ML20151V709
| ML20151V709 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/19/1998 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151V668 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9809150057 | |
| Download: ML20151V709 (60) | |
Text
_
l 1
l I
l l-I i
I INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM REVIEW OF KANSAS AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM l
June 15-19,1998 t
1 l
i I
i l
i PROPOSED FINAL REPORT t
l l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
l t
9809150057 980825 PDR STPRO ESOKS ATTACHMENT 1 PDR
l' i
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the review of the Kansas radiation control program. The l
review was conducted during the period June 15-19,1998, by a review team comprised of technical staff members from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Agreement State of Arkansas. Team members are identified in Appendix A. The review was conducted in I
accordance with the " Implementation of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program and Rescission of a Final General Statement of Policy," published in the Federal Reaister on October 16,1997, and the November 25,1997, revised NRC Management l
Directive 5.6," Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)." Preliminary l
results of the review, which covered the period May 19,1995, to June 19,1998, were discussed l
with Kansas management on June 19,1998.
1
[A paragraph on the results of the MRB meeting will be included here in the final report.)
The Kansas Agreement State program is administered by the Secretary, Department of Health and Environment (DHE), who reports directly to the Governor. The radiation control program is administered by the Radiation Control Program (RCP), under the direction of the Bureau of Air and Radiation, Division of Environment. DHE and RCP organization charts are included as Appendix B. The radioactive materialr inspection program is administered by the supervisor of l
the X-Ray and Materials Unit, under the direction of the RCP radiation control program director (RCPD).
l At the time of the review, the Kansas program regulated app,oximately 315 specific licenses, including manufacturers, broad academic programs, broad medical programs, brachytherapy, I
high dose afterloaders, nuclear pharmacies and industrial radiographers.
The review focused on the materials program as it is carried out under the Section 274b. (of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) Agreement between the NRO and the State of Kansas.
l In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common and non-common i
performance indicators was sent to the State on February 25,1998. The State provided a l
response to the questionnaire on May 18,1998. During the review, discussions with the State staff resulted in the responses being further developed. A copy of the final response is included in Appendix F of this report.
l The review team's general approach for conduct of this review consisted of: (1) examination of Kansas' response to the questionnaire; (2) review of applicable Kansas statutes and regulations; (3) analysis of quantitative information from the radiation control program licensing l
and inspection data base; (4) technical review of selected licensing and inspection actions; l
(5) field accompaniments of three Kansas inspectors; and (6) interviews with staff and management to answer questions or clarify issues. The team evaluated the information that it gathered against the IMPEP performance criteria for each common and non-common indicator I
and made a preliminary assessment of the radiation control program's performance.
Section 2 below discusses tne State's actions in response to recommendations made following the previous review. Results of the current review for the IMPEP common performance indicators are presented in Section 3. Section 4 discusses results of the applicable non-I
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page 2 common performance indicators, and Section 5 summarizes the review team's findings, recommendations, and suggestions. Recommendations made by the review team are comments that relate directly to program performance by the State. A response is requested from the State to all recommendations in the final report. Suggestions made by the review team are comments that the review team believes could enhance the State's program. The State is equested to consider suggestions, but no response is requested.
2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVlOUS REVIEWS During the previous routine review, which concluded on May 19,1995, three comments and recommendations were made and the results transmitted to James O'Connell, Secretary, DHE, on October 31,1995. The team's review of the current status of these recommendations is as follows:
(1)
The Kansas program had not adopted amendments equivalent to three NRC regulatory amendments: " Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Material Licensees," 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70; " Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Equipment," 10 CFR Part 34; and " Notification of incidents," 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70. In addition, the requirements of the State's regulation on financial e
assurance for decommissioning were not compatible since they differed significantly from the FRC 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70 Decommissioning Rule which became effective July 27,1988. It was noted in regard to the Emergency Preparedness Rule that at the time of the review, there were no major manufacturers or processors in Kansas and that perhaps no licensee was authorized to possess radioactive materials in excess of the criteria specified in 10 CFR 30.72, Schedule C, in which case the rule was not required. It was recommended that an audit of licenses be performed as soon as possible, to determine if adoption of the Emergency Preparedness Rule, as discussed above, is required. The other rules should be promulgated as soon as possible, and license conditions should not be used in substitution for the Industrial Radiography Equipment Rule.
Current Status: The Notification of incidents Pule, the Emergency Preparedness Rule, and the revised Decommissioning Rule became effective November 1,1996. The Industrial Radiography Equipment Rule was not formally adopted by the State. The State is currently enforcing this rule by license condition. The State advised that, immediately af ter the previous review, the former program director conducted a review of licensees and determined that none of the licensees met the possession limits specified in the Emergency Preparedness Rule. The " Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Equipment" Rule was re-evaluated under the new Commission Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility and will be addressed in Section 4.1.2.
This recommendation is closed.
(2)
The Kansas program should modify the informal policy of waiting for the Suggested State Regulation (SSR) to be issued before starting the adoption of a rule or amendment which is required for compatibility. Consideration should be given to adding a policy provision which requires drafting a proposed rule based directly on the equivalent NRC rule if an SSR is not available in time to permit adoption of a Kansas rule which would become effective within 3 years after NRC adopts the rule.
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page 3 Current Status: The State advised they are aware of the importance of adopting rules or amendments which are required for compatibility within the three-year time requirement. Therefore, if the SSR is not available, the State's policy is to base equivalent Kansas regulations on the NRC rule, with every effort made to meet the three-year time limit. This recommendation is closed.
(3)
If the response to an actualincident is to be used as a basis to meet the NRC guideline for emergency drills, we recommend that there should be a formal evaluation of the response actions compared to the planned actions to provide a feedback of lessons learned, and to form the basis for modifications to the plan or to provide additional training of responders, as indicated. The plan itself should also be modified, if necessary, to provide guidance for such a critique.
Current Status: As a result of this recommendation, procedure RHS-47 " Emergency Response Documentation" was developed to provide guidance for an evaluation of the response actions compared to the planned actions. This recommendation is closed.
3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IMPEP identifies five common performance indicators to be used in reviewing both NRC Regional and Agreement State programs. These indicators are: (1) Status of Materials Inspection Program; (2) Technical Quality of Inspections; (3) Technical Staffing and Training; (4) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; and (5) Response to Incidents and Allegations.
3.1 Status of Materials Inspection Proaram The team focused on four factors in reviewing this indicator: inspection frequency, overdue inspections, initial inspection of new licenses, and timely dispatch of inspection findings to licensees.
The team's review of the State's inspection priorities, as documented in procedure RHS-7,
" Inspection Priority System Radioactive Materials" dated January 3,1986, showed that the State's inspection frequencies for the various types or groups of licenses are at least as frequent as similar license types or groups listed in the frequency schedule in the NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2800. Some licensees, such as medical private practice and portable gauge licensees are inspected every 4 years while the NRC inspects them every 5 years.
The staff informed the team that the current tracking system projects the next inspection due date and is able to sort inspection data by type of license, name, priority, and inspection dates.
All history for a particular license, such as types and number of violations or recommendations from previous inspections and dates of previous inspections must be extracted manually from the specific licensee's file. Program management explained that their old D-Base 111 program is outdated and that funding has been approved to acquire a new computer system that will provide the capabilities needed to track inspection and compliance data.
The supervisor stated that every 6 months, he prints a list of licenses with inspections due in the next 6 months. The inspectors are given the list and divide the inspections among themselves. Management does not assign inspections by priority and geographicallocation.
l*
l l
l Kansas Proposed Final Report Page 4 Once an inspection is completed, the inspector upoates the tracking system. The supervisor monitors the tracking system monthly to ensure that inspections have been performed and the dates in the tracking system have been changed by the inspector.
In their response to the questionnaire, Kansas indicated that as of May 20,1998, only four licenses identified as requiring core inspections in IMC 2800 were overdue by more than 25 l
percent of the NRC frequency. These inspections were performed during the '.veek of June 1-5, 1998, with the inspector accompanied by an IMPEP review team member. The team verified from the records that as of June 15,1998, there were 315 active licenses and all inspections were current.
The team looked at the State's experience with overdue inspections during the entire review period and concluded that for much of the period, the State operated with a significant backlog of overdue inspections. The actual extent and severity of the backlog throughout the period could not be accurately determined because of the tracking system's inability to extract the status of the inspection program at earlier dates. Therefore, the conclusions made by the team l
are based on the results of file reviews and interviews with the staff. From the casework reviewed,6 of the 14 inspections for core licenses were conducted as overdue inspections, exceeding the 25 percent window allowed in IMC 2800. In reviewing 7 Priority 1 licenses for routine inspections, it was found that 5 were overaue by 6 months to 2 3/4 years.
The team noted in reviewing RHS-7 that the procedure allows for modification of the frequency based on experience with individual licensees; however, no specific criteria comparable to that l
stated in IMC 2800 for extension or reduction of inspection frequencies is included in RHS-7.
The State did not administratively extend the inspection frequency of any licensees during the review period.
With respect to initial inspections of new licensees, the State's policy is to inspect all new licensees within 6 months regardless of whether the licensee receives radioactive material.
Four of the 22 files reviewed were initialinspections, and all were overdue at the time of the initial inspection. The team also reviewed casework involving nine additional new licenses to ensure an accurate determination of whether the initialinspections were completed within the Kansas standard of 6 months after the license is issued. In 3 of the 9 additional files reviewed, the team found that the license had not been inspected in accordance with the Kansas policy, for a total of 7 of 13 overdue initial inspections. The inspections were completed 1 to 7 months late. Of the 46 new licenses issued within the review period, the tracking system identified only two recently issued licenses that had not been inspected.
i On examination of the factors contributing to the lack of timeliness in performing inspections at the stated frequency, the IMPEP team noted the program was not fully staffed during 6 months l
of the review period. The team also concluded that the lack of RCP management oversight during the period between the former section chief's retirement in mid-1996 until a new section chief w&s selected in January 1997 may also have contributed to the deficiencies found in the l
program during the review period.
l Based on the record of overdue inspections during the review period, the review team recommends; (1) that Kansas heighten its management oversight of the inspection due dates of core licenses (Priority 1,2, and 3 licensees) to ensure inspections are performed at the 4
required frequencies; and (2) that the new inspection tracking system currently under
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page 5 development include provisions for flagging initial inspections at an early date to ensure thy are inspected within 6 months of date of license issuance. In addition, Kansas should consider updating procedure RHS-7 to incorporate procedures on initial inspections as stated in IMC 2800, Sec ' 04.03 a.
The State reported in its response to the questionnaire that 73 licensees were granted reciprocity permits during the review period. Seven of 45 Priority 1 licensees were inspected; 1 of 9 Priority 2 licensees was inspected; and no Priority 3 licensees were inspected. Further review of the records showed that 50 separate licensees were granted 214 reciprocity permits during the period. According to the State's records,11 reciprocity inspections were performed during the review period,10 of which were in 1997 and 1998. The State did not meet the inspection percentage goals for conducting inspections of reciprocity licensees as outlined in Appendix 111 of NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 1220 (IMC 1220). RHS-7 lists reciprocity as a Friority 5 inspection frequency, as resources allow. The review team recommends that the State's " Inspection Priority System" be revised for reciprocity inspections to correspond to the inspection goals in IMC 1220. The review team recommends the State conduct reciprocity inspections at intervals equal to those stated in IMC 1220.
The timeliness of the issuance of inspection findings was also evaluated during the review of completed inspections. Of the casework examined,19 of 22 inspections performed during the review period had inspection correspondence issued to the licensee within 30 days after completion of the inspection. Sixteen of the 19 were issued within 10 days of the inspection. In the three remaining !nstances, two inspection findings were issued within 35 days and one was issued 6 months afte; the inspection.
Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Kansas' performance with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials Insp;; tion Program, be found unsatisfactory.
3.2 Technical Quality of Inspections The team reviewed the inspection reports, enforcement documentation, and inspection field notes and interviewed inspectors for 22 materials inspections conducted during the review period. The casework included all five of the State's materials inspectors, including the supervisors, and covered inspections of various types including medical (broad scope, institutions, research, private practice and mobile services), radiography, well logging, fixed and portable gauge, self-shielded irradiator, academic, service and other industrial licensees. A review team member performer 1 accompaniments of three State inspectors on four separate inspections of licensed facilities. Appendix C lists the completed inspections reviewed in depth with case-specific comments as well as the results of the accompaniments.
Kansas Enforcement Procedures outlined in RHS-24 identify actions such as hearings, orders and civil penalties. In discussing the policy, the RCPD stated there had been enly one escalated enforcement case during the review period. The 22 files reviewed by the team contained routine notifications to the licensees of clear inspections, except for one case in which violations resulted in a follow-up inspection.
f
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page 6 Based on casework, the review team noted that the routine inspections covered all aspects of the licensee's radiation safety program. Some deficiencies were noted and are documented in Appendix C. The team also noted the inspectors observed licensed operations or had operations demonstrated whenever possible. According to program management, the State occasionally conducts team inspections of licenses depending on the type, size, and inspection history of the licensee. The unit supervisor estimated that there were 3-5 team inspections per year during the review period.
The team reviewed the inspection field notes and found them to be comparable with the types of information and data collected under NRC Inspection Procedure (IP) 87100. The inspection field notes provided documentation of inspection findings in a consistent manner. The State uses one standard form of inspection field notes applicable to all types of licensees, such as nuclear medicine, portable gauges, radiography, and industrial / academic with a supplemental sheet added to cover additional specific requirements at medical and industrial radiography licensees. The inspection field notes provide documentation of the scope of the licensee's program including, posting; storage and use of radioactive material; receipt, transfer, and disposal of radioactive material; inventory; leak tests; radiation protection program; personnel monitoring; training; independent measurements; and inspection findings.
The team noted that the inspection reports did not document the names of allindividuals contacted and interviewed during the inspection other than those identified in the " Exit Summary" part of the form. The review team recommends that the inspection report form be strengthened by including names of individuals contacted and interviewed in greater detail. The inspection form also does not adequately document review of incidents and the licensee's corrective actions. This is addressed in Section 3.4 of this report.
The team noted that all Kansas inspectors used tne inspection report form in procedure RHS-28 to ensure that all aspects of the program that cot.ld be reviewed were included in the scope of the inspection. Inspectors performed independent measurements whenever the licensee was ucing licensed material and also measured for radiation levels surrounding materials in storage. inspectors' written comments in the field notes and the team member's observations during accompaniments indicate that safety issues were discussed with licensee personnel.
The inspection reports indicate, and the team member's observations during accompaniments support, that inspectors routinely toured licensee's areas such as laboratories, other locations of use, and storage areas. Operations were observed when licensed operations were being conducted by the licensee. Interviews with the licensee's users and staff were conducted by the State inspectors. The inspectors emphasized the observation of licensed activities to determine the effectiveness of the licensee's radiation safety program and compliance to the requirements. The inspection reports indicated that the inspectors examined, and when appropriate, closed-out violations found in previous inspections.
A review team member accompanied three Kansas inspectors to four separate licensed facilities during the period of June 1-5,1998. The accompaniments included an inspection of a radiography program (office only); an initial inspection of a portable gauge licensee (office only);
an inspection at a hospital having diagnostic and outpatient radiotherapy authorization; and a hospital licenser; for diagnostic, radiotherapy, brachytherapy, and teletherapy procedures, as well as nuclear pharmacy distribution. During the accompaniments, the Kansas inspectors demonstrated appropriate inspection techniques and knowledge of the regulations. The inspectors were well prepared and very thorough in their reviews of the licensee's radiation
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page 7 safety program. Each inspector emphasized, to the extant possible, observation of the licensee's activities and interviews with personnel to ascoss the effectiveness of the licensee's radiation safety program. Three of these licensees were sent enforcement letters with recommendations and/or violations clearly documented. Overall, the technical performance of the inspectors was satisfactory, and their hspections were adequate to assess radiological health and safety at the licensed facility.
The IMPEP team noted that the State relies on the technical knowledge of the inspectors to evaluate licensees' assessments of root causes of noncompliance and poor licensee performance rather than having procedures in place which normally could be used to assist the inspectors in this evaluation. The review team recommends that Kansas develop a procedure for use by the inspection staff to help them identify poor licensee performance, identify when licensee root cause evaluations should be conducted, and to help them evaluate licensee root cause assessments. Staff members' skills could also be improved by attending a training course that teaches these techniques as part of the inspector qualification process.
In response to the questionnaire, the State reported only the number and type of supervisory accompaniments performed during 1997 and 1998. In discussing accompaniments during the May 1995 to November 1997 time frame, which is not covered in the questionnaire, three staff members recalled being accompanied by the previous program director. However, no records could be found documenting the earlier accompaniments. The new program management explained to the review team that Kansas is now committed to conducting annual accompaniments and that a new form has been developed to document the accompaniments.
According to the questionnaire, two of the three inspectors, as well as both supervisors, were accompanied within the past 12 months. The third inspector was accompanied just prior to the review. The review team suggests that the State expedite the annual supervisory accompaniment of the remaining unaccompanied inspector and continue to adhere to their policy of annual supervisory inspector accompaniments.
As noted in the questionnaire, the State has available a variety of portable instruments for routine confirmatory surveys and use during incidents and emergency conditions. The instruments are a mix of low and high range Geiger-Mueller (GM) detectors and a variety of probes, micro R meters, neutron and alpha detectors, ion chambers, rate meters, and a multi-channel analyzer. The portable instruments used during the inspector accompaniments completed by the review team were observed to be operational and calibrated. The reviewer noted that the instruments are calibrated on an annual basis against radiation standards which are traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
The IMPEP reviewer inquired as to the Kansas policy on unannounced versus announced inspections. Program management indicated that the policy was to conduct unannounced inspections whenever possible. Announced inspections usually involved initial inspections or inspections at licensees in geographically-distant locations from Topeka. The IMPEP reviewer noted that 14 of the 22 files reviewed were unannounced inspections. To ensure the presence of knowledgeable licensee staff, all of the inspections performed with a review team member accompaniment were announced Inspectors have been delegated the authority to sign all routine enforcement correspondence.
Inspection f:#r.s generally lead to appropriate and prompt regulatory action. However, the supervisor apparently did not review and sign the field notes documenting the findings of the
l I
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page 8 l
inspection prior to the issuance of the inspection findings letter for 13 out of 22 of the inspections reviewed by the team. It was noted that for the five cases reviewed for inspections performed in 1998, all had management review as indicated by the materials supervisor's signature. This is a marked improvement from the lack of review in the May 1995 to December 1997 time frame. The review team recommends that the State continue to increase j
management oversight of the inspection program.
Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Kansas' performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, be found satisfactory.
1 3.3 Technical Staffino and Trainina 1
)
Issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the radioactive materials program l
staffing level and staff turnover, as well as the technical qualifications and training histories of I
the staff. To evaluate these issues, the review team examined the State's questionnaire responses relative to this indicator, interviewed program management and staff, and considered any possible workload backlogs.
The RCPD identified 3 FTEs of technical effort in the materials program. At the time of the review,2 of these 3 FTEs were devoted exclusively to the radioactive materials program, and 1 FTE was devoted exclusively to mammography inspections. The RCPD stated that the technical staff member currently completing mammography inspections would soon be working in the radioactive materials program except for approximately 12 x ray inspections per year (80% RAM and 20% mammography of 1 FTE). These technical staff members perform both inspection and licensing functions. The RCPD also identified 0.5 FTE devoted to the materials program from the X-Ray and Materials Unit Chief, who provides both management and I:
technical effort.
The RCPD directs all areas of the RCP including radioactive materials, x-ray, ndon, emergency j
response, environmental monitoring, and emergency preparedness. There are two units in i
RCP: the Environmental Monitoring and Emergency Preparedness Unit and the X-Ray and Materials Unit, each headed by a supervisor.
1 Based on the response to the IMPEP questionnaire and discussions with. program management, the review team noted that during the review period, the RCPD position was vacant from June 1996 to January 1997 when an RCP steff member was promoted to fill the position. The position of X-Ray and Materials Unit Chief was created during a reorganization and filled in October 1997. One new radiation materials inspector / reviewer was hired during the review period. Based on the review results which indicate minimal if any inspection and licensing action backlogs at the time of the review, this staffing level appears to be adequate for a program of this size. However, the deficiencies in the Kansas program, including the inspection backlog over the review period and the concems associated with the technical quality of licenses, may be related to the current staffing level.
I Also, although no vacancies exist in the radioactive materials program, one environmental technician position and one x-ray inspector position within the section were vacant at the time of the review. Also, one of the radioactive materials inspectors was working almost exclusively in the mammography inspection progrcm. During interviews, staff commented that the use of l
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page 9 radioactive materials staff for other radiation-related tasks could affect the ability of the staff to complete assigned duties. The review team suggests that the State assess whether the radioactive materials program staffing level was a contributing factor to the program deficiencies during the review period and evaluate the impact of the open positions in the RCP on radioactive materials staff to determine if added staffing or reassignment of duties is necessary.
The review team determined that successful candidates for technical positions are required to have a Bachelor's degree in science or comparable education and experience. From the review of technical qualifications of current staff, the review team concluded that Kansas has been able to hire qualified individuals.
The State does not have a documented training program; however, the State has a formal
" Training Qualification Form" modeled after the recommendations made by the joint NRC/OAS Training Working Group Recommendations for Agreement State Training Programs. Thus, if an employee has not taken a required class, it may not be apparent that they are still expected to take it.
The Kansas Ltaff is lacking formal course work in a number of different areas. Although formal course work on the transportation of radioactive materials was designated as being required for radioactive materials inspectors, none of the current radioactive materials inspectors in the State have had this class. Also, none of the current inspectors have had formal training in teletherapy / brachytherapy even though two inspectors who have been with the program for 6 and 12 years, respectively, complete such inspections routinely. In interviews, staff members expressed the need for training in several areas, including teletherapy / brachytherapy and refresher training in a variety of subjects. Also, the unit supervisor has not received formal training in licensing work, although one of his primary tasks is a supervisory review of all licensing actions. Staff members expressed concern about completing some assigned tasks without the proper training. The review team recommends that the State document a training and qualifications program equivalent to that contained in NRC's inspection Manual 1246,
" Formal Qualifications Programs in the Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Program Area," assess the current training needs of all radioactive materials staff, and provide the necessary training to ensure that all staff are properly trained to complete assigned tasks.
Based on the team's finding and the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Kansas' performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found satisfactory with recommendations for improvement.
3.4 Technical Quality of Licensina Actions The review team examined completed licensing casework and interviewed the reviewers for 18 specific licenses. Licensing actions were evaluated for completeness, consistency, proper isotopes and quantities used, qualifications of authorized users, adequate facilities and equipment, and operating and emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing actions. Licenses were reviewed for accuracy, appropriateness of the license and its conditions, tie-down conditions, and overall technical quality. Casework was evaluated for timeliness, adherence to good health physics practices, reference to appropriate regulations, documentation of safety evaluation reports, product certifications or other supporting documents, consideration of enforcement history on renewals, pre-licensing visits, peer or
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page W supervisory review as indicated, and proper signature authorities..The files were checked for retention of necessary dowments and supporting data.
The licensing casework was selected to provide a representative sample of licensing actions, which had been completed in the review period, and to include work by all reviewers. The cross-section sampling included all of the State's major licenses as defined bv the State in the questionnaire and included the following types of licenses: broad academic; oroad medical; academic; industrial radiography; medical-private practice and high dose remote afterloader; nuclear pharmacy; well logging; portable gauges; manufacturing and distribution. Licensing actions included three new licenses, five renewals, nine amendments, and three terminations.
Licensing actions during the review period included 46 new licenses and 474 amendments (including 65 terminations), for 520 licensing actions. A list of the licenses reviewed with case-specific comments can be found in Appendix D.
Overall, the IMPEP review indicated chronic problems with respect to thoroughness, completeness, consistency, and clarity of licensing actions. Of the 18 licensing files reviewed, 16 had documentation missing. In evaluating the thoroughness and completeness of the licenses, the following deficiencies were found: tie-down documentation missing from the license file; amendment issued without a management signature; letter for amendment request with supportive documentation not referenced as tie-down condition; and evaluation for financial surety and required emergency planning for licensee with a significant increase in their possession limit of H-3 and C-14. One file was missing four separate tie-down documents. In another license, the applicant did not designate a Radiation Safety Officer (RSO), yet the authorized user was named RSO when the license was issued even though there was no documentation indicating that the matter was addressed with the licensee. It was also noted,in the terminated file reviews that thete was lack of documentation of a licensee's close-out survey and determination of transfer of a radiography camera.
Inconsistencies between similar licenses were noted, including in the use of the Kansas Standard License Condition for transportation of radioactive material, application of the Quality Management Plan, and requirements for a radiation protection program. Another inconsistency found was the application of a standard license condition involving radiographic exposure devices and associated equipment requirements for radiographers. This topic is discussed further in Section 4.1.2.
Clarity of licensing actions was also a problem in the licensing casework reviewed. In one of the Academic, Broad A licenses, the frequency of audits was not addressed during the reviews, and it was unclear who would conduct these reviews. In a similar license, the frequency of the annual audits was listed as " periodic."
The lack of documentation throughout the entire licensing review process affects the technical quality of licenses, and could lead to potential health and safety problems. For example, two I
separate licenses reviewed did not adequately address proper radiation protection procedures, even though they were licensed to use plutonium-238 in any form, and uranium-233 and 235 in research and development procedures, respectively. The pharmacy incorrectly licensed to use i
plutonium was also licensed to transfer the plutonium as well as nickel-63 to an authorized recipient "to possess and use the radiopharmaceuticals." As discussed previously, a Quality Management Plan was not requested or reviewed for a medicallicensee. These items are discussed in greater detailin Appendix D. The number of the potential health and safety issues
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page 11 due to licensing inadequacies cannot be accurately assessed because of the lack of file documentation.
The review team recommends that program management consider increasing supervisory oversight to ensure that all pertinent items are adequately and properly addressed during the review process to provide quality assurance and to improve the technical quality of licenses.
The review team also recornmends that the State begin a self-evaluation of all existing licenses to determine the technical quality and to identify potential health and safety issues. This evaluation should be accomplished as soon as possible to identify and correct other possible license deficiencies. In addition, the State should ask licensees to supply copies of any missing documents that should be included with the application.
The review process was discussod with the primary reviewers and staff. Application packages containing guidance are sent to each license applicent. Reviewers use this guidance as the main reference to verify that all appropriate items are adequately addressed in the licensing actions. Other applicable guidance from the NRC is available for additional reference.
inspection compliance history is evaluated to determine license adequacy and to identify potential health and safety issues. During interviews with the staff, it was indicated tha' the latest Kansas regulatior.s, issued in 1996, are not reflected in the license guidance. Tre review team recommends that RCP update the license guidance to address and parallel the current Kansas Radiation Protection Regulations to assist in the consistency and accuracy of the license review process.
License applications are reviewed following standard procedures, which are similar to those used by the NRC. Reminder notices are sent to the licensees 30-60 days prior to the expiration date. Timely renewalletters were found in the license files. Staff typically use Standard Licensing Conditions similar to those used by the NRC. Licenses are issued for 2 years and can be easily renewed if there are no significant changes in the radiation protection program.
Licenses are amended in entirety after 10 years or if five major amendments are requested.
Renewals are processed, reviewed and often completed within 30 days of receipt. Currently, there is no licensing backlog. License files have all current inspection data, providing license reviewers with incident reports and inspection reports during the renewal period. Incidents are, for the most part, cross-referenced in the licensing files.
Alllicensing actions receive supervisory review and were signed by management. These reviews are conducted by the unit supervisor or RCPD. Requests for additional information or clarifications are returned to the primary reviewer as needed. The RCPD conducts a final review prior to signature and issuance of the license. There is no documented checklist or verification of secondary reviews, and only the signature of the RCPD indicates that the licensing actions are complete.
Primary and secondary reviewers do not use check lists or document verification of the thoroughness and completeness of the licensing actions. Staff members indicated that, based on their technical experience and familiarity with the licensees, the license reviews are assumed to be thorough and complete, and there is no unique documentation of the reviewer's assessment. Interviews with the staff indicated that unless additional information was requested, it is assumed that all items are satisfactory. Deficiencies are addressed in letters to the licensee using appropriate language. License reviewers frequently use telephone
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page 12 conversations to communicate with the licensee requesting additional information.
Documentation of telephone conversations was not available in many files during the IMPEP evaluation. The review team recommends that licensing check lists be developed, used, and retained in the file to ensure that all elements of the application have been submitted and that the license is complete.
RCP staff perform pre-licensing visits on a case-by-case basis for unusuallicensing requests.
These visits are at the discretion of the reviewers. During interviews with staff members, one member indicated that he conducted pre-licensing visits approximately 10-15 percent of the time and that he hand-delivered licenses occasionally if there were inspections due in that part of the State. No documentation of pre-licensing visits or hand-delivered licenses was observed or reviewed during the IMPEP evaluation. The review team recommends that the State place documentation of all pre-licensing visits in the appropriate licensing file.
Of the 18 licensing files reviewed, only four deficiency letters were found, and the deficiencies identified in the letters were minor. Though it is not impossible for so few problems to be present in this size sample of licenses, the review team is concerned about the small number of deficiencies identified by the State in this casework, the quick turn around time for license reviews, and the technical quality of the licenses reviewed.
Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that the Kansas' performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be found unsatisfactory.
3.5 Resoonse to incidents and Alleaations in evaluating the effectiveness of the State's actions in responding to incidents and allegations, the review team examined the State's response to the questionnaire relative to this indicator, reviewed the incidents reported for Kansas in the " Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED)"
against the Kansas records, interviewed the incident respondents, and reviewed in depth the four reportable incidents that occurred during the review period. The team also reviewed the State's response to two allegations including the one allegation referred to the State by the NRC during the review period. A list of the incident casework with comments is included in Appendix E.
The records showed that 41 incidents and two allegations were reported to the State during the review period. The team reviewed the incident log and performed a cursory review of the incident files and found that only four of the incidents involving AEA material required a report by the licensee.
The Kansas Department of Emergency Management (DEM) has the lead for all hazardous materials accidents within the State. Except for reports from licensees during office hours, all events are reported to DEM, which sends first responders equipped with survey meters to isolate and barricade the area until the RCP can respond and assume responsibility for handling the event. Allegations and incidents involving Kansas licensees are traditionally handled by the RCP X-Ray and Materials Unit, while all other incidents are assigned to the Environmental Monitoring and Emergency Preparedness Unit. However, staffs of both units are cross-trained and respond as needed.
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page 13 The team found that incident response procedures are in place except for misadministrations.
The incident response procedures were last revised in 1983 and have not been revised to incorporate NMED per OSP procedure " Reporting Material Events - SA-300," dated February 25,1998. The team recommends that the State revise their incident response procedure to conform with OSP procedure, SA 300, including medical events.
The team found the procedures for handling allegations were adequate (note, the State refers to allegations as " complaints").
In the incident and allegation cases reviewed in depth, the State responded promptly with on-site investigations; however, the quality of the investigation and documentation was inconsistert. In four of the six, the investigations were thorough and well documented; necessary follow-through and close-out actions were taken; violations were cited or other corrective actions were taken to ensure prompt licensee compliance; proper notifications were made; and there was good coordination with other agencies. However, in the case of one incident and one allegation, there was no management closure, no indication of management input or review, and no record of the incident in the licensee's file. The casework for this incident had apparently been lost for months, and thus there was no information that the investigation was complete. In response to the allegation in question, the State did respond by sending an inspector to interview the Radiation Safety Officer at the facility where the alleged exposure occurred, but from the documentation it appeared that the investigative actions were incomplete. There was no evidence of interviews with the former employee allegedly involved, no re-enactment, and no indication the alleger was notified of the State's actions or the results of the investigation. The State contacted the out-of-state company involved and they responded that they had no knowledge of any potential exposure, The RCP procedures call for management involvement and evaluation of incident responses.
In reviewing the incident log and non-reportable incident records, the team found several instances where a copy of the incident investigation report was missing from either the incident file or the licensee's file. Only about half were signed off with management review and evaluation and/or closure information. Tr'c review team recommends that a system be established to track the progress of incider' investigations and to verify that each investigation is evaluated by management, that all reporting mquirements are met, that follow-up actions and close-out information are documented.
The inspection reports indicated that nearly all incidents w ra reviewed at the next inspection.
However, the inspection report form uses only a check mark to indicate the review, and the results of the review or corrective actions taken by the licensee are not fully documented. The review team recommends that the inspection procedure be revised to include narrative documentation of the inspector's review of incidents and description of the licensee's corrective actions.
Records showed that the four reportable events reviewed by the team were initially promptly reported to the NRC operations center and to Region IV, and all appeared in the NMED listing.
However, no follow-up or close-out information was provided to the NRC unless the State was specifically asked. The review tearn racommends the State send copies of final close-out reports to the NRC in accordance with the OSP procedure, " Reporting Material Events - SA-300." The State responded to this recommendation by sending final close-out reports to the NRC in an August 20,1998 letter from the RCPD.
I i
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page 14 Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Kansas' performance with respect to the indicator, Response to incidents and Allegations, be found satisfactory with recommendations for improvement.
4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IMPEP identifies four non-common performance indicators to be used in reviewing Agreement State programs: (1) Legislation and Prog am Elements Required for Compatibility; (2) Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program; (3) Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program; and (4) Uranium Recovery Program. Kansas' Agreement does not include a uranium recovery program, so only the first three non-common performance indicators were applicable to this review.
4.1 Leaislation and Proaram Elements Reauired for Comoatibility 4.1.1 Leaislation Along with their response to the questionnaire, the State provided the review team with the opportunity to review copies of legislation that affect the radiation control program. Legislative authority to create an agency and enter into an agreement with the NRC is granted in Article 16
- Nuclear Energy Development and Radiation Contro! Act, Kansas Statutes, K.S.A. 48-1601 to 48-1619. The Bureau of Air and Radiation. RCP,is designated as the State's radiation control agency. The review team noted that the legislation had not changed since being found adequate during the previous review.
4.1.2 Proaram Elements Reauired for Comoatibility The Kansas Regulations for Control of Radiation, found in KAR 28-35-133 through KAR 28-35-363 of the State of Kansas Radiation Protection Regulations apply to all ionizing radiation, whether emitted from radionuclides or devices. Kansas requires a license for possession, and use, of all radioactive material including naturally occurring materials, such as radium, and accelerator-produced radionuclides. Kansas also requires registration of all equipment designed to produce x-rays or other ionizing radiations.
1 Kansas has a nine-step process to adopt regulations including 61-day minimum period for public comment and holding a public hearing. The process normally takes 16 to 25 weeks from i
the regulations being submitted to their taking effect. The RCPD has responsibility for maintaining the State's regulations.
The team evaluated Kansas' responses to the questionnaire and reviewed the regulations adopted by the State since the May 19,1995, review to determine the status of the Kansas regulations under the new Commission Policy Statement on Adequacy and Comnatibility. The team also veified that the compatibility table in the questionnaire was accurate.
All reguistions adopted by the State during the review period (adopted November 1,1996) were sent to the NRC as both draft and final regulations for approval. The NRC reviewed these regulations, and the State's final rules reflected the NRC's comments.
l
k Kansas r>roposed Final Report Page 15 The team found that the State had adopted all regulations required for compatibility as of the time of this review except for the " Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Equipment" i
rule which is currently being enforced by license condition. The team checked a sampling of 14 industrial radiography licenses and found that nine had been amended to include the equipment
- requirement. The review team recommends that the State review and amend all remaining industrial radiography licenses with license conditions necessary to meet the " Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Equipment" requirement, and expedite adoption of the rule which was due January 10,1994.
Also, two regulations adopted l>y the State, prior to the review period, were adopted before the NRC rules were published as final in the Federal Reaister:
" Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and Reporting," 10 CFR Parts 20 and e
61 amendments (60 FR 15649) that became effective March 1,1998. This amendment was published in final form March 27,1998.
" Radiation Prot %er, Requirements: Amended Definitions and Criteria," 10 CFR 19 and 20 amendments (60 FR 36038) that became effective August 14,1998. This amendment was published in final form July 13,1995.
Both of these rules were adopted by Kansas on October 17,1994. Because the drafts of these NRC rules were revised prior to being published in their final form, the Kansas regulations may contain incompatibilities. The review team recommends that the State compare the Kansas regulations involved with the " Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and Reporting" and " Radiation Protection Requirements: Amended Definitions and Criteria" amendments against the final NRC rules and make any necessary changes to ensure compatibility.
i The State has not adopted the following regulations, but intends to address them by rulemaking
)
or by adopting generic legally binding requirements:
i
" Clarification of Decommissioning Funding Requirements," 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70 e
amendments (60 FR 38235) that became effective November 24,1995.
' Compatibility with the International Atomic Energy Agency," 1' 4 Part 71 amendment (60 FR 50248) that became effective April 1,1996.
.)
o
" Medical Administration of Radiation and Radioactive Materials," 10 CFR Parts 20 and 35 amendments (60 FR 48623) that became effective October 20,1995.
e
" Termination or Transfer of Lice'nsed Activities: Record Keeping Requirements,"
10 CFR Parts 20,30,40,61,70 amendments (61 FR 24669) that became effective June 17,1996.
e
" Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne Effluents of Radioactive Materials; Clean Air Act," 10 CFR Part 20 amendment (61 FR 65119) that became effective January 9,1997.
" Recognition of Agreement State Licenses in Areas Under Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction Within an Agreement State," 10 CFR Part 150 amendment (62 FR 1662) that became effective February 27,1997.
i l
i
.. ~
i Kansas Proposed Final Report Page 16
" Criteria for the Release of Individuals Administered Radioactive Material," 10 CFR Parts e
20 and 35 amendments (62 FR 4120) that became effective May 29,1997.
" Fissile Material Snipments and Exemptions," 10 CFR Part 71 amendment (62 FR 5907) e that became effective February 10,1997.
" Licenses for industrial Radiography and Radiation Safety - Requirements for Industrial e
Radiography Operations," 10 CFR Parts 30,34,71,150 amendments (62 FR 28947) that became effective June 27,1997.
" Radiological Criteria for License Termination," 10 CFR Parts 20, 30,40,70 e
amendments (62 FR 39057) that became effective August 20,1997.
l it is noted that Management Directive 5.9, Handbook, Part V, paragraph (1)(c)(iii), provides that the above regulations should be adopted by the State as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 3 years after the effective date of the new Commission Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility, i.e., September 3, 2000.
Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Kansas' performance with respect to the indicator, Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility, be found satisfactory.
4.2 Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Proaram At the time of the review, Kansas had no sealed source or device manufacturers nor were any applicants anticipated in the near future. The State, however, does not wish to relinquish the authority to regulate SS&D manufacturers in the future. The State has committed in writing in a memorandum to their files to have a program in place prior to performing evaluations.
Accordingly, the review team did not review this indicator.
4.3 Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disoosal Proaram
' In 1981, the NRC amended its Policy Statemerit, " Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in l
Discontinuance of NRC Authority and Assumption Thereof by States Through Agreement" to allow a State to seek an amendmen' 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 Kansas has LLRW disposal j
authority, NRC has not required States to have a program for licensing a LLRW disposal facility until such time as the State has been designated as a host State for a LLRW disposal facility.
When an Agreement State has been notified or becomes aware of the need to regulate a LLRW disposal facility, they are expected to put in place a regulatory program which will meet the criteria for an adequate and compatible LLRW disposal program. There are no plans for a LLRW disposal facility in Kansas. Accordingly, the review team did not review this indicator.
5.0
SUMMARY
As noted in Sections 3 and 4 above, the review team found that Kansas' performance with respect to the performance indicators Technical Quality of Inspections and Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility, be found satisfactory. The State's performance
1 Kansas Proposed Final Report Page 17 with respect to the performance indicators, Technical Staffing and Training, and Response to incidents and Allegations, were found to be satisfactory with recommendations for i
improvement. The State's performance with respect to two indicators, Status of Materials Inspection Program and Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, were found to be unsatisfactory. Although the inspections are currently up to date, the team found that a backlog of overdue inspections existed for much of the review period. The team was concerned by the unsatisfactory quality of the licensing actions. The team found that,in some cases, the reviewers failed to address health and safety concerns and that repeated problems existed with respect to thoroughness, completeness, consistency, clarity, and technical quality of the licenses.
The team recommends that the Management Review Board (MRB) find the Kansas Agreement State Program " adequate, but needs improvement" and " compatible." The team also i
recommends placing the Kansas program on heightened oversight, a process that would involve monthly teleconferences with the State and bimonthly written progress reports from the State. A follow-up review is recommended for FY 1999.
l Below is a summary list of suggestions and recommendations, as mentioned in earlier sections of the report, for evaluation and implementation, as appropriate, by the State.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.
Based on the record of overdue inspections during the review period, the review team recommends: (1) that Kansas heighten its management oversight of the inspection due dates of core licenses (Priority 1,2, and 3 licensees) to ensure inspections are performed at the required frequencies; and (2) that the new inspection tracking system currently under development include provisions for flagging initial inspections at an early date to ensure they are inspected within 6 months of date of license issuance, in addition, Kansas should consider updating procedure RHS-7 to incorporate procedures on initial inspections as stated in IMC 2800, Section 04.03 a. (Section 3.1) 2.
The review team recommends that the State's " Inspection Priority System" be revised for reciprocity inspections to correspond to the inspection goals in IMC 1220.
(Section 3.1) 3.
The review team recommends the State conduct reciprocity inspections at intervals equal to those stated in IMC 1220. (Section 3.1) 4.
The review team recommends that the inspection report form be strengthened by including names of individuals contacted and interviewed in greater detail. (Section 3.2) 5.
The review team recommends that Kansas develop a procedure for use by the inspection staff to help them identify poor licensee performance, identify when licensee root cause evaluations should be conducted, and to help them assess licensee root cause evaluations. Staff members' skills could also be improved by attending a training course that teaches these techniques as part of the inspector qualification process.
(Section 3.2)
~
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page 18 6.
The review team recommends that the State continue to increase management oversight of the inspection program. (Section 3.2) 7.
The review team recommends that the State document a training and qualifications program equivalent to that contained in NRC's inspection Manual 1246, " Formal Qualifications Programs in the Nuclear LLiterials Safety and Safeguards Program Area,"
assess the current training needs of all radioactive materials staff, and provide the necessary training to ensure that all staff are properly trained to complete assigned tasks. (Section 3.3)
)
8.
The review team recommends that program management consider increasing supervisory oversight to ensure that all pertinent items are adequately and properly addressed during the review process to provide quality assurance and to improve the technical quality of licenses. (Section 3.4) 9.
The review team also recommends that the State begin a self-evaluation of all existing licenses to determine the technical quality and to identify potential health and safety issues. This evaluation should be accomplished as soon as possible to identify and correct other possible license deficiencies. In addition, the State should ask the licensee to supply copies of any missing documents that should be included with the application. (Section 3.4) 10.
The review team recommends that RCP update the license guidance to address and parallel the current Kansas Radiation Protection Regulations to assist in the consistency and accuracy of the license review process. (Section 3.4) 11.
The review team recommends that licensing check lists be developed, used, and retained in the file to ensure that all elements of the application have been submitted and that the license is complete. (Sedon 3.4) 12.
The review team recommends that the State place documentation of al! pre-licensing visits in the appropriate licensing file. (Section 3.4) 13.
The team recommends that the State revise their incident response procedure to conform with OSP procedure, SA-300, including medical events. (Section 3.5) 14.
The review team recommends that a system be established to vack the progress of incident investigations and to verify that each investigation is evawsted by management, that all reporting requirements are met, that follow-up actions and cloe-out information are documented. (Section 3.5) 15.
The review team recommends that the inspection procedure be revised to include narrative documentation of t',inspectoi's review of incidents and description of the licensee's corrective actions. (Section 3.5) 16.
The review team recommends the State send copies of final close-out re;:erts to the NRC in accordance with the OSP procedure, " Reporting Material Events - SA-300."
(Section 3.5)
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page 19 17.
The review tearn recommends that the State review and amend all remaining industrial radiography licenses with license conditions necessary to meet the " Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Equipment" requirement, and expedite adoption of the rule which was due January 10,1994. (Section 4.1.2) 18.
The review team recommends that the State compare the Kansas regulations involved with the " Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and Reporting" and
" Radiation Protection Requirements: Amended Definitions and Criteria" amendments against the final NRC rules and make any necessary changes to ensure compatibility.
(Section 4.1.2)
SUGGESTIONS:
1.
The review team suggests that the State expedite the annual supervisory accompaniment of the remaining unaccompanied inspector and continue to adhere to i
their policy of annual supervisory inspector accompaniments. (Section 3.2) 2.
The review team suggests that the State assess whether the radioactive materials program staffing level was a contributing factor to the program deficiencies during the review period and evaluate the impact of the open positions in the RCP on radioactive materials staff to determine if added staffing or reassignment of duties is necessary.
(Section 3.3) i l
l LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS l
Appendix A iMPEP Review Team Members Appendix B Kansas Organization Charts Appendix C Inspection Casework Reviews Appendix D Licensing Casework Reviews Appendix E incident Casework Reviews Appendix F Kansas' Questionnaire Response July 9. '998 Letter to Richard L. Bangart from Vick L. Cooper Kansas' Response to Review Findings 1
4 O
e i
APPENDIX A iMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS Name Area of Responsibility l
Jack Hornor, RIV, SAO Team Leader Response to incidents and Allegations Jenny Johansen, RI Status of Materials inspection Program l
Technical Quality of Inspections Lance Rakovan, OSP Technical Staffing and Training Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility Jared Thompson, Arkansas Technical Quality of Licensing Actions l
I
. -. - - -. - =...
i l
e 1
l 1
l I
l APPENDIX B KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT ORGANIZATION CHARTS l
l l
l e
Stat 2 cf Kctsas Bill Graves, G;rrn:r I
dministrative partment ofIlealth & Environment Advisory Commissionb Appeals Gary R. Mitchell, Secretary Boards & Task Forc c Info.
Asst. for Internal Asst. Secretary / General Asst. for Heahh Asst for Officer Management Counsel Policy Management Brown Barry Greis Linda Fund Carolyn Duwe Jim Murp Public laformation Office Division of Environment personne services Purchasing Ron Hammerschmidt, Ph.D.
Facilities Support Accounting I
l Bureau of Air and Radiation s
John Irwin, P.E., Director Prof. Env. Engineer til I
Radiation Control Section Vick Cooper Environmental Scientist V
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENT Bureau oF Air and Radiation (Page 6 of 6)
Radiation Control Section December 11, 1997 Env. Scientist V 53179 Vick Cooper FF Secretary II 71194 Pas Watson FF I
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING &
X-RAY & MATERIALS UNIT EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS UNIT RADON PROGRAM Public Health Physicist Public Health Physicist 50062 111226 Tom Conley Ron Fraass FF FF Radiation Cntrl Inspector Radiation Cntrl Inspector Radiation Cntrl Inspector Env. Technician 77758 77759 55S25 175105 Marjorie Greep Bart Lago David Whitfill Larry Parks FF FF FF
++
FF Radiation Cntri Inspector Radiation Cntri Inspector Radiation Cntrl Inspector 64805 63306 109889 James Johnson Ivan Schridt Kim 5teves FF FF FF 27.
++ Unclassified Special Project Position
APPENDIX C INSPECTION CASEWORK REVIEWS NOTE: ALL INSPECTIONS LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT ARE INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS ONLY; NO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE IMPEP TEAM File No.: 1 Licensee: Wichita State University License No: 31-C155-01 Location: Wichita, Kansas Inspection Type: Routine, Unannounced License Type: Academic Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 5/2/96 Inspector: JJ l
Comment:
a)
No manager's signature indicating supervisory review of inspection report.
t File No.: 2 Licensee: University of Kansas Medical Center License No: 18-C054-01 Location: Kansas City, Kansas inspection Type: Routine, Announced License Type: Broad Medical Priority: 1 1
Inspection Date: 4/24/98 Inspector: JJ l
Comments:
a)
Input error into computer inspection date/next inspection due date tracking system.
Inspection entered as performed 3/24/98.
b)
Prior inspection occurred on 10/2/95. Licensee was not inspected in 1996 or 1997.
c)
Documentation of misadministration review inconsistent with prior inspection reports.
i File No.: 3 Licensee: Coleman Company,Inc.
License No: 37-B739-01 Location: Wichita, Kansas inspection Type: Initial, Unannounced License Type: Industrial Distribution Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 1/29/98 Inspector: BL Comment:
a)
License issued 7/26/96. Initialinspection did not occur until 1/29/98.
File No.: 4 -
Licensee: Certainteed Corporation License No: 22-B452-01 Location: Kansas City, Kansas Inspection Type: Routine Unannounced License Type: Fixed Gauge Priority: 4 Inspection Date: 2/23/96 Inspector: JJ Comment:
a)
No manager's signature indicating supervisory review of inspection report
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page C.2 Inspection File Reviews i
File No.: 5 Licensee: Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing License No: 22-B022-01 Location: Kansas City, Kansas inspection Type: Routine Unannounced l
License Type: Fixed Gauge Priority: 4 l
Inspection Date: 9/1/95 Inspector: JJ File No.: 6 Licensee: Beta Chem Laboratory License No: 25-C686-01 Location: Leawood, Kansas '
Inspection Type: Initial, Unannounced i
License Type: Industrial Laboratory Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 3/5/97 Inspector: JJ Follow up Inspection: 5/27-28/97 j
Comments:
a)
No inspection report written for initial inspection other than inspector's hand written notes to support enforcement letter issued 3/11/97.
I b)
License issued 3/12/93. Initial inspection did not occur until 3/5/97.
c)'
Construction of citation does not convey exactly what parts of regulation licensee needs to sddress to correct program.
d)
Normally a Priority 3 inspection frequency but kept at Priority 1 based on initial inspection.
e)
No manager's signature indicating supervisory review of inspection report i
File No.: 7 Licensee: Thomas Construction, Inc License No: 22-B665-01 Location: Fort Scott, Kansas inspection Type: Routine Announced License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 3/15/96 Inspector: JJ Coramerts:
a)
No manager's signature indicating supervisory review of inspection report b)
The license type is normally a Priority 4. Inspector recommended change to Priority 4, but the priority was not changed.
File No.: 8 Licensee: Intermountain Testing License No: 21 B389-01 Location: Liberal, KS Inspection Type: Routine Announced License Type: Radiography Priority:1 Inspection Date: 6/12/97 Inspector: JJ Comments:
a)
Prior inspection occurred on 6/3/93. Licensee should be inspected on an annual basis.
b)
Inspector did not sign report. No manager's signature indicating supervisory review of inspection report.
-=,
~ _ _.
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page C.3 Inspection File Reviews File No.: 9 Licensee: CC Enviroklean License No: 21-B389-01 Location: Kansas City, Kansas inspection Type: Routine Unannounced License Type: Industrial Service Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 6/16/97 Inspector: BL Comments:
a)
Prior inspection occurred on 9/14/95. Licensee should be inspected on an annual basis.
b)
No manager's signature indicating supervisory review of inspection report c)
No copy of 12/22/97 enforcement letter to licensee in file.
d)
Report and letter to license not issued until 6 months after inspection completed.
File No.: 10 Licensee: Cornish Wireline Service License No: 27-8128-01 Location: Chanute, Kansas inspection Type: Routine Unannounced License Type: Well Logger Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 12/6/95 Inspector: JJ Comments:
a)
Prior inspection occurred on 7/20/89. Licensee should be inspected every 3 years.
b)
No manager's signature indicating supervisory review of inspection report File No.: 11 Licensee: Log-Tech,Inc.
License No: 27-856B-01 Location: Hays, Kansas inspection Type: Routine Unannounced License Type: Well Logger Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 4/3/96 Inspector: JJ Comment:
a)
No manager's signature indicating supervisory review of inspection report File No.: 12 Licensee: Kansas Blood Bank License No: 24-B733-01 Location: Topeka, Kansas Inspection Type: Initial, Unannounced License Type: Irradiator, Self Shielded Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 8/8/97 Inspector: JJ Comments:
a)
No manager's signature indicating supervisory review of inspection report, b)
License issued 3/19/96. Initialinspection did not occur until 8/8/97.
b l
l l
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page C.4 l
Inspection File Reviews File No.: 13 Licensee: IBT Reference Lab License No: 15-B539-01 Location: Lenexa, Kansas inspection Type: Routine Unannounced License Type: Medical Private Practice Priority: 4 Inspection Date: 3/24/98 Inspector: BL j
Comment:
a)
Prior inspection occurred on 1/5/90. Licensee should be inspected every 4 years.
File No.: 14 Licensee: Rivest Testing U.S.A., Inc.
License No: 21-B682-01 Location: Tulsa Oklahoma inspection Type: Routine Announced License Type: Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 12/16/97 Inspectors: DG/TC Comments:
a)
Inspection limited to records review and discussion with licensee representative.
Previous inspection in 1/17/96 was also a records review.
b)
Prior inspection occurred on 1/17/96. Licensee should be inspected annually.
c)
No manager's signature indicating supervisory review of inspection report. Supervisor was one of the inspectors.
File No.: 15 Licensee: Bryan Enterprises License No: 12-B712-01 Location: Lincoln, Nebraska inspection Type: Initial, Announced License Type: Mobile Medical Service Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 6/10/98 Inspectors: DG Comments:
a)
License issued 12/10/94. Initial inspection did not occur until 6/10/98. Not identified on Kansas questionnaire as being overdue.
b)
Results prepared but not sent yet to licensee as of 6/19/98 File No.: 16 Licensee: Miami County Medical Center License No: 19-B734-01 Location: Paola, Kansas inspection Type: Special Announced License Type: Medical Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 1/9/97 Inspector: JJ Comment:
a)
No manager's signature indicating supervisory review of inspection report.
l I
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page C.5 Inspection File Reviews File No.: 17 I
Licensee: Quintile Inc.
License No: 16-B678-01 Location: Lenexa, Kansas inspection Type: Routine Unannounced License Type: Medeial Research Priority: 1 l
Inspection Date:11/26/97 Inspectors: JJ i
Comments:
a)
Inspection limited to records review and discussion with licensee. No radioactive j
materials on hand.
b)
Prior inspection occurred on 10/11/95. Licensee should be inspected annually.
c)
Recommended change to Priority 2 for this licensee by inspector not approved by Supervisor.
d)
Letter to licensee with results of inspection issued at 35 days after inspection.
I File No.: 18 Licensee: AudreyV. Wegst License No: 33-B462-01 Location: Mission, Kansas Inspection Type: Routine Announced License Type: Service Priority: 4 Inspection Date: 12/1/95 Inspector: VC Comments:
a)
Prior inspection occurred on 5/22/87. Licensee should be inspected every 4 years.
b)
Change of priority from 3 to 4 based on 12/1/95 inspection.
c)
No manager's signature indicating supervisory review of inspection report.
l File No.: 19 Licensee: Mid-America Calibration License No: 33-C749-01 Location: Shawnee Mission, Kansas Inspection Type: Routine Unannounced j
License Type: Service Priority: 3 j
inspection Date: 8/25/97 Inspector: JJ Comment:
l a)
No manager's signature indicating supervisory review of inspection report.
l File No.: 20 Licensee: Augusta Medical Complex, Inc.
License No: 19-B358-01 Location: Augusta, Kansas inspection Type: Routine Unannounced License Type: Medical Priority:. 3 Inspection Date:
Inspector. JJ Comment:
a)
Letter to licensee with results of inspection issued after 35 days.
I k
4 i
w
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page C.6 Inspection File Reviews File No.: 21 Licensee: Coffeyville Regional Medical Center License No: 19-C251-01 Location: Coffeyville, Kansas inspection Type: Routine Announced License Type: Medical Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 2/27/98 Inspectors: JJ Comment:
a)
Inspection Due date tracking lists licensee as Priority 1. Report states previous Priority is 2 and recommends inspection Priority 2.
File No.: 22 Licensee: Hutchinson Hospital Corp.
License No: 19-B081-01 Location: Hutchinson, Kansas inspection Type: Routine Unannounced License Type: Medical Priority: 1 inspection Date: 5/26/98 Inspectors: DG NEW LICENSES REVIEWED FOR ISSUE AND INITIAL INSPECTION DATE File No.: 1 Licensee. Sherwin Williams Company License No: 22-8719-01 Location: Coffeyville, Kansas issue Date: 5/5/95 License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 4 initialinspection Date: 12/6/95 Inspector: JJ Comment:
a)
Exceeded the 6 month inspection window of RHS-7.
File No.: 2 Licensee: Log Tech of Kansas License No: 27-8722-01 Location: Great Bend, Kansas issue Date: 6/12/95 l
License Type: Industrial Priority: 2 InitialInspection Date: 2/20/96 Inspector: JJ Comment:
l a)
Exceeded the 6 month inspection window of RHS-7.
l File No.: 3 Licensee: The Medical Center License No: 19-B724-01 Location: Hutchinson, Kansas issue Date: 9/22/95 License Type: Medical Priority: 3 initial Inspection Date: 11/21/95 Inspector: VC File No.: 4 Licensee: Wilson County Hospital License No: 12-B726-01 Location: Neodesha, Kansas issue Date: 12/5/95 License Type: Medical Priority: 3 Initial Inspection Date: 2/2/96 Inspector: VC
m.
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page C.7 Inspection File Reviews File No.: 5 Licensee: OWAL Laboratories License No: 22-B743-01 Location: Pittsburg Issue Date: 3/11/97 Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 4 InitialInspection Date: 8/25/97 Inspector: JJ File No.: 6 Licensee: Williams Engineering & Industrial License No: 22 B742-01 l
-Location: Carbondale, Kansas issue Date: 11/13/96 Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 1 initialinspection Date: 10/1/97 Inspector: JJ Comment:
L l
a)
Exceeded the 6 month inspection window of RHS-7.
File No.: 7-Licensee: Environmental Management Resources License No: 22-B756-01 l.
Location: Lawrence, Kansas issue Date: 12/16/97 l_
Type: _ ortable Gauge Priority: 4 P
l Initialinspection Date: Not Yet inspector: BL Comment:
a)
Assigned to BL to inspect by 5/15/98, however not yet inspected as of 6/15/98 according l
to inspector, i
File No.: 8 Licensee: West Wichita Family Physicians, PA License No: 12-C757-01 Location: Wichita, Kansas issue Date: 12/11/97 4
Type: Portable Medical Priority: 3 l
Initialinspection Date: 4/9/98 Inspector: DG File No.: 9 Licensee: Bliss Energy Consultants License No: 26-B767-01 Location: Manhattan, Kansas issue Date: 6/9/98 l
Type: Portable Industrial Lab Priority: 1 initialInspection Date: Not Yet inspector: BL I
Comment:
a)
BL performed a pre-licensing visit 5/26/98 which appears to be an inspection date in the tracking system as the next date due for an inspection is 5/29/99. The inspector stated the license had not yet been inspected as of 6/15/98. Based on discussions with the Director the initial inspection due date should be 12/9/98, not 5/29/99.
i
(
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page C.8 inspection File Reviews in addition the following inspection accompaniments were made as part of the on-site IMPEP review:
Accompaniment No.: 1 Licensee: H. R. Inspection Service,Inc.
License No: 21-B126-01 Location: Shawnee, Kansas inspection Type: Routine, Announced License Type: Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: June 1,1998 Inspector: JJ Accompaniment No.: 2 Licensee: St Francis Hospital & Medical Center License No: 19-B272-04
)
Location: Topeka, Kansas inspection Type: Routine, Announced License Type: Medical / Teletherapy / Radiopharmacy Priority: 1 Inspection Date: June 2-3,1998 Inspector: B L Comment:
a)
Recommendation! made to licensee.
j Accompaniment No.: 3 Licensee: C.P. Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.
License No: 22-B732-01 i
Location: Topeka, Kansas Inspection Type: Routine, Announced License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 1 Inspection Date: June 3,1998 inspector: JJ Comment:
a)
Violation identified, recommendations noted.
Accompaniment No.: 4 Licensee: Lawrence Memorial Hospital License No: 12-b161-01 l
Location: Lawrence, Kansas inspection Type: Routine, Announced License Type: Nuclear Medicine / Radiotherapy Priority: 2 Inspection Date: June 4,1998 Inspector: DG Comment:
a)
Two violations and one recommendation noted.
l l
APPENDIX D LICENSING CASEWORK REVIEWS NOTE: ALL LICENSES LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT ARE INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS ONLY; NO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE IMPEP TEAM File No.: 1 Licensee: Line Medical, Inc.
License No.: 20-8708-01 Location: Wichita, Kansas Amendment No.: 4 License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 9/i3/96 License Reviewer: JJ Comments:
a) Amendment issued for use of Plutonium 238 in any form without a proper radiation protection program implemented. Requests indicate that both sealed sources and "any form" were desired.
b) incorrect use for the Plutonium-238 and Nickel-63 listed on the license amendment for the iransfer to an authorized recipient to possess and use radiopharmaceuticals.
File No.: 2 Licensee: University of Kansas License No.: 38-C019-01 Location: Lawrence, Kansas Amendment No.: 53,54 License Type: Academic, Broad A Type of Action: Renewal, Amendment Date issued: 11/14/96,3/18/98 License Reviewer: BL, JJ Comments:
a) License correction for Amendment 53 completed at request of the licensee on 12/23/96.
b) Amendment 53 issued for use of Uranium-235 for research studies without a proper radiation protection program implemented.
c) Frequency of annual audits not addressed during the review for Amendment 53. The licensee indicated " periodic."
d) Emergency procedures were not submitted with the renewal application. There was no indication that emergency procedures were requested or reviewed by license reviewer.
e) Amendment 54 issued for use of Uranium-233 in tracer studies for R&D without a proper radiation protectica program implemented.
File No.: 3 Licensen: Kansas State University License No.: 38-C011-01 Location: Manhattan, Kansas Amendment No.: 60 License Type: Academic, Broad A Type of Action: Renewal Date issued: 3/26/96 License Reviewer: BL Comments:
a) The renewal applic.ation was submitted and signed by the assistant RSO.
b) Frequency of annual audits not addressed during the review. It was unclear in the application who would conduct the annual audits.
4 Kansas Proposed Final Report Page D.2 License File Reviews c) The Standard License Condition for transportation of radioactive material was not in the renewed license. Transportation procedures were not submitted, reviewed or requested by the license reviewer. Licensee routinely transports material to field locations for use.
File No.: 4 Licensee: Providence Medical Center License No.: 19-C182-01 Location: Kansas City, Kansas Amendment No.: 52 License Type: Medical, institutional Type of Action: Renewal Date Amendment issued: 4/5/96 License Reviewer: BL Comments:
a) Correspondence from the Department dated 12/29/96 signed for Director of Radiation Control Program by a secretary.
b) Quality Management Plan (OMP) not submitted by licensee and there is no indication that the OMP was requested or reviewed by the license reviewer, c) File documentation incomplete for information received from the licensee dated 2/12/96. No documentation of correspondence or telephone conversation requesting this information was avai'able.
File No.: 5 Licensee: Donna Lee Oil Company License No.: 27 B595-01 Location: Independence, Kansas Amendment No.: 8 License Type: Well Logging Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 8/21/97 License Reviewer: JJ Comments:
a) This amendment was for the transfer of ownership of the radioactive material and the Kansas License. There was no documentation available that indicated the new owner would accept the current license, including all license conditions and previously licensed procedures. Also, there was no documentation of the sale or date of transfer. Welllogging sources were licensed for storage only.
b) Amendment issued yet licensee indicated that survey meter was to be purchased and not yet received, c) On application, the applicant indicated that a radiation protection program was not applicable. There was no indication that this was questioned by license reviewers.
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page D.3 l
l License File Reviews File No.: 6 Licensee: Syncor International License No.: 20-C495-01
[
i-Location: Wichita, Kansas Amendment No.: 21,22 i
l License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 1/23/97,9/4/97 License Reviewer: BL l
Comments:
I a) No documentation was available indicating that financial assurity for decommissioning had been addressed due to the increase in the possession limit for Mo-99/Tc-99 generators from 10 Curies to 35 Curies. The license reviewer indicated that current procedures were adequate.
b) Documentation from licensee regarding this amendment #22 request was not in the license j
file.
File No.: 7 Licensee: Gem Testing License No.: 22-B762-01 Location: Garden City, Kansas License Type: Portable Gauge Type of Action: New Date issued: 4/20/98 License Reviewer: DG Comment:
a) The applicant did not designate a Radiation Safety Officer on the application. The authorized user was named the RSO on the license when issued. Documentation was not available to indicate any correspondence or telephone conversation occurred to address this matter.
J File Nc.: 8 Licensee: Taylor Forge Engineered System, Inc License No.: 21 B108-01 Location: Paola, Kansas Amendment No.: 24 s
License Type: Radiographer Type of Action: Renewal Date issued: 9/9/97 License Reviewer: DG i
Comment:
a) Letter dated 8/27/97 should havc been included as a tie-down condition.
l l
l l
..--.e.
r-r--
y
,-,,----m.-
.- - -~.
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page D.4 License File Reviews File No.: 9 Licensee: Via Christie Aegional Medical Center License No.: 18-C753 01 Location: Wichita, Keasas License Type: Medical, Broad A Type of Action: New Date Amendment issued: 10/1/97 License Reviewer: BL Comments:
a) This was the consolidation of two existing licenses.
b) Tie-down documentation was missing from the file at the time of the IMPEP evaluation. The missing dates were 5/20/97,5/23/97,7/25/97 and 9/19/97. This information was retrieved from the licensee.
c) Typographical error in tie-down letter dated S/23/97. The letter is actually dnted 5/27/97.
d) Licensee indicated that liquid radioactive material would be disposed in the sanitary sewer and there was no correspondence or telephone conversaticn requesting the release rates or verification of compliance with the regulations.
File No.: 10 Licensee: Kenyon Clinic License No.: 12-C731-01 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Amendment No.: 2 License Type: Medical, Private Practice Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 1/30/98 License Reviewer: BL Comment:
a) Amendment issued and copy in the file were not signed by Division Director of Radiation Control Program, it could not be determined if the licensee had received a signed, official copy. Amendment was signed and reissued during the IMPEP evaluation.
File No.: 11 Licensee: Eagle-Picher Industries License No.: 25-B561-01 Location: Lenexa, Kansas Amendment No.: 13 License Type: Manufacturing / Distribution Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 5/8/97 License Reviewer: JJ a) There was no documentation available indicating that financial surety and emergency plans were addressed or reviewed by the license reviewer.
File No.: 12 Licensee: North American NDT, Inc.
License No.: 21-B715-01 Location: Wichita, Kansas Amendment No.: 2 License Type: Industrial Radiography Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 4/27/97 License Reviewer: JJ Comment:
a) The standard license condition for compatibility with 10 CFR Part 34 for radiographic exposure devices and associated equipment was not in this license file.
1 Kansas Proposed Final Report Page D.5 1
License File Reviews File No.: 13 Licensee: Como Tech, Inc.
License No.: 21-B629-01 Location: Lenexa, Kansas Amendment No.: 7 License Type: Industrial Radiography Type of Action: Renewal Date issued: 5/5/97 License Reviewer: BL Comment:
a) There was no documentation available that indicated that the radiography equipment was compatible and that source / camera and source / changer compatibility was verified.
j File No.: 14 Licensee: Radiological Solutions License No.: 33-B755-01 Location: Lenexa, Kansas License Type: Service Type of Action: New Date issued: 10/27/97 License Reviewer: BL Comments:
a) No documentation of verification for financial assurity, emergency plan, or annual audit of a radiation protection program by license reviewers.
b) No documentation on procurement and receipt procedures for additional radioactive material were included in the application.
File No.: 15 Licensee: Fort Hays State University License No.: 31-B049-01 Location: Hays, Kansas Amendment No.: 20 License Type: Academic-Other Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 12/6/96 License Reviewer: BL File No.: 16 Licensee: Holton Community Hospital License No.: 19-B608-01 Location: Holton, Kansas Amendment No.: 5 License Type: Medical, institutional Type of Action: Termination Date issued: 9/23/97 License Reviewer: JJ Comments:
a) This licensee had not performed nuclear medicine studies since May 1995. All material and waste were appropriately transferred to another authorized recipient.
b) Licensee did not submit a close-out survey. Close-out survey was performed by license reviewer as part of a routine compliance inspection.
c) Inspection report and review of inspector close out did not have supervisory review. No signature on inspection report dated 9/8/97.
l
\\
I
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page D.6 j
License File Reviews File No.: 17 Licensee: List & Clark Construction Company License No.: 22-B571-01 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Amendment No.: 6 License Type: Portable Gauge Type of Action: Termination Date issued: 1/13/98 License Reviewer: BL Comment:
a) Close-out survey and inspection conducted on 1/6/98. Typographical errors due to change in year were noted.
File No.: 18 Licensee: Panhandle NDT and Inspection License No.: 21-8734-01 Location: Garden City, Kansas Amendment No.: 1 License Type: Industrial Radiography Type of Action: Termination Date issued: 3/30/98 License Reviewer: JJ i
Comments:
a) No documentation was available indicating where the radiography sources were transferred.
it was assumed by the license reviewer that this material was returned to Texas according to their Texas license, b) The license reviewer attempted to perform an inspection and close-out survey. The licensee was not located at the physical address.
i l
l l
l 4
4
APPENDIX E INCIDENT CASEWORK REVIEWS NOTE: ALL INCIDENTS CASEWORK LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT ARE INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS ONLY; NO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE IMPEP TEAM i
File No.: 1 Licensee: none License No.: n/a incident No.: Not required Location: Union Pacific tracks,30 miles NW of Topeka Date of Event: 7/2/97 Type of Event: Transportation Accident Investigation Date: 7/2/97 Investigation Type: Onsite Summary of Incident and Final Disposition: State received report that 18 radioisotope generators were involved in a serious train accident and fire. Until specific details were 1
available, State considered generators to be new, and immediately dispatched investigation
)
team. Manifest showed generators were depleted and surveys after fire showed Mo99/Tc99 s 4 mr/hr; therefore, no risk was present.
File No.: 2 Licensee: KTl Construction Services, Inc.
License No.: 22B659-01 incident No.: KS-98-06 Location: Kansas City, MO Date of Event: 4/11/98 Type of Event: Damage to Equipment Investigation Date: 4/11/98 l
Investigation Type: Onsite l
Summary of Incident and Final Disposition: KTl was using a portable gauge under their NRC license in Kansas City, Missouri, when it was run over and damaged. State immediately sent inspector to licensee's home office in Miriam, KS to survey the gauge and make certain it was secure. No contamination was found. State followed up with notification to NRC and a joint NRC/KS inspection resulted in several citations.
l l
l I
l d
Kansas Proposed Final Report Page E.2 incident File Reviews File No.: 3 Licensee: Geo Systems Engineering, Inc.
License No.: 22B632-01 incident No.: KS 98-08 Location: Lenexa, KS Date of Event: 6/6/98 Type of Event: Stolen gauge Investigation Date:6/8/98 Investigation Type: Onsite Summary of incident and Final Disposition:
Portable moisture density gauge stolen from back of truck parked at employee's home, chains cut. State responded to licensee's facility first working day and made several citations.
Licensee offered reward through press release, and notified State by phone that gauge had been recovered. State was awaiting written response from licensee at time of review.
File No.: 4 Licensee: University of Kansas Medical Center License No.: 18-C054-01 incident No.: KS-98-04 Location: Kansas City, KS Date of Event: 4th quarter,1996; reported 2/5/97 Type of Event: Possible overexposure Investigation Date: 2/7/97 investigation Type: Onsite Summary of incident and Final Disposition: Overexposure reported on 1996 4th quarter TLD badge readings-30.0 rem deep-dose equivalent and 66.17 rem shallow-dose equivalent.
Licensee's evaluation concluded badge reading probably not actual occupational dose and follow-up report concluded exposure came from contamination on badge. (Married couple both worked with radioactive materials at university facility. Husband wore wife's coat which had her radiation badge in pocket while he was working with x-rays. Her badge indicated overexposure.) State's onsite investigation and closure consisted of reviewing licensee's actions and evaluations.
Comments:
a) File initially could not be located; was apparently misplaced for approximately a year without routing slip.
b) Licensee's report indicated there was another re-creation of the event for possible fluoroscopic exposure which was not reviewed by the State. Unclear as to whether badge was contaminated by P-32 or fluoroscopic x-ray exposure.
c) No management review, evaluation, or oversight.
1
-e--_-
4 4
asaa--
u
-6 m.
- -.-4
<a a 4-.n
---pg e
enaa e
,,s_
,,4
___a,6, l
1 f
e j
i l
APPENDIX F KANSAS' OUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE i
l l
t f
I l
6 I
q J
t Approved by OMB' No. 3150-0183 Expires 4/30/98 l
1 INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM j
OUESTIONNAIRE Agreement State: KANSAS Reporting Period: May 20,1995 to June 14,1998 A. COMMON PERFORMANCEINDICATORS 1.
Status of Materials inspection Proaram
- 1. Please prepare a table identifying the licenses with inspections that are overdue by more than 25% of the scheduled frequency set out in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800. The list should include initialinspections that are overdue.
NAME PRIORITY DUE DATE Months Past Due Date C.P. Engineers & Land Surveyors,inc 1
Initial inspection initialinspection Lawrence Memorial Hospital 2
September 30,1996 20 St. Francis Medical Center 1
May 18,1996 12 H.R. Inspection Service. Inc.
1 February 01,1998 3
These inspections are scheduled during the IMPEP evaluation. There are no low-level radioactive waste disposal or uranium recovery licensees in Kansas.
2.
Do you currently have an action plan for completing overdue inspections? If so, please describe the plan or provide a written copy with your response to this questionnaire.
Kansas schedules all inspections on a yearly basis to eventually inspect all licensees over a 4 year inspection frequency period. Overdue inspections are prioritized by date due and staff schedules. Staff is then assigned to have these inspections complete, so that no inspection (licensee) is greater than 25% over its last inspection frequency.
- Estimated burden per response to comply with this voluntary collection request: 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br />. Forward comments regarding burden estimate to the Information and Records Management Branch (T-6 F33),
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to the Papsrwork Reduction Project (3150-0052), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
3.
Please identify individual licensees or groups of licensees the State / Region is inspecting more or less frequently than called for in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800 and state the reason for the change.
No licensees or groups of licensees are inspected less frequently than 1
called for in the NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800. Some licensees, such as Medical Private Practice and Portable Gauge licensees, are inspected more 4.
Please complete the following table for licensees granted reciprocity during the reporting period.
Priority Number of licensees granted reciprocity perrnits each year &
inspections performed.
Year Granted inspected Service licensee May - Dec 1995 2
0 performing 1996 2
1 teletherapy 1997 4
1 teletherapy &
Jan - May 1998 2
1 Irradiator source installations or Totals 10 3
changes 1
May - Dec 1995 4
0 1996 8
0 1997 15 3
Jan - May 1998 8
1 Totals 35 4
2 May - Dec 1995 1
0 1996 2
0 1997 2
0 Jan - May 1998 4
1 Totals 9
1 3
May - Dec 1995 0
0 1996 1
0 1997 1
0 Jan - May 1998 0
0 Totals 2
0
. _._ ___ _ _ _ __..~_ _____
Priority Number of licensees granted reciprocity permits each year &
Inspections performed.
Year Granted Inspected 4
May-Dec 1995 2
0 1996 5
0 1997 6
1 Jan - May 1998 4
2 Totals 17 3
All Other May - Dec 1995 N/A N/A 1996 N/A N/A 1997 N/A N/A Jan - May 1998 N/A N/A 5.
Other than reciprocity licensees, how many field inspections of radiographers were performed?
Ten (10) 6.
For NRC Regions, did you establish numerical goals for the number of inspections to be performed during this review period? If so, please describe your goals, the number of inspections actually performed, and the reasons for any differences between the goals and the actual number of inspections i
performed.
Not Applicable ll.
Ipchnical Quality of Insoections i
7.
What, if any, changes were made to your written inspection procedures during the reporting period?
A:
The inspector prints out the inspection letters for compliance or noncompilance instead of the section secretary printing them.
i B.
The routing slips for the inspection sheets were revised.
All inspection procedures were last reviewed by Vick Cooper on January of 1997.
8.
Prepare a table showing the number and types of supervisory accompaniments made during the review period. Include:
INSPECTOR SUPERVISOR LICENSE TYPE DATE Conley, Thomas Cooper, Vick 21-B149-01 97 December 3 Groep, Diane Industrial Radiography Groep, Diane Conley, Thomas 19-B528-01 98 February 26 Medical [P-3)
Lago, Bart Cooper, Vick 19-C063-01 97 March 20 Medical P-1 Lago, Bart Cooper, Vick 20-C495-01 97 March 19,21 Nuclear Pharmacy Lago, Bart Cooper, Vick 19-C030-01 97 April 8,9 Medical P-1 i
Cooper, Vick Conley, Thomas 19-C041-01 98 February 18 l
Medical P-1 Johnson, Jamea Conley, Thomas 38-C019-01 98 May 18-22 Academic 9.
Describe internal procedures for conducting supervisory accompaniments of l
inspectors in the field. If supervisory accompaniments were documented, please provide copies of the documentation for each accompaniment.
Inspectors are accompanied annually and the team will be provided with copies of the procedure, RH-88.
10.
Describe or provide an update on your instrumentation and methods of calibration. Are all instruments properly calibrated at the present time?
The following instruments are available for use: [* shows Instruments used primarily for emergency response]
l ION CHAMBERS i
Ludlum Model 9 [27293,27334,117214]*
Victoreen 4502 [SN 101),450P [SN 2591) i G-M SURVEY METERS i
Dosimeter Model FH40F6 [SN 2204)
i Ludlum Model 5 [90415,90422] Model 2401-P [SN 137895)
Also Eberline Model #-130A [SN 813,835,8091] are held in reserve, NEUTRON REMBALLS Ludlum Model 12-4 [SN 26220]
l j
MICRO-R METERS Ludlum Model 19 [SN 37446,115877,115914,120905)
RATE METERS Bicron ANALYST [B376R, B377R, B378R]*
Dosimeter Model 3100 [SN 36-2894,9443-011,9548-031,9548-035,9548-l 073]
l
- [Three of these are reserved for the Ingestion pathway kits)
Ludlum Model 2 [SN 39002)
Ludlum Model 3 [SN3277,137020*]
l Ludlum Model 25 single Channel Analyzer [SN 1136) l Ludlum Model 177 [SN 38865]
Ludlum Model 2218 Dual channel analyzer MCA Nuclear Data Model 880729 with 2x2 Nai PROBES Dosimeter Models 360 Frisker wands [SN 001,002,003,21-395,011991]
370 Thin end G-M
[20-395,536-594]
l Ludlum Models i
42-5 Neutron Ball Cart 43-5 Alpha Scintillator
[SN 115383]
l 43-65 Alpha Scintillator [On order) l 44-1 Beta Scintillator [SN 115235 44-21x1 Nai 44-3 Low Energy Gamma Scintillator [SN 024495) 44-9 Frisker Wand [SN 137874) 44-33 2x2 Nal [SN 11536]
44-38 Energy Compensated G-M [SN 011990]
44-40 Shielded Pancake Probe) [SN 118804,118805,118806)
I 44-50 Pancake Probe [SN 024544,02-1545]
Ill.
Technical Staffino and Trainina 11.
Please provide a staffing plan, or complete a listing using the suggested format below, of the professional (technical) person-years of effor1 applied to the agreement or radioactive material program by individual, include the name, position, and, for Agreement States, the fraction of time spent in the following areas: administration, materials licensing & compliance, emergency response, LLW, U-mills, other. If these rer,uhtory responsibilities are dividM H aeen offices, the table should be consolidated to include all personw
.i c ting to the radioactive materials program, include all vacancies and loc / fy all senior i
I i
1 l
personnel assigned to monitor work of junior personnel. If consultants were used to carry out the program's radioactivc materials responsibilities, include their efforts. The table heading should be:
NAME POSITION AREA OF RESPONSIBILITIES FTE EFFORT Gary Mitchell Secretary, KDHE Administration Dept of Health &
Environment Ron Hammarschmidt Director Administration Division of Environment j
John Irwin Director Administration Bureau of Air and Radiation Vick Cooper Section Chief Administration Radiation Control 100 Program Torp '.;onley Public Health Administration Materials and X-Ray 100 Physicist Bart Lago Radiation Control Licensing / Inspecting Materials 100 Inspector James Johnson Radiation Control Licensing / inspecting Materials 100 inspector Ivan Schmidt Radiation Control inspecting X-Ray 100 Inspector Marjorie Groep Radiation Control Licensing / inspecting Materials and X Ray 100 inspector Ron Fraass Pubile Health Administration Emergency 100 Physicist Resp / Environmental Monitor Kim Steves Radiation Control EmergencyPrep/ Rad Emergency 80 Inspector on Resp / Environmental Monitor David Whitfill Radiation Control Environmental Emergency 100 Inspector Monitor Resp / Environmental Monitor Larry Parks Environmental EREP Emergency 100 Technician 111 Resp / Environmental l
Monitor Michelle Strong Radiation Control Coordinator Radon Program 100 Inspector l
Gary Hass Radiation Protection District Office Xray and Emergency 100 Specialist Preparedness Wes Spencer Radiation Protection District Office Xray and Emergency 100 Specialist Preparedness i
12.
Please provide a listing of all new professional personnel hired since the last review, indicate the degree (s) they received, if applicable, and additional training and years of experience in health physics, or other disciplines, if appropriate.
Tom Conley, B.S.
Radiation & Nuclear Engineering Tech. 19 yrs exp.
Michelle Strong, M.B.A.
Executive Management 17 yrs exp.
13.
Please list all professional staff who have not yet met the qualification requirements of license reviewer / materials inspection staff (for NRC, inspection Manual Chapters 1246; for Agreement States, please describe your qualifications requirements for materials license reviewers and inspectors). For each, list the courses or equivalent training / experience they need to attend and a tentative schedule for completion of these requirements.
All professional staff have met the qualification requirements.
14.
Please identify the technical staff who left the RCP/ Regional DNMS program during this period.
Gerald Allen, Chief Radioactive Materials and X-Ray Harold Spiker, Chief Environmental Radiation & Emergency Preparedness Khalid Kalout,R. C. I.
Radon Program Larry Parks, Env. Tech.
Environmental Radiation & Emergency Preparedness l
l 15.
List the vacant positions in each program, the length of time each position has l
been vacant, and a brief summary of efforts to fill the vacancy.
l One Environmental Tech and one Radiation Control Inspector. These l
became open May 1998, and standard State procedures for posting and i
filling them are being followed.
IV.
Technical Quality of Licensina Actions 16.
Please identify any major, unusual, or complex licenses which were issued, received a major amendment, terminated, decommissioned, bankruptcy notification or renewed in this period. Also identify any new or amended licenses that now require emergency plans.
No Kansas licensee requires an Emergency plan.
l
[
38-C011-01 Kansas State University 60 96-03-26 Entirety 61 97-06-25 Renewal, Address Change 38-C019-01 University of Kansas 53 96-12-23 Entirety 54 98-3-18 Renewal, Materials for field study, Decay storage for 88 days 4
i 19-C030-01 Via Christi St Francis Campus 53 96-03-28 Name change, procedure change 54.
96-06-05 Renewal 55 97-04-25 Add location l
Replaced by 18-C753-01 Via Christi Regional Medical Center 19-C041-01 Columbia Wesley Medical Center i
61 96-10-28 Name change, renewal, change CEO l
12 8261-01 H6ys Medical Center l
38 95-12-21 Users, procedures 39 96-04-10 Change sources, Add locailon & Users 40 96-11-14 renewal, User 22-B370-01 Terracon Consultants SE, Inc.
($5,000 fine in 1997) 18 96-03-28 Renewal 19 97-06-02 Add Co-57 XRF, training 20 Name change, renewal 1
20-C495-01 Syncor International 19c 95-09-18 Name change, RSO, add users, add condition on eluting generators 20 96-01-18 Address & location change, 21 97-01-23 Renewal, increase possession limit, add users, change op procedures 22 97-09-04 Increase possesion limit, change user & RSO 23 98-01-13 add new product shields 33-B729-01 Mission MedVet l
New 95-12-05 i
1 98-01-05 Renewal, facility changes l
25-B561-01 Eagle-Picher Industries [ Fined $1,600 July 25,1995) i 12 95-05-11 Renewal, increase possession limits 13 97-05-08 Renewal l
17.
Discuss any variances in licensing policies and procedures or exemptions from j
the regulations granted during the review period.
The variances performed were:
1 Increasing University of Kansas decay in storage for S-35 from 10 half lives of 65 days to 10 half lives of 88 days. Evaluation of a request for a change in this standard condition indicated no safety concerns with allowing decay in storage for longer lived isotopes.
The University has a thorough accountability system to track these j
isotopes.
l I
r-2 Allow Taylor Forge & Atchison casting to continue to use Co-60 cameras for in house radiography that currently do not meet 10CFR 34 requirements. Based on evaluations of the.i operations there were no adverse radiological safety concerns identified.
3 Allow Donna Lee Oil to acquire Kelt Oil & Gas as an amendment l
change without acquiring a new license as well as a transfer of l
ownership for Gold Perforating. Evaluation of this amendment Indicated no adverse radiological impact of the acquisition and ensured neutron sources remained in the custody of a qualified licensee preventing the need for the Kansas Program from acquiring orphan sources.
18.
What, if any, changes were made in your written licensing procedures (new procedures, updates, policy memoranda, etc.) during the reporting period?
A.
Revised tracking sheet for assigning license amendments. the sheet Includes who is assigned the amendment & when, when it is completed.
B.
The flaished license [ Amendments, Entiretles, New, Renewals] and the i
accompanying letter are printed by the inspector using Wordperfect templates instead of having the section secretary doing this.
C.
Drafted new standard license conditions.
19.
For NRC Regions, identify by licensee name, license number and type, any renewal applications that have been pending for one year or more.
Not Applicable l
V.
Recoonses to incidents and Alleaations 20.
Please provide a list of the reportable incidents (i.e., medical misadministration, overexposures, lost and abandoned sources, incidents requiring 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or less notification, etc. See Handbook on Nuclear Material Event Reporting in Agreement States for additional guidance.) that occurred in the Region / State during the review period. For Agreement States, information included in previous submittals to NRC need not be repeated (i.e., those submitted under OMB 3150-0178). Tne list should be in the following format:
All incidents & allegations have been reported to NRC Headquarters and Region IV administration as required.
21.
During this review period, did any incidents occur that involved equipment or source failure or approved operating procedures that were deficient? If so, how and when were other State /NRC licensees who might be affected notified? For States, was timely notification made to NRC7 For Regions, was an appropriate and timely PN generated?
i I
i l
No incidents involving equipment or source failure or deficient operating procedures occurred during the review period.
22.
For incidents involving failure of equipment or sources, was information on the incident provided to the agency responsible for evaluation of the device for an assessment of possible generic design deficiency? Please provide details for each case.
There were none reported for this time period.
23.
In the period covered by this review, were there any cases involving possible wrongdoing that were reviewed or are presently undergoing review? If so, please describe the circumstances for each case.
For the Radioactive Materials Program, there are no cases under review involving possible wrongdoing, as defined by the NRC.
24.
Identify any changes to your procedures for handling allegations that occurred during the period of this review.
There have been no changes to our procedures for handling incidents or allegations.
a.
For Agreement States, please identify any allegations referred to your program by the NRC that have not been closed.
There are no allegations referred by the NRC to our program which have not been resolved or closed.
VI.
General 25.
Please prepare a summary of the status of the State's or Region's actions taken in response to the recommendations following the last review:
A.
Recommendation An audit of licenses should be performed as soon as possible, to determine if adoption of the Emergency Preparedness rule is required.
The other due and overdue rules should be promulgated as soon as possible, and license conditions should not be used in substitution for the Industrial Radiography Equipment rule.
Actions Taken The Notification of incidents Rule and the Decommissioning Rule were adopted in November 1996. The Safety Requirements of Radiographic Equipment Rule has not been adopted and is currently being enforced by license condition. The Emergency Preparedness Hule was also adopted in November 1996. The former Program
,_7 Director conducted a review of licensees and determined at that time no Kansas licenses would be affected by the rule.
B.
Recommendation The Kansas program should modify the informal policy of waiting for an SSR to be issued before starting the adoption of a rule or amendment which is required for compatibility. Consideration should be given to adding a policy provision which requires drafting a proposed rule based directly on the equivalent NRC rule if an SSR is not available in time to l
permit adoption of a Kansas rule within 3 years after NRC adopts the rule.
Actions Taken The Kansas program is aware of the importance of adopting rules or amendments which are required for compatibility within the three year t!me requirement. It is equally important to maintain compatibility with other Agreement States to ensure consistent application of rules throughout the country. Therefore whenever possible the Saggested State Regulations and the NRC rule will be evaluated when developing equivalent Kansas regulations with every effort made to meet the three year time limit. Kansas began work on new regulations as soon as they receive drafts of proposed regulations.
C.
Recommendation If the response to an actualincident is to be used in place of a formal drill to test the State's emergency plan, we recommend that there should be a formal evaluation of the response actions compared to the planned actions to provide a feed-back of lessons learned and to form the basis for modifications to the plan or to provide additional training of responders, as indicated. The plan itself should also be modified, if necessary, to provide guidance for such a critique.
Actions Taken As a result of this recommendation procedure RHS-47 " Emergency l
Response Documentation" was developed to provide guidance for an evaluation of the response actions compared to the planned actions.
26.
Provide a brief description of your program's strengths and weaknesses. These strengths and weaknesses should be supported by examples of successes, l
problems or difficulties which occurred during this review period.
l Strengths:
l Personnel: The program has experienced low turn over which has resulted in well qualified experienced inspectors. In addition, a new f-
supervisor has been hired for the Radioactive Materials and X-ray program who has 18 years of applied health physics experience and is a Certified Health Physicist.
l Management Support: Upper Kansas State Management is l
supportive of the program evidenced by participation in program activities such as the RCP Workshop, loan of employees from other programs for temporary assistance, and regular staff meetings with program personnel.
Relationship with licensees: There is a good rapport with the licensees which has resulted in positive communication between the agency and licensees. For example the RCP hosts a workshop for licensees and registrants which is used to communicate upcoming changes in regulations as well as new and improved techniques. The most recent workshop held in December 1997 was attended by approximately 200 Ilcensees and registrants.
Participation in professional activities: Staff members are active in professional activities. For example, the Materials and X-ray PHP was a member of the Health Physics Society working group which made comments on the proposed Part 35 revisions. One inspector has participated in two IMPEP evaluations.
Weaknesses:
Funding: The program needs to be funded by a dedicated fee fund to ensure adequate funding for all program activities. In addition, funding support from the NRC per the AEC Act of 1954 has been limited or non-existent. Funding for training and emergency support is essential to the concept of the Agreement State Program.
Inspection Forms: The forms are difficult to review and do not provide guidance for the inspectors as to what areas need inspected or regulatory references. These forms are being revised and incorporated into the new computer system and will be available as the computer system is put on line.
4 Procedures: The RHS series procedures provide adequate guidance for an experienced inspector but should be revised to provide clearer guidance. There are no guidelines for controlling revisions to these procedures nor is there any standard format or approval process. A plan has been developed to address improvements in the procedure process.
Computer Support: The RCP, while being a leader in the State organizations for adopting computerized tracking, full utilization of l
computer systems has not been implemented. Development of j
databases and tracking systems is in progress but implementation j-has been limited. This has presented difficulties in tracking
~
Inspection and license actions resulting in overdue inspections or license actions which have " fallen through the cracks". This was recognized by management and the backlog of inspections and license actions has been brought under control through increased management attention.
B.
NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 1.
Leaislation and Proaram Elements Reauired for Compatibility 1
27.
Please list all currently effective legislation that affects the radiation control program (RCP).
Article 16 - Nuclear Energy Development and Radiation Control Act Kansas Statutes K.S.A. 48-1601 to 48-1619 l
28.
Are your regulations subject to a ' Sunset" or equivalent law? If so, explain and include the next expiration date for your regulations.
No 29.
Please complete the enclosed table based on NRC chronology of amendments.
Identify those that have not been adopted by the State, explain why they were not adopted, and discuss any actions being taken to adopt them. Identify the l
regulations that the State has adopted through legally binding requirements other than regulations.
See table 29 30.
If you have not adopted all amendments within three years from the date of NRC rule promulgation, briefly describe your State's procedures for amending regulations in order to maintain compatibility with the NRC, showing the normal length of time anticipated to complete each step.
I Not Applicable ll.
Sealed Source and Device Proaram The State of Kansas did not perform any sealed source and device registrations during the review period, therefore, this section is not applicable. Should the need arise to perform any registrations, the reviews would be conducted per internal policy RHS-48 "Framevrork for the Stats of Kansas Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Review Program."
i i
31.
Prepare a table listing new and revised SS&D registrations of sealed sources and devices issued during the review period.
n/a 2
1
i 32.
What guides, standards and procedures are used to evaluate registry applications?
In the event Kansas were to receive an SS&D request Nureg 1550 would be used for the evaluation.
33.
Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they apply to the Sealed Source and Device Program:
Technical Staffing and Training - A.lli.11-15 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.IV.16-18 Responses to incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23 n/a Ill.
Low-level Waste Proaram 34.
Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they apply to the Low-level Waste Program:
Status of Materials inspection Program - A.I.1-3, A.I.6 Technical Quality of lospections - A.ll.7-10 Technical Staffing and Training - A.lli.11-15 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.IV.16-18 Responses to Incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23 Kansas is a member of the Central States Low Level Waste Compact and as such there are no low level waste sites in the State of Kansas, therefore this section is not applicable.
IV.
Uranium Mill Proaram 35.
Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they apply to the Uranium Mill Program:
Status of Materials Inspection Program - A.I.1-3, A.I.6 Technical Quality of Inspections - A.ll.7-10 Technical Staffing and Training - A.lli.11-15 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.IV.16-18 Responses to incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23 There are no uranium mill sites in the State of Kansas nor are there any anticipated future sites, therefore this section is not applicable.
i f
_ - ~.. -
I r
l TABLE FOR QUESTION 29 l
OR DATE DATE 10 CFR RULE DUE ADOPTED CURRENT EXPECTED STATUS ADOPTION Any amendment due prior to 1991. Identify each regulation (refer to the Chronology of Amendments)
Decommissioning:
7/27/91 11/1/96 Parts 30,40,70 Emergency Planning:
4/7/93 11/1/96 Parts 30,40,70 Standards for Protection 1/1/94 10/17/94 Against Rad;ation; Part 20 Safety Requirements for 1/10/94 By license condition 1999 Radiographic Equipment; Part 34 Notification of incidents; 10/15/94 10/17/94 Parts 20,30,31,34,39, 40,70 Quality Management 1/27/95 10/17/94 Program and Misadministrations; Part 35 Licensing and Radiation 7/1/96 By license condition 1999 Safety Requirements for Irradiators: Part 36 Definition of Land 7/22/96 10/17/94 Disposal and Waste Site QA Program: Part 61 Decommissioning 10/25/96 11/1/96 Recordkeeping: Docu-mentation Additions; Parts 30,40,70 Self-Guarantee as an 1/28/97 11/1/96 Additional Financial Mechanism; Parts 30,40, 70 Uranium Mill Tailings:
7/1/97 N/A None in Kansas-Conforming to EPA would implement by Standards; Part 40 license condition.
Timeliness in 8/15/97 11/1/96 Decommissioning Parts 30. 40. 70 l
i 1
OR DATE DATE 10 CFR RULE DUE ADOPTED CURRENT EXPECTED STATUS ADOPTION Preparation, Transfer for 1/1/98 11/1/96 l
Commercial Distribution, j
and Use of Byproduct Material for Medical Use, l
Pads 30,32,35 1
Frequency of Medical 3/13/98 Implemented by 2001 Examinations for Use of license condition.
Respiratory Protection Equipment Low-Level Waste 3/1/98 10/17/94 Shipment Manifest information and l
Reporting Performance 6/30/98 11/1/96 Requirements for Radiography Equipment Radiation Protection 8/14/98 10/17/94 Requirements: Amended Definitions and Criteria Clarification of 11/24/98 Decommissioning Funding Requirements 10 CFR Part 71:
4/1/99 Compatibility with the Intemational Atomic Energy Agency Medical Administration of 10/20/98 Radiation and Radioactive Materials.
Termination or Transfer 5/16/99 of Licensed Activities:
1 Recordkeeping Requirements.
Resolution of Dual 1/9/00 Regulation of Airbome Effluents of Radioactive Materials; Clean Air Act Recognition of 1/13/00 Agreement State Licenses in Areas Under Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction Within an Agreement State l
Criteria for the Release of 1/29/00 l
Individuals Administered Radioactive Material
I I
p..
OR DATE DATE 10 CFR RULE DUE ADOPTED CURRENT EXPECTED l
STATUS ADOPTION i
Licenses for Industrial 5/28/00 Radiography and t
Radiation Safety Requirements for l
Industrial Radiography Operations: Final Rule j
Radiological Criteria for 7/21/00 i
License Termination l'
l l
l l
I 1
i i
I i
l l
)
I f
1 4
@~h
[
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT BILL GRAVES, OOVERNOR
~
Oary R. Mitchell, Secretary July 9,1998 RICHARD L BANGARTDIRECTOR NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ONE WHITE FLINTNORTH 11555 ROCKVILLE PIKE 3" FLOOR ROCKVILLE MD 20852
Dear Mr.Bangart:
Per our conversation on June 29*, these are some of the steps we have initiated. We have begun a comprehensive review of the licensing process and those identified by the IMPEP team were corrected. We have initiated a bi-monthly conference call system with Jack Hornor and Linda Mclean, State Agreement Officers, to update them on our progress. Listed below are some of the actions that have taken place. We continue to be pro-active in our endeavor to correct our shortcomings.
Licensing:
1.
Develop a comprehensive checklist to be used by license reviewers to ensure consistency and completeness oflicenses. ' Ibis checklist is to be used when reviewing a new license or a license amendment in its entirety and requires signatures of the primary reviewer, j
secondary reviewer and management.
Status: Non-medical license reviewer checklist complete. Checklists for medical applications are under development. Another checklist has been developed to be used by management to ensure all items of a license are included as well as all inspection information is current.
Completion: Concurrent with item 3.
e cm t
2.
Review and revision oflicensing guides to be used by licensees and license reviewersF Status: Radiographer and portable gauge license guides complete. Revisions to the o
medical guides are under development.
]
Completion: Concurrent withitem 3.
2 9
i$
Division of Environment, Bureau of Air and Radiation (785)296-1560 Radiation Control Program, Forbes Field, Bldg. 283 FAX (785)296-0984 Topeka,KS 66620 0001 laternet Address: hup://www. ink.orgAdhe/ber/barrad.html Printed on Recycled Paper 1
ATTACHMENT 1
%IIStTO~.210' fif
t ;
e l.'
3.
A comprehensive review (utilizing the above checklist) will be performed of the core licensees (priority one excluding radium dial shops).
Status: Have begun review of radiography licenses. Note: these licenses will be reviewed as groups (i.e. radiography, medical, etc.) to ensure consistency.
l Completion: 'Ihis review will be completed by October 31,1998.
i i
l 4.
All other licenses will be reviewed back to the last amendment in its entirety as they are up for renewal.
Status: On-going Completion: All licenses are renewed for two years, therefore this review will be completed within two years.
l 5.
Review the license action log on a biweekly basis to ensure all license actions are acted upon in a timely manner.
l Status: Established and on-going.
l-j 6.
Conect specific license problems pointed out by the IMPEP team.
l Status: Completed i
l 7.
Ensure radioactive material properly disposed or transfened upon termination of a j
license.
Status: Discussed the proper use of RHS 38 with all inspectors.
l Completion: Completed Insocction:
1.
Ensure inspections are completed on a timely basis per the inspection priority with no inspections exceeding the due date by more than 25%.
Status: The RAM /X-ray Supervisor meets with inspectors on a quarterly basis to discuss and assign inspections. The inspector is then responsible for scheduling and completing the inspections during the quarter. Status is tracked on a monthly basis through each inspectors' monthly report and review of the inspection tracking database.
l 2.
Modify the inspection tracking database to allow tracking the assignment ofinspections.
i Status: A field has been added to the database to indicate which inspector is assigned to l
perfonn each inspection.
j Completion: Complete 3.
Evaluate modification of the inspection tracking database to improve tracking and trending ofinspection data.
Status: Have contacted Texas and California to obtain information about their software systems. In addition, the information services group is currently working on writing visual basic software for licensing and inspection tracking.
Completion: Dependent on information services support.
t 4.
Review inspection priorities for appropriateness.
I Status: This is evaluated as part of the license reviews.
Completion: Core licensees - October 31,1998, Others - Two years.
.*t...
Other:
1.
Revise procedures to ensure consistency and closure ofinvestigations.
Status: RHS-47 was revised to provide guidelines for documenting investigations.
Guidelines are also provided to ensure NRC notification is performed as appropriate and ensure reports are filed in the investigation file and if appropriate the license / registration file.
Completion: Completed 2.
Review training needs for all inspectors and schedule training as appropriate.
Status:
a.
Three facilities have been contacted for proposals to provide teletherapy training for inspectors. Awaiting responses.
b.
Applied for admittance to the NRC licensing and teletherapy courses.
c.
Contacted a licensee to inquire about attending a transportation course *. hey provide in-house.
d.
Conducted in-house refreshers oflicensing guides and checklists.
Completion: This will be an on going effort to ensure inspectors and reviewers maintain qualifications and are kept abreast of the latest developments in licensing and inspection procedures.
3.
Ensure Kansas regulations meet compatibility requirements with NRC regulations.
Status: Work has begun on drafting a revision to the Kansas radiography regulations to incorporate the latest changes to 10 CFR Part 34.
Completion: Based on the legislative process Richard, we appreciate the support you have given us. If further information is needed regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
6incer ick L. Cooper, Cnief Radiation Control Program Bureau of Air and Radiation VLC/psw Division of Environment, Bureau of Air and Radiation (785)296-1560 Radiation Control Program, Forbes Field, Bldg. 283 FAX (785) 296-0964 Topeka, KS 66620-0001 Internet Address: http://www. ink.orgidhe/bar/barrad html Printed on Recycled Paper
$sQ KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT m
BILL GRAVES, GOVERNOR Q~
Gary R. Mitchell, Secretary l
August 20,1998 a,.
c MRRICHARDBANGART DIRECTOR S
?,
OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (03H20) c m*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH T
11555 ROCKVILLE PIKE 3" FLOOR S
ROCKVILLEMD 20852
Dear Mr. Bangart:
}
This is to acknowledge the receipt of the draft Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report dated July 22,1998, to the findings of the IMPEP team during the review of our program conducted the week of June 15-19,1998.
T..: recommendations outlined in the draft report have been reviewed and corrective measures and procedures are being put in place and are ongoing. In accordance with tha draft report, we are providing you with our responses to the recommendations made by the IMPEP team.
We would also like to respond to several points outlined in the body of the draft report as follows:
3.1 Status of Materials Insoection Program Page 5 Paragraph 2 the sentence,"further review of the records showed that some licensees were granted permits (reciprocity) for more than 1 year," we feel that this statement is inaccurate. After further review of our records, this did not hold true. Since we only grant permission for 180 days, like all other agreements states as well as the NRC, we feel that this statement should be removed.
Division of Environment, Bureau of Air and Radiation (785)296-1560 Radiation Control Program, Forbes Field. Bldg. 283 FAX (785)296 0984 Topeka, KS 66620-0001 Internet Address: http://www. ink.org/kdhe/bar/barrad.html Printed on Recycled Paper
{}
{} l W f f j'y
. Page 4 Paragraph 2 the sentence "the team verified from records that as of June 15,1998, there were 315 active licenses and all inspections were current." As pointed out in our responses to the IMPEP Questionnaire, this was the result of selfidentification of overdue inspections and corrective action taken to eliminate the bacidq, ofinspecions.
The IMPEP Handbook " Evaluation Criteria" states "In some cases, there may be additional considerations not listed here that are indicative of a program's performance in a particular area." We feel selfidentification and correction of this problem warrants such consideration. Therefore, consideration should be given, in lue of the above statement made by the team and that our inspections continue to be up to date, to the overall performance rating of this section and a satisfactory rating with recommendations should be given.
i 3.3 Technical Staffine and Traininc Page 8 Paragraph 2 the sentence,"I FTE was devoted exclusively to mammography inspections." This is inaccurate, this FTE was mo ced from a mammography inspection position to a RAM inspection position. During the time of this review, we were finishing an MQSA contract, this F1 E is 80 % RAM 20 % mammography for fiscal year 1999.
Paragraph 4, the statement, based on review results, this staffing level is adequate for a program of this size. This statement will hinder our efforts to add staff to our program, we feel that it should be removed from the report for the following reasons:
1.
This statemer.t is inconsistent with one in paragraph 5, the review team suggests that the state evaluate the impact of open positions in the RCS and the effect of these vacancies on radioactive materials staff to determine if added staffing or reassignment of duties is necessary. On one hand you state that we are adequately staffed and on the other we need staff sends mixed messages to management.
2.
This was a selfidentified problem and steps had been made to correct it.
f 3.
In discussions with your staff, it has been indicated using the old formula the NRC used to calculate the FTE status for a program, # inspectors / # licensees
- 100, using that formula 2.8 FTE / 315
- 100 =.89 FTEs per 100 licenses we feel that this is inadequate for a program of our size.
l l
4.
The NRC regions have a ratio of 1.5 to 2.5 FTEs per 100 licenses. We would like l
to be compatible and equal in this area.
Page 9 Paragraph 2 the sentence,"thus if an employee has not taken a re quired class, it may not be apparent that they are still expected to take it." It has been and continues to be a supervisory responsibility to ensure that staff receive required training. However, getting into NRC required courses has been difficult in the past due to the availability of space for Agreement State personnel. This also was a selfidentified problem and steps have been put into place to correct the void in training through other means such as:
2
i Examples:
Local Nuclear Facility -Training in root cause effect, Transportation, DOT regulation Local Medical Oncology Facilities-Brachytherapy and Teletherapy work. shop 3.4 Technical Ouality of Licensine Actions Page 10 Paragraph 5 the sentence,"the magnitude of the potential health and safety issues due to licensing inadequacies cannot be accurately assessed because of the lack of file documentation." We feel that this statement is very strong and harsh because the team only found 2 potential health and safety issues. We have completed a comprehensive self-evaluation of 48 priority 1 licenses beginning with the medical and have not found any other potential health and safety issues. We feel replacing the word magnitude with number or equivalent would be more accurate. We are in the process of reviewing the remaining licensees.
In addition, with respect to the rating for this section The IMPEP Handbook states in part that a Satisfactory with Recommendations should be given when the " Review indicates that some licensing actions do not fully address health and safety concerns or indicates reneated examples of problems with respect to thoroughness, completeness, consistency, clarity, technical quality, and adherence to existing guidance in licensing actions." This is contrasted with the criteria which states in part that an Unsatisfactory should be given if the " Review indicates that licensing actions freauently fail to address important health and safety concerns......" We feel two potential health and safety issues do not constitute a frequent failure to address important health and safety issues. Therefore, we request the wording be changed and that a satisfactory with recommendations rating be given in this area.
Richard, thank you for giving us the opportunity to share our voice in this draft report. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed respenses, please do not hesitate to contact me.
l l
Sincere Vi - L. Cooper, Chief Radiation Control Program l
Bureau Of Air and Radiation VLC/psw i
Enclosure j
i l
i 3
Responses to Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)
Recommendations Recommendation I:
Based on the record of overdue inspections during the review period, the review team recommends: (1) that Kansas heighten its management oversight of the inspection due dates of core licenses (Priority 1, 2, and 3 licensees) to ensure inspections are performed at the required frequencies; and (2) that the new inspection tracking system currently under development include provisions for flagging initial inspections at an early date to ensure they are inspected within 6 months of the date oflicense issuance. In addition, Kansas should consider updating procedure Inspection Priority System Radioactive Materials ( RHS-7) to incorporate procedures on initial inspections as stated in IMC 2800, Section 04.03a.
Response
1.
In our response to the IMPEP Questionnaire Item "A VI 26" regarding program strengths and weaknesses we stated in part:
". difficulties in tracking inspection and license actions resulting in overdue inspections or license actions which have " fallen through the cracks." This was recognized by management l
and the backlog ofinspections and license actions has been brought under control through increased management attention."
As a result of this increased management oversight the backlog of overdue inspections was eliminated prior to the IMPEP team's visit.
To ensure there is no recurrence of a backlog, this oversight will continue, specifically:
a.
Quarterly the Radioactive Materials and X-ray Section Supervisor will prepare a list ofinspections due in the upcoming quarter and meet with the inspectors to discuss l
assignments.
At this meeting the inspections due in the upcoming quarter will be assigned to a.
i specific inspectors.
l b.
The inspectors will be responsible for scheduling their assigned inspections to be completed within that quarter.
The Supervisor will monitor the progress of these inspections on at least a monthly basis to ensure the inspections stay on track.
l Scheduled completion:
Complete - Increased management oversight is ongoing.
2.
The new inspection tracking system currently under development will include the ability to flag initial inspections at an early date to ensure they are inspected within 6 months of the i
date oflicense issuance. This will be accomplished by having the ability to assign priorities which will automatically set inspection due dates at six month intervals. For example, the priorities will be real numbers from 0 to 5 which the software will use to calculate the i
7 inspection due date. For a new license, a priority of 0.5 can be assigned which will result in an inspection due date six months from the license issuance date. This will also allow more flexibility in setting inspection due dates for other licensees, for example, if it is felt a licensee should have a follow up inspection in three months then the priority can be set to 0.25 which will then flag an inspection due at the appropriate time.
In addition, Procedure ( RHS-7)" Inspection Priority System Radioactive Materials" will be revised to reflect these changes and incorporate procedures for initial inspections consistent with IMC 2800.
Scheduled Completion:
In progress by June 1999 Until the new system is fully implemented, we will continue using the current database system with increased management oversight to ensure inspections are completed appropriately.
Recommendation 2:
The review team recommends that the State's " Inspection Priority System" be revised for reciprocity inspections to correspond to the inspection goals in IMC 1220.
Response
The RHS-7 procedures dealing with inspection priority and reciprocity will be revised to ensure reciprocity inspections are conducted at intervals comparable to the inspection goals in IMC 1220.
Scheduled completion:
i Completed Prior to the MRB l-Recommendation 3:
The review team recommends that the State conduct reciprocity inspections at intervals equal l
to those stated in IMC 1220.
l
Response
The corrective action for recommendation number 2 encompasses this recommendation.
The new computerized inspection tracking system will also allow the tracking of reciprocity inspections and priorities in a similar manner as Kansas licensees.
The program enhancements and improvements in the responses to recommendations 1 and j
2, will also ensure reciprocity inspections are conducted at comparable intervals to IMC 1220.
l l
Scheduled Completion:
In conjunction with recommendation 2.
i Until a ampletion, reciprocity inspections will be tracked by management to ensure completion at the appropriate intervals.
2
7 Recommendation 4:
The review team recommends that the inspection report form be strengthened by including aames ofindividuals contacted and interviewed in greater detail.
Response
The implementation of the computerized inspection tracking system is planned to include the electronic generation ofinspection reports and storage ofinspection data. A new inspection form j
has been developed which includes a listing of the persons interviewed and those present at the exit meeting. This will be implemented as the new computerized system is completed.
I Scheduled Completion In conjunction with recommendation 1, this is an ongoing process.
Recommendation 5:
The team recommended Kansas develop a procedure to help identify poor licensee performance, when licensee root cause evaluations should be performed and to assist in assessing licensee root cause evaluations Also a training course that teaches these techniques was recommended as part of the inspector qualification process.
Response
The computerized inspection tracking system also incorporates features to track and trend specific items ofnoncompliance. This will allow staff to readily identify poor licensee performance and assist in determining when root cause evaluations should be per'ormed.
Training will be provided to staff as availability and funds allow. A procedure will be developed after staff has had an opportunity to attend training. The methods used to provide training is a combination of courses provided by the NRC (as they are available) and workshops / courses arranged using other resources such as ORNL, Universities, Medical Facilities, Utilities or Industrial facilities.
l Scheduled Completion.
Determined by training availability, continuous ongoing i
Recommendation 6:
The review team recommends that the State continue to increase management oversight of l
the inspection program.
Response
The State of Kansas is committed to improving the inspection process and to continue the efforts already taken to ensure inspections are performed in a timely and accurate manner. The specific actions taken or being taken in the responses to recommendations 1 through 5 demonstrate a strong commitment to increased and continued management oversight.
l 3
Scheduled Completion:
Increased management oversight is a continuous and ongoing effort. Refer to recommendations 1 through 5 for details.
Recommendation 7:
i The review team recommends the State document a training and qualifications program equivalent to that contained in IMC 1246, assess the current training needs of the staff and provide the necessary training identified by this assessment.
Response
Using IMC 1246 as a guide, a matrix has been created to determine which individuals require training and identify which training is needed. The methods used to provide training are a combination ofcourses provided by the NRC (as they are available) and workshops / courses arranged using other resources such as local schools, hospitals or industrial facilities.
Specifically, the following have been performed to address training needs:
A teletherapy / brachytherapy course has been jointly developed by three Kansas a.
licensees and will be presented to all the RAM & X-ray section staff the week of August 24, 1998.
This course is designed ' i be equivalent to the NRC teletherapy / brachytherapy course.
b.
Application has been made for admission to the NRC licensing course in September 1998, as well as the NRC brachytherapy course in March 1999.
A local nuclear power plant has been contacted to determine availability of courses c.
l for transportation of radioactive material and root cause analysis.
Staff will attend these as available.
t i
Scheduled Completion:
Assessment of training needs: Complete Completion of training: As training courses and funding are available.
Recommendation 8:
The review team recommends that program management consider increasmg supervisory oversight to ensure that all pertinent items are adequately and properly addressed during the review process to provide quality assurance and to improve the technical quality oflicenses.
Response
The State of Kansas recognizes the need for increased management oversight in all areas of the Radiation Control Program and is committed to ensuring the technical quality of our licenses.
The responses to recommendations 9 through 12 are offered as examples of this commitment.
Scheduled Completion:
a Continuous and ongoing 4
i
Recommendation 9:
The review team also recommends that the State begin a self-evaluation of all existing licenses to determine the technical quality and to identify potential health and safety issues. This l
evaluation should be accomplished as soon as possible to identify and correct other possible license deficiencies. In addition, the State should ask the licensee to supply copies of any missing documents that should be included with the application.
Response
We are currently performing a comprehensive review of all licenses to ensure the technical quality and verify there are no health and safety issues present. All priority I licensees have been reviewed. This review has served to verify the teams' findings that there are inconsistencies in the way licenses have been written, however none of the inconsistencies created health and safety issues to the citizens of Kansas. The responses to recommendations 10 and 11 are designed to reduce inconsistencies. Other licensees are being reviewed in their entirety whenever there are any license actions, inspections or renewals of those licenses processed. This will ensure that, at a minimum, all the licenses will be reviewed within one renewal cycle (2 years). Reviews oflicenses for which no actions are current will be reviewed as resources are available based upon priority.
Scheduled Completion:
Priority one licenses: Complete All others: Complete by June 2000 Recommendation 10:
The review team recommends that Radiation Control Staff update the license guidance to address and parallel the current Kansas Radiation Protection Regulations to assist in the consistency and accuracy of the license review process.
Res; onse:
The Radioactive Materials and X-ray Section collectively revised the non-medical licensing guides using the " Consolidate Guidance About Materials Licenses"as well as other Agreement State guides appropriate for the particular Kansas guide. The Kansas Medical Guides are currently being revised. It should be noted that since Kansas does not have any large irradiators, these guides have not been developed and guidance from NRC and other Agreement States will be used should a large irradiator be located in Kansas Scheduled Completion:
Non-medical guides: Complete and in use Medical guides: Complete and in ute Recommendation 11:
The review team recommends that licensing check lists be developed, used, and retained in the file to ensure that all elements of the application have been submitted and that the license is complete.
5 l
l
R:sp:nse:
l Using NRC Licensing Guides and other Agreement State Guides as reference, licensing l
checklists have been developed for licenses. These are in use and have been included in the license files for all license actions as well as reviews being performed per recommendation 9.
Scheduled Completion:
Non-medical: Complete and in use Medical: Complete and in use Recommendation 12:
j The review team recommends that the State place documentation of all pre-licensing visits in the app. apriate licensing file.
Response
The Kansas inspection procedure is being revised to require all pre-licensing visits to be documented using the regular inspection process, which includes placing all appropriate documentation in the licensing file.
Scheduled Completion:
Complete by January 1999,in the interim we have instructed personnel to place pre-licensing report in licencing file. This is being monitored by management.
Recommendation 13:
The team recommends that the State revise their incident response procedure to conform with OSP procedure, SA-300, including medical events.
Response
The RHS Procedures on incident response are being revised to be consistent with OSP procedure, SA-300. All future reportable events will be reported per this procedure.
Scheduled Completion:
Completed Prior to the MRB Recommendation 14:
The review team recommends that a system be established to track the progress ofincident investigations and to verify that each investigation is evaluated by management, that all reporting requirements are met, that follow-up actions and close-out information are documented.
Response
RHS-47 " Emergency Response Documentation" has been revised to require that each investigation of incidents, allegations and reportable mis-administrations be evaluated by management, all reporting requirements be met, and that follow-up actions and close-out information is documented and sent to NRC. In addition, a Case Number is assigned to each investigation for tracking and logged in the Investigation File.
l.
6
7 Scheduled Completion:
Complete and in use Recommendation 15:
The review team recommends that the inspection procedure be revised to include narrative documentation of the inspector's review ofincidents and description of the licensee's corrective actions.
Response
As stated in recommendation 5, the inspection form is being revised. This revision will include more detail of the inspector's review ofincidents and corrective actions.
Scheduled Completion-In conjunction with recommendation 5.
j Recommendation 16:
The review team recommends the State send copies of final close-out reports to the NRC in accordance with the OSP procedure, " Reporting Material Events - SA-300."
Response
This information requested has been provided to the Region IV NRC Office and we feel this recommendation should be closed.
l Scheduled Completion:
l Combined with 13, the 4 close-out reports in question have been sent to NRC. We consider this recommendation complete.
Recommendation 17:
The review team recommends that the State review and amend all remaining industrial radiography licenses with license conditions necessary to meet the Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Operations
Response
All industrial radiography licenses have been reviewed and license actions have been taken to ensure the inclusion of the radiography equipment rule condition as appropriate.
l l
Schedule ~d Completion:
Complete Recommendation 18:
The review team recommends that the State compare the Kansas regulations involved with the " Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and Reporting" and " Radiation Protection Requirements: Amended Definitions and Criteria" amendments against the final NRC rules and make any necessary changes to ensure compatibility.
7
y.
Resp::nse:
These regulations have been reviewed by the staff and no compatibility issues were identified. Kansas regulation 28-35-231 b " Transfer for Disposal and Manifests" contains language virtually identical to 10 CFR 20.2006 " Transfer for Disposal and Manifests" and Appendix F. It is our understanding that States have three years after the effective date of regulations in order to l
' implement them. We plan to promulgate regulations implementing 10 CFR 20.2006 with respect to Appendix G within that time frame.
The " Radiation Protection Requirements: Amended Defmitions and Criteria" amendments were reviewed and the Kansas regulations are either equivalent or more restrictive.
Scheduled Completion:
Complete i'.
t i
u d
1-i s
4
. ~.
I l
t Aaenda for Manaaement Review Board Meetina Wednesday. September 9.1998.10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.. OWFN 3-B-4 1.
Convention. MRB Chair convenes meeting (H. Thompson) 2.
New Business - Consideration of Kansas IMPEP Report l
A.
Introduction of Kansas IMPEP Team Members (J. Hornor) 8.
Introduction of Kansas representatives and other State representatives participating through teleconference.
C.
Findings regarding Kansas Program (IMPEP Team)
Status of Materials Inspection Program Technical Quality of Inspections Technical Staffing and Training Technical Quality of Licensing Actions Response to incidents and Allegations Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility Sealed Source & Device Evaluation Program D.
Questions. (MRB Members)
E.
Comments from State of Kansas F.
MRB Consultation / Comments on issuance of Report (H. Thompson)
Recommendation for " heightened oversight" and next IMPEP review 3.
Status of Upcoming Reviews 4.
Adjoumment (H. Thompson)
Attendees:
Hugh Thompson, MRB Chair, EDO Richard Bangart, MRB Mumber, OSP Karen Cyr, MRB Member, OGC Carl Paperiello, MRB Member, NMSS Thomas Martin, MRB Member, AEOD Robert Quillin, OAS Liaison to MRB Vick Cooper, Director, KS RCP Jack Hornor, IMPEP Team Leader, RIV/WCFO Jared Thompson, IMPEP Team Member, AR Jenny Johansen, IMPEP Team Member, NMSS Lance Rakovan, IMPEP Team Member, OSP Linda McLean, RIV Paul Lohaus, OSP ATTACHMENT 2 l