May 9, 2008 

Michael R. Skeels, Ph.D., MPH 

Interim Public Health Director 

Oregon Department of Human Services 

800 NE Oregon Street, Suite 930 

Portland, OR 97232 

Dear Dr. Skeels: 

On April 15, 2008, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final 

follow-up Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Oregon 

Agreement State Program. The MRB found the Oregon Agreement State Program adequate, 

but needs improvement, and compatible with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission=s (NRC) 

program. The MRB directed that the period of Heightened Oversight of the Oregon Agreement 

State Program be discontinued and a period of Monitoring be initiated. Monitoring is an informal 

process that allows the NRC to maintain an increased level of communication with an 

Agreement State program. As part of the Monitoring process, NRC will conduct quarterly calls 

with the appropriate representatives from the Oregon Radiation Protection Services Section. 

Section 4.0, page 9 of the enclosed final report contains a summary of the follow-up IMPEP 

review team=s findings and recommendations. We request your evaluation and response to the 

recommendations within 30 days from receipt of this letter. 

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review of the Oregon Agreement 

State Program will take place in approximately 18 months. 

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, 

/RA Cynthia A. Carpenter for/ 

Martin J. Virgilio 

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, 

Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs 

Office of the Executive Director for Operations 

Enclosure: Oregon Final IMPEP Report 

cc w/enclosure: See next page 
-2- 

cc w/enclosure: 

Terry Lindsey, Supervisor 

Oregon Radiation Protection 

 Services Section 

Ken Niles, State Liaison Officer 

Oregon Department of Energy 

Aubrey Godwin, Arizona 

Organization of Agreement States 

 Liaison to the MRB 
May 9, 2008 

Michael R. Skeels, Ph.D., MPH 

Interim Public Health Director 

Oregon Department of Human Services 

800 NE Oregon Street, Suite 930 

Portland, OR 97232 

Dear Dr. Skeels: 

On April 15, 2008, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final 

follow-up Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Oregon 

Agreement State Program. The MRB found the Oregon Agreement State Program adequate, 

but needs improvement, and compatible with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission=s (NRC) 

program. The MRB directed that the period of Heightened Oversight of the Oregon Agreement 

State Program be discontinued and a period of Monitoring be initiated. Monitoring is an informal 

process that allows the NRC to maintain an increased level of communication with an 

Agreement State program. As part of the Monitoring process, NRC will conduct quarterly calls 

with the appropriate representatives from the Oregon Radiation Protection Services Section. 

Section 4.0, page 9 of the enclosed final report contains a summary of the follow-up IMPEP 

review team=s findings and recommendations. We request your evaluation and response to the 

recommendations within 30 days from receipt of this letter. 

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review of the Oregon Agreement 

State Program will take place in approximately 18 months. 

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, 

/RA Cynthia A. Carpenter for/ 

Martin J. Virgilio 

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, 

Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs 

Office of the Executive Director for Operations 

Enclosure: Oregon Final IMPEP Report 

cc w/enclosure: See next page 

DISTRIBUTION: EDATS: FSME-2008-0021 

See next page.

 ML081140513 

OFFICE FSME/DMSSA FSME/DMSSA FSME/DMSSA Tech Editor 

NAME ATMcCraw:kk ADWhite RJLewis CPoland (PTressler for)

DATE 04/24/08 04/25/08 04/28/08 05/01/08 

OFFICE FSME DEDMRT 

NAME CMiller (GPangburn for) MJVirgilio (CACarpenter for) 

DATE 05/06/08 05/09/08 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
LETTER TO MICHAEL R. SKEELS FROM MARTIN J. VIRGILIO DATED: May 9, 2008 

cc w/enclosure: 

Terry Lindsey, Supervisor 

Oregon Radiation Protection 

 Services Section 

Ken Niles, State Liaison Officer 

Oregon Department of Energy 

Aubrey Godwin, Arizona 

Organization of Agreement States 

 Liaison to the MRB 

DISTRIBUTION: EDATS: FSME-2008-0021 

DMSSA RF DCD (SP01) 

EDO RF 

RidsEdoMailCenter 

RidsFsmeOd 

RidsSecyCorrespondenceMailCenter Chairman Klein 

KLukes, FSME/DMSSA Commissioner Jaczko 

KSchneider, FSME/DMSSA Commissioner Lyons 

LMcLean, RIV/RSAO Commissioner Svinicki 

Michael Whalen, MA SECY 

WRautzen, FSME/DMSSA 

DSollenberger, FSME/DMSSA 

SCampbell, OEDO 

KCyr, OGC 

JGray, OGC 

BJones, OGC 

SReynolds, RIII 

CLMiller, FSME 

APowell, OCA (2 copies) 
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM 

FOLLOWUP REVIEW OF THE OREGON AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM 

January 28-31, 2008 

FINAL REPORT

Enclosure 
Oregon Final Followup Report Page 1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This report presents the results of the followup review of the Oregon Agreement State Program, 

conducted January 28-31, 2008. The followup review was conducted by a review team 

consisting of technical staff members from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and 

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Review team members are identified in Appendix A. 

The followup review was conducted in accordance with the February 26, 2004, NRC 

Management Directive 5.6, “Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP).” 

Preliminary results of the followup review, which covered the period of August 24, 2006, to 

January 31, 2008, were discussed with Oregon managers on the last day of the review. 

The review team issued a draft of this report to Oregon for factual comment on February 28, 

2008. The State responded via e-mails from Terry Lindsey, Manager, Radiation Protection 

Services Section (the Section), on March 28 and March 31, 2008. Copies of the State’s 

responses are included as attachments to this report. The Management Review Board (MRB) 

met on April 15, 2008, to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the Oregon 

Agreement State Program to be adequate, but needs improvement, and compatible with NRC’s 

program. The MRB directed that the period of Heightened Oversight of the Oregon Agreement 

State Program be discontinued and a period of Monitoring be initiated. 

The Oregon Agreement State Program is administered by the Section. The Section is part of 

the Office of Environmental Public Health (the Office) in the Public Health Division (the Division). 

The Division is located within the Department of Human Services (the Department). 

Organization charts for the Division, the Office, and the Section are included as Appendix B. 

At the time of the review, the Section regulated approximately 348 specific licenses and 75 

general licenses, including naturally-occurring or accelerator-produced radioactive material 

(NARM). The review focused on the radioactive materials program as it is carried out under the 

Section 274b. (of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) Agreement between the NRC 

and the State of Oregon. 

On November 7, 2006, the MRB found the Oregon Agreement State program adequate, but 

needs improvement, and compatible with NRC’s program. Because of the significance of the 

findings, the MRB directed that the State be placed on Heightened Oversight. The MRB also 

directed that a followup review take place approximately 1 year after the 2006 IMPEP review. 

Prior to the followup review, the NRC conducted a period of Heightened Oversight of the 

Oregon program, which included Oregon’s developing and submitting a Program Improvement 

Plan (the Plan) in response to recommendations from the 2006 IMPEP review. Bimonthly 

conference calls between the NRC and the Section were conducted to discuss Oregon’s 

progress in implementing the Plan. The Plan was submitted on January 30, 2007. Conference 

calls were held February 7, April 26, June 18, October 30, and December 12, 2007. A listing of 

correspondence and summaries from the bimonthly calls is included as Appendix C. Oregon’s 

actions and their status, as documented in the Plan and subsequent status updates, were 

reviewed in preparation for this followup review. 

The followup review focused on the State’s performance in regard to the common performance 

indicators, Technical Quality of Inspections, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, and 

Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, and the non-common performance 
Oregon Final Followup Report Page 2 

indicator, Compatibility Requirements. The followup review also included evaluation of the 

actions taken by Oregon to address the recommendations made during the 2006 IMPEP review. 

Other aspects of the program not fully evaluated as part of the followup review, were discussed 

at a periodic meeting held in conjunction with the review. The periodic meeting summary is 

included as Appendix D. 

In preparation for the followup review, a questionnaire addressing the applicable common and 

non-common performance indicators was sent to the Section on September 13, 2007. The 

Section provided draft responses to the questionnaire on December 24, 2007, and 

December 28, 2007, and provided the final response on February 4, 2008. A copy of the 

questionnaire responses can be found in the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) using the Accession Number ML080570519. 

The review team's general approach for conduct of this followup review consisted of: 

(1) examination of Oregon’s response to the questionnaire; (2) review of the Heightened 

Oversight information, including status reports; (3) review of applicable Oregon statutes and 

regulations; (4) analysis of quantitative information from the Section’s licensing and inspection 

database; (5) technical evaluation of selected regulatory actions; (6) field accompaniments of 

one Oregon inspector; (7) analysis of information from the Section’s incident and allegation 

tracking system; and, (8) interviews with staff and managers to answer questions or clarify 

issues. The review team evaluated the information gathered against the IMPEP performance 

criteria for the three common and one non-common performance indicators and made a 

preliminary assessment of the Agreement State program’s performance. 

Results of the review of three common performance indicators are presented in Section 2.0. 

Section 3.0 details the results of the review of the non-common performance indicator. Section 

4 summarizes the followup review team's findings and the open recommendations. 

2.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 

The followup review addressed three of the five common performance indicators used in 

reviewing both NRC Regional and Agreement State radioactive materials programs. These 

indicators are: (1) Technical Quality of Inspections, (2) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, 

and (3) Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities. 

2.1 Technical Quality of Inspections

The review team evaluated the inspection reports, enforcement documentation, and inspection 

field notes and interviewed inspectors and supervisory staff for 15 radioactive materials 

inspections conducted during the review period. The casework reviews included inspections 

conducted by three radioactive materials inspectors and covered various license types, 

including: industrial radiography, academic and medical broadscopes, high dose-rate remote 

afterloaders, nuclear medicine, radiopharmaceutical therapy, brachytherapy, nuclear 

pharmacies, and portable gauge. The review team also evaluated documentation for two 

Increased Controls inspections. Appendix E lists the inspection casework reviewed, with casespecific comments, as well as the results of the review team’s inspector accompaniments. 

The review team’s evaluations of the Section’s responses to Recommendations 1 and 2 of the 

2006 IMPEP report are presented below: 
Oregon Final Followup Report Page 3 

Recommendation 1: 

The review team recommends that the State place greater emphasis on providing sufficient 

detail in inspection reports to allow Section management and staff to understand the technical 

basis for inspection findings. (Section 3.3 of the 2006 IMPEP report) 

Current Status: 

The review team found that the State has made some improvement in inspection report 

documentation. Most reports were complete and had sufficient documentation to ensure that a 

licensee’s performance with respect to health and safety was acceptable. Since the last review, 

some of the inspection reports have included the scope of the licensee’s program, observations 

of licensed activities, and independent survey results. 

At the conclusion of an inspection, the inspector completes an inspection report in the 

inspection database. A copy of the report is also placed in the license file. Several of the 

reports contained sufficient detail to understand the technical basis for inspection findings; 

however, a number of the reports reviewed had very limited detail of the inspection results. 

Discussions with the Section Manager and the inspection staff indicated that performancebased inspections were conducted, but not always properly documented. 

The majority of violations are documented on an Oregon Form 591. At the conclusion of an 

inspection, the completed Form 591 is left with the licensee, with a copy retained by the 

inspector for the Oregon files. If no violations are found, the Form 591 is issued alone, stating 

that no items of noncompliance were noted. If a violation is noted, the Form 591 is issued with 

the appropriate violation identified. The inspector does not always keep a copy of the Form 591 

cover letter for the inspection file. The cover letter is a form letter with blank spaces for the 

inspector to fill in the total points assigned for potential enforcement rating for each inspection. 

The importance of keeping records in the inspection files was discussed with the Section 

Manager and the Section staff. The Section Manager stated that they would ensure that the 

completed Form 591 and cover letter documents are always filed in the inspection files. The 

Form 591 does contain instructions to the licensee requiring a written reply within 30 days of the 

date of the inspection, and the response must include the corrective actions taken or a plan to 

correct the items of noncompliance and the date when all corrective actions will be completed. 

The review team noted most of the letters were sent to the licensees in a timely manner. 

When escalated enforcement is appropriate, the Division has the authority to require 

management conferences, suspend licenses, and impound licensed material. During the review 

period, legislation was passed giving the Department the authority to levy civil penalties. The 

Section is developing regulations that will enable them to implement civil penalties. 

One Section inspector was accompanied by a review team member during inspections the week 

of December 2, 2007. Inspection accompaniments were performed during inspections of two 

industrial radiography licensees and a portable gauge licensee. The accompaniments are 

identified in Appendix E. During the accompaniments, the inspector demonstrated appropriate 

performance-based inspection techniques and knowledge of the regulations. The inspector was 

well prepared and thorough in the audits of the licensees’ radiation safety and security 

programs. Overall, the inspector utilized good health physics practices. Interviews with 
Oregon Final Followup Report Page 4 

licensee personnel were performed in an effective manner. The inspections were adequate to 

assess radiological health and safety at the licensed facilities. 

The review team noted that inspection reports have improved during the review period; 

however, the review team continued to find documentation issues in the license files. While the 

review team noted improvements, the improvements have not been in place long enough to 

truly evaluate their effectiveness, nor to demonstrate sustained performance. Thus, the review 

team recommended that Recommendation 1 of the 2006 IMPEP report remain open. 

Recommendation 2: 

The review team recommends that the State ensure that radioactive materials inspectors are 

accompanied by supervisors, at least annually, to promote quality and consistency in the 

inspection program. (Section 3.3 of the 2006 IMPEP report) 

Current Status: 

The review team noted that, since the last review, inspector accompaniments were performed 

annually, as required by the Section’s inspection procedures. All of the inspectors were 

accompanied several times in 2007. The review team noted that the accompaniments were 

performed by the new Emergency Response/Field Operations Manager who has not completed 

his health physics training. Although the Emergency Response/Field Operations Manager did a 

thorough job of documenting the accompaniments, the accompaniments were part of his on-thejob training. The review team relayed to the Section that the accompaniments need to be 

performed by a supervisor or senior staff member qualified in health physics, as required by the 

Section’s inspection procedures, until such time that the Emergency Response/Field Operations 

Manager is qualified by Section management to perform full accompaniments. Thus, the review 

team recommended that Recommendation 2 of the 2006 IMPEP report remain open. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, 

that Oregon’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, 

remained satisfactory, but needs improvement. 

2.2 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The review team interviewed license reviewers, evaluated the licensing process, and examined 

licensing casework for 22 specific licenses. Thirty-four licensing actions were reviewed for 

completeness, consistency, proper radioisotopes and quantities, qualifications of authorized 

users, adequate facilities and equipment, adherence to good health physics practices, financial 

assurance, operating and emergency procedures, appropriateness of the license conditions, 

and overall technical quality. The casework was also reviewed for timeliness, use of 

appropriate deficiency letters and cover letters, reference to appropriate regulations, product 

certifications, supporting documentation, consideration of enforcement history, pre-licensing 

visits, peer and supervisory review as indicated, and proper signatures. The casework was 

checked for retention of necessary documents and supporting data. 

The casework was selected to provide a representative sample of licensing actions completed 

during the review period. The sample included the following license types: medical and 

academic broadscope, manufacturing and distribution, medical institution - limited, high dose-
Oregon Final Followup Report Page 5 

rate remote afterloader, gamma stereotactic radiosurgery, mobile nuclear medicine, nuclear 

pharmacy, industrial radiography, waste disposal service, service provider and portable gauge. 

Types of licensing actions selected for evaluation included 7 new licenses, 2 renewals, 17 

amendments to existing licenses, and 8 license terminations. A listing of the licensing casework 

evaluated, with case-specific comments, can be found in Appendix F. 

The review team’s evaluation of the Section’s response to Recommendation 3 of the 2006 

IMPEP report is presented below: 

Recommendation 3:

The review team recommends that the Section discontinue the routine use of advance 

authorizations pending development of a procedure and basis for issuing the authorizations. 

Once developed, the Section should have the practice of issuing advance authorization and the 

procedure reviewed by counsel and its Radiological Advisory Committee. The review should 

include the form and content of the authorizations, the legal basis for issuing notifications prior 

to issuance of a license, as well as a determination of the potential impact on health and safety 

issues. In addition, the review should determine the State’s potential liability and the 

compatibility of the practice with established State and Federal regulations, including 

requirements imposed on distributors of devices containing radioactive material. (Section 3.4 of 

2002 and 2006 IMPEP reports) 

Current Status:

The Section Manager stated that the practice of issuing advance authorizations is no longer 

performed. The review team verified that no advance authorization had been issued during the 

review period by reviewing 34 licensing actions from 22 specific license files. The review team 

recommended that Recommendation 3 be closed. 

The review team found that the licensing actions were generally thorough, complete, consistent, 

and of high quality with health and safety issues properly addressed. License tie-down 

conditions were stated clearly, backed by information contained in the file, and inspectible. 

Deficiency letters clearly stated regulatory positions, were used at the proper time, and identified 

substantive deficiencies in the licensees' documents. The Section has one senior staff member 

whose primary responsibility is licensing. At a minimum, each licensing action has a peer 

review and a management review. 

The review team noted that there were several instances where the supporting documentation 

was not retained or was missing. For example, 7 out of 8 termination files were missing leak 

test records. Two files had information missing from the file. The review team discussed with 

the Section Manager and the primary license reviewer the need for supporting documents to 

ensure that the Section has enforceable documentation. 

The review team noted that the Section has commenced converting the general licenses (GL) 

for gauge users into specific licenses. Oregon revised their regulations in 2006 to require GL 

gauges with more than 1 millicurie (mCi) cesium-137, 0.1 mCi of strontium-90, 1 mCi of cobalt60, and any quantity of any transuranic isotope to be specifically licensed. Oregon’s GL 

regulations are more restrictive than the NRC’s, per the NRC’s review of the final Oregon 

regulations, dated December 20, 2007. As noted in the NRC’s Office of Federal and State 
Oregon Final Followup Report Page 6 

Materials and Environmental Management Programs’s (FSME) All Agreement State Letter, 

FSME-07-087, dated September 20, 2007, the NRC is continuing to hold compatibility 

determinations for this regulation in abeyance until a revised GL rule is published and the 

Agreement State implementation date becomes effective. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, 

that Oregon's performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, 

was satisfactory. 

2.3 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities

In evaluating the effectiveness of the Section’s actions in responding to incidents and 

allegations, the review team examined the Section’s response to the questionnaire relative to 

this indicator, evaluated selected incidents reported by Oregon in the Nuclear Material Events 

Database (NMED) against those contained in the Section’s database and files, and evaluated 

the casework and supporting documentation for 9 incidents, five of which were reportable to the 

NRC Headquarters Operations Center. A listing of incident casework examined, with casespecific comments, can be found in Appendix G. 

The review team also evaluated the Section’s response to one allegation involving radioactive 

materials referred to the State by the NRC during the review period. The team’s review 

determined that the Section took prompt and appropriate action in response to all concerns 

raised. The allegation reviewed was appropriately closed, and affected individuals were notified 

of the actions taken. 

The review team’s evaluation of the Section’s response to Recommendation 4 of the 2006 

IMPEP report is presented below: 

Recommendation 4: 

The review team recommends that the State take measures to ensure proper documentation 

and appropriate response, review, enforcement, and followup of all radioactive materials 

incidents. (Section 3.5 of the 2006 IMPEP Report) 

Current Status: 

The Section has made some progress since the last review. The review team evaluated five 

incidents that required reporting under NRC criteria. The incidents selected for review included 

the following categories: lost/stolen radioactive material, leaking source, and medical events. 

The review team found that incident information in NMED for Oregon was up to date and 

complete, with one exception: an incident involving a leaking sealed source. The Section 

stated that they will provide the information on the incident to the NRC’s contractor responsible 

for maintaining NMED for inclusion in the database. 

Through the reviews of the incident documentation, the review team determined that inspectors 

were dispatched and took appropriate followup actions for one on-site investigation, a lost 

material incident. The medical event involved an underexposure, and no on-site investigation 

was conducted. The review team identified no health and safety issues as a result of the lack of 

followup. Section managers determine if the event requires a call to the NRC Headquarters 
Oregon Final Followup Report Page 7 

Operations Center and if the event needs to include an on-site investigation. The event is then 

assigned to a member of the inspection staff to complete any required followup activities. 

Generally, the Section relies on the licensees’ 30-day incident reports for their event reports. 

The review team found that incident information continued to be maintained in multiple 

locations: the Section’s database, the incident files, and the NMED files. In most cases, no 

single file had all of the pertinent documents. The review team found the Section’s 

documentation was often incomplete. Regarding the previously mentioned medical event, the 

event report was not placed in the licensee’s file; therefore, no followup to the event was 

conducted during the next routine inspection. 

The Emergency Response/Field Operations Manager is currently in the process of organizing 

the incidents. The review team noted that incident tracking has improved; however, the review 

team continued to find documentation issues in the license and incident files. Thus, the review 

team recommended that Recommendation 4 of the 2006 IMPEP report remain open. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, 

that Oregon’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Incident and 

Allegation Activities, remained satisfactory, but needs improvement. 

3.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 

The followup review addressed one of the non-common performance indicators used in 

reviewing NRC Regional and Agreement State programs, “Compatibility Requirements.” 

3.1 Compatibility Requirements

3.1.1 Legislation

Oregon became an Agreement State on July 1, 1965. Legislative authority to create an agency 

and enter into an Agreement with the NRC is granted in Oregon Statute 453.625. Oregon 

Statute 453 governs the use of radioactive materials, x-ray, emergency response, and 

laboratory services. 

There were three legislative changes during the review period that affected the Section. One 

legislative change was House Bill 5032, which authorized the increase in radioactive materials 

licensing fees, as well as other Division fees, at a rate set in 2006. This legislative change 

allowed the Section to increase its fees for the first time in 14 years. The second legislative 

change was House Bill 2185, which provided civil penalty authority to the Division. The Section 

Manager anticipated completing revisions to Oregon’s current rules to refer to the new public 

health authority and civil penalty authority within approximately 180 days. The last legislative 

change was House Bill 2193, which by authorization of an increase in x-ray and tanning 

registration and inspection program fees allowed for the permanent funding for approximately 

three additional full-time equivalents within the Section. Oregon has no sunset provisions either 

for the Section or for its regulations. 
Oregon Final Followup Report Page 8 

3.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility

The State’s regulations governing radiation protection requirements are contained in the Oregon 

Administrative Rules (OAR) 333. Oregon requires a license for possession and use of all 

radioactive material, including NARM. Oregon also requires registration of all machines 

designed to produce radiation. 

The review team’s evaluation of the State’s response to Recommendation 5 of the 2006 IMPEP 

report is presented below: 

Recommendation 5: 

The review team recommends that the State develop and implement an action plan to adopt 

NRC regulations in accordance with the current NRC policy on adequacy and compatibility. 

(Section 4.1.2 of the 2006 IMPEP report) 

Current Status: 

The review team reviewed the status of regulations required to be adopted by the State under 

the Commission’s adequacy and compatibility policy and verified the adoption of regulations 

with data obtained from the State Regulation Status (SRS) sheet as maintained by FSME. 

Since the last review, the Section addressed a large number of NRC regulation amendments. 

Current NRC policy requires that Agreement States adopt certain equivalent regulations or 

legally-binding requirements no later than 3 years after they are effective. As the date of this 

review, the following two regulations are overdue: 

• “Respiratory Protection and Controls to Restrict Internal Exposure,” 10 CFR Part 20 

amendment (64 FR 54543 and 64 FR 55524) that was due for Agreement State 

implementation on February 2, 2003. 

Status: The NRC reviewed and commented on the draft of this amendment on July 10, 

2006. The final regulation has not been submitted for NRC review. 

• “Compatibility with IAEA Transportation Safety Standards and Other Transportation 

Safety Amendments,” 10 CFR Part 71 amendment (69 FR 3697) that was due for 

Agreement State implementation on October 1, 2007. 

Status: The review team discussed Oregon’s ability to adopt regulations by reference 

for the transportation requirements. The Section Manager stated that Oregon will 

consider adoption by reference in order to complete the rulemaking for this amendment 

in 2008. 

The team identified the following regulation changes and adoptions that will be needed in the 

future, and the State related that the regulations would be addressed in upcoming rulemaking or 

in the adoption of alternate legally binding requirements: 

• “National Source Tracking System – Serialization Requirements,” 10 CFR Part 32 

amendment, with reference to Part 20 Appendix E, (71 FR 65685) that was due for State 
Oregon Final Followup Report Page 9 

adoption by February 6, 2007. The State does not have any applicable manufacturer, 

therefore, is not required to adopt this amendment at this time. 

• “National Source Tracking System,” 10 CFR Part 20 amendment (71 FR 65865, 72 FR 

59162) that is due for State adoption by 

January 31, 2009. 

• “Minor Amendments – 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 32, 35, 40 and 70,” 10 CFR amendments 

(71 FR 15005) that are due for State adoption by March 27, 2009. 

• “Medical Use of Byproduct Material – Minor Corrections and Clarifications,” 10 CFR 

Parts 32 and 35 amendments (72 FR 45147, 72 FR 54207) that are due for State 

adoption by October 29, 2010. 

• “Requirements for Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 31, 

32, 33, 35, 61, and 150 amendments (72 FR 55864) that are due for State adoption by 

November 30, 2010. 

• “Exemptions From Licensing, General Licenses, and Distribution of Byproduct Material: 

Licensing and Reporting Requirements,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 31, 32 and 150 amendments 

(72 FR 58473) that are due for State adoption by December 17, 2010. 

• “Occupational Dose Records, Labeling Containers, and Total Effective Dose Equivalent,” 

10 CFR Parts 19 and 20 amendments (72 FR 68043) that are due for State adoption by 

February 15, 2011. 

The review team noted that the Section continued to expend considerable effort in regulation 

development since the last review. One of two recently hired managers has been assigned 

responsibility and oversight for rulemaking actions and regulations. The Section Manager 

expected to address the two overdue regulations by submitting the final regulations to the NRC 

for review and approval in the next upcoming rule package, within this year. 

The review team recommended that Recommendation 5 of the 2006 IMPEP report be closed. 

The Section developed and implemented a written action plan to ensure that the Section 

continues to adopt and maintain compatibility with the NRC by addressing the number of 

upcoming regulation changes and adoptions. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, 

that Oregon’s performance with respect to the indicator, Compatibility Requirements, was 

satisfactory. 

4.0 SUMMARY 

The review team found Oregon’s performance to be satisfactory for the indicators, Technical 

Quality of Licensing Actions and Compatibility Requirements, and satisfactory, but needs 

improvement for the indicators, Technical Quality of Inspections and Technical Quality of 

Incident and Allegation Activities. The review team noted that State has made progress in 

management oversight of the Agreement State program activities for the two performance 

indicators found satisfactory, but needs improvement, through reorganizing, realigning, and 
Oregon Final Followup Report Page 10 

staffing the Section; however, the review team believes that additional time and actions are 

necessary before the Section reaches and sustains a level of satisfactory performance. 

Accordingly, the review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, that the Oregon Agreement 

State Program remained adequate, but needs improvement, and compatible with NRC’s 

program. The review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, that the period of Heightened 

Oversight of the Oregon Agreement State Program be discontinued and a period of Monitoring 

be initiated. Monitoring is an informal process that allows the NRC to maintain an increased 

level of communication with an Agreement State program. As part of the Monitoring process, 

NRC will conduct quarterly calls with the appropriate representatives from the Oregon Radiation 

Protection Services Section. 

Based on the results of the review, the review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, that 

the next full IMPEP review take place in approximately 18 months. 

Below are the open recommendations, as mentioned in Sections 2.0 and 3.0, for continued 

evaluation and implementation by the State: 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. The review team recommends that the State place greater emphasis on providing 

sufficient detail in inspection reports to allow Section management and staff to 

understand the technical basis for inspection findings. (Section 2.1) 

2. The review team recommends that the State ensure that radioactive materials inspectors 

are accompanied by supervisors, at least annually, to promote quality and consistency in 

the inspection program. (Section 2.1) 

3. The review team recommends that the State take measures to ensure proper 

documentation and appropriate response, review, enforcement, and followup of all 

radioactive materials incidents. (Section 2.3) 
LIST OF APPENDIXES AND ATTACHMENT 

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members 

Appendix B Oregon Organization Charts 

Appendix C Heightened Oversight Program Correspondence 

Appendix D Periodic Meeting Summary 

Appendix E Inspection Casework Reviews 

Appendix F License Casework Reviews 

Appendix G Incident Casework Reviews 

Attachment March 28, 2008, E-mail from Terry D. Lindsey 

March 31, 2008, Two e-mails from Terry D. Lindsey 

 Oregon’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report 
APPENDIX A 

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS 

Name Area of Responsibility

Kathleen Schneider, FSME Team Leader 

Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation 

 Activities 

 Periodic Meeting 

Linda McLean, Region IV Technical Quality of Inspections 

Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation 

 Activities 

 Inspector Accompaniment 

Michael Whalen, Massachusetts Technical Quality of Licensing Actions 

Kim Lukes, FSME Compatibility Requirements 
APPENDIX B 

OREGON ORGANIZATION CHARTS 

ADAMS ACCESSION NO.: ML080570519 

PAGES 9 - 10 
APPENDIX C 

HEIGHTENED OVERSIGHT PROGRAM CORRESPONDENCE 

Minutes of Bimonthly Conference Calls: 

1 February 7, 2007, Minutes (ML070660528) 

2 April 26, 2007, Minutes (ML071290449) 

3 June 18, 2007, Minutes (ML071990441) 

4 October 30, 2007, Minutes (ML073230238) 

5 December 12, 2007, Minutes (ML073540034) 

Letters from/to Oregon: 

1. November 29, 2006, Letter to Susan M. Allan from M. J. Virgilio - Oregon Final IMPEP 

Report (ML063360005) 

2. February 7, 2007, Letter to M. J. Virgilio from Susan M. Allan - Response to Final IMPEP 

Report, including Program Improvement Plan (ML070520466) 

3. March 5, 2007, Letter to Susan M. Allan from Janet Schlueter - Approval of Program 

Improvement Plan (ML070660528) 
APPENDIX D 

PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY 

A periodic meeting was held with the Section Manager and the Emergency Response/Field 

Operations Manager by Kathleen Schneider, Team Leader, and Kim Lukes, during the followup 

review pursuant to the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management 

Programs (FSME) Procedure SA-116, “Periodic Meetings with Agreement States Between 

IMPEP Reviews.” Topics normally documented during periodic meetings that were reviewed 

and documented as part of the followup review will not be discussed in this Appendix. The 

following topics were discussed. 

1. Status of Recommendations from Previous IMPEP Reviews

See Sections 2.0 and 3.0 for details on the status of recommendations identified during 

previous IMPEP reviews. 

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

identification of actions that could diminish weaknesses.

The Section Manager identified the following as the Section’s strengths: new 

management structure, staff, cross-training of staff into different areas of expertise, and 

strong support for training for all staff members from upper management. The following 

weaknesses were identified: staff turnover, availability of scheduled training courses, 

and impact on the Section while preparing and participating in the recent TopOff IV 

Federal exercise. 

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

action that should be considered by NRC. 

The Regional State Agreements Officer program was identified as an NRC strength. 

The Section Manager also supports the resumption of the NRC’s funding of State 

participation in NRC training courses. In addition, the Section Manager supports 

regional locations for NRC training courses whenever possible. He noted that the NRC 

still needs to maintain vigilance to ensure that notification of selection of students is at 

least eight weeks prior to the course. Section staff is required to obtain authorization for 

out-of-State travel even with NRC funding. 

4. Status of State Program Including:

a. Staffing and Training: 

At the time of the review, there were 19 staff members in the Section, with 7.3 

full-time equivalents dedicated to the radioactive materials program. Since the 

last review, seven staff members have left the Section, which included the 

retirements of the three program managers reporting to the Section Manager. 

The vacant positions were in x-ray, mammography, radioactive materials, and 

emergency response areas. The Section has been successful in hiring six new 
Oregon Final Followup Report Page D.2 

Periodic Meeting Summary 

staff members, including two new program managers consistent with the 

reorganization of the Section as discussed in 4d., below. 

With the reorganization, the Emergency Response/Field Operations Manager 

has been designated as the NRC training coordinator. The Section is 

aggressively pursuing training to enable all new staff members to meet full 

performance in their assigned areas. The Section is also cross-training staff 

members to allow greater flexibility of the staff and depth of coverage of the 

Section’s responsibilities. A Training Committee has been formed consisting of 

Section management staff, lead workers, and mentors to develop an integrated 

written training plan for new employees and ongoing staff development. 

b. Materials Inspection Program: 

The Section’s inspection priorities are generally the same as the NRC’s priorities, 

with several inspection frequencies being more frequent than for similar license 

types listed in IMC 2800, “Materials Inspection Program. The Section tracks all 

inspection activities in a computer database, which is used by program managers 

and staff members to determine inspection status for any licensed facility. Since 

the last review, 15 Priority 1, 2 and 3 inspections were completed overdue. At 

the time of the review, there were no overdue inspections. According to the 

Section Manager, the loss of staff and the TopOff IV Federal exercise impacted 

the inspection schedule. The Section expects to continue meeting its inspection 

schedule in the future. 

c. Regulations and Legislative Changes: 

See Section 3.1. 

d. Program Reorganizations: 

Since the last review, the Section has reorganized. The reorganization was 

executed and accomplished in a three-phased transition, which included a 

change from a three-program management organization to the current twoprogram management organization. In May 2006, during the first phase of the 

reorganization, a lead worker was assigned to the Radioactive Materials 

Licensing, Emergency Preparedness, and Tanning Program to handle increased 

responsibilities for program oversight. In the second phase of the plan, 

completed in 2007, program functions were divided by modality. All inspection 

functions are located in the Emergency Response/Field Operations Program and 

all licensing and regulation promulgation functions will be in the Emergency 

Preparedness/Licensing Program. The third phase includes the hiring of new 

staff members, including a position dedicated as an enforcement lead, once 

regulations are in place to implement HB 2185, as discussed in Section 3.1.1. 

The Section considers the reorganization to be an improvement in program 

efficiency and functional assignments resulting in better response to incident 

investigations, licensing activities, and anticipated increases in portable and fixed 
Oregon Final Followup Report Page D.3 

Periodic Meeting Summary 

gauge facilities. An extensive cross-training program will be implemented for 

staff in both Programs with new assignments for technical staff to assist with 

radioactive materials inspection, emergency preparedness planning, and incident 

response duties. 

e. Changes in Program Budget/Funding: 

See Section 3.1.1 for further discussion on legislative changes regarding the 

funding of the radioactive materials program. 

5. Event Reporting: 

The Section Manager has requested training for NMED and FSME Procedure 

SA-300, “Reporting Material Events.” Oregon staff is scheduled to participate in 

the training to be held in Nevada on July 17, 2008. See Section 2.2 for details on 

the Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities. 

6. Response to Incidents and Allegations: 

See Section 2.2. 

7. Information Exchange and Discussion:

a. Current State Initiatives: 

During the discussions, the Section Manager indicated that the Attorney 

General’s office has indicated that Oregon can issue the fingerprinting 

requirements through license conditions based on the NRC order. 

Oregon licensing staff has received the revised pre-licensing guidance and is 

reviewing it. The Section plans on submitting comments resulting from the 3-

month pilot period. 

The Section Manager discussed that States could benefit from Security Training 

from the NRC to include guidance for proper protection of sensitive material. 

Oregon adequately protects sensitive material sent by the NRC. 

The Section Manager also discussed its new initiative of increasing training with 

external partners (i.e. National Guard). 

b. State’s Mechanisms to Evaluate Performance:

The reorganization discussed in 4d. above was the result of a top-to-bottom 

review conducted by staff and management of the Division. 
APPENDIX E 

INSPECTION CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS 

ONLY. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Cardinal Health License No.: ORE-90509 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 5/7/07 Inspector: JS 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: Oregon Health & Science University License No.: ORE-90013 

Inspection Type: Special, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 4/30/07 Inspectors: JS, KS 

Comment: 

Inspection report was sent out January 17, 2008. 

File No.: 3 

Licensee: Oregon Health & Science University License No.: ORE-90731 

Inspection Type: Special, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 4/3/07 Inspectors: JS, KS 

Comment: 

Inspection report was sent out January 17, 2008. 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: Zipper Zeman Associates License No.: ORE-91073 

Inspection Type: Initial, Unannounced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 12/5/07 Inspector: DL 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: Professional Service Industries, Inc. License No.: ORE-90056 

Inspection Type: Special, Followup, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 12/4/07 Inspector: DL 
Oregon Final Followup Report Page E.2 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: Oregon Health & Science University License No.: ORE-90013 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 1/23/08 Inspector: JS 

Comment: 

Licensee reported a medical event on July 9, 2007. Event report was not placed in 

licensee’s file; therefore, no event followup was conducted during this inspection. 

File No.: 7 

Licensee: RML Industries, Inc. License No.: ORE-90728 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 12/6/07 Inspector: DL 

File No.: 8 

Licensee: Salem Nuclear Cardiology L.L.C. License No.: ORE-90846 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 5/21/07 Inspector: JS 

File No.: 9 

Licensee: Mallinckrodt, Inc. License No.: ORE-90702 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 11/2/07 Inspector: JS 

File No.: 10 

Licensee: Providence Portland Medical Center License No.: ORE-90946 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 6/26/07 Inspector: KS 

 

Comment: 

 The inspection report details are very limited. 

File No.: 11 

Licensee: Holy Rosary Medical License No.: ORE-90367 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 3/15/07 Inspector: KS 

Comment: 

The inspection report details are very limited. 

File No.: 12 

Licensee: Samaritan Lebanon Community Hospital License No.: ORE-90990 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 8/31/06 

Inspector: JS 
Oregon Final Followup Report Page E.3 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 13 

Licensee: Cascade Health Services, Inc. License No.: ORE-90510 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 10/3/06 Inspector: KS 

Comment: 

The inspection report details are very limited. 

File No.: 14 

Licensee: International Inspection License No.: ORE-90651 

Inspection Type: Special, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 9/24/07 Inspector: KS 

File No.: 15 

Licensee: American Red Cross/Blood Services License No.: ORE-90273 

Inspection Type: Special, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 8/8/07 Inspector: DL 

INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS 

The following inspector accompaniments were performed prior to the on-site IMPEP review: 

Accompaniment No.: 1 

Licensee: Professional Services, Inc License No.: ORE-90056 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 12/4/07 Inspector: DL 

Accompaniment No.: 2 

Licensee: Zipper Zermen Associates License No.: ORE-91073 

Inspection Type: Initial, Unannounced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 12/5/07 Inspector: DL 

Accompaniment No.: 3 

Licensee: TDY Industries, Inc License No.: ORE-90728

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 12/6/07 Inspector: DL 
APPENDIX F 

LICENSING CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS 

ONLY. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: St. Anthony Hospital License No.: ORE-90353 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 31 

Date Issued: 9/25/07 License Reviewers: DL, TL 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: Sacred Heart Hospital License No.: ORE-91054 

Types of Action: New, Amendments Amendment Nos.: 01, 02 

Dates Issued: 8/24/06, 11/8/06, 11/9/06 License Reviewer: SM 

Comment: 

The radiation safety officer listed on the license does not have experience 

commensurate with the licensed use of the material. The review team noted that two 

authorized users on the license would qualify as a radiation safety officer. 

File No.: 3 

Licensee: Tuality/OHSU Cancer Center License No.: ORE-91048 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 04 

Date Issued: 1/23/07 License Reviewer: Unknown 

Comment: 

New license issued 6/2/2006. File only contained amended license. All applications and 

correspondence were missing. The Section identified the missing documentation and is 

currently working with licensee to obtain copies of all correspondence. 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: Industrial Dynamics Co., Ltd. License No.: ORE-90791 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 08 

Date Issued: 7/3/07 License Reviewer: SM 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: Wagner Electronics Products, Inc. License No.: ORE-91078 

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 10/19/07 License Reviewer: SM 

Comment: 

Incorrect program code was assigned to the license and was identified by the Section; 

however, the review team determined that the revised program code was still incorrect 

and will need additional revision. 
Oregon Final Followup Report Page F.2 

License Casework Reviews 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: Samaritan Albany General Hospital License No.: ORE-91080 

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 10/19/07 License Reviewer: SM 

File No.: 7 

Licensee: Gray, Thomas & Associates, Inc. License No.: ORE-96169 

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 6/21/07 License Reviewer: SM 

File No.: 8 

Licensee: Professional Service Industries, Inc. License No.: ORE-90056 

Type of Action: Amendments Amendment Nos.: 47, 48 

Dates Issued: 9/18/06, 8/10/07 License Reviewer: SM 

File No.: 9 

Licensee: Zipper Zerman Associates License No.: ORE-91073 

Types of Action: New, Amendment Amendment Nos.: N/A, 01 

Dates Issued: 6/14/07, 11/6/07 License Reviewer: SM 

File No.: 10 

Licensee: TDY Industries, Inc. License No.: ORE-90728 

Type of Action: Amendments, Renewal Amendment Nos.: 21, 22, 23 

Dates Issued: 4/27/07, 5/30/07, 9/28/07 License Reviewer: SM 

File No.: 11 

Licensee: Oregon Health & Science University License No.: ORE-90731 

Type of Action: Amendments, Renewal Amendment Nos.: 73, 74, 75 

Dates Issued: 5/29/07, 6/26/07, 11/6/07 License Reviewer: SM 

Comment: 

Renewal application contained only the index of the radiation safety program and not the 

full document expected for a type A broad license. No indication in the documentation in 

the file that a review of the radiation safety program had been completed. 

File No.: 12 

Licensee: Cardinal Health Nuclear Pharmacy Services License No.: ORE-90703 

Type of Action: Amendments Amendment Nos.: 32, 33, 34 

Dates Issued: 1/23/07, 12/24/07, 12/28/07 License Reviewer: SM 

File No.: 13 

Licensee: Cardinal Health Nuclear Pharmacy Services License No.: ORE-90509 

Type of Action: Amendments Amendment Nos.: 37, 38, 39 

Dates Issued: 9/25/06, 9/26/06, 10/24/07 License Reviewer: SM 
Oregon Final Followup Report Page F.3 

License Casework Reviews 

File No.: 14 

Licensee: Metro Metals Northwest, Inc. License No.: ORE-91053 

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 9/27/06 License Reviewer: SM 

File No.: 15 

Licensee: Radiology Corporation of America (RCOA) License No.: ORE-91058 

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: N/A 

Date Issued: 1/18/07 License Reviewer: SM 

File No.: 16 

Licensee: Ash Grove Cement Co. License No.: ORE-91049 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 03 

Date Issued: 11/29/06 License Reviewer: SM 

Comment: 

No leak test submitted to support termination, and no documentation in the file of recent 

leak test results. 

File No.: 17 

Licensee: Central Oregon Community Action Agency License No.: ORE-90977 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 04 

Date Issued: 6/8/07 License Reviewer: SM 

Comment: 

No leak test submitted to support termination, and no documentation in the file of recent 

leak test results. 

File No.: 18 

Licensee: Environmental Restoration License No.: ORE-90937 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 02 

Date Issued: 8/18/06 License Reviewer: DL 

Comment: 

No leak test submitted to support termination, and no documentation in the file of recent 

leak test results. 

File No.: 19 

Licensee: Hart Crowser, Inc. License No.: ORE-90920 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 03 

Date Issued: 9/18/07 License Reviewer: SM 

Comment: 

No leak test submitted to support termination, and no documentation in the file of recent 

leak test results. 
Oregon Final Followup Report Page F.4 

License Casework Reviews 

File No.: 20 

Licensee: North Creek Analytical Group License No.: ORE-90953 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 02 

Date Issued: 11/2/06 License Reviewer: SM 

Comment: 

No leak test submitted to support termination, and no documentation in the file of recent 

leak test results. 

File No.: 21 

Licensee: Hamptons, Inc. License No.: ORE-91009 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 01 

Date Issued: 5/25/07 License Reviewer: SM 

Comment: 

No leak test submitted to support termination, and no documentation in the file of recent 

leak test results. 

File No.: 22 

Licensee: Morse Brothers, Inc. License No.: ORE-90894 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 04 

Date Issued: 8/22/06 License Reviewer: SM 

Comment: 

No leak test submitted to support termination. and no documentation in the file of recent 

leak test results. 
APPENDIX G 

INCIDENT CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS 

ONLY. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Cascade Steel Mill, Inc. License No.: NRC 11-27071-01 

Date of Incident: 9/7/06 NMED Log No.: 060565 

Investigation Date: 9/7/07 Type of Incident: Lost Material 

 Type of Investigation: On-site 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: Oregon Health & Science Center License No.: ORE-90013 

Date of Incident: 6/18/07 NMED Log No.: 070384 

Investigation Date: N/A Type of Incident: Medical Event 

 Type of Investigation: 30-day report 

File No.: 3 

Licensee: Providence Medford Medical Center License No.: ORE-91035 

Date of Incident: 6/25/07 NMED Log No.: 070392 

Investigation Date: N/A Type of Incident: Medical Event 

 Type of Investigation: 30-day report 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: Metro South License No.: N/A 

Date of Incident: 3/15/07 NMED Log No.: N/A 

Investigation Date: N/A Type of Incident: Lost Material/Contaminated Trash 

 Type of Investigation: Phone 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: Oregon Health & Science Center License No.: ORE-90013 

Date of Incident: 7/12/07 NMED Log No.: N/A 

Investigation Date: N/A Type of Incident: Leaking Source 

 Type of Investigation: None 

Comment: 

Incident was not submitted for inclusion in NMED. 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: Community Cancer Center License No.: ORE-90422 

Date of Incident: 4/12/07 NMED Log No.: N/A 

Investigation Date: 4/12/07 Type of Incident: Medical Event 

 Types of Investigations: Phone, 30-day report 
Oregon Final Followup Report Page G.2 

Incident Casework Reviews 

File No.: 7 

Licensee: Legacy Emanuel Hospital License No.: ORE-90126 

Date of Incident: 11/1/06 NMED Log No.: N/A 

Investigation Date: 3/1/07 Type of Incident: Medical Event 

 Types of Investigations: Phone, 30-day report 

File No.: 8 

Licensee: Kaiser Interstate Radiological Oncology License No.: ORE-90978 

Date of Incident: 4/10/07 NMED Log No.: N/A 

Investigation Date: 4/13/07 Type of Incident: Medical Event 

 Types of Investigations: Phone, 30-day report 

File No.: 9 

Licensee: Salem Hospital License No.: ORE-91006 

Date of Incident: 10/16/07 NMED Log No.: N/A 

Investigation Date: 10/16/07 Type of Incident: Medical Event 

 Type of Investigation: Phone, 30-day report 
ATTACHMENT 

March 28, 2008, E-mail from Terry D. Lindsey 

March 31, 2008, Two e-mails from Terry D. Lindsey 

Oregon’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report 

ADAMS: ML080920172 and ML080920300