July 26, 2012 

Thomas A. Conley, RRPT, CHP 

Section Chief Radiation and Asbestos Control 

Kansas Dept of Health & Environment 

1000 SW Jackson, Suite 330 

Topeka, KS 66612-1366 

SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF PERIODIC MEETING WITH KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT HELD ON JUNE 27, 2012 

Dear Mr. Conley: 

A periodic meeting was held with you and your staff on June 27, 2012, at your office at the 

Department of Health & Environment, Radiation and Asbestos Control in Topeka, Kansas. The 

purpose of this meeting was to review and discuss the status of the Kansas Agreement State 

Program. The NRC was represented by Ms. Lisa Dimmick, Project Manager IMPEP Program, 

and Ms. Joan Olmstead from the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs (FSME), Mr. Art Howell, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IV, and 

me from the Region IV office. 

We have completed and enclosed a general meeting summary. If you or your staff determines 

that our conclusions do not accurately summarize the meeting discussion, or if there are any 

additional remarks or questions regarding the meeting, please contact me at 817-200-1116 or 

by e-mail at Rachel.Browder@nrc.gov to discuss your concerns. There will be a Special MRB 

for this Periodic Meeting, which will be coordinated with you. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 /RA/ 

 Rachel S. Browder 

 Regional State Agreements Officer 

Enclosure: 

Kansas Periodic Meeting Summary 

 

UNITE D S TATE S

NUCLEAR REGULATOR Y COMMI SSI ON

REGION IV

1600 EAST LAMAR BLVD

AR L INGTON , TEXAS 76011- 4511
Thomas A. Conley - 2 - 

Internal distribution via e-mail w/enclosure: 

Art Howell, DRA 

Tony Vegel, D:DNMS 

Vivian Campbell, DD:DNMS 

Brian McDermott, D:FSME/MSSA 

Chris Einberg, ADD:FSME/MSSA 

Duncan White, BC:FSME/MSSA 

Rachel Browder, RSAO 

Randy Erickson, RSAO 

Lisa Dimmick, FSME 

Kathy Schneider, FSME 

Michelle Beardsley, FSME 

Karen Meyer, FSME 

Joan Olmstead, FSME 

Stephen Poy, FSME 

ML12209A093 

S:\DNMS\!SAO\Periodic Meetings\2012\Kansas\KS Periodic Meeting Summary 6-27-12.doc 

ADAMS ; Yes  No 9SUNSI Rev Complete Reviewer Initials: RSB 

Publicly Available ;Yes  No Sensitive:  Yes ; No 

RIV:RSAO 

RSBrowder;dlf 

 /RA/ 

 7/26/12 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
 

Enclosure 

KANSAS PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY 

Date of Meeting: June 27, 2012 

Attendees 

NRC KANSAS 

Rachel Browder, RSAO Tom Conley, Section Chief 

 Radiation and Asbestos Control 

Lisa Dimmick, FSME David Whitfill, Supervisor

 Radiation Material Licensing and Inspection 

Joan Olmstead, FSME Isabelle Busenitz, Regulatory Affairs & Training Coordinator

 Radiation and Training Programs 

Art Howell, DRA, Region IV James Harris, Environmental Scientist

 Radiation Control Program 

Judee Walden, Environmental Scientist

 Radiation Control Program 

David Lawrenz, Environmental Scientist

 Radiation Control Program 

DISCUSSION: 

The Kansas Agreement State Program is administered by the Radiation and Asbestos Control 

Section (the Section) within the Department of Health and Environment’s Bureau of 

Environmental Health. The Section oversees six programs, in which two of the programs 

directly support the Agreement. These are the Radioactive Materials Licensing and Inspection 

program and the Regulations and Training program. The Section regulates approximately 

300 specific licenses authorizing byproduct, source, and certain special nuclear materials 

(radioactive materials), 470 general licenses, and 60 to 70 reciprocal licenses. 

The last Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review was conducted on 

June 14-18, 2010. Based on the IMPEP review and the presentations made during the 

Management Review Board (MRB) meeting on September 23, 2010, the MRB found the Section 

satisfactory in all six performance indicators. The MRB found the Kansas Agreement State 

Program adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) program. The review team recommended, and the MRB 

agreed, that two recommendations be made for evaluation and implementation, as appropriate, 

by the State. Based on the results of the 2010 IMPEP review, the review team recommended, 

and the MRB agreed, that the next full IMPEP review take place in approximately 4 years with a 

periodic meeting tentatively scheduled for June 2012. The purpose of this periodic meeting is to 

fulfill the requirement in order to evaluate the overall implementation of the Agreement State 

Program. 
 - 2 - 

Following is a status of the actions taken by the Section to address each recommendation. 

These actions should be reviewed during the next IMPEP in order to close the respective 

recommendation. 

1. The review team recommends that the State ensure that inspectors gain increased 

familiarity with the regulations in 10 CFR Part 35, as well as be provided appropriate 

formal training in addition to mentoring and/or on-the-job training to ensure familiarity 

with various therapeutic modalities involving byproduct materials such that these areas 

will be appropriately reviewed during inspections. (Section 3.1, Technical Staffing and 

Training) 

Status: Since the 2010 IMPEP Review, one inspector attended the H-313, 

"Brachytherapy, Gamma Knife, and Emerging Technologies," training course in 

August 2010. Four other staff members requested the training in 2011, and three staff 

members requested the training in 2012. All of the requests were denied through the 

NRC scheduling process. There were several reasons that contributed to the denial of 

these training requests. The NRC training coordinator was not made aware of the 

specific recommendations to the program. This notification should have been made; 

otherwise, there is no indication of a specific need by the program since it was found 

adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC's program. In 

addition, there are a significant number of requests for this particular training course 

since it is a required course for qualification in the medical area. Due to the number of 

denials for this particular training course, the frequency of providing the course has 

increased to three times a year and possibly four times a year. The NRC training 

coordinator for the Agreement State programs has indicated that the Kansas requests 

will be approved for the next calendar year. 

As a result of these denials, the Section contacted the University of Kansas (UK) 

Hospital Authority and is in the process of coordinating a course equivalent to H-313. 

The Section indicated that they will proceed on this dual pathway, submitting additional 

requests for the H-313 course and will continue its discussions with the UK Hospital 

Authority. 

As a means to further enhance the inspections performed at therapeutic hospital 

facilities, the Section typically uses a team of at least two inspectors for more complex 

licensees. 

2. The review team recommends that the State further develop the policy that was 

instituted during the onsite review and provide additional guidance for identifying, 

marking, handling, transmitting, and storing documents containing sensitive information. 

(Section 3.3, Technical Quality of Inspections) 
 - 3 - 

Status: The Section developed its policy for controlling potentially sensitive license files 

into program Procedure RCP-22, "Control of Potentially Sensitive License Files." The 

procedure was reviewed and it appears that the Section adequately controls and 

maintains license files which may contain sensitive information. In addition, the 

procedure addresses the Agency's policy on Kansas Open Records Act (KORA) 

requirements for release of information. 

Program Strengths 

A strength of the Kansas Agreement State program is its staff members. The staff includes two 

Certified Health Physicists, three staff members who are registered technologists under the 

National Registry of Radiation Protection Technologists (NRRPT), and one individual with a 

Master's in Nuclear Engineering. Combined, the staff members have over 100 years of 

experience in the health physics field, including the nuclear reactor program. The Section 

indicated that its ability to retain staff can be attributed to the program's willingness to provide 

enrichment opportunities and cross-training of staff to broaden and expand their expertise. 

The Section has consistently improved over the past 10 years. The tools developed by the 

Section and staff include in-depth procedures, computer tracking, a risk analysis database, and 

a continuing questioning attitude to improve processes and mechanisms in the program. One 

such tool is a risk-based algorithm. The Section demonstrated the algorithm during the periodic 

meeting and explained how it is used to classify the severity level of violations. The tool takes 

into account the root causes and potential health effects of the violation. In this manner, the 

Section can consistently apply enforcement actions and civil penalties. The tool has also been 

integrated into the database for inspections to perform a risk-analysis of potential violations. 

The Section provides a 2-day outreach conference to the regulated community, which provides 

licensees with an opportunity to meet the staff, obtain the latest information on regulatory 

changes, earn continuing education credits, and hear from experts in their fields. Conferences 

have been held for 2006, 2008, and 2011. The next conference is scheduled for 2013. The 

Section has also performed safety culture outreach to its licensees and developed a safety 

culture policy statement for the program. 

Program Weaknesses 

The Section expressed that, as with other states, it also struggles with the realities of the current 

economy and staffing issues, including attracting and retaining qualified staff. The program lost 

one inspector in September 2011. However, they were able to post the position and fill the 

vacancy by March 2012 from within the Section. The new staff member has experience in 

emergency preparedness and radon monitoring and is currently obtaining the necessary 

qualifications for the radiation control program. 

Feedback on NRC’s Program

The Section expressed that it is difficult to obtain the necessary training courses for staff 

qualification. In particular, the medical courses, H-304, "Nuclear Medicine" and H-313 
 - 4 - 

"Brachytherapy, Gamma Knife, and Emerging Technologies." As already discussed, the NRC 

Technical Training Center (TTC) has increased the offerings of these two courses which should 

provide sufficient course offerings to accommodate all requests. 

The Section suggested that alternatives for training courses should be considered by the NRC, 

including VTC, webinars, and hosting training courses in multiple locations. For example, the 

licensing procedures course could be provided by webinar at multiple locations with a 

host/instructor at each location to conduct the exercises and scenarios. 

The Section has historically hosted training courses in Kansas, and would like to continue to 

host training courses in the future. However, the NRC has started moving away from having 

States host training courses because of the logistical coordination and lack of adequate facilities 

for the training course. The Section requested that the NRC reconsider this decision because of 

the benefits to the State, including a number of seats reserved for the host state in the course. 

The Section expressed that it is disappointed in the recent legal interpretation of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) in that the NRC will no longer continue its practice of having 

Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD) representation on NRC working 

groups. The Section indicated that this decision does not allow non-Agreement States to 

participate on working groups or have a venue to express themselves, except as a member of 

the public. As a result, the Section suggested that this decision impacts the good relationship 

between non-Agreement states and the NRC. The Section suggested that the NRC provide 

information and specific mechanisms that the non-Agreement States may utilize in order to 

participate in the process. 

Kansas suggested that the NRC consider adding more specific information to the e-mail subject 

line to describe what is in the attachment when they send notices or FSME/RCPD letters to the 

Agreement States. In addition, if the NRC is requesting a response due date, then this should 

be clearly identified in the subject line and at the beginning of the respective document instead 

of at the end of the document. 

The Section is also concerned with NRC’s apparent path toward lowering the occupational dose 

limits. The Section believes that lowering the dose limits without a thorough consideration of the 

impacts on areas not regulated by NRC is detrimental to the regulatory process and will result in 

dual standards in order to maintain the current level of patient care. For example, there is a 

shortage of interventional radiologists who, due to the number and type of procedures they 

perform, would not be able to meet the lower dose limit even with utilizing weighting factors. 

This will, by necessity, result in a dual standard in order to avoid requiring these radiologists to 

cease treating patients when they reach the dose limit. 

Staffing and Training

The Section is fully staffed with five staff members, one supervisor, and one manager. The 

Section indicated that they have adequate FTE to support the program. However, the Section’s 
 - 5 - 

productivity is negatively impacted when there is turnover or other activities that take staff time 

away from the agreement program. The years of each staff member's experience in the 

program ranges from 1 to 12 years. In addition, the majority of staff have significant experience 

in health physics beyond the time spent in the program. 

The Section cross-trains other staff members to support the Radiation Control Program, by 

sending them to the NRC-sponsored core training courses as appropriate. This effort should 

lessen any future impacts as a result of turnovers or retirements. 

Program Reorganizations

There has not been a program reorganization since the IMPEP review. 

Changes in Program Budget/Funding

The administration changed during the last election and the Section indicated that they continue 

to have good support from the Department. The Section has a solid source of funding through a 

dedicated fee fund. In addition, they are proposing an increase in fees to ensure they continue 

to operate solidly. The Section has not been affected by any furloughs or layoffs, although other 

programs have been impacted by layoffs. 

Materials Inspection Program 

Kansas' inspection frequencies are at least as frequent as found in NRC's Inspection Manual 

Chapter (IMC) 2800 or more frequent based on the risk analysis tool implemented by the 

Section. The Section stated it had performed 247 inspections since July 1, 2010, and 

25 inspections were performed overdue, or 10 percent overdue. However, the Section indicated 

that the overdue calculation was based on Kansas' inspection frequency; under the NRC 

inspection frequency, it would be significantly less. There was only one inspection overdue with 

respect to NRC priorities at the time of the periodic meeting. However, the Section had 

changed the particular license to possession-only, until the licensee took certain remedial 

actions to address the identified violations. At the time of the periodic meeting, the licensee was 

not authorized to fully operate under its license. 

The Section performs accompaniments throughout the year for all the inspectors. There are a 

number of team inspections performed for higher-risk authorizations, which are accompanied by 

the Supervisor and/or Section Chief. The Section performs inspections of new licensees within 

12 months of license issuance. Pre-licensing visits are performed for those new licensees that 

are unknown to the program in accordance with the Risk-Significant Radioactive Material 

(RSRM) checklist. The Section has continued to devote a significant amount of resources to 

perform inspections of licensees working under reciprocity during the review period. A 

recommendation from the 2006 IMPEP report, regarding the performance of reciprocity 

inspections, was closed during the 2010 IMPEP review. The Section has continued to perform 

reciprocity inspections in accordance with the frequencies identified in IMC 1220. 
 - 6 - 

The Section posts information notices (IN) on its Radiation Control Program website. Examples 

of some of the notices include: NRC IN 2009-18, "Performance of Required Shutter Checks 

and Reporting of Gauge Shutter Failures," and IN 2009-30, "Findings from the NRC Initiative to 

Assess Materials Licensees' Compliance with the NRC Decommissioning Requirements." 

Materials Licensing Program

Licensing actions are kept current with no license backlog. During the periodic review period, 

the Section completed 418 licensing actions. The licensing actions are generally completed 

within 45 days. All licensing actions are reviewed by the Program Supervisor and reviewed and 

signed by the Section Chief. 

Regulations and Legislative Changes

The State is current on the submittal of regulatory amendments currently required for 

compatibility, and they have a process in place to address the comments which were identified 

in the final rule packages for (RATS ID 2007-2) and (RATS ID 2007-3). The state did have 

comments for (RATS ID 2001-1), which concerns generally licensed devices (GLDs). This 

regulation review has been held in abeyance as a result of the proposed rule on GLDs. 

However, as discussed during the periodic meeting and as documented in FSME letter 12-016, 

there was a change in compatibility of 10 CFR 31.5 and 31.6, as well as the withdrawal of the 

proposed rule and closure of Petition For Rulemaking: Organization of Agreement States and 

Florida Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control. The NRC will review 

(RATS ID 2001-1) and (RATS ID 2012-1) and self-initiate changes to Kansas' State Regulation 

Status (SRS) Data Sheet and close the review by letter. Therefore, the State will not be 

required to submit a package for (RATS ID 2012-1). The State indicated that they did not have 

any plans to modify this section of the regulations. 

The following amendments will need to be addressed by the Radiation Control Program in 

future rulemakings or by adopting alternate generic legally binding requirements: 

• “Decommissioning Planning,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, and 70 amendment 

(76 FR 35512) that is due for Agreement State adoption by December 17, 2015 

• "Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Materials Licensees," 10 CFR Parts 30, 

36, 40, 70, and 150 (76 FR 56951) that is due for Agreement State adoption by 

November 14, 2014 

• "Advance Notification to Native American Tribes of Transportation of Certain Types 

of Nuclear Waste," 10 CFR Part 71 that is due for Agreement State adoption by 

August 10, 2015 
 - 7 - 

Event Reporting, Including Follow-up and Closure Information in NMED

At the time of the periodic meeting, the Radiation Control Program had 26 events reported in the 

Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED), of which 13 were reported in accordance with 

SA-300. The events were appropriately reported to the NRC and were properly entered into, 

and updated, within NMED. 

Response to Incidents and Allegations

The Radiation Control Program continues to be responsive to notifications of incidents and 

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

dispatched to perform onsite investigations when necessary. The Section Chief and Program 

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

allegations. 

Status of Allegations and Concerns Referred by the NRC for Action

The NRC did not refer any allegations to Kansas since the last IMPEP review. 

Emerging Technologies

The Radiation Control Program has authorized some broadscope licenses to use intravascular 

brachytherapy (IVB) and Y-90 microsphere modalities; however, there have not been any 

significant emerging technologies during this review period. 

Large, Complicated, or Unusual Authorizations for use of Radioactive Materials

The Radiation Control Program initiated and approved an exemption for landfill waste material 

that was destined to an RCRA facility in Idaho. Kansas initiated this process based on an NRC 

letter dated December 16, 2004, which stated in part that Agreement States may conduct 

similar reviews [e.g., NRC exemption] and approvals following their compatible regulations. 

However, the RCRA facility in Idaho notified Kansas that they would be required to obtain an 

exemption from the NRC. This event and other similar events prompted FSME to issue 

FSME letter 12-025, dated March 13, 2012, "Clarification of the Authorization for Alternate 

Disposal of Material issued under 10 CFR 20.2002 and exemption provisions in 10 CFR." Due 

to the length of time NRC estimated to review the exemption for the RCRA facility, the Kansas 

licensee who had a large decommissioning project ongoing was forced to break its contract with 

the RCRA facility and dispose of its waste at a Utah facility whose original bid was significantly 

higher. Kansas has expressed that the exemption process should be reevaluated so that, under 

the circumstances where the material meets the RCRA definition, the material should be 

authorized for the RCRA facility, without any further review. Otherwise, the regulations become 

burdensome and contribute to the waste disposal problems in the United States. 

Current State Initiatives

The Section hosts a Radiation Control Program Conference every couple of years. There are 

approximately 150 to 200 attendees and licensees from across the state who attend the 2-day 

conference. The next conference is scheduled for 2013, and the Section is planning a 

presentation on Safety Culture during the conference. 
 - 8 - 

Kansas has several staff members who participate on working groups, including the 

NUREG-1556 revisions and the Part 37 working group. The Section also supports the IMPEP 

program through participation on review teams and as the Organization of Agreement States 

(OAS) liaison to the MRB meetings. 

Kansas participates in national meetings, including OAS and CRCPD The Section expressed 

that participation on working groups attending meetings and conferences provides information 

and ideas for improving the processes in the program. 

State’s Mechanisms to Evaluate Performance

The Section uses management review of inspection reports and licensing actions to ensure the 

quality of regulatory products. Self-audits are performed and computer tracking mechanisms 

are utilized to ensure elements of the program are completed as required. In addition, the 

Section performs accompaniments to assess the quality of the inspections to ensure that 

licensed activities protect public health and safety and are performed in accordance with the 

regulations and license conditions. 

Current NRC Initiatives

NRC staff discussed ongoing Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs (FSME) initiatives with the Kansas representatives. This included an 

update on the current FSME organization, review of the Safety Culture policy initiative, and 

status of the web-based licensing (WBL) program, as well as the NUREG-1556 revision status, 

policy statements, and a discussion of the recent FACA interpretation. 

CONCLUSION 

The Kansas Agreement State Program remains an active, strong, stable program with excellent 

management support. The Section has implemented processes, mechanisms, and tracking 

tools to successfully operate their program. The Section has management support and is 

positioned for a continued successful operating program. 

Schedule for the Next IMPEP Review 

NRC staff recommends that the next IMPEP review be held, as currently scheduled, in 

June 2014.