November 13, 2012 

Paul Halverson, DrPH, MHSA 

Director of Health and State Public Health Officer 

Arkansas Department of Health 

4815 West Markham, Slot 39 

Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 

Dear Dr. Halverson: 

A periodic meeting with your State was held on October 30, 2012. The purpose of this meeting 

was to review and discuss the status of the Arkansas Agreement State Program. The NRC was 

represented by Vivian Campbell from the Division of Nuclear Materials Safety (DNMS) in NRC 

Region IV, 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 817-200-1143 or 

email Randy.Erickson@nrc.gov to discuss your concerns. 

 Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

 Randy Erickson 

 Regional State Agreements Officer 

Enclosure: 

Periodic Meeting Summary for Arkansas 

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMI SSI ON

REGION IV

1600 EAST LAMAR BLVD

ARL INGTON, TEXAS 76011-4511
Arkansas Department of Health 

 - 2 - 

cc w/enclosure: 

Donnie Smith, Director 

Center for Health Protection 

Arkansas Department of Health 

4815 West Markham, Slot 42 

Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 

Renee Mallory, RN, Chief 

Arkansas Health Systems Licensing 

and Regulation Branch 

Arkansas Department of Health 

4815 West Markham, Slot 21 

Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 

Bernard Bevill, Chief 

Radiation Control Section 

Arkansas Department of Health 

4815 West Markham, Slot 30 

Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 

Jared Thompson, Manager 

Radiation Control Program 

Arkansas Department of Health 

4815 West Markham, Slot 30 

Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 

bcc (via e-mail distribution): SP08 

Anton Vegel, D:DNMS 

Vivian Campbell, DD:DNMS 

Brian McDermott, FSME 

Pamela Henderson, FSME 

Duncan White, FSME 

Binesh Tharakan, SAO 

Randy Erickson, SAO 

Lisa Dimmick, FSME 

Michelle Beardsley, FSME 

Karen Meyer, FSME 

ML12323A005 

S:\DNMS\!SAO\Periodic Meetings\2012\Arkansas\2012 Arkansas Periodic Meeting Summary.doc 

ADAMS  Yes  No  SUNSI Review 

Complete 

Reviewer Initials: RRE 

Publicly Available  Yes  No Non Sensitive 

RIV: RSAO DD:DNMS 

RRErickson VHCampbell 

 Via Email Via Email 

11/13/12 11/13/12 

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

AGREEMENT STATE PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY FOR THE 

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEATLH 

DATE OF MEETING: OCTOBER 30, 2012 

NRC Attendees Arkansas Attendees 

Randy Erickson, RSAO Bernard Bevill, Section Chief 

Vivian Campbell, Deputy Division Director Jared Thompson, Program Manager 

 Steve Mack, Health Physicist 

 Layne Pemberton, Health Physicist 

 Tammy Kriesel, Health Physicist 

 Kayla Avery, Health Physicist 

 Angie Hill, Health Physicist 

DISCUSSION: 

The Arkansas Agreement State Program is 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 Arkansas Department of Health 

(the Department). 

The previous follow-up IMPEP review (ML111780695) and accompanying Periodic Meeting was 

conducted the week of April 5-8, 2011. At the conclusion of the review, the team found 

Arkansas’ performance to be satisfactory for the indicators Technical Staffing and Training and 

Status of Materials Inspection Program; and satisfactory, but needs improvement, for the 

indicator Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. 

The review team recommended that the Arkansas Agreement State Program be found 

adequate to protect public health and safety, but needs improvement, and compatible with 

NRC’s program; and, that the period of Heightened Oversight of the Arkansas Agreement State 

Program be discontinued, and that a period of Monitoring be initiated. The MRB agreed with the 

team’s recommendations. 

The review team closed three of four recommendations regarding program performance by the 

State and kept open one recommendation from the previous review. That recommendation was 

modified during the 2011 IMPEP review to more accurately describe the actions necessary to 

meet the intention of the review team. 

The current status of the one remaining recommendation identified during the 2011 Arkansas 

final IMPEP report is summarized below. 

• The review team recommends that the State develop and implement a method for 

tracking the status of license action reviews to ensure timely completion. 
Arkansas Periodic Meeting Summary Page 2 

Current Status: The Program has developed a method for tracking the status of 

licensing actions and is working to complete those actions in a timely manner. All new 

licensing actions are assigned by management and must begin within 45 days. 

Managers track each licensing action and perform follow up to ensure that all are 

completed within designated timeliness goals. 

At the time of the 2011 IMPEP review, the Program had set a goal of completing 40 

backlogged license renewals by the time of the 2012 Periodic Meeting. They have 

exceeded their goal and completed 50 of the backlogged renewals. During this time, 

each staff member was required to have four backlogged renewals working at any given 

time in addition to also processing new renewals that have come due, processing new 

license amendments, performing inspections, responding to incidents and allegations, 

and participating in emergency response duties. Program managers noted that the 

program is working well and the staff has responded admirably. 

While the backlog of license renewals can be attributed primarily to the Program’s 

previous inability to retain staff, at the present time with greater staff stability the 

Program has overcome the majority of the issues plaguing the Program noted during the 

2007 Periodic Meeting. Following the 2007 Periodic Meeting the Program was placed 

on Heightened Oversight. 

In 2007 the Program had 245 licensees, of which 92 were under timely renewal. Of 

those 92 backlogged renewals, 91 percent had been under timely renewal for more than 

one year. Fifty five of the 92 backlogged licenses had been under timely renewal since 

the 2002 IMPEP review, five years earlier. 

Presently the Program has 208 licensees. At the time of the meeting, the Program only 

had a total of 33 of the backlogged renewals originally identified in 2007 left to complete. 

Of the remaining 33 renewals in backlog, 24 are currently being worked by staff. And 

only nine of the original 92 backlogged licenses are yet to be started. It should be noted 

that during that same time period, approximately 100 new renewals had come due and 

had also been processed by the staff. 

Other topics covered at the meeting included. 

Program Strengths: The Arkansas Program is a busy program with a highly motivated 

staff that is responsible for the licensing and inspection of 208 specific materials 

licensees. Management support to the Program is outstanding at all levels, and access 

to senior management is unencumbered. The Program noted that the dedication of their 

staff to making the program successful is a huge strength for them. 

While the Program has experienced several staff losses in recent years, mainly due to 

low salaries and the lack of a promotion pathway, they have been successful in filling 

positions with talented individuals. Base salaries have increased; a program was put in 

place which allows staff who takes and passes advanced training courses to receive 

additional increases in salary, and the staff is now rotated through managing other 

Program activities such as reciprocity activities, the general license program, and the 
Arkansas Periodic Meeting Summary Page 3 

NORM program. Staff noted that these shared experiences have resulted in a much 

greater knowledge base and better customer service to all Arkansas licensees. 

Program Weaknesses: While the Program has experienced success in filling positions 

in the materials program, they acknowledge they are still in the building process. While 

the Program Manager and the most senior staff member have over 20 years of 

experience each, the rest of the staff is relatively new, ranging from 2-6 years of 

experience. The lack of a career ladder still exists and is unlikely to be changed. There 

have also been department wide restrictions on hours worked that have made it difficult 

for some of the staff. The Program noted that their licensing guidance needs updating, 

and they are still building the general license program. They also feel they are behind 

the curve in regards to Web Based Licensing which is something they are anxious to 

complete. 

Feedback on NRC’s Program: 

The Program discussed several issues affecting the Program including the following: 

 The Program expressed their appreciation for allowing the States so much 

integration into NRC working groups. Participating in these activities has helped 

grow the staff’s knowledge base. 

 The Program expressed their appreciation for the support they receive in the form of 

training from NRC. They further stated that they are having difficulty getting into 

certain training courses such as the Brachytherapy course. 

 The Program stated that for them, NSTS, especially the help desk, continues to be 

cumbersome. The Program stated that the help desk is ineffective and slow. 

 The Program believes they are behind the curve when it comes to Web Based 

Licensing (WBL) / Licensing Tracking System (LTS). They would like to incorporate 

it into their program and need assistance. 

Staffing and training: 

The Arkansas Program is a busy program which is divided into different program areas. 

Four out of five inspectors have been with the Program less than six years, but most are 

fully qualified. Only the newest staff member is not yet fully qualified. At the time of the 

meeting, the Program reported they were fully staffed. The Program reported that most of 

their staff has completed NRC’s core training courses. 

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

discussed. Program managers indicated it is their policy to either resend the individual to 

the class or provide other forms of training whenever this might occur. Since the last 

IMPEP review, no staff members have failed to pass a course they attended. 

 
Arkansas Periodic Meeting Summary Page 4 

Program reorganizations: 

 The Program has not been subject to reorganization since the 2011 IMPEP review. 

Changes in Program budget/funding: 

 At the time of the 2011 IMPEP review, the Program had not had a fee increase in 16 

years. They had requested fee increases over the years, but were not successful. 

Recently, the legislature has been even more reluctant to raise fees because of the 

economic situation the State is currently experiencing. To improve the possibility of 

achieving a fee increase, a bill sponsor suggested that the Department introduce a bill to 

move the responsibility for fee increases from the legislature to the Board of Health. That 

bill was introduced and passed. Recently the Board of Health approved a fee increase 

from levels put in place 16 years ago to 15 percent of NRC’s 2011 fees. This fee increase 

goes into effect in November 2012. The Program also agreed not to request another fee 

increase until 2019. Currently, the Program appears to be well positioned financially and 

believes this funding will support their Program sufficiently for the next several years. 

Materials Inspection Program: 

The Program reported that they currently have no overdue inspections. 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 performs Increased Controls (IC) 

inspections concurrent with health and safety inspections. All new IC licensees are 

inspected before the licenses issued. Supervisory accompaniments are being conducted 

annually by the Program Manager. 

Licensing Program: 

The Program reported that the licensing program is very active. As noted earlier, the 

licensing renewal backlog is down from an initial backlog of 92 renewals to only nine left to 

start. New renewals are being worked concurrently with backlogged renewals and 

amendments are being processed as they come in. The Program Manager tracks all 

licensing actions and staff is responsible for ensuring they are completed timely. 

The Program also has a General License Program (GL) they are currently working to 

strengthen. They do not perform inspections of GL devices currently, but have that as a 

goal for the future. The Program reported they use current pre-licensing guidance and 

conduct pre-licensing visits for all new licenses issued. 

Regulations and Legislative changes: 

The Program reported that no legislation affecting the Program has been introduced or 

passed since the 2011 follow-up IMPEP review. 
Arkansas Periodic Meeting Summary Page 5 

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

legally-binding requirements no later than 3 years after they become effective. At the time 

of the review, there were no overdue regulations. 

The review team identified the following regulation changes and adoptions that will be 

needed in the future, and the State related that the regulations would be addressed in 

upcoming rulemaking or by adopting alternate legally binding requirements: 

• “Decommissioning Planning,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, and 70 amendments (76 FR 

35512), that is due for Agreement State implementation by December 17, 2015. 

• “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Materials Licensees,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 36, 

39, 40, 70, and 150 amendments (76 FR 56591), that is due for Agreement State 

implementation by November 14, 2014. 

• “Advance Notification to Native American Tribes of Transportation of Certain Types of 

Nuclear Waste,” 10 CFR Part 71 amendment (77 FR 34194), that is due for Agreement 

State implementation by August 10, 2015. 

• “Technical Corrections,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 34, 40, and 70 amendments (77 FR 39899), 

that is due for Agreement State implementation by August 6, 2015. 

• “Requirements for Distribution of Byproduct Material,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 31, 32, 40, and 

70 amendments (77 FR 43666), that is due for Agreement State implementation by 

October 23, 2015. 

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

Since the 2011 IMPEP review, the Program had reported eight events to NMED, with 3 

remaining open. The Program will close the open events when they are able to obtain the 

necessary information. 

Response to incidents and allegations.

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

Incidents are quickly 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. 

The Program continues to process allegations as they are received. In addition to 

two allegations received directly by the Program since the 2011 IMPEP review, NRC also 

referred two allegations to the Program. Each of the allegations received by the Program 

have been investigated and closed. The Program continues to be sensitive to issues of 

identity protection regarding allegers. 
Arkansas Periodic Meeting Summary Page 6 

Significant events and generic implications. 

The Program reported they have not experienced any significant events with potential 

generic implications since the 2011 IMPEP review. 

Current State Initiatives. 

The Program reported that current initiatives they are involved with include: 

 Decommissioning activities with the former DOE Sefor Fast Oxide Reactor site. 

 Decommissioning activities at two NORM sites involving multiple site visits. 

Emerging Technologies. 

The Program reported no new activities involving emerging technologies since the 2011 

IMPEP review. 

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

 The Program reported the following as examples of large and complicated authorizations: 

 Decommissioning activities with the former DOE Sefor Fast Oxide Reactor site. 

 Decommissioning activities of an Arkansas licensee who disposed of 62 

cesium-137 sources contained in older gauges in storage. 

State’s mechanisms to evaluate performance. 

The Program reported the following as examples of how they evaluate program 

performance: 

 Management requested that the Program continue internally using the Program 

Improvement Program initially used during the period of Heightened Oversight. 

This is used as a tool to internally monitor continued progress and is evaluated 

quarterly. 

 Inspector accompaniments are performed to ensure they are performing at the 

expected level. 

Current NRC initiatives: 

Various NRC initiatives were discussed including senior NRC management changes, web 

based licensing program, and General License Program updates. 

Summary:

The Arkansas Program has worked diligently to recover from a long history of low salaries, 

the inability to retain staff, the lack of a career ladder, and the staff’s general distrust for 

management. Arkansas management viewed these as serious issues and responded in a 

serious manner, making substantive changes. Salaries were raised, an avenue for staff to 
Arkansas Periodic Meeting Summary Page 7 

take advanced classes to obtain additional salary increases was also created, and 

managers began meeting with the staff on a routine basis to address personnel and work 

related issues. These changes have resulted in better overall staff satisfaction and 

retention. 

While Arkansas’ managers and staff put a lot of effort into strengthening the Program, 

NRC also provided support through multiple training opportunities that included inspector 

accompaniments, training on reporting requirements, performance based inspection 

training, and issue specific licensing training. Accompaniments were performed by both 

regional and FSME staff; and, licensing staff from both Region IV and Region III traveled 

to Arkansas to provide training. Arkansas staff also traveled to the Region IV office for 

training. 

The final recommendation involving the reduction and ultimate elimination of a previously 

large backlog of license renewals has been vastly improved since the time of the 2007 

Periodic Meeting. Following the 2011 IMPEP review, the Program was removed from 

Heightened Oversight and a period of Monitoring was initiated. This was recommended 

primarily because the Program had previously not had sufficient time to demonstrate a 

period of sustained performance. Since that review, the Program has only grown stronger 

and the backlog has continued to be reduced. Staffing has been stabilized and the 

Program is much stronger for it today. For these reasons, it is recommended that the 

Management Review Board consider removing the Arkansas Radiation Control Program 

from Monitoring. 

Schedule for the next IMPEP review:

 It is recommended that the next IMPEP review to be held on schedule in October 2014.