UNITED STATES

 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 REGION I

475 ALLENDALE ROAD

KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415 

July 26, 2006

Clyde Bolton, Director

Division of Public Health Protection & Safety

Department of Public Health

275 East Main Street

Mail Stop HS 2E-D

Frankfort, KY 40621-0001

Dear Mr. Bolton:

A periodic meeting with Kentucky was held on July 6, 2006. The purpose of this meeting was

to review and discuss the status of Kentucky’s Agreement State program. Specific topics

discussed at the meeting included all performance indicators and the program’s progress on

the seven recommendations made during the 2004 IMPEP review.

Subsequent to the July 2005 Kentucky periodic meeting, a Management Review Board was

held on October 17, 2005. The Management Review Board requested quarterly conference

calls be conducted between the appropriate Kentucky and NRC staffs to monitor the State’s

performance and that a periodic meeting should take place in July 2006 due to the performance

found during the July 2005 meeting. 

I have completed and enclosed a general meeting summary. It was noted during the meeting

that the program’s overall performance has improved since the 2005 periodic meeting. 

Additional improvement is still needed in the performance indicators of “SS&D Evaluation

Program” and “Compatibility Requirements.” These indicators were found “Satisfactory, but

Needs Improvement” during the 2004 IMPEP review. Work on the recommendations made

during the 2004 IMPEP review is in process. All but one of the recommendations remain open. 

It was noted that you expressed a commitment to getting the program up to its full staffing level

to continue to improve program performance.

This meeting will be discussed at the next quarterly Management Review Board meeting.

If you feel that my conclusions do not accurately summarize the meeting discussion, or have 

any additional remarks about the meeting in general, please contact me at 610-337-5358 or

email to sam9@nrc.gov to discuss your concerns. 
C. Bolton 2

Thank you and your staff for the exchange of information.

Sincerely,

Original signed by Sheri Minnick

Sheri Minnick

Regional State Agreements Officer

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety

Enclosure: As stated

cc w/enclosure: 

R. Blanton
C. Bolton 3

DISTRIBUTION w/encl:

SPO1

G. Pangburn, RI

O. Siurano, STP

A. McCraw, STP

J. Schlueter, STP

D. Rathbun, STP

SUNSI Review Complete: SAM9 (Reviewer’s Initials)

DOCUMENT NAME: E:\Filenet\ML062080176.wpd

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: “C” = Copy w/o attach/encl “E” = Copy w/ attach/encl “N” = No copy

OFFICE DNMS/RI N

NAME SMinnick sam9

DATE 7/13/06

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
1

AGREEMENT STATE PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY FOR KENTUCKY 

DATE OF MEETING: July 6, 2006 

ATTENDEES: 

NRC 

Sheri Minnick, RSAO, Region I 

Richard Blanton, ASPO, STP

STATE 

Clyde Bolton, Director, Division of Public Health Protection & Safety

Dewey Crawford, Manager, Radiation Health Branch

Matthew McKinley, Supervisor, Radioactive Materials Section

BACKGROUND:

During the July 2004 IMPEP review, the review team found Kentucky’s performance to be

“Satisfactory” for five performance indicators and “Satisfactory, but Needs Improvement” for

three performance indicators. Seven recommendations were made by the IMPEP team. 

Accordingly, the review team recommended and the Management Review Board (MRB) agreed

with the finding that the Kentucky Agreement State program is adequate to protect public health

and safety and compatible with NRC's program. The team considered a finding of “Adequate,

but Needs Improvement,” but noted that the Branch identified a number of needed

improvements; developed, and in some cases implemented, action plans to correct specific

performance issues; and, has been approved to expand the Section’s staff. To monitor the

Commonwealth’s program progress with regard to their action plans, the MRB directed staff to

conduct the periodic management meeting one year after the IMPEP review. In July 2005, a

periodic meeting was held with Kentucky. 

Subsequent to the July 2005 Kentucky periodic meeting, a MRB was held on October 17, 2005. 

The MRB requested quarterly conference calls be conducted between the appropriate Kentucky

and NRC staffs to monitor the State’s performance and that a periodic meeting should take

place in July 2006 due to the performance found during the July 2005 meeting. Quarterly

conference calls were held in February and May 2006. This summary describes the

July 6, 2006 periodic meeting. 

DISCUSSION: 

A meeting was held with the Kentucky representatives on July 6, 2006. The topics listed in

NRC letter dated May 25, 2006, (ML061450359), to the Director were discussed. Details for

each area are discussed below. 
2

CURRENT STATUS OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

Technical Staffing and Training

Excerpt from July 2004 IMPEP report (ML043620497):

The review team considered a finding of “Satisfactory, but Needs Improvement” for this

indicator based on the complete turnover of staff and the number of identified

weaknesses. However, the review team notes that the Branch identified a number of

needed improvements; developed, and in some cases implemented, action plans to

correct specific performance issues; and, has been approved to expand the Section’s

staff. In addition, the Branch continued to perform the core inspection and licensing

functions and has recently received authorization to fill one vacant position and to add

two new positions. The review team concluded that the Branch has an adequate plan to

sufficiently staff the Section and make the necessary improvements to the program. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Kentucky’s

performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found

satisfactory.

Current Status:

The Radiation Health Branch is located in the Department for Public Health offices in

Frankfort. The Branch Manager is responsible for the Radioactive Materials Section,

Radiation Producing Machines Section, and the Radiation/Environmental Monitoring

Section. The position reports to the Director, Division of Public Health Protections &

Safety. The Radioactive Materials Section Supervisor (Supervisor) is primarily

responsible for materials licensing and compliance activities. 

It was noted that the Director has been working hard at trying to make progress in

staffing levels and expressed a commitment to getting the program up to its full staffing

level to continue to improve program performance. Many vacancies have been filled,

including the Branch Manager position. Since two staff members have resigned, the

Section has two vacancies that they are in the process of filling. Interviews are

beginning in July 2006. There are currently five technical staff members in the Section,

one of which is part-time. One staff member who was activated to military duty in May

2005 is returning to the program in August 2006. One staff member is fully-qualified. 

The remaining staff members are qualified to perform licensing and inspection of certain

types of licensees and are working towards full qualification. 

Status of Materials Inspection Program

Excerpt from July 2004 IMPEP report:

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Kentucky’s 

performance with respect to the indicator, Status of the Materials Inspection Program,

be found satisfactory.

Current Status:
3

The Branch’s inspection priorities are generally the same as those listed in NRC Manual

Chapter (MC) 2800, with some being more restrictive. At the time of the last IMPEP,

there were 10 core licenses currently overdue by more than 25 percent of the NRC

inspection frequency. A current query of the database shows that the Branch has

approximately 13 core licenses currently overdue by more than 25 percent and no

overdue initial inspections. The Supervisor stated that he continues to work towards the

goal of no overdue inspections by the end of the year. The Branch is beginning

security inspections in July 2006 for those licensees requiring increased controls.

Technical Quality of Inspections

Excerpt from July 2004 IMPEP report:

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Kentucky’s 

performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, be found

satisfactory.

Current Status:

Based on discussions with staff that there has been no change in the technical quality of

inspections since the IMPEP review. Only qualified inspectors are performing

inspections. One staff member is fully qualified and the remaining inspectors are

qualified for inspections of licensees with certain program codes that they have been

approved for.

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

Excerpt from July 2004 IMPEP report:

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Kentucky's

performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be

found satisfactory.

Current Status:

Based on discussions with staff that there has been no change in the technical quality of

licensing actions since the IMPEP review. Only qualified license reviewers are

performing licensing actions. One staff member is fully qualified and the remaining

inspectors are qualified for licensing of certain program codes that they have been

approved for.

Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities

Excerpt from July 2004 IMPEP report:

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Kentucky’s

performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Response to Incident and

Allegation Activities, be found satisfactory, but needs improvement.
4

Current Status:

One incident and two allegations have been handled by the program for this calendar

year. These are tracked by the Supervisor via the “Radioactive Materials Section,

Monthly Report”. Initial responses appeared to be prompt with the level of effort

commensurate with the health and safety significance. Follow-up of the event included

investigations and gaining corrective actions from the licensee.

The Supervisor uses the program’s procedures for documenting responses to incidents

and allegations. A training class was conducted for staff on the proper documentation

of incidents and allegations as well as a booklet that includes NRC guidance and the

Branch’s policy. It was noted that events are being submitted to the Nuclear Materials

Events Database (NMED). 

Compatibility Requirements

Excerpt from July 2004 IMPEP report:

Based on IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Kentucky’s

performance with respect to the indicator, Compatibility Requirements, be found

satisfactory, but needs improvement.

Current Status:

In September 2004, the Branch submitted proposed revisions to their regulations for

“Medical Administration of Radiation and Radioactive Materials,” 10 CFR Parts 20

and 35 amendments (60 FR 48623) that became effective October 20, 1995. The NRC

performed a review and is awaiting a final, amended version based upon three

comments that were identified.

The Branch currently has the following five overdue NRC amendments, work on which

will begin in July 2006, via a one-year contract with a former Kentucky program director:

1. “Minor Corrections, Clarifying Changes, and a Minor Policy Change,”

10 CFR Parts 20, 35 and 36 amendments (63 FR 39477 and 63 FR 45393) that

became effective October 26, 1998.

2. “Respiratory Protection and Controls to Restrict Internal Exposure,”

10 CFR Part 20 amendment (64 FR 54543 and 64 FR 55524) that became

effective February 2, 2000.

3. “Energy Compensation Sources for Well Logging and other Regulatory

Clarifications,” 10 CFR Part 39 amendment (65 FR 20337) that became

effective May 17, 2000.

4. “New Dosimetry Technology” 10 CFR parts 34, 36 and 39 amendments

(65 FR 63749) that became effective January 8, 2001.
5

5. “Requirements for Certain Generally Licensed Industrial Devices Containing

Byproduct Material,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 31, and 32 amendments (65 FR 79162)

that became effective February 16, 2001. The Branch has amended the

appropriate licenses with license conditions compatible with the requirements in

10 CFR 32.52 (a) and (b). The Branch has not adopted the remainder of the

amendment. 

Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Program

Excerpt from July 2004 IMPEP report:

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Kentucky’s

performance with respect to the indicator, Sealed Source and Device Evaluation

Program, be found satisfactory, but needs improvement.

Current Status:

The Branch’s sole manufacturer is Ronan Engineering. The Supervisor stated that they

currently have one pending minor amendment request for this manufacturer that his

staff can handle. No pending requests were reviewed during the meeting. 

The Division has hired 0.5 FTE to perform SS&D functions. After training and

qualification, this individual will be tasked with terminating Ohmart’s old registries since

they no longer manufacture in KY; developing a registration certificate evaluation and

document format consistent with NUREG-1556, Volume 3; and developing license

conditions to require Ronan to report defects, deviations, or non-conformance of safety

related system, structures or components. Thus far, the individual has attended NRC’s

SS&D training workshop. On-the-job training via a contractor will begin in July 2006.

Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program

Excerpt from July 2004 IMPEP report:

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Kentucky’s

performance with respect to the indicator, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal

Program, be found satisfactory.

Current Status:

No change in status was identified.

ACTION ON JULY 2004 IMPEP RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Recommendation: 

The review team recommends that the Branch upgrade their database so that all

relevant licensee data are incorporated and maintained to ensure that inspections can

be scheduled and performed in accordance with the requirements of MC 2800. 
6

Specifically, initial inspection due dates were not entered, and thus a large number of

initial inspections were overdue.

Status: 

The Supervisor has completed work on a permanent upgrade to the database. The

Branch now has all relevant licensee data incorporated into the database and

maintained to ensure that inspections can be scheduled and performed in accordance

with the requirements of MC 2800. 

This recommendation is closed.

2. Recommendation: 

The review team recommends that the Branch identify those licensees who require

financial assurance and take appropriate action to have them comply with the

Commonwealth’s decommissioning and financial assurance requirements. 

Status: 

A small number of licensees have been identified as requiring financial assurance. The

issues have been discussed with the licensees; however, letters have not yet been sent

explaining the requirements. Work in this area is ongoing.

This recommendation remains open.

3. Recommendation: 

The review team recommends that the Branch document incident and allegation

responses in accordance with its procedures and provide training on their procedures to

all technical staff.

Status: 

A training class was conducted for staff on the proper documentation of incidents and

allegations as well as a booklet that includes NRC guidance and the Branch’s policy. 

Staff use procedures for documenting responses to incidents and allegations. It was

noted that events are being submitted to the Nuclear Materials Events Database

(NMED). Review of documentation was not conducted during the meeting and thus it is

recommended that this area be reviewed during the next IMPEP review.

This recommendation remains open.

4-7. Recommendations: 

The review team recommends that the Branch establish, implement and document a

training program for SS&D reviewers.
7

The review team recommends that the registration certificate evaluation criteria and

document format be consistent with NUREG-1556, Volume 3. 

The review team recommends that the Branch review and determine the status of SS&D

registrations issued to non-Kentucky manufacturers and take appropriate action to

either update or inactivate the registration certificates.

The review team recommends that the Branch implement an enforceable mechanism

(e.g., rule or license condition) to have the manufacturers report defects, deviations or

non-conformance of safety-related systems, structures, or components and document

follow up actions.

Status on 4-7: 

The Branch’s sole manufacturer is Ronan Engineering. The Supervisor stated that they

currently have one pending minor amendment request for this manufacturer that his

staff can handle. No pending requests were reviewed during the meeting. 

The Division has hired 0.5 FTE to perform SS&D functions. After training and

qualification, this individual will be tasked with terminating Ohmart’s old registries since

they no longer manufacture in KY; developing a registration certificate evaluation and

document format consistent with NUREG-1556, Volume 3; and developing license

conditions to require Ronan to report defects, deviations, or non-conformance of safety

related system, structures or components. Thus far, the individual has attended NRC’s

SS&D training workshop. On-the-job training via a contractor will begin in July 2006.

These recommendations remains open.

CONCLUSION: 

The program’s overall performance has improved since the 2005 periodic meeting. Additional

improvement is still needed in the performance indicators of “SS&D Evaluation Program” and

“Compatibility Requirements.” These indicators were found “Satisfactory, but Needs

Improvement” during the 2004 IMPEP review. Work on the recommendations made during the

2004 IMPEP review is in process. All but one of the recommendations remain open.