Tallli Stowe
Legislative Research Analyst
(602) 542-4962
Arizona House of Representatives
House Majority Research
REPORT
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007-2848
FAX (602) 542-4511
To:
Date:
Subject:
JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE
Senator Blendu, Chairman
Representative Knaperek, Vice Chairman
December 16, 2005
Sunset Review of the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency and Hearing Board
Attached is the final report ofthe sunset review ofthe Arizona Radiation Agency and Hearing Board,
which was conducted by the Senate Commerce and Economic Development and the House ofRepresentatives
Environment Committee of Reference.
This report has been distributed to the following individuals and agencies:
Governor ofthe State ofArizona
The Honorable Janet Napolitano
President ofthe Senate
Senator Ken Bennett
Senate Members
Senator Barbara Leff, Cochair
Senator Ken Cheuvront
Senator Richard Miranda
Senator Jay Tibshraeny
Senator Jim Waring
Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency and Hearing Board
Arizona State Library, Archives & Public Records
Office ofthe Auditor General
Senate Majority Staff
Senate Research Staff
Senate Minority Staff
Senate Resource Center
Speaker ofthe House
Representative Jim Weiers
House Members
Representative Michele Reagan, Cochair
Representative Ray Barnes
Representative Steve Huffman
Representative Leah Landrum Taylor
Representative Kyrsten Sinema
House Majority Staff
House Research Staff
House Minority Staff
ChiefClerk
December 16, 2005
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE REPORT
Senate Commerce and Economic Development and House of Representatives Environment
Committee of Reference
ARIZONA RADIATION REGULATORY AGENCY AND HEARING BOARD
Background
Pursuant to § 41 -2953.~ltatutes. theloinLLel!i'slative Audit Committee
(JLAC) assigned the sunset r ofthe Arizona Radiation Regulatory cy (ARRA) and
Hearing Board to the Sena Commerce and Eco . of Representatives
Environment Committee of Reference or review.
Laws 19 Chapter 206, abolished the Arizona Atomic Energy ommlSSlO d established
the Arizona Ra' on Re tory Agency. The enactment acknowledged any use adiation
and exposure adiation some risk. The legislature also recog that radia Ion use is
an evolving t ology ofa highly complex nature. Therefore, the State ado ted a policy to protect
the public health and safety by regulating the use and sources ofradiation with methods and
procedures relating to radiation which are demonstrated to be safe; and maintain exposure sources of
radiation in amounts as low as reasonably achievable with ood radiation protection planning and
enforcement.
The Radiation Regulat earing Board (Boar also established in 1980. The Board
conducts hearings and reviews or'rlP'"'" r,..- or the Director. The Board is a vehicle for appeals
by any person adversely affected ofARRA relating to the modification of a license,
revocation of license, assessm enalty or an escalated enforcement action. Statute
requires the B d to d, by order, affirm, revoke or modify the order of
ARRA.
c hearin$on Wedne~~ll.' ovember 16,2005 to
d by A.. . §.~1-~g.5.4, sllR~~cti6ns D and F, and to hear and
accept public testimony. Testimony w i¥~~..:tr8m~llbreYG6dwin, Director, Arizona Radiation
Regulatory Agency; Dave Crozier, Senior GovemmentLiaison Officer, Palo Verde Nuclear Power
Plant; Kenneth Mossman, Professor of Health Physics, Arizona State University; Debbie Keyes,
Radiation Safety Administrator, AMEC Earth & Environment, Incorporated; and Dan Silvain,
Associate Director, Radiation Control Office, University ofArizona.
2
December 16, 2005
Committee ofReference Recommendations
The Committee ofReference recommended that the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency
and Hearing Board be continued for ten years and that four FTEs are restored to the agency.
Attachments
1) Meeting Notice
2) Minutes ofthe Committee ofReference Meeting
3) Agency factors pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2954, subsections D and F
4) Hearing Board factors pursuant -2594, subsection D and F
5) ARRA Annual Report
3
Interim agendas can be obtained via the Internet at http://www.azleg.state.az.usllnterimCommittees.asp
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
INTERIM MEETING NOTICE
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE
FOR THE SUNSET HEARING OF THE
ARIZONA RADIATION REGULATORY AGENCY AND HEARING BOARD
Date:
Time:
Place:
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
9:00 a.m.
House Hearing Room 5
AGENDA
1. Call to Order - Opening Remarks
2. Presentation of the Sunset Review on the Arizona Radiation Regulatory
Agency and Hearing Board
3. Public Testimony
4. Discussion and Recommendations by Committee of Reference
5. Adjourn
Members:
Senator Barbara Leff, Co-Chair
Senator Ken Cheuvront
Senator Richard Miranda
Senator Jay Tibshraeny
Senator Jim Waring
10/31/05
jmb
Representative Michele Reagan, Co-Chair
Representative Ray Barnes
Representative Steve Huffman
Representative Leah Landrum Taylor
Representative Kyrsten Sinema
People with disabilities may request reasonable accommodations such as interpreters,
alternative formats, or assistance with physical accessibility. If you require accommodations,
please contact the Chief Clerk's Office at (602) 926-3032, TOO (602) 926-3241.
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Forty-seventh Legislature - First Regular Session
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE
FOR THE SUNSET HEARING OF THE
ARIZONA RADIATION REGULATORY AGENCY AND HEARING BOARD
Minutes ofMeeting
Wednesday, November 16,2005
House Hearing Room 5 -- 9:00 a.m.
Chairman Reagan called the meeting to order at 9: 13 a.m. and the Members present were
recognized by the Cochairs.
Members Present
Senator Miranda
Senator Tibshraeny
Senator Waring
Senator Leff, Cochair
Senator Cheuvront
Members Absent
Speakers Present
Representative Barnes
Representative Landrum Taylor
Representative Sinema
Representative Reagan, Cochair
Representative Huffman
Aubrey Godwin, Director, Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency
Dave Crozier, Senior Government Liaison Officer, Palo Verde Power Plant
Kenneth Mossman, Professor of Health Physics, Arizona State University
Debbie Keyes, Radiation Safety Administrator, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Incorporated
Dan Silvain, Medical Physicist/Consultant; Associate Director, Radiation Control Office,
University of Arizona; Radiation Safety Officer, American Red Cross, Tucson
PRESENTATION
Aubrey Godwin, Director, Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency, stated that the agency is
divided into four functional areas: The X-ray Compliance Program, Radioactive Materials NonIonizing
and Particle Accelerator Program, the Radiation Measurement Laboratory Program, and
the Emergency Response Program. The Hearing Board hears appeals regarding the Director's
decisions and assists in developing rule-making packages.
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE FOR THE SUNSET
HEARING OF THE ARIZONA RADIATION
REGULATORY AGENCY AND HEARING BOARD
November 16, 2005
• The X-ray Compliance Program registers owners of x-ray equipment and inspects the
equipment to ensure it is being used according to state rules and requirements.
• The Radioactive Materials Non-Ionizing and Particle Accelerator Program licenses
radioactive material users, such as nuclear medicine facilities, industrial radiography
facilities, etc. Non-ionizing facilities include tanning booths, lasers used to remove hair
or tattoos, etc. The dental profession also uses certain types of treatments. Particle
accelerators, for the most part, are giant x-ray machines that are very powerful and emit a
lot of energy usually used to produce x-rays or radioactive materials for diagnostic
purposes.
• The Radiation Measurement Laboratory Program does environmental monitoring around
fixed nuclear facilities, such as the Palo Verde Power Plant. There is also a requirement
in statute to monitor uranium mining and milling sites. The Palo Verde part of the
program was not sustained during the budget crunch some years ago and has not been
restarted. There is a proposal to restart the uranium mining operation, but the agency
would not be in a position to conduct monitoring unless funding is provided.
• The Emergency Response Program prepares and tests agency response to major radiation
events, such as a problem at Palo Verde or weapons of mass destruction. Training is
provided to first responders who initially detect and determine what radiation is involved
in transportation events or weapons of mass destruction. For major emergencies, the
agency reorganizes from these functional areas and divides into two identical sections, so
there would be a 12-hour work shift with half agencies on each shift to provide the
necessary monitoring and assessment. Because of staff reductions, the second shift has
not been fully funded, which has been offset to some degree by consultants, and
volunteers will be needed from other agencies.
Mr. Godwin related some problems:
• Two x-ray inspectors were lost during the budget crunch in 2001, which represents about
1,200 inspections per year. As a result, the agency is now 40 percent behind in
conducting inspections. The ARA also lost one radioactive materials inspector, so those
inspections are behind between 10 and 15 percent.
• The Statewide Monitoring Program was shut down, which caused concern in certain
areas in northwest Arizona relating to monitoring and the Nevada test site.
• The Accenture program, a combination of telecommunications and Internet services in
the state, is going to double telephone and Internet costs by FY 2007. Unfortunately, the
budget already passed and did not include that cost, which is about $22,000.
He advised Chairman Reagan that the annual budget is composed of $1.2 million from the state
and other funding amounting to $2.5 million from the Department of Energy for monitoring and
training people along 1-40 due to significant shipments to the Carlsbad, New Mexico area, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the radon program, and the Palo Verde Power Plant
which goes through the General Fund, but is a direct tax on the plant for additional requirements
for emergency planning required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTAnVES ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE FOR THE SUNSET
HEARING OF THE ARIZONA RADiAnON
REGULATORY AGENCY AND HEARING BOARD
2 November 16, 2005
Mr. Godwin clarified for Mrs. Landrum Taylor that monitoring is not necessary in the northwest
part of the state, but people have the perception that if there is no monitoring, releases from the
Nevada test site would not be detected. There is currently no testing going on at the test site, but
some concerns were expressed. The main concern is that if the reported startup of the uranium
mining industry takes place, the agency will not be able to monitor the mines.
Mr. Godwin pointed out that 11 million curies of cobalt were transported via 1-40 this calendar
year and about 13 million curies were transported last year. It is a main East-West route for
transporting shipments from Canada to the Far East, so the agency maintains the ability to
respond in the event there is an accident. Shipments typically range from 100,000 curies to close
to 500,000 each, which is rather large. The Transportation Committee and Members of the
Legislature are informed about those shipments four or five days prior. These are shipments the
agency knows about specifically. Others the agency would not know of are much smaller, such
as nuclear medicine shipments, and those are not tracked individually. He acknowledged to
Chairman Reagan that the ARA is the only agency monitoring radioactive materials going
through the state.
Mr. Barnes noted that the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) has a hazardous materials
unit that continually monitors highways. Mr. Godwin clarified that DPS officers are the first
responders for which the ARA provides training, and in some cases, instruments.
Mr. Godwin relayed that the ARA becomes involved if DPS has a situation reported where there
is an accident or an inspection is initiated for some reason and there is a problem. If word is
received through a different source that a shipment has a problem, the agency would initiate
action on its own or ask DPS to help stop the shipment for inspection. About a year ago, a call
was received from DPS about a major shipment believed to be leaking in the Prescott area. The
agency checked it out and it turned out not to be losing material. It was kind of a small quantity,
but represented a major error by the Department of Energy in the way it was packaged. The
EPA, or Atomic Energy Act Materials, a subgroup of the overall radiation program, does not
have any jurisdiction. Jurisdiction at the federal level is through the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
He advised Senator Leff that there is an inspection program to make sure licensed radioactive
materials users and x-ray users are following the rules. For transportation, the agency
coordinates not only with DPS, but provides training for Motor Vehicle Division (MVD)
personnel to conduct inspections at the ports of entry. All vehicles are not stopped, only those
where an inspection is needed. DPS can stop trucks any time on the highway and pull an
inspection. Hazardous materials people and Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance inspectors
conduct radiation inspections. He related that it is not possible to determine if a truck contains
radioactive material just by looking, but certain instruments can ascertain if the radioactive levels
are appropriate.
When Senator Leff asked what would happen if there is a problem with cobalt, Mr. Godwin
responded that the most likely event to happen would be if someone is injured in an accident, but
there would be no exposure from the cobalt because shipping containers are designed to survive
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE FOR THE SUNSET
HEARING OF THE ARIZONA RADIATION
REGULATORY AGENCY AND HEARING BOARD
3 November 16, 2005
fairly heavy crashes. Many people try to develop ways to transport cobalt, though, and if
containment were breached, those sources could represent a threat to anyone within 100 feet.
Senator Leff indicated that she is concerned about terrorists or radicals. Mr. Godwin agreed, but
explained that one of the reasons the agency is notified about shipments is to be aware if a
shipment is· diverted, which would mean someone could make a weapon of mass destruction.
Senator Leff asked if anything could leak while being shipped across the state that would be
dangerous to the community. Mr. Godwin said there have been two incidents involving a leak
since he has been Director and both originated with the federal government. He acknowledged
that it is possible to have a leak that is not visible. The agency does not have a monitoring
program. Federal funds were requested for that purpose, but there is no system for checking
every vehicle that travels through the state.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Dave Crozier, Senior Government Liaison Officer, Palo Verde Power Plant, testified that
Palo Verde has a very comprehensive and robust emergency plan to deal with an unlikely
emergency at Palo Verde, and the ARA is an essential part of the plan. The federal government
requires emergency plans to be in place with state response agencies. Without those agreements,
Palo Verde would have to be shut down and would not be able to operate. The agency is a key
ingredient to their success.
Senator Leff remarked that there appears to be a safety gap in inspecting shipments through the
state.
Kenneth Mossman, Professor of Health Physics, Arizona State University, conveyed that as a
former radiation safety officer at Arizona State University, he worked very closely with the ARA
and endorses continuation of the agency. In the 10 years as a radiation safety officer,
unannounced inspections were conducted by the ARA, but the frequency of inspections
decreased because of staffing shortages. ASU is now the largest single campus university in the
country and the research portfolio has rapidly expanded in terms of usage of lasers and
radioactive material. The agency was critical to operating a safe program for faculty, staff and
students.
Mr. Godwin advised that as part of inspections, the ARA looks at how licensees transport
radioactive material and inspect licensees at that point. The packaging is also inspected before it
is turned over to a commercial carrier, where it is often inspected by the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Again, there is one inspector for a large region so it is not something that is done
every day, as well as by the MVD on occasion and DPS as officers desire to conduct inspections.
When exceptions to meeting the requirements are found, the agency becomes involved, but there
is no reason to hold a truck if the requirements are met.
Mr. Godwin clarified that the agency lost a total of four positions as a result of budget cuts, two
in x-ray, one in radioactive materials, and one in the laboratory. Three of those were inspectors.
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE FOR THE SUNSET
HEARING OF THE ARIZONA RADIATION
REGULATORY AGENCY AND HEARING BOARD
4 November 16, 2005
Those position cuts affect the safety of the community as far as radioactive materials,
particularly in x-ray because when someone has an x-ray taken there is a 40 percent chance it has
not been inspected by the state within the recommended period of time.
Senator Leff remarked that is very scary with all the x-rays people have and wondered if it is
possible to recommend that the agency be restored. Mrs. Landrum Taylor commented that it is
very critical as far as safety to make sure the agency has the appropriate staff to conduct
inspections, so she supports full funding.
Mr. Godwin indicated to Ms. Sinema that approximately $270,000 would be needed to restore
the four positions.
Mrs. Landrum Taylor stated that with the state growing in leaps and bounds, $270,000 to get the
agency up to par is priceless when it comes to protecting millions and millions of lives.
Mr. Godwin related to Senator Waring that there are about 12,000 x-ray tubes in the state, and an
inspector is expected to inspect about 600 per year; however, it is not possible to maintain that
rate because, with the current turnover, a fair amount of time is spent training people. The length
of time to conduct an inspection depends on the type of unit and varies from 10 to 15 minutes for
the equipment part to close to an hour for more complex units, plus time to address issues at the
facility such as reviewing certain records, etc. For radioactive material, the amount of time
varies depending on the type of equipment. For a gauge for testing density of construction
materials at a construction site, it could take a few minutes, but to review the records, etc., it
could be about an hour or longer if the inspector has to go somewhere else to view the records.
For a complex operation like the universities where there are research labs, it could take up to an
hour. There is some travel time as the inspectors are all based in Phoenix.
He conveyed that there are four x-ray inspectors, but one is dedicated solely to mammography.
That position is paid by the federal government, so there are three inspectors inspecting
12,000 tubes, which is about one inspector per 4,000. If only 600 per year are inspected, it takes
seven years to complete the inspections. It is best to conduct inspections at least every four
years, and some need to be done annually like mammography, and hospitals every two years,
which is why the ARA is lagging in inspections.
Debbie Keyes, Radiation Safety Administrator, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Incorporated,
stated that AMEC has an industrial radiography license and a license for moisture density gauges
in Arizona. She indicated that local oversight by the ARA is preferable to NRC oversight, which
is what the company would go to if the ARA is not continued. AMEC holds 13 licenses in
10 different states and an NRC license. Communicating with the NRC is much different than
with the ARA as it takes almost two years to obtain an answer from the NRC to a simple
jurisdictional question and six months for a license amendment to be processed. If the ARA is
not continued, there would be a large economic impact on the smaller companies in Arizona
because license fees would be about ten times more the first year and eight times more every
year thereafter. The company is more than willing to pay an increased fee to ARA rather than
pay ten times the fee to the NRC.
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE FOR THE SUNSET
HEARING OF THE ARIZONA RADIATION
REGULATORY AGENCY AND HEARING BOARD
5 November 16,2005
Ms. Keyes added that a problem that can and would arise is when the NRC has jurisdiction over
a state and there is no local entity like the ARA, companies are legally supposed to get
reciprocity from the NRC before entering the state to perform work. People will not get the
reciprocity, but enter the state, do the job, and leave the state without anyone's knowledge. It
would be very possible for the company to lose a source in Arizona and no one would know until
it is too late, so local oversight is very important for any state.
Dan Silvain, Medical Physicist/Consultant; Associate Director, Radiation Control Office,
University of Arizona; Radiation Safety Officer, American Red Cross, Tucson, said that without
the ARA, some of the medical things that are done in Tucson would not happen. Procedures are
performed that involve amounts of radioactivity to cure cancer, but reimbursement for the
procedures is not available. By calling the ARA to get an answer, it is possible to devise ways
and means to minimize the cost and do it in a safe manner. Also, several years ago, he was
involved in Kartchner Caverns and there was a tremendous amount of concern about radon
exposure to workers at the radon facility. He worked with the ARA to develop a full radiation
safety program for Kartchner Caverns. The ARA cares about the citizens of Arizona and wants
to make sure everyone is safe, so he wholeheartedly supports the agency's existence.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Senator Leff moved that the Committee of Reference recommend to the
Legislature that the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency and Hearing
Board be continued for 10 years. The motion carried by a roll call vote of
8-0-0-2 (Attachment 1).
Senator Leff moved that the Committee of Reference recommend to the
Legislature that the four FTEs be restored to the agency. The motion carried
by a roll call vote of 7-0-1-2 (Attachment 2).
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 10:12 a.m.
(Original minutes, attachments, and tape are on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk.)
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTAnVES ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE FOR THE SUNSET
HEARING OF THE ARIZONA RADIAnON
REGULATORY AGENCY AND HEARING BOARD
6 November 16, 2005
ARIZONA RADIATION REGULATORY AGENCY RESPONSE TO THE
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE
1. The objective and purpose in establishing the agency.
Response: Laws 1980, Chapter 206 § 1 state:
"It is declared to be the policy of this state to protect the public health and safety by
regulating the use and sources of radiation to provide for: (l) use of methods and
procedures relating to radiation which are demonstrated to be safe; and (2) maintaining
exposure to sources of radiation in amounts as low as reasonably achievable by means of
good radiation protection planning, practice and enforcement."
To accomplish these purposes, as stated in A.R.S. §30-654, the duties of the Agency are
as follows:
a. Regulate the use, storage and disposal of sources of radiation.
b. Establish procedures for purposes of selecting any proposed permanent disposal
site in Arizona.
c. Assume primary responsibility for and provide necessary technical assistance to
handle any incidents, accidents and emergencies involving radiation.
d. Coordinate with the Departlnent of Transportation and the Corporation
Commission in regulating the Transportation of sources of Radiation.
e. Adopt rules as necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Act.
f. Adopt radiation protection standards consistent with those of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission or the U.S. Public Health Service.
g. Adopt rules for personnel monitoring.
h. Adopt a uniform system of labels, signs and symbols.
1. By rule require training and experience of persons utilizing sources of radiation.
J. Adopt standards for the storage and for the security against unauthorized removal
of sources ofradiation.
k. Adopt standards for the disposal of radioactive material into the air, water and
sewers and burial in the soil consistent with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
1. Adopt rules for the shipment of radioactive materials conforming with those of
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of
Transportation, the U.S. Treasury Department and the U.S. Postal Service.
m. In individual case impose additional requirements to protect the public health and
safety or grant exemptions which will not jeopardize the public health and safety.
n. Make an annual report.
o. Conduct environmental monitoring around fixed nuclear related facilities.
p. Develop and use information resources relating to radiation.
q. Prescribe by rule a schedule of fees to cover a significant portion of the costs.
r. Adopt rules establishing radiological standards, personnel standards and quality
assurance programs for screening and diagnostic mammography.
2. The effectiveness with which the agency has met its objective and purpose and the
efficiency wit~ which it has operated.
Response. Our estimates of how well we have achieved the purposes of the Agency
using the list from 1. above.
a. Regulate the use, storage and disposal of sources of radiation.
X-Ray Facilities, 70%; Radioactive Material Facilities, 95% and Non-ionizing
Radiation Facilities, 60%.
b. Establish procedures for purposes of selecting any proposed permanent disposal
site in Arizona.
No realistic activity has occurred, however, present regulations could accomplish
most of the needs. 10%
c. Assume primary responsibility for and provide necessary technical assistance to
handle any incidents, accidents and emergencies involving radiation.
In real events we have never had a problem in doing this. 100%
d. Coordinate with the Department of Transportation and the Corporation
Commission in regulating the Transportation of sources of Radiation.
When we have an issue we consult with these agencies. 95%
e. Adopt rules as necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Act.
We have tried to adopt rules as recommended by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, however the Arizona process requires reworking the regulations and
we have had delays. 85%
f. Adopt radiation protection standards consistent with those of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission or the U.S. Public Health Service.
We have tried to adopt rules as recommended by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, however the Arizona process requires reworking the regulations and
we have had delays. 85%
g. Adopt rules for personnel monitoring.
We have such rules in place. 100%
h. Ad<;>pt a uniform system of labels, signs and symbols.
We have such rules in place. 100%
1. By rule require training and experience of persons utilizing sources of radiation.
We have some of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission recommendations
addressed. 70%
J. Adopt standards for the storage and for the security against unauthorized removal
of sources of radiation.
We have adopted almost all of the safety regulations but we are awaiting the
development of some of the security regulation by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. 80%
k. Adopt standards for the disposal of radioactive material into the air, water and
sewers and burial in the soil consistent with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
While existing rules would require most of what is required in 10CFR61 for a
disposal site, we do not have the specificity of those regulations. 60%
1. Adopt rules for the shipment of radioactive materials conforming with those of
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of
2
Transportation, the U.S. Treasury Department and the U.S. Postal Service.
We have adopted transportation regulation conforming with the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Transportation, which covers
95% of the transportation. We have not adopted other regulations since they
would be a duplication of existing enforcement activity. 95%
m. In individual cases, impose additional requirements to protect the public health
and safety or grant exemptions which will not jeopardize the public health and
safety.
We utilize this section daily. It provides the necessary flexibility to quickly
authorize new and innovative usages. 100%
n. Make an annual report.
We have made our reports. 100%
o. Conduct environmental monitoring around fixed nuclear related facilities.
We monitor around Palo Verde Nuclear Generating station. We suspended
monitoring across the state when funding was reduced. This included monitoring
fallout from Nevada Test Site. 70%
p. Develop and use information resources relating to radiation.
We participate in the development of information to help applicants, emergency
response, and for new uses of radiation. 80%
q. Prescribe by rule a schedule of fees to cover a significant portion of the costs.
Our fees which are considerably less than the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, recover about 70% of our costs. 70%
r. Adopt rules establishing radiological standards, personnel standards and quality
assurance programs for screening and diagnostic mammography.
We have adopted the necessary rules. 95%
3. The extent to which the agency has operated within the public interest.
Response. If we use the criteria provided in 1. and 2. above we average 77%. The
Agency has assessed civil penalties against 24 registrant or licensees in the past 3 years,
none of which appealed the assessment. If we are judged by how well we are protecting
the public from excess radiation exposure
4. The extent to which rules adopted by the agency are consistent with the legislative
mandate.
Response. Both the Agency and the Governor's Regulatory Review Council review our
regulations to assure that they are in accord with the legislative mandate.
5. The extent to which the agency has encouraged input from the public before
adopting its rules and the extent to which it has informed the public as to its actions
and their expected impact on the public.
Response. We routinely contact groups who have expressed interest in our rulemakings.
We have occasionally put out press information regarding our rulemakings. We have
held repeated public hearing and meetings to get input while we are adopting rules. We
have suspended rulemaking when it became clear that we needed a new approach.
6. The extent to which the agency has been able to investigate and resolve complaints
that are within its jurisdiction.
Response. We have been able to investigate all such complaints. Several times we are
not the Agency with jurisdiction and we have assisted the complainant in reaching the
Agency with jurisdiction.
7. The extent to which the Attorney General or any other applicable agency of state
government has the authority to prosecute actions under the enabling legislation.
Response. According to A.R.S. §30-685, the Attorney General has authority to make
application to the appropriate court for an order prohibiting an act that violates Agency
statutes, rule or regulations. Additionally, the Agency has specific statutory authority to
assess civil penalties, impound radiation sources and modify, suspend or revoke licenses.
AR.S. §30-687.A requires the Attorney General to bring actions for collecting civil
penalties. In addition AR.S. §13-602.£. designate violations of the law as a petty
offence.
8. The extent to which the agency has addressed deficiencies in its enabling statutes
that prevent it from fulfilling its statutory mandate.
Response. The Agency cannot order a person to clean up an area that he contaminated
and endangers the public health and believes this is a potential weakness in Arizona Law.
The Council of State Governments Suggested State Legislation for radiation control
programs recommends that states possess this authority. At present the Governor can
only order the state to clean up a contaminated area, not the person who caused the public
health problem. Proposed legislation to correct the deficiency was rejected by the
Legislature. Should the problem occur, we suggest a Civil action may be a way to
recover public moneys.
9. The extent to which changes are necessary in the laws of the agency to adequately
comply with these factors.
Response. As identified in the December 1995 Sunset report, the inability of the State to
order a person to clean up an area that he contaminated, is one possible change. The
other possible change was considered by the Appropriation Committee in 2003 and they
elected not to require an increase in license and registration fees to totally fund the
Agency.
10. The extent to which the termination of the agency would significantly harm the
public health, safety or welfare.
Response. If the Agency is terminated, the following functions would be lost to the State
of Arizona;
• The regulation of radioactive material. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
would reassert federal authority which would result in at least a 5 fold increase in
4
licensing costs to users of these materials. For example, The University of Arizona
annual license fees would go from $2,600.00 per year to $14,700.00 per year and St.
Joseph's Hospital annual license fees would go from $1,650.00 to $27,300.00.
Further, if the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission reasserted its authority, the State
would no longer have any decision voice in the location of a low level radioactive
waste site should someone file an application.
• The regulation of x-ray facilities. There is no federal program to regulate the use of
x-ray facilities except for mammography units. The inspections of the mammography
units would shift to FDA field offices. Questions about the program would be
answered in San Francisco or Washington. Based upon what was occurring prior to
there being a regulatory program in Arizona, it would appear that over a 5 - 10 year
period 25% ofthe equipment would fail to meet basic health and safety standards.
• The regulation of non-ionizing radiation sources. As with x-ray, there is no federal
program to inspect as assure the public health and safety of the end user of this
equipment. The FDA regulates the manufacture of this equipment. Based upon the
injuries which occurred prior to the Agency applying regulations, significant injuries
could occur.
• Emergency response for the state. The state would not have a health physics capacity
to evaluate incident and acciden~s involving radioactive materials. This would
include responding to transportation events, nuclear power plant events and weapons
of mass destruction utilizing radioactive materials. Within 4 -12 hours of an event,
the federal government will provide health physics support on scene, prior to that
time, the only support will be by telephone. Currently, health physics support is
available in Phoenix and is available through out the State. As presently constituted,
the Agency provides immediate radiation expertise to the Governor and to the
Legislature without filtering through non-radiation experts.
In short, the termination of the Agency could have significant harmful effects to the
public health safety and security. Further, there would be significant increases in annual
license fees for radioactive material licensees.
11. The extent to which the level of regulation exercised by the agency is appropriate
and whether less or more stringent levels of regulation would be appropriate.
Response. The Agency tries to ensure that appropriate regulation is applied. Two
examples will illustrate how we try to balance our regulatory program. 1) We researched
the literature and found that there we no indications of injury to personnel by the
radiation from MRI units used in medicine. Based upon that we proposed to end our
regulatory program and did so after receiving public comments on our proposal. 2)
When considering the amount of supervision by a licensed practitioner when medically
utilizing lasers, we determined that the same level of supervision is not required for all
applications and we adopted regulations that reflect that judgment. This occurred after
three hearings on this issue.
5
The Agency has a graduated enforcement program. The violations that are repeated,
require a civil penalty as well as those violations which have led to a exposure beyond the
regulatory limits. As a result of this policy the Agency has few licensees or registrants
who repeat violations.
It should be noted that the Agency has a significant backlog of x-ray inspections overdue
and a lesser number of radioactive material and non-ionizing inspections overdue. The
Agency reduced the percentage of overdue x-ray inspections to 4% in FY 2000. Budget
cuts in subsequent years cause several trained staff to leave and reduced available
inspection staff. For example, the x-ray non-mammography inspection staff was reduced
from 5 in 2001 to 2 this year plus 1 in training. The number of x-ray tubes increased
from 10,010 to 12,283. Presently, the Agency is 39% overdue for x-ray inspections.
12. The extent to which the agency has uses private contractors in the performance of
its duties and how effective use of private contractors could be accomplished.
Response. The Agency does not use private contractors in the performance of its
primary duties. Even though several states employ private contractors to perform
inspections of registrants, the Agency believes that privatizing the inspection function
would not reduce costs to the State for administering the program and would likely lead
to higher costs for the regulated community. As reported by the Auditor General in
response to this question during the last sunset review, Colorado, which has privatized
inspections, has reported that privatization has proven costlier for registrants, requires
significant staff expertise to review reports and monitor contractors, and has been
difficult to implement. Colorado also reports that privatization requires a sophisticated
tracking system to ensure timely inspections and information flow between the state,
contractors and registrants.
The Agencvr does contract out for the analysis of its employees' film badges, emergency
workers personnel dosimeters, which are used to assess the radiation exposures of
individual who work near radiation sources. The Agency also contracts for instrument
calibration, specialized employee training and radiation source disposal.
Additional issues to be addressed.
1. An identification of the problem or needs that the agency is intended to address.
Response. To accomplish the purposes of the Agency, inspections should be
accomplished in a timely manner. The restrictions on resources has made it
mathematically impossible to meet these requirements.
2 A statement, to the extent practicable, in quantitative and qualitative terms, of the
objectives of such agency and its anticipated accomplishments.
Response. With 12,283 x-ray tubes registered, the agency must make approximately
4,000 non-mammography x-ray tube inspections per year to maintain inspection
frequency. With the number of non-mammography x-ray inspectors presently funded for
6
the Agency we cannot expect to do more than 2,000 x-ray tube inspections per year. If we
have to train a new inspector, we will be able to inspect 1,100 tubes per year. We inspect
all mammography x-ray tubes each year as required by A.R.S. §30-683 C.
3. An identification of any other agencies having similar, conflicting or duplicate
objectives, and an explanation of the manner in which the agency avoids duplication
or conflict with other such agencies.
Response. We are aware of no other agency having the same or shared jurisdiction for
the regulation of sources of radiation. There is a sharing of jurisdiction regarding
transportation of radioactive materials and Arizona Law provides for the appropriate
coordination to prevent conflicts.
4. An assessment of the consequences of eliminating the agency or of consolidating it
with another agency.
Response. As detailed in 10. above, the termination of the Agency will have significant
effects in Arizona. The consolidation of the Agency into another Agency will also have
adverse effects. At present, if a significant event occurs, the Governor is immediately
advised by a radiation expert. In addition, the Legislature is advised by qualified experts
regarding potential policy issues, for example large shipments of radioactive material
across Arizona. It is difficult to estimate the value of being able to access information
from an expert that is unfiltered by untrained management of a department. Further,
resources you may want to go specifically to the program is subject to diversion in the
accounting process.
The Agency has a well respected radiochemical laboratory at present. The division or
consolidation, may well compromise the ability of the laboratory to maintain the present
level of competence.
Even worse, would be the division of the Agency into several parts. In times of
emergency, no single part has the resources to address all the issues. When you try to
recombine the parts you may well find they have not trained on this type problem and
you no longer have a cadre of trained experts. There will also be the issue of who has the
authority to require staff to train on issues they do not see as under their jurisdiction.
And for all of these consolidation methods, there is a significant likelihood that the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission will take the Agreement back and the State will be less
likely to have an adequate staffing. Further, the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
license may be compromised it the State cannot adequately respond to emergencies at the
plant.
7
RADIATION REGULATORY HEARING BOARD RESPONSE TO THE COMMITTEE
OF REFERENCE
1. The objective and purpose in establishing the agency.
Response. According to A.R.S. §30-653 the Radiation Regulatory Hearing Board was
established in 1980 as a part of the act that also established the Arizona Radiation
Regulatory Agency (ARRA). The Hearing Board provides a vehicle for appeal by any
person adversely affected by an order of the ARRA or its Director. The Hearing Board
also reviews and approves rules and significant policies of the ARRA. In addition, the
Hearing Board may also review and make recommendations to the ARRA, the Governor
and the Legislature.
2. The effectiveness with which the agency has met its objective and purpose and the
efficiency with which it has operated.
Response. The Hearing Board has met 5 times in the last three Fiscal Years. All of these
meeting were to receive and review public comments offered for proposed rule changes.
The Hearing Board has met a total of twelve times since FY1996 and all the meeting
were for rulemakings or significant policy adoption. No one has appealed any of the
Director's imposed civil penalties during this period.
3. The extent to which the agency has operated within the public interest.
Response. The Hearing Board serves the public interest in providing an appellate review
ofARRA enforcement actions. In addition, the Hearing Board provide a forum for public
input to the ARRA rulemakings.
4. The extent to which rules adopted by the agency are consistent with the legislative
mandate.
Response. The Hearing Board reviews the ARRA proposed rulemakings and takes
public comments to assure that the final rules are within the legislative mandate to the
Agency.
5. The extent to which the agency has encouraged input from the public before
adopting its rules and the extent to which it has informed the public as to its actions
and their expected impact on the public.
Response. The Hearing Board actively seeks public input to the ARRA rulemakings.
The Hearing Board has sent proposed rule back for additional public comment when the
proposal was deemed inadequate or needing additional information.
6. The extent to which the agency has been able to investigate and resolve complaints
that are within its jurisdiction.
Response. The Hearing Board does not receive complaints from consumers.
7. The extent to which the Attorney General or any other applicable agency of state
government has the authority to prosecute actions under the enabling legislation.
1
Response. The Hearing Board has no enforcement authority.
8. The extent to which the agency has addressed deficiencies in its enabling statutes
that prevent it from fulfilling its statutory mandate.
Response. The Hearing Board has not proposed any changes to its enabling statutes.
9. The extent to which changes are necessary in the laws of the agency to adequately
comply with these factors.
Response. We did not identify any changes that are needed in the Hearing Board's
enabling legislation to adequately comply with the Sunset Factors.
10. The extent to which the termination of the agency would significantly harm the
public health, safety or welfare.
Response. Terminating the Hearing Board would not harm the public health, safety or
welfare. However, the Hearing Board appear to provide a check and balance on the
actions of the Agency and provides a timely, less expensive alternative to court actions.
11. The extent to which the level of regulation exercised by the agency is appropriate
and whether less or more stringent levels of regulation would be appropriate.
Response. The Hearing Board in its review of the rulemaking of ARRA, does balance
the level of regulation needed to accomplish the protection of the public without over
regulation of the industry.
12. The extent to which the agency has uses private contractors in the performance of
its duties and how effective use of private contractors could be accomplished.
Response. The Hearing Board does not utilize any service that can be privatized, except
the court transcriber ofits hearings.
Additional issues to be addressed.
1. An identification of the problem or needs that the agency is intended to address.
Response. See number 1. above and the response in the "Arizona Radiation Regulatory
Agency Response to the Committee of Reference."
2. A statement, to the extent practicable, in quantitative and qualitative terms, of the
objectives of such agency and its anticipated accomplishments.
Response. See number 2., 3., and 4. above.
3. An identification of any other agencies having similar, conflicting or duplicate
objectives, and an explanation of the manner in which the agency avoids duplication
or conflict with other such agencies.
Response. None have been identified.
2
4. An assessment of the consequences of eliminating the agency or of consolidating it
with another agency.
Response. There will be one less level of appeal for the public. This level of appeal is
apparently to assure that all scientific factors are considered be technical individuals. See
also the responses in the "Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency Response to the
Committee ofReference."
3
ARIZONA RADIATION REGULATORY
AGENCY
ANNUAL REPORT FY2005
Contents
Highlights
FY200S ANNUAL REPORT
ARIZONA RADIATION REGULATORY AGENCY
Page
2
X-ray Compliance Program
Radiation Monitoring Laboratory
Radioactive Material/Non-Ionizing Program
Emergency Response
Medical Radiologic Technology Board of Examiners
4
8
9
13
16
HIGHLIGHTS OF FY2005
During calendar year 2004, shippers reported that 13,700,000 Curies of radioactive materials in
the form of either Large Quantity Radioactive Material shipments or Highway Route Controlled
Quantity shipments which were shipped across Arizona. All but 15,000 Curies were transported
on 1-40. The appropriate legislative committees and Governor's Office were notified about the
general information of each shipment. In addition, law enforcement agencies were notified of
the details ofeach shipment. The carriers of such shipments were required to periodically notify
the Arizona Terrorism Intelligence Center while the shipments were in state. Please note these
statistics do not include any data for shipments smaller than the Large Quantity Radioactive
Material or Highway Route Controlled Quantity shipments. Virtually all of the shipments were
Cobalt 60 to be utilized in the irradiation of products.
The Agency conducted several training classes for first responders. In case of an accident
involving radioactive materials or a weapon of mass destruction, the first responders need to
have access to information regarding the presence and quantity of radiation. These classes
provide the necessary training for these individuals and the confidence to utilize the
instrumentation provided. The Agency is purchasing equipment for use in the event of a weapon
of mass destruction involving radioactive material. These devices are usually referred to as a
radioactive material dispersion device or RDD. The Agency has also participated in exercises
with the Phoenix Bomb Squad of the Phoenix Police Department.
In the event of a weapon of mass destruction attack in Arizona utilizing a radioactive material
dispersion device the Agency is prepared to advise the Governor and other elected officials of
the projected consequences. We estimate that if only one event occurs within the United States,
we will have federal support within 4 to 8 hours. If multiple events occur within the Unites
States, then federal support may be delayed by 12 to 48 hours arriving. Until federal support
arrives all radiological technical assessment will be made by the Agency.
In August of 2004, the Agency responded to a reported leakage of a U.S. Department of Energy
shipment. The shipment originated at the U.S. Department of Energy facility in Paducah, KY
and consisted of waste material bound for the Nevada Test Site for disposal. On arriving on the
scene, our representative determined, that while material was leaking out of the shipping
container, none of the leaked material was radioactive. Several questions did arise regarding the
adequacy of the shipping containers. We were informed that 3 of 5 containers were leaking in
this series of shipments. As a result of inquiries by the Governor, the U.S. Department of Energy
suspended the remaining shipments pending an investigation. The investigation was completed
in June and the shipments were expected to resume in July with improved containers and
packaging protocols.
As a result of concerns expressed by citizens in Mohave County regarding the fallout from the
Nuclear Weapons testing in the 1950s and 1960s, the Agency Director conducted a public
hearing. The Director's report of the hearing indicates that while some 50 persons testified as to
their personal suffering they were unable to specifically state the any given case was in fact
caused by the radiation exposure. Equally clear is, the Federal Government is paying
compensation to persons in other areas of the state which were exposed even less than the
2
citizens in Mohave County. The Director recommended to Governor Napolitano and the
National Academy of Science Committee that as a matter of simple equity, all of Mohave
County should be receiving such payments. The citizens were also quite concerned that the
United States may begin testing again, perhaps even secretly. At one time the Agency
conducted monitoring through out the State which would detect any unreported leaks of
significance, but the program had to be suspended due to budgetary constraints in 2002.
3
X-RAY COMPLIANCE PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2005
The X-ray Program is responsible for the registration and inspection of machine produced
radiation sources. Personnel are also available to interact with registrants and the public on issues
of radiation safety.
COMPLIANCE
Activity in the Program continues to increase. The number of facilities grew from 4501
Registrants in FY 2004 to the FY 2005 total of 4677 Registrants, a 3.9% increase. Concurrently,
the number of machines increased from 11028 to 11673, a 5.8% increase and the number of
tubes increased from 11683 to 12281, a 5.1% increase.
624 Facility Inspections were completed representing 13.3% of all registered facilities. These
inspections resulted in 101 violations occurring in 75 facilities. We inspected 1480 x-ray tubes
during FY 2005. We ended FY 2005 with 39.3 % of the facilities overdue for inspection
compared to 22.49 % overdue at the end of FY 2004. The overdue inspections can be directly
attributed to a reduction in the number of available, funded inspector positions.
X-ray Program Rules require that those personnel applying radiation to humans be either
licensed by the Medical Radiologic Technology Board of Examiners (MRTBE) or exempt from
the rules. There were 6 registrant MRTBE violations during FY 2005, which was less than the 17
violations in FY 2004. These violations do not include those issued by MRTBE. The decrease in
violations can be attributed to an increase in the MRTBE Investigator activity and a reduction in
the number of hospital and medical facilities inspected.
Numerous registration actions occurred during the year as facilities were bought, sold, traded,
merged and incorporated. These changes included replacement, modifications, additions and
deletions to radiation equipment inventories. There were 1801 documented record changes to our
database this fiscal year compared to 2212 changes in FY 2004.
Again, higher than usual personnel turnover was experienced during the year, which resulted in
filling 2 positions. At the end of the fiscal year, there were two unfunded positions. A budgetary
crisis during FY 2003 subsequently resulted in our loss of funding for two inspector positions.
MAMMOGRAPHY QUALITY STANDARDS ACT (MQSA)
In 1994 the Agency entered into an agreement with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to
administer the MQSA Program for the State of Arizona. This Program requires an annual
inspection ofall state mammography facilities. Such an inspection consists of a comprehensive
review of the facilities' mammographic diagnostic capabilities including the qualifications of
4
physicians, technologists and medical physicists; proper machine operation, development of
film, reporting of results, and medical audit of positive results.
The Agency has developed and implemented rules for state mammography facilities that either
coincide with the interim MQSA Law or provide for more specific rules applicable to the needs
of Arizona. As a result, a state inspection is also performed at the time of the MQSA inspection.
Substantial changes in state mammography regulations to comply with the final MQSA
Regulations of April 29, 1999, were made during the 5 year rule review and have been submitted
to the Governor's Regulatory Review Board.
During FY 2005, 140 facilities were inspected for the FDA and the state. Several facilities were
inspected more than once since their scheduled annual inspection rotation occurred twice during
the fiscal year. In retrospect, the State Inspection Program has improved the quality of
Mammography in Arizona as demonstrated by a gradual reduction in the number of violations as
the program has progressed. Specifically, the MQSA facility non-compliance rate has dropped
from 42% initially, to a rate of 15.9% at the end ofFY 1999. MQSA violations increased to 40 %
during fiscal 2000 due to new facility startups and final FDNMQSA Regulation requirements.
State inspections during FY 2005 resulted in a noncompliance rate of 2.9%, a decrease in the rate
of3.1% in FY 2004.
At present, the Agency has two State Health Physicist assigned to mammography inspection
duties. Future plans include training of an additional inspector to provide coverage for expanded
activities and personnel backup.
The FDA continues to encourage voluntary compliance as the primary goal of the MQSA
Program. The standards can be met with the continuous and diligent application of quality
control procedures. Improved diagnostic images and accurate mammographic film interpretation
will result in earlier detection of breast cancer prompting appropriate, life-saving, medical
attention.
COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY PROGRAM
During FY 2002 new rules were adopted which require those facilities with medical CT X-ray
Units to have their machine checked annually by a "qualified expert." The testing, as outlined in
the rules, involves checking CT machines for patient dose levels, table alignment, image
resolution and establishing quality control standard procedures. There are 177 CT facilities in
Arizona, an increase of 41.6 % over the 2004 total of 125. The CT facilities have demonstrated
compliance with the new rules for annual health physicist equipment review, providing the
patients with an additional measure ofradiation safety.
We continued to be challenged by facilities that wished to do "walk-in" patients or what we call
screening. Rules allow a screening radiographic procedure only for mammography facilities. The
CT facilities are required to perform their studies, as are other medical facilities, based upon an
order from an Arizona licensed physician.
5
The regulatory and medical communities continue to debate the efficacy of "screening type CT
studies." While this discussion continues, the public is encouraged through advertisements to
seek out the CT Procedures that they think are appropriate for their personal health care.
The medical community introduced the new Pet/CT Combination Unit for diagnosing various
active disease processes, now referred to as Fusion Imaging. This temporarily created an issue of
technologist operator certification for us since nuclear medicine and x-ray were being used
together.
INDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHY
Revisions in rules affected the radiographer community in Arizona by requiring a certification of
the radiation safety officer through testing. The American Society for Nondestructive Testing
was selected as the administrator for the examination. The Agency has proctored the examination
for radiographers several times during FY 2003. We are satisfied that this certification process
will improve the industrial radiography safety practices in Arizona.
FUTURE RESOLVE
Plans for FY 2006 are to maintain the overall number of inspections performed at a high level
consistent with efficient output. Newly hired State Health Physicists will continue their training
either at special off-site sessions or through in-service education within the Agency. We plan to
request additional clerical help to more efficiently respond to inquiries, to improve record
.keeping and to shorten correspondence and registration application turn around time.
6
X-RAY COMPLIANCE STATISTICS
Fy2005 Annual Report
Category of Registrant Tubes Registered (%) Tubes Inspected (%) Facilities Non-Comp. (%)
Chiropractic 792 (6.45) 87 (10.98) 10(11.49)
Dental 7,189 (58.54) 921 (12.81) 29(11.11)
Educational 154 (1.25) 2 (1.30) 0(0.00)
Hospital 1,252 (10.19) 39 (3.12) 3 (75.00)
Industrial 446 (3.63) 25 (5.61) 4 (33.33)
Medical 1,510 (12.30) 106 (7.02) 13 (20.63)
Mammography 265 (2.16) 214 (80.75) 4 (3.1 0)
Podiatry 133 (1.08) 12 (9.02) 3 (25.00)
Veterinary 540 (4.40) 62 (11.48) 9 (19.15)
Totals 12,281 1,468 (11.95) 75 (12.18)
7
RADIATION MEASUREMENTS LABORATORY
Radiation Measurements Laboratory (RML) activities during Fiscal Year 2005 included the
following: Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) off-site radiological monitoring;
participation in emergency response drills at PVNGS requiring analytical analyses; limited
statewide environmental radiation monitoring; the Arizona Radon Project; and drinking water
analysis support to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).
The RML has continued to perform radiological monitoring in accordance with the Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) Off-site Emergency Response Plan. This includes
sampling and analysis of air, water, soil, milk, vegetation, and fruit as well as the use of
thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) to measure low-level ambient radiation. Resources
include a mobile laboratory for field sample analyses. Laboratory analysis results reveal no
increase in environmental background radiation levels in the vicinity ofPVNGS.
Due to budgetary constraints, the RML had to suspend monitoring other locations within the
state. The RML has contracted with the ADEQ to perform radioactive analyses for special
drinking water and aquifer studies in the state. , Laboratory analyses results reveal some waters to
contain high levels of the naturally occurring radionuclides such as uranium and radium as
established by the Safe Drinking Water Act. Continued monitoring is necessary in assuring
future safe levels of radiation in Arizona's drinking water and represents one of the essential
components ofthe Agency's operations.
8
RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL/NON-IONIZING RADIATION
Annual Report FY 2005
RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL RADIATION COMPLIANCE
The Radioactive Materials (RAM) Program is still struggling to adjust and adapt to the changing
needs ofthe Federal Government and the State of Arizona. The RAM Program, at this time, still
retains four FTE's and when filled, fulfills the varying duties plus their normal inspection and
compliance duties. One of the RAM positions spends most of their time drafting and publishing
new and amended rules that govern the way that the Agency conducts its licensing, registration
and inspection duties for the users of radioactive material and devices within the state.
Additionally, this person is also responsible for conducting administrative duties with regard to
RAM licensing, amendments and terminations. One of the RAM positions is tasked with the
duty of keeping up with the posting and entering of Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) changes
which are published by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC).
Additionally, one person is responsible for maintaining a log of the Therapeutic and Diagnostic
Misadministration list. And finally, the fourth RAM member is responsible for the maintenance
of the out-of-state licensee's which use RAM within the state while performing work in Arizona
under Reciprocity.
Personnel shortage problems continue to plague the RAM program. The newly acquired RAM
inspector, hired in November 2003, sent to the USNRC five week course in September 2004 and
trained by the existing RAM inspectors, was lost to ASU in March of 2005. Fortunately, an xRay
inspector trained at the same USNRC five week course in September, 2004, was recruited to
fill the position. However, this person had to attend NEXT training on CT scanning X-Ray
devices and has to perform a number of inspections within the state on these devices.
Additionally, the individual has to be trained to perform RAM inspections. This Program has
been continually tasked with the need to train new personnel in the performance of their duties
which has caused the Program to fall further behind in the performance ofRAM inspections.
This is further complicated by the fact that a vacant RAM position can not be filled due to budget
constraints. This continues to have a deleterious effect on the ability ofRAM to keep up with its
schedule of required RAM inspections.
The continued non-availability of fu~ding by the USNRC and the State of Arizona for the
training and maintenance of inspector expertise has impacted greatly in the ability of ARRA
inspection personnel to maintain currency with the fast changing regulatory requirements.
NON-IONIZING RADIATION
Arizona's regulatory authority to control sources of non-ionizing radiation stems from the Title
30, Chapter 4 sections authorizing other aspects of the program. The regulations controlling
sources of non-ionizing radiation are found at Title 12, Chapter 1, Article 14 of the Arizona
Administrative Code. The sources specifically covered by regulation include laser sources, radio
frequency (RF) sources, and sources of ultraviolet radiation produced by electronic devices. The
9
statutory authority and the regulatory framework appropriately cover these sources and will help
to assure Arizona residents of protection from unnecessary and hazardous exposures.
The number of nonionizing radiation registrants continues to increase annually. We have a
current total of seven hundred thirty six registrants as of July 1, 2005. The total number of
current registrants represents an overall increase of ninety-six new registrants. With the largest
number being medical laser users. Approximately 17 percent of the registrants were inspected
during the year.
The nonionizing radiation protection program has one FTE authorized. The program growth
requires that efforts be placed on significant issues and projects. Maintenance of a satisfactory
non-ionizing radiation program will require additional staffing. Additional time has been
utilized in support of the Radioactive Materials Program due to staffing shortages within the
NRC mandated program. Laser use in the human arena evolves daily with new procedures and
laser/light source equipment being developed. Significant increases in cosmetics/aesthetics for
hair removal and skin rejuvenation are being observed.
Title 12, Chapter 1, Article 14 of the Arizona Administrative Code has finally been approved and
is now in effect. The rule changes appear to have been accepted, with much activity in bringing
the registrants into compliance. An inordinate amount of time has been devoted to the
CosmeticfHair Removal issues during the year. This area of laser use is evolving faster that any
other aspect of non-ionizing radiation use and has the potential for significant impact on the
general public.
10
FY 2005
Licensing Statistics
Radioactive Materials Licensing and Inspection Program
Licenses (Total Number)
Medical (Types A, B, C, Broad and Tele)
General Medical
Industrial (Types A, B, C, Limited, Portable, and Fixed Gauges)
Industrial Radiography (Fixed and Mobile)
Academic (Broad and Limited)
Miscellaneous Licenses
379
156
15
135
6
5
62
*
**
Number of Particle Accelerator's
Number of High Dose Rate Brachytherapy's (Included in the Licensed Facility)
55
8
New Licenses and Renewals
New Particle Accelerator Registration and Renewals
Inspections Performed
Licensing Actions (Amendments and Terminations)
90
33
110
349
*** Reciprocity (Inspections)
(Liscensee's)
2
35
*
**
***
As of January 1996, the RAM Program assumed the responsibility for the inspection and regis~ation of
Particle Accelerators (PA's). Management of these radiation users was transferred to RAM from the XRAY
Program.
Not included in the overall Licensee total.
Reciprocity is Arizona's recognition of an out-of-state licensee's Specific License for the use of radioactive
materials within the State of Arizona. A General License is issued for this purpose.
11
Registration Type
Tanning Facilities
Medical Laser Facilities
Industrial Laser Facilities
NON-Ionizing Radiation Statistics
# Inspected
FY-2005
49
26
4
# Registrations
FY-2005
289
318
80
Laser Light Shows 9 51
Radio Frequency Facilities ,'")' 24
Power Line Surveys 00
Other, include Radioactive Material 31
Total inspections 122 Total Registrations 736
New Registrants
Registrant Terminations
Total Registrant Actions
135
39
299
12
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT - FY 05
GENERAL
The Emergency Response Program (ER) is involved in and responds to radioactive materials
(RAM) incidents. This includes preparation for and participation in offsite response to any
incident occurring at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS); the transportation of
transuranics to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), and on-scene response to hazardous
materials incidents statewide in which RAM is involved. Training is also provided to
organizations that respond initially to hazardous materials incidents around the state: police, fire,
medical and emergency service personnel. The ER Program also tracks, and provides assistance
in inspections of special radioactive materials shipments that travel across Arizona Interstate
Highways.
PLANNING
As part of the radiation emergency response planning effort, the program requested and was
granted U.S. Department ofHome Land Security funds. The funds have allowed the program to
acquire critical radiation monitoring equipment that will be essential to the response effort
should a .radiological incident occur in the state. The program will continue to strive for
improvement in our planning efforts to meeting our state and national priorities of preventing
and responding to any radiological emergency.
TRAINING
Training this fiscal year involved conducting two four-day training sessions in response to the
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS). Several monitor pool refresher classes and
participation in a full-scale Plume Exposure Drill. The Program conducted a large number of
training sessions for hazardous materials first responders covering both "standard" response and
if necessary, response to a "Dirty Bomb" -Explosives with Radioactive Materials used by
terrorists. It is the Program's goal to continue to train, assist and respond to any and all
radiological incidents within our State.
WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT
The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in southern New Mexico has been open for several years
and has been receiving transuranic waste. The first shipment of transuranics to the WIPP
occurred along Arizona 1-40 in January 2004. However, the waste scheduled to transit Arizona
will be from the Nevada Test Site and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and is
characterized as contact handled, meaning that radiation dose rate outside the containers is very
low. The Program's Emergency Response Coordinator for radioactive waste activities has been
extremely active in reviewing and streamlining WIPP-related training programs primarily for
13
first responders, but also for medical personnel and hospitals. Coordination and outreach
activities with affected state agencies, e.g., Emergency Management, Transportation and Public
Safety, and with the five counties through which 1-40 passes - Mohave, Yavapai, Coconino,
Navajo, and Apache - for medical and first responder training have been major functions of this
position during the past several years. Principal activities for first responders included
equipment issue, e.g., survey instrument kits to units not receiving them in FY 2004 including
instrument training; binoculars, instrument exchange for calibration; and personal protective
equipment. W1PP briefings were also conducted and several meetings involving the affected
states were held to assure continued safety.
INCIDENTS
During this fiscal year, ER and the Agency responded to 13 incidents involving radioactive
materials. Several incidents involved moisture/density gauges that were stolen or involved in
accidents; others involved radioactive scrap that were detected at the entrance of their facility
and reported to the agency. The most noted incident/response was a Department of Energy
shipment of Uranium Tetrafluoride (UF4) that appeared to be leaking material en route to the
uranium disposal site in Nevada. The incident response and investigation concluded no
radioactive material had leaked from the shipment package. Governor Napolitano was deeply
concerned about the incident and sent a letter to DOE requesting an appropriate investigation of
the shipping program for this campaign. The Governor also was concerned as to what steps are
being taken to improve the integrity of radioactive shipment across the State of Arizona.
The Agency has continued the program of placing civil defense monitoring instruments with
. response organizations that want them. This year, ER calibrated 45 survey instruments, 200
dosimeters, and exchanged/distributed 45 civil defense instrument sets to HAZMAT
organizations.
RADIOACTIVE SHIPMENTS THROUGH ARIZONA
Fifty three highway route controlled quantity (HRCQ) shipments totaling 10.7 million curies of
radioactive material crossed Arizona highways this fiscal year. Notifications were sent to DPS
officers to alert them of these shipments in the case of they are involved in an accident or
emergency.
COMMUNICATIONS
Communication is one of the most important aspects of emergency response planning as well as
of the actual response. During this reporting period, there were 55 Nuclear Alert Net (NAN)
drills and four telecommunications tests. The latter tests are those in which the entire
communications system is checked.
14
COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE BY PROVIDING THE BEST POSSIBLE
RESPONSE TO THE STATE OF ARIZONA.
Emergency Response Program is committed to providing the best possible response capability to
the citizens of Arizona. The program will continue to work with our partners in the first
responder community and provide highest quality of assistance to any radiological accident or
incident in the state of Arizona.
15 .
Arizona Medical Radiologic Technology Board of Examiners
2004-2005 Annual Report
The Medical Radiologic Technology Board of Examiners (MRTBE) was established in 1977
after extensive study and review of documented statistics revealed that: (1) the major portion of
the populations man-made radiation exposure in the United States is from the use of medical and
dental x-ray producing equipment; and (2) of that portion, a significant amount is unnecessary
because of the sub-optimal use of equipment by the operator. The preamble of the MRTBE law
states:
"It is declared to be the policy of this State that the health and safety of the people of the state
must be protected against the harmful effects of excessive and improper exposure to ionizing
radiation. Such protection can, in some major measure, be accomplished by requiring adequate
training and experience of persons operating ionizing radiation equipment under the direction of
licensed practitioners. It is the purpose of this act to establish standards of education, training
and experience and to require the examination and certification of operators of x-ray equipment."
Arizona Revised Statutes §32-2801 et. sec., provide for a Board of Examiners consisting often
members appointed by the Governor, and a statutory chairman who is the Director of the Arizona
Radiation Regulatory Agency. The responsibilities of the Board include:
Assuring that applicants have met minimum standards of education and training.
Setting standards for, and granting approval to schools of radiologic technology.
Administering certification exams for technologists, special permit applicants and refresher
exams for technologists who have not practiced for three years.
Conducting investigations to assure compliance with MRTBE statutes and rules.
Pursuing statutory remedies to resolve problems involving uncertified, non-exempt ionizing
machine operators.
Interacting with national and state professional and certifying organizations for technologists.
Assuring optimum testing standards by contracting when necessary with national professional
registries to administer certifying exams to qualified applicants.
16
MRTBE CERTIFICATES
Certification
Radiologic Technologist
Therapy Radiologic Technologist
Nuclear Medicine Technologist
Mammography Radiologic Technologist
Practical Radiologic Technologist
Practical Radiologic Technologist Unlimited
Practical Radiologic Technologist Podiatry
Special Permit
TOTAL
17
Number of Active Certificates
5,824
453
462
998
1,031
24
100
6
8,898
THE MEDICAL RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGY
BOARD OF EXAMINERS
MEMBERS
Aubrey V. Godwin, MS, Chairman
Tammy Allgood, Public Member
Carol A. Conti, Radiologic Technologist
Dean L. Gain, M.D., Licensed Practitioner
Marco Lara, Radiologic Technologist
Michael 1. Locke, Practical Radiologic Technologist
Jonathan Sanders, Radiologic Technologist
Martin G. Schotten, Radiologic Technologist
Burton N.Shapiro, D.C., Licensed Practitioner
Shirley Wagner, Nuclear Medicine Technologist
Vacant, Public Member
STAFF
John M.Gray, RT
Executive Director
Sarah Penttinen
Special Investigator
Stephanie Erra
Administrative Secretary
Vacant
Administrative Secretary (2)
Correspondence should be to:
Mr. John Gray, RT; MRTBE; 4814 S. 40th Street; Phoenix, AZ 85040-2940. Phone (602) 2554845
18
