ML25164A211
| ML25164A211 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/20/2025 |
| From: | Robert Lewis NRC/EDO/DEDMRS |
| To: | Lang J State of LA, Dept of Environmental Quality |
| References | |
| Download: ML25164A211 (1) | |
Text
Jerry Lang, Assistant Secretary Louisiana Dept. of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 4312 Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4312
SUBJECT:
LOUISIANA FINAL IMPEP REPORT
Dear Mr. Lang:
On June 12, 2025, the Management Review Board (MRB) met, which consisted of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) senior managers and an Organization of Agreement States member, to consider the proposed final Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Louisiana Agreement State Program. The MRB found the Louisiana program adequate to protect public health and safety, and compatible with the NRC program.
The enclosed final report documents the IMPEP teams findings and summarizes the results of the MRB meeting. Since Louisiana has had at least two consecutive IMPEP reviews with all performance indicators being found satisfactory, the MRB Chair determined that the next periodic meeting will take place in approximately 2.5 years with the next IMPEP review of the Louisiana Agreement State Program taking place in approximately 5 years.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the IMPEP team during the review. I also wish to acknowledge your continued support for the Agreement State program. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the future.
Sincerely, Robert J. Lewis Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials, Administrative, and Corporate Programs Office of the Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
- 1. Final 2025 Louisiana IMPEP Report
J. Lang cc: Kevin M. Borne, Administrator Emergency & Radiological Services Division Louisiana Dept. of Environmental Quality Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4312 Karen Burgard, Radiation Licensing Manager Office of Environmental Compliance Emergency & Radiological Services Division Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4312 Paula Lang, Radiation Inspections Manager Office of Environmental Compliance Emergency & Radiological Services Division Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4312 INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM REVIEW OF THE LOUISIANA AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM February 24-28, 2025 FINAL IMPEP REPORT
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The results of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review of the Louisiana Agreement State (Louisiana) Program are discussed in this report. The review was conducted from February 24-28, 2025. Inspector accompaniments were conducted during the week of December 16-19, 2024.
Based on the results of the 2025 IMPEP review, Louisianas performance was found satisfactory for the five common performance indicators reviewed: Technical Staffing and Training; Status of Materials Inspection Program; Technical Quality of Inspections; Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; and Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities.
Louisianas performance was also found satisfactory for the two non-common performance indicators: Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements; and Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program.
There were no recommendations from the 2021 IMPEP review, and the team did not make any new recommendations.
Accordingly, the Management Review Board (MRB) Chair found the Louisiana radiation control program adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions program. Because Louisiana has had at least two consecutive IMPEP reviews with all performance indicators found satisfactory, the MRB Chair determined that the next periodic meeting be conducted in approximately 2.5 years with the next IMPEP review taking place in approximately 5 years.
Louisiana Final IMPEP Report Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Louisiana Agreement State Program (Louisiana) Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review was conducted on February 24-28, 2025, by a team of technical staff members from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the state of Illinois. Team members are identified in Appendix A. Inspector accompaniments were conducted during the week of December 16, 2024. The inspector accompaniments are identified in Appendix B. The review was conducted in accordance with the Agreement State Program Policy Statement, published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48535), and the NRC Management Directive (MD) 5.6, Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP), dated July 24, 2019. Preliminary results of the review, which covered the period of January 15, 2021, through February 28, 2025, were discussed with Louisiana managers on the last day of the review.
In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common performance indicators and applicable non-common performance indicators was sent to Louisiana on December 11, 2024. Louisiana provided its response to the questionnaire on February 12, 2025. A copy of the questionnaire response is available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML25052A213.
The team issued a draft report to Louisiana on April 14, 2025, for factual comment in ML25090A012. Louisiana responded with a minor clarification to the draft report by email dated May 13, 2025, from Karen Burgard, the Radiation Licensing Manager, in the Office of Environmental Compliance, Louisiana Emergency and Radiological Services Division, in ML25161A061.
The state of Louisiana Agreement State Program is administered by the Radiation Section in the Emergency and Radiological Services Division which is in the Office of Environmental Compliance which is all under the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Organization charts for Louisiana are available in ML25050A602.
At the time of the review, Louisiana regulated 413 specific licenses authorizing possession and use of radioactive materials. The review focused on the radiation control program as it is carried out under Section 274b. (of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) Agreement between the NRC and the State of Louisiana.
The team evaluated the information gathered against the established criteria for each common and applicable non-common performance indicators and made a preliminary assessment of Louisianas performance.
2.0 PREVIOUS IMPEP REVIEW AND STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS The previous IMPEP review concluded on January 14, 2021. The final report is available in ML21124A135. The results of the review are as follows:
Technical Staffing and Training: Satisfactory Recommendation: None Status of Materials Inspection Program: Satisfactory Recommendation: None
Louisiana Final IMPEP Report Page 2 Technical Quality of Inspections: Satisfactory Recommendation: None Technical Quality of Licensing Actions: Satisfactory Recommendation: None Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities: Satisfactory Recommendation: None Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements: Satisfactory Recommendation: None Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Program: Satisfactory Recommendation: None Overall finding: Based on the results of the 2021 IMPEP review, Louisiana was found adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the NRC's regulatory program. The team recommended, and the MRB Chair agreed, that a periodic meeting take place in approximately 2 years, with the next IMPEP taking place in approximately 4 years.
3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Five common performance indicators are used to review the NRC and Agreement State radiation control programs. These indicators are (1) Technical Staffing and Training, (2) Status of Materials Inspection Program, (3) Technical Quality of Inspections, (4) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, and (5) Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities.
3.1 Technical Staffing and Training The ability to conduct effective licensing and inspection programs is largely dependent on having experienced, knowledgeable, well-trained technical personnel. Under certain conditions, staff turnover could have an adverse effect on the implementation of these programs and could affect public health and safety. Apparent trends in staffing must be assessed. Review of staffing also requires consideration and evaluation of the levels of training and qualification. The evaluation standard measures the overall quality of training available to, and taken by, materials program personnel.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure (SA) SA-103, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Staffing and Training, and evaluated Louisianas performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
A well-conceived and balanced staffing strategy has been implemented throughout the review period.
Any vacancies, especially senior-level positions, are filled in a timely manner.
There is a balance in staffing of the licensing and inspection programs.
Management is committed to training and staff qualification.
Louisiana Final IMPEP Report Page 3 Agreement State training and qualification program is equivalent to the NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) IMC 1248, Formal Qualifications Program for Federal and State Material and Environmental Management Programs.
Qualification criteria for new technical staff are established and are followed, or qualification criteria will be established if new staff members are hired.
Individuals performing materials licensing and inspection activities are adequately qualified and trained to perform their duties.
License reviewers and inspectors are trained and qualified in a reasonable period.
b.
Discussion At the time of the review, Louisiana was comprised of 20 staff members. This included an administrator, two managers, three supervisors, one regulatory review specialist, six fully qualified inspectors, five fully qualified license reviewers, one fully qualified SS&D registry reviewer, and an administrative assistant. Louisiana also has several staff working on qualifications. Several managers are also qualified license reviewers or inspectors. The 20 full-time equivalent (FTE) is comprised of 15.8 technical FTE and 4.2 administrative FTE.
During the review period, two staff were promoted internally and four staff left Louisiana between December 2021 and September 2024. Louisiana filled one vacancy in September 2021 and another vacancy will be filled with a scheduled start date of March 2025. Louisiana reallocated the workload from the remaining vacancies to other qualified Program personnel and these two positions have been eliminated permanently.
Louisiana has a training and qualification program compatible with IMC 1248. Louisianas qualification process uses a combination of on-the-job training and NRC sponsored training courses. Staff must be qualified in a modality before they can perform tasks independently.
Staff are considered fully qualified when they are qualified in all modalities. Fully qualified license reviewers and inspectors maintain at least 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of refresher training every 24 months.
Temporary Instruction (TI) TI-003, Evaluating the Impacts of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency as Part of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program, was in effect during this review period and states, in part, that license reviewers and inspectors may take longer to become qualified due to the inability to travel to attend training classes needed to complete qualification and inspections being delayed due to social distancing or other factors related to the pandemic, provided Louisiana continued to maintain health, safety, and security. The team concluded that Louisiana continued to maintain health, safety, and security during the pandemic. Louisianas qualification procedure for an inspector indicates that it usually takes approximately three years, but due to the pandemic, this time frame has been extended. Louisiana has five inspectors who are not fully qualified.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Louisiana met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.1.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommended that Louisianas performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found satisfactory.
Louisiana Final IMPEP Report Page 4 d.
Management Review Board (MRB) Discussion and Chairs Determination The MRB Chair agreed with the teams recommendation and found Louisianas performance with respect to this indicator satisfactory.
3.2 Status of Materials Inspection Program Inspections of licensed operations are essential to ensure that activities are being conducted in compliance with regulatory requirements and consistent with good safety and security practices.
The frequency of inspections is specified in IMC 2800, Materials Inspection Program, and is dependent on the amount and type of radioactive material, the type of operation licensed, and the results of previous inspections. There must be a capability for maintaining and retrieving statistical data on the status of the inspection program.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-101, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:
Status of the Materials Inspection Program, and evaluated Louisianas performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
Initial inspections and inspections of Priority 1, 2, and 3 licensees are performed at the prescribed frequencies (https://www.nrc.gov/materials/miau/mat-toolkits.html).
Deviations from inspection schedules are normally coordinated between technical staff and management.
There is a plan to perform any overdue inspections and reschedule any missed or deferred inspections or a basis has been established for not performing any overdue inspections or rescheduling any missed or deferred inspections.
Candidate licensees working under reciprocity are inspected in accordance with the criteria prescribed in IMC 2800 and other applicable guidance or compatible Agreement State Procedure.
Inspection findings are communicated to licensees in a timely manner (30 calendar days, or 45 days for a team inspection), as specified in IMC 0610, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Inspection Reports.
b.
Discussion Louisiana performed 978 Priority 1, 2, 3, and initial inspections during the review period.
Fourteen Priority 1, 2, 3 or initial inspections were conducted overdue during the review period. Of the overdue inspections noted above, four routine inspections and two initial inspections were conducted overdue during the review period due to impacts related to the pandemic. The team noted that TI-003 states, in part, that for inspections that exceed the scheduling window with overdue dates falling inside the defined time frame of the pandemic, the number of overdue inspections should be noted in the report but should not be counted, provided that the State continues to maintain health, safety, and security. During Louisianas defined time frame of the pandemic, March 11, 2020, through January 1, 2022, Louisiana continued to maintain health, safety, and security; therefore, the team did not include these six inspections when performing the calculation during this time frame, resulting in an adjusted overdue percentage of one percent, which is well below the 10 percent criteria listed in SA-101.
Louisiana Final IMPEP Report Page 5 Louisianas inspection frequencies for initial and routine inspections are the same for similar license types in NRCs program. The team noted that Medical Instruction-Written Directive Required (1-5 locations) and Medical Instruction-Written Directive Not Required (1-5 locations) inspections are being conducted at 2-year intervals, in contrast to IMC 2800 requirements of 3 years and 5 years, respectively. Louisiana stated they were going to change to NRC inspection frequency. This was the only inspection type noted that was different.
Louisiana uses three separate excel databases to track inspections due, inspections performed and inspection reports and associated correspondence. A review of inspection data in these databases and subsequent sampling of 22 inspection reports indicated that none of the inspection findings were communicated to the licensees beyond 30 days after the completion of an inspection or 45 days after completion of a team inspection.
Louisiana conducts reciprocity inspections using a procedure compatible with IMC 2800.
Candidates are identified using a risk-informed approach and submitted to the inspection supervisory staff and to inspectors for the geographical area of the upcoming work. During the review period, Louisiana completed reciprocity inspections for 24 percent of candidates in fiscal year 2020-2021; 20 percent in fiscal year 2021-2022; 40 percent in fiscal year 2022-2023; 15 percent in fiscal year 2023-2024; and 14 percent as of the date of this review in fiscal year 2024-2025.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Louisiana met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.2.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Louisianas performance with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program, be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The MRB Chair agreed with the teams recommendation and found Louisianas performance with respect to this indicator satisfactory.
3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections Inspections, both routine and reactive, provide reasonable assurance that licensee activities are carried out in a safe and secure manner. Accompaniments of inspectors performing inspections and the critical evaluation of inspection records are used to assess the technical quality of an inspection program.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-102, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:
Technical Quality of Inspections, and evaluated Louisianas performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
Inspections of licensed activities focus on health, safety, and security.
Inspection findings are well-founded and properly documented in reports.
Management promptly reviews inspection results.
Louisiana Final IMPEP Report Page 6 Procedures are in place and used to help identify root causes and poor licensee performance.
Inspections address previously identified open items and violations.
Inspection findings lead to appropriate and prompt regulatory action.
Supervisors, or senior staff as appropriate, conduct annual accompaniments of each inspector to assess performance and assure consistent application of inspection policies.
For Programs with separate licensing and inspection staffs, procedures are established and followed to provide feedback information to license reviewers.
Inspection guides are compatible with the NRC guidance.
An adequate supply of calibrated survey instruments is available to support the inspection program.
b.
Discussion The team evaluated 22 inspection reports and interviewed inspectors involved in materials inspections conducted during the review period. The team reviewed casework for inspections conducted by 15 current and former inspectors and covered medical, industrial, commercial, and academic licenses. The team determined that the inspectors performances observed during the inspector accompaniments indicated that the inspectors were knowledgeable of the requirements for each license type and were able to identify potential health, safety, and security concerns. Louisiana inspectors used checklists as a reference and starting point for each performance-based inspection and added additional information to the inspection checklist, as appropriate. Inspection guides utilized by Louisiana are compatible with the NRC guidance. Inspection documentation exists to show that inspectors reviewed previously identified violations and ensured licensee corrective actions had been implemented and had appropriately addressed the violation so that the violation could be closed. Louisiana inspectors document the results of the inspection and provide a Field Interview Form upon completion of each inspection. Procedures are established and followed to provide feedback information to license reviewers. All inspection reports are promptly reviewed by management and identified non-compliances are addressed and lead to appropriate and prompt regulatory action as necessary.
A team member accompanied five inspectors during the week of December 16, 2024. The inspector accompaniments are identified in Appendix B. The team determined that the inspectors were well-prepared, thorough in their evaluation of the licensee, and assessed the impact of licensed activities on health, safety, and security. The inspectors observed the use of radioactive material and/or demonstrations of use at the time of inspection and were able to develop a basis of confidence that radioactive materials were being used safely and securely. All findings and conclusions were well-founded and appropriately documented.
The team reviewed Louisianas performance of supervisory accompaniments completed during the review period. The team found that supervisory accompaniments were performed for each inspector in calendar years 2021 through 2024, and are on track to complete supervisory accompaniments for each inspector in 2025.
Louisiana Final IMPEP Report Page 7 The team reviewed Louisianas supply of radiation detection equipment. The team determined that Louisiana had an ample supply of equipment to support its inspection program, and that the equipment was calibrated in a timely manner.
No impacts related to the pandemic were seen related to this indicator.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Louisiana met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.3.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Louisianas performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The MRB Chair agreed with the teams recommendation and found Louisianas performance with respect to this indicator satisfactory.
3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions The quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of licensing actions can have a direct bearing on public health and safety, as well as security. An assessment of licensing procedures, implementation of those procedures, and documentation of communications and associated actions between the Louisiana licensing staff and regulated community is a significant indicator of the overall quality of the licensing program.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-104, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, and evaluated Louisianas performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
Licensing action reviews are thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable technical quality with health, safety, and security issues properly addressed.
Essential elements of license applications have been submitted and elements are consistent with current regulatory guidance (e.g., pre-licensing guidance, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 37, financial assurance, etc.).
License reviewers, if applicable, have the proper signature authority for the cases they review independently.
License conditions are stated clearly and can be inspected.
Deficiency letters clearly state regulatory positions and are used at the proper time.
Reviews of renewal applications demonstrate a thorough analysis of a licensees inspection and enforcement history.
Applicable guidance documents are available to reviewers and are followed (e.g., NUREG-1556 series, pre-licensing guidance, regulatory guides, etc.).
Licensing practices for risk-significant radioactive materials (RSRM) are appropriately implemented including the physical protection of Category 1 and Category 2 quantities of radioactive material (10 CFR Part 37 equivalent).
Documents containing sensitive security information are properly marked, handled, controlled, and secured.
Louisiana Final IMPEP Report Page 8 b.
Discussion During the review period, Louisiana performed 1,371 radioactive materials licensing actions.
The team evaluated 24 of those activities. The licensing actions selected for review included new applications, amendments, renewals, terminations, and change of control. The team evaluated casework which included the following license types and actions: medical diagnostic and therapeutic, high dose rate afterloader, veterinary, industrial radiography, research and development, academic, nuclear pharmacy, gauges, self-shielded irradiators, well logging, decommissioning, financial assurance, and change of ownership notifications.
The casework sample represented work from five former and current license reviewers.
The team found the casework was completed in accordance with the current NUREG-1556 series guidance and used sound health physics principles. Louisiana appropriately used pre-licensing guidance and RSRM checklists. During license renewals, Louisiana assessed the inspection and enforcement history of the licensee. Financial assurance documents are properly used, stored, and updated every 3 years, as required.
During the review, the team found that security related licenses were transmitted to the licensee, through the U.S. Postal Service and via unsecured email. Louisiana immediately implemented a policy of only transmitting security related licenses through the U.S. Postal Service.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Louisiana met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.4.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Louisianas performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The MRB Chair agreed with the teams recommendation and found Louisianas performance with respect to this indicator satisfactory.
3.5 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities The quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of response to incidents and allegations of safety concerns can have a direct bearing on public health, safety and security. An assessment of incident response and allegation investigation procedures, actual implementation of these procedures internal and external coordination, timely incident reporting, and investigative and follow-up actions, are a significant indicator of the overall quality of the incident response and allegation programs.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-105, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:
Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, and evaluated Louisianas performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
Incident response and allegation procedures are in place and followed.
Response actions are appropriate, well-coordinated, and timely.
Louisiana Final IMPEP Report Page 9 On-site responses are performed when incidents have potential health, safety, or security significance.
Appropriate follow-up actions are taken to ensure prompt compliance by licensees.
Follow-up inspections are scheduled and completed, as necessary.
Notifications are made to the NRC Headquarters Operations Center for incidents requiring a 24-hour or immediate notification to the Agreement State or NRC.
Incidents are reported to the Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED) and closed when all required information has been obtained.
Allegations are investigated in a prompt, appropriate manner.
Concerned individuals are notified within 30 days of investigation conclusions.
Concerned individuals identities are protected, as allowed by law.
b.
Discussion During the review period, 55 incidents were reported to Louisiana. This included 54 reportable incidents, which included 11 overexposures, 8 lost/stolen/abandoned radioactive materials, 26 equipment or procedure failures, 2 transportations, 3 medical events, 3 abandonments of well logging sources, and 1 recovery of an orphaned source.
One of the 55 incidents was not reportable. All but 3 reportable events were closed and completed in NMED.
Louisiana responds to incidents immediately if an imminent danger exists or will respond to a compliant/incident/allegation as the situation requires. Louisiana uses various response methods for most incidents including phone calls, site visits, visits to the licensees offices, interviews, and field investigations, written field interview forms, a written report and any pictures or copies of important documents that could be used in an enforcement action dependent upon health and safety significance. Louisiana enters all reported incidents into their local Advantage Regulatory Management database for tracking.
The team also evaluated Louisianas reporting of incidents to the NRCs Headquarters Operations Officer (HOO). The team noted that in each case requiring HOO notification, Louisiana reported the incidents within the required time frame. The team also evaluated whether Louisiana had not reported any required incidents to the HOO. The team did not identify any missed reporting requirements.
During the review period, Louisiana received 20 allegations. The team evaluated all allegations, including five referred to Louisiana by the NRC. The team found that Louisiana took prompt and appropriate action in response to the concerns raised and commensurate with safety significance. Documentation for each allegation reviewed was complete, concise, and thorough. Louisiana protects the identity of their allegers, and no names are identified in the report.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Louisiana met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.5.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Louisianas performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, be found satisfactory.
Louisiana Final IMPEP Report Page 10 d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The MRB Chair agreed with the teams recommendation and found Louisianas performance with respect to this indicator satisfactory.
4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Four non-common performance indicators are used to review Agreement State programs:
(1) Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements; (2) SS&D Evaluation Program; (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program; and (4) Uranium Recovery (UR)
Program. The NRC retains regulatory authority for the UR Program; therefore, only the first three non-common performance indicators applied to this review.
4.1 Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements State statutes should authorize the State to establish a program for the regulation of agreement material and provide authority for the assumption of regulatory responsibility under the States agreement with the NRC. The statutes must authorize the State to promulgate regulatory requirements necessary to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health, safety, and security. The State must be authorized through its legal authority to license, inspect, and enforce legally binding requirements, such as regulations and licenses. The NRC regulations that should be adopted by an Agreement State for purposes of compatibility or health and safety should be adopted in a time frame so that the effective date of the State requirement is not later than 3 years after the effective date of the NRC's final rule. Other program elements that have been designated as necessary for maintenance of an adequate and compatible program should be adopted and implemented by an Agreement State within 6 months following NRC designation. A Program Element Table indicating the Compatibility Categories for those program elements other than regulations can be found on the NRC Web site at the following address: https://scp.nrc.gov/regtoolbox.html.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-107, Reviewing the Non-Common Performance Indicator: Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements, and evaluated Louisianas performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives. A complete list of regulation amendments can be found on the NRC website at the following address: https://scp.nrc.gov/regtoolbox.html.
The Agreement State program does not create conflicts, duplications, gaps, or other conditions that jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation of radioactive materials under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Regulations adopted by the Agreement State for purposes of compatibility or health and safety were adopted no later than 3 years after the effective date of the NRC regulation.
Other program elements, as defined in SA-200 "Compatibility Categories and Health and Safety Identification for NRC Regulations and Other Program Elements," that have been designated as necessary for maintenance of an adequate and compatible program, have been adopted and implemented within 6 months of NRC designation.
The State statutes authorize the State to establish a program for the regulation of agreement material and provide authority for the assumption of regulatory responsibility under the agreement.
Louisiana Final IMPEP Report Page 11 The State is authorized through its legal authority to license, inspect, and enforce legally binding requirements such as regulations and licenses.
Sunset requirements, if any, do not negatively impact the effectiveness of the States regulations.
b.
Discussion Louisiana became an Agreement State on May 1, 1967. The Louisiana Agreement State Programs current effective statutory authority is contained in Title 33, Environmental Quality, Part XV, Radiation Protection, of the Louisiana Administrative Code. The Department of Environmental Quality is designated as the States radiation control agency.
No legislation affecting the radiation control program was passed during the review period.
Louisianas administrative rulemaking process takes approximately 1 year from drafting to finalizing a rule. The public, NRC, other agencies, and potentially impacted licensees and registrants are offered an opportunity to comment during the process. Comments are considered and incorporated, as appropriate, before the regulations are finalized and approved by the Legislative Oversight Committee. The team noted that the States rules and regulations are subject to a sunset law. Act 4 of the 2022 Legislative Session became effective on June 30, 2022, and expires July 1, 2027.
During the review period, Louisiana submitted 10 proposed regulation amendments, 10 final regulation amendments, and no legally binding requirements or license conditions to the NRC for a compatibility review. Two of the amendments were overdue for State adoption at the time of submission.
During the review period, the State finalized regulatory amendments and received NRC correspondence stating No Comments for the Regulation Amendment Tracking System Identification Numbers (RATS IDs) 2018-1, 2018-2, 2019-1, 2019-2, 2020-1, 2020-2, 2020-3, 2021-1, and 2021-2. There were 2 outstanding regulatory amendments during the review period. RATS ID 2021-1 was due on September 8, 2024, and was adopted 4 months later January 31, 2025. These RATS were proposed with no comments from the NRC on April 29, 2024. A form on the Louisiana side was not filled out correctly, which delayed the proposed rules going to the Louisiana Register. RATS ID 2021-2 was due December 30, 2024, and was adopted one month late on January 31, 2025. RATS IDs 2021-1 and 2021-2, Miscellaneous Corrections regulation amendments are a collection of corrections and minor changes and does not impact the health and safety of Louisiana licensees.
The team also reviewed other program elements the NRC designated as necessary for the maintenance of an adequate and compatible program that fall within this non-common performance indicator. These other program elements include the use of compatible procedures such as the RSRM checklist, Pre-licensing guidance, IMC 1248, NUREG-1556, and NRC inspection procedures, and license conditions. Therefore, the team found Louisianas use of other program elements satisfactory.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Louisiana met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 4.1.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Louisianas performance with respect to the indicator, Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements, be found satisfactory.
Louisiana Final IMPEP Report Page 12 d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The MRB Chair agreed with the teams recommendation and found Louisianas performance with respect to this indicator satisfactory.
4.2 SS&D Evaluation Program Adequate technical evaluations of SS&D designs are essential to ensure that SS&Ds will maintain their integrity and that the design is adequate to protect public health and safety.
NUREG-1556, Volume 3, Consolidated Guidance about Materials Licenses: Applications for Sealed Source and Device Evaluation and Registration, provides information on conducting the SS&D reviews and establishes useful guidance for teams. In accordance with MD 5.6, three sub-elements: Technical Staffing and Training, Technical Quality of the Product Evaluation Program, and Evaluation of Defects and Incidents Regarding SS&Ds, are evaluated to determine if the SS&D program is satisfactory. Agreement States with authority for SS&D evaluation programs who are not performing SS&D reviews are required to commit in writing to having an SS&D evaluation program in place before performing evaluations.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-108, Reviewing the Non-Common Performance Indicator: Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program, and evaluated Louisianas performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
Technical Staffing and Training A well-conceived and balanced staffing strategy has been implemented throughout the review period.
Qualification criteria for new technical staff are established and are being followed or qualification criteria will be established if new staff members are hired.
Any vacancies, especially senior-level positions, are filled in a timely manner.
Management is committed to training and staff qualification.
Individuals performing SS&D evaluation activities are adequately qualified and trained to perform their duties.
SS&D reviewers are trained and qualified in a reasonable period of time.
Technical Quality of the Product Evaluation Program SS&D evaluations are adequate, accurate, complete, clear, specific, and consistent with the guidance in NUREG-1556, Volume 3.
Evaluation of Defects and Incidents SS&D incidents are reviewed to identify possible manufacturing defects and the root causes of these incidents.
Incidents are evaluated to determine if other products may be affected by similar problems. Appropriate action and notifications to the NRC, Agreement States, and others, as appropriate, occur in a timely manner.
Louisiana Final IMPEP Report Page 13 b.
Discussion Technical Staffing and Training During the review period, Louisiana had two staff qualified to perform SS&D reviews and one currently being trained. At the time of the review Louisiana had one qualified reviewer.
The other qualified reviewer left in January 2024. The reviewer in training needs to complete the casework to become fully qualified. Louisiana didnt have an exact date for full qualification, but plan on achieving full qualification in about 2 years. Louisiana also has five new staff members that will be going through the SS&D training and qualification program.
No SS&D actions have been received since the qualified reviewer left, and Louisiana will reach out to the NRC for assistance, if an action is received prior to staff achieving full qualification, for the concurrence review by a second qualified reviewer. Currently, there were no vacancies. Louisiana has a training program equivalent to NRC training requirements IMC 1248, Appendix D.
Technical Quality of the Product Evaluation The State of Louisiana has six SS&D licensees. The team evaluated the five SS&D actions processed during the review period. These actions included amendments and new applications. Each evaluation was found to be of an acceptable technical quality.
The team verified that SS&D reviewers had access to the guidance from the NRCs SS&D workshop; NUREG-1556, Volume 3, Revision 1; and applicable American National Standards Institute standards.
Evaluation of Defects and Incidents Regarding SS&Ds There were two incidents related to SS&D defects involving devices registered by the State of Louisiana reported during the review period. Procedures are in place for SS&D related incidents. Louisiana periodically reviewed NMED events related to their SS&D program to capture generic issues that may resulted in an NMED reportable event.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Louisiana met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 4.2.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Louisianas performance with respect to the indicator, SS&D Evaluation Program, be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The MRB Chair agreed with the teams recommendation and found Louisianas performance with respect to this indicator satisfactory.
4.3 LLRW Disposal Program In 1981, the NRC amended its Policy Statement, Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in Discontinuance of NRC Regulatory Authority and Assumption Thereof by States Through Agreement, to allow a State to seek an amendment for the regulation of LLRW as a separate category. Those States with existing Agreements prior to 1981 were determined to have
Louisiana Final IMPEP Report Page 14 continued LLRW disposal authority without the need for an amendment. Although Louisiana has the authority to regulate a LLRW disposal facility, the NRC has not required States to have a program for licensing a disposal facility until such time as the State has been designated as a host State for a LLRW disposal facility. When an Agreement State has been notified or becomes aware of the need to regulate a LLRW disposal facility, it is expected to put in place a regulatory program that will meet the criteria for an adequate and compatible LLRW disposal program. There are no plans for a LLRW disposal facility in Louisiana. Accordingly, the team did not review this indicator.
5.0
SUMMARY
Based on the results of the 2025 IMPEP review, Louisianas performance was found satisfactory for the five common performance indicators reviewed: Technical Staffing and Training; Status of Materials Inspection Program; Technical Quality of Inspections; Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; and Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities.
Louisianas performance was also found satisfactory for the two non-common performance indicators: Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements; and SS&D Evaluation Program.
There were no recommendations from the 2021 IMPEP review, and the team did not make any new recommendations.
Accordingly, the MRB Chair found the Louisiana radiation control program adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the NRC program. Because Louisiana has had at least two consecutive IMPEP reviews with all performance indicators found satisfactory, the MRB Chair determined that the next periodic meeting be conducted in approximately 2.5 years with the next IMPEP review taking place in approximately 5 years.
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members Appendix B Inspector Accompaniments
APPENDIX A IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS Name Areas of Responsibility Darren Piccirillo, Region III Team Leader Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements Inspector Accompaniments Latischa Hanson, Region IV Team Leader in Training Technical Staffing and Training Robin Muzzalupo, Illinois Status of the Materials Inspection Program Technical Quality of Inspections Inspector Accompaniments Sherrie Flaherty, NMSS Technical Quality of Licensing Actions Jackie Cook, Region IV Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities Lymari Sepulveda Rodriguez, NMSS Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program
APPENDIX B INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS The following inspector accompaniments were performed prior to the IMPEP review:
Accompaniment No.: 1 License No.: LA-0533-L01 License Type: Medical -WD Required Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 12/16/2024 Inspectors initials: K.L.
Accompaniment No.: 2 License No.: LA-11392-L01 License Type: Diagnostic Medical Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 12/17/2024 Inspectors initials: C.D.
Accompaniment No.: 3 License No: LA-0217-L01 License Type: Diagnostic Medical Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 12/18/2024 Inspectors initials: L.W.
Accompaniment No.: 4 License No.: LA-11160-L01 License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 12/18/2024 Inspectors initials: J.F.
Accompaniment No.: 5 License No.: LA-2966-L01 License Type: Manufacturer/Distributor Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 12/19/2024 Inspectors initials: C.D.
Louisiana Agreement State Program Management Review Board Meeting Participants June 12, 2025, 1:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. (ET), via Microsoft Teams Management Review Board:
Rob Lewis, the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials, Administrative, and Corporate Programs, the Office of the Executive Director for Operations, and Management Review Board (MRB) Chair; Jessica Bielecki, the Assistant General Counsel for Rulemaking, Agreement States and Fee Policy; Kathryn Brock, the Deputy Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS);
Daniel Collins, the Regional Administrator, NRC Region I; and Steven Seeger, Organization of Agreement States representative to the MRB, from the State of Tennessee.
Louisiana Program Management:
Jerry Lang, Assistant Secretary, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality; Kevin Bourne, Administrator, Emergency and Radiological Services Division; Karen Burgard, Radiation Licensing Manager, Office of Environmental Compliance, Emergency and Radiological Services Division; and Paula Lang, Radiation Inspection Manager, Office of Environmental Compliance, Emergency and Radiological Services Division.
IMPEP Team:
Darren Piccirillo, Team Leader, NRC Region III; Latischa Hanson, Team Leader In-Training, NRC Region IV; Jackie Cook, RSAO, NRC Region IV; Robin Muzzalupo, Radiation Health Supervisor, State of Illinois; and Lymari Sepulveda, NRC, NMSS.
NRC and Other Members of The Public:
Tammy Bloomer, Region IV; Adelaide Giantelli, NMSS Robert Johnson, NMSS; Lee Smith, NMSS; Shawn Seeley, Region I; Randy Erickson, RIV; John Fontenot, State of Louisiana; Dwayne Scepter, State of Louisiana Tiffany White, State of Louisiana; Daisy Coffman, State of Indiana; Courtney Eckstein, State of Indiana; Kevin Stahl, State of Indiana; Kaci Studer, State of Indiana; Brenda Tubbs, State of Indiana; Patrick Turner, State of Indiana; and Keisha Cornelius, State of Oklahoma.
ML25164A211 OFFICE NMSS/MSST/SLPB R-III/DNMS R-IV/DNMS/MLDB NMSS/MSST/SMPB NAME RJohnson DPiccirillo LHanson AGiantelli DATE Jun 13, 2025 Jun 13, 2025 Jun 13, 2025 Jun 17, 2025 OFFICE NMSS NMSS NAME DSilberfeld RLewis DATE Jun 17, 2025 Jun 20, 2025