ML20155H252
| ML20155H252 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/16/1988 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Cowherd H KENTUCKY, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8806200234 | |
| Download: ML20155H252 (6) | |
Text
,.
Jl]N161968 Harry J. Cowherd, M.D..
Secretary Cabinet for Human Res'ources 725 East Main Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40621
Dear Dr. Cowherd:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Richard L. Woodruff, NRC State Agreenent Representative, held on April 22, 1988, with you and Mr. E. Edsel Moore following our review and evaluation of the State's Radiation Control Program.
As a result of our review of the State's program and the routine exchange of information between the Nuclear Regulatory Couission and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the staff determined that overall the Kentucky program for regulation of agreement materials is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the Coranission's program. However, the staff also noted the need for improvement as noted below.
One area of concern is the staffing level.
Staffing level is a Category II Indicator.
The staffing level for the agreement materials program is only 0.9 person-year per 100 licenses, which is below the NRC guidelines of 1.0 to 1.5 person-years per 100 licenses.
The staffing level was 0.7 person-year per 100 licenses during the previous 1986 review and one person was hired to fill the staff vacancy. However, the staffing level was not increased to the recocinended range. The State now has a backlog of 90 licenses that need to be reviewed and amended in their entirety, and a backlog of overdue inspections is developing.
These factors could have a negative impact on public health and safety if not properly addressed. Also, several months of specialized training and on-the-job l
training are needed to prepare new staff members for the technical tasks involved.
Therefore, we believe the staffing level is critical, and we strongly recomend that the level be increased to tne range of 1.0 to 1.5 person-years per 100 i
licenses. We are pleased by your support and cocinents at the exit meeting, and we would appreciate knowing your specific plans to increase the staffing level.
, contains cocinents regarding the technical aspects of our review of
+he program.
These coninents were discussed with Mr. Mays and his staff during our exit meet'ng with him. Mr. Mays was advised at the time that a response to these findings ould be requested by this office.
An explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State proarams is attached as Enclosure 2.
Also, a copy of this letter is included for' placement in the State Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available for public review.
On April 12, 1987, NRC reorganized its staff.
The State Agreement Program is now a part of the new Office of Gove:.imental and Public Affairs, which reports to the Comission.
One purpose of tnis organizational change was to provide an N
8806200234 880616
{
PDR STPRG ESGKy
\\
+
z Harry J. Cowherd 2
improved focus for NRC relationships with the States.
Our regional offices will continue to administer and implament NRC's regulatory programs.
We encourage you and y,our staff to continue to look to the Regional Administrator
~
and his staff as the )rimary contact with NRC.
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended by your staff to Mr. Woodruff during the review.
Sincerely, Carlton Kammertr, Director State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs
Enclosures:
1.
Coments and Recommendations 2.
Application of Guidelines cc w/encls:
Victor Stello, Executive Director for Operations, NRC J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator, RII C. Hernandez, M.D., Comissioner, Department for Health Services Edsel Moore, Director, Division of Radiation and Product Safety Donald R. Hughes, Sr., Manager Radiation Control Branch NRC Public Document Room State Public Document Room Distribution w/encis:
R. L. Woodruff Document Control Desk'(SPC1)
SA R/F Dir R.F Kentucky file (fc) w/encis.
D. A. Nussbaumer C. Kannerer Cho Rt RII RI I
SLITP d
Ib RTrojanowski JhGrace us3)aumer 06/ 3 /88 06/3/88 05/3/88 QS/ Y/88 h t L
0$/l'jrtz 0d/($/88 06//N86
)/88
s.
s ENCLOSURE 1 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE KENTUCKY' RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR AGREEMENT MATERIALS I.
LICENSING Licensing Procedures is a Category II Indicator.
The following coment with our recomendation is made.
Coment A.
The NRC's policy is to perfonn a technical review on all licenses at a 5 year frequency and amend the licenses "in their entirety." The State has also adopted this policy; however, the 5 year technical reviews have fallen behind and approximately 90 licenses are "overdue" for technical review and amendment in their entirety.
We discussed with the State a need to establish a "five year plan" to schedule the technical reviews that will be needed for "entirety" amendments and to project program needs for resources.
B.
The current "compl4nce status" of licenses should be considered in licensing actiont.
It was observed that on one occasion, a license was issued administratively without the incorporation of license conditions that had previously been incorporated into the license by an Agency " o rde r. "
In general, all licenses are renewed administratively on an annual basis upon the payment of fees and without consideration for the "compliance status" of the 'icense.
Recorrrendation It was recomended that actions be taken as follows:
A.
A five year schedule be established for renewal of licenses in their entirety, including milestones and a mechanism for reporting progress to program manacement.
B.
A procd 'e be developed and implemented to assure that all compliance or regulatory actions taken by the State are incorporated into the license renewal system.
II.
COMPLIANCE Status of Inspection Program is a Category I Indicator.
The following coment is made with our recomendation.
Coment Whenever inspection backlogs occur, program management should develop and implement an "action plan" to reduce and eliminate the backlog. The plan i
4 2
should identify priorities for inspections, contain numerical and timeframe goals for reducing the backlog, contain milestones to measure progress, and,a mechanism for reporting progress to program management for review.
Program Management initiated an "action plan" on September 24, 1987 _ This plan established priorities for inspections of "overdues"; however, the plan does not contain numerical and timeframe goals, milestones for measuring progress, or require progress reports to program management.
Recommendation We recommend that the State modify their "action plan" for overdue inspections to include a schedule, milestones for assessing progress, and this information included for review in the monthly report to program management.
III. MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Office Equipment and Support Services is a Category II Indicator.
The following comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment The State has a word processor and a computer "service" for the management of license and inspection data.
The primary function of the "service" is to administrative 1y issue a new license document predicated upon payment of the annual license fee.
The computer service does not allow for:
(1) consideration of technical concerns or pending enforcement actions at the time of renewal; (2) an efficient tracking system for license correspondence, agency actions, or incidents; (3) an efficient method for addressing or the mailout of notices and technical bulletins to specific categories of licenses; and (4) a compatible system for the exchange of information (i.e., NRC review questions and answers, sealed source and device data, suggested state regulations, bulletins, and electronic mail).
Recommendations We recommend 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 Materials Program.
t s
ENCLOSURE 2 APPLICATION OF "GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW 0F AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS" The "Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" were published in the Federal Register on June 4,1987, as an NRC Policy Statement.
The Guide provides W 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 1 indicators address program functions which directly relate to the State's ability to protect the public heahh and safety.
If significant problems exist in one or more Category I indicator areas, then the need for improvements may be critical.
Ca tegory 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 probler,:s in oae or more of the principal program areas, i.e., those that fall under Cata. gory I indicators.
Category II indicators frequently can be used to identify underlying problems that are 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 vill indicate the category of each comment made.
If no significant Category I comments are provided, this will indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC's program.
If one or more significant Catogory I comments are provided, the State will be notified that the program deficiencies may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and that the need of improvement in particular program areas i
is critical.
If, following receipt and evaluation, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I comments, the 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 perfonn follow-up or special, limited review. NRC staff may hold a special meeting with appropriate State representatives.
No significant items will bc left unresolved over a prolonged period.
The Comission will be infonned of the results of the reviews of the individual Agreement State programs and copies of the review correspondence to the States will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
If the State program does not improve or if additional significant Category I deficiencies have developed, a staff finding that the program is not adequata will be considered and the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or tevoke all or part of the Agreement in accordance with Section 274j of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amende.d.
Document Name:
KENTUCKY REVIEW Requestor's 10:
HILL Author's Name:
Woodruff Document Comments:
48 KY Coments~ (letter Cowherd, M.D.)
.