ML20004D205
| ML20004D205 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/01/1981 |
| From: | Nussbaumer D NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Hughes D KENTUCKY, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106080582 | |
| Download: ML20004D205 (6) | |
Text
~
fyjy l
g\\ht 4Il UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULA1 DRY COMMISSION g
')g j
YtASHINGTON, D. C. 20$65 Y
[
4 JUN 1 et T
,d b
C Ef Mr. Donald Hughes, Manager s
Radiation Control Branch V
4 l
Department for Human Resources II J[d-
[ di
O f Frankfort, KY 40621 c,,I?
7pg/
w; 245 East Main Street c 4, y
Dear Mr Hughes:
This is to confirm the comments made to you and your staff by Mr. Lubenau and Mr. Woodruff at the conclusion of the recent radiation control program review.
Specific comments and recommendations are enclosed.
I would appreciat6 your review of our recommendations and receiving your' specific concents 1
and plans for responding to them.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to Mr. Lubenau and i
.Mr. Woodruff during the review.
Sincerely, wassC.L4aan Donald A. Nussbaumer Assistant Director for State Agreements Program l
Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
1 As stated l
l l
l l
t
'8106 o 8e 5&;2.
Comments and Recommendations Kentucky Radiation Control Program for Agreement Materials t
I.
Management and Administration.
Planning is a Category II Indicator.
The following recommendation is made for this area.
We believe several changes can be made to improve your ability to assess work load trends and to plan program activities.
Specifically, we recommend data on the inspection backlog be furnished to you periodically. Licensing backlog data could be more detailed: the time-lag between receipt of application and the first action by the staff should be monitored.
We noted 22 applications received in January and February,1981 that have not yet been acted upon. We also recommend developing and using a card file system for monitoring and planning inspections.
II.
Personnel.
Training is a Category II Indicator.
The following recommendation is made for'this area.
The staff should attend the Inspection Procedures and Orientation to Regulatory Practices training courses sponsored by NRC.
Priority should be given to the latter.
NRC will fund travel and per diem
~ costs. We are pleased to inform you that Mr. Woodruff will make arrangements to provide one-on-one training in inspection practice to your staff and assist in the inspection of a broad li;cnse.
III. Regulations.
Updating of regulations is a Category II Indicator.
The following recommendation is made.
We note that the regulations last received a comprehensive revision in 1975. Although changes have been made to selected portions since then, including those necessary to maintain compatibility, the regulations are no longer up-to-date in all respects. We normally expect revisions to be scheduled every two (2) years.
We recommend work on this bagin as soon as sufficient staffing levels (which we have commented upon our the letter to Dr. Stumbo) are available.
IV.
Licensing 1.
Licensing Actions is a Category I Indicator. The following comment and minor recommendation is made.
We were pleased to see that licensees whose licenses are due for renewal are requested to submit updated information to support their renewal applications.
We also noted that copies of license applications guides are furnished to applicants when a deficiency
- - - +,
n y--
w-w--
m w-e---,-c,-c-
--m-e- - - -- --
m
- n w
wr----w---
~
letter is sent.
We believe it would be more efficient (i.e., help reduce the number of deficiency letters) by routinely supplying a l
copy of the current licensing guide with the renewal notice.
,_g 2.
Licensing Procedures is a Category II Indicator. The following recommendations are made.
1 We recommend development of a policy to govern staff actions on license amendment and renewal applications that are received when significant enforcement actions are pending.
We also recomend the routine use of licensi_ng checklists as an aid for assuring the reviews of license applications are complete.
3.
Quality Assurance is a Category II Indicator.
The following comment and recommendation is made.
1 Periodic su ervisory review of selected license cases handled by l
s each reviewei should be made.
We recomend this be done by the Manager of the Radiation Control Branch.
IV.
Compliance i
1.
Enforcement Procedures is a Category I Indicator. The following coment and minor recomendation is made.
We again recommend that procedures for handling escalated enforcement f
be documented and available for reference.
The elements that should be, included in such a written procedure are attached.
2.
Inspection Frequency is a Category II Indicator. The following coment and recomendation is made.
The Kentucky inspection priority system called for, in some cases, inspections at intervals longer than those called for by NRC. The minimum inspection frequency should be consistent with NRC's.
l l
Messrs. Lubenau and Woodruff discussed with y,ur staff changes that l
cuuld be made in the Kentucky priority system that would enable the system to be consistent with NRC's and leave the inspection workload l
l virtually unchanged.
We recomend this be done.
3.
Inspection Procedures is'a Category II Indicator. The following l
coment is made.
We recommend inspectors routinely inquire into calibration and output check procedures followed by teletherapy licensees and, when appropriate, check the output through independent measurements.
Mr. Woodruff will arrange with your staff to cross-check the States' R-chamber with a recently calibrated NRC R-chamber.
1 3-
~
4.
Adquacy of Inspection Reports is a Category II Indicator. The following commendations are offered.
Significant improvements in inspection reports were apparent, especially in the more recent reports.
The inspection of Gladstone Laboratory, an out-of-State licensee working in Kentucky under reciprocity, was noteworthy for its thorougnness. Copies of the resultant enforement correspondence has been sent to NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement for their information. Overall, the State's documentation practices are excellent.
l I
,,e e.----,
.-,m,
,--,+e
,,y
.n._,-,
,-,w-
-.,- ~~.-, -, - -,
.w,,,--..--.,-----,.--a-n,---
--,4 e
,--e-
-w--<w-.~,.
t
~
.-- _ _'7 l
1
- e*
Elements of Escalated Enforcerent Action _ Procedure 1
I I.
Escalated Enforcement Actions are defined as actions beyond routine notifications to licensee of violations.
Examples are:
A.
Informal hearing (management conference),
i B.
Impounding of Sources, C.
Civil Penalty.
D.
Order to Modi.fy License, E.
Order to Suspend License.
~
F.
Revocation of License, G.
Criminal Penalty.
~
II. Statement of Underlying Authorities and Governing Legislation
'A.
State Radiation Control Act
~
B.
State Administra'tive Procedures Act C.
State Regul,ations III. Written Procedur.es for Implementation A.
Who has authority to call for hearings and issees orders?
Is it delegated?
Is it documented?
B.
Legal Counsel.
1.
From where is it availcble - in-house, State Attorney General?
2.
Do you wait in line or is it available on,ca'll?
3.
Are the attorneys familiar with the radiation control program, the Radiation Control Program Act and regulations and terminology of the regulated activities?
e I
___.m-
2-4.
Are legal services available without cost or must they be budgeted for by the radiation control agency?
C.
Other legal services which may be required:
1.
Hearing Examiners - Qualificaticns? Who appoints, who pays?
2.
Court Reporters - From where are they available? Who pa'ys?
3.
Hearing Rooms - Where? Who pays?
4.
Miscellaneous - Notary fees, Search Warrants, State a'nd e
l.ocal law enforcemeht assistance.
~
e e
D.
Off-Hour Enforcement Action.
E.
Criteria for Escalated Enforcement Actions:
1.
Inmediate Ac, tion to protect the public health and safety.
2.
Penalties (including civil monetary and temporary suspa.nsion of license) 3.
Revocation or modification of L1 cense F.
Public Notice and Participation e.,
e e
e e
0 e
e e
G G
0 e
e e
e a
9 g
EmScur:
e e