DATED: JULY 8, 1998 SIGNED BY: HUGH L. THOMPSON, JR.

Sandra B. Nichols, M.D.

Director

Arkansas Department of Health

4815 West Markham Street

Little Rock, AR 72205-3867

Dear Dr. Nichols:

On June 16, 1998, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final

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

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

health and safety and compatible with NRC’s program. 

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

recommendations and suggestions.

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review will be scheduled in 4

years, unless program concerns develop that require an earlier evaluation.

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,

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.

Deputy Executive Director

 for Regulatory Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: David D. Snellings, Jr., Director

Division of Radiation Control and

 Emergency Management

Arkansas Department of Health

Gerry Hill, Director

Bureau of Environmental Health Services

Arkansas Department of Health
Sandra B. Nichols, M.D.

Director

Arkansas Department of Health

4815 West Markham Street

Little Rock, AR 72205-3867

Dear Dr. Nichols:

On June 16, 1998, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final

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

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

health and safety and compatible with NRC’s program. 

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

recommendations and suggestions.

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review will be scheduled in 4

years, unless program concerns develop that require an earlier evaluation.

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,

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.

Deputy Executive Director

 for Regulatory Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: David D. Snellings, Jr., Director bcc: Chairman Jackson

Division of Radiation Control and Commissioner Diaz

 Emergency Management Commissioner McGaffigan

Arkansas Department of Health

Gerry Hill, Director

Bureau of Environmental Health Services

Arkansas Department of Health

Distribution: See next page.

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\LAB\AR98FNLT.WPD, G:\IMPEP\AR98FIN.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 OSP OSP:DD OSP:D DEDR

NAME LBolling:kk PHLohaus RLBangart HLThompson

DATE 06/22/98* 07/02/98* 07/02/98* 07/ /98
3

OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-3 

2

Distribution:

DIR RF HLThompson, DEDR DCD (SP01)

EDO RF KDCyr, OGC PDR (YEST)

KNSchneider TTMartin, AEOD

LJRakovan RJBarrett, AEOD RRatliff, TX

SCDroggitis MRKnapp, NMSS

LABolling, ASPO DACool, NMSS

DJCollins, RII RLBangart, OSP

MGDibblee, OR TRCombs, OCA

TJO’Brien GJDeegan, NMSS

FXCameron, OGC FCCombs, NMSS

HHNewsome, OGC FXCameron, OGC

CAHackney, RIV MLMcLean, RIV

Arkansas File JHornor, RIV/WC
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

REVIEW OF ARKANSAS AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

March 23-27, 1998

FINAL REPORT

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Arkansas Final Report Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

review was conducted during the period March 23-27, 1998 by a review team comprised of

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

State of Oregon. Review team members are identified in Appendix A. The review was

conducted in accordance with the "Implementation of the Integrated Materials Performance

Evaluation Program and Rescission of a Final General Statement of Policy," published in the

Federal Register on October 16, 1997, and the November 25, 1997, revised NRC

Management Directive 5.6, "Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)." 

Preliminary results of the review, which covered the period May 26, 1995 to March 27, 1998,

were discussed with Arkansas management on March 27, 1998.

A draft of this report was issued to Arkansas for factual comment on May 1, 1998. The State

responded in a letter dated May 26, 1998. The Management Review Board (MRB) met on 

June 16, 1998 to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the Arkansas radiation

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

program.

The Arkansas Agreement State program is administered by the Division of Radiation Control

and Emergency Management (the Division) in the Bureau of Environmental Health Services of

the Arkansas Department of Health. Organization charts for the Arkansas Department of

Health and the Division of Radiation Control and Emergency Management are included as

Appendix B.

At the time of the review, the Arkansas program regulated 262 specific licenses, including

limited and broad scope medical institutions, academic institutions, industrial radiography, fixed

and portable gauge units, and nuclear pharmacy licensees. 

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

Arkansas.

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

performance indicators was sent to the State on January 9, 1998. The State provided a

response to the questionnaire on February 20, 1998. 

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

Arkansas' response to the questionnaire; (2) review of applicable Arkansas statutes and

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

data base; (4) technical review of selected licensing and inspection actions; (5) field

accompaniments of three Arkansas inspectors; and (6) interviews with staff and management

to answer questions or clarify issues. The review team evaluated the information that it

gathered against the IMPEP criteria for each common and applicable non-common

performance indicator and made a preliminary assessment of the Division's performance. The

review team also considered a self-evaluation conducted by the program and associated

action plans developed for identified issues. 
Arkansas Final Report Page 2

Section 2 below discusses the State'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 noncommon performance indicators, and Section 5 summarizes the review team's findings,

recommendations, and suggestions. The review team identified the self-evaluation as a good

practice in the program. Recommendations made by the review team are comments that

relate directly to program performance by the State. A response is requested from the State to

all recommendations in the final report. Suggestions are comments that the review team

believes could enhance the State’s program. The State is requested to consider suggestions,

but no response is requested. 

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS

During the previous routine review, which concluded on May 26, 1995, five comments were

made and the results transmitted to Dr. Sandra B. Nichols, Director, Arkansas Department of

Health on August 7, 1995. The team’s review of the current status of these recommendations

is as follows: 

(1) At the time of the May 1995 program review, compatibility was withheld because the

State had not adopted three regulations. We recommended that the State adopt the

three regulations listed below. 

(a) “Safety Requirements for Radiographic Equipment,” 10 CFR Part 34 

amendment, which was to be adopted by January 10, 1994;

(b) “Package Opening Procedures,” 10 CFR Part 20 amendment, which was to be

adopted by January 1, 1994; and 

(c) “Notification of Incidents,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 31, 34, 40, and 70 

amendments, which were to be adopted by October 15, 1994.

Current Status: This recommendation is closed. The review team examined the

Division’s regulations due for adoption at the time of this review. The review team

found that the State had adopted and implemented all NRC amendments required for

compatibility. 

(2) We recommended that the program’s management and staff examine and take action 

to reduce the licensing backlog.

Current Status: This recommendation is closed. Licensing backlogs are not a part of

the IMPEP review criteria for Agreement States. The Division has conducted a selfevaluation which identified ways to expedite licensing actions and address those with

potential health and safety consequences. 

(3) We recommended that the Division staff review its medical licenses to clearly

determine whether or not the 1982 procedure, which allowed exemption from the

required survey of packages received from nuclear pharmacies, has been used. Any
Arkansas Final Report Page 3

license conditions that exempt medical licensees from receipt surveys should be

deleted to assure that surveys of nuclear pharmacy packages will be conducted. 

Current Status: This recommendation is closed. The Division is no longer permitting

this exemption for its medical licensees. The review team based its finding on reviews

of selected medical license files, inspection reports, the State’s 10 CFR Part 20

equivalent regulations and discussions held with the Division staff. 

(4) We recommended that the State develop written escalated enforcement procedures so

that program managers and staff all become familiar with the options available for 

achieving regulatory compliance under current State policy. 

Current Status: This recommendation is closed. As a result of the Division’s selfevaluation effort, the staff developed an updated escalated enforcement procedure

which became effective during the week of the IMPEP review. 

(5) We recommended that the program consider an increase in the number of inspections 

conducted under reciprocity.

Current Status: This previous report recommendation is administratively closed. 

Section 3.1, below, contains a similar recommendation made as a result of the current

program review. As a result of the Division’s self- evaluation effort, an Action Plan was

developed to revise compliance inspection procedures to improve the routine

inspection of reciprocity licensees. 

COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

IMPEP identifies five common performance indicators to be used in reviewing both NRC

Regional and Agreement State programs. These indicators are: (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 review team focused on four factors in reviewing this indicator: (1) inspection frequency, 

(2) overdue inspections, (3) initial inspections of new licenses, and (4) timely dispatch of

inspection findings to licensees. The review team’s evaluation is based on Arkansas’

questionnaire responses relative to this indicator, data gathered independently from the State's

licensing and inspection data tracking system, the examination of completed inspection

casework, and interviews with the Division Director, the Compliance Section Supervisor, and

the inspection staff.

The IMPEP team’s review of the Division’s inspection priorities found that the inspection

frequencies for various types of Arkansas licenses are established by the Licensing,

Accreditation and Registration Section Supervisor and are based upon the type of license. 

The Division’s priorities are 1 through 4 years for an inspection interval. In comparison with

NRC guidance, the Division’s assignment of inspection priorities was determined to be at least

as frequent as NRC’S Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2800. The review team did not

identify any inspections, over the review period, as exceeding the IMPEP guidelines. 
Arkansas Final Report Page 4

The Division has provisions to extend or shorten the interval between inspections based upon

the evaluation of licensee performance. This action requires the Division Director’s

authorization. Interviews determined that the extension for good licensee performance was

used once in the review period. The Division uses a reduced inspection frequency as a tool to

encourage improved licensee performance. The Division staff reported that, on average, one

licensee per quarter has its inspection interval shortened due to poor performance. The

Compliance Section Supervisor reviews the inspection data and determines if a

recommendation to extend or reduce the inspection frequency is warranted. The review team

notes that extending inspection frequency intervals could provide some workload relief and

allow staff to pursue existing projects. After evaluating the type and quantities of licensed

materials used, the Division believes that its one to four year inspection interval prioritization

procedure produces the best compliance with the proper mix of enforcement, inspection and

licensing. 

The normal interval between inspection and report issuance was found to be 7 to 10 working

days, and no report letter was identified as being more than 30 days post-inspection. Reports

and letters are produced by the secretarial staff based upon a set paragraph guidance

document, or may be produced by the technical staff directly. 

The Division possesses a database for inspection scheduling. During the review, the IMPEP

team was provided with various lists, including: licenses due for a particular period,

inspections conducted, reports issued, and reciprocity licensee names and inspections. The

review team noted that there were 33 new licenses issued during the review period. The

Division requires that new Priority 1 licensees receive an initial inspection within 3 months of

license issuance. All other priorities of new licenses are initially inspected at 6 months. During

the review period four licensees were identified as being overdue for inspection. All four

licensees were Priority 3 industrial gauge users, three of which were overdue by 2 months and

the fourth was overdue by 1 month. These four inspections were scheduled for completion in

April 1998. 

During the previous review, a recommendation was made that the State develop written

escalated enforcement procedures, including civil penalties, for non-compliant licensees. The

Division currently uses a Management Meeting with the licensee as one of several escalated

enforcement tools. Division managers believe that this technique has proven effective in

focusing the licensee’s attention on corrective actions. The Division has in the past used its

authority to suspend or revoke licenses. The review team noted that, as a result of the

Division’s self-evaluation effort, the staff developed an updated escalated enforcement

procedure. The updated procedure became effective during the week of the IMPEP review,

and therefore, it was not reflected in compliance case files examined for the review period. A

specific procedure addressing civil penalties is currently being developed. The review team

recommends that the Division continue to develop and implement the civil penalty portion of

the updated escalated enforcement procedure in order to enhance its compliance program. 

Arkansas Rules and Regulations for Control of Sources of Radiation, Section RH-750,

authorizes NRC and other Agreement State licensed persons a general license to work for any

180 days in any 12-month period, upon provision of 2 days notice. Inspection frequency for

reciprocity licensees has been established by the Division in Procedure RAM-03.0, Procedure

for Scheduling and Tracking RAM License Inspection, revised January 1988. The procedure
Arkansas Final Report Page 5

states that: (1) any licensee working in the State more than once per month will be inspected

once each year; (2) every effort will be made to inspect licensees working in the State for 1 to

3 consecutive weeks; and (3) any licensee working in the State 4 or more consecutive weeks

will be inspected. The review team determined that of the Priority 1 program codes in the

registered database, the Division inspected 13% in 1995, 16% in 1996 and 18% in 1997. No

service licensees reported any work which should have been inspected at the 100%

frequency. No Priority 2, 3 or 4 licensees reported work in the State. Licensees that are

classified as Priority 5 and higher (all others) by the NRC were inspected at a 10% frequency

in 1995 and 1996, and at 25% in 1997. The Compliance Section Supervisor and the Division

Director stated that the inspection frequencies used previously would be changed to those in

IMC 1220. They also indicated that a more aggressive inspection campaign would be

launched to obtain better compliance with both the regulations at RH-750 and the inspection

priorities in IMC 1220. 

Arkansas shows progress towards achieving the goals of IMC 1220, and coupled with the

statements above, the review team recommends that the Division continue efforts to move its

reciprocity inspection program towards the guidelines established in IMC 1220. 

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

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

satisfactory.

3.2 Technical Quality of Inspections

The review team examined a selected sample of inspection reports, enforcement

documentation, and inspection field notes and interviewed inspectors for 10 materials

inspections conducted during the review period. The casework included five of the State's

materials license inspectors, and covered inspections of various types including industrial

radiography, medical institutions, academic institutions, fixed and portable gauging systems,

and a nuclear pharmacy. Appendix C lists the inspection casework files reviewed for

completeness and adequacy with case-specific comments. 

During the week of March 2, 1998 and on March 24, 1998, a review team member

accompanied all three of the State’s inspectors on two inspections each of facilities licensed by

the State. The inspection accompaniments are listed in Appendix C. The review team

member determined that the inspectors conducted themselves in a professional manner, dealt

fairly and accurately with licensee staff and management, and were well prepared for each

inspection. The Division does not currently have network capability, but installation has been

identified as a priority. The Division has recently acquired portable computers and intends to

issue one to each inspector. The inspectors are equipped with, and used, appropriate and

calibrated survey and safety equipment. The Division requires inspection staff to perform

radiation measurements and obtain wipes for evaluation of possible removable contamination

as a part of each inspection. The Division staff performed inspections with guidance adapted

from IMCs from the early 1990s. The Director stated that, based on the Division’s selfevaluation effort, there are plans in place for updating the guidance to that which is most

current and based upon the current Arkansas regulations. The review team explained the

current efforts in consolidating guidance in the NUREG-1556 series, and the in-process

inspection guidance being developed as IMCs 87110 and beyond. Inspection field notes
Arkansas Final Report Page 6

generally are converted to a printed version. The licensee is sent a report cover letter with

Notices of Violation and Comments included. The report is reviewed by the Compliance

Section Supervisor. The review team recommends that the Division proceed expeditiously with

its review and updating of inspection program guidance.

The State maintains an up-to-date well-staffed environmental radiochemistry laboratory, which

analyzes samples obtained during inspections, follow-up actions, or licensing terminations. The

laboratory participates in the routine EPA - Environmental Monitoring and Safety Laboratory

(EMSL) cross-check program and is used routinely by inspectors taking wipe samples. 

Gamma spectroscopy QA/QC appears adequate with routine use of a NIST-traceable mixed

gamma standard. The gamma spectroscopy system includes two 35% Intrinsic Germanium

(INGE) detectors in copper-lined caves. The laboratory does not do direct alpha spectroscopy. 

They do, however, have the capability to analyze drinking water samples with their low

background thin window gas flow proportional counter. Utilizing the Barium Sulfate

precipitation method, as specified by the EPA, samples can be analyzed at the level of

4 pCi/liter. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Arkansas'

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 radioactive materials program

staffing level, technical qualifications of the staff, training and staff turnover. To evaluate these

issues, the review team examined the State's questionnaire responses relative to this indicator,

interviewed program management and staff, and considered any possible workload backlogs. 

The Division Director identified nine individuals who provide 3.63 person-years of technical

effort to the Division for the regulation of radioactive materials. This includes the Division

Director, the Quality and Evaluation Supervisor, the Compliance Section Supervisor, the

Licensing, Accreditation and Registration Section Supervisor, three compliance inspectors and

two license reviewers. During the review period, the Division’s staff turnover, in the materials

section, included the Director and three staff members. The Director left the Division to pursue

Federal employment. Each of the three staff members, who left the Division, had personal

reasons for leaving.

Based on the response to the IMPEP questionnaire and discussions with the Division Director,

the review team noted that during the review period three technical staff left the radioactive

materials program. These vacancies were promptly filled by three candidates who are well

qualified based on their education and extensive work experience in radiological science. 

There are currently no vacancies in the radioactive materials program. The three new staff

members have bachelor’s degrees and numerous specialized course-work in radiological

science. Based on a review of the Division position descriptions and the resumes of the new

staff, the review team noted that these individuals exceeded the minimum requirements for

their positions. 
Arkansas Final Report Page 7

During the review period, the division also filled the vacant Director’s position. The new

Director is a former member of the Division staff who left the program in 1980 and has

returned after several years of private sector employment. The Director holds a Master’s

degree in Health Physics and is certified by the American Board of Health Physics in

comprehensive health physics and nuclear power plant health physics.

The review team noted that although the licensing backlog remains high, current staffing levels

are adequate and no health and safety concerns attributable to staffing were identified. One

possible cause for the licensing backlog is past chronic staff turnover.

The Division encourages all licensing and compliance staff to attend technical training courses. 

The State utilizes a list of training courses identical to IMC 1246. Each staff member is

expected to successfully complete the core courses identified for materials inspectors and

license reviewers in IMC 1246. Waivers from specific courses may be granted, at the

Director’s discretion, for individuals with extensive work experience and education in a specific

topic area. There are currently three staff members in the radioactive materials program listed

as being in training status. Based on their previous work experience, course availability and

mentoring by senior staff, it is expected that they will achieve fully qualified status as

inspectors in a short time. Staff who are fully qualified can independently inspect and license

all activities regulated by the Division.

The Division maintains a database which lists the training received by individual staff

members. A second database is used to track upcoming training and matches specific training

courses with the appropriate staff. 

The review team noted that the Division is conducting regular monthly in-house training for its

staff. This training covers a variety of topics such as regulations, worker safety, and

instrumentation. The training is conducted in the form of discussions, demonstrations, and

videotape presentations. Documentation indicates that this training was initiated several years

ago and is ongoing. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Arkansas'

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 reviewers for

nine 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 reviewed 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, documentation of safety evaluation reports, product certifications or other

supporting documents, consideration of enforcement history on renewals, pre-licensing visits,

peer or supervisory review as indicated, and proper signature authority. The files were

checked for retention of necessary documents and supporting data.
Arkansas Final Report Page 8

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

that had been completed in the review period. The cross-section sampling included four of the

State's major licenses as identified by the State in Section 16 of the questionnaire, and

included the following types: academic broad scope; industrial radiography; medical

institutions; nuclear pharmacy; gauge; and an industrial laboratory. Licensing actions during

the review period included 33 new licenses, 59 renewals, and 633 amendments (including 25

terminations), for a total of 725 licensing actions. In discussions with management, it was

noted that there were no major decommissioning efforts underway with regard to agreement

material in Arkansas, however, the State was required to evaluate contamination in a

terminated licensee facility. A list of licenses reviewed with case-specific comments for license

reviews can be found in Appendix D.

The licensing process was discussed with the primary license reviewer and staff. Types of

licensing actions selected for review included new licenses, amendments to existing licenses,

renewal licenses, and terminations. License reviews were well done, well-documented,

detailed, and complete, with the exception that reviews did not specifically address annual

audits of the radiation protection program or financial assurance. Reviews showed, however,

that no licenses required financial assurance, and that the scope of the license review covered

the essential elements expected in a comprehensive radiation protection program (actual

radiation protection audits are addressed during inspections). Although license renewals often

remain in timely renewal status for as long as 2 years, health and safety issues are adequately

addressed in separate amendments to the deemed timely license or during regular compliance

inspections.

All licensing actions receive supervisory review, and were signed by management. 

Deficiencies are addressed by detailed, well-written letters utilizing appropriate regulatory

language. License reviewers rarely use telephone deficiencies. 

The State uses detailed licensing checklists for renewals and new licenses. However, the

checklists do not include radiation protection and financial assurance reviews as stated above.

The review team recommends that the Division staff revise the license reviewer guidance,

including checklists, to address comprehensive radiation protection program reviews, annual

program audits, and the need for financial assurance.

Application packages containing guidance are sent to license applicants. The applications are

reviewed following standard procedures which are similar to those used by the NRC. The

Licensing guides, as well as other applicable guidance from NRC, are available, although staff

has not had time to convert references to NRC regulations to Arkansas regulations. A

management Action Plan provided to the review team, however, showed that the State plans

to update guidance used for license reviews. Staff typically uses Standard License Conditions

(SLCs) similar to those used by NRC. Licenses are issued in entirety only as new licenses or

during the renewal process. Amendments are issued only with changes as noted in the

amendment request (1 or 2-page amendments). License files are two-part documents

organized with the license and amendments separate from all other support documents,

including application, deficiency letters, review check sheet, telephone documents,

memoranda, hand-delivery license report, inspection reports, and licensee response letters on

the other side. All documents are chronologically organized in the license file. There are two
Arkansas Final Report Page 9

complete files for each license. Files are organized by license number. A new license file is

created during each five-year renewal process. The timely renewal letter resides in the expired

license file, which, after the renewal is issued, is stored as an archive file (timely renewal letter

was not with renewal license application). Compliance records are kept contiguous to

licensing support documents. Reviewers are conscientious about including all pertinent

documents in the license tie-down.

The Division staff routinely hand delivers new and renewal licenses. The staff considers hand

delivery of licenses to be a pre-licensing visit. The visit is documented on a one-page form. 

License files have all current inspection data, in addition to incident data, providing license

reviewers with incident reports and inspection reports during the renewal period. Incidents are

cross-referenced in licensing files. In one instance, a misadministration did not have complete

supporting documentation in the license file. License reviewers have adequate supporting

information and documentation readily available in the file to complete renewal license

reviews. Monthly staff training meetings include discussions of major licensing and compliance

issues.

At the time of the review, the State did not have a centralized computer system for tracking

licensing actions. Each license reviewer keeps a desk log of licensing actions received and

reviewed. A central receipt log is kept where new license numbers are issued. There is a

monthly report of licensing actions generated manually. The State did not have computers for

materials licensing staff until fall of 1997; only licensing staff have networked computers. No

licensing statistics are kept in computers at this time but the program plans to implement a

database program within one year.

Management has high expectations of the staff and staff licensing products are very high

quality; however, production has been limited by license staff turnover. Licensing casework

backlogs remain high and were noted during the last program review. Continued effort should

be made to reduce the licensing casework backlog. In spite of the foregoing, no health and

safety concerns were identified. As a result of the program’s self-evaluation, an Action Plan

has been developed to update guidance, to expedite licensing actions, and to address those

with potential health and safety consequences. The review team suggests that management

continue to reevaluate progress and implement the Action Plan.

See recommendation in Section 4.2.3, Evaluation of Defects and Incidents Regarding SS&Ds,

addressing evaluations for generic implications and communication of potential generic

concerns to manufacturers and NRC.

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

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 State’s actions in responding to incidents, the review

team examined the State’s response to the questionnaire regarding this indicator, reviewed

selected incidents reported for Arkansas in the “Nuclear Material Events Database” (NMED)

against those contained in the Arkansas files, and reviewed the casework and supporting
Arkansas Final Report Page 10

documentation for ten material incidents. There were no medical related events during the

review period that met the definition of a misadministration. A list of selected incident files

examined along with case specific comments is contained in Appendix E.

The review team interviewed the Division Director, the Licensing, Accreditation, and

Registration Section Supervisor, the Quality and Evaluation Section Supervisor, and the

Compliance Section Supervisor. The subject areas discussed with staff included the State's

incident and allegation process, tracking system, file documentation, Freedom of Information

Act, NMED, and notification of incidents to the NRC Emergency Operations Center.

When notification of an incident or an allegation is received, the Division Director, the Quality

and Evaluation Section Supervisor, and the Compliance Section Supervisor normally meet to

discuss the initial response and the need for an on-site investigation. A draft Emergency

Response procedure in a checklist format is used as guidance to document the response to

incidents.

The review team found that the State’s actions were within the performance criteria, with the

exception of incomplete documentation in two files reviewed, follow up of incidents in one file

reviewed, and inconsistent notification of NRC in five files reviewed. Initial responses were

prompt and well-coordinated, and the level of effort was commensurate with the health and

safety significance. Inspectors were dispatched for on-site investigations when appropriate

and the State took suitable corrective and enforcement action. However, the review team

found that there is a need for better documentation in incident files in order to close-out

incident investigations. An example of this is the Anderson Engineering case File No. 1 in

Appendix E. The review team recommends that the State adequately document and closely

follow the progress of investigations of incidents through close out.

The Division Director acknowledged the State has not consistently reported incidents to the

NRC Operations Center for those that require immediate or 24-hour reporting by the State

licensee. He advised that corrective actions, in the form of an Action Plan, developed as a

result of the self-evaluation, are currently underway. He also indicated that the draft

Emergency Response procedure has the requirement to notify the NRC incorporated into the

checklist. The NMED system was discussed with the Division Director and the guidance

contained in the “Handbook on Nuclear Event Reporting in the Agreement States” was

reviewed. The review team noted the Commission’s position that, under the Policy Statement

on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs, it is mandatory for Agreement

States to report events to the NRC. (It should be noted that those incidents not reported to

NRC under NMED occurred before the September 3, 1997 publication date for this new

policy.) The review team noted that one reportable event occurred since September 3, 1997,

and the State made a prompt notification to NRC.

The review team recommends that the State continue to report events and participate in the

NMED system by providing event information and close-out status to be added to the NMED

system or by providing compatible information in accordance with the guidance contained in

the “Handbook on Nuclear Event Reporting in the Agreement States.”

During the review period, there were no allegations referred to the State by NRC nor were

there any allegations that the State handled directly. The review team examined the
Arkansas Final Report Page 11

procedure that the Division utilizes for the handling of allegations and found that it was

comprehensive. It was also noted that the Division advises allegers that they are not able to

guarantee their confidentiality due to State law.

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

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

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

and (4) Uranium Recovery Program. Arkansas' Agreement does not cover a uranium recovery

program, 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 

Along with their response to the questionnaire, the State provided the review team with the

opportunity to review copies of legislation that affects the radiation control program. The

currently effective statutory authority for the Division is contained in “Arkansas Code of 1987,

Title 20, Chapter 21.” The Division of Radiation Control and Emergency Management is

designated as the State's radiation control agency. The review team noted that the following

legislation was passed during the review period:

! Act 796 of 1995 changes to the fee schedule to adjust for cost of living and to add 

several new fee categories.

! Act 768 of 1997 Arkansas Department of Health Appropriations Bill. 

The currently effective statute authorizing a Low-Level Waste Program is “Arkansas Code of

1987 Annotated, Volume 6A, Title 8, Chapter 8.” No other legislation was passed that affects

the Division. 

4.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility 

The Arkansas Regulations for Control of Radiation are found in the Rules and Regulations for

Control of Sources of Ionizing Radiation of the Arkansas Board of Health and apply to all

ionizing radiation, whether emitted from radionuclides or devices. Arkansas requires a license

for possession, and use, of all radioactive material including naturally occurring materials, such

as radium, and accelerator-produced radionuclides. Arkansas also requires registration of all

equipment designed to produce x-rays or other ionizing radiations.

The review team examined the State’s schedule for revising its regulations to maintain

compatibility. The procedure used in the State's regulations promulgation process, and
Arkansas Final Report Page 12

detailed in their response to the IMPEP questionnaire, was discussed with the Division staff. 

Both the schedule and the procedure were found to be acceptable. The review team noted

that ample opportunity is afforded to the public and the NRC to review and comment on

proposed revisions to the Division’s regulations. Comments are considered and incorporated

as appropriate before the regulations are finalized. The last revision of the State’s rules and

regulations became effective on January 1, 1997. An Action Plan was developed based on

the self-evaluation and a senior staff member was named as the project leader for the

scheduled revision of the regulations which will begin in April 1998. The revision is expected

to be completed in December 1998, and a revised regulation should become effective in

January 1999. The current revision schedule should permit the Division to maintain regulations

compatible with NRC’s regulations. The State does have the authority to issue legally binding

requirements (e.g., license conditions) in lieu of regulations until compatible regulations

become effective.

The review team evaluated Arkansas’ responses to the questionnaire and reviewed the

regulations adopted by the State since the 1995 review to determine the status of the

Arkansas regulations under the Commission’s new adequacy and compatibility policy. The

review team found that the State has adopted all regulations required for compatibility at the

time of this review. There are a number of amendments to NRC’s regulations which the State

should adopt, within 3 years of the effective date, in order to maintain compatibility. 

The Division has not yet adopted the following regulations, but intends to address them in a

rulemaking or by adopting alternate generic legally binding requirements:

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

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

! "Radiation Protection Requirements: Amended Definitions and Criteria," 10 CFR Parts

19 and 20 amendments (60 FR 36038) that became effective August 14, 1995.

! "Clarification of Decommissioning Funding Requirements," 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and

70 amendments (60 FR 38235) that became effective November 24, 1995. 

! "Compatibility with the International Atomic Energy Agency," 10 CFR Part 71

amendment (60 FR 50248) that became effective April 1, 1996. 

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

35 amendments (60 FR 48623) that became effective October 20, 1995.

! “Termination or Transfer of Licensed Activities: Record Keeping Requirements,”

10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, 61, 70 amendments (61 FR 24669) that became effective

June 17, 1996.

 

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

Act,” 10 CFR Part 20 amendment (61 FR 65119) that became effective January 9,

1997.
Arkansas Final Report Page 13

! “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.

! Fissile Material Shipments and Exemptions,” 10 CFR Part 71 amendment (62 FR 5907) 

that became effective February 10, 1997.

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

Radiography Operations,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 34, 71, 150 amendments (62 FR 28947)

that became effective June 27, 1997.

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

amendments (62 FR 39057) that became effective August 20, 1997.

It is noted that Management Directive 5.9, Handbook, Part V, paragraph (1)(c)(iii), provides that

the above regulations should be adopted by the State as expeditiously as possible, but not

later than 3 years after the effective date of the new Commission Policy Statement on

Adequacy and Compatibility, i.e., September 3, 2000.

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

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

At the time of the review, Arkansas had no sealed source or device manufacturers nor were

any applicants anticipated in the near future. There were no sealed source or sealed source

device actions received or completed by the State during the review period. The Division

Director and the Licensing, Accreditation, and Registration Section Supervisor, who is

responsible for SS&D evaluations, were interviewed to determine the current status of the

SS&D program. The Division Director indicated that the State is considering whether or not to

relinquish the authority to regulate SS&D manufacturers. 

The Division has all appropriate Standard Review Plans, ANSI standards, and other

documents in place to perform SS&D evaluations.

It was noted that the Division has not yet adopted two regulations required for compatibility. 

Although adoption of NRC regulations in 10 CFR 30.32(g) and 32.210 is not required until

September 3, 2000, the review team suggests that, for the purposes of compatibility, the State

adopt the NRC regulations in 10 CFR 30.32(g) and 32.210. Sections 30.32(g) and 32.210(c)

would need to be in place whether or not the Division maintains an SS&D evaluation program.

At the time the final report was issued, the Division staff reported that a letter was sent to the

NRC Chairman from Arkansas Governor Huckabee formally requesting to relinquish authority

to maintain a sealed source and device evaluation program.
Arkansas Final Report Page 14

4.2.1 Technical Quality of the Product Evaluation Program

No SS&D evaluations were conducted by Arkansas during this review period.

4.2.2 Technical Staffing and Training

The criteria for the IMPEP indicator SS&D evaluation program require that a minimum of two

individuals be fully trained to conduct SS&D evaluations. The Division currently has only one

individual who attended the NRC workshop on SS&D evaluations. Since Arkansas has

requested to relinquish its authority to maintain a sealed source and device evaluation

program, the review team did not recommend further training for the staff in this area.

4.2.3 Evaluation of Defects and Incidents Regarding SS&Ds

During the review, it was noted that one incident concerning a soil moisture density gauge was

not well documented and was lacking in the degree of follow up (see Incident # 95-28 in

Appendix E for detail). Furthermore, the review team noted that in two of the three incidents

related to equipment failure, there was no indication that the licensee was required to perform

a root cause analysis and no information on the potential for a generic design defect was

forwarded to the manufacturer or the NRC. This issue was discussed with the Quality and

Evaluation Section Supervisor who agreed that potential generic design defect problems need

to be evaluated and forwarded to the agency responsible for the product evaluation and

registration certificate. The review team recommends that any events involving a defective

device or source in a device, be evaluated for possible generic implications and such

information passed on to the manufacturer and NRC.

Since no SS&D evaluations were conducted during the period of this program review and

because Arkansas is returning authority to conduct SS&D evaluations to NRC, this indicator is

not rated.

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 Arkansas has LLRW

disposal authority, NRC has not required States to have a program for licensing a LLRW

disposal facility 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 Arkansas. Accordingly, the review team did not

review this indicator.
Arkansas Final Report Page 15

5.0 SUMMARY

As noted in Sections 3 and 4 above, the review team found that Arkansas’ performance with

respect to each of the rated performance indicators to be satisfactory. Accordingly, the review

team recommends the Management Review Board find the Arkansas program to be adequate

to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC's program. 

Below is a summary list of recommendations and suggestions, as mentioned in earlier sections

of the report, for evaluation and implementation, as appropriate, by the State. 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The review team recommends that the Division continue to develop and implement the

civil penalty portion of the updated escalated enforcement procedure in order to

enhance its compliance program. (Section 3.1)

2. The review team recommends that the Division continue efforts to move its reciprocity

inspection program towards the guidelines established in IMC 1220. (Section 3.1)

3. The review team recommends that the Division proceed expeditiously with its review

and updating of compliance program guidance. (Section 3.2)

4. The review team recommends that the Division staff revise the license reviewer 

guidance, including checklists, to address comprehensive radiation protection program 

reviews, annual program audits, and the need for financial assurance. (Section 3.4)

5. The review team recommends that the State adequately document and closely follow

the progress of investigations of incidents through close out. (Section 3.5)

6. The review team recommends that the State continue to report events and participate

in the NMED system by providing event information and close-out status to be added to

the NMED system or by providing compatible information in accordance with the

guidance contained in the “Handbook on Nuclear Event Reporting in the Agreement

States.” (Section 3.5)

7. The review team recommends that any events involving a defective device or source in

a device, be evaluated for possible generic implications and such information passed

on to the manufacturer and NRC. (Section 4.2.3)

SUGGESTIONS:

1. The review team suggests that management continue to reevaluate progress and

implement the Action Plan. (Section 3.4)

2. The review team suggests that, for the purposes of compatibility, the State adopt the

NRC regulations in 10 CFR 30.32(g) and 32.210. (Section 4.2)
Arkansas Final Report Page 16

GOOD PRACTICE:

The review team identified the Division’s Self-Evaluation Program as a good practice. The

Division Director initiated a Self-Evaluation Program to assess the Division’s status relative to

the comments and recommendations made after the 1995 program review. In addition to

examining the previous review findings, the Self-Evaluation Program provided an opportunity

for Division staff to measure their current program against the new IMPEP indicators. 

Strategies were then developed to address the licensing backlog, the need to develop

licensing and inspection guidance, and to revise rules and regulations.

The self-evaluation initiative led to the issuance of several Action Plans. These Action Plans

identify a specific topic to be addressed (e.g., revision of rules and regulations), and are

numbered for tracking purposes. A project leader and team are named, and beginning and

projected completion dates are established for each Action Plan. There is a provision for

amending the completion date; however, the Division Director must approve and document

any changes. Upon completion of the tasks identified in the Action Plan, management will

review and approve the completed work by signature. 
LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members

Appendix B Arkansas Organization Charts

Appendix C Inspection File Reviews

Appendix D License File Reviews

Appendix E Incident File Reviews
APPENDIX A

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

Name Area of Responsibility

Lloyd Bolling, OSP Team Leader

Technical Staffing and Training

 Legislation and Program Elements Required for

 Compatibility

David Collins, Region-II Status of Materials Inspection Program

Technical Quality of Inspections

Martha Dibblee, Oregon Quality of Licensing Actions

Linda McLean, Region-IV

Thomas O’Brien, OSP Response to Incidents and Allegations

Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program
APPENDIX B

ARKANSAS

DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL

 AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

ORGANIZATION CHARTS