July 22, 2003

Ms. Yvonne Sylva, Administrator

State Health Division

Department of Human Resources

505 E. King Street

Carson City, NV 89701-4797

Dear Ms. Sylva:

On July 10, 2003, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Nevada

Agreement State Program. The MRB found that the Nevada program (1) is adequate, but

needs improvement, and (2) compatible with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC)

program. 

Significant improvement was seen in several performance indicators. Most notably, the Status

of Materials Inspection Program indicator improved from an unsatisfactory finding to

satisfactory with recommendations for improvement. The audit by the Department of

Administration and resulting plans to increase fees, add staff, and increase training, addresses

the root causes of the program deficiencies. Although the actions have yet to be completed,

the management commitment seen by the review team during this follow-up IMPEP review is

noteworthy. The review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, that heightened oversight

of the Nevada program be terminated, that the State enter into a period of program monitoring,

and that a full IMPEP review of the Nevada program be performed in two years.

Section 4.0, page 12, of the enclosed final report presents the follow-up IMPEP team's

recommendations for the State of Nevada. We received your May 30, 2003 letter which

described your actions taken in response to the recommendations in the draft report. We

request no additional information at this time.

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

also wish to acknowledge your continued support for the Radiation Control Program and the

significant underlying improvements in the program which are beginning to be reflected in the

program’s performance. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the

future.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Carl J. Paperiello 

Deputy Executive Director 

 for Materials, Research and State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: See next page
Yvonne Sylva - 2 -

cc: Alex Haartz, Deputy Administrator

Stanley R. Marshall, Supervisor

Radiological Health Section

Robert R. Loux, Executive Director

Agency for Nuclear Projects

William Sinclair, Utah

OAS Liaison to MRB
Yvonne Sylva - 2 -

cc: Alex Haartz, Deputy Administrator

Stanley R. Marshall, Supervisor

Radiological Health Section

Robert R. Loux, Executive Director

Agency for Nuclear Projects

William Sinclair, Utah

OAS Liaison to MRB

bcc: Chairman Diaz

Commissioner Dicus

Commissioner McGaffigan

Commissioner Merrifield

Distribution:

DIR RF ( ) DCD (SP01) 

RVirgilio, STP PDR (YES)

KSchneider, STP

LRakovan, STP

OSiurano, STP MLMcLean, RIV

JZabko, ASPO RStruckmeyer, NMSS

CMiller, NMSS WMaier, RIV

STreby, OGC WLoo, RII

JLieberman, OGC BHamrick, California

MVirgilio, NMSS KCyr, OGC

FCameron, OGC ISchoenfeld, EDO

TCombs, OCA (2 copies)

Nevada File ML031970594

DOCUMENT NAME: C:\ORPCheckout\FileNET\ML031970600.wpd

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/DNMS STP:DD STP:D DEDMRS

NAME JLynch:gd JMPiccone PLohaus CJPaperiello

DATE 7/14/03 7/16/03 7/16/03 07/22/03

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY ML031970594
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

FOLLOW-UP REVIEW OF NEVADA AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

APRIL 7-10, 2003

FINAL REPORT

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Nevada Follow-Up Final Report Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the follow-up review of the Nevada radiation control program,

conducted April 7-10, 2003. This follow-up review was directed by the Management Review

Board (MRB) based on the results of the September 10-14, 2001 Integrated Materials

Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review. The MRB directed that a follow-up review of

the Status of Materials Inspection Program, Technical Staffing and Training, Response to

Incidents and Allegations, and Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility

indicators, be conducted in approximately one and one-half years from the MRB meeting. The

decision was based on one “unsatisfactory” and three “satisfactory with recommendations for

improvement” findings for the performance indicators. The follow-up review also included

evaluation of the actions taken by the State to address the seven recommendations made

during the 2001 IMPEP review.

In addition, since review of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program performance

indicator was not done in 2001, due to the absence of a team member, the MRB directed that

the follow-up review include a full review of that indicator.

The follow-up review was conducted by a review team consisting of technical staff members

from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the State of California. Review team

members are identified in Appendix A. The follow-up review was conducted in accordance with

the November 5, 1999, NRC Management Directive 5.6, "Integrated Materials Performance

Evaluation Program (IMPEP)." Preliminary results of the follow-up review, which covered the

period of September 15, 2001 to April 10, 2003, were discussed with Nevada management on

April 10, 2003.

A draft of this report was issued to Nevada for factual comment on May 9, 2003. The State

responded by letter dated May 30, 2003. The Management Review Board (MRB) met on

July 10, 2003 to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the Nevada radiation

control program adequate, but needs improvement, and compatible with NRC’s program.

The Nevada Agreement State program is administered by the Radiological Health Section (the

Section) of the Bureau of Health Protection Services (the Bureau), State Health Division (the

Division), Nevada Department of Human Resources. Organization charts for the State and

Bureau are included as Appendix B. At the time of the follow-up review, the Nevada program

regulated 233 specific licenses, including broad academic programs, medical programs,

radiopharmacies, industrial radiographers, and a non-operating low-level radioactive waste

disposal site. The review focused on the materials program as it is carried out under the

Section 274b. (of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) Agreement between the NRC

and the State of Nevada.

After the last IMPEP review, the State conducted an independent program assessment and

made a decision to retain the Agreement materials program rather than turn it back to the NRC. 

An executive branch committee, chaired by the Governor, made commitments to strengthen the

program by raising license fees to generate funds for increased staffing and to support training

of staff. These are significant efforts that will strengthen program performance as they are

implemented.
Nevada Follow-Up Final Report Page 2

Prior to the follow-up review, the NRC conducted a period of heightened oversight of the

Nevada program which included Nevada developing and submitting a Program Improvement

Plan in response to the 2001 IMPEP review, and bimonthly conference calls with the NRC to

discuss Nevada’s progress in implementing the Plan. The Program Improvement Plan was

submitted on March 25, 2002. Conference calls were held April 16, 2002, June 13, 2002,

August 7, 2002, October 15, 2002, December 18, 2002, and February 25, 2003. The Program

Improvement Plan and minutes from the calls are referenced in Appendix D.

The review team's general approach for conduct of this follow-up review consisted of: 

(1) examination of the heightened oversight information, (2) review of applicable Nevada

statutes and regulations, (3) analysis of quantitative information from the Section’s licensing

and inspection databases, (4) interviews with staff and management to answer questions or

clarify issues, (5) evaluation of incident databases, and (6) a site visit to the Beatty low-level

radioactive waste disposal site. The review team evaluated the information gathered against

the IMPEP performance criteria for the three common and two non-common performance

indicators and made a preliminary assessment of the State’s performance.

Section 2 below discusses the results of the follow-up review of the Nevada program for the

three common performance indicators. Section 3 below discusses the results of the follow-up

review of the Nevada program for the two non-common performance indicators. Section 4

summarizes the follow-up review team's findings and recommendations.

2.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

The review addressed three of the five common performance indicators used in reviewing both

NRC Regional and Agreement State programs. The indicators are: (1) Technical Staffing and

Training, (2) Status of Materials Inspection Program, and (3) Response to Incidents and

Allegations. Although the team did not review the performance indicator, Technical Quality of

Inspections, one recommendation from the 2001 IMPEP review for that indicator is addressed

below.

2.1 Technical Staffing and Training

During the follow-up review, the review team evaluated actions taken by the Nevada program in

response to Recommendation 5 and evaluated the current status of the staffing and training of

the Nevada program.

Issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the Section’s staffing level, staff

turnover, staff technical qualifications, and training histories. To evaluate these issues, the

review team examined the Section's training program, interviewed Section management and

staff, and reviewed job descriptions and training records. The review team also examined

program workloads.

The review team’s evaluation of the Nevada program’s response to Recommendation 5, from

the 2001 IMPEP review, is presented below.
Nevada Follow-Up Final Report Page 3

Recommendation 5

“The review team recommends that the Division review the level of staff effort needed for the

program and ensure that an adequate compliment of trained and qualified staff is devoted to

the Agreement State program.”

Current Status

In light of the 2001 IMPEP review results and in consideration of fiscal conditions facing the

State, the Department of Human Resources queried the Governor’s Office as to whether the

State should continue to administer the Agreement radioactive materials program or transfer

the responsibility back to the NRC. The Department of Administration performed an audit of the

program to answer the question. On March 19, 2003, the audit report was presented to the

Executive Branch Audit Committee, chaired by the Nevada Governor. The audit concluded that

the State should retain the Agreement radioactive materials program. Two specific

recommendations were made: (1) Raise licensing fees to cover the State’s cost and continue

administering the program; and (2) Evaluate staffing levels to ensure the program is operating

effectively and complies with State and federal requirements.

In April 2003, the Nevada legislature accepted the audit recommendations and voted to make

the Section entirely fee funded in fiscal year 2005 (beginning in July 2004). The Division would

raise fees in fiscal year 2004 to cover program costs, including an increase in staffing levels. 

The Division indicated that proposed regulations to increase fees are expected to be presented

for adoption by the Nevada State Board of Health on October 24, 2003. Upon approval by the

Board, the Department will request authorization to use revenue from the increased fees to

elevate staffing and other program activities (including training) to appropriate levels. The

Division’s intent is to increase the level of staffing to approximately double current levels for the

entire radiation protection program, including radioactive materials, x-ray, and mammography.

The Division had also hired a consultant in October 2002 to provide an objective assessment of

program staffing time and effort for the radioactive materials program. The assessment is

currently in progress and is expected to be completed by June 30, 2003. This assessment,

coupled with the Department of Administration audit findings, will provide a basis for identifying

a specific staffing increase.

The review team concluded, given the audit report and independent staffing assessment, that

this recommendation, from the 2001 IMPEP review, should be closed. The second part of this

recommendation is discussed in greater detail below.

During the summer of 2002, the Section reassigned staff from the x-ray program to aid in

addressing the backlog of overdue materials inspections and to complete materials inspections

in a timely manner. This reassignment resulted in a total of approximately 3 full-time equivalent

staff (FTE) assigned to the radioactive materials program. The staffing is broken down as

follows:

Radiation Staff Specialist (Carson City) 0.9 FTE

Radiation Staff Specialist (Carson City) 0.4 FTE

Radiation Control Specialist (Carson City) 1.0 FTE

Radiation Control Specialist (Carson City) 0.4 FTE

Radiation Staff Specialist (Las Vegas) 0.3 FTE
Nevada Follow-Up Final Report Page 4

Based on the workload observed, and the conclusions presented in the independent

Department of Administration audit report, the review team does not believe that the current

staffing level is adequate to properly implement the Agreement materials program. The review

team recommends that the State, in accordance with the Department of Administration audit

report, increase the radioactive materials program staff to meet program needs.

Due to current budget limitations, training for Section staff has virtually halted. The training

budget for the entire Section in their fiscal year 2003 was less than $1,600. This limited amount

of training budget, along with out-of-State travel restrictions, has severely limited the ability of

the program to maintain a technically trained staff. The Division’s training policy is similar to the

NRC/Organization of Agreement States Training Working Group Report. The policy requires

that technical staff complete seven core training courses or equivalent alternatives such as onthe-job training, or computer-based training. Five additional training courses are identified in

the policy for advanced staff training.

After discussions with staff and review of training records, the team identified that Section staff

members are not being trained in accordance with the policy. Specifically, one of the core

training courses is Transportation of Radioactive Material. Only one of the five technical staff

has attended the course or received equivalent instruction. Another course, Teletherapy and

Brachytherapy, is advised, by the policy, for those staff members who perform inspection or

licensing of those modalities. None of the staff members has taken the course or received

equivalent training in teletherapy or brachytherapy. Interviews with staff indicated that in-house

preparation, including study of manufacturers’ training manuals, is done prior to inspecting or

licensing a type of license for which the individual has little experience.

The review team noted, in discussions with Division management, that when additional staff are

hired, it will be imperative that appropriate training be made available, in a timely manner, so

that the new staff members achieve appropriate qualification to perform radioactive material

inspections and to complete licensing actions. The review team recommends that the State

provide training to current and future technical personnel, either by formal course work or

equivalent, as prescribed by the Division’s training policy.

The review team concludes that the Nevada program has made significant progress with

program analysis and efforts to raise fees, which in turn, will allow hiring and training of staff. 

Implementation of these activities must be completed to alleviate the under staffing and training

problems which currently face the program. Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review

team recommended and the MRB agreed that Nevada’s performance with respect to the

indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, was satisfactory with recommendations for

improvement. This finding remains unchanged from the 2001 review. 

2.2 Status of Materials Inspection Program

During the follow-up review, the review team evaluated actions taken by the Section in

response to the finding of unsatisfactory made during the 2001 IMPEP review, the status of the

inspections performed since the 2001 review, and the current status of due and overdue

inspections.

The review team examined the timeliness of core inspections performed since the last review

period, the current backlog of overdue inspections, reciprocity inspections and the timeliness in
Nevada Follow-Up Final Report Page 5

communication of inspection results to licensees. The review team independently reviewed

inspection files to verify the dates of inspections, and to determine the date of the issuance of

inspection results to licensees relative to the date of inspection. All inspection results reviewed

were issued to the licensee within 30 days of the date of the inspection. The other aspects

reviewed are discussed below in the context of the review team’s evaluation of the Section’s

responses to the three 2001 IMPEP review recommendations.

Recommendation 1

“The review team recommends that the Section take appropriate measures to conduct core

inspections (including initial inspections) in accordance with the NRC’s inspection priority

system, and to assess the current priority system.”

Current Status

In response to this recommendation, the Section reassigned staff from other program areas to

assist in the timely performance of materials inspections. These reassignments were not made

until summer 2002. Thus, over this review period the Section continued to experience difficulty

in performing timely inspections. During the review period, the Section completed 53

inspections. Six core inspections were performed overdue during the review period, and there

were two overdue inspections pending at the time of this review. One of the overdue

inspections was also overdue during the 2001 IMPEP review. The amount of time the other

inspections were overdue or were performed overdue ranged from eight months (a priority one

inspection) to 39 months (a priority three inspection) beyond the due date.

Based on the Section’s policy regarding the performance of initial inspections within six months

of receipt of radioactive material, or within a year of license issuance, whichever comes first,

there were five initial inspections performed overdue, although all were performed within one

year of license issuance. Using the Section’s criterion for the timely performance of initial

inspections, a total of 13 of 55 inspections (23.6%) that should have been completed during the

review period, were performed on an overdue basis, or were overdue and not yet completed at

the time of this review.

The review team also considered the NRC’s current criterion for performance of initial

inspections, as stated in Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) Temporary Instruction 2800/033,

Revision 2. This criterion permits performance of initial inspections within one year of license

issuance. The team found that the Section had completed all initial inspections during the

review period in accordance with this criterion. Using this criterion, a total of 8 of 55 inspections

(14.5%) were performed on an overdue basis or were overdue and not yet completed at the

time of this review.

The review team elected to review the Section’s performance under both criteria to ensure a fair

performance-based assessment of the progress made during the review period. Under either

criterion, the Section’s performance improved relative to the findings of the 2001 IMPEP review. 

However they continue to experience some difficulty in performing timely inspections. The root

cause appears to be directly related to staffing levels, and particularly affected performance in

the Section’s Las Vegas region. Once the reassignments were made in mid-2002, the five

overdue initial inspections, all in the Las Vegas region, were performed within the next three

months.
Nevada Follow-Up Final Report Page 6

While improvement was seen, and staffing levels were increased by reassigning staff from

another program area, the inspection timeliness goals were not met during this review period. 

As noted above, two inspections remained overdue at the time of the on-site review (one of

which was 39 months overdue). On these bases, the review team concludes that this

recommendation should remain open.

Recommendation 2

“The review team recommends that the Section adopt an initial inspection policy similar to the

schedule for initial inspections contained in IMC 2800.”

Current Status

Since the last review, the Section revised their written policy on the performance of initial

inspections to meet the objectives of IMC 2800. As discussed in the context of

Recommendation 1, above, the Section was not able to fully implement this revision due to a

lack of a sufficient number of staff, particularly affecting their office in the Las Vegas region. 

Also, as discussed in the context of Recommendation 1, the Section did meet the criterion in

IMC TI 2800/033. If the NRC finalizes this criterion, the Section may want to re-visit their policy

on the conduct of initial inspections to reflect the more lenient criterion. This recommendation

is closed.

Recommendation 3

“The review team recommends that the Section perform reciprocity inspections as specified in

IMC 1220.”

Current Status

During the IMPEP review period, the State approved reciprocity requests from thirty core

licensees and conducted six inspections. The performance criterion for reciprocity inspections

is 20% of core licensees as indicated in IMC 1220. The Section’s performance over the entire

IMPEP review period met this criterion. This recommendation is closed.

The review team concludes that the status of the materials inspection program has made

progress since the 2001 IMPEP review, but the Section still performed more than 10% of their

inspections on an overdue basis, and had two overdue inspections pending during the follow-up

on-site review. Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommended and the

MRB agreed that Nevada’s performance with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials

Inspection Program, was satisfactory with recommendations for improvement. This finding has

improved from an unsatisfactory finding from the 2001 review.

2.3 Technical Quality of Inspections

The review team did not review this performance indicator during the follow-up, however,

actions addressing one recommendation from the previous IMPEP review were evaluated.
Nevada Follow-Up Final Report Page 7

Recommendation 4

“The review team recommends that the Section conduct annual accompaniments of both new

and experienced staff to ensure continued technical quality of inspections and to assist in the

training and qualifications of staff.”

Current Status

Since the last review, the Section reemphasized accompaniments by the Section Supervisor or

Senior Radiation Staff Specialist. Each of the five individuals authorized to perform inspections

were accompanied since the last review. This recommendation is closed.

2.4 Response to Incidents and Allegations

During this follow-up review, the review team evaluated actions taken by the Section in

response to the finding of satisfactory with recommendations for improvement made during the

2001 IMPEP review. Recommendation 6 made during the 2001 review addressed the Section’s

reporting of radioactive material incidents. The review team also evaluated the Section’s

actions in response to the receipt of allegations.

Recommendation 6

“The review team recommends that the Section report all significant and 30-60 day notification

event and follow-up event information, to the NRC in accordance with STP Procedure SA-300,

Reporting Materials Events.”

Current Status

In response to this recommendation, the review team evaluated incidents listed for Nevada in

the “Nuclear Materials Events Database” (NMED) against those contained in the Nevada files,

and evaluated the casework and supporting documentation for six materials incidents. A list of

the reportable incident casework examined with case-specific comments is included in

Appendix C. The team also examined the Section’s response to one allegation involving

radioactive materials that was referred to the Section, by the NRC, during the review period.

The review team discussed the Section’s incidents and allegation procedures, file

documentation, NMED, and notifications to the NRC Operations Center with the Section

Supervisor and selected staff.

Nine incidents were reported during the review period. Of those nine events, the team found

that only six involved Atomic Energy Act material and all were appropriately reported to the

NRC Operations Center and found in the NMED database. The incidents reviewed included: 

unsecured, recovered and damaged portable gauges, an equipment problem, and a leaking

sealed source. This recommendation is closed.

During the review period, the Section received one allegation that was referred by the NRC. 

The review team evaluated the allegation response and determined that the Section took

appropriate action in response to the concerns raised.
Nevada Follow-Up Final Report Page 8

The review team examined State policies and procedures to ascertain whether an alleger’s

identity can be protected from disclosure. According to the Section Supervisor, Nevada

regulations protect the identity of licensee employees making allegations, but the regulations do

not cover members of the public. The Nevada public records statute found in Nevada Revised

Statutes Section 239.010, requires that records of a governmental entity, the contents of which

are not otherwise declared by law to be confidential, must be available for public review. These

publicly available records include alleger identities.

This finding is contrary to information in STP Procedure SA-400 “Management of Allegations,”

Appendix C, which states that Nevada can protect an alleger’s identity from public disclosure. 

This information was provided to the NRC Office of State and Tribal Programs for correction of

the information.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommended and the MRB agreed

that Nevada’s performance with respect to the indicator, Response to Incidents and Allegations,

was satisfactory. This finding has improved from a satisfactory with recommendations for

improvement finding from the 2001 review.

3.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

This review addressed two of the non-common performance indicators used in reviewing

Agreement State programs. The indicators are: (1) Legislation and Program Elements

Required for Compatibility; and (2) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program.

3.1 Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility

3.1.1 Legislation

Legislative authority to create an agency and enter into an agreement with the NRC is granted

in Nevada Revised Statutes Section 459. The Nevada State Health Division is designated as

the State’s radiation control agency. The review team noted that no legislation affecting the

program was passed during the review period.

3.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility

The Nevada Regulations for State Control of Radiation, is found in Chapter 459 of the Nevada

Administrative Code, and applies to all ionizing radiation, whether emitted from radionuclides or

devices. Nevada requires a license for possession, and use, of all radioactive material

including naturally occurring materials, such as radium and accelerator-produced radionuclides. 

Nevada also requires registration of all equipment designed to produce x-rays or other ionizing

radiation.

The review team’s evaluation of the Nevada’s response to the 2001 IMPEP review

recommendation is presented below.
Nevada Follow-Up Final Report Page 9

Recommendation 7

“The review team recommends that the Section develop and implement an action plan to adopt

NRC regulations in accordance with current policy on adequacy and compatibility.” This

recommendation is closed. 

Current Status

The Nevada program has taken notable action to adopt overdue regulations. During the period

under review, the team found that the State addressed the following 10 NRC regulatory

amendments. The regulations were adopted by the Nevada Board of Health on March 28,

2003. The regulations were filed with the Secretary of State and became effective on May 30,

2003.

 “Termination or Transfer of Licensed Activities: Recordkeeping Requirements,”

10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, 61, 70 amendments (61 FR 24669) that became effective

June 17, 1996.

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

Act-Part 20,” 10 CFR Part 20 amendment (61 FR 65120) that become effective on

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.

 “Criteria for the Release of Individuals Administered Radioactive Material,” 10 CFR

Parts 20 and 35 amendments (62 FR 4120) that became effective May 29, 1997.

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

Radiography Operations,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 34, 71, and 150 amendments (62 FR

28948) that became effective June 27, 1997.

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

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

 “Exempt Distribution of a Radioactive Drug Containing One Microcurie of Carbon-14

Urea,” 10 CFR Part 30 amendment (62 FR 63634) that became effective January 2,

1998.

 “Deliberate Misconduct by Unlicensed Persons,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 61, 70, and 150

amendments (63 FR 1890; 63 FR 13773) that became effective on February 12, 1998.

 “Licenses for Industrial Radiography and Radiation Safety Requirements for Industrial

Radiographic Operations,” 10 CFR Part 34 amendment (63 FR 37059) that became

effective on July 9, 1998.
Nevada Follow-Up Final Report Page 10

 “Minor Corrections, Clarifying Changes, and a Minor Policy Change,” 10 CFR

Parts 20, 35, and 36 amendments (63 FR 39477; 63 FR 45393) that became effective

on October 26, 1998.

The following two regulations are overdue. Current NRC policy requires that Agreement States

adopt certain equivalent regulations or legally binding requirements no later than three years

after NRC’s effective date. The Section stated that these regulations will be addressed by

adopting legally binding requirements.

 “Transfer for Disposal and Manifests: Minor Technical Conforming Amendment,”

10 CFR Part 20 amendment (63 FR 50127) that became effective November 20, 1998.

 “Respiratory Protection and Controls to Restrict Internal Exposures,” 10 CFR Part 20

amendment (64 FR 54543; 64 FR 55524) that became effective on February 2, 2000.

The team identified the following five regulation changes and adoptions that will be needed in

the future.

 “Energy Compensation Sources for Well Logging and Other Regulatory Clarifications”

10 CFR Part 39 amendment (65 FR 20337) that became effective on May 17, 2000.

 “New Dosimetry Technology,” 10 CFR Parts 34, 36, and 39 amendments (65 FR 63749)

that became effective January 8, 2001.

 “Revision to the Skin Dose Limit,” 10 CFR Part 20 amendment (67 FR 16298) that

became effective April 5, 2002.

 “Medical Use of Byproduct Material,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 32, and 35 amendments (67 FR

20249) that became effective April 24, 2002.

 “Requirements for Certain Generally Licensed Industrial Devices Containing Byproduct

Materials,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 31, 32 amendments (65 FR 79162) that became effective

February 16, 2001.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommended and the MRB agreed

that Nevada’s performance with respect to the indicator, Legislation and Program Elements

Required for Compatibility, was satisfactory. This finding has improved from a satisfactory with

recommendations for improvement finding from the 2001 review.

3.2 Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program

The review team focused on five factors in reviewing the LLRW Disposal Program performance

indicator: (1) Technical Staffing and Training; (2) Status of Inspection Program; (3) Technical

Quality of Inspections; (4) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; and (5) Response to Incidents

and Allegations. The review included an evaluation of the qualifications of the technical staff, a

review of the Section's written procedures and plans, a review of surveillance and inspection

reports, and interviews with the principal inspector assigned to the LLRW project.
Nevada Follow-Up Final Report Page 11

The former U.S. Ecology LLRW facility is located in Nye County in the Amargosa Desert

approximately 105 miles northwest of Las Vegas and 11 miles south of Beatty, Nevada. The

site opened in September 1962, and received radioactive waste for burial until December 31,

1992. The site license expired December 31, 1992, but remained in effect until the licensee

completed their obligations specified in their license and regulations.

The former licensee, U.S. Ecology, completed the State-approved closure plan to stabilize the

site and establish proper security measures on December 30, 1997. The plan was intended to

ensure that the LLRW disposed of during the operational phase of the facility continued to

remain in suitable, stable, and safe conditions after site closure. Upon completion of the

licensee’s obligations, the license was transferred to the State of Nevada. The Division

assumed all oversight responsibilities and become custodian of the site.

It is noted that this LLRW site pre-dates the waste site standards adopted in 10 CFR 61. The

State has the funding and plans to continue surveillance and necessary repair through

inspections and environmental monitoring for 100 years. The State currently owns the 80 acre

LLRW site and leases a 400 acre buffer zone surrounding the site from the U.S. Bureau of

Land Management (BLM). The 80 acres are divided approximately in half. One half was used

for LLRW disposal, and the other half for hazardous waste disposal, which is still in operation

today. The 400-acre buffer zone is leased by the State from the BLM to ensure no land use. 

The lease expires in 2007.

3.2.1 Technical Staffing and Training

LLRW activities are handled by the Section’s staff, under the direction of the Section

Supervisor. The basic qualifications for the LLRW program staff are the same as for the

radioactive materials program staff, as described in Section 2.1, Technical Staffing and

Training.

Because of its proximity to the site, the Las Vegas office performs most of the inspection

activities, with the work reviewed by the Section Supervisor in Carson City. In addition to his

other technical qualifications, the Radiation Staff Specialist has 23 years experience in

regulating the site, both as a reviewer and an inspector. He has taken all of the pertinent

courses and workshops given by the NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

He, in turn, has trained other Las Vegas technical staff members to conduct inspections. The

review team finds this approach acceptable.

3.2.2 Status of Inspection Program

Site post-closure activities include collecting environmental water samples and inspecting the

conditions at the site (e.g., the condition of the security fence and the trench cap). In addition,

the Section continues to monitor for radioactivity in groundwater.

The Section’s frequency of inspection for the Beatty site is annually, the same as specified in

IMC 2800 and IMC 2401. However, due to public and political interests and the potential for

changing conditions, the Section visits the site on a more frequent basis, conducting additional

inspections during most visits. The review team finds this approach acceptable.
Nevada Follow-Up Final Report Page 12

3.2.3 Technical Quality of Inspections

The review team evaluated documentation for all of the on-site inspections and site visits

conducted by the Section during the review period. In addition, an inspector was accompanied

on a routine inspection of the site by two review team members on February 12, 2003. The

Section Supervisor and another Section inspector were also on the accompaniment. During the

accompaniment, the inspector demonstrated his thorough knowledge of the site. Inspection

activities included a survey of the site perimeter to observe the condition of the site fence and

trench cap. In addition, the inspector walked the trench cap to observe signs of erosion and

cracks in the cap.

There was clear evidence of erosion, including a one-inch wide crack along the slope of the

cap. The Section had requested funds several months ago to have the trench cap repaired. At

the time of the review, the request was approved, and the repair work was started at the site. 

The site has continuous security, seven days per week, 24 hours per day.

The inspection was adequate to assess conditions at the site. The inspection reports were

complete, thorough, and reviewed by the supervisor in Carson City. Because of reduced

activity and the use of only senior inspectors, supervisory accompaniments specific to the

LLRW program are no longer justifiable. The review team finds this approach acceptable.

3.2.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

As explained previously, the U.S. Ecology license expired December 31, 1992, but it remained

in effect until the licensee completed their obligations set forth in the closure plan. Pursuant to

Nevada Administration Code 459.822, the license was transferred to the Nevada State Health

Division on December 30, 1997. Only one licensing amendment was completed during the

review period which amended the expiration date of the license to November 30, 2009.

The team found through observation and interviews with the Las Vegas staff that applicable

guidance documents such as the NUREGs that support 10 CFR 61 are available and used as

needed.

3.2.5 Response to Incidents and Allegations

There were no incidents or allegations pertaining to the LLRW program during this review

period. Accordingly, the review team did not review this sub-indicator.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria for the above five performance areas, the review team

recommended and the MRB agreed that Nevada’s performance with respect to the indicator,

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program, was satisfactory.

4.0 SUMMARY

The follow-up review team and MRB found Nevada’s performance to be satisfactory with

recommendations for improvement for the indicators, Technical Staffing and Training, and

Status of Materials Inspection Program. Nevada’s performance was also found to be

satisfactory for the indicators, Response to Incidents and Allegations, Legislation and Program

Elements Required for Compatibility, and Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program.
Nevada Follow-Up Final Report Page 13

Accordingly, the follow-up review team recommended and the MRB agreed in a continued

finding that the Nevada Agreement State Program is adequate, but needs improvement, and is 

compatible with NRC’s program. Significant improvement was seen in several performance

indicators. Most notably, the Status of Materials Inspection Program indicator improved from an

unsatisfactory finding to satisfactory with recommendations for improvement. The audit by the

Department of Administration and resulting plans to increase fees, add staff, and increase

training, addresses the root causes of the program deficiencies. Although the actions have yet

to be completed, the management commitment seen by the review team during this follow-up

IMPEP review is noteworthy. The review team recommended and the MRB agreed that

heightened oversight of the Nevada program be terminated, that the State enter into a period of

program monitoring, and that a full IMPEP review of the Nevada program be performed in two

years.

Below is a summary list of the new recommendations from this follow-up IMPEP review and the

open recommendation from the 2001 IMPEP report:

1. The review team recommends that the State, in accordance with the Department of

Administration audit report, increase the radioactive materials program staff to meet

program needs. (Section 2.1 of this report)

2. The review team recommends that the State provide training to current and future

technical personnel, either by formal course work or equivalent, as prescribed by the

Division’s training policy. (Section 2.1 of this report)

3. The review team recommends that the Section take appropriate measures to conduct

core inspections (including initial inspections) in accordance with the NRC’s inspection

priority system. (Section 2.2) (Recommendation 1 from the 2001 report)
LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A IMPEP Follow-up Review Team Members

Appendix B Nevada Organization Charts

Appendix C Incident Casework Reviews

Appendix D Heightened Oversight Program Correspondence

Attachment May 30, 2003 Letter from Yvonne Sylva, Administrator

Nevada’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report
APPENDIX A

IMPEP FOLLOW-UP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

Name Area of Responsibility

James Lynch, Region III Team Leader

Technical Staffing and Training

M. Linda McLean, Region IV Legislation and Program Elements Required 

 for Compatibility

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program

Wade Loo, Region II Response to Incidents and Allegations

Barbara Hamrick, California Status of Materials Inspection Program
APPENDIX B

STATE OF NEVADA

ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS

NEVADA STATE GOVERNMENT

and

BUREAU OF HEALTH PROTECTION SERVICES

ML031140570


APPENDIX D

HEIGHTENED OVERSIGHT PROGRAM CORRESPONDENCE

Minutes of Bimonthly Conference Calls:

1. April 16, 2002 Minutes (ML021930147)

2. June 13, 2002 Minutes (ML030720295)

3. August 7, 2002 Minutes (ML030710046)

4. October 15, 2002 Minutes (ML023220333)

5. December 18, 2002 Minutes (ML030710137)

6. February 25, 2003 Minutes (ML031130642)

Correspondence from Nevada:

1. March 25, 2002, letter from Y. Sylva to P. Lohaus submitting a response to the 2001

IMPEP review including a program improvement plan (ML020880580)

2. May 24, 2002 Progress Report from S. Marshall.

3. July 29, 2002 Progress Report, updated August 2, 2002 from S. Marshall.

4. September 24, 2002 Progress Report, updated October 15, 2002 from S. Marshall.

5. December 11, 2002 Progress Report from S. Marshall.

6. February 18, 2003 Progress Report from S. Marshall.
ATTACHMENT

May 30, 2003 Letter from Yvonne Sylva, Administrator

Nevada’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report

ML031610943
KENNY C. GUINN

Governor

STATE OF NEVADA YVONNE SYLVA

Administrator

MICHAEL J. WU1DEN

Director

VACANT

State Health Offcer

DEPARTMENT OF HUMN RESOURCES

HEALTH DMSION

505 E. King Street, Room 201

Carson City, Nevada 89701-4797

Telephone: (775) 684.4200 * Fax: (775) 684-4211

May 30,2003

Paul H. Lohaus, Director

Office of State Tribal Programs

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Re: State Response to Nevada IMPEP Draft Report Dated May 9, 2003

Dear Mr. Lohdus:

Please find attached the State Health Division resp6nse to'the review of the Nevada

Agreement State Program conducted on April 7, 2003, through April 10, 2003.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (775) 684-4200.

Sincerely,

Yvonne Sylva

Administrator

Enclosure

cc: Alex Haartz, Deputy Administrator

Amy Roukie, Chief, Bureau of Health Protection Services

Stan Marshall, Supervisor, Radiological Health Section

:' tBbLoux Director, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects

: - . : - . . , : - . . .r . _

W

C

5

2

grA- DP zz

Building and Strengthening Public Health through Communication and Partnerships

cn

:, -;

SPb

(NSPO R 5 02) (0) 400
State agency responses to recommendations on draft report page 13:

Recommendation 1: The review team recommends that the state, in accordance with the

Department of Administration audit report, increase the radioactive materials program staff

to meet program needs.

Response: Additional staffing is being considered as part of the agency response to the

Nevada Department of Administration audit findings and recent draft IMPEP report.

Funding for additional staffing and other necessary resources is also part of this review

process. We anticipate that radioactive material license fee increases will be presented for

adoption at the October 24, 2003 meeting of the Nevada State Board of Health.

Increased spending authority will then be obtained and steps will be taken through the

Nevada Department of Personnel to begin the process of creating new technical positions

for this program.

Recommendation 2: The review team recommends that the state provide training to

current and future technical personnel, either by formal course or equivalent, as prescribed

by the Division's training policy.

Response: The review to determine appropriate increases of staff and other resources will

include funding for staff training on an ongoing basis.

Until such time that funding is obtained for staff training, we will take steps to consider less

expensive, even no-cost training options that might be appropriate and available.

An example of low-cost altematives to attending NRC courses is hosting or co-hosting an

NRC training course in Nevada or somewhere on the west coast that is more convenient

and less costly for Nevada staff participation than the traditional training sites in eastem

states. Staff is collecting information about NRC course opportunities particularly those

considered mobile" by NRC program staff; that is, possibly conducted in non-tradtional

training sites such as an Agreement State with little/no funding to attend training at the

traditional training locations.

An example of no-cost training that we are implementing is program management efforts to

contact Novoste and GliaSite vendors to provide in-house technical orientations for these

radiopharmaceutical products. Although Nevada licensees using these products are few or

nonexistent, the vendors appear cooperative at this time to visit our office in the near future

to conduct demonstrations and staff discussions about the products.

A short technical staff meeting or scheduling the vendors during another program activity,

may also be considered if the vendors make an office visit in the near future. We anticipate

completing such radiopharmaceutical orientations for current technical staff by September

30, 2003.
- a

Atematives to attendance at the traditional NRC training courses will continue to be

explored and implemented. We will continue to negotlate fee increases to support

attendance at traditional training courses in the future.

Recommendation 3: The review team recommends that the section take appropriate

measures to conduct core inspections (including initial inspections) in accordance with the

NRC's inspection priority system.

Response: Program management has had discussions with senior staff to discuss a plan

to complete inspections of the two remaining overdue licensees.

Staff has provided an inspection schedule including individual assignments that will

accomplish elimination of the overdue inspections by June 30, 2003.

Direct assignment of inspections will be made to specific personnel in an effort to better

implement agency policy to minimize overdue inspections.