ML26091A102

Draft Impep Report Template - Efficiencies - Clean

ML26091A102
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/18/2026
From:	Rachel Johnson NRC/NMSS/DMSST/ASPB
To:
References
Download: ML26091A102 (0)

Text

Enclosure INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM REVIEW OF THE [STATE] AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

[MONTH DATE, YEAR] - [MONTH DATE, YEAR]

DRAFT REPORT

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

The results of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review of the

[STATE] Agreement State Program are discussed in this report. The review was conducted by the IMPEP team on [MONTH DATE, YEAR]. Inspector accompaniments were conducted during the week of [MONTH DATE, YEAR ].

The team found [STATE(e.g., Alabama)]s performance satisfactory for [#] performance indicator(s): [Select from this LIST: Technical Staffing and Training; Status of Materials Inspection Program; Technical Quality of Inspections; Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities; Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements; Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program; Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program; and Uranium Recovery Program. The team also found [STATE]s performance [satisfactory but needs improvement or unsatisfactory] for [#] performance indicator(s): [LIST INDICATORS].

There were no recommendations from the [YEAR of the previous] IMPEP review for the team to consider, and the team did not make any new recommendations. [OR] The team reviewed [#]

recommendations from the [Year] IMPEP review and proposes [closing/modifying/keeping the recommendation(s) open] and made [#] new recommendations.

[Present a summary of the Teams proposal to close or keep previous recommendations open and/or make new recommendations, as discussed in the report.]

Accordingly, the team recommends that the [STATE] radiation control program be found

[adequate to protect public health and safety/adequate to protect public health and safety but needs improvement, or not adequate to protect public health and safety] and [compatible or not compatible] with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions program. The team recommends that a periodic meeting take place in approximately 2.5 years with the next IMPEP review taking place in approximately 5 years. [IF APPROPRIATE, note: Because [STATE] has had at least two consecutive IMPEP reviews with all performance indicators found satisfactory, the team recommends that a periodic meeting be conducted in approximately 3 years with the next IMPEP review taking place in approximately 6 years.]

[IF APPROPRIATE, NOTE: The team recommends the Management Review Board (MRB)

Chair initiate a period of [Heightened Oversight or Monitoring] for [STATE] due to the decline in performance documented in the [YEAR] IMPEP report. OR, the MRB Chair remove [STATE]

from a period of [Heightened Oversight or Monitoring] due to the sustained improved performance] documented in the [YEAR] IMPEP report.]

[STATE] Draft IMPEP Report Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The [STATE] Agreement State Program [STATE] Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review was conducted on [Month DATE-DATE, YEAR], by a team of technical staff members from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the State of [NAME].

Team members are identified in Appendix A. Inspector accompaniments were conducted during on or between [START DATE-END DATE] and are identified in Appendix B. The review was conducted in accordance with the Agreement State Program Policy Statement, published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48535), and NRC Management Directive (MD) 5.6, Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP), dated July 24, 2019. Preliminary results of the review, which covered the period of [DATE]-[DATE], were discussed with [STATE] managers on the last day of the review.

In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common performance indicators and applicable non-common performance indicators was sent to [STATE] on [DATE]. [STATE]

provided its response to the questionnaire on [DATE]. A copy of the questionnaire response is available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. [MLXX hyperlink].

The [STATE] Agreement State Program is administered by [insert organizational hierarchy for example, Agreement State Program is administered by the Bureau of Radiation Control which is located within the Division of Emergency Preparedness and Community Support in the Department of Health]. Organization charts for [STATE] are available in [MLXX hyperlink].

At the time of the review, [STATE] regulated [#] specific licenses authorizing possession and use of radioactive materials. The review focused on the radiation control program as it is carried out under Section 274b. (of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) Agreement between the NRC and the State of [STATE]. [FOR NRC USE: The review focused on the NRCs radiation control program as carried out under Section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.]

The team evaluated the information gathered against the established criteria for each applicable performance indicator and made a preliminary assessment of the [STATE]s performance.

2.0 PREVIOUS IMPEP REVIEW AND STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS The previous IMPEP review concluded on [MONTH, DAY, YEAR of the last IMPEP review]. As a result of the [YEAR of the previous] IMPEP review, the Management Review Board (MRB)

Chair found the [State (e.g., Alabama)]s performance satisfactory for [#] performance indicator(s): [Select from this LIST: Technical Staffing and Training; Status of Materials Inspection Program; Technical Quality of Inspections; Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities; Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements; Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Program (EP); Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program (DP); and Uranium Recovery (UR) Program] with

[#] new recommendations. The status of the [YEAR of the previous] IMPEP review recommendations is provided in this report, under the respective performance indicators.

Accordingly, the MRB Chair found [STATE] [adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible]. The final report is available in [MLXX hyperlink]. [IF APPROPRIATE, note: The MRB Chair initiated a period of [HEIGHTENED OVESIGHT or MONITORING] for [STATE] due to the decline in performance OR the MRB Chair removed [STATE] from a period of HEIGHTNED OVERSIGHT or MONITORING] due to the sustained improved performance documented in the 20XX IMPEP report.]

[STATE] Draft IMPEP Report Page 2 The last periodic meeting was conducted on [DATE]. The most recent periodic meeting was conducted on [MONTH DATE, YEAR]. The results of the periodic meeting summary are available in MLXX hyperlink.

3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Five common performance indicators are used to review the NRC and Agreement State radiation control programs. These indicators are: (1) Technical Staffing and Training, (2) Status of Materials Inspection Program, (3) Technical Quality of Inspections, (4) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, and (5) Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities. A sixth performance indicator, Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements, is used to review Agreement State programs.

3.1 Technical Staffing and Training This indicator evaluates whether the program maintains sufficient, qualified staff and provides training that enables effective licensing, inspection, incident response, and other regulatory functions. The assessment considers staffing and training holistically across all applicable program areas, including activities associated with the SS&D EP, LLRW DP, and UR Program, when authorized. The review focuses on staffing levels, vacancy duration, staff qualifications, and the adequacy of training and qualification processes. It also considers how staffing stability and training support the programs ability to protect public health and safety and security.

a. Scope The team used the direction in MD 5.6 to evaluate [State]s performance. The team also used the guidance in State Agreements procedure (SA): SA-103, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Staffing and Training, SA-108 Reviewing the Non-Common Performance Indicator: Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program, SA-109, Reviewing the Non-Common Performance Indicator: Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program, and SA-110, Reviewing the Non-Common Performance Indicator:

Uranium Recovery Program.

b. Discussion The [STATE] radiation control program is comprised of [#] staff members [or [#] technical staff members and [#] administrative staff members] which equals [#] full-time equivalent (FTE) for the radiation control program when fully staffed. There were [# or no] vacancies at the time of the review. During the review period, [#] of the staff members left the program and [#] staff members were hired. The positions were vacant from [X to Y (days, weeks, months, etc.) give the range of time, e.g., 6 to 9 months]. The team noted that [STATE]s training and qualification program was [compatible with the NRCs IMC 1248] OR [not compatible and why]. [If this results in performance problems, explain in the Evaluation section below.]

[For example]: [STATE] had two senior health physicist vacancies in January 2021 because two senior staff members left the [STATE] for higher paying positions in the private sector. In February 2021, two individuals were promoted into these positions, which created two new vacancies. These positions were not filled until June 2022 due to a lack of qualified candidates and pay freezes. The loss of two senior staff members resulted in the [STATE]

[e.g., accruing a backlog of licensing actions, postponement of/missed inspections, reduced/delayed responses to incidents, impacted the [STATE]s ability to provide timely notifications to the NRC, etc. These are a few examples of performance problems. The key

[STATE] Draft IMPEP Report Page 3 is to explain the performance impact to the Program]. At the time of the review, the

[STATEs] program had recovered from the loss of the senior staff and the newly hired staff has been fully trained. [List the recommendation(s) at the end of the paragraph describing the performance issue, e.g., The team recommends that the [STATE] take additional actions, such as increasing salary and/or benefits, to stabilize staffing and retention to ensure successful program implementation.].

[IF APPLICABLE, STATE] has [#] staff qualified to perform SS&D reviews [if any are currently being trained mention that as well]. Currently, there were [# or no] vacancies.

During the review period [#] of the SS&D staff members left the program and [#] staff members were hired. The positions were vacant from [X to X (days, weeks, months, etc.)

give the range of time, e.g., 6 to 9 months]. The [State] (does/does not have) a training program equivalent to the NRC training requirements listed in the NRCs IMC 1248, Appendix D. [Add a sentence about refresher training].

[IF APPLICABLE, provide a brief summary of the LLRW facilities in the State.]

[IF APPLICABLE, STATE] has [#] qualified LLRW DP staff [if any are currently being trained mention that as well]. There are [# or no] vacancies at the time of the review. During the review period [#] of the staff members left the LLRW DP and [#] staff members were hired.

The positions were vacant from [DATE to DATE (days, weeks, months, etc.) give the range of time, (e.g., 6 to 9 months)]. The [State]s training program was or was not equivalent to the NRC training requirements listed in the NRCs IMC 1248, Appendix E.

[IF APPLICABLE, provide a brief summary of the UR facilities in the State.]

[IF APPLICABLE STATE] has [#] qualified UR staff [if any are currently being trained mention that as well]. There were [# or no] vacancies at the time of the review. During the review period, [#] of the staff members left the UR program and [#] staff members were hired. The positions were vacant from [# to # (days, weeks, months, etc.) give the range of time, e.g., 6 to 9 months]. [State]s training program was or was not equivalent to the NRC training requirements listed in the NRCs IMC 1248. Add sentence about refresher training.

c. Evaluation

[If there are no performance issues, then use the following statement.]

The team determined that, during the review period, [STATE] met the performance indicator objectives in SA-103, SA-108, SA-109, and SA-110. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that [STATE]s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found satisfactory.

[If there are performance issues, then use the following statement, as appropriate.]

The team determined that, during the review period, [STATE] met the performance indicator objectives in SA-103, SA-108, SA-109, and/or SA-110, except for:

[Provide a bullet list of the performance indicator objective(s) the [STATE] program did not meet indicating how the [STATE] program was deficient. For example: Vacancies were not filled in a timely manner.]

[Add a high-level summary addressing which performance objective(s) above had issues, how it impacted the program/health/safety, corrective actions taken by the [STATE], and the

[STATE] Draft IMPEP Report Page 4 current status of the performance issue.]

[If there are performance problems, explain how the team used MD 5.6 criteria to determine the final rating for this indicator. This explanation would only be necessary for those times where the result is not obvious, or the [STATE] is on the borderline between two ratings.]

[For example]: The team considered recommending a finding of unsatisfactory for this indicator but concluded that there was no performance issue associated with licensing, inspection, or response to incidents.

[Evaluate the status of any past recommendation(s) and briefly outline the teams basis for closing or leaving the recommendation open, consistent with the discussion in Section 2.0, above.]

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that [STATE]s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found

[satisfactory, satisfactory, but needs improvement, OR unsatisfactory].

[Discuss status of any previous recommendations, corrective actions, and any proposal to close, keep open, or make new recommendations]

d. MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.

3.2 Technical Quality of Inspections This indicator evaluates whether inspections are conducted with adequate scope, depth, and technical rigor to assess licensee performance and ensure the protection of public health and safety and security. The review focuses on whether inspectors demonstrate appropriate knowledge and proper inspection technique; whether inspections are risk-informed and consistent with IMC 2800 requirements for addressing health, safety, and security issues; and whether inspection findings are well-supported, clearly documented, and lead to timely and appropriate regulatory actions. It also considers the completeness of inspection records, the use of current procedures, and the programs consistency in addressing previous findings and performance issues. The assessment considers inspection quality holistically across all applicable program areas, including inspection activities associated with the LLRW DP and UR Program, when authorized.

a. Scope The team used the direction in MD 5.6 to evaluate [STATE]s performance. The team also used the guidance in SA procedures: SA-101, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator: Status of the Materials Inspection Program, SA-102, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Quality of Inspections, SA-109, and SA-110.

b. Discussion The team evaluated [#] inspection reports and enforcement documentation, and interviewed inspectors involved in materials inspections conducted during the review period. The team reviewed casework for inspections conducted by [#] of [STATE]s inspectors and covered medical, industrial, commercial, academic, research, and service licenses.

[STATE] Draft IMPEP Report Page 5

[A team member OR Team members] accompanied [#] inspectors on [DATES]. The inspector accompaniments are identified in Appendix B. Provide summary of inspector accompaniments: The team determined that the inspectors performances observed during the inspector accompaniments indicated that the inspectors were knowledgeable of the requirements for each license type and were able to identify potential health, safety, and security concerns.

The team also evaluated the performance of supervisory accompaniments of the [STATE]s qualified inspectors. All qualified inspectors were accompanied at least annually during the review period.

[IF APPLICABLE: On [DATE], the team accompanied [#] inspectors at the [Name] facility.

Under the LLRW license, [e.g., site security, pre-operational environmental monitoring, and facility posting] were observed. Provide summary of inspector accompaniments: The team determined that the inspectors performances observed during the inspector accompaniments indicated that the inspectors were knowledgeable of the requirements for each license type and were able to identify potential health, safety, and security concerns.

The team evaluated [#] inspection files which included waste acceptance, hydrogeological, radiological, security, and environmental hazards, and determined that the inspection reports were thorough, complete, consistent, and had sufficient documentation to ensure that licensee performance with respect to health, safety and security was acceptable. The findings were well-founded, supported by regulations, and were appropriately documented.

[If not, explain in the Evaluation section below]

[IF APPLICABLE: On [DATE], the team accompanied [#] inspectors at the [Name] facility.

Under the UR license, [site security, pre-operational environmental monitoring, and facility posting] were observed. The team observed inspectors as they performed inspections related to radiation safety, radiation postings, as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA),

and the Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit. The review found each of the inspectors to be well-trained, prepared for their inspections, and thorough in their reviews. Documentation reviewed was thorough and complete.

The team evaluated [#] inspection files which included radiological, industrial, and chemical hazards, environmental monitoring, effluents, etc. The team determined that the inspection reports were thorough, complete, consistent, and had sufficient documentation to ensure that licensee performance with respect to health, safety and security was acceptable. The findings were well-founded, supported by regulations, and were appropriately documented.

The team noted that [STATE] maintained sufficient instrumentation for inspectors to conduct independent and confirmatory radiation measurements. The instrumentation was calibrated at appropriate intervals and was appropriate for the types of licensed activities being inspected.

[STATE] performed [#] Priority 1, 2, 3, and [#] initial inspections during the review period.

[STATE] conducted [#] percent of Priority 1, 2, 3, and initial inspections overdue OR No Priority 1, 2, 3 or initial inspections were conducted overdue during the review period.

[STATE] inspection frequencies were the [same, more frequent, less frequent] for similar license types in NRCs program.

[STATE] Draft IMPEP Report Page 6 A sampling of [#] inspection reports indicated that [none or #] of the inspection findings were communicated to the licensees beyond 30 days after the inspection exit or 45 days after the team inspection exit.

Insert a paragraph describing how the radiation control program conducts reciprocity inspections.

[IF applicable, STATE] performed [#] LLRW DP inspections during the review period. The review determined that [State] completed the LLRW DP inspections in accordance with the NRCs inspection frequency [If not, explain in the Evaluation section below]. Inspection findings for the LLRW DP were communicated by formal correspondence to the licensee within [#] days following the inspection [If > 30 days, or 45 for a team inspection, explain in Evaluation section below].

[State] performed [#] inspections during the review period. The review determined that

[State] completed the UR inspections in accordance with the frequency in IMC 2801, Uranium Mill and 11e.(2) Byproduct Material Disposal Site and Facility Inspection Program

[If not, explain in the Evaluation section below] Inspection findings for the UR disposal program were communicated by formal correspondence to the licensee within [#] days following the inspection. [If > 30 days, or 45 days for a team inspection, explain in Evaluation section below]

[Discuss status of any previous recommendations, corrective actions, and any proposal to close, keep open, or make new recommendations]

c. Evaluation

[If there are no performance issues, then use the following statement.]

The team determined that, during the review period, [STATE] met the performance indicator objectives SA-101, SA-102, SA-109, and SA-110. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that [STATE]s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections be found satisfactory.

[If there are performance issues, then use the following statement, as appropriate.]

The team determined that, during the review period, [STATE] met the performance indicator objectives in SA-101, SA-102, SA-109, and/or SA-110, except for:

[Provide a bullet list of the performance indicator objective(s) the [STATE] program did not meet indicating how the [STATE] program was deficient. For example: Inspections did not address previously identified open items and violations.]

[Add a high-level summary addressing which performance indicator objective(s) above had issues, how it impacted the program/health/safety, corrective actions taken by the [STATE],

and the current status of the performance issue.

[If there are performance problems, then explain how the team used MD 5.6 criteria to determine the final rating for this indicator. This explanation would only be necessary for those times where the result is not obvious, or the [STATE] is on the borderline between two ratings.]

[STATE] Draft IMPEP Report Page 7

[Evaluate the status of any past recommendation(s) and briefly outline the teams basis for closing or leaving the recommendation open, consistent with the discussion in Section 2.0, above.]

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that [STATE]s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, be found

[satisfactory, satisfactory, but needs improvement, OR unsatisfactory].

[Summarize any new recommendations]

[If there are no performance issues, then use the following statement.]

The team determined that, during the review period, [STATE] met the performance indicator objectives. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that [STATE]s performance with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program, be found satisfactory.

[If there are performance issues, then use the following statement, as appropriate.]

The team determined that, during the review period, [STATE] met the performance indicator objectives, except for:

[Provide a bullet list of the performance indicator objective(s) the [STATE] program did not meet indicating how the [STATE] program was deficient. For example: Inspection findings were not communicated to licensees in a timely manner (30 calendar days, or 45 days for a team inspection).]

[Add a high-level summary addressing which performance objective(s) above had issues, how it impacted the program/health/safety, corrective actions taken by the [STATE], and the current status of the performance issue. List any recommendation(s).]

[If there are performance problems, then explain how the team used MD 5.6 criteria to determine the final rating for this indicator. This explanation would only be necessary for those times where the result is not obvious, or the [STATE] is on the borderline between two ratings.]

[Evaluate the status of any past recommendation(s) and briefly outline the teams basis for closing or leaving the recommendation open, consistent with the discussion in Section 2.0, above.]

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that [STATE]s performance with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program, be found

[satisfactory, satisfactory, but needs improvement, OR unsatisfactory].

[Discuss status of any previous recommendations, corrective actions, and any proposal to close, keep open, or make new recommendations]

d. MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

[STATE] Draft IMPEP Report Page 8 This indicator evaluates whether licensing actionssuch as new applications, amendments, renewals, and terminationsare technically sound, complete, and consistent with regulatory requirements. The assessment considers licensing quality holistically across all applicable program areas, including licensing associated with the SS&D EP, LLRW DP, and UR Program, when authorized. The review focuses on whether licensing actions are well supported, clearly documented, and appropriately conditioned to ensure adequate protection of public health, safety, and security. It also considers the use of current guidance, proper handling of sensitive information, and the incorporation of inspection and enforcement history into licensing decisions.

a. Scope The team used the direction in MD 5.6 to evaluate [STATE]s performance. The team also used the guidance in SA procedures: SA-104, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, SA-108, SA-109, and SA-110.

b. Discussion During the review period, [STATE] performed [#] radioactive materials licensing actions. The team evaluated [#] of those licensing actions. The licensing actions selected for review included [#] new applications, [#] amendments, [#] renewals, [#] terminations, etc. The team evaluated casework which included the following license types and actions: [e.g., broad scope, medical diagnostic and therapeutic, accelerator, commercial manufacturing and distribution, industrial radiography, research and development, academic, nuclear pharmacy, gauges, panoramic and self-shielded irradiators, well-logging, service providers, waste brokers, decommissioning, financial assurance, bankruptcies, change of ownership notifications, etc.]. The casework sample represented work from [#] license reviewers.

The team reviewed licenses for compliance with financial assurance program requirements.

The team verified that the proper financial assurance documentation was on file and that the information was appropriately protected.

The team found that actions terminating a license were well documented, included the appropriate survey records, and contained documentation of proper disposal or transfer of radioactive material, as appropriate. All licenses that are subject to 10 CFR Part 37 equivalent requirements are properly marked and secured. Compliance with the 10 CFR Part 37 requirements was addressed by adding standard license conditions.

The team noted that the [STATE] issued renewal licenses for [#] years. Through interviews with the staff, the team determined that the license reviewer considered the licensees inspection and enforcement history during reviews of renewal applications, the team found that these were documented in the electronic files.

The team assessed the [STATE]s implementation of the NRCs Checklist to Provide a Basis for Confidence that Radioactive Material will be used as Specified on the License (pre-licensing guidance). The team determined that the [STATE] had implemented the essential elements of the most recent pre-licensing guidance. Based on the new applications and transfer of control licensing actions reviewed, the team determined that in all cases, the assigned license reviewer used the pre-licensing guidance appropriately prior to the issuance of the license.

The team reviewed the [STATE]s implementation of the RSRM checklist. The team found that the objectives of the RSRM checklist were being met, and that the [STATE] also

[STATE] Draft IMPEP Report Page 9 included in the RSRM calculations an electronic spreadsheet that included Financial Assurance and Emergency Response requirements. The team determined that the licensing actions were properly identified as a RSRM action, information was being entered into the National Source Tracking System, and on-site security reviews were conducted by the Program, as necessary.

[IF APPLICABLE, [STATE] has [#] SS&D licensees. The team evaluated [X of Y] SS&D actions processed during the review period. These actions included [amendments, new applications, inactivations, etc.]. Based on the information reviewed, the team determined that the technical evaluation of the applications was adequate, accurate, complete, clear, specific, and consistent with the guidance in NUREG-1556, Volume 3 Rev. 2. [Discuss technical performance issues that were found during the review in the Evaluation section]

[IF APPLICABLE STATE] completed [#] licensing actions during the review period. The team examined [# of #] LLRW DP licensing actions which included [#] new applications, [#]

amendments, [#] renewals, [#] financial assurance, and [#] terminations.

The team noted that the [STATE] utilizes administrative checklists to ensure completeness and consistency in processing applications and technical review summaries of the major licensing steps. Technical evaluations and analyses supporting licensing actions are adequately documented and performed by qualified staff. Requests for additional information from licensees were clear. The team did note that there was variability in the level of detail provided in the basis for requests for additional information, however, the variability did not affect the quality of the completed licensing action. License tie-down conditions are stated clearly and are inspectable.

[IF APPLICABLE, The team examined financial surety proposed for [#] of the [#] LLRW DP licenses and a transfer of control for one licensee. The financial surety for several categories (e.g., decommissioning, closure, and post-closure) were clearly stated on the licenses. The transfer of control was evaluated to ensure adequate financial resources and the new parent company is clearly stated on the license. The team determined that the [STATE] adequately addressed the financial surety component and the transfer of control of the licenses. The team also reviewed one renewal that has been pending for more than one year and determined that the [STATE] is adequately ensuring that safety and security are being maintained as issues with the renewal are resolved.

Overall, the team determined that LLRW DP licensing actions were thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable technical quality and found that health and safety issues were properly addressed.]

[IF APPLICABLE, For the conventional mills, the licensing actions consisted of [license renewal, annual financial assurance updates, compliance monitoring, and post-decommissioning monitoring for groundwater compliance] for this review period. For in-situ recovery facilities, the licensing actions consisted of [reviews of new applications, license renewals, license amendments, annual financial updates, decommissioning plans, and project area authorizations] for this review period.

The [State] completed [#] licensing actions during the review period. The team examined [#

of #] UR licensing actions which included [#] new applications, [#] amendments, [#]

renewals, [#] financial assurance, and [#] terminations. The team found that [State]s evaluation of licensing actions and license conditions were thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable technical quality with health, safety, and security issues properly addressed.

[STATE] Draft IMPEP Report Page 10

c. Evaluation

[If there are no performance issues, then use the following statement.]

The team determined that, during the review period, [STATE] met the performance indicator objectives in SA-104, SA-108, SA-109, and SA-110. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that [STATE]s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be found satisfactory.

[If there are performance issues, then use the following statement, as appropriate.]

The team determined that, during the review period, [STATE] met the performance indicator objectives in SA-104, SA-108, SA-109, and/or SA-110, except for:

[Provide a bullet list of the performance indicator objective(s) the [STATE] program did not meet indicating how the [STATE] program was deficient. For example: Documents containing sensitive security information are not properly marked, handled, controlled, and secured.]

[Add a high-level summary addressing which performance indicator objective(s) above had issues, how it impacted the program/health/safety, corrective actions taken by the [STATE],

and the status of the performance issue.]

[If there are performance problems, then explain how the team used MD 5.6 criteria to determine the final rating for this indicator. This explanation would only be necessary for those times where the result is not obvious, or the [STATE] is on the borderline between two ratings.]

[Evaluate the status of any past recommendation(s) and briefly outline the teams basis for closing or leaving the recommendation open, consistent with the discussion in Section 2.0, above.]

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that [STATE]s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be found

[satisfactory, satisfactory, but needs improvement, OR unsatisfactory].

[Discuss status of any previous recommendations, corrective actions, and any proposal to close, keep open, or make new recommendations]

d. MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.

3.5 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities This indicator evaluates whether the program responds to incidents and allegations in a timely, coordinated, and risk-appropriate manner to protect public health, safety, and security. The assessment considers incident and allegation activities holistically across all applicable program areas, including those associated with the SS&D EP, LLRW DP, and UR Recovery Program, when authorized. The review focuses on whether incidents and allegations are properly screened, investigated, documented, and reported; whether notifications and updates are made within required timeframes; and whether follow-up actions are commensurate with the

[STATE] Draft IMPEP Report Page 11 significance of the issue. It also considers the use of current procedures, the quality and completeness of information collected, and the programs consistency in addressing risk-significant events.

a. Scope The team used the direction in MD 5.6 to evaluate [STATE]s performance. The team also used the guidance in SA-105, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, SA-108, SA-109, and SA-110.

b. Discussion During the review period, [#] incidents were reported to [STATE]. The team evaluated [#]

radioactive materials incidents which included [#] lost or stolen radioactive materials, [#]

potential overexposures, [#] medical events, [#] damaged equipment, [#] radiography source disconnects, [#] leaking sources, etc. The [STATE] dispatched inspectors for on-site follow-up for [#] of the cases reviewed.

Determinations of the level of response to an incident are made based on both the circumstances and the health and safety significance of the incident. The team found that the [STATE]s evaluation of incident notifications and its response to those incidents was thorough, well balanced, complete, and comprehensive. The team noted that the [STATE]

needed to evaluate multiple incidents involving significant personnel exposures. The team reviewed a sample of these incidents including,The team determined that [STATE]s evaluation of these incidents included an independent assessment of the licensees evaluation which included the [STATE] provided feedback prior to closing the incident.

The team also evaluated the [STATE]s reporting of incidents to the NRCs Headquarters Operations Officer (HOO). The team noted that in each case requiring HOO notification, the

[STATE] reported the incidents within the required time frame. The team also evaluated whether the [STATE] had not reported any required incidents to the HOO. The team did not identify any missed reporting requirements.

[IF APPLICABLE, The team evaluated [#] incident(s) involving a custom use SS&D registered product during the review period. The design flaw that caused the incident was corrected by amendment to the SS&D registry sheet submitted by the licensee and evaluated by the [STATE]. The team determined that the design flaw did not impact the health and safety of the users of this custom device. There were no LLRW or UR incidents during the review period.]

During the review period, [#] allegation(s) were received by [STATE]. The team evaluated [#]

allegations, including [#] allegations that the NRC referred to the State, during the review period. [Include results of this review, i.e., The team found that the allegations were reviewed promptly, allegers identities were protected, and were notified within 30 days of investigation conclusions]

[IF APPLICABLE, There were no UR allegations. The team evaluated the [#] of LLRW DP allegations received during the review period. The review team determined that the

[STATE]s evaluation of the allegation was appropriate, well-coordinated, and timely. The

[STATE] indicated it will be notifying the concerned individual about the results of its investigation in [YEAR] and has protected the concerned individuals identity.]

c. Evaluation

[STATE] Draft IMPEP Report Page 12

[If there are no performance issues, then use the following statement.]

The team determined that, during the review period, [STATE] met the performance indicator objectives in SA-105, SA-108, SA-109, and SA-110. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that [STATE]s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, be found satisfactory.

[If there are performance issues, then use the following statement, as appropriate.]

The team determined that, during the review period, [STATE] met the performance indicator objectives in SA-105, SA-108, SA-109, and/or SA-110, except for:

[Provide a bullet list of the performance indicator objectives(s) the [STATE] did not meet indicating how the [STATE] was deficient. For example: Incidents are reported to the Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED), but have not been closed when all required information has been obtained.]

[Add a high-level summary addressing which performance indicator objective(s) above had issues, how it impacted the program/health/safety, corrective actions taken by the [STATE],

and the current status of the performance issue.

[If there are performance problems, then explain how the team used MD 5.6 criteria to determine the final rating for this indicator. This explanation would only be necessary for those times where the result is not obvious, or the [STATE] is on the borderline between two ratings.]

[Evaluate the status of any past recommendation(s) and briefly outline the teams basis for closing or leaving the recommendation open, consistent with the discussion in Section 2.0, above.]

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that [STATE]s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, be found [satisfactory, satisfactory, but needs improvement, OR unsatisfactory].

[Discuss status of any previous recommendations, corrective actions, and any proposal to close, keep open, or make new recommendations]

d. MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.

3.6 Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements This indicator evaluates whether the States statutes, regulations, and program elements provide the authority and framework needed to regulate radioactive material effectively and to ensure the protection of public health and safety and security. The assessment considers whether State requirements are clear, enforceable, and free of gaps or conflicts that could affect the orderly regulation of agreement material.

The review focuses on the States timely adoption and implementation of required regulations and program elements, the adequacy of its rulemaking processes, and the presence of legally enforceable measures that support licensing, inspection, and incident response activities. It also

[STATE] Draft IMPEP Report Page 13 considers whether the States regulatory infrastructure supports compatibility with national program expectations and whether key regulatory resources and examples of needed program elements, such as those maintained in the IMPEP Toolbox (https://scp.nrc.gov/regtoolbox.html),

are being used appropriately to guide implementation and ensure program alignment.

a. Scope The team used the direction in MD 5.6 to evaluate [STATE]s performance. The team also used the guidance in SA-107, Reviewing the Non-Common Performance Indicator:

Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements.

b. Discussion The [STATE]s current effective statutory authority is contained in the [LIST REGULATORY AUTHORITY/REGULATIONS], of the [STATE] Statutes. The [Department, Bureau, Program] is designated as the States radiation control agency. [No or list # of legislative amendments] legislation affecting the radiation control program was passed during the review period. [If legislation was passed, mention the impact it has on the program.]

[STATE]s administrative rulemaking process takes approximately [#] months from drafting to finalizing a rule. The public, the NRC, other agencies, and potentially impacted licensees and registrants are offered an opportunity to comment during the process. Comments were considered and incorporated, as appropriate, before the regulations were finalized and approved by the [insert appropriate reference]. The team noted that the States rules and regulations [were/were not] subject to sunset laws [If they are, explain the process].

During the review period, [STATE] submitted [#] proposed regulation amendment(s), [#] final regulation amendment(s), and [#] legally binding requirements or license condition(s) to the NRC for a compatibility review. [# or None] of the amendments were overdue for State adoption at the time of submission.

At the time of this review, the following [#] amendments were overdue: [OR no amendments were overdue.]

[Example: Exemptions from Licensing, General Licenses, and Distribution of Byproduct Material; Licensing and Reporting Requirements, 10 CFR Parts 30, 31, 32, and 150 amendment (72 FR 58473), that was due for Agreement State adoption by December 17, 2010.]

[This indicator also includes other elements found in SA-200. Consider including these elements as applicable. An example statement is below]

[The team also reviewed other program elements the NRC has designated as necessary for the maintenance of an adequate and compatible program that fall within this non-common performance indicator. These include elements such as, Pre-Licensing Guidance, Inspection Procedures, RSRM checklist, and standard license conditions, etc.]

[Discuss status of any previous recommendations, corrective actions, and any proposal to close, keep open, or make new recommendations]

c. Evaluation

[If there were no performance issues, then use the following statement.]

[STATE] Draft IMPEP Report Page 14 Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that [STATE]s performance with respect to the indicator, Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements, be found satisfactory.

[If there were performance issues, then use the following statement, as appropriate.]

The team determined that, during the review period, [STATE] met the performance indicator objectives in SA-107, with the exception that:

[Provide a bullet list of the performance indicator objectives(s) the [STATE] program did not meet indicating how the [STATE] program was deficient. For example: Regulations adopted by the Agreement State for purposes of compatibility or health and safety were adopted later than 3 years after the effective date of the NRC regulation.]

[Add a high-level summary addressing which performance objective(s) above had issues, how it impacted the program/health/safety, corrective actions taken by the [STATE], and the status of the performance issue.]

[If there are performance problems, then explain how the team used MD 5.6 criteria to determine the final rating for this indicator. This explanation would only be necessary for those times where the result is not obvious, or the [STATE] is on the borderline between two ratings.]

[Evaluate the status of any past recommendation(s) and briefly outline the teams basis for closing or leaving the recommendation open, consistent with the discussion in SA-107.]

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that [STATE]s performance with respect to the indicator, Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements, be found [satisfactory, satisfactory, but needs improvement OR unsatisfactory].

[Discuss status of any previous recommendations, corrective actions, and any proposal to close, keep open, or make new recommendations]

d. MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.

5.0

SUMMARY

The team found [State]s performance satisfactory for [#] performance indicator(s): [Select from this LIST: Technical Staffing and Training; Status of Materials Inspection Program; Technical Quality of Inspections; Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities; Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements; SS&D EP; LLRW DP; and UR Program. The team also found [State]s performance [satisfactory but needs improvement or unsatisfactory] for [#] performance indicator(s): [LIST INDICATORS].

There were no recommendations from the [YEAR of the previous] IMPEP review for the team to consider, and the team did not make any new recommendations. [OR] The team reviewed [#]

recommendations from the [Year] IMPEP review and proposes [closing/modifying/keeping the recommendation(s) open] and made [#] new recommendations.

[STATE] Draft IMPEP Report Page 15

[Present a summary of the Teams proposal to close or keep previous recommendations open and/or make new recommendations, as discussed in the report.]

Accordingly, the team recommends that the [State] radiation control program be found

[adequate to protect public health and safety/adequate to protect public health and safety but needs improvement, or not adequate to protect public health and safety] and [compatible or not compatible] with the NRC's program. The team recommends that a periodic meeting take place in approximately 2.5 years with the next IMPEP review taking place in approximately 5 years.

[IF APPROPRIATE, note: Because [STATE] has had at least two consecutive IMPEP reviews with all performance indicators found satisfactory, the team recommends that a periodic meeting be conducted in approximately 3 years with the next IMPEP review taking place in approximately 6 years.]

[IF APPROPRIATE, NOTE: The team recommends the MRB Chair initiate a period of

[Heightened Oversight or Monitoring] for [STATE] due to the decline in performance documented in the 20XX IMPEP report. OR, the MRB Chair remove [STATE] from a period of

[Heightened Oversight or Monitoring] due to the sustained improved performance] documented in the 20XX IMPEP report.]

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members Appendix B Inspector Accompaniments

APPENDIX A IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS Name Areas of Responsibility Name, Organization Team Leader Technical Staffing and Training Inspector Accompaniments Name, Organization Team Leader in Training Status of Materials Inspection Program Name, Organization Technical Quality of Inspections Inspector Accompaniments Name, Organization Technical Quality of Licensing Actions Name, Organization Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities Name, Organization Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements

[IF APPLICABLE, add the following non-common performance indicators, as applicable:

Name, Organization Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program Name, Organization Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program Name, Organization Uranium Recovery Program

APPENDIX B INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS The following inspector accompaniments were performed prior to the IMPEP review:

Accompaniment No.: 1 License No.:

License Type: e.g., Industrial Radiography Priority:

Inspection Date: xx/xx/xx Inspectors initials:

Accompaniment No.: 2 License No.:

License Type: e.g., Medical Institution Broad Scope Priority:

Inspection Date: xx/xx/xx Inspectors initials:

Accompaniment No.: 3 License No.:

License Type: e.g., Panoramic Irradiator Priority:

Inspection Date: xx/xx/xx Inspectors initials:

Accompaniment No.: 4 License No.:

License Type: e.g., Manufacturing and Distribution Priority:

Inspection Date: xx/xx/xx Inspectors initials:

Accompaniment No.: 5 License No.:

License Type: e.g., Industrial Radiography Priority:

Inspection Date: xx/xx/xx Inspectors initials:

Accompaniment No.: 6 License No.:

License Type: e.g., LLRW Priority:

Inspection Date: xx/xx/xx Inspectors initials:

Accompaniment No.: 7 License No.:

License Type: e.g., Uranium Recovery Priority:

Inspection Date: xx/xx/xx Inspectors initials: