ML20024D175
| ML20024D175 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/25/1983 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Tedford C ARIZONA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8308030266 | |
| Download: ML20024D175 (1) | |
Text
,pu tuq
/
g*
jo UNITED STATES 1
g 3
g NUCLEAR REEULATORY COMMISSION
- E REGION V g
1450 MARIA LANE, SUITE 210
,d WALNUT CRE EK, CALIFORNIA 94596
$ 2 S 1983 Mr. Charles F. Tedford, Director Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 925 South 52nd Street - Suite 2 Tempe, Arizona 85281
Dear Mr. Tedford:
Thank you for your letter dated June 14, 1983, in response to our 1983 review of your Agreement State Radiation Control Program. We have evaluated your response and find, with the exception of the State regulations, your proposed i
changes will enable the trogram to satisfy the " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs." We are pleased, therefore, to offer you a staff finding of adequacy for the Arizona Radiation Control Program.
With regards to the Status of Regulations, we cannot offer a finding of compatibility until your revised regulations are completed, approved by the appropriate State bodies and adopted for the Arizona Radiation Control Program.
We feel your agency is putting forth a good deal of effort toward achieving adequacy and compatibility within the Agreement State Program. Your effort in this regard is appreciated by the NPO staff. We look forward to working with you on the coupletion of this task.
- incerely, kN T-fartin Regional Administrator bcc:
State Public Document Room NRC Public Document Room George Britton, Governors Office G. Wayne Kerr, OSP pace new r cw rruu !gs x - Rm orb Sr'bt 8308030266 830725 PDR STPRG ESGAZ 5 POLS \\
\\
~
Bruc3 Bibbitt
(
l RIZ NA
+
=-
Onome
.,,1 l
RADIATION REGULATORY AGENCY T m s',I ISEa $280 925 South 52nd Street, Suite #2 (602)255-4845 e
e fg June 14, 1983 I'G20:3,,7,.
Mr. John B. Martin Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region V 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Dear Mr. Martin:
This reply is in response to the letter of May 25, 1983 regarding the review _
and evaluation of the Arizona radiation control program.
Incluoed are specific responses to the items contained in your letter and proposals for corrective action. Estinates of the time required to achieve compatibility are indicated where applicable.
The commer.ts and responses reflect not only on the infonnation contained in the letter, but includes information obtained fron NRC staf f members du-ing the review, and continuing contact with Mr. Jack Hornet, the Region V State Agree-ment l<epresentative.
The Agency concurs in the finding of two Category I indicators. As noted with respect to the indicator, Status of Regulations, the Agency has submitted a pro-posed update of the regulations to NRC for review.
Preliminary results of the review of one part have been received from N.R.C. The comments and recommen-dations contained therein have been assimilated, corrected and a response for-warded to NRC in an of fort to achieve compatibility.
This process will continue until the outstanding points have been resolved.
The Agency had hoped to achieve the completion of the review process by this time. As the result of unforeseen difficulties, the process has been delayed. The Agency will continue to diligently pursue this matter to a successful completion at the earliest possible date.
1 With respect to the second Category I indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing l
Actions, i.e., the files of the two gauge service licensees, Ron Lof tin and l
Mountain States Engineers, have been reviewed to specifically identify the addi-tional information needed to support the authorized license activities. This review is directed to bringing the licenses into alignment with the actual programs. The licensees have been consulted in this regard. As a result of these actions, the Agency is proposing amendments to the licenses to limit the license authority to activities specifically required by the licensee's pro-grams. Additional application documentation is being requested from the licensees, where needed, to support the licensed activities.
A review of the f
\\
h7 v L 3 C L -
5 Pol
,une 14, 1983 Pagm 2,
Agency's licensees has identified one additional licensee falling into this same category. The file has been reviewed and the licensee contacted. Similar license amendments and additional documentation will be required in this case also. There are no other licensees of this type.
The third licensee identified in the review, Peabody Coal Company, is the sole custom device evaluation performed by the Agency in the experience of the current staf f members.
In performing the evaluation, staff members relied upon the guidance contained in the New Management Control System for Sealed Source and Device Review Guidelines dated July 21, 1982.
It was pointed out by members of the review team that these guidelines do not cover all information necessary for complete review of a device or source.
Recognizing the limited experience of the Agency staff, combined with the rarity with which this service is per-formed, the Agency proposes to seek the assistance of NRC device evaluators in future submissions. The Agency also requests that NRC consider the establish-ment of training for State personnel involved in these activities. As an immediate corrective action, the gauge user, Peabody Coal Company, has been contacted with regard to the specific points which nay result in a radiation hazard. License amendments, restricting activities using the device in ques-tion, are proposed pending final resolution of all outstanding paints.
Additional documentation concerning the device is being sought from the mane-facturer. Again, the Agency will seek the assistance of NRC in reviewing the applicatior. when additional information is assem5 led.
With respect to the conment that rcvisions to NRC regulations that were a matter of compatibility were not being implemented through license condition, tne Agency wishes-to respond that such matters are being implemented tshenever iden-tified, either as specific license condition, or a required commitment on the part of the licensee.
Several items were identified by the review test members as matters of compatibility.
These items had not been previously recognized as i
such by members of the Agancy stzff. These items will be addrc3 sed hy staff as soon as they are identified. The list of revisions referred to in the first paragraph of page 2 of the letter of May 25, 1983, as being enclosed, were not received. A previous list of NRC regulations revisions received in 1982, did not identify those revisions which were specifically a matter of compatibility.
The Agency is incorporating all of the revisions on that list into the regula-tion update.
The Agency has received the data on salary levels for Health Physicists (Enclosure 1).
The Agency appreciates this information and will utilize it in an ef fort to reduce the staf f turnover rate and stabilize the program.
With respect to the specific enclosed technical comments and recommendations, the Agency forwards the following:
I.
A.
With the assistance of the Region V State Agreement Representative, writ-ten administrative procedures are under development. Arrangements have been made for Mr. Horner to spend the week of July 11 through July 15, 1983 in the Arizona program offices to assist in this matter.
The Agency appreciates the NRC assistance in this matter.
oune 19, 1964 Page 3 O
B.
In review of the discussion between NRC personnel and the Agency's Emer-gency Response Program personnel, it appears that the NRC team members h?re not made aware of the fact that the by-product materials emergency response plan has been reviewed by all involved agencies and signatures agreeing to it have been obtained.
for the Region V representative.
Documentation for this is available for annual review of addresses, telephone numbers, etc.The plan is bein II.
A.
Active recruitment is under way to fill the two vacancies in the Radio-active Materials staff.
In assessing the total impact of this turnover on the program, it should be noted that the inspection backlog commented upon is relative to a recently implemented inspection schedule which envi-sions all 400 plus licensees (both specific and general medical) being inspected in an 18-month rotation.
inspection schedule, which closely tracks the NRC inspection schedu standards, as of June 1 there is a total of only 6 overdue inspections of which only one is Category I.
The NRC re/iewers suggested that implemen-tation of the 18-month schedule may have to be delayed until full staffing is attained.
The Agency staf f will continue to monitor the inspection t!!e tir,te being.progr6m, however wishes to attenpt to remain pn the 18-nonth s ties within the r:aw inspection schedule tc insure timely insp hign priority licensees has been implemented.
B.
The Agency is aware that not all persont.el have attended available NRC The Progran Mar:ager in charge of lironsinq did not attend the courses.
last NRC orientation licensing course primarily because the agency was not notified of positions available.
Region V State Agre With the cepable assistance of the this year's course,ement Representative, one position has been obtained in a second position will be utilized when available.
With respect to other available NRC sponsored training, the Agency appre-ciates the availability, and has taken advantage thereof.
It should be noted that in the past two years, five staff members have attended a total of 12 NRC sponsored courses, plus an additional 14 courses sponsored by other agencies.
III.
A. As noted above, the inspection backlog reflects a newly implemented 18 month cycle of inspections for all specific licensees, plus general medi-cal licensees.
When compared against the previously used inspection sche-dule, which tracks the NRC standards, as of June 1, there is only a total of 6 overdue inspections, of which only one is Category I.
inspections are given priority attention. system has been expande B. A Policy and Procedure was adopted in 1982 calling for quarterly field evaluation of inspectors. This schedule proved unworkable.
however, that the last year has been somewhat unusual in that additionalIt is noted, demands were made on the Program Manager which would not occur in an ordi-nary year.
These unusual demands included time dedicated to the overdu revision of the Agency's regulations, training and other activities needed
=-
e
June 14, 1983 Pa.g3 4 i
to satisfy the FEEMA requirements for the operation of the Palo Verde l
Nuclear Generati gg Station, and attendance by the Manager and staff at NRC and other trainirng courses. The program staff believes that the system will function as : anticipated under normal circumstances.
It is conceded, however, that thee schedule may need to be modified to require only semi-annual field evailuations.
C. The program mana;;ement has been aware of deficiencies in inspection report documentation.
'7hese problems have been addressed with staff members on several occasions,.
The inspection report format has been reviewed to con-sider revisions.
In addition to the points commented upon, the management has consulted with legal staff to d'.termine specific points of documen-tation which willl be needed to support actions under the escalated enfor-cement and civil : penalty provisions of the Agency's regulations which are now in final reviiew.
The specific points of the comments and recommen-dation will be imcluded in this revision.
To sunmarize, the Ager.c.y wishes to express appreciation to the NRC for the val'.:ed assistance recei ved. The Agency will continue to work closely with the Region V State Agreememt representative, and other members of the NRC staff.
Based on this assistanc.e. the program staf f is confident ti.at the deficiencies in the program c3n be corrected in a timely manner to achieve full co.?patibility with NRC regulations.
Since rely,
/f g,h Ctarles F. Tedford Director RLB:CFT:jr cc: George Britton, Governor's Office Wayne Kerr State Document Room NRC Document Room
f 5
p Ctc UNITED STATES y
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
.j REGION V 0,
g 1450 MARIA LANE,SulTE 210
,d WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNI A 94596 MAY 251983
~
Mr. Charles F. Tedford, Director Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 925 South 52nd Street - Suite 2 Tempe, Arizona 85281
Dear Mr. Tedford:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Joel 0. Lubenau and Mr. Donald A.
Nussbaumer from the Office of State Programs and Mr. Jack W. Hornor, -
Region V State Agreement Rapresentative held with you and your staff following our rev!ew and evaluation of the State Radiation Control Program. The review covared the principal administrative and technical aspacts of the program.
TMs 1r.:ledad an examination of the prcgram's lyislat!on ar.d rquistions, organization, management and administratica, personnel, licencing cd cer:pliance, Cur review used as refer $r.ce, the UAC "Cutdalines for liRC Review of Agraement State Radiation Control Programs," ptblished in the Federal Register on Decenber 4,1981 as an NRC Policy StatemenF.. The Guide provides 30 Indicators for evaluating Agt ser.unt State program areas.
Guidarce at to toeir relative importence to an Agreerrent State program 11 providad by categorizing the ir.dicators into wo categories.
Category 1 Indicators address program functions that directly relate to the States' ability to protect pt'blic health and safety. Category II Indicators address functions which provide essential technical and administrative support.
If a significant problem exists in a Category I Indicator, the deficiency may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and needs to be addressed on a priority basis.
If significant problems exist in more than one Category I Indicator, then improvements are critically needed.
In such cases, we will need a timely response from the State, and staff recommendations for adequacy and compatibility will not be offered until after the responses are i
received and evaluated. A follow-up review within six months may also be scheduled.
Our review of Arizona's program and the routine exchange of information between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of Arizona disclosed significant problems in two Category I Indicators, Status of i
l Regulations and Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. The guidelines l
under Status of Regulations specify that an Agreement State must have regulations that are essentially identical to 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20 and have a high degree of uniformity with other NRC regulations. The Arizona Regulations have not been updated in their entirety since 1977, whereas NRC regulations undergo centinuous upgrading. As a result, they l
Y sPo I
MAY 251983
- Mr. Charles F. Tedford, Director '
cannot be considered compatible with NRC regulations.
Farther, our review disclosed that a number of the revisions to NRC regulations that -
were made a matter of compatibility were not being implemented in the State through license condition.
Steps should be taken to cover these items, as shown on the enclosed list pending revision of the State's regulations.
With respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, our review disclosed that two gauge service licenses, Loftin and Mountain State Engineers, lack adequate support in the applications for the authorized licensed activities. A third gauge license, Peabody, authorizes the use of a custom device, but information available in the licensa file is incomplete on how the sources are secured within the device. We also found potential radiation safety problems associated with the procedure for leak testing which required source removal.
Other technical deficiencies in licensing were discussed with your staff. We recommend these licenses and any othars in the sam category
?
be reviewed and, as approoriate, cmended to resolve these types of problems.
With respect to the Arizona Regulations we wish to acknowledge receipt of a copy of a craft revision. NRC staff is reviewing it and we will provide comments to you shortly. When acceptable regulaticns become effective, we will then be able to ma.ke a fir:dirig regarding compatibility of the Arizona propram. Upon receipt and evaluation of your responses to our other cunnents we will be in a position to offer a finding concerning the adequacy of the radiation control program.
We believe that the problems which exist in the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency (ARRA) are due in part to the high staff turnover, approximately 40% last year in the materials program.
Salary levels appear to be a significant contributing factor to the high turr.over rate. Although a one step salary increase was authorized by the State, l
the increases have not as yet been funded. We also commented on this l
matter following the last review. 'I have enclosed some data on salary levels for health physicists (enclosure 1) which may be helpful in your pursuit of salary adjustments for the Radiation Regulatory Agency staff.
Also enclosed are other technical comments on the program (enclosure 2).
l We would appreciate your review of our recommendations and receiving your specific plans to improve the materials program.
As is our usual practice, I am enclosing a second copy of this letter for placement in l
the State public document room or otherwise be made available for public review.
As we discussed with you, we are prepared to offer technical assistance in the areas of licensing procedures, compliance procedures and assistance in evaluation of complex license applications. The Region V Office will contact you to make arrangements for this assistance.
l
MAY 251983 Mr. Charles F. Tedford, Director ;
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation you and your staff extended
- to Mr. Lubenau, Mr. Nussbaumer and Mr. Hornor.
Sincerely, M
John B. Martin Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
As stated 4
cc: w/ enclosure:
State Public Docuacnt Room NRC Public Document Reon George Sritton, Governors Office G. Wayne Kerr, OSP b
i e
e
+- -
e
=.c e._ - m e-
.v-...,,e r,
Health. Physicist Salary Data o
Scientific Manpower Commission (Washington, DC) publishes a biennial survey of salaries, " Salaries of Scientists, Engineers and Technicians."
In its November, 1981 report, it. states that in
-October,1980, the median grade for health physicists employed by
. Federal government was GS-13 and that the average salary was 34,264.
o The entrance level (Master's Degree, no experience for personnel in NRC licensing and inspection programs is usually GS-9.
The range for staff level inspectors is usually GS-9 to GS-14.
In the licensing program, staff positions range from GS-9 to GS-14.
The current (effective October, 1982) annual salary ranges for these grades are:
Grade t.
, Range GS-9
$20,2E6 - 26,.}31 GS-10 22,307 - 29,003.
GS-11 24,564 - 31,861 GS-12 23,374 - 3B,185 GS-13 34,930 - 45,651 GS-14 41,277 - 53,661 o
Additiunal healtn physics salary data is contained in the attached drticle, "frends in Health Physics Salaries and Employment:
1980."
- It reports that the mean salary. for all health physics employees in the Rocky Mountain-region in 1980 was $33,900, o
The mean salary for Arizona health physicists staff is $23,224.
- Health Physics Journal, February 1983, Volume 42, Pages 107-117.
1 4
w w
3
-yim-., - -._ --,
..m,,
y
--.,-.y.g_
,,.y,pr.w-_-_e
.,,9-,,.-
,..,c.,-a. _ _ _.,,,.,, -
g-m,
.p 77.v,.,,
-.,_,._,__g.-,,.,,
e Heeft4 PA,..es Val 42. f.es. 2 (Fee. tys. pp 10*.187. 1982 (sitt.W7sts!!020:57. lino) UDIO Pers. a Peens (Jd Praied m the U.s A SPECIAL REPORT I
.I TRENDS IN HEALTH PHYSICS SALARIES AND EMPLOYMENT: 1980 RA?.PH C. CHRISTENSEN Departments of Health Radiation Sciences and Radiation Medicine, University of Ken.-
tpcky, Lexington, KY 40536 (Recched 9 June 1981; accepted 15 Jane 1981)
Abrtract--A salary quest:ennalr$ was dstributed tc health physicists in July 19X3 as part of the Juli 19S0 Heaith Physics Saiety Newsletter snd as a landous at the 1980 ileatth Physin Sot.iety Anm.:1 Meeting in Sesttle 752 responses were Ayiried our a spaa of 3 inorths. Mean annual salary was ccrrelated wkh a set es of variaMes including t
experience (time in the field), acaderr.ic background, emgcytr type, repon, ses and
~
licensure status. The da'.a suppor.ed the following conc!usions:
(a) Mean an.iual salary for the health rhysics personnel respoading to the su:vey was 529,4 A.
(b' :ndivituts in she southeast and southee.mr31 staics had below.awage schries.
s wl'e.reas indiv:du41s in 'he corthent and Rceky flountzin s'a es had above. average r
s11 aries. The d;fference between these extreme ar.nust raeans was often it. the range of 5000-S5000, and should exert considerable impact on recruiting success.
(c) Industaial and consulting positions carry higher thar:. average salaries, whereas academic and governmental positions tend to be somewhat below average.
(d) Women in health physics are a small but growing minority which tends to have lower-than. average salaries.
(e) Recent demand for trained health physicists seems to have caused starting salaries to rise somewhat more rapidly than continuing salaries,in general.
tNTRODtJCTION regarding salaries appropriate for various THE H eat.TH Physics Society Placement positions. Additionally, in the past year a Service, a continuing program of the number of inquiries regarding salary level Society's Placement Committee, has moni-have come from employees who wish to tored a sharp increase in demand for health maintain their current position, but who seek physicists extending over the past 2 yr. This a more competitive salary. The 1980 Salary change has been evidenced by several objec-Survey was designed to provide information tive indices, including an increase in place-useful to both employer and employee, by ment listings and an increase in the humber presenting current salary levels and of firms listing positions (see Table 1). Con-employment trends in health physics.
currently, the Placement Service has SIETHODS experienced a subjective increase in tele.
phone inquiries by firms seeking prospective The 1980 Salary Survey Questionnaire (Fig.
employees and by executive recruiters. The 1) was sent to all persons receiving the most recent manifestation has been a sub-Health Physics Society Newsletter, as an in-jective increase in inquiries by all parties tegral part of the July 1980 Newsletter. It was 107
108 HEALTH PHYSICS SALARIES: 1980 Table 1. Healfh Physics Socicly newsletter placement listing activify. 1971-1981 Catererv _
7/77.8/7h 7/?n-A/7e 7/7t, apam 7/no.6/A1 Average Number of Foot tiene 14.4 10.*
1st.2 50.5 per Month Averase hu=her.*f Esplayern 11.4 14.1 24.9 31.2 pe-Montb Annuel Lanher af Ffres 61
.0 147 162 listter EFS PLACDer? AirD 1A1A,7 "Kfff!certAf t2 This questfeessire may be completed by sayone employed at least 501 in health phyetce utivittee, and should taka so more thaa five alastes., It of this form for others who may be qualtfled.to m restricted to emeaers of the Society. F4et f ree to make sepses Oult amewering any qwesttees of too personal er too confidential Whee fiatehed, tear out pe,s. fald and tape shut. stamp, and seed to the address below. Coselled to-a nature.
formattoe will be weed to provide enlarf data for both exployers and employees,.e4 will be published for the beeefit of the e =berehtp.
Indaridual feras will be held st rictly confidenttal.
- 1. iga-,,,... e, o.
u a rh,eic....et,.
- 3.,.,,ee r.,o..
,e,io..t.
.t Osor t o eu t Use=thc.atcal
' N'::,".,":'.0"'3" " "'"" " *" ~
ST*. ~
E W "%""uu--
a,t..a.
u,.t t,a us-.t.,
h t -h.c.c c u~d cae~e-- s o a-o=1-r cied-t u o,,m er t,a.
1 vC...ac e
..,,.ae
..e,1.,, o re e.o:. <,,.1_, u e s u,,se t t.
y,,,,,,
u,. o rum u>
m.ise 1.,e4 o,,,,,.,,,,,,..
o,3,,.
C Ccumeeri a we 1.*t yever Cot 4c y,,
gy.. 000-20.999 0 531.C W 41.999
- 3. 7'y health phye ste d.st.. are but dastr *eed by the fet-d 21 N 21. m
@ 2. p 44. m e
1,,, + r... < -. t -.a,. ut te c. e.,,,
on:.~->s.",
ou> ~ ~ "
g,g. g awa -,- i.or. --.ee.neum gll;g>;.;;;
g;;;gia;'.",
r.
i.et e
.e4 e.,i.7.t. t
..,,,, m t...,,e,e. t.m,oen, n.,. s u,,
oi..,.
t,_
i o,. m e.r,.
,e.e...
20 20,.e.r..se. 20,.e oi.
se.t,
.,e
- m. o, w.m...,rt r..re..r.,u..>.
c 1
,s.r.
t
- u. e,t e,uve u th,see u e t o s.3,..re.,e o
.e e...a..
r o
ol.,,e.r.,,,,,,,,,,,
f.r. 3...m..,,re.e
..,. r....,t ans/,A B)-5 yure posittee for months.
o-in o,10,.are
- -~
C Fh.D. er e,uteel.at 610 20 yeare
- 9. The KPS Flaceamat 5.rvice weed to my CA,EP Certified Uwas h a' Clees than 30 U45 59 g,0"* * "' g u?
Ust 5* " or 030-44 050 and...,
3 Fic.1.1980 Health Physics salary survey questionnaire.
also available as a handout at the 1980 Analysis System, SAS Institute, Inc.). Dis.
Annual Meeting in Seattie, WA.
tributions resulting from this procedure were Approximately 20% of all responses were analyzed for mean salary assuming that obtained from the Annual Meeting. A total of entries in a given salary bracket were dis-752 responses were eventually received, be. tributed uniformly throughout the bracketed tween 10 July and 30 September 198.0, at interval. The relationship j
which time the Survey was closed and the data coded for computer processing. This i
response represented approx.15% of the Z s.N 4
Society membership as of July 1980, after S='
being adjusted for non. member respondents.
E N, Each response was coded into a 20-digit a
number, which was placed on a computer card and processed using SAS (Statistical (where S, is the salary at the midpoint of the
.i
2
^
4 5
R. C. CHRISTENSEN 109 ith salary interval, and N, is the number of REST /I.TS AND DISCUSSION i -
individuals with salaries in the ith salary in-Respondents to the 1980 Salary Survey in.
terval) was used to determine mean salaries. cluded 656 Health Physics Society members 4
Mean salaries were not calculated for cate-and 94 non-members (two respondents failed gories containing less than 5 entries, both to to indicate their membership status). The
- protect confidentiality and also because of mean salary for members was $30,600 per yr, poor statistical reliability for such small whereas that of the non-members was samples. Three-variable distributions were $20,400 per yr. Many non-member respon-derived primarily for combinations of salary dents were technicians or equivalent.
and experience or salary and academic Table 2 presents a profile of the salary background, because such information is distribution of all respondents. Mean salary.
typically the most useful for placement pur-for this distribution was $29,400.
poses. (Note that the " experience" parameter Table 3 presents a series of correlations-is a time-in-field measurement only, and does with salary and experience (time). The "All
-not assay quality.) Four-variable distributions Employees" co!umn and " Totals" row pro-were not attempted, beccuse the sample sizes vide mean sclary as a function of ind.vidual'
- per category wculd have been so small that variabics. Far example. ABHP certificaricn is the results, in general, would have lacked statisticci validity.
possessed by 126 resrondents, about 19% of the total. The 19E %S.t HPS Membe: Ship l
l Question 3 on the Sal ry Q.sestionnaira. Hanhook hsts 692 cert!Oed health physidr.ts, 1
- asked for a' job c'escription, couched in term 3 and a Society membership of 4502, yielding a of the respondent. Responses to this question comparaW ratio of 15%. The near agreeraent proved very' difficult to codify. Ultim.:tely,20 nf these two percentages suggests that this categories of job respor.sibility were chosen. servey probably is not badly biased with j
an3 each nesponse was forced into i of these. regard to age or cxperience. facter<. The cor-categories Considerable un:ertainty in this relation of expecience with ABHP pararacter remains, since a single job title can certiScation suggests that (a) few individuals
. mean quite ' different technical - and. ad-are certised withirt 3-5 yr after leaving ministrative responsibilities in different school, despite the possibility of such branches of the profession. Most respondents certification accorded by the ABHP eligibility fell into one of 6 of these *' job description" rules at higher academic levels; (b) certified
- categories, and in this analysis these 6 have health physicists enjoy salaries significantly been correlated with other variables..
higher than ~those of their peers with equal Questions 8 and 9 are not included in cor- -years of experience; and (c) salaries of
~
relations discussed in this paper, because of a certified health physicists tend to peak, or widespread failure of respondents to answgr nearly so, by the time they reach 20 yr of these 2 questions.
experience.
Table 2. Annual salary vs number and per cent of respondents per salary interval i
. Ann.at Salarv tsw=ber l
(thousands of deltars) of aespondents Percent i-
- IS 29 3.9 15.0 - 17.9 47 6.7 18.0 - 20.9 68 9.0 21.0 - 23.9 87 11.6 24.0 - 26.9 -
101 13.4 27.0 - 29.9 85 11.3 30.0 - 32.9 92 12.2 33.0 - 35.9 72 9.6 36.0 - 38.9 SS 7.3 39.0 - 41.9 44 5.9 42.0 - 46.9 19 2.5 8
45.0 - 47.9 10 1.3 i
68.0 - 30.9 17 2.3
- St.0 26 3.1 e
f h
[
i 1:..
-,._._._.__._~___.-.-.u_
I
=
R. C. CHRISTENSEN lli in health physics, for savious categories of response. #
Mean solaries were not calculated for categories having respondents trpertence 3-5 yr.
5-10 yr.
10-20 vr.
> 20 yr.
No Response Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
_JL, Salary
- $slary
- 3 alary
- Salary
,jL, Sala ry 97 23.1 159 27.9 234 33.6 124 37.2 28 28.5 1 -
12 32.1 57 39.6 56 40.5 0
96 23.1 147 27.3 177 31.8 68 34.5 28 28.5 80 23.4 148 27.9 215 33.9 105 36.9 22 28.2 12 11.6 4
10 30.6 4
2 -
5 14.9 7 27.6 9 34.8 15 38.4 4
2 11 20.4 9 29.1 6 25.1 2 -
7 15.8 3
15 24.3 8 37,3 35 21.c
- ' 34 2 #'. 2 51 31.5 68 36.3 2 -
31 24.2 85 29.1 92 33.6 36 37.3 10 3C.3 16 27.3 21 30.6 60 57.3 23 41.4 10 31.5 7 -
0 7 10.3 3 -
1 -
19 21.0 22 25.$
37 33.0 21 13.0 4 -
21 20.7 28 26.1 61 37.8 30 2-9. 3 7 30.3 4 -
24 31.2 24 36.6 8 41.1 1 -
29' 25.2 44 28.2 47 33.3 15 35.1 7 28.8 9 21.9 16 27.3 21 34.8 25 37.2 4
3 -
6 24.0 4 36.0 5 33.9 0
4 -
8 31.5 12 40.5 4 -
0 0
0 5 36.3 0
0 8 27.9 10 27.3 19 31.8 8 36.3 5 19.5 0
0 0
1.-
0 14 24.6 37 29.1 53 35.1 '
14 36.0 7 25.8 16 22.2 41 26.7 35 34.8 16 36.3 4
23 24.0 23 27.0 36 30.6 19 33.6 6 24.9 3 -
11 27.6 15 35.4 18 41.7 1 -
16 18.9 7 28.8 21 33.0 7 33.6 0
2 -
7 32.4 17 34.2 7 43.5 3 -
20 24.3 29 27.0 42 36.9 3 36.0 6 29.1 3
4 6 39.0 5 44.7 1
0 0
1 -
1 -
0 21 24.0 24 26.7 24 34.8 8 39.9 5'25.5 26 21.6 35 28.2 21 33.6 8 38.7 8.26.7 41 23.1 31 28.5 38 33.9 6 36.6 5 24.9 6 21.9 57 27.6 60 35.1 25 37.5 2
[
2 -
8 30.3 69 32.1 38 35.7 5 23.1 0
0 20 33.9 39 37.8 2 -
1 -
4 -
2 0
1 -
--m, -_--
y y
A -
112 HEALTH PHYSICS SALARIES: 1980 To the degree that this survey is represen-between these extremes, typically on the tative of the health physics profession, the order of $5000 per annum, appears to b'e large i-representation of women is low. Fifty-one enough to create strong leverage in hiring women, approximately 6.8% of the sample, situations.
responded. Nearly as many individuals, 43, Table 4 compares the distribution of survey failed to indicate their sex. A trend toward respondents to the distribution of positions slightly lower! salaries for women appears in listed in the HPS Newsletter from July 1979-three. separate categories of experience June 1980. If the percentage of survey res-e (time), - but low numbers of individuals pondents for each employee category truly weaken the statistical significance. It appears represents the current overall distribution of that in recent years, a larger fraction of the manpower in the health physics community, health physics work force has been female, then it would appear that the academic and since in the 1-3 yr experience category,about industrial sectors either are expanding and 18% are women, whereas the percentage have new positions available, or else they are drops to 13% at 3-5 yr and to 4% at 10-20 yr. losing personnel unusually rapidly. Subjec-It m:sst be noted that lower percentages in the tive evidence from Placement Center activity l
higher years' experience category could also suggests that there is high turnover in the 7
imply that a hrger fraction of women than academic sector and an expanding number of men had left the field.
poshior.s ;tvailable in the industria' tecu r.
The correlation of ;:cademic bsckground There appear to be distinct differences be-with years of expet gt.cc retraied few sur-tween variaus regions of the U.S. with regard i
prises. For a given level of experience, pos. to mean salary. In mcst c::rerer,cc ca:e-
, session of a Id her degree cortefated.with a gories, mean salaries in the southean and r
g higher average salary. Likewise, for a giver. scuthcentre state:, are !cuer than ici other acaderme background, more experience puts of the U.'i. The tortheast, Far West, generally was rewarded with a higher average-and Rocicy Mountain regiont gerzerilly offer -
i sabry. This particular costelation should be tn-high:st mean sstaries. ~]he difierences especially useful to employers ar.d rmployees. bctween these extremes arc large (> $5000 The correlation of emp! oyer type with per annum) in some experier.cc categories, l
salary and experience also gave few sur-rather small in others.
prises. The general trend was toward higher A particularly interesting finding emerges salaries with increasing experience, with a from correlating the " amount of time lapsed given employer. The lowest pay scales for a since the last job change" with experience given experience level appear to occur in and salary. In four of five experience cate-academic and government employment, and gories, individuals changing jobs within the the highest mean salaries are seen in in-past year had higher mean salaries than those dustrial and consulting work. The dif(erence changing jobs within the previous 1-3 yr.
1 Table 4. Type of employer 1s per cent of survey respondents and per cent of totalplacement center listings (1979-1980)
- of Survey I of Total Placement Emp1over Cateserv Re s pondent s Center Listinas Academie 36.6 24 Covernment 22.9 le Indust rial. non-cornercial power 9.6 22 Commercial nuclear power 21.4 25 National Laboratories 11.7 3
Miltiary 4.3 5
Consultant 4.7 1
Self-Employed -
0.7 0
q-Other 4.1 4
+
~
..y--
,,.,,,.,n-,.-r.,,-
.,.-.--v,-
,,,ew-e,.-,,,,-,.-~..m,-,,
e.
+-,.. -,, -,,..,..
.,.--,---,,,v.,--,
9 w.-.
-,..,-- i
G R. C. CHRISTENSEN 113 Since the " years of experience" parameter stant, and for the profession as a whole, has held constant, the simplest conclusion is salary correlates more strongly. with that salaries have risen faster for those experience than does academic background.
changing jobs, than for those remaining. Thus, this data cannot be considered to either (Note,in making the comparisons, that those clearly support or refute the impression that who last changed jobs some time before their salaries are rising more rapidly for new hires responsibilities began to be in health physics, than for continuing employees.
have an additional " seniority factor" which The survey indicates that in some areas of may increase their salaries relative to the health physics, salary does not appear to rise others in the same health physics group.)
sharply with advanced - training.. In com-Table 5 presents a series of variables cor-mercial nuclear power, for example, mean related with academic background and mean annual salary increases from $24,000 for salary. In general, it appears that the first those with training program background, to variable, ABHP certification, shows a clear only about 531,000 for those with a master's correlation of increasing salary with higher degree. However, experience factors may academic level, but with an interesting again be cloudiag the data, iri that sen!or
~
ar omaly. 01 those whc are certified, master's technicians and relatively young master's degree rec:pients average $3000 per year less degree hoideas may have more readily res-than those listing bachelor's degrees as their pondert to the survey. Certainly, it seerns highe::t degree. The sairple sizes are large apparent that commercial nucl:ar power pays enough :bar the mean sa'ary difference ap - achnical pe;sonnel w;il abov: as erage t.
i pears rea!. One possib!e expl:.netior., al-salaries, but rewards piofessional lev-l per-tacugh witi>out data to suppert it in th:c sor.nel at more nearly average salaries. Also, t
present study, is that matter's level ' in-ccademic and government saltries as seen in dividuals may tend to seek ernptoyers v>ho do car!in experience correlatior;a, tend to' te not pay as much, such as academic lower thar; average on an ecpal academic employers, whereas ccrtified bachelor's it. vel backgiound basis, whereas consultants and individuals may gravitate toward positions in _ indus: rial employees tend to be higher than the industrial and consulting sectors, which average.
pay particularly well.
As seen earlier (for constant experience With regard to salary differences between comparisons), the southeast and southcentral -
males and females as a function of academic regions of the U.S. tend to have lower than background, :there appears to be a strong average mean salaries, on a constant acade-'
trend toward lower salaries for women.at mic background basis. Likewise, Rocky most. academic levels. The observed Mountain, Far West, and Washington D.C.
differences are misleadingly large because for areas tend toward higher than average mean j
each academic category the mean years of salaries.
experience parameter for women is less than Table 6 presents correlations in six areas of for men. Had there been 'a large enough job responsibility. In each of the 6 areas, l
sample to perform meaningful four-variable mean salaries rise with increasing experience correlations, this data could have further and with increasing administrative respon-i been broken down to siew average salary in sibility. Southeast and southcentral mean experience subcategories within'- the in-salaries were below average in nearly all dividual degree level categories, as a function categories, and northeast 'and Rocky Moun-
^
of sex.
tain mean salaries tended to be well above Of all those changing jobs in the year prior average. Academic and ' military mean i
to the survey, only those with bachelors and salaries, holding job responsibility relatively i
masters degrees show a higher mean salary consta ~nt, tended to be below average; com-than do those of equivalent academic back-mercial nuclear power showed higher than ground who last char.ged jobs 1-3 yr ago. In average mean salaries in the technical and this correlation, experience is not held con- (professional, non-administrative) categories.
3 i.
(.
-cw-
.,w..-re ra m.-e
-,-mn
-.r,--
.-----+m---,4
-wy y,4
,, vo w n.gg.,,,,,,
mg v,emm yp g a rm,
.m,,,gyg.-gmn, e -.m y e.m a.m,
eas,,,,,.,y-_.n.w.a
.m..m e-4,
b IId HEALTH PHYSICS SALARIES: 1980 Table 5. Mean salary as a function of academic bacturound.
of respondents in any particular category. Mean salaries respon.
Ca t ego r y All !=ployees No R e s pon s e _
Training Program Mean Mean Mean
- Sala ry i Salary i Salary fo t al s.
752 29.4 12 31.8 -
32 23.6 ABHP Ceretftcation Yes 126 39.0 4
0 No response 626 27.6 8
25.5 32 23.4 sgu Male 658 29.7 7
31.5 29 24.0 Female 51 24.0 2
2 No respons.
43 31.8 3
1 Work Onpertence 3 - 1 year 18 li.&
O 1
1-3 3e.ra 52 20.1 C
1 3 5 yeste 97 23.1 1
2 5 -10 years 155 27.9 0
11 20.4 10-10 years 2 54 33.6 7
30.3 9
2$ 1
- 20 feart Its 37.2 3
6 26.1 2
No response 28 28.5 1
+
Wt_3 4 Chary C - 1 year 140 26.)
2 5
18.3 6
21.6 1 - 3 years 155 25 1 1
3 - S years 123 28.5 2
7 22.4 5 -10 years 1 54 31.4 4
4 1D-20 years 125 32.)
3 6
21.6
> 20 years 61 36.9 1
4 No response 10 26.7 0
0 t_
~
Employer Academic 125 28.2 2
3 8
l Gov' t.. non-mil 172 26.7 1
3 Industrial non-nuclear power 72 32.4 1
2 Commercist 21 24.0 nuclear power 161 29.1 3
National Lab.
88 30.9 2
1 Milita ry 32 27.3 0
1 Consultants 35 34.5 2
0 Self-employ.
5 0
0 Other 61 27.9 1
1 No response 1
0 0
Location Northeast 136 30.9 3
7 30.3 Southeast 137 26.4 1
4 Midwest
- 137 28.2 2
15 21.0 Tar West 162 30.0 1
1 Wash. D.C. area 55 33.3 1
1 South Central 63 26.1 2
Rocky Mountain 41 33.9 1
0 Abroad 22 54. 2 1
0 No response 2
0 0
115 R. C. CHRISTENSEN for earinus categories of response. # represents number were nos calculated for categories having less than 3 dents Acadente Bac4tround AA!AS SA/93 MA/M3 PhD/ Equivalent Mean Mean Mean Mean f Salarv i Salary
,j[, Salary __
,JP_, S a l a ry._
40 23.1 210 28.5 314 29.7 144 35.1 1
31 39.3 59 36.6 31 42.9 39 22.8 179 24.9 255 28.2 113 33.0 32 23.4 181 27.3 211 30.0 128 35.4 5
17.1 15 20.4 20 27.3 7
31.5 3
14 32.1 13 30.0 9
33.9 L'
7 17.4 3
21.3 3
2 33 18.3 47 21.3 9
25.3 7
16.8 SS 23 0 36 24.3 16 27.3 3
34 25.2 38 25 1 2) 30.6 15 24.3 31 31.5 97 33.6 4C 39.3 8
30.3 44 36 3 16 39.3 23 41.1 10 - 30.6 10 31.5 3
2 8
19.?
3(
24.9 15 28.2 12 28.)
48 22.5 74 25.2 21 35 0 4
3 26.1 33 2&.0 43 2F.4 31 13.6 9
23.2 34 29.4 61 30.6 36 28.E 7
26.7 34 31.0 47 34.2 28 34.2 3
21 36.6 24 34.1 8
43.8 2
3 28.5 2
1 3
31 23.1 39 25.8 47 34.8 8
20.7 58 - 24.9 76 30.3 26 35.1 2
18 31.8 41 32.4
-8 37.5 14 25.2 51 28.5 62 30.9 to 36.0 4
21 30.9 32 31.5 28 31.5 1
9 26.4 16 26.1 6
32.4 2
7 33.3 17 30.0 6
42.9 i
0 0
4 1
6 20.1 14 25.2
'27 27.3 12 38.1 0
0 0
1 7
26.4 39 29.4 55 30.0 25 35.4 7
17.7 39 23.7 55 25.5 30 33.9 7
25.8 35 24.9 57 29.7 18 37.2 8
24.9 52 28.5 78 30.3 22
- 54. 2 -
2 16 34.2 23 - 30.6 12 39.9 8
19.8 20 23.1 17 30.0 12 30.9 1
7 25.8 17 35.1 15 38.1 0
2 9
38.1 to 31.5 O.
0 2
0
5 Table 6. Mean salary as a function of job responsildlity, for erious catenaries of restanse. # represents number of respondents in any particular category. Mean sal aries were not calc 4ated br categories having less tisan 5 respondents Je*w Responelbtitty Corp. Director /
Branah/Crowof Statf/
Category All Respondente Dtvleton Head Stetten Mene***
CorporatL&
Health physiclet Techntelen RSO/Med. N.F.
M Mean Mean Mean Mee.s Mean Mean 1 5elery
- Salary I Salary _
1 3elery 1 htery i Solary i Sal a ry Totete 752 29.4 33 42.3 126
- h. 3 41 3J.2 201 28.5 62 18.0 103 28.5 Years of tupertence g
trl 9
19.2' 5 15.3 2 -
0 - 1 year le 18.6 0
0 1
1 - 3 years 12 20.4 1 -
2 -
1 28.3 11 21.9 13 85.0 14 22.2
("*N 3 - 5 yeare 97 23.1 1 -
6 1235 5 25.5 29 23.1 16 17.4 12 24.0
- t.5 11 30.0 48 27.0 11 19.8 20 26.7 5 -10 years 159 27.9 y 2 -
27 s
8 10-20 years 234 33.6 16 42.0 55 3(.5 6
4C.5' 55 33.6 9 22.8 32 32.4
- C e 20 years 124 37.2 12 44.1 31 13.1-7 3a..
25 37.8 2 -
20 33.3 6 18.0 3 -
[
No response 28 28.5 1 -
5 35.1 2
4 tocetton O
(!*
4 Northenet 136 30.9 4 -
20 37.5 8 33.3 34 29.7 5 17.7 23 30.0 CA>
Sowsheest 137 26.4 6 38.1 16 33.0 9 21.5 29 27.0 15 16.2 18 27.6 19 32.?
6 30.6 3? 27.9 19 19.2 25 29.8 Midwest 134 28.2 3
Ter West 162 30.0 7 43.2 31 33.3 11 30.0 50 27.9 5 16.5 68 27.9 x
16 15.7 1 -
7 26.4 Weehington D.C. eree 55 33.3 3 -
16 35.1 4
aceky Mountain 41 33.9 5 47.7 13 35.1 3 -
19 29.4 1 -
I -
16 24.3 16 19.2 to 27.9 8 18.s 1
South Centret 43 26.1 3
i Abroad 22 34.2 2 -
4 0
7 32.4 0
2 -
g oc C
Employer ocedente 125 28.2 2 -
5 30.1 0
in 23.7 8 15.0 50 27.3 Cov* t.. non-military 172 26.7 7 38.4 33 32.4 I? 35.s SS 27.9 12 14.4 8 32.1 Industrial. non-13 30.0 coe=ereset power 72 32.4 3 -
22
%.)
6 2 7.~,
21 28.5 1
Commeretel nuclear power 161 29.1 7 40.5 34 31 '
22 19,7 29 79.7 29 21.9 1 -
Mattonal Laboratories. 88 30.9 6 45.0 l'
39.5 1 -
31 27.9 5 17.1 3 -
Mtittery 32 27.3 3 -
9 30.3 0
10 24.0 0
5 25.5 Coneuttant 35 34.5 3 -
2 -
O 18 36.6 0
3 -
Sett-employed 5 -
O c
c 4
0 0
12 29.1 V 16.2 19 28.2 Other 61 27.9 2 -
2 -
1 e
t
.T9 w
i
~
R. C. CHRISTENSEN 117 National laboratories tended to show above. mean annual salaries, whereas academic and average mean salaries for administrative governmental positions frequently - show
- personnel.
below-average mean salaries, when 'com-parisons are performed using - fixed CONCUJSIONS.
experience (time) or academic background The analysis of the 1980 Health Physics parameters.
Salary Survey supports the following con-
-(4) Women in health physics are a small clusions.
minority, but the data suggest that in the past
. (1) Mean annual salary for the 656 mem-five years increasingly large percentages of bers of the Health Physics Society respond-worpen have been entering the profession.
ing to the Survey was $30,600. Mean annual.When compared to their male counterparts on salary for the 94 non-member respondents, an equivalent experience (time) basis, women largely technicians and techno!ogists, was show a trend toward lower mean annual
$20,400.
safaries.
_ (2) For equivalent experience (time),
(5) Between July 1979 and June 1980, mean academic background,- or job responsibility, annual salaries of individuals ia newly filled indisiduals employed in the southeast and positicns uere higher than mear. annutl southcentral states had mean annual salaries. salaries of individuzis of equivalent consistently below statianal averages for. c.u.:rience (time) in positions filled m earlier
~
health physics. By contrast, erantoyees in the years. This fact imolies th,.t ; tarting sa' aries
- nortireast anci Rocky Mounta'n states con-are incressing more rapidly than continuing
~;
sistently ~ disp?ayed salaries well above salaries, a typical occurrence seen concurrent
. national averages. The difference between with a sudden increase in demand.
these extremes, cften in the range of $5000-
,$5000 per yea,thould exert considerable liote cdded in proof. The Healtt Physics Society-MS given perr-ission fer this Special Report to be mipact or. rect'.itmg success.
(3) Industri'd and cunsulting p%:tions in reproduced as reeded by sny individua; or hestth phy!ics appear to carry the highest orgai.ization.
?
s Enclosure Technical Comments and Recommendations ogi the Arizona Radiation Control Program I.
Management and Administration A.
Administrative Procedures is a Category II Indicator. The following comment and recommendation is made:
Comment There is a need for written guidance especially in licensing and compliance sto help maintain consistency. For example, procedural guidance is needed for follow-up of incidents and noncompliance items and for prioritization of overdue inspections.
Technical guidance exists for licensing and compliance, but fornal administrative procedures covering performance of these functions do not exist. Also written guidance would be helpful as trainir.g aids for new personnel.
i Recomr.enda tion We recommend the Agency gererate administrative procedcres covering the licensing and compliance functicns.
B.
Quality of Emergency Planning ir a Category I Indicato+. The following minor comment and reconmendation is made:
l Comment-The Byproduct Material Emergency Response Plan has not been distributed.to outside agencies listed as contacts in the Plan. There is glso no provision for an annual review to assure the plan remains current, e.g., assure that addresses and telephone numbers are current.
Recommendation r
i It is recommended that the Byproduct Materials Emergency
[
Response Plan be reviewed and updated to address distribution to interacting outside agencies and that an annual review and update be performed to assure that current validity of the Plan..
II. Personnel r-l-
A.
Staffing Level is a Category II Indicator. The following l
comment and recommendation is made:
l~
(
, =.. -
. ~, -,,-,-., -, -. -,
4 Comment The current Arizona byproduct material staffing level. is 0.65 person-years per 100 licenses, considerably below NRC guidelines of 1.0 to 1.5 person-years per 100 licenses in effect. The staff turnover is directly affecting program maintenance as reflected in the increase in the inspection backlog which went from 9 to 23 in the first month of vacancies.
Recommendation It is recommended the State fill the current vacancies as soon as possible. Staff turnover because of salary problems in the State are recognized and it was noted that recruitment was underway.
If the existing vacancies (2) are filled, the staffing level will come up to 1.1. person years per 100 licensas.
i B.
Training is a Category II Indicatcr. The following comment cad reconmendation is made:
Comment sa noted during the review that neither the Program Manager in charge of licensing nor one of tne license reviewers had atter<ded tha NRC Orientaticn (Licensing) Course.
Recommendati.on We reccmmend that these individuals attend this course. NRC will fund travel and per diem costs. We encourage ARRA staff members, to attend other available NRC sponsored training, as appropriate.
III. Compliance A.
Status of Inspection Program is a Category I Indicator.
The following minor comment and recommendation is made:
Comment As previously noted, the inspection backlog has increased from 9 to 23 overdue inspections ia one month as a result of new vacancies.
Recommendation We recommend monitoring the overdue inspections and taking steps to ensure that higher priority overdue inspections are given attention first.
B.
Inspectors' Performance and Capability is a Category I Indicator. The following minor comment and recommendation is made:
.s.
3 c
Comment 4
The compliance supervisor should perform annual field evaluations of his inspectors. The compliance supervisor held the last inspector field evaluation in May 1982. One -
inspector has not been evaluated in the last year.
Recommendation It is recommended that a schedule be established that includes at least one field evaluation of each materials inspector per year.
C.
Inspection Reports is a Category II Indicator. The following comment and recommendation is made:
Comment We noted deficiencies in docunientation practices for inspection reports.
In scme cases inspection reports did not note previous inspectians, especially for follow-up and closecut of previous items of noncompliance or commitments made by the !icensee. Titles of licensee representatives were not always documented and exit meetings did not clearly state whether a management representative was present.
Recommendatien Ke recommend that a standard format.be used for inspection reports, such as a inspection field chacklist, along with or in-place of the narrative version to improve consistency and completeness in documentation practices.
l
~
l l
4 s
i s
r,
.-,.-,,--,m y_-
t,-
rv
-