ML20236P060
| ML20236P060 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/09/1998 |
| From: | Woodruff R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Volpe J KENTUCKY, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9807160140 | |
| Download: ML20236P060 (7) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ - - _ - - _ - - _ _ - _ - - _ _ - - - _ _
e July 9, 1998 John A. Volpe, Ph.D., Manager Radiation Health and Toxic Agents Branch Cabinet for Health Services 27.5 East Main Street Mail Stop HS 2E-D Frankfort, KY 40621-0001
SUBJECT:
ANNUAL MEETING
Dear Dr. Volpe:
This year's annual meeting.with Kentucky was held on June 11, 1998. The purpose of this meeting was to review and discuss the status of the Kentucky Agreement State program.
Specific topics and issues of importance discussed at the meeting included actions on previous 1996 IMPEP review findings, program strengths, staffing and training, performance of licensing and inspection activities, and the updating of regulations for compatibility.
I have completed and enclosed a general meeting summary, and I am not aware of
- any actions needed as a result of our meeting.
If you feel that our conclusions do not accurately summarize the meeting discussion, or have any additional remarks about the meeting in general, please contact me at 404-562-4704, or e-mail to rlw@nrc. gov to discuss your concerns.
Sincerely,
/s/
{
Richard L. Woodruff Regional State Agreement Officer
{
l
Enclosure:
Annual Meeting Summary cc w/ encl.:
R. Trojanowski
)
L. Rakovan, OSP f
I K. Schneider, OSP l
1 Distribution w/ enc 1:
D. Collins P. Lohaus. OSP OFFICE DWI5:EEAD DWJ5-Dj 5IGIATLEIE gg Qgg p {
WWE RWoddruff DColLip DATE 7/ g /95 T/y /95 T/
/95 T/
/95 7/
/95 7/
/95 7/
/95 l wrv i
{/YWy ND YE5 y YE5 11 0 YES IID YES ND YES NO YES NO OFflCIAL RECORD COPY DOCLKNT NAIE: 4:\\RPICOWER.KY 9007160140 980709 PDR STPRG ES9KY si.-
PDR l
.b$01
I AGREEMENT STATE ANNUAL MEETING
SUMMARY
FOR KENTUCKY DATE OF MEETING:
JUNE 11. 1998 1
1 ATTENDEES:
l NRC Richard L. Woodruff, RSA0. Region II Lance Rakovan ASPO. OSP STATE i
John Volpe. Ph.D., Manager. Radiation Health & Toxic Agents Branch l
Vicki Jeffs, Supervisor. Radiation Materials Section Sue Osborne. Radiation Materials Section Gary (Mike) Cleaver. Radiation Materials Section DISCUSSION:
i A meeting was held with the Kentucky representatives on June 11. 1998, in Frankfort.-Kentucky. The topics listed in NRC letter dated May 1. 1998, to I
Dr. Volpe were discussed.
Details for each area are discussed below.
Action on Previous Review Findinas The previous IMPEP review was conducted during the period of April 15-19.
I 1996. During this review, recommendations and suggestions were made to the State concerning the following indicators:
1.
The review team suggests that the Commonwealth consider obtaining necessary statutory authority to a) ply civil penalties as an additional enforcement option to supplement t1eir enforcement efforts.
(Section 3.4)
Current Status. - Following the 1996 IMPEP the program proposed statutory changes to their Radiation Control Act that would add the authority for the assessment of civil penalties. The State's Legislative Research Commission subsequently determined that Section 211.990 had been changed by the State Legislature on July 14.
1992, to provide for civil penalty provisions including appropriate schedules for fines and other penalties, and that additional changes were not needed.
This recommendation should be clo ed at the next IMPEP review.
Enclosure
2
- 2.
The review team recommends that the Commonwealth maintain its policy of annual supervisory accompaniments of all inspectors-.
(Section 3.4)
Current Status - The Commonwealth responded in their August 20, 1996 letter that annual accompaniments of inspectors would be conducted.
During the annual meeting the program managers related that annual accompaniments were being pe.rformed on schedule.
This recommendation should be closed at the next IMPEP review.
3.
The ' review team recommends that the Commonwealth determine the specific isotope in all incidents rather than assuming the source to be NARM.
(Section 3.5)
Current' Status - The State responded in their August 20, 1996 letter that the specific isotope would be determined during the evaluation of incidents.
During this annual meeting.
3rogram managers related that
.this action was being carried out, and tlat the program has ]lans to purchase mother portable multiple channel analyzer during t1e upcoming year.
This recommendation should'be closed at the next IMPEP review.
4.
The review team recommends that the RCB continue with their plan to reassess all previously' issued SS&D sheets, under their regulatory jurisdiction to assure that-the files contain all current background information and drawings a)plicable to the device safety review and to j
verify and; document that G_ devices meet the current dose requirements.
This is a recommendation from the 1995 review visit.
(Section 4.2)
Current Status - The program managers related during the meeting that one device file has been under review by the staff and as soon as the review process is completed the file will be updated.
The Program J
Manager related that the other device reassessments and reviews (approximately nine) had been placed on a lower priority for completion-due to other-inspection and licensing tasks of higher priorities.
He also related that if health and safety issues were identified on any of the devices, then priorities would be reassessed as appropriate.
Procram Strenaths and/or Weaknesses In general, the Kentucky representatives related that their program had adecuate' administrative support, legislative support, stable sources of funcing, good legal sup) ort, good laboratory su) port, and fully trained staff.
No performance type weacnesses were identified )y NRC during this meeting.
4 i
3 L
l1 Specific areas were discussed as follows:
1.
The Program. Manager related that the program has good radiation survey-equipment and plans to add an updated portable multichannel analyzer during this next fiscal year. The_ Program Manager _ serves as'the Radiation Safety Officer for the Division of Laboratory Services, and L
provides technical advice to the laboratory as needed.
- 2.
The Manager related that the program has upgraded their computers and
^
- the. Cabinet has.an internet system for tracking and communication-purposes within-the State.
However, the program still utilizes a contractor for the tracking of material licenses, expiration dates.
licensing' actions, and inspection data.
The year 2000 compliant issue-was also discussed.
-4.
The Program Director related that the materials arogram has no inspection or licensing backlogs at this time, iowever, as noted above.,
the reassessment.and review of the sealed source and devices has been given a lower priority, and was not completed as scheduled following the 1996 review.
5.
All of the current materials staff were reported to be trained and qualified to perform independent _ inspections and licensing actions.
6.
The program lost one experienced person since.the last review.
The position was filled, but the new individual recently moved.to California
-~
u and went to work for the California Agreement State program. The
_ program manager related that the position would be filled as soon as possible. At the time of the meeting, a position register had not been requested from the Personnel Office, and the Program Manager did not know if any names were on the register. We discussed the impact that staffing _levelthas on program performance and the )revious difficulties the program has experienced in filling vacancies w11ch were attributed in'part to' the low entry level salaries, and the salary ranges for L.
experienced personnel and their supervisors.
l l'
'7.
The Program Manager proposed on May 8, 1998, that the Cabinet increase j-the fees for materials licenses to a level between 20 and 50 percent of l
.those. charged by NRC.
The increase is viewed by the program managers-as l
needed to support the program and to prevent the continued drain of experienced and trained staff. Action on'this proposal is pending.
1:
~8.
All of the IMPEP Indicators were discussed.. During the discussion of the Technical Quality of Licensing Indicator, the Materials Section Supervisor requested a copy of the NUREG-1556. Volume 5.
This document.
was mailed to the State following the RSA0's return to the Region II
.of fice.
No'further action required.
i o__
4 4
Although there were no performance issues identified during the meeting, the delay in the schedule for the sealed source and device reassessments is of concern. -This performance related task is directly associated with the ability of the State to fill and maintain vacant positions with qualified personnel and in a timely fashion.
Status of Proaram and/or Policy Chanaes There have been no significant changes in the organizational structure of the Radiation Health and Toxic Agents Branch since the 1996 IMPEP review. The Branch is headed by the Manager John A. Volpe. Ph.D. and has two major technical areas: Radiation Materials Section; and the Radiation Producing Machines Section. The Branch is organized under the Division of Public Health Protection & Safety. Kentucky Department of Health. The laboratory services are provided out of the Division of Laboratory Services.
The workload of the Materials Section remains constant with 396 specific licenses, of which 18 licenses are considered to be major licenses. All materials licensing and inspections are performed out of the Frankfort office.
No major changes in the staffing plan are planned at this point.
Imoact of NRC Proaram Chanaes The NRC re)resentatives discussed NRC program changes that could impact the State. suc1 as the 10 CFR Part 35 revision, and the current status of NRC's policies involving decommissioning of formerly licensed sites and NRC's training program.
In response to the issues, the State representatives related that they did not expect the decommissioning of the one former NRC site to have a significant impact on the program, and that the State would adopt regulations as needed after 10 CFR Part 35 has been revised.
On another issue involving the external regulation of certain Department of Energy (DOE) facilities by NRC, the Program Manager discussed the letter he had written to Chairman Jackson on April 21, 1997 expressing his views on this issue. The Chairman responded to Dr. Volpe by letter dated June 13, 1997, relating that the issues would be referred to a Task Force for consideration, and discussing efforts to coordinate NRC's approach with the affected States.
During this meeting the Program Manager again expressed the views that contractors and subcontractors at DOE facilities undergoing environmental restoration / cleanup should be regulated (licensed) by NRC or the respective Agreement State.
internal Proaram Audits and Self-Assessments The managers reported that self-assessments were being accomplished through the use of a " Bench marking" type of program.
For this evaluation, the program considers the types of licensing and inspection activities needed.
I number of personnel for these activities. time required for each type of
5 activity, time utilized for each complete activity, and how to improve on the performance.
The benchmark program also compares the Kentucky materials program with selected materials programs in other States, and compares the fees charged by the respective selected States.
l All licensing actions and inspection reports receive at least one level of supervisory review. The merits of conducting a self review utilizing the performance indicators utilized by the IMPEP program were discussed.
Status of Allegations Previously Referred The NRC allegation )rogram was discussed in general with the Commonwealth representatives.
T1e Program Manager related that Kentucky has experienced an increased number of allegations, that allegations are processed on a case-by-case basis and that follow-ups are conducted as needed. A review of the allegations referred to the State by the NRC Region II office indicated that there was only one outstanding referral to the State that needed a reply from the radiation program.
The Program Manager related that the Statets assessment of the allegation had been completed, and a report was in preparation.
In general the State has been very responsive to the Regional
-requests when replies were needed to close out the allegations.
Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED) ReDortina A general discussion was held with the representatives concerning the NMED reporting system. Prior to this annual meeting, the RSAD prepared a report of events that had been placed in the NMED system, and the RSAD discussed the mechanism for re)orting events, what events to report, the timeliness of reporting, and t7e revised Event Reporting Handbook that was developed.
The Materials Section Supervisor related that the new handbook had been received.
l No issues were identified concerning the reporting of events.
Compatibility of State Regulations The new compatibility policy was discussed in general with the State representatives. including the OSP's procedures for reviewing proposed State I
regulations.
Regulation amendments needed for adequacy and compatibility were discussed.
Kentucky regulations have been adopted up to the " Clarification of Decommissioning Funding Requirements" Parts. 30. 40. 70, and 72 amendments (60 FR 38235) that will be needed by November 24, 1998.
In addition. Kentucky has adopted the " Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne Effluents of Radioactive Materials: Clean Air Act" Part 20 amendment (61 FR 65120) requirements needed by January 9, 2000, and the " Criteria for Release of Individuals Administered Radioactive Material" Parts 20 and 35 amendments (62 FR 4120) needed by June 27 2000.
These regulations were adopted by Kentucky I
on November 14. 1997.
]
l We. discussed the need for adoption of the " Clarification of Decommissioning Funding Requirements" (60 FR 38235) amendment that is needed by November 24 I
1998. The Commonwealth representatives related that they were not aware of the need for this amendment, but the rule adoption process would be initiated i
b-6 by the end of the month, and requested an updated Chronology of Amendments.
The RSA0 provided the State with an updated chronology during the meeting, and upon the return to the Region II office. a diskette was mailed to the State with a section by section breakdown for each of the Federal Register notices that need to be considered by the State.
The RSA0 confirmed that the program is receiving NRC regulation changes as Jublished and distributed, and the availability of the regulations on the NRC aulletin board was discussed.
Schedule for the Next IMPEP Review The State was _ informed that the next Kentucky review is currently scheduled for FY 2000, and that the State should consider the use of the IMPEP indicator criteria as a mechanism for self evaluation prior to the IMPEP.
CONCLUSION:
The Kentucky program has good managers, equipment, and trained, experienced staff. With the appropriate filling of the vacant. position, the program should have the resources to remain adequate to protect public health and safety, and compatible under the IMPEP criteria.
ACTION ITEMS:
None i
t l
t i
L