ML20055G869
| ML20055G869 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/18/1990 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Cowherd H KENTUCKY, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9007240257 | |
| Download: ML20055G869 (10) | |
Text
_
. ptec
'o UNITED STATES 8'
~g NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
3 g
WASHINGT ON, D. C. 20665 k....+,e#
July 18, 1990 Harry J. Cowherd, M.D., Secretary Cabinet for Human Resources 275 East Main Street Frankfort, KY 40621
Dear Dr. Cowherd:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Richard L. Woodruff, NRC Regional State Agreements Officer, held on April 27, 1990,s Radiation Controlwith you and your staff following our review and evaluation of the State Program.
As a result of our review of the Commonwealth's program and the routine exchange of information between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the staff determined that overall the KentucFy program for regulation of agreement materials is attquate to protect the public health and safety. However, a statement of compatibility will be postponed until the proposed amendments to the Kentucky Pediation Control Regulations become effective.
Status and Compatibility of Regulations is a Category I Indicator.
For those regulations deemed a matter of compatibility by NRC, State regulations should be amended as soon as practicable but no later than three years.
Kentucky's regulations are only compatible with NRC regulations up to September 11, 1984.
Since that date, there have been seven NRC amended regulations or new regulations that are a matter of compatibility for Kentucky. Amendments to the Kentucky regulations have been oroposed that will bring the Kentucky regulations into compatibility with 1RC regulations.
Further explanation is provided on the rules that are needed for compatibility under Enclosure 2, comment number 1.
We request that the State place priority on this matter and keep our Region 11 office informed of the status of your proposed rules and the date when the rules becone effective.
Staff continuity is a Category 11 Indicator.
Salary levels should be adequate to recruit and retain persons of a>propriate professional qualifications.
Salaries should be compara)1e to similar employment in the geographical area. Promotion opportunities should exist from junior level to senior level or supervisory positions. We noted during the review that the salary ranges in general are below those of other Region 11 States. The starting (entry level) salary is over $4,000 below the average starting salary in the other Region 11 States, and the highest salary is over $10,000 below the average highest salaries of the other Region 11 States. This information was provided to Mr. Hughes during the review and also provided as Enclosure 3.
It was also noted that the two junior inspectors could not be hired at the normal entry level and they were brought into the program at the same pay grade range as the current experienced supervisor.
f' 900710 j,$7N hDC
$fol 1ll
4 pi.
t 0E Harry J. Cowherd, M.D.
2 Also, the past three Section Supervisors reportedly left the program because of the low salary ranges. We recommend that every 1' fort be made to upgrade the salaries to a level that is competitive with those salaries of other Radiation Specialists and Health Physicists found in other Agreement States and the industry to provide better stsff continuity.
An explanation of our policies and procedures for reviewing Agreement State programs is enclosed as Enclosure 1. contains a sumary of the staff assessments and comments that were developed from the other indicators used for review of the program. These comments were discussed with Mr. Hughes and his staff during our exit meeting with him.
Mr. Hughes was advised at the time that a response to these findings would be requested by this office and you may wish to have Mr. Hugies address the Enclosure 2 coments and recommendetions.
We wish to comend the program for its efforts to reduce the licensing backlog and the elimination of the overdue inspections. This was accomplished while training two junior employees and reflects highly upon program supervision.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation exte.ded by your staff to our representative during the review.
I am looking forward to your comments regarding regulations and staff continuity, and your staff re.ponses to the Enclosure 2 recomendations.
A copy of this letter and the enclosures are ptovided for placenent in the State Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available for public examination.
Sincerely Carlton Kammerer, Director State 'rograms Office of Governmental and public Affairs
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/encis:
See next page i
1 Harry J. Cowherd, M.D.
3 JUL 1 B 1990 cc w/encls:
J. M. Taylor, Executive Director for 0>erations S. D. E)neter, Regional Administrator, Regior 11 C. Hernandez, M.D., Comissioner, Department for Health Services Clyde Burgess, M.D., Director Division of Community Safety Donald R. Hughes, Manager Radiation Control Branch State Liaison Officer NRC Public Document Room State Public Document Room bec: Chairican Carr Comissioner Rogers Comissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Distribution SA RF Dir RF EDO RF HDenton CKameror Yttiller FCombs SDroggitis RWoodruff RTrojanows ki Kentucky State File DCD (SP01)
E
> 31.,
f 10
/'
o
,n FC-:Mf:5AR :RII:DR55 :RII:1A '
SP)
~
r:3
. PA:
- EDD
- EgDQ
.......:.Sch rtz
- HDe on
- JTp,
...g.. :...,
AME :RWoodruff:JStohr
- SEbneter VMiller rer :
- C/ W9 0 ff/ /h....
............ :d..h........ :...........
o...:.........:.........:..........
/90 l/ll /90
/
/90 (Q/lh/90 ATE :6/
/90 :6/
/90 :6/
/90 0FF:CIAL RECURD COPY i
l 1
if
'i 4
ENCLOSURE 1 APPLICATION OF
- GUIDELINES FOR NAC REVIEW OF AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS" The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" i
were published in the Federal Register on June 4, 1987, as an NRC Policy Statement.
The Guide provides 29 indicators for evaluating Agreement State program areas. Guidance as to their relative importance to an Agreement State program is provided by categorizing the indicators into two categories.
Category I indicators address program functions which directly relate to the State s ability to protect the public health and safety.
If significant problems exist in one or more Category I indicator areas, then the need for improvements may be critical.
3 Category II indicators address program functions which provide essential technical and administrative support for the primary program functions. Good performance in meeting the guidelines for these indicators is essential in order to avoid the development of problems in one or more of the principal program areas, i.e.ly can be used to identify underlying problems that areCatego those that fall under Category I indicators.
indicators frequent causing or contributing to difficulties in Category I indicators.
It is the NRC's intention to use these categories in the following manner.
In reporting findings to State management, the NRC will indicate the category of each comment made.
If no significant Ca+egory I comments are provided, this will indicate that the program is odeqNte to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC's program.
If one or more significant Category I connents are provided, the State will be notified that tie program deficiencies may seriously pfect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and that the need for improvement in particular program areas is critical.
If, following receipt and evaluation, the State s res >onse appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I comments, tie staff may offer findings of adequacy and compatibility as appropriate or defer such offering until the State's actions are examined and their effectiveness confirmed in a subsequent review.
If additional information is needed to evaluate the State's actions, the staff may request the information through follow-up correspondence or perform a special limited review. NRC staff may hold a special meeting with appropriate State representatives. No significant items will be left unresolved over a prolonged period. The Commission will be informed and copies of the review correspondence to the States will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
If the State )rogram does not improve or if additional significant Category I deficiencies ave developed, a staff finding that the program is not adequate will be considered and the NRC may irstitute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement in accordance with Section 274j of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
l r
i 4 ".
ENCLOSURE 2
SUMMARY
Of REVIEW AND COMMENTS KENTVCKY RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM i
FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 22, 1988 TO APRIL 27, 1990 Scope of Review This program review was conducted in accordance with the Comission's Policy Statement for reviewing Agreement State Programs published in the federal Register June 4, 1987, and the internal procedures established by the Office of Governmental and Public Aff61rs, State Agreements Program.
The State's program was reviewed against the 29 program indicators provided in the Guidelines. The review included inspector r
accompaniments, discussions with program management and staff, technical evaluation of selected license files and compliance files (casework), and the evaluation of the State's responses to an NRC questionnaire that was sent to the State in preparation for the review.
1 This review was the 26th regulatory program review and was held during the period April 9-12 and April 23-27, 1990 in frankfort, Kentucky. The State was represented by Donald R. Hughes, Sr., Manager, Radiation Control Branch, and Vicki D. Jeffs, Supervisor, Radioactive Materials Section.
Inspection accompaniments were performed during the period April 9-12, 1990. A review of selected license files and compliance files was conducted by R. L. Woodruff, Region II, during the period April 23-26, 1990. A summary meeting regarding the results of the regulatory program review was held on April 27, 1990 with Harry J. Cowherd. M.D., Secretary, Cabinet for Human Resources, C. Hernandez, M.D., Comissioner, Department for Health Services; Clyde Burgess, M.D., Director, Division of Community Safety; and Donald R. Hughes, Sr., Manager, Radiation Control Branch.
Conclusion The Kentucky program for the control of agreement materials is adequate to protect tne public health and safety. However, a finding of compatibility it being postponed until the State's proposed revisions of the Kentucky Raciation Control Regulations become effective.
Status of Previous NRC Coments and Recommendations Comments and recomendations from NRC's previous review were sent to the State in a letter dated June 16, 1988. All of the coments were resolved L
except for one,
- Office Equipment and Support Services." Additional attention is needed under this indicator and specific details of our current comments and recommendations are provided below.
L c
l
1io Q
2 Current Review Coments and Recomendations All 29 indicators were reviewed in depth and the State fully satisfies the guidelines in 22 of these indicators. Specific coments and recommendations for the remaining seven indicators are as follows:
1.
Status and Compatibility of Regulations is a Category I Indicator.
The following comment with our recommendation is of major significance.
Comment for those regulations deemed a matter of compatibility by NRC, State regulations should be amended as soon as practicable but no later than three years.
The State has drafted changes to their regulations and entered them into the administrative process for rule adoption. The Kentucky regulations are only compatible with NRC regulations up to September 11, 1984 The rules needed for compatibility and that have been drafted are listed as follows:
10 CFP. 34 effective 07-16-86 Industrial Radiography 10 CFP,30 effective 02-11-87 Bankruptcy hotification 10 CFR 35 effective 04-01-87 Medical Hisadministration 10 CFR 39 effective 07-14-87 Well Logging 10 CFR 20 effective 02-18-88 NAYLAP Certification The following rules are also needed for compatibility and should be drafted as soon as practicable.
10 CFR 30,40,70 effective 07-27-88 Decomissioning 10 CFR 30,40,70 effective 04-07-90 Emergency Preparedness Recomendation We recomend that the State give priority to adopting the revisions to maintain compatibility.
2.
Staff Continuity is a Category 11 Indicator. The following coment with our recomendation is made.
Coment Salary levels should be adequate to recruit and retain persons of appropriate professional qualifications.
Salaries should be comparable to similar employment in the geographical area and promotion opportunities should exist from junior 1cvel to senior level or supervisory positions.
We noted during the review that the salary ranges in general are below those of other Region 11 States.
The starting (entry level) salary is over $4,000 below the average 4A
3 starting salary in the other Region II States, and the hight.st salary is over $10,000 below the average highest salaries of the other Region 11 States.
It was also noted that the two junior inspectors could not be hired at the normal entry level and they were brought into the program at the same pay grade range as the current experienced supervisor. Also, the past three Secticn Supervisors reportedly lef t the program because,0f the low salary ranges.
Recommendation We recommend that every effort be made to upgrade the salaries to a level that is competitive with those salaries of other Radiation Specialists and Health Physicists found in other Agreement States E
and the industry to provide better staff continuity.
3.
Office Equipment and Support Services is a Category Il Indicator.
The following repeat comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment During our previous (1988) review, we recommended that the State's current computer system and services be evaluated and updated as needed to provide better support for the needs of the Radioactive P.aterials Program. Some of these "needs" were addressed; however, the program still does not have a computer system that will enable electronic exchange of information between the State and the NRC, (i.e., NRC review questions and enswers, sealed source and device data,suggestedstateregulationc, bulletins,etc.). Tracking systems used for correspondence, regulatory actions, and incidents are still being maintained manually, Reconriendation Me reconnend that the program's caputer system be further upgraded to provide compatibility with the NRC system, and one that can be used effectively by the program staff for implementation of their regulatory functions.
4.
Administrative Procedures is a Category II Indicator. The following comment with our recommendatieS is made.
Comment The RCP should establish written internal procedures to assure that the staff performs its cuties as required and to provide a high degree of uniformity and continuity in regulatory practices.
Thete internal precedures should include a procedure for handling incidents, incident reports, tracking systen, and notifications to
~ _ _ _.-
4 NRC and other agencies. Guidance on incident notifications has been provided on several occasions including the All Agreement State letters of November 23,ing the review we noted that the State had 1984, July 22,1986, June 6,1988, and December 23, 1988.
Dur one incident report that was not filed in the incident folder, and three reports had not been transmitted to the NRC, Region !! Office.
Recommendation We recommend that a procedure be established for the ' handling,
' tracking, documentation, filing, and reporting of incidents.
5.
Management is a Category 11 Indicator. The following comment with our recomendation is made.
Comment Supervisory review cf inspections, reports and enforcement actions should be performed.
it was noted that on occasion, the supervisor will perform independent inspections, and these inspections should be reviewed by the Program Manager. Also,. we believe the program would benefit if the Program Manager would accompany the Supervisor at least on an annual basis.
Recommendation We recommend that inspections performed by the supervisor be reviewed by the Prograci Manager and that the Program Menager perform an inspection accompaniment of the supervisor ut least annually.
6.
Licensing procedures is a Category 11 Indicator. The following coment with our recomendation is made.
C_oment Kentucky licensing procedures require all licenses to be renewed annually for fee purposes. These annual renewals do not necessarily receive a technical review or a management review before the license document is dispatched to the licensee, We noted several " annual renewal" type licenses that contained typographical errors.
Recomendation We ref.omend that the State's licensing procedures be evaluated and revised as needed to allow for a " quality assurance" type of review to be performed on all license documents prior to dispatch to the licensee.
p.
1 5
7.
Inspection Reports is a Category 11 Indicator. The following comment with our recommendation is made.
. Coment findings of inspections should be documented in a report describing the scope of inspections, substantiating all items of noncompliance end health and safety matters, describing the scope of the licensee's program, and indicating the substance of discuisions with licensee management and the licensee's response.
In general, the State uses a report subheading entitled " Program" to document what is authorized by the license. This topic (subheading) should be
...J w uncribe the scope of the licensee's program and this information factored into the license renewal / review process.
Recomendation We recomend that the inspection reports be revised to document the scope of the licensee's program.
,Sumary Discussion with State Representatives A summary meeting to present the results of the regulatory )rogram review meeting was held with Harry J. Cowherd. M.D., Secretary, Ca binet for Services; C. Burgess, M.D., DIrec.D., Comissioner, Department for Health Human Resources; C. Hernandez M tor, Division of Comunity Safety; and Donald R. Hughes, Sr., Manager, Radiation Control Branch on April 27, 1990. The scope of the review was discussed along with NRC staff coments on Status and Compatibility of Regulations, Staff Continuity, and findings regarding adequacy and compatibility.
In response, Dr. Cowherd expressed the Cabinet's support for the radiation control program end related that his staff would take our recomendations under consideration upon receipt of our coment letter.
In closing, NRC's mechanism for repotting the results of the. review were discussed in detail.
.o 10Gt! (FD Stiff!53 !!11 Alltit
&lital
!!!:llit Elli StittlIG IIGt!!!
Pt0f. Staff
$fff0lfIfiff Pt0f!!!!0ilt StiP0!!
!Tli!
LICIE!Is ID3IT 511111
$11&lf Fil100LIC.
?!!100LIC.
StiffFft stiffff!
(DOLLit$)
()0Lli!5)
(L
(?!
!!!!!D lil56 410!!
0.6 0.15 2.5 0.11 JII 224 22!!il 16716 33130 1.12 0.15 2.95 1.tl 12 306 25(700
!!000 55500 1.39 0.26 4.3 0.11 Cl-22!(
!!!:130 261H 58724 1.04 0.28 23.4 8.33 CD.
62 (Hf!?
2072 58464 1.22 0.33 5.53 1.5 Il 1020
!!200 22335
(!!t2 1.1 0.5 11 6
i,1 li!
3t!576
!!!!6 (1014 1.06.
0.11 8.8 0.87 14 2(1 0 700 20702 0134 0.6 0.5 1.2 1
ID 130 142!00 2Hi!
36171 1.2 0.21 0.92 0.35 IL-12!0 12(It00 til!f 6fil0 1.4 0.4 11.5 5
- 15
!E!
17flii 23181 45HC 0.l?
9.21 3.5 0.!!
f If
!!3 13!st0
!!072 31366 0.9 0.25 3.2 1
~ Li 325000 Iti?(
(!!!(
0.l4 0.35 5.35 2
D
$2)
(f761(
1(591 070 1.32 0.8 1
4.2 Il
!!)
!!t0:08 lill!
6 752 1.36 0.31 4.35 1
Il 170 1322(
16019
(!!(2 0.9 0.25 1.5 0.43 I"
. 5!6 379t00 261 0 55(56 1.1 0.21 5
1.03 55 SP-2Ht00*
16032 5!!04 2.7 1
2.1 1
aIE ID
!H!!O 20M 361H 1.(6 0.36 1.0 0.32 it 215 2!1500 2t171 (1600 0.82 0.45 1.9 1!(
ti 10 10!3!!
!!Of
(!!53 1.6 0.H 2.3 0.51 ITC-(!!!!0 3207 15100 1.46 0.15
!!.85 1.29 lili-Il lic:0
!!970 (1300 5.2 3,4 3
2 ITM.
$it 4tCDU 3 09 6H33 0.St 0.17 5.1 1
i 1
IIM ;
(!!
Hl5$3 21!72 H!l5 1.0 0.f3 f.T
!.9 11 2M
!!!tu 23700 021f 0.6 0.3 2
0.13 11 (3
520t:0 200(2 52831 1.61 0.6 1.1 0.33 30 214
!!)508 2000 55350 2.1 1
8 3
't ill 3!U40 ICH 0 504 2.2 0.1 11.9 4
~
T 1764 1330005 23628 (1192 1.6 0.0 28.3 1.44
-T
!!O H0000
!!011 4145 1.fl 9.45 4.1 1.03 11 372 41039 2H52 (H2O 1.55 0.21 5.8 1
'0!!:5 158ti 215 0 51305 101, ff!'s 208 85.9
!!G10Fitt0flLS e
AFEUll Alitit Pl0f!SS1081L
$tif0lf AT3.$111tl53 10.I!GII5f fit rff -
S!!!!fl0 Sillit
$ltill ll;VI!!5' (DOLLliS)
(DOLLil5) i U105 1
- H59 -
2035 58056 39.4
!!.1 E310F2 4130 15915 6 191 52.6 16.4 101053 101 23ffi 55Hf 16.1 6
U!ON 4 0i0
!Hf0 0 033 56.5 20 IGION5 33H 239H O!!!
31.8 9.8 61011L ftt;tt 10111Dlit105 PROGill Ik stift, DO 80f 3t?!Ilf! RAI fl0E Cfit! !!!!!!!LS
-~