ML20046C030
| ML20046C030 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/28/1993 |
| From: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bowsher C, Conyers J, Glenn J, Lehman R, Lieberman J, Panetta L, Sharp P GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, HOUSE OF REP., HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE, HOUSE OF REP., GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET, SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS, SENATE, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20046C031 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9308090132 | |
| Download: ML20046C030 (17) | |
Text
..,
y
,I '
s 'po as-2 g'o,.
i
. UNITED STATES
?'
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-3 j.
WASHINGTON, D. C,20555
'o.,
.E July 28, 1993 l
CHAIRMAN i
e r
The Honorable John Glenn, Chairman i
Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510 t
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In accordance with'the statutory obligation to respond to recommendations by-the General. Accounting Office (GAO) within 60 days of receipt, we hereby submit our responses to the recommendations made by the GA0 in their report entitled, " NUCLEAR REGULATION:.BETTER CRITERIA AND DATA WOULD HELP ENSURE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS." We agree with most of the recommendations.
Specific comments on the.GA0 recommendations are preser;ted in Enclosure 1.
! presents updated information for Tables II.1, II.2, and 11.3 of the GAO report. presents updated data for Table III.3 in the GA0 report.
These'new data have been discussed with GAO, and they agree that these updated tables present the information which should be used when seeking to compare the NRC materials program and the Agreement' State programs.
Sincerely, j
Ivan Selin i
Enclosure:
I.
Response to GA0 Recommendations 2.
Updated Data for Tables II.I, II.2, and 11.3 3.
Updated Data for Table III.3 i
cc:
Senator William V. Roth, Jr.
.i i
1 h
b vg 1
9308090132 930728
$3
.i i
PDR COMMS NRCC g
?
CORRESPONDENCE PDR 4;
V
. ~.. _._
[$cs neg j
f
'o.
UNITED sT ATES l
j' '-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{~f)y g'
W ASHINGT ON. D. C. 20555
,o$
'%s
+....
July 28, 1993 CH AIRM AN J
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman i
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In accordance with the statutory obligation to respond to recommendations by l
the General Accounting Office (GAO) within 60 days of receipt, we hereby submit our responses to the recommendations made by the GA0 in their report entitled, " NUCLEAR REGULATION: BETTER CRITERIA AND DATA WOULD. HELP ENSURE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS." We agree with most of the recommendations.
Specific comments on the GA0. recommendations 'are presented in Enclosure 1.
- presents updated information for Tables.II.1, 11.2, and II.3 of-the GA0 report.. Enclosure 3 presents updated data for Table 111.3-in the GA0 report. These new data have been discussed with GAO, and they agree that l
these updated tables present the information which should be used when seeking.
to compare the NRC materials program and the Agreement State programs.
Sincerely,
]
Ivan Selin j
~!
Enclosure-l.
Response to GA0 Recommendations i
2.
Updated Data for Tables 11.1, 11.2, and 11.3 3.
Updated Data for Table III.3
.cc:
Senator Alan K. Simpson
-i l
i 4
I
)
.b-s
- ,p" "'Cg
.f
,o, UNITED STATES
.? **
-E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
,y.,
,3
.j WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
-t o,
c.
/
i
+
July 28, 1993 CHAIRMAN i
~
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Chairman Comittee on Government Operations United' States House of Representatives i
Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In accordance with the statutory obligation to respond to recomendations by l
the General Accounting Office (GAO) within 60 days of receipt, we hereby submit our responses to the recomendations made by the GA0 in their report
-l entitled, " NUCLEAR REGULATION:
BETTER CRITERIA AND DATA WOULD HELP ENSURE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS." We agree with most of the recommendations.
Specific coments on the GA0 recomendations are presented in Enclosure 1. presents updated'information for Tables 11.1, II.2, and II.3 of the GA0 report. presents updated data for Table III.3 in the GA0 report. -These new data have been discussed with GAO, and they agree-that these updated tables present the information which should be used when seeking to compare the NRC materials program and the Agreement State programs.
Sincerely, l
t
~
Ivan Selin
[
Enclosure:
1.
Response to GA0 Recomendations 2.
Updated Data for Tables II.I, II.2, and II.3 3.
Updated Data for Table III.3 cc:
Rep. William F. Clinger, Jr.
+
4
}og UNITED STATES
.. y "
) y, j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.l W ASHINGT ON, D. C. 20555 1
g T%.I July 28, 1993 i
...+
CHAIRMAN i
The Honorable Richard H. Lehman, Chairman l
Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals Resources Committee on Natural Resources United States House of Representatives l
Washington, D.C.
20515 i
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In accordance with the statutory obligation to respond to recomendations by the General Accounting Office (GA0) within 60 days of receipt, we hereby submit our responses to the recommendations made by the GA0 in their report entitled, " NUCLEAR REGULATION: BETTER CRITERIA AND DATA WOULD HELP ENSURE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS." We agree with most of the recomendations.
Specific coments on the GA0 recomendations are presented in Enclosure 1. presents updated information for Tables II.1, II.2,. and 11.3 of-the GA0. report. presents updated data for Table III.3 in the GA0 report.
These new data have been discussed with GAO, and they agree that these updated. tables present the information which should be used when seeking
-to compare-the NRC materials program and the Agreement State programs.
Sincerely,.
Ivan Selin
Enclosure:
1.
Response to GA0 Recomendations 2.
Updated Data for Tables II.1, 11.2, and 11.3 3.
Updated Data for Table III.3 cc:
Rep. Barbara Vucanovich
[ga accg#'o, UNITED sT ATEs j' '
'i NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\,m '/
July 28, 1993 CHAIRM AN The Honorable Philip Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In accordance with the statutory obligation to respond to recommendations by the General Accounting Office (GA0) within 60 days of receipt, we hereby submit our responses to the recommendations made by the GA0 in their report entitled, " NUCLEAR REGULATION:
BETTER CRITERIA AND DATA WOULD HELP ENSURE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS." We agree with most of the recommendations.
Specific comments on the GA0 recommendations are presented in Enclosure 1. presents updated information for Tables 11.1, 11.2, and II.3 of the GA0 report. presents updated data for Table III.3 in the GA0 report. These new data have been discussed with GAO, and they agree that these updated tables present the information which should be used when seeking to compare the NRC materials program and the Agreement State programs.
Sincerely, X
Ivan Selin
Enclosure:
1.
Response to GA0 Recommendations 2.
Updated Data for Tables 11.1, 11.2, and 11.3 3.
Updated Data for Table III.3 cc:
Rep. Michael Bilirakis
I{f* *G y,
UNITED STATES Y.
,7 NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION O \\g," ( i i
W ASHINGT CN. D. C. 20555 "do /s s, m j July 28, 1993 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Charles A. Bowsher Comptroller General of the United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C.
20548
Dear Mr. Bowsher:
In accordance with the statutory obligation to respond to recommendations by the General Accounting Office (GA0) within 60 days of receipt, we hereby submit our responses to the recommendations made by the GA0 in their report entitled, " NUCLEAR REGULATION:
BETTER CRITERIA AND DATA WOULD HELP ENSURE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS." We agree with most of the recommendations.
Specific comments on the GA0 recommendations are presented in Enclosure 1. presents updated information for Tables II.1, II.2, and 11.3 of the GA0 report. presents updated data for Table III.3 in the GA0 report. These new data have been discussed with GAO, and they agree that these updated tables present the information which should be used when seeking to compare the NRC materials program and the Agreement State programs.
Sincerely, s,k Ivan Selin
Enclosure:
1.
Response to GA0 Recommendations 2.
Updated Data for Tables II.1, 11.2, and II.3 3.
Updated Data for Table III.3
.l
'l
,,d
. in aec o
/
'N UNITED STATES f
f,f (
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 s
%g -
,s?
July 28, 1993 j
The Honorable Leon E. Panetta i
Director Office of Management and Budget Washington, D.C. 20503.
I
Dear Mr. Panetta:
4 In accordance with the statutory obligation to respond to recommendations'by the General Accounting Office (GAO) within 60 days of receipt, we hereby l
submit our responses to the recommendations made by the GA0 in their' report entitled, " NUCLEAR REGULATION:- BETTER CRITERIA AND DATA WOULD HELP ENSURE-t SAFETY OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS." We agree with most of the recommendations.
i Specifi: comments on the GA0 recommen'dations are presented'in Enclosure 1. presents updated information for Tables II.1, II.2,. and 11.3 of 1
the GA0 report. Enclosure 3 presents updated data for Table III.3 in the GA0 i"
report. These new data have been discussed with GAO, and they agree that these updated tables present the information which should be used when seeking to compare the NRC materials program and the Agreement State programs, i
Sincerely, Ivan Selin
Enclosure:
1.
Response to GA0 Recommendations 2.
Updated Data for Tables II.I, 11.2, and 11.3
- 3.. Updated Data for Table III.3 i
l, a
D i
e i
r GA0 Report - NUCLEAR REGULATION:
Better Criteria and Data Would Help Ensure Safety of Nuclear Materials GA0/RCED-93-90 Response to Recommendations Chanter 2 The GA0 stated that the Chairman of the NRC should take several actions to modify the inconsistent way in which the NRC evaluates the effectiveness of i
its two materials programs in achieving the goal of adequately protecting the public from radiation.
Recommendation 1 GA0 recommendation: The Chairman, NRC, should establish " common performance indicators in order to obtain cow nrable information to evaluate the effectiveness of both the Agreement State and NRC regulated state programs in meeting NRC's goal."
NRC Response i
We agree, and the Commission intends to implement a new program evaluation 1
approach beginning next year. Although differences exist in the roles and regulatory responsibilities of the 29 agreement states versus the 5 NRC regional offices, core performance indicators for NRC and agreement state program evaluation will be helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the j
national nuclear materials program. We are currently considering core performance indicators that include both the traditional programmatic indicators as well as output indicators such as medical misadministrations, i
lost or abandoned radioactive sources, radiation overexposures, and contaminated sites. We are also considering graded evaluations of these core performance indicators which will be used in the development of an annual integrated materials safety evaluation. We will use these indicators as a basis for an annual discussion with the Organization of Agreement States, present the results at the NRC senior management meeting in June of each year, i
and brief the Commission annually at a public meeting.
i Recommendation 2 j
GA0 recommendation: The Chairman, NRC, should establish " specific criteria and procedures for suspending or revoking an agreement-state program. Once NRC ensures the effectiveness of the NRC-regulated state program using the new performance indicators, it should take aggressive action to suspend or revoke any agreement-state program that is incompatible or inadequate with the performance indicators."
ENCLOSURE 1
NRC Response We agree with GA0 with regard to the need to have specific procedures for termination of an agreement and we intend to complete such written procedures in 1994. These procedures will include early Commission involvement when an agreement state program begins to have trouble. We too are concerned about the delay which may occur between the time we are first concerned about an agreement state program and the time that the concern is corrected. We will address that issue in our procedures.
The GA0 report points out correctly that since our criteria were formalized in a policy statement in 1981, the NRC has never formally found a state to be inadequate to protect public health and safety. Our General Statement of Policy states that if no significant Category I comments are provided, the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety. The converse, however, is not necessarily true.
If comments on Category I indicators are provided, this means we believe that the program deficiencies might eventually, if allowed to continue unremedied, seriously affect the state's ability to protect the public health and safety, but it does not necessarily mean that there is an immediate threat to public health and safety.
For example, the status of the state's inspection program is a Category I indicator under our guidelines. The fact that a licensee is overdue for inspection d.ses not necessarily mean that the public health and safety are compromiscd. The licensee may be continuing to run an effective radiation safety program protecting health and safety. Overdue inspections are, however, a regulatory deficiency that could compromise the state's ability to protect public health and safety in the long run. Hence, we would withhold a finding of adequacy until the state addressed this programmatic deficiency.
The Atomic Energy Act makes clear that agreement state status is a long term commitment for the state; neither we nor the states take lightly the 1
termination of an agreement. We do not take an inflexible " regulatory" approach that requires a state to do everything our way. We believe that the states are committed to protecting public health and safety adequately and maintaining regulatory programs consistent with their commitments.
If, however, we became aware of a specific situation in a state where the health and safety of the public was in serious jeopardy and in our judgement the state was unwilling or unable to take decisive action, we would not hesitate i
to take unilateral action to reassert authority over that situation.
1 l
i 2
i
Recommendation 3 GA0 recommendation:
The Chairman, NRC, should " require agreement states to report abnormal occurrences so that NRC can include the occurrences in its quarterly report to Congress."
and Recommendation 4 GA0 recommendation:
The Chairman, NRC, should "take appropriate action to ensure that the information on radiation events in agreement states is reported completely and accurately."
NRC Response We agree that abnormal occurrences should be reported to the NRC for inclusion in the quarterly report to Congress required by Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, but as a practical matter we get what information the states have. Although Section 208 does not address abnnrmal occurrences involving agreement state licensees, NRC requested agreement state cooperation in providing such information to Congress. Through the exchange-of-information program, to which the states accede in each agreement, the agreement states agreed to provide us with a great deal of information regarding their programs, including information on events occurring in their states. The NRC established an agreement state abnormal occurrence reporting system on July 1,1977.
The agreement states periodically provide to the NRC events / incident reports; these are evaluated by our Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AE00), in coordination with the Office of State Programs (0SP), to identify reports which may reach the threshold of an abnormal occurrence.
If any event reaches the threshold, NRC reports it to Congress.
While the agreement states participate h the abnormal occurrence reporting program based on the commitment, discussed above, to exchange information with the NRC, the GA0 points out that some agreement states have not submitted abnormal occurrence reports. The GA0 report also observes that the data available on the agreement state programs are not identical to those that are available for the NRC materials program. These observations are correct and we are in the process of rectifying this situation.
For the most recent reporting period, we advised the state regulators about the need for complete event data, and we followed up with telephone calls to the states to remind them. As a result, we obtained event reports from all 29 agreement states for 1992. We continue working to increase the level of uniformity between the NRC and the agreement states on reporting.
In August 1993 the NRC is hosting a management workshop for the agreement states to discuss event reporting, along with r ircement, allegation, and investigation issues. The goal of the workshop is rovide the agreement states and NRC participants with a better unoerstandin3 of these program issues, with the
]
goal of increasing convergence among all the programs.
-Chaoter 1 Recommendation _1 "Because NRC has not acted on our 1988 rev.
legi.
financial assurance, the Congress may wish to consider enacting GA0 recommendation:
f financial assuro..
requiring NRC to establish a reasonable, minimum le l
of radioactive materi al."
NRC Resoonie de do not agree with this conclusion.
ded that NRC During the 1988 review of the NRC materials program, GA0 recomme for the cleanup require licensees to guarantee a level of financial assuranceGA0 acknow l
of accidental spills and releases of radioactive materia.
ted for studies by that the staff had looked into this matter and had contrac i
to determine Sandia National Laboratories and Pacific Northwest Labora After considering t
the likelihood and potential consequence of such acc di d the Commission that the need for a separate financial assurance prog t d by the i
the staff, required regulatory analysis.
the broader issues of financial assurance for decommission ng, i
f some routine rather than focusing on accidental spills to the exclus on o i
tion and operations, is reviewing the broader issues of decontam na In short, although decommissioning arising from all sources of contamination.
its recommendation, the GA0 believes the NRC is reluctant to act decisively on in a broader in fact NRC is taking the time necessary to address the issue l tory analysis context; rulemaking will be initiated if the required regu a supports the finding that the benefits outweigh the costs.
f 4
' Agreement-State Data by State Table 11.1: Selected Data on Agreement States incidents or alleged Staff per Review State State incidents hundred Percent of budget State date adequate compatible Reports investigated licensees generated by fees Ala.
6/14/91 Yes Yes 35 17
.7 75
- Ariz, 6/12/92 Yes 9
9 1.3 0
Ark.
2/26/93 Yes Yes 10 10 1.0 13 Cahf.
1/29/93 No 186 141
.92 95 a
Colo.
4/9/93 Yes 22 3
1.20 78 l
Fla.
2/26/93 Yes Yes 137 133 1A8 100 I
Ga.
10/18/91 Yes Yes 19 6
1.2 100 Ill.
1/21/92 Yes Yes 119 43 1.4 35 lowa 7/20/90 14 12
.B5 44 Kans.
2/26/93 Yes 7
2 1.2 110 Ky.
4/17/92 Yes 7
3 1.0 50 La.
8/23/91 Yes 32 32 1.15 70 a
Maine 4/28/93 1
0
.93 15 Md.
3/27/91 Yes 85 78 1.07 30 Miss.
9/13/91 Yes Yes 19 10 1.13 100 N.C.
11/22/91 Yes Yes 70 15 1.1 30 N.Dak.
6/07/91 Yes 4
2 2.08 12 Nebr.
6/26/92 3
3
.81 50 N.H.
6/5/92 13 9
2.0 13 N.Mex.
8/14/92 Yes 29 26 1.58 0
Nev.
3/5/93 Yes 10 7
1.32 26 a
N.Y.
9f30/92 Yes 181 47 1.3 Varies Oreg.
4/2/93 Yes Yes 52 20 1.0 100 R.I.
11/22/91 Yes Yes 7
5 1.5 33 S.C.
3/24/93 Yes Yes 4
1 1.2 30 Tenn.
12/13/91 94 30 1.4 74 Tex.
3/27/92 Yes Yes 350 316 1.3 0
Utah.
4/17/92 Yes Yes 35 8
1.6 25 Wash.
7/17/92 Yes Yes 26 21 1.4 100 Total 1.580 1,019
- NRC reponed that it was not able to find that the agreement-state's program was. adequate to protect pubke heafth and'or that it was compatible with the regulatory programs of NRC.
Source: Data were obtained from agreement-state questionnaires as of June 30,1993.
ENCLOSURE 2
i 4
i Table 11.2: Agreement States' Licensing Review Total Major Licenses Close-out State date licenses licenses Terminated inspections Ala.
6/14/91 467 11 74 0
Ariz.
6/12/92 297 14 22 24 Ark.
2/26/93 254 19 9
1 Calif.
1/29/93 2,231 120 118 Colo.
4/9/93 403 24 86 0
Fla.
2/26/93 1,100 44 95 10 Ga.
10/18/91 658 26 103 4
til.
1/21/92 957 68 57 0
lowa 7/20/90 219 6
5 2
Kans.
2/26/93 332 4
8 3
Ky.
4/17/92 388 4
20 2
La.
8/23/91 550 23 67 3
Maine 4/28/93 116 2
3 1'
Md.
3/27/91 516 22 94 38 Miss.
9/13/91 320 7
52 5
N.C.
11/22/91 504 36 75 0
N.Dak.
6/07/91 87 3
16 5
Nebr.
6/26/92 177 9
14 4
N.H.
6/5/92 108 2
17 N.Mex.
8/14/92 225 7
13 23 Nev.
3/5/93 152 2
5 0
N.Y.
9/30/92 1,689 111 94 15 Oreg.
4/2/93 299 12 19 2
R.I.
11/22/91 68 2
10 1
S.C.
3/24/93 325 23 10 2
Tenn.
12/13/91 554 33 47 3
Tex.
3/27/92 1,731 18 164 83 Utah.
4/17/92 215 12 35 1
Wash.
7/17/92 379 27 40 1
Total 15,321 689 1,372 233
- Data not available.
Source: Data were octained from agreement-state questionnaires at of June 30,1993.
6 1
Table 11.3: Agreement States' Inspections and Civil Penalty Authority Reciprocity Review Inspecuans Number inspections Civil penalty State date completed overdue Notice Number Percent authority Ala.
6/14/91 250 2
400 4
1.0 Yes Ariz.
6/12/92 294 0
48 2
4.1 Yes Ark.
2/26/93 84 21 554 11 2
Yes Caltf.
1/29/93 334 53 118 23 19.5 Yes Colo.
4/9/93 172 2
276 3
1.0 Yes Fla.
2/26/93 487 9
200 7
3.5 Yes Ga.
10/18/91 296 0
277 6
2.2 Yes 1 11.
1/21/92 711 0
531 9
1.7 Yes towa 7/20/90 88 0
17 0 0
0 Yes Kans.
2/26/93 105 21 80 7
8.8 Yes Ky.
4/17/92 110 0
625 4
.64 Yes La.
8/23/91 481 29 474 11 2.3 Yes Maine 4/28/93 6
25 123 0
0 Yes f.ki.
3/27/91 264 89 240 21 8.7 Yes Miss.
9/13/91 195 0
1.002 15 1.5 No N.C.
11/22/91 671 0
94 15 16.0 Yes N.Dak.
6/07/91 80 16 25 2
8.0 Yes Nebr.
6/26/92 15 20 137 1
.007 Yes N.H.
6/5/92 31 43 220 6
2.7 No N.Mex.
8/14/92 255 0
46 3
6.5 No Nev.
3/5/93 83 0
120 2
1.6 No 3
l N.Y.
9/30/92 812 60 500 10 2
3 No.1 Yes Oreg.
4/2/93 219 0
143 3
2.1 No R.I.
11/22/91 34 0
29 0
0 No S.C.
3/24/93 394 0
332 0
0 Yes Tenn.
12/13/91 153 83 253 2
.8 Yes Tax.
3/27/92 1915 0
693 44 6.3 Yes Utah.
4/17/92 108 2
84 2
2.4 Yes Wash.
7/17/92 279 0
54 3
5.5 No Total 8,926 475 7.778 216 Somrx Data were obtained from agreement-state questionnaires as of June 30,1993.
o 9
t
I UPDATE OF DATA IN APPENDIX III TO GA0/RCED-93-90 As a result of a meeting with GA0 on June 28, 1993, we have attempted to verify the numbers contained in Appendix III of the April, 1993, Government Accounting Office (GAO) report, "Better Criteria and Data Would Help Ensure Safety of Nuclear Materials," wherever possible. Our results are contained in the enclosed table, which provides our best information alongside the GA0 numbers.
In talking to the NRC Regions, we determined that there was some ambiguity about the information GA0 was requesting, possibly due to differences.in approach from Region to Region. As a result, the types of information provided by each Region may not have been the same.
In assembling the infcemation enclosed with this letter, we have attempted to minimize any questions of interpretation and to provide consistent data from NRC's various information systems.
We have included updated numbers on incidents or alleged incidents reported, total licenses, major licenses, licenses terminated, inspections conducted, inspections overdue and reciprocity notices received. We were not able to provide updated information on all the categories in the GA0 table, primarily because the data is not maintained in our system and would require manual retrieval of the information. These include inspections conducted in response to incidents and alleged incidents, staff per hundred licensees, close out inspections, and reciprocity inspections.
ENCLOSURE 3 I-
j Updated NRC FY 91 Data for GAO Appendix ill Table
)
INCIDENTS OR ALLEGED INCIDENTS REGION REPORTED ~
GAO NRC Region i 243 180 Region ll 138 86 Region til 25 145 Hegion IV 92 108 Region V 25 15 TOTAL:
523 535 P
Total" Major Licenses REGION Licenses licenses"'
Terminated GAO NRC GAO NRC GAO NRC Region i 2700 2551 100 294 200 169 Region 11 945 912 61 59 65 65 Region 111 2593 2489 231 181 300 182 Region IV 820 796 116 55 123 73 Region V 319 243 17 21 29 29 TOTAL:
7377 6991 525 610 717 518
Inspections inspections Reciprocity REGION Completed Overdue Notices Received GAO NRC GAO NRC GAO NRC Region I 613 1288 638 12 300 226 Region ll 440 394 2
1 35 181 Region ill 692 1163 25 48 50 4
Region IV 318 305 4
18 220 293 Region V 133 117 2
8 112 22 g
TOTAL:
2196 3267 671 87 717 726 NRC data on incider.ts and alleged incidents derived from 1991 AEOD data on non-reactor events reported and 1991 Allegation Management System report.
NRC data on total licenses derived from 1/8/92 printout of byproduct material licenses.
NRC data on major materials licenses generated using definition contained in OSP questionnaire.
l