September 20, 2005

Mr. Jim Craig, Director

Office of Health Protection

Mississippi State Department of Health

570 East Woodrow Wilson

P. O. Box 1700

Jackson, MS 39215-1700

Dear Mr. Craig: 

On August 9, 2005, 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 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC)

program.

Section 5.0, page 12, of the enclosed final report presents the IMPEP team’s recommendations

for the State of Mississippi. We request your evaluation and response to the two 

recommendations that pertain to the Division of Radiological Health (the Division) within 30

days from receipt of this letter.

During the MRB meeting, the Division’s high staff turnover was discussed. Specifically, the

Radioactive Materials Branch (the Branch) under the Division has had a large staff turnover for

many years. Although there were no vacant positions during the on-site review, five Health

Physics (HP) staff members departed during this review period (May 26, 2001, to May 20,

2005). The high staff turnover was also identified and discussed during the 2001 IMPEP. At

that time, the review team found that four HP staff members had departed since the 1997

IMPEP. 

We commend the Division’s and the Branch’s efforts to maintain their program while at the

same time devoting significant effort in hiring and training new staff. Nevertheless, we believe

that the challenges the Branch faces today in retaining and training the current HP staff are

greater than those four years ago because of the recent loss of several experienced HP staff

members. The MRB concurred with the review team’s recommendation that the State should

take additional actions, such as increasing salary and benefits, to stabilize staffing and ensure

continued successful program implementation.

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

four years. 
J. Craig -2-

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the IMPEP team during the review. 

I also wish to acknowledge your continued support for the Radiation Control Program and the

excellence in program administration demonstrated by your staff, as reflected in the team’s

findings. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the future.

Sincerely,

/RA B. Mallett Acting For/

Martin J. Virgilio

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Research, 

 State and Compliance Programs

Office of the Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: Robert Goff , Director

Division of Radiological Health

Thomas Conley, KS

Organization of Agreement States

 Liaison to the MRB
J. Craig -2-

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the IMPEP team during the review. 

I also wish to acknowledge your continued support for the Radiation Control Program and the

excellence in program administration demonstrated by your staff, as reflected in the team’s

findings. I look forward to our agencies continuing to work cooperatively in the future.

Sincerely,

/RA B. Mallett Acting For/

Martin J. Virgilio

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Research, 

 State and Compliance Programs

Office of the Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: Robert Goff , Director

Division of Radiological Health

Thomas Conley, KS

Organization of Agreement States

 Liaison to the MRB

Distribution: DCD (SP01)

DIR RF KCyr, OGC

EDO RF JStrosnider, NMSS

OSiurano, STP FCameron, OGC

JTobin, STP TCombs, OCA (2 copies)

JCook, RIV SISP Review Complete

JLynch, RIII/RSAO : Publicly Available G Non-Publicly Available

SMinnick, RI/RSAO : Non-Sensitive G Sensitive

MSnee, OH Chairman Diaz

SSmith, ASPO Commissioner Merrifield

CMiller, IMNS/NMSS Commissioner Jaczko

RStruckmeyer, IMNS/NMSS Commissioner Lyons

SATreby, OGC 

DOCUMENT NAME: E:\Filenet\ML052420655.wpd

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 STP:DD STP:D DEDMRS

NAME JGZabko:kk KPHsueh DKRathbun PHLohaus

(DKRathbun for)

MJVirgilio

DATE 08/30/05 08/30/05 08/30/05 08/30/05 09/20/05

 ML052420649 Pkg. OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

REVIEW OF MISSISSIPPI AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

May 16-20, 2005

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 16-20, 2005, by a review team comprised of

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

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

Final General Statement of Policy,” published in the Federal Register on October 16, 1997, and

the February 26, 2004, NRC Management Directive 5.6, "Integrated Materials Performance

Evaluation Program (IMPEP)." Preliminary results of the review, which covered the period 

May 26, 2001, to May 20, 2005, were discussed with Mississippi management on May 20,

2005.

A draft of this report was issued to Mississippi for factual comment on June 17, 2005. The

State responded by E-mail from Mr. Robert Goff on July 12, 2005. The Management Review

Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final report on August 9, 2005. The MRB found the

Mississippi radiation control program 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 part of the Office of

Health Protection under the Mississippi Department of Health (the Department), which is

overseen by the State Health Officer, who is appointed by the State Board of Health. 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 325

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 10, 2005. The Division provided

its response to the questionnaire on April 28, 2005. A copy of the questionnaire response may

be found on the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)

using the accession number (ML051470240).

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

Mississippi'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 Mississippi

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 performance

criteria for each common and applicable non-common indicator and made a preliminary

assessment of the radiation control program’s performance. 
Mississippi Final Report Page 2

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 IMPEP review, which concluded on May 25, 2001, two recommendations

were made and the results were transmitted to Dr. F. E. Thompson, Jr., State Health Officer,

Mississippi Department of Health, on August 28, 2001. The team’s review of the current status

of these recommendations is as follows:

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

Senior position.

Current Status: All staff positions including the vacant HP Senior position have been

filled. This recommendation is closed.

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 State Suggested Regulations.

Current Status: The Division changed its policy regarding adoption of regulations and

no longer delays adoption of regulations required for compatibility. The Division has no

overdue regulations with the exception of the Generally Licensed Device Rule. This

recommendation is closed. 

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) Technical Staffing and

Training, (2) Status of Materials Inspection Program, (3) Technical Quality of Inspections, 

(4) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, and (5) Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation

Activities. 

3.1 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 and

four Health Physicist (HP) positions. The HP positions may be filled with a HP trainee, HP or
Mississippi Final Report Page 3

HP Senior depending on a qualified candidate’s education and experience. A HP trainee may

be promoted to a HP and then a HP Senior with satisfactory performance within three years. 

All HP staff and the Branch Director perform duties in licensing, inspection, and event

response. At the time of the review, the HP positions were filled with one HP trainee, two HPs

and one HP Senior. They have been working with the Branch for three, four, six and 19 months

respectively. 

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

science for a HP trainee and a master's degree and/or additional radiation-related work

experience for positions beyond the HP trainee position. The review team noted that the

Division has been able to recruit qualified staff. All the four HP staff members have a

bachelor’s degree in science. Among them, two also have a master’s degree in science.

Five staff members departed during the review period for higher paying positions. One member

departed in 2001, one in 2002, one in 2003 and two in 2004. These departures included four

HP Senior staff members and one HP trainee. For two periods of time after the 2001 IMPEP

review, one between January and May 2002 and the other between July and October 2004, the

Branch consisted of the Branch Director and one HP Senior staff member. At the time of the

review, the Branch has filled all the HP vacancies. 

As a result of the large staff turnover, the Branch Director assumed the responsibilities of an HP

Senior by conducting the licensing actions and inspections, by conducting reciprocity

inspections, and by responding to incidents. Also, the Branch Director hired, developed, and

trained new staff during the review period. The Division Director assumed the lead

responsibility for updating regulations. There were no significant workload backlogs identified

during the review period. 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 high staff turnover was identified and discussed during the 2001 IMPEP. The 2001 IMPEP

review team identified that four HP staff members had departed since the 1997 IMPEP. The

current review team discussed the continued high turnover in staff facing the program with both

the Branch Director and Division Director. The review team found that the Branch has been

facing the challenges of losing experienced staff and the resource intensive task of training new

staff for many years. The challenges the Branch faces today are greater than those four years

ago because of the recent loss of several experienced HP staff members to higher paying

positions. The review team concluded that the continued high turnover in staff is mainly due to

the low salary of the HP positions. The review team also concluded that without an increase in

salary structure, the Branch will continue to face the challenges in the future. 

The Division Director indicated that the State has had no pay increase for the past four years

and that the HP salaries have remained comparatively low to those in other neighboring States. 

The review team believes that the radiation control area requires a high degree of technical

experience and training. Without competitive salaries, the program is vulnerable to further

losses of staff which could adversely affect performance. The review team recommended, and

the MRB concurred, that the State take additional actions, such as increasing salary and

benefits, to stabilize staffing and ensure continued successful program implementation.
Mississippi Final Report Page 4

The review team noted that the Division had stable funding during the review period. The

Division collects about 75 percent of the budget from materials fees, and the other funding

mainly comes from grants and contracts from the Food and Drug Administration, Department of

Energy, and Environmental Protection Agency.

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 NRC’s Inspection

Manual Chapter (MC) 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 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 staff training records demonstrated that the Branch is committed to a high degree of

training for the staff. The Division Director indicated that upper level management has been

very supportive of staff training opportunities. In addition, the review team noted the apparent

benefits to the Branch from staff participation in the IMPEP reviews. The Branch Director has

participated on four IMPEP review teams. The knowledge and experience gained from

participation of these reviews have been reflected back to the Branch.

Although the Branch has the training plan for its HP staff, the review team noted that the HP

staff did not have a qualification journal similar to that described in NRC MC 1246 for inspectors

and license reviewers. The review team discussed the benefit of having a qualification journal

for the HP staff with the Branch Director and Division Director. The review team believes that

having a qualification journal would provide a single written document for the HP staff so that

they know what training courses need to be completed and what on-the-job training

requirements need to be fulfilled before they can become a qualified inspector or a license

reviewer for specific categories of licenses. The qualification journal may also be used by

management to support their bases before they certify their HP staff as qualified inspectors or

license reviewers. After the discussion, the Division Director indicated that he will consider the

use of a qualification journal for the HP staff.

The Department is governed by the State Board of Health which is a 13-member Board

appointed for staggered terms by the Governor. Duties of the Board include approving all rules

and regulations of the Department and providing policy direction for the Department. The

Board appoints a State Health Officer for the Department. In addition, the Radiation Advisory

Council serves in an advisory capacity to the Department staff and the Board. The Radiation

Advisory Council members, as required by legislation, are nominated by the professional

organizations and appointed by the Board. Conflicts of interest are addressed under

Mississippi Code 25-4-101, which is known as the “Ethics in Government” law and establishes

the Ethics Commission. If there was a potential conflict of interest, the Department would

request a ruling from the Commission and would follow their guidance.
Mississippi Final Report Page 5

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, The review team recommended, and the MRB

concurred, that Mississippi’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and

Training, be found satisfactory.

3.2 Status of Materials Inspection Program

The review team focused on five factors in reviewing this indicator: inspection frequency,

overdue inspections, initial inspection of new licenses, the timely dispatch of inspection findings

to licensees, and the performance of reciprocity inspections. The review team's evaluation is

based on the Division’s questionnaire responses relative to this indicator, data gathered

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

examination of completed licensing and inspection casework, and interviews with the Division’s

management and staff.

The review team reviewed the Division’s inspection priorities during the review period and found

that the inspection frequencies for various types of licenses were as frequent as, or more

frequent than, NRC MC 2800 for similar license types. 

The review team reviewed the inspection frequency for 132 Priority 1, 2, 3 and initial licenses

during the review period. Of these licenses 52 were initial licenses. The review team found

that two of the initial licenses have not been inspected within 12 months, but both of these

licenses were issued to out-of-state companies who have not performed work in Mississippi

since the license was issued. Of the remaining licenses, two were not inspected within 25

percent of the required frequency. Both of these licensees have been inspected and are not

currently overdue. Considering the large staff turnover and loss of experienced staff, the

Branch’s efforts in performing timely inspections of their licensees throughout the review period

are commendable.

The timeliness of the issuance of inspection findings was evaluated during the inspection

casework review. Of the 15 inspections reviewed, all of the inspection reports were issued

within 30 days. In most cases the inspection reports were issued within seven days of the

inspection.

To evaluate the reciprocity inspection program, the review team evaluated a spreadsheet of

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

questionnaire. During the review period, the Division consistently exceeded the reciprocity

inspection goals as established in NRC MC 1220.

Currently, the Division does not have civil penalty authority. The Division Director indicated that

he is considering another attempt for legislative approval of civil penalties during the next

legislative session.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, The review team recommended, and the MRB

concurred, that Mississippi’s performance with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials

Inspection Program, be found satisfactory.

3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections
Mississippi Final Report Page 6

The review team evaluated the inspection reports, enforcement documentation, inspection field

notes and interviewed inspectors for 15 materials inspections conducted during the review

period. Casework of seven of the Division’s materials inspectors was reviewed. The casework

covered inspections of various license types, including: medical institutions, high dose-rate

remote afterloaders (HDR), well logging, industrial radiography, portable gauges, academic,

nuclear pharmacy, and mobile nuclear medicine. A list of the inspection casework files

reviewed is included in Appendix C. 

Based on the casework review, the review team found that inspectors were reviewing previous

open items and past violations during the inspections. For the cases reviewed, inspection

reports were thorough, complete, and of high quality, with sufficient documentation to ensure

that licensee’s performance with respect to health and safety was acceptable. Inspection

findings led to appropriate and prompt regulatory action. Team inspections were conducted as

appropriate. Based on the casework review, routine inspections covered all aspects of the

licensees’ radiation programs. 

The Division uses a detailed inspection checklist for each license type. These checklists are

also used as the inspection report. The inspection reports are in a format that covers all

inspection areas for each inspection type. The Division’s written inspection procedure is

consistent with the inspection guidance outlined in NRC MC 2800. Although the inspectors

were following the inspection procedure by using an inspection checklist in conducting

inspections, the review team noted that some new inspectors were not familiar with the written

inspection procedure. The review team discussed the need for the inspectors to be familiar

with the written inspection procedure with the Division management. The management

indicated that they will ensure that the new inspectors have a copy of the procedure and are

familiar with it in addition to the checklist. 

The review team found that the Division maintains a sufficient number of various models of

survey instruments to perform radiological surveys of materials licensees. Survey meters are

calibrated at least annually by the manufacturer. The review team examined instrumentation

and observed that the survey instruments in the Division’s office at the time of the on-site

review were calibrated and operable. The Branch also has access to a well equipped on-site

laboratory, which includes a high purity germanium detector, liquid scintillation counting system,

and alpha/beta counting system.

Three inspectors were accompanied by an IMPEP team member during the week of April 11,

2005. The accompaniments included inspections of a portable gauge licensee and two medical

institutions. The facilities inspected are identified in Appendix C. During the accompaniments,

each inspector demonstrated appropriate inspection techniques and knowledge of the

regulations. The inspectors were trained, prepared, and thorough in their inspections of the

licensees’ radiation safety programs. Overall, each inspector utilized good health physics

practices; their interviews with licensee personnel were performed in an effective manner; and

their inspections were adequate to assess radiological health and safety at the licensed

facilities.

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

of the staff at least annually. New inspectors are accompanied more often as part of their

training. Although the Branch Director has performed a significant number of inspections, he is

not accompanied on an annual basis in order to evaluate his performance. The Branch Director
Mississippi Final Report Page 7

was one of the three inspectors accompanied by the IMPEP team member. The review team

discussed the inclusion of the Branch Director in the inspector accompaniment schedule with

the Division Director and Branch Director. The Division Director indicated that the Division

plans to include the Branch Director in the annual inspector accompaniment schedule.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommended, and the MRB

concurred, that Mississippi’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of

Inspections, be found satisfactory.

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

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

23 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; consideration of enforcement history on renewals;

pre-licensing visits, peer or supervisory review as indicated; and independent review. 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, and broad scope), nuclear

pharmacy, academic/educational broad scope, panoramic irradiator, research and

development, nuclear laundry, commercial service, portable and fixed gauge licenses. Types of

licensing actions selected for evaluation included six new licenses, including one denial, five

amendments to existing licenses, seven renewals including one simple renewal with the rest

being renewals in its entirety and five license terminations. A list of the licensing casework

evaluated is included 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. Deficiencies were addressed in memorandums to the

applicant/licensee after the applicant/licensee was notified via telephone conversations

regarding the deficiencies identified. The deficiencies contained appropriate regulatory

language and were noted in the license file. The use of license templates by the staff resulted

in notable consistency between reviewers. There were no licensing backlogs identified during

the review period. Considering the large staff turnover and loss of experienced staff, the

Branch’s efforts to keep the licensing casework current are commendable. 

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.
Mississippi Final Report Page 8

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

Branch Director. This process serves as a valuable 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 review team found that actions terminating licenses were well documented, and included

the appropriate material survey records. The license terminations evaluation revealed a crosssection of licensees possessing both sealed sources and unsealed material. All files reviewed

contained documentation of proper disposal or transfer. The Branch terminated the one

nuclear laundry facility that was being decommissioned during the previous review period. The

termination satisfied the criteria to release this site for unrestricted use. No potentially

contaminated sites formerly licensed by NRC have been identified in Mississippi. 

The review team noted that although Radiation Safety Officers (RSO) were identified on nuclear

pharmacy and medical/academic broad scope licenses, they were not specifically identified on

nuclear medicine or industrial licenses. The review team also noted that based on the

information contained in licensing files, it was not clear who is the primary reviewer of a

licensing action. After discussion with the Branch Director and Division Director, the Branch will

consider identifying the RSO on nuclear medicine and industrial licenses. In addition, the

Branch will consider keeping a copy of the routing slip identifying the primary reviewer in the file

or putting initials of the primary reviewer responsible for the action on the licensee’s

correspondence.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommended, and the MRB

concurred, that Mississippi’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of

Licensing Actions, be found satisfactory.

3.5 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities

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 incidents reported for Mississippi in the Nuclear Materials Events Database (NMED)

against those contained in the Division files, and evaluated the casework and supporting

documentation for 18 radioactive materials incidents. A list of the incident casework examined,

with case-specific comments, is included in Appendix E. The review team also reviewed the

Branch’s response to one allegation received during the review period involving radioactive

materials, which was referred to the Division by the NRC.

The review team discussed incident and allegation policies, 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 staff.

Responsibility for initial response and follow-up actions to materials incidents and allegations

rests with the Division staff. When a radiological incident is reported, the Branch Director, and

others as appropriate, determine the approach to be taken regarding the incident.

The Branch had 23 materials incidents during the review period, 18 of which were reportable

under NRC criteria. All 18 reportable incidents were selected for review. The incidents
Mississippi Final Report Page 9

included: overexposures; lost and leaking sources; fires; stolen, damaged, and lost gauges;

transportation accidents; a stuck well logging tool; and a misadministration. The review team

determined that the Branch’s response to incidents was generally 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, with one exception, and took suitable enforcement

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

The exception to appropriate on-site investigations involved a brachytherapy misadministration. 

The Branch communicated well with the licensee after the incident but did not dispatch

inspectors to the medical facility. This incident was initially identified as a potential Abnormal

Occurrence by the NRC but was later determined to not meet the criteria. The review team

discussed the “trust but verify” concept with Division management and they agreed that an onsite investigation would have been appropriate, in this case. The Branch Director stated that

future misadministration responses will include dispatch of inspectors to better assess the

incident.

The review team noted that the Branch had lost the one HP trained on submitting incident

reports electronically into the NMED database. Since that staff member’s departure, the

Branch submits incident reports to the NMED contractor, who enters the information into the

database. The review team noted that one 2004 incident involving a lost source was not in

NMED. The Branch Director indicated that it was an oversight and reported the incident to the

NRC Operations Center and NMED, during the on-site review. All other significant incidents

were reported to the NRC Operations Center and NMED. Incidents are documented on an

incident summary form developed by the Branch. The consistent use of the form resulted in

excellent, concise documentation of incidents.

During the review period, the Division was referred one allegation by the NRC. No allegations

were received directly by the Division. The review team evaluated the Division’s response to

the allegation and determined that the Branch took prompt and appropriate action in response

to the concerns raised and appropriately protected the alleger’s identity. The results of the

allegation investigation were not, however, provided to the alleger, as appropriate. The Division

Director indicated that the failure to close out with the alleger was an oversight and that the

Division’s normal practice is to ensure that allegers are appropriately informed of investigation

results. The Division’s allegation procedure was updated, during the on-site review, to

emphasize the importance of allegation closure with allegers. The review team recommended,

and the MRB concurred, that the Division should ensure that individuals who make allegations

are informed of the resolution of their concerns.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommended, and the MRB

concurred, that Mississippi’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of

Incident and Allegation Activities, 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) Compatibility Requirements, (2) Sealed 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
Mississippi Final Report Page 10

operations, so only the first three non-common performance indicators were applicable to this

review.

4.1 Compatibility Requirements

4.1.1 Legislation

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

opportunity to review copies of legislation that affects 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 authority to promulgate regulations, issue licenses, perform inspections, and collect

fees. A second act, House Bill 712, that took effect in 2000, increased the schedule of fees for

radiological health licenses and permits.

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. To the extent possible, the

Mississippi regulations follow the Suggested State Regulations of the Conference of Radiation

Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD).

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 an opportunity to comment on draft and final regulations. 

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

Radiation Advisory Council and then the Board of Health. Draft regulation packages are

classified as “intent to adopt” and are mailed to registered interested parties, such as licensees

and NRC. The Board of Health approves the final regulations and sends the regulations to the

Secretary of State for adoption. 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 Division Director

indicated that draft regulations are posted on the Department’s web site. The State legislature

is not involved in the rulemaking process.

The review 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

Mississippi State Regulation Status sheet, maintained by the Office of State and Tribal

Programs. A recommendation was made to the Division during the previous IMPEP review to

not unnecessarily delay the promulgation of regulations while waiting for issuance of Suggested

State Regulations or in anticipation of NRC issuance of final regulations. The Division changed

its policy regarding adoption of regulations and no longer delays adoption of regulations

required for compatibility. All regulations required to be adopted are currently in effect, with one

exception, the following regulation package:
Mississippi Final Report Page 11

“Requirements for Certain Generally Licensed Industrial Devices Containing Byproduct

Material,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 31, 32 amendments (65 FR 79162) were due for adoption

on February 16, 2004 [RATS ID 2001-1].

Mississippi has had a general license registration program in effect since 1963. The rule

contains the basic provisions of the NRC regulation but is more restrictive and includes periodic

inspections of general licenses. The Division Director indicated that Mississippi does not wish

to adopt a less protective general license rule in order to meet the NRC regulation compatibility

designation. Mississippi supports the efforts of the Organization of Agreement States, Inc.

(OAS) and the CRCPD to appeal to the Commission for a change to the general license

regulation compatibility designation, as expressed in a May 7, 2005, letter from the Division

Director to the NRC. In the letter, the Director identified how the State’s general license

program has repeatedly proved its effectiveness over the years and has served the State well.

Since the issue of adopting the rule is likely to be raised during the upcoming IMPEP reviews as

a result of the on-going efforts, the review team recommended, and the MRB concurred, that

the NRC provide guidance to IMPEP teams as to how to document review findings for those

States which have not adopted the general license rule.

The Division will also need to address the following regulations in upcoming rulemakings or by

adopting alternate legally binding requirements:

! “Financial Assurance for Materials Licensees” - Parts 30, 40, 70 (68 FR 57327) that

became effective December 3, 2003. [RATS ID 2003-1]

! “Compatibility with IAEA Transportation Safety Standards and Other Transportation

Safety Amendments” - Part 71 (69 FR 3697) that became effective October 1, 2004. 

[RATS ID 2004-1]

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommended, and the MRB

concurred, that Mississippi’s performance with respect to the indicator, Compatibility

Requirements, be found satisfactory.
Mississippi Final Report Page 12

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

During the review period, the Division did not perform any SS&D evaluations. The review team

did not review the State's SS&D program even though Mississippi currently has authority in this

area. 

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 Mississippi 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 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 reviewed. Accordingly, the review team

recommended, and the MRB concurred, that the Mississippi Agreement State program to be

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

on the results of the current IMPEP review, the review team recommended, and the MRB

concurred, that the next full review should take place in approximately four years.

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

and implementation by the State and the NRC. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE STATE:

1. The review team recommends that the State take additional actions, such as increasing

salary and benefits, to stabilize staffing and ensure continued successful program

implementation. (Section 3.1)

2. The review team recommends that the State ensure that individuals who make

allegations are informed of the resolution of their concerns. (Section 3.5)

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NRC:

1. The review team recommends that the NRC provide guidance to IMPEP teams as to

how to document review findings for those States which have not adopted the general

license rule. (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 12, 2005, E-mail from Robert Goff

Mississippi’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report 
APPENDIX A

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS 

Name Area of Responsibility

Kevin Hsueh, STP Team Leader

Technical Staffing and Training

Mike Snee, OH Status of Materials Inspection Program

Technical Quality of Inspections

Inspector Accompaniments

Jacqueline Cook, RIV Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

James Lynch, RIII Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation

Activities

Compatibility Requirements
APPENDIX B

MISSISSIPPI ORGANIZATION CHARTS

ADAMS: ML051510051
APPENDIX C

INSPECTION CASEWORK REVIEWS

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS

ONLY; NO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE IMPEP TEAM.

File No.: 1

Licensee: Burns Cooley Dennis, Inc. License No.: MS-619-01

License Type: Portable Gauge Inspection Type: Routine

Inspection Date: 4/12/05 Priority: 5

Inspector: JE

Comment: 

Inspector accompanied by IMPEP team member.

File No.: 2

Licensee: Central Mississippi Medical Center License No.: MS-722-01

License Type: Medical Institution Inspection Type: Routine

Inspection Date: 4/13/05 Priority: 3

Inspector: BS

Comment: 

Inspector accompanied by IMPEP team member.

File No.: 3

Licensee: Rankin Medical Center License No.: MS-311-01

License Type: Medical Institution Inspection Type: Routine

Inspection Date: 4/14/05 Priority: 3

Inspector: JA

Comment: 

Inspector accompanied by IMPEP team member.

File No.: 4

Licensee: Southern Inspection Services, Inc. License No.: MS-747-01

License Type: Industrial Radiography, Temporary Job Site Inspection Type: Routine

Inspection Date: 9/25/03 Priority: 1

Inspector: ML

File No.: 5

Licensee: Perf-O-Log Services, Inc. License No.: MS-664-01

License Type: Well Logging Inspection Type: Routine

Inspection Date: 2/10/05 Priority: 3

Inspector: BS

File No.: 6

Licensee: Entergy Operations, Inc. License No.: MS-681-02

License Type: Industrial Radiography, Fixed Facility Inspection Type: Routine

Inspection Date: 4/6/05 Priority: 2

Inspectors: JA & BS
Mississippi Final Report Page C.2

Inspection Casework Reviews

File No.: 7

Licensee: Delta Cancer Center License No.: MS-881-01

License Type: HDR Inspection Type: Routine

Inspection Date: 7/15/04 Priority: 2

Inspector: BS

File No.: 8

Licensee: Hattiesburg Clinic - Endocrinology Department License No.: MS-961-01

License Type: Medical Private Practice - Written Directive Required Inspection Type: Initial

Inspection Date: 5/18/04 Priority: 3

Inspector: KW

File No.: 9

Licensee: Cardinal Health License No.: MS-493-04

License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Inspection Type: Routine

Inspection Date: 7/29/04 Priority: 2

Inspector: BS

File No.: 10

Licensee: University of Southern Mississippi License No.: MS-EBL-03

License Type: Academic Broad Scope Inspection Type: Routine

Inspection Date: 11/7/02 Priority: 3

Inspector: JG

File No.: 11

Licensee: Team Inspections, Inc. License No.: MS-949-01

License Type: Industrial Radiography, Temporary Job Site Inspection Type: Initial

Inspection Date: 4/17/03 Priority: 1

Inspector: ML

File No.: 12

Licensee: Helix Health, LLC License No.: MS-906-03

License Type: Mobile Nuclear Medicine Inspection Type: Initial

Inspection Date: 7/16/03 Priority: 3

Inspector: KW

File No.: 13

Licensee: University of Mississippi Medical Center License No.: MS-MBL-01

License Type: Medical Broad Scope Inspection Type: Routine

Inspection Dates: 6/20/03 & 6/23-27/03 Priority: 2

Inspectors: KW, ML, MV

File No.: 14

Licensee: Coastal Wireline Services, Inc. License No.: TX LO4239

License Type: Well Logging Inspection Type: Reciprocity

Inspection Date: 8/6/04 Priority: N/A

Inspectors: JA and BS
Mississippi Final Report Page C.3

Inspection Casework Reviews

File No.: 15

Licensee: Conam Inspection & Engineering Services, Inc. License No.: LA-10986-L01

License Type: Industrial Radiography, Temporary Job Site Inspection Type: Reciprocity

Inspection Date: 2/10/05 Priority: N/A

Inspectors: JA and JE

INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS

The following inspector accompaniments were performed prior to the on-site IMPEP review:

Accompaniment No.: 1

Licensee: Burns Cooley Dennis, Inc. License No.: MS-619-01

License Type: Portable Gauge Inspection Type: Routine

Inspection Date: 4/12/05 Priority: 5

Inspector: JE

Accompaniment No.: 2

Licensee: Central Mississippi Medical Center License No.: MS-722-01

License Type: Medical Institution Inspection Type: Routine

Inspection Date: 4/13/05 Priority: 3

Inspector: BS

Accompaniment No.: 3

Licensee: Rankin Medical Center License No.: MS-311-01

License Type: Medical Institution Inspection Type: Routine

Inspection Date: 4/14/05 Priority: 3

Inspector: JA
APPENDIX D

LICENSE CASEWORK REVIEWS

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS

ONLY; NO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE IMPEP TEAM.

File No.: 1

Licensee: Team Inspection Services License No.: MS-949-01 

License Type: Industrial Radiography (Temp. Job Sites) Amendment No.: NA 

Date Issued: 9/27/02 Type of Action: New

License Reviewer: JG

File No.: 2

Licensee: Turner Industrial Technical, LLC License No.: MS-950-01

License Type: Industrial Radiography (Temp. Job Sites) Amendment No.: NA

Date Issued: 11/22/02 Type of Action: New

License Reviewer: JG

File No.: 3

Licensee: Hattiesburg Clinic License No.: MS-961-01

License Type: Medical Private Practice Amendment No.: NA 

Date Issued: 10/22/03 Type of Action: New 

License Reviewer: BS

File No.: 4

Licensee: University of Southern Mississippi License No.: MS-976-01

License Type: Research & Development - Educational Amendment No.: NA

Date Issued: 10/1/04 Type of Action: New

License Reviewer: BS

File No.: 5

Licensee: PHC Cleveland, Inc. d/b/a Bolivar Medical Center License No.: MS-522-01

License Type: Limited Medical Institution Amendment No.: 20 

Date Issued: 5/10/05 Type of Action: Amendment 

License Reviewer: BS

File No.: 6

Licensee: St. Dominic - Jackson Memorial Hospital License No.: MS-039-01

License Type: Limited Medical Institution Amendment No.: 73

Date Issued: 6/7/02 Type of Action: Amendment 

License Reviewer: BS

File No.: 7

Licensee: Perf-O-Log, Inc. License No.: MS-664-01 

License Type: Well Logging SNM Tracer & Sealed Sources Amendment No.: 16

Date Issued: 4/29/05 Type of Action: Amendment

License Reviewer: BS
Mississippi Final Report Page D.2

License Casework Reviews

File No.: 8

Licensee: Longview Inspection, Inc. License No.: MS-784-01

License Type: Industrial Radiography Amendment No.: 26

Date Issued: 7/26/04 Type of Action: Amendment

License Reviewer: BS

File No.: 9

Licensee: Wolverton Engineering License No.: MS-885-01

License Type: Portable gauge Amendment No.: 6

Date Issued: 4/13/05 Type of Action: Renewal

License Reviewer: JE

File No.: 10

Licensee: Lampkin Construction Company, Inc. License No.: MS-964-01

License Type: Portable gauge Amendment No.: NA

Date Issued: 5/20/04 Type of Action: New

License Reviewer: JA

File No.: 11

Licensee: Mississippi State University License No.: MS-EBL-02

License Type: Educational Broad Scope Amendment No.: 54 

Date Issued: 3/15/04 Type of Action: Renewal

License Reviewer: BS

File No.: 12

Licensee: University of Mississippi Medical Center License No.: MS-MBL-01

License Type: Medical Institution Broad Scope Amendment No.: 42

Date Issued: 9/17/04 Type of Action: Renewal

License Reviewer: BS

File No.: 13

Licensee: Medline Industries, Inc. License No.: MS-661-01

License Type: Irradiators Amendment No.: 21

Date Issued: 6/28/04 Type of Action: Termination 

License Reviewer: BS

File No.: 14

Licensee: Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. d/b/a Baker Atlas License No.: MS-385-01

License Type: Well logging SNM Tracer & Sealed Sources Amendment No.: 32

Date Issued: 11/2/01 Type of Action: Renewal

License Reviewer: BS

File No.: 15

Licensee: American Industrial Testing & Analytical Laboratories License No.: MS-738-01

License Type: Industrial Radiography (Temp Job Site) Amendment No.: 26

Date Issued: 1/4/05 Type of Action: Renewal

License Reviewer: ML
Mississippi Final Report Page D.3

License Casework Reviews

File No.: 16

Licensee: Chevron USA Products Company License No.: MS-413-01

License Type: Fixed gauges Amendment No.: 39 

Date Issued: 3/22/05 Type of Action: Renewal 

License Reviewer: JA 

File No.: 17

Licensee: The Stern Cardiovascular Center License No.: MS-969-01

License Type: Medical Private Practice Amendment No.: 1 

Date Issued: 4/29/05 Type of Action: Renewal 

License Reviewer: DY

File No.: 18

Licensee: Dunn Roadbuilders License No.: MS-870-01

License Type: Portable gauge Amendment No.: 9 

Date Issued: 4/5/05 Type of Action: Amendment 

License Reviewer: DY 

File No.: 19

Licensee: Cardinal Health 412, Inc. License No.: MS-853-01

License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Amendment No.: 20 

Date Issued: 9/13/04 Type of Action: Termination 

License Reviewer: JA 

File No.: 20

Licensee: GE Automation Services License No.: MS-578-01

License Type: Commercial Service Amendment No.: 10 

Date Issued: 3/4/03 Type of Action: Termination 

License Reviewers: JG/BS

File No.: 21

Licensee: Bayer Crop Science License No.: MS-928-01

License Type: Research & Development Amendment No.: 6

Date Issued: 5/10/05 Type of Action: Termination 

License Reviewer: BS

File No.: 22

Licensee: UniTech Services Group, Inc. License No.: MS-495-01

License Type: Nuclear Laundry Amendment No.: 24

Date Issued: 5/9/02 Type of Action: Termination 

License Reviewers: JG/BS 

File No.: 23

Licensee: Delta Heart & Vascular Center License No.: NA

License Type: Medical - Private Practice Amendment No.: NA

Date Issued: NA Type of Action: New

License Reviewer: BS
APPENDIX E

INCIDENT CASEWORK REVIEWS

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT ARE INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS

ONLY; NO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE IMPEP TEAM.

File No.: 1

Licensee: Longview Inspection License No.: MS-784-01

Date of Incident: 9/24/01 NMED Number: 010870

Investigation Date: 10/4/01 Type of Incident: Overexposure

 Type of Investigation: On-Site

File No.: 2

Licensee: Southern Inspection Services License No.: MS-747-01

Date of Incident: 10/4/01 NMED Number: N/A

Investigation Date: 10/4/01 Type of Incident: Vehicle Accident

Type of Investigation: Telephone

File No.: 3

Licensee: H&H X-Ray Services License No.: MS-622-01

Date of Incident: 12/21/01 NMED Number: 020155

Investigation Date: 12/21/01 Type of Incident: Overexposure

Type of Investigation: Telephone

 

File No.: 4

Licensee: Greenville Manufacturing License No.: GL-300

Date of Incident: 12/3/01 NMED Number: 020476

Investigation Date: 1/17/02 Type of Incident: Lost Gauges

Type of Investigation: On-Site

File No.: 5

Licensee: Mississippi Fabritek License No.: GL-286

Date of Incident: 1/9/02 NMED Number: 020478

Investigation Date: 2/19/02 Type of Incident: Fire

Type of Investigation: On-Site

File No.: 6

Licensee: Burns Cooley Dennis, Inc. License No.: MS-619-01

Date of Incident: 7/25/02 NMED Number: 020706

Investigation Date: 7/25/02 Type of Incident: Stolen Gauge

Type of Investigation: On-Site

File No.: 7

Licensee: J. H. Parker Construction Co., Inc. License No.: MS-911-01

Date of Incident: 12/2/02 NMED Number: 021201

Investigation Date: 12/3/02 Type of Incident: Damaged Gauge

Type of Investigation: On-Site
Mississippi Final Report Page E.2

Incident Casework Reviews

File No.: 8

Licensee: Rouse Rubber Industries, Inc. License No.: GL-330

Date of Incident: 5/16/02 NMED Number: 020796

Investigation Date: 5/16/02 Type of Incident: Fire

Type of Investigation: On-Site

File No.: 9

Licensee: Mississippi Dept. of Transportation License No.: MS-261-01

Date of Incident: 6/3/02 NMED Number: 020795

Investigation Date: 6/3/02 Type of Incident: Damaged Gauge

Type of Investigation: On-Site

File No.: 10

Licensee: Southern Inspection Services License No.: MS-747-01

Date of Incident: 2/14/03 NMED Number: 030142

Investigation Date: 2/14/03 Type of Incident: Overexposure

Type of Investigation: Telephone

File No.: 11

Licensee: Schlumberger Technology Corp. License No.: MS-463-01

Date of Incident: 8/17/03 NMED Number: 030790

Investigation Date: 8/17/03 Type of Incident: Stuck Logging Tool

Type of Investigation: Telephone

File No.: 12

Licensee: Professional Service Industries, Inc. License No.: MS-639-01

Date of Incident: 9/4/03 NMED Number: 030716

Investigation Date: 9/4/03 Type of Incident: Stolen Gauge

Type of Investigation: Telephone

File No.: 13

Licensee: Lampkin Construction Co., Inc. License No.: MS-964-01

Date of Incident: 4/5/04 NMED Number: 040238

Investigation Date: 4/5/04 Type of Incident: Stolen Gauge

Type of Investigation: On-Site

File No.: 14

Licensee: Chem-Bio Labs, Inc. License No.: MS-473-01

Date of Incident: 3/23/00 NMED Number: 040323

Investigation Dates: 3/23/00 and 3/18/04 Type of Incident: Lost Source

Type of Investigation: On-Site

Comment:

This incident had not been previously reported to the NRC or NMED. It was reported to

NRC on 5/17/05, during the IMPEP review.

File No.: 15

Licensee: Imaging Center of Columbus License No.: MS-327-01

Date of Incident: 5/20/04 NMED Number: 040385

Investigation Date: 5/20/04 Type of Incident: Leaking Source

Type of Investigation: Telephone
Mississippi Final Report Page E.3

Incident Casework Reviews

File No.: 16

Licensee: Gallet and Associates License No.: AL-991

Date of Incident: 6/21/04 NMED Number: 040464

Investigation Date: 6/21/04 Type of Incident: Damaged Gauge

Type of Investigation: On-Site

File No.: 17

Licensee: Baptist Memorial Hospital-North MS License No.: MS-232-02

Date of Incident: 11/10/04 NMED Number: 040828

Investigation Date: 11/10/04 Type of Incident: Misadministration

Type of Investigation: Telephone

Comment:

An on-site investigation was not conducted for this incident which was identified as a

potential Abnormal Occurrence.

File No.: 18

Licensee: Thomas Wood Preserving, Inc. License No.: GL-266

Date of Incident: 12/19/00 NMED Number: 050323 

Investigation Dates: 12/19/00 and 5/2/05 Type of Incident: Lost Source

Type of Investigation: On-Site

Comment:

During an inspection in 2005, the Division determined that this lost source, identified as

lost in 2000, was never reported to NRC or NMED. It was reported on 5/10/05.
Attachment 

July 12, 2005, E-mail from Robert Goff

Mississippi’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report 

ADAMS: ML052020248