DATED: JULY 13, 1999 SIGNED BY: FRANK J. MIRAGLIA

Mr. Murray G. Sagsveen

State Health Officer

North Dakota Department of Health

Capitol Building

600 East Boulevard

Bismarck, ND 58505-0200

Dear Mr. Sagsveen:

On June 30, 1999, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the North Dakota

Agreement State Program. The MRB found the North Dakota program adequate to protect

public health and safety and compatible with NRC’s program. 

Section 5.0, page 13, of the enclosed final report presents the IMPEP team’s recommendations. 

We received your June 7, 1999 letter which described your actions taken in response to the

recommendations in the draft report. We request no additional information.

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, a follow-up IMPEP review focusing on the

common performance indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program, will be completed in one

year and 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/

Frank J. Miraglia, Jr.

Deputy Executive Director

 for Regulatory Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: Dana K. Mount, Director

Division of Environmental Engineering

Roland G. Fletcher, Organization of

Agreement States Liaison to the MRB
Mr. Murray G. Sagsveen

State Health Officer

North Dakota Department of Health

Capitol Building

600 East Boulevard

Bismarck, ND 58505-0200

Dear Mr. Sagsveen:

On June 30, 1999, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the North Dakota

Agreement State Program. The MRB found the North Dakota program adequate to protect

public health and safety and compatible with NRC’s program. 

Section 5.0, page 13, of the enclosed final report presents the IMPEP team’s recommendations. 

We received your June 7, 1999 letter which described your actions taken in response to the

recommendations in the draft report. We request no additional information.

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, a follow-up IMPEP review focusing on the

common performance indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program, will be completed in one

year and 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,

Frank J. Miraglia, Jr.

Deputy Executive Director

 for Regulatory Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: Dana K. Mount, Director bcc: Chairman Dicus

Division of Environmental Engineering Commissioner Diaz

 Commissioner McGaffigan 

Roland G. Fletcher, Organization of Commissioner Merrifield

Agreement States Liaison to the MRB

Distribution:

DIR RF MShaffer, RIV DCD (SP01) PDR (YES)

SDroggitis, OSP TTaylor, NMSS

KSchneider, OSP JPeterson, SC

LRakovan, OSP DChamberlain, RIV

JMyers, ASPO CHackney, RIV

DCool, NMSS GKim, OGC

GDeegan, NMSS LMcLean, RIV

STreby, OGC FCombs, OSP

North Dakota File TCombs, OCA (2 copies)

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\IMPEP\99FINLTR.ND; G:\IMPEP\NDIMP99.FIN

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 OSP/RSAO OSP:D DEDR

NAME JLynch:kk PHLohaus FJMiraglia

DATE 07/ /99 07/ /99 07/ /99

OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-22
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

REVIEW OF NORTH DAKOTA AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

April 13-16, 1999

FINAL REPORT

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
North Dakota Final Report Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

review was conducted during the period April 13-16, 1999, by a review team comprised of

technical staff members from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Agreement

State of South 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 February 10, 1996 to April 16, 1999 were discussed with North

Dakota management on April 16, 1999.

A draft of this report was issued to North Dakota for factual comment on May 10, 1999. The

State responded in a letter dated June 7, 1999. The Management Review Board (MRB) met on

June 30, 1999, to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the North Dakota radiation

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

program.

The North Dakota Agreement State program is administered by the Radiation and Asbestos

Control Program (RCP), located in the Department of Health’s Division of Environmental

Engineering. Organization charts for the Department of Health and the Division of Environmental

Engineering are included as Appendix B. The North Dakota program regulates approximately 68

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 North Dakota.

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

performance indicators was sent to the State on January 28, 1999. The State provided a

response to the questionnaire on March 16, 1999. A copy of the questionnaire response is

included as Appendix F to this report.

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

North Dakota's response to the questionnaire; (2) review of applicable North Dakota statutes and

regulations; (3) analysis of quantitative information from the RCP’s licensing and inspection data

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

of both North Dakota 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 RCP’s performance.

Section 2 below discusses the State'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

recommendations. Recommendations made by the review team are comments that relate

directly to program performance by the State. A response is requested from the State to all

recommendations in the final report.
North Dakota Final Report Page 2

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS

During the previous IMPEP review, which concluded on February 9, 1996, four recommendations

and five suggestions were made and the results transmitted to Jon R. Rice, State Health Officer,

on June 11, 1996. The review team’s evaluation of the current status of the recommendations is

as follows:

1. The review team recommends that the State adopt a written timeliness goal for issuance

of inspection findings to the licensee.

Current Status: The State has adopted written timeliness goals for issuance of inspection

findings that are consistent with NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0610. This is

contained in the RCP’s Administrative Procedures Manual. This recommendation is

closed.

2. The review team recommends that State management and staff devote increased

attention to issuing inspection results in a timely manner.

Current Status: Although State management and staff devoted increased attention to

issuing inspection results in a timely manner, the State did not successfully meet the

30-day time frame over the course of the review period. Since October 1998, however all

inspection results have been transmitted to licensees within 30 days. This

recommendation is closed. However, a new recommendation is identified in Section 3.1,

for the State to continue efforts to transmit inspection findings within 30 days and to

promptly evaluate licensee responses to inspection findings.

3. The review team recommends that the State monitor the timeliness of issuing inspection

findings to licensees as experience is gained with the new management tracking system. 

Within the next year, the State should perform a systematic assessment of the tracking

system and decide whether it is effective in tracking assignments and prompting staff and

management to issue inspection findings.

Current Status: The State did monitor the timeliness of issuing inspection findings and

did systematically assess the tracking system. Based on this assessment, RCP

management re-emphasized the importance of inspection report timeliness with the

inspection staff in October 1998, and began to closely monitor the status of inspection

findings following inspections. Each of the 10 inspections (core and non-core), performed

between November 1998 and March 1999, resulted in letters of noncompliance being

issued less than 30 days following the inspection. This recommendation is closed.

4. The review team recommends that, over the next year, the State should assess whether

initial inspections have been performed within six months of licensee issuance or within

the provisions of IMC 2800, and whether the State’s method for scheduling initial

inspections has worked adequately.

Current Status: The State has assessed whether initial inspections have been performed

within six months of licensee issuance. The RCP did this not only over the year following

the 1996 IMPEP review but on an ongoing basis. Assessment of the tracking system has

indicated that the State’s method for “documenting” the next scheduled initial inspection

has worked adequately, however, deficiencies in conducting initial inspections in a timely
North Dakota Final Report Page 3

manner resulted from not following the inspection schedule. This recommendation is

closed, as the evaluation was performed. A new recommendation regarding initial

inspection timeliness is discussed in Section 3.1.

The five suggestions concerned: (1) licensing training for a staff member; (2) licensing and

inspection training for the Program Manager; (3) impediments to training needs from curtailment

of out-of-state travel; (4) inspection field notes not signed by inspectors; and (5) inspection field

notes not signed by supervisors. The review team determined that the State 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 review team focused on four factors in evaluating this indicator: inspection frequency,

overdue inspections, initial inspection of new licensees, and timely dispatch of inspection findings

to licensees. The review team’s evaluation is based on RCP’s questionnaire responses relative

to this indicator, data gathered independently from the State’s licensing and inspection computer

printouts, the examination of completed inspection casework, and interviews with the staff.

The review team’s evaluation of the State’s inspection priorities revealed that inspection

frequencies for each type of license were the same as those listed in IMC 2800, with only one

exception. The State assigns a Priority 4 frequency for licensees authorized for portable nuclear

gauging devices. This is more restrictive than the Priority 5 designation in IMC 2800. The review

team also noted that the State established written procedures to extend or reduce the next

inspection interval based upon licensee performance.

In their response to the questionnaire, the State indicated that during the review period, 22

inspections were overdue by more than 25% of the specified frequency at the time they were

performed. During the review period, the RCP performed 60 inspections: 38 routine inspections,

9 initial inspections, 7 reciprocity inspections, and 6 special inspections. The review team

identified that 31 of the 60 inspections performed were core licenses. Of the 31 core license

inspections conducted during this review period, 20 were overdue on the date of the inspection. 

Delays ranged from 1 to 12 months late. The review team also verified that, as of the date of this

review, two inspections remained overdue past the 25% window. These inspections were

approximately four months and seven months overdue. These inspections were completed on

May 5 and May 18, 1999. Further, the review team noted that 11 additional inspections (four

core and seven non-core) were past the scheduled inspection due date, but not yet past the 25%

overdue window.

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

provided to inspection staff and management to monitor upcoming inspections. Interviews with

the staff indicated that inspection schedules are not routinely scheduled based on their priority. 

All types of licenses (core and non-core) are tracked chronologically based on “inspection due
North Dakota Final Report Page 4

date” and are scheduled based on their percent overdue status and geographic location within

the State.

With respect to initial inspections of new licenses, the review team evaluated those licenses

issued since the last review and used this information to determine the appropriate initial

inspection due date based on IMC 2800 guidance. Of the eight new licenses issued during the

review period, six of the initial inspections were not conducted within the six-month or one-year

time frame as appropriate. These overdue initial inspections are included in the total number of

overdue core inspections noted above. Delays ranged from 3 to 12 months late. No new

licenses have been issued since April 1997.

The review team discussed the significant number of overdue core inspections performed during

this review period with the Program Manager. The Program Manager discussed several

contributing causes including: (1) the departure of one of RCP’s two materials inspector/license

reviewers in July 1997; (2) the Program Manager’s involvement with other significant issues

during the review period, including his response to a natural disaster during 1997 (floods in

Grand Forks, North Dakota), and his involvement during 1998 with the litigation of an asbestos

case, another program area under his direct supervision; (3) the staff’s work on the formulation of

regulations to ensure compatibility during 1997 and 1998; and (4) the extended absence of one

of the program’s inspector/license reviewers for several weeks during early 1997 and in mid-1998

for personal reasons. In addition, the Program Manager noted that although the RCP was able

to successfully hire a new inspector in November 1997, this individual is still in the training

process and does not yet perform inspections independently. In summary, the Program Manager

stated that RCP continues to make progress in eliminating the number of overdue inspections,

and with his increased oversight of the program it is expected that the timeliness of inspection

activities will be performed in accordance with State procedures. The review team recommends

that RCP management devote additional attention to a “pro-active” review of the current

inspection tracking systems, and adjust staff priorities accordingly to ensure core licensees are

inspected at the required intervals.

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

review in 1996, the review team noted that no reciprocity inspections had been conducted. 

During the current review period, 40 requests for reciprocity were filed with the program. The

majority of the reciprocity requests were for Priority 3 and 4 licensees, which include portable

gauge and service licensees. The review team noted a considerable improvement in the number

of reciprocity inspections performed by the RCP in 1998. Five of the 15 licensees granted

reciprocity were inspected. However, the State did not meet its goals for Priority 1 or 2 licensees

during 1998. Three Priority 1 reciprocity licenses were granted with one licensee inspected. One

Priority 2 reciprocity license was granted but the licensee was not inspected. While the State

improved in the number of reciprocity inspections conducted over the review period, they are not

meeting the inspection frequencies outlined in NRC’s IMC 1220. The State indicated that it is

difficult to conduct inspections of reciprocity licensees due to the short lead time of when work

will be performed in the State, and the strain on resources to support the travel to remote field

site locations on short notice. The review team recommends that RCP continue their efforts to

complete inspections of high priority reciprocity licensees in accordance with IMC 1220.

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

IMC 0610. RCP’s goal is to dispatch written findings of inspections to licensees within 30 days of

completing an inspection. Initial communication of inspection findings is provided at the

conclusion of each inspection through an exit briefing with licensee management, however, as
North Dakota Final Report Page 5

indicated in the questionnaire, written inspection findings were not always communicated to

licensees in a timely manner. Of the 10 core licensee inspection files evaluated by the team, six

letters of noncompliance were issued greater than 30 days following the exit briefing with the

licensee. Delays ranged from 36 to 102 days. Upon review of the State’s questionnaire

response, the review team determined that, of the 31 core inspections performed during the

review period, 10 of the inspection letters were issued greater than 30 days following exit

briefings with licensees.

The review team also noted that the State’s review of licensee responses to letters of 

noncompliance were not always performed in a timely manner. The review team identified

several instances when licensee responses were not evaluated and/or dispositioned by RCP for

several months. The review team considered the issue of report timeliness and licensee

response reviews to be of particular concern since it was also identified as an area of

improvement during the State’s previous IMPEP review. The review team discussed this issue

with the Program Manager and was informed that increased management attention to this area

was implemented in October 1998. The Program Manager stated that he had re-emphasized the

importance of inspection report timeliness with the inspection staff and began to closely monitor

the status of inspection findings following each inspection. Management stated that increased

oversight and discussions with the inspection staff appear to have corrected the problem. Upon

further review of the State’s inspection tracking system data, the team did note that each of the

10 inspections performed between November 1998 and March 1999, resulted in letters of

noncompliance being issued in less than 30 days following the inspection. The review team

recommends that RCP management continue to provide additional oversight to ensure

inspection findings (letters of noncompliance) are communicated to licensees in a timely manner,

and that licensee responses are evaluated promptly upon their receipt by RCP.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team initially recommended that North

Dakota’s performance with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program, be

found unsatisfactory. Due to the State’s actions involving the status of the materials inspections

program (as detailed in their June 7, 1999 response to the draft IMPEP report), the team and the 

MRB agreed that North Dakota’s performance with respect to this indicator be found satisfactory

with recommendations for improvement.

3.2 Technical Quality of Inspections

The review team evaluated the inspection reports, enforcement documentation and inspection

field notes, and interviewed inspectors for 10 materials inspections conducted during the review

period. The casework included both of the State’s two materials license inspectors, and covered

inspections of various types including medical institutions, industrial radiography, well logging,

academic broad scope, mobile nuclear medicine, and reciprocity. Appendix C lists the inspection

casework evaluated for completeness and adequacy, with case-specific comments.

North Dakota’s inspection procedures are consistent with NRC procedures. Inspections were

generally unannounced; however, RCP staff commented that inspectors may contact the

licensee either the day before, or the morning of, an inspection to ensure that appropriate

licensee personnel are available prior to dispatching an inspector to the facility. Inspection files

were found to be complete and in good order. Field notes have been developed to cover all

types of inspections that are conducted by the RCP. The information contained in the field notes

was consistent with the applicable NRC inspection procedures. Based on casework evaluations,
North Dakota Final Report Page 6

the review team noted that routine inspections covered all aspects of licensees’ radiation safety

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

As noted in the questionnaire, the State has a variety of portable instruments available for routine

confirmatory surveys and for use in incident response. All instruments used for inspections and

those which are considered essential for incident response are calibrated semi-annually. RCP

staff perform calibrations using a Gammatron calibrator containing a nominal 30 millicurie

cesium-137 sealed source and employing appropriate calibration methods for each type of

instrument.

RCP’s administrative procedures state that approximately 10 percent of all field inspections

include the Program Manager, Assistant Division Director, or Division Director accompanying the

inspector. Management accompanied inspectors on 5 of the 60 inspections performed during

the review period, including each of the materials inspectors at least once each year. Interviews

of RCP’s inspectors disclosed that following each accompaniment, supervisors provided

feedback to inspectors regarding their performance.

During the weeks of January 19-22 and February 22-25, 1999, a review team member performed

accompaniments of both RCP’s inspectors at licensed facilities (See Appendix C). The five

accompaniments included one medical license, one portable gauge license, one self-shielded

irradiator license, one industrial radiography license, and one well logging license. Both RCP’s

inspectors were involved in all of the inspections. The more senior inspector was the lead

inspector for four of the five inspections. For the portable gauge license, the other inspector lead

the inspection. 

During the accompaniments, both inspectors demonstrated appropriate inspection skills and

knowledge of the regulations. The inspectors were well prepared and thorough in their review of

licensee programs but could benefit from additional training in brachytherapy technology. 

Although the brachytherapy inspection was adequate, the reviewer observed that the inspectors

were not well acquainted with brachytherapy treatment planning and the differences in dose

delivery systems for temporary versus permanent implant procedures. Familiarity with this

technology is important when reviewing written directives so that the inspector can compare the

final treatment planning data and dose delivered to the patient to the authorized user’s

prescription. Overall, the reviewer observed that both inspectors utilized good health physics

practices and their interviews with licensee personnel were performed in an effective manner. 

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

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that North Dakota’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 of the staff. To

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

this indicator and interviewed the Program Manager and staff. The RCP is staffed with one

Program Manager and two staff. An environmental scientist and an environmental engineer,

both full-time positions, comprise the RCP technical staff. Both of the technical staff members

perform duties in licensing, inspection, and event response. In response to the questionnaire,

the State reported that the Program Manager spends about 57 percent of his effort on the
North Dakota Final Report Page 7

program. Division managers spend between 5 and 10 percent of their time on supervision of the

program.

There was one vacancy during the review period. The environmental engineer position was

vacant for about three months in 1997 before it was filled by the current staff member. There

were no other vacancies within the program during the review period. The State budgets in twoyear cycles. The current staffing level will remain in effect through June 30, 1999. The same

level of staffing is expected for the next budget cycle. 

The Program Manager explained that technical staff positions require a Bachelor's degree in a

science or engineering field. The Program Manager and both technical staff members have a

Bachelor's degree in science or engineering.

Based on the areas of improvement and contributing factors noted in Section 3.1, and

discussions with State management regarding the small size of the RCP, and its vulnerability to

disruptions during staff losses and/or outside events, the review team recommends that

management perform an in-depth review of the RCP’s current and future anticipated activities

and obligations to ensure budgeted staffing levels are adequate to fulfill the responsibilities of the

program.

The review team evaluated the training of the three personnel involved with the RCP. None have

attended the Teletherapy and Brachytherapy Course (H-313), which is a core course for license

reviewers and inspectors, but one staff member is scheduled to attend, and is confirmed for, the

course offering in August 1999. North Dakota currently has five conventional brachytherapy

facilities licensed and a high dose-rate afterloader (HDR) application in house. During a

braychtherapy inspection where State staff was accompanied by a team member (as discussed

in Section 3.2), State inspectors performed adequately, however, the staff could benefit from

training in this area. The review team recommends that the State provide training to technical

personnel, either by formal course work or equivalent, in the area of brachytherapy.

The newest staff member has completed the following courses since his employment in

November 1997: (1) Selected Topics in Radiological Engineering (a general overview of health

physics through the nuclear engineering program at Louisiana State University); (2) NRC courses

on Transportation of Radioactive Materials, Licensing, Inspection Procedures, and Diagnostic

and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine; (3) Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response

Refresher Course; (4) Troxler Moisture Density Gauge Course; and 

(5) Laboratory Use of Radioactive Material, a State-sponsored short course. He is scheduled to

attend the Well-Logging and Industrial Radiography Courses in 1999, the Five-Week Health

Physics Course in the year 2000, and the Two-Week Health Physics Technology Course in 2001. 

In addition to the courses recommended by NRC, the Program Manager and staff have

completed numerous other training courses and have attended job-specific technical

conferences and meetings, such as Become a Better Communicator, Hazardous Waste

Operations and Emergency Response Training Refresher, Safety Training (through the Health

Department), Texas Industrial Radiographer Exam Proctor Training, All Agreement States

Meeting, and the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD) Annual Meeting.

The Program Manager is supportive of staff training and demonstrated a commitment to staff

training during the review. The review team did not find any evidence of out-of-state travel being
North Dakota Final Report Page 8

an impediment to staff receiving necessary training. As discussed above, the newest staff

member attended five courses since his employment, with two additional core courses scheduled

for 1999, and the five-week course scheduled for the year 2000.

In summary, the review team found that although the program has an adequate level of staffing it

is particularly vulnerable due to its size. The staff is qualified and knowledgeable of the

regulations and the licensing and inspection guidance but could use additional training in

brachytherapy technology. The RCP provides for staff training, both for core and specialized

courses, and out-of-state travel has not been an impediment to receiving necessary training as it

was in the past.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that North Dakota's

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

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The review team examined the completed licenses and casework for 17 licensing actions,

representing the work of three license reviewers and the Program Manager. The staff was

interviewed to supply additional information regarding licensing decisions or file contents.

Licensing actions were evaluated for completeness, consistency, proper radionuclides and

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

operating and emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing actions. 

Licenses were reviewed for accuracy, appropriateness of the license and of its conditions and

tie-down conditions, and overall technical quality. Casework was evaluated for adherence to

good health physics practices, reference to appropriate regulations, supporting documents, peer

or supervisory review, and proper signature authorities. The files were checked for retention of

necessary documents and supporting data.

The licensing actions evaluated included the following types of licenses: academic broad scope;

well logging; industrial radiography; mobile nuclear medicine; medical; laboratory use; and

portable gauges. Licensing actions included two new licenses, seven amendments, six

renewals, and two terminations. A list of these licenses with case-specific comments may be

found in Appendix D. There were no licensee bankruptcy cases during this review period.

The review team noted that licensing actions are reviewed by the Program Manager. Each

license is signed by the Division Director or his designee.

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

high technical quality, with health and safety problems properly addressed. Tie-down conditions

are backed by information contained in the file, and are inspectable. Deficiency letters clearly

state regulatory positions, and identify deficiencies in licensees’ documents. License files are

complete and organized. Licensing checklists are used and maintained on file. Applicable

guidance documents are complete, well organized, available to reviewers, and appear to be

followed.

The review team noted that the license reviewers also work as inspectors. This allows the

reviewers to utilize inspection findings to improve a license through either a licensing amendment

or renewal.
North Dakota Final Report Page 9

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that North Dakota’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 State's actions in responding to incidents and allegations,

the review team examined the State's response to the questionnaire relative to this indicator,

evaluated selected incidents reported for North Dakota in the "Nuclear Material Events Database

(NMED)" against those contained in the North Dakota files, and evaluated the casework and

supporting documentation for four material incidents. The team also evaluated the State's

response to five allegations. No allegations were referred to the State by NRC during the review

period. A list of the incident casework with comments is included in Appendix E.

The review team interviewed RCP management and staff to discuss the State’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 Operations Center.

When notification of an incident or allegation is received, the Program Manager 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 North Dakota will take. 

The State’s incident procedures include a section entitled “Activation of Radiation Control

Program Staff.” This section, modeled after another Agreement State’s procedure, discusses the

potential hazards and indicates safety considerations and response actions for various license

categories.

Four incidents were selected for evaluation of the 15 incidents suitable for review by the team. 

Not evaluated were 11 alarms at a medical waste incinerator. The incidents evaluated were: 

(1) loss of control of iodine-125 seeds; (2) a radiography vehicle accident; (3) an unknown source

found on roadside; and (4) a lost static eliminator.

The review team found that the State’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 of the event. Inspectors were dispatched

for on-site investigations when appropriate and the State took suitable enforcement action, when

indicated. The review team found the documentation of the incidents and allegations to be

consistent. The staff was familiar with the guidance contained in the “Handbook on Nuclear

Event Reporting in the Agreement States.”

North Dakota submits incident information electronically to NMED. Only three incidents met the

criteria for reporting to the NMED system, of which two were reported. The third, a lost static

eliminator, was not reported. RCP staff indicated that it was an oversight that the incident was

not reported. The RCP manager did not, however, agree that the failure to enter the event in the

NMED system was an oversight, but rather intentional since the RCP expected the licensee to

eventually locate the source. Since the source was recovered four months later, it will not be

reported to NMED. As detailed in their June 7, 1999 response to the draft IMPEP report, the

RCP stated that in the future, they will immediately report all such occurrences and then update

the NMED system, as appropriate, if and when the source is found.
North Dakota Final Report Page 10

During the review period, no allegations were reported to the State by the NRC. Five allegations

were reported directly to the program. The review of the State’s allegation files indicates that the

State took prompt and appropriate action in response to the concerns raised. The review team

noted that all documentation related to the investigation of allegations is withheld from public

records. The State’s allegation procedures declare that incoming allegations are to be handled

on a case-by-case basis. Protection of an alleger’s identity is provided for in Rule 509, North

Dakota Rules of Evidence.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that North Dakota'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 Evaluation Program; (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program;

and (4) Uranium Recovery Program. North Dakota's Agreement does not cover a sealed source

and device evaluation program or uranium recovery program, so only the first and third noncommon performance indicators were applicable to this review.

4.1 Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility

4.1.1 Legislation

North Dakota became an Agreement State in 1969. Along with their response to the

questionnaire, the State provided the review team with the opportunity to review copies of

legislation that affects the radiation control program. Legislative authority to create an agency

and enter into an agreement with the NRC is granted in the North Dakota Century Code Chapter

23-20. The Department of Health is designated as the State's radiation control agency. The

review team noted that no legislation affecting the radiation control program was passed since

being found adequate during the previous review, and found that the State legislation is

adequate.

4.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility

The North Dakota Revised Radiological Health Rules, found in North Dakota Administrative Code

Chapters 33-10-01 through 33-10-14, apply to all ionizing radiation, whether emitted from

radionuclides or devices. North Dakota requires a license for possession and use of all

radioactive material including naturally occurring materials, such as radium, and acceleratorproduced radionuclides.

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

approximately nine months after preparation of a draft rule. Proposed rules are submitted to the

State Health Council for consideration and approval to proceed with public comment. Public

notice of proposed rule revisions is made and a 60-day public comment period, including a public

hearing is conducted. Proposed rules are sent to NRC for a compatibility ruling. After resolution

of comments and the Attorney General’s approval, final draft rules are sent to the State Health

Council for adoption. Final rules are sent to the NRC and to licensees. The State has the
North Dakota Final Report Page 11

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

compatible regulations become effective.

The review team evaluated North Dakota’s responses to the questionnaire and reviewed the

status of regulations under the Commission’s adequacy and compatibility policy. All regulations

required to be adopted are currently in effect. Discussions with program staff indicated a good

awareness of recently adopted rules.

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:

! “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.

! “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.

! “Exempt Distribution of a Radioactive Drug Containing One Microcurie of Carbon-14

Urea,” 10 CFR Part 30 amendment (62 FR 63634) that became effective January 2,

1998.

! “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.

! “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 regulations

required for compatibility issued prior to September 3, 1997, should be adopted by the State as

expeditiously as possible, but no 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 North Dakota’s

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

Compatibility, be found satisfactory.
North Dakota Final Report Page 12

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

Effective June 1, 1996, NRC reassumed regulatory authority for sealed source and device

evaluations in North Dakota, in response to a request from the State to relinquish that authority. 

No sealed source or device evaluations were performed in North Dakota in the early part of the

review period, prior to relinquishment. Accordingly, the review team did not evaluate this

indicator.

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. Although North Dakota has such disposal

authority, NRC has not required States to have a program for licensing a disposal facility until

such time as the State has been designated as a host State for a LLRW disposal facility. When

an Agreement State has been notified or becomes aware of the need to regulate a LLRW

disposal facility, they are expected to put in place a regulatory program which will meet the

criteria for an adequate and compatible LLRW disposal program. There are no plans for a LLRW

disposal facility in North Dakota. Accordingly, the review team did not evaluate this indicator.

5.0 SUMMARY

As noted in Sections 3 and 4 above, the MRB found North Dakota’s performance to be

satisfactory for five of the six performance indicators. The MRB found North Dakota’s

performance to be satisfactory with recommendations for improvement for the indicator, Status of

Materials Inspection Program. Accordingly, the review team recommended and the MRB agreed

that the North Dakota Agreement State Program be found adequate and compatible with NRC's

program. A follow-up review focusing on the common performance indicator, Status of Materials

Inspection Program, will take place in approximately one year.

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

evaluation and implementation, as appropriate, by the State.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The review team recommends that RCP management devote additional attention to a

“pro-active” review of the current inspection tracking systems, and adjust staff priorities

accordingly to ensure core licensees are inspected at the required intervals. (Section

3.1)

2. The review team recommends that RCP continue their efforts to complete inspections of

high priority reciprocity licensees in accordance with IMC 1220. (Section 3.1)

3. The review team recommends that RCP management continue to provide additional

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

communicated to licensees in a timely manner, and that licensee responses are

evaluated promptly upon their receipt by RCP. (Section 3.1)
North Dakota Final Report Page 13

4. The review team recommends that management perform an in-depth review of the RCP’s

current and future anticipated activities and obligations to ensure budgeted staffing levels

are adequate to fulfill the responsibilities of the program. (Section 3.3)

5. The review team recommends that the State provide training to technical personnel,

either by formal course work or equivalent, in the area of brachytherapy. (Section 3.3)
LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members

Appendix B North Dakota Organization Charts

Appendix C Inspection Casework Reviews

Appendix D License Casework Reviews

Appendix E Incident Casework Reviews

Attachment North Dakota’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report

Dated June 7, 1999
APPENDIX A

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

Name Area of Responsibility

James Lynch, Region III Team Leader

Response to Incidents and Allegations

Legislation and Program Elements Required

 for Compatibility

Mark Shaffer, Region IV Status of Materials Inspection Program

Technical Quality of Inspections

James Peterson, South Carolina Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

Torre Taylor, NMSS Technical Staffing and Training

Status of Materials Inspection Program
APPENDIX B

NORTH DAKOTA

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

and

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

ORGANIZATION CHARTS
lWElN39 NOIlWklOzlNI LOL) 198Z6( 88 66/6/z 

- aaj apunl 

- uuyaal uoslolgl 

- suer se6uey 

Ill~Mlaf$'!JEl- 

- laetp!w JaU!a)J 

- wes wwM 

- UaJJeM Ja!aJj 

- uwr u!Jl!JE) 

uJ!r- wmJ!ll!Y 

- ueb w SII! 

- U!lJaA JallalSlj3OH 

- r(eu JaAayy 

- 6aJE) 6Jaqln 

- aw w3 

- IJaqotJ al!qM 

- a!peqa auozzeyy 

- iI!8 wM 

hw- eu!lY 

- ur!r pelatuas 

- lue3eA 

- we3ert 

- uosuaiuoq16!eJ3 

- he9 6u!iqlaH 

qlaUUa)( Jal6UeM aal JaqnH 

lOkilN03SOlS3aSv HllV3H8A13dVS 

NOllVlaVkJ aNV lVNOllVdn330 

I I 

uea uewJeH 

9NltlOllNOW 

tliv Ammo 

I 

wol uelutpeg salJeq3 MeuoactW aAalS JaqaM 

DNIlllWkl3d 33NVlldW03 SISAlVNV 

tllV Alllvnb HIV AlllVncI kllV 13VdWIAlllvnO 

I I I 

I 

eqs!Jl Jauoaej 

a!uuoD ~01103 

Aeg asnoH 

NOISIAIa JO lvlN3WNOkllAN3 9Nlkl33NION3 

HIMON viowa 1Nwlwd3a do ~11~3~ 

. 

NORTH DAKOTA 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

600 E. Boulevard Atmnuo 

Bismarck, ND 565050200 

OFFICE OF 

’ STATE HEAllHOFFItER 

?Ol -320-2372 

FAX 701.3264727 

June 7,1999 

Paul H., Lohaus, Director 

= g 

Office of State Programs zw 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 59 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 - Iu h) 

Dear Mr. Lohaus: 

The North Dakota Department of Health (Department) has reviewed the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) May 10, 1999 draft Integrated Materials Performance 

Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report of the Department’s Radiation Control Program (RCP). 

The following comments address the technical and clerical accuracy of the draft report: 

l On page 4, third paragraph, line 8 reads in part, “of regulations to ensure compatibility 

during early 1998;...” The RCP staff actually began work on the regulation revisions 

in early 1997 and continued through August 1997. Work on the rule revision was then 

delayed until February 1998, at which time, work resumed and the rules were . 

promulgated May 1, 1998. An appropriate correction may be to replace the word, 

‘early” with ‘1997 and”. 

l On page 4, third paragraph, line 9 reads in part, ‘the program’s inspector/license 

reviewers for several. weeks during 1993 for personal reasons., The extended 

absences occurred in two separate periods, one in early 1997 and onejn .mid-1998. 

During both these’pariods, the staff member consumed lsrge amounts of leave in 

relatively short periods of time. The specific correction could include adding the words, 

“early 1997 and again in mid” in front of ‘1998”. 

l On page 5, first paragraph, line 5, we suggest that the word, ‘written” be added 

between the words, “questionnaire,” and “inspection” since verbal inspection findings 

were communicated to the licensees during the exit briefing. 

l On page 5, first paragraph, beginning on line 6 states, “Of the 10 core licensee 

inspection tiles evaluated by the team, six letters of noncompliance were issued greater 

than 30 days following the exit briefing of the licensee.” This would seem to indicate 

that 60% of the core licensee inspections were not responded to within 30 days. 

However, during the review, IMPEP inspectors indicated that these ten core licensee 
Mr. Paul H. Lohaus 2 June 7,1999 

inspection files were not selected randomly. Rather they were selected based on their 

delayed inspection status as indicated in the state’s response to the questionnaire. A 

sentence should be added indicating that these ten core licensee inspection files were 

not randomly selected, but rather were selected based on an indication of other 

timeliness problem issues. 

l On page 8, paragraph 1, line 5, the words, ‘Industrial Radiographer” should be added 

between the words, “Texas” and “Exam” for clarification purposes. 

l On page 10, second paragraph, beginning on line 3, a statement is made that, ‘RCP 

staff indicated that it was an oversight that the incident was not reported.” While this 

statement may be factually correct and that the RCP staff considered it an oversight, 

the RCP manager does not agree. The RCP manager indicated that at the time the 

source was lost, the licensee was instructed to continue searching his facility with 

continued follow-up by the RCP. The RCP manager indicated that, as he recalls, the 

event was purposely not entered into NMED until such time as the RCP was convinced 

the source was indeed lost rather than misplaced. A suggested correction would be 

to folfow the above sentence in paragraph 2 with an additional sentence stating, “The 

RCP manager did not, however, agree that the failure to enter the event in the NMED 

system was an oversight, but rather intentional since the RCP expected the licensee 

to eventually locate the source.” 

This practice will no longer be followed by the RCP. The incident above occurred on 

June 19,1997. Agreement States Letter SP-98-018 dated March 19,1998 discusses 

using NMED reporting as a natiinal method for the purpose of tracking and locating lost 

or stolen sources. In the future, the RCP will immediately report all such occurrences. 

The RCP will then update the NMED as appropriate if and when the source is found. 

l On page 11, first paragraph, the first sentence contains the word, “Rules” twice. The 

second word, “Rules“ should be replaced with the words, “North Dakota Administrative , 

Code Chapters”. The sentence would then read as follows, “The North Dakota Revised 

Radiological Health Rules, found in North Dakota Administrative Code Chapters 33-1 O01..: 

l On page D.3, in Appendix 3, File No. 13, under the ‘Location” field, the word 

‘Hettingef is misspelled as “Hattinger”. 

This concludes our comments to the technical and clerical accuracy of the report. The 

above comments represent only minor suggested changes. In the last sentence of page 

1, the NRC states, “A response is requested from the State to all recommendations in the 

final report.” Since it is not anticipated that significant changes will be made to the draft 

report recommendations in the final report, and in the interest of expediting the review 

process, we would also like to respond to the recommendations contained on page 13 of 

the draft report at this time. This would eliminate the need for the IMPEP review team to 

send a corrected report to the RCP for our response to recommendations. We request that 
.‘I 

. -- . . 

1 

Mr. Paul H. Lohaus 3 June 7,1999 

a corrected report and the following comments be concurrently submitted .to the 

Management Review Board for their consideration. 

The recommendations will be addressed in the order in which they appear. The 

recommendation will be repeated followed by the our comment. 

1. RECOMMENDATION: The review team reco’nmends that RCP management devote 

additional attention to a “pro-active” review of the current inspection tracking systems, 

and adjust staff ptiorities accordingly to ensure oore licensees are inspected at the 

required intervals. (Section 3.1) 

RESPONSE: The RCP management has already begun this process and will continue 

to do so. As was indicated by members of the IMPEP team during the review, the 

RCP’s current tracking system is an excellent tool for this purpose. While attention had 

been paid to the tracking system during the current review period, RCP management 

will seek new ways to improve the timeliness ofinspections. RCP management was 

aware of the 25% overdue criteria; however, was not aware that this was only applied 

to core inspections. 

During this review period, RCP did not impose a superficial inspection priority over the 

existing inspection priority system for the purpose of focusing on core inspections. 

Core inspections represent licensees with inspection priorities of 1, 2, and 3. The 

interval between inspections for these licensees is 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years 

respectively. 

As indicated in the IMPEP report, the RCP inspected licensees based on their 

scheduled time of inspection, percent of time overdue, and geographic location in the 

State relative to other inspections being conducted. This means that priority 4 and 5 

inspections were scheduled along with priority 1,2, and 3. 

Higher inspection priority licensees, i.e.; priority 1,2, and 3 exceed the 25% overdue 

value more quickly than do priority 4 and 5. In an inspection program that has fallen 

behind, and one where all licensees due for inspection are in excess of 25%, the 

program will likely have a higher percentage of core licensees in excess of 25% 

overdue. 

In the future the RCP will prioritize core inspections to help ensure they do not go over 

25% of their inspection frequency. The RCP has found it advantageous from an 

IMPEP accounting perspective to focus on the core inspections since they are the only 

ones evaluated for timeliness. Since implementing this strategy following the IMPEP 

review, the RCP has been able to inspect all core licensees such that none are 

currently outside the 25% overdue window. Additionally, all of the inspections 

conducted since the IMPEP review have had inspection findings submitted to the 

licensee in less than 30 days’following the inspection. It should be noted that 
-. - 

. 

Mr. Paul H. Lohaus 4 June 7,1999 

continuing to focus such high priority on the core licensees could re’sul! in extended ’ 

inspection intervals for priority 4 and 5 licensees. 

2. RECOMMENDATION: The review team recommends that RCP continue their efforts 

to complete inspections of high priority reciprocity licensees in accordance with IMC 

1220. (Section 3.1) . 

RESPONSE: The RCP will continue its efforts to complete inspections of high priority 

reciprocity licensees in accordance with IMC 1220. The RCP staff has found the 

inspection frequency for recipr0c.Q licensees to be very difficult to comply with. These 

difficulties are due to short advanced notice, limited amount of time spent in the State 

and unusual hours. An example is a recent industrial radiography reciprocity licensee 

who began work in the State on Friday, May 7, at 6:00 p.m. and completed his project 

by Saturday morning, May 8 at 5:00 a.m. The job site was 80 miles northwest of 

Bismarck. 

It is not unusual for industrial radiographers and other reciprocal licensees, such as well 

loggers, to conduct work in the State after normal working hours and on weekends to 

avoid interrupting ‘normal processesat their location of work or to fit the schedule of 

their clients. It is our understanding that many states have trouble meeting this 

requirement. Perhaps the IMPEP criteria dealing with this issue should be revisited. 

Licensees who work in other states under reciprocity must be regularly inspected by 

their licensing agency. These inspections may include home office as well as field 

inspections. While there is merit in promoting compliance through reciprocity 

inspections, its importance may be overestimated. If a licensee is responsible enough 

to establish and maintain compliance in their area of jurisdiction, one could expect that 

to carry over to all areas of operation as well. 

Also, in addition to being extremely burdensome on the agency granting reciprocal 

privileges, these mandatory inspections impose a mandatory increased inspection 

frequency on the licensee. We support inspection of reciprocity licensees particularly 

if poor performance could be expected. However, we do not support the mandatory 

inspection of reciprocal licensees for the reasons mentioned above. States should be 

given more discretionary authority over inspections of reciprocal licensees. 

3. RECOMMENDATION: The review team recommends that RCP management continue 

to provide additional oversight to ensure inspection findings (letters of apparent 

noncompliance) are communicated to licensees in a timely manner, and that licensee 

responses are evaluated promptly upon their receipt by RCP. (Section 3.1) 

RESPONSE: The RCP management will continue to provide additional oversight to 

ensure inspection findings are communicated to licensees in a timely manner. The 

RCP staff recognizes the importance of timely response to inspections and appreciates 

the IMPEP recommendation. 
I . ’ * . 

. -_ 

Mr. Paul H. Lohaus 5 . June 7,1999 

4. RECOMMEADA7’ION: The review team recommends that management perform an 

in-depth review of the RCP’s current and future anticipated activities and obligations to 

ensure budgeted staffing levels are adequate to fulfill the responsibility of the program. 

(Section 3.3) 

RESPONSE: RCP management has and will continue to consider this issue. 

According to models of a State RCP, North Dakota should have adequate staff for its 

number of licensees. The most recent guidance, which is in CRCPD Publication 99-2 

dated April 1999 suggests 1.0 to 1.5 FTE per 50 uncomplicated licenses. North Dakota 

meets this staffing level. This, however, is misleading; in states with a small number 

of staff, a disproportionate percentage of total FTE is required for such things as rule 

revisions, responses to surveys, responses to incidents, employee illness or 

termination, or other matters which require staff time, and are outside the scope of 

licensing and inspection. In the case of North Dakota, if one staff member is diverted 

from their regular duties, this represents a 50% disruption in the inspection and 

licensing staff effort. Therefore, model numbers, as contained in the CRCPD’s 

document, are not necessarily applicable to small programs such as North Dakota. 

We believe North Dakota’s program can function adequately, under normal 

circumstances, with existing staffing levels. 

This assessment is based on the history of the program. During those times where two 

full-time, trained RCP staff were available, and ancillary responsibilities were minimal, 

the program was able not only to keep up with the inspection and licensing workload, 

but to make up overdue projects that accrued during periods of disruption. This is 

evident in the past year. In April 1998, after the newly hired RCP staff had attained 

some of the necessary training, a focused effort was made to begin to catch up on 

overdue inspections. Since that time there has been a steady decline in the number 

and severity of overdue inspections. .Due to other complications, the findings of the 

inspections were still not being relayed to licensees in a timely manner. This, however, 

was corrected in October 1998 and since that time no problems of this nature have 

been observed. 

However, RCP management recognizes that staff and scheduling disruptions are 

inevitable. The RCP management will, therefore, continue to provide close oversight 

of its staffing level needs. Management will consider whether additional radiation safety 

duties, outside of the IMPEP criteria responsibilities, could justify the addition of an 

RCP staff. This individual’s duties could be shifted when needed to complete IMPEP 

criteria requirements during times of RCP staff and scheduling disruptions. 

5. RECOMMENDATION: The review team recommends that the State provide training 

to technical personnel, either by formal oourse work or equivalent, in the area of 

brachytherapy. (Section 3.3) 
Mr. Paul H. Lohaus 6 June 7,1999 

RESPONSE: We agree with this comment. The senior licensing and inspection staff 

member is currently scheduled to attend the brachytherapy course in August 1999. 

The junior licensing and inspection staff will have the brachytherapy oouise added to 

his curriculum of core oourses and will attend the oourse at the appropriate time. 

Finally, we would like to comment on the criteria to which the IMPEP review team 

recommended a finding of unsatisfactory. 

The RCP staff recognizes and agrees with the importance of this evaluation criteria. They 

also recognize that the degree of seriousness of this finding is elevated since, as the 

inspection team indicated on page 5 of the IMPEP report, this problem was identified 

during the 1996 IMPEP review as well. 

The RCP staff realized these problems were occurring during the IMPEP review period; 

however, because of the circumstances, they were unable to maintain a timely inspection 

schedule and inspection response situation. This, however, is quite different than RCP 

management being unaware of the situation. The RCP management closely tracked this 

issue, and, as soon as possible took steps to remediate the problem. Recent history 

shows improvement. The RCP staff is committed to preventing the occurrence of a similar 

situation in the future. 

A consideration in any IMPEP review in which the RCP has an improved situation from that 

which existed during the review period, such as less overdue inspections, has to be 

whether the RCP made a concerted effort to improve its statistics simply for the IMPEP. 

This is clearly not the case with North Dakota’s program. North Dakota began correcting 

the overdue inspection deficiencies in eariy 1998. In June 1998 the NRC conducted a oneday interim review of North Dakota’s program. After that review, it was our understanding, 

based on NRC correspondence, that ‘it would not receive another IMPEP review until the 

year 2000. Had an IMPEP not occurred until the year 2000, and given the recent history 

of the RCP, we believe it would have been in full compliance with the timeliness of 

inspections and reporting of inspection findings in a timely manner well before the IMPEP 

review. 

From a performance perspective, we feel that in spite of extenuating circumstances which 

occurred during the review period, it was able to maintain public health and safety 

concerning the use of radioactive materials and was able to recover from the loss of a well 

trained and experienced staff member which represented 50% of its licensing and 

inspection staff. This loss occurred in the middle of a rule revision process. The program’s 

recovery demonstrates that the RCP was and is committed to performing above a level of 

unsatisfactory. 

In addition to the above comments describing the situations leading to North Dakota’s RCP 

deficiencies, we would ask the MRB to also consider the following: 

1. The RCP’s responsh to Recommendations 1 and 4. 
I 

 

. 

_ . . _ 

c ‘* 

__ _ .-._ _ -.-.. _-. - ___-.- -.--.. -. 

. - 

Mr. Paul H. Lohaus 7 June 7,1999 

2. The current status of North Dakota’s RCP; i.e., no core inspections are currently in 

excess of 25% overdue and the length of time and number of overdue inspections has 

been steadily declining since April 1998. 

3. No inspection findings have been reported to licensees in excess of thirty days from the 

inspection date, since October 1998. 

Based on the above, we respectively request that the performance of this evaluation 

criteria be found by the Management Review Board to be satisfactory with 

recommendations rather than unsatisfactory. 

We appreciate the efforts and professionalism of the IMPEP review team. The team 

conducted themselves in an exemplary manner throughout the IMPEP process. We also 

respect the findings of the team and appreciate that they did not compromise on applying 

the prescriptive review criteria of the IMPEP guidelines in making their recommendations. 

We, however, agree with the performance based concept of the IMPEP and respectively 

request MRB consideration of the program from a performance perspective. 

If you have any questions concerning these comments or requests, you may contact me 

directly at 701-328-2372 or you may contact Mr. Dana Mount or Mr. Ken Wangler at 70% 

328-5188. 

Sincerely, 

Murray GC$agsveen 

State Health Officer 

MGS:lrr 

cc: Francis J. Schwindt, Chief, EHS 

Jim Lynch, U.S. NRC Region Ill 

Dana K. Mount, Director, RCP