August 28, 2001

F. E. Thompson, Jr., M.D.

State Health Officer 

Mississippi Department of Health

570 East Woodrow Wilson Avenue

Jackson, MS 39216

Dear Dr. Thompson:

On August 16, 2001, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Mississippi

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

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

NRC recognizes the efforts of Mississippi and the other Agreement States to maintain an

adequate and compatible program. During the MRB meeting, the impact of high staff turnover on

the Mississippi Agreement Program was discussed. Mississippi’s efforts to maintain an effective

program while at the same time devoting significant effort in hiring and training new staff by

experienced staff is commendable. We note the present level of funding given to the Mississippi

Program has a certain level of fragility associated with it. Your consideration of methods to

minimize staff turnover could result in further strengthening of the program. For example, other

Agreement States have examined salary structures in their assessment of staff turnover.

Section 5.0, page 14, of the enclosed final report presents the IMPEP team’s recommendations for

the State of Mississippi. We request your evaluation and response to these recommendations

within 30 days from receipt of this letter.

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 and your

support of the Radiation Control Program. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work

cooperatively in the future.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Carl J. Paperiello 

Deputy Executive Director 

 for Materials, Research and State Programs

Enclosure: 

As stated

cc: See next page.
F. E. Thompson, Jr., M.D. 2

cc: Kaye Bender, Deputy State Health Officer

Mississippi Department of Health

Ricky Boggan, Director

Office of Health Regulations

Rick Herrington, Director

Bureau of Environmental Health

Robert W. Goff, Director

Division of Radiological Health

Pearce O’ Kelley, SC

OAS Liaison to the MRB

 
F. E. Thompson, Jr., M.D. August 28, 2001

State Health Officer 

Mississippi Department of Health

570 East Woodrow Wilson Avenue

Jackson, MS 39216

Dear Dr. Thompson:

On August 16, 2001, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Mississippi

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

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

NRC recognizes the efforts of Mississippi and the other Agreement States to maintain an

adequate and compatible program. During the MRB meeting, the impact of high staff turnover on

the Mississippi Agreement Program was discussed. Mississippi’s efforts to maintain an effective

program while at the same time devoting significant effort in hiring and training new staff by

experienced staff is commendable. We note the present level of funding given to the Mississippi

Program has a certain level of fragility associated with it. Your consideration of methods to

minimize staff turnover could result in further strengthening of the program. For example, other

Agreement States have examined salary structures in their assessment of staff turnover.

Section 5.0, page 14, of the enclosed final report presents the IMPEP team’s recommendations for

the State of Mississippi. We request your evaluation and response to these recommendations

within 30 days from receipt of this letter.

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 and your

support of the Radiation Control Program. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work

cooperatively in the future.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Carl J. Paperiello 

Deputy Executive Director 

 for Materials, Research and State Programs

Enclosure: As stated

Distribution:

DIR RF FCameron, OGC DCD (SP01)

SDroggitis, STP TCombs, OCA PDR (YES/)

LRakovan, STP RTrojanowski, RII

BHamrick, CA Mississippi State File bcc: Chairman Meserve

RWoodruff, RII Commissioner Dicus

SSalomon, STP Commissioner McGaffigan

DCool, NMSS Commissioner Merrifield

GDeegan, NMSS

STreby, OGC

DOCUMENT NAME: I:\Reviews\MS01\2001 MS 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 Cmaupin:kk

(By KNSchneider)

FCombs PLohaus CPaperiello

DATE 08/21/01* 08/22/01* 08/22/01* 08/28/01

 STP-AG-15
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

REVIEW OF MISSISSIPPI AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

May 21-25, 2001

FINAL REPORT

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 
Mississippi Final Report Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the review of the Mississippi radiation control program. The

review was conducted during the period May 21-25, 2001, by a review team comprised of

technical staff members from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the State of

California. Team members are identified in Appendix A. The review was conducted in

accordance with the “Implementation of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program

and Recission of 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 January 31, 1997 to May 21, 2001, were discussed with Mississippi management on May

25, 2001.

A draft of this report was issued to Mississippi for factual comment on June 22, 2001. The State

responded in a letter dated July 9, 2001. The Management Review Board (MRB) met on August

16, 2001 to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the Mississippi radiation control

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

The Mississippi Agreement State Program is administered by the Division of Radiological Health

(the Division) with the day-to-day operations managed by the Radioactive Materials Branch (the

Branch). The Division also contains the X-Ray Branch and the Environmental, Emergency

Response, Radioactive Waste, and Transportation Branch. The Division is located within the

Bureau of Environmental Health of the Office of Health Regulation. The Office of Health

Regulation is located within the Mississippi Department of Health (the Department), which is

overseen by the State Health Officer, who is appointed by and reports to the Governor. The

Division is under the supervision of the Division Director and the Branch is under the supervision

of the Health Physicist Administrative (Branch Director). The Branch Director reports directly to

the Division Director. An organization chart for the Department is included as Appendix B. At the

time of the review, the Mississippi Agreement State Program regulated 314 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 Mississippi. 

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

performance indicators was sent to the Division on February 21, 2001. The Division provided its

response to the questionnaire on April 25, 2001. A copy of the questionnaire response is included

as Appendix G of the proposed final report and can be found on the NRC’s Agencywide

Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) using the accession number

(ML012200223).

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

the Division's response to the questionnaire, (2) review of applicable Mississippi statutes and

regulations, (3) analysis of quantitative information from the Division licensing and inspection data

bases, (4) technical review of selected files, (5) field accompaniments of three Branch inspectors,

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

evaluated the information that it gathered against the IMPEP performance criteria for each
Mississippi Final Report Page 2

common and applicable non-common indicator and made a preliminary assessment of the

radiation control program’s performance. 

Section 2 below discusses the Division's actions in response to recommendations made following

the previous review. Results of 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 and

recommendations. Recommendations made by the review team are comments that relate directly

to performance by the Division. A response is requested from the Division to all recommendations

in the final report. 

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS

During the previous routine review, which concluded on January 31, 1997, six recommendations

were made and the results were transmitted to Mr. Ricky L. Boggan, Director, Bureau of

Environmental Health, on May 23, 1997. The team’s review of the current status of these

recommendations is as follows:

1. The review team recommends that all initial inspections be performed within six months of

license issuance or within six months of the licensee's receipt of material and

commencement of operations, consistent with Inspection Manuel Chapter (IMC) 2800. 

Current Status: The Division implemented this recommendation. The Division revised its

policy to require that all licensees receive an initial inspection within the first six months of

license issuance or within six months of the licensee’s receipt of material and

commencement of operations. However, as discussed in Section 3.1, the Division’s ability

to perform these inspections timely was impacted by the loss of staff. This

recommendation is closed.

2. The review team recommends that the State give priority to filling the vacant HP Trainee

position. 

Current Status: The Division implemented this recommendation by filling the HP trainee

position in 1997. This recommendation is closed. 

3. The team recommends that all "temporary job location" licensees be notified of their

responsibility for determining federal jurisdiction, and that the All Agreement States Letter

SP-96-022 be utilized to revise the State's standard license condition for use of material at

temporary job sites. 

Current Status: The Division implemented this recommendation by notifying all licensees

that perform licensed activities at temporary job-sites of their responsibility for determining

federal jurisdiction. The Division revised its standard license condition for use of

radioactive material at temporary job sites as suggested in the All Agreement States Letter

SP-96-022. This recommendation is closed. 
Mississippi Final Report Page 3

4. The team recommends the use of deficiencies closely follow the revised enforcement

procedure, particularly when regulations are cited. 

Current Status: This recommendation is no longer applicable. The Division’s enforcement

procedure has been modified to eliminate the use of deficiencies. Violations of regulations

or license conditions are cited consistently with the Division’s revised enforcement

procedures. This recommendation is closed. 

5. The review team recommends that the State send in information of the reportable events

that were not previously reported to NRC and continue voluntary reporting of all reportable

events in the Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED) database system collection of

material events by providing event information directly into the NMED system electronically

or providing compatible information in written form, in accordance with guidance contained

in the "Handbook on Nuclear Material Event Reporting in the Agreement States," Draft

Report, March 1995. 

Current Status: The Division implemented this recommendation. Division staff received

NMED training on April 16, 1997 from NRC staff. Staff is currently entering all event

reports in the NMED system. This recommendation is closed.

6. The team recommends that the State review and revise, as appropriate, its procedures for

conducting onsite response to incidents whenever there is a potential for radiation

exposure or radioactive contamination of the public. 

Current Status: The Division implemented this recommendation. During the review

period, the Division responded to all incidents in a manner commensurate with their health

and safety significance. This recommendation is closed.

The 1997 review team also offered five suggestions for the Division to consider. The team found

that the Division considered and adopted all five suggestions.

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 include: (1) Status of Materials Inspection

Program, (2)Technical Quality of Inspections, (3) Technical Staffing and Training, (4)Technical

Quality of Licensing Actions, and (5) Response to Incidents and Allegations. 

3.1 Status of Materials Inspection Program

The team focused on four factors in reviewing this indicator: inspection frequency, overdue

inspections, initial inspection of new licenses, and timely dispatch of inspection findings to

licensees. The review team's evaluation is based on the Division’s questionnaire responses, data

gathered independently from the Division’s licensing and inspection data tracking system, the

examination of completed licensing and inspection casework, and interviews with management

and staff.
Mississippi Final Report Page 4

The team found that the Division’s inspection priorities required inspections as frequent as, or

more frequent than, IMC 2800 for similar license types. For example, the inspection of welllogging licensees was Priority 2 on the Division’s schedule and Priority 3 in IMC 2800. 

Due to a significant loss of staff during 1998, as discussed in depth in Section 3.3, not all

inspections were conducted at the required frequency during the review period. Specifically, the

team reviewed 63 inspections, including 31 core licenses, to determine the number of overdue

inspections completed by the Division during the review period. Of the inspections reviewed, 25

out of 63 inspections were performed overdue by more than 25% of the NRC frequency. On

average, these inspections were performed overdue by approximately 50% of the NRC frequency. 

During the time-frame when the majority of overdue inspections were performed, the Branch

Director managed the significant backlog by deferring, rescheduling and performing inspections

himself. There was no apparent health and safety impact or type of license bias due to the

deferrals. The Branch fully recovered from the loss of staff in the inspection program by January

2000. The review team found the Division’s response to the loss of staff acceptable and no

performance issues were identified. 

At the time of the review, only one license was overdue for inspection; however, the license had

not been actively operating since 1995. A decommissioning plan had recently been incorporated

into the license, and a pre-decommissioning site visit was scheduled for the week following the

IMPEP review. 

As noted in Section 2.0, the Division revised its policy to require that all licensees receive an initial

inspection within the first six months of license issuance or receipt of material. However, this

procedure is not yet reflected in the Division’s written procedures regarding initial inspections. 

The review team and Branch staff discussed updating the procedures to reflect the current policy

of the Division. The Division’s ability to actually perform initial inspections within six months of

license issuance was impacted until January 2000 due to the loss of staff. The Division issued 85

new licenses during the review period. The review team evaluated four initial inspections. Of

these, three were performed more than six months after license issuance, from seven to fourteen

months after license issuance. At the time of the review, there were no new licenses overdue for

the initial inspection.

The team also noted that new licenses were hand delivered to the core medical licensees. The

inspectors used the opportunity to discuss the requirements of the license and the regulations with

the licensee, and to verify that the equipment and facilities were as represented in the license

application. The Branch Director indicated that this initial face-to-face meeting with the licensees

was a very valuable tool for achieving future compliance with license conditions. The visit also

allowed the Branch staff to make sure that the licensee’s safety program was in place and

permitted open discussion with the licensee about compliance requirements. The Division does

not consider these new license visits as substituting for the initial inspection.

During the inspection casework review, the team evaluated the timeliness of the Division in

providing inspection findings to the licensees. Division’s procedure required providing inspection

findings to the licensees “as soon as possible” after the inspection. Of the 21 inspections

reviewed, all the inspection reports were issued within 30 days. 
Mississippi Final Report Page 5

To evaluate the reciprocity inspection program, the review team evaluated a manually kept log of

reciprocity inspections, reciprocity inspection files, and the Division’s response to the IMPEP

questionnaire. In the IMPEP questionnaire response, the team noted that the breakdown by

inspection priority of licensees granted reciprocity reflects the Division’s assigned inspection

priorities. In many cases, the Division’s reciprocity priorities exceed that of the NRC. Overall

during the review period, the Division did meet the IMC 1220 goals, although that is not reflected

in the data provided in the Division’s response to the IMPEP questionnaire. 

The criteria in Management Directive 5.6 allow that in programs where management addresses

deficiencies and completes actions to deal with overdue inspections and other aspects affecting

the status of the materials inspection program, a finding of satisfactory is supported as opposed to

a satisfactory with recommendations for improvement or unsatisfactory finding. In this case,

consistent with this criteria for a satisfactory rating, Division management was aware of the

backlog of inspections and took mitigative actions such as hiring and training new staff, prioritizing

inspections, and balancing staff workload to bring the program up-to-date at the time of the

review.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Mississippi’s

performance with respect to the indicator, Status of the Materials Inspection Program, be found

satisfactory.

3.2 Technical Quality of Inspections

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

and interviewed inspectors for 21 inspections conducted during the review period. The casework

included all three of the Branch's materials license inspectors, and covered inspections of various

types including radiography, medical, academic, portable gauge, nuclear pharmacy, and a pool

irradiator. Appendix C lists the inspection casework files reviewed for completeness and

adequacy with case-specific comments. 

Based on the casework, the review team noted that routine inspections covered all aspects of the

licensees’ radiation programs. The review team found that inspection reports were thorough,

complete, consistent, and of high quality, with sufficient documentation to ensure that licensees’

performance with respect to health and safety was acceptable. The documentation supported

violations, and recommendations made to the licensee, unresolved safety issues, and discussions

held with the licensee during exit interviews. Team inspections were performed when appropriate

and for training purposes.

The inspection procedures utilized by the Branch were consistent with the inspection guidance

outlined in NRC’s IMC 2800, although the review team discussed the addition of language

regarding root cause evaluation to the procedures. Inspection reports are in a format that covers

all inspection areas for each inspection type. 

The Branch has an adequate number and variety of survey meters to support the current

inspection program. Survey meters are calibrated at least annually by a contractor. The team

observed that the Branch had appropriately calibrated survey instruments, such as GM meters,

scintillation detectors, ion chambers, micro-R meters and neutron meters. The Branch also has
Mississippi Final Report Page 6

access to a very well-equipped on-site laboratory, which includes a multi-channel analyzer

system, three high purity germanium detectors, one lithium drifted germanium detector, two liquid

scintillation counting systems, and two low background alpha/beta counting systems for counting

wipes, soil samples, water samples and other samples. 

During the review period, the Branch Director performed inspector accompaniments with each of

the staff at least annually. These accompaniments are listed in the Division’s response to the

IMPEP questionnaire. 

Three inspectors were accompanied by an IMPEP team member during the week of May 14,

2001. The accompaniments included inspections of a nuclear pharmacy, a field radiographic site,

and a nuclear medicine clinic. The facilities inspected are identified in Appendix C.

During the accompaniments, each inspector demonstrated appropriate inspection techniques, 

knowledge of the regulations, and conducted performance-based inspections. The inspectors

were trained, well prepared for the inspection, and thorough in its audits of the licensees’ radiation

safety programs. Each inspector conducted effective interviews with appropriate licensee

personnel, observed licensed operations, conducted confirmatory measurements, and utilized

good health physics practices. Their inspections were adequate to assess radiological health and

safety at the licensed facilities.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Mississippi’s

performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, be found satisfactory.

3.3 Technical Staffing and Training

Issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the Branch’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 Division's questionnaire responses, interviewed

Division management and staff, reviewed job descriptions, training plans, and training records. 

The review team also considered any possible workload backlogs in evaluating this indicator. 

The Branch is authorized for five positions. These positions include the Branch Director, two

Health Physicist (HP) Senior positions, and two HP positions. All HP staff perform duties in

licensing, inspection, and event response. Balance between the licensing and inspection

functions is achieved by basing staff assignments on program needs. 

Successful candidates for technical positions are required to have a bachelor's degree in science

for a first level HP and a master's degree and/or additional radiation-related work experience for

positions beyond entry level. The team noted that the Division has been able to recruit qualified

staff.

The Branch has a documented training plan that is consistent with the requirements in the

NRC/Organization of Agreement States Training Working Group Report and IMC 1246. The

Branch also has on-the-job training to supplement the course work so that individuals may

broaden their work areas. As a part of the Branch’s in-house and on-the-job training processes,

new staff members are assigned increasingly complex licensing duties under the direction of
Mississippi Final Report Page 7

senior staff and accompany experienced inspectors during increasingly complicated inspections. 

New staff inspectors are assigned independent inspections after demonstrating competence

during accompaniment evaluations by the senior staff. The Branch Director determines when the

individual is proficient and can perform the assigned tasks independently. The inspection reports

and licensing actions of new staff are also closely reviewed by the Branch Director and Division

Director. The team noted that the Branch exhibited a strong commitment to training during the

review. 

Four staff members departed during the IMPEP review period for higher paying positions. Three

staff members departed in 1998. These departures included one HP Senior, one HP, and one HP

trainee. For a short period in September 1998, the Branch consisted of the Branch Director and

one HP, who was in training. 

During the 1997 IMPEP review, the Division Director indicated that short-term inspection backlogs

could occur if additional staff effort is needed to respond to events, or if either of the two senior

staff members left the Branch. Although there were no backlogs in routine licensing actions and

inspections at the time of the review, there were delays in inspections and updating of regulations

as a result of the large staff turnover. 

From January 1, 1998 through October 5, 1999, the Branch Director assumed the responsibilities

of an HP Senior by conducting the licensing actions and inspections of all Priority 1 and 2

applications and licenses, by conducting all reciprocity inspections, and by responding to all

incidents. Also, the Branch Director hired, developed, and trained new staff during this period. 

The Division Director assumed the lead responsibility for updating regulations. The Division's

efforts to maintain their program while at the same time devoting significant effort in hiring and

training new staff by experienced staff throughout the review period are commendable. 

 

The Branch filled the three vacancies expediently and promptly trained the new staff. However,

the newly hired HP Senior subsequently left the Branch in February 2001, which resulted in a

vacant HP Senior position at the time of the review. This vacancy will have an impact on the

inspection program and regulation development. The review team recommends that the Division

give priority to filling the vacant HP Senior position. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Mississippi’s

performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found satisfactory.

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The review team examined completed licensing casework and interviewed the staff for 24 specific

licenses. 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 evaluated for overall technical quality including accuracy, appropriateness of the

license, its conditions, and tie-down conditions. Casework was evaluated for timeliness;

adherence to good health physics practices; reference to appropriate regulations; financial

assurance, documentation of safety evaluation reports, product certifications or other supporting

documents; consideration of enforcement history on renewals; pre-licensing visits, peer or
Mississippi Final Report Page 8

supervisory review as indicated; and proper signature authority. The files were checked for

retention of necessary documents and supporting data.

The licensing casework was selected to provide a representative sample of licensing actions that

were completed during the review period. The sampling included the following types: well

logging, industrial radiography, medical (institution, private practice, broad scope, and gamma

knife), nuclear pharmacy, academic broad scope, irradiator, research and development, analytical,

and portable gauge licenses. Types of licensing actions selected for evaluation included seven

new licenses, 15 amendments to existing licenses, and two license terminations. A list of the

licensing casework evaluated with case-specific comments can be found in Appendix D.

Overall, the review team found that the licensing actions were thorough, complete, consistent, of

high quality and properly addressed health and safety issues. The staff followed appropriate

licensing guides during the review process to ensure that licensees submit information necessary

to support their request. Complicated deficiencies were addressed in letters containing

appropriate regulatory language. Telephone conversations addressed and documented simple

deficiencies and then were noted in the license file. The use of license templates by the staff

resulted in notable consistency between reviewers. 

The Branch issues licenses for periods identical with the inspection frequency for licenses having

Priorities 1-3, with renewals in their entirety every five years. Licenses with lower priorities are

issued for a period of five years. Inspectors review the license for accuracy during each

inspection. The Division Director related that this process enabled the Branch to be more

knowledgeable concerning the licensee’s operations, and helped to assure public health and

safety. 

All licensing actions receive peer review from other staff members before being reviewed by the

Branch Director. This process serves as a learning tool for the junior staff members. The peer

and supervisory reviews contributed to the notable consistency between reviewers and the high

quality of licensing documents. All licenses evaluated were signed by the Division Director. 

The team found that actions terminating licenses were well documented, and included the

appropriate material survey records. The evaluation revealed that most license terminations were

for licensees possessing only sealed sources. All files reviewed contained documentation of

proper disposal or transfer. The Branch currently has one nuclear laundry facility that is being

decommissioned and the decommissioning plan was similar to a plan used at a former facility

licensed by NRC in Virginia. No potentially contaminated sites formerly licensed by NRC have

been identified in Mississippi. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Mississippi’s

performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be found

satisfactory.

3.5 Response to Incidents and Allegations

In evaluating the effectiveness of the Division’s actions in responding to incidents, the review team

examined the Division’s response to the questionnaire relative to this indicator, evaluated selected
Mississippi Final Report Page 9

incidents reported for Mississippi in the NMED against those contained in the Division files, and

evaluated the casework and supporting documentation for 14 material incidents. A list of the

incident casework examined with case-specific comments is included in Appendix E. The team

also reviewed the Branch’s response to three allegations involving radioactive materials including

one allegation referred by the NRC during the review period. 

The review team discussed incident and allegation procedures, file documentation, the Branch’s

incident and allegation tracking system, NMED, and notification of incidents to the NRC

Operations Center with the Branch Director and selected staff.

The team found that responsibility for initial response and follow-up actions to materials incidents

and allegations rest solely with the Branch. The Branch Director and others as appropriate,

evaluate incidents to determine the appropriate response. They evaluate all complex incidents,

and those with potential for affecting public safety.

 

The Branch had 35 materials incidents during the review period, 28 of which were reportable

under the NRC criteria. Fourteen incidents were selected for review. The incidents included: a

fire; stolen and lost gauges; equipment failure; overexposures; damaged devices; loss of control;

and misadministrations. The review team found that the Branch’s response to incidents was

complete and comprehensive. Initial responses were prompt and well coordinated and the level of

effort was commensurate with the health and safety significance. The Branch dispatched

inspectors for on-site investigations when appropriate, and took suitable enforcement action and

follow-up action. Actions were coordinated with other agencies, as appropriate. 

The team noted that the Branch had two individuals trained on submitting incident reports to

NMED. The Branch has a current copy of the Handbook of Office of State and Tribal Programs

(STP) Procedure SA-300, “Reporting Material Events.” All incident reports were reported to the

NMED contractor, and all significant incidents, except one damaged troxler gauge, were reported

to the NRC Operations Center. This incident was discussed with the Branch Director and was an

isolated occurrence during the period when the Branch was understaffed. 

During the review period, the Division was referred one allegation by the NRC, and received two

allegations directly. All allegations were reviewed by the team. The casework indicated that the

Branch took prompt and appropriate action in response to the concerns raised and made every

effort to protect the alleger’s identity. All of the allegations reviewed were appropriately closed

with written letters to the alleger, as appropriate. The team noted that allegations were treated

and documented internally in the same manner as incidents. There were no performance issues

identified from the review of the allegation files and documentation. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Mississippi’s

performance with respect to the indicator, Response to Incidents and Allegations, be found

satisfactory.

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
Mississippi Final Report Page 10

Source and Device Evaluation Program, (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program, and

(4) Uranium Recovery Program. The Mississippi Agreement State Program does not cover

uranium recovery operations, so only the first three non-common performance indicators were

applicable to this review.

4.1 Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility

4.1.1 Legislation

In evaluating this indicator, the team reviewed the Division’s response to the questionnaire and

copies of legislation, and held discussions with the Division Director. The review team found that

Mississippi has two laws that affect the Radiation Control Program. The Mississippi Radiation

Protection Law of 1976 designates the Department as the radiation control agency for the State. 

This act gives the Department specific powers and duties among which are authorities to

promulgate regulations, issue licenses, perform inspections, collect fees, and issue civil penalties. 

The second act, House Bill 712, that took affect July 1, 2000, increases the schedule of fees for

radiological health licenses and permits. The review team noted that the fee legislation affecting

the radiation control program was the only legislation passed since this indicator was found

satisfactory during the previous review in 1997. 

4.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility

The Mississippi Regulations pertaining to radiation control apply to all ionizing radiation, whether

emitted from radionuclides or devices. Mississippi requires a license for possession, and use, of

all radioactive material including naturally occurring materials, such as radium. To the extent

possible, the Mississippi regulations follow the Suggested State Regulations (SSRs) of the

Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. 

The review team examined the procedures used in the Division’s regulatory process and found

that the public and other interested parties are offered an opportunity to comment on proposed

regulations. The NRC is provided with drafts for comment. 

After preparation of a package of draft regulations, the Division obtains approval from the

Radiation Advisory Council and then the Board of Health. Draft regulations are mailed to

registered interested parties, such as licensees and NRC. The Board of Health approves the final

regulations. Meetings of the Radiation Advisory Council and the Board of Health are open to the

public. Typically, rule promulgation requires 6 to 12 months due to scheduling of the Radiation

Advisory Council and Board of Health meetings. There are no sunset laws in Mississippi and the

regulations have no expiration date. The review team discussed the availability of draft

regulations on a web site with the Division Director. The Division Director indicated placing draft

regulations on the Department’s web site is under discussion but delayed because of inadequate

information technology support.

The team evaluated the Division’s responses to the questionnaire, reviewed the status of

regulations required to be adopted by the State under the Commission’s adequacy and

compatibility policy and verified the adoption of regulations with data obtained from the Office of

State and Tribal Programs Regulation Assessment Tracking System.
Mississippi Final Report Page 11

During the onsite IMPEP review, the Division Director expected the State to adopt 18 regulations

on July 11, 2001. At the time of the review, these 18 drafted regulations had been submitted to

the NRC and under review. The following 13 of the 18 regulations listed below were overdue at

the time of the review. The remaining five were not overdue. 

! “Preparation, Transfer for Commercial Distribution, and Use of Byproduct Material for

Medical Use,“ 10 CFR Parts 30, 32 and 35 amendments (59 FR 61767; 59 FR 65243; 60

FR 322) that became effective January 1, 1995. The review team was advised by the

Division Director that this regulation was initially delayed in order to include all associated

amendments to the medical rule with the proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 35 by the NRC.

! “Performance Requirements for Radiography Equipment,” 10 CFR Part 34 amendments

(60 FR 28323) that became effective June 30, 1995.

! “Medical Administration of Radiation and Radioactive Materials,” 10 CFR Parts 20 and 35

amendments (60 FR 48623) that became effective October 20, 1995. The review team

was advised by the Division Director that this regulation was initially delayed in order to

include all associated amendments to the medical rule with the proposed revision of 10

CFR Part 35 by the NRC.

! “10 CFR Part 71: Compatibility with the International Atomic Energy Agency,” 10 CFR Part

71 amendments (60 FR 50248; 61 FR 28723) that became effective April 1, 1996.

! “Termination or Transfer of Licensed Activities: Recordkeeping Requirements,” 10 CFR

Parts 20, 30, 40, 61, 70 amendments (61 FR 24669) that became effective June 16, 1996.

! “Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne Effluents of Radioactive Materials; Clean Air

Act,“ 10 CFR Part 20 amendment (61 FR 65120) that became effective January 9, 1997.

! “Recognition of Agreement State licenses in Areas Under Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction

Within an Agreement State,” 10 CFR Part 150 amendment (62 FR 1662) that became

effective February 27, 1997.

! “Criteria for the Release of Individuals Administered Radioactive Material,” 10 CFR Parts

20 and 35 amendments (62 FR 4120) that became effective May 29, 1997. The review

team was advised by the Division Director that this regulation was initially delayed in order

to include all associated amendments to the medical rule with the proposed revision of 10

CFR Part 35 by the NRC.

! “Licenses for Industrial Radiography and Radiation Safety Requirements for Industrial

Radiography Operations,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 34, 71, and 150 amendments (63 FR 37059)

that became effective June 27, 1997.

! “Radiological Criteria for License Termination,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, and 70

amendments (62 FR 39058) that became effective August 20, 1997.
Mississippi Final Report Page 12

! “Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and Reporting," 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61

amendments (60 FR 15649 and 60 FR 25983) that became effective March 1, 1998. 

Mississippi and other Agreement States were expected to have an equivalent rule effective

on the same date. 

! “Exempt Distribution of a Radioactive Drug Containing One Microcurie of Carbon14-Urea,”

10 CFR Part 30 amendment (62 FR 63634) that became effective January 2, 1998. 

! “Deliberate Misconduct by Unlicensed Persons,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 61, 70, 71, and 150

(63 FR 1890; 63 FR 13733) that became effective on February 12, 1998. 

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

binding requirements no later than three years after they are effective. Note, the Division Director

informed the review team on July 11, 2001 that the regulations had been adopted. The following

five regulations were also included in the package currently under NRC review. 

! “Licenses for Industrial Radiography and Radiation Safety Requirements for Industrial

Radiographic Operations: Clarifying Amendments and Corrections,” 10 CFR Part 34

amendment (63 FR 37059) that became effective July 9, 1998.

! “Minor Corrections, Clarifying Changes, and a Minor Policy Change,” 10 CFR Parts 20,

35, and 36 amendments (63 FR 39477; 63 FR 45393) that became effective October 26,

1998. The review team was advised by the Division Director that this regulation was

initially delayed in order to include all associated amendments to the medical rule with the

proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 35 by the NRC.

! “Transfer for Disposal and Manifests: Minor Technical Conforming Amendment,” 10

CFR Part 20 amendment (63 FR 50127) that became effective November 20, 1998.

! “Respiratory Protection and Controls to Restrict Internal Exposures,” 10 CFR Part 20

amendment (64 FR 54543; 64 FR 55524) that became effective February 2, 2000.

! “New Dosimetry Technology,” 10 CFR Parts 34, 36, and 39 amendments (65 FR 63749)

that became effective January 8, 2001.

The Division will need to address the following regulation in upcoming rulemakings or by adopting

alternate legally binding requirements:

! “Energy Compensation Sources for Well Logging and Other Regulatory Clarifications,” 10

CFR Part 39 amendment (65 FR 20337) that became effective May 17, 2000.

In evaluating the Division’s program, the team determined that there were several root causes

which contributed to the delay in the promulgation of regulations in a timely fashion. These

include the delay in the NRC promulgation of the revision to 10 CFR Part 35, as noted above, 

budget limitations, and high turnover in staff. The Division Director indicated that the Division

plans a consolidated rulemaking package in order to lower the expense of promulgation of its

regulations. The Division Director noted that each proposed rulemaking package is mailed to all
Mississippi Final Report Page 13

interested parties, which includes 314 material licensees and 2500 x-ray registrants. The Division

Director indicated that the estimated cost for promulgating the package of 18 amendments is

$11,000.00, which is 1 percent of the Division’s budget. He also indicated that the largest

expense for promulgation of rules is due to the cost of mailing. The Division Director determined

that the cost of rulemaking is more efficiently and effectively carried out in the form of consolidated

rulemaking packages containing several amendments. The team recognizes the benefits of this

practice in managing the cost of rule development; however, this practice will need to be balanced

against timeliness in incorporating new rule changes.

Another contributing factor to the delay of regulation adoption is the Division’s practice to adopt

SSRs. The SSRs have not been updated to include the recent amendments or revisions to the

medical regulations. The Division has not been able to take advantage of the SSRs for the

medical regulations to reduce staff efforts to develop compatible regulations. The review team

recommends the Division not delay unnecessarily promulgation of regulations required for

compatibility in anticipation of NRC issuing final regulations or issuance of final SSRs.

During the MRB meeting on August 16, 2001, the review team noted that the Division adopted the

18 amendments listed above per an e-mail dated July 11, 2001 from the Division Director. 

The review team’s preliminary finding of satisfactory with recommendations for improvement was

based on the criterion in Management Directive 5.6 that regulations be adopted within a threeyear period. The review team noted that the Division management took appropriate action in a

period of significant staff loss to manage workload including regulation adoption. With the

adoption of the overdue regulations on July 11, 2001, the review team proposed and the MRB

agreed that the satisfactory with recommendations for improvement rating was not appropriate for

this indicator.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Mississippi’s

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

Compatibility, be found satisfactory.

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

The team did not review the State's SS&D program even though Mississippi currently has

responsibility for this area. The review team discussed with the Division Director whether the

State has considered returning its authority for the SS&D Evaluation Program. The Division

Director indicated that the State has not yet formulated a position on this issue, since it will require

Governor approval. The Division did not perform any SS&D evaluations during the period of the

review.

4.3 Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program

In 1981, the NRC amended its Policy Statement, "Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in

Discontinuance of NRC Authority and Assumption Thereof by States Through Agreement" to allow

a State to seek an amendment for the regulation of LLRW as a separate category. Those States

with existing Agreements prior to 1981 were determined to have continued LLRW disposal

authority without the need of an amendment. Although the Mississippi has LLRW disposal

authority, NRC has not required States to have a program for licensing a LLRW disposal facility
Mississippi Final Report Page 14

until such time as the State has been designated as a host State for a LLRW disposal facility. 

When an Agreement State has been notified or becomes aware of the need to regulate a LLRW

disposal facility, they are expected to put in place a regulatory program which will meet the criteria

for an adequate and compatible LLRW disposal program. There are no plans for a LLRW

disposal facility in Mississippi. Accordingly, the review team did not review this indicator.

5.0 SUMMARY

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

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

MRB concurred in finding the Mississippi Agreement State program to be adequate and

compatible with NRC's program. Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full

review will be in approximately four years.

Below is a summary list of recommendations, as mentioned earlier in the report, for evaluation and

implementation, as appropriate, by the Division. 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The review team recommends that the Division give priority to filling the vacant HP Senior

position. (Section 3.3)

2. The review team recommends the Division not delay unnecessarily promulgation of

regulations required for compatibility in anticipation of NRC issuing final regulations or

issuance of final SSRs. (Section 4.1.2)
LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members

Appendix B Mississippi Organization Charts

Appendix C Inspection Casework Reviews

Appendix D License Casework Reviews

Appendix E Incident Casework Reviews

Attachment July 9, 2001 Letter from Robert W. Goff

Mississippi’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report
APPENDIX A

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS 

Name Area of Responsibility

Cardelia H. Maupin, STP Team Leader

Technical Staffing and Training

Barbara Hamrick, CA Status of Materials Inspection Program

Technical Quality of Inspections

Inspector Accompaniments

Richard Woodruff, RII Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

Response to Incidents and Allegations

Stephen Salomon, STP Legislation and Program Elements Required for

Compatibility
APPENDIX B

MISSISSIPPI ORGANIZATION CHARTS

ML011730210



ATTACHMENT

July 9, 2001 Letter from Robert W. Goff

Mississippi’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report

ML011940004