February 26, 2002

Ms. Yvonne Sylva, Administrator

State Health Division

Nevada Department of Human Resources

505 East King Street, Room 201

Carson City, NV 89701-4797

Dear Ms. Sylva:

On February 11, 2002, 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 IMPEP review was conducted September 10-14, 2001. The MRB received

for their consideration the comments in your January 11, 2002 letter and the draft procedures

faxed to the NRC February 7, 2002. The MRB found the Nevada program adequate but needs

improvement, and compatible with NRC’s program. The MRB recommended heightened oversight

with a follow-up review in approximately one year. As part of heightened oversight, I request that

periodic conference calls take place with the appropriate Nevada and NRC staffs to discuss the

status of the program. The Office of State and Tribal Programs will coordinate the conference

calls. I request that, two weeks prior to the calls, you submit a brief status report on the activities

conducted since the last report and the necessary statistical data. 

I also request that you respond to the recommendations in Section 5 of the enclosed final report

including a program improvement plan. The plan should describe the specific details, schedule,

and milestones intended to have the program meet the performance criteria in Management

Directive 5.6 for satisfactory ratings for all indicators on an ongoing basis. Due to the information

provided in your January 11, 2002 response to the draft report, we do not require additional

information on Recommendations 2, 3, and 4. However, these areas should be addressed in your

program improvement plan. Also, the MRB requested clarification on two issues: inspection

schedule and radioactive material involved with the seven initial inspections that exceeded the

NRC inspection frequency; and any activity involving reciprocity inspections of teletherapy and

irradiator source installation service licensees. Both of these items are discussed in Section 3.1 of

the enclosed final report. I ask that your response be submitted within 30 days of this letter. Upon

review of the program improvement plan, the staff will schedule the first conference call. During

this call, we will also discuss the draft procedures sent on February 7, 2002. 

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, a follow-up review will be scheduled during the

period January - March 2003. The follow-up review will cover the State’s actions on the

recommendations from the September 2001 review. 
Yvonne Sylva 2 February 26, 2002

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

continuing support of the Radiological Health Section, Bureau of Health Protection Services. 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: Alex Haartz, Deputy Administrator

State Health Division, NV

Stanley R. Marshall, Supervisor

Radiological Health Section, NV 

Robert R. Loux, Executive Director

Agency for Nuclear Projects

(Nevada State Liaison Officer)

William Sinclair, UT

OAS Liaison to MRB
Yvonne Sylva 2 February 26, 2002

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

continuing support of the Radiological Health Section, Bureau of Health Protection Services. 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: Alex Haartz, Deputy Administrator

State Health Division, NV

Stanley R. Marshall, Supervisor

Radiological Health Section, NV 

Robert R. Loux, Executive Director

Agency for Nuclear Projects

(Nevada State Liaison Officer)

William Sinclair, UT

OAS Liaison to MRB

Distribution:

DIR RF DCD (SP01) PDR (YEST) bcc: Chairman Meserve

SDroggitis, STP DCool, NMSS Commissioner Dicus

KSchneider, STP GDeegan, NMSS Commissioner Diaz

LRakovan, STP STreby, OGC Commissioner McGaffigan

RGattone, RIII JLieberman, OGC Commissioner Merrified

LMcLean, RIV DChamberlain, RIV

GJohns, IA TCombs, OCA (2)

KHsueh, STP/ASPO FCameron, OGC

Nevada File

DOCUMENT NAME: I:\Reviews\nv01\2001 NV Final IMPEP Report and Letter.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 STP STP:DD STP:D EDO

NAME PMLarkins:kk

(By LJRakovan)

JMPiccone

(By PHLohaus)

PHLohaus CJPaperiello

DATE 2/15/02 2/15 /02 2/15/02 2/26/02

ML020460445 Pkg. STP-AG-17 
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

REVIEW OF NEVADA AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

September 10-14, 2001

FINAL REPORT

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

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

review was conducted during the period September 10-14, 2001, by a review team comprised of

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

of Iowa. Team members are identified in Appendix A. The review was conducted in accordance

with the “Implementation of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program and

Rescission of a Final General Statement of Policy,” published in the Federal Register on October

16, 1997, and the November 5, 1999, NRC Management Directive 5.6, “Integrated Materials

Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP).” Preliminary results of the review, which covered the

period August 30, 1997- September 10, 2001 were discussed with Nevada management on

September 14, 2001.

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 Division, the

Bureau, and the Section, are included as Appendix B. At the time of the review, the Nevada

program regulated 231 specific licenses, including broad academic programs, medical programs,

radiopharmacies, radiographers, a self-contained irradiator, 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.

A draft of this report was issued to Nevada for factual comment on November 21, 2001. The State

responded in a letter dated January 11, 2002 and sent in draft procedures on February 7, 2002. A

copy of the procedures can be found on the NRC’s Agencywide Document Access and

Management System (ADAMS) using the accession number ML020390249. The review team

found Nevada’s performance to be satisfactory for the indicators, Technical Quality of Inspections

and Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. The review team found Nevada’s performance to be

satisfactory with recommendations for improvement for the indicators, Technical Staffing and

Training, Response to Incidents and Allegations, and Legislation and Program Elements Required

for Compatibility. The review team found Nevada’s performance to be unsatisfactory for the

indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program. The team recommended that a program of

heightened oversight be implemented to assess the progress of the State in implementing

corrective actions. 

On February 11, 2002, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final

report with Ms. Yvonne Sylva, Administrator, State Health Division, Nevada Department of Human

Resources, and other Nevada staff. The MRB concurred in the individual findings by the review

team for each indicator including the common performance indicator, Status of Materials

Inspection Program. The MRB acknowledged the progress of the Section in assessing and

completing overdue inspections after the on-site review. The MRB concurred in the review team’s

recommendation for a program of heightened oversight to assess the progress of the State in

implementing corrective actions. The MRB found the Nevada radiation control program was

adequate, but needs improvement, and compatible with NRC’s program.
Nevada Final Report Page 2

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

was sent to the Section on July 7, 2001. The Section provided a response to the questionnaire

on August 28, 2001. A copy of the final response can be found on the NRC’s ADAMS using the

accession number ML013060257.

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

Nevada’s response to the questionnaire; (2) review of applicable Nevada statutes and regulations;

(3) analysis of quantitative information from the Nevada radiation control program licensing and

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

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

answer questions or clarify issues. The team evaluated the information that it gathered against

the IMPEP performance criteria for each common and non-common indicator and made a

preliminary assessment of the radiation control program’s performance.

Section 2 below discusses the Section’s action in response to recommendations made following

the previous review. Results of the current review for the IMPEP common performance indicators

are presented in Section 3. Section 4 discusses results of the applicable non-common

performance indicators, and Section 5 summarizes the review team’s findings and

recommendations. Recommendations made by the review team are comments that relate directly

to program performance by the Section. A response is requested from the Section to all

recommendations in the final report.

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS

During the previous routine review, which concluded on August 29, 1997, four recommendations

were made and the results transmitted to Ms. Yvonne Silva, Administrator, State Health Division,

Nevada Department of Human Resources, on December 2, 1997. The team’s review of the

current status of these recommendations is as follows:

1. The review team finds that the State has not met the frequency of Inspection Manual

Chapter (IMC) 1220 for the inspection of reciprocity licensees. The review team

recommends that the State inspect a higher percentage of reciprocity licensees, including

high priority industrial radiography licensees operating in rural areas. (Section 3.1)

Current Status: As noted in Section 3.1, the review team found that the Section continues

to perform a lower percentage of reciprocity inspections than specified in IMC 1220, and

that it had no alternative reciprocity inspection policy. This recommendation will be

incorporated into the review team’s 2001 recommendation in Section 3.1.

2. The review team recommends that the general training and qualification procedure be

adopted in writing. (Section 3.2)

Current Status: The review team found that, with the exception of the Transportation

Course as a requirement for basic qualification of staff, the Section’s formalized training

plan is in accordance with the NRC/OAS Training Working Group Report. This

recommendation is closed.

3. The team recommended that they review the incident files back to the last event reported

to NRC in 1995, and submit reports to NMED as appropriate. At the MRB meeting, the

State commented that they had completed the review and had submitted the appropriate
Nevada Final Report Page 3

reports. No additional action is necessary and the State does not need to address this

recommendation further. (Section 3.5)

Current Status: This recommendation is closed.

4. The team recommends that, as provided by the implementing procedures (“Adequacy and

Compatibility of Agreement State Programs,” draft NRC Management Directive 5.9,

Handbook Part V), State regulations or other generic legally binding requirements

equivalent to the NRC rules be adopted as expeditiously as possible but not later than

September 3, 2000 (three years after the September 3, 1997, [62 FR 46517] publication of

the final policy.) (Section 4.1.2)

Current Status: As noted in Section 4.1.2, the Section has continued to experience

difficulty in promulgating regulations in accordance with the current policy on adequacy

and compatibility. This recommendation will be incorporated into the review team’s 2001

recommendation in Section 4.1.2.

During the 1997 review, one suggestion was made for the Section to consider. The team

determined that the Section considered the suggestion and took appropriate action. 

3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

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

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

Program; (2) Technical Quality of Inspections; (3) Technical Staffing and Training; (4) Technical

Quality of Licensing Actions, and (5) Response to Incidents and Allegations.

3.1 Status of Materials Inspection Program

The team focused on four factors in reviewing this indicator: inspection frequency, overdue

inspections, initial inspection of new licenses, and timely dispatch of inspection findings to

licensees. The review team's evaluation is based on the Section’s questionnaire responses, data

gathered independently from the Section’s licensing and inspection data tracking system, the

examination of completed licensing and inspection casework, and interviews with management

and staff.

The team found that the Section's inspection priorities require inspections as frequent as, or more

frequent than those specified in IMC 2800 for similar license types. The Section’s inspection

priorities were the same as those specified in IMC 2800 for Priority 1 and Priority 2 licensees. The

Section’s inspection priorities for all other program types were more frequent than specified in IMC

2800. For example, IMC 2800 specifies Priority 5 for portable gauges while the Section specifies

Priority 3.

The Section maintains a licensee database that does not retain historical data and thus provides

current year data only. Given the number of current overdue inspections, the review team

requested, while onsite, that the Section review files to establish historical data to evaluate this

indicator for the review period. The review team also verified the information while onsite by

conducting a similar file review.

Based on data provided by the Section, the review team determined that the Section has 90 core

licensees according to NRC inspection priorities, and that 110 core inspections (including initial
Nevada Final Report Page 4

inspections) were due during the review period. Thirty-two core inspections were either

conducted overdue or will be overdue by more than 25% of the NRC inspection frequency when

they are completed, and are considered overdue. As of September 10, 2001, 16 of the 32 core

inspections were not completed. 

The review team noted that although it was difficult to discern a specific root cause, the Section’s

aggressive inspection priorities coupled with the amount of staff effort devoted to the program

appears to have contributed to the number of overdue inspections. In addition, the team noted

that the Section appears to place greater emphasis on the completion of less complex Priority 2

and 3 core inspections versus the more safety significant Priority 1 core inspections. For example,

21 of the 32 identified overdue inspections are Priority 1 programs, of which six Priority 1

inspections were not completed as of the onsite review. 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. 

The team identified that 47 of the 110 due core inspections were initial inspections. Of the 47

initial inspections, seven have or will exceed the NRC inspection frequency for initial inspections. 

The overdue initial inspections ranged from 3 to 11 months overdue. The Section’s practice with

respect to new licenses is to contact licensees by telephone at least every 6 months following

issuance of the new license to determine if new licensees have received the first shipment of

licensed material. Based on subsequent discussions with the Section Supervisor, the practice is

based on long-term experience with new licenses. The Section provided written documentation of

this practice after the onsite review. The Section includes a detailed discussion of the regulations,

policies, and procedures with the licensee during the onsite initial inspection. Based on the

telephone discussions, if a new licensee receives licensed material within 12 months of license

issuance, the Section then performs an initial inspection as specified in IMC 2800. If the licensee

states that they have not received radioactive material within 12 months of license issuance, then

the Section does not conduct the initial inspection until subsequently informed by the licensee that

licensed material has been received. According to IMC 2800, initial inspections are to be

performed within 6 months of receipt of licensed material, within 6 months of beginning licensed

activities, or within one year of license issuance, whichever comes first. The Section’s practice of

not performing initial inspections until informed by new licensees that they had received licensed

material resulted in overdue initial inspections according to NRC’s inspection frequency. The

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

for initial inspections contained in IMC 2800.

During the February 11, 2002 MRB meeting, the MRB requested clarification on the Section’s

inspection schedule and the radioactive materials involved with the seven initial inspections that

exceeded the NRC inspection frequency. Specifically, the State was asked to provide a summary

of when inspections occurred once the licensee received radioactive materials, and what materials

they received.

During the review of selected inspection casework, the team evaluated the Section’s timeliness in

providing inspection findings to the licensees. The team identified that the Section issued

inspection findings to licensees within 30 days of the inspections with few exceptions. 

To evaluate the reciprocity inspection program, the review team evaluated the reciprocity

inspection files and the Section’s response to the IMPEP questionnaire. The 1997 IMPEP review

recommended that the Section inspect a higher percentage of reciprocity licensees, including

radiography licensees operating in rural areas. However, during this review period, the Section

performed a lower percentage of reciprocity inspections than that specified in IMC 1220. For
Nevada Final Report Page 5

example, IMC 1220 specifies that 100% of the service licensees performing teletherapy and

irradiator source installations or changes under reciprocity should be conducted. In their response

to the IMPEP questionnaire, the Section indicated that they did not conduct any of the nine

reciprocity inspections for this category of service licensees during the review period. During the

February 11, 2002 MRB meeting, the Section Supervisor noted that this information was incorrect. 

The MRB requested that the State provide clarification regarding the information previously

provided in the IMPEP questionnaire on this subject. The review team recommends that the

Section perform reciprocity inspections as specified in IMC 1220.

Under Management Directive 5.6, if more than 25% of the core licensees are inspected at

intervals that exceed NRC frequencies, the indicator finding should be unsatisfactory. The review

team determined that 29% of the core inspections (including initial inspections) were conducted or

will be conducted at intervals that exceed NRC frequencies. At the February 11, 2002 MRB

meeting, the Section Supervisor commented that the overdue inspections had been assigned to

qualified staff and that approximately a third of the overdue inspections had been completed. 

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

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

Based on the team’s recommendation, the MRB agreed that an unsatisfactory rating was

appropriate for this indicator. The MRB also acknowledged the mitigating actions and progress of

the Section in assigning and completing overdue inspections after the on-site review. 

3.2 Technical Quality of Inspections

The team evaluated the inspection reports, enforcement documentation, and inspection field notes

and interviewed inspectors for 15 radioactive materials inspections conducted during the review

period. The casework included six of the Section's materials license inspectors, and covered

inspections of various types including fixed and portable gauges, industrial radiography, medical

(diagnostic, therapy, teletherapy and brachytherapy) and academic broad scope. Appendix C lists

the inspection casework files reviewed for completeness and adequacy with case-specific

comments.

Based on casework, the review team noted that routine inspections covered all aspects of

licensed radiation programs. The review team found that inspection reports were thorough,

complete, consistent, and of high quality, with sufficient documentation to ensure that licensees’

performance with respect to health and safety was acceptable. The documentation supported

violations, recommendations made to licensees, unresolved safety issues, and discussions held

with licensees during exit interviews. Team inspections were performed when appropriate. 

Accompaniments of two senior inspectors were conducted by an IMPEP team member during the

period of August 12-17, 2001. Both inspectors were accompanied during inspections of nuclear

medicine facilities. Three of the program inspectors were not accompanied since they provide

limited FTE support to the Agreement materials program. The accompaniments are identified in

Appendix C.

During the accompaniments, each inspector demonstrated appropriate inspection techniques,

knowledge of the regulations, and conducted performance-based inspections. The inspectors

were trained, well prepared for the inspection, and thorough in their audits of the licensees’

radiation safety programs. Each inspector conducted effective interviews with appropriate

licensee personnel, observed licensed operations, conducted confirmatory measurements, and
Nevada Final Report Page 6

utilized good health physics practices. Their inspections were adequate to assess radiological

health and safety at the licensed facilities.

The team noted that although supervisory accompaniments of all inspectors were not completed

annually, no performance issues were identified. The team noted that no inspectors were

accompanied in 1997; one inspector was accompanied in 1998; one inspector was accompanied

three times in 1999; five inspectors were accompanied in 2000; and, as of the date of the IMPEP

review, one inspector was accompanied in 2001. The team also found that two supervisory senior

staff, one in the Carson City office and a second in the Las Vegas office, were not accompanied

during the review period. 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.

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

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

3.3 Technical Staffing and Training

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

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

To evaluate these issues, the review team examined the Section’s questionnaire responses

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

workload backlogs.

The Section has responsibility for the control of all radiation program areas in Nevada. The

Section is headquartered in Carson City with a field office located in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Licensing and inspection activities are conducted from both offices. The Section is funded

through several mechanisms including State general funds, Environmental Protection Agency

monies for radon, Department of Energy support for the Waste Isolation Pilot Program, and 15%

collected from licensee fees.

The team found, based on response to the questionnaire and discussion with the Section

Supervisor, that the Section, when fully staffed, devotes approximately 2.80 full time equivalents

(FTE) of staff effort to the Agreement materials program. This level of effort consists of: one

Section Supervisor (0.2 FTE); one supervisory Radiological Staff Specialist (0.9 FTE); one

supervisory Radiation Physicist (0.1FTE); one Radiation Control Specialist II (0.85 FTE); and four

technical staff (with a combined level of 0.75 FTE). Thus, the team found that two primary staff

support the Agreement materials program: the supervisory Radiological Staff Specialist located in

the Carson City Office and a Radiation Control Specialist II located in the Las Vegas Office; each

contributing .90 and .85 FTE respectively to the Agreement materials program. As a result of two

vacancies, the Radiation Control Specialist II from the Las Vegas Office, and a technical staff

position from the Las Vegas Office, the Section is currently staffed at a level of 1.85 FTE. 

The team noted the significance of the vacancy created by the departure of the Radiation Control

Specialist II from the Las Vegas Office, which occurred on September 4, 2001, given the level of

effort this position devotes to the program. The Las Vegas Office has responsibility for routine

licensing and inspection activities for 158 of the program's 231 licenses. The Carson City Office

has responsibility for the remaining licenses, and other Agreement materials program activities,

such as rule promulgation. The team also noted that of the remaining three staff located in

Carson City, two staff routinely conduct only two to five Agreement materials inspections per year

and one staff member, who is primarily responsible for the radon program, conducts a limited
Nevada Final Report Page 7

number of gauge inspections per year. The supervisory Radiation Physicist and the final staff

position supporting the program are both located in the Las Vegas Office and provide only limited

support (0.1FTE each), given their other program responsibilities.

During the review period, one position was vacated three times and is currently vacant. A second

vacancy occurred September 4, 2001, as noted above. According to the Section Supervisor, the

four staff left the program for higher salaries. One staff member who retired in 1998 has recently

returned, but as a part-time employee in the non-Agreement State materials area. The Section

Supervisor stated that salaries have remained stable for the last 20 years even though the Section

has undergone a 20% increase from 169 to 231 licenses during the review period. The Section

Supervisor also stated that although recent legislation was passed to provide a 4% salary

increase for State employees, he believes salaries remain comparatively low to other local State

programs, which could hamper efforts to hire and retain staff. At the February 11, 2002 MRB

meeting, the Section Supervisor and the MRB noted that although the Section has hired two new

staff members, they will need training and experience before they are fully qualified. The MRB

also discussed with the Section the benefits of maintaining a contingency staffing plan, including

cross training staff. 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.

The Section requires that all technical staff members have a bachelor’s degree in health physics

or a related scientific discipline and one year of experience in regulatory health physics or

radiation protection or training and equivalent experience. Other educational requirements,

including an associate degree and equivalent experience may also be acceptable. The review

team found that, with the exception of the Transportation Course as a requirement for basic

qualification of staff, the Section’s formalized training plan follows the educational training

guidance in the NRC/OAS Training Working Group Report. Since the onsite review, the Section

Supervisor has added the Transportation Course as a basic core course for qualification of staff. 

The team found that the Section is maintaining a record of all educational training taken by the

staff, and the Section Supervisor signed off on all of the educational staff training records during

the review. Although the team did not find a clear description of the steps to full qualification, such

as a description of the training and level of experience necessary to conduct a specific level of

radiation control activities, the team was provided documentation of the specific qualifications for

some of the current technical staff. 

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

performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Staffing and Training, be found

satisfactory with recommendations for improvement.

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The review team examined completed licensing casework and interviewed the staff for 11 specific

licenses. Licensing actions were evaluated for completeness, consistency, proper isotopes and

quantities used, qualifications of authorized users, adequate facilities and equipment, and

operating and emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing actions. 

Licenses were evaluated for overall technical quality including accuracy, appropriateness of the

license, its conditions, and tie-down conditions. Casework was evaluated for timeliness;

adherence to good health physics practices; reference to appropriate regulations; financial

assurance, documentation of safety evaluation reports, product certifications or other supporting

documents; consideration of enforcement history on renewals; pre-licensing visits, peer or
Nevada Final Report Page 8

supervisory review as indicated; and proper signature authority. The files were 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. The sampling included the following types: portable

gauge, nuclear pharmacy, research and development, nuclear medicine, brachytherapy, high

dose rate remote afterloader, and industrial radiography. Types of licensing actions selected for

evaluation included five new licenses, one renewal, three amendments, and two terminations. A

list of the licensing casework evaluated with case-specific comments can be found in Appendix D.

Overall, the review team found that the licensing actions were thorough, complete, consistent, of

high quality and properly addressed health and safety issues. The staff followed appropriate

licensing guides during the review process to ensure that licensees submit information necessary

to support their request. Complicated deficiencies were addressed in letters containing

appropriate regulatory language. 

The team found that actions terminating licenses were well documented, and included the

appropriate material survey records. All files reviewed contained documentation of proper

disposal or transfer. 

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

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

3.5 Response to Incidents and Allegations

In evaluating the effectiveness of the Section’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 Nevada in the "Nuclear Material Events Database" (NMED) against those

contained in the Nevada files, and evaluated the casework and supporting documentation for 17

material incidents. A list of the reportable incident casework examined with case-specific

comments is included in Appendix E. The team also reviewed the Section's response to 10

allegations involving radioactive materials including one allegation 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.

The Section listed 18 reportable and 3 voluntary events involving Agreement material in their

response to the questionnaire. The team found 14 of the events in the NMED database. The

incidents reviewed included: lost, stolen, or damaged portable gauges, accidental disposal, and

the improper release of radioactive material. The review team found the Section’s response to

incidents were complete and comprehensive. Initial responses were prompt, well coordinated,

and the level of effort was commensurate with the health and safety significance. The Section

dispatches inspectors for onsite investigations when appropriate, and took suitable enforcement

and follow-up actions. 

Although actions were coordinated with other agencies, as appropriate, the team determined that

incidents were not appropriately reported to the NRC. The review team compiled reporting

statistics for the incidents listed in the questionnaire which included 15 significant events, three

30-60 day notification events and three voluntarily reported events as defined in the Office of
Nevada Final Report Page 9

State and Tribal Programs (STP) Procedure SA-300, “Reporting Material Events.” Of the 15

significant events, the review team noted that three events were not reported to NRC, and only

four events were reported to the NRC Operations Center within 24 hours after notification of the

incident to the Section. It was also noted that 30-60 day notification and follow-up event

information was not reported to NRC on a monthly basis as requested in STP Procedure 

SA-300. Of the three 30-60 day notification events, two were never reported to NRC and the

remaining event was reported to NRC 14 months after the Section received licensee notification of

the occurrence of the event. Of the 17 incidents reviewed, the review team identified eight

incidents where follow-up information was available in the file, but not reported to NRC. For 

30-60 day notification events, a report was considered late if the information concerning the

incident was received by NRC more than 60 days after the occurrence of the event. Agreement

State event reporting to NRC is mandatory as detailed in a Staff Requirements Memorandum

dated June 30, 1997. 

The team discussed the issue of reporting incidents with Section management and staff, including

the need for complete and timely information, e.g., NRC is required to provide information on

material events annually to Congress in “Budget Estimates and Performance Plan, Fiscal Year

2002,” NUREG 1100, Volume 17. 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 Material Events.

During the review period, the NRC referred one allegation to the Section and nine allegations

were received directly. The team reviewed all allegations. The casework indicated that the

Section took prompt and appropriate action in response to the concerns raised. The team noted

that allegations were treated and documented internally in the same manner as incidents. During

the review, the team was unable to find documentation that the Section provided the results of

their investigation to the alleger. Subsequently, in follow-up discussions with the Section

Supervisor, the team noted that the Section practice includes a written close-out summary with the

alleger when possible.

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

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

recommendations for improvement.

4.0 NON- COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

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

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

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

(4) Uranium Recovery Program. Nevada’s Agreement does not cover uranium recovery programs,

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

4.1 Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility

4.1.1 Legislation

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

opportunity to review copies of legislation that affects the radiation control program. 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 radiation control
Nevada Final Report Page 10

program was passed since being found adequate during the previous review, and the team found

that the State legislation is adequate.

4.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility

The Nevada Radiological Health Rules, found in Chapter 459 of the Nevada Administrative Code

(NAC), applied 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 examined the procedures used in the State’s regulatory process and found that

Nevada offers the public the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations and participate in

public hearings before the Board of Health. Procedures also require the proposed regulations,

and proposed hearing date, be publicized. Written response to all written public comments must

be part of the staff presentation to the Board.

The team evaluated Nevada’s responses to the questionnaire, reviewed the status of the

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 STP

Regulation Assessment Tracking System. 

Since the last IMPEP review, the State adopted 10 regulations that became effective January

1999.

Current NRC policy requires that Agreement States adopt certain equivalent regulations or legally

binding requirements no later than three years after they are effective. The following ten

regulations are overdue: 

• “Termination or Transfer of Licensed Activities: Recordkeeping Requirements,” 10 CFR

Parts 20, 30, 40, 61 and 70 amendments (61 FR 24669) that became effective on June

16, 1996. 

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

Act,” 10 CFR Part 20 amendment (61 FR 65120) that became 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 on 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 on May 29, 1997. 

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

Radiography Operations; Final Rule,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 34, 71 and 150 amendments (62

FR 28948) that became effective on June 27, 1997. 

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

amendments (62 FR 39058) that became effective on August 20, 1997. 
Nevada Final Report Page 11

• “Exempt Distribution of a Radioactive Drug Containing One Micro Curie of Carbon-14

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

1997. 

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

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

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

Radiography Operations-Part 34,” 10 CFR Part 34 amendment (63 FR 37059) that

became effective on July 9, 1998. 

• “Minor Corrections, Clarifying Changes, and a Minor Policy Change,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 35

and 36 amendments (63 FR 39477 and 45393) that became effective on October 26,

1998. 

During the onsite IMPEP review, the Section Supervisor discussed with the review team that he

expected the Section to adopt 10 regulations during calendar year 2001. The regulations were

drafted May of 2000, published for public review and comment, and then submitted to NRC for

review on July 12, 2001. The Section Supervisor requested a response from NRC by September

1, 2001. (An alternate date of October 16, 2001, was subsequently established based on

discussion with program management.) Following receipt of NRC comments, the Section planned

to continue with the next step in the promulgation process; an adoption hearing before the Board

of Health. The NRC completed its review and transmitted comments for nine regulations on

November 8, 2001, and one regulation on November 16, 2001 to the Section Supervisor. 

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

future, and the Section related that the regulations would be addressed in upcoming rulemaking or

by adopting alternate legally binding requirements:

• “Transfer for Disposal and Manifest; Minor Technical Conforming Amendments,” 10 CFR

Part 20 amendment (63 FR 50127) that became effective on November 20, 1998. The

Department plans to implement this regulatory requirement by adopting alternate legally

binding requirements. The review team discussed with the Section Supervisor the need

to provide a copy of all regulations that will be implemented by legally binding

requirements for review by NRC. The Section has not submitted the proposed alternate

legally binding requirements to NRC for review.

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

amendment (64 FR 54543 and 55525) that became effective on February 2, 2000.

• “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 Part 34, 36, and 39 amendments (65 FR 63749)

that became effective on January 8, 2001.

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 was previously made during the 1997 IMPEP review.
Nevada Final Report Page 12

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

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

found satisfactory with recommendations for improvement.

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

The team did not evaluate the Section’s SS&D program during this review. Although Nevada

currently has responsibility for this area, the Section did not perform any SS&D evaluations during

the period of the review. The review team verified this information by review of the national SS&D

registry and confirmed that the Section had not issued any SS&D sheets during this period of

review.

4.3 Low - Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program

The team did not review the State’s LLRW program due to an unexpected loss of a review team

member from the onsite portion of the review. The Section has no separate LLRW program, but

instead regulates the LLRW license in the same manner as any other complex specific license. 

This indicator will be reviewed during the next scheduled follow-up IMPEP review.

5.0 SUMMARY

As noted in Section 3 and 4 above, the review team found Nevada’s performance to be

satisfactory for the indicators, Technical Quality of Inspections and Technical Quality of Licensing

Actions. The review team found Nevada’s performance to be satisfactory with recommendations

for improvement for the indicators, Technical Staffing and Training and Response to Incidents and

Allegations, and Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility. The review team

found Nevada’s performance to be unsatisfactory for the indicator Status of Materials Inspection

Program. Accordingly, the review team recommended and the MRB concurred that the Nevada

Agreement State program be found adequate, but needs improvement, and compatible with NRC’s

program. The review team recommended and the MRB concurred that a program of Heightened

Oversight be implemented to assess the progress of the State. The MRB directed that the followup review be scheduled during the period of January - March 2003.

Below is a summary list of recommendations, as mentioned earlier in sections of the report, for

evaluation and implementation, as appropriate, by the Section.

RECOMMENDATIONS 

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. (Section 3.1)

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

the schedule for initial inspections contained in IMC 2800. (Section 3.1)

3. The review team recommends that the Section perform reciprocity inspections as specified

in IMC 1220. (Section 3.1)

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. (Section 3.2)
Nevada Final Report Page 13

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. (Section 3.3)

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 Material Events. (Section 3.5)

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.

(Section 4.1)
LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members

Appendix B Nevada Organization Charts

Appendix C Inspection Casework Reviews

Appendix D License Casework Reviews

Appendix E Incident Casework Reviews

Attachment January 11, 2002 Letter from Yvonne Sylva

Nevada’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report
APPENDIX A

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

Name Area of Responsibility

Patricia Larkins, STP Team Leader

Technical Staffing and Training

Legislation and Program Elements Required 

 for Compatibility

Linda McLean, RIV Inspector Accompaniments 

Robert Gattone, RIII Status of Materials Inspection Program

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

George Johns, Iowa Technical Quality of Inspections

Response to Incidents and Allegations
APPENDIX B

NEVADA ORGANIZATION CHARTS

(ML013060280)



ATTACHMENT

January 11, 2002 Letter from Yvonne Sylva

Nevada’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report

ML020160424