DATED: NOVEMBER 23, 1999; SIGNED BY: CARL J. PAPERIELLO

Stephen C. Gleason, D.O.

Director

Iowa Department of Public Health

Lucas State Office Building

321 E. 12th Street

Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0075

Dear Dr. Gleason:

On November 9, 1999, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Iowa Agreement

State Program. The MRB found the Iowa program adequate to assure public health and safety

and compatible with NRC’s program. 

Section 5.0, page 11, of the enclosed final report presents the IMPEP team’s recommendations. 

We received a November 9, 1999 fax from Mr. Donald Flater which described the actions taken in

response to the team’s recommendations. We request no additional information.

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review will be in approximately 4

years.

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the IMPEP team during the review and your

support of the Radiation Control Program. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work

cooperatively in the future.

Sincerely, /RA/

Carl J. Paperiello

Deputy Executive Director

 for Materials, Research

 and State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: David Fries, Deputy Director of Regulatory Affairs

Iowa Department of Public Health

Donald A. Flater, Chief, Bureau of Radiological Health

Iowa Department of Public Health

Steven Collins, OAS Liaison 

 to the Management Review Board

Daniel K. McGhee, State Liaison Officer

Iowa Department of Public Health
Stephen C. Gleason, D.O.

Director

Iowa Department of Public Health

Lucas State Office Building

321 E. 12th Street

Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0075

Dear Dr. Gleason:

On November 9, 1999, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Iowa Agreement

State Program. The MRB found the Iowa program adequate to assure public health and safety

and compatible with NRC’s program. 

Section 5.0, page 11, of the enclosed final report presents the IMPEP team’s recommendations. 

We received a November 9, 1999 fax from Mr. Donald Flater which described the actions taken in

response to the team’s recommendations. We request no additional information.

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review will be in approximately 4

years.

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the IMPEP team during the review and your

support of the Radiation Control Program. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work

cooperatively in the future.

Sincerely,

Carl J. Paperiello

Deputy Executive Director

 for Materials, Research

 and State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: David Fries, Deputy Director of Regulatory Affairs

Iowa Department of Public Health

Donald A. Flater, Chief, Bureau of Radiological Health

Iowa Department of Public Health

Steven Collins, OAS Liaison 

 to the Management Review Board

Daniel K. McGhee, State Liaison Officer bcc: Chairman Meserve

Iowa Department of Public Health Commissioner Dicus

Commissioner Diaz

Commissioner McGaffigan

Commissioner Merrifield

Distribution: See next page

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\IMPEP\99FNLLTR.IA.WPD; G:\IMPEP\IAIMP99.FNL.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 RIV:RSAO OSP:DD OSP:D DEDMRS

NAME MLMcLean:gd FCCombs PHLohaus CJPaperiello

DATE 11/17/99 11/19/99 11/19/99 11/23/99

OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-9
Stephen C. Gleason, D.O. - 2 -

Distribution

:

DIR RF DCD (SP01) 

EDO RF PDR (YES)

SDroggitis

LRakovan

KSchneider

LBolling, ASPO

DChamberlain, RIV

CPederson, RIII

RLickus, RIII

JLynch, RIII

LCox, NC

WKane, NMSS

AKirkwood, NMSS

KCyr, OGC

JGray, OGC

STreby, OGC

HNewsome, OGC

TCombs, OCA (2)

GDeegan, NMSS

DCool, NMSS

Iowa File

SP-AG-9
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

REVIEW OF IOWA AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

August 17-20, 1999

FINAL REPORT

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Iowa Final Report Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the review of the Iowa radiation control program. The review

was conducted during the period August 17-20, 1999, by a review team comprised of technical

staff members from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Agreement State of North

Carolina. Team members are identified in Appendix A. The review was conducted in accordance

with the "Implementation of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program and

Rescission of a Final General Statement of Policy," published in the Federal Register on October

16, 1997, and the November 25, 1998, NRC Management Directive 5.6, "Integrated Materials

Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)." Preliminary results of the review, which covered the

period April 4, 1996 to August 20, 1999 were discussed with Iowa management on August 20,

1999.

A draft of this report was issued to Iowa for factual comment on September 17, 1999. The State

responded in a letter dated September 24, 1999 and a fax dated November 9, 1999. The

Management Review Board (MRB) met on November 9, 1999, to consider the proposed final

report. The MRB found the Iowa radiation control program was adequate to protect public health

and safety and compatible with NRC’s program.

The Iowa Agreement State program is administered by Iowa Department of Public Health (the

Department). The Department is the agency within Iowa State government that regulates, among

other public health issues, radiation hazards. The Department Director is appointed by and

reports directly to the Governor. Within the Department, the Iowa radiation control program is

administered by the Bureau of Radiological Health (the Bureau), Division of Administration and

Regulatory Affairs. Organization charts for the Department are included as Appendix B. At the

time of the review, the Iowa program regulated 220 specific licenses, including industrial

radiography, academic, medical and research and development (both broad scope and specific)

with broad scope activities including high dose rate (HDR)/teletherapy, veterinary medicine, waste

incineration, brachytherapy, nuclear pharmacy, research & development, and irradiator. The

review focused on the materials program as it is carried out under the Section 274b. (of the Atomic

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

In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common and non-common indicators

was sent to the Bureau on May 19, 1999. The Bureau provided a response to the questionnaire

on June 10, 1999. Copies of the questionnaire responses are included as Appendix F to the

proposed final report.

The review team's general approach for conduct of this review consisted of: (1) examination

of Iowa's response to the questionnaire; (2) review of applicable Iowa statutes and regulations; (3)

analysis of quantitative information from the Bureau licensing and inspection data base;

(4) technical review of selected licensing and inspection actions; (5) field accompaniments of four

Iowa inspectors; and (6) interviews with staff and management to answer questions or clarify

issues. The team evaluated the information that it gathered against the IMPEP performance

criteria for each common and applicable non-common indicator and made a preliminary

assessment of the radiation control program's performance.
Iowa Final Report Page 2

Section 2 below discusses the Department’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

performance indicators, and Section 5 summarizes the review team's findings, recommendations. 

Recommendations made by the review team are comments that relate directly to program

performance by the Department. A response is requested from the Department to all

recommendations in the final report. 

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS

During the previous routine review, which concluded on April 4, 1996, two recommendations were

made and the results of the review transmitted to Mr. Christopher Atchison, Director, Iowa

Department of Public Health on August 28, 1996. The team’s review of the current status of these

recommendations is as follows:

1. The review team recommends that the two new licenses that have not been inspected, be

scheduled for inspection and that the State continue to follow the IMC 2800 provisions for

new licenses. 

Current Status: These two licenses have been inspected. The tracking system used by

the Bureau identifies new licenses and schedules initial inspections for six months after

license issuance. The licensee is called at the six-month mark and an inspection is

scheduled if licensed material has been received. If no material has been received, the

inspection is delayed. The Bureau confirmed that all new licenses are inspected within

one year of license issuance. A review of two new licenses issued during this IMPEP

review period verified that both licensees were inspected within six months of the license

issuance. This recommendation is closed.

2. The review team recommends that management information systems, e.g., the computer

tracking system be reviewed, with the appropriate management and support staff to

ensure that the Bureau is receiving the information to manage the program. 

Current Status: The computer tracking system was evaluated and updated by the Bureau

since the last review. The Bureau Chief stated that the tracking system provides accurate

data for use in managing the radiation control program. During this IMPEP review the

computer tracking system was examined and found to be providing accurate information. 

This recommendation is closed.

During the 1996 review, seven suggestions were made concerning: (1) the timely issuance of

inspection results; (2) the review of data in the computer tracking system; (3) the development

of specific field notes for HDRs; (4) the revision of the field notes to include dose to the public,

embryo/fetus, declared pregnant woman and quality management program requirements; (5) the

review of Bureau’s field notes for consistent content; (6) the calibration of some Bureau

instrumentation with the efficiency to convert cpm to dpm; and (7) the revision of incident

procedures to include current guidance for notification of NRC Headquarters Operations Center. 

The team determined that the State considered the suggestions and took appropriate actions. 
Iowa Final Report Page 3

3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

IMPEP identifies five common performance indicators to be used in reviewing both NRC Regional

and Agreement State programs. These indicators are: (1) Status of Materials Inspection

Program; (2) Technical Quality of Inspections; (3) Technical Staffing and Training; (4) Technical

Quality of Licensing Actions; and (5) Response to Incidents and Allegations. 

3.1 Status of Materials Inspection Program

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. The review team’s evaluation is based on the Iowa questionnaire responses relative to

this indicator, data gathered independently from the Bureau’s licensing and inspection data

tracking system, the examination of completed licensing and inspection casework, and interviews

with managers and staff.

Evaluation of Iowa’s inspection priorities for the materials program indicated that the maximum

period for an inspection interval is seven years. Five of the 36 licensee categories established by

the Bureau have inspection frequencies greater than similar type categories listed in NRC

Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2800. None of the Bureau categories had a lower frequency of

inspection. It was noted that the Bureau uses discretion to increase inspection frequency based

on licensee history and performance. 

In their response to the questionnaire, the Bureau indicated that they had no inspections overdue

by more than 25% of the NRC frequency. During the review, the team verified that there were no

inspections that were overdue by these criteria. 

With respect to initial inspections, the Bureau assigns the inspection due date six months from the

issuance of a new license. This is automatically accomplished on the database. In practice, the

Bureau conducts initial inspections six months from receipt of radioactive materials or

commencement of licensed activities. As noted previously, all new licenses are inspected within

one year of license issuance regardless of license activity.

With respect to reciprocity, the Bureau recognizes licensees one year from the date of their initial

request to enter the State. The review team found that the State’s reciprocity program was in

practice similar to NRC’s IMC 1220. The one exception is that the Bureau has committed to

inspect 100% of the industrial radiography companies coming in under reciprocity. A review of

seven reciprocity inspections conducted during the review period verified this commitment. 

Timeliness of inspection correspondence issuance was evaluated during the inspection casework

review. Of 10 inspection reports reviewed by the team, eight were issued to the licensee within 30

days. Two were issued at 90 and 120 days, respectively, however, the lateness of these

inspection reports was due to the need for the inspector to take unplanned family leave.
Iowa Final Report Page 4

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Iowa's performance

with respect to the indicator, Status of the Materials Inspection Program, be found satisfactory. 

3.2 Technical Quality of Inspections

The team evaluated the inspection reports, enforcement documentation, and inspection field notes

and interviewed inspectors for 11 materials inspections conducted during the review period. The

casework included all of the Bureau’s materials inspectors, and covered inspections of various

types including industrial radiography fixed facilities and temporary job sites, medical

institutions/group/private practice, academic broad scope, nuclear pharmacy, and nuclear medical

vans. Appendix C lists the inspection casework files reviewed for completeness and adequacy

with case-specific comments. 

Based on casework, the review team noted that the routine inspections covered all aspects of the

licensees’ radiation programs. The review team found that inspection reports were thorough,

complete, consistent, and of high quality, with sufficient documentation to ensure that licensee’s

performance with respect to health and safety was acceptable. The documentation supported

violations, recommendations made to the licensee, unresolved safety issues, and discussions held

with the licensee during exit interviews. Team inspections were performed when appropriate and

for training purposes.

Field notes have been developed to cover most types of inspections that are conducted by the

Bureau. These field notes provide documentation for the scope of the licensees’ program and

cover all areas that need to be reviewed. The information contained in the field notes is

comparable with NRC’s Inspection Procedure 87100. 

During the week of July 20, 1999, a review team member performed accompaniments with all four

of the Bureau inspectors. The inspections included a nuclear pharmacy facility, one institutional

nuclear medicine facility, one portable and one fixed nuclear gauge facilities. These

accompaniments are identified in Appendix C. During the accompaniments, the Iowa inspectors

conducted performance based inspections and demonstrated thorough knowledge of the

regulations. The inspectors were well prepared and thorough in their reviews of the licensees'

radiation safety programs. Overall, the technical performance of the inspectors was good, and

their inspections were adequate to assess radiological health and safety at the licensed facilities.

The Bureau tried a new approach to inspecting broad scope licensees during a routine team

inspection at the University of Iowa. The new approach involved a performance based-inspection

utilizing a narrative report format that incorporated a collegial, cooperative approach to identifying

inspection findings. 

The inspection report for this inspection was issued approximately four months after the

completion of the inspection. The report listed several “evaluative comments” regarding the

inspection findings. The comments were not identified as violations. The Bureau Inspection

Procedure Manual described the narrative report format that was used for this new approach to

broad scope inspections. The Management Discussion section of the procedure directed that, if

violations were identified and discussed with licensee management, and if the licensee proposed
Iowa Final Report Page 5

or committed to any corrective actions, the proposed corrective actions and licensee’s proposed

time of completion were to be described in the report. Since the report did not classify any of the

inspection findings as violations, the licensee did not propose or commit to any corrective actions. 

The initial inspection report was followed by a revised inspection report five months later. The

revised report was stated as being generated due to technical and clerical errors within the report. 

It was noted by the review team that some of the findings as stated in the first report had been

revised. The State explained that the second report had been generated after a meeting was held

between the licensee and lead inspector. The revised report also did not appear to have the

supervisory review as did the first one. 

The IMPEP review team discussed these issues with the Bureau staff. The staff committed to

documenting a transition or bridge statement to be placed in the inspection file to further explain

and document the basis for the revised report. The review team found that at the time that the

revised report was issued, the Bureau Chief had been out of the office and had not been available

to sign the report to provide supervisory review. The Bureau Chief stated that he was aware of

the revised report and had given his approval to the inspector to sign-out the report in his

absence. He had not, however, authorized the meeting between the licensee and the inspector,

although he was informed of the meeting after it occurred. The review team believes the Bureau’s

commitment to provide a transition or bridge statement in the inspection file is appropriate. Doing

so, should not only provide the basis for but also alleviate any future possible questions on the

Bureau’s issuance of a revised inspection report. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Iowa's performance

with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, be found satisfactory. 

3.3 Technical Staffing and Training

Issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the radioactive materials program staffing

level and staff turnover, as well as the technical qualifications and training histories of the staff. 

To evaluate these issues, the review team examined the Bureau’s questionnaire responses

relative to this indicator, interviewed program management and staff, and considered any possible

workload backlogs. 

The Bureau is staffed with the Bureau Chief and three Program Coordinators, and nine staff

members. The radioactive materials program includes the program coordinator, two health

physicists, and one clerical staff member. All of the technical staff members perform duties in

licensing, inspection, and event response. One program coordinator devotes his time to training,

emergency response, and environmental issues, and the third program coordinator is responsible

for radiation machines. 

The Bureau staffing level was stable over the review period. There are currently six people with

various degrees of involvement with the Iowa radioactive materials program, equivalent to about

four FTEs devoted to the materials program. This staffing level does not include clerical support

staff. Of the six people in the program, two individuals are involved with licensing and compliance

approximately 80% of the time and one individual at 70%. The remaining three persons have
Iowa Final Report Page 6

responsibilities in administration, support, and environmental issues. All six staff members are

involved in emergency response activities. The staff consists of experienced personnel. Among

the materials program staff, there is one with an associate degree, with the remainder having

bachelor degrees

Based on the lack of backlogs and the quality of the licensing actions and inspection reports, the

team concluded that the number and distribution of staff appear to be adequate to maintain the

program.

Training for licensing and inspection staff is similar to the training program developed by the NRC. 

Because the staff have been with the Bureau for a number of years prior to the review period,

training records reviewed showed extensive accumulation of both NRC, the Department, and

other training courses. 

The Bureau Chief stated that for the last three years, the Bureau has included requests for

training funds in the budget, but that the requests have been denied each year. Nonetheless, the

Bureau Chief stated that when someone needs training, the funds have been and will be made

available as needed. During the review of the training records, the team noted that one staff

member has not completed the teletherapy and brachytherapy core course. The team believes

that all technical staff performing brachytherapy licensing or inspections would benefit from the

teletherapy and brachytherapy course or equivalent training. The review team recommends that

staff who conduct independent inspections and/or license reviews of teletherapy and

brachytherapy licenses complete a teletherapy and brachytherapy course. Prior to the end of the

review, the Bureau Chief enrolled the staff member into NRC’s March 2000, teletherapy and

brachytherapy course. 

Before performing an inspection independently, inspectors accompany qualified inspectors to

licensee sites to observe inspections. Next they assist in an inspection with a qualified inspector,

and finally perform as a lead inspector with an accompanying qualified inspector. Inspectors are

accompanied at least once a year by a qualified inspector or the Bureau Chief, typically during

team inspections. Inspector accompaniments have not been routinely documented; however, the

Radioactive Materials Program Coordinator stated that they will be using an inspector evaluation

form with each accompaniment. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Iowa's performance with

respect to this indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found satisfactory. 

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The review team examined completed licenses and casework for 10 licensing actions, representing

the work of three license reviewers. The license reviewers were interviewed to supply additional

information regarding licensing decisions or file contents.

Licensing actions were evaluated for completeness, consistency, proper isotopes and quantities

used, qualifications of authorized users, adequate facilities and equipment, and operating and

emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing actions. Licenses were
Iowa Final Report Page 8

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Iowa's performance with

respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be found satisfactory.

3.5 Response to Incidents and Allegations

In evaluating the effectiveness of the Bureau’s actions in responding to incidents, the review team

examined the Bureau’s response to the questionnaire regarding this indicator, evaluated selected

incidents reported for Iowa in the “Nuclear Material Events Database” (NMED) against those

contained in the Iowa files, and evaluated the casework and supporting documentation for three

material incidents. These were the only reportable incidents during the review period. The team

also reviewed the Bureau’s response to four allegations, including three allegations referred to the

State by NRC, during the review period. A list of incident files examined along with case specific

comments is contained in Appendix E.

The review team interviewed program management and staff to discuss the Bureau’s incident and

allegation process, file documentation, the State’s equivalent to the Freedom of Information Act,

NMED, and notification of incidents to the NRC. The three incidents selected for review included a

melted gauge, a lost source and an accidental release of radioactive material. 

When notification of an incident or an allegation is received, the Bureau Chief and staff meet to

discuss the initial response and the need for an on-site investigation. The safety significance of

the incident/allegation is evaluated to determine the type of response that Iowa will take. The small

size of the Iowa program allows for the prompt dissemination of information regarding the event to

all personnel in the program. Radiological incidents can be reported 24 hours a day through the

State’s Radiological Response Team emergency telephone line.

The review team found that the Bureau’s responses to incidents and allegations were complete

and comprehensive. Initial responses were prompt and well-coordinated. The level of effort was

commensurate with the health and safety significance. Inspectors were dispatched for on-site

investigations when appropriate and the Bureau took suitable enforcement action. The review

team found the documentation of the incidents to be consistent and that incidents were followed up

at the next inspection.

Incidents are promptly reported to the NRC via the Regional State Agreements Officer. The

Bureau was reminded of the current guidance to Agreement States to report incidents to the NRC

Operations Center.

The staff was familiar with the guidance contained in the “Handbook on Nuclear Event Reporting in

the Agreement States.” The review team queried the incident information reported to the NMED

system for Iowa for the review period which identified the three incidents discussed above. As few

incidents are required to be reported to NMED, the Bureau chooses to send information by hard

copy to NRC for inclusion in the incident database, rather than training staff to input the information

electronically into the system. The Bureau constructed a template for the information required by

the NMED database for completeness and ease of input by NRC.
Iowa Final Report Page 9

During the review period, three allegations were referred to the State by the NRC and one

allegation was reported directly to the program. The review of the Bureau’s allegation files

indicated that the Bureau took prompt and appropriate action in response to the concerns raised. 

The review team noted that all documentation related to the investigation of allegations was

maintained in the incident file. Allegers were properly notified of investigation results.

The Bureau has only very general written guidance for handling incidents and allegations in their

inspection procedures. During the review, the Agreement State review team member shared his

State’s detailed incident procedures with the Iowa program. Bureau management indicated that

they would modify the procedures to apply specifically to the Iowa incident and allegation response

program.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Iowa’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

State programs: (1) Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility; (2) Sealed

Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Program; (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal

Program; and (4) Uranium Recovery Program. Iowa's agreement does not cover the SS&D 

program, low-level radioactive waste disposal program or uranium recovery program, so only the

first non-common performance indicator was applicable to this review. 

4.1 Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility

4.1.1 Legislation 

Iowa became an Agreement State in 1986. Along with their response to the questionnaire, the

Bureau provided the review team with the opportunity to review copies of legislation that affects the

radiation control program. The currently effective statutory authority for the radiation control

program is contained in the Iowa Code, Chapter 136. The Department is designated as the State's

radiation control agency. The review team noted that no legislation affecting the program was

passed during the review period.

4.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility

The Iowa Regulations for Control of Radiation, found in the Iowa Administrative Code, Section 641,

Chapters 38-45, apply to all ionizing radiation, whether emitted from radionuclides or devices. Iowa

requires a license for possession and use of all radioactive material including naturally occurring

materials, such as radium, and accelerator-produced radionuclides.

The review team examined the State’s administrative rulemaking process and found that the

process takes approximately five months after filing the draft administrative rule with the State

Rules Coordinator. Draft rules are published in the State Administrative Bulletin and a public

hearing is scheduled. Rules are presented to the Board of Health prior to being adopted. The

State has Emergency Rule capability, if public health and safety is at risk.
Iowa Final Report Page 10

Proposed rules are sent to all potentially impacted licensees for comment. The Bureau’s practice

had been to also send the proposed rules to NRC for review. Comments are considered and

incorporated as appropriate before the regulations are finalized. The State has the authority to

issue legally binding requirements (e.g., license conditions) in lieu of regulations until equivalent

State regulations become effective.

In November 1997, a draft rule package was submitted to NRC for comment. The rule changes

included several required regulations. NRC reviewed and commented on the rules and requested

that Iowa provide a copy of the final published regulations for review. The final regulations,

adopted in July 1998, were not submitted as requested, so the final review was not conducted. In

late 1998, Iowa promulgated another rule package which was adopted in July 1999. This package

was apparently not submitted to NRC for comment, in either draft or final form. The Bureau is

committed to submitting draft and final regulations to the NRC for review.

In their response to Item 29 of the questionnaire, the Bureau submitted a table of regulation

amendments adopted for compatibility purposes. The review team identified that several of the

regulation adoption dates were incorrect in the response and that at least one regulation had been

only partially adopted (radiography rule). Because of these inconsistencies, the review team and a

Bureau representative elected to evaluate all of the regulations required for compatibility since the

last IMPEP review. The review team evaluated, with the assistance of the Bureau, the final rules

from the 1997 and 1998 submissions, to ensure that compatibility concerns were addressed, prior

to the Management Review Board meeting. Minor comments were noted on three of the ten rules

evaluated. These comments will be formally communicated to the State in a letter. The Bureau

indicated that resolution of these comments will be attained during the next rulemaking.

The State has not yet adopted the following regulations, which are not yet due, but intends to

address them in rulemakings or by adopting alternate generic legally binding requirements:

! "Compatibility with the International Atomic Energy Agency," 10 CFR Part 71 amendment

(60 FR 50248) that became effective April 1, 1996. 

! “Recognition of Agreement State Licenses in Areas Under Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction

Within an Agreement State,” 10 CFR Part 150 amendment (62 FR 1662) that became

effective February 27, 1997.

! “Criteria for the Release of Individuals Administered Radioactive Material,” 10 CFR Parts

20 and 35 amendments (62 FR 4120) that became effective on May 29, 1997.

! “Licenses for Industrial Radiography and Radiation Safety - Requirements for Industrial

Radiography Operations,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 34, 71, and 150 amendments (62 FR 28947)

that became effective June 27, 1997.

! “Radiological Criteria for License Termination,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, and 70

amendments (62 FR 39057) that became effective August 20, 1997.

! “Deliberate Misconduct by Unlicensed Persons,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 61, 70, and 150

amendments (63 FR 1890 and 13773) that became effective February 12, 1998.
Iowa Final Report Page 11

! “Licenses for Industrial Radiography and Radiation Safety Requirements for Industrial

Radiographic Operations; Clarifying Amendments and Corrections,” 10 CFR Part 34

amendments (63 FR 37059) that became effective July 9, 1998.

! “Minor Corrections, Clarifying Changes, and a Minor Policy Change,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 32

and 39 amendments (63 FR 39477 and 45393) that became effective October 26, 1998.

! “Transfer for Disposal and Manifests; Minor Technical Conforming Amendment,” 10 CFR

Part 20 amendment (63 FR 50127) that became effective November 20, 1998.

It is noted that Management Directive 5.9, Handbook, Part V, (1)(C)(III) provides that the above

regulations issued prior to September 3, 1997 should be adopted by the State as expeditiously as

possible, but not later than three years after the September 3, 1997 effective date of the

Commission Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility, i.e., September 3, 2000.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Iowa’s performance with

respect to the indicator, Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility, be found

satisfactory.

5.0 SUMMARY

As noted in Sections 3 and 4 above, the review team found that Iowa’s performance to be

satisfactory for all six performance indicators. Accordingly, the review team recommended and the

MRB concurred in finding the Iowa Agreement State Program to be adequate to protect public

health and safety and compatible with NRC's program. 

Below is a summary list of recommendations, as mentioned in earlier sections of the report, for

evaluation and implementation, as appropriate, by the State. 

RECOMMENDATION:

1. The review team recommends that staff who conduct independent inspections and/or

license reviews of teletherapy and brachytherapy licenses complete a teletherapy and

brachytherapy course. (Section 3.3) 
LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members

Appendix B Iowa Organization Charts

Appendix C Inspection Casework Reviews

Appendix D License Casework Reviews

Appendix E Incident Casework Reviews

Attachment 1 Iowa’s Response to the Draft IMPEP Report 

Dated September 24, 1999 and Fax dated November 9, 1999 
APPENDIX A

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

Name Area of Responsibility

M. Linda McLean, Region IV Team Leader

Technical Staffing and Training

Lee Cox, State of North Carolina Status of Materials Inspection Program

Technical Quality of Inspections 

Anthony S. Kirkwood, NMSS Technical Quality of Licensing Actions 

James L. Lynch, Region III Response to Incidents and Allegations 

Legislation and Program Elements Required

for Compatibility
APPENDIX B

IOWA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

BUREAU OF RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH

ORGANIZATION CHARTS