ML20203A331

Final Rept on Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program Review of Nevada Agreement State Program

ML20203A331
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/29/1997
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20203A293	List: ML20203A285 ML20203A331
References
NUDOCS 9712120070
Download: ML20203A331 (57)

Text

-

4 INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE . .nLUATION PROGRAM REVIEW OF NEVADA AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM August 25 - 29,1997 FINAL REPORT U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9712120070 971202 PDR SrPRO ES

^ -

-- Nevada Final Report , Page 1

[

- 1.0 ' INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the review of the Nevada radiation control program. The review was conducted during the period August 25-29,1997, by a review team comprised of technical staff members from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Agreement

State of Califomia.LTeam members are identified in Appendix A. The review was conducted in accordance whh the " Interim implementation of the Integrated Materials Performance - ,

Evaluation Program Pendir.g 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 Register on October 25, 1995, and the September 12,1995, NRC Managernent Directive 5.6, " Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation 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 draft of this report was issued to Nevada for factual comment on September 30,1997. The

- State of Nevada responded in a letter dated October 27,1997 (Attachment 1). The State's factual comments were incorporated in the final report. The Management Review Board (MRB) met on November 18,1997 to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the Nevada radiation control program was adequete to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC's program.

The Nevada Agreement State program is administered by the Radiological Health 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 materist's program as it is carried out under the Section 27/.b. (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 comtron 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 further developed. A copy of the final response is included in Appendix C to tnis 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 regulations; (3) analys's of quantitative information from the radiation control program licensing

9 Nevada Final Report Page 2 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 manarament to cnswer questions or clarify issues. The team evaluated the information that it gathered against the IMPEP performance enteria for each common and non-common indicator and made a preliminary assessment of the radiation control program's performance.

i 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 performance indicators are presented in Section 3. Section 4 discusses results of the applicable non-common indicators, and Section 5 summarizes the review team's findings and recommendations. Suggestions made by the review team are comments that the review team believes cauld enhance the State'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 recommendaticas 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 prescribed 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 directly relating to occupational or public health or safety, and by adding specific achons to be taken for violations cf 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 anforcement 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 4

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.

0 Nevada Final Report Page 3 Current 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 quarterly meetings, and an outside expert to serve as radiation safety officer. -This recommendation is closed.

-(3) Nevada hospitals are required by regulation to provide dose calculations when reporting misadministration 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 procedu es be revised to improve instructions for evaluating, following and reporting misadministration and that letters be sent to all Nevada hospitals reminding them of the misadministration reporting criteria, ir'cluding 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 and found that all incidents were included in their tracking system, 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 comnon performance indicators to be used in reviewing both NRC Regional and Agreement Ltate 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.

s Nevada Final Report Page 4 3.1 - Status of Materials inanaction Proaram -

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 Sta% maintuins a licensee data base that can soit by a variety of data. During the review the team wcs provided various lists including: a priority 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. Acc irding to the program manager, prior year i statistics could be developed only by a manual search of the filosi 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 the inspection date, the date of the violation notice, the date of *he 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-year 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 approximately 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 reciproc; y which is maintained separately from the licensee database. The State issued 187 reciprocity authorizations to 23 out-of-state industrial radiography I'censees 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

Nevada 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 licensees, including high priority industrial radiography licensees operating in rural areas.

New licenses are usually inspected six months after they are issued, provided radioactive material has been received by the licensee. The State telephones the licensee to determine if material has been received, 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 licensee was impected within one year after the license was issued, but before radioactive material was received, which is sooner than 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 was in September 1991. The University is an Academic Type B Broad licensee, assigned inspection priority 2, and it should have been inspected no later 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 printout 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 cdteria.

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 retumed to normal after the licensee shows improvement.

In 4 of the 26 files evaluated, a letter to the licensee informing of violations was mailed 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 inspection.

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.

Nevada 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 Staffina and Trainina Issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the radioactive materials program staffing level, technical qualifications of the staff, training and staff tumover. 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, includir'g 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 classified 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 RAM /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 material licensees, 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 staff FTE dedicated to the RAM /LLW program.

The RHS also has 3.5 FTE of secretarial staff. The FTE distribution between licensing and inspection effort appears balanced, as evidenced by the lack of significant backlogs. At tN 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 lack of significant backlogs, the staffing levelis sufficient to assure public health and safety.

The review team found that the technica: 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. This 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 memtier.

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 Final Report Page 7 The two new staff members hired during the review period hold associate degrees and have considerable experience ir. 3 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 develor:nent of the new staff members during the review period. The review team recommends that the general training and

. qualification procedure be adopted in writing. During the onsite review, the team suggested that the State wait until the NRC-OAS joint working group on training issues their final recommendations. The working group recommendations shou!d be considered when developing the written plan. It was noted at the MRB meeting that the working group report was issued October,1997 and was provided to all States at the October 1977 Agreement State Meeting.

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 respect to this indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be '

found satisfactory.

3.3 TechnicalQuality of Licensina Actions The review team examined completed licensing casework and interviewed the reviewers for 24 specific licenses. Licensing actions were evaluated for completenesr, 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 suoervisory review as indicated, and proper signature authorities. The files were checked for retention of necessary cocuments and supporting data.

The licensing casework was selected to provide a representative sample of licensing actions which hr.d 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; well logging; ordnance testing; ana 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.

_ _ _ _ . - - - J

Nevada 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 reviewed. The licensing actions were also timely, with uncomplicated actions completed within 60 days, including the exchange of correspondence.

Unusual or complex license actions required longer completion times.

The State's license termination procedures are bed on the NRC's Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) cleanup criteria, the tues in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.86 on acceptable surface contamination levels and other guidance such as NUREG/CR-5849 on Conducting Radiological Surveys in Support of License Termination and NRC PGD FC 83-23. " Termination of Byproduct, Source, 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 recorr% of transfer of material were on file, as well as the State's confirmatory measurements taken during several on site inspections during the decommissioning activities.

From discussions with the reviewers and from casework reviews, the team found that the State makes pre-licensing visits for complex 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 are issued for fue years and State policy requires a complete new application each time the license is renewed. The taam noted during the evc'uation of the casework that supporting documentstion 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 MRB noted that this cover letter is a good practice.

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 refer ~nce documents. The team noted from reviewing the licensing checklists that the licensee's compliance history is 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 regulatory 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 Radiation Physicist in the Las Vegas office. After the peer and supervisory reviews, the license is again reviewed and signed by the RHS Supervisor. In his absence, the lead reviewer has signature authority.

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

3.4 Technical Quality of Insoections The team reviewed the inspection reports, enforcement documentation, 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 t', the type of license inspected. The forms were complete = wept 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 knowledge and unde.rstanding 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 or gress during an inspection. The State believes that significant problems in a licensed program would be difficult to conceal from 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 froin NRC guidance, it is a reasonable approach. The review team found this policy acceptable.

Inspaction reports were very high quality and the files were complete with all documents including letters, telephone call logs, license documents and amendment requests. Each report has the signature of the Radiological Staff Specialist or the Supervising Radiation Physicist indicating it was reviewed, and all correspondence is cigned by the RHS Supervisor.

Wnen 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 from the licensee is expected), or contain recommendations, (for which a response is not expected).

Depending of the nature of the violations, the licensee's response, and the ins: actor's recommendation, the State may take additional measures to bring the licensee into compliance.

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

Nevada 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 fines) for violations of the radiation control regulations. Monetary penalties must be collected through m

action of the civil court.

r.

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 an 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 sun'eys,2 Eberline emergency kits with alpha, pancake, and end window probes. In additioq, each office has an Apter Odyssey 6 portable multi-channel 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 'icensees. 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, altL ugh one inspector was reminded to cite the regulation or license condition for each item of non-compliance. The technical performance of the inspectors was satisfactory, and their inspections were adequate to assess the radiological health and safety program of the licensee.

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

The accompaniments are identified in Appendix E.

1

L.

I* Nevada 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 satisfactory.

3.5 Resoonse to incidents and_Meng'jons in evaluating the effectiveness of the State's actions in responding to incidents and allegations, the review team examined the State's response in 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 Nevada 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

' e t'egas field office Supervising Radiation Physicist on incident response. Allincident reports a 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 related 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 eventa 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 gauges. The team recommended that the State review the incident files back to the last event reported to NRC in 1995, and submit reports to NMED as appropriata. At the MRB meeting, the State commented that they had completed their review and had submitted the appropriate reports. No additional action is necessary and the State does not need to address this recommendation further.

Responses 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 corective 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 tne identity protection in writing.

Nevada Final Repod Page 12 Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Nevada's performance with respect to the indicator, Response to incidents and Allegations, be found satisfactory.

, 4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IMPEP identifies four non-common performance indicators to be used in reviewing Agreement Stata 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 Leaislation and Regulations 4.1.1 Legislativgand Legal Authority Along with their response to the questionnaire, the State provided the review team with the opportunity to review copies of legislation that affects the radiation control program. Legislative authority to create an agency and enter into an agreement with the NRC is granted in Nevada Revised 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 be;ng found adequate during the previous review, and found that the State legislation is adequate.

4.1.2 Status and Comoatibility of Regulations The Nevada Regulations for Control of Radiation, found in Chapter 459 of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC), apply to all ionizing radiation, whether emitted from radionuclides or devices. Nevada requires a license for possession, and use, of all radioactive material including naturally occurring materials, such as radium, and accelerator-produced radionuclides. Nevada also requires registration of all equipment designed to produce x-rays or other ionizing radiations.

The review team examined the procedures used in the State's regulatory process and found that Nevada offers the public the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations and participate in public hearings before the Board of Health. Procedures also require the praposeJ regulations, and proposed hearing date, be publicized. Written response to all written public comments must be part of the staff presentation to the Board.

Regulations 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 hearira 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 compat!ble rules. The team noted that while some of the regulations l adopted during the review period were adopted after the 3-year period had expired, Nevada l

1 l

l

Nevada Fina! Report Page 13 has other legally binding methods of applying regulatory requirements on a temporary basis as .

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:

e

" Quality Management Program and Misadministration," 10 CFR Part 35 amendment (56 FR 34104) which became effective 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 icsues a revised Part 35 rule, compatibility designations for the new rule are established, and an effective date for Agreement State implementation has been set.

e " Licensing and Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators,' 10 CFR Part 36 amendrr.ent (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 apphcation 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 plat. 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 of 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 l

l l

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

• " Timeliness in Decommissioning of Materials Facilities," 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70 amendments (59 FR 36026) that became effective o1 August 15,1994. It should be noted that this rule applies to all licensees, rather than just those licensees required to 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 Material 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 Reporting," 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 same date.

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

Noto, 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 to continue to require annual medical examinations).

Nevada has not started 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):

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

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

• " Clarification of Decommissioning Funding Requirements," 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70 amendments (60 FR 38235) that became effective November 24,19F

• " Compatibility with the Intemational 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 o T~ansfer 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.

O Nevada Final Report Page 15 e

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

e

" 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 effeuive 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 inconsiste7cy 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. 01 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 r.dequacy 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 requirernents 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).

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 Proaram 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 engineenng expertise, radiation physics, etc., as necessary for this program.

1

f Nevada Final deport Page 16 Options for immediate implementation prior to full review program development include: (a) informal or contractual arrangements with other Agreement State (s) to conduct reviews or assist Nevada as they develop various r 3mponents 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 Low-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 qualificatior s of the technical staff, reviewed the State's written procedures and plans, examined oarts of the site closure plan and associated documents, reviewed surveillance and inspection repeats, and interviewed the principal staff and managers assigned to the LLRW project.

The US 2cology LLRW site, located 11 miles south of Beatty, stopped receiving LLRW on January 1,1993. This decision was formalized by e settlement agreement signed by the Govemor on September 24,1993. The site license expired December 31,1992, but will remain in effect until the licensee completes their obligations specified in their license and regulations, 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 all oversight responsibilities and become custodian of the site. This transfer, according to State management, is expected to take place later this year or some time in 1998. Meanwhile, it was verified through file evaluations that the State continuet to c;osely 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.

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 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 narned State agency, that agency will assume the responsibility for control of ell activities on the site indefinitely.

l l

_v

• ~

p Nevada Final Report : Page 17 4.3.1 Status of Low-Level RmAnadive Wa=*= Disoonal inanaction The State continues to inspect the facility periodically for trench slumping, security, posting, .

environmental sampling, and other requirements imposed on the licensee by t'1e 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, the State often visits the site on a more frequent basis, conducting additional inspections during most visits. The annual inspection is considered complete when all elements required for closure and/or long term surveillance are covered. The review team examined the reports for nine 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 concems, 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 Trainina In April 1995, the LLRW project manager retired and, because the site was no longer accepting - 1 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 exponence in

._ regulating the site, both as a reviewer and inspector. The basic qualifications for the LLRW program staff are the same as for the RAM program staff, as described in Section 3.2, Technical Staffing and Training.

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 turn, has trained and assessed another Las Vegas technical staff member to conduct inspection duties. This inspector now has five years of on-site inspection experience.

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.

4.3.3 Technical Quality of Licensino 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 l

_ _ _ _ I

9 Nevada Final Report Page 18 license condition on December 21,1989, the regulations and the lease agreement. A licensee performance 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 eview 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 were evaluated during the two casework reviews. The inspe: tion reports were complete, thorough, and in accordance with NRC guidance. Both had been reviewed by the supervisors in Las Vegas and Cerson City.

No LlRW enforcement actions were needed during the review period because the inspections reveamd 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 mr.intain licensee compliance, and the RHS Supervisor assured the review team that the enforcement procedures would be used as necessary.

Because of site closure, reduced activity, and the use of only senior inspectors, supervisory ace,ompaniments specific to the LLRW program were no longcr justifiable. However, the same inspectors are accompanied annually by policy for the radioactive material program. The review team finds this policy acceptable.

4.3.5 Resoonse to incidents and Alleaations There were no incidents or allegations pertaining to the LLRW program during this review period. There have been reports by the U.S. Geological Survey that they have found tritium at 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 Bird 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 including the August 14,1997, " Site Environmental Data Summary," which included more than 2,700 environmental sample results taken by several different parties, including State inspecto's and contractors, during the period 1962 to 1997, and found no support for the USGS report. These environmental samples include soil, water, air, vegetation, and direct radiation, both on and off site.

\

~

e Nevada Final Report Page 15 Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria for the above five performance areas, the review team recommends that Nevada's performance with respect to the indicattsr, Low-level Radioactive J 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 review team I recommended and the MRB concurred, in finding 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.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

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 recommended that the State review the incident files back to the last event reported to NRC in 1995, and submit reports to NMED as appropriate. At the MRB meeting, the State commented that they had completed their review and had submitted the appropriate reports. ' No additional action is necessary and the State does not need to address this recommendation further. (Section 3 5) 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 genaric 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 465171 publication of the final policy.) (Section 4.1.2)

SUGGESTIONS:

1. 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)

4 Nevada Final Report Page 20 Good Practice:

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.

LIST OF APPENDICES 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

e APPENDIX A IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS Name- . Area of Responsibility-Richard Blanton, OSP - On-Site Team Leader Technical Stamng and Training Response to incidents and Allegations Legislation and Regulations Donald E. Cunn, Califomia Status of Materials inspection Technical Quality of Inspections Jack Homor, RIV, WCFO Technical Quality of Licensing Actions Sealed Source and Device Evaluations Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program l

e

'9 e

t

-4 APPENDIX B NEVADA BUREAU OF HEALTH PROTECTION SERVICES HEALTH DIVISION RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH SECTION ORGANIZATION CHARTS

.I

NEVADA STATE .

HEALTH DMSION LECEIWD I """"" " '

JAN 0 51995 l DIRECTOR-DHR l :woim .;t,tlH SECTION Yvonne Sylva, MPA Govemos's Maternal & Health DMsiori Board of Health Child Health Advisory Administrator Board l I I I AIDS Advisory Medical Laboratory Task Force Advisory Committee

State Health :

, , 05cer <o i l 1 AL TINNEY. Chief I . Bureau of - . Bureau of

~ Bureau of -

Laboratory Servims Ademnistrative ' Heelsh Protection Clinical Microbiology Sechon . Bureau of - - Senrices - Services Chemistry Section Health Plannino F6 scal Management Safe Dnnkmg Water TechnicalSupport Section Health Plannmg and C ,Cv.. a Personnel Certdication of PublicWater Administrative Support Section Primary Care Development Center Aflirmahve Achon System Operators NHSC Program LegalServices Health Engineering HMO Review /Q.A. VdalRecords Sanitation i State Center for Health Statistics -Food BRFS Survey -Dairy

. Bureau of -Drugs /Cosmebes

' CommunityHealth .5 ' Radiological Health ServlasV l -Low Level Weste Family Planning Bureau of Disease l l

-Clinic Services

-APPLE Project 9 Control & Intervention - ---

Community Health Nursing Services , - Bureau of BuresJ of

-Clinic Services STD Licensure and ' , ^ FamilyHealth

-Case Management HIV/ AIDS <

Certdication - Services

-Focused Home Visiting EPl/ Surveillance Health Facedies MCH

-School Health Services Immunization Laboratories ~ Baby Your Baby

-Epidem! ology Follow-up TB Cordrol Lab Personnel -Special Chddren's Clinics

-Community Consultation Tobacco Controlinitishve Emergency MedicalSves -CSHCN Cancer Registry Emergency Medical Sycs -Children's Dental Breast & Cervical Cancer Personnel -Newbom Screening Trauma Registry -Ctfdren & Adt.lescent Sycs

~ Perinatal Services er/llowcharts/HDFC -WIC

-Health Promotion /Educahon i

BUREAU OF HEALTH PROTECTION SETN.

AlTinney, Chief Legend: PHE=PubEc Healm Engineer REHSrRegestored Ermrenmental HeePh Speasest Off Mgr CC __

Admw ServOffleer-CC EHS=E;;G.nes;;alHealth Spedalist CarolWhaiev Scott Sisco MA= Management Assistant i I i Rad Staff Spec =?Alological Staff Spedalist MA I (.5 FTE) CC Acr2. Speaakst -CC Camp Net Tech- CC

• RadConSpec=Ra16aGon Cuadrol Spedanst Patrkia Mathis Debra Harvey Pam Gamine l

Acrount C!ertits-CC Laurie Nevtle I I I i l- Sup Rad Heeen-C';

Sup. PH Eng - CC Sup Env Heseh-CC -St iEnv Hee!m-CC Jim Hogan Vacant ' - San Marshad Jon Palm MA 1 CC REHS !!!- CC EMSN-CC , Red Staff Spec-CC l MA11-CC _

Larry Bosrhud S. Escret Rich EBoyan RogerWorks l Denise Lop'urato l ~

REHS in - CC EMS 1- Tonopan _

' Red Statt Spoo.CC MA I(.5 FTE)- CC _

Marty Goodman i'l PaulSimpson Tina SchMng _ Donna Rozrel REHS pl Winnemucca _

EHSN-LV _

Red Conspec 5 CC Cindy Ukh Gerry Cahd 14 Moglen Tyler '

l PHE lit - CC MA 1- CC Sup. Field Act. - CC Scott Ceragioll Dar*a Pennington EHS li- Ely EMS n - LV . Rod ConepecIl-CC Jim Daldew _ _ _

l Richard Sidvers Steve Gerlemen AttoriHouse '

PHE m -CC REHS nl- CC EMS 11 - Elko t Red Physachst- LV, Rkh Drew _ _

' Larry Franks '

Patry Ledder Jesse Frandsen .

OfHceManager CC-PHE ill- CC

1. ' Rulhann Sepelle t ' _l Dave Hunt _

REHS Ill- CC _

EMS 11- Elko j ,

Larry Roundree Scott Marteney i Cp'JenH Mad,ContSpecil4.V PHE til- CC ~

, gPAl CC..A l

~

Joe PoNock REHS 111- CC ~

EHS n- Fanon - Susan Cole # l

~

Teny HaN Dave Evans Rad ContSpecIl-LV PHE 111- LV _

w Poid Harvey PHE til- CC Andy Asgarian  : MA 4 (.$ FTE}<C Rick Reighley REHS lil- CC -June Hennett Kinley Goodman Red Cor'ispec Il4.V PHE 111 (DOE)- LV ~

~

c MA l[5 FTE)-CC - T Emie Raniert " i PHEl!! CC Jim Larson ~

~

Water Sup Spec-CC ~ Ke5yWoodrenf I Dale Ryan l _

MA 1 ( DOE)- LV Steve Brodnney Connie Foreman _ MAI(.5FTE) LV

'Bseera Bader 8S7 word 666uddbu2 e i e

gg

RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH SECTION . j Stanley Marshall, Supervisor j i

Carson City t t

U t J l l l

! t DOEOvessistSo NVEnformment RAM / LLW OQice Mananer Supern RarEnhan e PP,yA.4 Radiological Staf Speciehst Management Assistant NE -

Larry Franks Larry Bosc njit Rimann Banroes ,

Las vegas - .a Canmn City _

Carson City i

' MammoaraDhv / X-ray Program A==iciant i Rachehon Control Spariahaiil

, Paul::(-.7/

Radiological Staf Spernahai Susan Cobb ,

Las Vegas Paul Sampson Carson City

Cain City i __ _ _ i' Parhafion Control Speciakst il 9% Control Speciakst il Management Assistant I(0.5 FTE)

Jan Hellman-Ortz MorganTyler June Bennett 3

Las Vegas Carson City Carson City .

i l _ _ _

Radiation Control Sparialid il Radiation Control Spariaber 11 Management A==i=fant I(0.5 FTE)

! Errue Ranieri Adrian Howe Kelly Woodward Las Vegas Carson City Carson City i

i Management Assistant I(0.5 FTE)

! Barbara Boley Las Vegas l wonemenwecestm

.e -- ,,, - - - - . -ra -.w n<v y-eu,, ~m-w--e- , . -- v---,.. _,- -+,-- - - , - - - -, .-r, , * , - .-- ____r w- _v

.c e-f-

APPENDIX C INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM (IMPEP) QUl!STIONNAIRE

0 o

Nevada FF al Report Page C.1 Approved by OMB' No. 3150-0183 Expires 4/30/98 INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM OUESTIONNAIRE Nevada Program Reporting Period: March 5,1993, to August 25,1997 A. COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

1. Status of Materials insoection Proaram

1. Please prepare a table identifying 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.

BesDonse' No 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 so, please desenbe 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 assignmente to minimize overdue inspections. Reviews are conducted the supervisor, radioactive material program manager or southem office enforcement supervisor, making assignments as necessary.

The supervisor has also met with the radioactive 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 conceming the status of audit preparation.

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

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

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 Comrnission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and te the Paperwork 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 respor J to, a collection . / information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

t Nevada Final Report Page C.2

4. How many licensees filed reciprocity notices in the report:rs , nriod?

Resoonse: One hundred twenty one (121) licensees filed .e nundred thirty five (235) reciprocity notices during the reporting period.

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

Resoonse: Two hur.Jred 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 'ess.

5. Other than reciprocity licensees, how many field inspections of rad'ographers were performed?

Resoonse; 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 txs performed during this review period? If so, please describe your goals, the number of inspections actually performed, and the reasons for any differences between the goals and the actual number of inspections pw.ormed.

Resoonse: Not Applicable.

II. Technical Staffino and Trainina

7. Please provide 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 material program by individual. Include the name, position, and, for Agreement States, the fraction of time spent in the following areas: administration, m aterials licensing & compliance, emergency response, LLW, U-mills, other. If these regulatory responsibilities are divided between offices, the table should be consolidated to include all 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, include their efforts.

Nevada Final Report Page C.3 NAME POSITION AREA OF EFFORT Stan Marshall Supervisor 0.20; Admin, ER Larry Boschult Red. Staff Spec. 0.80; Superv; License, Enforce, ER Larry eranks 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 Morgan Tyler Rad. Control Spec. 0.35 License, 1

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.

Resoonse: New professional staff hired since the last review include:

Morgan Ty;er - Start date: March 1994; ARRT (X-ray and CT) 15 yurs in applied radiological technology in private sector; has received all NRC core tra!ning (except 5-week course) and other specialized training such 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 medical industry; 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 Agreernent States, 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 Tyler 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, r 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 all license types.

an-, , - . - - - . - - -,

Nevada Final Report Page C.4

10. Please identi9 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. Technical Quality of Licensina Actions

11. Please identify any major, unusual, or complex licenses which were issued, received a major amendmen', terminated or renewed in ti ;s period.

lesoonse: 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?

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

13. Discuss any variances in licensing policies and procedures or exemptiens from the regulations granted during the review period.

Resoonse: No variances in licensing 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.) during the reporting period?

15. For NRC Regions, identify by licensee name, license number and type, any renewal applications that have been pending for one year or more.

Resoonse: Not Applicable.

2

' t Nevada Final Report Page C.5 .

f ~IV. Technle=10"-*v of In*aaa+ians

' -j

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

4 -

Responne: No changes were made to your written inspection procedures during j the reporting period?

v 17.

Prepare a table showing the number and types of supervisory accompaniments P made during the review period. Include: ',

Auditor inspector Licanae Cat. Data 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. Gaugu 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. Red. .. 8/22/96 '

Nuc.Med. 6/25/97-Larry Franks - Jan Hillman-Ortiz Ind. Rad. 8/11/92 Nuc. Pharm. 2/5/93 Port Gauge 6/13/94 Nuc.Med. 6/19/95:

Bid, irred. 8/29/96 Nuc. Med 7/29/97 1

Y

. Larry Boschult Adrian Howe Port. Gauge- - 1/29/97 Stan Marshall Paul Simpson Service 2/5/93 Larry Boschult Nuc. Med. 2/1/94 Nuc. Med. 11/9/95

. Nuc. Med. 4/17/97 -

Larry Boscnuit Morgan Tyler . Port. Gauge 3/12/96 Port Gauge 7/10/97' -

18. '

Describe intomal procedures for conducting supervisory accompaniments of _

inspectors in the field." If supervisory accompaniments were documented, please .

- provide copies of the documentation for each accompaniment.

Response: 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.

y.. . . . .

1 -

! Nevada 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 I

any given time to conduct inspections. The equipment is prepared for shipment 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 incihnts and AIIegations

20. Please provide a list of the most sionificant 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?

Resoonse: 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.

Resoonse Not applicable.

23. In the penod 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.

Besconse: 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 al;egations referred to your program by the NRC that have not been closed.

• 1 l

Nevada Final Report Page C.7 Remonse. All cases of allegations that have been referred to this office from the I NRC have been closed.

VI. Genetal

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.

Response: Enclosed are status remarks concerning the 1993 NRC audit and 1994 NRC Followup audit recommendations:

1993 NRC Audit Recommendationi

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 manacement oversight be orovided to the enforcement orocram: The Bureau Chief is periodically informed of pending escalated enforcement actions such as management conferences, etc. on a weekly basis and is provided the opportun4y to participate if he desires.

c. Recommendation that the state dcvetoo and imolement written enforcement orocedures which soecific actions to be taken at various levels of severity:

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

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

e. Recommendation that the state follow their own ooliev in reouirina bioassavs for all forms of l 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 wntien termination orocedures be revised to_ include the licensgLlermination reauirements in the Nevada reaulations: 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 termination checklist was revised to include a section to document disposition of materials.

h. Recommendation that certification of disoosal or transfer should be reauired when receiots cannot be obtained from the new recirdent: Procedures have been revised to require the licensee to certify in writing the disposition of materials when transfer receipts are not available from the recipient.

Nevada Final Report Page C.8

1. Recommendation tat the state resume the or ctice e of sendino cooles of DRW and amended licenses to the NRC: The agency received wntten notification that copies of licensing actions should no longer be sent to the NRC.

1994 NRC Followun Audit Recommendations J. Recommendation to revise existino escalated enforcement orocedures to includo criteria for manaoement conferences for multiole violations and to describe violation severity: Program management decided to maintain case-by-case review to apply the need for management conferences based on inspector's recommendations and discussion with program management.

l. - Recommendation to imorove instructions for evaluatino. followuo and reoortino incidents to NRC: also succests letters to hosoitals re: the misadministration reoortino: 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. Recornmendation for an imoroved incident trackino mechanism:

C,omputerized tracking of incider.tc was initiated in 1994; however, the initial effort did not prove to be adequate. Tracking reverted to handwritten logging; recent installation of Windows version of NMED in 1997 indicates that the software works; however, its use is not fully implemented.

26. Provide a brief description of your program's strengths and weaknesses. These strengths and weaknesses should be supported by examples of successes, problems or difficulties which occurred during this review period.

Recoonse: Strenath: Comorehensive radiation control authority and orocram imolementatioD - Nevada law and regulations remain comprehensive to ensure radiation control regulatory and non-regulatory service activities are 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: Automatic Loss of Industrv Growth Fee Revenue - Industry growth

( fee revenue above legislature-authorized spending authority is deposited into the l general fund. Industry growth fee rever.ue beyond spending authority is not

available to the program without legislature interim finance committee approval or legislative approval durin0 session. Any across-the-board fee increases or i

acquisit'on of other funding without associated spending authority from state j legislature can not be used to increase equipment, staff or other resources for

Nevada 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

l. Reaulations and Laaal Authority

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

Resoonse: Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 459 - radiation control  ;

NRS 44Z - mammography certification NRS 439 - at'ministrative procedures {

l NRS 414 - emergency response

28. .% ar regulations subject to a Sunset" or equivalent law? If so, explain and incluoe ute next expiration date for your regulations.

Resoonse: No.

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

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

Response: It is not necessary to adopt rules pertaining to pool irradiators and uranium mill tailings at this time as no licenses in these catogories 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 ti e normal length of time anticipated to complete each step.

Resoonse: The process for regulation adoption requires a minimum of six (6) months during specific times of the two-year b ennium, otherwise, adopted regulations are considered to be temporary and must be revisited for adoption by the Nevada State Board of Health or they will expin).

The adoption process involves development of proposed 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 announccd Board of Health meeting at which time the Governor appointed, seven-member board will adopt with or without revisions to staff recommendations, or table or veto the regulations.

l Nevada Final Report Page C.10 ll. Sealed Source and Device Proaram

31. Prepare a table I: sting new and revised SS&D registrations of sealed sources and devices issued during the review period. The table heading shculd be:

Resoonse: No sealed source manufacturers are loceted in the state of Nevada, therefore, no SS&D registrations have been issued. We no not intend to devalop capability for this activity at this time but also do not intend to relinquish authority for the activity either.

A memorandum to file has been developsd 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.

02. What guides, standards and procedures are used to evaluate registry applications?

Resoonse: Not applicable at this time; see 11.31 response.

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

Technical Staffino and Trainina - A.ll.710 - Not applicable Technical Quality of Licensina Actions - A.lli.11. A.III.13-1_4 - Not applicable Resoonses to incidents and Allocations - A.V 20 Not applicable Ill. Low-Level Waste Proaram

34. Please include information on the following qt estions in Section A, as they apply to the Low-level Waste Program. '

A. Status <1 Materials insoection Proaram - A.I.1-3. A.I.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.

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.

9. Technical StafCno and Trainino - A.II.7 Program staff and associated training is status quo with existing staff continuing evaluation of the last 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 Quality of Licensina Actions A.Ill.11. A.lli.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 competion of post-closure activities by the licensee and accuptance of technicalinformation and activity status by the agency.

O Nevada Final Report Page C.11 D. Technical Quality of insoections - A.lV.16 Site inspections continue as appropriate concerning the final post-closure activities not completed by the licensee. Inspection and 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.

1 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 tr., be completed before and after license transfer.

E. Resoonses to Incidents and Alleaations - A V 20 No allegations have

! 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.I.13. A.I.6 - Not applicable i

Technical Staffino and Trainina - A.ll.7 Not applicable i Technical Quality of Licensina Actions - A.lli.11. A.lli.13 Not applicable Technical Quality of insoections - A.IV.16 Not applicable Resoonses to incidents and Alleaations - A.V.20 Not applicable d

4

Nevada Final Report Page 12 TABLE FOR QUESTION 29.

1 OR DATE DATE CURRENT EXPECTED 10 CFR RULE DUE ADOPTED STATUS ADOPTION -

Any amendment due prior to 1991. Identify each regulation (refer to the Chronology of Amendments)

Cecommissioning; 7/27/91 6/11/93 Parts 30,40,70 Emergency Planning; 4/7/93 6/11/93 Parts 30. 40,70 I

Standards for Prof etion Against Radiation: 1/1/94 12/8/93

(

i Part 20 Safety Requirements for Radiographic 1/10/94 12/8/93 Equipment; Part 34 l Notircation of loc! dents; 10/15/94 1/18/94 Parts 20, 30, 31, 34,39. 40, 70 Quality Management Program and 1/27/95 7/7/94 Misadministration Part 35 Licensing and Radiation Safety Requirements 7/1/96 N/A; no irradiators licensed in Nevada. Requirements will be applied for Irradiators; Part 36 by lic. condition until they are adopted by the Bd. of Hea!!h.

Definition of Land Disposal 7/22/96 N/A; no intent to rcense future LLW sites.

and Waste Site OA Program; Part 61 l

l Decommissioning Recordkeeping: Documenta- 10/25/96 Not adopted yet; addressed by license condition fo one rcense. 3/1/98 tion Additions; Parts 30,40,70 Self-Guarantee as an Additional Financial 1/28/97 Not adopted yet; addressed by license condition for one license. 3/1/98 l

l Mechanism; Parts 30. 40. 70 l

Uranium Miff Taitings: Conforming to EPA 7/1/97 N/A; no uranium mill tailings rcensees in Nevada.

Standards: Part 40 Timeliness in Decommissioning 8/15/97 Not adopted yet; addressed by reense condition for one license. 3/1/98 Parts 30,40. 70 l .

Nevada Final Report Page 13 OR DATE DATE CURRENT EXPECTE MOPTE 10 CFR RULE DUE STATUS D D

ADONON ,

Preparation Transfer for Commercial Dis- 1/1/98 Not adopted yet; will be addressed by license ce.-Jaion as necessary. 3/1/98 tribution, and Use of Byproduct Material for  !

Medical Use: Parts 30,32,35 Frequency of Medical Examinations for Use of 3/13/98 3/1/98 Respiratory Protection Equipment Low-level Waste Shipment Manifest 3/1/98 Plan for adoption prior to due date. Low level waste site used by Nevada 3/1/98 Information and Reporting licensees already requires NRC manifest. l Performance Requirements for Radiography 6/30/98 Plan for adoption prior to due date.

Equipment Radiation Protection Requirements: Amended 8/14/98 Plan for adoption prior to due date.

Definitions and Criteria Clarification of Decommissioning Funding 11/24/98 Plan for adoption prior to due date.

Requirements i

10 CFR Part 71: Compatibility with the 4/1/99 Plan for adoption prior to due date. '

intemational Atomic Energy Agency Medical AdministraSon of Radiation and 10/20/98 Plan for adoption prior to due date.

Radioactive Materials i Termination or Transfer of Licensed Activities: 5/16/99 Plan for adoption prior to due date.

Recordkeeping Requirements.

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

Effluents of Radioactive Materials; Clean Air -

Act l Recognition of Agreement State Licenses in 1/13/00 Plan for adoption per to due date.

Areas Under Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction [

Within Agreement State Criteria for the Release of Individuals 1/29/00 Plan for adoption prior to due date.  !

Administered Radioactive Meterial

O 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 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 Fi!e No.: 3 Licensee: Century Geophysical Corp. License No.: 00-11-0354-01 Location: Las Vegas, NV License Type: Well Logging Type of Action: New Date issued: 12/6/94 License Reviewer: PH 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: Decontamination Service Type of Action: Amendment Date Amendment issued: 4/3/95;5/30/95 License Reviewer: PH File No.: 3 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-delivered to licensee Filo 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

l Nevada Final Report Page D.2 License File Reviews l

File No.: 8 Licerisee: 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 Terminated: 5/23/94 License Reviewer: LB Comments:

a) Radioactive material transferred to licensee's UT License (UT-1800146)

File No.: 9 Licensee: J. Daniel Wilkes, M.D., LMC Laboratory 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: Aerget-GeneralCorporation License No.: 13-11-0195-01 Location: Cecramento, CA and Range 63, Nellis AFB Amendment No.: 4 License Type: Ordnance Testing Type of Action: Termination Date Terminated: 2/21/97 License Reviewer: LB File No.: 11 Licensee: BC Environmental License No.: 00-11-0374-01 Location: Reno, NV Amendment No.: 2 License Type: Portable Gauge Type of Action: Terminatio-Date Terminated: 3/31/97 License Reviewe,: ' d 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: 5/12/97 License Reviewer: PH Comment:

a) Hand 4elivered File No.: 13 Licensee: Lockheed Environmental Systems License No.: 00-16-0112-01 l

& Technologies, Inc.

Location: Las Vegas, NV Amendment No.: 19 License Type: Laboratory & Decontamination Service Type of Action: Renewal j 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 Gauga Type of Action: New Date issued: 9/23/96 License Reviewer. PS I

Nevada Final Report

Page D.3 License File Reviews File No.

15 Licersee: Las Vegas Valley Water District Location: Las Vegas, NV License No.: 00-11 0196-01 License Type: Portable Gauge T)pe of Action: Renewal Date RenewalIssued: 4/19/96 License Reviewer: JHO File No.: 16 Licensee: University of Nevada, Reno Location: Reno,NV License No.: 16-13-0003-07 License Type: Broad Scope Type B Amendment No.: 19 Type of Action: Major Amendment Date Amendment issued: 9/3/96 License Reviewer: LB File No.: 17 Licensee: US Ecology, Inc.

License No.: 1-13-0043-02 Location: Oak Ridge, TN (Beatty, NV, site) i License Type: LLRW Burial Site Amendment No.: 16 Type of Action: Amendment 4

Date Amendment Issued: 10/2/96 License Reviewer: LB Comment:

a) 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 L censee: Sunrise Hospital Laboratory License No.: 03-12-0325-02 Location: Las Vegas, NV License Type: Irradiator (<10,000 Ci) Type of Action: New Date issued: 2/9/96 License Reviewer: PH File No.: 19 Licensee: Biotech Pharmacy Location: Las Vegas, NV License No.: 03-11-0352-01 Amendment No.: 4 License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Type of Action: Amendmeni t

Date Amendment issued: 5/10/95 License Reviewer: PH

' File No.: 20 Licensee: Leon H. Steinberg, M.D. License No.: 03 12-0307-01 Location: Las Vegas, NV License Type: Medical Private Practice Amendment No.: 3 Type of Action: Termination

, Date Terminated: 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).

J 1

9

Nevada Final Report Page D.1 License File Reviews File No.: 21 Licensee: Steinberg Diagnostic MedicalImaging Center Location: Las Vegas, NV License No.: 03-12-0352-01 License Type: Nuclear Medicine Clinic Type of Action: New Date issued: 6/17/97 License Reviewer: PH Comments:

a) See comment for file 20.

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

File No.: 22 Licensee: Carson-Tahoe Hospital License No.: 01-12-0032-01 Location: Carson City, NV Amendment No.: 20 License Type: Medical Institution with therapy Type of Action: Renewal Date Renewal Issued: 9/26/95 License Reviewer:

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

a) License hand carried to licensee 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

APPENDIX E INSPECTION FILE REVIEWS File No.: 1 Licensee: US Ecology License No.: 13-11-0043-02 Location: Beatty, NV Inspection Type: Announced, Routine License Type: LLRW burial site Inspection Date: 8/30/95 Priority: 1 Inspector: PH File No.: 2 Lictnsee: US Ecology License No.: 13 11-0043-02 Location: Beatty, NV inspection Type: Announced, Routine License Type: LLRW burial site Inspection Date: 3!12/97 Priority: 1 Inspector: LF File No.: 3 Licensee: Resource Concepts., Inc.

License No.: 00-11-0343-01 Location: Cerson City, NV inspection Type: Unannounced, Routine License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 3 Inspe'. tion 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 Licensee: Consulting Engineering Services License No.: 00-11-0154-01 Loca+'on: Reno,NV Inspection Type: Unannounced, Routine License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 4 inspection Date: 8/18/97 Inspector: AH Comment:

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

File No.: 5 Lonsee: Desert Industrial X-Ray, 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 Location: Las Vegas, NV inspection Type: Unannounced, routine License Type: Nuclear Medicine i

Inspection Date: 12/12/95 Priority: 2 Inspector: PH l

,- - -- - ~ .

0 Nevada Final Report Page E.2 Inspection File Reviews t File No.: 7 Licensee: Radiation Oncolog 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: .

i 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 No.: 8 Licensee: Radiation Oncology Associates . License No.: 01-12-0225-01 Location: Camon City, NV - Inspection Type: Unannounced, routine License Type: Teletherapy . Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 9/20/96; 10/17/96 Inspector: LB Comments:

a) Teletterapy license hspected at 1-year interval, b) Inspection completed on two dates to complete review of records in main office.

File No.: 9 '

Licenseer Carson-Tahoe Hospital License No.: 01-12-0032-01 Location: Carson City, NV Inspection Type: Unannounced, routine

- License Type:-Nuclear Medicine -

Prionty: 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/N; 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 Inspector: PH l

Comment:'

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

- -. , _ . , , ~ . _ - - , ,.e._,...,~..... _ . . , . - . . - _ - - - . - - . . - _ . _ _ . - - _ - , - - _

Nevada Final Report Page E.3 Inspection File Reviews File 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 violations including one repeat 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 radicgrapher in violation of State's two person rule, State did not conduct field inspection during 2/97 inspection.

File No.: 13 & 14 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 (partial); 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 complete inspection conducted on date but report 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 writing (no short form).

Nevada 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 Licensee: Terracon Consultants Westem, 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 Location: Boulder Cit, NV Inspection Type: Unannounced, routine License Type: Nuclear Medicine Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 4/8/97 Inspector: PH File No.: 20 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 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 Delgo, CA) inspection Type: Reciprocity, field 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, . '(Tempe, AZ) Inspection Type: Reciprocity, field License Type: Industria. .ladiographer Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 1/18/97. Inspector: PH Comment:

a) No violations, no written notice to licensee.

1 n- ne, w ,-- , , --1.m-- + - e - --.&

e

!' Nevada Fintj Report Page E.5 Inspection File Reviews File No.: 24 l' Licensee: Continental Testing and Inspection License No.: 2535-70 Location: Las Vegas, NV (Signal Hill, CA) Inspection Type: Unannounced reciprocity, office Lim,= Tvoe: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 8/8/96 Inspector: PH Comments:

a)- .spector visited the Las Vegas business office of this CA licensee after being notifed a radiography source 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.: 34160 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: Unanncunced, followup License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 8/8/94 Inspector. JH in addit:an, 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 Location: Carson City, NV - Inspection Type: Unannounced, Routine License Type: Portable Gauge Prior,ty: 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

l' APPENDIX F INCIDENT FILES REVIEWED File No.: 1 Licensee: Converse Consultants Southwest,Inc License No.: 00-11-0094-01 inclCent ID No: NV-93-06 Location: Las Vegas, NV Date of Event: 4/26/93 Type o' Event: LAS Investig1 tion Date: 4/26/93

!nvestir,ation Type: Field Surnmary 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 incident and Final Disposition: NRC requested survey of possible residual urenium contamination at stcrage site of terminated licensee (ORNL).

Comment:

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

l

.p

.' j

- l Nevada Final Report Page F.2 I incident File Reviews File No.: 4 Licensee: Golden Nugget  :

License No.: Generallicensee incident ID No: NV 94-Og Location: Las Vegas, NV -

Date of Event: 6/02/94 Typs of Event:. LAS

' Investigation Date: 6/21/94

• Investigation Type: Telephone Summary of incident and Final Disposition: Reported loss of twa Po-210 (5.0 millicurie each) anti-static devices.

l Comments:

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

-b)- Not reported to NMED. '

t File No.: 5

• Licensee: Converse Consultants Southwest, Inc License No.: 00-11-0094-01 incident ID No: NV-94-10 '

Location: Las Vegas, NV Date of Event: g/14/94 Type of Event: TRS Investigation 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,in:

License No.: 00-11-01 g7-01

= Incident ID No:- NV-94-12 Location: Newmont Mine; near Carlin, NV '

Date of Event: 8/25/94 Type of Event: EQP Investigation Date: 8/26/g4 investigation Type: Telephone Summary of incident and Final Disposition: Portable gauge run over by heavy equipment at  :

job-site; destroyed; no leakage detected.

l Comment:

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

p l

e Nevada 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 viere undamaged.

Comment:

a) Reported on NMED but information not complete.

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 and Final Disposition: Portable gauge lost or stolen, not recovered; licensee cited for failure to adequately escure the device.

Comment:

a) Not reported to NMED.

b) State procedures do not require a press release.

File No.: 9 1.8censee: Southwest Testing License No.: 00-11-0366-01 Incident ID No: NV-96-10; NV-97-07 Location: Las Vegas, NV Date of Event: 5/29/96 Type of Event: LAS in/estigation Date: 5/30-31/96 Investigation Type: Telephone Summary of incident and Final Disposition: Licensee cited for inadequate control over RAM; gauge recovered 7/14/97 (NV-97-07).

Comment:

a) Not reported on NMED.

P O

l

• Nevada 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 ' 11 Location: Las Vegat. ,/

Date of Event: 8/22/96 Type of Event: Abandoned source Investigation Date: 8/22/96 Investigation lype: 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

," not wiura

, o n== STATE CF NEVADA vvoNNE SY19A

' M >.m CHARLOTTE ChAwr0RD

, oi. ,

VACAMT s, u u e . -

I DEPAMTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES HEALTH DIVISION 505 E. King Street, Room 201 Carson City, Nevada 89701 4761 Telephone (702) 687 4740

• Fax: (702) 687 3859 October 27,1997 Richard L Bangart, Director _

Office of Stat 6 Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Response to Draft IMTcP Report

Dear Mr. Bangar':

Enclosed office. is the Nevada State Health Division response to the draft IMPEP report from your Mr. Stan Marshall, Supervisor, Radiological Health Section, may be contacted at (702) 687-5394, x 276, with any questions concerning the responte and to schedule the management review board meeting in the near future.

Sincerely, S

( Y nne Sylva N ministrator Enclosure cc- Alar. Tinney, Chief, Bureau of Health Protection Services Stan Marshall, Supervisor, Radiological Health Section

{

l SMV':Vam\impeptsp.Itr

)

l C

ATTACINENT 1 L-EB4

n y

o i*

l NEVADA DRAFT REPORT RESPONSE FROM NEVADA STATE HEALTN DMSIO 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 Intioduction 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 academic programs, [ broad] medical programs, radiopharmacies radiographore, 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 [5] g percent per year, as evidenced by the increase in the number of licenses.

3.1 Status of Materials insoection Proorg 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)mg.gtcases , , . .

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

Two teletherapy licensee files _were reviewed. One licsnsee was inspected [ annually) gLb i 1/2 year intervals nominallv' fthe other) one insoection of the same license was [ inspected every} conducted aooroximately three years after the orevious insoection. [No reason was evident for the difference; 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

[ change) consider chanoino the insoection priority for teletherapy licenses to a 3.

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

This licensee was inspected within one after the license was issued, but before radioactive material was received, [ contrary tol which is sooner than reouired by the State's procedure.

4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 4.1.2 Status and Compatibility of Reoulations Page 12, Paragrapn 6, should be revised to read:

Regulatiorir must be reviewed by the State [ legislature) Leolslative Council Burea_u before '

they become fina!. [Since the legislature meets biennially, and r) Regulations may be submitted [only) at [specified) gay time [s,) to the Nevada State Board of Health for adootion-however. adootion durino certain oeriods of the biennium recuires a second adoption hearino to create permanent reoulations. makino it [is} 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. . . .

l

e i

I '

Page 13, Parepaph 2, first sentence, should be revised to rest The State adopted a regulation for quality management and misadministration rules prior to NRC's current continuanco to defer compatibility findings for Agreement Statsa.

Page 15, Paragraphs 3 and 4, should be revised to reflect that this fourth recommendation was not discussed during the cloca<ut discussioa with age.7cy management but was created by NRC since the audit as a result of the September 3,1997 Federal Register notice.

Page 19, Recommendations Recommendation 4 - same as Page 15, Paragraphs 3 and 4.

Two good practices were mentioned by the audit team during close-out; however ws do not clearly see them referenced in the draft report.

t

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --~-- - - - '