UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

R EGI ON IV

612 E. LAMAR BLVD., SUITE 400

ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011-4125

July 8, 2008 

Thomas A. Conley, CHP, RRPT, Chief 

Radiation and Asbestos Control Section 

Bureau of Air & Radiation 

Kansas Section of Health & Environment 

1000 SW Jackson, Suite 310 

Topeka, KS 66612-1366 

Dear Mr. Conley: 

A periodic meeting with Kansas was held on June 18, 2008. The purpose of this meeting was 

to review and discuss the status of the Kansas Agreement State Program. I have completed 

and enclosed a general meeting summary, including any specific actions resulting from the 

discussions. 

If you feel that my conclusions do not accurately summarize the meeting discussion, or have 

any additional remarks about the meeting in general, please contact me at (817) 860-8143 or 

email Randy.Erickson@nrc.gov to discuss your concerns. 

 Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

 Randy Erickson 

 Regional State Agreements Officer 

Enclosure: 

Periodic Meeting Summary for KDHE 
Kansas Section of Health & Environment 

-2- 

cc 

Arthur Howell 

Chuck Cain 

Robert Lewis, FSME 

Terry Reis, FSME 

JLuehman, FSME 

Duncan White, FSME 

Linda McLean 

Randy Erickson 

Aaron McCraw, FSME 

Kim Lukes, FSME 

Dennis Sollenberger, FSME 

William Rautzen, FSME 

ML 

SUNSI Review Completed: Yes ADAMS: X Yes □ No Initials: RRE 

X Publicly Available □ Non-Publicly Available □ Sensitive X Non-Sensitive 

S:\dnms\!SAO\PeriodicMeetings\2008\Kansas\KansasPeriodicMtg.Summary.doc 

Final: s:\dnms\ltrs-memos\ 

RIV: RSAO 

RRErickson 

/RA/ 

7/08/08 

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

AGREEMENT STATE PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY FOR KANSAS 

DATE OF MEETING: JUNE 18, 2008 

NRC Attendees Kansas Attendees 

Randy Erickson, RSAO Tom Conley, Chief Rad. Control Program 

 David Whitfill, PE, CHP, Supervisor 

 Isabelle Busenitz, Environmental Scientist 

 James Harris, Environmental Scientist 

DISCUSSION: 

The Agreement State program is administered by the Section. The Section is part of the 

Bureau of Air and Radiation (the Bureau) in the Division of Environment (the Division). The 

Division is located within the Section of Health and Environment (the Section). At the time of 

the review, the Kansas program regulated approximately 306 specific licenses, including 

naturally occurring or accelerator-produced radioactive material (NARM). 

The previous IMPEP review was conducted the week of April 18-21, 2006. At the conclusion of 

the review the team found Kansas’ performance to be satisfactory but needs improvement for 

the performance indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, and satisfactory for all remaining 

performance indicators reviewed. The review team made one recommendation regarding the 

performance of the Kansas Agreement State Program and recommended that one 

recommendation from the prior IMPEP review be left open. Accordingly, the review team 

recommended and the MRB agreed that the Kansas Agreement State Program was adequate 

to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC's program. The team also 

recommended and the MRB agreed that the period of heightened oversight should be 

discontinued. 

The status of the recommendations are summarized below. 

• The team recommends the State ensure that the Materials Program has adequate 

resources and an adequate complement of qualified staff. (From 2002 IMPEP review) 

(Section 3.1) 

Previous Status: After suffering significant staff losses which were noted during the 

2002 review, the State adopted a radiation control fee fund in 2004 that now provides 

adequate resources for the Agreement State program. The 2006 review found the 

Section was fully staffed. The team also found that new staff members were well 

educated and capable of contributing to the Agreement State program, but felt that 

additional training and experience was necessary before the Section would have an 

adequate complement of fully qualified staff. The review team concluded that this 

recommendation should remain open, pending further staff training and experience. 
Kansas Periodic Meeting Summary 

-2- 

ENCLOSURE 

Current Status: The Section remains fully staffed with a well trained individuals. 

Additional positions were added in the X-Ray and Emergency Response areas which 

have helped free up materials staff for other duties. The Section does not anticipate any 

other staff additions at this time. Staff members continue to attend both NRC sponsored 

and other training courses as they become available. This recommendation should be 

verified and closed at the next IMPEP review. 

• The review team recommends that the State place greater emphasis and resource 

allocation towards reciprocity inspections in accordance with program goals and the 

criteria in NRC MC 1220. (Section 3.2) 

Previous Status: The 2006 review team found the Section inspected approximately 

12 percent of candidate reciprocity licensees during the review period, which is less than 

MC 1220 reciprocity inspection requirements. The review team recommended that the 

State place greater emphasis and resource allocation towards reciprocity inspections in 

accordance with program goals and the criteria in MC 1220. 

Current Status: The Section reported that for the remainder of 2006 and all of 2007 they 

did not meet NRC’s criteria of inspecting 20 percent of candidate licensees, instead the 

Section performed an average of 10-12 percent each year. Through the middle of 2008 

they had completed approximately half of the 20 percent requirement. Program 

managers stated that most reciprocity inspections occur in far west Kansas, several 

hours drive away from the office. They stated it is difficult for the Program to perform 

announced reciprocity inspections which are often several hours drive from the office. 

Unannounced reciprocity inspections are even more difficult to perform as the work is 

often completed when they arrive, making the trip a wasted effort. Additionally, the staff 

is often called upon by Emergency Management to assist in non-radiological emergency 

situations, often for long periods of time, which reduces their availability to perform 

reciprocity inspections. This recommendation remains open and should be evaluated at 

the next IMPEP review. 

Other topics covered at the meeting included. 

Program Strengths: The Kansas Program is a very busy program with a highly 

motivated and dedicated staff. While the Section has experienced staff losses noted 

during previous reviews, they have successfully filled vacated positions with talented 

individuals bolstering the Program’s already broad knowledge base. The 2004 fee fund 

has helped ease staff hiring and retention problems that had previously placed a 

hardship on the Program. Staff members are also active participants on IMPEP teams. 

The Section has integrated the workload associated with Increased Controls and 

Fingerprinting requirements without falling behind in other Program areas. The Program 

has implemented a database to track regulatory changes, and one staff member is now 

assigned to ensure that regulatory and compatibility requirements are kept up to date. 

Staff members work well together providing a high level of customer service to their 

licensees, and Program management has worked to ensure that a proper balance is 

achieved within the program. 
Kansas Periodic Meeting Summary 

-3- 

ENCLOSURE 

Program Weaknesses: The Section reported that while they have sufficient staff to meet 

the daily needs of the Program, they are often stressed by other non-radiological issues 

that arise. When State or national disasters occur, the Section is often called upon to 

provide Program staff with special skills to assist in response and recovery efforts. 

These efforts can last from weeks to months, a hardship that reduces the effectiveness 

of the Program in meeting its programmatic goals for timely inspections, review of 

incidents and allegations, and updating NMED. 

Staffing and training: 

The Program has a staff of 7.5 full-time staff members in the radioactive materials 

licensing and inspection programs. Two of those staff members are managers. The 

Program is staffed with highly trained individuals including two Certified Health 

Physicists, a Professional Engineer, and two individuals with certification from the 

National Registry of Radiation Protection Technologists. All Section management are 

also Certified Public Managers. Currently the Program has no vacant technical 

positions. 

 

Program reorganizations: 

 The Section has not experienced any program reorganizations since the previous 

IMPEP review and none are expected. During the review period both the Bureau 

Director and Division Director positions experienced turnover and both have been 

replaced. 

Changes in Program budget/funding: 

 The Section has not experienced significant problems with budgeting or funding since 

adoption of the radiation control fee fund in 2004. A potential fee increase is being 

considered in 2010. 

Materials Inspection Program: 

The Section reported that they currently have one overdue inspection. Routine 

inspections are generally performed by the due date, but occasionally inspections are 

performed within the +25 percent window although that’s not routinely done. Initial 

inspections are typically performed within 12 months of issuance. They continue to 

experience difficulty in inspecting reciprocity licensees as previously noted. The Section 

initially identified 21 licensees who were required to implement Increased Controls. The 

Section reported that all Increased Controls inspections were performed within the first 

year and are now performed as a part of their routine inspection program. 

Regulations and Legislative changes.

The Section reported that they are up to date on all regulations. No legislative changes 

were reported. 
Kansas Periodic Meeting Summary 

-4- 

ENCLOSURE 

Event reporting, including follow-up and closure information in NMED.

The Section reported that all NMED information is currently up to date. The Program 

has a research analyst who tracks all event reporting information monthly, and now 

ensures that all information is entered into the system in a timely manner. 

Response to incidents and allegations.

The Section continues to be responsive to notifications of incidents and allegations. 

Incidents are quickly reviewed for their affect on public health and safety. Staff is 

dispatched to perform onsite investigations when necessary. The Program Manager has 

placed a high emphasis on maintaining an effective response to incidents and 

allegations. Four allegations were received by the Section since the 2006 review and 

one allegation was referred to NRC for follow-up. Each of the allegations received was 

investigated, appropriate actions were taken, and the allegations were closed. 

Status of allegations and concerns referred by the NRC for action. 

No allegations were referred by NRC to the Section since the 2006 review. 

Significant events and generic implications. 

The Section reported three significant events since the 2006 review. One involved the 

failure to retract a radiography source due to a crimped guide tube, two instances of lost 

static eliminators, and one attempted theft of a radiography source which was defeated 

by the Increased Controls measures implemented by the licensee. None of these 

involved generic implications. 

Current State Initiatives. 

The Section reported three ongoing initiatives. One involves a new radon bill that will 

affect the program, and the other two involve the Section’s continued efforts with 

decontamination and decommissioning of old radium dial shops, and the increased 

surveillance of research labs. 

Emerging Technologies. 

None noted. 

Large, complicated, or unusual authorizations for use of radioactive materials.

The Section identified the decontamination and license review of a large research 

laboratory, and the identification and decontamination of legacy radium dial shop 

locations through a cooperative effort with the Bureau of Environmental Remediation as 

large efforts being undertaken. The Section also noted their work with the U.S. 
Kansas Periodic Meeting Summary 

-5- 

ENCLOSURE 

Environmental Protection Agency concerning RCRA and CERCLA requirements as 

additional large and complicated activities being undertaken by the Program. 

 

State’s mechanisms to evaluate performance. 

Section managers review performance reports involving licensing actions, inspections 

performed, incidents reported, and reports reviewed. Inspector accompaniments are 

also performed to ensure they are performing at the expected level. The Section also 

has the services of a research analyst. She is responsible for reviewing files, 

procedures, etc., to ensure that all evaluation methods are up to date and effective. 

Current NRC initiatives: 

NRC staff discussed ongoing initiatives with the Section. These included pre-licensing 

guidance, fingerprint orders, national source tracking, web based licensing, generally 

licensed devices, and the issues associated with tritium exit signs. 

Schedule for the next IMPEP review:

 It is recommended that the next IMPEP review to be held in two years.