Feedback on the NRC’s Program

The Program was complimentary of the IMPEP Process and the training provided by NRC.
However, the Program mentioned they often feel overwhelmed with the volume of expectations
placed upon them from NRC. They often feel inundated with requests for information, requests
for input on documents and other requests from NRC. They come at a rapid pace and while the
Program would like to provide input, they simply often don’t have the time.

Another issue brought forward by the Program was that they feel like they are always being sold
on WBL as it is today and not really listening to the needs of the Agreement States. The
Program believes that listening to the State's needs is necessary to obtain widespread
participation.

Organization

The Oregon Agreement State Program is administered by the Radiation Protection Services
Section which is located within the Center for Health Protection. The Center is part of the
Oregon Public Health Division.

There have been no reorganizations since the 2013 IMPEP review.

Program Budget/Funding

As indicated earlier in this report, RPS is 95 percent fee funded and receives about 5 percent of
their funding from grants for emergency response training and from FDA under the MQSA
program. The money goes into a dedicated fund specific for agency use.

Technical Staffing and Training (2013 IMPEP: Satisfactory)

At the time of the periodic meeting, the Program had 16 staff positions across the entire
Program (both RAM and X-Ray). Of those positions they have 2.5 FTE dedicated to materials
inspections and 1.5 FTE dedicated to materials licensing. They currently have 409 specific
licenses. The Program has one Program Director and two managers, one for inspections and
one for licensing. The Program had three vacancies, one in the materials program.

At the time of the 2013 IMPEP review, the Program had a documented training plan consistent
with NRC's Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 1246, “Formal Qualification Programs in the
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Program Area.” They still follow that plan but were
advised during the meeting that IMC 1246 had been superseded by IMC 1248, “Qualification
Programs for Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs,” and a
discussion was held to point out the differences between the former and current guidance and
to ensure the Program continued forward using IMC 1248.


-6-

Regulations and Legislative Changes (2013 IMPEP: Satisfactory)

The current effective statutory authority is contained in Volume 11 Chapter 453 Hazardous
Substances, Radiation Sources, of the Oregon Revised Statutes. The Section is designated as
the State’s radiation control agency. The Program is implemented by the Radiation Protection
Services Section. Oregon's regulations are located in Chapter 333, Divisions 100-124 of the
Oregon Administrative Rules. No legislative changes affecting the Program have occurred
since the last IMPEP review.

At the time of the 2013 IMPEP review there were no amendments overdue for adoption and at
the time of the 2015 Periodic Meeting, there also were no amendments overdue for adoption.
Oregon's equivalent to Part 37 had been developed, reviewed by NRC and accepted. The
Program anticipates implementation by September 2015.

The 2013 IMPEP review team made one recommendation for the indicator Compatibility
Requirements. The recommendation and its status is listed below.

Recommendation 6: The review team recommends that the State develop and implement a
protocol to ensure that regulations required for adoption are adopted within 3 years as required
in the Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs.

Status: While there were no overdue amendments at the time of the 2013 IMPEP review,
during that review period seven amendments had been submitted, of which five were submitted
overdue and the Program had no established Procedure or timeline for rule development.
Following the IMPEP review, the Program developed a new procedure for rule development and
assigned the Program Manager for licensing to be the point person for the effort. Rules can
now be developed as quickly as 60 days and submitted to NRC for review. They do have one
impediment to the process. No rules can be developed while the legislature is in session five
months of each odd-numbered year and one month of each even-numbered year.

Amendments are now submitted in a timely manner.

CONCLUSIONS:

The Program continues to be an effective, well maintained Agreement State program. There is
presently one staff level vacancy. The Program has addressed the six open recommendations
from the 2013 IMPEP review and continues to demonstrate sustained performance in those
areas. The Program is effectively managing its licensing and inspection activities. The Program
is responding to incidents and allegations as appropriate and has no overdue regulation
amendments.

NRC staff recommends that the next IMPEP review be conducted as scheduled in August 2017.


-2-

TOPICS COVERED DURING THE MEETING INCLUDED:
Program Strengths

1. Well Established Staff Training Program
¢ Radiation Protection Services (RPS) takes advantage of all the training
resources available to them including NRC training, local training, topical
meetings, and the staff work cohesively and comprehensively to help train each
other. The number of staff is small so that works well for them. Staff is well
trained.

2. Highly Motivated and Talented Staff
¢ The Oregon program is a busy Program with a highly motivated staff responsible
for the licensing and inspection of 409 specific materials licensees. RPS
managers believe they have made good selections for open positions filling them
with talented staff with solid and varied backgrounds who work collaboratively.

3. Supportive Management
* Management support to the Program is outstanding at all levels, and access to
senior management is unencumbered. Some of the senior managers are
unfamiliar with exactly what RPS does on a daily basis, but RPS management is
working with them to help them gain that knowledge.

4. Competitive Salaries
¢ Salaries have remained competitive which has allowed the Program to attract the

quality candidates that they have hired in recent years.

Program Challenges

1. Budget
e The RPS budget is 95 percent fee funded and they receive 5 percent of their

budget from grants for first responder training and from FDA under the MQSA
program. In recent years overhead cost allocation has risen from 11 percent of
their budget to 40 percent of their budget. It is anticipated that fee increases will
allow them to maintain the 19 full time equivalents (FTE) they are currently
authorized but they are not allowed to expand staffing even though they believe it
would enhance quality services.

2. IT Issues
e Even though the RPS budget funds one FTE, they still experience issues with IT
support to the Program. Specifically, they would like to be a part of Web Based
Licensing (WBL), but issues with the IT staff have made that not possible at this
time. Primarily there is no fiscal component that would allow for e-payments.

3. Insufficient Staffing
e With the Program only having 2.5 materials inspectors and 19 total staff, they
often experience times when they need additional staff. Staff are often spread
too thin to be as effective as they would prefer to be.


-4-
Status of Materials Inspection Program (2013 IMPEP: Satisfactory)
Technical Quality of Inspections (2013 IMPEP: Satisfactory)

The Program had conducted 157 Priority 1, 2, and 3 inspections since the last IMPEP review.
None were conducted overdue. The Program performed 24 percent of all reciprocity
Notifications in 2014 and 40 percent as of June 16, 2015. Additionally, the Program has rolled
out a new electronic reciprocity notification system. Licensees file online and that information is
automatically pushed out to all the inspector's email which they are able to access while in the
field. When they are in the area, they can perform the inspection. This has enhanced their
ability to perform reciprocity inspections.

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (2013 IMPEP: Satisfacto

The Program reported they have 409 specific licensees. All licensing actions are worked on ina
timely manner. Since the last IMPEP review the Program has implemented a peer review
system for licensing actions. The Program has received 630 licensing actions since the last
IMPEP review. They have a goal of processing most licensing actions within 30 days, but will
extend that up to 90 days if necessary. Signature authority is the Program Manager for
Licensing. The guidance used by the Program is equivalent to the NRC's NUREG 1556 Series
guidance.

The 2013 IMPEP review team made three recommendations for the indicator Technical Quality
of Licensing Actions. The recommendations and status are listed below.

Recommendation 1: The review team recommends that the Section follow its licensing
procedure flow sheet and re-implement the peer review process to ensure consistency and
accuracy for all licensing actions.

Status: Since the IMPEP review, the Program's long term license reviewer recently retired and
the individual who was only partially qualified at the time of the review is now their primary
reviewer. She is now qualified to work independently on all license types. Immediately
following the IMPEP review, they began fully following their licensing flow chart by
reestablishing peer reviews of all completed licensing documents. They use the peer reviews
as training opportunities by having open communication among staff.

Recommendation 2: The review team recommends that the State verify that all previously
approved authorized users, authorized medical physicists, radiation safety officers on medical
licenses, and authorized nuclear pharmacists have the proper board certification or training
requirements and preceptor attestation, since the new requirements were initiated in 2006.

Status: At the time of the IMPEP review, the review team noted that authorized users were
being added to licenses without evidence of documentation verifying that appropriate training
had been completed; or with limited documentation or incorrectly filled out attestation forms.
Following the IMPEP review, the Program created a new procedure ensuring that complete and
appropriate documentation is obtained, verified and that all forms are complete and accurate.
The Program also went back and identified all licensing actions that occurred from 2006 to 2013
and looked at the authorization process for each individual approved. What they eventually
found was that all of the individuals who had been authorized were properly qualified.


UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
1600 E. LAMAR BLVD.
ARLINGTON, TX 76011-4511

July 14, 2015

David M. Howe, Program Director
Radiation Protection Services
Oregon Public Health Division
Oregon Health Authority

800 NE Oregon Street, Suite 640
Portland, OR 97232-2162

Dear Mr. Howe:

A periodic meeting with you and your staff was held on June 18, 2015. The purpose of this
meeting was to review and discuss the status of the Oregon Agreement State Program. The
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was represented by Mark Shaffer, Lisa Dimmick,
and me.

| have completed and enclosed a general meeting summary, including any specific actions
resulting from the discussions. A Management Review Board (MRB) meeting to discuss the
outcome of the periodic meeting has been scheduled for August 3, 2015 at 1:00pm (EST). Call
in information for the MRB will be provided in a separate transmission.

If you feel that our conclusions do not accurately summarize the meeting discussion, or have
any additional remarks about the meeting in general, please contact me at (817) 200-1143 or

via e-mail at Randy. Erickson@nrc.gov to discuss your concerns.

Sincerely,

Randy Erickson
State Agreements Officer
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety

Enclosure:
Periodic Meeting Summary for Oregon


-5«

Recommendation 3: The review team recommends that the State develop and implement a
pre-licensing protocol based on the RCPD-08-020 letter issued on September 22, 2008 to
enhance the basis for confidence that radioactive materials will be used as specified on a
radioactive materials license.

Status: The Program was previously applying the revised pre-licensing guidance to all
licensees who possessed IC quantities of radioactive materials. However, for the rest of the
new materials licensees, if they had been registered as a business with the Oregon Secretary of
State, they were considered a known entity and the pre-licensing guidance was not applied.
Following the IMPEP review, the Program changed their policy and now use the pre-licensing
guidance for all new license applications. They also perform pre-licensing visits on all new
licensees. If they are an IC licensee, they also perform a security inspection. If all is ok, then
the license is hand delivered to the licensee.

Technical Quality of Incidents and Allegations (2013 IMPEP: Satisfactory)

The Program is aware of the need to maintain an effective response to incidents and
allegations. At the time of the periodic meeting the Program had reported nine events to NMED
since the last IMPEP review. All HOO reportable events were conveyed to the NRC in the
correct manner. At the time of the meeting, only two events were currently open.

The 2013 IMPEP review team made two recommendations for the indicator Technical Quality of
Incident and Allegation Activities. The recommendations and status are listed below.

Recommendation 4: The review team recommends that the Section implement a process to
ensure all required information is submitted to NMED and to also promote timely completion of
NMED entries. This recommendation remains open from 2009 IMPEP review.

Status: Following the IMPEP review the Program implemented a new process for the handling
and disposition of incoming events. The Program has selected the Program Manager for
Operations to be the point person for this effort, but it involves all members of the staff. When
an event is received by RPS, staff and management consult to determine what level of effort is
needed to address the issue based on risk significance. Then staff is dispatched according to
the plan that has been established. HOO and NMED reports are tracked and each is discussed
during monthly staff meetings to ensure that each is closed properly and in a timely manner.

Recommendation 5: The review team recommends that the State revise its protocol for
reviewing incidents for reportability in accordance with FSME Procedure SA-300 and to ensure
timely reporting of events to the NRC Operations Center and to NMED.

Status: As identified in Recommendation 4, the Program implemented a new process for the
handling and disposition of incoming events. This procedure also addresses reviewing
incidents for reportability in accordance with NMSS Procedure SA-300 and the timely reporting
of events to the HOO and to NMED.


David M. Howe, Program Director
Radiation Protection Services
Oregon Public Health Division
Oregon Health Authority

800 NE Oregon Street, Suite 640
Portland, OR 97232-2162

Dear Mr. Howe:

A periodic meeting with you and your staff was held on June 18, 2015. The purpose of this
meeting was to review and discuss the status of the Oregon Agreement State Program. The
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was represented by Mark Shaffer, Lisa Dimmick,
and me.

| have completed and enclosed a general meeting summary, including any specific actions
resulting from the discussions. A Management Review Board (MRB) meeting to discuss the
outcome of the periodic meeting has been scheduled for August 3, 2015 at 1:00pm (EST). Call
in information for the MRB will be provided in a separate transmission.

If you feel that our conclusions do not accurately summarize the meeting discussion, or have
any additional remarks about the meeting in general, please contact me at (817) 200-1143 or

via e-mail at Randy. Erickson@nrc.gov to discuss your concerns.

Sincerely,

Randy Erickson
State Agreements Officer
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety

Enclosure:
Periodic Meeting Summary for Oregon

DISTRIBUTION:
M. Shaffer, D:DNMS L. Howell, DD:DNMS V. Campbell, TA:DNMS
J. Piccone, NMSS P, Henderson, NMSS. C. Einberg, NUSS
R. Erickson, SAO B, Tharakan, SAO L. Dimmick, NMSS
M. Beardsley, NMSS K. Meyer, NMSS
S:\DNMS\ISAO\Periodic Meetings\201 5\Oregon\Oregon June 2015 Periodic Meeting Summary and Transmittal Letter.docx
X SUNSI Review ADAMS X Publicly Available | X Non-Sensitive Keyword:
By: RRE XYes O O Non-Publicly O Sensitive
No Available
OFFICE RIV:SAO

NAME RRI son
SIGNATURE
DATE 07/4/15

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY



AGREEMENT STATE PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY FOR
OREGON’S PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION
RADIATION PROTECTION SERVICES

DATE OF MEETING: JUNE 18, 2015

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oregon Radiation Protection Services
Commission (NRC) Attendees Attendees

Randy Erickson, State Agreements David Howe, Director, Radiation Protection
Officer, Region IV Services

Mark Shaffer, Director, Division of Richard Wendt, Program Manager, Operations

Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV
Lisa Dimmick, Senior Health Physicist, | Todd Carpenter, Program Manager, Licensing
Agreement State Programs Branch,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards

Richard Beauman, Health Physicist, Inspector
Daryl Leon, Health Physicist, Inspector

Erin DeSemple, License Reviewer

Connie Grater, Administrative Assistant
Nancy Curry, Administrative Assistant

Glenda Villamar, X-ray Inspector

DISCUSSION:

During the 2013 Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review of the
Oregon Agreement State Program (Program), the review team found the State’s performance
satisfactory for the indicators Technical Staffing and Training, Status of Materials Inspection
Program, Technical Quality of Inspection, and Compatibility Requirements and satisfactory, but
needs improvement for the indicators Technical Quality of Licensing Actions and Technical
Quality of Incidents and Allegation Activities. The finding of satisfactory but needs improvement
for the indicators Technical Quality of Licensing Actions and Technical Quality of Incident and
Allegation Activities had remained the same from the 2009 IMPEP review and the finding of
Satisfactory for the indicator Technical Quality of Inspections was an improvement from the
2009 IMPEP review.

The review team made a total of five recommendations in the indicators Technical Quality of
Licensing Actions, Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, and Compatibility
Requirements. The review team closed two recommendations from the 2009 IMPEP report and
kept one recommendation open. The open recommendation was in the indicator Technical
Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities.

The review team recommended, and the Management Review Board (MRB) agreed, that the
Oregon Agreement State Program was adequate to protect public health and safety and was
compatible with the NRC's program. The MRB also agreed with the review team that the next
IMPEP review take place in approximately four years.