November 3, 2005

Paul K Halverson, DrPH, Director

Division of Health

Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Services

P.O. Box 1437, Slot H-30

Little Rock, AR 72203-1437 

Dear Dr. Halverson:

A periodic meeting with your Radioactive Materials Program staff was held on October 18,

2005. The purpose of this meeting was to review and discuss the status of Arkansas’

Agreement State Program. 

At the meeting, the NRC was represented by me from NRC’s Region IV office, and Andrew

Mauer from the Office of State and Tribal Programs. I have completed and enclosed a general

meeting summary, including any specific actions that will be taken as a result of the meeting. 

If your staff feel that our conclusions do not accurately summarize the meeting discussion, or

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

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

Sincerely,

/RA/

Vivian H. Campbell

Regional State Agreements Officer

Enclosure:

As stated

cc w/enclosure:

Bernie Bevill, Section Chief, Radiation Control Section

Jared Thompson, Program Manager, Radioactive Materials Program

Janet Schlueter, Director, STP
Arkansas Dept. of Health 

 and Human Services - 2 -

bcc: (via ADAMS e-mail distribution):

LWert

CCain

LMcLean

KSchneider, STP

AMauer, STP

JZabko, STP

OSiurano, STP

ADAMS: :Yes 9No Initials: __vhc__ 

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

DOCUMENT NAME: draft: E:\Filenet\ML053080151.wpd 

 Final: ltrs-memos\ 

RIV:RSAO

VHCampbell

 /RA/

11/03/05

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

DATE OF MEETING: October 18, 2005

ATTENDEES:

State

Bernie Bevill, Section Chief, Radiation Control Section

Jared Thompson, Program Manager, Radioactive Materials Program

Kim Wiebeck, Health Physicist

Katia Gray, Health Physicist

Steve Mack, Health Physicist

NRC

Vivian Campbell, Regional State Agreements Officer, Region IV

Andrew Mauer, Office of State and Tribal Programs

DISCUSSION: 

On August 12, 2005, Arkansas’ Department of Human Services and Department of Health

merged into the newly formed umbrella organization named the Department of Health and

Human Services (the Department). The Department is now Arkansas’ largest State agency

with 10 major divisions, including the Division of Health (formerly the Department of Health). 

The Division of Health retained the function of the State’s radiation control program. The

Arkansas Agreement State program is administered by the Radioactive Materials Program (the

Program). At the time of the meeting, the Program regulated 265 specific licenses authorizing

Agreement materials.

The following is a summary of the meeting held in Little Rock, Arkansas, on October 18, 2005,

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

suggested in a letter dated May 17, 2005, from Ms. Campbell to Mr. Thompson were discussed. 

The discussion pertaining to each topic is summarized below.

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

open recommendations.

The previous Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review

was conducted during the period September 9 - 13, 2002. This review identified three

recommendations for evaluation and implementation. The status of the

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

periodic meeting conducted January 22, 2004. The current status of the

recommendations is summarized below.

a. Recommendation: The team recommends that Department management

review the current staffing plan to achieve a more effective balance between

licensing and inspection activities (Section 3.3).
-2-

Current Status: At the 2004 periodic meeting, the Department informed the

NRC staff that they had designated two staff as license reviewers, three staff as

inspectors and were approved to use the services of a retired employee on a

consultant basis during fiscal year 2004. During this meeting, Program

management stated that they had significant staffing challenges since the 2004

periodic meeting. 

The Program lost approval to use the consultant for fiscal year 2005. In January

and February 2005, the Program lost two full-time health physicists, and in July

2005, lost the Agency Program Coordinator. The Program was able to fill the

two health physicist vacancies (one in May 2005 and another in August 2005),

and was recently approved to use the licensing consultant for one thousand

hours in fiscal year 2006. Currently, the Program has only two qualified health

physicists (not including the manager), two health physicists in training, and the

licensing consultant to manage approximately 265 specific licensees. Program

management anticipates that it will take approximately 18 - 24 months to train

the new staff. In the meantime, the Program has deferred to NRC’s inspection

frequencies in order to keep up with the inspection workload, and has stopped

work on the renewal backlog. It is recommended that this item be reviewed at

the next IMPEP review.

b. Recommendation: The review team recommends that Department

management develop and implement an action plan to reduce the licensing

renewal backlog (Section 3.4). 

Current Status: The Department had implemented an action plan to reduce the

renewal backlog, and was making progress when they had to abandon the plan

because of the loss of personnel. From September 2002 through August 2004,

the staff had issued 56 renewed licenses. Currently, the Program has 112 of the

265 specific licensees in timely renewal status. The Program is still able to

complete reviews of amendment requests within a week. However, 

management stated that they are not able to meet their 30-day review goal for

new applications. 

Because of the status of the action plan at the time of the 2004 periodic meeting,

the NRC staff had recommended that this recommendation be closed at the next

IMPEP review. However, in view of the staffing changes which has impacted the

Program’s work on the renewal backlog, it is now recommended that this item be

reviewed at the next IMPEP review.

c. Recommendation: The review team recommends completion of revisions to

update licensing guidance documents and checklists (this item was identified in

the 1998 IMPEP review).

Current Status: Since the 2002 IMPEP, the Department has finalized licensing

guidance for portable and fixed gauging devices. Program management has

assigned the update of the industrial radiography guidance document to the

consultant. When the radiography document is completed, updating the well
-3-

logging guidance will become the next priority. It is recommended that this item

be reviewed at the next IMPEP review.

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

including identification of actions that could diminish weaknesses. 

a. Program Strengths: 

The remaining qualified staff are well trained, experienced and dedicated. The staff 

function as a team in training new staff and setting priorities for work to be

accomplished. Because of this dedication, Arkansas was the first State to issue

increased security controls to Groups I - IV. The Program has issued 23

amendments to the affected licensees. In view of the current staffing challenges,

the Program is to be commended for this accomplishment.

b. Program Weaknesses: 

Although the Program has some highly qualified staff, it does not have a sufficient

number of qualified personnel. Department management assured the NRC staff

that the Program had been able to adequately protect public health and safety even

with the staffing challenges. However, management further indicated that if a

significant radiation event occurred in the State, the Program may not have a

sufficient number of staff to respond. 

While training the new staff is a high priority for the Radioactive Materials Program,

management expressed concerns that there may be delays in getting the staff to

needed training courses due to training approval requirements in the new

organization. The approval process now takes two months. Program management

indicated that based on the timing of past notifications of acceptance into training

classes, they may not have enough time to be approved to attend. Program

management stated that a training plan has been developed for each employee. The

NRC staff discussed the possibility of getting blanket approval for all newly hired

staff which could potentially streamline the process.

Program management stated that the inspection program is becoming a weakness. 

During the 2002 IMPEP, the review team noted that except for Priority 1 licenses, all

other Arkansas’ licenses were inspected more frequently than the schedule specified

in NRC’s Manual Chapter (MC) 2800. Program management stated that because of

the staffing challenges, the Program has extended their inspection intervals to

NRC’s intervals. Management stated that they currently do not have an inspection

backlog because they have adopted NRC’s schedule. However, the Program is

currently operating on efficiencies gained when they were inspecting at an

aggressive schedule. Program management believes they see a trend toward an

inspection backlog. 

The change in inspection frequencies is particularly significant when considering the

licensing renewal backlog. During the 2002 IMPEP, the review team noted a

significant licensing backlog. At the time, 121 of the 265 specific licenses were in a
-4-

timely renewal status for more than one year. Fifty-seven of the 121 backlogged

renewals were four or more years’ old. Program management stated that resources

had been focused on inspections to ensure that potential health and safety issues

resulting from the licensing backlog were identified and addressed. Based on this

practice, the review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, that the technical

quality of licensing actions be found satisfactory. The Program still has a significant

licensing backlog and now they are not able to inspect licensees on the aggressive

schedule. Consequently, potential health and safety issues may not be identified as

promptly.

Department management stated that program funding continues to be a weakness. 

The Program is 60 percent funded by State General Revenue and 40 percent by

license fees. There has been no increase in General Revenue and only one license

fees increase in 1995 since license fee implementation in 1988. The Program

requested authorization to increase license fees in 2003 and 2005, but was denied. 

Department management plans to again request a license fee increase in 2007.

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

any action that should be considered by NRC: 

Program management indicated that it would be very helpful in updating their licensing

guidance documents if NRC would provide the NUREG 1556 series in WordPerfect or

WORD format, rather than the PDF version. Management indicated that having a

version that is readily useable would speed up the updating process.

Program management discussed the NMED database. In the past, the Program has

found the database to be beneficial. However, they lost the staff that was responsible

for keeping the NMED database up-to-date. The current staff are struggling because

they are not familiar with the software. In addition, the program is available on only one

computer station. Program management would like to explore the possibility of NRC

providing onsite training to the staff and installing the software on the Program’s server

so that the entire staff could have access.

Program management also asked about the status of the increased control inspection

procedures and requested that they be made available to the States as soon as

possible.

4. Status of State Program including:

a. Staffing and Training: 

i) Current staffing status: The Program currently has two fully qualified staff who

inspect licensed activities and review material license applications. They have

two staff in training status, but management intends to interim certify the staff as

they become qualified in specific Program areas. The Program also has one

qualified consultant who assists in license application reviews and special

projects such as writing licensing guidance. The use of the consultant must be

reconsidered each fiscal year.
-5-

ii) Program vacancies: The Program has two vacancies: 1) the Agency Program

Coordinator who, in part, will be responsible for the State’s General License

Program, and 2) a health physicist position who will be an inspector/license

reviewer. (When the Agency Program Coordinator was filled in 2003, the Health

Physicist position that had been vacated was lost due to budget cuts. This

position was recently re-instituted and is the current health physicist’s vacancy.)

iii) Staff turnover: Since the 2004 periodic meeting, the Program has lost three

full-time staff members: the Agency Program Coordinator and two health

physicists. 

iv) Adequacy of FTE : Program management stated that when fully staffed (an

Agency Program Coordinator and five health physicists), the Program will have

adequate FTE to implement the materials program.

b. Materials Inspection Program: As discussed earlier, Program management stated

that because of staffing challenges, they had extended their inspection intervals to

the NRC schedule in MC 2800. The Program does not currently have an inspection

backlog. However, they are operating on efficiencies gained when they were

inspecting at an aggressive schedule. The two qualified staff are training the new

staff and continuing to conduct as many inspections and license reviews as possible. 

No renewal applications are being reviewed by the staff. Consequently, the staffs’

efficiencies and effectiveness have been significantly impacted. In calendar year

2004, the Program conducted 191 inspections. Thus far in calendar year 2005, the

Program has conducted 91 inspections. At this current rate, Program management

expects a backlog of inspections.

c. Regulations and Legislative Changes: On June 10, 2005, STP received proposed

changes (nine amendments) to the Arkansas Rules and Regulations for Control of

Sources of Ionizing Radiation. These regulations were reviewed by comparison to

the equivalent NRC rules. As a result of the review, NRC identified five comments

which were sent to you in a letter dated July 12, 2005. Department management

expressed gratitude to STP’s staff who conducted a timely review and worked with

the State to resolve regulatory issues. When these regulations are finalized, the

State will be current on their regulations. 

The Program will need to address the following two 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), due by the State on 10/01/07, (RATS ID 2004-1)

! “Medical Use of Byproduct Material- Recognition of Speciality Boards,”

10 CFR Part 35 amendment (70 FR 16336), due by the State on 4/29/08,

(RATS ID 2005-2).

 d. Program reorganizations: As discussed earlier in the summary, on August 12,

2005, the Department of Health and the Department of Human Services merged into

an umbrella organization named the Department of Health and Human Services. 
-6-

Mr. John Sellig was appointed the Department Director. The Department consists of

10 divisions including the Division of Health, formerly the Department of Health. 

Dr. Fay Boozman was previously the State Medical Officer and director of the

Department of Health. As a result of the Legislature authorizing and enacting the

merger, the duties of the State Medical Officer were redefined. Dr. Joe Thompson

was appointed the Chief Medical Officer which is similar to the role of the U.S.

Surgeon General. Dr. Paul Halverson was appointed the Director of the Division of

Health and assumed the administrative duties. The Division of Health is divided into

four centers, including the Center for Health Protection, Donnie Smith, Director. The

Center consists of five branches, including the Health Systems and Regulation

Branch, Renee Mallory, Branch Chief. The Radiation Control Section, Bernie Bevill,

Section Chief, reports to the Health Systems and Regulations Branch. The

Radioactive Materials Program, Jared Thompson, Program Manager, reports to the

Radiation Control Section.

e. Changes in Program Budget/Funding: The merger saved the State $2.4 million,

which was previously the Department of Health budget. The Department of Health

and Human Services was able to absorb this loss of revenue without much of an

impact. Department management assured the NRC staff that the Program is being

adequately funded.

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

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

events reported by Arkansas since the last IMPEP. The staff identified 12 events

reported of which 10 were determined to be reportable events. The events were

generally reported timely and contained complete information. As discussed earlier,

because of the loss of staff, Program management has requested training for the staff

and assistance to install the NMED software on the Department’s server.

6. Response to Incidents and Allegations: 

Region IV referred one allegation since the 2004 periodic meeting. The investigation

and followup were complete. The NRC asked Program management about the State’s

requirements for protecting the identity of the alleger. Program management

emphasized that they are not able to protect an alleger’s identity.

7. Status of the following Program areas:

a. Sealed Source & Device Program: N/A

b. Uranium Mills Program: N/A

c. Low-Level Waste Program: N/A

8. Information exchange and discussion: 

Program management discussed the oversight of the University of Arkansas’

decommissioning projects and the impacts on the Program. The Legacy Waste Project 

involves the collection and characterization of waste that has been accumulated for
-7-

20 - 30 years. Phases I-III have been completed. All of the collected waste has been

packaged and shipped for disposal, except a few packages awaiting DOE pickup. The

final phase (Phase IV) of the decommissioning project is in progress. During the

characterization of the project, the University discovered that several rooms in the

Chemistry Building and the old accelerator room required extensive decontamination. 

The University with their contractor is currently revising their work plan to address this

final phase. The Program staff have been involved in the review of each phase of the

project, including in process inspections and independent sampling to assess the

radiation conditions at the facility. 

The second project, which began this year, is the Harmon Road Project, a chemical and

low level radioactive waste landfill used in the 1970s and 1980s. Actual excavation

activities began in August and continued through mid-October. The University expected

to find most of the material containerized in drums; however, they found that cells had

been packed with loose material, or material in plastic bags. Program staff have been

involved in the review of work plans and conducted in process inspections during cell

excavation, as well as splitting samples with the licensee for analysis by the

Department’s laboratory. Program staff have been onsite during most of the cell

excavation to verify that proper radiation safety procedures were followed.

Department and Program management discussed their mechanisms to evaluate

Program performance. A report is generated on a monthly basis that provides the

status of the licensing and inspection programs. The Program has instituted

amendment tracking so that they can determine the amount of time spent on licensing

actions. Program management assures that quality is maintained by conducting a

second review of all licensing actions and inspection findings. The Program manager is

conducting inspector accompaniments at least on an annual basis.

The NRC staff discussed the status of the implementation of the increased controls, the

sensitive information screening project, and the implementation of the Energy Policy

Act. The NRC staff identified that Arkansas was the first Agreement State to issue the

increased controls to affected licensees, indicated that there would be opportunity to

comment on inspection procedures in the near future, and provided the overall status of

the nationwide implementation. The NRC staff also gave an overview of the sensitive

information screening project and indicated that there would likely be final criteria

distributed to the Agreement States in the near future, along with expectations for

implementation. Finally, the NRC staff mentioned the implementation of the Energy

Policy Act and provided examples of the different areas where the Agreement States

would have a key role. 

9. Schedule for the next IMPEP review: 

The next IMPEP is tentatively scheduled for September 2006.