UNITED STATES 

 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 REGION I 

 2100 RENAISSANCE BOULEVARD, SUITE 100 

 KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-2713

March 20, 2013 

Donald E. Williamson, MD 

State Health Officer 

Alabama Department of Public Health 

201 Monroe Street 

P.O. Box 303017 

Montgomery, AL 36130-3017 

Dear Dr. Williamson: 

A periodic meeting with your State was held on February 20, 2013. The purpose of this meeting 

was to review and discuss the status of the Alabama Agreement State Program. The U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was represented by Daniel Collins, Lisa Dimmick and 

me. 

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

resulting from the discussions. 

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 (610) 337-5214 or 

via e-mail at Monica.Orendi@nrc.gov to discuss your concerns. 

 Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

 Monica Lynn Orendi 

 Regional State Agreements Officer 

 Division of Nuclear Materials Safety 

 U.S. NRC Region I 

Enclosure: 

Periodic Meeting Summary for Alabama 

cc w/encl.: Thomas Miller, MD 

 Alabama Department of Public Health 

 

 James McNees, Director 

 Alabama Department of Public Health 

 Office of Radiation Control 

 

 David Walter, Assistant Director 

 Alabama Department of Public Health 

 Office of Radiation Control
March 20, 2013 

Donald E. Williamson, MD 

State Health Officer 

Alabama Department of Public Health 

201 Monroe Street 

P.O. Box 303017 

Montgomery, AL 36130-3017 

Dear Dr. Williamson: 

A periodic meeting with your State was held on February 20, 2013. The purpose of this meeting 

was to review and discuss the status of the Alabama Agreement State Program. The U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was represented by Daniel Collins, Lisa Dimmick and 

me. 

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

resulting from the discussions. 

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 (610) 337-5214 or 

via e-mail at Monica.Orendi@nrc.gov to discuss your concerns. 

 Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

 Monica Lynn Orendi 

 Regional State Agreements Officer 

 Division of Nuclear Materials Safety 

 U.S. NRC Region I 

Enclosure: 

Periodic Meeting Summary for Alabama 

cc w/encl.: Thomas Miller, MD 

 Alabama Department of Public Health 

 

 James McNees, Director 

 Alabama Department of Public Health 

 Office of Radiation Control 

 

 David Walter, Assistant Director 

 Alabama Department of Public Health 

 Office of Radiation Control 

Distribution: 

M. Beardsley, FSME L. Dimmick, FSME K. Meyer, FSME D. White, FSME 

P. Henderson, FSME B. McDermott, FSME R. Lorson, RI D. Collins, RI 

D. Janda, RI M. Orendi, RI 

SUNSI Review Complete: MLO (Reviewer=s Initials) 

S:\State Agreement Files\Alabama\02-20-13 Periodic Meeting Summary and Transmittal Letter.docx 

After declaring this document AAn Official Agency Record@ it will be released to the Public. 

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with 

attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy ML13080A394 

OFFICE DNMS/RI E 

NAME MOrendi/mlo 

DATE 03/20/13 

 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Enclosure 

AGREEMENT STATE PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY FOR 

ALABAMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH’S 

 OFFICE OF RADIATION CONTROL 

DATE OF MEETING: February 20, 2013 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) Attendees 

Alabama State Department of Public Health 

Attendees 

Monica Orendi, Region I RSAO James McNees, Director 

Daniel Collins, Deputy Director, DNMS 

Region I 

David Walter, Assistant Director 

Lisa Dimmick, IMPEP Project Manager, 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management 

Programs 

David Turberville, Radiation Physicist Supervisor, 

Environmental Radioactivity and Special Projects 

 Myron Riley, Supervisor, Radioactive Materials 

Inspection 

 Neil Maryland, Supervisor, Radioactive Materials 

Licensing 

 Cason Coan, Radiation Physicist Senior 

 Roger Cleckler, Radiation Physicist 

DISCUSSION: 

During the 2010 Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review of the 

Alabama Agreement State Program (the Program), the review team found the State’s 

performance satisfactory for all performance indicators reviewed. The review team made no 

recommendations. On July 19, 2010, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider 

the proposed final IMPEP report on the Alabama Agreement State Program. The MRB found 

the Program adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC’s program. 

The MRB recognized that the 2010 review marked the fourth consecutive IMPEP review of the 

Program in which the program was found adequate to protect health and safety, compatible with 

the NRC’s program, and satisfactory for all performance indicators reviewed. Based on the 

results of the IMPEP review, the review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, that the next 

full IMPEP review take place in four years and that a periodic meeting be held in approximately 

two years from the date of the November 2010 IMPEP. 

On September 13 and October 5, 2010, the MRB reviewed and endorsed the recommendations 

of the IMPEP Self-Assessment Working Group report dated August 17, 2010. 

Recommendation 3 of the Working Group’s report recommends that consistently high 

performing organizations that have two consecutive IMPEP reviews with findings of satisfactory 

on all performance indicators are recognized for its achievements. Alabama was identified as 

meeting the high standard for sustained performance and subsequently had its IMPEP review 

period extended to five years. 

 
Alabama Periodic Meeting Summary 2 

Enclosure 

TOPICS COVERED DURING THE MEETING INCLUDED:

Program Strengths

The Program noted several strengths. The Program charges 75 percent of NRC’s fees which 

provides for a well-funded program. These fees are ear marked for the Radiation Control 

Program and placed into a dedicated fund. The Program has an experienced and well-trained 

staff. Only one staff person has been with the Program for less than five years resulting in a 

large institutional knowledge base for the Program. Camaraderie and open communication 

among the staff and between staff and management are also strengths of the Program. Last, 

the Program discussed access to NRC training courses as a strength. The Program utilizes the 

NRC training courses when available and believes that knowledge learned from these courses 

is a valuable tool for staff. 

Program Weaknesses

Under strengths, the Program mentioned its very experienced staff. However this is also 

considered by the Program to be a weakness. There is a potential for several staff to retire in 

the next eight to ten years. The current director is planning on retiring before the next IMPEP 

after 38 years with the radiation control program. The Program also considers its large 

workload to be a weakness. In some circumstances preparatory time can be limited due to 

other incoming work items needing attention. 

 

Feedback on the NRC’s Program

The Program commented that both the overall relationship and communications with the NRC 

are good. In the past, it could take one to two weeks to get an answer to a question posed to 

the NRC staff and now the turnaround time is one to two days. The Program did mention that 

the NRC makes too many changes to its regulations, especially to regulations of high 

compatibility (compatibility categories A and B). Multiple regulation changes that occur each 

year can place a strain on Agreement State staff in not only the adoption of the changes but the 

implementation. The Program also expressed its appreciation for the NRC training classes but 

did mention that an increase in slots for Agreement State staff would be appreciated. Last, the 

Program staff discussed their fondness for the IMPEP. The Program feels that before IMPEP 

Agreement States were held to different standards and favoritism occurred. Since the institution 

of IMPEP, the review of Agreement State programs has been very fair and consistent. 

Agreement State Program Staffing and Training

The Program currently consists of seven staff, which includes the Program Director and 

Assistant Director, comprising approximately 5.75 full time equivalents (FTE). Currently the 

Program has a request in to obtain an additional 0.5 FTE which would be used to help with 

radioactive materials licensing and inspection. No staff turnover has occurred since the 2010 

IMPEP review and there are no vacancies in the Program. One technical staff is still in the 

qualification process but is qualified to do all inspection types except for Increased Controls 

inspections. Support for staff training exists in the Program. Program staff has attended the 

NRC and other training courses. The Program also does in house training and has junior staff 

accompany senior staff to aid in the learning process. A documented training plan for technical 

staff exists and has not been changed since the 2010 IMPEP which determined that is was 

consistent with the requirements in the NRC/Organization of Agreement States Training 
Alabama Periodic Meeting Summary 3 

Enclosure 

Working Group Report and NRC’s Inspection Manual Chapter 1246, “Formal Qualification 

Programs in the Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Program Area.” 

Organization

The Alabama Agreement State Program is located in the Office of Radiation Control which is 

located within the Alabama Department of Public Health. 

Program Budget/Funding

The Program is 100 percent fee funded. Alabama charges 75 percent of NRC fees. The funds 

are placed into a dedicated fund for the Radioactive Materials Program. Although the money is 

placed into a dedicated fund, the Program has a $100,000 cap on money allowed to be carried 

over to the next fiscal year. Any money in excess of the cap goes into the general fund. 

Despite being 100 percent fee funded, the Program still needs to obtain approval to fill positions, 

travel outside the State, and order certain supplies. 

Inspection and Licensing Programs

All but one of the Program’s inspection frequencies are performed at the same as the NRC’s. 

Alabama inspects nuclear pharmacies at a more frequent interval than the NRC. At the time of 

the periodic meeting, the Program reported it had no overdue inspections and had performed no 

inspections overdue by more than 25 percent of the inspection frequency since the last IMPEP 

review. The Program had performed one initial inspection greater than one year after the 

license issuance. The Program had performed 346 total inspections (all priorities) since the last 

IMPEP review. Alabama allows for reciprocity for 30 days in any calendar year. After 30 days 

the entity must obtain an Alabama license. The Program indicated performing reciprocity 

inspections on twenty percent of candidate licensees can prove to be a challenge for the 

program. In calendar year 2012, the Program performed no reciprocity inspections of the 49 

priority 1, 2, and 3 licensee reciprocity requests received. In calendar year 2013, the Program 

has performed two inspections of the 17 priority 1, 2, and 3 licensee reciprocity requests 

received. The Program issues inspection reports to licensees within thirty days of the 

inspection. All inspectors have been accompanied annually since the last IMPEP. 

The Program currently has approximately 415 specific licenses. The Program completes 

between 450 and 500 licensing actions each fiscal year. The Program hand delivers all new 

licenses. All licensing actions are reviewed by one management level higher than the individual 

performing the action. 

Regulations and Legislative Changes

The Program is subject to sunset requirements. The regulations and program are reviewed by 

a committee in the legislature on an approximately four year basis. The Program was last 

reviewed in 2009. The review also involves letters to regulated entities from the committee 

asking about the program. When the Program comes under review the possibility always exists 

for the legislature to sunset the program however this is not likely due to the good working 

relationship with the licensees. At the time of the periodic meeting, the Program had no 

overdue regulations due for adoption. The rulemaking process generally takes approximately 

12 months and expedited or emergency rulemaking can be completed in as little as five to six 

months. The Program is currently working on addressing outstanding comments on final 

regulations and adopting regulations coming due for adoption. There was one legislative 
Alabama Periodic Meeting Summary 4 

Enclosure 

change since the 2010 IMPEP review which affected the Program. The Bill involved licenses in 

the name of a person and not in the name of a company and stated that they would need to 

show that the person named on the license is in the country legally. 

Event Reporting

The Program had 46 events in 2010, 51 events in 2011, 79 events in 2012 and three events so 

far in 2013. These events include radioactive material, x-ray, and scrap. Follow-up information 

for all events reported by the Program are included in the State’s NMED entries. It was noted 

that there were two NMED entries that are listed as the record being complete but have not yet 

been closed by the Program. This was brought to the Program’s attention during the periodic 

meeting and the Program staff stated that they would either update the items or close the 

records. 

Response to Incidents and Allegations

The Program continues to be sensitive to notifications of incidents and allegations. Incidents 

are quickly reviewed for their effect on public health and safety. Staff is dispatched to perform 

onsite investigations when necessary. The Program is aware of the need to maintain an 

effective response to incidents and allegations. NRC referred one allegation to the Program 

and the Program directly received ten additional allegations between January 2010 and January 

2013. 

Sealed Source and Device Evaluation

Although the Program has authority to conduct sealed source and device evaluations for 

byproduct, source, and certain nuclear materials, this indicator was not reviewed during the 

2010 IMPEP review since the Program has no licensees that fall under this indicator and 

therefore did not conduct any evaluations during that review period. The Program has not 

conducted any evaluations since the 2010 IMPEP and does not expect any actions during this 

IMPEP review period. 

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program

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

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

allow a State to seek an amendment for the regulation of low-level radioactive waste as a 

separate category. Those States with existing Agreements prior to 1981 were determined to 

have continued disposal authority without the need of an amendment. Although the Program 

has authority to regulate a low level waste facility, the 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 disposal facility. There are no plans for a commercial low-level radioactive 

waste disposal facility in Alabama. 

Emerging Technologies

The Program has licensees using radium-223 as part of an investigational new drug protocol. 

 
Alabama Periodic Meeting Summary 5 

Enclosure 

State’s Mechanisms to Evaluate Performance

The Program has used the IMPEP questionnaire in between IMPEP reviews to evaluate 

program performance. The Office of Radiation Control has a supervisors retreat every year to 

discuss performance and brain storm ideas to improve performance. The most recent retreat 

was held in January 2013. The Program has monthly supervisor meetings and weekly staff 

meetings. 

CONCLUSIONS: 

The Alabama Radioactive Materials Program continues to be an effective well maintained 

Agreement State program with an experienced and well-trained staff. There are no vacancies in 

the Program at this time. The Program is effectively managing its licensing and inspection 

activities. 

NRC staff recommends that the next IMPEP review should be conducted as scheduled in fiscal 

year 2015.