March 8, 2005

Mr. Aubrey V. Godwin, Director

Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency

4814 South 40th Street

Phoenix, AZ 85040

Dear Mr. Godwin:

A periodic meeting with Arizona was held on February 10, 2005. The purpose of this meeting

was to review and discuss the status of Arizona’s Agreement State Program. The NRC was

represented by Lloyd Bolling from NRC’s Office of State and Tribal Programs (by telephone)

and me. 

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

resulting from the discussions.

If you feel that our conclusions do not accurately summarize the meeting discussion, or have

any additional remarks about the meeting in general, please contact me at (817) 860-8143 or

e-mail VHC@NRC.GOV to discuss your concerns.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Vivian H. Campbell

Regional State Agreements Officer

Enclosure:

As stated

cc w/encl

Paul Lohaus, Director, STP
Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency

bcc: (via ADAMS e-mail distribution):

PHolahan

CCain

MMcLean

KSchneider, STP

AMcCraw, STP

JZabko, STP

OSiurano, STP

LBolling, STP

ADAMS: :Yes 9No Initials: _vhc_____ 

:Publicly Available 9Non-Publicly Available 9Sensitive :Non-Sensitive

DOCUMENT NAME: draft: E:\Filenet\ML050670131.wpd 

 Final: ltrs-memos\ 

RIV:RSAO

VHCampbell

/RA/

 03/08/05

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY T=Telephone E=E-mail F=Fax
AGREEMENT STATE PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY FOR ARIZONA

DATE OF MEETING: February 10, 2005

ATTENDEES:

State

Aubrey Godwin, Director

William Wright, Program Manager

Dan Kuhl

Geoffrey Short

Louisa Budd

John Lamb

NRC

Vivian Campbell, Regional State Agreements Officer, Region IV

Lloyd Bolling, Agreement State Project Officer, Office of State and Tribal Programs (by

telephone)

DISCUSSION: 

The Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency (Agency) is a cabinet-level agency. The Director is

appointed by the Governor. The Agency is responsible for the conduct of a statewide

radiological health and safety program, and consists of five program areas: Radioactive

Materials/Non-Ionizing Radiation (RAM), X-ray Compliance (X-ray), Radiation Measurements

Laboratory (Lab), Emergency Response, and The Medical Radiologic Technology Board of

Examiners. 

The following is a summary of the meeting held in Phoenix, Arizona, on February 10, 2005,

between representatives of the NRC and the Agency. During the meeting, the topics

suggested in a letter dated November 10, 2004, from Ms. Campbell to Mr. Godwin were

discussed. The discussion pertaining to each topic is summarized below.

1. Status of State’s actions to address all open previous IMPEP review findings and/or

open recommendations.

The previous Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review

was conducted during the period February 25 - March 1, 2002. The status of the

recommendations outlined in Section 5.0 of the final IMPEP report was discussed at the

periodic meeting conducted August 19, 2003. During the August 2003 meeting, the

NRC staff recommended that two of the six IMPEP recommendations be closed at the

next IMPEP review. The current status of the remaining four recommendations is

summarized below.

a. Recommendation: The review team recommends that the Agency reexamine their

procedure for handling allegations, consider the key elements of procedures outlined

in NRC’s Management Directive 8.8, and incorporate the elements that are

appropriate for their program. (Section 3.5)
-2-

Current Status: The Agency has prepared and implemented a procedure, effective

February 6, 2005, for handling allegations received by the Program. The procedure

specifically references the guidance outlined in NRC’s Management Directive 8.8. It

is recommended that this item be closed at the next IMPEP review.

b. Recommendation: The review team recommends that the Program submit legally

binding requirements to NRC for review. (Section 4.1.2)

Current Status: The Agency has not submitted any legally binding requirements for

NRC review. However, they are working to update their regulations instead of using

legally binding requirements to satisfy the compatibility requirements. The status of

Arizona’s regulations is discussed in detail in Item 4.c. of this enclosure. It is

recommended that this item be reviewed at the next IMPEP review.

c. Recommendation: The review team recommends that the Agency review its

procedures to improve the timeliness in incorporating new rule changes into their

regulatory program, including immediately addressing the reporting requirements for

generally licensed device distributors which were due by August 16, 2001. 

(Section 4.1.2)

Current Status: Agency management again discussed the State’s rulemaking

process. Management is evaluating regulatory changes required in each

amendment and determining the best course of action to be taken within the

constraints of their current rulemaking process. It appears that the Agency will

continue to be challenged in some cases to adopt new rule changes in a timely

manner. It is recommended that this item be reviewed at the next IMPEP review.

d. Recommendation: The review team recommends that the Agency establish

qualification requirements for SS&D reviewers and develop a formalized, written

training program. (Section 4.2.2)

Current Status: The Agency has established qualification and training

requirements for SS&D reviewers. The Agency sent two staff to the September

2003 SS&D workshop. The NRC staff advised the State to review the IMPEP

procedures outlined in Office of State and Tribal Program procedure SA-108,

entitled Non-Common Performance Indicator - Sealed Source & Device Reviews, to

assure that their criteria are consistent. It is recommended that this item be closed

at the next IMPEP review.

2. Strengths and/or weaknesses of the State program as identified by the State or NRC

including identification of actions that could diminish weaknesses. 

a. Program Strengths: Agency Management stated that being a cabinet-level agency

has provided them access to additional funding to purchase needed equipment. The

Agency continues to have qualified, experienced staff. 

b. Program Weaknesses: Although the Agency has been able to attain additional

funding for equipment, general program funding continues to be a challenge. The 
-3-

Agency had a zero budget change for fiscal year 2004. Agency management stated

that they again expect to run out of travel funds near the end of the fiscal year.

Of the seven vacancies reported in the August 2003 periodic meeting summary, the

Agency had filled one vacancy in each of the following programs: RAM, X-ray and

Lab. However, during the last budget cycle, three vacancies became unfunded, one

in each referenced program.

During the last periodic meeting, Agency management discussed the lack of depth

in the emergency response organization. Since that time the Agency has been able

to hire a consultant to assist in responding to major emergency events. However,

the Agency still cannot fill all the critical positions to staff a second shift in the event

of a major emergency.

3. Feedback on NRC’s program as identified by the State and including identification of

any action that should be considered by NRC: 

Agency management stated that the Commission’s decision to discontinue the Federal

Register in hard copy has caused difficulty in not having the Statements of

Consideration to develop the need for the regulation and the economic statements to

support the need for the rule. These documents are critical to getting the rules accepted

in Arizona, and they are not easily available. On January 14, 2005, STP sent a letter

that explained how Agreement States can stay informed of amendments to Title 10

Code of Federal Regulations and where to get specific information concerning items

required for adoption due to compatibility. The NRC staff provided this information to

the Agency. Agency management stated that this does not adequately address their

concerns and does not assist the State in the rule adoption process.

4. Status of State Program including:

a. Staffing and Training: 

i) Number of staff in the program and status of their training and qualifications: 

The RAM program currently is budgeted for three FTE, one for licensing and rule

writing and two for inspection. The Agency was able to fill one of the RAM

vacancies in November 2003. Since that time, the new staff member has

attended the 5-week Applied Health Physics Course offered by Oak Ridge

Associated Universities and the security training held in Albuquerque, New

Mexico. 

ii) Program vacancies: The RAM program currently has one unfunded position.

iii) Staff turnover: There has been no turnover since the last periodic meeting. 

However, one individual was employed.

iv) Adequacy of FTE for the materials program: Agency management stated that

they considered the current RAM staffing level borderline. The Program has

experienced growth in some complex licensing areas. For example, since the

last IMPEP, the number of nuclear pharmacies has almost doubled. In addition,

the number of particle accelerator licensees has doubled since 1996. 

v)
-4-

b. Materials Inspection Program: 

i) Discuss the status of the inspection program including if an inspection backlog

exists and the steps being taken to work off the backlog. The RAM program has

no inspection backlog based on NRC’s criteria. The Program conducts

approximately 175 inspections annually. 

c. Regulations and Legislative changes: 

i) Discuss status of State’s regulations and actions to keep regulations up to date,

including the use of legally binding requirements: The NRC staff reviewed the

status of the Arizona regulations with Agency management. The staff has

drafted a rule package that includes the General License (GL) rule (RATS-ID

2001-1) and revisions of the Skin Dose Limit (RATS-ID 2002-1). This rule

package is currently undergoing in-house peer review. Agency management

stated that they anticipate submitting this regulation package for NRC review by

July 2005. In the meantime, the Agency has begun implementing a GL

registration program. The Agency has contacted 10 of the 16 affected general

licensees. In addition, the Agency is investigating two general licensees, one of

which is out of business, where devices cannot be located. 

The NRC staff also discussed the upcoming due date for the Medical Use of

Byproduct Material amendment (RATS-ID 2002-2). Agency management stated

that the unresolved issue regarding training and education for medical use

licensees causes problems for the State. Because of the States rule making

process, they need to promulgate the rules in their entirety. Agency

management informed the NRC staff that they do not plan to promulgate medical

rule making until the training and education issue is resolved. However, Agency

management agreed to reassess their decision.

d. Program reorganizations: 

i) Discuss any changes in program organization including program/staff relocations

and new appointments: Agency management stated that no organization

changes are anticipated at this time. However, they informed NRC staff that the

Agency will be undergoing Sunset Review next fiscal year to determine whether

the Agency is accomplishing its mission. 

Since the 2003 Periodic meeting, Agency management has completed their

evaluation of the steps that would be need to be taken in order for the program

to become 100 percent fee-funded. They have provided that information to the

State Legislature. However, no further action has been required by the

Legislature.

e. Changes in Program budget/funding: 

Agency management stated that there were no vacancy savings this fiscal year. 

Therefore, they anticipate a shortage in funds as they approach the end of the fiscal

year. They expect their travel budget to be a challenge again this year.
-5-

5. Event Reporting, including follow-up and closure information in NMED: 

Prior to the periodic meeting, NRC staff queried the NMED database to identify the

events reported by the Agency since the IMPEP. Twenty-three events were identified

as reportable. Of the 23, only two were identified as not being reported timely and three

needed additional followup information. These events were discussed with the Agency. 

Agency management stated that all reportable incidents are entered into the NMED

database, and additional information is provided as they get the information. The staff

has been diligent in closing events once their investigation has been completed and no

further action is anticipated by the State. 

6. Response to Incidents and Allegations: 

One allegation was referred since the 2003 periodic meeting. The Agency did not

followup on the allegation due to the low level of safety significance and the lack of

resources. The Agency informed the Region by letter of their decision. 

7. Status of the following Program areas:

a. Sealed Source & Device Program:

As discussed in Item 1.d. of this enclosure, two staff attended the SS&D workshop in

September 2003. Since that time, the State has worked on the transfer of

certificates from the States of California and Georgia.

b. Uranium Mills Program: Not applicable

c. Low-Level Waste Program: There are no plans for a low-level waste facility in the

State.

8. Information exchange and discussion: 

a. Current State initiatives: 

In December 2002, the States received a letter that notified them of NRC’s

regulatory proposal to enhance the security of portable gauges. As a result of that

notification, the Agency instituted a licensing policy requiring that gauge users to

implement two levels of security for their devices beyond the locked

storage/transportation container and locked handle on the gauge. Since instituting

this policy change, the Agency reported that loss of portable gauges in their

jurisdiction had significantly reduced.

b. Emerging technologies: 

The Agency indicated that they are reviewing applications for mobile positron

emission tomography (PET).

c. Large, complicated or unusual authorization for use of radioactive materials:

Agency management indicated that they have not received any applications for

irradiators, major decommissioning of sites, or waste processing, storage or

disposals. 
-6-

d. State’s mechanisms to evaluate performance: 

Agency management conducts a weekly meeting with Senior management staff. 

The RAM Program Manager then conducts a followup staff meeting to review the

inspection schedule, plan their work schedule, and look ahead for upcoming issues.

The Agency does not have the resources to establish electronic databases to

manage their workload. However, because of the Legislative oversight

requirements, the Agency must carefully monitor the timeliness of licensing,

inspection and enforcement actions. 

e. NRC current initiatives: 

The NRC staff discussed the current status of the portable gauge rule, sensitive

information screening of documents in ADAMS, Security Measures, and Part 35 -

Training and Experience rulemaking. 

9. Schedule for the next IMPEP review: 

The next IMPEP is tentatively scheduled for FY2006. Agency management requested

that NRC consider scheduling the review in early October 2005 in consideration of the

upcoming Agency Sunset review and the November 2005 Palo Verde exercise.