DATED: SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 SIGNED BY: HUGH L. THOMPSON, JR.

Ms. Elinor Hall, Administrator

Health Division

Oregon Department of Human Resources

Suite 950

800 NE Oregon Street, #21

Portland, Oregon 97232

Dear Ms. Hall:

This is to transmit the results of the NRC follow-up review and evaluation of

the Oregon radiation control program. This review, which concluded on

July 11, 1996, was conducted by James Lynch, State Agreements Officer,

Region III; and Jack Hornor, State Agreements Officer, Region IV Walnut Creek

Field Office. The results of this review were discussed with you and your

staff on July 11, 1996.

The previous July 1995 review of your program determined that the Oregon

program for the regulation of certain Atomic Energy Act radioactive materials

was compatible with the regulatory program of the NRC. However, the NRC

withheld a finding that the program was adequate to protect the public health

and safety. The decision to withhold adequacy was due to significant

deficiencies in three Category I Indicators: "Status of Inspection Program,"

"Responses to Incidents and Alleged Incidents," and "Enforcement Procedures."

This follow-up review determined that the deficiencies identified during the

1995 review had been corrected and that solutions have been implemented to

avoid similar problems in the future. The inspection backlog was eliminated

in a 12-month period with an accelerated inspection program. Responses to

incidents are now thoroughly done, documented and tracked. Appropriate,

timely enforcement actions are now performed, when needed.

Enclosure 1 summarizes our review findings for program indicators where the

1995 review identified recommendations for improvements. As all of the

recommendations have been satisfied and closed, a response to this report is

not necessary.

Please note, as discussed during the exit summary, future program reviews will

be conducted under the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program

(IMPEP). The final determination of adequacy and compatibility of each

Agreement State program, based on the review team's report, is made by a

Management Review Board (MRB) composed of NRC managers and an Agreement State

program manager who serves as a liaison to the MRB. The results of the Oregon

follow-up review and evaluation were transmitted to the NRC members of the

MRB. 
Ms. Elinor Hall -2-

We are pleased that withholding of the finding of adequacy for your radiation

control program is no longer necessary and that your program is compatible. 

The MRB reviewed and concurred with the review team's recommendation that the

Oregon program be found adequate to protect public health and safety and

compatible with NRC's regulatory program. This effort, over the past 12

months, exhibits your commitment to a strong Oregon agreement program. The

next review of your radiation control program will likely be scheduled in

approximately 2 years.

Your letter of July 28, 1995, committed to submitting quarterly progress

reports regarding the status of your recovery program. With the positive

findings generated by this follow-up review, those progress reports are no

longer needed.

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the NRC staff during the

follow-up review. Should you have any questions concerning this review,

please contact Mr. Lynch at (630) 829-9818.

Sincerely, /RA/

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.

Deputy Executive Director for

 Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards,

 and Operations Support

Enclosure: Status of Previous Findings and Summary of Follow-up 

Review Findings for the Oregon Radiation Control Program 

July 29, 1995, to July 11, 1996

cc w/encl:

R. Paris, Manager

Radiation Protection Services

Oregon Health Division

T. Johnson, Assistant Administrator

Oregon Health Division
Ms. Elinor Hall -2-

We are pleased that withholding of the finding of adequacy for your radiation

control program is no longer necessary and that your program is compatible. 

The MRB reviewed and concurred with the review team's recommendation that the

Oregon program be found adequate to protect public health and safety and

compatible with NRC's regulatory program. This effort, over the past 12

months, exhibits your commitment to a strong Oregon agreement program. The

next review of your radiation control program will likely be scheduled in

approximately 2 years.

Your letter of July 28, 1995, committed to submitting quarterly progress

reports regarding the status of your recovery program. With the positive

findings generated by this follow-up review, those progress reports are no

longer needed.

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the NRC staff during the

follow-up review. Should you have any questions concerning this review,

please contact Mr. Lynch at (630) 829-9818.

Sincerely,

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.

Deputy Executive Director for

 Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards,

 and Operations Support

Enclosure: Status of Previous Findings and Summary of Follow-up 

Review Findings for the Oregon Radiation Control Program 

July 29, 1995 to July 11, 1996

cc w/encl:

R. Paris, Manager

Radiation Protection Services

Oregon Health Division

T. Johnson, Assistant Administrator

Oregon Health Division

bcc w/encl:

Chairman Jackson

Commissioner Rogers

Commissioner Dicus

Commissioner Diaz

Commissioner McGaffigan

Distribution: See next page.

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\KXS\OREGON.96 **See previous concurrence. 

*Concurrence received at Region III

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 RIII RIII RIV/WCFO OSP OSP:DD OSP:D

NAME JLynch/cah McBarger JHornor KSchneider:gd PLohaus RLBangart

DATE 08/08/96* 08/08/96* 08/08/96* 08/09/96* 08/13/96* 08/ /96

OFFICE OGC NMSS AEOD DEDS

NAME KCyr CPaperiello ELJordan HLThompson

DATE 09/09/96* 08/28/96* 08/16/96* 09/ /96

OSP CODE: SP-AG-23
Ms. Elinor Hall -3-

Distribution:

DIR RF EDO RF CPaperiello, NMSS

HLThompson, DEDS RLBangart, OSP PLohaus, OSP

SDroggitis,OSP KSchneider, OSP ELJordan, AEOD

FCameron, OGC HNewsome, OGC JHornor, RIV/WCFO

TCombs, OCA LCallan, RIV JLynch, RIII

DKunihiro, RIV/WCFO Oregon File

ABBeach, RIII KCyr, OGC

DCD (SP01) PDR (YES_T)
ENCLOSURE 1

STATUS OF PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND

SUMMARY OF FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDINGS

FOR THE OREGON RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM

JULY 29, 1995, TO JULY 11, 1996

SCOPE OF REVIEW

This follow-up program review with Oregon representatives was held during the

period July 9-11, 1996, in Portland. This program review was conducted in

accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement for reviewing Agreement

State Programs published in the Federal Register on May 28, 1992, and the

internal procedures established by the Office of State Programs. The State's

program was reviewed against the seven program indicators remaining open from

the previous review conducted in July 1995. The review included discussions

with program management and staff, technical evaluation of selected license,

compliance and incident files, and review of the State's policies and

procedures.

The State was represented by Ray Paris, Manager, Radiation Protection Services

(RPS); Martha Dibblee, Manager, Radioactive Materials, and Nickolas

Goevelinger, Manager, Emergency Response.

CONCLUSION

The State's program for the regulation of Atomic Energy Act radioactive

materials is, at this time, adequate to protect the public health and safety. 

The finding of adequacy had been withheld, since the last program review,

because of significant deficiencies in three Category I Indicators, "Status of

Inspection Program," "Responses to Incidents and Alleged Incidents," and

"Enforcement Procedures." Those deficiencies have been resolved by the State. 

The State's program was found to be compatible with NRC's program as a result

of NRC's 1995 review.

STATUS OF PROGRAM RELATED TO PREVIOUS NRC FINDINGS

The results of the previous review were reported to the State in a letter to

Ms. Elinor Hall, Administrator, Health Division, dated December 26, 1995. Of

the 30 program indicators, 7 were determined to be deficient, with 3 of those

comments considered significant. The NRC was unable to offer a finding, at

that time, that the Oregon program was adequate to protect public health and

safety. This follow-up review addressed the seven program indicators which

had deficiencies. Since July 1995, the Oregon Health Division has taken

actions to satisfy all seven indicators. The current status of those previous

comments is as follows:
2 ENCLOSURE 1

The issues addressed in the following comments have been satisfactorily

resolved and are considered closed.

1. Management (Category II)

Comments from the July 1995 Review

The results of this review showed deficiencies in five other program

indicators that point to the need for increased management oversight. 

During discussions with the Radiation Control Program Director, the

Radioactive Materials Manager, and the Emergency Response Manager, it was

noted that communication among the three of them could be improved. Some

developing problems had been overlooked:

! Reviews of the files and computer records showed that backlogs were

allowed to develop in the radioactive materials licensing and compliance

programs. 

! Although the records indicated that the State's initial response actions

to incidents were satisfactory, over half of the incident investigations

were not completed or properly closed out.

! There were no records to indicate that one of the two new inspectors had

been accompanied by the compliance supervisor or that annual field

evaluations had been conducted for all inspectors.

! Enforcement actions did not always follow the prescribed procedure.

! The quality of the inspection reports was not adequate to meet the

guidelines, a finding repeated from the previous review.

During file reviews, it was noted that the Radiation Protection Services

Manager signs all licenses and escalated enforcement letters. The head of

the Radioactive Materials section reviews and signs off on all licensing

actions and inspection reports. 

Program management receives monthly computer-generated reports on the

status of licensing and compliance actions. Program managers meet once a

month; the Radioactive Materials staff meet daily, and full staff meetings

are held monthly. In reviewing the minutes of 28 staff meetings, however,

it was noted that the growing backlogs were never discussed.

In her July 28, 1995, letter to Mr. Bangart, Ms. Hall acknowledged that

she and her staff recognize problems exist in the Oregon program and

assured the NRC that plans are in place to resolve those problems.
3 ENCLOSURE 1

Recommendations from the July 1995 Review

a) We recommend that emphasis be placed on achieving stricter

managerial accountability, not only to the commitments made in the

July 28 letter for increasing oversight of inspections and

incidents, but for overseeing enforcement actions and inspection

reports, and for performing inspector accompaniments.

b) We recommend that the program managers implement actions, such as

more frequent meetings to discuss current and potential problems,

i.e., inspection backlogs, open incidents, and problem cases.

c) We recommend that the program managers more effectively forecast

program needs and allocate resources for backlogs in licensing and

compliance. This may require changing the formats of the computer

reports to place more emphasis on overdue licensing and compliance

actions.

Current Status in July 1996

As may be seen in the following indicators, Oregon program management has

increased its level of involvement in the management of the operations of

the radiation control program. Managerial accountability is evident at

all levels, including the Radiation Protection Services and Health

Division managers. Managers have increased oversight in the inspection

and licensing areas, enforcement, incident response, documentation and

assignment responsibilities.

The RPS and Materials managers meet several times weekly to discuss the

condition of the radioactive materials program. Inspection and licensing

workloads, incident response, enforcement actions and staffing matters are

routinely discussed during these meetings. These meetings appear to have

improved communications between the managers.

Monthly status reports with inspection and licensing workloads are

provided to managers and staff so that everyone is aware of program needs. 

The tracking system allows managers to look at the future scheduled

inspection workload and to forecast needed resources.

Based on a management analysis of program resource needs, an additional

health physicist position was assigned to the Materials program shortly

after the 1995 review. The individual selected for that position devotes

most of her time to the licensing program and provides laboratory and

inspection support. Her training is ongoing, but she has not yet attended

any NRC-sponsored training courses.

After the last review, the State volunteered to submit quarterly status

reports to the NRC to establish accountability and allow the NRC to verify

that progress was being made to rectify shortcomings in the program. 

These reports were made on July 28, 1995, November 14, 1995, February 14,

1996, and May 21, 1996.

The responsibility for managing incidents was reassigned to the Emergency

Response section of RPS. This change has resolved the uncertainty about

the lines of responsibility for incident handling and has freed the

Materials staff for other duties.
4 ENCLOSURE 1

2. Status of Inspection Program (Category I)

Comments from the July 1995 Review

Based on review of computer reports, at the time of the review, the State

had 61 inspections that were overdue by more than 25 percent of their

inspection frequency. Of these, 12 were initial inspections, 25 were

Priority 1, 2, and 3 licenses.

In a letter dated July 28, 1995, the Health Division Administrator

provided an action plan to reduce the inspection backlog. Concerns about

the adequacy of the plan were discussed by telephone with the Radiation

Control Program Director and the Radioactive Materials Manager on

August 22, 1995. In a letter to Mr. Hornor dated the same day, Mr. Paris

explained that the plan would be revised at the end of the first 3-month

period, and that the revised plan would be sent to the NRC, along with the

first quarterly progress report.

Recommendation from July 1995 Review

We recommend that the State eliminate the backlog of overdue inspections

and that the State complete the action plan provided in the July 28, 1995,

letter. In addition, we recommend that the action plan be revised to:

a) show the inspection priority, due date, and overdue date;

b) schedule staff assignments so as to complete an average of 12

inspections a month so that the backlog can be eliminated by

December 1996; and

c) place priority on conducting overdue inspections of licenses with

the highest potential hazards of licensed operations, taking into

consideration the date the original inspection was due.

Current Status in July 1996

The plan to eliminate overdue inspections was revised to incorporate NRC's

suggestions and a progress report was provided quarterly to the Office of

State Programs and to the Region IV State Agreements Officer. The State

exceeded their own expectations and completely eliminated the overdue

backlog in 12 months instead of the projected 18 months. 

Management has initiated the use of a monthly status report to keep all

staff abreast of the number of inspections completed along with lists of

inspections coming due and inspection assignments for the month. The

review team compared the monthly reports to the inspection files and

computer records and concluded that the reports accurately reflected the

status of the inspection program.

Because of the success in eliminating the inspection backlog, the review

team advised Oregon management that it would no longer be necessary to

submit quarterly progress reports to the NRC.

3. Responses to Incidents and Alleged Incidents (Category I)

Comments from the July 1995 Review

According to the files and incident log, 81 incidents or allegations were

reported to the State during the 2-year review period. Summaries of all

81 events were examined, and six cases were reviewed in-depth. There were
5 ENCLOSURE 1

no therapeutic misadministrations or incidents requiring NRC Abnormal

Occurrence Reports. Also, none occurred which appeared to be related to

equipment failure or design deficiency.

The records showed that the State responded promptly to most incidents and

that the initial investigative efforts were commensurate with potential

health and safety significance. However, the follow-up actions were often

inadequate. In six out of six cases selected for in-depth review, the

investigations had not been completed or closed out properly. In one

case, the State failed to follow through with an appropriate search for a

plutonium (Pu) pacemaker that was apparently discarded as medical waste. 

In another, no action was taken on an allegation from a former worker at a

State licensed facility because the facility is, according to the State,

now an EPA Superfund site. In a third case, a licensee was not cited for

using an unauthorized user; no action was taken when the licensee failed

to follow the State's order to provide a report of the disposition of the

source from a damaged gauge; and the incident report was not crossreferenced to the license file, so the incident was not reviewed during

the next inspection. Of the remaining three, two were not assigned case

numbers or entered in the log. In the sixth case, the incident was

entered in the log, but there was no indication that an incident report

had been prepared.

Examination of the log showed that 42 of 81 incident investigations in the

incident log remained open. At the time of the review, 6 of 34 incidents

that had been investigated in 1993 remained open, as did 25 of the 40 that

were investigated in 1994. 

Responsibility for responding to incidents and allegations is divided

between the Emergency Response and Radioactive Materials programs. In

discussions with program managers and staff, it appeared that the lines of

responsibility were unclear as to follow-up and reporting

responsibilities. As a result, details pertaining to incident

investigations were sometimes misplaced or not entered into the tracking

system. To further complicate the situation, Radioactive Materials used

two different numbering systems in the incident log, while Emergency

Response used a third. As an example of the less than clear assignment of

responsibility, neither manager was aware that someone on the RPS staff

had reported the 1994 incidents to the NRC as requested. 

In her July 28 letter, Ms. Hall stated that realignment of documentation

and assignment responsibilities had already been accomplished and that

stricter accountability has been established in the incident oversight

portion of the program.

Recommendations from the 1995 Review

a) We recommend that the procedures for initial incident response

assignments, enforcement, tracking, follow-up, cross referencing,

reporting, and management review responsibilities be analyzed by

management and revised as necessary to provide for adequate followup actions on incidents.

b) We also recommend that open incidents be reviewed and the program

institute necessary follow-up or close out actions.

Current Status in July 1996

The process for managing the incident response program was redesigned

after the last review. Direct responsibility for managing incident
6 ENCLOSURE 1

response was assigned to the Emergency Response group. The Emergency

Response Manager reviews the opening and closure of an incident file. The

Emergency Response group maintains incident files and tracks

investigations. The incident files are maintained in a file drawer in

chronological order and reference sheets are placed in license files

directing attention to the appropriate incident file. Ten license files

were examined to verify that incident reference sheets were present and

cross-referenced to the incident files. No discrepancies were identified. 

Details of the file reviews are attached in Appendix A.

Incident investigations for the 10 files appeared to be complete, logical,

and the information received from licensees confirmed by inspectors. The

Health Division Policy and Procedure Manual allows inspection of license

files by members of the public.

Incident files were cross-referenced to the NRC's Nuclear Materials Events

Database. Oregon is voluntarily providing incident data on a regular

basis to the database. Good correlation was seen between the files and

database.

A large number of incident files remained open at the time of the last

review. A review of these files indicated, with one exception, that all

of those incident files have been adequately reviewed and closed. The

remaining incident, concerning a damaged moisture-density gauge, had been

prematurely closed without proper documentation of radioactive source

disposition. During this follow-up review, the necessary documentation

was retrieved from the licensee and the file was properly closed. The

only open incident files, at this time, are current investigations. New

incident files are now closed in a reasonable time period. All of the

incidents reviewed since July 1995, were closed within 60 days, most

within 30 days.

4. Inspector's Performance and Capability (Category I)

Comments from the July 1995 Review

On July 20, 1995, the NRC reviewer accompanied a State inspector during an

unannounced, routine inspection of a fixed radiography licensee. The

inspector was given high marks for the depth of his inspection, his

exchange of information with the licensee, and his thorough knowledge of

the regulations. The items of non-compliance were correctly identified

and the recommendations were appropriate. However, the inspector failed

to check his survey instrument before the inspection or to adequately

interview ancillary workers. The exit meeting should have been held at a

higher management level, and the inspector should have prioritized his

findings for the exit discussion. The results of the accompaniment were

discussed with the inspector and his immediate supervisor.

The other two inspectors who perform the majority of the State's

inspections have been accompanied by the NRC during previous reviews, and

their performance was satisfactory.

There was no documentation that annual field evaluations were conducted by

a supervisor during 1993 or 1994. In June 1995, several accompaniments of

a new inspector were appropriately documented. However, there is no

indication that the Emergency Response staff member who is now performing

independent gauge inspections has been evaluated by the Radioactive

Materials Supervisor. 
7 ENCLOSURE 1

Recommendation from the 1995 Review

We recommend that the compliance supervisor:

a) accompany each new inspector during an inspection of a licensee

typical of the type that will fall within an inspector's purview

before independent inspections are assigned to the inspector; and

b) conduct annual field evaluations of each inspector to assess

performance and to help maintain consistency in the application of

the State's policy.

Current Status in July 1996

Program management expressed the commitment to properly train and evaluate

inspectors on each type of licensee program for which an inspector would

have responsibility. One inspector, currently authorized for gauge

inspections only, was accompanied by the Materials manager on a gauge

inspection in December 1995. A new health physicist in the program has

not performed any independent inspections and thus has not yet been

accompanied. She has, however, served in an observational role on several

inspections.

Within the last year, the Materials manager accompanied the three

individuals who are currently authorized for independent inspections,

including the Emergency Response staff member mentioned in the 1995 review

comments. The manager maintains records of her accompaniments as well as

peer accompaniments performed by senior staff. The accompaniments did not

identify any significant weaknesses on the part of the inspectors and

allowed the manager an opportunity to comment on inspection techniques and

to increase dialogue with the inspectors.

5. Enforcement Procedures (Category I)

Comments from the July 1995 Review

Review of the written enforcement procedures confirmed that the State has

enforcement procedures that should be sufficient to ensure licensee

compliance with regulatory requirements. The enforcement system assigns

points equated with the seriousness of the violations and has action

levels above which escalated enforcement is required. The Radiation

Control Program Director explained that although the State has no civil

penalties, they achieve the necessary compliance by using the other

methods available to them, such as follow-up inspections, management

meetings, enforcement conferences, changes to license conditions,

confirmatory action letters, orders, and license suspension or revocation. 

Results of the file reviews indicate the enforcement policy is effective.

The file reviews indicated that enforcement and acknowledgement letters

were issued promptly. The letters used appropriate regulatory language

and were clearly written. The items of concern are clearly differentiated

from the items of non-compliance. Licensees are required to respond to

enforcement letters within 30 days, and the inspector and program manager

review the licensee responses. In the 15 cases sampled, the licensees had

responded within the specified time period.

However, during the file reviews, it was found that the appropriate

enforcement action was not carried out in three separate cases. The

failure to cite a licensee for an unauthorized user was discussed above in

the assessment for the indicator, "Responses to Incidents and Alleged
8 ENCLOSURE 1

Incidents." In two instances, the escalated enforcement required by the

procedures was not taken. In the first case, the inspector recommended a

follow-up inspection in three months after the severity level of the

violations exceeded the specified number of points. At the time of this

review, 15 months after the inspection, the follow-up inspection had not

been conducted. In the second case, the inspection report identified a

repeat severity level II violation; however, the inspection cover letter

to the licensee stated that there were no items of non-compliance and that

no action would be necessary.

Recommendation from the 1995 Review

We recommend that actions be taken, such as increased management oversight

of the inspection results and enforcement actions, to assure that

appropriate enforcement actions are taken in accordance with the State's

enforcement procedures.

Current Status in July 1996

Program management oversight of enforcement actions has increased to

ensure that Oregon's enforcement procedures are followed. Inspection

debriefs with the Materials manager and communications between levels of

program management are routine. An "inspector debrief" form is completed

by the inspector for each inspection to assist with the communication. 

This increased oversight was evident in routine enforcement cases

involving simple notices of violations and also with escalated enforcement

cases involving management meetings. Since the last review, six

management meetings have been held with licensees.

Several inspections, including the deficient enforcement cases identified

during the last review, were tracked by the review team to determine if

appropriate action had been taken, as specified by State procedures. 

Oregon inspections result in a rating being given to each license

inspected. That rating determines whether a license will have an early

reinspection. At the time of the review, four Oregon licensees had

ratings requiring early reinspections. Each of these four license files

was reviewed in detail. Two other cases were also tracked, by the review

team, to completion. Appropriate enforcement actions were taken in all

cases, including early reinspections and management meetings.

6. Inspection Reports (Category II)

Comments from the July 1995 Review

Deficiencies were found in 12 of the 15 inspection reports reviewed in

depth.

Inspection forms had no place to record review of the licensee's incident

file. As a result, two cases were identified in which the licensee's

corrective actions to prevent further occurrences of similar incidents

were not reviewed or documented. In two cases, the enforcement letter

boilerplate was inaccurate in describing the point system. 

In other cases, deficiencies appeared to be caused by lack of attention to

detail in completing the inspection form. In two instances, the

inspector's independent measurements were not adequately documented. In

10 other cases, one-of-a-kind errors or omissions also indicated failure

to follow the procedures.
9 ENCLOSURE 1

Recommendations from July 1995 Review

a) We recommend that the inspection forms be revised to include review

of the licensee's incident file.

b) We recommend that the program examine the process for preparation,

review, and issuance of inspection reports and institute actions to

ensure inspection reports are completed and adequately document the

results of inspections. 

Current Status in July 1996

a) The inspection forms have been modified to include review of the

licensee's incident file, and the file reviews indicated that

inspectors are documenting review of the licensee's incidents during

the inspection.

b) Each inspection report contains a control sheet to track all

inspection and enforcement actions. This control sheet has been

revised to include peer or supervisory review of all inspection

reports and correspondence.

The review team had no health and safety concerns in the 12 inspection

reports which were reviewed in depth. Details of the files reviewed are

attached in Appendix B.

7. Status and Compatibility of Regulations (Category I)

Comments from the July 1995 Review

Oregon has adopted equivalent regulations to all NRC regulations which

were deemed matters of compatibility and which needed to be adopted

through 1995. Each rule and the accompanying documents and correspondence

were reviewed to verify that the State provided drafts of the proposed

regulations to the NRC and made the suggested changes before submitting

them for final adoption. It was also verified that the public had

opportunity for input by reviewing the Public Hearing Officer Comments.

During this review period, the following regulations were adopted by the

State: "Decommissioning Rule," 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70, amendments

which were needed by July 27, 1991, were adopted on May 6, 1994; 

"Emergency Planning Rule," 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70, amendments which

were needed by April 7, 1993, were adopted on May 6, 1994; "Standards for

Protection Against Radiation," 10 CFR Part 20, amendment which was needed

by January 1, 1994, was adopted on May 6, 1994; "Safety Requirements for

Radiographic Equipment," 10 CFR Part 34, amendment which was needed by

January 10, 1994, was adopted on April 26, 1995; "Notification of

Incidents," 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 31, 34, 39, 40, and 70, which were needed

by October 15, 1994, were adopted on May 6, 1994; "Quality Management

Program and Misadministrations" 10 CFR Part 35, which was needed by

January 27, 1995, was adopted on April 26, 1995; and "Decommissioning

Recordkeeping: Documentation Additions" 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70,

which are needed by October 25, 1996, was adopted May 6, 1994.

The State has no large irradiators and plans to defer adoption of 10 CFR

Part 36, "Licensing and Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators." 

The State is reminded of the following NRC regulations that will require

equivalent State regulations in order to maintain compatibility:
10 ENCLOSURE 1

! "Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators," 10 CFR

Part 36 (58 FR 7715), that became effective on July 1, 1993, and may

need to be adopted by July 1, 1996. With respect to this rule, however,

State management staff indicated that the State has no licensees that

are subject to this rule and they are aware of no plans or current

interest in the public or private sector to build a large irradiator. 

If there are no licensees in the State that would be subject to this

rule, it is acceptable to the NRC that the State defer adoption of the

rule. To defer adoption, the State is requested to confirm to NRC that

there are no facilities subject to the rule and that if an application

for an irradiator subject to the rule were to be received, the State

would take action to adopt a compatible Part 36 rule, and until such

rule became effective, to incorporate the provisions of Part 36 through

license conditions.

! "Self-Guarantee as an Additional Financial Mechanism," 10 CFR Parts 30,

40, and 70, amendments (58 FR 68726 and 59 FR 1618) that became

effective on January 28, 1994, and which will need to be adopted by

January 28, 1997.

! "Timeliness in Decommissioning of Materials Facilities," 10 CFR Parts

30, 40, and 70, amendments (59 FR 36026) that became effective on

August 15, 1994, and which will need to be adopted by August 15, 1997.

! "Preparation, Transfer for Commercial Distribution, and Use of Byproduct

Material for Medical Use," 10 CFR Parts 30, 32, and 35, amendments (59

FR 61767, 65243, and 60 FR 322) that became effective on January 1,

1995, and which will need to be adopted by January 1, 1998.

! "Frequency of Medical Examinations for Use of Respiratory Protection

Equipment," 10 CFR Part 20, amendment (60 FR 7900) that became effective

on March 13, 1995, and which will need to be adopted by March 13, 1998.

! "Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and Reporting," 10 CFR

Parts 20 and 61 (60 FR 15649) that becomes effective on March 1, 1998,

and which will need to be adopted by March 1, 1998.

Four of the six regulations adopted during the review period required more

than 3 years to promulgate. The delay in adoption of regulations during

this past review period was due to staffing turnover, several regulations

needing adoption since the last review period, and all regulations needing

Oregon legislative approval (Oregon legislature meets biannually).

Recommendation from the 1995 Review

Oregon management should examine their rule procedures and should adopt

compatible regulations within the three-year time frame.

Current Status in July 1996

Program managers examined the State rule process and have committed to a

proactive approach to adoption of regulations, acknowledging the time

limitations caused by the biannual legislature sessions. Increased early

involvement of Agreement States in NRC rulemakings will aid this process. 

One regulation came due since the 1995 review, "Licenses and Radiation

Safety Requirements for Irradiators," 10 CFR Part 36, needing adoption by

July 1, 1996. In a February 14, 1996, letter to NRC, Ms. Hall stated that

Oregon has no large irradiators and is not aware of any proposed

facilities subject to the irradiator rule. As such, the State has
11 ENCLOSURE 1

postponed promulgation of an irradiator rule until such a regulation is

needed. Provisions of 10 CFR Part 36 will be incorporated through license

conditions for a license application received, prior to adoption of an

irradiator rule through the State's Administrative Rule process. This

approach is acceptable to NRC.

With a look to the future, the State has initiated the legal review of

"Self-Guarantee as an Additional Financial Mechanism," 10 CFR Parts 30,

40, and 70, amendments which need adoption by January 28, 1997.

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS WITH STATE REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Lynch and Mr. Hornor presented the results of this follow-up review to

Ms. Hall, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Paris and Ms. Dibblee in a summary meeting held on

July 11, 1996. Mr. Ross Scarano, Region IV Director, Division of Nuclear

Materials Safety, represented NRC management at the meeting.

The State was congratulated on their marked radiation control program

improvement in the past year. Mr. Lynch stated that the preliminary

conclusions of the follow-up review team were that all outstanding issues from

the 1995 review were now closed.

Mr. Lynch and Mr. Hornor commented that the State's approach to the previous

review findings appropriately considers improvements in the radiation control

program from which the program will continue to benefit.

Ms. Hall commented that the previous negative review findings have resulted in

greater management awareness which will benefit the program in the long term.

The NRC Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) was

discussed in some detail. The State was informed that future reviews would be

performed under IMPEP. Mr. Scarano shared his experience with a recent Region

IV IMPEP review.

The State was thanked for their cooperation and professionalism during this

follow-up review. Ms. Hall thanked the team for the review and suggestions

and reiterated that Oregon was committed to having a strong radiation control

program.

Attachments:

1. Appendix A - Incident File Reviews

2. Appendix B - Compliance File Reviews