UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

1600 E. LAMAR BLVD.

ARLINGTON, TX 76011-4511

 

July 26, 2016

David B. Jansen, Director

Office of Radiation Protection

Department of Health

111 Israel Road, SE

P.O. Box 47827

Olympia, WA 98504-7827

Dear Mr. Jansen: 

A periodic meeting with you and your staff was held on May 26, 2016. The purpose of this 

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

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission was represented by Linda Howell, Deputy Director, 

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety and me.

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

resulting from the discussions. A Management Review Board (MRB) meeting to discuss the 

outcome of the periodic meeting has been scheduled for August 30, 2016 at 1:00 p.m. (EST). 

Call in information for the MRB will be provided in a separate transmission. 

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 

via e-mail at Randy.Erickson@nrc.gov to discuss your concerns.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Randy R. Erickson

State Agreements Officer

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety

Enclosure: 

Periodic Meeting Summary
David B. Jansen, Director

Office of Radiation Protection

Department of Health

111 Israel Road, SE

P.O. Box 47827

Olympia, WA 98504-7827

Dear Mr. Jansen: 

A periodic meeting with you and your staff was held on May 26, 2016. The purpose of this 

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

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission was represented by Linda Howell, Deputy Director, 

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety and me.

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

resulting from the discussions. A Management Review Board (MRB) meeting to discuss the 

outcome of the periodic meeting has been scheduled for August 30, 2016 at 1:00 p.m. (EST). 

Call in information for the MRB will be provided in a separate transmission. 

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 

via e-mail at Randy.Erickson@nrc.gov to discuss your concerns.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Randy R. Erickson

State Agreements Officer

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety

Enclosure: 

Periodic Meeting Summary

DISTRIBUTION: SP08

M. Shaffer, D:DNMS L. Howell, DD:DNMS V. Campbell, TA:DNMS

D. Collins, D: NMSS P. Henderson, NMSS P. Michalak, NMSS

R. Erickson, SAO B. Tharakan, SAO L. Dimmick, NMSS

M. Beardsley, NMSS K. Meyer, NMSS D. White, NMSS

S:\DNMS\!SAO\Periodic Meetings\2016\Washington\2016 Washington Periodic Meeting Summary.docx ML16208A040

X SUNSI Review

By: RRE

ADAMS

X Yes 

No

X Publicly Available 

 Non-Publicly 

Available

X Non-Sensitive

 Sensitive

Keyword:

OFFICE RIV:SAO

NAME RRErickson

SIGNATURE

DATE 7/ /16

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
AGREEMENT STATE PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY FOR

WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

DATE OF MEETING: MAY 26, 2016

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) Attendees

Washington Department of Health Attendees

Randy Erickson, State Agreements 

Officer, Region IV

David Jansen, Director

Office of Radiation Protection

Linda Howell, Deputy Director, 

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, 

Region IV

Earl Fordham, Eastern Deputy Director

Office of Radiation Protection

Chris Williams, Western Deputy Director

Office of Radiation Protection

Craig Lawrence, Supervisor Materials Section

Office of Radiation Protection

Mikel Elsen, Supervisor Waste Section

Office of Radiation Protection

Nine additional Office of Radiation Protection Staff 

Members

DISCUSSION:

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

Protection in the Division of Environmental Public Health. The Division is part of the 

Department of Health.

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 which is discussed later in this report. 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 U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) 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. That 

periodic meeting was held with the Program on May 6, 2014 (ML14189A007).

Program Challenges

An objection was raised by a licensee regarding Washington’s unannounced inspection 

program. Washington is continuing to conduct inspections while examining options to ensure 

that unannounced inspections can be fully supported. One option they discussed was placing a 

statement on all applications for licenses which grants the agency permission to inspect under 

their existing regulations for conducting inspections. Other options are also being considered.

The Program reported that the primary challenge facing them today is succession planning. 

Currently they have between 3 and 4 senior staff who plan to retire by the time of the next 

IMPEP review in 2018. They are developing plans on how to deal with the rapidly approaching 

loss of experience and knowledge. 
Washington Department of Health

Periodic Meeting Summary Page 2

During the 2014 Periodic Meeting, the Program was concerned about how to retain experienced 

staff. Some had left the Program and while they had been able to rehire qualified individuals, 

they had concerns about their ability to continue to effectively fill vacancies. Prior to the 2014 

Periodic Meeting, they had also lost their database manager, which when it happened was 

considered a short term setback for the Program, but the position now no longer exists and that 

individual’s duties have been spread across the technical staff adding to their workload. 

Feedback on NRC’s Program

The Program expressed their appreciation for NRC sponsored training and they really like 

NRC’s use of webinars to minimize out of state travel and make it possible to provide training to 

more staff. The Program noted that webinars are often held too early for the west coast states. 

The Program asked NRC to keep that in mind when scheduling webinars.

The Program appreciated their communication with NRC through the State Agreement Officer. 

They noted their needs are handled quickly, getting them the information they needed when 

they needed it.

The Program also commented on NRC providing excellent licensing guidance, specifically for 

some of the more complex licensing issues that have come up. 

The Program also discussed the possibility of hosting certain NRC courses in Washington. A 

discussion was held regarding how NRC now conducts training courses and that most of the 

courses that were previously able to be held in other locations are not necessarily able to be 

held in other locations any longer for various reasons, not withstanding current travel 

restrictions. 

Program Reorganizations

There have been no reorganizations since the 2013 IMPEP review. 

Program Budget/Funding

The Program reported that revenue has been dropping off as some licensees are terminating 

their licenses and many medical facilities are consolidating licenses. At the present time the 

budget has not had a negative impact on the Program. Their last fee increase was in 2008. 

Currently they are proposing an across the board fee increase and adjusting the fee structure. 

In the future they have plans to completely restructure the fee structure as it is known today. 

Technical Staffing and Training (2013 IMPEP: Satisfactory)

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 the time of the meeting, the Program had a total of 10 technical positions dedicated to the 

radioactive materials program. Since the 2013 IMPEP review, they hired two individuals to 

replace two others who had left. They currently have one vacancy. 
Washington Department of Health

Periodic Meeting Summary Page 3

The Program has a documented training plan consistent with NRC’s Inspection Manual Chapter 

(IMC) 1248, “Qualification Programs for Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs.” A discussion was held to clarify the 24 hour continuing education 

requirement and the various ways that this requirement can be met. 

Managers asked if they were required to send their staff to NRC courses to qualify them as 

inspectors or license reviewers. A discussion was held to explain that while a program needs to 

have qualification requirements that are similar to those listed in IMC 1248, they are not 

specifically required to send their staff to NRC courses to qualify them. Qualification of staff is a 

management decision and needs to be based on an individual’s education, training and work 

experience. How that is achieved is up to the Program. What they need to have is a 

documented training program and then follow it. It was explained that if a staff member were to 

come to the Program with training or work experience that is equivalent to, or surpasses that of 

an NRC course, management can use their discretion to waive attending a training course in 

lieu of that training and/or work experience. They could also chose to send a staff member to 

any number of alternate training courses. They just need to fully document how that decision 

was made. 

Subsequent to the meeting, the Program was provided with a guidance document entitled, 

“NRC/OAS TRAINING WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AGREEMENT

STATE TRAINING PROGRAMS” which details methods agreed upon by NRC and the 

Organization of Agreement States (OAS) for alternative methods for training. This document 

was previously used under the former IMC 1246 for the period of time when NRC was not 

funding Agreement State training. 

Status of Materials Inspection Program (2013 IMPEP: Satisfactory)

Technical Quality of Inspections (2013 IMPEP: Satisfactory)

The Materials Section conducted 282 Priority 1, 2, and 3 inspections since the 2013 IMPEP 

review. None were conducted overdue. In addition, the Program performed 14 initial 

inspections over the same period. None were performed overdue. 

The Program reported that they also performed more than 20 percent of all reciprocity 

notifications in each year since the previous review. 

The Program reported that they are meeting the 30 day goal of forwarding inspection findings to 

licensees following an inspection.

The Materials Section Supervisor accompanies each Health Physicist annually and each 

Program Manager (seniors in the major program areas) every other year. In the interim years, 

Program Managers performed peer accompaniments of each other. The Materials Section 

used this system to afford the Program Managers the benefit of being accompanied by senior 

staff members and accompaniments by the Materials Section supervisor. This method for 

annual supervisor accompaniments has been in place for years.

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (2013 IMPEP: Satisfactory)

The Program currently has 336 specific licensees which is down from 390 at the time of the 

2013 IMPEP review. The Materials Section completed a total of 917 licensing actions since the 

2013 IMPEP review. License renewals occur at 5 year intervals. The Program currently has 15 

licenses under timely renewal. 
Washington Department of Health

Periodic Meeting Summary Page 4

The Materials Section performs pre-licensing checks on all new applicants. The Materials 

Section has a policy of hand delivering all new licenses. Each applicant is subject to an onsite 

evaluation of their radiation safety and security programs prior to license receipt. This practice 

ensures that applicants have adequate radiation safety and security programs in place prior to 

the licensees’ taking possession of radioactive material. This also serves as the pre-licensing 

visit. This practice has not changed since the 2013 IMPEP review.

Technical Quality of Incidents and Allegations (2013 IMPEP: Satisfactory)

When notified of an incident or an allegation, the Materials Section Supervisor and staff discuss 

the initial response and the need for an on-site investigation. If the incident meets one of the 

reporting thresholds identified in SA-300, the Materials Section notifies the NRC Headquarters 

Operation Officer (HOO) and opens a case in NMED. Regardless of whether or not an event 

meets HOO reporting requirements, all incidents are reported to the NMED database. 

At the time of the meeting the incident staff had reported 21 events to the NMED database since 

the 2013 IMPEP review. At the time of the meeting, 13 events were still open. 

The Program received six allegations since the 2013 IMPEP review. Four allegations were 

reported directly to the Program and two allegations were received from NRC. NRC also 

referred two misdirected calls to the Program. 

Regulations and Legislative Changes (2013 IMPEP: Satisfactory)

The Program’s regulations for control of radiation are found in the Washington Administrative 

Code and apply to all radioactive materials and devices designed to produce radiation. 

Washington’s radiation regulations are not subject to any “sunset” laws. There have been no 

significant legislative changes affecting the Program since the 2013 IMPEP review.

At the time of the 2013 IMPEP review, no regulations were overdue for adoption. At the time of 

the 2016 Periodic Meeting, two regulations due for adoption on 8/16/15 and 10/23/15 

respectively (RATS IDs 2012-3 and 2012-4) were with NRC for a final compatibility review. 

RATS ID 2013-1 (Part 37) was working its way through the Washington rulemaking process. 

Washington passed an emergency rulemaking to meet the Part 37 adoption deadline, but that 

emergency rulemaking expired in 120 days. On July 15, 2016, Washington adopted their Part 

37 rules. There was no gap between expiration of the emergency rulemaking and adoption of 

the final rule. There are still two comments on the rule to be resolved. That will be submitted in 

a future rulemaking.

Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program (2013 IMPEP: Satisfactory)

At the time of the 2013 IMPEP review the Washington Program had five staff who were qualified 

to perform SS&D reviews. That number was the same during the 2016 Periodic Meeting. 

Management pointed out that four of those individuals are likely to retire prior to the 2018 

IMPEP review. Managers inquired about when the next SS&D training course would be held 

because of this anticipated need to get additional staff trained prior to the departure of these 

individuals. The next SS&D course is anticipated to be held in 2017 which should help the 

Program meet this need. 

The Program reported they currently have 22 SS&D Registrations for nine manufacturers. 

Seven of those are active and 15 need to be inactivated. Since the 2013 IMPEP review they 

have completed two amendments for one iodine seed manufacturer. 
Washington Department of Health

Periodic Meeting Summary Page 5

At the time of the 2013 IMPEP review, the team found that the Program did not have a 

process in place for evaluating the root causes of radioactive materials incidents involving 

SS&D registered by the State and to identify potential generic issues. They relied on the 

manufacturer or distributor of the sources or devices to notify the State of any generic issues. 

The team discussed with the Program the importance of conducting an independent 

assessment of incidents for generic issues due to the national implications of the sealed 

sources or devices being distributed across the country. The review team noted that the 

State has a responsibility to notify its licensees and co-regulators of potential generic issues 

with sealed sources and devices issued by the State.

Because of this the 2013 IMPEP team made one recommendation for the State. That 

recommendation was reviewed during the 2014 Periodic Meeting and again during the 2016 

Periodic Meeting. 

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 

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

according to the established process.

LLRW/UR Technical Staffing and Training (2013 IMPEP Rating: Satisfactory) 

The Waste Section currently has five full-time and part-time technical, managerial, and 

administrative staff members devoted to the LLRW program. The LLRW program is also 

supported by the Environmental Sciences Section, the Materials Section, and the Air Emissions 

Section. The staff that currently supports the LLRW program includes the Waste Section 

Supervisor, an administrative assistant, and staff members with diversified backgrounds in 

health physics, engineering, and earth sciences. Since the 2013 IMPEP review, four staff have 

left the Section, two have been replaced and they currently have two vacancies. While during 

the 2013 IMPEP review, the Section believed they had adequate staffing, but due to changes in 

workload they now believe they could use one additional staff member in the Waste Program. 
Washington Department of Health

Periodic Meeting Summary Page 6

The Section is a part of the Program’s documented training plan which is consistent with NRC’s 

Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 1248, “Qualification Programs for Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs.” 

The Section reported that two staff are devoted to the uranium recovery program to perform 

inspections and licensing activities for the Dawn site. Staff have a wide range of technical 

expertise including health physics, engineering, geohydrology, and geochemistry. 

LLRW/UR Status of the Inspection Program (2013 IMPEP Rating: Satisfactory)

LLRW/UR Technical Quality of Inspections (2013 IMPEP Rating: Satisfactory)

The Program reported that the disposal site is inspected annually. Module inspections are 

performed quarterly which by the end of the year completes their annual inspection. The 

Program reported that they are not behind on inspections and that since the 2013 IMPEP 

review, none were conducted overdue. Inspection findings are typically conveyed to the 

licensee at the completion of the inspection. 

The Program reported that the Waste Section also performs both annual radiation safety 

inspections of the Dawn Mining facility. The inspections cover all aspects of the uranium 

recovery program. They also perform routine field inspections throughout the year. At the time 

of the 2013 IMPEP review the Program had no overdue inspections. The Program did not have 

any overdue inspections at the time of the 2016 Periodic Meeting. Inspection findings are 

typically issued to licensees within 30 days following completion of the inspection. 

The Waste Section supervisor performs annual inspector accompaniments of each of the 

inspectors in both the waste and uranium recovery program areas. 

LLRW/UR Technical Quality of Licensing (2013 IMPEP Rating: Satisfactory)

The Program reported that the Waste Section currently has five licensees holding seven 

licenses. Since the 2013 IMPEP review, they have received 11 licensing actions for those 

licensees. All licensing actions have been or are being handled in a timely manner. 

LLRW/UR Technical Quality of Incidents and Allegations (2013 IMPEP Rating: Satisfactory)

The Program reported that since the 2013 IMPEP review they have not received any reports of 

incidents nor have they received any allegations in ether the waste or uranium recovery 

programs. They have appropriate procedures in place for handling incidents and allegations. 

Information Exchange

Current State Initiatives

Program managers presented several initiatives ongoing within the Department. These 

included:

• The Program has purchased tablets for the inspection staff and is moving towards 

integrating field automation tools into how they do business. 

• The Program continues to explore options for how to effectively obtain permission from 

licensees to perform unannounced inspections. 
Washington Department of Health

Periodic Meeting Summary Page 7

• The Program is considering options for how to restructure their fees to allow them to 

deal with declining revenue sources.

• The Program is completing the transfer of control of US Ecology from the Department of 

Ecology to the Department of Health.

Current NRC Initiatives

NRC managers presented several initiatives ongoing at NRC. These included:

• Project AIM 2020

• Rebaselining

• Management Changes

• Staff Consolidations

• Leaving of Commissioner Ostendorf

• Agreement State training

• Changing licensing renewals from 10 to 15 years

• Proposed Rulemaking

• Revising Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2800

CONCLUSIONS:

NRC staff recommends that the next IMPEP review be conducted as scheduled in May 2018.