July 26, 2005

Mr. Mike Broderick

Environmental Program Manager

Radiation Management Section

Department of Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 1677

Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677

Dear Mr. Broderick:

A periodic meeting with Oklahoma was held on July 12, 2005. The purpose of this meeting was

to review and discuss the status of Oklahoma’s Agreement State Program. The NRC was

represented by me from NRC’s Region IV office, and Richard Blanton from the Office of State

and Tribal Programs. 

I have completed and enclosed a general meeting summary, including any specific actions that

will be taken as a result of the meeting. 

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) 860-8116 or

e-mail mlm1@nrc.gov to discuss your concerns.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Linda McLean

Regional State Agreements Officer

Region IV

Enclosure:

Agreement State Periodic Meeting

 Summary for Oklahoma

cc w/enclosure:

Paul Lohaus, Director, 

Office of State and Tribal Programs
bcc: (via ADAMS e-mail distribution):

LWert

CCain

VCampbell

JZabko, STP

AMcCraw, STP

RBlanton, STP

SISP Review Completed: ADAMS: No Initials:___mlm__ 

ADAMS: :Yes 9No Initials: _mlm_____ 

:Publicly Available 9Non-Publicly Available 9Sensitive :Non-Sensitive

DOCUMENT NAME: E:\Filenet\ML052070544.wpd final r:\_dnms

RIV:RSAO

MLMcLean

/RA/

7/26 /2005

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY T=Telephone E=E-mail F=Fax

PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY FOR OKLAHOMA
DATE OF MEETING: July 12, 2005

ATTENDEES:

STATE

Mike Broderick, Environmental Program Manager

Pamela Bishop, Senior Environmental Specialist

NRC

Linda McLean, Regional State Agreements Officer, Region IV

Richard Blanton, Agreement State Project Officer, Office of State and Tribal Programs

DISCUSSION: 

The last IMPEP Review was the week of July 15-19, 2002. The review team found Oklahoma’s

performance to be satisfactory for all performance indicators. The review team recommended

that the State program to be found adequate and compatible with NRC's program, and that the

next full review should be in approximately four years.

Program items discussed: 

1. Status of State’s actions to address all open previous IMPEP review findings and/or

open recommendations. 

The review team recommended that the Section take appropriate measures to assure

timely dispatch of inspection findings to licensees. 

Current Status: There has been some progress made for timely despatch of inspection

findings; however, there is still need for improvement. 

2. Strengths and/or weaknesses of the State program as identified by the State or NRC

including identification of actions that could diminish weaknesses. 

Strengths: The program has capable and competent staff despite some turn-over. The

program manager and the supervisor each have greater than 10 years experience at

DEQ. The new hires have good credentials (e.g., one has a bachelor’s degree in

chemical engineering). Currently, the program has one vacancy. Also, the program and

is able to fund staff training. The Program is 100% fee funded. A 25% fee increase

was approved in 2004. 

Weaknesses: The backlog of license actions is improving, but there is still a backlog. 

Another stated weakness is the State’s salary structure. The concern is in the

program’s ability to retain qualified staff for succession planning. Currently the program

has five qualified inspectors, with three of them over 60 years old. Several new (and

younger) staff have left the program after about two years. Two years is around the

time it takes to qualify them as inspectors. 
-2-

3. Feedback on NRC’s program as identified by the State and including identification of

any action that should be considered by the NRC: 

The program manager expressed his appreciation of the NRCs consideration for

flexibility with the Category 1-4 security inspections by considering placing them under

the health and safety programs. However, he encourages the NRC not to have the

caveat of “all or none” of the States, in making the final decision. 

The program manager stated that the periodic meetings between the IMPEP reviews

are beneficial and effective tools, and he is not in favor on reducing the number of

periodic meetings. He also stated that he believes that they should be at least once a

year. 

Mike Broderick gave his thanks and the program’s appreciation for the aid I provided to

Pamela Bishop at the CRCPD meeting. When Ms. Bishop became very ill, I took her to

a hospital emergency room and spent the evening with her until her release. 

4. Status of State Program including:

a. Staffing and Training: Currently, the program has one vacancy, and is able to fill the

vacancy. There were two technical staff hires since the IMPEP review. In addition, the

program plans to add an additional technical person in July. 

b. Materials Inspection Program: The program provided updated information regarding

the number of inspections completed and overdue since the IMPEP Review. Although

there are some inspections overdue by 25%, the program appears to be making

progress in completing timely inspections. Also, the program is trying to assure timely

dispatch of inspection findings to licensees. Although there has been some

improvement, they acknowledge that there is still a need to improve in this area. 

The program manager usually conducts annual accompaniments of both new and

experienced inspectors to ensure continued technical quality of inspections and to assist

in the training and qualifications of new staff. However, no accompaniments were

conducted in 2004. The program manager recognized this as a concern, and stated

that he will complete all accompaniments in 2005.

c. Regulations and Legislative changes: Oklahoma adopts regulations for AEA

materials by reference. Adopting regulations by reference allows the State to implement

regulations quickly and avoid potential compatibility conflicts. 

d. Program reorganizations: No reorganizations are planned. 

e. Changes in Program budget/funding: A 25% fee increase was approved in 2004. 

The program is financially sound. No changes are anticipated. 

5. Event Reporting, including follow-up and closure information in NMED: All reportable

incidents are entered into the NMED database. All NMED events for Oklahoma are

closed and completed. 
-3-

6. Response to Incidents and Allegations: Referred allegations have been investigated

and completed. 

7. Information exchange and discussion: 

a. Current State initiatives: The State is requiring persons who manufacture, produces,

acquires, owns, transfer, possess and use radium sealed sources or acceleratorproduced material to apply for a specific license. 

b. Emerging technologies: The most recent emerging technology activity that the

program was involved with was a cyber knife for use in medical treatments. In addition,

the State has licensed two PET cyclotrons. 

c. State’s mechanisms to evaluate performance: Checks of program status are done

on a weekly basis during inspector debriefs. A program audit will be conducted before

the next IMPEP review. 

8. Other topics discussed: Security inspections and the 274(i) agreement change were

discussed. The program would like to participate in security inspections of licensees. 

They are currently assessing the possibility. 

9. Schedule for the next IMPEP review: Projected for June 2006