ML20199E111

Integrated Matls Performance Evaluation Program Review of Nevada Agreegment State Program,970825-29, Proposed Final Rept

ML20199E111
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/29/1997
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20199D112	List: ML20199D110 ML20199E111
References
NUDOCS 9711210102
Download: ML20199E111 (56)

Text

- ._. .- . . .- - .. .-_ .. . - . - -- - .. . . - .

l o

INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM REVIEW OF NEVADA AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM August 25 - 29,1997 A

PROPOSED FINAL REPORT l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTACHMENT 1 9711210102 971108 PDR STPRG ESGNV PDR

N Nevada Proposed 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 August 25-29,1997, by a review team comprised of technical staff members from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Agreement Stete of California. Team members Ore identified in Appendix A. The review was conducted in accordance with the "In%n implementation of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program Pending Final Commission Approval of the Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program and the Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs," published in the Federal Recister on October 25, 1995, and the September 12,1995, NRC Management Directive 5.6, " Integrated Materials Performance Ovaluation Program (IMPEP)." Preliminary results of the review, which covered the period March 6,1993 to August 24,1997 were discussed with Nevada management on August 29,1997.

[A paragrapo on the results of the MRB meeting will be included here in the final report.)

The Nevada Agreement State program is administered by the Radiologica' lealth Section (RHS) of the Bureau of Health Protection Services (BHPS), State Health Division, Nevada Department of Human Resources. Nevada's statute designates the State Health Division as the radiation control agency. Organization charts for the Division, the BHPS, and RHS are included as Appendix B.

At the time of the review, the Nevada program regulated 196 specific licenses, including a major decontamination service, broad academic programs, medical programs, radiopharmacies, radiographers, a small self-contained irradiator, and a non-operating low-level radioactive waste burial site. The program grew during the review period at a rate of about 6 percent per year, as evidenced by the increase in the number of licenses.

The review focused on the material's 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 In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common and non-common indicators was sent to the State on March 28,1997. The State provided a response to the questionnaire on July 30,1997. During the review, discussions with the State staff resulted in the responses being funher developed. A copy of the final response is included in Appendix C to this report.

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 reguiations; (3) analysis of quantitative information from the radiation control program licensing and inspection data base; (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 pMormance.

~.

N Nevada Proposed Final Report Page 2 Section 2 below discusses the State's actions in response to recommendations made following the previous review, Results of the current review for the IMPEP common perfor'1ance indicators are presented in Section 3. Section 4 discusses results of the applicable non-common indicators, and Section S summarizes the review team's findings ana recommendations. Suggestions made by the review team are comments that the review team believes could enhance the Stata's program. The State is requested to consider suggestions, but no response is requested. Recommendations 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 routine review, which concluded on March 5,1993, eight comments and recommendations were made in five program indicators. Because of the significance of some of the review findings, a follow-up review was conducted in April 1994 and the results transmitted to Ms. Yvonne Sylva, Administrator, Nevada State Health Division, on September 21,1994. The follow-up review resulted in the closure of six of the eight recommendations and the addition of two new recommendations. The team's review of the current status of these recommendations is as follows:

(1) Although the State's written enforcement procedures prescribea escalated actions in general terms, they did not directly address serious first time violations and lacked specific action levels for violations of varying degrees of severity.

The NRC recommended that the enforcement procedures be strengthened by requiring escalated enforcement if the licensee has one or more serious violations direct;f relating to occupational or public health or safety, and by

, adding specific actions to be taken for violations of various levels of severity.

Current Status: The enforcement procedures were revised and further - -

strengthened by new procedures dated August 7,1997. The new procedures address the problem of a single, serious violation. Escalated enforcement actions prescribed by various severity levels include management-level meetings with the licensee, follow-up inspections, license restrictions, and temporary suspension or revocation of the license. This recommendation is closed.

(2) During the March 1993 review, three inspections were identified in which appropriate escalated enforcement actions were not taken in response to numerous violations, including several repeats. At the time of the April 1994 follow-up review, the State had verified that the two licensees had taken corrective actions; however, the third case remained open.

N Nevada Proposed Final Report Page 3 Ourrent Status: The State followed through with the enforcement on this medical private practice licensee by terminating the license and replacing it with a more restrictive medical facility license with requirements for a quality management plan program, a radiation safety committee with quarter'y meetings, and an outside expert to serve as radiation safety officer. Thi<, recommendation is closed.

(3) Nevada hospitals are required by regulation to pros ide dose calculations when reporting misadmir istration to the State so that each event may be analyzed and reported as necessary. However, in three misadministration cases calculations were not provided; thus, the events could not be evaluated against the reporting criteria. We recommended that the State's administrative procedures be revised to impiove instructions for evaluating, following and reporting misadministration and that letters be sent to all Nevada hospitals reminding them of the misadministration reporting criteria, including the requirement for dose calculation.

Current Status: The review team verified that the State revised and improved the instructions for handling misadministration. All medical licensees, including hospitals, were sent letters reminding them of the reporting requirements in the regulations. This recommendation is closed.

(4) Several inadequacies were found in the State's system for tracking incidents and misadministration: (a) the incident log was incomplete; (b) some incidents shown as closed in the incident log lacked documentation in the files justifying closure; and (c) in some cases, copies of correspondence were found in the Las Vegas regional Office on events handled by that office that was not in the headquarters office files in Carson City. We recommended that the State improve their events tracking system to ensure complete incident logs, to ensure that all open items are properly documented before closure and to ensure proper dissemination of regional event correspondence to headquarters files.

Current Status: The team reviewed the incident files for the review period ard found that all incidents were included in their tracking sys'em, that all open items were properly documented before closure, and that all regional office event documentation is duplicated in headquarters files. This recommendation is closed.

3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IMPEP identifies five common performance indicators to be used in reviewing both NRC Regional and Agreement State programs. These indicators are: (1) Status of Materials inspection Program; (2) Technical Staffing and Training; (3) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; (4) Technical Quality of Inspections; and (5) Response to incidents and Allegations.

N Nevada Proposed Final Report Page 4 3.1 Status of Materials insoection Procram 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. This evaluation is based on the Nevada questionnaire responses relative to this indicator, data gathered independently from the State's licensing and inspection data tracking system, the examination of completed licensing and inspection casework, and interviews with managers and staff.

The State maintains a licensee data base that can sort by a variety of data. During the review the team was provided various lists including: a pnority listing for all licenses, licenses due for inspection during a given period in the future, inspections completed over a given time period, and reciprocity licensee inspections completed for a given period. The data base does not, however, retain historical data. As a result, the team was only able to obtain detailed inspection statistics from the data base for the current year. According to the program manager, p-ior year statistics could be developed only by a manual search of the files. Biyearly statistics for budgeting purposes are generated prior to legislative sessions, however, the program does not retain the information in a readily available form due to infrequent demand. Based on the inspection program performance during the past year and the performance of the radiation control program generally during the review period, the team did not request or conduct a manual search.

The printout of the current year inspections showed 89 completed. This printout shows ine inspection date, the date of the violation notice, the date of the licensee's response, and the date of the State's acknowledgment letter or inspection closing date.

The State's inspection frequencies were compared to IMC 2800 and verified to be of equal, or in most cases more frequent than, IMC 2800. The State requires more frequent inspection in some license categories as follows: hospitals and nuclear medicine private practice licenses are inspected on a two-year frequency as compared to NRC three-year frequency; portable gauge licenses are inspected at a three-year frequency as compared to NRC five-year frequency; and teletherapy licensees are inspected on a one-yea,- frequency as compared to NRC's three-year frequency.

Two teletherapy license files were reviewed. One license was inspected at 1-1% year intervals nominally; one inspection of the same license was conducted aoproximately three years after the previous inspection. The State priority was 1 for both licenses. The NRC inspection priority for a teletherapy program is 3. The RHS Supervisor indicated that the State will consider changing the inspection priority for teletherapy licenses to a 3.

The radioactive material's low-level waste (RAM /LLW) program manager provided the following information on reciprocity, which is maintained separately from the licensee database. The State issued 187 reciprocity authorizations to 23 out-of-state industrial radiography licensees for the period March 3,1993, through June 9,1997. During that period, six inspections were completed and one was attempted. All six completed inspections were of radiography

w Nevada Proposed Final Report Page5 licensees operating in the Las Vegas or Reno / Sparks areas. One licensee from Utah was granted authorization to enter the State 68 times, however, it was not inspected during the period because of the difficulty of travel to the remote areas of the State in which the licensee was working.

During the last 14 months,18 radiography licensees were granted reciprocity. Ten conducted operations in urban areas and eight in rural areas of the State. There were four inspections of the licensees who operated in urban areas of the State and none of the licensees who operated in rural areas of the State.

The review team finds that the State has not met the frequency of IMC 1220 for the inspection of reciprocity licensees. The review team recommends that the State inspect a higher percentage of reciprocity licen:ees, including high pricrity industrial radiography licensees operating in rural areas.

New licenses are usually inspected six months after they are issued, provideo radioactive material has been received by the licensee. The State telephones the licensee to determine if material has been rec Jived. If it has not, they defer the inspection until material has been received. Only one Nevada licensee experienced a delay of greater than one year in receiving material. This licensoe was inspected within one year after the license was issued, but before racioactive material was received, which is soone* shan required by the State's procedure.

The University of Nevada, Reno, was the only licensee identified by the team as overdue for inspection by the program's standards. Review of the file indicated that the last complete inspection wss in September 1991. The University is an Academic Type B Broad licensee, assigned inspection priority 2, and it should have been inspected no late' than April 1994. The State made a number of partialinspections at the University since 1991, but none of these inspections were brought to closure, or combined to form a complete inspection by State standards.

A review of the inspections completed prir. tout showed that the State has inspected other licenses within their assigned frequency. The team finds that only one license was overdue for inspection during the review period. Overdue inspections thus do not exceed the evaluation criteria.

The State, by policy, does not extend the inspection interval for good licensee performance.

Licensees may be inspected at more frequent intervals as the result of escalated enforcement action. Inspection intervals are returned to normal after the licensee shows improvement, in 4 of the 26 files evaluated, a letter to the ..censee informing of violations was mai!ed more than 30 days following the inspection. In one case, the letter was mailed 70 days after the inspection, the other three letters were mailed between 30 and 60 days after the inspectien.

Licensees are usually given 20 days to respond, and if their response is satisfactory, an acknowledgment letter is sent by the State and the inspection is closed.

1

N Nevada Proposed Final Report Page 6 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 satisfactory.

3.2 Technical Staffino and Trainino issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the radioactive materials program staffing level, technical qualifications of the staff, training and staff turnover. To evaluate these issues, the review team examined the State's questionnaire responses relative to this indicator, interviewed program management and staff, and considered any possible workload backlogs.

The RHS organization chart shows that the section has a total of 14 positions, including the secretarial positions and the Las Vegas Regional Office. The Radioactive Materials / Low-Level Radioactive Waste (RAM /LLW) program manager and the Mammography /X-ray program manager in Carson City are classifsd as Radiological Staff Specialist, while the Las Vegas office manager is classified as a Supervising Radiation Physicist. These positions report to the RHS Supervisor. The five technical staff members are classified as Radiation Control Specialists.

Four of the technical staff members are cross-trained between the x-ray and PAM/LLW programs. All technical staff members participate in event response activities. The RAM /LLW Radiological Staff Specialist and one Radiation Control Specialist in Las Vegas are primarily devoted to license reviews and inspection of radioactive materiallicensees, including the low-level waste disposal site and licensees authorized to possess and use materials not subject to the Atomic Energy Act. The remaining technical staff members are assigned primarily to other programs, and devote less than 50 percent of their time each to the agreement program. The distribution of effort results in 2.95 technical FTE staffs dedicated to the RAM /LLW program.

The FtHS also has 3.5 FTE of secretarial staff. The distribution between licensing and inspection effort appears balanced, as evidenced by the lack of significant backlogs. At the time of the review, there were no vacant positions. The team notes that the RHS technical staff has been stable during the review period, with only one departure (due to retirement) and two new hires. Based on the program's functional condition, the staffing levelis sufficient to assure public health and safety.

The review team found that the technical staff positions require a bachelor's degree in the sciences, or an equivalent combination of training and experience. New staff members are assigned basic responsibilities until the training and experience necessary to handle more advanced responsibilities are obtained. They are provided training in the core NRC courses.

They are also assigned to work with senior staff members to gain experience. Progression through the training and experience warrants their assignment to more complex responsibilities, however, they must demonstrate satisfactory performance in a formal assessment prior to being authorized to conduct independent inspections or license reviews. Thie general procedure is not, however, delineated in written form. The RHS Supervisor does develop an individual training and qualification plan, usually in memo form, for each new staff member.

The individual plan considers the past training and experience of the new staff member, and the performance requirements of the specific position. Senior staff members have completed their training and qualification plans.

% Nevada Proposed Final Report Page 7 The two new staff members hired during the review period hold associate degrees and have considerable experience in a radiation field. One staff member has 14 years experience in a non Agreement State radiation control program, including nine years as the program director; the other has 15 years experience in medical x-ray. The team finds that the qualifications of

' the new hires are adequate. The team also finds that the lack of a written general training and qualification procedure has not adversely affected the development of the new staff members during the review period. The review team recommends that the general training and qualification procedure be adopted in writing. The team suggests that the State wait until the NRC-OAS Joint working group on training issues their final recommendations. The working group recommendations should be considered when developing the written plan.

The RHS, with the support of the BHPS and the State Health Division, has received for the first time a budgetary allotment for training. The State plans to use this funding to complete the training of the new staff members, and to provide continuing training for experienced staff members.

Based on the team's finding and the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Nevada's performance with recpect to this indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found satisfactory.

3.3 Technical Quality of Licensina Actions The review team examined completed licensing casework and interviewed the reviewers for 24 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 reviewed for accuracy, appropriateness of the license and of its conditions and tie-down conditions, and overall technical quality. Casework was evaluated for timeliness, adherence to good health physics practices, reference to appropriate regulations, documentation of safety evaluation reports, product certifications or other supporting documents, consideration of enforcement history on renewals, pre-licensing visits, peer or supervisory review as indicated, and proper signature authorities. 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 which had been completed in the review period and to include work by all reviewers. The cross-section sampling included all of the State's major licenses as defined by the State in the questionnaire and included the following types: broad academic; decontamination services;in vitro laboratory; industrial radiography; small irradiator; medical (private practice, teletherapy, and high dose remote afterloader); nuclear pharmacy; welllogging; ordnance testing; and low-level radioactive waste disposal. Licensing actions included 10 new licenses,4 renewals, 5 amendments, and 5 terminations. A list of these licenses with case specific comments can be found in Appendix D.

. _ = - - -. - - - . . - - . .-

l w Nevada Proposed Final Report Page 8 The review team found that the quality of the State's licensing actions is excellent. No discrepancies were found in the 24 files reviewea. The licensing actions were also timely, with uncomplicated actions completed within 60 days, including the exchange of correspondence.

'Jnusual or complex license actions required longer completion times.

The State's license termination procedures are based on the NRC's Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) cleanup criteria, the tables in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.86 on acceptable Surface Contamination levels and other guidance such as NUREG/CR-5649 on Conducting Radiological Surveys in Support of License Termination and NRC PGD FC 83-23, " Termination of Byproduct, Sourr , and SNM Material Licensees." One major facility was decommissioned and the license terminated during the review period when Aerojet-General closed the ordnance testing site at Nellis Air Force Base. In reviewing the casework, the team found that the State had required an extensive decommissioning plan and had carefully monitored the work performed by the licensee and the contractor. All records of-transfer of matedal were on file, as well as the State's confirmatory measurements taken during several on-site inspections during the decommissioning activities.

l From discusslor.s with the reviewers and from casework reviews, the team found that the State makes pre-licensing visits for cornplex licensing actions. It was also noted that complex new licenses or renewals are personally delivered so that licensees have the opportunity to discuss the license and their obligations with a State representative.

Licenses arc issued for five years and State policy requires a complete new application each time the license is renewed. The team noted during the evaluation of the casework that supporting documentation for new and renewed licenses was current and complete. It was noted that every new or renewed license is tied through license condition to an attached cover letter which clearly explains the licensee's responsibilities when the licensee receives the license.

The review team found that the State uses the latest NRC standard license conditions as the basis for their own standard conditions. The review team also noted that the reviewers use licensing checklists based on the NRC's current checklists. The State has copies of the current licensing guidance, including NRC Regulatory Guides, NUREGS, and information notices, supplemented with other professionally recognized health physics reference documents. The team noted from reviewing the licensing checklists that the licensee's compliance history is 4 reviewed before license amendments or renewals are approved.

The team found that the deficiency letters, cover letters, and other types of licensing correspondence were complete and well-written with proper reguhtory language and were issued promptly.

All staff, including those in the Las Vegas office have licensing responsibilities. After the license is written, the license and copies of the application and all background documents are forwarded to the lead reviewer in Carson City for peer and supervisory review. Major actions are also reviewed by the Supervising Rtdiation Physicist in the Las Vegas office. After the peer and supervisory reviews, the I cense is again reviewed and signed by the RHS Supervisor. In his absence, the lead reviewer has signature authority.

s Nevada Proposed Final Report Page 9 Based on the !MPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Nevada's performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be found satisfactory.

3.4 Technical Quality of Insoections The team reviewed the inspection reports, enforcement docurnentation, and inspection field notes and interviewed inspectors for 26 materials inspections conducted during the review period. The casework included all six of the State's materials license inspectors, and covered inspections of various types including radiography, medical, academic, portable gauge, nuclear pharmacy, and teletherapy. Appendix E lists the inspection files reviewed in depth with case-specific comments. During the week of August 11-18,1997, a review team member performed accompaniments of two State inspectors on separate inspections of licensed facilities.

The State's inspection forms are tailored to the type of license inspected. The forms were complete except for a section to remind the inspector to review previous incidents by the licensee. The forms contain questionnaires for use by the inspector to test the knov ' edge and understanding of the users. The questionnaires assure that the inspector asks questions appropriate to the type of licensee. The reports evaluated demonstrated that the inspectors complete the inspection forms. The team finds that the inspectors followed established State inspection procedures.

Of the 26 inspection reports evaluated, only four inspections were announced. The State's policy is to count any inspection in which the licensee was given less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> notice, as an unannounced inspection. The State notes that some licensees do not perform licensed operations daily, and believes that it is a more efficient use of inspection effort to assure that licensed operations will be in progress during an inspection. The State believes that significant problems in a licensed program would be difficult to concealimm inspectors when the licensee is given less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> notice of an inspection. Although this practice differs from NRC guidance, it is a reasonable approach. The review team found this policy acceptable.

Inspection reports were very high quality and the files were complete with all documents including letters, telephone calllogs, license documents and amendment requests. Each report has the signa'are of the Radiological Staff Specialist or the Supervising Radiation Physicist indicating it was reviewed, and all correspondence is signed by the RHS Supervisor.

When violations are uncovered during an inspection, the inspector drafts a violation notice for the RHS Supervisor's signature. A standard letter, addressed to the licensee with the violation notice appended, is mailed to the licensee. The violation notice may also identify items of concem which are not violations (but for which a response frr.,m the licensee is expected), or contain recommendations, (for which a response is not expreted).

Depending of the nature of the violations, the licensee's response, and the inspector's recommer.dation, the State may take additional measures to bring the licensee into compliance.

For serious or repeated violations, a meeting with licensce management may be scheduled in the State office. For less serious violations, a repeat inspection at a reduced interval may be

s

=

Nevada Proposed Final Report Page 10 scheduled. If these methods fail, the State enforcement policy provides for an administrative hearing to revoke the license. There were no administrative hearings during the review period.

The RCP does not have authority to levy and collect civil penalties (administrative finea) for violations of the radiation control regulations. Monetary penalties must be collected through action of the civil court.

Enforcement letters are written in appropriate regulatory language and are dispatched in a timely manner. The date the letter is sent is entered into the data base so that response due dates can be easily tracked.

If no violations are found during e inspection, the inspection is closed at the exit and the State does not notify the licensee of the findings in writing. The review team suggests that the State provide a letter, or a short form similar to the NRC Form 591, to the licensee indicating that no violations were found as the result of the inspection, when appropriate.

According to program staff, there is an ample supply of radiation survey instruments at both the Carson City and Las Vegas offices. At Carson City there are 3 Victoreen 450P ion chambers,4 Ludlum micro /R meters,3 Ludlum model 12 or 14c meters with 6 pancake probes for contamination surveys,2 Eberline emergency kits with alpha, pancake, and end window probes. In addition, each office has an Aptec Odyssey 6 portable multi-chcnnel analyzer for isotope identification.

All survey meters are calibrated annually and are rotated so that they are calibrated at least at the frequency of the licensee inspected. The meters are calibrated by a private firm that uses NIST traceable standards.

All six inspectors have had supervisor accompaniments at least annually. The Compliance Inspection Fieldwork Inspector Evaluation form is maintained in the inspector's file.

A member of the review team conducted accompaniments of two Nevada inspectors prior to the team review. On August 13,1997, one inspector was accompanied during an inspection of a portable gauge licensee in Carson City. The second inspector was accompanied on August 18,1997, during an inspection of a portable gauge licensee in Reno. Both inspectors have extensive experience in x-ray programs, and at the time of the review, were being trained in inspecting radioactive materials licensees. Both inspectors had qualified to independently perform inspections of the gauge licensees, but had not yet qualified to inspect more complex licensees.

Both inspectors prepared well and performed thorough inspections of the licensees' radiation safety programs. The inspectors demonstrated appropriate inspection techniques including observations, interviews, review of records, and knowledge of regulations, although one inspector was reminded to cite the regulation or license cnndition for each item of non-compliance. The techniul performance of the inspectors was satisfactory, and their hspections were adequate to assess the radiological health and safety program of the licensee.

T he results of the accompaniments were discussed with the inspectors and their supervisors.

The accompaniments are identified in Appendix E.

l.

N Nevada Proposed Final Report Page 11 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 satis,'actory.

3.5 Resoonse to incidents and Alleaations in evaluating the effectiveness of the State's actions in responding to incidents and allegations, the review team examined the State's response to the questionnaire relative to this indicator and reviewed the incidents reported for Nevada in the " Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED)" against those contained in the levada casework and license files, and supporting documentation, as appropriate for ten incidents. The team reviewed the State's response to six allegations, of which NRC referred two allegations. A list of the incident casework with comments is included in Appendix F.

State procedures require an on-site investigation for significant incidents. The procedures do not distinguish between incidents and allegations. The RHS Supervisor coordinates with the Las Vegas field office Supervising Radiation Physicist on incident respcase. Allincident reports and summaries are reviewed by the RHS Supervisor for close-out.

The review team found that. with the exception of reporting incidents to NRC the State responses were within the performance criteria. Notification to the NRC was provided in 1993 through the first half of 1995, for incidents that require reporting under State regulations.

Although the State incident report log contains an entry space for recording notification to NRC, notifications were not made for incidents occurring in the second half of 1995 through the end of the review period. The reporting of incident information was discussed with the program management, who indicated that a combination of problems with the NMED computer software and altered priorities relatod to the office relocation resulted in a decision to delay the reporting to NRC of events the State considered to be of low significance. The State did not consider any of the events that occurred during this period to be of high significance, however, the team reviewed reports of one damaged and five lost or stolen moisture / density rauges. The team recommends that the State review the incident files back to the last event reported to NRC in 1995, and submit reports to NMED as appropriate.

Resnonses were prompt and well-coordinated, and the level of effort was commensurate with health and safety significance. Inspectors were dispatched for on-site inspections when appropriate. In general, the State took suitable corrective and enforcement actions and followed the progress of the inspection until close out.

The team reviewed the files of six allegations. Two of the allegations were referred to the State by NRC Region IV. The records indicated a response to the Region when requested. All six allegations were responded to promptly with appropriate inspections, follow-up, and close-out actions. The quality of the State's response was adequate. Persons making allegations are advised that their identity can be protected under State law, but the alleger must request the identity protection in writing.

l w Nevada Proposed Final Report Page 12 Based on the IMPEP evaluation enteria, the review team recommends that Nevada's performance with respect to the ir.dicator, Response to incidents and Allegations, be found satisfactory, 4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IMPEP identifies four non-common performance indicators to be used in reviewing Agreement State programs: (1) Legislation and Regulations;(2) Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program; (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program; and (4) Uranium Recovery.

Nevada's agreement does not cover uranium recovery, so only the first three non-common performance indicators were applicable to this review.

4.1 J eoislation and Reoulations 4.1.1 Leaislative and Leaal Authority Along with their response to the questionnaire, the State provided the review team with the opportunity to review copies oflegislation 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 Statute Section 459. The Nevada State Health Division is designated as the State's radiation control agency. The review team noted that the legislation had not changed since being found adequate during the previous review, and found that the State legislation is adequat.1 4.1.2 Status and Comoatibility of Reaulations The Nevada Regulations for Control of Radiation, found in Chapter 459 of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC), apply to allionizing 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 egM.ent designed to produce x-rays cr other ionizing radiations.

The review team examined the procedures used in the State's regulatory process and found that Nevada offers the public .he 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.

Reguw. , must be reviewed by the State Legislative Council Bureau before they become final. Regulations may be submitted at any time to the Nevada State Board of Health for adoption; however, adoption during certain periods of the biennium requires a second adoption hearing to create permanent regulations, making it difficult for the State to adopt all NRC amendments within the 3-year time period during which Agreement States are generally expected to adopt compatible rules. The team noted that while some of the regulations adopted during the review period were adopted after the 3-year period had expired, Nevada

% Nevada Proposed Final Report Pay 13 has other legally binding methods of applying regulatory requirements on a temporary basis c.s needed.

The team evaluated Nevada's responses to the questionnaire and reviewed the regulations adopted by the State since the 1993 review to determine the status of the Nevada regulations under the Commission's new adequacy and compatibility policy. The team found that the State addressed the following NRC regulation amendments:

• " Quality Management Program and Misadministration," 10 CFR Part 35 amendment (56 FR 34104) which became affective on January 27,1992. The State adopted equivalent regulations for the quality management and misadministration rules prior to the current NRC decision to defer consideration of these rules in making compatibility findings for Agreement States. Nevada intends to revisit the matter when NRC issues a revised Part 35 rule, compatibility designations for the new rule are established, and an effective date for Agreement State implementation has been set.

• " Licensing and Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators," 10 CFR Part 36 amendment (58 FR 7715) which became effective on July 1,1993. There are no current Nevada licensees that are affected by this rule. The State plans to apply the requirements by license condition and adopt an equivalent rule if an application for an irradiator is received. NRC has previously found this approach to be compatible.

• Definition of Land Disposal and Waste Site Quality Assurance Programs," 10 CFR Part 61 amendment (58 FR 33886) which became effective on July 22,1993. In consideration of the closed status of the Beatty site, the State does not plan to adopt an equivalent regulation.

• " Decommissioning Record Keeping Documentation of Restricted Areas and Spill Sites,"

10 CFR Parts 30 and 40 (58 FR 39628) that became effective on October 25,1993. It should be noted that this rule applies to all licensees, rather than just those licensees required to file a decommissioning plan.

e "Self-Guarantee as an Additional Financial Mechanism," 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70 amendments (58 FR 68726 and 59 FR 1618) that became effective on January 28, 1994. Note, this rule is designated as a Division 2 matter of compatibility. Division 2 compatibility allows the Agreement States flexibility to be more stringent (i.e., the State could choose not to adopt self-guarantee as a method of financial assurance.) If a State chooses not to adopt this regulation, the State's regulation, however, must contain provisions for financial assurance that include at least a subset of those provided in NRC's regulations; e.g., prepayment, surety method (letter of credit or line cf credit),

insurance or other guarantee method (e.g., a parent company guarantee). This rule has been redesignated as category D under the Commission's new adequacy and compatibility policy. The rule affects only one Nevada licensee and is being adopted by license condition.

• " Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Conforming NRC Requirements to EPA Standards,"

10 CFR Part 40 amendment (59 FR 36026) that became effective on July 1,1994. This

. Nevada Proposed Final Report Page 14 rule is not applicable as Nevada does not regulate section 11(e).2 material under the Agreement.

e " Timeliness in Decommissioning of Materials Facilities," 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70 smendments (59 FR 36026) that became effective on August 15,1994. It should be noted that this rule applies to all licensees, rathor than just those licensees required tc file a decommissioning plan.

The State has expressed the intent to adopt the following regulations on or about March 1, 1998:

" Preparation, Transfer for Commercial Distribution and Use of Byproduct Mateilal for Medical Use," 10 CFR Parts 30,32 and 35 amendments (59 FR 61767, 59 FR 65243,60 FR 322) that became effective on January 1,1995. The State will temporarily adopt the rule by license condition as necessary.

• " Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and R6 porting," 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61 amendments (60 FR 15649,60 FR 25983) that will become effective March 1,1998.

Agreement States are expected to have an effective rule on the seme date.

e " Frequency of Medical Examinations for Use of Respiratory Protection Equipment," 10 CFR Part 20 amendments (60 FR7900) that became effective on March 13,1995.

Note, this rule is designated as a Division 2 matter of compatibility. Division 2 compatibility allows the Agreement Sttaes flexibility to be more stringent (i.e., the State could choose to continue to require annual medical examinations).

Nevada has not star 1ed to address the following rulemakings, but indicated the intent to adopt the rules prior to the due date (three years after the effective date given):

'Pedormance Requirements for Radiography Equipment," 10 CFR Parts 34, (60 FR 28323) that became effective on June 30,1995.

l e " Radiation Protection Requirements: Amended Definitions and Criteria," 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20 amendments (60 FR 36038) that became effective August 14,1995.

e

" Clarification of Decommissioning Funding Requirements," 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70 amendments (60 FP 38235) that became effective November 24,1995.

e " Compatibility with the international Atomic Energy Agency," 10 CFR Part 71 amendment (60 FR 50248) that became effective April 1,1996.

• " Medical Administration of Radiation and Radioactive Materials," 10 CFR Part 20.35 amendment (60 FR 48623) that became effective on October 20,1995.

' Termination or Transfer of Licensed Activities: Record Keeping Requirements,"

10 CFR Parts 20,30,40,61,70 (61 FR 24669) that became effective on May 19,1996.

This requirement need not be in effect until May 19,1999.

i l-

c w Nevada Proposed Final Report Page 15 l

• Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne Effluents of Radioactive Materials; Clean Air Act," 10 CFR Part 20 amendment (61 FR 65119) that became effective January 9,1997.

• Recognition of Agreement State Licenses in Areas Under Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction Within an Agreement State," 10 CFR Part 150 amendment (62 FR 1662) that became effective on January 13,1997,

• ' Criteria for the Release of Individuals Administered Radioactive Material,' 10 CFR Part 20.35 amendment (62 FR 4120) that became effective on January 29,1997.

As noted above, the rules

• Decommissioning Record Keeping Documentation of Restricted Areas and Spill Sites," and " Timeliness in Decommissioning of Materials Facilities," apply to all licensees, rather than only to those licensees required to file a decommissioning plan. The State has applied the regulatory requirements of the rules as license conditions on the one Nevada licensee required to file a decommissioning plan, but has not addressed the requirements for the other licensees. The inconsistency was not identified until after the on-site review was completed and therefore was not discussed during the exit meeting. The issue was discussed during follow-up telephone conversations with the State. On this basis, the team finds that the State needs to adopt both rules, or other generic legally binding requirements, in order to assure consistency with the compatibility designations of the new adequacy and compatibility policy.

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 cfter the September 3,1997, [62 FR 46517] publication of the final policy). '

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Nevada's performance with respect to the indicator, Legislation and Regulations, be found satisfactory.

4.2 Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Program At the time of the review, Nevada had no sealed source or device manufacturers nor were any applicants anticipated in the near future. The State, however, does not wish to relinquish the authority to regulate SS&D manufacturers in the future. The RHS Supervisor explained the State's provisionary plan as follows:

Upon receipt of an application for a sealed source or device review by any licensee or after State licensure of a manufacturing company in Nevada, BHPS will begin to take steps to develop proposed regulations as appropriate, acquire additional staff and/or train existing staff and develop procedures to conduct timely sealed source / device review in accordance with NRC criteria.

Considerations to hire new staff or train existing BHPS staff will address all ,

technical disciplines such as mechanical and/or civil engineering expertise, radiation physics, etc., as necessary for this program.

Nevada Proposed Final Report Page 16 Options for immediste implementation prior to full ieview program development include: (a) informal or contractual arrangements with other Agreement State (s) to conduct reviews or assist Nevada as they develop various components of the minimum program; (b) contract with an outside consultant to conduct the review; or (c) contract with NRC to conduct the review.

Funding for any of these options would be from revenue collected from the applicant.

The review team finds this approach acceptable and recommends that Nevada's performance with respect to the indicator, Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program, be found satisfactory.

4.3 kmv-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Discosal Proaram The State has no separate LLRW program, but instead regulates the LLRW license in the same manner as any other complex specific, licensee. In the process of evaluating this performance indicator, the review team studied the State's responses to the questionnaire, evaluated the ,

qualifications of the technical staff, reviewed the State's written procedures and plans, examined parts of the site closure plan and associateri documents, reviewed surveillance and inspection reports, and intervicwed the principal staff and managers assigned to the LLRW project.

l l The US Ecology LLRW slie, located 11 miles south of Beatty, stopped receiving LLRW on January 1,1993. This decision was formalized by a settlement agreement signed by the Governor on September 24,1993. The site license expired December 31,1992, but will remain I

in effect until the licensee cornpletes their obligations specified in their license and regulations, l in the 'Beatty, Nevada, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility - Stabilization and Closure Plan - Rev 1," and in the lease agreement. Upon completion of the licensee's obligations, the US Ecology license will be transferred to the State of Nevada which will assume l all oversight responsibilities and become custodian of the site. This transfer, according to State I

management, is expected to take place later this year or some time in 1998. Meanwhile, it was verified through file evaluations that the State continues to closely monitor closure activities such as final trench capping, completion of security fencing, and installation of trench markers.

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

i The team verified by evaluation of State records and the settlement agreement that the State has the funding (approximately nine million dollars) and plans to continue surveillance and necessary repair through inspections and environmental monitoring for 100 years. The State currently owns the 80 acre LLRW site and leases a 400 acre buffer zone surrounding the site from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The lease expires in 2007; however, the l

State is currently in negotiation to buy, trade for, or extend the lease before the expiration date.

According to State management, upon transfer of the license to a yet to be named State agency, that agency will assume the responsibility for control of all activities on the site indefinitely.

l

Nevada Proposed Final Report Page 17

-4.3.1 Status of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disoosal Insoection The State continues to inspect the facility periodically for trench slumping, security, posting, environmental sampling, and other requirements imposed on the licensee by the license, the regulations and the closure plan. The State's frequency of inspection for the Beatty site is one year, the same as specified in IMC 2800 and IMC 2401, However, due to public and political interests and the potential for changing conditions, t% State often visits the site on a more frequent basis, conducting additionalinspections during mo t visits. The annualinspection is considered complete when all elements required for c'mre and/or long term surveillance are covered. The review team examined the reports for n;ne inspections completed during the review period. There were no inspections in 1993. There were five inspections in 1994 to observe important closure activities such as trench filling and capping. Complete inspections were conducted in 1995,1996, and 1997.

It is Nevada's policy to send written confirmation of inspection findings to the licensee within 30 days after the inspection, but only if items of non-compliance are found or if the licensee specifically requests the written confirmation. If there are no findings or concerns, the State policy is to present the results orally during the exit meeting. This was the case for the nine inspections conducted during the review period.

4.3.2 Technical Staffino and TraiDios in April 1995, the LLRW project manager retired and, because the site was no longer accepting waste, he was not replaced. LLRW functions are now handled by the RHS staff, under the direction of the RHS Supervisor. In addition to his other technical qualifications, the RHS Supervisor has taken all the NRC LLRW specialty courses and has 17 year's experience in regulating the site, both as a reviewer and inspector. The basic qualifications for the LLRW l program staff are the same as for the RAM program staff, as described in Section 3.2, l

Technical Staffing and Training.

I i Because of its proximity to the site, the Las Vegas office performs most of the licensing and inspection activities, with their work reviewed by the RHS Supervisor. The Las Vegas Supervising Radiation Physicist has been directly involved in regulating the site since 1978. He

was trained and accompanied on many inspections by the retired LLRW project manager. He has taken all of the pertinent courses and workshops given by the NRC and EPA. He, in tum, has trained and assessed another Las Vegas technical staff member to conduct inspection j duties. This inspector now has five years of on-site inspection experience.

I In addition, RHS has ready access to geologists, civil engineers, hydrologists, and environmentalists within various State agencies or by contract. The review team believes that the technical staffing and training is adequate to meet the criteria for this indicator.

l 4.3.3 Technical Quality of Licensina Actions As explained previously, the site license expired December 31,1992, but will remain in effect until the licensee completes their obligations set forth in the closure plan incorporated as a

. Neva da Proposed Final Report Page 18 license .ondition on December 21,1989, the regulations and the lease agreement. A licensee performa ve assessment was performed at the time the plan was submitted.

Only two licensing amendments were completed during the review period, and both were evaluated. The amendments were minor, involving a change of address, deleting some operational procedures, and clarifying by tie-down exactly what activities the licensee must complete prior to transfer of the license to the State. These licensing actions were done by senior staff and were fully acceptable to the review team. Details of the reviews are included in Appendix D.

The team found through observation in Carson City and interviews with the Las Vegas staff that applicable guidance documents such as the NUREGs that support 10 CFR 61 are available and used as needed.

4.3.4 Technical Quality of Insoections The review team evaluated all nine of the on-site inspections conducted by the State during the review period. Two were evaluated in depth, and included in Appendix E. The Supervising, Radiation Physicist and the inspector y ere evaluated during the two casework reviews. The inspection ieports were complete, thorough, and in accordance with NRC guidance. Both had been reviewed by the supervisors in Las Vegas and Carson City.

No LLRW enforcement actions were needed during the review period because the inspections revealed no items of non-compliance. However, the State does have in place enforcement procedures with severity levels triggering specific escalated actions. These have been used effectively in the past to maintain licensee compliance, and the RHS Supervisor assured the review team that the enforcement procedures would be used as necessary.

I i Because of site closure, reduced activity, and the use of only senior inspectors, supervisory l

accompaniments specific to the LLRW program were no longer justifiable. However, the .ame

, inspectors are accompanied annually by po! icy for the radioactive material program. The j review team finds this policy acceptable.

l

4.3.5 Resoonse to incidents and Alleaations There were no incidents or allegations pertaining to the LLRW program during this review i period. There have been reports by the U.S. Geological Survey that they have found tritium at l a monitoring well they operate in the buffer zone outside the fence. These reports, however,

were never formally submitted to the State, only to the media. According to program management, RHS, the licensee, and a disinterested third party have continuously and independently monitored for tritium and other isotope migration and have found no evidence of release on or off-site. The review team evaluated records includi ig the August 14,1997, ' Site l Environmental Data Summary," which included more than 2,700 environmental sample results t

taken by several different parties, including State inspectors and contractors, durine, the period 1962 to 1997, ar'd found no support for the USGS report. These environr.ontal snmples include soil, water, air, vegetation, and direct radiation, both on and off site.

l

Nevada Proposed Final Report Page 19 Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria for the above five performance areas, the review team recommends that Nevada's performance with respect to the indicator, Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program, be found satisfactory.

5.0

SUMMARY

As noted in Sections 3 and 4 above, the review team found that Nevada's performance with respect to each of the performance indicators to be satisfactory. Accordingly, the team recommends the Management Review Board find the Nevada program to be adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC's program.

Below is a summary list of suggestions and recommendations, as mentioned in earlier sections of the report, for evaluation and implementation, as appropriate, by the State.

P.ECOMMENDATIONS:

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

2. The review team recommends that the general training and qualification procedure be adopted in writing. (Section 3.2)

3. The team recommends that the State review the incident files back to the last event reported to NRC in 1995, and submit reports to NMED as appropriate. (Section 3.5)

C

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)

SUGGESTIONS:

1. The team suggests that the State wait until the NRC-OAS joint working group on training issues their final recommendations. The working group recommendations should be considered when developing the written plan. (Section 3.2) 2 The review team suggests that the State provide a letter, or a short form similar to the NRC Form 591, to the licensee indicating that no violations were found as the result of the inspection, when appropriate. (Section 3.4)

i v

LIST OF APPEND'CES AND ATTACHMENTS Appendix A iMPEP Review Team Members Appendix B Nevada Organization Charts Appendix C Nevada's Questionnaire Response Appendix D License File Reviews Appendix E Inspection File Reviews Appendix F Incident File Reviews Attachment 1 - Nevada's Response to Review Findings

?;-

APPENDIX A iMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS Name Area of Responsibility Richard Blanton, OSP On-Site Team Leader Technical StafSng and Training Response to incidents and Allegations Legislation and Regulations

- Donald E. Bunn, California- Status of Materials inspection Technical Quality of Inspections Jack Hornor, RIV, WCFO Technical Quality of Licensing Action's Sealed Source and Device Evaluations i

Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program i

i

. . . . - . . , - e .

b

.g-.

e 4 ,

l f

i

,' APPENDIX B NEVADA.

BUREAU OF HEALTH PROTECTION SERVICES -

HEALTH DIVISION RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH SECTION

~'

' ORGANIZATION CHARTS

[

s a

.l

)

1 a

NEVADA STATE HEALTH DIVISION NUl'1O3 l VERNOR l JAN 0 51995 l DIRECTOR-DHR l :ww.vtA. 9.t434 SLcitt Yvonne Sylva, MPA Govemor's Matemal & Health Division Board of Health Child Health Adytsory Administrator Board l I I I

AIDS Advisory Medical Laboratory Task Force Advisory Commstfee State Health Officer

' I I AL TTNNEY. Chief Bureau of l Bureau of Bureau of Laboratory Ser. hs Administrs'ive

. Health Protechon Chncal Microtwology Section Bureau of Sennees Services Chemistry Section Health Planning Fiscal Management Safe Dnnking Water Technical Support Section Health Planning and Development Personnel Certification of Public Water Administrative Support Section Primary Care Development Center Amrmative Action System Operators NHSC Program legal Sennces Health Engineering HMO Review /Q.A. Vital Records Sanitation I State Center for Health Statistics -Food BRFS Survey -Dairy Bureau of -Drugs /Cosmctics Community Health Radiological Health Services 1 -Low Level Waste Family Planning

-Clinic Services Bureau of Disease l l

-APPLE Project Control & Interventiort _

Community Hea'th Nursing Services Bureau of Bureau of

-Clinic Services STD Licensure and Family Health

-Case Management HIV/ AIDS Certifcation Sennces

~

-Focused Home Visiting EPl/ Surveillance Health Facshtses MCH

-School Health Services immunization Laboratories -Baby Your Baby

-Epidemiology Follow-up TB Control Lab Personnel -Special Cheldren's Clinics

-Community Consultation Tobacco ControlInitiative Emergency Medcal Sves -CSHCN Cancer Registry Emergency Medcal Sves -Children's Dental Breast & Cervical Cancer Personnel -Newbom Screening Trauma Registry -Children & Adolescent Sycs

~ Perinatal Services olflowcharts/HDFC -WIC

-Health Promotioriducation

.' e' BUREAU OF HEALTH PROTECTON SERV.

Al Triney, Chief Legend- PHE=Putic Health Engmeer REHS=Re<pstered Ermronmerwas Hesen Speerakst Off AAy- CC Adrrun Serv Othcer- CC EHS=E,T.. ...naat Health Speaahst CarolWhaley Scott Sisco MA=Managernent Assrstant l l l Rad Staff Spec =R%d Staff Spedanst MA I( 5 FTE) CC Acd. Speaahst - CC RadConSpec= Radiation Control Spacakst Camp Net Ted). CC Patncia Mathis Detra Harvey Pam GaNwta l

Account Clert 118- CC Laune NevtWe i I Sup. PH Eng - CC l 1 Sup Env Health - CC Sup Env Heasth - CC .: Sg Red Huset-CC Jon Palm Jan Hogan Vacard San Marshes MA II- CC MA I- CC Denise Logiurato REHS ut - CC EMS It - CC RedStaff Spec-CC S Escret Rich EBoyan Roger Works Lany Boschid l

MA I (.5 FTE)- CC Tina Sctdsng _

REHS in - CC _

CHS I- Tonopen Red Start SpeocC Marty Goodman Donna Rozrel ' Paid Simpson

~ REHS fil- Wrmemucca ~

EMS n - LV i RedconSpec#CC PHE Ill- CC MAI-CC I

Sup. Field AQ. - CC Cindy Ulch Gerry Cant 1 Mugen TWler Jan Balderson Scott Ceragioli Dana Penrungton EHS II- Ely _

EMS 11- LV Red Conepec S CC l Richard Sidvers Steve Gedeman PHE Ill- CC ' Adrien House -

Rich Drew REHS III- CC

_ _ EHS II- Elko .

Rett Physicist-LV Patty Lechler Jesse Frandsen :Onta Manager-CC

~ tarry Fredis PHE ill - CC Dave Hunt REHS Irl - CC Ridhann Bessee _ j Larry Rountree

_ EHS 11 - Elko j Smet Marteney Red CorW8ps:NLV PHE lis - CC _

Joe Pollock -

PA I- CC . ._'Jan M

~

REHS Ill- CC ~ EHS 11- Fanon Seamen CotilpJ

_ _ PHE lit - LV Teny Has Dave Evans PHEI~ "-C Andy Asgarian _

Red ContSpec RV Rick Fr" w  : MAI(.5 FTE)cC PaulHervoy

~

REHS til- CC June Sonnet PHE f11 - G

_[ _ PHE ID (DOE)- LV Kinley Goodman RailContSpec stV

- Jim Larson _

Date Ryan ~ - MA 1(.5 FTE)cc Emle Ranieri 1 l Water Sup Spec- CC

_ Me8F W BodneRf MA I ( DOE) - LV Steve Brockway Connie Foreman word'admvwgchrt bu2 _ MA I (.5 FTE). LV Barbara Baser trJ7

RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH SECTION Stanley Marshall, Suoervisor Carson City I

I RAM / LLW Office Manaaer DOE Oversicht So. NV Enforcement Radiological Staff Specialist Management Assistant til Supervising Radiation Physicist Larry Franks Larry Boschult Ruthann Barrette Carson City Carson City Las Vegas _

Radiation Control Specialist il Mammocraphy / X-ray Program Assistant i Paul Harvey Radiological Staff Specialist Susan Cobb Las Vegas Paul Simpson Carson City Carson City Radiation Control Specialist ll Radiation Control Specialist 11 Management Assistant I(0.5 FTE)

Jan Hillman-Ortiz Morgan Tyler June Bennett Las Vegas Carson City Carson City Radiation Control Specialist ll Radiation Control Specialist il Management Assistant I(0.5 FTE)

Ernie Ranieri Adrian Howe Kelly Woodward Las Vegas Carson City Carson City Management Assistani , 6 FTE)

Barbara Bailey Las Vegas word \admbrgchrt.497

O 4 8 s

APPENDIX C INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM (IMPEP) QUESTIONNAIRE

• . Nevada Proposed Final Report Pace C.1 Approved by OMB'  ;

No. 3150-0183 Expires 4/30/98 1 INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM QUESTIONNAIRE Nevada Program Reporting Period: March 5,1993, to August 25,1997 A. COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

1. Status of Materials insoection Proarsm

1. Please prepare a table identifyinq the licenses with inspections that are overdue by more than 25% of the scheduled frequency set out in NRC Inspection Manual .

Chapter 2800 (issued 4/17/95). The list should include initial inspections that are overdue.

Resoonse: Wo Nevada licensees are overdue for inspection by more than 25%

of the scheduled frequency in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800; 4/17/95.

2. Do you currently have an action plan for completing overdue inspections? If sJ, please describe the plan or provide a written copy with your response to this questionnaire.

Resoonse: The Nevada action plan for review and completion of overdue inspections consists of periodic review of the computerized inspection file by program management with appropriate staff assignments to minimize overdue inspections. Reviews are conducted the supervisor, radioactive material program manager or southern office enforcement supervisor, making assignments as necessary.

The supervisor has also met with the radiocctive material program manager on a monthly basis since December 1996 in preparation for the 1997 audit to be able to provide periodic updates to Division management concerning the status of audit preparation.

3. Please identify individual !icensees or groups of limnsees the State is inspecting less frequently than called for in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800 (issued 4/17/95) and state the reason for the change.

Etaponse No groups of Nevada licensees are scheduled for inspection at frequencies less than the NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800; 4/17/95.

4 Estimated burden per response to comply with this voluntary collection request: 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br />.

Forward comments regarding burden estimate to the Information and Records Management Branch (T 6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 0001, and to the Pape work Reduction Project (3150-0052), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

, ,, , , - - - . . , . . . . . , . . . - - , , , , , . , - - , , -e , ,, , , ._, ,,, . , - , , - - - , .--,,n. . . . - - . - ,

v Nevada Proposed Final Report Page C.2

4. How many licensees filed reciprocity notices in the reporting period?

l BesponyJ One hundred twenty onc (121) licensees filed two hundred thirty five i (235) reciprocity notices during the reporting period,

s. Of these, how many were industrial radiography, well-logging or other users with inspection frequencies of three years or less?

Resoonse Two hundred fifteen (215) reciprocity notices were authorized for industrial radiography, well logging or other license inspection frequencies of three years or less.

b. For those identified in 4a, how many reciprocity inspections were  ;

conducted? '

Resoonse; Twenty six (27) reciprocity inspections were conducted on industrial radiography, well logging or other license inspection frequencies of three years '

or less.

5. Other than reciprocity licensees, how r,mny field inspections of radiographers were per'ormed?

Ecsponse: Nine (9) field inspections of industrial radiography licenses were conducted.

6. For NRC Regions, did you establish numerical goals for the number of inspections to be performed during this review period? If so, please describe your goals, the number of inspections actually performed, and tb reasons for any differences between the goals and the actual number of inspections performed.

Resoonse: Not Appliccble.

II. Technical Staffino and Trainina

7. Please providc a staffing plan, or complete a listing using the suggested format below, of the professional (technical) person years of effort applied to the agreement or radioactive matenal program by individual. Include the name, >

position, and, for Agreement States, the fration of time spent in the following areas: administration, matenals licensing & compliance, emergency respanse, LLW, U-mills, other, if these regulatory responsibilities are divided between

• offices, the table should be consolidated to include ah personnel contributing to the radioactive materials program, include all vacancies and identify all senior personnel assigned to monitor work of junior personnel. If consultants were used to carry out the program's radioactive materials responsibilities, inc'ude their efforts.

l

• o

'. Nevada Proposed Final Report Page C.3 ME POSITION AREA OF EFFORT Stan Marshall Supervisor 0.20; Admin ER Larry Boschult Rad. Staff Spec. 0.80; Supery; License, .

Enforce, ER l Larry Franks Sup. Rad. Physicist 0.10; Superv; ER Paul Harvey Rad Control Spec. 0.90; License, Enforce, ER Jan Hillman Ortiz Rad. Control Spec. 0.30 License, Enforce, ER -

Adrian Howe Rad. Control Spec. 0.20 License, Enforce, ER Paul Simpson Rad. Staff Spec. 0.10 License, Enforce, ER i Morgan Tyler Rad. Control Spec. 0.35 Licensa, Enforce, ER TOTAL: 2.95 FTE

8. Please provide a listing of all new professional personnel hired since the last review, indicate the degree (s) they received, if applicable, and additional training and years of experience in health physics, or other disciplines, if appropriate.

Response: New professional staff Inred since the last review include:

i Morgan Tyler Start date: March 1994; ARRT (X ray and CT) 15 years in applied radiological technology in private sector; has received all NRC core training (except 5 week cuurse) and other specialized training su ,h as commercial portable gauge course and OTJ with State of Nevada Adrian Howe - Start date: January 1996; ARRT (X-ray); 8 years as X ray tech, in Air Force; 3 years as X ray tech. In private medicalindustr/; 14 years in State of Montana radiation control program including 9 years as director for that program; has received all NRC core training including 5-week course and other specialized training such as commercial portable gauge course and OTJ with the State of Nevada >

9. Please list all professional staff who have not yet met the qualification requirements of license reviewer / materials inspection staff (for NRC, inspection Manual Chapters 1245 and 1246; for Agreement S.ates, please describe your qualifications requirements for materials license reviewers and inspectors). For each, list the courses or equivalent training / experience they need to attend and a tentative schedule for completion of these requirements.

Resoonse: Morgan Tylu will continue to receive specialized training equivalent to the NRC 5 week health physics course or until such time that his personal schedule and state funding becomes available for his attendance at the course.

Adrian Howe will complete the last of four core NRC courses during the week of August 11 - 15,1997 to enable completion of his orientation and final audits for licensing and enforcement activities for alllicense types.

y-- ~ ~ ---

r- -w r 9 y r, w p- +1rw v*=

Nevada Proposed Final Report Page C4

10. Please identify the technical staff who left the RCP/ Regional DNMS program during this period. '

Resoonse John Vaden retired from state service in April 1995. No other technical staff has left the program since the previous audit.

Ill. Inchnical Qualty of Licensina Actions

.11. Please identify any major, unusual, or complex iicenses whkh were issued, received a major amendment, terminated or renewed in this period, t

Resoonse: Seven (7) major, unusual or complex licenses were issued during the reporting period.

Licensee Lic. No. Issued License Tvoe Sunrise Hospital, 03-12-0325-01 4/93 Nuclear Medicine /Tx Biotech Pharmacy 03-11-0332-01 8/93 Nuclear Pharmacy Syncor 16-11-0333-01 8/93 Nuclear Pharmacy Century Geophysical 00 11-0354-01 12/94 Well Logging Fluid Tech, Inc. 03 11-0369-01 5/95 Decon. Service Sierra Pharmacy 16 11-0373 01 1/96 Nuclear Pharmacy Rad. Onc. Ctr. LV 03 12-0394 01 5/97 HDR Afterloader

12. Please identify any new or amended licenses added or removed from the list of licensees requiring emergency plans?

Resoonse: No new and/or amended licenses were added/ removed from the list of licensees requiring emergency plans.

13. Discuss any variances in licensing p!d:5 and procedures or exemptions from the regulations granted during the review period.

Resoonse; No variances in licensir'g policies and procedures or exemptions from the regulations granted during the review period.

14. What, if any, changes were made in your written licensing procedures (new procedures, updates, policy memoranda, etc.) during the reporting period?

Resoonse: No changes were made in your written licensing procedures (new procedures, updates, policy memoranda, etc.) duritig the reporting period?

15. For NRC Regione, identify by licenser name, license number and type, any renewal applications thG have been pending for one year or more.

Resoonse: Not Applicable.

l

. Nevada Proposed Final Report Page C.5 IV. Technical Quality of Insoections

16. What, if any, changes were made to your written inspection proceduces during the reporting period?

Resoonse: No changes were made to your written inspection procedures during the reoorting period?

17. Prepare a table showing the number and types of supervisory accompaniments made during the review peliod. Include:

emiiloi Insoector License Cat. Dale Stan Marshall Larry Boschult Nuc, Med. 1/21/93 Port. Gauge 1/7/94 Port. Gauge 6/1/95 Work performance standards were revised for Larry Boschult to assign supervisory accompaniments and basic and LLW program management on 10/11/95; Larry became no longer subject to inspection accompaniments.

Larry Boschult Paul Harvey Port. Gauge 8/11/92 Larry Franks LLW 8/24/92 Nuc. Med. 9/15/92 Small Lab. 5/23/94 Nuc. Med 5/26/95 Ind. Rad. 8/22/96 Nuc. Med. 6/25/97 Larry Franks Jan Hillmtn Ortiz Ind. Rad. 8/11/92 Nuc. Pharm. 2/5/93 Port Gauge 6/13/94 Nuc. Med. 6/19/95 Bld. Irrad. 8/29/96 Nuc. Med 7/29/97 Larry Boschult Adrian Howe Port Gauge 1/29/97 Stan Marshall Paul Simpson Service 2/5/93 Larry Boschult Nuc. Med. 2/1/94 Nur. Med. 11/9/95 Nuc. Med. 4/17/97 Larry Boschult Morgan Tyler Port. Gauge 3/12/96 Port Gauge 7/10/97

18. Describe internal procedures for conducting supervisory accompaniments of inspectors in the field, if supervisory accompaniments were documented, please provide copies of the documentation for each accompaniment.

Resoonst Supervisory accompaniments are conducted by program management or senior staff. Enclosed are copies of the accompaniment audit reports since the previous audit are on file in the agency.

. Nevada Proposed Final Report Page C.6

19. Describe or provide an update on your instrumentation and methods of calibration. Are allinstruments properly calibrated at the present time?

Resoonse: We maintain at least a minimum of properly calibrated instruments at any given time to conduct inspections. The equipment is prepared for shipmer't by staff in the Carson City and Las Vegas offices periodically throughout the calendar year to ensure that equipment is available for inspections in accordance with agency policy and consistent with requirements for the inspected licensee.

New equipment acquired during the reporting period since the last review includes two portable MCA systems equipped with Nal detectors.

V. Resoonses to incidents and Alleaations

20. Please provide a list of the most sianificADt incidents (i.e., medical misadministration, overexposures, lost and abandoned sources, incidents requiring 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or less notification, etc.) that occurred in the Region / State during the review period. For Agreement States, information included in previous submittals to NRC need not be repeated. The list should be in the following format:

Resoonse: See the attached incident log sheets for all incidents in this reporting period.

21. During this review period, did any incidents occur that involved equipment or source failure or approved operating procedures that were deficient? If so, how and when were other State /NRC licensees who might be affected notified?

Response: Reported incidents did not involve any equipment, source failure or deficient operating procedures determined to be generic or that would require notification to other state /NRC licensees.

22. For incidents involving failure of equipment or sources, was information on the incident provided to the agency responsible for evaluation of the device for an assessment of possible generic design deficiency? Please provide details for each case.

Resoonst. At applicable.

23. In the period covered by this review, were there any cases involving possible wrongdoing that were reviewed or are presently undergoing review? If so, please describe the circumstances for each case.

Resoonse; The incident log indicates no cases of possible wrongdoing during the review period.

24. Identify any changes to your procedures for handling allegations that occurred during the period of this review.

a. For Agreement States, please identify any allegations referred to your program by the NRC that have not been closed.

Nevada Proposed Final Report Page C.7 j BASRQDig All cases of allegations that have been referred to this office from the l

NRC have been closed i VI. General

25. Please prepare a summary of the status of the State's or Region's actions taken  !

in response to the comments and recommendations following the last review. I Resoonst Enclosed are status remarks concerning the 1993 NRC audit and .

1994 NRC Followup audit recommendations:

)

1993 NRC Audit Recommendations

a. Recommendation that the state make an effort to exceed the January 1994 goal for adootion of all outstandina regulations: Regulations pertaining to the Emergency Planning Rule, Standards for Protection Against Radiation, Safety Requirements for Radiographic Equipment, Notification of incidents, and the Quality Management Program and Misadministration have been adopted by the Nevada State Board of Health,

b. Recommendation that increased management oversicht be orovided to the enforcement orogram: The Bureau Chief is periodically informed of pending escalated enforcement actions such as management conferences, etc. on a weekly basis and is provided the opportunity to participate if he desires,

c. Efmommendatlan that the state develoo and imolement written enforcemeat procedures which soecific actions to be taken at various levels of severity:

Written enforcement procedures have becn developed and are on file with other Radiological Health Section procedures.

d. Recommendation that the state consider various methods of escalated CDMECement actions used by other states without civil oenaltv: The state has expanded the variety of escalated enforcement options,

e. Recommendation that the state follow their own oolicy in reouiring bioassay 1 for ell forms of I-131: Standardized license conditions are routinely issued at the time of licensure to require thyroid bioassays. All existing licenses were amended to require bioassays or revise other licensee procedures to do so.

f. Recommendation that written termination crocedures be revised to include the license tatmination reauirements in the Nevada regulations: The written termination procedures have been so revised.

g. Recommendation that the state use a checklist or form to verify the final disoosition of all radioactive material: An existing license termina' ion checklist was revised to include a section to document disposition of materials.

h. Recommendation that certification of disoosal or transfer should be recuired when receiots cannot be obta ned from the new recioient: Procedures have been rev' sed to require the licensee to certify in writing the disposition of materials when transfer receipts are not available from the recipient.

. Nevada Proposed Final Report Page C.8

1. Recommendation that the state resume the oractic'.s of sendina cooles of new and amended licenses to the t1Bf4 The agenry received wntten notification thet j copies of licensing actions should no longer be sent to the NRC.

1994 NRC Followuo Audit Recommendations J. Recommendation to revise existina escalated enforcement orocedures to include criteria for manaaement conferences for multiole violations and to describe violation seventv: Program management decidtd to maintain case-by-case review to apply the need for management conferendes based on inspector's recommendations and discussion with program managemunt.

l. Recommendation to imorove instructions for evaluatino. followuo and Igoortina incidents to NRC: alsowggests letters to hosoitals re: the misadministration reoortina; The established process of evaluation, followup and reporting incidents to the NRC was determined to be adequate, incidents continue to be reviewed as they occur to determine whether reporting to NRC is necessary, A letter was sent to all hospitals to emphasize the medical misadministration reporting requirement in NAC 459 257.

k. Recommendation for an imoloved incident trackino mechanism; Computerized tracking of incidents was initiated in 1094; however, the initial effort did not prove to be adequate. Tracking reverted to handwiitten logging; recent ins'allation of Windows version of NMED in 1997 indicates that the software works; however, its use is not fully imp!emented.

20 Provide a brief der :ription of your program's strengths and weaknesses. These strengths and weaknesses should be supported by examples of successes, problems or difficulties whic.h occurred during this review period.

Resoonse: Strenath: Comorehensive radiation control authority and orocram imolementatiOD - Nevada law and regulations remain comprehensive to ensure radiation control regulatory and non-regulatory service activities art in one state agency. This approach to program implementation has capitalized on economies of scale to utilize skilled, experienced staff and other resources in multiple program areas.

As new radiation issues mature in the public interest, the agency has added appropriate regulatory / service programs as appropriate. Three examples since the last NRC audit include development of a program for oversight of DOE radiological activities on and around the Nevada Test Site, regulation adoption and program implementation of a state mandated mammography X-ray certification including a service contract to conduct inspections for federal certification purposes, and potential radon hazard awareness among all Nevada counties.

Weakness: AutomJtic Loss of Industry Growth Fee Revenug - Industry growth fee revenue above legislature authorized spending authority is deposited into the general fund. hd Etry growth fee reven.ie beyond spending authority is not available to the program without legislatuie interim finance committee approval or legislative approval dunng session. Any across the-board fee increases or acquisition of other funding without associated spending authority from state legislature can not be used to increase equipment, staff or other resources for

. Nevada Proposed Final Report Page C 9 the radioactive material program unless legislative authority is approved and in place in advance of acquiring / receiving the revenue.

B. NON COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

1. Regulations and Legal Authority

27. Please list all currently effective legislation that affects the radiation control program (RCP).

Resoonst Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 459 - radiation control NRS 457 - mammography ce'tification NRS 439 - administrative proceduras NRS 414 - emergency response

28. Are your regulations subject to a " Sunset" or equivalent law? If so, explain and include the next expiration date for your regulations.

Resoonst No.

29. Please complete the enclosed table based on NRC chronology of amendments.

Identify those that have not been adopted by the State, explain why they were not adopted, and discuss any actions being taken to adopt them.

ResoQase; It is not necessary to adopt rules pertaining to pool irradiators and uranium mill tailings at this time as no licenses in these categories are currently used by the Nevada Health Division. Steps will be taken to initiate public hearings and regulation adoption upon contact by a possible applicant or receipt of application in these license categories.

Rules not adopted by the state pertaining to decommissioning are incorporated into one applicable license by license condition. Adoption of the requirements will be initiated at the next occasion to revise state regulations.

30. If you have not adopted all amendments within three years from the date of NRC rule promulgation, briefly describe your State's procedures for amending regulations in order to maintain compatibility with the NRC, showing the normal length of time anticipated to complete each step.

Retoonst. The process for regulation adoption requires a minimum of six (6) months during specific times of the two-year biennium, otherwise, adopted regulations are considered to be temporary and must be revisited for adoption by the Nevada State Board of Health or they will expire The adoption process involves development of propoted text, distribution to the affected public and public notice locations in the state, public workshops where determined necessary by staff or agency management, written response to all written comments, due process notice of the Board of Health adoption hearing, staff presentation at the announced Board of Health meeting at which time the Governor appoirited, seven-member board will adopt with or without revisions to staff recommendations, or table or veto the regulations.

. Nevada Proposed Final Report Page C.10 ll. Sealed Source and Device Procram

31. Prepare a table listing new and revised SS&D registrations of sealed sources  ;

and devices issued during the review period. The table heading should be:

Resoonse: No sealed source manufacturers are locatei in the state of Nevada, therefore, no SS&D registrations have been issued. We no not intend to develop capability for this activity at this time but also do not intend to relinquish authority for the activity either. 1 A memorandum to file has been developed to indicate that the agency will develop procedures and regulations as necessary in the event an application for sealed source manufacturing is delivered to the office.

32. What guides, standards and procedures are uJed to evaluate registry applications?

Resoonte: Not applicable at this time; see l1.31 response.

33. Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they apply to the Sealed Sourte and Device Program:

Technical Staffing and Trainina - A l1.710 - Not applicable Technical Quality of 1.jcensing Actions - A.lli.11. A.Ill.13 Not applicable Resoorue!Ligjocide.ts and Allocations - A V.20 Not applicable Ill. Low level Waste Program

34. Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they apply to the Low level Waste Program:

A. Status of Materials insoection Proaram - A.I 1-3. A l 6 No material inspection program element exists due to site closure. Inspections at the closed Beatty low-level radioactive waste facility occur periodically as appropriate relative to completion of remaining post closure activities.

l Since the low level waste site was closed; inspections are limited to review of custodial post-closure activities such as verifying integrity of trench caps, inspection of the perimeter fence, review of post closure records, etc.

B. Technical Staffing and Trainina - A ll.7-1,0 - Program staff and associated training is status quo with existing staff continuing evaluation of the last l post-closure activities. Las Vegas Radiological Health Section senior staff continue to perform review / inspections as necessary; Carson City senior staff continues with program administrative activities, etc.

C. Technical Ouality of Licensin] Actions - A 111.11. A.Ill.13 Licensing actions have been minimal since site closure on December 31,1992 with anticipation that a license transfer amendment may be issued in the near future after completion of post-closure activities by the licensee and acceptance of technicalinformation and activity status by the agency.

i

. , - _ , . -,__..-,,,_-._,,.._,_,m ...__..__,_.,m, __,. , , . , _ _ _ . ,,m , ,,..~__ . . . , . . . . . _ _ -,- ,_

..__ .- ~ . _ ._._ -_ _ . _ _ ._. __ _._ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ .

e

'. Nevada Proposed Final Repor1 Page C 11 D. Technical Quality of insoections . A.IV.1619 - Site inspections continue as appropriate concerning the final post-closure activities not completed by the licensee. Inspection 6.id review activities have continued at a less ,

aggressive rate than during waste disposal while the site was open in accordance with diminishing post closure activities, As a result, low-level waste site inspection policy and inspection forms are under review to implement appropriate modification to reflect site closure elements that are yet to be completed before and after license transfer. ,

E. Resoonses to incidents and Allegations - A.V.20 No allegations have i been filed with this office and no incidents occurred during the review period.

IV. Uranium Mill Proaram

35. Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they apply to the Uranium Mill Program:

Status of Materials insoection Proaram - A.l.1-3. A.I.6 - Not applicable Technical Staffing and Trainina - A ll3 Not applicable Technical Quality of Licensina ActiQDs - A.lll.11. A.lli 13 Not applicable Technical Quality of Insoections - A.IV.16 Not applicable Resconses to incidents and Allegations - A V.20-23 Not applicable y

+ y-v.- -4 ,w . . - - -- -,, -, - , - , ,-,-- ---w-- .-,,

Nevada Proposed Final Report Page 12 TABLE FOR QUESTION 29.

i l

OR

' DATE DATE 10 CFR RULE DUE CURRENT EXPECTED

' ADOPTED l STATUS N  !

Any amendment due prior to 1991. Identify each

[

, regulaton (refer to the Chronology of  ;

i Arnendments) t j

Decommisssoning. 7/27/91 6/11/93 r Parts 30. 40. 70

-s i

Emergency Planning: 4/7/93 6/11/93  !

Paris 30. 40,70 '  !

l Standards for Protecten Against Radiation. 1/1/94 12/8/93

[

l Part 20

Safety Requiremente for Red.v.y@,;c 1/10/94 12/8/93 l 4 Equipment; Part 34 ,

l Notification of Inodents; 10/15/94 1/18/94 '

, Parts 20,30. 31. 34, 39. 40. 70 1

Ouality Management Progri.m and 1/27/95 7/7/94 B Misadministration; Part 35 f i

[i Licensing and Radiaton Safety Requirements 7/1/96 N/A; no irradia* cts hcensedin Nevada Requwements welbe applied

'. ' for irradiators; Part 36 [

by lic. v,. ': - untd they are + _-M by the Ek of Health.

Definition of Land Disposal 7/22/96 N/A; no intent to loer se future LLW sdes.

L and Waste Site QA Program; Part 61 I

Decommissioning Recordkeeping Documenta- {

f 10/25/96 Not adopted yet; addressed by license condibon for one liwnse tion Additions; Parts 30,40. 70 3/1/98 [

, Self-Guarantee as an Additonal Financial 1/28/97 Not adopted yet; addressed by license condition for one license.

W-c: &n. Parts 30.40.70 3/1/96 f

Uranium Mill Tailings: Confomwng to EPA l 7/1/97 N/A; no uranium mill tashngs Iscensees in Nevada.  ;

, Standards Part 40 I

Timehness in Decommissenmg 8/15/97 Not adopted yet; addressed h license condition for one license Parts 30,40. 70 3/1/96 l I

i

Nevada Proposed Final Report i Page 13 OR i DATE DATE ADOPTE CURRENT EXPECTE 10 CFR RULE DUE D STATUS D ADOPTION

Preparation. Transfer for Cvsmsuoi Drs- 1/1/98 Not adopted yet; wW be addressed by bcense condition as necessary 3/1/96  !

tnbuton, and Use of Byproduct Malenal for Me:fical Use; Parts 30,32. 35  !

i Frequency of Medical Exarnenatens for Use of 3/13/98 Respiratory Protecten Equiprnent 3/1/96 Low-Level Waste Stupment Manifest 3/1/98 Plan fo adopton prior to due date Low level waste site used by Nevada 3/1/96 -

Informaton and Reporting licensees already requires NRC manifest Performance Requirements for Radiography 6/30/98 Plan for adopton poor to due date.

i Eouipment 4

Radiaton Protechon Requirements: Amended 8/14/98 Piar. f e adopton prior to due date.

Derinstons and Cnteria t

Clanfication of DecG.d...sioning Funding 11/24/98 Plan for adopton prior to due date.

Requirements

, 10 CFR Part 71: CwrysutAiy with the 4/1/99 Plan for wjopton prior to due date.

intemational Atomic Energy Agency  !

I  !

Medical Administrabon of Radiaton and e

10/20/98 Plan for adophon prior to due date.

i Radoactive Materials 1

5 Termination or Transfer of Licensed Actrvites: 5/16/99 Plan for adophon prior to due date.

l Recordkeepmg Requirements.

j Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airbome 1/9/00 Plan for adophon prior to due date.

i Emuents of Radcachve Matenals; Clean Air i Act

= .

Recogniten of Agreement State Licenses in 1/13/00 Plan for adophon prior to due date.

Areas Under Exclusive Federal Junsdicion Within Agreement State l

Cnteria for the Release of Individuals 1/23/00 Plan for adophon prior to due date. l t

Administered Radioactrve Material

?

_. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ __ __ I

'. APPENDIX D LICENSE FILE REVIEWS File No.: 1 Licensee: Diversified Consulting Services License No.: 00 11 0344-01 Location: Carson City, NV Amendment No.: 1 License Type: Portable Gauges Type of Action: New/ Amendment Date New License issued: 6/26/94 License Reviewer: LB Date Amendment Issued: 7/6/94 License Reviewer: MT 4

File No.: 2 Licensee: Resource Concepts, Inc. License No.: 00 11 0343-01 Location: Carson City, NV License Type: Portable Gauge Type of Action: New '

Date issued: 6/3/94 License Reviewer: LB File No.: 3 Licensee: Century Geophysical Corp. License No.: 00 11 0354 01  ;

Localica: Las Vegas, NV '

License Typ . "all Logging Type of Action: New Date issued. iL6/94 License Reviewer: PH i File No.: 4 Licensee: Kleinfelder, Inc. License No.: 00-11-0278-01 Location: Las Vegas, NV Amendment No.: 8 License Type: Industrial Radiography Type of Action: Renewal Date Renewalissued: 9/26/95 License Reviewer: PH File No.: 5 Licensee: Fluid Tech, Inc. License No.: 00-11-0339-01 Location: Las Vegas, NV Amendment No.: 4 and 5 License Type: Decontam: nation Service Type of Action: Amendment Date Amendment Issued: 4/3/95; 5/30/95 License Reviewer: PH

, File No.: 6 l Licensee: Sierra Pharmacy Services License No.: 16-11-0373-01 Location: Reno,NV License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Type of Action: New Date issued: 1/29/96 License Reviewer: LB

! Comment:

a) License hand dehvered to licensee File No.: 7 Licensee: HSI GeoTrans License No.: 00-11-0397-01 Location: Reno,NV License Type: Portable Gauge Type of Action: New Date issued: 5/28/97 License Reviewer: AH i

.- _ . - _ . _ . . . - - . . _ . . , _ . . , _ . . ~ . . ~ . . _ . - . - - _ - - - - - - . _ --.-~-._ _ _ _ .___. ~._ ._.-,-_ _-_-___. . . . _ _ _ _

i

. Nevada Proposed Final Report Page D.2 ,

License File Reviews File No.: 8 4 Licensee: MET ChemTesting Laboratories License No.: 00 11 0335-01 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Amendment No.: 2 License Type: Industrial Radiographer Type of Action: Termination Date Termint.ted: 5/23/94 License Reviewer: LB Comments:

a) Radioactive material transferred to licensee's UT Licent e (UT 1800146)  !

File No.: 9 Licensee: J. Daniel Wilkes, M.D., LMC Laburatory License No.: 03 12 0006 01 Location: Las Vegas, NV Amendment No.: 7 License Type: Bio Med in Vitro Testing Type of Action: Termination Date Terminated: 7/29/94 License Reviewer: JHO File No.: 10 Licensee: Aerojet General Corporation License No.: 13-11-0195-01 Location: Sacramento, CA and Range 63, Nellis AFB Amendment No.: 4 License Type: Ordnance Testing Type of Action: Term! nation Date Terminated: 2/21/97 License Reviewer: LB Pie No.: 11 Licensee: BC Environmental License No.: 00 11-0374-01 ,

Location: Reno,NV Amendment No.: 2 License Type: Portable Gauge Type of Action: Termination Date Terminated: 3/31/97 License Reviewer: LB File No.: 12 Licensee: Radiation Oncology Center of Las Vegas License No.: 03-12-0394-01 Location: Las Vegas, NV License Type: High Dose Afterloader Type of Action: New Date issued: 5/12197 License Reviewer: PH Comment:

a) Hand-delivered File No.: 13 Licensee: Lockheed Environmental Systems License No.: 00-16-0112 01

& Technologies, Inc.

Location: Las Vegas, NV Amendment No.: 19 License Type: Laboratory & Decontamination Service Type of Action: Renewal Date Renewalissued: 5/16/96 License Reviewer. PH File No.: 14 Licensee: Rayrock Mines,Inc. License No.: 00-11-0386-01 Location: Valmy NV License Type: Portable Gauge Type of Action: New Date issued: 9/23/96 License Reviewer: PS

Nevada Proposed Fir si Report Page D.3 License File Reviews File No.: 15 Licensee: Las Vegas Valley Water District License No.: 00 11-0196-01 Location: Las Vegas, NV License Type: Portable Gauge Type of Action: Renewal ,

Date RenewalIssued: 4/19/96 License Reviewer: JHO i File No.: 16 Licensee: University of Nevada, Reno License No.: 16-13-0003-07 Location: Reno, NV Amendment No.: 19 ,

License Type: Broad Scope Type B Type of Action: Major Amendment i Date Amendment issued: 9/3/96 License Reviewer: LB I

File No.: 17 Licensee: US Ecology, Inc. Lice *:se No.: 1 13-0043-02 Location: Oak Ridge, TN (Beatty, NV, site) Amendment No.: 16  :

License Type: LLRW Burial Site Type of Action: Amendment Date Amendment issued: 10/2/96 License Reviewer: L9 Comment:

c) This amendment changes the licensee's home address and re ties them to the original application, facility standards manual, site closure plan, and lease agreement with Nevada.

File No.: 18

, Licensee: Sunrise Hospital Laboratory License No.: 03 12-0325-02 Location: Las Vegas, NV License Type: Irradiator (<10,000 Cl) Type of Action: New Date issuad: 2/9/96 License Reviewer: PH s

File No.: 19 Licensee: Biotech Pharmacy License No.: 03 11-0352 01

. Location: Las Vegas, NV Amendment No.: 4 License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Type of Action: Amendment Date Amendment issued: 5/10/95 License Reviewer: PH File No.: 20 4

Licensee: Leon H Steinberg, M.D. License No.: 03 12 0307-01

, Location: Las Vegas, NV Amendment No.: 3 License Type: Medical Private Practice Type of Action: Termination  :

Date'lerminated: 6/17/97 License Reviewer: PH Comment:

a) Terminated as part of a licensing action to overcome problems with licensee. New, more restrictive license issued (see file 21).

l

\

l~

l l

- - , - - - - . - - . . . , . - . - - - , - - - - , - . . - , - - , - - - - - , . - , , - - - - , - - - - ~ - - , - - - - - - - - = - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - . - - . - - - - - - - - - - . - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - , , - - -

Nevada Proposed Final Report _

Page D.1 License File Reviews 1

File No.: 21 j Licensee: Steinberg Diagnostic MedicalImaging Center J Location: Las Vegas, NV License No.: 03 12-0352 01 License Type: Nuclear Medicine Clinic Type of Action: New i

Date issued: 6/17/97 License Review;r: PH l

4 Comments:

a) See comment for file 20.

L b) - New license requires licensee to follow RG 10.8; requirements include quality management plan program, bioassay by license condition, radiation safety committee for clinic with quarterly meetings, and new radiation safety officer.

File No.: 22 i Licensee: Carson Tahoe Hospital l'canse No.: 01 12-0032-01 <

Location: - Carson City, NV- Amendment No.: 20-

- License Type:: Medical Institution with therapy Type of Action: Renewal ,

Date Renewalissued: 9/26/95 Licer..e Reviewer:

File No.: 23 Licensee: Syncor International Corpointion License No.: 16 11-0333-01 Location: Reno,NV Amendment No.: 2 j License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Type of Action: New Date issued: 8/17/93 License Reviewer: PH Comments:

a) License hand carried to ;censee b) Prelicensing inspection conducted and documented.

File No.: 24 Licensee: Radiation Oncology Associates License No.: 16 12-0323 Location: Reno, NV License Type: Teletherapy Type of Action: Major amendment Date issued 8/27/97 License Reviewer: LB j

4

- ,- ,,c-w g7,-.r,w.w--- .--r,- - - - s --.m-+--*- ,eg,y',, y, r---, w-,-eve---.,---ec-.-y----ve'-re =-wr e 7,,y 4, r r-n.,w-

i-APPENDIX E INSPECTION FILE REVIEWS <

I File No.: 1 Licensee: US Ecology  :

License No.: 13 11 0043-02  !

l ocation: Beatty, NV inspection Type: Announced, Routine License Type: LLRW burial s!!e Priority: 1 t'

inspection Date: 8/30/95 Inspector: PH  :

File No.: 2 Licensee: US Ecology License No.: 1311-00AS-02 Location: Beatty, NV Inspection Type: Announced, Routine License Type: LLRW burial site Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 3/12/97 Inspector: LF File No.: 3 Licensee: Resmrce Concepts, Inc. License No.: 00 11 0343-01 Location: Carson City, NV inspection Type: Unannounced, Routine Licensc Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 8/13/97 Inspector: MT Comments:

a) Report reviewed at time of accompaniment; enforcement correspondence not ready for review.

b) Inspection form did not have section for reviewing incidents that may have occurred since last inspection. Upon suggestion by review team, RHS Supervisor added item -

through memo dated 8/26/97.

File No.: 4 L'censee: Consulting Engineering Services License No.: 00-11 0154-01 a Location: Reno,NV Inspection Type: Unannounced, Routine License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 4 Inspection Date: 8/18/97 Inspector: AH j Comment:

a) Repor* reviewed at time of accompaniment; enforcement correspondence not ready for review.

File No.: 5 Licensee: Desert Industrial X Rey, Inc. License No.: 00-11-0360-01 Location: Henderson, NV Inspection Type: Unannounced, routine License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 8/21/96 Inspector: PH File No.: 6 Licensee: Desert Radiologists - Eastern License No.: 03 12 0327-01 Location: Las Vegas, NV Inspection Type: Unannounced, routine License Type: Nuclear Medicine Priority: 2 Inspection Dete: 12/12/95 Inspector: PH 4

- , - ., --------=-+,e---- ,,n . , . +m, , w -+-,n - - - - - , , - - - - . --w,. s - - - , - - - - ,m, -,---~,e ww a-, ,- -

'. Nevada Proposed Final Report Page E.2 Inspection File Reviews File No.: 7 Licensee: Radiation Oncology Associates License No.: 16 12-0323-01 Location: Reno,NV inspection Type: Unannounced, routine License Type: Teletherapy Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 9/26/96; 10/17/06 Inspector: LB Comments:

a) Teletherapy license inspected at 3 year interval although State calls it Priority 1 (NRC changed to Priority 3).

b) Inspection conducted on two dates to complete review of records in main office.

File Nu.: 8 Licensee: Radiation Oncolog/ Associates License No.: 01 12-0225-01 Location: Carson City, NV inspection Type: Unannounced, routine License Type: Teletherapy Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 9/20/96; 10/17/9S Inspector: LB Comments:

a) Teletherapy license inspected at 1 year interval.

b) inspection completed on two dates to complete review of records in main office.

File No.: 9 Licensee: Carson-Tahoe Hospital L.icense No.: 01-12-0032-01 Location: Carson City, NV inspection Type: Unannounced, routine License Type: Nuclear Medicine Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 6/17/97 Inspector: PS & MT Comments:

a) Licensee notification letter sent 8/11/97 - over 30 days after inspection.

b) Previous inspection 2/94; inspection overdue by NV inspection schedule; but not by NRC IMC 2800.

File No.: 10 Licensee: Biotech Pharmacy License No.: 03 11 0332-01 Location: Las Vegas, NV inspection Type: Unannounced; routine License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 9/17/96 Irispector: PH i Comment:

a) Six serious violations and four items of concern did not trigger follow up inspection.

l l

u

. Nevada Proposed Final Report Page E.3 -

Inspection File Reviews Fde No.: 11 & 12 Licensee: Kleinfelder, Inc. License No.: 00-11-0278-01 Location: Las Vegas, NV inspection Type: Unannounced, office only, routine License Type: Industrial Radiographer Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 12/21/95 and 2/26/97 Inspector: PH Comments:

a) Five vic!ations including one repd found during 12/95 inspection resulted in enforcement conference on 1/22/96.

b) Although 12/95 office inspection showed radiography work was conducted by one l radiographer in violahn of State's two person rule, State did not conduct field ir'spection during 2/97 inspection.

File No.: 13 & 14 t Licensee: University of Nevada, Reno License No.: 16-13-0003-07 Location: Reno,NV Inspection Type: See below License Type: Academic Type B Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 5/18/93 (partial); 11/2/93 (partial) Inspector: LB inspection Date: 3/28/94 (partial); 4/1/94 (partial); 8/15,18/94 (par 1ial); 12/19/94 memo to file summarized findings during '93 and '94 partial inspections inspection Date: 1/24 27/95 (partial); 3/9/95 memo to file summarized findings during 1/95 partialinspections inspection Date: 2/11/97 follow-up Comments:

a) There had not been a complete inspection of this licensee since September 1991.

Following an incident on 2/93 where RAM was released to normal trash, there were a series of partial inspections in which problems were noted with inventory, overall control of radiation, and RSO user authorizations.

b) No documentation in file that University was advised in writing of violations until NOV sent 6/14/95 - five months after 1/95 inspections.

c) State advises comNete inspection conducted on date but 'eport not available to review team.

File No.: 15 Licensee: University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV License No.: 03 13-0305-01 Location: Las Vegas, NV Inspection Type: Unannounced, complete, routine License Type: Academic Type B Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 11/25-27/96 Inspector: PH File No.: 16 Licensee: AGRA Earth and Environmental License No.: 00-11-0193-01 Location: Sparks, NV Inspection Type: Announced, routine License Type: Industrial Radiographer Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 5/7/97 Inspector: LB Comments:-

a) Thirty two months between radiography licensee inspections.

b) Unable to determine from file whether field inspection was conducted.

c) Licensee not advised of results of clear inspection in wiiting (no short form).

. :-_.,-.,_-.._~.,~.,.~. . . - . - .r- - - - , - - , _ , , _ _ - - . - . . ~ _ - - - ~__m-_ , , , , . - , , _ . -,,,_.,..,_r,, , - . _ . - , . , - . _ _ , . , . . - , ,,---,,,,__um .r._

. l

~

. l

. Nevada Proposed Final Report - Page E.4  !

Inspection File Reviews .

File No.: 17 '

Licensee: AGRA Earth and Environmental License No.: 00 11-0193-02 '

Location: Sparks, NV inspection Type: Announced, routine License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 7/10/97 Inspector: MT File No.: 18 i Licensee: Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. License No.: 00-11-0326-01 Location: Las Vegas, NV . Inspection Type: Unannounced, field, routine License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 9/11/96 Inspector: PH -

File No.: 19 Licensee: Boulder City Hospital License No.: 03-12-0342-01 i Location: Boulder Cit, NV Inspection Type: Unannounced, routine License Type: Nuclear Medicine Priority: 2

, inspection Date: 4/8/97_ lnspector: PH File No.: 20 4

Licensee: Lockheed Environmental Systems License No.: 00-16-0112-03 Location: Las Vegas, NV Inspection Type: Announced, initial License Type: Fixed Gauge Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 8/9/95 Inspector: PH i

File No.: 21 Licensee: Covan Pacific Coast Testing License No.: 4886-48 Location: Sparks, NV (Benicia, CA) Inspection Type: Reciprocity, field License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 1/24/96 Inspector: LB File No.: 22 Licensee: Decisive Testing License No.: 1836 80

Location: Las Vegas, NV (San Deigo, CA) Inspection Type: Reciprocity, field l License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 6/8/96 Inspector: PH

- File No.: 23 Licensee: Phoenix National Labs License No.: AZ7-415 Location: Las Vegas, NV (Tempe, AZ) Inspection Type: Reciprocity, field License Type: Industrial Radiographer Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 1/18/97 Inspector: PH Comment:

a) No violations, no written notice to licensee.

-t I

_ -_ _m __.,m- , - , , , , , - . , - - - . . . * - <m4,-- - - , ---,- - ,- - - . - - - .m. --_---~-~.-_-i.-w.--.=--. . _-e4-e~e,.--,. . - , . -w ,

4

'. Nevada Proposed Final Report Page E.5 Inspection File Reviews File No.: 24 Licensee: ContinentalTesting andInspection License No.: 2535-70 Location: Las Vegas, NV (Signal Hill, CA) Inspection Type: Unannounced reciprocity, office License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 8/8/96 Inspector: PH 1

Comments:

a) inspector visited the Las Vegas business office of this CA licensee after being notified a radiography sorce would be transferred into State for use between 8/3/96 and 8/10/96.

Company advised inspector that source had not been transferred to NV despite notification.

File No.: 25 Licensee: SGS Industrial Services License No.: 341-60 Location: Las Vegas, NV Inspection Type: Unannounced, reciprocity, office (San Leandro, CA)

License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 3/14/96 Inspector: PH File No.: 26 Licensee: Converse Consultants Southwest, Inc. License No.: 00-11 0094-01 Location: Las Vegas, NV Inspection Type: Unannounced, followup License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 8/8/94 Inspector: JH In addition, a review team member made the following inspection accompaniments as part of the on-site IMPEP review:

Accompaniment No.: 1 Licensee: Resource Concepts,Inc. License No.: 00 11 0343-01 Locanon: Carson City, NV Inspection Type: Unannounced, Routine

' icense Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 8/13/97 Inspector: MT Comments:

a) Inspector did not tie items of non-compliance to license conditions or regulations b) Inspector did not question licensee regarding incidents; inspection form had no incident review section.

Accompaniment No.: 2 Licensee: Consulting Engineering Services License No.: 00-11-0154-01 Location: Reno,NV inspection Type: Unannounced, Routine License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 4 Inspection Date: 8/18/97 Inspector: AH

i

'. APPENDIX F INCIDENT FILES REVIEWED File No.: 1 Licensee: Converse Consultants Southwest, Inc License No.: 00 11-0094-01 incident ID No: NV 93 06 Location: Las Vegas, NV Date of Event: 4/26/93 Type of Event: LAS Investigation Date: 4/26/93 Investigation Type: Field Summary of incident and Final Disposition: Portable gauge lost or stolen / recovered. >

File No.: 2 Licensee: United Mining of Nevada License No.: Generallicensee incident ID No: NV 93-09 Location: Houston Oil and Mineral Mine, Virginia City Date of Event: 5/31/93 Type of Event: LAS Investigation Date: 6/01/93 Investigation Type: Field Summary of incident and Final Disposition: Fixed gauge found at abandoned mine site /

impounded.

Comment:

a) Not reported to NMED.

File No.: 3 Licensee: Dawn Mining Company License No.: (Unknown - NRC)

Incident ID No: NV 94-05 Location: Elko, NV Date of Event: 1965 -1975 Type of Event: Release of Materials investigation Date: 2/09/94 Investigation Type: Field Summary of Inc!: lent and Final Disposition: NRC requested survey of possible residual uranium contamination at storage site of terminated licensee (ORNL).

Comment:

a) Results reported to Region V but not reported to NMED.

l l .

l

• l

. Nevada Proposed Final Report Page F.2 incident File Reviews File No.: 4 Licensee: Golden Nugget Licenss No.: Generallicensee incident 10 No: NV 94-09 Location: ias Vegas, NV Date of Event: 6/02/94 Type of Event: LAS Investigation Date: 6/21/94 investigation Type: Telephone Summary of Incident and Final Disposition: Reported loss of two Po-210 (5.0 millicurie each) anti-static devices.

Comments:

a) No action taken by RHS - reason given: material had decayed to exempt level.

b) Not toported to NMED.

File No.: 5 Licensee: Converse Consultants Southwest,Inc License No.: 00 11-0094-01 Incident ID No: NV 9410 Location: La., Vegas, NV Date of Event: 9/14/94 Type of Event: TRS Investigat!on Date: 9/14/94 Investigation Type: Field Summary of Incident and Final Disposition: Portable gauge reported lost or stolen; recovered same day Comments:

a) Reported to NMED; event date, other information in NMED incorrect.

File No.: 6 Licensee: Westec,Inc License No.: 00-11 0197-01 Incident ID No: NV 9412 Location: Newmont Mine; near Carlin, NV '

Date of Event: 8/25/94 Type of Event: EQP Investigation Date: 8/26/94 Investigation Type: Telephone Summary of incident and Final Disposition: Portable gauge run over by heavy equipment at job-site; destroyed; no leakaga detected.

Comment:

a) NMED item information incorrect: wrong event date, s/n: 10583.

l-*

. Nevada Proposed Final Report Page F.3 Incident File Reviews File No.: 7 Licensee: Summit Engineering Corp License No.: 00 11-0180-01 Incident ID No: NV-95-01 Location: Reno, NV Date of Event: 2/09/95 Type of Event: LAS Investigation Date: 2/09/95 Investigation Type: Field Summary of incident and Final Disposition: Theft of three portable gauges during burglary; two devices recovered on 2/10/95, third on 2/12/95, all three were undamaged.

Comment:

a) Reported on NMED but information not completc.

File No.: 8 Licensee: SEA, Inc License No.: 00-11 0009-01 incident ID No: NV 95-05 Location: Las Vegas, NV Date of Event: 4/21/95 Type of Event: LAS Investigation Date: 4/21/95 Investigation Type: Field Summary of incident end Final Disposition: Portable gauge lost or sta!an, not recovered; licensee cited for failure to adequately secure the device.

Comment:

a) Not reported to NMED.

b) State procedures do not require a press release.

File No.: 9 Ucensee: Southwest Testing License No.: 00-11 0366-01 incident ID th: NV-96-10; NV-97-07 Location: Las Vegas, NV Date of Event: 5/29/96 Type of Event: LAS Investigation Date: 5/30-31/96 investigation Type: Telephone Summary of !ncident and Final Disposition: Licensee cited for inadequate control over RAM; gauge recovered 7/14/97 (NV-97-07).

Comment:

a) Not reported on NMED.

• e 4

e Nevada Proposed Final Report Page F.4 Incident File Reviews File No.: 10 Licensee: Leslie W. Williams, DVM License No.: 03-12-0155-01 Incident ID No: NV 96-11 Location: Las Vegas, NV +

Date of Event: 8/22/96 4 Type of Event: Abandoned source Investigation Date: 8/22/96 investigation Type: Field Summary of incident and Final Disposition: Licensee left State in 1994, reportedly for Missouri, left behind Sr 90 eye applicator at LV clinic (unlicensed); device was impounded by RCP.

Comments:

a) Not on NMED.

b) Not reported to NRC (in case license sought in MO).

E 1

[, Agenda for Management Review Board Meeting lugsday. November 18.1997.1:30 o.m. - 3:30 o.m.. OWFN 4 B-6

1. Convention. MRB Acting Chair convenes meeting (R. Bangart)

2. New Business - Consideration of Nevada IMPEP Report A. Introduction of Nevada IMPEP Team Members (R. Blanton)

B. Introduction of Nevada representatives and other State representative participating through teleconference. (K. Schneider)

C. Findings regarding Nevada Program (IMPEP Team)

Status of Inspection Program Technical Staffing / Training Technical Quality of Licensing Technical (2uality of inspections Response to incidents / Allegations Legislation and Regulations D. Questions. (MRB Members)

E. Comments from State of Nevada F. MRB Consultation / Comments on issuance of Report (R. Bangart)

Recommendation for next IMPEP review

3. Status of Upcoming Reviews (K. Schneider)

4. Adjournment IDYitegE Richard Bangart, MRB Acting Chair, OSP Karen Cyr, MRB Member, OGC Carl Paperiello, MRB Member, NMSS Thomas Martin, MRB Member, AEOD Steve Collins, Agreement State Liaison to MRB, Illinois Stan Marshall, Nevada Richard Blanton, Team Leader, OSP Donald Bunn, Team Member, California Jack Hornor, IMPEP Team Member, RIV Paul Lohaus, OSP Don Cool, NMSS Kathleen Sch.1 eider. OSP Lance Rakovan, OSP ATTACHMENT 2

• o

'o Page 13, Parcgraph 2, first sentence, should be revised to 7ad:

The State adopted a regulation fer quality management and misadministration rules prior NRC's current continuance to defer compatibility findings for Agreement States.

Page 15, Paragraphs 3 and 4, should be revised to reflect that this fourth recommendation was not discussed during the close-out discussion with ngency management but was created notice. by NRC since the audit as a result of the September 3,19b7 Federal Register Page 19, Recommendations Recommendation 4 - same as Page 15, Paragraphs 3 and 4.

Two good practices were mer,tioned by the audit team during close-out; however we do not clea,1y see them referenced in the draft report.

• e aos Mettr.:

= 0. eraw STATE OF NEVADA YvoNNE snvA

• Admwearecer CH Al 4 JITE CRAwPOND

'o rn eener VACANT

( store u. ns omaer DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES HEALTH DIVISION 3 505 E. Kinn Street, Room 201 b Carson City. Nevada 89701 4761 Telephone: (702) 687 4740

• Fax: (702) 687 3859 h CD n

1 m

October 27,1997 9 e-a Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Response to Draft IMPEP Report

Dear Mr. Bangart:

Enclosed is the Nevada State Health Division response to the draf IMPEP report from your office.

Mr. Stan Marshall, Supervisor, Radiological Health Section, may be contacted at (702) 687-5394, x 276, with any questons concerning the response and to schedule the management review board meeting in the riear future.

Sincerely,

\

wuO Ys nne Sylva Mi ministrator Enclosure cc: Alan Tinney, Chief. Bureau of Health Protection Services Stan Marshall, Supervisor, Radiological Health Section SMVtwam\impopre :.itr L- 94

,9 ,

l  %

Cs NEVADA DRAFT REPORT RESPONSE FFDM NEVADA STATE HEALTH DMSION a

The following responses are provided as a result of the factual review conducted by Division staff. Underscore means addition of text; brackets will mean deletion of text.

1.0 Introduction Page 1, Paragraph 3, should be revised to read:

At the time of the review, the Nevada program regulated 196 specific licenses, including a major decontamination service, broad acudamic programs, [ broad] medical programs, cadiopharmacies radiographers, a small self<ontained irradiator, and a non-operating lotv-level radioactive waste burial site. The program grew during the review period at a rate of about 15) @ percent pec jaar, as evidenced by the increase in the number of licenses.

3,1 Status of Materials inspection Proaram Page 4, Paragraph 4, should be revised to read.

The State's inspection frequencies were compared to IMC 2800 and verified to be of equal, or in (some) most cases . .

Page 4, Paragraph 5, should be revised to read:

Two teletherapy licenses files were reviewed. One licensee was inspected (annually) aLb i 1/2 year intervals nominally: [the other) one insoec+ ion of the same license was (inspected every) conducted acoroximately three years eier the oreylous inspection (No reason was evident for tne difference; the state priority war 1 for both licenses.) The NRC inspection prionty for a teletherapy program is 3. The RHS Supervisor indicated that the State will (change) consider chanoino the inspection priority for teletherapy licenses to a 3.

Paga 5, Paragraph 4, last sentence should be revised to read:

This licenses was inspected within one after the licente was issued, but before radioactive material was received, [ contrary tol which is ggper tt an reouired by the State's procedure 4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 4.1.2 EtgNs and Comoatibility of Reculations Page 12, Paragraph 6, should be revised to read:

Regulations must be reviewed by the State [ legislature) Lecislative Council Bureau before they become final. [Since the legislature meets biennially, and r) 8egulatione may be suomitted [only) at lspecified) any tims[s,] D the Nevada State Board of Health for edootion: '

howe %r. adootion durino certain oeriods of the biennium reovires a second adoption hearina to create oermanent reculations. makino it [is) difficult fe' 'he State to adopt all NRC emendmer,ts within the 3-year time period during which Agreement States bre generally expected to adopt compatible rules.

1