UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

July 20, 2016 

Hunter Moore 

Natural Resource Policy Advisor 

Office of the Arizona Governor 

1700 W. Washington St. 

Phoenix, AZ 85007-2888 

Dear Mr. Moore: 

On June 30, 2016, a Management Review Board (MRB), which consists of U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) senior managers and an Organization of Agreement States 

liaison to the MRB, met to consider the proposed final Integrated Materials Performance 

Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Arizona Agreement State Program. The MRB found 

the Arizona program adequate to protect public health and safety, and compatible with the 

NRC’s program. 

Section 5.0, page 12, of the enclosed final report contains a summary of the IMPEP team’s 

findings and recommendations. Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full 

review of the Arizona Agreement State Program will take place in approximately 4 years, with a 

periodic meeting tentatively scheduled for March 2018. 

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/ 

Glenn M. Tracy 

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, 

 Research, State, Tribal, Compliance, Administration, 

 and Human Capital Programs 

Office of the Executive Director for Operations 

Enclosure: 

Arizona IMPEP Final Report 

cc: See next page
H. Moore -2- 

cc: Aubrey V. Godwin, Director 

Radiation Regulatory Agency 

Jack Priest, MA 

Organization of Agreement States 

 Liaison to the MRB 

 
July 20, 2016 

Hunter Moore 

Natural Resource Policy Advisor 

Office of the Arizona Governor 

1700 W. Washington St. 

Phoenix, AZ 85007-2888 

Dear Mr. Moore: 

On June 30, 2016, a Management Review Board (MRB), which consists of U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) senior managers and an Organization of Agreement States 

liaison to the MRB, met to consider the proposed final Integrated Materials Performance 

Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Arizona Agreement State Program. The MRB found 

the Arizona program adequate to protect public health and safety, and compatible with the 

NRC’s program. 

Section 5.0, page 12, of the enclosed final report contains a summary of the IMPEP team’s 

findings and recommendations. Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next full 

review of the Arizona Agreement State Program will take place in approximately 4 years, with a 

periodic meeting tentatively scheduled for March 2018. 

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/ 

Glenn M. Tracy 

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, 

 Research, State, Tribal, Compliance, Administration, 

 and Human Capital Programs 

Office of the Executive Director for Operations 

Enclosure: 

Arizona IMPEP Final Report 

cc: See next page 

DISTRIBUTION: (SP08) 

See next page 

ML16188A002 

OFC RIII:TL MSTR/ASPB MSTR/ASPB NMSS/MSTR NMSS/Tech 

Editor 

NMSS EDO 

NAME BParker 

Via email 

w/edits 

LDimmick 

LD 

w/edits

PMichalak 

PM 

w/edits

DCollins WMoore SMoore GTracy 

DATE 7/6/16 7/7/16 7/7/16 7/12/16 7/13/16 7/14/16 7/20/16

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Letter to H. Moore from G. Tracy, Dated July 20, 2016 

SUBJECT: ARIZONA FY2016 FINAL IMPEP REPORT 

DISTRIBUTION: (SP08) 

RidsEdoMailCenter 

MSampson, OEDO 

RidsSecyCorrespondenceMailCenter Chairman Burns 

RidsOgcMailCenter Commissioner Svinicki 

AGendleman, OGC Commissioner Baran 

JOlmstead, OGC SECY 

MShafer, RIV 

LHowell, RIV 

RidsRgn4MailCenter 

DLew, RI 

RidsNmssOD 

DCollins, NMSS 

PHenderson, NMSS 

LRoldan, NMSS 

RErickson, RIV/RSAO 

TKruse, MN 

TJackson, RI 

OAS Board 

State of AZ 

JWeil, OCA 

 
Enclosure 

INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM 

REVIEW OF THE ARIZONA AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM 

MARCH 28–APRIL 1, 2016 

FINAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

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

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

the period of March 28–April 1, 2016, 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, Arizona’s performance was found satisfactory for all six 

indicators reviewed: Technical Staffing and Training, Status of Materials Inspection Program, 

Technical Quality of Inspections, Technical Quality of Licensing, Technical Quality of Incident 

and Allegation Activities, and Compatibility Requirements. 

The review team did not make any recommendations and there were no open 

recommendations to evaluate from previous IMPEP reviews. 

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

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

safety and is compatible with the NRC's program. The review team recommended, and the 

MRB agreed that the next IMPEP review take place in approximately 4 years with a periodic 

meeting occurring mid-cycle. 
Arizona Final IMPEP Report Page 1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This report presents the results of the review of the Arizona Agreement State Program. 

The review was conducted during the period of March 28–April 1, 2016, 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 (MD 5.6), “Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation 

Program (IMPEP),” dated February 26, 2004. Preliminary results of the review, which 

covered the period of March 31, 2012, to April 1, 2016, were discussed with Arizona 

managers on the last day of the review. 

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

non-common performance indicators was sent to Arizona on February 1, 2016. Arizona 

provided its response to the questionnaire on March 11, 2016. A copy of the 

questionnaire response can be found in the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) using the Accession Number ML16075A135. 

A draft of this report was issued to Arizona on May 2, 2016, for factual comment. 

Arizona responded to the findings and conclusions of the review by letter dated June 1, 

2016. A copy of Arizona’s response can be found in ADAMS using the Accession 

Number ML16158A000. A Management Review Board (MRB), which consists of NRC 

senior managers and an Organization of Agreement States liaison to the MRB, met on 

June 30, 2016, to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the Arizona 

Agreement State Program adequate to protect public health and safety, and compatible 

with the NRC’s program. 

The Arizona Agreement State Program is administered by the Arizona Radiation 

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

Organization charts for the State can be found in ADAMS using the Accession Number 

ML16075A131. 

At the time of the review, the Arizona Agreement State Program regulated 359 specific 

licenses authorizing possession and use of radioactive 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 

Arizona. 

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 Arizona Agreement State Program’s performance. 

2.0 PREVIOUS IMPEP REVIEW AND STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

The previous IMPEP review concluded on March 30, 2012. The final report is available 

in ADAMS (Accession Number ML12171A175). The results of that review are as 

follows: 
Arizona Final IMPEP Report Page 2 

Technical Staffing and Training: Satisfactory 

Recommendation: None 

Status of Materials Inspection Program: Satisfactory 

Recommendation: None 

Technical Quality of Inspections: Satisfactory 

Recommendation: None 

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions: Satisfactory 

Recommendation: None 

Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities: Satisfactory 

Recommendation: None 

 Compatibility Requirements: Satisfactory, But Needs Improvement 

Recommendation: None 

Overall finding from the 2012 IMPEP review: Adequate to protect public health and 

safety and is compatible with the NRC's program. 

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 

The ability to conduct effective licensing and inspection programs is largely dependent 

on having a sufficient number of experienced, knowledgeable, and well-trained technical 

personnel. Under certain conditions, staff turnover could have an adverse effect on the 

implementation of these programs, and thus could affect public health and safety. 

Apparent trends in staffing must be explored. Review of this indicator also requires a 

consideration and evaluation of the levels of training and qualification. The evaluation 

standard measures the overall quality of training available to, and taken by, materials 

program personnel. 

a. Scope 

The review team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure SA-103, “Reviewing 

the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Staffing and Training,” and evaluated 

Arizona’s performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives: 

• A well-conceived and balanced staffing strategy has been implemented throughout 

the review period. 

• Agreement State training and qualification program is equivalent to NRC Inspection 

Manual Chapter (IMC) 1248, “Formal Qualifications Program for Federal and State 

Material and Environmental Management Programs.” 
Arizona Final IMPEP Report Page 3 

• Qualification criteria for new technical staff are established and are being followed or 

that qualification criteria will be established if new staff members are hired. 

• Any vacancies, especially senior-level positions, are filled in a timely manner. 

• There is a balance in staffing of the licensing and inspection programs. 

• Management is committed to training and staff qualification. 

• Individuals performing materials licensing and inspection activities are adequately 

qualified and trained to perform their duties. 

• License reviewers and inspectors are trained and qualified in a reasonable period of 

time. 

b. Discussion 

The Agency is administratively capped at 30 staff members with 4.5 full-time equivalents 

assigned to the radioactive materials program. There are currently two vacancies with 

no immediate plans to fill the vacancies. During the review period, no staff members left 

the Agency. Although the Agency has had the two vacant positions for several years, 

the review team did not identify any performance issues associated with these 

vacancies. During the review period, the Agency did not have a backlog in licensing or 

inspection activities. 

Arizona managers noted that two materials inspectors in the Agency with 33 and 14 

years of experience, respectively, plan to retire later in the year. The Agency has been 

exploring various hiring options for replacing them such as double encumbering 

positions, but the State’s hiring rules limit the options. The review team also found that 

the Agency has, and is following, a training and qualification manual compatible to IMC 

1248. 

c. Evaluation 

The review team determined that during the review period the Agency met the 

performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.1.a. 

d. Results 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the review team recommended, and 

the MRB agreed, that Arizona’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical 

Staffing and Training, be found satisfactory. 

3.2 Status of the Materials Inspection Program 

Periodic inspections of licensed operations are essential to ensure that activities are 

being conducted in compliance with regulatory requirements and consistent with good 

safety practices. The frequency of inspections is specified in the NRC’s IMC 2800, 

“Materials Inspection Program,” and is dependent on the amount and kind of material, 

the type of operation licensed, and the results of previous inspections. There must be a 

capability for maintaining and retrieving statistical data on the status of the inspection 

program. 

 
Arizona Final IMPEP Report Page 4 

a. Scope 

The review team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure SA-101, “Reviewing 

the Common Performance Indicator: Status of the Materials Inspection Program,” and 

evaluated Arizona’s performance with respect to the following performance indicator 

objectives: 

• Initial inspections and inspections of Priority 1, 2, and 3 licensees are performed at 

the frequency prescribed in NRC IMC 2800. 

• Candidate licensees working under reciprocity are inspected in accordance with the 

criteria prescribed in IMC 1220, “Processing of NRC Form 241, Report of Proposed 

Activities in Non-Agreement States, Areas of Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, and 

Offshore Waters, and Inspection of Agreement State Licensees Operating Under 

10 CFR 150.20.” 

• Deviations from inspection schedules are normally coordinated between technical 

staff and management. 

• There is a plan to perform any overdue inspections and reschedule any missed or 

deferred inspections; or a basis has been established for not performing any overdue 

inspections or rescheduling any missed or deferred inspections. 

• Inspection findings are communicated to licensees in a timely manner (30 calendar 

days, or 45 days for a review team inspection, as specified in IMC 0610, “Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards Inspection Reports”). 

b. Discussion 

The Agency performed 217 Priority 1, 2, 3, and initial inspections during the review 

period, of which only one inspection was conducted overdue. The review team 

sampled 17 inspection reports and found that in each instance, inspection findings 

were communicated to the licensee within 30 days after the inspection exit. The 

Agency completed more than 20 percent of candidate reciprocity inspections during 

each year of the review period. 

c. Evaluation 

The review team determined that during the review period Arizona met the performance 

indicator objectives listed in Section 3.2.a. 

d. Results 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the review team recommended, and 

the MRB agreed, that Arizona’s performance with respect to the indicator, Status of the 

Materials Inspection Program, be found satisfactory. 

3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections 

Inspections, both routine and reactive, provide assurance that licensee activities are 

carried out in a safe and secure manner. Accompaniments of inspectors performing 

inspections, and the critical evaluation of inspection records are used to assess the 

technical quality of a program’s inspection capability. 
Arizona Final IMPEP Report Page 5 

a. Scope 

The review team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure SA-102, “Reviewing 

the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Quality of Inspections,” and evaluated 

Arizona’s performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives: 

• Inspections of licensed activities focus on health, safety, and security. 

• Inspection findings are well-founded and properly documented in reports. 

• Management promptly reviews inspection results. 

• Procedures are in place and used to help identify root causes and poor licensee 

performance. 

• Inspections address previously identified open items and violations. 

• Inspection findings lead to appropriate and prompt regulatory action. 

• Supervisors conduct annual accompaniments of each inspector to assess 

performance and assure consistent application of inspection policies. 

• For programs with separate licensing and inspection staffs, to verify that procedures 

are established and followed to provide feedback information to license reviewers. 

• For Agreement States, to determine if inspection guides are consistent with NRC 

guidance. 

• An adequate supply of calibrated survey instruments is available to support the 

inspection program. 

b. Discussion 

The review team evaluated the inspection reports and enforcement documentation for 

17 radioactive materials inspections conducted during the review period. The casework 

included inspections performed by four current inspectors and covered a variety of 

medical and industrial licenses. The inspection casework and inspector accompaniments 

were also assessed for implementation of security requirements for risk significant 

radioactive material, as applicable. 

Accompaniments of three Agency inspectors were conducted by one IMPEP team 

member during the week of February 8, 2016. The inspectors were accompanied during 

health, safety, and security inspections of industrial radiography, medical diagnostic, and 

therapeutic licensees. During the accompaniments, the inspectors demonstrated 

appropriate inspection techniques, knowledge of the regulations, appropriate use of 

calibrated survey instruments; and conducted performance-based inspections. The 

inspectors were trained, well-prepared for the inspection, 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 increased controls at the licensed 

facilities. 

The review team noted the Agency performed annual supervisory accompaniments for 

each of the inspectors throughout the review period. 

c. Evaluation 

The review team determined that during the review period Arizona met the performance 

indicator objectives listed in Section 3.3.a. 
Arizona Final IMPEP Report Page 6 

d. Results 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the review team recommended, and 

the MRB agreed, that Arizona’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical 

Quality of Inspections, be found satisfactory. 

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions 

The quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of licensing actions can have a direct bearing 

on public health and safety, and security. An assessment of licensing procedures, 

actual implementation of these procedures, and documentation of communications and 

associated actions between the State licensing staff and regulated community will be a 

significant indicator of the overall quality of the program. 

a. Scope 

The review team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure SA-104, “Reviewing 

the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Quality of Licensing Actions,” and 

evaluated Arizona’s performance with respect to the following performance indicator 

objectives: 

• Licensing action reviews are thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable 

technical quality with health, safety, and security issues properly addressed. 

• Essential elements of license applications have been submitted and elements meet 

current regulatory guidance (e.g., financial assurance, increased controls, 

pre-licensing guidance). 

• License reviewers, if applicable, have the proper signature authority for the cases 

they review independently. 

• License conditions are stated clearly and are inspectable. 

• Deficiency letters clearly state regulatory positions and are used at the proper time. 

• Reviews of renewal applications demonstrate a thorough analysis of a licensee’s 

inspection and enforcement history. 

• Applicable guidance documents are available to reviewers and are followed (e.g., 

NUREG-1556 series, pre-licensing guidance, regulatory guides, etc.). 

• Licensing practices for risk significant radioactive materials are appropriately 

implemented including increased controls and fingerprinting orders (Part 37 

equivalent). 

• Documents containing sensitive security information are properly marked, handled, 

controlled and secured. 

b. Discussion 

During the review period, Arizona performed 1,531 radioactive materials licensing 

actions. The review team evaluated 23 radioactive materials licensing actions. The 

licensing actions selected for review included 2 new applications, 12 amendments, 7 

renewals, and 2 terminations. The review team evaluated casework which included the 

following license types and actions: medical diagnostic and therapy, cyclotron, 

distribution, gauges, broad scope, academic, research and development, industrial 

radiography, well logging, financial assurance, pre-licensing procedures, and 

decommissioning. 
Arizona Final IMPEP Report Page 7 

The Agency’s licensing program consists of one primary license reviewer who performs 

the initial review for the majority of licensing actions. After the application is reviewed 

and approved by the primary reviewer, it is reviewed by one of the other two qualified 

technical staff members. If the application is found to be acceptable by the reviewers, it 

is sent for final approval from the program manager, and signed by the Agency Director. 

The license reviewers utilize NUREG-1556 guidance during the review process. The 

Agency has placed the following time limits on each type of licensing action: 120 days 

for new licenses, 90-120 days for renewals, and 90 days for amendments. If the Agency 

is waiting for additional information from the licensee, the Agency will stop the time-limit 

clock until it receives an acceptable response. If the licensee does not respond to a 

request for information, the licensing action may be abandoned at the discretion of the 

license reviewer and program manager. 

Throughout the casework review, the IMPEP team discussed its questions with the 

license reviewers and program manager. There were no systemic problems identified 

with respect to thoroughness, completeness, consistency, clarity, technical quality, or 

adherence to guidance identified. The licensing program has strong administrative 

support, and all actions are dealt with in a timely manner. 

c. Evaluation 

The review team determined that during the review period Arizona met the performance 

indicator objectives listed in Section 3.4.a. 

d. Results 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the review team recommended, and 

the MRB agreed, that Arizona’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical 

Quality of Licensing Actions, be found satisfactory. 

3.5 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities 

The quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of response to incidents and allegations of 

safety concerns can have a direct bearing on public health and safety. An assessment 

of incident response and allegation investigation procedures, actual implementation of 

these procedures, internal and external coordination, and investigative and follow-up 

procedures and actions will be a significant indicator of the overall quality of the 

program. 

a. Scope 

The review team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure SA-105, “Reviewing 

the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation 

Activities,” and evaluated Arizona’s performance with respect to the following 

performance indicator objectives: 

• Incident response, investigation, and allegation procedures are in place and 

followed. 

• Response actions are appropriate, well-coordinated, and timely. 

• On-site responses are performed when incidents have potential health, safety or 

security significance. 
Arizona Final IMPEP Report Page 8 

• Appropriate follow-up actions are taken to ensure prompt compliance by licensees. 

• Follow-up inspections are scheduled and completed, as necessary. 

• Notifications are made to the NRC Headquarters Operations Center for incidents 

requiring a 24-hour or immediate notification to the Agreement State or the NRC. 

• Incidents are reported to the Nuclear Material Events Database. 

• Allegations are investigated in a prompt, appropriate manner. 

• Concerned individuals are notified of investigation conclusions. 

• Concerned individuals’ identities are protected, as allowed by law. 

b. Discussion 

During the review period, 100 incidents were reported to Arizona. Of those, 72 incidents 

involved radioactive materials with 30 of those being reportable to the NRC. The review 

team evaluated 18 radioactive materials incidents which included 10 lost/stolen 

radioactive materials, 1 abandoned gauge, 1 potential overexposure, 2 high dose rate 

medical events, 3 damaged equipment/stuck sources, and 1 contamination event. 

Arizona dispatched inspectors for onsite follow-up for eight of the cases reviewed. 

During the review period, three allegations were received by Arizona. The review team 

evaluated all three allegations, including one allegation that the NRC referred to the 

Agency, during the review period. 

c. Evaluation 

The review team determined that during the review period Arizona met the performance 

indicator objectives listed in Section 3.5.a. 

d. Results 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the review team recommended, and 

the MRB agreed, that Arizona’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 (SS&D) 

Evaluation Program, (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program, and 

(4) Uranium Recovery Program. The NRC’s Agreement with Arizona does not relinquish 

regulatory authority for a uranium recovery program. Arizona has authority to conduct 

SS&D evaluations and regulate LLRW disposal; however, the State did not perform any 

activities related to these indicators during the review period. Therefore, only the first 

non-common performance indicator, Compatibility Requirements, applied to this review. 

4.1 Compatibility Requirements 

State statutes should authorize the State to establish a program for the regulation of 

agreement material and provide authority for the assumption of regulatory responsibility 

under the agreement. The statutes must authorize the State to promulgate regulatory 

requirements necessary to provide reasonable assurance of protection of public health, 
Arizona Final IMPEP Report Page 9 

safety, and security. The State must be authorized through its legal authority to license, 

inspect, and enforce legally binding requirements, such as regulations and licenses. 

The NRC regulations that should be adopted by an Agreement State for purposes of 

compatibility or health and safety should be adopted in a time frame so that the effective 

date of the State requirement is not later than 3 years after the effective date of the 

NRC's final rule. Other program elements, as defined in Appendix A of State 

Agreements procedure SA-200, “Compatibility Categories and Health and Safety 

Identification for NRC Regulations and Other Program Elements,” that have been 

designated as necessary for maintenance of an adequate and compatible program 

should be adopted and implemented by an Agreement State within 6 months following 

NRC designation. 

a. Scope 

The review team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure SA-107, “Reviewing 

the Non-Common Performance Indicator: Compatibility Requirements,” and evaluated 

Arizona’s performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives. A 

complete list of the NRC’s regulation amendments can be found on the NRC website at 

the following address: https://scp.nrc.gov/rss_regamendents.html. 

• The Agreement State program does not create conflicts, duplications, gaps, or other 

conditions that jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation of radioactive materials 

under the Atomic Energy Act, as amended. 

• Regulations adopted by the Agreement State for purposes of compatibility or health 

and safety were adopted no later than 3 years after the effective date of the NRC 

regulation. 

• Other program elements, as defined in SA-200 that have been designated as 

necessary for maintenance of an adequate and compatible program have been 

adopted and implemented within 6 months of NRC designation. 

• The State statutes authorize the State to establish a program for the regulation of 

agreement material and provide authority for the assumption of regulatory 

responsibility under the agreement. 

• The State is authorized through its legal authority to license, inspect, and enforce 

legally binding requirements such as regulations and licenses. 

• Impact of sunset requirements, if any, on the State’s regulations. 

b. Discussion 

Arizona became an Agreement State on May 15, 1967. The Program‘s statutory 

authority is located in Title 30, Chapter 4 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, “Control of 

Ionizing Radiation.” The Agency is designated as Arizona’s radiation control agency and 

implements the radiation control program. 

Legislation was passed during the review period that the Agency believed could 

potentially have a significant effect on the Agency’s ability to amend its current 

regulations or develop new ones. When the current Governor took office in January 

2015, Executive Order 2015-01 was issued which placed a moratorium on all new rule 

development and required all Arizona agencies to review their current rules, and repeal 

any rules that were considered overly burdensome, antiquated, contradictory, redundant 

or nonessential. However, the Executive Order provided a limited list of justifiable 
Arizona Final IMPEP Report Page 10 

reasons where rulemaking could take place, but only after written approval was received 

from the Governor’s office. In March 2015, the Arizona legislature passed House Bill 

2646 which effectively turned Executive Order 2015-01 into law. In January 2016, the 

Governor signed Executive Order 2016-003 renewing Executive Order 2015-001 which 

had expired on December 31, 2015. 

While the Agency initially believed that the Executive Orders as well as the passage of 

House Bill 2646 would make it difficult to amend existing rules or create new ones, the 

Agency was able to work within the limited list of justifiable reasons for rule development 

to obtain authority from the Governor’s office for ongoing rulemaking. As a result, there 

were no overdue regulation amendments at the time of the review. 

Arizona statutes require the Agency to review all its regulations every 5 years. For each 

regulation, the Agency must describe the effectiveness of the regulation and provide the 

statutory authority under which regulation is issued. The Agency must also demonstrate 

that the regulation is consistent with other Agency regulations, and that the regulation is 

clear and understandable. 

Current NRC policy requires that Agreement States adopt certain equivalent regulations 

or legally binding requirements no later than three years after the effective date of the 

NRC’s regulations. The Arizona administrative rulemaking process normally takes 

between 1 and 3 years to complete. The public and the NRC are offered an opportunity 

to comment during the process. Comments are considered and incorporated, as 

appropriate, before the regulations are finalized and approved. 

During the 2012 IMPEP review period, the Agency submitted 12 final rule amendments 

and 1 legally binding license condition to the NRC for review. All 12 of the amendments 

were overdue for adoption at the time of submission to the NRC for a regulation review. 

Further, the Agency had eight additional amendments that were overdue for adoption, 

and not yet in process. Over the 2012 review period, the State enacted a moratorium on 

rulemaking (January 2009 through June 30, 2012) which impeded rule development by 

the Agency. The 2012 IMPEP review team found this indicator to be satisfactory, but 

needs improvement. 

During the 2016 IMPEP review period, the Agency submitted 18 regulation amendments 

(10 final and 8 proposed) and 1 legally binding license condition to the NRC for review. 

Sixteen of these regulation amendments were overdue for adoption at the time of 

submission to the NRC. Of those 16 overdue amendments, 10 amendments were 

previously identified during the 2012 IMPEP as overdue. The eight regulations 

submitted to the NRC as proposed rules were adopted by Arizona in February 2016 and 

subsequently the Agency sent the final rules for these amendments to the NRC on 

April 19, 2016. Despite the late submission of rules for regulation reviews, the Agency 

was able to adopt all regulations due for adoption by the time of the 2016 IMPEP review. 

The 2015 - 2016 moratorium on all new rule development that was effected in early 2015 

had placed a temporary halt on rule development (Executive Orders 2015-001 and 

2016-003) by the Agency until the Agency demonstrated it met certain justifiable reasons 

(listed in the Executive Order) for rulemaking. The Agency is currently working on a 

regulation package that includes one amendment coming due later in 2016 and the two 

that are coming due in 2018. 

 
Arizona Final IMPEP Report Page 11 

c. Evaluation 

The review team evaluated the changes that occurred between the 2012 and the 2016 

IMPEP review periods. The review team found that while all but two amendments were 

promulgated late, the Agency was able to catch up on overdue regulation amendments 

and adopt all outstanding amendments prior to the 2016 review. During the evaluation 

process, the review team considered if this indicator should be found satisfactory or 

satisfactory, but needs improvement. In evaluating the seven regulation amendments 

that came due during the review period, the review team found the Agency had 

improved on its process and timeliness of rule adoption with only four of seven rules 

adopted less than 7 months overdue. In addition, the Agency had timely adoption of 

rules due on March 19, 2016, and is developing the rules which are due later in 2016 

and 2018. The review team determined the Agency has made progress throughout the 

2016 review period and that it now meets the performance indicator objectives listed in 

Section 3.4.1.a. 

d. Results 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the review team recommended, and 

the MRB agreed, that Arizona’s performance with respect to the indicator, Compatibility 

Requirements, be found satisfactory. 

4.2 Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program 

Although the Arizona Agreement State Program has authority to conduct SS&D 

evaluations for byproduct, source, and certain special nuclear materials, the Agency did 

not conduct any SS&D evaluations during the review period nor did the Agency have 

any pending applications for an SS&D evaluation. Accordingly, 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 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. Those States with existing Agreements prior to 1981 were 

determined to have continued LLRW disposal authority without the need of an 

amendment. Although Arizona has such authority to regulate a LLRW disposal facility, 

the NRC has not required States to have a program for licensing a disposal facility until 

such time as the State has been designated as a host State for a LLRW disposal facility. 

When an Agreement State has been notified or becomes aware of the need to regulate 

a LLRW disposal facility, it is expected to put in place a regulatory program that will meet 

the criteria for an adequate and compatible LLRW program. There are no plans for a 

commercial LLRW disposal facility in Arizona. Accordingly, the team did not review this 

indicator. 

 
Arizona Final IMPEP Report Page 12 

5.0 SUMMARY 

As noted in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 above, Arizona’s performance was found satisfactory 

for all six performance indicators reviewed. The review team did not make any 

recommendations and there were no previous recommendations to address. 

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

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 4 years with a periodic meeting occurring mid-cycle. 
LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members 

Appendix B Inspection Accompaniments 
APPENDIX A 

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS 

Name Area of Responsibility

Bryan Parker, Region III Review Team Leader 

 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities 

Randy Erickson, Region IV Technical Staffing and Training 

 Compatibility Requirements 

Tyler Kruse, Minnesota Technical Quality of Licensing 

Todd Jackson, Region I Status of Materials Inspection 

 Technical Quality of Inspections 

 Inspector Accompaniments 
APPENDIX B 

INSPECTION ACCOMPANIMENTS 

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

Accompaniment No.: 1 License No.: 07-049 

License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 

Inspection Date: 2/9/2016 Inspector: WY 

Accompaniment No.: 2 License No.: 07-063 

License Type: Nuclear Therapy (diagnostic & therapy) Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 2/10/2016 Inspector: PK 

Accompaniment No.: 3 License No.: 11-011 

License Type: Nuclear Medicine Priority: 3 

Inspection Date: 2/11/2016 Inspector: DK