ML20199B467

Forwards Mgt Directive 5.6, Impep, Per Subtitle E of Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1966

ML20199B467
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/10/1997
From:	Rathbun D NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA)
To:	Gingrich N, Gore A, Murphy R GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, HOUSE OF REP., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, SENATE, PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE
Shared Package
ML20199B473	List: ML20199B467 ML20199B475
References
CCS, NUDOCS 9711190002
Download: ML20199B467 (3)

Text

-

)

j l , , **eo

\

d$r 0xlk l

' 4 UNITEb STATES f

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y

+*

[ .W ASH:NeToN. D.C. sages.copi October 10, 1997 The Honorable Newt Gingrich Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 1

Dear Mr. Speaker:

PuIsuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966, 5 U.S.C. 801, the U.S. Nuclesr Regulatory Commission (NRC) is submitting the enclosed Management Directive 5.6 (MD 5.6), Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program )

- (IMPEP). l l

Under.Section 274 of the Aternic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the NRC is authorized to enter into agreements with the Governor of any State, whereby the State is authorized as an Agreement State (A/S) to ceOulate the use of reactor produced isotopes (byproduct materials), source materials, special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a l

critical mass, i+ anium mill tallings, and the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The l NRC period;cally reviews each A/S program and actions taken by the State under its l

Agreement to ensure compliance with Section 274 of the Act. Under M.D. 5.6, the radiation control program reviews are performed in an integrated manner, using common L performance indicators, to ensure that the public health and safety is being adequately protected. The objectives of IMPEP are to: (1) establish the process by which NRC ,

conducts its periodic assessment to determine the adequacy of NRC regional and A/S i l licensing and inspection programs; (2) provide NRC and A/S management with a more l systematic and integrated approach to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their l nuclear materiallicensing and inspection programs; and (3) provide signifier.nt input in the l l regulatory decision-making process and indicate areas in which NRC and A/S should dedicate more resources or management attention.

L 1

We have determined that M.D. 5.6 is not a " major rule," as defined in 5 U.S.C 804(2). We j have confirmed this determination with the Office of Management and Budget.  ;

l A Notice of the Final implementation of IMPEP and availability of MD 5.6 will be published l in the Federal Reaister informing the puolic.

l Sincerely, l ((g L M/ Dennis K. Rathbun, Director f. f i Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosure:

- As stated 9711190002 971010 P PCR. ORG letCCO PDR;

. . .. x ., .. _ _

ne.g g k "

UNITED STATES l

( g  ; NUCLEAR REOULATORY COMMISSION wAswinotoN, D.C. 30sedW1001

.g k ,,

October 10, 1997 The Honorable Al Gore President of the United States Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. President:

Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966, 5 U.S.C. 801, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornmission (NRC) is submitting the enclosed Management Directive 5.6 (MD 5.6), Integrated Materials Performance Evaluathn Program (IMPEP).  !

l Under Section 274 of the Atomic Eriergy Act of '954, as amended, the NRC is authorized to enter into agreements with the Governor of any State, whereby the State is authorized i as an Agreement State (A/S) to regulate the use of reactor produced isotopes (byproduct materials), source materials, special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a

critical mass, uranium mill tailings, and the disposal of low level radioactive waste. The l l NRC periodically reviews each A/S program and actions taken by the State under its Agreement to ensure compliance with Section 274 of the Act. Under M.D. ti.6, the radiation control program reviews are performed in an integrated manner, using common performance indicators, to ensure that the public health and safety is being adequately protected. The cbjectives of IMPEP are to

(1) establish the process by which NRC conducts its periodic assessment to determine the adequacy of NRC regional and A/S licensing and inspection programs; (2) provide NRC and A/S management with a more systematic and integrated approach to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their nucle..' materiallicensing and inspection programs; and (3) provide significant input in the regulatory decision-making process and indicate areas in which NRC and A/S should dedicate more resources or management attention.

We have determined that M.D. 5.6 is not a " major rJte," as defined in 5 U.S.C 804(2). We have confirmed this determination with the Office of Management and Budget.

A Notice of the Final implementation of IMPEP and availability of MD 5.6 will be published in the Federal Reaister informing the public.

Sincerely, e

Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosure:

As stated W

, . . $****uq l 4

y k UrdlTED 8TATES-g

[ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e- WASNINGToN, D.C. a000H001

%w*/- October 10, 1997 Mr. Robert P. Murphy General Counsel-General Accounting Office l 441 G Street, NW, Room 7175 I Washington, DC 20548 I

Dear Mr. Murphy:

I Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966, 5 U.S.C. 801, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is submitting the enclosed

' Management Directive 5.6 (MD 5.6), Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program l (IMPEP). I I

Under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act or 1954, as emended, the NRC is authorized )

to enter into agreements with the Governor of any State, whereby the State is authorized i I

as an Agreement State (A/S) to regulate the use of reactor-produced isotopes (byproduct materials), source materials, special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass, uranium mill tallings, and the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The NRC perio *ically reviews each A/S program and actions taken by the State under its Agreement to ensure compliance with Section 274 of the Act. Under M.D. 5.6, the '

radiation control program reviews are performed in an integrated manner, using common performance indicators, to ensure that the public health and safety is being adequately protected. The objectives of IMPEP are to: (1) establish the process by which NRC conducts its periodic assessment to determine the adequacy of NRC regional and A/S licensing and inspection programs; (2) provide NRC and A/S management with a more systematic and integrated approach to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their nuclear material licensing and inspecen programs; and (3) provide significant input in the regulatory decision making process and indicate areas in which NRC and A/S should l dedicate more resources or management attention.

l We have determined that M.D. 5.6 is not a " major rule," as defined in 5 U.S.C 804(2). We have confirmed this determination with the Off. - e ~ Nianagement and Budget.

A Notice of the Final Irrolementation of IMPEP and avaikbility of MD 5.6 will be published in the Federal Reaister informing the public.

Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs i ~

Enclosure:

- As stated

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DIRECTIVE TRANSMITTAL ' - a l

l

'th': DT-95-20 To: NRC Management Directives Custodians I

Subject:

Transmittal of Management Directive 5.6, " Integrated Materials Performance Evaluanon Program (IMPEP)"

Purpose Directive and Handbook 5.6 are being issued to establish the t process by which the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards and the Office of State Programs, with assistance from ,

the Agreement States, conduct their periodic assessments of the NRC regions and Agreement States to determine the adequacy of the nuclear material licensing and inspection programs.

Office of Origin: Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards and Office of State Programs >

Contact:

George Deegan,415-7834 Date Approved: September 12,1995 Volume: 5 Governmental Relations and Public Affairs Directive: 5.6 Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

I Availability: U.S. Government Printing Office, (202; 512-2409

)

i e

i OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATlON qmrer6TTT as t t -

9 ,

Integrated Materials

! Performance Evaluation  ;

Program (IMPEP)

____== = _ _ _=_ _ =__= _ _=_

m a Directive 5.6 i

i i

i l

l V

! C lWE02iCII""Cl*fnC%iTi"'ZUSMWFEU^IrlI? CEZf?PJETC527 ECEE %?aE?MZLEL?nWMM3 i

I i

'--------------______________ - , , , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - , _ , , _ w"- yy.v ,, ,

~

Clume 5, Governmental Relations and Pcblic Affairs

- '. Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

' Directiva 5 6 Contents 1

Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 Obj ectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Organizational Responsibilities and Delegations of Authority . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards, and Operations Support (DEDS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) and Director, Office of State Programs (OSP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2

~ G en e ral Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

- rector, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD) . . . 3

%gional Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3

Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

H a n d book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . 3 Re feren ces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Approved: September 12,1995 iii

y.. -

I ,i U. S, Nuclear Regulct ry Czmmissi n Volume: 5 Governmental Relations and Public

(, *****,/ Affairs NMSS/OSP Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Directive 5.6 Policy (5.6-01)

It is the policy of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to evaluate the regional materials programs and AgreerrM State radiation control programs in an integrated manne. 2 sing common performance indicators, to ensure that the public health and safety is being adequately protected.

Objectives (5.6-02) e Tb establish the process by which the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards and the Office of State Programs conduct their periodic assessments to determine the adequacy of the licensing and inspection programs in the NRC regions and Agreement States. (021)

• 'Ib provide NRC and Agreement State management with a more systematic and integrated approach to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their nuclear material licensing and inspection programs. (022) e To provide significant input in the regulatory decisionmaking process and indicate areasin which NRC and the Agreement States should dedicate more resources or management attention. (023) 1 Approved: September 12,1995

V;1ume 5, Governmental Relations and Pchlic Affairs l '.

1 Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) .

Directive 5.6 -

Organizational Responsibilities and Delegations of Authority (5.6-03)

Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards, and Operations Support (DEDS)

(031) e Oversees the integrated materials performance evaluation program (BIPEP). (a) e Chairs management review boards. (b) e Signs Snal reports issued to each region and A;teement State. (c)

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safely and Safeguards (NMSS) and Director, Office of State Programs (OSP)

(032) e Implement the BIPEP within NMSS and OSP. Provide staffing support and training for review teams. (a)

. Establish a schedule and develop a detailed review regimen for conducting the reviews in each region and Agreement State. (b) e Monitor the BIPEP process; evaluate and develop IMPEP policy, criteria, and methodology, and assess the uniformity and adequacy of the implementation of the program. (c)

. Issue draft reports and prepare final reports for each region and State for consideration by the muagement review board and signature by the DEDS. (d) e Participate on management review boards. (e) e Coordinate with Agreement States to staff BIPEP reviews and the management review board with appropriate Agreement State representatives. (f)

General Counsel (033)

Participates on management review boards.

2 Approved: September 12,1995

Volume 5, Governmental Relations and Public Affairs

., . IEtegrated Mderials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

.- Directive 5.6 Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD)

_(034)

Participates on management review boards.

Regional Administrators (035) e Implement the IMPEP within their respective regions. (a) e Provide staffing support for review teams, as needed. (b)

Applicability

_ (5.6-04)

The policy and guidance in this directive and handbook apply to all NRC employees who are responsible for and participate in the IMPEP.

Handbook (5.6-05)

Handbook 5.6 describes the performance indicators that will be used, the performance standards against which these indicators will be evaluated, and the frequency and process sequence to be employed.

The " Glossary" in the handbook also dennes some of the iey terminology.

References (5.6-06)

Code of Federal Regulations,10 CFR 35.2, " Purpose and Scope."

NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 1245, " Inspector Qualifications."

, Chapter 1246, " Materials Ucense Reviewer Qualification."

, Chapter 2800, " Materials Inspection Program." -

Approved: September 12,1995 3

4 e 4

Integrated Materials ,

Performance Evaluation l Program (IMPEP)

_==_=____==_ _ _______

Handbook 5.6 4

I i

i NTMd3?DEIEDIUEE$I$N[41@d$D7N8DMDiC f1D2EOd21$M2dMEdUdMSEIx$2MMMDEEDYdOIdNO NNNEdb i

~

Volume 5, Governmental Relations and Public Affairs

. Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Parts I -IV O

t Con. tents Part I Eval ua t ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Evaluation Frequency (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Evahtation Process Sequence (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Part II Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 G e n e ral (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Programmatic Indicators (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Performance Indicator 1-Status of Materials Inspection Program (1) . . . . . . . 4 Performance Indicator 2-Tecimical Staffing and 'Iraining (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Petformance Indicator 3-hchnical Quality of Ucensing Actions (3) . . . . . . . . 5 Performance Indicator 4-Technical Quality of Inspections (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Peiformance Indicator 5-Response to Incidents and Allegations (5) . . . . . . . . 6 Part III Eval u at io n C ri t eria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Indicator 1-Status of Materials Inspection Program (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 S a tisfa ct ory (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Satisfactory With Recommendat*ons for Improvement (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Unsatisfa ctory (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Ca t e go ry N (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Indicator 2-Technical Staffing and Training (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 S a ti sfa ct ory ( 1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 U nsatisfa ctory (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Cat e gory N (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Indicator 3-Tbchnical Quality of Ucensing Actions (C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Sstisfactory (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Unsatisfactory (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Approved: September 12,1995 iii

Volume 5, Governmental Relations and Public Affairs '

l- .

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) -

Handbook 5.6 Parts I-IV 4

I Contents  :

Part III(continued) 12 Cat e gory N (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 Indicator 4 'Ibchnical Quality of Inspections (D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

x.'

Satisfa ctory (1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 Satisfactoiy With Recommendations for Improvement (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 U nsa tisfa ctory (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 Ca t e gory N (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 Indicator 5-Response to Incidents and Allegations (E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 Satisfactory (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 Unsa tisfa ct ory (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 Cat e gory N (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part IV 15 Programmatic Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 G en e ral (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 Findings for Agreement State Programs (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Finding 1- Adequate to Protect Public Health and Safety and 16 Comp a tibl e (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Finding 2- Adequate to Protect Public Health and Safety and 16 Not Compatible (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Finding 3- Adequate, But Needs Improvement and/or Not Compatible (3) . . 16 Finding 4-Inadequate to Protect Public Health and Safety and/or 17 Not Compatible (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 Findings for NRC Regional Programs (C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18 G los s ary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv Approved: September 12,1995

V;lume 5, Governmental Relations and Public Aftirs Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part I Part I Evaluation Evaluation Frequency (A)

NRC will review the performance of each region and each Agreement State on a periodic basis. The schedule for conducting each regional or Agreement State visit will be developed by the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) and the Office of State Programs (OSP) in coordination with the regions and States.

Approximately 10 to 12 reviews will be scheduled in most years. Under

sormal conditions, this would allow evaluations of NRC regions every

' years, i and Agreement States every 3 years. However, these frequencies can be adjusted upward or downward on the basis of the findings from the last review or in light of significant program chs uges in a particular State or region. In addition, this schedule prosides for review of certain NMSS functions on an ac-needed basis.

Evaluation Process Sequence (s)

The typical evaluation process for the review team is summarized below:

e Develop review schedule for the year. (1) e Assemble and train team members. (2)

. Designate team leader and members for each scheduled resiew. (3) e Review completed licensing actions on an ongoing basis to help focus reviews. (4) e Transmit questionnaires to affected regions and States. (5)

Approved: September 12,1995 1

Volume 5, Governmental Relations and Public Aff: irs J '.

i Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) fia Aook 5.6 Part I Evaluation Process Sequence (s)(continued) e Provide copies of questionnaire responses and most current performance data summary to team members. (6) e Assess a sample of inspections at different types of licensed facilities by accompanying the inspectors. (7) e Conduct onsite portion of IMPEP, using the criteria specified in this handbook and any performance review precedures in conjunction with any customized review elements. (8) e Prepare draft IhfPEP report, with recommendation for overall performance evaluation, for office director's signature. (9) e issue the draft report. (10) e Review and consider written comments received from the regions or Agreement States. (11)

• Prepare proposed final report for consideration by the -

management review board (hfRB). (12) e Condret hiRB meeting. (13)

. Issue final reports, include the written responses received and any changes to the report based on consideration of the written responses, and a summary of hiRB findings. (14) 2 Approved: September 12,1995

',- Volume 5, Governmental Relations md Public Affairs '

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) r Ilandbook 5.6 Part II Part II Performance Indicators General (A)

A description of the performance indicators to be evaluated for each region and each Agreement State is given in (B) of this part. The evaluation criteria (i.e., performance standards) against which these indicators are to be assessed are described in Part III of this handbook. '

Ti.ne reviews determine program adequacy and compatibility in the Agreement States and are instrumental in improving State and NRC regional performance, thus ultimately leading to improved licensee performance. (1)

The performance indicators should be used as a starting point of inquiry. This, in turn, should lead program evaluators to a more careful examination of the underlying conditions, or root causes, of potendal problem areas. Evaluators may Snd correlations exists between two or more performance indicators. In this situation, the impact of individual performance symptoms could be compounded when combined with others. Com'ersely, a regulatcry program measured as potentially weak against one particular indicator, nonetheless, could be rated as strong overall if there are sufficient mitigating factors with respect to other indicators. (2)

Certain non-reactor functions that continue to be conducted from NRC headquarters, ruch as fuel cycle licensing, uranium and thorium milling, sealed source and device reviews, low-level radioactive waste disposal licensing, and safeguards activities are excluded from this set ofindicators because they are not common to regional and Agreement State activities. These may be incorporated, as appropriate, as noncommon indicators contributing to a performance-based evaluation of a program. (3)

Approved: -L.p. ember 12,1995 3

Volume 5, Governmental Relations and Public Affairs l .

i Integrated Materials Performance Eycluati::n Progr:m (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part II -

General (A)(continued)

For Agreement States, the noncommon indicators will be legislative and legal authority, compatibility, uranium and thorium milling, sealed source and device reviews, and low-level radioactive waste disposallicensing. (4)

This exclusion does not prohibit the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) and the Office of State Programs (OSP) from using other indicators and/or performance standards to supplement those described in this directive. (5)

Progralamatic Indicators (s)

Performance Indicator 1-Stat'2s of Materials Inspection Program (1)

Periodic inspections oflicensed operations are essential to ensure that activities are being conducted in compliance with regulatory requirements and consistent with good safety practices. The frequency of inspections is specified in the NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, and is dependent on the amount and the ki: d of material, the type of operation licensed, and the results of previous inspections.

There must be a capability for maintaining and retrieving statistical data on the status of the compliance program. Information regarding the number of overdue inspections is a significant measure of the status of an Agreement State's or NRC region's materials inspection program, although rev ews also should examine specific cases where i

the inspection frequency has been signi6cantly exceeded (i.e., by more than 100 percent). The terms "ruaterials inspection" and " overdue inspection" are defined in the Glossary to this handbook.

Performance Indicator 2-Technical Staffing and Trainung (2)

The ability to conduct effective licensing and inspection programs is largely dependent on having a sufficient number of experienced, knowledgeable, well-trained technical personnel. Under certain conditions, staff turnover could have an adverse effect on the implementation of these programs; thus it could affect public health and safery. (a)

For this performance indicator, qualitative as well as quantitative measures must be considered. In particular, the reason for apparent trends in staffing must be explored..Is the rate of turnover and the 4 Approved: September 12,1995

Volume 5, Governmental Relations and Public Attirs

. Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part II_

Programmatic Indica (ors (B)(continued)

Performance Indicator 2-Dchnical Staffing and Raining (2) '

(continued) degree of und.erstaffing symptomatic of a chronic problem or is it merely a sho:t-term phenomenon? Why is turnover high? What steps are being taken to address this? What effect is it having on other performance indicators? (b)

Review of staffing also requires a consideration and evaluation of the levels of training and qualification of the technical staff. New hirees need to be technically qualified. Professional staff normally should have bachelor's degrees or equivalent training in the physical and/or life sciences. Raining requirements for NRC inspectors are specified in the NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 1245, and for NRC materials licensing reviewers, in the NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 1246.

The requirements include a combination of classroom requirements '

and practical on-the-job training. Some NRC regions impose additional requirements on certain license reviewers or inspectors, depending on their indhidual responsibilities and the types oflicenses they review and/or inspect. (c)

In addition, the qualification process for NRC materials program inspectors includes demonstration of knowledg2 of relevant sections of the Code of Federal Regulations, completion of a qualifications journal, and appearance before a qualification board. Although Agreement States need not follow the NRC Inspection Manual, Chapters 1245 and 1246,' they should have a program for training and qualification of personnel, and it should be adhered to in Agreement State programs. The evaluation standard measures the overall quality of training available to, and taken by, materials program personnel. (d)

Performance Indicator 3 -Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (3)

An acceptable program for licensing radioactive material includes preparation and use of. internal licensing guides and policy memoranda to ensure technical qualityin the licensing program (when appropriate, NRC guidance may be used); prelicensing inspection of complex facilities; and supenisory review, when appropriate. (a)

Approved: September 12,1995 3

Volume 5, Governmental Relations and Public Affairs l. .

l

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (miPEP) l Handbook 5.6 Part H ,

Programmatic Indicators (a)(continued) )

Performance Indicator 3 -Technkal Quality of Licensing Actions (3)

(continued) i This performance indicator evaluates the technical quality of the licensing program on the basis of an in-depth onsite review of a representative cross-section of licensing action for various types of licenses. 7bchnical quality hicludes not only the review of completed actions, but also an examination of any renewals that have been pending for more than a year because the failure to act on such requests may have health and safety implications. To the extent possible, the onsite review also should capture a representative cross-section as completed by each of the reviewers in the region or State.(b)

Performance Indicator 4-Technical Quality of Inspections (4) j This performance indicator provides the qualitative balance to l Performance Indicator 1, which looks at the status of the inspeion l

program on a quantitative basis. Review team members will l

j accompany a sampling of inspectors at different types of licensed facilities to evaluate. the knowledge and capabilities of regional and l

l Agreement State inspectors. These acecmpaniments will usually occur l at a time other than the onsite review of the region or Agreement State to afford the review team sufficient time to observe inspectors at different types oflicensee facilities. These reviews focus on the scope,

completeness, and technical accuracy of completed inspections and i related documentation. Review teams will conduct in-depth, onsite reviews of a cross-section of completed 'nspection reports performed by different inspectors. In addition, review teams will verify that supervisors generally accompany inspectors on an annual basis to provide management quality assurance.

Performance indicater 5-Response to incidents and Allegations (5)

The quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of the NRC or Agreeme'nt State response to incidents, alleged incidents, and other allegations of l

safety concerns can have a direct oearing on public health and safety.

l A careful assessment ofincident response and allegation investigation procedures, actual implementation of these procedures, internal and external coordination, and investigative and followup proced res will be a significant indicator of the overall quality of the prc v l

6 Approved: September 12,1995 l

', . V:lume 5, Governmental Relations cnd Public Aff:frs Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

. Handbook 5.6 Part II_I_

Part III Evaluation Criteria NRC re3 ions and Agreement States will be evaluated in their ability to conduct effective licensing and inspection programs using the performance indicators described in Part II of this handbook. The evaluation criteria for each performance indicator are given below.

Indicator 1-Status of Materials Inspection Program (A)

Satisfactory (1) e Core licensees (those with inspection frequencies of 3 years or less) are inspected at regular intervals in accordance with frequencies prescribed in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800. (a)

. Deviations from these schedules are normally coordinated between working staff and management. Deviations are generally the result of joint decisions that consider the risk of licensee operation, past licensee performance, and the need to temporarily defer the inspection (s) to address more urgent or more critical priorities. (b) e There is clear t.vidence of an organized "get-well" plan to reschedule any missed or deferred inspections. (c)

• Inspections of new licensees are generally conducted within 6 months of license approval, or in accordance with NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, Section 04-03, for those new licensees not possessing licensed material. (d) e A large majority of the inspection findings are communicated to licensees in a timely manner (30 calendar days as speci5ed in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 061G-10). (e)

Approved: September 12,1995 7

Volume 5, Governmental Relations and Public Aftirs l, ',

1 Integrated Materials Performance Evclu: tion Program (IMPEP) .

Handbook 5.6 Part III .

Indicator 1-Status of Materials Inspectitm i'rograin (A) (continued)

Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2) e More than 10 percent of the core licensees are inspected at intervals that exceed the NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, frequencies by more than 25 percent. (a) e Inspections of newlicensees are frequently not conducted within 6 months oflicense approval. (b) e Some of the inspection findings are delayed, or not communicated tc liensees with 30 days. (c)

Unsatisfactory (3) e More than 25 percent of the core licensees are inspected at intervals that exceed that NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, frequencies by more than 25 percent. (a) e Inspections of new licensees are frequently delayed, as are the inspection findings. (b)

Catego ; N (4)

• Special conditions exist that prmide adequate justification for withholding a rating. For example, an unforeseen event or emergency with significant health and safety consequences may have required a temporary diversion of resources from the core inspection program. However, these programmatic adjustments are well thought out and properly coordinated with the Office of Nuclear Material Safety ar'd Safeguards (NMSS) or Agreement State management.

Indicator 2-Technical Staffing and Daining (B)

Satisfactory (1)

Review indicates implementation of a well-conceived and -balanced staffing strategy throughout the anessment period and demonstrates the qualifications of the technical staff. This is indicated by the presence of most of the following features: ,

8 Approved: September 12,1995

Volume 5, Governmental Rel:tions cnd Public Aff Irs integrated Materials Performance Evalu: tion Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part HI Indicator 2-Technical Staffing and D8ining (B)(continued)

Satisfactory (1)(continued) e Balance in staffing the licensing and inspection programs (a) e Few, if any, vacancies, especially ct the senior-level positions (b) e Prompt management attention and review, such as development of a corrective action plan to address problems in high rates of attrition or positions being vacant for extended periods (c) e Qualification criteria for hiring new technical staff established and followed (Staff would normally be expected to have bachelor's degrees or equivalent training in the physical and/or life sciences.

Senior personnel should have additional training and experience in radiation protection commensurate with the types oflicenses they issue or inspect.) (d)

. License reviewers and inspectors trained and qualified in a reasonable time periodi (e) e Management commitment to training clearly evident (f)

Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2)

Review determines the presence of some of the following conditions:

• Some staff turnover that could adversely upset the balance in staffing the licensing and inspection programs (a) e Some vacant positions not readily filled (b) e Some evidence of management attention or actions to deal with staffing problems (c)

• Some of the licensing and inspection personnel net making prompt progress in completing all of the training and oualification requirements (d) 1 For the regions, this means there has been, and continues to be, a clear effort to adhere to the requirements and conditions speciSed in NRC Inspection Manual, chapten 1245 and 1246. and the appheable qualificationsjournals,or to receive equivalent training elsewhere, For the Agreement states, equivalent requirements should be in place and followed.

Approved: September 12,1995 9

• 1

~

VoIIme 5, Governmental Relations and Public Aftirs l '. l i

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) '

Handbook 5.6 Part III Indicator 2-Technical Staffing and Naining (B)(continued)

Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2)(continued)

• The training and quali5 cation standards include areas needing improvement (e) e Some of the x staff hired with little education or experience in physical and/or life sciences, or materials licensing and inspection (f)

Unsatisfactory (3)

Review determines the presence of chronic or acute problems related to some of the following conditions, which cause concerns about their likely effects on other performance indicators:

• Significant staff tumover relative to the size of the program'(a) e Most vacant positions not filled for extended periods (b) e 1.ittle evidence of management attention or actions dealing with staffing problems (c) e Most of the licensing and inspection personnel not making prompt progress in completing all of the training and qualification requirements (d) e New staff members hired without having scientific or technical backgrounds that would equip them to receive health physics training (e)

Categon N (4)

Special conditions exist that provide justi5 cation for withholding a rating. For example, there has been a substantial management effort to deal with staffing problems. NMSS or the Office of State Programs (OSP) has been kept informed of the situation and discernable recent progress is evident.

10 Approved: September 12,1995

- 1 -.

Volume 5, Governmental Relations and Public Affcirs Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Progran (IMPEP)

' Handbook 5.6 Part HI Indicator 3-Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (c)

Satisfactory (1)

• Review of completed licenses and a representative sample of licensing files indicates that license reviews are generally thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable technical quality. (a)

• Health and safety issues are properly addressed. (b) e License reviewers usually have the proper signature authority for the cases they review. (c)

e. Speciallicense tiedown conditions are usually stated clearly and are inspectable. (d)

• Deficiencyletters are well written and used at the proper time. (e) l .

1

• Reviews of renewal applications demonstrate thorough analysis of a licensee's inspection and enforcement history. (f)

• Applicable guidance docurnents are available to reviewers in most cases and are generally followed. (g)

• No potentially significant health and safety issues can be linked to licensing practices. (h)

Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2)

Review indicates that some licensing actions do not fully address health and safety concerns or indicates repeated examples of problems I

with respect to thoroughness, completeness, consistency, clarity, technical quality, and adherence to existing guidance in licensing

! actions.

Unsatisfactory (3)

Review indicates that licensing actions frequently fail to address important health and safety concerns or indicates chronic problems l

l with regard to thoroughness, completeness, consistency, clarity, technical quality, and adherence to existing guidance in licensing actions.

i l

11 Approved: September 12,1995

Volume 5, Governmental Relations and Public Affairs Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part TH Indicator 3-Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (c)(continued)

Category N (4)

Not applicable.

Indicator 4-Technical Quality of Inspections (o)

Satisfactory (1) e Review team members accompanying 2 s;unple inspectors combined with an onsite review of a representative cross-section of completed inspection Sles indicates inspection findings are usually well founded and well documented throughout the assessment. (a) e A review of inspector field notes or completed reports indicates that most inspections are complete and reviewed promptly by supenisors or management. (b) e Procedures are in place and normally used to help identify root causes and pocr licensee performance. (c) e In most instances, followup inspections address presiously identified open items and/or past violations. (d) e Inspection Endings generally lead to appropriate and prompt regulatory action. (e) e Supenisors accompany nearly all inspectors on an annual basis. (f)

Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2) e Review indicates that some inspections do not address potentially important health and safety concerns or it indicates periodic problems with respect to completeness, adherence to proceuures, management review, thoroughness, technical quality, and consistency. (a) e Review indicates that findings in inspection reports and inspection files are, on occasion, not well founded or well documented. (b) 12 Approved: September 12,1995

V:lume 5, Governmental Relati:ns cnd Public Aff irs i Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part IH Indicator 4-Technical Quality of Inspections (D)(continued)

Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2)(continued) e Review does not demonstrate an appropriate level of management resiew. (c) e Supenisors accompaniment of inspectors are not performed systematically. (d) e Followup actions te inspection findings are often not timely. (e)

Unsatisfactory (3) e Review indicates that inspections frequently fail to address potentially important health and safety concerns or it indicates chronic problems exist with respect to completeness, adherence to procedures, management review, thoroughness, technical quality, and consistency. (a) e Supervisors infrequently accompany inspectors. (b) e Followup actions to inspection findings are often not timely and appropriate. (c)

Category N (4) e Not applicable.

Indicator 5-Response to Incidents and Allegations (E)

Satisfactory (1) e Incident response and allegation procedures are in place and followed in nearly all cases. (a) e Actions taken are appropriate, well coordinated, and timely in most instances. (b) e Level of effort is usually commensurate with potential health and safety significance of incident. (c)

Approved: September 12,1995 13

V;hme 5, Governmental Relations and Public Affairs c

• Integrated Materials Perf;rmance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) ,

Handbook 5.6 Part HI Indicato'r 5-Response to Incidents and Allegations (E)(continued)

Satisfactory (1)'scontinued) e Investigative piocedures are appropriate for incident. (d) e Corrective (enforcement or other) actions are adequately identified to licensees promptly and appropriate followup measures are taken to ensure prompt compliance. (e) e Followup inspections are scheduled and completed, if necessary. (f) e Notification to NMSS, the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, or OSP, and others as may be appropriate,is usually performed in a timely fashion. (g)

Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2) e Incident response and allegation procedures are in place but occasionally not practiced in a detailed fashion. (a) e Performance is marginal in terms of resolving potential public health and safety issues, but not as well coordinated, complete, or timely as would be required under the " Satisfactory" performance standard. (b)

Unsatisfactory (3)

Review indicates frequent examples of response to incidents or allegations to be incomplete, inappropriate, poorly coordinated, or not timely. As a result, potential health and safety problems persists.

Category N (4)

Not applicable.

14 Approved: September 12,1995

Volume 5, Governmental Relations and Public Affairs Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (BIDEP) i Handbook 5.6 Part IV Part IV Programmatic Assessment General (A)

A manegement review board (MRB) will make the overall asses 3 ment of each NRC region's or Agreement State's program on the basis of the proposed final report and recommendations prepared by the team that conducted the review of that region or State, including any unique circumstances as well as noncommon indicators. (1)

The MRB will consist of a group of senior NRC managers, or their designees, to include the:(2)

. Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards, and Operations Support (a) e Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (b)

• Director, Office of State Programs (c)

• Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (d) e General Counsel (e)

The Agreement States also will be invited to nominate a representative to participate in MRB meetings, as a nonvoting Agreement State liaison. In this capacity, the State representative would have full authority to receive applicable documentation and engage in all MRB discussions except for any that might involve the Agreement State liaison's own State. The Agreement State liaison would not have voting authority; this function is reserved solely by NRC (3) 15 Approved: September 12,1995

l '.

V:lume 5, Governmental Relations and Public Affairs J

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) ,

Handbook 5.6 Part IV .

General (A)(continued)

For an NRQ region, the MRB will on!y assess the adequacy of the program to protect public health and safety. The nature of NRC findings regarding NRC's Agreement State review process is described below. (4)

Findings for Agreement State Programs (B)

Finding 1-Adequate to Protect Public Health and Safety and Compatible (1) e If NRC staff Snd that a State program has met all the Agreement State program review criteria or that only minor deficiencies exist, the Commission will find thtt the State's program is adequate to protect the public health and safety. (a) e If the NRC determines that a State program contains all required NRC program elements for compatibility, or only minor discrepancies exist, the program will be found compatible. (b)

Finding 2-Adequate to Protect Public Health and Safety and Not Compatible (2) e If NRC finds that a State program has met all the Agreement State program review criteria or that only minor deficiencies exist, the Commission will find that the State's program is adequate to protect the public health and safety. (a) e If NRC determines that a State has failed to adopt a necessaryitem of compatibility within the period of time specified by implementing procedures for NRC's compatibility policy statement (i.e., more than minor compatibility discrepancies), the program would be found not compatible. (b)

Finding 3-Adequate, But Needs Improvement and/or Not Compatible (3)

. If NRC Snds that a State's program protects public health and safety, but is deficient in meeting some of the review criteria, NRC may find that the State's program is adequate, but needs improvement. NRC would conside.r, in Fts determination plans, 16 Approved: September 12,1995

o - Volume 5, Governmental Relations and Public Aftirs

'. Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part IV Findings for Agreement State Programs (a)(continued)

Finding 3-Adequate, But Needs Improvement and/or Not Compatible (L)(continued) which deficienciec t.0ted during the review that the State has to address. (a) e In cases where less significant State deficiencies presiously identified have been uncorrected for a significant period of time, NRC also may find that the program is adequate but in need of improvement. (b) e If NRC determines that a State has failed to adopt a necessary item of compatibility within the period of time specified by implementing procedures for NRC's compatibility policy statement, the program would be found not compatible. (c) finding 4-Inadequate to Protect Public Health and Safety and/or Not Compatible (4)

• If NRC finds that a State's program is significantly deficient in nme or all the review criteria, NRC would find that the State's program is not adequate to protect the public health and safety. (a)

• If NRC deterntines that a State has failed to adopt a necessaryitem of wmpatibility within the period of time specified by impiementing procedures for NRC's compatibility policy statement, the program would be found not compatible. (b)

Findings for NRC Regional Programs (c)

An MRB's findings for regional programs will be the same as those listed above for Agreement States'.vith the exclusion of the findings for compatibility.

Approved: September 12,1995 17

Volume 5, Governmental Relations and Public Affairs .

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Glossary .

Glossary It is necessary to note that some Agreement States or NRC regions may not de6ne these terms identically. In such cases, the review team will highlight any differences in its review, but draw its conclusions and make its assessments on the basis of the definitions used by that State or region at the time of the review.

Allegation. A declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy associated with regulated activities, the validity of which has not been established.This term includes all concerns identi5ed by sources such as the media, indhiduals, or organizations, and technical audit efforts from Federal, State, or local government offices regarding activities at a licensee's site. Excluded from this definition are matters being handled by more formal processes such as 10 CFR 2.206 petitions, hearing boards, appeal boards, and so forth.

Incident. An event that may have caused or threatens to cause conditions described in 10 CFR 20.2202 (old 20.403),10 CFR 30.50, 10 CFR 40.60,10 CFR 70.50, or the equivalent State regulations.

Materials Inspection. The definitions in 10 CFR 170.3, and in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, Sections 03.03 and O7.01, should be used to determine what constitutes an inspection. In addition, Agreement State hand-delivery of newlicenses may constitute initial inspections. The term includes both routinely scheduled and reactive inspections.

Materials Licensing Action. Reviews of applications for new byproduct materials licenses, license amendments, renewals, and license terminations.

Overdue inspections. Currently, NRC defines this term based on guidance in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, especially Sections 04.03 (a) and 05.01 through 05.04. Many States use different definitions. For purposes of this directive, a ma+: rials licer.se will be considered overdue for inspection in the followmg cases:

18 Approved: September 12,1995

'. .' Volume 5, Governmental Relations and Public Affairs

., Integrated M:terials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Glossan'-

Glossary (continued)

- A new licensee that possesses licensed material has not been inspected within 6 months of receipt of licensed material, within 6 months of beginning licensed activities, or within 12 months of license issuance, whichever comes first.

- An existing core license is more than 25 percent beyond the interval defined in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, Enclosure 1. An existing non-core license is more than 1 year beyond the interval. (An inspection will not be considered overdue if the inspection frequency hw. been extended in accordance with NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, Section 05.01, based on good licensee performance.

Determinations of overdue inspections will not be based on any inspection frequencies established by States or regions if those frequencies are more stringent than those contained in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800. The frequencies provided in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, will generally be used as the yardstick for determining if an inspection is overdue.

Approved: September 12,1995 19