UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV

 1600 E. LAMAR BLVD. 

 ARLINGTON, TX 76011-4511

 

 

October 30, 2015 

Dr. Nathaniel Smith, MD, MPH, Director of Health 

 and State Public Health Officer 

Arkansas Department of Health 

 4815 W. Markham Street 

Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 

Dear Dr. Smith: 

A periodic meeting was held with management and staff of the Arkansas Radiation Control 

Program on October 15, 2015. The purpose of this meeting was to review and discuss the 

status of the Arkansas Agreement State Program. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) was represented by Mark R. Shaffer and me. Following the Periodic Meeting an exit 

briefing to discuss the outcome of the meeting was held with you, Stephanie Williams, Deputy 

Director of Health, and other members of your staff. 

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

resulting from the discussions. A Management Review Board meeting to discuss the outcome 

of the periodic meeting will be scheduled and call in information will be provided in a separate 

transmission. 

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 

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

 Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

 Randy Erickson 

 State Agreements Officer 

 Division of Nuclear Materials Safety 

Enclosure: 

Periodic Meeting Summary for Arkansas 

 
 

Dr. Nathaniel Smith, MD, MPH, Director of Health 

 and State Public Health Officer 

Arkansas Department of Health 

 4815 W. Markham Street 

Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 

Dear Dr. Smith: 

A periodic meeting was held with management and staff of the Arkansas Radiation Control 

Program on October 15, 2015. The purpose of this meeting was to review and discuss the 

status of the Arkansas Agreement State Program. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) was represented by Mark R. Shaffer and me. Following the Periodic Meeting an exit 

briefing to discuss the outcome of the meeting was held with you, Stephanie Williams, Deputy 

Director of Health, and other members of your staff. 

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

resulting from the discussions. A Management Review Board meeting to discuss the outcome 

of the periodic meeting will be scheduled and call in information will be provided in a separate 

transmission. 

 

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 

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

 Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

 Randy Erickson 

 State Agreements Officer 

 Division of Nuclear Materials Safety 

Enclosure: 

Periodic Meeting Summary for Arkansas 

DISTRIBUTION: 

M. Shaffer, D:DNMS L. Howell, DD:DNMS V. Campbell, TA:DNMS 

J. Piccone, D:NMSS P. Henderson, DD:NMSS C. Einberg, NMSS 

R. Erickson, SAO B. Tharakan, SAO L. Dimmick, NMSS 

M. Beardsley, NMSS D. White, NMSS 

S:\DNMS\!SAO\Periodic Meetings\2015\Arkansas\Arkansas October 2015 Periodic Meeting Summary and Transmittal Letter.docx 

X SUNSI Review 

By: RRE

ADAMS 

X Yes 

No 

X Publicly Available 

 Non-Publicly 

Available 

X Non-Sensitive 

 Sensitive 

Keyword: 

OFFICE RIV:SAO 

NAME RRErickson 

SIGNATURE /RA/ 

DATE 10/30/2015 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
 Enclosure

AGREEMENT STATE PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY FOR THE 

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEATLH 

DATE OF MEETING: OCTOBER 15, 2015 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) Attendees 

Arkansas Radiation Control Program 

Attendees 

Randy Erickson, State Agreements 

Officer, Region IV 

Renee Mallory, RN, Director 

Center for Health Protection 

Mark Shaffer, Director, Division of 

Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV 

Connie Melton, Chief 

Health Systems Licensing and Regulation Branch 

 Bernard Bevill, Chief 

Radiation Control Section 

 Jared Thompson, Manager 

Radiation Control Program 

 Steve Mack, Health Physicist 

 Angela Minden, Health Physicist 

 Angie Hall, Health Physicist 

 David Stevens, Health Physicist 

 Susan Elliott, Health Physicist 

 Wendy Bennett, Budget Coordinator 

DISCUSSION: 

During the 2013 Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review of the 

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

satisfactory for the indicators Technical Staffing and Training, Status of Materials Inspection 

Program, Technical Quality of Inspections, Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities 

and Compatibility Requirements; and satisfactory, but needs improvement, for the indicator 

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. The review team made three recommendations for the 

Program and closed one recommendation from the 2011 IMPEP review. 

The review team also recommended, and the Management Review Board (MRB) agreed, that 

the Arkansas Program was adequate to protect public health and safety and was compatible 

with the NRC's program. The MRB also agreed that the next IMPEP review take place in 

approximately four years.

 

TOPICS COVERED DURING THE MEETING INCLUDED:

Program Challenges

1. Remaining financially viable 

• Up to 2011 the Arkansas Program was funded primarily via a general revenue 

appropriation. Fees supporting the program were very low and had not been 

increased since 1995. In 2011 a bill (Act 596) was introduced into the Arkansas 

legislature requesting the fee approval process be moved from the Arkansas 

legislature to the Arkansas Board of Health (Board). That bill was successfully 
- 2 - 

passed on March 23, 2011, and it provided for a maximum fee cap of 25 percent 

of NRC’s 2012 fees. Then in 2011 the Board approved the first fee increase in 

16 years and set it at 15 percent of NRC’s fees. When the increased fees 

became effective in 2012, the Program was much better positioned to support 

salaries and activities, but over time as the state budget became more restricted, 

expenditures that were still being covered by general revenue were eventually 

transferred to the fee fund. This change, in addition to a declining number of 

licensees, has caused the fee fund to deplete faster than originally projected. 

Because of this, the Program is planning to go to the Board in 2016 to request 

another fee increase, which if approved would become effective in 2017. At this 

point, the Program has no idea how the Board will respond to the request. 

2. Filling vacant staff positions 

• Historically the Arkansas Program has had issues with staff turnover, and at 

times turnover has been significant enough to cause the Program to fall behind 

on licensing and inspection activities. In 2007 this reached a point where the 

Program was placed on increased oversight. The Program made changes which 

helped stabilize staffing and in 2012, the Program was eventually removed from 

increased oversight. While at the present time the Program has continued to 

keep up with licensing and inspection activities they did lose additional staff 

between the 2013 IMPEP review through the 2015 Periodic Meeting. When 

they’re fully staffed, the Program has six health physicists. At the time of the 

2013 IMPEP review they were fully staffed, but in the following two years they 

lost three health physicists and hired two with the remaining position being left 

vacant for approximately one year. The Program is concerned that this position 

should be filled soon because they anticipate a surge in licensing renewals to 

begin within the next two years. Their concern is that the time needed to train a 

new health physicist will take most of the two years prior to the anticipated surge. 

Feedback on the NRC’s Program

The Program was complimentary of the training provided by NRC. They also appreciated that 

NRC will reach out to the states to solicit attendance for classes that have vacancies. The 

Program has benefited from the ability to fill these vacant seats in training classes. 

The Program commented on the medical webinars that NRC has been hosting. They find these 

to be very helpful to the Program. It makes training all staff that much easier. They also 

requested that NRC consider expanding on the webinars to include other non-medical areas. 

The Program noted they often feel overwhelmed with the volume of expectations placed upon 

them from NRC. They often feel inundated with requests for information, often with very short 

deadlines to meet. These requests often come at a rapid pace and while the Program would 

like to provide input, they simply often don’t have the time when deadlines for responding are 

short. 
- 3 - 

Organization

The Arkansas Program is administered by the Radioactive Materials Program. The Radioactive 

Materials Program is one of three programs in the Radiation Control Section, which is part of the 

Health Systems Licensing and Regulation Branch. The Branch is part of the Center for Health 

Protection within the Arkansas Department of Health. 

There have been no significant organizational changes since the 2013 IMPEP review that 

impacted the Program. 

Program Budget/Funding

The Program’s budget is stable but as described above, reserves in the fee fund are being 

affected by the transfer of expenditures originally funded through the general revenue fund to 

the fee fund. This has resulted in the need to request a fee increase in 2016, which if approved 

would become effective in 2017. 

Technical Staffing and Training (2013 IMPEP: Satisfactory)

At the time of the Periodic Meeting, the Program was budgeted for six health physicist positions, 

two management positions and one administrative position. The Program reported that since 

the 2013 IMPEP review, they lost three health physicists and hired two. That remaining health 

physicist position has been vacant for approximately one year. As noted above, that vacant 

position is of concern to the Program because they anticipate an increase in workload, 

specifically in the licensing area to begin within the next two years. At the present time the 

Program is not behind on inspections or licensing actions. 

During inspector accompaniments performed as part of the 2013 IMPEP review, it was noted 

that while the inspectors used Arkansas inspection report forms for inspections, these forms did 

not contain specific inspection guidance. Program managers indicated that the expectation of 

the staff was to use NRC’s inspection procedures. When questioned, the staff did not recognize 

this was the expectation. During the IMPEP, the Program Manager addressed this concern and 

revised procedure RAM-01.10 to clearly articulate that the NRC inspection procedures should 

be used as guidance to perform inspections and also included a link to the NRC’s web page for 

inspection procedures. This led to the following recommendation being made for the Program: 

Recommendation: The review team recommends that the State provide refresher training to 

the inspection staff on the inspection procedures and incorporate the inspection procedures into 

the training and qualification program for inspectors to ensure consistent implementation during 

inspections. 

Status: As previously noted, the Program uses NRC inspection procedures for all inspections 

they perform. Following the 2013 IMPEP review, the Program developed a new procedure for 

refresher training which they implemented and are following. This has also been incorporated 

into their training and qualification program. In addition to that, they also have all hands 

meetings every two weeks to discuss licensing and inspection activities. During these meetings 

they discuss procedures and strategies for upcoming inspections as well as previously 

performed inspections. They also collectively discuss licensing actions and use this as an 
- 4 - 

additional training opportunity. The Program has implemented the requirements for Inspection 

Manual Chapter 1248 which in part, requires documentation of continuing education training. 

Status of Materials Inspection Program (2013 IMPEP: Satisfactory) 

Technical Quality of Inspections (2013 IMPEP: Satisfactory)

The Program had conducted 152 Priority 1, 2, and 3 inspections since the last IMPEP review. 

None were conducted overdue. At the time of the 2013 IMPEP review, the Program met the 20 

percent requirement for reciprocity inspection in each of the four years reviewed. Following the 

2013 IMPEP review, the Program has continued to meet that requirement. Supervisory 

accompaniments of inspectors are being performed by the Program Manager and are being 

performed annually for each qualified inspector. 

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (2013 IMPEP: Satisfactory but needs improvement)

The Program reported they currently have 197 specific licensees. All licensing actions are 

handled in a timely manner. The Program has received 276 licensing actions since the 2013 

IMPEP review. These included 226 amendments, 14 terminations, 27 renewals and 9 new 

licenses. 

The 2013 IMPEP review team identified a weakness regarding the Program’s implementation of 

NRC’s pre-licensing guidance. The Program’s practice was to prepare the license and 

subsequently hand-deliver the license during an onsite visit. They were not specifically following 

the guidance found in NRC’s pre-licensing guidance issued on September 22, 2008, and 

transmitted to the Agreement States via FSME Letter RCPD-08-020, “Requesting 

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

Will Be Used as Specified on a License and the Checklist for Risk-significant Radioactive 

Material.” This weakness lead to the following recommendation: 

Recommendation: The review team recommends that the State revise its licensing 

procedures to include current guidance to determine and document the basis of confidence for 

all new applications and transfers of control that radioactive materials will be used as intended, 

prior to authorizing the material on the license; and provide staff with training on the process 

and changes to the Program’s licensing procedures. 

Status: Following the review the Program pulled all licensing actions related to new licenses 

and ownership changes back to 2006 when the original pre-licensing guidance was issued to 

determine if any licenses were issued to entities who did not meet the pre-licensing criteria. 

That review did not identify anyone who received a license who did not meet the pre-licensing 

criteria. The Program’s licensing procedures were revised to include the most current prelicensing guidance and staff were trained on the new procedures. They now use the checklists 

and follow the guidance when issuing licenses. 

Technical Quality of Incidents and Allegations (2013 IMPEP: Satisfactory)

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

reviewed for their effect on public health and safety. Staff is dispatched to perform onsite 
- 5 - 

investigations when necessary. The Office has placed a high emphasis on maintaining an 

effective response to incidents and allegations. 

Since the 2013 IMPEP review, the Program has reported 10 events to the NMED database. At 

the time of the meeting, only 2 of those events were still open and being followed. There were 

no allegations referred by NRC or received by the Program since the 2013 IMPEP review. 

During the 2013 review it was noted that one medical event was reported that involved 

brachytherapy with yttrium-90 microspheres. Program staff did not respond to this event even 

though the Program Manager had an expectation that all medical events receive an onsite 

response. The team noted two contributing factors leading up to this failure to respond to that 

event. The first contributing factor was that the facility where it occurred was a large broad 

scope facility with medical staff who were very familiar with the procedure being performed. 

Program staff stated they were not as familiar with yttrium-90 microsphere procedures and the 

associated administration equipment as was the licensee, so they relied on the licensee to 

independently take corrective actions and report to those to the Program. The second 

contributing factor was that the Program historically received so few medical event reports, they 

had not developed a formal procedure for responding to medical events. The Program’s 

procedure RAM-04.4 “Responding to Events Involving Radioactive Material” described general 

event response procedures but did not contain specific guidance associated with responding to 

or evaluating medical events. The review team determined that due to the infrequency of 

medical events that occurred in the State and the Program’s inexperience in responding to 

medical events, that the Program would benefit from procedures addressing medical events. 

This resulted in the following recommendation: 

Recommendation: The review team recommends that the State strengthen its incident 

response program by developing guidance and providing training to the staff on evaluating and 

responding to reported medical events. 

Status: The Program enhanced their guidance on responding to all events, with an emphasis 

on how they evaluate and respond to medical events. When notification of an event comes in, 

staff in the office convene and determine the appropriate response. Their procedures now 

require an immediate response for therapeutic procedures and a quick, but not necessarily an 

immediate response, to other medical events. The staff was trained on the enhanced 

procedures. 

Regulations and Legislative Changes (2013 IMPEP: Satisfactory)

Arkansas became an Agreement State on July 1, 1963. Legislative authority to create a 

radiation control agency and enter into an Agreement with NRC was granted in Arkansas Code 

Annotated § 20-21-201 et seq. The State Board of Health is designated as the State Radiation 

Control Agency, with the day-to-day administrative duties being carried out by the Director of the 

Department of Health’s designee in accordance with A.C.A. § 20-21-206. 

Since the 2013 IMPEP review, Act 1258 of 2015, as codified in A.C.A. § 25-15-204, provides 

that each rule adopted by the Department is effective ten days (previously 30 days) after filing of 

the final rule with the Secretary of State unless a later date is specified. Pursuant to 

Amendment 92 to the Constitution of Arkansas of 1874 and Act 1258 of 2015, proposed rules 
- 6 - 

now have to be reviewed and approved by the Administrative Rules and Regulations 

Subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council. Proposed rules still just require a review by 

the Legislative Committee on Public Health, Welfare, and Labor. Also, the Governor’s Office 

now requires their review of proposed rules pursuant to Executive Order 15-02. 

At the time of the 2013 IMPEP review, no amendments were overdue for adoption, nor were 

any amendments overdue for adoption during the 2015 Periodic Meeting. 

Arkansas’ regulatory equivalent to 10 CFR Part 37 has been developed and will be effective on 

March 1, 2016. The proposed rule was reviewed by the NRC with no comments. The 

Department is anticipating that the final rule will be reviewed by the NRC by the beginning of 

December 2015. 

Arkansas Initiatives

Arkansas currently has one significant ongoing decommissioning project. That is the Southwest 

Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor (SEFOR) located in Washington County, Arkansas, which at 

the present time is operated by the University of Arkansas-Fayetteville (University). This reactor 

was completed in 1969 at the direction of the Atomic Energy Commission to test the feasibility 

of breeder reactors in the production of electricity. The reactor closed in 1972 and the fuel was 

removed. The University took over ownership in 1975 and conducted research until 1986. The 

United States Department of Energy (DOE) is currently funding decommissioning of the site. In 

2009 the estimated cost of decommissioning the site was $16M. Today the estimated cost of 

decommissioning is $28M, but DOE has only appropriated $9M for the project so far. The 

University would be willing to complete decommissioning if DOE would release the appropriated 

funds, but that has not happened as of October 15, 2015. 

 

CONCLUSIONS: 

The Program continues to be an effective, well maintained Agreement State program. There is 

presently one staff level vacancy. The Program is effectively managing its licensing and 

inspection activities. The Program is responding to incidents and allegations as appropriate and 

has no overdue regulation amendments. 

NRC staff recommends that the next IMPEP review be conducted as scheduled in June 2017.