UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

R EGI ON IV

612 E. LAMAR BLVD., SUITE 400

ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011-4125

February 28, 2011 

Aubrey Godwin, Director 

Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 

4814 South 40th Street 

Phoenix, Arizona 85040 

Dear Mr. Godwin: 

A periodic meeting with you and your staff was held on February 1, 2011. The purpose of this 

meeting was to review and discuss the status of the Arizona Agreement State Program. The 

NRC was represented by Mr. Roy Caniano from NRC’s Region IV office and me. I have 

completed and enclosed a general meeting summary, including any specific actions resulting 

from the discussions. 

In addition to a discussion of general topics associated with your program, we also met with 

Mr. Kevin Kinsall, Policy Advisor to Governor Janice Brewer. This meeting was held in part, to 

discuss the Program’s progress under Heightened Oversight and the Program’s response to 

recent events. 

If you feel that our conclusions do not accurately summarize the meeting discussion, or have 

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

e-mail Randy.Erickson@nrc.gov to discuss your concerns. 

 Sincerely, 

 /RA Rachel S. Browder for/ 

 

 

 Randy Erickson 

 Regional State Agreements Officer 

Enclosure: 

Periodic Meeting Summary for Arizona 
Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 

-2- 

cc w/enclosure: 

Mr. Kevin Kinsall 

Policy Advisor on 

Natural Resources 

Office of the Governor 

1700 West Washington Street 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 
Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 

-3- 

bcc (via e-mail distribution): 

Internal distribution via e-mail: 

Roy Caniano, DNMS 

Charles Cain, DNMS 

Robert Lewis, FSME 

Terry Reis, FSME 

James Luehman, FSME 

Duncan White, FSME 

Rachel Browder, SAO 

Randy Erickson, SAO 

Lisa Dimmick, FSME 

Janine Katanic, FSME 

Karen Meyer, FSME 

Michelle Beardsley, FSME 

 MLXXXXXXXXX 

S:\DNMS\!SAO\PeriodicMeetings\2011\AZ\2011 Arizona Periodic Meeting Summary.doc 

Final: 

ADAMS 9 Yes  No ; SUNSI Rev 

Complete 

Reviewer Initials: RRE 

Publicly Available 9 Yes  No Non Sensitive 

RIV: RSAO 

RRErickson 

/RA RSB email 

2/28/11 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY T=Telephone E=E-mail F=Fax
ENCLOSURE 

AGREEMENT STATE PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY FOR THE 

ARIZONA RADIATION REGULATORY AGENCY 

DATE OF MEETING: FEBRUARY 1, 2011 

NRC Attendees California Attendees

Randy Erickson, RSAO Aubrey Godwin, Director 

Roy Caniano, Director, DNMS Brian Goretzki, Health Physicist 

 Dan Kuhl, Health Physicist 

 Jerry Perkins, Health Physicist 

 Wayne Yates, Health Physicist 

DISCUSSION: 

The Arizona Agreement State Program (Program) is administered by the Arizona Radiation 

Regulatory Agency (Agency). The Agency Director reports directly to the Governor. 

The previous IMPEP follow up review was conducted the week of March 29 – April 1, 2010. At 

the conclusion of the review the team found that Arizona’s performance was found satisfactory 

for the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, and satisfactory, but needs improvement, for 

the indicators Technical Staffing and Training, Status of Materials Inspection Program, and 

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. The review team closed eight of 10 recommendations, 

and opened two new recommendations. Accordingly, the review team recommended, and the 

MRB agreed, that the Arizona Agreement State Program is adequate to protect public health 

and safety, but needs improvement, and compatible with NRC’s program. The MRB also 

concluded that the period of Heightened Oversight should continue and that the Agency’s 

Program Improvement Plan be amended to address the recommendations of the follow up 

IMPEP review. Additionally, the MRB agreed with the team’s recommendation that the next full 

IMPEP review should take place in two years and that a Periodic Meeting be held within one 

year. 

The proposed status of the recommendations from the 2010 Arizona final IMPEP report is 

summarized below. 

• The review team recommends that the State review and update, if appropriate, the 

Agency’s staffing and budget plan to ensure Program needs are met and to maintain 

long-term stability of the Program. (Section 2.1) 

Status: At the present time the FY11 budget has been funded. The Program submitted 

their budget request for FY12 with no increases and when the Governor’s proposed 

budget came out, it did not cut the Program’s funding. The Governor’s proposed budget 

is under legislative review. 

The Program currently has three vacancies. The Program solicited internally for one of 

those positions and one staff member will transfer over to the materials program in the 

near future. The Program Manager also retired following the follow up IMPEP review, 
Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 

-2- 

ENCLOSURE 

and the Program is now in the process of soliciting for that position. The Program 

Director does not believe management will allow him to fill the third position at the 

present time. He believes that when the two vacancies are filled, and with occasional 

assistance from other areas of the Program, they will have sufficient staffing to keep up 

with the current workload. This recommendation remains open.

• The review team recommends that an Agency manager accompany each inspector, at 

least annually, to ensure quality and consistency in the inspection program. (Section 2.3) 

Status: The Program has accompanied all four of the inspection staff; however, at the 

time of the meeting, they had not yet fully completed the documentation. The Program 

also reported they are committed to a more aggressive schedule for supervisor 

accompaniments. They plan to accompany inspectors once every six months instead of 

an annual accompaniment. This recommendation remains open.

 

• The review team recommends that the State implement the pre-licensing checklist and 

guidance for all licensing actions to provide assurance that radioactive material will be 

used as specified on the license. (Section 2.4) 

Status: The Program reported they had been following the pre-licensing guidance 

provided by NRC, but that initially they had misunderstood the meaning of “person”. 

During the follow-up review, the review team noted that the Program used the prelicensing checklist on all new licensing actions. However, they failed to use it for certain 

specific change-of-ownership actions as well as certain new applicants they believed to 

be known entities because they were named as authorized users or radiation safety 

officers on other licenses. Program staff did not recognize that the owner is the actual 

licensee, and if they did not have a relationship with that specific individual, the prelicensing guidance had to be used. The Program has subsequently modified their prelicensing checklist to reflect this understanding, and have trained the licensing staff. 

This recommendation should be verified and closed at the next IMPEP review. 

• The review team recommends that the State review its radioactive materials licenses 

regarding the requirements for financial assurance, and either obtain financial assurance 

for licenses that are authorized to possess the applicable quantities, or revise the license 

conditions to ensure clear quantity limits that will not require provision of financial 

assurance. (Section 2.4) 

Status: The Program reported that they have completed a review of all licenses to 

determine if financial assurance applies to them. This recommendation should be 

verified and closed at the next IMPEP review. 
Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 

-3- 

ENCLOSURE 

Other topics covered at the meeting included. 

Program Strengths: The Program has struggled with budget shortfalls that have left the 

Program short staffed, short of funding, and struggling to maintain the workload; 

however, the staff has pulled together to ensure that the licensing and inspection 

programs do not fall behind, and that incidents and allegations are investigated. 

They have successfully integrated the added workload associated with Increased 

Controls, as well as fingerprinting and NSTS requirements. Staff members are 

dedicated and work well together providing a high level of customer service to their 

licensees. 

Program Weaknesses: The Program’s biggest challenge has been budgeting and hiring 

staff. Currently a hiring freeze is in place. They are also having difficulty having pay 

increases approved. They are currently under furlough six days per year and 

experienced a 2.5 percent pay cut when performance pay was eliminated. 

Feedback on NRC’s Program: 

The Program indicated they are appreciative for NRC training funds. That program 

works well for Arizona and they have been able to get staff needed training. They 

believe they would benefit greatly if NRC would begin paying for the Five Week Health 

Physics course because they are unable to hire trained staff with the salaries presently 

offered. They are forced to train their own staff. 

Staffing and training: 

The Arizona Program will have three fulltime inspectors when the individual transferring in 

from another part of the Program begins work. That still leaves two vacancies. As 

indicated above, they are in the process of hiring for the Program Manager position, and 

they don’t believe they will be allowed to fill the last remaining position at the present time. 

One individual retired recently, but they have not had a lot of staff turnover. 

The status of Agreement State staff members who fail NRC core training courses was 

discussed. The Program did not have any staff fail a required training course this review 

period. NRC staff discussed the expectations for alternative training or retraining of their 

staff should class failure occur in the future. 

Program reorganizations: 

 None Noted. 

Changes in Program budget/funding: 

 As discussed above, funding for the Arizona Program has been a recurring problem in 

recent times. They are currently fully funded for FY11 and have submitted their FY12 
Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 

-4- 

ENCLOSURE 

budget without an increase in funding. The Governor’s proposed budget does not cut the 

Program’s funding; however, the budget is still under review by the legislature and 

changes could still be made to it. 

Materials Inspection Program: 

The Program reported that they currently have no overdue inspections. Routine 

inspections are generally performed by the due date, but occasionally inspections are 

performed within the allowed +25 percent window. Initial inspections are typically 

performed within 12 months of issuance. They continue to inspect reciprocity licensees 

and have not had difficulty performing inspections on at least 20 percent of candidate 

reciprocity licensees. 

The Program indicated that all IC licensees have implemented the fingerprinting 

requirements. IC inspections are performed in conjunction with routine health and safety 

inspections. Fingerprinting and NSTS requirements are also reviewed at the time of 

inspection. 

The Program reported they are not behind on licensing. They noted that if they do not 

meet State mandated licensing timeliness goals, they have to refund money to the 

legislature. 

Regulations and Legislative changes: 

The Program reported they are not seriously behind on regulations. The most overdue 

regulation was due in 2009. The Program reported that this regulation is in a regulation 

package that is being prepared for submission to NRC in the near future. 

There have been no new legislative actions that have directly impacted the Program. 

Event reporting, including follow-up and closure information in NMED.

Between the date of the 2010 IMPEP review and the 2011 Periodic Meeting, the Program 

had reported 3 events to NMED. Those three events remain open. 

Response to incidents and allegations.

The Branch continues to be sensitive to notifications of incidents and allegations. 

Incidents are reviewed for their affect on public health and safety. Incidents are evaluated 

for safety significance and staff is dispatched to perform onsite investigations whenever 

possible. 

Status of allegations and concerns referred by the NRC for action. 

None Noted. 
Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 

-5- 

ENCLOSURE 

Significant events and generic implications. 

The Program identified a brachytherapy incident at a local hospital involving a medical 

device used in conjunction with an HDR unit, and the resultant Abnormal Occurrence as a 

significant event they are currently working on. 

Current State Initiatives. 

The Program noted that furloughs continue. No specific end date has been identified. 

Emerging Technologies. 

Nothing specific noted. 

Large, complicated, or unusual authorizations for use of radioactive materials.

 Nothing specific noted. 

State’s mechanisms to evaluate performance. 

Program managers review performance reports involving licensing actions, inspections 

performed, incidents reported, and reports reviewed. Inspector accompaniments are also 

performed to ensure they are performing at the expected level. 

Current NRC initiatives: 

NRC staff discussed ongoing NRC initiatives with the Branch. These included in part, 

NRC’s safety culture policy statement, web based licensing, NSTS, the NUREG 1556 

revision process, the revisions to IMC 2800, the proposed Part 37 and accompanying 

guidance document, and potential changes to Part 20. 

Summary:

 The Program continues to struggle with staffing and budgeting, but they are keeping up 

with their work. They have not yet submitted a Program Improvement Plan (PIP) that is 

acceptable to NRC, but they continue to work on revising the document. It is 

recommended that the MRB continue the period of Heightened Oversight. 

 

Schedule for the next IMPEP review:

 It is recommended that the next IMPEP review to be held on schedule in April 2012.