December 30, 1998

Ms. Gina Dunning, Director

Department of Regulation and Licensure

Nebraska Health and Human Services System

301 Centennial Mall South

P.O. Box 95007

Lincoln, NE 68509-5007

Dear Ms. Dunning:

On December 17, 1998, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Nebraska Agreement

State Program. The MRB found the Nebraska program adequate to assure public health and

safety and compatible with NRC’s program. The MRB also acknowledged Nebraska’s efforts to

address earlier recommendations and to strengthen its program over the past two years.

Section 5.0, page 17, of the enclosed final report presents the IMPEP team’s recommendations 

and suggestions. We received your November 23, 1998 letter which described the actions taken

in response to the team’s recommendations. We request no additional information at this time. 

We look forward to receiving copies of your procedures as they are completed and the schedule

for their preparation (See Recommendation Number 2).

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review will be in approximately four

years.

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the IMPEP team during the review and your

support of the Radiation Control Program. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work

cooperatively in the future.

Sincerely, /RA/

Frank J. Miraglia, Jr.

Deputy Executive Director

 for Regulatory Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: See next page
Gina Dunning - 2 -

cc: Bob Leopold, Director

Public Health Assurance Division

Department of Regulation and Licensure

Cheryl K. Rogers, Program Manager

Radioactive Materials

Randolph Wood, Director

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

Jay Ringenberg, Manager

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Program, DEQ

Gerald Allen, Environmental Program Specialist, DEQ

David P. Schor, State Liaison Officer
Gina Dunning - 2 -

cc: Bob Leopold, Director

Public Health Assurance Division

Department of Regulation and Licensure

Cheryl K. Rogers, Program Manager

Radioactive Materials

Randolph Wood, Director

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

Jay Ringenberg, Manager

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Program, DEQ

Gerald Allen, Environmental Program Specialist, DEQ

David P. Schor, State Liaison Officer

bcc: Chairman Jackson

Commissioner Dicus

Commissioner Diaz

Commissioner McGaffigan

Commissioner Merrifield

Distribution:

DIR RF DCD (SPO1)

SDroggitis PDR (YEST)

RWoodruff, RII

LMcLean, RIV

CSanders, Georgia

AKirkwood, NMSS

JKennedy, NMSS/DWM 

KCyr, OGC

FCameron, OGC

HNewsome, OGC

RScarano, RIV

CPaperiello, NMSS

DCool, NMSS

GDeegan, NMSS

TMartin, AEOD

KNSchneider

LJRakovan

RFletcher, MD

KHsueh, ASPO

TCombs, OGC (2 copies)

Nebraska File

OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-16
Ms. Gina Dunning, Director

Department of Regulation and Licensure

Nebraska Health and Human Services System

301 Centennial Mall South

P.O. Box 95007

Lincoln, NE 68509-5007

Dear Ms. Dunning:

On December 17, 1998, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Nebraska Agreement

State Program. The MRB found the Nebraska program adequate to assure public health and

safety and compatible with NRC’s program. The MRB also acknowledged Nebraska’s efforts to

address earlier recommendations and to strengthen its program over the past two years.

Section 5.0, page 17, of the enclosed final report presents the IMPEP team’s recommendations 

and suggestions. We received your November 23, 1998 letter which described the actions taken

in response to the team’s recommendations. We request no additional information at this time. 

We look forward to receiving copies of your procedures as they are completed and the schedule

for their preparation (See Recommendation Number 2).

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review will be in approximately four

years.

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the IMPEP team during the review and your

support of the Radiation Control Program. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work

cooperatively in the future.

Sincerely,

Frank J. Miraglia, Jr.

Deputy Executive Director

 for Regulatory Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: See next page

Distribution: See next page * See previous concurrence.

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\IMPEP\98FINTR.NE; G:\IMPEP\NEIMP98.FIN

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy

OFFICE RIII:RSAO OSP:DD OSP:D DEDR

NAME RWoodruff:gd PHLohaus RLBangart FJMiraglia

DATE 12/29/98* 12/28/98* 12/23/98*

12/28/98*

12/ /98

OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-16
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

REVIEW OF NEBRASKA AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

SEPTEMBER 21-25, 1998

FINAL REPORT

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Nebraska Final Report Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the review of the Nebraska radiation control program. The

review was conducted during the period September 21-25, 1998, by a review team comprised of

technical staff members from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Agreement State

of Georgia. Review team members are identified in Appendix A. The review was conducted in

accordance with the "Implementation of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program

and Rescission of a Final General Statement of Policy," published in the Federal Register on

October 16, 1997, and the November 25, 1997, revised NRC Management Directive 5.6,

"Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)." Preliminary results of the

review, which covered the period July 20, 1996 to September 25, 1998, were discussed with

Nebraska management on September 25, 1998.

A draft of this report was issued to Nebraska for factual comment on October 28, 1998. The State

responded in a letter dated November 23, 1998 (Attachment 1). Nebraska’s factual comments

were considered by the team and accommodated in the report. The Management Review Board

(MRB) met on December 17, 1998 to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the

Nebraska radiation control program was adequate to protect public health and safety and

compatible with NRC’s program.

The Nebraska Health and Human Services, Department of Regulation and Licensure (HHS R&L),

is the State agency that is responsible for managing the agreement materials program. Within

HHS R&L, the Radioactive Materials Program (RMP) and Low-Level Radioactive Waste Programs

are administered by the Division of Public Health Assurance, Consumer Health Services Section. 

Organization charts for the Radioactive Materials and Low-Level Radioactive Waste Programs,

and the Consumer Health Services Section are included as Appendix B. 

At the time of the review, the RMP regulated 135 specific licenses, including limited and broad

scope medical institutions, academic institutions, industrial radiography, fixed and portable gauge

units, nuclear pharmacy licensees, and commercial pool irradiators. The State is also the host

state for the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact which includes the States

of Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW)

disposal regulatory program is jointly administered and managed by HHS R&L and the Nebraska

Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) through a Memorandum of Understanding. In

addition to its agreement materials and LLRW programs, HHS R&L is responsible for the control

of machine produced radiation, natural occurring radioactive materials, and nuclear power plant

environmental surveillance and emergency response. 

The review focused on the materials program as it is carried out under a Section 274b (of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) Agreement between the NRC and the State of

Nebraska, including the LLRW program.

In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common and non-common

performance indicators was sent to the State on July 14, 1998. The State provided a response to

the questionnaire on August 28, 1998. During the review, discussions with State staff resulted in

the responses being further developed. A copy of their final response is included in Appendix F to

the draft report.
Nebraska Final Report Page 2

The review team's general approach for conduct of this review consisted of: (1) examination of

Nebraska's response to the questionnaire; (2) review of applicable Nebraska statutes and

regulations; (3) analysis of quantitative information from the licensing and inspection data base;

(4) technical review of selected licensing and inspection actions; (5) field accompaniments of 

four RMP inspectors; and (6) interviews with staff and management to answer questions or clarify

issues. The review team evaluated the information that it gathered against the IMPEP criteria for

each common and applicable non-common performance indicator and made a preliminary

assessment of the State’s performance. 

Section 2 below identifies the five recommendations resulting from the follow-up review conducted

on September 16-18, 1997. The previous full IMPEP review was conducted on July 15-19, 1996,

contained 14 recommendations and one suggestion, and the MRB directed that a follow-up review

be conducted not later than September 1997. The 1997 follow-up review closed all but two of the

previous recommendations from the 1996 review, found that the program remained adequate to

protect public health and safety, but needs improvement, and was compatible with NRC’s

program. Another review was scheduled for one year after the follow-up review. Results of the

current review for the IMPEP common performance indicators are presented in Section 3. Section

4 discusses results of the applicable non-common performance indicators, and Section 5

summarizes the review team's findings, recommendations, and suggestions. Recommendations

made by the review team are comments that relate directly to program performance by the State. 

A response is requested from the State to all recommendations in the final report. Suggestions

are comments that the review team believes could enhance the State’s RMP. The State is

requested to consider suggestions, but no response is requested.

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS

During the previous follow-up review, which concluded on September 18, 1997, five

recommendations were made which included two open items, concerning the development of

administrative and technical procedures. The status of these recommendations is discussed as

follows:

1. The team recommended at the exit briefing with the State that Nebraska develop a new

schedule for the completion of the written procedures based on experience gained to date,

to be provided within two weeks after the completion date of the onsite follow-up review. 

Current Status: A new schedule was provided following the 1997 review. At the time of

the 1997 follow-up review, the State’s 23 procedures had not been developed. Since the

1997 review the NRC has received one procedure, and four additional procedures have

been drafted. In addition, six more procedures have been contracted for completion in

January of 1999. This recommendation will be revised as a new recommendation below. 

Therefore, this recommendation is closed.

2. The team recommends that the State provide copies of the procedures to NRC as they are

completed for review. 
Nebraska Final Report Page 3

Current Status: As noted above, one final procedure was received by NRC during the

review period. This recommendation will be combined with recommendation 1 above as a

new recommendation below. Therefore, this recommendation is closed. 

3. The team recommends that regular communications, both verbal and written, be

scheduled and maintained during the completion period. The State is requested to

provide monthly status reports by telephone. The State is also requested to continue

to provide a corrective action status report every two months. 

Current Status: The team believes that the regular communications have been beneficial. 

The team has noted that performance has significantly improved in the common indicator

areas. The State and Region IV have committed to continue quarterly communication in

place of the previously recommended monthly status report and bimonthly written report. 

This recommendation is closed. 

4. The team recommends that in following RMP No. 6.01 “Qualifications and TrainingQualifications Manual,” that documentation of the accompaniment or other means of

tracking that the accompaniment occurred should be pursued. 

Current Status: The revised documentation of inspector accompaniments was provided as

an attachment to the current IMPEP questionnaire response. The accompaniments are

being maintained in each individual’s training file. This recommendation is closed.

5. The team recommends that the State continue development and implementation of

procedures to manage allegations and provide staff training so that all inspectors are

knowledgeable in those procedures. 

Current Status: This procedure had been drafted at the time of the review, but the

procedure had not become final and the staff needs to be trained on the final procdure. 

This recommendation will be combined with recommendation 1 above as a new

recommendation below. Therefore, this recommendation is closed.

Because of the importance of the development and implementation of critical procedures relative

to the performance of the staff and the performance indicators, the team recommends that the

State initiate appropriate actions needed to complete the development and implementation of the

previously identified procedures that are critical to the performance of the program. The State

should provide the revised schedule to NRC and copies of the procedures as they are completed.

3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

IMPEP identifies five common performance indicators to be used in reviewing both NRC Regional

and Agreement State programs. These indicators are: (1) Status of Materials Inspection

Program; (2) Technical Quality of Inspections; (3) Technical Staffing and Training; 

(4) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; and (5) Response to Incidents and Allegations.
Nebraska Final Report Page 4

3.1 Status of Materials Inspection Program

The review team focused on four factors in reviewing this indicator: (1) inspection frequency, (2)

overdue inspections of licenses, (3) initial inspections of new licenses, and (4) timely dispatch of

inspection findings to the licensee and corrective action. The review team’s evaluation is based

on Nebraska’s questionnaire responses relative to this indicator, data gathered independently

from the State's licensing and inspection data tracking system, the examination of completed

inspection casework, and interviews with the RMP manager, and inspection and licensing staff. 

The RMP manager related that the program policy is to utilize the same inspection frequencies as

found in the NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2800 for program codes and inspection

priorities. The review noted that the State utilizes only one category for broad medical licenses

that are inspected at a one year frequency, and the State utilizes only one category for academic

broad licenses that are inspected every two years. These broad license inspection frequencies

are compatible with the most restrictive frequencies utilized by NRC for category A broad medical

licenses (one year) and category A broad academic (two years) inspections. During the review,

the RMP approved a draft revised procedure “Scheduling of Inspections” Procedure No. 3.01, that

revises the license categories and inspection frequencies to make them the same as the

frequencies in NRC IMC 2800. 

In response to the questionnaire, Nebraska indicated that as of August 28, 1998, only four core 

licensees were overdue for inspection. A review of the files indicated that all of the inspections

had been completed and that none of the inspections had exceeded the NRC’s 25% criteria for

overdue inspections. The review of the materials database also confirmed that the State has not

experienced any overdue inspections since the 1997 follow-up review.

The RMP manager related that current initial inspection policy is to follow the guidance in IMC

2800, which states that new licenses are inspected within six months of issuance of the license. 

The RMP manager also related that the initial inspection can be extended to one year in cases

where the licensee does not receive material or initiate licensed activities. A review of the data

files and discussions with RMP staff confirmed that there have only been three new licenses

issued since the 1997 follow-up review that required an initial inspection, and the records show

that the initial inspections were all performed on a timely basis and in accordance with IMC 2800

guidance. 

An internally generated monthly report to management tracks inspections that are completed and

overdue. All licenses are entered into the RMP database and a computer query allows an easy

determination of the status of inspections at a given time period.

The RMP maintains a database on all reciprocity requests that are received. The applicant is

contacted initially by letter and the appropriate information is obtained and maintained in a file. 

The licensees normally call or fax notification to RMP prior to working within the State. The

database tracks the licensee name, address, phone numbers, home State’s license number,

license type, and expiration date. The listing also tracks each authorized entry into the State,

location of a temporary job site, date that the licensee left the State and the dates of any

inspections. The authorization is compatible with the NRC reciprocity requirements and the State
Nebraska Final Report Page 5

assesses a reciprocity fee as published in the regulations which allows the licensee to enter the

State on an unlimited number of days during any year based on the initial date of entry. A review

of the questionnaire and database printouts shows that the RMP has 33 reciprocity license files in

the database, of which 15 different licensees have requested reciprocity during the review period. 

The State has conducted 17 reciprocity inspections since the database was established following

the 1996 review. The review determined that all reciprocity licensees were inspected in

accordance with the State procedures and the NRC IMC 2800 procedures. A comparison of the

database with the license files and the reciprocity inspections performed during the review period

identified some minor discrepancies between the database and the information provided during

the review for reciprocity licenses REC0189 and REC0101. These discrepancies were

satisfactorily resolved.

The RMP reports all inspection findings to the licensee by letter following the inspection. The

letter outlines any specific violations, requires a written response, and requires posting by the

licensee. If no violations or recommendations were identified during the inspection, then a clear

letter is sent to the licensee confirming the results of the inspection. In general, the issuance of

inspection findings is timely with letters to the licensee being sent within 30 days of the inspection. 

From the casework reviewed, eleven inspection letters were sent within 30 days of the inspection,

one was sent within 33 days, one was sent within 37 days and two were sent within 75 days. The

last two inspections had experienced processing difficulties due to staff turnover.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Nebraska's

performance with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program, be found

satisfactory.

3.2 Technical Quality of Inspections

The team reviewed inspection reports, enforcement documentation, inspection field notes, and

interviewed inspectors for 15 materials inspections conducted during the review period. The

casework included all of the State's materials inspectors, including two consultants, and covered: 

institutional medical with high dose rate (HDR) applicators; mobile medical; medical teletherapy;

institutional medical broad A; nuclear pharmacy; research and development (non-human use);

portable/fixed gauges and gas chromatographs; industrial radiography; academic other; pool

irradiator; self-contained irradiator; and reciprocity inspections. A review team member performed

accompaniments of four State inspectors on four separate inspections of licensed facilities. 

Appendix C lists the completed inspection casework reviewed for completeness and adequacy

with case-specific comments as well as the results of the accompaniments.

All enforcement letters reviewed were written in appropriate regulatory language. Follow up to

enforcement letters was evident and complete. Enforcement cases were generally resolved

promptly. The inspections were generally performance based inspections. The technical quality

of the reports demonstrated that each inspector was competent in the various type of inspections

conducted. The enforcement letters generally would include an attachment with the items of
Nebraska Final Report Page 6

noncompliance (violations) and/or the recommendations made. In some of the recommendations,

a regulation requirement was referenced which is an indication that the licensee should be cited

for a violation, rather than a recommendation. The review team suggests that the RMP establish

guidance to assist the inspectors when making a decision whether to issue a recommendation

versus an item of noncompliance (violation).

A total of 90 inspections were performed of Nebraska licensees, and 17 reciprocity inspections

were conducted during the review period. The RMP utilizes the Inspection Manual and

Enforcement Manual that was provided to the program by a contract consultant. The RMP is in

the process of developing written procedures for Enforcement and Escalated Enforcement,

Scheduling Inspections, Inspection Preparation, Performance Based Inspection, and

Documentation of Inspection Results. The team reviewed the inspection field notes and found

them to be comparable with the types of information and data collected under NRC Inspection

Procedure (IP) 87100 and thorough with all items checked and written comments where

necessary. The inspection field notes provided documentation of the licensee's program

including: posting; storage and use of radioactive material; receipt, transfer, and disposal of

radioactive material; inventory; leak tests; radiation protection program; personnel monitoring;

training; independent measurements; and inspection findings. The team also noted the inspectors

observed licensed operations or had operations demonstrated whenever possible. 

The RMP management policy is to conduct unannounced inspections whenever possible. Twelve

of the inspections reviewed were unannounced and three were announced. Announced

inspections usually involve initial, special or reciprocity inspections. Inspection reports were

signed by management. The RMP manager was aware of inspection findings through debriefing

by the inspector. In response to the questionnaire and through discussions with the RMP

manager, the State reported the number and type of supervisory accompaniments performed

during the review period. Four inspectors were accompanied annually. 

The RMP has an adequate supply of survey instruments to support the current inspection

program. Two survey kits are maintained for responding to incidents. The RMP has access to

instrumentation in order to identify and quantify isotopes through a contract lab or the Butte Health

Physics Assessment Facility. The program has adequate instrumentation for the collection of air

and environmental samples, and all instruments are calibrated by a contract calibration service or

returned to the manufacturer for service or calibration as appropriate. Fixed and portable

instruments are also available at the laboratory facility located at the LLRW proposed site. 

Four inspectors were accompanied by the review team leader during the period of August 25-27,

1998. One inspector was accompanied during an early morning unannounced inspection of a

nuclear pharmacy facility, and another inspector was accompanied on an unannounced inspection

of an institutional nuclear medicine facility with brachytherapy and a High Dose Rate (HDR) unit

on August 25, 1998. The third inspector was accompanied during an unannounced inspection of

a mega-curie pool irradiator on August 26, 1998. The fourth inspector was accompanied on an

unannounced inspection of an industrial radiography licensee at two different locations on August

27, 1998. These accompaniments are also identified in Appendix C. During the accompaniments,

the Nebraska inspectors demonstrated appropriate performance type inspection techniques and
Nebraska Final Report Page 7

knowledge of the regulations. The inspectors were well prepared and thorough in their reviews of

the licensees' radiation safety programs. Overall, the technical performance of the inspectors was

excellent, and their inspections were adequate to assess radiological health and safety at the

licensed facilities.

During the accompaniments, the Nebraska inspectors demonstrated appropriate performance type

inspection techniques and knowledge of the regulations. The inspectors were well prepared and

thorough in their reviews of the licensees' radiation safety programs. Overall, the technical

performance of the inspectors was excellent, and their inspections were adequate to assess

radiological health and safety at the licensed facilities.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Nebraska performance

with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, be found satisfactory.

3.3 Technical Staffing and Training

Issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the radioactive materials program

reorganization, staffing level, staff turnover, technical qualifications of the staff, and training. 

To evaluate these issues, the review team examined the State's questionnaire responses relative

to this indicator, interviewed program management and staff, and considered any possible

workload backlogs. 

Since the last program review in 1996, there have been two reorganizations. The first occurred in

January 1997, shortly after the IMPEP review and is described in the 1997 final report. The last

reorganization was completed in March 1998 following the resignation of the RMP manager. The

1998 reorganization involved the reassignment of the LLRW program manager to acting RMP

manager, and the assignment of the Consumer Health Services Section Administrator to an

administrative management role for the RMP. The RMP is organized under the Consumer Health

Services Section for administrative purposes as noted in the organizational charts. Emergency

response activities are divided between both the RMP and LLRW programs.

At the time of the review, Nebraska’s radioactive materials program was staffed by the RMP

manager, the administrative manager, and three full time technical staff. In addition, because of

the lull in Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) program activities, two technical staff from that

program have been cross-trained and are assisting in inspection and licensing activities in the

RMP. The administrative management of technical staff (Health Physicists) has enabled both

RMP staff and HHS R&L management to remain cognizant of materials licensing and inspection

workloads.

The team considered the reorganization along with staff turnover and found that three members of

the RMP staff left during the review period. The turn-over included the resignation of the RMP

manager in March 1998. A staff assistant (computer support) left the program to resume his

education in September 1998, and the position is being temporarily filled by other staff. One RMP

inspector/license reviewer left the program in October 1997 and the vacant position was filled in

January 1998 with a qualified individual from the X-Ray program. The current organization shows

one vacant technical position in LLRW and one vacant support position in Radioactive Materials. 

These vacancies were discussed with the Division Director and he related that he had authority to
Nebraska Final Report Page 8

fill the positions, but filling the vacancies would depend upon the outcome of the staffing needs for

the LLRW program. The review team considered the reasons for the staff turnover, the resulting

reorganization and changes in technical staffing, the impacts of these staffing changes on the

performance of the other indicators, and determined that the program staffing is adequate to

administer the current regulatory program.

The qualifications of the staff were determined from the questionnaire, training records, and

interviews of personnel. All of the technical staff have bachelor degrees. One person hired since

the previous review has a B.S. degree in mechanical engineering and the transferee from the XRay program has a B.S. degree in nuclear medicine. All technical staff are required to have basic

health physics training, and the program manager identified five core courses for inspectors and

license reviewers. These courses are licensing, inspection, nuclear medicine, industrial

radiography, and transportation. Waivers from specific courses may be granted, at the manager’s

discretion, for individuals with extensive work experience and education in a specific topic area. 

The review team confirmed that all individuals who perform licensing and inspection functions

have completed the five core courses. New staff are assigned to review State regulations and

procedures and to accompany senior license reviewers/inspectors, then are assigned increasingly

complex licensing duties under the direction of senior staff and accompany experienced inspectors

during increasingly complicated inspections. Before a new inspector is authorized to conduct

independent inspections, an initial supervisory accompaniment is performed (annually thereafter)

to review their competence. After the accompaniments, the RMP manager determines the priority

level of inspection that the inspector is capable of performing. 

The review team examined the State’s training procedure Radioactive Materials Procedure

No. 6.01, “Qualifications and Training - Qualifications Manual” dated September 3, 1997. The

procedure describes the training requirements for basic training and specialized training for the

technical staff. The RMP manager stated that the procedure is very thorough; however, the

procedure is being revised to simplify the record keeping documents. A Microsoft Access

database program has been implemented to maintain training records; however, because of the

complexity of the training procedure and the detailed information required, the database records

have not been kept up-to-date. The review team found records of attendance at various NRC,

DOE, and FEMA courses in individual employee training files, including records demonstrating

successful completion of the five RMP identified core courses. 

During the review of the training procedures and records, the team noted that the core courses did

not include the teletherapy and brachytherapy course as outlined in NRC’s Manual Chapter 1246

for materials license reviewers and inspectors, and that only two staff members have completed

the course. The team believes that all technical staff performing brachytherapy licensing or

inspections would benefit from the teletherapy and brachytherpy course or equivalent training. 

Also, only one staff member has completed the NRC irradiator course and the State currently has

three licensed pool irradiator facilities. Currently, any member of the technical staff can license or

inspect the pool irradiators. Although the irradiator course is a supplementary or specialized

course, the team believes that backup training in this area is needed and that all staff performing

licensing actions or inspection activities on pool irradiators should have the irradiator course or
Nebraska Final Report Page 9

equivalent training. The staff has been informally qualified to perform both types of inspections. 

The team recommends that staff who conduct independent inspections and/or license reviews of

pool irradiators, teletherapy and brachytherapy complete the irradiator course and teletherapy and

brachytherapy courses. 

The review team also noted that the State has not developed individual training plans for the

technical staff which could be utilized for projecting training needs and as a career enhance-ment

tool. Accordingly, the review team suggests that training plans be developed for each staff

member to ensure the completion of the State’s qualifications program.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Nebraska's

performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found satisfactory.

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The review team examined licensing casework, interviewed the RMP manager and other license

reviewers, and evaluated the licensing process for 13 specific licenses. Licensing actions were

reviewed for completeness, consistency, proper radioisotopes and quantities authorized,

qualifications of authorized users, adequate facilities and equipment, and operating and

emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing actions. Licenses were

reviewed for accuracy, appropriateness of the license and its conditions, and overall technical

quality. The casework was reviewed for timeliness, adherence to good health physics practices,

reference to appropriate regulations, review of product certifications or other supporting

documents, consideration of enforcement history, pre-licensing visits, supervisory review as

indicated, and proper signature authorities. The files were checked for retention of necessary

documents and supporting data including terminated licenses.

The licensing casework was selected to provide a representative sample of licensing actions

which had been completed during the review period. The cross-section sampling focused on the

State’s core licenses in priorities 1, 2, and 3; new licenses issued; renewals; and licenses

terminated during the review period. The sample included the following licensing types:

broadscope academic; broadscope medical; research and development; pool type irradiator;

industrial radiography; portable/fixed gauges, institutional nuclear medicine; mobile nuclear

medicine; therapy; and nuclear pharmacy. Licensing actions reviewed included 2 new, 6

renewals, 4 amendments (including a change of ownership) and 1 termination. A listing of the

casework licenses evaluated with case specific comments can be found in Appendix D.

Licenses are renewed on a 5 year frequency. Licenses that are under timely renewal are

amended as necessary to assure that public health and safety issues are addressed during the

period that the license is undergoing the renewal process. Each licensing action receives an

initial review by one individual, then a second technical review by a senior health physicist. All

licenses are signed by the RMP manager or the Consumer Health Services Section Administrator. 

The review team found that the licensing actions were generally very thorough, complete, of high

quality, and with health and safety issues properly addressed. The licensee's compliance history

is taken into account when reviewing renewal applications and amendments as determined from

documentation in the license files and discussions with the license reviewers and inspectors. 
Nebraska Final Report Page 10

Comments made on the casework are identified in Appendix D. Following the team’s discussion of

these comments, the RMP manager initiated actions to resolve the comments.

The casework review also confirmed that, with one exception, the materials staff uses bi-weekly

radioactive materials meetings, reading files, and its computerized licensing system - ACCESS, as

well as the State licensing regulatory guides, which have been patterned after the NRC guides,

and NRC Consolidated Guidance NUREG series 1556, as references for materials licensing

actions. Technical quality of the licensing program can be enhanced through the completion of

the State’s procedures as noted in the recommendation in Section 2.0. The one exception noted

that is inconsistent with NRC guidance involved two licenses, one for a fixed gauge and one for a

portable gauge, which did not have a license condition for periodic inventory of sealed sources as

utilized as standard practice by NRC and other Agreement States. The review team understands

that this condition is being automatically added to applicable licenses by ACCESS as requests for

unrelated actions occur. However, the review team recommends that the State add the inventory

license condition to all applicable licenses, within the next year.

All licensing actions were signed by management. Deficiencies are addressed by letters almost

exclusively and use appropriate regulatory language. Telephone inquiries are only used when an

issue can be addressed that same day and are not documented as telephone inquiries but as

licensee letters.

The State provided a listing of 37 licenses that have been terminated since the last review. A

review of termination actions over the period showed that most of the terminations were for

licensees possessing only sealed sources and/or for uses of radiopharmaceuticals with short half

lives. The termination file selected for review did not involve residual contamination. The

terminated licensing action was well documented, showing appropriate records.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Nebraska’s

performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be found

satisfactory.

3.5 Response to Incidents and Allegations

In evaluating the effectiveness of the State’s actions in responding to incidents, the review team

examined the State’s response to the questionnaire regarding this indicator, reviewed selected

incidents reported for Nebraska in the “Nuclear Material Events Database” (NMED) against those

contained in the Nebraska files, and reviewed the casework and supporting documenta-tion for

eight materials incidents and five allegations including one allegation referred to the State by

NRC. A list of selected incident files examined along with case specific comments is contained in

Appendix E.

The review team interviewed the RMP manager and staff to discuss the State's incident and

allegation process, file documentation, Freedom of Information Act, NMED, and notification of

incidents to the NRC Operations Center. 
Nebraska Final Report Page 11

The RMP manager is familiar with NRC’s ”Handbook on Nuclear Event Reporting in the

Agreement States” and Procedure Number: SA-300, “Reporting Material Events,” dated February

1998. A copy of the manual is maintained in the State’s NMED files. Reports have been

submitted appropriately for NMED entry. In addition, the State has provided event status updates

to the NRC through the NMED system. 

The review team found that the State’s actions in response to incidents and allegations were

appropriate. The RMP manager usually directs the initial response and evaluates the need for an

on-site investigation. Initial responses were prompt and well-coordinated, and the level of effort

was commensurate with the health and safety significance. Inspectors were dispatched for onsite

investigations in four of the eight incidents reviewed. Of those four onsite investi-gations, two

were conducted on the same day of the notification. When appropriate, the State took suitable

enforcement action that required corrective measures by the licensee.

During the review period, there was one allegation referred to the State by NRC, and there were

four allegations that the State handled directly. The State promptly conducts an inspection when

appropriate. The State maintains a complete chronology of their actions from the first contact to

completion of the investigation. In addition, allegation closure memos are maintained in the files. 

The closure memos contained information on the allegations and investigation activities, but did

not always clearly state the bases for the findings or clearly state the outcome of the investigation,

(i.e., substantiated or unsubstantiated). Also, it was noted that the alleger is usually not informed

of the outcome of the investigation. Although the State’s responses to allegations were

satisfactory, the review team recommends that the allegation records clearly state the basis for the

findings and outcome of the investigation, and that the alleger be informed of the outcome of the

investigation. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Nebraska’ s

performance with respect to the indicator, Response to Incidents and Allegations, be found

satisfactory.

4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

IMPEP identifies four non-common performance indicators to be used in reviewing Agreement

State programs: (1) Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility; (2) Sealed

Source and Device Evaluation Program; (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program; and

(4) Uranium Recovery Program. Nebraska’s Agreement does not include uranium recovery

program authority, so only the first three non-common performance indicators were applicable. 

4.1 Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility

4.1.1 Legislation 

Along with their response to the questionnaire, the State provided the review team with the

opportunity to review copies of legislation that affect the radiation control program. The 

currently effective statutory authority for the HHS R&L is contained in Nebraska Radiation Control

Act 71-3501 to 71-3520. The Health and Human Services, Department of Regulation and
Nebraska Final Report Page 12

Licensure is the State's radiation control agency. The review team noted that no legislation

affecting the radiation control program was passed during the review period.

4.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility 

The Nebraska Regulations for Control of Radiation, Title 180, Nebraska Administrative Code,

applies to all ionizing radiation. Nebraska requires a license for possession and use of all

radioactive material including naturally occurring materials, such as radium, and acceleratorproduced radionuclides. Nebraska also requires registration of all equipment designed to produce

x-rays or other ionizing radiation.

The review team examined the State’s administrative rulemaking process and found that the

process takes four to eight months from the development stage to the final filing with the Secretary

of State, after which the rules become effective in five days. The process includes the

development stage, public hearing stage, approval stage, and the filing stage. All rules and

regulations for adoption must be adopted in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act,

Section 84-901 et seq. of the Nebraska Revised Statutes, signed by the Governor, then filed with

the Secretary of State. The public, the NRC, other agencies, and all potentially impacted

licensees and registrants are offered an opportunity to comment during the process. Comments

are considered and incorporated as appropriate before the regulations are finalized. The State

cannot adopt other agency regulations by reference; however, the State can adopt other

requirements such as 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) by attaching the specific regulation

(with the effective date) to the State’s proposed regulations during the adoption process. The

State has the authority to issue legally binding requirements (e.g., license conditions) in lieu of

regulations until compatible regulations become effective.

The team evaluated Nebraska’s responses to the questionnaire and reviewed the status of

regulations required to be adopted by the State during the review period. No regulations have

been adopted by the State since September 17, 1997. The review team noted during the onsite

review that Nebraska had prepared the following regulations for adoption, and the RMP staff

related that the final versions were in the Attorney General’s Office for approval, and the RMP

staff projected that the regulations would become effective in November of 1998. The final

regulations adopted on December 14, 1998, are as follows:

! “Frequency of Medical Examinations for Use of Respiratory Protection Equipment,” 10

CFR Part 20 amendment (60 FR 7900) that became effective March 13, 1995. 

! “Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and Reporting,” 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61

amendments (60 FR 15649 and 25983) that became effective March 1, 1998. The

Agreement States are to promulgate their regulations no later than March 1,1998 so that

NRC and the State would require this national system to be effective at the same time. 

! "Radiation Protection Requirements: Amended Definitions and Criteria," 10 CFR Parts 19

and 20 amendments (60 FR 36038) that became effective August 14, 1995.

! "Compatibility with the International Atomic Energy Agency," 10 CFR Part 71 amendment

(60 FR 50248) that became effective April 1, 1996. 
Nebraska Final Report Page 13

The State has not adopted the following regulations:

! "Quality Management Program and Misadministrations," 10 CFR Part 35 amendment (56

FR 34104) that became effective January 27, 1992.

! "Performance Requirements for Radiography Equipment," 10 CFR Part 34 

(60 FR 28323) that became effective June 30, 1995. (Note that this regulation has been

drafted.)

! “Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne Effluents of Radioactive Materials; Clean Air

Act,” 10 CFR Part 20 amendment (61 FR 65119) that became effective January 9, 1997.

! “Recognition of Agreement State Licenses in Areas Under Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction

Within an Agreement State,” 10 CFR Part 150 amendment (62 FR 1662) that became

effective February 27, 1997.

! “Licenses for Industrial Radiography and Radiation Safety - Requirements for Industrial

Radiography Operations,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 34, 71, 150 amendments (62 FR 28947) that

became effective June 27, 1997.

! “Radiological Criteria for License Termination,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, 70 amendments

(62 FR 39057) that became effective August 20, 1997.

The RMP has plans to draft the above rules which require adoption through 2000, by late 1999. 

The review team recommends that RMP management effect rulemaking activities to ensure that

NRC rule changes are adopted within the specified 3 year time period. 

It is noted that Management Directive 5.9, Handbook, Part V, (1)(C)(III) provides that the above

regulations should be adopted by the State as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 3 years

after the September 3, 1997 effective date of the Commission Policy Statement on Adequacy and

Compatibility, i.e., September 3, 2000.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Nebraska’s

performance with respect to the indicator, Legislation and Program Elements Required for

Compatibility, be found satisfactory.

4.2 Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Program

With regard to the Sealed Source and Device program, Nebraska reported that the State had not

licensed any sealed sources or devices since the State became an Agreement State. The State

does not have any SS&D manufacturers. Therefore, this non-common indicator was not

reviewed. During the exit meeting with program managers, the team discussed the options

available to the State should the State receive an application for a sealed source or device review

under State jurisdiction. These options included: (1) develop an in-house capability for State

reviews of SS&D’s; (2) have the review performed by a third party having the qualifications and

resources to perform reviews; (3) request the NRC to perform the SS&D review with appropriate
Nebraska Final Report Page 14

reimbursement in accordance with NRC policies; and (4) request the turnback of the SS&D

program to the Commission with a formal letter from the Governor. 

4.3 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program

In the process of evaluating this non-common performance indicator, the review team evaluated

the State’s responses to the questionnaire; compared selected portions of the Nebraska LLRW

statutes and regulations with those of the NRC; evaluated changes in the technical staff and

contractors since the last review in July 1996; reviewed the State’s written procedures and plans;

examined parts of the LLRW disposal facility license application, interrogatories, safety evaluation

report, and documentation that tracked and evaluated both public comments and responses of the

applicant to interrogatories; and interviewed staff and managers assigned to the LLRW program. 

The State of Nebraska received a License Application from U.S. Ecology on July 27, 1990, to

operate a LLRW facility in the State. The State has been conducting a license application review

since that time. In the last year, the State has issued several major review documents that

describe in detail the results of its review and the conclusions to date. In October 1997, the State

published a Draft Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and Draft Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA)

for public comment. The State held public hearings to receive more comments in February 1998. 

In August 1998, the State published a SER and EIA for public comment, along with a document

that analyzed their responses to public comments received earlier in the year. The State also

issued a Proposed Licensing Decision announcing its intent to deny U.S. Ecology’s license

application based on seven specific issues. Five of these issues are generally related to

groundwater and surface water at the site, one concerns U.S. Ecology’s 

financial qualifications, and one concerns design basis accidents at the facility during the

operational phase. The State environmental review process and documentation, such as the EIA,

was not included in this IMPEP review.

The Intent to Deny the application is a preliminary decision, and the public and license applicant,

U.S. Ecology, have the opportunity to provide more information before a final decision is made. 

There is a 90-day public comment period, and public hearings have been scheduled for early

November. Nebraska also has in place a provision that allows for an aggrieved person to file a

petition contesting the decision. A contested case hearing would be conducted in accordance

with the NDEQ’s rules of practice and procedure.

Regulation of LLRW disposal in the State is a shared responsibility between the HHS R&L and

NDEQ. Each Agency has regulations applicable to the U.S. Ecology license application. Those

of NDEQ are promulgated and codified in Title 194 of the Nebraska Administrative Code, and

those of HHS R&L are found in Title 180 of the same code. Both have previously been found to

be compatible with NRC’s regulations. In the team’s review of the Agreement State program for

LLRW, both organizations were evaluated.

4.3.1 Status and Technical Quality of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Inspections

Because the program is in the license application review stage, inspections are not applicable. 

The State has a program of Quality Assurance (QA) audits and surveillances, both internal and
Nebraska Final Report Page 15

external, however, and these are discussed in Section 4.3.3, “Technical Quality of Licensing

Actions.”

4.3.2. Technical Staffing and Training

In the last IMPEP review in July 1996, there was one recommendation concerning the training

documentation for staff and contractors. That recommendation was evaluated and closed in the

follow-up review contained in NRC’s February 5, 1998, letter to the State. As noted in the IMPEP

report at that time, “Staff and contractors are all highly qualified for their responsibilities in the

LLRW program. . .” The focus in this review was therefore changes in staffing. There have been

several since the last review. A new LLRW program manager in HHS R&L was selected in June

1998 and spends 50% of his time in this role. The previous LLRW program manager still spends

10% of her time in LLRW, but most of her time is devoted to the position of acting RMP manager. 

Other staff in HHS R&L in LLRW have remained stable, with the exception of one HP II who

retired in June 1997. He is now a consultant to the LLRW program. The LLRW Program in HHS

R&L also has one vacancy, for a Health Physicist II, but program personnel stated that this

position may not be filled, depending upon the outcome of the licensing process. If the State

makes a final decision that the license application is to be denied, additional staff may not be

necessary. In the NDEQ, staffing has remained stable since the last review. 

The team examined the qualification and training records for LLRW program staff. The computer

data bases and training records that the team examined in the last review continue to be updated

as staff complete training and no problems were identified.

4.3.3 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The review team examined the preparation of the draft SER, published in October 1997, the

resolution of public comments on the draft SER, and the preparation of the SER published in

August 1998. Because of the Intent to Deny by the State, a final SER supporting a final decision

will be published in the future.

During the July 1996 IMPEP review, the team reviewed the tracking and resolution of comments

on the U.S. Ecology application. During this review, the team verified that open items that could

not be resolved with U.S. Ecology were tracked and subsequently documented in the draft SER

published in October 1997. The State has a number of different reports and internal documents

that were used for tracking and resolving comments and ensuring that the findings in the draft

SER were supported. They include the following:

! Technical Comment Tracking Document

! Worksheets for the Final Round Technical Review

! The Working Copy of the Final Round Technical Comments 

! The Final Evaluation Findings 
Nebraska Final Report Page 16

! Application Review Documentation (ARD) (All documents which will be retained in

order to document the technical review process.)

! A formal “Response to Public Comments” 

The team considers the licensing process to be generally thorough and systematic and

documented in internal procedures. A list of these procedures is as follow:

! . LP-8, Technical Review of the Safety Analysis Report

! LP-9, ARD

! LP-10, Agency Consultation and Public Comment Process

! LP-11, Assembly and Availability of the draft SER

! LP-24, Notice of License Denial

In this review, the team found no instances in which the State had not followed these procedures

for the preparation of the draft SER of October 1997.

At the time of the review in September 1998 the documentation of the internal review process for

the August 1998 SER was not in the ARD file. Some of the records were available during the

review, however, and found to be satisfactory. Subsequent to the review, the State provided

information that the records had been placed in the ARD file. Also, although a draft procedure

was available for preparing the August 1998 SER, it had not been formally issued. For the final

SER, however, a procedure was issued and used for its preparation. 

The team reviewed portions of the State’s SER addressing the types, kinds, and quantities of

waste (Section 6.1.1 of the SER). This section evaluates U.S. Ecology’s projections of waste for

the facility over the 30 year operating life, and the limits proposed by the applicant for the facility. 

Two radionuclides that are important in the performance assessment of the site, because they can

contribute significantly to the long-term dose, are technetium-99 and iodine-129. Both are longlived and highly mobile. A complicating factor in analyzing the performance of a facility is that the

information reported on shipping manifests by generators for these two isotopes typically

overestimates their amounts significantly because lower-limits of detection are reported.

In its application, U.S. Ecology relied on an approach that estimates the amounts of these two

radionuclides using reactor fuel performance data provided by utility waste generators. The

information is processed using a computer program, “3R-STAT,” that was reviewed and approved

by NRC in its Topical Report program. The Nebraska LLRW Program staff and contractors were

very familiar with this code and involved with its development and its use and provided detailed

requests for information from the applicant. The State efforts in its review of this area have been

thorough and the team did not identify any concerns.

As reported in the last IMPEP review, the State has a well organized QA program that covers both

internal and external activities. In 1997, 4 surveillances and 3 audits were conducted of license
Nebraska Final Report Page 17

application organizations (i.e, external QA). For the internal program, 13 surveillances and 4

audits were conducted. The team reviewed one audit of the U.S. Ecology pre-operational

monitoring program at the Boyd County site. The audit appeared to be thorough with a 72 item

checklist that was completely filled out. No non-conformances were issued in the audit report.

The team also examined the documentation for an internal audit of HDR Engineering, conducted

on April 25,1997. As above, the audit team had a complete checklist and appeared to perform a

thorough review of the HDR Engineering’s program. Two non-conformances were issued. 

In 1998, many of the originally planned QA audits and surveillances have not been implemented

because of the higher priority work of preparing the SER and EIA. In August 1998, the State

“deauthorized” (i.e., canceled) 12 audits and surveillances that had originally 

been planned for the year. Given the intention of the State to deny the license application, it is not

clear at this time what the future level of effort should be for the audit and surveillance program. 

4.3.4 Response to Incidents and Allegations

The team evaluated the management of allegations in both HHS R&L and NDEQ. As discussed

in the materials program evaluation, HHS R&L has a procedure for evaluating allegations. 

However, NDEQ does not have such a procedure. NDEQ staff provided a procedure entitled

“Confidentiality of Documents” that describes how certain documents such as citizen complaints

will be kept from public disclosure, but it covers only one aspect of allegations management. The

team recommends that NDEQ prepare, or adopt by reference, a procedure for managing

allegations. 

Because there is no operating LLRW facility, there were no incidents to evaluate.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Nebraska’s

performance with respect to the indicator, Low-Level Waste Disposal Program be found

satisfactory. 

5.0 SUMMARY

As noted in Sections 3 and 4 above, the review team found Nebraska’s performance for all of the

common and non-common performance indicators to be satisfactory. Accordingly, the review

team recommended and the MRB concurred in finding the Nebraska Agreement State Program to

be adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC's program. 

Below is a summary list of recommendations and suggestions, as mentioned in earlier sections of

the report, for implementation and evaluation, as appropriate, by the State. 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Because of the importance of the development and implementation of critical procedures

relative to the performance of the staff and the performance indicators, the team

recommends that the State initiate appropriate actions needed to complete the

development and implementation of the previously identified procedures that are critical to
Nebraska Final Report Page 18

the performance of the program. The State should provide the revised schedule to NRC

and copies of the procedures as they are completed. (Section 2.0)

2. The team recommends that staff who conduct independent inspections and/or license

reviews of pool irradiators, teletherapy and brachytherapy complete the irradiator course

and teletherapy and brachytherapy courses. (Section 3.3) 

3. The review team recommends that the State add the inventory license condition to all

applicable licenses, within the next year.(Section 3.4)

4. The review team recommends that the allegation records clearly state the basis for the

findings and outcome of the investigation, and that the alleger be informed of the outcome

of the investigation. (Section 3.5)

5. The review team recommends that RMP management effect rulemaking activities to

ensure that NRC rule changes are adopted within the specified 3 year time period.

(Section 4.1.2)

6. The team recommends that NDEQ prepare, or adopt by reference, a procedure for

managing allegations. (Section 4.3.4)

SUGGESTIONS:

1. The review team suggests that training plans be developed for each staff member to

ensure the completion of the State’s qualifications program. (Section 3.3)

2. The review team suggests that the RMP establish guidance to assist the inspectors when

making a decision whether to issue a recommendation versus an item of noncompliance

(violation). (Section 3.2)
Nebraska Final Report

LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members

Appendix B Nebraska Organization Charts

Appendix C Inspection Casework Reviews

Appendix D License Casework Reviews

Appendix E Incident Casework Reviews

Attachment 1 State’s Response to Draft Report dated November 23, 1998.
Nebraska Final Report

APPENDIX A

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

Name Area of Responsibility

Richard L. Woodruff, Region II Team Leader

Status of Inspection Program

Legislation and Program Elements

 Required for Compatibility

Linda McLean, Region IV Technical Staffing and Training

Response to Incidents and Allegations

Cynthia Sanders, Georgia Technical Quality of Inspections

Anthony S. Kirkwood, NMSS/IMNS Technical Quality of Licensing

James E. Kennedy, NMSS/DWM Low-Level Waste Radioactive Waste

 Program
Nebraska Final Report

APPENDIX B

State of Nebraska

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

DEPARTMENT OF REGULATION AND LICENSURE

RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS AND LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE 

ORGANIZATION CHARTS