ML20236J384
| ML20236J384 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/07/1975 |
| From: | Kerr G NRC |
| To: | Dawson C KENTUCKY, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236E585 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-235 NUDOCS 8708060159 | |
| Download: ML20236J384 (7) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- - _ _ _ _ - _ _. _ _ _ _ _ -- --_ l.J' t-t
- -p a
e: =*, a f (- f 7 575 ] r l l^ ,Mr. C. Leslie Dawson, Secretary Department of Human Resources New Capitol Annex Building 1 Frankfort, Kentuckv_40601
Dear Mr. Dawson:
This will confirm the recent discussion Mr. Lohaus of my staff held with Mr. Laurel W. True, former Secretary, Department of Human Resources, re-garding our review and evaluation of th'e Kentucky radiation control program conducted December 17 - 19, 1974. Our comments and recommendations con-I cerning Kentucky's radiation control program are contained in the attachment to this letter. The' Atomic Energy Commission periodically evaluates each Agreement State radiation control program to determine.that the State has a continuing . capability to adequately protect the public health and safety.' Kentucky became the first Agreement State when a Section 274 Agreement between the Atomic Energy Commission and the State of Kentucky became effective on March 26, 1962..1 have enclosed with this letter an earlier letter we sent to Mr. True which provides background information about the Agreement State program, the purpose and scope of our periodic evaluations of the State programs, and the scheduling of our 14th review of Kentucky's program. The review was initially scheduled for November 11-13 but was later re - scheduled and conducted on December 17-19, 1974. Our review of the Kentucky radiation control program covered the principal administrative and technical aspects of the Department's program which included an examination of the program's funding, personnel resources, ~ licensing, compliance and enforcement activities, emergency response capabilities, and the status of Kentucky's radiation control regulations. i We also covered, during this review, the status of licensing and enforcement action concerning the radioactive waste burial site operated by the Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc. We are pleased to learn that the State's radiation control regulations have been updated and will be adopted shortly. We are also pleased to' note that a formal inspection priority system has been established and that improvements have been made in the preparation of in-spection reports. However, as discussed in the attachment to this letter, 8708060159 870724 PDR FOIA fy l(Ml wc/ f4 Y.-{ 4 t- ~ MINTON87-235 PDR V? orric s > ounaaua> oara > Form AFC.11R iftn 9.m Af7'.f f!?.in
- ? n a n e.n cu r. : u, r.su..w v.. u. a i o... a. 4
__L--___L____________.
h. g l' Mr. C. Leslie Dawson, Secretary there are certain areas of the program where improvement is needed. We would appreciate your consideration of these comments and would like to know of the steps you plan to take for their implementation. l I appreciate the cooperation and assistance extended to Mr. Lohaus during ( his meeting with the Kentucky staff. If you have any questions about the Agreement Stato program, our review of the State's program, or our connents + and recommendations, please let me know. Sincerely, f G. Wayne Kerr, Chief Agroements and Exports Branch Directorate of Licensing
Enclosures:
1. Comments 2. Ltr dtd 10/4/74 fm Kerr to True cc See attached list DISTRIBUTION:
- PHLohaus, L r/f L:FM r/f L:AE r/f l
D. Nussbaumer P0/4 i I h k N 33... o r,ic. * .u a.
- Lenaus/ cal rr 1/6/J5 1/,/75
. Fnesn AEC.,0 $ (Rev,9 5)) APGM (1149 p.1. 9. CQYCNNMLia r rillut N 2 CPrtCE! 1*?$if t! 1*9 I
/ 'Mr. C. Leslie Dawson. cc: Stanley E. Hamons, M.D., Commissioner Bureau 6or Health Services
- T.entucky Department for Human Resources Mr. Shelby Johnson, Manager Consumer Health Protection Section Kentucky Department for Human Resources Mr. Charles M. Hardin, Manager Radiation and Product Safety Branch Kentucky Department for Human Resources b
l ) i ovenc a r sunwama & DATE F Form AEC 318 (Rev. 9 5 3) AEGI 0240 W u. n, nave nwu r NT *aewriwa ne "c ri '"*- ar* '** .____________________________-_a
g. ~ . Enclosure 1 to letter to C. Leslie Dawson 00141ENTS Afl0 REC 0!!MEtlDATI0flS RELATING TO THE KENTUCrsY RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM' 1. Comment-The Radiological Health Section of the Radiation' and Product Safety Branch is now administering 205 licenses. Presently, the Branch devotes one man-year to the administration of these 205 licenses; or about one- . half man-year per year for each 100 licenses. In addition, the Branch is spending from one-half to three-quarters of a man-year per year to ' administer the Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc. license. Based on our experience with other Agreement States, we believe a professional staff-l effort of 1 to 1.5 man-years per year is normally required for effective administration of each 100 licenses. The Branch, therefore, should spend a minimum of about 2.5 man-years per year on the radioactive materials program. As Mr. Lohaus discussed with you, this minimum staff effort is needed for the radioactive materials program and does not, reflect the. staffing effort which may be needed to administer other program areas of the Radiation and Product Safety Branch, f We believe that the limited availability of professional staff and the significant amount of staff effort required for administration of the Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc. license are responsible for'the problems in certain areas of the State's radiation control program as evidenced by the following: a) The inspection program has a number of overdue inspections. The exact number could not be determined by the staff since many. licenses have never been categorized for inspection purposes. We noted that only six inspections were conducted during 1974 and the pro, gram has. conducted no inspections since July 1974. Of particular importance are two broad licenses which are overdue L .i for inspection by 21/2 years and should be scheduled for inspection in the near future. I b) The licensing program has a three month backlog and as of 1 November 30,' 1974 35 applications were awaiting action. Recommenda tion We urge that you fill the current vacancy in the radioactive naterials i program as soon as possible and that additional personnel t'e assigned to work in the program as needed to cope with normal growth t.nd special problems that may currently exist or that may arise in the future. 2. Comment We believe the salaries for radiation control program personnel are not competitive with the salaries fo'r other comparable scientific and technical (- i L I
~4 4 jy + n t 2 i positions in the Department. The salaries for radiation control program j personnel should be adequate to recruit and retain persons with appro-priate professional qualifications. They should also be competitive with employmer,t alternatives for comparably qualified personnel in the area and with other scientific and technical positions in the Department. Recommendation We recommend that a review of the salary scales for radiation control program personnel be conducted and necessary adjustments made to assure that they ara competitive with other comparable scientific and technical positions within the Department; comparable positions in the industrial, academic, or medical fields; and in other Agreement State radiation ' control programs. 3. During our meeting, we reviewed portions of State files on the Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc. This included a review of the current license and supporting documents, a review of inspection reports and enforcement actions since September 1972, and a review of the final report ca the siemonth environmental study at Maxey Flats. Based upon we review of these materials, we would like to emphasize that prompt action 5 necessary concerning certain aspects of the site operations as f 6110ws: a) Conclusions drawn from the six-month study suggest that radioactivity may be migrating from the disposal. trenches. The report recommends' that further environmental studies should be commenced as soon as possible to assess the long range potential health and safety l significance of the conclusions stated in the report. We recommend that a, protocol with time tables be developed to establish and carry out these studies. Certain of the studies should be designed to determine whether and to what extent migration of radioactivity is occurring at the site and to determine the type and extent of alternative measures that may be employed to control any potential i public health and safety problems which may be created by.the release of radioactivity from the site. b) The file review shows that the Company is continuing to have p.roblems relating to the management of on-site water. The Company has'not i been able to maintain several of the completed trenches in a dry status. A recently completed trench (#40) was determined during I an inspection to have been completed by the Company when it contat ed a substantial quantity of water. Also, inspection of their operations s have shown that the level of water in a sump is not representative i of the quantity of water in that trench. The proper management of on-site water is i requirement of the license and, in our opinion, is related to the possible mi discussed in paragraph (a)gration of radioactivity frcm the site as above. Therefore, we recommend that the ____1___._______--
e s ~ 1 3 State begin a reassessment of the Company's program for water man-I agement. We believe the reassessment should consider such factors as: 1. Completion of trenches in other than a dry status; ii. Technique for measurement of water depth in sumps; P iii. Correlation of height or volume of water in a sump to the total quantity of water in a trench; iv. Infiltration rete of ground and surface water into trenches and the recharge rate of sumps from infiltrated water; The ability of one trench sump to " pump a trench dry"; and v. vi. The need for a long range effect of continuous pumping and operation of the evaporator facility on the local enviro,nment. c) As of the time of the meeting, the Company had not been formally notified of the results of the September 3 - 6, 1974 inspection. This inspection revealed several apparent significant deficiencies. Prompt enforcement action should have been taken regarding these deficiencies. We understand the delay in informing the Company of the inspection results was to give the' State an opportunity to officially inform the Company of the results of the six-month study in conjunction with the inspection findings. We recommend that the Company be informed of the results of the inspection and six-month j study as soon as possible, if this has not already been done. ~ d) The State should establish t'he validity of the environmental monitoring data generated by Nuclear Engineering Co., Inc. 4. We believe the following recommendations will help improve the quality l of the compliance program: l a) Written inspection and enforcement guides should be prepared and incorporated as part of the program's licensing and inspection r handbook. These guides should contain procedure's for scheduling and conducting inspections, format for inspection reports, and procedures for preparing and dispatching enforcement correspondence. A set of sample standardized guides was given to the staff during the meeting. b) As noted earlier 3 the program has developed an inspection priority system. However, we do not believe it requires inspection of certain I
+ t s f' 4 licensees at appropriate intervals. In particular, the priority i system should be revised to provide for more frequen.t inspections of field radiographer and broad medical licensees. Other changes to the priority-system were also discussed with Mr. Hardin and a suggested priority system, appropriate for use by the program, was sent to Mr. Hardin. c) The quality of inspection reports could be further improved by structuring the report to document all areas covered and discussed during the inspection. The report should also document the status of previous deficiencies and the summary discussion held with management personnel at the conclusion of the inspection, d) We recommend further compliance training for Mr. Doyle Mills. We recently conducted a one week. inspection procedures training course for State personnel which was well received by the participants. We hope to conduct this course again in the future and we believe that Mr. Mills and other appropriate members of your staff could benefit by attending the course. In the meantime, however, inspection training for new and junior staff-should continue to be provided by senior staff. I s 1 i i I i e ____-_____l____ \\}}