July 19, 2013 

James Craig, Director 

Office of Health Protection 

Mississippi State Department of Health 

570 East Woodrow Wilson 

P.O. Box 1700 

Jackson, MS 39215-1700 

Dear Mr. Craig: 

On June 25, 2013, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final 

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

Agreement State Program. The MRB found the Mississippi program adequate to protect public 

health and safety, and compatible with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s program. 

Section 5.0, page 11 of the enclosed final report contains a summary of the IMPEP team’s 

findings. The review team made no recommendations in regard to program performance by the 

Mississippi Agreement State Program during this review. Based on the results of the current 

IMPEP review, the next full review of the Mississippi Agreement State Program will take place in 

approximately 4 years, with a periodic meeting tentatively scheduled for April 2015. 

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: 

Mississippi Final IMPEP Report 

cc w/encl: Jared Thompson, AR 

 Organization of Agreement States 

 Liaison to the MRB 

 B.J. Smith Director 

 Division of Radiological Health 
July 19, 2013 

James Craig, Director 

Office of Health Protection 

Mississippi State Department of Health 

570 East Woodrow Wilson 

P.O. Box 1700 

Jackson, MS 39215-1700 

Dear Mr. Craig: 

On June 25, 2013, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final 

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

Agreement State Program. The MRB found the Mississippi program adequate to protect public 

health and safety, and compatible with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s program. 

Section 5.0, page 11 of the enclosed final report contains a summary of the IMPEP team’s 

findings. The review team made no recommendations in regard to program performance by the 

Mississippi Agreement State Program during this review. Based on the results of the current 

IMPEP review, the next full review of the Mississippi Agreement State Program will take place in 

approximately 4 years, with a periodic meeting tentatively scheduled for April 2015. 

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: 

Mississippi Final IMPEP Report 

cc w/encl: Jared Thompson, AR 

 Organization of Agreement States 

 Liaison to the MRB 

 

 B.J. Smith Director 

 Division of Radiological Health 

DISTRIBUTION: 

See next page ML13177A296 

OFC MSSA: TL MSSA MSSA MSSA MSSA:D TechEd FSME:D EDO/DEDMRT 

NAME MBeardsley 

via email 

LDimmick DWhite PHenderson 

(DWhite for) 

BMcDermott 

(DWhite for) 

CPoland MSatorius 

(BHolian for) 

MWeber 

DATE 06/27/13 06/27/13 07/03/13 07/03/13 07/03/13 7/8/13 7/10/13 7/19/13 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 
Letter to J. Craig from Michael F. Weber dated July 19, 2013 

SUBJECT: MISSISSIPPI FY2013 FINAL IMPEP REPORT 

DISTRIBUTION: (SP08) 

RidsEdoMailCenter 

JFoster, OEDO 

RidsFsmeOd 

RidsOgcMailCenter 

CPederson, RIII 

RidsRgn4MailCenter 

AVegel, RIV 

RTorres, RIV 

RidsFsmeMssa 

RidsSecyCorrespondenceMailCenter Chairman Macfarlane 

JMoak, MS Commissioner Svinicki 

KMorganButler, FSME Commissioner Apostolakis 

RErickson, RIV/RSAO Commissioner Magwood 

GWarren, RIII Commissioner Ostendorff 

BJuran, MN SECY 

MPoston-Brown, RIV 

JWeil, OCA (2 copies) 
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM 

REVIEW OF THE MISSISSIPPI AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM 

April 15-19, 2013 

FINAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report presents the results of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program 

(IMPEP) review of the Mississippi Agreement State Program. The review was conducted during 

the period of April 15-19, 2013, by a review team composed of technical staff members from the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the State of Minnesota.

Based on the results of this review, Mississippi’s performance was found satisfactory for all 

performance indicators reviewed. 

The review team did not make any recommendations and determined that the 

recommendations from the 2009 IMPEP review can be closed. 

Accordingly, the review team recommended and the Management Review Board (MRB) agreed, 

that the Mississippi Agreement State Program is adequate to protect public health and safety 

and compatible with the NRC's program. The review team recommended and the MRB agreed, 

that the next IMPEP review take place in approximately four years. 

. 
Mississippi Final IMPEP Report Page 1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This report presents the results of the Mississippi Agreement State program review. The review 

was conducted during the period of April 15-19, 2013, by a review team composed of technical 

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

Minnesota. 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 25, 2009 to April 15, 2013, were discussed with 

Mississippi managers on the last day of the review. 

A draft of this report was provided to Mississippi for factual comment on May 16, 2013. The 

State responded by email dated May 16, 2013. A copy of the State’s response is included as 

an Attachment to this report. A Management Review Board (MRB) met on June 25, 2013 to 

consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the Mississippi Agreement State Program 

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

The Mississippi Agreement State Program (Program) is administered by the Division of 

Radiological Health (Division). The Division is under the Department of Health (Department). 

Organization charts for the State, the Department, and the Division are included as Appendix B. 

At the time of the review, the Program regulated 316 specific licenses authorizing byproduct, 

source, and certain special nuclear materials. The review focused on the radioactive materials 

program as it is carried out under the Section 274b. (of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended) Agreement between the NRC and the State of Mississippi. 

In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common and applicable 

non-common performance indicators was sent to the Division Director on August 2, 2012. The 

Division provided its response to the questionnaire on March 13 and April 2, 2013, and a 

revised response was submitted on April 18, 2013. Copies of the questionnaire responses can 

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

the Accession Number ML13072A089. 

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

the Division’s response to the questionnaire, (2) review of applicable Mississippi statutes and 

regulations, (3) analysis of quantitative information from the Division’s database, (4) technical 

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

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

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

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

performance. 

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

during previous reviews. 
Mississippi Final IMPEP Report Page 2 

Results of the current review of the common performance indicators are presented in Section 

3.0. Section 4.0 details the results of the review of the applicable non-common 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 24, 2009, the review team made 

five recommendations regarding the Program’s performance. The status of the 

recommendations is as follows: 

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

salary and benefits, to stabilize staffing and ensure continued successful program 

implementation. (Section 3.1 of the 2005 and 2009 IMPEP Reports)” 

Status: Following the previous review, the Division worked with the Mississippi State 

Personnel Board (MSPB) to address the issue of staff retention and reviewed salaries and 

benefits of other southern state radiological health programs. With that information the 

MSPB developed a new salary structure which was approved on January 12, 2012. This 

change increased salaries from 14 to 28 percent and developed a six-tier job classification 

that ranged from the HP Trainee level to HP Advanced level. The new job classification 

created a new career ladder for the Radiological Health Organization. The Department 

attached years of State service to each increasing job classification level. The Division 

believes that this new structure should bring a competitive edge to the Mississippi program 

and help to attract and retain staff. This recommendation is closed. 

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

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

State Program and to serve as a knowledge management tool. (Section 3.1)” 

Status: The Division developed and implemented new procedures and revised others which 

are used in the daily operation of the Program. The Division stated that it will develop 

additional procedures as needed to both document the Program and to be used as a 

knowledge management tool. This recommendation is closed. 

3. “The review team recommends that the State implement a reliable and comprehensive 

licensing and inspection database that serves as an effective planning, tracking and data 

management tool. (Section 3.1)” 

Status: At the time of the previous review, the Division maintained records in paper format. 

Following that review, the Division developed an Access database to track licensing and 

inspection status, including candidates for reciprocity inspections. In 2012 the Division was 

notified by the Department that Access would no longer be supported. The Division moved 

its database entries into an Excel spreadsheet for tracking. This is a temporary tracking 

method until the NRC’s Licensee Tracking System (LTS) is brought on board in the near 

future. The Division believes that electronic tracking is an effective management tool. 

This recommendation is closed. 
Mississippi Final IMPEP Report Page 3 

4. “The review team recommends that the State implement a process to ensure that violations 

are adequately documented, licensee corrective actions are reviewed for adequacy and 

documented and sufficient followup of violations is performed and documented consistent 

with the safety or security significance. (Section 3.3)” 

 

Status: The Division has included a section concerning findings in its checklists for each type 

of inspection. This section includes documentation of each violation cited as part of the 

current inspection, and documentation of the status of each violation cited as part of the 

previous inspection. Licensees are required to provide a written response concerning 

corrective actions for each cited violation. Inspection accompaniments confirmed that 

Division staff verified that appropriate corrective actions had been taken for previous 

violations and that the violations had not recurred. Inspection staff regularly meets to 

discuss potential violations found during inspections to improve staff consistency. 

This recommendation is closed. 

5. “The review team recommends that the State develop and implement a procedure for the 

control of sensitive or security-related information that provides guidance to identify, 

mark, handle, and protect such information. (Section 3.3)” 

Status: The review team found that the Division has developed and implemented a 

procedure for the control of sensitive and security-related information. Documents 

containing such information are protected, handled, marked and secured as required by this 

procedure. This recommendation is closed. 

3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 

Five common performance indicators are used to review the 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

Considerations central to the evaluation of this indicator include the Division’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 Division’s questionnaire response relative 

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

and considered workload backlogs. 

The Division, which administers the Program, is headed by the Division Director and is 

composed of three branches: the Radioactive Materials Branch (the Branch), the X-Ray Branch, 

and the Environmental Branch. Each branch has a director that reports to the Division Director. 

The Branch is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Program, such as licensing, 

inspecting, and responding to radioactive materials incidents. The Branch is authorized for 

five positions to perform its duties: the Branch Manager and four Health Physicist positions. 

The Branch is currently fully staffed. During the review period, seven staff positions turned 

over. Staff left for various reasons, but none apparently due to salary as indicated by Division 
Mississippi Final IMPEP Report Page 4 

management. Two staff returned and six new staff were hired. These positions were filled by 

the Division within 2 to 3 months of becoming vacant. 

The Division 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 

Material Safety and Safeguards Program Area.” Staff members are assigned increasingly 

complex duties as they progress through the qualification process. The Branch Director is fully 

qualified, with the remainder of the staff in various levels of the qualification process. The 

review team concluded that the Division’s training program is adequate to carry out its 

regulatory duties and noted that Mississippi management supports the training program. 

Previously, the Division had a career ladder consisting of three steps; Health Physicist Trainee, 

Health Physicist, and Senior Health Physicist. Salaries were low compared to surrounding 

States, and it was difficult to keep staff after they were hired and trained. The Division worked 

with the MSPB to address the issue of staff retention by reviewing salaries and benefits of other 

nearby radiation control programs. With that information the MSPB developed a new expanded 

career ladder which was approved on January 12, 2012. This change increased salaries from 

14 to 28 percent and developed a six-tier job classification that ranged from the HP Trainee 

level to HP Advanced level. The Department attached years of State service to each increasing 

job classification level. The new structure appears to be viable within the State and is 

consistent with neighboring State programs. It is expected that this should bring a competitive 

edge to the Mississippi program and help to attract and retain staff. 

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

that Mississippi’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be 

found 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 Division’s questionnaire response relative to this indicator, data gathered from the 

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

management and staff. 

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

material licenses are as frequent or in some cases (i.e. Type A broad scope, medical institutionno written directive required and well logging) more frequent as similar license types listed in 

IMC 2800, “Materials Inspection Program.” 

The Division conducted approximately 250 Priority 1, 2 and 3 inspections during the review 

period. Sixteen of these inspections were conducted overdue by more than 25 percent. In 

addition, the Division performed ten initial inspections during the review period, one of which 

was conducted two months overdue. At the time of the review three inspections were overdue. 

Six of the overdue inspections (including those currently overdue, the initial overdue and two of 

the overdue inspections during the review period) were of licensees that have a Mississippi 
Mississippi Final IMPEP Report Page 5 

license, but the main offices for the licensees are located in another State and the licensees do 

not always operate within Mississippi each year. The team discussed with the Division that 

even though the licensee does not always operate in Mississippi, the Division is still required to 

perform an inspection at the frequency required for that type of licensee. The Division 

acknowledged the issue and started to perform inspections (by telephone, email) of these 

licensees while the team was onsite. The remaining inspections were overdue because of the 

staff turnover experienced by the Division during the review period. Overall, the review team 

calculated that the Division performed 7.3 percent of its inspections overdue during the review 

period. 

The review team evaluated the Division’s timeliness in providing inspection findings to 

licensees. A sampling of 22 inspection reports indicated that two of the inspection findings were 

communicated to the licensees beyond the Division’s goal of 30 days after the inspection (i.e. 

32 and 39 days). 

 

During the review period, the Division granted 125 reciprocity permits, and considered all to be 

candidate licensees. The review team determined that the Division met the NRC’s criteria of 

inspecting 20 percent of candidate licensees operating under reciprocity in each of the four 

years covered by the review period. 

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

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

Program, be found satisfactory. 

3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections

The review team evaluated the inspection reports, enforcement documentation, 

inspection field notes, and interviewed inspectors for 21 radioactive materials inspections 

conducted during the review period. The casework reviewed included inspections 

conducted by nine Division inspectors and covered inspections of various license types, 

including: medical therapy institutions (high dose rate remote afterloader, gamma 

stereotactic radiosurgery, unsealed radiopharmaceutical therapy, and permanent implant 

brachytherapy), industrial radiography, self-shielded irradiators, well logging, diagnostic 

and mobile nuclear medicine, research and development, production and distribution of 

radiopharmaceutical materials, and portable gauges. Inspection casework reviewed 

included routine inspections, initial inspections, reciprocity inspections, and inspections of 

licensees’ implementation of Increased Security Controls for Large Quantities of 

Radioactive Materials (Increased Controls). Appendix C lists the inspection casework 

files reviewed, with case-specific comments, as well as the results of the inspector 

accompaniments. 

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

aspects of the licensees’ radiation safety programs. The review team found that inspection 

reports were thorough, complete, consistent, and of high quality, with sufficient documentation 

to ensure that a licensee’s performance with respect to health and safety was acceptable. The 

documentation supported violations, recommendations made to licensees, unresolved safety 

issues, the effectiveness of corrective actions taken to resolve previous violations and 

discussions held with licensees during exit interviews. 
Mississippi Final IMPEP Report Page 6 

The inspection procedures utilized by the Program are consistent with the inspection guidance 

outlined in IMC 2800. Supervisory accompaniments were conducted at least annually for all 

inspectors. 

The review team determined that the inspection findings were appropriate and prompt 

regulatory actions were taken, as necessary. Inspection findings were clearly stated and 

documented in the reports and sent to the licensees with the appropriate letter detailing the 

results of the inspection. The Division issues to the licensee either a letter indicating a clear 

inspection or a Notice of Inspection Findings (NOIF), which details the results of the inspection. 

When the Division issues an NOIF, the licensee is required to provide a written corrective action 

plan based on the violations cited, within ten days of receipt of the letter. An inspection report is 

completed by the inspector; the report is then reviewed and signed by the Branch Director. The 

Division Director reviews and signs all NOIFs. 

The review team noted that the Division has an adequate supply of survey instruments to 

support their inspection program. Appropriate survey instrumentation, such as Geiger-Mueller 

meters, scintillation detectors, ion chambers, micro-R meters, and neutron detectors, were 

observed to be calibrated and available. The Division also has portable multi-channel analyzers 

available at the Jackson office. Instruments are calibrated at least annually or as needed with 

National Institute of Standards and Technology traceable sources by a commercial service in 

Mississippi or by the manufacturers. The Division uses a spreadsheet to track each instrument, 

its current location, and its next calibration date. Division personnel ensure that they use 

calibrated instrumentation and perform checks to ensure that the instruments are operating 

properly. 

An IMPEP team member conducted accompaniments of four Division inspectors from 

February 11 through 14, 2013. The inspectors were accompanied during health and safety 

and security inspections of diagnostic and therapeutic nuclear medicine, high dose rate 

remote afterloader radiation therapy, well logging, and industrial radiography. The 

accompaniments are identified in Appendix C. During the accompaniments, the inspectors 

demonstrated appropriate inspection techniques and knowledge of the regulations, and 

conducted compliance and performance-based inspections. The inspectors were trained 

and well-prepared for the inspections; and were thorough in their audits of the licensees’ 

radiation safety programs. The inspectors conducted interviews with appropriate personnel, 

observed licensed operations, conducted confirmatory measurements, and utilized good 

health physics practices. The inspections were adequate to assess radiological health and 

safety and security at the licensed facilities. 

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

that Mississippi’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, be 

found satisfactory. 

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

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

22 specific licensing actions. Licensing actions were reviewed for completeness, consistency, 

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

equipment, adherence to good health physics practices, financial assurance, operating and 
Mississippi Final IMPEP Report Page 7 

emergency procedures, appropriateness of license conditions, and overall technical quality. 

The casework was also reviewed for timeliness, use of appropriate deficiency letters and cover 

letters, reference to appropriate regulations, supporting documentation, consideration of 

enforcement history, pre-licensing visits, peer/supervisory review, and proper signatures. 

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

completed during the review period. Licensing actions selected for evaluation included 3 new 

licenses, 3 renewals, 2 termination actions, and 14 amendments. Files reviewed included a 

cross-section of license types, including academic broadscope, medical diagnostic and therapy 

(mobile nuclear medicine, high dose rate remote afterloader, unsealed therapy, permanent 

implant brachytherapy, and gamma knife), industrial radiography, nuclear pharmacy, cyclotron, 

gauges, and underwater and self-shielded irradiators. The casework sample represented work 

from 10 license reviewers. A list of the licensing casework evaluated, with a case-specific 

comment, is provided in Appendix D. 

Based on the casework evaluated, the review team concluded that the licensing actions were of 

high quality and consistent with the Division’s licensing procedures and/or NUREG-1556 

guidance documents, the State’s regulations, and good health physics practices. License 

tie-down conditions were stated clearly and were supported by information contained in the file. 

Deficiency letters clearly stated regulatory positions, were used at the proper time, and identified 

substantive deficiencies in the licensees’ documents. Terminated licensing actions were well 

documented showing appropriate transfer and survey records. The review team attributed the 

consistent use of templates and quality assurance reviews to the overall quality noted in the 

casework reviews. The review team identified one instance where a license requiring financial 

assurance was issued prior to having the financial assurance instrument in place. The Division 

had identified this prior to the IMPEP review and was in the process of securing the correct 

financial instrument. 

All staff perform a technical review on licensing actions. The Division Director performs a 

technical and supervisory review and signs all licensing actions before issuance to the licensee. 

New licenses are issued for a one year period at which time a simple renewal extends the 

expiration date of the license from one to four years. All licenses undergo a full renewal review 

every five years under a timely renewal system. 

The Division performs pre-licensing checks of all new applicants. The Division’s pre-licensing 

review methods incorporate the essential elements of the NRC’s pre-licensing guidance to verify 

that the applicant will use requested radioactive materials as intended. All new licensees 

receive a pre-licensing site visit which includes an evaluation of the applicant’s radiation safety 

and security programs prior to receipt of the initial license. 

The review team examined the Division’s licensing practices regarding the Increased Controls 

and Fingerprinting Orders. The review team noted that the State uses legally binding license 

conditions that meet the criteria for implementing the Increased Controls Orders, including 

fingerprinting, as appropriate. The review team analyzed the Division’s methodology for 

identifying those licenses and found the rationale was thorough and accurate. The review team 

confirmed that license reviewers evaluated new license applications and license amendments 

using the same criteria. The Division requires full implementation of the Increased Controls 

prior to issuance of a new license or license amendment that meets the established criteria. 
Mississippi Final IMPEP Report Page 8 

The review team examined the Division’s implementation of its procedure for the control of 

sensitive information. This procedure addresses the identification, marking, control, handling, 

preparation, transportation, transmission, and destruction of documents that contain sensitive 

information related to the Increased Controls. The review team noted that the Division controls 

access to all of their electronic licensing and inspection files via password protection. Files that 

contained sensitive information were further secured in locked file cabinets. 

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

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

Actions, be found satisfactory. 

3.5 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities

In evaluating the effectiveness of the Division’s actions in responding to incidents and 

allegations, the review team examined the Division’s response to the questionnaire relative to 

this indicator, evaluated selected incidents reported for Mississippi in the Nuclear Material 

Events Database (NMED) against those contained in the Division’s files, and evaluated the 

casework for 25 radioactive materials incidents. A list of the incident casework examined, 

with case-specific comments, may be found in Appendix E. The review team also evaluated the 

Division’s response to three allegations involving radioactive materials, including one allegation 

referred to the State by the NRC during the review period. 

The incidents selected for review included the following categories: missing/lost radioactive 

material, medical event, damaged gauge, stolen gauge, vehicle accident, gauge malfunction, 

delivery error, dose preparation error, source abandonment, source recovery, dislodged source, 

and stuck source. The review team determined that the Division’s response to incidents was 

complete and comprehensive. Initial responses were prompt and well-coordinated, and the 

level of effort was commensurate with the health and safety significance. The Division 

dispatched inspectors for on-site investigations in nine of the cases reviewed and took suitable 

enforcement and follow-up actions. If the incident met the reportability thresholds, as 

established in the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management 

Programs (FSME) Procedure SA-300 “Reporting Material Events,” the State notified the NRC 

Headquarters Operations Center and entered the information into NMED, in a prompt manner, 

except in those cases discussed below. 

The review team identified 24 radioactive material incidents in NMED for Mississippi during the 

review period, of which 22 required reporting. Two non-reportable incidents in NMED for 

Mississippi were reviewed for reportability and found to be correctly categorized as nonreportable by the Division. For the incidents reviewed, the Division’s responses to the incidents 

were found to be complete and comprehensive. Initial responses were prompt and wellcoordinated, and the level of effort was commensurate with the potential health and safety 

significance of the event. Inspectors were dispatched for onsite investigations when 

appropriate. Enforcement and/or other regulatory actions were taken as appropriate. The 

actions taken in response to incidents were documented and filed, and the data were submitted 

to the NRC’s contractor responsible for maintaining NMED for inclusion in the database. 

For the NMED incidents reviewed, 11 were reported outside the time requirements identified in 

Appendix A of SA-300, “Reporting Material Events”. The timeliness of reporting was discussed 
Mississippi Final IMPEP Report Page 9 

with the Division management. The late reporting of a medical event was found to be the result 

of a decision by the Division to wait for the hospital to complete their internal review before 

performing an inspection or reporting the event to the NRC. The other late reports were the 

result of a misunderstanding by the Division related to the applicability of 10 CFR 30.50(b)(2) to 

radiography equipment and gauges, when the staff had made the determination that the issues 

were of minor health and safety significance. The impact of late reporting, including the medical 

event, was reviewed; no adverse outcomes were identified. The team discussed the reporting 

requirements with Division management who committed to reporting events by the timelines 

required in SA-300. 

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

evaluated the completed casework for three allegations, including one that the NRC referred to 

the Program during the review period. The review team concluded that the Division took prompt 

and appropriate actions in response to concerns raised. The review team noted that the 

Division documented the investigations of concerns and retained all necessary documentation 

to appropriately close the allegations. The Division notified the concerned individuals of the 

conclusion of their investigations. The review team determined that the Division adequately 

protected the identity of concerned individuals. 

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

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

Allegation Activities, be found 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. The NRC’s 

Agreement with Mississippi 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

Mississippi became an Agreement State on July 1, 1962. The Mississippi Radiation Protection 

Law of 1976 designates the Department as the radiation control agency for the State. This act 

gives the Department specific powers and duties, including the authority to promulgate 

regulations, issue licenses, perform inspections, and collect fees. The current effective statutory 

authority is contained in the Mississippi State Department of Health Title 15, Part 21 Division of 

Radiological Health regulations. 

The review team noted that no legislation affecting the radiation control program was passed 

during the review period. 
Mississippi Final IMPEP Report Page 10 

4.1.2 Program Elements Required for Compatibility 

Mississippi’s regulations pertaining to radiation control apply to all ionizing radiation, whether 

emitted from radionuclides or devices. Mississippi requires a license for possession and use of 

all radioactive materials. 

The review team examined the State’s regulatory process and found that the process takes 6 to 

12 months. The Division is responsible for drafting and revising the State’s regulations 

pertaining to radiation control. After preparation of a package of draft regulations, the Division 

obtains approval from the Radiation Advisory Council and then the Board of Health. Draft 

regulation packages are classified as “intent to adopt” and are mailed to registered interested 

parties, such as licensees and NRC, with an opportunity for comments. After addressing any 

comments, the Division submits the regulations to the Board of Health for final approval. Once 

approved, the final regulations are sent to the Secretary of State for adoption. Mississippi’s rules 

and regulations are not subject to sunset laws. The Division also has the authority to issue 

alternate legally binding requirements, such as license conditions, in lieu of regulations. The 

review team evaluated Mississippi’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 the State Regulation Status Sheet that FSME maintains. 

During the review period, Mississippi submitted 13 final regulation amendments and 14 

proposed regulation amendments to the NRC for a compatibility review. Current NRC policy 

requires that Agreement States adopt certain equivalent regulations or legally-binding 

requirements no later than 3 years after they become effective. Three amendments were 

submitted overdue during the review period. The NRC’s compatibility review resulted in 15 

comments which will need to be addressed by the State in upcoming rulemaking activities. The 

following three amendments were submitted overdue during the review period: 

• “Compatibility with IAEA Transportation Safety Standards and Other Transportation 

Safety Amendments”, 10 CFR Part 71 (69 FR 57327), that was due for Agreement State 

adoption on October 1, 2007. 

• “Medical Use of Byproduct Material – Recognition of Specialty Boards,” 10 CFR Part 35 

amendment (70 FR 16336, 71 FR 1926) that was due for Agreement State adoption on 

April 29, 2008. 

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

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

adoption on November 30, 2010. 

At the time of the review, there were no overdue amendments. A complete list of upcoming 

regulation amendments that will need to be addressed can be found on the NRC website at the 

following address: http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/rss_regamendents.html. 

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

that Mississippi’s performance with respect to the indicator, Compatibility Requirements, be 

found satisfactory. 
Mississippi Final IMPEP Report Page 11 

4.2 Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program

Since becoming an Agreement State in 1962, Mississippi has not performed any sealed source 

and device evaluations; therefore, the review team did not review this indicator. 

4.3 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 Regulatory Authority and Assumption Thereof by States Through 

Agreement," to allow a State to seek an amendment for the regulation of LLRW as a separate 

category. Although the Mississippi Agreement State Program has LLRW disposal authority, the 

NRC has not required States to have a Program for licensing a LLRW 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, they are expected to put in place a regulatory Program which will meet the criteria for an 

adequate and compatible LLRW disposal Program. There are no plans for a LLRW disposal 

facility in Mississippi. Accordingly, the review team did not review this indicator. 

5.0 SUMMARY 

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

performance indicators reviewed. The review team did not make any recommendations, and 

determined that all recommendations from the 2009 IMPEP review can be closed. 

Accordingly, the review team recommended and the MRB agreed, that the Mississippi 

Agreement State Program be found adequate to protect public health and safety, and 

compatible with the 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 four years. 

 
LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members 

Appendix B Mississippi Organization Charts 

Appendix C Inspection Casework Reviews 

Appendix D License Casework Reviews 

Appendix E Incident Casework Reviews 
APPENDIX A 

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS 

Name Area of Responsibility

Michelle Beardsley, FSME Team Leader 

 Status of Materials Inspection Program 

 Compatibility Requirements 

Randy Erickson, Region IV Technical Staffing and Training 

 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation 

 Activities 

Geoffrey Warren, Region III Technical Quality of Inspections 

 Inspection Accompaniments 

Brandon Juran, Minnesota Technical Quality of Licensing Actions 

Martha Poston-Brown, Region IV supported the review of Technical Quality of Incidents and 

Allegations. 
APPENDIX B 

Mississippi ORGANIZATION CHARTS 

ADAMS ACCESSION NO.: ML13072A100 
 

 APPENDIX C 

INSPECTION CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Anderson Regional Medical Center License No.: MS-267-01 

Inspection Type: Routine/Reactive, Announced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 9/19/12 Inspectors: JDM, LR 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: Delta Regional Medical Center License No.: MS-010-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 5/19/10 Inspector: DB 

File No.: 3 

Licensee: River Oaks Hospital License No.: MS-470-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 2/14/13 Inspector: BG 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: Cased Hole Well Services License No.: MS-1061-01 

Inspection Type: Initial, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 2/13/13 Inspector: LR 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: Warrior Energy Services Corporation License No.: MS-859-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 3/15/12 Inspector: JRM 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: Singing River Hospital License No.: MS-143-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 1/12/11 Inspector: JDM 

File No.: 7 

Licensee: Triad Isotopes, Inc. License No.: MS-794-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Dates: 12/21/11 through 1/12/12 Inspector: JDM 

Comment: Inspection Report was issued 32 days after inspection completion 

File No.: 8 

Licensee: Jackson HMA License No.: MS-722-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 2/14/13 Inspector: BF 

 
Mississippi Final IMPEP Report Page C.2 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 9 

Licensee: South Central Regional Medical Center License No.: MS-277-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 4/13/10 Inspector: BF 

File No.: 10 

Licensee: University of Mississippi Health & Safety Department License No.: MS-EBL-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 4/13/12 Inspector: JRM 

File No.: 11 

Licensee: Endocrinology Consultants, PLLC License No.: MS-925-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 8/30/11 Inspector: LF 

File No.: 12 

Licensee: Mississippi Tank Company License No.: MS-064-01 

Inspection Type: Routine/Special, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 3/12/12 Inspectors: JRM, LR 

File No.: 13 

Licensee: North Sunflower Medical Center License No.: MS-1049-01 

Inspection Type: Initial, Announced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 5/24/11 Inspector: LF 

File No.: 14 

Licensee: Northwest Regional Medical Center License No.: MS-286-02 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 11/5/09 Inspector: BS 

Comment: Inspection was conducted four months overdue 

File No.: 15 

Licensee: Eustis Engineering Company Inc. License No.: MS-1024-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 4/4/13 Inspector: JD 

File No.: 16 

Licensee: Central Mississippi Medical Center License No.: MS-722-05 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 11/29/12 Inspector: JDM 

File No.: 17 

Licensee: North Mississippi Medical Center Cancer Center License No.: MS-378-03 

Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 11/20/12 Inspector: JDM 
Mississippi Final IMPEP Report Page C.3 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

File No.: 18 

Licensee: Coastal Wireline Services, Inc. License No.: N/A 

Inspection Type: Reciprocity, Unannounced Priority: N/A 

Inspection Date: 7/19/12 Inspector: LR 

File No.: 19 

Licensee: TUV Rheinland Industrial Services, Inc. License No.: N/A 

Inspection Type: Reciprocity, Unannounced Priority: N/A 

Inspection Date: 2/12/13 Inspector: LR 

File No.: 20 

Licensee: University of Mississippi Medical Center License No.: MS-683-01 

Inspection Type: Special, Announced Priority: 5 

Inspection Date: 5/25/11 through 6/2/11 Inspector: JDM 

Comment: Inspection Report was issued 39 days after inspection completion 

File No.: 21 

Licensee: Shaw Pipeline Services License No.: MS-1043-01 

Inspection Type: Telephone, Unannounced Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 4/16/13 Inspector: LR 

Comment: Inspection was conducted 27 months overdue. 

INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS 

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

Accompaniment No.: 1 

Licensee: University of Mississippi Medical Center License No.: MS-MBL-01 

Inspection Type: Routine/Partial, Announced Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 2/11/13 Inspector: JDM 

Accompaniment No.: 2 

Licensee: TUV Rheinland Industrial Services, Inc. License No.: N/A 

Inspection Type: Reciprocity, Unannounced Priority: N/A 

Inspection Date: 2/12/13 Inspector: LR 

Accompaniment No.: 3 

Licensee: Cased Hole Well Services License No.: MS-1061-01 

Inspection Type: Initial, Unannounced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 2/13/13 Inspector: LR 

 
Mississippi Final IMPEP Report Page C.4 

Inspection Casework Reviews 

Accompaniment No.: 4 

Licensee: Jackson HMA License No.: MS-722-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 2/14/13 Inspector: BF 

Accompaniment No.: 5 

Licensee: River Oaks Hospital License No.: MS-470-01 

Inspection Type: Routine, Announced Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 2/14/13 Inspector: BG 
 

APPENDIX D 

LICENSE CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: Pioneer Wireline Service License No.: MS-1054-01 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 4 

Date Issued: 2/20/13 License Reviewer: LR 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: Bolivar Medical Center License No: MS-522-01 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 36 

Date Issued: 11/15/12 License Reviewer: BG 

File No.: 3 

Licensee: Cardinal Health License No.: MS-924-01 

Type of Action: Termination Amendment No.: 29 

Date Issued: 4/16/12 License Reviewer: JDM 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: Gateway America License No.: MS-1063-01 

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

Date Issued: 11/20/12 License Reviewer: JDM 

Comment: License issued prior to having financial assurance in place. 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: South Central Regional Medical Center License No: MS-277-01 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 60 

Date Issued: 9/1/10 License Reviewer: BF 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: URS Corporation License No.: MS-1030-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 3 

Date Issued: 9/25/12 License Reviewer: JD 

File No.: 7 

Licensee: Triad Isotopes License No.: MS-794-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 42 

Date Issued: 3/4/13 License Reviewer: BF 

File No.: 8 

Licensee: Cased Hole Well Services License No: MS-1061-01 

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

Date Issued: 4/11/12 License Reviewer: JRM 

 
Mississippi Final IMPEP Report Page D.2 

Licensing Casework Reviews 

File No.: 9 

Licensee: TUV Rheinland License No.: MS-1067-01 

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

Date Issued: 3/22/13 License Reviewer: JRM 

File No.: 10 

Licensee: Central Mississippi Medical Center License No.: MS-722-05 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 3 

Date Issued: 10/25/12 License Reviewer: JDM 

File No.: 11 

Licensee: University of Southern Mississippi – Department of Biology License No: MS-233-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 29 

Date Issued: 6/15/11 License Reviewer: LJ 

File No.: 12 

Licensee: Team Industrial License No.: MS-515-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 37 

Date Issued: 9/7/10 License Reviewer: DB 

File No.: 13 

Licensee: American Diagnostic Technologies, LLC License No.: MS-927-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 36 

Date Issued: 2/1/11 License Reviewer: LF 

File No.: 14 

Licensee: Wesley Health System, LLC, dba Wesley Medical Center License No: MS-868-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 21 

Date Issued: 4/30/10 License Reviewer: BS 

File No.: 15 

Licensee: St. Dominic Cancer Center License No.: MS-039-03 

Type of Action: Renewal Amendment No.: 25 

Date Issued: In Process License Reviewer: JDM 

File No.: 16 

Licensee: Delta Regional Medical Center License No.: MS-010-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 76 

Date Issued: 6/7/11 License Reviewer: BS 

File No.: 17 

Licensee: University of Southern Mississippi License No: MS-EBL-03 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 35 

Date Issued: 3/20/13 License Reviewers: JD/BS 

 
Mississippi Final IMPEP Report Page D.3 

Licensing Casework Reviews 

File No.: 18 

Licensee: Memorial Hospital at Gulfport License No.: MS-254-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 96 

Date Issued: 1/14/13 License Reviewer: BG 

File No.: 19 

Licensee: Greenwood Leflore Hospital License No.: MS-234-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 62 

Date Issued: 6/27/11 License Reviewer: LF 

File No.: 20 

Licensee: University of Mississippi License No: MS-EBL-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 70 

Date Issued: 8/22/11 License Reviewer: JDM 

File No.: 21 

Licensee: SABIC Innovative Plastics US License No.: MS-689-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 23 

Date Issued: 6/29/12 License Reviewer: BG 

File No.: 22 

Licensee: Cardinal Health License No.: MS-974-01 

Type of Action: Amendment Amendment No.: 8 

Date Issued: 9/10/12 License Reviewer: BS 
APPENDIX E 

INCIDENT CASEWORK REVIEWS 

NOTE: CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT NOTE IS INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS. 

File No.: 1 

Licensee: MISTRAS Group Inc. License No.: MS-995-01 

Date of Incident: 12/11/12 NMED No.: 130005 

Investigation Date: N/A Type of Incident: Source Recovery (Radiography) 

 Type of Investigation: Report Review 

Comment: Not reported within 24 hours as required. 

File No.: 2 

Licensee: World Testing Inc. License No.: MS-1035-01 

Date of Incident: 8/26/12 NMED No.: 120501 

Investigation Date: 8/26/12 Type of Incident: Vehicle Accident (Radiography) 

 Type of Investigation: Site 

File No.: 3 

Licensee: Anderson Regional Medical Center License No.: MS-267-01 

Date of Incident: 9/10/12 NMED No.: 120548 

Investigation Date: 9/19/12 Type of Incident: Medical Event 

 Type of Investigation: Reactive Inspection 

Comment: Not reported within 24 hours as required. 

File No.: 4 

Licensee: World Testing Inc. License No.: MS-1035-01 

Date of Incident: 8/27/12 NMED No.: 120500 

Investigation Date: N/A Type of Incident: Stuck Source (Radiography) 

 Type of Investigation: Report Review 

File No.: 5 

Licensee: Grenada Lake Medical Center License No.: MS-410-01 

Date of Incident: 5/8/12 (DRH notified 7/26/12) NMED No.: 120468 

Investigation Date: 8/6-29/12 Type of Incident: Missing/Lost RAM 

 Type of Investigation: Site and Office 

File No.: 6 

Licensee: Cardinal Health License No.: MS-493-01 

Date of Incident: 1/27/12 NMED No.: N/A 

Investigation Date: 1/27/12 Type of Incident: Vehicle Accident (Radiopharmacy) 

 Type of Investigation: Report Review
Mississippi Final IMPEP Report Page E.2 

Incident Casework Reviews 

File No.: 7 

Licensee: Terracon Consultants, Inc License No.: MS-724-01 

Date of Incident: 11/14/11 NMED No.: 110608 

Investigation Date: 11/15-17/11 Type of Incident: Stolen Gauge 

 Type of Investigation: Inspection and Investigation 

 File No.: 8 

Licensee: GeoCon Laboratories, Inc. License No.: MS-821-01 

Date of Incident: 9/23/11 NMED No.: N/A 

Investigation Date: 9/23/11 Type of Incident: Vehicle Accident (PG) 

 Type of Investigation: Site 

File No: 9 

Licensee: Chevron Products Company License No.: MS-413-01 

Date of Incident: 3/22/11 NMED No.: 110159 

Investigation Date: 3/22/11 Type of Incident: Dislodged Source (FG) 

 Type of Investigation: Report Review 

Comment: Not reported within 24 hours as required. 

File No: 10 

Licensee: DuPont DeLisle Plant License No.: MS-919-01 

Date of Incident: 7/1/10 NMED No.: 110157 

Investigation Date: 3/21/11 Type of Incident: Gauge Malfunction 

 Type of Investigation: Inspection 

 

Comment: Not reported within 24 hours as required. 

File No.: 11 

Licensee: Leaf River Cellulose License No.: MS-565-02 

Date of Incident: 1/10/11 NMED No.: 110137 

Investigation Date: 3/15/11 Type of Incident: Gauge Malfunction 

 Type of Investigation: Report Review 

Comment: Not reported within 24 hours as required. 

File No: 12 

Licensee: Lander Testing License No.: MS-382-01 

Date of Incident: 1/12/11 NMED No.: 110026 

Investigation Date: 1/13/11 Type of Incident: Stolen Gauge 

 Type of Investigation: Report Review 

Comment: Not reported within 24 hours as required.
Mississippi Final IMPEP Report Page E.3 

Incident Casework Reviews 

File No: 13 

Licensee: Cardinal Health License No.: MS-493-01 

Date of Incident: 12/29/10 NMED No.: N/A 

Investigation Date: 1/7/11 Type of Incident: Delivery Error (Radiopharmacy) 

 Type of Investigation: Report Review 

File No: 14 

Licensee: Cardinal Health License No.: MS-493-01 

Date of Incident: 12/28/10 NMED No.: N/A 

Investigation Date: 12/28/10 Type of Incident: Vehicle Accident (Radiopharmacy) 

 Type of Investigation: Report Review 

File No.: 15 

Licensee: Cardinal Health License No.: MS-493-01 

Date of Incident: 12/12/10 NMED No.: N/A 

Investigation Date: 12/17/10 Type of Incident: Delivery Error (Radiopharmacy) 

 Type of Investigation: Report Review 

File No.: 16 

Licensee: Cardinal Health License No.: MS-781-01 

Date of Incident: 12/13/10 NMED No.: N/A 

Investigation Date: 12/15/10-1/18/11 Type of Incident: Dose Prep Error (Radiopharmacy) 

 Type of Investigation: Report review 

File No.: 17 

Licensee: Wellman of Mississippi, Inc. License No: MS-871-01 

Date of Incident: 10/29/10 NMED No.: 100570 

Investigation Date: 11/5/10 Type of Incident: Gauge Malfunction 

 Type of Investigation: Report review 

Comment: Not reported within 24 hours as required. 

File No.: 18 

Licensee: Mississippi State University License No.: MS-EBL-02 

Date of Incident: 10/15/10 NMED No.: 100562 

Investigation Date: 11/10/10 Type of Incident: Missing/Lost RAM 

 Type of Investigation: Report Review 

File No.: 19 

Licensee: Private Individual License No.: N/A 

Date of Incident: 7/16/10 NMED No.: 100393 

Investigation Date: 7/16/10 Type of Incident: Abandoned Gauges 

 Type of Investigation: Site 
Mississippi Final IMPEP Report Page E.4 

Incident Casework Reviews 

File No.: 20 

Licensee: Mississippi Dept of Transportation License No.: MS-261-01 

Date of Incident: 5/24/10 NMED No.: 100286 

Investigation Date: 5/24 thru 6/22/10 Type of Incident: Damaged Gauge 

 Type of Investigation: Report Review 

Comment: Not reported within 24 hours as required. 

File No.: 21 

Licensee: Halliburton Energy License No.: MS-415-01 

Date of Incident: 5/2/10 NMED No.: 100269 

Investigation Date: 5/2 thru 6/2/10 Type of Incident: Source abandonment 

 Type of Investigation: Report Review 

File No.: 22 

Licensee: Shell Lubricants License No.: GL-154 

Date of Incident: unknown NMED No.: 100077 

Investigation Date: 2/1-19/10 Type of Incident: Missing/Lost RAM 

 Type of Investigation: Report Review 

Comment: Not reported within 24 hours as required. 

File No.: 23 

Licensee: Georgia Pacific Corp. License No.: MS-188-01 

Date of Incident: 2/11-12/10 NMED No.: 100072 

Investigation Date: 2/12 thru 3/29/10 Type of Incident: Gauge Malfunction 

 Type of Investigation: Report Review 

Comment: Not reported within 24 hours as required. 

File No.: 24 

Licensee: Terra Mississippi Nitrogen Inc. License No. MS-571-01 

Date of Incident: 7/14/09 (identified by DRH on 11/4/09) NMED No.: 090870 

Investigation Date: 11/4 thru 11/12/09 Type of Incident: Gauge Malfunction 

 Type of Investigation: Inspection 

Comment: Not reported within 24 hours as required. 

File No.: 25 

Licensee: Weyerhaeuser NR Company License No.: MS-468-01 

Date of Incident: 6/1/09 NMED No.: N/A 

Investigation Date: 6/1-10/09 Type of Incident: Damaged Gauge 

 Type of Investigation: Site and Report Review
ATTACHMENT 

May 16, 2013 Email from B.J. Smith 

Mississippi’s Response to the Draft Report 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML13143A012