June 6, 2001

Mr. Thomas W. Ortciger, Director

Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety

1035 Outer Park Drive

Springfield, IL 62704

Dear Mr. Ortciger:

On May 21, 2001, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final

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

State Program. The MRB found the Illinois program adequate to protect public health and safety

and compatible with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s program. 

Section 5.0, page 17, of the enclosed final report presents the IMPEP team’s single

recommendation. Through various correspondence, we understand what actions you intend to

take in response to this recommendation. We request no additional information.

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

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

Enclosures: 

As stated

cc: Paul Eastvold, Manager

Office of Radiation Safety

Richard M. Fry, NC

Agreement State Liaison to

 the Management Review Board
T. W. Ortciger June 6, 2001

bcc: Chairman Meserve

 Commissioner Dicus

 Commissioner Diaz

Commissioner McGaffigan

Commissioner Merrifield

Distribution:

DIR RF DCD (SP01) PDR (YES/)

SDroggitis, STP

KSchneider, STP

LRakovan, STP

RBlanton, ASPO

CPederson, RIII

DCool, NMSS

GDeegan, NMSS

JLynch, RIII

DPiskura RIII

UBhachu, NMSS

SSeeley, ME

STreby, OGC

FCameron, OGC

TCombs, OCA (2)

DOCUMENT NAME: I:\Reviews\Il01\2001 IL Final Letter and Report.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 RSAO:RIV STP:DD STP:D DEDMRS

NAME MLMcLean:gd FCombs PHLohaus CPaperiello

DATE 06/01/01 06/01/01 06/01/01 06/06/01

ML011660191 Pkg. Official Record Copy STP-AG-8
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

REVIEW OF ILLINOIS AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

March 5-9, 2001

FINAL REPORT

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

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

was conducted during the period March 5-9, 2001, by a review team comprised of technical staff

members from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Agreement State of Maine. 

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 5, 1999, NRC Management Directive 5.6, "Integrated Materials Performance

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

March 29, 1997 to March 5, 2001, were discussed with Illinois management on March 9, 2001.

A draft of this report was issued to Illinois for factual comment on April 10, 2001. The State

responded in a letter dated April 30, 2001. The Management Review Board (MRB) met on May

21, 2001 to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the Illinois radiation control

program was adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC’s program.

The Illinois Agreement State Program is administered by Illinois Office of Radiation Safety (the

Office) and is located within the Department of Nuclear Safety (the Department). The Radiation

Safety Manager directs the Office. The Office has two Divisions: the Radioactive Materials

Division (the Division) and the Electronic Products Division. Within the Division are three

Sections: the Materials Licensing Section, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Licensing

and Decommissioning Section, and the Inspections and Enforcement Section. The Department

has one field office located in Glen Ellyn, Illinois. Five materials inspectors are based in that

location. An organization chart for the Department is included as Appendix B. At the time of the

review, the Illinois program regulated 731 specific licenses authorizing agreement materials. 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 Illinois.

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

performance indicators was sent to the Department on January 5, 2001. The Department

provided a response to the questionnaire on February 5, 2001. A copy of the questionnaire

responses is included as Appendix G of the proposed final report.

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

Illinois’ response to the questionnaire; (2) review of applicable Illinois’ statutes and regulations; (3)

analysis of quantitative information from the Department’s licensing and inspection data base;

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

Illinois’ 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 performance indicator and made a

preliminary assessment of the radiation control program’s performance.

Section 2 below discusses the Department’s actions in response to recommendations made

following the previous IMPEP 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 and
Illinois Final Report Page 2

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 IMPEP review, which concluded on March 28, 1997, one recommendation

was made and transmitted to Mr. Thomas W. Ortciger, Director, the Department, on July 8, 1997. 

The team’s review of the current status of this recommendation is as follows:

1. The review team recommends that the Department expedite promulgation of Part 330 at

the first opportunity. 

Current Status: The State adopted the restructured Ill. Adm. Code 330, Licensing of

Radioactive Material, on June 1, 2000. The final regulations were provided to NRC for

comment on July 11, 2000. As a result of the NRC review, the regulations were

determined to meet the compatibility and health and safety categories established in the

Office of State and Tribal Programs (STP) Procedure SA-200 on August 21, 2000. This

recommendation is closed.

During the 1997 review, nine suggestions were made for the Department to consider. The team

determined that the Department considered the suggestions and took appropriate actions.

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 inspections of new licenses, and timely dispatch of inspection findings to

licensees. The review team’s evaluation is based on the Department’s questionnaire responses

relative to this indicator, data gathered independently from the Department’s licensing and

inspection data tracking system, the examination of complete licensing and inspection casework,

and interviews with managers and staff.

The team's review of the Division’s inspection priorities verified that the Division’s inspection

frequencies for various types or groups of licenses are as frequent, or more frequent, as similar

license types or groups listed in the frequency schedule in the NRC Inspection Manual Chapter

(IMC) 2800. The Division requires more frequent inspections in some license categories as

follows: wireline services were verified to be inspected on a two year frequency as compared to

the NRC three year frequency; all type A broad scope licenses are inspected on a one year

frequency compared with the NRC two year frequency for type A broad industrial and academic

and a one year frequency of type A broad medical; type B and C broad scope licenses are
Illinois Final Report Page 3

inspected on a two and three year frequency, respectively, compared to the NRC frequencies of

three and five years; and general license (GL) distribution type licenses are on a four year

frequency compared to NRC's five year frequency.

In their response to the questionnaire, the Division indicated that there were no inspections

currently overdue by more than 25 percent of the NRC frequency. This information was verified

during the inspection casework reviews and the review of the monthly generated "inspections due"

lists provided to the team. The review team noted that out of 21 inspection files examined, one

routine inspection and one initial inspection were conducted overdue. Follow-up discussions with

Division management revealed that in December 2000, the staff identified several overdue initial

and routine inspections. The discrepancy was attributed to a computer programming error. The

team found that 20 of the 35 initial inspections completed during the review period were not

conducted within the six-month or one-year time frame as per procedure. Delays ranged from 3 to

12 months late. Upon discovering the error, Division staff immediately took steps to resolve the

computer programming problem and complete the overdue inspections. The Division completed

all overdue inspections identified during December 2000 by February 1, 2001 and continues to

monitor the inspection database at least monthly.

The timeliness of the issuance of inspection findings was also evaluated during the inspection file

review. The Division has a goal that the findings to be dispatched within 30 days following the

inspection. Out of 21 inspection files examined, only one of the inspection findings sent to the

licensees exceeded 30 days, because of the need for additional office review. 

The State reported in their response to the questionnaire that 190 licensees had submitted 1,596

requests for reciprocity during the review period, of which 115 were core licensees. The Division

reported that 24 reciprocity licenses were inspected, which represents about 21 percent of the

reciprocity licenses available for inspection. Fourteen of the inspections were industrial

radiography, eight were source exchanges, and two were well logging. During the 1998 periodic

review, the Division disagreed with the goals of IMC 1220 as Agreement States did not have

substantial input into the guidance. The Division established alternative goals of 10-20 percent of

Priority 1 licensees and reactive inspections for other priorities. The team considered that the

Division expended considerable resources since the last review and that the number of reciprocity

inspections performed was adequate and satisfied the Department’s alternative goals. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Illinois’ 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 23 radioactive materials inspections conducted during the review

period. The casework included all of the Department’s materials inspectors, and covered

inspections of various types as follows: industrial radiography, medical broad scope, academic

broad scope, high dose rate afterloader (HDR), gamma stereotactic radiosurgery, pool irradiator,

wireline services, veterinary medicine, laboratory research and development, nuclear pharmacy,

nuclear laundry, specific medical, and reciprocity. Appendix C lists the inspection casework files

reviewed for completeness and adequacy with case-specific comments.
Illinois Final Report Page 4

Based on the casework file reviews, the review team found that routine inspections covered all

aspects of the licensee’s radiation protection program. The 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, and unresolved safety issues. Exit interviews

were held with appropriate licensee personnel and discussions were well documented in the

reports. Team inspections were performed when appropriate and for training purposes.

The review team found that routine inspections adequately cover the licensee's radiation

protection program and include a written summary of the scope of the licensed activities and a

root cause if a noncompliance was identified. The review team noted that the majority of

violations cited are recordkeeping infractions. The review team discussed the current

performance-based, risk-informed inspection philosophy with the staff. The review team also

found that the inspectors observed licensed operations whenever possible. Inspection

accompaniments were conducted by the Radiation Safety Manager, the Division Chief, the

Inspection and Enforcement Head, as well as the Glen Ellyn Office Supervisor. 

Three materials inspectors were accompanied by a review team member during the period of

January 31 to February 6, 2001. Other Division inspectors were accompanied during the 1997

review. One inspector was accompanied during the inspection of an industrial radiography

program and the other two inspectors were accompanied on medical inspections. During the

accompaniments, each inspector demonstrated appropriate inspection techniques and knowledge

of the regulations, and conducted performance-based inspections. The inspectors were trained,

well prepared for the inspection, and thorough in their audits of the licensees’ radiation safety

programs. Each inspector conducted effective interviews with appropriate licensee personnel,

observed licensed operations, conducted confirmatory measurements, and utilized good health

physics practices. Their inspections were adequate to assess radiological health and safety at

the licensed facilities.

The Department has an adequate number and types of survey meters to support the current

inspection program as well as for responding to incidents and emergency conditions. The

Department calibrates their own survey instruments at their Conference of Radiation Control

Program Directors, Inc., (CRCPD)-certified Regional Calibration Laboratory. Appropriate,

calibrated survey instruments such as GM meters, scintillation detectors, ion chambers, 

micro-R meters, and neutron meters were observed. They also have portable multi-channel

analyzers that can be used in the field at inspection sites. Air monitoring equipment is also

available. Contamination wipes are sent to the State’s laboratory for analysis. The Environmental

Laboratory maintains a mobile laboratory van for use in emergencies and emergency exercises. 

Both laboratories are managed by the Office of Environmental Safety.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Illinois’ 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 Division’s staffing level and staff

turnover, as well as the technical qualifications and training histories of the staff. To evaluate
Illinois Final Report Page 5

these issues, the review team examined the State's questionnaire responses relative to this

indicator, interviewed Division management and staff, and considered any possible workload

backlogs. 

The Division Chief and Assistant to the Division Chief supervise three administrative and 17

technical staff members. The 12 technical staff members in the Materials Licensing and

Inspection and Enforcement Sections are classified as Materials Licensing Reviewers and

Inspectors, respectively. The remaining technical staff members are in the LLRW Licensing and

Site Decommissioning Section. 

The Division has an experienced staff and low staff turnover. The Division is fully staffed and

there was one departure since the last IMPEP review. The vacancy was filled in an expedient

manner. An additional license reviewer position was also created during the review period. The

team determined that the Division has a well balanced staff, and a sufficient number of trained

personnel to carry out regulatory duties. 

All technical staff members are required to have bachelor’s degrees or equivalent training in the

physical and/or life sciences in addition to prior experience. New hires are allowed to work with

the more senior staff until appropriate training and experience is received, and until the individual

obtains the confidence to perform the assigned tasks independently. The team confirmed the

qualifications of the staff hired since the l997 IMPEP review and verified their performance through

the review of licensing and compliance casework.

A training course tracking sheet is used to monitor which classes each staff member has attended. 

Division staff are familiar with the NRC/Organization of Agreement States (OAS) Training Working

Group Report. A complete and updated written training program based on the working group

report was established for use by materials license reviewers. The Division Chief stated that a

similar program would be created for materials inspectors if a new inspector were hired.

The Illinois Radiation Protection Advisory Council (Council) was created by the General Assembly

in 1959. It is composed of seven members appointed by the Governor and two ex officio members

from the Department of Labor and the Commerce Commission. The members reflect a variety of

backgrounds in the use of radiation sources. The purpose of the Council is to assist the

Department in formulation, implementing, and reviewing policies and programs to ensure safe and

constructive uses of ionizing radiation. The Council also makes recommendations and provides

the Department with technical advice and assistance as required. A Conflict of Interest

Questionnaire form is filed and maintained on each member of the Council. 

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

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

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The review team examined completed licensing casework and interviewed the staff for 19 specific

licenses. Licensing actions were evaluated for completeness, consistency, proper isotopes and

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

operating and emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing actions. 
Illinois Final Report Page 6

Licenses were evaluated for overall technical quality including accuracy, appropriateness of the

license, its conditions, and tie-down conditions. Casework was evaluated for timeliness;

adherence to good health physics practices; reference to appropriate regulations; documentation

of safety evaluation reports, product certifications or other supporting documents; consideration of

enforcement history on renewals; pre-licensing visits, peer or supervisory review as indicated; and

proper signature authority. The files were checked for retention of necessary documents and

supporting data. 

The licensing casework was selected to provide a representative sample of licensing actions that

were completed during the review period. The sampling included the following types: large and

small irradiator, medical (including broad scope), academic (including broad scope), nuclear

pharmacy, research and development, veterinary nuclear medicine, industrial radiography, fixed

gauges and devices, and wireline services. Licensing actions included three new licensees,

seven renewals, nine amendments, five terminations, and two bankruptcies. A list of the licenses

evaluated with case-specific comments can be found in Appendix D.

Overall, the review team found that the licensing actions were thorough, complete, consistent, and

of acceptable quality with health and safety issues properly addressed. License tie-down

conditions were almost always stated clearly, backed by information contained in the file, and

inspectable. The licensee's compliance history was taken into account when reviewing renewal

applications and amendments. Reviewers appropriately used the State's licensing guides, license

templates, standard conditions and checklists. No potentially significant health and safety issues

were identified.

Licensing actions are all tracked via "blue sheets." The blue sheets are generated by the clerical

staff upon receipt, the information entered into the database, and then the action is assigned to a

license reviewer. The blue sheets follow the status of the licensing action throughout the process. 

Good communication was recognized between licensing and inspection staff via "green sheets"

placed in license files. These sheets are utilized for license reviewers and inspectors to

communicate any issues or problems identified during the review process or inspection. 

The review team found that the staff follows appropriate licensing guides during the review

process to ensure that licensees submit information necessary to support their request. The

review team found the checklists used for each type of program to be comprehensive and

incorporated excellent notes to assist the staff with their review of the applications. Letters and

documented telephone conversations contained appropriate regulatory language and addressed

deficiencies. The use of license templates by the staff also resulted in notable consistency

between reviewers. Overall, the review team found that the licensing actions were thorough,

complete, consistent, of high quality and properly addressed health and safety issues. 

Several licensing actions examined by the team required the licensee to submit financial

assurance. The LLRW Licensing and Site Decommission Section determines the financial

assurance requirements for the licensing staff. The originals of the financial assurance

documents are maintained in the licensee file. 

The team found that terminated licensing actions were well documented. The files included the

appropriate material transfer records and survey records. Staff from the Office of Environmental
Illinois Final Report Page 7

Safety, in coordination with the licensing and inspection staff, takes confirmation surveys for

license termination. An evaluation of the selected termination records revealed excellent

communication between the licensing, inspection, and the Environmental Safety staff to prevent

abandonment of radioactive material. The files showed that documentation of proper disposal or

transfer was provided.

Licenses are renewed on a five-year frequency. Licenses that are under timely renewal are

amended as necessary to assure that public health and safety issues are addressed during the

period that the license is undergoing the renewal process. Deficiencies are addressed by letters

and documented telephone conferences, which used appropriate regulatory language. 

Management reviews the licensing actions prior to issuance. All licenses are signed by the

Radioactive Materials Licensing Section Head. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Illinois' 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 Department’s actions in responding to incidents, the review

team examined the Department’s response to the questionnaire relative to this indicator, evaluated

selected incidents reported for Illinois in the Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED) against

those contained in the Illinois’ files, and evaluated the casework and supporting documentation for

11 material incidents. A list of the incident casework examined with case-specific comments is

included in Appendix E. The team also reviewed the Department’s response to seven allegations

involving radioactive materials, including four allegations referred to the Department by the NRC

during the review period.

The review team discussed the Department’s incident response procedures, file documentation,

the State’s equivalent to the Freedom of Information Act, NMED, and notification of incidents to

the NRC Operations Center with the Division Chief, Inspection and Enforcement Head, Regional

Inspection Supervisor, and selected staff.

The Division has primary responsibility for initial response and follow up to incidents involving

radioactive materials. Additional aid for incident response can be received from the Office of

Environmental Safety when necessary. The State also has the Radiological Assessment and

Coordinated Emergency Response (RACER) program that draws staff and expertise from various

divisions of the Department in responding to incidents. 

The Division does not differentiate between incidents and allegations as defined by the NRC; both

are described as incidents under Division terminology. As such, the Division does not have

separate procedures for incidents and allegations. The Division’s “Investigations and Special

Surveys” procedure was last revised April 14, 1995. However, revision 10 of their “Radiological

Duty Officer (RDO) Standard Operating Procedure” was dated February 1, 2001. The procedure

details the responsibilities of the RDO, a rotating position within the Department, to ensure that a

lead is designated and fully prepared for incident response. Though the procedure was complete

in detailing steps in responding to an incident, information on NMED reporting or the handling of

allegation-related tasks, such as follow up to allegers, was not included in the procedure. A team
Illinois Final Report Page 8

member and the Division Chief discussed the advantages of updating the Division’s procedures to

include these topics.

Due to the Division not differentiating between incidents and allegations, the review team was

unable to determine how many materials incidents occurred during the review period or how many

incidents the Division should have reported to NRC per STP Procedure SA-300, Reporting

Material Events. Legal staff reviews each incident before any materials are released to the public. 

Eleven incidents were selected for review. The incidents included the following categories: lost

or stolen material, leaking source, misadministration, equipment failure, overexposure, damage to

equipment, contamination event, and accidental exposure. The review team found that the

Department’s response to incidents was generally complete and comprehensive. Initial responses

were prompt and well-coordinated, and the level of effort was commensurate with the health and

safety significance. Inspectors were dispatched for on-site investigations when appropriate and

the Department took suitable enforcement action.

In reviewing the inspection notes for inspections following incidents where the Division did not

conduct an on-site response, inspection notes generally did not mention following up on the

incident. Discussions with inspectors and the Inspection and Enforcement Head revealed that

inspectors prepare for inspections by reviewing past inspections, including any incident reports,

and that past incidents receive follow up, if appropriate. The review team and Division

management discussed the importance of documenting follow up of incidents during inspections.

The team found that significant incidents were appropriately reported to the NRC Operations

Center in a timely manner. The Division Chief has a copy of the reporting requirements in STP

Procedure SA-300, and uses it to determine which events should be reported. All of the eight

incidents reviewed by the review team that required reporting to the NRC Operations Center were

reported. 

During the review period, four allegations were referred to the Division by the NRC. The

casework for these allegations was reviewed as well as the casework for three additional

incidents, that fit the criteria for allegations as defined by the NRC, reported directly to the

Department. The review of the casework and the Division’s files indicated that the Division took

prompt and appropriate action in response to the concerns raised, including responding to

allegers when appropriate. The Department’s procedures for handling incidents are incomplete in

terms of handling “allegations.” A team member discussed the benefits of updating procedures

with the Division Chief. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Illinois’ 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 Evaluation Program; (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Program Department;

and (4) Uranium Recovery Program. 
Illinois Final Report Page 9

4.1 Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility

4.1.1 Legislation

The State provided, in their response to the questionnaire, a listing of legislation that affects the

radiation control program. The Department is designated as the State radiation protection agency

under the provisions of the Radiation Protection Act of 1990, as amended [420 ILCS 40]. The Act

grants the Department the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to be followed in the

administration of the radiation protection program. During the review period, the Radiation

Protection Act was amended to allow State regulation of Federal entities, if a Federal entity agrees

to be regulated by the State.

The Radioactive Waste Storage Act [420 ILCS 35], the Illinois Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Management Act [420 ILCS 20] and the Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings Control Act [420 ILCS

42] statutes provide authority for the low-level radioactive waste disposal and uranium recovery

programs.

Other statutes which affect the radiation control program include: Central Midwest Radioactive

Waste Compact Act [45 ILCS 140]; Department of Nuclear Safety [20 ILCS 2005]; Freedom of

Information Act [5 ILCS 140]; and Illinois Administrative Procedure Act [5 ILCS 100].

Public Act 91-752, which was effective June 2, 2000, extended the sunset date for the Radiation

Protection Act until January 1, 2011. The other aforementioned statutes do not have sunset

provisions.

4.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility

The Illinois regulations for control of radiation are located in 32 Illinois Administrative Code and

apply to all ionizing radiation, whether emitted from radionuclides or devices. Illinois requires a

license for possession and use of radioactive materials, including naturally occurring and

accelerator-produced radionuclides.

The review team examined the State's rulemaking process and found that the process takes

approximately six months after preparation of a draft rule. Proposed rules are published in the

Illinois Register with a minimum 45-day comment period, and may include a public hearing. 

Proposed rules are sent to NRC for a compatibility ruling. After resolution of comments, the

Department provides the comments and responses to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

(JCAR), a bipartisan committee consisting of legislators from the Illinois House of Representatives

and Senate. After resolution of JCAR comments, the rule must be re-published for comment if

substantial changes were made or scheduled for a vote at the next available monthly JCAR

meeting. Approved rules are published as final in the Illinois Register. Final rules are sent to the

NRC and updated on the Department’s website. The Department has the authority to issue

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

regulations become effective.

The review team evaluated Illinois’ responses to the questionnaire, reviewed the status of

regulations required to be adopted by the State under the Commission’s adequacy and
Illinois Final Report Page 10

compatibility policy, and verified regulation status with data obtained from the Office of State and

Tribal Programs’ Regulation Assessment Tracking System. Discussions with program staff during

this review indicated a good awareness of recently adopted rules. The Department has plans in

process to adopt the three rules listed below that were overdue at the time of the review. Current

NRC policy requires that Agreement States adopt certain equivalent regulations or legally binding

requirements no later than three years after they are effective.

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

(60 FR 50248 and 61 FR 28724) that became effective April 1, 1996.

Illinois sent a letter to the NRC Office of State and Tribal Programs on February 7, 2001,

requesting information which would allow the State to incorporate by reference the

transportation requirements of 10 CFR Part 71. The Office of State and Tribal Programs

responded by letter dated March 27, 2001 stating that the Illinois Department of Nuclear

Safety can adopt 49 CFR Parts 170 - 189 by reference, along with the appropriate

sections of 10 CFR Part 71 that are not specifically included in 49 CFR, in order to

maintain compatibility. The Department is evaluating that response. Adoption of the rule

is planned for 2001.

• "Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne Effluents of Radioactive Materials: Clean Air

Act," 10 CFR Part 20 amendment (61 FR 65119) that became effective January 9, 1997.

A compatible rule is in draft and is scheduled for promulgation in 2001.

• "Deliberate Misconduct by Unlicensed Persons," 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 61, 70, and 150

amendments (63 FR 1890 and 63 FR 13773) that became effective February 12, 1998.

This regulation is under review by the Department’s legal staff to determine the feasibility

of adopting the rule. 

Although the following rule has not been adopted, the Department plans to address this regulation

with a Part 335 update, and is awaiting NRC’s issuance of the revised 10 CFR Part 35, due in

2001.

• "Preparation, Transfer for Commercial Distribution and Use of Byproduct Material for

Medical Use," 10 CFR Parts 30, 32, and 35 amendments (59 FR 61767, 59 FR 65243 and

60 FR 322) that became effective January 1, 1995. 

Although, the following rule has not been adopted by the State, the Department Director’s

exemption process, allows the Department to release patients administered radioactive material

on a case-by-case evaluation. Exemptions for licensees have been granted for certain

non-Hodgkins lymphoma patients and a thyroid treatment is now being considered for exemption. 

This policy may meet the Category C compatibility criteria for this rule; however, the review team

discussed with the Department that this alternative process needs to be evaluated by NRC

following STP Procedure SA-201. The Division has provided information on this exemption

process to the NRC for review. NRC will contact the Department when its evaluation is

completed.
Illinois Final Report Page 11

• "Criteria for the Release of Individuals Administered Radioactive Material," 10 CFR Parts

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

The following rule is currently enforced by the Division through licensing and termination process. 

A compatible rule is in draft and is scheduled for promulgation in Spring 2001. Either the currently

legally binding requirements or the draft rule needs to be evaluated by NRC following STP

Procedure SA-201.

• "Radiological Criteria for License Termination," 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, and 70

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

The following regulations have been adopted by the State; however, there are differences

between the State’s and the NRC’s regulations that need to be addressed. After discussions with

the Department, they agreed to reevaluate these regulations. Following this evaluation, either the

existing or revised rules will need to be submitted for NRC review following STP Procedure SA201. 

• "Quality Management Program and Misadministrations," 10 CFR Part 35 amendment (56

FR 34104) that became effective January 27, 1995.

As noted in the 1997 Illinois IMPEP review final report, the State adopted misadministration

requirements on May 2, 1994, in Part 335 "Notifications, Reports and Records of

Reportable Events." The State requires licensees to notify the patient of a reportable

event within15 days after the licensee ascertains and confirms that a reportable event has

occurred instead of within 24 hours as required by NRC regulations. NRC is continuing to

defer compatibility findings for Agreement States that have not yet adopted a compatible

Quality Management rule until NRC issues a revised Part 35 rule, compatibility

designations for the new rule are established, and an effective date for Agreement State

implementation has been set.

• "Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and Reporting," 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61

amendments (60 FR 15649 and 60 FR 25983) that became effective March 1, 1998. 

Illinois and other Agreement States were expected to have an equivalent rule effective on

the same date. 

The State has its own shipping manifest requirements in Part 609 which are different than

the uniform shipping manifest requirements in NRC regulations. This regulation is

Category B because of its significant direct transboundary implications. The State element

should be essentially identical to that of NRC. The uniform manifest rule allows an

Agreement State to require additional information on a manifest for the State’s regulatory

purposes. 

The following regulation was imposed by the Department through a compatible legally binding

requirement. 

• "Licensing and Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators," 10 CFR Part 36 amendment

(58 FR 7715) that became effective July 1, 1993.
Illinois Final Report Page 12

The State reported that all irradiator licenses issued implement the rule through license

conditions. This regulation is planned to be incorporated into State regulations and

adopted with the issuance of Part 336.

The following regulations will become due in the future and are included here to assist the State in

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

• "Licenses for Industrial Radiography and Radiation Safety Requirements for Industrial

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

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

• "Minor Corrections, Clarifying Changes, and a Minor Policy Change," 10 CFR Parts 20,

32, 35, 36, and 39 amendments (63 FR 39477 and 63 FR 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.

• "Radiological Criteria for License Termination of Uranium Recovery Facilities," 10 CFR

Part 40 amendment (64 FR 17506) that became effective June 11, 1999.

• "Respiratory Protection and Controls to Restrict Internal Exposures," 10 CFR Part 20

amendment (64 FR 54543 and 64 FR 55524) that became effective February 2, 2000.

• "Energy Compensation Sources for Well Logging and Other Regulatory Clarifications," 10

CFR Part 39 amendment (65 FR 20337) that became effective May 17, 2000.

• "New Dosimetry Technology," 10 CFR Parts 34, 36, and 39 amendments (65 FR 63749

and 66 FR 1573) that became effective January 8, 2001.

The review team noted that the State has made progress in the adoption of regulations since the

last IMPEP review, and that they have made a commitment to adopt the three outstanding

regulations in 2001. Nonetheless, the State has three regulations that have not been adopted

within three years of the effective date of NRC’s final rule and a number of other compatibilityrelated issues that are in need of clarification. The review team recommends that the State adopt

the regulations, or other legally-binding requirements, which are overdue for adoption. 

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

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

found satisfactory with recommendations for improvement.

4.2 Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Program

In assessing the Department's SS&D evaluation, the review team examined information provided

by the Department in response to the IMPEP questionnaire on this indicator. A review of selected

new, amended, corrected, inactivated, converted and transferred SS&D evaluations, deficiency

letters and supporting documents covering the review period was conducted. The review team
Illinois Final Report Page 13

noted the Department’s use of guidance documents and procedures, interviewed the staff,

technical support professionals, and the Division Chief involved in the SS&D evaluations, and

verified the use of regulations and license conditions to enforce commitments made in the

applications. 

4.2.1 Technical Quality of the Product Evaluation Program

The Department completed approximately 80 actions involving 75 registrations, transferred out

216 registration certificates to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and another 12 to the State

of Texas. Eleven case files were selected for review that included work performed by all

reviewers. The cross-section sampling included all the Department’s major SS&D manufacturers. 

The SS&D actions included new certificates, amendments, corrections, transfers, conversions,

and inactivations. The certificates reviewed covered the period since March 1997, and

represented cases completed by the principal reviewers. The SS&D certificates issued by the

Department, and evaluated by the review team, are listed with case-specific comments in

Appendix G. 

The selected SS&D registration certificates and case files were reviewed for accuracy,

appropriateness for authorization, tie-down statements, and over all technical quality. The

casework was evaluated for timeliness, adherence to good radiation safety practice, acceptable

engineering practices, reference to appropriate regulations, evaluation of safety evaluation

reports, manufacturing Quality Assurance/Quality Control, supporting documents, peer and

supervisory review as indicated, and proper signature authority. The files were checked for

retention of necessary documents and other supporting data.

Analysis of the casework and interviews with staff and engineering technical support

professionals, confirmed that the Division generally follows the recommended guidance from the

NRC SS&D training workshops and NUREG-1556, Volume 3, issued in July 1998. All applicable

and pertinent American National Standards Institute standards, NUREG-1556 Series, NRC

Regulatory Guides, and applicable references were confirmed to be available and were used

appropriately in performing the SS&D reviews. In reviewing emergent technology related products

and new applications, the Department performed evaluations based on good and sound

conservative assumptions to ensure public health and safety. Appropriate review checklists were

used to assure that all relevant materials were submitted and reviewed. The checklists are

retained in the case files. Registrations clearly summarized the product evaluation and provided

license reviewers with adequate information on areas requiring additional attention to license the

possession, use, and distribution of the products. The team determined that product evaluations

were thorough, complete, consistent, of acceptable technical quality, and adequately addressed

the integrity of the products during use and in the event of likely accidents.

4.2.2 Technical Staffing and Training

The Department attributed about 10-15% of the staff time is spent on safety evaluation of

registration certificates. The Department adopted a team approach in performing evaluations of

products to be registered, and on an as need basis, can obtain engineering and technical

assistance from two registered professional engineers that work in the LLRW and Site

Decommissioning Section. The Department discussed with the review team the use of
Illinois Final Report Page 14

five-person teams to limit safety evaluations performed by external support. All reviewers’ work is

concurred at the supervisory level. This team approach fosters consistency and acts as a conduit

to provide the necessary experience and expertise for this size of program.

The review team examined the training and experience documentation of the staff and

management involved in the evaluation program. There have been no additional staff involved in

the evaluation program since 1994. The educational qualifications for the current staff were

evaluated and were found adequate. 

4.2.3 Evaluation of Defects and Incidents Regarding SS&Ds

No safety significant or generic incidents, issues, or defects related to SS&D issues were reported

concerning the devices (products) registered by the Department during the review period. The

review team also verified that there were no reported incidents through discussions with the SS&D

reviewers and a review of the NMED database. 

No incidents were identified that were related to any malfunctioning devices or products

considered during this review. One of the Department staff demonstrated their ability to conduct

computer searches for NMED data concerning specified SS&D devices and manufacturers.

The review team discussed a few general issues with the Department, including the need to

closely follow the format for documenting product evaluations in the registry certificates as

detailed in NUREG-1556, Volume 3, (i.e., completion of check lists and inclusion of dual units) in

order to foster national consistency. Department staff agreed that this is a valid issue which

should be brought to the attention of the SS&D working group.

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

with respect to the indicator, Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program, be found

satisfactory.

4.3 Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program

In 1981, the NRC amended its Policy Statement, "Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in

Discontinuance of NRC 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 continued LLRW disposal

authority without the need of an amendment. The State’s LLRW program is currently inactive, and

it is anticipated that there will be no further activity with the program for several years. Therefore,

the staff are working on other projects. Accordingly, the review team did not review this indicator.

4.4 Uranium Recovery Program

In conducting this review, five sub-indicators were used to evaluate the Program’s performance

regarding the uranium recovery program. These sub-indicators include: (1) Status of Uranium

Recovery 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. The results of the uranium recovery program review will be discussed under each of
Illinois Final Report Page 15

these sub-indicators. In 1990, the Illinois Agreement was amended to include the authority for

11e.(2) byproduct material and the facilities that generate such material. 

The Department’s uranium recovery program is administered under the LLRW Licensing and Site

Decommissioning Section. The Department has only one licensee in this program, the

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation (Kerr-McGee), Rare Earths Facility, located in West Chicago,

Illinois. This facility is in the process of decommissioning, and the material is being shipped out of

State for disposal. In addition, off-site residential contamination is authorized by license condition

to be brought back on-site for a limited time prior to shipment for disposal. The Department has

worked closely with the local community and the licensee to develop a decommissioning plan

acceptable to all stakeholders. 

4.4.1 Status of Uranium Recovery Inspection Program

The Department has an annual inspection frequency for the Kerr-McGee site. The frequency is

consistent with the criteria in IMC 2800 and IMC 2801 and has been applied since the licensee

began decommissioning operations in 1994. The Department has a resident health physics

inspector at the site who conducts daily, weekly, and monthly operational checks and observes

site operations daily. The current resident inspector has been in the position since 1996. Also

on-site is an engineering company, under Department contract, that supports the health physics

resident. The contractor audits the engineering quality control on the site and performs

environmental surveys. 

The Department reviews the annual environmental monitoring report submitted by the licensee

and determines compliance for the environmental program. This review is conducted on a

separate schedule from the annual license compliance inspection. Three annual compliance

inspections were conducted by the Springfield office staff since the last review. The review team

found that there were no overdue or backlogged inspections for this license. 

4.4.2 Technical Quality of Inspections 

In reviewing this sub-indicator, the review team examined inspection files, inspection reports, and

enforcement documentation for Kerr-McGee, which included the last three annual inspection

reports. The file also had documentation for the last environmental monitoring data review and

the quality assurance audit. The documentation for these activities show that past inspections

and audits adequately covered the scope, completeness, and technical accuracy necessary to

determine compliance with regulations, license conditions, and available guidance. Appropriate

enforcement actions were taken given the scope of the violation noted. The inspections were

thorough and the violation identified was quickly addressed by the licensee. 

Given the location of the licensed site, there is an extensive environmental monitoring program

with the licensee, the Department, and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, all conducting

independent monitoring programs. The Department reviews the licensee's annual environmental

monitoring report. In addition to the annual compliance inspection, a Quality Assurance inspection

was conducted to evaluate the licensee's checks on the construction and clean-up activities at the

site. The primary health physics inspector (from the Springfield office) was not accompanied by a

team member for this review. However, the site was visited by a member of the review team. The
Illinois Final Report Page 16

resident inspector conducted a tour of the site and demonstrated his knowledge and

understanding of the site activities.

4.4.3 Technical Staffing and Training

The LLRW Licensing and Site Decommissioning Section Head supervises the staff conducting the

annual compliance inspections and the resident inspector. The technical staff consists of two

health physicists, two engineers (both professional engineers), and a geologist, with a support

contractor supplying additional expertise in these areas. The review team examined the training,

education, and experience of the staff members and found that the qualifications of the technical

staff are commensurate with the expertise identified as necessary to regulate the radioactive

material at the Kerr-McGee site. The Springfield-based inspectors have completed the requisite

NRC core courses. The resident inspector has not taken the Inspection Procedures or the

Fundamentals of Inspections courses; however, the Department describes his primary

responsibilities at the site as project management. The resident inspector’s responsibilities

include the management of the Department’s site contractors, oversight of the on-site health and

safety activities, the licensee’s work plans, special work permits, and the worker safety training

program.

Additional support is provided by the staff in the Office of Environmental Safety for environmental

monitoring, verification surveys, and sample analyses on an as needed basis. The Department

has a laboratory located in West Chicago, Illinois. The laboratory was visited by a member of the

review team and found to be a well equipped facility. The Office of Environmental Safety, Division

of Radiochemistry, has a full time chemist assigned to the laboratory. 

The review team determined that during the review period, a supervisor did not accompany

inspectors each year. During the May 21, 2001 MRB meeting, Department management noted

that the inspectors had been accompanied in previous years. The review team found no signs of

performance deficiency due to lack of supervisory accompaniment by a supervisor. 

4.4.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The review team evaluated nine amendments issued since the last review of the Kerr-McGee

license. In examining the amendments and selected documentation in the file, the review team

found that the majority of the license amendments were to change the volume of material leaving

the site for disposal and to authorize the receipt of radioactive material brought on to the site from

the residential clean-up activities. Other actions included authorizing the operation of the Water

Treatment Plant, authorizing the use of the Field Verification System, establishing clean-up

standards for residual uranium in dry soil, and authorizing Phase IV decommissioning activities. 

The license included appropriate license conditions for the decommissioning operations at the

facility. 

The Department has done extensive reviews on the licensee’s request for alternate concentration

limits (ACLs) during this review period. The ACL request is part of a comprehensive groundwater

corrective action plan (CAP). The Department listed 20 groundwater constituents, identified in 10

CFR Part 40, Appendix A, to be included in the licensee’s CAP. The final review of the CAP will
Illinois Final Report Page 17

be performed by the Department and the Department’s contractor. The Department is using the

appropriate regulations and guidance documents for the review. 

Based on a review of the licensing file, the team concluded that licensing actions were appropriate

and that the license conditions were clear and well-written. Requirements associated with these

conditions were based on a need to meet the regulations and to protect health and safety.

4.4.5 Response to Incidents and Allegations

There were no incidents or allegations pertaining to the Kerr-McGee activities during this review

period. 

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

with respect to the indicator, Uranium Recovery Program, be found satisfactory. 

5.0 SUMMARY

As noted in Sections 3 and 4 above, the review team found Illinois’ performance to be satisfactory

for seven performance indicators and satisfactory with recommendations for improvement for the

non-common performance indicator, Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility. 

Accordingly, the review team recommended and the MRB concurred in finding the Illinois

Agreement State program to be adequate and compatible with NRC's program. Based on the

results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review will be in approximately four years.

Below is the recommendation, as mentioned earlier in the report, for evaluation and

implementation, as appropriate, by the State. 

RECOMMENDATION:

1. The review team recommends that the State adopt the regulations, or other legally-binding

requirements, which are overdue for adoption. (Section 4.1.2)
LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members

Appendix B Illinois Organization Charts

Appendix C Inspection Casework Reviews

Appendix D License Casework Reviews

Appendix E Incident Casework Reviews

Appendix F Sealed Source & Device Casework Reviews

Attachment 1 April 30, 2001 Letter from Thomas W. Ortciger

 Illinois’ Response to Draft IMPEP Report

Attachment 2 Response to Illinois Comments to the Draft IMPEP Report
APPENDIX A

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

Name Area of Responsibility

Linda McLean, Region IV Team Leader

Uranium Recovery Program

Lance Rakovan, STP Technical Staffing and Training 

Response to Incidents and Allegations

James Lynch, Region III Legislation and Program Elements Required

for Compatibility

Deborah Piskura, Region III Status of Materials Inspection Program

Technical Quality of Inspections

Ujagar Bhachu, NMSS Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program

Shawn Seeley, Maine Technical Quality of Licensing Actions
APPENDIX B

ILLINOIS

DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SAFETY

ORGANIZATION CHART

ML011070573



Attachment

April 30, 2001 Letter from Thomas W. Ortciger

Illinois’ Response to Draft IMPEP Report

ML011230448
. 

STATE OF ILLIYOIS as? 

DEPARTMENT OF NUCLJSAR S’iiFET17 

10~5OL'TER PARK DRI\'E l SPRISGFd!~iij:~O~S 627OJ 

'17.785-9400 l 214 --- I& 2- 6133 ,T,bi - 

George H. R!,an Thomas N’. Onciger 

Go\*emor Director 

April 30,200l 

Mr. Paul Lohaus, Director 

Office of State and Tribal Programs 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

Dear Mr. Lohaus: 

The purpose of this letter is to respond to your letter dated April 10,2001, and the 

Draft Report of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) 

Review of Illinois Agreement State Program, March 5-9,200l. With one exception, w-e 

view the results of our recent IMPEP review positively. Ms. McLean is to be 

commended for her cooperative and constructive attitude, in addition to the professional 

effort expended by the entire IMPEP team. Unfortunately, NRC chose to go beyond its 

comments and recommendations offered at our exit meeting and included an additional 

“recommendation” that to us seems unnecessary, unsupported and unw*arranted. W:e 

expect after serious consideration of our comments, appropriate changes to the final 

report will reflect a more reasoned program evaluation. 

As you know, we take issue with the “recommendation” on Page 17 related to 

training. There w*as only a brief mention during the exit briefing with Department staff 

on March 8, and w-e do not recall its mention at the management exit meeting the 

following day. We presumed that NRC would have at that time identified all issues to 

which IDNS would be expected to respond. We are vexed by your inclusion of what 

appears to be an inconsequential comment on the topic of training that hTRC surely 

recognizes as contentious. 

A documented and detailed training program exists for IDNS materials license 

reviewers and the review team was aware it is our intent that a similar program be 

established prior to hiring of any new inspection staff. We are perplexed by what 

happened during the review team’s preparation of the Drafi Report to elevate this issue to 

a written recommendation. If the topic had been discussed during the IMPEP visit, we 

would have provided all the information attached to this letter, which clearly 

demonstrates the exhaustive training and refresher training that is provided to all of our 

staff on a regular basis. Notably, this has been accomplished in spite of NRC’s failure to 

@ 

ML011230448 :i:.: 3- - s _ 




ATTACHMENT 2

RESPONSE TO ILLINOIS COMMENTS

TO THE DRAFT IMPEP REPORT

Comment 1:

First paragraph, 4th sentence of the April 10, 2001 letter transmitting the draft report, states, "The

review team’s recommendations were discussed with you ... review." There was no

recommendation discussed regarding training concerns on the part of the IMPEP team. 

Response:

Based on this comment, we will revise the boilerplate letter that accompanies draft IMPEP reports

to state that: “The review team’s preliminary findings were discussed...” (emphasis added). This

language better describes the information discussed on-site and allows for cases when

preliminary findings are revised such as the addition of a recommendation. There will be no

change to the report based on this comment.

Comment 2:

Page 3, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence, states, “The Division's policy requires the findings to be

dispatched within 30 days following the inspection." The first part of the sentence needs to be

changed to, “The Division has a goal that the findings... inspection."

Response:

We agree with this comment and the report will be revised accordingly.

Comment 3:

Page 5, last two paragraphs: The penultimate paragraph acknowledges that a complete and

updated written training program based on the NRC/Organization of Agreement States (OAS)

Training Working Group Report was established for use by the materials license reviewer hired

during the review period. The report continues, "The review team found the program acceptable

for his training. The Division Director (should be changed to Division Chief) stated that a similar

program would be created if a new inspector were hired." We have no problem with this

paragraph, and we were informed by the IMPEP team that this satisfied any concerns about a

documented training program for the Division. However, the first sentence in the last paragraph

on page 5, states that, "One topic included in the NRC/OAS report that was lacking in the

Division’s training program was refresher training.” The report then discusses the importance of

refresher training and its advantages. We do not disagree with the importance and advantages of

refresher training and we spend enormous resources to provide such training routinely. We have

an extremely aggressive refresher training program as evidenced by the information contained in

Appendix A. This is a listing of all the training accomplishments for our staff. We could have

provided this information during the IMPEP visit if asked, but it was not. It astounds us that

something that is barely mentioned during the IMPEP visit becomes one of two recommendations

in the Draft IMPEP report. This is unacceptable and undermines the constructive efforts of the

IMPEP review. Fortunately, the review team recommended that Illinois’ performance with respect

to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, was found to be satisfactory. Unfortunately, the

recommendation concerning this item appears on page 17 in the Summary Section of the Draft

Report as one of only two recommendations for the entire IMPEP review. This Recommendation

should be deleted from the Report. 
2 ATTACHMENT 2

Response:

We agree with that comment that “Division Director” should be changed to “Division Chief.”

The review team acknowledges that refresher training is indeed provided by the Division and

appreciates the materials submitted with the Division’s reply to the draft IMPEP report. 

Recommendations involving written training programs, however, are not uncommon in IMPEP

reports. Similar recommendations have been made in at least a dozen past IMPEP reviews and

final reports. Although this topic was not initially discussed as a recommendation during the onsite review, the review team believes that recommending a general written training program

follows past IMPEP policy and consistent with the NRC/OAS Training Working Group

Recommendations for Agreement State Training Programs. Thus, though the last paragraph on

page 5 will be revised as noted below, the review team believes that the MRB should decide if this

recommendation should be included in the final report.

Discussions with staff members confirmed that though inspectors and license

reviewers are confident in their training to perform assigned tasks, supplemental or

refresher training would be beneficial for experienced staff members. The

advantages of this type of training was discussed with Division management,

especially with the increased emphasis on performance-based inspections. In their

April 30, 2001 reply to the draft IMPEP report, the Division enclosed details of staff

refresher training. The review team acknowledges that the Division does indeed

focus resources on refresher training, however the Division does not have a

documented training program for all technical staff. The review team recommends

that the Division establish a documented training program including refresher

training for technical staff as recommended in the NRC/OAS Training Working

Group Report.

Comment 4:

Page 8, 4th paragraph, 6th line: "The procedure details the responsibilities of the RDO, a rotating

position within the Division. ..response." The word "Division" should be changed to "Department"

in this sentence. 

Response:

We agree with this comment and the report will be revised accordingly.

Comment 5:

Page 8, 5th paragraph, 1st sentence: Due to the Division not differentiating between incidents

and allegations and the lack of an internal incident tracking system prior to 1999, the review team

was unable to determine how many. ..Events." Prior to 1999, we had an internal tracking system

that worked quite well. However, we finally succumbed to the desires of NRC and terminated use

of our existing database and converted to sole use of the NMED program, even with all its

nuances and inadequacies. If we had not done so we could have continued use of our system and

readily provided the information necessary for review. 

Response:

The review team agrees that this language does not correctly reflect the circumstances describe. 

The phrase “and the lack of an internal incident tracking system prior to 1999,” will be removed
3 ATTACHMENT 2

from the report. We appreciate the effort that the Division puts forth to participate in the NMED

program.

Comment 6:

Page 9, penultimate sentence, 2nd paragraph, states, "The Department's procedures for handling

incidents are incomplete in terms of handling "allegations." We do treat incidents the same and

the sentence before the penultimate acknowledges that the Division took appropriate action on all

allegations, including "responding to the allegers when appropriate.” Therefore, the performance

of the Division was appropriate and satisfactory and, even though the procedure for incidents

does not address all items concerning "allegations", the review team found this criteria satisfactory

without any associated "recommendation." his is consistent with the performance-based approach

of IMPEP and should have been used in the Technical Staff Training criteria. 

Response:

There will be no revision to the report based on this comment.

Comment 7:

Page II, first bullet regarding "Radiological Criteria for License Termination:" A sentence should

be added that states, "The 25 mrem criteria is currently enforced through licensing and termination

procedures." Because this requirement is enforced by the Division, by "other legally binding

requirements," this item should not count as one of the four regulations referenced on Page 13

that have not been adopted within three-years of NRC rules and should be moved to Page 12

under the "compatible legally binding requirement" header. 

Response:

We agree that this rule should not be included in the list of those regulations not adopted within

three years of the NRC rule and the report will be revised accordingly. Either the Division’s

process noted here or the draft rule needs to be evaluated by NRC following STP Procedure SA201. 

Comment 8:

Page II, 2nd paragraph: We provided all the information concerning the Department's exemption

process allowing release of patients administered radioactive material on a case-by-case basis. 

We suggest adding, "NRC will contact the state when its evaluation is completed." as the last

sentence to this paragraph. 

Response:

We agree with this comment and the report will be revised accordingly.

Comment 9:

Page 17, Recommendation 1. at the bottom o f the page: delete this recommendation! 

Response:

See our response to Comment 3.