August 10, 2010 

Donald E. Williamson, M.D. 

State Health Officer 

Department of Public Health 

P. O. Box 303017 

Montgomery, AL 36130-3017 

Dear Dr. Williamson: 

On July 19, 2010, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final 

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

Agreement State Program. The MRB found the Alabama Agreement State Program adequate 

to protect public health and safety and compatible with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission=s (NRC) program. 

Section 5.0, page 11, of the enclosed final report contains a summary of the IMPEP review 

team=s findings. Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review of the 

Alabama Agreement State Program will take place in approximately 4 years, with a periodic 

meeting tentatively scheduled for May 2012. 

The MRB recognized that this review marked the fourth consecutive IMPEP review of the 

Alabama Agreement State Program in which the program was found adequate to protect public 

health and safety, compatible with NRC’s program, and satisfactory for all performance 

indicators reviewed. These are the highest possible ratings for an IMPEP review. I applaud 

your staff for their dedication to excellence in radiation protection. 

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. I look 

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

Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

Michael F. Weber 

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, 

Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs 

Office of the Executive Director for Operations 

Enclosure: 

Alabama Final IMPEP Report 

cc w/encl.: James L. McNees, CHP, Director 

 Alabama Office of Radiation Control 
August 10, 2010 

Donald E. Williamson, M.D. 

State Health Officer 

Department of Public Health 

P. O. Box 303017 

Montgomery, AL 36130-3017 

Dear Dr. Williamson: 

On July 19, 2010, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final 

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

Agreement State Program. The MRB found the Alabama Agreement State Program adequate 

to protect public health and safety and compatible with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission=s (NRC) program. 

Section 5.0, page 11, of the enclosed final report contains a summary of the IMPEP review 

team=s findings. Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full review of the 

Alabama Agreement State Program will take place in approximately 4 years, with a periodic 

meeting tentatively scheduled for May 2012. 

The MRB recognized that this review marked the fourth consecutive IMPEP review of the 

Alabama Agreement State Program in which the program was found adequate to protect public 

health and safety, compatible with NRC’s program, and satisfactory for all performance 

indicators reviewed. These are the highest possible ratings for an IMPEP review. I applaud 

your staff for their dedication to excellence in radiation protection. 

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. I look 

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

Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

Michael F. Weber 

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, 

Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs 

Office of the Executive Director for Operations 

Enclosure: 

Alabama Final IMPEP Report 

cc w/encl.: James L. McNees, CHP, Director 

 Alabama Office of Radiation Control 

Distribution: See next page 

ML102090068 EDATS: FSME-2010-0209 

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

NAME ATMcCraw:knm1 ADias TReis RJLewis 

DATE 07/28/10 08/03/10 08/03/10 08/05/10 

OFFICE Tech Editor FSME DEDMRT 

NAME CPoland CLMiller, FSME MFWeber 

DATE 08/06/10 08/06/10 08/10/10 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 
Letter to D. Williamson from Michael F. Weber dated: August 10, 2010 

Distribution: EDATS: FSME-2010-0209 

MSSA RF DCD (SP01) 

MSSA_Technical_Asst Resource 

EDO RF 

RidsEdoMailCenter 

RidsFsmeOd 

RidsSecyCorrespondenceMailCenter Chairman Jaczko 

MBeardsley, FSME/MSSA Commissioner Svinicki 

JKottan, RI/RSAO Commissioner Apostolakis 

Michele Greenwell, KY Commissioner Magwood 

Dwight Shearer, PA Commissioner Ostendorff 

KBrock, OEDO SECY 

BJones, OGC 

Les Foldesi, VA 

CCarpenter, FSME 

JKinneman, RI 

TRothschild, OGC 

JOlmstead, OGC 

APowell, OCA (2 copies) 
Enclosure 

INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM 

REVIEW OF THE ALABAMA AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM 

MAY 10-14, 2010 

FINAL REPORT
Alabama Final Report Page 1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

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

The review was conducted during the period of May 10-14, 2010, by a review team composed 

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

Commonwealths of Kentucky and Pennsylvania. 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 April 8, 2006, to May 14, 2010, 

were discussed with Alabama managers on the last day of the review. 

A draft of this report was issued to Alabama for factual comment on June 1, 2010. The State 

responded by e-mail dated June 11, 2010, from James L. McNees, CHP, Director, Office of 

Radiation Control (the Office). A copy of the State’s response is included as the Attachment to 

this report. The Management Review Board (MRB) met on July 19, 2010, to consider the 

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

protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC’s program. 

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

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

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

Department and the Office are included as Appendix B. 

At the time of the review, the Alabama Agreement State Program regulated 458 specific 

licenses authorizing possession and use of radioactive 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 Alabama. 

In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common and applicable noncommon performance indicators was sent to the Office on March 1, 2010. The Office provided 

its response to the questionnaire on April 15, 2010. A copy of the questionnaire response can 

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

the Accession Number ML101470488. 

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

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

regulations; (3) analysis of quantitative information from the Office’s database; (4) technical 

review of selected regulatory actions; (5) field accompaniments of two inspectors; and 

(6) interviews with staff and managers. The review team evaluated the information gathered 

against the established criteria for each common and the applicable non-common performance 

indicator and made a preliminary assessment of the Alabama Agreement State Program’s 

performance. 

Section 2.0 of this report covers the State’s actions in response to any recommendations made 

during previous reviews. Results of the current review of the common performance indicators 
Alabama Final Report Page 2 

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. 

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS 

During the previous IMPEP review, which concluded on April 7, 2006, the review team made no 

recommendations regarding the Alabama Agreement State Program’s performance. 

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 Office’s staffing level and staff 

turnover, as well as the technical qualifications and training histories of the staff. To evaluate 

these issues, the review team examined the Office’s questionnaire response relative to this 

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

considered any workload backlogs. 

When fully staffed, the Alabama Agreement State Program is composed of the Office Director, 

Assistant Director, and technical staff in two branches: the Radioactive Materials Inspection 

Branch and the Radioactive Materials Licensing Branch. A director heads each branch. 

Technical staff conducts inspections, performs licensing actions, and responds to incidents and 

allegations based on individual qualifications. Technical staff also has emergency response 

duties at Alabama’s two operating nuclear power plants. Based on information provided by the 

Office, the review team estimated that the Office expends approximately 4.5 full-time 

equivalents (FTE) to administer the Agreement State program. 

During the review period, one individual left the Agreement State program and no one joined the 

program; therefore, at the time of the review, the Office had one vacancy in the Agreement 

State program: the Assistant Director. The position became vacant in January 2010 after the 

former Assistant Director assumed the duties of the Office Director following the retirement of 

the former Office Director. Shortly thereafter, the former Assistant Director’s promotion to the 

Office Director position became official. The Assistant Director position contributes 

approximately 0.25 FTE to the Agreement State program. The review team noted that the 

Assistant Director’s Agreement State program duties had been temporarily absorbed by the 

Office Director and various technical staff members. At the time of the review, the Office had no 

immediate plans to fill the vacancy. The review team concluded that the vacancy does not have 

a major impact on the day-to-day operations of the Agreement State program as licensing and 

inspection backlogs have not developed since the position became vacant. 

The Office has a documented training plan for technical staff that is consistent with the 

requirements in the NRC/Organization of Agreement States Training Working Group Report and 

NRC’s Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 1246, “Formal Qualification Programs in the Nuclear 
Alabama Final Report Page 3 

Material Safety and Safeguards Program Area.” The Office uses on-the-job training, such as 

inspector accompaniments, to supplement formal coursework. Staff members are typically 

assigned increasingly complex duties as they progress through the qualification process. Staff 

members are authorized to perform regulatory duties independently after demonstrating 

competency. The Office Director signs off on all staff qualifications at the recommendation of 

the appropriate branch director. 

The review team noted that the Office Director encourages and supports training opportunities, 

based on program needs. The review team concluded that the Office’s staffing and training is 

adequate to carry out its regulatory duties. 

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

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

satisfactory. 

3.2 Status of Materials Inspection Program

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

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

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

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

database, examination of completed inspection casework, and interviews with managers and 

staff members. 

The review team verified that the Office’s inspection frequencies for all types of radioactive 

materials licenses are at least the same frequency as those listed in NRC’s IMC 2800, 

“Materials Inspection Program.” The Office conducts inspections of some license types; such 

as medical – written directive not required, nuclear pharmacy, medical broadscope, and nuclear 

laundry; more frequently than prescribed by IMC 2800. The review team noted that Increased 

Controls inspections were being performed concurrently with routine safety inspections for 

applicable licensees. The review team also verified that the Office conducts inspections of 

multiple locations of use for multi-site licenses. In all instances reviewed by the team, the Office 

met or exceeded the minimum criterion of 20 percent of sites for licenses with five or more 

locations of use listed on the license. 

The Office conducted a total of 412 Priority 1, 2, and 3 (high priority) inspections during the 

review period. The Office indicated in its response to the questionnaire, and the review team 

verified, that none of the 412 high priority inspections was conducted overdue by more than 25 

percent of the inspection frequency prescribed by IMC 2800. The review team verified that no 

high priority inspections were overdue at the time of the review. 

The review team also evaluated the Office’s timeliness for conducting initial inspections. The 

review team noted that the Office issued 97 new licenses during the review period. The Office 

conducted 72 initial inspections, of which 5 were conducted greater than 12 months after license 

issuance as prescribed by IMC 2800. Of the 25 remaining new licenses, 12 licenses were 

issued to out-of-State firms with little to no work in Alabama during the review period, 4 licenses 

were terminated within the first 12 months, and the other 9 licenses had been issued within 12 

months of the on-site portion of the IMPEP review and were not yet due for initial inspection. 
Alabama Final Report Page 4 

Overall, the review team calculated that the Office performed 1 percent of its Priority 1, 2, and 3 

and initial inspections overdue during the review period. 

The review team evaluated the Office’s timeliness of issuance of inspection reports. The Office 

has a policy of issuing the inspection findings to licensees within 30 days from the date of the 

inspection. Inspectors are required to submit completed inspection reports to the Radioactive 

Materials Inspection Branch Director within 15 days for supervisory review. Of the 19 inspection 

files reviewed, the review team did not identify any inspection findings that were issued beyond 

the 30-day goal. 

In reviewing the Office’s performance of reciprocity inspections, the review team noted that 

Alabama regulations only allow 30 days of use of radioactive materials in the State under 

reciprocity compared to NRC’s allowing 180 days under reciprocity in NRC jurisdiction. After 30 

days, an out-of-State Alabama radioactive materials license must be obtained. During the 

review period, the Office received requests for reciprocity from 66 Priority 1, 2 and 3 licensees 

and inspected an average of 13 percent of those licensees annually. IMC 1220, “Processing of 

NRC Form 241 and Inspection of Agreement State Licensees Operating Under 10 CFR 150.20,” 

requires inspection of 20 percent of candidate licensees operating under reciprocity annually. 

Strictly by the numbers, the Office’s performance of reciprocity inspections falls below the 

performance criterion in IMC 1220; however, factoring in Alabama’s shortened period of 

reciprocity, the review team concluded that the Office’s performance of reciprocity inspections 

over the review period was acceptable. The review team noted that the shortened period of 

reciprocity greatly limits the Office’s opportunities to catch licensees under reciprocity 

performing licensed work in Alabama as many of the licensees only came into Alabama for 1-2 

days for a few hours at a time. Out-of-State licensees that were performing significant, longerterm work in the State were required to get an Alabama license after 30 days and these 

licensees were inspected in accordance with IMC 2800. 

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

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

Program, was satisfactory. 

3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections

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

notes and interviewed the responsible inspector for 19 radioactive materials inspections 

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

inspections conducted by three current inspectors and covered a wide variety of inspection 

types. These included diagnostic nuclear medicine, high dose-rate remote afterloaders, 

industrial radiography, nuclear pharmacy, well logging, and research and development. The 

casework included initial, routine, followup, reciprocity, and Increased Controls inspections. 

Appendix C lists the inspection casework files reviewed. 

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 

the inspections covered the Increased Controls, fingerprinting, and the National Source 

Tracking System when appropriate. The review team found that inspection reports were very 

thorough, complete, consistent, and of high quality with sufficient documentation to ensure that 
Alabama Final Report Page 5 

licensees’ performances with respect to health, safety, and security were acceptable. 

Inspection report documentation supported violations, recommendations made to licensees, and 

unresolved safety issues. In addition to paper copies that are maintained in Montgomery, 

pertinent information about each inspection is entered into the Office's electronic filing system, 

which is accessible to all staff members. 

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

documents. The review team determined that documents containing sensitive information were 

appropriately protected, segregated from other files (electronic and paper), and maintained in a 

manner to limit access. The review team found that outgoing correspondence was marked, as 

appropriate. 

The Office has a policy to accompany all staff performing radioactive materials inspections on 

an annual basis. The Radioactive Materials Inspection Branch Director performs the inspector 

accompaniments. The review team verified that all staff members that regularly perform 

inspections were accompanied annually during the review period. 

The review team accompanied two of the Office's inspectors during the period of April 26-28, 

2010. The inspectors conducted inspections of a medical licensee, an industrial radiography 

licensee, and a nuclear pharmacy licensee. The inspector accompaniments are listed in 

Appendix C. The inspectors demonstrated performance-based inspection techniques and 

knowledge of the regulations. The inspectors were well trained, prepared for the inspections, 

and 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 Alabama’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspection, was 

satisfactory. 

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

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

28 licensing actions for 22 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, 

security requirements, operating and emergency procedures, appropriateness of license 

conditions, and overall technical quality. The casework was also reviewed for timeliness, use of 

appropriate correspondence, reference to appropriate regulations, supporting documentation, 

consideration of enforcement history, pre-licensing 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 include 12 new 

licenses, 2 renewals, 11 amendments, and 3 license terminations. Casework reviewed included 
Alabama Final Report Page 6 

a cross-section of license types, including: medical and academic broadscope, medical 

institution – limited, private practice, mobile nuclear medicine, nuclear laundry, radiography, 

portable gauge, fixed gauge, and self-shielded irradiator. A listing of the licensing casework 

reviewed can be found in Appendix D. 

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

high quality with health, safety, and security issues properly addressed. License tie-down 

conditions were stated clearly, backed by information contained in the file and enforceable. 

The review team found that actions terminating licenses were well documented, included the 

appropriate material survey records, and contained documentation of proper disposal or transfer 

of radioactive material, as appropriate. The review team determined that the exemptions to 

Alabama’s regulations that the Office granted during the review period and noted in its 

questionnaire response were appropriate. 

During the licensing casework evaluations, the review team noted the Office’s use of information 

technology to maintain records of authorized users, authorized nuclear pharmacists, authorized 

medical physicists, and radiation safety officers listed on licenses in the State of Alabama. The 

Office maintains the records in a searchable database that was created during the Office’s 

normal licensing workload over the course of several years. The Office creates a record for 

each individual and lists each license on which that individual holds one of the aforementioned 

positions and, for authorized users, the modalities for which that individual has met the training 

and experience requirements. This database increases the efficiency of the Office’s review of 

an individual’s qualifications when a licensee requests that an individual be added to their 

license for a particular position or modality. With this database, the Office can quickly verify if 

the individual is already listed on another license in the State of Alabama and if that individual is 

indeed qualified to perform the duties for the position requested by the licensee. The review 

team recommended, and the MRB agreed, that the development and implementation of a user 

qualification database is a good practice. 

The review team assessed the Office’s implementation of the pre-licensing guidance. The 

Office has implemented the essential elements of NRC’s pre-licensing guidance issued on 

September 22, 2008, and transmitted to the Agreement States via Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental Management Programs (FSME) Letter RCPD-08-020, “Requesting 

Implementation of the Checklist to Provide a Basis for Confidence that Radioactive Material will 

be Used as Specified on a License and the Checklist for Risk-Significant Radioactive Material.” 

The Office has a policy of hand-delivering all new licenses issued within the State of Alabama. 

Staff has the authority to withhold the license if suspicious activity is detected during delivery of 

the license. The hand-delivery of a new license constitutes a pre-licensing visit. 

The review team evaluated the documentation for the pre-licensing visits of new applicants 

performed during the review period. The review team identified two cases where the applicant 

had not fully implemented the Increased Controls requirements prior to delivery and issuance of 

the license, as required in NRC’s pre-licensing guidance. In both cases, the facilities were still 

under construction; therefore, the Increased Controls requirements could not be fully 

implemented. The staff member that delivered the licenses documented the areas of the 

Increased Controls requirements where the licensees were deficient. The review team clarified 

the requirements of the pre-licensing guidance regarding the delivery and issuance of licenses 

when all regulatory requirements have not been met at the time of the site visit. After the 
Alabama Final Report Page 7 

clarification, the Office recognized the need to provide specific guidance to inspectors, who 

perform the majority of pre-licensing visits, on when to withhold delivery of the license if all 

regulatory requirements are not in place at the time of the visit. The Office prepared a draft of 

the guidance while the review team was still on site. 

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

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

Actions, was satisfactory. 

3.5 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities

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

the review team examined the response to the questionnaire relative to this indicator, evaluated 

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

against those contained in the Office’s files, and evaluated the casework for 20 of the 98 

reported radioactive materials incidents. A listing of the casework examined can be found in 

Appendix E. The review team evaluated the Office’s response to 18 allegations involving 

radioactive materials reported directly to the State during the review period. The review team 

also reviewed the documentation for and discussed with Office managers the ongoing 

investigation for one allegation that NRC referred to the State during the review period. 

When notified of an incident or an allegation, the inspection staff discusses the initial response 

and the need for an on-site investigation, based on the safety significance. The Office 

maintains a log book, database, and file system for tracking the status of all incidents and 

allegations. If the incident meets the reportability thresholds, as established in FSME Procedure 

SA-300, “Reporting Material Events,” the Office notifies the NRC Headquarters Operations 

Center. If the investigation is complex and extends over a period of time, the Office updates the 

respective NMED record, using the NMED software. Of the 20 incidents evaluated by the 

review team, all had been reported to NRC within the required time frame and had been 

properly completed in NMED. 

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

equipment, overexposure, contamination, and equipment failures. The review team determined 

that the Office’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 safety significance. The Office immediately dispatched inspectors to a site when the 

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

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

investigating the incident; the Office generally responded telephonically with subsequent review 

of the licensee’s written report or an on-site followup at a later date. The review team noted that 

at the conclusion of investigations, inspectors generated narrative reports that thoroughly 

documented the investigations. 

The review team also evaluated four radioactive materials incidents in the Office’s files that 

were not reported to NRC to determine if the events should have been reported in accordance 

with the criteria in FSME Procedure SA-300. The review team determined that these events 

were not required to be reported under the criteria. 

 
Alabama Final Report Page 8 

In evaluating the effectiveness of the Office’s response to allegations, the review team 

evaluated the completed casework for 18 allegations. The review team concluded that the 

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

review team noted that the Office thoroughly documented the investigations and retained all 

necessary documentation to appropriately close the allegations. The Office notified the allegers 

of the conclusion of their investigation. The review team determined that the Office adequately 

protected the identity of allegers. 

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

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

Allegation Activities, was satisfactory. 

4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 

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 Alabama does not relinquish regulatory authority for a uranium recovery 

program; therefore, only the first three non-common performance indicators applied to this 

review. 

4.1 Compatibility Requirements

4.1.1 Legislation

Alabama became an Agreement State on October 1, 1966. Legislative authority to create the 

program and enter into an Agreement with NRC was established in 1963 (Acts of 1963, No. 

582). The State Board of Health is designated as the State's radiation control agency. 

The review team examined one legislative bill that was passed during the review period that 

affected the Agreement State program. On March 4, 2010, the Governor signed a bill into effect 

that requires all applicants for licensure in the State of Alabama to be a citizen of the United 

States or a person who is legally present in the United States with appropriate documentation 

from the federal government. The Office Director stated that the bill had little effect on the 

Office’s licensing practices. 

4.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility

Alabama’s regulations for the control of radiation are located in Chapter 420-3-26 of the 

Alabama regulations for Control of Radiation and apply to ionizing radiation, whether emitted 

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

radioactive materials, including diffuse sources of naturally occurring radioactive material. 

The review team verified that the State’s rulemaking process offers the public and other 

interested parties an opportunity to comment on proposed regulation changes. The Office 

sends proposed regulation changes to NRC for a compatibility review during the public 

comment period. After the Office addresses any comments on the proposed regulations, the 

rulemaking package goes to the Department’s Office of General Counsel for review and the 
Alabama Final Report Page 9 

State Committee of Public Health for approval. The review team found that the rulemaking 

process typically takes 5-6 months. The State has Emergency Rule capability, if public health 

and safety are at risk. 

Although the State’s rules and regulations are not subject to sunset laws, the State’s radiation 

control agency as a whole is subject to a sunset review every 4 years by the State Legislature. 

The process consists of the Examiners of Public Accounts, a State agency, doing a review of 

the State’s radiation control agency and issuing a report to the Sunset Committee of the State 

Legislature. If the Sunset Committee agrees with the Examiners of Public Account’s report and 

recommendation, they then submit a bill to the full legislature to continue the program for 

another 4 years. In its most recent review in 2009, the Examiners of Public Accounts 

recommended that the program continue for another 4 years. The Sunset Committee agreed, 

and the Alabama Legislature voted favorably on the recommendation. 

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

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

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

from FSME’s State Regulation Status Data Sheet. 

Current NRC policy requires that Agreement States adopt certain equivalent regulations or 

legally binding requirements no later than 3 years after the effective date of NRC’s regulations. 

At the time of this review, the following two amendments had not been reviewed for compatibility 

by NRC and were considered overdue: 

• “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 10, 2007. 

Status: The Office did not take any specific action to address this regulation 

amendment, because it believes that Alabama’s regulations were already compatible 

with this amendment. At the time of the review, the Office was preparing document to 

submit to NRC for a compatibility review to close out this regulation amendment. 

• “National Source Tracking System – Serialization Requirements,” 10 CFR Part 32 

amendment (71 FR 65685), that was due for Agreement State implementation on 

February 6, 2007. 

Status: The Office does not regulate any licensees to which these requirements apply. 

The Office has drafted proposed regulations that address this amendment and submitted 

to NRC for a compatibility review on April 19, 2010, to ensure that any future licensees 

will be subjected to these requirements, as appropriate. NRC notified the State of the 

result of its compatibility review by letter dated July 14, 2010. NRC identified no 

compatibility comments on the proposed regulations addressing this regulatory 

amendment. 

 
Alabama Final Report Page 10 

The review team identified the following regulation amendments that the Office will need to 

address in the future: 

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

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

adoption by October 29, 2010. 

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

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

by November 30, 2010. 

• “Exemptions 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 State adoption by December 17, 2010. 

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

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

adoption by February 15, 2011. 

• “Medical Use of Byproduct Material – Authorized User Clarification,” 10 CFR Part 35 

amendment (74 FR 33901), that is due for Agreement State adoption by September 28, 

2012. 

The review team noted that, at the time of the review, the Office was in the process of 

addressing one of the overdue amendments and all amendments that are coming due in one 

rulemaking package. The Office submitted its proposed regulations to NRC for a compatibility 

review on April 19, 2010. NRC notified the State of the result of its compatibility review by letter 

dated July 14, 2010. NRC identified 15 compatibility comments on the proposed regulations 

addressing 3 of the regulatory amendments covered by this rulemaking. The Office indicated 

that the rulemaking package should be adopted and effective by September 2010. 

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

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

satisfactory. 

4.2 Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program

Although the Alabama Agreement State Program has authority to conduct sealed source and 

device (SS&D) evaluations for byproduct, source, and certain special nuclear materials; the 

Office did not conduct any SS&D evaluations during the review period. Accordingly, the review 

team did not review this indicator. 

4.3 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 
Alabama Final Report Page 11 

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 

Alabama 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 

compatible LLRW program. There are no plans for a commercial LLRW disposal facility in 

Alabama. Accordingly, the review team did not review this indicator. 

5.0 SUMMARY 

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

performance indicators reviewed. The review team made no recommendations regarding 

program performance by the State and identified one good practice. Overall, the review team 

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

to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC's program. 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 4 years. 

Below is the good practice, as mentioned earlier in the report: 

The Office has developed a searchable database to maintain records of authorized 

users, authorized nuclear pharmacists, authorized medical physicists, and radiation 

safety officers listed on licenses in the State of Alabama. The Office creates a record for 

each individual and lists each license on which that individual holds one of the 

aforementioned positions and, for authorized users, the modalities for which that 

individual has met the training and experience requirements. This database increases 

the efficiency of the Office’s review of an individual’s qualifications when a licensee 

requests that an individual be added to their license for a particular position or modality. 

With this database, the Office can quickly verify if the individual is already listed on 

another license in the State of Alabama and if that individual is indeed qualified to 

perform the duties for the position requested by the licensee. 
LIST OF APPENDIXES AND ATTACHMENT 

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members 

Appendix B Alabama Organization Charts 

Appendix C Inspection Casework Reviews 

Appendix D License Casework Reviews 

Appendix E Incident Casework Reviews 

Attachment June 11, 2010 E-mail from James L. McNees 

 Alabama’s Response to the Draft Report 
APPENDIX A 

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS 

Name Area of Responsibility

Aaron McCraw, FSME Team Leader 

 Technical Staffing and Training 

 Compatibility Requirements 

Dwight Shearer, Pennsylvania Status of Materials Inspection Program 

 Technical Quality of Inspections 

 Inspector Accompaniments 

Michele Greenwell, Kentucky Technical Quality of Licensing Actions 

James Kottan, Region I Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation 

 Activities 
APPENDIX B 

ALABAMA ORGANIZATION CHARTS 

ADAMS ACCESSION NO.: ML101470512
 APPENDIX C 

INSPECTION CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Gadsden Nuclear Pharmacy License No.: 1418 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 5/28/09 Inspectors: MR 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: Gulf Coast Pharmacy License No.: 1492 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 8/21/09 Inspector: CC 

File No.: 3 

Licensee: Southeast Apothecary License No.: 1461 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Dates: 8/28/09 Inspectors: DT 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: Applied Tech Services License No.: 1454 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 2/24/10 Inspectors: MR 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: Cardinal Health License No.: 1068 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 3/31/10 Inspectors: CC 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: IonSouth Diagnostic License No.: 1493 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 4/21/10 Inspector: MR 

File No.: 7 

Licensee: Quality Inspections Services License No.: 1518 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 02/23/2010 Inspectors: Riley 

File No.: 8 

Licensee: Brookwood Medical Center License No.: 0459 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 4/27/10 Inspector: CC 

 
Alabama Final Report Page C.2

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 9 

Licensee: Trinity Medical Center License No.: 0593 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 9/8/09 Inspectors: CC 

File No.: 10 

Licensee: Walker Medical Diagnostic License No.: 1428 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 3/16/07 Inspectors: CC 

File No.: 11 

Licensee: Venkatapuram License No.: 1389 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 4/10/07 Inspector: CC 

File No.: 12 

Licensee: Medworks License No.: 1343 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 11/2/07 Inspector: CC 

File No.: 13 

Licensee: Huntsville Cardiology License No.: 1268 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 8/1/08 Inspector: CC 

File No.: 14 

Licensee: Southern Company Gen License No.: 0644 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 3/11/10 Inspector: MR 

File No.: 15 

Licensee: Professional Services Industrials License No.: 0368 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 9/9/09 Inspector: MR 

File No.: 16 

Licensee: Wyle Labs License No.: 0525 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 10/8/08 Inspector: CC 

File No.: 17 

Licensee: Mobile Infirmary License No.: 282 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 5/8/09 Inspector: MR 

 
Alabama Final Report Page C.3

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 18 

Licensee: NeXolve License No.: 1296 

Inspection Type: Reciprocity. Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 3/24/05 Inspector: DT 

File No.: 19 

Licensee: APAC - Midsouth License No.: 0701 

Inspection Type: Reciprocity, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 9/16/05 Inspector: DT 

INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS 

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

Accompaniment No.: 1 

Licensee: Brookwood Medical Center License No.: 0459 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 4/26/10 Inspector: CC 

Accompaniment No.: 2 

Licensee: MISTRAS Group, Inc License No.: 1075 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 4/27/10 Inspector: CC 

Accompaniment No.: 3 

Licensee: Triad Isotopes License No.: 1399 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 4/28/10 Inspector: MR 
APPENDIX D 

LICENSE CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Eastern Technologies, Inc. License No.: 0947 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 19 

Date Issued: 6/9/09 License Reviewers: NM, DW 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: Auburn University License No.: 0248 

Type of Action: Amendments Amendment Nos.: 71 and 72 

Dates Issued: 2/5/09, 7/22/09 License Reviewers: NM, DW 

File No.: 3 

Licensee: Alabama Department of Transportation License No.: 0257 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 49 

Dates Issued: 7/29/09 License Reviewer: NM 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: Digirad Imaging Solutions License No.: 1511 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 11 

Date Issued: 3/9/10 License Reviewers: NM, DW 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: Baptist Medical Center License No.: 0610 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 58 

Date Issued: 1/10/08 License Reviewers: NM, DW 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: The PET Center of Oxford, LLC License No.: 1386 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 4 

Date Issued: 2/20/09 License Reviewers: NM, DW 

File No.: 7 

Licensee: Cox Environmental and Geologic, LLC License No.: 1402 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 2 

Date Issued: 12/22/09 License Reviewers: NM, CC, KW 

File No.: 8 

Licensee: Alabama A & M License No.: 984 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 7 

Date Issued: 3/11/09 License Reviewers: NM, DW 
Alabama Final Report Page D.2 

License Casework Reviews 

File No.: 9 

Licensee: University of South Alabama License No.: 0584 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 67 

Date Issued: 11/14/08 License Reviewers: NM, DW, DT 

File No.: 10 

Licensee: 3-M Corporate Health Physics License No.: 0148 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 53 

Date Issued: 2/5/10 License Reviewers: NM, DW 

File No.: 11 

Licensee: Nucor Steel License No.: 1472 

Types of Action: New, Amendments Amendment Nos.: Various 

Dates Issued: Various License Reviewers: NM, DW 

File No.: 12 

Licensee: Quality Inspection and Territory License No.: 1518 

Types of Action: New, Amendments Amendment No.: Various 

Dates Issued: Various License Reviewers: NM, DW 

File No.: 13 

Licensee: Maintenance Dredging, LLC License No.: 1529 

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

Date Issued: 4/15/10 License Reviewers: NM, DW 

File No.: 14 

Licensee: Northrop Grumann System Corporation License No.: 1512 

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

Date Issued: 5/15/09 License Reviewer: DW 

File No.: 15 

Licensee: Weaver Boos Consultants License No.: 1517 

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

Date Issued: 7/7/09 License Reviewer: DW 

File No.: 16 

Licensee: Progress Rail Services License No.: 1513 

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

Date Issued: 5/28/10 License Reviewer: DW 

File No.: 17 

Licensee: Bunnell-Lammons Engineering License No.: 1521 

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

Date Issued: 9/28/09 License Reviewer: DW 
Alabama Final Report Page D.3 

License Casework Reviews 

File No.: 18 

Licensee: Eastern Shore Radiation Oncology License No.: 1515 

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

Date Issued: 6/12/09 License Reviewers: NM, DW 

File No.: 19 

Licensee: Faizullah, Sayed License No.: 1525 

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

Date Issued: 3/2/10 License Reviewers: NM, DW 

File No.: 20 

Licensee: Internal Medicine Center License No.: 1516 

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

Date Issued: 6/12/10 License Reviewers: NM, DW 

File No.: 21 

Licensee: Thyssen Krup Steel License No.: 1528 

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

Date Issued: 2/25/10 License Reviewer: DW 

File No.: 22 

Licensee: Nucor License No.: 1426 

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

Date Issued: 5/10/10 License Reviewers: NM, DW 
APPENDIX E 

INCIDENT CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Cardinal Health License No.: 1168 

Date of Incident: 4/11/06 NMED No.: 060389 

Investigation Date: 5/27/06 Type of Incident: Medical 

 Type of Investigation: Licensee Report 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: BP Amoco Chemical Co. License No.: 0256 

Date of Incident: 8/12/06 NMED No.: 060718 

Investigation Date: 8/30/06 Type of Incident: Equipment Failure 

 Type of Investigation: Licensee Report 

File No.: 3 

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

Date of Incident: 11/12/06 NMED No.: 060701 

Investigation Date: 11/13/06 Type of Incident: Lost/stolen Material 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: Appalachian Cardiovascular Assoc. License No.: 1357 

Date of Incident: 10/31/06 NMED No.: 070279 

Investigation Date: 11/28/06 Type of Incident: Medical 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: Building and Earth Sciences License No.: 1266 

Date of Incident: 6/11/07 NMED No.: 070365 

Investigation Date: 6/29/07 Type of Incident: Damaged Equipment 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: Vital Inspection Professionals, Inc. License No.: 1118 

Date of Incident: 7/26/07 NMED No.: 070484 

Investigation Date: 7/26/07 Type of Incident: Equipment Failure 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 

File No.: 7 

Licensee: Montgomery Cancer Center License No.: 1064 

Date of Incident: 1/2/08 NMED No.: 080137 

Investigation Date: 1/2/08 Type of Incident: Lost/stolen Material 

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

Incident Casework Reviews 

File No.: 8 

Licensee: GE Energy Inspection Services License No.: 754 

Date of Incident: 5/19/08 NMED No.: 080340 

Investigation Date: 5/19/08 Type of Incident: Damaged Equipment 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 

File No.: 9 

Licensee: Birmingham Engineering License No.: 1142 

 and Construction Consultants 

Date of Incident: 7/1/08 NMED No.: 080453 

Investigation Date: 7/1/08 Type of Incident: Damaged Equipment 

 Type of Investigation: Site 

File No.: 10 

Licensee: Birmingham Engineering License No.: 1142 

 and Construction Consultants 

Date of Incident: 8/28/08 NMED No.: 080502 

Investigation Date: 8/28/08 Type of Incident: Lost/stolen Material 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 

File No.: 11 

Licensee: Gallet and Associates License No.: 0991 

Date of Incident: 1/13/09 NMED No.: 090067 

Investigation Date: 1/13/09 Type of Incident: Lost/stolen Material 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 

File No.: 12 

Licensee: Bhate Engineering License No.: 0655 

Date of Incident: 1/23/09 NMED No.: 090297 

Investigation Date: 1/23/09 Type of Incident: Damaged Equipment 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 

File No.: 13 

Licensee: Unified Testing Services License No.: 1128 

Date of Incident: 2/11/09 NMED No.: 090450 

Investigation Dates: 2/11/09 Type of Incident: Overexposure 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 

File No.: 14 

Licensee: Qore License No.: 0708 

Date of Incident: 2/18/09 NMED No.: 090277 

Investigation Date: 2/18/09 Type of Incident: Lost/stolen Material 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 

 
Alabama Final Report Page E.3 

Incident Casework Reviews 

File No.: 15 

Licensee: Tacoa Minerals, LLC License No.: 1442 

Date of Incident: 8/26/08 NMED No.: 090503 

Investigation Date: 2/26/09 Type of Incident: Loss of Control 

 Type of Investigation: Site 

File No.: 16 

Licensee: B.F. Goodrich License No.: N/A 

Date of Incident: 4/23/09 NMED No.: 090473 

Investigation Date: 4/24/09 Type of Incident: Lost/stolen Material 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 

File No.: 17 

Licensee: Northwest Medical Center License No.: 1368 

Date of Incident: 7/23/09 NMED No.: 090684 

Investigation Date: 7/23/09 Type of Incident: Contamination 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 

File No.: 18 

Licensee: PSI, Inc. License No.: 0368 

Dates of Incident: 8/20-21/09 NMED No.: 090816 

Investigation Dates: 8/26/09, 9/9/09 Type of Incident: Equipment Failure 

 Types of Investigation: Telephone, Site 

File No.: 19 

Licensee: U.S. Steel License No.: N/A 

Date of Incident: 11/17/09 NMED No.: 090845 

Investigation Dates: 11/17/09, 11/20/09 Type of Incident: Abandoned Material 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone, Site 

File No.: 20 

Licensee: University of Alabama at Birmingham License No.: 0266 

Date of Incident: 1/6/10 NMED No.: 100098 

Investigation Date: 1/7/10 Type of Incident: Medical 

 Type of Investigation: Telephone 
ATTACHMENT 

June 11, 2010 E-mail from James L. McNees 

Alabama’s Response to the Draft Report 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML101690223