ML20135D609

Forwards for Review Draft of Integrated Matls Performance Evaluation Program Rept Which Documents Results of Agreement States Review Held in Baton Rouge,La on 961007-11

ML20135D609
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/14/1997
From:	Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Givens J LOUISIANA, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 9703050366
Download: ML20135D609 (69)

Text

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

preg % owireo .r r..

1 g j g

NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSIDN l WASHINGTON, D.C. 30066-0001

+ February 14, 1997

. Mr. J. Dale Givens, Secretary i

Department of Environmental Quality P. O. Box 82231 Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2231

Dear Mr. Givens:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is implementing, on an interim basis, the integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) for use in the evaluation of Agreement State Programs. Enclosed for your review is the draft IMPEP report which documents the results of the Agreement State review held in your offices on October 7- I 11,1996. Richard Woodruff, Regional State Agreements Officer, Region 11, was the team leader for the Louisiana review. The review team's recommendations were discussed with i

, members of your staff on October 11,1996. I NRC has significantly changed the manner in which periodic reviews are conducted for Agreement State programs to assure that public health and safety is adequately protected

, from the hazards associated with the use of radioactive materials and that Agreement State programs are compatible with NRC's program. The new process, titled IMPEP, employs a team of NRC and Agreement State staff to assess both Agreement State and NRC Regional Office radioactive materials licensing and inspection programs. All reviews use common criteria in the assessment and place primary emphasis on performance. Four additional areas have been identified as non-common indicators and are also addressed in the assessment. The final determination of adequacy and compatibility of each Agreement i

State program, based on the review team's report, will be made by a Management Review l Board (MRB) composed of NRC managers and an Agreement State program manager who i

serves as a liaison to the MRB.

in accordan::e with procedures for implementation of IMPEP, we are providing you with a copy of the draft team report for review prior to submitting the report to the MRB. Your review of the draft report should focus on factual correctness of information reported by the team. I specifically request any clarifying information that you have about the number of reciprocity notifications you received from Priority 1,2, and 3 licensees and the number

of reciprocity inspections conducted by your radiation control program. I am asking that you provide your response to me within two weeks of receipt of this letter. We recognize and apologize for the delay that has occurred in the completion of this draft. Please notify me if you will require more than two weeks to respond.

i The team will review the response, make any necessary changes to the report and issue it to the MRB as a proposed final report. We will coordinate with you to establish the date for the MRB review of the Louisiana report and will provide invitational travel for you or

, your designee to attend.

i g58 2 0500 %-

NBC Rif CENTER COPY s i

9703050366 970214 PDR STPRO ESGLA PDR YJp l2.

, l

^

l J. Dale Givens If you have any questions regarding the enclosed report, please contact me at (301) 415-3340 or Richard Woodruff at (404) 331-5545.

, Sincerely, i di dit L sgs

- Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs l Enclo',ure:

As stated cc: H. Bohlinger, Deputy Secretary l Department of Environmental Quality G. Von Bodungen, Assistant Secretary i I

l Office of Air Quality and Radiation Protection R. Wascom, Deputy Assistant Secretary Office of Air Quality and Radiation Protection W. H. Spell, Administrator i

Radiation Protection Division i

4 e

i

)

4 4

1 i

1

l

\ ,

I ,

?.

l "?

. 3 J. Dale Givens y i FEB 14 tgg )

l ,

if you, have any questions regarding the enclosed report, please contact me at  !

, (301)L415-3340 ~or Richard Wo'odruff at (404) 331-5545. l

., i

.3' l

'i "q Sincerely, l

! y. . .U- ,t i +j l

' , ' , a OngM Shned By l ,A*, , 4 ^

RfCHARD L BANGART

.g 4 C '

Richard L Bangart, Director l 7

(

Office of State Programs l

. Enclosu're: -

As stated 'C l

'I '

'cc: 'H. Bohlinger, Deputy Secretary Department of Environmental Quality ,

\

G. Von Bodungen, Assistant Secretary Office of Air Quality and Radiation Protection R. Wascom, Deputy Assistant Secretary Office of Air Quality and Radiation Protection W. H. Spell, Administrator Radiation Protection Division Distribution:

DIR RF (DCD'(SPO1')

RLBangart ,PDR (YES W NO )

PLohaus SBaggett SDroggitis EDrinnon, GA ' FED EX TO: J. Dale Givens RWoodruff JMyers 2/14/97 H.Bohlinger KSchneider JHornor G. Vnn Bodungen FCameron GDeegan P.Wascom ,

HNewsome CHackney W. Spell  !

Louisiana File R. Woodruff  ;

E.Drinnon j l DOCUMENT NAME: G:\KXS\96DRLTR.LA G:\KXS\LAIMP96.DFT l

! v- . . r .e mi. m , me m m. mir c co , ==hom .n.ch no.now. cc - copy ==* .n. chm.au.new. g - we con i OFFICE Ril/KNS for lE OSP:DD l OSP:D[f L / l j NAME RWoodruff PHLohaus RLBangart  ;

DATE 1/23/97*- 4 1/29/97* M//197 See Previous Concurrence.  ? SP FILE CODE: SP-AG .12 ' Er

/

• y

( #

{

l 1

J.. Dale Givens  !

If you have any questions regarding the enclosed report, please c ' tact me at

! (301) 415-3340 or Richard Woodruff at (404) 331-5545.

I Sincerely, Richard L. Bangart, Director i

Office of State Programs

Enclosure:

! As stated l cc: H. Bohlinger, Deputy Secretary Department of Environmental Quali y

. G. Von Bodungen, Assistant S retary

Office of Air Quality and Radiation Protection R. Wascom, Deputy Assis,t t Secretary

. Office of Air Quality and adiation Protection W. H. Spell,' Administrator

Radiation Protecti fDivision y

J 4

i ,, <

+ ., '. - '

, Distribution: ,,

3 DIR RF / DCD (SP01) ,,s

'3 RLBangart / (. PDR (YES x NO' ) '

a PLohaus SBaggett -

SDroggitis ,EDrinnon, GA '

• l RWcodruff / JMyers ,

)

KSchneider / JHornor .

FCImIron / GDeegan HNewsome CHackney Louisi;na File'j'

/

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\KXS\96DRLTR. LA G:WXS\LAIMP96.DFT  ;

n m . 4y .e ei. 4 .m m. i.e. in m. 6.c c - cA Mui .ti. chm.nt/.nclosur. 'P = Copy with .tt. chm.nt/.ncio.ure "N" = No copy l OFFICE RII K&l E OSP:h5 $ OSP:D l l NAME RWoodrufffud PHLoha Js RLBangart DATE 1/ra /97 1/4t/97 1/ /97 SP FILE CODE: SP-AG-12 l I

l

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

a ll i

i l

! INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM i

! REVIEW OF LOUISIANA AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM OCTOBER 7-11,1996 9

l 1

DRAFT REPORT i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

4 1

l Louisiana Draft Report Page 1

(

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

i The review was conducted during the period October 7-11,1996, by a review team comprised of technical staff members from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Agreement State of Georgia. Team members are identified in Appendix A. The review

, was conducted in accordance with the " interim implementation of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program Ponding Final Commission Approval of the Statement of

] Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program and the Policy Statement on i Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs," published in the Fadaral l Bagiatar on October 25,1995, and the September 12,1995, NRC Management Directive j 5.6, "Integretsd Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)." Preliminary results of )

the review, which covered the period September 4,1993, to October 11,1996, were j discussed with Louisiana management on October 11,1996. 1 1

[ Paragraph on Results of MRB meeting will be included in fnal report. Attachment 1, State's response, will be included in final report.)

l The Louisiana Office of Air Quality and Radiation Protection is the agency within Louisiana

,! State government that regulates environmental issues, and radiation hazards. The Secretary i of this Office is appointed by, and reports directly to, the Governor. Within this Office, the i Louisiana radiation control program is administered by the Radiation Protection Division  !

(RPD). The RPD organization chart is included as Appendix B. The Louisiana program

regulated 511 specific licenses at the time of the review. In addition to radioactive l j materials, the Division is responsible for control of machine-produced radiation,

environmental surveillance, emergency planning and response, and redon c

antrol. The review focused on the materials program as it is carried out under the Section 274b. (of the l

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) Agreement between the NRC and the State of j Louisiana.

In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common and non-common

indicators was sent to the State on August 8,1996. Louisiana provided its response to the I questionnaire on September 16,1996. A copy of that response is included as Appendix C to this report.

l The team's general approach for conduct of this review consisted of: (1) examination of I Louisiana's response to the questionnaire, (2) review of applicable Louisiana statutes and

! regulations, (3) analysis of quantitative information from the Division's licensing and

inspection data base, (4) technical review of selected files, (5) field accompaniments of 4 three Louisiana inspectors, and (6) interviews with staff and management to answer i 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 j

preliminary assessment of the radiation control program's performance.

Section 2 below discusses the State's actions in response to recommendations made j following the previous review. Results of the current review for the IMPEP common performance indicators are presented in Section 3. Section 4 discusses results of the

]

j 1

i

{ Louisiana Draft Report Page 2

?

4 j applicable non-common indicators, and Section 5 summarizes the review team's findings j and recommendations.

i 2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS I

The previous routine review concluded on September 3,1993, and the results were j transmitted to Mr. Kai David Midboe, Secretary, Department of Environmental Quality, on

! April 11,1994. Findings of adequacy and compatibility were withheld because of j significant deficiencies in the indicator, Adequacy of Product Evaluations and the fact that certain regulations were not promulgated within the 3-year timeframe recommended by l NRC. NRC conducted a follow up review of the program on February 2124,1995 to i evaluate the effectiveness of the State's actions to address the recommendations from the

1993 review, and to assess the current status of the State's program.' The results of this

] follow up review were transmitted to Mr. William A. Kucharski, Secretary, Department of j Environmental Quality on May 9,1995. The Secretary was informed that the NRC staff i determined that at that time, the Louisiana program for regulation of Agreement Materials l was adequate to protect public health and safety, and compatible with the regulatory

program of the NRC, since all of the recommendations were determined to be satisfactorily i resolved.

! 3.0 ' COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS l I

i IMPEP identifies five common performance indicators to be used in reviewing both NRC  !

Regianal and Agreement State programs. These indicators are: (1) Status of Materials '

Inspection .".ogram, (2) Technical Staffing and Training, (3) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, (4) Technical Ouslity of Inspections, and (5) Response to incidents and Allegations.

! I

3.1 m='"= av u...,i.i. in.n.r. inn p,no. ram i

j The team focused on four factors in reviewing this indicator: inspection frequency, overdue i inspections, initial inspection of new licenses, and timely dispatch of inspection findings to j licensees. This evaluation is based on Louisiana's questionnaire responses to this indicator,  ;

i from data gathered independently from the State's licensing and inspection data tracking l l system, the examination of licensing and inspection casework files, and interviews with

] managers and staff.

! l j Review of the State's inspection pnonties showed that the State's inspection frequencies l for various types, or groups, of licenses are at least as frequent as similar license types, or i groups, listed in the NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800 (IMC 2800) frequencies schedule.

! Inspection frequencies under the State's system range from one year to five year intervals.

! The State requires more frequent inspections in some license categories to maintain j consistency with X-ray inspections. Some medical facilities are inspected on a two-year i frequency when compared with an NRC three year or five-year frequency; broad academic i licenses have a one year frequency compared with an NRC three year frequency; and

{ portable gauges have a four-year frequency compared with the NRC's five year frequency.

j Level and density gauge licensees who participate in the State's self-inspection program are

) extended to a five-year inspection cycle. The inspection frequencies of licenses selected for

license and inspection file reviews were compared with the frequencies listed in the State's j

b l 1

1

-,1 _..,.-- . , , ,. , _- - . , - . . . ., __. .. ,. - - . . . . - . .

, 1

?

Louisiana Draft Report Page 3 4

data system and were consistent with the State's system and at least as frequent as similar license types under the IMC 2800 system.

4 in their response to the questionnaire, Louisiana indicated that as of October 12,1996, only j one core inspection identified in IMC 2800 was overdue by more than 25 percent of the

! NRC frequency. This number is well within the 10 percent criterion for overdue inspections 4 of Management Directive 5.6. This licensee was inspected on September 27,1996.

i

! One new licensee was inspected at nine months rather than at a six-month interval. One

initial inspection was also found to be overdue but a memo was in the file indicating that l the inspection period had been extended because the licensee had not received radioactive l material. One other initial inspection of a new licenses was performed at a period greater

! than the recommended six month period. This license was found to be overdue by

] approximately 11 months. The inspection file did not contain any explanation for the delayed inspection.

Discussions with management and staff were conducted to determine how inspections are i assigned and entered into the system. The administrative staff enters data on a monthly basis. It is noted that the State uses a six-month interval for generating a printout. Quality I checks on the data are performed by inspectors and management using the updated pnntout. Once reviewed, the computer printout is used for inspection planning.

i l The timeliness of the issuance of inspection findings was evaluated during the inspection file

review. Twenty-one files were examined. They covered approximately 50 inspections j l performed during the review period. Most inspection correspondence was sent to the

, licensee within 30 days after an inspection. inspections performed from late 1994 to early I i 1996 had noticeably longer times between the inspection and the issuance of the inspection l 1 report or Confirmatory Orders. Several cases spanned a 10-month interval. One action was

not issued at the direction of the Secretary due to the long delay between the inspection

and the enforcement action. This licensee was promptly reinspected.

! In early 1996, the long period of time between inspection and enforcement action reversed.

i The State identified several problems in its inspection and enforcement program and i l corrected them. Inspection and enforcement actions are now being processed in a timely I

! manner.

! l J Louisiana does not collect data on reciprocity inspections in a manner similar to NRC. A l

direct statistical correlation cannot be made to the suggested IMPEP criteria. The State i reported in their response that 901 requests for reciprocity were received during the review

! period. Only 300 of these requests were from licensees having an inspection frequency of i three years, or less. Thus, Priority One, Two or Three requests number about 100 per year.

The State indicated that sbout 75 (75%) of these requests are from a single radiography company which is also a Louisiana radiography licensee. Not all of the remaining 25 j notifications are radiography activities. The exact number of radiography netifications could

not be determined from the data available. Assuming that all 25 reciprocity notifications I were radiography activities and the State performed only five radiography reciprocity inspections within the last year, their rate would be at minimum 20%. Realistically, about i 12 (50%) of the 25 notifications were radiography activities giving the State a 42% rate for i

l l

J

, . - n - , -, , , - , , , - -

i I i

Louisiana Draft Report Page 4 licensees in addition to compensating measures such as annual, or more frequent, inspections by other regulatory authorities and information sharing between the agencies provide sufficient assurance for safety.

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

3.2 I=ehaie=1 R*=ffiae mad Tralaine issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the radioactive materials program l staffing level, technical qualifications of the staff, training, and staff turnover. To evaluate i these issues, the review team examined the State's questionnaire responses relative to thS indicator, interviewed RPD management and staff, and considered any possible workload  ;

backlogs. The RPD organization chart shows that the Division was funded for 44 persons at I the time of the review.

The Compliance Branch consists of the Surveillance Section (8 positions), the inspection &

Quality Assurance Section (5 positions), and the Enforcement Section (7 positions). The Surveillance Section personnel are located at seven RDP Regional Offices throughout the State and the personnel perform both materials inspections and x-ray inspections. The inspection & Quality Assurance Section personnel are located in Baton Rouge and they also perform both materials and x-ray inspections. The personnel (15) utilized for materials inspections were all determined to be qualified and trained in health physics and inspection procedures. These inspectors have completed the core courses for the types of licenses they are qualified to inspect. The team did not identify any inspection backlogs.

The Regulatory Branch consists of a Ucensing & Registration Section (9 positions), and a l Emergency Planning and Response Section (6 positions). All of the materials licensing functions and the sealed source and device evaluations are performed by 3 persons in the Ucensing & Registration Section. The Ucensing Coordinator performs most of the materials licensing actions, and was determined to have many years experience in that function in addition to the NRC licensing training. Two other staff persons and the Branch Manager, have also been trained in Ucensing Practices. In addition, a Nuclear Engineer attended the NRC Sealed Source & Device Workshop in September of 1995. The team did not identify any licensing or device evaluation backlogs during the review. Additional discussion of 4 Sealed Source & Device (SS&D) personnel training is covered in Section 4.2.2 The RDP has established qualifications for the technical positions of Environmental Radiation Specialist (ERS) I, ERS 11, and ERS lli. Applicants at the entry level (ERS I) are required to have a baccalaureate degree and are assigned duties in the x-ray program until additional training is received in health physics, nuclear medicine uses, materials licensing, inspection procedures, industrial radiography, well logging, and emergency response. After sufficient training and experience, the ERS l's are eligible for promotion and for assignment to materials licensing and/or inspection duties. Staff are assigned increasingly complex 1 licensing duties under the direction of senior staff, and accompany experienced inspectors during increasingly complex compliance inspections. Staff are required to demonstrate competence during accompaniments by the supervisor. This information was verified

I i

) Louisiana Draft Report Page 5 l through discussions with managers and staff, review of the questionnaire response, and

review of the position descriptions. The team determined that all staff utilized for the

agfeement matetials program were technically qualified by evidence of their training and

experience; however, additional training for the SS&D program is discussed under Section j 4.2.2.

1 l The RPD Administrator reported that several persons (12) had left the Division since the l 1993 review, many left for higher paying jobs, or to return to graduate school. Retaining

qualified personnel was reported as a continuing problem. The Division, however, has been

!- able to recruit qualified people and provide training as needed to maintain the workloads in

! the agreement materials area. The Organization chart shows 2 vacancies in the Emergency

l. Response Section, and 1 vacant Specialist 3 position and a vacant Coordinator position in j the inspection & Quality Assurance Section. The Coordinator's position duties are currently j being fulfilled with an ERS lil person. The State has demonstrated a willingness to provide training for their staff and to shift qualified personnelinto the vacant positions in order to maintain current workloads in the agreement materials area.

l

Based on the training that program personnel have taken during the review period, the State l appears supportive of continued staff training, and management demonstrated a l commitment to staff training during the review. However, the State has concerns as to the  ;

impact of NRC's change in policy for funding State training will have on their program.

l Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Louisiana's j performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found l satisfactory.

! 3.3 Tachaie=8 thath af I leannian Ae'iana 1

i The review team examined completed licenses and casework for 60 license actions in 36

specific license files, representing the work of two license reviewers. The license reviewers

and supervisor were interviewed when needed to supply additionalinformation regarding l licensing decisions or file contents.

1 Licensing actions were reviewed for completeness; consistency; proper isotopes and l quantities authorized; qualifications of authorized users; adequate facilities and equipment;

and operating and emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing i actions. Licenses were reviewed for accuracy; appropriateness of the license and of its

! conditions and tie-down conditions; and overall technical quality. Casework was reviewed l for timeliness; adherence to good health physics practices; reference to appropriate

! regulations; documentation of safety evaluation reports; product certifications or other

supporting documents; consideration of enforcement history on renewals; pre-licensing j visits; peer or supervisory review as indicated; and proper signature authorities. The files were checked for retention of necessary documents and supporting data.

{

1 J The license casework was selected to provide a representative sample of licensing actions which had been completed in the review period and to include work by all reviewers. The i sampling included twenty six of the State's major licenses and included the following types:

j source and device manufacturing and distribution, industrial radiography (temporary and 4

)

L- _ __ ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , _ _ . _

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

i i

i 1.ouisiana Draft Report Page 6 i

j fixed job sites), mobile nuclear medicine, teletherapy, academic and medical broad scope,  ;

and nuclear pharmacy. Ucensing actions reviewed included 2 new,16 renewais,38 i

amendments, and 4 terminations. A list of these licensss with case specific comments can j be found in Appendix D.

i

! In general, the review team found that the licensing actions were thorough, complete, j consistent, of acceptable or higher quality, and with health and safety issues properly l addressed. Special license tie-down conditions were stated clearly, backed by information l contained in the file, and inspectable. The nine exemptions identified by the State in the

responses to the questionnaire were reviewed for this review period. All of them had valid

justifications, including a state analysis to grant an exemption for pipeliner licensees who l requested the exemption. Three of the exemptions were granted by letter and the six l pipeliner exemptions were granted by a speciallicense condition. The licensee's compliance

history was taken into account when reviewing renew applications as determined from j

o documentation in the license files and/or discussions with the license reviewers.-

l The review team found that terminated licensing actions were well documented, showing i appropriate transfer records and survey records. However, the licensee was not always

issued a letter stating that the site could be released for unrestricted use if the site use had j involved loose material with a half life of greater than 10 days. The team recommends that the State adopt a policy of issuing free release letters in all cases where loose material has

been used, and before the license is terminated. The review team found that the State did l not have any problem contaminated sites at this time.

l 1 The State currently utilizes a standard license condition on broad licenses and other licenses

{ with multiple location of use of material (multiple sites) that does not differentiate between 1

what radioactive materialis authorized at each different site or location of use. This l condition could allow all authorized material on the license to be used at all sites listed, and

} which was not always the intent of the license application reviewer. The State is in the l process of amending Condition 1 of licenses which authorize multiple sites of use (use

. locations). The team recommends that each location of use on multiple site licenses be

! revised by license condition to specify the material authorized for each different location of use or site.

l l The State license reviewers acknowledged that licensees have not been notified of the need j to file for reciprocity on sites which are exclusive federal jurisdiction according to All

! Agreement States i.etter SP 96-022. Ucenses which allow for temporary job sites have not i been amended to include a requirement to file for reciprocity when on sites which are exclusive federal jurisdiction. The team recommends that all " temporary job location" j licenses be notified of the procedure for determining jurisdiction, and that the standard l condition be revised in accordance with the All Agreement Letter SP 96-022 guidance.

I Ucenses were renewed on varying frequencies which generally corresponded to the j inspection frequency. The longest period for renewal was five years and the shortest period 4 was two years. Ucensees are tied down to previously submitted applications and supporting documentation which is no older than seven years. An entirely new application j is required at least every seven years to maintain the most current information in the license

, file.

f 1

d

l Louisiana Draft Report Page 7 The license reviewer passed each licensing action up through the supervisory chain for review. Alllicensing actions are signed by the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Environmental Quality.

The review team found that the current staff is well trained and experienced in a broad range of licensing activities. The casework was reviewed for adequacy and consistency with the NRC procedures. The State does not have official, written administrative procedures for licensing reviews. They follow their licensing guides during the review process to ensure that licensees submit the information necessary to support the dicense.

The licensing guides were very similar to the NRC guides. Based on the review of license files and discussions with the staff, the review team does not believe that written administrative procedures are necessary.

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

3.4 , Tachaic.i ru iiev of in.n r. inn.

The team reviewed the inspection reports, enforcement documentation, and the database information for more than 50 inspections conducted during the review period. The casework included all but four of the State's materials inspectors. The inspectors not included in the sampling are the newest members of the staff and are not yet fully qualified.

The review covered a sampling of the high priority categories of license types as follows:

five industrial radiography, five medical, one nuclear pharmacy, one broad medical, one broad academic, one academic, one well logging, and one portable gauge, and five reciprocity inspections. Appendix E provides a list of the inspection cases reviewed with case-specific comments.

in addition, several spot checks were performed on the files to verify proper inspection frequencies and that enforcement correspondence was being maintained in a consistent manner. In almost every case the files selected for review were determined to have the proper inspection frequency. The restiew of inspection and licensing files was coordinated during the review. This provided son's insight on how the State coordinates inspection  ;

findings with licensing actions.

The inspection procedures and techniqtes utilized by the State were reviewed and determined to be consistent with the inspection guidance provided in IMC 2800. The inspection report forms were found to l>e consistent with the types of information and data collected under IMC 2800. The report forms provided documentation of inspection findings in a consistent manner and in accordance with State policies and internal procedures. The State uses separate inspection report forms for various classes of license types, such as medical, portable gauges, fixed gauges, industrial radiography, accelerators, irradiators, gas chromatographs, broad licenses, and service type licenses. The inspection form provides documentation of licensee and radiation safety organization, scope of the licensee's program, material uses, procedures, leak tests, surveys, instrumentation, dosimetry, incidents, interviews with staff, confirmatory surveys, items of noncompliance, and exit interviews. The inspection form is used to create a narrative report of the inspection.

l l

a l Louisiana Draft Report Page 8 l j The review team found narrative inspection reports contained accurate information and met j the State's requirements. The narrative report provides a brief, clear, discussion of the inspection and relevant findings. The reports are sufficiently detailed to support escalated j enforcement actions. The State's enforcement letters are formal in style, oatail and '

language. The State uses a tracking system to follow enforcement actions. This system

! was found to be up-to-date and was used to verify the status of pending enforcement l actions and in resolving questions regarding missing documentation in the license file.

Most files contained complete inspection findings and related enforcement correspondence.

i However, the team noted in several cases that certain documents related to inspections or l related enforcement documentation were not in the license file. The staff was generally i able to locate missing documents for selected files within a short time, but not in all cases l as documented in the inspection casework listing, Appendix E. From a " performance"  !

j standpoint, the team believes that better qu'ality control is needed to assure that official j documentation concerning inspection and enforcement is maintained in the official file ,

j folder. The review team suggest? that the State reevaluate their document control system, 1 and take appropriate measures to assure that files are maintained complete and up to date.

Three inspector accompaniments were performed by a review team member during the period of September 23-24,1996. Two inspectors were accompanied in Shreveport, Louisiana area and one in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The accompaniments in Shreveport j involved two fixed radiographic facilities and one field radiography operation. These accompaniments are described in Appendix E. Other inspectors have been accompanied i during previous reviews.

During accompaniments, the Louisiana inspectors demonstrated appropriate inspection j techniques and knowledge of the State's regulations. The portable instruments used during

the inspector accompaniments were observed to be operational and calibrated. The

inspectors were observed to have TLD badges, an " Escort" badge, a direct reading i dosimeter and alarming rate meter on their person during the inspections. The inspectors l were well prepared and thoroughly knowledgeable of the licensees' radiation safety j programs. Overall, the technical performance of the inspectors was exceptional. Their

inspections conformed to State guidance and were more than adequate in scope and detail

to assess radiological health and safety at the inspected facilities.

1 i in response to the questionnaire, the State reported that nine inspectors were accompanied by supervisors during the review period. Based on a review of approximately 60 records, the State appears to have a well organized supervisory accompaniment program. The t evaluation forms for each accompaniment were reviewed. The evaluations critically j assessed the inspector's ability to conduct inspections of specific types of licensees as specifically indicated when an inspector is qualified to perform specific types of unaccompanied inspections. Supervisors routinely accompany fully trained inspectors on an annual basis.

i l it was noted that the State has a variety of portable instruments for routine confirmatory i surveys and for use during incidents and emergency conditions. The State has sufficient

{ GM tubes, pancake probes, one inch NAl detectors, micro R meters, and high range j instruments. A detector with an alpha scintillator is available in the Baton Rouge office for i

i I

}

l 1

\

i Louisiana Draft Report Page 9 l use by regional inspectors. Each inspector is provided a direct reading dosimeter, a TLD badge, an " Escort" badge, and an alarming rate meter. Portable instruments maintained in the Baton Rouge office were also observed to be calibrated. Program staff explained that instruments are celibrated at least on an annual basia. The State uses a commercial calibration and repair service.

It was found that the State performs both announced and unannounced inspections of materials licensees. Inspect'ons are weighted toward the unannounced type. The State has offices distributed around the Ctate. There was no geogophical bias noted in the inspection program. There appeared to be no difference in the quality of inspections between the regional offices or between the regions and the main office in Baton Rouge. There appeared to be no significant difference in inspection frequency, quality or violations discovered between the samples of announced and unannounced inspections that were reviewed.

Inspectors sign all routine enforcement correspondence. All of the inspection results and soutine enforcement letters were verified as having been reviewed and signed by the j supervisor before issuing the results to licensees. The review team concluded that this i supervisory review enhanced the quality of the inspection and enforcement documents. The  !

inspectors are also cross trained as license reviewers providing continuity to the regulatory i program. The review team agreed with program management that the State's proposed j LAN system would allow additional standardization and implementation of inspection i modules, enforcement language, sud tracking systems.

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

3.5 Reennnma to int idente and Manatinna j in evaluating the effectiveness of the State's actions in responding to incidents and allegations, the review team examined the State's response to the questionnaire regarding this indicator, reviewed the incidents reported for Louishna in the " Nuclear Material Events Database" (NMED) against those contained in the Louisiana files and reviewed the casework of 14 incident files and two allegation files. No allegations were referred from NRC to l Louisiana during period covered by the review. In addition, the review team interviewed the Administrator, the Assistant Administrator, the Manager of the inspection and Quality Assurance Section and the Manager of the Enforcement Section.

Responsibility for initial response and follow-up actions to materials incidents and allegations rests with the inspection and Quality Assurance Section. Louisiana procedures require the prompt response by RPD to each incident or allegation. Each incoming notification is discussed with management and staff as appropriate and the response is coordinated with the appropriate field staff including an on-site inspection if appropriate. The managers related that all incidents, complaints, a.1d allegations are evaluated by management, followed up with an inspection if possib'e, and recorded.

The reviewer examined the State's response and documentation to all 14 events listed in Appendix F and verbally discussed the other events with the Inspection and Quality

Louisiana Draft Report Page 10 Assurance Section Program Manager. This effort included the State's incident and cilegation process, tracking system, file documentation, and notification of other Federal and State Agencies.

The review team found that the State's responses were well within the performance criteria.

Responses were prompt and well-coordinated, and the level of effort was commansurate

[ with health and safety significance. Health Physicists were dispatched to the site when appropriate. The State took suitable corrective and enforcement actions, notified the NRC and other Agencies as appropriate, and followed the progress of the investigation through until close out. Allegations were responded to promptly with appropriate investigations and follow up actions. The State has procedures under their " Sunshine" laws for the control of information, and identification protection measures are taken to protect the identity of degers, and the results of the investigations were documented and provided to the allegers.

The review team also found very good correlation of the State's response to the questionnaire, the incident information in the files, and the event information reported on the NMED system printout for Louisiana. Only one discrepancy was noted, in that NRC event number 941466, dated 3-18-94, was listed as a Baton Rouge, LA event, whereas, the event occurred in Memphis, Tennessee and was followed up by the State of Tennessee.

The rerson for this discrepancy was that the person (Licensee RSO) that reported the event to the NRC Operations Center resides in Baton Rouge, LA.

The reviewer noted that the State still has a manual system for tracking and processing incidents and allegations. Although no performance deficiencies were noted during the

( review in thir,93, the reviewer discussed the merits of computerizing the tracking system, s and the utilita%n of the NRC national system to enter events and document incident findings. In response, Program managers relatsd that the RDP is currently evaluating their needs on a Departmentallevel for upgrading the various tracking functions. The review team suggested that the State upgrade their system, and implement a computer based system for tracking and documentation of events and allegations.

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

4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IMPEP identifies four non-common performance indicators to be user in reviewing Agreement State programs: (1) Legislation and Regulations, (2) Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program, (3) Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program, and (4) Uranium Recovery. [.ouisiana is not authorized, pursuant to its agreement with NRC, to regulate uranium recovery operations, so only the first three non-common performance indicators were &pplicable to this review.

l j o 1

Louisiana Draft Report Page 11 4.1 i Tdalaa mad p=cul=+iaan 4.1.1 8 =at=8-*iva mad I =0=8 A"*haritu

] Along with their response to the questionnaire, the State provided the review team with i copies of legislation that affects the radiation control program. The Office of Air Quality &

! Radiation Protection, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality is designated as the j State radiation protection agency in the Louisiana Code, Acts 1979. The Louisiana Nuclear i Energy and Radiation Control Law (LNERCL) authority is found in Chapter 6, LA R.S.

l 30:2101 - 2134. Based upon discussions with staff and the State's response to the i

questionnaire, the review team confirmed that there have been no changes to the LNERCL j since the previous review on the regulation of agreement materials. The legislative authority has been reviewed during previous reviews and considered adequate authority to protect public health and safety.

l 4.1.2 Rentum and t'amnatihility nf Rmanistiana J

Louisiana's Environmental Regulatory Code, Part XV, Radiation Protection, 5th Edition was j updated and published in January 1996. A copy of these regulations was received and

. evaluated with the State's response to the questionnaire to determine the status and J compatibility of the Louisiana regulations. The questionnaire also documents that the j regulations are subject to a " sunset" law, and will need to be reviewed in 1999 under the law; however, the review team discussed the impact of the review of the regulations with

! State management and believes that the State will be able to accomplish the review with its I current resources.

j At the time of the February 1995 follow up review, the State's regulations were found to be i compatible with NRC regulations up through the " Quality Management Program and i Misadministrations," 10 CFR Part 35 amendment (56 FR 34104) which became effective on January 27,1992. The reviewer confirmed that these regulations and others needed as of

! this 1992 date had been adopted. In general, the State's practice has been to adopt needed

) regulations within the recommended 3 year time frame except as noted below.

i i Three NRC regulation amendments became effective in 1993 that were listed on the "NRC i Chronology of Amendments" as compatibility items, and which would need to be adopted l (if appropriate) during 1996. The first regulation was " Licensing and Radiation Safety

! Requirements for Irradiators," 10 CFR Part 36 (58 FR 7715) that became effective on l July 1,1993. Louisiana does not have any irradiators or license applications that would be j subject to these provisions, and has elected to postpone the adoption of the Part 36 2

. irradiator regulations until an application is received. Management related that the State is j committed to regulating these types of irradiators in compliance with Part 36 provisions if j the need arises. In response to the questionnaire, the State will utilire license conditions to

incorporate the provisions of Part 36, if an application for a large irradiator were to be I received. The review team concurs on this position. The second regulation is the i

" Definition of Land Disposal and Waste Site OA Program," 10 CFR Part 61 (58 FR 39628) i that became effective on July 22,1993. This regulation is required only for those States i with a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility; however, since Louisiana has authority j for disposal of NORM waste, the State has drafted a revised definition of " Land Disposal

)

< - - - , ._ , . - . p , --,. _

.,,w.. . ~ y ,_., _ -- -- --.-. ._. , . , ,

O 3

i Louisiana Draft Report Page 12 Facility" that is compatible with the NRC definition. The third regulation'is

" Decommissioning Recordkeeping Documentation of Restricted Areas and Spill Sites," 10 CFR Parts 30 and 40 (58 FR 39628) that became effective on October 25,1993. Louisiana has drafted equivalent regulations for public comment, but they have not yet become effective. Both of these revisions were drafted on October 3,1996 and are projected  ;

(under Louisiana administrative procedures) to become effective on April 20,1997. The adoption of these regulations do not meet the 3 year timeframe for adoption of regulations needed for compatibility.

The other regulations that will be needed for adoption are identified from the "NRC '

Chronology of Amendments" as follows:

• "Self-Guarantee as an Additional Financial Mechanism," 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70 amendments (58 FR 68726 and 59 FR 1618) that became effective on January 28, 1994. Note, this rule is designated as a Division 2 matter of compatibility.

Division 2 compatibility allows the Agreement States flexibility to be more stringent (i.e., the State could choose not to 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 credit or line of credit), insurance or other guarantee method (e.g., a parent company guarantee).

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

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

• " Radiation Protection Requirements: Amended Definitions and Criteria,"

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

l

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

l

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

i i

i _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ _ . _

l Louisiana Draft Report Page 13

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

i The review team examined the procedures used ir; the State's regulation promulgation

process and found that the public is offered the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations and a public hearing that follows the comment period. The procedures also i require the proposed regulations, proposed hearing date, hearing comments and analysis, i and the final regulations to be placed on the Department's internet home page. Draft copies

! of the proposed regulations for " Decommissioning Recordkeeping Documentation of j Restricted Areas and Spill Sites," " Definition of Land Disposal and Waste Site QA Program,"

j and

• Timeliness in Decommissioning" were provided during the review, and the final

, regulations are submitted to NRC.

i

! The review team recommends that the State evaluate the process for promulgating j compatibility regulations to better ensure that the State meets the three-year time frame.

! Based on the existing NRC compatibility policy and the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review

! team recommends that Louisiana's performance with respect to the indicator, Legislation i and Regulations, be found unsatisfactory. The compatibility findings for the Louisiana j program will be reevaluated upon final promulgation of Louisiana's Decommissioning l Recordkeeping Documentation of Restricted Areas and Spill Sites or NRC's final adoption of j a new Adequacy and Compatibility Policy Statement, whichever is first.

l 4.2 Emalad snuren and n wic. Ev w einn prnaram

! In evaluating the States SS&D program, the review team evaluated the information provided

! by the State relative to this indicator in its response to the questionnaire, reviewed the I i casework, registration sheets and background files that were available, for all, except one, i of the certificates of registration sheets issued since September 1993 and the 1994 follow-up review. The review team did not reevaluate the issuance of the SPEC Model 150 registration sheet because the state worked closely with the NRC during this review j process. A former State staff member had spent a week at NRC headquarters working with i j NRC staff on the technical review of this application. During the IMPEP review, the State l was unable to locate some of the proprietary information that had been stored separately 4

from the non-proprietary information for several SS&D applications. Both NRC staff and i Louisiana staff had recalled working with this information. Further the proprietary files were

! reviewed during the 1994 follow up visit. It is important to note that although some pertinent written supporting information and drawings could not be located, the review team was able to use verbal NRC staff and State staff interviews to address issues ani questions that were identified during the IMPEP review. This was only possible because the State and NRC exchanged a lot of information during this review period. The States's staff qualifications and handling of incident and defects associated with sources and devices were also reviewed.

The State suffered a significant set back in its SS&D program by the loss of a staff member that performed the majority of the product evaluations. No reviews have yet to be

l j

} Louisiana Draft Report Page 14 completed under the program since the loss of this staff member. There are presently two i administrative actions waiting review and one unusual technical review involving splicing of I source assembly cables. The technical staff reviews the product using NRC guidance and regulatory guides in this area. The second signature is preformed by the program manager, in this case the program manager's review is only for administrative type issues. A second

! technical review is conducted by the Administrator on all sheets before they are distributed,

but the Administrator does not sign them.

! 4.2.1 Tachate.1 ru.ii. of th. p,nane, Fv.imatian Prnaram

[

! The review team reviewed the files that could be located and performed staff interviews for l the nine new or revised SS&D registry sheets issued since the September 1993 review, j including the state review and approval for licensing purposes of new radiography sources

! and brachytherapy sources and a custom gauging source. Modification to the Omnitron l remote afterloading brachytherapy device registration was also made to allow for, and storage of, higher activity sources in the storage container prior to installation in the i afterloader. The SS&D registry sheets issued by the State and evaluated by the review l team are listed in Appendix G. Overall, the quality of the evaluations was good with minor

technical comments, and showed a drastic improvement since the September 1993 review l of the program. The review team found that the State had developed procedures for j preserving the integrity of proprietary information furnished by the manufacture to issuing i SS&D registry sheets; however, they were not able to locate the files for review during this l evaluation. The missing information will make it difficult, almost impossible, to assess the j affect of a change to a radiography source as a result of some problems in the field. It is suggested that the State review this data before making a determination of acceptability of l the source. The review team found that the State's plan to develop and modify registration l sheets identified in the 1993 review had not progressed. With the implementation of NRC j 10 CFR 34.20 equipment requirements, the registration sheets identified in the 1993 review

which required modification, are for products that are not legal to use. The State did not j expend any additional resources to address this issue nor did they implement the additional 1 staff review as stated in the plan. The review team identified the following items that need i action by the State

(a) An additional staff member with industry experience in source j fabrication, equipment design, and fabrication should be available to supplement the staff

responsible for review of the product evaluation. Thisitem is critical now, given the lack of l experience with the industry of the State lead technical reviewer. (b) Locate confidential supporting files and have them available for review by the state before final action is taken l on pending source and device amendment requests. This is of particular importance

{' because of a pending request to splice / repair source assemblies by using a compression sleeve in the middle of the cable. The State must carefully review this proposed change for l affect on the flexibility and on the endurance of the radiography system. c) Determine how j the custom gauging source chains are held together when they are placed in use as insertion j gauges.

t i 4.2.2 Tachnical K+=ffine and Training .

i l

} The State was developing a two person team both with nuclear engineering degrees to l j conduct product reviews. Both persons attended the NRC Workshop on SS&D evaluations. ]

) The loss of the more experienced member of this team poses a challenge for the state. The j y

k i

2

e 1  !

i I i Louisiana Draft Report Page 15 f

newest addition to the team demonstrated to the review team the ability to understand and

{ interpret the information submitted by applicants as described in the performance criteria.

! This member has attended the workshop but has not performed independent SS&D j evaluations. The State staff discussed with the IMPEP review team a request granted for j this State reviewer to work with the Sealed Source Safety Section at NRC Headquarters, which the Sealed Source Safety Section has extended. The State's management is l

. considering that option. The State expressed concern about the need for attending virtually '

i all the NRC courses and the lack of State funding to pay for NRC course training. The  ;

a review team is aware that the loss of a fully trained and experienced reviewer presents  ;

l potential for weakness to develop in the program. However, we believe that these potential 3

weaknesses can be offset by: (a) en additional staff member with industry experience in i source fabrication, equipment design, and fabrication available to supplement the staff l responsible for review of the product evaluation identified above in Section 4.2.1, and (b)

! implementing a training program for SS&D technical reviews, to develop an understanding i of the industry and its unique environmental factors that are associated with the use and i manufacturer of sources and devices. The review team recommends that the State develop l and implement a training program for SS&D reviews.

4.2.3 Fual"=tian af Daf=cta and incidanta Ranardinn MRRenn

! The State evaluated incidents associated with two radiography cameras, the SPEC 2T and

! the Spec 150. The SPEC 2 T incident was not fully investigated because the effective date i of the NRC equipment performance rule made this camera no longer legal to use. The Spec j 150 camera was investigated and the vendor took corrective action in one case to replace a j drive cable connector with a stainless steel part and in another case to redesign the source l assembly to eliminate the solid connector locking ball assembly to reduce the possibility of

source hangups. Because of the loss of staff the State has not notified other regulatory )

i authorities of this design modification. The review team recommends that the State follow  !

I up on this incident to ensure that the SS&D sheet is modified and properly distributed, i Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that the State of

Louisiana's performance with respect to the indicator, Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program, be found satisfactory with the recommendations for improvement noted above.

I l 4.2.4 Rita Vimit i

i On October 8,1996 NRC staff and Louisiana staff performed a site visit of Amersham i Corporations service center located in Baton Rouge, LA. One objective of the site visit was to develop an understanding of the operation and it's interaction with the Amersham facility i in Burlington, Massachusetts. The second objective was to introduce the new sealed source i and device reviewer to the types of radiography equipment, equipment problems and service j facilities that the radiography industry depends on. The visit was also timely because this i reviewer was reviewing a radiography source assembly, and he had never seen an assembly j or how it relates to the radiography camera, guide tubes, collimators, and control cables.

We understand that the State has plans for this reviewer to visit with other source and i device vendors and users as part of his development plan.

}

}

l i

i

F Louisiana Draft Report Page 16 I The Amersham facility provides service, repair and source exchange operations for mostly .

local radiography firms. The facility also repairs and calibrates survey meters, and analyzes l leak test samples. The facility employees about five people and also sells an entire line of l film supplies and supporting equipment needed by radiographers. The facility is audited periodically by Amersham Massachusetts for conformance to the corporate quality assurance program. The facility has a small hot cell with additional shielding behind the unit for performing source exchaones. The Louisiana reviewer was able to witness first hand the affects of environmental con @ons and abuse of radiography equipment.

4.3 Lew t awal Ranua=reiv. w. . n i nwi runo.. prnor.m 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 LLRW as a separate category.

Those States with existing Agreements prior to 1981 were determined to have continued LLRW disposal authority without the need of an amendment. Although Louisiana has LLRW  ;

disposal authority, NRC has not required States to have a program for licensing a LLRW disposal facility until such time as the State has been designated as a host state for a LLRW l disposal facility. When an Agreement State has been notified or becomes aware of the i need to regulate a LLRW disposal facility, they are expected to put in place a regulatory program which will meet the criteria for an adequate and compatible LLRW disposal program. There are no plans for a LLRW disposal facility in Louisiana. Accordingly, the review team did not review this indicator.

5.0

SUMMARY

As noted in Sections 3 and 4 above, the review team found the State's performance with i respect to each of the performance indicators to be satisfactory. Accordingly, the team

recommends the MRB find the Louisiana program to be adequate to protect public health ,

and safety and not compatible with NRC's program. j Below is a summary list of suggestions, as mentioned in earlier sections of the report, for consideration by the State.

l

1. The team recommends that the State adopt a policy of issuing unrestricted release letters in all cases where loose material has been used, and before the license is

! terminated (Section 3.3).

l 2. The team recommends that each location of use on multiple site licenses be revised l by license condition to specify the material authorized for each different location of use or site (Section 3.3).

1

3. The review team recommends that all licensees be notified according to the All l

Agreement States Letter SP-96-022 which request licensees to file for reciprocity when performing work under exclusive federal jurisdiction. Licenses which allow for temporary job sites should be amended to state that reciprocity will be filed when l conducting work under exclusive federal jurisdiction (Section 3.3).

i l

l

t 9

1 7

Louisiana Draft Report Page 17 :

4. The review team suggests that the State reevaluate their document control system, j and take appropriate measures to assure that files are maintained complete and up to

]

] date (Section 3.4).

l 5. The review team suggests that the State upgrade their tracking system, and l

implement a computer based system for tracking and documentation of events and '

allegations (Section 3.5). I

6. The review team recommends that the State evaluate the process for promulgating i compatibility regulations to better ensure that the State meets the three-year time

! frame (Section 4.1.2).

i

7. The review team identified the following items and recommends action by the State

, (a) Fully implement the program to have a third technical review of the product

! evaluation done by a staff member with industry experience in source fabrication ,

equipment design, and fabrication. (b) Locate confidential supporting files and have

them available for review by the State before final action is taken on pending source

, and device amendment requests. This is of particular importance because of a i pending request to splice / repair source assemblies by using a compression sleeve in l the middle of the cable. The State must carefully review this proposed change for j affect on the flexibility and on the endurance of the radiography system. (c) l Determine how the custom gauging source chains are held together when they are j placed in use as insertion gauges (Section 4.2.1).

I

8.' The review team recommends that the State develop and implement a training l program for SS&D reviews (Section 4.2.2).

l

] 9. The review team recommends that the State follow up on the incident associated .

! with the two radiography cameras to ensure that the SS&D sheet is modified and l properly distributed (Section 4.2.3).

i, i

i J

4 4

1 4

1 UST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS Appendix A iMPEP Review Team Members Appendix B Louisiana RPD Organization Chart Appendix C Louisiana's Questionnaire Response

Appendix D Ucense File Reviews Appendix E inspection File Reviews j Appendix F Incident File Reviews i

Appendix G Scaled Source and Device Evaluation Reviews 1

E j

4 J

i i

1 I

j 4

i

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

l APPENDIX A iMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS l i

Name Area of Responsibility Richard L. Woodruff, Ril Team Leader Technical Staffing and Training Response to incidents and Allegations Legislation and Regulations James Myers, OSP Status of Materials inspection Program Technical Quality of Inspections Elizabeth Drinnon, Georgia Technical Quality of Ucensing Actions l Steve Baggett, NMSS/IMNS Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program i

l I

I i

l

j

m 1

LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS i

j Appendix A iMPEP Review Team Members

, Appendix B Louisiana RPD Organization Chart 4

Appendix C Louisiana's Questionnaire Response Appendix D License File Reviews Appendix E inspection File Reviews Appendix F Incident File Reviews i

Appendix G Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Reviews

IJ.. .#_,..r4..h4 - # wL a e ,a __h.S_ % A 4. Aa_..J.--- ha.i.aJL -ma . __ -w _..M,_ - ._had am o u a==4.6 ,maa. .g, N

APPENDlX B I

1 4

i 4

i f

4 i

1 4

I

.- - s Depa if. . r gg '

o undersecretary.

• =J Management and Finance, e e .

Darrvi Seno i r . , ,

Adverstrator. Fesc# Sernces r Pan W uicy 'F Jaer " men '

Ad,0 .crator  % =cy F ,

Yacant Coritracts & Gr,stsj u C - - .ary ; '1 Adresstrator. TactrecA Savaces ;l g

% eat I Barbara Meredith rJohniitwton' FDorere Jahreon' Adve ntrator ^*r*=trator f PaiZmdel

< General Services; e Frmrenunc  ; 1 ts. y_ _ ._,,, ca.dt,,c f , ,

Mke Strona Linda K. Levv Assetant Secretary (Offk:e of Sohd & Hazardme Waste Assistanc Secretary Office of Water Resources F Gary Avdell '

Adventrator *-

g Water Feastkm ->

4 4 e ,

'F Mauermmt James Brent Willurn Mollere ' FHarold Ethr* ' F Dartrara Advoestrator Adventrator Adrmetrator Rag 7m,,,-gy finzardas Waste Ntekm; e Soedwaste Nesen ; thodoreramd Storage 3 t A rm.,

g ,, t Tart Dartskm  ; AsA

-* Yhce Santae Gerald Mathes 4-e,w ML Advoestrator

• Aset Adveestrator bte Virre 4 Erif Soed Waste Aest Adveestrator Te rh

> .jurren m 3 ,g, MMW rennrts * *

-* Goone Gact Madas Aadard r

-.6 .=> Raibuet Lw- ei "">

Erdarasvums l  %,

.imd Mace Delahmasave 4 g

, K.athrvr, f krFFm .,,g, TFL5c Imd TeCW bCfNCs +

A>st Adveestrator F

-> Frmr* Ttumas Keith Casanova' *

,, Mrrue Perrnd tre h ES

, Matavat Tecw Grumd Water Divison)

-> ggggg, .+, 54 tre sh.armfkh,, Mk.e r.he p ---* Adrewstr Strict 1armi r'ermrt Progt Smemice , Msinced Fac

> Marenria Dare

• hh h p >

Geotectence Enfarcerrent Tec

.-> Dan Caf fery Ear.a5 Engmeerms p Tectruch -">

LCEO C- i Oer1r. Mwen e996 h w

e pg( L j -

Il- l 1

yF

~ y

~

~

~

~ 3 -

r j1  :

i l

r i

I o

!1b g

I1 y

i' l

k ,

i r^

.r tI .

a  !

l u

v i

ll .

n r

h l '

1 1

1 oI I m

l 4

l

'a .

. "'n 1

l L l

( o m.

l .

l l; l d . . .

l i.

m . r e:-

I.

1 W. SPELL A&ninistrator D. Robinson s.Bergeron

-~

Adnt sect. Recept.

I I T. PATTERSON S. SHAW Asst. Adm. Asst. Adm.

I I

. _ _ _ _ L. _ _ . __ I _ _ _ _._ _ . l _ _ _ . - ._. _ . l _ ._-- ___ _ I_ _ _ l R. Penrod D.Jarreau M. HENRY J. MASON J. SANFORD P.CHOWDHURY l

PM Region secretary PM insp. PM Enfore. PM Licen. PM Emerg. Plan.

P. AHmond B.Tumer C Wascom A.Troxler J. Baidy Vacant Secretary -

C Rodgers -

Sery -

specialist 3 specwist2 Coord. secretaries J. Gilmore R. Nguyen - _ -.- .-- -- -.

S.GHOSN specwist2 --

specwist 2 J. Noble __ Vacant M.SCHLENKER A. Lagrous S. Stams D. AUSBROOKS Coord.

speciaHst 3

. _ _ __ _.] _ _

speclahst 3 Coord. Lab speciahst 2 Analyst 3 Coord. UC.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~

M. Sullivan K.Wiebeck J.Elee I R. Clark __

specialist 2 specialist 2 speciahst 2 I~ specwist2 D. Stepter S. LeBIanc T. Bicmam S. Smith -

specwist2 -

Analyst 3 _

J.Talbot spectanst 3 B.Pate j_ spectahst 2 specianst 3 D.Seymour _W2J .

J. Pate S. Nelson P. Strahan S. Aouad

_specianst_1 -

specialist 2 Analyst 1 specianst 1 spectanst 2 Vacant C. Tilley speciahst 1 9c0% SpeciaNst 2 - - - -

18

l l

. Louisiana Draft Report Page C.1 Ouestionnaire APPENDIX C j

i i

Approved by OMB'

No. 3150 0183

, Expires 4/30/98 i 4

INTEGRATED. MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

QUESTIONNAIRE Name of State

LOUISlANA i Reporting Period: September 4,1993 to October 12,1996

• l 2

j A. COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

1. Status of Materials insoection Procram i

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

j

! Insp. Frequency 3

Licensee Name (Years) Due Date Months O/D

) George R. Meckstroth, Ph.D. 5 years 4th Otr. '94 21 months i

j This inspection was conducted on Sept' amber 27,1996.

2. Do you currently have an action plan for completing overdue inspections? If

so, please describe the plan or provide a written copy with your response to j this questionnaire.

Periodically, the " inspections due list"is reviewed by both of the program I

] managers, who identify those overdue and assign them to an inspector for e

Estimated burden per response to comply with this voluntary collection request 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br />. Fsrward comments resordinB burden estimate to the Information and Records Management Branch (T 6 F33) 'J.s. Nuclear-i Regulatory commission, Washington, DC 20555 0001, and to the Paperwork Reduction Project th150 0052),

, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, W 20503. NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a cettection of information unless it displays a currently valid OM8 control number.

f 1

2 Louisiana Draft Report Page C.2 Ouestionnaire completion. The next time the list is reviewed, those which have still not j been done are given higher priority.

4

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.

None is inspected less frequently.

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

901 licensees filed reciprocity notices during the reporting period.

, s. Of these, how many were industrial radiography, well-logging or other users with inspection frequencies of three years or less?

Two-hundred, twenty six (226) were users with inspection frequencies

of three (3) years or less.

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

i Five (5) (We believe this is probably a one-year figure, due to the j database.)

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

l Fifty-five (55) j i i

6. For NRC Regions, did you establish numerical goals for the number of l inspections to be performed during this review period? If so, please describe f

your goals, the number of inspections actually performed, and the reasons for any differences between the goals and the actual number of inspections I performed.

3 Not Applicable l

l

. II. Technical Staffino and Trainino_

s I

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 i

the agreement or radioactive material program by individual. Include the

. name, position, and, for Agreement States, the fraction of time spent in the j following areas: administration, materials licensing & compliance, emergency J

I i l Louisiana Draft Report Page C.3  ;

I Questionnaire

)

l response, LLW, U-mills, other. If these regulatory responsibilities are divided i 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 j consultants were used to carry out the program's radioactive materials

responsibilities, include their efforts. The table heading should be

) NAME POSITION AREA OF EFFORT l

l ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION (See Attachment A for Organizational Chart)

{ William H. Spell Administrator 100% Administration 1 Stanley Shaw, Ph.D. Ass't Administrator 100% Administration (Regulatory Branch)

. Thomas H. Patterson Ass't Administrator 100% Administration

(Compliance Branch)

LICENSING & REGISTRATION SECTION 4

James W. Sanford, Ph.D. Program Manager 90% Administration,10%

{ Licensing Diane Ausbrooks Coordinator 100% Licensing & Registration )

Jason Talbot ERPS lil 99% Licensing,1% Emer.  !

j Response Sami Aound ERPS 11 99% Licensing,1% Emer.  !

! Response  !

j Carole Tilley ERPS ll 99% x-ray registration,1% E. R. i f SURVElLLANCE SECTION Richard Penrod Program Manager 70% Compi.,25% Admin., 5%

d E.R.

) Anne Tromler (was Brannon)

Julian Baldy ERPS lil 100% Compliance i ERPS 11 100% Compliance

Jerry Gilmore ERPS 11 100% Compliance Hung "Ricky" Nguyen ERPS ll 100% Compliance j Micheal Sullivan ERPS 11 100% Compliance j Kim Wiebeck ERPS 11 100% Compliance 4

Douglas Seymour ERPSI 100% Compliance i

j INSPECTION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE SECTION F IWchael E. Henry Program Manager 50% Compi.,45% Admin., 5%

i E.R.

I Vacant (detailed to Enf. P.M.) Coordinator 70% Compi.,25% Admin.,

i 5% E.R.

} Joseph Noble ERPS lil 50% Agree. Mat., 50% MOSA Jennifer Elee ERPS11 10% Agree. Mat.,90% MQSA Russell Clark ERPS ll 100% Compliance l Bennifer Pete ERPS 11 50% Compliance,50% MQSA l

I i

Louisiana Draft Report Page C.4 l Questionnaire l

! ENFORCEMENT SECTION

Jason Mason Program Manager 50% Compliance,50 %

I Admin.

Albert LaGroue ERPSIll 95% Compliance,5% Emerg.

Resp.

Dwayne Stepter ERPS 11 95% Compliance, 5% Emerg.

Resp.

Serge' Nelson ERPS ll 100% Compliance John M. Schlenker Coordinator 90% Laboratory,5% Compt.,5%

E.R.

Sue Smith ERPS 11 95% Laboratory, 5% Emerg. Resp.

James Pate ERPSI 95% Laboratory, 5% Emerg. Resp.

EMERGENCY PLANNING AND RESPONSE SECTION Prosenta Chowdhury Program Manager 75% Admin., 25% Emerg.

Resp.

Soumaya Ghosn Coordinator 90% Emerg. Resp.,10% Admin.

Thomas Bickham,111 ERPS lil 95% Emerg. Resp., 5% other n.b. The above listings do not include all vacant professional positions.

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 training and years of experience in health physics, or other disciplines, if appropriate.

Russell Clark: employed 9/93: B.S. in physics; no previous radiation experience; attended 5 week Basic Health Physics Course: nuclear medicine .

course: NRC transportation course; rejiography licensee 40-hour radiation  !

safety training course Carole Tilley: B.S. In mathematics: no previous HP experience works in x-ray registration Ricky Nguyen: B.S. In electrical engineering; attended 5 week Basic Health Physics Course: RERO training; one-week Nuclear Medicine Course: two-day inspection Procedures Seminar, one-day seminar on sampling techniques: one-week HAZMAT course; one-day seminar on nuclear pharmacies: two-day seminar on linear accelerators and HDR afterloaders: 2.5 years in health physics Mike Sullivan: B.S. In physics: attended 5-week Basic Health Physics Course:

RERO training: two-week MOSA course; one-day nuclear medicine seminar; one-week EPA inspection Procedures Coorse: two-day seminar on linear accelerators and HDR afterloaders: 1.5 years in health physics

3 i

4 i Louisiana Draft Report Page C.5 e

Ouestionnaire i

i Kim Wiebeck: B.S. In Radiological Technology; attended 5 week Basic Health

{ Physics Course: RERO training one-week nuclear medicine course: HAZMAT

{ training: one-day seminar on nuclear pharmacies: 1.4 years in health physics

{ Doug Seymour: 8.S. In mathematics: attended two-day seminar on sampling j techniques: HAZMAT training: % year in health physics l

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

inspection Manual Chapters 1245 and 1246

for Agreement States, please describe your qualifications requirements for materials I. cense reviewers and j inspectors). For each, list the courses or equivalent trainiag/ experience they i j need to attend and a tentative schedule for completion of these requirements. l Requirements for license reviewers include NRC Licensing, industrial

radiography, well-logging and medical isotopes courses, in addition, there is i j considerable on-the-job training with senior personnel.

Jason Talbot r.eeds industrial radiography and well-logging courses.

Sami Aound needs virtually all courses.

Joe Noble needs well-logging course -is scheduled for October.

. Michael Sullivan needs well-logging course -is scheduled for October. ,

! Jennifer Elee needs 5 week Basic Health Physics Course, nuc. lear medicine,

well- logging, and industrial radiography courses.

Russell Clark needs well-logging and industrial radiography courses.

2 An attempt will be made have these people take most of the necessary courses by the end of 1997, but this will largely depend on availability of spaces and funding.

4

) The tentative training schedule, below, applies to all new employees unless l they possess previous experience or equivalent course work. On-the-job

! training is given by a more senior inspector or supervisor. The future of the l division's formal course work depends on the support obtained from outside

! sources, particularly from the NRC and other federal agencies.

i At present, the division intends to furnish all the training needed, either

i through the NRC offerings, another outside entity, or through in-house training courses. The Surveillance Section has only one inspector who has j not begun RAM inspection training (Doug Seymour). Mike Sullivan, Ricky i Nguyen, and Kim Wiebeck are in various stages of completion of their RAM

. Inspection training.

i The first exposure of an inspector to RAM is an extension of the medical x-ray i program. The training begins with nuclear medicine after about one year of j experience in the medical area. The OJT period is typically three months. As j soon as scheduling allows, the inspector is enrolled in the NRC'S nuclear l

-.+-- r- , - _ -- .

i 4

l

! Louisiana Draft Report Page C.6

Ouestionnaire

medicine course. After mastering nuclear medicine inspection, the individual i

proceeds to brachytherapy, linear accelerators and cobalt units, and HDR afterloaders. After the formal training course and OJT are completed, the inspector's medical training is complete.

The five week Basic Health Physics Course is scheduled within 1.5 to 2 years

after employment, if possible and if needed.

I j After obtaining the previous experience in health physics, the inspector begms i training in the industrial uses of RAM. The initial area of training is fixed and portable level and density gauges, followed by well-logging and industrial radiography. When possible, the inspector attends an industrial gauge i training course offered by industry. Other training courses will be scheduled q as soon as possible during this time period and as the division's budget will l allow. These courses include, but are not limited to, inspection procedures, j well-logging, industrial radiography, and transportation. The typical inspector requires approximately three years to complete the entire training program.

'j 10. Please identify the technical staff who left the RCP/ Regional DNMS program

.j during this period.

4 i Karen Fisher-Bresber; Clifford Russell: Angela Stam: Mike Fontenot: Dustin Hite: Denise Blereau: Robin Raspberry: David Zaloudek: Russell Patton: Guy

Miro

Mike Jarrett; Mel Hebert:

)

I 111. Technical Quality of Licensino Actions 4

11. Please identify any major, unusual, or complex licenses which were issued,

] received a major amendment, terminated or renewed in this period.

Biomedical Research Foundation - new license for PET studies in north j Louisiana

}

All major licenses were renewed during this period. No major licenses were j terminated.

12. Please identify any new c amended licenses added or removed from the list

{; of licensees requiring emergency plans?

i None 4

4

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

Exemptions were issued to: Mobil-Lab, XRI, Global X-Ray, Gulf Coast Engineering, Certified Testing & Inspection, Avondale Shipyard, and i

r

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

1 c

i t

l

Louisiana Draft Report Page C.7 Ouestionnaire

American Oilfield Divers. These licensees were granted exemptions to continue using pipeline-type exposure devices on pipelines.

in addition, Mr. John Warren was granted an exemption to part of the )

requirement to be a qualified radiological physicist. Mr. Warren has a B.S.

1 degree in chemistry and meets all other requirements.

f

! Mr. James Sprodley was granted an exemption to act as the RSO for Tiger X-

! Ray, which he owns. He has had more than 20 years experience in industrial j radiography, but he does not have a radiographer certification card. His j company does limited work in industrial radiography.

i 14. What, if any, changes were made in your written licensing procedures (new

procedures, updates, policy memoranda, etc.) during the reporting period?

Alllicensing guides were revised during the reporting period. They were i updated to reflect the requirements of the latest regulations, which were

! generally more stringent.

1

15. For NRC Regions, identify by licensee name, license number and type, any l 4

renewal applications that have been pending for one year or more.

Not Applicable IV. Technical Quality of Insoections

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

No changes have been made.

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

Suoervisor Insoector License Cat. Qaig Richard Penrod Julian Baldy PG* Jan '94 IRO Mar '94 IRO Apr '94 FG Jun '94 IRF Aug '94 WL Oct '94 IRF Oct '94 WL Apr '95

g.. m. .m . __ ._ _ _ ___m m _. . __

Louisiana Draft Report Page C.8 Questionnaire l

IRO Apr '95 l IRF Aug '95 l IM Nov '95 l IRF Apr '96 IRF Apr '96 IRF Apr 'M IRF May '96 Ricky Nguyen IM Oct '95 FG Mar '96 WL Aug '96 l Jerry Gilmore IRO May '94 IRF May '94 IM Nov '94 WL Sep '94 )

FG Dec '94 IRO Apr '96 IRF Apr 'M Ann Troxler IM Mar '94 l

David Zaloudek "

FG Dec '93  !

" '~

FG Feb '94 Richard Penrod IM Mar '94 FG Dec '94 FG Oct '94 IRF May '95 IRO May '95 IRO May '95 IRF May '95 Mike Fontenot MD Aug '95

• Please see legend next page Richard Penrod Ann Troxler IRF Apr '96 IRF Jul 'M Kim Wiebeck IM Aug '96 Mike Sullivan IM Feb '96 Mike Henry Mike Fontenot IRF Sep '93 Jay Mason FG Mar '95

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

1 J

Louisiana Draft Report Page C.9 ;

4 Questionnaire '

IRF Aug '95 IRO Sep '95 WL Mar '96 Mike Henry Joe Noble IM Sep '93 Jay Mason "

IM Feb '94 IM Jul '94 IM Sep '94 ,

Mike Henry "

IM Jan '95 Jay Mason "

IRO May '95 NP May '95 IM Jul '95 IM Nov '95 NP May '96 Russell Clark FG Mar '96 IM Mar 'M IRF Jun '96 FG Jul 'M WL Jul 'M

• Legend: IRO - industrial radiography office; 1RF - industrial radiography field; PG - portable i gauge; FG - fixed gauge; WL - well-logging; IM - institutional medical; MD - sealed source manufacturer

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

The procedure is for accompaniments of each inspector by a coordinator or above every six months and yearly by the program manager. Accompaniment documents are on file and will be provided, if requested, during the review.

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

Typical instrumentation possessed by inspectors for radioactive material inspections includes the following:

Ludlum, Model 13 with pancake probe and I" x 1" Nal probes Ludlum, Model 5

i i

i l

Louisiana Draft Fleport Page C.10 l l Questionnaire t

l Ludlum, Model 19 Ludlum, Model 3 1

One alpha probe is available in the division for the Model 3, as needed l 2

Routinely, calibration is performed by Amersham Corporation, Baton Rouge, yearly ,

i er after repairs. Some survey meters are calibrated quarterly. )

i j V. n,- in incia.ne. .nd Alleantinns i

j 20. Please provide a list of the mact sianificant incidents (i.e., medical misadministration, over- l

exposures, lost and abandoned sources, incidents requiring 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or less notification, etc.) that j

occurred in the Region / State during the review period. For Agreement States, information '

4 included in previous submittals to NRC need not be repeated. The list should be in the following j format: l l

l LICENSEE NAME LICENSE # DATE OF INCIDENT / REPORT TYPE OF

INCIDENT Year 1993 Ind. Rad. Mant & Supply LA-4342-L61 3/1/93 3/1/93 Equip. Failure / Excessive Exposure j i

Exxon Refinery LA-1345-L01 8/2/93 8/6/93 3 gauges deared in Fire Inspection Specialists LA-4266-L01 5/7/93 1/14/94 Excessive Exposure Continental Resources none 11/24/93 -

Release of material Louisiana Civil Defense none 3/4/93 3/4/93 Box contaminated w/Ra-226 Halliburton LA-2353-L01 3/24/93 3/25/93 Lost Sources  !

Southern Scrap none 5/21/93 5/21/93 Co-60 contaminated scrap 1

St. Francis Med. Ctr. LA 0193-L01 1/19/93 1/19/93 Teletherapy: " Wrong Patient" Yenr 1994 j Gobal X-Ray LA 0577-L01 5/1/94 5/2/94 Radiographic Camera Overboard Chem. Waste Management LA-4187-L61 4/25/94 5/3/94 leaking G.C. Source {

Chem. Waste Management LA-4187-L01 6/6/94 6/6/94 laaking E.C. Source IAuisiana State University LA 0001-L01 5/16/94 5/17/96 Lost Source - 100 microCl, I L15 Source Prod. & Equip. Co. LA-4342 L01 10/6/94 10/10/94 Rad. Camera lock failure

l l

Louisiana Draft Report Page C.11 Questionnaire

. Western Atlas LA-2187-L01 6/12/94 12/30/94 Irretrievable well-logging source

Omnitron International LA 6430-L01 12/22/94 12/23/94 Transportation " packing wrong" l

Year 1995 Omnitron International LA4430-L01 9/14/95' 9/14/95 Transportation " packing wrong" .

l Imuisiana State Police none 12/20/95 12/21/95 Kr-85

• pipe bomb"  !

l Year 1996 i X-Ray Inspection LA-2918-L01 3/2/% 3/4/% Rad. Camera lost overboard

Halliburton Energy LA 2353-L01 6/23/% 6/24/% IAst Source IMC Agrico LA-2206-LOI 7/12/% 7/12/% Release of Material Southern Diagnostics LA 6629-L01 5/13/% 5/13/% Lost Source Mobile-Lab LA-1888 L01 9/11/% 9/12/% Camera lost overboard (retrieved)

21. During this review period, did any incidents occur that involved equipment or source failure or approved operating procedures that were deficient? If so, how and when were other State /NRC licensees who might be affected notified?

i In December,1994, an Industrial Nuclear model IR-100 was received by Source l Production and Equipment Company with the source improperly secured. This  !

infonnation was presented to the California program director and the NRC.

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

See letter to State of California, with a copy to the NRC, signed by William H. Spell, dated December 12,1994, regarding above incident. Copy can be provided, if needed.

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 response #21, above.

l l Louisiana Draft Report Page C.12  !

4 Questionnaire

} 23. In the period covered by this review, were there any cases involving possible wrongdoing that l were reviewed or are presently undergoing review? If so, please describe the circumstances l for each case.

No, there am no such cases undergoing review. .

i

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

! a. For Agreement States, please identify any allegations referred to your program by the

NRC that have not been closed.

Dere are no referred allegations which have not been closed. The Division has made an allegation which, as far as we know, has not been investigated by the NRC to the Division's satisfaction.

~ VI. General

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

A routine review was conducted in September,1993. Following the review, the NRC )

withheld findings of adequacy and compatibility, as detailed in the April 11,1994, letter j to the Secretary of the department, signed by Richard L. Bangart. l 1

A follow-up review was conducted by Robert Doda on February 24,1995. As a result of this review, the NRC determined that the Louisiana program was adequate to protect the public health and safety and was compatible with the regulatory program of the NRC.

l

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

weaknesses should be supported by examples of successes, problems or difficulties which occurred during this review period.

De Imuisiana Radiation Protection Division was started in 1965 and has had an active i radiation protection program ever since. Although growth has been slow and deliberate, the division has been blessed with a core of well-trained and dedicated individuals. New '

employees, as a rule, have been quite competent. The program became an Agreement State on May 1,1M7.

The staff has been active in state and national activities related to health physics and radiation regulation, serving on numerous task forces and committees whose purpose it is to solve radiation control problems. Because the state has had early and substantial I

e i

i l Louisiana Draft Report Page C.13 Questionnaire l

3 i involvement in industrial radiography, it has been a leader in developing portions of the j regulatory program which is being used in most states.

Loulslana also collaborated with Texas to develop the first well-logging regulations for i the Suggested State Regulations for the Control of Radiation, which were later copied, in i part, by the NRC. A state program member participated for many years in the

dosimetry assurance program which evolved into the NVLAP certification program for i personnel dosimetry. His state has also enacted the first and most complete set of  !

! regulations for naturally-occurring radioactive material (NORM). De state has also i

! provided two Chairpersons for the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors

and is frequently asked to furnish lecturen at NRC training courses. One staff member was loaned to the NRC for a period of three (3) months, with a current invitation from l the IAEA for him to help train personnel in Armenia for three weeks in November.  !

Dese att just a few examples of the active and successful program Louisiana has.

I l j Without doubt, one of the greatest problems faced by the division during the past few

years has been the amount of effont required for the NORM program to function as it was established. It is reminiscent of the types of effort faced by environmental I departments when faced with establishing a program for locating inactive and abandoned 1

hazardous waste sites. NORM still needs considerable attention, more than it is getting, j in fact. It is not going to go away!

6

Another of the most pressing problems is obtaining sufficient operating revenues. The j division is funded entirely through fees and contracts; there is no state general fund j money for this division. Although it appears that there is adequate budget, this is i

realized only if the revenue meets or exceeds projections. This has not happened over the i

last several years. Consequently, the division has had to maintain several vacancies i because in order to increase fees, a 2/3 vote of the Louisiana legislature is required,

thanks to a constitutional amendment passed last year.

Intimately related to the second problem is the third most pressing problem: obtaining l and retaining persor.nel who have a desire to remain with the division and become

! competent health physicists. During the review period, several highly qualified j individuals left for higher paying jobs or to return to graduate school. Industry and i other governments are able to offer considerably higher salaries, which leaves the state in

! a continual training mode. In addition, there has been no across the board cost-of-living j agustment in several years. Actually, there is very little difference in the severity of the 4

three most pressing problems for Louisiana. The order of importance is anybody's guess.

j B. NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS I. Renn12tions and L# cal Authority 1

i i

m Louisiana Draft Report Page C.14 Questionnaire E I 7. Please list all currently effective legislation that affects the radiation control program (RCP).

14. R.S. 30:2001, et seq., covers activities of the entire Department of Environmental

. Quality. In particular. La. R.S. 30:2101 - 2134 is known as the " Louisiana Nuclear

[ Energy and Radiation Control law," and this covers activities peculiar to this division.

28. Are your regulations subject to a " Sunset" or equivalent law? If so, explain and include the next expiration date for your regulations.

Louisiana's regulations are subject to a " Sunset" law. If not renewed in 1999, the E regulations will expire in the year 2000.

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

i We are unable to obtain any details on the compatibility items adopted prior to 1987

{ when the regulations were codified. The first regulations were promulgated about IMS, to the best of our knowledge. Also, it is difficult to determine the exact date the regulations were adopted between 1988 and 1992.

10 CFR RUIT DATE DUE DAIEADOPTED Dankruptcy 2/11/90 4/88 Misadministration 4/90 5/92(?)

Well-Logging 7/90 4/88 i NVLAP Certification 3/91 4/88 l'

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 v ith the NRC, showing the normal length of time anticipated to r complete each step.

Attached, please find a document which describes the procedures used for rule-making.

The normal time for promulgation of new regulations is six (6) months. (Please see Attachment B.)

II. SenleA Source and Device Program y 31. Pn: pare a table listing new and revised SS&D registrations of sealed sources and devices issued during the review period. The table heading should be:

SS&D Manufacturer, Type of e

l l

f i Louisiana Draft Report Page C.15 i Questionnaire Registry Distributor or Device Numher Cn= tam User or Source LA412-S101-S Source Production & Radiographic Source

LA412-S105-S Equipment Company " "

i LA412-S106-S "

4 LA412-D111-S Radiography Exposure Device i

LA-0760-D801-S Omnitron International Remote After-loading Brachytherapy Unit 4

LA-0760-D801-S(Rev.)

l l LA-0760-S102-S Brachytherapy Source i " " " "

LA-0760-S102-S(Rev.)

! LA-0760-S103-S " " " "

! LA-112-S113-S Berthold Gauge Source

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

'the NRC Regulatory Guides for Devices and Scaled Source Evaluations, along with any applicable standards, and NRC training of personnel are used.

33. Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they apply to the Sealed j Source and Device Program:

l Technical Staffing and Training - A.II.7-10 l Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.III.ll, A.III.13-14

! Responses to Incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23 i

} A.H.7 & 8: Sami Aound ERS11 99% Licensing A.H.9: Sami Aound recently transferred to the Licensing and Registration Section from i

) the Enforcement Section (radiological laboratory). He attended the hTC course on l l Scaled Source and Device Evaluation Procedures. Mr. Aouad has an M.S. Degree in j

nuclear engineering from 1EU. j A.H.10

Mr. Clifford Russell patiously performed the SS&D evaluations. Upon his  :

departure, Mr. Aound assumed esponsibility for these evaluations. i

A.HI.11

None, agarding SS&D evaluations.

l A.IH.13: No changes in mlation to the Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program.

i

l

i l Louisiana Draft Report Page C.16 i Questionnaire i A.III.14: None, regarding SS&D evaluations l

III. Imw-12ve.1 Wnete Prnaram

34. ' Please include information on the following questions in Section A, as they apply to the Low-

level Waste Program

Status of Materials Inspection Program - A.I.1-3, A.I.6 Technical Staffing and Training - A.II.7-10 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.III.11, A.III.13-14 Technical Quality of Inspections - A.IV.16-19 l Responses to Incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23 i Only to the extent of being a member state of the Central Interstate Low-level '

! Radioactive Waste Commission is the State of Louisiana involved in low-level waste disposal. De division is involved in NORM waste disposal. Further infonnation can be l provided, if needed.

IV. Uranium Mill Proaram 4

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

f Status of Materials Inspection Program - A.I.1-3, A.I.6  ;

j Technical Staffing and Training - A.II.7-10 '

l Technical Quality of Licensing Actions - A.III.11, A.III.13-14

{ Technical Quality ofInspections - A.IV.16-19  ;

Responses to Incidents and Allegations - A.V.20-23  :

i I he State is not involved in the uranium mill program. However, uranium is acovered

in the state as a byproduct of phosphoric acid production. His is shipped out of state to j be converted into fuel for nuclear power plants. More information can be provided, if l l needed. De state is also monitoring, with great interest, the application for a j commetrial uranium enrichment facility to be located in north Loulslana. His matter is i pending before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, i

i

)

)

I i

1

Louisiana Dr:ft Report Page C.17 Questionnaire TABLE FOR QUESTION 29.

OR DATE DATE 10 CFR RULE DUE ADOPTED CURRENT EXPECTED STATUS ADOPTION Any amendment due prior to 1991. pre 1992 1/92 Identify each regulation (refer to the Chronology of Amendments)

Decommissioning: 7/27/91 3/94 Parts 30, 40, 70 Emergency Planning: 4/7/93 11/93 Parts 30, 40, 70 Standards for Protection Against Radiation; 1/1/94 1/94 Part 20 Safety Requirements for Radiographic 1/10/94 6/95 Equipment; Part 34 Notification of incidents; 10/15/94 1/92 Parts 20, 30, 31, 34, 39, 40, 70 Ouality Management Program and 1/27/95 1/92 Misadministrations; Part 35 Licensing and Radiation Safety 7/1/96 N/A This will be addressed when, and if, an application is received. It Requirements for Irradiators: Part 36 was discussed with OSP and agreed it did not have to be done right now. Will be handled through licensing conditions, etc.

Definition of Land Disposal 7/22/96 in process 6/977 best and Waste Site OA Program; Part 61 ouesstimate Decommissioning Recordkeeping: Docu- 10/25/96 in process 6/977 best mentation Additions; Parts 30,40,70 guesstimate Self-Guarantee as an Additional Financial 1/28/97 N/A Mechanism; Parts 30,40,70 Uranium Mill Tailings: Conforming to EPA 7/1/97 N/A Standards; Part 40 Timeliness in Decommissioning 8/15/97 in process 6/97? best Parts 30. 40. 70 ouesstimate

Louisiana DrCft Report Page C.18 Questionnaire OR DATE DATE 10 CFR RULE DUE ADOPTED CURRENT EXPECTED STATUS ADOPTION Preparation, Transfer for Commercial Dis- 1/1/98 To be done 7 tribution, and Use of Byproduct Material for Medical Use: Parts 30, 32, 35 Frequency of Medical Examinations for Use 3/13/98 To be done 7 of Respiratory Protection Equipment Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest 3/1/98 To be done 7 Information and Reporting Performance Requirements for Radiography 6/30/98 To be done 7 i Equipment Radiation Protection Requirements: 8/14/98 To be done 7 Amended Definitions and Criteria Clarification of Decommissioning Funding 11/24/98 To be done 7 Requirements 10 CFR Part 71: Compatibility with the 4/1/99 To be done 7 International Atomic EnerDy ADency Medical Administration of Radiation and 10/20/98 To be done 7 Radioactive Materials.

Termination or Transfer of Licensed 5/16/99 To be done 7 Activities: Recordkeeping Requirements.

l t

i

l APPENDIX D l LICENSE FILE REVIEWS File No: 1 Licensee: Lang, Erich K., M.D. License #: LA 3737-LO1 l Location: New Orleans, LA Termination l License Type: Brachytherapy Reviewer: DBA Termination issued: April 18,1996 Comment:

al Confirmed disposition of radioactive material prior to terminating license.

File No: 2 Licensee: Biomedical Research Foundation of NW Louisiana License No: LA 7390-LO1 Location: Shreveport, LA New, Amendments No.1,2, and 3 License Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Reviewer: JWS Date issued: July 20,1995: February 8,1996:

July 29,1996: August 12,1996 i

File No: 3 l Licensee: Syncor international Corporation License No: LA-3385-LO1 Location: New Orleans, LA Renewal, Amendments No. 51 and 52  ;

Licensee Type: Nuclear Pharmacy Reviewer: DBA {

Date issued: February 17,1995: November 17,1995: l February 1,1996 Comments:

a) Renewal: Changed location of use and terminated one site. Good documentation of surveys. No letter issued to show site released for unrestricted use.

File No: 4 Licensee: Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat Hospital License No: LA-6405-LO1 Location: New Orleans, LA Amendment No. 7 License Type: Brachytherapy Reviewer: DBA  ;

Date issued: August 8,1995 '

l Louisiana Draft Report Page D.2 Ucense File Reviews File No: 5 Ucensee: Lafayette General Hospital Ucense No: LA-0581-LO1 Location: Lafayette, LA Amendments No. 51, 52, 53, 54 55, 56 Ucense Type: Institutional Nuclear Medicine Reviewer: DBA Date issued: May 18,1994; February 27,1995:

August 16,1995: September 7,1995:

September 9,1996 Comments:

a) Amendment 52 added an additional place of use for therapy in an outpatient clinic.

The diagram accepted does not show waste storage, radioactive material storage, 1 dose calibrator location, proposed wipe areas, etc. This was the only instance of this I type and was discussed with the State's License Reviewer. i b) Amendment 52, condition 1, authorizes all therapy uses, with no limitations on '

amounts of activity to be administered, for the outpatient location. This was also discussed with the State's Ucense Reviewer.

c) Amendment 55 added a physician /RSO to the license that did not meet all of the  !

requirements for an RSO outlined in the State's rules. The RSO was not an authorized user for therapy procedures but qualified in all other areas.

I File No: 6 Ucensee: Lafayette General Medical Center Ucense No: LA-5330-LO1 Location: Lafayette, LA Amendment 22,24,25, Renewal l License Type: Brachytherapy Reviewer: DBA 1 Date issued: March 22,1995: March 31,1995; August 2,1995; August 27,1996 i September 16,1996 Comments:

a) Amendment 22 added another site (location of use) to the license. The license condition should specify which "uses" are authorized at each location (site) listed in the license.

b) Updated HDR afterloader conditions need to be added to the license.

File No: 7 Ucensee: Total Safety, Inc. Ucense No: LA-7132 LO1 Location: Scott, LA Amendment No.1 Ucense Type: Consultant Reviewer: DBA Date Issued: August 6,1996 File No: 8 Ucensee: Highland Park Medical Center Ucense No:LA-3383-LO1 Location: Lovington, LA Termination Ucense Type: Institutional Nuclear Medicine Reviewer: DBA

1 Louisiana Draft Report Page D.3 Ucense File Reviews Termination issued: February 29,1996 File No: 9 Licensee: Halliburton Company License No: LA 3928-LO1 Location: Duncan, OK Termination License Type: Density Gauges, Tracer Studies Reviewer: DBA Termination issued: July 11,1996 Comments:

a) This license had been combined with another Halliburton license and 6 sites of use were originally listed. Two sites on license terminated use of material and three of the sites were put on the other license. One site was for GL devices only and dropped and removed from the license.

File No: 10 Ucensee: Eye Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. License No: LA-2837-LO1 Location: Hammond, LA Termination 3 License Type: Eye Applicator Reviewer: EBA l Termination Issued: June 10,1994 '

File No: 11 Licensee: Tiger X-Ray, Inc. License No: LA-3121-LO1 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Renewal License Type: Industrial Radiography (Temporary Job Sites) Reviewer: EBA Date issued: August 6,1996 File No: 12 Licensee: Source Production and Equipment Company, Inc. License No: LA-2966-LO1 Location: St. Rose, LA Amendment 27 License Type: Manufacture and Distribution Reviewer: DBA Dated issued: December 12,1995 Comments:

a) Requested termination of activities at a site. Good documentation of decommissioning activities. DEO performed confirmatory survey and issued a free release letter based on the survey prior to amending the license.

b) The licensee's training course could not be located in the file and was not referenced in the tie-down condition. This was discussed with the license reviewer.

File No: 13 Licensee: Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation License No: LA-0002-LO1 Location: New Orleans, LA Amendment No. 26 License Type: Broad Nuclear Medicine Reviewer: DBA Date issued: February 16,1995

Louisiana Draft Report Page D.4 License File Reviews Comments:

a) Condition 1 liste 5 places of use. The way the condition is currently written, it allows for all mt terial (except for material for in vitro use) to be used at alllocations including an HDit afterloader. The fifth location is authorized in vitro use and all other materialli: ted on the license. The authorized uses need to be specified for l each location.

b) The HDR afterloader conditions need to be revised.

File No: 14 -

Licensee: Global X-Ray and Testing Corporation License No: LA-0577 LO1 Location: Morgan LA Amendment No's 48,49,50, License Type: Industrial Radiography Renewal (amendment # 52); 53, 54, (temporary job sites) 55,56,57,61 Date issued: Amendments 5/16/94, 10/31/94, 2/14/95: Reviewer: JWS Renewal 2/24/95; Amendments 6/16/95,8/15/95, 10/11/95,11/14/95,12/20/95, 5/20/96 l

Comments: I a) Amendment 49 added a new user for calibration only and no documentation of 1 training for calibration was on file, and was discussed with the license amendment reviewer.

b) Amendment 52 request submitted by the applicant stated that new procedures would be submitted, but the new procedures were not on file. This was also discussed with the license amendment reviewer.

c) Amendment 52 of the license references a course outline dated February 11,1988 and March 1,1988. Also a new course outline was submitted with the renewal application dated February 10,1993. There was no documentation in the license to clarify which training outline is actually being followed by the licensee which could present a problem during inspections.

File No: 15 Licensee: Beaird industries, Inc. License No: LA-0576-LO1 Location: Shreveport, LA Renewal License Type: Industrial Radiography (fixed site) Reviewer: EBA Date issued: May 21,1996 File No: 16 Licensee: Cooper Cameron Corporation License No: LA-7095-LO1 Location: Ville Platte, LA Amendment No. 3 License Type: Industrial Radiography (fixed site) Reviewer: DBA Date issued: August 16,1995

Louisiana Draft Report Page D.5 License File Reviews i File No: 17 Licensee: Children's Hospital License No: LA-1448-LO1

. Location: New Orleans, LA Amendment No.13 License Type: Institutional Nuclear Medicine Reviewer: DBA  ;

, Date issued: June 7,1996 i File No: 18 Licensee: Ville Platte Medical Center License No: LA-2956-LO1 Location: Ville Platte, LA Renewal 1 License Type: Institutional Nuclear Medicine Reviewer: DBA Date issued: October 24,1995 1

File No: 19 Licensee: River Parishes Medical Center License No: LA-4435-LO1  !

Location: La Place, LA Renewal l License Type: Institutional Nuclear Medicine / Therapy Reviewer: DBA i 3 Date issued: July 30,1996 l 1

1 File No: 20 l Licensee: Omnitron International, Inc. License No: LA-6430-LO1

, Location: Lake Charles, LA Renewal License Type: Repacking and Distribution Reviewer: DBA Date issued: May 7,1996

File No

21

Licensee

Schlumburger Technology Corporation License No: LA-2783-LO1 License Type: Well Logging and Tracers Amendment No. 64

Date issued

May 24,1996 Reviewer: DBA

) Comment:

j a) License amended to terminate a place of use. Licensee submitted decommissioning i records for site. Loose material was stored at the site. The State should issue a i

" free release" letter stating that the site could be released for unrestricted use.

4 File No: 22 Licensee: Schlumberger Technology Corporation License No: LA-3255-LO1 Location: Sugarland, TX Amendment No. 21 License Type: Density Gauges Reviewer: DBA Date issued: February 6,1995 i

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

l l

l

\

Louisiana Draft Report Page D.6 l

1 Ucense File Reviews l File No: 23 Licensee: Willis-Knighton Medical Center License No: LA-1194-LO1 Location: Shreveport, LA Renewal Ucense Type: Teletherapy, Brachytherapy, Reviewer: DBA and Radiopharmaceutical Therapy Date lasued: July 9,1996 l

File No: 24 Ucensee: Louisiana Cardiology Associates License No: LA-7108-LO1 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Reriewal Ucense Type: Nuclear Medicine / Private Practice Reviewer: DBA l

Date issued: April 4,1996 File No: 25 Licensee: Directional Wireline Services, Inc. License No: LA-4466-LO1 l Location: Houma,LA Renewal i

License Type: Well Logging Reviewer: DBA Date issued: June 29,1995 File No: 26 Ucensee: Sigma Engineering, Inc. License No: LA-7551-LO1 Location: West Lake, LA New License Type: Portable Gauges Reviewer: DBA Date issued: October 3,1995 File No: 27 Ucensee: G.E.C., Inc. License No: LA-6357-LO1 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Amendment No. 4 License Type: Portable Gauges Reviewer: JWS Date issued: May 16,1995 File No: 28 Ucensee: Louisiana State University License No: LA-0001-LO1 Ucense Type: Broad Academic Renewal (Amendment No.16)

Date issued: 4/27/94: 8/10/94:12/20/95: 5/2/96 Amendment No.17,18 Renewal (Amendment 19)

Reviewer: DBA i

I l

1

Louisiana Draft Report Page D.7 Ucense File Reviews File No: 29 Ucensee: EarthNet Laboratories, Inc. License No: LA-3466-LO1 Location: Ruston, LA Renewal Ucense Type: Gas Chromatograph Reviewer: DBA '

Date issued: October 4,1996 File No: 30 Licensee: Acadiana Nucleonics, Inc. License No: LA-3257-LO1 Location: Lafayette, LA Renewal (Amendment 43)

License Type: Mobile Nuclear Medicine Amendment No.'s 44,45,46 Date issued: 10/18/95, 5/7/96, 5/24/96, 6/22/96 Reviewer: DBA Comment:

a) The license authorizes the storage of a contaminated xenon trap at a hospital location which does not have a license for the storage of the trap. The mobile licensee must remove all materials from the hospital, or the hospital should have a license for storage of the material.

File No: 31 Ucensee: Mobile Lab, Inc. License No: LA-1888-LO1 Location: Harvey, LA Amendment 49 Ucense Type: Radiography (temporary job sites) Reviewer: JWS Date issued: April 4,1996 File No: 32 Ucensee: X-Ray inspection, Inc. License No: LA 2918-LO1 Location: Lafayette, LA Amendment 52 Ucense Type: Radiography (temporary job sites) Reviewer: JWS Action Date: August 10,1996 File No: 33 Licensee: Avondale Instruments, Inc. License No: LA-0711-LO1 Location: New Orleans, LA Amendment 28 Ucense Type: Radiography (temporary job sites) Reviewer: JWS Date issued: August 10,1996 File No: 34 Ucensee: American Oilfield Divers License No: LA-5574-LO1 Location: New Iberia, LA Amendment 9 License Type: Radiography (temporary job sites) Reviewer: JWS Dateissued: August 26,1996

I Louisiana Draft Report Page D.8 Ucense File Reviews File No: 35 Ucensee: Gulf Coast Engineering License No: LA-7415-LO1 Location: Jefferson, LA Amendment 6 Ucense Type: Radiography (temporary job sites) Reviewer: DBA

Date issued

September 12,1996 i

File No: 36 4 Ucensee: Certified Testing and Inspection License No: LA-5601-LO1 Location: Harvey, LA Amendment 26

, License Type: Radiography (temporary job sites) Reviewer: JWS i Date issued: August 10,1996 i

i 1

4 d

1 l

i S

a i

d

APPENDIX E INSPECTION FILE REVIEWS File No.: 1 Licensee: St. Patrick Hospital License No.: LA-0997 LO1 Location: Lake Charles, LA Inspection Type: Announced, routine License Type: Hospital Priority: 4 inspection Date: 6/11/94 Inspector: RN File No.: 2 Licensee: Syncor International License Type: LA 3385-LO1 Location: New Orleans, LA Inspection Type: Announced, routine Ucense Type: Pharmacy Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 6/9/96 Inspector: AT File No.: 3 Licensee: Oakdale Community Hospital License No.: LA-1458-LO1 Location: Oakdale, LA Inspection Type: Announced, routine License Type: Hospital Priority: 4 inspection Date: 8/29/95 Inspector: RP File No.: 4 Licensee: Hood Memorial Hospital License No.: LA-2541-LO1 Location: Amite, LA Inspection Type: Follow up License Type: Hospital Priority: 4 Inspection Date: 4/3/96 Inspector: JE File No.: 5 Licensee: Global X-ray & Testing License No.: LA-0577-LO1 Location: Morgan City, LA Inspection Type: Unannounced License Type: Field Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 07/16/96 Inspector: JG Inspection Date: 07/31/96 Type: Unannounced Office inspection inspector: AT & RP inspection Date: 08/07/96 Type: Unannounced Field inspection inspector: JG Inspection Date: 08/21/96 Type: Unannounced Field inspection Inspector: JG File No.: 6 Licensee: University of Southern Louisiana License No.: LA-1794-LO1

1 Louisiana Draft Report E.2 l Inspection File Reviews t Location: Lafayette, LA Inspection Type: Announced, special License Type: Broad A.cademic Priority: 4 {

inspection Date: 03/22/96 Inspector: JN l 1

J l

Comment:

a) Licensee response and Form 24 could not be located in the file; however, the '

enforcement tracking system shows response received and issues resolved on 09/30/96.

File No.: 7 Licensee: Cooper Cameron Corporation License No.: LA-7095-LO1 Location: Ville Platte, LA inspection Type: Announced, routine License Type: Permanent Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 01/25/96 Inspector: JG  ;

File No.: 8 Licensee: Prolog License No.: LA-5950-LO1 Location: Houma, LA Inspection Type: Announced, office License Type: Well Logging Priority: 4 Inspection Date: 08/19/96 Inspector: MF & RC Co.nment:

a) No isratopes used this location; sources in storage inventoried.

File No.: 9 Licensee: Protechnics International License No.: LA-6678-LO1 Location: Houston, TX Inspection Type: Announced, special License Type: Well Logging Priority: 4 Inspection Date: 06/12/95 Inspector: JB Comments:

a) A site map referenced in report missing from the file.

b) Surveys performed by licensee missing from *.ne file.

c) Laboratory reports missing from the file.

d) Licensee's response to enforcement action missing from the file.

File No.: 10 Licensee: Tulane University License No.: LA-0004-LA01 Location: New Orleans, LA Inspection Type: Announced, routine License Type: Broad Academic Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 12/14/95 Inspector: AT Comment:

a) The 12/14/95 inspection report is incomplete.

Louisiana Draft Report E.3 inspection File Reviews

! File No.: 11 l Licensee: St. Francis Medical Center License No.: LA-0193 LO1 l Location: Monroe LA Inspection Type: Special License Type: Hospital Priority: 4 inspection Date: 3/20/96 Inspector: JG S

File No.: 12  !

Licensee: Certified Testing License No.: LA-5601-LO1

Location: Harvey, LA Inspection Type: Unannounced ,

License Type: Radiography Priority: 1 inspection Date: 07/07/95 Inspector: AT

Comments

;

, a) Long delay in getting the result of 07/07/95 inspection to licensee. l b) Clear inspection finding not issued 05/01/96.

Inspection Date: 06/19/95 Type: Unannounced inspection Date: 03/22/96 Type: Reciprocity inspection by Mississippi inspection Date: 06/27/96 Type: Unannounced inspection Date: 07/01/96 Type: Specialinspection by Alabama.

File No.: 13 4 Licensee: Mobile-Lab, Inc. License No.: LA-1888-LO1 Location: Harvey, LA Inspection Type: Unannounced License Type: Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 02/15/96 Inspector: AT Comment:

a) File missing CO, licensees' response and Form 24.

Inspection Date: 03/07/96 Type: Reciprocity inspection by Mississippi inspection Date: 03/14/95 Type: Unannounced inspection Date: 10/19/95 Type: Unannounced inspection Date: 03/14/95 Type: Unannounced File No.: 14 Licensee: Medi-Physics, Inc. License No. LA-5470-LO1

i i

l Louisiana Draft Report E.4 Inspection File Reviews l

1 Location: Jefferson, LA Inspection Type: Unannounced i License Type: Pharmacy Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 05/01/96 Inspector: AT, RP inspection date: 2/21/94 Type: Unannounced Inspector: JN, JM Comment:

a) Form 24 not in the file.

inspection date

11/16/94 Type: Unannounced Inspector: JN, JM ,

inspection Date: 04/02/96 Type: Unannounced Inspector: JN, JM File No.: 15 Licensee: Allied Signal, Inc. License No.: LA-2356-LO1 Location: Geismar, LA Inspection Type: 6 License Type: Level Gage Priority: Routine, Unannounced inspection Date: 04/03/94 Inspector: JB, RP inspection Date: 11/18/93 Type: Reciprocity inspection by Alabama inspection Date: 08/03/94 Type: Routine, Unannounced Inspector: JG, RP inspection Date: 08/04/94 Type: Routine, Unannounced Inspector: JG, RP Comment: ,

a) A clear inspection letter not in the file, inspection Date: 12/09/94 Type: Reciprocity inspection by NRC inspection Date: 03/02/95 Type: Routine, Unannounced inspector: JG, RP inspection Date: 06/01/95 Type: Reciprocity inspection by towa inspection Date: 02/16/96 Type: Unannounced Inspector: JG, AT Comment:

a) Licensee response and Form 24 not in the file.

Inspection Date: 04/01/96 Type: Reciprocity inspection by NRC

d

- Louisiana Draft Report E.5

! Inspection File Reviews Inspection Date: 04/24/96 Type: Reciprocity inspection by NRC Inspection Date: 04/09/96 Type: Unannounced L Inspector: JG, RP

{ Comment:

I a) Uconsee response and Form 24 not in the file.

Inspection Date: 04/09/96 Type: Unannounced i- Inspector: JG, RP

Comment:

l a) CO, licensee response and Form 24 not in the file.

i

{ inspection Date: 05/17/96 Type: Unannounced

! Inspector: JB, RP l

! Inspection Date: 08/23/96 Type: Unannounced Inspector: JB, RP l Comment:

1 m) A clear inspection letter not in the file, j

inspection Date: 08/23/96 Type: Unannounced inspector: JG, RB l Comment:

! a) A clear inspection letter not in the file.

! File No.: 16

! Ucensee: Basin Industrial X-ray Ucense No.: LA-03548

?

Location: Odessa, TX Inspection Type: Unannounced

! License Type: Radiography Priority: Reciprocity

inspection Date

5/1/96 Inspector: JG

) Comments:

} a) inspection report not in the file.

j b) CO sent to licensee summarizing six violations.

j c) Licensee response and Form 24 documents not in the file.

File No.: 17 l Ucensee: Pitt-DesMoines, Inc. Ucense No.: LA-04502 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Inspection Type: Unannounced License Type: Radiography Priority: Reciprocity inspection Date: 01/00/95 Inspector: JG l Y

e Louisiana Draft Report E.6 Inspection File Reviews 4

File No.: 18 Licensee: Edwards Pipeline Testirig, Inc. Ucense No.: NRC 34-09037-01 Location: Tulsa, OK inspection Type: Unannounced Ucense Type: Radiography Priority: Reciprocity inspection Date: Inspector: RF

, Comments:

a) Reviewer could not determine if inspection results were sent to NRC.

File No.: 19 Ucensee: Chicago Bridge & Iron Ucense No.: LA-01902

Location: St. James, LA inspection Type: Unannounced 3

Ucense Type: Radiography Priority: Reciprocity inspection Date: 07/11/96 Inspector: JE

Comment

a) Not clear if copy of the report was sent to Texas.

j File No.: 20 Ucensee: Southern Diag % '.::: Ucense No.: LA-6629-LO1 Location: Lafayette, LA Inspection Type: Special l License Type: Medical Chnic Priority: 4  ;

inspection Date: Inspector: JN I Comments:

a) Ucensee reported losing a check source.

b) Compliance Order issued 10/04/96 was not in the file.

File No.: 21 i Ucensee: Acadiana Nucleonics License No.: LA-3257-LO1 Location: Inspection Type: Routine l Ucense Type: Medical Clinic Priority: 4 Inspection Date: Inspector:

l '

File No.: 22

Ucensee

Lafayette Central Pharmacy Ucense No.: LA-5115 LO1 Location: Lafayette, LA inspection Type: Special License Type: Pharmacy Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 05/94 Inspector:

i 4

4

)

i-l 1

5l

Louisiana Draft Report E.7 i inspection File Reviews l In addition, the following inspection accompaniments were made as part of the on site j IMPEP review

Accompaniment No.: 1 l Licensee: Steel Forgings, Inc. License No.: LA-7292-LO1

Location

Shreveport, Louisiana inspection Type: Unannounced i License Type: cell radiography Priority: 1 l Inspection Date: 09/23/96 Inspector: JB Comments:

i a) Very professionalinspection using LA inspection guidance, i b) Inspector observed activities and interviewed workers.

, c) Inspector took confirmatory measurements.

i d) No incidents occurred since last inspection.

Accompaniment No.: 2 Licensee: Technical Testing Services, Inc. License No.: LA-3773.LO1 Location: Shreveport, LA Inspection Type: Unannounced License Type: cell radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 09/23/96 Inspector: JG Comments:

a) Very professional inspection using LA inspectiori guidance.

b) Inspector observed activities and interviewed workers.

c) Inspector took confirmatory measurements.

d) Inspector identified two violations. 1 Accompaniment No.: 3 Licensee: Liberty Technical Services, Inc. License No.: LA-5055-LO1 Location: Belcher, LA Inspection Type: Unannounced License Type: field radiography Priority: 1 inspection Date: 09/23/96 Inspector: JG l Comments:

a) Very professionalinspection using LA inspection guidance.

b) Licensed activities were completed just before inspector's arrival.

c) Inspector reviewed logs and records, interviewed workers, had workers demonstrate survey techniques and describe their operating procedures, and took confirmatory measurements, d) inspector identified two violations.

Accompaniment No.: 4 Licensee: Baton Rouge General Medical Center License No.: LA-0003-LO1 Location: Baton Rouge, LA inspection Type: Announced

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

i t

' Louisiana Draft Report E.8 -

inspection File Reviews

! Ucense Type: high dose rate after loader Priority: 1

inspection Date

09/24/96 Inspector: JN l Comments:

l a) RSO was not able to be present during inspection and some records could not be

located at the time of the accompaniment.

l b) Very professional inspection using LA inspection guidance.

! c) No licensed activities (procedures) were being conducted at time of inspection.

I d) No violations were found during the accompaniment. Inspector verified that licensee

had corrected violations identified on last inspection.

i e) inspector performed confirmatory measurements and interviewed staff.

i f) Inspector returned to facility within one week to complete the inspection with RSO present. No violations were found at that time.

l i

i l

l

APPENDIX F INCIDENT FILE REVIEWS File No: 1

. Ucensee: Cooper Industries Uconse No. LA-7095-LO1 Site: Ville Platte Facility Date of Events: 12-3-93,1-13-94, 1-20-94, & 3-9-94 Type of Event: Failure of IR sources to return to shielded position Summary of incident:

l All events were similar and involved Amersham exposure devices at this facility. Sources could not be returned to the shielded position. Amersham replaced the locking mechanism i following the first event; the second event was attributed to operator error; the third event l was attributed to using old equipment with new, and operator error; and following the l fourth event, the equipment was sent to Amersham for evaluation. Amersham has not determined the cause of the event.

Comment:

a) These incidents were not listed on the questionnaire as "significant events" since there was no significant exposure to workers.

File No: 2 Ucensee: Lafayette Police Department Ucense No: Non-Ucensee Site: Vehicle parked on a public street Date of Event: 12-18-95 Type of Event: Bomb threat reported to local police -

Summary of incident:

A vehicle on a public street was reported to the local police as having a bomb. The police contacted the State Police bomb squad for assistance ar.d the device was determined to be a 2.5 millicurie krypton-85 check source. The State responded also and took custody of the source, and NRC, Region IV was notified.

l File No: 3  ;

Ucensee: Omnitron international, Inc.

Ucense No: LA-6430-LO1 Site: Lake Charles Date of Event: 9-15-95 Type of Event: Improperly labeled package Summary of Event:

l An spent iridium-192 source wire was shipped from Seoul, Korea to the Omnitron facility.

l The source was properly packaged in a shielded and labeled container; however, the l container arrived inside an outer unlabeled container, and without proper shipping papers.

m The source was shipped by air from Korea to Los Angeles, CA and then via UPS to Lake l

Charles. No contamination or excessive radation profile was found.

i 1

I i

l l

1 -. . - .

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

i i

l 1

e Louisiana Draft Report Page F.2

incident File Reviews File No

4 1

, Ucensee: Halliburton Engineering Services Ucense No: LA-2353-LO1 Site: Bossier City Date of Event: 6-23-96 Type of Event: Loss of Control Summary of Event:

A portable moisture density gauge was found along side a road and the device had fallen j from the Ucensees vehicle following work at a temporary job site. The device was retrieved l l by the State prior to the device being reported missing by the licensee. The device was returned to the Ucensee.

4 File No: 5 Ucensee: X-Ray inspection, Inc.

Ucense No: LA-2818-LO1 Site: Lafayette Date of Event: 3-4-96 Type of Event: Lost source overboard Summary of Event:

The Licensee reported that a 25 curie iridium-192 source was lost when the device was

} inadvertently dropped into the Gulf of Mexico while being transferred onto an offshore oil rig. The platform is in Federal jurisdiction and in about 200 feet of water. The device was l not recovered. Proper notifications were made. j File No: 6 I Ucensee: Global X-Ray & Testing Corporation I Ucense No: LA-0577-LO1 '

Site: Morgan City

. Date of Event: 3-21-94 Type of Event: Drive cable 4

Summary of Event:

Ucensee experienced a problem with the drive cable connector after the source had been returned to the shielded position. The device was a SPEC-2T camera. No excessive

exposures.

4 File No: 7 Ucensee: Global X-Ray & Testing Corporation 3 Ucense No: LA-0577-LO1

, Site: Gulf of Mexico, Temporary job site i

Date of Event: 5-1-94

Type of Event

Lost camera overboard Summary of Event:

A 100 curie iridium-192 source and camera was lost overboard in the Gulf of Mexico during 4 a storm in about 228 feet of water. The State and the Ucensee considered source to be

irretrievable.

i d

4 4

l 4

Louisiana Draft Report Page F.3 incident File Reviews File No: 8 Ucensee: Omnitron Ucense No: LA-6430-LO1 Site: Lake Charles Date of Event: 12-20-94 Type of Event: improper shipment from South Korea Summary of Event:

An HDR afterloader spent source was shipped from South Korea to the Ucensee through the State of Texas. The device was not properly packaged but not damaged. Some calculated exposures were 3.5 rem to worker at American Crating, and calculated exposure of 84 millirem to one Fed Ex employee. Packing instructions were reportedly provided by Omnitron prior to the shipment. Proper notifications were made to NRC and to Texas by the State.

File No: 9 Ucensee: Louisiana State University Ucense No: LA-0001-LO1 Site: New Orleans Date of Event: 5-16-94 Type of Event: Loss of Control Summary of Event:

The Ucensee reported the loss of 100 microcuries of iodine-125, the source was picked up as ordinary waste and subsequently buried at a landfill in about 10 feet of soil.

File No.: 10 l Ucensee: Chom Waste Management License No: LA-4187-LO1 j Site: Sulphur Date of Event: 6-6-94 Type of Event: Potentially Leaking source ,

Summary of Event:

The Ucensee reported a leaking electron capture device but further analysis by manufacturer l determined that their was no leakage.

File No: 11 Uconsee: Brammer Engineering Ucense No: (not recorded by reviewer)

Site: Shreveport Date of Event: 5296 Type of Event: Well head spill Summary of Event:

The licensee reported that a wellhead valve failed, allowing 4 ounces of iodine-125 to leak onto the ground. The site was secured and the material cleaned up.

File No: 12 Uconses: IMC Agrico

l 4

f Louisiana Draft Report Page F.4 incident File Reviews Ucense No: LA-2206-LO1 Date of Event: 7-12-96 i Type of Event: Release of Material

Summary of Event

A drum of dirt containing a small quantity of source material was inadvertently sent to a land fill and dumped on the ground. Material was cleaned up by a contractor / consultant

, from Louisiana State University and disposed.

4 File No: 13 Licensee: Southern Diagnostics i License No: LA-6629-LO1 Date of Event: 5-13-96 Type of Event: Lost source Summary of Event:

A small check source was lost at the facility and never recovered.

File No: 14 Licensee: Mobile Lab License No: LA-1888-LO1 Site: Gulf of Mexico Date of Event: 9-11-96 Type of Event: Lost device overboard Summary of Event:

The radiography device was lost overboard in water and the device was recovered intact, and determined not to be damaged or leaking.

1 i

Louisiana Draft Report Page G.1 Sealed Source and Device Reviews APPENDIX G SEALED SOURCE AND DEVICE EVALUATION REVIEWS File No.: 1 Registry No.: LA-612-8-101-S Manufacturer. Source Production & Equipment Company (SPEC)

SS&D Type: Radiographic Source Comment:

a) Amended in entirety as part of implementation of State improvement plan. l File No.: 2 Registry No.: LA-612-S-105-S Manufacturer. SPEC SS&D Type: Radiographic Source Comments: ,

a) Design change in Model G-60 source assembly connector that was approved verbally, by State Staff should be made to this sheet, b) ANSI 77C32515 is not a classification as in ANSI 1977 (7743515) could not determine if i temperature class was a typing error- no supporting documentation could be located  !

regarding this test designation.

File No.: 3 Registry No.: LA-612-S-106-S Manufacturer. SPEC SS&D Type: Radioactive Source Comment-a) Amendment to update old SSD as discussed in the States 1994 improvement plan.

However, the source assembly model , T-7F approvalis missing from approved source listing.

File No.: 4 Registry No.: LA-612-D-111-S Manufacturer: SPEC SS&D Type: Radiographic Exposure Device Comments:

a) Reviewed as part of the analysis of incidents were connector failed and failure of lock plungers or change of brass connector nut to stainless steel.

b) Design changes to correct the above problem were verbally approved by State personnel, should have been documented in some supporting data.

l 1

I Louisiana Draft Report Page G.2 l Sealed Source and Device Reviews

! File No.: 5 Registry No.: LA-07604801-8 Manufacturer: Omnitron intomational SS&D Type: Remote Aner-Loading Brachytherapy 1

Comment:

j a) This action made the certificate inactive as per last Agreement State audit.

l File No.: 6 Registry No.: LA-0760 !Ml01-S (Rev)

, Manufacturer: Omnitron intomational l SS&D Type: Remote After-Loading Brachytherapy Unit Comments:

a) No background file could be found on this action. Everything is in the confidential file i

which could not be located.

j b) However, this revision appears to only revise wording and other non-technical charras.

a i

i File No.: 7 i Registry No.: LA-0760-S-102-S

! Manufacturer. Omnitron Intemational l SS&D Type: Remote After-Loading Brachytherapy Unit L

Comments:

i a) ANSI testing resulted in classification of 77C53211 yet safety analysis summary used j classification of 77C53212. Appeared to be a typing error but could not be reconciled given the lack of supporting information.

b) June 14,1995, letter missing from the reference section, this is important information on 1 the use of different lengths of source cable (87" to 102") used in the device.  !

File No.: 8

• Registry No.: LA-0760-S-102 (Rev) I Manufacturer: Omnitron Intemational SS&D Type: Brachytherapy Source l

Comment a) Revision appears only for word engineering and other non-technical changes.

I

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

l i

l i t.ouisiana Draft Report Page G.3

{ Sealed Source and Device Reviews i

File No.

9 l l Registry No.: LA-0760-S-103-S j Manufacturer: Omnitron t6temational l SS&D Type: Gi.chytherepy Source i

Comments:

a) Extensive technical consultation with NRC and Texas on this evaluation.

j b) Support information is provided for ANSI Classification 77C5321 yet a final certificate was i issued usmg classification of 77C53212. An increase in puncture designations should

! have supporting test data to justify the increase.

j c) First page should list recommended leak test frequency for consistent format for l certificates used in the Nationwide Registry system.

! d) Octo5er 25,1993 and December 17,1993 letters could not be located, believed to be in

! the , afidential files, relied on interview with NRC and State staff to make the ,

, det.:mination on this action. j l

File No.

10 j Registry No.: LA-112-S-113-S Manufacturer; Berthold SS&D Type: Gauge Source Comments a) Custom insertion so.irce. Reviewers should have considered the operational and '

administrative controis uMbe Custom User when performing this custom review. The combined engineered safety and the users radiation protection program are to be used when making a determination that the custom source is acceptable for licensing purposes.

b) State used a 3 person signature system including the reviewer, a second technical review and administrative review. Although the second technical review by a person with industry experience was not used as indicated in the States 1994 letter, c) Submission was not clear on how sources chain is held together and if the source chain will maintain integrity for conditions of use noted on the registration sheet.

d) General Rule of Thumb - Custom applications are usually submitted by the user or by vendor through the user. This allows for clear tie down to licensee. In this case, State dealt directly with vendor and may not be able to hold customer accountable for the commitments made in the vendors submission.