July 31, 2003

Ms. Arvy Smith

Deputy State Health Officer

North Dakota Department of Health

State Capitol

600 East Boulevard Avenue

Bismarck, ND 58505-0200

Dear Ms. Smith:

On July 14, 2003, 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 is adequate to protect

public health and safety and is compatible with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC)

program. No recommendations were made by the review team.

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. I

also wish to acknowledge your continued support for the Radiation Control Program and the

excellence in program administration demonstrated by your staff as reflected in the team’s

findings. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the future.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Carl J. Paperiello 

Deputy Executive Director 

 for Materials, Research and State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: L. David Glatt, Section Chief

Environmental Health Section

Terry O’Clair, Director

Division of Air Quality

Kenneth Wangler, Manager

Radiation and Indoor Air

Roland Fletcher, MD

OAS Liaison to the MRB
bcc: Chairman Diaz

Commissioner McGaffigan

Commissioner Merrifield

Distribution:

DIR RF DCD (SP01) PDR (YES)

KSchneider, STP

VCampbell, RIV

JPelchat, RII

CBradley, AR

MVirgilio, NMSS

CMiller, NMSS/IMNS

RStruckmeyer, NMSS/IMNS

KCyr, OGC

JLieberman, OGC

STreby, OGC

FCameron, OGC 

ISchoenfeld, EDO

TCombs, OCA (2 copies)

North Dakota File

DOCUMENT NAME: C:\ORPCheckout\FileNET\ML031990487.wpd

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

OFFICE STP STP:DD STP:D DEDMRS

NAME LJRakovan:gd JPiccone PHLohaus CJPaperiello

DATE 7/16/03 7/17/03 7/18/03 07/31/03

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

REVIEW OF NORTH DAKOTA AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

April 22 - 25, 2003

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 Agreement State program. 

The review was conducted during the period April 22-25, 2003, by a review team consisting of

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

State of Arkansas. 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 April 17, 1999 to April 25, 2003, were discussed with North

Dakota management on April 25, 2003.

A draft of this report was issued to North Dakota for factual comment on May 23, 2003. The

State responded by letter dated June 17, 2003. The Management Review Board (MRB) met on

July 14, 2003 to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the North Dakota radiation

control program 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 Indoor Air

Branch (the Branch), Division of Air Quality (the Division) , Environmental Health Section, North

Dakota Department of Health (the Department). The Department is the designated radiation

control agency. Organization charts are included in Appendix B. At the time of the review, the

North Dakota Agreement State program regulated 65 specific licenses authorizing Agreement

materials. The State administers a radiographer certification program as a certifying entity. 

The State, in coordination with the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors and the

State of Texas, proctors the Texas exam. The State has certified approximately 50

radiographers. 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 Branch on February 20, 2003. The Branch provided a

response to the questionnaire on April 2, 2003. A copy of the questionnaire response can be

found on NRC’s Agencywide Document Access and Management System using the Accession

Number ML031050464. 

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

North Dakota’s responses to the questionnaire; (2) review of applicable North Dakota statutes

and regulations; (3) analysis of quantitative information from the radiation control program

licensing and inspection data base; (4) technical review of selected licensing and inspection

actions; (5) field accompaniments of two Branch inspectors; and (6) interviews with staff and

management to answer questions or clarify issues. The review team evaluated the information

that it gathered against the IMPEP performance criteria for each common and applicable

non-common performance indicators and made a preliminary assessment of the North Dakota

Agreement State program’s performance.

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

the previous IMPEP review and the team’s conclusions regarding close-out of the

recommendations. Results of the current review for the IMPEP common performance 
North Dakota Final Report Page 2

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. 

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS

During the previous IMPEP review, which concluded on April 16, 1999, five recommendations

were made and transmitted to Mr. Murray G. Sagsveen, State Health Officer, North Dakota

Department of Health. Three recommendations were closed during the 2000 follow-up review. 

The team’s review of the current status of the remaining open recommendations is as follows:

1. The review team recommends that management perform an in-depth review of the

Branch’s current and future anticipated activities and obligations to ensure budgeted

staffing levels are adequate to fulfill the responsibilities of the program. 

(Recommendation 4 from Section 3.3 of the 1999 report)

Current Status: At the 2001 Periodic Meeting, program management reviewed the

staffing levels for the program and determined that the current staffing level for licensing

and inspection is appropriate for their program. The 2003 review team agrees that the

program has sufficient staffing levels to fulfill the responsibilities of the program. This

recommendation is closed.

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

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

(Recommendation 5 from Section 3.3 of the 1999 report)

Current Status: One staff member successfully completed NRC’s teletherapy/

brachytherapy course in August 1999. The second staff member has not yet been

scheduled for this course, but he plans to attend the next teletherapy/ brachytherapy

course on a space-available basis. As the Branch has one inspector that is qualified to

perform this type of inspection, and no performance issues were identified involving this

type of inspection, this recommendation is closed.

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) Technical Staffing and

Training; (2) Status of Materials Inspection Program; (3) Technical Quality of Inspections; (4)

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

3.1 Technical Staffing and Training

Issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the Branch’s staffing level and staff

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

these issues, the review team examined the Branch’s questionnaire responses relative to this

indicator, interviewed Branch management and staff, reviewed job descriptions and training

records, and considered any possible workload backlogs.

The radioactive materials program has three technical positions, including the Branch Manager.

The Division Director also contributes some of his time to the radioactive materials program. 

Branch staffing was stable over the review period. Due to a low turnover rate, the staff consists

of experienced personnel. The Branch currently has no vacant positions. The review team
North Dakota Final Report Page 3

noted that the Branch had stable funding during the review period due to dedicated revenue

from licensee fees. Branch fees are approximately one third of and proportional to NRC’s fees. 

Approximately 90 percent of materials operations are paid for through fees. 

Training and qualification requirements for Branch staff are established in a Training Regimen

Checklist which sets forth essentially the same training and qualification recommendations

detailed in NRC’s Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 1246, as well as indication of ability to

perform specific inspections independently. The staff are well trained and qualified from an

education and experience standpoint. Training requirements include NRC, or equivalent,

training courses when available. 

All technical staff members have taken the NRC courses deemed appropriate for their tasks. 

Branch management is committed to continual training for the staff. The review team

concluded that the Branch has a well balanced staff, and a sufficient number of trained

personnel to carry out regulatory duties. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommended and the MRB agreed

that North Dakota’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training,

was satisfactory.

3.2 Status of Materials Inspection Program

The team focused on five factors in reviewing this indicator: inspection frequency, overdue

inspections, initial inspection of new licenses, the timely dispatch of inspection findings to

licensees, and the performance of reciprocity inspections. The evaluation is based on the

Branch’s questionnaire responses relative to this indicator, data gathered independently from

the Program’s licensing and inspection data tracking system, the examination of completed

licensing and inspection casework, and interviews with managers and staff.

The team’s review of the Branch’s inspection priorities verified that inspection frequencies for

various types of licenses are at least as frequent as, or more frequent than, similar license

types listed in NRC IMC 2800. Seven of the 24 license categories established by the State are

inspected more frequently than similar license types listed in NRC IMC 2800. The Branch has

a procedure for reducing or extending an inspection frequency based on the compliance history

of the licensee. 

The Branch uses an Access database to track all inspection data. A report is generated

periodically to identify inspections due during the next seven months. These inspections are

then assigned to an inspector and tentatively scheduled. Management and staff have been

able to track the timeliness of individual inspections effectively using this tool.

At the time of the review, there were no overdue core inspections, including initial inspections. 

The review team examined the Branch’s tracking information for a total of 37 inspections, 

which included 13 initial inspections. Only one core routine inspection was conducted overdue

during the review period, and was completed only three days overdue. However, this inspection

was intentionally delayed by Branch management to be a candidate for the IMPEP inspection

accompaniments. 

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

casework review and by reviewing the inspection history generated by the database. The

Branch requires all inspection correspondence to licensees to be issued within 30 days
North Dakota Final Report Page 4

following the date of the inspection. For the 62 routine inspection files examined, only two

inspection findings were sent to the licensees beyond the 30-day goal. These occurred early in

the review period. 

During the review period, the Branch granted 47 reciprocity permits, of which, 26 permits were

core licensees based on NRC IMC 1220. The review team noted that the Branch’s reciprocity

inspection policy requires that 20 percent of Priority 1, 2, and 3 licensees be inspected each

year and other Priorities be inspected as resources allow. The team determined that the

Branch met and exceeded the NRC IMC 1220 criteria for each year except fiscal year 2001. 

Branch management indicated that due to the limited number of reciprocity inspection

candidates, a decision was made to round down the number of inspections to be conducted. 

The team concluded that the Program’s approach is acceptable.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommended and the MRB agreed

that North Dakota’s performance with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials Inspections

Program, was satisfactory.

3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections

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

notes and interviewed inspectors for a total of 10 inspections, including a representative sample

of the core and non-core radioactive materials inspections conducted during the review period. 

The casework included both of the Branch’s fully trained materials inspectors, as well as

inspections in which the Branch Manager participated. The review incorporated inspections of

a variety of licensed activities including: industrial radiography, academic broad scope research

and development, medical institution with quality management plan (including high dose-rate

remote afterloading (HDR) brachytherapy), well logging, and portable gauges. Appendix C lists

the inspection casework files reviewed for completeness and adequacy with case-specific

comments. 

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

exceptionally thorough, complete, consistent, and of high quality, with sufficient documentation

to demonstrate that licensee’s performance with respect to health and safety was acceptable. 

Inspection documentation frequently included photographs illustrating licensee facilities and

documenting the actual conduct of licensed activities. The documentation adequately

supported the cited violations. Exit interviews were held with appropriate licensee personnel.

Team inspections were performed when appropriate and for training purposes.

The review team found that documentation of routine inspections adequately cover the

licensee's radiation protection program, include a written summary of the scope of the licensed

activities and specific reviews of various aspects of the licensee’s radiation safety program. In

each case violations were identified, a written analysis of the licensee’s responses along with

any needed follow-up actions was prepared by the inspector. These documents provided a

clear easy-to-follow record of decision regarding the enforcement action.

The review team determined that violations identified during inspections were reviewed by the

Branch Manager on a case-by-case basis for consideration for referral to the State Attorney

General’s Office for escalated enforcement. Available escalated enforcement options include

the issuance of formal Notices of Violation from the Attorney General and the imposition of
North Dakota Final Report Page 5

monetary civil penalties. One reciprocity inspection file was reviewed. This file documented the

inspection and subsequent imposition of a $9,000 civil penalty against an industrial radiography

licensee for failure to secure a radiography camera and other violations while operating in North

Dakota under reciprocity. This file contained complete information describing the basis for the

escalated enforcement action. The team also found documentation in the file indicating that the

inspectors exercised notable initiative that led to the discovery of an unsecured radiography

camera in an area to which the public had frequent and ready access. 

The Branch Manager attempts to conduct supervisory accompaniments of material inspectors

on at least 10 percent of all inspections. During this review period, the Branch Manager

conducted at least one documented accompaniment of each inspector each year. The Branch

Manager indicated that he would prefer to meet the 10 percent Branch goal for

accompaniments each year and intends to focus additional effort on this goal.

The review team accompanied two materials inspectors during the week of March 17, 2003

during inspections of two industrial radiography licensees and a medical institution licensed for

diagnostic nuclear medicine. These accompaniments are identified in Appendix C. Inspections

were generally unannounced. However, the inspectors indicated that they 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. During the

accompaniments, each of the inspectors demonstrated appropriate performance-based

inspection techniques and knowledge of the regulations. The inspectors were well prepared

and thorough in their reviews of the licensees’ radiation safety programs. The inspections were

adequate to assess radiological health and safety at the licensed facilities. The review team, 

the inspectors, and the Branch Manager discussed further improving the interviewing

techniques used during inspections.

The Branch 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

Branch has contractors who calibrate their survey instruments on an annual basis. Appropriate

documentation of calibrated survey instruments was available. Radioactive contamination

samples can be evaluated at the Department’s Chemistry Division counting laboratory with a

liquid scintillation counting system.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommended and the MRB agreed

that North Dakota’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections,

was satisfactory.

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The review team examined completed licensing casework and interviewed license reviewers for

12 specific licenses. Licensing actions were reviewed for completeness, consistency, proper

radioisotopes 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 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
North Dakota Final Report Page 6

regulations, documentation of safety evaluation reports, product certifications or other

supporting documentation, 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.

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 of

licenses: medical facilities including brachytherapy and HDRs, mobile nuclear medicine, broad

scope university, portable gauge, moisture/density gauge, and well logging including sealed

sources and tracers. Licensing actions selected for evaluation included one new license, three

renewals, six amendments and two termination files. A listing of the licenses evaluated 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. Documentation of

each review was thorough and complete. License tie-down conditions were 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. The license

reviewers appropriately used the Branch’s licensing guides and policies and standard licensing

conditions. 

The license reviewers conduct a technical review of each licensing action and prepare the

appropriate licensing documents. The Branch Manager performs a technical and supervisory

review on all licensing actions. The Division Director performs a supervisory review before the

license is issued under his signature. The Branch issues licenses for a five-year period. 

The review team evaluated financial assurance and decommissioning activities conducted by

the Branch. The team concluded that the Branch handles financial assurance appropriately. 

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

appropriate material transfer records and survey records. Confirmatory surveys for license

terminations were conducted when appropriate. There were no performance issues identified

with the handling of financial assurance or decommissioning by the Branch. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommended and the MRB agreed

that North Dakota's performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing

Actions, was satisfactory.

3.5 Response to Incidents and Allegations

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

team examined the Branch’s responses to the questionnaire relative to this indicator, reviewed

the incident reports for North Dakota in Nuclear Materials Event Database (NMED) against

those contained in the Branch’s files, and evaluated reports and supporting documentation for

nine incidents. A list of the incident casework examined is included in Appendix E. The review

team also reviewed the Branch’s response to three allegations involving radioactive material. 

The incidents selected for review included the following event categories: transportation,

overexposure, medical event, and faulty equipment. The review team found that the Branch’s

responses to incidents were, in general, complete and comprehensive. Initial responses were

prompt and well coordinated, and the level of effort was commensurate with the health and
North Dakota Final Report Page 7

safety significance. The Branch dispatched inspectors for onsite investigations when

appropriate and took suitable follow-up actions. 

The responsibility for initial response and follow-up actions to materials incidents may be

assigned to one of the two materials inspectors or the Branch Manager. Upon receipt, staff

reviews the report, decides on the appropriate response, and enters the information into a

database tracking system. Documentation related to an incident is placed in the appropriate

license file, an incident file, and/or a separate confidential file depending on the subject matter.

The review team noted that North Dakota’s procedures included a list of trained personnel in

the State who would be willing to respond to a radiation incident, such as a transportation

incident, and provide initial assessment of the incident or assist during the incident until State

radiological emergency response personnel can arrive. The list includes the names of

volunteers, their location within the State, the types of equipment they have available, and

contact telephone numbers. The review team recommended and the MRB agreed that the use

of such a cadre of responders is a good practice.

The Branch’s incident procedure references the NRC’s “Handbook on Nuclear Material Event

Reporting in the Agreement States” reporting requirements for incidents. The review team

identified four incidents in NMED for North Dakota during the review period. The review team

noted that all events requiring 24 hour notification and routine and/or event updates, requiring

30-day notification, were reported to the NRC for inclusion in NMED. In addition, events not

meeting the reporting criteria in the handbook are entered into the NMED database for tracking

purposes. 

In evaluating the effectiveness of North Dakota's actions responding to allegations, the review

team examined the Branch’s questionnaire responses relative to this indicator, and the

Branch’s allegation procedure. The casework for three allegations was reviewed. The Branch

evaluates each allegation and determines the proper level of response. The review of the

casework and the files indicated that the Branch took prompt and appropriate action in

response to the concerns raised. Each of the allegations reviewed was closed, and the allegers

were informed of the results, when possible. No performance issues were identified involving

allegations. Review of the casework for one allegation demonstrated that the Branch had

provided interviewed personnel with copies of the North Dakota Code that provided them

protection under North Dakota Law. 

During review of the casework for two allegations, the review team was unable to determine

why the allegations were not substantiated. During discussions with management and staff, 

the review team learned why the Branch determined the allegations were not substantiated, and

it was agreed that the casework lacked some documentation supporting the findings.

The review team noted that Section GII.B. of North Dakota's procedures states protection of

witnesses is provided for in Rule 509, North Dakota Rules of Evidence. The procedures further

state that it is the responsibility of the Branch Manager to handle requests for information. The

State makes every effort to protect an alleger’s identity, but it cannot be guaranteed. The

review team found this practice acceptable.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommended and the MRB agreed

that North Dakota's performance with respect to the indicator, Response to Incidents and

Allegations, was satisfactory.
North Dakota Final Report Page 8

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

non-common 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 Branch 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 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 final review and adoption. Final rules are sent to the NRC and to

licensees. The State 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 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.

Based on IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommended and the MRB agreed that

North Dakota’s performance with respect to the indicator, Legislation and Program Elements

Required for Compatibility, was satisfactory.
North Dakota Final Report Page 9

4.2 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 review team and the MRB found North Dakota’s

performance to be satisfactory for all six performance indicators. Accordingly, the review team

recommended and the MRB concurred in finding the North Dakota Agreement State program

adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC's program. Based on

the results of the current IMPEP review, it was agreed that the next full review should be in

approximately four years. The review team made no recommendations.

GOOD PRACTICE:

The review team noted that North Dakota's procedures included a list of trained personnel in

the State who would be willing to respond to a radiation incident, such as a transportation

incident, and provide initial assessment of the incident or assist during the incident until State

radiological emergency response personnel can arrive. The list includes the names of

volunteers, their location within the State, the types of equipment they have available, and

contact telephone numbers. The review team recommended and the MRB agreed that the use

of such a cadre of responders is a good practice. (Section 3.5)
APPENDIX A

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

Name Area of Responsibility

Lance Rakovan, STP Team Leader

Technical Staffing and Training

Legislation and Program Elements Required for

Compatibility

Vivian Campbell, RIV Status of Materials Inspection Program

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

John Pelchat, RII Technical Quality of Inspections

Inspector Accompaniments

Cathey Bradley, AR Response to Incidents and Allegations
APPENDIX B

NORTH DAKOTA ORGANIZATION CHARTS

ML031420827



LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS

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 June 16, 2003 Letter from Terry L. O’Clair, P.E., Director

North Dakota’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report
ATTACHMENT

June 16, 2003 Letter from Terry L. O’Clair, P.E., Director

North Dakota’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report

ML031760166
NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Environmental Health Section

Location: Mailing Address:

\Q>+Qu 5 s°g/ 1200 Missour Avenue Fax#: P.O. Box 5520

Bismarok, ND 58504-5264 701-328-5200 Bismarck, ND 58506-5520

June 16, 2003

C_

Mr. Paul H. Lohaus r CD

Director

Office of State Programs MN

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

20555-0001 -

Dear Mr. Lohaus:

The North Dakota Department of Health (Department) has reviewed the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) May 23, 2003 draft

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report

of the Department's Radiation Control Program (RCP). The draft

IMPEP report was sent under cover letter to Ms. Arvy Smith, Deputy

State Health Officer for the North Dakota Department of Health.

The IMPEP evaluation was held at the Department's office in

Bismarck, North Dakota, April 22-25, 2003.

The Department has no comments or concerns with the draft report

and agrees in principle with the findings of the IMPEP team.

Department staff have identified several minor corrections and

suggested wording changes. These have been marked directly on a

copy of the draft report and sent as an enclosure to Mr. Lance

Rakovan, the IMPEP team leader. The Department requests that

Mr. Rakovan consider the staff's suggestions in preparing the final

IMPEP report.

The Department will coordinate with Mr. Rakovan for the scheduling

of the Management Review Board (MRB) conference. Since North

Dakota has no significant issues with the findings of the IMPEP,

North Dakota requests that MRB review be conducted via conference

call. To minimize the set-up and coordination of the MRB

conference, the Department would suggest the conference be

conducted without video.

- : -~~~~~~~~~~~~f loca Yf4D4(~

Environmental Health Air Municipal Waste Water

Section Chief's Office Quality Facilities Management Quality

701-328-5150 701-328-5188 701-328-5211 701-328-5166 701-328-5210

Website: www.health.state.nd.us/ndhd/environ

Printed on recycled paper.
June 16, 2003

If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to

contact myself or Mr. Ken Wangler of my staff at (701)328-5188.

Sincerely,

Terry L. O'Clair, P.E.

Director

Division of Air Quality

TLO/KWW:saj

Enc:

xc: L-- David Glatt

xc: Arvy Smith, Deputy Health Officer

xc/enc: Lance Rakovan, NRC

Mr. Lohaus 2