May 16, 2002

Dr. John A. Volpe, Manager

Radiation Health and Toxic Agents Branch

Cabinet for Health Services

275 East Main Street

Mail Stop HS 2E-D

Frankfort, KY 40621-0001 

SUBJECT: PERIODIC MEETING

Dear Dr. Volpe:

This year’s periodic meeting with Kentucky was held on April 16, 2002. 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

2000 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,

/RA BY JAY L. HENSON FOR/

Richard L. Woodruff

Regional State Agreement Officer

Enclosure:

Annual Meeting Summary

cc: R. E. Trojanowski, RII

 L. Rakovan, STP

Distribution:

D. Collins, Director, DNMS, RII

J. Piccone, DD, STP

OFFICE DNMS:RSAO DNMS:D

SIGNATURE /RA BY JLH FOR/ /RA BY JLH FOR/

NAME RWoodruff DCollins

DATE 05/16/2002 05/16 /2002

COPY? YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: C:\ORPCheckout\FileNET\ML021370312.wpd
Enclosure

AGREEMENT STATE PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY FOR KENTUCKY

DATE OF MEETING: April 16, 2002

ATTENDEES:

NRC

Richard L. Woodruff, RSAO, Region II

Lance Rakovan, ASPO, STP

Douglas M. Collins, Director, DNMS, Region II

STATE

John Volpe, Ph.D., Manager, Radiation Health & Toxic Agents Branch

Jan Jasper, Radioactive Materials Section

DISCUSSION:

A meeting was held with the Kentucky representatives on April 16, 2002, in Frankfort, Kentucky.

The topics listed in NRC letter dated February 13, 2002 to Dr. Volpe were discussed. Details

for each area are discussed below.

Action on Previous Review Findings

The previous IMPEP review was conducted during the period of July 17-21, 2000. During this

review, recommendations and suggestions were made to the State concerning the following

indicators:

1. The review team recommends that the Branch revise their inspection manual to ensure

that core licenses authorizing the conduct of activities from multiple permanent field

offices are inspected at the same frequency as specified in IMC 2800. (Section 3.1) 

Status: The Branch Manager related that this change had been implemented. It is

recommended that this be verified during the next IMPEP.

2. The review team recommends that the Branch ensure that reciprocity licenses are

inspected in accordance with the frequency criteria specified in the Branch’s inspection

manual. (Section 3.1)

Status: The Branch Manager related that reciprocity inspections were being conducted

in accordance with the inspection manual criteria. It is recommended that this be

confirmed during the next IMPEP. 

3. The team recommends that the Branch revise their training program to include

documentation of staff’s equivalent training and experience in lieu of completing a

required basic training course, including supervisory sign off for each completed area of

training. (Section 3.3)
2

Status: The Branch Manager related that new persons hired since the previous IMPEP

have their training and experience documented, they have been evaluated for additional

training needed, and a supervisory sign off is documented when the training is

completed. It is recommended that this action be confirmed during the next IMPEP.

4. The team recommends that the Branch commit the necessary resources to complete all

the re-evaluations prior to the next IMPEP review period. (Section 4.2.1)

Status: The Branch Manager related that the program was still behind in their

re-evaluations of their SS&D certifications but related that at least two would be

completed prior to August of 2002. It is recommended that this issue be reviewed

during the next IMPEP. 

Program Strengths and/or Weaknesses

In general, the Kentucky representatives related that their program had adequate administrative

support, legislative support, stable sources of funding, good legal support, good laboratory

support. 

Specific areas were discussed as follows:

1. The Program Manager related that the program has good radiation survey equipment

and utilizes commercial calibration services for the portable survey meters. The

Program Manager serves as the Radiation Safety Officer for the Division of Laboratory

Services, and provides technical advice to the laboratory as needed.

2. The Manager related that the program still utilizes a contractor for the tracking of

material licenses, expiration dates, licensing actions, and inspection data. An updated

listing of all licenses by inspection category was provided following the meeting.

4. The Program Manager related that the materials program has no inspection or licensing

backlogs at this time. However, as noted above, the reassessment and review of the

sealed source and devices has been given a lower priority due to the hiring of new

employees and training of new personnel in the SS&D certification process.

5. The Materials Section Supervisor retired and the replacement (including the position)

was recently transferred to another area which leaves the Section without a supervisor. 

The Program Manager related that he was trying to have another position approved for

the section, and that he was providing direct supervision and approval of all materials

actions during the interim period. The technical staff are relying upon peer reviews to

maintain quality in their licensing and inspection activities.

6. The Program Manager is scheduled to retire in August of 2002; however, he related that

he may continue to provide technical support to the Commonwealth on radiation

matters.

7. All of the IMPEP Indicators were discussed during the meeting. Although there were no

licensing or inspection backlogs identified during the meeting, the delay in the schedule

for the sealed source and device reassessments is of concern.
3

Status of Program and/or Policy Changes

There have been no significant changes in the organizational structure of the Radiation Health

and Toxic Agents Branch since the 2000 IMPEP review. The Branch is headed by the

Manager, John A. Volpe, Pd.D., and has three major technical areas: Radioactive Materials

Section; Radiation Producing Machines Section; and the Radiation/Environmental Monitoring

Section. The Branch is organized under the Division of Public Health Protection & Safety,

Kentucky Department for Public Health. 

The workload of the Materials Section remains constant with 399 specific licenses, of which 127 

are core licenses (24 priority I, 6 priority II, and 97 priority III). All materials licensing and

inspections are performed out of the Frankfort office.

The program is funded about 80 percent by fees which are earmarked for the program. At the

time of this meeting, the legislature had not completed the budget appropriations.

Impact of NRC Program Changes

The Director, Division of NMSS, RII discussed NRC program changes that could impact the

State, such as the status of the 10 CFR Part 35 revision, the control of radioactive material

(accountability, orphan sources, physical protection, control of imports), doses to the public,

clearance, Part 40 exemptions, reciprocity inspections, evolving material processes (risk

assessment, resources, management reviews, priorities, safety goals), availability of NRC

procedures and information on the internet, and the need for more input from the Agreement

States. 

Internal Program Audits and Self-Assessments

The manager related that specific self-assessments were not being performed; however, the

Radioactive Materials Section and the other Sections provide reports to him on a monthly basis

on the licensing and inspection activities. The manager also related that actions taken on a

daily basis were given peer reviews by the staff prior to his supervisory review of the licensing

and inspection actions. The merits of conducting a self review utilizing the performance

indicators utilized by the IMPEP program were discussed.

The Manager also related that the Section was working on a Program Improvement Plan that

would address training on regulations and other topics, review of reference materials needed,

and development of Program goals.

Status of Allegations Previously Referred

The NRC allegation program was discussed in general with the State representatives. The

Program Manager related 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 two referrals to the State and the Program

Manager related that the State’s assessment of the allegations had been completed. The State

has been very responsive to the Regional requests when replies were needed to close out the

allegations. 
4

Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED) Reporting

A general discussion was held with the representatives concerning the NMED reporting system.

Prior to this annual meeting, the RSAO prepared a report of events that had been placed in the

NMED system, and the RSAO discussed the mechanism for reporting events, what events to

report, the timeliness of reporting, and the Event Reporting Handbook. Mr. Bob Johnson of the

Kentucky staff was identified as the new person who would be entering event data into the

NMED system, and the Program Manager related that Kentucky may not have the most recent

software for the NMED program. No issues were identified concerning the reporting of events;

however, it was noted that only four events had been reported by Kentucky since the last

IMPEP. Following the meeting, Mr. Johnson was asked to contact Mr. Sam Petijohn at the

NRC concerning updated software.

Compatibility of State Regulations

Regulation amendments needed for adequacy and compatibility were discussed. Kentucky

regulations were updated in 2001, and a letter was provided to the Program Manager dated

February 7, 2002, regarding NRC’s review of the adopted regulations. The letter contained only

minor editorial comments and the updated State Regulation Status sheet for Kentucky. The

Program Manager related that all of the editorial comments had been adopted, except that the

definitions, and that these definitions and additional regulations needed for compatibility were

being developed, and he was planning on having them ready for adoption prior to his retirement

in August, 2002. The Program Manager related that the current Kentucky regulations were on

the web site. 

The RSAO confirmed that the program is receiving NRC regulation changes as published and

distributed, and the availability of the regulations on the NRC bulletin board was discussed. 

Schedule for the Next IMPEP Review

The State was informed that the next Kentucky review is currently scheduled for FY 2004, and

that the State should consider the use of the IMPEP indicator criteria as a mechanism for self

evaluation prior to the IMPEP.

CONCLUSION:

No performance issues were identified during this meeting. However, the technical staff are

relatively new to the program and additional training will be needed for them to be fully trained

in all areas, particularly with regard to the review of sealed sources and devices. A supervisory

position is needed for the materials section, and we are concerned about the transition of the

program when the Program Manager retires in August of 2002. 

ACTION ITEMS: None.