UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

REGION I 

2100 RENAISSANCE BLVD., SUITE 100 

KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-2713 

July 29, 2014 

Matthew McKinley, Administrator 

Radiation Health Program 

Cabinet for Health & Family Services 

275 East Main Street, HS1C-A 

Frankfort, KY 40621-0001 

Dear Mr. McKinley: 

A periodic meeting with you and your staff was held on July 9, 2014. The purpose of this 

meeting was to review and discuss the status of the Kentucky Agreement State Program. The 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was represented by James Clifford, Duncan White, 

and me. 

I have completed and enclosed a general meeting summary, including any specific actions 

resulting from the discussions. A Management Review Board (MRB) meeting to discuss the 

outcome of the periodic meeting has been scheduled for September 23, 2014 at 1:00pm. Call 

in information for the MRB has been provided in a separate transmission. 

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 (610) 337-5214 or 

via e-mail at Monica.Ford@nrc.gov to discuss your concerns. 

 Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

 Monica Lynn Ford 

 Regional State Agreements Officer 

 Division of Nuclear Materials Safety 

 U.S. NRC Region I 

Enclosure: 

Periodic Meeting Summary for Kentucky 

cc w/encl.: Curt Pendergrass, Supervisor 

 Radioactive Materials Section 

 

 
July 29, 2014 

Matthew McKinley, Administrator 

Radiation Health Program 

Cabinet for Health & Family Services 

275 East Main Street, HS1C-A 

Frankfort, KY 40621-0001 

Dear Mr. McKinley: 

A periodic meeting with you and your staff was held on July 9, 2014. The purpose of this 

meeting was to review and discuss the status of the Kentucky Agreement State Program. The 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was represented by James Clifford, Duncan White, 

and me. 

I have completed and enclosed a general meeting summary, including any specific actions 

resulting from the discussions. A Management Review Board (MRB) meeting to discuss the 

outcome of the periodic meeting has been scheduled for September 23, 2014 at 1:00pm. Call 

in information for the MRB has been provided in a separate transmission. 

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 (610) 337-5214 or 

via e-mail at Monica.Ford@nrc.gov to discuss your concerns. 

 Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

 Monica Lynn Ford 

 Regional State Agreements Officer 

 Division of Nuclear Materials Safety 

 U.S. NRC Region I 

Enclosure: 

Periodic Meeting Summary for Kentucky 

cc w/encl.: Curt Pendergrass, Supervisor 

 Radioactive Materials Section 

Distribution: 

M. Beardsley, FSME L. Dimmick, FSME K. Meyer, FSME D. White, FSME 

P. Henderson, FSME L. Dudes, FSME J. Clifford, RI D. Collins, RI 

D. Janda, RI M. Ford, RI S. Abraham, FSME 

SUNSI Review Complete: MLF (Reviewer’s Initials) ML14210A556 

\\nrc.gov\nrc\R1\Shared\State Agreement Files\Kentucky\July 9, 2014 Periodic meeting Summary and Transmittal letter.docx 

After declaring this document “An Official Agency Record” it will be released to the Public. 

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with 

attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy 

OFFICE DNMS/RI E 

NAME MFord/mlf 

DATE 07/29/14 

 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
AGREEMENT STATE PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY FOR 

KENTUCKY CABINET OF HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES 

RADIATION HEALTH PROGRAM 

DATE OF MEETING: July 9, 2014 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) Attendees 

Kentucky Cabinet of Health and Family Services 

Attendees 

Monica Ford, Regional State 

Agreements Officer, Region I 

Matthew McKinley, Administrator, Radiation Health 

Program 

James Clifford, Division Director, 

Region I 

Curt Pendergrass, Supervisor, Radioactive Materials 

Section 

Duncan White, Branch Chief, Office of 

Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs 

(FSME) 

Kraig Humbaugh, Senior Deputy Commissioner, 

Department for Public Health (exit only) 

 Allyson Taylor, Policy Advisor, Office of the 

Commissioner, Department for Public Health (exit 

only) 

 Kathy Fowler, Division Director, Division of Public 

Health Protection and Safety (exit only) 

DISCUSSION: 

During the 2012 Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review of the 

Kentucky Agreement State Program (the Program), the review team found the Commonwealth’s 

performance satisfactory for the performance indicators Technical Staffing and Training, 

Technical Quality of Licensing, Technical Quality of Inspections, Technical Quality of Incidents 

and Allegations, and Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program; satisfactory but needs 

improvement for the performance indicator Compatibility Requirements; and unsatisfactory for 

the performance indicator Status of Materials Inspection Program. On September 6, 2012, the 

Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB 

found the Program adequate to protect public health and safety, but needs improvement, and 

compatible with the NRC’s program. The MRB added one recommendation to the final IMPEP 

report. The MRB directed that Kentucky continue to remain in monitoring status, that calls 

between the Kentucky Department for Public Health (DPH) and NRC staffs continue to be 

conducted quarterly, and that a Periodic Meeting take place approximately two years from the 

June 2012 IMPEP review. DPH provided their response to the final IMPEP report in a letter 

dated October 18, 2012. 

TOPICS COVERED DURING THE MEETING INCLUDED:

Program Strengths

The Program noted two strengths. Program management stated that program staff go above 

and beyond to figure out better ways to do things and are constantly working together to look for 

ways to improve the Program. This leads to good staff morale and camaraderie. The Program 

also noted that managerial support for the Program is excellent at all levels of management.
Kentucky Periodic Meeting Summary 2 

Program Challenges

Program management stated that one of the Program’s challenges is their end licensing product 

database. The database is very old and is a DOS based system. The Program is unable to do 

any type of watermark or headers, including security markings, on its licenses. The Program is 

working on developing a new database in order to address the issues with the current database. 

Another challenge is the Program’s fee structure. Currently the Program charges approximately 

10 percent of NRC’s fees from the 2008/2009 timeframe. The fees also go into a general fund 

which can be used by anyone in the Department for Public Health. The Program’s regulation 

promulgation process is a third challenge for the Program. The process can be very lengthy 

and often causes rules to be promulgated outside of the three year timeframe allowed by the 

NRC. The Program is considering changing their rules to adopt NRC’s regulations by 

reference. This would alleviate the lengthy rule promulgation process once the adoption by 

reference is in place. 

Feedback on the NRC’s Program

The Program commented that both the overall relationship and communications with the NRC 

are good. The Program also expressed its appreciation for the NRC training classes. The 

Program did make one suggestion regarding NRC’s implementation of Agreement State 

adoption of NRC rule changes. The Program stated that the way NRC rolls out its changes to 

regulations, which currently are issued one rule at a time, can be frustrating and cumbersome 

for the States to deal with. It can also make it difficult for a State to keep their regulations 

current. The Program suggested a more structured approach to regulations which might 

include FSME issuing all rule changes that happened in a six or twelve month period as one 

document and requiring the States to adopt those regulations within three years. The Program 

also suggested that NRC could formalize a holistic approach to regulations in a policy statement 

that would outline the rule adoption process for the Agreement States. 

Agreement State Program Staffing and Training

At the time of the IMPEP review, the Program was composed of one program administrator, one 

supervisor, and seven technical staff positions (one of which was on military deployment and 

not scheduled to return until December 2013 and two of which were vacant). Since the IMPEP 

review the Program hired two new technical staff members to fill the vacant positions identified 

during the IMPEP review and the individual on military deployment has returned. The Program 

also had an additional staff member leave the Program in July 2013 and subsequently hired 

another new staff member in December 2013 to fill that program vacancy. At the time of the 

Periodic meeting the Program is fully staffed. The three new staff members are currently 

working on their qualifications to become qualified license reviewers and inspectors. Since 

joining the Program, one new staff member has become fully qualified in industrial inspections 

and is now working on becoming qualified to perform medical inspections, the second new staff 

member is almost fully qualified in industrial inspections, with the exception of industrial 

radiography inspections, and will begin working on becoming qualified in medical inspections 

once the industrial qualifications are completed, and the third new staff member is working on 

becoming a qualified inspector for medical inspections, however is not currently qualified to 

perform any types of inspections since they have only been with the program approximately 

seven months. All of the new staff have qualification journals to use as they progress through 
Kentucky Periodic Meeting Summary 3 

their qualifications. The Program will ensure that the qualification journal has, at a minimum, the 

same requirements as NRC’s Inspection Manual Chapter 1248 “Formal Qualifications Program 

for Federal and State Material and Environmental Management Programs.” 

The Program continues to support staff training and utilizes the NRC training courses when 

available. The Program is hopeful that two of their new staff will be able to attend the S-201 

course in the next NRC fiscal year. The Program also hosted a Sealed Source and Device 

Evaluation Training workshop in March 2014. 

Organization

The Program is administered by the Radiation Health Branch, which is located within the 

Department for Public Health. The Department for Public Health is part of the Cabinet for Health 

and Family Services. 

Program Budget/Funding

The Program currently charges around ten percent of NRC’s fees from the 2008/2009 time 

frame. The fees go into a general fund which can be used to fund any program in the 

Department of Public Health. The Program is looking at changing its fee structure so that each 

modality would be charged a fee. This would require the Program to separate out each license 

based on modality so that fees are charged appropriately. 

Licensing and Inspection Programs

The Program currently has approximately 398 specific licenses. The Program has completed 

1509 licensing actions since the last IMPEP review. At the time of the periodic meeting there 

were 32 pending licensing actions in house. The longest action has been in house since 

December 2013 (a new license). The Program has been working with the new licensee to 

obtain additional information that was needed before the license can be issued. The average 

turnaround time for a licensing action is 43 days. All completed licensing actions undergo a 

three step process: initial review, peer review, and supervisor review before being signed by the 

program administrator and then issued. 

The IMPEP review found that the Program completed 41 percent of its priority 1, 2, and 3 and 

initial inspections overdue during the review period. Since the IMPEP review the Program has 

conducted one inspection overdue which was an initial inspection. This inspection was overdue 

at the time of the IMPEP review. Based on the number of inspections completed since the 

IMPEP, the Program is calculating that they have completed 1.53 percent of Priority 1, 2, and 3 

and initial inspections overdue. The Program’s inspection frequencies are the same as NRC’s 

inspection frequencies as listed in Inspection Manual Chapter 2800. As mentioned above one 

initial inspection was completed greater than one year from license issuance since the IMPEP 

review. Program management stated that the Program has inspected greater than the required 

20 percent of candidate licensees for reciprocity in calendar year 2013 and to date in calendar 

year 2014. The Program’s policy is to issue inspection findings to their licensee’s within 30 days 

from the date of the inspection. The Program performed supervisory accompaniments for its 

entire staff in 2012 and 2013. The Program has two supervisory inspection accompaniments 

left to complete in 2014. 
Kentucky Periodic Meeting Summary 4 

The 2012 IMPEP review generated one recommendation for this performance indicator. The 

recommendation is listed below along with the status. 

Recommendation 1: The MRB recommends that the Branch perform a self-assessment to 

determine the effectiveness of its oversight of the inspection program and that the results of this 

self-assessment be reviewed as part of the periodic meeting. 

Status: The Program submitted the self-assessment and the resulting programmatic changes 

to the NRC on July 3 and 7, 2014. All of these documents were discussed with the Program 

during the periodic meeting. The changes put in place by the Program will help to identify and 

prevent circumstances in the future that would cause program management to be unaware of 

the extent of the actual backlog of inspections that may be occurring as the Program responds 

to an unusual event. Along with updating several procedures the Program also put a new 

inspection tracking database into place. This new database allows for simplified tracking of 

inspection metrics and removes the uncertainty that resulted from the transition of one previous 

database to another during the timeframe covered by the previous IMPEP review. This 

transition between databases made it difficult for the Program to compile continuous data during 

the 2008-2012 timeframe and therefore the Program struggled to complete certain data 

dependent sections of the IMPEP questionnaire making them unaware of the overall impact of 

the performance of overdue inspections. 

Regulations and Legislative Changes

The Branch is designated as the Commonwealth’s radiation control agency. No legislation 

affecting the Program was passed since the last IMPEP review and the Program is not subject 

to sunset requirements. 

When the Program promulgates a rule they must first send the draft changes to the Cabinet for 

Health and Family Services for comment. Then once those comments are incorporated the 

draft changes go to the Legislative Review Committee for comment. Lastly the rules go to a 

subcommittee in the Legislature for approval for public comment. Then once public comments 

are received the regulations must go through the entire process again before becoming final. 

This process can take several years to complete. 

The Program stated that given the number of issues they are having in regards to adopting 

regulations they are in the process of exploring adopting applicable sections of NRC’s Title 10 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) by reference. The Program stated that they plan to address 

10 CFR Part 37 this way and hope to get it to the Cabinet by the end of calendar year 2014. 

The Program believes that they will be able to get this regulation promulgated in final before the 

March 2016 deadline, however if they determine they will not meet the deadline the Program will 

implement adoption of 10 CFR Part 37 by license condition. 

Six NRC regulations are overdue for implementation: 

• “Requirements for Certain Generally Licensed Industrial Devices Containing Byproduct 

Material,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 31, and 32 (65 FR 79162), that was due for Agreement 

State implementation on February 16, 2004; 
Kentucky Periodic Meeting Summary 5 

• “Medical Use of Byproduct Material – Minor Corrections and Clarifications,” 10 CFR 

Parts 32 and 35 (72 FR 45147 and 54207), that was dues for Agreement State 

implementation on October 29, 2010; 

• “Exemptions from Licensing, General Licenses, and Distribution of Byproduct Material; 

Licensing and Reporting Requirements,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 31, 32, and 150 amendment 

(72 FR 58473), that was due for Agreement State adoption by December 17, 2010; 

• “Requirements for Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 31, 

32, 33, 35, 61, 150 amendment (72 FR 55864), that was due for Agreement State 

adoption by November 30, 2010; 

• “Occupational Dose Records, Labeling Containers, and Total Effective Dose Equivalent,” 

10 CFR Parts 19 and 20 amendment (72 FR 68043), that was due for Agreement State 

adoption by February 15, 2011; and 

• “Medical Use of Byproduct Material – Authorized User Clarification,” 10 CFR Part 35 

amendment (74 FR 33901), due for Agreement State adoption by September 28, 2012. 

Event Reporting

The Program has had eight reportable events since the IMPEP review. All reportable events 

have been reported to the NRC accordingly and appropriate follow-up through NMED has 

occurred. The Program stated that all staff is aware of event reporting criteria. 

Response to Incidents and Allegations

The Program is aware of the need to maintain an effective response to incidents and 

allegations. Incidents are quickly reviewed for their effect on public health and safety and staff 

is dispatched to perform onsite investigations when necessary. The Program appropriately 

communicates reportable incidents to the NRC Operations Center and Region I. The Program 

continues to be sensitive to allegations. The Program has received one allegation and one 

additional concern, involving items being sold on eBay, for action since the IMPEP. 

Sealed Source and Device Evaluation (SS&D)

There have been no changes in the SS&D program since the IMPEP. The Commonwealth has 

one device manufacturer with 12 active SS&D registrations. The Program has completed two 

amendments to active registries since the IMPEP review and the Program has no pending 

actions at the time of this meeting. The last action received, an amendment, was completed 

and the revised sheet was issued on August 16, 2013. The Program has two qualified SS&D 

reviewers. The Program is working to qualify one more individual to perform SS&D reviews. 

This individual is learning the process as SS&D requests come in. The Program hosted the 

SS&D Workshop in March 2014. 
Kentucky Periodic Meeting Summary 6 

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal (LLRW) Program

Kentucky’s LLRW program consists of oversight at one facility; the Maxey Flats site (Site), 

which is located in eastern Kentucky. The Program stated during the periodic meeting that they 

were having difficulty maintaining a regulatory posture at the Site. 

The Site operated a commercial LLRW disposal facility from May 1963 through December 1977. 

The site was added to the National Priorities list in 1986, a record of decision was issued in 

1991, and a consent decree was entered in 1995. The consent decree in Section I Part C 

states “Pursuant to the requirements of the AEA, the Site is owned by the Commonwealth of 

Kentucky (“Commonwealth”). The Commonwealth, through the Cabinet for Human Resources, 

exercises regulatory authority over the Site pursuant to its status as an "Agreement State” under 

the AEA and the Kentucky Cabinet for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection is the 

current licensee of the Site.”1

 The site is currently in the Final Closure Period. 

The Program maintains a license for the Site which is issued to the Kentucky Energy and 

Environment Cabinet. The license for this site authorizes possession and activities associated 

with maintenance related to the closed LLRW disposal site. It is important to note that the 

Cabinet for Health and Family Services is designated as the radiation control agency for the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky in Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 211.842. KRS 211.842 goes 

on further to state “(2) The Cabinet for Health and Family Services shall issue licenses 

pertaining to radioactive materials and require registration of other sources of ionizing radiation. 

(3) The Cabinet for Health and Family Services shall develop and conduct programs for 

evaluation and control of hazards associated with the use of sources of ionizing, nonionizing, 

and electronic product radiation. (4) The cabinet or its duly authorized representative may enter 

at a reasonable time upon the property of a licensee, registrant, or other person where sources 

of ionizing, nonionizing, or electronic product radiation are reasonably believed to be located for 

the purpose of determining whether or not such licensee, registrant, or other person is in 

compliance with or in violation of the provisions of KRS 211.842 to 211.852 and administrative 

regulations promulgated hereunder, and the owner, occupant, or person in charge of the 

property shall permit entry and inspection; provided, that entry into areas under the jurisdiction 

of an agency of the federal government or its duly designated representative shall be only upon 

permission of the agency or its representative.” KRS 211.846 then states “The Cabinet for 

Health and Family Services shall monitor radioactive waste material sites in Kentucky for the 

protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. The Finance and Administration Cabinet and 

the Cabinet for Health and Family Services shall cooperate and coordinate their activities in the 

leasing, regulation, monitoring, and control of radioactive waste material burial sites.” The 

Program, per KRS and as delegated by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, has the 

lead for licensing activities for this Site as well as determining whether or not the licensee is in 

compliance with or in violation of the KRS and administrative regulations promulgated as a 

result of the KRS. The Program is continuing to work on bringing about a resolution regarding 

the potential regulatory issues associated with this Site. 

 

1

 The Cabinet for Human Resources is now known as the Cabinet for Health and Family Services and the 

Cabinet for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection is now known as the Energy and 

Environment Cabinet. 
Kentucky Periodic Meeting Summary 7 

CONCLUSIONS: 

The Program continues to be an effective and well maintained Agreement State program. Since 

the last IMPEP three new technical staff members have joined the Program filling the two 

vacancies noted at the time of the last IMPEP review and the one created by the departure of a 

current staff member in July 2013. The Program has no inspections of priority 1, 2, and 3 

overdue by more than 25 percent of their inspection due date and has completed one initial 

inspection overdue since the last IMPEP review. The Program has a minimal licensing backlog 

and has six regulations overdue for adoption. The Program has taken action to complete the 

one open recommendation from the 2012 IMPEP review. Based on the above, NRC staff 

recommends that the Kentucky Agreement State Program be removed from monitoring and that 

the next IMPEP review be conducted as scheduled in June 2016.