December 4, 2006

Mr. John Selig, Director

Department of Health and Human Services

P.O. Box 1437, Slot 201

Little Rock, AR 72203-1437

Dear Mr. Selig:

On November 15, 2006, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed

final Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Arkansas

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

health and safety and compatible with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC)

program.

As noted in the enclosed final IMPEP report and as discussed during the MRB meeting, the

Arkansas Radioactive Materials Program (the Program) is facing considerable staffing issues,

both present and future. During the review period, the Program lost four employees, including

three individuals in an eight-month time span. The Program staff have since been able to fill

three of the four vacated positions; however, one of the new staff members will be on military

leave for the next year. Currently, one technical staff vacancy exists. The Program staff have

been making efforts to fill this vacancy, but has experienced a lack of qualified applicants or

have been refused by those individuals that were extended offers. In the NRC’s experience of

reviewing other Agreement State programs, the ability to recruit qualified applicants and

maintain a stable staffing level is inhibited by low starting salaries and/or poor potential for

career growth.

Because of the turnover in staff and the lingering vacancy, the Program has not been able to

address prior NRC concerns over the number of backlogged license renewals. This issue has

been identified during previous Program reviews by the NRC. During this review period, the

Program was able to make some progress in addressing the issue; however, the loss of staff

and the resulting hiring of inexperienced staff has hindered the Program’s efforts to eliminate

the backlog.

Due to the small number of trained and experienced staff that can independently perform

regulatory actions, the Program has had to focus its resources to perform actions of greater

health and safety significance, such as inspections and license amendments. The Program has

done a commendable job maintaining an up-to-date inspection program; however, the staff

turnover has also had an impact in this area. The Program has been forced to reprioritize its

inspection frequencies to balance its workload and prevent licensing actions other than

renewals to become backlogged. Previously, the Program had a much more aggressive

inspection schedule than required by the NRC, but the shift in workload has caused the

inspection frequencies to be pushed back to the minimum requirements. Any further staff set

backs could jeopardize the timeliness and effectiveness of the inspection program.

At this time, the NRC is not questioning the State’s ability to adequately protect public health

and safety. As noted earlier, the Program has exerted considerable effort in protecting public

health and safety with its limited staff resources. Given further staff attrition, this picture may
J. Selig -2-

change in the future. If the existing issues mentioned above continue to go unresolved or the

status of the program declines, additional action on the part of the NRC may be necessary to

ensure continued protection of public health and safety. Additional actions can include placing

the State on Heightened Oversight, placing the State on Probation, or temporarily suspending

the Agreement until the NRC believes that the State can adequately protect public health and

safety. As a result of the findings of this review, the NRC will conduct a periodic meeting with

the State approximately one year from the date of the review to assess the State’s progress in

addressing the identified issues. Typically, periodic meetings take place approximately two

years after an IMPEP review, but because of the potential for decline in program performance,

the MRB directed that a meeting be held sooner.

Section 5.0, page 13, of the enclosed final report contains a summary of the IMPEP team’s

findings and recommendations for the State. We request your evaluation and response to the

recommendations within 30 days from receipt of this letter. The State’s actions in response to

the recommendations will be evaluated during the periodic meeting. The next full IMPEP review

of the Arkansas Agreement State Program will take place in approximately four years.

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

encourage your support for the Agreement State program and its valuable mission of protecting

public health and safety from the potential hazards associated with the use of radioactive

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

If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact Ms. Janet R.

Schlueter, Director, Division of Materials Safety and State Agreements, Office of Federal and

State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, at (301) 415-3340.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Martin J. Virgilio

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste,

Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs

Office of the Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure: 

As stated

cc: Paul Halverson, Director

Arkansas Division of Health

Jared Thompson, Program Leader

Arkansas Radioactive Materials Program

Bernard Bevill, State Liaison Officer

Arkansas Radiation Control Section

Edgar Bailey, Texas

Organization of Agreement

 States Liaison to the MRB
J. Selig -2-

change in the future. If the existing issues mentioned above continue to go unresolved or the

status of the program declines, additional action on the part of the NRC may be necessary to

ensure continued protection of public health and safety. Additional actions can include placing

the State on Heightened Oversight, placing the State on Probation, or temporarily suspending

the Agreement until the NRC believes that the State can adequately protect public health and

safety. As a result of the findings of this review, the NRC will conduct a periodic meeting with

the State approximately one year from the date of the review to assess the State’s progress in

addressing the identified issues. Typically, periodic meetings take place approximately two

years after an IMPEP review, but because of the potential for decline in program performance,

the MRB directed that a meeting be held sooner.

Section 5.0, page 13, of the enclosed final report contains a summary of the IMPEP team’s

findings and recommendations for the State. We request your evaluation and response to the

recommendations within 30 days from receipt of this letter. The State’s actions in response to

the recommendations will be evaluated during the periodic meeting. The next full IMPEP review

of the Arkansas Agreement State Program will take place in approximately four years.

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

encourage your support for the Agreement State program and its valuable mission of protecting

public health and safety from the potential hazards associated with the use of radioactive

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

If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact Ms. Janet R.

Schlueter, Director, Division of Materials Safety and State Agreements, Office of Federal and

State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, at (301) 415-3340.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Martin J. Virgilio

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste,

Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs

Office of the Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure: 

As stated

cc: Paul Halverson, Director

Arkansas Division of Health

Jared Thompson, Program Leader

Arkansas Radioactive Materials Program

Bernard Bevill, State Liaison Officer

Arkansas Radiation Control Section

Edgar Bailey, Texas

Organization of Agreement

 States Liaison to the MRB

Distribution DCD (SP01) PDR (YEST) DIR RF Chairman Klein Commissioner Jaczko

DWhite, RI RErickson, RIV CMaier, RIV MWhalen, MA Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Lyons

FCameron, OGC AKock, OEDO CMiller, FSME GPangburn, FSME Commissioner Merrifield

MOrendi, FSME/MSSA KCyr, OGC TCombs, OCA (2 copies)

SUNSI Review Complete : Publicly Available G Non-Publicly Available : Non-Sensitive G Sensitive

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 DMSSA/SAIS DMSSA/SAIS:BC FSME/DMSSA:DD FSME/DMSSA:D DEDMRT

NAME ATMcCraw:gd PARathbun SWMoore

(SWastler for)

JRSchlueter

(SWastler for)

MJVirgilio

DATE 11/27/06 11/27/06 11/28/06 11/28/06 12/04/06

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

REVIEW OF ARKANSAS AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

August 28 - September 1, 2006

FINAL REPORT

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Arkansas Final Report Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

review was conducted during the period of August 28 - September 1, 2006, by a review team

comprised of technical staff members from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 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 September 14, 2002, to

September 1, 2006, were discussed with Arkansas management on the last day of the review.

A draft of this report was issued to Arkansas for factual comment on September 29, 2006. The

State responded by e-mail on November 1, 2006, from Jared Thompson, Program Leader,

Arkansas Radioactive Materials Program (the Program). The Management Review Board

(MRB) met on November 15, 2006, to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the

Arkansas Agreement State Program adequate to protect public health and safety and

compatible with NRC's program. Due to the long standing license renewal backlog issue and

the impact of staff turnover on program performance, the review team recommended and the

MRB agreed that a periodic meeting be conducted approximately one year from the time of this

review. The review team recommended and the MRB agreed that the next full IMPEP review

take place in approximately four years.

The Arkansas Agreement State Program is administered by the Program which is part of the

Radiation Control Section (the Section) in the Health Systems Licensing and Regulation Branch

(the Branch). This is one of four Branches in the Center for Health Protection which is part of

the Division of Health (the Division). The Division Director reports to one of two Deputy

Directors, who in turn reports to the Director for the Department of Health and Human Services

(the Department). Organizational charts of the Department, Division, Branch and Program are

included as Appendix B. At the time of the review, the Arkansas Agreement State Program

regulated 245 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 Arkansas.

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

performance indicators was sent to the Program on May 8, 2006. The Program provided its

response to the questionnaire on August 16, 2006. A copy of the questionnaire response may

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

using the Accession Number ML062630107.

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

the Program’s response to the questionnaire; (2) review of applicable Arkansas statutes and

regulations; (3) analysis of quantitative information from the Program’s licensee database; (4)

technical review of selected licensing and inspection actions; (5) field accompaniments of two

Arkansas inspectors; and (6) interviews with staff and management to answer questions or

clarify issues. The review team evaluated the information gathered against the established

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

preliminary assessment of the Agreement State program’s performance.
Arkansas Final Report Page 2

Section 2 of the report discusses the Program’s actions in response to recommendations made

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

performance indicators are presented in Section 3. Section 4 discusses results of the

applicable non-common performance indicators, and Section 5 summarizes the review team's

findings and recommendations. The recommendations made by the review team are comments

that relate directly to program performance by the State. A response is requested from the

State to all recommendations in the final report.

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS

During the previous IMPEP review, which concluded on September 13, 2002, three

recommendations were made and transmitted to Dr. Fay Boozman, Director of the former

Department of Health, on December 20, 2002. The review team’s assessment of the current

status of these recommendations are as follows:

1. The review team recommends that Department management review the current staffing

plan to achieve a more effective balance between licensing and inspection activities. 

(Section 3.3)

Current status: During the review period, the Program lost three individuals between

December 2004 and July 2005 which required the Program to realign its priorities and

focus on higher priority activities, primarily inspections and incident response. Although the

program has hired three individuals in the last year to replace those who left, the basis for

this recommendation no longer applies to the current staffing situation. This matter is

discussed in further detail in Section 3.1 of the report where the review team makes a new

recommendation. This recommendation is closed.

2. The review team recommends that Department management develop and implement an

action plan to reduce the licensing renewal backlog. (Section 3.4)

Current status: During the first part of the review period, the Program implemented a plan

to reduce the licensing backlog and completed 71 renewals until the loss of three staff

members in the first half of 2005. Consequently, the Program continues to have a

significant license renewal backlog that includes 55 renewals that were in timely renewal at

the time of the 2002 review. This matter is discussed in greater detail in Section 3.4 of the

report. This recommendation remains open.

3. The review team recommends completion of revisions to update licensing guidance

documents and checklists. (Section 3.4 of the 1998 report)

Current status: Since the last review, the Program has completed and implemented two

licensing guides for fixed and portable gauges. The Program has also completed draft

licensing guides for industrial radiography and medical facilities. These guides are

currently under review and should be implemented in the near future. Despite the loss of

personnel during the review period, the Program has continued to make progress in this

area. A large majority of the Program’s licensees are subject to these guides, especially

those licensees under timely renewal. This recommendation is closed.
Arkansas Final Report Page 3

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 Program’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 Program’s questionnaire response relative to this

indicator, interviewed Program and Section management and staff, reviewed job descriptions

and training records, and considered any possible workload backlogs.

In 2005, the Arkansas Department of Health merged with the Department of Human Services

creating the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department of Health is now one

of 11 divisions in the new Department. The new senior managers in the Department were not

initially familiar with the wide scope of activities in the new organization, including the

radioactive materials program. The new Department is more hierarchal than the Department of

Health and the Program does not have the same ready access to the senior management that

the Program once enjoyed.

The Program is headed by the Program Manager. The Program is comprised of seven

technical staff positions, including the Program Manager and the Program Coordinator. The

Program has one administrative position. Currently, one technical position is vacant. The

Program has not been successful in filling the position despite making offers to prospective

individuals. Technical staff perform both licensing and inspection functions. For the last four

years, the Program has had the services of a consultant that is contracted to work up to 1,000

hours per fiscal year. The consultant’s current activities include developing and revising

licensing guidance, performing license renewals, and completing special projects.

The Program lost four employees during the review period, including three individuals between

December 2004 and July 2005. The Program filled three of the resulting vacancies over the last

year. The loss of experienced staff over a short period of time had a significant impact on the

Program ability to reduce their license renewal backlog. Despite success in reducing the

backlog from the 2002 IMPEP review to early 2005, the Program has not been able to make any

progress since that time and the number of backlogged license renewals have again increased. 

This area of concern is discussed in more detail in Section 3.4. The loss of staff has also

impacted the Program’s inspection efforts. As noted in Section 3.2, the number of inspections

conducted annually by the program has been decreasing each year. In recent years, the

aggressive inspection schedule helped the Program ensure that any safety-significant issues

could be promptly identified, but the decrease in inspection frequencies will challenge the

program in this area until the new staff members can conduct inspections independently. One

of the new staff members will be qualified to perform independent inspections of certain license

types by the end of 2006; however, one of the new staff members will be on military leave for

the next year.
Arkansas Final Report Page 4

The review team noted that until the staffing in the Program stabilizes and new staff gain

sufficient experience on the job to operate independently, there will be challenges to complete

the routine work and new initiatives that may arise. The review team noted that the Program

does not have an effective means to measure the health of the program. As noted in Sections

3.2 and 3.4, the tracking and documentation of routine activities for the Program could be

improved. The Program will be challenged by the finalization of new medical regulations in

September 2006 that impact a large number of the Program’s licensees, many that have had

their licenses in timely renewal for more than one year. Consequently, the Program will need to

work with Department management to convey the importance and viability of the Agreement

State program. 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.

The Program does not have a documented training plan; however, the review team found that

new staff was aware of the requirements needed to perform inspection and licensing activities

independently. New staff also has on-the-job training to supplement the didactic course work

(NRC training courses) so that individuals may broaden their professional experience. New

staff members are assigned increasingly complex licensing duties and accompany more

experienced inspectors during increasingly complicated inspections. Under the direction of the 

senior staff members, new staff members perform inspections prior to accompaniment

evaluation by the Program Manager. Inspectors are assigned independent inspections after

demonstrating competence during accompaniment evaluations. The review team confirmed

that the new staff is in the process of gaining qualifications at an appropriate pace. Three staff

members, including the Program Manager, attended the NRC Security Systems and Principles

Training Course for Materials Inspectors.

The review team discussed the lack of a documented training plan with the Program Manager

and Section Chief. This issue was also discussed during the 2002 IMPEP review. The team

noted that a documented training plan has been useful for other Agreement State programs to

convey the importance of training and development of staff to upper management. 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.

The Program works with the Medical Advisory Committee (the Committee), appointed by the

Arkansas Chapter of the American College of Radiology, to obtain guidance on specific licensee

issues. The Program indicated that during the last four years they utilized the Committee on

one occasion. Conflict of interest is avoided by identifying any potential connection between a

Committee member and the licensee in question. If a member is found to have a connection,

they are not included in the Committee process.

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

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

satisfactory, but needs improvement.

3.2 Status of Materials Inspection Program

The review team focused on five factors in reviewing the status of the materials inspection

program: inspection frequency, overdue inspections, initial inspections of new licensees, timely
Arkansas Final Report Page 5

dispatch of inspection findings to the licensees, and the performance of reciprocity inspections. 

The review team’s evaluation is based on the Program’s questionnaire response relative to this

indicator, data gathered from reports generated from the licensee database, examination of

completed inspection casework, and interviews with management and staff.

The Program’s inspection procedure RAM-01.09 “Assigning and Tracking Radioactive Material

and Particle Accelerator Inspections” (RAM-01.09) establishes inspection priorities, which are at

least equivalent to the priority schedule specified in IMC 2800. With the exception of Priority 1

licenses, RAM-01.09 specifies that several license types are scheduled for inspections more

frequently than similar license types in IMC 2800. For example, nuclear medicine licenses are

Priority 1 or 2, based on volume of use in RAM-01.09, versus IMC 2800's Priority 3 or 5 for

nuclear medicine licenses, based on the use of a written directive. The review team noted at

the time of the review, the Program had 45 Priority 1 licenses that were inspected annually. 

Thirty-seven of the 45 Priority 1 licenses were inspected more frequently than the intervals

specified in IMC 2800.

The review team noted that although RAM-01.09 specifies that inspection priority is based on

the license category assigned during the licensing process, there is no documented,

comprehensive list of license categories and their associated inspection priorities authorized by

the Program. The lack of a standardized list of license categories appears to have caused

inconsistency in the assignment of inspection priorities and a general lack of understanding

among the less experienced staff regarding the assignment of inspection priorities. The review

team also noted that the Program’s procedure for changing a licensee’s inspection interval does

not reflect the current policy in the IMC 2800, which does not allow the extension of inspection

frequencies. The current Program policy outlined in RAM-01.12 “Extension and Reduction of

Inspection Frequencies” allows for the adjustment of inspection frequencies. The review team

further noted that the basis for adjusting an inspection interval was generally not documented in

the applicable license file. At the time of the review, the Program’s licensee database indicated

that one Priority 1 licensee, two Priority 2 licensees and one Priority 3 licensee were on an

accelerated inspection schedule. It appears that there are more licensees on an accelerated

inspection schedule than those that are documented in the database or in licensee files. 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.

The licensee database generally contains sufficient information for proper management of the

inspection program. The review team noted that the number of inspections performed each

year has decreased. In 2003, the Program performed 201 inspections; in 2004, 186

inspections; and in 2005, 108 inspections. In 2006, from January 1 through July 31, the

Program performed 47 inspections. The Program Manager stated that prior to the loss of

experienced staff, resources had been focused on inspections to ensure that potential health

and safety issues resulting from the licensing renewal backlog were identified and addressed. 

To deal with the current strain on resources, the Program has temporarily extended the

inspection frequencies of many Priority 2-5 licensees which are based on risk and to continue to

protect public health and safety.

At the time of the review, there were no overdue Priority 1, 2, and 3, or initial inspections. 

During the review period, one Priority 1 inspection was conducted overdue. The Program

Manager was aware that this inspection was due. To better utilize resources, the Program
Arkansas Final Report Page 6

consciously delayed this inspection until the Increased Controls were implemented so it could

be performed in conjunction with Increased Controls inspection of the licensee.

During the review period, the Program granted 186 reciprocity permits. The Program’s

RAM-03.09 procedure is used to establish the inspection frequency for reciprocity licensees. 

Consequently, the Priority 3 reciprocity licensees identified in the Program’s response to the

questionnaire were industrial gauge licensees, which are not candidate licensees under the

guidance in IMC 1220. Nevertheless, the Program met the reciprocity inspection goals

identified in IMC 1220 throughout the review period.

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

inspection casework. The Program has goals of transmitting inspection reports with items of

noncompliance to the licensee within 12 working days after the inspector returns to the office

and transmitting inspection reports with no items of noncompliance to the licensee within 17

working days after the inspector returns to the office. The review team noted that the Program

generally met their goals. For all casework reviewed, inspection findings were sent to the

respective licensee within 30 days.

The review team determined that with respect to Commission Staff Requirements Memorandum

(SRM) for COMSECY-05-0028, on increased controls, the Program has inspected a number of

licensees in accordance with the increased control requirements. The review team evaluated

the Program’s prioritization methodology and found it acceptable.

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

that Arkansas’ 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 26 materials inspections conducted during the review

period. The casework reviewed included inspections by six inspectors, and covered inspections

of various license types including: industrial radiography, portable and fixed gauges, broad

scope academic, well logging, medical clinic, medical institution, radiation therapy, and irradiator

facilities. The review team also evaluated casework for nine increased controls inspections. 

Appendix C lists the inspection casework files reviewed, with case-specific comments, as well

as the results of the review team’s inspector accompaniments.

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

aspects of a licensee’s radiation protection program. Inspection reports were generally very

thorough, complete, consistent, and of high quality. The reports were very detailed with

sufficient documentation to ensure acceptable performance with respect to health and safety by

the licensee. The documentation supported violations, recommendations made to the licensee,

unresolved safety issues, and discussions held with the licensee during exit interviews. The

Program maintained and controlled a separate file with correspondence and documentation for

increased controls inspections for each licensee subject to these requirements. Team

inspections were performed when appropriate and for training purposes. During the review

period, the Program Manager accompanied all individuals who perform radioactive materials

inspections at least annually.
Arkansas Final Report Page 7

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

radiological surveys of licensees. The review team examined documentation regarding the

staff’s instrumentation and observed that the survey instruments were calibrated and operable. 

Inspectors are assigned calibrated instruments for their routine use. The staff calibrates the

Program’s survey meters at least annually, with a source that is traceable to the National

Institute of Standards and Technology.

The Program staff receive support from the Arkansas Department of Health Radiochemistry

Laboratory, which performs sample counting and assay services as needed. Discussions with

Program staff established that the support is timely and dependable. The laboratory is capable

of providing accurate and defendable results to support the staff’s needs.

Accompaniments of two inspectors were conducted by an IMPEP team member on August 15

and 16, 2006. The inspectors were accompanied during health and safety inspections of an

industrial radiography licensee and a medical institution requiring written directives. The review

team also observed the inspectors conduct increased controls inspections at these facilities. 

The accompaniments are identified in Appendix C. During the accompaniments, each inspector

demonstrated appropriate inspection techniques, knowledge of the regulations, and conducted

performance-based inspections. The inspectors were trained, well-prepared for the inspection,

and thorough in their audits of the licensees’ programs. Each inspector conducted interviews

with appropriate licensee personnel, observed licensed operations, conducted confirmatory

measurements, and utilized good health physics practices. Their inspections were adequate to

assess radiological health and safety and increased controls at the licensed facilities.

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

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

satisfactory.

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The review team interviewed license reviewers, evaluated the licensing process, and examined

licensing casework for 22 specific licenses. Fifty separate 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. The casework was 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 also checked for

retention of necessary documents and supporting data.

The licensing casework was selected to provide a representative sample of licensing actions

that were completed during the review period. The sampling focused on the State’s new

licenses, amendments, renewals, licenses terminated, and the incorporation of increased

controls onto licenses. The sample included the following license types: medical (institution,

private practice, mobile, and therapy), well logging, industrial radiography, portable and fixed

gauge, veterinary, academic, self-shielded irradiator and, a large irradiator facility. Licensing

casework activities reviewed included 3 new licenses, 1 renewal, 37 amendments, 4

terminations, and 4 increased controls amendments. The Program completed a total of 1,114
Arkansas Final Report Page 8

licensing actions, including 927 amendments, during the review period. A listing of the licensing

casework reviewed, with case-specific comments, may be found in Appendix D.

The review team found that the Program’s significant license renewal backlog continues to be

an issue as identified during the previous reviews in 1995, 1998 and 2002. Of the 245 active

licenses, 92 licenses are in timely renewal, 84 of which have had this status for more than one

year. Fifty-five of the 92 were in timely renewal at the time of the 2002 IMPEP review. The

review team found that since the 2002 IMPEP the staff reduced the renewal backlog by

completing 71 renewals until January 2005 when the loss of three staff members forced the

Program to abandon the effort to focus on inspection priorities. The Program Manager indicated

that the Program had previously administratively extended licenses during 1999 and 2000, but

this was discontinued as it did not solve what they consider a long-term problem. Furthermore,

the Program Manager indicated they have focused resources on inspections to ensure that

potential health and safety issues resulting from the licensing renewal backlog are identified and

addressed. During the 2002 review, the review team recommended that Department

management develop and implement an action plan to reduce the licensing renewal backlog. 

As indicated in Section 2.0, the review team is keeping this recommendation open. The

Program should update the action plan and recommence its implementation.

There was no backlog of amendments and new applications identified during this review. The

staff responds to new applications and amendment requests in a timely manner, generally

within three weeks, and issues completed licenses within 30 to 45 days.

The review team noted several instances where material dispositions and license terminations

were approved without receiving supporting documentation. For example, several approved

sealed source disposition and/or license termination requests did not include leak tests of the

sources. There was also a site termination request for the removal of a site without the licensee

requesting or submitting final status surveys. In the latter case, the license transmittal letter

requested that the licensee forward the final status surveys as soon as they were performed. 

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.

In addition to the disposition release and license or site termination requests noted above, there

were other licensee requests in which the licensee’s documentation was inconsistently included

in the tie-down condition of the license. This matter was discussed with the Program staff and

they agreed that consistency was needed. The Program agreed that this matter be

incorporated into their strategy to improve efficiency and effectiveness as recommended in

Section 3.1.

Application packages containing guidance are sent to license applicants. The applications are

reviewed following standard procedures that are similar to those used by the NRC. The

licensing guidance, as well as other applicable guidance from NRC, is available, although staff

has not had time to convert references to NRC regulations to Arkansas regulations. Since the

2002 IMPEP review, the former Radiation Program Director was hired as a consultant and has

completed two licensing guides (fixed and portable gauges). Two additional guidance

documents (Industrial Radiography and Medical Use) are currently in draft form and should be

finalized in the near future. These licensing guides are based on the NRC’s NUREG-1556

series. The finalization and implementation of the licensing guides have been slowed by staff
Arkansas Final Report Page 9

turnover, but with the completion of the four guides, a large majority of the licenses will be

covered by the revised guidance.

Due to the limited licensing experience of the newest staff members, all licensing actions

receive a two-person review: one by the initial reviewer and the second by either the Program

Coordinator or the Senior Health Physicist, both of whom have signature authority. Licenses

are usually signed by the Program Manager; however, the other two experienced individuals

can sign the license if the need arises. Amended licenses are issued as a complete license,

instead of just the one or two pages that were affected by the request. In addition, the updated

section of the license is bolded to highlight the changed section(s), and these updates are also

included in the license transmittal letter.

The Program started to track license action requests received, but due to staff turnover the data

entry has not been consistent. Hence, the Program cannot accurately tabulate actions

received, completed, or compare results against timeliness standards. The Program relies on

each license reviewer to maintain a paper log of assignments and to submit them monthly to the

Program Manager. To make the current tracking system work, the Program is having two of its

staff trained in database development and maintenance.

The review team looked at the only financial assurance instrument provided by a licensee and

maintained by the Program and determined it to be appropriate, timely, physically secured, and

the originally signed document. The review team identified two additional licenses that

permitted possession in excess of the quantities requiring financial assurance. Since both of

these licenses are State universities, pursuant to the Program’s own regulations, these

licensees may simply provide statements of intent to meet the financial assurance

requirements. The Program agreed to promptly obtain the letters of intent.

Overall, the review team found that the licensing actions were thorough, complete, consistent,

and of acceptable quality with health and safety issues properly addressed. Most license tiedown conditions were stated clearly, and were backed by information contained in the file, and

inspectible. The licensee’s compliance history was taken into account when reviewing renewal

applications and amendments. Some amendments issued were a result of compliance issues

found during inspections because the licensee had submitted changes to their program or

possession limits in the renewal application, which had not been processed. Until the renewal

backlog is reduced, these amendments are expected to increase as the approved radiation

protection programs become more outdated.

The review team examined the list of licensees that the Program had determined met the

criteria for the increased controls per COMSECY-05-0028. The review team determined that

the Program 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 timelines established by the Commission in the SRM for COMSECY-05-0028.

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

that Arkansas’ performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions,

was satisfactory, but needs improvement.
Arkansas Final Report Page 10

3.5 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities

In evaluating the effectiveness of the Program’s actions in responding to incidents and

allegations, the review team examined the Program’s response to the questionnaire relative to

this indicator, evaluated selected incidents reported for Arkansas in the Nuclear Material Events

Database (NMED) against those contained in the Program’s files, and evaluated the casework

for 16 radioactive materials incidents. A listing of the incident casework examined, with

case-specific comments, may be found in Appendix E. The review team also evaluated the

Program’s response to allegations involving radioactive materials, including allegations referred

to the State by the NRC.

Written procedures for handling incidents and allegations can be found in Administrative Policy

AD-06.9. When an incident is reported to the Program after office hours, the information is

received by a 24-hour operator. The information is recorded and Program management is

notified. When an incident is received directly by the Program, other methods were used to

record the incident (e.g., NMED reports). Records of all reported incidents (open and closed)

are maintained in an incident file cabinet controlled by the Program.

The responsibility for initial response and followup actions to radioactive materials incidents may

be assigned to any senior member of the Program. Upon receipt, management reviews a

report, decides on the appropriate response, and logs it into the incident log. Due to recent

staffing shortages and a lack of qualified staff, only senior staff members are presently assigned

to incident followup. Newer staff members accompany senior staff during incident followups. 

During the review period, the Program received reports of 41 radioactive material incidents. 

The review team evaluated 16 incidents that required reporting under the NRC criteria. The

incidents selected for review included the following categories: equipment failure, medical

event, transportation accident, dispensing error, naturally occurring radioactive material in scrap

metal, abandoned sources, general public exposures, and radiation worker overexposures. 

Initial responses were prompt and the level of effort was commensurate with the health and

safety significance of the incident. Initial response and followup to incidents and allegations

involving radioactive materials are coordinated with and through the Program Manager.

The review team identified one incident that had not been closed out in NMED because it

involved an abandoned source now held in storage by the Program. With the exception of one

incident file noted in Appendix E, the review team found that the NMED database accurately

reflected the information contained in the Program’s files. Overall, the review team determined

that the Program reported incidents to the NRC Headquarters Operations Center in a timely

manner with appropriate and timely followup actions.

The review team also evaluated the Program’s response to allegations (i.e., complaints)

involving radioactive material. The review team evaluated the Program’s response to six

allegations including one that was referred to the Program by the NRC during the review period

and one that had been open at the time of the last program review.

The review of the complaint files indicated that the Program took prompt and appropriate action

in response to concerns raised, and when able, the Program replied back to the alleger with the

results of the investigation. The casework reviewed indicated that allegers’ identities are

protected when possible, and the allegations were appropriately closed. The review team noted
Arkansas Final Report Page 11

that Arkansas law requires that all public documents be made available for inspection and

copying unless specifically exempted from disclosure under the State’s Freedom of Information

statutes. The State makes every effort to protect an alleger’s identity, but the Program cannot

fully guarantee anonymity. During the initial telephone contact, the alleger is advised that their

anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

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

that Arkansas’ 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 performance indicators, Compatibility Requirements and Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Disposal Program, were applicable to this review.

4.1 Compatibility Requirements

4.1.1 Legislation

Arkansas became an Agreement State on July 1, 1963. The Department is designated as the

State’s radiation control agency. Legislative authority was granted to the Department in the

“Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated, Volume 20A, Title 20, Chapter 21." The legislative

authority authorizing a Low-Level Waste Program is the “Arkansas Code of 1987 annotated,

Volume 6A, Title 8, Chapter 8. Along with the Program’s response to the questionnaire, the

staff provided the review team with the opportunity to review copies of legislation that affects the

radiation control program. In addition to appropriation legislation, one piece of legislation (Act

1119 of 2003) affecting the Agreement State program was passed since the last review. This

legislation authorizes the Department to collect fees for generally licensed devices.

4.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility

The State’s regulations for control of radiation are located in the Rules and Regulations for

Control of Sources of Ionizing Radiation of the Arkansas State Board of Health and apply to

ionizing radiation, whether emitted from radionuclides or devices. Arkansas requires a license

for possession and use of radioactive materials, including naturally occurring and acceleratorproduced radionuclides. A copy of the effective Arkansas regulations, including the

amendments which became effective on July 1, 2002, were provided to the review team. 

The review team examined the procedures used in the State’s rule-making process and found

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

regulation changes. It was noted that draft regulations were sent to the NRC for review and

comment, and when necessary, the NRC comments were incorporated. The package of

proposed regulations prepared by the Program, requires review by the Arkansas Legislative

Council and approval from the State Board of Health. The State has emergency rule capability,

if public health and safety are at risk. It was noted that the State’s rules and regulations are not

subject to "sunset" laws.
Arkansas Final Report Page 12

The review team evaluated the Program 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 State Regulation Status Data Sheet.

The State currently has no overdue regulations required for compatibility. A single package with

nine required regulatory changes was signed by the Governor on August 29, 2006, and became

effective on October 1, 2006. The Program plans to notify licensees about the changes by

letter, including a CD version of the regulations. The updated Arkansas regulations will also be

made available for download on the Program’s web page.

The Program 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" Part 71 (69 FR 3697) that became effective October 1, 2004. This

amendment is due for Agreement State implementation by October 1, 2007.

! “Medical Use of Byproduct Material — Recognition of Specialty Boards,” 10 CFR Part 35

amendments (70 FR 16336, 71 FR 1926) that became effective April 29, 2005. This

amendment is due for Agreement State implementation by April 29, 2008.

! “Minor Amendments,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 32, 35, 40 and 70 amendments (71 FR 15005)

that became effective March 27, 2006. This amendment is due for Agreement State

implementation by March 27, 2009.

The review team noted that the State is using license conditions in lieu of adopting regulations

to impose the requirements of NRC Order EA-05-090 on affected licensees in their jurisdiction. 

NRC Order EA-05-090 requires licensees possessing certain radioactive materials in risk

significant quantities to implement increased controls to reduce the risk of the unauthorized use

of these materials.

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

Arkansas’ performance with respect to the indicator, Compatibility Requirements, was

satisfactory.

4.2 Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program

In 1981, the NRC amended its Policy Statement, "Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in

Discontinuance of NRC Authority and Assumption Thereof by States Through Agreement" to

allow a State to seek an amendment for the regulation of LLRW as a separate category. Those

States with existing Agreements prior to 1981 were determined to have continued LLRW

disposal authority without the need of an amendment. Although the Arkansas Agreement State

Program has LLRW disposal authority, NRC has not required States to have a program for

licensing a LLRW disposal facility until such time as the State has been designated as a host

State for a LLRW disposal facility. When an Agreement State has been notified or becomes

aware of the need to regulate a LLRW disposal facility, they are expected to put in place a

regulatory program which will meet the criteria for an adequate and compatible LLRW disposal
Arkansas Final Report Page 13

program. There are no plans for a LLRW disposal facility in Arkansas. Accordingly, the review

team did not review this indicator.

5.0 SUMMARY

As noted in Sections 3 and 4 above, Arkansas’ performance was 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 Arkansas

Agreement State Program and recommends that one recommendation from the 2002 IMPEP

review remain open. Accordingly, the review team recommended and the MRB agreed that the

Arkansas Agreement State Program is adequate to protect public health and safety and

compatible with NRC's program. Due to the long standing license renewal backlog issue and

the impact of staff turnover on program performance, the review team recommended and the

MRB agreed that a periodic meeting be conducted approximately one year from the time of this

review. Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the review team recommended and

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

Below are the recommendations, as mentioned earlier in the report, for evaluation and

implementation, as appropriate, by the State.

1. 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. (Section

3.1)

2. 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. (Section

3.1)

3. 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. (Section 3.2)

4. The review team recommends that Department management develop and implement an

action plan to reduce the licensing renewal backlog. (Open recommendation from the 2002

IMPEP review) (Section 3.4)

5. 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. (Section 3.4)
LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENT

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members

Appendix B Arkansas Organization Charts

Appendix C Inspection Casework Reviews

Appendix D License Casework Reviews

Appendix E Incident Casework Reviews

Attachment November 1, 2006, E-mail from Jared Thompson

Arkansas’ Response to Draft IMPEP Report
APPENDIX A

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS 

Name Area of Responsibility

Duncan White, Region I Team Leader

Technical Staffing and Training

Compatibility Requirements

Inspector Accompaniments

Randy Erickson, Region IV Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation

 Activities

Compatibility Requirements

Christi Maier, Region IV Status of Materials Inspection Program

Technical Quality of Inspections

Michael Whalen, Massachusetts Technical Quality of Licensing Actions
APPENDIX B

ARKANSAS ORGANIZATION CHARTS

ADAMS ACCESSION NUMBERS:

ML062630109

ML062630111

ML062630117

ML062630123
APPENDIX C

INSPECTION CASEWORK REVIEWS

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT ARE INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS

ONLY.

File No.: 1

Licensee: Sterigenics International, Inc. License No.: ARK-903

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1

Inspection Dates: 4/17-18/06 Inspectors: SM, KG, LP

File No.: 2

Licensee: International Paper Company License No.: ARK-042

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 6/6/06 Inspectors: SM, LP

Comment:

The list of licensees generated from the Program’s licensee database indicates that

licensees within this category are assigned Priority 1, 2, 3 or 4. The basis for priority

assignment to individual licensees is not documented.

File No.: 3

Licensee: Nucor-Yamato Steel Company License No.: ARK-722

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3

Inspection Date: 12/17/03 Inspector: SM

File No.: 4

Licensee: University of Arkansas License No.: ARK-064

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1

Inspection Dates: 11/29-12/01/05 Inspectors: KW, SM, KG

Comment:

The basis for priority assignment for this licensee in the Program’s licensee database is not

documented.

File No.: 5

Licensee: Arkansas Children’s Hospital License No.: ARK-572

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 8/23/05 Inspectors: SD, KW

File No.: 6

Licensee: University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences License No.: ARK-001

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 6/14-16/06 Inspectors: SM, KG, LP

Comment:

Letter to licensee documenting health and safety inspection findings include references to

Increased Controls inspection.
Arkansas Final Report Page C.2

Inspection Casework Reviews

File No.: 7

Licensee: Arkansas Cardiology, PA License No.: ARK-733

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 10/13/05 Inspectors: SD, JT

Comment:

Inspection priority appears to have been reduced to Priority 1 because of several items of

noncompliance identified during an May 2005 inspection of an authorized field office. 

However, the Program’s licensee database does not indicate that this inspection priority is

“accelerated.”

File No.: 8

Licensee: Heart Associates of South Arkansas License No.: ARK-961

Inspection Type: Special, Unannounced Priority: 2

Inspection Date: 2/17/05 Inspector: KW

File No.: 9

Licensee: White County Medical Center License No.: ARK-681

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2

Inspection Date: 5/10/06 Inspectors: KG, JT

File No.: 10

Licensee: St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center License No.: ARK-394

Inspection Type: Routine, Special Priority: 1

Inspection Dates: 6/19–21/06 Inspectors: KG, KW

Comment:

The basis for the Priority 1 inspection priority as an “accelerated” inspection frequency is

not documented.

File No.: 11

Licensee: St. Edward Mercy Medical Center License No.: ARK-335

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 6/29/06 Inspectors: KW, JT

Comment:

The basis for the Priority 1 inspection priority as an “accelerated” inspection frequency is

not documented.

File No.: 12

Licensee: APAC-Arkansas, Inc. License No.: ARK-686

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 6/29/06 Inspectors: SM, LP, TH

Comment:

The Program’s licensee database indicates that this inspection priority is “accelerated.” 

However, the Radioactive Material License Inspection Report indicates that the inspection

was a routine, unannounced inspection.
Arkansas Final Report Page C.3

Inspection Casework Reviews

File No.: 13

Licensee: Central Arkansas Radiation Therapy Institute License No.: ARK-654

Inspection Type: Routine, Special Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 3/14/06 Inspectors: KG, KW

Comment: 

License authorizes an HDR, which is not indicated on the Program’s licensee database. 

File No.: 14

Licensee: Mobile Health Services, LLC License No.: ARK-973

Inspection Type: Initial, Announced Priority: 1

Inspection Dates: 11/15/04 and 12/14/04 Inspectors: KW, JT

File No.: 15

Licensee: Saline Heart Group, P.A. License No.: ARK-979

Inspection Type: Initial, Announced Priority: 3

Inspection Date: 1/21/05 Inspector: KW

File No.: 16

Licensee: Saline Heart Group, P.A. License No.: ARK-993

Inspection Type: Initial, Announced Priority: 3

Inspection Date: 3/28/06 Inspectors: KG, SM

File No.: 17

Licensee: GTS, Inc. License No.: ARK-995

Inspection Type: Initial, Announced Priority: 3

Inspection Date: 6/29/06 Inspectors: SM, SP, TH

File No.: 18

Licensee: Applied Inspection Services, Inc. License No.: ARK-576

Inspection Type: Increased controls Priority: N/A

Inspection Date: 6/15/06 Inspectors: KW, JT

File No.: 19

Licensee: Applied Inspection Services, Inc. License No.: ARK-576

Inspection Type: Increased controls Priority: N/A

Inspection Date: 7/27/06 Inspectors: KW, JT

File No.: 20

Licensee: International Testing & Inspection Services, Inc. License No.: ARK-773

Inspection Type: Increased controls Priority: N/A

Inspection Date: 8/16/06 Inspector: KW
Arkansas Final Report Page C.4

Inspection Casework Reviews

File No.: 21

Licensee: Caddo Inspections, Inc. License No.: ARK-881

Inspection Type: Increased controls Priority: N/A

Inspection Date: 6/8/06 Inspector: SM

Comment:

The increased control file did not include a copy of the letter documenting the inspection

results to the licensee. The documentation was in the routine inspection file.

File No.: 22

Licensee: University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences License No.: ARK-001

Inspection Type: Increased controls Priority: N/A

Inspection Date: 6/15/06 Inspectors: SM, JT

Comment:

The increased controls file did not include a copy of the letter documenting the inspection

results to the licensee. The documentation was in the routine inspection file.

File No.: 23

Licensee: H & H X-Ray Services, Inc. License No.: ARK-650

Inspection Type: Increased controls Priority: N/A

Inspection Date: 5/5/06 and 5/11/06 Inspectors: SM, JT, LP

File No.: 24

Licensee: H & H X-Ray Services, Inc. License No.: ARK-650

Inspection Type: Increased controls - followup Priority: N/A

Inspection Date: 6/20/06 and 6/28/06 Inspectors: SM, JT

File No.: 25

Licensee: Northwest Medical Center License No.: ARK-383

Inspection Type: Increased controls Priority: N/A

Inspection Date: 8/15/06 Inspector: SM

Comment:

The increased controls file did not include a copy of the letter documenting the inspection

results sent to the licensee. The letter was in the routine inspection file. The letter did not

include the standard increased controls language.

File No.: 26

Licensee: PathFinder Energy Services License No.: REC-336

Inspection Type: Increased controls/Reciprocity Priority: N/A

Inspection Date: 7/17/06 Inspectors: SM, LP, TM

Comment:

The increased controls file did not include a copy of the letter documenting the inspection

results sent to the licensee. The letter was in the reciprocity file.
Arkansas Final Report Page C.5

Inspection Casework Reviews

INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS

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

Accompaniment No.: 1

Licensee: Northwest Medical Center License No.: ARK-383

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced, Increased controls Priority: 3

Inspection Date: 8/15/06 Inspector: SM

Accompaniment No.: 2

Licensee: International Testing & Inspection Services License No.: ARK-773

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced, Increased controls Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 8/16/06 Inspector: KM
APPENDIX D

LICENSE CASEWORK REVIEWS

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT ARE INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS

ONLY.

File No.: 1

Licensee: U.S. Vandium Corporation License No.: ARK-391

Type of Action: Termination Amendment: 22

Date Issued: 11/5/03 License Reviewer: GB

Comment:

License termination request of 10/29/03 did not include where the sources were 

transferred or the results of the last leak test performed on the sources.

File No.: 2

Licensee: URS Corporation License No.: ARK-730

Type of Action: Amendment/Termination Amendments: 15, 16

Dates Issued: 6/5/03, 5/28/04 License Reviewer: GB

Comments:

a) No leak test results submitted with removal of two gauges requested on 5/30/03.

b) No leak test results submitted with termination request of 5/11/04.

File No.: 3

Licensee: Arkansas State Plant Board License No.: ARK-351

Type of Action: Amendment/Termination Amendments: 12,13

Dates Issued: 9/22/00, 11/21/03 License Reviewer: KW

Comments:

a) No leak test results submitted with removal of two electron capture devices (ECDs)

requested on 5/30/03.

b) Termination request did not include leak test results.

File No.: 4

Licensee: John Brown University License No.: ARK-527

Type of Action: Termination Amendment: 13

Date Issued: 4/8/03 License Reviewer: KW

Comment:

a) No leak test resulted submitted with termination request. Last leak test occurred on 6/8/98.
Arkansas Final Report Page D.2

License Casework Reviews

File No.: 5

Licensee: Albemarle Corporation License No.: ARK-717

Type of Action: Renewal and Amendments Amendments: 35 - 41

Dates Issued: 6/12/06, 12/6/05, 6/6/05, 5/18/05 License Reviewers: GB, KW, SD, SM

7/21/03, 4/10/03, 2/28/03

Comments:

a) Eight instances of changes to materials, users or procedures not included in tie-down

conditions.

b) Renewal application, dated 1/31/00 was responded to by Program on 12/20/02. The

renewal was issued on 2/28/03 as amendment 35.

File No.: 6

Licensee: Team Industrial Services, Inc. License No.: ARK-344

Type of Action: Amendments Amendments: 50 - 52

Dates Issued: 9/13/05, 1/20/06, 5/1/06 License Reviewers: KM, JT, SM

Comments:

a) The letter requesting change of ownership was not included in the tie down of amendment

51. The request was treated as a name change instead of change of ownership.

b) The letter requesting removal of storage site was not included in the tie down of

amendment 52.

File No.: 7

Licensee: Halliburton Energy Services License No.: ARK-319

Type of Action: Amendments Amendments: 39, 40

Dates Issued: 9/16/05, 7/24/06 License Reviewers: JT, SM

File No.: 8

Licensee: University of Arkansas License No.: ARK-064

Type of Action: Amendments Amendments: 5 - 9

Dates Issued: 9/12/05, 3/8/06, 5/4/06, 8/3/06 License Reviewers: JT, KW

Comments:

a) Amendment 6 not signed or dated.

b) No amendment issued for the decommissioning request and approval of an area formerly

used for storage of radioactive waste which removed it from the license and returning it to

unrestricted use.

c) License allows possession of quantities that require financial assurance but no financial

instrument exists (i.e., Letter of Intent).

File No.: 9

Licensee: Nucor-Yamato Steel Company License No.: ARK-722

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment: 12

Date Issued: 10/23/03 License Reviewer: SM

File No.: 10
Arkansas Final Report Page D.3

License Casework Reviews

Licensee: Schlumberger Technology Corporation License No.: ARK-077

Type of Action: Amendments Amendments: 34 - 36

Dates Issued: 2/28/03, 9/12/05, 10/4/05 License Reviewers: CB, KW, SD

Comment:

Letter requesting name change not in tie down condition for Amendment 34.

File No.: 11

Licensee: Sterigenics U.S., Inc. License No.: ARK-903

Type of Action: Amendments Amendments: 8, 9

Dates Issued: 4/4/05, 3/24/06 License Reviewers: KW, JT

File No.: 12

Licensee: Baker Atlas License No.: ARK-668

Type of Action: Amendments and Increased Controls Amendments: 15-17

Dates Issued: 9/14/05, 4/19/05, 4/23/03 License Reviewers: KW, CB

Comment:

Amendment 17 did not include license condition requiring this out-of-state licensee to give

two days notice prior to entry into Arkansas. It was dropped from the license sometime

between 1995 (the last time full license was issued) and 2006.

File No.: 13

Licensee: Cat Clinic of Conway License No.: ARK-945

Type of Action: New and Amendments Amendments: 0 - 3

Dates Issued: 7/3/03, 7/30/03, 9/23/03, 9/21/05 License Reviewers: JT, CB, KW

File No.: 14

Licensee: Cardinal Health Nuclear Pharmacy Services License No.: ARK-642

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment: 5

Date Issued: 8/28/06 License Reviewer: KW

Comment:

A place of use was removed from the license without the decommissioning request and

final survey results. In the amendment transmittal letter, dated 8/28/06, the Program

allowed continued use of the removed site until a new facility was ready for use, and

decommissioning surveys submitted.

File No.: 15 

Licensee: Medical Center of South Arkansas License No.: ARK-384

Type of Actions: Amendments Amendments: 90, 91

Dates Issued: 1/6/06, 8/8/05 License Reviewer: SD

Comment:

Two letters requesting the addition of an authorized user not included in tie-down condition.

File No.: 16
Arkansas Final Report Page D.4

License Casework Reviews

Licensee: Central Arkansas Radiation Therapy Institute License No.: ARK-654

Type of Actions: Amendments Amendments: 50 - 52

Dates Issued: 11/16/04, 3/23/05, 6/21/06 License Reviewer: KW

File No.: 17

Licensee: Mobile Health Services, LLC License No.: ARK-973

Type of Actions: Amendments Amendments: 14, 15

Dates Issued: 4/14/06, 7/28/06 License Reviewer: KW

Comment:

 Letter dated 7/18/06 to add three locations of use not included in tie-down condition.

File No.: 18

Licensee: University of Arkansas Medical Sciences License No.: ARK-001

Type of Actions: Amendments Amendments: 3, 4

Dates Issued: 3/28/06, 4/19/06 License Reviewers: SM, KW

Comment:

License allows possession of quantities that require financial assurance but no financial

instrument exists (i.e., Letter of Intent).

File No.: 19

Licensee: Hembree Mercy Cancer Center License No.: ARK-824

Type of Actions: Amendments Amendments: 17, 18

Dates Issued: 12/28/05, 6/13/06 License Reviewer: KW

File No.: 20

Licensee: CARTI/UAMS License No.: ARK-930

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment: 6

Date Issued: 5/9/05 License Reviewer: KW

Comment:

Letters dated 3/22/05 and 3/30/05 to add authorized users not included in tie-down

condition.

File No.: 21

Licensee: Cenark Project Management Services, Inc. License No.: ARK-1001

Type of Action: New Amendment: N/A

Date Issued: 5/4/06 License Reviewer: KW

File No.: 22

Licensee: Harrison Cardiology Clinic License No.: ARK-971

Type of Action: New Amendment: N/A

Dates Issued: 1/12/04 License Reviewer: KW
APPENDIX E

INCIDENT CASEWORK REVIEWS

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT ARE INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS

ONLY.

File No.: 1

Licensee: Schiabo Larovo-AR LLC License No.: N/A

Date of Incident: 1/10/06 Incident Log No.: 01-06-01

Investigation Date: 1/10/06 Type of Incident: NORM in scrap metal

Type of Investigation: On-site

File No.: 2

Licensee: Philander Smith College License No.: N/A

Date of Incident: 3/1/06 Incident Log No.: 03-06-01

Investigation Date: 3/2/06 Type of Incident: Pick up old GL in-vitro kits

Type of Investigation: On-site

File No.: 3

Licensee: Central Arkansas Radiation Therapy Institute License No.: ARK-654

Date of Incident: 11/17/05 Incident Log No.: 04-06-01 (NMED: 060280)

Investigation Date: N/A Type of Incident: Medical Event

Type of Investigation: Phone/24 Hour Notification

Comment:

Not identified as an abnormal occurrence on the external NMED server. Program staff

provided the review team with documentation indicating the incident had been appropriately

coded when forwarded to NMED.

File No.: 4

Licensee: Building and Earth Sciences License No.: ARK-918

Date of Incident: 3/21/06 Incident Log No.: 03-06-02 

Investigation Date: 3/21/06 Type of Incident: Transportation

Type of Investigation: On-site

File No.: 5

Licensee: Cardinal Health License No.: ARK-642

Date of Incident: 4/8/05 Incident Log No.: 04-05-01

Investigation Date: N/A Type of Incident: Dispensing Error

Type of Investigation: Phone/30-day report

File No.: 6

Licensee: St. Bernard’s Medical Center License No.: ARK-365

Date of Incident: 3/30/04 Incident Log No.: 03-04-02 (NMED: 040303)

Investigation Date: N/A Type of Incident: Equipment malfunction

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

Incident Casework Reviews

File No.: 7

Licensee: Materials Testing of Arkansas License No.: ARK-859

Date of Incident: 6/8/04 Incident Log No.: 06-04-01 (NMED: 040424)

Investigation Date: N/A Type of Incident: Lost Portable Gauge

Type of Investigation: Phone/30-day report

File No.: 8

Licensee: University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences License No.: ARK-001

Date of Incident: 7/6/04 Incident Log No.: 07-04-01

Investigation Date: 8/12/04 Type of Incident: Overexposures

Type of Investigation: Phone/On-site

File No.: 9

Licensee: Horace Gill Scrap Yard License No.: N/A

Date of Incident: 8/2/04 Incident Log No.: 08-04-01

Investigation Date: 8/3/04 Type of Incident: Discovery of radioactive device

Type of Investigation: On-site

File No.: 10

Licensee: Alcoa Industrial Chemicals License No.: ARK-069

Date of Incident: 7/22/03 Incident Log No.: 05-03-02 (NMED: 030824)

Investigation Date: 8/26/03 Type of Incident: General public exposure

Type of Investigation: Phone/On-site

File No.: 11

Licensee: St. Bernard’s Medical Center License No.: ARK-365

Date of Incident: 7/2/03 Incident Log No.: 07-03-01 (NMED: 030600)

Investigation Date: N/A Type of Incident: Equipment malfunction

Type of Investigation: Phone

File No.: 12

Licensee: University of Arkansas License No.: ARK-064

Date of Incident: 5/22/03 Incident Log No.: 05-03-01 (NMED: 030599)

Investigation Date: N/A Type of Incident: Leaking Source

Type of Investigation: Phone

File No.: 13

Licensee: Central Arkansas Radiation Therapy Institute License No.: ARK-654

Date of Incident: 12/4/03 Incident Log No.: 12-03-01 (NMED: 040001)

Investigation Date: N/A Type of Incident: Medical Event

Type of Investigation: Phone/24 Hour Notification

File No.: 14

Licensee: St. Bernard’s Medical Center License No.: ARK-365

Date of Incident: 10/01/02 Incident Log No.: 12-02-02 (NMED: 030082)

Investigation Date: N/A Type of Incident: Equipment malfunction

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

Incident Casework Reviews

File No.: 15

Licensee: Central Arkansas Radiation Therapy Institute License No.: ARK-058

Date of Incident: 12/17/02 Incident Log No.: 12-02-01 (NMED: 030001)

Investigation Date: N/A Type of Incident: Equipment malfunction

Type of Investigation: Phone

File No.: 16

Licensee: Central Arkansas Radiation Therapy Institute License No.: ARK-654

Date of Incident: 11/20/02 Incident Log No.: 11-02-02 (NMED: 021143)

Investigation Date: 12/2/06 Type of Incident: Medical Event

Type of Investigation: On-site
ATTACHMENT

November 1, 2006, E-mail from Jared Thompson

Arkansas’ Response to Draft IMPEP Report

ADAMS: ML063110544