of its Agreement State specific license, and the appropriate fee, with the Regional Administrator of the appropriate NRC regional office.
Contrary to the above, between May 13, 2024 and September 23, 2025, Engineering and Testing Services, Inc., which is authorized for possession and use of radioactive material under a Commonwealth of Virginia license, used byproduct material within NRC jurisdiction on at least 28 occasions without a specific license issued by the NRC and without having submitted a Form 241 and the required fee for calendar years 2024 and 2025 with the Regional Administrator of the appropriate NRC regional office. Specifically, Engineering and Testing Services, Inc., performed nuclear portable gauge work in areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction and did not submit an NRC Form 241 (or equivalent) or obtain an NRC license for those activities.
2.4 Conclusions The NRC inspection identified one apparent violation concerning the filing and request for approval of reciprocity with NRC Form 241. The apparent violation concerned the performance of licensed activities without having filed an initial NRC Form 241.
3.
Corrective Actions During the NRCs interviews with ETS RSO, the RSO confirmed their understanding and commitment to comply with the NRCs reciprocity regulations. ETS, under their Commonwealth of Virginia license, filed for reciprocity with NRC for calendar year 2026 on January 2, 2026, and was approved on January 5, 2026.
ETS has corrected the violation described above in Section 2.3.
4.
Exit Meeting Summary On February 24, 2026, the NRC held an exit meeting summary with the ETS RSO, Charbel T. Nabhan. ETS acknowledged the inspection findings, confirmed that all corrective actions were complete and fully implemented by January 5, 2026. ETS did not dispute any of the details presented during the call.
Attachment SUPPLEMENTAL INSPECTION INFORMATION LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee Charbel T. Nabhan, Principal Engineer Eric Batson, Authorized User INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED 87139 - Portable Nuclear Gauge Programs ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Opened 150-00045/2026001 AV Failure to either apply for and receive an NRC specific license (10 CFR 30.3) or apply for and receive initial approval for reciprocity (10 CFR 150.20(b))
Closed None Discussed None LIST OF ACRONYMS ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System AU
Authorized User AV Apparent Violation CFR Code of Federal Regulations LC License Condition NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission PEC
Pre-decisional Enforcement Conference ETS Engineering Testing Services, Inc.
Enclosure 2 NOTE:
The following information is an updated excerpt from NRC Information Notice 96-28 issued during 1996.
NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 96-28 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 May 1, 1996 NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 96-28:
SUGGESTED GUIDANCE RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION Addressees All material and fuel cycle licensees.
Purpose The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this information notice to provide addressees with guidance relating to development and implementation of corrective actions that should be considered after identification of violation(s) of NRC requirements. It is expected that recipients will review this information for applicability to their facilities and consider actions, as appropriate, to avoid similar problems. However, suggestions contained in this information notice are not new NRC requirements; therefore, no specific action or written response is required.
Background On June 30, 1995, NRC revised its Enforcement Policy, to clarify the enforcement program's focus by, in part, emphasizing the importance of identifying problems before events occur, and of taking prompt, comprehensive corrective action when problems are identified. Consistent with the revised Enforcement Policy, NRC encourages and expects identification and prompt, comprehensive correction of violations.
In many cases, licensees who identify and promptly correct non-recurring Severity Level IV violations, without NRC involvement, will not be subject to formal enforcement action. Such violations will be characterized as "non-cited" violations as provided in Section VI.A of the Enforcement Policy. Minor violations are not subject to formal enforcement action.
Nevertheless, the root cause(s) of minor violations must be identified and appropriate corrective action must be taken to prevent recurrence.
If violations of more than a minor concern are identified by the NRC during an inspection, licensees will be subject to a Notice of Violation and may need to provide a written response, as required by 10 CFR 2.201, addressing the causes of the violations and corrective actions taken to prevent recurrence.
In some cases, such violations are documented on Form 591 (for materials licensees) which constitutes a notice of violation that requires corrective action but does not require a written response. If a significant violation is involved, a predecisional enforcement conference may be held to discuss those actions.
The quality of a licensee's root cause analysis and plans for corrective actions may affect the NRC's decision regarding both the need to hold a predecisional enforcement conference with the licensee and the level of sanction proposed or imposed.
Discussion Comprehensive corrective action is required for all violations. In most cases, NRC does not propose imposition of a civil penalty where the licensee promptly identifies and comprehensively corrects violations. However, a Severity Level III violation will almost always result in a civil penalty if a licensee does not take prompt and comprehensive corrective actions to address the violation.
It is important for licensees, upon identification of a violation, to take the necessary corrective action to address the noncompliant condition and to prevent recurrence of the violation and the occurrence of similar violations. Prompt comprehensive action to improve safety is not only in the public interest, but is also in the interest of licensees and their employees. In addition, it will lessen the likelihood of receiving a civil penalty. Comprehensive corrective action cannot be developed without a full understanding of the root causes of the violation.
Therefore, to assist licensees, the NRC staff has prepared the following guidance, that may be used for developing and implementing corrective action. Corrective action should be appropriately comprehensive to not only prevent recurrence of the violation at issue, but also to prevent occurrence of similar violations. The guidance should help in focusing corrective actions broadly to the general area of concern rather than narrowly to the specific violations. The actions that need to be taken are dependent on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
The corrective action process should involve the following three steps:
1.
Conduct a complete and thorough review of the circumstances that led to the violation.
Typically, such reviews include:
Interviews with individuals who are either directly or indirectly involved in the violation, including management personnel and those responsible for training or procedure development/guidance. Particular attention should be paid to lines of communication between supervisors and workers.
Tours and observations of the area where the violation occurred, particularly when those reviewing the incident do not have day-to-day contact with the operation under review. During the tour, individuals should look for items that may have contributed to the violation as well as those items that may result in future violations. Reenactments (without use of radiation sources, if they were
involved in the original incident) may be warranted to better understand what actually occurred.
Review of programs, procedures, audits, and records that relate directly or indirectly to the violation. The program should be reviewed to ensure that its overall objectives and requirements are clearly stated and implemented.
Procedures should be reviewed to determine whether they are complete, logical, understandable, and meet their objectives (i.e., they should ensure compliance with the current requirements). Records should be reviewed to determine whether there is sufficient documentation of necessary tasks to provide a record that can be audited and to determine whether similar violations have occurred previously. Particular attention should be paid to training and qualification records of individuals involved with the violation.
2.
Identify the root cause of the violation.
Corrective action is not comprehensive unless it addresses the root cause(s) of the violation. It is essential, therefore, that the root cause(s) of a violation be identified so that appropriate action can be taken to prevent further noncompliance in this area, as well as other potentially affected areas. Violations typically have direct and indirect cause(s). As each cause is identified, ask what other factors could have contributed to the cause. When it is no longer possible to identify other contributing factors, the root causes probably have been identified. For example, the direct cause of a violation may be a failure to follow procedures; the indirect causes may be inadequate training, lack of attention to detail, and inadequate time to carry out an activity. These factors may have been caused by a lack of staff resources that, in turn, are indicative of lack of management support. Each of these factors must be addressed before corrective action is considered to be comprehensive.
3.
Take prompt and comprehensive corrective action that will address the immediate concerns and prevent recurrence of the violation.
It is important to take immediate corrective action to address the specific findings of the violation. For example, if the violation was issued because radioactive material was found in an unrestricted area, immediate corrective action must be taken to place the material under licensee control in authorized locations. After the immediate safety concerns have been addressed, timely action must be taken to prevent future recurrence of the violation. Corrective action is sufficiently comprehensive when corrective action is broad enough to reasonably prevent recurrence of the specific violation as well as prevent similar violations.
In evaluating the root causes of a violation and developing effective corrective action, consider the following:
1.
Has management been informed of the violation(s)?
2.
Have the programmatic implications of the cited violation(s) and the potential presence
of similar weaknesses in other program areas been considered in formulating corrective actions so that both areas are adequately addressed?
3.
Have precursor events been considered and factored into the corrective actions?
4.
In the event of loss of radioactive material, should security of radioactive material be enhanced?
5.
Has your staff been adequately trained on the applicable requirements?
6.
Should personnel be re-tested to determine whether re-training should be emphasized for a given area? Is testing adequate to ensure understanding of requirements and procedures?
7.
Has your staff been notified of the violation and of the applicable corrective action?
8.
Are audits sufficiently detailed and frequently performed? Should the frequency of periodic audits be increased?
9.
Is there a need for retaining an independent technical consultant to audit the area of concern or revise your procedures?
10.
Are the procedures consistent with current NRC requirements, should they be clarified, or should new procedures be developed?
11.
Is a system in place for keeping abreast of new or modified NRC requirements?
12.
Does your staff appreciate the need to consider safety in approaching daily assignments?
13.
Are resources adequate to perform, and maintain control over, the licensed activities?
Has the radiation safety officer been provided sufficient time and resources to perform his or her oversight duties?
14.
Have work hours affected the employees' ability to safely perform the job?
15.
Should organizational changes be made (e.g., changing the reporting relationship of the radiation safety officer to provide increased independence)?
16.
Are management and the radiation safety officer adequately involved in oversight and implementation of the licensed activities? Do supervisors adequately observe new employees and difficult, unique, or new operations?
17.
Has management established a work environment that encourages employees to raise safety and compliance concerns?
18.
Has management placed a premium on production over compliance and safety? Does management demonstrate a commitment to compliance and safety?
19.
Has management communicated its expectations for safety and compliance?
20.
Is there a published discipline policy for safety violations, and are employees aware of it? Is it being followed?