ML20214N522
| ML20214N522 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/12/1986 |
| From: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Austin E KENTUCKY, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8609160332 | |
| Download: ML20214N522 (4) | |
Text
---
s Mr. E. Austin, Jr., Secretary Cabinet for Hunan Resources
' 725 East Main Street Frankfort, Kentucky' 40621
Dear Mr. Austin:
This is to confirm the discussion Mr. Richard L. Woodruff, NRC State Agreement Representative, held on August,14, 1936 with Dr.
C.
Hernandez, Mes'srs. E. Edsel Moore and Donald R. Hughes following our review and evaluation of the State's radiation control program.
As a result of our review of th: State's program and the routine exchange of information between the Nuclear Regulatory; Commission and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the staff determined that overall' the Kentucky program for regulation of agreement materials is adequate te, protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the Commission'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 0.7 person-year per 100 licenses, which ist below the NRC guidelines of 1.0 to 1.5 person-years per 100 licenses.
The State incurred a vacant position in the materials program in April of 1986, and we understand that a hiring freeze has been imposed except for critical positicns. As we discussed with Dr. Hernandez, we 4 belfeve that this is a critical position and that delays iri filling this vacancy will have an adverse ef fect on the agreement materia's program.
We recennaend that 'the State increase the professieral technical ' staff to the suggested level of 1.0 to 1.5 person-years per 100 licenses, and we would appreciate your specific plans to fill the vacant position. a contains comment regarding the technical aspects of our 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 tSe time that a response to these findings would be requested by this office and you may wish to have Mr. Hughes address the Enclosure 1 comments.
Enclosures 2 and 3 are enclosed for your information. contains an explanation of our policies and practices for reviewing Agreement State programs. is a copy of this letter for placement in the State's Public Document Room or otherwise to be made available for public review.
1 TR 1
e 1
s a
Mr. E. Austin, Jr., Secretary 2
I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended by your staff to Mr. Woodruff during the review.
Sincerely, g:-
j, i,__... -.Z5 J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
1.
Coments and Recomendations on Technical Aspects of the Kentucky Radiation Control Program 2.
Applicaticn of " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" 3.
Letter to E. Austin, Jr., from J. Nelson Grace, dated 9/12/86 cc w/encls:
C. Hernandez, M. D., Commissioner Department for Health Services Edsel Moore, Director Division of Radiation and Product Safety Donald R. Hughes, Sr., Manager Radiation Control Branch G. Wayne Kerr, Director Office of State Programs, NRC NRC Public Document Room bec w/encls:
L. Woodruff ocument Control Desk (SP01)
SGA:RI SGA EDO ORA:RII RLWood f f:vyg RETrojanowski
' GWKey MLErnst l
8/?2/86 8/2 z/86 8/ll/86 8/2 /86 8/ /86 C
ENCLOSURE 1 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE KENTUCKY RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR AGREEMENT MATERIALS I.
LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS A.
Status of Regulations is a Category I Indicator.
The following minor comment with our recommendation is made.
Comment 1.
The State should adopt regulations to maintain a high degree of uniformity with the NRC regulations.
The " Kentucky Administrative Radiation Regulations, 902 KAR 100" were revised, effective January 3, 1986, however, revisions to Regulation 100:045 are needed for uniformity as follows:
Section 2 (3)(b) should be modified to reflect the " elimination of exemption for glass enamel frit" wording that was adopted by NDC on September 11, 1984, in 10 CFP 40.13(c)(2ilivi.
Section 2 (3)(g) should be modified to reflect the " clarification of exemption for uranium shielding in shipping containers" wording adopted by NRC on December 24, 1981, in 10 CFR 40.13(c)(6).
Section 3 (2)(h) should be modified to reflect " addition of Americium-241 to the exemption for survey instrument calibration sources" wording that was adopted by NRC on September 23, 1981, in 10 CFR 30.15(a)(9)(iii).
l We noted that the above regulations have been addressed by a staff memorandum dated August 13, 1986.
I 1
2.
In addition, we noted several editorial corrections that are needed for l
clarification in the Transportation Regulations, 902 KAR 100:070.
l These corrections were specifically discussed with the staff during j
the review.
Recommendation We recommend that the State revise the above regulations for uniformity and l
clarity.
1 i
l l
k ENCLOSURE 2 APPLICATION OF " GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW 0F AGREEEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS" The " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs,"
were published in the Federal Register on December 4,1981 as an NRC Policy Statement.
The Guide provides 30 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 2 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 several Category I indicator areas, then the need for improvements may be critical.
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., those that fall under Category 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 will 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.
If at least one significant Category I comment is provided, the State will be notified that the program deficiency may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and should be addressed on a priority basis.
When more than one significant Category I comment is provided, the State will be notified that the need of improvement in the particular program areas is critical.
The NRC would request an inmediate response, and may perform a follow-up review of the program within six months.
If the State program has not improved or if additional deficiencies have developed, the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement.
Category II comments would concern functions and activities which support the State program and therefore would not be critical to the State's ability to protect the public.
The State will be asked to respond to these comments and the State's actions will be evaluated during the next regular program review.
l 1
l l
.