July 13, 2006

Donald E. Williamson, M.D.

State Health Officer

Alabama Department of Public Health

P. O. Box 303017

Montgomery, AL 36130-3017

Dear Dr. Williamson:

On June 29, 2006, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final

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

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

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

Section 5.0, page 9, of the enclosed final report contains a summary of the IMPEP team’s

findings. There were no recommendations for the State of Alabama resulting from this IMPEP

review. Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review of the Alabama

Agreement State Program will take place in approximately four years, with a periodic meeting

tentatively scheduled for April 2008.

By way of NRC Order EA-05-090, the NRC imposed increased controls on licensees

possessing certain radioactive materials in risk significant quantities. The Agreement States

were required to impose the same controls on licensees possessing certain radioactive

materials in risk significant quantities in their jurisdiction. The MRB recognizes the efforts of the

Alabama Agreement State Program in imposing the increased controls upon their affected

licensees and ensuring their licensees are in compliance. The Office of Radiation Control (the

Office) within the state of Alabama, has commenced the inspections of licensees subject to

increased controls and is on target to completing all the inspections of higher risk licensees

within the first year of implementation. The MRB appreciates the level of effort put forth by the

Office in making sure the inspections of higher risk licensees are completed in a timely manner.

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

I also wish to acknowledge your continued support for the Agreement State 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/

Martin J. Virgilio 

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Research, 

 State and Compliance Programs

Office of the Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure: 

As stated

cc w/ encl: Kirksey E. Whatley, Director John Parker, New Mexico

Office of Radiation Control Organization of Agreement States

Alabama Department of Public Health Liaison to the MRB
July 13, 2006

Donald E. Williamson, M.D.

State Health Officer

Alabama Department of Public Health

P.O. Box 303017

Montgomery, AL 36130-3017

Dear Dr. Williamson:

On June 29, 2006, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final

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

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

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

Section 5.0, page 9, of the enclosed final report contains a summary of the IMPEP team’s

findings. There were no recommendations for the State of Alabama resulting from this IMPEP

review. Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review of the Alabama

Agreement State Program will take place in approximately four years, with a periodic meeting

tentatively scheduled for April 2008.

By way of NRC Order EA-05-090, the NRC imposed increased controls on licensees

possessing certain radioactive materials in risk significant quantities. The Agreement States

were required to impose the same controls on licensees possessing certain radioactive

materials in risk significant quantities in their jurisdiction. The MRB recognizes the efforts of the

Alabama Agreement State Program in imposing the increased controls upon their affected

licensees and ensuring their licensees are in compliance. The Office of Radiation Control (the

Office) within the state of Alabama has commenced the inspections of licensees subject to

increased controls and is on target to completing all the inspections of higher risk licensees

within the first year of implementation. The MRB appreciates the level of effort put forth by the

Office in making sure the inspections of higher risk licensees are completed in a timely manner.

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

I also wish to acknowledge your continued support for the Agreement State 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/

Martin J. Virgilio 

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Research, 

 State and Compliance Programs

Office of the Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure: 

As stated

cc w/ encl: Kirksey E. Whatley, Director John Parker, New Mexico

Office of Radiation Control Organization of Agreement States

Alabama Department of Public Health Liaison to the MRB

Distribution: See next page.

DOCUMENT NAME: E:\Filenet\ML061910476.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:DD STP:D DEDMRS

NAME ATMcCraw:kk DKRathbun JRSchlueter MJVirgilio

DATE 7/10/06 7/10/06 7/10/06 7/13 /06

ML061910459 Pkg. OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
D. E. Williamson - 2 -

Distribution: DCD (SP01) PDR (YEST)

DIR RF KCyr, OGC Chairman Klein

EDO RF JStrosnider, NMSS Commissioner McGaffigan

GPangburn, RI MFederline, NMSS Commissioner Merrifield

SMinnick, RI TCombs, OCA (2 copies) Commissioner Jaczko

E Skotak, TX AKock, OEDO Commissioner Lyons

CMaupin, STP

REvans, RIV SUNSI Review Complete

SWastler, NMSS : Publicly Available G Non-Publicly Available

CMiller, NMSS/IMNS : Non-Sensitive G Sensitive

RStruckmeyer, NMSS/IMNS

STreby, OGC

FCameron, OGC
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

REVIEW OF ALABAMA AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

April 3-7, 2006

FINAL REPORT

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

ENCLOSURE
Alabama Final Report Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the review of the Alabama Agreement State Program. The

review was conducted during the period of April 3-7, 2006, by a review team comprised of 

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

Texas. 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 of April 13, 2002, to April 7, 2006, were discussed with Alabama

management on the last day of the review.

A draft of this report was issued to Alabama for factual comment on April 28, 2006. The State

responded by letter on May 16, 2006, from Kirksey E. Whatley, Director, Office of Radiation

Control (the Office). The Management Review Board (MRB) met on June 29, 2006, to consider

the proposed final report. The MRB found the Alabama Agreement State Program adequate to

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

The Alabama Agreement State Program is administered by the Office, which is located within

the Department of Public Health (the Department). The Director of the Office reports to the

State Health Officer, who serves as the Director of the Department. Organization charts for the

Department and the Office are included as Appendix B. At the time of the review, the Alabama

Agreement State Program regulated 438 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

Alabama.

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

performance indicators was sent to the Office on January 24, 2006. The Office provided its

response to the questionnaire on March 27, 2006. A copy of the questionnaire response may

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

using the Accession Number ML060870402.

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

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

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

(4) technical review of selected files; (5) two field accompaniments of an Alabama inspector;

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

team evaluated the information gathered against the IMPEP performance criteria for each

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

Agreement State program’s performance.

Section 2 below discusses the Program’s actions in response to recommendations made during

the previous review. Results of the current review for the IMPEP common performance

indicators are presented in Section 3. Section 4 discusses results of the applicable noncommon performance indicators, and Section 5 summarizes the review team's findings.
Alabama Final Report Page 2

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS

During the previous IMPEP review, which concluded on April 12, 2002, no recommendations

were made by the review team.

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 Office’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 Office’s questionnaire response relative to this

indicator; interviewed Office management and staff; and reviewed job descriptions, training

plans, and training records. The review team also considered any possible workload backlogs

in evaluating this indicator; however, no licensing or inspection casework backlogs were

identified.

The Office has a Director, an Assistant Director, and four technical Branches: the Inspection

Branch; the Licensing Branch; the Healing Arts and X-Ray Branch; and the Emergency

Planning and Environmental Monitoring Branch. The Inspection and Licensing Branches make

up the Agreement State program. The Office Director spends approximately twenty percent of

his time on Agreement State program activities. Among other duties, the Assistant Director,

who is a Certified Health Physicist, provides technical assistance to the staff and handles

allegations.

There are two technical staff positions and one Branch Director position in both the Inspection

Branch and Licensing Branch. One staff member is new to the Alabama materials program and

one staff member has returned to the Office after 20 years of service with another Agreement

State program. The Office currently has no vacancies in the Agreement State program.

The Office Director is very supportive of staff training opportunities, as well as staff participation

in working groups. All but two staff members have attended the five-week Health Physics

course conducted by the Oak Ridge Institute of Science and Education. The remaining two

staff members were attending the course during the week of the review. The Inspection Branch

Director and primary inspector both attended the NRC Security Systems and Principles Course

in Autumn 2005. The Licensing Branch Supervisor attended the NRC Security Systems and

Principles Course in April 2006, and the Office is allocated two more slots for Fiscal Year 2007.

The review team noted that the Office experienced stable funding during the review period due

to the Alabama law that established radioactive materials licensing fees at 75 percent of the

fees that the NRC charges its materials licenses. The Office is fully funded from fees.
Alabama Final Report Page 3

The Office has a documented training plan that is consistent with the guidance in the

NRC/Organization of Agreement States Training Working Group Report and NRC’s Inspection

Manual Chapter (MC) 1246. They also have on-the-job training to supplement the course work

so that individuals may broaden their work areas. New staff members are assigned

increasingly complex licensing duties and accompany more experienced inspectors during

increasingly complicated inspections under the direction of their Branch Director. Inspectors

are assigned independent inspections after demonstrating competence during accompaniment

evaluations by the Branch Director. The team confirmed that the new staff are in the process of

gaining qualifications at an appropriate pace.

The Radiation Advisory Board (the Board) is an advisory board to the State Health Officer. The

Board serves in an advisory capacity when requested by the State Health Officer. Several

members of the Board are either licensed themselves or work for licensees. Members of the

Board are required to file annual Ethics Commission Statements regarding their service and

possible conflicts of interests.

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

that Alabama’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, was

satisfactory.

3.2 Status of Materials Inspection Program

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

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

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

based on the Office’s questionnaire response relative to this indicator, data gathered from the

Office’s licensee database, examination of completed inspection casework, and interviews with

staff.

A Department memorandum dated May 12, 2004, entitled “License and Registration

Inspections Priority,” established that inspections be conducted in accordance with the priority

schedule provided in MC 2800, with more frequent inspections in some categories. For

example, all NRC Priority T (telephone) programs are considered Priority 5 by the Office. The

memorandum also established a policy for more frequent inspections of licensees whose

previous inspection identified violations, based on severity and repetition.

The Office maintains an “Inspections Due” database, sorted by priority, to identify the inspection

due dates of all licensees. The database contains sufficient information for proper

management of the inspection program. The Inspection Branch conducts an average of 106

inspections per year. Only one inspection was conducted overdue during the review period. 

This inspection was incorrectly coded as an out-of-State licensee, which resulted in a delay in

conducting the initial inspection. The percentage of overdue inspections was below one

percent of the inspections conducted by the Office during the review period.

The review team noted that the Office routinely performed inspections of materials licensees on

an unannounced basis, except for initial inspections. Initial inspections of new licensees are

scheduled for nine months after the date the license is issued. An inspection is performed

before the end of the first year of license issuance independent of whether materials have been

acquired or not. Fifty-five initial inspections were performed during the review period. All initial
Alabama Final Report Page 4

inspections were conducted within the scheduled interval, except for the one overdue inspection

mentioned above.

NRC allows Agreement State licensees 180 days of use of radioactive materials in NRC

jurisdiction under reciprocity. Alabama regulations only allow 30 days of use of radioactive

materials in the State under reciprocity. After 30 days, an out-of-State Alabama license must

be obtained. Holders of these out-of-State licenses are required to give a notification in

advance of any use of radioactive material in Alabama.

Because of the short reciprocity interval, the review team could not directly apply the reciprocity

inspection goal of 20 percent, as prescribed by MC 1220, to this program. Many companies

have out-of-State Alabama licenses and are inspected annually by the program. The review

team found that many of the reciprocity licensees entered the State for one to two days

throughout the year for jobs lasting only a few hours each trip, and thus attempted inspections

were not able to be completed. Office management indicated that performing reciprocity

inspections remains a goal of the Office. The review team concluded that the Office’s

performance of reciprocity inspections over the review period was acceptable.

The timeliness of the issuance of inspection findings was evaluated by the team’s review of

inspection casework. Fifty-four inspection reports from 25 inspection files were reviewed for

timeliness. All inspection reports are signed by the Inspection Branch Director. The inspection

results were transmitted to licensees within 30 days, with four exceptions. All four overdue

letters involved enforcement actions.

In accordance with the Commission Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) for COMSECY05-0028, on increased controls, the Office has started performing inspections of higher risk

licensees to ensure the licensees are in compliance with the requirements of the increased

controls. The Office is on target to complete all inspections of higher risk licensees within the

first year of implementation.

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

that Alabama’s performance with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials Inspection

Program, was satisfactory.

3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections

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

field notes, and interviewed inspectors for 25 radioactive materials inspections conducted

during the review period. The casework reviewed included inspections by six materials

inspectors and covered inspections of various types including: industrial radiography, medical

broad scope, medical institutions, nuclear pharmacies, research and development, nuclear

laundry, blood irradiator, and source material. Appendix C lists the inspection casework

reviewed for completeness and adequacy.

Based on the casework reviews, the review team found that routine inspections covered all

aspects of a licensee’s radiation protection program. Inspection reports were thorough,

complete, consistent, and of high quality, with sufficient documentation to ensure acceptable

performance with respect to health and safety by the licensee. Previous violations and other

findings are reviewed during each subsequent inspection. Draft reports were reviewed and
Alabama Final Report Page 5

approved by supervisors in a timely manner. Inspection findings led to appropriate and prompt

regulatory action. Team inspections were performed when appropriate and for training

purposes.

Documentation in the inspection files adequately supported any cited violations,

recommendations made to licensees, unresolved safety issues, and discussions held with the

licensee during exit meetings. The review team noted that the inspector checklists do not

specifically mention public dose assessments and the effluent Constraint Rule requirements,

and therefore there was no documentation of inspection reviews in these areas when licensees

are in compliance. Violations of these requirements would be specifically noted in an inspection

report and a notice of violation would be issued to the licensee. The review team discussed the

benefits of including these items in the inspector checklists for completeness.

During the review period, the Inspection Branch Director performed annual accompaniments of

the fully-qualified inspector and performed additional accompaniments of the new inspector

going through the qualification process. The review team noted that the Inspection Branch

Director conducted materials inspections on a routine basis (about once per month); however,

since the Office’s internal procedures do not require accompaniments for a Director, he was not

accompanied annually. The review team found this practice acceptable because of the

extensive experience of the Inspection Branch Director.

The review team noted that all technical staff members are equipped with a combination cell

phone/two-way radio for communication. Inspectors can contact the Office immediately if there

is a problem in the field. The inspectors can also be reached anywhere in the State of Alabama

if the need arises.

The Office maintains a sufficient number and variety of survey instruments to perform

radiological surveys of materials licensees. The review team examined the State’s

instrumentation and observed that the survey instruments were calibrated and operable.

The review team accompanied one materials inspector during the period of March 7-8, 2006. 

The inspector was accompanied on inspections of a medical licensee and an industrial

radiography licensee. These accompaniments are identified in Appendix C. During the

accompaniments, the inspector demonstrated appropriate performance-based inspection

techniques and knowledge of regulations. The inspector was prepared and was thorough in the

reviews of the licensees' radiation safety programs. Overall, the technical performance of the

inspector was excellent and adequately assessed radiological health and safety.

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

that Alabama’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, was

satisfactory.

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The review team examined completed licensing casework and interviewed license reviewers for

17 specific licenses. Licensing actions were reviewed for completeness, consistency, proper

radioisotopes and quantities, qualifications of authorized users, adequate facilities and

equipment, adherence to good health physics practices, financial assurance, operating and

emergency procedures, appropriateness of the license conditions, and overall technical quality. 
Alabama Final Report Page 6

The casework was also reviewed for timeliness, use of appropriate deficiency letters and cover

letters, reference to appropriate regulations, product certifications, supporting documentation,

consideration of enforcement history, pre-licensing visits, supervisory review as indicated, and

proper signatures. The casework was 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. Licensing actions selected for evaluation

included three new licenses, five renewals, nine amendments, and two terminations. The

sampling included the following types of licenses: medical (institution, private practice, and

broad scope), nuclear laundry, industrial radiography, well logging, portable and fixed gauges,

radioisotope and sealed source radiotherapy, decontamination services, and a nuclear

pharmacy. A listing of the licensing casework evaluated can be found in Appendix D.

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

acceptable quality with health and safety issues properly addressed. Licenses are issued for a

five year period under a timely renewal system. License tie-down conditions were stated

clearly, backed by information contained in the file, and inspectible. Standard license

conditions are used. The licensee’s compliance history was taken into account when reviewing

all renewal applications and major amendments. Terminated licensing actions are well

documented, showing appropriate transfer and survey records. The exemptions noted in the

questionnaire response relative to this indicator were determined to be appropriate and well

documented by license conditions.

In addition to review by the license reviewer, the Licensing Branch Director performs a technical

review on all licensing actions. All licenses are signed by the Office Director and the State

Health Officer.

The review team examined the licensees that the Office had determined met the criteria for the

increased controls per COMSECY-05-0028. The review team determined that the Office had

correctly identified the licensees that require increased controls based on this criteria, and will

continue to issue increased controls to any additional licensees, as appropriate. Each licensee

was issued a license amendment requiring increased controls in accordance with the time lines

established by the Commission in the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) for COMSECY05-0028.

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

that Alabama’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing

Actions, was satisfactory.

3.5 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities

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

team examined the Office’s response to the questionnaire relative to this indicator, evaluated

selected incidents reported for Alabama in the Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED)

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

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

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

response to allegations involving radioactive materials including those referred to the State by
Alabama Final Report Page 7

the NRC during the review period. The review team also discussed the Office’s incident and

allegation policies, procedures, files, and tracking system with the staff.

The review team identified 174 incidents in NMED for the State of Alabama during the review

period and selected 17 incidents for review. The incidents included: damaged equipment,

equipment failures, a fire, medical events, an abnormal occurrence, lost and stolen radioactive

material, leaking sources, and an overexposure. The review team found that the Office’s

response to incidents was complete and comprehensive. Initial responses were prompt and

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

significance. The Office dispatched inspectors for on-site investigations when appropriate, and

took suitable enforcement and follow-up actions.

The responsibility for initial response and follow-up actions to materials incidents may be

assigned to any member of the materials program. Upon receipt, Office staff reviews the

incident, decides on the appropriate response, and logs the incident into the Office’s log book. 

Documentation related to an incident is placed both in an incident file and in the appropriate

license docket file.

The Office’s incident procedure indicates that events requiring immediate notification be

provided to the NRC within 24 hours, and 30-60 day reportable events are provided to the NRC

in monthly reports. The review team noted that the Office usually meets the 24 hour notification

of significant events. All the incidents requiring 30-60 day notification were reported to the NRC

within the required time frame. The Office uses the latest NMED software to track all

radioactive material incidents. Three staff members are trained in the use of the computer

system and one staff member manages the State’s submissions. The Office promptly

responded to requests for information from the NMED contractor by e-mails with attachments.

In evaluating the effectiveness of Alabama's actions responding to allegations, the review team

examined the Office’s questionnaire response relative to this indicator, casework for the three

allegations referred to the State by the NRC as well as the casework for four additional

allegations reported directly to the State. The team noted that the State receives a relatively

small number of allegations. The Office evaluates each allegation and determines the proper

level of response. The review of the casework indicated that the Office took prompt and

appropriate action in response to the concerns raised. All of the allegations reviewed were

appropriately closed and the review team noted that allegations were treated and documented

internally in the same manner as incidents. The State makes every effort to protect an alleger’s

identity, and it is only released for a good cause. There were no performance issues identified

from the review of the casework documentation.

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

that Alabama's performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Incident and

Allegation Activities, was 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. Only the first non-common performance indicator was applicable to this review.
Alabama Final Report Page 8

4.1 Compatibility Requirements

4.1.1 Legislation

Legislative authority to create the program and enter into an Agreement with the NRC was

granted in 1963 (Acts of 1963, No. 582). The State Board of Health is designated as the

State's radiation control agency. Along with the Office’s response to the questionnaire relative

to this indicator, the staff provided the review team with the opportunity to review copies of

legislation that affects the radiation control program. The review team noted that the legislation

had not changed since the previous IMPEP review.

4.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility

The State regulations for control of radiation are located in Chapter 420-3-26 of the Alabama

regulations for Control of Radiation and apply to ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, whether

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

radioactive materials, including naturally-occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive

material.

The review team examined the procedures used in the State’s rulemaking process and found

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

regulation changes. Rulemaking responsibility is assigned to the Office Director. Draft

regulations are sent to the NRC for review. The package of proposed regulations prepared by

the Office requires review by the Alabama Office of General Counsel and approval from the

State Committee of Public Health (SCPH). The State has Emergency Rule capability, if public

health and safety is at risk. Although the State’s rules and regulations are not subject to

“sunset” laws, the entire program is subject to a sunset review every four years. The most

recent review in 2005 recommended for continuance of the program.

The review team evaluated Alabama’s response to the questionnaire relative to this indicator,

reviewed the status of regulations required to be adopted by the State under the Commission’s

adequacy and compatibility policy, and verified the adoption of regulations with data obtained

from the Office of State and Tribal Program’s State Regulation Status Data Sheet. Since the

previous IMPEP review, the Department adopted two regulation amendments. These

regulations were:

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

amendment (64 FR 54543; 64 FR 55524).

! “Revision of the Skin Dose Limit,” 10 CFR Part 20 amendment (67 FR 16298).

At the time of the on-site review, the Office had six regulations in one rule package that was out

for public comment. The package was adopted by SCPH and became effective on June 22,

2006. The entire rule package was delayed within STP, due to the resolution of issues

associated with the regulation “Requirements for Certain Generally Licensed Industrial Devices

Containing Byproduct Material.”
Alabama Final Report Page 9

The Office will need to address the following three regulations in upcoming rulemakings or by

adopting alternate legally-binding requirements:

! “Compatibility with IAEA Transportation Safety Standards and Other Transportation

Safety Amendments,” 10 CFR Part 71 amendment (69 FR 3697) that became effective

October 1, 2004.

! “Security Requirements for Portable Gauges Containing Byproduct Material,” 10 CFR

Part 30 amendment (70 FR 2001) that became effective July 11, 2005.

! “Medical Use of Byproduct Material - Recognition of Specialty Boards; Correction,” 

10 CFR Part 35 amendment (71 FR 1926) that became effective January 12, 2006.

In order to inform portable gauge licensees of the new requirements for security of portable

gauges in a timely manner, on January 15, 2004, the Office issued a letter describing

acceptable means of the use of two independent physical controls.

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

Alabama’s performance with respect to the indicator, Compatibility Requirements, was

satisfactory.

5.0 SUMMARY

As noted in Sections 3 and 4 above, Alabama’s performance for all applicable performance

indicators was satisfactory. The review team made no recommendations regarding the

performance of the Alabama Agreement State Program. Accordingly, the review team

recommended and the MRB agreed that the Alabama Agreement State Program is adequate to

protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC's program. The review team

recommended and the MRB agreed that the next full IMPEP review take place in approximately

four years.
LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENT

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members

Appendix B Alabama Organization Charts

Appendix C Inspection Casework Reviews

Appendix D License Casework Reviews

Appendix E Incident Casework Reviews

Attachment May 16, 2006 Letter from Kirksey E. Whatley

Alabama’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report
APPENDIX A

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

Name Area of Responsibility

Sheri Minnick, Region I Team Leader

Technical Staffing and Training

Robert Evans, Region IV Status of Materials Inspection Program

Technical Quality of Inspections

Inspector Accompaniments

Eric Skotak, TX Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

Cardelia Maupin, STP Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation 

 Activities

Sandra Wastler, NMSS Compatibility Requirements
APPENDIX B

ALABAMA ORGANIZATION CHARTS

ADAMS: ML061020532
APPENDIX C

INSPECTION CASEWORK REVIEWS

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT ARE INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS

ONLY. NO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE REVIEW TEAM.

File No.: 1

Licensee: Space Science Services, Inc. License No.: 217

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 8/23/05 Inspectors: KH, MR

File No.: 2

Licensee: University of Alabama - Birmingham License No.: 266

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1

Inspection Dates: 2/07-10/06 Inspectors: DT, MR

File No.: 3

Licensee: University of South Alabama License No.: 584 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1

Inspection Dates: 10/5-13/05 Inspector: MR

File No.: 4

Licensee: Southern Company License No.: 644

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 12/6/05 Inspector: MR

File No.: 5

Licensee: GE Inspection Services, Inc. License No.: 754

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 1/10/06 Inspector: MR

File No.: 6

Licensee: Cardinal Health (Huntsville) License No.: 1068

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 2/16/06 Inspector: MR

File No.: 7

Licensee: MISTRAS Holding Group License No.: 1075

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 2/15/06 Inspector: MR

File No.: 8

Licensee: Cox Nuclear Pharmacy License No.: 1111

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 2/25/05 Inspector: MR

File No.: 9

Licensee: Unified Testing and Engineering License No.: 1128

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1
Alabama Final Report Page C.2

Inspection Casework Reviews

Inspection Date: 3/7/06 Inspector: MR

File No.: 10

Licensee: Cardinal Health (Birmingham) License No.: 1168

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 12/7/05 Inspector: MR

File No.: 11

Licensee: Oceaneering International, Inc. License No.: 1255

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 7/7/05 Inspector: DT

File No.: 12

Licensee: Team Industrial Services, Inc. License No.: 1313

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 7/7/05 Inspectors: DT, RS

File No.: 13

Licensee: American Cast Iron Pipe Co. License No.: 338

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2

Inspection Date: 3/10/05 Inspector: MR

File No.: 14

Licensee: Brookwood Medical Center License No.: 459

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2

Inspection Dates: 5/6-7/04 Inspector: MR

File No.: 15

Licensee: Wyle Laboratories License No.: 525

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2

Inspection Dates: 8/26-27/04 Inspector: MR

File No.: 16

Licensee: Eastern Technologies License No.: 947

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2

Inspection Dates: 5/18-19/05 Inspector: MR

File No.: 17

Licensee: Tri-State Cancer Center License No.: 1423

Inspection Type: Initial Inspection Priority: 2

Inspection Due: 7/19/06 Inspector: N/A

File No.: 18

Licensee: Southern Research Institute License No.: 262

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3

Inspection Dates: 3/15-16/05 Inspector: MR
Alabama Final Report Page C.3

Inspection Casework Reviews

File No.: 19

Licensee: Shelby Baptist Medical Center License No.: 498

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3

Inspection Date: 3/8/06 Inspector: MR

File No.: 20

Licensee: Rusty’s Well Service License No.: 1005

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3

Inspection Date: 9/20/02 Inspector: DT

File No.: 21

Licensee: State of Alabama, Dept. of Public Health License No.: 220

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 5

Inspection Date: 10/3/03 Inspector: BS

File No.: 22

Licensee: Qore, Inc. License No.: 1022

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 5

Inspection Date: 3/8/06 Inspector: CC

File No.: 23

Licensee: American Red Cross Blood Services License No.: 1026

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 5

Inspection Date: 3/5/03 Inspector: DT

File No.: 24

Licensee: Battelle Memorial Institute License No.: 1375

Inspection Type: Initial, Announced Priority: 5

Inspection Date: 3/29/06 Inspector: MR

File No.: 25

Licensee: Metalworking Products License No.: STB-332

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 5

Inspection Date: 5/13/04 Inspector: MR

INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS

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

Accompaniment No.: 1 

Licensee: Unified Testing and Engineering License No.: 1128

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 3/7/06 Inspector: MR

Accompaniment No.: 2

Licensee: Shelby Baptist Medical Center License No.: 498

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3

Inspection Date: 3/8/06 Inspector: MR
APPENDIX D

LICENSING CASEWORK REVIEWS

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS

ONLY. NO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE REVIEW TEAM.

File No.: 1

Licensee: Gulf States Steel, Inc. License No: 894

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 7

Date Issued: 12/13/05 License Reviewer: DW

File No.: 2

Licensee: Unified Testing and Engineering Services, Inc. License No: 1128

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 12

Date Issued: 2/28/06 License Reviewer: NM

File No.: 3

Licensee: UAB Highlands License No: 1179

Types of Action: Renewal, Amendment Amendment Nos.: 9, 10

Dates Issued: 9/15/05, 3/20/06 License Reviewers: DW, KH

File No.: 4

Licensee: Protechnics License No: 1427

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: N/A

Date Issued: 1/18/06 License Reviewer: DW

File No.: 5

Licensee: University of South Alabama License No: 584

Type of Action: Amendments Amendment Nos.: 57, 58

Date Issued: 11/3/05, 2/7/06 License Reviewer: KH

File No.: 6

Licensee: Brookwood Medical Center License No: 459

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 97

Date Issued: 8/11/04 License Reviewer: BS

File No.: 7

Licensee: Team Industrial Services, Inc. License No: 1313

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 10

Date Issued: 11/8/05 License Reviewer: NM

File No.: 8

Licensee: Huntsville Hospital System License No: 274

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 119

Date Issued: 9/28/05 License Reviewer: DW

File No.: 9

Licensee: Pope Engineering and Testing Labs License No: 1047

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 8
Alabama Final Report Page D.2

License Casework Reviews

Date Issued: 10/4/05 License Reviewer: KH

File No.: 10

Licensee: Shelby Baptist Medical Center License No: 498

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 36

Date Issued: 3/16/06 License Reviewer: KH

File No.: 11

Licensee: American Cast Iron Pipe Company License No: 338

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 25

Date Issued: 9/3/05 License Reviewer: KH

File No.: 12

Licensee: Advanced Medical Imaging Center License No: 1078

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 9

Date Issued: 12/6/04 License Reviewer: DW

File No.: 13

Licensee: Cox Nuclear Pharmacy, Inc. License No: 1111

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 21

Date Issued: 8/11/03 License Reviewer: DW

File No.: 14

Licensee: Eastern Technologies, Inc. License No: 947

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 15

Date Issued: 8/29/05 License Reviewer: DW

File No.: 15

Licensee: Tri-State Cancer Center License No: 1423

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: N/A

Date Issued: 10/19/05 License Reviewer: DW

File No.: 16

Licensee: Walker Real Estate, LLC License No: 1428

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: N/A

Date Issued: 1/18/06 License Reviewer: NM

File No.: 17

Licensee: Wyle Laboratories License No: 525

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 30

Date Issued: 9/27/04 License Reviewer: BS
APPENDIX E

INCIDENT CASEWORK REVIEWS

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT ARE INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS

ONLY. INCIDENT LOG NUMBERS WERE NOT NOTED. THE INCIDENT IS REFERENCED

BY THE NMED NUMBER ONLY.

File No.: 1

Licensee: Consoer Townsend

 Envirodyne Eng., Inc.. License No.: 1254

Date of Incident: 6/11/03 Incident Log No.: NMED 030614

Investigation Date: 6/17/03 Type of Incident: Damage to Gauge

Type of Investigation: Inspection

File No.: 2

Licensee: Sloss Industries License No.: 271

Date of Incident: 8/13/03 Incident Log No.: NMED 030771

Investigation Date: 8/14/03 Type of Incident: Equipment Failure

Type of Investigation: Inspection

File No.: 3

Licensee: Eastern Technologies, Inc. License No.: 947 

Date of Incident: 1/6/04 Incident Log No.: NMED 040083

Investigation Date: 1/13/04 Type of Incident: Fire

Type of Investigation: Inspection

File No.: 4

Licensee: Northeast Alabama

 Regional Med. Ctr. License No.: 315

Date of Incident: 8/10/04 Incident Log No.: NMED 040610

Investigation Date: 10/14/04 Type of Incident: Medical Event

(Abnormal Occurrence)

Type of Investigation: Inspection

Comment:

This was a significant event requiring reporting to the NRC within 24-hours. The

incident occurred on 8/10/04, was discovered on 8/12/04, and reported to State on

8/17/04. The State indicated that they delayed reporting to the NRC until 8/24/04

because they were awaiting additional information from the licensee.

File No.: 5

Licensee: BP AMOCO Chemicals License No.: 256

Date of Incident: 12/2/04 Incident Log No.: NMED 040853

Investigation Date: 12/2/04 Type of Incident: Equipment Failure

Type of Investigation: Phone
Alabama Final Report Page E.2

Incident Casework Reviews

File No.: 6

Licensee: Cardinal Health Nuclear Pharmacy License No.: 1068

Date of Incident: 5/13/05 Incident Log No.: NMED 050435

Investigation Date: 5/13/05 Type of Incident: Medical Event

Type of Investigation: Phone

File No.: 7

Licensee: Cardinal Health Nuclear Pharmacy License No.: 1068

Date of Incident: 9/2/05 Incident Log No.: NMED 050789

Investigation Date: 9/2/05 Type of Incident: Medical Event

Type of Investigation: Phone

File No.: 8

Licensee: Baptist Medical Ctr. Princeton License No.: 600

Date of Incident: 9/20/05 Incident Log No.: NMED 050640

Investigation Dates: 9/20-22/05 Type of Incident: Medical Event, Leaking Source

Type of Investigation: Phone

File No.: 9

Licensee: Goodwin, Mills & Cawood, Inc. License No.: 1404

Date of Incident: 12/12/05 Incident Log No.: NMED 050811

Investigation Dates: 12/12/05 Type of Incident: Stolen Gauge

Type of Investigation: Inspection

File No.: 10

Licensee: University of Alabama License No.: 164

Date of Incident: 12/6/04 Incident Log No.: NMED 060093

Investigation Date: 12/6/04 Type of Incident: Leaking Source

Type of Investigation: Inspection

File No.: 11

Licensee: International Paper License No.: 581

Date of Incident: 10/21/05 Incident Log No.: NMED 060170

Investigation Date: 10/21/05 Type of Incident: Lost/Stolen Material

Type of Investigation: Phone

Comment:

This was a significant event requiring reporting to the NRC within 24-hours. The

incident was reported to the State on 10/21/05, and inadvertently not reported to the

NRC until 2/28/06. 

File No.: 12

Licensee: Thompson Engineering and Testing, Inc. License No.: 694

Date of Incident: Between 9/1/02 and 3/10/03 Incident Log No.: NMED 032060

Investigation Date: 10/22/03 Type of Incident: Lost/Stolen Material

Type of Investigation: Phone
Alabama Final Report Page E.3

Incident Casework Reviews

File No.: 13

Licensee: University of Alabama License No.: 266

Date of Incident: 4/22/02 Incident Log No.: NMED 020437

Investigation Dates: 4/22-25/02 Type of Incident: Lost/Stolen Material

Type of Investigation: Inspection

File No.: 14

Licensee: Code Services, Inc. License No.: 1075

Date of Incident: 5/24/02 Incident Log No.: NMED 020674

Investigation Dates: 5/24/6/7/02 Type of Incident: Overexposure

Type of Investigation: Inspection

File No.: 15

Licensee: Building And Earth Sciences, Inc. License No.: 1266

Date of Incident: 9/18/02 Incident Log No.: NMED 020887

Investigation Date: 9/18/02 Type of Incident: Lost/Stolen Material

Type of Investigation: Referral to TN

File No.: 16

Licensee: East Alabama Medical Center License No.: 105 

Date of Incident: 9/5/02 Incident Log No.: NMED 020931

Investigation Date: 9/5/02 Type of Incident: Leaking Source

Type of Investigation: Phone

File No.: 17

Licensee: DCH Regional Medical Center License No.: 219

Date of Incident: 9/12/02 Incident Log No.: NMED 021053

Investigation Date: 9/12/02 Type of Incident: Lost/Stolen Material

Type of Investigation: Phone
ATTACHMENT

April 10, 2006 Letter from Kirksey E. Whatley

Alabama’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report 

ADAMS: ML061440520