February 12, 2010 

Paul Halverson, DrPH, MHSA 

Director of Health and State Public Health Officer 

Arkansas Department of Health 

4815 West Markham, Slot 39 

Little Rock, AR 72205 

Dear Dr. Halverson: 

On January 14, 2010, 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, but needs improvement, and compatible with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s (NRC’s) program. Because of the significance of the findings, the MRB decided 

to extend the period of heightened oversight of the Arkansas Agreement State Program. 

Heightened oversight is an increased monitoring process that NRC uses to follow the progress 

of improvement needed in an Agreement State program. It involves implementation of a 

program improvement plan, participation on bimonthly conference calls with NRC managers and 

staff members, and submission of status reports prior to each call. 

Section 5.0, page 14, of the enclosed final report contains a summary of the review team’s 

findings and recommendations for the Arkansas Agreement State Program. I request that you 

revise your existing program improvement plan to address the review team’s recommendations, 

as some recommendations have changed since your plan was first implemented. I encourage 

you to take a close look and revise your program improvement plan to ensure that the specific 

milestones listed in the plan meet the State’s needs for a path toward improvement. The 

revised plan should be submitted to NRC within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Upon review 

and approval of your program improvement plan, NRC staff will schedule the first conference 

call. Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, a followup review will be scheduled 

approximately 18 months from the date of the October 2009 IMPEP review. The followup 

review will cover the State’s implementation of the program improvement plan and the actions 

taken in response to the recommendations in the enclosed final report. 

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

also wish to acknowledge your continued support for the Agreement State Program. 
P. Halverson - 2 - 

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

 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: 

Arkansas Final IMPEP Report 

cc w/encl.: Renee Mallory, RN, Chief 

 Arkansas Health Systems Licensing 

 and Regulation Branch 

 Bernard Bevill, Chief 

 Arkansas Radiation Control Section 

 Mike Broderick, Oklahoma 

 Organization of Agreement 

 States Liaison to the MRB
P. Halverson - 2 - 

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

 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: 

Arkansas Final IMPEP Report 

cc w/encl.: Renee Mallory, RN, Chief 

 Arkansas Health Systems Licensing 

 and Regulation Branch 

 Bernard Bevill, Chief 

 Arkansas Radiation Control Section 

 Mike Broderick, Oklahoma 

 Organization of Agreement 

 States Liaison to the MRB 

Distribution: See next page.

 ML100200435 EDATS: FSME-2010-0016 

OFFICE FSME/MSSA FSME/MSSA FSME/MSSA FSME/MSSA 

NAME ATMcCraw:knm1 ADWhite TReis (DWhite for) RJLewis 

DATE 01/20/10 01/21/10 01/21/10 01/21/10 

OFFICE Tech Editor FSME DEDMRT 

NAME CPoland CLMiller (CCarpenter for) MJVirgilio 

(BMallett for) 

DATE 01/25/10 01/29/10 02/12/10 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Letter to Dr. Paul Halverson from Martin J. Virgilio dated: February 12, 2010 

Distribution: EDATS: FSME-2010-0016 

MSSA RF DCD (SP01) 

EDO RF 

RidsFsmeOd Chairman Jaczko 

RidsSecyCorrespondenceMailCenter Commissioner Klein 

MBeardsley, FSME/MSSA Commissioner Svinicki 

RErickson, RIV/RSAO SECY 

SXu, FSME/MSSA 

Louise Roehrich, North Dakota 

AHowell, RIV 

JKatanic, FSME/MSSA 

BJones, OGC 

SReynolds, RIII 

MFranovich, OEDO 

APowell, OCA (2 copies) 
Enclosure 

INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM 

REVIEW OF THE ARKANSAS AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM 

OCTOBER 26-30, 2009 

FINAL REPORT
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 October 26-30, 2009, by a review team composed of 

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

North Dakota. 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 NRC Management Directive 5.6, “Integrated Materials 

Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP),” dated February 26, 2004. Preliminary results of the 

review, which covered the period of September 2, 2006, to October 30, 2009, were discussed 

with Arkansas managers on the last day of the review. 

A draft of this report was issued to Arkansas for factual comment on November 23, 2009. The 

State responded by letter dated January 4, 2010, from Charles McGrew, Deputy Director and 

Chief Operating Officer, Department of Health (the Department). A copy of the State’s response 

is included as the Attachment to this report. The Management Review Board (MRB) met on 

January 14, 2010, to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the Arkansas 

Agreement State Program adequate to protect public health and safety, but needs 

improvement, and compatible with NRC’s program. 

The day-to-day operations of the Arkansas Agreement State Program are administered by the 

Radioactive Materials Program (the Program). The Program is one of three programs in the 

Radiation Control Section (the Section), which is part of the Health Systems Licensing and 

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

the Department. Organization charts for the State, the Department, and the Section are 

included as Appendix B. 

At the time of the review, the Arkansas Agreement State Program regulated 226 specific 

licenses authorizing byproduct, source, and certain special nuclear materials. The review 

focused on the radioactive materials program as it is carried out under the Section 274b. (of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) Agreement between NRC and the State of Arkansas. 

The Arkansas Agreement State Program was placed on heightened oversight based on the 

findings from an August 28, 2007 periodic meeting. During the periodic meeting, NRC staff 

determined that performance weaknesses identified during the 2006 IMPEP review had not 

been resolved; specifically, Arkansas’s loss of experienced staff allowed the backlog of licensing 

actions to persist and created a backlog of inspections. Based on the results of this review, the 

MRB, at its January 14, 2010 meeting, extended the period of heightened oversight of the 

Arkansas Agreement State Program. 

In preparation for this review, a questionnaire addressing the common and applicable noncommon performance indicators was sent to the Section on April 14, 2009. The Program 

provided a response to the questionnaire on September 30, 2009. The questionnaire response 

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

using the Accession Number ML092740748. 
Arkansas Final Report Page 2 

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 database, (4) technical 

review of selected regulatory actions, (5) field accompaniments of four inspectors, and (6) 

interviews with staff and managers. 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 Arkansas Agreement State Program’s 

performance. 

Section 2.0 of this report covers the State’s actions in response to open recommendations from 

previous reviews. Results of the current review of the common performance indicators are 

presented in Section 3.0. Section 4.0 details the results of the review of the applicable noncommon performance indicators, and Section 5.0 summarizes the review team's findings and 

recommendations. The review team’s recommendations 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 1, 2006, the review team 

made four recommendations regarding program performance and left one recommendation 

open from a previous review. The status of these recommendations is as follows: 

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 of the 2006 IMPEP Report) 

Status: Subsequent to the 2006 IMPEP review, the Program evaluated its staffing 

needs based on current and projected workloads. The Program determined that, with a 

full complement of qualified staff, the Program has sufficient staff to perform its 

regulatory functions. The review team came to the same conclusion, as discussed in 

Section 3.1 of this report; however, the review team identified concerns with the high 

degree of staff turnover that the Program experienced during the review period. The 

review team believes that the Program has met the intent of this part of the 

recommendation and makes a new recommendation specifically targeted at addressing 

the staff turnover issue in Section 3.1. The review team did not see direct evidence of 

an evaluation of business processes to improve effectiveness and efficiency; however, 

the review team believes that a new recommendation in Section 3.1 regarding a 

knowledge management program will satisfy the intent of this part of this 

recommendation. This recommendation is closed. 

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 

(OAS) Training Working Group Report and NRC’s Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 

1246, “Formal Qualification Programs in the Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 

Program Area.” (Section 3.1 of the 2006 IMPEP Report) 
Arkansas Final Report Page 3 

Status: Following the 2006 IMPEP review, the Program developed and implemented a 

documented training plan that is consistent with the guidance in the NRC/OAS Training 

Working Group Report and NRC’s IMC 1246. The review team verified that the new 

training plan is being followed for new staff by reviewing each staff member’s training 

progress chart maintained by the Program Manager. This recommendation is closed. 

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, “Materials Inspection Program.” 

(Section 3.2 of the 2006 IMPEP Report) 

Status: During the review period, the Program revised its policy for assigning inspection 

frequencies to be consistent with IMC 2800. The review team verified that new policy 

meets the minimum requirements of IMC 2800 and has been consistently applied to the 

Program’s licensees. This recommendation is closed. 

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

action plan to reduce the licensing renewal backlog. (Section 3.4 of the 2002 IMPEP 

Report) 

Status: Following the 2007 periodic meeting, the Arkansas Agreement State Program 

was placed on heightened oversight due to staff turnover, the growing inspection 

backlog, and the historic backlog of license renewals. Heightened oversight is a form of 

increased oversight that NRC uses to monitor the progress of programmatic 

improvements necessary to restore an Agreement State program to fully satisfactory 

performance. As part of the heightened oversight process, the State developed a 

Program Improvement Plan, a corrective action plan specifically addressing the areas 

needing improvement. The Program Improvement Plan had a line item for the reduction 

and ultimate elimination of the license renewal backlog; however, the Program 

Improvement Plan did not have specific, measurable performance goals or a 

prioritization of the backlogged license renewals. The review team believes that a 

successful action plan to address the backlog needs specific, measurable performance 

goals and a prioritization of the backlogged renewals based on health and safety 

significance. This recommendation remains open. 

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 of the 2006 IMPEP Report) 

Status: The Program revised its procedure for license termination and decommissioning 

in response to this recommendation in an attempt to promote consistency in the license 

termination process. The review team reviewed the revised procedure and found that it 

provided sufficient guidance to the license reviewers; however, the review team noted 

several instances where material dispositions and license terminations were approved 

without receiving the proper supporting documentation, as required by the procedure. 

For example, several sealed source dispositions and/or license termination requests did 

not include the necessary documentation to demonstrate radioactive material disposition 

and/or performance of leak tests of the sources. The review team believes that the staff 
Arkansas Final Report Page 4 

needs additional training on the procedure and that there needs to be a period of 

performance before this procedure can be considered fully implemented. This 

recommendation remains open. 

3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 

Five common performance indicators are used to review NRC Regional and Agreement State 

radioactive materials programs. These indicators are: (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 Section’s questionnaire response relative to this 

indicator, interviewed managers and staff, reviewed job descriptions and training records, and 

considered any workload backlogs. 

The Program, when fully staffed, consists of the Program Manager, six Health Physicists, and 

one administrative staff member. The Health Physicists perform licensing, inspection, and 

incident response duties, as well as emergency response duties at the nuclear power plant in 

the State. The Program also has two part-time consultants for licensing actions and special 

projects. The review team determined that the number of staff in the Program is sufficient 

based on the Program’s current and projected workloads; however, the review team identified 

concerns in the number of qualified staff resulting from a high staff turnover rate. 

During the 3-year review period, six individuals were hired, and six left the program. At the time 

of the review, the Program had one Health Physicist vacancy. Three of the Health Physicists 

that were hired during the review period left during the review period; none of which stayed with 

the Program more than a year. Two of the other Health Physicists that left the program during 

the review period were fully qualified and had a considerable amount of experience and 

knowledge in radioactive materials regulation; one of the two has returned as a part-time 

consultant for secondary reviews of licensing actions. The remaining individual that left the 

Program during the review period had been with the Program a little over a year; however, the 

vast majority of that time was spent on military leave. 

The staff departures during the review period constituted a high degree of staff turnover relative 

to the size of the Program. The Program’s qualification process cannot keep up with the rate of 

attrition. Based on the number of facilities licensed by the Program, the Program needs at least 

three to four fully qualified Health Physicists to handle the Program’s workload. At the time of 

the review, the Program had one Health Physicist that was fully qualified to conduct inspections 

and perform licensing actions of all types of licenses independently. Two Health Physicists had 

partial qualifications to conduct inspections of industrial or medical facilities independently. The 

remaining two Health Physicists each had less than 1 year’s experience in the Program and 

were not qualified to independently conduct inspections or perform licensing actions. The 

review team noted that the Program Manager encouraged and supported training opportunities, 

based on availability of NRC-funded training courses. 
Arkansas Final Report Page 5 

The lack of qualified staff has hindered the Program’s efforts to eliminate the license renewal 

backlog that was identified as early as the 1995 IMPEP review and is further discussed in 

Section 3.4 of this report. Given the limited number of qualified individuals, the Program has 

focused its resources on actions with the greatest health and safety significance: inspections, 

license amendments, response to incidents and allegations, and special projects. Before the 

Program can make appreciable progress on the license renewal backlog, the State must 

address the staff turnover issue to ensure that the Program retains an adequate complement of 

qualified staff to perform all of its regulatory duties. In the Program’s response to the 

questionnaire, the Program indicated that the reasons for leaving for the majority of the 

individuals that left the program were low salaries and a lack of a career ladder within the 

Section. The review team noted that the State was able to boost the starting salary during the 

review period, albeit temporarily. The boost in salary helped the Program recruit several 

nuclear medicine technologists that brought with them some knowledge and experience of 

radioactive materials. Since then, the starting salaries have reverted back to the lesser amount, 

which could make recruiting for the vacant Health Physicist position difficult given the demand 

and competition for individuals with radiation safety experience in Arkansas. The review team 

also noted the lack of a career ladder within the Health Physicist position. The Section has 

proposed a modification to its Health Physicist Training/Salary Plan that is awaiting the 

Arkansas Legislative Personnel Committee’s review and approval. Under this plan, staff would 

receive salary increases for the successful completion of training and qualifications. 

The review team discussed the staff turnover issue with the staff and various levels of 

management of the Arkansas Agreement State Program. The review team communicated its 

concerns with the level of turnover relative to the size of the Program and with the Program’s 

ability to stay current on its other regulatory duties while addressing the license renewal backlog 

with a limited number of qualified inspectors and license reviewers. The review team stressed 

the importance of addressing the staff turnover issue to ensure the long-term health of the 

Arkansas Agreement State Program. The review team recommends that the State take 

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

successful program implementation. 

Given the high rate of turnover in the Program, the review team discussed with the various 

levels of management in the Arkansas Agreement State Program the value of implementing a 

knowledge management program. The review team observed that many of the Program’s 

policies and procedures did not reflect current practices and were in need of revision. Updated 

policies and procedures are a first-line method of training new staff on the Program’s 

operations. As an example of where the Program could have benefited from updated or new 

procedures, the review team noted that the Program had general inspection guidance, but did 

not have inspection guidance for specific license types. Due to the lack of specific inspection 

guidance, new staff members are dependent on NRC courses and accompaniments of more 

senior inspectors to learn inspection techniques for specific license types. The review team 

discussed with the Program using NRC’s or another Agreement State’s already developed 

inspection guidance to minimize the resource burden on developing new procedures. The 

review team also communicated the value of reviewing the Program’s practices during the 

revisions of the procedures to evaluate effectiveness and streamline processes where possible. 

The review team recommends that the State update its existing procedures and develop new 

procedures, if necessary, to memorialize the policies and practices of the Agreement State 

program and to serve as a knowledge management tool. 
Arkansas Final Report Page 6 

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

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

unsatisfactory. 

3.2 Status of Materials Inspection Program

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

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

licensees, and performance of reciprocity inspections. The review team’s evaluation was based 

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

Program’s database, examination of completed inspection casework, and interviews with the 

Program Manager and staff members. 

As noted in Section 2.0 of this report, the Program revised its inspection frequencies during the 

review period. The review team verified that Arkansas’s inspection frequencies for all types of 

radioactive material licenses are at least the same as the frequencies listed in IMC 2800. 

During the review period, the Program conducted a total of 99 routine inspections of high priority 

(Priority 1, 2, and 3) licensees. Of these 99 inspections, the review team identified 13 

inspections that were conducted overdue by more than 25 percent of the inspection frequency 

prescribed by IMC 2800. The review team did not identify any inspections that were overdue at 

the time of the review. The review team also evaluated the Program’s timeliness for conducting 

initial inspections. The review team noted that the Program conducted 20 initial inspections 

during the review period, of which 1 was conducted greater than 12 months after license 

issuance. As required by IMC 2800, initial inspections should be conducted within 12 months of 

license issuance. The review team verified that there were no overdue initial inspections at the 

time of the review. Overall, the review team calculated that the Program performed 12 percent 

of all Priority 1, 2, and 3 and initial inspections overdue during the review period. Because the 

inspection backlog was eliminated by the time of the review, the review team did not make a 

recommendation to address the timeliness of inspections, although performance over the review 

period needed improvement. 

The review team evaluated the Program’s timeliness of issuance of inspection findings. The 

Program has a goal of completing inspection reports within 30 days of the final date of the 

inspection. The Program dispatches all inspection findings from the office via letter. Of the 26 

inspection findings letters reviewed by the team, 9 were issued beyond the 30-day goal. The 

letters were issued anywhere between 5 and 153 days beyond the 30-day goal. The reasons 

for the late inspection findings were workload or extenuating circumstances. In all cases, the 

licensees were made aware of the inspectors’ preliminary findings during the exit meetings. 

The review team found that the late inspection reports occurred throughout the review period 

and, therefore, could not deduce a performance trend. The review team initially considered a 

recommendation to address the number of late inspection findings, an area needing 

improvement; however, the review team believes that the knowledge management 

recommendation in Section 3.1 will require the Program to evaluate its process for dispatching 

inspection findings. 

During the review period, the Program granted 61 reciprocity licenses that were candidates for 

inspection based upon the criteria in IMC 1220, “Processing of NRC Form 241 and Inspection of 
Arkansas Final Report Page 7 

Agreement State Licensees Operating under 10 CFR 150.20.” IMC 1220 requires on-site 

inspection of 20 percent of candidate licensees operating under reciprocity. The review team 

determined that the Program inspected 19 (31 percent) of the candidate reciprocity licensees 

during the review period. The review team noted that the performance of reciprocity inspections 

was more frequent toward the beginning of the review period; however, the review team also 

noted that the Program used a risk-informed approach to performing the reciprocity inspections 

late in the review period. The Program is formally adopting a risk-informed approach via a 

procedural revision expected to be completed and implemented during Calendar Year 2010. 

The review team believes that the risk-informed approach puts the appropriate emphasis on the 

protection of public health and safety and meets the intent of the performance of reciprocity 

inspections; therefore, the review team did not make a recommendation in this specific area 

needing improvement. 

The review team determined that the Program adequately planned for the initial set of Increased 

Controls inspections of affected licensees. The review team evaluated the Program’s 

prioritization methodology and found it acceptable. The Program identified 19 licensees that 

were subject to the Increased Controls and performed the first round of inspections in a timely 

manner. Subsequent inspections of Increased Controls licensees evaluated the pertinent 

aspects of the security measures. 

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

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

Program, was satisfactory, but needs improvement. 

3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections

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

notes, and interviewed the responsible inspector for 26 radioactive materials inspections 

conducted during the review period. The casework examined included a cross-section of 

inspections conducted by eight current and former inspectors and covered a wide variety of 

inspection types involving both initial, and routine inspections. These included industrial 

radiography, self-shielded irradiator, service provider, positron emission tomography, high doserate remote after loader, nuclear pharmacy, diagnostic nuclear medicine, portable gauge, and 

reciprocity licensees. The review also included both initial and followup Increased Controls 

inspections. Appendix C lists the inspection casework files reviewed, with case-specific 

comments. 

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

aspects of the licensees’ radiation safety and security programs. The review team noted that 

inspection reports were generally thorough, complete, consistent, and of high quality with 

sufficient documentation to ensure that licensees’ performances with respect to health, safety, 

and security were acceptable. The review team noted that inspectors were conducting 

confirmatory reviews of source inventories in the National Source Tracking System for affected 

licensees. Inspection report documentation supported violations, recommendations made to 

licensees, unresolved safety issues, and discussions held with licensees during exit interviews. 

While on site, the review team evaluated the Program’s handling and storing of sensitive 

documents. The review team determined that documents containing sensitive information were 
Arkansas Final Report Page 8 

maintained and secured in a locked file cabinet, segregated from publicly available information. 

The review team determined that these files were not subject to Freedom of Information Actequivalent State law and verified that staff handling the files was aware of the sensitive 

information and its special handling requirements. The review team found that outgoing 

correspondence specific to Increased Controls licensees was not always appropriately marked 

identifying them as containing sensitive information. The review team did not discover any 

evidence of an inadvertent release or unauthorized disclosure on the part of the Program or any 

licensees, but recognized the potential for a mistake due to the lack of policy of marking 

sensitive documents. After discussions between the review team, the Program Manager, and 

senior staff, the Program committed to clearly marking outgoing sensitive documents. 

The Program has a policy of performing supervisor accompaniments of all staff at least 

annually. The review team verified that the Program Manager conducted supervisory 

accompaniments of the staff at least annually for each of the years covered by the review 

period. 

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

support the inspection program and to respond to radioactive materials incidents. The Program 

sends survey instruments to the manufacturer for calibration. The Program receives laboratory 

support from the Arkansas Department of Health Radiochemistry Laboratory, which performs 

sample counting and assay services, as needed. 

The review team accompanied four of the Program’s inspectors in February, September, and 

October 2009. The inspectors conducted inspections at a diagnostic cardiology office, a nondestructive testing company using moisture density gauges, two hospitals (one performing both 

iodine-131 therapy and brachytherapy and the other performing only iodine-131 therapy), an 

industrial radiography facility, and a pool irradiator facility. Two of the inspections included a 

confirmatory review of source inventories under the National Source Tracking System, and one 

included a followup review of the Increased Controls. Appendix C lists the inspector 

accompaniments. The inspectors were prepared for the inspections and were thorough in their 

audits of the licensees’ radiation safety and security programs. The inspectors conducted 

interviews with appropriate personnel, observed licensed operations, conducted confirmatory 

measurements, and utilized good health physics practices. The inspectors held entrance and 

exit meetings with the appropriate level of licensee management. The review team determined 

that the inspections were adequate to assess radiological health, safety, and security at the 

licensed facilities. 

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

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

satisfactory. 

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

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

for 35 specific licenses. Licensing actions were reviewed for completeness, consistency, proper 

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

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

emergency procedures, appropriateness of license conditions, and overall technical quality. 
Arkansas Final Report Page 9 

The casework was also reviewed for timeliness, use of appropriate correspondence, reference 

to appropriate regulations, supporting documentation, consideration of enforcement history, prelicensing visits, peer or supervisory review, and proper signatures. 

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

completed during the review period. Licensing actions selected for evaluation included 6 new 

licenses, 5 renewals, 9 amendments, and 15 license terminations. Files reviewed included a 

cross-section of license types, including: medical diagnostic and therapy, brachytherapy, 

gamma knife, industrial radiography, nuclear pharmacies, and industrial licensees. The 

casework sample represented work from each of the license reviewers. A listing of the licensing 

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

Licensing actions are all tracked via a database. The information is entered into a database 

by the clerical staff upon receipt, and then the action is assigned to a license reviewer. There 

was no backlog of amendments or new applications at the time of the review. The staff 

responds to new applications and amendment requests in a timely manner, generally within 3 

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

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

an issue as identified during previous IMPEP reviews in the years. Of the 226 active licenses, 

117 licenses are pending for renewal, which equates to over 50 percent of the Program’s 

licenses. Eighty-six of the renewals have been pending for more than 1 year. The longest 

pending renewal dated back 10 years. As indicated in Section 2.0, the review team is keeping 

open the recommendation from the 2002 IMPEP review regarding the development of an action 

plan to address the license renewal backlog. 

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 a second by one of the Health 

Physicists with signature authority. Licenses are usually signed by the Program Manager; the 

fully qualified Health Physicist can sign a license, if the need arises. The review team noted that 

the dual review process, although it lengthens the amount of time it takes to complete a 

licensing action, is a good learning tool for the unqualified staff members. 

In general, the review team found that licensing actions were complete with health, safety, and 

security issues properly addressed. The review team noted several inconsistencies in licensing 

practices among the staff due to a lack of adherence to or awareness of the Program’s licensing 

guidance. For example, as described in Section 2.0, the review team noted several instances 

where material dispositions and license terminations were approved without receiving the 

proper supporting documentation. Additional inconsistencies are noted in case-specific 

comments on the licensing casework reviewed listed in Appendix D. The review team believes 

that the Program’s licensing guidance will benefit from the knowledge management review of 

the procedures recommended in Section 3.1. 

The review team evaluated the Program’s application of the State’s financial assurance 

requirements. At the time of the review, the Program only had one licensee that was authorized 

possession of radioactive material in excess of the quantities requiring financial assurance. The 

review team verified that the proper documentation was on file and that the information was 

appropriately protected. 
Arkansas Final Report Page 10 

The review team examined the Program’s licensing practices in regard to the Increased 

Controls and Fingerprinting Orders. The review team noted that the Program added legally 

binding license conditions to the licenses that met the criteria for implementing the Increased 

Controls, including fingerprinting, as appropriate. The review team verified that the Program 

has a means to identify new and amended licenses that should be subject to additional security 

measures by incorporating the essential objectives of the revised pre-licensing guidance into its 

licensing program. To meet the other essential objectives of the revised pre-licensing guidance, 

the Program hand delivers new licenses to ensure that regulatory requirements and licensee 

commitments are met prior to issuance of the license and receipt of radioactive material. 

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

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

Actions, was satisfactory, but needs improvement.

3.5 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities

In evaluating the effectiveness of the Program’s actions in responding to incidents, 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 Programs’s files, and evaluated the casework for eight 

radioactive materials incidents that required reporting to NRC’s Headquarters Operations 

Center. A listing of the casework examined can be found in Appendix E. The review team also 

looked at a sample of radioactive materials incidents that did not require reporting to ensure that 

the events were appropriately not reported. To evaluate the Program’s response to allegations, 

the review team examined casework for four allegations involving radioactive materials, 

including the one allegation that NRC forwarded to the State during the review period and three 

that the Program received directly. 

When notified of an incident or an allegation, the Program Manager and staff discuss the initial 

response and the need for an on-site investigation, based on the safety significance. When an 

incident is reported to the Program after office hours, the information is received by a 24-hour 

operator and forwarded to the Program for appropriate response. If the incident meets the 

reportability thresholds, as established in the NRC’s Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs (FSME) Procedure SA-300 “Reporting Material Events,” 

the Program promptly notifies NRC’s Headquarters Operations Center and, often times, NRC 

Region IV. If the investigation is complex and extends over a period of time, the Headquarters 

Operations Center and NMED are appropriately notified of any updates. The Program does not 

use the NMED software to provide initial entries or updates to NMED. Instead, the Program 

relies on NRC’s Headquarters Operations Center to provide initial reports and updates to NRC’s 

contractor responsible for maintaining NMED. The Program responds directly to any requests 

for additional information from NRC’s contractor responsible for maintaining NMED. Of the 

incidents evaluated by the review team, all had been reported to NRC within the required time 

frame and been properly completed in NMED. 

The incidents selected for review included lost or stolen radioactive material, damaged 

equipment, and transportation events. The review team determined that the Program’s 

responses to incidents were thorough, complete, and comprehensive. Initial responses were 

prompt and well coordinated, and the level of effort was commensurate with the health and 
Arkansas Final Report Page 11 

safety significance. The Program immediately dispatched inspectors to the site when the 

possibility of an immediate threat to public health and safety existed. When no immediate threat 

was present and the Program determined that the licensee had qualified, competent individuals 

investigating the incident, the Program responded telephonically or conducted an on-site 

followup inspection at the next inspection. 

In evaluating the effectiveness of the Program's response to allegations, the review team 

evaluated the casework for four allegations. The review team concluded that the Program 

consistently took prompt and appropriate action in response to concerns raised. The review 

team noted that the Program thoroughly documented the investigations and retained all 

necessary documentation to appropriately close the allegations. The Program notified the 

allegers of the conclusion of the investigations. The review team noted 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’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Incident and 

Allegation Activities, was satisfactory. 

4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 

Four non-common performance indicators are used to review Agreement State Programs: 

(1) Compatibility Requirements, (2) Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program, (3) Lowlevel Radioactive Waste Disposal Program, and (4) Uranium Recovery Program. NRC’s 

Agreement with the State of Arkansas does not relinquish authority to regulate a sealed source 

and device evaluation program or a uranium recovery program, so only the first and the third 

non-common performance indicators were applicable to this review. 

4.1 Compatibility Requirements

4.1.1 Legislation

Arkansas became an Agreement State on July 1, 1963. Legislative authority to create a 

radiation control agency and enter into an Agreement with NRC was granted in the “Arkansas 

Code of 1987 Annotated, Volume 20A, Title 20, Chapter 21.” The Department is designated as 

the State’s radiation control agency. The review team noted that no significant legislation 

affecting the radiation control agency’s authority was passed since the previous review. 

4.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility 

Arkansas’s regulation for the control or radiation is found in the Rules and Regulations for 

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

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

for possession and use of all radioactive materials. Arkansas also requires registration of all 

machines specifically designed to produce x-rays or other ionizing radiation. 
Arkansas Final Report Page 12 

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

that, through the use of public comment periods, the public and other interested parties are 

offered an opportunity to comment on proposed regulation changes. Draft regulations are sent 

to NRC for review and comment and those comments are incorporated, as necessary, prior to 

final adoption. Rule packages prepared by the Program require a review by the Arkansas 

Administrative Rules and Regulations Subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council. A 

second administrative review is conducted by the House and Senate Interim Committees on 

Public Health, Welfare & Labor of the Arkansas General Assembly. Subsequent to those 

reviews, final approval must be obtained from the Arkansas State Board of Health. The review 

team noted that the State has emergency rule capability for situations where public health and 

safety are at risk. Arkansas’s rules and regulations are not subject to "sunset" laws, and the 

Program has the authority to issue legally binding requirements (e.g., license conditions) in lieu 

of regulations until compatible regulations become effective. 

The review team evaluated the Program’s response to the questionnaire relative to this 

indicator, reviewed the status of regulations required to be adopted by the Program under the 

Commission’s adequacy and compatibility policy, and verified the adoption of regulations with 

data obtained from the State Regulation Status Data Sheet that FSME maintains. 

NRC policy requires Agreement States to adopt certain equivalent regulations or legally binding 

requirements no later than 3 years after NRC’s amended regulations become effective, unless 

otherwise mandated by the Commission. The following five amendments are overdue for 

adoption: 

• “Requirements for Certain Generally Licensed Industrial Devices Containing Byproduct 

Material,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 31, and 32 amendment (65 FR 79162), that was due for 

Agreement State implementation on February 16, 2004. 

• “Compatibility with IAEA Transportation Safety Standards and Other Transportation 

Safety Amendments,” 10 CFR Part 71 amendment (69 FR 3697), that was due for 

Agreement State implementation on October 1, 2007. 

• “Medical Use of Byproduct Materials - Recognition of Specialty Boards - Part 35,” 10 

CFR Part 35 amendment (70 FR 16336 and 71 FR 1926), that was due for Agreement 

State implementation on April 29, 2008. 

• “National Source Tracking System,” 10 CFR Part 20 amendment (71 FR 65865, 72 FR 

59162), that was due for Agreement State implementation on January 31, 2009. 

• “Minor Amendments,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 32, 35, 40, and 70 amendment (71 FR 

15005), that was due for Agreement State implementation on March 27, 2009. 

The review team also identified future regulation changes that, while not yet due for adoption, 

have been included in a rulemaking package that also includes the overdue regulations listed 

above. The Program anticipated that this rulemaking package would be finalized at the 
Arkansas Final Report Page 13 

Arkansas Board of Health’s January 2010 meeting. The future regulation changes identified by 

the review team included: 

• “Medical Use of Byproduct Material – Minor Corrections and Clarification,” 10 CFR Parts 

32 and 35 amendment (72 FR 45147, 54207), that is due for Agreement State 

implementation by October 29, 2010. 

• “Exemption From Licensing, General Licenses, and Distribution of Byproduct Material: 

Licensing and Reporting Requirements,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 31, 32, 150 amendment 

(72 FR 58473), that is due for Agreement States implementation by December 17, 2010. 

• “Occupational Dose Records, Labeling Containers, and Total Effective Dose Equivalent,” 

10 CFR Parts 19 and 20 amendment (72 FR 68043), that is due for Agreement State 

implementation by February 15, 2011. 

The review team identified the following future regulation change that needs to be addressed by 

the Program in a future rulemaking or by adopting alternate legally binding requirements: 

• “Requirements for Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 31, 

32, 33, 35, 61, and 150 amendment (72 FR 55864), that is due for Agreement State 

implementation by November 30, 2010. 

The review team also identified eight regulations that were sent to NRC for final review and 

were returned with comments; however, NRC did not receive notification that comments had 

been resolved prior to being incorporated into State regulations. Subsequent to review, the 

Program was locating the regulation packages to resubmit to NRC for a final compatibility 

review. At the time of publication of this report, NRC had not received documentation to resolve 

the outstanding comments on Arkansas’s final regulations. 

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

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

satisfactory. 

4.2 Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program

In 1981, 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 low-level radioactive waste (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 authority to regulate a LLRW disposal facility, NRC 

has not required States to have a program for licensing a 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, it is 

expected to put in place a regulatory program that will meet the criteria for an adequate and 

compatibility LLRW program. There are no plans for a LLRW disposal facility in Arkansas. 

Accordingly, the review team did not review this indicator. 
Arkansas Final Report Page 14 

5.0 SUMMARY 

As noted in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 above, Arkansas’s performance was found satisfactory for 

three performance indicators reviewed; satisfactory, but needs improvement for the 

performance indicators Status of Materials Inspection Program and Technical Quality of 

Licensing Actions; and unsatisfactory for the performance indicator Technical Staffing and 

Training. The review team made two recommendations regarding program performance and 

kept two recommendations open from previous reviews. Overall, the review team 

recommended, and the MRB agreed, that the Arkansas Agreement State Program is adequate 

to protect public health and safety, but needs improvement, and compatible with NRC's 

program. 

Due to the longstanding license renewal backlog, the review team considered recommending to 

the MRB that the State be placed on probation. The review team weighed this option against 

recommending extension of the period of heightened oversight. The review team ultimately 

concluded that, although there are areas of program performance needing improvement, the 

Program is adequately protecting public health and safety and places the appropriate emphasis 

on the protection of public health and safety. The review team also took commitments made by 

the Program into consideration when deciding on a recommendation for the appropriate course 

of action. In consultation with NRC managers, the review team reached the following 

recommendation: the review team recommended that the Arkansas Agreement State Program 

remain on heightened oversight. The MRB agreed with the review team’s recommendation. 

Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the review team recommends that a followup 

review take place in approximately 1 year. 

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

implementation by the State: 

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

salary and/or benefits, to stabilize staffing and ensure successful program 

implementation. (Section 3.1) 

2. The review team recommends that the State update its existing procedures and develop 

new procedures, if necessary, to institutionalize the policies and practices of the 

Agreement State program and to serve as a knowledge management tool. (Section 3.1) 

3. The review team recommends that the State develop and implement an action plan to 

reduce the licensing renewal backlog. (Section 3.4 of the 2002 IMPEP Report) 

4. 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 of the 2006 IMPEP Report) 
LIST OF APPENDIXES 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 January 4, 2010 Letter from Charles McGrew 

 Arkansas’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report 
APPENDIX A 

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS 

Name Area of Responsibility

Aaron McCraw, FSME Team Leader 

 Technical Staffing and Training 

 Technical Quality of Incident and 

 Allegation Activities 

Louise Roehrich, ND Status of Materials Inspection Program 

Randy Erickson, Region IV Technical Quality of Inspections 

 Compatibility Requirements 

 Inspector Accompaniments 

Shirley Xu, FSME Technical Quality of Licensing Actions 
APPENDIX B 

ARKANSAS ORGANIZATION CHARTS 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML093220088
 APPENDIX C 

INSPECTION CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS 

ONLY. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Arkansas Cardiac Care, P.C. License No.: ARK-996-BP-01-13 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 2/25/09 Inspector: TK 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: Grubs, Hoskyn, Barton & Wyatt, Inc. License No.: ARK-0456-03121 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 2/26/09 Inspector: LP 

Comment: 

The Program issued the letter conveying inspection findings to the licensee 5 days 

beyond 30-day issuance goal. 

File No.: 3 

Licensee: St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center License No.: ARK-0390-02120 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 9/14/09 Inspector: TK 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: St. Joseph’s Mercy Health Center License No.: ARK-0346-02120 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 9/15/09 Inspector: KG 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: Sterigenics US, LLC License No.: ARK-903-03521 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 9/17/09 Inspector: SM 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: Desert Industrial X-ray License No.: ARK-1010-03320 

Inspection Type: Special, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 10/26/09 Inspector: LP 
Arkansas Final Report Page C.2 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 7 

Licensee: Varian Medical Systems, Inc. License No.: REC-247 

Inspection Type: Reciprocity, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 4/1/09 Inspectors: SM, KA, AM 

Comment: 

The Program issued the letter conveying inspection findings to the licensee 22 days 

beyond 30-day issuance goal. 

File No.: 8 

Licensee: CARTI Mountain Home License No.: ARK-0645-02230 

Inspection Type: Routine Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 12/3/08 Inspectors: TK, SM 

Comment: 

The Program issued the letter conveying inspection findings to the licensee 18 days 

beyond 30-day issuance goal. 

File No.: 9 

Licensee: Baptist Medical Center License No.: ARK-0058-02120 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 2/6/08 Inspectors: KG 

File No.: 10 

Licensee: J. Christy Construction, Inc. License No.: ARK-1013-03121 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 2/27/09 Inspectors: KG, AM 

File No.: 11 

Licensee: National Park Medical Center License No.: ARK-0431-02120 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 4/30/09 Inspectors: SM, AM 

Comment: 

The Program issued the letter conveying inspection findings to the licensee 16 days 

beyond 30-day issuance goal. 

File No.: 12 

Licensee: B&F Engineering, Inc. License No.: ARK-0703-03121 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 7/10/09 Inspectors: JT, TK 

File No.: 13 

Licensee: Midwest Inspection Services License No.: REC-366 

Inspection Type: Reciprocity, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 4/9/09 Inspectors: LP, AM 
Arkansas Final Report Page C.3 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 14 

Licensee: Cardinal Health License No.: ARK-642-AP-BP-12-09 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 8/25/09 Inspectors: SM, TK 

File No.: 15 

Licensee: Rogers Group, Inc. License No.: ARK-0784-03121 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 12/28/08 Inspector: LP 

Comment: 

The Program issued the letter conveying inspection findings to the licensee 153 days 

beyond 30-day issuance goal. 

File No.: 16 

Licensee: Great Lakes Chemical Corp. License No.: ARK-0515-03120 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 4 

Inspection Dates: 3/29-4/5/07 Inspector: SM 

Comment: 

The Program issued the letter conveying inspection findings to the licensee 36 days 

beyond 30-day issuance goal. 

File No.: 17 

Licensee: Clean Harbors El Dorado, LLC. License No.: ARK-0557-03120 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 2/27/09 Inspectors: KG, AM 

File No.: 18 

Licensee: 3D Imaging Drug Design License No.: ARK-1008-03214 

Inspection Type: Initial, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 1/29/09 Inspectors: SM, TK 

Comment: 

The Program issued the letter conveying inspection findings to the licensee 38 days 

beyond 30-day issuance goal. 

File No.: 19 

Licensee: Baker Atlas License No.: ARK-668-BP-04-00 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 2/1/08 Inspectors: SM, VW 

File No.: 20 

Licensee: Health Park Hospital License No.: ARK-0933-02120 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 5/29/08 Inspectors: KG, TK 
Arkansas Final Report Page C.4 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 21 

Licensee: Baptist Health Medical Center - NLR License No.: ARK-0409-02120 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 3/21/08 Inspectors: JT, VW 

Comment: 

The Program issued the letter conveying inspection findings to the licensee 12 days 

beyond 30-day issuance goal. 

File No.: 22 

Licensee: Cat Clinic of Conway License No.: ARK-945-02400 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 4 

Inspection Dates: 1/23/08 Inspectors: SM, VW 

File No.: 23 

Licensee: PETNET Solutions, Inc. License No.: ARK-1007-02201 

Inspection Type: Initial, Announced Priority: 4 

Inspection Date: 1/14/08 Inspectors: JT, VW 

File No.: 24 

Licensee: Michael A. Frais, MD License No.: ARK-932-BP-08-08 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 3/14/08 Inspector: VW 

File No.: 25 

Licensee: Jet Asphalt & Rock Company, Inc. License No.: ARK-754-BP-03-00 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 4 

Inspection Date: 9/15/06 Inspector: SM 

Comment: 

The Program issued the letter conveying inspection findings to the licensee 32 days 

beyond 30-day issuance goal. 

File No.: 26 

Licensee: Materials Testing of Arkansas License No.: ARK-00-11-0616-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 3/13/09 Inspectors: SM, KG 

INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS 

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

Accompaniment No.: 1 

Licensee: Arkansas Cardiac Care, P.C. License No.: ARK-996-BP-01-13 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 2/25/09 Inspector: TK 
Arkansas Final Report Page C.5 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

Accompaniment No.: 2 

Licensee: Grubs, Hoskyn, Barton & Wyatt, Inc. License No.: ARK-0456-03121 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 2/26/09 Inspector: LP 

Accompaniment No.: 3 

Licensee: St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center License No.: ARK-0390-02120 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 9/14/09 Inspector: TK 

Accompaniment No.: 4 

Licensee: St. Joseph’s Mercy Health Center License No.: ARK-0346-02120 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 9/15/09 Inspector: KG 

Accompaniment No.: 5 

Licensee: Sterigenics US, LLC License No.: ARK-903-03521 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 9/17/09 Inspector: SM 

Accompaniment No.: 6 

Licensee: Desert Industrial X-ray License No.: ARK-1010-03320 

Inspection Type: Special, Announced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 10/26/09 Inspector: LP 
APPENDIX D 

LICENSE CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS 

ONLY. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Mena Regional Health System License No.: ARK-0915-02121 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 7 

Date Issued: 8/18/09 License Reviewers: TK, KW 

Comment: 

The Program issued the renewed license 5 years after the licensee submitted its 

renewal application. 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: Arkansas Tech University License No.: ARK-0016-01120 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 23 

Date Issued: 1/30/09 License Reviewers: KG, DS 

Comment: 

The Program issued the renewed license 3 years after the licensee submitted its 

renewal application. 

File No.: 3 

Licensee: Cardiology and Medicine Clinic, P.A. License No.: ARK-0806-02201 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 12 

Date Issued: 5/27/08 License Reviewers: NS, KG 

Comments: 

a) The Program issued the renewed license 7 years after the licensee submitted its 

renewal application. 

b) The renewed license was give a 5-year expiration date instead of a 7-year expiration 

date in accordance with internal Program policy for renewed licenses. 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: J. Christy Construction, Inc. License No.: AKR-1013-03121 

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: 0 

Date Issued: 8/11/08 License Reviewers: NS, JT 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: Subsurface Xplorations, LLC. License No.: ARK-1018-03212 

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: 0 

Date Issued: 10/22/09 License Reviewers: LP, DS 
Arkansas Final Report Page D.2 

License Casework Reviews 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: Delta Memorial Hospital License No.: ARK-0828-02120 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 11 

Date Issued: 11/25/08 License Reviewer: KA 

Comments: 

a) The file did not contain documentation of the verification of the Assistant Radiation 

Safety Officer’s (ARSO) training and experience. 

b) The ARSO was added to the license with a cover letter. Other ARSOs were added 

directly to other licenses. 

File No.: 7 

Licensee: Southwest Regional Medical Center License No.: ARK-726-BP-10-10 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 32 

Date Issued: 7/7/08 License Reviewer: VW 

File No.: 8 

Licensee: Central Arkansas Cardiology License No.: ARK-0842-BP-05-01 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 12 

Date Issued: 6/4/08 License Reviewers: NS, SM 

File No.: 9 

Licensee: Corporate Testing, Inc. License No.: ARK-0913-BP-07-04 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 7 

Date Issued: 3/4/06 License Reviewer: KW 

File No.: 10 

Licensee: Heart Clinic Arkansas License No.: ARK-0829-02121 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 18 

Date Issued: 9/18/09 License Reviewer: LP 

File No.: 11 

Licensee: Richard Baughn Construction, Inc. License No.: ARK-0863-BP-03-02 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 6 

Date Issued: 4/25/08 License Reviewer: LP 

Comment: 

 Documentation in the file had conflicting information regarding source disposition. 
Arkansas Final Report Page D.3 

License Casework Reviews 

File No.: 12 

Licensee: Nucor-Yamato Steel Company License No.: ARK-0722-03120 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: None 

Date Issued: 1/30/08 License Reviewers: NS, DS 

Comments: 

a) The Program issued the renewed license 11 years after the licensee submitted its 

renewal application. 

b) No amendment number was assigned to this licensing action. Previous amendment 

number was 12. 

File No.: 13 

Licensee: Arkansas Methodist Medical Center License No.: ARK-0355-02120 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 55 

Date Issued: 9/18/09 License Reviewer: TK 

File No.: 14 

Licensee: Washington Group International, Inc. License No.: ARK-0837-03320 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 12 

Date Issued: 4/3/09 License Reviewer: JT 

File No.: 15 

Licensee: Calfrac Well Services Corporation License No.: ARK-1005-03121 

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: 0 

Date Issued: 4/16/08 License Reviewers: NS, DS 

File No.: 16 

Licensee: Schlumberger Technology Corporation License No.: ARK-0657-03110 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 29 

Date Issued: 12/20/08 License Reviewers: CB 

Comment: 

The Program issued the renewed license 9 years after the licensee submitted its 

renewal application. 

File No.: 17 

Licensee: Central Arkansas Hospital License No.: ARK-680-BP-09-10 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 34 

Date Issued: 8/22/06 License Reviewer: KW 

File No.: 18 

Licensee: Shaw Mid-States Pipe Fabricating, Inc. License No.: ARK-0749-03310 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 3 

Date Issued: 7/8/09 License Reviewers: NS, DS 
Arkansas Final Report Page D.4 

License Casework Reviews 

File No.: 19 

Licensee: Desert Industrial X-Ray L.P. License No.: ARK-1010-03320 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 5 

Date Issued: 9/17/09 License Reviewer: KA 

File No.: 20 

Licensee: Eureka Construction, LLC License No.: ARK-1015-03121 

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: 0 

Date Issued: 7/30/08 License Reviewers: NS, DS 

File No.: 21 

Licensee: West Memphis PET Imaging Center, LLC License No.: ARK-1007-02201 

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: 0 

Date Issued: 8/17/07 License Reviewer: KG 

File No.: 22 

Licensee: Proscan Imaging of Arkansas License No.: ARK-1002-BP-08-13 

Type of Action: New Amendment No.: 0 

Date Issued: 8/17/06 License Reviewers: KG, KW 

Comment: 

This new license was given a 7-year expiration date instead of a 5-year expiration date 

in accordance with internal Program internal policy for new licenses. 

File No.: 23 

Licensee: St. Bernards Medical Center License No.: ARK-0365-02230 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 106 

Date Issued: 10/15/09 License Reviewer: TK 

File No.: 24 

Licensee: InSight Health Corp. License No.: ARK-0994-02220 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 1 

Date Issued: 2/14/07 License Reviewer: KW 

File No.: 25 

Licensee: City of Jonesboro License No.: ARK-0810-BP-01-11 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 8 

Date Issued: 6/27/08 License Reviewer: LP 

File No.: 26 

Licensee: Georgia-Pacific LLC License No.: ARK-0321-03120 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 71 

Date Issued: 9/21/09 License Reviewers: KA,KG 

Comment: 

The file did not contain documentation of the verification of the Radiation Safety Officer’s 

(RSO) experience. The RSO’s training record was verified. 
Arkansas Final Report Page D.5 

License Casework Reviews 

File No.: 27 

Licensee: Newpark Resources, Inc. License No.: ARK-833-NORM-02-08 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 5 

DatesIssued: 12/6/06 License Reviewer: KW 

Comment: 

The file did not contain documentation for the decommissioning plan and radioactive 

material disposal. 

File No.: 28 

Licensee: Cenark Project Management Services, Inc. License No.: ARK-1001-BP-05-13 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 1 

Date Issued: 10/12/06 License Reviewer: KW 

Comments: 

a) Decommissioning survey documentation was not submitted with the licensee’s 

termination request. 

b) The file did not contain documentation for source dispositions. 

File No.: 29 

Licensee: Shannon & Wilson, Inc. License No.: ARK-977-BP-06-10 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 2 

Date Issued: 12/18/06 License Reviewer: KW 

File No.: 30 

Licensee: Professional Service Industries, Inc. License No.: ARK-732-BP-12-09 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: None 

Date Issued: 12/14/06 License Reviewer: SM 

Comment: 

 An amendment number was not listed on the license. 

File No.: 31 

Licensee: Granite Construction Company License No.: ARK-993-BP-08-10 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 4 

Date Issued: 12/8/06 License Reviewer: KW 

Comment: 

 Source disposition paperwork was not submitted with the licensee’s termination request. 

File No.: 32 

Licensee: Forsgren, Inc. License No.: ARK-946-BP-06-09 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 1 

Date Issued: 2/9/07 License Reviewer: SM 
Arkansas Final Report Page D.6 

License Casework Reviews 

File No.: 33 

Licensee: Environment Management Services, Inc. License No.: ARK-0921-03121 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 9 

Date Issued: 11/21/08 License Reviewer: KA 

File No.: 34 

Licensee: Baptist Health Nuclear Imaging West License No.: ARK-967-BP-12-10 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 2 

Date Issued: 6/14/07 License Reviewers: KG, SM 

File No.: 35 

Licensee: Richard Foods, Inc. License No.: ARK-706-BP-07-09 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 2 

Dates Issued: 8/10/07 License Reviewer: SM 
APPENDIX E 

INCIDENT CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS 

ONLY. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Material Testing of Arkansas, Inc. License No.: AR-859 

Date of Incident: 2/19/07 NMED Log No.: 070098 

Investigation Date: 2/20/07 Type of Incident: Lost/Stolen Material 

 Type of Investigation: Site 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: APAC Arkansas, Inc. License No.: AR-0686-03120 

Date of Incident: 9/27/07 NMED Log No.: 070603 

Investigation Date: 9/27/07 Type of Incident: Damaged Equipment 

 Type of Investigation: Site 

File No.: 3 

Licensee: Tigue Construction License No.: AR-867 

Date of Incident: 3/31/08 NMED Log No.: 080199 

Investigation Date: N/A Type of Incident: Lost/Stolen Material 

 Type of Investigation: None 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: Building & Earth Sciences License No.: AR-918 

Date of Incident: 7/14/08 NMED Log No.: 080469 

Investigation Date: N/A Type of Incident: Transportation 

 Type of Investigation: None 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: Nucor Steel Company License No.: AR-0786-03120 

Date of Incident: 2/11/09 NMED Log No.: 090222 

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

 Type of Investigation: None 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: Albemarle Corp. License No.: AR-0717-03120 

Date of Incident: 5/19/09 NMED Log No.: 090507 

Investigation Date: 6/11/09 Type of Incident: Damaged Equipment 

 Type of Investigation: Site 

File No.: 7 

Licensee: Shaw Mid-States Pipe Fabricating License No.: ARK-0749-03310 

Date of Incident: 6/2/09 NMED Log No.: 090529 

Investigation Date: 6/2/09 Type of Incident: Damaged Equipment 

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

Incident Casework Reviews 

File No.: 8 

Licensee: Baker Atlas License No.: AR-0668-03110 

Date of Incident: 8/13/09 NMED Log No.: 090666 

Investigation Date: 8/17/09 Type of Incident: Transportation 

 Type of Investigation: Site 
ATTACHMENT 

January 4, 2010 Letter from Charles McGrew 

Arkansas’s Response to Draft IMPEP Report 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML100050195