ML24330A155
| ML24330A155 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/12/2024 |
| From: | Robert Lewis NRC/EDO/DEDMRS |
| To: | Glatt L State of ND, Dept of Environmental Quality |
| References | |
| Download: ML24330A155 (1) | |
Text
L. David Glatt, Director North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality 918 East Divide Avenue Bismarck, ND 58501-1947
SUBJECT:
NORTH DAKOTA FINAL IMPEP REPORT
Dear Mr. Glatt:
On November 21, 2024, the Management Review Board (MRB), which consisted of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) senior managers and an Organization of Agreement States Liaison to the 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 the NRC program.
The enclosed final report contains a summary of the IMPEP teams findings and summarizes the results of the MRB meeting. Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next periodic meeting will take place in approximately 2.5 years with the next IMPEP review taking place in approximately 5 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 Agreement State program. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the future.
Sincerely, Robert J. Lewis Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials, Administrative, and Corporate Programs Office of the Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
- 1. 2024 North Dakota Final IMPEP Report
- 2. 2024 North Dakota MRB Meeting Participants cc: David Stradinger, Manager Radiation Control Program December 12, 2024 Signed by Lewis, Robert on 12/12/24 INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM REVIEW OF THE NORTH DAKOTA AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM July 22-25, 2024 FINAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The results of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review of the North Dakota Agreement State Program are discussed in this report. The review was conducted by the IMPEP team in-person from July 22-25, 2024. In-person inspector accompaniments were conducted June 4-6, 2024.
The team found North Dakotas performance to be satisfactory for all six performance indicators reviewed: Technical Staffing and Training; Status of Materials Inspection Program; Technical Quality of Inspections; Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities; and Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements.
There were no recommendations from the previous review for the team to consider and the team did not make any new recommendations.
Accordingly, the team recommends that the North Dakota radiation control program be found adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the NRCs program. The team also recommends that a periodic meeting take place in approximately 2.5 years with the next IMPEP review taking place in approximately 5 years.
North Dakota Final IMPEP Report Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Dakota Agreement State Program Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review was conducted on July 22-25, 2024, by a team of technical staff members from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the States of North Carolina, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Team members are identified in Appendix A. Inspector accompaniments were conducted between June 4-6, 2024. The inspector accompaniments are identified in Appendix B. The review was conducted in accordance with the Agreement State Program Policy Statement, published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48535), and NRC Management Directive (MD) 5.6, Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP), dated July 24, 2019. Preliminary results of the review, which covered the period of June 14, 2019-July 25, 2024, were discussed with North Dakota managers on the last day of the review.
In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common performance indicators and applicable non-common performance indicators was sent to North Dakota on May 2, 2024.
North Dakota provided its response to the questionnaire on May 30, 2024. A copy of the questionnaire response is available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession Number ML24156A148.
The North Dakota Agreement State Program is administered by the Radiation and Indoor Air Quality Program within the Division of Waste Management of the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality. Organization charts for North Dakota are available in ML24155A209.
At the time of the review, North Dakota regulated 75 specific licenses authorizing possession and use of radioactive materials. The review focused on the radiation control program as it is carried out under Section 274b. (of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) Agreement between the NRC and the State of North Dakota.
The team evaluated the information gathered against the established criteria for each common and applicable non-common performance indicators and made a preliminary assessment of the States performance.
2.0 PREVIOUS IMPEP REVIEW AND STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS The previous IMPEP review concluded on June 13, 2019. The final report is available in ML19256A024. The results of the review are as follows:
Technical Staffing and Training: Satisfactory Recommendation: None Status of Materials Inspection Program: Satisfactory Recommendation: None Technical Quality of Inspections: Satisfactory Recommendation: None Technical Quality of Licensing Actions: Satisfactory Recommendation: None
North Dakota Final IMPEP Report Page 2 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities: Satisfactory Recommendation: None Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements: Satisfactory Recommendation: None Overall finding: Adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the NRCs program.
3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Five common performance indicators are used to review the NRC and Agreement State radiation control 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) Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities.
3.1 Technical Staffing and Training The ability to conduct effective licensing and inspection programs is largely dependent on having experienced, knowledgeable, well-trained technical personnel. Under certain conditions, staff turnover could have an adverse effect on the implementation of these programs and could affect public health and safety. Apparent trends in staffing must be assessed. Review of staffing also requires consideration and evaluation of the levels of training and qualification. The evaluation standard measures the overall quality of training available to, and taken by, materials program personnel.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure (SA) SA-103, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Staffing and Training, and evaluated North Dakotas performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
A well-conceived and balanced staffing strategy has been implemented throughout the review period.
Any vacancies, especially senior-level positions, are filled in a timely manner.
There is a balance in staffing of the licensing and inspection programs.
Management is committed to training and staff qualification.
Agreement State training and qualification program is equivalent to NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) IMC 1248, Formal Qualifications Program for Federal and State Material and Environmental Management Programs.
Qualification criteria for new technical staff are established and are followed, or qualification criteria will be established if new staff members are hired.
Individuals performing materials licensing and inspection activities are adequately qualified and trained to perform their duties.
License reviewers and inspectors are trained and qualified in a reasonable period.
b.
Discussion North Dakota is comprised of four technical staff members and one program manager which equals five full-time equivalents for the radiation control program when fully staffed. There
North Dakota Final IMPEP Report Page 3 were no vacancies at the time of the on-site review. During the review period, four of the staff members left the program. The program manager retired August 31, 2020, and one staff member was promoted to program manager in October 2020. One staff member transferred to another division within the agency in November 2020, one staff member transferred to the X-ray program in December 2022, and one staff member resigned in September 2023, for a job opportunity outside state government. One staff member was hired in December 2023. It should be noted that the three staff members that left the program all vacated the same position. There were three technical staff members that were consistent during the review period. Vacated positions take approximately 1.5 to 3 months to fill. Staff are trained as license reviewers and inspectors, which provides a balance in staffing.
The team noted that North Dakotas training and qualification program was compatible with the NRCs IMC 1248. Management was committed to ensuring that all staff were trained and qualified in accordance with North Dakotas established training procedure. North Dakota tracks continuing education requirements to ensure that staff receive a minimum of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of retraining during each 24-month cycle and provided an abundance of opportunities for staff to fulfill this requirement.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, North Dakota met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.1.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that North Dakotas performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found satisfactory.
d.
Management Review Board (MRB) Discussion and Chairs Determination The MRB Chair agreed with the teams recommendation and found North Dakotas performance with respect to this indicator satisfactory.
3.2 Status of Materials Inspection Program Inspections of licensed operations are essential to ensure that activities are being conducted in compliance with regulatory requirements and consistent with good safety and security practices.
The frequency of inspections is specified in IMC 2800, Materials Inspection Program, and is dependent on the amount and type of radioactive material, the type of operation licensed, and the results of previous inspections. There must be a capability for maintaining and retrieving statistical data on the status of the inspection program.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-101, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:
Status of the Materials Inspection Program, and evaluated North Dakotas performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
Initial inspections and inspections of Priority 1, 2, and 3 licensees are performed at the prescribed frequencies (https://www.nrc.gov/materials/miau/mat-toolkits.html).
Deviations from inspection schedules are normally coordinated between technical staff and management.
North Dakota Final IMPEP Report Page 4 There is a plan to perform any overdue inspections and reschedule any missed or deferred inspections or a basis has been established for not performing any overdue inspections or rescheduling any missed or deferred inspections.
Candidate licensees working under reciprocity are inspected in accordance with the criteria prescribed in IMC 2800 and other applicable guidance or compatible Agreement State Procedure.
Inspection findings are communicated to licensees in a timely manner (30 calendar days, or 45 days for a team inspection), as specified in IMC 0610, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Inspection Reports.
b.
Discussion North Dakota performed 128 Priority 1, 2, 3, and initial inspections during the review period.
There were no Priority 1, 2, 3, and initial inspections overdue during the review period.
North Dakotas inspection frequencies were the same for similar license types in NRCs program with exception of broad scope licensees. North Dakota inspects broad scope licensees more frequently than similar license types in the NRCs program.
A sampling of 10 inspection reports indicated that none of the inspection findings were communicated to the licensees beyond North Dakotas goal of 30 days after the inspection exit or 45 days after a team inspection exit.
North Dakota inspected 14 of the 54 reciprocity licensees during the review period. This represented 26 percent of reciprocity licensees inspected. The team noted that North Dakota recognizes that reciprocity applicants receive routine inspections from the regulatory agency that issues their license. Reciprocity inspections do not follow the frequency requirements for routine inspections. Reciprocity inspections are performed in a performance-based, risk-informed manner in accordance with program-specific procedures.
The team noted that North Dakotas guidance for conducting reciprocity inspections is consistent with the guidance in IMC 2800. The team reviewed the reciprocity inspections and determined that these were performed consistent with the policy.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, North Dakota met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.2.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that North Dakotas performance with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program, be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The MRB Chair agreed with the teams recommendation and found North Dakotas performance with respect to this indicator satisfactory.
3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections Inspections, both routine and reactive, provide reasonable assurance that licensee activities are carried out in a safe and secure manner. Accompaniments of inspectors performing inspections and the critical evaluation of inspection records are used to assess the technical quality of an inspection program.
North Dakota Final IMPEP Report Page 5 a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-102, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:
Technical Quality of Inspections, and evaluated North Dakotas performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
Inspections of licensed activities focus on health, safety, and security.
Inspection findings are well-founded and properly documented in reports.
Management promptly reviews inspection results.
Procedures are in place and used to help identify root causes and poor licensee performance.
Inspections address previously identified open items and violations.
Inspection findings lead to appropriate and prompt regulatory action.
Supervisors, or senior staff as appropriate, conduct annual accompaniments of each inspector to assess performance and assure consistent application of inspection policies.
For programs with separate licensing and inspection staffs, procedures are established and followed to provide feedback information to license reviewers.
Inspection guides are compatible with NRC guidance.
An adequate supply of calibrated survey instruments is available to support the inspection program.
b.
Discussion The team evaluated 30 inspection reports and enforcement documentation. The team interviewed the inspectors involved in materials inspections conducted during the review period. The team reviewed casework for inspections conducted and lead by five of North Dakotas inspectors that covered medical, industrial, commercial, academic, research, and service licenses. Currently the program has four qualified inspectors, which includes the Program Manager, with one person in training.
Two IMPEP team members accompanied three inspectors June 4-6, 2024. The in-person inspector accompaniments are identified in Appendix B. The team determined that the inspectors performances observed during the inspector accompaniments indicated that the inspectors were knowledgeable of the requirements for each license type and were able to identify potential health, safety, and security concerns. The inspectors that were accompanied demonstrated competent use of radiation detection instrumentation and good inspection technique. Inspections were conducted at the appropriate level of detail and focused on licensed activities affecting health, safety, and security. Inspection write-ups are detailed and capture inspection observations. The meetings with licensees were conducted with the appropriate level of management, and the inspectors kept licensee personnel informed of inspection observations during the inspection. The inspectors demonstrated good professional judgement and had good rapport with licensee personnel during the accompanied inspections. Each licensees prior inspection history over several inspection cycles was reviewed with the licensee, and if violations were noted during a prior inspection, the item was reviewed during the inspection to ensure that the violation did not recur. Each accompanied inspector followed the radiation control programs inspection procedures. The inspection procedures are based on the corresponding NRC inspection procedure.
North Dakota Final IMPEP Report Page 6 During the records review of the North Dakota radiation control programs inspections, it was determined that violations were properly followed up during communication with the licensee and during subsequent inspections. Inspection reports are submitted promptly and in all cases inspection results are communicated to the licensee within 30 days. The average time between the inspection completion date and the date that licensees are notified of inspection results is less than seven calendar days.
During the review period, annual accompaniments were conducted for all inspectors except for the Program Manager, who is also a qualified inspector. This was an oversight by the North Dakota radiation control program. Management has committed to updating the process to include conducting annual accompaniments of all inspectors including the Program Manager. As a matter of practice, North Dakotas inspection program sends two qualified inspectors out on each inspection. As such, the team concluded that this oversight of not conducting accompaniments for the Program Manager by a senior manager or a qualified inspector did not adversely affect the quality of the inspection program.
Additionally, the North Dakota reiterated that accompaniments of the Program Manager will be conducted in the future, and that procedures have been revised to include Program Manager Accompaniments.
North Dakota inspection reports were written in a narrative style and are very detailed. The program is to be commended for the clarity, conciseness, and the high quality of the inspection write-ups. In addition, all inspections were conducted by at least two fully qualified inspectors or a qualified inspector and a trainee. This permits a high degree of transparency among the inspectors regarding licensee performance of licensed activities and brings more knowledge/expertise to each inspection.
The radiation program has a sufficient number of instruments and spare units to ensure an adequate number of calibrated instruments are available for use. The instruments observed in storage and in use are appropriate for the type of radiation being detected.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, North Dakota met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.3.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that North Dakotas performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The MRB Chair agreed with the teams recommendation and found North Dakotas performance with respect to this indicator satisfactory.
3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions The quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of licensing actions can have a direct bearing on public health and safety, as well as security. An assessment of licensing procedures, implementation of those procedures, and documentation of communications and associated actions between the North Dakota licensing staff and regulated community is a significant indicator of the overall quality of the licensing program.
North Dakota Final IMPEP Report Page 7 a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-104, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, and evaluated North Dakotas performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
Licensing action reviews are thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable technical quality with health, safety, and security issues properly addressed.
Essential elements of license applications have been submitted and elements are consistent with current regulatory guidance (e.g., pre-licensing guidance, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 37, financial assurance, etc.).
License reviewers, if applicable, have the proper signature authority for the cases they review independently.
License conditions are stated clearly and can be inspected.
Deficiency letters clearly state regulatory positions and are used at the proper time.
Reviews of renewal applications demonstrate a thorough analysis of a licensees inspection and enforcement history.
Applicable guidance documents are available to reviewers and are followed (e.g.,
NUREG-1556 series, pre-licensing guidance, regulatory guides, etc.).
Licensing practices for risk-significant radioactive materials (RSRM) are appropriately implemented including the physical protection of Category 1 and Category 2 quantities of radioactive material (10 CFR Part 37 equivalent).
Documents containing sensitive security information are properly marked, handled, controlled, and secured.
b.
Discussion During the review period, North Dakota performed 271 radioactive materials licensing actions. The team looked at 15 licenses, which included 2 new, 4 renewals, 7 amendments including 2 transfer of controls, and 2 terminations. The work of 7 license reviewers both current and former was included in the sampling covering the following types of licenses:
medical diagnostic and therapy, industrial radiography, both portable and fixed gauges, self-shielded irradiators, and well-logging. At the time of the review, there was not a backlog of licensing actions.
The team found that North Dakota used both the Pre-Licensing Guidance and the RSRM checklist for both new and renewal licensing actions. In addition, the financial assurance calculator was completed for each new and renewal licensing action that was reviewed. The review team found that North Dakota marked the licenses accordingly for Security-Related Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information.
For change of control/ownership licensing actions, North Dakota uses equivalent guidance in NUREG-1556, Vol. 15, Rev. 1, Guidance About Changes of Control and About Bankruptcy Involving Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Materials Licenses.
North Dakota uses an electronic database for their licensing actions which contains the incoming licensing action request from the licensee, deficiency emails, responses to the deficiency emails, transmittal cover letter and the new, amendment, renewal, or termination license.
North Dakota Final IMPEP Report Page 8 c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, North Dakota met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.4.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that North Dakotas performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The MRB Chair agreed with the teams recommendation and found North Dakotas performance with respect to this indicator satisfactory.
3.5 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities The quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of response to incidents and allegations of safety concerns can have a direct bearing on public health, safety and security. An assessment of incident response and allegation investigation procedures, actual implementation of these procedures internal and external coordination, timely incident reporting, and investigative and follow-up actions, are a significant indicator of the overall quality of the incident response and allegation programs.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-105, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:
Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, and evaluated North Dakotas performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
Incident response and allegation procedures are in place and followed.
Response actions are appropriate, well-coordinated, and timely.
On-site responses are performed when incidents have potential health, safety, or security significance.
Appropriate follow-up actions are taken to ensure prompt compliance by licensees.
Follow-up inspections are scheduled and completed, as necessary.
Notifications are made to the NRC Headquarters Operations Center for incidents requiring a 24-hour or immediate notification to the Agreement State or NRC.
Incidents are reported to the Nuclear Material Events Database and closed when all required information has been obtained.
Allegations are investigated in a prompt, appropriate manner.
Concerned individuals are notified within 30 days of investigation conclusions.
Concerned individuals identities are protected, as allowed by law.
b.
Discussion During the review period, 10 incidents were reported to North Dakota. The team evaluated 10 radioactive materials incidents which included 2 lost or stolen radioactive materials, 1 medical event, 2 damaged equipment, 2 radiography source disconnects, 1 leaking source and 2 retracted events. North Dakota dispatched inspectors for on-site follow-up for one of the cases reviewed. All other events were reviewed at the next routine inspection.
North Dakota Final IMPEP Report Page 9 When notified of an incident, staff contacted management to discuss the incident and determined the appropriate level of response, which can range from an immediate response to reviewing the incident during the next routine scheduled inspection. Those determinations were made based on the individual circumstances and the health and safety significance of the incident. The team found that North Dakotas evaluation of incident notifications and its response to those incidents was thorough, well balanced, complete, and comprehensive.
The team also evaluated North Dakotas reporting of incidents to the NRCs Headquarters Operations Officer (HOO). The team noted that in each case requiring HOO notification, North Dakota reported the incidents within the required time frame. The team also evaluated whether North Dakota had not reported any required incidents to the HOO. The team did not identify any missed reporting requirements.
During the review period, two allegations were received by North Dakota. The team evaluated both allegations, which were referred to North Dakota by NRC, during the review period. The alleger was notified of the outcome of the resulting inspection and notified of the closure of the allegations. It is North Dakotas understanding that the alleger contacted both the state and NRC to make both allegations but wished to remain anonymous for one of the events.
The program keeps incident and allegation records on a password protected shared drive and includes all relevant supporting documentation. Paper documents can then be properly destroyed, which helps prevent the disclosure of the allegers identity or other sensitive information. Incident response procedures indicate when an immediate physical response would be necessary and details what safety elements should be employed to protect the responding staff member.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, North Dakota met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.5.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that North Dakotas performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The MRB Chair agreed with the teams recommendation and found North Dakotas performance with respect to this indicator satisfactory.
4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Four non-common performance indicators are used to review Agreement State programs:
(1) Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements; (2) Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program; (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program; and (4) Uranium Recovery Program. The NRCs Agreement with North Dakota transfers regulatory authority for LLRW disposal program to the State; therefore, the first and third non-common performance indicators applied to this review.
North Dakota Final IMPEP Report Page 10 4.1 Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements State statutes should authorize the State to establish a program for the regulation of agreement material and provide authority for the assumption of regulatory responsibility under the States agreement with the NRC. The statutes must authorize the State to promulgate regulatory requirements necessary to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health, safety, and security. The State must be authorized through its legal authority to license, inspect, and enforce legally binding requirements, such as regulations and licenses. The NRC regulations that should be adopted by an Agreement State for purposes of compatibility or health and safety should be adopted in a time frame so that the effective date of the State requirement is not later than 3 years after the effective date of the NRCs final rule. Other program elements that have been designated as necessary for maintenance of an adequate and compatible program should be adopted and implemented by an Agreement State within 6 months following NRC designation. A Program Element Table indicating the Compatibility Categories for those program elements other than regulations can be found on the NRC website at the following address: https://scp.nrc.gov/regtoolbox.html.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-107, Reviewing the Non-Common Performance Indicator, Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements, and evaluated North Dakotas performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives. A complete list of regulation amendments can be found on the NRC website at the following address: https://scp.nrc.gov/regtoolbox.html.
The Agreement State program does not create conflicts, duplications, gaps, or other conditions that jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation of radioactive materials under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Regulations adopted by the Agreement State for purposes of compatibility or health and safety were adopted no later than 3 years after the effective date of the NRC regulation.
Other program elements, as defined in SA-200, Compatibility Categories and Health and Safety Categories and Safety Identification for NRC Regulations and other Program Elements that have been designated as necessary for maintenance of an adequate and compatible program, have been adopted and implemented within 6 months of NRC designation.
The State statutes authorize the State to establish a program for the regulation of agreement material and provide authority for the assumption of regulatory responsibility under the agreement.
The State is authorized through its legal authority to license, inspect, and enforce legally binding requirements such as regulations and licenses.
Sunset requirements, if any, do not negatively impact the effectiveness of the States regulations.
b.
Discussion The State of North Dakota became an Agreement State on September 1, 1969.
North Dakotas current effective statutory authority is contained in North Dakota Century Code Chapter 23.1-01. The North Dakota Century Code designates that the radiation control program is administered by the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality.
North Dakota Final IMPEP Report Page 11 The North Dakota Century Code is sufficiently broad to provide authority for the regulation of source, byproduct, special nuclear material, and other radioactive materials.
The rulemaking process takes approximately 6 months to complete which includes a public comment period. The public, NRC, other agencies, and potentially impacted licensees and registrants are offered an opportunity to comment during the process.
North Dakota adopts regulations required for purposes of compatibility by reference.
Since the State adopts applicable NRC regulations by reference, this streamlined the states adoption process and there were no regulations overdue for adoption.
During the review period, North Dakota submitted 11 proposed regulation amendments, 11 final regulation amendments, and 0 legally binding requirements or license conditions to the NRC for a compatibility review. None of the amendments were overdue for State adoption at the time of submission.
During the review period, the State finalized regulatory amendments and received NRC correspondence stating No Comments for RATS 2018-1, 2018-2, 2018-3, 2019-1, 2019-2, 2020-1, 2020-2, 2020-3, 2021-1, 2021-2, and 2022-1.
The team also reviewed other program elements that fall within this non-common performance indicator. The other program elements include the use of compatible procedures such as the RSRM checklist, pre-licensing guidance, IMC 1248, NUREG-1556, and NRC inspection procedures, and license conditions. The team determined that all guidance documents were adopted and implemented.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, North Dakota met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 4.1.a. Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommended that North Dakotas performance with respect to the indicator, Legislation, Regulations and Other Program Elements, be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Chairs Determination The MRB Chair agreed with the teams recommendation and found North Dakotas performance with respect to this indicator satisfactory.
4.2 LLRW Program In 1981, the NRC amended its Policy Statement, Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in Discontinuance of NRC Regulatory 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. Although, North Dakota has authority to regulate a LLRW disposal, the 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, it is expected to put in place a regulatory program that 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 review this indicator.
North Dakota Final IMPEP Report Page 12 5.0
SUMMARY
The team found North Dakotas performance to be satisfactory for all six performance indicators reviewed: Technical Staffing and Training; Status of Materials Inspection Program; Technical Quality of Inspections; Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities; and Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements.
There were no recommendations from the previous review for the team to consider and the team did not make any new recommendations.
Accordingly, the team recommends that the North Dakota radiation control program be found adequate to protect public health and compatible with the NRC's program. The team also recommends that a periodic meeting take place in approximately 2.5 years with the next IMPEP review taking place in approximately 5 years.
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members Appendix B Inspector Accompaniments
APPENDIX A IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS Name Areas of Responsibility Stephen Poy, NRC Team Leader Inspector Accompaniments Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements Keisha Cornelius, Oklahoma Team Leader in Training Technical Staffing and Training Amy Ford, Tennessee Status of Materials Inspection Program James Albright, North Carolina Technical Quality of Inspections Inspector Accompaniments Jackie Cook, NRC Technical Quality of Licensing Actions Jack Tway, New Jersey Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities
APPENDIX B INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS The following inspector accompaniments were performed prior to the on-site IMPEP review:
Accompaniment No.: 1 License No.: 33-06568-03 License Type: Fixed Nuclear Gauge Priority: 5 Inspection Date: 6/4/24 Inspectors initials: JA Accompaniment No.: 2 License No.: 33-41919-01 License Type: Medical Therapy - HDR Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 6/5/24 Inspectors initials: KD Accompaniment No.: 3 License No.: 33-56806-01 License Type: Industrial Radiography (includes Part 37 inspection)
Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 6/6/24 Inspectors initials: BO
NORTH DAKOTA MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD ATTENDANCE November 21, 2024, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. EST, via Microsoft Teams Management Review Board:
Robert Lewis, the Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research, State, Tribal, Compliance, Administration, and Human Capital Programs, MRB Chair; Jen Scro, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Rulemaking, Agreement States and Fee Policy; John Lubinski, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS);
Raymond Lorson, Regional Administrator, NRC Region I; and Shatavia Walker, Organization of Agreement States representative to the MRB, from the state of Georgia.
North Dakota Program Management and Staff (via Teams):
Chuck Hyatt, Director, Division of Waste Management, North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality; and David Stradinger, Radiation Control Program Manager, Radiation and Indoor Air Quality, North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality.
IMPEP Team:
Stephen Poy, NRC; Jackie Cook, RSAO, Region IV; James Albright, North Carolina; Keisha Cornelius, Oklahoma; Jack Tway, New Jersey; and Amy Ford, Tennessee NRC and Other Members Of The Public:
Tammy Bloomer, Region IV; Jeremy Groom, Region IV; Dafna Silberfeld, NMSS; Araceli Billoch Colon, OEDO; Jackie Cook, RIV; Randy Erickson, Region VI; Sherrie Flaherty, NMSS; Gehan Flanders, NMSS; Farrah Gaskins, RI; Robert Johnson, NMSS; Lee Smith; NMSS; Darren Piccirillo, Region III; Binesh Tharakan, NRC RIV; Jason Meinholdt; State of Kansas; Aaron Short; State of Kansas; Courtney Eckstein, State of Indiana; Daisy Coffman, State of Indiana; Kevin Stahl, State of Indiana; Kaci Studer, State of Indiana; Patrick Turner, State of Indiana; Lois Brayboy, State of North Carolina; and Steve Seeger, State of Tennessee.
ML24330A155 OFFICE NMSS/DFM/FFLB NMSS/MSST/SLPB NMSS/MSST NMSS/MSST/SMPB NAME SPoy RJohnson LSmith AGiantelli DATE Nov 26, 2024 Nov 25, 2024 Nov 25, 2024 Nov 26, 2024 OFFICE OCIO/DIME RES/DSA/AAB NMSS NMSS NAME DSilberfeld TBloomer JLubinski RLewis DATE Dec 2, 2024 Dec 3, 2024 Dec 4, 2024 Dec 12, 2024