November 4, 2009 

Thomas Hogan, Assistant Director 

Environmental Health Division 

Minnesota Department of Health 

625 Robert St., N. 

P.O. Box 64975 

St. Paul, MN 55164-0975 

Dear Mr. Hogan: 

A periodic meeting with your program was held on October 15, 2009. The purpose of the 

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

Nuclear Regulatory Commission was represented by Pat Louden, Aaron McCraw, and me. 

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

will be taken as a result of the meeting. 

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 (630) 829-9661, or 

email to james.lynch@nrc.gov to discuss your comments. 

Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

James L. Lynch 

Regional State Agreements Officer 

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc w/ encl: George Johns, Supervisor 

 Radioactive Materials Unit
Thomas Hogan, Assistant Director 

Environmental Health Division 

Minnesota Department of Health 

625 Robert St., N. 

P.O. Box 64975 

St. Paul, MN 55164-0975 

Dear Mr. Hogan: 

A periodic meeting with your program was held on October 15, 2009. The purpose of the 

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

Nuclear Regulatory Commission was represented by Pat Louden, Aaron McCraw, and me. 

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

will be taken as a result of the meeting. 

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 (630) 829-9661, or 

email to james.lynch@nrc.gov to discuss your comments. 

Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

James L. Lynch 

Regional State Agreements Officer 

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc w/ encl: George Johns, Supervisor 

 Radioactive Materials Unit 

DISTRIBUTION: A. McCraw, 

FSME 

S. Xu, FSME 

P. Louden, RIII 

A. Barker, RIII 

H. Logaras, RIII 

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\Work in progress\2009 Minnesota Periodic Meeting Summary.doc 

 Publicly Available Non-Publicly Available Sensitive Non-Sensitive

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the concurrence box "C" = Copy without attach/encl "E" = Copy with attach/encl "N" = No copy

OFFICE RIII C RIII RIII RIII 

NAME JLLynch:jc 

DATE 11/04/09 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Enclosure 

DISCUSSION: 

The Agreement State Program is administered by the Radioactive Materials Unit (the Unit), 

Indoor Environments and Radiation Section, Division of Environmental Health (the Division). 

The Division is a part of the Minnesota Department of Health. George Johns is the supervisor 

of the Radioactive Materials Unit. The Section manager position is currently vacant, with the 

recent promotion of Tom Hogan to Assistant Division Director. Minnesota regulates 

approximately 184 specific licenses. Management support for the Program appears excellent. 

The State’s initial IMPEP review was conducted in October 2007. The review team found 

Minnesota’s performance to be satisfactory for all performance indicators reviewed. The review 

team also identified one good practice: the mailing of licenses by certified mail to help ensure 

appropriate delivery. Accordingly, the review team recommended, and the Management 

Review Board agreed, that the Minnesota Agreement State Program was adequate to protect 

public health and safety, and compatible with NRC’s program. 

Other topics covered at the meeting included: 

Program Strengths: The diverse, competent staff is the most notable strength of the 

program. The Unit has excellent communications between staff members and has 

streamlined many processes without sacrificing the quality of regulatory products or the 

emphasis on protection of health and safety. The staff is very knowledgeable of the 

status of the program. Unit staff has a good understanding of new regulatory initiatives 

and associated expectations. 

, g,p

Sherrie Flaherty, Radiation Protection 

Specialist 

Sue McClanahan, Radiation Specialist 

Brandon Juran, Radiation Protection 

Specialist 

Bryce Armstrong, Radiation Specialist 

Norma Leland, Administrative 

Professional 
Enclosure 

The Unit expressed frustration with the National Source Tracking System (NSTS). A 

Minnesota licensee was unable to update the NSTS because the source vendor had 

apparently not updated the database to indicate that the source was transferred. The 

NRC representatives asked for detailed transaction information which can be provided to 

the NSTS program manager, for followup. 

The Division indicated that they appreciated the good support they receive from NRC 

Region III and enjoy the good relationship and communication that they have with NRC 

in general. The Division was also appreciative of NRC’s funding for Agreement State 

training. 

Staffing and Training: 

The Minnesota program has a Unit Supervisor, four technical staff, and an administrative 

support person. Three of the technical staff are fully trained and the fourth is working 

through his qualification journal. The staff members are cross-trained in all areas of the 

program. It was noted that the Supervisor and one of the senior technical staff members 

are retirement eligible. The Assistant Division Director stated that succession planning 

is being done to keep the program running smoothly as people leave the program. 

 

Technical positions in the Unit now require a Bachelor’s degree, a change made to 

upgrade the level of expertise in the program. 

Consideration is being given to hiring a health physics intern from the St. Cloud State 

University health physics program. 

Program Reorganizations: 

The Unit has not experienced any program reorganizations since the previous IMPEP 

review and none are expected. 

Changes in Program Budget/Funding: 

The Unit has a solid source of funding through a dedicated fee fund. The Program is 

currently paying off the deficit that was incurred during the Agreement State startup. 

That deficit should be paid within a year. 
Enclosure 

The Unit performs pre-licensing visits for all new license applicants that are unknown to

the program. NRC staff explained the pre-licensing visit evaluation criteria used during 

IMPEP reviews appears to be more conservative than Minnesota’s approach. NRC staff 

noted that the current policy for performing pre-licensing visits includes those applicants 

that have not held a license previously but have hired a known individual from a 

licensee’s program. The Unit Supervisor indicated that they would ensure that their prelicensing visit approach would be evaluated, and modified, if necessary to be 

comparable with NRC’s procedure. 

The Unit regularly performs reciprocity inspections, including, during the current year, 10 

of 11 Priority 1, 2 and 3 reciprocity licensees. Looking at all priorities, approximately 67 

percent of reciprocity licensees were inspected this year. Minnesota is easily meeting 

the inspection targets in Inspection Manual Chapter 1220. 

Staff members were aware of the recent Information Notice issued by the NRC 

regarding industrial gauge shutter issues. Minnesota issued its version of the 

Information Notice to gauge licensees on October 20, 2009. 

Materials Licensing Program: 

License actions are kept current with no licensing backlog. License applications are 

generally completed within 4 weeks of receipt. All licensing actions are peer reviewed 

and then reviewed and signed by the Unit Supervisor. This 3-part review helps maintain 

accuracy and consistency of license documents. 

Regulations and Legislative Changes: 

The State is up to date on all regulation amendments currently required for 

compatibility. The State creates an annual rulemaking package to incorporate 

changes made by NRC in the past year. The regulation promulgation process takes 

approximately 1 to 1.5 years to complete. The current 10 CFR Part 37 and general 

license rulemaking initiatives were discussed. 

Event Reporting, including Follow-up and Closure Information in NMED: 

The Bureau had reported eight events to NMED since the 2007 IMPEP review. All of the 

events were appropriately reported to the NRC, and were properly entered into, and 

updated, within NMED. Very good communication with Region III was noted during 

events. 
Enclosure 

Several allegations were received directly by the State during the period and were

investigated appropriately and in a timely fashion. 

Significant Events and Generic Implications: 

The Unit did not identify any significant events or generic issues since the 2007 

IMPEP review. 

Current State Initiatives: 

After positive encouragement from the NRC during the Monticello nuclear power plant 

ingestion exercise, a Unit staff member accompanied an NRC inspector during a reactor 

inspection. The accompaniment provided valuable insight to the State and increased 

communications with the NRC. Future accompaniments are planned, and were 

encouraged by NRC staff. 

The Unit holds semiannual meetings with licensee medical physicists to discuss 

regulatory issues, recent industry problems, and methods for increasing communication. 

These meetings have been very successful and were well received by the medical 

physics community. Information was shared with the NRC staff so that a similar effort 

could be instituted for NRC Region III licensees. 

A meeting is also being planned to meet with industrial radiography licensees to discuss 

options for obtaining portable shielding material in the event of an unshielded source 

event. This issue came to light during a recent radiography incident. 

Emerging Technologies: 

None noted. 

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

None noted. 

State’s Mechanisms to Evaluate Performance: 

The Unit uses peer reviews of licensing actions and inspection reports to insure the 

quality of regulatory products. Inspectors are accompanied annually by the Unit 

Supervisor. 
Enclosure 

level for staff members is on target. The State has established innovative outreach programs to

physicists, radiographers and neighboring Agreement States. Minnesota managers indicated 

that they will continue to support the IMPEP program, which they view as a valuable process. 

Schedule for the Next IMPEP Review: 

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

in late 2011.