ML20011D110
| ML20011D110 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/27/1989 |
| From: | Harold Denton NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-PII, TASK-SE SECY-89-336, NUDOCS 8911060146 | |
| Download: ML20011D110 (30) | |
Text
s, 1
l i-o l
POLICY ISSUE (Information)
October 27, 1989 SECY-89-336 1
For:
The Commissioners From:
Harold R. Denton, Director i
Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Subject:
VIDEOTELEINFORMATIONTRANSFER(VTT)
Purpose:
To inform the Commissioners of the completion of SLITP's pilot project using video teleinformation transfer technology for conducting training for Agreement and Non-Agreement State R6diation Control Program offices
Background:
On August 7, 1989 the Office of Governmentol 6nd Public Affairs informed the Commissioners of a pilot project for testing the technology for purposes stated above (Enclosure 1).
DISCUSSION:
On September 26, 1989 SLITP successfully completed the VTT. As stated in the August 7, 1989 paper, the topic selected for communication was, "The Proposed Revised 10 CFR Part 20 Rule." Participants for the uplink operation reported at the prescribed time and all equipment used in the uplink to the satellite operated properly, resulting in a successful transmission to the satellite downlink stations that were tuned in and ready for reception.
Dr. Donald Cool, RES, Thomas Essig, NRR, and Richard Ratliff, Texas, served as panelists. Mark Barnett of the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health served as moderator. The U.S. Department of Pe61th ano Human Services (FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health)
Dfo >
Contact:
d[
V. L. Miller 492-0326 Xb
i L
o-f s,.
l e.
OCT 2 71989 Commissioners 2
provided critical production support for the broadcast and the U.S. Department of Agriculture provided the studio and uplink capability. Several months in advance, the States had been notified of the pilot arogram and were asked to secure downlink facilities in taeir States.
In addition, by letter dated September 13, 1989 each downlink coordinator was provided an information package to help them prepare for reception (Enclosure 2) and evaluation forms to provide to the viewers.
In addition to the State downlink facilities, SLITP became aware that other parties were interested in the pilot project. Many NRC and State licensees, and licensee consultants called to verify the time, date and coordinates of the satellite. These other downlink facilities were also invited to send in their consents to
.the NRC.
Our preliminary estimate is that a total of at least 50 downlinks received the program. Approximately 38 were State downlinks. Many hospitals and educational institutions also joined the network. Hundreds of people viewed the teleconference. One downlink in New Hampshire had an audience of 52 people.
The program was also taped so additional people will see the program, in order to get an early indication of the success of the project, SLITP conducted a random sampling of 12 downlink sites.
From this sampling, and the comments on the critique sheets provided by the viewers at the onsite downlink located at the Department of Agriculture's uplink facility, we found for the most part all comments were complementary.
Comments were as follows:
1.
The program was broadcast quality.
2.
Good Format.
3.
Good training technique and should be considered for future tr61ning activities.
4.
Good concept.
5.
' Very beneficial.
6.
Helpful information.
l e
0
3, r
L
(
Commissioners 3
OCT 2 71989 1
7.
Terrific. idea and lookit.g forward to others.
There were some problem areas discovered, all occurring i
at the downlink locations. These problems were identified to be technical problems such as:
1.
Unable to tune in on time.
l 2.
Trouble with sound.
3.
No one available to set up or tune in equipment.
Generally speaking, the above problems did not occur in those States where the State has used the downlink facility on previous occasions.
Such States had the "know how" or were more adept at overcoming these tuning difficulties.
l The random survey revealed one problem that often occurs when training is conducted at Headquarters or'the Home Office. Training time may be preempted by other duties that are perceived by a supervisor to be of higher priority, thereby depriving the employee of receiving the benefits of the training.
A recent State-NRC Task Force report on training noted that for much of the training provided to States, a classroom hands-on approach is preferred (fiUREG-1356).
l This program, however, has shown that VTT is a worthwhile l.
and very effective approach for those situations where information on a topical subject needs to be disseminated to a wide audience over a large geographical area in a short period of time.
We will provide the final results of the program evaluation after receipt of the downlink critiques.
L
-)
.)
L a
- )
t.
old R. Denton, irector Office of Gover iental and Public Affa s DISTRIBUTION:
Enclosures:
Commissioners EDO l
As stated OGC ACRS OIG ACNW LSS ASLBp GPA ASLAP REGIONA OFFICES SECY p
l l
N
- vg\\
i t
\\.....)!
POUCYT55UE (Information)
Aunust 7, 1989 SECY-89-236 i
Fo!:
The Commissioners From:
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Governmental and Public Affairs i
Subject:
VIDEO TELEINFORMATION TRANSFER
Purpose:
To inform the Commissioners of our progress on State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs' (SLITP) pilot project I
for using video teleinformation transfer technology for conducting training for Agreement and Non-Agreement State Radiation Control Program Offices.
Backaround:
Over the last several years SLITP has been exploring ways to conserve funds in order to provide additional training to the States.
To date we have pursued efforts
(~
that utilize government training centers and commercial facilities in low cost per diem areas.
Use of such
. facilities has usually resulted in per diem costs that are less than the costs associated with the traditional method of transporting the student into the Washington area and paying the high cost of travel and per diem for the student.
Discussion:
SLITP has actively been seeking new ways of conveying important information/ training in a quality manner to a large audience without the high costs of travel and per diem.
During the latter part of 1987, SLITP started focusing on the use of Video Teleinformation Transfer (VTT).
Use of such a system would allow SLITP to position
Contact:
J. Kendig, GPA/SLITP 49-20322 g,,u g mg +,, :yp,.;. ;.., e ;
,, a, ;_,
w.
w.
.y..
2,. m. ;p
r The Commissioners -
NRC speakersJin'a studio in the Washington / Baltimore area, having capabilities to transmit the speakers message to a communication satellite (uplink) which would relay the information to students in downlink studios throughout the United States.
In December of 1988 the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors Inc. (CRCPD) through its H-6 Committee
- on Training and Communication, also developed an interest in VTT and asked the NRC resource person if SLITP would consider conducting one of its training programs for Agreement States utilizing VTT.
It was SLITP's judgement that in order to determine the validity of this training /information transfer concept, a pilot program should be conducted.
Development of the Pilot Program is on schedule.
The proposed revised 10 CFR Part 20 Rule has been selected as the subject of generic interest for this pilot effort.
The pilot program is scheduled to be aired September 26, i
1989.
It will be a two hour proc am with an additional thirty minutes allowed for questions and answers.
Telephones will.be provided to the participants at each downlink location to contact the speakers.
The following NRC offices and other Federal and State organizations will be assisting in the presentation of this program:
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research; i
Nuclear Reactor Regulation; Department of Health and Human Services Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH); Department of Agriculture; the State of Texas Bureau of Radiation Control; and the Conference of Radiation Conttol Program Directors (CRCPD).
The two NRC offices and the Texas Bureau of Radiation Control are providing the panelists for the program.
The CDRH is assisting in preparing the NRC panelists in the art of video telecommunication, formatting and script preparation l~
so as to maximize the impact of the presentation.
The CDRH l
is also providing an experienced moderator to lead the.
panelists through the presentation.
The Department of Agriculture will be providing the broadcast studio and signal transmission equipment as well as technical staff and Directors needed for coupling to the satellite teleporter (uplink).
The CRCPD is active in helping the States secure downlink stations to view the event.
l l
4 m
-f T-T+:
.r
-v-
-F--
-r7--T--
=w --
e
1 i
,e
'. J The Commissioners 3-l t
The primary audience will be the Agreement States and Non-Agreement States.
We anticipate an audience 1
totaling around 200 to 300 with a potential into the thousands if the NRC and State licensees obtain their l
- own viewing facilities.
Arrangements are being made for the NRC Headquarters i
staff to view the video program at the NRC Emergency i
Center and the Regions are being encouraged to arrange with either FEMA or the State to use one of their downlink stations.
The Department of Agricultural has invited the senior NRC management to view the program i
at their downtown studio at 14th and Independence Avenue, Southwest, Washington, D.C.
SLITP will follow-up on the video presentation by conducting a survey of the States to determine how well the program was received, i
i k
'~
arold R. Dento, Director Office of Gov nmental and Public Aff rs DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC
^
IG LSS GPA Regional Offices EDO ACRS ACNW ASLBP.
ASLAP SECY t
a 6
4 h
em
~
+
ry p u.
I DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUM AN SIRVICES Public Hooth service g
r*
2.
Food eM Drug Administration Rockville MD 2D857 September 13, 1989
Dear Downlink coordinators:
i with the NRC pilot teleconference only a few days away (September 26th), we wanted to get the enclosed materials to you in time to Xerox extra copies if you need to.
(We've enclosed five of i
everything.)
PROGRAM EVALUATION FORMS We would like to have you distribute these to each viewer during the third viewer call-in period.
Please collect them at the end of the teleconference and send them back to NRC.
A return label (to John Kendig, NRC) is included for your convenience.
These evaluations are very important.
They will be reviewed carefully by NRC to assist them in deciding whether to consider satellite technology as a means of providing training.and communication to states and licensees.
VIEWER HANDOUTS There are a number of peges of handouts which should be distributed to viewers before the teleconference begins.
Some of the speakers may refer to these during the broadcast.
VIEWER REMINDER You many want to call or send a reminder of the teleconference to your potential attendees a few days before the event.
ANNOUNCEMENTS JUST PRIOR TO AIRTIME In your role as host for your downlink, you may want to make a few general announcements.
We suggest that you remind viewers that this is a pilot teleconference.
It primarily a test of the technology (uplink, downlinks, phone lines, teleports, studio equipment, specialized video effects, microwave relays, etc.).
Basically we are
.th asking:
can we beam up from the Washington, D.C. area and reach the state people successfully with information (and eventually training)?
In'your opening announcements you may also wish to:
Introduce yourself Introduce any notable folks I
Explain how this teleconference came to be (see my last letter to you under " Background")
Identify location of restrooms and water fountains Identify location of vending machines, or arrangements for refreshments Explain how to call in to the studio (turn TV down!)(see note below)
Explain that an evaluation form will be distributed later Outline the program format (time, breaks, etc.)(see cover of handouts)
PHONE-IN SEGMENTS The only real difference between watching a program on a videocassette and watching a satellite broadcast is that the teleconference viewers have an opportunity to be part of the program by calling in.
We hope that your downlink will try out this interactive feature.
It should be funt would you please be sure that, as downlink coordinator, you are very familiar with how the phones work at your downlink.
Your attendees may need your assistance.
NOTE:
The program content is organized in a specific sequence.
Therefore, the studio will take calls only on material covered by the speakers up to that 1
point in the broadcast.
Hopefully, that will allow us to cover the program's content in the planned sequence.
The phone number to use to call the studio is 202/447-8548 or FTS 447-8548.
The number will appear on the screen frequently during the broadcast.
TEST SIGNAL As stated in our last letter, a test signal (video and audio) will be broadcast from 11:00 to 11:30 a.m.
(EDT).
Please use this time to check your reception.
The phone number to call if you experience problems has been changed to 202/447-8559.
t
i
.t a <
?,' '.
i 1
once again,.many, many thanks for going out of your way to help with this teleconference.
We wish you good luck.
Please don't hesitate to call if I can be of any assistance, (301 or FTS) 443-4647, between now and the 26th.
Sincerely yours
)
W Kelly G. Sauer Teleconference Producer Deputy Director Division of Training Support office of Training and Assistance, HFZ-260 Center for Devices and Radiological Health Enclosures Program Evaluation Forms Viewer Handouts Return Mailing Label l
Mr. John F. Kendig i- { Mail Stop WF-3-D-23 I.j U,s, melear mgulatory Otmunission
. Washington, D.C. 20555 l
-s a
');
l; ;:.
United States Nuclear Rcgulatory Commission Teleconference September 26,1989 OVERVIEW OF
/
REVISIONS'
\\
1 b.
TO k
~
l Program Format (Eastern Daylight Time) 11:00 - 11:30 a.m.
Technical Test 11:30 2:30 p.m.
Program (Times are approximate and include two 10 minute breaks.)
Satellite Reception 1.nformation Satellite:
Spacenet I, C. Band Transponder:
3 Channel:
5 Frequency:
3800 MHz
-%,+
-e--.__,-,-,--a-
___-____._____,_,e
-m - -
o- - - -
. /.. _
DEEP DOSE EQUIVALENT The Deep Dose Equivalent is the dose equivalent at at tissue depth of 1 cm resulting from external radiation.
i l
i i
i t
EYE DOSE EQUIVALENT i
l The Eye Dose Equivalent. is the dose from external t
l radiation to the lens of the eye at ~a tissue -depth of 0.3 cm.
i i
i I
I l
1 i
i 3
i i
~
... - - ~..
. =
SHALLOW DOSE EQUIVALENT l
i The4 Shallow -Dose Equivalent to the skin or an extremity is the dose at a tissue depth of i-0.007 cm ( 7 mg/cm2) averaged over an area of j
1 cm2 i
i
~
t l
l j
l i
1 I
i j
i l
~
r 4
~.,
_,._m____.
m=ma-wm g
EFFECTIVE DOSE EQUIVALENT The Effective' Dose Equivalent is the sum of -the risk-weighted dose to major organs. The risk-weighted dose is calculated by multiplying the organ dose by a weighting factor 4-which is proportional to the stochastic risk to that organ.
.~
m
~
COMMITTED DOSE EQUIVALENT The Committed Dose Equivalent is the total dose delivered to an internal organ over a 50-year period following inhalation or ingestion of a radionuclide.
O e
e e
Ii
..5.,+
. [.'.[
~
L COMMITTED EFFECTIVE DOSElEQUIVALENT-l (CEDE)
L The Committed Effective Dose Equivalent is the i
effective dose resulting :from summing the risk-weighted 50-year committed dose. equivalents to various organs.
j I
i l
e 6
e e
9
,.; 7 eo:-
~
3.
TOTAL EFFECTIVE DOSE! EQUIVALENT fTEDE)
~
The Total Effective Dose Equivalent isc the. sum of.
the Deep Dose. Equivalent for external radiation and-the Committed Effective Dose' Equivalent. for internal radiation.
9 O
v.
~
DOSE LIMITS (EXTERNAL WHOLE BODY)
Current Rule:
- 3.0 rem / quarter and 5(N-18) cumulative lifetime dose
~(with prior dose _ history).
Revised Rule:
- 5 rem Total Effective Dose Equivalent per ' year (internal + external).
e
.. ;.. i
.o.
l DOSE LIMIT 8 (ORGAN)
Current Rule:
- Whole body, blood forming organs:
1.25 rem / quarter (5 rem / year).
(
Revised Rule:
- 50 rem / year total organ dose
!.:.l
Current Rule:
Revised Rule:
.15 rem / year
~
O 9
e a
. :. y t
DOSE LIMITS (EXTREMITIES) l l
l Current Rule:
Revised Rule:
- 50 rem / year
7
. ;;o; DOSE LIMITS (MEMBERS OF PUBLIC)
Current Rule: * (Implicit) 0.5 rem / year Revised Rule: * (Explicit) 0.1 rem / year *
- 0.'5 rem / year limit is available upon NRC~ approval
~
EPA Generally-Applicable' Environmental.
Radiation Standards when applicable (e.g. 40 CFR Part 190).
e e
~
. 3 "ALARA" 4
20.101(b)
Each licensee shall use, to the-extent practicable, procedures and engineering controls to ensure that doses are as low as is reasonably achievable.
O e
e e
1
~
~
10 CFR PART 20 REVISION Limits for the Embryo / Fetus Limits. apply to the. embryo / fetus of a declared pregnant woman *.
Dose to the embyro/ fetus over entire period of gestation (9 mos) is 0.5 rem.
Dose should be delivered at a fairly uniform rate over entire gestation period and not be delivered in a few large doses.
?
- has formally notified her employer of pregnancy
'O CFR PAR" 20 REVOSOON Dose Limits for Minors
- Dose Limits for Minors who are occupationally exposed.
~
Dose limits are 10 % of limits for adult-workers:
whole body 0.5 rem / year (TEDE) skin 5.0 rems / year (SDE-skin) eye 1.5 rems / year (DE-eye) extremities 5.0 rems / year (SDE-ext)
Concentration and intake Limits are also 10 % of adult workers.
- less than 18 years of age.
~.
10 CFR PART 20 REVISION Planned Special Exposures - 1 A Planned Special Exposure (PSE) permits-doses in excess of the normal annual dose limits.
The PSE is restricted to special circumstances where dose cannot otherwise be avoided.
Planned Special Exposures are subject to detailed requirements and have to be reported to NRC within 30 days of their occurrence (Section 20.1204).
Section 20.206
.y t
10 CFR PART 20 REVISION L
Planned Special~ Exposures-2 1
4 t
j.
[
- Limits apply to sum of doses from planned special exposures and from overexposures.
i
- For a 7-rem accidential overexposure the remaining PSE dose allowance would be:
i For Year 5 (PSE) - (7 - 5) =
3 rems Lifetime 25 (PSE) - (7 - 5) = 23 rems
.10 CFR PART 20 REVISION Planned Special Exposures - 3 W
- Section 20.206 requires prior to exposure:
- That the-worker be informed of:
(1) The purpose of Planned Special Exposure; (2) The estimated potential dose that could be received; and (S) the conditions of exposure.
i._isr-
-c
..g
.r 1
..iq.i.,
--_m.i:
.4e----
i-
,-r--.-
g..<i
' y f, i s
PROGRAM EVALUATION-NRC PILOT TELECONFERENCE s
The objectives of this pilot teleconference event were:
- 1. To provide an overview on 10 CFR 20.
- 2. To evaluate teleconferencing as a potential training / communications tool.
In that light, would you please assist us in planning for possible future teleconferences by answering the following questions:
A) Do youfeel that you wereprovided with helpfulinformation on 10 CFR 20 duringthis teleconference?
Yes No B) Whatadditionalinfonnation wouldhaveaddedtoitsvaluetoyouoryourstaff?
C) Should NRC consider utili:ing teleconferencing as a methodforpresenting training (i.e., seminars,2 day courses, etc.)for states.
Yes No Comments D) What ather ruhirerr wouldyou oryourstafflike to have addressedif future teleconferences are planned by the.NRC or other agencies?
-.-mm
, + - -, - -, - - -, - - -, -.. - - -
fe ri*
.~ E) Was your downlink viewing location generally sathfactory (room arrangement, sound andpicture quality, accessibility, etc.)?
Yu No Comments.
6 F) Didyoupersonallyusetheinteractive(telephone) option duringthebroadcast?
Yu No Comments A
first NRC effort at commum)cating with states and licensees via 1
2 3
4 5
H) Othercomments orsusgestions? -
Any information collection requirements contained in this questionnaire have been approved by OMD Control No. 315M029 Eniration date MIB2.
1
-