December 22, 2003

Mr. Bill White

Acting Deputy Secretary

Washington Department of Health

1112 SE Quince Street

Olympia, WA 98504-7890

Dear Mr. White:

On December 10, 2003, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed

final Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Washington

Agreement State Program. The MRB found the Washington program adequate to protect public

health and safety and compatible with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s program.

Section 5.0, page 19, of the enclosed final report presents the IMPEP team’s recommendation

for the State of Washington. At the MRB meeting, Terry Frazee, Western Regional Director,

presented a letter that detailed the State’s actions in response to this recommendation. We

request no additional information at this time.

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review will be in approximately

four years.

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the IMPEP team during the review. I

also wish to acknowledge your continued support for the Radiation Control Program and the

excellence in program administration demonstrated by your staff as reflected in the team’s

findings. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the future.

Sincerely,

/RA Paul H. Lohaus Acting For/

Carl J. Paperiello 

Deputy Executive Director 

 for Materials, Research and State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: Gary L. Robertson, Director

Division of Radiation Protection

Bob Nichols, State Liaison Officer

Executive Policy Division

Steve Collins, IL

OAS Liaison to the MRB
December 22, 2003

Mr. Bill White

Acting Deputy Secretary

Washington Department of Health

1112 SE Quince Street

Olympia, WA 98504-7890

Dear Mr. White:

On December 10, 2003, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed

final Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Washington

Agreement State Program. The MRB found the Washington program adequate to protect public

health and safety and compatible with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s program.

Section 5.0, page 19, of the enclosed final report presents the IMPEP team’s recommendation

for the State of Washington. At the MRB meeting, Terry Frazee, Western Regional Director,

presented a letter that detailed the State’s actions in response to this recommendation. We

request no additional information at this time.

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review will be in approximately

four years.

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the IMPEP team during the review. I

also wish to acknowledge your continued support for the Radiation Control Program and the

excellence in program administration demonstrated by your staff as reflected in the team’s

findings. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the future.

Sincerely,

/RA Paul H. Lohaus Acting For/

Carl J. Paperiello 

Deputy Executive Director 

 for Materials, Research and State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: Gary L. Robertson, Director bcc: Chairman Diaz

Division of Radiation Protection Commissioner McGaffigan

Commissioner Merrifield

Bob Nichols, State Liaison Officer

Executive Policy Division

Steve Collins, IL

OAS Liaison to the MRB

Distribution: DCD (SP01) PDR (YES/)

DIR RF VCampbell, RIV MBailey, NMSS

KSchneider, STP DFogle, TX JLieberman, OGC

LRakovan, STP RJohnson, NMSS FCameron, OGC

AMcCraw, STP JZabko, STP STreby, OGC

BAbu-Eid, NMSS CMiller, NMSS KCyr, OGC

LCarson, RIV RStruckmeyer, NMSS ISchoefeld, EDO

MVirgilio, NMSS TCombs, OCA (2 copies)

DOCUMENT NAME: C:\NRC\Others\2003 WA Final IMPEP Report and Letter.wpd *See previous

concurrence.

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy

OFFICE STP STP:DD STP:D DEDMRS

NAME DWhite:kk

(LRakovan for)

JMPiccone PHLohaus CJPaperiello

DATE 12/15/03* 12/15/03* 12/16/03* 12/22/03

ML033510157 Pkg. OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

REVIEW OF WASHINGTON AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

September 8 - 12, 2003

 FINAL REPORT

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington Final Report Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the review of the Washington Agreement State program. The review

was conducted during the period September 8 - 12, 2003, by a review team consisting of technical staff

members from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Agreement State of Texas. Team

members are identified in Appendix A. The review was conducted in accordance with the "Implementation

of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program and Rescission of a Final General Statement

of Policy," published in the Federal Register on October 16, 1997, and the November 5, 1999, NRC

Management Directive 5.6, "Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)." Preliminary

results of the review, which covered the period of September 4, 1999 to September 12, 2003, were

discussed with Washington management on September 12, 2003.

A draft of this report was issued to Washington for factual comment on October 9, 2003. The State

responded by letter dated October 30, 2003. The Management Review Board (MRB) met on December

10, 2003 to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the Washington radiation control program

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

The Washington Agreement State program is administered by the Office of Radiation Protection (the

Office) in the Division of Environmental Health, Department of Health (the Department). Management in

the Office consists of the Office Director, the Western Regional Director, and the Eastern Regional

Director. The Regional Directors report to the Office Director. The Western Regional Director is located in

the Olympia office and is responsible for operations in three technical sections: the Radioactive Materials

Section, the X-ray Section, and the Waste Management Section. The Eastern Regional Director is located

at the Richland office and is primarily responsible for oversight of activities on the Hanford Nuclear

Reservation, and three technical sections: the Air Emissions and Defense Waste Section, the

Environmental Radiation Section, and the Nuclear Safety Section. Organization charts are included in

Appendix B. 

At the time of the review, the Washington Agreement State program regulated approximately 410 specific

licenses authorizing Agreement materials. The review focused on the 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 Washington. 

In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common and non-common performance

indicators was sent to the Office on May 21, 2003. The Office provided a response to the questionnaire on

August 20, 2003. A copy of the questionnaire response can be found on NRC’s Agencywide Document

Access and Management System using the Accession Number ML032671064. 

The review team's general approach for conduct of this review consisted of: (1) examination of

Washington’s response to the questionnaire; (2) review of applicable Washington statutes and regulations;

(3) analysis of quantitative information from the radiation control program licensing and inspection data

base; (4) technical review of selected licensing and inspection actions; (5) field accompaniments of six

Office inspectors; and (6) interviews with staff and management to answer questions or clarify issues. The

review team evaluated the information that it gathered against the IMPEP performance criteria for each

common and non-common performance indicator and made a preliminary assessment of the Washington

Agreement State program’s performance.

Section 2 below discusses the State’s actions in response to the recommendation made following the

previous IMPEP review and the team’s conclusions regarding closeout of the recommendation. Results of
Washington Final Report Page 2

the current review for the IMPEP common performance indicators are presented in Section 3. Section 4

discusses results of the applicable non-common performance indicators, and Section 5 summarizes the

review team's findings. Recommendations made by the review team are comments that relate directly to

performance by the State. A response is requested from the State to the recommendation in the final

report.

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS

During the previous IMPEP review, which concluded on September 3, 1999, one recommendation was

made and transmitted to Mary C. Selecky, Secretary, Washington Department of Health on December 3,

1999. The team’s review of the current status of the recommendation is as follows:

1. The review team recommends that the State develop additional specialized inspection procedures

for the uranium recovery program. (Section 4.4.2)

Current Status: The Waste Management Section developed and implemented a specific written

procedure, Inspection Procedures for Uranium Mill Reclamation and Construction Project, for

geotechnical construction which addresses onsite construction reviews and placement of erosion

protection. This recommendation is closed.

3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

IMPEP identifies five common performance indicators to be used in reviewing both NRC Regional and

Agreement State 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) Response to Incidents and Allegations. 

3.1 Technical Staffing and Training

Issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the Office’s staffing level and staff turnover, as well

as the technical qualifications and training histories of the staff. To evaluate these issues, the review team

examined the Office’s questionnaire response relative to this indicator, interviewed Office management and

staff, reviewed job descriptions and training records, and considered any possible workload backlogs.

The Office underwent several organizational changes in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. A new Office Director

was appointed in June 2002. In December 2002, two new management positions, Regional Directors,

were created. These positions were created partially to focus a higher level of management on activities

on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and partially for succession planning. 

At the time of the review, the Radioactive Materials Section was staffed by the Section Supervisor, seven

full time technical staff members, and two administrative support staff. Three staff members act as

program managers for three major licensee groups: medical, industrial, and laboratories. The remaining

staff are assigned to assist the program managers. The technical staff are classified as Radiation Health

Physicists and perform both inspection and licensing functions. 

The Radioactive Materials Section had a total of five staff turnovers during the review period. Of the five

turnovers, two staff members were promoted and three retired or resigned. The Office has been able to fill

the vacancies in an expedient manner. Four of the vacancies were filled with staff who transferred from

other groups within the Office. At the time of the review, the Section was fully staffed. 
Washington Final Report Page 3

The Radioactive Materials Section has a documented training and qualification program for staff who

perform licensing and inspection duties and investigate incidents that is based on the NRC/OAS Joint

Working Group report. Adequate qualification is determined through a combination of education and

experience, formal classroom training, and on-the-job training. Staff members are required to have a

bachelor’s degree or equivalent experience in physical science, engineering or biological science. Training

records and management authorization for licensing and inspection of each license category, and

management authorization for investigation of incidents, are maintained for each staff member. The team

noted that the Section encourages and supports training based on program needs and funding. At the time

of the IMPEP review, six technical staff had interim qualifications for inspection and licensing of specific

categories of licensees and needed some additional formal training courses before becoming fully

qualified. However, this has not affected the Section’s ability to complete all duties and responsibilities

associated with the program. The review team concluded that the Section has a well-balanced staff, and a

sufficient number of trained personnel to carry out regulatory duties.

The team noted that the Radioactive Materials Section has experienced stable funding during the review

period. However, the Office Director stated that beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2003 (July 1, 2003), the

Governor directed State offices to reduce full time equivalent staff (FTE) over the next two fiscal years. For

the six sections in the Office, this would require a reduction in FTE of 0.8 in FY 2003 and 0.5 in FY 2004. 

The Office Director believes that these reductions can be met without affecting the performance of the

program. The Section has been progressing towards full fee recovery of program costs since 1982 and is

currently at 100 percent fee supported for direct and indirect program costs. Licensees are assessed an

annual fee to cover the costs associated with amendments, routine inspections, and investigations. New

license applicants are assessed a small fee to cover the initial pre-licensing inspection costs. In addition,

the Office receives a small apportionment from the State general fund to cover costs associated with

incident response for the entire program. 

The State of Washington does not have an established State radiation oversight board. However, if the

Office determines that advice is needed on a particular subject, a group of licensee representatives is

convened to act in an advisory role to the Office. 

During team interviews with the Office Director and the Western Regional Director, the Office Director

discussed the outreach program for providing emergency response training to first responders, hospital

staff, and local government health agencies for response to radiological events including incidents resulting

from terrorist activities. The genesis of this program was the result of lessons learned from the Office’s

training of National Guard, hospitals, local health departments and first responders for the TOPOFF2

radiological terrorism emergency preparedness exercise. The Office goal is for each Section to provide

two FTE days per month to support this training initiative. At the time of the review, the Office had

conducted two training sessions. The scenario for one of the sessions was focused on a realistic terrorist

activity and involved the use of radiation sources in various forms. As a result of this exercise, first

responders discovered that although they had high-tech detection equipment, they did not use the

equipment’s alpha or beta detection capability, but relied on the gamma analyzers. The Office believes

that the use of actual radiation sources and a realistic scenario proved to be effective tools for exercising

and training the capability of first responders. The review team recommends this outreach training

approach as a good practice.

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

Washington’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, was satisfactory.
Washington Final Report Page 4

3.2 Status of Materials Inspection Program

The review team focused on five factors in reviewing the status of the material inspection program: 

inspection frequency, overdue inspections, initial inspections of new licensees, timely dispatch of

inspection findings to licensees, and the performance of reciprocity inspections. The review team’s

evaluation is based on the Office’s questionnaire response relative to this indicator, data gathered

independently from the Office’s licensing and inspection data tracking system, the examination of complete

licensing and inspection casework, and interviews with managers and staff.

The team's review of the Office’s inspection priorities verified that inspection frequencies for all types of

Washington material licenses are at least the same frequency as those listed in NRC Inspection Manual

Chapter (IMC) 2800. Some categories of licenses were assigned inspection priority codes that prescribe a

more frequent inspection schedule than those currently prescribed in NRC IMC 2800. 

In their response to the questionnaire, the Office indicated that there were currently no inspections of core

licensees overdue by more than 25 percent of the NRC frequency. This information was verified during the

inspection casework reviews and the review of the database provided to the team. The program

conducted approximately 400 core licensee inspections during the review period. During the review period,

there were three overdue core inspections. These inspections were conducted one, three, and five months

late. 

The review team also evaluated the Office’s timeliness for conducting initial inspections. All new licenses

are delivered by the reviewer. Each licensee is subject to an onsite review of their radiation safety

programs to ensure that each licensee is prepared to accept licensed material. The team noted that the

Office conducted approximately 90 initial inspections during the review period. All but one new licensee

was inspected in accordance with NRC IMC 2800 guidelines. This one licensee did receive an initial visit

in accordance with Office policy, but the initial inspection was not performed since the licensee has not yet

been awarded a contract requiring the use of licensed material. An inspection has been scheduled for

2004.

The timeliness of the issuance of inspection findings was also evaluated during the inspection file review. 

The Office has an effective and efficient process which ensures that inspection findings are communicated

to licensees in a timely manner. Inspection findings are communicated to the licensee using a form similar

to NRC’s Form 591 (DOH 322-015, Revision 7/2000). These forms are generally used for infractions or

deficiencies. A completed form is typically issued onsite upon the completion of an inspection or included

in a notice of correction letter. The team determined that, if not issued at the conclusion of the onsite

inspection, these forms were issued within 30 days of the inspection. Depending on the findings, the

licensee may be required to respond to the Office in writing regarding their corrective actions. Of the 25

inspection files reviewed by the review team, only one inspection summary was issued beyond the 30-day

goal. 

During the review period, the Office granted 40 core reciprocity licenses. The Office exceeded the 20

percent criteria prescribed in NRC IMC 1220 for each year and inspected a total of 21 licensees.

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

Washington’s performance with respect to the indicator, Status of the Materials Inspection Program, was

satisfactory.
Washington Final Report Page 5

3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections

The team evaluated the inspection reports, enforcement documentation, and inspection field notes and

interviewed inspectors for a total of 20 materials inspections conducted during the review period. The

casework included all of the Office’s materials inspectors, and covered inspections of various types as

follows: waste processing, research and development, portable gauge, medical broad scope, veterinary,

gamma stereotactic radiosurgery, manufacturing and distribution, service (source exchange), well logging,

industrial radiography, research and development broad scope, medical institution, and nuclear pharmacy. 

Appendix C lists the inspection casework files reviewed for completeness and adequacy with case-specific

comments.

Based on the casework file reviews, the review team found that routine inspections covered all aspects of

the licensee’s radiation protection program. The inspection reports were thorough, complete, consistent,

and of high quality, with sufficient documentation to ensure that licensee’s performance with respect to

health and safety was acceptable. The documentation adequately supported the cited violations. Exit

interviews were held with appropriate licensee personnel. Team inspections were performed when

appropriate and for training purposes.

The review team found that violations are categorized into severity levels which can later be used for

escalated enforcement, if necessary. All inspections are peer reviewed by another staff member of the

Radioactive Materials Section. In addition, 10 percent of the inspection reports are also reviewed by the

Section Supervisor. The team found that the Radioactive Materials Section has a good process for

reviewing inspection documentation, making any needed changes, and providing the inspector with

feedback regarding the quality of the document.

The Radioactive Materials Supervisor conducts supervisory accompaniments of each materials inspector

at least once a year. Inspectors are provided with feedback regarding their performance after the

accompaniment and the results are documented. 

The review team accompanied four Radioactive Materials Section inspectors from August 4 through 7,

2003 during inspections at a medical institution, a research and development facility, and two portable

gauge licensees which are identified in Appendix C. During the accompaniments, the inspectors

demonstrated appropriate performance-based inspection techniques and knowledge of the regulations. 

The inspectors were well prepared and thorough in their review of the licensee's radiation safety program. 

The inspections were adequate to assess radiological health and safety at the licensed facility.

As noted in the questionnaire, the Radioactive Materials Section has an adequate number and variety of

portable survey instruments to support the current inspection program, as well as for responding to

incidents and emergency conditions. Appropriate documentation of calibrated survey instruments is

maintained and tracked in a database. Instruments requiring calibration are delivered to the Northwest

Radiation Instrument Calibration Facility at the University of Washington. The Office utilizes the

Department’s laboratory for a variety of analytical analyses including liquid scintillation, gamma

spectroscopy, and low background beta/gamma counting. The Office has a staff member in the

Environmental Radiation Section who is the liaison with the laboratory to coordinate the appropriate

analyses and ensure timely feedback of results.

The team also reviewed the Office’s oversight of the Allied Technology Group Inc. (ATG) facility in

Richland, Washington. The Waste Management Section is responsible for the inspection and licensing

oversight of this facility. The licensee has a number of complex waste treatment operations, provides
Washington Final Report Page 6

decontamination and demolition services and other environmental and cleanup activities associated with

radiological materials. The facility holds two licenses involving treatment of radioactive waste and mixed

waste. ATG went through some financial difficulties and announced bankruptcy in December 2001. 

Subsequently, ATG’s operations were substantially reduced during the bankruptcy period. Currently, ATG

is finalizing its negotiation to transfer its ownership to Pacific EcoSolutions, LLC. 

On July 29, 2003, members of the review team visited the ATG facility and observed licensee operation, as

well as the Office’s surveillance of the facility. Inspectors are at the facility several times a month and have

intimate knowledge of the operations and status of the site. The team also reviewed inspection and

ALARA reports regarding this facility and determined that the Waste Management Section’s findings were

well documented and supported. The Waste Management Section took appropriate action to resolve

health and safety issues including those involving legacy waste and occupational doses which were above

administrative limits, but lower than regulatory limits, during calendar year 2000.

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

Washington’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, was satisfactory.

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The review team examined completed licenses and casework for 24 materials licensing actions

representing the work of seven license reviewers. The license reviewers were interviewed to supply

additional information regarding licensing decisions or file contents. Licensing actions were evaluated for

completeness, consistency, proper isotopes and quantities used, qualifications of authorized users,

adequate facilities and equipment, and operating and emergency procedures sufficient to establish the

basis for licensing actions. Licenses were reviewed for accuracy, appropriateness of the license and of its

conditions and tie-down conditions, and overall technical quality. Casework was evaluated for adherence

to good health physics practices, reference to appropriate regulations, supporting documents, peer or

supervisory review and proper signature authorities. The files were checked for retention of necessary

documents and supporting data.

The licensing actions reviewed included the following types of license: waste processing, academic,

medical broad scope, industrial broad scope, industrial radiography, radiopharmacy, commercial services,

portable gauges, gamma knife, high dose rate remote afterloader, manufacturing and distribution, and

research and development. Licensing actions included four new licenses, nine renewals, one termination,

and ten amendments. A list of these licenses with case-specific comments can be found in Appendix D.

All licensing actions in the Radioactive Materials Section are assigned a tracking number, logged into a

computer tracking system, and given to a license reviewer. If needed, the reviewer generates a deficiency

letter and produces a draft licensing action upon final resolution of all deficiency items. The draft licensing

action receives a quality assurance (QA) review by peer license reviewers. Corrections are made as

needed and the licensing action is issued. The license reviewers in the Radioactive Materials Section have

signature authority and sign their own licensing actions. The QA reviewer initials each final licensing

action. Each license reviewer uses boilerplate licenses for their type of licensing actions (i.e., industrial,

medical, or laboratory) to ensure consistency in standard licenses. 

The review team found that the licensing actions were thorough, complete, consistent, and of high quality,

with health and safety issues properly addressed. Tie-down conditions are generally backed by

information contained in the license or sealed source and device registry files and are inspectable. 

Deficiency letters state regulatory positions, are used at the proper time, and identify deficiencies in the
Washington Final Report Page 7

licensee’s documents. Terminated licensing actions are well documented, showing appropriate transfer

and survey records. License files are complete and organized. The Radioactive Materials Section uses a

combination of NRC and Office application and regulatory guides. In general, checklists for each type of

license are used and kept with the license file. These documents are mostly complete, well organized,

available to reviewers, and appear to be followed.

The Radioactive Materials Section is currently operating with a backlog of only a few licensing actions. By

policy, the Radioactive Materials Section does not grant variances from licensing policy or procedure or

exemptions to the regulations. As such, no exemptions or variances were granted during the review

period. No changes were made in written licensing procedures during the review period.

The review team determined that the Radioactive Materials Section had not fully implemented the financial

assurance for decommissioning requirements of the regulations. Examinations of licenses reveal that

several licenses authorize radioactive material in types and quantities requiring financial assurance

commitments. The team noted that of the nine licenses of this type reviewed, seven did not address those

requirements. The matter was discussed with Radioactive Materials Section license reviewers and

management. They agreed that not enough emphasis had been placed on verifying that licensees had

complied with those portions of the regulations dealing with financial assurance for decommissioning. The

review team recommends that the Office develop and implement a plan to adequately and consistently

address the financial assurance for decommissioning portions of material license regulations.

At the December 10, 2003 MRB meeting, Office management presented a plan to address this

recommendation. The plan described the steps the Office plans to take in response to the

recommendation, as well as a timeline for completion. The MRB noted the Office’s quick and thorough

response to the recommendation. 

The team reviewed the Waste Management Section’s licensing oversight of the ATG facility (see Section

3.3). The Section issued a mixed waste license to ATG in November 1999 which initially authorized limited

operations and quantities of licensed materials. As the licensee successfully demonstrated various

operations, the license was amended on numerous occasions to expand operations and authorized

quantities of licensed material. The Office has been actively addressing bankruptcy and financial

assurance issues, particularly those related to the transfer of the license and the legal implications

regarding financial surety. The Office currently holds adequate funds for radioactive waste financial surety

and mixed waste financial surety. The team also reviewed a selection of license amendments for both

licenses as indicated in Appendix D. The team determined that the Office’s handling of the ATG licensing

issues was appropriate and in accordance with State regulations. 

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

Washington’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, was

satisfactory.

3.5 Response to Incidents and Allegations

In evaluating the effectiveness of the Radioactive Materials Section’s actions in responding to incidents,

the review team examined the Office’s response to the questionnaire regarding this indicator, evaluated

selected incidents reported to the “Nuclear Material Events Database” (NMED) against those contained in

the Office files, and evaluated the casework and supporting documentation for 19 material incidents. A list

of incident casework examined is contained in 
Washington Final Report Page 8

Appendix E. The team also evaluated the Radioactive Materials Section’s response to eight materials

allegations, three of which were referred to the Office by NRC during the review period.

The review team discussed the Office’s incident and allegation process, file documentation, the State’s

equivalent to the Freedom of Information Act, NMED, and notification of incidents to the NRC Operations

Center by Radioactive Materials Section and Waste Management Section management and staff.

When notification of an incident or an allegation is received, the Radioactive Materials Section Supervisor

and staff discuss the initial response and the need for an onsite investigation. The safety significance of

the incident/allegation is evaluated to determine the type of response that the Radioactive Materials

Section will take. After the investigation is completed, the pertinent incident information is forwarded to the

NRC, as appropriate. 

The nineteen incidents selected for review included, four losses or theft of gauges, three overexposures,

four damaged or failed equipment problems, four damaged or leaking sources, two releases of licensed

material, one transportation problem, and one potential release. The review team found that the

Radioactive Materials Section’s responses to incidents were complete and comprehensive. Initial

responses were prompt, well-coordinated, and the level of effort was commensurate with the health and

safety significance. Inspectors were dispatched for onsite investigations when appropriate and the

Radioactive Materials Section took appropriate enforcement actions when appropriate. The review team

found the documentation of the response and follow up to incidents consistent and that incidents were

followed up at the next inspection or in a timely fashion. 

The Department has two relevant policies on the disclosure of information. Department policy 17-005

addresses Employee Responsibilities with Confidential Information and policy 17-003 addresses Public

Disclosure. All requests for public information must be sent to the Department Public Disclosure

Coordinator for a determination whether the information can be disclosed or is exempt from disclosure. 

The policies specify the information that is exempt from disclosure, including the protection of an alleger’s

identity, and direct all offices to have procedures and train employees in those procedures. Within the

Office, both the Radioactive Materials Section and the Waste Management Section have developed

separate, but equivalent, incident and allegation procedures. Waste Management Section procedures are

discussed in Section 4.3.5. The Radioactive Materials Section has written guidance on Investigations,

dated August 20, 1999; RMS-41, Handling Allegations, dated August 23, 1999; RMS-42, Concerned

Citizen Calls, dated August 24, 1999; and RMS-43, Incident Notification, dated August 22, 1999 for

handling incidents and allegations. The Radioactive Materials Section also maintains a computer listing for

tracking the status of all incidents and allegations. After a review of the incidents and discussions with

staff, the review team determined that all reportable materials events during the review period were

appropriately reported to the NRC Operations Center and the NMED database contractor.

During the review period, there were three materials allegations referred to the Office by the NRC and ten

allegations reported directly to the program. The review team noted that allegations are maintained in a

locked file. The review of the Office’s allegation files indicated that the Office took prompt and appropriate

action in response to the concerns raised. All of the allegations reviewed were closed and information

provided to NRC as requested on specific cases. Written response to allegers is part of the allegation

close out procedure and was noted in all of the allegation files. 

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

Washington’s performance with respect to the indicator, Response to Incidents and Allegations, was

satisfactory.
Washington Final Report Page 9

4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

IMPEP identifies four non-common performance indicators to be used in reviewing Agreement State

programs: (1) Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility; (2) Sealed Source and

Device Evaluation Program; (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program; and (4) Uranium

Recovery Program. Washington’s Agreement includes all of the non-common performance indicators.

4.1 Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility

4.1.1 Legislation

Washington became an Agreement State in 1966. Along with their response to the questionnaire, the

Office provided the review team with the opportunity to review copies of legislation that effect the radiation

control program. The effective statutory authority is contained in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW),

Nuclear Energy and Radiation (RCW 70.98) and Mill Tailings, Licensing and Perpetual Care (RCW

70.121). The program also is affected by RCW 70.94, Washington Clean Air Act. The Department is

designated as the State's radiation control agency and implements the radiation control program. There

were no changes to the legislation that affect the radiation control program during the review period.

4.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility 

RCW applies to all ionizing radiation and provides the statutory authority for radioactive materials, the lowlevel radioactive waste, and the uranium mill programs. Regulations are provided in the Washington

Administrative Code. Washington requires a license for possession and use of all radioactive material

including naturally occurring materials, such as radium, and accelerator-produced radionuclides. The State

also requires registration of all equipment designed to produce x-rays or other ionizing radiation.

The review team examined the State’s administrative rulemaking process and found that the process takes

approximately six to eight months from the development stage to the final adoption by the Secretary and

filing with the Code Reviser, after which the rules become effective in 31 days. The public, the NRC, other

agencies, and all potentially affected licensees and registrants are offered an opportunity to comment

during the process. Comments are considered and incorporated, as appropriate, before the regulations

are finalized, approved, and filed. The Office also has the authority to issue legally binding requirements

(e.g., license conditions) in lieu of regulations until compatible regulations become effective. 

The team evaluated the Office’s response to the questionnaire, reviewed the status of regulations required

to be adopted by the State during the review period, and verified the adoption of regulations with data

obtained from the Office of State and Tribal Programs’ State Regulation Status Data Sheet. The review

team noted that since the September 1999 review, the State adopted 10 NRC amendments through four

rulemaking packages.

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

requirements no later than three years after they become effective. The review team found that the Office

currently has no overdue NRC amendments.

The Office will need to address the following three regulations in upcoming rulemakings or by adopting

alternate legally binding requirements:
Washington Final Report Page 10

! “Requirements for Certain Generally Licensed Industrial Devices Containing Byproduct Material” 10

CFR Parts 30, 31, 32 amendments (65 FR 79162) that became effective on February 16, 2001. 10

CFR 32.52 (a) and (b) amendments were to be implemented by States within six months, August

16, 2001. The team determined that section 246-233-020(4)(c)(vii) of the State’s regulations

contains the reporting requirement that meets the compatibility requirements of 10 CFR 32.52 (a)

and (b). 

! “Revision of the Skin Dose Limit” 10 CFR Part 20 amendment (67 FR 16298) that became effective

on April 5, 2002.

! “Medical Use of Byproduct Material” 10 CFR Parts 20, 32, and 35 amendments (67 FR 20249) that

became effective on April 24, 2002.

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

Washington’s performance with respect to the indicator, Legislation and Program Elements Required for

Compatibility, was satisfactory.

4.2 Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program

In conducting this review, three sub-indicators were used to evaluate the Office’s performance regarding

their Sealed Source & Device (SS&D) Evaluation Program. These sub-indicators include: (1) Technical

Staffing and Training; (2) Technical Quality of the Product Evaluation; and (3) Evaluation of Defects and

Incidents Regarding SS&Ds.

In assessing the Radioactive Materials Section's SS&D evaluation program, the review team examined

information provided in the response to the IMPEP questionnaire on this indicator. A review of all new and

amended SS&D evaluations, addressing NRC regulated radioactive materials, and supporting documents

covering the review period was conducted. The team observed the Radioactive Materials Section’s use of

guidance documents and procedures, and interviewed the Radioactive Materials Section Supervisor and

the other SS&D reviewers, and verified the use of regulations, conditions, and inspections to enforce

commitments made in the applications.

4.2.1 Technical Staffing and Training

The Radioactive Materials Section Supervisor and the lead license reviewer for medical licensing conduct

the SS&D reviews. Dependent upon whether a product’s intended use is industrial or medical, one serves

as primary reviewer while the other serves as concurrence reviewer. Both individuals sign the registry

sheet and both have attended the SS&D workshops sponsored by NRC. Both individuals have several

years experience reviewing radioactive materials license and SS&D applications. The Radioactive

Materials Section Supervisor is committed to maintaining a high degree of quality in their SS&D reviews

and related that two more staff members will be attending the next SS&D workshop scheduled for

September 22 - 26, 2003. If issues require review pertaining to engineering principles, the SS&D reviewers

refer their questions to the staff professional engineer. The team determined that the reviewers have

sufficient technical training required for SS&D reviews.

4.2.2 Technical Quality of the Product Evaluation Program

During the review period, 10 SS&D certificates were issued by the Office. Three new and two amended

certificates, completed by both SS&D reviewers, addressing byproduct radioactive material were evaluated
Washington Final Report Page 11

for this review. The remaining certificates authorized the use of naturally occurring or accelerator produced

radioactive materials (NARM) sources and devices. The SS&D certificates evaluated by the review team

are listed with case-specific comments in Appendix F.

Analyses of the files and interviews with staff confirmed that the Office follows the recommended guidance

from the NRC SS&D training workshops and NUREG-1556, Volume 3, issued in July 1998. The

appropriate review checklist from NUREG-1556, Volume 3, Appendix C, were used to assure that relevant

materials had been submitted and reviewed. The checklists were retained in the registration files. All

pertinent American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society standards, Regulatory Guides, and

applicable references were confirmed to be available and were used when performing SS&D reviews.

Registrations clearly summarized the product evaluations to provide license reviewers with adequate

information to license the possession and use of the products. Deficiency letters clearly stated regulatory

positions and all health and safety issues were properly addressed. The review team determined that the

product evaluations were thorough, complete, consistent, of acceptable technical quality, and adequately

addressed the integrity of the products during use and in the event of an accident.

Of the registration files reviewed, all were found to contain all correspondence, photographs, engineering

drawings, radiation profiles, and results of tests conducted by the applicant. As previously noted, the Office

has the ability to refer engineering issues to a staff professional engineer to verify product integrity and

design parameters. Several of the registration files include memorandums from the staff professional

engineer documenting detailed engineering examinations.

4.2.3 Evaluation of Defects and Incidents Regarding SS&Ds

Although not reported in the questionnaire, one incident involving a device related to an SS&D registration

issued by the Office was found in NMED by the review team, as indicated in Appendix E. The team

determined that the incident was handled appropriately, and that the root cause was properly determined. 

No revision to the SS&D’s safety evaluation sheet was necessary.

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

Washington’s performance with respect to the indicator, Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program,

was satisfactory.

4.3 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program

In conducting the IMPEP review, the team used five sub-indicators to evaluate the Office’s performance

regarding its low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal program. These indicators include: (1)

Technical Staffing and Training; (2) Status of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Inspection

Program; (3) Technical Quality of Inspections; (4) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; and (5) Response

to Incidents and Allegations. The results of the LLRW disposal program review will be discussed under

each of these sub-indicators.

The Waste Management Section currently licenses US Ecology, Inc. (USE) to receive, handle, process,

store, and dispose of LLRW at the Hanford site.
Washington Final Report Page 12

4.3.1 Technical Staffing and Training

The Waste Management Section currently has nine full-time and/or part-time staff members with a total

staffing level of 4.65 FTE. The LLRW program is also supported by other Sections within the Office and by

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) contractors. The staff currently supporting the LLRW program include

the Waste Management Section Supervisor, an administrative assistant, and staff with diversified

backgrounds in health physics, nuclear engineering, hydrogeology, geochemistry, geotechnical

engineering, mechanical engineering, and civil engineering. Since the last review in 1999, four staff

associated with LLRW program left the Waste Management Section and have been reassigned to support

other activities within the Office. An experienced staff member was promoted to Section Supervisor. The

Section hired a new full staff member to conduct LLRW inspections. The review team noted that the

current staffing level is approximately two FTE lower than at the previous review. The staff reduction is

related to completion of the work associated with the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) development

activities. The team determined that the current staffing level is adequate to maintain the quality and

performance of the LLRW program. 

The Waste Management Section has a documented training and qualification program for staff to perform

licensing, inspection, and investigation for LLRW activities. The Section has an established procedure for

staff training consistent with the NRC/OAS Joint Working Group Report and NRC IMC 1246. The Waste

Management Section Supervisor has established plans for new staff training and for staff assigned to carry

out new duties.

The review team reviewed the training and qualification records of the staff and found them up-to-date and

complete. The review team determined that most of the staff attended the required training and

recommended training courses in accordance with Office requirements and consistent with NRC IMC 1246. 

Based on interviews with the professional and administrative staff and an examination of staff

qualifications, duties, and functions, the review team concluded that the LLRW staff was highly qualified

with sufficient training to carry out regulatory duties regarding licensed operations at the USE facility.

4.3.2 Status of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Inspection Program

The disposal site is inspected annually as prescribed in NRC IMC 2800. Annual inspections are completed

over the course of the year using partial inspections, with each partial inspection focusing on a different

area. In addition to the annual inspections, the Waste Management Section onsite representative performs

routine (e.g., monthly) inspections of the site looking at a shorter list of site requirements. The review team

confirmed the frequency of inspections through a review of inspection report files, accompanying Waste

Management Section inspectors on July 29, 2003 at the Hanford facility (see Appendix C), and interviews

with the inspectors.

The review team evaluated the Office’s capability for maintaining and retrieving data on the status of

inspections. The Waste Management Section Supervisor uses a spreadsheet to track the status of

inspections. This spreadsheet lists the portion of the annual inspection, the date of last inspection, and the

inspector assigned to each portion of the annual inspection. A copy of this spreadsheet was placed in the

annual inspection files for 2000, 2001, and 2002. The review team also reviewed the Section Supervisor’s

working copy of the spreadsheet and concluded that this tool was appropriate for tracking the status of

LLRW inspections.

The review team found that inspection findings are communicated to the licensee in a timely manner. As

indicated in Section 3.2 above, the Waste Management Section issues inspection findings to the licensee
Washington Final Report Page 13

using a form similar to NRC’s Form 591, which is typically issued onsite upon completion of an inspection,

or included in a notice of correction letter. The review team determined that these forms were issued by

the Waste Management Section within 30 days of the inspection and in many cases at the conclusion of

the onsite inspection.

4.3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections

The Waste Management Section inspection procedures detail the frequency of inspections, inspection

preparation requirements, and inspection reporting requirements, as well as contain the checklist of

licensing requirements. The procedures also include appropriate forms and sample letters for documenting

findings. The onsite inspector maintains a set of more specific inspection procedures.

The findings from the inspector accompaniments conducted by the review team, as well as staff interviews

and a review of inspection files, indicate that Office inspection findings were well documented and

supported. The review team found that the Waste Management Section monthly and annual inspections

were thorough, technically accurate, complete, consistent, and of high quality with sufficient documentation

to ensure that the licensee’s performance with respect to protecting health and safety was acceptable. A

review of the completed inspection reports show that inspections are complete and reviewed promptly by

the Waste Management Section Supervisor. The review team found that follow-up inspections addressed

previously identified open items and past violations. An annual summary is provided in each file identifying

open items for the year and whether or not they were closed. The files contain the inspection checklist,

field notes, notices to the licensee, and some digital photographs of the site. Onsite files include

information on waste generators, weekly summary of shipments, fence-line surveys 

performed by the inspector, and waste container inspections. The review team also determined that

supervisory accompaniments of each onsite inspector were completed annually. 

On July 28, 2003, review team members accompanied two Waste Management Section inspectors at

USE’s facility as indicated in Appendix C. During the accompaniments, the inspectors demonstrated

appropriate performance-based inspection techniques and knowledge of the regulations. The inspectors

were well prepared and thorough in their review of the licensee's radiation safety program. The inspections

were adequate to assess radiological health and safety at the licensed facility.

4.3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The USE license establishes regulatory conditions and procedures that must be complied with regarding

waste acceptance, site operation, and environmental monitoring. The USE license has been in timely

renewal since January 1997. The Waste Management Section has completed its review of the site closure

plan. However, a decision on the license renewal is pending completion of an EIS that will consider

various options for closure of the site. The EIS was initiated under the provisions of the State

Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and is tentatively scheduled for completion by the end of 2003.

SEPA requires an environmental review for actions potentially having a significant adverse environmental

impact. A significance determination was issued by the State on February 14, 1997. As a result, the

Department of Health and the Department of Ecology jointly decided to prepare an EIS. Consequently, the

Waste Management Section decided to forego renewal of the operating license until completion of the EIS. 

The State initiated the EIS process by conducting public scoping meetings in Seattle, Spokane, and

Richland, Washington, during the spring of 1997. The State issued a draft EIS on September 13, 2000. 

The State received significant comments and concerns from the public and stakeholders on the draft EIS. 

These comments and concerns are being addressed in preparing the final EIS.
Washington Final Report Page 14

The review team reviewed the draft EIS, environmental monitoring data, facility closure and stabilization

plan, and technical evaluation reports and interviewed most of the staff involved in the preparation of these

documents. The team found that these documents were thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable

technical quality. 

The team and the Waste Management Section staff discussed performance assessment approaches and

methodologies used in demonstration of compliance with State dose criteria. The review team noted NRC

staff’s recommended performance assessment methodology and approaches documented in NUREG1573, “Performance Assessment Methodology for LLRW Disposal Facilities - Recommendations of NRC’s

Performance Assessment Working Group,” and provided a copy to the Office for reference. 

The review team reviewed the four license amendments to the USE license issued by the Waste

Management Section during the review period as indicated in Appendix D. These amendments involved

revisions to facility standard manual, Hanford site operation procedures, action levels, and frequency of

audits for vendors, as well as administrative changes. The review team found that the licensing actions

were thorough, complete, consistent, and of high quality, with health and safety issues properly addressed. 

4.3.5 Response to Incidents and Allegations

The review team found that the Waste Management Section has procedures in place for handling incidents

and allegations. The procedures for handling incidents include information on what constitutes an incident,

appropriate documentation of the incident, reference to NRC abnormal occurrences criteria for States, and

tracking the incident by management. The procedures for handling allegations include information on

protecting the identity of the alleger, documentation of the allegation, and tracking the allegation by

management. 

During the review period, there were no incidents and one allegation pertaining to the LLRW program. The

team found that actions taken by the Waste Management Section in response to the allegation were

appropriate, well coordinated, timely, and the level of effort commensurate with concerns raised.

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

Washington’s performance with respect to the indicator, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program,

was satisfactory.

4.4 Uranium Recovery Program

In conducting this IMPEP review, five sub-indicators were used to evaluate the Waste Management

Section’s performance regarding its uranium recovery program. These indicators include: (1) Technical

Staffing and Training; (2) Status of Uranium Recovery Inspection Program; (3) Technical Quality of

Inspections; (4) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; and 

(5) Response to Incidents and Allegations. The results of the uranium recovery program review will be

discussed under each of these sub-indicators.

The Western Nuclear, Inc., Sherwood Project, completed remediation at the end of the last review period in

1999, and the license was terminated in March 2000. The NRC reviewed the Office’s license termination

process for the Sherwood site pursuant to 10 CFR 150.15a(a) and Section 274(c) of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954, as amended. By letter dated December 27, 2000, the NRC concurred with the Office’s Sherwood

Project license termination. Consequently, the team did not review the Sherwood Project during this

review.
Washington Final Report Page 15

At the time of this review, the Waste Management Section had one licensed conventional mill site, Dawn

Mining Company (Dawn). This site was placed in shutdown and initiated reclamation and

decommissioning activities in 2001. 

4.4.1 Technical Staffing and Training

In reviewing this sub-indicator, the review team evaluated the uranium recovery staffing level, the technical

qualifications of the staff, staff training, and staff turnover. This evaluation included a general examination

of staff training records and qualifications of the reviewers assigned to perform reviews of the surface water

hydrology and erosion protection aspects of site closure.

During the review period, there was no staff turnover in the uranium recovery program. Based on

discussions with management, no turnover was expected in the immediate future. Various members of the

Waste Management Section staff participated in inspections and licensing activities at the Dawn site. The

level of participation of each staff member varied based on individual qualifications and workload. 

Currently, the Waste Management Section is training a new staff member who had extensive radiation

safety expertise at an uranium mill.

The review team found that staff had adequate health physics and engineering backgrounds. Much of the

staff’s expertise was gained through oversight of the Dawn and Sherwood facilities. The expertise of

Waste Management Section staff was further supplemented by the use of professional engineers and

technical experts from other Federal and State agencies in the areas of health physics and engineering. 

The review team concluded that the qualifications of the inspectors and reviewers were sufficient to

regulate the Dawn site. 

4.4.2 Status of the Uranium Recovery Inspection Program

The review team focused on several factors in evaluating the Waste Management Section’s performance

for this sub-indicator, including inspection frequency, overdue inspections, and timely issuance of

inspection reports. The review team’s evaluation was based on a review of the questionnaire response,

the uranium recovery inspection schedule, inspection casework files, and interviews with inspection staff

and management.

During Dawn’s demolition stage, partial inspections were performed approximately every week, with each

inspection focusing on a different inspection area. The review team determined that all inspection areas

were covered at least once per year and included construction, decommissioning, and environmental

reviews. Additional inspections were conducted in areas where repetitive deficiencies were identified. 

During the last three years, Waste Management Section staff conducted 23 mill inspections of the Dawn

site in three specific areas: (1) mill site compliance, (2) mill demolition, and (3) water treatment facility

operations.

Based on the team’s review of inspection files, it was determined that the Waste Management Section’s

inspection frequency was more frequent than the recommendations in NRC IMC 2801, “Uranium Mill and

11e.(2) Byproduct Material Disposal Site and Facility Inspection Program.” As a result of frequent

inspections, the review team concluded that there were no overdue inspections, and Waste Management

Section’s inspection practices were adequate.

The team reviewed inspection casework files and noted that inspection reports were issued within 30 days

of the inspection. Appropriate follow-up actions were conducted when items of noncompliance were
Washington Final Report Page 16

identified. Inspection casework files were easily retrieved and accessible. The inspection reports were

reviewed by management and received appropriate attention.

4.4.3 Technical Quality of Inspections

In reviewing this sub-indicator, the review team examined inspection files, inspection reports, and

enforcement documentation for the Dawn site as identified in Appendix C. The review included most of the

inspections conducted at Dawn during the review period. The review team noted that inspections covered

a range of uranium recovery inspection activities associated with reclamation operations at Dawn. 

Inspectors and management were interviewed to assess the adequacy of their preparation for the

inspections, the depth and content of the inspections, and the appropriateness of inspection findings. 

The team noted that the Waste Management Section’s inspection program and procedures were consistent

with NRC Inspection Procedure 87654, “Uranium Mill, In-Situ Leach Uranium Recovery, 11e.(2) Byproduct

Material Disposal Site Decommissioning Inspection.” Inspectors typically and appropriately observed

licensee operations and made independent measurements during inspections, as appropriate. Inspectors

used relevant procedures with mill-specific checklists, previous inspection reports, and other background

information for implementing their inspections. Inspections covered an appropriate number of functional

areas. The review team found that the inspection reports provided appropriate depth of coverage,

addressed license conditions and the regulations, and demonstrated that the inspectors pursued corrective

actions for items of noncompliance that were identified. 

During the review period, the uranium recovery inspectors were accompanied by their supervisors

annually. These accompaniments were adequately documented. The review team found that the Waste

Management Section Supervisor routinely met with the uranium recovery inspectors to review inspection

findings and to plan follow-up strategy regarding corrective actions. 

4.4.4 Technical Quality of Licensing 

The Waste Management Section uses a team approach to review various aspects of a reclamation plan

and other licensing actions. Any expertise that is not available in the Waste Management Section is

supplemented through the use of other State agencies or various engineer and professional consultants.

The team evaluated one license amendment that was issued to Dawn in April 2001, identified in Appendix

D. Through review of the Dawn licensing files and discussions with the Waste Management Section staff

and the Section Supervisor, the review team determined that this licensing action was adequately

evaluated and documented and that the license conditions were clear and well-written. 

In addition to the one amendment, the team noted that a number of changes to procedures tied to the

Dawn license were reviewed and approved in writing by the Waste Management Section in accordance

with the license. Based on a review of a sampling of these changes, the review team determined that

these actions were adequately reviewed and documented. The team also noted that the Waste

Management Section updated their inspection checklists to reflect the approved procedural changes.

During the team’s review of the Dawn license, it was noted that Condition No. 18 requires, in part, that the

licensee notify the Department in writing 30 days prior to any change in their business structure. This

license condition provides the Department with the opportunity to evaluate if changes in the licensee’s

business structure could adversely affect the licensee’s ability to continue to provide adequate
Washington Final Report Page 17

decommissioning funding. Normally, a licensee is required to obtain regulatory approval for changes in

ownership. However, a licensee could restructure their corporate structures and/or subsidiaries under the

same ownership without knowledge of the regulatory agency. This license condition gives the Office the

enhanced ability to monitor changes in business structure for potential adverse impacts on its financial and

regulatory responsibilities. The review team recommends that the Department’s use of this license

condition be found a good practice. 

4.4.5 Response to Incidents and Allegations

For this sub-indicator, the review team examined the Waste Management Section’s procedure for handling

uranium recovery incidents and allegations and found them acceptable.

During the review period, Waste Management Section responded to one allegation in the uranium recovery

area. Based on a review of the casework file, the team determined that the Waste Management Section

promptly responded to the allegation. There were no reportable incidents during the review period.

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

Washington’s performance with respect to the indicator, Uranium Recovery Program, was satisfactory.

5.0 SUMMARY

As noted in Sections 3 and 4 above, the review team and the MRB found Washington’s performance to be

satisfactory for all nine performance indicators. Accordingly, the review team recommended and the MRB

concurred in finding the Washington Agreement State program to be adequate to protect public health and

safety and compatible with NRC's program. Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, it was

agreed that the next full review should be in approximately four years.

Below is the recommendation, as mentioned earlier in the report, for evaluation and implementation, as

appropriate, by the State.

RECOMMENDATION:

The review team recommends that the Office develop and implement a plan to adequately and

consistently address the financial assurance for decommissioning portions of material license

regulations. (Section 3.4)

GOOD PRACTICES:

1. The Office has an outreach program for providing emergency response training to first responders,

hospital staff, and local government health agencies for response to radiological events including

incidents resulting from terrorist activities. The training includes the use of actual radiation sources

and realistic scenarios, and has proved to be an effective tool for augmenting the capability of first

responders. (Section 3.1)

2. During the team’s review of the Dawn license, it was noted that Condition No. 18 requires, in part,

that the licensee notify the Department in writing 30 days prior to any change in their business

structure. This license condition provides the Department with the opportunity to evaluate if

changes in the licensee’s business structure could adversely affect the licensee’s ability to continue

to provide adequate decommissioning funding. This license condition gives the Office the
Washington Final Report Page 18

enhanced ability to monitor changes in business structure for potential adverse impacts on its

financial and regulatory responsibilities. (Section 4.4.4)
LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members

Appendix B Washington Organization Charts

Appendix C Inspection Casework Reviews

Appendix D License Casework Reviews

Appendix E Incident Casework Reviews

Appendix F Sealed Source and Device Casework Reviews

Attachment October 30, 2003 Letter from Janice Adair, Acting Assistant Secretary,

Washington Department of Health
APPENDIX A

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

Name Area of Responsibility

Duncan White, Region I Team Leader

Status of Materials Inspection Program

Technical Quality of Inspections

Vivian Campbell, Region IV Technical Staffing and Training

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

John Zabko, STP Response to Incidents and Allegations

Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility

Boby Abu-Eid, NMSS Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program

Robert Johnson, NMSS

Louis Carson, Region IV Uranium Recovery Program

David Fogle, State of Texas Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program
APPENDIX B

WASHINGTON ORGANIZATION CHARTS

ML032750719


ATTACHMENT

October 30, 2003 Letter from Janice Adair, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Washington Department of Health

ML033180620