ML23324A143

11-28-2023 Memo to MRB Re Oklahoma Proposed Final Impep Report

ML23324A143
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/28/2023
From:	Adelaide Giantelli NRC/NMSS/DMSST/ASPB
To:	Jessica Bielecki, Catherine Haney, John Lubinski, Mohammed Shuaibi NRC/EDO/DEDMRS, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC/OGC, NRC/RGN-III
References
Download: ML23324A143 (20)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 November 28, 2023 MEMORANDUM TO: Catherine Haney Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research, State, Tribal, Compliance, Administration, and Human Capital Programs Office of the Executive Director for Operations John Lubinski, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Jessica A. Bielecki, Assistant General Counsel for Rulemaking, Agreement States, and Fee Policy Office of the General Counsel Mohammed Shuaibi, Deputy Regional Administrator Region III Signed by Giantelli, Adelaide FROM: Adelaide S. Giantelli, Chief on 11/28/23 State Agreement and Liaison Programs Branch Division of Materials Safety, Security, State, and Tribal Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED FINAL OKLAHOMA AGREEMENT STATE INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM REPORT This memorandum transmits to the Management Review Board (MRB) the proposed final report (Enclosure 1) documenting the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review of the State of Oklahoma. The IMPEP review was conducted by a team of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Agreement State technical staff between August 21-25, 2023. Inspector accompaniments were conducted during the week of April 24, 2023. The teams preliminary findings were discussed with representatives of the State of Oklahoma on the last day of the review. The team issued a draft report to Oklahoma on October 6, 2023, for factual comment (NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)

CONTACT: Lee Smith, NMSS rls@nrc.gov

MRB Members 2 Accession Number (ML23270B125). Oklahoma responded to the draft report by letter dated November 9, 2023, from Kelly Dixon, Division Director, Land Protection Division (ML23317A015).

The team found Oklahomas performance to be satisfactory for all performance indicators reviewed. The team recommends closing the 2018 IMPEP review recommendation regarding issuance of inspection reports and opening one new recommendation. Since this is Oklahomas second consecutive IMPEP review in which they were found to be satisfactory for all performance indicators, the team recommends that a periodic meeting take place in approximately 2.5 years and the next full IMPEP review take place in approximately 5 years.

The MRB meeting for Oklahomas IMPEP review is scheduled to be conducted on December 7, 2023, from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. ET, as a hybrid meeting from OWFN17-B04 and via Microsoft Teams. In accordance with MD 5.6, the meeting is open to the public, and characterized as an NRC Observation Public Meeting. The agenda for the meeting is provided as Enclosure 2.

If you have any questions regarding the enclosed report, please contact Lee Smith, IMPEP Project Manager, at 301-415-3747 or Farrah Gaskins, IMPEP Team Leader, at 610-337-5143.

Enclosures:

1. Oklahoma Agreement State Program IMPEP Review

2. Oklahoma Agreement State Program MRB Meeting Agenda cc: Beth Shelton, Deputy Director Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Radiological Health

ML23324A143 OFFICE RIV/DRSS NMSS/MSST NMSS/MSST NAME FGaskins RSmith AGiantelli DATE 11/20/2023 11/20/2023 11/28/2023 INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM REVIEW OF THE OKLAHOMA AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM AUGUST 21-25, 2023 PROPOSED FINAL REPORT Enclosure 1

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

The results of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review of the Oklahoma Agreement State Program are discussed in this report. The review was conducted on-site in Oklahomas offices in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, from August 21-25, 2023. Inspector accompaniments were conducted during the week of April 24, 2023.

The team found Oklahomas performance to be satisfactory for all six performance indicators reviewed. The team recommends closing the 2018 IMPEP review recommendation regarding issuance of inspection reports and opening one new recommendation. Accordingly, the team recommends that the Oklahoma Agreement State Program be found adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the NRC's program. Since this is Oklahomas second consecutive IMPEP review in which they were found to be satisfactory for all performance indicators, the team recommends that a periodic meeting take place in approximately 2.5 years and the next full IMPEP review take place in approximately 5 years.

Oklahoma Draft IMPEP Report Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Oklahoma Agreement State Program (Oklahoma) review was conducted from August 21-25, 2023, by a team of technical staff members from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and the State of Kansas. Team members are identified in Appendix A. Inspector accompaniments were conducted during the week of April 24, 2023, and are identified in Appendix B. The review was conducted in accordance with the Agreement State Program Policy Statement, published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48535), and NRC Management Directive (MD) 5.6, Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP), dated July 24, 2019. Preliminary results of the review, which covered the period of September 29, 2018, thru August 25, 2023, were discussed with the Oklahoma managers on the last day of the review.

In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common performance indicators and applicable non-common performance indicators was sent to Oklahoma on May 30, 2023.

Oklahoma provided its response to the questionnaire on August 7, 2023. A copy of the questionnaire response is available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) using the Accession Number ML23270B118.

The 2023 IMPEP team issued a draft report to Oklahoma on October 6, 2023, for factual comment (ML23270B125). Oklahoma responded to the draft report by letter dated November 9, 2023, from Ms. Kelly Dixon, Director, Land Protection Division, Department of Environmental Quality (ML23317A015). Oklahoma had one comment related to the new recommendation.

The Oklahoma Agreement State Program is administered by the Radiation Management Section (the Section) which is located within the Land Protection Division (the Division).The Division is part of the Department of Environmental Quality (the Department).Organization charts for Oklahoma are available in ADAMS ML23227A210.

At the time of the review, Oklahoma regulated 212 specific licenses authorizing possession and use of radioactive materials. The review focused on the radiation control program as it is carried out under Section 274b. (of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) Agreement between the NRC and the State of Oklahoma.

The team evaluated the information gathered against the established criteria for each common and applicable non-common performance indicator and made a preliminary assessment of Oklahomas performance.

2.0 PREVIOUS IMPEP REVIEW AND STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS The previous IMPEP review concluded on September 28, 2018. The final report is available in ADAMS ML18331A351. The results of the review are as follows:

Technical Staffing and Training: (Satisfactory)

Recommendation: None Status of Materials Inspection Program: (Satisfactory)

Recommendation: Oklahoma should develop a strategy to address the contributing factors for issuing delinquent inspection documentation and assure that inspection documentation is issued within 30 days.

Oklahoma Draft IMPEP Report Page 2 Status: Oklahoma moved to digitizing inspection reports which included using a digital signature for the program manager that signs all the inspection reports. As a result, the time to review, sign, and issue reports was reduced allowing Oklahoma to issue most reports within their 30-day goal. Although Oklahoma had 11 reports that were issued beyond the 30-day goal, the amount was a small percentage with respect to the number of reports issued.

The 2023 IMPEP team recommends closing this recommendation.

Technical Quality of Inspections: (Satisfactory)

Recommendations: None Technical Quality of Licensing Actions: (Satisfactory)

Recommendations: None Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities: (Satisfactory)

Recommendations: None Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements: (Satisfactory)

Recommendations: None Overall finding: Adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the NRC's program. The team further recommended that a periodic meeting be held within 2.5 years and that a the next IMPEP review take place approximately 5 years.

3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Five common performance indicators are used to review the NRC and Agreement State radiation control programs. These indicators are: (1) Technical Staffing and Training, (2) Status of Materials Inspection Program, (3) Technical Quality of Inspections, (4) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, and (5) Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities.

3.1 Technical Staffing and Training The ability to conduct effective licensing and inspection programs is largely dependent on having a sufficient number of experienced, knowledgeable, well-trained technical personnel.

Under certain conditions, staff turnover could have an adverse effect on the implementation of these programs and could affect public health and safety. Apparent trends in staffing must be assessed. Review of staffing also requires consideration and evaluation of the levels of training and qualification. The evaluation standard measures the overall quality of training available to, and taken by, materials program personnel.

a. Scope The team used the guidance in State Agreements (SA) procedure SA-103, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Staffing and Training, and evaluated Oklahomas performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:

• A well-conceived and balanced staffing strategy has been implemented throughout the review period.

• Any vacancies, especially senior-level positions, are filled in a timely manner.

• There is a balance in staffing of the licensing and inspection programs.

• Management is committed to training and staff qualification.

Oklahoma Draft IMPEP Report Page 3

• Agreement State training and qualification program is equivalent to NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 1248, Formal Qualifications Program for Federal and State Material and Environmental Management Programs.

• Qualification criteria for new technical staff are established and are followed, or qualification criteria will be established if new staff members are hired.

• Individuals performing materials licensing and inspection activities are adequately qualified and trained to perform their duties.

• License reviewers and inspectors are trained and qualified in a reasonable period of time.

b. Discussion Oklahoma is comprised of six technical staff members plus one program manager which equals seven full-time equivalents (FTE) for the radiation control program and includes rulemaking, inspection, licensing, and incident investigations activities. During the review period, six staff members left the program and four staff members were hired.

At the time of the review, there were two vacancies that had been vacant for 3 and 6 months, respectively. During the week the team was on-site, Oklahoma received approval to post these two positions.

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Radiation Management Section Training Plan dated October 2022, is equivalent to NRCs IMC 1248. In addition, all fully qualified materials inspectors and license reviewers have the required refresher training (minimum 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in a 24-month period) in accordance with IMC 1248.

c. Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Oklahoma met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.1.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Oklahomas performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found satisfactory.

d. MRB Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.

3.2 Status of Materials Inspection Program Inspections of licensed operations are essential to ensure that activities are being conducted in compliance with regulatory requirements and consistent with good safety and security practices.

The frequency of inspections is specified in IMC 2800, Materials Inspection Program, and is dependent on the amount and type of radioactive material, the type of operation licensed, and the results of previous inspections. There must be a capability for maintaining and retrieving statistical data on the status of the inspection program.

a. Scope The team used the guidance in SA-101, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:

Status of the Materials Inspection Program, and evaluated Oklahomas performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:

Oklahoma Draft IMPEP Report Page 4

• Initial inspections and inspections of Priority 1, 2, and 3 licensees are performed at the prescribed frequencies (https://www.nrc.gov/materials/miau/mat-toolkits.html).

• Deviations from inspection schedules are normally coordinated between technical staff and management.

• There is a plan to perform any overdue inspections and reschedule any missed or deferred inspections or a basis has been established for not performing any overdue inspections or rescheduling any missed or deferred inspections.

• Candidate licensees working under reciprocity are inspected in accordance with the criteria prescribed in IMC 2800 and other applicable guidance or compatible Agreement State Procedure.

• Inspection findings are communicated to licensees in a timely manner (30 calendar days, or 45 days for a team inspection), as specified in IMC 0610, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Inspection Reports.

b. Discussion The team noted that Oklahoma uses the same inspection frequencies as the NRC. During the review period, Oklahoma performed 178 routine priority 1, 2, and 3 inspections and 15 initial inspections. No priority 1, 2, 3 or initial inspections were overdue during the time of the on-site review. Oklahoma was affected by the pandemic between March 2020 and December 2022 resulting in four inspections being performed overdue during the review period. The team noted that Temporary Instruction (TI) TI-003, Evaluating the Impacts of the COVID-19 PHE as part of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP), states, in part, that for inspections that exceed the scheduling window with overdue dates falling inside the defined time frame of the pandemic, the number of overdue inspections should be noted in the report but should not be counted in the calculation of overdue inspections, provided that Oklahoma continued to maintain health, safety, and security. The team noted that Oklahoma did continue to maintain public health, safety, and security. Therefore, the team did not include these overdue inspections when performing the calculation. Based on this criterion, there were four priority 1, 2, and 3 inspections conducted overdue including two routine, one initial, and 1 follow-up inspection. This equated to less than three percent of priority 1, 2, 3, and initial inspections being performed overdue.

The 2018 IMPEP review made a recommendation for Oklahoma to develop a strategy to address the contributing factors for issuing delinquent inspection documentation and assure that inspection documentation is issued within 30 days. Oklahoma moved to digitizing inspection reports which included using a digital signature for the program manager that signs all inspection reports. As a result, the time to review, sign, and issue inspection reports was reduced allowing Oklahoma to issue most reports within their 30-day goal. Of the 193 inspection reports completed during the review period, the team noticed that 11 of the inspection findings were communicated to the licensees beyond Oklahomas goal of 30 days after the inspection exit or 45 days after the team inspection exit. During the current IMPEP review period, the team noted that the submissions beyond the 30-day period were significantly reduced due to the increased scrutiny by the inspectors, as well as the adoption of electronic records and signatures. Although Oklahoma had 11 reports that were issued beyond the 30-day goal, the amount was a small percentage with respect to the number of reports issued. The team recommends closing this recommendation.

The team noticed that Oklahomas reciprocity inspections followed NRCs IMC 2800 Section 7.04 guidance. Oklahoma uses NRCs IMC 2800 which was updated in March 2020 to allow a risk-informed approach for reciprocity. Oklahoma adopted IMC 2800 and updated the reciprocity procedure and began conducting reciprocity inspections are based on

Oklahoma Draft IMPEP Report Page 5 screening procedures, involving contacting the licensing state regulator to determine the licensees overall standing and compliance history. The reciprocity inspections were consistent with this policy.

c. Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Oklahoma met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.2.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Oklahomas performance with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program, be found satisfactory. The team also recommends closing the 2018 recommendation.

d. MRB Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.

3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections Inspections, both routine and reactive, provide reasonable assurance that licensee activities are carried out in a safe and secure manner. Accompaniments of inspectors performing inspections and the critical evaluation of inspection records are used to assess the technical quality of an inspection program.

a. Scope The team used the guidance in SA-102, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:

Technical Quality of Inspections, and evaluated Oklahomas performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:

• Inspections of licensed activities focus on health, safety, and security.

• Inspection findings are well-founded and properly documented in reports.

• Management promptly reviews inspection results.

• Procedures are in place and used to help identify root causes and poor licensee performance.

• Inspections address previously identified open items and violations.

• Inspection findings lead to appropriate and prompt regulatory action.

• Supervisors, or senior staff as appropriate, conduct annual accompaniments of each inspector to assess performance and assure consistent application of inspection policies.

• For Programs with separate licensing and inspection staffs, procedures are established and followed to provide feedback information to license reviewers.

• Inspection guides are compatible with NRC guidance.

• An adequate supply of calibrated survey instruments is available to support the inspection program.

b. Discussion The team evaluated 26 inspection reports and enforcement documentation and interviewed materials inspectors. The team reviewed casework for inspections conducted by nine of Oklahomas current and former inspectors and covered medical, industrial, commercial, academic, research, and service provider licenses.

Oklahoma Draft IMPEP Report Page 6 A team member accompanied four inspectors during the week of April 24, 2023. The inspectors were accompanied on inspections for a portable gauge, academic broad scope, high dose-rate (HDR) remote afterloader, and an industrial radiography that included a fixed location. No performance issues were noted during the inspector accompaniments. The inspectors were well prepared and thoroughly assessed impact of licensed activities on health, safety, and security. The inspector accompaniments are identified in Appendix B.

During the pandemic, Oklahoma transitioned from in-person inspections to virtual inspections and reviewed licensee records electronically. TI-003 states, in part, that supervisory accompaniments of all qualified inspectors may not be able to be performed in each calendar year impacted by the pandemic. TI-003 also states that since these impacts are outside the Programs control, they should not be considered by the IMPEP team while establishing the overall indicator rating. Supervisory accompaniments were performed each year of the review period by the Section Manager except during 2020 due to the pandemic.

One inspector did not have an accompaniment in 2021 and another inspector was not accompanied in 2022. Prior to this year, supervisory accompaniments were conducted in the latter part of the calendar year which led to the two missed accompaniments in 2021 and 2022 due to extended absences of staff. This issue was identified by Oklahoma and the focus of conducting all accompaniments in the first half of the calendar year has been adopted. In 2023, Oklahoma conducted all supervisory accompaniments in the first six months.

The team verified that Oklahoma maintains an appropriate inventory of calibrated survey instruments to support the inspection program and respond to radioactive materials incidents and emergency situations.

c. Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Oklahoma met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.3.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Oklahomas performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections be found satisfactory.

d. MRB Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions The quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of licensing actions can have a direct bearing on public health and safety, as well as security. An assessment of licensing procedures, implementation of those procedures, and documentation of communications and associated actions between Oklahoma licensing staff and regulated community is a significant indicator of the overall quality of the licensing program.

a. Scope The team used the guidance in SA-104, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, and evaluated Oklahomas performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:

Oklahoma Draft IMPEP Report Page 7

• Licensing action reviews are thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable technical quality with health, safety, and security issues properly addressed.

• Essential elements of license applications have been submitted and elements are consistent with current regulatory guidance (e.g., pre-licensing guidance, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 37, financial assurance, etc.).

• License reviewers, if applicable, have the proper signature authority for the cases they review independently.

• License conditions are stated clearly and can be inspected.

• Deficiency letters clearly state regulatory positions and are used at the proper time.

• Reviews of renewal applications demonstrate a thorough analysis of a licensees inspection and enforcement history.

• Applicable guidance documents are available to reviewers and are followed (e.g.,

NUREG-1556 series, pre-licensing guidance, regulatory guides, etc.).

• Licensing practices for risk-significant radioactive materials (RSRM) are appropriately implemented including the physical protection of Category 1 and Category 2 quantities of radioactive material (10 CFR Part 37 equivalent).

• Documents containing sensitive security information are properly marked, handled, controlled, and secured.

b. Discussion During the review period, Oklahoma completed 1,029 radioactive materials licensing actions. The team evaluated 25 licensing actions. The licensing actions selected for review included 5 new applications, 16 amendments, 2 renewals, and 2 terminations. The team evaluated casework from current and former license reviewers which included the following license types and actions: medical diagnostic and therapeutic, commercial manufacturing and distribution, industrial radiography, research and development, academic, nuclear pharmacy, fixed and portable gauges, well-logging, service providers, and financial assurance.

The Section Manager assigns licensing actions to licensing staff depending on the type of licensing action and the complexity of the action. Licensing staff follow the NRCs NUREG-1556 series when reviewing licensing actions. The team found licensing actions were thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable quality of health, safety, and security. The licensing staff uses formal correspondence to licensees for notification of technical deficiencies. The team found that actions terminating a license were well documented, included the appropriate survey records, and contained documentation of proper disposal or transfer of radioactive material, as appropriate. All change of controls, renewals, and new license applications were reviewed by the States attorney. All licensing actions were reviewed by a peer license reviewer prior to having final approval and signature by the Section Manager. The team observed that Oklahoma did not have a backlog of licensing actions at the time of the review.

The team evaluated Oklahomas handling and storing of sensitive information. The team determined that radioactive materials licenses were marked appropriately. The radioactive materials license files were maintained in an electronic database.

The team noted that Oklahoma adopted the NRCs Pre-Licensing Checklist and RSRM Checklist. Both checklists contained the essential elements needed and were used appropriately. In addition, Oklahoma developed procedures and a spreadsheet to assist in determining the amount of financial assurance required based on the possession limits of radioactive material on the license.

Oklahoma Draft IMPEP Report Page 8 The team noted that the peer reviews in addition to the consistent use of checklists while completing licensing actions helped to ensure the technical quality of the action.

c. Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Oklahoma met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.4.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Oklahomas performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be found satisfactory.

d. MRB Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.

3.5 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities The quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of response to incidents and allegations of safety concerns can have a direct bearing on public health, safety, and security. An assessment of incident response and allegation investigation procedures, actual implementation of these procedures internal and external coordination, timely incident reporting, and investigative and follow-up actions, are a significant indicator of the overall quality of the incident response and allegation programs.

a. Scope The team used the guidance in SA-105, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:

Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, and evaluated Oklahomas performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:

• Incident response and allegation procedures are in place and followed.

• Response actions are appropriate, well-coordinated, and timely.

• On-site responses are performed when incidents have potential health, safety, or security significance.

• Appropriate follow-up actions are taken to ensure prompt compliance by licensees.

• Follow-up inspections are scheduled and completed, as necessary.

• Notifications are made to the NRC Headquarters Operations Center for incidents requiring a 24-hour or immediate notification to the Agreement State or NRC.

• Incidents are reported to the Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED) and closed when all required information has been obtained.

• Allegations are investigated in a prompt, appropriate manner.

• Concerned individuals are notified within 30 days of investigation conclusions.

• Concerned individuals identities are protected, as allowed by law.

b. Discussion During the review period, 17 incidents were reported to Oklahoma. The team evaluated 11 closed radioactive materials incidents which included: 3 lost or stolen radioactive material, 1 potential overexposure, 1 medical event, 2 involving damaged equipment, 1 equipment failure involving a fixed gauge and 3 industrial radiography source disconnects.

Oklahoma dispatched inspectors for on-site follow-up for five of the cases reviewed.

Oklahoma closed all 17 incidents that occurred during this review period.

Oklahoma Draft IMPEP Report Page 9 Oklahomas response to these incidents, ranged from an immediate response to reviewing the incident during the next routine scheduled inspection. Those determinations were made based on both the circumstances and the health and safety and security significance of the incident. The team found that Oklahomas evaluation of incident notifications and its response and documentation of those incidents was thorough, well balanced, complete, and comprehensive. The team noted that items reported to NMED were closed when required information was available.

The team also evaluated Oklahomas reporting of incidents to the NRCs Headquarters Operations Office (HOO). The team noted that in each case requiring HOO notification, Oklahoma reported the incidents within the required time frame, once notified by the licensee. The team also evaluated whether Oklahoma had not reported any required incidents to the HOO. The team did not identify any missed reporting requirements.

During the review period, three allegations were received by Oklahoma, and five were referred by the NRC. The team evaluated the three allegations and determined that those received by Oklahoma were properly closed. Although Oklahoma followed-up on all five allegations referred by the NRC, only one was tracked using their current tracking system.

Allegations referred by the NRC were sent to the former section manager who followed-up and closed, as appropriate, but did not track these allegations in their current tracking system. Therefore, the team is recommending that Oklahoma establishes a strategy to track allegations received from outside agencies, such that they are well documented, investigated and resolved. The team noted that a concerned individuals identity was protected in accordance with state statutes and was notified of results.

c. Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Oklahoma met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.5.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Oklahomas performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, be found satisfactory. The team recommends one new recommendation regarding allegations.

d. MRB Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.

4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Four non-common performance indicators are used to review Agreement State programs:

(1) Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements; (2) Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Program; (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program; and (4) Uranium Recovery Program. The NRC retains regulatory authority for SS&D Evaluation and Uranium Recovery Program(s); therefore, the only non-common performance indicators applied to this review are Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements.

Oklahoma Draft IMPEP Report Page 10 4.1 Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements State statutes should authorize the State to establish a program for the regulation of agreement material and provide authority for the assumption of regulatory responsibility under the States agreement with the NRC. The statutes must authorize the State to promulgate regulatory requirements necessary to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health, safety, and security. The State must be authorized through its legal authority to license, inspect, and enforce legally binding requirements, such as regulations and licenses. The NRC regulations that should be adopted by an Agreement State for purposes of compatibility or health and safety should be adopted in a time frame so that the effective date of the State requirement is not later than 3 years after the effective date of the NRC's final rule. Other program elements that have been designated as necessary for maintenance of an adequate and compatible program should be adopted and implemented by an Agreement State within 6 months following NRC designation. A Program Element Table indicating the Compatibility Categories for those program elements other than regulations can be found on the NRC Web site at the following address: https://scp.nrc.gov/regtoolbox.html.

a. Scope The team used the guidance in SA-107, Reviewing the Non-Common Performance Indicator: Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements, and evaluated Oklahomas performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives. A complete list of regulation amendments can be found on the NRC website at the following address: https://scp.nrc.gov/regtoolbox.html.

• The Agreement State program does not create conflicts, duplications, gaps, or other conditions that jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation of radioactive materials under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

• Regulations adopted by the Agreement State for purposes of compatibility or health and safety were adopted no later than 3 years after the effective date of the NRC regulation.

• Other program elements, as defined in SA-200 that have been designated as necessary for maintenance of an adequate and compatible program, have been adopted and implemented within 6 months of NRC designation.

• The State statutes authorize the State to establish a program for the regulation of agreement material and provide authority for the assumption of regulatory responsibility under the agreement.

• The State is authorized through its legal authority to license, inspect, and enforce legally binding requirements such as regulations and licenses.

• Sunset requirements, if any, do not negatively impact the effectiveness of the States regulations.

b. Discussion Oklahoma became an Agreement State on September 29, 2000. The Oklahoma Agreement State Programs current effective statutory authority is contained in the Radiation Management Act Chapter 27A, of the Oklahoma Statutes, section 2-9-101 et seq. The Section is designated as the States radiation control agency. No legislation affecting the radiation control program was passed during the review period. Oklahomas administrative rulemaking process takes approximately 12-18 months from drafting to finalizing a rule. The public, NRC, other agencies, and potentially impacted licensees and registrants were offered an opportunity to comment during the process. Comments were considered and incorporated, as appropriate, before the regulations were finalized and approved by the

Oklahoma Draft IMPEP Report Page 11 Governor. The team noted that the States rules and regulations were not subject to sunset laws.

During the review period, Oklahoma submitted 2 proposed regulation amendment(s),

13 final regulation amendments, and no legally binding requirements or license conditions to the NRC for a compatibility review. None of the amendments were overdue for State adoption at the time of submission. Oklahoma adopts NRC regulations by reference.

Oklahoma adopted NRC guidance and procedures or have developed equivalent procedures including inspection procedures, the NUREG publication series, and standard license conditions.

c. Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Oklahoma met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 4.1.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Oklahomas performance with respect to the indicator, Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements, be found satisfactory.

d. MRB Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.

5.0

SUMMARY

Oklahomas performance was found to be satisfactory for all six performance indicators reviewed.

The team recommends closing the 2018 IMPEP review recommendation regarding issuance of inspection reports and opening one new recommendation that Oklahoma:

Establish a strategy to track allegations received from outside agencies, such that they are well documented, investigated and resolved.

Accordingly, the team recommends that Oklahoma be found adequate to protect public health and compatible with the NRC's program. Since this is Oklahomas second consecutive IMPEP review in which they were found to be satisfactory for all performance indicators, the team recommends that a periodic meeting take place in approximately 2.5 years and the next full IMPEP review take place in approximately 5 years.

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members Appendix B Inspector Accompaniments

APPENDIX A IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS Name Areas of Responsibility Farrah Gaskins, Region I Team Leader Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements Inspector Accompaniments Jacqueline Cook, Region IV Technical Staffing and Training Observed Inspector Accompaniments Anjan Bhatcharyya, Status of Materials Inspection Program Commonwealth of Kentucky Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities David Lawrenz, State of Kansas Technical Quality of Inspections Michelle Simmons, Region IV Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

APPENDIX B INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS The following inspector accompaniments were performed prior to the on-site IMPEP review:

Accompaniment No.: 1 License No.: OK32200-01 License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 5 Inspection Date: 04/24/2023 Inspectors initials: CS Accompaniment No.: 2 License No.: OK07464-03 License Type: Academic Broad scope and Part 37 Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 04/25/2023 Inspectors initials: JM Accompaniment No.: 3 License No.: OK15194-02 License Type: Industrial Radiography and Part 37 Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 04/26/2023 Inspectors initials: JM Accompaniment No.: 4 License No.: OK27631-01 License Type: Medical Brachytherapy Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 04/27/2023 Inspectors initials: MR

Oklahoma Agreement State Program Management Review Board Meeting Agenda December 7, 2023, 1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. (ET), OWFN17-B04 and via Microsoft Teams

1. Meeting Convened.

a. Announcement of NRC Public Observation Meeting.

b. Introduction of MRB members, review team members, Agreement State representatives, and other participants.

c. Request for members of the public to identify themselves and their affiliation.

2. MRB Chair Convenes the Business Portion of the Meeting.

a. Consideration of the Agreement States IMPEP Report.

b. Presentation of Performance Indicator Findings for the Agreement States Program and Discussion:

i. Technical Staffing and Training ii. Status of Materials Inspection Program iii. Technical Quality of Inspections iv. Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

v. Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities vi. Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements

c. IMPEP Team Recommendations.

d. MRB Consultation/Comments on Issuance of Report.

e. Request for comments from the Agreement State representatives, MRB Members, and IMPEP team members.

f. Overall MRB Chair Determination.

3. MRB Chair Closes the Business Portion of the Meeting

4. Questions or comments from members of the public.

5. Meeting adjournment.

Enclosure 2