ML20141A440

Volume 5,Govt Relations & Public Affairs,Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program

ML20141A440
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/12/1995
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20141A437	List: ML20141A433 ML20141A440
References
5.6, NUDOCS 9705140302
Download: ML20141A440 (29)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

e e l

i l

Integrated Materiais i Performance Evaluation l

Program (IMPEP) l LYi2702%TE&TIB:%E" Elai!LTCB25%!C%W22CZ 57$1MMMG%n%5Ms%2?*l22L*TLM>YENT:CEEEEE&l?E!a '

?

i 1

directive 5.6 1

1 I

t i

I i

l 1

a 1

1 i

i, CT2c5=:mz::amnTE% =mMP G35WC22222%7 Mmmc2%Wa%%:Lin19 2;%n"22"%

1 i

J l 9705140302 970501 1 PDR STPRG ESGDE j PDR

V:lume 5, Governm:ntal Relatitns cod Public Affairs Integrcted htt: rials Perf:rm nce Eycluati:n Progrcm (IMPEP)

I Directive 5.6 .

Contents Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Obj ecti ves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 i Organizational Responsibilities and Delegations of Authority . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1

Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards, and .

Operations Support (DEDS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 l Director, Of5cc of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) and Director, Office of State Programs (OSP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 G eneral Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD) . . . 3 Regional Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 i

Applicabili ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Han d book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Referen ces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Approved: September 12,1995 iii

g i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Volume: 5 Governmental Relations and Public

(, *****/ Affairs NMSS/OSP i

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Directive 5.6 Policy (5.6-01)

It is the policy of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to evaluate the regional materials programs and Agreement State radiation i control programs in an integrated manner, using common performance indicators, to ensure that the public health and safety is being adequately protected. l Objectives (5.6-02) e To establish the process by which the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards and the Office of State Programs conduct their periodic assessments to determine the adequacy of the licensing and inspection programs in the NRC regions and Agreement States. (021) e To provide NRC and Agreement State management with a more systematic and integrated approach to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their nuclear material licensing and inspection programs. (022) e To provide significant input in the regulatory decisionmaking process and indicate areas in which NRC and the Agreement States should dedicate more resources or management attention. (023)

Approved: September 12,1995 1

Vclume 5, G:vernmental Rel:tiens cnd Public Affzirs Integrcted Meterials Perf:rm nce Ev:luiti:n Program (IMPEP)

Directive 5.6 4

Organizational Responsibilities and Delegations of Authority (5.6-03)

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

(031) e Oversees the integrated materials performance evaluation program (IMPEP). (a) e Chairs management review boards. (b) e Signs final reports issued to each region and Agreement State. (c)

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

(032) e Implement the IMPEP within NMSS and OSP. Provide staffing support and training for review teams. (a) l Establish a schedule and develop a detailed review regimen for conducting the reviews in each region and Agreement State. (b) e Monitor the NPEP process; evaluate and develop IMPEP policy, l criteria, and metnodology, and assess the uniformity and adequacy of the implementat'on of the program. (c) e Issue draft reports and prepare final reports for each region and State for consideration by the management review board and signature by the DEDS. (d) e Participate on management review boards. (e) e Coordinate with Agreement States to staffIMPEP reviews and the management review board with appropriate Agreement State I representatives. (f)

General Counsel l (033)

Participates on management review boards.

2 Approved: September 12,1995 l

Vclume 5, G2vernm:ntal Rel*tions and Public Affrirs Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (!MPEP)

Directive 5.6 l

2 Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD)

(034)

Participates on management review boards.

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

Applicability (5.6-04)

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

Handbook (5.6-05)

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

The " Glossary" in the handbook also de5nes some of the key terminology.

References (5.6-06)

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

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

, Chapter 1246, " Materials I.icense Reviewer Qualification."

, Chapter 2800, " Materials Inspection Program."

Approved: September 12,1995 3

i l Integrated Materials l

\

Performance Evaluation l Program (IMPEP)

__=_________ _______

i 1

Handbook

\

i 5.6 i

i I

, 1 b l 1

l I

i 1

e O

A M NM. AN h N N Y w A I -

4 N b d -h *

-+4_,xe--..g.4.ma-e-

-5

• e e

.J J

1 l

1 5

i I

a 1-1 I

I d

ll

• 1 d

a t

J 4

E i

1 i

)

R l l

E r

d-p I

n ,

4 1

l i

a 1

1 i J l l i

1

'$I l

e i

t 1

e I z

j e

! i i

a 3

1 b

. i t

h 4

i 4'

-i h

,o-,- - -- .. -,. .- -..,.----e. 4..- , .-. .,_. ..- .....__, ...,_ . - - . -- r,.w.e m.<- r,,m -mm-, -

, w 2 m.-, -,,-s...w,--

V lume 5, Governmental Rel:ti:ns cod Public Affairs Integrated M;t: rials Perf rmance Eyduation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Parts I -IV Contents Part I Eval uation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . .

Evaluation Frequency (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Evaluation Process Sequence (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Part II Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.

G e neral (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Programmatic Indicators (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Performance Indicator 1-Status of Materials Inspection Program (1) . . . . . . . 4 Performance Indicator 2-Technical Staffing and Training (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Performance Indicator 3-Technical Quality of Ucensing Actions (3) . . . . . . . . 5 Performance Indicator 4-Technical Quality of Inspections (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Performance Indicator 5-Response to Incidents and Allegations (5) . . . . . . . . 6 1

Part III ,

Evalu ation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 i Indicator 1-Status of Materials Inspection Program (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Satisfactory (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Unsatisfactory (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 {

Cat e gory N (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Indicator 2-Technical Staffing and Training (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Satisfa ctory (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Unsatisfa ctory (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Cat e gory N (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Indicator 3-Technical Quality of Ucensing Actions (C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Sa tisfa ctory (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Unsatisfactory (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1

Approved: September 12,1995 iii

V lume 5, Gov:rnmental Relations cod Public Aff; irs Integrated M;t: rials Perf rmance Evalurti:n Program (IMPEP)

Hrndbook 5.6 Parts I-IV Contents Part III(continued)

Cate gory N (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Indicator 4-Technical Quality of Inspections (D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Satisfactory (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Unsatisfa ctory (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Cate gory N (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Indicator 5-Response to Incidents and Allegations (E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ,

Sa tisfa ctory (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13  !

Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 i Unsatisfa ctory (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 l

Ca tegory N (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 l Part IV Programmatic Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 G ene ral (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Findings for Agreement State Programs (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 l Finding 1- Adequate to Protect Public Health and Safety and Compa tibl e (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Finding 2-Adequate to Protect Public Health and Safety and Not Compatible (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Finding 3- Adequate, But Needs Improvement and/or Not Compatible (3) . . 16 Finding 4-Inadequate to Protect Public Health and Safety and/or Not Compatibl e (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Findings for NRC Regional Programs (C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 G l o s s a ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 iv Approved: September 12,1995

V: lum 3 5, Gov:rnmental Relati:ns cod Public Afftirs Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

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

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

Approximately 10 to 12 reviews will be scheduled in most years. Under normal conditions, this would allow evaluations of NRC regions every 2 years, and Agreement States every 3 years. However, these frequencies can be adjusted upward or downward on the basis of the findings from the last review or in light of significant program changes in a particular State or region. In addition, this schedule provides for review of certain NMSS functions on an as-needed basis.

Evaluation Process Sequence (s)

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

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

Designate team leader and members for each scheduled e

review. (3) e Review completed licensing actions on an ongoing basis to help focus reviews. (4) e Transmit questionnaires to affected regions and States. (5)

Approved: September 12,1995 1

V:lume 5, Governmeltal Relati:ns and Public Affairs Integrcted Materialt, Perf:rm:nce Evzlurtisn Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part I N

Evaluation Process Sequence (B)(continued) I e Provide copies of questionnaire responses and most current performance data sununary to team members. (6) e Assess a sample of inspections at different types of licensed facilities by accompanying the inspectors. (7) e Conduct onsite portion of IMPEP, using the criteria specified in this handbook and any performance review procedures in i conjunction with any customized review elements. (6) l l

e Prepare draft IMPEP report, with recommendation for overall performance evaluation, for office director's signature. (9) e Issue the draft report. (10) e Review and consider written comments received from the regions or Agreement States. (11) e Prepare proposed Snal report for consideration by the management review board (MRB). (12) -

e Conduct MRB meeting. (13) e Issue final reports, include the written responses received and any changes to the report based on consideration of the written responses, and a summary of MRB findings. (14) 2 Approved: September 12,1995

l ,

1 Wlume 5, Governm:ntal Rel:ti:ns and Public Aftirs Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) l i

Handbook 5.6 Part II i l

, Part II l

Performance Indicators l General (A)

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

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

The performance indicators should be used as a starting point of

, inquiry. This, in turn, should lead program evaluators to a more careful examination of the underlying conditions, or root causes, of potential problem areas. Evaluators may find correlations exists

, between two or more performance indicators. In this situation, the impact of individual performance symptoms could be compounded when combined with others. Conversely, a regulatory program measured as potentially weak against one particular indicator, nonetheless, could be rated as strong overall if there are sufficient mitigating factors with respect to other indicators. (2)

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

evaluation of a program. (3) l l

Approved: September 12,1995 3 l

Velume 5, Govzrnmental Relctians cnd Public Affcirs Integr ted Mstrials P:rfcrm:nce Ev:.lurtirn Program (IMPEP) j Handbook 5.6 Part H

! J r

General (A)(continued)

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

This exclusion does not prohibit the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) and the Office of State Programs (OSP) from using other indicators and/or performance standards to supplement {

those described in this directive. (5)

Programmatic Indicators (s) 1 Perfor. nance Indicator 1-Status of Materials Inspection Program (1)

Periodic inspections oflicensed operations are essential to ensure that  ;

activities are being conducted in compliance with regulatory  !

requirements and consistent with good safety practices. The frequency of inspections is specified in the NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter

{

2800, and is dependent on the amount and the kind of material, the type of operation licensed, and the results of previous inspections. l There must be a capability for maintaining and retrieving statistical data on the status of the compliance program. Information regarding the number of overdue inspections is a significant measure of the status of an Agreement State's or NRC region's materials inspection program, although reviews also should examine specific cases where the inspection frequency has been significantly exceeded (i.e., by more than 100 percent). The terms " materials inspection" and " overdue inspection" are defined in the Glossary to this handbook.

Performance Indicator 2-Technical Staffing and *kaining (2)

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

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

.4 Approved: September 12,1995

Vclume 5, Gov 2rnmental Relati:ns and Public Affairs

Integrcted Materials Pzrform:nce Ev:1u;tisn Pregram (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part D i

l Programmatic Indicators (s)(continued)  ;

Perfonnance Indicator 2-Technical Staf5ng and Training (2)

(continued)

. 1 l degree of understaffing symptomatic of a chronic problem or is it I merely a short-term phenomenon? Whyis turnover high? What steps l j

are being taken to address this? What effect is it having on other l l performance indicators? (b) i

i l Review of staffing also requires a consideration and evaluation of the

levels of training and qualification of the technical staff. New hirees

! need to be technically qualified. Professional staff normally should l have bachelor's degrees or equivalent training in the physical and/or  ;

j life sciences. Training requirements for NRC inspectors are speci6ed  !

' in the NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 1245, and for NRC materials licensing reviewers, in the NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 1246.

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

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

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

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

Approved: September 12,1995 5

V21ume 5, Gsvernmental Reliti:ns and Public Affdrs Integrated Meterials PIrfcrm::nce Evaluation Program (IMPEP) t llandbook 5.6 Part II Programmatic Indicators (s)(continued) '

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

(continued)

This performance indicator evaluates the technical quality of the licensing program on the basis of an in-depth onsite review of a representative cross-section oflicensing action for various types of  !

licenses. Tbchnical quality includes not only the review of completed '

actions, but also an examination of any renewals that have been pending for more than a year because the failure to act on such requests may have health and safety implications. To the extent possible, the onsite review also should capture a representative l

cross-section as completed by each of the reviewers in the region or i State. (b) '

Performance Indicator 4-Technical Quality ofInspections (4) l This performance indicator provides the qualitative balance to Performance Indicator 1, which looks at the status of the inspection program on a quantitative basis. Review team members will accompany a sampling of inspectors at different types of licensed facilities to evaluate the knowledge and capabilities of regional and Agreement State inspectors. These accompaniments will usually occur at a time other than the onsite review of the region or Agreement State to afford the review team sufficient time to observe inspectors at different types oflicensee facilities. These reviews focus on the scope, completeness, and technical accuracy of completed inspections and related documentation. Review teams will conduct in-depth, onsite reviews of a cross-section of completed inspection reports performed by different inspectors. In addition, review teams will verify that supervisors generally accompany inspectors on an annual basis to provide management quality assurance.

Performance Indicator 5-Response to Incidents and Allegations (5)

The quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of the NRC or Agreement State response to incidents, alleged incidents, and other allegations of safety concerns can have a direct bearing on public health and safety.

A careful assessment ofincident response and allegation investigation procedures, actual implementation of these procedures, internal and external coordination, and investigative and followup procedures will be a significant indicator of the overall quality of the program.

6 Approved: September 12,1995

. e- - - w - ~

I Wlume 5, Gsvernmental Rel tions and Public Affairs Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part III l

i i

Part III i

Evaluation Criteria NRC regions and Agreement States will be evaluated in their ability to

, conduct effective licensing and inspection programs using the performance indicators described in Part II of this handbook. The evaluation criteria for each performance indicator are given below.

Indicator 1-Status of Materials Inspection Program (A)

Satisfactory (1) e Core licensees (those with inspection frequencies of 3 years or less) are inspected at regular intervals in accordance with frequencies prescribed in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800. (a) e Deviations from these schedules are normally coordinated I between working staff and management. Deviations are generally i the result of joint decisions that consider the risk of licensee l operation, past licensee performance, and the need to temporarily defer the inspection (s) to address more urgent or more critical priorities. (b) e There is clear evidence of an organized "get-well" plan to reschedule any missed or deferred inspections. (c) e Inspections of new licensees are generally conducted within 6 months of license approval, or in accordance with NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, Section 04-03, for those new licensees not possessing licensed material. (d) e A large majority of the inspection findings are communicated to licensees in a timely manner (30 calendar days as specified in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 0610-10). (e)

Approved: September 12,1995 7

)

V:lume 5, Gcvernmental Rel:tions cnd Public Affbirs Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part III Indicator 1-Status of Materials Inspection Prograin (A) (continued)

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

Unsatisfactory (3) e More than 25 percent of the core licensees are inspected at intervals that exceed that NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, frequencies by more than 25 percent. (a)

= Inspections of new licensees are frequently delayed, as are the inspection findings. (b)

Category N (4) l 1

. Special conditions exist that provide adequate justific.ation for  !

withholding a rating. For example, an unforeseen event or emergency with significant health and safety consequences may have required a temporary diversion of resources from the core ,

inspection program. However, these programmatic adjustments  !

are well thought out and properly coordinated with the Office of i Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) or Agreement State management.

Indicator 2-Technical Staffing and 1Yaining (s)

Satisfactory (1)

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

I l

8 Approved: September 12,1995

V;lume 5, G:v:rnm:ntal Rel:ti:ns cnd Public Affairs Integrated Mct rirls Perfcrmance Evcluiti n Program (IMPEP) i Handbook 5.6 Part III ,

. l i

Indicator 2-Technical Staffing and  !

halBlng (B)(continued) l Satisfactory (1)(continued)  !

)

e Balance in staffing the licensing and inspection programs (a) e Few, if any, vacancies, especially at the senior-level positions (b) j e Prompt management attention and review, such as development of i a corrective action plan to address problems in high rates of I attrition or positions being vacant for extended periods (c)  !

• Qualification criteria for hiring new technical staff established and followed (Staff would normally be expected to have bachelor's degrees or equivalent training in the physical and/or life sciences.

Senior personnel should have additional training and experience in i radiation protection commensurate with the types oflicenses they i issue or inspect.) (d) e License reviewers and inspectors trained and qualified in a reasonable time period' (e) e Management commitment to training clearly evident (f)

Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2)

Review determines the presence of some of the following conditions:

. Some staff turnover that could adversely upset the balance in staffing the licensing and inspection programs (a) e Some vacant positions not readily filled (b) e Some evidence of management attention or actions to deal with staffing problems (c) e Some of the licensing and inspection personnel not making prompt progress in completing all of the training and qualification requirements (d) 1 For the regions, this means there has been, and continues to be, a clear effort to adhere to the requirements and conditions specified in NRC Inspection Manual Chapters 1245 and 1246, and the applicable quah5cationsjournak, or to receive equivalent training chewbere. For the Agreement States, equivalent requirements should be in place and foDowed Approved: September 12,1995 9

V lume 5, G vernmental Rel:tions and Public ANairs Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

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

Satisfacton With Recommendations for Improvement (2) (continued) e The training and qualification standards include areas needing improvement (e) e Some of the new staff hired with little education or experience in physical and/or life sciences, or materials licensing and inspection (f)

Unsatisfactory (3)

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

. Signi5 cant staff turnover relative to the size of the program'(a) e Most vacant positions not filled for extended periods (b) e Little evidence of management attention or actions dealing with staffing problems (c) e Most of the licensing and inspection personnel not making prompt progress in completing all of the training and qualification requirements (d) e New staff members hired without having s:ientific or technical backgrounds that would equip them to receive health physics training (e)

Category N (4)

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

10 Approved: September 12,1995

Vclume 5, Gsvernmental Relrtians cod Public Affrirs Int grated Materials Perfsrmance Eycluttien Progrcm (IMPEP)

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

Satisfactory (1) e Review of completed licenses and a representative sample of licensing files indicates that license reviews are generally thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable technical quality. (a) 1

• Health and safety issues are properly addressed. (b) l i

e I.icense reviewers usually have the proper signature authority for l the cases they review. (c)

! e Special license tiedown conditions are usually stated clearly and i 1 are inspectable. (d)

. DeSciencyletters are well written and used at the proper time. (e)

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

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

i l e No potentially significant health and safety issues can be linked to i licensing practices. (h) '

!- Satisfactory with Recommendations for Improvement (2)

Review indicates that some licensing actions do not fully address health and safety concerns or indicates repeated examples of problems with respect to thoroughness, completeness, consistency, clarity, technical quality, and adherence to existing guidance in licensing actions.

Unsatisfactory (3)

Review indicates that licensing actions frequently fail to address important health and safety concerns or indicates chronic problems with regard to thoroughness, completeness, consistency, clarity, technical quality, and adherence to existing guidance in licensing actions.

Approved: September 12,1995 11

\

V:lume 5, Gov:rnm:ntal Relatisns cnd Public Affairs '

Integr ted M:t: rials Perf:rm:nce Evaluttion Program (IMPEP)

. Handbook 5.6 Part III i

Indicator 3-Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (c)(continued)

Category N (4)

Not applicable. '

Indicator 4-Technical Quality of Inspections (D)

Satisfactory (1) e Review team members accompanying a sample inspectors combined with an onsite review of a representative cross-section of completed inspection files indicates inspection findings are usually well founded and well documented throughout the assessment. (a) e A review of inspector field notes or completed reports indicates that rcost inspections are complete and reviewed promptly by supervisors or management. (b) e Procedures are in place and normally used to help identify root causes and poor licensee performance. (c) e In most instances, followup inspections address previously identified open items and/or past violations. (d)

. . Inspection findings generally lead to appropriate and prompt regulatory action. (e) e Supervisors accompany nearly all inspectors on an annual basis. (f)

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

V:lume 5, Gevernmental Rilatirns and Public Attirs i

Integrcted Materials Pcrf:rmance Ev:luati:n Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part HI i Indicator 4-Technical Quality of

) InspectioDS (D)(continued)

{

Satisfactory With Recommendations for Improvement (2)(continued) f e Review does not demonstrate an appropriate level of management j review. (c)

. Supervisors accompaniment of inspectors are not performed

systematically. (d) a

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

Categen N (4) e Not applicable.

Indicator 5-Response to Incidents and Allegations (E)

Satisfacton (1) e Incident response and allegation procedures are in place and followed in nearly all cases. (a) e Actions taken are appropriate, well coordinated, and timely in most instances. (b) e Level of effort is usually commensurate with potential health and safety signi5cance of incident. (c)

Approved: September 12,1995 13

V:lume 5, Govzrnm:ntal Relati:ns cnd Public Affdrs Integrated M;t; rials Perfcrmance Evaluatirn Program (IMPEP)

! Handbook 5.6 Part III Indicator 5-Response to Incidents and  :

Allegations (E)(continued)

Satisfactory (1)(continued) e Investigative procedures are appropriate for incident. (d) e Corrective (enforcement or other) actions are adequately identified to licensees promptly and appropriate followup measures are taken to ensure prompt compliance. (e) e Followup inspections are scheduled and completed, if necessary. (f) e Noti 5 cation to NMSS, the Of5ce for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, or OSP, and others as may be appropriate, is usually performed in a timely fashion. (g)

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

Unsatisfactory (3)

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

Category N (4)

Not applicable.

l l

l 1

14 Approved: September 12,1995 1

V:lume 5, G:v:rnmental Relati:ns and Public Afftirs Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (BIPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part IV Part IV

, Programmatic Assessment General (A)

A management review board (MRB) will make the overall assessment i of each NRC region's or Agreement State's program on the basis of

, the proposed final report and recommendations prepared by the team that conducted the review of that region or State, including any unique circumstances as well as noncommon indicators. (1)

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

! . Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety, i

Safeguards, and Operations Support (a) e Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Srleguards (b) e Director, Office of State Programs (c) 4 e Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Opemtional 4

Data (d) e General Counsel (e)

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

Approved: September 12,1995 15

V lume 5, Governmental Rel:ti:ns and Public Affairs Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Part IV l

l General (A)(continued)

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

Findings for Agreement i State Programs (B)

Finding 1-Adequate to Protect Public Health and Safety and Compatible (1) e If NRC staff Bad that a State program has met all the Agreement  :

State program review criteria or that only minor de5ciencies exist, the Commission will 6nd that the State's program is adequate to i protect the public health and safety. (a) e If the NRC determines that a State program contains all required NRC program elements for compatibility, or only minor discrepancies exist, the program will be found compatible. (b)

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

e I If NRC Snds that a State program has met all the Agreement State '

program review criteria or that only minor deficiencies exist, the Commission will End that the State's program is adequate to protect the public health and safety. (a) e If NRC de termines that a. State has failed to adopt a necessaryitem of compatibility within the period of time specified by implementing procedures for NRC's compatibility policy statement (i.e., more than minor compatibility discrepancies), the program would be found not compatible. (b)

Finding 3-Adequate, But Needs -Improvement and/or Not Compatible (3) e If NRC finds that a State's program protects public health and safety, but is de5cient in meeting some of the review criteria, NRC may End that the State's program is adequate, but needs improvement. NRC would consider, in its determination plans, i

16 Approved: September 12,1995

. _. .- -. . ._ . - - = = - _ . .. .

V:lume 5, G:vernmental Relations cnd Public Affrirs Integr ted Mettrials Perform .nce Evalurtisn Progrcm (IMPEP)

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

Finding 3-Adequate, But Needs Improvement and/or Not Compatible (3)(continued) 1 l which de5ciencies noted during the review that the State has to l l address. (a) l l

l l e In cases where less significant State deficiencies previously identified have been uncorrected for a significant period of time, l NRC also may 6nd that the program is adequate but in need of improvement. (b)

e If NRC determines that a State has failed ;o adopt a necessary item j of compatibility within the period of time specified by l .

implementing procedures for NRC's compatibility policy statement, the program would be found not compatible. (c) i Finding 4-Inadequate to Protect Public Health and Safety and/or I

' Not Compatible (4)

! e If NRC Bnds that a State's program is significantly deficient in some or all the review criteria, NRC would find that the State's 1 4 program is not adequate to protect the public health and safety. (a) l e If NRC determines that a State has failed to adopt a necessary item of compatibility within the period of time specified by l implementing procedures for NRC's compatibility policy statement, the program would be found not compatible. (b)

Findings for NRC Regional  ;

i Programs (C)

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

Approved: September 12,1995 17

Valume 5, Governm:ntal Rel tions cnd Public Affairs Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Glossary Glossary l

l It is necessary to note that some Agreement States or NRC regions may l not de6ne these terms identically. In such cases, the review team will l

highlight any differences in its review, but draw its conclusions and make l

its assessments on the basis of the definitions used by that State or region l at the time of the review.

Allegation. A declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or l inadequacy associated with regulated activities, the validity of which has not been established. This term includes all concerns identified by i sources such as the media, individuals, or organizations, and technical audit efforts from Federal, State, or local government offices regarding activi:ks at a licensee's site. Excluded from this definition '

are matters being handled by more formal processes such as 10 CFR 2.206 petitions, bearing boards, appeal boards, and so forth.

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

Materials Inspection. The definitions in 10 CFR 1703, and in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, Sections 03.03 and O7.01, should be used to determine what constitutes an inspection. In addition, Agreement State hand-delivery of new licenses may constitute initial 3 inspections. The term includes both routinely scheduled and reactive inspections.

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

, Overdue Inspections. Currently, NRC defines this term based on guidance in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, especially Sections 04.03 (a) and 05.01 through 05.04. Many States use different definitions. For purposes of this directive, a materials license will be considered overdue for inspection'in the following cases:

18 Approved: September 12,1995

V:lums 5, G:>varnm:ntal Rel ticas end Public Affhirs

Integrcted Mctarids Pcrformance Evduati:n Program (IMPEP)

Handbook 5.6 Glossary i

4 Glossary (continued) i

! - A new licensee that possesses licensed material has not been

inspected within 6 months of receipt of licensed material, l within 6 months of beginning licensed activities, or within

12 months of license issuance, whichever comes Erst.

An existing core license is more than 25 percent beyond the

interval defined in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, j Enclosure 1. An existing non-core license is more than 1 year j beyond the interval. (An inspection will not be considered

, overdue if the inspection frequency has been extended in l accordance with NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, j Section 05.01, based on good licensee performance.

! Determinations of overdue inspections will not be based on any

j. inspection frequencies established by States or regions if those frequencies are more stringent than those contained in NRC i Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800. The frequencies provided in j NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, will generally be used l as the yardstick for determining if an inspection is overdue.

i i

l i

l

}

4 e

4 Approved: September 12,1995 19 E

l

. - , .