ML20141D035
| ML20141D035 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/18/1997 |
| From: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Diaz N, Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Mcgaffigan E, Rogers K, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141D041 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9706260244 | |
| Download: ML20141D035 (12) | |
Text
. ~ _ . - - - - .. . - . - . - . . . - . _- -
g ceco pw o& UNITED STATES s
t j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.c. 20555-0001
\ %g# June 18, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz
, Commissioner McGaffigan FROM: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director fo perations
SUBJECT:
FOLLOWUP REPORT ON VOLUNTARY REPORTING BY THE j
AGREEMENT STATES UNDER REVISED GUIDANCE AND AN ENHANCED DATA COLLECTION t
l
, This memorandum provides an update to the August 12,1996, memorandum to the i
Commission, that provided a summary of an assessment of the effectiveness of a six-month trial program of voluntary material event reporting by the Agreement States to the NRC. The trial program used revised guidance and a pilot version of an enhanced database collection system. The enhanced " Nuclear Materials Events Database (NMED)" developed and maintained by the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD), was designed to provide a more current and detailed collection of information on material events received from NRC licensees and the Agreement States. A copy of the final version
' of NMED was provided to the Agreement States in September 1996, along with additional
' training. The August 12,1996, memorandum recommended that we provide the Agreement States additional time to revise their event reporting procedures and to install
' and implement the final version of NMED. This memorandum, covering June 1,1996 -
May 9,1997, provides a followup assessment of the effectiveness of the effort to increase Agreement State voluntary participation in the reporting of material events, through i procedural changes, revised guidance, and an enhanced database.
! Based on the assessment, the staff concludes that Agreement States are reporting l
significant events. However, there is a need for NRC staff to place continued emphasis on event reporting since voluntary reporting by Agreement States of information about less significant events and followup event information has been inconsistent. The staff plans to continue to emphasize this area during integrated Materials Performance Evaluation i
Program (IMPEP) reviews and by semi-annually assessing NMED data. The staff notes that the final Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs j (SECY-97-054), currently under review by the Commission, has categorized event i reporting as a requirement for compatibility for an Agreement State program. The inclusion
, of event reporting as a provision for an Agreement State to maintain compatibility in their
, radiation control program will help to provide greater focus on event reporting within the
Contact:
Patricia M. Larkins, OSP
\
(301) 415-2309 (
n r q 01 M* p, w 12 3 M9706260244 RMCETBCWY 970618 6 PM PDR STPRQ ESGQEW PDR
The Commissioners 2 I Agreement State programs, it would also provide the staff a vehicle to recommend rather than suggest improvements in a State's program in those cases where the need for improvements in event reporting have been identified.
Backaround I 1
Under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, the NRC is required to periodically review l Agreement State radiation control programs and confirm that they are adequate to protect l public health and safety and are compatible with NRC programs. The response to incidents and events that have occurred in the Agreement States are included in the formal radiation control program reviews periodically conducted under IMPEP.
As part uf the collective effort by NRC and the Agreement States to regulate the use of nuclear materials, NRC and the Agreement States (through compatible regulations) require the reporting of incidents and events involving nuclear materials by the regulated community. Currently, through a longstanding practice of sharing regulatory information with the NRC, most Agreement States voluntarily provide information on events involving I nuclear material that have occurred at an Agreement State licensee's facility, in response to recommendations from the General Accounting Office and Congress to increase uniformity and improve the Agreement State Program, staff of the NRC and the Agreement States worked together to design a material event information system, NMED, that would be useful to both the NRC and the Agreement States. The database has been designed to accommodate both NRC AEA information and any non-AEA radiation event information generated by the Agreement States. Several workshops were held and the States provided useful comments that were incorporated into the final database system.
As previously discussed in the August 12,1996, memorandum to the Commission, the staff also developed a draf t guidance document " Handbook on Nuclear Material Event Reporting in the Agreement State," (" Event Reporting Handbook"), March 1995, to provide greater uniformity in event reporting between NRC licensees and the Agreement States, improve the content of the information provided, and to improve the effectiveness of NRC's analysis of significant Agreement State events. The " Event Reporting Handbook" established procedures for the Agreement States to repco as follows:
(1) Significant events (24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or less notification by licensees) should be reported to the NRC Operations Center; (2) Routine events with less safety significance (30-day notification) should be provided electronically via e-mail, diskette, or in writing on a monthly basis; and; (3 Followup information should be provided to NRC on the results of ongoing event investigations (significant and routine events) on a monthly basis. All event reports should include the expanded information identified for NMED.
Note, in the case of a significant event, reporting to the NRC Operations Center allows NRC staff to conduct timely analyses of the response by the Agreement State, provide timely comments and recommendations, when necessary, and respond to any requests for
4 The Commissioners 3 additional resources that may be needed by a State in their response to the event in the case of,an emergency situation.
The staff plans to complete a final version of the draft " Event Reporting Handbook" by January 1998, and willincorporate any changes to the program as a result of the revised adequacy and compatibility policy statement currently under review by the Commission.
Discussion The Agreement States were provided with a final version of the NMED system in Septembsr 1996. A member of the staff of AEOD provided training to staff of NRC Regions 11 and Ill, and provided additional training on installation and demonstrated the usefulness of NMED as a general purpose events database that can accommodate all the States event information including non-AEA material, to the following Agreement States:
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Arkansas.
To assess whether Agreement States voluntarily reported events during the period June 1, 1996 - May 9,1997, the NRC staff analyzed four areas as follows:
(1) The results of the review of the performance indicator " Response to incidents and Allegations" during IMPEP reviews of Agreement State programs.
During the period under review, eight Agreement State IMPEP reviews were conducted:
Nebraska, Maryland, Louisiana, California, Tennessee, Mississippi, Colorado, and Illinois. ,
Review findings indicated that all eight States were satisfactory for this review indicator.
The findings indicated that the response to incidents was appropriate and that the States in ]
which significant events occurred did provide information on the events. A comparison of }
the NMED event information and the event information found in the State records !
indicated, however, that event information for two States was captured in NMED, but the )
majority of States were not reporting all routine events with less safety significance (those requiring 30-day notification) in accordance with the guidance contained in the " Event Reporting Handbook." The staff found that one State, Nebraska, was not providing any material event information. In response to the findings, Nebraska has begun providing event information on a monthly basis. The staff will continue to place emphasis on this area during IMPEP reviews.
(2) The extent to which Agreement States voluntarily reported significant events with special emphasis on reporting to the NRC Operations Center. ;
1 The revised procedure to report significant events to the NRC Operations Center has resulted in an increase in the number of calls to the NRC Operations Center from Agreement States. The Headquarters and Regional staff are working together to inform ,
those few States that continue to report to the Regional State Agreements Officer (RSAO) i to call the NRC Operations Center. During the period under review, the NRC Operations Center coordinated the Federal response effort to provide support to the State of Louisiana for the significant event involving exposures at Western Atlas, a well-logging company.
The benefit of the NRC Operations Center coordination of responses to events in '
Agreement States was identified from an evaluation of the Larpen of Texas event involving
4 The Commissioners 4 stolen radiography cameras that contained Ir-192 and Co-60 sources. The event resulted in exposures to members of the public. Notification of the occurrence of the event was not provided to the NRC Headquarters Operations Officer, which resulted in a delay in the assessment of the need for an aerial survey. An AEOD analysis of the early response to this event identified the lack of a single office or organization in the lead for coordination of the response (Federal or otherwise) as a weakness that resulted in some confusion, potential delays and a lack of efficiency in the response. The use of the NRC Operations Center to coordinate the Federal response could have resulted in a more efficient response by DOE and NRC.
(3) The extent to which Agreement States provided followup information on all events.
The staff found that the Agreement States continue to voluntarily provide followup information on significant events and cooperate in responding to any additional requests for-information from the NRC. However, the stsff does not have the same degree of confidence that the Agreement States voluntarily provide followup information on routine events with less safety significance (those requiring 30-day notification by licensees). Few 4
Agreement States routinely and consistently provide followup information on routine events on a monthly basis in accordance with current guidance.
(4) The results of NMED data and information.
A review of the information collected in the NMED system es of May 9,1997, indicated that 20 Agreement States voluntarily provided information on material events received from Agreement State licensees, and 10 had not reported any information. Subsequent telephone calls by the staff to the 10 States that had not reported resulted in five States providing event information. Four States (lowa, Kansas, Maine and Rhode Island) indicated I
that no reportable material events occurred and one State (New York) agreed to provide the information. The calls by thrs staff increased from 20 to 30, the number of Agreement States voluntarily providing, or agreeing to provide, information on the occurrence of any material events during the period of evaluation. The staff notes that, as requested, North Dakota, Oregon, and Utah consistently provided information on whether or not any events occurred in their States on a monthly basis during the assessment period. Nebraska and Tennessee recently began routine monthly reporting in 1997.
In summary, 20 Agreement States provided event information voluntarily,10 responded, or agreed to respond, when specifically requested by the NRC in May 1997. Additionally, a significant number of Agreement States are providing information less frequently than the I
requested monthly basis and approximately fifty percent of the Agreement States continue to provide less detailed information than is requested under the revised procedures for NMED information.
A survey of the Agreement States to find out how many States had installed the NMED system and planned to use it to report material events, was conducted in April 1997. A response was received from 19 of the Agreement States indicating that 14 States had 1 stalled NMED and planned to use the database system. One State, Florida, installed NMED but will download information from their own system. Ten of the 19 States
The Commissioners 5 responding requested additional training, and the staff is working on a schedule to provide this additional training.
A review of the assessment presented in the August 12,1996, memorandum to the Commission, in comparison to this review, indicates little change in voluntary event reporting by the Agreement States. There was an increase in the number of States voluntarily participating in the use of NMED. One State is reporting electronically, seven States are reporting via PC diskette, and nine additional States have committed to use the system.
Conclusion The staff concludes that the Agreement States are reporting significant events. However, although the Agreement States receive information on events with less safety significance and followup event information from their licensees and maintain the information, they voluntarily provide the information to the NRC less frequently than monthly or not until specifically requested by the NRC. Some States have indicated that a decision on whether to voluntarily provide event information on a monthly basis can sometimes be based on the most efficient use of limited resources when faced with higher priority needs for action in-other areas of their programs.
The staff concludes that there is a need for continued emphasis in this area since voluntary reporting of information about less significant events and followup event information has been inconsistent.
Future Actions
- The staff plans to continue to emphasize this area by semi-annually assessing NMED data and will examine findings for the performance indicator " Response to incidents and Allegations" under IMPEP. Based on the assessment, the staff will request event information from those Agreement States that have not provided complete information on material events. The staff also plans to finalize guidance contained in the draft " Event Reporting Handbook." Finally, the staff notes that the proposed final Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs, currently under review by the Commission, requires event reporting as a compatibility element. The inclusion of event reporting as a required compatibility element instead of reporting by voluntary exchange of information, will help to provide greater focus on event reporting within the Agreement State programs. It would also provide the staff a vehicle to recommend rather than suggest improvements in a State's program in those cases where the need for improvements in event reporting have been identified. The staff did not include options in this assessment, as indicated in COMSECY-96-043, since SECY-97-054' requires reporting of event information using the new compatibility policy. Following Commission approval of the adequacy and compatibility implementing procedures, the staff plans to
'See the Program Element: " Event Reporting," in the Program Element Chart contained in Office of State Programs Internal Procedure B.7 (Revision 1): Compatibility Categories and Health and Safety identification for NRC Regulations and Other Program Elements, attached to SECY-97-054.
l The Commissioners 6 gain experience in applying those procedures to improve Agreement State reporting of event information. The staff will also continue to emphasize this area during IMPEP reviews and in those areas where an Agreement State is not reporting event inforrnation, the staff will address the need for improvement in IMPEP findings and recommendations i for that State's review.
f i
l The Commissioners 6 gain experience in applying those procedures to improve Agreement State reporting of i event information. The staff will also continue to emphasize this area during IMPEP reviews and in those areas where an Agreement State is not reporting event information, the staff will address the need for improvement in IMPEP findings and recommendations l for that State's review. I cc: SECY' l OCA l ooc OPA l
I l
I I
Distribution:
DlR RF (4W193) DCD (SP01)
SDroggitis PDR (YES V NO )
RSAOs RSLOs DOCUMENT NAME: G:\PML\COMMEVT.PL 'See previous concurrence.
Ta receive a copy of this document, indicate in the boa: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure *N* = No copy OFFICE OSP OSP:DD AEOD AEOD l OGC NAME PMLarkins PHLohaus SLPettijohn FCongel FCameron DATE 05/30/97* 05/30/97* 06/03/97* 06/03/97* 06/04/97*
l OFFICE NMSS:D OSP:D DEDR EDp NAME CPaperiello RLBangart HLThompson LJO,iTIBM DATE 06/02/97* 06/06/97* 06/16/97* 06/$97 OSP FILE CODE:' SP-E-9
/
i
- The Commissioners 6 gain experience in applying those procedures to improve Agreement St e reporting of event information. The staff will also continue to emphasize this are during IMPEP reviews and in those areas where an Agreement State is not reporti event information, the staff will address the need for improvement in IMPEP findings 1d recommendations
, for that State's review. j i
cc: SECY l OCA i OGC I OPA l 1
l l
l l
l 1
Distribution:
DlR RF (4W193) DCD (SP01)
SDroggitis PDR (YES v' O )
RSAOs RSLOs l l DOCUMENT NAME: G:\PML\COMMEVTjPL 'See previous concurrence. '
To receive a copy of this document, indicate h the bos: 'C' .h Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachrnent/ enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE OSP OSP:DD AEOD AEOD l OGC NAME PMLarkins PHLohaus SLPettijohn FCongel FCameron DATE 05/30/97* 05/30/97* 06/03/97* 06/03/97* 06/04/97* 1 OFFICE NMSS:D / OSP:D DEDR EDO NAME CPaperiello / RLBangart HLTh41Tpson LJCallan l DATE 06/02/97* / 06/06/97* 06/b/97 06/ /97 I OSP FILE CODE: SP-E-9 I' i 4 !
i
- _ _ _ - =_ . _
The Cornmissioners 6 gain experience in applying those procedures to improve Agreement State reporting of event information. Staff will also continue to emphasize this area during IMPEP reviews and in those areas where an Agreement State is not reporting event information, staff will address the need for improvement in IMPEP findings and recommendations for that State's review.
cc: SECY OCA OGC OPA Distribution:
DlR RF (4W193) DCD (SP01)
SDroggitis PDR (YES v' NO )
RSAOs RSLOs DOCUMENT NAME: G:\PML\COMMEVT.PL "See previous concurrence.
Ta receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without ottachment/ enclosure "E" = Copy with ettachrnent/ enclosure "N* = No copy OFFICE OSP OSP:DD AEOD AEOD OGC NAME PMLarkins PHLohaus SLPettijohn FCongel FCameron DATE 05/30/97* 05/30/97,* 06/03/97* 06/03/97' '
06/04/97*
OFFICE NMSS:D OSP:Dj') (I DEDR EDO NAME CPaperiello RLBandbit"' HLThompson LJCallan I
DATE 06/02/97* 06f(c/97 06/ /97 06/ /97 l OSP FILE CODE: S P-E-9
1~ =.
The Commissioners 6 i
l area during IMPEP reviews and in those areas where an Agre ment State is not reporting event information, staff will address the need for improveme t ir. IMPEP findings and recommendations for that States' review.
1 Distribution:
DIR RF (4W193) DCD (SP01)
SDroggitis PDR (YESf_ NO RSAO's RSLO's CC: SECY OCA OPA OGC DOCUMENT NAME: G:\PML\COMMEVT.PL Tm receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the boa: 'C' pyy hiout attachment! enclosure *E' = Copy with attachment! enclosure *N* = No copy OFFICE 'g J,P O g lg OS hep /jl AEOD l AEOD l AEOD NAME ' f"PPXEarkins Phiob(4 SLPettijohn FCongel DFRossi:D DATE 05/30/97 05d)/p7 05/ /97 05/ /97 05/ /97 OFFICE OGCfL/p-l NMSS:p j [ OSP:D l I DEDR l EDO NAME FCamfroT CPapefiello RLBangait HLThompson LJCallan DATE Opp 5/ 97 05/ //97 05/ /97 05/ /97 05/ /97 OSPTTEE CODE: SP-E-9 k((((/p):$lg l '
l
s The Commissioners 5 participating in the use of NMED. One State is reporting electronically, seven States are NK reporting via PC diskette, and nine additional States have committed to use the system.
4 9 Conclus
[ j Y d [
Ibe staff co~nclUdis thatstge Aareement Stal ~
valu 'e sig. it' ance of ent o(t3el S
.actMhealth andiafety riskkolve } rif w g e > l "Aleem'end tates-eMisiistly alsiFtidge trieir3acist -- "
- - -tiness Of ropdrtmg ,9 informaiIo~E on events 'with less safety _signific]Iic_e_and followup event inforrmFtinrr 4
= c';crt ww.Lamerl64>sempahWe-sepulebens., the egmenTStites recieiv ._3[1
"'-9Jn-from their licensees and maintain the information, Moluntarily provide the information to NRC less frequently than monthly or not until specifically requested by NRC.
Some States have indicated that a decision on whether to voluntarily provide event information on a monthly basis can sometimes be based on the most efficient use of limited resources when faced with higher priority need for action in other areas of their programs.
The staff concludes that there is a need for continued emphasis in this area since voluntary reporting of information about less significant events and followup event information has been inconsistent.
Future Actions
) The staff plans to continue to emphasize this area by semi-annually assessing NMED data and will examine findings for the performance indicator " response to incidents and allegations" under IMPEP for those States reviewed during the semi-annual assessment period. Based on the assessment, staff will provide notification to those Agreement States 6 hat have not provided any routine information on material events. The staff also plans to finalize guidance contained in the draft " Event Reporting Handbook" and periodically
%, x schedule training workshops. Finally, staff notes that the proposed final Policy Statement
- Y D y ,p ILAdequacy and Compsfibii y of Agreement State Programs, currently under review ~ by ]
p\ 9 0 the Commission, has categorized event reporting as a requirement for compatibility for an Agreement State program. The inclusion of event reporting as a provision for an
(
E Agreement State to maintain compatibility in their radiation control program rather than the
\
Dq[h current status under voluntary exchange of information will help to provide greater focus
. on event reporting within the Agreement State programs. It would also provide the staff a
\ vehicle to recommend rather than suggest improvements in a State's program in those t# \ cases where the need for improvements in event reporting have been identified.
p- s-7 The staff did not include options in this assessment, as indicated in COMSECY-96-043, since SECY 97-054 requires reporting of event information using the new compatibility
@)[/ \
policy. Following Commission approval of the adequacy and compatibility implementing procedures, the staff plans to gain experience in applying those procedures to improve Agreement State reporting of even ormation. Staff will also continue to emphasize this
}
a q p sw" we msw1 - M <sv d -
FWNIy9b pur>v\ kA OC V.'[*.g&x 4%.gg 4 k. & .
The Commissioners 6 area during IMPEP reviews and in those areas where an A eement State is not reporting event information, staff will address the need for improve ent in IMPEP findings and recommendations for that States' review. l l
l l
l l
l Distribution:
DIR RF (4W193) DCD (SP01)
SDroggitis PDR (YES v' NO )
RSAO's RSLO's CC: SECY OCA OPA OGC DOCUMENT NAME: G:\PML\COMMEVT.PL Ta r.c.sv. . .py of thi. e.com.nt, indie.i. in th. b. : c My w$out .tt. chm.nt/.neio.ur. E* = Copy with .ttachment/.nclosur. "N* = No copy E OFFICE , mJPg O lg OS b2Q/'[ l AEOD AEOD Al AEOD /
j NAME T"PMEarkins PH2 oydtfA SLPettijohn Fpongel g( QFRojse D DATE 05/30/97 05d!)97 /d 06/3/97 q5/3/9M M5/ /97 OFFICE OGC NMSjs:D OSP:D DEDR l EDO
! NAME FCameron CPaberiello RLBangart HLThompson LJCallan DATE 05/ /97 Oy/ /97 05/ /97 05/ /97 05/ /97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-E-9
/