December 28, 2006

Mr. Robert Leopold, Director

Public Health Assurance Division

Regulation and Licensure

Nebraska Health and Human Services System

301 Centennial Mall South, 3rd Floor

Lincoln, NE 68509

Dear Mr. Leopold:

On December 14, 2006, 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 Agreement State Program adequate

to protect public health and safety and compatible with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission’s program.

The Final Report of the IMPEP review is enclosed. Section 5.0, page 12, of the enclosed final

report contains a summary of the IMPEP review team’s findings. There were no

recommendations for the State of Nebraska resulting from this IMPEP review. Based on the

results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review of the Nebraska Agreement State

Program will take place in approximately 4 years, with a periodic meeting tentatively scheduled

for September 2008.

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

I also wish to acknowledge your continued support for the Agreement State program and the

excellence in program administration demonstrated by your staff, as reflected in the review

team’s findings. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the future.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Martin J. Virgilio

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste,

 Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs

Office of the Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure: As stated

cc: Julia Schmitt, Manager

Nebraska Radiation Control Program

Richard Ratliff, Texas

Organization of Agreement States

 Liaison to the MRB
December 28, 2006

Mr. Robert Leopold, Director

Public Health Assurance Division

Regulation and Licensure

Nebraska Health and Human Services System

301 Centennial Mall South, 3rd Floor

Lincoln, NE 68509

Dear Mr. Leopold:

On December 14, 2006, 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 Agreement State Program adequate

to protect public health and safety and compatible with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission’s program.

The Final Report of the IMPEP review is enclosed. Section 5.0, page 11, of the enclosed final

report contains a summary of the IMPEP review team’s findings. There were no

recommendations for the State of Nebraska resulting from this IMPEP review. Based on the

results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review of the Nebraska Agreement State

Program will take place in approximately 4 years, with a periodic meeting tentatively scheduled

for September 2008.

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

I also wish to acknowledge your continued support for the Agreement State program and the

excellence in program administration demonstrated by your staff, as reflected in the review

team’s findings. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the future.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Martin J. Virgilio

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste,

 Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs

Office of the Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure: As stated

cc: Julia Schmitt, Manager

Nebraska Radiation Control Program

Richard Ratliff, Texas

Organization of Agreement States

 Liaison to the MRB

Distribution: See next page. ML063600127 Pkg.

DOCUMENT NAME: C:\FileNet\ML063600133.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 FSME/DMSSA/SAIS Tech Editor FSME/DMSSA/SAIS FSME/DMSSA:DD

NAME ATMcCraw

(KKarcagi for)

EKraus PARathbun SWMoore

DATE 12/26/06 12/22/06 12/26/06 12/26/06

OFFICE FSME/DMSSA:D FSME:DD DEDMRT

NAME JRSchlueter

(SWMoore for)

GCPangburn MJVirgilio

DATE 12/26/06 12/26/06 12/28/06 / /

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- 2 -

Distribution: DCD (SP01)

DMSSA RF Chairman Klein

RBlanton, FSME/DMSSA Commissioner McGaffigan

RHaden, NC Commissioner Merrifield

LMcLean, RIV Commissioner Jaczko

DEverhart, RI Commissioner Lyons

OSiurano, FSME/DILR

KKarcagi, FSME/DMSSA

AKock, OEDO SUNSI Review Complete

CMiller, FSME : Publicly Available G Non-Publicly Available

KCyr, OGC : Non-Sensitive G Sensitive

FCameron, OGC

TCombs, OCA (2 copies)
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

REVIEW OF NEBRASKA AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

SEPTEMBER 18-21, 2006

FINAL REPORT

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

ENCLOSURE
Nebraska Final Report Page 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the review of the Nebraska Agreement State program. The

review was conducted during the period of September 18-21, 2006, by a review team

comprised of technical staff members from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

and the Agreement State of North Carolina. 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 Final General Statement of Policy,"

published in the Federal Register on October 16, 1997, and the February 26, 2004, NRC

Management Directive 5.6, "Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)." 

Preliminary results of the review, which covered the period of September 20, 2002, to

September 21, 2006, were discussed with Nebraska management on the last day of the review.

A draft of this report was issued to Nebraska for factual comment on October 24, 2006. The

State responded by e-mail on November 22, 2006, from Julia Schmitt, Program Manager,

Radiation Control Program (the Program). The Management Review Board (MRB) met on

December 14, 2006, to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the Nebraska

Agreement State Program adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with

NRC's program.

The Program administers the Nebraska Agreement State Program in the Department of Health

and Human Services System (the Department). The Program Manager reports to the Section

Administrator for Consumer Health Services, who reports to the Division Director for Public

Health Assurance. The Division Director for Public Health Assurance reports to the Director of

Regulation and Licensure, who is a member of the Policy Cabinet for the Health and Human

Services System, which reports to the Governor. Organization charts for the Department and

the Program are included in Appendix B. At the time of the review, the Nebraska Agreement

State program regulated 143 specific licenses authorizing Agreement materials. 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 Nebraska.

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

performance indicators was sent to the Program on July 19, 2006. The Program provided a

response to the questionnaire on August 31, 2006. A copy of the questionnaire response may

be found in the NRC’s Agencywide Document Access and Management System, using the

Accession Number ML062920042.

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

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

regulations; (3) analysis of quantitative information from the Program’s licensing and inspection

database; (4) technical evaluation of selected licensing and inspection actions; (5) field

accompaniments of two Program inspectors; and (6) interviews with staff and management, to

answer questions or clarify issues. The review team evaluated the information gathered

against the established criteria for each common and applicable non-common performance

indicator and made a preliminary assessment of the Nebraska Agreement State Program’s

performance.

Section 2.0 of this report discusses the State’s actions in response to recommendations made

following the previous IMPEP review. Results of the current review for the IMPEP common
Nebraska Final Report Page 3

performance indicators are presented in Section 3.0. Section 4.0 discusses results of the

applicable non-common performance indicators, and Section 5.0 summarizes the review team's

findings.

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS

The previous IMPEP review, which concluded on September 20, 2002, resulted in no

recommendations in regard to performance by the State. One recommendation was made by

the review team to NRC staff. The review team’s evaluation of the current status of the

recommendation is as follows:

1. The review team recommends that NRC’s Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards review the contractor’s procedure for inputting NMED data and review the

database information for accuracy and completeness. (Section 3.5 of the 2002 IMPEP

report)

Current Status: The Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED) procedure was revised

so that the contractor will acknowledge receipt of the information and provide feedback

to Agreement States. The contractor is also reviewing unclosed entries in the database

and seeking additional information from the submitting organization. This

recommendation is closed.

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 include: (1) Technical Staffing and

Training; (2) Status of Materials Inspection Program; (3) Technical Quality of Inspections; 

(4) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; and (5) Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation

Activities.

3.1 Technical Staffing and Training

Issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the Program’s staffing level and staff

turnover, as well as the technical qualifications and training histories of the staff. To evaluate

these issues, the review team examined the Program’s questionnaire responses relative to this

indicator, interviewed Program management and staff, reviewed job descriptions and training

records, and considered any possible workload backlogs.

The review team determined that Program staffing was stable, with no staff members leaving

nor joining the program, over the review period. The radioactive materials program has four

technical positions, including the Program Manager. Currently, the Program has no vacant

positions. For clarification on the organizational chart provided by the Program, which can be

found in Appendix B, the vacant positions that are shown are not funded, are not planned to be

filled by the program at this time, and are not intended to be utilized for Atomic Energy Act

(AEA) materials efforts.

In addition to the four materials staff members, the Program has two x-ray inspectors, one

health specialist, and two clerical positions. As noted above, the Program Manager reports to
Nebraska Final Report Page 4

the Section Administrator for Consumer Health Services. The Section Administrator spends

approximately 10 percent of her time in radioactive materials licensing and inspection activities.

The review team noted that the Program experienced stable funding during the review period. 

Licensee fees support the Program.

Training and qualification requirements for the radioactive materials staff are established in a

procedure dated February 2, 1999. The procedure sets forth essentially the same training and

qualification recommendations developed by the NRC’s Inspection Manual Chapter (MC 1246). 

Inspector requirements include NRC, or equivalent, core training courses, when available. 

Inspectors are also required to be accompanied by a senior staff member on an inspection prior

to authorizing the inspector to perform an independent inspection, and periodically thereafter.

All the technical staff members have a Bachelor’s degree, coupled with at least 6 years of

experience in the Program. All technical staff members have taken the NRC courses deemed

appropriate for their tasks. Three staff members, including the Program Manager, have

attended the NRC Security Systems and Principles Course, and one other is scheduled to

attend the course in the fall of 2006. The training records demonstrated that Program

management is committed to training for the staff. The review team concluded that the

Program has a well-balanced staff, and a sufficient number of trained personnel to carry out

regulatory duties.

The Nebraska Board of Health reviews proposed rules and regulations for the use of

radioactive material, as part of its duties. Under the State’s law, members are required to

declare, in writing, any matter requiring action or decision that may cause a potential conflict. A

member may abstain from activities in which the potential conflict exists.

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

that Nebraska’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, was

satisfactory.

3.2 Status of Materials Inspection Program

The review team focused on five factors while reviewing this indicator: inspection frequency;

overdue inspections of Priority 1, 2, and 3 licensees; initial inspections of new licenses, timely

dispatch of inspection findings to the licensees, and the performance of reciprocity inspections. 

The review team’s evaluation is based on the Program’s response to the questionnaire relative

to this indicator, data gathered from the Program’s database, examination of completed

inspection casework, and interviews with Program management and staff.

The review team verified that the Program’s inspection frequencies are equivalent to those

listed in MC 2800 with the following exceptions: nuclear pharmacy; broad scope academic;

medical institution; medical - private practice; mobile nuclear medicine; teletherapy;

manufacturer and distributor; and research and development, all of which are conducted more

frequently.

The Program maintains a database that is used to identify relevant inspection information,

including inspection due dates for licensees. The database contains sufficient information for

proper management of the inspection program. The review team determined that, during the
Nebraska Final Report Page 5

review period, the Program conducted 124 Priority 1, 2, and 3 inspections, of which only one

was overdue, and that by only 26 days. Nineteen initial inspections were conducted during the

review period. All were performed within the first year.

The review team evaluated the Program’s timeliness in providing inspection findings to

licensees. The review team determined that the average time for the issuance of inspection

findings was approximately 30 days. The Program uses Form 591 at the end of some

inspections.

During the review period, the Program granted 133 reciprocity permits, 49 of which were

candidate licensees, based on the criteria in MC 1220. The review team determined that the

Program inspected 19 percent of the candidate licensees in 2003, 17 percent in 2004, and 28 

percent in 2005. The Program had not conducted any reciprocity inspections to date in 2006. 

This issue was discussed with management and staff during the review. Although the program

did not meet the criteria, in MC 1220, of inspecting 20 percent of candidate licensees operating

under reciprocity for each year, the program manager explained that the shortages were due to

management decisions, based on distance of travel and weather conditions.

The review team determined that, regarding the Commission Staff Requirements Memorandum

(SRM) for COMSECY-05-0028, on increased controls, the Program identified a total of 12

increased controls inspections to be conducted within the 3-year period. Three of the 12

inspections had been conducted by the time of the review; however, the inspection reports were

pending completion and were unavailable for evaluation during the review. The review team

evaluated the Program’s prioritization methodology and found it acceptable.

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

that Nebraska’s performance with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials Inspection

Program, was satisfactory.

3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections

The review team evaluated the inspection reports and enforcement documentation and

interviewed inspectors for 18 radioactive materials inspections conducted during the review

period. The casework reviewed included work performed by all the Program’s radioactive

materials inspectors and covered a variety of license types, including: academic broad scope,

medical (broad scope, diagnostic, and therapy), high dose-rate remote afterloader, mobile

nuclear medicine, gamma stereotactic radiosurgery, and industrial radiography. Appendix C

lists the inspection casework reviewed, with case-specific comments, as well as the results of

the inspector accompaniments.

Based on the evaluation of the casework, the review team concluded that the routine

inspections covered all aspects of the licensees’ radiation programs. The review team found

that inspection reports were generally very thorough, complete, consistent, and of good quality,

with sufficient documentation to ensure that a licensee’s performance with respect to health and

safety was acceptable. The documentation supported violations, and recommendations made

to the licensee. Team inspections were performed for larger and more complex licensees and

for training purposes. The review team found that, in some cases, the inspectors did not

provide enough detailed documentation of their observations of licensed operations or 
Nebraska Final Report Page 6

interviews of personnel. This issue was discussed with management and staff during the

review.

The inspection findings were appropriate and prompt regulatory actions were taken, as

necessary. The licensee is required to respond to the preliminary findings within 30 days. All

inspection findings are clearly stated and documented in the report, which is peer-reviewed. 

The Program has the ability to impose civil monetary penalties. The amount of the penalty is

based on the severity of the violation(s). In addition, the Program may impose an increased

inspection frequency and may also charge the licensee for each additional inspection. The

Program has entered into 3-year Agreed Settlements, with some licensees, in which the

Program waives payment of one-third of the civil money penalty each year the licensee remains

in substantial compliance, contingent on the outcomes of the follow-up inspections. If the

licensee remains in substantial compliance in the next 2 years, the remaining civil monetary

penalty is not collected.

Supervisory accompaniments were conducted annually for all inspectors, with two exceptions: 

one inspector was not accompanied in 2003, and one in 2004. Accompaniments are conducted

by the Program Manager and by senior inspectors. Accompaniment observations are

discussed with each inspector during the accompaniment, and comments are documented in

the inspection field notes.

The Program maintains a sufficient number and variety of survey instruments to support its

radiation protection efforts. Instruments are calibrated by the manufacturer. Appropriate,

calibrated survey instruments, such as Geiger-Mueller (GM) meters, scintillation detectors, ion

chambers, and micro-R-meters were observed.

Two Program inspectors were accompanied, during inspections, by a review team member, 

during the week of September 12, 2006. The inspector accompaniments included two medical

institutions. These accompaniments and associated comments are identified in Appendix C. 

During the accompaniments, each inspector demonstrated appropriate performance-based

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

thorough in their audits of the licensees’ radiation safety programs, and each inspector utilized

good health physics practices. The inspections were adequate to assess radiological health

and safety at the licensed facilities. Interviews with licensee personnel were performed in an

effective manner; however, the review team member noted that the inspectors interviewed only

the technical staff. Although not part of these inspections, the inspectors showed familiarity

with the increased controls requirements.

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

that Nebraska’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, was

satisfactory.

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The review team examined completed licensing casework and interviewed license reviewers for

16 specific licenses. Licensing actions were reviewed for completeness, consistency, proper

radioisotopes and quantities, qualifications of authorized users, adequate facilities and

equipment, adherence to good health physics practices, financial assurance, operating and

emergency procedures, appropriateness of the license conditions, and overall technical quality. 
Nebraska Final Report Page 7

The casework was also reviewed for timeliness, use of appropriate deficiency letters and cover

letters, reference to appropriate regulations, product certifications, supporting documentation,

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

proper signatures. The casework was checked for retention of necessary documents and

supporting data.

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

that were completed during the review period. Licensing actions selected for evaluation

included one new license, four renewals, eight amendments, and three terminations. The

sampling included the following types of licenses: broad scope (academic and medical);

nuclear medicine; brachytherapy; nuclear pharmacy; mobile nuclear medicine; industrial

radiography; self-shielded irradiator; research and development (non-human use); service

provider; manufacturer; industrial gauge; and an irradiator, unshielded during irradiation. A

listing of the licensing casework evaluated can be found in Appendix D. Although only the most

recent amendment number is listed, all licensing actions dating back to the last IMPEP were

reviewed for each of the files.

Licensing actions are assigned to a license reviewer and given a priority ranking, based on the

type of action. Once the reviewer completes the action, a second review is performed by one of

the other license reviewers. Each licensing action is documented on a “License Action Review

Record,” which includes detailed preparer and reviewer notes, a description of the action,

correspondence included in the licensing action, and administrative information. The Program

generates licenses utilizing an internally developed database, with standardized conditions and

format. All licenses are signed by either the Program Manager or the Section Administrator. 

The State issues licenses for a 5-year period under a timely renewal system, utilizes internally

developed licensing guides (supplemented by NRC licensing guides) and policies as

appropriate, uses standard licensing conditions, and issues a complete license for each

licensing action.

A review of termination actions taken over the review period showed that nearly all of the

terminations were for licensees possessing only sealed sources or for uses of

radiopharmaceuticals with short half-lives. The review team found that terminated licensing

actions were well-documented, showing appropriate transfer records or appropriate disposal

methods and records, confirmatory surveys, and survey records. In discussions with the

Program Manager, the review team noted that, during the review period, there were no major

decommissioning efforts underway with regard to Agreement material in Nebraska.

As of September 25, 2006, there were 24 open licensing cases pending review. Of these, five

were new and five were renewal applications. No cases have been pending for longer than the

turn-around time associated with their prioritization system. The Program has developed a

prioritization methodology checklist to identify those applications that need to be processed first

based on a high-, medium-, or low-risk significance. Each licensing action goes through a peer

review and concurrence process. Renewal applications are given a low priority, if the

application does not indicate any changes to the existing program, and if there have been no

major enforcement actions. The review team determined that this prioritization process is

adequate.
Nebraska Final Report Page 8

The review team found that written licensing procedures have not been formally updated since

the last review. However, programmatic changes in licensing procedures have been handled in

staff meetings routinely held once or twice a month.

The review team noted that the Program closely tracks the acquisition, possession, and

disposal of generally licensed devices. In addition, the Program provides information to general

licensees concerning the licensees’ responsibilities with respect to the devices. This helps to

assure that the general licensees perform adequately to control the devices, and also

encourages licensees to consider alternate approaches, when reasonable to do so, such as

using alternatives to devices containing radioactive material. For example, during the review

period, the Program encouraged a national retail store chain to explore and employ alternatives

to using tritium exit signs in the design of their new stores. The review team believes that the

Program’s efforts and initiatives in this area are commendable.

The review team examined the list of licensees that the Program had determined met the

criteria for the increased controls per COMSECY-05-0028. The review team determined that

the Program had correctly identified the licensees that require increased controls, based on

these criteria, and will continue to issue increased controls to any additional licensees, as

appropriate. Each licensee was issued a license amendment requiring increased controls in

accordance with the time lines established by the Commission in the SRM for COMSECY-05-

0028. Licensees not subject to increased controls, such as portable gauge licensees with open

possession limits, are issued a license amendment capping their possession limits for isotopes

of concern listed in COMSECY-05-0028.

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

that Nebraska’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing

Actions, was satisfactory.

3.5 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities

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

team examined the Section’s response to the questionnaire relative to this indicator, evaluated

selected incidents reported for Nebraska in the NMED against those contained in the State

database and incident files, and evaluated the casework and supporting documentation for four

radioactive materials incidents. A listing of the incident casework examined can be found in

Appendix E. The review team also evaluated the Program’s response to allegations involving

radioactive materials, including allegations referred to the State by the NRC. Incident and

allegation policies, file documentation, the Program’s incident and allegation tracking system,

NMED, and notification of incidents to the NRC Headquarters Operations Center were

discussed with the Program Manager and staff.

When notified of an incident, the Program Manager assigns a member of the inspection staff to

investigate the incident and determine if the event requires a call to the NRC Headquarters

Operations Center. One staff member is responsible for recording the event in the Nebraska

incident database and the licensee file. Another staff member leads any required follow-up

activities. The Program responded to a total of 20 radioactive material incidents during the

review period. Four of those incidents were reportable under NRC criteria; however, all 20 were

submitted to the NRC contractor responsible for maintaining NMED. One designated staff

member manages the entries to NMED. The review team evaluated the four reportable
Nebraska Final Report Page 9

incidents. The incidents included: loss of radioactive material, equipment failure, a stolen

gauge and damage to equipment.

The review team noted that close coordination with the NRC was maintained during incident

follow up, and the Program’s response to incidents was commensurate with the health and

safety significance of the event. Inspectors were dispatched for investigations, when

appropriate, and enforcement action was taken when needed. Incident reports were thorough,

well-documented, and timely. All incident reports were reviewed by the appropriate level of

management.

During the review period, the Program received one allegation involving Agreement material

and another involving Agreement State-regulated material. The review team evaluated the

casework for both allegations, one of which was referred to the State by the NRC. The review

team’s evaluation indicated that prompt and appropriate action was taken in response to the

concerns raised. Allegers requesting anonymity were informed that every effort would be made

to protect his/her identity, but could not be guaranteed. Each of the allegations reviewed was

appropriately closed, and the allegers were informed of the results.

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

that Nebraska’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Incident and

Allegation Activities, was satisfactory.

4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

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

State Programs: (1) Compatibility Requirements, (2) Sealed Source and Device Evaluation

Program, (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program, and (4) Uranium Recovery

Program. Nebraska’s Agreement does not authorize regulation of uranium recovery activities,

so only the first three non-common performance indicators were applicable to this review.

4.1 Compatibility Requirement

4.1.1 Legislation

Nebraska became an Agreement State on October 1, 1966. The currently effective statutory

authority for the Department is contained in Nebraska Radiation Control Act 71-3501 to

71-3520. The Department, Regulation and Licensure, is designated as the State's radiation

control agency.

The Program provided the review team copies of two pieces of legislation that were passed

during the review period. One defined the term “deliberate misconduct”; the other authorized

the Department to dispose of confiscated sources. The review team looked at the new

statutory provisions and found the first essentially identical with equivalent NRC provisions. 

The review team had no comments on the second piece of legislation.

4.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility

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

apply to all ionizing radiation. Nebraska requires a license for possession and use of all
Nebraska Final Report Page 10

radioactive material, including non-AEA materials. 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 approximately 12 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- 84-920, 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 Title 10 of the 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 review team evaluated the Program’s response to the questionnaire relative to this

indicator, reviewed the status of regulations required to be adopted by the State under the

Commission’s adequacy and compatibility policy, and verified the adoption of regulations, with

data obtained from the Office of State and Tribal Program’s State Regulation Status Data

Sheet. Since the previous IMPEP review, the Department has adopted six amendments, in one

rule package, which became effective in April 2003.

The 2002 review team found that one amendment, “Deliberate Misconduct by Unlicensed

Persons, (63 FR 1890; 63 FR 13773),” was not adopted within the 3-year time frame due to the

need for a legislative change. The Department adopted the rule in 2003, after the State

Radiation Control Act was amended. The 2002 review team also noted that the Program had

not submitted five of its adopted final regulations, to NRC, for review. The Program

subsequently submitted these amendments, which NRC reviewed with no comment.

During this review period, the Department drafted one rule package that is still in the process of

adoption. At the time of the review, a stakeholder meeting was scheduled for October. The

package contains the following six rules:

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

became effective April 5, 2002, and was due for Agreement State implementation by

April 5, 2005.

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

20249), that became effective on April 24, 2002, and was due for Agreement State

implementation by April 24, 2005.

! “Financial Assurance for Material Licensees,” 10 CFR Part 30, 40, and 70 amendments

(65 FR 57327), that became effective December 3, 2003, and was due for Agreement

State implementation by December 3, 2006.
Nebraska Final Report Page 11

! “Compatibility with IAEA Transportation Safety Standards and Other Transportation

Safety Amendments,” 10 CFR Part 71 amendment (69 FR 3697), that became effective

October 1, 2004. This amendment is due for Agreement State implementation by

October 1, 2007.

! “Security Requirements for Portable Gauges Containing Byproduct Material,” 10 CFR

Part 30 amendment (70 FR 2001), that became effective July 11, 2005. This

amendment is due for Agreement State implementation by July 11, 2008.

! “Medical Use of Byproduct Material - Recognition of Specialty Boards,” 10 CFR Part 35

amendment (70 FR 16336, 71 FR 1926), that became effective April 29, 2005. This

amendment is due for Agreement State implementation by April 29, 2008.

At the time of the review, the first two rules were overdue for adoption. Program management

elected to delay the adoption of both rules, based on the following considerations. State

rulemaking policy permits only one amendment to a chapter (equivalent to a Part in the CFR)

each year. Considering the controversy about Subpart J, on training and experience

requirements in 10 CFR Part 35, Program management was concerned that a further

amendment to Part 35 would be required within 1 year of the adoption of the “Medical Use of

Byproduct Material” 10 CFR Part 20, 32, and 35 amendments (67 FR 20249) that became

effective on April 24, 2002. Since the rule also included changes to Part 20, a potential conflict

with the rulemaking policy existed for amendments to 10 CFR Part 20 equivalent rules. After

the “Medical Use of Byproduct Material - Recognition of Specialty Boards” became effective

April 29, 2005, the Program initiated rulemaking. A stakeholders’ meeting was scheduled for

October, to gain feedback on the proposed rules. The Program’s experience has found that

such meetings can speed the process of gaining State management approvals. However,

because of uncertainties in obtaining such approvals, a specific time line for final adoption could

not be given.

It is also noted that at the time of the review, there were no other new NRC regulations that the

Program will need to address beyond those included in the current rulemaking. Because the

Program made a management decision based on specific conditions surrounding the rules, and

the Program is addressing all rulemaking currently required, the review team concluded that no

systemic problem exists in Nebraska’s rulemaking efforts.

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

that Nebraska’s performance with respect to the indicator, Compatibility Requirements, was

satisfactory.

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

During the review period, no SS&D certificates were issued by the Program and there are

currently no manufacturers of sealed sources or devices in the State. The State plans to

contract with another Agreement State that has an SS&D evaluation program, if needed. The

review team did not evaluate this indicator further.
Nebraska Final Report Page 12

4.3 Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program

Nebraska was originally the designated host State in the Central Interstate Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Compact (the Compact) for the LLRW disposal facility. In January 1999,

Nebraska withdrew from the Compact.

After the State’s withdrawal from the Compact, technical staff in the Department and the

Department of Environmental Quality LLRW programs were reassigned to other positions. 

During the review period, the State transferred all funds from all LLRW-related special funds to

the State General Fund. Consequently, the review team did not review this indicator.

5.0 SUMMARY

As noted in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 above, Nebraska’s performance was found satisfactory for all

six performance indicators reviewed. The review team made no recommendations regarding

the performance of the Nebraska Agreement State Program. Accordingly, the review team

recommended and the MRB agreed that the Nebraska Agreement State Program is adequate

to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC's program. Based on the results of

the current IMPEP review, the review team recommended and the MRB agreed that the next

full IMPEP review take place in approximately 4 years.
LIST OF APPENDIXES AND ATTACHMENT

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 November 22, 2006, E-mail from Julia Schmitt

Nebraska’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report
APPENDIX A

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

Name Area of Responsibility

Richard Blanton, STP Team Leader

Technical Staffing and Training 

Compatibility Requirements

Linda McLean, Region IV Status of Materials Inspection Program

Technical Quality of Inspections

Inspection Accompaniments

Robin Haden, NC Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

David Everhart, Region I Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation

 Activities

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program
APPENDIX B

NEBRASKA ORGANIZATION CHARTS

ML062920043
APPENDIX C

INSPECTION CASEWORK REVIEWS

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT ARE INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS

ONLY. LICENSEE NAMES ARE OMITTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE PROGRAM, BASED

ON STATE SECURITY POLICY.

File No.: 1

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 02-06-03

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 2

Inspection Date: 2/24/05 Inspector: JD

Comments:

a) Inspection report sent 3/29/05

b) No list of individuals interviewed during inspection.

File No.: 2

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 02-06-03

Inspection Type: Special Priority: 2

Inspection Date: 11/26/03 Inspector: BM

File No.: 3

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 02-06-03

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 2

Inspection Dates: 6/8,9,13/06 Inspector: HS

File No.: 4

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 09-02-03

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 2

Inspection Date: 8/23/06 Inspector: JD

File No.: 5

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 02-06-04

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 2

Inspection Dates: 6/28/06, 7/20,27/06 Inspector: HS

File No.: 6

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 02-06-04

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 2

Inspection Dates: 11/20/03, 12/2/03 Inspector: JD

File No.: 7

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 02-06-04

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 12/17/04 Inspector: BF
Nebraska Final Report Page C.2

Inspection Casework Reviews

File No.: 8

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 01-50-01

Inspection Type: Routine, Priority: 2

Inspection Date: 6/26/06 Inspectors: JD, HS, BM

File No.: 9

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 99-60-01

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 2

Inspection Date: 7/18/06 Inspector: HS

File No.: 10

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 01-07-08

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 2

Inspection Date: 6/28/06 Inspector: BM

File No.: 11

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 99-60-01

Inspection Type: Initial Priority: 2

Inspection Date: 3/11/04 Inspector: BM

File No.: 12

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 01-07-08

Inspection Type: Initial Priority: 2

Inspection Date: 2/3/04 Inspector: JD

File No.: 13

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 01-65-02

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 2/22/06 Inspector: HS

File No.: 14

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 02-46-01

Inspection Type: Routine, Field Site Priority: 1

Inspection Dates: 10/12/05, 11/15/05, 12/13-14/05 Inspector: JD

File No.: 15

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 37-03-01

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 12/1/04 Inspector: BM

File No.: 16

Licensee: Redacted License No.: NRC-42-32219-01

Inspection Type: Reciprocity Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 3/16/06 Inspector: BM
Nebraska Final Report Page C.3

Inspection Casework Reviews

File No.: 17

Licensee: Redacted License No.: TX-LO-3120

Inspection Type: Reciprocity Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 4/14/05 Inspector: HS

File No.: 18

Licensee: Redacted License No.: CO-931-01

Inspection Type: Reciprocity Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 3/16/05 Inspector: HS

File No.: 19

Licensee: Redacted License No.: NRC-54-28275-01

Inspection Type: Reciprocity Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 5/16/06 Inspector: BM

INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS

The following inspector accompaniments were performed prior to the on-site IMPEP review:

Accompaniment No.: 1

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 01-50-01

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 2

Inspection Dates: 9/12-13/06 Inspector: JD

Accompaniment No.: 2

Licensee: Redacted Licensee No.: 02-06-04 

Inspection Type: Routine Priority: 2

Inspection Date: 9/14/06 Inspector: HS
APPENDIX D

LICENSE CASEWORK REVIEWS

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT ARE INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS

ONLY; NO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE IMPEP TEAM. 

LICENSEE NAMES ARE OMITTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE PROGRAM, BASED ON

STATE SECURITY POLICY.

File No.: 1

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 01-120-01

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: N/A

Date Issued: Pending License Reviewer: JD

File No.: 2

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 01-65-02

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 16

Date Issued: 4/10/06 License Reviewer: HS

File No.: 3

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 09-02-03

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 3

Date Issued: 4/24/06 License Reviewer: HS

File No.: 4

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 01-81-01

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 3

Date Issued: 11/24/05 License Reviewer: JS

File No.: 5

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 01-08-03

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 19

Date Issued: 7/31/06 License Reviewer: JD

File No.: 6

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 01-39-03

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 10

Date Issued: 9/3/03 License Reviewer: HS

File No.: 7

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 09-04-01

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 14

Date Issued: 1/10/06 License Reviewer: HS

File No.: 8

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 09-02-01

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 67

Date Issued: Pending License Reviewer: BM
Nebraska Final Report Page D.2

Licensing Casework Reviews

File No.: 9

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 01-88-01

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 30

Date Issued: 9/11/06 License Reviewer: HS

File No.: 10

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 01-52-01

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 44

Date Issued: 1/8/04 License Reviewer: BM

File No.: 11

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 01-82-01

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 25

Date Issued: 3/3/06 License Reviewer: JD

File No.: 12

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 10-02-01

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 35

Date Issued: 2/4/03 License Reviewer: JD

File No.: 13

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 10-08-01

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 1

Date Issued: 7/17/06 License Reviewer: BM

File No.: 14

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 07-04-01

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 15

Date Issued: 5/25/06 License Reviewer: JD

File No.: 15

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 01-08-02

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 28

Date Issued: 11/30/05 License Reviewer: JS

File No.: 16

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 14-04-01

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 8

Date Issued: 3/8/05 License Reviewer: BM
APPENDIX E

INCIDENT CASEWORK REVIEWS

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS

ONLY; NO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE IMPEP TEAM. 

LICENSEE NAMES ARE OMITTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE PROGRAM, BASED ON

STATE SECURITY POLICY.

File No.: 1

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 02-06-03

Date of Incident: 11/13/02 NMED No.: 021127

Investigation Dates: 11/22, 26/02 Type of Incident: Loss of Material

Type of Investigation: Phone/Inspection

File No.: 2

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 37-03-01

Date of Incident: 4/27/03 NMED No.: 030367

Investigation Date: 4/27/03 Type of Incident: Equipment Failure

Type of Investigation: Phone

File No.: 3

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 02-04-01

Date of Incident: 7/21/04 NMED No.: 040541

Investigation Date: 7/22/04 Type of Incident: : Portable Gauge Theft

Type of Investigation: Phone

File No.: 4

Licensee: Redacted License No.: 07-04-01

Date of Incident: 2/4/05 NMED No.: 050094

Investigation Date: 2/4/05 Type of Incident: Damaged Fixed Gauge

Type of Investigation: Phone
ATTACHMENT

November 22, 2006, E-mail from Julia Schmitt

Nebraska’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report

ADAMS: ML063390526