ML18215A099: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 07/24/2018
| issue date = 07/24/2018
| title = James E. Cary Cancer Center - NRC Form 591M Parts 1 & 3, Inspection Report 03037750/2018001 (DNMS)
| title = James E. Cary Cancer Center - NRC Form 591M Parts 1 & 3, Inspection Report 03037750/2018001 (DNMS)
| author name = Gattone R G
| author name = Gattone R
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-III
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-III
| addressee name = Rose S
| addressee name = Rose S
Line 14: Line 14:
| page count = 2
| page count = 2
}}
}}
See also: [[followed by::IR 05000201/1980001]]
See also: [[see also::IR 05000201/1980001]]


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:NRC FORM 591M PART 1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION  
{{#Wiki_filter:NRC FORM 591M PART 1                                                                                         U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION
(07-2012)  
(07-2012)
10CFR 2.201 SAFETY INSPECTION  
10CFR 2.201               SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT AND COMPLIANCE INSPECTION
REPORT AND COMPLIANCE  
1. LICENSEE/LOCATION INSPECTED:                                                     2. NRG/REGIONAL OFFICE
INSPECTION  
  :5"tk "'e i f. C<< rt_ Cr;..J.Jce r Ce"'1er                                           J?.egio11 rit                            .
1. LICENSEE/LOCATION  
                                                                                                                      {( ,J"J S' v, f ~
INSPECTED:  
  ~er~      s Hu! f'; ('. I Dr i V e
2. NRG/REGIONAL  
                                                                                      .i If lf 3 v/tA.rrt"i "' lie
OFFICE :5" tk "'e i f. C << rt_ C r;..J.Jce  
                                                                                      L.isl~1 .X.lli"oi5, o51'l.
r C e"'1er ~er~ s Hu! f'; ('. I Dr i V e r1'<A.Nr,1ib<A.f, /7\iJsour~  
                                                                                                                                        l IO
J?.egio11
    r1'<A.Nr,1ib<A.f,      /7\iJsour~                                                  Select a location (Use keyboard arrows to select)...
rit . .i If lf 3 v/tA.rrt"i  
REPORT NUMBER(S}             :2 D I g (} 0 I
"' lie {( ,J"J S' v, f l IO L.isl~1.X.lli"oi5, o51'l. Select a location (Use keyboard arrows to select) ... REPORT NUMBER(S}  
3. DOCKET NUMBER(S)                                               4. LICENSE NUMBER(S)                               5. DATE(S) OF INSPECTION
:2 D I g (} 0 I 3. DOCKET NUMBER(S)  
      a 3 O ._ J 7 7 ~()
4. LICENSE NUMBER(S)  
LICENSEE:
5. DATE(S) OF INSPECTION  
The inspection was an examination of the activities conducted under your license as they relate to radiation safety and to compliance with the Nuclear
a 3 O ._ J 7 7 ~() LICENSEE:  
  Regulatory Commission (NRC) rules and regulations and the conditions of your license. The inspection consisted of selective examinations of
The inspection  
  procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector. The inspection findings are as follows:
was an examination  
  ~1.       Based on the inspection findings, no violations were identified.
of the activities  
  D 2.       Previous violation(s) closed.
conducted  
  D 3.       The violations(s), specifically described to you by the inspector as non-cited violations, are not being cited because they were self-identified,
under your license as they relate to radiation  
              non-repetitive, and corrective action was or is being taken, and the remaining criteria in the NRC Enforcement Policy, to exercise
safety and to compliance  
              discretion, were satisfied.
with the Nuclear Regulatory  
                            Non-cited violation(s) were discussed involving the following requirement(s):
Commission (NRC) rules and regulations  
  D    4.    During this inspection, certain of your activities, as described below and/or attached, were in violation of NRC requirements and are being
and the conditions  
              cited in accordance with NRC Enforcement Policy. This form is a NOTICE OF VIOLATION, which may be subject to posting in accordance
of your license. The inspection  
              with 10 CFR 19.11.
consisted  
              (Violations and Corrective Actions)
of selective  
                                                              Statement of Corrective Actions
examinations  
  I hereby state that, within 30 days, the actions described by me to the Inspector will be taken to correct the violations identified. This statement of
of procedures  
  corrective actions is made in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201 (corrective steps already taken, corrective steps which will be taken,
and representative  
  date when full compliance will be achieved). I understand that no further written response to NRC will be required, unless specifically requested.
records, interviews  
          TITLE                               PRINTED NAME                                             SIGNATURE                                 DATE
with personnel, and observations  
LICENSEE'S
by the inspector.  
REPRESENTATIVE
The inspection  
  NRCINSPECTOR
findings are as follows: ~1. Based on the inspection  
  BRANCH CHIEF                                                                       )h,V _                     fbr A-TM
findings, no violations  
                                                                                        V
were identified.  
NRC FORM 591M PART 1 (07-2012)
D 2. Previous violation(s)  
 
closed. D 3. D 4. The violations(s), specifically  
NRC FORM 591 M PART 3                                                                    U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION
described  
(07-2012)
to you by the inspector  
10 CFR2.201                                      Docket File Information
as non-cited  
                      SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT AND COMPLIANCE INSPECTION
violations, are not being cited because they were self-identified, non-repetitive, and corrective  
1. LICENSEE/LOCATION INSPECTED:                                       2. NRG/REGIONAL OFFICE
action was or is being taken, and the remaining  
James E. Cary Cancer Center                                             Region III
criteria in the NRC Enforcement  
5985 Hospital Drive                                                     U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Policy, to exercise discretion, were satisfied.  
Hannibal, Missouri                                                     2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 210
Non-cited  
                                                                        Lisle, IL 60532-4352
violation(s)  
REPORT NUMBER(S)      201800 I
were discussed  
3. DOCKET NUMBER(S)                               4. LICENSE NUMBER(S)                        5. DATE(S) OF INSPECTION
involving  
030-37750                                          24-32681-01                                 7/24/18
the following  
6. INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED                      7. INSPECTION FOCUS AREAS
requirement(s):  
87132                                              02.01 through 02.07
During this inspection, certain of your activities, as described  
                                          SUPPLEMENTAL INSPECTION INFORMATION
below and/or attached, were in violation  
1. PROGRAM CODE(S)           2. PRIORITY          3. LICENSEE CONTACT                          4. TELEPHONE NUMBER
of NRC requirements  
02230                        2                    Stephen Rose, RSO                                      (573) 406-5801
and are being cited in accordance  
    [{] Main Office Inspection                     Next Inspection Date:              07/24/2020
with NRC Enforcement  
    D     Field Office Inspection
Policy. This form is a NOTICE OF VIOLATION, which may be subject to posting in accordance  
    D     Temporary Job Site Inspection
with 10 CFR 19.11. (Violations  
                                            ---------------------
and Corrective  
                                                      PROGRAM SCOPE
Actions) Statement  
This was an unannounced, routine inspection. The licensee conducted High Dose Rate (HDR) remote afterloader
of Corrective  
brachytherapy using an authorized HDR remote afterloading brachytherapy device. The treatments included breast
Actions I hereby state that, within 30 days, the actions described  
treatments involving Mammosite or Contura applicators, In addition, the licensee conducted vaginal treatments. As of
by me to the Inspector  
the inspection, the licensee conducted 5 HDR treatments since January 1, 2018. An authorized user was as required.
will be taken to correct the violations  
The licensee's radiation safety officer (RSO) was the licensee's authorized medical physicist. The RSO reported to the
identified.  
Director of Radiation Oncology (DRD), and the DRD reported to the Vice President of Operations. There were 3
This statement  
radiation therapists, one of which was the DRD. There were no HDR treatments during the inspection.
of corrective  
                                                  Performance Observations
actions is made in accordance  
The inspector: (I) observed that the HDR device was properly secured during storage; (2) discussed Elekta's Notice
with the requirements  
Reference 806-01-BTP-OOI regarding potential Oncentra software issues, and the inspector verified that the licensee's
of 10 CFR 2.201 (corrective  
Oncentra software was Version 4.5.3 which does not have the software issues; (3) observed the licensee's HDR
steps already taken, corrective  
emergency procedure posted at the HDR treatment area; (4) observed the RSO demonstrate how he conducted HDR spot
steps which will be taken, date when full compliance  
checks and there was no concern; (5) noted that the RSO stated that none of the HDR treatments deviated from the
will be achieved).  
written directive or treatment plan; (6) observed that the licensee's survey instrument was calibrated as required; (7) used
I understand  
an NRC-owned survey meter to conduct a side-by-side ambient exposure survey at the surface of the HDR unit
that no further written response to NRC will be required, unless specifically  
containing an iridium-192 source containing 7. 7 curies, and the inspector's survey result was O.2 milliRoentgen per hour
requested.  
and the RSO measured the same result with the licensee's survey instrument; (8) observed that the HDR facility was as
TITLE PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE  
authorized; (9) noted that the facility was posted as required; (10) noted that the licensee placed emergency response
DATE LICENSEE'S  
equipment (i.e., wire cutters, large pig, and a remote handling tool) near the patient during treatment in the event that a
REPRESENTATIVE  
problem occurs that results in high radiation dose rates; ( 11) reviewed selected HDR treatment records for vaginal and
NRCINSPECTOR  
breast treatments, including overlays of anatomy and dose information, written directives, treatment plans, and pre- and
BRANCH CHIEF NRC FORM 591M PART 1 (07-2012) )h,V _ fbr A-TM V
post-treatment HDR computer printouts that were used to verify that the HDR unit was set to conduct the proper HDR
NRC FORM 591 M PART 3 (07-2012)  
treatment prior to treatment and ensuring that the HDR unit conducted the proper HDR treatment post treatment; and
10 CFR2.201 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION  
(12) reviewed dosimeter badge results for 2016 through 6/30/18, and the highest annual extremity and whole body doses
Docket File Information  
were 38 millirem (mrem) and 4 mrem, respectively. No violations ofNRC regulatory requirements were identified as a
SAFETY INSPECTION  
result of this inspection.                                                                                   6\J flit. A-t;J'J
REPORT AND COMPLIANCE  
                                                                                                                  ff/i../, t
INSPECTION  
NRC FORM 591M PART 3 (07-2012)
1. LICENSEE/LOCATION  
INSPECTED:  
James E. Cary Cancer Center 5985 Hospital Drive Hannibal, Missouri REPORT NUMBER(S)
201800 I 3. DOCKET NUMBER(S)  
030-37750
6. INSPECTION
PROCEDURES
USED 87132 2. NRG/REGIONAL
OFFICE 4. LICENSE NUMBER(S)  
24-32681-01  
Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
2443 Warrenville
Road, Suite 210 Lisle, IL 60532-4352
5. DATE(S) OF INSPECTION
7/24/18 7. INSPECTION
FOCUS AREAS 02.01 through 02.07 SUPPLEMENTAL
INSPECTION
INFORMATION
1. PROGRAM CODE(S) 02230 2. PRIORITY 2 [{] Main Office Inspection  
D Field Office Inspection  
D Temporary  
Job Site Inspection  
3. LICENSEE CONTACT Stephen Rose, RSO Next Inspection
Date: 4. TELEPHONE
NUMBER (573) 406-5801 07/24/2020
---------------------
PROGRAM SCOPE This was an unannounced, routine inspection.  
The licensee conducted  
High Dose Rate (HDR) remote afterloader  
brachytherapy  
using an authorized  
HDR remote afterloading  
brachytherapy  
device. The treatments  
included breast treatments  
involving  
Mammosite  
or Contura applicators, In addition, the licensee conducted  
vaginal treatments.  
As of the inspection, the licensee conducted  
5 HDR treatments  
since January 1, 2018. An authorized  
user was as required.  
The licensee's  
radiation  
safety officer (RSO)  
was the licensee's  
authorized  
medical physicist.  
The RSO reported to the Director of Radiation  
Oncology (DRD), and the DRD reported to the Vice President  
of Operations.  
There were 3 radiation  
therapists, one of which was the DRD. There were no HDR treatments  
during the inspection.  
Performance  
Observations  
The inspector: (I) observed that the HDR device was properly secured during storage; (2) discussed  
Elekta's Notice Reference  
806-01-BTP-OOI  
regarding  
potential  
Oncentra software issues, and the inspector  
verified that the licensee's  
Oncentra software was Version 4.5.3 which does not have the software issues; (3) observed the licensee's  
HDR emergency  
procedure  
posted at the HDR treatment  
area; ( 4) observed the RSO demonstrate  
how he conducted  
HDR spot checks and there was no concern; (5) noted that the RSO stated that none of the HDR treatments  
deviated from the written directive  
or treatment  
plan; (6) observed that the licensee's  
survey instrument  
was calibrated  
as required;  
(7) used an NRC-owned  
survey meter to conduct a side-by-side  
ambient exposure survey at the surface of the HDR unit containing  
an iridium-192  
source containing  
7. 7 curies, and the inspector's  
survey result was O .2 milliRoentgen  
per hour and the RSO measured the same result with the licensee's  
survey instrument;  
(8) observed that the HDR facility was as authorized;  
(9) noted that the facility was posted as required;  
(10) noted that the licensee placed emergency  
response equipment (i.e., wire cutters, large pig, and a remote handling tool) near the patient during treatment  
in the event that a problem occurs that results in high radiation  
dose rates; ( 11) reviewed selected HDR treatment  
records for vaginal and breast treatments, including  
overlays of anatomy and dose information, written directives, treatment  
plans, and pre-and post-treatment  
HDR computer printouts  
that were used to verify that the HDR unit was set to conduct the proper HDR treatment  
prior to treatment  
and ensuring that the HDR unit conducted  
the proper HDR treatment  
post treatment;  
and (12) reviewed dosimeter  
badge results for 2016 through 6/30/18, and the highest annual extremity  
and whole body doses were 38 millirem (mrem) and 4 mrem, respectively.  
No violations  
ofNRC regulatory  
requirements  
were identified  
as a result of this inspection.  
6\J flit. A-t;J'J ff/i../, t NRC FORM 591M PART 3 (07-2012)
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 20:11, 20 October 2019

James E. Cary Cancer Center - NRC Form 591M Parts 1 & 3, Inspection Report 03037750/2018001 (DNMS)
ML18215A099
Person / Time
Site: 03037750
Issue date: 07/24/2018
From: Gattone R
NRC/RGN-III
To: Steven Rose
James E. Cary Cancer Ctr
References
IR 2018001
Download: ML18215A099 (2)


See also: IR 05000201/1980001

Text

NRC FORM 591M PART 1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION

(07-2012)

10CFR 2.201 SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT AND COMPLIANCE INSPECTION

1. LICENSEE/LOCATION INSPECTED: 2. NRG/REGIONAL OFFICE

5"tk "'e i f. C<< rt_ Cr;..J.Jce r Ce"'1er J?.egio11 rit .

{( ,J"J S' v, f ~

~er~ s Hu! f'; ('. I Dr i V e

.i If lf 3 v/tA.rrt"i "' lie

L.isl~1 .X.lli"oi5, o51'l.

l IO

r1'<A.Nr,1ib<A.f, /7\iJsour~ Select a location (Use keyboard arrows to select)...

REPORT NUMBER(S} :2 D I g (} 0 I

3. DOCKET NUMBER(S) 4. LICENSE NUMBER(S) 5. DATE(S) OF INSPECTION

a 3 O ._ J 7 7 ~()

LICENSEE:

The inspection was an examination of the activities conducted under your license as they relate to radiation safety and to compliance with the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) rules and regulations and the conditions of your license. The inspection consisted of selective examinations of

procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector. The inspection findings are as follows:

~1. Based on the inspection findings, no violations were identified.

D 2. Previous violation(s) closed.

D 3. The violations(s), specifically described to you by the inspector as non-cited violations, are not being cited because they were self-identified,

non-repetitive, and corrective action was or is being taken, and the remaining criteria in the NRC Enforcement Policy, to exercise

discretion, were satisfied.

Non-cited violation(s) were discussed involving the following requirement(s):

D 4. During this inspection, certain of your activities, as described below and/or attached, were in violation of NRC requirements and are being

cited in accordance with NRC Enforcement Policy. This form is a NOTICE OF VIOLATION, which may be subject to posting in accordance

with 10 CFR 19.11.

(Violations and Corrective Actions)

Statement of Corrective Actions

I hereby state that, within 30 days, the actions described by me to the Inspector will be taken to correct the violations identified. This statement of

corrective actions is made in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201 (corrective steps already taken, corrective steps which will be taken,

date when full compliance will be achieved). I understand that no further written response to NRC will be required, unless specifically requested.

TITLE PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE DATE

LICENSEE'S

REPRESENTATIVE

NRCINSPECTOR

BRANCH CHIEF )h,V _ fbr A-TM

V

NRC FORM 591M PART 1 (07-2012)

NRC FORM 591 M PART 3 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION

(07-2012)

10 CFR2.201 Docket File Information

SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT AND COMPLIANCE INSPECTION

1. LICENSEE/LOCATION INSPECTED: 2. NRG/REGIONAL OFFICE

James E. Cary Cancer Center Region III

5985 Hospital Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Hannibal, Missouri 2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 210

Lisle, IL 60532-4352

REPORT NUMBER(S) 201800 I

3. DOCKET NUMBER(S) 4. LICENSE NUMBER(S) 5. DATE(S) OF INSPECTION

030-37750 24-32681-01 7/24/18

6. INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED 7. INSPECTION FOCUS AREAS

87132 02.01 through 02.07

SUPPLEMENTAL INSPECTION INFORMATION

1. PROGRAM CODE(S) 2. PRIORITY 3. LICENSEE CONTACT 4. TELEPHONE NUMBER

02230 2 Stephen Rose, RSO (573) 406-5801

[{] Main Office Inspection Next Inspection Date: 07/24/2020

D Field Office Inspection

D Temporary Job Site Inspection


PROGRAM SCOPE

This was an unannounced, routine inspection. The licensee conducted High Dose Rate (HDR) remote afterloader

brachytherapy using an authorized HDR remote afterloading brachytherapy device. The treatments included breast

treatments involving Mammosite or Contura applicators, In addition, the licensee conducted vaginal treatments. As of

the inspection, the licensee conducted 5 HDR treatments since January 1, 2018. An authorized user was as required.

The licensee's radiation safety officer (RSO) was the licensee's authorized medical physicist. The RSO reported to the

Director of Radiation Oncology (DRD), and the DRD reported to the Vice President of Operations. There were 3

radiation therapists, one of which was the DRD. There were no HDR treatments during the inspection.

Performance Observations

The inspector: (I) observed that the HDR device was properly secured during storage; (2) discussed Elekta's Notice

Reference 806-01-BTP-OOI regarding potential Oncentra software issues, and the inspector verified that the licensee's

Oncentra software was Version 4.5.3 which does not have the software issues; (3) observed the licensee's HDR

emergency procedure posted at the HDR treatment area; (4) observed the RSO demonstrate how he conducted HDR spot

checks and there was no concern; (5) noted that the RSO stated that none of the HDR treatments deviated from the

written directive or treatment plan; (6) observed that the licensee's survey instrument was calibrated as required; (7) used

an NRC-owned survey meter to conduct a side-by-side ambient exposure survey at the surface of the HDR unit

containing an iridium-192 source containing 7. 7 curies, and the inspector's survey result was O.2 milliRoentgen per hour

and the RSO measured the same result with the licensee's survey instrument; (8) observed that the HDR facility was as

authorized; (9) noted that the facility was posted as required; (10) noted that the licensee placed emergency response

equipment (i.e., wire cutters, large pig, and a remote handling tool) near the patient during treatment in the event that a

problem occurs that results in high radiation dose rates; ( 11) reviewed selected HDR treatment records for vaginal and

breast treatments, including overlays of anatomy and dose information, written directives, treatment plans, and pre- and

post-treatment HDR computer printouts that were used to verify that the HDR unit was set to conduct the proper HDR

treatment prior to treatment and ensuring that the HDR unit conducted the proper HDR treatment post treatment; and

(12) reviewed dosimeter badge results for 2016 through 6/30/18, and the highest annual extremity and whole body doses

were 38 millirem (mrem) and 4 mrem, respectively. No violations ofNRC regulatory requirements were identified as a

result of this inspection. 6\J flit. A-t;J'J

ff/i../, t

NRC FORM 591M PART 3 (07-2012)