ML25115A168
| ML25115A168 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/12/2025 |
| From: | Adelaide Giantelli NRC/NMSS/DMSST/ASPB |
| To: | Edney D State of MS, Dept of Health |
| References | |
| Download: ML25115A168 (1) | |
Text
Daniel Edney, M.D., FACP, FASAM State Health Officer Mississippi State Department of Health 570 East Woodrow Wilson Avenue P.O. Box 1700 Jackson, MS 39215-1700
SUBJECT:
MISSISSIPPI DRAFT 2025 IMPEP REPORT
Dear Dr. Daniel Edney:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) uses the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) to review radiation control programs. The enclosed draft report documents the results of the Mississippi Agreement State Program (Mississippi) review conducted on March 31 - April 3, 2025. The teams preliminary findings were discussed with Mississippi on the last day of the review. The teams proposed recommendations are that Mississippi be found adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the NRCs program.
The NRC conducts periodic reviews of radiation control programs to ensure that public health and safety are adequately protected from the potential hazards associated with the use of radioactive materials and that Agreement State programs are compatible with the NRCs program. The IMPEP reviews are conducted by a team of Agreement State and NRC staff. All reviews use common criteria in the assessment and place primary emphasis on performance.
The final determination of adequacy and compatibility of each program, based on the teams report, is made by the Management Review Board (MRB) Chair after receiving input from the MRB members, the IMPEP team, and the radiation control program being reviewed. The MRB is composed of NRC senior managers and an Organization of Agreement States program manager.
In accordance with the IMPEP implementation procedures, the NRC is providing you with a copy of the draft report for your review and comment prior to submitting the report to the MRB.
Comments are requested within 28 days. This schedule will permit the issuance of the final report in a timely manner. If there are no comments to the IMPEP report, the MRB will receive the draft IMPEP report. If there are comments to the report, the team will review your response, make the necessary changes, and issue a proposed final report to the MRB.
The MRB meeting is scheduled to be conducted as a hybrid meeting on July 17, 2025, at 1:00 pm ET via Microsoft Teams. The NRC will provide you with the Microsoft Teams connection information prior to the MRB meeting. If in-person attendance is preferred, the NRC will also provide invitational travel for you or your designee to attend the MRB meeting at the NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland.
May 12, 2025
D. Edney If you have any questions regarding the enclosed report, please contact Lee Smith, IMPEP Project Manager, at (301) 415-5139 or Shawn W. Seeley, IMPEP Team Leader, at (610) 337-5102.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely, Adelaide S. Giantelli, Chief State Agreement and Liaison Programs Branch Division of Materials Safety, Security, State, and Tribal Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
Mississippi Draft 2025 IMPEP Report cc: Ronald Rogers, Director Radiological Health Program Marshall Horne, Director Office of Health Protection Laura Goodson, Assistant Senior Deputy Office of the State Health Officer Signed by Giantelli, Adelaide on 05/12/25
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM REVIEW OF THE MISSISSIPPI AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM March 31 - April 3, 2025 DRAFT REPORT
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The results of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review of the Mississippi Agreement State Program (Mississippi) are discussed in this report. The review was conducted by the IMPEP team on March 31 - April 3, 2025. Inspector accompaniments were conducted during the week of February 24, 2025.
The team found Mississippis performance to be satisfactory for the following five performance indicators: Technical Staffing and Training; Status of Materials Inspection Program; Technical Quality of Inspections; Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; and Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities; The team also found Mississippis performance to be satisfactory but needs improvement for the following performance indicator: Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements.
The team reviewed the two recommendations from the 2023 IMPEP review and proposes closing both.
Based on the findings, Mississippis improved performance, and the criteria in NRC Management Directive 5.6, Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP),
the team recommends that Mississippi be removed from heightened oversight.
The team considered whether Mississippi should be moved to a period of monitoring or completely removed from enhanced oversight. Guidance in State Agreements procedure (SA)
SA-122, Enhanced Oversight, allows monitoring to be considered for Programs being removed from heightened oversight. The team recommends that Mississippis performance over this review period did not indicate a period of monitoring would be appropriate since; (1) the team recommends all common performance indicators be rated satisfactory and the non-common performance indicator be satisfactory but needs improvement, (2) program performance has improved over this review period, and (3) recommendations have been implemented. Therefore, based on Mississippis improved performance, the team recommends that Mississippi be removed from enhanced oversight.
Accordingly, the team recommends that the Mississippi radiation control program be found adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the NRC's program. The team recommends that a periodic meeting take place in approximately two years with the next IMPEP review taking place in approximately four years.
Mississippi Draft 2025 IMPEP Report Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Mississippi Agreement State Program (Mississippi) Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review was conducted on March 31 - April 3, 2025, by a team of technical staff members from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the States of North Carolina and Tennessee. Team members are identified in Appendix A. Inspector accompaniments were conducted on February 25-26, 2025, and are identified in Appendix B.
The review was conducted in accordance with the Agreement State Program Policy Statement, published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48535), and the NRC Management Directive (MD) 5.6, Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP), dated July 24, 2019. Preliminary results of the review, which covered the period of March 4, 2023 - April 3, 2025, were discussed with Mississippi managers on the last day of the review.
In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common performance indicators and applicable non-common performance indicators was sent to Mississippi on January 13, 2025. Mississippi provided its response to the questionnaire on March 7, 2025. A copy of the questionnaire response is available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML25084A184.
The Mississippi Agreement State Program is administered by the Radiation Control Program within the Division of Radiological Health. The Division of Radiological Health is within the Division of Health Protection which is a part of the Mississippi State Department of Health. An organization chart for Mississippi is available in ML25084A198.
At the time of the review, Mississippi regulated 222 specific licenses authorizing possession and use of radioactive materials. The review focused on the radiation control program as it is carried out under Section 274b. (of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) Agreement between the NRC and the State of Mississippi.
The team evaluated the information gathered against the established criteria for each common and applicable performance indicator and made a preliminary assessment of the State of Mississippis performance.
2.0 PREVIOUS IMPEP REVIEW AND STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS The previous IMPEP review concluded on March 3, 2023. The final report is available in ML23188A186A. The results of this review and the current status of the associated recommendations are as follows:
Technical Staffing and Training: Satisfactory but Needs Improvement Recommendation: The 2023 IMPEP review team recommended that Mississippi provide training to its staff on all programmatic procedures revised since the 2022 IMPEP review.
Status: The 2025 IMPEP review team noted that Mississippi had provided the training twice a year during their Town Hall Meetings with all staff. The team recommends that this recommendation be closed.
Status of Materials Inspection Program: Satisfactory Technical Quality of Inspections: Satisfactory
Mississippi Draft 2025 IMPEP Report Page 2 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions: Satisfactory but Needs Improvement Recommendation: The 2023 IMPEP review team recommended keeping the recommendation open from the 2022 IMPEP review. They recommended that Mississippi perform an extent of condition review of all medical licenses issued since April 28, 2017, to ensure that all Radiation Safety Officers (RSO), Authorized Users (AU), authorized nuclear pharmacists, and authorized medical physicists are appropriately qualified in accordance with applicable licensing guidance.
Status: The 2025 IMPEP review team determined that Mississippi had completed the requirements of the recommendation and submitted their results to the NRC shortly after 2023 IMPEP review. Mississippi subsequently amended all affected licenses. The review team recommends this recommendation be closed Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities: Satisfactory Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements: Satisfactory Overall finding: Accordingly, the 2023 IMPEP review team recommended and the MRB Chair agreed and found the Mississippi program to be adequate to protect public health and safety, but needs improvement and compatible with the NRC's program. Furthermore, the State was removed from Probation and entered a period of Heightened Oversight. The team further recommended, and the MRB Chair agreed, that a periodic meeting be held within one year and that a follow-up IMPEP review take place approximately one year following the periodic meeting.
3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Five common performance indicators are used to review the NRC and Agreement State radiation control 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 experienced, knowledgeable, well-trained technical personnel. Under certain conditions, staff turnover could have an adverse effect on the implementation of these programs and could affect public health and safety. Apparent trends in staffing must be assessed. Review of staffing also requires 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 team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure (SA) SA-103, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Staffing and Training, and evaluated Mississippis performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
A well-conceived and balanced staffing strategy has been implemented throughout the review period.
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.
Mississippi Draft 2025 IMPEP Report Page 3 Agreement State training and qualification program is equivalent to NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) IMC 1248, Formal Qualifications Program for Federal and State Material and Environmental Management Programs.
Qualification criteria for new technical staff are established and are followed, or qualification criteria will be established if new staff members are hired.
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.
b.
Discussion Mississippi is comprised of a Radiation Control Program Director (RCPD), a Radioactive Materials Team Lead (Team Lead), four inspectors and four licensing reviewers. One staff member left the program during the IMPEP review period and there are no vacancies at this time. Work performed by the Team Lead and the technical staff comprise a total of 8.5 full-time equivalent for the radiation control program. All of the license reviewers are fully qualified. The Team Lead is a fully qualified inspector and license reviewer. The four staff level inspectors are going through the qualification process and are at different phases of qualification. One of the four inspectors is fully qualified, one has partial qualifications, and two are beginning the qualification process.
Mississippi has a training and qualification program compatible with IMC 1248. The team verified that the inspectors and license reviewers who were considered qualified at the start of the IMPEP review period have completed at least 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of refresher training every 2 years. This training consisted of attendance at meetings such as the National Materials Program monthly meetings, government to government meetings, conferences, training courses, and monthly staff meetings. The team noted during the 2023 IMPEP review that the recommendation for training staff on revisions made to operating procedures had been completed.
To assess Mississippis work related to this recommendation, the team reviewed the training and qualification journals for the Team Lead and all technical staff. The team confirmed that qualification journals were completed as appropriate and that technical staff going through the qualification process updated their journal when an activity was complete. This included receiving training on programmatic procedures that were in place at the time of each staff members qualification. The semi-annual Town Hall Staff meetings were documented in the qualification journals. Therefore, the team is proposing that this recommendation be closed.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Mississippi met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.1.a. However, the team noted during the 2023 IMPEP review that one recommendation with respect to training staff on revisions made to operating procedures had not been adequately addressed. The 2025 team determined that Mississippi was able to formally train staff on the revisions during semi-annual Town Hall staff meetings. Therefore, the team recommends that this recommendation be closed.
Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Mississippis performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found satisfactory.
Mississippi Draft 2025 IMPEP Report Page 4 d.
Management Review Board (MRB) Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.
3.2 Status of Materials Inspection Program Inspections of licensed operations are essential to ensure that activities are being conducted in compliance with regulatory requirements and consistent with good safety and security practices.
The frequency of inspections is specified in IMC 2800, Materials Inspection Program, and is dependent on the amount and type of radioactive 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.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-101, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:
Status of the Materials Inspection Program, and evaluated Mississippis performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
Initial inspections and inspections of Priority 1, 2, and 3 licensees are performed at the prescribed frequencies (https://www.nrc.gov/materials/miau/mat-toolkits.html).
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.
Candidate licensees working under reciprocity are inspected in accordance with the criteria prescribed in IMC 2800 and other applicable guidance or compatible Agreement State Procedure.
Inspection findings are communicated to licensees in a timely manner (30 calendar days, or 45 days for a team inspection), as specified in IMC 0610, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Inspection Reports.
b.
Discussion Mississippi performed 105 Priority 1, 2, 3, and 2 initial inspections during the review period.
Of these inspections 2, or 1.9 percent, were performed overdue. Currently there are no overdue inspections. Mississippi utilizes a database for tracking inspection due dates. They will be transitioning their inspection data into the inspection tab in Web Based Licensing (WBL) over the next few months.
Mississippis inspection frequencies were the same for similar license types in the NRCs program. A sampling of 24 inspection reports indicated that none of the inspection findings were communicated to the licensees beyond 30 days after the inspection exit or 45 days after the team inspection exit.
Mississippi inspected 10 of the 27 reciprocity licensees during the review period. The Team noted that Mississippis reciprocity inspection procedure is consistent with the guidance contained in IMC 2800, and Mississippi is performing these inspections in a risk-informed, performance-based manner, with consideration of factors such as inspection, priority of licensee, and duration of work in the state. The team reviewed the reciprocity inspections and determined that these were performed consistent with the policy.
Mississippi Draft 2025 IMPEP Report Page 5 c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Mississippi met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.2.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Mississippis performance with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program, be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.
3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections Inspections, both routine and reactive, provide reasonable 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 an inspection program.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-102, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:
Technical Quality of Inspections, and evaluated Mississippis 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, or senior staff as appropriate, conduct annual accompaniments of each inspector to assess performance and assure consistent application of inspection policies.
For Programs with separate licensing and inspection staffs, procedures are established and followed to provide feedback information to license reviewers.
Inspection guides are compatible with the NRC guidance.
An adequate supply of calibrated survey instruments is available to support the inspection program.
b.
Discussion The team evaluated 24 inspection reports and enforcement documentation, and interviewed inspectors involved in materials inspections conducted during the review period. The team reviewed casework for inspections conducted by four of Mississippis inspectors and covered medical, industrial, and service licenses.
A team member accompanied two inspectors on February 25 and 26, 2025. The inspector accompaniments are identified in Appendix B. The team determined that the inspectors performances observed during the inspector accompaniments indicated that the inspectors were knowledgeable of the requirements for each license type and were able to identify potential health, safety, and security concerns.
Mississippi Draft 2025 IMPEP Report Page 6 The team evaluated the performance of supervisory accompaniments of qualified inspectors and noted that all qualified inspectors were accompanied annually during the review period.
The team noted that Mississippi maintained sufficient instrumentation for inspectors to conduct independent and confirmatory radiation measurements. The instrumentation was calibrated at appropriate intervals and was appropriate for the types of licensed activities being inspected.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Mississippi met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.3.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Mississippis performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.
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, as well as security. An assessment of licensing procedures, implementation of those procedures, and documentation of communications and associated actions between the Mississippi licensing staff and regulated community is a significant indicator of the overall quality of the licensing program.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-104, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, and evaluated Mississippis 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 are consistent with current regulatory guidance (e.g., pre-licensing guidance, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 37, financial assurance, etc.).
License reviewers, if applicable, have the proper signature authority for the cases they review independently.
License conditions are stated clearly and can be inspected.
Deficiency letters clearly state regulatory positions and are used at the proper time.
Reviews of renewal applications demonstrate a thorough analysis of a licensees 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 (RSRM) are appropriately implemented including the physical protection of Category 1 and Category 2 quantities of radioactive material (10 CFR Part 37 equivalent).
Documents containing sensitive security information are properly marked, handled, controlled, and secured.
Mississippi Draft 2025 IMPEP Report Page 7 b.
Discussion During the review period, Mississippi performed 201 radioactive materials licensing actions.
The team evaluated 15 of those licensing actions. The licensing actions selected for review included one new application, nine amendments, four renewals, one termination. The team evaluated casework which included the following license types and actions: broad scope, medical diagnostic and therapeutic, industrial radiography, research and development, academic, nuclear pharmacy, gauges, self-shielded irradiators, well-logging, decommissioning, financial assurance, and change of ownership notifications. The casework sample represented work from all license reviewers.
During this review it was noted that each amendment was thoroughly reviewed by multiple reviewers, sometimes all reviewers. This is an excellent way to maintain consistency and to facilitate gaining experience for license reviewers in training.
Financial Assurance was reviewed and determined to be in compliance with Mississippi equivalent requirements, and the NRC memorandum to the regions dated July 13, 2017.
Regarding non-standard license conditions, the adoption of WBL as noted in the 2023 IMPEP continued. In addition, the reduction in conditions incorporated in each license further removes the potential for inconsistency. No issues regarding inconsistency in license conditions were noted at this time.
The team found that licensing actions completed during the 2025 IMPEP review period were thorough, and of adequate technical quality, with health, safety, and security issues properly addressed. All necessary licensee commitments were obtained, and deficiency letters and license conditions were well supported by information contained in the licensing files.
At the time of the review, no licensing actions were found to be in excess of one year in process. All actions were completed in a timely manner including multiple reviews.
The team evaluated the implementation of the Pre-Licensing Guidance and RSRM checklists. The team found that Mississippi conducted pre-licensing site visits for unknown entities and that the guidance was properly implemented. For applications with RSRM, Mississippi completed the RSRM checklist and performed on-site security reviews, as necessary. Documents containing sensitive security information were marked, handled, and secured appropriately.
Mississippis licensing team demonstrates high levels of cooperation and consistency. The program is responsive, adaptable, and the review process gives them better than average ability to quickly expose staff in training to a breadth of licensing activity.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Mississippi met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.4.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Mississippis performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be found satisfactory.
All previous licensing recommendations are closed and considered to have been corrected.
The team reviewed a number of AU and RSO additions that all meet the criteria set forth in NUREG 1556, and determined the recommendation below from the 2022 IMPEP review be closed.
Mississippi Draft 2025 IMPEP Report Page 8 Mississippi perform an extent of condition review of all medical licenses issued since April 28, 2017, to ensure that all RSO, AU, authorized nuclear pharmacists, and authorized medical physicists are appropriately qualified in accordance with applicable licensing guidance.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.
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, safety and security. An assessment of incident response and allegation investigation procedures, actual implementation of these procedures internal and external coordination, timely incident reporting, and investigative and follow-up actions, are a significant indicator of the overall quality of the incident response and allegation programs.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-105, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:
Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, and evaluated Mississippis performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
Incident response 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.
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 NRC.
Incidents are reported to the Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED) and closed when all required information has been obtained.
Allegations are investigated in a prompt, appropriate manner.
Concerned individuals are notified within 30 days of investigation conclusions.
Concerned individuals identities are protected, as allowed by law.
b.
Discussion During the review period, one reportable and one non-reportable incident were reported to Mississippi. The team evaluated the one reportable radioactive materials incident which involved damaged equipment (stuck shutter). Mississippi dispatched inspectors for an on-site follow-up for the one case reviewed. This event has been closed in the Nuclear Materials Events Database and completed by Mississippi.
When notified of an incident, Mississippi management discusses the incident and determines the appropriate level of response, which can range from an immediate response to a review of the incident during the next routine inspection. Those determinations are made based on the circumstances and the health and safety significance of the incident.
The team determined that Mississippi dispatched inspectors for on-site follow-up, as appropriate.
Mississippi Draft 2025 IMPEP Report Page 9 The team also evaluated Mississippis reporting of incidents to the NRCs Headquarters Operations Officer (HOO). The team noted that in each case requiring HOO notification, Mississippi reported the incident within the required time frame. The team also evaluated whether Mississippi had not reported any required incidents to the HOO. The team did not identify any missed reporting requirements.
During the review period, four allegations were received by Mississippi. The team evaluated all four, including two referred to Mississippi by the NRC, during the review period. One of the two referred by the NRC involved a particle accelerator over which the NRC has no jurisdiction.
In accordance with Mississippis Complaint/Allegation/Incident Procedure, with few exceptions, Mississippi state law requires that any information in Division files, whether working documents or finalized and approved documents, is open to the public. If a complainant who is known to Mississippi wishes to remain anonymous, there currently is no way to assure anonymity other than to refrain from making the complainants identity a part of any record.
Mississippi has a notebook or file divided by calendar year for all incidents and allegations.
In the near future, they will enter these incidents and allegations into an electronic database as a backup.
Mississippi has placed on the walls in their office building a large poster board Event Reporting Critical Workflow Pathway (titled Licensee to Mississippi State Department of Health [MSDH] Rad Health, MSDH Rad Health to NRC, and MS MSDH NMED Reporting) flow chart diagrams in which they used the current version of SA-300, Procedure, Reporting Material Events FINAL, as a guide. This serves as a reminder to all staff on the process for reporting and communicating events within the program.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Mississippi met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.5.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Mississippis performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator 4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Four non-common performance indicators are used to review Agreement State programs:
(1) Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements; (2) Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Program; (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program; and (4) Uranium Recovery (UR) Program. The NRC retains regulatory authority for UR Programs; therefore, only the first three non-common performance indicators applied to this review.
4.1 Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements 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 States agreement with the NRC. The statutes must authorize the State to promulgate regulatory
Mississippi Draft 2025 IMPEP Report Page 10 requirements necessary to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health, 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 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 the NRC designation. A Program Element Table indicating the Compatibility Categories for those program elements other than regulations can be found on the NRC website at the following address: https://scp.nrc.gov/regtoolbox.html.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-107, Reviewing the Non-Common Performance Indicator: Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements, and evaluated Mississippis performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives. A complete list of regulation amendments can be found on the NRC website at the following address: https://scp.nrc.gov/regtoolbox.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 of 1954, 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.
Sunset requirements, if any, do not negatively impact the effectiveness of the States regulations.
b.
Discussion Mississippi became an Agreement State on July 1, 1962. The States current effective statutory authority is contained in the Mississippi Administrative Code Title 15, Part 21, Division of Radiological Health regulations. The Mississippi Radiation Protection Law of 1976 designates the Department of Health as the radiation control agency for Mississippi.
No new legislation was created or implemented since the last IMPEP review.
Mississippi adopts the NRCs regulations by reference.
In accordance with SA-107, the review team identified five RATS IDs that were overdue for adoption by Mississippi:
1.
"Individual Monitoring Devices" (10 CFR Parts 34, 36, and 39), due for adoption on June 16, 2023 (RATS ID 2020-1), currently 21 months overdue.
2.
"Social Security Fraud Prevention" (10 CFR Parts 9 and 35), due for adoption on August 17, 2023 (RATS ID 2020-2), currently 19 months overdue.
Mississippi Draft 2025 IMPEP Report Page 11 3.
"Miscellaneous Corrections" (10 CFR Parts 1, 2, 19, 20, 21, 30, 34, 35, 40, 50, 51, 52, 60, 61, 62, 63, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 110, and 140), due for adoption on November 16, 2023 (RATS ID 2020-3), currently 17 months overdue.
4.
"Miscellaneous Corrections" (10 CFR Parts 2, 11, 20, 25, 32, 35, 37, 50, 52, 55, 70, 72, 73, 95, and 110), due for adoption on September 8, 2024 (RATS ID 2021-1), currently 7 months overdue.
5.
"Miscellaneous Corrections" (10 CFR Parts 9, 37, 40, 50, 51, 52, 55, 71, 73, and 110),
due for adoption on December 30, 2024 (RATS ID 2021-2), currently 4 months overdue.
Per SA-107, significant or essential regulations are classified as compatibility category A or B (excluding minor corrections), as outlined in SA-200. The review team identified five overdue regulation amendments applicable to Mississippi. The assessment concluded that none of these overdue amendments have adversely affected public health and safety. Three of the overdue amendments, categorized as "Miscellaneous Corrections," were deemed minor and had no impact on the health and safety of Mississippi licensees. The remaining two amendments, "Individual Monitoring Devices" and "Social Security Fraud Prevention,"
while not classified as minor, were also determined to have no effect on the health and safety of Mississippi licensees. To ensure regulatory compatibility, Mississippi intends to incorporate RATS ID 2020-1 for "Individual Monitoring Devices" (10 CFR Parts 34, 36, and
- 39) and RATS ID 2020-2 for "Social Security Fraud Prevention" (10 CFR Parts 9 and 35) through an "adopt by reference" approach during the FY 2026 Legislative Session. Whereas Mississippi uses incorporation by reference of the NRC regulations, these five were submitted for adoption on April 1, 2025.
Certain program elements, as specified in MD 5.9, Adequacy and Compatibility of Program Elements for Agreement State Programs, have been designated as necessary to ensure uniformity nationwide for compatibility purposes. During this review period, the team determined Mississippi has appropriately adopted all applicable elements and that each is compatible with the NRC.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, Mississippi met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 4.1.a, except for:
Five regulatory packages were not adopted by the Agreement State for purposes of compatibility or health and safety within the 3 years after the effective date of the NRC regulation.
Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that Mississippis performance with respect to the indicator, Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements, be found satisfactory, but needs improvement.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.
4.2 SS&D Evaluation Program Under its agreement with the NRC, Mississippi has the authority to regulate SS&D evaluations for manufacturers and distributors located within its borders. No SS&D manufacturers or distributors have existed in Mississippi since it became an Agreement State. As a result,
Mississippi Draft 2025 IMPEP Report Page 12 Mississippi does not currently have a program staffed to perform SS&D evaluations. Therefore, the team did not review this indicator, consistent with previous IMPEP reviews.
4.3 LLRW 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. Those States with existing Agreements prior to 1981 were determined to have continued LLRW disposal authority without the need for an amendment. Although, Mississippi has authority to regulate an 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 disposal program. There are no plans for a LLRW disposal facility in Mississippi. Accordingly, the team did not review this indicator.
5.0
SUMMARY
The team found Mississippis performance to be satisfactory for the following five performance indicators: Technical Staffing and Training; Status of Materials Inspection Program; Technical Quality of Inspections; Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; and Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities; The team also found Mississippis performance to be satisfactory but needs improvement for the following performance indicator: Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements.
The team reviewed the two recommendations from the 2023 IMPEP review and proposes closing both.
Based on the findings, Mississippis improved performance, and the criteria in NRC Management Directive 5.6, Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP),
the team recommends that Mississippi be removed from heightened oversight.
The team considered whether Mississippi should be moved to a period of monitoring or completely removed from enhanced oversight. Guidance in State Agreements procedure (SA)
SA-122, Enhanced Oversight, allows monitoring to be considered for Programs being removed from heightened oversight. The team recommends that Mississippis performance over this review period did not indicate a period of monitoring would be appropriate since; (1) the team recommends all common performance indicators be rated satisfactory and the non-common performance indicator be satisfactory but needs improvement, (2) program performance has improved over this review period, and (3) recommendations have been implemented. Therefore, based on Mississippis improved performance, the team recommends that Mississippi be removed from enhanced oversight.
Accordingly, the team recommends that the Mississippi radiation control program be found adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the NRC's program. The team recommends that a periodic meeting take place in approximately two years with the next IMPEP review taking place in approximately four years.
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members Appendix B Inspector Accompaniments
APPENDIX A IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS Name Areas of Responsibility Shawn Seeley, NRC RI Team Leader Technical Staffing and Training Inspector Accompaniments Steve Seeger, State of Tennessee Status of Materials Inspection Program Technical Quality of Inspections Caleb Smith, State of North Carolina Technical Quality of Licensing Actions Jackie Cook, NRC RIV Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities Solomon Sahle, NRC NMSS Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements
APPENDIX B INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS The following inspector accompaniments were performed prior to the IMPEP review:
Accompaniment No.: 1 License No.:LA-13465-L01 License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 2/25/2025 Inspectors initials: SB Accompaniment No.: 2 License No.: MS-039-01 License Type: Medical Institution WD required Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 2/26/2025 Inspectors initials: JA
Ltr ML25115A168 OFFICE NMSS/MSST R-I/DNMS/MLAB NMSS/MSST/SMPB OCIO/DIME NAME LSmith SSeeley AGiantelli DSilberfeld DATE Apr 29, 2025 Apr 28, 2025 Apr 30, 2025 May 9, 2025 OFFICE NMSS/MSST/SMPB NAME AGiantelli DATE May 12, 2025