March 10, 2005

Mr. Gary L. Robertson, Director

Office of Radiation Protection

Department of Health

7171 Cleanwater Lane, Bldg. #5

P.O. Box 47827

Olympia, WA 98504-7827

Dear Mr. Robertson:

A periodic meeting with Washington was held on February 8, 2005. The purpose of this

meeting was to review and discuss the status of Washington’s Agreement State Program. The

NRC was represented by Osiris Siurano-Perez from NRC’s Office of State and Tribal Programs

(by telephone) and me. 

I have completed and enclosed a general meeting summary, including any specific actions

resulting from the discussions.

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

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

email VHC@NRC.GOV to discuss your concerns.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Vivian H. Campbell

Regional State Agreements Officer

Enclosure:

As stated

cc w/enclosure:

Paul Lohaus, Director, STP
Washington Office of Radiation Protection

bcc: (via ADAMS e-mail distribution):

PHolahan

CCain

MMcLean

KSchneider, STP

AMcCraw, STP

JZabko, STP

OSiurano, STP

ADAMS: :Yes 9No Initials: _vhc_____ 

:Publicly Available 9Non-Publicly Available 9Sensitive :Non-Sensitive

DOCUMENT NAME: draft: E:\Filenet\ML050700061.wpd 

RIV:RSAO

VHCampbell

/RA/

3/10/2005

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY T=Telephone E=E-mail F=Fax
AGREEMENT STATE PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY FOR WASHINGTON

DATE OF MEETING: February 8, 2005

ATTENDEES:

State

Gary Robertson, Director, Office of Radiation Protection

Terry Frazee, Western Regional Director

Arden Scroggs

Mikel Elsen

Anine Grumbles

Craig Lawrence

Dorothy Stoffel

Sean Murphy

NRC

Vivian Campbell, Regional State Agreements Officer, Region IV

Osiris Siurano-Perez, Agreement State Project Officer, Office of State and Tribal

Programs (by telephone)

DISCUSSION: 

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

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

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

Regional Director. The program regulates approximately 420 specific licenses authorizing

Agreement materials. The Office is responsible for the conduct of a statewide radiological

health and safety program, and consists of six program areas: Radioactive Materials (RAM), Xray, Environmental Radiation, Air Emissions & Defense Waste, Waste Management and

Radiological Emergency Preparedness. For the purpose of this meeting, NRC staff focused on

the activities of the RAM and Waste Management programs.

The following is a summary of the meeting held in Tumwater, Washington on February 8, 2005,

between representatives of the NRC and the Office. During the meeting, the topics suggested

in a letter dated November 29, 2004, from Ms. Campbell to Mr. Robertson were discussed. The

discussion pertaining to each topic is summarized below.

1. Status of Washington’s actions to address all open previous IMPEP review findings

and/or open recommendations.

The previous Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review

was conducted during the period September 8 - 12, 2003. This review identified one

recommendation and two good practices for evaluation and implementation. The status

of the recommendation outlined in Section 5.0 of the final IMPEP report was discussed

and is summarized below.
-2-

a. 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)

Current Status: Office management presented a plan to NRC’s Management

Review Board on December 10, 2003, describing the steps to be taken to address

the financial assurance requirements for material licenses. In that plan, the Office

projected full implementation by December 2005. During this periodic meeting,

management informed the NRC staff that they have completed review of about half

their materials licenses and made the appropriate corrections to meet Washington’s

financial assurance requirements. For Washington’s licensees that actually possess

material requiring financial assurance, their licenses have been appropriately

updated. The remaining licenses require administrative changes to cap

authorization below the threshold requiring financial assurance. It is recommended

that this item be reviewed at the next IMPEP review.

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

including identification of actions that could diminish weaknesses. 

a. Program Strengths: 

Office management attributes the strength of the program to the qualified,

experienced staff. The Office has had a very low turnover rate and therefore, able to

maintain expertise. Office management fosters a team approach to problem solving

which is evidenced through the sharing of expertise between Sections.

b. Program Weaknesses: 

While the Office has been able to retain staff, salaries are becoming a potential

challenge. The staff have not received a cost of living raise in the past four years. 

Management stated that their professional staff are underpaid by approximately

40 percent compared to private industry. Management anticipates that retaining and

hiring qualified staff in the future may become an issue as this salary gap increases.

In addition, the Office is primarily fee supported with only a small apportionment

coming from the State general fund. Office management stated that funding the

waste program is becoming a challenge due to the decrease in waste volume. This

loss in fee funding may affect the Office management’s ability to maintain adequate

staff to support the waste program. 

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

any action that should be considered by NRC: 

Office management discussed generic concerns about cost and availability of NRC

training courses. In addition, management identified explicit issues with one of NRC’s

training courses that was taught by NRC engineers. Specifically, the course material

was not appropriately designed to meet the engineering knowledge of some of the

audience and one instructor’s presentation skills needed improvement. Overall,

management stated that training staff is becoming an increasing national challenge. 

With diminishing State and Federal resources, it is time to consider other effective and
-3-

efficient mechanisms for training staff. Management asked that NRC consider

developing basic correspondence courses (preferably on-line) to be used as a

foundation for a radiation protection training program. These correspondence courses

would be supplemental to a practical training component that could be provided by each

organization. Management suggested that the development of a basic correspondence

curriculum be considered as a possible pilot project for the National Materials Program.

4. Status of State Program including:

a. Staffing and Training: 

i) Number of staff in the program and status of their training and qualifications: The

RAM program is fully staffed. They have actually added FTE since the IMPEP

review. Program management chooses to train their staff by discipline. As

resources become available, staff are trained in new disciplines. For example,

the Office sent two staff to the SS&D workshop in September 2003. Since that

time the manager has introduced the staff to the SS&D review process through

participation in concurrence reviews. The Waste program continues to be

staffed by full and part time personnel.

ii) Program vacancies: There are no vacancies. 

iii) Staff turnover: There has been no turnover. 

iv) Adequacy of FTE for the materials program: The RAM program is adequately

staffed. However, the Waste program may become challenged because of the

funding issues.

b. Materials Inspection Program: 

i) Discuss the status of the inspection program including if an inspection backlog

exists and the steps being taken to work off the backlog. The RAM program has

no inspection backlog based on NRC’s criteria. 

c. Regulations and Legislative changes:

i) Discuss status of Washington’s regulations and actions to keep regulations up to

date, including the use of legally binding requirements: The NRC staff reviewed

the status of the Washington regulations with Office management. Some minor

errors in the SRS sheet were discussed and corrected pertaining to RATS-ID

1994-2, 2000-1 and 2000-2. The Office had submitted the final rules for the GL

rule (RATS-ID 2001-1) . The NRC had provided comments on Washington’s GL

rule in a letter dated March 11, 2004. Currently, this rule is being re-reviewed. 

The Office plans to delay their response until the outcome of this final NRC

review is completed. 

The NRC staff also discussed the upcoming due date for the Medical Use of

Byproduct Material amendment (RATS-ID 2002-2). Office management stated

that they are working on the Medical rule but will probably not meet the April 24,

2005, implementation date. They have been waiting for the training and

education issue for medical licensees to be resolved. 
-4-

d. Program reorganizations: 

i) Discuss any changes in program organization including program/staff relocations

and new appointments: Office management stated that no organization changes

are anticipated at this time. However, they informed NRC staff that the Office

will be moving to a new location later this year. As a part of this move, the staff

is working to reduce the amount of paper files that will need to be relocated.

e. Changes in Program budget/funding: 

Office management does not expect any changes to the RAM budget. However,

because of the potential loss of fees associated with the processing and burial of

waste, the Waste program will be challenged to maintain adequate staffing.

5. Event Reporting, including follow-up and closure information in NMED: 

As part of the preparation for the periodic meeting, the NRC staff reviewed all the

reportable events that were reported to NMED by the Office since the previous IMPEP

review. The staff identified ten reportable events. Of the ten, two were identified as not

being reported timely and seven needed additional follow-up information. These events

were discussed with the Office management. Office management stated that all

reportable incidents are entered into the NMED database. The NRC staff discussed the

importance of reporting significant events to NRC within 24 hours of notification and of

ensuring that routine and follow up event information is provided to NMED on at least a

monthly basis. 

6. Response to Incidents and Allegations: 

Two allegations were referred since the 2003 IMPEP. The allegations were

appropriately reviewed and closed. 

7. Status of the following Program areas:

a. Sealed Source & Device Program:

The RAM program has two fully qualified SS&D reviewers and two more staff that

have attended NRC’s SS&D workshop. The new SS&D reviewers are currently

being mentored to further develop their skills by participating in the concurrence

reviews.

b. Uranium Mills Program: 

The Office staff are involved in the remediation of the Dawn Mining Company site. 

Last summer they were involved in the characterization of 700 acres, approximately

300 acres were determined to be affected. The Office expects the licensee to

submit their soil clean-up plan soon. The licensee is seeking to reduce their

financial assurance. The Office has concerns because of the groundwater issues at

the site.

c. Low-Level Waste Program: 

The Waste Program is in the process of renewing U.S. Ecology’s license. The final

environmental impact statement was published in the summer 2004. They

anticipate having a draft license to be reviewed within 3 months. The Office will then

be involved with the expected appeal. 
-5-

8. Information exchange and discussion: 

a. Current State initiatives: 

In December 2002, the States received a letter from NRC informing them of a

regulatory proposal to enhance the security of portable gauges. As a result of that

notification, the Office instituted a licensing policy requiring that gauge users

implement three levels of security for their devices when not under the physical

control of the operator. The Office requires, by license condition, that the licensee

establish the two outer levels of security so that each independently prevents the

transport box, with the gauge, from being removed from the vehicle. Since

instituting this licensing policy, the Office reported that loss of portable gauges in

their jurisdiction had significantly reduced.

b. Emerging technologies: 

The Office discussed a number of emerging technologies that are being addressed

in the State. One was a research and development licensee who is developing a

new low-level waste processing system. Another was a pilot test at the Dawn Mining

site to study a new methodology for groundwater remediation. 

c. Large, complicated or unusual authorization for use of radioactive materials:

The Office is involved in a number of complex licensing issues including major

decommissioning sites such as Dawn. The renewal of U.S. Ecology’s waste license

is a major undertaking for the staff.

d. Washington’s mechanism to evaluate performance: 

As a part of their Strategic Plan, the State has developed detailed performance

measures for each program area. Each program must track and report this

information on a quarterly basis.

e. NRC current initiatives: 

The NRC staff discussed the current status of the portable gauge rule, sensitive

information screening of documents in ADAMS, Security Measures, and Part 35 -

Training and Experience rulemaking. 

9. Schedule for the next IMPEP review: 

The next IMPEP is tentatively scheduled for FY2007. Office management requested

that NRC consider scheduling the review in fall of 2007 because they will be hosting the

CRCPD in the spring of 2007.