ML20209G828

Final Rept, Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program Review of Region IV Materials Program,990405-09

ML20209G828
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/09/1999
From:	NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:
Shared Package
ML20209G825	List: ML20209G820 ML20209G828 ML20209G836
References
NUDOCS 9907200023
Download: ML20209G828 (31)

Text

INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM REVIEW OF REGION IV MATERIALS PROGRAM APRIL 5-9,1999 FINAL REPORT

)

t Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Attachment 1 9907200023 990630 PDR ORG NE E t

i

i l

. l Region IV Final Report Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the review of the Region IV (RIV) nuclear materials licensing, )

inspection, incident response, and allegation programs, as well as the RIV fuel cycle inspection, '

Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP), and uranium recovery programs. The review was conducted during the period April 5-9,1999, by a review team comprised of  ;

technical staff from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), Office of State Programs (OSP), Region 11, and the State of Mississippi. Members of the review team are listed in Appendix A. The review was conducted in accordance with the " Implementation of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program and Rescission of a Final General Statement of Policy," published in the Federal Reaister on October 16,1997, and the November 25,1998, NRC Management Directive (MD) l 5.6," Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)." Preliminary results of  !

the review, which covered the period March 22,1997, to April 2,1999, were discussed with RIV management through the Regional Administrator on April 9,1999.

A Management Review Board (MRB) met on June 16,1999, to discuss the proposed final I report dated June 8,1999. The MRB supported the team's recommendations and found RIV adequate to protect public health and safety. The MRB directed a number of changes to the text of the report. These changes are summarized in the memorandum transmitting this report.

)

The Division of Nuclear Materials Safety (DNMS) administers the RIV materials, fuel cycle, SDMP, and uranium mills programs. Within DNMS, responsible branches include the Nuclear )

Materials Licensing Branch, the Nuclear Materials inspection Branch, the Fuel Cycle and j Decommissioning Branch, and the Administrative Support staff. An organization chart for the j RIV DNMS program is shown in Appendix B. At the time of the review, the Regional materials l program regulated 849 specific licenses, including licensing, inspection, and enforcement for all major types of medir:al, industrial, and academic licensees. This figure accounts for approximately 15 pvrcent of all materials licensees under NRC jurisdiction.

in preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common and non-common l indicators was sent to the Region on February 4,1999. RIV provided a response to the l questionnaire on March 8,1999. A copy of the RIV questionnaire response is included in l Appendix C to this report.

The review team's general approach for conduct of this review consisted of: (1) examination of RIV's response to the questionnaire; (2) analysis of quantitative licensing and inspection information from the Licensing Tracking System (LTS); (3) technical review of selected licensing, inspection, incident, and allegation actions; (4) field accompaniments of three materials inspectors; and (5) interviews with staff and management to answer questions or clarify issues. The review team evaluated the information that it gathered against the IMPEP l performance criteria for each common and non-common indicator and made a preliminary I assessment of the RIV nuclear materials program's performance. l Section 2.0 below discusses RIV's actions relative to the findings of the previous IMPEP review, held in March 1997. The results of the current review for the common performance indicators of the IMPEP are presented in Section 3.0 below. Section 4.0 discusses the results of the review outside the common performance indicators, including the fuel cycle inspection, SDMP, and uranium recovery programs. Finally, Section 5.0 summarizes the review team's findings and recommendations.

q.

~

f H f Region IV Final Report Page 2 L 2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE 1997 lMPEP REVIEW During the March 1997 iMPEP review, seven recommendations were'made to RIV DNMS management, and one recommendation remained open from the 1995 review. The 1999 review team assessed the status of these items to determine whether the RIV program took actions to close the recommendations. The review resulted in the closure of seven of the eight recommendations. One recommendation for NMSS remains open. The team's review of the current status of these recommendations is as follows:

'1. . Provide more management attention to assure that annual supervisory accompaniments of inspectors are performed.

Current Status: This recommendation is closed. In 1995, the review team indicated that this area needed continued management attention. The 1997 review team found that, although most of the inspectors were accompanied twice or more, during the review period, by their

~

supervisors, two inspectors were not accompanied after June 1995. In addition, there was .

concem that the Region did not appear to formally track which inspectors had been accompanied during the year.

The 1999 review team found that each of the inspectors had been accompanied by their supervisor twice or more during this review period, and the Region has a process in place for tracking inspector accompaniments, in summary, the team considers this recommendation from the 1995 and 1997 IMPEP reviews closed.

2. The review team recommends that NMSS should issue formal, written guidance in final form, to all Regional Offices, regarding changes in procedures for licensing medical use

. facilities, including'radiopharmaceutical therapy ( 10 CFR 35.300) users.

Current Status: This recommendation remains open. During 1998, NMSS published draft NUREG 1556, Volume 9," Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses, Program Specific Guidance About Medical Use Licenses," and Volume 13," Consolidated Guidance About

- Materials Lice'nses, Program Specific About Commercial Radiopharmacy Licenses." Volume 9, the accompanying guidance for the 10 CFR Part 35 rulemaking, will be published in final when the final rule is published. The final version of Volume 13 will be published in 1999.

3. The review team recommends that NMSS should clarify the meaning of " fire-rated" in MD 8.12.

4. . The review team recommends that after NMSS' clarification of " fire-rated," RIV should either provide evidence to the Division of Waste Management (DWM) that the Arlington safe meets DWM's guidance for fire protection of the financial assurance instruments, or obtain a security container, for financial assurance instruments, that meets the fire protection guidance.

Current Status: Recommendations 3 and 4 are closed. Since the last IMPEP review in 1997, a GSA-approved security container (safe) was provided to the Division for storage of financial r

Region IV Final Report Page 3 assurance documents. This particular safe was made available in October 1998 with the advent of the closure of the Walnut Creek Field Office (WCFO).

5. The review team recommends that RIV should consistently implement the guidance contained in the new inspection Manual Chapter (IMC 2605) as appropriate for inspections of SDMP and non-SDMP decommissioning licensees and terminated sites, and reference the new decommissioning inspection procedures (IP) (especially IP 87104 and IP 88104), consistent with IMC 2605, when preparing decommissioning inspection reports.

Current Status: This recommendation is closed. The review team found that RIV is performing confirmatory surveys for licensees' sites in accordance with IMC 2605 and IP 87104,

" Decommissioning inspection Procedure for Materials Licensees." RIV validates licensee survey results through a closeout inspection or confirmatory survey, based on the extent and significance of any residual contamination.

6. The review team recommends that NMSS should proceed to issue inspection guidance for inspections of uranium recovery licensees, including uranium mills and in-situ leach (ISL) facilities.

Current Status: This recommendation is closed. During the IMPEP interval, guidance was issued for inspections of uranium recovery facilities. A list of the guidance issued is found in Section 4.4.1.

7. The review team recommends that NMSS and RIV should jointly develop training requirements for Regional uranium recovery inspectors and issue those requirements in a revision to IMC 1246.

Current Status: This recommendation is closed. An appendix to IMC 1246 was issued on March 6,1998, to provide specific written training requirements for staff involved in the uranium recovery inspection program.

1

8. The review team recommends that RIV uranium recovery inspectors should review licensee decommissioning records on all routine inspections to ensure that licensees are maintaining required information, and should document decommissioning record reviews and findings in the uranium recovery inspection reports.

Current Status: This recommendation is closed. The review team determined that inspectors were reviewing licensee decommissioning records on routine inspections, and the required documentation was now being performed.

In summary, the team considers seven of the eight 1997 secommendations closed.

Recommendation two remains open.

t v

i Region IV Final Report' Page 4 3.0 : COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS The IMPEP is based on five common performance indicators to be used in reviewing both NRC Regional and Agreement State materials programs. These indicators are: 1) " Status of Materials inspection Program"; 2) " Technical Quality of Inspection"; 3)" Technical Staffing and Training"; 4) " Technical Quality of Licensing Actions"; and 5) " Response to incidents and Allegations."

3.1 Status of Materials 'Insoection Procram The review team focused on four factors ln' reviewing this indicator: (1) inspection frequency,

-(2) overdue inspections, (3) initial inspections of new licenses, and (4) timely dispatch of inspection findings to licensees. - The review team's evaluation is based on the Region's questionnaire responses relative to this indicator, data gathered independently from the LTS, an

' examination of completed licensing and inspection casework, and interviews with RIV

~

managers and staff.

The review team examined RIV's inspection priorities and found that the inspection frequencies for different types of RIV licenses are established in the LTS. The LTS inspection frequencies are managed by the Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety (IMNS), NMSS, and are based on the inspection frequencies in IMC 2800. The review team determined that the Region is aggressively implementing the IMC 2800 policies that direct individual licensee inspection frequencies to be extended or reduced, based on inspection findings and previous licensee performance. The review team examined a listing of 322 RIV licensees from the

. LTS, and found that for about 15 per cent of the licensees (48), the inspection frequency for the next inspection had been extended for good performance. For less than one-tenth of the

. licensees (19), the inspection frequency had been reduced. The review team concluded that RIV is following the IMC 2800 inspection frequencies, and is actively extending or reducing individual 1 censee inspection intervals, based on licensee performance, and the ratio of extensions to reductions is similar to the practices of most other Regions.

In its response to the questionnaire, the Region indicated that (as of the date of the

, questionnaire) it had no inspections overdue by more than 25 percent of the assigned

' frequency in IMC 2800. The manual chapter allows a 25 percent scheduling margin, or a year, whichever is shorter, around the " inspection due date" to conduct the inspection, before it becomes overdue. The review team checked this response by reviewing the " inspection due lists" from the LTS while on-site. The review team did not identify any overdue routine inspections, either core or non-core, at the time of the on-site IMPEP. The review team observed good performance by RIV inspection managers and staff in scheduling and performing inspections in a timely manner, and RIV is far below the 10 percent criterion for overdue core inspections in MD 5.6.

With r' espect to initial inspections, the review team examined an LTS listing of 96 new licenses

issued by RIV between November 1996 and October 1998 (from 5 months before the start of the review period to 6 months before the end), and cross-checked the new licenses with dates of initia11nspections. The review team observed strong Regional performance in this area.

After subtracting out licensees that were inspected before this review period, licensees that were not true "new" licensees as a result of change of ownership or address, licenses that were

Region IV Final Report Page5 issued and terminated before being inspected, and licenses that had been issued less than 6 months before the review period,54 new licensees remained. Of the remaining 54 licensees, RIV inspected 35 within 6 months, and another 19 within 7 to 12 months. The review team observed that many of the licenses were inspected less than 3 months from the date the license was completed. This inspection practice indicates strong RIV oversight of new licensees. The Region is well-within the IMPEP evaluation criteria that inspections of new licenses are

" generally conducted" within 6 months of issuance, or in accordance with IMC 2800 provisions.

The timeliness of inspection findings was evaluated during the inspection file review. Out of the 23 inspection files examined, all the inspection correspondence (either NRC Forms 591 or notices of violation) had been issued to the licensees within 30 days after completion of the inspection. The Region has tracked the timeliness of inspection reports in its quarterly internal activities report since the 1997 IMPEP review.

During FY 1997, RIV conducted a review of the timeliness of inspection reports issued. The Region identified 35 of 104 inspection reports that had exceeded the 30-day mark (or 45 d,ays for team inspections). The reasons for delays in publication were clearly analyzed in the report, and included awaiting information needed from inspectors who were ur.available due to inspection trips or leave; and delays in supervisory reviews. Several delays related to other offices (Headquarters, State Offices, or data from a vendor). In FY 1998, the Region had reduced the delays to seven of 94 reports issued. The Region has demonstrated strong j performance in reducing the delays in inspection report publication. The team determined that {

RIV is meeting the IMPEP eva uation criteria that "a large majority" of inspection findings are communicated to licensees in a timely manner.

In its response to the questionnaire, RIV provided statistics regarding the numbers of reciprocity inspections completed in calendar years 1997 and 1998. The review team assessed the i numbers of reciprocity inspections against the inspection priorities in IMC 1220, " Processing of l NRC Form 241, Report of Proposed Activities in Non Agreement States," and " Inspection of l Agreement State Licensees Operating under 10 CFR Part 150.20," using data in the Region's questionnaire response. The team observed that RIV had met or exceeded the number of l reciprocity inspections for each priority. The review team noted the apparent continued l management emphasis on, and inspector perseverance in, conducting reciprocity inspections.

In summary, RIV met or surpassed the IMPEP standards for all four of the areas on this l performance indicator: The inspection frequencies were being followed in accordance with IMC 2800, and were being reduced or extended based on licensee performance. RIV's inspection program had an extremely low number of overdue inspections during the review period, and none at the time of the on-site review. The Region conducted nearly allinitialinspections within the IMC 2800 requirements, Finally, most inspection findings were communicated to licensees within 30 days.

Based on the evaluation criteria contained in MD 5.6, the team recommends that the Region's performance with respect to this indicator, " Status of Materials Inspection Program," be found satisfactory.

Region IV Final Report Page 6 3.2 Technical Quality of Inspections The team reviewed inspection field notes and associated follow-up documentation and interviewed the responsible inspectors, as needed, for 23 matarials inspections conducted during the review period. The review included work from nine Regional inspectors, and covered inspections of various types of licenses including: storage-only; radiopharmacy; research and development; medical; exempt distribution; portable gauge; fixed gauge; radiography; chemical agent detectors; site characterization /remediation; rare earth extraction and processing; strontium-90 eye applicator; and Master Materials licenses. Comments and recommendations given by the team regarding these inspections were minor in nature and were acted on by the staff, as appropriate, while the team was onsite. Appendix D provides a list of the inspection cases reviewed.

The team reviewed RIV's implementation of IMC 2800 and found it to be adequate. Inspection results were well-documented, including follow-up on previous violations and independent radiation surveys. The team determir ed that RIV was performing inspections on an unannounced basis, except for initial or reactive inspections where advance contact with licensee personnel was necessary, or when necessary to ensure the presence of licensee personnel (e.g., geographically distant licensees). Documents reviewed were of sufficient detail to substantiate the findings of the inspection, and were completed in a timely manner.

Inspection correspondence (either NRC Forms 591 or notices of violation) had been issued to the licensees within 30 days after completion of the inspection. The inspection frequency was properly determined after inspections were completed, and frequencies were being extended for good performance. Frequencies were found to be properly updated in the Region's tracking system. Inspection results were generally reviewed and approved by supervisors within a few days after completion of the documentation, and the inspection reports were issued in a timely manner.

The team also reviewed the use of survey instruments during inspections. Adequate and appropriate instrumentation was available for, and was used by inspectors, to perform surveys during inspections. Confirmatory and independent measurements were reported in the inspection documents, with a description of the instrumentation used and the date of its most recent calibration. The review team found survey meter calibration, availability, and use to be adequate.

During February 17-19 and 22-25,1999, a review team member accompanied three Regional inspectors on separate inspections of six licensed facilities (See Appendix D). The following types of licenses were inspected: broad-scope research and development; portable gauges; and U.S. Department of Agriculture permittees who used sealed and unsealed materials in research. The RIV staff demonstrated appropriate inspection techniques and knowledge of the regulations. The inspectors were well-prepared and thorough in their reviews of the licensees' radiation safety program. RIV's approach to inspection was found to be risk informed, and performance-based. inspectors properly addressed health and safety issues. Overall, the technical performance of the inspectors was satisfactory, and their inspections were adequate to assess radiological health and safety issues.

In 1995, the review team noted that several inspectors had not been accompanied, at least annually, by a supervisor. The 1997 review team found that although most of the inspectors L .

Region IV Final Report Page 7 were accompanied twice or more during the review period by their supervisors, two inspectors were not accompanied after June 1995. In addition, there was concern that the Region did not appear to formally track which inspectors had been accompanied during the year. The 1999 review team found that each of the inspectors had been accompanied by his/her supervisor twice or more during this review period, and the Region has a process in place for tracking inspector accompaniments. In summary, the team considers this recommendation from the 1995 and 1997 IMPEP reviews closed.

The review team also examined the technical quality of inspections and surveys for non-SDMP decommissioning inspections. (See also Sections 4.3.3, "Tarmination Radiological Surveys,"

and 4.3.4," Inspections" within the SDMP performance indicator). The review team found that sites are inspected in accordance with IMC 2602, " Decommissioning Inspection Program for Fuel Cycle Facilities and Materials Licensees." RIV staff used IP 87104," Decommissioning inspection Procedure for Materials Licensees" and IP 88104, " Decommissioning Inspection Procedures for Fuel Cycle Facilities." The review team also noted that RIV staff used other IPs, as appropriate, depending on the type of inspection.

RIV's non-SDMP inspections were planned, carried out, and documented in accordance with NRC procedures. Inspection documentation was complete, and RIV issued inspection results in a timely manner. In response to the questionnaire, RIV identified both routine decommissioning inspections and "in-process" inspections of licensee final surveys that had been conducted during the review period. The review team found that several of RIV's in-process inspections included confirmatory surveys. The review team found that RIV's confirmatory surveys were generally limited in scope, consistent with the guidance in the inspection procedure, and were successful in detecting contamination not found by the licensees' final surveys.

In summary, from reviews of files, interviews with staff, and inspection accompaniments, the i review team found that RIV inspection staff was performing inspections in accordance with existing procedures, inspection findings were well-founded and well-documented. RIV inspection staff demonstrated strong technical performance on this indicator. Based on the evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the review team recommends that RIV's performance with respect to this indicator, " Technical Quality of Inspections," be found satisfactory.

3.3 Technical Staffino and Trainino issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the DNMS materials program staffing level, technice! qualifications of the staff, training, and staff turnover. To evaluate these issues, the review team examined the RIV questionnaire response relative to this indicator and met with the DNMS Branch Chiefs to discuss staffing and training issues, including the qualification status of license reviewers and inspectors.

Technical and licensing support staff in the RIV materials program are organized into the three

- branches within DMNS: the Nuclear Materials Licensing Branch (NMLB), the Nuclear Materials inspection Branch (NMIB), and the Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch (FCDB).

Region IV Final Report Page 8 At the time of the'on-site review, RIV had eight materials inspectors, six materials license reviewers, and five inspectors who primarily perform decommissioning, terminated site, or uranium recovery inspections. . Some of these five specialty inspectors also assist in the routine materials program. The Region' reported that four members of the technical staff were newly hired during the review period. One inspector was hired in NMiB and three in FCDB.

Technical staffing and qualifications of the fuel cycle inspectors are discussed in Section 4.2.

The review team concluded that the Region has a good mix in staffing for materials licensing and inspection activities, as well as decommissioning activities. In addition, the region had one secretarial vacancy. Once this position is filled, RIV should have adequate administrative support.

RIV has experienced unique challenges since the last review. Closure of the WCFO in 1998 resulted in several vacancies in RIV's materials program. RIV has managed this challenge by hiring new staff and by retention of a license reviewer and three inspectors participating in a 2-year, remote, work-at-home program.

The work-at-home license reviewer and inspectors work from their homes in California. They are supervised by managers in the Arlington Office. The review team included work from these individuals in both the " Technical Quality of Licensing," and the " Technical Quality of Inspection" portions of this IMPEP review. In addition, the review team interviewed several participants in the project. Based on the review teams findings, the work-at- home project appears successful.

Since the pilot is for 2 years, and there is an expectation that most of the participants will not continue with NRC at the end of the pilot, Regional management is actively preparing to fill some of the potentially open positions. Except for those positions lost through the closure of WCFO, the staff in RIV has been stable since the last review. Additional discussion of resource use appears in Section 4.1 of this report.

With respect to staff qualifications, the review team evaluated certification letters, completed training lists and individual training plans, and interviewed the three Branch Chiefs regarding staff training. In its response to the questionnaire, the Region reported that all license reviewers had been qualified under IMC 1246. Five were granted waivers based on previous certifications and/or experience, and one reviewer recently completed the IMC 1246 certification process. All but two RIV materials inspectors have completed the training requirements in either IMC 1245 or IMC 1246. One of the two has completed all of the core requirements, and will soon receive interim certification. The second inspector lacks two courses, and is expected to complete his certification process in FY 1999. Specifics of FCDB training are discussed in Section 4.2, " Fuel Cycle Inspection Program," of this report.-

The review team determined that RIV has a well-orgmd system for planning, approving,

. and tracking training. Regional managers were fully cognizant of the qualification status and training plans for their staff, and management displayed a commitment to training. Technical

staff members regularly attended specialty training courses and refresher training, and appeared to maintain technical currency for their assigned positions. The review team

determined that RIV adequately implemented the training requirements introduced by the issuance of IMC 1246.

Based on the evaluation criteria contained in MD 5.6, the review team recommends that the Region's performance with respect to this indicator, " Technical Staffing and Training," be found satisfactory.

Region IV Final Report Page 9

' 3.4 Technical Quality of Licensina Actions The review team examined completed licensing casework and interviewed the staff regarding ,

21 specific licenses that had licensing actions completed during the review period. The licensing actions examined included six new licenses, two renewals, nine amendments, and four terminations, included in the team review was Schlumberger Technology's renewal and Syncor International, Inc.'s multi-site nuclear pharmacy license amendments. The licensing

actions involved complex license types, including two research/ development broad scope; one

. medical broad scope; two medical institution; two well-logging; two industrial radiography; one irradiator of greater than 10000 Cl; and one teletherapy. The cross-section sampling also included the following types: medical private practice; research/ development other; special nuclear material; instrument calibration; in-vitro testing; and portable industrial gauges.

Licensing actions were evaluated for completeness, consistency, proper isotopes and quantities used, qualifications of authorized users, adequate facilities and equipment, and operating and emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing actions. Licenses were evaluated for overall technical quality including accuracy; appropriateness of the license; its conditions; and tie-down conditions. Casework was evaluated for timeliness; adherence to good health physics practices; reference to appropriate regulations; documentation of safety evaluation reports; product certifications or other supporting documents; consideration vf enforcement history on renewals; pre-licensing visits; peer or supervisory review as indicated; and proper signature authority. The files were checked for retention of necessary documents and supporting data.

The licensing casework was selected to provide a representative sample of licensing actions that had been completed in the review period. A list of licenses evaluated with case-specific comments for license reviews may be found in Appendix E. In addition, the team interviewed

' license reviewers and supervisors to supply additional information regarding the team's questions on licensing decisions.

The IMPEP reviewer discussed the licensing process with senior license reviewers and the licensing Branch Chief. Although there is no policy requiring supervisory review, the NMLB Chief reviews many of the licensing actions as they are completed. The licensing branch appears to work well together, and senior license reviewers help other license reviewers if the need arises. Licenses and amendments are signed by the license reviewers who have signature authority.' Deficiencies are addressed by correspondence using appropriate regulatory language. The review team noted that the staff documents telephone conversations

. appropriately. The licensing Branch uses detailed licensing checklists for renewals and new licenses.

The review team examined licensing actions regarding terminated sites to determine if sufficient radiological surveys were performed before license termination and release, to ensure that residual radioactivity levels comply with release criteria, and to ensure that licensee survey results were validated through use of a closeout inspection or confirmatory survey. In the four terminated licenses reviewed, the review team noted that the facilities possessed radioactive materials in sealed sources and the devices were transferred to another licensee. License files contained required leak tests; transfer records to the appropriate licensee; a copy of the license; and documentation of receipt of the sealed sources or the devices. Based on the file review, the review team determined that the license reviews for these terminations were conducted properly by the Region.  !

Region IV Final Report Page 10 The licensing actions were thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable quality, with health and safety issues properly addressed. Tie-down and specific conditions were clearly stated, backed by information contained in the file. In several of the license file reviews, the license reviewers provided information 1:o the inspectors for follow-up during the next inspection.

New licenses issued contain the necessary license conditions. The Region's practice of including licensing checklists, in cases involving complex licensing issues or deficiency letters, was verified by the review team.

The review team also examined RIV's application of the decommissioning timeliness rule provisions. One of the first steps in the Vicense termination process is a licensee's riotification of its intent to cease operations, under the provisions of the decommissioning timeliness rule, 10 CFR 30.36(d). The "Decommissionir:g Handbook," Appendix E, has a checklist of actions to be completed by NRC staff on receipt of such notification. For example, the reviewer is prompted by the checklist to determine the type of decommissioning (from one of four decommissioning types of varying comp!exity), which then defines a number of other parameters, such as whether a decommissioning plan is needed from the licensee, and whether an environmental review is required by NRC staff. The review team found that the Appendix E checklist is being used by the RIV staff.

The guidance in inspection Procedures 87104, " Decommissioning inspection Procedure for Materials Licensees," and 88104, " Decommissioning Inspection Procedure for Fuel Cycle Facilities," specify that the field notes contained in the respective procedures be used to document each inspection conducted using the procedure. Inspection Manual Chapter 2602,

" Decommissioning Inspection Program for Fuel Cycle Facilities and Materials Licensees,"

specifies that the inspection staff shall fully document , in the form of a written report, all visits to and inspections of each site undergoing decommissioning. RIV is following the prescribed guidance and is generating both field notes and formal reports for each of its decommissioning inspections. The requirement for documenting inspection findings in both formats is somewhat burdensome and has yielded no additional benefit in understanding the licensee's program or documenting site status. The Region woutcl prefer the option of preparing either a formal report or field notes, depending on the scope of ths inspection. Formal reports issued by the Region would continue to include applicable items identified in the field notes. This IMPEP team recommends that additional discussions be held between NMSS and all Regions to determine if both the field notes and formal reports are needed.

The IMPEP team examined several decomrnissioning reviews that were being processed by RIV staff. RIV staff generally works closely with the licensee on the documentation that is required for NRC review. The IMPEP team found RIV's decommissioning reviewers to be focusing on appropriate risk-significant issue:s regarding the remediation plan, and RIV staff were reviewing the plan in a technically sound manner.

The IMPEP team also conducted a limited review of financial assurance for decommissioning.

- The IMPEP team found that RIV conducted its annual evaluations of the financial assurance instrument security program. The IMPEP team found that the Region was addressing financial assurance for decommissioning in an approp:riate manner. The IMPEP team was told that RIV routinely coordinates its financial assurance reviews with NMSS to ensure that they are performed correctly.

l

Region IV Final Report Page 11 The IMPEP team leamed that'some of the financial assurarice guidance, currently contained in 1 Regulatory Guide (RG) 3.66, needs to be updated. At the present time, revised guidance has been developed (and will be published within the next several months) that will reflect the updates needed by RIV staff. The IMPEP team recommends that NMSS staff confirm that the updated guidance is responsive to regional and headquarters staffs' needs.

' Based on the evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the IMPEP team recommends that the Region's 1

- performance with respect to this indicator, " Technical Quality of Licensing Actions," be found I satisfactory.

3.5 Response to incidents and Alleaations The team evaluated the effectiveness of the Region's response to incidents and allegations, the {

Region's response to the IMPEP questionnaire, the incidei reported in the " Nuclear Materials Events Database (NMED)," the Region's Licensee Event I eports (LERs) for materials licenses, and the casework files, and appropriate supporting documentation for 13 incidents. In addition, the team conducted interviews with the DNMS Division Director, the Regional State i Agreement Officers, the Regional Office Allegation Coordinator and allegation staff, materials license reviewers, and inspectors.

The IMPEP team cross-checked the incidents listed in the LER, the NMED, and the license files.l The 13 incidents reviewed included the following type.s: three leaking sources; four misadministrations; two equipment failures; one potential overexposure; one overexposure; and

. two stolen equipment events. A list of the cases reviewed, with comments, is included in Appendix F.

The incident investigations were reviewed in depth for health and safety significance, technical .;

quality of the Region's response, coordination, level of response, inspection, follow-up,  :

corrective actions, and compliance issues. The team found that the Region's response to incidents was prompt, well-coordinated, and documented, inspections were of high technical j quality and adequately addressed health and safety concerns. Non-compliance issues were adequately and clearly identified, and appropriate enforcement actions were initiated in a timely manner. Discussions with the staff helped resolve all the team's questions about specific items ,

in the incident files.

I The IMPEP team identified one case with a long response and closure time. The team discussed this case with Regional management in detail. There were multiple reasons for the

. considerable delay in identifying the over-exposure and closing the case. The Region ,

self-identified this case in the spring of 1998 and conducted a review of the event. The results of its findings were documented in a memorandum dated December 15,1998, " Nuclear  !

Pharmacy Lessons Learned After Predecisional Conference." The lessons learned from this  ;

experience indicated that " Communications between the inspection branch and licensing  !

branch were not always effective, inspectors did not fully understand the duties and  !

responsibilities of a pharmacist working under the supervision of an authorized nuclear pharmacist (ANP)," and "The guidance on when an E-mail to a licensee must be placed into the docket file is not clear." The Region amended its procedures and familiarized the staff with the new procedures to help prevent a recurrence of this type of problem.

e Region IV Final Report Page 12 The Region uses NRC's current incident and event guidance. The staff and management were quite familiar with the provisions of the guidance and use it when responding to an event.

During the review period, the Region recorJed 65 events into its database. Fifty of the cases were processed and c'aed during this period.

The team compared the NMED report data and LER report data with the information available

- in the license files. First,'he license files were complete and adequate supporting documentation was in the. files. Second, the information in the LER system was well-correlated with the information ir. the files. Thirteen cases were randomly selected from the LER database for review. Of thece,12 y are located in NMED. The information in NMED appeared to be complete for cases reviend. A lack of time prevented an in-depth review of the entire LER database, and it is noted that only 24 of the 65 events listed in Table 1, " Event Reports," of the

- Region's questionnaire response, could be clearly identified in the NMED database. The team could not draw a conclusion regarding this difference since it was clear, based on discussions with Regional management and staff, and a review of the docket files, that the information is being submitted to both systems.

- While reviewing the incidents, the team noted inconsistences in NMED data related to the identification of documents pertaining to the event. Most NMED cases appeared to have a complete list of related documents. In others, it was not clear that all related documents had been linked to the NMED event. Most dockets contained documents with NUDOCS accession numbers and they appeared within the NMED report. A few docket files contained event related documents that had not passed through NUDOCS and this information may not have been captured in NMED.' Closed cases can only be identified by researching the docket files since NMED does not have a specific field for identifying closed cases. The Region can identify closed cases by checking the LER database.

Additionally, the team notes that there is no requirement for the Regions to review and correct information in NMED to assure that the most current information is in the database. The team

- also notes that the Region is reporting events that have occurred in Agreement States. There is no requirement for the Region to report, or not report, Agreement State events in the LER or NMED database. The team recommends that NMSS review the requirements and guidance for using LER and NMED, when reporting materials events, with the goal of cataloging all events in a timely manner.- j This review was the second time that an IMPEP review of allegation response had been

~

conducted simultaneously with the Agency Allegation Advisor's (AAA) annual audit of the Regional allegation program. The two reviews were scheduled concurrently to minimize the impact on the Regional operations and to reduce overlap between the separate reviews.

Before the review, the team coordinated with the AAA team to avoid duplication of effort. The AAA team's effort focused on the Region's implementation of MD 8.8, " Management of

' Allegations," and the IMPEP team's focus was on the Region's performance related to the identification of health and safety issues, appropriateness of response, corrective actions, and j notifications to intemal and external organizations. In preparation, the team also reviewed the l AAA 1997 audit of the RIV allegation process. The IMPEP team selected five cases from the l 18 cases reviewed by the AAA for further examination for health and safety issues.  !

l The staff responsible for coordinating allegations is assigned to the RIV Administrator's office.

The Allegation Coordinator has resnonsibility for tracking all RIV allegations and coordinating

L ..

.a .e I

i Region IV Final Report Page 13 )

l .

I the Allegation Review Board meetings.- The Region closely follows the Agency guidance for j i

processing allegations found in Rngional Procedure 0517A, " Management of Allegations,"

f dated March 5,1998, that was revised on March 10,1999. i L

i . The tearn interviewed the allegation staff members and found them very dedicated and l - responsive to allegers. They were also familiar with the Agency's procedures for handling

! -allegations. The Region's response time in investigating allegations and responding to the L alleger was excellent. The review of selected allegation cases demonstrated a clear

understanding of health and safety issues, appropriateness of response, completeness of l- ' inspections, and correction of problems. The team notes that the Region made good use of-l ' outside consultants to perform independent dose assessments in several cases. Also, the i

. Region's handling of enforcement issues related to inspection and investigation findings was

! y timely and well-documented.~ When required, allegations were forwarded to the Office of :

.l  ;

Investigations for resolution. Allegations concerning Agreement States were handled appropriately.

During the review period,181 allegations were processed. Of these,149 were closed in the cases examined, the Region promptly and adequately addressed health and safety issues.

When necessary, consultants were used to determine doses and health effects. Results of l inspections and consultant reports documented health and safety issues in detail.

On incident follow-up, the level of the response was appropriate to the type of incident. The Region addresses allegations within a reasonable time-frame, from initial notification until closure.- The Region notified Agmement States of allegations in accordance with NRC guidance. Allegations were responded to with appropriate investigations, and follow-up actions.

i The Region's allegation staff makes considerable efforts to protect the identity of allegers, and

' the person or the organization that notified the Region of the allegation was notified about the results when possible.'

Based on the evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the IMPEP team recommends that the Region's j performance with respect to this indicator, " Response to incidents and Allegations," be -

found satisfactory.

4.0 ' NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS-In addition _ to the common performance indicators addressed in the preceding Section 3.0,

IMPEP identifies four non-common performance indicators to be used in reviewing Regional programs: (1)" Performance Against Operating Plan Goals"; (2)" Regional Fuel Cycle inspection Program"; (3)"SDMP Program"; and (4)" Uranium Recovery Program." These j- areas are discussed in the following sections:

L 4.1 ' Performance aoainst Operatina Plan Goals

. - 1' During this review period, the format and function of the Regional Operating Plan shifted dramatically. _The Regional Operating Plan evolved during this review period from a document that previously set broad Regional priorities, objectives, goals, and planned accomplishments, with associated resource data, into a document that tracks progress and resource expenditures e

' Region IV Final Report Page 14 l against highly detailed performance measures (outcome and output measures) and defined metrics. The FY 1999 Operating p lan now contains metrics for quantity, quality, timeliness,

. efficiency, and effectiveness, which RIV uses to appraise its performances g Like the rest of the Agency, RIV updates its operating plan quarterly, so the details in the Regional Operating Plan present a current, comprehensive picture of the Region's performance. Because of the newlevel of detail and amount of data tracked in the Regional Operating Plan, and the increased number of managers and staff reviewing Regional performance against the Operating Plan metrics, an IMPEP review cannot and should not match the scrutiny of Regional performance against the Regional Operating Plan that is occurring under. simultaneous, parallel Agency processes. ' Therefore, the IMPEP team .

performed a less-detailed assessment of RIV's performance on this non-common indicator than

. In past RIV IMPEP reviews.

)'

For these reasons, the following discussion just covers broad highlights of Regional performance against the Operating Plan.

Materials Licensina. Since the 1995 program review, the Region has achieved a downward trend in the number of pending licensing cases and reduction of the backlog. As a result of the 1997 review, a goal was established to reduce the backlog for materials licenses to no more than 15 cases by June 30,1998. In January 1997, the Region had 137 pending licensing cases, with a backlog of 73 cases. At the close of FY 1997, the pending stood at 99 cases, with a backlog of 44. During FY 98, RIV reduced its backlog of older pending renewals from 29 to 4, and had reduced its overall licensing backlog from 44 to 11 over the same interval. By the end of March 1999, only one pending renewal was greater than 180 days old. At the time of the review, the Region had only 85 cases pending, with a backlog of seven cases. Nearly all the backlogged cases were difficult licensing actions, some requiring technical assistance requests to NMSS. Further, the Region accomplished the reduction of pending and backlogged cases concurrently with the completion of the Regions IV and WCFO consolidation, and the development of a work-at-home licensing pilot. The Region continues to place a high priority on reducing backlogs as low as possible.

The licensing casework data for the review period are summarized in the following table:

RIV Licensing Casework Statistics Pending Backlogged January 1997 137. 73 FY 1997 Year End 99- 44 FY 1998 Year End 106 13 FY 1999 (as of 85 7 2/99)

In addition to its licensing casework progress, the Region participated with Headquarters and other Regions in developing a process to streamline licensing in anticipation of the large influx

~

= of renewals that are expected to arrive in the year 2000.

Region IV Final Report Page 15 The IMPEP team concluded that RIV's performance in managing its licensing actions during the review period was excellent. These accomplishments demonstrate effective management of the RIV licensing program, as well as hard work by RIV's materials licensing staff.

Materials inspections. See Section 3.1. Regional performance on materials inspections is L compared, in Section 3.1, with timeliness goals, rather than total numbers of inspections performed. The RIV FY 1999 Operating Plan also provides DNMS' nuclear material inspection assignments and standards in terms of inspection timeliness and quality, rather than gross numbers of inspections completed.

Resource Use. The IMPEP team examined the RIV budget figures and expenditure data for FY 1998 and FY 1999 (through January 2,1999) that were provided by NMSS' Program l Management, Policy Development, and Analysis Staff (PMDA) in advance of the review. The resource utilization table provided by PMDA is shown below.

In FY 1998, RIV expended 23.0 full-time equivalent positions (FTEs) (direct staff effort) versus 20.5 FTEs budgeted for NMSS program activities (112 percent). For the first quarter of FY 1999, RIV expended 4.0 FTEs versus 5.2 FTEs budgeted for the first quarter, for a 77 percent expenditure rate. In FY 1999, the Region is budgeted 19.7 FTEs for materials programs for the whole year.

Data for FY 1998 reveal thatRTV's actual expenditures for materials licensing, inspection, and event evaluation were 20 percent more than budgeted (actual-76 percent; budgeted-56 percent). These expenditures were expended to reduce the Regionallicensing backlog, while allowing the Region to_ maintain the currency of its materials inspection program. The 1999 budget data for the first quarter Data for FY 1999 reveal that RIV's expenditures are generally close to the levels budgeted for the different materials activities.

In 1998 and 1999, Regional resources were budgeted to support NMSS rulemaking and guidance-development program instratives.' 3e Region provided the IMPEP team with

information showing that RIV staff and management participated as team members, team ,

leaders,' or reviewers of at least seven guidance-development activities. In some cases, the l Region both participated as a team member or team leader, and also had a supervisor j participate on the review teams for the same guides. In addition to the NUREG-1556 activities, RIV staff or managers participated on NMSS teams involving: the Veterans Affairs Master Materials License; License Renewal Review and Streamlining; a prototype inspection of the U.S. Department of Energy by NRC's External Regulation Task Force; and IMPEP reviews of Agreement States. In the area of Regional support for NMSS program initiatives, the IMPEP team determined that RIV is providing appropriate support for NMSS program activities.

Based on the data provided, in 1998 anf. the first quarter of 1999, fuel cycle activities closely tracked the resources budgeted. However, in 1998, uranium recovery activities used only 47 percent of the budget. Conversely, decommissioning activities consumed more than twice the FTEs than were budgeted. For the first quarter of 1999, both uranium recovery and decommissioning activities appear to continue the trend. However, there were no programmatic deficiencies observed from the resource imbalance.

l l

r Region IV Final Report Page 16 Overall, the Region is following the priorities in the Regional Operating Plan, as indicated by resource expenditures. In general, the IMPEP team observed that RIV has been successful at keeping expenditures close to bt igeted levels, which demonstrates strong resource l management. Performance in the fuel cycle and uranium recovery inspection areas is discussed in subsequent sections of this report (Sections 4.2 and 4.4, respectively).

The following table provides resource data in more detail:

RIV RESOURCE UTILIZATION FY 1998 FY 1999 Program Activity Annual Expended  % Annual Budget Expended  %

Budget Budget Oct-Deca Oct-Dec Materials Licensing 4.4 7.7 175 4.4 1.2 1.3 108 Materials inspection 4.9 6.1 125 5.0 1.3 1.4 100 Materials Rulemaking 2.2 0 0 1.0 0.3 0.2 67 Event 2.1 3.7 176 2.6 0.7 0.5 71 Evaluation / Incident Response / Allegations Fuel Cycle 1.2 1.3 108 0.9 0.2 0.1 50 Low-Level Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 Decornmissioning 1.1 2.6 236 1.9 0.5 0.3 150 Uranium Recovery [ 3.0 , 1A 47 2.0 0.5 0.1 12 Spent Fuel 0.6 . 0.2 33 0.6 0.1 Agreement States 1.0 0 0 1.3 0.4 0 TOTAL 20.5 23.0 112 19.7 5.2 4.0 77

'FY 1998 expenditures from Regionalinput provided in response to the FY 2000 President's budget update 12/98.

'FY 1999 budget and expended resources are from September 27,1998 through January 2,1999, i.e.,

14 weeks.

Just before the on-site IMPEP review, as part of routine budget activities, NMSS performed a resource analysis of Regional labor rates in FY 1996 - FY 1998 for materials inspections. The IMPEP team examine the labor rates for RiV, and compared them with the average Regional labor rate per FTE of 0.017 for FY 1996-1998. RIV's labor rate per FTE has dropped from 0.016 in FY 1996 to 0.015 for FY 1997-1998. RIV should be commended for its efficient use of resources in its materials inspection program.

1 l Based on the IMPEP team's analysis of the resource expenditures and the Region's productive use of the resources, the IMPEP team recommends that the Region's performance with respect to this non-common indicator, " Performance against Operating Plan Goals," be found

! satisfactory.

Region IV Final Report Page 17 4.2 ~ Fuel Cycle Inspection Proaram .

i

- 4.2.1 Introduction

. The RIV fuel cycle program focuses primarily on one major active fuel cycle facility, the Siemens Power Corporation fuel fabrication plant in Richland, Washington. , Two other fuel facilities, the' General Electric '- Vallecitos Nuclear Center in Vallecitos, California, and General Atomics at San Diego, Califomia, have only low levels of operational activity and small amounts of special nuclear material, and are in the process of decommissioning. The risks they pose are small compared with the Siemens facility, where the great majority of the RIV fuel cycle inspection effort is concentrated.

-4.2.2 l Status of Fuel Cvele Proaram Before the closing of the WCFO, the RIV fuel cycle inspection program was conducted from the WCFO, under the responsibility of the RIV DNMS. _ With the closing of the WCFO, the FCDB was created in Arlington, to conduct the RIV fuel cycle inspection program, as well as decommissioning, uranium recovery, and other programs. The FCDB Branch Chief estimates he spends about 20 percent of his time on the fuel cycle program, inspections at the three RIV fuel cycle facilities are planned and scheduled in coordination with the other regions and Headquarters, through a Master Inspection Plan (MIP) managed from Headquarters. The number of onsite hours of inspection planned for different inspection functional areas is determined in advance for each FY, in consideration of risk and licensee performance, and is reviewed by Headquarters, to establish consistency with Licensee Performance Review (LPR) results and budgeted resources. RIV fuel cycle inspections during the IMPEP review period were conducted generally in accordance with the MIP.

L The status of the RIV inspection program can be ascertained quickly, and with a minimum of

- effort, by referencing an inspection follow-up table maintained individually by the lead fuel cycle inspector. This has been found to be efficient for the few facilities in RIV, and it was quickly established that there were no overdue inspections.

The lead inspector also enters the same inspection follow-up information in the Agency-wide inspector Follow-up System (IFS). IFS is not Year-2000 compliant. It is scheduled to be replaced by a more modem inspection Reporting and Analysis Module (IRAM) of the Reactor Program System (RPS) by mid-September 1999. Then, existing IFS data will be converted and loaded into the IRAM/RPS. Although this constitutes some duplication of effort, it is appropriate for RIV to continue data entry into IFS, since the IRAM/RPS development effort will include conversion of the IFS data into the IRAM/RPS database. The IRAM/RPS program will also include a new Plant lasues Matrix to track plant status, fed automatically from the IFS-type data.

Licenses performance is monitored through the Licensee Performance Review program (LPR).

LPRs are conducted for the Siemens facility at 18-month intervals. During the last LPR for Siemens, completed in May 1999, it was determined that the safety and safeguards programs

Region IV Final Report Page 18 at Siemens were adequate to protect the public health and safety. The inspections at Siemens, during the IMPEP review period, were focused on the dominant safety and safeguards risks at the facility, in accordance with the guidance provided in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2600, as implemented in the Fuel Cycle Master inspection Plan. Accordingly, several of the inspections conducted at Siemens focused on events that occurred, and on new processes that were about to start up.

4.2.3 Technical Quality of Insoections .

The IMPEP team reviewed the last seven inspection reports for the Siemens facility. The last three of these were written by the current lead fuel cycle inspector (in training), who had been

- accompanied by qualified inspectors from Ril and Rlli, and once by the previous (retired) RIV lead fuel cycle inspector. All the reports read clearly and were well-organized. Each report clearly indicated the appropriate follow-up items, and the violations were clearly explained in the three repon that contained Notices of Violation.

I 1

4.2.4 Technical Staffina and Trainino J

After the two experienced fuel cycle inspectors in the WCFO retired, inspections were supported by a newly hired RIV fuel cycle inspector, accompanied in each case by a qualified

- fuel facility inspector from one of the other regions, or by RIV management, who 7,ere also qualified NRC inspectors. The new inspector has 32 years experience in the nuclear and health

. physics fields, but is required to be formally qualified through a combination of formal and on-the-job training experiences. As the fuel facility inspector trainee gained facility-specific

. knowledge and experience, he has taken an increasingly responsible role in the inspection program, including writing the inspection reports. 'In addition, he has participated in the Licensee Performance Review proceas for the Siemens facility.

.The current lead fuel cycle inspector (tramee))oined the staff in March 1998, and is projected to be certified as a qualified NRC Fuel Cycle inspector in Summer 1999. The extended time period for qualifying the fuel cycle lead inspector is attributed to the unique circumstance in which the previous senior fuel cycle inspectors for RIV retired, requiring the recently hired lead fuel cycle inspector to assume a significant load of programmatic assignments and inspection responsibilities.

In the interest of assuring flexibility in the conduct of regional inspections, including fuel cycle ,

inspections, Region IV plans to cross-train another inspector to qualify as a fuel cycle facility l inspector, to provide backup to the lead fuel cycle inspector. The Region also plans to continue a program of inspector " cross-fertilization" with Regions ll and lli (previously described in the i l

1997 Final IMPEP Report of Region IV), so that Region ll and lll inspectors will remain

. cognizant of safety issues at the Region IV facilities, and can provide support for inspections, wFen needed. Similarly, the lead Region IV fuel cycle inspector will provide support for i inspections at fuel cycle facilities in Regions 11 and Ill.

n .

H ,

Region IV Final Report Page 19

[' 4.2.5 Response to incidents and Alleaations l

L Several allegations _ were received during the IMPEP review period, s.ome of which have not yet

. been resolved.' There also were a few reported events. A detailed review of these allegations and events by the IMPEP Team, and discussions with RIV management, indicated RIV conducted inspections, provided appropriate support for the Ol investigations, and helped to .

resolve safety issues connected with the events. In some cases, Notices of Violation were issued.

L  ! Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria for the above four performance areas, the IMPEP team recommends that RIV's performance with respect to the indicator," Fuel Cycle inspection Program," be found satisfactory.

4.3. Site Decommissionina Manaaement Plan The SDMP includes sites that involve unique and difficult issues requiring special attention to ensure timely decommissioning. The SDMP sites may have buildings, former waste disposal  ;

areas, large piles of tailings, and ground-water and/or soil contamination. In all cases, the  !

Issues associated with the sites are sufficiently complex that they are included in this special NRC program. Appendix G contains the SDMP and decommissioning files reviewed.

4.3.1 Quality of SDMP Decommissionina Reviews -

RIV does not have project management or licensing responsibility for any of the five SDMP

. sites in the Region. These are the responsibility of NMSS DWM. Therefore, the IMPEP team 1

- did not review this performance area.

'4.3.2 Financial Assurance for Decommissionina As noted in section 4.3.1, RIV does not have responsibility for project rnanagement of SDMP '

sites, and financial assurance rey!ews for SDMP sites are not performed by RIV. Therefore, o the IMPEP team did not review this performance area.

4.3.3 Termination Radioloalcal Survevs -

Within this performance area, the IMPEP team assessed how the region ensures that sufficient

'" radiological surveys are being performed before license termination and site release, as outlined in IMC 2605, and that licensee survey results are validated through a closeout inspection or confirmatory survey, where necessary.

l

! The IMPEP team concluded that RIV's surveys and decommissioning inspections are adequate

- to ensure that residual radioactivity levels comply with release criteria. The IMPEP team also found that RIV is performing confirmatory surveys for licensees' sites in accordance with IMC 2605 and IP 87104, " Decommissioning Inspection Procedure for Materials Licensees. " RIV -

validates licensee survey results through a closeout inspection or confirmatory survey, based l

r:;

Region IV Final Report Page 20 l

~ on the extent and significance of any residual contamination. Section 3.2 of this report, L " Technical Quality of Inspections," also discusses RIV's performance of termination surveys for non-SDMP sites. i 4.3.4' Inspections .

The IMPEP team examined the technical quality of inspections and surveys for SDMP j decommissioning inspections. (See Section 3.2, " Technical Quality of Inspections," for. '

l' additional information on the performance of non-SDMP inspections by RIV decommissioning staff.) For the SDMP sites, the IMPEP team found that these sites are inspected in accordance l with IMC 2602, " Decommissioning inspection Program for Fuel Cycle Facilities and Materials . l Licensees"; IP 87104, " Decommissioning inspection Procedure for Materials Licensees"; and l

IP 88104, " Decommissioning Inspection Procedures for Fuel Cycle Facilities."

)

l During the review period, the Cimarron site is the only RIV SDMP site that has been undergoing significant and active decommissioning. However, in 1998 the Sequoyah Fuels and Cushing sites v.ere given authorization to conduct limited decommissioning activities. All RIV SDMP sites have submitted decommissioning plans for NRC review and approval. However, except ,

as no' ed for Cimarron, site activities have principally involved radioactive material storage, characterization surveys, and decommissioning plan development. No significant delays in any RIV 3DMP site remediation were attributable to the Region's inspection program. Policy issues involving proposed decommissioning plans are being determined by the project office. The )

- Region confers with the project office on proposed activities as needed. RIV staff has -

supported DWM project management on numerous occasions on RIV SDMP site confirmatory surveys, public and licensee meetings, and review and concurrence on many licensing actions.

Based on reviews of inspection reports for the Kerr-McGee Cushing, Kerr-McGee Cimarron, Sequoyah Fuels, and Kaiser Aluminum SDMP sites, the IMPEP team found that RIV's SDMP decommissioning inspections were planned, carried out, and documented in accordance with appropriate inspection procedures. Inspection documentation was completed, and issued in a timely manner. Although some reports were not issued within 30 days, all reports were issued within 45 days, and delays were attributable to coordination of significant issues, inspections i

were also well-coordinated with other groups. In a number of cases, SDMP project managers from NMSS/DWM participated in the Inspections.

L4.3.5 Staff Qualification.g Qualifications of the RIV staff me escussed in Section 3.3," Technical Staffing and Training." l In general, RIV's decommissioning staff was well-qualified through training and work experience to perform decommissioning inspections.

! 4.3.6 ~ SDMP Milestones l l

Within the SDMP program, RIV is responsible for inspections and NRC surveys at SDMP sites.

SDMP milestones are often tied to the decommissioning and final survey plan reviews  !

conducted by NMSS/DWM and thus require close coordination between Headquarters and regions. . RIV staff plans and schedules inspections in consultation with NMSS/DWM to ensure  ;

i

o  ;

Region IV Final Report Page 21 that the scope of each inspection is appropriate, and that the inspections are timely, inspections were sometimes deferred by RIV and NMSS, because no activities were being performed at the SDMP site. NMSS staff accompanied RIV inspectors on several of the SDMP inspections during the review period. Except for coordinating SDMP inspection activities with NMSS/DWM, the Region has no specific responsibility to track decommissioning milestones or update the SDMP database. With respect to the SDMP inspection coordination with DWM, the IMPEP leam observed that RIV was performing in a successful manner in this performance area.

4.3.7 SDMP Summarv

' Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the IMPEP team recommends that the Region's performance with respect to this non-common performance indicator, SDMP, be found satisfactory.

' 4.4 . Uranium Recovery Proaram This non-common indicator includes five sub-indicators of the uranium recovery regulatory program: .1) " Status of the Uranium Recovery inspection Program"; 2) " Technical Staffing and Training"; 3)" Technical Quality of Licensing"; 4)" Technical Quality of the Uranium Recovery

' inspection Program"; and 5)" Response to incidents and Allegations." Sub-indicators 1,2, and 4 are discussed in this section of the report. RIV does not conduct uranium recovery licensing; therefore, sub-indicator 3 was not addressed in this review. The fifth sub-indicator, response to incidents and allegations specifically involving uranium recovery facilities, was reviewed by the team. DNMS' performance on incidants and allegations, in general, is discussed in detail in Section 3.5," Response to incidents and Allegations," of this report.

The uranium recovery licensing functions are conducted by NMSS' Uranium Recovery and Low-Level Waste Branch (URLL). Uranium recovery inspection functions are conducted primarily by

' DNMS in RIV. . RIV's uranium recovery inspection staff does not have technical expertise in some engineering and geo-sciences areas; therefore, RIV's uranium recovery inspections have focused prirnarily on the health physics / radiation protection ereas. Occasionally, technical staff from DWM/URLL have accompanied RIV inspectors to provide technical support for other disciplines.

4.4.1 Status of the Uranium Recovery inspection Proaram The IMPEP team focused on several factors in evaluating RIV's performance for this sub-indicator, including inspection frequency, overdue inspections, timely issuance of inspection findings to licensees, inspection follow-up,~and retrievability of uranium recovery inspection materials. The IMPEP team's evaluation is based on a review of RIV's responses to the questionnaire, the uranium recovery inspection schedule, inspection casework files, and interviews with inspection staff and management. A list of the RIV uranium recovery inspection files that were reviewed is included as Appendix H.

During the review period, RIV inspected uranium recovery facilities of various types and stages of operation. Those included several ISL mines; conventional uranium mills that operated

e Ind *mW i

Region IV Final Report Page 22 during the review period; and Envirocare of Utah. The remaining sites are primarily non-operating conventional uranium mills that are in various stages of decommissioning and reclamation. i inspection frequency is estat %hed through a Master Inspection Plan (MIP) developed by RIV

. In conjunction with the program office in NMSS. This inspection schedule is based on guidance in NRC IMC 2641, "in-Situ Leach Facilities Inspection Program," and IMC 2801, " Uranium Mill

. and 11e.(2) Byprnduct Material Disposal Site and Facility inspection Program." Since the MIP is a dynamic program, affected by the existing staffing levels and inspection requirements, it is changed on an as-needed basis to complete the inspection cycle. Subsequently, since March

' 1997, there have been no overdue inspections. ' Should an inspection deviate from the delineated schedule, the program office is notified and an alternate schedule generated to accommodate the inspection requirements.

In a memorandum' dated October 16,1998, DWM and RIV developed an alternate scheduling basis for routine, announced inspections of uranium recovery sites. Prior to this, RIV supported

. the Headquarters program by conducting a minimum of one inspection per year at uranium recovery sites under reclamation or in standby status. Operational facilities were inspected twice a year. This schedule resulted in at least 30 inspections per year by RIV, but would have increased when two existing conventional mills and two new ISL facilities began planned operations. The number of inspections could have also increased at facilities where problems have been identified. For example, because of continued problems identified in inspections at the Envirocare site, the region increased announced inspections to four times per year.  ;

Because the Regional inspectors are generally health physicists, additional technical support by Headquarters staff was often needed to conduct a complete inspection of a licensee's performance. If, due to timing of reclamation activities at uranium recovery sites, headquarters staff is unable to coordinate its inspections with that of the region, Headquarters staff is qualified to conduct an inspection without Regional support.

Based on Regional and program office recommendations, several changes have been l Implemented since the last IMPEP review: l 1 Inspections of non-operating sites (sites either in standby status or preparing to start

- operations) were reduced from once a year to once every 3 years. These sites are inspected prior to the initiation of operations, or when necessary to evaluate the l condition of the facilities.

2. . inspections of sites'under reclamation were reduced from once a year to every 2 years, depending on work initiated or completed by the licensee. Inspections will be conducted 1 year prior to the termination of a license to confirm compliance with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, Section 83c. This change in inspection frequency places greater responsibility on the licensee to assure that no problems are identified after construction is completed. Under current conditions, licensees frequently request inspections of construction in progress to ensure no problems are identified at the time of license termination. The licensee would continue to have the option to make such a request, each of which would be considered by the staff. Stakeholder involvement would also play a part in the decision regarding inspections at sites under reclamation.

For example, in the case of sites such as the Atlas Moab site, where there is a high t

l I

Region IV Final Report Page 23 ,

degree of pubfc scrutiny and involvement, Headquarters staff would continue to be available to conduct real-time inspections.

3. Inspections of operating sites (conventional mills, ISLs, and Envirocare) will continue to be conducted twice a year, but involvement by Headquarters staff will be reduced to -

once a year, and the scope of the second inspection will be reduced to a 1 to 2 day inspection by RIV (in areas representing programmatic or facility changes, and activities representing higher risks). Headquarters staff (predominantly hydrologists) will continue to accompany the Region on inspections of operating facilities. If problems are identified that require Headquarter's technical expertise, Headquarters involve.nent would be increased to twice a year (or more, if needed) and the second inspection's scope could be expanded until staff is assured that the problems are resolved. Newly operating sites would normally receive two full inspections per year during th9 first 2 years of operation, with a reduction in the scope as above, following 2 years of operation, if the inspection history warrants. Also, in the case of ISLs with rapidly expanding well fields or production rates, Headquarters and/or Regional staff may find it {

necessary to inspect twice a year.

4. The current policy for reactive and unannounced inspections will not be changed.

In the previous IMPEP report, the IMPEP team recommended that additional inspection guidance be issued for inspections of uranium recovery facilities. As a result, several changes were made to inspection guidance and IPs during the IMPEP interval:

1. IMC 2641, "in-Situ Leach Facilities inspection Program," was issued to establish the j routine safety inspection program for in-situ leach facilities. '

2- IMC 2801, " Uranium Mill 11e.(2) Byproduct Material Disposal Site and Facility inspection Program," was revised to address inspection needs identified since the origidalissuance of the IMC.

3 IP 37001, "10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluation Program," was revised in accordance to the PRA Implementation Plan to incorporate improved guidance for inspectors on how to use PRA insights to focus inspection activities.

4 IP 87104, " Decommissioning Inspection Procedure For Materials Licensees," was revised to provide guidance on the review of final survey programs and conducting confirmatory surveys.

5. IP 87654, " Uranium Mill Site Decommissioning Inspection," was issued to supplement j decommissioning related guidance that is provided in IMC 2801. 1 I

6. IP 89001, "lSL Facilities," was issued to address NRC inspection of uranium ISL facilities.

The timeliness of the issuance of inspection findings was also evaluated during the inspection .

file review. Of inspection reports that were reviewed, nearly all were issued within 30 days after completion of the inspection. The IMPEP team reviewed inspection files and other ,

Region IV Final Report Page 24 correspondence in the files related to follow-up actions required in response to violations. The lMPEP team found that those documents also had been issued by RIV in a timely manner.

. The uranium recovery inspection files are in good order. The inspection reports were readily produced by the RIV staff when requested. The files contain follow-up documentation in response to notices of violations, as appropriate.

'4.4.2 Technical Staffina and Trainina

~ ln reviewing this sub-indicator, the IMPEP team considered the uranium recovery program staffing level, the technical qualifications of the staff, staff training, and staff turnover.

RIV has two prir..ary inspectors who perform the uranium recovery inspections. One is assigned full-time for inspections at uranium recovery sites. The other is assigned to spend approximately 33 percent of La time for uranium recovery inspections.

During this review period, two inspectors left the uranium recovery inspection program. Based on discussions with RIV management, it is possible that other inspectors may leave the

_ program in the near future. Management is aware of the implications associated with this specific possibility and with staff turnover in general. Plans have been developed to deal with the expected staff turnover.

- The RIV uranium recovery inspectors all have reactor health physics or materials radiation safety backgrounds, so the health physics focus of the inspections has been strong. However, expertise in other areas, such as engineering and geo-sciences, is also required to perform the range of inspections necessary at many of the operating uranium recovery facilities. .

Occasionally during the review period, this expertise was provided by DWM technical staff.

In response to previous IMPEP recommendations, an appendix to IMC 1246 was recently issued (March 6,1998) to provide specific written training requirements for staff involved in the uranium recovery inspection program. ,

4.4.3 TechnicalQualityof Licensina Actions Since RIV does not conduct uranium recovery licensing, this sub-indicator was not reviewed

'during the IMPEP review.

4.4.4 Technical Quality of Uranium Recoverv Insoections in reviewing this sub-indicator, the IMPEP team examined inspection files, inspection reports, and enforcement documentation for several inspections conducted during the review period.

The cases selected for review covered various licensees representing a range of uranium recovery licensing activities in different stages of operation. Inspectors and management were interviewed to assess the adequacy of their preparation for the inspections, the depth and content of the actual inspections, and the appropriateness of inspection findings. The IMPEP team's findings are discussed below.

Region IV Final Report Page 25

^ Generally, one RIV uranium recovery inspector will conduct an inspection, with help from other inspectors, supsrvisors, or DWM technical staff. The inspectors generally take several days to coordinate, plan, and prepare for inspections. They review relevant manual chapters, inspection procedures, previous inspection reports, licenses, incident reports, notices of '

violations (NOVs), and other background information, and often consult with the licensing staff .

In URB before inspections.

The review determined that, during a typical inspection, inspectors observe licensee operations; interview workers, managers, and contractors; review facility records; examine site operating plans and procedures; and normally make independent measurements during inspections. (These activities were also verified through several inspection accompaniments that were performed by the DWM staff.) Although the RIV inspectors primarily focus on health physics and radiation safety issues, they also routinely inspect for environmental monitoring, management and organizational issues, and general housekeeping practices. The inspectors typically observe a broad spectrum of licensee operations. During this review period, as the RIV inspectors became increasingly familiar with uranium recovery facility operations, especially at the operating ISLs, they expanded their reviews to include observations about relevant engineering and geo-science issues.

In previous IMPEP reviews, it was noted that the inspection reports did not always indicate that

- independent measurements were being performed during inspections, even though such measurements had been conducted, in the previous IMPEP review, it was concluded that

' uranium recovery inspectors could improve documentation of their independent measurements

- in the inspection reports. This IMPEP team examined the documentation and discussed the findings with inspectors and management. It was learned that independent measurements are documented only if a problem is found with radiation postings. If a measurement is taken and a l posting problem is not found, the measurement is not usually documented. The IMPEP team finds this practice acceptable.

The IMPEP teamiound that the RIV uranium recovery inspection staff writes and issues very high-quality inspection reports. The reports were well-written and provided appropriate depth.

They addressed compliance conditions for the licensees, and demonstrated that the inspectors pursued root causes where problems or violations were identified. The inspectors also noted

' licensee good practices in the reports.

The previous IMPEP team concluded that inspectors were not routinely reviewing licensees' decommissioning records at every inspection. The previous IMPEP team recommended that RIV uranium recovery inspectors review licensee decommissioning records on all routine inspections to ensure that licensees are maintaining required information, and should document decommissioning record reviews and findings in the uranium recovery inspection reports.

Based on examination of files and discussions with inspectors and management, this IMPEP ,

team determined that the required documentation was now being performed.  !

The IMPEP team determined that during the review period, the uranium recovery inspectors i had been accompanied by their supervisors on several occasions. The IMPEP team found that  !

the DNMS supervisors routinely meet with the uranium recovery inspectors after their inspections to review inspection findings and to plan follow-up strategy.

' Region IV Final Report Page 26 4.4.5 Response to incidents and Alleaations

' For this sub-indicator, the IMPEP team examined the information on the uranium recovery

. incidents and allegations listed in the Region's response to the questionnaire. In that response, RIV identified one incident that required a reactive inspection.

The IMPEP team also examined several allegations that were handled by RIV. The team determined that RIV's process, procedures, and overall performance for uranium recovery facilities were acceptable. These areas were also reviewed under the common indicator for

" Response to incidents and Allegations," and are discussed in Section 3.5 of this report.

Based on the draft evaluation criteria for this non-common performance indicator, the IMPEP

. team recommends that RIV's performance with respect to this indicator, " Uranium Recovery Program," be found satisfactory.

5.0

SUMMARY

As noted in Sections 3 and 4 above, the IMPEP team found RIV's performance to be satisfactory for all common and non-common indicators. Accordingly, the IMPEP team recommends that the Management Review Board find the RIV program to be adequate to protect public health and safety.-

Below is a summary list of recommendations, as mentioned in earlier sections of the report, for evaluation and implementation, as appropriate.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.- One recommendation rarnains open from the 1997 IMPEP: The review team recommends that NMSS issue formal, written guidance in final form, to all Regional Offices, regarding changes in procedures for licensing medical use facilities, including .

radiopharmaceutical therapy ( 10 CFR 35.300) users (See Section 2.0).

- 2. The IMPEP team recommends that NMSS review the need for both field notes and

. formal inspection reports to document inspection results at decommissioning sites and revise guidance as appropriate (See Section 3.4).

3. - The IMPEP team recommends that NMSS update financial assurance guidance in Regulatory Guide 3.66. NMSS should confirm that the updated guidance is responsive to regional and headquarters staffs' needs (See Section 3.4).

4. The IMPEP team recommends that NMSS review the requirements and guidance for using LERs and NMED when reporting materials events with the goal of cataloging events in a timely manner (See Section 3.5).

i I

l l

I t j

I 1

RIV Final Report LIST OF APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS i

Appendix A IMPEPTeam Members Appendix B Region IV Organization Charts Appendix C Region N's Questionnaire Response Appendix D inspection Casework Reviews Appendix E License Casework Reviews Appendix F Incident Casework Reviews Appendix G SDMP and Decommissioning Files Reviewed Appendix H Uranium Recovery inspection Files Reviewed Attachment 1 Region IV's Response to Review Findings t

1 1

I

APPENDIX A REGION IV IMPEP TEAM MEMBERS Name Areas of Responsibility Sally L. Merchant, NMSS/RGB Team Leader Technical Staffing and Training Status of Materials inspection Program Operating Plan / Resource Use B.J. Smith, Mississippi Technical Quality of Licensing Hector Bermudez, Ril Technical Quality of Inspections inspector Accompaniments James H. Myers, OSP Response to incidents and Allegations l

Lance J. Lessler, NMSS/FCSS Fuel Cycle Inspection Program Terry L. Johnson, NMSS/DWM Decommissioning /SDMP Uranium Recovery Program 1 l

APPENDIX B REGION IV ORGANIZATIONt.L CHART DIVISION OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS SAFETY D. Chamberlain, Director L. Howell, Technical Assistant L. McLean, SAO M. Shaffer, SAO Connie Spagnoli, Division Secretary Vacant, Branch Secretary Wanda Warren, Branch Secretary NUCLEAR MATERIALS NUCLEAR MATERIALS FUEL CYCLE &

LICENSING INSPECTION BRANCH DECOMMISSIONING BRANCH BRANCH E. E. COLLINS, Chief C. Cain, Chief D. B. Spitzberg, Chief Bob Brown Vivian Campbell Jeffrey Cruz Wayne Britz Jackle Cook Bob Evans' Lou Carson Tony Gaines Emilio Garcia (WAH) Vince Everett Christi Hernandez Richard Leonardi Danny Rice Jim Montgomery (WAH) Gregory Morell Doug Simpkins Colleen Murnahan Kent Prendergast (WAH)  :

Jack Whitten Dave Skov (WAH)

• Evans would be assigned collateral duty to complete '

l UR inspections at various times during FY 1999 .

l Revised 4/05/99 l

l l

[

g 4

APPENDIX C Region IV's Questionnaire Response s

1 1

/

l I

I I