AUGUST 10, 2000

Mr. Murray G. Sagsveen

State Health Officer

North Dakota Department of Health

State Capitol

600 East Boulevard Avenue

Bismarck, ND 58505-0200

Dear Mr. Sagsveen:

As you know, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) uses the Integrated Materials

Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) in the evaluation of Agreement State programs.

Enclosed for your review is the draft IMPEP report which documents the results of the follow-up

review conducted, via telephone, by an NRC team on July 12, 2000.

The team reviewed, in detail, the performance indicator of concern identified during the 1999

IMPEP review, Status of Materials Inspection Program. Mr. James Lynch, Region III State

Agreements Officer, and Mr. James Myers, Office of State and Tribal Programs were the team

members for the follow-up review. The review team’s findings were discussed with Mr. Jeffery

Burgess and your staff on the day of the review.

The review team found that the inspection program has improved. The team concluded that

the program has responded to and resolved two of the three 1999 review recommendations for

the performance indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program. The third recommendation,

relating to reciprocity inspections, remains open as corrective actions are not yet complete.

The team’s proposed recommendations are that the Status of Materials Inspection Program

indicator be found satisfactory and that the North Dakota Agreement State program be found

adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the NRC program.

In accordance with procedures for implementation of IMPEP, we are providing you with a copy

of the draft team report for review prior to submitting the report to the Management Review

Board. We welcome your comments on the draft report. If possible, we request comments

within four weeks from your receipt of this letter. This schedule will permit the issuance of the

final report in a timely manner that will be responsive to your needs.

The team will review the response, make any necessary changes to the report and issue it to

the MRB as a proposed final report. The MRB will consider the review team’s

recommendations and your comments and make a final decision as to the North Dakota

Agreement State program’s overall adequacy and compatibility. At this time, we do not plan to

schedule a MRB meeting.
Murray G. Sagsveen - 2 - August 10, 2000

If you have any questions regarding the enclosed report, please contact me at (301) 415-3340

or James Lynch at (630) 829-9661.

Sincerely,

/RA by Frederick Combs for/

Paul H. Lohaus, Director

Office of State and Tribal Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: Jeffery L. Burgess, Director

Air Quality Division

Kenneth W. Wangler, Manager

Radiation Control Program
Murray G. Sagsveen - 2 - August 10, 2000

Distribution:

DIR RF DCD (SP01)

SDroggitis PDR (YES)

KSchneider

JMyers

DCool, NMSS

GDeegan, NMSS

STreby, OGC

HNewsome, OGC

North Dakota File

DOCUMENT NAME: C:\00ndfultrdft.wpd

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy

OFFICE STP STP:DD STP:D

NAME JLLynch:gd FCombs PHLohaus

DATE 08/4/00 08/4/00 08/10/00

STP FILE CODE: STP-AG-22
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

PROGRAM (IMPEP) FOLLOW-UP REVIEW OF

THE NORTH DAKOTA RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM

July 12, 2000

DRAFT REPORT

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
North Dakota Follow-Up Draft Report Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the follow-up review of the North Dakota Department of

Health, Air Quality Division, Radiation and Asbestos Control Program (RCP), conducted on July

12, 2000. In early 2000, the Division of Environmental Engineering was renamed the Air

Quality Division, however, the duties of the Division remain the same. This follow-up review

was directed by the Management Review Board (MRB) based on the results of the April 13-16,

1999 Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review. The MRB

requested that a follow-up review of the common performance indicator, Status of Materials

Inspection Program, be conducted in one year based on the “satisfactory with

recommendations for improvement” finding for this indicator. The follow-up review also

included evaluation of actions taken by the State to address the three recommendations made

during the April 1999 IMPEP review involving this indicator.

The follow-up review was conducted, via telephone, by a review team consisting of two

technical staff members from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) State and Tribal

Programs and Region III offices. Team members are identified in Appendix A. The follow-up

review was conducted in accordance with the "Implementation of the Integrated Materials

Performance Evaluation Program and Rescission of a Final General Statement of Policy,"

published in the Federal Register on October 16, 1997, and the November 5, 1999, NRC

Management Directive 5.6, "Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program."

At the time of the follow-up review, the North Dakota program regulated approximately 70

specific licenses. In preparation for the follow-up review, the RCP submitted an update letter,

dated July 5, 2000. A copy of the letter is included in Appendix B of this report.

The team’s approach for conducting the follow-up review consisted of: (1) examination of the

RCP’s update letter; (2) in-depth review of the program indicator, Status of Materials Inspection

Program, for the period of April 17, 1999 - July 12, 2000; (3) evaluation of the RCP’s actions in

response to the three recommendations, from the previous review, involving this indicator; and

(4) interviews with staff and management to answer questions or clarify issues. Preliminary

results were discussed with the RCP management on July 12, 2000.

Section 2 below discusses the results of this follow-up review of the North Dakota program for

the common performance indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program. Section 3

summarizes the follow-up review team's findings for this review.

2.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATOR, STATUS OF MATERIALS INSPECTION

PROGRAM

During the follow-up review, the team evaluated actions taken by the RCP in response to the

recommendations for improvement involving the indicator, Status of Materials Inspection

Program noted during the 1999 review.

Recommendation 1:

The review team recommends that the RCP management devote additional attention to a “proactive” review of the current inspection tracking systems, and adjust staff priorities accordingly

to ensure core licensees are inspected at the required intervals.
North Dakota Follow-Up Draft Report Page 2

Current Status

Program management appropriately adjusted staff priorities which resulted in a zero backlog

inspection program. The computerized tracking system is being used to ensure that managers

are fully aware of the inspection program status.

Based on the follow-up review, the team considers this recommendation closed.

Recommendation No. 2

The review team recommends that the RCP continue their efforts to complete inspections

of high priority reciprocity licensees in accordance with the Inspection Manual Chapter

(IMC) 1220.

Current Status

As was noted in Section 2 of this report, inspection of reciprocity licensees is planned to be

intensified in the next several months. This area will be revisited during the next Periodic

Meeting with North Dakota.

Based on the follow-up review, the team considers this recommendation open.

Recommendation No. 3

The review team recommends that the RCP management continue to provide additional

oversight to ensure inspection findings (letters of noncompliance) are communicated to

licensees in a timely manner, and that licensee responses are evaluated promptly upon their

receipt by the RCP.

Current Status

Inspection findings are now communicated to licensees in a timely manner and licensee

responses are promptly reviewed. Inspection staff are aware of the priority of these

communications.

Based on the follow-up review, the team considers this recommendation closed.

2.1 Status of Materials Inspection Program

The review team focused on four factors in evaluating this indicator: inspection frequency;

overdue inspections; initial inspection of new licensees; and timely dispatch of inspection

findings to licensees. The review team’s evaluation is based on the RCP’s update letter and

attached computer printouts, and interviews with program staff.

The RCP indicated that inspection frequencies for each type of license were the same as those

listed in NRC’s IMC 2800, with only one exception. The State assigns a Priority 4 frequency for

licensees authorized for portable nuclear gauging devices. The RCP’s experience identified

that portable gauges in North Dakota, especially those used in oil field operations, are often

used in perilous environments, necessitating increased RCP oversight. The RCP’s frequency is
North Dakota Follow-Up Draft Report Page 3

more restrictive than the frequency specified for Priority 5 licenses in IMC 2800. The review

team also noted that the RCP has utilized their written procedures for extension or reduction of

inspection intervals, based upon licensee performance.

Since the last review, the RCP completed 44 inspections, including the two core (as defined in

IMC 2800) inspections which were overdue at the time of the last review. All core inspections

during the review period were performed in a timely manner and no inspections are overdue at

this time. Since the last review, the RCP has better utilized its tracking system and has

renewed emphasis on timely inspections. They also changed the inspection scheduling

procedure, targeting the inspection due date rather than the 25% window.

Inspections of licensee operations in the field, as opposed to office inspections, are preferred.

If a decent opportunity is available to perform a field inspection, it is done. Three field

inspections were performed since the last review.

The staff uses a computer database program to track inspection due dates. This data is

provided to inspection staff and management on at least a monthly basis to monitor upcoming

inspections. Both inspector/reviewers use the tracking system to plan inspections and track

license actions. The Program Manager may request a tracking update whenever desired.

Twenty inspections are due between June 2000 and November 2001. The follow-up review

team concluded that the database tracking system has been effectively used by the RCP.

Two new licenses were issued since the last review and both were inspected within six months

as required by the State’s procedures that are based on IMC 2800. Consistent with IMC 2800,

a 25% window is not used for initial inspections.

The review team also evaluated the status of reciprocity inspections. The previous review

noted that the RCP did not meet its goals, outlined in NRC’s IMC 1220, for higher priority

reciprocity inspections. Since the last review, the RCP has conducted only one Priority 1

reciprocity inspection of the 23 licenses granted reciprocity. At the time of the follow-up review,

nine reciprocity licensees currently working in the State. RCP plans to inspect these licensees

at the earliest opportunity. A breakdown of licensees granted reciprocity since the last review is

as follows:

Priority 1 7 companies, 3 of which are currently in North Dakota

Priority 2 None

Priority 3 5 companies, 3 of which are currently in North Dakota

Priority 4 7 companies, 3 of which are currently in North Dakota

Priority 5 None

Priority 6 4 companies, none currently in North Dakota

The Program Manager stated that the inspection and licensing of the State’s specific licenses

has been the priority to this point, but now that they are caught up in those areas, more

attention will be devoted to reciprocity inspections. The IMC 1220 goals can still be met for the

year based on the ongoing work by reciprocity licensees in North Dakota.

The RCP has a written policy that establishes inspection report timeliness goals consistent with

NRC’s IMC 0610. The State’s goal is to dispatch written findings of inspections to licensees

within 30 days after completing an inspection. The last review identified that approximately one
North Dakota Follow-Up Draft Report Page 4

third of core inspection findings were not sent to licensees in a timely manner. Since that

review, of a total of 44 inspections, only 3 licensee letters were issued past the 30-day goal. All

letters were issued within 50 days of the inspection. One of the inspection letters was late due

to escalated enforcement, another due to a licensing priority and the third was caused by a

delay in receipt of information from a licensee which had been requested during the inspection.

The RCP considered the use of field inspection forms, like NRC’s 591 form, but instead, has

begun development on a computerized inspection report, which can be formulated during an

inspection, using a laptop computer, and issued to the licensee at the inspection exit meeting.

The last review also noted that the RCP’s review of licensee responses to letters of

noncompliance were not always performed in a timely manner. The RCP reported that all

licensee responses received since the last review were properly evaluated within the 30-day

time limit. The Program Manager indicated that increased management attention to this area

was implemented in October 1998 and it has not been a problem since.

The review team recommends that North Dakota’s performance with respect to the indicator,

Status of Materials Inspection Program, be found satisfactory.

3.0 SUMMARY

The follow-up review team found North Dakota’ performance in responding to and resolving the

three recommendations involving the common performance indicator, Status of Materials

Inspection Program, to be acceptable.

As noted in Section 2 above, the review team concludes that the inspection program has shown

improvement since the 1999 IMPEP review. The review team recommends that North Dakota’s

performance with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program, be changed

from the April 1999 IMPEP review finding of “satisfactory with recommendations for

improvement” to “satisfactory.” The review team recommends that the MRB continue to find

the North Dakota’s program to be adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible

with NRC’s program.

The follow-up review team recommends that the North Dakota Agreement State program

receive a full IMPEP review four years from the 1999 full IMPEP review. The team suggests

that the next Periodic Meeting be scheduled for Fall 2001.
LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A IMPEP Follow-up Review Team Members

Appendix B North Dakota’s Update Letter Dated July 5, 2000
APPENDIX A

IMPEP FOLLOW-UP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

Name Area of Responsibility

James Lynch, Region III Team Leader

Status of Materials Inspection

James Myers, STP Status of Materials Inspection
APPENDIX B

LETTER TO JAMES L. LYNCH, NRC FROM KENNETH W. WANGLER, NORTH DAKOTA

DATED JULY 5, 2000

ML00373944