Is California an NRC Agreement State?
Yes. Based on the NRC Agreement State list (updated 2026-10-29).
Rule text and source
- Rule
- NRC list of Agreement States, updated October 29, 2026
- Source
- nrc.gov
What California's rules say about ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable), dose limits in millisieverts (mSv), dosimeters, aprons and training for the people who work in fluoroscopy labs.
Please double-check this information. This is an ORSIF research summary, researched November 3, 2026. It is not comprehensive and not always accurate: rules change, and answers may be incomplete, out of date or wrong. It is education, not legal advice. Not yet reviewed by a regulatory expert. Confirm each requirement at the source linked beside the answer, with the state program and with your facility's radiation safety officer. How this was made
ORSIF's research identified the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), Radiologic Health Branch (RHB) as the agency that regulates X-ray and fluoroscopy equipment in California. California is a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Agreement State: it has signed an agreement with the NRC to regulate certain radioactive materials itself.
CDPH's Radiologic Health Branch regulates X-ray in California. Staff ALARA and dose limits come from 17 CCR § 30253, which adopts 10 CFR Part 20 as of January 1, 2021 and applies it to all users, including X-ray registrants; an NRC change would not carry over automatically. Fluoroscopy staff likely to be exposed to 5 mR/hr or more must wear aprons of at least 0.25 mm lead equivalent, and drapes and panels may not substitute for them. The rules are silent on thyroid shields, eyewear, apron inspection and engineered shielding. Only permit holders may operate fluoroscopy, and each must pass an exam or training, with continuing education (CE) required for renewal. The federal numeric limits were not verified by this research, and most rule text comes from Cornell LII, a secondary source.
Every answer names the rule it comes from. Open "Rule text and source" to read the citation, the source page and, where it could be matched, the exact wording.
Which rules apply, and whether ALARA is among them.
Yes. Based on the NRC Agreement State list (updated 2026-10-29).
General radiation protection: 17 CCR § 30253 (Group 3, Subchapter 4; scope § 30252). Medical X-ray: Group 3, Article 4, starting at § 30305, plus § 30305.5 and § 30307. Operator rules: Subchapter 4.5, starting at § 30400. Text was read on Cornell LII (secondary); Cornell's heading for § 30305 appears mislabeled. § 30253 was last amended operative 7-1-2022.
Yes, by adoption. § 30253 adopts 10 CFR 20.1001-20.2402; 20.1101 (ALARA) falls in that range and is not excepted. "Licensee" is replaced by "User," which includes X-ray registrants. The text of 20.1101 itself was not read. The X-ray rules' "as low as is practicable" wording (§ 30307(a)(7)(A)) concerns the beam exposure rate at the patient, not staff doses.
Where ALARA lives in California: Only in a rule shared with radioactive materials. The staff ALARA duty comes from the general § 30253 adoption of 10 CFR 20, which applies to "Users" (both radioactive-materials licensees and X-ray registrants). No X-ray-specific staff ALARA language was found. Because the adoption is fixed at January 1, 2021, an NRC change would not apply automatically; CDPH would have to amend § 30253. (17 CCR §§ 30100(z), 30253(a)(5), 30305(a)(1))
The annual limits for workers, written in millisieverts (mSv). Ten mSv equal one rem.
Federal 10 CFR 20.1201 is adopted as of 2021 and applies to any source of ionizing radiation. The standard federal figure is 5 rem (50 mSv) per year total effective dose equivalent (TEDE), but this number was not verified by this research.
With respect to dose limits and reporting requirements, the term "Licensed material" is to be construed broadly in context to include any source of ionizing radiation subject to the requirements of this subchapter.This quote was matched word for word to the source page.
Federal 10 CFR 20.1201 is adopted. The standard federal figure is 15 rem (150 mSv) per year, but this number was not verified by this research. No lower California lens limit was found.
Federal 10 CFR 20.1201 is adopted. The standard federal figure is 50 rem (500 mSv) per year, but this number was not verified by this research.
Federal 10 CFR 20.1208 is adopted. The standard federal figure is 0.5 rem (5 mSv) over the pregnancy for the embryo/fetus of a declared pregnant worker, but this number was not verified by this research.
When a worker must wear a dosimeter, and where.
Federal 10 CFR 20.1502 is adopted (not excepted). The commonly published trigger is a worker likely to receive more than 10% of a limit, but this was not verified by this research. No California-specific X-ray badging threshold was found.
are hereby incorporated by reference with the following exceptionsThis quote was matched word for word to the source page.
not found. No badge-location rule, two-badge method or approved effective-dose formula was found. Under the adopted federal rule, a regulator-approved method would mean a CDPH-approved method, but no CDPH approval of a specific method was found.
Protective apparel, how it is checked, and whether other systems are addressed.
Aprons of at least 0.25 mm lead equivalent are required for everyone in the fluoroscopy room except the patient who is likely to be exposed to 5 mR/hr or more (in place since 10-1-2020). Drapes and panels of at least 0.25 mm lead equivalent are required whenever practicable. Thyroid shields and eyewear are not addressed.
Protective aprons of at least 0.25 mm lead equivalent shall be worn in the fluoroscopy room by each person, except the patient, whose body is likely to be exposed to 5 mR/hr or more.This quote was matched word for word to the source page.
not found. § 30307 has no apron inspection requirement; hospital inspection programs are facility policy, not state rules.
Engineered shielding systems are not addressed. Drapes and panels "shall not substitute" for an apron. The apron duty applies only at 5 mR/hr or more, but the rule does not say whether a system keeping exposure below that level removes the duty. § 30305(a)(2) allows "equivalent protection through other means" for existing installations, but it is not written about aprons. The topic was presented at the RTCC on April 8, 2026; no rule proposal followed.
Such devices shall not substitute for wearing of a protective apron.This quote was matched word for word to the source page.
Who may use fluoroscopy equipment and what training the rules ask for.
Only permit holders may operate. Physicians, osteopaths, podiatrists and chiropractors need a fluoroscopy S&O permit (§ 30463); radiologists may instead hold a radiology S&O certificate (§ 30466). Certified technologists need an RTF permit and work under a licentiate's supervision (§§ 30450, 30461). PAs need a PA fluoroscopy permit and work under an S&O-permitted physician (§ 30456.1). Unpermitted people may move the patient or equipment but may not energize the beam or select technique (§ 30305.5). No NP pathway was found.
Licentiates must pass a CDPH-approved fluoroscopy exam (ACBR-certified chiropractors exempt); a secondary source says renewal needs 10 CE credits every 2 years, at least 4 in fluoroscopy radiation safety (§ 30403(b), not read directly). A temporary permit has been available since December 15, 2022. Technologists must be certified, complete permit school or have American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT) credentials, and pass CDPH exams. PAs need at least 40 hours of coursework plus supervised clinical training, and 10 CE hours every 2 years.
For the fluoroscopy supervisor and operator permit, pass a Department approved examination in fluoroscopy radiation protection and safety, and use and supervision of use of fluoroscopy and ancillary equipment.This quote was matched word for word to the source page.
Rules, bills and guidance the research found from 2025 and 2026, with the ones that touch fluoroscopy teams first.
Held in committee May 23, 2025; one tracking site lists it as failed (last action February 2, 2026)
Bill on radiologist assistants.
Status not confirmed
Changes "direct supervision" for technologists doing venipuncture.
No outcome found (Apr 8, 2026)
Agenda included a SCAI presentation on modern radiation shielding tools and a CDPH item on what counts as supervision by certified supervisors and operators.
Questions the research could not settle. If you know the answer, tell us.
Copies saved earlier. Rules change, so check the current text at the source.
ORSIF compiled this page from the sources linked on it and did its best. It is not comprehensive and it is not always accurate. Rules change, a rule may have been missed or misread, and the sources themselves can be out of date. Treat this page as a starting point.
Found something wrong or missing? Tell ORSIF.
Found something out of date or wrong? Tell ORSIF. Corrections are checked against the rule text and the page is updated.