ML20140B217

Transmits Mgt Review Board Proposed Final Rept Documenting Impep Review of California Radiation Control Program

ML20140B217
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/28/1997
From:	Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Bangart R, Paperiello C, Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP), NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
References
NUDOCS 9706060101
Download: ML20140B217 (3)

Text

- _ - - - . = .

NCp fo 4

( C t E?

J p 4 UNITED STATES j

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g # WASHINGTON, D.C. 20566-0001

+.,*****/ May 28, 1997 l

MEMORANDUM TO: Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.

!. Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs Carl J. Paperiello, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Karen D. Cyr, General Counsel Denwood F. Ross, Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation  ;.

of Operational Data '

{ g FROM: Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Directorf 7'

Office of State Programs y bg I

SUBJECT:

INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION l PROGRAM (IMPEP) REVIEW OF CALIFORNIA RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM e

This memorandum transmits to the Management Review Board (MRB) a proposed final j report (Attachment 1) documenting the IMPEP review of the California Radiation Control l Program. The review of the California program was conducted by an interoffice team j during the period October 21-25,1996. The team issued a draft report to California on l March 11,1997, for factual comment. California offered no factual comments, by letter l dated May 5,1997, from Ms. S. Kimberly Belshe, Director, California Department of Public  !

Health Services (Attachment 2).  !

l J

The review team found California's performance with respect to each of the common performance indicators and the non-common indicator, Low Level Radioactive Waste  ;

Disposal Program to be satisfactory. The review team recommended that California's performance with respect to the indicator, Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program )

be found satisfactory with recommendations for improvement. Based on the existing NRC l l compatibility policy and the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team found the State's l performance with respect to the non-common indicator, Legislation and Regulations, to be l unsatisfactory. Based on these indicators, the review team recommends that the MRB find l the California program to be adequate to protect public health and safety and qot l ,

compatible with the NRC's regulatory program.

, q{ l

& p"- r-,

% 00

EC RLE CENTEst BGPY

~

6F /M  !

9706060101 970528 PDR STPRG ESGCA i PDR 2

.o. s, r

a Multiple Addressses 2

! The MRB meeting to consider the California report is scheduled for Thursday, June 5, i 1997, from 10:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. in One White Flint North, Room 4-B-6. In accordance with Management Directive 5.6, the meeting is open to the public. The agenda for that i l

meeting is attached (Attachment 3).  ;

l If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please contact me at 415-2326 or Lloyd A. t Bolling at 415-2327.  :

I Attachments:

As stated i

cc: Edgar Bailey, CA r Roland Fletcher, MD 0

h l

l

a s t

- Multipla Addressses 2 The MRB meeting to consider the California report is scheduled for Thursday, June 5, 1997, from 10:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. in One White Flint North, Room 4 B-6. In accordance  :

with Management Directive 5.6, the meeting is open to the public. The agenda for that meeting is attached (Attachment 3).

l if you have any questions prior to the meeting, please contact me at 415-2326 or Lloyd A. l l

Bolling at 415-2327.  ;

l t

! Attachments:  :

l As stated l

l cc: Edgar Bailey, CA  !

Roland Fletcher, MD j l

P l

Distribution:

DIR RF DCD (SP01)

LBolling, OSP PDR (YES v' ) NO (_)

JHornor, RIV, WCFO AGrewe, TN CHackney, RIV SBaggett, NMSS DCool, NMSS CGordon, RI LRakovan, OSP SMoore, NMSS -E"::m, N".'CC HNewsome, OGC Fl Cameron, OGC CA File i

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\KXS\CAMRBMEM.KNS, G:\KXS\CAIMP97.PFN  !

Ta receiva a copy of this document, Indicate in the box; "C" @p thout attachment /enclosurA *E* = Copy with attachment / enclosure *N* = No copy OFFICE OSPf(8 l OS(:DDJl OSP:y(['( l NAME KSchneider:gd PHLohdus RLBangari *

, DATE 05/.24/97 05/46/97 05M /97 l OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-4

-s ao INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM REVIEW OF CALIFORNIA AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM October 21-25,1996 4

4

PROPOSED FINAL REPORT

.I J

G i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission t

ATTACHMENT 1 lO3NQ T1 '

3 u.

I California Proposed Final Report Page 1 1

I

1.0 INTRODUCTION

j

\

This report presents the results of the review of the California radiation control program.

The review was conducted during the period October 21-25,1996, by a re.ien team comprised of technical staff members from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Agreement State of Tennessee. Team members are identified in Appendix A. The review was conducted in accordance with the " Interim implementation of the Integrated I Materials Performance Evaluation Program Pending Final Commission Approval of the Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program and the Policy {

Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs," published in the Federal Reaister on October 25,1995 and the September 12,1995, NRC Management Directive 5.6, " Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)." Preliminary results of the review, which covered the period January 1993 to October 1996, were I discussed with California management on October 25,1996.

[ Paragraph on Results of MRB meeting will be included in final report. Attachment 1, is the I State's response, and will be included in final report]

The radiation control program is located in the State's Department of Health Services ,

(DHS). Within DHS, the California radiation control program is administered by the l Radiological Health Branch (RHB) in the Food, Drugs & Radiation Safety Division. An  !

organization chart is included as Appendix B. The California program regulates '

approximately 2,100 specific licenses. The review focused on the meterials program a it is carried out under the Section 274b. (of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) agreement between the NRC and the State of California.

In preparation for ti e review, a questionnaire addressing the common and non-common indicators was sent to the State on July 5,1996. California provided its response to the questionnaire on September 16,1996. A copy of that response is includnd as' Appendix C to this report.

The team's general approach for conduct of this review consisted of: (1) examination of California's response to the questionnaire; (2) review of applicable California statutes and regulations; (3) analysis of quantitative information from the Branch licensing and inspection data base; (4) technical review of selected files; (5) field accompaniments of seven California inspectors; and (6) interviews with staff and management to answer questions or clarify issues. The team evaluated the information that it gathered against the IMPEP performance criteria for each common and non-common indicator and made a preliminary assessment of DHS's performance.

l l Section 2 below discusses the State's actions in response to recommendations made l following the previous review. Results of the current review for the IMPEP common j performance indicators are presented in Section 3. Section 4 discusses results of the applicable non-common indicators, and Section 5 summarizes the review team's findings and recommendations.

1 l

1 i

. . . . . .. . . _ - - ._ - . . - = - -. - . - - - . _ - -

s, t

California Proposed Final Report Page 2 2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS l

The previous routine review concluded on January 29,1993, and the results were  ;

transmitted to Dr. Molly Joel Coye, Director of the California Department of Health ,

Services on April 22,1993. NRC conducted a followup review of the program in January l 1994 to evaluate the status of open i:: sues identified in the 1993 review. A second visit l was made in March 1994 ts conduct an indepth review of the State's sealed source and

device (SS&D) evaluatica program. The results of these reviews were transmitted to l Ms. S. Kim Belsh6, Di'ector of the California Department of Health Services on l December 23,1994.

• i l 2.1 Status of Iteps identified Durina the 1994 Followuo Proaram Reviews The January and March 1994 followup reviews evaluated the status of seventeen 4 recommendations identified as part of the 1993 review. The IMPEP team looked at each

! item aq$in to determine whether or not the current California program had taken additional

! actioris to close open recommendations. These recommendations are summarized below:

l (1) The 1993 review team recommended that the State initiate the process for l revising its regulations with sufficient lead time to meet the target L implementation date (three years after the NRC effective date) in order to l maintain compatibility. Specifically, the following regulations were identified l as being overdue for adoption:

l l

• " Decommissioning Rule" 10 CFR Parts 30,40 and 70 amendments

[ (53 FR 24018) needed by July 27,1991.

• " Emergency Planning Rule," 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70 amendments (54 FR 14051) needed by April 7,1993.

i e " Safety Requirements for Radiographic Equipment," 10 CFR Part 34 amendment (55 FR 843) needed by January 10,1994. j e " Notification of incidents," 10 CFR Parts 20, 31, 34, 39, 40, and 70 amendments (55 FR 40757) needed by October 15,1994.

i Current Status: California revised a number of its regulations during the review period. On March 3,1994, the State adopted a revised rule, R 93, which is a Part 20 equivalent rule covering " Standards for Protection Against Radiation." This rule adopts NRC's 10 CFR Part 20 by reference and was later incorporated, via license condition, into each of the State's specific licenses. Amendments to add the Safety . Requirements for Radiographic l

Equipment rule were promulgated in July 1994. Amendments to the i Decommissioning rule and the Emergency Planning rule were promulgated via

, Emergency Rulemaking action in October 1995. The amendments on i " Notification of incidents" have not yet been adopted. The review team

(

l

i .

t l

l i

California Proposed Final Report Page 3 1

1

examined this recommendation as part of the Legislation and Regulations.

non-common performance indicator (see Section 4.1). This recommendation is considered closed and will be tracked as a new recommendation (see Section 5.0).

(2) The 1993 review team identified a significant increase in the number of overdue inspections in priorities 1 thru 3 and among initialinspect,ons.

Three recommendations were made regarding the Indicator on Status of Inspection Program. These were:

• Every effort should be made to fill three vacant inspector positions.

• The State should re-evaluate the practice of contracting inspections and investigations to county agencies, and if continued, future contracts should hold counties accountable for work not performed.

• The State should develop inspection schedules which strictly adhere to the established inspection priority frequencies. The plan should establish target dates and milestones for assessing progress.

Current Status: The 1994 review team noted that allinspector vacancies were filled and that the county contract agencies were notified that corrective action must be taken if they fall behind in scheduled inspections.

The compliance supervisor projects the number of inspections required to meet stated goals and monitor.s the program's progress monthly. The 1996 review team noted that there were only three inspections overdue, by one week, at the time of the review and these inspections were scheduled to be conducted by the end of October 1996. This recommendation is closed.

(3) The 1993 review team recommended that specific radiopharmacy inspection forms be developed and used uniformly.

Current Status: The 1996 review team confirmed that a revised radiopharmacy supplement to the incpection report form addresses transportation. The review team noted that this supplement is available to the inspection staff and is being utilized during inspections. This recommendation is closed.

(4) The 1993 review team recommended that supervisors should require all inspectors to use inspection forms in the manner prescribed in the procedures. This recommeridation relates to inadequate documentation in inspection reports and failure to detect three minor categories of deficiencies .during supervisory reviews.

Current Status: The 1996 review team noted that the overall quality of the l

inspection reports was very good. Only one of the 26 reports reviewed was in need of improved documentation. This recommendation is closed.

s .,.

l i

California Proposed Final Report Page 4 i

(5) The 1994 review team recommended that the State ensure that the proper  ;

j . testing or engineering analysis be performed on SS&D by the manufacturer for the intended use. In addition, the manufacturer should certify that the tests were performed and that the SS&D passed the test. The American i l National Standards Institute (ANSI) guides should be used as the minimum  !

set of prototype tests for sealed sources and the ANSI guide for devices should be supplemented with appropriate prototype tests for the device's ,

intended uses. 1 Current Status: The 1996 review team identified six cases, out of the l

twenty-two SS&D files reviewed, in which comments were made regarding deficiencies in prototype testing. It should also be noted that the review team recommends that the Staff develop a policy on the acceptance of operational history in lieu of prototype tests when considering the useful life of a product. The review team examined this recommendation as part of the Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program non-common performance l indicator (see Section 4.2). This recommendation is considered closed and will be tracked as a new recommendation (see Section 5.0).

l (6) The 1994 review team recommended that the State request and review l complete operations manuals and user manuals for device and source installations, service, meintenance, and emergency procedurc 's ueterrnine if any proposed activity would comprise worker safety, device integrity, or put the licensee in non-compliance. j Current Status: The 1996 review team noted that the staff is requesting and reviewing operations end user manuals. The team did however identify a .;

deficiency in a user roanual in one of the twenty-two SS&D casework files reviewed. The State staff appears to have adequately addressed this l recommendation. This recommendation is closed.

(7) The 1994 review team recommended that the State request detailed drawings and lists of materials from manufacturer / distributors' of SS&D for all safety related components. The information is necessary to check if the manufacturer's device / sealed source design will withstand the proposed use.

In addition this information is required for an overall understanding of how l

the safety features operate and to determine if components from one manufacturer's design (i.6., radiography - sealed source snd camera combinations) are compatible with each other.

Current Status: A review of selected SS&D evaluation casework files and discussions with the staff indicate an improvement in this area for recently issued evaluations. Several files, however, require a re-examination for completeness. The review team examined this recommendation as part of the Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program non-common performance indicator (see Section 4.2). This recommendation is considered closed and I will be tracked as a new recommendation (see Section 5.0).

[

1 l

1

~. _ _ _ _. . _ . . . -_ . __ _. - _ _ _ . _

1 ...

I California Proposed Final Report Page 5 (8) The 1994 review team recommended that the staff re-evaluate the general licensing of the neutron gauge (Model N-002, CA380D101G). It appears that the external radiation levels may exceed the prescribed dose limits for generally licensed devices (> 500 mrem /yr). In addition, the gauge did not appear to be adequately prototype tested.

l Current Status: The review team again examined this casework file and confirmed the earlier recommendation that this device should be reevaluated.

No complete reevaluation was performed, it was further noted that a number of these devices are now in use by severallaw enforcement agencies. The review team examined this recommendation as part of the Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program non-common performance indicator (see Section 4.2). This recommendation is considered closed and will be tracked as a new recommendation (see Section 5.0). J (9) The 1994 review team recommended that the State ensure that the staff receive appropriate training in SS&D reviews. This training should include, but not be limited to, how to read blueprints, training on the use of the registry system, and the necessity of performing independent evaluations of source and device designs. The staff should also review all appropriate ANSI ,

guides. -

Current Status: The Senior Health Physicist responsible for industrial licensing and an Associate Health Physicist attended the NRC sponsored sealed source and device workshop in 1995. The review team recommended and the RHB intends to request further training for its staff in this area. The review team examined this recommendation as part of the Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program non-common performance indicator (see Section 4.2). This recommendation is considered closed and will be tracked as a new recommendation (see Section 5.0).

(10) The 1994 review team recommended that all staff performing SS&D reviews should be provided copies of all documents, guides, and information pertaining to SS&D reviews.

Current Status: The five Health physicists responsible for performing sealed source and device evaluations have been provided copies of the sealed source and device workshop manuals and other reference documents. This recommendation is closed.

I

! 3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS l.

IMPEP identifies five common performance indicators to be used in reviewing both NRC Regional and Agreement State programs. These indicators include: (1) Status of Materials inspection Program; (2) Technical Staffing and Training; (3) Technical Quality of Licensing l Actions; (4) Technical Quality of Inspections; and (5) Response to incidents and f Allegations.

1 -e.

l l

California Proposed Final Report Page 6 3.1 Status of Materials Insoection Proaram The review team focused on five areas in reviewing the status of the State's materials

! inspection program: (1) capability of the State to maintain and retrieve statistical data on l

the status of the compliance program, (2) inspection frequency schedule, (3) initial inspections of new licenses, (4) overdue inspections, and (5) timely dispatch of inspection findings to licensees.

The team found that RHB's data system is successfully tracking the compliance actions for the 2,074 specific licenses administered by seven compliance offices which, in addition to the main office in Sacramento, include three regional offices and three counties with staff who perform inspections and investigations under contract with the State. Licensee compliance histories are available instantaneously to the Sacramento office through a network of personal computers which are furnished to all technical staff. The State plans to add the field offices to the network soon; until then, information is provided to the field offices through telephone, fax, and overnight mail. Monthly, quarterly, and annual reports i are issued to all supervisors and field offices for verification and work-load adjustment.

The data in several ad hoc reports provided to the review team corresponded to the )

information found during the inspection file reviews.

The team reviewed the State's inspection frequency schedule and confirmed that the

State's inspection frequencies for various types of licenses are identical to similar license types listed in the frequency schedule in the NRC inspection Manual Chapter 2800 (IMC 2800). The State's adherence to the prescribed frequency schedule was verified during the inspection file reviews. The team noted that California schedules inspections of mobile high dose remote (HDR) therapy licensees at one-year intervals, which is the same inspection frequency used by NRC. Because the HDR unit is removed after the treatment l is completed, hospitals that use mobile services remain on their normal inspection l frequency in accordance with the IMC 2800 schedule.

Initial inspections for licenses with inspection frequencies of five years or less become due six months after the. license is issued. Initial inspections of Priority 6 licenses are due 12 months after the license is issued. New licenses are entered into the inspection tracking system at the time that the license is issued. This is done by administrative staff and verified by management when they review the monthly computer reports. Comparison of the computer data with the information gathered during file reviews confirmed that initial inspections are correctly entered and tracked. In their answers to the questionnaire, the State explained the procedure for setting up the first inspection: Three months after the license is issued, the State calls the licensee to determine whether the radioactive material l has been acquired. If the licensee does not yet possess the material, the tracking system l triggers calls at three-month intervals. After 12 months, the licensee is required to provide written certification to the State that they have not acquired radioactive material. This cycle repeats until the licensee obtains the material and an inspection is scheduled or until i

l 8 .. l

- \

l i l California Proposed Final. Report Page 7 tha license is terminated. The State justifies this minor deviation from IMC 2800 becaus-e of the geographical size of the State and the need to make the most efficient use of staff resources, in NRC jurisdiction, initial inspections are conducted within one year of license issuance whether or not radioactive material is on site.

The review team found no backlog of overdue inspections. During this review period, the State changed the definition of overdue inspections from 150% of scheduled frequency to 125% of scheduled frequency. This is the same criterion used by the NRC. The State effectively used additional staff and changes in work-load assignments to maintain the stricter inspection schedule without incurring backlogs of overdue inspections. This was verified by the review team in examinations of past quarterly and annual reports, current monthly reports, and review of the inspection files. The State is currently conducting reciprocity inspections and meets the criterion in NRC Manual Chapter 1220. The review l team's calculations agreed with the State's projections of approximately 700 inspections l that must be performed annually in order to maintain the prescribed inspection schedule.

During FY 95-96, the State exceeded the goal by performing 718 inspections, in their response to the questionnaire, the State indicated that at any one time, a few inspections '

would be expected to be overdue by a few days, but not more than two weeks. At the time of the review, the team found three such licenses slightly overdue for inspection, and they were scheduled for inspection by the end of the month. This number is certainly within the 10 percent criteria for overdue inspections as listed in Management Directive 5.6.

The team also evaluated the State's timeliness in issuing inspection findings to the licensee. Review of the computer reports and inspection files showed that, during the review period, the State dispatched over 50% of inspection findings within their goal of 15 days, and that with a few exceptions in complex cases, all were sent within the IMPEP criterion of 30 days.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review tearn recommends that California's performance with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials inspection Program, be found satisfactory.

3.2 Technical Staffino and Trainina Issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include: (1) the radioactive materials

. program staffing level, (2) the technical qualifications of the staff, (3) technical staff training, and (4) staff attrition. To evaluate these issues, the review team examined the State's questionnaire responses relative '.o this indicator, interviewed RHB management and staff, and considered any possible backlogs in licensing or compliance actions.

l.

The RHB technical staff includes a Branch Chief and two Supervisory Health Physicists, one for materials licensing and one for enforcement and compliance. The RHB has five l position classifications for its technical staff. These are:

• Junior Health Physicist - a trainee position l.

• Assistant Health Physicist - a first working level position I

i I

l t ..

l California Proposed Final Report Page 8

• Associate Health Physicist - a full journeyperson/ lead person position l

• Senior Health Physicist - a first supervisory level position

!

• Supervisory Health Physicist - a second supervisory level position l

l The Junior Health Physicist classification requires at minimum a bachelor's degree in physical or life sciences. The other positions require the same minimum level of education plus increasing professional work experience at the next lower level.

l The licensing section, with a staff of nineteen, is divided into four subsections. Each I

subsection is supervised by a Senior Health Physicist. Three subsections are directly devoted to materials licensing and one subsection conducts radiological assessment activities in support of license terminations, enforcement and compliance and the Low-Level Waste Site. With respect to the licensing casework, applications are assigned to the l staff in turn and based on their level of training and experience. Only Supervisory and Senior Health Physicists have signature authority for licensing documents. The sealed source / device certificates are co-signed L,i the reviewing staff member and the Senior l Health Physicist. There is currently one vacacy in the materials licensing program. 1 1

i l With respect to the enforcement and compliance casework, assignments are made by the I Senior Health Physicists based on an inspector's training and experience. Annual inspector l accompaniments are conducted by supervisors who closely monitor the performance of l their staff. Routine inspection correspondence is signed by the inspectors, however, )

Notices of Violation are signed by Senior Health Physicists who have signature authority for non-routine matters.

The RHB encourages alllicensing and compliance staff to attend technical courses including: Inspection Procedures Course, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine Course, Safety Aspects of Industrial Radiography Course, Teletherapy and Brachytherapy Course, Safety Aspects of Well Logging Course, Health Physics Technology Course and Licensing Practices and Procedures Course. The RHB selects staff to attend these courses l based on their work assignment, education, work experience and RHB program needs.

l Individual staff members may be waived from attending specific courses on a case-by-case basis upon consideration of their pact experience and education.

During the review period, seven new employees were hired by the materials licensing and compliance sections. Two of these employees are former NRC inspectors and four others l were promoted from the X-ray inspection and certification program. The seventh individual l has a Master's degree in Health Physics and professional work experience in radiological l

consulting. Two of the individuals, both inspectors, have not yet completed all of the l requirements to conduct all types of RHB inspections independently. They are, however, I

being trained, closely supervised and are progressing through the various types of compliance inspections. The new license reviewers are obtaining training appropriate to their duties including on-the-job training with experienced reviewers.

The review team examined the State's response to the questionnaire and reviewed staff training and experience records and found that the staff meets the minimum education and work experience requirements for their duties. The State has established criteria for the

1- ; *o i

California Proposed Final Report Page 9 qualifications of personnel in each job category. This is addressed through a combination of the position descriptions for each job series and the statement of duties for each employee. Specific courses are not contained in these documents, however, each supervisor selects candidates for specific courses based on each employee's education, past experience and work assignment. With regard to staffing level, attrition is low and the RHB appears to be more successful, than in the past, in recruiting qualified applicants when vacancies occur. At the time of this review, the RHB had o.nly one technical position vacant.

The review team recommends that the State consider keeping a collective staff training record to help formalize technical training as an ongoing requirement for the position and to better allow management to assess the training level of the staff. Waivers granted to  ;

individual staff members, from attend ,nce at specific training courses, based on past education and experience should be documented.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that California's performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffir.g and Training, be found satisfactory.

3.3 Technical Quality of Licensino Actions The review team examined casework and interviewed the reviewers for thirty-six specific licenses. Licensing actions were reviewed for completeness,' consistency, proper  ;

radioneclides and quantities used, qualifications of authorized users, adequate facilities and l equipmer t. and operating and emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for j licen sing actions. Casework was reviewed for timeliness, adherence to good health i phy*,ics practices, reference to appropriate regulations, documentation of safety evaluation  ;

reports, product certifications or other supporting documents, consideration of enforcement l history on renewals, pre-licensing visits, peer or supervisory review as indicated, and proper signature authorities. Comments from casework evaluations performed during the  ;

review were discussed with the licensing manager. I License applications were checked to ensure that all easential elements met current regulatory guidance for describing the isotopes and quandties used, qualifications of '

personnel who used radioactive material, facilities and equipment, and operating and emergency procedures sufficient to establish a basis for licansing actions. Deficiency letters and other correspondence were checked for accuracy, completeness, appropriate regulatory language, and promptness.

Specific licenses were reviewed for accuracy, appropriateness of the license and of its conditions and tie-down conditions, and overall technical quality. Casework files were checked for retention of necessary documents and supporting data. Discussions were held with the license reviewers and supervisors concerning the casework evaluated during the review, and to determine their understanding and implementation of the procedures. The cases were selected to provide a representative sample of licensing actions which had '

been completed in the review period and to include work by most reviewers. The cross-section sampling included twelve of the State's major licenses and included the following

1 ..

l California Proposed Final Report Page 10 types: isotope and instrument product manufacturing, isotope product distribution, ,

industrial radiography, nuclear pharmacy, pool type irradiator, pharmaceutical manuf acturer, fixed, mobile, and transportable high dose rate (HDR) afterloaders, gamma knife, academic broad scope, portable gauges, research and development facilities, medical institution, and nuclear medicine private practice. Licensing actions reviewed included four ,

new licenses, nineteen renewals, six amendments, and seven terminations. A list of these licenses with case-specific comments can be found in Appendix D.

The review team also examined the State's procedure for handling license terminations.

Licensees are required by regulation to notify the RHB 30 days prior to vacating any facility that may have been contaminated with radioactive material as a result of licensed activities. The Radiologic Assessment Unit is responsible for determining that radioactive material contamination is not present prior to release of a facility for uncontrolled use.

Inspection Policy Memorandum (IMP-88 2) revision effective August 15,1995 details the procedures for: determining the disposition of radioactive material, the need for radiological ,

surveys and confirmatory measurements, review of licensee submittals, the review of reports and records, and the receipt of the final inspection report. The staff utilizes the NRC provided SDMP action plan cleanup criteria, the tables in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.86 on Acceptable Surface Contamination levels and other guidance such as NRC NUREG/CR- )

5849 on Conducting Radiological Surveys in Support of License Termination, to address ,

facility / site decommissioning. Information obtained by the inspection staff is I communicated to the licensing staff, who are responsible for license terminations, via the License Review Alert Form (RH 2033). All seven license termination case files reviewed adequately addressed the disposition of radioactive materials and the results of radiological surveys or why no surveys were performed.

During the review period, one licensee completed a required full decommissioning effort.

Interstate Nuclear Services, Inc. (INS) a nuclear laundry at 65 Ray Street in Pleasanton, submitted a decommissioning plan and request for termination of California license number 0739. The decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) was performed by INS with split samples provided to the State for their analysis. The State performed confirmatory surveys during 25 separate site visits over a period of one year. The State staff conducted area-wide surveys and obtained samples from 150 randomly selected locations in and adjacent to the licensee's building. The surveys were conducted in accordance with the RHB's internal procedures and their SDMP-like program, to determine if the licensee met the  ;

objectives of their RHB approved D&D plan and to determine if the site meets the requirements for release for unrestricted use. The results of the inspector's confirmatory surveys were documented and communicated.to licensing staff who reviewed other pertinent information and determined that the site met the requirements for unrestricted j use. The review team confirmed that the RH 2033 Form was on file. In accordance with the State's SDMP-like program, this file has been identified as requiring permanent I i

retention.

It should be noted that the State does not agree with the NRC position that California is responsible for former AEC (pre-Agreement State) sites. This issue is being addressed separately from the IMPEP review. I 1

l l

L_ _ __. .- _- -

California Proposed Final Report Page 11 The review team found that, overall, the licensing actions were generally thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable quality with health and safety issues properly addressed. Licenses are issued for a period of seven years. Tie-down conditions reflecting technical changes in the license were almc,st always stated clearly, backed by information contained in the file, and inspectable. The licensee's compliance history was taken into account when reviewing renewal applications. The State's licensing guides and applications were revised to reflect 10 CFR 20 regulations. License policy procedures (licensing manual) were established and, although in some cases not revised since 1988, were complete and followed. Standard license conditions were maintained via database and routinely used for alllicensing actions. It was discussed with the staff that the standard condition for leak testing of sealed sources be revised to indicate that sources are to be removed from use and the device decontaminated if found to be leaking. It was noted that the license reviewers were implementing the State's licensing procedures, and that these procedures are consistent with NRC's procedures.

The review team found that the current staff is well trained and experienced in a broad range of licensing activities. License reviewers showed good research skills in using guide and other licensing documents. For ,all files reviewed it was noted that reviewers appropriately used the licensing guides and accompanying checklists. Checklists were  ;

found to be completed (including initials and dates) by reviewers, then peer reviewed by senior staff and supervisors. Licensing actions were signed by the Supervisory Health Physicist or the Senior Health Physicist of the appropriate section. Pre-license / renewal visits were performed and documented in the files. No potentially significant health and safety issues were identified.

Due to the large volume of licensing actions, operations are divided between medical, industrial, and gauge use sections. Licensing cases are assigned on the basis of background and experience of reviewers. Information provided during the review relative to licensing actions indicated that overall, a very small backlog existed (primarily for amendments). Workloads in each section were adequately maintained including the industrial section which experienced a recent change in the supervisor position.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that California's performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be found satisfactory.

3.4 Technical Quality of inspections The team reviewed the inspection reports, enforcement documentation, and the database information for 26 materials inspections conducted during the review period. Because the State completed 1,377 inspections between June 1994 and June 1996, only a very small percentage of the completed inspection reports could be reviewed. Selection of the casework, therefore, focused on including all of the State's materials inspectors and on covering a sampling of a range of license types with emphasis on core licensees. The review included: one hospital with HDR therapy, one mobile HDR, two industrial radiographers, one major manufacturer, one nuclear pharmacy, one Industrial Radiography l

equipment manufacturer, one waste broker, one broad type A academic, two sealed source

t .

l l California Proposed Final Report Page 12 I

t

! manufacturers and distributors, five nuclear medicine hospitals with therapy, one RadiolmmunoAssay (RIA) manufacturer and distributor, one RfA kit distribution only, one l broad type A laboratory, one biological laboratory, two service, one well-logging, one portable gauge, one fixed gauge, and one RIA storage only. Appendix E provides a list of the inspection cases reviewed in depth with case-specific comments.

The team reviewed the latest version of RHB's Compliance and Enforcement Procedures, dated January 10,1996, various policy memos issued during the review period, and all  !

current inspection forms. In general, the policies, procedures, and forms were determined  !

to be consistent with the inspection guidance provided in IMC 2800 and IP 87100. The l State uses separate supplements to the uniform inspection report form for various classes i of license types, such as group medical, industrial radiography including field inspections, I radiopharmacy, gauges, remote afterloaders, etc. I According to the State's policy, allinspections are to be unannounced except for initial l inspections, inspections of licensees in remote geographical locations, or as necessary to meet with specific licensee management or personnel. Examination of the 26 inspection  !

reports indicated that, for the most part (18 cases), inspectors are not announcing l inspections in advance. '

i 1 l Inspection reports were reviewed to determine if the reports adequately documented the j areas inspected as contained in the inspection field notes. The overall quality of the j inspection reports was very good, and the areas inspected were satisfactorily documented.

Only one of the 26 reports needed improvement in the documentation of the follow-up of

[

previous items of non-compliance and of the exit interview. The files were orderly and l

contained all documentation including letters and records of telephone conversations. The l l inspection findings led to appropriate and prompt regulatory action. Enforcement letters l

were determined to be written in appropriate regulatory language and timely.

It was verified during review of the files and computer records that the inspectors and unit -;

supervisors are following the enforcement procedures, if the inspection results indicate the l i licensee must take corrective action, a Notice of Violation (NOV) with a cover letter is I

( prepared by the inspector. All enforcement correspondence is reviewed by the unit supervisor, and NOVs require supervisory signature. Items of non-compliance on the NOV j are assigned point values according to the seriousness of the infraction. If the point total is 64 or more, the tracking system automatically triggers a follow-up inspection in six months. Follow-up inspections are usually limited to previous items of non-compliance.

Review of the computer reports showed that the follow-up inspections are indeed being entered in the data system. During FY 95-96, records show that 11 follow-up inspections were conducted. Licensees who fail to adequately respond with their plan for corrective action within 30 days are contacted by the inspector in an effort to bring the facility into compliance before escalated enforcement action is taken. Escalated enforcement actions are initiated if a violation is serious, if the user does not respond adequately to the NOV, or if the violations remain uncorrected at the time of the follow-up review. Options for escalated enforcement include meetings between the licensee and RHB management, emergency order, and prosecution under the State's criminal code. The records show that i i

eight serious enforcement problems were escalated to management level during FY 95 96.

l I

t ..

l-1 l California Proposed Final Report Page 13 1

As another means of escalated enforcement action, California inspectors also have the option to call for an instant end to a serious noncompliant activity encountered in the field by using the User's Declaration Form. This User's Declaration establishes a legally binding agreement between the State of California and the licensee. By using this mechanism, the licensee may voluntarily sign an agreement to take immediate corrective action, including to cease and desist. This is similar to NRC's Confirmatory Action Letter, but it can be executed by the inspector (with management concurrence by telephone) at the time the infraction is found. Records show that 34 User's Declaration Forms were issued in FY l 95-96.

The team found that the State's enforcement tracking system is working well. The Chief,

! Compliance and Enforcement, is able to instantaneously track all compliance actions, .

l including upcoming, due, and overdue inspections, correspondence dates, follow-up inspections, and the status of open and closed enforcement actions. The field offices have similar systems for tracking enforcement actions within their jurisdiction, and they are kept l abreast of the statewide progress by the periodic reports.

Inspectors notify the licensing section of any li, censing-related issues through the use of the 1 License Review Alert Form (RH2033). Review of the files indicated the form is being used I when necessary to provide the appropriate feedback from inspectors to license reviewers. ,

l The State's radiochemistry laboratory, located in Berkeley, was evaluated during a performance appraisal by the NRC on May 20-24,1996, in conjunction with the State's ,

Environmental Monitoring Cooperative Agreement. During that review, it was found that the laboratory maintained an excellent inventory of state-of-the-art analytical equipment '

and instrumentation it was also noted that the laboratory's performance in the i Environmental Protection Agency's cross-check program was excellent. Review team interviews with RHB staff indicated that the turn-around time for samples is satisf actory.

Routine samples are analyzed and results are available within one week. For emergencies or incidents, overnight or immediate processing can oe authorized. l l

The team found that the State's inspection agencies have a variety of portable instruments for routine confirmatory surveys and use during incidents and emergency conditions. The i instruments are a good mix of low range GM tubes and pancake probes, micro R meters, high range instruments, instrumentation with calibration standards for alpha detection, a l

neutron rem meter, and portable multichannel analyzers. Air monitoring equipment is also l available. l l

l RHB instruments from both headquarters and the regional offices are calibrated under contract by a private company, Medical Physics Center, located in Sacramento. In addition to performing the calibration, the company tracks the calibration history of all RHB instruments and notifies RHB when each instrument is due for calibration. The State l explained that field offices have enough instruments available to be able to return those needing calibration to Sacramento. Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties tre responsible for providing and calibrating their own instruments. Survey instruments in RHB ,

and county field offices were examined during visits by a team member during the review I l

l i

l l

l

t ..

l 1

l California Proposed Final Report Page 14 '

i l

i perind and found to be in calibration. It was verified through review of the records that  !

instruments are calibrated at least on an annual basis, and staggered so as to always have l instruments calibrated within the calendar quarter for use during industrial radiography inspections.

The review team noted that the contract with the company that calibrates RHB instruments had recently expired, and that efforts had not begun to renew the contract.

Each inspector is responsible for maintaining the calibration schedule for their survey instrument. As a backup, however, the contract for calibration services requires that the contractor prompt each inspection region regarding the calibration due date for individual  !

instruments. The review team recommended that the State take action necessary (renew the calibration contract) in order to maintain the instrument calibration schedule.

Supervisory accompaniments of inspectors are performed annually and documented with l records kept by the Chief, Enforcement and Compliance. Review of the records showed that the ten health physicists and seven unit supervisors who conduct independent inspections were, with one exception, accompanied by supervisors annually during the i review period. One accompaniment was missed in 1995 when the Orange County l supervisor retired, but the health physicist involved is an experienced inspector who has l had many previous satisfactory accompaniments. l A member of the review team conducted accompaniments of seven California inspectors and supervisors during the review period as follows: On November 9,1994, a Los Angeles County inspector was accompanied during an inspection of a medical licensee, Groups l-V.

On November 10,1994, an RHB inspector was accompanied during an inspection of a radiographer. On February 28,1996, an RHB inspector was accompanied during an  ;

inspection of a radiographer at tempurary job sites. On February 29,1996, an RHB inspector was accompanied during an inspection of a medical licensee with HDR therapy.

On April 2,1996, the San Diego County supervisor was accompanied during an inspection of a large nuclear medicine licensee. On June 4,1996, the San Jose RHB supervisor was accompanied during an inspection of a licensee with portable gauges. On June 20,1996, the Sacramento RHB unit supervisor was accompanied during an inspection of the licensed j calibration and training facility at the California Office of Emergency Services. The team found that technical performance of the inspectors was satisfactory and that the inspections were adequate to assess radiological health and safety at the licensed facilities. ,

I in general the inspectors were thorough, understood the regulations, observed good health physics practices and performed the inspections in a professional manner. Exit meetings were held at the appropriate management level, and the inspectors clearly described both j the positive findings and items of non-compliance. The portable instruments used during the accompaniments were operational and calibrated. The results of the accompaniments were discussed with the inspectors, their immediate supervisors, and the RHB Chief,

, Compliance and Enforcement. All California inspectors and supervisors conducting l independent inspections have now been accompanied by an IMPEP team member. The team accompaniments are identified in Appendix E.

l

California Propos:d Fin:1 R: port P ge 15 l Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that California's performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, be found j satisfactory.

3.5 Response to incidents and Alleaations in evaluating the effectiveness of the State's actions in responding to incidents and allegations, the review team examined the State's response to the IMPEP questionnaire j relative to this indicator and reviewed the casework files of incidents, allegations and

! misadministrations. Events listed in the Nuclear Material Events Database were also l reviewed and compared to cases obtained from the questionnaire and the State's own l files. Additionally, the review team interviewed the Chief of Enforcement and Compliance and staff assigned to incident response.

! The responsibility for initial response and follow-up to incidents and allegations involving l l radioactive materials is assigned to a member of the technical staff. This assignment comes from the Chief of Enforcement and Compliance or from the Regional Manager.

Written internal procedures exist for handling incidents, complaints (allegations) and

misadministrations. Initially when a incident, allegation, or misadministration is received, l a Form 5010 (Matter Requiring Investigation / Inspection) is filled out by the Health Physicist j or Radiation Protection Specialist who first receives the information. Form 5010 contains  !

three copies of event information and is distributed as follows: white copy to the manager, i yellow to the investigation file in Sacramento, and the pink copy to the license file. Once the Manager receives the white copy it is assigned to a member of the technical staff for follow-up. The time frame for staff follow-up after receiving notification of an incident or ,

allegation is set by written internal RHB policy at 3 days for normal incidents. Most cases I are handled within one or two days of notification. After the incident, allegation, or l misadministration is investigated the person conducting the investigation then writes a )

report which is sent to Chief of Enforcement and Compliance for review, comment and )

concurrence. When the event is closed out a Form 8434 (materials investigation closing memo) is filled out and placed in the file. The licensee and/or alleger is notified by letter regarding the results of an investigation.

The review team examined the State's response to thirty-seven events that included various incidents reported since the last review, except for those involving non-Agreement material. The events reviewed involved lost radioactive material, damaged equipment, equipment failures, leaking sources, tripped monitors at a landfill, abandoned material, and overexposures, in addition to the above, twelve allegation files were reviewed. These files involved several technical and administrative issues. The files reviewed were an assortment of the 656 incidents, misadministrations, and allegations on file since the last review. The l

team reviewed allegations forwarded to the State by the NRC and found that they were appropriately handled. The review team commended the RHB staff for their diligence in providing event data to the NMED tracking system, even though the event data are l reported quarterly. A list of the casework files, with comments, is attached as Appendix F.

I

t *. )

• California Propossd Final Report Pags 16 Based on the cases reviewed, the review team found that the State's response satisfied the performance criteria for this indicator. The level of the response was appropriate to the type of incident and was handled in a reasonab!c time frame from the initial notification to the close-out of the incident. The State notified the NRC in accordance with NRC guidance though the event data are reported quarterly. Altegations were responded to with the appropriate investigation and follow-up action, and the results were related to the person or the organization that notified the State of the allegation.

l Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that California's l performance with respect to this indicator, Response to incidents and Allegations, be found l satisfactory.

i l- 4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IMPEP identifies four non-common performance indicators to be used in reviewing Agreement State programs: (1) Legislation and Regulations, (2) Sealed Source and Device l- Evaluation Program, (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program, and (4) Uranium l Recovery. California has no agreement to regulate uranium recovery operations, so only l the first three non-common performance indicators were applicable to this review.

4.1 Leaislation and Reaulations l 4.1.1 Leaislative and Leaal Authority The legal authority establishing the RHB and its regulations is derived from the California Health and Safety Code (H&SC). The H&SC contains the Radiation Control Law (Chapter 7.6) which among other things details the State's Agreement with the NRC. The State's Code of Regulations (Title 17) contains specific radiation control requirements including l- those addressing the Low-Level Radioactive Disposal Site.  !

During the review period the Governor signed Senate Bill 1360, which became effective on January 1,1996. This legislation reorganized, renumbered and made non-technical changes to the public health portion of the H&SC. It should be noted that the scope of the l State's regulatory authority remains unchanged. A copy of these changes was provided to i

the team, which reviewed them along with a memorandum to the staff explaining the changes. These changes appear to be non-technical as indicated by the State. The State does not have a sunset provision in its rules.

4.1.2 Status and Comoatibility of Reaulations California's final equivalent to the NRC rule " Standards for Protection Against Radiation,"

Part 20, became effective on March 3,1994. On July 18,1994 the following rule became effective: " Safety Requirements for Radiographic Equipment," 10 CFR Part 34. On October 17,1995 the following rules became effective: " Decommissioning," 10 CFR Parts 30,40 and 70; " Emergency Planning," 10 CFR Parts 30,40 and 70; " Decommissioning t

1

__--y

California Proposed Final Report Page 17 l I

l Recordkeeping: Documentation Additions," 10 CFR Parts 30,40 and 70. NRC staff has reviewed these amended regulations and found that they are compatible with equivalent NRC regulations. l According to information provided in the questionnaire, since the State does not regulate uranium recovery operations it does not have a rule equivalent to NRC's regulations applicable to uranium recovery contained in 10 CFR Part 40.

• " Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Conforming NRC Requirements to  ;

EPA Standards," 10 CFR Part 40 amendments (59 FR 28220) that became effective on July 1,1994.

The State has a low-level radioactive waste disposal licensee and does have a rule equivalent to NRC's 10 CFR Part 61. However, it has not yet adopted the revision to the low-level radioactive waste regulations equivalent to the following NRC rule: ]

• " Definition of Land Disposal and Waste Site QA Program," 10 CFR Part 61 amendments (58 FR 33886) that became effective on July 22,1993. j Although the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Site is not yet operational the i State indicated that the expected date for adoption of this rule is October 1, l 1997.  :

i l

Current NRC policy on adequacy and compatibility requires that Agreement States adopt j certain equivalent regulations no later than three years after they become effective. The  ;

State has begun the process of promulgation of the following rules necessary for a compatible program:

• " Timeliness of Decommissioning of Materials Facilities," 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70 amendments (59 FR 36026) that became effective August 15, 1994.

• " Preparation, Transfer for Commercial Distribution and Use of Byproduct Material for Medical Use," 10 CFR Parts 30,32 and 35 amendments (59 FR 61767,59 FR 65243,60 FR 322) that became effective on January 1,1995.

• " Frequency of Medical Examinations for Use of Respiratory Protection Equipment," 10 CFR Part 20 amendments (60 FR 7900) that became effective on March 13,1995. Note, this rule is designated as a Division 2 l matter of compatibility. Division 2 compatibility allows the Agreement

! States flexibility to be more stringent (i.e., the State could choose to continue to require annual medical examinations).

• " Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and Reporting," 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61 amendments (60 FR 15649,60 FR 25983) that will become effective March 1,1998. California and other Agreement States are expected to have an equivalent rule effective on the same date.

l l

1 ; *,

l Californi2 Propos:d Fin 1 R: port Pegs 18

• " Performance Requirements for Radiography Equipment," 10 CFR Part 34 amendments (60 FR 28323) that became effective June 30,1995.

e " Radiation Protection Requirements: Amended Definitions and Criteria, 1

i 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20 amendments (60 FR 36038) that became effective August 14,1995.

l e " Medical Administration of Radiation and Radioactive Materials,"

10 CFR Part 20 and 35 amendments (60 FR 50248) that became effective 1 October 20,1995.

The State has placed this regulation on hold pending the outcome of'NRC's determination on the compatibility of the Quality Management rule and the revision to 10 CFR Part 35.

• " Clarification of Decommissioning Funding Requirements," 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 amendments (60 FR 38235) that became effective November 24, 1995. 1

• " Compatibility with the international Atomic Energy Agency," 10 CFR Part 71 amendment (60 FR 50248) that became effective April 1,1996.

e "Self Guarantee as an Additional Financial Mechanism," 10 CFR Parts 30,  !

40, and 70 amendments (58 FR 68726 and 59 FR 1618) that became 1 effective on January 28,1994. Note, this rule is designated as a Division 2 matter of compatibility. Division 2 compatibility allows the Agreement l States flexibility to be more stringent (i.e., the State could choose not to l adopt self-guarantee as a method of financial assurance). If a State chooses not to adopt this regulation, the State's regulation, however, must contain provisions for financial assurance that include at least a subset of those provided in NRC's regulations, e.g., prepayment, surety method (letter of l credit or line of credit), insurance or other guarantee method (e.g., a parent '

company guarantee).

The team reviewed the procedures used in the State's regulation promulgation process and found that the State's formal regulation promulgation schedule takes approximately 10 months. Past experience however indicates that it often takes longer than three years for the State to promulgate its rules. The root causes of this extended promulgation schedule are likely attributed to a combination of complex procedures required for rule promulgation in the State's governmental system, higher priority work and past staff shortages.

Emergency regulations can be placed on an expedited promulgation schedule, however, this process reduces the schedule by only 10 days. The public and other interested parties l are offered an opportunity to comment on proposed regulations during a 45 day comment period. There is a provision for holding a public hearing on rulemaking, however, there is no requirement that a hearing be held for each rulemaking action. According to program management, the NRC is provided with drafts for comment on proposed regulations early in the promulgation process. The regulations are forwarded to several State administrative, i

a . t Crlifornia Propos:d Fin:1 Raport Page 19 financial and legal offices in accordance with a schedule which contains specific time i frames for review and approval. The effective date of a final rule is selected by the Department of Health Services and is at minimum 30 days after approval by the Secretary  ;

of State. A copy of the final regulation is then provided to NRC.

The State's regulations were compatible with those of the NRC at the time of the review, i l including all regulations necessary for a compatible program that are due by January 1997, except for the following regulations which have not yet been promulgated: ,

! e " Notification of incidents," 10 CFR Parts 20,30,31,34,39,40,and -

l 70 amendments (56 FR 40757 and 56 FR 64980) that became effective on October 10,1991.

e " Quality Management Program and Misadministrations," 10 CFR Part 35

l (56 FR 34104) that became effective on January 27,1993.

i f

e " Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for irradiators," 10 CFR Parts 19,20, 30,36,40, 51,70 and 170 amendments (58 FR 7715) that i became effective on July 1,1993. i l During discussions with the review team, program management explained'that the staff is l in the process of preparing drafts to amendments on notifications of incidents and the ,

Irradiator rule. The 1994 review team commented that the Notification of incidents I amendments were due for adoption by the State on October 10,1994. The State reports l that compatible regulations in this area are expected to be adopted on October 1,1997. ]

l The Irradiator rule is currently being addressed through license conditions pending adoption I l of a compatible rule, also in 1997. The case file review of a large pool type irradiator l license renewal confirmed the State's use of license conditions to implement Part 36 rule requirements.

l Program management reported that the Quality Management Program and l Misadministrations Rule (QM rule) is currently on hold pending NRC's resolution of National Academy of Sciences Report issues relating to the regulation of the uses of radiation in j medicine. NRC staff is currently deferring compatibility findings, for Agreement States that l have not yet adopted a compatible QM rule, pending resolution of the issue of Agreement i State compatibility. l

! The review team recommends that the State make a concerted effort to adopt regulations  !

which are required for compatibility and are overdue for adoption. A special effort should l be made to adopt the amendments on Notification of incidents and the irradiator rule. Due to the safety benefits attendant to the QM rule, the State is also encouraged to adopt a compatible QM rule.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that California's performsnce with respect to the indicator, Legislation and Regulations, be found

unsatisfactory.

I 1a -. -- _ _ ~rv

1 5 *,

1 l

i .

California Proposed Final Report Page 20 l

4.2 Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Prooram in evaluating the State's SS&D program, the review team evaluated the information l

provided by the State relative to this indicator in its response to the questionnaire, l reviewed the casework, held reviewer interviews, and reviewed registration sheets and l background files for 22 certificates of registration sheets issued between January 1993 and October 9,1996. It is important to note that situations in this program area associated with past management of the program had resulted in many verbal approvals

! and incomplete reviews of certain areas. The use of verbal approvals resulted in the lack of information for some files and made this a difficult program to assess. It can be best stated that the program had some problems, that these problems have been identified by management and that management is taking corrective action. The new Section Chief has expressed a strong desire to rebuild the State's SS&D program and upper management appears to be very supportive. However, some product safety reviews missed issues that I should have been addressed. Although these product (s) are being distributed, the deficiencies noted were not significant relative to health and safety, and no reported f ailures or equipment problems have been reported to the State.

Further when pertinent written supporting information and drawings could not be located, the review team interviewed State staff and management to address issues and questions that were identified during the IMPEP review. Since the previous supervisor responsible for l approving SS&D evaluations is no longer employed by the State, the review team used professional judgment and information obtained from State staff to make a determination

! on technical adequacy of the SS&D casework files reviewed. Due to a lack of l documentation in some specific casework files, the reasons for some of deficiencies noted in Appendix G could not be determined. ,

f The IMPEP review team reviewed the State's SS&D program in two areas,1) the State's i

( implementation of the steps it took to improve their SS&D Program that resulted from the ]

1993/1994 Agreement State Review findings and 2) as a non-common indicator for sealed source and device review.

The State took some steps to address the recommendations that resulted in findings from the 1993/1994 Agreement State Review. These recommendations address the following six areas: (1) use of ANSI standards in reviewing products; (2) review of user or operation manuals and QA programs for products; (3) review of drawings and list of materials of construction; (4) reevaluation of a specific neutron gauge used by general licensees; (5) the need for staff training in this program area; and (6) providing copies of necessary l

information to all the staff members.

California has implemented steps to address recommendations 1,2,3,5, & 6. However, the review team findings indicate that these steps have not been fully implemented. The review team recommends that the State exert greater management oversight of the SS&D evaluation program. The team believes that such oversight is needed to assure full implementation of the recommendations in this area, given that some recommendations from the 1994 followup program review have not been fully addressed. The review team l

feels that this will allow the State to fully implement past recommendations and to assure 1

l l

a .

C:lifornia Propos:d Final Report Page 21 ,

I l

that the staff continues to adhere to the State's own Policy Memoranda in this area. ,

These Memoranda cover the maintenance of SS&D registry information and the procedure for evaluating SS&D's including manufacturing Quality Assurance / Quality Control. Many of the comments noted in the Appendix G could have been eliminated if the procedures were fully implemented. Some State Staff expressed concern that they did not have l copies of the standards and procedures, however, they did know where to get this

{

information and this was considered to comply with the recommendation to provide copies j of information to the staff members. j State staff has not performed a reevaluation of a neutron gauge in recommendation 4, at the time of the IMPEP review due to higher priority work. The Branch Chief verbally committed to performing this task within a few weeks after the IMPEP review. Discussion I with staff management indicates that such a reevaluation will be done to determine if the  !

device continues to be in conformance with the general distribution safety criteria. The reevaluation will be done using the additional information provided by users of the product, the vendor, and the specific comments transmitted to the State in letter dated July 12,1996, from the Office of State Programs. (See recommendation in Section 4.2.1)

Improvements in the nationwide effort to evaluate SS&Ds containing radioactive material led to NRC adoption of 10 CFR 30.32 (g) on " Application for Specific Licenses" and 10 CFR 32.210 entitled, " Registration of Product Information." These regulations were not l initially identified as items of compatibility for Agreement States with SS&D evaluation programs. All Agreement States letter SP-95-116 dated July 25,1995 announced Commission approval of minimum standards for Agreement States desiring to maintain authority to evaluate SS&Ds. In keeping with this guidance, the review team recommends '

that the State consider adopting regulations compatible with 10 CFR 30.32 (g) and 10 CFR 32.210. These regulations require manufacturers / distributors to submit certain key product information in support of an SS&D evaluation and permits the State to enforce against those commitments. The review team noted that the State requires manufacturers and distributors of sealed sources and devices to establish and implement manufacturing Quality Assurance and Quality Control programs through~their internal Policy Memoranda.

More specific guidance in this area is contained in Regulatory Guide 6.9 dated February 1995 entitled, " Establishing Quality Assurance Programs for the Manufacture and Distribution of Sealed Sources Containing Byproduct Material" which is referenced in the internal Policy Memoranda.

4.2.1 Technical Quality of the Product Evaluation Proaram The review team reviewed the files and performed staff interviews for the 22 new or revised SS&D registry sheets issued since the 1993/1994 review. This included the State's review and approval of a radiography device for compliance with 10 CFR Part 34.20 for equipment requirements, sources and devices used in welllogging applications

and sources and devices used by specific and general licensees. The SS&D registry sheets l issued by the State and evaluated by the review team are listed in Appendix G. Based on the review of selected SS&D casework files the review team recommends that the State

(1) determine and document in evaluation certificates whether sources approved for use in well logging applications meet the requirement for insoluble as practicable; (2) review and i

I

a *.

- California Proposed Final Raport Page 22 modify Section 1.8 of ADAC Laboratories' users manual which appears to condone direct hand contact with the sealed source, i.e., " Hold the Line source with two hands while positioning the source;" (3) obtain SS&D training for those staff members that have not yet had or have limited SS&D training either by using training offered by NRC or another Agreement State program; (4) develop a policy position on including information on the useful life of a product and using operational history data to augment prototype testing when evaluating SS&D; neither is routinely used by the staff during reviews but both are useful information in determining whether a product is acceptable for licensing; (5) determine the actual use conditions for those gauge sources that do not meet the ANSI standard classification for vibration and evaluate the need to modify SS&D sheets if the condition of use is typical for industrial gamma gauging devices as indicated in ANSI N-542; and (6) re-evaluate the Nova R&D Inc., model Cindi neutron device with special attention to the potential exposure received by the general licensed user. If it is determined that the exposure rate exceeds that which is allowed for persons covered under the general license, the device should be reclassified for distribution to persons covered under a specific license and the SS&D evaluation certificate should be amended to reflect any required changes.

State staff are using ANSI standards, Regulatory Guide 10.10 and 10.11 and NRC's Standard Review Plan to perform the evaluations. They rely heavily on the Standard Review Plan and the checklist it contains. This approach should allow the State to identify the I majority of the health and safety issues ascociated with the product under review. Overall, the IMPEP review team identified some concems with not addressing health and safety issues and some files were deficient in technical quality. The review team also identified several files in which the second signature or audit was not always performed as a technical quality audit. Rather, only wording was reviewed. The review team recommends that the State fully implement a program of peer review of SS&D evaluations as a technical quality assurance measure.

The review team found that the State had developed and implemented procedures to improve the SS&D program. The new Section Chief self-identified some weakness in implementing these procedures and appears committed to rebuilding the program to a model for other regulatory programs to emulate.

it should be noted that several of the findings listed in Appendix G reflect ineffective past l management. For example, management did not direct staff to obtain necessary bend test l information in one case. In other cases certain information was overlooked as a result of l program direction. These are some of the areas that the new Section Chief is addressing.

l l The State staff expressed concem regarding the use of the term usefullife and using operational history data to augment product testing programs. The State believes that such information is a product endorsement, therefore this data is not used during a product review.  :

it should be noted that operational history data from identical or similar devices or sources is  !

a valuable tool in assessing the integrity of the source or device when used with the vendor's estimate of the usefullife of the product. The State should review its position with regards to these two terms and take action as it deems necessary if a change in this State position is indeed warranted.

t i

! 4 .

l California Proposed Final Report Page 23 4.2.2 Technical Staffina and Trainina I

g The State reported that the current staff all have at least a bachelors degree in physical or l biological sciences and several have advanced degrees in nuclear / radiological science. All health physicists have completed the NRC recommended core training courses for materials licensing personnel. Senior Health Physicists have completed more advanced training.

During the review period two staff members attended the SS&D evaluation workshop.

Formal course work and on-the-job training allows the Health Physicists to operate independently in this area.

All members of the industrial and Sealed Source and Device Section have signature authority for product review only. Only the Senior Health Physicist or management can perform the final technical review and provide the second signature of the registration certificate. The IMPEP review team found all section members have signature authority but may not have had adequate training to review some products. Below is a listing of the Section members with training and their work experience. The loss of the industrial Licensing Section Chief presented a challenge to the program. The State is aggressively rebuilding the program as a result of this loss. The State staff discussed with the IMPEP review team a request for State reviewers to work with the Sealed Source Safety Section at NRC Headquarters, which the Sealed Source Safety Section has extended. Both the State and NRC management are considering this request.

Bob Reyes:

B.S. Radiation Health Physics /Public Health i

PhD Education RSO at Northridge (CSUN) facility foi environmental science  ;

and radiological health.  !

Fred Toyama:

B.S. in Physics U.S. Army Depot (Calibration Center)

Tom Schell:

B.S. X-ray Technology RSO at San Louis Obispo HP for State of Arizona / Wyoming Radiography Licensee i

Pete Patel:

B.S. Chemistry l l l Pharmacy Training M.M.Sc. - Radiologic Physics  ;

License Reviewer in Georgia l SS&D Workshop  ;

i l

i l

I

a California Propos:d Final R: port Page 24 l

! Dave Wesley:

Senior Health Physicist, Section Chief B.S. and M.S. in Nuclear Engineering SS&D Workshop The new Section Chief has identified some training weaknesses and is working to correct l them. The Section Chief is developing a team approach to conducting product reviews that will result in two technical reviews and a senior staff or management approval of registration certificates. This action should also provide for some cross training of those persons that need some additional training in this area. The Section Chief is using the States Policy Memorandum system to provide direction to the staff in this program area.

4.2.3 , Evaluation of defects and incidents reaardina SS&Ds The review team looked at the State's evaluation of defects and incidents regarding SS&Ds for Industrial Nuclear Inc., (INC) a radiography equipment and source vendor, Measurex Corporation a gauge vendor, Nova R&D Inc., a device vendor and Nucleonic Data Systems (NDS) a gauge vendor that no longer holds a State license. The INC issues involved a change in a radiography source assembly length, evaluation of user instructions that were causing equipment problems, and a change to the lock mechanism of a radiography camera.

The Measurex issue involved its use of nominal source activity for labeling of products and shipping papers which is a violation of NRC and Department of Transportation regulations. It should be further noted that inaccurate labeling may affect the level of response to incidents or accidents. 'This issue involved labeling all products with a maximum nominal activity and then loading the devices with source activities much less than or equal to the nominal activity. The Nova R&D inc., issue involved the State informing general license users of the device that they must comply with an annual exposure of 100 millirem instead of the 500 millirem the regulations require. The NDS issue involved loading the device with activities

- greater than that which the State believed they approved. The NDS issue will likely involve a j reassessment of the general license safety criteria.

The State had just received the NDS issue and was planning to address the issues. The Measurex case was closea by negotiating a tighter tolerance for defining nominal activity.

The IMPEP review team found an incident in which the State took appropriate actions to evaluate root cause of radiography equipmerit failure, determined and implemented corrective action regarding a source assembly length change and user manual corrections, but never took the final action by amending the registration certificate to provide this information to the other users of the Sealed Source and Device Registry system. The review team recommends that the State amend the appropriate INC SS&D certificates.

The State has decided that they will continue to use the dose criteria defined in 10 CFR 32.51 and not 100 millirem as they had informed at least one general licensed user. This decision was to allow for nationwide consistency for products used under the general license provisions. The review team recommends that the State develop a checklist or intemal l procedure to assist in evaluating products distributed to persons covered under a general l license.

i .

California Proposed Final Report Page 25 1

Based on criteria for this non-common indicator, the review team recommends a finding of (

satisfactory with recommendations for improvement. This finding was chosen because the l criteria for unsatisfactory appear to deal with frequently failing to address health and safety issues. Because frequently is defined as occurring often or at close intervals this did not appear to be the case based on the cases reviewed arid on interviews with the State staff.

l 4.3 Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Proaram In 1981, the NRC amended its Policy Statement, " Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in Discontinuance of NRC Authority and Assumption Thereof by States Through Agreement" to allow a State to seek an amendment for the regulation of low-level radioactive waste as a separate category. Those States with existing agreements prior to 1981 were determined to have continued low-level radioactive waste disposal authority without the need of an ,

I amendment. Califomia, an Agreement State since 1962, has low-level radioactive waste disposal authority, and has issued a license to U.S. Ecology to construct and operate a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility at Ward Valley near Needles, California. Califomia is the host State for the Southwestem LLRW Compact which includes Arizona, North Dakota and South Dakota.

In the process of evaluating this performance indicator, the team reviewed the State's l responses to the questionnaire, the qualifications and position descriptions of the staff, l discussed statutes and regulations applicable to the site and interviewed the staff assigned to  ;

the LLRW program. The land for the Ward Valley Site has not yet been transferred from l Federal to State control, therefore, site construction activities have not begun. The team conducted a " forward look" at the State's planned activities during the construction and operational phases of the Ward Valley Project.

4.3.1 Introduction l

The State's LLRW program resides within DHS, Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management. Due to a hold placed on the transfer of the land, the main focus of the LLRW program staff is providing support in responding to challenges to the transfer of the land and the issuance of the license. Some effort is being devoted to developing a disposal rate formula and drafting accompanying regulations.

During the project's site construction phase, the LLRW program will utilize contractor technical support in performing regulatory program activities related to construction and startup of the LLRW disposal facility. To assure licensee compliance with previous commitments, made in their license application, specific tasks under the contract will include:

+ reviewing construction drawings and specifications.

+ reviewing operating procedures.

+ reviewing environmental monitoring plans.

+ reviewing administrative records for commitments made by the developer during the licensing process.

I i

l

~

I l

California Proposed Final Report Page 26 i

- providing on-site inspection services during construction.

- reviewing developer's subsurface geological maps; and

- reviewing site closure plans l

l 4.3.2 Status of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal inspection There were no inspection activities conducted during the review period, therefore, the review team did not evaluate this area.

4.3.3 Technical Staffino and Trainina l

l The LLRW Program is in the Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management of the State Department of Health Services. The LLRW Program is currently staffed by three individuals: the program manager; a research program specialist (Economist); and an office technician. The program manager is a Registered Professional Engineer with a Bachelors of Science degree in Civil Engineering and many years of experience in managing water quality and environmental programs. He is directly involved in administering the license, managing the LLRW contractors, developing regulations, developing specific intemal licensing and inspection procedures, and reviewing the licensee's environmental sampling data. Upon transfer of the land, there are plans to hire six additional technical staff. These positions l

' are currently authorized, funded and can be filled on short notice after transfer of the land to the State. General position descriptions and specific work assignments have been developed. These documents were examined by the review team and appear to be appropriate to the regulation of a LLRW site. An organizational chart for the LLRW program is attached to this report as Appendix B.

The program's staffing plan calls for hiring a Senior Engineer, a Senior Health Physicist and four Associate Health Physicists. These positions all require at minimum a Bachelors degree in the physical or life sciences. The Associate Health Physicist positions are joumeyperson l positions requiring a minimum of three years of professional health physics experience or two years with a Master's degree or equivalent graduate work in radiological science. The Senior Health Physicist position requires two years of experience at the Associate Health Physicist level. The additional staff, including a chemist, will be hired during facility construction. l 1 These personnel will be ready to assume their duties before the facility begins accepting waste.

l l

The LLRW program plans to have one employee working full-time at the facility site while l

construction is ongoing to facilitate the decision-making process.

l During the operational phase of the facility, the LLRW program plans to conduct the following l

l inspection related activities:

- On-site inspections at the disposal facility. The LLRW program will have two full-time inspectors on-site at the disposal facility. A health physicist will ensure the operators compliance with waste acceptance and handling activities, radiation safety programs, radiation detection equipment maintenance and calibration, and environmental monitoring. The health l

l l

Cclifornia Propos:d Finti R: port Page 27 physicist will also conduct an independent environmental monitoring program to verify the results of the operator's program. An engineer will be used to inspect the construction of the trenches and the trench covers, and will ensure the operator's compliance with operating procedures for heavy equipment used at the facility. The personnel in these two positions will be cross-trained to provide flexibility during employee absences.

Point-of-origin inspections. The LLRW program plans to conduct point-of-origin inspections of individual LLRW generators' premises in California to ensure l compliance with waste form and packaging requirements. Memoranda of Agreement will be executed with other States in the Southwestem LLRW Compact to provide these inspections in a compatible manner for the LLRW generators within those States.

Technical support has been obtained through a contract with ERM Program Management Company of McLean, Virginia for hydrology, geology and engineering. Health physics support is obtained under a subcontract with Rogers and Associates Engineering Corporation of Salt Lake City, Utah. Both firms are recognized environmental consultants and appear qualified for the responsibilities assigned to them.

The LLRW program manager plans to send new health physicists to Industry, NRC and CRCPD sponsored training courses and workshops on LLRW management (performance assessment), disposal, transportation, and inspections. This training will occur during the approximately 18-month construction phase of the project. On-site inspectors will be sent to existing LLRW disposal facilities to observe operations and team from experienced personnel at operating facilities. On-site inspectors will also work extensively with the LLRW program's construction assistance contractor to gain familiarity with facility construction and operation i prior to commencement of disposal operations. Point-of-origin inspectors will be assigned to accompany inspectors from a State with an operating LLRW disposal site to gain familiarity with their inspection program procedures.

The review team recommends that the LLRW program consider keeping official records of each staff member's technical training and participation in workshops, conferences, etc., in the individuals training files. The State should also maintain a collective staff training record to help formalize such training as an ongoing requirement for the potition and to better allow management to assess the training level of the staff. Waivers granted to individual staff members, from attendance at specific training courses, based on past education and experience should be documented. j 4.3.4 Technical Quality of Licensina Action The LLRW program issued the Ward Valley facility construction and operating license o-

September 16,1993. No license amendments were issued doing the review period, i therefore, this area was not evaluated.

l i

l l

i .

t i

l Cclifornia Proposed Final Report Page 28 4.3.5 Technical Quality of Inspections l

There were no inspections conducted by the LLRW program during the review period therefore, this area was not addressed.

l l 4.3.6 Response to incidents and Alleaations There were no reported allegations in the LLRW area during the reporting period. The State l reported that allegations referred to the LLRW program will be handled in the same manner ,

as those reported to the RHB.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria for the above performance areas, the review team l recommends that Califomia's performance with respect to this indicator, Low-Level j l Radioactive Waste Disposal Program, be found satisfactory. '

5.0

SUMMARY

N As noted in Sections 3 and 4 above, the review team found the State's performance with )

l respect to the eight performance indicators applicable to Califomia are: satisfactory for six l l Indicators, satisfactory with recommendations for improvement for one indicator (Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program) and unsatisfactory for one indicator (Legislation and Regulations).

Accordingly, the team recommends that the Manogement Review Board find the Califomia )

program to be adequate to protect public heaith and safety. Based on the existing NRC l l compatibility policy and the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that *l l Califomia program be found not compatible based on an unsatisfactory performance rating l with respect to the indicator, Legislation and Regulations. The compatibility findings for the Califomia program will be reevaluated upon final promulgation of Califomia's regulations on Notification of incidents and the Definition of Lanc; Disposal and Waste Site QA program l admendment or NRC's final adoption of a New Aclequacy and Compatibility Policy Statement, whichever is first.

Below is a summary list of recommendations and suggestions, as mentioned in earlier sections of the report, for action by the State.

1. The review team recommends that the State consider keeping a collective staff training record to help formalize technical training as an ongoing requirement l for the position and to better allow management to assess the training level of j the staff. Waivers granted to individual staff members, from attendance at l specific training courses, based on past education and experience should be l documented. (Section 3.2)

2. The review team recommends that the State take action necessary (renew the  !

calibration contract) in order to maintain the instrument calibration schedule.

(Section 3.4) l

Cclifornin Propos d Final R: port Page 29 1

I l 3. The review team recommends that the State make a concerted effort to adopt .

l regulations which are required for compatibility and are overdue for adoption.

A special effort should be made to adopt the amendments on Notification of Incidents, the irradiator rule and the Definition of Land Disposal and Waste Site QA program amendment. Due to the safety benefits attendant to the QM rule, the State is encouraged to adopt a compatible QM rule. (Section 4.1) l

4. The review team recommends that the State exert greater management l oversight over the SS&D evaluation program. The team believes that such l oversight is needed to assure fullimplementation of the recommendations in

this area, given that some recommendations from the 1994 followup program

! review have not been fully addressed. (Section 4.2) l

5. The review team recommends that the State consider adopting regulations compatible with 10 CFR 30.32 (g) and 10 CFR 32.210. (Section 4.2)

6. The review team recommends that the State determine ~and document in

! evaluation certificates whether sealed sources approved for use in well logging applications meet the requirement for insoluble as practicable. (Section 4.2) l 7. The review team recommends that the State review and possibly modify the l Section 1.8 of ADAC's users manual which appears to condone direct hand contact with the sealed source. (Section 4.2)

A

8. The review team recommends that the State obtain SS&D training for those staff members that have not yet had or have limited SS&D training either by using training offered by NRC or another Agreement State. (Section 4.2)

9. The review team recommends that the State develop a policy position on including information on the usefullife of a product and using operational history data to augment prototype testing when evaluating SS&D.

(Section 4.2) i

10. The review team recommends that the State determine the actual use conditions for those gauging sources that do not meet the ANSI standard

classification for vibration and evaluate the need to modify SS&D sheets if the l condition of use is typical for industrial gamma gauging devices as indicated in l ANSI N-542. (Section 4.2)

11. The review team recommends that the State re-evaluate the Nova R&D Inc.,

model Cindi neutron device with special attention to the potential exposure l received by the general licensed user. If it is determined that the exposure

( rate exceeds that which is allowed for persons covered under the general l license, the device should be reclassified for distribution to persons covered under a specific license and the SS&D evaluation certificate should be amended to reflect any required changes. (Section 4.2) l

7 g ,-

California Propossd Fin:;l Rsport Page 30  !

l l

12. The review team recommends that the State fully implement a program of peer I review of SS&D evaluations as a technical quality assurance measure. j (Section 4.2)  ;

l

13. The review team recommends that the State amend the appropriate Industrial  !

Nuclear Inc., SS&D certificates. (Section 4.2)

14. The review team recommends that the State develop a checklist or intemal l procedures to follow when approving products for distribution to persons l covered under a generallicense. (Section 4.2) l l 15. The review team recommends that the LLRW program consider keeping official records of each staff member's technical training and participation in workshops, conferences, etc., in the individual's training files. (Section 4.3) i I' l

i

~

l l

l l

I I

i l

i l

4 l

_ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ ~ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . _ . _ . . . . . _ . _ _ _ - . _ _ . . . - . . _ . - . _ . _ _ . . _ _ . _ . . .

m i

LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS  !

APPENDIX A: IMPEP Review Team Members APPENDIX B: California Organization Chart

, APPENDIX C: Califomia Questionnaire Response l

l APPENDIX D: License File Reviews j APPENDIX E: Inspection File Reviews l

4 APPENDIX F: Incident File Reviews j APPENDIX G: Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Reviews f 'l i

i I .

l l

i-(.

l- i

. 1 e

e. * ---.2,-*. w - - , - . c -

y, - y

- . ~ . _ _ . . - - . . - - - .-. ~

e APPENDIX A -IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS i Lloyd Bolling, OSP Team Leader I Technical Staffing and Training .

Legislation and Regulations Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program  !

Jack Homor, R-IV Status of Materials inspection Program l Technical Quality of Materials inspections j l

Steven Baggett, NMSS Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program Craig Gordon, R-l Technical Quality of Materials Licensing Actions Allen Grewe, Tennessee Response to incidents and Allegations l

l l

l l

I l

i i

}

., m, .s., 2 . 1 -+ - a 4a ;.

1 s

i APPENDIX B ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS l

l i

1 i

l

C'ALIFORNIA ,

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES d-43/-8425 (916) 657 8425

' Directer '

S.Risbe4 liefsM 6'1253. . . .. .. . .

(996f 654 0S14 C%f Depany Deector Joseph P.Munso e45322n (916]65s 2223 Aisoc!ste O!rectorfor Pofky Development l l "***"*"

e437md g,,,$,

a 492 sess eess a n .

pt6)sss3&w pts)657an -- ------- --- g,yy,,3 (9s61322sess Cilice oIPublic AMetro sp,,j,g g,,,, g, Office elMumitetterellfeelih Office of Wonws's Nestth Lymfe Frost Health Care Peterm Kaberty Yeeper.140,M PR CaMe Freeman Ctsef DeptrDirector pg CNel 8lf350 Bil253 601Ikh 16 Sreet 6792  ;

i l l

& 437 2843 8 485 29f 2 H371411 6 464 4191 8 464 4265 6 437-1493 8431 5 4 8 464-0509  !

6-464 f643 3 485-20Ni (916) 654 0509 (916) 6612643 (906) 445 29f 2 (9161657 1411 (916) 654 0265 (916)651 fi93 (916) 657 3054 (9161 654 0643 (916) d45 2010 (9f 6)6544399 PrirneryCare Ortice ol legislativo ond Office clC1v:t Rights Heelthinformation g,g,, ,g Audits sad ,

Medice1Cere end Prevention Sery!ces AdrrlMsirstlen t.egel servlees Govemmentel Affstre shd Streitgle Centf!ces!on Investigettons plannleg Servkes remity Hooith CharleenIAlbum Seiko Bate Broebeck Pliney A Young Stephen tresster L fin EbhjJf OJtPM RobertSerfd Elisabeth C.Brandi Tameron Muel IAergaret DeBow John Romper Depuy Direcw Deputy Orser Deputy Director kting Deputy 0' vectos Depey Director Deputy Diretter and Depuy Direcer tiepyDirector Deputy Director Dep:y Oweetor CNet Counsel 590 Mvh 16 Sreet -

f8003rdSteet 2t0 8tf350 5scranene 95814 671050 8/1253 Bf!216  ;

87450 vt253 Secremenn 95814 8tt253 (6fl2S3 l

_3.blaf,cef& ' - /Yll s are.aresee.tw.ne f 0.cevereersieamsw us January 1996 u -- -

_ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ . _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ _ __- -- __m _ .__ m. a - ~ +-r-

CAUFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEAL.TH SERVICES ,

PREVENTION SERVICES e4371493 ..

, Stej 867-1M DEPtfrYDIRECTOR L. Rei ENisg, MD.,M.PH w.,

t ag!s_ ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, ,_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ,

sarm 1996)s51sm t

ASSf57AWT DEPUTY DIRECTOR m.0 .I i

,,,5, ,

l I I l .

sese 1ero a sn.24cs l689)692 NI2 l510)5tq2ect .

l Of6l654 IC10 .

I OFFICE OFCL8tCAL OFFICEOF BORDERHEALTH ASSISTAlfT DEPUTY DRECTOR PflEVENTM MEDIC?llE ,

FOR LA90RATORY SCIENCE t pq W M4

, 16chestG Ysit,PhD. [

ssor w s 885188"*'a8 8Ha restads,hr wm i s is.ssser4 km S = Disp *82ste eg,ny, m as i t 579-2566 i i 8-405 110?

I .

8 465 G5$$

I

$ 492-230E I

S454.D66 t ISf014$62800 pt6)44St102 i i

($10)$492566 (916)44505$3 1916) 322-2306 (916) 324 3266

• i DMS10NOF DRfl510NOF EMPil0NMENTAL gmsIONOF DIVISION OF ORfl800G WATER DivfS10NOFFOOD, DRUG, AND [

ComeMuCARLE Aff000CUPAT10NALDISEASE CHfl0fEC05 EASE AlfDINJURT OFFICE 0F Af05 AMO ENYtRONMENTAL RA0!ATf0N SAFEff L DISEASE 00lGROL C0ffffl0L CONTROL MANAGEMENT l ShehesH Wassmes.NO.Ph0. O s;MR.DiPH DensW O.Lyman.M.0 Dee R Spash, Ph D.

ifSt WWez M seuc>se Aw,sm 000 setnus nsner esossweet setmin aswer sesnreissseet i

. 8***r NM Eme9WeeNess seasseeasets sea newssere sen e sses4 !ssemens esers l a l

/ l

)*

l i

/

(T j ,

[ [C .ht, kV e  !

Artg OsptfyEberer '6 Revensan5pdme f

.landafy 1996 [

. . - _ . - . . - - - - . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . - _ . . - - . _ - - - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - - _ - _ - _ . _ _ _ - - _ _ . _ - - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ . _ - . - _ - . _ _ , - - . , - - - , - n , .~..e- -- - -

O O RaCIC OCIC ~

ea , Branc1 - -

Octetser 1996 10'e0tG.c4 Edgar Soley Ctwet. toMogic Hedth 804 205J7dS001 Dee Nicholt _ Deborah Pet *grvu ThemtG G3es Secselary Amions C'=ef Stoft hte Sys Andyst 804 201 1176401 Heonh reg Manager 8 80s 2D1312401 804 205 8e28 col I

I I Don Burs Chief Fouryd Gaoor Daniel J. Cenigast Chie .

Fronne shoodes Geod Wong Ctwet Don D. .Chel Donno $icomi feoncial Opl & Analyp1 Dehed Annudor?

$ugw HeoMh Phyycst Cert. $1d5 & . $r Hog Metepois $peC. Enkuce & ComC$once kminni HenMh PhyyCitt Susw Hedm Physcal K)4 2to3779.NtX

$ toft le*ces Manager i~ 804 230 4337-901 todoottwo Mo9enns Surm Medih Physcat 809.lso 3527-90 804 224 3801 402 804 2JS48 MODI teenung 806214380140t ma mwim I I I a

I l 7 I i 7 l hences Detres Chet Cothy Waring. Chet W4cni tow. C9mel too funderburg. Cluel Pod Soldenweg tonee Otsear John Mittms Owen Terrid Wesley. Chst Dowa wheeler. Chet tery Corlet Chet $oulhem Col. teg Op South toy too Ops. ad Moctune tegnhoton Cert. Bewewe & leihng Cen. FotAles & Progrur's Nosth Boy tog Ops Northem Col fe9 Ops Financid Opeschons to,d.n, Mole,d p, Support Maced & Academic bdustaat $$ 8 D Senior Medih Phyncht $ernor Neon h Physcht lesww Heanh PhyO Sermor Hennn)hyncet se wo nc. lech Smv Proorom lech I sence Health Phyutst $emer HenHh Phyacist $nner Hedth Phystet lernor Han#h Physent 804 2tG 9924MI 804-221-3802 005 804 22S3H02 003 804 222 380240s 804 210 NIG2 004 804 2Dl211001 8042D3802Mt 804 224 3502 004 a04 250 3802002 M4 2103802003 tennelh Furey foNeon Henne# f**: Omour Wcord Peggy McKemst Wcord Robert toyes Wconi ( 5) fichard Efue Mark Gottleb Assoc. Govt. Pr*: Analyd Program tech Prorynm lech Conlolo Perer Amtont Hed!h PhylChi Alioc Health Phytichi Anoc Heeph PhysicM Assoc HenMh PhygnM Aggoc. Hoolth Phygicot s4ioc Hearth Physicil i PhysicSt Anoc. Hertlh Jurwar Heal!h Phy11thl ' i 804 23S 9921 410 804 2309927402 l

8042143/19 xxx 8062143801492 806216 3801405 804 2IS 3803 407 , 804 210 3803 004 804 23S$3'340I 804 224 3801013 804 224 3803416 00+2t43781401 (C) ey Sue $s-Womer Wcont $hnley Josaph bedorict loyama Mercio $rr=Ik PmA Grovecne Stephen Schroder t hio $cott Doo h.: Waino teer'nh Phyi st Psogom lech Wcont Amtont NeoHh Physicist Asner Health Physch! Ansioni Hecith Pht ticht Amlont Hedth Phyucid Juner Neo t Anoc. Govt Prg Analysl Word Process, lech Anoc HeoHh Phyutst jurwar Neonh Physicist 804-2D5393402 804 2Di181402 804 23Ste?7003 y Anoe. Hoolth Phyncht 804 23037M xxX 804 22t-3781-XXX 804 2D377940$ (I) 804 2tt.3779COI (X) 804 223 3781J01 8062D380M10 804 2D3801002 804 2D 378t-unt fustoce Dooglos Cesor $dgado Weont sue Powee CeceEo 1sent ( 5l Sando McCsocken Sudono CMtwok Pete Potel $hs9ey Ceddes Fcres Gerget t $) Fabert fond Anoc. Govt. Peg. Analrlt Word Process tech Progeom tech Anuar NeoHh Physitbl Assoc HooHh Phygcist Ansinnt Neoith Physicist Autant Herpih Physicht Anocoole needth Physcht Anoe Hedth Phynchl Assoc Healti Physicist Anstone Health Phrscist 804 214 5391 70s 80423&lI81407 004 2D9921401 804-2io 3803408 804 2t43779 KIX 804 222-37M401 ix) 80422t 38014!9 804 ifD3803409 8062D3801011 M*23G3779 XII 804 2143781402 (C)

Dormet Heeest Baon Druon Art $ohnit Wnoct Wayne Hoshto Jan Wcont leo Goode lhomas $chen Lino Austin Asdw se ( 5} Physcht Arner Hedth Physicill Amtr3nt HecMh Physicht Assstant Heoith Physicut Anoc. Govt. Prg Analyst wo,e Hecter tech d Peacess Ofhce technickvt Amfont HeoHh Physicht Anoc Hennh Physicht Junior HooHh Pfmitts! Arner NeoPh Amtont Heoffh Phyytst 804 2143779 KIX 804 212 37M401 (X) 804 2D5391901 8042D1180007 i 51 804 216 t t39-Ins 804 2D3803415 804 2D378IE2 809J55 3781 Sol (C) 804-7t2 3779 xXX 804 2243781406 (M)

C34 22437M402 Dove tdfle tomare t Linde Helion gea,q $horon turk touren tobbe Joctie teckwced Stolt $endtes Analyst Progom Tech Amlont Hedth Phystet Anstant Hecith Phyncet Apuer Hedth , id wryd piace,s. Tech Juruor Hedth Physicht 804 2D9927408 80421037M-XXX 804 2iO 3779403 (X) M&222 378t-xxy 804 2D5157401 804 224 t 81401 j 1 2 42343781401 l rotacio fdgertois Chet Ephnme Mehnio tony Richmhon Soch $wob Michele Freeco Gcry totner. Chet $teve Hiu. Chet Weent Awmor HeaMh Phyicist $11t 0 $erwetes Analyst Lou,reen wg q y,ncPe,etes g ggch

$lurfent Anatont Pegmiroison and Junior Heorth Physicht Juruar Hedth Phyy"cel Go.,ges & Gen tc Dev Bodological Auenmend 804-230 5157-703 804 2D 1181406 i

$ener HerWih Ptwyecs? 00tJ55 487090t 1 W., Picorort 804 212-3781403 IX) 804 2213785-III 804 222-3788-702 Senor Hennh Phyucet 804M3MM at Paul f berts. Chet MS M38N g;,, p,n,, g G WJorn toeenro Fenre tutterAeld Jact Oaotrwet Donno % Cer cohon $umort studeni Aminut I"m"ar'"

Ju M ao'4h P'840'"M Antoni * hy9th! Hedth Physical Jurwar HeoHh Phy1Cis' $ loft Serwcel Andyd Wood Proc 809J55 4870901 804 223-3781 000 804 2D3779 stI 80t222-y81108 804 23GSM7402 mpN$"'IeCIb u {, f Stephen For Donald Oestevie Grookie Corter Wiene Chenoweih 8rowet Hor

• Kocal Wcord Anot. HeoNh Physical Amlant MedIh Phyutist BArwiv Malone Annor Hedth Phnitist Office tech M*' O h F-mlont peonh PhyythI Anot HooRh Phyucel 804 2Dtl39119 804 222 3m1001 804 212 3779402 tX) i h Physcal 804 222-3781-703 g 804 21437M401 804 220 3803 018 lomove tepin Delores Banks Jotebect tuonne sea Zuboldo Gdihnn Jett Wong Jell CMYord Wted Process kch. Wcont Progsom Assec Neonh Phyacist Anot Hedlls Physicitt Amfont HocRh Phyucist Management Serv fech Word Puoten. %6 O e 804 22S 3801412 804 224 3801 017 804 2t43779 txI 804 231 5278 001 h am,o,4 804 222-list 40t 804 2D1181405 804 2309'2740$

Notoghe Clemenons tino 8,own Joiephme Conge 804 230 4876 908 Juonile Hemander t ej Doro Chong lovity Roger tvpo Offw e Aggistant tuon Wh4m@t l 8) Program toch Amlant Heanh Phyiicist Amannt Hooph Physcist Amtont HooMh Physicial Word Psoeen. toch 804-23413MJI4 Proritom 'ecti 804-2D9927404 24 2203779404 (M) 804 21437M402 804 221-1ist40t 8042243779401 [M) todney Cdvin

/ Michool Mordas Moureen tono PetMPorn fech Amtoni Heeph Physicist Othee lech. 304 230 99:7404 804 224 3779 403 804214 1139102

$heryt Pouissin i Coder Program tech 5 Amtont 804 2D9927401 8042D4870901

/ r s

f. Rodi eoith Bronch Edo, . Bo8ey. JIiP.

s Leary Barretth.VM., M.S Chief. Division of f ood Dnsg and Podidion Scdel1

. 6 4 %.m. sh.eAhd ada.emm.4 4.A A umeA M h ah.4M4 em me - ' - 4

• ds eid. R. '--'-Je .

a= adsom .hmw- maw m e++a.s. s O

i I

?

f

/

l 6

I i

APPENDlX C  !

INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

^

QUESTIONNAIRE- RESPONSE r

l, I r l

k

. , . . , - . . . . _ . . . .,.,..:,,, . _ , _. . . , . . . -. _ . _ . . - __ _ .,..-._,,..,_.. _ _ ~_ , . . _ , ,._. , _.~.-d .:

'r .

Califomia Proposed Final Report Page C.1 Questionnaire APPENDIX C INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM OUESTIONNAIRE- RESPONSE Name of State: Califomia Reporting Period: January 29,1993 to October 21,1996 A. COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

1. Status of Materials Inspection Proaram

1. Please prepare a table identifying the licensees with inspections that are overdue by more than 25% of the scheduled frequency set out in NRC l Inspection Manual Chapter 2800 (issued 4/17/95). The list should include  :

initial inspections that are overdue.

There are no inspections overdue by more than 25% of the scheduled frequency according to NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800 issued on 4/17195. . California has more than 2100 licensees to inspect; therefore, at any given time there may be one or two licensees overdue for inspection. l However, there are no inspections that will be overdue for more than two  ;

weeks.

All new licensees are due for inspection within six months after the license is issued. The licensee is first contacted to verify that they have received the radioactive material authorized under the license. If the  ;

licensee has not received material the inspection is NOT conducted, but j a notation is placed in the data base that identifies the contact date and j the fact that there is no material on hand. A follow up contact will be  ;

made, generally within six months. This process is carried out until the l new licensee actually receives the radioactive material; at that time the initial inspection is schedule <.I.

4

2. Do you currently have an action plan for completing overdue inspections? If l so, please describe the plan or provide a written copy with your response to l this questionnaire.

We print out workload reports each month that include metrics to graphically display the amount of work completed by each inspection agency. We also print out an inspections overdue report that shows any licensee that will become overdue within the next three, six, or nine  ;

months. This enables our staff to plan their work ahead.

l % t Califomia Proposed Final Report Page C.2 ;

Questionnaire According to our standard workload projection of 5.8 inspection actions '

l per month per inspector, all seven inspection agencies have adequate staff to complete their allotted inspection workload. There are no staffing shortages within the radioactive materials license inspection program.

Last fiscal year, July 1 1995 through June 301996, the program completed 718 materials licensee inspections. This is 34 more than the 684 inspections necessary to maintain our expected workload.

3. Please identify individual licensees or groups of licensees the State / Region is inspecting less frequently than called for in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800 (issued 4/17/95) and state the reason for the change.

There has been a slight modification to Chapter 2800 inspection frequencies for licensees that are authorized to use High Dose Rate (HDR) afterloaders that are supplied by the mobile service Source 2 site, license #6152. Licensees that utilize mobile services do not have a HDR permanently installed at their facility; therefore, they are not inspected once each year as are the licensees that have fixed HDRs installed. The mobile service delivers the HDR whenever it is needed and when the treatment is completed the unit is removed. The inspection frequency is every three years, the frequency of most other medical licensees (see Attachment 1).

4. How many licensees filed reciprocity notices in the reporting period?

There were 53 requests for reciprocity granted in 1995; of these,13 were l

inspected during their operations in California. So far in 1996,36 requests for reciprocity have been granted and there have been five inspections.

a. Of these, how many were industrial radiography, well-logging or other .

users with inspection frequencies of three years or less?  !

In 1995, three licensees were well logging operations and two were l radiography. So far in 1996, two well logging authorizations and l two radiography licensees have been granted reciprocity. All reciprocity inspection reports are filed in a separate location and are available for review.

b. For those identified in 4a, how many reciprocity inspections were conducted? ,

e Thirteen in 1995 and five so far in 1996.

5. Other than reciprocity licensees, how many field inspections of radiographers i

were performed?

o l- / \

'Califomia Proposed Final Report Page C.3 I Questionnaire There are 57 licensees authorized to do radiography by the program. The majority of these are authorized field sites or temporary job locations; however, some do not work at field sites even though they are j authorized. Last year 53 radiogmphy licensees were inspected and of j these 21 had field site audits. A special field site inspection form has .

been adopted to simplify the field site inspection process (Attachment 11). ,

l l 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 i your goals, the number of inspections actually performed, and the reasons for j any differences between the goals and the actual number of inspections <

performed, j

'j ll. Technical Staffino and Trainina 7.' Please provide a staffing plan, or complete a listing using the suggested format below, of the professional (technical) person-years of effort applied to the agreement or radioactive material program by individual. Include the name, position, and, for Agreement States, the fraction of time spent in the following i areas: administration, materials licensing & compliance, emergency response, LLW, U-mills, other. If these regulatory responsibilities are divided between offices, the table should be consolidated to include all personnel contributing to the radioactive materials program. Include all vacancies and identify all senior personnel assigned to monitor work of junior personnel, if consultants were t used to carry out the program's radioactive materials responsibilities, include their efforts. The table heading should be: ,

NAME POSITION AREA OF EFFOR.T.

i I See Attachment lil.

8. Please provide a listing of all new professional personnel hired since the last review, indicate the degree (s) they received, if applicable, and additional l training and years of experience in health physics, or other disciplines, if

appropnate.

i

! NEW STAFF- I Robert Greger: Nuclear Engineering,20 Twenty Years with NRC, hired by Orange County in February 1996.

l Philip Scott: Environmental Sciences degree,2.5 years experience at i RHB as an x-ray machine inspector. Promoted to materials inspector in January 1996. Philip has attended some NRC courses but is still

. considered a trainee. l L ,

.~ _ .. . - - . _ - -. ..

l J

l j Califomia Proposed Final Report Page C.4 Questionnaire

)

Dao Pho: Physical Sciences degree. Promoted from x-ray machine l inspector to materials inspector in January 1996. He has also attended i some NRC courses but is still considered a trainee.

Barbara Hamrick: Former NRC inspector in Region 111. Hired by Los Angeles County on 3/29/94.

Steve Doerfler: B.S. degree in Biological Sciences. Former X-ray machine inspector with Los Angeles County, promoted to materials inspector on 3/29/94. He has completed a number of NRC courses since his appointment. l Tara Goode: B.S. in Radiological Science. Former Radiation Protection Specialist in the Certification Unit of the Radiologic Health Branch.

Promoted to Assistant Health Physicist in the Materials Licensing / Medical  !

& Academic Unit 9/5/94.

l Sudana Chi Kwok: M.S. In Radiological Health Physics and a B.S. In l l Microbiology. Former consultant for Medi-Physics, Inc. Hired by RHB on j July 2,1996. )

9. Please list all professional staff who have not yet met the qualification l l requirements of license reviewer / materials inspection sta# (for NRC, inspection l

Manual Chapters 1245 and 1246; for Agreement States, please describe your qualifications requirements for materials license reviewers and inspectors). For i each, list the courses or equivalent training / experience they need to attend and I a tentative schedule for completion of these requirements.

I Phillip Scott & Dao Pho have not met all requirements to conduct all types of inspections independent of supervision. However, they both l have been trained to perform certain types of inspections, such as soillmoisture gauges, without immediate supervision. Each of them will progress to the next highest level of inspections as NRC courses become available and after specialized training by experienced staff. Their

! immediate supervisor will document their programs and indicate when they are ready to move to the next level.

Not all license reviewers have completed all required courses (see '

Attachment IV).

10. Please identify the technical staff who left the RCP/ Regional DNMS program during this period.

See Attachment 111.

l

r  :

'd Califomia Proposed Final Report Page C.5 Questionnaire Ill. Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

11. Please identify any major, unusual, or complex licenses which were issued, received a major amendment, terminated or renewed in this period, o Source 2 Site, #6152: A transportable HDR o UC San Diego, #1339: Academic / medical broadscope license issued using the new format and policy of visiting the licensee.

l l o ' Little Company of Mary, #1258: Redrafting a medical license from  !

l an uncooperative licensee. Use of unique license condition to .

l l accomplish compliance.

j o Mobile Technology, Inc., #5919: Mobile HDR l o SCANS-Shade, #3087: Tennination of license due to ,

noncompliance. l 1

i o San Diego Gamma Knife, #6072: Unique facility for gamma knife

[ only. Customized conditions.

o USC, #0382: Broadscope academic license issued with a visitation.

l

12. Please identify any new or amended licenses added or removed from the list oflicensees requiring emergency plans?

)

The list of licensees requiring emergency plans remains the same as the last period. Presently, we are reviewing the license of isotope Products Lab. (IPL) to determine if this licensee is required to have an emergency plan.

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

License # Variation i

i

[ 0789 Sr-89 compassionate use 6215 P-32 compassionate 1949 fr-192 short time special use 0064 l-131 special circumstances, exempt from NCRP 37 2 2530 Sr-89 compassionate use  ;

i 1624 Sr 89 compassionate use i

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

i :

$y Califomia Proposed Final Report Page C.6 Questionnaire o Redrafted Medical Application: The application was modified to allow for current technologies and to improve the ease with which the applicant could complete the form. Additional information is also requested with Financial Assurance and by identification by the Tax identification number.

o Redrafted Statement of Training and Experience: The new form provided for the SSN and a more effortless keying of the facilities of used or experienced.

o. Development of a formal document for the transfer of facilities to a ,

new owner: This is a two-part document requiring the signature '

of the transferor and the transferee.

o Redrafted Guide for Applicants for Radioactive Materials License:

Corrects statements and addresses the financial surety and decommissioning funding plans.

o Medical license conditions: Special license conditions were develsped for the HDR and Gamma Knife.

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

l IV. Technical Quality of Inspections l

4

16. What, if any, changes were made to your written inspection procedures during  !

the reporting period? I 1

o inspection forms were modified to accommodate changes to the regulations by the adoption of 10 CFR 20 requirements. Inspection  ;

staff have undergone extensive training for part 20 requirements.  !

o Escalated enforcement procedures were revised to cover new procedures (1/10/96).

o Emergency Response procedures were revised (1/10/96).

o Clearance inspection & Survey procedures were revised (8/15/95).

I o inspector's instrument calibration frequency policy (6/28/96).

o Standard citation paragraphs for 10 CFR 20 & 71 have been issued  !!

(9/15/96).

17. Prepare a table showing the number and types of supervisory accompaniments made during the review period. Include:

1 I

-. __._.___.__..m._.__..__.._._- _ _._ __ _.._______.

r Califomia Proposed Final Report Page C.7 Questionnaire Supervisor inspector License Cat. Date Donald Bunn Frank Bold Gamma Knife 3/23/95 Steve Doerfler Medical 6/14/94 Kim Wong "

Kathleen Henner 11/2/95 Paul Baldenweg Aero Space ' 1217/95 William Lew Fil Fong industrial 11/29/95 J. Richard Curtis 11/9/95 Mark Gotleib Radiographer 10/18/95 Reza Omour Pharmacy 2/27/96 Bob Funderburg - Ken Furey Medical 9/11/96 Cass Kaufman Steve Doerfler Medical 11/30/95 Barbara Hamrick Manufacturer 12/15/95

18. 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.

l-Copies of each inspector accompaniment are available for review.

Procedures are described by the report form. Each inspection agency manager is responsible for conducting audits of their staff once each year.

19. Describe or provide an update on your instrumentation and methods of calibration. Are allinstruments properly calibrated at the present time?

Complete equipment inventories for all inspection agencies are available for review. The equipment calibration policy is attached (Attachment V).

V. Responses to incidents and Alleoations

20. Please provide a list of the most sionificant incidents (i.e., medical misadministration, overexposure, lost and abandoned sources, incidents requiring 24 our or less notification, etc.) that occurred in the Region / State during the review period. For Agreement States, information included in previous submittals to NRC need not be repeated. The list should be in the following format:

LICENSEE NAME LICENSE # DATE OF INCIDENT TYPE OF INCIDENT The following is a breakdown of incidents investigated since the last j- review period, i Year 1994 1995 1 10/96 i

l ~, ;

1 d

i Califomia Proposed Final Report Page C.8 l Questionnaire i Number of incidents 186 158 84

! Allegations (Complaints) 59 60 25 Misadministrations 47 42 22  !

source fai ure r appr ved pera i g procedu e t a e e defic en I so '

how and when were other State /NRC licensees who might be affected notified?

A complete printout of allincidents is available for review. All l

investigations have been reported to the NRC through the Events Database program. Significant incidents have been reported by the Abnormal Occurrence format and the NRC Region IV office were notified for those events requiring a P.N.

a. For States, was timely notification made to the Office of State Programs? For Regions, was an appropriate and timely P.N.

generated?

See above.

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.

See above.

l

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.

One individual was not granted a license because of prior compliance problems and making false statements. Three Nuclear Medicine t Technologists had their license suspended or revoked for careless acts during the administration of nuclear medicine materials.

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

l l a. For Agreement States, please identify any allegations referred to your l program by the NRC that have not been closed.

INC USC VI. General

-e  ; i i

i d' - .

i Califomia Proposed Final Report Page C.9 '

,' Questionnaire  ;

25. Please prepare a summary of the status of the State's or Region's actions j taken in response to the comments and recommendations following the last t review.  !

! See correspondence between NRC and DHS, dated December 23,1994,

' l March 8,1995, and November 8,1995, for NRC j

26. Provide a brief description of your program's strengths and weaknesses.  !

t These strengths and weaknesses should be supported by examples of I

successes, problems or difficulties which occurred during this review period.

The strengths of the California program are in the expertise and l experience of individual staff members and the number of staff which i allows shifting of work and responsibilities to respond to personnel I changes, work emphasis, etc.

Lengthy and complicated budgeting and regulation adoption processes I are inherent weaknesses in the California governmental system.

l B. NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS I

( l. Reautations and Leaal Authority 1

27. Please list all currently effective legislation that affects the radiation control l program (R.C.P.).

Laws and regulations relating to radiation control are contained in the l California Health and Safety Code, Penal Code, and Code of Regulations. I Senate Bill 1360 became effective January 1,1996. This legislation reorganized, renumbered, and made non-technical changes to the public {

health portion of the Health and Safety Code. Copies of relevant codes j l are attached (Attachments VI and Vil).

28. Are your regulations subject to a " Sunset" or equivalent law? If so, explain ,

and include the next expiration date for your regulations. l No l

29. Please complete the enclosed table based on NRC chronology of amendments. Identify those that have not been adopted by the State, explain why they were not adopted, and discuss any actions being taken to adopt them.

The NRC Chronology is appended and reflects the current status of l California Radiation Control Regulations. Notification of incidents. R53-l 96, has been submitted for adoption. The estimated gestation period of 9.7 months puts delivery in June 1997. Quality Manaaement Proaram and i

I

. .. . _ _ . ~ _ . _ _ __ _ - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ =

.< . 1 I

l Califomia Proposed Final Report Page C.10 Questionnaire Misadministrations is on hold pending NRC resolution NAS report issues relating to regulation of medical practice.

30. If you have not adopted all amendments within three years from the date of NRC rule promulgation, briefly describe your State's procedures for amending regulations in order to maintain compatibility with the NRC, showing the normal length of time anticipated to complete each step.

A copy of California's Regulation Promulgation Schedule is appended (Attachment Vill). Review of this schedule discloses a period of 291 days

' from submission to effective date.

II. Sealed Source and Device Proaram l

31. Prepare a table listing new and revised SS&D registrations of sealed sources and devices issaed during the review period. The table heading should be:

SS&D Manufacturer, Type of Registry Distributor or Device Number Custom User or Source i See Attachment IX.

32. What guides, standards and procedures are used to evaluate registry applications?

The following guides, standards and procedures are used to evaluate j registry applications:

i l 1. Standard Review Plan For Applications For Sealed Source And i

Device Evaluations and Registrations

2. Reg. Guide 10.10, " Guide For The Preparation Of Applications For Radiation Safety Evaluation And Registration Of Devices Containing Byproduct Material"

3. Reg. Guide 10.11, " Guide For The Preparation Of Applications For Radiation Safety Evaluation And Registration Of Sealed Sources Containing Byproduct Material"

4. Reg. Guide 6.9, " Establishing Quality Assurance Programs For The Manufacture And Distribution Of Sealed Sources And Devices l

Containing Byproduct Material" i

j 5. NSI-N542, " Sealed Radioactive Sources Classification" 4

i

r l Califomia Proposed Final Report Page C.11 l Questionnaire l

6. NSI-N538, " Classification of Industrial lonizing Radiation Gauging Devices"

7. NSI-N432," Radiological Safety for the Design and Construction of j Apparatus for Gamma Radiography" l

8. Other ANSI Guides when appropriate. l I

9. RML policy memo 88-7," Maintenance of Sealed Source and Device '

Registry information" l

10. RML policy memo 89-1, " Sealed Source and Device Registry Sheet l Review Procedures" l

l l 33. Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they ,

apply to the Sealed Source and Device Program:

Technical Staffing and Training - A.ll.7-10 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.lli.11, A.lli.13-14 Responses to incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23

)

Please refer to responses to the earlier questions.

Ill. Low-Level Waste Prooram

34. Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they apply to the Low-level Waste Program:

Status of Materials inspection Program - A.I.1-3, A.I.6 There have been no inspection activities during the reporting period.

Siting activities were completed by 1990, and construction is being held I

up by the U.S. Department of the Interior's inability to decide whether to transfer the land for the LLRW disposal facility to the State in a timely fashion.

Technical Staffing and Training - A.ll.7-10 Carl Lischeske, the program manager, holds a B.S. degree in civil engineering. Other program staff include an economist (Research i Programs Specialist - Economics) and a secretary (Office Technician).

l Technical support is provided under contract by ERM Consultants, which

offers expertise in hydrology, geology, engineering, and health physics j (the last primarily through a subcontract with Rogers and Associates.)  ;

There are no technical staff currently assigned to the program due to its

delayed status.

l 1

i J

Califomia Proposed Final Report Page C.12 l Questionnaire

! Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.lll.11, A.lli.13-14 The license for the California LLRW disposal facility was issued in 1993 and has not been amended since that time.

Technical Quality of Inspections ,A.IV.16-19 No inspections were performed during the reporting period. The licensee .

has yet to begin operations and does not yet possess radioactive waste.

Responses to incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23 j

No incidents involving mismanagement of radioactive materials were  !

reported or alleged during the reporting period. DHS responded to a l number of persons who expressed concerns regarding the proposed LLRW disposal facility at Ward Valley.

l IV. Uranium Mill Proaram

35. Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they apply to the Uranium Mill Program:

Status of Materials inspection Program - A.I.1-3, A.I.6 Technical Staffing and Training - A.ll.7-10 i Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.lli.11, A.lli.13-14 i Technical Qual;ty of Inspections - A.IV.16-19 l l Responses to incidents and Allegations _- A.V.20-23 i

i l

i i

f i

k

m ~.

Cclifomia Proposed Fin:1 R: port Pcge C.13 Questionnaire --

TABLE FOR QUESTION 29.

OR DATE DATE 10 CFR RULE DUE ADOPTED CURRENT EXPECTED STATUS ADOPTION Any amendment due prior to 1991.

Identify each regulation (refer to the Chronology of Amendments)

Decommissioning: 7/27/91 10/17/95 R-46-93E: " Decontamination & Decommissioning (also Parts 30,40,70 definitions)"

Emergency Planning: 4/7/93 10/17/95 R-46-93E: " Emergency Plan" Parts 30,40,70 Standards for Protection Against Radiation; 1/1/94 03/03/94 R-45-93:" Standards for Protection Against Radiation" Part 20 ,

Safety Requirements for Radiographic 1/10/94 7/18/94 R-1-94: " Safety Requirements for Radiographic Equipment" Equipment: Part 34 l Notification of incMeats: 10/15/94 R-53-94: DRAFT regulations 5/15/95. 10/01/97 i Parts 20, 30, 21, 34, 39, 40, 70 Quality Management Program and 1/27/95 On hold pending NRC resolution of NAS report issues re regulation Misadministrations; Part 35 of medical use.

Licensing and Radiation Safety 7/1/96 01/01/93 Now in 10 CFR 20, incorporated by reference in Califcmia Code Requirements for Irradiators: Part 36 of Regulations, title 17,section 30253.

Definitiore of Land Disposal 7/22/96 "Debtion of Land Disposal and Waste Site OA Program" NRC and Waste Site QA Program; Part 61 l staff he determined that CA is compatible Decommissioning Recordkeeping: Docu- 10/25/96 10/17/95 R-46-93E: " Financial Surety for Decommissioning "

mentation Additions; Parts 30,40,70 Self-Guarantee as an Additional Financial 1/28/97 01/28/97 -

Mechanism; Parts 30,40,70 ,

i Uranium Mill Tailings: Conforming to EPA 7/1/97 No Aareemere " Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Contorming Standards: Part 40 NRC Requirements to EPA Standards" Timeliness in Decommissioning 8/15/97 8/15/97 [

Parts 30,40,70 r

i f

. _ _ _ . , _ . - - _ ~. . _ . _ . .. _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ .. . . _ . _ - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ , _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ - _ _ , . . . _ , . . _

(

I l

CLiif0mia Proposed Final Report Page C.14 Questionnaire ..

OR DATE DATE DUE ADOPTED CURRENT EXPECTED 10 CFR RULE STATUS ADOPTION Preparation, Transfer for Commercial Dis- 1/1/98 01/01/98 tribution, and Use of Byproduct Material for Medical Use; Parts 30,24 35 Frequency of Medical Examinations for Use 3/13/98 03/13/98 of Respiratory PrrAection Equipment Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest 3/1/98 03/01/98 information and Reporting Performance Requirements for Radiography 6/30/98 06/30/98 Equipment Radiation Protection Requirements: 8/14/98 08/14/98 Amended Definitions and Criteria Clarification of Decommissioning Funding 11/24/98 11/24/98 Requirements 10 CFR Part 71: Compatibility with the 4/1/99 04/01/99 International Atomic Energy Agency Medical Administration of Radiation and 10/20/98 Radioactive Materials.

Termination or Transfer of Licensed 5/16/99 Activities: Recordkeeping Requirements.

- _. w -- . _ - . - - - _ - - , _ , - - --

Lr  ;  !

I s $

l APPENDlX D l LICENSE FILE REVIEW  !

l i l ~i i File No.: 1

! Licensee: ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. License No.: 1828-30  ;

Location: 2727 Campus Drive, Irvine Amendment No.: 67 License Type: Pharmaceutical Manuf acturer Type of Action: Renewal l Date issued: 10/08/96 License Reviewer: P. P. I Comments: l a) Possession limits exceed requirements for emergency plan; licensee evaluation does  :

not show consideration for engineered safety features to reduce potential releases. I b) Licensee changed RSO prior to approval.

File No.: 2 }

Licensee: Southern California Edison License No.: 2132-30 i Location: San Clemente Amendment No.: 13 l License Type: Decontamination Service Type of Action: Renewal l Date issued: 08/15/96 License Reviewer: D. W.  !

I Comment: l a) Action on licensee request to reduce possession limits not found in file. l File No.: 3 i Licensee: University of Southern California License No.: 0382-19  !

Location: Los Angeles. Amendment No.: 41 License Type: Academic, R&D Type of Action: Renewal Date issued: 08/13/96 License Reviewer: G. P. i Comments- I a) Improper authorization of materials for use in Antarctica.  !

b) Authorized use on ships offshore not re-evaluated after licensee indicated use was l discontinued. j File No.: 4  !

Licensee: Mobile Technology, Inc. License No.: 5919-19 I Location: Los Angeles Amendment No.: 14  !

License Type: Mobile HDR Type of Action: Renewal Date issued: 09/19/96 License Reviewer: G. P.

Comment:

l a) ' Several letters in file requesting administrative changes not reflected in tie-down ,

condition.

l l  !

': s California Proposed Final Report Page D.2 License File Reviews '

i File No.: 5 Licensee: Isotope Products Laboratories License No.: 1509-19  !

Location: Burbank Amendment No.: 103 License Type: Manufacturer Type of Action: Renewal l

Dato issued: 08/7/96 License Reviewer: P. P.

l Comment:

l a) Licensee appears to exceed limits requiring an Emergency Plan.

I File No.: 6 Licensee: Isotope Products Laboratories License No.:1509-19 Location: Burbank Amendment No.: 105 ,

License Type: Manufacturer Type of Action: Amendment l Da:e Arnendment issued: 08/22/96 License Reviewer: P. P.

Comments:

a) No tie-dowri of July 27,1994 for Am-241 exemption.

l b) August 21,1996 licensee response letter not in file.

File No.: 7  :

Licensee: Isotope Products Laboratories License No.: 1509-19 i Location: Burbank Amendment No.: 106 1 License Type: Manufacturer Type of Action: Amendments l Date Amendment issued: 09/6/96 License Reviewer: P. P. ]

Comments: )

a) No licensee response to Curium issue.

b) September 5,1996 licensee response letter not in file.

File No.: 8 l

Licensee: Nucletron Corp. License No.: 6214-37 Location: Encinitas License Type: HDR Manufacturer Type of Action: New Date issued: 10/03/96 License Reviewer: D. W.

Comments:

a) Leak test condition does not require licensee to remove and decontaminate devices if sources found leaking.

b) Credentials of new RSO not in file.

File No.: 9 i Licensee: Beckman Instruments, Inc. License No.: 0441-30 l

Location: Fullerton Amendment No.: 64 License Type: Instrument Manufacturer Type of Action: Renewal Date issued: 11/22/95 License Reviewer: P. P.

i I

l  !

1 1

i  !

California Proposed Final Report Page D.3 License File Reviews l Comments:

a) April 18,1995 deficiency letter not in file, i b) Tie down referred to wrong licensee response date.  !

l File No.: 10 l

Licensee: TRW Space and Electronics Group License No.: 0816-19 i Location: Redondo Beach Amendment No.: 61 License Type: Research and Development Type of Action: Renewal ,

Date issued: 09/05/96 License Reviewer: F. T. l Comments:

a) Leak test condition does not require licensee to remove and decontaminate devices if sources found leaking, b) Possession limit for SNM not specified.

File No.: 11 Licensee: Space Systems / Loral License No.: 0550-43 Location: Palo Alto Amendment No.: 56 i License Type: Research and Development Type of Action: Renewal l Date issued: 07/30/96 License Review: F. T.  !

Comment: l a) Leak test condition does not require licensee to remove and decontaminate devices if sources found leaking.

File No.: 12 Licensee: Tower Imaging-Roxsan License No.: 2675-19 l Location: Beverly Hills Amendment No.: 32 l License Type: Nuclear Medicine Type of Action: Renewal  !

Date issued: 08/07/96 License Reviewer: G. P.

File No.: 13 Licensee: Los Angeles County Medical Center License No.: 0134-70 Location: Los Angeles Amendment No.: 96 License Type: Hospital Type of Action: Renewal Date issued: 02/06/96 License Reviewer: T. G.

File No.: 14 Licensee: Source 2 Site License No.: 6152 60 i Location: Emeryville Amendment No.: 3 License Type: Transportable HDR Type of Action: New Date issued: 10/06/96 License Reviewer: G. P.

Comment:

a) Operation of mobile HDR is not restricted to use in California.

I

r .'

1 California Proposed Final Report Page D.4 License File Reviews File No.: 15 Licensee: San Diego Gamma Knife Center License No.: 6072-37 Location: La Jolla Amendment No.: 4 License Type: Gamma Knife Type of Action: Renewal / Amendment Date' Amendment issued: 09/10/96 License Reviewer: G. P.

Comment:

a) Emergency telephone notification by licensee for overexposure does not specify 24-hour time limit.

File No.: 16 Licensee: Radiation Oncology Center License No.: 3587-07 Location: Walnut Creek Amendment No.: 14 <

License Type: Portable HDR Type of Action: Renewal Date issued: 03/19/96 License Reviewer: G. P.

File No.: 17 Licensee: Univ of Calif Santa Barbara License No.: 1336-42 I Location: Santa Barbara Amendment No.: 64 License Type: Academic Type of Action: Renewal Date issued: 07/29/96 License Reviewer: G. P.  !

l Comment:

l a) License not specific on types of lodine isotopes authorized. )

File No.: 18 l Licensee: Pomona College License No.: 0332-70 I Location: Claremont Amendment No.: 33 License Type: Academic Type of Action: Renewal Date issued: 07/01/91 License Reviewer: G. P.

Comment:

a) RSO provided information about leaving facility and no replacement named.

File No.: 19 Licensee: Los Alamitos Medical Center License No.: 1807 l Location: Los Alamitos Amendment No.: 49 l License Type: Hospital Type of Action: Renewal j l Date issued: 08/19/96 License Reviewer: G. P. l l

l Comment:

l a) Request for deletion of brachytherapy approved but no indication in file if sources transferred.

1 4

l

.' j I

I California Proposed Final Report Page D.5 I License File Reviews )

l l File No.: 20 Licensee: United Airlines Maintenance Operations License No.: 0579-90 l l Location: San Francisco Amendment No.: 45 l License Type: Radiography Type of Action: Renewal ,

! Date !ssued: 09/26/94 License Reviewer: D. W. l l Comment:

a) File does not contain operating and emergency procedures licensee requested to change per letter of February 15,1993.

l File No.: 21 Licensee: Spreckels Development Co. License No.:3226-39 Location: Manteca Amendment No.: 14 License Type: Gauge Type of Action: Termination Date Amendment issued: 07/19/96 License Reviewer: V. B.

File No : 22 Licensee: Applied Land Services, Inc. License No.: 5749-60 Location: Pleasanton Amendment No.: 3 i License Type: Portable Gauge Type of Action: Termination Date Amendment issued: 08/01/96 License Reviewer: V. B.

Comments:

l a) File indicates material never received; verified by inspector.

1 File No.: 23 Licensee: Professional Service Industries License No.: 5652-50 Location: Lombard, IL Amendment No.: 10 License Type: Portable Gauges Type of Action: Termination Date Amendment issued: 08/15/96 License Reviewer: D. T.

l Comment:

Can not determine if licensee's Pittsburgh facility was authorized to accept gauges.

a)

File No.: 24 i Licensee: Sweetwater Authority License No.: 3623-37 l Location: Chula Vista Amendment No.: 9 l Licunse Type: Gas Chromatograph Type of Action: Termination l Date Amendment issued: 10/07/96 License Reviewer: Z. G.

l File No.: 25 l Licensem Campbell Security Equipment Co. License No.: 6156-07GL Location: Concord License Type: Distribution of gauges to GLs Type of Action: New Date Amendment issued: 09/19/95 License Reviewer: B. K.

l l

I

- - . .- . _ - - . - . - . . - - - ~ . . . - _ . - - - - - . - . _ - - - . _-

ir I ,

i  !

California Proposed Final Report Page D.6 E License File Reviews I

.t ,

Comment: l

. a) License conditions require labeling, furnishing copy of regulations and instructions l to general licensees and quarterly reports and transfer in lieu of equivalent  !

l regulation of 32.51  ;

i File No.: 26 I Licensee: Nova R&D, Inc. License No.: 5902 i Location: Riverside  !

License Type: Distribution to General Licensees Type of Action: New  !

Date Amendment issued: 05/13/93 License Reviewer: B. K.

Comments: .

j a) License condition for labeling, reporting, and providing information to general  ;

licensees in lieu of regulation equivalent to 32.51. l b) Section 32.51 - for quarterly reports of transfer the State should advise licensee  !

about this reporting requirement change in that only NRC headquarters reports are I required. I File No.: 27 Licensee: Charles Blakely Co. License No.: 5490-43 ,

Location: San Jose Amendment No.: 2  ;

License Type: Redistribution of exit signs to GLs Type of Action: Amendment  !

Date Amendment issued: 12/06/95 License Reviewer: B. K.  !

\

Comment.

a) No regulation equivalent 32.51.

File No.: 28 '

Licensee: Measurex Corporation l License No.: 1856-43GL Location: Cupertino Amendment No.: 52 l License Type: Distribution Type of Action: Amendment '

Date Amendment issued: 04/12/95 License Reviewer: B. K.

Comments:

a) License condition to require, labelling, reporting of transfer, furnishing information to the general licensee in lieu of 32.51.

b) State has authorized the use of maximum activity with no date of assay requirements for the label.

l File No.: 29  !

Licensee: Medi-Physics, Inc. License No.: 5143-70  !

Location: Culver City Amendment No.: 15 i License Type: Radiopharmacy Type of Action: Renewal Date issued: 12/08/95 License Reviewer: G. P.

e : .

I-s  !

t California Proposed Final Report Page D.7 l License File Reviews  !

l File No.: 30 Licensee: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. License No.: 3771-43 Location: One AMD Place, Sunnyvale Amendment No.: 67 License Type: Semiconductor Testing Type of Action: Renewal l Date Amendment issued: 08/21/96 License Reviewer: F. T. & P. P.  :

l' ,

! Comment:

a) Needs more specific reference to ALARA.  ;

File No.: 31 l Licensee: Astoria Metal Corporation License No.: 5049-19 l Location: 1815 W. 205 St., Torrance Amendment No.: 27 License Type: Industrial Radiography Type of Action: Renewal Date Amendment issued: 08/13/96 License Reviewer: F. T.

i File No.: 32 I Licensee: Penta Biotech, Inc. License No.: 6141-41 Location: 353 F. Vintage Park Drive, Foster City Amendment No.: 1 i License Type: Bio-Chemistry Laboratory Type of Action: Termination I l Date Amendment issued: 09/23/96 License Reviewer: F. T. l l i File No.: 33 Licensee: Mallinckrodt Medical, Inc. License No.: 4943-43 Location: 1328 White Oaks Ave., Campbell Amendment No.: 14 i

! License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Type of Action: Renewal Date Amendrnent issued: 08/16/96 License Reviewer: G. P.

Files No.: 34  !

Licensee: French Camp Vineyards License No.: 5946-40 Location: P.O. Box 84, Shandon Amendment No.: 2 License Type: Moisture Gauge Type of Action: Termination Date Amendment Issued: 07/30/96 License Reviewer: V. B.

l File No.: 35 l Licensee: Mills College License No.: 4730-01 l Location: 5000 Mac Arthur Blvd., Oakland Amendment No.: 10 License Type: Academic - Type of Action: Termination Date Amendment issued: 10/08/96 License Reviewer: S. K.

l .

File No.: 36 Licensee: Sterigenics International License No.: 3390-30 Location: 1401 Morgan Circle, Tustin Amendment Nos.: 31 & 32 License Type: Pool Type irradiator Type of Action: Renewal & Amendment 1

Dates Renewal & Amendment issued: 02/19/96 & 03/29/96 Reviewer: D. W.

0

. _- _- _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . ~ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ .

t ..

J

- APPENDIX E INSPECTION FILE REVIEWS t

File No.: 1  !

Licensee: Mission Community Hospital License No.: 1282-70 l l Location: Panorama City inspection Type: routine, announced  !

l License Type: medical; group l-V Priority: 3  ;

i Inspection Date: 11/9/94 Inspector: S. D.

Comments

• I a) Inspector accompanied by review team member

{

b) Inspection announced to accommodate accompaniment l File No.: 2 t

l Licensee: MMP Quality inspection License No.: 4832-70 l Location: Signal Hill Inspection Type: routine, unannounced  :

License Type: industrial radiographer Priority: 1  ;

inspection Date: 11/10/94 Inspector: K. H. l s

Comment:

a) Inspector accompanied by review team member l

File No.: 3 l Licensee: T.C. Inspection License No.: 5299-07 I

Location: Richmond Inspection Type: routine, announced '

License Type: industrial radiography, temporary job sites Priority: 1  :

Inspection Date: 02/28/96 Inspector: F. F.

Comments:

I a) Inspector accompanied by review team member b) 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> advance notice to licensee who had been difficult to locate File No.: 4 Licensee: Brookside Hospital License No.: 0209-7 Location: San Pablo inspection Type: routine, announced License Type: medical - HDR therapy Priority: 1 L Inspection Date: 02/29/96 Inspector: R. O.

Comments:

a) Inspector accompanied by review team member I b)' Inspection announced to accommod::te accompaniment and ensure HDR use j l

File No.: 5 i l Licensee: Scripp's Hospital License No.: 2311-80 )

l Location: El Cajon -

Inspection Type: routine, announced j License Type: nuclear medicine Priority: 3 i inspection Date: 04/2/96 Inspector: F. B.

j. Comments:

l a) Inspector accompanied by review team member l b) 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> advance notice to licensee to accommodate accompaniment I

t .

, i l

l t California Proposed Final Report Page E.2 j inspection File Reviews

.t File No.: 6 Licensee: John Lowney & Associates License No.: 2356-43 Location: Mcuntain View Inspection Type: routine, unannounced i License Type: portable gage Priority: 5 '

Inspection Date: 06/4/96 Inspector: R. O.

Comments:

( a) Inspector accompanied by review team member b) Both field and office inspections conducted

( File No.: 7 l Licensee: California Office of Emergency Services License No.: 0146-34 l Location: Sacramento inspection Type: routine, announced

• License Type: calibration and training Priority: 3 l Inspection Date: 06/20/96 Inspector: R. F.

i Comments:

l a) Inspector accompanied by review team member b) Inspection announced to accommodate accompaniment File No.: 8 Licensee: Saddleback Valley Radiology Associates License No.: 3704-30 Location: Laguna Hills inspection Type: routine, unannounced l License Type: nuclear medicine & therapy Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 10/25/95 Inspector: S. K.

File No.: 9 I Licensee: Fisher Scientific License No.: 4950-30

! Location: Tustin inspection Type; announced, routine .

License Type: RIA kits - storage only Priority: 6 Inspection Date: 11/28/95 Inspector: S. K.

t

Comment

a) inspection announced to ensure licensee staff on premises File No.: 10 Licensee: Cardio-Vascular Imaging Center License No.: 5739-30 Location: Anaheim inspection Type: routine, unannounced

! License Type: nuclear medicine Priority: 3 l

Inspection Date: 02/8/96 Inspector: S. K.

File No.: 11

Licensee

San Joaquin General Hospital License No.: 1294-39

Location

Stockton Inspection Type: routine, unannounced License Type: medical - diagnostic & therapy Priority: 3

. Inspection Date: 02/2/96 Inspector: K. F.

/

Caiifornia Proposed Final Report Page E.3 Inspection File Reviews Comments:

a) Report did not document follow-up or closure of previous items of non-compliance.

b) Report did not document attendees at exit meeting.

File No.: 12 Licensee: NDC Systems License No.: 1451-70 Location: irwindale inspection Type: routine, announced License Type: manufacturing and distribution Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 11/30/95 Inspector: K. H.

Comment:

a) Inspection announced because of length of driving time to licensee's facility File No.: 13 Licensee: Little Company of Mary Hospital License No.: 1258-70 Location: Torrance inspection Type: routine, unannounced License Type: nuclear medicine and therapy Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 05/23-24/96 Inspector: S. D.

File No.: 14 Licensee: Isotope Product Laboratories (IPL) License No.: 1509-70 )

Location: Burbank inspection Type: routine, unannounced License Type: manufacturing and distribution Priority: 1 1 Inspection Date: 08/1-2/94 Inspectors: B. H., S. D. & K. H. 1 I'

File No.: 15 Licensee: Southern California Edison (SONGS) License No.: 2132-30 Location: San Clemente inspection Type: phone and mail License Type: service Priority: 3 i inspection Dates: 01/17/95 through 01/2/96 Inspector: K. H.

]

Comments:

a) Inspector determines by quarterly phone calls that licensee possesses no RAM under this license.

b) Licensee certifies annually that no RAM is possessed; last c' ertification dated 1/2/96.

File No.: 16 Licensee: Mallinckrodt, Inc License No.: 4943-43 Location: Campbell Inspection Type: routine, announced License Type: nuclear pharmacy Priority: 1 inspection Date: 03/13/96 Inspector: R. O.

{

Comment

I a) Inspector felt announcing inspection was justified by length of driving time to licensee's facility.

i l

l l

l

California Proposed Final Report Page E.4 Inspection File Reviews l File No.: 17 Licensee: Berlex Biosciences, Inc. License No.: 4498-07 l Location: Richmond Inspection Type: routine, announced License Type: bio lab Priority: 3 l Inspection Date: 12/14/94 Inspector: F. F.

l Comment:

a) No apparent reason for announcing inspection.

File No.: 18 Licensee: Allied Ecology Services, Inc. License No.: 2873-01 Location: Fremont inspection Type: routine, announced License Type: waste broker Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 07/30/96 Inspector: M. G.

( Comment: ,

l a) Inspection announced to ensure licensee staff at site {

1 File No.: 19 l Licensee: University of California, Santa Barbara License No.: 1336-42 l

l Location: Santa Barbara inspection Type: routine, announced l License Type: broad Type A academic Priority: 2 ;

l Inspection Date: 12/27-30/94 Inspector: P. B. I l

Comment:

l a) Inspection announced to ensure accessibility of licensee faculty and staff.

1 File N o.: 20 l Licensee: Children's Hospital License No.: 5518 Location: San Diego inspection Type: routine, unannounced License Type: nuclear medicine and therapy Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 07/5-7/95 Inspector: F. B.

File No.: 21 l

Licensee: Koch Engineering Corp., Tru-Tec Division License No.: 5474-30 Location: Buena Park Inspection Type: routine, announced License Type: well-logging Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 03/2/95 Inspector: K. H.

l Comment:

a) Inspection announced because of difficulty in locating licensee.

File No.: 22 Licensee: Amgen incorporated License No.: 3768-56 Location: Thousand Oaks inspection Type: routine, announced License Type: bio lab, broad type A Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 09/19-20/95 Inspector: K. H.

I

~

r l

California Proposed Final Report Page E.5 j Inspection File Reviews Commen o a) Inapection announced to ensure accessibility of staff and management during 2-day inspection.

File No.: 23 Licensee: Nova R&D, Inc. License No.: 5902-33 Location: Riverside Inspection Type: routine, announced License Type: distribution Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 10/18/95 Inspector: K. H.

Comment

I a) Inspection announced because of length of driving time to licensee File No.: 24 l

Licensee: Source 2 Site License No.: 6152-60 Location: Emeryville Inspection Type: initial, announced ,

License Type: portable HDR Priority: 1,'

Inspection Date: 01/16/95 Inspector: R. O. )

Comment: I a) Inspection announced for initialinspection of mobile unit. i File No.: 25 Licensee: Industrial Nucle'ar Co. License No.: 2229-60 Location: San Leandro inspection Type: routine, announced License Type: manufacturing and distribution ',lR cameras) Priority: 2 l Inspection Date: 11/30/95 and 12/7/95 inspector: F. F.

Comment:

! a) Inspection announced to ensure owner available due to controversy regarding procedures.

t l File No.: 26

! Licensee: 3M Company License No.: 5282-49 i Location: Petaluma inspection Type: routine, announced License Type: fixed gauge Priority: 6 Inspection Date: 01/10/96 Inspector: K. F.  !

Comment:

a) Inspection announced because of remote location.

i i  ;

e i APPENDIX F o '

l INCIDENT FILE REVIEWS' File Number: 01 incident Log Number: 020596

! Licensee: NDC Systems License Number: 1451 l Site of Event: Monrovia, CA Type of Event: Leaking Source Date of Event: 02/05/96 Investigation Type: site visit >

Investigation Date: 02/09/96 r Summary of incident: Licensee removed four 10 millicurie Americium-241 from storage l

container for leak testing prior to shipping for disposal. During the leak testing procedure it i

was noted that one or more of the sources were leaking, leading to site and personnel contamination, incident closed out on 9/24/96.

Comment:

a) Sources at site awaiting disposal at the time of review.

File Number: 2 incident Log Number: 052595

Licensee

Downey Community Hospital License Number: 1418-70 Site of Event: Downey, CA Type of Event: Contamination Event Date of Event: 05/25/95 Investigation Type: site l Investigation Date: 05/25/95 1

l Summary of incident: A patient vomited in the parking lot at Los Cerritos Center Mall after receiving a treatment of lodine-123. Area was decontaminated to release levels.

l File Number: 3 incident Number: 082396 j l Licensee: Aoki Diabetes Research Institute License Number: 5422-34 l l Site of Event: Irvine, CA Type of Event: Contamination Event i

Date of Event: 08/23/96 investigation Type: Phone  ;

[ Investigation Date: 08/24/96 Summary of incident: Contractor broke a sewer line and water in the line went into the  !

trench. Sewer line from Aoki, workers went to request that the facility halt the use of water until the line was fixed and saw employee disposing of RAM down sink (2 microcuries of lodine-125). Construction supervisor said he needed release telling him it was safe to finish project. Personnel and trench surveyed by a staff member from UC-

Irvine Medical Center. No contamination found on personnel or in the trench. Incident

!' closed out 9/12/96.

File Number: 4 incident Log Number: 012096 Licensee: El Centro Regional Medical Center License Number:

Site of Event: El Centro, CA Type of Event: Contamination Event i Date of Event: 01/20/96 investigation Type: Next inspection Investigation Date: 02/01/96 Summary of incident: RSO of Medi-Physics sent letter dated 1/24/96 to report a cardboard

! box that was picked up at the hospital revealed 17,514 dpm gross removable on the box and 279 dpm in the vehicle. Letter was also received from the Medical Center stating they received a call from Medi-Physics concerning the above and on 1/18/96 had a spill of 99mTc MDP and sent the box back the next day without a survey. Incident closed out 3/96.

1 i

_. . . - - . = - .- - _ - - - - - . - . - - .- .- _ . .

f California Proposed Final Report Page F.2 incident File Reviews File Number: 5 incident Log Number: 030696 Licensee: UC Irvine Medical Center License Number: 0278-30 Site of Event: Irvine, CA Type of Event: Lost Material Date of Event: 01/24/96 Type of investigation: Phone investigation Date: 03/06/96 Summary of incident: A patient was implanted with 50 lodine-125 seeds on 1/17/96 (right eye against skull). CT scan on 1/24/96 verified all seeds in proper location. During follow-up on 2/29/96 skull x-ray showed only 5 seeds. Examination of patient, home, car, etc.

failed to locate seeds, incident closed out.

l File Number: 6 incident Log Number,- 040496 Licensee: Geocon Environmental Consultants License Number: 3924-80 Site of incident: Jammel, CA Type of Event: Lost iv'interial Date of Event: 03/31/96 Type of Investigation: Phone l Investigation Date: 04/04/96 Summary of incident: Density gauge missing from job site. Trailer was broken into and gauge stolen.

l Comment:

l a) Event not listed on Nuclear Material Data Base. l l File Number: 7 Incident Log Number: 050796 Licensee: Paul Young Agriculture Service License Number: 3205-15 Site of incident: Wasco, CA Type of Event: Lost Material i

! Date of Event: 05/07/96 Type of Investigation: Phone  !

! Investigation Date: 05/07/96 Summary of incident: Campbell Pacific Nuclear Hydroprobe 503 stolen off rear of pick-up truck. i l

File Number: 8 Incident Log Number: 06/27/96 Licensee: Schlumberger License Number: 144-15 Site of Incident: Bakersfield, CA Type of Event: Abandoned Material l Date of Event: 6/27/96 Type of investigation: Phone l Investigation Date: 6/27/96 l- Summary of incident: Welllogging source stuck down a hole. Could not retrieve so l abandoned down the hole (Cs-1371.7 curies / Am-241:Be 16 curies).

1 File Number: 9 incident Log Number: 07/01/96 Licensee: Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department License Number: R00067 Site of incident: Orange County, CA Type of Event: Loss of Control Date of Event: 6/17/96 Type of Investigation: phone Investigation Date: 07/31/96 Summary of incident: P-32 waste was inadvertently disposed of as biohazardous waste.

Material had accumulated over a four month period. Containers apparently transferred to the biohazardous waste holding area and picked up by off site service. Incident closed out 8/8/96.

1

i :

l l

t a California Proposed Final Report Page F.3 incident File Reviews l File Number: 10 incident Log Number: 092895 Licensee: Mad River Community Hospital Licensee Number: 2482-12 I Site nf incident: Arcata, CA Type of Event: Abandoned Material Date of Event: 09/22/95 Type 'of Investigation: site ;

l Investigation Date: 09/22/95 Summary of incident: A small plastic container with individual compartments and what appeared to be various forms of yellow cake measuring 0.4-0.5 mR/hr at the surface was i found on the lawn near the physical therapy department. The container was labeled "CRM

- Macalaster Scientific Corp. 30145 - Radioactive Material Kit." Material put into storage in RHB Sacramento storage room.

File Number: 11 incident Log Number: 031695 Licensee: UCLA License Number: 1335-70 Site of incident: TCl Colton, CA Type of Event: Transportation Date of Event: 03/16/95 Type of Investigation: Phone Investigation Date: 03/16/95 Summary of incident: Waste sent to Thermal Combustion Innovators from UCLA exceeded j allowable limits (5 mR/hr surface). Citation issued to licensee. Incident closed out i

! 6/26/96.

File Number: 12 Incident Log Number: 050395 Licensee: Korean Airlines License Number: N/A Site of incident: Los Angeles, CA Type of Event: lost material

Date of Event

unknown Type of Investigation: phone l

Investigation Date: 05/03/95 Summary of incident: Thomas Gray and Associates called to notify that they were  ;

! contacted by Korean Airlines to dispose of a container marked " Radioactive Material" as it  !

turned out the container was a Gamma industries C-10 source changer that had been l mistakenly stored at the airlines freight area (for at least a year). Device shipped to a i licensed recipient.

1 i

File Number: 13 Incident Log Number: 071696 Licensee; Isotope Products Laboratory License Number: 1509-70 l Site of incident: Burbank, CA Type of Event: Contamination event Date of Event: 07/16/96 Type of Investigation: site Investigation Date: 07/16/96 Summary of incident: A 25 millicurie capsule of Am-241 " blew apart" during welding process, resulting in personnel and site contamination.

l Comment:

a) Incident open next report due 10/31/96, investigation in progress.

File Number: 14 incident Log Number: 09/03;/9tc Licensee: Isotope Products Laboratory License Number: 1509-70 Site of incident: Burbank, CA Type of Event: contamination Date of Event: 8/96 Type of Investigation: phone Investigation Date: 09/04/96 l l

- l v

California Proposed Final Report Page F.4 incident File Reviews Summary of incident: Air filter had 34 nanocuries of Am-241. Filter had been in place 8/23-30/96 and was counted on 9/3/96. Source of Am was uncertain, but likely to have been result of decontamination of the welding chamber door. Associated with case file number 13, both cases are under active investigation.

File Number: 15 incident Log Number: 060595 Licensee: Tru-tec Division License Number: 5470-30 Site of incident: Mobile Oil Refinery Torrance, CA Type of Event: Contamination Date of Event: 06/01/95 Type of Investigation: phone Investigation Date: 06/01/95 Summary of incident: Tracer injected into a Hydrogen gas stream, it immediately vaporized and a good dose fractic'1 adhered to the first 2 or 3 feet of the pipe. Dose rate at 35' 2 mR/hr and at 3' 250 mR/hr. Barricade put into place and allowed to decay.

File Number: 16 incident Log Number: 020494 Licensee: UC-Davis License Number: 1334 Site of incident: UC-Davis Type of Event: overexposure Date of Event: end of 1995 Type of Investigation: Next inspection i investigation Date: unknown l Summary of incident: Finger badge exceeded allowable limits (376R) for researcher i utilizing Y-90 in amounts up to 100 millicuries. Hospital modified procedures to prevent I reoccurrence. Researcher left the United States, incident closed. j l

File Number: 17 Incident Log Number: 050294 l Licensee: J.L. Shepherd and Associates License Number: 1777-70 l Site of incident: Type of Event: leaking source Date of Event: 04/22/94 Type of investigation: next inspection Investigation Date: 04/22/94 Summary of Incident: Upon disassembly of a dry irradiator for source recycling, a leak test showed 0.5 microcuries. Contamination was also found on the cave manipulator, fingers,  ;

and bench top. ' Surfaces decontaminated and source sent back to GE Vallecitos for I reencapsulation.

File Number: 18 Incident Log Number: 102494 Licensee: Dames and Moore License Number: 4393-70 Site of incident: Long Beach, CA Type of Event: loss Material Date of Event: 10/22/94 Type of Investigation: phone Investigation Date: 10/27/94 Summary of incident: Troxler Model 3430 density gauge stolen out of the back of a pick-up truck.

l File Number: 19 Incident Log Number: 101394 Licensee: Gemological Institute of America License Number: 5383-70 Site of incident: Type of Event: other Date of Event: 10/13/94 Type of Investigation: site Investigation Date: 10/14/94 i

3 California Proposed Final Report Page F.5 incident File Reviews Summary of incident: A eight carat diamond was reading 780 mR/hr at the surf ace according to GIA GM meter survey. The diamond was mailed from NY to CA by Brink's  ;

Security and packaged as a limited quantity. RHB showed 8 mR/hr on the surface of the l diamond (with correction factor of 169- 1350 mrad /hr).

File Number: 20 incident Log Number: 032393 Licensee: BFI (VA Medical Center) License Number: N/A Site of incident: San Diego, CA Type of Event: loss of control l Date of Event: 03/23/93 Type of Investigation: phone Investigation Date: 03/23/93 Summary of incident: BFI notified by phone that they received a barrel from VA Medical Center reading 1000 microR/hr above background. Referred to NRC Region V.

l File Number: 21 Incident Log Number: 091593 i Licensee: Veterinary Tumor Institute License Number: 4647-44 Site of incident: Pacifica, CA Type of Event: Loss of Control Date of Event: unknown Type of Investigation: Phone I investigation Date: 10/1/93 1 Summary of incident: A waste container (55 gallon fibredrum) used as a sharps container l contained radioactive material. Disposed of by Thomas Gray and Associates. License implemented procedures to prevent reoccurrence. Incident closed.

File Number: 22 incident Log Number: 022295 Licensee: BKK Landfill License Number: N/A Site of incident: West Covina, CA Type of Event: Loss of control Date of Event: 02/22/96 Type of Investigation: Site investigation Date: 02/22/96 Summary of incident: A truck from Rapidway Trash Company set the radiation alarm off.

A hot diaper (adult size) was isolated and held for decay. Source traced back to a convalescent home.

File Number: 23 Incident Log Number: 042495 Licensee: Cal Poly Pomona License Number: 0496-70 Site of Incident: Pomona, CA Type of Event: Stolen Material Date of Event: 04/14/95 Type of Investigation: Phone investigation Date: 04/14/95 Summary of incident: Two exit signs were reported stolen and two others were found to be leaking. Cal Poly cleaned up site and leaking signs sent back to isolite Corporation.

File Number: 24 Incident Log Number: 03/28/96 Licensee: Cal State University, Northridge License Number: 0319-70

( Site of incident: Northridge, CA Type of Event: Damage to Equipment Date of Event: 01/17/94 Type of Investigation: phone investigation Date: 02/22/96 Summary of incident: During the 1/17/94 earthquake six Tritium exit signs fell down and broke. The signs were in the " South Library" which had major structural damage and was i

t 1

t i ,

l

' California Proposed Final Report Page F.6 i incident File Reviews closed and has been unoccupied since. This was discovered on 2/22/96. Some residual l contamination was found and is going to be cleaned up by ITC. j File Number: 25 incident Log Number: 030995 Licensee: Construction Material Testing License Number: 2952  ;

Site of Incident: Martinez, CA Type of Event: Lost Material Date of Event:- 03/8/95 Type of Investigation: site Investigation Date: 03/10/96 Summary of incident: An Anonyrnous call was received that a gauge belonging to CMT was lost then recovered at/near the Shell refinery. Investigation revealed that the user left

• the gauge on the ground and was at the refinery gate when he remembered the gauge.

Meanwhile the gauge was turned into security. The gauge was recovered by user after several hours but was not reported to RHB. Notice of noncompliance issued.

i File Number: 26 Incident Log Number: 111795 Licensee: EMC License Number: 3546-50 Site of Incident: EMC Type of Event: Lost / Stolen Material Date of Event: unknown Type of Investigation: Phone investigation Date: 11/17/95  ;

Summary of incident: Two 30 gallon drums of LSA waste were either misplaced, lost, or  :

stolen from a warehouse at the Turlock facility. Incident closed out 1/23/96. )

i File Number: 27 incident Log Number: 060296 Licensee: FedEx License Number: N/A Site of incident: Type of Event: Transportation Date of Event: 06/2/96 Type of Investigation: site Investigation Date: 06/2/96 Summary of incident: A truck was involved in an accident and was carrying a Seitec MAP 4 lead tester. Fire destroyed the truck and the device could not be found in the debris.

File Number: 28 incident Log Number: 072396 Licensee: Beckman Instruments License Number: 1313-30 Site of incident: University of Virginia Type of Event: Leaking Source Date of Eveat: unknown Type of Investigation: Letter investigation Date: 07/18/96 Summary of incident: A Beckman LS6000 with a 30 microcurie Cs-137 source was found to be leaking. Leak test showed 0.73 microcuries on the source model 598860 manufactures in 1989. The source is exempted frcm leak testing, but the instrument was registering unusually high background readings and the source was found to be leaking by the field service personnel. Leak possible due to flaw in small nurnber of source holders manufactured prior to 1993. Beckman initiated several controls to solve the problem and j will continue to motor the problem.

l l

l

.- - . . - - - - - - . - . _ . ~ - . - .

l

} . , ,

l  ;

! Cr.sifornia Proposed' Final Report Page F.7 incident File Reviews  ;

j Comment:

a) Incident reopened on 10/22/96 along with incidents described in incident case files l 30 and 37 for a possible generic design flaw. Active investigation, case open.

i File Number: 29 incident Log Number: 042596  ;

Licensee: Beckman instruments License Number: 0441 30 t Site of incident: Fullerton, CA Type of Event: Lost Material Date of Event: 03/27/96 Type of Investigation: Letter Investigation Date: 05/13/96 l

Summary of incident: A vial containing 1 mci of P-32 (aqueous ATP) was found to be missing from the lab of a researcher. Search of the lab and trash did not turn up the material, incident closed out 5/96.

File Number: 30 incident Log Number: 021396 Licensee: Beckman instruments License Number: 1313-06 Site of incident: University of Minnesota Type of Event: Leaking Source Date of Event: unknown Type of Investigation: Letter Date of Investigation: 02/13/96 Summary of incident: A Beckman LS6000 was indicating a high background and the field  !

service man found the source to be leaking (0.019 microcuries). The source contained 30 l i microcurie Cs-137 model number 598860 manufactured 1986. l l l l File Number

31 incident Log Number: 051496 l Licensee: 3 M Company . License Number: 4796-56 Site of incident: Camarillo, CA Type of Event: Leaking Source Date of Event: 04/26/96 Type of Investigation: Letter -

Date of Investigation: 05/14/96

. Summary of incident: An Amersham static eliminator model DM1002H10 series 7952KA l containing 60 mci of Po-210 was found to be leaking (0.0062 microcuries). Sent back to  ;

Amersham. Incident closed out 6/96. l

! File Number: 32 incident Log Number: 052396 I Licensee: Amgen incorporated License Number: 3768-56 Site of incident: Amgen Type of Event: Lost Material L Date of Event: 05/23/96 Type of Investigation: Phone I Date of investigation: 06/12/96 Summary of incident: Two vial of I-125 (101 microcuries) inadvertently was disposed of in

, the routine waste system.

File Number: 33 Incident Log Number: 070396 Licensee: Anheuser Busch License Number: GL

! Site of incident: Van Nuys, CA Type of Event: Lost / Stolen Material l Date of Event > 06/20/96 Type of Investigation: Phone Date of Investigation: 07/3/96

Summary of incident

Two 15 Ci (each) tritium exit signs were lost or stolen during a i construction project.

} l California Propond Final Report Page F.8 lacident File Reviews File Number: 34 incident Log Number: 032696 Licensee: Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations License Number: NRC 17-27437-01 Site of incident: Solano, CA Type of Event: Other Date of Event: 03/26/96 Type of Investigation: Phone Date of investigation: 03/26/96 Summary of incident: A welllogging tool got stuck down the hole, but was recovered by

" fishing." There was minimal damage to the tool and none to the sources.

File Number: 35 incident Log Number: 052096 Licensee: Industrial Nuclear Company License Number: 2229-60 Site of incident: San Diego, CA Type of Event: Lost Material Date of Event: 05/8/96 Type of Investigation: Phone i Date of Investigation: 05/8/96 Summary of incident: ICN reported that a package containing a 53 curie Ir-192 source in a IR-100 camera that was shipped to a licensee in San Diego had not been received and I could not be found by FedEx. On 5/21/96 FedEx found the package in Los Angeles, the  !

airbill had become separated from the package. I File Number: 36 incident Log Number: 081694 Licensee: Industrial Nuclear Company License Number: 2229-60 Site of incident: Monrovia, CA Type of Event: Damage to Equipment Date of Event: 08/16/94 Type of Investigation: Phone Date of Investigation: 08/16/96 Summary of incident: INC received a camera with the teleflex broken at the pigtail, The source was in the locked / shielded position and the break occurred behind the lockball/stopball. It was determined that the break was due to corrosion.

File Number: 37 incident Log Number: 072595 Licensee: Industrial Nuclear Company License Number: 2229-60 Site of incident: Monrovia, CA Type of Event: Equipment Failure Date of Event: 06/14/96 Type of Investigation: phone Date of Investigation: 07/12/95 Summary of incident: A drive cable adapter failed in the field and would not retrieve the source. Review of failed source and test on similar adapters showed no manufacturing defect, appeated to have been taken apart by licensee.

File Number: 38 Incident Log Number: 041296 Licensee: Beckman Instruments License Number: 1313-30 Site of incident: Wayne State University & Argonne NationT4;halaf Event: Leaking Source Dates of Event: 02/5/96 & 03/19/96 Type of Investigation: Letter l Date of Investigation: 04/3/96 l Summary of incident: At both locations 30 microcurie Cs-137 source were found to be I

leaking after reported high background readings on Beckman LS6000 instruments. Both sources were model 598860 sources.

i

2 l 1 k

o APPENDIX G SEALED SOURCE AND DEVICE EVALUATION REVIEWS File Number: 1 Registry No.: CA 406-S-165-S SS&D Type: Model 3409 l Manufacturer: Isotope Products Laboratories, Inc. Date issued: 9/20/94 i l

Comments: l a) Request to increase the activity from 30 millicuries to 80 millicuries had not been l addressed, verbal authorization may have been given. i b) Should consider the applicability for a bend test requirement on long sources (up to 10.5").

c) Unclear if testing of prototype sources with thin walls was performed after it was

engraved. Such a condition would be testing a product as it was designed to be used.

d) External radiation levels are incorrect. Although applicant was required to resubmit dose leak from the source, the final documents that address the reviewers concern in this area could not be found.

e) Safety Analysis Summary refers an ANSI N.42-1077 non-existent standard. The corrected sheet should read N542-1977.

f) No peer review was conducted.

g) Source void volumes not assessed to determine if bubble test is an appropriate l method for determining leak testing.

File Number: 2 Registry No.: CA 661-D-103-S SS&D Type: Model Vari-source HDR Manufacturer: Varian Associates, Inc. Date issued:

Comments:

a) Reviewer applied lessons learned frorn Omnitron incident to this review, b) Amendment changed length of source cable - should have considered need to determine if computer controllers needed modification.

c) No peer review was conducted on this amendment.

d) State of Louisiana issued source certificate approving up to 500 cycles and a working life of 120 days. California review continues to reflect 250 cycles, while l not a safety issue, it is not clear which number should be used during the assessment of device performance. I e) Some drawings were missing from the file on the unit and on the materials of construction. A lot of detailed information on the tungsten shield was available but not much on devices or other safety features of the device.

File Number: 3 Registry No.: CA 406-S-178-S SS&D Type: Model A-3411 l Manufacturer: Isotope Products Laboratories, Inc. Gamma Gauge  !

Date issued: 11/14/95 amended 2/8/96 i Comments:

a) No peer review was conducted.  ;

b) Source can be up to 33 inches long, the need for a bend test requirement should have been considered during this review.

California Proposed Final Report G.2 SS&D Evaluation Reviews c) Weld type is stated as " Electron Beam." Reviewer considered only tungsten inert gas yet also approved use of electron beam without consideration of the different weld parameters i.e., Electron Beam Weld can produce a depth to width ration of 30 to 1. This makes the weld subject to center cracking if not done properly.

Therefore, setup of welding equipment is critical as are details of machining tolerances. The quality control or assurance program should be revised to specifically deal with the requirements of electron beam welding.

d) The conditions of use section notes that the sources are permanently mounted in a gauging device. Review of supporting data shows that this is not the case.

Reviewer relied on the additiorial protection afforded the source by the gauging device as part of the approval process.

e) Although approved for use in the broad category of gauging devices, the ANSI classification does not meet the minimum vibration classification as listed in ANSI 542-1977.

f) No void space in sources, use of bubble test to show no leaking is not acceptable.

Vendor also wipes all sources -- this is an acceptable method of leak testing. A false sense of security may be developed by use of a bubble test that cannot identify a hole in the source capsules or welded area, it is not clear for what purpose the vendor uses the bubble test.

File Number: 4 Registry No.: CA 510-S-525-S SS&D Type: Model IND 1500 Manufacturer: North American Scientific, Inc. Beta Source Date issued:

Comments:

a) Source also approved for low enargy r,hotons.

b) No peer review was conducted.

c) Maximum activity does not include the plus 20% vendor loading allowance.

Reviewer should factor this into maximum actistity to simplify the licensing / inspection process.

d) The use of dissimilar metals such as aluminum / stainless steelinterface could lead to a potential corrosion site was not addressed.

File Number: 5 Registry No.: CA 305-D-105-S SS&D Type: Model SL Services Manufacturer: Gamma Metrics, Inc. Date !ssued:

Comments:

a) Reviewer relied on test data for CA-305-D-104-S and large robust size of the cornplete unit in making a determination that the product is acceptable for licensing l purposes. Applicants should be encouraged to make a demonstration that the l product meets the safety criteria in using this approach a lot of uncertainties exist because of limited knowledge of the use of the proposed device, which could lead to a review missing important safety consideration.

b) Not clear on how source fits into the device or how it is secured from inadvertent removal.

I

l ^2 ."

l i

l'

( California Proposed Final Report G.3  :

j SS&D Evaluation Reviews-  !

c) Dose rates when the service door is opened should also be obtained to determine ,

L potential exposure to worker who have access to sensor panel for maintenance or  ;

repair of electronic components. Such information is also useful to both licensing reviewers and inspectors.

d) Drawings did not have materials of construction, so comparison between the device in CA 305-D-104-S and this one could not be complete.

l File Number: 6 Registry No.: CA 471-D-104-B SS&D Type: Model 301 J

! Manufacturer: NDC Systems, Inc. Date issued: 5/15/94 amended 4/28/95 l

Comments:

a) No peer review was conducted. )

b) Drawings have no dimension or materials of construction denoted. Further it is unknown how source is held in place or if use of tamper resistant fasteners were

used. Use of tamper resistant fasteners is usually a requirement for devices used l by general licensees. '

l c) No dose scenarios were submitted or analyzed regarding general licensees ability to L perform leak test and shutter test. Such an analysis is necessary to determine if the proposed activity meets general license safety criteria.

d) Applicant submitted statements about doses being [rE6rsTofjess) than provided by the applicant. Reviewer should have asked the applicant to explain this since higher i doses have an impact on compliance with the general license safety criteria.

e) No QA Manual provided. No other users manuals available with instructions to user on how to conduct leak tests were found. Such iastructions are required for general licensees to conduct such activities. Revirwer believed files were in another location but could not produce them during this review. However, the reviewer did believe that the manuals existed and were reviewed. )

f) Also, no dose scenarios demonstrating compliance to general license safety criteria j was submit'ted for the product. Reviewer indicated no guidance was provided to l l

review these activities. State has no specific regulation for vendors of these product equivalent to NRC 10 CFR 32.51. The use of checilist may be helpful in these case also a peer review may have helped.

File Number: 7 Registry No.: CA 384-S-116-S SS&D Type: Model 88 Manufacturer: Industrial Nuclear Company, Inc. Date issued:

Comments-I a) No peer review was conducted. l

( b) Amended in its entirety to reflect changes that had been verbally approved by i

phone. These type of changes are hard to review given no phone logs appear to I have been kept.  !

i I l File Number: 8 i . Registry No.: CA 510-S-121-S SS&D Type: Model MED 360-MD 3620 Manufacturer: North American Scientific, Inc. Date issued:

l i

l i

i 2 .

i i

California Proposed Final Report G.4 i SS&D Evaluation Reviews Comments: i al' Could not locate the QC document procedures referenced in this document.

b) Source can be 33 inch in length. A requirement for a bend test should have been l considered.  !

c) No minirnal wall thickness of source capsule was specified. Therefore, could not determine if type of welding used by applicant was acceptable. Also it is unclear  !

how the reviewer determined if the prototype source used in the testing was i representative of the sources to be produced.

File Number: 9  :

Registry No.: CA 598-D-113-S SS&D Type: Model 484 , 484A, 4848, 484C ,

Manufacturer: JL Shepherd and Associates Date issued: 11/9/94 j Comments:

a) No peer review was conducted. Reviewers name was signed by the same person that performed the second review.

I b) Did not use ANSI standard for Category i Irradiators for this review. This standard has specific recommendations for dose rate and interlock performance. ,

l c) Change in Model #'s without reference to old number will cause confusion to license reviewer and inspectors when working with older license documents.

d) Drawing (A-0484-4) notes source rods have aluminum source caps. Dissimilar  !

, metals may cause galvanic corrosion cells, also in fire analysis aluminum will melt.

Both of these issues should have been challenged as part of the review.

e) No use of lessons learned from the Mark I style irradiator lock that failed if not maintained properly.

l- f) Testing presented by the applicant not representative of the use conditions.  !

Reviewer relied on operational use, and the lack of reported problems with device l l since 1983 to make the determination. Application lacks data on function of the safety interlocks.

File Number: 10 )

- Registry No.: CA 406-S-102-S SS&D Type: Modei N-252 l Manufacturer: Isotope Products Laboratories, Inc. Date issued: l l

Comments:

! a) Source approved for 'Neillogging only if pressure tested to 25,000 PSI before l l release.

! b) No peer review was conducted.

c) ANSI Class 43333 denoted on Dwg A3004 yet testing section denotes 77C66535 d) Description indicates both capsules are some length (i.e.1.43 inches). However,  ;

Dwg #A3004 shows 1,48 inches. This is misleading information and could result in the source being forced into a piece of welllogging equipment by the user. Such an

, activity could damage the source.

e) Not clear if welllogging regulations regarding specific labeling requirements or ,

determination of insolubility of the various chemical compounds used were applied.

California Proposed Final Report G.5 SS&D Evaluation Reviews File Number: 11 Registry No.: CA 501-D-102-G SS&D Type: Model 4201 Manufacturer: Measurex Corporation Date issued:

Comments:

a) Increased activity to 3.75 curies of Kr-85 a factor of about 3 increase. No reevaluation to determine compliance with the generallicense safety criteria was made. Nor did the reviewer believe it was needed. Increases in both beta dose and bremsstrahlung radiations should have been reviewed.

b) No tie-down to a 4/19/93 letter in the references section. This letter is the basis for the amendment action.

c) Appears that the registration sheet and the review approved design of source holder and not the gauging device. Reviewer believes that this is addressed by commitments in the vendors license. Although this information could not be located in the files. Reviewer believes, based on interactions with the licensee, that the source holder is never sold as a gauging device it is always place into a source housing of device.

File Number: 12 Registry No.: CA 510-S-113-S SS&D Type: Model MED 3400 Manufacturer: North American Scientific, Inc. Date issued:

Comments

l a) Source rod materials of construction should have been identified to determine what chemicals affect the materials of construction of the source rod and what is the temperature range that the source rod can withstand. Such information can be i used to set limitation on conditions of use of the source.

b) QA/QC program only addressed radiochemical purity and activity based on gamma spectroscopy. Since, beta emitters are approved for use in the source this approach should have been found unacceptable, c) No peer review was conducted.

File Number: 13 Registry No.: CA 406-S-182-S SS&D Type: Model A3410 Manufacturer: Isotope Products Laboratories, Inc. Date issued:

Comments:

a) Sources can be 33" long bend test requirement should have beer. considered.

b) Reviewer approved the use of both TIG welding and electren beam weld. Because the advantages and disadvantages are unique to each typa of welding. The reviewer should have evaluated both of these welding methods to determine if both were acceptable.

c) ANSI designation given for the source does not meet the vibration requirement for gauping sources as recommended in the ANSI standard. No rationale could be located to support such a deviation from the standard.

I I

l

i ! l l

California Proposed Final Report G.6 l SS&D Evaluation Reviews d) No supporting documentation to support this source review could be located.

However, the peer review checklist indicated that all documentation was present i and adequate.

File Number: 14 Registry No.: CA 471-D-103-B SS&D Type:

Manufacturer: NDC Systems, Inc. Date issued: 10/22/93 Comments: Amended by 4/28/95 a) General licensees are authorized to perform shutter check but no review was cor. ducted to determine if the general licensees' exposure from this activity combined with the routine use exposure would still be within the safety criteria.

b) Source is epoxied into a tungsten collimator. Specification of the epoxy, and affect of radiation should have been obtained and analyzed to determine if it will withstand the useful life of the device.

c) No QA Manual was provided or reviewed for this action d) No peer review of the amendment was conducted.

File Number: 15 Registry No.: CA 533-D-104-G SS&D Type: Model Gamma 104-P Manufacturer: Peco Controls Corporation Date issued:

Comments:

a) Amended to allow general licensees to conduct certain maintenance activities.

However, no dose scenarios were submitted or reviewed to determine compliance with the general license safety criteria, b) Dwg should have tolerances identified to allow the reviewer to check for binding problems also to determine if spaces around sources will allow sufficient hot glue to be placed around the source.

c) Need specification of temperature and radiation resistance for the hot weld glue used to hold source in place.

d) Exposure rate on direct contact in the beam shows an increase of about 20%.

However, the source activity was increased about 200% Reviewer, should question this data for accuracy of measurement or calculation performed by the applicant.

e) Performance specifications for lexan used as the protective cover should have been obtained. Some lexan degrades as function or time and exposure to environmental conditions such as exposed to UV radiation. Review should determine if loss of lexan cover will maintain integrity for the life of the device.

File Number: 16 Registry No.: CA 598-D-106-S SS&D Type: Model 28 (78) Services Manufacturer: JL Shepherd & Associates Date issued:

Comments:

! a) This revision of a 1980 sheet was to change principal use from Category 11 to a Category I irradiator.

J ,

California Proposed Final Report G.7 SS&D Evaluation Reviews l

b) Review should have evaluated design in accordance with ANSI-N433.1,1977 for Category Iirradiators. This standard has performance specification for dose rate -

and interlocks used in this type of equipment. Ano reviewing regulatory Guide 10.9 i may have provided some information to be used in the review. l c) Should have reevaluated the lock assembly to deteemine if generic failure as with i Mark i units can occur and what corrective action is needed either by the vendor or [

the user of the equipment. Reviewer indicated staff was not aware of any lock failures with the Mark I units and therefore did nnt look into it. This may apply to all JL Shepherd certificated issued.

F;le Number: 17 Registry No.: CA 384-D-109-S SS&D Type: Model IR-100 i Manufacturer: Ir:dustrial Nuclear Company, Inc. Date issued:

i Comments:

a) Amended in its entirety to reflect that the device and associated equipment meets ,

10 CFR Part 34 equipment requirements. However, no supporting documentation  !

could be found to confirm that a demonstration by the applicant had been submitted  ;

for review.  :

b) Device Dwgs with dimensions on criteria safety component could not be located. i c) Sources models 32 & 33 had a design change apparently verbally approve in early  !

1993. The change was in source length from 7.15" to 7" but no change to sheets [

have occurred. Other regulatory agencies use the information on source assemblies j to determine if another suppliers source can be used in the specified device. j inconsistencies in information could result in a vendor supplying a source that meets i the registration sheet but will not properly fit or function in a radiography camera.

d) No peer review was conducted. ,

e) In April 1996 the State evaluated complaints about wording in the user manual for  !

the IR-100 device regarding cranking out the sources and testing the new lock  ;

assembly. The vendor was to modify the manual and send out a notice to known i users advising them of the change in wording. Nothing could be located to '

determine if this action was completed by INC. The closure or this action may have been verbally discussed with the vendor.

File Number: 18 '

Registry No.: CA 510-S-114-S SS&D Type: Model MED 3550 i Manufacturer: North American Scientific, Inc. Date issued: l Comments:

a) Low activity calibration source manufactured with epoxy resin.

b) Incressed the activity of NARM use in the source. Reviewer should have also corrected the radiation levels affected by the increase in activity.

c) Missing a 9/27/95 letter from the reference section of the registration certificate.

T  :

l w- t i

I California Proposed Final Report G.8 l SS&D Evaluation Reviews l

i File Number: 19 l l Registry No.: CA 471-D-102-B SS&D Type: Model 101,102, l l

103,104,108,200,210,220 t Manufacturer: NDC Systems, Inc. Date issued:

l Comments: ,

a) Amendeo to allow general licensees to remove and reinstall the devices following new labels and instructions. Reviewers did not assess if worker doses still meet the ,

general license safety criteria. l b) Use of epoxy to hold the source in place should have resulted in question regarding l the ability of the epoxy to hold up to the radioactive dose and the operational temperature ranges of the devices.

c) Dwg 621710 was missing material of construction dimension, specific to the 4 automatic shutter systems. This information is necessary for the reviewer to evaluated the adequacy of the test conditions and results submitted to support this amendment request.

d) Automatic shutters that are pneumatic are prone to failures associated with air quality. Particularly in typical equipment users air supply systems. Since the general licensee is relying on the shutter to return the source to fully shield position, specific air purity specifications should have been part of the instruction to the general license.

e) While a shutter cycle shutter test of 10,000 was conducted, it is not clear what this represents in the life of devices and if the environmental ranges the device is used in are addressed by the test.

f) Materials of construction of the label were not assessed to determine if they would likely remain legible for some period when in use. i' g) The reviewer should have asked for an additional test to simulate dropping devices, given that the general licensee will remove and reinstall the device and is more likely to drop it and damage it than before when used as a fixed gauge only.

b) No peer review was conducted. Although the reviewer referred to 10 CFR 32.51 when performing this review. The reviewer was unclear on how far he could apply this regulation to a State license. A checklist in this area would have helped resolve the reviewers concern.

File Number: 20 Registry No.: CA 406-S-127-S SS&D Type: Model HEG-xxx (formerly 225) i Manufacturer: Isotope Product Laboratories, Inc. Date issued:

Comments:

a) Sources approved for use in calibration, gauging and welllogging applications.

b) Requirements for the use of insoluble forms of radioactive materials and specific  ;

I labeling requirement for welllogging application does not seem to have been  !

addressed. For example no data could be found on solubility of chloride or nitrate in ceramic, or oxides in gold or aluminum.

c) No peer review was conducted, i

l

_ . _ . _ _ . . . .__ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ __.-m _. _ .-

% l .

=

l

~ i California Proposed Final Report G.9 SS&D Evaluation Reviews t

File Number: 21 l

Registry No.: CA 598-S-119-S SS&D Type: Model 6810 l

Manufacturer: JL Shepherd & Associates Date Issued:

l l Comments: i a) No peer review was conducted. ,

b) Amendment added an alternate source supplier for this generic case of source  ;

design.

c) Aluminum is used as a spacer in the capsules. Dissimilar metals could result in ,

formation of a galvanic corrosion cell under the correct conditions. Possible  ;

corrosion mode should be evaluated.

File Number: 22 I Registry No. CA 102-D-101-S SS&D Type: Model Vantage Manufacturer: ADAC Laboratories, Inc. Date issued: 5/8/95 Amended l

Comments:

a) Not clear if aluminum and steelinterface was evaluated for possibility of formation ,

of a galvanic cell that could cause corrosion, b) Labellocation and materials of construction of the label were not identified.

c) Actual conditions of use of the device and possible multiple source removal and  ;

installations should have been considered as part of the review. Damage from user dropping source, bending it and having to force the source in place or breaking it by bending is to extreme angles is likely given the frequent need for source removal and replacement. This testing or analysis would have augmented the tests submitted for the source housing.

d) Section 1.8 of the user's manual informs user on how to install the source. The manual would appear to require the user to install the source using both hands to hold the source steady. The review should have assessed the hand and whole body doses associated with following the vendors procedure on handling the sources.

e) No peer review was conducted.

f) Dwgs, provide weak information about critical safety components. The dwgs do not provide enough detail on how the source is held in place, material of construction and tolerances between moving components to allow a reviewer to assess the adequacy of the test results.

I

.. m s .

l

• STATE OF CAMPORNIA 4EALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY pgTg w h w DEPARTMENT OF HEAL.TH SERVICES .

714/744 P STREET f P G, OOK 942732 SACRAMENTO, CA 942M 7320 $

g l

l (916) 657 1425 agu e May 5, 1997 l Woen

~

! I

=

L ro Mr. Richard L.Bangart, Director "

l Office ofState Programs l U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 l 1

Dear Mr. Bangart:

Hank you for your letter of March 11,1997, and the Draft Report on the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review of California's Agreement State prognun which was conducted October 21-25,1996. I have been informed by the staffinvolved in the review that it was conducted in a very professional manner and that the IMPEP review p m itselfis a great improvement over the process previously used by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Especially important was the psgctive and balance brought to the review team and its conclusions by the inclusion on the review team of a representative .

from another Agreement State. l The draft report has been reviewed and found to be accurate in its factual findings. ,

The draft report identifies two areas of concem, the timely adoption of regulations and the  !

quality of sealed source and device (SS&D) evaluations. The Department of Health Services is  !

trying to make improvements in both of these areas, and I believe that the draft report bears out the fact that improvements have been made in both ar'eas since the time of the last review.

I Over the long term, the solution is getting more people to work in these activities. Toward that goal, the Radiologic Health Branch (RHB) has conducted a baseline study ofits mandates, i responsibilities, and activities and the resomces, both people and funding, m>===y to meet these. As a result of that baseline study, RHB developed and presented a Budget Change Proposal (BCP) which if approved would significantly increase both the staff and funding of RHB. His BCP was supported by this Department, the Health and Welfare Agency, the Department of Finance, and is included in the Governor's Budget for the next fiscal year beginning July 1,1997. Presently the BCP is awaiting budget committee hearings in both the Assembly and the Senate. We are optimistic that the BCP will be em>=dul. If approved, there j would be an additional $3,123,000 and 38.5 full time equivalents added to the present budget and

! staffofRIIB.

l ATTACMENT 2 V5LS DM& f -_

- . ~ _ - . - - . - - - _ - . . - . _

t .

4 Mr. Richard L. Bangart '

Page 2 i~ ,

Additional staff would include two health physicists for regulation development and adoption work and an attorney for efforts related to regulation development and adoption and other activities of RHB requiring legal advice and assistance such as enforcement efforts.

Included in the BCP are three additional health physicists and support staff for the unit that performs SS&D evaluations. Also included in the BCP is a request for $180,000 to pay for technical training of the staff of RHB to replace training previously provided by NRC. We still feel that NRC is remiss in not providing training to the staffs of Agreement States, especially in j view of the amount ofmoney paid to NRC by licensees in Agreement States and the overall savings in federal costs that the Agreement States provide. I sincerely hope and request that the

C-mi-ioners of NRC will reconsider this decision.

i With regard to the present status ofregulations that were found to be overdue for adoption,

[

the following information is provided:

l. " Definition of Land Disposal and Waste Site QA Program"- There he.s been no change in

[ the status of this regulation since the time of the review, and it is still scheduled for adoption l

i by October 1,1997.

2. " Notification ofIncidents"- This regulation involves a notification requirement that was i-inadvertently deleted by NRC when it adopted a complete revision of 10 CFR Part 20, and l therefore had to be subsequently readopted by NRC. RHB, in adopting 10 CFR Part 20 by reference, also deleted this previously required notification. Proposed regulations to add this provision into the California regulations were submitted to the Office of Regulations (OR) on g- Febmary 5,1997, and are currently set for public hearing on June 9,1997. From the time a proposed regulation is presented to OR, it is a minimum of 274 days before the regulation

, can become effective unless it is submitted as an emergency regulation, which this one was 4

not. From a practical standpoint, California licensees are already complying with the notification requirements of this regulation because they were used to the old regulation which was rescinded. For example, earlier this year ICN had a fire at its facility that did not i meet any of the notification or reporting requirements in the current California regulations;

] nonetheless RHB was notified immediately of the fire and the resultant damage.

3. " Quality Management Program and Mi=dministrations"- California regulations presently contain a more stringent mi=dministration wyvning requirement than do those ofNRC. We do not intend to lessen those requirements to be identical to those of the NRC. No action is planned on the quality management program portion of the NRC regulation until the l

Commissioners of the NRC reach final resolution on the recommendations of the National l Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine study regarding NRC's role in the regulation of the medical use of radioactive materials and other sources of radiation.

l

. - - -.~ -. . - - ~ - . - . - - - - . - - - - . - . _ . - - . _ . - -

i.

y l  !

j Mr. Richard L. Bangart e Page 3  :

! i F

4. " Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators"- RHB is currently preparing l

the regulation package to submit to begin the regulation adoption process. It is anticipated  !

that this package will be submitted to OR by the end ofJune 1997. Historically, RHB has l licensed five large irradiator facilities of the type covered by this regulation; in addition, i

!. several other machine irradiation facilities with similar hazards and radiation dose rates are  ;

regulated by RHB. The first license for a large irradiator using radioactive materials was 4-issued by RHB on February 20,1%9. In the almost 30 years since, RHB has licensed four  ;

additional facilities and overseen the decontamination and &+:.mmissioning of two of these  !

facilities. The three currently licensed facilities meet all the licensing requirements in 10 )

CFR Part 36 and are subject to all safety equipment and procedures of those regulations.

During the review these substantive determinations were made by the review team. The absence of Califomia regulations identical to those of NRC does not constitute a health and l

, safety issue at any of the three large irradiators in California. All requirements of 10 CFR j 4

Part 36 have been met in the license application review process, license conditions, and other l

California regulations.

'Ihe other program area found to need improvement was the SS&D evaluation effort. RHB has already begun to address all the issues and recommendations noted in the Draft Report. Two staff members, Daid Wesley, Senior Health Physicist, and Thomas A. Schell, Associate Health

, Physicist, attended the " Workshop on Scaled Source and Device Evaluations" that was held at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, on April 7-11,1997. As other workshops and

training courses become available, other RHB staff will attend to receive training in the new pucesses and procedures used in SS&D evaluation and documentation. It is anticipated that all issues raised by the Draft Report will be fully resolved by the time of the Management Review e Board (MRB) meeting at which final determinations are made with regard to the adequacy and

compatibility of the California Agreement State program.

i j In conclusion, we feel that the Agreement State program in Ce!ifornia is not only adequate  !

j but is doing an excellent job of protecting the health and safety of radiation workers and other J members of the public from the potentially deleterious effects of radiation from radioactive materials. It is our conclusion that the program is in all substantive matters compatible with the  ;

requirements, policies, and procedures of the NRC. We believe that MRB will also find the  ;

Agreement State program in Califomia adequate to protect the public health and safety and

. compatible with the regulatory requirements and programs of the NRC. l a 1 i

+

(z .

l L ,

1 Mr. Richard L. Bangart Page 4 i

l \

l We look forward to meeting with MRB and our continued mutual effort to maintain and  !

unprove the radiologic health of the nation. If we can provide you with additional information or J answer any questions, please contact me or Larry Barrett, D.V.M., M.S., Chief, Division of Food, Drug, and Radiation Safety, at (916) 324-3266.

Sincerely, Wt- kY S. Kimberly Belshd nirector cc: Dr. Shirley Ann Jack:,an, Chairman Mr. Nils Diaz, Comminioner Ms. Greta Dieus, Commissioner Mr. Edward McGaffigan, Commissioner Mr. Kenneth Rogms, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 l.

l l

F .,. .~  !

Aaenda for Manaasment Review Board Meetina Thursdav. June 5,1997.10:00 a.m., OWFN. 4-B-6 l

1. Convention. MRB Chair convenes meeting. (R. Bangart)

2. New Business - Consideration of California IMPEP Report.

A. Introduction of California IMPEP Team Members. (L. Bolling) l i

B. Introduction of California representative and other State representatives {

participating through telephone bridge. (K. Schneider)

C. Findings regarding California Program. (IMPEP Team)  ;

Status of Inspection Program Technical Staffing / Training Technical Quality of Licensing  !

Technical Quality of Inspections Response to incidents / Allegations )

Legislation and Rep,ulations Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program Low-Level Radioactive 'Naste Disposal Program l D. Questions. (MRB Members) i i

J E. Comments from State of California. (E. Bailey) l F. MFB Consultation / Comments on issuance of Report. (R. Bangart) l i

Recommendation for next IMPEP review I

! 3. Old Business - MRB Minutes. (OSP)

4. Status of Upcoming Reviews. (KSchneider) l

5. Adjournment. (RBangart) i Invitees: Richard Bangart, Acting MRB Chair  !

Karen Cyr, MRB Member, OGC i

Carl Paperiello, MRB Member, NMSS i Denwood Ross, MRB Member, AEOD ,

! Roland Fletcher, MD, Agreement State Liaison to MRB I l Edgar Bailey, California I Paul Lohaus, OSP Don Cool, NMSS Lloyd Bolling, IMPEP Team Leader, OSP Jack Hornor, IMPEP Member, RIV, WCFO  ;

Allen Grewe, IMPEP Member, TN )

. Craig Gordon, IMPEP Member, RI, NRC  !

Steven Baggett, IMPEP Member, NMSS j Lance Rakovan, OSP  !

Kathleen Schneider, OSP ATTACHMENT 3 :

,