September 16, 2009 

Richard Whitley, M.S. 

Administrator 

Nevada State Health Division 

Suite 300 

4150 Technology Way 

Carson City, NV 89706 

Dear Mr. Whitley: 

On August 17, 2009, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final 

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

Agreement State Program. The MRB found the Nevada Agreement State Program adequate to 

protect public health and safety and compatible with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission=s 

program. 

Section 5.0, page 13, of the enclosed final report summarizes the IMPEP review team=s findings 

and recommendations regarding program performance by the State. We request your 

evaluation and response to the recommendations within 30 days from receipt of this letter. 

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review of the Nevada Agreement 

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

scheduled for June 2011. 

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. I look 

forward to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the future. 

Sincerely, 

 /RA Michael F. Weber for/ 

Martin J. Virgilio 

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, 

Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs 

Office of the Executive Director for Operations 

Enclosure: 

Nevada Final IMPEP Report 

cc w/encl.: See next page 
R. Whitley - 2 - 

cc w/encl: Karen Beckley, Manager 

 Nevada Radiation Control Program 

 Richard Ratliff, Texas 

 Organization of Agreement States 

 Liaison to the MRB 
 September 16, 2009 

Richard Whitley, MS 

Administrator 

Nevada State Health Division 

Suite 300 

4150 Technology Way 

Carson City, NV 89706 

Dear Mr. Whitley: 

On August 17, 2009, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final 

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

Agreement State Program. The MRB found the Nevada Agreement State Program adequate to 

protect public health and safety and compatible with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission=s 

program. 

Section 5.0, page 13, of the enclosed final report summarizes the IMPEP review team=s findings 

and recommendations regarding program performance by the State. We request your 

evaluation and response to the recommendations within 30 days from receipt of this letter. 

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review of the Nevada Agreement 

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

scheduled for June 2011. 

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. I look 

forward to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the future. 

Sincerely, 

 /RA Michael F. Weber for/ 

Martin J. Virgilio 

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, 

Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs 

Office of the Executive Director for Operations 

Enclosure: 

Nevada Final IMPEP Report 

cc w/encl.: See next page 

Distribution: See next page.

 ML092310504 EDATS: FSME-2009-0028 

OFFICE FSME/DMSSA FSME/DMSSA FSME/DMSSA FSME/DMSSA 

NAME ATMcCraw:knm1 (KMeyer for) ADWhite TReis RJLewis 

DATE 08/19/09 08/20/09 08/22/09 08/28/09 

OFFICE Tech Editor FSME DEDMRT 

NAME CPoland (PTressler for) CLMiller (GPangburn for) MJVirgilio 

DATE 09/1/09 09/9/09 09/16/09 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Letter to Richard Whitley from Martin J. Virgilio dated: September 16, 2009 

DISTRIBUTION: FSME-2009-0028

MSSA RF DCD (SP01) 

EDO RF 

RidsFsmeOd Chairman Jaczko 

RidsSecyCorrespondenceMailCenter Commissioner Klein 

MBeardsley, FSME/MSSA Commissioner Svinicki 

DJanda, RI SECY 

RErickson, RIV/RSAO 

LCuadrado, FSME/MSSA 

WRautzen, FSME/MSSA 

Sherrie Flaherty, Minnesota 

SBaggett, OEDO 

APowell, OCA (2 copies) 

JGray, OGC 

BJones, OGC 

TReis, FSME/MSSA 
Enclosure 

INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM 

REVIEW OF THE NEVADA AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM 

June 1-5, 2009 

FINAL REPORT
Nevada Final Report Page 1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This report presents the results of the review of the Nevada Agreement State Program. The 

review was conducted during the period of June 1-5, 2009, by a review team composed of 

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

Minnesota. 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 NRC Management Directive 5.6, “Integrated Materials 

Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP),” dated February 26, 2004. Preliminary results of the 

review, which covered the period of March 19, 2005, to June 5, 2009, were discussed with 

Nevada managers on the last day of the review. 

A draft of this report was issued to Nevada for factual comment on July 6, 2009. The State 

responded by letter dated August 6, 2009, from Richard Whitley, Administrator, State Health 

Division (the Division). A copy of the State’s response is included as the Attachment to this 

report. The Management Review Board (MRB) met on August 17, 2009, to consider the 

proposed final report. The MRB found the Nevada Agreement State Program adequate to 

protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC’s program. 

The Nevada Agreement State program is administered by the Radiation Control Program (the 

Program) in the Bureau of Health Care Quality and Compliance (the Bureau). The Bureau is 

part of the Division. Organization charts for the Division and the Program are included in 

Appendix B. 

At the time of the review, the Nevada Agreement State Program regulated 265 specific licenses 

authorizing byproduct, source, and certain special nuclear materials. The review focused on the 

radioactive materials program as it is carried out under the Section 274b. (of the Atomic Energy 

Act of 1954, as amended) Agreement between NRC and the State of Nevada. 

In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common and applicable noncommon performance indicators was sent to the Division on March 10, 2009. The Program 

provided a response to the questionnaire on April 30, 2009. A copy of the questionnaire 

response may be found in the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

(ADAMS) using the Accession Number ML091830869. 

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 Program’s database; (4) technical 

review of selected regulatory actions; (5) field accompaniments of three inspectors; and (6) 

interviews with staff and managers. 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 Nevada Agreement State Program’s 

performance. 

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

during previous reviews. Results of the current review of the common performance indicators 

are presented in Section 3.0. Section 4.0 details the results of the review of the applicable non-
Nevada Final Report Page 2 

common performance indicators, and Section 5.0 summarizes the review team's findings and 

recommendations. The review team’s recommendations are comments that relate directly to 

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

recommendations in the final report. 

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS 

During the previous IMPEP review, which concluded on March 18, 2005, the review team made 

three recommendations regarding program performance. The current status of the 

recommendations is as follows: 

1. The review team recommends that the State develop and implement a staffing plan to fill 

current vacancies, meet growing program needs, and maintain long-term program 

stability. (Section 3.1 of the 2005 IMPEP Report) 

Status: The Program has been successful in both replacing staff that left the 

Program and in obtaining authorization for new positions. Although the Program 

has been unable to increase salaries to help address staff turnover, they have 

developed a “Grow Your Own” program. The Program hires staff with Bachelor’s 

degrees and/or experience in physical sciences or environmental health, not 

necessarily in the field of radiation protection. Staff members are then trained 

through a combination of on-the-job training and formal coursework, including 

NRC training courses. This recommendation is closed. 

2. The review team recommends that the Program revise their inspection 

procedures and provide training to implement a policy for timely and orderly 

license termination of licensed materials not in use. (Section 3.3 of the 2005 

IMPEP Report) 

 Status: The Program handles issues associated with licensees who possess 

licensed material not in use on a case-by-case basis. The Program is in the 

process of developing written procedures to address this issue. Inspectors are 

trained on proper notification procedures when this issue is identified on an 

inspection. The Program has the support of the Attorney General’s office in 

requiring payment of fees, confiscation of materials, and the revocation of 

licenses. This recommendation remains open. 

3. The review team recommends that the Program develop, implement, and 

maintain a reliable and comprehensive licensing and inspection database that 

serves as an effective and efficient planning, tracking, and management tool. 

(Section 3.4 of the 2005 IMPEP Report) 

 Status: Following the previous review, the Program revised its existing database 

to better manage information on radioactive materials licensing and inspection. 

The Program is still working to implement a database that will serve as an 

efficient planning, tracking, and management tool. Subsequent to the on-site 

review, the Program received legislative approval to use program funding to 
Nevada Final Report Page 3 

acquire a new database that will address the limitations of the current database. 

This recommendation remains open. 

3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 

Five common performance indicators are used to review NRC Regional and Agreement State 

radioactive materials programs. These indicators are: (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 response relative to this 

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

records, and considered any possible workload backlogs. 

The Program, headed by the Program Manager, regulates approximately 265 specific licenses 

with 7.7 full-time equivalents (FTE), including 1.0 FTE for administrative duties. Within the 

Program there are two offices: one based in Carson City and one based in Las Vegas. There 

are two supervisors in the Carson City office. One supervisor manages radioactive materials 

licensing and inspection activities for both offices; the other supervisor manages incident 

response and special projects (intergovernmental) activities for both offices. In addition, there is 

one supervisor in the Las Vegas office who manages machine-based radiation activities for both 

offices. 

Four staff members left the Program during the review period, three of whom retired. Nine staff 

members, including one supervisor, were hired during the review period. The new staff 

members have a wide range of technical experience and education, which brings depth of 

knowledge to the Program. New technical staff members have attended training courses to 

assist in their qualification process. 

The Program has a documented training and qualification program for staff members who 

perform licensing and inspection duties and investigate incidents. The training and qualification 

program is equivalent to NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 1246, “Formal Qualification 

Programs in the Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Program Area” and is consistent with 

the NRC and Organization of Agreement States (OAS) Training Working Group 

Recommendations for Agreement State Training Programs. Qualification is achieved through a 

combination of education and experience, formal classroom training, and on-the-job training. 

Staff members are required to have a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent experience in a physical 

or biological science or engineering. 

The Program maintains training and qualification records for each staff member. The review 

team noted that the Program manager encourages and supports training opportunities, based 

on program needs and funding. The review team concluded that the Program’s staffing and 

training is adequate to carry out its regulatory duties. 
Nevada Final Report Page 4 

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

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

satisfactory. 

3.2 Status of Materials Inspection Program

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

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

licensees, and performance of reciprocity inspections. The review team’s evaluation was based 

on the Program’s questionnaire response relative to this indicator, data gathered from the 

Program’s database, examination of completed inspection casework, and interviews with 

managers and staff. 

The Program conducted a total of 65 inspections of high priority (Priority 1, 2, and 3) licensees 

during the review period. The review team's evaluation of the Program’s inspection priorities 

verified that inspection frequencies for all types of Nevada material licenses are at least the 

same as those listed in IMC 2800, “Materials Inspection Program.” In its response to the 

questionnaire, the Program stated that none of the inspections were conducted overdue nor 

were any overdue at the time of the review. The review team verified that no inspections were 

overdue at the time of the review; however, the review team identified that seven of the Priority 

1, 2 and 3 inspections conducted during the review period were performed overdue. This was 

due to the inadvertent mischaracterization of some inspection priority codes when entering the 

information into the Program’s licensing and inspection database (e.g., some Priority 3 

licensees were coded in the database as Priority 5 licensees and were not inspected at the 

correct interval.) The Program identified the cause of this issue during the on-site review and 

corrected the program codes in the database for the affected licensees. The review team also 

evaluated the Program’s timeliness for conducting initial inspections. The review team noted 

that the Program conducted 46 initial inspections during the review period. IMC 2800 guidelines 

require all initial inspections to be conducted within 12 months after license issuance. Of the 46 

initial inspections, 3 were performed overdue. The review team verified that there were no 

overdue initial inspections at the time of the review. Overall, the review team calculated that the 

Program performed 9 percent of all Priority 1, 2, and 3 and initial inspections overdue during the 

review period. 

The review team determined that the Program adequately planned for the initial set of Increased 

Controls inspections of affected licensees. The review team evaluated the Program’s 

prioritization methodology and found it acceptable. The Program identified 12 licensees that 

were subject to the Increased Controls and the review team verified that the Program performed 

the initial round of Increased Controls inspections in a timely manner. The Program plans to 

conduct subsequent inspections of these licensees in accordance with the inspection frequency 

of the routine health and safety inspection. 

The review team evaluated the Program’s timeliness of issuance of inspection reports. The 

majority of inspection findings are issued to licensees within 30 days of inspection completion. 

Ten inspection findings were delivered greater than 30 days from inspection completion. Most 

of these occurred during the first 2 years of the review period because of workload of the staff at 

that time. At the time of the review, Program staff was issuing inspection findings on-site at the 

completion of an inspection, when appropriate. This practice helps ensure that inspection 
Nevada Final Report Page 5 

findings are communicated to licensees in a timely manner. The review team verified that no 

inspection findings were overdue at the time of the review. 

During the review period, the Program granted 123 reciprocity licenses. The Program considers 

all reciprocity licensees as candidates for inspection. Consequently, the review team was 

unable to apply the reciprocity inspection frequency criteria prescribed by IMC 1220, 

“Processing of NRC Form 241 and Inspection of Agreement State Licensees Operating under 

10 CFR 150.20.” In 2005 and 2006, the Program inspected at least 20 percent of the candidate 

reciprocity licensees. The Program self-identified that, for 2007 and 2008, they inspected less 

than 20 percent of reciprocity licensees. This was due in part to redirecting resources to address 

higher priority tasks, such as new security initiatives. Although the Program did not inspect the 

minimum of 20 percent of candidate reciprocity licensees in each of the calendar years covered 

by the review period, the review team determined that the State applied a risk-informed 

approach to conduct reciprocity inspections during the years that the 20 percent requirement 

was not met. 

Since the previous IMPEP review, the Program implemented a new policy to address inspection 

of reciprocity licensees. Each time the Program grants a reciprocity license, the time and 

location where the licensee will be working is placed on a shared calendar that can be accessed 

by managers, supervisors, and inspectors. This new method allows the supervisors to better 

track reciprocity licensees and allows them to immediately assign these inspections to a 

Program inspector working in the geographical area where the reciprocity licensee is working. 

Also, in August 2008, the Program changed their policy to incorporate a check on the 

compliance history of the licensee requesting reciprocity approval with the Agreement State or 

NRC Region that issued the radioactive materials license. If it is determined that a reciprocity 

applicant has outstanding compliance issues with their licensing authority (Agreement State or 

NRC Region), the Program will deny the reciprocity application. The review team recognized 

that this practice does not necessarily have to lead to the denial of a reciprocity application but 

could also be used to make an informed decision on whether or not to perform a field inspection 

of the reciprocity licensee. The review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, that the use 

of compliance checks on reciprocity applicants as part of a regulator’s decision-making 

processes is a good practice. 

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

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

was satisfactory. 

3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections

The review team evaluated inspection reports, enforcement documentation, inspection field 

notes, and interviewed the responsible inspectors for 26 radioactive materials inspections 

conducted during the review period. The casework examined included a cross-section of 

inspections conducted by nine current and former inspectors and covered a wide variety of 

inspection types involving both initial and routine inspections. These included academic 

broadscope, industrial radiography, self-shielded irradiator, service provider, gamma knife, 

positron emission tomography, high dose-rate remote afterloader, nuclear pharmacy, diagnostic 

nuclear medicine, portable gauge, and reciprocity licensees. The casework review also 
Nevada Final Report Page 6 

included both initial and follow-up Increased Controls inspections. Appendix C lists the 

inspection casework reviewed and includes case-specific comments. 

Based on the evaluation of casework, the review team determined that inspections covered all 

aspects of the licensees’ radiation safety programs. The review team noted that inspection 

reports were thorough, complete, consistent, and of high quality with sufficient documentation to 

ensure that licensees’ performance with respect to health, safety, and security were acceptable. 

Inspection report documentation supported violations, recommendations made to licensees, 

unresolved safety issues, and discussions held with licensees during exit interviews. 

The Program’s inspection procedures are consistent with the inspection guidance found in IMC 

2800. At the conclusion of each inspection, inspectors have the option to document clear 

inspection results on a form similar to NRC’s Form 591 which can be left with the licensee at the 

conclusion of the inspection. Inspectors also have the option to send results from the office. 

Supervisor accompaniments were, for the most part, conducted annually for all inspectors. 

From 2005 to 2007, one or two accompaniments per year were not performed; however, no 

inspector went two consecutive years without being accompanied by a supervisor on an 

inspection. Supervisors who perform inspections also accompany each other on an annual 

basis to ensure that each qualified inspector’s performance is evaluated. The supervisory 

accompaniments are documented with copies of the reports maintained in the inspector’s file. 

While on site, the review team evaluated the Program’s handling and storing of sensitive 

information. The review team determined that documents involving Increased Controls 

inspections were protected and maintained in a locked file cabinet within a locked room with 

limited personnel access. Files were held in individual color coded folders, clearly identifying 

each file that is subject to special handling requirements. During file reviews, the review team 

noted that documents containing sensitive information were not marked with unique markings 

identifying them as sensitive or protected. The review team determined that the files were not 

subject to Freedom of Information Act-equivalent State law and verified that staff handling the 

files was aware of the sensitive information and its special handling requirements. The review 

team found that outgoing correspondence to licensees also was not marked with unique 

markings identifying them as sensitive information. The review team did not discover any 

evidence of an inadvertent release or unauthorized disclosure on the part of the Program or any 

licensees, but recognized the potential for a mistake due to the lack of policy of marking 

sensitive documents. After discussions between the review team and the Program Manager, 

the Program immediately began development of a procedure for marking sensitive documents. 

On June 16, 2009, the Program Manager notified the review team that the Program developed 

and implemented a procedure for marking sensitive documents. 

The review team verified that the Program maintains an adequate supply of appropriately 

calibrated survey instruments to support the inspection program and to respond to radioactive 

materials incidents and emergency conditions. Funding for instrumentation comes from several 

sources including U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Energy. 

This financial support is due in part to Nevada’s support for these Federal Agencies’ activities 

within the State. Instruments used to support the materials inspection program are sent to the 

manufacturer for calibration. 
Nevada Final Report Page 7 

The Program has a contract with a private laboratory for sample analysis and also receives 

minimal laboratory support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office in Las Vegas. 

The State laboratory does not have radiological capabilities. 

The review team accompanied three of the Program’s inspectors in April 2009. The inspectors 

conducted inspections at a small hospital performing iodine-131 therapy and two industrial 

radiography facilities. Two of the inspections included a review of the licensees’ implementation 

of the Increased Controls requirements. Appendix C lists the inspector accompaniments. The 

inspectors demonstrated performance-based inspection techniques and knowledge of the 

regulations. The inspectors were well trained, prepared for the inspections, and thorough in 

their audits of the licensees’ radiation safety programs. The inspectors conducted interviews 

with appropriate personnel, observed licensed operations, conducted confirmatory 

measurements, and utilized good health physics practices. The inspectors held entrance and 

exit meetings with the appropriate level of licensee management. The review team determined 

that the inspections were adequate to assess radiological health, safety, and security at the 

licensed facilities. 

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

that Nevada’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 

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

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

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

emergency procedures, appropriateness of license conditions, and overall technical quality. 

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

letters, reference to appropriate regulations, supporting documentation, consideration of 

enforcement history, pre-licensing visits, peer/supervisory review, and proper signatures. 

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

completed during the review period. Licensing actions selected for evaluation included 4 new 

licenses, 3 renewals, 13 amendments, 1 amendment denial, and 2 license terminations. Files 

reviewed included a cross-section of license types, including: medical diagnostic and therapy, 

brachytherapy, gamma knife, industrial radiography, nuclear pharmacies, blood irradiators, 

broadscopes, and industrial licensees. The casework reviewed represented work from each of 

the license reviewers. A listing of the licensing casework reviewed, with case-specific 

comments, can be found in Appendix D. 

All licensing actions for radioactive materials are assigned a tracking number and logged into a 

computer tracking spreadsheet. The licensing and inspection supervisor assigns licensing 

actions based on the reviewer’s qualifications. Each license reviewer uses a boilerplate license 

specific to the type of licensing action (i.e., medical, industrial, or gauge) to ensure consistency 

in standard licenses. If needed, the reviewer generates a deficiency letter and produces a draft 

licensing action upon final resolution of all deficiency items. The Program recently implemented 

a peer review procedure for licensing actions for quality assurance. Licenses are then given a 
Nevada Final Report Page 8 

supervisory review followed by an editorial review. The Program Manager has final signature 

authority. All new licenses are hand delivered to and thoroughly reviewed with licensees. The 

Program has a policy that does not allow licenses to be issued if the applicant cannot follow the 

terms of the license, as reviewed. 

License reviewers utilize a pre-licensing checklist for all new licenses, licensee name changes, 

and changes in radiation safety officers. The review team noted that the pre-licensing checklist 

is not utilized for all amendments. The Program uses an amendment procedure checklist for all 

amendments. The review team noted that for amendments that request additional radioactive 

material, the amendment procedure checklists did not require reviewers to verify that 

possession limits did not exceed risk-significant quantities. The Program has indicated they will 

add an additional item to the amendment checklist to include verification that possession limits 

do not exceed risk-significant quantities, financial assurance, decommissioning plan, or 

emergency plan requirements. 

The Program has a policy of hand-delivering all new licenses. Each applicant is subject to an 

on-site evaluation of their radiation safety and security programs prior to receipt of the initial 

license. This practice ensures that applicants have adequate radiation safety and security 

programs in place prior to taking possession of radioactive material. This practice meets the 

essential objective of a “pre-licensing visit.” 

The review team identified that the Program reduced authorized possession limits on some 

licenses listing radionuclides of concern in order to be below the threshold limits requiring 

implementation of the Increased Controls; however, these lower possession limits were 

calculated based on activities in curies instead of terabequerels. As a result, possession limits 

for certain isotopes were authorized at quantities that were still above the Increased Controls 

threshold limits and did not contain the appropriate license condition. The Program identified 

those licenses that potentially contained such errors and gave refresher training on the 

Guidance for Applying the Additional Requirements for Increased Controls, issued 

December 14, 2006. While the review team was on site, the Program completed corrections on 

all of the affected licenses. 

The review team examined the Program’s licensing practices regarding the Increased Controls, 

Fingerprinting, and National Source Tracking System (NSTS) Orders. The review team noted 

that the Program added legally binding license conditions to the licenses that met the criteria for 

implementing the Increased Controls, including fingerprinting, as appropriate. The NSTS 

requirements were incorporated by rulemaking. The Program contacted licensees who were 

required to follow NSTS constraints and verified the licensees’ compliance with the 

requirements. The review team analyzed the Program’s methodology for identifying those 

licenses required to comply with Increased Controls or NSTS and found the rationale was 

thorough and accurate. 

The review team noted the licensing actions were of good quality and consistent with the 

Program’s procedures, the State’s regulations, and good health physics practices. In addition to 

individual licensing action peer review, the licensing staff meets weekly in an effort to improve 

the quality of licensing actions. The consistent use of templates and newly implemented peer 

reviews contribute to the quality of licensing actions. 
Nevada Final Report Page 9 

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

that Nevada’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 and 

allegations, the review team examined the Program’s response to the questionnaire relative to 

this indicator, evaluated the incidents reported for Nevada in the Nuclear Material Events 

Database (NMED) against those contained in the Program’s files, and evaluated the casework 

for 14 radioactive materials incidents. A listing of the casework examined, with case-specific 

comments, can be found in Appendix E. The review team also evaluated the Program’s 

response to two allegations involving radioactive materials reported directly to the State during 

the review period. NRC did not refer any allegations to the State during the review period. 

When notified of an incident or an allegation, the Program manager and staff discuss the initial 

response and the need for an on-site investigation, based on the safety significance. The 

Program uses their local version of NMED for tracking the status of all incidents and allegations. 

The Program also enters non-sensitive incident and allegation information in a Bureau-wide 

database named Automated Survey Processing Environment (ASPEN). If the incident meets 

the reporting thresholds, as established in the NRC’s Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs (FSME) Procedure SA-300 “Reporting Material Events,” 

the Program promptly notifies the NRC Headquarters Operations Center, typically by e-mail, 

using the information template established for NMED. If the investigation is complex and 

extends over a period of time, NMED is appropriately updated, using the NMED software. Of 

the reportable incidents evaluated by the review team, all had been reported to NRC within the 

required time frame and were properly completed in NMED. 

The incidents reviewed consisted of events involving lost or stolen radioactive material, 

damaged equipment, and equipment failures. The review team determined that the Program’s 

responses to incidents were thorough, complete, and comprehensive. Initial responses were 

prompt and well coordinated, and the level of effort was commensurate with the health and 

safety significance of the incident. When the possibility of an immediate threat to public health 

and safety existed, the Program responded to incidents by immediately dispatching inspectors 

to the site. When no immediate threat was present and the Program determined that the 

licensee had qualified, competent individuals investigating the incident, the Program generally 

responded telephonically with an on-site followup investigation, either immediately or at a later 

date depending on the safety significance of the incident. The review team noted that at the 

conclusion of investigations, inspectors generated narrative reports that thoroughly documented 

the investigations. These reports were stored as a paper copy placed in the licensee’s file. 

The review team noted that one licensee file, while containing the correspondence between the 

licensee and the Program relevant to the incident, did not contain the inspector-generated report 

of the incident investigation. At the time of the on-site review, the Program was attempting to 

locate a copy of the report in order to complete the file. 

In evaluating the effectiveness of the Program’s response to allegations, the review team 

evaluated the casework for two allegations. The review team concluded that the Program 
Nevada Final Report Page 10 

consistently took prompt and appropriate action in response to concerns raised. The review 

team noted that the Program thoroughly documented the investigations and retained all 

necessary documentation to appropriately close the allegations. The Program notified the 

allegers, when provided with the alleger’s contact information, of the conclusion of their 

investigation. The review team verified that the Program can adequately protect the identities of 

allegers seeking anonymity. 

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

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

Allegation Activities, was satisfactory. 

4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 

Four non-common performance indicators are used to review Agreement State Programs: 

(1) Compatibility Requirements, (2) Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program, (3) Lowlevel Radioactive Waste Disposal Program, and (4) Uranium Recovery Program. NRC’s 

Agreement with the State of Nevada does not relinquish authority to regulate a uranium 

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

to this review. 

4.1 Compatibility Requirements

4.1.1 Legislation

Nevada became an Agreement State in 1972. Legislative authority to create an agency and 

enter into an Agreement with the NRC is granted in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Section 

459. The Nevada State Health Division is designated as the State’s radiation control agency. 

Another NRS section that affects the Agreement State program includes NRS 439, “Public 

Heath Administrative Procedures.” The review team noted that no significant legislation 

affecting the radiation control program was passed since the previous review. 

4.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility

The Nevada Radiation Control Program regulations, found in Chapter 459 of the Nevada 

Administrative Code (NAC), apply to all ionizing radiation, whether emitted from radionuclides or 

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

also requires registration of all machines specifically designed to produce x-rays or other 

ionizing radiation. The review team noted that the State’s rules and regulations are not subject 

to “sunset” provisions. The State may adopt other agency’s regulations by reference and has 

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

until compatible regulations become effective. 

The review team examined the State’s process for adopting regulations. After drafting 

regulations, the Program first sends them to the Legislative Council Bureau (LCB) for review 

and comment. LCB is a legal office within Nevada that first reviews and then later codifies 

regulations for all Nevada regulatory agencies. LCB only performs this function when they are 

not engaged with the Nevada Legislature, which meets every other year for a minimum 6- to 8-

month period. LCB reviews the draft regulations and makes changes they believe are 
Nevada Final Report Page 11 

necessary to make them compatible with Nevada State Law. The LCB can at times make 

substantial legal language changes to the regulations, which has the potential to cause 

discrepancies with NRC regulations and could possibly lead to Nevada’s regulations being 

incompatible with NRC regulations. Following LCB’s review, draft regulations are sent to the 

Nevada Attorney General’s Office for an additional review before they are returned to the 

Program. If the Program disagrees with LCB’s changes, they then begin a negotiation process 

that can take several months. Once an agreement is reached, the Program sends the 

negotiated regulations to NRC for a compatibility review of the proposed regulations. The 

Program stated that incorporating NRC comments at this point would result in restarting the 

entire process with LCB, further delaying adoption of regulations; therefore, the Program 

generally chooses to allow the process to proceed and incorporate NRC initial review comments 

during a future regulation revision. 

Draft regulations are then published for public comment. Following the public comment period, 

comments are compiled; then draft regulations and public comments are taken before the State 

Board of Health (BOH) for consideration and adoption. Once adopted by BOH, the regulations 

become enforceable, even though they have not yet been codified. Adopted regulations 

marked as “non-codified,” are posted to the Department’s web page and sent to licensees. At 

this point, the Program resolves initial NRC comments by sending the regulations back through 

LCB as a regulatory revision. While this process is underway, the adopted and potentially 

incompatible regulations are being enforced by the Program. The review team identified seven 

amendments that were submitted to NRC as proposed regulations but were not submitted as 

final regulations by the time of the onsite review. The review team recommends that the State 

submit proposed and final regulations to NRC for compatibility reviews. 

When the process is complete (including resolution of initial NRC comments), the adopted 

regulations are then sent back to LCB for codification to be placed into a regulatory format and 

numbered as such. This step can take several months to several years to complete. Once 

codified, the newly formatted regulations are sent to the Secretary of State’s Office for filing. 

After approximately 30-45 days the regulations become final. At this point, the Program 

typically sends to the regulations to NRC for a final compatibility review. Current NRC policy 

requires that Agreement States adopt certain equivalent regulations or legally binding 

requirements no later than three years after they are effective unless otherwise mandated by 

the Commission. This process has the potential to take years to complete and often has 

caused the Program to not complete the regulation adoption process within the required 

timeframe. During the review period, Nevada submitted to the NRC nine final amendments that 

were overdue at the time of submission. In addition, four amendments were overdue at the time 

of the onsite review. The review team recommends that the State develop all required 

regulations within the required timeframe. 

The Program is already addressing this recommendation. The Program is beginning to adopt 

NRC regulations by reference, a process they want to continue until all the Nevada regulations 

are adopted by reference sometime in the future. 

The review team also evaluated the Program’s response to the questionnaire, 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 SRS 

data sheet that FSME maintains. 
Nevada Final Report Page 12 

Subsequent to the onsite review, the Program submitted a rulemaking package that addressed 

the seven amendments that received a compatibility review as proposed regulations but were 

not reviewed as final regulations. The package also addressed one of the outstanding 

amendments currently required for compatibility. The following three outstanding NRC 

regulatory amendments are currently required for compatibility: 

• “Compatibility with IAEA Transportation Safety Standards and Other Transportation 

Safety Amendments,” 10 CFR Part 71 amendment (69 FR 3697), that was due for 

Agreement State adoption by October 1, 2007. 

• “Medical Use of Byproduct Materials - Recognition of Specialty Boards - Part 35,” 

10 CFR Part 35 amendment (70 FR 16336 and 71 FR 1926), that was due for 

Agreement State adoption by April 29, 2008. 

• “Minor Amendments,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 32, 35, 40 and 70 amendment 

(71 FR 15005), that was due for Agreement State adoption by March 27, 2009. 

The following amendments will need to be addressed by the Program in future rulemakings or 

by adopting alternate generic legally binding requirements: 

• “Medical Use of Byproduct Material – Minor Corrections and Clarifications,” 

10 CFR Parts 32 and 35 amendment (72 FR 45147, 54207), that is due for Agreement 

State adoption by October 29, 2010. 

• “Requirements for Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 31, 

32, 33, 35, 61, and 150 amendment (72 FR 55864), that is due for Agreement State 

adoption by November 30, 2010. 

• “Exemptions from Licensing, General Licenses, and Distribution of Byproduct Material: 

Licensing and Reporting Requirements,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 31, 32, and 150 amendment 

(72 FR 58473), that is due for Agreement State adoption by December 17, 2010. 

• “Occupational Dose Records, Labeling Containers, and Total Effective Dose 

Equivalent,” 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20 amendment (72 FR 68043), that is due for 

Agreement State adoption by February 15, 2011. 

The review team discussed the current regulatory adoption process with Program management. 

The Program acknowledged that changes needed to be made to ensure compatibility with NRC 

requirements. The Program committed to send initial draft regulations to NRC for comment, 

and resolve those comments before submitting them to LCB. They further committed to notify 

NRC if LCB makes changes and ensure that draft regulations are acceptable to NRC before 

sending them to BOH for adoption. Program management indicated that following adoption, 

final regulations would be sent to NRC for final comment. 

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

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

satisfactory, but needs improvement. 
Nevada Final Report Page 13 

4.2 Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program

There are currently three manufacturers/distributors licensed by the Program. Two of the 

licensees assemble and distribute generally licensed devices in accordance with sealed source 

and device (SS&D) registry sheets issued by other Agreement States. The third licensee 

manufactures gun and bow sights in accordance with an NRC-issued SS&D registry sheet and 

distributes them under an NRC exempt distribution license. 

During the review period, the Program did not issue any SS&D certificates. During the previous 

IMPEP review, the State indicated that they planned to return their SS&D authority to NRC; 

however, this plan did not receive management approval. At the time of the review, the 

Program had no staff members qualified to perform safety evaluations of SS&D applications and 

amendments. The Program entered into an agreement with the State of California whereby 

California’s qualified SS&D reviewers will conduct any necessary safety evaluations for future 

applications and amendments. 

Based on the review team’s determination that the Program has not issued any SS&D 

certificates since the last IMPEP review and the Program has a plan in place to ensure safety 

evaluations for any future SS&D certificates are performed by only qualified individuals, the 

review team did not review this indicator. 

4.3 Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program

Although NRC’s Agreement with the State of Nevada relinquishes the authority for a low-level 

radioactive waste (LLRW) program, the State’s LLRW program is currently inactive. No further 

activity is anticipated at this time; therefore, the LLRW program staff is working on other 

projects. Accordingly, the review team did not review this indicator. 

5.0 SUMMARY 

As noted in Sections 3.0 and 4.0, Nevada’s performance was found satisfactory for five 

performance indicators and satisfactory, but needs improvement for the performance indicator 

Compatibility Requirements. The review team made two recommendations regarding program 

performance by the State, kept open two recommendations from the previous IMPEP review, 

and identified one good practice. Overall, the review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, 

that the Nevada 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 of the Nevada 

Agreement State Program take place in approximately 4 years. 

Below are the recommendations, as mentioned earlier in the report, for evaluation and 

implementation by the State: 

1. The review team recommends that the Program revise their inspection procedures and 

provide training to implement a policy for timely and orderly license termination of 

licensed materials not in use. (Section 3.3 of the 2005 IMPEP Report) 
Nevada Final Report Page 14 

2. The review team recommends that the Program develop, implement, and maintain a 

reliable and comprehensive licensing and inspection database that serves as an 

effective and efficient planning, tracking, and management tool. (Section 3.4 of the 2005 

IMPEP Report) 

3. The review team recommends that the State submit proposed and final regulations to 

NRC for compatibility reviews. (Section 4.1.2) 

4. The review team recommends that that the State develop all required regulations within 

the required timeframe. (Section 4.1.2) 

Below is the good practice, as mentioned earlier in the report: 

 The Program has a policy of checking on the compliance history of a licensee requesting 

reciprocity approval with the Agreement State or NRC Region that issued the radioactive 

materials license. If it is determined that a reciprocity applicant has outstanding 

compliance issues with their licensing authority (Agreement State or NRC Region), the 

Program will deny the reciprocity application. The review team recognized that this 

practice does not necessarily have to lead to the denial of a reciprocity application but 

could also be used to make an informed decision on whether or not to perform a field 

inspection of the reciprocity licensee. (Section 3.2) 
LIST OF APPENDIXES AND ATTACHMENT 

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 August 6, 2009 Letter from Richard Whitley 

 Nevada’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report 
APPENDIX A 

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS 

Name Area of Responsibility

Donna Janda, Region I Team Leader 

 Technical Staffing and Training 

Leira Cuadrado, FSME Status of Materials Inspection Program 

Randy Erickson, Region IV Technical Quality of Inspections 

 Compatibility Requirements 

 Inspector Accompaniments 

Sherrie Flaherty, Minnesota Technical Quality of Licensing Actions 

William Rautzen, FSME Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation 

 Activities 
APPENDIX B 

NEVADA ORGANIZATION CHARTS 

ADAMS ACCESSION NO.: ML091870230 
APPENDIX C 

INSPECTION CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS 

ONLY. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Advanced Isotopes of Nevada License No.: 03-11-0634-01 

Inspection Type: Initial, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 4/23/09 Inspector: JP 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: Stantec Consulting, Inc. License No.: 00-11-0438-01 

Inspection Type: Special, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 4/15/09 Inspector: EM 

Comment: 

 Inspection documentation issued to licensee 14 days late. 

File No.: 3 

Licensee: Nevada Imaging Centers License No.: 03-12-0437-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 10/6/06 Inspector: RV 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: Bigelow Aerospace License No.: 03-11-0622-01 

Inspection Type: Partial, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 4/14/09 Inspector: RS 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: Sunrise Hospital Laboratory License No.: 03-12-0325-02 

Inspection Type: Routine/Special, Announced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 2/7/06 Inspector: RV 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: Sunrise Hospital Laboratory License No.: 03-12-0325-02 

Inspection Type: Special, Announced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 11/15/06 Inspector: JF 

File No.: 7 

Licensee: Sunrise Diagnostic Center License No.: 03-12-0395-02 

Inspection Type: Special, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 11/15/06 Inspector: JF 
Nevada Final Report Page C.2 

Inspection Casework Reviews

File No.: 8 

Licensee: United Blood Services License No.: 03-11-0226-01 

Inspection Type: Routine/Special, Announced Priority: 3 

Inspection Dates: 10/13/06, 12/12/06 Inspectors: RV, AH 

File No.: 9 

Licensee: Davis Laboratories, Inc. License No.: 00-11-0113-01 

Inspection Type: Routine/Special, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 4/14/09 Inspector: AH 

Comment: 

 Inspection documentation issued to licensee 8 days late. 

File No.: 10 

Licensee: Grizzly Materials Testing and Inspection Services License No.: 00-11-0589-01 

Inspection Type: Special, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 8/30/06 Inspector: AH 

File No.: 11 

Licensee: Nevada Cancer Institute License No.: 03-12-0571-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 12/4/08 Inspector: WY 

File No.: 12 

Licensee: Wood Rogers, Inc. License No.: 00-11-0527-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 11/21/08 Inspector: TM 

File No.: 13 

Licensee: Las Vegas Materials Testing License No.: 00-11-0632-01 

Inspection Type: Initial, Unannounced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 1/16/09 Inspector: RS 

File No.: 14 

Licensee: Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. License No.: 00-11-0409-01 

Inspection Type: Followup, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 6/20/08 Inspector: TM 

File No.: 15 

Licensee: St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center License No.: 16-12-0244-02 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 4/23/08 Inspector: LB 

File No.: 16 

Licensee: Carson Valley Medical Center License No.: 04-12-0440-01 

Inspection Type: Followup, Unannounced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 1/31/07 Inspector: LB 
Nevada Final Report Page C.3 

Inspection Casework Reviews

File No.: 17 

Licensee: Biotech Pharmacy License No.: 03-11-0332-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 7/9/08 Inspector: WY 

File No.: 18 

Licensee: University of Nevada, Reno License No.: 16-13-0003-07 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 2/21/07 Inspector: LB 

File No.: 19 

Licensee: Cardinal Health License No.: 03-11-0150-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 8/6/08 Inspector: WY 

File No.: 20 

Licensee: Northwest Inspection License No.: WN-IR065-1 

Inspection Type: Reciprocity, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 4/18/06 Inspector: WY 

File No.: 21 

Licensee: Edge Inspection Group, Inc. License No.: CA-7214-48 

Inspection Type: Reciprocity, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 3/8/06 Inspector: WY 

File No.: 22 

Licensee: Desert Springs Hospital License No.: 03-12-0040-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Dates: 4/20/06, 5/3/06 Inspector: RV 

File No.: 23 

Licensee: PETNET Solutions, Inc. License No.: 03-11-0468-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 8/14/08 Inspector: WY 

File No.: 24 

Licensee: Antigua Medical Services, LLC License No.: 00-12-0501-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 11/13/08 Inspector: WY 

File No.: 25 

Licensee: SRI Instruments, Inc. License No.: 03-11-0523-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 5/7/07 Inspector: WY 
Nevada Final Report Page C.4 

Inspection Casework Reviews

File No.: 26 

Licensee: CTC Services, Inc. License No.: 00-11-0616-01 

Inspection Type: Followup, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 10/15/08 Inspector: LB 

INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS 

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

Accompaniment No.: 1 

Licensee: Valley Hospital Medical Center License No.: 03-12-0171-01 

Inspection Type: Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 4/13/09 Inspector: WY 

Accompaniment No.: 2 

Licensee: Davis Laboratories, Inc. License No.: 00-11-0113-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 4/14/09 Inspector: AH 

Accompaniment No.: 3 

Licensee: Stantec Consulting, Inc. License No.: 00-11-0438-01 

Inspection Type: Special, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 4/15/09 Inspector: EM 
APPENDIX D 

LICENSE CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS 

ONLY. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Geocon, Inc. License No.: 00-11-0576-01 

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

Date Issued: 6/30/05 License Reviewer: LB 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: Newmont Gold Lone Tree Mine License No.: 08-11-0336-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 15 

Date Issued: 6/12/08 License Reviewer: LB 

Comment: 

License use was amended to storage only; however, License Condition 10 authorizes 

use and storage at the licensee’s location. 

File No.: 3 

Licensee: West Valley Imaging License No.: 03-12-0384-01 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 15 

Date Issued: 5/15/06 License Reviewer: PS 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: Desert Radiologists License No.: 03-12-0568-01 

Type of Action: Amendment (Denial) Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 5/22/09 License Reviewer: JF 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: Davis Laboratories License No.: 00-11-0113-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 36 

Date Issued: 9/10/08 License Reviewer: TM 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: Western Technologies, Inc. License No.: 00-11-0019-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 35 

Date Issued: Under Review License Reviewer: JF 
Nevada Final Report Page D.2 

License Casework Reviews

File No.: 7 

Licensee: Grizzly Materials Testing License No.: 00-11-0589-01 

 & Inspection Services, Inc. 

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

Date Issued: 4/3/06 License Reviewer: LB 

Comment: 

There was insufficient documentation in the license application and deficiency 

correspondence to determine applicant’s compliance with certain security requirements. 

File No.: 8 

Licensee: Advanced Isotopes of Nevada License No.: 03-11-0634-01 

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

Date Issued: 10/1/08 License Reviewer: LB 

File No.: 9 

Licensee: Nevada Cancer Institute License No.: 03-12-0571-02 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 4 

Date Issued: 1/22/08 License Reviewer: LB 

Comment: 

Authorized users were authorized on the license to use all radioactive material, not just 

the specific isotopes they are qualified to use. 

File No.: 10 

Licensee: Biotech Pharmacy, Inc. License No.: 03-11-0332-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 27 

Date Issued: 4/21/06 License Reviewer: MT 

Comment: 

Authorization for four new isotopes was granted without the licensee’s submittal of 

documentation regarding procedures for storage or handling of the new material. 

File No.: 11 

Licensee: Bigelow Aerospace License No.: 03-11-0622-01 

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

Date Issued: 11/6/07 License Reviewer: LB 

File No.: 12 

Licensee: Nevada Cancer Institute License No.: 03-12-0571-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 6 

Date Issued: 2/11/08 License Reviewer: LB 

File No.: 13 

Licensee: Renown Regional Medical Center License No.: 16-12-0016-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 83 

Date Issued: 10/22/08 License Reviewer: LB 
Nevada Final Report Page D.3 

License Casework Reviews

File No.: 14 

Licensee: Sunrise Hospital License No.: 03-12-0325-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 23 

Date Issued: 2/1/07 License Reviewer: LB 

Comment: 

License authorizes medical use for iodine-125 and yittrium-90; however, no authorized 

users for those materials are listed on the license. 

File No.: 15 

Licensee: United Blood Services License No.: 03-11-0226-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 14 

Date Issued: 5/15/08 License Reviewer: LB 

File No.: 16 

Licensee: Sunrise Diagnostic License No.: 03-12-0395-02 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 10 

Date Issued: 1/31/08 License Reviewer: LB 

Comment: 

Denial of licensees request to add an authorized medical physicist was not documented. 

File No.: 17 

Licensee: Legacy Medical. LLC License No.: 00-12-0510-01 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 3 

Date Issued: 1/23/06 License Reviewer: LB 

File No.: 18 

Licensee: Research and Diagnostic Antibodies License No.: 03-11-0602-01 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 1 

Date Issued: 5/7/09 License Reviewers: RS, DM 

File No.: 19 

Licensee: AMEC Earth & Environmental, LLC License No.: 00-11-0193-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 37 

Date Issued: 5/29/09 License Reviewer: DM 

File No.: 20 

Licensee: University of Nevada, Reno License No.: 16-13-0003-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 36 

Date Issued: 6/6/07 License Reviewer: LB 
Nevada Final Report Page D.4 

License Casework Reviews

File No.: 21 

Licensee: Terracon, Inc. License No.: 00-11-0326-01 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 15 

Date Issued: 9/19/08 License Reviewer: TM 

Comment: 

The license does not allow for storage at temporary jobsites which was requested in the 

renewal application. 

File No.: 22 

Licensee: Steinberg Diagnostic Medical License No.: 03-12-0352-01 

 Imaging Centers 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 23 

Date Issued: 5/11/09 License Reviewers: LB, RS 

Comment: 

Documents received as part of the amendment request were not referenced in a tie 

down condition. 

File No.: 23 

Licensee: Vascular Institute of Southern Nevada License No.: 03-12-0483-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 3 

Date Issued: Under Review License Reviewer: TK
APPENDIX E 

INCIDENT CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS 

ONLY. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: City of Henderson License No.: 03-14-0116-01 

Date of Incident: 11/27/07 NMED Log No.: 070736 

Investigation Date: 12/6/07 Type of Incident: Lost/Stolen Material 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 

Comment: 

Investigation performed as part of the next routine inspection; however, investigation 

documentation was missing from the license file. 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: Apex Testing Corp. License No.: 00-11-0598-01 

Date of Incident: 4/2/08 NMED Log No.: 080201 

Investigation Date: 4/7/08 Type of Incident: Lost/Stolen Material 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone/Site 

File No.: 3 

Licensee: Geotek, Inc. License No.: 00-11-0348-01 

Date of Incident: 8/29/05 NMED Log No.: 050740 

Investigation Date: 8/30/05 Type of Incident: Damaged Equipment 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone/Site 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: Owens Geotechnical Inc. License No.: 00-11-0492-01 

Date of Incident: 4/25/05 NMED Log No.: 050294 

Investigation Date: 4/27/05 Type of Incident: Lost/Stolen Material 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone/Site 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: Joseph A. Cesare and Associates License No.: 00-11-0295-01 

Date of Incident: 8/20/05 NMED Log No.: 050565 

Investigation Date: 8/22/05 Type of Incident: Lost/Stolen Material 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone/Site 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: Converse Consultants License No.: 00-11-0094-01 

Date of Incident: 4/4/07 NMED Log No.: 070463 

Investigation Date: 4/4/07 Type of Incident: Damaged Equipment 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone/Site 
Nevada Final Report Page E.2 

Incident Casework Reviews

File No.: 7 

Licensee: Joseph A. Cesare and Associates License No.: 00-11-0492-01 

Date of Incident: 12/23/06 NMED Log No.: 070001 

Investigation Date: 1/8/07 Type of Incident: Lost/Stolen Material 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone/Site 

File No.: 8 

Licensee: Acclaim Material Testing and Inspection License No.: 00-11-0470-01 

Date of Incident: 6/27/06 NMED Log No.: 060424 

Investigation Date: 6/27/06 Type of Incident: Lost/Stolen Material 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone/Site 

File No.: 9 

Licensee: Las Vegas Valley Water District License No.: 00-11-0196-01 

Date of Incident: 11/29/06 NMED Log No.: 060725 

Investigation Date: 12/6/06 Type of Incident: Lost/Stolen Material 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone/Site 

File No.: 10 

Licensee: University of Nevada, Reno License No.: 16-13-0003-07 

Date of Incident: 4/12/05 NMED Log No.: N/A 

Investigation Date: 7/29/05 Type of Incident: Lost Material 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 

File No.: 11 

Licensee: Non-Licensee License No.: N/A 

Date of Incident: 4/26/07 NMED Log No.: N/A 

Investigation Date: 4/26/07 Type of Incident: Monitor Alert 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 

File No.: 12 

Licensee: Kleinfelder, Inc. License No.: 00-11-0086-01 

Date of Incident: 12/9/05 NMED Log No.: 050807 

Investigation Date: 12/9/05 Type of Incident: Lost/Stolen Material 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone/Site 

Comment: 

Notice of Violation was issued to licensee during next scheduled inspection instead of at 

time of event. 

File No.: 13 

Licensee: Joseph A. Cesare and Associates License No.: 00-11-0295-01 

Date of Incident: 9/25/08 NMED Log No.: 080600 

Investigation Date: 9/26/08 Type of Incident: Lost/Stolen Material 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone/Site 
Nevada Final Report Page E.3 

Incident Casework Reviews

File No.: 14 

Licensee: Great Basin Construction and Engineering License No.: 00-11-0486-01 

Date of Incident: 2/11/09 Incident Log No.: 090003 

Investigation Date: 2/11/09 Type of Incident: Other 

 Type of Investigation: Site 
ATTACHMENT 

August 6, 2009 Letter from Richard Whitley 

Nevada’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML092190519