July 7, 2014 

David B. Jansen, Director 

Office of Radiation Protection 

Washington Department of Health 

111 Israel Road, SE 

P.O. Box 47827 

Olympia, Washington 98504-7827 

Dear Mr. Jansen: 

A periodic meeting with your State was held on May 6, 2014. The purpose of this meeting was 

to review and discuss the status of the Washington Agreement State Program. The NRC was 

represented by Anton Vegel from the Division of Nuclear Materials Safety (DNMS) in NRC 

Region IV, Lisa Dimmick from the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs (FSME), 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 817-200-1143 or 

email Randy.Erickson@nrc.gov to discuss your concerns. 

 Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

 Randy Erickson 

 Regional State Agreements Officer 

Enclosure: 

Periodic Meeting Summary for Washington 

 UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

REGION IV

1600 E. LAMAR BLVD. 

ARLINGTON, TX 76011-4511
David B. Jansen, Director 

Office of Radiation Protection 

Washington Department of Health 

111 Israel Road, SE 

P.O. Box 47827 

Olympia, Washington 98504-7827 

Dear Mr. Jansen: 

A periodic meeting with your State was held on May 6, 2014. The purpose of this meeting was 

to review and discuss the status of the Washington Agreement State Program. The NRC was 

represented by Anton Vegel from the Division of Nuclear Materials Safety (DNMS) in NRC 

Region IV, Lisa Dimmick from the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs (FSME), 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 817-200-1143 or 

email Randy.Erickson@nrc.gov to discuss your concerns. 

 Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

 Randy Erickson 

 Regional State Agreements Officer 

Enclosure: 

Periodic Meeting Summary for Washington 

Distribution (via email): SP08 

Linda Howell, DNMS 

Mark Shaffer, FSME 

Laura Dudes, FSME 

Pamela Henderson, FSME 

Duncan White, FSME 

Binesh Tharakan, SAO 

Lisa Dimmick, FSME 

Michelle Beardsley, FSME 

Karen Meyer, FSME 

ML14189A007 

S:\DNMS\!SAO\Periodic Meetings\2014\Washington\2014 Washington Periodic Meeting Summary.docx 

ADAMS  Yes  No  SUNSI Review Complete Reviewer Initials: RRE 

Publicly Available  Yes  No Non Sensitive 

RIV: RSAO 

RRErickson 

7/7/12 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY T=Telephone E=E-mail F=Fax 
Enclosure 

AGREEMENT STATE PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY FOR THE 

WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

DATE OF MEETING: MAY 6, 2014 

NRC Attendees Washington Attendees 

Randy Erickson, RSAO David Jansen, Director 

Anton Vegel, R-IV Earl Fordham, Eastern Deputy Director 

Lisa Dimmick, FSME Craig Lawrence, Supervisor Materials 

 Mikel Elsen, Supervisor Waste Section 

DISCUSSION: 

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

(the Office) in the Division of Environmental Public Health (the Division). The Division is part of 

the Department of Health (the Department). 

The previous IMPEP review (ML13212A225) was conducted the week of May 6-10, 2013. At 

the conclusion of the review the team found Washington’s performance to be satisfactory for all 

performance indicators reviewed. The review team made one recommendation regarding 

program performance by the State. Accordingly, the review team recommended, and the MRB 

agreed, that the Washington Agreement State Program be found adequate to protect public 

health and safety and compatible with the NRC’s program. The team recommended that the 

next full IMPEP review take place in four years and have a periodic meeting in one year in order 

to monitor the Office’s transition to a new director. The MRB believed that the next review 

should be held in five years but agreed that the Periodic Meeting could be held in one year. 

The current status of the recommendation identified during the 2013 Washington final IMPEP 

report is summarized below. 

• The review team recommends that the State implement a process to ensure that 

radioactive material incidents involving sealed sources and devices registered by the 

State are periodically and independently assessed by the State for generic issues and 

that any potential generic issues are communicated to licensees and fellow regulators in 

a timely manner. (Section 4.2.3 of the 2013 IMPEP Report) 

Current Status: The Program reported they added a license condition to their own license 

requiring the review and implemented a process where one staff member performs six month 

reviews to ensure that radioactive material incidents involving sealed sources and devices 

registered by the State are periodically and independently assessed for generic issues and that 

any potential generic issues are communicated to licensees and fellow regulators in a timely 

manner. 

This process began immediately following the 2013 review. The individual initiating the process 

reviews NMED events to see if any of the events involve devices approved by Washington. To 

date they have not found any that have, but when they do, they will follow the process and 

evaluate any potential generic issues and provide that information to fellow regulators and 
Washington Periodic Meeting Summary Page 2 

licensees. A second staff member verifies that the review has been conducted timely and 

according to the established process. 

Other topics covered at the meeting included: 

Program Strengths: 

The Washington Program is a busy program with a highly motivated staff that is responsible 

for the licensing and inspection of approximately 390 specific materials licensees. 

Management support to the Program is outstanding and access to senior management is 

unencumbered. The Program noted that the dedication of their staff to making the program 

successful is a huge strength for them. 

The Program reported that as a program they are becoming progressively stronger. 

Funding is strong, training is good and they are fully staffed with the addition of a new staff 

member with a doctorate degree in Health Physics. The previous review noted turnover at 

the management positions. This has stabilized and they don’t anticipate any additional 

management changes in the near term. 

Program Weaknesses: 

While the Program has experienced success in filling positions in the materials program, 

they have concerns about how to retain experienced staff. They recently lost their database 

manager which is a short term setback for the program. They also lost their long term 

uranium recovery staff member to retirement. The program was successful in hiring a wellqualified individual and was able to double encumber the position for training and knowledge 

management purposes. They are also concerned about finding a more realizable source of 

funding for emergency response. 

Feedback on NRC’s Program: 

 The Program expressed their appreciation for the support they receive in the form of 

training from NRC. They have had little difficulty in getting staff into classes. 

 The Program noted that there are no available training classes in the waste area. They 

asked if NRC would consider providing training for those programs with waste programs, 

possibly in the form of a webinar. 

 

Staffing and training: 

The Washington Program is managed by the Office Director and two Deputy Directors with 

responsibility for six sections. One Deputy Director is located in the Olympia Office and is 

responsible for the operations of the X-Ray and Emergency Response Sections. The other 

Deputy Director is stationed in the Richland Office and is responsible for the Air Emissions, 

Environmental Sciences, Materials and Waste Sections. At present the Program is fully 

staffed with technical staff but needs to replace the database manager. They have had few 

problems getting into NRC training classes and augment that with additional training when 
Washington Periodic Meeting Summary Page 3 

available. They plan to send several staff to NMED training being held in Portland in 

October. 

Program reorganizations: 

The Program has not been subject to reorganization since the 2013 IMPEP review. 

Changes in Program budget/funding: 

The Program has not experienced any problems with budgeting or funding. 

Materials Inspection Program: 

The Program reported that they have not had any overdue inspections since the 2013 

review. Initial inspections are typically performed within 12 months of issuance. They 

continue to inspect reciprocity licensees and have not had difficulty performing inspections 

on at least 20 percent of candidate reciprocity licensees. The Program performs Increased 

Controls inspections concurrent with health and safety inspections. Supervisory 

accompaniments are performed annually by the technical leads. The Radioactive Materials 

Manager performs accompaniments of the technical leads. 

Licensing Program: 

The Program reported that the licensing program is active. Each of the staff performs both 

inspections and licensing actions as assigned. The technical leads perform the more 

advanced or complex licensing actions. The Program noted that licensing actions are 

tracked and that no backlogs exist. 

Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program (SS&D): 

The Program reported that the SS&D Program is a small part of their activities with only 

three actions being performed over the five year 2013 IMPEP review period. No actions 

have been performed since the review. At the time of the 2013 review the team noted one 

issue where sealed sources and devices registered by the State were not being periodically 

and independently assessed by the State for generic issues and then to communicate those 

issues to licensees and fellow regulators in a timely manner. The team made a 

recommendation in this area which has already been discussed. 

Uranium Recovery Program: 

At the time of the 2013 IMPEP review, the Waste Section had one licensed conventional mill 

site: the Dawn Mining Company. This site was placed in shutdown status and initiated 

reclamation and decommissioning activities in 2001. The process related buildings and 

structures were decommissioned and buried in 2003. The only activities at the site are 

related to surface reclamation and groundwater monitoring. The Program reported that the 

final radon barrier over three old tailings impoundments is scheduled to be completed by the 

end of summer 2014. The fourth old tailings impoundment has been covered with an interim 
Washington Periodic Meeting Summary Page 4 

cover. All of the surface reclamation, including erosion protection and a surface water 

diversion ditch, are scheduled to be completed by the end of the construction season in 

2016. 

Regulations and Legislative changes: 

The Program reported that no legislative packages affecting the Program were adopted 

since the 2013 IMPEP review. 

The following are regulations that still need to be addressed by the Program. 

• “Exemptions From Licensing, General Licenses, and Distribution of Byproduct Material: 

Licensing and Reporting Requirements,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 31, 32, and 150 amendments 

(72 FR 58473), that was due for Agreement State adoption by December 17, 2010. 

Event reporting, including follow-up and closure information in NMED.

Since the 2013 IMPEP review, the Program had reported five events to NMED, with one 

remaining open. The event can be closed and the Program indicated they will close it. 

Response to incidents and allegations.

The Program continues to be sensitive to notifications of incidents and allegations. 

Incidents are quickly reviewed for their affect on public health and safety. Incidents are 

evaluated for safety significance and staff is dispatched to perform onsite investigations 

whenever possible. 

Status of allegations and concerns referred by the NRC for action. 

The Program continues to process allegations as they are received. Since the 2013 IMPEP 

review, the NRC has referred two allegations to the Program. Each of the allegations 

received by the Program have been investigated and closed. The Program continues to be 

sensitive to issues of identity protection regarding allegers. 

Current NRC initiatives: 

The following NRC initiatives were discussed with the Program: 

 FSME – NMSS Merger 

 NRC’s inspector qualification program (IMC 1248) 

 Updates on the NUREG 1556 series revisions 

 Rulemaking Initiatives (Parts 35, 37 and 61) 

 Performance Based Compatibility 

 FSME and RCPD Letters 

 Policy Statements for Agreement States on Adequacy and Compatibility 

 
Washington Periodic Meeting Summary Page 5 

Schedule for the next IMPEP review:

It is recommended that the next IMPEP review to be held on schedule in May 2018 with 

another Periodic Meeting in two years.