UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGI ON IV

611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 400

ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011-4005

 September 20, 2007 

Paul Halverson, DrPH, MHSA, 

Director of Health and State Public Health Officer 

Arkansas Department of Health 

4815 West Markham, Slot 39 

Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 

Dear Dr. Halverson: 

A periodic meeting with your State was held on August 28, 2007. The purpose of this meeting 

was to review and discuss the status of the Arkansas Agreement State Program. The NRC was 

represented by Mr. Leonard Wert and Ms. Linda McLean from NRC’s Region IV office, 

Mr. William Rautzen from NRC’s Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, and myself. Topics and issues of importance discussed at the meeting 

included a detailed discussion of recommendations from the 2006 IMPEP review, staffing issues 

facing the Program, and discussion of a long standing licensing renewal backlog. 

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 RRE@nrc.gov to discuss your concerns. 

 Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

 Randy Erickson

Enclosure: 

Periodic Meeting Summary for Arkansas 

(cc listing on next page) 
Arkansas Department of Health 

-2- 

cc w/enclosure: 

Janet Schlueter, Director 

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs

Mr. Bernard Bevill, Section Chief 

Arkansas Department of Health 

Radiation Control Section 

4815 West Markham, Slot 30 

Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 

Mr. Jared Thompson, Program Leader 

Arkansas Department of Health 

Radioactive Materials Program 

4815 West Markham, Slot 30 

Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 
Arkansas Department of Health 

-3- 

bcc (via ADAMS e-mail distribution): 

LDWert 

CLCain 

LMcLean 

JSchlueter, FSME 

DWhite, FSME 

AMcCraw, FSME 

KLukes, FSME 

DSollenberger, FSME 

WRautzen, FSME 

SUNSI Review Completed: Yes ADAMS: X Yes □ No Initials: RRE 

X Publicly Available □ Non-Publicly Available □ Sensitive X Non-Sensitive 

S:\dnms\!SAO\Arkansas Periodic Meeting Summary.doc Final: s:\dnms\ltrs-memos\ 

RIV: RSAO 

RRErickson 

/RA/ 

9/20/07 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY T=Telephone E=E-mail F=Fax
ENCLOSURE 

AGREEMENT STATE PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY FOR ARKANSAS 

DATE OF MEETING: AUGUST 28, 2007 

ATTENDEES: 

NRC STATE

Randy Erickson Paul Halverson, DrPH, MHSA 

 Regional State Agreements Officer Director of Health and State Public Health Officer 

Linda McLean Charles McGrew, MPH, Deputy Director 

 Regional State Agreements Officer and Chief Operating Officer 

Leonard Wert, Director Renee Mallory, RN, Branch Chief 

 Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Health System Licensing and Regulation Branch 

William Rautzen Bernard Bevill, Section Chief 

 Office of Federal and State Materials Radiation Control Section 

 and Environmental Management Jared Thompson, Program Manager 

 Programs Radiation Control Program 

 Steve Mack, Program Coordinator 

 Radiation Control Program 

 Katia Gray, Health Physicist 

 Layne Pemberton, Health Physicist 

 Nicole Sanders, Health Physicist 

 David Snellings, Consultant 

DISCUSSION: 

At the time of the 2006 Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review, 

the Arkansas Agreement State Program (the Program), a part of the Arkansas Division of 

Health, was a part of the Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services (ADHHS). On 

July 1, 2007, at the direction of the Governor, ADHHS was reorganized and the Arkansas 

Department of Health (ADH) was created. The Program is now a part of ADH which is headed 

by Paul Halverson, DrPH. The Program remains part of the Health System Licensing and 

Regulation Branch, which is part of the Center for Health Protection (the Center). The Center 

Director answers directly to the Director of Health. 

The previous IMPEP review was conducted the week of August 28 – September 1, 2006. At the 

conclusion of the review, the team recommended that Arkansas’ performance be found 

satisfactory, but needs improvement, for the indicators, Technical Staffing and Training and 

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, and satisfactory for all remaining performance indicators 

reviewed. The review team made four recommendations regarding the performance of the 

Program and left one recommendation from the 2002 IMPEP review open. The review team 

also recommended, and on November 15, 2006, the Management Review Board (MRB) 

agreed, that the Arkansas Agreement State Program was adequate to protect public health and 

safety and compatible with NRC's program. 

Because of the long standing license renewal backlog, and the negative affect of a high staff 

turnover on the Program’s performance, the MRB agreed that the periodic meeting should be 
Arkansas Periodic Meeting Summary 

-2- 

ENCLOSURE 

moved to one year so the NRC could reevaluate the Program’s progress. The MRB also 

agreed that the next full IMPEP review take place in approximately four years. 

The proposed status for each of the recommendations in Section 5.0 of the 2006 Arkansas final 

IMPEP report are summarized below. 

• The review team recommends that Department management develop and implement an 

action plan to reduce the licensing renewal backlog. 

Current Status: The licensing renewal backlog has been an ongoing problem for the 

Program that had been identified during reviews conducted in 1995, 1998, 2002, and 

again during the 2006 review. At that time the reviewer noted that 92 of 245 active 

licenses or 38 percent were under timely renewal, and that 84 of the 92 licenses under 

timely renewal or 91 percent had been under timely renewal for greater than one year. 

The reviewer also noted that 55 of the 92 licenses under timely renewal or 60 percent 

were also under timely renewal during the 2002 review. Following the 2002 review, the 

Program found some success in reducing the backlog until January 2005 when the 

Program lost three staff members, causing their progress to be lost. The Program has 

not improved in this area since the 2006 review. Other than attempting to hire and train 

new staff, and allowing time to work out the licensing backlog, the Program 

acknowledged they do not have an action plan to reduce the licensing backlog. 

While the licensing backlog was identified as a continuing problem for the Program, it 

appears to be a symptom of the Program’s inability to retain qualified staff. The Program 

has been successful in hiring new staff, but has also experienced several staff 

departures. In 2005, the Program lost three qualified staff members, and again between 

2006 and 2007, the Program lost two additional staff members. Concerned about this 

trend, management interviewed staff and identified what they believe to be root causes 

for staff departures. These include low salaries coupled with the inability for upward 

mobility within the Program. Program management stated that both issues had been 

previously conveyed to Department managers. This information was also provided 

directly to the Director of Health during the exit meeting, where he committed to initiating 

actions to address these areas. This recommendation remains open and should be 

evaluated at the next IMPEP review. 

• The review team recommends that the State evaluate current and future staffing needs 

and business processes to develop and implement a strategy that improves the 

effectiveness and efficiency of the Program to ensure its continued adequacy and 

compatibility. 

Current Status: The Program evaluated staffing levels and determined that when fully 

staffed and fully trained, the Program has the appropriate level of staff to fulfill their 

mission. The Program currently has filled all but one of their vacancies. Due to the high 

number of recent staff departures, the Program interviewed exiting employees and found 

that these employees left because of low salaries and a lack of upward mobility within 
Arkansas Periodic Meeting Summary 

-3- 

ENCLOSURE 

the Program, a message the Program conveyed to Department managers. In a letter to 

NRC dated February 14, 2007, the Director of Health acknowledged the problem and 

stated that the Department will be re-evaluating position classifications and salary 

structure in Summer 2007. While the Department has evaluated future staffing needs, at 

the time of the review they had not yet developed a specific strategy to address the 

reasons why employees are leaving the Program. As mentioned above, the Director of 

Health committed to initiating actions to address these problems. This recommendation 

remains open and should be evaluated at the next IMPEP review. 

• The review team recommends that the State develop and implement a documented 

training plan consistent with the guidance in the NRC/Organization of Agreement States 

Training Working Group Report and the NRC=s Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 1246. 

Current Status: During the 2006 review, it was noted that the Program did not have a 

documented training plan consistent with NRC’s training plan. Following the 2006 

review, the Program developed and documented RAM 07.0, a training program similar to 

IMC 1246. The training plan was reviewed and approved by Department management 

on March 16, 2007. This recommendation should be verified and closed at the next 

IMPEP review. 

• The review team recommends that the State develop and implement an inspection 

prioritization and inspection frequency protocol that can be consistently applied and at 

least meets the minimum requirements of IMC 2800. 

Current Status: During the 2006 review it was noted that the Program had adopted an 

inspection schedule more aggressive than the frequencies identified in IMC 2800. After 

the 2006 review and in an effort to better allocate their available resources, the Program 

revised RAM 04.0, “Guidelines for Compliance Inspection Frequency of Arkansas 

Radioactive Materials Licenses” to align with the frequencies identified in IMC 2800. 

This recommendation should be verified and closed at the next IMPEP review. 

• The review team recommends that the State develop and implement a license 

termination procedure to ensure consistent and acceptable quality of information 

requests and documentation. 

Current Status: During the 2006 review, it was noted that the Program had developed 

and documented a license termination procedure, but staff had not fully followed the 

procedure, resulting in some terminated files containing appropriate documentation while 

other files were missing key information. In response, the Program revised RAM 01.6, 

“Radioactive Material or Particle Accelerator License Termination & Decommissioning,” 

and provided copies to all staff members who were required to read and sign the 

document. The Program stated that this procedure will be closely followed in the future. 

This recommendation should be verified and closed at the next IMPEP review. 
Arkansas Periodic Meeting Summary 

-4- 

ENCLOSURE 

Other topics covered at the meeting included. 

• Program Strengths: Program management has placed the proper emphasis on higher 

risk activities and is focusing on them in an effort to maintain health and safety. Program 

management has managed available staff well, ensuring that incident response and 

emergency response activities are not neglected. While the Program has lost several 

staff members, they have seen some success in hiring new staff. The remaining staff 

has a broad knowledge base. Staff members work well together and provide a high 

level of customer service to their licensees. They work together to make team decisions 

concerning technical matters and have weekly team meetings. Despite limitations in 

staffing, the Program has been able to retain a consultant on a half-time basis to assist 

with the work load. 

Program Weaknesses: The Program described what they believe to be weaknesses in 

their Program and many involve their problems with retaining qualified staff. Because of 

this problem, the average experience level of the staff has been reduced. The Program 

has two fully qualified staff members, but also has four staff members with less than two 

years of experience. Staff training continues to be a problem for the Program. Limited 

funding, competition for existing funds, and a difficult administrative process have all 

contributed to Program staff not being able to attend training. With the separation of 

ADH from ADHHS, Department management believes the process will improve. 

The ability to perform on-the-job training is problematic because the Program only has 

one staff member responsible for staff training. Staff losses have caused an imbalance 

between licensing and inspection activities with only the most important and urgent 

licensing needs being addressed. In addition, all licensing actions have been delayed 

due to the lack of qualified staff to perform secondary reviews. In addition to licensing 

and inspection activities, the staff is also responsible for emergency response and 

decommissioning activities. 

Program staff believed that their previous relationship with ADHHS was distant and 

detached from senior management, and that management was not familiar with their 

program or the work they performed. The staff is hopeful that their relationship with ADH 

management will not be the same. Additionally, the staff believes that there is a 

pronounced lack of communication between Department management and Program 

staff. Program staff believes that Department management is not supportive of their 

work or the significant challenges faced by the Program. 

Licensing fees have not increased in 12 years. The Program staff believes this is 

directly related to low salaries and the inability to retain qualified staff. The Program 

further believes that the salary structure is not in line with job classification requirements 

and the required job functions. This results in difficulty in hiring experience staff above 

entry level salaries. Additionally, the lack of promotion potential due to the lack of a 

career ladder has caused qualified staff to leave the Program for better opportunities. 
Arkansas Periodic Meeting Summary 

-5- 

ENCLOSURE 

Staffing and training: 

• The Program has a total of 8.5 staff positions when fully staffed, which includes the 

Program Manager, an Agency Program Coordinator, five Health Physicists, one 

Executive Secretary, and one half-time employee (consultant). Just prior to this periodic 

meeting, the Program had two vacancies, but one of the vacancies was recently filled. 

They are currently interviewing for the last position. 

Of the five Health Physicists, one is away on military duty, and one is out on maternity 

leave. When the Program fills the last remaining open position, they will be fully staffed; 

however, they only have one staff member that is available to train the new hires, and he 

has other responsibilities within the Program. Most of the newer staff have received onthe-job training and have been able to attend a few NRC training courses. Retention of 

staff will continue to be a challenge for the Program. 

Program reorganizations: 

• The governing agency for the Program underwent a reorganization that became 

effective on July 1, 2007. The reorganization of the Department was described in the 

“Discussion” section of this summary. 

Changes in Program budget/funding. 

• There have been no budget or funding changes since the 2006 review. 

Materials Inspection Program: 

• During the 2006 review, it was noted that while the licensing program continued to 

experience a long-term license renewal backlog, the inspection program was able to 

remain current and up to date. It was noted during the Periodic Meeting that the 

licensing program made little progress in reducing the licensing renewal backlog. 

Despite revising RAM 04.0, “Guidelines for Compliance Inspection Frequency of 

Arkansas Radioactive Materials Licenses,” to align with the frequencies identified in IMC 

2800, it was noted that the Program has now developed a backlog of overdue 

inspections. The Program reported that over the previous 12-month period, they have a 

total of 42 overdue inspections, with 19 of them being Priority 1-3 inspections. 

Reciprocity inspections continue to be completed in a timely manner, and all Increased 

Controls inspections are up to date. The Program’s review of incidents and allegations 

are timely and the proper emphasis is placed on them. The Program also has two 

ongoing, large decommissioning projects. While they expect that these projects may be 

completed by the end of the year, another large decommissioning project is scheduled to 

begin. These decommissioning projects also decrease the Program’s effectiveness in 

reducing the backlog of inspections and licensing actions. The Program is also working 

on a General Licensing program that is currently inactive because of staffing issues. 
Arkansas Periodic Meeting Summary 

-6- 

ENCLOSURE 

Regulations and Legislative changes: 

• Currently the Program is up to date on all regulation changes. In reviewing the State 

Regulation Status (SRS) sheet, it appeared that six final regulation packages had 

previously been reviewed by NRC and returned to the State with comments for 

resolution. The comments had not been resolved by the Program prior to making the 

regulations effective. The Program needs to forward comment resolution of these final 

regulation packages to NRC for review and approval. 

1. “Timeliness in Decommissioning Material Facilities” 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70 

amendments (59 FR 36026) that the State made effective on January 1, 1997. 

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

Medical Use-Parts 30, 32, and 35” (59 FR 61767, 59 FR 65243, 60 FR 322) that the 

State made effective on January 1, 1997. 

3. “Radiation Protection Requirements: Amended Definitions and Criteria-Parts 19 and 

20” (60 FR 36038) that the State made effective on July 1, 2002. 

4. “10 CFR Part 71: Compatibility with the International Atomic Energy Agency-Part 71” 

(60 FR 50248, 61 FR 28724) that the State made effective on July 1, 2002. 

5. “Minor Corrections, Clarifying Changes, and a Minor Policy Change-Parts 20, 35 and 

36” (63 FR 39477, 63 FR 45393) that the State made effective on July 1, 2002. 

6. “Transfer for Disposal and Manifests: Minor Technical Conforming Amendment-Part 

20” (63 FR 50127) that the State made effective on July 1, 2002. 

Event reporting, including follow-up and closure information in NMED.

• All NMED information is up to date. 

Response to incidents and allegations.

• The Program continues to be sensitive to notifications of incidents and allegations. 

Incidents are quickly reviewed for their affect on public health and safety. Staff is 

dispatched to perform onsite investigations when necessary. The Program Manager has 

placed a high emphasis on maintaining an effective response to incidents and 

allegations. 

Status of allegations and concerns referred by the NRC for action. 

• No allegations were referred by NRC to the Program since the 2006 review. 
Arkansas Periodic Meeting Summary 

-7- 

ENCLOSURE 

Significant events and generic implications. 

• Nothing to report. 

Current State Initiatives. 

• Nothing to report. 

Emerging Technologies. 

• Nothing to report. 

Large, complicated, or unusual authorizations for use of radioactive materials.

• The Program has two large, ongoing decommissioning projects that they hope to have 

closed by the end of 2007. One additional decommissioning project is scheduled to 

begin at an unspecified date. 

State’s mechanisms to evaluate performance. 

• The Program Manager conducts monthly self audits of their program to gauge their 

performance, and then compiles a report that is provided to the Section Chief for the 

Radiation Control Program. This report is shared with Department management as 

appropriate. 

• The Program also has a master database that they use to track inspections and 

licensing activities. 

• The Program Manager performs annual accompaniments of all the inspection staff to 

ensure they are performing at the expected level. Accompaniments are even more 

frequent for newer staff. 

Current NRC initiatives: 

• NRC staff discussed ongoing initiatives with the Program. These included the NARM Rule 

and its progress, the fingerprint orders and their progress, and the General Accounting 

Office’s attempt to obtain an NRC license. 

Additional NRC initiatives: 

• Due to the difficulty of obtaining training and in an effort to determine the Program’s 

effectiveness, in June 2007, NRC staff traveled to Arkansas and accompanied two junior 

inspectors on radioactive materials inspections. The accompaniments were to help them 

gain proficiency, as well as a different perspective on the inspection process. NRC staff 
Arkansas Periodic Meeting Summary 

-8- 

ENCLOSURE 

accompanied Arkansas staff for 3 days in both office and field environments, and for both 

health and safety and increased controls inspections. 

• Recently the Program hired a new staff member, who is currently dedicated to the 

licensing program. The Program is unable to send this individual to NRC’s licensing 

course until 2008. To help the Program obtain the needed training, Region IV licensing 

staff hosted the new Arkansas license reviewer for a week of training in October 2007, 

designed to provide her with a broad spectrum of licensing activities. 

Other topics discussed: 

• Program staff requested a separate meeting with NRC staff to discuss issues they felt 

important. Staff openly discussed their frustrations with staffing, salaries, the inability for 

upward mobility within the Program and with the difficulties in obtaining training. Staff 

also discussed frustration with Department management. These concerns were 

conveyed to Department management by NRC during the exit meeting. 

Summary: 

The Arkansas Program is a program struggling to overcome significant staff losses. The 

Program has had a difficult time hiring and retaining qualified staff, and has worked hard to 

maintain a strong and viable program. The Program has placed emphasis on issues 

directly affecting health and safety and has focused on them. The recent loss of several 

staff members has exacerbated the chronic problem of a long standing license renewal 

backlog. In addition, they are now beginning to experience a growing backlog in their 

inspection program. They have been able to hire new staff, but continue to struggle 

because there are few qualified staff members available to provide training. This has 

caused staff morale to suffer. The staff has requested direct and meaningful Department 

management involvement with the Program in an effort to rectify the issues facing them. 

Schedule for the next IMPEP review. 

• The date for the next periodic meeting, any increased oversight of the program, and/or 

the next IMPEP review will be determined by the MRB.