ML20209G836

Responds to Memo of 990204,requesting Region IV Response to Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program Questionnaire.Regions Responses Provided in Encl & Attachments

ML20209G836
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/08/1999
From:	Chamberlain D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Merchant S NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
Shared Package
ML20209G825	List: ML20209G820 ML20209G828 ML20209G836
References
NUDOCS 9907200026
Download: ML20209G836 (68)

Text

.. ,+5"" %$- UNITED STATES E $ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

-t i c

) REGloN IV 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, sulTE 400 ARUNGToN TEXAS 76011-8064 March 8, 1999 r

M'.iMORANDUM TO: Sally Merchant, IMPEP Team Leader Office of Nuclear Material Safety And Safeguards n

FROM: Dwight D. Chari1berlain, Director g Division of Nuclear Materials Safety

SUBJECT:

INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM REVIEW This responds to the memorandum of February 4,1999, requesting Region IV's response to the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program questionnaire. The region's responses are provided in the enclosure and its attachments. Because some of the responses address questions regarding allegations, certain sections have been provided with the appropriate cover sheet. Please ensure that this information is handled in accordance with applicable guidance.

I understand that my staff has coordinated with you to schedule entrance and exit briefings with appropriate regional staff.

' cc:

E. Merschoff P. Gwynn L. Howell C. Cain E. Collins B. Spitzberg t

1 i

l i

9907200026 990630 '

PDR ORO NE ED PDR ,

i l

1 Region IV .

Reporting Period: March 1997 to Present '

A: COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS i ,

l. 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 phapter 2800 (issued 4/17/95). The list should include initial inspections that are

. overdue.

. As of the end of February 1999, Region IV has no inspections that are overdue by more than 25% of the assigned inspection frequency.

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.

Region IV DNMS has a senior radiation specialist assigned responsibility for monitoring inspection planning activities in NMIB. This staff representative is responsible for producing a list identifying licensees due for inspection each calendar quarter. (The listing may be extended over more than one calendar quarter to allow for advance planning by ",

inspectors.) Licensees due for inspection are either assigned to individual Inspectors, or the inspectors may select licensees and plan their inspection trips accordingly. A planning session is held by the NMlB staff during each calendar quarter to assign work to each inspector for the

~

i I

upcoming quarter.

The NMIB chief reviews final inspection assignments, and progress in I completing inspections within a given time interval is monitored by the branch chief. If inspection schedules need to be adjusted to ensure that an )

inspection does not become overdue, assignments are made by the branch chief.

3. Please identify individual licensees or groups of licensees the Region is inspecting less frequently than called for in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800 and state the reason for the change.

Region IV is inspecting all licensees at the intervals prescribed in Manual Chapter 2800.

2-1

4. Licensees granted reciprocity during the reporting period: ,

CALENDAR YEAR 1997 Applications inspections by RIV Service (Teletherapy,Irradiator) -

5 2 Priority 1 (Radiography) 19 10 Priority 2 (Decon) . 1 0 ,

Priority 3 (Services) 5 4 Priority 3 (WeII Logging) 13 3 Other (Gauges /R&D) 48 7 Totals 91 26 Inspection Goal 25 CALENDAR YEAR 1998 Applications inspections by RIV Service (Teletherapy,Irradiator) 4 2

~

Priority 1 (Radiography) 22 11 Priority 2 (Decon) 1 1 Priority 3 (Services) 6 1 Priority 3 (Well Logging) 11 3 Other (Gauges /R&D) 65 7 Totals 109 25 Inspection Goal 25

5. Other than reciprocity licensees, how many field inspections of radiographers were performed?

Since April 1997 Region IV has performed 19 field site inspections out of a total of 46 radiographyinspections. Of the radiographylicensees inspected during this period,16 are located in Agreement States (but hold NRC licenses) and perform radiography infrequently in non-Agreement States. Thus,it is difficult if not impossible to observe them in the field. In

l i

. .. 1 l

addition, a number of other unsuccessful attempts,were made to co iduct field inspections of radiographers at temporary jobsites.

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 insp'ections actually performed, and the reasons for any differences between the goals and the actual number of inspections performed.

Region IV has previously relied upon guidance provided in MC 2800 and 1220 to determine number of inspections to be done in any fiscal year.

Priorities are established in accordance with guidance in MC 2800 for licensees in non-Agreement States and reactive inspections, andt ..iidance found in MC 1220 is used for Agreement State licensens. For special program initiatives, guidance found in Temporary Instructions and informal instruction from the program office have been used.

The Region's most recent Operating Plan, Section li.C.3-2, "Related FY 1999 Program Metrics," specifies a target number of lnspectione to be performed for the year and for each quarter of the year. For FY 1999, that target number is 250 inspections. The FY 1998 numerical goal for inspections was 350.

i inspection accomplishments: FY 1997 381 inspections j FY 1998 300 inspections FY 1999 69 inspections (first quarter)  !

1

. In FY 1998, the 350 numerical goal was not met because of the resource allotments to reactive inspections and other activities. Very few inspections were overdue and the program was not adversely affected.

11 Technical Ouality of Inspections

7. What, if any, changes were made to your written inspection procedures during the reporting period?

During the most recent reporting period, Region IV has created or updated several policy guides:

• PG 0610.1, " Notification of Agreement and Non-Agreement State Agencies Prior to Conducting Materials Program inspections" dated January 5,1999.

• PG 2006.2, " Conducting Exit Meetings," dated June 25,1998.

• PG 4090.5, " Inspection Reports," dated December 22,1997. '

s

. l I

1

~

• PG 9005B.1," Department of the Air Force Master Material License Project Manager Responsibilities," dated March 9,1998.

. PG 90108, " Work Plan for Work-At-Home Materials inspectors and License Reviewers," dated October 23,1998.

The Region IV inspection program is implemented in accordance with inspection manual chapters, applicable mana'gement directives and temporary instructions. One regional policy guide provides guidance regarding contact with state officials, but this policy guide has not changed in years. Changes to the regional inspection program consist of

_., those implemented under changes to inspection manual chapters and 2

agency management directives.

8. Prepare a table showing the number and types of supervisory accompaniments made during the review period. l All inspectors received a supervisory accompaniment in FY 1998, and I DNMS is on track to satisfactorily complete the accompaniment goal in FY 1999. However, this area continues to be achallenge. This was identified in the last IMPEP, and the issue was left open. At the end of FY 1997, DNMS again identified that 2 of 15 inspectors (each exceeded 12 months ,,

by only a short pericd of time) did not receive an accompaniment in FY 1997. This was discussed at the 1/98 management retreat and additional emphasis and actions were taken.

=. The following lists accompaniments by DNMS supervisors during the -

review period:

Supervisor inspector / reviewer License Cat. Date SUPERVISOR INSPECTOR LICENSE DATES CATEGORY L Howell L McLean Master Materials March 1997 M. Shaffer Industrial / Radio- April 1997 graphy J. Montgomery Nuclear Pharmacy April 1997 R. Evans Uranium Hecovery October 1997 K. Prendergast Radiography /Gaug July 1998 T- e T. Gaines November 1997

SUPERVISOR INSPECTOR LICENSE DATES CATEGORY F. Wenslawski D.Skov -

February 1997 E. Garcia February 1997 C. Hooker Fuel Cycle April 1997 D. Ctianey Fuel Cycle April 1997 K. Prendergast Research April 1997 C. Hooker Fuel Cycle May 1997 D.Chaney Decommissioning May 1997 Materials J. Montgomery Nuclear Pharmacy August 1997 J. Montgomery Nuclear Pharmacy April 1998 E. Garcia Gauge June 1998 D.Skov June 1998 D. Chamberlain W. Radcliffe Radiography April 1997 B. Spitzberg M. Shaffer Materials June 1997 J. Everett Decommissioning July 1997 L, Carson Decommissioning July 1997 R. Brown Irradiator August 1997 R. Leonardi Materials November 1997 V. Everett Decommissioning December 1997 C. Hooker Fuel Cycle December 1997 J. Cruz Materials January,1998 R. Brown Materials March 1998 D. Rice Materials March 1998 V. Everett Decommissioning April 1998 D.Chaney Decommissioning June 1998 L. Carsor. Decommissioning June 1998 ,

l

I l

l i )

SUPERVISOR INSPECTOR LICENSE DATES CATEGORY

- V. Everett Decommissioning July 1998 W. Britz Fuel Cycle Jttly 1998 V. Everett ISFSI September 1998 D. Rice ISFSI September 1998 D. Simpkins Uranium Recovery September 1998 R. Evans Uranium Recovery September 1998 W. Britz Decommissioning December 1998 L. Carson Decommissioning December 1998 l D. Simpkins 11e(2) LLW January 1999 C. Cain B. Evans Uranium Recovery January 1997 l L. McLean Uranium Recovery August 1997 L. Carson Uranium Recovery February 1998 T. Gaines Air Force December 1998 E. Collins J. Cruz Gauge / reactive July 1998 R. Brown irradiator September 1998 E. Garcia Medical January 1999 R. Leonardi Radiographer January 1999

9. Describe internal procedures for conducting supervisory accompaniments of inspectors in the field. If supervisory accompaniments were documented, please provide copics of the documentation for each accompaniment.

A Regional Office Policy Guide specifias that first line supervisors should accompany inspectors at least once during each fiscal year or appraisal period. Accompaniments are also summarized in division quarterly reports.

L t

4

10. Describe or provide an update on your instrumentatig and methods of  ;

calibration. Are allinstruments properly calibrated r.t the present time?

External contracts arid arrangements for calibration of equipment is i provided by the Region IV Division of Nuclear Materials Safety. Some I equipment is calibrated by a local firm. Other equipment, especially newer ,

I technology devices containing processors, are sent to the manufacturers  !

l for galibration. Because the large supply of instruments in the Arlington office may include devices that are out of calibration, inspectors ensure before leaving the office that the equipment they plan for use in the field has been calibrated.

During 1996, a written procedure was established describing the process l for response testing of survey instruments. The procedure establishes a method to determine the reliability of portable survey instruments prior to use. All inspectors were instructed in the response testing procedure.

A significant number of new instruments were purchased during 1998 for use by materials inspectors. Also, as a result of the Walnut Creek Field Office closure, the equipment inventory for that office was transferred to Arlington during 1998. '

. j ll! Technical Staffino and Trainina  ;

' 11. Please provide a staffing plan, or complete a listing using the suggested format below, of the professiona: (technical) person years of effort applied to the

! agreement or radioactive material program by individual. Include the name, l position, and area of effort. Include all vacancies and identify all senior personnel assigned to monitor work of junior personnel. If consultants were used to carry out the program's radioactive materials responsibilities, include their efforts. The table heading should be:

l l

k l '

l l

l 1

1 L l

i

._:= ,

Nuclear Materials inspection Branch i

NAME POSITION AREA OF EFFORT B. Brown * , Sr. Radiation Specialist Materials inspection J. Cruz Sr. Radiation Specialist Materials inspection R. Evans Health Physicist inspector-in-training E. Garcia Radiation Specialist Materials Inspection (WAH)

_ R. Leonardi Radiation Specialist Materials inspection I G. Morell Radiation Specialist inspector-in training K. Prendergast Radiation Specialist Materials inspection (WAH)

D.Skov Radiation Specialist Materials inspection (WAH)

• Assigned responsibility, as needed, to review / assist junior inspectors.  ;

• I Nuclear Materials Licensina Branch l NAME POSITION AREA OF EFFORT

. _ . . V. Campbell

• Radiation Specialist Materials Licensing  ;

J. Cook Health Physicist Materials Licensing C. Hernandez Radiation Specialist Materials Licensing i

T. Gaines Health Physicist Materials Licensing J. Montgomery License Reviewer Materials Licensing (WAH)

C. Murnahan Licensing Assistant Materials Licensing Jack Whitten* Sr. License Reviewer Materials Licensing

1 i

. l l

Fuel Cycle and Decommissionino Branch NAME POSITION AREA OF EFFORT W. Britz Radiation Specialist insp.-In-training / Fuel Cycle L Carson Radiation Specialist Decomm. & UR V. Everett* Sr. Radiation Specialist Decommissioning D. Rice Radiation Specialist Decommissioning D. Simpkins Radiation Specialist Uranium Recovery

• Assigned responsibility, as needed, to review / assist junior inspectors. j

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.

D. Rice joined Region IV during October 1997. He has a BS degree in Radiclogical Sciences, Nuclear Medicine Sciences & Business Administration. He has 23 years experience in health physics, most recently with DOE. j D. Simpkins joined Region IV during January 1998. He has a MS in Environmental Engineering Sciences and a BS in Zoology. He has 15 years experience in health ,

physics, most recently as reactor manager at the University of Florida.

Wayne Britz joined Region IV during March 1998. He has a MS degree in Nuclear Engineering and a BS degree in Marine Science. He has 32 years of experience in 4 health physics, most recently as a private industry and government consultant.

i Greg Morell joined Region IV during April 1998. He has a BS in Health Physics and about 6 years of experience. Prior to joining .he NRC, Greg was employed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

13. Please list all professional staff who have not yet met the qualification requirements of license reviewer / materials inspection staff (Inspection Manual Chapter 1246). For each, list the courses or equivalent training / experience they need to attend and a tentative schedule for completion of these requirements.

Nuclear Materials Licensina Branch All six of the NMLB license reviewers have been qualified under MC 1246. Five were granted waivers (grandfathered) based on previous certifications and/or experience, while one reviewer (Hernandez) recently completed the MC 1246 certification process. The licensing assistant does not have signature authority and will not be qualified or certified to perform licensing reviews.

Nuclear Materials insoection Branch All but two inspectors have been fully certified as materials inspectors under either MC 1245 or MC 1246. One inspector (Evans) will soon receive interim

I certification and has completed all core training requirements. The second inspector (Morell) lacks one core training course (Nucle'ar Medicine) and one region-required specialized training course (Well Logging), but th!s inspector is .

exp,ected to complete his certification process by April 1999. j Fuel Cycle & Decommissionina Branch i

All but one inspector assigned to fuel cycle facilities has completed certification l under either MC 1?.45 or MC 1246. This inspector, Wayne Britz is currently I completing his qualification journal and lacks one formal core course and two self study courses (four other self study courses identified in MC 1246 have not yet been developed). In addition, Wayne needs to challenge the site access training  !

exam, and complete one accompaniment inspection to a facility other than fuel l cycle. i

14. Please identify the technical staff who left the Regional DNMS program during this period. i William Radcliffe left the NRC during August 1997 to pursue an advanced degree at the University of Wisconsin.

Both M. Shaffer and L McLean left the technical staff to become Regional State Agreement Officers.

NMLB's previous licensing assistant (B. Gruszynski) retired. C. Murnahan was assigned to the position of licensing assistant during July 1998.

Elmo Collins is on a rotation to DNMS for up to two years. He is currently acting as Branch Chief, NMIB.

The Region reorganizert during early Fiscal Year 1999. The deputy director position will be abolished and will not be refilled after March 1999.

Closure of the WCFO at the end of Fiscal Year 1998 resulted in the departure or retirement of several key individuals, including B. Prange, D. Chaney and F.

Wenslawski. Four of the former WCFO employees were authorized to continue employment with the NRC as work-at-home (WAH) employees for a two year period.

The Director of DNMS, Ross Scarano, retired during February 1999, and the

- director's slot was subsequently filled by Dwight Chamberlain.

15. List the vacant positions in each program, the length of time each position has been vacant, and a brief summary of efforts to fill the vacancy.

Nuclear Materials Licensina Branch With the closure of WCFO and subsequent re-organization of the Arlington office, one vacancy was created in the licensing branch. However, at the present time one of the former WCFO licensing staff members is filling this position. Regional management plans to fill this position within the next year since it was intended

R i

l- l that the work at-home (WAH) staff not be counted against the regional staffing levels. ,

Nuclear Materials inspection Branch j With the closure of WCFO and re-assignment of personnel in late 1998, two vacancies have been created in this branch. However, three former WCFO inspection staff members are assigned to the branch, effectively filling the positions. Regional management is currently reviewing candidates for the two open positions and plans to fill them in the near future. The WAH staff will remain with the branch through the intended two year period as planned during the WCFO closure and transition.

1 .

( Fuel Cycle /Decommissionino Branch

, With the reorganization of the Arlington office following closure of WCFO, one i vacancy exists in this branch. One additional decommissioning inspector is

! expected to depart the agency within the next 2-3 months. Regional management is currently interviewing candidates for this position and hopes to fill it in the near future. ,

IV TechnicalOualityof Licensina Actions 16, Please identify any major, unusual, or complex licenses which were issued, received a .

major amendment, were terminated, decommissioned, submitted a bankruptcy l notification or renewed in this period. Also identify any new or amended licenses that now require emergency plans.

l None of our licenses, past or present, require an emergency plan. Major licensing actions are listed in the table below.

i LICENSEE NAME LICENSE NO. CONSIDERATIONS l Oklahoma State 35-00237-03 Academic broad scope license )

University that was renewed. Required a licensing site visit- 10/2-3/97 l

Phillips Petroleura 35-00313-03 License amended to authorize decommissioning of a separate building. Review involved DWM i and RIV FCD Branch.

Army- Fitzsimons 05-00046-13 License was terminated.

License authorized a Type A broad scope medicallicense.

Required coordination with the j RIV FCD Rranch_

l l

i. j

l -

L 2:e LICENSEE NAME LICENSE NO. CONSIDERATIONS l

i Army- White Sands '

30-02405-10 (1) License amended to adopt a change in procedures for the i

Gamma Range Facility. This ,

amendment required coordination with HQ SSD.

(2) Another amendment was Issued to authorize irradiation of explosives and flammable riatorials.

l .

e __r

"~

VA'-San Antonio 42-15881-01 During renewal process, a 1 l

violation was identified by I license reviewer. Use of material not authorized by license resulted in escalated enforcement.

University of Oklahoma 35-03176- Renewalissued for this nuclear Health Sciences Center 04MD pharmacy to include academic )

instruction and R&D Vista Technologies,Inc. 42-03176-01 New license issued authorizing * '

site characterization; decontamination and decommissioning of facilities, equipment, and containers;

,, solidification and treatment of waste; and packaging customer waste for transport.

Nuclear Imaging Ltd. 40-26908-01 Renewal of a mobile nuclear medicine license with a fixed facility, multiple storage facilities, and authorization for mobile services to provide both scan-in-van and services within the client's facilities.

Continental Alriines,Inc. 42-27562-01 New radiography licensee with locations of use in airports in Ohio and New Jersey. The licensee's main office in located l

In Texas.

Gold Perforating 35-012733-03 New welllogging licensee using 1 5

Company, Inc. sealed sources only.

St. Francis Medical 53-11966-02 New license for gamma knife.

f*mntar ,

j I

L

{:

• l LICENSEE NAME - LICENSE NO. CONSIDERATIONS 1 Great Western 40-27598-01 New radiopharmacy license Radiopharmaceutics,'ine, issued. Licensing site visit l conducted on 11/19/98

' Advanced inspection 35-27588 01 Allegation received that AIT was Technologies (AIT) conducting radiography without a license and was using material under the supervision of another RIV licensee. After 01 investigation and enforcement activities, AIT was required to npply.for lleanna

17. Discuss any variances in licensing policies and procedures or exemptions from the regulations granted during the review period. I l

The LTS provides no mechanism to identify cases for a specified interval that have been processed with variances or exemptions. However, a list has been produced through LTS of pill exemption cases issued from Region IV since the database was created. This list is available for the team's review during their visit to the regional office. Based on staff recollection, the following cases are identified:

LICENSEE NAME LICENSE NO. LICENSE TYPE Exemptions Authorized to NRC Regulations i Department of the 30-02405-10 Gamma Range 36.69(a)

Army Facility for 36.31(b)

Commander radiation effects White Sands Missile studies (Self Range contained irradiator)

SL Luke's Regional 11-27312-01 Nuclear Medicine 35.315(a)(4)

Medical Center Limited Scope 35.415(a)(4)

Schlumberger 42-00090s03 Well Logging 39.41(a)(1)

Technology 39.69(c)

Core Laboratories, 42-26928-01 Well Logging 39.47 inc. (Currently dba ProTechnics under review by Division of Core NMSS)

I shnratnrian

,e *

18. What, if any, changes were made in your written licensing procedures (new procedures, updates, policy memoranda, etc.) during the reporting period? ,

Region IV does not maintain written licensing procedures apart from those used by aQ regional offices such as NMSS Policy and Guidance Directives, TAR responses, and recently finalized consolidated guidance documents

. (NUREG-1556).

19. For NRC Regions, identify by licensee name, license number and type, any renewal applications that have been pending for one year or more.

This information has been provided to NMSS quarterly by memorandum. The latest memorandum, dated January 20,1999, lists one licensee,' an industrial radiographer, Diamond H Testing Company, License No.1127316-01. The licensing function (NMLB) had eliminated all renewals older than a y' ear old as of the end of the FY 1998. NMLB completed two license renewals during the first fiscal quarter of 1999 leaving five cases pending. Although all of these cases have been pending in excess of 180 days, NMLB expects to issue all five during FY99 and to allow no other renewals to exceed the 180-day mark by the end of the fiscal year.

V. Responses to incidents and Alleaations

20. Please provide a list of' 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.) that occurred in the region during the review period.

Please see Table 1.

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 mghtbe affected notified? Was an appropriate and timely PN generated?

Please See Table 2

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.

Please See Table 2

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.

Table 3 provides a summary of materia!s allegations and 01 investigations for the reporting period.

If' additional information regarding a particular case is required, detailed material may be obtained from the allegation file and/or docket file for each licensee.

24.~ Identify any changes to your procedures for handling allegations that occurred during the period of this review.- ,

Region IV has a Regional Office Policy Guide (ROPG No. 0858.8, " Management of Allegations," dated September 25,1998) that provides specific instructions to Region IV personnel regarding implementation of Management Directive 8.8. This

, policy guide changed during this review period as agency guidance changed with regard to handling allegations. Notwithstanding changes, the regional policies have remained consistent with agency guidance.

VI. General

25. Please prepare a summary of the status of the Region's actions taken in response to the comnients and recommendations following the last review.

a. IMPEP Recommendation: Following NMSS' clarification of " fire rated,"

Region IV should either provide evidence to DWM that the Arlington safe meets DWM's guidance for fire protsetion of the fim:ncial instruments, or l obtain a security container for financial assurance instruments that meets the fire protection guidance.

Region IV has procured a fire-rated safe for storage of financial Instruments ~.

b. IMPEP Recommendation: Region IV should adopt the guidance contained in the new IMC 2605 on inspections of SDMP and non-SDMP decommissioning licensees and terminated sites, and implement the new decommissioning inspection procedures referenced by IMC 2605.

Region IV has addressed some deficiencies identified during the last IMPEP review relating to implementatlun of IMC 2605. As noted in our responses to this finding, we believe that the appropriate inspection procedures were used during decommissioning inspections, although the j new .aspection procedures may not have been referenced in inspection i reports and time was not recorded against these procedures (IP 87104 and  !

IP 88104) in RITS data. Since this IMPEP, the region has identified these procedures in formal inspection reports where applicable and the inspection staff has coded time against these procedures in RITS data.

In addition to actions identified above, the prior IMPEP team also commented on the region's use of checklists identified in Ips 87104 and 88104. Region IV had not completed the checklists for inspections where a formal inspection report was used to document the inspection findings.

Use of the checklists was subsequently discussed during a decommissioning counterpart meeting held after the 1997 IMPEP review.

During that meeting, several questions were raised about use of the checklists when formal inspection reports were used to document inspection findings, and the program office committed to review this matter and provide further guidance. In the interim, regional staff committed to use the checklists as described in the inspection ,

procedures. Region IV has continued to use these checklists, even when i formal inspection reports are used to document a decommissioning i

l

.a

..= ~

Inspection. However, no further guidance has been provided by the program office regarding whether the checklists must, be completed following each inspection. Use of both the checklist and formal inspection

, report may be redundant in some cases.

c. IMPEP Recommendation: NMSS and Region IV should jointly develop training requirements for regional uranium recovery inspectors and issue those requirements in a revision to IMC 1246.

Region IV and NMSS have developed an appendix to IMC 1246 which specifies training requirements for uranium recovery inspectors and the guidance has been published in the manual chapter.

E d. IMPEP Recommendation: Region IV uranium recovery inspectors should I

review decommissioning records during routine inspections and document the decommissioning record review and findings in inspection reports.

Region IV instructed its uranium recovery inspectors on the need to include review of decommissioning records in the!r routine inspection J activities and that the results of such reviews should be documented in inspection reports. S.ince the last IMPEP review, the results of the inspectors findings have been consistently documented in formal inspection reports. .

e. IMPEP Recommendation: Region IV management should accompany all inspectors in accordance with regional policy guidance.

, ,'] See answer to Question #8.

26. Provide a brief description of your program's stre'gths and weaknesses. These strengths and weaknesses should be supported by examples of successes, problems or difficulties which occurred during this review period. l Strenaths The Division of Nuclear Materials Safety's Quarterly Activity Report provides an l excellent performance measurement tool for monitoring Division performance.

The report is utilized to provide input for Operating Plan updates, yearly regional performance updates for the Regional Administrator's appraisal, and a historical record for such things as IMPEP reviews. The Division is currently conducting a review of the Quarterly Activity Report and plans to make changes to the report for better alignment with Operating Plan metrics and IMPEP assessment criteria. j l

The Nuclear Materials Licensing Branch (NMLB) has demonstrated its capability to excelin a diversity of activities in an atmosphere fraught with major challenges.

In January 1997, the materials license renewal function stood at 68 cases. As a

- result of the 1997 IMPEP, a goal was established to reduce the backlog to no more

"~ than 15 cases as of June 30,1%8. NMLB reduced the renewal backlog to five cases by that date and to zero during September 1998. There were only four renewals pending as of March 1,1999. These are expected to be completed by the

end of FY 1999. Region IV licensing management has participatM with NMSS management in developing a plan for streamlining the licensing p ccess and contending with the onslaught of renewals expected to arrive in the office in mid-2000.

At the same time, NMLB t, a reduced the number of pending new and amendment applications in order that at no time more than 20 percent exceed the 90-day benchmark. An number of old amendments, some of which had been pending for years, were resolved during the review interval. Also, a number of old, sometimes complex financial assurance cases were closed during this Ir.tervat.

The above accomplishments have been completed whlie working to consolidate the Walnut Creek Fie.id Office (WCFO) licensing program with the Arlington program and initiating a work-at-home license reviewer function. A further impact during 1998 was the retirement of our experienced Licensing Assistant.

NMLB staff have been major participants in the Guidance Consolidation Project and provided one staff member for assignment in developing proposed regulations for well logging. The branch earlier provided one staff member to participate in the simulated regulation initiative for a DOE facility, Berkeley National Laboratory.

The Fuel Cycle / Decommissioning Branch (FCDB) also has a motivated, highly productive staff. FCDB has effectively managed six major program areas (power ,.

l reactor decommissioning inspection, fuel cycle inspection, uranium recovery Inspection, non-reactor decommissioning, SDMP inspection, and spent fuel project inspection) and two minor program areas (terminated sites, and region IV radiation safety program). To effectively implement and track such an array of

{

program areas with such a small staff requires highly experienced and motivated  !

stati members.

Two of the FCDB staff are dual or multi certified inspectors in decommissioning, reactor decommissioning, fuel cycle, uranium recovery inspection. This has allowed some flexibility in making assignments according to licensee changes in schedules or headquarters requests. FCDB has set a goal to dual certify all staff in more than one technical area.

FCDB continued to focus additional inspection resources on the most safety I

significant licensee activities. In the program areas assigned to FCDB, major inspection efforts have been directed toward higher risk licensees and several unique activities involving potential safety issues not normally encountered. For example,ISFSI team inspections at ANO revealed problems with the welding program. A team !nspection was conducted over several weeks to inspect the  !

stack removal project at Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant. The frequency of (

routine inspections was increased from semiannual to quarterly at Envirocare of Utah because of concerns over licensee performance. The inspection presence at General Atomics was increased to accommodate the licensee's final status survey program. .

I The quality of NMIB routine inspections is a strength. Inspectors routinely ]

perform inspections which contribute to the safety mission by finding safety.

I

i 1

1 relevant problems and getting them addressed. Recent, examples where routine )

inspections have identified safety problems include the identification of improper decay correction at an eye clinic which resulted in medical misadministrations, the identification at a pharmacy that a reported. event was much more safety  ;

significant than reported by the licensee, the identification of a misadministration unrecognized by the licensee, and the identification at a gauge licensee that gauges were left accessible to the public for a long period of time. Additionally, RIV routine inspection uncovered that the source serial numbers for a high dose rate after loading device did not match the licensee. NRC and agreement state

, followup on this led to identification of more significant issues with the manufacturer.

NMiB's response to events is a strength. NMIB has responded with safety-focused inspection for events in the last two years within the timeliness goals of the program (with one exception, on which a lessons learned was performed).

This has greatly contributed to NMIB accomplishing the safety mission. The completion of reactive inspections is tracked in the division quarterly report. In a radiation exposure above limits where the dosimetry had fallen off, RIV interaction was necessary to obtain cytogenetic testing to ensure that the radiation doses were not more significant than thought.

NMiB's completion of the required inspections is a strength. NMIB has completed inspections on time, with only occasio'nal exceptions. The accomplishment of inspections has been a challenge because of the reactive nature of the industry. I Also, the large geographical area in RIV presents a challenge to inspection completion. Schedules frequently change on short notice. Another challenge to completion of inspections was the closure of the WCFO. Reciprocity inspections goals have been met for FYs 1997 and 1998. Reciprocity inspections are tracked in the quarterly report.

DNMS sensitivity to and handling of items with potential wrong doing is a strength. DNMS management, inspectors, and licensing personnel are sensitive l to the need for strict handling and review when licensee activities may have the potential for wrong doing. Recent examples where DNMS had initiated the review i for potential wrong doing included an IRIS radiation over exposure and a radiation  !

overexposure at Anvil.

NMIB conducts inspection debriefs, now called the Weekly Materials Meeting. At this meeting, inspectors present inspection findings to other inspectors, licensing personnel, and Divisional and senior management. The Regional Administrator routinely participates in these meetings. These meetings are conducted to facilitate dialogue on the inspection findings and serve to help establish consistency, thresholds and philosophy in the implementation of the inspect;on program. These meetings also have served to keep Region IV management cognizant of materials inspection activities. Licenslag participation ensores that the enforcement of the license is 'ime on a consistent basis.

One area which is becoming a program strength is the interface between NMLB and NMIB. Actions taken in response to lessons learned after an incident have resulted in improved communication between licensing and inspection. The licensing branch is now placed on concurrence for NMIB enforcement other than

[ .

l-Form 591 enforcement. The comments from licensing to inspection have frequently resulted in value added to the final enforcement product. In one case, I licensing, during a license renewal review, recognized that a licensee was performing unauthorized research on human subjects. This information was promptly communicated to management and inspection, and resulted in a

- confirmatory action letter and, prompt inspection. Inspectors and licensing reviewers frequently discuss inspection items.

I WEAKNESSES:

The ilcensing function will be challenged in the future by the recent loss of experienced staff associated with the closure of the WCFO and the advent of an unproven work-at-home license reviewer program which is expected to be terminated upon the retirement of the current incumbent within 18 months.

l I At least one additional license reviewer must be trained to support other preparations already underway to contend with the coming onslaught of renewal cases expected in mid-2000.

The Licensing Assistant for NMLB retired on May 1,1998, and was replaced by the branch secretary. One of the important roles of the branch secretary was to maintain the materials file room. As of March 1,1999, the branch secretary has not been replaced and the. condition of the, file room has deteriorated. However, this position is expected to be filled later in 1999 with the promise of some improvement in this area. . j FCDB is currently not at full staff and until recently, three of five FCDB staff were new employees not certified to perform unaccompanied inspections. j Consequently, FCDB has had to solicit assistance from other branches within Region IV, and from outside Region IV to implement some of its inspection activities. For example, FCDB has received assistance so that overlapping ISFSI dry run inspections could be conducted at two different sites. Assistance has also been needed from Region 11 and Region til to accompany the fuel cycle inspector-in-training on inspections at Siemens. FCDB has been challenged to absorb the fuel cycle program during the closure of the WCFO, and the uranium recovery inspection progmm using inspectors hired in 1998 and who needed to spend much of their first year in a training status.

l One area requiring continued attention for NMIB is the timeliness of inspection documentation. Since FY 1997, significant progress has been made; however, l

some reports occasionally exceed 30 days. This area is a challenge because of the reactive nature of day-to-day business. DNMS tracks this quarterly.

B. NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

1. SDMP Proaram 1

27. For each site listed in the SDMP where the Region has project management l ,

responsibility, provide the following information:

1. What is the status of meeting the milestones in SECY 97-242?

l

p e

2. Describe the action plan that is in place by the responsible parties for site remediation. ,

3. Were any significant delays identified and corrective actions put in place in a

^"'

timely manner?

4. Identify policy issues under consideration, and describe how they are being '

resolved in a timely manner.

Region IV does not have project management responsibility for any of the five.SDMP sites within the region.

28. For each site listed in the SDMP where the Region does not have project management

_ . responsibility, provide the following information:

~

The information requested in question 27 above.

Ucensing and inspection support by the Region to the lead project office.

Of the five Region IV SDMP sites, project and program responsibilities on four sites resides with NMSS-DWM (Kerr McGee Cimarron, Kerr McGee Cushing, Sequoyah Fuels Corporation, and Kaiser Aluminum). Project'and program

. responsibility for the remaining SDMP site resides with NMSS-FCD (Fansteel).

The status of meeting any milestones that may be listed in SECY-97-242 rest with the NRC project. managers. Region IV has not had an integral role in establishing SDMP milestones.

During the review period, the Cimarron site is the only Region IV SDMP site that has been undergoing significant and active decommissioning. However,in 1998 the Sequoyah Fuels and Cushing sites were given authorization to conduct limited decommissioning activities. All of the Region IV SDMP sites have submitted decommissioning plans for NRC review and approval. However, except as noted

- for Cimarron, site activities have principally involved radioactive material storage, characterization surveys, and decommissioning plan development. No significant delays in any Region IV SDMP site remediation were attributable to the Region's inspection program. Policy issues involving proposed decommissioning plans are being determined by the project office. The Region confers with the project office on proposed activities as needed. Region IV FCDB staff have supported project management on numerous occasions on Region IV SDMP site confirmatory surveys, public & Ilcensee meetings, and review and concurrence on most licensing actions that were finalized by project management.

Region IV has coordinated the routine inspection schedule of SDMP sites with the

. program offices. The following table shows the inspections performed at Region IV SDMP sites over the IMPEP period.

N

e ,

I SDMP INSPECTIONS l i ,

. INSPECTION - LICENSEE INSPECTORS REPORT NO. REPORT DATE DATE l , 2/24/97 Kaiser Carson 40-2377/97-01 3/5/97 )

2/25-27/97 SFC Carson 40-8027/97-01 3/15/97 3/26/97- Cimarron Everett 70-925/97-01 4/11/97 4/22-24/97 Kerr-McGee Carson 70-3073/97-01 5/19/97 Cushing 5/27/97. Cimarron Carson 70-925/97-02 7/31/97-9/11/97 Fanstoel Chaney 40-7580/97-01 10/6/97 10/20/97 Kaiser Carson 40-2377/97-01 11/20/97 10/21/97 Kerr-McGee Carson 70-3073/97-01 12/05/97 Cushing 10/20/97 Kaiser Carson 40-2377/97-01 11/20/97 11/18/98 Cimarron Carson 70-925/98-02 3/2/98 ,

2/23-24/98 SFC Carson 40-8027/96-01 9/4/98 5/11-13/98 Kerr-McGee Carson 70-3073/98-01 6/02/98 j Cushing 5/15/98 Cimarron Carson 70-925/98-01 7/15/98 8/17-19/98 SFC Carson 40-8027/98-02 9/4/98 l 8/19-21/98 Fansteel Carson 40-7580/98 41 10/8/98 9/22-24/98 Cimarron Carson 70-925/98-02 11/3/98 10/26-28/98 Kaiser Carson 40-2377/98-01 11/25/98

11. Decommissionina l 29. For each non-SOMP site where the Region has project management responsibility, provide the following information:

1. S'atus of meeting planned rnilestones

2. Describe the action plan that is in place by the responsible parties for site remediation.

3. . Identify any significant delays in decommissioning progress, and describe any l corrective actions put in place.

E 1

I

. l

4. Identify any policy issues associated with the site, and describe how they are being resolved. ,

Licensee License Number Infinity Analytical Services 35-12636-03 The licensee completed remediation activities and submitted the initial final status survey (FSS) report in March 1998. The March FSS report was relected for inadequate content. The licensee submitted a revised FSS report (February 1999) for review. A close-out and confirmation survey will be performed in the March / April time frame.

Phillips Petroleum and Oklahoma State University would have been managed by the Region, however, these decommissioning actions were accepted into the NMSS pilot project for licensees using alternate release criteria

30. Identify all licensees that initiated decommissioning during the review period (do not include those licensees that were terminated during the review period, as DWN will use the LTS to compile this information).

Region IV  ; processed numerous decommissioning cases categorized as Type i because / related to sealed sources or short-lived materials. There are several l cases tb are categorized as Types 11,Ill, or IV. Two of these have been ,. '

l terminate, t.nd are listed in response to Question 16 (Phillips Petroleum and Fitzsimons Army Medical Center). A third, Oklahoma State University, has not initiated decommissioning per se but has been reviewed by DWM as part of a materials decommissioning pilot study. Also, in early 1999, Kerr-McGee Corporation met with Region IV staff to discuss decommissioning of test pits at their Technical Center near Oklahoma City. Site characterization has recently been' initiated on this project. Cases under current review include the following:

Licensee License Number Date Filed U.S Army Corp of Engineers, Tulsa 35-19695-02 08/20/98 University of Alaska, Southeast 50 23211-01 10/21/98

31. List the decommissioning inspections that were carried out during the review period.

Please indicate if the inspection schedules required by Manual Chapter 2602 were prepared for licensed facilities undergoing decommissioning and if this schedule was developed, indicate inspections that are overdue by more than 25% of the inspection due date. Indicate which inspections revealed that licensees were not conducting their C :omrnissioning in accordance with the approved decommissioning plan and describe how these projects were managed.

1.!censee License Number inspection Date U.S. Army Garrison, Fitzsimons 05-00046-13 10/06-07/98 Infinity Analytical Services 35-12636-03 03/99

o ,

No material decommissioning inspection schedules were de,veloped pursuant to Manual Chapter 2602 during the review period. No inspections revealed that licensees were not conducting their decommissioning in accordance with the approved decommissioning plan.

32. Identify all licenses (both~ terminated and otherwise) that have received in-process inspections of licensees' final status survey programs and confirmatory surveys, in accordance with IP 87104 and IP 88104, during the review period. Describe the inspection activities covered during the inspections of these licensees.

Licensee License Number inspection Date U.S. Army Garrison, Fitzsimons 05-00046-13 10/06-07/98 University of Hawall 53-00017-23 03/17/98 infinity Analytical Services 35-12636-03 03/99 Dept.of Veteran's Affairs, Palo Alto 04 23242-01 04/20/98 General Atomics70-734 5/14-15/97 General Atomics70-734 7/28-8/1/97 General Atomics 70 734 1/13-16/98 General Atomics70-734 6/29-7/1/98 General Atomics70-734 12/7-11/98 and 1/11-15/99 l Fitzsimons received a close-out/ confirmatory survey pursuant to IP 87104. The activities covered during the survey effort were:

l

1. Completion of site remediation

2. Site condition at time of final survey

3. Final survey plans and procedures

4. Confirmatory survey performance ,

I University of Hawall received a close-out/ confirmatory survey pursuant to IP 87104. The activities covered during the survey effort were:

1. Completion of site remediation

2. Inspection of Health and Safety areas

3. Site condition at time of final survey

4. Final survey plans and procedures

5. Confirmation survey performance infinity will be inspected after review of th,eir Final Status Survey Report. The close-out inspection, to include confirmatory survey, is expected to be performed by the end of March 1999.

o- ,

Dept. of Veteran's Affairs, Palo Alto, received a speciallimited scope decommissioning inspection to observe removal of potential,1y contaminated drain line during building demolition.

Th'e General Atomics inspections listed consisted of the following in process inspections of the licensee's final status surve'y program and confirmatory measurements in accordanc'e with IP88104.

Inspection conducted 5/14-15/97: The activities covered during the survey

~~~

effort were:

• Site condition at time of final survey of selected areas within Buildings 2 and 30 T

• Finaf survey plans and procedures

• Confirmatory survey performance for selected areas within Buildings 2 and 30 Inspection conducted 7/28-8/1/97: The activities covered during the survey effort were:

• Site condition at time of final survey of several selected non-impacted facilities and surrounding land areas  !

• Final survey plans and procedures l

• Confirmatory survey performance for approximately fifty of the ,

selected non-impacted facilities and surrounding land areas l

inspection conducted 1/13-16/98: The activities covered during the survey effort were:

~

-

• Site condition at time of final survey for Phase 2 ro6ms in Building 30,and the Building 37 tunnels

• Final survey plans and procedures

• Confirmatory survey performance for Phase 2 rooms in Building 30, and the Building 37 tunnels

• Site condition during remediation of Buildings 22 and 23

• Confirmatory survey performance en in-process remediation surveys on Buildings 22 and 23 Inspection conducted 6/29-7/1/98: The activities covered during the survey effort were:

• Site condition at time of final survey for the hot cell facility exterior walls

• Final survey plans and procedures

• Confirmatory survey performance on hot cell facility exterior walls

• Site condition during remediation of Room 049 in Building 9, Building 22, Building 27, and Building 39 7

• Confirmatory survey performance on in-process remediation surveys on Buildings 9,22,27 and 39 l

c e

r o

1 Inspection conducted 12/7-11/98 and 1/11-15/99: The activities covered during the survey effort were: ,

e. , Site condition at time of final survey for the Torrey Pines West area, Building 21TRIGA reactor facility office areas, and Building 39 fuel process development facility

• Final survey plans and procedures a Confirmatory survey performance

• Site condition during remediation of the hot cell facility land area

.- Confirmatory survey performance on in-process remediation surveys on the hot cell facility land area

33. List all appropriate staff who have not yet met the qualification requirements of Decommissioning inspector as identified in Manual Chapter 1246. List the courses or l equivalent training / experience they need to attend, and a tentative schedule for completing these requirements.

Staff Member Training Needed/ Schedule Danny L Rice Finance for Non-financial Professionals /1999 Environmental Transport /TBD i

Environmental Monitoring for ,.

Radioactivity / June 1999 I

34. Identify by name, license number and type all licensees with outstanding l decommissioning financial assurance reviews, Describe the outstanding issue and the plans to resolve the issue.

Region IV completed 17 reviews during the review period. None are outstanding.

Ill. Fuel Cvele insoections Status of Inspection Proaram

35. List in chronological order the fuel cycle inspections (or assessments, in the case of non-licensee facilities) performed during the reporting period by facility and type (i.e. ,

U= unannounced routine inspections, R = reactive inspections, D = decommissioning inspections, etc.) Please include the inspection procedure number (e.g., IP 88020). A sample format is shown below. j l

Licensee Dates / Procedures Tvoe )

List of fuel cycle inspections:  !

(ANN-announced; U-unannounced; R-reactive inspections; D-decommissioning l inspections; POL-possession only license; where there is no ANN or U indicated, the inspection report did not specify and the personnelinvolved have retired) j l

o *

?

' LICENSEE DATES PROCEDURES TYPE Siemens Power Corp. 3/3-7/97 IP-88020, IP-880k5 ANN Siemens Power Corp. 4/14-18,23, IP-88020, IP-88035, ANN & LER 24 and IP-88045,IP44850, Review 5/1/97 iP44900,IP-86740, IP-90712,IP-92702 SI'emens Power Corp. 6/9-13/97 IP48020,IP43822 ANN Siemens Power Corp. 9/15-19/97 IP48020,IP43822, ANN & 91-01/

IP 92702 LER Review Siemens Power Corp. 12/15-19/97 IP48020, IP48050, ANN I IP-92701 Siemens Power Corp. 1/26-30/98 IP48002, IP-88005, ANN IP48010,IP48020, IP-92701 Siemens Power Corp. 4/13-17/98, IP-88020,IP48025, ANN & R 5/4-8/98 IP48035, IP48045, IP-92701, IP-92702, IP-93702 Siemens Power Corp. 6/10/98 LPR Meeting Siemens Power Corp. 6/15-19/98 IP-88020, IP43822, ANN & LER IP44900, IP48850, Review IP-92701 Siemens Power Corp. 8/10-14/98 IP-88020, IP48025, ANN & LER IP-86740,IP-92702 Review Siemens Power Corp. 10/26-30/98 IP-88002,IP48005, ANN & LER IP48020,IP-92701, Review IP-92702 General Atomics 5/13 15/97 IP48104,IP48005, U, D, (POL)

IP-83723 General Atomics 5/19-23/97 IP48104,IP48020, D,(POL)

IP43822,IP48035, IP48045,IP46740, IP-84850, IP44900 General Atomics 7/28-8/1/97 ~ IP48104,IP48020, D,(POL)

IP43822,IP48050, IP48025,IP43890 I

l

LICENSEE DATES PROCEDURES TYPE General Atomics 11/3-7/97 IP-88104, IP-88020, R,D,LER

, IP-92702, IP-88005, Review (POL),

IP-83622, IP-88010, (

IP-93702 (

j <

General Atomics 1/13-1.6/98 IP-88104 U, D, (POL) 7 j

General Atomics 6/29-7/1/98 IP-83890, IP-92702, ANN, D, (POL),

IP-88104, IP-88005, LER Review IP-88035 General Atomics 12/7-11/98, IP-88104, IP-88005, ANN, D, (POL),

1/11-15/99 IP-83822, IP-88010, LER Review IP-88020, IP-33890, IP-84525 GE-Vallecitos 3/31-4/1- IP-88005, IP-88015, ANN 3/97 IP-88020, IP-88025, IP-88002, IP-88010 j GE-Vallecitos 12/1-5, IP-83822, IP-88035, LER Review

&9/97 IP-88045, IP-88050, IP-84850, IP-84900, ,

IP-86740, IP-88020, IP-90712 GE-Vallecitos 2/24-26, IP-88005, IP-88002, ANN 3/5/98 IP-88020, IP-88025, IP-88002, IP-88010, IP-92701

36. Please identify any individual licensees with planned inspection f requencies different from the normal frequencies listed in Table 1 of the Appendix to inspection Manual Chapter 2600, and indicate the inspection procedure (s) so affected.

The inspections performed do not differ from the normal frequencies listed in Table 1 of the Appendix to inspection Manual Chapter 2600. 1 Technical Ouality of inspections

37. With reference to the inspections described in item 1 above, please indicate the )

supervisory accompaniments made during the review period, and by whom. Also, briefly describe the way the accompaniments were conducted and documented.

2 _

Supervisory accompaniments:

Supervisor Inspectors Licensee Date We'nslawski Hooker General Atomics 5/22-23/97 Spitzberg Hooker /Everett GE-Vallecitos 12/1-5/97 Spitzberg Krsek/Britz Siemens 6/15-19/98 Spitzberg_ Chaney/Britz General Atomics , 6/29-7/1/98 _

Spitzberg Carson /Brftz General Atomics 12/7-11/98 I Accompaniments were made with the supervisor accompanying the inspectors during their meetings with the licensee, participating in plant tours, participating i in field inspections and reviewing documentation. Accompaniments have been documented in DNMS quarterly reports and the inspection reports. j l

38. Please list the professional (technical) personnel assigned to perform inspections in the fuel cycle facilities inspection program, and the fractional amount of person-years of effort to which they are normally committed in the program. Also, include the general inspection areas of responsibility (e.g., E= environmental protection, N= nuclear i criticality, O= operations, P= physical security, R= radiation protection, T= other). For those who joined the program since the last review, and any others who have not yet met the qualification requirements of fuel cycle facility inspection staff, please4ndicate when they joined the staff, the degrees they received, the years of experience in the general areas they inspect (e.g., health physics, engineering, etc.), and the extent to which they are qualified as NRC inspectors. A sample format is shown below. -

Professional personnel assigned to fuel cycle facilities:

Name & Position Level of Effort inspection areas Wayne Britz, Fuel Cycle Full Time for Siemens, D&D,RP,OE,MO, Safety inspector GE Vallecitos, GA TOT, OPR, MS, WM, ENV, EP, LLW, WG, Douglas Simpkins, Backup Same as above Materials inspector Britz - Joined RIV in March,1998, having prior NRC employment from 1971-80 in Headquarters and Ril. He has a Master's Degree in Nuclear Engineering and has 32 years of experience in a variety of nuclear operations and health physics. He is _

in the process of qualifying as a NRC fuel cycle safety inspector. I s I Simpkins - Joined RIV in January,1998. He has a Master's Degree in  !

' Environmental Engineering Science and has 15 years of experience in the field of nuclear operations and health physics. He a qualified NRC material's inspector and is qualifying for fuel cycle safety inspector.

z. l

39. ' Please identify any professional or technical staff who left the fuel facility inspection j program during the review period, and if possible, describe the reasons for their departures. ,

I J

Charles Hooker'and H. Dean Chaney retired in June 1998 and August 1998, respectively.  ;

40. Describe what plans and procedures are in place to assure full coverage of the specified fuel ~ cycle inspection procedures, as specified in inspection Manual Chapter 2600, in view of the possible impacts of retirements and other tumover on a small inspection staff. Also, please describe the extent to which current fuel cycle inspection program goals have been achieved, and the reasons for any difference between the goals and the actual implementation of your program as the result of such personnel issues.

Full coverage of the fuel cycle inspection processes has been provided by j providing backup personnel and cross certification. During the past year additional staff were hired to provide an overlap and transfer of inspectors duties due to the retirement of two long term inspectors'and the closing of the Walnut Creek Field Office (WCFO). The fuel cycle inspection responsibilities were moved from the WFCO to the Region IV office in Arlington in June 1998 with the retirement of Hooker and Chaney and the closing of the WCFO. Britz accompanied Hooker or Chaney to the Siemens, GE-Vallecitos and General Atomics facilities to facilitate turnover and familiarization with the plants. During that time, the WCFO fuel cycle docket files were inventoried and transferred to RIV. The effective transfer plans were provided for in the Walnut Creek Closure Plan. During the time that Britz is qualifying as an inspector, the inspections were augmented with qualified inspectors from Ril and Rill. Britz and Spitzberg, new fuel cycle Branch Chief replacing Wenslawski, attended the Fuel Cycle ,

Counterpart Meeting in headquarters in May,1998, to familiarize themselves with the program and personnel. The above planning enabled the inspection program to be completed as planned in the MIP.

41. How are you managing available resources based on the overall safety / safeguards risk posed by each facility (i.e., matching available expertise to areas of greatest risk and -

weak licensee performance)? l The inspection planning process focuses on risks at the facilities, on a review of licensee event reports, and a review of plant performance over a period of time, ,

such as the Licensee Programmatic Review, to determine if we advance, delay or i enhance the "nspections. We take advantage of other expertises available such as  !

the recent coordination with the headquarters criticality safety inspectors when i additional efforts were made to review a recent situation involving ductwork j containing uranium which was being dismantled and stacked. In addition we assigned lead and backup inspectors to the facilities that had a broad experience ,

over a significant period of time.  !

42. How are you managing inspection resources based on projected licensee activities (new system startups, etc., to assure that the right technical expertise will be available when ,

needed)? i Licensee activities are projected so that inspection resources are managed and provided. There were several new systems (dry conversion, liquid treatment, hazardous waste treatment, cylinder certification, etc.) at Siemens during the period that required attention. These were factored into the routine schedule and in some cases additionalinspections were conducted. The General Atomics facility has changed from an operational to decommissioning facility. The same

i inspectors cover the transition to provide continuity. In, addition, to provide timely

confirmatory surveys, the schedule for General Atomics is not considered fixed.

Rather the routine inspections for a D&D facility are performed when the individual facilities at the site are ready for confirmatory surveys. A meeting with several State of California representatives involved in D&D for the General Atomics site was helti in December 1998 to assure coordination of the State and NRC licenses of nuclear material at the site.

43. How are you managing available inspection resources to assure adequate agency ,

emergency response to credible fuel facility events / accidents?

Adequate inspection resources for emergency response at the Siemen's plant are provided for by utilizing the NRC resident inspectors at the WPPS nuclear power plant nearby, and another NRC pers'on assigned to the NRC/ DOE Hanford tank farm project . These NRC personnel have toured and been briefed on the emergency facilities and would be able to provide timely emergency onsite assistance until regional personnel arrive. In addition Spitzberg is a former Sr. EP Analyst and designated member of RIV emergency response organization. Britz will be qualifying for emergency response support and has several years of emergency preparedness experience.

44. How do you assure that all licensee events are promptly reviewed and appropriate response taken, commensurate with the safety / safeguards risk? (This includes event evaluation for generic implication, adequacy of licensee immediate corrective actions, '

compensatory actions, and completion of long term actions.)

Licensee events are promptly reviewed, responded to and dispositioned according to the guidance in ROPG-4062 for handling licensee event reports (LERs). Management tracking of the LERs assures prompt handling commensurate wid the risk.

45. What do you feel is/will be your greatest challenge for the next year?

The challenges for the next year will be cross certification of inspectors and managing inspection resources for decommissioning.

46. What has been your greatest unexpected challenge over the past year?

l The challenge over the past year has been maintaining inspection program effectiveness with the loss of experienced personnel and the transfer of the office i from WCFO to RIV. , i

47. If you were given any additional resources, where would you put them or what would you focus them on (include things that you are, or would like to do)?

Resources are adequate for present fuel cycle inspection. Additional resources for future fuel cycle facilities D&D, instrumentation and guidance may be needed.

48. What was your most sign!!icant accomplishment of the past year? Greatest disppointment?

a .

The most significant accomplishment of the past year was maintaining program continuity, integrating new personnel into the program and reassigning the inspection program to a different Branch Chief during the closure of the WCFO, where the fuel cycle inspection program had been based. There were no major disappointments.

IV Uranium Recovery Prooram Status of Materials inspection Prooram (A.I.1-7) j

49. Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they apply to the Uranium Recovery Program'

~

. Status of Materials inspection Program- A.1,1-3, A.5-6  ;

Technical Quality of Inspections- A.ll.7-10 i Technical Staffing and Training- A.llt.11-15

+

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions- A.IV.16-18 Responses to incide'nts and Allegations- A.V.20-23 A.1.1 Please prepare a table identifying the licenses with inspection that are overdue by more than 25% of the scheduled frequency set out in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2641 or 2801. The list should include initial inspections that are overdue.

The inspection frequency is set forth through a Master inspection Plan (MIP) developed by Region IV in conjunction with the program office in

• NMSS/DWM/ URB. This inspection schedule is based upon guidance from NRC inspection Manual Chapter 2641 (In-Situ Leach Facilities inspection Program) and

]

Manual Chapter 2801 (Uranium Mill and 11e.(2) Byproduct Material Disposal Site  !

and Facility inspection Program).- Since the MlP is a dynamic program, affected by ]

the existing staffing levels and inspection requirements, it is changed on an as-needed basis to complete the inspection cycle. Subsequently, sinc 3 March 1997, there have been no overdue inspections. Should an inspection deviate from the delineated schedule, the program office is notified and an alternate schedule generated to accommodate the inspection requirements.

A.1.2 Do you currently have an action plan for completing overdue inspections? If so, please I describe the plan or provide a written copy with your respnse to this questionnaire. j Region IV does not have any overdue inspections at uranium recovery facilities and therefore does not have an overdue inspection plan.

A.1.3 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 2641 or 2801 i and state the reason for the charge.

}

and L A.1.6. For NRC Regions, did you establish numerical goals for the number of inspections to be perlormed during this review period? If so, please describe your goals, the f number of inspections actually performed, and the reasons for any differences between the goals and the actual number of inspections performed. -

r 1

)

in a memorandum dated October 16,1998, John Greeves delineated an alternate scheduling basis for routine, announced inspections of uranium recovery sites. 4 Prior to this, Region IV supported the Headquarters program by conducting a minimum of one inspection per yeer at uranium recovery sites under reclamation or in standby status. Operational facilities were inspected twice a year. This schedule resulted in at least 30 inspections per year by the Region, but would have increased when two existing conventional mills and two new in situ leach (ISL) facilities began planned operations. The number of inspections could have also increased at facilities where problems have been identified. For example, because of continued problems identified in inspections at the Envirocare site, the region increased announced inspections to four times per year. Because the regional inspectors are generally health physicists, additional technical support by headquarters staff was often needed to conduct a complete inspection of a

'~

licensee's performance. When warranted, headquarters hydrologists, geotechnical engineers, or erosion protection specia!!sts accompanied regional staff on inspections. If, due to timing of reclamation activities at uranium recovery sites, headquarters staff were unable to coordinate their inspections with that of the region, headquarters maintained the capability to conduct an inspection without regional support. Based upon regional and program office recommendations, the following changes were implemented:

a. A reduction in inspections of non-operating sites (includes four sites either in standby status or pending the start of operations) from once a year to once every three years. These sites would be inspected prior to the -

initiation of operations, or when necessary to evaluate the condition of the facilities as input to requests for delay in initiation of the decommissioning process pursuant to 10 CFR 40.42(d).

b. A reduction in inspections of sites under reclamation from once a year to every two years, depending on work initiated or completed by the licensee.

The staff will continue to conduct a fullinspection of construction one year prior to the termination of a license to confirm compliance with the requirements of Atomic Energy Act, Section 83c. This change in '

inspection frequency will place greater responsibility on the licensee to assure that no problems are identified "after the fact." Under current conditions, licensees frequently request inspections of construction in progress to ensure no problems are identified at the time of license j termination. The licensee would continue to have the option to make such

' a request, each of which would be considered by the staff. Stakeholder l Involvement would also play a part in the decision regarding inspections at sites under reclamation. For exampic,in the case of sites such as the I Atlas Moab site where there is a high degree of public scrutiny and j involvement, Headquarters staff would continue to be available to conduct real-time inspections.

c. Maintain inspections of operating sites (includes one conventional mill, four to six ISLs, and Envirocare) twice a year, but reduce involvement by Headquarters staff to once a year and reduce the scope of the second inspection to a one to two day inspection by Region IV of areas representing programmatic or f acility changes, and activities representing higher risks. Headquarters staff (predominantly hydrologists) accompany

L the Region on inspections of operating faculties. If problems are identified which require Headquarter's technical expertise, Headquarters involvement would be increased to twice a year (or more, if needed) and the second inspection's scope could be expanded until staff is assured that the problems are resolved. Newly operating sites would normally 5

receive two full inspections per year during the first two years of operation, with a reduction in the scope as above, following two years of operation, if the inspection history warrants. Also, in the case of ISLs with rapidly expanding well fields or production rates, Headquarters and/or Regional staff may find it necessary to inspect twice a year to ensure no preventable problems arise.

d. The current policy for reactive and unannounced inspections remained unchanged.

Adoption of item 1 above, resulted in a redvetion of four inspections per

, year, for those years 8n which non-operatina sites would not be inspected.

Adoption of item 2 resulted in a reduction at up to fourteen inspections per year by the regional staff and up to eight t,y headquarters staff.

Adoption of item 3 resulted in no reduction in the number of Regional Inspections, but a reduction in inspection time. Headquarters involvement could be cut up to one half, assuming'no problems are identified. -

Technical Ouality of Inspections (A.li.710)

A.ll.7. What if any, changes were made to your written inspection procedures during the reporting period?

There were seve #1 changes to inspection procedures during the IMPEP Interval:

• IMC 2641 (In-Situ Leach Facilities inspection Program) was issued to establish the routine safety inspection pt ogram for in-situ leach facilities.

(CN 97-013)

• IMC 2801 (Uranium Mill 11e.(2) Byproduct Material Disposal Site and Facility inspection Program) was revised to reflect additional inspection-related observations /needs identified since the original issuance of the IMC. (CN 97-013)

• IP 37001 (10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluation Program) was revised in accordance to the PRA Implementation Plan to incorporate improved guidance for inspectors on how to use PRA insights to focus inspection activities. The requirement to use PRA Insights was intended to be integrated equally with the requirement for inspectors to assess compliance. (CN 98-010)

• IP 87104 (Decommissioning inspection Procedure For Materials Licensees) was revised to provide guidance on the review of final survey programs and conducting confirmatory surveys. (CN 97-007) l

l 9

e IP 87654 (Uranium Mill Site Decommissioning inspection) was issued to supplement decommissioning-related guidance that is provided in IMC 2801. (CN 97-013) ,

IP 89001 (In-Situ Leach (ISL) Facilities) was issued to address NRC inspection of uranium in-situ leach facliities. Most new uranium production in the USA is projected to use in-situ leach technology. The inspection of in-situ leach facilities involves significant differences from the inspection of conventional uranium mills. Inspections of in-situ facilities will be performed by inspectors based in the region or in headquarters. This procedure will provide consistency between inspections done by regional or headquarters staff. The objective of this procedure was to determine if licensed activities are being conducted in a manner that will protect the environment, the health and safety of the workers, and the general public.

A.ll.8. Prepare a table showing the number and types of supervisory accompaniments made during the review period.

Supervisory accompaniments of uranium recovery inspectors for the IMPEP review period are as follows:

InsDector - Supervisor License Cat. Date RJ Evans LLHowell LLW 10/97 l DBSpitzberg ISL 9/98 LCCarson - CLCain Conv. (shutdown) 2/98 CLCain Cony. (Shutdown) 2/98 MLMcLean CLCain ISL 8/97 DSSimpkins DBSpitzberg ISL 9/98 DBSpitzberg LLW 1/99  !

Supervisory accompaniments were coordinated through the divisional Technical l Assistant. A chart showing the inspectors and supervisory accompaniments has been generated and maintained on the LAN. l A.ll.9. Describe intemal procedures for conducting supervisory accompaniments of inspectors in the field. If supervisory accompaniments were documented, please provide copies of the documentation for each accompaniment.

See previous answer A.9.

A.ll.10. Describe or provide an update on your instrumentation and methods of calibration. Are all instruments properly calibrated at the present time.

Field instrumentation is available for use in the regional instrumentation l laboratory. A designated inspector is responsible for maintaining a ready supply of all types of pertinent calibrated instrumentation, of which the individual inspectors can check-out for inspections. For uranium mllis, two micro-R meters have been calibrated with radium to more closely match the isotopes typically found at uranium mills.

Technical Staffina and Trainina (A.Ill.11-15) i The level of staffing for the uranium recover, . ispection program is as follows:

Name Position FTE%

Douglas Simpkins Radiation Specialist 100%

Lou Carson Radiation Specialist 33 %

Since the last review, Douglas Simpkins has been hired and is fulfilling the responsibility of the primary uranium recovery inspector. He received a B.S. In zoology and a M.S. In environmental engineering sciences. He has fifteen years of health physics experience, and received his inspection certification in January 1953.

There are no uncertified staff in the uranium recovery branch at this time.

During this review period, two inspectors left the uranium recovery inspection program. Linda McLean left the program in January 1998 to become the divisional State Agreement Officer. Robert Evans left the program in January 1999 to become a materials inspector.

Technical Quality of Licensina (A.IV.16-18)

All licensing actions for the uranium recovery program are handled through the program office NMSS/DWM/ULB.

Responses to incidents and Alleoations (A.V.20-23)

One incident required a reactive inspection. An operator working in a dryer room at an ISL lifted the bulging lid off a drum of yellowcake. The pressure inside the

. drum blew the lid off and knocked the respirator off the worker, resulting in an  !

1

' uptake of uranium. For responses to allegations involving uranium recovery

' facilities see previous respnse to Question 24 and Table 3. (Allegations RIV-1997-A-0137, RIV-1997 A-0201, RIV-1998-A-0136, RIV-1998 A-0170, RIV-1999 A-0002)

V. General

50. Summarizo any significant reprogramming actions taken during the review period, and i the basis for these actions (e.g. moved 2 budgeted FTE from non-core materials l

~

inspections to materials licensing to eliminate a backlog). List any major program accomplishments or initiatives not cited in other answers. Indicate any areas in which DNMS did not meet its Operating Plan Goals.

All operating plan goals within FCDB were met. Region IV and the Uranium Recovery Branch reached agreement in November 1998 to reduce the frequency of inspections of non-operating uranium recovery sites either in standby or pending start of operations and sites under reclamation.This reprogramming of resources was expected to result in savings of 1 FTE in Region IV and 0.5 FTE in headquarters. The regional FTE savings were to be reprogrammed by the program office.

36-One program accomplishment of note in the uranium recovery area was the '

drafting by FCDB and publication by NMSS of information Notice 99-03,

" Exothermic Reactions involving Dried Uranium Oxide Powder (Yellowcake)." This IN was issued to alert lictnsees of a potential safety problem which had been encountered at several other licensee facilities.

NMLB assigned one license reviewer, Jackie Cook, on work-at-home status during the first quarter of FY 98. NMLB expects to meet Operating Plan goals for FY 99;

~

however, as of the end of February 1999, three renewals were pending and all {

have been so in excess of 180 days. Therefore, the goal of no more than 80% of renewals to be pending in _ excess of 180 days has not been met. One of these cases has only recently been initiated and is in some danger of not being l complete by the end of the fiscal year. j A major accomplishment was the closing of the WCFO without any significant j negative impact on the execution of the materials inspection program. One half of NMIB qualified inspectors began working out of their homes on October 1,1998.

A significant effort was expended to set up the operation and to continue the implementation of the inspection program.

In the first quarter of FY 1999, NMlB did not issue the escalated enforcement action against Nuclear Pharmacy of Idaho within 90 days. This was the only )

escalated enforcement action issued during the f'rst quarter, consequently, NMIB did not meet the operating plan goal. The overall operating plan goal is expected .

to be satisfied for FY 1999.

The failure to achieve the numerical inspection goal in FY 1998 is discussed in response to Question #6.

^

li. Provide any comments and recommendations regarding the effectiveness of Headquarters support to regional activities and the Region / Headquarters interface.

Identify any regional interaction with Headquarters and the licensees to improve the  !

quality of your licensing / inspection program, j in some cases, Headquarters has not been effective in keeping the Regions informed of new guldance being issued on decommissioning (NRR) or dry cask storage (NMSS). When new NUREGS, guidance documents, or meetings are held, the region has frequently learned of it through a secondary source. For example, we have had licensee's take positions on issues during inspections based on guidance issued by HQ that we had not seen and that had been issued several months earlier. We recommend that group e-mail distribution lists be created and periodically reverified by the program offices to disseminate such guidance.

In the past, Headquarters Project Managers in fuel cycle, reactor decommissioning, SDMP, and uranium recovery have provided valuable support to the region based inspectors during inspections. We believe having the project l managers accompany the region based inspectors has provided a synergistic ]

=_,

effect for both the NRC inspection program, and the licensee. This is particularly true for newer inspectors of which we have severa1. Because of organizational j streamlining efforts and competing priorities, we have seen a subtle erosion in headquarters' support of project managers accompanying the region based i

i l

i .

1 i inspectors. Therefore, we recommend that headquarters project manager accompaniment of region based inspectors continue to receive high priority from 1 the program offices.

Part of recommendation 2 from the 1997 Region IV IMPEP concerned the finding that Region IV had not consistently completed field notes from inspection Procedures 87104 and 88104 when conducting decommissioning inspections  ;

under the then new guidance of IMC 2605. Part of the cause of this finding was the l region's position prior to the IMPEP that field notes should not be necessary when formalinspection reports are generated. Part of the agreed-to corrective action included a commitment by NMSS to review the documentation requirements of the I inspection procedures and develop a position on what documentation is required )

to meet the agency's needs. Region IV is not aware that this review has been completed. Consequently, we are still completing both the field notes and issuing formal reports for decommissioning inspections. We request that consideration be given to granting Reg!on IV relief from the commitment to complcte both field notes and formal inspection reports for decommissioning inspections.

DNMS finds the daily discussion with the NMSS regional coordinator to be very useful.

52. In which areas of licensing and inspection guidance do you need the most training?

Please provide a list by priority, highest first. ,

• D and D code applications for decommissioning reviews

• Resrad code applications for decommissioning reviews

• Marrsim

• Training in the Decommissioning Standard Review Plan (when avaliable)

• Development of the complete suite of self study fuei cycle training courses

• Training for new inspectors of spent fuel projects in general, training is needed on major changes to regulations, policies and ,

programs. Examples include the tcw Part 34, and the revised Section 35.75, the patient release rule and Regulatory Guide 8.39. Training will be needed on the new Part 35.

Training is needed on the guidance provided in the NUREG 1556 series. Currently, inspectors get this information on their own.

l

)

J

1 Table 1 REPORT EVENT LICENSE

• DATE DATE LICENSEE NUMBER DESCRIPTION 4/4/97 4/4/97 Mattingly Testing 25-21479-01 Theft of Radiographic Services, Inc. Exposure Device.

Inspection f/u~

PN-IV-97-019 4/24/97 4/24/97 Tucker 35-19815-01 Leaking sealed source Technologies, Inc.

4/25/97 4/24/97 USAF, Davis- 42-23539-01 AF Workers potentially Monthon AFB exposed to depleted uranium. EN#32225 5/2/97 5/2/97 St James 25-13173-02 Excesssive dose rates Community on incoming package.

Hospital / Syncor PNO-IV-97-025 Pharmacy Washington to f/u at Syncor Pharmacy 5/16/97 4/3/97 Dept. of the Army, 05-26854-01 Medical Event involving Evans Army Dose to embryo / fetus. ,

Community See PNO-IV-97-028 Hospital Inspector f/u 5/19/97 5/18/97 5/18/97 Depart of the Army, 46-02645-03 Possible brachytherapy Madigan Army Misadministration Medical Center See PNO-IV-97-029 Inspector fiu 5/20/97 5/15/97 USAF 42-23539-01 AF Burned aircraft engine resulting in dirt / soil contamination with nickel-thorium. l PN-IV-97-031 6/18/97 6/16/97 Columbia 35-12091-01 Radiation exposure to Presbyterian an unintended  ;

Hospital treatment site.  !

PNO-IV-97-036 Inspector dispatched 6/24/97 and medical consultant engaged 6/26/97 6/26/97 Western tlas 42-02964-01 Licencae unable to International, Inc. locate a welllogging  ;

source. Sourcelocated i on 6/26/97.

See PNO-IV-91-037 l

[ .

L l

l l REPORT. EVENT UCENSE a l DATE DATE LICENSEE NUMBER DESCRIPTION l 6/27/97 6/26/97 KAW Valley 15-26870-01 Notification of lost l Engineering moisture density gauge.

Company EN # 32552 7/1/97 B/29/97 Federal Express n/a Loss of package containing Xc-133. PN-IV-97-039. RIV coordinated followup with California.

8/10'/97 8/7/97 US Air Force- ' 42-23539-01 AF 85 millicurie Cs-137 McCord AFB calibration source lost during shipment.

EN # 32741 8/25/97 8/25/97 LAW Engineering 35-27045-01 Temporary loss of moisture density gauge.

PN-IV-97-045.

Inspector dispatched 8/27/97.

8/27/97 8/26/97 VA Medical Center, 04-00181-04 Potential West 1os Angeles misadministration w/

teletherapy treatment.

~

PN-IV-97-046 Inspector f/u 8/29/97 8/29/97 Syncor 04-26507-01 MD Radiopharmacy fume International hood exhaust fan not Corporation operating due to broken fan belt. PN-IV-97-047 9/2/97 8/18/97 San Francisco VA 04-00421 4 5 Improper disposel 250 Medical Center microcuries of unsealed P-32 via normal trash.

Inspector f/u 9/8 PN-IV-97-049 9/17/97 9/17/97 Siemans Nuclear SNM-1227 UO2 exceeded Power Corp. moisture limit.

Inspector performed followup of event.

i l PN-IV-97-053

4 4 ,

"~.1- ~.

i REPORT ~ EVENT LICENSE DATE 'DATE LICENSEE - NUMBER DESCRIPTION 9/18/97 9/17/97 Bill Miller, Inc. 35-19048-01 Radiography camera stolen from licensee.

Stolen camera located

, on 9/21/97. Inspector f/u 9/21. PN-IV-97-052 10/2/97 10/2/97 General Electric SNM-960 Receipt of 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> Co.-Vallecitos report detailing an

-- alarm failure on a

~~

radioactive materials lab criticality detector system. EN #33021.

10/20/97 10/97 Integris SW 35-13127-01 Possible brachytherapy Medical Center misadmin. - patient intervention.

- - - PN-IV-97-057 10/20/97 10/16/97 CTI, Inc. 50 19202-01 A radiographer and assistant approached an exposure device with shutter "open."

Insoector f/u 10/20.

-- PNO-IV-97-056 I

11/3/97 11/3/97 General Atomics SNM-690 A small fire occurred during the removal of steel plates in a decommissioned hot )

cell. Inspector f/u.  ;

PN-IV-97-064 l i

11/17/97 11/12/97 Nuclear Pharmacy 11-27398-011silD A ilquid spill of I-131 of Idaho inside a glove box at a  ;

nuclear pharmacy.  !

EN # 33272. Initial report,later inspect '

resulted in another report and PN.

11/20/97- 11/18/97 Halliburton Energy 35-00502-03 The licensee received a Services leaking 10 mci Cs-137 5 IPL source. California '

~

briefed PN-IV-97-068

! REPORT EVENT LICENSE '

DATE DATE LICENSEE NUMBER DESCRIPTION 11/26/97 11/5/97 US Department of 05-01399-08 A 15 mci Ni-63 source the Interior-USGS was inadvertantly sent to a local landfill.

EN #33319 11/19/97 11/20/97 USDOl/USGS 05-01399-08 Leaking seaIed source 12/22/97 12/18/97 Syncor 04-26507-01 1-131 contamination of pharmacist. RI f/u.

PN-IV-97-073 12/23/97 12/01/97 DAF 42-23539-01 AF Leaking 3M static j eliminator source 1/16/98 12/22/97 USAF 42-23539-01 AF Two containers of radioactive waste discarded in clean trash.

1/16/98 1/16/98 CTI Alaska 50-19202-01 Failure of drive cable ,

connect on Amersham 660.

1/23/98 5/12/97 Memorial Medical 35-27041-01 High. Dose Rate Center & Cancer Brachytherapy Institute, Inc. Misadministration. Id during routine inspection.

PN-IV-98-003 1/26/98 1/23/98 Terracon 35-19774-01 Stolen moisture density Consultants gauge. Inspector f/u 2/2. PN-IV-98-004 2/10/98 1/29/98 USAF TX-02682-00/1 Lost radioactive waste.

PN-IV-98-009 3/18/98 3/10/98 Halliburton Energy 35-00502-03 Leaking IPL Sealed Services Source. California briefed. PN-IV 98-011 4/15/98 4/15/98 Siemans SNM-1227 Fire in waste handling area. Inspector was onsite and performed I review. PN-IV-98-017 l

o

l i REPORT EVENT LICENSE '

DATE DATE LICENSEE NUMBER DESCRIPTION l 4/21/98 4/20/98 Queens Medical 53-16533-02 Medical Center misadministration.

Inspector f/u.

PN-IV-98-018 4/28/98 - 4/28/98 Honolulu Resource 53-23291-01 Front face plate of a l Recovery Venture fixed gauge source l

housing came off.

EN #34141.

l _

6/5/98 6/5/98 Siemens Nuclear SNM-1227 Discovery of two Power Corp. unirradiated fuel pellets in shipment of fuel i

cladding for recycle.

inspector f/u 6/15.

PNO-IV-98-022.

6/12/98 6/3/98 USAF-Wilford Hall 42 23539-01 AF Failure of blood irradiator to function.

EN #34392.

6/2/98 6/2/98 Eastern Idaho 11-27346-01 Discovery of two l Health Svc. Inc. radiopharmaceutical transport containers.

6/9-10/98 6/9-10/98 Texas A&M 42-09082-09 Possession of licensed University SNM-1518 materialin a location not authorized by the lic' +

6/5/98 11/14/97 Nuclear Pharmacy 11-27398-01MD Personnel of Idaho contamination from I-131 spill. Report made as a result of onsite inspection.

PN-IV 98-023 7/22/98 7/21/98 Weyerhaeuser 35-14074-02 Inadvertent exposure of non-radiation workers to 100 mci Cs-137 sealed source contained in a gauging device.

Inspector f/u.

- PN-IV-98-033

o e ,

LICENSE i REPORT EVENT DATE DATE LICENS E NUMBER DESCRIPTION

, ^ 0/98 7/08/98 Cogema Mining, SUA-1341 Spill of 28,000 gallons ]

l Inc. of water containing low j levels of U308 onto 1 ground. EN#34502 1

7/18/98 7/18/98- USAF - Edwards 42-23539-01AF Bioengineering lab AFB contaminated.

EN#34534.  ;

8/01/98 8/01/98- Tulsa Gamma Ray, 35-17178-01 Overexposure of  !

Inc. employee, exceeded j adult occupational dose l limits. Inspector f/u. '

8/28/98 8/14/98 Envirocare of Utah, SMC-1559 Received fissile Inc. material (*U) > 400g (70.53).

, 6/26/98 G/26/98 Halliburton Energy 42-01068-07 A densometer Services containing a 10 mci ,.

"7Cs sealed source is in 70 ft. of water on an overturned floating rig near the mouth of the j Mississippi River.

9/02/98 9/01/98 Tulsa Gamma Ray, 35-17178-01 Potential aduit Inc. overexpnsure, licensee was informed (by Landauer) of a 10.0 Rem badge reading. Inspector f/u.

9/02/98 9/01/98 Globe X-Ray, Inc. 35-15194-01 Potential adult overexposure, licensee was informed (by Landauer) of a 16.3 Rem badge reading.

Inspector f/u.

9/23/98 9/22/98 Siemens Nuclear SNM-1227 Accumulation of low Power Corporation enriched "U (<5%

"U) in disassembled ductwork. EN#34819, PNO-IV-98-043.

L l l

i 1 __

i REPORT EVENT LICENS'E l DATE DATE LICENSEE NUMBER DESCRIPTION 9/27/98 9/27/98 Materiais Testing 11-27504-01 Two Troxler gauges and Inspection, Inc. were discovered in the garage of a private residence. Inspector

- f/u. PN-IV-98-046 10/02/98 10/01/98 Conoco, Inc. 35-07402-11 Possible occupational

. overexposure attributed r--- to handling an unshielded 100 millicurie 7Cs source.

EN#34865.

10/07/98 10/07/98 Muskogee 35-13157-01 Analysis of a wipe Regional Medical (from a '87Cs seated Center source) confirmed 0.03 23 Ciof removable contamination.

10/21/98 10/15/98 Hospital of the N/A Agreement A prescribed radiation -

Good Samaritan State treatment (using a gamma kiiife) was administered to the wrong side of the brain

~~

(90 Gy).

9/14/98 9/08/98 ASCG, Inc. 50-29015-01 Disconnected radiography source, unable to retract to a shielded position.

(PNO-IV-98-039).

Inspector f/u.

l 11/12/98 11/07/98 International 35-30246-01 Occupational l Radiography and overexposure, TEDE >

Inspection 5 REM and SDE >

Services, Inc. 50 REM. Inspector f/u  !

11/16. PNO-IV-98-052.

22 .

8-REPORT EVENT LICENSE DATE DATE LICENSEE NUMBER DESCRIPTION 11/18/98 11/18/98 Bill Miller, Inc. 35-19048-01 INC received a 7.3 a2ir radiography source for

- disposal from Bill Miller

• Inc. High radiation dose rates were measured. The source had fallen out of the source changer.

Inspector f/u at Miller, state f/u at INC.

PN-IV-98-055 11/20/98 9/16/98 Integris Baptist 35-11022-01 Facility reported Medical Center, 3.2 REM (film badge OKC reading) attributed to  ;

complications during i brachytherapy l 11/24/98 11/24/98 General Atomics SNM-696 Contamination found on waste shipment to DOE i burial site )

PN-IV-98-057

- 11/26/98 11/25/98 Queen's Medical 53-16533-02 Medical Center misadministration (500 rads) due to improper source positioning during brachytherapy.

Inspector f/u.

PN-IV-98-058 12/01/98 12/01/98 Albany 42-24563-01 Stolen portable gauge International ,Inc. from the back of a "NRC licensee locked vehicle, under reciprocity subsequently recovered in Arkansas. the same day.

EN#35100.

1/11/99 12/15/99 Sperry-Sun 42-26844-01 Lost 2 Ci Cs-137 l logging source. Source located on 2/19/99 PN-IV-99-004

I

[

1 1

.g.

REPORT EVENT LICENSE DATE DATE LICENSEE NUMBER DESCRIPTION 1/8/99 1/8/99 Dairyman's general Gauge improperly Creamery disposed, found at scrap yard PN-IV-99-002 1/14/99 5/98 Hawaiian Eye 53-18343-01 Misadministration with Sr-90 eye applicator PN-IV-99-007 Inspector id during iouting inspection. Finalf/u 3/R/99 O

l Table 2

]

I l

i REPORT EVENT LICENSE DATE DATE LICENSEE NUMBER DESCRIPTION l 1

4/24/97 4/24/97 Tucker- 35-19815-01 Leaking sealed source.

Technologies, Inc. Not a generic issue. No PN issued.

8/29/97 8/29/97 Syncor 04-26507-01 MD Radiopharmacy fume International hood exhaust fan not Corporation operating due to broken fan belt. PN-IV-97-047.

Not a generic issue.

10/2/97 10/2/97 General Electric SNM-960 Receipt of 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> Co.-Vallecitos report detailing an alarm failure on a radioactive materials lab criticality detector ,

system. EN #33021. l Not a generic issue.

10/20/97 10/16/97 CTI, Inc. 50-19202-01 A radiographer and ,  !

assistant approached an exposure device with shutter "open."

Inspector f/u 10/20.

PNO-IV-97-056. Not a generic issue.

11/20/97 11/18/97 Halliburton Energy 35-00502-03 The licensee received a ,

Services leaking 10 mci Cs-137 IPL source. California briefed. PN-IV-97-068 11/19/97 11/20/97 USDOl/USGS 05-01399-08 Leaking sealed source.

No PN issued. Not a generic issue.

1/16/98 1/16/98 CTI Alaska 50-19202-01 Failure of drive cable connect on Amersham 660.

3/18/98 3/10/98 Halliburton Energy 35-00502-03 Leaking IPL Sealed Services Source. California briefed. PN-IV-98-011

I J

2-REPORT EVENT LICENSE DATE DATE LICENSEE NUMBER DESCRIPTION 4/28/98 4/28/98 Honolulu Resource 53-23291-01 Front face plate of a Recovery Venture fixed gauge source housing came off.

EN #34141. Not a generic issue.

6/12/98 6/3/98 USAF-Wilford Hall 42-23539-01 AF Failure of blood irradiator to function. j 7 EN #34392. Not a

- generic issue.

7/22/98 7/21/98 Weyerhaeuser 35-14074-02 Inadvertent exposure of non-radiation workers to 100 mCl Cs-137 sealed source contained in a

~'

gauging device.

Inspector f/u.

PN-IV-98-033. Not a j generic issue. ,.

9/23/98 9/22/98 Siemens Nuclear SNM-1227 Accumulation of low Power Corporation enriched 23eV

~~

(<5% rasU) in '

disassembled ductwork.

PN-IV-98-043. Not a generic issue.

10/02/98 10/01/98 Conoco, Inc. 35-07402-11 Gauge corrosion.

EN#34865. Rlli and liiinois briefed and performed f/u inspection.

10/07/98 10/07/98 Muskogee 35-13157-01 Analysis of a wipe Regional Medical (from a '87Cs sealed Center source) confirmed 0.03 Ciof removable contamination. F/U m

next routine inspection.

No PN issued.

l

t i

LICENSE REPORT EVENT DATE DATE LICENSEE NUMBER DESCRIPTION 9/14/98 9/08/98 ASCG, Inc. 50-29015-01 Disconnected radiography source, unable to retract to a shielded position.

(PNO-IV-98-039).

Inspector f/u. INC and California briefed. INC was to perform materials analyis.

11/18/98 11/18/98 Bill Miller, Inc. 35-19048-01 INC received a 7.3 w2lr radiography source for disposal from Bill Miller Inc. High radiat' r dose rates we measured. The s 'ur<,e had fallen out oi 01e source changer. .,-

Inspector f/u at Miller, state f/u at INC.

PN-IV-98-055.

California briefed and inspected INC.

11/26/98 11/25/98 Queen's Medical 53-16533-02 Medical Center misadministration (500 rads) due to improper source positioning during brachytherapy.

Inspector f/u.

PN IV-98-058. Not a I

genericissue.

I 1/14/99 5/98 Hawaiian Eye 53-18343-01 Misadministration with Sr-90 eye applicator PN-IV-99-007 Inspector id during routing inspection. Finalf/u 3/A/99 e

t

1 j

1 i .

Carl J.Paperiello 2-bec:

DNMS]MPEP File Region IV File

~

~~r- .

.y 1

l l

7[

e 1

ca DOCUMENT NAME: G:\lMPEP99.NMS

1. Ygg wu To receive copy of document, Indicate in box: 'C' = Copy wi osures *E' Al 99-054

1ch.m.osures *N" = No copy RIV

C:t$1115 l C:NMLB / , l CllMpG L DD:DNMg D:DNMS/)A@

EEQd!IinAsTv CLCalf M F DlWp'ItztEIg LLHo'p611Hd DDCharnb"ertain l 03T/99 03//f99 03/q /99 03///99 03/F /99 I 7' OFFICIAL RECOFiD COPY l

~d APPENDIX D REGION IV INSPECTION FILES REVIEWED File No.1 -

Licensee: Petro-Data, Inc. Ocense No.:35-23137-01 Location: Hominy, OK Inspection Type: Routine

' License Type: Storage-Only Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 4/9/98 Inspector: RAB File No. 2 Licensee: Nuclear Pharmacy of Idaho License No.: 11-27398-01 MD Location: Boise, ID - . Inspection Type: Special License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 4/21/98 inspectors: KMP and MRS File f 30. 3 -

Licensee: University of Idsho License No.: 11-27382-01 Location: Moscow, ID inspection Type: Routine License Type: Academic Type A Broad Scope P 'ority: 2 Inspection Date: 5/12/98 Inspector: RAB

. File No. 4

~ Licensee: Department of Veterans Affairs License No.: 43-03299-01 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Inspection Type: Routine License Type: Medical Institution Broad Scope Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 6/24-25/98 Inspector: JC File No. 5 -

Licensee: Regents of the University of California License No.: 04-23279-01 Location: Irvine, CA .

Inspection Type: Routine License Type: Research and Development (Other) Priority: 5 Inspection Date: 2/27/98 Inspector: EMG File No. 6 Licensee: Ludlum Measurements, Inc. License No.: 42-21454-01 E Location: Sweetwater, TX Inspection Type: Routine License Type: Exempt Distribution (Small Quantities) Priority: 5 Inspection Date: 6/98 ~ Inspector: RAL l

.T

- File No. 7 Licensee: Norcon, Inc. License No.: 50-29042-01 Location: Anchorage, AK Inspection Type: Special l

. License Type: Portable Gauges Priority: 5 Inspection Date: 7/98 Inspector: DDS l

u._

g RIV Final Report Page D. 2 Inspection Files Reviewed File No. 8 '

Licensee: Fleet Service of Tulsa License No.: 35-27486-01 Location: Catoosa, OK Inspection Type: Routine License Type: Fixed Gauges Priority: 5 ,

inspection Date: 12/97 Inspectol. JC File No. 9 Licensee: Bill Miller, Inc. License No.: 35-19048-01 Location: Henryetta, OK Inspection Type: Special License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 9/24/97 Inspector: RAL File No.10 Licensee: American Foundry Group License No.: 35-26893-01 Location: Tulsa, OK Inspection Type: Routine

)

i License Type: Industrial Radiography (Permanent Installation Only) Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 10/97 Inspector: RAB ,

File No.11 Licensee: Valley Hospital License No.: 50-29059-01 Location: Palmer, AK Inspection Type: Routine License Type: Medical Institution - OMP Not Required Priority: 5 Inspection Date: 8/98 Inspector: EMG File No.12 Licensee: Department of the Air Force License No.42-25359-01 AF Location: Barksdale Air Force Base, LA Inspection Type: Routine License Type: Three Permittees With Chemical Agent Detectors, One Permittee With Portable Gauges Priority: N/A Inspection Date: 11/97 Inspector: JC ,

File No.13 -

Licensee: Defense Logistics Agency License No.: 04-29092-01 Location: Corpus Christi Naval Air Station, TX Inspection Type: Routine  ;

License Type: Manufacturing and Distribution Type A Broad Scope Priority: 1 '

Inspection Date: 3/4/98 Inspector: RAB File No.14 Licensee: Kapiolani Health License No.: 53-23297-01 Location: Honolulu, HI .

Inspection Type: Routine License Type: Medical Institution, OMP Required Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 3/98 Inspector: JLM

RIV Final Report Page D. 3

~ Inspection Files Reviewed l . .

i ,

File No.15 Licensee: Department of the Interior / US Geological Survey ' License No.: Not Available l Location: Denver, CO - . . .

Inspection Type: Routine

. License Type: Research and Development Type A Broad Scope Priority: 2 Inspection Date: Not Available . Inspector: JCFile No.16 Licensee: Department of Veterans Affairs . License No.: 26-16293 01 Location: Lincoln,' NE ..

Inspection Type: Routine

' License Type: Medical Institution - OMP Required - Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 6/ 97 _ Inspector: MRS File No.17 Licensee: Gutidrrez-Palmenberg, Inc. License No.: 27-29103-01 Location: Las Vegas, NV inspection Type: Routine

. License Type: Decontamination Services Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 12/10/97 Inspector: DDS

, ' File No.18 ..

Licensee: Fansteel, Inc. License No.: SMB-911 Location: Muskogee, OK .

Inspection Type: Routine License Type: Rare Earth Extraction and Processing Priority: 3

. Inspection Date: 9/11/97 Inspector: HC File No.19 Licensee: Syncor International Corporation License No. 04-26507-01MD Location: Woodland Hills, CA Inspection Type: Routine License Type: Master Materials (Radiopharmacy; Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 2/99 Inspector: JLM

, File No. 20 -

License: Syncor Intemational Corporation License No. 04-26507-01MD Location: Tulsa, OK Inspection Type: Routine License Type: Radiopharmacy Permittee Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 3/24-25/97 inspector: RAL File No. 21 Licensee: Syncor International Corporation License No.: 04-26507-01MD Location: Oklahoma City, OK Inspection Type: Routine License Type: Radiopharmacy Permittee Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 5/1/97 inspector: JC l

File No. 22 Licensee: Dr. Lee License No. Not Available Location: Honolulu, HI Inspection Type: Special i License Type: Strontium-90 Eye Applicator Priority: 3 l Inspection Date: 8/27-28/97 Inspector: DDS

]

l

I RIV Final Report Page D. 4 Inspection Files Reviewed File No. 23 Licensee: Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation License No. 35-07464-03 Location: Oklahoma City, OK Inspection Type: Routine License Type: Research and Development Type A Broad Scope Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 3/17/98 Inspector: KMP The following inspection accompaniments were made in advance of the on-site IMPEP review:

Accompaniment No.1 Licensee: NASA Ames Research Center Location: Moffett Fie!d, CA License No.: 04-07845-04 Priority: 2 Inspector: DDS Type of Inspection: Routine inspection Date: 2/17-19/99 License Type: Research and Development Type A Broad Scope Accompaniment No. 2 Licensee: Bureau of Indian Affairs Phoenix Area Office Location: Phoenix, AZ License No.: 19-00915-03 Priority: N/A j inspectors: KMP and GKM Type of Inspection: Routine i Inspection Dates: 2/23/99 License Type: Portable Gauges Accompaniment No. 3 Licensee: Bureau of Indian Affairs - Pima Agency j Location: Socaton, Az  ;

License No.: 19-00915-03 3

Priority: N/A Inspectors: KMP and GKM -

Type of Inspection: Routine inspection Dates: 2/22-23/99 License Type: Portable Gauges

g RIV Final Report Page D. 5 inspection Files Reviewed l

Accompaniment No. 4 Licensee: Western Technologies, Inc. i Location: Phoenix, AZ License No.: 02-27608-01 Priority: 5 Inspectors: KMP and GKM Type of Inspection: Routine inspection Date: 2/23/99 License Type: Portable Gauges Accompaniment No. 5 Licensee: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Western Cotton Research Laboratory Location: Phoenix, AZ .

License No.: 19-00915-03 Priority: N/A Inspectors: KMP and GKM Type of Inspection: Routine Inspection Dates: 2/24-25/99 License Type: USDA Permittee Authorized for Research and Development Accompaniment No. 6 -

Licensee: USDA Water Conservation Laboratory Location: Phoenix, AZ License No.: 19-00915-03 Priority: N/A Inspectors: KMP and GKM Type of Inspection: Routine inspection dates: 2/24-25/99 License type: USDA Permittee Authorized for Research and Development I

9 1

I j

APPENDIX E REGION IV LICENSING FILES REVIEWED I NOTE: ALL LICENSES LISTED WITHOUT COMMENT ARE INCLUDED FOR COMPLETENESS ONLY; NO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE IMPEP TEAM.

File No.: 1 Licensee: Gold Perforating Company License No.: 35-12733-03 Location: Pawhuska, OK Amendment No.: O License Type: Well-logging Type of Action: New Date issued: 12/08/97 License Reviewer: VC l File No.: 2 Licensee: OK State / Dept. of Health License No.: 35-06901-02 Location: Oklahoma City, OK Amendment No.: 31 License Type: In-vitro testing lab Type of Action: amendment Date issued: 4/08/97 License Reviewer: BP File No.: 3 e i Licensee: St. Joseph Reg. Med Center F License No.: 35-14046-01 l Location: Ponca City, OK Amendment No.: 19 License Type: Teletherapy Type of Action: Termination  ;

Date issued: 9/17/97 License Reviewer: MCH  !

File No.: 4 l Licensee: University of Hawaii /Manoa License No.: SNM-536 l Location: Honolulu, Hawaii Amendment No.: 9 I License Type: SNM Plutonium neutron source Type of Action: Termination Date issued: 9/14/98 License Reviewer: BP File No.: 5 Licensee: Dept. of Air Force License No.: 42-23539-01 AF Location: Brooks AFB,TX Amendment No.: 14 License Type: R & D Broad Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 2/17/98 License Reviewer: AG File No.: 6 i Licensee: Syncor Interaational Corp. License No.: 04-26507-01MD Location: Woodland Hills, CA Amendment Nos.:15,16,17 License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Type of Action: Amendments Date issued: 3/24/98 License Reviewer: JM File No.: 7 Licensee: Dept. of Interior License No.: 05-02678-02 Location: Denver, CO Amendment No.: 31 License Type: R & D other Type of Action: Renewal l Date issued: 4/29/97 License Reviewer: VC l

rc

c. ,

l'

, Region IV Final Report . . Page E. 2 Licensing Files Reviewed l

L File No.: 8 ~

Licensee: Flamingo Engineers l License No.: 11-27474-01

~ Location: Twin Falls, Idaho - Amendment No.: 1 License Type: Portable Gauge Type of Action: Termination

. Date issued: 8/19/98 License Reviewer: VC

- File No.: 9

l. - Licensee: - Westem Construction ince License No.: 11-27359-01 l Location: Boise, Idaho: Amendment No.: 1 License Type: Portable Gauge Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 7/31/98- License Reviewer: VC i

File No.: 10 l Licensee: Dept.of Veteran Affairs License No.: 04-00184-04 {

Location: -Los Angeles, CA .

Amendment No.: 104 i License Type: Medical Institution / QMP required Type of Action: Amendment Date lasued: 3/10/99. License Reviewer: JM File No.: 11-

.. Licensee: Pavers Inc. License No.: 35-27037-02 Location: Davis, OK - Amendment No.: 0

- License Type: Portable gauge Type of Action: New Date issued:' 5/6/97 . License Reviewer: MCH File No.: 12 Licensee: Advanced Insp. Technologies License No.: 35-27588-01 Location: Tulsa, OK- Amendment No.: O License Type: Industrial radiography Type of Action: New Date issued:-7/10/98 License Reviewer: JW  ;

Comment: .

I a) Deficiency letter dated 6/19/98 not in file; however, deficiency response letter has correct  ;

changes that were documented in checklist.  !

File No.: 13 Licensee: Longview inspection License No.: 42-27593-01 1 Location: La Porte, TX .

Amendment No.: 0  ;

License Type: Industrial radiography Type of Action: New :

~ Date issued: 9/22/98 - License Reviewer: JW Comment:

a)l No deficiency' memo about telephone request for additional information.

- File' No.: 14-Licensee: Endocrine Group . License No.: 35-27567-01 Location: Oklahoma City, OK Amendment No.: 3-1 License Type: Medical Private Practice /OMP required Type of Action: Amendment

Date issued: 2/11/99 License Reviewer: JC i

Region IV Final Report Page E. 3 Licensing Files' Reviewed

' Flie No.:- 15 Licensee: HCA Health Services of Oklahoma License No.: 35-21035-01 Location: Oklahoma City, OK .. Amendment No.: 28 Ucense Type: MedicalInstitution Broad Type of Action: Amendment Date lasued: 1/26/99 License Reviewer: JM  ;

File No.: 16 .

Ucensee: Dept. of Health / Human Services License No.: 25-01203-01 Location: Hamilton, Montana Amendment No.: 38 Ucense Type: R & D Type A Broad Type of Action: Amendment Date issued: 10/30/98 License Reviewers: VC

~

File No.: 17 Ucensee: Schlumberger Technology Corp. License No.: 42-00090-03 Location: Sugar Land, TX Amendment No.: 61 License Type: Well-logging Type of Action: Renewal Date issued: 11/19/97 License Reviewer: AG/JW Comment: l a) Review of application & procedures very detailed. Deficiency letters are clear. Licensee l RSO answered def. letters appropriately. Also noted that licensee asked for an exception to well-logging rules. Reviewers received assistance with NRC headquarters in the form of TAR to correctly address health and safey procedural changes.

File No.: 18 :

Licensee: Flannery Engineering License No.: 40-27571-01 Location: Elk Point, SD - Amendment No.: 0 Ucense Type: Portable gauge Type of Action: New Date issued: 11/18/97 License Reviewers: KP/BP File No.:- 19 Licensee: Kingfisher Medical Center License No.: 35-27550-01 Location: Kingfisher, OK Amendment No.: 1 License Type: Medical Institution /No QMP Type of Action: Termination Date issued: 1/22/98 License Reviewer: JW Comment: 1 a) Inspector verified licensee had never received any radioactive material prior to l termination.

- File No.: 20

- Licensee: The Bionetics Corporation. License h'o.: 45-27568-01 Location: Hampton, VA Amendment No.: O License Type: Instrument calibration Type of Action: New Date issued: 9/19/97 License Reviewer: BG/JW File No.: 21 l Licensee: Dept. of Army - License No.: 30-02405 10 l Location: White Sands, NM Amendment No.: 15 l

l

r y r" F '

L ,

- Region IV Final Report Page E. 4 Licensing Files Reviewed License Type: Irradiations />10000 Ci Type of Action: Amendment i Date issued: 2/22/99 1.icense Reviewer: VC File No. 22 -

Licerisee: Syncor International License No.: 04-26507-01MD Location Woodland Hill 5, California Amendment No.: 3 License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Type of Action: Amendment Date Amendment Issued: 2/5/97 License Reviewer: JM l

File No. 23 Licensee: Syncor International License No.: 04-26507-01MD Location: Woodland Hills, California Amendment No.: 2 License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Type of Action: Amendment Date Amendment issued: 7/26/96 License Reviewer: JM File No. 24 Licensee: Syncor International License No.: 04-26507-01MD Location: Woodland Hills, California Amendment No.: N/A License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Type of Action: New Date Amendment issued: 3/26/96 License Reviewer: JM i

i l

l 1

I 4

APPENDlX F REGION IV INCIDENT FILES REVIEWED File Number: 1 incident Log Number: N/A Licensee: TuckerTerinologies License Nur.1ber: 30-19278-01 Site of Event: Oklaho na Type of r ent: Leaking Source Date of Event: Apri'24,1997 investigation Type: Routine Investigation Date: July 15,1997 Summary of Incident: Licensee reported periodic wipe tests indicated leaking well logging source. Event was closed out with review of licensee's required 30 day report and the July 15, 1997.

File Number: 2 Incident Log Number: N/A Licensee: Department of the Army, Evans License Number: 05 26854-01 Community Hospital Site of Event: Ft. Carson, CO Type of Event: Misadministration Date of Event: April 3,1997 investigation Type: Reactive Investigation Date:

Summary of incident: Hyperthyroid patient received 1-131 treatment while pregnant. Licensee determined that physician misunderstood the new computer print out for the pregnancy test.

The treatment resulted in an exposure to fetus. NRC's consultant report indicated the exposure to fetus did not have medical consequences. The everit was determined not to be a misadministration. Case is closed.

File Number: 3 Incident Log Number: N/A Licensee: Intregis Southwest Medical Center License Number: 35-13127-01 Site of Event: Oklahoma City, OK Type of Event: Misadministration Date of Event: September 11,1997 Investigation Type: Routine investigation Date: July 21,1998 Summary of incident: Patient removed brachytherapy source string from catheter. Event was reviewed at next inspection and was determined not to be a misadministration. Case is closed.

File dumber: 4 Incident Log Number: N/A Licensee: CTI Alaska License Number: 50-19202-01 Site of Event: Alaska Type of Event: Equipment Failure Date of Event: January 16,1998 investigation Type: Unknown investigation Date: Unknown Summary of incident: Licensee reported a failure of a drive cable on a radiography camera.

License was terminated on May 281998. Docket file was sent directly from WCFO to archives and was unavailable for review.

I s

L l ,

Region IV Final Report Page F. 2 incident Files Reviewed File Number: 5 incident Log Number: N/A Licensee: U.S. Dept. of Interior License Number: 05-01399-08 Site of Event: Jefferson, CO Typa of Event: Leaking Sealed Source Date of Event: November 20,1997 investigation Type: None investigation Date: N/A -

Summary of Incident: Licensee's routine wipe test revealed leaking CD-109 calibration source.

Source was returned to manufacturer. Case is closed.

Comment: ,

1. Date of report and date of event in LER do not match (possibly inverted).

2. LER not in file.

3. Close out not documented in file.

File Number: 6 incident Log Number: N/A Licensee: Tulsa Gamma Ray Licensee Number: 35-17178-01 Site of Event: Oklahoma Type of Event: Potential Overexposure Date of Event: September 1,1998 . Investigation Type: Reactive investigation Date: September 1999 Summa / of incident: Licensee reported a 10 REM film badge reading. Assistant radiographer lost film badge for about 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> and discovered it near the work area. He did not report it to the RSO. Reactive inspection yielded NOV for violation of 10CFR 20.2203. Case is closed.

1 File Number: 7 incident Log Number: N/A l Licensee: Muskogee Regional Med. Ctr. Licensee Number: 35-12157-01 i Site of Event: Muskogee, OK Type of Event: Leaking Sealed Source (

Date of Event: October 7,1998 - Investigation Type: None Investigation Date: N/A l Summary of incident: Licensee wipe test revealed leaking Cs-137 calibration source. Telephone investigation conducted by region. Case was closed with review of licensee's final report. Case is closed.

Comment:

1. Closecut report: Investigator and supervisory review signed by same individual.

File Number: 8 Incident Log Number: N/A Licensee: Bill Miller, Inc. Licensee Number: 35-19048-01 Site of Event: Henryetta, OK Type of Event: Equipment Failure Date of Event: November 18,1998 investigation Type: Reactive investigation Date: Not Available Summary of incident: Licensee reported that 7.3 Ci IR-192 source fell out of source changer at INC. Incident reported by INC to California. The Region conducted a reactive inspection at Bill Miller, Inc.. This case remains open because of a concurrent investigation.

Comment:

1. This event is recorded in NMED un' der number 891141. Since the licensee is indicated as INC, when it should be Bill Miller, Inc. It may be improperly logged in NMED.

l l

i Region IV Final Report Page F. 3 incident Files Reviewed l

File Number: 9' incident Log Number: N/A )

Licensee: Albany International Licensee Number: 42-24563-01 Site of Event: Not Available Type of Event:

Date of Event: Not Available Investigation Type:

Investigation Date: Not Available Summary of incident: Event in Agreement State invciving general licensed activity.

Comment:

1. An un-assigned docket number (42-24563-01) was used in the LER.

2. The licensee was operating under a general license in an Agreement State. The investigation ,

of the event and potential enforcement issues were the responsibility of the Agreement State. I File Number: 10 incident Log Number: N/A Licensee: Nuclear Pharmacy of Idaho Licensee Number: 112739801MD Site of Event: Boise, ID Type of Event: Possible overexposure Date of Event: November 13,1997 investigation Type: Reactive Investigation Date: July 14,1998 Summary of incident: Pharmacist spilled 1-131 in fume hood and contaminated himself.

Reactive inspection yisided NOV with 9 violations. Case is closed.

Comment:

1. This case remained open for 8 months resulting in a self-assessment of the Region's incident response procedures. A " lessons learned" memorandum was issued on December 15, 1998.

File Number: 11 '

Incident Log Number: N/A Licensee: Queen's Medical Center Licensee Number: 53-16533-02 Site of Event: Honolulu, Hi Type of Event: Misadministration Date of Event: April 28,1998 investigation Type: Reactive Investigation Date:

Summary of incident: Use of alternate calibration method for P-32 therapy doses resulted in two misadministrations. Reactive inspection and consultant used to evaluate extent of licencee compliance and effect on patients. Case is closed.

Comment:

1. Although closed,it is not clearly documented in the file.

File Number: 12 Incident Log Number: N/A Licensee: Bill Miller, Inc. Licensee Number: 30-15283-01 ,

' Site of Event: Tulsa, OK Type of Event: Stolen radiography camera l Date of Event: September 18,1998 investigation Type: Reactive Investigation Date: September 24,1998 Summary of incident: Radiographer's truck and radiography camera stolen form motel parking lot. Camera recovered intaw on September 21,1998. Reactive inspection revealed no violations. Case is closed.

1 j

l

Region IV Final Report Page F. 4 Incident Files Reviewed ~

File Number: 13 Incident Log Number: N/A Licensee: Queen's Medical Center 1.icensee Number: 53-16533-02

. Site of Event: Honolulu, Hi Type of Event: Misadministration Date of Event: November 25,1998 Investigation Type: Reactive investigation Date:

Summary of incident: Licensee reported a misadministration due to the treatment of the wrong side of the patient. Case open.

Comments:

1. Case to be closed soon following issuance of inspection report and findings.

2. Case is logged in LER and the completed LER file will be provided to the docket when the case review is completed.

3. NMED shows event as number 981154. Possibly entered due to issuance of PN or EN that are not in file.

=~

l i

APPENDIX G REGION IV SDMP AND DECOMMISSIONING FILES REVIEWED File No.'1 Licensee: Kerr-McGee, Cushing Location: Oklahoma City, OK License No.: SNM-1999 License Type: Special Nuclear Material File No. 2 Licensee: Sequoyah Fuels Corp.

Location: Gore, OK License No.: SUB-1010 License Type: Source Material i

File No. 3: I Licensee: Kerr-McGee Cimarron j Location: Oklahoma City, OK License No.: SNM-928 l License Type: Special Nuclear Material File No. 4:

Licensee: Kaiser Aluminum

! Location: Gore, OK Licence No.: STB-472 l License Type: Source Material l

l File No. 5 Licensee: Department of Veterans' Affairs Location: Palo Alto, CA License No.: 04-23242 License Type: Medical Note: Special Limited Scope Inspection Performed for Drain Line Removal  !

I File No. 6 l Licensee: U. S. Army Garrison, Fitzsimons Army Medical Center l Location: Denver, CO License No.: 05-00046-13 License Typa: Broad Scope Medical l

File No. 7 i Licensee: General Atomics Location: San Diego, CA i License No.: 70-734 l License Type: Special Nuclear Material Note: In-process inspections and confirmatory surveys i

)

l l

APPENDIX H REGION IV URANIUM RECOVERY INSPECTION FILES REVIEWED i

File No.1 Licensee: Rio Algom Mining Corp.

City, State: Lisbon, UT License Number: SUA-1119 Inspection Priority: NA Lead Inspector: Carson Type of Inspection: Routine inspection Date: February 3,1998 Issuance Date: February 20,1998 Program Type: UR/ Conventional Mill - In Reclamation File No. 2 Licensee: Power Resources, Inc., (PRI) - Highlands City, State: Converse, WY License Number: SUA-1511 Inspection Priority: NA Lead Inspector: Evans Type of Inspection: Routine - Announced Inspection Date: August 11-13,1998 issuance Date: September 2,1998 Program Type: UR/ISL File No. 3

~ Licensee: PRI, Highlands City, State: Converse County, WY License Number: SUA-1511 Inspection Priority: NA Lead inspector: S?mpkins Type of Inspection: Routine - Announced Inspection Date: March 2-4,1?99 issuance Date: March 23,1999 Program Type: UR/ISL File No. 4 Licensee: Envirocare City, State: South Clive, UT License Number: SMC-1559 Inspection Priority: NA Lead Inspector: Simpkins/ Accompanied by Spitzberg and Merschoff Type of Inspection: Routine - A7nounced Inspection Date: January 25-28,1999 lssuance Date: February 18,1999 Program Type: 11(e)(2) byproduct disposa tacility

l s4 o

y Region IV Final Report Page H.2

- Uranium Recovery inspection Files Reviewed File No. 5 l

- Licensee: Envirocare i City, State: South Clive, UT ,

License Number: SMC-1559 inspection Priority: NA L Lead Inspector: Evans Type of Inspection: Routine inspection Date: October 5-8,1998 ' Exit on' November 10,1998

. Issuance Date: November 20,1998 i Prograrn Type: 11(e)(2) byproduct disposal facility l

File No. 6' Licensee  : Atlas Corporation City, State: Moab, UT License Number:~ SUA-917 Inspection Priority: NA )

- Lead Inspector: McLean Type of Inspection: Routine - Announced Inspection Date: March 27,1997 Issuance Date: April 28,1997 ]

Program Type: Conventional mill in decommissioning File No. I Licensee: Quivera/ Ambrosia Lake

- City, State: Grants, NM 1

- Li::ense Number: SUA - 1473.

Inspection Priority: NA

~ Lead inspector: Carson

Type of inspection: Routine - Announced inspection Date: January 16,1998 Exit on February 3,1998 issuance Date: March 4,1998 -

Program Type: UR/ Conventional mill - in reclamation File No. 8 Licensee: Bear Creek City, State: _

Converse, WY

-- License Number: 40-8452 i inspection Priority: .NA Lead Inspector: Carson '

Type of Inspection: Routine'- Announced i Inspection Date: - April 16,1998 l lasuance Date: May 6,1998 l Program Type: UR/ conventional mill - in reclamation I 4

e  ; .'

l Regirp IV Final Report _

Page H.3 Uranium Recovery inspection Files Reviewed File No. 9

• 1 Licensee: Cogema Mining, Inc., (Cogema) - Irigaray/Christensen Ranch City, State: .

Converse County, WY License Number: SUA-1341  !

inspection Priority: NA l Lead Inspector: Evans  !

Type of Inspection: Routine - Announced I Inspection Date: August 25-27,1998 issuance Date: September 28,1998 j Program Type: UR - operating ISL j I

)

p*

• 4r UNITED STATES

• p '

y% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f h E g REGloN IV l

t q 8 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, sulTE 400 y g ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011-8064 May 21, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO: Carl J. Paperiello, Director '

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards FROM: Ellis W. Merschoff, Regional Administrator .

Region IV

SUBJECT:

DRAFT 1999 REGION IV INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM REPORT This refers to the draft report for the 1999 review of the Region IV materials program. I and my staff have reviewed the draft report and are providing comments in the attachment to this memorandum. Our comments primarily consist of suggestions for clarifying certain areas and minor cogections; on the whole, we found the report comprehensive and believe that it represents a balanced perspective of the region's performance.

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in an independent review of the Region's implementation of the materials inspection and licensing programs. These reviews prov:de an opportriity for new insights on how we might improve c,ur performance, as well as an opportunity to discuss with headquarters staff initiatives which could result in improved efficiency and effectiveness in the materials program overall. To that extent, I want to convey my staff's appreciatiois for the team's willingness to seek feedback from regional staff and for the professional manner in which the review was conducted.

Should you or the team have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Dwight Chamberlain or Linda Howell of my staff at (817) 860-8106 or 860-8213, respectively.

l

Attachment:

As Stated Attachment 1 L M O M 3 M 3/[-

l l

Attachment Regional Comments

=

j Section 3.2, Page 6: It appears that some text may be missing from the last sentence in the second paragraph. .

Section 3.3, Page 8: Because the region may elect to change the staffing levels within branches assigned to the Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, we recommend that the second paragraph on this page be modified so as to not reflect assignment of vacant positions to a specific branch. We suggest that the second paragraph be modified to read as follows:

RIV has experienced unique challenges since the last review. Closure of the WCFO in 1998 resulted in several vacancies in RIV's materials program.

Region IV has managed this challenge by hiring new staff and by retention of a license reviewer and three inspectors participating in a 2-year, remote, work-at-home program.

In the third paragraph on Page 8, we suggest that the sixth sentence be modified to read as shown below. This change will more accurately reflect the possibility that budget cuts may result in elimination of some FTE by the end of the 2-year pilot  :

work-at-home program.

]

Since the pilot is for 2 years, and there is an expectation that most of the  !

participants will not continue with NRC at the end of the pilot, Regional l management is actively preparing to fill some of the potentially open positions.

Section 3.4, Page 10: To provide context for readers who may not be familiar with  !

decommissioning guidance, we suggest modifying the third paragraph on Page 10 to read as shown below, l i

i The guidance in inspection Procedures 87104," Decommissioning Inspection Procedure for Materials Licensees," and 88104, " Decommissioning Inspection Procedure for Fuel Cycle Facilities," specify that the field notes contained in the i respective procedures be used to document each inspection conducted using I the procedure. Inspection Manual Chapter 2602, " Decommissioning Inspection  !

Program for Fuel Cycle Facilities and Materials Licensees," specifies that the  ;

inspection staff shall fully document ,in the form of a written report, all visits to i and inspections of each site undergoing decommissioning. RIV is following the  !

prescribed guidance and is generating both field notes and formal reports for j each of its decommissiorang inspections. The requirement for documenting l inspection findings in bota formats is somewhat burdensome and has yielded no additional benefit in understanding the licensee's prcym or documenting site status. The Region would prefer the option of preparing either a formal report or field notes, depending on the scope of the inspection. Formal reports issued by the Region would continue to include applicable items identified in the field notes. This IMPEP team recommends that additional discussions be held between NMSS and all Regions to determine if both the field notes and formal reports are needed.

s i

I .

n 3 r )

The sixth full paragraph on Page 10 contains discussion regarding a recommendation concerning financial assurance guidance. As noted in this paragraph, RIV staff did i identify to IMPEP team members a need to update existing guidance; this project is 1 already underway. Since all regions and headquarters staff performing financial assurance reviews will use the updated guidance, we suggest that the last sentence in this paragraph be modified to read as shown below.

The IMPEP team recommends that NMSS staff confirm that the updated guidance is responsive to regional and headquarters staffs' needs.  !

Section 3.5, Page 11: The fourth paragraph of this section describes an event involving an overexposure and the Region's review of the event. The fourth sentence of this paragraph should be corrected to reflect the Region's review of the event during the spring of 1998 rather than the fall of 1998.

Section 4.1, Page 14: For the paragraph identified under " Materials Licensing," we suggest entering the following text after the fifth sentence:

At the end of FY 98, the Region had reduced the renewal backlog case load to zero.

Section 4.4.2, Page 24: We recommend that the second full paragraph on this page be deleted; it does not accurately reflect staff assignments in the Region's uranium recovery program.

Section 5.0, Page 26: With regard to recommendation 2, the Region understood this recommendation to be directed to NMSS. Therefore, we suggest that the text be modified as follows:

1 The IMPEP team recommends that NMSS review the need for both field notes and formal inspection reports to document inspection results at decommissioning sites and revise guidance as appropriate.

• Appendix E, Page E.2: .e comment under File No. 9 may mislead the reader to think that leak test intervals for this license were not properly updated. This particular licensing action involved an amendment request that was not related to leak test '

intervals. Therefor 0. when the action was processed, the license conditions were not reviewed or modified in their entirety to reflect a less restrictive leak test interval. The action taken in this case was consistent with agency guidance.

A minor typogr phical error appears in the text relating to File No.14. The licensee is Endocrine Group.

• Appendix F: On Page F.2, the discussion on File No. 8 should be ccrrected to reflect the current status of this case. A reactive inspection was conducted; however, no report or Notice of Violation has been issued because of a concurrent, ongoing investigation.

The Region considers this case to be open.