ML24225A146
| ML24225A146 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/13/2025 |
| From: | Tamara Bloomer NRC/NMSS/DMSST |
| To: | John Lubinski Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| References | |
| Download: ML24225A146 (23) | |
Text
MEMORANDUM TO:
John W. Lubinski, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards FROM:
Tammy E. Bloomer, Acting Division Director Division of Materials Safety, Security, State And Tribal Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE FUTURE OF NATIONAL MATERIALS PROGRAM WORKING GROUP AND WORKING GROUP TO ASSESS THE ABILITY TO MONITOR NATIONAL MATERIAL PROGRAM PERFORMANCE Enclosed is the Implementation Plan for the joint U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Agreement State working groups: the Future of the National Material Program (NMP)
Working Group and the Working Group to Assess the Ability to Monitor NMP Performance. This Implementation Plan, based on the suggestions provided by the working group reports1, outlines the Division of Materials Safety, Security, State, and Tribal Programs (MSST) management's recommendations and decisions. Although these working groups had separate goals and purpose, both provide recommendations to promote increased coordination across the NMP and therefore are considered for implementation concurrently.
The Implementation Plan, provided in Enclosures 1 and 2, is organized into three categories:
1.
Recommendations reviewed and approved for implementation by MSST as the business line lead.
2.
Recommendations reviewed by MSST as the business line lead, not approved, and closed.
3.
Recommendations proposed for the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) Office Director (OD) approval to ensure alignment.
Each category has a description of the high-level path forward for each recommendation, the estimated full-time equivalent2 of effort, and a planned initiation timeframe. The recommendations in this plan have been shared with Agreement States and the regions. MSST plans to update the Agreement States and regions on MSST management's decisions, specifying which recommendations have been approved for implementation, which are considered closed, and which require further discussion with the NMSS OD. We will use our standard communications methods to complete this communication by the Spring 2025. MSST 1 The Future of the NMP working group report can be found at ML23206A204 and the Working Group to Assess the Ability to Monitor National Material Program Performance report can be found at ML23305A231.
2 The working group considered 1500 productive hours for one full-time equivalent.
January 13, 2025 Signed by Bloomer, Tamara on 01/13/25
J. Lubinski 2
will communicate the decisions on the recommendations requiring OD alignment once a decision is made. Each recommendation for your decision will be included NMSS ticket tracking system and assigned an appropriate date.
Enclosures:
1.
Implementation Plan for Working Group to Assess the Ability to Monitor NMP Performance Recommendations 2.
Implementation Plan for Future of NMP Working Group Recommendations
1 Implementation Plan for Working Group to Assess the Ability to Monitor NMP Performance Recommendations Note: Some actions recommended by the Working Group, as outlined below, have been combined to streamline this implementation plan.
A. Recommendations reviewed and approved for implementation by MSST as business line lead.
Recommendation 1, Enhance Awareness of Radiation Control Programs Performance.
Identify and implement meaningful performance metrics to track the health of the NMP.
Background:
The working group reviewed Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) performance indicator NM-23 to determine if there was room for improvement. NM-23 measures the Percentage of Materials Programs with More Than One Unsatisfactory Performance Indicator, with a zero (0) percent threshold for success. Staff determined that NM-23 was unnecessarily narrow as it did not consider other important program performance measures like the number of programs on monitoring, heightened oversight, or probation. Once a programs IMPEP is completed and the program is found to have more than one unsatisfactory indicator, the metric fails, and there is no way to recover. Additionally, NM-23 only measures negative performance in the (specific) year that an IMPEP was conducted.
The working group considered how to update the CBJ metric to measure more than just the number of unsatisfactory performance indicator results. They recommended replacing NM-23 with a new CBJ performance metric (NM-24) that measures the Percentage of National Materials Programs on Enhanced Oversight or Probation. NM-24 has a 20 percent3 threshold, which the working group recommended based on past data. This threshold serves as a clear indicator of NMP health and helps alert management to negative trends.
Action: Discontinue CBJ metric NM-23 and create a new CBJ metric (ML23305A231, Actions 1-1 and 1-2)
Brief
Description:
CBJ-23 is narrow and does not include other important program measures such as the number of programs on monitoring (MON), heightened oversight (HO), or probation (PROB).
Implementation:
1.
Create new CBJ metric, NM-24, to consider percentage of materials program on MON, HO, and PROB in FY24.
2.
Discontinue CBJ NM-23 metric in FY25.
3.
During FY24, unofficially implement NM-24.
4.
Implement permanently NM-24 in FY25. (See NUREG-1100, Volume 40, Congressional Budget Justification: Fiscal Year 2025, page 60.)
3 From 2012-2014, with 37 AS, there were 8 states on MON, HO, and PROB, the equivalent of 22%. From 2015-2018, with 37 AS, there were between 6-7 states on MON, HO, and PROB, the equivalent of 16-18%.
20% was chosen because it takes a minimum of 2 years for an AS to transition off enhanced oversight - the AS remains on enhanced oversight until there is a follow-up IMPEP to evaluate program performance and the MRB chair removes the state from enhanced oversight.
2 5.
Evaluate metric effectiveness of NM-24 beginning in Dec 2025.
6.
If additional metrics are determined to be necessary, consider establishing an NRC/OAS working group to identify additional metrics.
Expected Start Date: Data collection began in FY24 Estimated Completion: December 2025 (evaluate metric effectiveness after FY25)
Initial Costs: 0.1 FTE, no contract costs Ongoing Cost: None, performance tracking is within budgets Benefits:
NM-24 will better capture NMP performance.
NM-24 takes into consideration working group recommendation for measuring health of the NMP Limitations: NM-24 will need at least 1-2 years of use before we can evaluate whether its tracking NMP health, or if a different metric is needed.
Alternative: Not applicable Risk of not implementing proposed solution: Keep NM-23, which does not effectively track performance the performance or health of the NMP.
Recommendation 2, Enhance Awareness of Radiation Control Programs Performance.
Develop tools and strategies for identifying potential performance issues and facilitating prompt corrective actions.
Background:
The working group considered what tools and strategies, both new and existing, that timely identify performance issue and assist RCPs in making effective corrective actions.
The working group identified items, provided below, for implementation that can assist Radiation Control Programs (RCPs) with identifying these challenges and potentially lead to early corrective actions.
Action: Continue to support the NMP through monthly NMP calls, Champion Chats, OAS Annual Meeting, forum on the State Communications portal, and encourage Agreement States to draft guidance for new emerging technologies (ML23305A231, Actions 2-1, 2-2, and 2-4)
Brief
Description:
Continue to support the NMP through monthly NMP calls, Champion Chats and other communication pathway; continue to support the NMP through in-person participation of NRC and AS at the OAS Annual Meeting.
Implementation:
1.
Continue use of existing communications mechanisms.
2.
Addressed by implementation of Recommendation 2, from the Future of the National Materials Program Working Group Report, Improve Consistency - Expand Centers of Expertise or Communities of Practice which identify subject matter expert staff
3 across the NMP to voluntarily provide guidance on important technical and regulatory topics, see Enclosure 1.
3.
Addressed by implementation of Recommendation 3, from the Future of the National Materials Program Working Group Report, Improve Consistency - Promote increased OAS participation to lead Government-to-Government Meetings, see Enclosure 1.
Expected Start Date: See Enclosure 2, Recommendations 2 and 3 Estimated Completion: See Enclosure 2, Recommendations 2 and 3 Costs: See Enclosure 2, Recommendations 2 and 3 Ongoing Cost: See Enclosure 2, Recommendations 2 and 3 Benefits: See Enclosure 2, Recommendations 2 and 3 Limitations: See Enclosure 2, Recommendations 2 and 3 Alternative: See Enclosure 2, Recommendations 2 and 3 Risk of not implementing proposed solution: See Enclosure 2, Recommendations 2 and 3
Action: Develop IMPEP Awareness training for new RCPDs (ML23305A231, Actions 2-3 and 2-5)
Brief
Description:
Assist the AS with the creation of a pamphlet for new RCPDs, and together with OAS Board develop an IMPEP awareness training for new RCPDs.
Implementation:
1.
Use the State Liaison Officer (SLO) introduction letter as a model for the pamphlet.
2.
Together with OAS Board, develop RCPD welcome package.
3.
Together with OAS Board, develop RCPD reference materials with a goal of once per year training at the OAS annual meeting. Note: The new RCPD are already funded to attend the OAS meeting, allowing us to leverage their presence.
Expected Start Date: December 2024 Estimated Completion: July 2025 Costs: 0.2 FTE, no contract costs Ongoing Cost: <<0.1 FTE/year, within budgets. The State Agreement and Liaison Programs Branch (SLPB) issues SLO introduction letters, the addition of RCPD introduction letters is minimal extra effort and in-person training is planned at the annual OAS meeting.
Benefits: Training for new RCPDs regarding IMPEP and its role in NMP would begin building the relationships essential to NMP. Additionally, early training of RCPDs could identify if
4 additional support to a program based may be needed based on the expertise of the program staff.
Limitations: Staff time to develop and deliver training and to track new RCPDs.
Alternative: Maintain status quo, RCPD training is informal.
Risk of not implementing proposed solution: AS have asked for additional outreach to new RCPDs. Reputational risk that NRC is not addressing NMP needs. Losing an opportunity to identify and address potential support needs.
Action: Revise to strengthen SA-116, Periodic Meetings between IMPEP Reviews Communicate revision to OAS Board and Agreement States for comment (ML23305A231, Action 2-12)
Brief
Description:
Establish a joint working group to revise SA-116, four specific improvements are provided for consideration when SA-116 is revised in the working group report. (The four recommended improvements are found in ML23305A231, page 16.)
Implementation:
1.
SA procedures are reviewed every 5 years 2.
Consider working group recommendations as part of the existing SA procedure review schedule scheduled for 2026.
Expected Start Date: March 2026 Estimated Completion: October 2026 Costs: 0.2 FTE, no contract costs Ongoing Cost: None, SA review and updating is budgeted activity Benefits: The open forum discussion provides opportunities to discuss program performance and items of concern. Moving these discussions into greater levels of detail would assist in clearly identifying program challenges earlier.
Limitations: None, if incorporated as part of the review in 2026.
Alternative: Update SA-116 in FY2025.
Risk of not implementing proposed solution: None, since we are implementing many of the working group recommendations, scheduling this with the routine review and update of the SA procedure is reasonable when considering staff workload.
Recommendation 3, Enhance Awareness of Radiation Control Programs Performance.
Develop NMP strategies to assist RCPs with performance challenges.
Background:
Once programmatic challenges have been identified, the RCP should have a clear, concise method for finding assistance. The current formal process to request assistance is described in SA-1001, Implementation of Management Directive 5.7, Technical Assistance to Agreement States under the section titled Programmatic Technical Assistance. This section
5 does not leverage cooperation in the NMP. Currently and informally, several states with self-identified programmatic challenges have relied on specific individuals knowledge for finding assistance.
The working group believes that revising the current process to include other pathways to find assistance, such as through the OAS Board, RSAOs, other Agreement States, and NMSS, would broaden the process and likely lead to programs receiving the necessary assistance quicker.
Action: Revise the Programmatic Technical Assistance Section of SA-1001 Implementation of Management Directive 5.7, Technical Assistance to Agreement States. Communicate revision to OAS Board and Agreement States for comment (ML23305A231, Action 3-1)
Brief
Description:
The revision of this section should include self-identified programmatic issues, in addition to one identified during the IMPEP. The revision should describe how programs can request assistance through the OAS Board, RSAOs, other Agreement States, and NMSS.
Implementation:
1.
SA procedures are reviewed every 5 years.
2.
Consider working group recommendations as part of the existing SA procedure review schedule (this SA is in queue to begin review in Dec 2024).
Expected Start Date: December 2024 Estimated Completion: September 2025 Costs: 0.2 FTE, no contract costs Ongoing Cost: None, SA review and updating is budgeted activity Benefits:
Revising per recommendation would provide guidance to RCPs requesting assistance, as defined by them, for their specific challenges.
It would outline how the assistance to the RCP would come from the NMP, not relying only on the NRC.
Limitations: None, if incorporated as part of the routine review and update of SA-1001.
Alternative: None Risk of not implementing proposed solution: Not applicable, the SA procedures are scheduled for review and update every 5 years. SA-1001 is scheduled for review and update in Dec 2024.
Recommendation 4, Improve the IMPEP Assessment of a Radiation Control Programs Performance. Modify and enhance IMPEP to ensure that reviews continue to be done in a consistent and risk-informed manner.
6
Background:
With the expansion of Agreement States comes the increase in the number of IMPEP reviews and more team members involved performing IMPEP reviews. The working group looked for ways to assist with improving current IMPEP processes to augment evaluating all RCPs consistently.
Action: Enhance Team Leader training and mentoring to new team members. Include IMPEP scenarios, report writing, and MRB briefing tips in training. (ML23305A231, Actions 4-2 and 4-4)
Brief
Description:
as described in the action above.
Implementation:
1.
Team Leader training is conducted once a year.
2.
Incorporate this working group recommendation as part of the Team Leader training.
Expected Start Date: Implemented, July 2024. The IMPEP Team Leader training held July 2024 incorporated all items in this recommendation. This recommendation will be included in all future IMPEP Team Leader Training classes.
Costs: <<0.1 FTE, no contract costs.
Ongoing Cost: None, budgeted activity, part of routine development and planning of IMPEP training.
Benefits:
Adding IMPEP scenarios to Team Leader training will allow for detailed discussion and likely increase consistency in future reviews.
Having Team Leaders mentor new Team Members will foster relationships under the IMPEP team model and increase consistency in review.
Limitations: None.
Alternative: None.
Risk of not implementing proposed solution: Not applicable, action completed.
Action: Establish quarterly or semi-annual team leader forums (ML23305A231, Action 4-3)
Brief
Description:
Routine IMPEP Team Leader forums would allow discussions related to current IMPEP findings.
Implementation:
1.
Each year, SLPB staff to plan for 2-4 IMPEP Team Leader forums 2.
To ensure that all Team Leaders are able to participate together in at least one Team Leader forum per year, incorporate this forum as part of the annual Team Leader training.
3.
Team Leaders will set the date for the next Team Leader forum during the current forum. The next date should take into consideration the upcoming IMPEP schedule and be held 3-6 months in the future.
7 Expected Start Date: 2025 Team Leader Training (date TBD)
Completion Date: ongoing Costs: 0.1 FTE, no contract costs Ongoing Cost: <<0.1 FTE, within budgeted activities Benefits:
Having more Team Leader interactions besides the annual Team Leader training will foster open dialogue and communications for Team Leaders.
Team Leaders are likely to discuss and debate IMPEP reviews leading to more consistency between reviews.
Limitations:
Requires NRC staff to coordinate and plan each forum meeting.
Alternative: Keep status quo, do not discuss IMPEP findings during Team Leader training.
Risk of not implementing proposed solution: Doesnt allow for TL to understand how past decisions were reached, perpetuates the perception that the MRB is inconsistent with its IMPEP decisions.
Recommendation 5, Improve the IMPEP Assessment of a Radiation Control Programs Performance. Modify IMPEP processes to increase efficiencies. In addition to creating consistency in the implementation of IMPEP.
Background:
Stakeholders involved with IMPEP during interviews and public meetings, told the working group that current IMPEP processes are well defined and effective. Additionally, they indicated that there are opportunities to increase efficiencies and streamline processes using knowledge gained through experience with IMPEP participation.
Action: Engage with the Office of Enforcement (OE) to reconsider allowing Agreement State individuals to review NRC allegations (ML23305A231, Action 5-3).
Brief
Description:
The review of NRC allegation information is currently limited to only NRC staff.
Implementation:
1.
MSST staff to meet with OE staff to understand how OE manages and protects incident and allegation information (e.g., level of difficulty to separate allegations reviewed by the IMPEP process from all other agency allegations).
2.
MSST staff identifies existing limitations on allowing Agreement State person access NRC allegation material reviewed during the IMPEP process, e.g., addressing need to know, protection of allegation information, etc.
3.
MSST staff identifies options and staff time for addressing these limitations, e.g.,
MOU with OAS for protection of NRC allegation information, redaction of personal identifiable information, etc. These options will include an estimate of the staff time needed to implement these options.
8 4.
Lead MSST meets with NMSS and OE front office to discuss the pros versus cons and align on a path forward before next NRC IMPEP scheduled for June 2026.
5.
Document the agreed upon path forward.
Costs: 0.2 FTE, no contract costs.
Ongoing Cost: None, within IMPEP budgeted activities Expected Start Date: January 2025 Expected Completion Date: December 2025 Limitations:
May require significant staff time to prepare allegation information prior to NRC IMPEP review.
Only applies to the one NRC IMPEP review.
Alternative: None.
Risk of not implementing proposed solution: Contrary to the NMP partnership that we are trying to achieve.
Action: Communicate IMPEP schedule flexibility options to Team Leaders (ML23305A231, Action 5-4)
Brief
Description:
IMPEP Team Leaders have schedule flexibility when on an IMPEP, this flexibility should be communicated to Team Leaders.
Implementation:
1.
Incorporate this working group recommendation as part of the annual Team Leader training.
Expected Start Date: Implemented, July 2024. The IMPEP Team Leader training held July 2024 included this recommendation. This recommendation will be included in all future IMPEP Team Leader Training classes.
Costs: <<0.1 FTE, no contract costs.
Ongoing Cost: None.
Benefits:
Keeping Team Leaders aware of the flexibility in IMPEP scheduling allows for streamlining processes.
Team Leaders can consider shorter reviews if circumstances allow and adjust travel schedules to reduce weekend travel. This creates a cost savings and improved work/life balance. (This was applied during the July 2024, North Dakota IMPEP review, because everything was going well, the team ended their review a day early.)
Limitations: None
9 Alternative: None.
Risk of not implementing proposed solution: Extra travel costs and inefficient use of NMP staff time.
Action: Increase IMPEP report efficiencies by removing redundancies in the report template and eliminating proposed final report if there are no changes or comments from the RCP (ML23305A231, Actions 5-5 and 5-6)
Brief
Description:
As stated above.
Implementation:
1.
Identify circumstances for removing proposed final report.
2.
Convey change to the NMP.
Expected Start Date: Implemented, December 2023. This was discussed with the MRB chair who agreed that the proposed final report is not needed when the AS has none/easily addressable changes to the draft report.
Costs: <<0.1 FTE, no contract costs.
Ongoing Cost: None.
Benefits:
Streamlining the IMPEP report will increase efficiencies. Eliminating the proposed final report under certain circumstances reduces work on AS and NRC staff associated with producing the report and adds to efficiency.
Reduces the time the MRB reviews IMPEP reports, eliminates duplicative information.
Limitations: No limitations, action items are being implemented.
Alternative: None.
Risk of not implementing proposed solution: None.
Action: Meet with MRB Chair to consider options for MRB improvements. (ML23305A231, Action 5-7)
Brief
Description:
Seven recommendations were provided for streamlining the MRB such as revising scripts, reorganizing the MRB discussion, and eliminating MRB meeting minutes. (The seven items that should be considered in the assessment are found in ML23305A231, pages 20-21.)
Implementation:
1.
Seven MRB improvements options are offered in the Working Group Report for the MRB Chair to consider. IMPEP PM should propose improvements to MRB Chair for consideration.
Expected Start Date: January 2025
10 Estimated Completion: April 2025 Costs: <<0.1 FTE, no contract costs Ongoing Cost: None.
Limitations: No limitations Alternative: None.
Risk of not implementing proposed solution: Reputational harm that MRB Chair is not considering NMP recommendations.
B. Recommendations reviewed by MSST as business line lead, not approved, and closed.
Recommendation 1, Enhance Awareness of Radiation Control Programs Performance.
Identify and implement meaningful performance metrics to track the health of the NMP.
Action: Identify additional NMP performance tracking tool (ML23305A231, Action 1-3)
Brief
Description:
Sponsor a joint NRC/OAS effort to assess the need for additional performance metrics and develop tracking tools.
Reason for Not Implementing: The new CBJ NM-24 has been adopted. This metric takes into account measuring the performance of the NMP.
Costs: 0.1 FTE, no contract costs.
Ongoing Cost: none, performance tracking, budgeted activity.
Limitations: None Risk of not implementing proposed solution: None, NM-24 will be re-assessed after some run time. If determined to be ineffective for measuring performance, a joint NRC/OAS effort will be sponsored to address this.
Recommendation 2, Enhance Awareness of Radiation Control Programs Performance.
Develop tools and strategies for identifying potential performance issues and facilitating prompt corrective actions.
Action: Having the RSAO participate on IMPEP teams only as Team Members for their assigned states and not as Team Leaders on additional IMPEP reviews (ML23305A231, Action 2-14).
Brief
Description:
The working group supports reducing the number of IMPEPs in which an RSAO participates as a Team Leader by continuing to train additional Team Leaders.
Reason for Not Implementing: MSST is working towards increasing the number of IMPEP Team Leaders. However, currently there are insufficient number of qualified IMPEP Team Leaders to remove RSAO from this responsibility. Understanding the time
11 commitment associated with leading an IMPEP, MSST is already limiting the number of Team Leads that an RSAO conducts. When there are sufficient Team Leads to completely remove RSAOs from this role, we will limit RSAO to IMPEP team member only.
Benefits: Reduces workload for RSAOs.
Limitations:
Takes 2-3 years for an individual to become fully qualified as an IMPEP Team Leader.
Staff moving into new positions and no longer available for IMPEP Team Lead is an ongoing challenge.
Alternative: None.
Risk of not implementing proposed solution: Not applicable, MSST is moving towards increasing the number of qualified IMPEP Team Leaders.
Recommendation 4, Improve the IMPEP Assessment of a Radiation Control Programs Performance. Modify and enhance IMPEP to ensure that reviews continue to be done in a consistent and risk-informed manner.
Action: Consider evaluating all RCPs under the same common performance indicators (ML23305A231, Action 4-1).
Brief
Description:
The working group is concerned that the non-common indicators Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program (SS&D), Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program (LLRW), and Uranium Recovery Program (UR) may be a relatively small part of an Agreement States program, when compared to its licensing and inspection oversight program. Therefore, an UNSAT in one or more of these indicators can results in a disproportionate negative impact on the overall performance of the Agreement State. The working group determined that incorporating SS&D, LLRW, and UR indicators into the common performance indicators would allow all RCPs to be evaluated using consistent criteria. The working group also included 3 additional items for consideration (The three additional items for consideration are found in ML23305A231, page 18.)
Reason for Not implementing. It is not clear that combining non-common performance indicators into common performance indicators is an efficient and effective method to address this concern raised by the working group. In response to the question Are procedures and processes, including roles and responsibilities, sufficient the ensure effective and consistent IMPEP reviews? The working group report noted that IMPEP procedures are well defined. And stakeholders remarked that these processes and procedures do create effective IMPEP review, and that maintaining training is essential to keep reviews consistent.
Costs: 1.5 FTE, no contract costs.
Ongoing Cost: none, within budgeted IMPEP activities.
12 Benefits:
Evaluating all RCPs under the same common performance indicators would provide a holistic, risk-informed review.
It would also provide a more aligned focus and oversight of the NMP leading to easier to comprehend data and highlight trends.
Limitations:
Requires significant effort between NRC and NMP, including updating Management Directive 5.6, Integrated Materials Performance Program and 11 associated SA procedures.
Combining non-common performance indicators into common performance indicators will not necessarily result in a time savings during the IMPEP, and when preparing draft and final IMPEP reports.
Alternative: Additional assessment of this recommendation to understand its effectiveness.
Risk of not implementing proposed solution: NRC perceived as not addressing an NMP concern.
Action: Consider adding IMPEP qualifications for IMC 1248 (ML23305A231, Action 4-5).
Brief
Description:
IMPEP qualifications defined in IMC 1248 could encourage staff to get qualified for IMPEP reviews.
Reason for Not Implementing: MSST staff has not seen a decrease in NMP staff interested in participating on an IMPEP team. The challenge with staffing IMPEP teams are the non-common performance indicators of SS&D, LLRW, and UR, because of the limited number of qualified NMP staff to perform these reviews.
Costs: 0.5 FTE, no contract costs.
Ongoing Cost: None, tracking IMPEP qualifications is budgeted activity Benefits:
Having qualifications formalized through IMC 1248 may encourage staff to get qualified for IMPEP reviews and increase the number of IMPEP Team Members available for reviews.
Limitations:
IMC 1248 currently under revision, IMPEP qualifications are not under consideration by the working group.
Modifying any Inspection Manual Chapter is deliberative and resource intensive process.
Alternative: Keep status quo, IMPEP qualifications are tracked closely on the IMPEP SharePoint site, and are easily retrievable. Continue to promote the importance of IMPEP team participation during routine communication methods, i.e. NMP monthly call,
13 annual OAS meeting, etc. Continue to promote the need for SS&D, UR, and LLRW team members.
Risk of not implementing proposed solution: None.
Action: Ensure team members have the opportunity to works with a varied range of AS programs (ML23305A231, Action 4-6).
Brief
Description:
IMPEP team members will be more engaged and develop a broader understanding of the NMP.
Reason for Not Implementing: MSST staff has not seen poor engagement by IMPEP team members. When scheduling, the IMPEP Project Manager does consider the scope of the IMPEP as well as the experience of each IMPEP team member.
Costs: 0.1 FTE, no contract costs.
Ongoing Cost: None, within IMPEP budgeted activities.
Benefits:
Broadens the experience of IMPEP team members.
Limitations:
Scheduling teams for IMPEPs takes into account a variety of factors, including using all qualified NMP staff, past IMPEP experience, and annual scope of IMPEPs.
Alternative: None, IMPEP project manager takes several factors into consideration, including providing a variety of IMPEP experience.
Risk of not implementing proposed solution: None.
Action: Hold regular MRB forums and annual refresher trainings (ML23305A231, Actions 4-8 and 4-9).
Brief
Description:
Consider holding semi-annual or annual MRB forums to allow MRB members to discuss items related to current IMPEP findings.
Reason for Not Implementing: IMPEP procedures provide decision making criteria. The MRB Chair, NMSS OD, OGC, and MSST staff are constant in every MRB and ensure that the IMPEP procedures are consistently applied.
Benefits:
Regular engagement between MRB members would likely improve consistency.
Limitations:
MRB Chair, NMSS OD, and OGC are constant in every MRB.
Each AS has its own unique structure that contributes to final decision from the MRB.
Alternative: Meet with the core MRB members (i.e., MRB Chair, NMSS OD, and OGC) that do not vary from MRB to MRB to review past decisions to discuss their consistency.
14 Risk of not implementing proposed solution: NRC perceived as not addressing an NMP concern.
Action: Establish dedicated IMPEP training staff (ML23305A231, Action 4-10).
Brief
Description:
Assign a dedicated person to oversee and facilitate the IMPEP related training courses (e.g. IMPEP Team Leader training, IMPEP Team Member training, IMPEP refresher training, MRB member training, MRB annual refresher training).
Reason for Not Implementing: IMPEP training is managed within SLPB and coordinated under the leadership of the IMPEP project manager. SLPB staff is assigned to support IMPEP training accordingly.
Costs: 0.3 FTE, no contract costs.
Ongoing Cost: None, within IMPEP budgeted activities Benefits: Assigning a dedicated person to oversee and facilitate these activities could improve efficiencies and consistencies.
Limitations: Assigning a dedicated person would silo this activity in MSST.
Alternative: Keep status quo, keep IMPEP training under the leadership of the IMPEP project manager.
Risk of not implementing proposed solution: None, NMP understands limited staff resources.
Recommendation 5, Improve the IMPEP Assessment of a Radiation Control Programs Performance. Modify IMPEP processes to increase efficiencies. In addition to creating consistency in the implementation of IMPEP.
Action: Expand the use of Agreement State team members by qualifying them to review the LROPE indicator (ML23305A231, Action 5-2).
Brief
Description:
The working group perceives that the LROPE performance indicator consists of reviewing whether the AS has submitted the appropriate State statutes, legislation, and regulations to the NRC for review and therefore this indicator should not be limited to only NRC staff.
Reason for Not Implementing: Currently, there is no shortage of NRC qualified LROPE reviewers for IMPEP teams. Expanding the LROPE performance indicator to AS staff will require significant staff resources to revisit this decision and, if approved, modification of IMPEP procedures and processes. We can reassess this decision when we see an increased need for LROPE reviewers.
Costs: 0.2, no contract costs.
Ongoing Cost: None, within IMPEP budgeted activities
15 Benefits:
Strengthens the partnership within the NMP Expands the number of available reviewers available Limitations:
Does not address a challenge with IMPEP team staffing.
Past decision to limit LROPE to NRC staff only would need to be reevaluated. If approved, then IMPEP procedures and processes will have to be modified.
This performance indicator is more than a paperwork review. The reviewer for this indicator should have understanding of compatibility reviews associated with statutes, regulations, and procedures. Final decisions about AS compatibility are reserved for NRC.
Alternative: None.
Risk of not implementing proposed solution: Contrary to the NMP partnership that we are trying to achieve.
C. Recommendations proposed for NMSS OD approval to ensure alignment.
Recommendation 2, Enhance Awareness of Radiation Control Programs Performance.
Develop tools and strategies for identifying potential performance issues and facilitating prompt corrective actions.
Action: Facilitate NMP inspector counterpart meetings and regular NMP meetings for inspectors and license reviewers (ML23305A231, Actions 2-6 and 2-7)
Brief
Description:
Facilitate regular NMP meetings for AS license reviews and inspectors. Facilitate, organize and implement an in-person inspector counterpart meeting every 3 years.
Implementation:
1.
Setup a small NRC/OAS working group.
2.
Working group identifies the types of licensing review and inspection information to be shared amongst the NMP.
3.
Working group identifies potential limitations on sharing such information, e.g.,
business proprietary, pre-decisional, need to know, etc.
4.
Working group identifies options for addressing these limitations.
5.
Working group develops options for sharing licensing review and inspection information amongst the NMP, e.g., G2G, Champion Chat, inviting AS to regional licensing and counterpart meetings, annual NMP counterpart meeting, etc. These options will pros and cons of each option, including an estimate of the staff time needed to implement these options.
6.
Working group meets with NMSS front office to discuss the benefits versus the identified and align on a path forward.
7.
Document the agreed upon path forward.
Cost: 0.3 FTE, $80K travel budget (assuming 39 AS reps, NRC staff - approximately
$2K per person).
16 Ongoing Cost: 0.3 FTE, $80K every 3 years Benefits:
Opportunity for AS and NRC inspectors to share experiences.
Improve consistency of reviews and inspections across the NMP.
Limitations:
Requires high-level of coordination to find the best dates, plan agendas, to ensure maximum participation by NRC and Agreement States Due to restrictions by PII, business confidential, and/or proprietary information, details about licensing and inspection activities may not be easily shared between AS and NRC staff The tri-annual in-person meeting has significant budget implications.
Alternative: None Risk of not implementing proposed solution: While understanding that NRC has to prioritize the invitational travel budget, AS may perceive NRC is not supportive of inspector needs.
Action: Establish a joint NRC/OAS working group to develop an NMP self-audit tool and periodically review the self-audit tool. For programs using the self-audit tool, use it to focus discussions at the periodic meeting. (ML23305A231, Actions 2-9, 2-10, and 2-11)
Brief
Description:
Every RCP can be improved if managers are aware of areas that could benefit from more attention. Early identification of challenges facilitates timely corrective actions and adds efficiency to the IMPEP process. This tool would be voluntary but strongly encouraged. Consistent reminders would be provided to AS about its availability over the next five years, ensuring sufficient time to pilot the process.
Implementation:
1.
Set up a small NRC/OAS working group (4-5 persons) 2.
Identify RCPs that are using self-audit tools.
3.
Leverage current tools and create draft self-audit tool that could be used across the NMP.
4.
Share draft tool with NMP and solicit comments.
5.
Address NMP comments.
6.
Issue final self-audit tool.
7.
Establish a process to periodically assess the effectiveness of the self-audit tool.
Expected Start Date: March 2025 Estimated Completion: July 2026 Costs: 0.4 FTE, no contract costs.
Benefits:
Early identification of challenges facilitates timely corrective actions.
Use of a standardized tool allows for a common understanding and easier communication regarding program challenges.
17 Self-audit tools could assist in focusing discussion at the periodic meeting to make it more effective Limitations:
Staff time to develop tool and maintaining tool.
If working group determines that existing self-audit tools are not effective or efficient, developing a new tool instead of leveraging an existing tool, could significantly extend project timeline.
Alternative: Status quo, where each program has their own method to monitor their program.
Risk of not implementing proposed solution: Loss of opportunity to intervene well before programs are put on monitoring, heightened oversight, or probation.
Action: Assess the RSAO role in the NMP. Consider additional RSAOs and creating a single Team with a single point of contact. (ML23305A231, Actions 2-13 and 2-15)
Brief
Description:
The working group recommended assessment of the RSAO role for the NMP; the recommendation include two specific items for consideration when conducting this assessment. In addition, establish a process for RSAOs to communicate with one another. (The two items that should be considered in the assessment are found in ML23305A231, page 16.)
Implementation:
1.
Create small NRC working group (4-5 persons) with representatives from HQ, RI, RIII, and RIV.
2.
Prepare paper for OD and RA consideration, including the pros, cons, and budget implications.
Expected Start Date: January 2026 (after completion of Connecticut, Indiana, and Wyoming agreements)
Estimated Completion: June 2026 Costs: 0.3 FTE, no contract costs.
Ongoing Cost: None, if implemented, would be within budgeted activities.
Benefits:
With additional AS comes additional workload for the RSAO, i.e., more IMPEPs, more periodic meetings, more regular contacts with the RCP, especially for a program facing challenges.
Increasing the number of RSAOs will allow for more time and attention to the AS, especially those that need extra attention.
Showcase the NRCs commitment to establishing and maintaining excellent working relationships with the States.
Clarifying the role of the RSAO and creating a single team of RSAOs will allow for better defined responsibilities and more consistent activities.
18 Limitations: Budget implications for additional staff and additional management responsibilities dependent on the location for the single team of RSAOs.
Alternative: Keep the status quo.
Risk of not implementing proposed solution: As more AS onboard, RSAO could be overextended and potentially deteriorating working relationships with AS.
Recommendation 5, Improve the IMPEP Assessment of a Radiation Control Programs Performance. Modify IMPEP processes to increase efficiencies. In addition to creating consistency in the implementation of IMPEP.
Action: Create IMPEP module for WBL and socialize it to Agreement States (ML23305A231, Action 5-1)
Brief
Description:
For AS using WBL, create a WBL module that will pull licensing and inspection data to assist an AS when preparing for their upcoming IMPEP.
Implementation:
1.
Together with AS, prepare a WBL IMPEP module description.
2.
Together with AS, identify minimum viable product (MVP), identify basic system Change Requests.
3.
Utilizing NMSS WBL Change Control Process, prioritize these project-based enhancements to WBL.
4.
Communicate to AS where this falls in prioritization.
5.
Once scheduled form a small working group with representatives from NRC and AS, people to define, clarify MVP for the contractor.
6.
Keep WBL users informed about changes.
7.
Roll out and train NRC and AS on how to use new module.
Expected Start Date: TBD, dependent upon WBL upgrade prioritization.
Estimated Completion: 9 months Costs: 0.2 FTE, Contractor costs - $200K.
Ongoing Cost: None, within budgeted activities when preparing for an IMPEP.
Benefits:
Development of a WBL IMPEP module or specific search functions could be used by RCPs when responding to the IMPEP questionnaire. Responses would be more consistent.
IMPEP Team Members could use WBL to more efficiently choose casework for the review.
Much of the data necessary for the Status of Materials Inspection Program indicator could be gathered prior to the on-site review allowing this Team Member to assist with other indicators while on-site.
This module would assist NRC with self-assessments, and when preparing for IMPEP.
19 Alternative: Keep status quo, do not add this to list of future WBL upgrade.
Risk of not implementing proposed solution: One less selling point when encouraging AS to join WBL
1 Implementation Plan for the Future of National Materials Program Working Group A. Recommendations reviewed and approved for implementation by MSST as business line lead.
Recommendation 1, Improve Consistency. Develop an agreed upon method and identify tools to allow the Organization of Agreement State (OAS) members and NRC staff to collaborate on the development of rules and guidance in near/real time.
Background:
With increased participation of OAS members in IMPEPs, working groups, licensing activities, and inspection activities, collaborating using a tool that is accepted by NRC and State IT restrictions is essential to ensure version control and inclusion of both NRC and OAS viewpoints. Currently, the NRCs BOX4 application and the use of other organization SharePoint sites are blocked by some Agreement State firewalls. Recently, the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) has implemented Federated Sharing where NRC staff can Chat and search calendars of federal partners.5 To address this, OCIO and Agreement States IT offices must be consulted. The Future of NMP Working Group recommends leveraging already existing tools Microsoft Teams' and SharePoint, both commonly used by NRC and Agreement State staff.
Path Forward for Implementation:
1.
Work with OCIO to understand available options to best share documents with Agreement States in near-real time, with a focus on utilizing Microsoft Teams and SharePoint.
2.
Analyze advantages and disadvantages of options to develop best methodology.
3.
Communicate available options to OAS Board and in NMP monthly call, reach consensus on best approach.
4.
Issue STC letter encouraging Agreement States participate in available option for activities such as joint working groups and IMPEP.
Expected Start Date: March 2025 Estimated Completion: July 2025 Business Case:
Costs: 0.1 FTE, no contract costs.
Ongoing Cost: None, within budgeted activities.
Benefits:
Beneficial tool for information sharing and collaboration that minimizes document version control issues and promotes inclusion by more easily scheduling needed meetings between the NRC and Agreement States.
4 NRC is planning to discontinue use of BOX in 2025.
5 https://nuclepedia.usalearning.gov/index.php/Federated_Sharing
2 Increases organizational effectiveness through faster communication and document access during IMPEP reviews, working groups, licensing activities, and inspection activities.
Even if all Agreement States are not able to participate in this option, this effort would still improve document access and collaboration across the NMP for those Agreement States that can participate.
Limitations Information security with respect to restricting access to certain sensitive information such as Controlled Unclassified Information requirements.
Security concerns including appropriate background checks to allow for third party access to NRC networks.
Establishing a single set of parameters that would be acceptable for federal safety, security, disclosure, and acquisition requirements as well as multiple Agreement State requirements may not be achievable.
Alternative: Maintain current status quo, which requires additional coordination for finding meeting times, accessing documents for IMPEP activities, and reviewing IMPEP and joint working group products.
Risk of not implementing proposed solution: Inefficient use of staff resources managing version control of documents.
Recommendation 2, Improve Consistency. Expand Centers of Expertise or Communities of Practice which identify subject matter expert staff across the NMP to voluntarily provide guidance on important technical and regulatory topics.
Background:
Currently, staff across the NMP ask questions through resources such as contacting their Regional State Agreement Officer (RSAO) or other NRC staff directly. OAS staff can also submit Technical Assistance Requests (TARs) on topics such as regulation development, licensing or inspection issues and procedures, or transportation requirements, etc.
Although the RSAO will continue to be the main point of contact between the NRC and the OAS, creating a forum for both OAS and NRC staff to provide insights further increases OAS participation in the NMP and improves knowledge management. The Future of NMP Working Group recommends creating Centers of Expertise or Communities of Practice in the following subject areas:
Rule adoption Pre-IMPEP preparation Licensing Risk-informed inspections Event follow-up Transportation requirements including Quality Assurance Program approvals and inspection As NMSS has been transitioning the Agreement State website to the NRC intranet, a forum was created on the State Communication Portal. Initially, this State Communication Portal will be leveraged to address this recommendation.
3 Path Forward for Implementation:
1.
Advertise the existence of the forum on the State Communications Portal to the NMP and encourage its use.
2.
Lead NRC staff member, NMP Champions, and the OAS board advertise and request volunteers to act as subject matter experts for the different subject areas.
3.
Subject matter expert volunteers will provide informal responses as questions are received.
4.
Share interesting information during monthly NMP calls.
5.
Through the NMP calls continue to monitor the effectiveness of the forum on the State Communication Portal. Re-evaluate, as appropriate.
Expected Start Date: March 2025 Estimated Completion: July 2025 Business Case:
Costs: 0.2 FTE (assuming use of forum and not including future efforts to respond to questions and share information), potential contract costs if Step #5 re-evaluation identifies potential IT changes to the forum Ongoing Cost: <<0.1 FTE, absorbed into budgeted activities.
Benefits Advertises key NRC and OAS subject matter experts and increases their accessibility to the NMP.
Increases opportunities for knowledge sharing and collaboration between the NRC and OAS subject matter experts.
Provides opportunity to OAS and NRC to leverage technical or regulatory expertise in an area that the NRC or another State may have.
Quicker response to technical question. There could be some delay as an RSAO identifies an expert to answer the question.
Limitations Likely increased time commitment for NMP subject matter experts to answer questions which adds difficulty for States that have limited staff and budget.
Moderating these forums requires time commitment from an NRC staff member to ensure responses are appropriate and Freedom of Information and Paperwork Reduction Act requirements are met.
Responses are not official NRC positions, so the OAS must continue to do their due diligence as regulators.
Alternative: Maintain current status quo with traditional information exchange between questioner and responder.
Risk if we do not implement proposed recommendation: This results in lower third-party visibility of the information exchange and could minimize quality of information provided to questioner.
4 Recommendation 3, Improve Consistency. Promote increased OAS participation to lead Government-to-Government Meetings.
Background:
Currently, the NRC staff in the State Agreement and Liaison Programs Branch leads the scheduling of Government-to-Government meetings. These meetings provide an opportunity for the NMP to discuss important topics and are a valuable knowledge management tool. By developing a guide to scheduling these meetings, various staff from other areas of the NMP can easily participate in leading these meetings.
Path Forward for Implementation:
1.
Lead NRC staff member to develop guide to initiate and execute Agreement State led Government-to-Government meetings.
2.
Lead NRC staff member, NMP Champions, and the OAS board advertise guide.
Expected Start Date: March 2025 Estimated Completion: July 2025 Business Case:
Costs: 0.1 FTE, no contract costs.
Ongoing Cost: None.
Benefits Can potentially increase diversity of topics and ideas as a diverse range of staff will be developing these meetings.
Will allow for increased networking between NMP staff.
Limitations Requires upfront development of guidance that would require implementation across various staff as a training tool.
Will still require oversight of one staff member to promote meeting sign-up, ensure appropriate timing, and prevent duplicative topics.
Alternatives:
Maintain current status quo where the NRC schedules the Government-to-Government meetings based on NRC topics or any Agreement State topic requests.
Although not historically done, Agreement States can independently schedule their own meetings and inform the NRC.
Risk if we do not implement proposed recommendation: NRC remains in a technical lead role, rather than the NMP partnership that we are trying to achieve.
5 Recommendation 4, Improve Consistency. Make available and update existing optional organizational and safety culture training resources for NRC and the Agreement States.
Background:
The NRC and Agreement States can evaluate sharing and promoting current leadership and culture resources to promote more consistent organization and safety culture across the NMP.
Path Forward for Implementation:
This recommendation is considered complete. NRC existing safety culture training resources, including customizable safety culture materials, are available for Agreement State use at https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/safety-culture/sc-info-for-agrmnt-states.html. NRC will notify the OAS and NMP through existing communication channels, e.g., NMP monthly call, OAS annual meeting, etc. about these available resources. As these resources are updated, NRC will use these same communication tools to notify the NMP. The NRC will remind the NMP about the safety culture materials at the November 2024 monthly call.
Costs: <<0.1 FTE, no contract costs.
Ongoing Cost: None Benefits: NRC committed significant resources to develop and roll-out safety culture resources to the NMP. The NMP should be reminded of its existence.
Limitations: None Alternative: Applying staff resources to implementing this recommendation. Staff time would be better spent on implementing other recommendations from the working group.
Risk if we do not implement proposed recommendation: None, if additional materials, beyond those on the public website are needed, NRC can work with the NMP at that time to develop them.
Recommendation 5. Improve Consistency, update qualification training by incorporating compatible alternate options for qualification with Inspection Manual Chapter 1248.
Background:
Currently, NRC and Agreement State staff can use past educational and work experience to receive training credit. Developing specific alternate criteria will provide additional clarity for acceptable alternate options and opportunities to demonstrate qualification. Example criteria can include testing out of a certain topic or acknowledging qualifications granted by another jurisdiction.
Path Forward for Implementation:
1.
Create joint NRC and Agreement State working group tasked to identify compatible alternate options and to decide to update IMC 1248 or to develop best practices. This working group should collaborate with the existing IMC 1248 Revision joint NRC and Agreement State working groups efforts to evaluate near-and long-term updates to IMC 1248.
6 2.
Identify updates to IMC 1248 or draft best practices guide to put on Agreement State website.
3.
Have Government-to-Government meeting to gain input.
4.
Publish updated guidance or best practices guide.
Expected Start Date: January 2025 Estimated Completion: July 2026 Business Case:
Costs: 0.3 FTE, no contract costs Ongoing Cost: None, once implemented within budgeted activities Benefits Can reduce length of time to qualify a staff member.
Promotes greater clarity when reviewing the Staffing and Training IMPEP indicator.
Potential reduction in invitational travel costs.
Limitations Cost and time associated with developing alternate options.
Alternative: IMC 1248 allows for alternate qualifications that must be approved by the program management but does not provide specific examples or good practices. Currently, program managers are approving alternate qualifications. Maintaining the status quo appears to be effective but knowledge sharing of good practices is limited.
Risk if we do not implement proposed recommendation: AS have asked for additional guidance on qualifying NMP staff. Reputational risk that NRC is not addressing NMP needs.
Recommendation 6, Improve Consistency. Improve access to information about volunteering opportunities that would allow for the NRC and Agreement States to better collaborate on activities such as joint working group and IMPEP reviews.
Background:
Currently, information about volunteering opportunities is managed by the OAS Board. The OAS Board then notifies Agreement States accordingly. However, these opportunities may not necessarily be conveyed to all Agreement State staff with an interest. Consistent advertising would provide for a greater number of NRC and Agreement State staff to know about these opportunities. This will allow Agreement State and NRC staff to better keep their qualifications current, maintain knowledge, and support program business needs. For example, in addition to supporting joint working groups and IMPEP teams, staff who are experts in one subject area can be called upon to support a State that is new to or has limited resources for that subject area.
Path Forward for Implementation:
1.
Lead NRC staff member to develop a procedure with input from IMPEP NRC staff, Co-Champions, and the OAS board that promotes and advertises NMP-wide opportunities.
Expected Start Date: March 2025
7 Estimated Completion: July 2025 Business Case:
Costs: 0.1 FTE, no contract costs Ongoing Cost: <<0.1 FTE, would be absorbed within budgeted activities Benefits Provides equal notice of opportunity for staff across the NMP in an informal way.
Provides insight into challenges across the NMP and allows any NMP staff member to closely work in a technical area in another State that will be an upcoming challenge for their State.
Limitations NRC and Agreement State staff time to communicate opportunities and organize volunteer requests Alternative: Maintain status quo.
Risk if we do not implement proposed recommendation: This can potentially limit the number of Agreement State staff who are aware of the opportunities.
Recommendation 7, Improve Consistency. The NRC should identify methods to appropriately prioritize updating NRC-issued guidance documents that are a matter of compatibility with the Agreement States.
Background:
With upcoming emerging technologies and increasing input from Agreement State staff, it is important to update and issue guidance documents that meet NRC and Agreement State needs. The NRC should identify methods that would prioritize updating guidance considering the needs of the NMP. This will allow for a more effective use of NRC and Agreement State staff resources.
Path Forward for Implementation:
1.
Joint NRC and Agreement State working group tasked to create a more inclusive guidance prioritization methodology that allows for greater opportunities for NMP-wide input on guidance needs across the NMP.
2.
Joint working group develops list of short-term guidance documents which require update.
3.
Government-to-Government meeting to obtain NMP input on needed guidance documents and ways to communicate future needs for guidance.
Expected Start Date: January 2025 Estimated Completion: July 2026 Business Case:
Costs: 0.3 FTE, no contract costs.
Ongoing Cost: None, once implemented, within budgeted activities
8 Benefits Prioritized updating allows for needed guidance across the NMP to be updated more timely.
Focuses resources on issues with most impact to the overall NMP.
Limitations Updating lower priority guidance documents may be delayed.
May displace guidance needed for adequate protection if not carefully managed Alternative: Maintain status quo, updating guidance on an as needed basis.
Risk if we do not implement proposed recommendation: Although guidance is updated with input from AS it does not appear as though there is a process for AS to provide input on prioritizing guidance updates. AS arent given an opportunity to weigh in on priorities, this is contrary to the NMP partnership that we are trying to achieve B. Recommendations proposed for NMSS OD approval to ensure alignment.
Recommendation 8, Resource Planning. Establish a working group to develop recommendations for structural, budget, and resource changes to the NRC materials program to enhance the programs ability to maintain fair and equitable fees as NRC oversight of materials licensees decrease.
Background:
Currently, the NRC is anticipating Connecticut, Indiana, and West Virginia to be new Agreement States. The NRC will likely require increased resources for activities including IMPEP, new guidance and regulatory development for emerging technologies, training, travel, and regulatory compatibility reviews, even though direct licensing and inspection activities are expected to decrease. A working group should evaluate future options for potential NRC reorganization, budget, and resource changes as demand for resources in those areas increases while also ensuring fees for the remaining NRC licensees remain fair and equitable.
Path Forward for Implementation:
1.
Establish NRC working group with NMSS, Regional, OGC, and OCFO staff.
2.
Consider analyses done as part of Recommendation No. 10 to identify challenges and recommendations.
3.
Communicate working group findings and obtain input through regional counterpart meetings.
4.
Implement recommendations.
Expected Start Date: Management to consider initiation as new Agreement State letters of intent are received. Lead NRC staff member will engage management as new letters of intent are received.
Estimated Completion: 15 months from when management initiates working group Business Case:
Costs: 0.4 FTE, no contract costs.
Ongoing Cost: None, within budgeted activities
9 Benefits Increases agility by preparing the NRC to timely react to any future Agreement State requests.
Restructuring would decrease management overhead, corporate support costs, and resource redundancy and costs among regions performing the same functions.
Increases consistency, efficiency and effectiveness of the materials program functions and activities. For example, there will be greater standardization of licensing and inspection report templates and greater consistency of inspection findings and licensing actions.
Improves communication for current cross-regional work such as license transfers.
Limitations Restructuring would likely decrease promotional opportunities, may negatively affect NRC hiring activities for health physicists.
If not timed correctly to attrition, consolidation can result in potential reduction-in-force and increased costs to remaining NRC licensees.
Alternative: Continue three-year budget planning cycles and evaluate staffing needs and licensee fees as Agreement State letters of intent are received.
Risk if we do not implement proposed recommendation: By not planning ahead, the NRC would be forced to be reactive. This could result in a potential reduction-in-force and fees which are not fair and equitable.
Recommendation 9, Resource Planning. Establish a working group to develop options to increase flexibility and optimize resource expenditure through the strategic use of hiring authorities as well as 274i Agreements with States to address for temporary resource needs and manage expenses related to attrition and onboarding to allow for more rapid adjustments to changing workloads.
Background:
Sections 161f and 274i of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) authorize the NRC to enter into agreements with states to perform inspections or other functions as the NRC deems appropriate. Agreements under this authority, commonly called 274i Agreements, can range from stand-alone agreements for an Agreement State to perform inspections on behalf of the NRC and be reimbursed by the NRC at hourly contracted rate to Memoranda of Understanding for Agreement State to participate in NRC inspections.
When strategically implemented, a 274i Agreement may be more efficient to complete short-term tasks when compared to hiring a full-time equivalent (FTE) NRC. These 274i Agreements could be used to compensate Agreement States for their participation in NMP activities where the NRC needs a short-term increase or limited-scope support. The NRC should evaluate the full lifecycle cost of completing a task under a potential 274i Agreement compared to hiring an NRC FTE in the agency.
In addition to 274i Agreements, the NRC could consider other hiring authorities as needed to support NMP activities in the future. For example, under certain circumstances, it may be beneficial to hire annuitants, recently retired Agreement State employees, or Special Government Employees to work on specific projects on a limited, as needed basis. Other tools
10 that can be considered depending on the nature of the work are grants and cooperative agreements.
Path Forward for Implementation:
1.
NRC lead staff member to review past examples of 274i Agreements and use of hiring authorities to assess its potential future use to bring AS staff as contractors to NRC.
2.
Obtain feedback through Government-to-Government meeting.
3.
Present results to NMSS senior management for decision about path forward.
Expected Start Date: March 2025 Estimated Completion: July 2026 Business Case:
Costs: 0.1 FTE, no contract costs.
Ongoing Cost: 0.1 FTE per 274i Agreement/hiring action, would have to adjust budget for such costs.
Benefits Improves flexibility to adjust resources more quickly to changes in number of licensees, applicants, and activities.
May result in greater cost control for short-term fluctuations in effort levels when compared to onboarding new NRC staff.
Potentially greater Agreement State involvement in activities is better for knowledge management.
Limitations The complexity to understand and implement the framework for 274i Agreements, particularly ones where NRC would reimburse states for their work. This poses unique and different processes from other agency agreements and contracts.
NRC would need to evaluate how to efficiently balance use of outside resources compared with onboarding full-time FTEs.
Longer term arrangements would need to be evaluated for efficiencies gained compared to hiring a full-time NRC FTE.
Alternative: Maintain status quo.
Risk if we do not implement proposed recommendation: Contrary to knowledge management practices. With no guidance document, staff working on a 274i Agreement in the more distant future may not be able to glean insights from NRC and Agreement State staff with past experience in these agreements.
Recommendation 10, Resource Planning. Establish a working group to consider options and develop recommendations to address the challenge of maintaining fair and equitable fees while, with an increase in Agreement States, the fee recoverable activities required to maintain the NMP will be borne by fewer NRC licensees.
11
Background:
With an increase in Agreement States, the fee-recoverable activities required to maintain the NMP will be borne by fewer NRC licensees. An NRC working group would develop recommendations and options that consider strategic and tactical actions. At a minimum, the options and recommendations should address: (1) funding for regulations development and licensing, inspection, and IMPEP guidance documents for current and emerging technologies, (2) improving staffing flexibility to adjust to changes in needed resources, and (3) addressing potential inequities imposed by the current fee calculation methodology including leveraging fee-relief activities.
Path Forward for Implementation:
1.
NRC working group consisting of staff from NMSS, Regional Offices, OGC, and OCFO develops recommendations.
2.
Consider analyses done as part of Recommendation No. 8 to identify challenges and recommendations.
3.
Communicate working group findings and obtain input through regional counterpart meetings.
4.
Implement recommendations.
Expected Start Date: Management to consider initiation as new Agreement State letters of intent are received. Lead NRC staff member will engage management as new letters of intent are received.
Estimated Completion: 15 months from when management initiates working group.
Business Case:
Costs: 0.5 FTE, no contract costs.
Ongoing Cost: TBD, NRC working group to evaluate.
Benefits Would allow the NRC to proactively consider resource and fee-related challenges as the number of Agreement State increases.
Would improve the NRC's ability to ensure that fees remain fair and equitable as the number of Agreement States increases.
Limitations Increased staff resource commitment to perform this activity.
Alternative: Maintain status quo. NRC can continue to request additional fee-relief funding for activities such as regulations and guidance development.
Risk if we do not implement proposed recommendation: By not planning ahead, the NRC would be forced to be reactive. This could result in a potential reduction-in-force and fees which are not fair and equitable.
Memo ML24225A146 OFFICE NMSS/MSST/SLPB NMSS/MSST/SLPB NMSS/MSST/SMPB RES/DSA/AAB NAME HAkhavannik SFlaherty AGiantelli SFlaherty for TBloomer DATE Aug 12, 2024 Aug 12, 2024 Jan 13, 2025 Jan 13, 2025